T42n1825_十二門論疏
大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1825 十二門論疏
No. 1825 [cf. Nos. 1568, 1826]
十二門論序疏
大業四年六月二十七日疏一時講語。此序理深事博。言約義周。略曉六條方乃可讀。一須深見論意。二精通法華。三妙識般若。四善鑒老莊。五博尋儒典。六巧制文章。余昔已著三論文玄正言。序是人制不我釋之。但師每講常讀此序。而淺識之流意多紛謬故略陳綱要以賜門人也。序為六分。一標大宗。二釋題目。三敘造論意。四贊論功能。五贊論利益。六作者謙讓。
實相之折中下第一標大宗。折中者折物令齊。謂之折中。書云。片言可以折玉斯論明生死涅槃萬化之法即是實相。故云實相之折中也。所以作此語者凡有二意。一者欲秤嘆斯論。二者指斥餘人。餘人凡有四人。皆明實相併折而不中。一者世俗之道。皆是安家全國不凈之法。非實相之折中也。二者九十六術。欲明己道為真。並是虛妄非是實相。故折而不中。三者五百小乘論師。各執諸法相有決定相不信畢竟空法。亦是明實相而不折中。四者有所得大乘學人方廣之例。雖信畢竟空鈍根自害。如不善咒術不善捉毒蛇。為空見所害。亦是折而不中。故指斥餘人也。今秤嘆龍樹此論明實相而是折
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《大正藏》第42冊 No. 1825 《十二門論疏》
No. 1825 [參見 Nos. 1568, 1826]
《十二門論》序疏
大業四年六月二十七日疏一時講語。此序義理深刻，內容廣博，言辭簡約而意義周全。略微瞭解以下六條才能讀懂此序：一須深刻理解《論》的意旨；二要精通《法華經》；三要巧妙地認識般若（Prajna，智慧）；四要善於鑑別老子、莊子的思想；五要廣泛地研習儒家經典；六要巧妙地撰寫文章。我過去已經寫了三篇論文來闡釋《玄正言》，序是他人所作，我不加以解釋。只是老師每次講課時常讀此序，但淺薄之人的理解多有謬誤，所以略陳述綱要來賜予門人。序分為六個部分：一、標明大的宗旨；二、解釋題目；三、敘述造論的意圖；四、讚歎《論》的功能；五、讚歎《論》的利益；六、作者的謙讓。
『實相之折中』是第一部分，標明大的宗旨。『折中』是指將物體折斷使之齊平，稱之為『折中』。《尚書》說：『一句話可以折斷玉器。』此《論》闡明生死、涅槃、萬物的法則就是實相（Tathata，真實不變的本體），所以說是『實相之折中』。之所以這樣說，大概有兩個用意：一是想要稱讚此《論》；二是想要指責其他人。其他人大概有四種，都闡明實相，但『折』得不『中』。一是世俗之道，都是安家立國的不清凈之法，不是實相之折中。二是九十六種外道，想要說明自己的道為真，都是虛妄，不是實相，所以『折』得不『中』。三是五百小乘論師，各自執著諸法實有決定不變的相，不相信畢竟空（Sunyata，一切皆空）的道理，也是闡明實相而『折』得不『中』。四是執著有所得的大乘學人，如方廣之例，雖然相信畢竟空，但鈍根反而自害，如同不善於使用咒語，不善於捉毒蛇，被空見所害，也是『折』得不『中』。所以要指責這些人。現在稱讚龍樹（Nagarjuna）的此《論》闡明實相，而且是『折』得『中』。
【English Translation】 English version: Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42, No. 1825, Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise
No. 1825 [cf. Nos. 1568, 1826]
Preface Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise
A lecture given on the 27th day of the sixth month of the fourth year of the Daye era. This preface is profound in principle and broad in scope, concise in language and comprehensive in meaning. One must understand the following six points to be able to read it: 1. One must deeply understand the meaning of the treatise. 2. Be proficient in the Lotus Sutra. 3. Subtly recognize Prajna (wisdom). 4. Be good at discerning the thoughts of Lao Tzu and Zhuang Tzu. 5. Extensively study Confucian classics. 6. Skillfully compose articles. I have already written three papers to explain the 'Profound and Correct Words'. The preface was written by someone else, and I will not interpret it. However, the teacher often reads this preface during lectures, but the understanding of shallow people is often flawed, so I will briefly state the outline to bestow upon my disciples. The preface is divided into six parts: 1. Indicate the main purpose. 2. Explain the title. 3. Describe the intention of writing the treatise. 4. Praise the function of the treatise. 5. Praise the benefits of the treatise. 6. The author's humility.
'The Compromise of True Reality' is the first part, indicating the main purpose. 'Compromise' means to break objects to make them even, which is called 'compromise'. The Book of Documents says: 'A single word can break jade.' This treatise clarifies that the laws of birth, death, Nirvana, and all things are True Reality (Tathata, the true and unchanging essence), so it is called 'The Compromise of True Reality'. The reason for saying this is roughly for two purposes: one is to praise this treatise; the other is to criticize others. There are roughly four types of others, all of whom explain True Reality, but their 'compromise' is not 'central'. First, the ways of the world are all impure methods of establishing a family and governing a country, not the compromise of True Reality. Second, the ninety-six heretical paths want to explain that their own path is true, but they are all false and not True Reality, so their 'compromise' is not 'central'. Third, the five hundred Hinayana teachers each cling to the idea that all dharmas have a definite and unchanging form, and do not believe in the principle of ultimate emptiness (Sunyata, all is empty), which is also explaining True Reality but their 'compromise' is not 'central'. Fourth, those Mahayana practitioners who cling to attainment, such as the example of Fang Guang, although they believe in ultimate emptiness, their dull roots harm themselves, like being unskilled in using mantras or catching poisonous snakes, and being harmed by the view of emptiness, their 'compromise' is also not 'central'. Therefore, these people must be criticized. Now, praising Nagarjuna's treatise, it clarifies True Reality and its 'compromise' is 'central'.
中。故言實相之折中也。問云何為實相。答睿師后釋之凡有十不。謂不內。不外。不人。不法。非緣。非觀。不實不虛。非得。非失。故名實相。道場之要軌者。實相謂所觀之境。道場即能照之慧。非實相無以生實觀。非實觀無以照實相。雖境智宛然而實緣觀俱寂也。此之二句無理不該無言不攝。十二門與中論名部雖異。斥病顯道其義大同。實相即是中道也。道場謂正觀也。宣之於口謂之論也。又實相即實相波若。道場之照觀照般若。宣此二義謂文字般若也。又實相即境界佛性。道場謂觀智及菩提果性。在觀既明累無不寂。即果果性。說四為開非境非觀不智不斷即中道正性也。故坐道場見佛性方得成佛。宜作此釋之。問何故明道場復云要軌。答中論法品云。得實相有三種。謂三乘人。涅槃云。見中道者有其四品。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。乃至上上智觀故得諸佛菩提。今欲簡彼二乘。二乘未窮實相之原。大士方盡其理。故偏言道場也。要軌者明實相之軌。凡有三論。一無畏之廣。二中論處中。三此論之略。在言雖略而為入道場之要故也。有諸大乘論言廣難尋。斯論辭略顯詣。故云要也。睿師復明悟實相故則凡得二益。一六道回宗三乘改轍。謂累無不盡。次整歸駕于道場畢趣心於佛地。謂德無不圓即其事也。又實相即如如異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此說實相是折中的說法。問：什麼是實相？答：鳩摩羅什大師後來解釋說，實相具有十不的特性，即不內、不外、不人、不法、非緣、非觀、不實不虛、非得、非失，因此稱為實相。道場（bodhimanda）的要義在於，實相是指所觀的境界，道場是指能照的智慧。沒有實相，就無法產生真實的觀照；沒有真實的觀照，就無法照見實相。雖然境界和智慧宛然存在，但實際上緣起和觀照都是寂靜的。這兩句話包含了所有的道理，涵蓋了所有的言語。《十二門論》（Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra）與《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）在名稱和章節上有所不同，但批判謬誤、彰顯真理的意義是相同的。實相就是中道（madhyamā-pratipad）。道場是指正觀。用語言表達出來就稱為論。此外，實相就是實相般若（prajna），道場的照觀就是照見般若。宣說這兩種意義就是文字般若。此外，實相就是境界佛性（Buddha-nature），道場是指觀智以及菩提（bodhi）果性。在觀照中如果能夠明白，那麼所有的煩惱都會寂滅，這就是果果性。說四種是爲了開顯，非境非觀、不智不斷就是中道正性。因此，在道場中見到佛性才能成佛，應該這樣解釋。問：為什麼說明道場又要說要軌？答：《中論·法品》中說，證得實相有三種，即三乘（triyāna）人。在《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中說，見到中道的人有四種品級，下智觀照因此證得聲聞（śrāvaka）菩提，乃至上上智觀照因此證得諸佛菩提。現在想要簡別二乘（śrāvaka-pratyekabuddha）。二乘沒有窮盡實相的本源，大士才能窮盡其中的道理，因此偏重於道場。要軌是指明實相的準則。總共有三種論，一是無畏論的廣博，二是《中論》的處中，三是此論的簡略。在語言上雖然簡略，但卻是進入道場的關鍵，因此稱為要。有很多大乘（mahāyāna）論，語言廣博難以尋覓，此論辭藻簡略而意義精闢，因此稱為要。鳩摩羅什大師進一步闡明，領悟實相可以獲得兩種利益。一是六道（sad-gati）迴歸本宗，三乘改變方向，意思是所有的煩惱都會消盡。二是整理好行裝回歸道場，最終到達佛地，意思是所有的功德都會圓滿，這就是這件事。此外，實相就是如如（tathata）異 English version: Therefore, it is said that 'reality' (實相, shixiang) is a compromise. Question: What is 'reality'? Answer: Master Kumārajīva later explained that 'reality' has ten characteristics of 'non-' (十不, shibu), namely, not internal, not external, not person, not dharma, non-causal, non-observational, neither real nor unreal, neither gain nor loss, hence it is called 'reality'. The essence of the 'bodhimanda' (道場, daochang) lies in that 'reality' refers to the realm being observed, and 'bodhimanda' refers to the wisdom that illuminates. Without 'reality', there is no way to generate true observation; without true observation, there is no way to illuminate 'reality'. Although the realm and wisdom are clearly present, in reality, origination and observation are both quiescent. These two sentences encompass all principles and cover all words. The Twelve Gate Treatise (Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra) and the Treatise on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) differ in name and chapters, but the meaning of criticizing errors and revealing truth is the same. 'Reality' is the 'Middle Way' (中道, zhongdao). 'Bodhimanda' refers to right observation. Expressing it in language is called a treatise. Furthermore, 'reality' is 'reality-prajna', and the illumination of the 'bodhimanda' is the illumination of 'prajna'. Explaining these two meanings is 'verbal prajna'. Furthermore, 'reality' is the realm of 'Buddha-nature', and 'bodhimanda' refers to the wisdom of observation and the fruit of 'bodhi'. If one can understand in observation, then all afflictions will be extinguished, which is the nature of the fruit. Saying four is to reveal that non-realm, non-observation, non-wisdom, and non-cessation are the right nature of the 'Middle Way'. Therefore, seeing 'Buddha-nature' in the 'bodhimanda' can lead to Buddhahood, and it should be explained in this way. Question: Why, after explaining the 'bodhimanda', do you also say 'essential principle'? Answer: The Chapter on Dharma in the Treatise on the Middle Way says that there are three types of people who attain 'reality', namely, the people of the 'Three Vehicles' (三乘, triyāna). The Nirvana Sutra says that there are four grades of people who see the 'Middle Way'. Lower wisdom observation leads to 'śrāvaka' 'bodhi', and the highest wisdom observation leads to the 'bodhi' of all Buddhas. Now, I want to distinguish the 'Two Vehicles' (二乘, ercheng). The 'Two Vehicles' have not exhausted the origin of 'reality', and only the great beings can exhaust the principles within it, so it emphasizes the 'bodhimanda'. 'Essential principle' refers to clarifying the criteria of 'reality'. There are three treatises in total: first, the extensive treatise of fearlessness; second, the Treatise on the Middle Way, which is in the middle; and third, this treatise, which is concise. Although it is concise in language, it is the key to entering the 'bodhimanda', so it is called 'essential'. There are many 'Mahayana' treatises that are extensive in language and difficult to find, but this treatise is concise in wording and profound in meaning, so it is called 'essential'. Master Kumārajīva further clarified that realizing 'reality' can bring two benefits. First, the 'six realms' (六道, liu dao) return to their origin, and the 'Three Vehicles' change direction, meaning that all afflictions will be eliminated. Second, organizing one's luggage and returning to the 'bodhimanda', ultimately reaching the 'Buddha-land', meaning that all merits will be perfected, and that is the matter. Furthermore, 'reality' is 'tathata' (如如, ruru) different
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said that 'reality' (實相, shixiang) is a compromise. Question: What is 'reality'? Answer: Master Kumārajīva later explained that 'reality' has ten characteristics of 'non-' (十不, shibu), namely, not internal, not external, not person, not dharma, non-causal, non-observational, neither real nor unreal, neither gain nor loss, hence it is called 'reality'. The essence of the 'bodhimanda' (道場, daochang) lies in that 'reality' refers to the realm being observed, and 'bodhimanda' refers to the wisdom that illuminates. Without 'reality', there is no way to generate true observation; without true observation, there is no way to illuminate 'reality'. Although the realm and wisdom are clearly present, in reality, origination and observation are both quiescent. These two sentences encompass all principles and cover all words. The Twelve Gate Treatise (Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra) and the Treatise on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) differ in name and chapters, but the meaning of criticizing errors and revealing truth is the same. 'Reality' is the 'Middle Way' (中道, zhongdao). 'Bodhimanda' refers to right observation. Expressing it in language is called a treatise. Furthermore, 'reality' is 'reality-prajna', and the illumination of the 'bodhimanda' is the illumination of 'prajna'. Explaining these two meanings is 'verbal prajna'. Furthermore, 'reality' is the realm of 'Buddha-nature', and 'bodhimanda' refers to the wisdom of observation and the fruit of 'bodhi'. If one can understand in observation, then all afflictions will be extinguished, which is the nature of the fruit. Saying four is to reveal that non-realm, non-observation, non-wisdom, and non-cessation are the right nature of the 'Middle Way'. Therefore, seeing 'Buddha-nature' in the 'bodhimanda' can lead to Buddhahood, and it should be explained in this way. Question: Why, after explaining the 'bodhimanda', do you also say 'essential principle'? Answer: The Chapter on Dharma in the Treatise on the Middle Way says that there are three types of people who attain 'reality', namely, the people of the 'Three Vehicles' (三乘, triyāna). The Nirvana Sutra says that there are four grades of people who see the 'Middle Way'. Lower wisdom observation leads to 'śrāvaka' 'bodhi', and the highest wisdom observation leads to the 'bodhi' of all Buddhas. Now, I want to distinguish the 'Two Vehicles' (二乘, ercheng). The 'Two Vehicles' have not exhausted the origin of 'reality', and only the great beings can exhaust the principles within it, so it emphasizes the 'bodhimanda'. 'Essential principle' refers to clarifying the criteria of 'reality'. There are three treatises in total: first, the extensive treatise of fearlessness; second, the Treatise on the Middle Way, which is in the middle; and third, this treatise, which is concise. Although it is concise in language, it is the key to entering the 'bodhimanda', so it is called 'essential'. There are many 'Mahayana' treatises that are extensive in language and difficult to find, but this treatise is concise in wording and profound in meaning, so it is called 'essential'. Master Kumārajīva further clarified that realizing 'reality' can bring two benefits. First, the 'six realms' (六道, liu dao) return to their origin, and the 'Three Vehicles' change direction, meaning that all afflictions will be eliminated. Second, organizing one's luggage and returning to the 'bodhimanda', ultimately reaching the 'Buddha-land', meaning that all merits will be perfected, and that is the matter. Furthermore, 'reality' is 'tathata' (如如, ruru) different
名。謂如如境。道場即如如智。斯二即是二法身。宣此二種名為應化。現金光明三身品。攝論實相即法身。道場之照謂內應身。說斯二義謂外應身化。又實相即本有涅槃。道場之照即始有之義。並是無名相中假強名相說。隨處立名。今示此論深博。故略敘眾義。又此論通釋大乘教。則無義不攝故修含一切也。問序者依何文作此說。答后云。大分深義所謂空也。即是實相。通達是義具六波羅蜜無所障礙。謂之道場。
十二下第二釋題目三字即三也。十二是一方大數治病通經。枝謂支別即十二不同也。一科法也。更有餘義文疏已述。門者開通無滯之秤也。藉十二言教開實相之妙理。通行人之觀心也。余義文疏既陳。論之者釋論也。窮其原者窮三乘之原也。原唯有一。昔權說有三。而封異者未尋其本故謂有三耳。若考而窮之唯一原也。故無量義云。從於一法生無量義。其一法者即無相也。如是無相不相名為實相。法華云。於一佛乘分別說三。涅槃云。是一味藥隨其流處有六種味乃至亦有三乘之味。皆是明一原也。盡其理者上令二乘徙轍。今令六道回宗。此論既正釋一乘。令九道眾生同成佛也。問破三何故云窮原。洗六而云盡理。答原理名殊體一。從一原而有三流。三乘諸子未窮其源故謂三異。若從流以尋原則知原唯一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名。譬如『如如境』（指真如的境界）。『道場』即『如如智』（指真如的智慧）。這二者就是二種法身。宣說這兩種法身名為應化。如《現金光明三身品》所說。《攝大乘論》中，實相即是法身。道場的照耀稱為內應身。宣說這兩種意義稱為外應身化。又，實相即是本有的涅槃。道場的照耀即是始有的意義。這些都是在沒有名相中假借強立名相來說明，隨處安立名稱。現在展示此論的深奧廣博，所以略微敘述各種意義。而且此論普遍解釋大乘教義，那麼沒有哪種意義不被包含，所以修習此論就包含了一切。 問：序文的作者依據什麼經文作出這種說法？答：後面說，『大分深義』就是所謂的空性，也就是實相。通達這個意義，就具備六波羅蜜，沒有什麼是障礙。這就叫做道場。
十二下第二，解釋題目三個字就是三。十二是一方的大數，治理疾病，通達經義。枝，是指支分差別，也就是十二種不同。一是科法。還有其他的意義，文章疏解已經敘述。門，是開通沒有阻礙的衡量標準。憑藉十二種言教開啟實相的妙理，通行人的觀心。其他的意義文章疏解已經陳述。論，是解釋論著。窮其原，是窮究三乘的本源。本源只有一個。過去權巧方便說有三乘，而封閉差異的人沒有尋找到它的根本，所以認為有三乘。如果考察而窮究它，只有一個本源。所以《無量義經》說：『從於一法生無量義』。這一個法就是無相。像這樣無相不相就叫做實相。《法華經》說：『於一佛乘分別說三』。《涅槃經》說：『是一味藥，隨其流處有六種味，乃至也有三乘之味』。都是說明一個本源。 盡其理，是上面讓二乘改變方向，現在讓六道眾生迴歸本宗。此論既然正確地解釋一乘，就讓九道眾生一同成佛。問：破除三乘，為什麼說窮究本源？洗滌六道，卻說窮盡道理？答：原理名稱不同，本體是一個。從一個本源而有三乘的流派。三乘的諸子沒有窮究它的本源，所以認為三乘是不同的。如果從流派來尋找本源，就知道本源只有一個。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Name.' For example, 'Tathata-realm' (如如境, referring to the realm of Suchness). 'Bodhimanda' (道場, place of enlightenment) is 'Tathata-wisdom' (如如智, referring to the wisdom of Suchness). These two are the two Dharmakayas (法身, Dharma body). Proclaiming these two is called manifested transformation, as stated in the 'Chapter on Manifesting Golden Light Three Bodies.' In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘論), Reality is the Dharmakaya. The illumination of the Bodhimanda is called the inner responsive body. Explaining these two meanings is called the outer responsive body of transformation. Furthermore, Reality is the originally existing Nirvana. The illumination of the Bodhimanda is the meaning of newly arising. These are all provisional names established in the absence of names and forms, establishing names according to circumstances. Now, this treatise is shown to be profound and extensive, so various meanings are briefly narrated. Moreover, this treatise universally explains the teachings of the Mahayana, so there is no meaning that is not included, thus studying this treatise encompasses everything. Question: Based on what text does the author of the preface make this statement? Answer: It is said later, 'The profound meaning of the great division' is what is called emptiness, which is Reality. Understanding this meaning, one possesses the six Paramitas (六波羅蜜, perfections) without any obstruction. This is called the Bodhimanda.
Twelve, section two below, explains that the three characters of the title are the three. Twelve is a large number in one direction, governing illness and understanding the meaning of the scriptures. 'Branch' (枝) refers to the differentiation of branches, which is the twelve differences. 'One' (一) is the classification of Dharma. There are other meanings that the commentary has already narrated. 'Gate' (門) is the standard of opening and unobstructed passage. By means of the twelve teachings, the wonderful principle of Reality is opened, and the contemplation of the mind of the practitioner is passed through. The other meanings have already been stated in the commentary. 'Treatise' (論) is the explanation of the treatise. 'Exhausting its origin' (窮其原) is exhausting the origin of the Three Vehicles (三乘). There is only one origin. In the past, it was expediently said that there were three vehicles, and those who closed off differences did not seek its root, so they thought there were three vehicles. If one examines and exhausts it, there is only one origin. Therefore, the Infinite Meaning Sutra (無量義經) says: 'From one Dharma, countless meanings arise.' This one Dharma is non-form (無相). Such non-form and non-appearance is called Reality. The Lotus Sutra (法華經) says: 'In one Buddha Vehicle, three are distinguished and spoken.' The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) says: 'It is one flavor medicine, and depending on where it flows, there are six kinds of flavors, and even the flavors of the Three Vehicles.' All of these explain one origin. 'Exhausting its principle' (盡其理) is above causing the Two Vehicles to change direction, and now causing the beings of the Six Realms to return to their sect. Since this treatise correctly explains the One Vehicle, it causes the beings of the Nine Realms to attain Buddhahood together. Question: Why is it said 'exhausting the origin' when refuting the Three Vehicles? Why is it said 'exhausting the principle' when washing away the Six Realms? Answer: The names of principle and origin are different, but the substance is one. From one origin, there are the streams of the Three Vehicles. The disciples of the Three Vehicles have not exhausted its origin, so they think the Three Vehicles are different. If one seeks the origin from the streams, one will know that there is only one origin.
。則便舍流以還原。六道既其失道。故是乖理之義。所以須明盡理也。又窮其原斥聖惑也。盡其理破凡迷。即令悟不凡不聖不生死不涅槃等也。又窮其原斥內迷也。盡其理破外執也。諸論義師未尋其本有五百部異。若窮原者知理唯一也。九十六術自謂得理。故異道紛然。若盡理者則眾異息矣。又窮其原破學大乘人成有所得執也。盡其理者斥學小乘之流也。以未盡理故有小耳。如其盡理理既無二。何有大小耶。然本對異流故言一耳。若舍異而存一乃至五百皆是未窮其原未盡其理。宜深照斯意方見作序人心。若一理之不盡者上二句標兩門。今雙釋也。以不盡理故有六道。惑趣之乖。惑者迷也趣者理也。謂迷一道故成六道。一原之不窮則眾途扶疏者。眾謂多也途即道。以不窮原故有三乘異道乃至五百部也。扶疏謂開廣增盛之義耳。殊致之跡者。殊者異也。致理也。跡謂足跡。即三乘足跡而不泯寂。何猶得成佛耶。問何故作此釋論字耶。答若直釋者應云交言曰論。然今睿師釋三字三意明之。若釋十二取其數之大意而釋。謂此十二無病不除無教不顯。無理不申無觀不發。故一方數圓。故云十二也。次釋門訓名依字釋之。今釋論取論意及論功能以釋論。非訓名而釋。何以知之。文云。論之者欲以窮其原盡其理。故知就意及功能釋也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：於是便捨棄流浪而回歸本源。六道（指地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅、人、天）是因為失去了本源之道，所以是違背真理的。因此必須明白窮盡真理的道理。『窮其原』是爲了摒棄聖人的迷惑，『盡其理』是爲了破除凡夫的迷妄，從而領悟到既非凡夫也非聖人，既非生死也非涅槃等等境界。『窮其原』也是爲了破除內在的迷惑，『盡其理』是爲了破除外在的執著。各派論義的導師沒有探尋到根本，所以有五百部不同的理論。如果探尋到本源，就會知道真理只有一個。九十六種外道自認為得到了真理，所以異端邪說紛繁複雜。如果窮盡真理，那麼各種差異就會止息。『窮其原』是爲了破除學習大乘佛法的人所產生的有所得的執著，『盡其理』是爲了斥責學習小乘佛法的人。因為沒有窮盡真理，所以才會有小乘的說法。如果窮盡真理，真理本來就沒有兩種，哪裡會有大小之分呢？然而，本來是爲了針對不同的流派才說『一』的。如果捨棄了差異而只保留『一』，乃至五百部，都是沒有窮盡本源、沒有窮盡真理。應該深刻地理解這個意思，才能明白作者寫序的用心。如果對一個真理沒有窮盡，那麼前面兩句就標明了兩個門徑，現在一起解釋。因為沒有窮盡真理，所以才會有六道輪迴，迷惑于趨向的偏差。迷惑就是迷失，趨向就是真理。意思是說，迷失了一個真理，就形成了六道輪迴。如果對一個本源沒有窮盡，那麼各種途徑就會繁茂滋生。『眾』是指多，『途』就是道。因為沒有窮盡本源，所以才會有三乘不同的道路，乃至五百部不同的理論。『扶疏』是指開闊、廣博、增盛的意思。『殊致之跡』，『殊』是差異，『致』是真理，『跡』是足跡。也就是三乘的足跡沒有泯滅，又怎麼能夠成佛呢？問：為什麼要用『釋論』這個詞呢？答：如果直接解釋，應該說『交言曰論』。然而，現在睿師解釋這三個字，說明了三個意思。如果解釋『十二』，就取其數量大的意思來解釋，意思是說，這十二種法門，沒有不能消除的疾病，沒有不能顯明的教義，沒有不能闡述的真理，沒有不能引發的觀想。所以一方的數量是圓滿的，所以說是『十二』。其次解釋『門訓』，是按照字面意思來解釋的。現在解釋『論』，是取『論』的意義和功能來解釋『論』，而不是按照字面意思來解釋。怎麼知道呢？文章說：『論之者欲以窮其原盡其理』，所以知道是就意義和功能來解釋的。 以不盡理故有六道。惑趣之乖。惑者迷也趣者理也。謂迷一道故成六道。一原之不窮則眾途扶疏者。眾謂多也途即道。以不窮原故有三乘異道乃至五百部也。扶疏謂開廣增盛之義耳。殊致之跡者。殊者異也。致理也。跡謂足跡。即三乘足跡而不泯寂。何猶得成佛耶。問何故作此釋論字耶。答若直釋者應云交言曰論。然今睿師釋三字三意明之。若釋十二取其數之大意而釋。謂此十二無病不除無教不顯。無理不申無觀不發。故一方數圓。故云十二也。次釋門訓名依字釋之。今釋論取論意及論功能以釋論。非訓名而釋。何以知之。文云。論之者欲以窮其原盡其理。故知就意及功能釋也
【English Translation】 English version: Then, one abandons the wandering and returns to the origin. The Six Realms (referring to hell, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, and heavens) are due to losing the original path, thus deviating from the truth. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the principle of exhausting the truth. 'Exhausting the origin' is to discard the delusions of the sages, and 'exhausting the truth' is to break through the illusions of ordinary beings, thereby realizing the state of neither ordinary nor sage, neither birth and death nor nirvana, and so on. 'Exhausting the origin' is also to break through internal delusions, and 'exhausting the truth' is to break through external attachments. The masters of various schools of argumentation have not explored the root, so there are five hundred different theories. If one explores the origin, one will know that there is only one truth. The ninety-six heretical paths claim to have attained the truth, so heresies are numerous and complex. If one exhausts the truth, then all differences will cease. 'Exhausting the origin' is to break through the attachment to attainment that arises in those who study Mahayana Buddhism, and 'exhausting the truth' is to rebuke those who study Hinayana Buddhism. Because one has not exhausted the truth, there is the saying of Hinayana. If one exhausts the truth, the truth is originally not two, so how can there be distinctions of greater or lesser? However, originally it was said 'one' to address different schools. If one abandons the differences and only retains 'one', even up to five hundred schools, it means one has not exhausted the origin and has not exhausted the truth. One should deeply understand this meaning in order to understand the author's intention in writing the preface. Because the principle is not fully understood, there are the six realms of existence, and the deviation of delusion and inclination. 'Delusion' means confusion, and 'inclination' means principle. It means that being deluded about one principle leads to the formation of the six realms. If the origin is not fully explored, then the various paths will flourish. 'Various' means many, and 'paths' means the way. Because the origin is not fully explored, there are the different paths of the Three Vehicles, and even five hundred schools. 'Flourish' means to open up, broaden, and increase. 'Traces of distinct attainments', 'distinct' means different, 'attainments' means principle, and 'traces' means footprints. That is, the footprints of the Three Vehicles have not been extinguished, so how can one attain Buddhahood? Question: Why use the term 'explanation and discussion'? Answer: If explained directly, it should be said 'exchanging words is called discussion'. However, now Master Rui explains these three words, clarifying three meanings. If explaining 'twelve', it takes the meaning of a large number to explain, meaning that these twelve Dharma gates have no illness that cannot be cured, no teachings that cannot be revealed, no principles that cannot be explained, and no contemplations that cannot be initiated. Therefore, the number of one side is complete, so it is called 'twelve'. Next, explaining 'door instruction' is to explain according to the literal meaning. Now, explaining 'discussion' is to take the meaning and function of 'discussion' to explain 'discussion', not to explain according to the literal meaning. How do we know this? The text says: 'Those who discuss want to exhaust the origin and exhaust the principle', so we know that it is explained in terms of meaning and function.
。
殊致之不夷下第三敘造論大意也。又開三別。初辨造論緣由。二正明造論。三明造論利益。大士初建弘誓令九道眾生皆歸一極。今遂保著三乘封執六道。豈不憂哉。是以龍樹菩薩開出者之由路者。上是悲心今是悲事。又上是大悲內充。今方便外救。即吐言作論也。有二。前總唱十二。次正言造論。今即初也。出謂令六道出分段三乘離變易。同勉二種火宅所燒故云出也。出必有所因。故以十二門為出者之由路。假斯路而出也。作十二門以正之者。前總標由路今敘由路事。六道三乘並皆失道。是故秤邪。蕩彼邪迷故作十二以正之。三乘六道並是邪路。今十二門是正路也。問云何令六道回宗。答有三畢竟空。如百論述之。一者六道本來寂滅。故畢竟無六。二者虛妄故無六謂六道。亦無六趣。如渴人見災內六處水流。實無六趣。三者諸佛菩薩隨六說六亦無六趣。如隨見水人說有六水。實無有六。以悟六本不生故六道回宗也。三乘徙轍者。二乘折法未悟本空。大士雖知本空照猶未盡。今此論顯畢竟空諸佛行處。令三乘人究竟了達故。門門之中皆秤畢竟空。智度論云。畢竟空是諸佛所行故也問云何為開路塞路。答有二種塞。一六道舊迷。二學教封著。今除此兩梗敞十二之路。從一一路皆入實相也。正之以十二則有無兼暢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 殊致之不夷下第三部分敘述了造論的大意。又分為三個部分。首先辨析造論的緣由，其次正面闡明造論，最後說明造論的利益。大士最初建立弘大的誓願，要讓九道眾生都歸於唯一的真理。如今卻安於三乘之法，固守於六道輪迴，這怎能不令人擔憂呢？因此龍樹菩薩開闢出離之道的原因，之前是出於悲憫之心，現在是悲憫之事。之前是大悲之心充盈于內，現在是方便之法救濟于外，即著書立說。分為兩個部分，前面總述十二門，其次正面闡述造論。現在是第一個部分。『出』是指令六道眾生脫離分段生死，三乘聖者脫離變易生死，共同努力脫離被二種火宅所焚燒的困境，所以說是『出』。『出』必然有其原因，所以用十二門作為出離之道的途徑，通過這些途徑而出離。用十二門來匡正，前面總標出離的途徑，現在敘述出離途徑的具體內容。六道和三乘都迷失了正道，因此要衡量邪正，盪滌那些邪迷，所以設立十二門來匡正。三乘和六道都是邪路，現在的十二門才是正路。 問：如何才能使六道眾生迴歸正宗？答：有三種畢竟空，如《百論》所述。一是六道本來就是寂滅的，所以畢竟沒有六道。二是六道是虛妄的，所以沒有六道，也沒有六趣。就像口渴的人看到災難中內外六處都有水流，實際上並沒有六趣。三是諸佛菩薩隨順六道眾生而說有六道，實際上也沒有六趣。就像隨順看到水的人說有六種水一樣，實際上並沒有六種水。因為領悟到六道本不生，所以六道眾生才能迴歸正宗。三乘之人改變方向，二乘之人執著于斷滅之法，沒有領悟到諸法本空。大士雖然知道諸法本空，但照見的智慧仍然不夠圓滿。現在這部論典顯明畢竟空，這是諸佛所行之處，使三乘之人究竟了達。所以每個門中都衡量畢竟空。《智度論》說：『畢竟空是諸佛所行之處。』問：什麼是開路，什麼是塞路？答：有兩種阻塞。一是六道眾生舊有的迷惑，二是學教之人固守執著。現在除去這兩種障礙，敞開十二條道路，從每一條道路都能進入實相。用十二門來匡正，就能使有和無都暢通無阻。
【English Translation】 English version The third section, 'Distinction of Non-Difference,' elaborates on the main purpose of composing the treatise. It is further divided into three parts: first, distinguishing the reasons for composing the treatise; second, directly clarifying the treatise; and third, explaining the benefits of composing the treatise. The Bodhisattva initially established a grand vow to lead all beings in the nine realms to return to the one ultimate truth. Now, they are content with the Three Vehicles and attached to the Six Realms. How can this not be a cause for concern? Therefore, Nagarjuna Bodhisattva opens the path for those who seek liberation. The former was out of compassion, and the latter is a matter of compassion. The former is the inner fullness of great compassion, and the latter is the external salvation through skillful means, which is to speak and compose treatises. It is divided into two parts: first, a general statement of the twelve gates; second, a direct explanation of the treatise. Now is the first part. 'Liberation' means enabling beings in the Six Realms to escape from the cycle of birth and death caused by karma, and the practitioners of the Three Vehicles to escape from the cycle of transformation. Together, they strive to escape the burning of the two kinds of fire houses, hence the term 'liberation.' 'Liberation' must have a cause, so the twelve gates are used as the path to liberation, through which one can be liberated. Using the twelve gates to rectify, the former generally indicates the path of liberation, and the latter describes the specific content of the path of liberation. The Six Realms and the Three Vehicles have all lost the right path, so it is necessary to weigh the right and wrong, and eliminate those false delusions. Therefore, the twelve gates are established to rectify. The Three Vehicles and the Six Realms are all wrong paths, and the current twelve gates are the right path. Question: How can the beings of the Six Realms be made to return to the true doctrine? Answer: There are three kinds of ultimate emptiness, as described in the Sata-sastra (Treatise in One Hundred Verses). First, the Six Realms are originally quiescent and extinct, so there are ultimately no Six Realms. Second, the Six Realms are illusory, so there are no Six Realms, nor are there Six Destinies. It is like a thirsty person seeing water flowing in the six internal and external places during a disaster, but in reality, there are no Six Destinies. Third, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas speak of the Six Realms according to the understanding of the beings in the Six Realms, but in reality, there are no Six Destinies. It is like speaking of six kinds of water according to the understanding of those who see water, but in reality, there are no six kinds of water. Because they realize that the Six Realms are originally unborn, the beings of the Six Realms can return to the true doctrine. Those of the Three Vehicles change direction, those of the Two Vehicles are attached to the Dharma of annihilation, and have not realized that all dharmas are empty in nature. Although the Bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are empty in nature, the wisdom of illumination is still not complete. Now, this treatise reveals the ultimate emptiness, which is the place where the Buddhas practice, enabling those of the Three Vehicles to ultimately understand. Therefore, in each gate, the ultimate emptiness is measured. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise) says: 'Ultimate emptiness is the place where the Buddhas practice.' Question: What is opening the path, and what is blocking the path? Answer: There are two kinds of obstructions. First, the old delusions of the beings in the Six Realms; second, the attachment and clinging of those who study the teachings. Now, removing these two obstacles, the twelve paths are opened, and from each path, one can enter reality. Using the twelve gates to rectify, both existence and non-existence can be unobstructed.
事無不盡者。第二正明造論。凡有五轉十不。謂不內不外。不法不人。不緣不觀。不虛不真。不得不失。其言巧其義深。其文約其理富。無病不破無教不申。無理不通無緣不益矣。今初破內病。病乃萬端有無為本。又是障中道之根。又如來常依二諦說法。以不達因緣有無二諦故。成性有無二病。二諦既無教不該。二諦之迷亦無迷不攝。又小乘多著有病。學大者多滯無病。又凡夫著有二乘滯空。又愛多者著有見多者著空。是以斯論破此二也。問但破有無亦申有無。答具二義。要先破有無方申有無。故下文云有二諦。即其事也。又云。但解釋空申第一義也。通達空則通大乘。具足六度謂世諦也。問云何為兼暢。答有三種義。一破有後破無故云兼。二申世諦復申第一義故云兼。三病無不破教無不申暢大士之懷。故云兼也。暢亦三。一有無病除為暢。二者二諦教通為暢。三暢佛菩薩心為暢也。事盡于有無則亡功于造化者。上破內迷今斥外執。斯論正破于內。故先斥內傍破于外。故后除外。造化者莊周云。魍魎因影。影由形。形因造化。造化不知所因。今寄斥震旦莊周以破天竺外道。良由此土無別外道。又一言之內彼此雙盡。故斥此呵彼也。問此論何處破造化耶。答作者門破自在天。即是其事。以自在天能造化萬化故名造化。問
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 事無不盡者，指沒有不能窮盡的事理。第二，正式闡明造論的宗旨。大體上有五種轉變和十種『不』。即不偏於內，不偏於外；不依附於法，不依附於人；不依賴於因緣，不執著于觀照；不虛妄，不虛假；不得，不失。它的言辭巧妙，義理深刻，文字簡練，道理豐富，沒有不能破除的弊病，沒有不能闡明的教義，沒有不能通達的道理，沒有不能增益的因緣。現在首先破除內心的執著之病，這種病以『有』和『無』為根本，又是障礙中道的根源。又因為如來常常依據二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）說法，由於不能通達因緣『有』和『無』這二諦，就形成了執著『有』和執著『無』這兩種病。既然二諦涵蓋一切教義，那麼對二諦的迷惑也涵蓋一切迷惑。而且小乘佛教徒大多執著于『有』的病，學習大乘佛教的人大多滯留在『無』的病。此外，凡夫執著于『有』，二乘聖者滯留在『空』。還有，貪愛多的人執著于『有』，知見多的人執著于『空』。因此，這部論就是要破除這兩種執著。有人問：『只是破除『有』和『無』，還是也闡明『有』和『無』？』回答說：『兼具兩種含義。必須先破除『有』和『無』，才能闡明『有』和『無』。』所以下文說有二諦，就是這個意思。又說：『只是解釋空性，闡明第一義諦。』通達空性就能通達大乘，具足六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）就是世俗諦。有人問：『怎樣理解『兼暢』？』回答說：『有三種含義。一是先破除『有』，后破除『無』，所以說是『兼』。二是闡明世俗諦，又闡明第一義諦，所以說是『兼』。三是沒有不能破除的病，沒有不能闡明的教義，從而暢達菩薩的胸懷，所以說是『兼』。』『暢』也有三種含義：一是『有』和『無』的病除掉了，是為『暢』；二是二諦的教義通達了，是為『暢』；三是暢達佛菩薩的心懷，是為『暢』。』事盡于有無則亡功于造化者』，上面是破除內心的迷惑，現在是駁斥外道的執著。這部論主要是破除內心的執著，所以先駁斥內心，順帶破除外道的執著，所以後除外道。『造化』是莊周說的，『魍魎因影，影由形，形因造化，造化不知所因。』現在借用駁斥震旦（古代中國的稱謂）的莊周來破斥天竺（古代印度的稱謂）的外道，實在是由於這個地方沒有其他的外道。而且一句話之內，彼此都窮盡了，所以駁斥這個，呵斥那個。有人問：『這部論在什麼地方破斥『造化』呢？』回答說：『在作者門破斥自在天（Maheśvara）。』就是這件事。因為自在天能夠創造萬物，所以名叫『造化』。有人問：
【English Translation】 English version: 'Things are not exhaustive' means that there is no principle that cannot be fully understood. Secondly, it formally clarifies the purpose of writing the treatise. Generally, there are five transformations and ten 'nots'. That is, not biased towards the internal, not biased towards the external; not dependent on the Dharma, not dependent on people; not relying on conditions, not attached to contemplation; not false, not untrue; not gaining, not losing. Its words are skillful, its meaning is profound, its writing is concise, and its principles are rich. There is no disease that cannot be broken, no teaching that cannot be explained, no principle that cannot be understood, and no condition that cannot be benefited. Now, the first is to break the disease of inner attachment, which takes 'existence' and 'non-existence' as its root, and is also the root of obstructing the Middle Way. Moreover, because the Tathagata often teaches according to the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth), due to the failure to understand the two truths of conditioned 'existence' and 'non-existence', the two diseases of attachment to 'existence' and attachment to 'non-existence' are formed. Since the two truths encompass all teachings, then the confusion about the two truths also encompasses all confusions. Moreover, most Hinayana Buddhists are attached to the disease of 'existence', and those who study Mahayana Buddhism mostly stagnate in the disease of 'non-existence'. In addition, ordinary people are attached to 'existence', and Arhats are stagnant in 'emptiness'. Also, those with much greed are attached to 'existence', and those with much knowledge are attached to 'emptiness'. Therefore, this treatise is to break these two attachments. Someone asks, 'Is it just breaking 'existence' and 'non-existence', or also explaining 'existence' and 'non-existence'?' The answer is, 'It has both meanings. It is necessary to first break 'existence' and 'non-existence' in order to explain 'existence' and 'non-existence'.' Therefore, the following text says that there are two truths, which is what it means. It also says, 'It only explains emptiness and elucidates the ultimate truth.' Understanding emptiness can lead to understanding Mahayana, and possessing the six perfections (dana, shila, kshanti, virya, dhyana, prajna) is the conventional truth. Someone asks, 'How to understand 'comprehensive and thorough'?' The answer is, 'There are three meanings. First, 'existence' is broken first, and then 'non-existence' is broken, so it is called 'comprehensive'. Second, the conventional truth is explained, and then the ultimate truth is explained, so it is called 'comprehensive'. Third, there is no disease that cannot be broken, and no teaching that cannot be explained, thereby expressing the aspirations of the Bodhisattva, so it is called 'comprehensive'.' 'Thorough' also has three meanings: first, the disease of 'existence' and 'non-existence' is removed, which is called 'thorough'; second, the teachings of the two truths are understood, which is called 'thorough'; third, the mind of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas is expressed, which is called 'thorough'. 'Things are exhausted in existence and non-existence, then the merit of creation is lost.' The above is to break the inner confusion, and now it is to refute the attachments of external paths. This treatise mainly breaks the inner attachments, so it first refutes the inner and incidentally breaks the external attachments, so it later removes the external paths. 'Creation' is what Zhuang Zhou said, 'The Wangliang (a kind of monster) is due to the shadow, the shadow is due to the form, the form is due to creation, and creation does not know what it is due to.' Now, borrowing the refutation of Zhuang Zhou of Zhendan (ancient name for China) to refute the external paths of Tianzhu (ancient name for India) is really because there are no other external paths in this place. Moreover, within one sentence, both are exhausted, so refuting this and scolding that. Someone asks, 'Where does this treatise refute 'creation'?' The answer is, 'It refutes Maheśvara (the god of creation) in the author's section.' That is the matter. Because Maheśvara can create all things, it is called 'creation'. Someone asks:
何故破自在即。答有無是內迷之本。造化為外執之根。故伐其本而柯條自壞也。問何故事盡有無則亡功造化。答破有無非但內病得除外造化亦壞。而秤亡功者惑者執自在天造化萬化故為大功。令破除之自在不能造化。故云亡也。理極于虛位明法無我。喪我於二際者。破人令得人無我。前除內外兩法今次破內外二人。即生人法二空。所以先破法后破人者論文爾也。故下文有為無為法空故。何況我耶。又前諸門多除法。至作者門方正破人。所以先法後人者。法本人末。法難人易。法內人外。外道計人內多執法。正破內傍破外故也。又若觀門次第則先明人空后辨法空。今就說門也。又小乘已知無人猶執有法故。不得回小入大。今欲令回小入大故。先破法后除人也。虛位者實相。真如法位異名也。今明。有為無為法畢竟空。明理極在於此空。故云理極虛位也。內道外道二我皆除故喪我於二際。又前破有為無為法既空。則有為我無為我亦空。故云喪我於二際。又即陰離陰皆是二際。又我與我所名為二際也。喪我在乎落筌者第三節。上雖內外兩除人法俱破。但是破立猶未破破。但是緣盡觀猶未觀盡緣。今欲破立兩冥緣觀俱寂。故有此一對。問睿師取何文作此意。答后三時門正明破破。爾前明除立。故序斯意也。落筌者落是除亡之異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：為何要破除自在（Ishvara，宇宙的創造者）？ 答：執著于『有』和『無』是內在迷惑的根源，認為造化是外在執著的根源。所以，砍伐了根本，枝條自然就會壞掉。 問：為何說窮盡了『有』和『無』，造化之功就會消失？ 答：破除『有』和『無』，不僅能去除內在的迷惑，外在的造化也會隨之壞滅。而說『秤亡功者』，是因為迷惑之人執著于自在天（Ishvara）創造萬物的能力，認為這是偉大的功德。現在要破除這種觀念，使自在天（Ishvara）不能再進行創造，所以說『亡』。理的極致在於虛位（shunyata，空性），闡明法無我（dharma-nairatmya，諸法無我）的真諦。在二際（兩個極端）中喪失『我』，是爲了破除對『人』的執著，使人證得人無我（pudgala-nairatmya，人無我）。前面是去除內外兩種『法』，現在是破除內外兩種『人』，從而達到人法二空（pudgala-dharma-shunyata，人法皆空）的境界。之所以先破『法』后破『人』，是因為論文的順序是這樣的。所以下文說『有為法和無為法都是空性的，更何況我呢？』另外，前面的許多門都是在去除『法』，到了『作者門』才正式破除『人』。之所以先『法』后『人』，是因為『法』是根本，『人』是末端；『法』是困難的，『人』是容易的；『法』是內在的，『人』是外在的。外道之人執著于『人』，內在又多執著于『法』，所以要先破除內在的，順帶破除外在的。而且，如果按照觀門的次第，應該是先闡明人空（pudgala-shunyata，人空）再辨析法空（dharma-shunyata，法空）。現在是從『說門』的角度來說的。另外，小乘已經知道無人（pudgala，人），但仍然執著于有法（dharma，法），所以不能回小向大。現在想要讓他們回小向大，所以先破『法』后除『人』。虛位（shunyata，空性）是實相（tathata，如如），是真如（bhutatathata，真如）法位的不同名稱。現在闡明，有為法和無為法畢竟是空性的，闡明理的極致就在於此空性，所以說『理極虛位』。內外道兩種『我』都去除，所以在二際（兩個極端）中喪失『我』。而且，前面破除有為法和無為法既然是空性的，那麼有為『我』和無為『我』也都是空性的，所以說『喪我於二際』。而且，即陰（與五蘊相同）和離陰（脫離五蘊）都是二際（兩個極端）。另外，『我』和『我所』被稱為二際（兩個極端）。喪失『我』在於落筌（放下捕魚的工具）這一節。上面雖然內外兩方面都去除，人法都破除，但只是破除建立，還沒有破除破除。只是緣盡觀，還沒有觀盡緣。現在想要破除建立，使緣觀都寂滅，所以有這一對概念。問：睿師（一位佛教大師）取自哪段經文而產生了這個想法？答：后三時門（佛教哲學中的一個概念）正是闡明破除破除的道理，而之前闡明的是去除建立，所以序述了這個意思。落筌（放下捕魚的工具）是去除和消亡的另一種說法。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why is it necessary to break free from Ishvara (the creator of the universe)? Answer: Attachment to 'existence' and 'non-existence' is the root of inner delusion, and the belief in creation is the root of external attachment. Therefore, if the root is cut down, the branches will naturally wither. Question: Why is it said that when 'existence' and 'non-existence' are exhausted, the merit of creation disappears? Answer: Breaking free from 'existence' and 'non-existence' not only removes inner delusion, but also destroys external creation. The reason for saying 'the weighing of merit disappears' is that deluded people are attached to Ishvara's ability to create all things, considering it a great merit. Now, this concept must be broken down so that Ishvara cannot create anymore, hence the word 'disappears'. The ultimate principle lies in shunyata (emptiness), clarifying the truth of dharma-nairatmya (no-self of phenomena). Losing the 'self' in the two extremes (two boundaries) is to break the attachment to 'person', enabling one to realize pudgala-nairatmya (no-self of person). Previously, the two 'dharmas' of inner and outer were removed, and now the two 'persons' of inner and outer are broken down, thereby achieving the state of pudgala-dharma-shunyata (emptiness of both person and phenomena). The reason for breaking 'dharma' before 'person' is due to the order of the treatise. Therefore, the following text says, 'Since conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, what about the self?' Furthermore, the previous gates mostly removed 'dharma', and it was not until the 'author gate' that 'person' was formally broken down. The reason for 'dharma' before 'person' is that 'dharma' is the root and 'person' is the end; 'dharma' is difficult and 'person' is easy; 'dharma' is internal and 'person' is external. Externalists are attached to 'person', and internally they are mostly attached to 'dharma', so it is necessary to first break down the internal and incidentally break down the external. Moreover, if according to the order of the gates of contemplation, one should first clarify pudgala-shunyata (emptiness of person) and then discern dharma-shunyata (emptiness of phenomena). Now, it is from the perspective of the 'gate of speech' that it is being discussed. In addition, the Hinayana already knows no-person (pudgala), but still clings to the existence of dharma (dharma), so they cannot turn from small to large. Now, wanting to enable them to turn from small to large, 'dharma' is broken down first and then 'person' is removed. Shunyata (emptiness) is tathata (suchness), a different name for the dharma-position of bhutatathata (true thusness). Now it is clarified that conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are ultimately empty, clarifying that the ultimate principle lies in this emptiness, hence the saying 'the principle reaches the empty position'. Both the inner and outer paths of 'self' are removed, so the 'self' is lost in the two extremes (two boundaries). Moreover, since the conditioned and unconditioned dharmas were previously broken down as empty, then the conditioned 'self' and the unconditioned 'self' are also empty, hence the saying 'losing the self in the two extremes'. Furthermore, both the skandhas (aggregates) and detachment from the skandhas are the two extremes (two boundaries). In addition, 'self' and 'what belongs to self' are called the two extremes (two boundaries). Losing the 'self' lies in the section on letting go of the trap (a metaphor for abandoning skillful means). Although both inner and outer aspects have been removed above, and both person and dharma have been broken down, it is only breaking down the establishment, and not yet breaking down the breaking down. It is only the exhaustion of conditions, and not yet the complete contemplation of conditions. Now, wanting to break down the establishment, making both conditions and contemplation quiescent, hence this pair of concepts. Question: From which scripture did Master Rui (a Buddhist master) derive this idea? Answer: The last three periods (a concept in Buddhist philosophy) precisely clarify the principle of breaking down the breaking down, while the previous ones clarify the removal of the establishment, so this meaning is prefaced. Letting go of the trap (a metaphor for abandoning skillful means) is another way of saying removal and extinction.
名。故亦云亡筌除筌等也。夫欲除所破之我。必須亡能破之筌。若能破不亡則所破不盡。故云喪我在乎落筌也。網魚物為筌。網㝹物為蹄。問何故以能破為筌。答論主所以作十二門能破之言教者。為欲破眾生我人等病耳。故以能破之教為筌也。如得魚不用筌。病破即除教也。筌亡存乎遺寄者。釋忘能破之所以也。能破之筌所以得除。要須遺其所寄。本寄能破之筌除所破之病。豈可存能寄耶。必須忘此能寄所破方凈耳。遺即忘之異名。此用莊周要其會歸遺其所寄之言也。筌我兼忘始可幾乎實矣者。破立並忘緣觀俱寂者。始可近諸法實相。可幾即近也。幾乎實矣則虛實兩冥者第四對。意上除能破所破之虛。今復泯非能破非所破之實也。得失無際者第五對。意惑者謂能破所破為虛緣觀俱寂為實。則二存為失兩忘為得。虛實之病除舍。得失之念尋生。故復泯之也。冥而無際者。上來敘龍樹五轉破病開道造論意。今第三明得益。得益有二。初明所離益。次明所得益。所離則累無不寂。所得則德無不圓。累無不寂不可為有。德無不圓不可為無。即中道法身為益大矣。問睿師依何文作贊。答下云。又能除大苦與大利事。故名為大。即得離文。離益中有二離。得益中有兩得。二離者。一離六道二離三乘。一一中皆用玄儒兩書語以顯佛法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名（名稱）。故亦云亡筌除筌等也（所以也說忘掉魚笱，去除魚笱等等）。夫欲除所破之我（想要去除所要破除的『我』），必須亡能破之筌（必須忘掉能破除『我』的魚笱）。若能破不亡則所破不盡（如果能破除『我』的工具不忘掉，那麼所要破除的『我』就不能完全破除）。故云喪我在乎落筌也（所以說喪失『我』在於丟掉魚笱）。網魚物為筌（捕捉魚的工具叫做筌），網㝹物為蹄（捕捉兔子的工具叫做蹄）。問何故以能破為筌（為什麼把能破除『我』的工具比作魚笱）？答論主所以作十二門能破之言教者（答：論主之所以創作十二門能破的言教），為欲破眾生我人等病耳（是爲了破除眾生『我』、『人』等等的執著）。故以能破之教為筌也（所以把能破除執著的教義比作魚笱）。如得魚不用筌（如同得到了魚就不需要魚笱），病破即除教也（執著破除了，教義也就完成了它的使命）。 筌亡存乎遺寄者（忘掉魚笱在於忘記寄託），釋忘能破之所以也（解釋忘掉能破除『我』的工具的原因）。能破之筌所以得除（能破除『我』的魚笱之所以要去除），要須遺其所寄（必須要忘記它所寄託的東西）。本寄能破之筌除所破之病（本來寄託能破除『我』的魚笱是爲了去除所要破除的執著），豈可存能寄耶（怎麼可以保留能寄託的東西呢）？必須忘此能寄所破方凈耳（必須忘掉這個能寄託的東西，所要破除的執著才能乾淨）。遺即忘之異名（『遺』就是『忘』的另一種說法）。此用莊周要其會歸遺其所寄之言也（這裡引用了莊子關於最終要忘掉寄託之物的思想）。筌我兼忘始可幾乎實矣者（魚笱和『我』都忘掉，才可以接近真實），破立並忘緣觀俱寂者（破除和建立都忘掉，因緣和觀照都寂靜）。始可近諸法實相（才可以接近諸法的真實相狀），可幾即近也（『可幾』就是接近的意思）。幾乎實矣則虛實兩冥者第四對（接近真實，那麼虛和實都泯滅，這是第四對）。意上除能破所破之虛（意思是上面已經去除了能破和所破的虛幻），今復泯非能破非所破之實也（現在又要泯滅非能破和非所破的實在）。 得失無際者第五對（得到和失去都沒有邊際，這是第五對）。意惑者謂能破所破為虛緣觀俱寂為實（意思是迷惑的人認為能破和所破是虛幻的，因緣和觀照是實在的），則二存為失兩忘為得（那麼保留兩者就是失去，忘掉兩者就是得到）。虛實之病除舍（虛和實的執著去除），得失之念尋生（得到和失去的念頭又產生）。故復泯之也（所以又要泯滅它）。冥而無際者（泯滅而沒有邊際）。上來敘龍樹五轉破病開道造論意（上面敘述了龍樹菩薩五次轉變破除執著，開闢道路，創造理論的意圖）。今第三明得益（現在第三部分說明得到的利益）。得益有二（得到的利益有兩種）：初明所離益（首先說明所脫離的利益），次明所得益（其次說明所得到的利益）。所離則累無不寂（所脫離的是煩惱都寂靜），所得則德無不圓（所得到的是功德都圓滿）。累無不寂不可為有（煩惱都寂靜，不能認為是『有』），德無不圓不可為無（功德都圓滿，不能認為是『無』）。即中道法身為益大矣（這就是中道法身，利益太大了）。問睿師依何文作贊（問：睿師依據什麼經文作贊）？答下云（答：下面說）。又能除大苦與大利事（又能去除大痛苦，帶來大利益），故名為大（所以稱為『大』）。即得離文（就是脫離的經文）。離益中有二離（脫離的利益中有兩種脫離）：一離六道（一是脫離六道輪迴），二離三乘（二是脫離三乘）。一一中皆用玄儒兩書語以顯佛法（每一種脫離都用玄學和儒學的語言來顯示佛法）。 English version Name (designation). Therefore, it is also said 'abandon the fish trap, remove the fish trap,' etc. If you want to eliminate the 'self' that is to be destroyed, you must abandon the fish trap that can destroy it. If the means of destruction are not abandoned, then what is to be destroyed will not be completely eliminated. Therefore, it is said that losing the 'self' lies in discarding the fish trap. A fish trap is used to catch fish, and a rabbit snare is used to catch rabbits. Question: Why is the means of destruction called a fish trap? Answer: The reason the author of the treatise created the twelve gates of teachings that can destroy is to eliminate the illnesses of sentient beings, such as attachment to 'self' and 'others.' Therefore, the teachings that can destroy are called fish traps. Just as one doesn't need a fish trap after catching a fish, once the illness of attachment is destroyed, the teaching has fulfilled its purpose. Abandoning the fish trap lies in forgetting what it was entrusted to. This explains why the means of destruction should be forgotten. The fish trap that can destroy is removed because one must forget what it was entrusted to. Originally, the fish trap that can destroy was entrusted to eliminate the illness of what is to be destroyed. How can one retain what it was entrusted to? One must forget what was entrusted so that what is to be destroyed can be purified. 'Abandoning' is another name for 'forgetting.' This uses Zhuangzi's idea that one must ultimately return to the source and abandon what was entrusted. Forgetting both the fish trap and the 'self' is the beginning of approaching reality. Forgetting both destruction and establishment, and the quiescence of both conditions and contemplation, is the beginning of approaching the true nature of all dharmas. 'Approaching' means 'near.' 'Approaching reality' means that both illusion and reality are extinguished, which is the fourth pair. The intention is that above, the illusion of what can destroy and what is to be destroyed has been removed, and now the reality of what is neither the means of destruction nor what is to be destroyed is also extinguished. The fifth pair is 'no boundary of gain and loss.' The intention is that those who are deluded consider the means of destruction and what is to be destroyed as illusory, and conditions and contemplation as real. Then, retaining both is loss, and forgetting both is gain. When the illness of illusion and reality is removed, the thought of gain and loss arises again. Therefore, it is extinguished again. 'Extinguished without boundary' refers to the intention of Nāgārjuna's five transformations to destroy illness, open the path, and create the treatise. Now, the third part explains the benefits gained. There are two kinds of benefits: first, the benefits of what is abandoned, and second, the benefits of what is gained. What is abandoned is that all afflictions are extinguished, and what is gained is that all virtues are perfected. The extinction of all afflictions cannot be considered 'existent,' and the perfection of all virtues cannot be considered 'non-existent.' This is the great benefit of the Dharma body of the Middle Way. Question: What scripture did Master Rui rely on to compose the praise? Answer: It says below, 'It can also remove great suffering and bring great benefit,' therefore it is called 'great.' This is the scripture of abandonment. There are two kinds of abandonment in the benefits of abandonment: one is abandoning the six realms of existence (Sanskrit: ṣaṭ-gati), and the other is abandoning the three vehicles (Sanskrit: triyāna). In each of these, the language of both Xuanxue (Neo-Daoism) and Confucianism is used to reveal the Buddha-dharma.
【English Translation】 Name (ming). Therefore, it is also said 'abandon the fish trap, remove the fish trap,' etc. (suo yi ye shuo wang diao yu gou, qu chu yu gou deng deng). If you want to eliminate the 'self' that is to be destroyed (fu yu chu suo po zhi wo), you must abandon the fish trap that can destroy it (bi xu wang neng po zhi quan). If the means of destruction are not abandoned, then what is to be destroyed will not be completely eliminated (ruo neng po bu wang ze suo po bu jin). Therefore, it is said that losing the 'self' lies in discarding the fish trap (gu yun sang wo zai hu luo quan ye). A fish trap is used to catch fish (wang yu wu wei quan), and a rabbit snare is used to catch rabbits (wang tu wu wei ti). Question: Why is the means of destruction called a fish trap (wen he gu yi neng po wei quan)? Answer: The reason the author of the treatise created the twelve gates of teachings that can destroy (da lun zhu suo yi zuo shi er men neng po zhi yan jiao zhe) is to eliminate the illnesses of sentient beings, such as attachment to 'self' and 'others' (wei yu po zhong sheng wo ren deng bing er). Therefore, the teachings that can destroy are called fish traps (gu yi neng po zhi jiao wei quan ye). Just as one doesn't need a fish trap after catching a fish (ru de yu bu yong quan), once the illness of attachment is destroyed, the teaching has fulfilled its purpose (bing po ji chu jiao ye). 'Abandoning the fish trap lies in forgetting what it was entrusted to' (quan wang cun hu yi ji zhe), explains why the means of destruction should be forgotten (shi wang neng po zhi suo yi ye). The fish trap that can destroy is removed (neng po zhi quan suo yi de chu) because one must forget what it was entrusted to (yao xu yi qi suo ji). Originally, the fish trap that can destroy was entrusted to eliminate the illness of what is to be destroyed (ben ji neng po zhi quan chu suo po zhi bing). How can one retain what it was entrusted to (qi ke cun neng ji ye)? One must forget what was entrusted so that what is to be destroyed can be purified (bi xu wang ci neng ji suo po fang jing er). 'Abandoning' is another name for 'forgetting' ('yi' ji wang zhi yi ming). This uses Zhuangzi's idea that one must ultimately return to the source and abandon what was entrusted (ci yong zhuang zhou yao qi hui gui yi qi suo ji zhi yan ye). Forgetting both the fish trap and the 'self' is the beginning of approaching reality (quan wo jian wang shi ke ji hu shi yi zhe). Forgetting both destruction and establishment, and the quiescence of both conditions and contemplation (po li bing wang yuan guan ju ji zhe), is the beginning of approaching the true nature of all dharmas (shi ke jin zhu fa shi xiang), 'Approaching' means 'near' (ke ji ji jin ye). 'Approaching reality' means that both illusion and reality are extinguished, which is the fourth pair (ji hu shi yi ze xu shi liang ming zhe di si dui). The intention is that above, the illusion of what can destroy and what is to be destroyed has been removed (yi shang chu neng po suo po zhi xu), and now the reality of what is neither the means of destruction nor what is to be destroyed is also extinguished (jin fu min fei neng po fei suo po zhi shi ye). The fifth pair is 'no boundary of gain and loss' (de shi wu ji zhe di wu dui). The intention is that those who are deluded consider the means of destruction and what is to be destroyed as illusory, and conditions and contemplation as real (yi huo zhe wei neng po suo po wei xu yuan guan ju ji wei shi). Then, retaining both is loss, and forgetting both is gain (ze er cun wei shi liang wang wei de). When the illness of illusion and reality is removed (xu shi zhi bing chu she), the thought of gain and loss arises again (de shi zhi nian xun sheng). Therefore, it is extinguished again (gu fu min zhi ye). 'Extinguished without boundary' (ming er wu ji zhe) refers to the intention of Nāgārjuna's five transformations to destroy illness, open the path, and create the treatise (shang lai xu long shu wu zhuan po bing kai dao zao lun yi). Now, the third part explains the benefits gained (jin di san ming de yi). There are two kinds of benefits (de yi you er): first, the benefits of what is abandoned (chu ming suo li yi), and second, the benefits of what is gained (ci ming suo de yi). What is abandoned is that all afflictions are extinguished (suo li ze lei wu bu ji), and what is gained is that all virtues are perfected (suo de ze de wu bu yuan). The extinction of all afflictions cannot be considered 'existent' (lei wu bu ji bu ke wei you), and the perfection of all virtues cannot be considered 'non-existent' (de wu bu yuan bu ke wei wu). This is the great benefit of the Dharma body of the Middle Way (ji zhong dao fa shen wei yi da yi). Question: What scripture did Master Rui rely on to compose the praise (wen rui shi yi he wen zuo zan)? Answer: It says below (da xia yun), 'It can also remove great suffering and bring great benefit' (you neng chu da ku yu da li shi), therefore it is called 'great' (gu ming wei da). This is the scripture of abandonment (ji de li wen). There are two kinds of abandonment in the benefits of abandonment (li yi zhong you er li): one is abandoning the six realms of existence (yi li liu dao), and the other is abandoning the three vehicles (er li san cheng). In each of these, the language of both Xuanxue and Confucianism is used to reveal the Buddha-dharma (yi yi zhong jie yong xuan ru liang shu yu yi xian fo fa).
義。造次即儒書語。兩玄謂老子語。忘造次於兩玄者論語云。造次弗如也。語默失度動止乖儀。故云造次。寄此明六道回宗也。兩玄者即老子云。玄之又玄眾妙之門。藉此語以目前五轉。始自內外兩除終竟得失無際謂重玄也。泯顛沛於一致三乘徙轍。謂聖人益也。一致者老子有得一之言。故言天得一以清。地得一以寧。君王得一以治天下。又法華一道清凈也。顛沛者亦出論語。即儒書。猶是無三謂三。顛倒義耳。即是三乘徒轍。整歸駕第二得益。前離中皆借外書語。今得中並用內教事。初明大乘果益。乘是寶乘直至。道場者證也。五乘即至非是乘因至果。故云諸佛大人之所乘故。故名為大。后句辨大乘因益。下論云。文殊彌勒等大士所乘。謂因益文也。
恢恢焉下第四嘆論功能。又二。初贊當時蒙利。次嘆後代得益。亦初是盛行天竺。次辨化流震旦。即前後二時得益彼此兩處蒙利也。初又二。前嘆論主智諦。次明群生得益。恢恢焉者借莊周解牛喻二智也。庖丁解牛不傷皮完。而全牛體解散牛體便空。故外篇云。庖丁十二年不見全牛。即牛體空也。龍樹方便波若不壞假名。明一切法即畢竟空也。如不傷皮割完也。二乘折法明空。即傷皮割完也。而言虛刃者即般若空慧觀一切法皆畢竟空也。又書中雲。虛刃者刀游牛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『義』字，在這裡借用了儒家典籍中的說法。『兩玄』，則是老子的用語。『忘造次於兩玄』，出自《論語》，其中說，『造次弗如也』，意思是言語、沉默都失去了法度，行動、停止都違背了禮儀，所以說是『造次』。寄託此句，是爲了闡明六道輪迴最終迴歸本源的道理。『兩玄』，即老子所說的『玄之又玄，眾妙之門』。借用這句話，來說明目前五轉，開始於內外兩除，最終達到得失皆空的境界，這就是重玄的含義。『泯顛沛於一致，三乘徙轍』，說的是聖人所獲得的利益。『一致』，老子有『得一』的說法，所以說『天得一以清，地得一以寧，君王得一以治天下』。又如《法華經》所說的一道清凈。『顛沛』，也出自《論語》，是儒家的說法，仍然是無三謂三，顛倒的含義。這就是三乘徒勞地改變方向，整理歸途，這是第二重獲得的利益。前面所說的『離中』，都借用了外道的典籍，現在所說的『得中』，則全部使用了佛教內部的教義。首先闡明大乘的果實利益，『乘』是寶貴的乘具，能夠直達道場，也就是證悟的境界。五乘最終到達，並不是通過乘因達到果實，所以說『諸佛大人之所乘故，故名為大』。后一句辨析了大乘的因地利益。下文說，『文殊、彌勒等大士所乘』，說的是因地的利益。
『恢恢焉』以下是第四部分，讚歎般若的功能，又分為兩點。首先讚歎當時所獲得的利益，其次讚歎後代所獲得的利益。也就是首先說明般若在天竺盛行，其次辨析般若教化流傳到震旦（中國）。也就是前後兩個時期都獲得了利益，彼此兩處都蒙受了利益。首先又分為兩點，前面讚歎論主的智慧真諦，其次說明眾生獲得的利益。『恢恢焉』，借用了莊周庖丁解牛的比喻來說明二智。庖丁解牛，不損傷牛的皮毛，完整地分解了牛的身體，使牛的身體變得空虛。所以《外篇》中說，『庖丁十二年不見全牛』，就是說牛的身體空了。龍樹菩薩用方便般若，不破壞假名，說明一切法即是畢竟空。就像不損傷牛的皮毛而完整地分解了牛的身體一樣。二乘通過折法來闡明空性，就像損傷牛的皮毛而割裂了牛的身體一樣。而說『虛刃』，就是指般若的空慧，觀照一切法都是畢竟空。書中又說，『虛刃』，就是刀在牛的...
【English Translation】 English version: The term 『yi』 (義, meaning righteousness or meaning) here borrows from Confucian classics. 『Liang Xuan』 (兩玄, meaning two mysteries) is a term used by Lao Tzu (老子). 『Forget zao ci (造次, meaning rashness or haste) in Liang Xuan』 comes from the 『Analects,』 which says, 『Zao ci fu ru ye』 (造次弗如也), meaning that speech and silence have lost their measure, and actions and stops have violated etiquette, so it is called 『zao ci.』 Entrusting this sentence is to clarify the principle that the six paths of reincarnation ultimately return to their origin. 『Liang Xuan』 is what Lao Tzu said, 『Xuan zhi you xuan, zhong miao zhi men』 (玄之又玄，眾妙之門, meaning mystery upon mystery, the gate of all wonders). Borrowing this sentence to explain the current five transformations, starting from the elimination of both internal and external, and ultimately reaching the state of emptiness of gain and loss, this is the meaning of profound mystery. 『Min dian pei yu yi zhi, san cheng xi zhe』 (泯顛沛於一致，三乘徙轍, meaning to eliminate hardship in unity, the three vehicles change course), refers to the benefits obtained by the sage. 『Yi zhi』 (一致, meaning unity), Lao Tzu has the saying 『de yi』 (得一, meaning to obtain one), so it is said that 『heaven obtains one to be clear, earth obtains one to be peaceful, and the king obtains one to govern the world.』 Also, like the 『Lotus Sutra』 says, 『one path is pure.』 『Dian pei』 (顛沛, meaning hardship), also comes from the 『Analects,』 which is a Confucian saying, still meaning 『no three is called three,』 the meaning of reversal. This is the three vehicles changing direction in vain, organizing the return journey, this is the second benefit obtained. The previously mentioned 『li zhong』 (離中, meaning separation from the middle) all borrowed from external doctrines, and the currently mentioned 『de zhong』 (得中, meaning obtaining the middle) all use internal Buddhist teachings. First, clarify the fruit benefits of Mahayana, 『cheng』 (乘, meaning vehicle) is a precious vehicle that can directly reach the Bodhimanda (道場), which is the state of enlightenment. The five vehicles ultimately arrive, not through the cause of the vehicle to reach the fruit, so it is said that 『the vehicle of all Buddhas and great beings, therefore it is called great.』 The latter sentence distinguishes the benefits of the cause ground of Mahayana. The following text says, 『the vehicle of Manjushri, Maitreya, and other great Bodhisattvas,』 refers to the benefits of the cause ground.
『Hui hui yan』 (恢恢焉, meaning vast and spacious) below is the fourth part, praising the function of Prajna, which is divided into two points. First, praise the benefits obtained at that time, and second, praise the benefits obtained by later generations. That is, first explain that Prajna prevailed in India, and second, analyze that the teaching of Prajna spread to Zhendan (震旦, meaning China). That is, both the former and latter periods have obtained benefits, and both places have received benefits. First, it is divided into two points, the former praises the wisdom and truth of the treatise master, and the latter explains the benefits obtained by sentient beings. 『Hui hui yan』 borrows the analogy of Zhuang Zhou's (莊周) butcher dissecting an ox to explain the two wisdoms. The butcher dissects the ox without damaging the ox's skin and completely decomposes the ox's body, making the ox's body empty. Therefore, the 『Outer Chapters』 says, 『The butcher has not seen the whole ox for twelve years,』 which means that the ox's body is empty. Nagarjuna (龍樹) uses expedient Prajna without destroying provisional names, explaining that all dharmas are ultimately empty. It is like dissecting the ox's body completely without damaging the ox's skin. The two vehicles clarify emptiness by breaking the dharma, just like damaging the ox's skin and cutting the ox's body. And saying 『xu ren』 (虛刃, meaning empty blade) refers to the empty wisdom of Prajna, contemplating that all dharmas are ultimately empty. The book also says, 『xu ren』 is the knife in the ox's...
空虛之間為虛刃。即實慧觀一切法空也。又虛動于刃似如割完傷皮。故名虛刃。無間謂虛無間之間也。恢恢者大也。故書云。天網恢恢疏而不漏。用此事者餘人見牛體實有。丁睹其空之義。其義甚大。故云恢恢也。問此嘆何物耶。答牛喻世諦牛空為第一義。不傷牛而空。不壞假名而明實相。故具明二諦正明第一義。刃正喻般若實慧也。奏希聲于宇內者。借老子聽之不聞曰希聲也。即是二諦教也。言滿大千實無所說。豈可有心而聽可得聞乎。故其說法者無說無示。其聽法者無聞無得也。像法決疑經云。如來從初得道夜乃至涅槃不說一句。豈非二夜常言無一字之可說哉。前明第一義今嘆世諦。前嘆實慧今美方便。故具二智二諦四義。此非但嘆龍樹智諦。通敘十方三世佛智諦如此也。天地上下為宇。往古來今稱宙。謂大教彌布十方耳。濟弱喪于玄津者第二得益。初得益次離益。莊周云。少失鄉土名弱喪。喪失也。弱少也。即六道與三乘皆是失中道本鄉之人也。別正取二乘為弱喪。即窮子是也。故云譬如童子幼稚無識舍父逃逝久住他國也。玄津即是斯論。入此論之津歸中道本鄉也。出有無于域外明離益也。前歸中道為得。今離有無為離。又前令三乘得益。今六道回宗。亦前是外事。今是內事。玄儒等書無非有無。而言非有無者
【現代漢語翻譯】 空虛之間被稱為『虛刃』（Xū Rèn，指空性的利刃）。這指的是以真實的智慧觀察一切法皆為空性。又，刀刃在空中揮動，看似割傷了面板，因此得名『虛刃』。『無間』指的是空無之間。『恢恢』是廣大的意思。所以《道德經》說：『天網恢恢，疏而不漏。』用這件事來說明，其他人看到的是牛的實體存在，而丁（Dīng，指庖丁）看到的是牛的空性。這個意義非常重大，所以說是『恢恢』。問：這裡讚歎的是什麼？答：牛比喻世俗諦，牛的空性為第一義諦。不傷害牛而使其空性顯現，不破壞假名而闡明實相。所以，這裡同時闡明了二諦，著重闡明第一義諦。刀刃正比喻般若的真實智慧。『奏希聲于宇內』，借用老子『聽之不聞名曰希聲』的說法，指的就是二諦之教。說充滿整個大千世界，實際上什麼也沒說。難道可以用有分別的心去聽而能聽得到嗎？所以，說法的人無說無示，聽法的人無聞無得。《像法決疑經》說：『如來從初得道之夜，乃至涅槃之夜，未說一句。』難道不是兩個夜晚都在說沒有一字可以說的嗎？前面闡明第一義諦，現在讚歎世俗諦。前面讚歎真實智慧，現在讚美方便。所以，這裡具備二智、二諦四種意義。這不僅僅是讚歎龍樹（Lóngshù，佛教大乘中觀學派創始人）的智慧和真諦，也是普遍敘述十方三世諸佛的智慧和真諦就是如此。天地上下為『宇』，往古來今稱『宙』，指的是偉大的教法遍佈十方。『濟弱喪于玄津』，這是第二種得益。首先是得益，然後是離益。莊周說：『少失鄉土名弱喪』，『喪失』就是喪失，『弱少』就是弱小，指的是六道和三乘都是失去中道本鄉之人。特別是指二乘為弱喪，也就是窮子。所以說，譬如童子幼稚無知，捨棄父親逃離，長久居住在其他國家。『玄津』就是指這部論（指《中論》），進入這部論的津渡，迴歸中道本鄉。『出有無于域外』，闡明離益。前面迴歸中道是得益，現在離開有無是離益。又，前面是讓三乘得益，現在是讓六道迴歸本宗。而且，前面是外事，現在是內事。玄學、儒學等書籍無非是有無之說，而說非有非無的...
【English Translation】 The space between emptiness is called 'empty blade' (Xū Rèn, refers to the blade of emptiness). This refers to observing with true wisdom that all dharmas are empty in nature. Moreover, the blade moving in the air seems to cut the skin, hence the name 'empty blade'. 'Without interval' (Wújiàn) refers to the space between emptiness and non-emptiness. 'Vast' (Huīhuī) means great. Therefore, the Tao Te Ching says: 'The net of heaven is vast, sparse but nothing escapes.' Using this to illustrate, others see the ox as having a real existence, while Ding (Dīng, refers to Cook Ding) sees the emptiness of the ox. This meaning is very profound, so it is said to be 'vast'. Question: What is being praised here? Answer: The ox is a metaphor for conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), and the emptiness of the ox is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Making the ox's emptiness manifest without harming the ox, clarifying the true nature without destroying the provisional name. Therefore, it simultaneously clarifies the two truths, focusing on clarifying the ultimate truth. The blade is a metaphor for the true wisdom of prajna. 'Playing the soundless in the universe' (Zòu Xīshēng yú Yǔnèi) borrows Lao Tzu's saying 'listening but not hearing is called soundless', which refers to the teaching of the two truths. Saying it fills the entire great thousand world, but in reality, nothing is said. Can one hear it by listening with a discriminating mind? Therefore, the one who teaches speaks without speaking or showing, and the one who listens hears without hearing or attaining. The Doubt Resolving Sutra of the Semblance Dharma says: 'From the night the Tathagata attained enlightenment to the night of nirvana, not a single word was spoken.' Isn't it that both nights were saying that there is not a single word that can be spoken? The previous clarifies the ultimate truth, and now praises the conventional truth. The previous praises true wisdom, and now praises skillful means. Therefore, it possesses the four meanings of two wisdoms and two truths. This is not only praising Nāgārjuna's (Lóngshù, founder of the Madhyamaka school of Mahayana Buddhism) wisdom and truth, but also universally narrating that the wisdom and truth of all Buddhas of the ten directions and three times are like this. Heaven and earth above and below are called 'Yu', and past and present are called 'Zhou', which refers to the great teaching spreading throughout the ten directions. 'Aiding the weak and lost in the mysterious ford' (Jì Ruò Sàng yú Xuánjīn) is the second kind of benefit. First is the benefit of attainment, and then the benefit of detachment. Zhuang Zhou said: 'Losing one's homeland at a young age is called weak and lost', 'lost' means lost, and 'weak' means weak and small, which refers to the beings of the six realms and the three vehicles who have all lost their original homeland of the Middle Way. It specifically refers to the two vehicles as weak and lost, which are the poor sons. Therefore, it is said that it is like a child who is young and ignorant, abandoning his father and fleeing, living in another country for a long time. 'Mysterious ford' refers to this treatise (referring to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), entering the ford of this treatise, returning to the original homeland of the Middle Way. 'Exiting existence and non-existence outside the realm' (Chū Yǒu Wú yú Yùwài) clarifies the benefit of detachment. The previous returning to the Middle Way is the benefit of attainment, and now leaving existence and non-existence is the benefit of detachment. Also, the previous was to benefit the three vehicles, and now it is to allow the six realms to return to their original sect. Moreover, the previous was an external matter, and now it is an internal matter. Metaphysics, Confucianism, and other books are nothing but theories of existence and non-existence, but saying neither existence nor non-existence...
同盜牛之論也。老子云。域中有四大。謂天大．地大．道大．王大。今云域者是限域之域。謂有無為眾見之根障道之本。與道相隔。故云域也。
遇哉下第二後代蒙利。亦是第五造論利益。就文又二。初敘遇法。次明蒙利。蒙利亦二。初明值教。次辨得益。值教亦四。一夷路坦。二幽關開。三震和鸞。四馳白牛。前外國既四嘆。故此土亦復四也。睿師凈名經序云。自慧風東扇講肆流詠已來。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。前匠惙章遐慨思決言于彌勒者良在於此。前大宗明。四論未來玄義多謬。又于理猶疑。待見彌勒決耳。今論既來決疑正理。深為幸遇也。夷者平也。坦者坦蕩也。今開二乘等幽隱關故云幽關既開。真得震和鸞于北冥馳白牛以南迥。和鸞者即天子之大駕。五露中鸞露。有鸞鳥吐于和音。又云。鸞者鈴。即和鈴也。喻大乘也。莊周云。北冥有魚。今不用斯事耶。大品云。是般若從南方轉至北方。肇云。北天之運數其然也。即釋後代幸遇之所由也。和鸞借外事。白牛引法華內事。又大乘有二。一總敘乘體。即萬德是也。故以和鸞為喻。二別明乘宗。即平等大慧。故喻之白牛。又前是大乘后明一乘。又上車今牛。上外事今內事。悟大覺于夢境第二蒙利。蒙利為二。初
【現代漢語翻譯】 這與盜牛的論調相似。《老子》說：『區域中有四大』，指的是天大、地大、道大、王大。現在說的『域』，是限制區域的『域』，指的是有和無是眾人見解的根本，是阻礙道的根本，與道相隔，所以說是『域』。
『遇哉下第二後代蒙利』，也是第五『造論利益』。就文義來說，又分為兩部分。首先敘述相遇佛法，其次闡明蒙受利益。蒙受利益也分為兩部分，首先闡明值遇教法，其次辨明獲得利益。值遇教法又分為四個方面：一是夷路坦（平坦的道路），二是幽關開（開啟幽深之關），三是震和鸞（震動和鸞之聲），四是馳白牛（奔馳的白牛）。前面外國有四種讚歎，所以這裡本土也有四種讚歎。鳩摩羅什法師在《凈名經序》中說：『自從慧風向東吹拂，講堂誦讀以來，格義迂腐而違背根本，六家偏頗而不切實際。』中百二論文尚未達到這種程度，又沒有通鑑，誰來匡正它呢？前匠惙章遐慨思決言于彌勒者良在於此（之前的匠惙章長久地感嘆，思考決斷，向彌勒菩薩請教，原因就在於此）。前面大宗明說，四論未來玄義多有謬誤，又在道理上還有疑惑，等待見到彌勒菩薩才能決斷。現在論著已經到來，決斷了疑惑，匡正了道理，實在是幸運的相遇。
『夷』是平坦的意思，『坦』是坦蕩的意思。現在開啟二乘等幽隱之關，所以說是『幽關既開』。真正得到震動和鸞之聲于北冥，奔馳白牛于南迥。『和鸞』指的是天子的大駕，五露中鸞露，有鸞鳥發出和諧的聲音。又說：『鸞』是鈴，就是和鈴。比喻大乘。莊周說：『北冥有魚』，現在不用這件事嗎？《大品般若經》說：『是般若從南方轉至北方』。僧肇說：『北天的運數就是這樣。』這就是解釋後代幸運相遇的原因。和鸞借用外事，白牛引用《法華經》內事。又大乘有兩種，一是總敘乘體，就是萬德，所以用和鸞來比喻。二是分別闡明乘宗，就是平等大慧，所以用白牛來比喻。前面是大乘，後面闡明一乘。又是上車，現在是牛。上面是外事，現在是內事。在夢境中領悟大覺，這是第二蒙利。蒙利分為兩部分，首先是...
【English Translation】 This is similar to the argument of stealing a cow. Lao Tzu said, 'Within the realm, there are four great things,' referring to the greatness of Heaven, Earth, the Tao, and the King. The 'realm' mentioned now refers to the 'realm' of limited areas, meaning that existence and non-existence are the root of people's views, the root of obstructing the Tao, and are separated from the Tao, so it is called 'realm'.
'Encountering the second part, later generations benefit,' is also the fifth 'benefit of creating treatises.' In terms of the text, it is further divided into two parts. First, it narrates the encounter with the Dharma, and second, it clarifies the receiving of benefits. Receiving benefits is also divided into two parts, first clarifying the encounter with the teachings, and second, distinguishing the gains. Encountering the teachings is further divided into four aspects: first, 'I-lu Tan' (smooth road), second, 'You-guan Kai' (opening the deep gate), third, 'Zhen He-luan' (shaking the sound of He-luan), and fourth, 'Chi Bai-niu' (galloping white ox). The previous foreign countries had four praises, so this land also has four praises. Master Kumarajiva said in the preface to the Vimalakirti Sutra: 'Since the wind of wisdom blew eastward, and the lecture halls have been reciting, the interpretation of meaning is circuitous and deviates from the root, and the six schools are biased and impractical.' The Zhongbai Er Lun (Madhyamaka-śāstra) has not yet reached this level, and there is no comprehensive mirror, who will correct it? The previous craftsman Chuo Zhang sighed for a long time, thinking and deciding, asking Maitreya Bodhisattva, the reason lies in this. The previous Da Zongming said that the future profound meanings of the Four Treatises have many errors, and there are still doubts in the principles, waiting to see Maitreya Bodhisattva to make a decision. Now that the treatise has arrived, it has resolved doubts and corrected the principles, which is really a fortunate encounter.
'I' means smooth, and 'Tan' means broad. Now opening the hidden gates of the Two Vehicles, it is said that 'You-guan Kai' (the deep gate is opened). Truly obtaining the sound of Zhen He-luan in the North Sea, and galloping the white ox in the South. 'He-luan' refers to the emperor's grand carriage, the luan dew in the five dew, and the luan bird emits a harmonious sound. It is also said that 'luan' is a bell, which is a harmonious bell. It is a metaphor for Mahayana. Zhuang Zhou said, 'There is a fish in the North Sea,' isn't this used now? The Large Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says, 'This Prajna is transferred from the South to the North.' Seng Zhao said, 'The fate of the North Heaven is like this.' This is the explanation of the fortunate encounter of later generations. He-luan borrows external affairs, and the white ox quotes internal affairs from the Lotus Sutra. There are two types of Mahayana, one is a general description of the vehicle body, which is all virtues, so it is used as a metaphor for He-luan. The second is to separately explain the vehicle sect, which is equal great wisdom, so it is used as a metaphor for the white ox. The previous one is Mahayana, and the latter explains the One Vehicle. It is also getting on the car, now it is the ox. The above is external affairs, and now it is internal affairs. Realizing great enlightenment in a dream, this is the second benefit. The benefit is divided into two parts, the first is...
明始益次明終利。二種生死長夜為夢。悟此夢非夢。即夢為覺也。即百化以安歸謂終益也。百化萬化猶萬物之異名耳。達此百化即是實相。而實相是安穩道。故得還源反本秤為安歸。又前明夢喻以明覺。今舉覺事以辨悟。文正爾也。夫如是者。上明得悟此敘無復余疑。如大陽既出無復暗地。既睹斯論疑滯永除焉。復者出莊周發語之辭也。耀靈者日也。方正也。玄者黑也。陸者處也地也。未晞者出毛詩。東方未晞也。未晞即未明也。既睹此論于大乘無復暗惑矣。
下作者自謙。可知也。如日正盛盲人謂之未明。斯論盛行愚人謂之未解。鄙則鄙惡。倍是倍戾。庶者望也。日用者書云。用日不知。今謂用日時日日有宜益。歲計謂一日二日乃至一歲二歲。計者是計歲耳。況才之美者。上是自謙今明推德。景者敬也。
十二門論序疏(畢)
十二門論疏捲上
沙門釋吉藏撰
觀因緣門第一
有玄義已入大科。余未盡者五意釋之。一釋名門。二次第門。三根本門。四有無門。五同異門。
第一釋名門者論名有三。一者十二。二者門。三者論。問何故不多不小但明十二。答意乃無窮。略明五義。一者此之十二無理不通無累不寂。隨病設藥。一方事圓。故但明十二。二者雖復八萬法藏。略
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：從迷惑開始到覺悟終結，就像兩種生死長夜如夢一般。領悟到這個夢不是夢，即是夢即是覺悟。所有的變化最終都歸於安穩，這就是所謂的終結和益處。百化萬化，不過是萬物的不同名稱罷了。通達這百化即是實相，而實相是安穩的道路，所以能夠還源反本，稱之為安歸。前面用夢來比喻明覺，現在舉覺悟之事來辨別領悟，文意正是如此。像這樣，上面說明已經領悟，這裡敘述不再有任何疑惑，如同太陽已經升起，不再有黑暗的地方。既然看到了這部論著，疑惑和滯礙就永遠消除了。『復』字是出自莊周的發語之辭。『耀靈』指的是太陽，光明正大。『玄』指的是黑色。『陸』指的是所處之地。『未晞』出自《詩經》，東方未晞，未晞即是未明。既然看到了這部論著，對於大乘佛法就不會再有闇昧的迷惑了。 下面是作者的自謙之詞，可以理解。如同太陽正當盛時，盲人卻說天還沒亮。這部論著盛行，愚人卻說還不理解。『鄙』是鄙陋，『倍』是違背。『庶』是希望。『日用』出自《尚書》，『用日不知』，現在說用日，每日都有適宜和益處。歲計指的是一日兩日乃至一歲兩歲。『計』是計算年歲。更何況才華美好的人呢。上面是自謙，現在是闡明推崇品德。『景』是敬佩。 《十二門論序疏》（完） 《十二門論疏》捲上 沙門釋吉藏撰 觀因緣門第一 已經用玄義進入了大綱。其餘未盡之處，用五種方式來解釋：一是釋名門，二是次第門，三是根本門，四是有無門，五是同異門。 第一釋名門，論的名字有三個：一是十二，二是門，三是論。問：為什麼不多不少，只說明十二？答：意義無窮無盡，略明五種含義。一是這十二無理不通，無累不寂。隨病設藥，一方事圓，所以只說明十二。二是即使是八萬法藏（指佛法的總稱），略...
【English Translation】 English version: From the beginning of delusion to the end of enlightenment, it's like two kinds of birth and death, a long night like a dream. To realize that this dream is not a dream, that is, the dream is enlightenment. All changes ultimately return to stability, which is what is called the end and benefit. The myriad transformations are just different names for the myriad things. To understand these myriad transformations is to understand the true nature of reality (Skt: Satya), and the true nature of reality is the path of peace and stability, so it can return to the source and revert to the origin, and is called 'An Gui' (安歸, peaceful return). Earlier, the dream was used as a metaphor for clear awareness, now the matter of enlightenment is raised to distinguish understanding, the meaning of the text is exactly like this. Like this, the above explains that enlightenment has been attained, and here it narrates that there are no more doubts, just like the sun has already risen, and there is no more dark place. Since this treatise has been seen, doubts and hindrances will be eliminated forever. The word 'Fu' (復) comes from the opening words of Zhuang Zhou. 'Yao Ling' (耀靈) refers to the sun, bright and upright. 'Xuan' (玄) refers to black. 'Lu' (陸) refers to the place where one is. 'Wei Xi' (未晞) comes from the Book of Poetry, 'The East is not yet bright', Wei Xi means not yet bright. Since this treatise has been seen, there will be no more dark confusion about Mahayana Buddhism. Below are the author's words of self-deprecation, which can be understood. Just like when the sun is at its peak, a blind person says it is not yet dawn. This treatise is prevalent, but a fool says he does not yet understand. 'Bi' (鄙) is mean, 'Bei' (倍) is contrary. 'Shu' (庶) is hope. 'Ri Yong' (日用) comes from the Book of Documents, 'Using the day without knowing', now it says using the day, every day has its suitability and benefit. 'Sui Ji' (歲計) refers to one day or two days, even one year or two years. 'Ji' (計) is calculating the years. Moreover, what about those with beautiful talents? The above is self-deprecation, now it is clarifying and praising virtue. 'Jing' (景) is admiration. 《Commentary and Subcommentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise》 (End) 《Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise》 Volume 1 Composed by Shramana (Buddhist monk)釋 Ji Zang (吉藏) Chapter 1: Observing the Gate of Dependent Origination (因緣, Hetupratyaya) The profound meaning has already entered the outline. The remaining unfulfilled points will be explained in five ways: first, the gate of explaining the name; second, the gate of sequence; third, the gate of the root; fourth, the gate of existence and non-existence; fifth, the gate of sameness and difference. First, the gate of explaining the name, the name of the treatise has three parts: first, twelve; second, gate; third, treatise. Question: Why not more or less, but only explain twelve? Answer: The meaning is endless, briefly explaining five meanings. First, these twelve are without reason that cannot be penetrated, without accumulation that cannot be silenced. Prescribing medicine according to the illness, one side completes the matter, so only explain twelve. Second, even if it is the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures (八萬法藏, a general term for the Buddha's teachings), briefly...
攝但有十二部經。今通釋十二部經故論亦十二。問何以知然。答十二部經但為顯於一理。此十二門亦但為通理。以通理故則識一切教。是故當知釋十二部經明於十二。三者眾生迴流生死有十二因緣。此論亦觀十二因緣畢竟空寂。則十二緣河傾佛性河滿。故但明十二。問何以知此論明十二河傾佛性河滿。答涅槃經云。佛性者名第一義空。此論觀察因緣明甚深空義。故云大分深義所謂空也。若通達此義即通達大乘。則良證也。問河有幾種。答略明其二。一者十二緣河。二佛性河。生死深曠迴流不息。悉能漂沒六道眾生。故名為河。佛性亦爾。深而無底曠而無邊。五十二位大乘賢聖皆在其中。故名為河。但二河傾滿凡有四句。一者因緣河滿佛性河傾。二佛性河滿因緣河傾。三二河俱傾。四兩河俱滿。妄想若生正觀便滅。謂生死河滿佛性河傾。正觀若生顛倒則滅。謂生死河傾佛性河滿。本對邪心故稱正觀。邪想若息正亦不留。故二河俱傾。為眾生故示現生死方便涅槃。故二河俱滿。四句之中初對所破。余為所申。四者十二是一數之極。如凈名經天女答身子云。吾止此室十有二年。求于女相竟不可得。龍樹亦爾。就十二門求生死戲論本來皆空。故但明十二。五者不應致問。若問是事則一切難生。但應忘指取月。寧復求詮多小。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 包含十二部經，而此論也通釋十二部經，所以此論也有十二門。問：何以得知是這樣呢？答：十二部經只是爲了闡明一個道理，這十二門也只是爲了通達這個道理。因為通達了這個道理，就能認識一切教法。所以應當知道，解釋十二部經，闡明的就是這十二門。第三，眾生輪迴生死有十二因緣。此論也觀察這十二因緣，最終歸於空寂。那麼，十二因緣之河傾覆，佛性之河就滿了。所以只闡明這十二門。問：何以得知此論闡明的是十二因緣之河傾覆，佛性之河滿溢呢？答：《涅槃經》說：『佛性，名為第一義空。』此論觀察因緣，闡明甚深空義。所以說是大分深義，所謂的空啊。如果通達了這個意義，就通達了大乘。這就是良證啊。問：河有幾種？答：略而言之，有兩種。一是十二因緣之河，二是佛性之河。生死深邃廣闊，輪迴流轉，永不停息，能夠漂沒六道眾生，所以名為河。佛性也是如此，深而無底，廣而無邊，五十二位大乘賢聖都在其中，所以名為河。但這兩條河的傾覆和滿溢，凡有四句：一是因緣河滿，佛性河傾；二是佛性河滿，因緣河傾；三是兩河都傾覆；四是兩河都滿溢。妄想如果產生，正觀就滅亡，這就是生死之河滿溢，佛性之河傾覆。正觀如果產生，顛倒就滅亡，這就是生死之河傾覆，佛性之河滿溢。因為針對邪心，所以稱為正觀。邪想如果止息，正觀也不停留，所以兩河都傾覆。爲了眾生，示現生死和方便涅槃，所以兩河都滿溢。這四句之中，第一句是針對所要破除的，其餘的是爲了闡述的。第四，十二是一個數的極限。如《維摩詰經》中天女回答舍利弗（Sariputra）說：『我在此室住了十二年，求于女相，最終不可得。』龍樹（Nagarjuna）也是如此，就十二門來求，生死戲論本來皆空。所以只闡明這十二門。第五，不應該致問。如果問這件事，那麼一切難題都會產生。只應該忘掉手指，去取月亮。難道還要去求詮釋的大小嗎？
【English Translation】 English version It contains twelve categories of scriptures, and this treatise also explains the twelve categories of scriptures, so this treatise also has twelve sections. Question: How do we know this is the case? Answer: The twelve categories of scriptures are only to elucidate one principle, and these twelve sections are only to understand this principle. Because by understanding this principle, one can recognize all teachings. Therefore, it should be known that explaining the twelve categories of scriptures clarifies these twelve sections. Third, sentient beings' cycle of birth and death has twelve conditions (nidanas). This treatise also observes these twelve conditions, ultimately returning to emptiness and tranquility. Then, the river of the twelve conditions is overturned, and the river of Buddha-nature is filled. Therefore, it only elucidates these twelve sections. Question: How do we know that this treatise elucidates the overturning of the river of the twelve conditions and the overflowing of the river of Buddha-nature? Answer: The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Buddha-nature is called the ultimate emptiness.' This treatise observes conditions and elucidates the profound meaning of emptiness. Therefore, it is said to be the profound meaning of the great division, the so-called emptiness. If one understands this meaning, one understands the Mahayana. This is good evidence. Question: How many kinds of rivers are there? Answer: Briefly speaking, there are two kinds. One is the river of the twelve conditions, and the other is the river of Buddha-nature. Birth and death are deep and vast, the cycle of rebirth flows without ceasing, and it can drown sentient beings in the six realms, so it is called a river. Buddha-nature is also like this, deep and bottomless, vast and boundless, and the fifty-two stages of Mahayana sages are all within it, so it is called a river. But the overturning and overflowing of these two rivers have four statements: First, the river of conditions is full, and the river of Buddha-nature is overturned; second, the river of Buddha-nature is full, and the river of conditions is overturned; third, both rivers are overturned; fourth, both rivers are full. If delusional thoughts arise, right view vanishes, this is the river of birth and death overflowing, and the river of Buddha-nature being overturned. If right view arises, delusion vanishes, this is the river of birth and death being overturned, and the river of Buddha-nature being full. Because it is directed at the evil mind, it is called right view. If evil thoughts cease, right view also does not remain, so both rivers are overturned. For the sake of sentient beings, manifesting birth and death and expedient Nirvana, so both rivers are full. Among these four statements, the first statement is directed at what is to be broken, and the rest are for elaboration. Fourth, twelve is the limit of a number. As in the Vimalakirti Sutra, the goddess answered Shariputra (Sariputra) saying: 'I have stayed in this room for twelve years, seeking the form of a woman, but ultimately could not find it.' Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) is also like this, seeking from the twelve sections, the play of birth and death is originally empty. Therefore, it only elucidates these twelve sections. Fifth, one should not ask questions. If one asks about this matter, then all difficulties will arise. One should only forget the finger and take the moon. Should one still seek the size of the interpretation?
次釋門然自有。經為論門論為經門。經為論門者即是經資于論。由稟佛經發生二智。然後造論故經為論門。論為經門者謂論申于經。以稟教生迷邪言覆教。破除邪言佛教申明。故論為經門。問一切諸論悉是經門以不。答有所得大小諸論非但不能通經。翻為翳障。故非經門。四依所作無所得論能通佛經。乃名為門耳。問諸大乘論悉能通經。皆是經門。何故此論偏受門名。答諸大乘論悉明中道而中論受名。今亦然也。雖並通經而以能通受稱。但門具二義。一者開通無滯。二者遮閉眾非。故法華經云。唯有一門而復狹小。一門序其開通狹小明乎遮閉。以九十六術不能出苦。唯有一理可以超累。故云一門。又乘無有五。故稱為一。虛通無礙所以稱門。在家起愛外道著見所不能入故稱狹也。斷常二見有所得菩薩。亦未得遊目之為小。又不容人天機故狹。不受二乘機故小。又言語道斷故名為狹。念想觀除稱之為小。橫絕百非故名為狹。豎超四句目之為小。問今釋十二云何乃引法華。答斯論正解大乘。法華唯明一極。經論符會宜應引之。問為用理為門以教為門。答具含二義。理為門者凡有三義。一至理虛通當體稱門。二理能通生觀智。則境為智門。三理能通教。則體為用門。教稱為門亦具三義。一者無礙之教當體虛通。故名為
門。二教能通理教為理門。三因教發觀。則境為智門。問悟理髮觀云何從教生耶。答慧有三種。聞慧則藉教而生。思修因理而發。是故教理俱發觀。問十二稱門為是理門為是教門。答有人言。用理為門。今謂不然。後文云。當以十二門入于空義。理無十二云何名十二門。又既稱。從十二門入于空義。云何從理更入理耶。又就能化之義從理出教。可以理為教門。今正令所化悟入云何用理為門。今所釋者。以教為門凡有二義。一者教有十二名十二門。二者因教入理。故為理門。問教具幾義能為理門。答略明三義。一者破除迷倒。謂遮閉眾非。二能顯于正理。則開通無滯。三發生觀解。此之三義由事言教。是故稱門。問今言。觀因緣門因緣為是門為非門。因緣若是門。觀有果無果等亦是門。若爾云何破其有果無果。因緣若非門云何論云初是因緣門。答此十二門可具四義。一者所破義。如有果無果等。此是門之遮閉義。二者所申義。謂假名因緣。三者通理義。謂因緣無自性即是寂滅故。以空因緣為因緣空門。故論云。十二入于空義。四者由此空因緣顯于因緣空能通生二智。故因緣名門。問以空因緣為因緣空門者。為空因緣生二智。為因緣空生二智。答由空因緣生實慧方便。悟因緣空生方便實慧。即是二諦發生二智。二智是三世
佛之父母。二諦為祖父母。是故此論明眾聖之根本也。問前云十二種言教為門。今復言因緣為門。為因緣與言教為異不異。答由言教識因緣由因緣通實相。故離因緣無別教。離教無別因緣。亦不得即因緣是教。亦非教即是因緣。但得名因緣教教因緣耳。問今正以何為門。答十二門論師但謂以教為門。今檢論文具以因緣與教為門。但要由因緣教方識教因緣然後悟入實相。是故二種合為門。問此論辨門與凈名入不二法門有何異耶。答理無二轍。但約教不同略有三異。一者此論正以教為門。凈名以理為門。一道清凈故稱不二。真極可軌所以云。法至妙虛通。因之為門。問何以知凈名用理為門。答彼稱入不二法門。蓋是悟入理。故目理為門。問既以理為門何由悟理。答藉不二之教通不二之理。故教為理門。問若爾具以理教為門。云何但言以理為門。答義有傍正如前釋之。品題入不二法門。非是入不二之教。正是入不二之理。故理是正入。而非不由教復教為理門。二者此論總以一極之教用教為理門。則門無階級。彼凈名乃就淺深次第凡有三階。一者諸大士等寄言明不二之理。未辨不二之理無言。所謂淺也。二者文殊明不二之理無言。而由言于無言以為次也。三者凈名鑑不二無言。而能無言于不二以為極也。三者經明因緣二即是不
二。非破二明不二。論具二種。一者破有所得因緣。二者申假名正因緣義。故與經不同。所以然者。佛在世利根聞因緣二。即悟二無二故不須破。末法鈍根學正因緣成邪因緣。要須破邪因緣。方得申正因緣故經論為異。問破邪因緣是門不。答由破邪因緣得申正因緣。故破邪因緣是門家之門也。次明觀義。所言觀者正觀也。是照達之名。略有三義。一者檢有所得邪因緣不可得。故名觀因緣。此是所破義也。二者照達假名正因緣故名觀因緣。此明所申義。三者觀因緣無自性即是實相故名觀。前二義即是實慧方便。后一是方便實慧。故所觀即二諦。能觀名二智。問此應是論因緣。云何名觀因緣耶。答觀辨於心。論宣于口。故稱論為觀。此是吐論主觀心以示於物名觀也。又論主不欲直口言說諸法是空。若口說空者此是口為說空行在有中今觀悟因緣空故言觀因緣耳。又此是正觀審諦了達因緣畢竟空。簡異邪見闡提撥于因果故言觀因緣也。
第三釋論。通而言之。佛及弟子有所作述並得稱經。亦俱名為論。故地持云。佛大小乘經稱為內論。以有所言說皆是論辨法實故皆名論也。又以盡言秤論。佛之所說窮法源底名為真論。付法藏云。提婆菩薩造百偈故。百論文皆稱經本。智度論云。迦旃延子造發智經。外國稱修多羅。此間正
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：二、非破與二明是不二的。論述具備兩種意義：一是破除執著于實有的因緣，二是闡述假名正因緣的意義。因此，它與經文有所不同。原因在於，佛陀在世時，利根之人聽聞因緣之說，就能立即領悟到二與非二的統一，所以不需要破除。末法時代，鈍根之人學習正因緣卻反而形成邪因緣，必須先破除邪因緣，才能闡述正因緣，所以經文和論述有所不同。有人問：『破除邪因緣是入門嗎？』回答說：『通過破除邪因緣才能闡述正因緣，所以破除邪因緣是入門的門。』接下來闡明觀的意義。所說的『觀』，是正觀，是照見通達的意思。大致有三種意義：一是檢查執著于實有的邪因緣是不可得的，所以稱為『觀因緣』，這是所破除的意義。二是照見通達假名正因緣，所以稱為『觀因緣』，這闡明了所要闡述的意義。三是觀因緣沒有自性，即是實相，所以稱為『觀』。前兩種意義是方便的真實智慧，后一種意義是真實智慧的方便。所以，所觀的對象是二諦（Two Truths），能觀的稱為二智（Two Wisdoms）。有人問：『這應該是論述因緣，為什麼稱為觀因緣呢？』回答說：『觀是用心辨別，論是用口宣說。所以稱論為觀，這是論主吐露觀心，用來向人們展示，所以稱為觀。』而且，論主不想直接用口說諸法是空。如果口說空，這是口頭說空，行為卻在有中。現在觀悟因緣是空，所以說觀因緣。而且，這是正觀，審慎諦實地了達因緣畢竟是空，簡別于邪見，闡提（Icchantika，斷善根者）否定因果，所以說觀因緣。 第三，解釋『論』。總的來說，佛陀和弟子們有所著作，都可以稱為『經』，也都可以稱為『論』。所以《地持論》（Bodhisattvabhumi Sutra）說，佛陀的大小乘經都稱為『內論』，因為凡是有所言說，都是論辯法的真實，所以都稱為『論』。而且，用盡言語來衡量論述，佛陀所說的窮盡法源的底蘊，稱為真論。《付法藏》（Transmission of the Dharma Treasury）說，提婆菩薩（Deva Bodhisattva）造了百偈，所以百論都稱為經本。《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）說，迦旃延子（Katyayaniputra）造了《發智經》（Jnanaprasthana Sutra），外國稱為修多羅（Sutra），這裡正...
【English Translation】 English version: Two. Non-destruction and two-illumination are non-dual. The treatise possesses two meanings: first, to refute the causes and conditions of clinging to the real; second, to expound the meaning of provisional name as the correct causes and conditions. Therefore, it differs from the sutras. The reason is that when the Buddha was in the world, people with sharp faculties, upon hearing about causes and conditions, immediately realized the unity of two and non-two, so there was no need for refutation. In the Dharma-ending Age, people with dull faculties learn the correct causes and conditions but instead form incorrect causes and conditions. It is necessary to first refute the incorrect causes and conditions in order to expound the correct causes and conditions, so the sutras and treatises are different. Someone asks: 'Is refuting incorrect causes and conditions an entrance?' The answer is: 'Through refuting incorrect causes and conditions, one can expound the correct causes and conditions, so refuting incorrect causes and conditions is the door to the entrance.' Next, the meaning of 'contemplation' (觀, Guan) is explained. The so-called 'contemplation' is correct contemplation, which means to illuminate and penetrate. Roughly, there are three meanings: first, to examine that the incorrect causes and conditions of clinging to the real are unattainable, so it is called 'contemplating causes and conditions.' This is the meaning of what is to be refuted. Second, to illuminate and penetrate the provisional name as the correct causes and conditions, so it is called 'contemplating causes and conditions.' This clarifies the meaning of what is to be expounded. Third, to contemplate that causes and conditions have no self-nature, which is the suchness (實相, shixiang), so it is called 'contemplation.' The first two meanings are expedient (方便, fangbian) real wisdom, and the last one is real wisdom as expedient. Therefore, what is contemplated are the Two Truths (二諦, Erdi), and what is capable of contemplating is called the Two Wisdoms (二智, Erzhi). Someone asks: 'This should be a treatise on causes and conditions, why is it called contemplating causes and conditions?' The answer is: 'Contemplation is discerning with the mind, and a treatise is proclaiming with the mouth. Therefore, the treatise is called contemplation. This is the treatise master revealing the contemplating mind to show it to people, so it is called contemplation.' Moreover, the treatise master does not want to directly say that all dharmas are empty. If one says emptiness with the mouth, this is verbally speaking of emptiness while acting in existence. Now, contemplating and realizing that causes and conditions are empty, so it is said to be contemplating causes and conditions. Moreover, this is correct contemplation, carefully and truthfully understanding that causes and conditions are ultimately empty, distinguishing it from wrong views, and the Icchantika (闡提, Chanti) denying cause and effect, so it is called contemplating causes and conditions. Third, explaining 'treatise' (論, Lun). Generally speaking, the works of the Buddha and his disciples can be called both 'sutras' (經, Jing) and 'treatises.' Therefore, the Bodhisattvabhumi Sutra (地持論, Dichilun) says that the Buddha's Mahayana and Hinayana sutras are called 'inner treatises,' because whatever is spoken is a discussion of the reality of the Dharma, so they are all called 'treatises.' Moreover, using all words to measure and discuss, what the Buddha said exhausts the source and foundation of the Dharma, and is called a true treatise. The Transmission of the Dharma Treasury (付法藏, Fufazang) says that Deva Bodhisattva (提婆菩薩, Ti Po Pusa) composed a hundred verses, so the hundred treatises are all called sutra texts. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (智度論, Zhidulun) says that Katyayaniputra (迦旃延子, Jiazhanyanzi) composed the Jnanaprasthana Sutra (發智經, Fazhijing), which is called Sutra (修多羅, Xiudoluo) in foreign countries, and here it is correctly...
翻為綖綖能持物物則得成。以教詮理理方得顯。但綖語非便。故用此間至聖所說經字擬之。而有。涌泉顯示出生繩墨及以結鬘。此皆是經之義用非正相翻。今欲示師資不同故師說名經資言稱論。以師所說可則可常能顯至道故稱為經。資之所作但論佛語更無異制。故稱為論。問經論何異。答略明五種。一者佛多隨緣次第。論多隨義詮緒。二佛經散說。論則集之。三佛經廣明。論則略說。四佛經略說。論則廣之。五佛經直說。聞便得解。論則前破邪迷后申釋佛教。問云何名論。答直語秤說。交言曰論。但論有二種。一者盡言二者不盡言。如小乘論等。雖復破邪邪猶未窮。雖復顯正正猶未極。言既有餘不能以盡言釋論。若隨分稱盡者義亦可然。至如方等諸論無邪不窮無正不顯。言既暢盡故以盡言釋論。又小乘之論雖顯至理無言未知言則寂滅。故不得以盡言釋論。大乘之論非但妙顯無言。而即言寂滅。故是盡言為論。具此二種盡言故云盡言釋論。
次第門第二
問門有十二何故初辨因緣。答關中舊釋云。因緣者蓋是萬動之統號造極之所由。所由既彰則虛宗可階。統號既顯則起作易泯。是以作者標為題首演而破之。演而破之非唯斷常斯寂。亦乃教無不通。敢是希宗對教無不兼通。通由此法所以為門。然此釋言巧意深
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『綖綖』（Yányán）能夠持有事物，持有事物就能有所成就。通過教義來解釋真理，真理才能得以彰顯。但是『綖綖』這個詞不方便使用，所以用這個世界至聖者所說的『經』字來比擬它。其中有涌泉顯示、出生繩墨以及結鬘等含義，這些都是『經』的意義和作用，並非直接翻譯。現在想要說明師和弟子之間的不同，所以老師所說的稱為『經』，弟子所說的稱為『論』。因為老師所說可以作為法則和常理，能夠彰顯至高的道理，所以稱為『經』。弟子所作的只是論述佛語，沒有其他的制度，所以稱為『論』。問：『經』和『論』有什麼不同？答：簡略地說有五種不同。一是佛所說大多是隨順因緣次第，論大多是隨順意義來解釋頭緒。二是佛經是分散地講述，論則是將它們集中起來。三是佛經廣泛地闡明，論則簡略地說。四是佛經簡略地說，論則廣泛地闡述。五是佛經直接地說，聽了就能理解，論則是先破除邪見迷惑，然後申明解釋佛教。問：為什麼稱為『論』？答：直接地說，用秤來衡量，互相交流討論就叫做『論』。但是論有兩種，一種是完全表達，一種是不完全表達。比如小乘的論等，即使破除了邪見，邪見仍然沒有窮盡；即使彰顯了正理，正理也沒有達到極致。言語既然還有剩餘，就不能用完全表達的言語來解釋論。如果隨分隨力地稱之為完全，意義上也可以說得過去。至於方等諸論，沒有邪見不能窮盡，沒有正理不能彰顯。言語既然暢達窮盡，所以用完全表達的言語來解釋論。而且小乘的論即使彰顯了至高的道理，沒有言語就不知道言語的寂滅。所以不能用完全表達的言語來解釋論。大乘的論不僅巧妙地彰顯了無言，而且言語本身就是寂滅。所以是完全表達的言語作為論。具備這兩種完全表達，所以說用完全表達來解釋論。 次第門第二 問：門有十二，為什麼最初辨別因緣？答：關中舊釋說，因緣是萬物運動的總綱，是達到極致的途徑。途徑既然彰顯，那麼虛無的宗旨就可以攀登；總綱既然顯現，那麼起心動念就容易泯滅。因此作者將因緣標為題首，演說並破除它。演說並破除它，不僅斷滅了斷常之見，而且教義沒有不通達的。敢於希望宗旨對教義沒有不兼通的。通達由此法，所以作為一門。然而這種解釋言語巧妙，意義深刻。
【English Translation】 English version 『Yányán』 can hold things, and holding things leads to accomplishment. By explaining the truth through teachings, the truth can be revealed. However, the word 『Yányán』 is not convenient to use, so the word 『經』 (Jīng, Sutra) spoken by the most holy one in this world is used to compare it. It includes meanings such as the display of a gushing spring, the birth of a measuring line, and the making of garlands. These are all the meanings and functions of 『經』, not a direct translation. Now, wanting to illustrate the difference between teacher and disciple, what the teacher says is called 『經』, and what the disciple says is called 『論』 (Lùn, Treatise). Because what the teacher says can be used as a rule and constant principle, and can reveal the supreme truth, it is called 『經』. What the disciple makes is only a discussion of the Buddha's words, without other systems, so it is called 『論』. Question: What is the difference between 『經』 and 『論』? Answer: Briefly, there are five differences. First, what the Buddha says mostly follows the order of conditions, while treatises mostly follow the meaning to explain the threads. Second, the Buddha's sutras are scattered in their narration, while treatises gather them together. Third, the Buddha's sutras explain broadly, while treatises explain briefly. Fourth, the Buddha's sutras explain briefly, while treatises explain broadly. Fifth, the Buddha's sutras speak directly, and one can understand upon hearing, while treatises first refute wrong views and delusions, and then explain and interpret Buddhism. Question: Why is it called 『論』? Answer: Speaking directly, using a scale to measure, and exchanging words is called 『論』. But there are two kinds of treatises, one that expresses completely and one that does not. For example, the treatises of the Small Vehicle (Hinayana), even if they refute wrong views, the wrong views are still not exhausted; even if they reveal the right principle, the right principle has not reached its extreme. Since the words still have remainder, one cannot use complete words to explain treatises. If one calls it complete according to one's ability, the meaning can also be justified. As for the Vaipulya treatises, there is no wrong view that cannot be exhausted, and no right principle that cannot be revealed. Since the words are fluent and exhaustive, one uses complete words to explain treatises. Moreover, the treatises of the Small Vehicle, even if they reveal the supreme truth, without words, one does not know the silence of words. Therefore, one cannot use complete words to explain treatises. The treatises of the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) not only subtly reveal the wordless, but the words themselves are silence. Therefore, complete words are used as treatises. Possessing these two kinds of complete expression, it is said that complete expression is used to explain treatises. Chapter Two: The Orderly Sequence Question: There are twelve doors, why is the cause and condition distinguished first? Answer: The old interpretation in Guanzhong says that cause and condition are the general outline of all movements and the path to reaching the extreme. Since the path is revealed, the empty principle can be climbed; since the general outline is revealed, the arising of thoughts is easily extinguished. Therefore, the author marks cause and condition as the title, expounds and refutes it. Expounding and refuting it not only cuts off the views of permanence and annihilation, but also makes the teachings all-encompassing. Daring to hope that the principle is all-encompassing to the teachings. Understanding comes from this Dharma, so it is used as a door. However, this interpretation is skillful in language and profound in meaning.
。難可加也。今更數義以顯成之。一者因緣義總為佛法大宗。迷因緣一切皆迷。悟因緣則無法不悟。是以因緣在十二之初。自後諸門皆從因緣內而離出之。二者從因緣入于實相。其言易顯。是故初明因緣。又因緣具上四義。謂所破義。所申義。通理義。發觀義。破因緣病則無病不破。是破義周。問云何無病不破。答申因緣則破性義。復破因緣則破假義。破性名破世諦病。破因緣名破假病。一切病不出性假。故無病不破也。無教不申者。佛法正是因緣故無教不申。通理髮觀前已明之。如有無等門無所申義。故不在論初也。次觀有果無果門者。前品窮法于緣。緣無生果之能。縱今緣能生果。為先有而生先無而生。為亦有亦無而生。有不須生。無不可生。半有同有。半無同無。以此三關求果無生。因悟實相故以為門。觀緣門者初門窮檢無生。次門縱求不得。惑者復謂。經辨四緣能生萬物不應都空。是故以略廣二關求果無從。故以為門。又初門總明因緣空。次門別檢因不可得。次門別求緣義無蹤。觀相門者對教之徒雖聞。總別求果無蹤。復謂萬像各有相貌。是故今云。有為無為並皆無相。故以為門。觀有相無相門者。前門明無通相。此門辨無別相。故以為門。觀一異門者重開一異撿通別二相無蹤。故以為門。有無門者重就有無
【現代漢語翻譯】 這道理難以再增添了。現在再列舉幾條義理來更清楚地闡明它。第一，因緣（hetupratyaya，事物生起的原因和條件）的意義總括了佛法的大綱。迷惑于因緣，就會對一切都迷惑；領悟了因緣，就沒有什麼不能領悟的。因此，因緣放在十二因緣（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda）之初。自那以後，各種法門都從因緣中分離出來。第二，從因緣進入實相（tattva，事物真實不虛的體性）。這個說法容易明白。所以一開始就闡明因緣。而且，因緣具備了前面所說的四種意義，即所破義、所申義、通理義和發觀義。破除對因緣的執著，就沒有什麼執著不能破除，所以說破義周遍。有人問：『為什麼說沒有執著不能破除呢？』回答說：『闡明因緣就能破除自性（svabhāva，事物自身存在的性質）的執著，再次破除因緣就能破除虛假（saṃvṛti，虛妄不實的表象）的執著。破除自性，叫做破除世俗諦（lokasaṃvṛtisatya，世間人所認識的真理）的病；破除因緣，叫做破除虛假諦的病。一切的病都離不開自性和虛假，所以說沒有執著不能破除。』沒有教義不能闡明，是因為佛法正是因緣，所以沒有教義不能闡明。通達義理和啓發觀行，前面已經說明了。像有無等法門，沒有所要闡明的意義，所以不在論述的開頭。接下來是觀察有果無果的法門。前一品探究法在於因緣，因緣沒有產生結果的能力。縱然現在因緣能夠產生結果，那麼這個果是先有而生，還是先無而生，還是亦有亦無而生呢？如果果本來就有，就不需要生；如果果本來沒有，就不可能生；如果一半有，就和有一樣；如果一半無，就和無一樣。用這三重關卡來探求，果是無生的。因此，領悟實相，所以把它作為法門。觀察因緣的法門，第一個法門徹底探究無生，第二個法門縱然探求也得不到。迷惑的人又說，經典辨析四緣（catvāraḥ pratyayāḥ，四種產生事物的原因和條件）能夠產生萬物，不應該完全是空。因此，用簡略和廣博兩種關卡來探求，果都無從得到，所以把它作為法門。而且，第一個法門總的說明因緣是空，第二個法門分別檢查因不可得，第三個法門分別探求緣的意義沒有軌跡。觀察相的法門，對外教的人雖然聽到總的、分別的探求果沒有軌跡，又說萬象各有相貌，所以現在說，有為法（saṃskṛta，由因緣和合而成的現象）和無為法（asaṃskṛta，不依賴因緣的絕對存在）都無相，所以把它作為法門。觀察有相無相的法門，前一個法門說明沒有共同的相，這個法門辨析沒有個別的相，所以把它作為法門。觀察一異的法門，重新展開一異來檢查共同和個別的兩種相沒有軌跡，所以把它作為法門。有無法門，重新就有無
【English Translation】 This principle is difficult to add to. Now, let's enumerate several more meanings to clarify it further. First, the meaning of 'hetupratyaya' (因緣) (causes and conditions for the arising of things) encompasses the outline of the Buddha-dharma. Being deluded about 'hetupratyaya', one will be deluded about everything; understanding 'hetupratyaya', there is nothing that one cannot understand. Therefore, 'hetupratyaya' is placed at the beginning of the twelve 'dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda' (十二因緣) (links of dependent origination). From then on, various 'dharma' (法) gates are separated from within 'hetupratyaya'. Second, entering 'tattva' (實相) (the true and non-illusory nature of things) from 'hetupratyaya'. This statement is easy to understand. Therefore, 'hetupratyaya' is clarified at the beginning. Moreover, 'hetupratyaya' possesses the four meanings mentioned earlier, namely, the meaning to be refuted, the meaning to be declared, the meaning of universal principle, and the meaning of initiating contemplation. Eliminating attachment to 'hetupratyaya', there is no attachment that cannot be eliminated, so it is said that the meaning of refutation is complete. Someone asks: 'Why is it said that there is no attachment that cannot be eliminated?' The answer is: 'Declaring 'hetupratyaya' can eliminate the attachment to 'svabhāva' (自性) (inherent existence), and again refuting 'hetupratyaya' can eliminate the attachment to 'saṃvṛti' (虛假) (conventional truth). Eliminating 'svabhāva' is called eliminating the disease of 'lokasaṃvṛtisatya' (世俗諦) (conventional truth); eliminating 'hetupratyaya' is called eliminating the disease of 'saṃvṛti'. All diseases cannot be separated from 'svabhāva' and 'saṃvṛti', so it is said that there is no attachment that cannot be eliminated.' There is no teaching that cannot be declared, because the Buddha-dharma is precisely 'hetupratyaya', so there is no teaching that cannot be declared. Understanding the principle and initiating contemplation have been explained earlier. Like the 'dharma' gates of existence and non-existence, there is no meaning to be declared, so it is not at the beginning of the discussion. Next is the 'dharma' gate of observing whether there is a result or no result. The previous chapter explored 'dharma' in 'hetupratyaya', and 'hetupratyaya' does not have the ability to produce a result. Even if 'hetupratyaya' can produce a result now, is this result produced from something that already exists, or from something that does not exist, or from something that both exists and does not exist? If the result already exists, it does not need to be produced; if the result does not exist, it cannot be produced; if it is half existent, it is the same as existent; if it is half non-existent, it is the same as non-existent. Using these three barriers to explore, the result is unproduced. Therefore, understanding 'tattva', it is taken as a 'dharma' gate. The 'dharma' gate of observing 'hetupratyaya', the first 'dharma' gate thoroughly explores non-production, the second 'dharma' gate, even if explored, cannot be obtained. Those who are deluded say again that the scriptures analyze the four 'catvāraḥ pratyayāḥ' (四緣) (conditions) can produce all things, it should not be completely empty. Therefore, using both brief and broad barriers to explore, the result cannot be obtained, so it is taken as a 'dharma' gate. Moreover, the first 'dharma' gate generally explains that 'hetupratyaya' is empty, the second 'dharma' gate separately examines that the cause cannot be obtained, the third 'dharma' gate separately explores that the meaning of condition has no trace. The 'dharma' gate of observing 'lakṣaṇa' (相) (characteristics), although those of external teachings hear that the overall and separate exploration of the result has no trace, they also say that all phenomena have their own appearances, so now it is said that 'saṃskṛta' (有為法) (conditioned phenomena) and 'asaṃskṛta' (無為法) (unconditioned phenomena) are all without 'lakṣaṇa', so it is taken as a 'dharma' gate. The 'dharma' gate of observing 'lakṣaṇa' and non-'lakṣaṇa', the previous 'dharma' gate explains that there is no common 'lakṣaṇa', this 'dharma' gate distinguishes that there is no individual 'lakṣaṇa', so it is taken as a 'dharma' gate. The 'dharma' gate of observing one and different, re-expanding one and different to examine the common and individual two 'lakṣaṇa' have no trace, so it is taken as a 'dharma' gate. The 'dharma' gate of existence and non-existence, re-examining existence and non-existence
求通相無蹤。故以為門。觀性門者萬法有二。一相二性。上求相無蹤。今檢性不得。故以為門。觀因果門者。自上八門破因不能生果。今此一門明無因不能生。故以為門。觀作者門者。自上來九門檢無所作之法。今此一章求人無蹤。故以為門。觀三時門者自上已來求人法無蹤。但破前因後果及因果一時未說前果后因。今明三時都無。故以為門。觀生門者論首以來撿異法之生。今此一門撿即法有生。異之與即生義無蹤。為令菩薩得無生忍。是故最後辨觀生門。此略示一途生起次第。至后當委述之。門雖十二不出三空。初有三門。求有法不得。名為空門。次有六門。求相無蹤。謂無相門。後有三門。求起作無蹤。即無作門。有人疑。不應用二空釋論。蓋是順人背論有此疑心。若諦尋文旨顯在論文。論云。大分深義所謂空也。此空是實相之異名。般若之別稱。又智度論云。涅槃城有三門。謂空無相無作。故游三門入于涅槃。此論從十二門以入于空。空即涅槃。中論云。諸法實相名為涅槃。又般若云。諸法甚深者謂空無相無顛。今欲明甚深義故辨三門。問三空淺深不。答具二義。一無淺深。求一切有不得名為空門。撿萬化相貌無蹤名為無相門。求一切起作不得名無作門。是以十二門一一皆云。一切法空。二約緣淺深。求有不得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 尋求『通相』（普遍存在的表象）而不可得，因此將其作為一扇門徑。所謂『觀性門』，萬法可分為兩種：一是『相』（表象），二是『性』（本質）。前面已經尋求『相』而無所得，現在考察『性』也同樣不可得，因此將其作為一扇門徑。所謂『觀因果門』，前面的八個門徑已經破斥了『因』能生『果』的觀點，而現在這個門徑則闡明了沒有『因』就不能產生『果』，因此將其作為一扇門徑。所謂『觀作者門』，前面的九個門徑已經考察了沒有『所作』之法，而現在這一章則尋求『作者』而不可得，因此將其作為一扇門徑。所謂『觀三時門』，從前面開始尋求『人』和『法』都不可得，只是破斥了『前因後果』以及『因果同時』的觀點，而沒有闡述『前果后因』。現在闡明過去、現在、未來三時都不可得，因此將其作為一扇門徑。所謂『觀生門』，從本論開始就考察了『異法』的生起，而現在這個門徑則考察了『即法』的生起，『異』和『即』的生起之義都不可得。爲了使菩薩獲得『無生忍』（對萬法不生不滅的深刻理解），所以最後辨析『觀生門』。以上簡略地展示了一種生起的次第，後面將會詳細地闡述。這十二個門徑雖然各有不同，但都不超出『三空』（空、無相、無作）。最初的三個門徑，尋求『有法』而不可得，稱為『空門』。其次的六個門徑，尋求『相』而不可得，稱為『無相門』。最後的三個門徑，尋求『起作』而不可得，即『無作門』。有人懷疑，不應該用『二空』（空、無相）來解釋本論。這大概是順從人意而違背論旨才會產生的疑心。如果仔細探尋文義，就會發現本論的旨意明顯在於闡述『空』。本論說：『大分深義所謂空也』，這裡的『空』是『實相』（事物真實面貌）的異名，是『般若』（智慧）的別稱。又《智度論》說：『涅槃城有三門，謂空、無相、無作』，所以通過這三門可以進入涅槃。本論從十二門進入『空』，而『空』就是『涅槃』。《中論》說：『諸法實相名為涅槃』。又《般若經》說：『諸法甚深者謂空無相無顛』，現在想要闡明甚深的意義，所以辨析這三門。問：『三空』有深淺之分嗎？答：具有兩種含義。一是沒有深淺之分。尋求一切『有』而不可得，稱為『空門』；考察萬物的相貌而不可得，稱為『無相門』；尋求一切『起作』而不可得，稱為『無作門』。因此，十二個門徑都說『一切法空』。二是根據所緣境的深淺來區分。尋求『有』而不可得
【English Translation】 English version: Seeking the 'universal characteristic' (通相) (universally existing appearances) and finding it unattainable, it is therefore taken as a gateway. Regarding the 'Gate of Observing Nature' (觀性門), all dharmas have two aspects: first, 'appearance' (相), and second, 'nature' (性). Previously, we sought 'appearance' without success; now, examining 'nature,' we also find it unattainable, hence it is taken as a gateway. Regarding the 'Gate of Observing Cause and Effect' (觀因果門), the preceding eight gateways refuted the view that 'cause' can produce 'effect.' This gateway now clarifies that without 'cause,' 'effect' cannot arise, hence it is taken as a gateway. Regarding the 'Gate of Observing the Agent' (觀作者門), the preceding nine gateways examined that there is no dharma that is 'made.' This chapter now seeks the 'agent' and finds no trace, hence it is taken as a gateway. Regarding the 'Gate of Observing the Three Times' (觀三時門), from the beginning, seeking 'person' and 'dharma,' we found no trace, only refuting 'prior cause and subsequent effect' and 'cause and effect simultaneous,' without discussing 'prior effect and subsequent cause.' Now, it clarifies that all three times—past, present, and future—are unattainable, hence it is taken as a gateway. Regarding the 'Gate of Observing Arising' (觀生門), from the beginning of the treatise, we examined the arising of 'different dharmas' (異法). This gateway now examines the arising of 'identical dharmas' (即法). The meaning of arising, whether 'different' or 'identical,' is untraceable. To enable Bodhisattvas to attain 'non-arising forbearance' (無生忍) (profound understanding of the non-arising and non-ceasing of all dharmas), the 'Gate of Observing Arising' is analyzed last. The above briefly demonstrates a sequence of arising; it will be elaborated upon in detail later. Although the twelve gateways differ, they do not go beyond the 'Three Emptinesses' (三空) (emptiness, signlessness, and non-action). The first three gateways, seeking 'existing dharmas' and finding them unattainable, are called the 'Gate of Emptiness' (空門). The next six gateways, seeking 'characteristics' and finding no trace, are called the 'Gate of Signlessness' (無相門). The last three gateways, seeking 'arising and action' and finding no trace, are the 'Gate of Non-action' (無作門). Some may doubt that the 'Two Emptinesses' (二空) (emptiness and signlessness) should not be used to explain this treatise. This doubt probably arises from conforming to people's opinions and contradicting the treatise's intent. If one carefully examines the text, the treatise's intention is clearly to elucidate 'emptiness.' The treatise states: 'The great division of profound meaning is called emptiness' (大分深義所謂空也). This 'emptiness' is a different name for 'true reality' (實相) (the true face of things), and another term for 'prajna' (般若) (wisdom). Furthermore, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (智度論) states: 'The city of Nirvana has three gates, namely emptiness, signlessness, and non-action' (涅槃城有三門，謂空無相無作). Therefore, one can enter Nirvana through these three gates. This treatise enters 'emptiness' from the twelve gates, and 'emptiness' is 'Nirvana.' The Mulamadhyamakakarika (中論) states: 'The true reality of all dharmas is called Nirvana' (諸法實相名為涅槃). Furthermore, the Prajnaparamita Sutra (般若經) states: 'The profound aspects of all dharmas are emptiness, signlessness, and non-reversal' (諸法甚深者謂空無相無顛). Now, wanting to clarify the profound meaning, these three gates are analyzed. Question: Are there shallow and deep aspects to the 'Three Emptinesses'? Answer: It has two meanings. First, there are no shallow or deep aspects. Seeking all 'existence' and finding it unattainable is called the 'Gate of Emptiness'; examining the appearances of all things and finding no trace is called the 'Gate of Signlessness'; seeking all 'arising and action' and finding it unattainable is called the 'Gate of Non-action.' Therefore, all twelve gateways state 'all dharmas are empty' (一切法空). Second, it is distinguished according to the depth of the object of focus. Seeking 'existence' and finding it unattainable
名為空門。或者乃不執有遂取空相。次求空相無蹤。名無相門。空門除有無相破無。此二泯竟猶有作意則觀猶未泯。故次泯于觀。則外內並[穴/俱]。緣觀俱寂。義乃圓備。
根本門第三
問萬行為因乘。眾德為果乘。此論但明空義。云何釋大乘耶。答此論明於乘本。乘本若成乘義則立。言乘本者所謂諸法實相。契斯實相則發生般若。由般若故導成萬行。皆無所得能動能出。故名為乘。又今明實相則具萬德。對虛妄故名之為實。用之為身目為法身。諸佛以此為性稱為佛性。遠離二邊名為中道。照無不凈目為般若。累無不寂稱為涅槃。故但明實相即萬義皆圓。問云何悟此實相。答以十二種門通於實相。令諸眾生從一一門得悟實相。又乘有三種。一乘因。二乘緣。三乘果。乘因者所謂實相。乘緣者即是萬行。乘果者謂如來法身。問何故但明此三。答由實相故萬行成。萬行成故果德立。要須辨三。問何處有此三文。答攝大乘論明。乘有三。一者性乘謂真如。二隨乘即萬行。三得乘謂佛果。此三猶一體。但約時故分三。即是三種佛性義。性乘謂自性住佛性。隨乘謂引出佛性。修于萬行引出因中佛性。三果乘則果德佛性。此三佛性釋涅槃經甚精。是故涅槃經。或時明佛性是果。或時明是因。或明佛性是空。此論正
【現代漢語翻譯】 名為空門（sunyata-dvāra）。或者有人不執著于『有』，於是就執著于『空』的表相。進一步追求『空』的表相，卻發現無跡可尋，這被稱為無相門（animitta-dvāra）。空門去除對『有』的執著，無相門破除對『無』的執著。如果這二者都已泯滅，但心中仍存有『觀』的念頭，那麼這種泯滅還不徹底。因此，下一步就是要泯滅『觀』。這樣，外在和內在都歸於寂靜，對實相的理解才算圓滿。
根本門 第三
問：萬行是因乘，眾德是果乘，此論只闡明『空』的意義，如何解釋大乘（Mahāyāna）呢？ 答：此論闡明的是大乘的根本。如果大乘的根本確立，那麼大乘的意義也就成立了。所謂大乘的根本，就是諸法實相（tattva）。契合這個實相，就能生起般若（prajñā）。由於般若的引導，才能成就萬行，並且不執著于任何所得，從而能夠發起行動，脫離輪迴，所以稱為『乘』。而且，現在闡明實相，就具備了萬德。相對於虛妄，所以稱為『實』。以實相為身，稱為法身（Dharmakāya）。諸佛以實相為本性，稱為佛性（Buddha-dhātu）。遠離有和無兩邊，稱為中道（madhyamā-pratipad）。照亮一切不凈，稱為般若。消除一切煩惱，稱為涅槃（nirvāṇa）。所以，只要闡明實相，萬種意義就都圓滿了。 問：如何才能領悟這個實相呢？ 答：可以通過十二種門（dvāra）來通達實相，使眾生從任何一個門都能領悟實相。而且，乘有三種：一是乘因，二是乘緣，三是乘果。乘因就是實相，乘緣就是萬行，乘果就是如來法身。 問：為什麼只闡明這三種呢？ 答：由於實相，才能成就萬行；萬行成就，才能確立果德。所以必須辨明這三種。 問：哪裡有關於這三種的論述呢？ 答：《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）闡明，乘有三種：一是性乘，即真如（tathatā）；二是隨乘，即萬行；三是得乘，即佛果。這三種就像一體，只是根據時間的不同而分為三種，也就是三種佛性的意義。性乘是指自性住佛性，隨乘是指引出佛性，通過修行萬行來引出因中的佛性。三果乘則是果德佛性。對這三種佛性的解釋，《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）非常精闢。因此，《涅槃經》有時闡明佛性是果，有時闡明佛性是因，有時闡明佛性是空。此論正是
【English Translation】 It is called the 'emptiness gate' (sunyata-dvāra). Or, one may not cling to 'existence' and then cling to the appearance of 'emptiness'. Further seeking the appearance of 'emptiness', one finds no trace, which is called the 'signlessness gate' (animitta-dvāra). The emptiness gate removes attachment to 'existence', and the signlessness gate breaks attachment to 'non-existence'. If these two are extinguished, but the mind still retains the thought of 'contemplation', then this extinction is not thorough. Therefore, the next step is to extinguish 'contemplation'. In this way, both the external and internal become tranquil, and the understanding of reality is complete.
Chapter 3: The Fundamental Gate
Question: The myriad practices are the cause vehicle, and the multitude of virtues are the result vehicle. This treatise only clarifies the meaning of 'emptiness'. How does it explain the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle)? Answer: This treatise clarifies the root of the Mahāyāna. If the root of the Mahāyāna is established, then the meaning of the Mahāyāna is also established. The root of the Mahāyāna is the true nature of all dharmas (tattva). To be in accordance with this true nature is to generate prajñā (wisdom). Because of prajñā, the myriad practices are guided to completion, and without attachment to any attainment, one can initiate action and escape from samsara, therefore it is called a 'vehicle'. Moreover, now clarifying the true nature, one possesses all virtues. Relative to delusion, it is called 'true'. Using it as the body, it is called the Dharmakāya (Dharma Body). The Buddhas take this as their nature, calling it Buddha-dhātu (Buddha-nature). Being apart from the two extremes of existence and non-existence, it is called the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad). Illuminating all that is impure, it is called prajñā. Eliminating all afflictions, it is called nirvāṇa (liberation). Therefore, as long as the true nature is clarified, all meanings are complete. Question: How can one realize this true nature? Answer: One can pass through the twelve gates (dvāra) to reach the true nature, enabling sentient beings to realize the true nature from any one of the gates. Moreover, there are three types of vehicle: the cause vehicle, the condition vehicle, and the result vehicle. The cause vehicle is the true nature, the condition vehicle is the myriad practices, and the result vehicle is the Tathāgata's Dharmakāya. Question: Why are only these three clarified? Answer: Because of the true nature, the myriad practices are accomplished; when the myriad practices are accomplished, the virtues of the result are established. Therefore, these three must be distinguished. Question: Where is there a discussion of these three? Answer: The Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Mahāyāna) clarifies that there are three types of vehicle: the nature vehicle, which is tathatā (suchness); the accompanying vehicle, which is the myriad practices; and the attainment vehicle, which is the fruit of Buddhahood. These three are like one body, but are divided into three according to time, which is the meaning of the three Buddha-natures. The nature vehicle refers to the inherent Buddha-nature, the accompanying vehicle refers to the Buddha-nature that is brought forth, and the Buddha-nature in the cause is brought forth through the practice of the myriad practices. The three result vehicle is the Buddha-nature of the fruit virtue. The Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) explains these three Buddha-natures very thoroughly. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra sometimes clarifies that Buddha-nature is the result, sometimes clarifies that Buddha-nature is the cause, and sometimes clarifies that Buddha-nature is emptiness. This treatise is precisely
釋于空。則是釋根本佛性。故涅槃云。佛性者名為一乘。今既釋一乘即釋佛性。問三論但明空義。正可釋于大品。云何解佛性一乘。答三論通申大小二教。則大乘之義悉在其中。豈不明一乘佛性。問何處有明一乘佛性文耶。答中論四諦品云。世尊知是法甚深微妙相非鈍根所及。是故不欲說。此即法華之文。法華還序初成道時華嚴之事。明知華嚴法華顯在中論之內。又偈云。雖復勤精進修行菩提道。若先非佛性終不得成佛。長行釋云。如鐵無金性。雖復鍛鍊終不得成金。即佛性文也。觀如來品明法身絕四句超百非。與涅槃經金剛身品更無有異。即法身文也。
有無門第四
龍樹自有三論。初造無畏論。十萬偈。次從無畏論撰其要義。五百偈。名為中論。十二門有二釋。一云同中論。從無畏出。二云就中論內擇其精玄為十二門。所以有此三部者。一者示說法有其三門。一廣說。二略說。三不廣不略處中說。二者眾生根性有上中下。是故說法有廣略中。三者廣略從情豐約異。悟不必廣配上根略據下品。問何以知此三部有前後耶。答龍樹傳及付法藏經並云。無畏十萬偈中論十二出在其中。十二既指如中論說。則知在中論后也。問此二十六偈與中論云何同異。答初門二偈。前偈中論所說。似因緣品釋八不第二偈。次
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 解釋『空』，就是解釋根本佛性。所以《涅槃經》說：『佛性名為一乘。』現在既然解釋一乘，就是解釋佛性。問：三論只闡明『空』的意義，只能解釋《大品般若經》，如何解釋佛性一乘呢？答：三論貫通大小乘二教，所以大乘的意義都在其中，難道不闡明一乘佛性嗎？問：哪裡有闡明一乘佛性的經文呢？答：《中論·四諦品》說：『世尊知道這個法甚深微妙，不是遲鈍的根效能理解的，所以不想說。』這就是《法華經》的經文。《法華經》還敘述了最初成道時《華嚴經》的事蹟。明顯知道《華嚴經》和《法華經》都隱含在《中論》之內。又有偈頌說：『即使勤奮精進地修行菩提道，如果先前沒有佛性，最終也不能成佛。』長行解釋說：『如同鐵沒有金的性質，即使鍛鍊，最終也不能成為金。』這就是佛性的經文。《觀如來品》闡明法身超越四句，超出百非，與《涅槃經·金剛身品》沒有差別，這就是法身的經文。
有無門 第四
龍樹（Nāgārjuna）菩薩自己有三論。最初造《無畏論》，十萬偈。其次從《無畏論》中摘取其要義，五百偈，名為《中論》。十二門有兩種解釋：一種說法是與《中論》相同，從《無畏論》中產生；另一種說法是在《中論》內選擇其精妙玄奧之處作為十二門。之所以有這三部論著，一是表明說法有三種方式：一是廣說，二是略說，三是不廣不略，處於中間狀態；二是眾生的根性有上、中、下三種，所以說法有廣、略、中三種；三是廣略隨順眾生的意願而有豐儉的差異，領悟不一定需要廣說，適合上等根器，略說適合下等根器。問：憑什麼知道這三部論著有先後順序呢？答：《龍樹傳》和《付法藏經》都說，《無畏論》十萬偈，《中論》十二門都出自其中。十二門既然指如同《中論》所說，就知道在《中論》之後。問：這二十六偈與《中論》有什麼相同和不同呢？答：初門二偈，前偈是《中論》所說，類似因緣品解釋八不，第二偈。
【English Translation】 English version To explain 『emptiness』 is to explain the fundamental Buddha-nature. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 『Buddha-nature is called the One Vehicle (Ekayana).』 Now that we are explaining the One Vehicle, we are explaining Buddha-nature. Question: The Three Treatises only clarify the meaning of 『emptiness』 and can only explain the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. How can they explain Buddha-nature and the One Vehicle? Answer: The Three Treatises connect both the Small and Great Vehicles, so the meaning of the Great Vehicle is all within them. How can they not clarify the One Vehicle and Buddha-nature? Question: Where is there scripture that clarifies the One Vehicle and Buddha-nature? Answer: The Middle Treatise, in the chapter on the Four Noble Truths, says: 『The World-Honored One knows that this Dharma is very profound and subtle, not accessible to dull faculties, therefore he does not wish to speak of it.』 This is the text of the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra also narrates the events of the Avatamsaka Sutra at the time of the initial enlightenment. It is clear that the Avatamsaka Sutra and the Lotus Sutra are implied within the Middle Treatise. Furthermore, there is a verse that says: 『Even if one diligently cultivates the Bodhi path, if one did not previously have Buddha-nature, one will ultimately not be able to become a Buddha.』 The long commentary explains: 『Like iron without the nature of gold, even if it is forged, it will ultimately not become gold.』 This is the text on Buddha-nature. The chapter on Contemplating the Tathagata clarifies that the Dharmakaya transcends the four propositions and exceeds the hundred negations, and is no different from the Vajra Body chapter of the Nirvana Sutra. This is the text on the Dharmakaya.
The Gate of Existence and Non-existence, Fourth
Nāgārjuna himself has three treatises. He first composed the Treatise on Fearlessness, with 100,000 verses. Then, from the Treatise on Fearlessness, he extracted its essential meaning, 500 verses, called the Middle Treatise. There are two explanations for the Twelve Gates: one says that they are the same as the Middle Treatise, coming from the Treatise on Fearlessness; the other says that within the Middle Treatise, its refined and profound points are selected as the Twelve Gates. The reason for having these three treatises is, firstly, to show that there are three ways of teaching: one is extensive teaching, the second is concise teaching, and the third is neither extensive nor concise, but in the middle state; secondly, the faculties of sentient beings are of three types: superior, medium, and inferior, so the teaching is of three types: extensive, concise, and medium; thirdly, the extensiveness and conciseness vary according to the wishes of sentient beings, and understanding does not necessarily require extensive teaching, which is suitable for superior faculties, while concise teaching is suitable for inferior faculties. Question: How do we know that these three treatises have a sequential order? Answer: The Biography of Nāgārjuna and the Scripture of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury both say that the 100,000 verses of the Treatise on Fearlessness and the Twelve Gates of the Middle Treatise come from within it. Since the Twelve Gates are referred to as being like what is said in the Middle Treatise, we know that they are after the Middle Treatise. Question: How are these twenty-six verses the same and different from the Middle Treatise? Answer: The first two verses of the first gate, the former verse is what is said in the Middle Treatise, similar to the chapter on Conditions explaining the Eight No's, the second verse.
偈引七十論偈。第二門一偈。同中論別破四緣初偈。第三門三偈。初是結破四緣偈。次是立四緣偈。后舉非緣決破四緣偈。第四門十一偈。初偈中論所無。餘十偈全同三相品。第五門一偈。同六種品第三一偈。第六門一偈。第七門一偈。中論無。意同三相品聚散門破。第八門一偈。同中論行品第二偈。第九門一偈。中論無。意同釋八不初偈。第十門二偈。初同破苦品初偈。次偈同因緣品釋八不第二偈。第十一門一偈。中論無。采中論因果品十家中破三家意作之。第十二門一偈。同中論三相品三時門破。今總以三類明之。一者全用中論。二者引七十論。三二論所無。或同無畏論。
同異門第五
此論與中論同顯正道。俱息戲論至理不殊。就其文義略明十異。一者名有理教之異。二宗有二諦境智不同。三中論䨥申大小。十二但顯大乘。此三玄義內以具論之。四申破有傍正異。中論正破傍申。此論正申傍破。所以然者。中論初牒八不。即云略說八事總破一切法。故知以破為正。此論命初云略解摩訶衍義。不稱為破故以申義為正。五辭有愛見之異。愛見者此是綱柔之名。比論觀行因循。文旨宛約名為愛論。中論多杭拆內外。彈謝大小稱為見論。故名愛見論異。六品有觀破異。中論多題破名。十二但稱為觀。關中亦
云。中論祛內以流滯十二門觀之精詣。所以有觀破不同者。一同上愛見。二者中論正破傍申。此論正申傍破。故有觀破不同也。七偈有合離異。中論合是因緣一品。此論離為三門。八文有廣略異。九出有前後異。此二如前釋之。十有長行無長行異。
問云何正申傍破正破傍申。答不言此論正意申而傍破。亦不言中論正意破而傍申。但此論申于佛教邪執自破。中論若破邪執而佛教自申耳。
問此論長行誰之所作。答中論長行青目所作。百論長行天親所制。有人言。十二門論偈是龍樹所造。長行還是青目所注。而偈又有青目所引如初門。七十論偈第三門二偈。作者門一偈令四偈。是後人所引。又釋。偈及長行皆龍樹自作。略引三證。一者中論五百偈其文既廣。故有後人所注。百論亦然。此論止有二十六偈不成卷軸。又似中論。宜自釋之。二者青目注中論云。龍樹菩薩為是等故造此中論。而十二云。我愍此等欲令開悟。又云。是故我今解釋空。既稱為我。則知是龍樹自言。百論則修妒路別之。故知則子本為異。而此論不爾。故知是龍樹自作。三者龍樹作論示有多體。作中論既純是偈。作十二門長行間之。今明。此事難知。若必有明證云。長行是後人所作者不敢違之。
此論文裁一卷義有三章。初總序造論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：關於《十二門論》，其中以破除內在執著的流弊為目的的十二門觀察非常精妙。之所以有觀察和破斥的不同，原因在於：一是都針對上等愛見（對自我的執著和錯誤的見解）；二是《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）主要破斥邪見，同時闡明正見，而此論（《十二門論》）主要闡明正見，同時破斥邪見，因此有觀察和破斥的不同。七偈（七首偈頌）有合離的差異，《中論》將因緣合併爲一品，此論將其分為三門。八文有廣略的差異。九是出處有前後順序的差異，這兩種差異如前文解釋。十是有長行（散文註釋）和無長行的差異。
問：什麼是主要闡明，同時輔助破斥？什麼是主要破斥，同時輔助闡明？答：不能說此論的主要意圖是闡明而輔助破斥，也不能說《中論》的主要意圖是破斥而輔助闡明。但此論闡明佛教，邪執自然被破除；《中論》破除邪執，佛教的道理自然得到闡明。
問：此論的長行是誰寫的？答：《中論》的長行是青目（Pingala）所作，《百論》（Sata-sastra）的長行是天親（Vasubandhu）所制。有人說，《十二門論》的偈頌是龍樹（Nagarjuna）所造，長行還是青目所注。而且偈頌中又有青目所引用的內容，如初門，七十論偈第三門的兩首偈頌，作者門的一首偈頌，總共四首偈頌，是後人所引。另一種解釋是，偈頌和長行都是龍樹自己所作，略舉三個證據：一是《中論》五百偈，其文既廣，所以有後人所注。《百論》也是如此。此論只有二十六偈，不成卷軸，又類似《中論》，適宜自己解釋。二是青目注《中論》說：『龍樹菩薩爲了這些人而造此《中論》』。而《十二門論》說：『我憐憫這些人，想讓他們開悟』，又說：『因此我今天解釋空』。既然稱為『我』，就知道是龍樹自己說的。《百論》則修妒路（sutra）不同，因此知道根本不同。而此論不是這樣，所以知道是龍樹自己所作。三是龍樹作論顯示有多種體裁，作《中論》純粹是偈頌，作《十二門論》則長行和偈頌相間。現在說明，這件事很難知道。如果一定有明確的證據說長行是後人所作，我也不敢違背。
此論文裁一卷，義有三章。初總序造論
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the Twelve Gates Treatise (Dvadasanikaya-sastra), the twelve gates of observation, aimed at eliminating the malpractices of internal attachments, are extremely profound. The reason for the difference between observation and refutation lies in: first, both target the superior love-views (attachment to self and wrong views); second, the Middle Treatise (Madhyamaka-karika) mainly refutes wrong views while elucidating right views, while this treatise (the Twelve Gates Treatise) mainly elucidates right views while refuting wrong views, hence the difference between observation and refutation. The seven gathas (verses) have differences in combination and separation; the Middle Treatise combines the conditions into one chapter, while this treatise divides them into three gates. The eight texts have differences in breadth. Ninth, the sources have differences in chronological order, these two differences are as explained earlier. Tenth, there is a difference between having a prose commentary (long lines) and not having one.
Question: What is mainly elucidating while secondarily refuting? What is mainly refuting while secondarily elucidating? Answer: It cannot be said that the main intention of this treatise is to elucidate while secondarily refuting, nor can it be said that the main intention of the Middle Treatise is to refute while secondarily elucidating. However, this treatise elucidates Buddhism, and wrong views are naturally refuted; the Middle Treatise refutes wrong views, and the principles of Buddhism are naturally elucidated.
Question: Who wrote the prose commentary of this treatise? Answer: The prose commentary of the Middle Treatise was written by Pingala (Qingmu), and the prose commentary of the Hundred Treatise (Sata-sastra) was written by Vasubandhu (Tianqin). Some say that the verses of the Twelve Gates Treatise were composed by Nagarjuna (Longshu), and the prose commentary was still annotated by Pingala. Moreover, there are contents in the verses quoted by Pingala, such as the first gate, two verses in the third gate of the Seventy Verses Treatise, and one verse in the author's gate, a total of four verses, which were quoted by later people. Another explanation is that both the verses and the prose commentary were written by Nagarjuna himself, citing three pieces of evidence: first, the Middle Treatise has five hundred verses, and its text is broad, so it has annotations by later people. The Hundred Treatise is also like this. This treatise only has twenty-six verses, not forming a scroll, and is similar to the Middle Treatise, so it is suitable to explain it yourself. Second, Pingala's commentary on the Middle Treatise says: 'Nagarjuna Bodhisattva created this Middle Treatise for these people'. And the Twelve Gates Treatise says: 'I pity these people and want to enlighten them', and also says: 'Therefore, I am explaining emptiness today'. Since it is called 'I', it is known that Nagarjuna himself said it. The Hundred Treatise has different sutras, so it is known that the fundamentals are different. And this treatise is not like this, so it is known that Nagarjuna himself made it. Third, Nagarjuna's treatises show that there are multiple styles. The Middle Treatise is purely verses, and the Twelve Gates Treatise alternates between prose commentary and verses. Now it is clear that this matter is difficult to know. If there is definite evidence that the prose commentary was written by later people, I would not dare to disobey it.
This treatise has one volume, and the meaning has three chapters. The first is a general introduction to the creation of the treatise.
意。次別明十二門以為論體。三總結論之旨歸。就初有五。一標略解大乘。二明造論利益。三釋得造論意。四正明造論解于大乘。五結所釋旨歸。初有五句。一標說曰。二明當說。三辨略解。四辨能解。五序所解。說曰者發論不同。中論初標八不序其所論。百論首敬三寶欲明請護。此論直標說曰。蓋是製作不同。適時而用。又標說曰者交言曰論直語名說。今簡異。文言故言說曰。所以直說者龍樹出世。其猶如佛。示無人敢問。故自標說曰。又示所解大乘甚深無人能問。故自標說曰。又示要略簡除外問故標說曰。今當者第二句明許說也。說之在後。今略標許義。故稱今當。略者第三明其略義。一對無畏之廣故以斯論為略。二對中論之廣故以今文為略。又無畏之廣正觀處中。今是略說。又于大乘有二分。一者有分。二者空分。今略釋空不釋于有。故名為略。又示大乘甚深作者謙讓。故稱為略。如金剛藏說十地義十地甚深。今但略說。又欲示廣雖八萬。所詮者一道今但論道。故稱為略。又示略能攝廣顯廣略無二。故稱為略。又示像末鈍根不堪多聞。是故略說。如智度論云。昆勒三百二十萬言。後世人意淺力小壽命短促。諸得道人略撰為三十二萬言。解者第四次明解也。智度論釋無作品。明十門說般若。謂解釋開示分別法句淺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 意。[指《十二門論》]接下來分別闡明十二門作為論的主體。三總結論的宗旨歸宿。就最初的部分有五個方面：一、標明簡略解釋大乘；二、闡明造論的利益；三、解釋獲得造論的意義；四、正式闡明造論是爲了解釋大乘；五、總結所解釋的宗旨歸宿。最初的部分有五句話：一、標明『說曰』；二、闡明將要說的內容；三、辨別簡略的解釋；四、辨別能夠解釋的人；五、敘述所要解釋的內容。 『說曰』是指發起論的方式不同。《中論》最初標明『八不』，敘述它所要論述的內容。《百論》開頭敬禮三寶，想要表明請求護持。這部論直接標明『說曰』，大概是製作方式不同，適應時宜而用。而且標明『說曰』，『交言』稱為『論』，直白的話語稱為『說』，現在爲了區分不同，因為是文言文，所以說『說曰』。之所以直接說，是因為龍樹（Nagarjuna）出世，他就像佛一樣，顯示沒有人敢於提問，所以自己標明『說曰』。又顯示所解釋的大乘非常深奧，沒有人能夠提問，所以自己標明『說曰』。又顯示要簡略地去除外道的提問，所以標明『說曰』。 『今當』是第二句，闡明允許說的意思。『說』在後面，現在簡略地標明允許的意義，所以稱為『今當』。『略』是第三句，闡明它的簡略意義。一是相對於無畏（Abhaya）的廣博，所以用這部論作為簡略。二是相對於《中論》的廣博，所以用現在的文章作為簡略。而且無畏的廣博在於正觀處中，現在是簡略的說法。而且對於大乘有兩部分，一是『有』的部分，二是『空』的部分，現在簡略地解釋『空』，不解釋『有』，所以稱為『略』。又顯示大乘非常深奧，作者謙讓，所以稱為『略』。如《金剛藏》（Vajragarbha）所說十地（Bhumi）的意義，十地非常深奧，現在只是簡略地說。 又想要顯示廣博，即使有八萬頌，所要詮釋的只是一道，現在只是論述道，所以稱為『略』。又顯示簡略能夠攝取廣博，顯示廣博和簡略沒有二致，所以稱為『略』。又顯示末法時代的遲鈍根器，不能夠承受多聞，所以簡略地說。如《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）所說，昆勒有三百萬三十二萬字，後世的人理解力淺薄，能力弱小，壽命短促，諸位得道的人簡略地撰寫為三十二萬字。『解者』是第四次闡明解釋。智度論解釋無作品，闡明十門來說般若（Prajna），所謂解釋、開示、分別法句，淺
【English Translation】 English version Intention. Next, separately clarify the twelve gates as the main body of the treatise. Three, summarize the purpose and destination of the treatise. The initial part has five aspects: 1. Indicate a brief explanation of Mahayana (Great Vehicle); 2. Explain the benefits of creating the treatise; 3. Explain the meaning of obtaining the creation of the treatise; 4. Formally clarify that the creation of the treatise is to explain Mahayana; 5. Summarize the purpose and destination of what is explained. The initial part has five sentences: 1. Indicate 'Saying'; 2. Clarify what is to be said; 3. Distinguish the brief explanation; 4. Distinguish the person who can explain; 5. Narrate what is to be explained. 'Saying' refers to the different ways of initiating a treatise. The Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) initially indicates 'eight no's', narrating what it will discuss. The Sata-sastra (Hundred Treatise) begins with reverence to the Three Jewels, wanting to indicate requesting protection. This treatise directly indicates 'Saying', probably because the methods of production are different, adapting to the times. Moreover, indicating 'Saying', 'interacted words' are called 'treatise', straightforward words are called 'saying', now to distinguish the difference, because it is in classical Chinese, so it is called 'Saying'. The reason for saying it directly is because Nagarjuna (Dragon Tree) appeared in the world, he is like the Buddha, showing that no one dares to ask, so he himself indicates 'Saying'. Also showing that the Mahayana explained is very profound, no one can ask, so he himself indicates 'Saying'. Also showing that it is necessary to briefly remove the questions of external paths, so he indicates 'Saying'. 'Now should' is the second sentence, clarifying the meaning of allowing to speak. 'Saying' is later, now briefly indicating the meaning of allowing, so it is called 'Now should'. 'Brief' is the third sentence, clarifying its meaning of brevity. One is relative to the vastness of Abhaya (Fearless), so this treatise is used as brief. Two is relative to the vastness of the Madhyamaka-karika, so the current text is used as brief. Moreover, Abhaya's vastness lies in the correct view of the middle, now it is a brief statement. Moreover, for Mahayana there are two parts, one is the part of 'existence', and the other is the part of 'emptiness', now briefly explaining 'emptiness', not explaining 'existence', so it is called 'brief'. Also showing that Mahayana is very profound, the author is humble, so it is called 'brief'. As the Vajragarbha (Diamond Womb) says about the meaning of the ten Bhumi (grounds), the ten Bhumi are very profound, now it is only briefly said. Also wanting to show vastness, even if there are eighty thousand verses, what is to be interpreted is only one path, now it is only discussing the path, so it is called 'brief'. Also showing that brevity can capture vastness, showing that vastness and brevity are not different, so it is called 'brief'. Also showing that the dull roots of the degenerate age cannot bear much hearing, so it is briefly said. As the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Wisdom Sutra) says, Kunle has three million three hundred and twenty thousand words, people in later generations have shallow understanding, weak ability, and short lifespan, the enlightened ones briefly wrote it as three hundred and twenty thousand words. 'Explainer' is the fourth time to clarify the explanation. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra explains no works, clarifying the ten gates to speak of Prajna (wisdom), so-called explanation, revelation, distinguishing Dharma phrases, shallow
易等。龍樹具用十門以釋大乘。今略標一解。所言解者。破一切迷申釋佛教。故稱為解。摩訶衍者第五標所解。標所解者一簡異小乘論。如成實云。我欲正論三藏中實義。此但釋小乘。今簡異之故標大乘也。二簡通申大小乘論。今論獨申大乘。故偏標之也。問中論何故不標解大乘。答八不即是大乘。故不須標大。又中論正申于大傍申于小。此論但申大乘不兼申小。故獨標大也。又中論初明能所義。此論初明所能義。能所者八不是所申。故名能所義。今明所能者略解之言此是能申之論。摩訶衍謂所申之經。又中論初標八不。是經資于論。今前明略解。謂論申于經也。又一切論有四。一者前深后淺。即中論。初明大乘為深。后辨小教為淺。此明十方三世諸佛出世意有傍正。正為大乘故興。傍為小緣故出。中論申此意也。二者前淺后深。即百論。前明舍罪后明舍福。前明生空后明法空。此示三世佛出世令物修行。自淺至深百論申此意也。三者始終俱深。即十二門。此示三世佛為諸菩薩顯說甚深之法。十二門申此意也。四初后俱淺。如小乘之論也。又釋大乘者三世佛出世意。本為一大事因緣事不獲已。故說小。說小終為明大。今欲申三世佛本意故偏釋大。又大是真實小是方便。大是根本小是枝末。得本實即得未權。故偏釋大。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：易等。（指其他論著）。龍樹（Nāgārjuna，佛教哲學家）全面運用十門來解釋大乘（Mahāyāna，佛教宗派）。現在簡略地標出一種解釋。所說的『解』，是破除一切迷惑，闡釋佛教的教義，所以稱為『解』。『摩訶衍』（Mahāyāna）是第五個標示所要解釋的內容。標示所要解釋的內容，一是區分于小乘論（Hināyāna，佛教宗派）。如《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi-śāstra）說：『我想要正確地論述三藏（Tripiṭaka，佛教經典）中的真實意義。』這只是解釋小乘。現在爲了區分它，所以標示大乘。二是區分通用於大小乘的論著。現在的論著只闡釋大乘，所以偏重標示它。問：為什麼《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）不標示『解大乘』？答：八不（不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不異，不來不去）就是大乘，所以不需要標示『大』。而且《中論》主要闡釋大乘，附帶闡釋小乘。這部論著只闡釋大乘，不兼顧小乘，所以只標示『大』。而且《中論》首先闡明能詮（指能表達意義的）和所詮（指所要表達的意義）的意義，這部論著首先闡明所詮和能詮的意義。能詮和所詮就是八不所不能完全表達的，所以稱為能詮和所詮的意義。現在闡明所詮和能詮，簡略地解釋說，這是能闡釋的論著。『摩訶衍』（Mahāyāna）是指所要闡釋的經典。而且《中論》一開始就標示八不，是經典依賴於論著。現在先闡明簡略的解釋，是論著闡釋經典。而且一切論著有四種情況：一是前深后淺，就是《中論》。一開始闡明大乘為深，後來辨析小乘為淺。這說明十方三世諸佛（Buddhas of the ten directions and three times）出世的用意有主要和次要。主要爲了大乘而出現，次要爲了小乘的因緣而出現。《中論》闡釋這個意思。二是前淺后深，就是《百論》（Śata-śāstra）。先闡明捨棄罪業，后闡明捨棄福報。先闡明人空（否定自我的存在），后闡明法空（否定事物現象的存在）。這顯示三世佛（Buddhas of the three times）出世是爲了讓眾生修行，從淺到深。《百論》闡釋這個意思。三是始終都深，就是《十二門論》（Dvādaśa-dvāra-śāstra）。這顯示三世佛（Buddhas of the three times）為諸菩薩（Bodhisattvas，佛教修行者）顯說甚深的法。《十二門論》闡釋這個意思。四是初后都淺，如小乘的論著。而且解釋大乘，是三世佛（Buddhas of the three times）出世的用意，本來是爲了一個重大因緣，不得已才說小乘。說小乘最終是爲了闡明大乘。現在想要闡釋三世佛（Buddhas of the three times）的本意，所以偏重解釋大乘。而且大乘是真實，小乘是方便。大乘是根本，小乘是枝末。得到根本真實就得到末端權宜，所以偏重解釋大乘。
【English Translation】 English version: Yi, etc. (referring to other treatises). Nāgārjuna (Buddhist philosopher) comprehensively employs the ten gates to explain Mahāyāna (Buddhist school). Now, I briefly highlight one interpretation. The so-called 'explanation' is to dispel all confusion and elucidate the teachings of Buddhism, hence it is called 'explanation'. 'Mahāyāna' is the fifth to indicate what is to be explained. Indicating what is to be explained serves two purposes: first, to differentiate it from Hināyāna treatises (Buddhist school). As the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra says, 'I want to correctly discuss the true meaning within the Tripiṭaka (Buddhist scriptures).' This only explains Hināyāna. Now, to differentiate it, Mahāyāna is indicated. Second, to distinguish it from treatises that apply to both Mahāyāna and Hināyāna. The current treatise only elucidates Mahāyāna, so it emphasizes indicating it. Question: Why doesn't the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā indicate 'explaining Mahāyāna'? Answer: The eight negations (neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going) are Mahāyāna, so there is no need to indicate 'Mahā'. Moreover, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā mainly elucidates Mahāyāna and incidentally elucidates Hināyāna. This treatise only elucidates Mahāyāna and does not cover Hināyāna, so it only indicates 'Mahā'. Furthermore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā first clarifies the meaning of the expresser (that which expresses meaning) and the expressed (that which is to be expressed), while this treatise first clarifies the meaning of the expressed and the expresser. The expresser and the expressed are what the eight negations cannot fully express, hence they are called the meaning of the expresser and the expressed. Now, clarifying the expressed and the expresser, it is briefly explained that this is a treatise that can elucidate. 'Mahāyāna' refers to the scriptures to be elucidated. Moreover, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā initially indicates the eight negations, which means the scriptures rely on the treatise. Now, first clarifying the brief explanation means the treatise elucidates the scriptures. Furthermore, all treatises have four situations: first, deep at the beginning and shallow at the end, which is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Initially, it elucidates Mahāyāna as deep, and later analyzes Hināyāna as shallow. This explains that the intention of the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times appearing in the world has primary and secondary purposes. The primary purpose is for Mahāyāna, and the secondary purpose is for the conditions of Hināyāna. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā elucidates this meaning. Second, shallow at the beginning and deep at the end, which is the Śata-śāstra. First, it elucidates abandoning sins, and later it elucidates abandoning blessings. First, it elucidates the emptiness of self (negating the existence of self), and later it elucidates the emptiness of phenomena (negating the existence of phenomena). This shows that the Buddhas of the three times appear in the world to guide beings to practice, from shallow to deep. The Śata-śāstra elucidates this meaning. Third, deep from beginning to end, which is the Dvādaśa-dvāra-śāstra. This shows that the Buddhas of the three times explain the profound Dharma to the Bodhisattvas (Buddhist practitioners). The Dvādaśa-dvāra-śāstra elucidates this meaning. Fourth, shallow from beginning to end, like the treatises of Hināyāna. Moreover, explaining Mahāyāna is the intention of the Buddhas of the three times appearing in the world, originally for a great cause, and only speaking of Hināyāna out of necessity. Speaking of Hināyāna is ultimately to clarify Mahāyāna. Now, wanting to elucidate the original intention of the Buddhas of the three times, Mahāyāna is emphasized. Moreover, Mahāyāna is the truth, and Hināyāna is the expedient. Mahāyāna is the root, and Hināyāna is the branches. Obtaining the root truth means obtaining the expedient at the end, so Mahāyāna is emphasized.
問下第二明略解利益。前之五句皆是總標。此下四章稱為別釋。今前明略解之利。所以前明略解之利者。示菩薩造論以濟物為懷故也。又造論多端。或為顯他之短明己之長。或招引名利徒眾勢力。或自畏忘漏。是故造論。今悉不同之。但為益物故明於利。又智度論云。菩薩得無生忍后更無餘事。唯成就眾生凈佛國土。龍樹詫跡海宮逮無生忍。唯欲弘道利人故前明於利。又大品云。菩薩為于大事故起。大事者所謂救度一切眾生。今龍樹是行般若人。亦為成大事。是故今明利益。又前明略解大乘。謂上弘大道。今辨下利眾生。菩薩運懷唯此二事。又華嚴云。金剛但從金性出不從余寶生。菩提心唯從大悲生不從余善生。故菩薩以大悲為本。是故造論但為益物。就文為二。前問次答。此亦得是問。亦得是難。所言問者。如來說經已有大益。解釋大乘有何利耶。所言難者。佛三達照鑒五眼洞明。所應利者皆已利竟。余未利者已作。得利因緣今解大乘復有何利。又佛說經為有利耶為無利耶。若說經有利何用論耶。若說經無利何用經耶。答中有二。一明所申之經。二辨造論利益。所以前明所申之經者。一欲嘆所申之經甚深。即顯能申之論第一。令物于論起信故前序佛經。二前明佛經者敘眾生所迷也。以佛經甚深利根能解。末世鈍根不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：請解釋一下略解（略微解釋）的利益。前面的五句都是總體的標示。下面的四章稱為分別解釋。現在先說明略解的利益。為什麼要先說明略解的利益呢？這是爲了表明菩薩造論是以濟度眾生為懷的。而且，造論有很多種目的，有的是爲了顯示別人的缺點，彰顯自己的優點；有的是爲了招攬名利、徒眾和勢力；有的是因為自己害怕遺忘和疏漏，所以才造論。現在這些目的都不同。只是爲了利益眾生，所以先說明利益。又，《智度論》說，菩薩得到無生法忍之後，就沒有其他的事情了，只有成就眾生，清凈佛國土。龍樹菩薩在海宮中證得無生法忍，只是想要弘揚佛法，利益他人，所以先說明利益。又，《大品般若經》說，菩薩爲了大事而興起。大事就是救度一切眾生。現在龍樹菩薩是修行般若的人，也是爲了成就大事，所以現在說明利益。前面說明略解大乘，是說上弘揚大道。現在辨明下利益眾生。菩薩的心懷只有這兩件事。又，《華嚴經》說，金剛是從金性中產生，不是從其他寶物中產生。菩提心唯獨從大悲心中產生，不是從其他善心中產生。所以菩薩以大悲為根本。因此，造論只是爲了利益眾生。從文章結構上來說，分為兩部分。前面是提問，後面是回答。這裡也可以看作是提問，也可以看作是詰難。所說的提問是：如來說經已經有很大的利益了，解釋大乘還有什麼利益呢？所說的詰難是：佛具有三達智，照鑒一切，五眼洞明，所應該利益的都已經利益完畢了，其餘沒有利益的也已經作了得利益的因緣，現在解釋大乘又有什麼利益呢？又，佛說經是爲了有利呢，還是爲了無利呢？如果說經有利，那要論做什麼呢？如果說經沒有利，那要經做什麼呢？回答中有兩部分。一是說明所闡述的經典，二是辨明造論的利益。為什麼要先說明所闡述的經典呢？一是想要讚歎所闡述的經典非常深奧，從而彰顯能夠闡述經典的論第一，讓人們對論產生信心，所以先敘述佛經。二是前面說明佛經，是敘述眾生所迷惑的地方。因為佛經非常深奧，利根的人能夠理解，末世鈍根的人不能理解。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Please explain the benefits of a brief explanation (略解, lüè jiě). The preceding five sentences are all general indications. The following four chapters are called separate explanations. Now, first explain the benefits of a brief explanation. Why explain the benefits of a brief explanation first? This is to show that the Bodhisattva's intention in creating treatises is to benefit sentient beings. Moreover, there are many purposes for creating treatises, some to show others' shortcomings and highlight one's own strengths; some to attract fame, gain, followers, and influence; some because they themselves fear forgetting and omissions, so they create treatises. Now, these purposes are all different. It is only for the benefit of sentient beings that the benefits are explained first. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that after a Bodhisattva attains the anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti (無生法忍, wú shēng fǎ rěn, the patience with the non-arising of dharmas), there is nothing else to do except to perfect sentient beings and purify the Buddha-lands. Nāgārjuna (龍樹, Lóngshù) attained the anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti in the Dragon Palace, and only wanted to propagate the Dharma and benefit others, so he explained the benefits first. Also, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says that Bodhisattvas arise for a great matter. The great matter is to save all sentient beings. Now, Nāgārjuna is a practitioner of Prajñā, and also wants to accomplish a great matter, so he now explains the benefits. The previous explanation of the brief explanation of Mahāyāna refers to the propagation of the great path above. Now, it distinguishes the benefits to sentient beings below. The Bodhisattva's mind only contains these two things. Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says that Vajra (金剛, Jīngāng, diamond) only comes from the nature of gold, not from other treasures. The Bodhi-mind only arises from great compassion, not from other good deeds. Therefore, the Bodhisattva takes great compassion as the root. Therefore, creating treatises is only for the benefit of sentient beings. In terms of the structure of the text, it is divided into two parts. The first part is the question, and the second part is the answer. This can also be seen as a question, or as a challenge. The so-called question is: The Tathāgata's (如來, Rúlái) speaking of the sutras already has great benefits, what benefits are there in explaining the Mahāyāna? The so-called challenge is: The Buddha has the three kinds of knowledge, illuminates everything, and has the five eyes that see clearly. Those who should be benefited have already been benefited, and those who have not been benefited have already created the causes and conditions for obtaining benefits. What benefits are there in explaining the Mahāyāna now? Also, does the Buddha speak the sutras for benefit or for no benefit? If speaking the sutras is beneficial, then what is the use of treatises? If speaking the sutras is not beneficial, then what is the use of sutras? There are two parts in the answer. One is to explain the sutras being expounded, and the other is to distinguish the benefits of creating treatises. Why explain the sutras being expounded first? One is to praise the sutras being expounded as very profound, thereby highlighting that the treatise capable of expounding the sutras is the best, so that people will have faith in the treatise, so first narrate the Buddha's sutras. Second, the previous explanation of the Buddha's sutras is to narrate the confusion of sentient beings. Because the Buddha's sutras are very profound, those with sharp faculties can understand them, but those with dull faculties in the degenerate age cannot understand them.
能了悟。故前序所迷後序能迷。三欲引經為例。如來說經既有大利。我今造論寧無益耶。若答上難者。佛為益利根人。是故說經。我為益鈍根人。是故造論。佛為與佛結緣之人。所以說經。我為與我結緣之人。是故造論。事同阿難化于須跋。亦如羅云度城東老人。就序佛說經為二。一明教二辨緣。緣是教緣。教是緣教。故教稱于緣緣稱于教。教稱于緣應病授藥。緣稱于教如法服行。故感應相應即便悟道。初又三。初牒摩訶衍。二明能說之人。三辨所說之教。十方三世佛者明能說之人也。所以標多佛者恐一方化偏非盡理之說故標多佛也。又簡三藏教主但有三世佛說無十方佛說故標多佛也。又諸佛出世或說小乘或說大乘。畢竟而言無不說大。故標多佛也。如法華云。世尊法久后要當說真實也。又簡論雖略即是遍申十方三世諸佛教盡故標多佛也。又顯迷教即是遍迷十方三世諸佛大教故標多佛也。甚深法藏者明所說之法也。橫絕百非豎超四句。故稱為深。深中之深。故言甚也。又言語道斷心行處滅名為甚深。又九道眾生不能測知。唯佛與佛乃能究盡。故名甚深。然于佛本嘗有深。但約眾生不知故言深耳。為三乘六道模軌。故稱為法。累無不寂德無不圓。故稱為藏。為大功德利根者說第二明教所被緣。久習五度名大功德。早修般
若是故利根。又習前三度名大功德。修於後三稱為利根。前明所說法大。今明所為人大。又初能說人大。甚深法藏所說法大。今明受法人大。故云大功德利根也。
末世眾生下第二明造論利益。又有三別。初明下利眾生。次明上弘大道。第三總結有斯二益。是故造論。就初又二。第一明眾生稟教起迷。第二明論主破迷作論。前有四句。末世者起迷時也。佛法滅分三時。一正法五百年。二像法一千年。三末法一萬年。今言末世者非是第三時也。但正法為本故以像法為末。末是微末之義。像是似末故是一義。若分像末亦得分三。眾生者第二明迷教之人。薄福鈍根第三明迷教所由。以不久修福慧故名薄福鈍根。又修有所得福慧亦是薄福鈍根。雖尋經文不能通了第四正明起迷。有四種眾生並皆失道。一在家起愛任運而失。二出家外道名自樹失。三小乘人失不知說小為通於大。而執小拒大。四大乘人失學無所得大成有所得大。但就大乘中又有二失。一棄本尋末。二求本多謬也。又佛法有二。一小二大。此二種各有二種。一但二不但。所言但不但者凡有二種。一緣但不但。二教但不但。緣但不但者。佛教是因緣不但義。而稟佛因緣不但教故成有所得但也。二教但不但者。佛赴但不但緣說但不但二教也。問但不但出何文。答智
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果是因為這個人具有敏銳的根器，並且已經修習了前面的三種波羅蜜（佈施、持戒、忍辱），這被稱為『大功德』。修習後面的三種波羅蜜（精進、禪定、智慧）則被稱為『利根』。前面是說明所說的法廣大，現在是說明所教化的人偉大。而且最初是能說法的人偉大，甚深法藏所說的法廣大，現在是說明接受佛法的人偉大。所以說『大功德利根』。
末世眾生以下是第二部分，說明造論的利益。這部分又分為三個小部分。首先說明造論能夠利益下根器的眾生，其次說明能夠弘揚大道，第三總結造論具有這兩種利益，所以要造論。就第一部分來說，又分為兩個小部分。第一說明眾生接受教法后產生迷惑，第二說明論主爲了破除迷惑而造論。前面有四句話。『末世』是指產生迷惑的時代。佛法滅亡分為三個時期：一是正法五百年，二是像法一千年，三是末法一萬年。這裡說的『末世』不是指第三個時期。只是因為正法是根本，所以把像法稱為末。『末』是微末的意思，『像』是相似於末，所以是一個意思。如果區分像法和末法，也可以分為三個時期。『眾生』是指迷惑于教法的人。『薄福鈍根』是指迷惑教法的原因，因為他們沒有長期修習福德和智慧，所以稱為『薄福鈍根』。而且修習時心存有所得的福德和智慧，也是『薄福鈍根』。即使尋找經文，也不能通達瞭解，這是第四句，真正說明產生迷惑。有四種眾生都迷失了道路：一是在家人產生愛慾，任由其發展而迷失；二是外道出家人，自立門戶而迷失；三是小乘人迷失，不知道說小是爲了通向大，而執著于小，拒絕大；四是大乘人迷失，學習后沒有證得無所得，反而執著于有所得。但就大乘來說，又有兩種迷失：一是捨棄根本而追求末節，二是尋求根本卻多有謬誤。而且佛法有兩種：一是小乘，二是大乘。這兩種各有兩種情況：一是但，二是不但。所說的『但』和『不但』，有兩種：一是緣但和不但，二是教但和不但。緣但和不但，佛教是因緣不但的意義，而接受佛因緣不但的教法，所以成為有所得的『但』。教但和不但，佛爲了適應但和不但的根器，說了但和不但兩種教法。問：『但』和『不但』出自什麼經典？答：《智論》。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is because this person has sharp faculties and has already practiced the first three paramitas (dana, shila, kshanti), this is called 'great merit'. Cultivating the latter three paramitas (virya, dhyana, prajna) is called 'sharp faculties'. The former explains that the Dharma spoken is vast, and the latter explains that the person being taught is great. Moreover, initially, the person who can speak the Dharma is great, the Dharma spoken in the profound Dharma treasury is vast, and now it is explained that the person receiving the Dharma is great. Therefore, it is said 'great merit and sharp faculties'.
The following, 'Sentient beings in the degenerate age,' is the second part, explaining the benefits of writing treatises. This part is further divided into three sub-parts. First, it explains that writing treatises can benefit sentient beings with inferior faculties; second, it explains that it can propagate the Great Path; and third, it summarizes that writing treatises has these two benefits, so treatises should be written. Regarding the first part, it is further divided into two sub-parts. First, it explains that sentient beings become confused after receiving the teachings; second, it explains that the author of the treatise writes the treatise to dispel confusion. There are four sentences in the beginning. 'Degenerate age' refers to the time when confusion arises. The extinction of the Buddha-dharma is divided into three periods: first, the Proper Dharma for five hundred years; second, the Semblance Dharma for one thousand years; and third, the Degenerate Dharma for ten thousand years. The 'degenerate age' mentioned here does not refer to the third period. It is only because the Proper Dharma is the root, so the Semblance Dharma is called the end. 'End' means subtle and insignificant, and 'semblance' is similar to the end, so it has the same meaning. If the Semblance Dharma and the Degenerate Dharma are distinguished, they can also be divided into three periods. 'Sentient beings' refers to those who are confused about the teachings. 'Meager blessings and dull faculties' refers to the reason for being confused about the teachings, because they have not cultivated blessings and wisdom for a long time, so they are called 'meager blessings and dull faculties'. Moreover, cultivating blessings and wisdom with a mind attached to attainment is also 'meager blessings and dull faculties'. Even if they search for the sutras, they cannot understand them thoroughly. This is the fourth sentence, which truly explains the arising of confusion. There are four kinds of sentient beings who have all lost their way: first, householders who generate desire and let it develop, thus becoming lost; second, non-Buddhist renunciates who establish their own schools and become lost; third, Hinayana practitioners who are lost, not knowing that speaking of the small is to lead to the great, and clinging to the small, rejecting the great; fourth, Mahayana practitioners who are lost, not attaining non-attainment after learning, but clinging to attainment. However, regarding Mahayana, there are two kinds of loss: first, abandoning the root and pursuing the branches; second, seeking the root but having many errors. Moreover, there are two kinds of Buddha-dharma: first, Hinayana, and second, Mahayana. Each of these two has two situations: first, only, and second, not only. The so-called 'only' and 'not only' have two kinds: first, conditions only and not only, and second, teachings only and not only. Conditions only and not only, Buddhism is the meaning of conditions not only, and receiving the teachings of Buddha's conditions not only, so it becomes the 'only' of attachment to attainment. Teachings only and not only, the Buddha spoke the two teachings of only and not only to adapt to the faculties of only and not only. Question: From which scripture do 'only' and 'not only' come? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra.
度論云。二乘空名但空菩薩空名不但空。問大乘但不但云何。答大品云。為新學人說生滅者如化不生不滅不如化。此則但生滅是化。故名但也。末世不識緣教但不但。故云雖尋經文不能通了也。我愍此等下第二作論申經。天魔為愛火所燒。外道諸見所害。執小拒大謗法毀人造無間業。偏執大乘斷空撥無罪福。亦現在斷善後入無間。菩薩可哀愍也。欲令開悟者為此鈍根人就大乘中略解十二事開悟。然眾生同菩薩不須造論。若眾生實異菩薩亦不須造論。正言同菩薩于緣成異。故造論也。大品云。眾生際即是實際。菩薩不建立眾生於實際。以眾生不異實際。實際于眾產生眾生際。故菩薩建立眾生於實際。然眾生際既非際。寧復有實際。故知未曾虛實也。又欲光闡如來無上大法下。第二明上弘大道。眾生迷教邪義覆于正經。今欲上報佛恩略明大意。今文約而易顯。久傳於遐代。故摩耶經云。龍樹菩薩燃正法炬滅邪見幢。什法師云。龍樹菩薩令如來大法三啟閻浮。龍樹傳云。智慧日已頹。斯人令再耀。世昏寢已久。斯人悟令覺。並是下愍上弘之意也。
是故略解摩訶衍義第三結造論意。問曰下第三釋成上略義。前問次答。問意云。摩訶衍文字章句尚不可數。況欲一一解釋其義。此乃翻成為廣。何名略耶。智度論云。摩訶波
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《大智度論》中說，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）所說的空，只是空；菩薩所說的空，不只是空。問：大乘的『但』和『不但』是什麼意思？答：《大品般若經》中說，為初學者說有生滅的法，就像幻化一樣；說不生不滅的法，不像幻化。這就是說，只有生滅才是幻化，所以稱為『但』。末世的人不認識緣起之教，不明白『但』和『不但』的含義，所以說即使尋找經文，也不能通達瞭解。 我憐憫這些眾生，所以接下來第二部分，作論來闡明經義。天魔被愛慾之火所焚燒，被外道的各種邪見所傷害，執著于小乘而拒絕大乘，誹謗佛法，毀壞他人，造作無間地獄的惡業。偏執于大乘，斷滅空性，否定罪福報應。這些人現在斷滅善根，死後墮入無間地獄。菩薩應當憐憫他們。爲了使他們開悟，所以為這些鈍根的人，就大乘的義理中，略微解釋十二件事，使他們開悟。然而，如果眾生和菩薩相同，就不需要造論；如果眾生和菩薩確實不同，也不需要造論。正確地說，是因為眾生和菩薩在因緣上有所不同，所以才造論。《大品般若經》中說，眾生的邊際就是實際。菩薩不把眾生安立在實際中，因為眾生和實際沒有差別。實際在眾生那裡成為眾生的邊際，所以菩薩把眾生安立在實際中。然而，眾生的邊際既然不是邊際，哪裡還有實際呢？所以要知道，從來沒有真實和虛妄。 接下來，『又欲光闡如來無上大法』，第二部分說明向上弘揚大道。眾生迷惑于邪教，邪義覆蓋了正經。現在想要報答佛恩，略微闡明大意。現在的文句簡略而容易明白，可以長久地流傳於後世。所以《摩耶經》中說，龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna，佛教大乘中觀學派創始人）燃起正法的火炬，熄滅邪見的旗幟。鳩摩羅什法師（Kumārajīva，著名佛經翻譯家）說，龍樹菩薩使如來的大法三次在閻浮提（Jambudvīpa，指我們所居住的這個世界）興起。龍樹菩薩傳中說，智慧的太陽已經衰落，這個人使它再次閃耀；世人昏睡已經很久，這個人使他們覺悟。這些都是向下憐憫，向上弘揚的意思。 因此，『是故略解摩訶衍義』，第三部分總結造論的用意。『問曰下』，第三部分解釋成就上面的『略』義。先提出問題，然後回答。問題的意思是說，大乘的文字章句尚且不可計數，何況想要一一解釋它的含義？這豈不是反而成為廣博了嗎？怎麼能稱為『略』呢？《智度論》中說，摩訶般若波羅蜜（Mahāprajñāpāramitā，偉大的智慧到彼岸）就像大火一樣，乾柴和濕柴都一起燃燒。大乘也是這樣，善人和惡人都能進入其中。
【English Translation】 English version: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom) says that the emptiness of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) is merely emptiness, while the emptiness of the Bodhisattva is not merely emptiness. Question: What is the meaning of 'merely' and 'not merely' in Mahāyāna? Answer: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Large Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says that for beginners, the teaching of arising and ceasing is like an illusion; the teaching of non-arising and non-ceasing is unlike an illusion. This means that only arising and ceasing are illusion, hence it is called 'merely'. People in the degenerate age do not understand the teaching of dependent origination, nor do they understand the meaning of 'merely' and 'not merely'. Therefore, it is said that even if they search the scriptures, they cannot fully understand. I pity these beings, so in the following second part, I compose this treatise to elucidate the meaning of the scriptures. The Māras (demons) are burned by the fire of desire, harmed by the various wrong views of the heretics, clinging to the Small Vehicle and rejecting the Great Vehicle, slandering the Dharma, harming others, and creating the karma of the Avīci hell (uninterrupted hell). Those who cling to the Great Vehicle, extinguish emptiness, and deny the retribution of sin and merit, are now cutting off their roots of goodness and will fall into the Avīci hell after death. Bodhisattvas should have compassion for them. In order to enlighten them, I will briefly explain twelve matters from the meaning of the Great Vehicle for these dull-witted people, so that they may be enlightened. However, if sentient beings are the same as Bodhisattvas, there is no need to compose a treatise; if sentient beings are truly different from Bodhisattvas, there is also no need to compose a treatise. Correctly speaking, it is because sentient beings and Bodhisattvas are different in terms of conditions that I compose this treatise. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says that the boundary of sentient beings is the same as reality. Bodhisattvas do not establish sentient beings in reality, because sentient beings are not different from reality. Reality becomes the boundary of sentient beings in sentient beings, so Bodhisattvas establish sentient beings in reality. However, since the boundary of sentient beings is not a boundary, where is reality? Therefore, know that there has never been truth or falsehood. Next, 'Furthermore, wishing to illuminate the unsurpassed Great Dharma of the Tathāgata', the second part explains the upward propagation of the Great Path. Sentient beings are deluded by heretical teachings, and wrong views cover the correct scriptures. Now, I want to repay the Buddha's kindness by briefly explaining the main idea. The current sentences are concise and easy to understand, and can be passed down to future generations for a long time. Therefore, the Māyā Sūtra says that Nāgārjuna (founder of the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism) lit the torch of the correct Dharma and extinguished the banners of wrong views. Kumārajīva (famous translator of Buddhist scriptures) said that Nāgārjuna caused the Great Dharma of the Tathāgata to arise three times in Jambudvīpa (the world we live in). The biography of Nāgārjuna says that 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 them. These are all meanings of pitying those below and propagating upwards. Therefore, 'Therefore, briefly explaining the meaning of Mahāyāna', the third part concludes the intention of composing the treatise. 'Question: Below', the third part explains the accomplishment of the above 'brief' meaning. First, the question is raised, and then the answer is given. The meaning of the question is that the words and sentences of Mahāyāna are already countless, let alone wanting to explain its meaning one by one? Wouldn't this instead become extensive? How can it be called 'brief'? The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that Mahāprajñāpāramitā (Great Perfection of Wisdom) is like a great fire, burning both dry and wet firewood together. The Great Vehicle is also like this, both good and bad people can enter it.
若即十萬偈。三百二十萬言。與四阿含等。其餘云經大云經諸經無量。如大海中寶。又云。諸天龍阿修羅問經千萬億偈。又于填國龍樹傳云。華嚴大本有一四天下微塵品三千大千世界微塵偈。一部經文字尚不可數。況都集諸大乘經總名摩訶衍。云何可知。文尚不可知。況復欲釋其義。又此言亦得遮于造論。摩訶衍經文理已圓。何須更釋。如其更釋則佛經文理未圓。又眾生尋讀佛語尚不能遍。更復解釋何由可用。必欲令物學論則隱廢佛經。尋末棄本理所不應。諸意具如中論已說。答曰下明我亦不一一隨佛語而廣解。但就佛語中釋其精玄略解十二事耳。又佛經無量意在明道。我今但略釋道則眾教自通。又眾生迷雖萬端以障道為本。今但破道迷則眾迷自破。又答上問者。正為佛經無量難可尋究我今略釋令取悟為易。又諸佛有廣略說法。我今依略而說。又諸佛攝廣為略。我今釋略則便通廣。
問曰下第四釋成所解。即是解前標章中摩訶衍義。又是解大乘之意也。前問次答。問意云。已知略解之意。今既欲解釋。云何名摩訶衍耶。此總問大乘名義。答曰下為二。一者正答。二者總結。正答為二。一者略以六義釋大。二指經廣說。六義即為六答。今第一待二乘之小故名為大。然諸佛所行之道實非大小。但對二乘小。是故名大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若說十萬首偈頌，三百二十萬字，與四阿含經相等，其他如《云經》、《大云經》等經典數量無量，如同大海中的寶藏。又說，《諸天龍阿修羅問經》有千萬億首偈頌。又在填國龍樹的傳記中記載，《華嚴經》的大本有一四天下微塵數的品，三千大千世界微塵數的偈頌。僅僅一部經的文字尚且不可計數，更何況是彙集所有大乘經典的總體，總名為摩訶衍（大乘，指運載眾生脫離苦海的工具）。怎麼可能完全瞭解呢？文字尚且無法盡知，更何況想要解釋其中的含義。而且這句話也可以用來阻止人們造論，因為摩訶衍的經文義理已經圓滿，何須再作解釋？如果再作解釋，就好像佛經的文義理路還不夠圓滿一樣。而且眾生尋讀佛的教誨尚且不能遍及，更何況再作解釋又怎麼能行得通呢？如果一定要人們學習論著，那麼就會導致佛經被埋沒廢棄，捨本逐末，這在道理上是不應該的。這些意思都已經在《中論》中說過了。回答是，下面說明我也不一一按照佛語而廣泛地解釋，只是就佛語中解釋其精妙玄奧之處，簡略地解釋十二件事而已。而且佛經數量無量，其意在於闡明道，我現在只是簡略地解釋道，那麼所有的教義自然就貫通了。而且眾生的迷惑雖然有萬端，但以障礙道為根本，現在只是破除道的迷惑，那麼所有的迷惑自然就破除了。而且回答上面的問題，正是因為佛經數量無量，難以尋究，我現在簡略地解釋，使人們容易領悟。而且諸佛有廣略不同的說法，我現在依據簡略的說法而說。而且諸佛將廣博的內容攝為簡略，我現在解釋簡略的內容，那麼就能夠通達廣博的內容。 問：下面第四點是解釋成就所解，也就是解釋前面標章中的摩訶衍（大乘）的含義，也是解釋大乘的意義。前面是提問，接下來是回答。提問的意思是：已經知道了簡略解釋的意義，現在既然想要解釋，那麼為什麼叫做摩訶衍（大乘）呢？這是總括地詢問大乘的名義。回答分為兩個部分：一是正面回答，二是總結。正面回答又分為兩個部分：一是簡略地用六個方面來解釋『大』，二是指出經文的廣博。這六個方面也就是六個回答。現在第一點是相對於二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的『小』，所以稱為『大』。然而諸佛所行之道實際上並沒有大小之分，只是相對於二乘的『小』，所以才稱為『大』。
【English Translation】 English version If we speak of ten myriad verses, three million two hundred thousand words, equivalent to the Four Agamas, and countless other scriptures like the Cloud Sutra, the Great Cloud Sutra, and other sutras, they are like treasures in the vast ocean. Furthermore, it is said that the Sutra of Questions by Gods, Dragons, and Asuras contains ten million trillion verses. Also, in the biography of Nagarjuna (long shu, a famous Buddhist philosopher) in Tianzhu (ancient India), it is recorded that the great original of the Avatamsaka Sutra (hua yan jing, Flower Garland Sutra) has chapters with dust-mote numbers of worlds in a four-continent system, and verses with dust-mote numbers of great thousand world systems. The words of just one sutra are uncountable, let alone the entirety of all Mahayana (mo he yan, the Great Vehicle, referring to the path that carries beings across the sea of suffering) scriptures collectively named Mahayana. How can one possibly know it all? Even the words cannot be fully known, let alone wanting to explain their meaning. Moreover, this statement can also be used to prevent people from creating treatises, because the meaning and principles of the Mahayana scriptures are already complete. What need is there for further explanation? If there is further explanation, it would be as if the meaning and principles of the Buddha's scriptures are not yet complete. Furthermore, sentient beings cannot even thoroughly read the Buddha's teachings, let alone further explanations. If one insists on people studying treatises, then it will lead to the burying and abandoning of the Buddha's scriptures, abandoning the root and pursuing the branches, which is not reasonable. These meanings have already been discussed in the Madhyamaka-karika (zhong lun, Middle Treatise). The answer is, below I will explain that I do not extensively explain each and every word of the Buddha, but only explain the subtle and profound points within the Buddha's words, and briefly explain twelve matters. Moreover, the countless Buddha's scriptures aim to clarify the path. Now I only briefly explain the path, and then all the teachings will naturally be connected. Moreover, although sentient beings have myriad delusions, the root is obstructing the path. Now I only break through the delusion of the path, and then all delusions will naturally be broken. Moreover, answering the above question, it is precisely because the Buddha's scriptures are countless and difficult to investigate that I now briefly explain them to make it easier to understand. Moreover, the Buddhas have both extensive and concise ways of speaking. Now I speak according to the concise. Moreover, the Buddhas condense the extensive into the concise. Now I explain the concise, and then it will be easy to understand the extensive. Question: The fourth point below is to explain the accomplishment of what is understood, which is to explain the meaning of Mahayana (mo he yan, the Great Vehicle) in the preceding chapter headings, and also to explain the meaning of the Great Vehicle. The preceding was the question, and the following is the answer. The meaning of the question is: Having already understood the meaning of the concise explanation, now that you want to explain, why is it called Mahayana (the Great Vehicle)? This is a general question about the name and meaning of the Great Vehicle. The answer below is divided into two parts: first, the direct answer; second, the summary. The direct answer is divided into two parts: first, briefly explain 'great' in six aspects; second, point out the vastness of the scriptures. These six aspects are also six answers. Now the first point is that it is called 'great' in relation to the 'small' of the Two Vehicles (sheng wen cheng and yuan jue cheng, the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Realizer Vehicle). However, the path practiced by the Buddhas does not actually have a distinction between great and small, but it is called 'great' only in relation to the 'small' of the Two Vehicles.
。問大乘之大與涅槃大此有何異。答一往無異。問若爾涅槃云。不因小涅槃名大涅槃。今云何因小乘名大乘耶。答諸論師多雲。不因小涅槃名大涅槃。是絕待大。今文是對小乘明大乘。是相待大。今謂不爾。二文俱絕待大。亦俱是相待大。俱是絕待大者涅槃云。不因者此明非是體不自大待他方大。乃言。體自是大不因待他方名為大。今大乘亦爾。故俱是絕待也。俱相待者。今待于小乘名之為大。此非是體不自大待他名大。乃辨諸佛所行之道不可說其大小。但對二乘小強稱為大。問若爾涅槃體自是大則非是絕待。今對小之大翻是絕耶。答涅槃體是自大未絕大小之名。翻是相待大。今若云非大非小則大小雙絕。不知何以目之對於小乘強稱為大。此方是絕大也。問非大非小可是絕待。既猶稱對小名大。云何是絕。答亦如所問。據其非大非小言窮慮絕。此是絕待。今非大非小猶稱為大。此猶是待。問若爾一切大名皆是相待。云何舊云有二種大一相待大二絕待大耶。答舊語有義。若一往直言對小名大。此是相待。若非大非小大小雙絕。不知何以美之。強稱云大此名絕待。蓋是對前相待故云絕待。若望一切名言未絕悉是待也。問若涅槃體是自大非絕待大者。此言應非究竟。答如前問也。低羅波夷實不食油強名食油。涅槃亦爾無名相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：大乘（Mahayana，梵文，意為『偉大的車輛』）之『大』與涅槃（Nirvana，梵文，意為『寂滅』）之『大』，這兩者有什麼不同？ 答：從一方面來說，沒有不同。 問：如果這樣，涅槃經中說：『不因為有小涅槃，才稱為大涅槃。』現在為什麼說因為有小乘（Hinayana，梵文，意為『較小的車輛』）才稱為大乘呢？ 答：許多論師都說：『不因為有小涅槃，才稱為大涅槃』，這是絕對的大。現在本文是對小乘闡明大乘，是相對的大。現在我認為不是這樣。這兩段經文都講的是絕對的大，也都講的是相對的大。都講的是絕對的大，涅槃經中說：『不因為有』，這是說明本體不是自身不大，要依靠其他才顯得大。而是說，本體自身就是大，不依靠其他才稱為大。現在大乘也是這樣，所以都是絕對的。 都講的是相對的大，現在相對於小乘才稱之為大。這並非是本體自身不大，要依靠其他才顯得大。而是辨明諸佛所行之道不可說其大小。只是針對二乘（Sravakayana和Pratyekabuddhayana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）之小，勉強稱之為大。 問：如果這樣，涅槃的本體自身就是大，那就不是絕對的。現在相對於小的大，反而成了絕對的嗎？ 答：涅槃的本體是自身大，但還沒有斷絕大小之名。反而成了相對的大。現在如果說非大非小，那麼大小就都斷絕了。不知道用什麼來稱呼它，所以對於小乘勉強稱之為大。這才是絕對的大。 問：非大非小可以說是絕對的。既然還稱作相對於小而為大，怎麼能說是絕對的呢？ 答：也像你所問的。根據那非大非小的說法，言語窮盡，思慮斷絕。這是絕對的。現在非大非小，仍然稱之為大。這仍然是相對的。 問：如果這樣，一切稱為『大』的名詞都是相對的。為什麼以前說有兩種『大』，一種是相對的大，一種是絕對的大呢？ 答：以前的說法有道理。如果直接說相對於小才稱為大，這是相對的。如果說非大非小，大小都斷絕了，不知道用什麼來讚美它，勉強稱之為大，這稱為絕對的。大概是針對前面的相對，所以才說是絕對的。如果從一切名言的角度來看，沒有斷絕，都是相對的。 問：如果涅槃的本體是自身大，不是絕對的大，那麼這種說法應該不是究竟的。 答：如同前面的問題一樣。就像低羅波夷（Tilapayi，人名）實際上不吃油，卻勉強說他吃油。涅槃也是這樣，沒有名相。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is the difference between the 'greatness' of Mahayana (Sanskrit, meaning 'Great Vehicle') and the 'greatness' of Nirvana (Sanskrit, meaning 'extinction')? Answer: In one respect, there is no difference. Question: If that's the case, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'It is not because of small Nirvana that it is called great Nirvana.' Why is it now said that it is because of Hinayana (Sanskrit, meaning 'Smaller Vehicle') that it is called Mahayana? Answer: Many commentators say: 'It is not because of small Nirvana that it is called great Nirvana,' which is absolute greatness. The current text clarifies Mahayana in relation to Hinayana, which is relative greatness. I don't think so. Both passages speak of absolute greatness and relative greatness. Both speak of absolute greatness, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Not because of,' which explains that the essence is not great in itself, relying on others to appear great. Rather, it says that the essence itself is great, not relying on others to be called great. This is also the case with Mahayana now, so both are absolute. Both speak of relative greatness, now it is called great in relation to Hinayana. This is not because the essence itself is not great, relying on others to appear great. Rather, it clarifies that the path practiced by all Buddhas cannot be described as large or small. It is only in response to the smallness of the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana, the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Realizer Vehicle) that it is reluctantly called great. Question: If that's the case, the essence of Nirvana is great in itself, then it is not absolute. Is it now that the greatness relative to the small becomes absolute? Answer: The essence of Nirvana is great in itself, but the name of large and small has not been cut off. Instead, it becomes relative greatness. Now, if it is said that it is neither large nor small, then both large and small are cut off. I don't know what to call it, so it is reluctantly called great in relation to Hinayana. This is absolute greatness. Question: Neither large nor small can be said to be absolute. Since it is still called great relative to small, how can it be said to be absolute? Answer: It's like what you asked. According to the statement that it is neither large nor small, words are exhausted and thoughts are cut off. This is absolute. Now, neither large nor small is still called great. This is still relative. Question: If that's the case, all nouns called 'great' are relative. Why did the old saying say that there are two kinds of 'greatness', one is relative greatness and the other is absolute greatness? Answer: The old saying makes sense. If you directly say that it is called great relative to small, this is relative. If you say that it is neither large nor small, both large and small are cut off, and I don't know what to praise it with, so it is reluctantly called great, which is called absolute. It is probably in response to the previous relative that it is called absolute. If viewed from the perspective of all names and words, if it is not cut off, it is all relative. Question: If the essence of Nirvana is great in itself and not absolutely great, then this statement should not be ultimate. Answer: Just like the previous question. Just like Tilapayi (a person's name) actually doesn't eat oil, but it is reluctantly said that he eats oil. Nirvana is also like this, without names and forms.
強名相說。故一切名言皆是相待。若言究慮絕方是究竟。諸佛最大下第二義。從所至處受名。所至之處為大能至之乘亦名為大。諸佛大人下第三從能乘人受名。有人言乘體是因。從果受名故稱為大。今明。蓋是以義判文生此謬耳。前句是因乘。從果受名。今是果乘。當體為目。如法華云。佛自住大乘。如涅槃云。乘涅槃船。皆是果地之乘也。而文意所以名大者。果法從人受名。於九道中最大。大人所乘法故名大。又能滅除下第四就用明大。乘有二用。一者所除用。謂滅二生死苦及五住因。二能與用。謂涅槃因及大涅槃示果。故名為大。又觀世音下第五從因中之人立名。故名為大。然乘是諸佛至道未曾因果。亦非人法。故云是法不可示言辭相寂滅。為眾生故強稱。人法及與因果故。因人所乘故名為因。果人所乘則名為果。在法名法在人名人。故智度論云。若如法觀。佛般若及涅槃是三即一相。其實無有異。故知人法更無二也。此中舉四菩薩者。前二他方后二此土。則總攝一切。又以此乘下第六就功用立名。明般若正觀能究源盡理照無不周故。稱盡法邊底。般若一度既爾。一一諸度皆盡理究源。故名大也。既得六義釋大。即六義釋妙。初對二乘之粗名妙。次能至妙處名妙。三妙人所乘名妙。四妙用名妙。五因中妙人所乘名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 強名相說（強調名稱和表象的虛假性）。所以一切名言都是相對待而存在的。如果說探究思慮到了極點就是究竟，那麼諸佛最大，這是從第二義（方便說）來說的。從所到達的地方來接受名稱，所到達的地方因為偉大，能到達的乘（yāna，交通工具，比喻修行方法）也稱為大乘（Mahāyāna）。 諸佛大人，這是從能乘坐的人來接受名稱。有人說乘的本體是因，從果來接受名稱，所以稱為大。現在說明，大概是因為根據意義來判斷文字而產生了這種謬誤。前一句是因乘，從果接受名稱。現在是果乘，以本體為目標。如《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）所說：『佛自住大乘。』如《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）所說：『乘涅槃船。』都是果地之乘。 而文意之所以稱之為大，是因為果法從人接受名稱，在九道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅、人、天、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩）中最大，大人所乘坐的法，所以稱為大。又能滅除，這是從作用上說明大。乘有兩種作用：一是所除的作用，即滅除二種生死苦（分段生死、變易生死）以及五住煩惱的因；二是能給予的作用，即涅槃的因以及大涅槃的示現果，所以稱為大。 又觀世音（Avalokiteśvara，菩薩名），這是從因地中的人來立名，所以稱為大。然而乘是諸佛到達的道路，未曾有因果，也不是人法。所以說這種法不可用言辭來表示，其相寂滅。爲了眾生的緣故，勉強稱之為人法以及因果。因地的人所乘坐的，所以稱為因。果地的人所乘坐的，就稱為果。在法就稱為法，在人就稱為人。所以《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）說：『如果如法觀察，佛、般若（Prajñā，智慧）以及涅槃是三即一相，其實沒有差異。』所以知道人法沒有二致。 這裡舉出四位菩薩，前兩位是他方世界的，后兩位是此土世界的，總攝了一切。又以此乘，這是就功用立名。說明般若正觀能夠探究根源，窮盡真理，照耀無所不周，所以稱為盡法邊底。般若一度既然如此，一一諸度都窮盡真理，探究根源，所以稱為大。既然用六個意義解釋了大，就用六個意義解釋妙。首先，相對於二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）的粗淺，稱為妙。其次，能夠到達妙處，稱為妙。第三，妙人所乘坐的，稱為妙。第四，妙用，稱為妙。第五，因地中的妙人所乘坐的
【English Translation】 English version It's a forced designation of names and forms (emphasizing the falsity of names and appearances). Therefore, all verbal expressions are relative. If it is said that exploring thoughts to the extreme is ultimate, then the Buddhas are the greatest, which is from the second meaning (expedient teaching). It receives its name from the place it reaches, and because the place it reaches is great, the vehicle (yāna, metaphor for the method of practice) that can reach it is also called Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle). The Buddhas and great beings receive their name from the person who can ride it. Some say that the essence of the vehicle is the cause, and it receives its name from the effect, so it is called great. Now, it is explained that this error probably arises from judging the text according to its meaning. The previous sentence is the causal vehicle, receiving its name from the effect. Now it is the resultant vehicle, with the essence as the goal. As the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra (Lotus Sutra) says: 'The Buddha dwells in the Great Vehicle.' As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Riding the boat of Nirvāṇa.' These are all vehicles of the resultant stage. The reason why the text calls it great is because the resultant dharma receives its name from the person, and it is the greatest among the nine realms (hells, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, devas, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas). The dharma ridden by great beings is therefore called great. Furthermore, it can eliminate, which explains greatness from its function. The vehicle has two functions: first, the function of what is eliminated, which is to eliminate the suffering of the two kinds of birth and death (segmented birth and death, transformational birth and death) and the cause of the five aggregates of affliction; second, the function of what can be given, which is the cause of Nirvāṇa and the manifestation of the fruit of Great Nirvāṇa, so it is called great. Furthermore, Avalokiteśvara (name of a Bodhisattva) receives its name from the person in the causal stage, so it is called great. However, the vehicle is the path reached by the Buddhas, which has never had cause and effect, nor is it a human dharma. Therefore, it is said that this dharma cannot be expressed in words, and its form is quiescent. For the sake of sentient beings, it is reluctantly called human dharma and cause and effect. What is ridden by the person in the causal stage is called the cause. What is ridden by the person in the resultant stage is called the effect. What is in the dharma is called dharma, and what is in the person is called person. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says: 'If one observes according to the dharma, the Buddha, Prajñā (wisdom), and Nirvāṇa are three in one aspect, and in reality there is no difference.' Therefore, it is known that there is no difference between person and dharma. Here, four Bodhisattvas are mentioned, the first two from other worlds and the last two from this world, encompassing everything. Furthermore, this vehicle is named according to its function. It explains that the correct view of Prajñā can explore the source, exhaust the truth, and illuminate everything without exception, so it is called the ultimate boundary of dharma. Since the perfection of Prajñā is like this, each and every perfection exhausts the truth and explores the source, so it is called great. Since greatness has been explained with six meanings, the wonderfulness is explained with six meanings. First, it is called wonderful in contrast to the crudeness of the two vehicles (śrāvaka vehicle, pratyekabuddha vehicle). Second, it is called wonderful because it can reach the wonderful place. Third, it is called wonderful because it is ridden by wonderful people. Fourth, it is called wonderful because of its wonderful function. Fifth, it is ridden by wonderful people in the causal stage.
妙。六能窮盡諸法平等大慧。故名為妙。釋法華有五種妙。亦得是五種大。一小前大。謂初成正覺菩提樹下。未趣鹿園說小故名小前大。二小中大。從趣鹿園說小乘。此中即明佛乘謂小中大。三小后大。從說三藏竟次說大乘道。是小后大。四攝小大。從說法華會小歸大。五無小大。即凈土中但有大名無有小稱。如香積佛土云。我土無二乘名。但有大菩薩眾也。此五大但約時約處明之。大判佛經一途而說也。妙亦有此五。復有絕待妙絕待大。如上釋。是為六也。如般若中下第二指經廣說。上略明六義。余未盡者如經說之。又論主上雖自釋。恐物疑之今引經為證。問一切諸經皆釋大乘。何故偏引般若。答趣引其一。又龍樹云。云經大云經十種大經。此摩訶衍于中最大。是故偏引。又般若正明實相。此論亦明實相義。既相應是故偏引。問龍樹釋摩訶衍有多．勝．大。何故偏釋大耶。答略舉其一。餘二可知。又舉一即攝餘二。故但釋于大。問一乘大乘此有何異。答具有一異。言其一者大體無二。故稱為一。一乘包含故名為大。故法華云。為諸聲聞說大乘經名妙法蓮華。故知法華名為大乘。言其異者大乘之名通於今昔。三乘教中亦有大乘。一乘教中亦有大乘。但三乘教中猶未明。唯有此大無有于小。是故大乘未得稱一。問三乘中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『妙』字窮盡了諸法平等的廣大智慧，所以稱為『妙』。《釋法華》中有五種『妙』，也可以說是五種『大』：第一是『小前大』，指佛陀最初在菩提樹下成就正覺時，未到鹿野苑說法，所說是『小』，後來才說『大』，所以稱為『小前大』。第二是『小中大』，指從鹿野苑開始說小乘法，但其中也闡明了佛乘，所以稱為『小中大』。第三是『小后大』，指在說完三藏之後，接著說大乘之道，是為『小后大』。第四是『攝小大』，指在《法華經》的法會上，使小乘歸於大乘。第五是『無小大』，指在凈土之中，只有『大』的名稱，而沒有『小』的稱謂。例如香積佛土說：『我的國土沒有二乘的名字，只有大菩薩眾。』這五種『大』只是就時間和地點而言。總的來說，佛經都是朝著一個方向說的。『妙』也有這五種含義。還有『絕待妙』和『絕待大』，如上文所解釋的。這就是『六』的含義。如同《般若經》中下第二指經廣泛地闡述了這些道理。上面只是簡略地說明了這六種含義，其餘未盡之處，可以參考經文。 另外，論主雖然自己解釋了，但恐怕有人會懷疑，所以現在引用經文來作為證明。問：一切諸經都在解釋大乘，為什麼偏偏引用《般若經》呢？答：只是選取其中之一。而且龍樹菩薩說，《云經》、《大云經》等十種大經，這部《摩訶衍》在其中是最大的，所以偏偏引用它。而且《般若經》正是闡明實相的，這部論也闡明實相的意義，既然相應，所以偏偏引用它。問：龍樹菩薩解釋摩訶衍有『多』、『勝』、『大』三種含義，為什麼偏偏解釋『大』呢？答：只是簡略地舉出一個，其餘兩種可以類推得知。而且舉出一個就包含了其餘兩個，所以只解釋了『大』。問：『一乘』和『大乘』有什麼不同呢？答：既有相同之處，也有不同之處。說其相同之處，在於其大體沒有二致，所以稱為『一』。『一乘』包含了『大』，所以稱為『大』。所以《法華經》說：『為諸聲聞說大乘經，名為妙法蓮華。』由此可知，《法華經》名為大乘。說其不同之處，在於『大乘』這個名稱通用於過去和現在。三乘教中也有大乘，一乘教中也有大乘。但三乘教中還沒有完全闡明，只有這種『大』而沒有『小』，所以『大乘』還不能稱為『一』。問：三乘中...
【English Translation】 English version: The term 'Miao' (妙, profound) exhausts the vast wisdom of equality of all dharmas, hence it is called 'Miao'. The Shi Fa Hua (釋法華, Explanation of the Lotus Sutra) has five kinds of 'Miao', which can also be said to be five kinds of 'Da' (大, great): First is 'Xiao Qian Da' (小前大, small before great), referring to when the Buddha first attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, he did not go to the Deer Park to preach, what was said was 'small', and later he spoke of 'great', so it is called 'Xiao Qian Da'. Second is 'Xiao Zhong Da' (小中大, small within great), referring to starting from the Deer Park, preaching the Hinayana (小乘, small vehicle), but within it also elucidating the Buddha Vehicle (佛乘, Buddha vehicle), so it is called 'Xiao Zhong Da'. Third is 'Xiao Hou Da' (小后大, small after great), referring to after finishing speaking of the Three Pitakas (三藏, three collections of Buddhist scriptures), then speaking of the Mahayana (大乘, great vehicle) path, it is 'Xiao Hou Da'. Fourth is 'She Xiao Da' (攝小大, embracing small and great), referring to in the Dharma Flower Assembly (法華會, assembly of the Lotus Sutra), causing the Hinayana to return to the Mahayana. Fifth is 'Wu Xiao Da' (無小大, no small and great), referring to in the Pure Land (凈土, pure land), there is only the name of 'Great', and no name of 'Small'. For example, the Fragrant Accumulation Buddha Land (香積佛土, land of the Fragrant Accumulation Buddha) says: 'My land has no names of the Two Vehicles (二乘, two vehicles), only a great assembly of Bodhisattvas.' These five 'Greats' are only in terms of time and place. Generally speaking, the Buddhist scriptures are all spoken in one direction. 'Miao' also has these five meanings. There are also 'Jue Dai Miao' (絕待妙, absolute profound) and 'Jue Dai Da' (絕待大, absolute great), as explained above. This is the meaning of 'six'. Just like the second finger sutra in the lower part of the Prajna Sutra (般若經, Prajna Sutra) extensively elaborates on these principles. The above is just a brief explanation of these six meanings, and the rest that is not exhausted can be referred to in the scriptures. In addition, although the commentator has explained it himself, he is afraid that some people will doubt it, so now he quotes the scriptures as proof. Question: All the sutras are explaining the Mahayana, why specifically quote the Prajna Sutra? Answer: Just choose one of them. Moreover, Nagarjuna (龍樹, Nagarjuna) said that the Cloud Sutra (云經, Cloud Sutra), Great Cloud Sutra (大云經, Great Cloud Sutra) and other ten great sutras, this Mahayana (摩訶衍, Mahayana) is the greatest among them, so it is specifically quoted. Moreover, the Prajna Sutra is precisely elucidating the reality, and this treatise also elucidates the meaning of reality, since they are corresponding, so it is specifically quoted. Question: Nagarjuna explained that Mahayana has three meanings: 'many', 'superior', and 'great', why specifically explain 'great'? Answer: Just briefly give one, and the other two can be inferred. Moreover, giving one includes the other two, so only 'great' is explained. Question: What is the difference between 'Ekayana' (一乘, one vehicle) and 'Mahayana'? Answer: There are both similarities and differences. The similarity is that their general substance is not different, so it is called 'one'. 'Ekayana' includes 'great', so it is called 'great'. So the Lotus Sutra (法華經, Lotus Sutra) says: 'Speaking the Mahayana Sutra for the Shravakas (聲聞, hearers), it is called the Wonderful Dharma Lotus Flower.' From this, it can be known that the Lotus Sutra is called Mahayana. The difference is that the name 'Mahayana' is common to the past and present. There is also Mahayana in the Three Vehicle (三乘, three vehicles) teachings, and there is also Mahayana in the One Vehicle teachings. But the Three Vehicle teachings have not yet fully elucidated it, only this 'great' and no 'small', so 'Mahayana' cannot yet be called 'one'. Question: In the Three Vehicles...
大復為得稱一義以不。答亦有斯義。如雲一乘二乘三乘。以佛乘為一乘緣覺為二乘聲聞為三乘。作此論之亦得稱一。具出法華。問地持論中七義釋大。與今何異。答彼論就無階級中辨于階級。豎論大義。言七種者。一謂方等經菩薩藏。此是教大。所以前明教大者要根本由教然後方得發心修行。二發心大。謂發大道心。三解行大。至道種性解行純熟名解行大。四凈心大。初地菩薩得無生忍其心清凈名凈心大。五眾具大。謂大福大智通為佛道資糧名為眾具大。六時大。謂三大僧祇劫修行。七果大。謂大菩提果。此七義中第七義而上諸佛大人所乘義同。余之五義與前五義大略相似。而初義與引般若經略同。以是因緣故名為大第二總結。
大分深義所謂空也下。第五結所解旨歸。前雖唱解摩訶衍義。然摩訶衍有無量義。未知正釋何義。是故今出所解旨歸。故有此一章來也。就文為四。一標空體。二明空用。三結解釋。四明解釋之方。所言大分者有人言。如大品大數五千分或增或減。故名大數。此非釋也。有人言。大乘中般若空為一分。復以中道空理為一分。以此二分合名大乘。今二分之中以般若空為深義。故云大分深義所謂空也所以作此釋者。此是成實人義。謂般若空為乘智。空理是乘境非乘智。故作此釋耳。論直言大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 大復又問：是否可以用『一』來稱量『大』的含義？回答：也有這種含義。例如說『一乘』（Ekayana，唯一佛乘）、『二乘』（Dvayāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）、『三乘』（Triyāna，聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）。以佛乘為一乘，緣覺乘為二乘，聲聞乘為三乘。這樣來論述，也可以用『一』來稱量『大』。詳細內容出自《法華經》（Lotus Sūtra）。 問：地持論（Bodhisattvabhumi）中用七種含義來解釋『大』，與現在所說的有什麼不同？答：地持論是在沒有階級中辨別階級，是縱向論述『大』的含義。所說的七種含義是：一是方等經（Vaipulya Sutra）菩薩藏（Bodhisattva-pitaka），這是教義上的『大』。之所以先說明教義上的『大』，是因為根本上要由教義然後才能發心修行。二是發心大，指發起大道之心。三是解行大，達到道種性（bodhi-gotra）理解和修行純熟，稱為解行大。四是凈心大，初地菩薩（Prathama-bhumi）得到無生法忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti），其心清凈，稱為凈心大。五是眾具大，指大福大智，都作為成佛之道的資糧，稱為眾具大。六是時大，指三大阿僧祇劫（asamkhya-kalpa）的修行。七是果大，指大菩提果（maha-bodhi）。這七種含義中，第七種含義與上面諸佛大人所乘的含義相同。其餘的五種含義與前面五種含義大略相似。而第一種含義與引用《般若經》（Prajnaparamita Sutra）的內容略同。因為這些因緣，所以稱為『大』，這是第二部分的總結。
『大』的深奧含義，就是所謂的『空』（sunyata）。第五部分總結所理解的主旨。前面雖然闡述了解釋摩訶衍（Mahayana，大乘）的含義，然而摩訶衍有無量含義，不知道正確解釋的是什麼含義。因此現在闡述所理解的主旨，所以有這一章的由來。從文義上分為四個部分：一是標明空性本體，二是闡明空性的作用，三是總結解釋，四是闡明解釋的方法。所說的大分，有人說，如《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中大數有五千分，或增或減，所以名叫大數。這不是解釋。有人說，大乘中般若空（prajna-sunyata）為一分，又以中道空理為一分，用這兩分合起來名叫大乘。現在這兩分之中以般若空為深奧的含義，所以說『大分深義所謂空也』。之所以這樣解釋，這是成實宗（Sautrantika）人的觀點，認為般若空是乘智，空理是乘境，不是乘智，所以這樣解釋。論中直接說『大』
【English Translation】 English version: Da Fu further asked: 'Can the meaning of 'great' be measured by 'one'?' The answer is: 'There is also this meaning. For example, it is said 'One Vehicle' (Ekayana), 'Two Vehicles' (Dvayāna), and 'Three Vehicles' (Triyāna). The Buddha Vehicle is the One Vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle is the Two Vehicles, and the Sravaka Vehicle is the Three Vehicles. To discuss it in this way, it can also be measured by 'one'. The details are found in the Lotus Sutra.' Question: 'The Bodhisattvabhumi (地持論) explains 'great' with seven meanings. What is the difference from what is being said now?' Answer: 'The Bodhisattvabhumi distinguishes the levels within the absence of levels. It discusses the meaning of 'great' vertically. The seven meanings are: first, the Vaipulya Sutras (方等經) and the Bodhisattva-pitaka (菩薩藏), which is 'great' in terms of teachings. The reason for explaining 'great' in terms of teachings first is that fundamentally, one must develop the aspiration for practice based on the teachings. Second, the 'greatness of aspiration', which refers to generating the mind of the Great Path. Third, the 'greatness of understanding and practice', which refers to the maturity of understanding and practice of the bodhi-gotra (道種性), called the 'greatness of understanding and practice'. Fourth, the 'greatness of pure mind', where a Bodhisattva of the First Ground (Prathama-bhumi) attains the Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti (無生法忍), and their mind is pure, called the 'greatness of pure mind'. Fifth, the 'greatness of accumulations', which refers to great blessings and great wisdom, all used as resources for the path to Buddhahood, called the 'greatness of accumulations'. Sixth, the 'greatness of time', which refers to the practice of three great asamkhya-kalpas (三大阿僧祇劫). Seventh, the 'greatness of fruit', which refers to the great fruit of Bodhi (maha-bodhi). Among these seven meanings, the seventh meaning is the same as the meaning of what the Buddhas and great beings ride upon. The remaining five meanings are roughly similar to the previous five meanings. And the first meaning is slightly the same as the content quoted from the Prajnaparamita Sutra (般若經). Because of these reasons, it is called 'great', which is the summary of the second part.'
The profound meaning of 'great' is what is called 'emptiness' (sunyata). The fifth part summarizes the main points of understanding. Although the meaning of Mahayana (摩訶衍) has been explained earlier, Mahayana has countless meanings, and it is not known which meaning is being correctly explained. Therefore, the main points of understanding are now explained, which is why this chapter exists. From the perspective of the text, it is divided into four parts: first, to indicate the essence of emptiness; second, to clarify the function of emptiness; third, to summarize the explanation; and fourth, to clarify the method of explanation. What is meant by 'great division'? Some say that, like the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經), the great number has five thousand divisions, which may increase or decrease, so it is called the great number. This is not an explanation. Some say that, in Mahayana, prajna-sunyata (般若空) is one division, and the principle of emptiness of the Middle Way is another division. These two divisions combined are called Mahayana. Now, among these two divisions, prajna-sunyata is the profound meaning, so it is said 'the profound meaning of the great division is what is called emptiness'. The reason for this explanation is the view of the Sautrantika (成實宗), who believe that prajna-sunyata is the wisdom of the vehicle, and the principle of emptiness is the object of the vehicle, not the wisdom of the vehicle, so this explanation is made. The treatise directly says 'great'.
分深義所謂空也不以空主于慧。故亦不同之。今所釋者。上以六義釋大乘。然此論但解于大不釋于小。今就大乘中更復簡之。所言大者即上摩訶衍也。所言分者大乘具含萬德。而用正觀為乘主。正觀由實相而生。則實相為本。正觀及萬行為末。末即是有。本即是空。故大乘具含空有。今但釋空之一分故名大分。問約二諦是何諦耶。答二諦者大乘具含真俗。故為二分。今明空即是第一義也。深義者前雖釋一分。或可為末世鈍根釋淺近之分。是故次明深義于深義中有無量門。未知釋何深義。是故次云所謂空也。智度論釋深奧品云。深奧者空是其義。無生滅是其義。問是何等空耶。答一解云。是空三昧空。得此空觀故令諸法空。又解云。是外所緣法空。故名空三昧。前解是智空。后釋是境空。論主皆破之。離是二邊說于中道。謂諸法因緣生無有一定法故為空。何以故。因緣生法無自性。無自性故即畢竟空。畢竟空從本以來空。非佛作亦非餘人作。諸佛為可度眾生說是畢竟空。是空相是一切法實體。故名為深。詳論此意非境非智不觀不緣不因不果。百是不能是。百非不能非。非但是是不能是。非是亦不是。非但非非不能非。是非亦不能非。總而言之。橫絕萬法豎超四句。故名甚深也。問即得以空為第一義。第一義是甚深者有是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所說的『分深義』，並不是指空本身就是智慧的主導，因此也不同於其他的說法。現在所解釋的是，前面用六種意義來解釋大乘（Mahāyāna，梵語，大的交通工具，象徵能運載無量眾生到達彼岸的佛教派別）。然而，《大乘論》只解釋了『大』，沒有解釋『小』。現在就在大乘中進一步簡化說明。所說的『大』，就是前面的摩訶衍（Mahāyāna的音譯）。所說的『分』，是指大乘包含了萬種功德，而以正觀（正確的觀察）作為主要的交通工具。正觀由實相（事物的真實面貌）而產生，那麼實相就是根本，正觀以及萬種行為是末端。末端就是『有』，根本就是『空』。所以大乘既包含『空』也包含『有』，現在只解釋『空』的一部分，所以叫做『大分』。問：從二諦（兩種真理，即世俗諦和勝義諦）來說，屬於哪一諦呢？答：二諦是大乘既包含真諦（勝義諦）也包含俗諦（世俗諦），所以分為兩部分。現在說明的『空』就是第一義諦（最高的真理）。 『深義』是指，前面雖然解釋了一部分，或許是為末世鈍根（根器遲鈍的人）解釋淺近的部分。因此接下來說明『深義』。在『深義』中有無量的門徑，不知道解釋哪種『深義』，所以接下來就說『所謂空也』。《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa，梵語，解釋《大般若經》的論著）解釋深奧品時說：『深奧』，就是『空』的意義，『無生滅』的意義。問：這是什麼樣的『空』呢？答：一種解釋是，這是空三昧（Samādhi，梵語，通過冥想達到的精神高度集中狀態）的空。得到這種空觀（對空的觀察）所以使諸法（一切事物）空。另一種解釋是，這是外在所緣法（作為冥想對象的外部事物）的空，所以叫做空三昧。前面的解釋是智空（智慧的空），後面的解釋是境空（境界的空）。論主（《智度論》的作者）都破斥了這些說法，離開這兩種極端，說明中道（不偏不倚的道路）。 所謂的諸法因緣生（一切事物由因緣條件產生），沒有一定的法則，所以是空。為什麼呢？因為因緣生法（由因緣條件產生的事物）沒有自性（獨立存在的本質），沒有自性所以就是畢竟空（徹底的空）。畢竟空從本來就是空，不是佛創造的，也不是其他人創造的。諸佛（Buddhas，覺悟者）爲了可以度化眾生，才說這個畢竟空。這個空相（空的表象）是一切法的實體，所以叫做『深』。詳細討論這個意思，既不是境（境界）也不是智（智慧），不觀察也不攀緣，不因也不果。肯定它，一百種方式都不能肯定；否定它，一百種方式都不能否定。不僅僅是肯定不能肯定，否定肯定也不能肯定。不僅僅是否定否定不能否定，肯定否定也不能否定。總而言之，橫向截斷萬法，縱向超越四句（四種邏輯可能性），所以叫做甚深。問：如果可以用『空』作為第一義，那麼第一義是甚深的，有是...
【English Translation】 English version The so-called 'division of profound meaning' does not mean that emptiness itself is the master of wisdom, so it is also different from other statements. What is being explained now is that the Mahāyāna (Sanskrit, great vehicle, symbolizing the Buddhist school that can carry countless beings to the other shore) is explained with six meanings. However, the Mahāyāna Treatise only explains 'great' and does not explain 'small'. Now, let's further simplify the explanation within Mahāyāna. The 'great' mentioned is the aforementioned Mahāyāna. The 'division' refers to Mahāyāna containing ten thousand virtues, and using right view (correct observation) as the main vehicle. Right view arises from true reality (the true appearance of things), then true reality is the root, and right view and ten thousand actions are the end. The end is 'existence', and the root is 'emptiness'. Therefore, Mahāyāna contains both 'emptiness' and 'existence'. Now, only one part of 'emptiness' is explained, so it is called 'Great Division'. Question: From the perspective of the two truths (two kinds of truth, namely conventional truth and ultimate truth), which truth does it belong to? Answer: The two truths are that Mahāyāna contains both the true truth (ultimate truth) and the conventional truth (conventional truth), so it is divided into two parts. What is now being explained is that 'emptiness' is the ultimate truth (the highest truth). 'Profound meaning' refers to the fact that although a part has been explained earlier, it may be to explain the superficial part for the dull-rooted people of the last age. Therefore, the next explanation is 'profound meaning'. There are countless paths in 'profound meaning'. I don't know which 'profound meaning' to explain, so the next thing to say is 'the so-called emptiness'. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Sanskrit, a treatise explaining the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) explains the chapter on profound mysteries, saying: 'Profound mysteries' are the meaning of 'emptiness' and the meaning of 'no birth and no death'. Question: What kind of 'emptiness' is this? Answer: One explanation is that this is the emptiness of Samādhi (Sanskrit, a state of high mental concentration achieved through meditation). Obtaining this view of emptiness makes all dharmas (all things) empty. Another explanation is that this is the emptiness of external objects of meditation (external things that serve as objects of meditation), so it is called emptiness Samādhi. The previous explanation is wisdom emptiness, and the latter explanation is realm emptiness. The author of the treatise (the author of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) refuted these statements, leaving these two extremes and explaining the Middle Way (the path of impartiality). The so-called arising of all dharmas from conditions (all things arise from causal conditions) has no fixed law, so it is empty. Why? Because dharmas arising from conditions (things arising from causal conditions) have no self-nature (independent existence), and without self-nature, they are ultimately empty (completely empty). Ultimate emptiness has been empty from the beginning, not created by the Buddha (Buddhas, enlightened ones), nor created by others. The Buddhas (Buddhas, enlightened ones) speak of this ultimate emptiness in order to be able to save sentient beings. This appearance of emptiness (the appearance of emptiness) is the substance of all dharmas, so it is called 'profound'. Discussing this meaning in detail, it is neither realm nor wisdom, neither observing nor clinging, neither cause nor effect. Affirming it, a hundred ways cannot affirm it; denying it, a hundred ways cannot deny it. Not only can affirmation not affirm, but denying affirmation cannot affirm. Not only can denying denial not deny, but affirming denial cannot deny. In short, horizontally cutting off all dharmas and vertically transcending the four possibilities (four logical possibilities), so it is called very profound. Question: If 'emptiness' can be used as the ultimate truth, then the ultimate truth is very profound, there is...
世諦。世諦應是淺耶。答義正爾也。故中論四諦品云。世諦者一切諸法本性空。而世間謂有。於世人是實。故名諦。則知以凡夫所見有是淺聖人所知空為深也。問自佛法西域而度誰前得此意耶。答睿師凈名序云。格義迂而背本。六家偏而不即。安和上鑿荒途以開轍。標玄旨于性空。又云。以爐冶之功驗之。唯性空之宗最得其實。其後影。肇。融。睿。皆游其門。故肇公涅槃論云。聖人無數宋外無心於內。彼已寂滅。浩然大均乃曰涅槃。涅槃若此圖度絕失。以圖度不至名之為空。影公中論序云。內外並[穴/俱]緣觀俱寂。豈容名數于其間哉。問何故云非名數耶。答二諦是數。真俗境智等為名。今以不可說二不二故云非數。絕真俗等一切名故云非名。睿師此論序云。虛實兩[穴/俱]得失無際。四師語異意猶一也。問此空既非因果境智。亦得有多名耶。答智度論云。是空有種種名。謂無相無作寂滅離相法性涅槃等。故法華云。皆是一相一味。所謂離相解脫相究竟涅槃常寂滅相終歸於空。即法華名此空為一乘涅槃。無量義云。無量義者從一法生。其一法謂無相也。如是無相不相無相。不相無相名為實相。即以空為無量義處三昧。涅槃經以空釋成聖人義。以何義故名為聖人。常觀諸法性空寂故。問此空若非因果境智。何得智
【現代漢語翻譯】 世俗諦（Satya，真理）。世俗諦是否應該理解為淺顯的真理？回答是，義理正是如此。《中論·四諦品》中說：『世俗諦是指一切諸法的本性是空，但世間卻認為它們是存在的。對於世間人來說，這是真實的，所以稱為諦。』由此可知，凡夫所見的存在是淺顯的，而聖人所知的空性是深奧的。問題：自從佛法從西域傳入中國，誰最先領悟到這個道理？回答：慧遠法師在《凈名經序》中說：『格義的方法迂腐而背離了佛經的本意，六家的觀點片面而不全面。』安世高法師開闢了荒蕪的道路，揭示了性空的玄妙宗旨。』又說：『用爐火冶煉的方法來驗證，只有性空的宗義最能得到真諦。』之後，僧影、僧肇、僧融、慧睿都師從於他。所以，僧肇在《涅槃論》中說：『聖人無數，宋國之外沒有心於內，他們已經寂滅，浩然廣大而平等，這才叫做涅槃。』涅槃如果是這樣，那麼用圖度來衡量就完全錯了。因為用圖度無法達到，所以稱之為『空』。僧影在《中論序》中說：『內外一切都歸於寂靜，哪裡容得下名相和數量呢？』問題：為什麼說『非名數』呢？回答：二諦（真諦和俗諦）是數量，真俗、境智等是名稱。現在因為不可說二而不二，所以說『非數』。因為超越了真俗等一切名稱，所以說『非名』。慧睿法師在《此論序》中說：『虛實兩方面都得到，得失都沒有邊際。』四位大師的說法不同，但意思是一樣的。問題：這個空性既然不是因果、境智，也可以有很多名稱嗎？回答：《大智度論》中說：『這個空性有種種名稱，如無相、無作、寂滅、離相、法性、涅槃等。』所以《法華經》說：『都是一相一味，所謂離相解脫相究竟涅槃常寂滅相，最終歸於空。』《法華經》稱這個空性為一乘涅槃。《無量義經》說：『無量義是從一法產生的，這一法就是無相。』像這樣，無相、不相、無相，不相、無相，稱為實相。』這就是以空性為無量義處三昧。《涅槃經》用空性來解釋聖人的意義：『因為什麼意義而稱為聖人呢？因為常常觀察諸法性空寂。』問題：這個空性如果不是因果、境智，怎麼會有智慧呢？ 現代漢語譯本
【English Translation】 Satya (conventional truth). Should Satya be understood as a shallow truth? The answer is, the meaning is exactly like that. The Madhyamaka-karika, Chapter on the Four Noble Truths says: 'Satya refers to the inherent nature of all dharmas being emptiness, but the world believes they exist. To the people of the world, this is real, so it is called Satya.' From this, we know that the existence seen by ordinary people is shallow, while the emptiness known by sages is profound. Question: Since Buddhism was introduced from the Western Regions to China, who was the first to understand this principle? Answer: Dharma Master Huiyuan said in the Preface to the Vimalakirti Sutra: 'The method of geyi (matching meanings) is circuitous and deviates from the original meaning of the Buddhist scriptures, and the views of the six schools are one-sided and not comprehensive.' An Shigao pioneered the barren path and revealed the profound purpose of sunyata (emptiness).』 It also says: 'Using the method of furnace smelting to verify, only the doctrine of sunyata can obtain the true meaning.' Later, Sengying, Sengzhao, Sengrong, and Huirui all followed him. Therefore, Sengzhao said in the Nirvana Sutra: 'Sages are countless, and outside of the Song Dynasty, there is no mind within. They have already entered nirvana, vast and equal, and this is called Nirvana.' If Nirvana is like this, then measuring it with diagrams is completely wrong. Because it cannot be reached by diagrams, it is called 'emptiness.' Sengying said in the Preface to the Madhyamaka-karika: 'Everything inside and outside returns to stillness, where can names and numbers be accommodated?' Question: Why is it said 'not names and numbers'? Answer: The two truths (ultimate truth and conventional truth) are numbers, and truth and falsehood, realms and wisdom, etc., are names. Now, because it is impossible to say two and not two, it is said 'not numbers.' Because it transcends all names such as truth and falsehood, it is said 'not names.' Dharma Master Huirui said in the Preface to This Treatise: 'Both emptiness and reality are obtained, and there are no boundaries to gain and loss.' The statements of the four masters are different, but the meaning is the same. Question: Since this emptiness is not cause and effect, realms and wisdom, can it also have many names? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'This emptiness has various names, such as no-form, no-action, stillness, detachment, dharmata (the nature of reality), Nirvana, etc.' Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'All are one form and one taste, namely detachment, liberation, ultimate Nirvana, and constant stillness, ultimately returning to emptiness.' The Lotus Sutra calls this emptiness the One Vehicle Nirvana. The Infinite Meanings Sutra says: 'Infinite meanings arise from one dharma, and that one dharma is no-form.' Like this, no-form, non-form, no-form, non-form, no-form, is called true form.' This is taking emptiness as the Samadhi of the Abode of Infinite Meanings. The Nirvana Sutra uses emptiness to explain the meaning of a sage: 'For what meaning is one called a sage? Because one constantly observes that the nature of all dharmas is empty and still.' Question: If this emptiness is not cause and effect, realms and wisdom, how can there be wisdom? English version
度論雲實相生般若。即實相為境般若為智。般若是果實相是因。答此是非因非果強說因果。非境非智強稱境智。故下論云。緣是一邊觀是一邊因是一邊乃至中是一邊偏是一邊。離是一邊名為中道。即其證也。若通達是義者。上釋空體今第二辨空用。若能解悟此空則生般若。般若生則導萬行運出生死。故云通達大乘六度皆備。此不二二分境智為二。故說實相為所通達。般若為能通達。然實未曾能所亦非境智。問通達大乘與具足六度何異。答大乘據果六度為因。以通達于空因果皆備。又故睿師序云。整歸駕于道場必畢趣心於佛地。正用今文意也。又通達大乘為總具足六度為別。是故我今但解釋空第三結解釋。有此利益須但釋之。解釋空者。下第四明解釋之方。此十二言教有四種功用。一能顯理以理為門。二能發觀與觀為門。三遮塞非道。如涅槃云。斷塞諸道。謂四句百非。四障閉邪觀。謂凡夫二乘有所得生心動念皆不得入也。
問云何言十二門入空耶。答明我今以十二事顯明於空令物悟入。初是因緣門論有三分。初分竟前。今是第二正明十二門入于空義。以為論體。問中百二論並皆開之。此十二門為開不開。答一師相承多不開之。凡有二義。一者此十二門因備婉轉始終相成故不須開。二者一一門皆無法不窮無言不盡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《大智度論》說，實相（Satya-laksana，真實的相狀）產生般若（Prajna，智慧）。即以實相為境界，般若為智慧。般若是果，實相是因。回答：這不是因，也不是果，勉強說是因果；不是境界，也不是智慧，勉強稱為境界和智慧。所以下文說：『緣是一邊，觀是一邊，因是一邊，乃至中是一邊，偏是一邊，離是一邊，名為中道。』這就是證明。如果通達這個道理，上面解釋了空的本體，現在第二部分辨析空的作用。如果能夠理解領悟這個空，就能產生般若。般若產生，就能引導萬行，運化出生死。所以說通達大乘，六度（Paramita，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）都具備。這不二法門，如果將境界和智慧分為二，所以說實相是所通達的，般若是能通達的。然而實際上未曾有能通達和所通達，也不是境界和智慧。 問：通達大乘與具足六度有什麼不同？答：大乘是就結果來說的，六度是就原因來說的。因為通達于空，原因和結果都具備了。又如鳩摩羅什的弟子僧睿的序文說：『整頓歸向道場，必定完全致力於佛地。』正是用了本文的意思。又通達大乘是總的，具足六度是別的。因此我現在只解釋空，第三部分總結解釋，有這樣的利益，必須只解釋它。解釋空的方法，在下文第四部分說明解釋的方法。這十二種言教有四種功用：一、能夠顯明真理，以真理為門徑；二、能夠啓發觀照，以觀照為門徑；三、遮斷阻塞非正道。如《涅槃經》所說：『斷塞諸道。』指四句百非；四、障礙關閉邪惡的見解。指凡夫和二乘人有所得的心生起念頭，都不能進入。 問：為什麼說十二門進入空呢？答：說明我現在用十二件事來顯明空，使人領悟進入。最初是因緣門，本論有三個部分。第一部分已經結束，現在是第二部分，正式闡明十二門進入空的意義，作為本論的主體。問：中百二論都全部展開說明，這十二門是展開說明還是不展開說明？答：一師相承，大多不展開說明。大概有兩種意義：一是這十二門原因完備，委婉周全，始終互相成就，所以不需要展開；二是每一門都沒有固定的方法，沒有窮盡的言語。
【English Translation】 English version: The Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra says that Satya-laksana (the true aspect) generates Prajna (wisdom). That is, Satya-laksana is the object, and Prajna is the wisdom. Prajna is the result, and Satya-laksana is the cause. Answer: This is neither cause nor result, but a forced explanation of cause and result; neither object nor wisdom, but a forced designation of object and wisdom. Therefore, the following text says: 'Condition is one side, observation is one side, cause is one side, even the middle is one side, bias is one side, detachment is one side, which is called the Middle Way.' This is the proof. If one understands this principle, the above explains the essence of emptiness, and now the second part analyzes the function of emptiness. If one can understand and realize this emptiness, one can generate Prajna. When Prajna arises, it can guide the myriad practices and transform birth and death. Therefore, it is said that understanding the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) means possessing all six Paramitas (perfections: generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom). If the non-dual dharma is divided into object and wisdom, then Satya-laksana is said to be what is understood, and Prajna is what can understand. However, in reality, there is no such thing as what can understand and what is understood, nor is there object and wisdom. Question: What is the difference between understanding the Mahayana and possessing the six Paramitas? Answer: The Mahayana is spoken of in terms of the result, and the six Paramitas are spoken of in terms of the cause. Because one understands emptiness, both cause and result are complete. Furthermore, as stated in the preface by Sengrui, a disciple of Kumarajiva: 'Preparing to return to the Bodhimanda (place of enlightenment), one must completely devote oneself to the Buddha-ground.' This is precisely the meaning of this text. Moreover, understanding the Mahayana is general, while possessing the six Paramitas is specific. Therefore, I will now only explain emptiness, and the third part will summarize the explanation. There is such benefit, so it must be explained only. The method of explaining emptiness is described in the fourth part below. These twelve teachings have four functions: first, they can reveal the truth, using the truth as the gateway; second, they can inspire contemplation, using contemplation as the gateway; third, they can block and obstruct non-paths, as the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Block all paths,' referring to the four negations and the hundred negations; fourth, they can obstruct and close off evil views, meaning that ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles who have attachment and generate thoughts cannot enter. Question: Why is it said that the twelve gates enter emptiness? Answer: It means that I am now using twelve things to reveal emptiness, so that people can understand and enter. The first is the gate of conditions, and this treatise has three parts. The first part has already ended, and now is the second part, which formally elucidates the meaning of the twelve gates entering emptiness, as the main body of this treatise. Question: The Madhyamaka-karika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) and the Dvadasanikaya-sastra (Treatise on the Twelve Gates) fully explain everything. Are these twelve gates fully explained or not? Answer: According to the tradition of one teacher, most of them are not fully explained. There are roughly two meanings: first, these twelve gates have complete causes, are subtle and thorough, and are mutually accomplished from beginning to end, so there is no need to fully explain them; second, each gate has no fixed method, and no words can exhaust it.
。故諸門后皆云。有為空故無為亦空。有為無為尚空。何況我耶。此即門門皆說諸法空故故不須開。今亦得云開者凡有二義。一者此論既秤但解釋空。宜就三空分之。初三門明於空門。次四門明於無相門。后五門明無作門。論文實有此意。二者此論既明諸法實相。為令眾生悟無生忍。宜就無生分之。可為六雙。初十一門破異法生不得。最後一門求即法生無從。即法異法生不可得。則一切無生令眾生悟無生忍。此一雙也。就異法中又二。初十門明前因後果及因果一時生義無從。第十一門明前果后因亦不可得三時無生則生義盡矣。此第二雙也。初又二。九門明法無生。第十門明人無生。人法無生謂第三雙也。初又二。初八門求一切法相不可得。次一門撿諸法性義無從。即內性外相一切空為第四雙也。初又二。前三門求所相法無從。次四門撿能相不可得。則能相所相俱空第五雙也。前又二。初門總求因緣生不可得。次兩門別求因緣生。不可得謂總別一雙。此皆一途大格其不盡者至門門初當委述之。一一門為三。初長行發起。二偈本正明門體。三總結。此三即是標釋結也。長行發起如前釋之。
眾緣所生法第二正明門體。就文為二。初偈次長行。此偈文約義包非是一意能盡。今略述之。一者就破病為解釋。上半破外道義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，各個門之後都說：『因為有為法是空性的，所以無為法也是空性的。有為法和無為法尚且是空性的，更何況我呢？』 這就是說，每個門都在闡述諸法皆空的道理，所以不需要開啟。現在也可以說，開啟有兩重含義：一是這部論著既然專門解釋空性，就應該按照三空來劃分。前三門闡明空門，其次四門闡明無相門，最後五門闡明無作門。論文實際上有這個用意。二是這部論著既然闡明諸法實相，爲了讓眾生領悟無生法忍，就應該按照無生來劃分，可以分為六雙。最初的十一門破斥異法生是不可能的，最後一門探求即法生也無從下手。即法和異法生都不可得，那麼一切法無生，讓眾生領悟無生法忍，這是一雙。在異法中又分為兩種，最初的十門闡明前因後果以及因果同時生起都是不可能的，第十一門闡明前果后因也是不可能的，過去、現在、未來三時都沒有生，那麼生的意義就窮盡了，這是第二雙。最初又分為兩種，九門闡明法無生，第十門闡明人無生，人法無生，這是第三雙。最初又分為兩種，最初的八門探求一切法相都不可得，其次一門檢查諸法自性也無從下手，即內在的自性和外在的法相一切皆空，這是第四雙。最初又分為兩種，前三門探求所相法無從下手，其次四門檢查能相也不可得，那麼能相和所相都空，這是第五雙。前面又分為兩種，第一門總的探求因緣生是不可能的，其次兩門分別探求因緣生也是不可能的，總別為一雙。這些都是一個大的綱領，其中沒有窮盡的地方，到每個門開始的時候會詳細闡述。每一門分為三個部分，最初是長行發起，其次是偈頌正明門體，最後是總結。這三個部分就是標、釋、結。長行發起如前面所解釋的。
眾緣所生法第二，正式闡明門體。就文句來說分為兩個部分，最初是偈頌，其次是長行。這個偈頌文句簡約，義理包容，不是一個意思能夠窮盡的。現在簡略地敘述一下，一是就破除病患來解釋，上半部分破斥外道的義理。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, behind each gate, it is said: 'Because conditioned phenomena (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) are empty, unconditioned phenomena (無為法, wú wéi fǎ) are also empty. Conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are already empty, so what about me?' This means that each gate explains the principle that all dharmas (諸法, zhū fǎ) are empty, so there is no need to open them. Now it can also be said that 'opening' has two meanings: first, since this treatise specifically explains emptiness, it should be divided according to the three emptinesses (三空, sān kōng). The first three gates clarify the gate of emptiness (空門, kōng mén), the next four gates clarify the gate of signlessness (無相門, wú xiàng mén), and the last five gates clarify the gate of non-action (無作門, wú zuò mén). The treatise actually has this intention. Second, since this treatise clarifies the true nature of all dharmas, in order to enable sentient beings to realize the non-origination forbearance (無生法忍, wú shēng fǎ rěn), it should be divided according to non-origination, which can be divided into six pairs. The first eleven gates refute that the origination of different dharmas (異法, yì fǎ) is impossible, and the last gate explores that the origination of the same dharma (即法, jí fǎ) is also impossible to grasp. The origination of the same and different dharmas is unattainable, then all dharmas are non-originated, enabling sentient beings to realize the non-origination forbearance, this is one pair. Among different dharmas, there are two types: the first ten gates clarify that the origination of prior causes and subsequent effects, as well as the simultaneous origination of cause and effect, are impossible; the eleventh gate clarifies that prior effects and subsequent causes are also unattainable; there is no origination in the past, present, and future three times, then the meaning of origination is exhausted, this is the second pair. Initially, there are two types: nine gates clarify that dharmas are non-originated, and the tenth gate clarifies that beings are non-originated; beings and dharmas are non-originated, this is the third pair. Initially, there are two types: the first eight gates explore that all dharma characteristics are unattainable, and the next gate examines that the nature of all dharmas is impossible to grasp, that is, the inner nature and outer characteristics are all empty, this is the fourth pair. Initially, there are two types: the first three gates explore that the characterized dharmas (所相法, suǒ xiàng fǎ) are impossible to grasp, and the next four gates examine that the characterizing dharmas (能相, néng xiàng) are also unattainable, then both characterizing and characterized dharmas are empty, this is the fifth pair. Previously, there are two types: the first gate generally explores that dependent origination (因緣生, yīnyuán shēng) is impossible, and the next two gates separately explore that dependent origination is also impossible, general and specific are one pair. These are all major outlines, and what is not exhausted will be explained in detail at the beginning of each gate. Each gate is divided into three parts: first, the prose introduction (長行發起, cháng xíng fā qǐ); second, the verse that formally clarifies the gate's essence (偈本正明門體, jì běn zhèng míng mén tǐ); and third, the conclusion (總結, zǒng jié). These three parts are the label, explanation, and conclusion. The prose introduction is as explained earlier.
The second, 'Phenomena Arising from Conditions' (眾緣所生法, zhòng yuán suǒ shēng fǎ), formally clarifies the essence of the gate. In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts: first, the verse; and second, the prose. This verse is concise in wording and comprehensive in meaning, and cannot be exhausted by one meaning. Now, let's briefly describe it: first, it is explained in terms of eliminating diseases; the first half refutes the doctrines of external paths (外道, wài dào).
。外道執諸法有自性。如僧佉。五塵和合別有瓶體性。無塵為一。世師別有瓶法。與塵為異。勒娑婆別有瓶法。與塵亦一亦異。若提子別即瓶法。與塵非一非異。外瓶既爾內總身亦然。今明瓶為眾緣所成。即無自性。若有自性不假眾緣。故上半破一切外道。令一切外道藉因緣知外瓶內身悉皆是空故。從因緣門以入空下半破內道義。內學之人乃不言眾緣和合別有實瓶。而有無性假瓶。是故今明若無有自性云何有是法。故亦無假瓶。令內學人從因緣門悟假瓶空。二者上半破薩婆多義。薩婆多雲。未來有自性法假緣即生。如木有火性。假緣成於事火。是故破云。名有自性即不假緣。今既假緣即無自性。令薩婆多從因緣門悟法性空。下半破成實。成實師云。雖無自性之法而世諦有於三假。是故今明若無自性則無有法。令悟此三假即是四絕。三上半破犢子部義。犢子部云。四大和合有眼法。五陰和合有人法。今明眼從大生則無自性。人由陰有義亦同之。為令犢子從因緣門悟無人法。下半破譬喻佛陀。既無自性則無有法。不應別計有于假人。四者上半破假有體義。明由於微陰眾緣故有人柱。則人柱無有自性。自性即是自體。既無自性即無自體。下半破假無自體義。仍無體故雖無自體而有假用。今明既無自性即無有人。令誰用耶。五
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：外道執著于諸法有其自身本性（自性）。例如僧佉派（Samkhya），認為五種微塵（五塵）和合，就另外產生瓶子的實體本性（瓶體性）；如果沒有微塵，就歸於一；世師派（Vaisheshika）認為另外有瓶子的法（瓶法），與微塵不同；勒娑婆派（Lokāyata）認為另外有瓶子的法，與微塵既相同又不同；若提子派（Jains）認為瓶子的法與微塵既非相同也非不同。外在的瓶子既然如此，內在的總和之身也是這樣。現在說明瓶子是由眾多因緣條件所成就，因此沒有自身本性。如果有自身本性，就不需要依賴眾多因緣條件。所以，上半部分是爲了破斥一切外道，讓一切外道憑藉因緣條件，知道外在的瓶子和內在的身體，全部都是空（空性）的緣故。從因緣之門進入空性。下半部分是爲了破斥內道的義理。內學之人不認為眾多因緣條件和合，另外有真實的瓶子，而是有無自性的假瓶。因此，現在說明如果沒有自身本性，怎麼會有這個法（假瓶）呢？所以也沒有假瓶，讓內學之人從因緣之門領悟假瓶也是空性。第二，上半部分是爲了破斥薩婆多派（Sarvāstivāda）的義理。薩婆多派認為，未來有自身本性的法，憑藉因緣條件就會產生。例如木頭有火的本性，憑藉因緣條件就成為燃燒的火。所以破斥說，如果名（概念）有自身本性，就不需要依賴因緣條件。現在既然依賴因緣條件，就沒有自身本性，讓薩婆多派從因緣之門領悟法性是空性。下半部分是爲了破斥成實論師（Satyasiddhi）。成實論師認為，雖然沒有自身本性的法，但在世俗諦（世諦）中有三種假（三假）。因此，現在說明如果沒有自身本性，就沒有法，讓他們領悟這三種假就是四種斷絕（四絕）。第三，上半部分是爲了破斥犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）的義理。犢子部認為，四大（四大種）和合有眼法，五陰（五蘊）和合有人法。現在說明眼睛從四大產生，就沒有自身本性；人由五陰而有，義理也相同。爲了讓犢子部從因緣之門領悟沒有人的法。下半部分是爲了破斥譬喻師（Sautrāntika）和佛陀。既然沒有自身本性，就沒有法，不應該另外計算有假人。第四，上半部分是爲了破斥假有實體的義理。說明由於微小的陰影和眾多因緣條件，所以有人柱（人像柱），那麼人柱就沒有自身本性。自身本性就是自體（實體）。既然沒有自身本性，就沒有自體。下半部分是爲了破斥假無自體的義理。仍然沒有實體，所以雖然沒有自體，但有假的作用。現在說明既然沒有自身本性，就沒有人，讓誰來使用呢？第五 二者上半破薩婆多義。薩婆多雲。未來有自性法假緣即生。如木有火性。假緣成於事火。是故破云。名有自性即不假緣。今既假緣即無自性。令薩婆多從因緣門悟法性空。下半破成實。成實師云。雖無自性之法而世諦有於三假。是故今明若無自性則無有法。令悟此三假即是四絕。三上半破犢子部義。犢子部云。四大和合有眼法。五陰和合有人法。今明眼從大生則無自性。人由陰有義亦同之。為令犢子從因緣門悟無人法。下半破譬喻佛陀。既無自性則無有法。不應別計有于假人。四者上半破假有體義。明由於微陰眾緣故有人柱。則人柱無有自性。自性即是自體。既無自性即無自體。下半破假無自體義。仍無體故雖無自體而有假用。今明既無自性即無有人。令誰用耶。五
【English Translation】 English version: The adherents of external paths (外道) cling to the notion that all dharmas (諸法) possess inherent existence (自性, svabhāva). For example, the Samkhya (僧佉) school believes that the combination of the five subtle elements (五塵) gives rise to the inherent nature of a pot (瓶體性); without these elements, it is reduced to oneness. The Vaisheshika (世師) school posits a separate dharma of the pot (瓶法) distinct from the elements. The Lokāyata (勒娑婆) school asserts that the dharma of the pot is both identical to and different from the elements. The Jains (若提子) claim that the dharma of the pot is neither identical to nor different from the elements. Just as with the external pot, so too with the internal aggregate body. Now, it is explained that the pot is formed by numerous causal conditions (因緣), hence it lacks inherent existence. If it had inherent existence, it would not depend on numerous causal conditions. Therefore, the first half refutes all external paths, enabling them to understand through causal conditions that both the external pot and the internal body are all empty (空性, śūnyatā). Entering emptiness through the gate of causal conditions. The second half refutes the doctrines of internal paths. Those who study internally do not claim that the combination of numerous causal conditions gives rise to a real pot, but rather to an unreal pot lacking inherent existence. Therefore, it is now explained that if there is no inherent existence, how can there be this dharma (unreal pot)? Hence, there is no unreal pot either, enabling internal students to realize through the gate of causal conditions that the unreal pot is also empty. Secondly, the first half refutes the doctrines of the Sarvāstivāda (薩婆多) school. The Sarvāstivādins believe that dharmas with inherent existence in the future arise through causal conditions. For example, wood has the inherent nature of fire, and through causal conditions, it becomes burning fire. Therefore, it is refuted by saying that if a name (concept) has inherent existence, it would not depend on causal conditions. Since it depends on causal conditions, it lacks inherent existence, enabling the Sarvāstivādins to realize through the gate of causal conditions that the nature of dharmas is empty. The second half refutes the Satyasiddhi (成實論師). The Satyasiddhi masters believe that although dharmas lack inherent existence, there are three kinds of provisionality (三假) in conventional truth (世諦). Therefore, it is now explained that if there is no inherent existence, there are no dharmas, enabling them to realize that these three kinds of provisionality are the four kinds of absoluteness (四絕). Thirdly, the first half refutes the doctrines of the Vātsīputrīya (犢子部) school. The Vātsīputrīyas believe that the combination of the four great elements (四大種) gives rise to the eye-dharma, and the combination of the five aggregates (五蘊) gives rise to the person-dharma. It is now explained that the eye arises from the four great elements, hence it lacks inherent existence; the person arises from the five aggregates, and the principle is the same. To enable the Vātsīputrīyas to realize through the gate of causal conditions that there is no person-dharma. The second half refutes the Sautrāntika (譬喻師) and the Buddha. Since there is no inherent existence, there are no dharmas, and one should not separately calculate that there is a provisional person. Fourthly, the first half refutes the notion of the real existence of the provisional. It is explained that due to subtle shadows and numerous causal conditions, there is a person-pillar (人像柱), so the person-pillar lacks inherent existence. Inherent existence is self-nature (自體). Since there is no inherent existence, there is no self-nature. The second half refutes the notion of the absence of self-nature in the provisional. There is still no substance, so although there is no self-nature, there is provisional function. It is now explained that since there is no inherent existence, there is no person, so who is there to use it? Fifthly, The second part refutes the Sarvastivada meaning. Sarvastivadins say that the future has the nature of the law that is born by false fate. For example, wood has the nature of fire. False fate becomes a fire. Therefore, it is broken and said. The name has its own nature and does not assume fate. Now that the false fate has no self-nature. Let Sarvastivada realize the emptiness of Dharma from the gate of cause and fate. The second half breaks the truth. The real teacher said. Although there is no self-nature, the world has three false. Therefore, it is clear that if there is no self-nature, there is no law. Let me realize that these three false are four absolutes. The third half breaks the meaning of the calf. The calf said. The four elements are combined with the eye method. The five aggregates are combined with human law. It is clear that the eyes are born from the big and have no self-nature. People have the same meaning as Yin. In order to make the calf realize that there is no human law from the gate of cause and fate. The second half breaks the metaphor Buddha. Since there is no self-nature, there is no law. There should be no other plan for false people. The fourth half breaks the meaning of false existence. It is clear that there is a pillar of people because of the micro-yin and the fate of the people. Then the pillar of people has no self-nature. Self-nature is self-nature. Since there is no self-nature, there is no self-nature. The second half breaks the meaning of false self-nature. There is still no body, so although there is no self-nature, there is a false use. It is clear that since there is no self-nature, there is no one. Who will use it? Fifth
者什師未至長安有三種義。一者心無義。二即色義。三本無義。心無者。明心體是無而不無萬法。肇公評之云。此得在於神靜。而而失在於物虛。今此一偈破心無義。明心及萬法皆眾緣生則無自性。若無自性則心境俱空。云何心空境不空耶。次即色義云。明色無自性故言色空。而因緣假色此即不空。肇師評云。此乃悟色不自色。未領色之非色。今偈破云。因緣生色即無自性。若無自性即是無色。云何言有無性色不可空耶。本本無義者。未有諸法先有于空。空為其本有為其末。此偈破云。因緣生法性本自空。非是先空後方是有。故此一偈定佛法得失。故作十二以正之。六者此偈俱破內外空有二見。因緣所生法此破內外無見。外云。無黑白業無黑白報。故無能生所生。今明黑白果報從黑白業眾緣所生。云何言無耶。方廣云。有分無故諸分亦無。如柱無故微無人無故陰無。今明微陰因緣成於人柱。何得無耶。故上句破于無見。下三句破于有見。著有見者有見者決定謂有人法。是故今明眾緣所生無有自性。若無自性而畢竟空。云何諸法決定有耶。
自上已來雖有六條略就破十家義以釋此文。今次為不學問人但過去久習善根直令端坐觀察內外即悟入空以釋之。眾緣者四支百體語其因也。所生法者七尺之身言其果也。是即無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 什師（鳩摩羅什大師）未到長安時，對『空』有三種理解。第一種是『心無義』，認為心的本體是『無』，但又能生出萬法。肇公（僧肇）評論說，這種理解得益於強調內心的平靜，但錯誤在於將外物視為空虛。現在這首偈頌破斥了『心無義』，闡明心和萬法都是由眾多因緣和合而生，因此沒有自性。如果沒有自性，那麼心和境都是空性的。怎麼能說心是空的而境不是空的呢？第二種是『即色義』，認為色沒有自性，所以說是『色空』，但因緣和合產生的假色並不是空。肇師評論說，這種理解領悟到色不是它自身，但沒有領悟到色的非色性。現在這首偈頌破斥說，因緣所生的色沒有自性，如果沒有自性，那就是無色。怎麼能說有無自性的色而不能說是空呢？第三種是『本無義』，認為在諸法產生之前，先有空存在，空是根本，有是末端。這首偈頌破斥說，因緣所生的法的本性本來就是空，而不是先有空後來才有有。因此，這首偈頌確定了佛法的得失，所以作十二正之。這首偈頌同時破斥了內外空有二種見解。『因緣所生法』破斥了內外無見。外道說，沒有黑白業，也沒有黑白報，所以沒有能生和所生。現在說明黑白果報是從黑白業的眾多因緣所生。怎麼能說沒有呢？《方廣經》說，因為有分，所以諸分也沒有；如柱子沒有，所以微塵沒有人；沒有人，所以陰也沒有。現在說明微塵和陰因緣和合而成於人柱，怎麼能說沒有呢？所以上句破斥了無見，下三句破斥了有見。執著于有見的人，一定認為有人和法。所以現在說明眾多因緣所生沒有自性，如果沒有自性，那麼畢竟是空。怎麼能說諸法決定是有呢？
從上面開始，雖然有六條，但大致是就破斥十家之義來解釋這段文字。現在接下來為不學無術的人，但過去長期熏習善根，直接讓他們端坐觀察內外，就能悟入空性來解釋它。『眾緣』指的是四肢百體，是說的因。『所生法』指的是七尺之身，是說的果。這就是無。
【English Translation】 English version When Master Shi (Kumārajīva) had not yet arrived in Chang'an, there were three understandings of 'emptiness'. The first is 'the meaning of mind-as-nothingness', which holds that the essence of the mind is 'nothingness', but it can produce all phenomena. Zhao Gong (Sengzhao) commented that this understanding benefits from emphasizing inner peace, but errs in viewing external things as empty. Now this verse refutes 'the meaning of mind-as-nothingness', clarifying that both the mind and all phenomena are produced by numerous causes and conditions, and therefore have no self-nature. If there is no self-nature, then both the mind and the object are empty. How can it be said that the mind is empty but the object is not? The second is 'the meaning of form-as-suchness', which holds that form has no self-nature, so it is said to be 'form is emptiness', but the false form produced by causes and conditions is not empty. Master Zhao commented that this understanding realizes that form is not itself, but does not realize the non-form nature of form. Now this verse refutes that the form produced by causes and conditions has no self-nature. If there is no self-nature, then it is formlessness. How can it be said that there is form without self-nature and cannot be said to be empty? The third is 'the meaning of original-nothingness', which holds that before all phenomena arise, emptiness exists first, emptiness is the root, and existence is the end. This verse refutes that the nature of phenomena produced by causes and conditions is originally empty, not that there is emptiness first and then existence later. Therefore, this verse determines the gains and losses of the Buddha's teachings, so twelve are made to correct it. This verse simultaneously refutes the two views of internal and external emptiness and existence. 'Phenomena arising from causes and conditions' refutes the internal and external view of non-existence. The heretics say that there is no black and white karma, and no black and white retribution, so there is no producer and no produced. Now it is explained that black and white retribution arises from the numerous causes and conditions of black and white karma. How can it be said that there is none? The Fangguang Sutra says that because there are parts, all parts are also non-existent; just as the pillar is non-existent, so the dust is non-existent; if there is no person, then there is no skandha. Now it is explained that dust and skandhas are formed into a human pillar by causes and conditions. How can it be said that there is none? Therefore, the first sentence refutes the view of non-existence, and the last three sentences refute the view of existence. Those who are attached to the view of existence certainly believe that there are people and phenomena. Therefore, it is now explained that what is produced by numerous causes and conditions has no self-nature. If there is no self-nature, then it is ultimately empty. How can it be said that all phenomena are definitely existent?
From the above, although there are six points, they are roughly based on refuting the meanings of ten schools to explain this passage. Now, next, for those who are unlearned, but have long cultivated good roots in the past, directly let them sit upright and observe internally and externally, and they can realize emptiness to explain it. 'Numerous causes and conditions' refers to the four limbs and hundreds of bodies, which refers to the cause. 'Phenomena arising' refers to the seven-foot body, which refers to the effect. This is non-existence.
自性者。以果從緣緣會而成。成由會者豈有體耶。若無有自性云何有是法者。法即是果法也。既無自性既無身果。故藉頭足因緣即悟此身空。故云觀身實相。觀佛亦然。內身既爾外舍亦然。次直就理教釋者。今以空因緣是門為能通。以因緣空為理是所通。此即從因緣所悟入不所。故前序云。當以十二門入于空義。然能既不有所亦不無。如是五句皆不可得。此即從因緣所悟入諸法實相。諸法實相心行斷言語滅亦名波若。故云般若波羅蜜實法不顛倒唸想觀已除言語法亦滅。亦名佛性中道。故涅槃云。見緣起為見法。見法即見中道。見中道即見佛亦見佛性。即其事也。然只因緣所畢竟無軌跡處所。勿令失因緣所。雖畢竟無而軌跡因緣所宛然。故肇公云。欲言其有有非真性。欲言其無事緣既形。如此了悟即發生二慧。因緣所宛然。而畢竟空即方便實慧。雖畢竟空而因緣所宛然。即實慧方便即發生二慧。即是境智義。取因緣所能通義故名為門。取其能生義目之為境。既發生二慧則具足六度萬行。便名大乘。故大品云。見燃燈佛得無生則萬行具足。既得無生二慧。故出斷常生滅。名出三界得薩般若。故前云。通達是義則通達大乘無障礙。
又就二空釋此偈。因緣所生法是則無自性。辨性空門破于性病。若無有自性云何有是法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自性（svabhāva）是指，果由因緣和合而成。由因緣和合而成的，怎麼會有自體呢？如果沒有自性，又怎麼會有這個法（dharma）呢？法就是果法啊。既然沒有自性，也就沒有自身之果。所以憑藉頭足等因緣，就能領悟到此身是空的。所以說，觀察身之實相。觀察佛也是這樣。內在的身體如此，外在的房舍也是如此。接下來直接就理來解釋：現在以空因緣作為門，是能通達的；以因緣空作為理，是所通達的。這就是從因緣所悟入不有不無。所以前面的序言說，應當以十二門進入空義。然而能通達的既不是有，所通達的也不是無。像這樣的五句都不可得。這就是從因緣所悟入諸法實相。諸法實相是心行斷絕、言語滅盡，也叫做般若（prajna）。所以說，《般若波羅蜜經》說實法不顛倒，念想觀已經去除，言語法也滅盡。也叫做佛性中道。所以《涅槃經》說，見緣起就是見法，見法就是見中道，見中道就是見佛，也見佛性，就是這個意思。然而只是因緣所生，畢竟沒有軌跡處所。不要失去因緣所生。雖然畢竟是空，而軌跡因緣所生卻宛然存在。所以僧肇說，想說它有，有卻不是真；想說它無，事緣卻已經形成。如此了悟，就發生二慧：因緣所生宛然，而畢竟空，就是方便實慧；雖然畢竟空，而因緣所生宛然，就是實慧方便。即是境智的含義。取因緣所生的能通達的意義，所以叫做門。取其能生之義，稱之為境。既然發生二慧，就具足六度萬行，便叫做大乘（Mahāyāna）。所以《大品般若經》說，見燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）得無生法忍，則萬行具足。既然得到無生法忍和二慧，故能出離斷常生滅，名為出三界，得薩般若（sarvajna）。所以前面說，通達這個意義，就通達大乘無障礙。
又就二空來解釋這個偈頌：因緣所生法，就是沒有自性。辨性空門，破除性病。如果沒有自性，又怎麼會有這個法呢？
【English Translation】 English version 『Self-nature』 (svabhāva) means that a result arises from the assembly of conditions. If it is formed by the assembly of conditions, how can it have an inherent entity? If there is no self-nature, how can there be this 『dharma』? 『Dharma』 refers to the dharma of the result. Since there is no self-nature, there is no result of the self. Therefore, relying on the conditions of head, feet, etc., one can realize that this body is empty. Hence, it is said, 『Observe the true nature of the body.』 Observing the Buddha is also the same. As the inner body is, so is the external dwelling. Next, directly explaining it in terms of principle: Now, taking empty conditions as the gate, it is what can penetrate; taking the emptiness of conditions as the principle, it is what is penetrated. This is what is realized from conditions, entering into neither existence nor non-existence. Therefore, the preceding introduction says, 『One should enter the meaning of emptiness through the twelve gates.』 However, what can penetrate is neither existent, nor is what is penetrated non-existent. Such five statements are all unattainable. This is what is realized from conditions, entering into the true nature of all dharmas. The true nature of all dharmas is the cessation of mental activity and the extinction of language, also called prajna (般若). Therefore, the Prajnaparamita Sutra says that the true dharma is not inverted, thoughts and views have been removed, and language and dharma are also extinguished. It is also called Buddha-nature and the Middle Way. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says, 『Seeing dependent origination is seeing the Dharma; seeing the Dharma is seeing the Middle Way; seeing the Middle Way is seeing the Buddha, and also seeing Buddha-nature,』 which is the same meaning. However, it is only produced by conditions, ultimately without any trace or location. Do not lose what is produced by conditions. Although it is ultimately empty, what is produced by traces of conditions is clearly present. Therefore, Seng Zhao (僧肇) said, 『If you want to say it exists, existence is not true; if you want to say it is non-existent, the conditions have already taken shape.』 Such realization gives rise to two wisdoms: what is produced by conditions is clearly present, and ultimately empty, which is expedient and true wisdom; although ultimately empty, what is produced by conditions is clearly present, which is true wisdom and expedient. This is the meaning of object and wisdom. Taking the meaning of what is produced by conditions as what can penetrate, it is called the gate. Taking its meaning of being able to produce, it is called the object. Since two wisdoms arise, one is complete with the Six Perfections and myriad practices, and is called Mahayana (大乘). Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 『Seeing Dipamkara Buddha (燃燈佛) and attaining non-origination, then the myriad practices are complete.』 Since one attains non-origination and two wisdoms, one transcends cessation and permanence, arising and ceasing, and is called transcending the Three Realms, attaining sarvajna (薩般若). Therefore, it was said earlier, 『Penetrating this meaning is penetrating the Great Vehicle without obstruction.』
Furthermore, explaining this verse in terms of the two emptinesses: 『The dharma produced by conditions is without self-nature.』 Discriminating the gate of emptiness of nature breaks the disease of nature. If there is no self-nature, how can there be this dharma?
。明因緣空破于假病。一切諸病唯有性假。故今備破之。次一師約四重二諦釋之。初重因緣所生法為俗諦。是師即無自性為真諦。此以因緣空有為世諦。因緣有空為真諦。亦是空因緣為世諦。因緣空為真諦。今從空因緣入因緣空。因世諦悟第一義。他因緣空異空因緣。今只空因緣是因緣空。勿起二見也。次重因緣所生法此明若空若有皆是因緣。如因空故有因有故空。空由有成有由空成。故此空有併名世諦也。是即無自性明。由空故有。有無自性。是即非有。由有故空。空無自性。是則非空。非空非有名為真諦。令從空有二悟入非空有不二。即以二為不二門。第三重二不二皆是因緣。由不二故二。由二故不二。故二不二並是因緣名為世諦。是則無自性者明。由不二有二。二無自性。是即非二。由二有不二。無二無自性。故非不二非二不二名為真諦。故從二不二門入非二不二理。第四重二不二非二非不二並是因緣悉名世諦。因緣無自性則無二不二亦無非二不二。言斷慮窮乃名真諦。諸意中以後門為究竟。可適時而用之。
問云何適時而用。答師作此意為對二病。一對成實師有是世諦空是真諦。故明空有皆是世諦非有非空方是第一義。汝之真俗皆是乘之俗耳。既不得真亦不成俗。今乃具足。為對十地及攝論師有法界體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了闡明因緣性空，從而破除對於虛假病態的執著，因為一切病態的根源都在於認為事物具有虛假的自性，所以現在要充分地破除這種觀念。接下來，有一位法師用四重二諦來解釋這個問題。第一重，認為因緣所生的法是俗諦（samvrti-satya，世俗諦），而這些法師所說的『無自性』是真諦（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）。這裡將因緣的空和有視為世諦，因緣的有和空視為真諦，也可以說空因緣是世諦，因緣空是真諦。現在我們從空因緣入手，進入因緣空的狀態，通過世諦來領悟第一義諦（first noble truth）。他所說的『因緣空』與『空因緣』是不同的，現在只說空因緣就是因緣空，不要產生兩種不同的見解。第二重，因緣所生法，這說明無論是空還是有，都是因緣所產生的。比如因為空，所以有；因為有，所以空。空由有而成，有由空而成。所以，這空和有都可以稱為世諦。而『是即無自性』則說明，因為空，所以有，但有並沒有自性，所以說它『非有』；因為有，所以空，但空也沒有自性，所以說它『非空』。這種『非空非有』被稱為真諦，從而引導人們從空和有的二元對立，進入到非空非有的不二境界，也就是將二元對立作為通往不二法門的途徑。第三重，二和不二都是因緣所生。因為不二，所以有二；因為二，所以有不二。所以，二和不二都是因緣，被稱為世諦。而『是則無自性』則說明，因為不二，所以有二，但二並沒有自性，所以說它『非二』；因為二，所以有不二，不二也沒有自性，所以說它『非不二』。這種『非二非不二』被稱為真諦，從而引導人們從二和不二的對立，進入到非二非不二的境界。第四重，二、不二、非二、非不二，這些都是因緣所生，都可以稱為世諦。因緣沒有自性，所以既沒有二和不二，也沒有非二和非不二。當言語停止，思慮窮盡時，才能稱為真諦。在各種觀點中，以後面的觀點最為究竟，可以根據具體情況來運用。
問：怎樣根據具體情況來運用呢？答：法師提出這些觀點是爲了對治兩種病態。第一種是針對成實師（Satyasiddhi school）認為『有』是世諦，『空』是真諦的觀點，所以要說明空和有都是世諦，非有非空才是第一義諦。你們所說的真諦和俗諦，都只是權宜之計，既不能真正理解真諦，也不能真正理解俗諦，而現在所說的才是具足的。第二種是針對十地菩薩（the ten stages of Bodhisattva path）以及《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）的法界體（dharmadhatu）的觀點。
【English Translation】 English version: To clarify the emptiness of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and thereby break through the attachment to false illnesses, because the root of all illnesses lies in believing that things have false self-nature (svabhāva), we must now fully break through this concept. Next, one teacher explains this with four levels of the two truths (dve satye). The first level considers the dharmas (phenomena) produced by dependent origination as the conventional truth (samvrti-satya), and the 'no self-nature' spoken of by these teachers as the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Here, the emptiness and existence of dependent origination are regarded as the conventional truth, and the existence and emptiness of dependent origination are regarded as the ultimate truth. It can also be said that empty dependent origination is the conventional truth, and dependent origination being empty is the ultimate truth. Now we start from empty dependent origination and enter the state of dependent origination being empty, and through the conventional truth, we realize the first noble truth. The 'dependent origination being empty' he speaks of is different from 'empty dependent origination'. Now only say that empty dependent origination is dependent origination being empty, do not create two different views. The second level, dharmas produced by dependent origination, this explains that whether it is emptiness or existence, it is produced by dependent origination. For example, because of emptiness, there is existence; because of existence, there is emptiness. Emptiness is formed by existence, and existence is formed by emptiness. Therefore, this emptiness and existence can both be called the conventional truth. And 'it is without self-nature' explains that because of emptiness, there is existence, but existence has no self-nature, so it is said to be 'non-existent'; because of existence, there is emptiness, but emptiness has no self-nature, so it is said to be 'non-empty'. This 'neither empty nor existent' is called the ultimate truth, thereby guiding people from the duality of emptiness and existence to enter the non-dual realm of neither empty nor existent, that is, using duality as a path to the non-dual. The third level, duality and non-duality are both produced by dependent origination. Because of non-duality, there is duality; because of duality, there is non-duality. Therefore, duality and non-duality are both dependent origination, called the conventional truth. And 'it is without self-nature' explains that because of non-duality, there is duality, but duality has no self-nature, so it is said to be 'non-dual'; because of duality, there is non-duality, non-duality has no self-nature, so it is 'non-non-dual'. This 'neither dual nor non-dual' is called the ultimate truth, thereby guiding people from the opposition of duality and non-duality to enter the realm of neither dual nor non-dual. The fourth level, duality, non-duality, neither dual nor non-dual, these are all produced by dependent origination, and can all be called the conventional truth. Dependent origination has no self-nature, so there is neither duality nor non-duality, nor neither dual nor non-dual. When words cease and thoughts are exhausted, it can be called the ultimate truth. Among the various views, the later view is the most ultimate, and can be used according to the specific situation.
Question: How to use it according to the specific situation? Answer: The teacher puts forward these views to counter two kinds of illnesses. The first is aimed at the view of the Satyasiddhi school that 'existence' is the conventional truth and 'emptiness' is the ultimate truth, so it is necessary to explain that emptiness and existence are both the conventional truth, and neither existence nor emptiness is the first noble truth. The truth and conventional truth you speak of are just expedient means, and you can neither truly understand the truth nor truly understand the conventional truth, but what is said now is complete. The second is aimed at the view of the ten stages of Bodhisattva path and the dharmadhatu of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha.
用以中道為體。空有為用。空有為二諦。非空有為非安立諦故。今明此皆是我之第三重世諦耳。既未得真。何由有俗。又初重二諦為凡夫。次重為二乘。后二為菩薩。又為漸舍破眾生病故作此四重。又為釋諸方等至種種異說。或云空為真有為俗。或云空有皆是世諦。非空有第一義。之第二重意。又云不著不二法。以無一二故。即第三重文。又云諦可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。一切諸法言語斷。無有自性如虛空。悉欲分別真諦義。菩薩因此初發心。第四重文。今欲遍釋諸方等經異文故作此四重二諦。即四重文理也。
問何故前就破義釋后就二諦釋耶。答要前須破諸病。然後始得申明二諦。以有所得障佛二諦故也。
問偈下句明云何有是法無何等法耶。答觀偈文正是明無果法。所以明無果法者。以一切有為皆是果故。果法既空則有為皆空。又緣皆無性由緣故果。果無自性。由果故緣。緣無自性。皆無自性俱無果因。
眾緣生有二種下第二長行解釋又開五別。一總列內外緣果。二略破內外二法。三廣破外法無生。四廣破內法無生。五總結。初又二。一總列內外緣果。二別釋內外緣果。初又二。前列內外二果。內謂眾生數外謂非眾生數。欲明內外俱空故雙列二種也。眾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以中道作為本體，以空和有作為作用。空和有是二諦（Two Truths，佛教術語，指世俗諦和勝義諦），非空非有是因為不是安立諦（Established Truth，佛教術語，指通過概念和語言建立的真理）。現在說明這些都是我的第三重世俗諦（Conventional Truth，佛教術語，指相對的、世俗的真理）而已。既然還沒有證得真諦（Ultimate Truth，佛教術語，指絕對的、究竟的真理），又怎麼會有世俗諦呢？而且第一重二諦是為凡夫設立的，第二重是為二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）設立的，後面兩重是為菩薩設立的。又是爲了逐漸捨棄和破除眾生的病而設立這四重。又是爲了解釋諸方等經（Vaipulya Sutras，大乘佛教經典）中種種不同的說法。或者說空是真諦，有是世俗諦，或者說空和有都是世俗諦，非空非有是第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，佛教術語，指最高的、真實的真理），這是第二重的意思。又說不執著于不二法門（Non-duality，佛教術語，指超越二元對立的真理），因為沒有一和二的分別，這是第三重的文句。又說在可以分別諸法的時候，諸法沒有自性（Svabhava，佛教術語，指事物自身存在的性質），假名說是爲了分別世俗諦的意義，菩薩因此初發心（First aspiration，佛教術語，指最初發起菩提心）。一切諸法的言語都斷絕，沒有自性如同虛空，是爲了分別真諦的意義，菩薩因此初發心，這是第四重的文句。現在想要普遍解釋諸方等經中不同的文句，所以設立這四重二諦，這就是四重的文理。 問：為什麼前面就破除的意義來解釋，後面就二諦來解釋呢？答：要先破除各種病，然後才能申明二諦。因為有所得（Attachment，佛教術語，指執著于某種事物或觀念）會障礙佛的二諦。 問：偈頌的下句說明什麼是法有，什麼法沒有呢？答：觀察偈頌的文句，正是說明沒有果法（Resultant Dharma，佛教術語，指由因產生的法）。所以說明沒有果法的原因是，因為一切有為法（Conditioned Dharma，佛教術語，指由因緣和合而成的法）都是果。果法既然是空的，那麼有為法就都是空的。而且緣（Condition，佛教術語，指事物產生的條件）都是沒有自性的，因為有緣才有果。果沒有自性，因為有果才有緣。緣沒有自性，都是沒有自性的，一起沒有果和因。 『眾緣生有二種』下，第二段長行解釋又分為五個部分。一、總列內外緣果。二、略破內外二法。三、廣破外法無生。四、廣破內法無生。五、總結。第一部分又分為兩個部分。一、總列內外二果。二、分別解釋內外緣果。第一部分又分為兩個部分。前面列出內外二果，內指眾生數，外指非眾生數。想要說明內外都是空的，所以並列兩種。
【English Translation】 English version: Taking the Middle Way as the substance, and emptiness and existence as the function. Emptiness and existence are the Two Truths (Two Truths, Buddhist term, referring to conventional truth and ultimate truth), non-emptiness and non-existence are because they are not Established Truths (Established Truth, Buddhist term, referring to the truth established through concepts and language). Now, I explain that these are all my third level of Conventional Truths (Conventional Truth, Buddhist term, referring to relative, conventional truth). Since one has not yet attained the Ultimate Truth (Ultimate Truth, Buddhist term, referring to absolute, ultimate truth), how can there be Conventional Truth? Moreover, the first level of the Two Truths is established for ordinary people, the second level is for the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle), and the latter two levels are for Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, these four levels are established to gradually abandon and eliminate the illnesses of sentient beings. They are also to explain the various different statements in the Vaipulya Sutras (Vaipulya Sutras, Mahayana Buddhist scriptures). Some say that emptiness is the Ultimate Truth and existence is the Conventional Truth, or that emptiness and existence are both Conventional Truths, and non-emptiness and non-existence are the Supreme Truth (Paramartha-satya, Buddhist term, referring to the highest, true truth), which is the meaning of the second level. It also says not to be attached to the non-dual Dharma (Non-duality, Buddhist term, referring to the truth beyond dualistic opposition), because there is no distinction between one and two, which is the statement of the third level. It also says that when one can distinguish all Dharmas, all Dharmas have no self-nature (Svabhava, Buddhist term, referring to the inherent nature of things), falsely named to explain the meaning of Conventional Truth, and the Bodhisattva therefore initially aspires (First aspiration, Buddhist term, referring to the initial arising of Bodhicitta). The language of all Dharmas is cut off, and there is no self-nature like empty space, in order to distinguish the meaning of Ultimate Truth, and the Bodhisattva therefore initially aspires, which is the statement of the fourth level. Now, wanting to universally explain the different statements in the Vaipulya Sutras, these four levels of the Two Truths are established, which is the reasoning of the four levels. Question: Why is the former explained in terms of eliminating meaning, and the latter in terms of the Two Truths? Answer: It is necessary to first eliminate various illnesses, and then one can explain the Two Truths. Because attachment (Attachment, Buddhist term, referring to attachment to something or an idea) obstructs the Buddha's Two Truths. Question: The lower sentence of the verse explains what Dharma exists and what Dharma does not exist? Answer: Observing the sentence of the verse, it is precisely explaining that there is no Resultant Dharma (Resultant Dharma, Buddhist term, referring to the Dharma produced by cause). The reason for explaining that there is no Resultant Dharma is that all Conditioned Dharmas (Conditioned Dharma, Buddhist term, referring to the Dharma formed by the combination of causes and conditions) are results. Since the Resultant Dharma is empty, then all Conditioned Dharmas are empty. Moreover, conditions (Condition, Buddhist term, referring to the conditions for the emergence of things) have no self-nature, because there are conditions, there is a result. The result has no self-nature, because there is a result, there are conditions. Conditions have no self-nature, all have no self-nature, together there is no result and cause. Below 'There are two kinds of beings born from many conditions', the second long explanation is divided into five parts. 1. General listing of internal and external causes and results. 2. Briefly refuting internal and external Dharmas. 3. Broadly refuting the non-arising of external Dharmas. 4. Broadly refuting the non-arising of internal Dharmas. 5. Conclusion. The first part is divided into two parts. 1. General listing of internal and external results. 2. Separate explanation of internal and external causes and results. The first part is divided into two parts. The front lists the internal and external results, the internal refers to the number of sentient beings, and the external refers to the number of non-sentient beings. Wanting to explain that both internal and external are empty, so listing both types.
緣亦有二種下第二列內外二緣。偈文前列眾緣后列所生。此是因果次第。今前果后因者。一就文逐近釋。以接果釋果。二果顯因昧故前果后因。三偈正明果空。欲顯此意故前果后因。外因緣者下第二別釋內外緣果即成二別。釋外緣果為二。初總標。如泥下次別釋。此下凡列五事。前三據緣成。后二約因生。此皆大判為言耳。然泥生瓶亦是因生義者一考而言之。前一后二。是因生次兩是緣成。但瓶中不舉泥。故但是緣成耳。所以歷舉五事者。一為根性不同受悟非一。如金師浣衣之子。又泥洹法寶入有多門。又欲曆法觀行故舉此五條。此一一中皆前明能生之緣后辨所生之果。即是釋偈眾緣所生法。當知外緣等法下第三例餘外法。內因緣者第二釋內緣果亦三。初總標。謂諸無明下第二別釋內因果義。各各前因而後果第三總結因果。十二相望皆前因後果。三世論之二因五果三因二果。二分論之七支為前分因果五支後分因果。如是內外下第二略破內外二果。自上已來總釋偈第一句。
今總釋偈第二句二諦分之。自上已來釋於世諦。今釋第一義諦。論主更不別破。直明若有自性不應假緣。既假緣生則知無性。又論主直列外人因緣即是破其自性。此是借眾緣以破性也。又此論正申傍破。直申佛假名因緣而有。所謂性義自壞。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：緣也有兩種，下面第二列是內外二緣（內部和外部兩種緣起）。偈文（佛經中的偈頌）前列出眾緣，后列出所生之法。這通常是因果的次第。現在前面是果，後面是因，這是為什麼呢？一是就文義而言，按照接近的原則解釋，用接續的果來解釋果。二是果容易顯現，因而因顯得隱晦，所以先說果后說因。三是偈頌主要闡明果是空性的，爲了彰顯這個意思，所以先說果后說因。『外因緣者』下面第二部分是分別解釋內外緣的果，由此形成兩種不同的解釋。解釋外緣的果分為兩部分。首先是總的標示。『如泥』下面是分別解釋。這裡總共列舉了五件事。前三件事是根據緣而成就的，后兩件事是根據因而產生的。這些都是大概的說法。然而，用泥土製造瓶子也屬於因生之義，這是從一個角度來說的。前面一個是因生，後面兩個是緣成。但瓶子的例子中沒有提到泥土，所以只是緣成。之所以列舉五件事，一是由於眾生的根性不同，領悟的方式也不一樣。例如金匠和洗衣之子的故事。二是泥洹（涅槃）法寶的入門方式有很多。三是想要曆法觀行，所以列舉這五條。這每一條中都是先說明能生的緣，然後辨別所生的果。這就是解釋偈頌中的『眾緣所生法』。『當知外緣等法』下面第三部分是類比其他的外部法。 『內因緣者』第二部分是解釋內緣的果，也分為三部分。首先是總的標示。『謂諸無明』下面第二部分是分別解釋內因果的意義。各自都是前因而後有果。第三部分是總結因果。十二因緣相互觀望，都是前因後果。三世論中，有二因五果，三因二果。二分論中，七支是前分因果，五支是後分因果。『如是內外』下面第二部分是簡略地破斥內外二果。從上面開始，總體解釋了偈頌的第一句。 現在總體解釋偈頌的第二句，從二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）的角度來分。從上面開始，解釋的是世俗諦。現在解釋第一義諦。論主不再另外破斥，直接說明如果存在自性，就不應該依賴因緣。既然是依賴因緣而生，那就說明沒有自性。而且論主直接列舉外人的因緣，就是爲了破斥他們的自性。這是借用眾緣來破斥自性。而且這部論主要闡述，同時從側面破斥。直接闡述佛陀的假名因緣而有，所謂的自性之義自然就瓦解了，例如...
【English Translation】 English version: There are also two kinds of 'hetu' (cause, condition), the second column below refers to the two 'hetu' of inner and outer ('adhyatmika' and 'bahya hetu'). The 'gatha' (verse) lists the 'pratitya' (conditions) first and then the 'dharma' (phenomena) that arise from them. This is usually the order of cause and effect. Now, why is the effect mentioned first and the cause later? Firstly, it is based on the meaning of the text, explaining according to the principle of proximity, using the subsequent effect to explain the effect. Secondly, the effect is easily apparent, while the cause is obscure, so the effect is mentioned first and the cause later. Thirdly, the 'gatha' mainly clarifies that the effect is 'sunyata' (emptiness), and to highlight this meaning, the effect is mentioned first and the cause later. 'Bahya hetu' (external causes and conditions), the second part below, separately explains the effects of inner and outer 'hetu', thus forming two different explanations. The explanation of the effect of external 'hetu' is divided into two parts. First is the general indication. 'Like clay', below is the separate explanation. Here, a total of five things are listed. The first three things are based on the 'pratitya' (conditions) that are accomplished, and the last two things are based on the 'hetu' (cause) that arises. These are all general statements. However, making a pot from clay also belongs to the meaning of 'hetu-born', this is from one perspective. The first one is 'hetu-born', and the latter two are 'pratitya'-accomplished. But the example of the pot does not mention clay, so it is only 'pratitya'-accomplished. The reason for listing five things is that, firstly, the 'indriya' (faculties) of sentient beings are different, and the ways of understanding are also different. For example, the story of the goldsmith and the son of the laundryman. Secondly, there are many ways to enter the 'nirvana' (extinction of suffering) 'dharma-ratna' (jewel of the Dharma). Thirdly, wanting to experience 'dharma' (teachings) and practice, so these five items are listed. In each of these, the 'pratitya' (conditions) that can produce are explained first, and then the 'phala' (result) that is produced is distinguished. This is the explanation of 'pratitya-samutpada' (dependent origination) in the 'gatha'. 'Know that external 'dharma' (phenomena) and so on', the third part below, is an analogy to other external 'dharma' (phenomena). 'Adhyatmika hetu' (internal causes and conditions), the second part, explains the effect of internal 'hetu', also divided into three parts. First is the general indication. 'Referring to all 'avidya' (ignorance)', the second part below, separately explains the meaning of internal cause and effect. Each is a prior cause and then has an effect. The third part is a summary of cause and effect. The twelve 'nidanas' (links of dependent origination) look at each other, all are prior cause and subsequent effect. In the 'Tri-kala' (three times) theory, there are two causes and five effects, three causes and two effects. In the two-part theory, the seven 'angas' (limbs) are the cause and effect of the first part, and the five 'angas' (limbs) are the cause and effect of the second part. 'Thus, inner and outer', the second part below, briefly refutes the two effects of inner and outer. From above, the first sentence of the 'gatha' has been generally explained. Now, the second sentence of the 'gatha' is generally explained, divided from the perspective of the two 'satya' (truths) ('samvriti-satya' and 'paramartha-satya'). From above, the 'samvriti-satya' (conventional truth) has been explained. Now the 'paramartha-satya' (ultimate truth) is explained. The 'acharya' (teacher) no longer refutes separately, directly stating that if 'svabhava' (self-nature) exists, it should not depend on 'pratitya' (conditions). Since it is born depending on 'pratitya' (conditions), it shows that there is no 'svabhava' (self-nature). Moreover, the 'acharya' (teacher) directly lists the 'pratitya' (conditions) of outsiders in order to refute their 'svabhava' (self-nature). This is borrowing 'pratitya' (conditions) to refute 'svabhava' (self-nature). Moreover, this treatise mainly elaborates and refutes from the side. Directly elaborating that the 'prajnaparamita' (perfection of wisdom) of the Buddha exists due to 'prajnaparamita' (perfection of wisdom), the so-called meaning of 'svabhava' (self-nature) naturally collapses, such as...
外人若執性義則佛因緣義自壞。
若法自性無下第三廣破外緣生法。就文又三。一標三無二釋三無三例諸法。初標三無者。一自性無二他性無三共性無。所以標三無者。一欲明無自即無他共。自於自是自於他是他。自他合論則名為共。當知一自含於三種。以自無故三種即無。二相待可解。三類例無。汝計自既無。他共亦爾。問何故明此三無。答舉自無釋偈第二句。他共兩無釋于下半云何有是法。以外人雖聞無自。猶謂自他共有則非是無法。是故今明求自他無從即無有法。何以故下第二釋三種無。文但解二。以共無別體故不釋之。初釋自無。借他破自。以因他故所以無自。若謂下第二次釋他無。就破他中又開二別。一者破果二者破因。初中又二。前就疏他門破。次就親他門破。疏他門破非所因之他。親他門破所因之他。非所因他他而不生。所因之他生而非他。破疏他中有四。一取外意二正破。三廣類余法。四總結非。今是初。文而祥。若謂者前借他破自。外便謂乃無自性因他而有。今取此意故云若謂。則牛以馬性有下第二正破。舉牛馬破內法他。據梨㮈破外法他。一一中皆具四難。一者牛望牛為牛。他望馬亦他。既俱是他。應當俱生。二俱應不生。三馬不生牛牛生牛者。亦應馬生於牛。牛不生牛。四者馬不生牛牛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果外道之人執著于自性的觀點，那麼佛陀所說的因緣之義自然就被破壞了。
如果法本身沒有自性，那麼下面第三部分將廣泛地破斥外緣生法。這一部分又分為三點：一是標示三種『無』，二是解釋三種『無』，三是用類比的方法說明一切法皆空。首先，標示三種『無』，即：一、自性無，二、他性無，三、共性無。標示這三種『無』的原因是：一是爲了說明沒有『自』，也就沒有『他』和『共』。『自』相對於自身是『自』，相對於其他是『他』。『自』和『他』合在一起討論，就叫做『共』。應當明白，一個『自』就包含了這三種。因為『自』不存在，所以這三種也就不存在了。二是可以通過相互對待來理解。三是可以通過類比來說明『無』。你們所認為的『自』既然不存在，那麼『他』和『共』也是一樣。
有人問：為什麼要說明這三種『無』呢？回答說：這是爲了解釋偈頌的第二句。『他』和『共』兩種『無』，是爲了解釋下半句『云何有是法』（怎麼會有這樣的法）。因為外道之人雖然聽說了『無自性』，仍然認為『自』、『他』、『共』是存在的，所以認為並非一切法皆空。因此，現在要說明，尋求『自』和『他』都找不到，那麼『有法』也就無從談起。為什麼呢？下面第二部分解釋這三種『無』。文中只解釋了兩種，因為『共無』沒有單獨的實體，所以不解釋。首先解釋『自無』，借用『他』來破斥『自』，因為依賴於『他』，所以沒有『自』。
如果有人說：下面第二次解釋『他無』。在破斥『他』的過程中，又分為兩種：一是破斥果，二是破斥因。首先破斥果，又分為兩個方面：一是通過疏遠的『他』來破斥，二是通過親近的『他』來破斥。通過疏遠的『他』來破斥非所因之『他』，通過親近的『他』來破斥所因之『他』。非所因之『他』，『他』卻不能產生；所因之『他』，產生卻不是『他』。破斥疏遠的『他』，有四個步驟：一是引用對方的觀點，二是正面破斥，三是廣泛地類比其他法，四是總結否定。現在是第一步，引用對方的觀點。文中說『如果有人說』，前面借用『他』來破斥『自』，外道之人就認為沒有自性，而是因為『他』而存在。現在引用這種觀點，所以說『如果有人說』。
那麼，牛以馬的自性而存在，下面第二步是正面破斥。用牛和馬的例子來破斥內法中的『他』，用梨和㮈的例子來破斥外法中的『他』。每一個例子都包含四個難點：一是牛相對於牛是牛，『他』相對於馬也是『他』，既然都是『他』，就應該都能產生。二是都應該不能產生。三是馬不生牛，牛生牛，也應該馬能生牛，牛不能生牛。四是馬不生牛，牛...
【English Translation】 English version: If outsiders cling to the notion of inherent existence (svabhāva) , then the Buddha's meaning of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) is naturally undermined.
If phenomena themselves lack inherent existence, then the third section below will extensively refute the production of phenomena from external conditions (para-utpāda). This section is further divided into three points: first, indicating the three 'non-existences'; second, explaining the three 'non-existences'; and third, using analogy to illustrate that all phenomena are empty. First, indicating the three 'non-existences', namely: 1. non-existence of inherent existence (svabhāva-śūnyatā), 2. non-existence of other-existence (parabhāva-śūnyatā), and 3. non-existence of co-existence (ubhayabhāva-śūnyatā). The reason for indicating these three 'non-existences' is: 1. to clarify that without 'self', there is no 'other' or 'co-existence'. 'Self' in relation to itself is 'self', in relation to others is 'other'. 'Self' and 'other' discussed together are called 'co-existence'. It should be understood that one 'self' contains all three. Because 'self' does not exist, these three also do not exist. 2. It can be understood through mutual dependence. 3. 'Non-existence' can be illustrated through analogy. Since what you consider 'self' does not exist, then 'other' and 'co-existence' are also the same.
Someone asks: Why is it necessary to explain these three 'non-existences'? The answer is: This is to explain the second line of the verse. The two 'non-existences' of 'other' and 'co-existence' are to explain the second half of the verse 'How can there be such a phenomenon?' (katham hi syād idaṃ padam). Because outsiders, although they have heard of 'non-inherent existence', still believe that 'self', 'other', and 'co-existence' exist, so they believe that not all phenomena are empty. Therefore, it is now necessary to explain that seeking 'self' and 'other' cannot be found, then 'existing phenomena' cannot be discussed. Why? The second part below explains these three 'non-existences'. The text only explains two, because 'co-existence' has no separate entity, so it is not explained. First, explain 'non-inherent existence', borrowing 'other' to refute 'self', because it depends on 'other', so there is no 'self'.
If someone says: The second time below explains 'non-other-existence'. In the process of refuting 'other', it is further divided into two types: one is refuting the result, and the other is refuting the cause. First, refute the result, which is further divided into two aspects: one is refuting through the distant 'other', and the other is refuting through the close 'other'. Refuting the 'other' that is not the cause through the distant 'other', and refuting the 'other' that is the cause through the close 'other'. The 'other' that is not the cause, the 'other' cannot produce; the 'other' that is the cause, produces but is not 'other'. Refuting the distant 'other' has four steps: one is quoting the other party's point of view, two is directly refuting, three is broadly analogizing other phenomena, and four is summarizing and negating. Now is the first step, quoting the other party's point of view. The text says 'If someone says', previously borrowing 'other' to refute 'self', outsiders believe that there is no inherent existence, but exists because of 'other'. Now quoting this point of view, so it says 'If someone says'.
Then, the cow exists by the nature of the horse, the second step below is to directly refute. Using the example of the cow and the horse to refute the 'other' in internal phenomena, and using the example of the pear and the jujube to refute the 'other' in external phenomena. Each example contains four difficulties: one is that the cow in relation to the cow is the cow, and the 'other' in relation to the horse is also the 'other', since both are 'other', they should both be able to produce. Two is that both should not be able to produce. Three is that the horse does not produce the cow, the cow produces the cow, it should also be that the horse can produce the cow, and the cow cannot produce the cow. Four is that the horse does not produce the cow, the cow...
生牛者。馬是牛。他牛非牛他。余皆應爾。第二廣類萬寶而實不爾。第四總結非。若謂下第二次破親他。就文有三。一取外意二總非三釋非。外云不以他性故有者明他有二種。一相因他二不相因他。梨㮈不相因他蒲席相因他。不相因他即不相生相因之他。是故相生以通論主上四難也。是亦不然。第二總非。以後決前亦有四難。汝親疏俱他則俱生。二俱並不生。三親生疏不生亦應疏生親不生也。四者有生則有他非他。何以故下第三釋非。凡有二難。初明因蒲有席。即是相因不名為他。前得他失因。今得因失他。而言蒲席一體者。外謂蒲外別有自性之席而異於蒲。即是假別有體家及犢子衛世三家之義。故今破云。汝未有蒲時即無席。因有蒲是故有席。席攬蒲成蒲席一體。何名他耶。此是借一破異。非論主用總別一體因果一體以破外也。又蒲有即席有蒲無則席無。豈不一耶。若汝不一應蒲有席無席有而蒲無。又如中論。若法所因出是法不異因。又汝既言用蒲作席。豈不一耶。若不一則不作。若一則作。若謂蒲于席為他者第二重取外意破之。汝必言蒲于席為他不受蒲席一體者。若爾蒲于席既是他。則不應言因蒲有席。前句得因非他。今得他非因。就親他中有此進退二破。又蒲亦無自性下自上已來破果。今第二次破因。亦是舉因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生牛者：如果說馬是牛，那麼『他牛』（不是這頭牛的其他的牛）就不是『他』（這頭牛）。其餘情況都應如此類推。第二種廣義的類別是萬物，但實際上並非如此。第四是總結性的否定。如果說下面第二次破斥的是『親他』（關係密切的他者），那麼從文義上來說有三點：一是採納對方的觀點，二是總體的否定，三是解釋否定。對方的觀點認為，不因為『他性』（作為他者的性質）而存在，這表明『他』有兩種：一是相互依存的『他』，二是不相互依存的『他』。例如，梨和㮈是不相互依存的『他』，蒲草和蓆子是相互依存的『他』。不相互依存的『他』，就是不相互產生、相互依存的『他』。因此，相互產生可以用以概括論主（指正量部）提出的前述四種難題。但這種說法也是不對的。第二是總體的否定。用後面的論述來否定前面的觀點，也有四種難題：如果你們認為親近的和疏遠的都是『他』，那麼就應該同時產生；或者同時都不產生；或者親近的產生而疏遠的不能產生，反過來也應該疏遠的產生而親近的不能產生；第四種情況是，如果存在產生，那麼就存在『他』和『非他』（不是他者）。為什麼呢？下面是第三個解釋否定。總共有兩個難題。首先說明因為有蒲草所以有蓆子，這就是相互依存，不能稱之為『他』。前面是得到了『他』而失去了『因』，現在是得到了『因』而失去了『他』。如果說蒲草和蓆子是一體的，對方認為在蒲草之外，另有具有自性的蓆子，並且不同於蒲草，這就是假想別有實體的家、犢子部和衛世部的觀點。所以現在破斥說：在你還沒有蒲草的時候，就沒有蓆子。因為有了蒲草，所以才有了蓆子。蓆子是由蒲草編織而成，蒲草和蓆子是一體的，怎麼能說是『他』呢？這是借用一體來破斥異體，而不是論主用總體和個別的一體、因果的一體來破斥對方。而且，蒲草存在，蓆子就存在；蒲草不存在，蓆子就不存在。難道不是一體嗎？如果你們認為不是一體，就應該蒲草存在而蓆子不存在，或者蓆子存在而蒲草不存在。又如《中論》所說：如果法是從因產生的，那麼這個法就和因沒有區別。而且，你們既然說用蒲草來製作蓆子，難道不是一體嗎？如果不是一體，就不能製作；如果是一體，就能製作。如果認為蒲草對於蓆子來說是『他』，那麼第二重採納對方的觀點來破斥它。你們必定會說蒲草對於蓆子來說是『他』，不承認蒲草和蓆子是一體。如果是這樣，蒲草對於蓆子既然是『他』，就不應該說因為有蒲草所以有蓆子。前一句是得到了『因』而否定了『他』，現在是得到了『他』而否定了『因』。在『親他』中，有這種進退兩種破斥。而且，蒲草也沒有自性，從上面以來都是破斥果，現在第二次破斥因，也是舉出因。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the 'born cow' (Sheng Niu Zhe): If a horse is a cow, then 'other cows' (Ta Niu, cows that are not this cow) are not 'it' (Ta, this cow). The rest should follow similarly. The second broad category is all things (Wan Bao), but in reality, it is not so. The fourth is a summary negation. If it is said that the second refutation below is of 'intimate other' (Qin Ta, closely related other), then in terms of the text, there are three points: first, adopting the opponent's view; second, overall negation; and third, explaining the negation. The opponent's view is that it does not exist because of 'otherness' (Ta Xing, the nature of being other), which shows that 'other' has two types: one is mutually dependent 'other' (Xiang Yin Ta), and the other is non-mutually dependent 'other' (Bu Xiang Yin Ta). For example, pears (Li) and jujubes (Nai) are non-mutually dependent 'other', while cattails (Pu) and mats (Xi) are mutually dependent 'other'. Non-mutually dependent 'other' is the 'other' that does not generate or depend on each other. Therefore, mutual generation can be used to generalize the four difficulties raised by the proponent (referring to the Sautrantika school). But this statement is also incorrect. The second is the overall negation. Using the following arguments to negate the previous views, there are also four difficulties: If you think that both the close and the distant are 'other', then they should arise simultaneously; or they should not arise simultaneously; or the close arises and the distant cannot arise, and conversely, the distant should arise and the close cannot arise; the fourth case is that if there is arising, then there is 'other' and 'non-other' (not other). Why? The following is the third explanation of negation. There are two difficulties in total. First, it explains that because there are cattails, there are mats, which is mutual dependence and cannot be called 'other'. The previous one was getting 'other' and losing 'cause', now it is getting 'cause' and losing 'other'. If it is said that cattails and mats are one entity, the opponent thinks that outside of cattails, there is another mat with its own nature, and it is different from cattails, which is the view of the Jiatika (Jia), Vatsiputriya (Du Zi), and Sammatīya (Wei Shi) schools who falsely assume separate entities. So now the refutation says: When you don't have cattails, there are no mats. Because there are cattails, there are mats. The mat is woven from cattails, and cattails and mats are one entity, how can it be called 'other'? This is using one entity to refute different entities, rather than the proponent using the unity of the whole and the part, the unity of cause and effect to refute the opponent. Moreover, if cattails exist, mats exist; if cattails do not exist, mats do not exist. Isn't it one? If you think it is not one, then cattails should exist and mats do not exist, or mats exist and cattails do not exist. Also, as the Madhyamaka-karika says: If a dharma arises from a cause, then this dharma is not different from the cause. Moreover, since you say that mats are made from cattails, isn't it one? If it is not one, it cannot be made; if it is one, it can be made. If it is thought that cattails are 'other' to mats, then the second time, adopt the opponent's view to refute it. You will surely say that cattails are 'other' to mats, and do not admit that cattails and mats are one entity. If this is the case, since cattails are 'other' to mats, it should not be said that because there are cattails, there are mats. The previous sentence was getting 'cause' and denying 'other', now it is getting 'other' and denying 'cause'. In 'intimate other', there are these two kinds of refutations of advance and retreat. Moreover, cattails also have no self-nature, from above, it has been refuting the effect, now the second time refuting the cause, it is also citing the cause.
以破于果。蒲從緣生則無自性。無自性則無蒲。以何為席。毗曇明蒲微所成無別有蒲。不著此破。但有八微。今明八微猶如蒲也。故雜心云。乃至一極微塵亦從二因生。當知即是無無性(二因者所作因共有因)無故空。成實明別有假蒲體用者正為今文所破是故席不應以蒲為體者。上破假別有體。今破假無分別體也。如人以五陰為體。柱以四微為體。故今明五蘊四微尚無自體。云何假為體耶。余瓶蘇下第三類破余法。
內因緣生法下第四次別破內法。就文為三。初舉內類外。二引論偈破。三長行解釋。一欲以內例外。既三門求外無從。內亦如是。二明無外可待。是故無內。三以內類外。外既妄計。內亦如是。四外大死身為內。內大散壞為外。外內不二。外無則內無也。所以就內外作觀者。無始不值諸佛菩薩。于內外起愛見。故迴流生死。今龍樹還就內外令悟入道門。以論主得無生之悟。還如行而說令末世眾生如說而行。以見實相反生正觀煩惱便息。肇公云。道遠乎哉。體悟內外則是正道。故知未值善師以道為非道。今值正論悟非道為道。經云。菩薩未得菩提。菩提為生死。得菩提生死為菩提也。七十論者今所未詳。偈則為三。初標。緣法實無生第二取外意。第三開二關破之。今是初。然十二因緣本自無生。故涅槃
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以破于果。蒲草從因緣和合而生，因此沒有自性。沒有自性，就沒有蒲草。用什麼來做蓆子呢？毗曇宗認為蒲草是由微塵組成的，沒有一個獨立的蒲草實體。他們不接受這種破斥，認為只有八種微塵。現在說明這八種微塵就像蒲草一樣。所以《雜心論》說，乃至一個極微塵也是從兩種因緣產生的（兩種因緣指所作因和共有因）。因為沒有自性所以是空。成實宗認為存在一個獨立的、虛假的蒲草實體，這種觀點正是本文所要破斥的。因此，蓆子不應該以蒲草為實體。上面是破斥虛假的、獨立的實體，現在是破斥虛假的、沒有分別的實體。例如，人以五蘊為實體，柱子以四微為實體。所以現在說明五蘊和四微尚且沒有自體，又怎麼能假立為實體呢？其餘的瓶子、酥油等，屬於第三類破斥其餘法。
內因緣生法，下面是第四次分別破斥內法。從文義上分為三部分。首先以內法比例外法，其次引用論偈來破斥，最後用長行文來解釋。首先想以內法比例外法。既然從三個方面尋求外法都找不到，那麼內法也是如此。其次說明沒有外法可以依賴，所以也沒有內法。再次以內法比例外法。既然外法是虛妄的計度，那麼內法也是如此。第四，外面的大死之身成為內法，裡面的大散壞成為外法，內外不是二元的。外面沒有，那麼裡面也沒有。之所以要從內外來觀察，是因為無始以來沒有遇到諸佛菩薩，在內外產生愛見，所以才在生死中輪迴。現在龍樹菩薩還就內外來使人覺悟入道。因為論主證悟了無生之理，就像親自實踐后才說出來，使末世眾生能夠如說而行。因為見到真實的相反面，產生正確的觀察，煩惱就會止息。肇法師說，道還遠嗎？體悟內外就是正道。所以知道沒有遇到善知識，會把道當成非道。現在遇到正確的論典，才明白非道才是道。《經》中說，菩薩未得菩提時，菩提就是生死；得到菩提時，生死就是菩提。七十論的內容現在還不清楚。偈頌分為三部分。首先是標示，緣法實際上沒有生；第二是採納外道的觀點；第三是開啟兩重關卡來破斥。現在是第一部分。然而，十二因緣本來就沒有生，所以《涅槃經》說...
【English Translation】 English version To refute based on the result. Reeds arise from conditions, therefore they have no inherent nature (svabhava). If there is no inherent nature, there are no reeds. What would be used as a mat? The Sarvastivadins (Vaibhashika) explain that reeds are composed of minute particles and there is no separate reed entity. They do not accept this refutation, but believe there are only eight subtle particles. Now, it is explained that these eight subtle particles are like reeds. Therefore, the Tattvasamgraha says, 'Even a single ultimate particle arises from two causes' (the two causes being the efficient cause and the common cause). Because there is no inherent nature, it is empty. The Satyasiddhi school explains that there is a separate, conventional reed entity for use, which is precisely what this text refutes. Therefore, a mat should not be considered to have reeds as its substance. The above refutes the false, independent entity; now it refutes the false, non-differentiated entity. For example, a person takes the five skandhas (aggregates) as their substance, and a pillar takes the four elements as its substance. Therefore, it is now explained that even the five skandhas and four elements do not have their own inherent nature. How can they be falsely established as a substance? The remaining examples of jars, ghee, etc., belong to the third category of refuting other phenomena.
The 'internal conditioned dharmas' below is the fourth separate refutation of internal phenomena. The text is divided into three parts. First, internal phenomena are compared to external phenomena; second, verses from treatises are cited to refute; and third, explanations are given in prose. First, the intention is to compare internal phenomena to external phenomena. Since seeking external phenomena from three aspects yields nothing, the same is true for internal phenomena. Second, it is explained that there is no external phenomenon to rely on, therefore there is no internal phenomenon. Third, internal phenomena are compared to external phenomena. Since external phenomena are false constructs, so are internal phenomena. Fourth, the external great death-body becomes internal, and the internal great disintegration becomes external. Internal and external are non-dual. If there is no external, then there is no internal. The reason for observing internal and external is that, from beginningless time, one has not encountered Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and has generated attachment and views towards internal and external, thus revolving in samsara (cyclic existence). Now, Nagarjuna (Longshu) uses internal and external to awaken people to enter the path. Because the author of the treatise attained the realization of non-origination, he speaks as he acts, enabling sentient beings in later ages to act as he speaks. Because seeing the opposite of reality generates correct views, afflictions cease. Master Zhao said, 'Is the path far away? Understanding internal and external is the correct path.' Therefore, knowing that without encountering a good teacher, one will consider the path as non-path. Now, encountering the correct treatise, one realizes that non-path is the path. The Surangama Sutra says, 'When a Bodhisattva has not attained Bodhi, Bodhi is samsara; when they attain Bodhi, samsara is Bodhi.' The content of the Seventy Stanzas is not yet clear at this time. The verses are divided into three parts. First is the indication that conditioned dharmas are actually without origination; second is adopting the views of externalists; and third is opening two gates to refute them. Now is the first part. However, the twelve links of dependent origination are originally without origination, therefore the Nirvana Sutra says...
云。十二因緣不生不滅乃至不因不果。金光明雲。無明體性本自不有。無所有故假名無明。問若十二因緣實無生者。下文不應破于無生云。生法不成故無生法不成。答今言實無生者。實無外人所見生。此是言其無生者明其無有生。非謂有無生。若有無生如下所破。又菩薩所行未曾生無生。深奧品云。佛問善吉。菩薩何處行。答云。菩薩無所行處。故知不行生無生。但對破凡夫二乘生滅故云無生耳。生既去無生亦盡。如雹摧草草死則雹消。若謂為有生者第二取外人意。凡夫外道二乘不信十二因緣本自無生。故五百部聞畢竟空如刀傷心。故牒外義也。下半第三開二關嘖之。又初句是奪破。今縱關以二門嘖之。又初句以大乘無生破凡夫二乘有生。是對緣假破。今以二門嘖之。是就緣假破。顯在長行。長行釋三門。即三釋。二門如文。釋第三門又三。一牒偈本即是定關。二解釋謂作難。三總結。初如文。若一心中有者第二作難。然成實明十二因緣必前後相生。毗曇具有二種。自有一剎那有十二。自有十二時具於十二。今此中總破二義。今前明。若一心中有是一剎那中有義。毗曇不以為過。如四相一時並起心數一時共生。今明凡有三義。若一時俱有。唯是能生無有所生。如其俱無唯是所生無有能生。若一有一無則能所不併。云何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 云（《涅槃經》）。十二因緣（Twelve Nidānas）不生不滅，乃至不因不果。《金光明經》云：『無明（Avidyā，Ignorance）體性本自不有，無所有故假名無明。』 問：若十二因緣實無生者，下文不應破于無生云：『生法不成故無生法不成。』 答：今言實無生者，實無外人所見之生。此是言其無生者，明其無有生，非謂有無生。若有無生，如下所破。又菩薩所行，未曾生無生。《深奧品》云：佛問善吉（Subhūti），『菩薩何處行？』答云：『菩薩無所行處。』故知不行生無生，但對破凡夫二乘生滅故云無生耳。生既去，無生亦盡。如雹摧草，草死則雹消。若謂為有生者，第二取外人意。凡夫外道二乘不信十二因緣本自無生，故五百部聞畢竟空如刀傷心，故牒外義也。 下半第三開二關嘖之。又初句是奪破，今縱關以二門嘖之。又初句以大乘無生破凡夫二乘有生，是對緣假破。今以二門嘖之，是就緣假破。顯在長行。長行釋三門，即三釋。二門如文。釋第三門又三：一、牒偈本即是定關；二、解釋謂作難；三、總結。初如文。若一心中有者，第二作難。然成實（Satyasiddhi School）明十二因緣必前後相生。毗曇（Abhidharma School）具有二種：自有一剎那有十二，自有十二時具於十二。今此中總破二義。今前明：若一心中有，是一剎那中有義。毗曇不以為過，如四相一時並起，心數一時共生。今明凡有三義：若一時俱有，唯是能生無有所生；如其俱無，唯是所生無有能生；若一有一無，則能所不併。云何？
【English Translation】 English version It is said (in the Nirvana Sutra), 'The Twelve Nidānas (Twelve Links of Dependent Origination) neither arise nor cease, and are neither cause nor effect.' The Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra says, 'The nature of Avidyā (Ignorance) is originally non-existent; because it has no existence, it is nominally called Avidyā.' Question: If the Twelve Nidānas truly do not arise, then the following passage should not refute non-arising, saying, 'Because the arising of phenomena is not established, the non-arising of phenomena is not established.' Answer: When we say that there is truly no arising, it means that there is truly no arising as seen by external observers. This statement of non-arising clarifies that there is no arising, not that there is a non-arising. If there were a non-arising, it would be refuted as follows. Furthermore, the Bodhisattva's conduct has never involved arising or non-arising. The Profound Chapter says: The Buddha asked Subhūti, 'Where does a Bodhisattva go?' Subhūti replied, 'A Bodhisattva has nowhere to go.' Therefore, it is known that they do not engage in arising or non-arising, but only refute the arising and ceasing of ordinary beings and those of the Two Vehicles, hence the term 'non-arising.' Once arising is gone, non-arising also ceases, like hail destroying grass; when the grass dies, the hail disappears. If one insists on the existence of arising, this is the second point, adopting the perspective of external observers. Ordinary beings, non-Buddhist practitioners, and those of the Two Vehicles do not believe that the Twelve Nidānas are inherently without arising. Therefore, the five hundred schools feel as if their hearts are wounded by a knife when they hear of ultimate emptiness, hence the reference to external meanings. The third part below opens two gates to examine it. Also, the first sentence is a direct refutation; now, we open the gates and examine it with two doors. Also, the first sentence uses the Mahayana non-arising to refute the arising of ordinary beings and those of the Two Vehicles, which is a refutation based on conditioned existence. Now, we examine it with two doors, which is a refutation based on conditioned existence. This is revealed in the prose section. The prose section explains the three doors, which are three explanations. The two doors are as in the text. The explanation of the third door has three parts: first, quoting the verse, which is the fixed gate; second, explaining it as posing a difficulty; and third, summarizing. The first is as in the text. If it exists in one mind, the second poses a difficulty. However, the Satyasiddhi School clarifies that the Twelve Nidānas must arise sequentially. The Abhidharma School has two views: one is that the twelve exist in one instant, and the other is that the twelve are complete in twelve times. Here, we generally refute both meanings. Now, we first clarify: if it exists in one mind, it means that it exists in one instant. The Abhidharma School does not consider this a fault, just as the four characteristics arise simultaneously, and mental factors arise together simultaneously. Now, we clarify that there are generally three meanings: if they all exist simultaneously, there is only the ability to produce, and nothing is produced; if they all do not exist, there is only what is produced, and there is no ability to produce; if one exists and one does not, then the ability and what is produced do not coexist. How can this be?
得一時共生。又因果一時有者第二重破。既名因果相生。必前因後果。云何一時。若一時如牛二角。非因果義。若眾心中有者破第二義。前分是無明也。前無明分共心滅已則斷滅。後行分與心俱。則無因。無因即不得生。故言後分誰為因。問云何名共心滅耶。答正是攝論明。煩惱業種子依阿梨耶識。阿梨耶識即是心也。前煩惱與種子共梨耶滅。后五果誰為因耶。若望成實開善義。煩惱與業附行陰成就來現在。雖來現在復有實法滅義。則行陰心滅。誰為五果作因耶。滅法無所有何得為因者。此兼取意破也。恐外人云。前分礙后故不得生。要須前分滅無後方得生。故次第緣名為與處義即其事也。故今破云。滅法無所有。無所有則無有因。云何為因。十二因緣下第三總結。
是故眾緣皆空下第五總結齊法。就文別明三空。即為三別。一明有空。二辨人空。三明無為空。問何故但明此三空。答此三空攝一切有為無為空。即是法空。次是人空。故生法二空攝一切空也。問何故前辨法空。后明人空耶。答法為人本。故前明本空后辨末空。又此論多破內學。內學多計於法小計於人。是故前明法空。又法空難得人空易得。今欲舉難況易。又觀行次第前人空后法空。今是說門。據深為言。故前明法空后辨人空。法空中三句。一明緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 得一時共同產生。又因為因果同時存在，這是第二重破斥。既然名為因果相生，必定是前因後果，為何說是一時？如果說是一時，就像牛的兩隻角，不符合因果的定義。如果說在眾心中存在，這是破斥第二種意義。前一部分是無明。前無明部分與共心一同滅亡，那就斷滅了。後來的行分與心同時存在，那就沒有了因。沒有因就不能產生結果。所以說後來的部分誰作為因呢？問：如何叫做共心滅呢？答：正是《攝大乘論》所闡明的，煩惱業的種子依附於阿梨耶識（Alaya-vijnana，藏識，根本識）。阿梨耶識就是心。前面的煩惱與種子一同與阿梨耶滅亡，後面的五果誰作為因呢？如果按照成實宗和開善寺的觀點，煩惱與業附著於行陰，成就了現在。即使成就了現在，仍然有實法滅亡的意義。那麼行陰的心滅亡了，誰為五果作為因呢？滅亡的法什麼都沒有，怎麼能作為因呢？這兼有反駁對方意圖的意思。恐怕外人說，前面的部分阻礙了後面的部分，所以不能產生。必須前面的部分滅亡之後，後面的部分才能產生。所以次第緣起被稱為與處義，就是這個道理。所以現在反駁說，滅亡的法什麼都沒有，什麼都沒有就沒有因，怎麼能作為因？十二因緣下第三總結。 所以眾緣皆空下第五總結齊法。就文別明三空。即為三別。一明有空。二辨人空。三明無為空。問：何故但明此三空？答：此三空攝一切有為無為空，即是法空。次是人空。故生法二空攝一切空也。問：何故前辨法空，后明人空耶？答：法為人本，故前明本空后辨末空。又此論多破內學，內學多計於法小計於人。是故前明法空。又法空難得人空易得。今欲舉難況易。又觀行次第前人空后法空。今是說門，據深為言。故前明法空后辨人空。法空中三句。一明緣
【English Translation】 English version They arise together for a time. Furthermore, the second refutation concerns the simultaneous existence of cause and effect. Since it's called the mutual arising of cause and effect, there must be a prior cause and a subsequent effect. How can it be simultaneous? If it's simultaneous, like the two horns of a cow, it doesn't fit the definition of cause and effect. If it exists in the minds of the multitude, this refutes the second meaning. The prior part is ignorance (Avidya). When the prior part of ignorance ceases together with the common mind, then there is annihilation. The subsequent volitional activity (Samskara) exists simultaneously with the mind, then there is no cause. Without a cause, there can be no arising of effect. Therefore, it is said, who serves as the cause for the subsequent part? Question: What is meant by the cessation of the common mind? Answer: It is precisely what the Yogacarabhumi-sastra clarifies: the seeds of afflictions and karma rely on the Alaya-vijnana (Alaya-vijnana, storehouse consciousness, fundamental consciousness). The Alaya-vijnana is the mind. When the prior afflictions and seeds cease together with the Alaya, who serves as the cause for the subsequent five fruits? If we consider the views of the Satyasiddhi School and Kaisan Temple, afflictions and karma attach to the volitional aggregate (Samskara-skandha), accomplishing the present. Even if it accomplishes the present, there is still the meaning of the cessation of real dharmas. Then, when the mind of the volitional aggregate ceases, who serves as the cause for the five fruits? A ceased dharma has nothing, how can it be a cause? This also includes the intention to refute. Fearing that outsiders might say, 'The prior part obstructs the subsequent part, so it cannot arise. Only after the prior part ceases can the subsequent part arise.' Therefore, sequential dependent origination is called 'giving place meaning,' that is the matter. Therefore, now we refute, saying, 'A ceased dharma has nothing. If there is nothing, then there is no cause. How can it be a cause?' The third conclusion is below the Twelve Nidanas. Therefore, 'all conditioned things are empty' is the fifth conclusion summarizing the equality of dharmas. Based on the text, three emptinesses are separately clarified, resulting in three distinctions: first, clarifying the emptiness of existence; second, distinguishing the emptiness of self; third, clarifying the emptiness of non-existence. Question: Why only clarify these three emptinesses? Answer: These three emptinesses encompass all conditioned and unconditioned things, which is the emptiness of dharmas. Next is the emptiness of self. Therefore, the two emptinesses of self and dharmas encompass all emptinesses. Question: Why clarify the emptiness of dharmas first and then the emptiness of self? Answer: Dharmas are the root of self, so the emptiness of the root is clarified first, and then the emptiness of the branch is distinguished. Also, this treatise mostly refutes internal teachings, and internal teachings mostly emphasize dharmas and underestimate self. Therefore, the emptiness of dharmas is clarified first. Also, the emptiness of dharmas is difficult to attain, while the emptiness of self is easy to attain. Now, we want to illustrate the easy by citing the difficult. Also, in the order of contemplation, the emptiness of self comes before the emptiness of dharmas. Now, this is the gate of explanation, speaking from a profound perspective. Therefore, the emptiness of dharmas is clarified first, and then the emptiness of self is distinguished. In the emptiness of dharmas, there are three sentences: first, clarifying the conditions.
空。二則果空。是故下總結。
緣果皆空。有為法尚空下第二次明我空。問有為無為此並是法空。我是生空。何故不以法空為一類而前說法空。次明我空後方明無為空耶。答此論破小乘內學。內學人多計。人是有為。是故破有為法即便破我。二者欲明一切諸我並因五陰有為故。破于有為即便破我。文有三句。一舉法況我。二明本空故末空。三引經。今是初也。舉法況我者舉本況末以難況易。又以有況無。然法是有求尚無蹤。橫計之我云何有耶。因五陰下第二釋。上舉法況我前明相因而有。次辨二種俱無。相因有中前法次譬。若陰入界空下第二明二種俱無。前明法說無。次明譬說無。又法空故。我空者此明有為之我。有為既空故我亦空。若無為之我本因有為。有為既空。我無所因。故我亦空。大品佛母品云。神常無常等十四句皆因五陰。涅槃云。是諸外道雖復說我。終不離於陰界入也。問犢子計。我非為無為。應不被破。答此文正破犢子。俱舍論破我品明犢子義。云犢子別有我體。故不即陰。而因於陰故不離陰。如別有火體故不即薪。而因於薪故不離薪。是故今破云。汝本因陰。是故有我。在陰既無。何所因耶。又我不可說。若因於說說無故不可說即無。若不因說何由有此不可說耶。又依中論涅槃品。若涅槃是有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：空。二者，果也是空性的。因此下面進行總結。
緣起之果都是空性的。『有為法尚空』，下面第二次闡明我空（ātma-śūnyatā，自性空）。問：有為法和無為法都是法空（dharma-śūnyatā，諸法空性）。我是眾生空。為什麼不將法空作為一類，先說法空，然後闡明我空，最後才闡明無為空呢？答：此論旨在破斥小乘內學。內學之人大多認為，人是有為法。因此，破斥有為法，就等於破斥了我。其次，想要闡明一切諸我都是因為五陰有為法而產生的。因此，破斥有為法，就等於破斥了我。文中有三句。一是舉法來比況我。二是闡明本來是空性的，所以末了也是空性的。三是引用經文。現在是第一句，舉法來比況我，用根本來比況末梢，用容易理解的比況難以理解的。又用有來比況無。既然有為法尚且求之不得，那麼橫加計度的我又怎麼會存在呢？『因五陰』，下面第二句解釋。上面舉法來比況我，先闡明相因而有。其次辨析兩種都是沒有的。『若陰入界空』，下面第二句闡明兩種都是沒有的。前面闡明法說沒有，其次闡明譬喻說沒有。又因為法是空性的，所以我是空性的。這裡闡明有為之我。有為既然是空性的，所以我也空。如果無為之我本來是因有為而產生的，有為既然是空性的，我無所依憑，所以我也空。《大品般若經·佛母品》說，神常無常等十四句都是因五陰而產生的。《涅槃經》說，這些外道雖然也說有我，但終究不離於陰界入。問：犢子部認為，我非有為也非無為，應該不會被破斥。答：此文正是爲了破斥犢子部。《俱舍論·破我品》闡明了犢子部的觀點，說犢子部另外有一個我的實體，所以不即是陰，而是因於陰，所以不離陰。就像另外有一個火的實體，所以不即是薪，而是因於薪，所以不離薪。因此，現在破斥說，你本來是因陰而有我，在陰中既然沒有我，又依憑什麼呢？又我不可說。如果因於說，說沒有，所以不可說就是沒有。如果不因於說，又怎麼會有這個不可說呢？又依據《中論·涅槃品》，如果涅槃是有
【English Translation】 English version: Empty. Secondly, the result is also empty. Therefore, the following is a summary.
The causes and results of dependent origination are all empty. 'The conditioned dharmas are empty,' below, the second time clarifies the emptiness of self (ātma-śūnyatā). Question: Conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are both dharma-śūnyatā (emptiness of all dharmas). 'I' is the emptiness of beings. Why not take dharma-śūnyatā as one category, first explain dharma-śūnyatā, then clarify the emptiness of self, and finally clarify the unconditioned? Answer: This treatise aims to refute the inner learning of the Hinayana. Most of those who study inner learning believe that humans are conditioned dharmas. Therefore, refuting conditioned dharmas is equivalent to refuting 'I'. Secondly, it is intended to clarify that all 'I's arise because of the five skandhas of conditioned dharmas. Therefore, refuting conditioned dharmas is equivalent to refuting 'I'. There are three sentences in the text. The first is to use dharma to compare 'I'. The second is to clarify that it is empty from the beginning, so it is also empty at the end. The third is to quote the scriptures. Now is the first sentence, using dharma to compare 'I', using the root to compare the branch, using the easy to understand to compare the difficult to understand. Also, using existence to compare non-existence. Since conditioned dharmas are unattainable, how can the 'I' that is arbitrarily conceived exist? 'Because of the five skandhas,' the second sentence below explains. Above, using dharma to compare 'I', first clarify that it exists due to interdependence. Secondly, analyze that both are non-existent. 'If the skandhas, entrances, and realms are empty,' the second sentence below clarifies that both are non-existent. The first clarifies that dharma is said to be non-existent, and the second clarifies that the metaphor says it is non-existent. Also, because dharma is empty, 'I' is empty. Here, the conditioned 'I' is clarified. Since the conditioned is empty, so 'I' is also empty. If the unconditioned 'I' originally arose because of the conditioned, since the conditioned is empty, 'I' has nothing to rely on, so 'I' is also empty. The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, Chapter on the Buddha-Mother says that the fourteen sentences such as 'the soul is permanent or impermanent' all arise because of the five skandhas. The Nirvana Sutra says that although these heretics also say there is an 'I', they ultimately do not depart from the skandhas, entrances, and realms. Question: The Vātsīputrīyas believe that 'I' is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, so it should not be refuted. Answer: This text is precisely to refute the Vātsīputrīyas. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Chapter on Refuting the Self clarifies the views of the Vātsīputrīyas, saying that the Vātsīputrīyas have another entity of 'I', so it is not identical to the skandhas, but because of the skandhas, so it does not depart from the skandhas. Just like there is another entity of fire, so it is not identical to the fuel, but because of the fuel, so it does not depart from the fuel. Therefore, now it is refuted, saying that you originally had 'I' because of the skandhas. Since there is no 'I' in the skandhas, what do you rely on? Also, 'I' cannot be spoken of. If it is because of speaking, saying there is none, so the unspeakable is non-existent. If it is not because of speaking, how can there be this unspeakable? Also, according to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter on Nirvana, if Nirvana is existent
為即是有為。我若是有亦是有為。今亦爾。我若是有亦是有為。如經說下第三引經。前雖破我而犢子不信。故引經證之問此引經與前何異。答前明我所空故我空。今引經以我空故我所空。互借破也。非如成實論以實過假以空過實也。今明。我之與法皆出妄情。但借妄止妄。故人法互釋彈。前借法妄破人妄。今借妄人止妄法。又若不破法則我心不凈。如灰炭猶在樹想還生。是故破法為成凈我。破我亦為成破法。是故今文互借破之。
如是有為法空故下第三次破無為法空。無為有三種。今但破涅槃者。若依毗曇義涅槃是善。餘二無記。不足破之。依成實義三無為一體。既破涅槃餘二即破。又大小乘人保著涅槃為最究竟。余法不爾。故偏破之。此中破二種涅槃。一者破滅五陰名涅槃。二破無生名涅槃。初中又二。前就法破涅槃。次就人破涅槃。初中又二。第一總破。第二釋。破初句如文。何以故下第二釋破。此通大小乘義。小乘人滅分段五陰名小涅槃。大乘人滅二生死果五住惑因名大涅槃。今明。五陰本空。何所滅故名小涅槃。二死五住亦本非有。何所滅故名大涅槃。又我亦復空下第二舉我破涅槃。既無能得之人。何有所得之法。又上破無所得法。今破無能得人。複次下第二破無生涅槃。有此文來凡有二義。一者上破
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『為』即是有為（saṃskṛta，有造作的、有為法的）。如果『我』是有，那麼『我』也是有為。現在也是這樣。如果『我』是有，那麼『我』也是有為。如同經中所說，下面第三個引用經典。前面雖然破斥了『我』，但是犢子（Vatsiputrīya，佛教部派之一，堅持補特伽羅（pudgala，不可說我）的存在）不相信，所以引用經典來證明。問：這個引用經典與前面有什麼不同？答：前面闡明『我所』（mamata，屬於我的事物）是空性的，所以『我』是空性的。現在引用經典，因為『我』是空性的，所以『我所』是空性的。互相借用以破斥。不像成實論（Satya-siddhi-śāstra，佛教論書）用真實的來否定虛假的，用空性的來否定真實的。現在闡明，『我』和『法』都出自虛妄的情感。只是借用虛妄來停止虛妄。所以人和法互相解釋和彈斥。前面借用法的虛妄來破斥人的虛妄。現在借用虛妄的人來停止虛妄的法。又如果我不破斥法，那麼我的心就不清凈。如同灰燼和木炭還在，樹木的念想還會產生。因此，破斥法是爲了成就清凈的『我』。破斥『我』也是爲了成就破斥法。所以現在的文句互相借用以破斥。
『如是有為法空故』下面第三次破斥無為法（asaṃskṛta，無造作的、無為法的）是空性的。無為法有三種。現在只破斥涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）的原因是：如果依照毗曇（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩，論藏）的意義，涅槃是善的，其餘兩種是無記的，不值得破斥。依照成實論的意義，三種無為法是一個整體，既然破斥了涅槃，其餘兩種也就被破斥了。又大小乘人保住涅槃，認為是最究竟的。其餘的法不是這樣。所以偏重破斥涅槃。這裡面破斥兩種涅槃。一種是破斥滅除五陰（pañca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）名為涅槃。另一種是破斥無生名為涅槃。第一種又分為兩個部分。前面就法來破斥涅槃。其次就人來破斥涅槃。前面的部分又分為兩個部分。第一是總的破斥。第二是解釋。破斥第一句如同文中所說。『何以故』下面是第二種解釋破斥。這通用於大小乘的意義。小乘人滅除分段五陰，名為小涅槃。大乘人滅除二生死果和五住惑因，名為大涅槃。現在闡明，五陰本來是空性的。有什麼可以滅除的，而稱為小涅槃呢？二死和五住也本來沒有。有什麼可以滅除的，而稱為大涅槃呢？『又我亦復空』下面是第二種舉『我』來破斥涅槃。既然沒有能獲得的人。有什麼可以獲得的法呢？又上面破斥了無所得的法。現在破斥無能得的人。『複次』下面是第二種破斥無生涅槃。有這段文字以來，凡是有兩種意義。一種是上面破斥
【English Translation】 English version 'Being' is the same as 'conditioned' (saṃskṛta, that which is fabricated, conditioned dharma). If 'I' exist, then 'I' am also conditioned. It is the same now. If 'I' exist, then 'I' am also conditioned. As the sutra says, the third quotation of the sutra is below. Although 'I' was refuted earlier, the Vatsiputrīya (a Buddhist school that insisted on the existence of the pudgala, the inexpressible self) did not believe it, so the sutra is quoted to prove it. Question: What is the difference between this quotation of the sutra and the previous one? Answer: The previous one clarified that 'what belongs to me' (mamata, things that belong to me) is empty, so 'I' is empty. Now the sutra is quoted because 'I' is empty, so 'what belongs to me' is empty. They are refuted by borrowing from each other. It is not like the Satya-siddhi-śāstra (a Buddhist treatise) using the real to negate the false, or using emptiness to negate the real. Now it is clarified that both 'I' and 'dharma' come from delusional emotions. They merely borrow delusion to stop delusion. Therefore, people and dharma explain and refute each other. The previous one borrowed the delusion of dharma to refute the delusion of people. Now it borrows the delusional person to stop the delusional dharma. Also, if I do not refute dharma, then my mind will not be pure. Just as ashes and charcoal remain, the thought of trees will still arise. Therefore, refuting dharma is to achieve a pure 'I'. Refuting 'I' is also to achieve the refutation of dharma. Therefore, the current sentences borrow from each other to refute.
'Because conditioned dharmas are empty,' the third time refutes that unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta, that which is unfabricated, unconditioned dharma) are empty. There are three types of unconditioned dharmas. The reason for only refuting nirvana (nirvāṇa, extinction) now is: if according to the meaning of Abhidharma (Abhidharma, the collection of treatises), nirvana is good, and the other two are unrecorded, not worth refuting. According to the meaning of the Satya-siddhi-śāstra, the three unconditioned dharmas are a whole. Since nirvana is refuted, the other two are also refuted. Also, people of both the Hinayana and Mahayana schools protect nirvana, considering it the most ultimate. The other dharmas are not like this. Therefore, the emphasis is on refuting nirvana. Here, two types of nirvana are refuted. One is refuting the extinction of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) as nirvana. The other is refuting non-birth as nirvana. The first type is further divided into two parts. The previous one refutes nirvana based on dharma. The next one refutes nirvana based on people. The previous part is further divided into two parts. The first is a general refutation. The second is an explanation. The refutation of the first sentence is as stated in the text. 'Why is it so?' The following is the second explanation of the refutation. This applies to the meaning of both the Hinayana and Mahayana schools. Hinayana practitioners extinguish the segmented five skandhas, calling it small nirvana. Mahayana practitioners extinguish the two births and deaths and the causes of the five dwelling delusions, calling it great nirvana. Now it is clarified that the five skandhas are originally empty. What can be extinguished to be called small nirvana? The two deaths and the five dwellings are also originally non-existent. What can be extinguished to be called great nirvana? 'Also, I am also empty' The following is the second example of using 'I' to refute nirvana. Since there is no one who can attain it, what dharma can be attained? Also, the above refutes the dharma of non-attainment. Now it refutes the person who cannot attain. 'Furthermore' The following is the second refutation of non-birth nirvana. Since this text has existed, there have been two meanings. One is that the above refutes
滅五陰名涅槃多是小乘。大乘人明五陰本來無生名為涅槃故。今破大乘義也。二者大小乘人聞論主上云五陰本來自空。便謂本來無生即是涅槃。是故今次須破無生。就文為二。初牒如文。若生法成者第二正破。文顯易知。是故有為無為下。門中第三總結三空釋涅槃義。問若如此文大小涅槃皆破。即無涅槃。云何經云說二涅槃三涅槃四涅槃耶。答依論主云。此中破始得明涅槃耳。如此中明生死涅槃畢竟空。顯道未曾生死亦非涅槃。不知何以字之強為立名名為涅槃。故涅槃經云。涅槃無名。強為立名名為涅槃。如不食油強名食油。問云何言無名耶。答無名者不可名涅槃不涅槃。強為作名名為涅槃。諸大乘皆爾。故華嚴云。生死及涅槃二俱不可得。生死非雜亂。涅槃非寂靜也。問何故強為立名名涅槃耶。答為對眾生生死故立涅槃名。問對何等生死立涅槃名。答對有五住惑業生滅此生名有餘滅。對有二生死果生滅此二死生名無餘滅。故立二也。金光明三身品立三涅槃。明法身究竟是無餘。對餘二身非究竟是有餘。法身不住生死滅生死之著。應化身不住涅槃滅涅槃之著。滅此二著名無住處涅槃。言四涅槃者三如上。第四本來清凈即是佛性本有名為涅槃。四出攝論。
十二門論疏捲上之本
十二門論疏捲上之末
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 認為滅除五陰（色、受、想、行、識，構成個體存在的五種要素）才名為涅槃，這多是小乘佛教的觀點。大乘佛教認為，明白五陰本來就沒有產生，這才是涅槃。所以現在要破斥大乘佛教的這種觀點。第二點是，大小乘佛教的人聽到論主（指龍樹菩薩）在前面說五陰本性自空，就認為本來沒有產生就是涅槃。因此，現在需要破斥『無生』的觀點。就文義來說，分為兩部分。首先是依照原文。『若生法成者』，第二部分是正式破斥。文義顯明易懂。『是故有為無為下』，在這一部分中，第三點是總結三空（我空、法空、空空）來解釋涅槃的意義。問：如果按照這樣說，大小乘的涅槃都被破斥了，那就沒有涅槃了。為什麼經典中又說有二涅槃、三涅槃、四涅槃呢？答：依照論主所說，這裡破斥的是『始得』的涅槃。如此處闡明生死和涅槃畢竟是空。顯示道既不是生死，也不是涅槃。不知道用什麼詞來稱呼它，勉強給它立個名字叫做涅槃。所以《涅槃經》說：『涅槃沒有名字，勉強給它立個名字叫做涅槃。』就像不吃油卻勉強說成吃了油一樣。問：為什麼說沒有名字呢？答：沒有名字是指不能用涅槃或不涅槃來稱呼它，勉強給它起個名字叫做涅槃。所有的大乘佛教都是這樣認為的。所以《華嚴經》說：『生死和涅槃，兩者都不可得。生死不是雜亂的，涅槃也不是寂靜的。』問：為什麼要勉強給它立個名字叫做涅槃呢？答：爲了針對眾生的生死，所以立涅槃這個名字。問：針對什麼樣的生死而立涅槃這個名字呢？答：針對有五住地煩惱（見惑、思惑、無明惑等五種根本煩惱）的業的生滅，這種生叫做有餘涅槃（還殘留有身體和煩惱的涅槃）。針對有二種生死果報的生滅，這二種死叫做無餘涅槃（不再有任何殘留的涅槃）。所以立這二種涅槃。金光明經三身品中立三種涅槃，說明法身究竟是無餘涅槃，針對其餘二身（應身和報身）不是究竟的有餘涅槃。法身不住于生死，滅除對生死的執著。應化身不住于涅槃，滅除對涅槃的執著。滅除這兩種執著，叫做無住處涅槃。所說的四種涅槃，前三種如上所述。第四種是本來清凈，也就是佛性，本來就有的，名為涅槃。這四種涅槃出自《攝大乘論》。 《十二門論疏》捲上之本 《十二門論疏》捲上之末
【English Translation】 English version To consider the extinction of the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, the five aggregates that constitute individual existence) as Nirvana is mostly a view of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle). The Mahayana (Great Vehicle) believes that understanding the five skandhas as originally unborn is Nirvana. Therefore, now we must refute this view of the Mahayana. Secondly, people of both Hinayana and Mahayana, upon hearing the treatise master (referring to Nagarjuna) say earlier that the five skandhas are inherently empty, then consider that being originally unborn is Nirvana. Therefore, now we need to refute the view of 'non-origination.' In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts. First, it follows the original text. 'If the law of origination is established,' the second part is the formal refutation. The meaning of the text is clear and easy to understand. 'Therefore, below, with conditioned and unconditioned,' in this part, the third point is to summarize the three emptinesses (emptiness of self, emptiness of phenomena, and emptiness of emptiness) to explain the meaning of Nirvana. Question: If according to this, both Hinayana and Mahayana Nirvana are refuted, then there is no Nirvana. Why do the scriptures say there are two Nirvanas, three Nirvanas, and four Nirvanas? Answer: According to the treatise master, what is refuted here is the 'newly attained' Nirvana. Thus, it clarifies that birth and death and Nirvana are ultimately empty. It shows that the path is neither birth and death nor Nirvana. Not knowing what term to call it, we forcibly give it a name called Nirvana. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Nirvana has no name, forcibly giving it a name called Nirvana.' It is like not eating oil but forcibly saying that one has eaten oil. Question: Why say it has no name? Answer: Having no name means that it cannot be called Nirvana or non-Nirvana, forcibly giving it a name called Nirvana. All Mahayana Buddhism believes this way. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Birth and death and Nirvana, both are unattainable. Birth and death are not chaotic, and Nirvana is not tranquil.' Question: Why forcibly give it a name called Nirvana? Answer: To address the birth and death of sentient beings, therefore the name Nirvana is established. Question: Addressing what kind of birth and death is the name Nirvana established? Answer: Addressing the arising and ceasing of karma with the five abodes of affliction (the five fundamental afflictions such as views, thoughts, ignorance), this arising is called Nirvana with remainder (Nirvana with the body and afflictions still remaining). Addressing the arising and ceasing of the two kinds of birth and death results, these two deaths are called Nirvana without remainder (Nirvana without any remainder). Therefore, these two Nirvanas are established. The Chapter on the Three Bodies in the Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra establishes three Nirvanas, clarifying that the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body) is ultimately Nirvana without remainder, addressing the other two bodies (Nirmanakaya (Transformation Body) and Sambhogakaya (Reward Body)) as non-ultimate Nirvana with remainder. The Dharmakaya does not abide in birth and death, extinguishing attachment to birth and death. The Nirmanakaya does not abide in Nirvana, extinguishing attachment to Nirvana. Extinguishing these two attachments is called Nirvana without abiding place. The four Nirvanas mentioned, the first three are as described above. The fourth is originally pure, which is the Buddha-nature, originally existing, named Nirvana. These four Nirvanas come from the Mahayana-samgraha. The end of Scroll 1 of the Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise The end of Scroll 1 of the Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise
觀有果無果門第二
若於因緣得悟者則因緣是門。若不悟者因緣于其人即非門。智度論釋三三昧門義正爾。如治病差者□是藥不差者于其非其藥。又于悟因緣因緣是門。不悟即非門。當知此因緣未曾門非門。如涅槃迦葉作定相難。四無量應一二三不應有四。佛就無定相答。乃至或說道為非道。非道為道。今亦爾。或說門為非門。非門為門。不如他定有二諦理有教通之決定。是門迷者自非門耳。今次因緣明有果無果門者。上門有四。一無病不破。二無教不申。三無理不顯。四無利不獲。謂六道回宗三乘徙轍。整歸駕于道場畢趣心於佛地。故不須余門。則一一門皆具四義。但眾生惑病不同根性各異。自有從因緣門入。自有從有果無果門入。故有此門來也。二者就義次第。因緣門總就因緣求果不得。以悟入無生。故名為門。今二品別就因緣求果無生。以之為門。自總至別是觀門次第。三者前就因緣求果不可得。今此門更開三關以縱破之。若必言因緣能生果者不出此三。此三既無。則畢竟無生。有縱奪不同故有此門來也。四者上直申假名正因緣生即是無生故以之為門。今破惑者執因緣中決定有果無果生不可得故以之為門。故前門是申正因緣而邪義自壞。今正破邪迷而因緣自申。二門相對申破傍正不同故相次也。
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "觀有果無果門第二", "", "如果通過因緣而領悟，那麼因緣就是門徑。如果不能領悟，那麼因緣對於這個人來說就不是門徑。《智度論》解釋三三昧門的意義正是如此。如同治病，病好了，藥就是藥；病沒好，藥對於他來說就不是藥。又如領悟因緣，因緣就是門徑；不領悟，就不是門徑。應當知道這因緣未曾是門或非門。如同《涅槃經》中迦葉以定相為難，四無量心應有一二三，不應有四。佛陀就以無定相來回答，甚至有時說道為非道，非道為道。現在也是這樣，有時說門為非門，非門為門。不像他們那樣執著于定相，二諦之理有教義可以貫通，這才是真正的門徑，迷惑的人自己把它當成了非門罷了。現在接著因緣來闡明有果無果門，上面的因緣門有四種作用：一是沒有病就不會破除；二是沒教義就不會申明；三是沒有道理就不會顯現；四是沒有利益就不會獲得。使六道眾生迴歸正宗，三乘聖者改變方向，整理好車駕回歸道場，最終心向佛地。所以不需要其他的門徑，那麼每一個門都具備這四種意義。只是眾生的迷惑和病癥不同，根性也各不相同，自然有人從因緣門進入，也有人從有果無果門進入，所以才有了這個門。第二是就意義的次第來說，因緣門總的來說是就因緣求果而不可得，從而悟入無生，所以稱為門。現在第二品分別就因緣求果無生，以此作為門。從總到別是觀門的次第。第三是前面就因緣求果不可得，現在這個門更開啟三重關卡來縱向破除它。如果一定要說因緣能生果，那麼就離不開這三種情況。這三種情況既然都不成立，那麼就畢竟無生。有縱有奪，所以才有了這個門。第四是前面直接闡明假名正因緣生就是無生，所以以此作為門。現在破除迷惑者執著于因緣中決定有果無果，生不可得，所以以此作為門。所以前面的門是闡明正因緣而邪義自然破除，現在是正面破除邪迷而因緣自身得以申明。兩個門相對，闡明和破除，傍和正不同，所以前後相接。", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "",
問有無與因緣例不。答有例不例。言其例者病因緣假因緣病有無假有無此義例也。言不例者破病因緣申假因緣。破病有無不申假有無。所以然者。因緣因果未曾有無。而惑者計因緣中決定有無。此則但破不收。故因緣望有無有於二句。因緣亦破亦收。有無但破不收。故涅槃經云。若言因中定有果無果亦有亦無非有非無名謗佛法僧。又執有無四句為愛人。系屬於魔。故知決定有無但破不收。今言觀有無門者。觀有無亦有亦無此三病畢竟不可得悟入實相。故名為門。若見有無亦有亦無即是三見。便塞實相故非門也。
問若爾破此三病以何為門。答藉此破之言教能通實相。故名為門。
問因緣亦以教為門。今亦以教為門有何異耶。答因緣門有二義。一者藉因緣之教悟入實相。二者藉教識因緣。因緣能通實相。故因緣是門。今但取破有無之教。則用破為教門。不用有無為門也。
問云何以破為門。答立義者直明能生果不言緣中有果無果。論主開張此三窮於能生果故以破之言教名為門。然因果宛然而畢竟凈。無縱跡處所眾生如此了悟不須論主破之。良由眾生不能如斯了悟。遂見有見無見亦有亦無。今就實相如此有無畢竟無縱。故名為破。何時有此有無等諸見可破耶。又今破有見無見亦有亦無諸見既息。故愛
見息。愛見息故恩息。因息故生死果息。生死果息故涅槃亦息。竟無所息故生死去涅槃去。此去無所去豁然了悟。是故此破名之為門。計因果有無有內道外道不同。然道不曾內外隨人行道自成。內耳外道計有無有其四句。僧佉因中有。世師因中無。勒沙婆亦有亦無。若提子非有非無。薩衛二世有。僧祇二世無。天親俱舍論雙異二家。亦有亦無。現在作因則未來有果。現在不作因即未來無果。成實師立中道義。明有果理故非無無果事故非有。今具破此內外四句。
問中百二論亦破有無。與今何異。答百論兩品正破二外道有無。中論品品破內道有無。若望此門彼二論並是略破。今有三十餘門破于有無。故名廣破。又彼二論散破有無。今束破之。又彼二論寄余法破有無。如五陰三相等中亦破有無。今此門但就因果破。于有無門又為三。一長行發起。二偈本破。三長行釋。
就偈為二。三句總非。第四句呵嘖。又第四句亦名攝法。以三句求生無蹤。離此三外誰有生耶。又龍樹明照無生。敢九十六術言有生耶。五百論師言有生耶。
問此偈與前品兩偈何異。答前品初偈總明內外無生。次偈別明內法無生。但前偈直明果從緣生故無自性無自性故是即無果。今偈重就因緣中嘖果。故云因緣中若前有果。若前無果亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 見解止息。因為愛見止息的緣故，恩愛也止息。因為業因止息的緣故，生死的結果也止息。因為生死的結果止息的緣故，涅槃也止息。最終沒有任何東西止息，所以生死和涅槃都超越了。這種超越沒有任何去處，豁然開悟。因此，這種破除被稱為『門』。計較因果的有無，有內道和外道的不同。然而，道本身沒有內外之分，跟隨人們的修行自然成就。內道和外道計較有無，有四種說法。僧佉派認為因中本來就有果。世師派認為因中本來沒有果。勒沙婆派認為亦有亦無。若提子派認為非有非無。薩衛派認為過去和未來世都有。僧祇派認為過去和未來世都沒有。天親的《俱舍論》對雙異二家，認為亦有亦無。現在造作因，那麼未來就有果。現在不造作因，那麼未來就沒有果。《成實論》的論師立中道義，闡明有果的道理，所以不是無；因為沒有無果的事，所以不是有。現在完全破除這些內外道的四種說法。
有人問：中百論也破除有無，與現在有什麼不同？回答說：百論的兩品主要破除外道的有無。中論的每一品都破除內道的有無。如果與這個『門』相比，那兩個論都是簡略地破除。現在有三十多個『門』來破除有無，所以稱為廣破。而且那兩個論是分散地破除有無，現在集中地破除它。而且那兩個論是藉助其他法來破除有無，例如在五陰、三相等中也破除有無。現在這個『門』只是就因果來破除。對於有無『門』，又分為三部分：一是長行發起，二是偈頌正文破除，三是長行解釋。
就偈頌來說，分為兩部分：前三句總括否定，第四句呵斥責備。而且第四句也稱為攝法，因為在三句中尋求生都找不到軌跡，離開這三句之外，誰還有生呢？而且龍樹菩薩明明照見無生，怎麼敢有九十六種邪術說有生呢？五百論師怎麼敢說有生呢？
有人問：這個偈頌與前面品中的兩個偈頌有什麼不同？回答說：前面品中的第一個偈頌總括地說明內外道都沒有生。第二個偈頌分別說明內道法沒有生。但是前面的偈頌直接說明果是從因緣生起的，所以沒有自性，沒有自性就是沒有果。現在的偈頌重新就因緣中責備果，所以說因緣中如果先前有果，如果先前沒有果也是不對的。
【English Translation】 English version: When views cease, affection ceases because of the cessation of views. When causes cease, the results of birth and death cease. When the results of birth and death cease, even Nirvana ceases. Ultimately, nothing ceases, so both birth and death and Nirvana are transcended. This transcendence has no destination; it is a sudden awakening. Therefore, this refutation is called a 'gate'. Arguing about the existence or non-existence of cause and effect distinguishes internal and external paths. However, the path itself has no internal or external distinction; it is naturally achieved by following the practice. Internal and external paths argue about existence and non-existence, with four positions. The Samkhya school believes the effect exists in the cause. The Lokayata school believes the effect does not exist in the cause. The Ajivika school believes it both exists and does not exist. The Nirgranthas believe it neither exists nor does not exist. The Sarvastivadins believe in existence in both past and future lives. The Samghika school believes in non-existence in both past and future lives. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha-bhasya considers both opposing views, believing it both exists and does not exist. If a cause is created now, there will be a result in the future. If a cause is not created now, there will be no result in the future. The Tattvasiddhi school establishes the Middle Way, clarifying the principle of the existence of the result, so it is not non-existence; because there is no event of no result, so it is not existence. Now, these four positions of internal and external paths are completely refuted.
Someone asks: The Madhyamaka-karika and Dvadasanikaya-sastra also refute existence and non-existence; what is the difference from now? The answer is: The two sections of the Dvadasanikaya-sastra mainly refute the existence and non-existence of external paths. Each section of the Madhyamaka-karika refutes the existence and non-existence of internal paths. Compared to this 'gate', those two treatises are brief refutations. Now there are more than thirty 'gates' to refute existence and non-existence, so it is called a broad refutation. Moreover, those two treatises refute existence and non-existence in a scattered manner; now it is refuted in a concentrated manner. Moreover, those two treatises refute existence and non-existence by relying on other dharmas, such as the refutation of existence and non-existence in the five skandhas, three characteristics, etc. Now this 'gate' only refutes based on cause and effect. Regarding the 'gate' of existence and non-existence, it is further divided into three parts: first, the introduction in prose; second, the refutation in verse; and third, the explanation in prose.
Regarding the verse, it is divided into two parts: the first three lines are a general negation, and the fourth line is a rebuke. Moreover, the fourth line is also called the gathering of dharmas, because seeking birth in the three lines finds no trace; apart from these three lines, who else has birth? Moreover, Nagarjuna clearly illuminates no-birth; how dare the ninety-six heretical schools say there is birth? How dare the five hundred teachers say there is birth?
Someone asks: What is the difference between this verse and the two verses in the previous chapter? The answer is: The first verse in the previous chapter generally explains that there is no birth in internal and external paths. The second verse separately explains that there is no birth in internal dharmas. However, the previous verse directly explains that the result arises from conditions, so it has no self-nature, and having no self-nature means there is no result. The current verse rebukes the result again based on conditions, so it says that if there was a result in the conditions beforehand, or if there was no result beforehand, it is also incorrect.
有亦有亦無並不生果。是即兩門始終並是破果。但上門舉緣破果。今回嘖果所以為果。所以兩門並破果者。至第三門方乃破緣故也。又二門並破果。果通有為。有為既無無為亦無。故有為無為一切空。又二門求果無蹤。則知無緣。故借緣有破果有。借果無破緣有。
問何故破亦有亦無不破非有非無。答第四猶是第三。故不破第四。
問若爾第三猶是前二。亦應不破第三。答既顯第三猶是前二。即顯第四猶是第三。故須破第三也。
就長行為二。第一前釋偈三句。第二次釋第四句。以齊萬法。就釋三句又二。初總唱三句不生。第二別釋三句不生。初如文。所以三句並不生者。若令三種生成即無第一義諦。若無第一義諦亦無世諦。何以故下第二別釋三句不生。即為三別。就釋因中前有果不生。就破救論之問答凡有八番。第一牒有。第二破有。第三救。第四重破。第五重救。第六重破。第七重救。第八重破。即成四立四破。故有八番。若就能破門論之凡有五門。初章就生不生門(有七破)第二據變不變門(有四破)第三就果粗細門(有四破)第四就嘖果不成門(有五破)第五嘖異果門(有四破)都有二十四門若因中先有果生者第一立也。是即無窮第二破也。
就生不生門凡有七破。一俱生破。二俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『有亦有亦無』（既存在又存在又不存在）並不產生結果。這就是說，兩個門（指『有』和『亦有亦無』）始終都是在破斥結果。但第一個門（指『有』）只是從緣起上破斥結果，這次責難結果，是爲了說明什麼是結果。之所以兩個門都要破斥結果，是因為到第三個門（指『亦無』）才真正破斥緣起。而且，兩個門都在破斥結果，這個結果涵蓋了有為法。既然有為法不存在，那麼無為法也不存在。所以說，有為法和無為法一切皆空。而且，兩個門都在尋求結果，卻找不到軌跡，由此可知沒有緣起。所以，藉由緣起的存在來破斥結果的存在，藉由結果的不存在來破斥緣起的存在。
問：為什麼破斥『亦有亦無』，而不破斥『非有非無』？ 答：第四個（指『非有非無』）仍然是第三個（指『亦無』）的延續，所以不破斥第四個。
問：如果這樣，第三個仍然是前兩個（指『有』和『亦有亦無』）的延續，也應該不破斥第三個。 答：既然已經說明第三個仍然是前兩個的延續，也就說明了第四個仍然是第三個的延續，所以必須破斥第三個。
就長行文分為兩部分。第一部分解釋前面偈頌的三句，第二部分解釋第四句，以達到齊同萬法的目的。就解釋前三句又分為兩部分。首先總說三句不生，其次分別解釋三句不生。首先如文所示。之所以三句都不產生，如果讓這三種產生，就沒有第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦，最高真理）。如果沒有第一義諦，也就沒有世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）。為什麼呢？下面第二部分分別解釋三句不生，分為三個部分。就解釋因中先有果不生而言，就破斥和辯論的問答來說，總共有八番。第一是標舉『有』，第二是破斥『有』，第三是救護，第四是再次破斥，第五是再次救護，第六是再次破斥，第七是再次救護，第八是再次破斥。這就形成了四立四破，所以有八番。如果就能夠破斥的門來說，總共有五門。第一章就生與不生門（有七種破斥），第二根據變與不變門（有四種破斥），第三就果的粗細門（有四種破斥），第四就責難結果不成門（有五種破斥），第五責難異果門（有四種破斥），總共有二十四門。如果因中先有果產生，這是第一種立論，也就是無窮的，這是第二種破斥。
就生與不生門來說，總共有七種破斥。一是俱生破，二是...
【English Translation】 English version 'Existing, also existing and also non-existing' does not produce a result. That is to say, both doors (referring to 'existing' and 'also existing and also non-existing') are always refuting the result. But the first door (referring to 'existing') only refutes the result from the perspective of dependent origination. This time, questioning the result is to explain what the result is. The reason why both doors refute the result is that it is not until the third door (referring to 'also non-existing') that dependent origination is truly refuted. Moreover, both doors are refuting the result, and this result encompasses conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma). Since conditioned dharmas do not exist, then unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) also do not exist. Therefore, it is said that conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are all empty. Moreover, both doors are seeking the result but cannot find any trace, from which it can be known that there is no dependent origination. Therefore, by means of the existence of dependent origination, the existence of the result is refuted; by means of the non-existence of the result, the existence of dependent origination is refuted.
Question: Why refute 'also existing and also non-existing' but not refute 'neither existing nor non-existing'? Answer: The fourth (referring to 'neither existing nor non-existing') is still a continuation of the third (referring to 'also non-existing'), so the fourth is not refuted.
Question: If so, the third is still a continuation of the first two (referring to 'existing' and 'also existing and also non-existing'), and the third should also not be refuted. Answer: Since it has already been explained that the third is still a continuation of the first two, it also explains that the fourth is still a continuation of the third, so the third must be refuted.
The long passage is divided into two parts. The first part explains the three lines of the preceding verse, and the second part explains the fourth line, in order to achieve the purpose of equating all dharmas. The explanation of the first three lines is further divided into two parts. First, it generally states that the three lines do not arise; second, it separately explains that the three lines do not arise. First, as the text shows. The reason why the three lines do not arise is that if these three were allowed to arise, there would be no ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, the highest truth). If there is no ultimate truth, there is also no conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, relative truth). Why? The second part below separately explains that the three lines do not arise, divided into three parts. Regarding the explanation that the result does not arise when it already exists in the cause, in terms of the questions and answers of refutation and debate, there are a total of eight rounds. The first is to state 'existing', the second is to refute 'existing', the third is to defend, the fourth is to refute again, the fifth is to defend again, the sixth is to refute again, the seventh is to defend again, and the eighth is to refute again. This forms four establishments and four refutations, so there are eight rounds. If we consider the door that can refute, there are a total of five doors. The first chapter is on the door of arising and not arising (with seven refutations), the second is based on the door of changing and not changing (with four refutations), the third is on the door of the coarseness and fineness of the result (with four refutations), the fourth is on the door of questioning the failure of the result (with five refutations), and the fifth is on the door of questioning the different result (with four refutations), for a total of twenty-four doors. If the result already exists in the cause and arises, this is the first establishment, which is infinite, and this is the second refutation.
Regarding the door of arising and not arising, there are a total of seven refutations. One is simultaneous arising refutation, and the second is...
不生破。三以同嘖異破。四將異並同破。五無異破。六無用破。七嘖用破。今略釋之。然後附文可見。俱生破者未生是有。既其得生生已亦有。亦應更生。令已未俱生名俱生破。俱不生破者若已生是有。既其不生未生是有亦應不生。名俱不生破。以同徴異破者既同是有。云何有。一生一不生異故名以同徴異破。將異並同破者未生既有。生已應無。將已未之異並有同義名將異並同破。無異破者有義既同。則已未既無異。無用破者縱果已有何用更生。嘖用破者異既已有。應有可見之用。此七門因循次第而來。就俱生破又四。一標無窮。二顯無窮。三釋無窮。四結無窮。是即無窮第一標無窮也。如果前未生下第二顯無窮。無窮有五種。如中論所說。今正就已生物明更生故名無窮。故名顯無窮也。問為此是一物無窮生為生無窮物。答是一物無窮生也。何以故下第三釋無窮。言因中常有故者已生之果不異彼未生。故是因中之常有也。從是有邊復應更生者有人言。有無二邊。汝今著有故言從是有邊。今謂不爾。已生之果謂之有邊。將欲作難。先牒外人有義邊也。問此就何義難也。答此就未生微其已生。未生亦有生已亦有。未生是有既其得生。生已亦有亦應得生。故言從是有邊復應更生。又未生是有。既在因內已生是有。亦在因內。
所以作此難者恐外人云果在因中。是故得生。果在因外不復更生。是故今明。因外之有不異因內之有。故是因中常有。內有既生。則外有亦生。又只因內之有生言。此則是生已更生。汝因內已是有竟復不應生。遂言生者當知即是生已更生。若因內之有生已更生。則因外之有亦生已更生。如是一物無窮過生。是則無窮。下第四總結。
若謂下第二俱不生破。前是縱生門。令未生已生一切皆生。又生已更生有無窮生。今是奪生破。則未生已生一切不生。就文為三。一取外意。二正破。三牒宗呵嘖。取外意者救無窮之過也。外云。因中果名未生。因外果名已生。未生可得有生。已生云何更生。故無無窮過也。是中無有生理第二正破。此將生已徴之未生。未生是有。生已亦有。生已是有既其不生。未生是有亦應不生。已未二門畢竟無生。故云無有生理。是故前有下第三牒而呵之。
複次下第三以同嘖異破。又開二別。初牒外義。先第一將未徴已。未生是有既其得生。生已亦有亦應得生。則二俱應生。第二將已徴未。生已是有未生亦有。生已是有既其不生。未生是有亦應不生。故此二門理應俱生。俱應不生。今外人云。雖俱是有而未生者生生已不生。不應作俱生俱不生難也。是二俱有下第二破也。外人義自相違。以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所以，提出這種疑問的人恐怕是擔心外道會說，『果』在『因』中，所以才會產生；『果』在『因』外，就不會再次產生。因此，現在要闡明的是，『因』外的『有』和『因』內的『有』沒有區別，所以『果』在『因』中是常有的。『因』內的『有』既然已經產生，那麼『因』外的『有』也會產生。又僅僅因為『因』內的『有』產生就說，『這』就是已經產生后再次產生。你因為『因』內已經是『有』了，最終不應該再產生，於是說產生者應當知道就是已經產生后再次產生。如果『因』內的『有』產生后再次產生，那麼『因』外的『有』也會產生后再次產生。像這樣，一個事物會無止境地過度產生，這就是無窮。下面是第四個總結。
如果說，下面第二部分是『俱不生破』。前面是順著『生』的門徑，讓未生的、已生的都產生，又讓已經產生的再次產生，以致無窮。現在是截斷『生』的門徑，讓未生的、已生的都不產生。從文義上分為三部分：一是採納外道的觀點，二是正式破斥，三是重申宗旨並加以呵斥。採納外道的觀點是爲了消除無窮的過失。外道說，『因』中的『果』名為未生，『因』外的『果』名為已生。未生的可以產生，已生的怎麼能再次產生呢？所以沒有無窮的過失。『是中無有生理』是第二部分正式破斥。這裡將已生的來質問未生的，未生是『有』，已生也是『有』。已生是『有』既然不產生，未生是『有』也應該不產生。已生和未生兩個方面，最終都沒有產生，所以說『無有生理』。『是故前有』是第三部分重申並加以呵斥。
其次，下面第三部分是用相同的方式呵斥不同的觀點。又分為兩個部分。首先是重申外道的觀點。先第一部分，將未生的來質問已生的，未生是『有』，既然能夠產生，已生也是『有』，也應該能夠產生，那麼兩者都應該產生。第二部分，將已生的來質問未生的，已生是『有』，未生也是『有』。已生是『有』既然不產生，未生是『有』也應該不產生。所以這兩個方面，道理上應該都產生，都應該不產生。現在外道說，雖然都是『有』，但是未生的產生，已生的不產生，不應該用都產生或都不產生來責難。『是二俱有』是第二部分破斥。外道的觀點自相矛盾，因為……
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the one who raises this difficulty probably fears that outsiders will say that the 'effect' (果, guǒ) is in the 'cause' (因, yīn), so it arises; if the 'effect' is outside the 'cause', it will not arise again. Therefore, now it is clarified that the 'existence' (有, yǒu) outside the 'cause' is no different from the 'existence' inside the 'cause', so the 'effect' is always present in the 'cause'. Since the 'existence' inside the 'cause' has already arisen, then the 'existence' outside the 'cause' will also arise. Furthermore, just because the 'existence' inside the 'cause' arises, it is said that 'this' is arising again after having already arisen. You, because the 'existence' inside the 'cause' is already 'existent', ultimately should not arise again, and thus say that the arising one should know is arising again after having already arisen. If the 'existence' inside the 'cause' arises again after having already arisen, then the 'existence' outside the 'cause' will also arise again after having already arisen. Like this, one thing will endlessly over-arise, and this is infinity. The following is the fourth summary.
If it is said that the second part below is 'both do not arise refutation'. The previous part follows the path of 'arising', allowing the unarisen and the arisen to both arise, and also allowing the already arisen to arise again, leading to infinity. Now it is cutting off the path of 'arising', allowing neither the unarisen nor the arisen to arise. In terms of the text, it is divided into three parts: first, adopting the outsider's view; second, formally refuting; and third, reiterating the principle and scolding. Adopting the outsider's view is to eliminate the fault of infinity. The outsider says that the 'effect' in the 'cause' is called unarisen, and the 'effect' outside the 'cause' is called arisen. The unarisen can arise, how can the arisen arise again? Therefore, there is no fault of infinity. 'In this there is no principle of arising' is the second part, formally refuting. Here, the arisen is used to question the unarisen. The unarisen is 'existent', and the arisen is also 'existent'. Since the arisen is 'existent' and does not arise, the unarisen is 'existent' and should also not arise. The arisen and unarisen aspects, ultimately, neither arise, so it is said 'no principle of arising'. 'Therefore, the previous existence' is the third part, reiterating and scolding.
Secondly, the third part below uses the same method to scold different views. It is further divided into two parts. First, reiterating the outsider's view. First part, using the unarisen to question the arisen, the unarisen is 'existent', since it can arise, the arisen is also 'existent', and should also be able to arise, then both should arise. Second part, using the arisen to question the unarisen, the arisen is 'existent', and the unarisen is also 'existent'. Since the arisen is 'existent' and does not arise, the unarisen is 'existent' and should also not arise. Therefore, these two aspects, in principle, should both arise, and should both not arise. Now the outsider says that although both are 'existent', the unarisen arises, and the arisen does not arise, and it should not be criticized with both arising or both not arising. 'These two are both existent' is the second part, refuting. The outsider's view contradicts itself, because...
有是同而生未生異故。論主投其有同以徴。不應生不生異。所以然者。汝有義既同。則應同生。不爾同應不生。若有是同而一生一不生無有是處。
複次下第四捉異並同破。提外人生未生異以徴果體不應始終有同。汝已未相違。亦應有無相違。未生既有。生已則無也。又汝反世情言未生是有者。亦反世情已生便應是無。又此亦得是並。若必言生未生異亦應有無異也。已未相違故。是二作相亦亦應相違者。正作有無相違難也。二所作果體之相亦應相違。則未生之果既其是有。已生之果即應是無。問何故名作相。答果是起作相。故名作相。
複次下第五無異破。前正難次釋難。正難中前牒。世間未生是無生已是有。故言有與無相違。無與有相違也。若生已亦有下正難外也。汝若避前第四生已無難便當果體始終都有。是故今明。若生未生二俱有生者。生已未生有何異耶。又此亦得並。若生未生同是有者。亦應生未生同皆是已也。生未生俱已。若以未生為未生已為已。亦應已生為未未生為已。又若有未有已則有有有無。具四難也。釋難亦中二。初何以故正釋之。次傳破其無異。
複次下第六無用破。自上已來難並縱橫。今並停之直迥嘖其有義。汝既已有何用更生。直作斯嘖辭理則窮無言可對。又夫論義之方
【現代漢語翻譯】 有『是同』(本質相同)而『生未生異』(已生和未生不同)的說法，論主抓住其『有同』(本質相同)這一點來詰難。不應該『生不生異』(已生和未生不同)，為什麼這樣說呢？如果你的『有』(存在)的定義是相同的，那麼就應該一起產生。如果不是這樣，那麼相同的『有』(存在)就不應該產生。如果『有』(存在)是相同的，卻一個產生一個不產生，這是不可能的。
接下來是第四個部分，抓住『異』(不同)並結合『同』(相同)進行破斥。提出外道認為已生和未生是不同的，以此來詰難果體的本質不應該始終相同。你認為『已』(已生)和『未』(未生)是相互矛盾的，那麼『有』(存在)和『無』(不存在)也應該是相互矛盾的。如果未生時是『有』(存在)，那麼已生后就應該是『無』(不存在)了。此外，這也可以理解為一種並列的詰難。如果一定要說已生和未生是不同的，那麼也應該說『有』(存在)和『無』(不存在)是不同的。因為『已』(已生)和『未』(未生)是相互矛盾的，所以這兩個『作相』(作用和表象)也應該是相互矛盾的。這裡主要針對『有』(存在)和『無』(不存在)的相互矛盾進行詰難。兩種『所作』(所產生)的果體的表象也應該是相互矛盾的，那麼未生的果如果是『有』(存在)，已生的果就應該是『無』(不存在)。問：為什麼叫做『作相』(作用和表象)？答：果是『起作』(產生作用)的表象，所以叫做『作相』(作用和表象)。
接下來是第五個部分，通過『無異』(沒有不同)進行破斥。前面是直接詰難，接下來是解釋詰難。在直接詰難中，首先是引述，世間認為未生是『無』(不存在)，已生是『有』(存在)，所以說『有』(存在)和『無』(不存在)是相互矛盾的，『無』(不存在)和『有』(存在)也是相互矛盾的。如果已生也是『有』(存在)，那麼接下來就是直接詰難外道。如果你爲了避免前面第四個部分中已生是『無』(不存在)的詰難，就認為果體的本質始終都是『有』(存在)，那麼現在就說明，如果已生和未生都是『有』(存在)，那麼已生和未生有什麼區別呢？此外，這也可以理解為一種並列的詰難。如果已生和未生都是『有』(存在)，那麼已生和未生都應該是『已』(已生)的狀態。如果已生和未生都是『已』(已生)的狀態，如果認為未生是未生，已生是已生，那麼也應該認為已生是未生，未生是已生。此外，如果『有未有已』(有未生和已生)，那麼就有了『有有有無』(有已生和未生)，具備了四種詰難。在解釋詰難的部分，分為兩個部分。首先是『何以故』(為什麼)進行解釋，其次是傳授破斥其『無異』(沒有不同)的方法。
接下來是第六個部分，通過『無用』(沒有用處)進行破斥。從上面開始，詰難的方式有並列的，有縱橫交錯的，現在將這些方式都停止，直接詰難其『有』(存在)的定義。既然你已經有了『已』(已生)，為什麼還要再生呢？直接用這種詰難的言辭，道理就窮盡了，沒有什麼可以應對的了。此外，辯論的原則是...
【English Translation】 There is a saying that 'being the same' (having the same essence) and 'difference between what is born and not yet born' (what is born and not yet born are different). The debater seizes upon the 'having the same' (having the same essence) to challenge. There should not be 'difference between what is born and not yet born' (what is born and not yet born are different). Why is this so? If your definition of 'having' (existence) is the same, then they should be born together. If not, then the same 'having' (existence) should not be born. If 'having' (existence) is the same, but one is born and one is not born, this is impossible.
Next is the fourth part, seizing upon 'difference' (dissimilarity) and combining 'sameness' (similarity) to refute. The outsider proposes that what is born and not yet born are different, using this to challenge that the essence of the fruit body should not always be the same. You believe that 'already' (already born) and 'not yet' (not yet born) are contradictory, then 'having' (existence) and 'not having' (non-existence) should also be contradictory. If it is 'having' (existence) when not yet born, then it should be 'not having' (non-existence) after being born. Furthermore, this can also be understood as a parallel challenge. If it must be said that what is born and not yet born are different, then it should also be said that 'having' (existence) and 'not having' (non-existence) are different. Because 'already' (already born) and 'not yet' (not yet born) are contradictory, these two 'making aspects' (actions and appearances) should also be contradictory. Here, the main challenge is directed at the contradiction between 'having' (existence) and 'not having' (non-existence). The appearances of the fruit bodies of the two 'what is made' (what is produced) should also be contradictory, then if the fruit of what is not yet born is 'having' (existence), the fruit of what is already born should be 'not having' (non-existence). Question: Why is it called 'making aspect' (action and appearance)? Answer: The fruit is the appearance of 'arising action' (producing action), so it is called 'making aspect' (action and appearance).
Next is the fifth part, refuting through 'no difference' (no dissimilarity). The previous was a direct challenge, and next is explaining the challenge. In the direct challenge, first is the citation, the world believes that what is not yet born is 'not having' (non-existence), and what is already born is 'having' (existence), so it is said that 'having' (existence) and 'not having' (non-existence) are contradictory, and 'not having' (non-existence) and 'having' (existence) are also contradictory. If what is already born is also 'having' (existence), then next is directly challenging the outsider. If you want to avoid the challenge in the fourth part that what is already born is 'not having' (non-existence), and believe that the essence of the fruit body is always 'having' (existence), then now explain, if what is born and not yet born are both 'having' (existence), then what is the difference between what is born and not yet born? Furthermore, this can also be understood as a parallel challenge. If what is born and not yet born are both 'having' (existence), then what is born and not yet born should both be in the state of 'already' (already born). If what is born and not yet born are both in the state of 'already' (already born), if it is believed that what is not yet born is not yet born, and what is already born is already born, then it should also be believed that what is already born is not yet born, and what is not yet born is already born. Furthermore, if 'having not having already' (having what is not yet born and already born), then there is 'having having having not having' (having what is already born and not yet born), possessing four challenges. In the part explaining the challenge, it is divided into two parts. First is explaining 'why' (for what reason), and second is transmitting the method of refuting its 'no difference' (no dissimilarity).
Next is the sixth part, refuting through 'no use' (no purpose). From above, the methods of challenging are parallel and crisscrossing, now stopping these methods and directly challenging its definition of 'having' (existence). Since you already have 'already' (already born), why is there a need to be born again? Directly using this challenging language, the reasoning is exhausted, and there is nothing to respond with. Furthermore, the principle of debate is...
有難有並有嘖。上已明並難。今次嘖也。此嘖僧佉及二世有義。若言有果理者亦作斯嘖。既已有理。理已出空已入有竟。何須更出空更入有耶。若更出空入有即墮更生。如是無窮。還墮前五破。故此一破與前進退相成也。
複次下第七嘖用破。更復縱之。若不改有宗必言有者。汝因中有瓶。則具色香味觸。若爾則應可見。若不可見則應非有。又泥中有瓶則應為六根作境能發六識用。亦應云若爾可聞等也。又若不能作境而言有者。石女兒等亦不能作境亦應有也。又不作境者而有。亦應作境者不有。
問曰下第三外人救義。上破僧佉及二世有部並有果理家義。今眾家共興此一救也。此一問據別而言正通第七嘖用破。因中雖有果以未變故不可見。不應聞有便謂可見。亦不應言不可見。故謂不有。未變者但有果性及理力等。未有事果相貌名為未變。亦得備通七難。第一俱生難云。未生是有生已亦有。未生既生。生已亦生。是則無窮者此事不然。我因中乃前有果而未變故。須變而生。已生之果已變故不須更生。何得言未生既生生已亦生耶。通第二俱不生難者。前難云。已生是有既其不生。未生是有亦應不生者此事不然。我已生之有此是已變故不須更生。未生之果此即未變。是故得生。不應作俱不生難也。通第三以同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有『難』（nan，詰難），有『並』（bing，合併），有『嘖』（ze，責難）。前面已經說明了『並』和『難』，現在是關於『嘖』。這個『嘖』是針對僧佉派（Samkhya，印度哲學流派，主張二元論）以及二世有宗（Sarvastivada，佛教部派，主張一切法真實存在於過去、現在、未來）的『有』的理論。如果有人說『有果理』（果的道理存在）的理論，也可以用這個來責難。既然已經有了『理』，這個『理』已經從『空』（sunyata，空性）中出來，進入了『有』（bhava，存在），為什麼還需要再次從『空』中出來，進入『有』呢？如果再次從『空』中出來進入『有』，那就墮入了『更生』（持續輪迴）。像這樣無窮無盡，又會墮入前面的五種破斥。所以這一個破斥與前面的進退相輔相成。 其次，下面的第七『嘖』是用破斥的方法。更進一步縱容這種說法。如果不改變『有宗』（主張存在）的觀點，必定會說『有』。如果原因中有瓶子，那麼就具備了色、香、味、觸。如果是這樣，那麼就應該可以看見。如果不可見，那麼就應該是不存在的。又，泥土中有瓶子，那麼就應該為六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）作為對境，能夠引發六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）的作用。也應該說，如果是這樣，就應該可以聽見等等。又，如果不能作為對境卻說是『有』，那麼石女兒（虛構的人物，比喻不存在的事物）等也不能作為對境，也應該說是『有』。又不作為對境的東西卻說是『有』，也應該作為對境的東西卻說是不『有』。 下面是第三個問題，外人爲了挽救他們的理論。上面破斥了僧佉派和二世有部的理論，以及『有果理』家的理論。現在大家共同提出這個挽救的說法。這個問題是針對第七『嘖』的破斥。原因中雖然有果，因為沒有變化，所以不可見。不應該因為聽到了『有』就認為可以看見。也不應該說不可見，就認為不存在。沒有變化，只是有果的性質和道理的力量等等。沒有事物的果的相貌，叫做『未變』。也可以用來解釋前面的七種詰難。第一個『俱生難』（同時產生難）說，未生的時候是『有』，生了以後也是『有』。未生的時候既然生了，生了以後又生，這樣就是無窮無盡。這件事不是這樣的。我的原因中是先前有果，但是沒有變化，所以需要變化才能產生。已經產生的果已經變化了，所以不需要再次產生。怎麼能說未生的時候既然生了，生了以後又生呢？解釋第二個『俱不生難』（同時不產生難）是，前面的詰難說，已經產生的是『有』，既然它不產生，未產生的也是『有』，也應該不產生。這件事不是這樣的。我已經產生的『有』，這是已經變化了，所以不需要再次產生。未產生的果，這是沒有變化，所以可以產生。不應該提出同時不產生的詰難。解釋第三個以同……
【English Translation】 English version: There are 'nan' (difficulties), 'bing' (combinations), and 'ze' (reproaches). The 'bing' and 'nan' have already been explained. Now it's about 'ze'. This 'ze' is directed at the Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy, advocating dualism) and the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school, asserting that all dharmas truly exist in the past, present, and future) schools' theory of 'existence' (bhava). If someone speaks of the theory of 'the principle of the existence of the fruit' (the principle that the fruit exists), this can also be used to reproach them. Since there is already a 'principle', this 'principle' has already come out of 'emptiness' (sunyata) and entered into 'existence', why is it necessary to come out of 'emptiness' and enter into 'existence' again? If it comes out of 'emptiness' and enters into 'existence' again, then it falls into 'rebirth' (continuous samsara). Like this, endlessly, it will fall into the previous five refutations. Therefore, this one refutation complements the previous advances and retreats. Secondly, the seventh 'ze' below uses the method of refutation. Further indulging this statement. If you do not change the view of 'the school of existence' (those who advocate existence), you will definitely say 'existence'. If there is a pot in the cause, then it possesses color, smell, taste, and touch. If this is the case, then it should be visible. If it is not visible, then it should be non-existent. Also, if there is a pot in the mud, then it should serve as an object for the six senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind), capable of triggering the function of the six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness). It should also be said that if this is the case, then it should be audible, etc. Also, if it cannot serve as an object but is said to 'exist', then the son of a barren woman (a fictional character, a metaphor for non-existent things), etc., also cannot serve as an object, and it should also be said to 'exist'. Also, if something that does not serve as an object is said to 'exist', then something that serves as an object should be said to not 'exist'. Below is the third question, outsiders trying to salvage their theory. Above, the theories of the Samkhya and Sarvastivada schools, as well as the theory of the 'family of the principle of the existence of the fruit', were refuted. Now everyone is jointly putting forward this salvaging statement. This question is directed at the refutation of the seventh 'ze'. Although there is a fruit in the cause, it is invisible because it has not changed. One should not think that it is visible just because one has heard of 'existence'. Nor should one say that it is non-existent because it is invisible. Not changed, there are only the nature of the fruit and the power of reason, etc. The appearance of the fruit of the thing is called 'unchanged'. It can also be used to explain the previous seven difficulties. The first 'simultaneous arising difficulty' (simultaneous arising difficulty) says that when it is not born, it 'exists', and after it is born, it also 'exists'. Since it is born when it is not born, and it is born again after it is born, then it is endless. This is not the case. In my cause, there was a fruit before, but it has not changed, so it needs to change to be produced. The fruit that has already been produced has already changed, so it does not need to be produced again. How can one say that since it is born when it is not born, and it is born again after it is born? Explaining the second 'simultaneous non-arising difficulty' (simultaneous non-arising difficulty) is that the previous difficulty said that what has already been produced 'exists', since it does not produce, what has not been produced also 'exists', and it should also not produce. This is not the case. What I have already produced 'exists', this has already changed, so it does not need to be produced again. The fruit that has not been produced, this has not changed, so it can be produced. One should not raise the difficulty of simultaneous non-arising. Explaining the third with the same...
嘖異難者。上難云。未生是有。已生亦有。既同是有。而有一生一未生無有是處者不然。我未生未變故須變而生。已生已變故不須更生。雖同是有而得一生一不生也。通第四將異並同難者。上難云。既有生未生異則有無亦異。未生既是有。已生則應無者不然。我未生是未變之有。生已是已變之有。云何作一有一無難耶。通第五無異難者。上難云。生已亦有未生亦有。既同是有。生未生便應無異者不然。我未生是未變之有。已生是已變之有。既有變未變異。則生未生亦異。何得言無異。通第六無用難者。上難云。因中既已有竟。何用更生者不然。未生未變。是故須變此即有用。云何作無用難耶。通第七如前。答曰下第四破救。有此一救。內頻興四破。一徴相破。二嘖變在因中破。亦云。安變在因中破。三窮變在因外破。亦云抽變因破。四不定破。初難有三。第一牒。第二從以何相下正嘖相。此嘖其未變之前相貌也。言泥中瓶果既未變故自體不可見者。必應假相知有。夫相有二。一者自相二者他相。自相是非眾生相。他相是眾生相。泥中俱無此二相。何以知有瓶耶。又俱無。二相俱則不可用二相證瓶。又俱無。二相俱應生二相。又泥出牛馬不應生瓶。若有生不生則有有有無。亦四難也。是故汝說下第三牒呵。複次下第二捉
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 難點在於駁斥『異』。 上述難點在於：『未生』是有，『已生』也是有。既然同樣都是『有』，那麼一個『生』，一個『未生』，說沒有區別是不對的。我的解釋是：『未生』是因為還沒有變化，所以需要變化才能產生；『已生』是因為已經變化，所以不需要再次產生。雖然同樣是『有』，但可以一個『生』，一個『不生』。 解釋第四點，將『異』和『同』放在一起駁斥。 上述難點在於：既然『生』和『未生』有區別，那麼『有』和『無』也應該有區別。『未生』既然是『有』，那麼『已生』就應該是『無』。我的解釋是：『未生』是未變化之『有』，『已生』是已變化之『有』。怎麼能說一個『有』，一個『無』呢？ 解釋第五點，駁斥『無異』。 上述難點在於：『生』之後有，『未生』也有。既然同樣是『有』，那麼『生』和『未生』就應該沒有區別。我的解釋是：『未生』是未變化之『有』，『已生』是已變化之『有』。既然有變化和未變化的區別，那麼『生』和『未生』也是有區別的。怎麼能說沒有區別呢？ 解釋第六點，駁斥『無用』。 上述難點在於：因中既然已經完備，為什麼還要產生呢？我的解釋是：『未生』是因為還沒有變化，所以需要變化，這就有用處。怎麼能說是沒有用處呢？ 解釋第七點，如同前面。回答說：下面第四點是破除對方的辯解。這裡有一種辯解，內部頻繁出現四種破斥。一是指出對方的相狀進行破斥；二是駁斥變化存在於因中，也可以說成是『安立變化于因中』進行破斥；三是窮盡變化存在於因外進行破斥，也可以說成是『抽取變化于因』進行破斥；四是不確定性的破斥。最初的難點有三個。第一是重複對方的觀點。第二是從『以何相』開始，正式指出對方的相狀。這是指出對方在未變化之前的相貌。說泥中的瓶子和果實，既然沒有變化，那麼自體是不可見的，必定應該藉助相來認知其存在。相有二種：一是自相，二是他相。自相不是眾生相，他相是眾生相。泥中都沒有這兩種相，怎麼能知道有瓶子呢？又都沒有這兩種相，那麼就不能用這兩種相來證明瓶子的存在。又都沒有這兩種相，就應該產生兩種相。又泥中生出牛馬，不應該生出瓶子。如果有生和不生，那麼就有『有有』和『有無』，也是四種難點。所以你說：下面第三是重複並呵斥對方的觀點。再次：下面第二是抓住對方的觀點。
【English Translation】 English version The difficulty lies in refuting 'difference'. The above difficulty lies in: 'Unborn' is existent, and 'born' is also existent. Since both are the same 'existent', then one is 'born' and the other is 'unborn', saying there is no difference is incorrect. My explanation is: 'Unborn' is because it has not yet changed, so it needs to change to be produced; 'born' is because it has already changed, so it does not need to be produced again. Although both are the same 'existent', one can be 'born' and the other 'unborn'. Explaining the fourth point, refuting 'difference' and 'sameness' together. The above difficulty lies in: since there is a difference between 'born' and 'unborn', then there should also be a difference between 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Since 'unborn' is 'existent', then 'born' should be 'non-existent'. My explanation is: 'Unborn' is the 'existent' of the unchanged, and 'born' is the 'existent' of the changed. How can you say one is 'existent' and the other is 'non-existent'? Explaining the fifth point, refuting 'no difference'. The above difficulty lies in: after 'born' there is existence, and in 'unborn' there is also existence. Since both are the same 'existent', then 'born' and 'unborn' should have no difference. My explanation is: 'Unborn' is the 'existent' of the unchanged, and 'born' is the 'existent' of the changed. Since there is a difference between changed and unchanged, then 'born' and 'unborn' are also different. How can you say there is no difference? Explaining the sixth point, refuting 'useless'. The above difficulty lies in: since everything is already complete in the cause, why is there a need to produce it? My explanation is: 'Unborn' is because it has not yet changed, so it needs to change, which is useful. How can you say it is useless? Explaining the seventh point, as before. The answer is: the fourth point below is to refute the other party's defense. There is one defense here, with four refutations frequently appearing internally. First, refuting by pointing out the other party's characteristics; second, refuting that change exists in the cause, which can also be said as 'establishing change in the cause'; third, exhausting the refutation that change exists outside the cause, which can also be said as 'extracting change from the cause'; fourth, refuting the uncertainty. There are three initial difficulties. The first is repeating the other party's point of view. The second is starting from 'with what characteristics', formally pointing out the other party's characteristics. This is pointing out the other party's appearance before the change. Saying that the bottle and fruit in the mud, since they have not changed, then the self is invisible, and it must be known to exist by means of characteristics. There are two kinds of characteristics: one is self-characteristic, and the other is other-characteristic. Self-characteristic is not the characteristic of sentient beings, and other-characteristic is the characteristic of sentient beings. There are neither of these two characteristics in the mud, so how can you know there is a bottle? Also, since there are neither of these two characteristics, then these two characteristics cannot be used to prove the existence of the bottle. Also, since there are neither of these two characteristics, then two characteristics should be produced. Also, since cows and horses are produced from the mud, bottles should not be produced. If there is birth and non-birth, then there is 'existence of existence' and 'existence of non-existence', which are also four difficulties. Therefore, you say: the third below is repeating and scolding the other party's point of view. Again: the second below is grasping the other party's point of view.
變在因內破。上嘖相今嘖體。亦三。一破二釋三結嘖。若變法即是果者牒外義也。問外前云。因中有果而未變。則變與果異。今云何言變法即是果耶。答論主欲開二關引敵定變同果。知其懸言即也。所以然者。論主知其必不受變即是果。便墮無果之難。故今且云。即是也又欲遍破一切故具開二關應定云。汝變為是果為非果。若是果者因中有果。即應有變。若有變即可見。若變非果則因中無變。則應無果。今且開一關故偏云即也。何以故下第二釋破。釋破有二。初明既前有果即是前有變。二明既前有變則應可見。上何得言未變故不可見。略據可見耳。還覆宗具七難。因中之果可見。已生之果亦可見。俱可見則俱生。是即無窮。成第二難已生可見應既不生未生可見亦不生。成第三難同可見。一生一不生無有是處。成第四難者。未生既可見生已應不可見。成第五難者同是可見。生與未生有何異。成第六難未生已可見。何用更生。是故下第三結呵。若謂未變下第三捉變在因外破。亦三謂難釋結。難中二。初取外意。明本立因中有果而未變則變與果異。云何作即難耶。是故云未變不名為果也。言不名為果者。若此變非是果。則果畢竟不可得者第二破也。因內無變后時又無。即畢竟無果。乃免可見之嘖覆墮無果之過也。何以故下第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 變在因內破。上責相今責體。亦三。一破二釋三結責。若變法即是果者，此乃重複外道的觀點。問：外道先前說，『因中雖有果，但尚未轉變』，那麼轉變與果實是不同的。現在為何又說轉變之法即是果實呢？答：論主的意圖是開啟兩道關卡，引導對方陷入困境，確定轉變等同於果實，從而可知他們之前的說法是懸空的。之所以這樣，是因為論主知道他們必定不會接受轉變即是果實，那樣就會陷入無果的困境。所以現在暫且說，『即是』。又因為想要普遍破斥一切觀點，所以應該完整地開啟兩道關卡，確定地說：『你所說的轉變，是果實還是非果實？』如果是果實，那麼因中就有果實，就應該有轉變，如果有轉變就應該可以看見。如果轉變不是果實，那麼因中就沒有轉變，就應該沒有果實。現在暫且開啟一道關卡，所以偏重說『即是』。 『何以故』以下是第二部分，解釋破斥。解釋破斥分為兩部分：首先說明既然先前有果實，也就是先前有轉變；其次說明既然先前有轉變，就應該可以看見，為何說未轉變所以不可見呢？這只是略微根據可見的事實來說。重新完整地提出七難：因中的果實可以看見，已經產生的果實也可以看見，既然都可以看見，那麼就應該同時產生，這樣就成了無窮的循環，這是第二難。已經產生的果實可以看見，就應該不產生；未產生的果實可以看見，也應該不產生，這是第三難。同樣是可見，一個產生一個不產生，沒有這樣的道理，這是第四難。未產生時可以看見，產生后反而應該不可見，這是第五難。同樣是可見，產生與未產生有什麼區別呢？這是第六難。未產生時已經可以看見，又何必再產生呢？ 『是故』以下是第三部分，總結呵斥。如果認為未轉變，以下是第三部分，抓住轉變在因外來破斥。也分為三部分，即責難、解釋、總結。責難分為兩部分：首先採用外道的觀點，說明原本立論認為因中有果實但未轉變，那麼轉變與果實是不同的，為何又作為責難呢？所以說未轉變就不能稱為果實。『言不名為果者』，如果這個轉變不是果實，那麼果實就畢竟無法得到，這是第二重破斥。因內沒有轉變，之後也沒有，就畢竟沒有果實，這樣才能避免可見的責難，避免墮入無果的過失。 『何以故』以下是第三部分。
【English Translation】 English version The refutation of 'change residing within the cause'. The above critiques the aspect, the present critiques the substance. Also in three parts: 1. Refutation, 2. Explanation, 3. Concluding critique. If the changing dharma is indeed the result, this reiterates the externalist view. Question: The externalist previously stated, 'Though the result is within the cause, it has not yet transformed,' then transformation and result are different. Why do you now say that the changing dharma is the result? Answer: The author intends to open two gates, leading the opponent into difficulty, establishing that change is the same as the result, thus revealing their previous statement as empty. The reason for this is that the author knows they will certainly not accept that change is the result, thereby falling into the difficulty of no result. Therefore, for now, it is said, 'it is'. Furthermore, wanting to universally refute all views, the two gates should be fully opened, stating definitively: 'The change you speak of, is it a result or not a result?' If it is a result, then there is a result within the cause, and there should be change. If there is change, it should be visible. If change is not a result, then there is no change within the cause, and there should be no result. Now, only one gate is opened for the time being, so the emphasis is on 'it is'. From 'What is the reason?' onwards is the second part, explaining the refutation. The explanation of the refutation is in two parts: first, clarifying that since there was a result previously, there was also change previously; second, clarifying that since there was change previously, it should be visible. Why say that it is not visible because it has not changed? This is only slightly based on visible facts. Reinstating the complete seven difficulties: the result within the cause is visible, the result that has already arisen is also visible. Since both are visible, they should arise simultaneously, which leads to an infinite cycle, this is the second difficulty. The result that has already arisen is visible, so it should not arise; the result that has not yet arisen is visible, so it should also not arise, this is the third difficulty. Being visible in the same way, one arises and one does not arise, there is no such principle, this is the fourth difficulty. If it is visible before arising, it should be invisible after arising, this is the fifth difficulty. Being visible in the same way, what is the difference between arising and not arising? This is the sixth difficulty. If it is already visible before arising, why arise again? From 'Therefore' onwards is the third part, concluding the rebuke. If it is thought that it has not changed, the following is the third part, grasping the change outside the cause to refute. Also in three parts, namely difficulty, explanation, and conclusion. The difficulty is in two parts: first, adopting the externalist's view, clarifying that the original proposition was that there is a result within the cause but it has not changed, then change and result are different, why is it then used as a difficulty? Therefore, it is said that not changing cannot be called a result. 'Saying it is not called a result', if this change is not a result, then the result is ultimately unattainable, this is the second refutation. There is no change within the cause, and there is none later, so there is ultimately no result, thus avoiding the visible difficulty and avoiding falling into the fault of no result. From 'What is the reason?' onwards is the third part.
二釋破。汝明因中無果則果不生。今因中先無變云何生變。故瓶等果下第三結破也。若謂變已是果者第四不定破。所以有此一破來者。重破其因外之果即是變。因內果未變。此義是眾家統本宗故重破之。破亦三。前取外意。次作因中無果難。三結成不定難。今是初縱彼變在因外。又縱變法是果。具二縱也。則因中前無下第二破也。汝既言變是果而在因外。則知因內無變果。故云因中前無。是即不定下第三結成不定過。問云何不定。答若言因中有果性是因有果。因內無變為無果。此之不定不名為過。以數論及外道立義正爾。今就文明者汝本宗立因中有果。今復謂。變已是果。則知未變時因中無果。二言相違故言不定。
問曰下第五重救。立因中前有變以通上四難。問外先云。因中果未變。今云何回宗立有變耶。答不違宗也。前云未變者但有果性未變成事。故不可見。今言。有變者已有變性。若無變性則墮無果。故不相違。問何以知立變性耶。答外云有變。但八因緣不可知。故知有性耳。今先作外人二義。一立宗二防難。立宗者因中有變即是因中有果。若因中無變便墮因中無果過也。次防難者引八緣也。難云。因中既有變應當可見。若不可見則不應有。外通云。有二種不可知。一有不可知。二無不可知。有不可知如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二釋破。你如果認為因中沒有果，那麼果就不會產生。現在因中先前沒有變，又怎麼會產生變呢？所以用瓶等果來作第三次總結性的破斥。如果說變已經成為果，那麼就是第四種不確定的破斥。之所以有這樣一次破斥，是因為要再次破斥那在因之外的果，也就是變。因之內的果還沒有變。這個意義是各家學說統一的根本，所以要再次破斥它。破斥也分為三個階段。先前是採取對方的觀點，其次是提出因中無果的詰難，第三是總結成不確定的詰難。現在是首先假設對方的變在因之外，又假設變法就是果，具備了兩種假設。那麼因中先前沒有，就是第二次破斥。你既然說變是果，而且在因之外，那麼就知道因之內沒有變果。所以說因中先前沒有。這就是不確定，是第三次總結成不確定的過失。問：怎麼是不確定呢？答：如果說因中有果性，就是因有果。因之內沒有變，就是沒有果。這種不確定不能稱之為過失，因為數論和外道就是這樣立論的。現在就你這種明白人來說，你本宗是立因中有果的，現在又說變已經成為果，那麼就知道未變的時候因中沒有果。兩種說法相互矛盾，所以說是不確定。
問：下面是第五次重新辯解。立因中先前有變，來解釋上面的四種詰難。問：你先前說因中的果還沒有變，現在又怎麼改變觀點，立為有變呢？答：不違背本宗。先前說未變，只是有果性，還沒有變成事實，所以不可見。現在說有變，是已經有了變性。如果沒有變性，就會落入因中無果的過失，所以不相違背。問：怎麼知道立變性呢？答：對方說有變，只是八種因緣不可知，所以知道有變性罷了。現在先提出對方的兩種觀點。一是立宗，二是防止詰難。立宗就是因中有變，也就是因中有果。如果因中沒有變，就會落入因中無果的過失。其次是防止詰難，引用八種因緣。詰難說：因中既然有變，應當可以看見。如果不可見，就不應該有。對方解釋說：有兩種不可知。一是有而不可知，二是無而不可知。有而不可知，比如...
【English Translation】 English version Second explanation of refutation. If you argue that there is no effect in the cause, then the effect will not arise. Now, if there was no change in the cause beforehand, how can change arise? Therefore, the third conclusive refutation is made using examples like the pot. If it is said that the change has already become the effect, then it is the fourth uncertain refutation. The reason for this refutation is to repeatedly refute the effect outside the cause, which is the change. The effect within the cause has not yet changed. This meaning is the unified foundation of various schools, so it is repeatedly refuted. The refutation is also divided into three stages. First, the opponent's view is taken. Second, the difficulty of no effect in the cause is raised. Third, the uncertain difficulty is concluded. Now, it is first assumed that the opponent's change is outside the cause, and it is also assumed that the law of change is the effect, possessing two assumptions. Then, 'no prior existence in the cause' is the second refutation. Since you say that the change is the effect and is outside the cause, then you know that there is no changed effect within the cause. Therefore, it is said that there is no prior existence in the cause. This is uncertain, and it is the third conclusion of the uncertain fault. Question: How is it uncertain? Answer: If it is said that there is effect-nature in the cause, then the cause has the effect. If there is no change within the cause, then there is no effect. This uncertainty cannot be called a fault, because the Samkhya school and the heretics establish their doctrines in this way. Now, speaking to you, who are enlightened, your own school establishes that there is effect in the cause. Now you also say that the change has already become the effect, then you know that there is no effect in the cause when it has not yet changed. The two statements contradict each other, so it is said to be uncertain.
Question: The following is the fifth re-defense. Establishing that there was change in the cause beforehand to explain the above four difficulties. Question: You said earlier that the effect in the cause had not yet changed, how do you now change your view and establish that there is change? Answer: It does not contradict the school's doctrine. Saying earlier that it had not changed only meant that there was effect-nature, but it had not yet become a fact, so it was invisible. Saying now that there is change means that there is already change-nature. If there were no change-nature, it would fall into the fault of no effect in the cause, so it does not contradict. Question: How do you know to establish change-nature? Answer: The opponent says there is change, but the eight conditions are unknowable, so it is known that there is change-nature. Now, first present the opponent's two views. One is to establish the doctrine, and the other is to prevent difficulties. Establishing the doctrine is that there is change in the cause, which is that there is effect in the cause. If there is no change in the cause, it will fall into the fault of no effect in the cause. Second, to prevent difficulties, the eight conditions are cited. The difficulty says: Since there is change in the cause, it should be visible. If it is invisible, it should not exist. The opponent explains: There are two kinds of unknowable. One is existing but unknowable, and the other is non-existing but unknowable. Existing but unknowable, such as...
八緣。無不可知如㝹角。汝不可聞有便謂可知。不可聞不可知便謂無也。次別通四難者。第一嘖相難云。若因中有果應有相。若無相便非有。答云。因中雖有以同八緣不可知。不應嘖求相也。第二難云。因中既有變應可見。若不可見便應非有。答云。雖有但同八緣故不可見也。答第三難者。我變在因內。云何乃作變在因外難耶。通第四難者。因中先已有變。此即定有。豈墮第四不定難耶。就文有三。一總標二義。二別釋二義。第三結成二義。以非論主。初文二義者。一明先有變以立義宗。二明不可得以防論主可見之嘖。合此二言通前四難。如向釋。凡物下第二文也。如是諸法下第三文也。
答曰下第六重破。就文為二。第一奪破。明因內變果不同八緣。則著上未變之前可見之過。第二縱同第八。則始終常細。則墮生后不可得之失。初又二。前總明不同八緣。以不同八緣故還滯前四難。正墮可見之失也。次何以故下第二別釋不同八緣。文相可知。若瓶細故不可得者。第二縱同第八。則始終常細。亦二。初正難。次何以故下釋難。釋難云。未生常細不可見者生已亦細亦不可見也。生已未生俱定有者。此舉有定釋成細定。汝有義既定不可改有令無。細義亦定。不可轉細令粗。不可見義亦定。不應可見。
問曰下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 八緣（導致事物無法被完全認知的八種條件）。就像㝹角（一種虛構的動物，類似於兔子），你不能因為它不可被聽聞就認為它是可以被認知的。不能被聽聞和不能被認知不能等同於不存在。接下來是分別解釋和駁斥四種詰難。第一種是責相難，即如果原因中存在結果，那麼應該有相應的跡象。如果沒有跡象，那麼就不能說存在結果。回答是，雖然原因中存在結果，但由於受到八緣的影響，它是不可知的。不應該苛求尋找跡象。第二種詰難是，原因中既然存在變化，那麼這種變化應該可以被看到。如果不可見，那麼就應該認為不存在。回答是，雖然存在變化，但同樣由於受到八緣的影響，所以不可見。對於第三種詰難的回答是，我所說的變化是在原因內部，為什麼你要用變化發生在原因外部來詰難呢？對於第四種詰難的解釋是，原因中已經存在變化，這已經是確定的。怎麼會落入第四種不確定的詰難呢？從文義上來看，分為三個部分。第一部分是總標兩種含義。第二部分是分別解釋這兩種含義。第三部分是總結這兩種含義。因為不是論主，所以不詳細展開。第一部分包含兩種含義：一是闡明先有變化以確立義理的宗旨；二是闡明不可得，以防止論主被責難為可見。將這兩種說法結合起來，可以解釋前面的四種詰難，就像前面解釋的那樣。『凡物下』是第二部分的內容。『如是諸法下』是第三部分的內容。
『答曰下』是第六重破斥。從文義上分為兩個部分。第一部分是奪破，闡明原因內部的變化結果不同於八緣，那麼就會陷入上面未變化之前就應該可見的過失。第二部分是即使相同於八緣，那麼始終都是細微的，那麼就會陷入產生之後也不可得的過失。第一部分又分為兩個部分。前面是總的闡明不同於八緣，因為不同於八緣，所以仍然會陷入前面的四種詰難，正是陷入了可見的過失。接下來『何以故下』是第二部分，分別解釋不同於八緣的原因。文義上可以理解。『若瓶細故不可得者』，第二部分是即使相同於八緣，那麼始終都是細微的，也分為兩個部分。前面是正面的詰難。接下來『何以故下』是解釋詰難。解釋詰難說，未產生時一直是細微的，所以不可見，那麼產生之後也一直是細微的，所以也不可見。『生已未生俱定有者』，這是舉出有是確定的來解釋細微是確定的。你的有義既然是確定的，不可改變有為無，那麼細微的含義也是確定的，不可將細微轉變為粗大，不可見的含義也是確定的，不應該變為可見。
『問曰下』
【English Translation】 English version Eight conditions (that lead to things not being fully knowable). Like a 㝹角 (Nujiao) (a fictional animal, similar to a rabbit), you cannot assume that because it cannot be heard, it is knowable. Not being heard and not being knowable are not equivalent to non-existence. Next, there are four difficulties that need to be addressed separately. The first is the 'criticism of characteristics,' which states that if the result exists in the cause, there should be corresponding signs. If there are no signs, then it cannot be said that the result exists. The answer is that although the result exists in the cause, it is unknowable due to the influence of the eight conditions. One should not demand to find signs. The second difficulty is that since there is change in the cause, this change should be visible. If it is not visible, then it should be considered non-existent. The answer is that although there is change, it is also invisible due to the influence of the eight conditions. The answer to the third difficulty is that the change I am referring to is within the cause, so why are you using a change that occurs outside the cause to challenge me? The explanation for the fourth difficulty is that there is already change in the cause, which is already certain. How can it fall into the fourth uncertain difficulty? From the perspective of the text, it is divided into three parts. The first part is a general indication of two meanings. The second part is a separate explanation of these two meanings. The third part is a summary of these two meanings. Because it is not the main argument, it is not elaborated in detail. The first part contains two meanings: one is to clarify that there is change first to establish the purpose of the doctrine; the other is to clarify that it is unattainable, to prevent the arguer from being criticized as visible. Combining these two statements can explain the previous four difficulties, just as explained before. '凡物下' (Fan wu xia) is the content of the second part. '如是諸法下' (Ru shi zhu fa xia) is the content of the third part.
'答曰下' (Da yue xia) is the sixth refutation. From the perspective of the text, it is divided into two parts. The first part is to refute by seizing, clarifying that the change result inside the cause is different from the eight conditions, then it will fall into the fault of being visible before the above-mentioned change. The second part is that even if it is the same as the eight conditions, then it is always subtle, then it will fall into the fault of being unattainable after production. The first part is divided into two parts. The front is a general explanation that it is different from the eight conditions, because it is different from the eight conditions, so it will still fall into the previous four difficulties, which is precisely falling into the fault of being visible. Next, '何以故下' (He yi gu xia) is the second part, which separately explains the reasons for being different from the eight conditions. The meaning of the text can be understood. '若瓶細故不可得者' (Ruo ping xi gu bu ke de zhe), the second part is that even if it is the same as the eight conditions, then it is always subtle, which is also divided into two parts. The front is a positive challenge. Next, '何以故下' (He yi gu xia) is to explain the challenge. The explanation says that when it is not produced, it has always been subtle, so it is invisible, then after it is produced, it has always been subtle, so it is also invisible. '生已未生俱定有者' (Sheng yi wei sheng ju ding you zhe), this is to give an example that existence is certain to explain that subtlety is certain. Since your meaning of existence is certain, and it is impossible to change existence to non-existence, then the meaning of subtlety is also certain, and it is impossible to change subtlety to coarseness, and the meaning of invisibility is also certain, and it should not become visible.
'問曰下' (Wen yue xia)
第七此重救。救上二難。未生時細。則同於八緣無不同之過。初細後轉成粗故由細成粗。豈可令始終常細。故免第二失。先細后粗數論等同有此義。問此立未生時細。與上第一救未變故不可見。有何異耶。答前明未變都未有瓶之相貌。今言。細者已有相貌。但相貌微細故與上不同。
答曰下第八破。此一答中有十一難。一關正破粗細。初有二難。總破因中有果。初二難者第一作因中無果難。第二相違難。今是初。上明始細終亦細。今嘖本無粗果末亦應無。末遂生粗即是本無今有。豈非因中無果耶。故進退成破。又反並。若無粗遂生粗者有細應不生細。又因中前無粗下第二作相違難。此中前雙牒有無。因中前無粗者牒其無粗。顯墮因中無果過也。又欲發成有粗之難也。若因中前有粗第二縱牒因中有粗。則免因中無果之過。不應言細故不可得者乃免無果之失。復墮遺言之過。今果是粗者此復作非果難之果是粗。汝言細故不可得是粗即非果也。今果畢竟不應可得者。因內無粗因外之粗復非是果。竟何處有果耶。是故不以細故不可得者。牒外義總結呵之。
複次若因中先有果生者。若就粗細門分之。上來四難就粗細門破竟。今第四嘖因果不成。若就破救十一難論之。今是第三明因用廢。問何故作此二義目之。答上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第七，再次救護。救護上述兩種困難。如果未生之時是微細的，那就和第八種緣起一樣，沒有不同的過失。因為最初是微細的，後來才轉變成粗大的，所以是由微細變成粗大的。怎麼能讓它始終保持微細呢？所以避免了第二種過失。先微細后粗大，數論等學說也有這種觀點。問：這種認為未生之時是微細的觀點，和上面第一種救護中認為未變故不可見的觀點，有什麼不同呢？答：前面是說明未變，根本沒有瓶子的相貌。現在是說，微細者已經有了相貌，只是相貌微細，所以和上面不同。
答曰：下面是第八種破斥。這一個回答中有十一種困難。第一關是正面破斥粗細。最初有兩種困難。總的來說是破斥因中有果。最初的兩種困難是：第一，作為因中無果的困難；第二，相違的困難。現在是第一種。上面說明開始是微細的，最終也是微細的。現在責問，如果根本沒有粗大的果，那麼最終也應該沒有。最終竟然產生了粗大的，那就是本來沒有現在有。豈不是因中無果嗎？所以進退都會被破斥。又反過來，如果無粗大的竟然能產生粗大的，那麼有微細的應該不能產生微細的。又，因中先前沒有粗大的，下面第二種是作為相違的困難。這裡先前雙重陳述有無。因中先前沒有粗大的，是陳述其沒有粗大，顯露出墮入因中無果的過失。又想要引發成就存在粗大的困難。如果因中先前有粗大的，第二種是縱容陳述因中有粗大的，那麼就避免了因中無果的過失。不應該說因為微細所以不可得，這樣才能避免沒有果的失誤。又墮入了遺漏言語的過失。現在果是粗大的，這裡又作為非果的困難，果是粗大的。你說因為微細所以不可得，是粗大的就不是果了。現在果畢竟不應該可得。因內沒有粗大的，因外的粗大又不是果。究竟哪裡有果呢？所以不以微細所以不可得為理由，陳述外道的意義，總結呵斥它。
再次，如果因中先前有果產生，如果就粗細方面來區分。上面四種困難就粗細方面破斥完畢。現在第四種責問因果不成。如果就破救的十一種困難來討論，現在是第三種，說明因的作用廢棄。問：為什麼要做這兩種意義的標題呢？答：上面
【English Translation】 English version Seventh, again, to rescue. To rescue the above two difficulties. If it is subtle at the time of non-birth, then it is the same as the eighth condition, without the fault of being no different. Because it is subtle at first and then transforms into coarse, it is from subtle to coarse. How can it be made to remain subtle throughout? Therefore, the second fault is avoided. First subtle then coarse, the Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy) and other doctrines also have this view. Question: This view that it is subtle at the time of non-birth, and the view in the first rescue above that it is invisible because it has not changed, what is the difference? Answer: The former explains that it has not changed, and there is no appearance of a pot at all. Now it is said that the subtle one already has an appearance, but the appearance is subtle, so it is different from the above.
Answer: Below is the eighth refutation. There are eleven difficulties in this one answer. The first gate is to directly refute coarse and subtle. Initially, there are two difficulties. Generally speaking, it is to refute the existence of the effect in the cause. The initial two difficulties are: first, the difficulty of the effect not being in the cause; second, the difficulty of contradiction. Now it is the first. The above explains that it is subtle at the beginning and also subtle at the end. Now questioning, if there is no coarse effect at all, then there should be no coarse effect at the end either. In the end, a coarse effect is actually produced, which means that it originally did not exist but now it does. Isn't this the effect not being in the cause? Therefore, advancing or retreating will be refuted. And conversely, if the non-coarse can produce the coarse, then the subtle should not be able to produce the subtle. Also, the cause previously did not have the coarse, and the second below is to make the difficulty of contradiction. Here, the existence and non-existence are stated twice. The cause previously did not have the coarse, which is to state its non-coarseness, revealing the fault of falling into the effect not being in the cause. It also wants to elicit the difficulty of achieving the existence of the coarse. If the cause previously had the coarse, the second is to indulge in stating that the cause has the coarse, then the fault of the effect not being in the cause is avoided. It should not be said that it is not obtainable because it is subtle, so that the mistake of not having an effect can be avoided. It also falls into the fault of omitting words. Now the effect is coarse, and here it is also made the difficulty of the non-effect, the effect is coarse. You say that it is not obtainable because it is subtle, and the coarse is not the effect. Now the effect should not be obtainable after all. There is no coarse inside the cause, and the coarse outside the cause is not the effect. Where is the effect after all? Therefore, it is not based on the reason that it is not obtainable because it is subtle, stating the meaning of the external path, and summarizing and scolding it.
Again, if the effect previously exists in the cause and is produced, if it is distinguished in terms of coarse and subtle. The above four difficulties have been refuted in terms of coarse and subtle. Now the fourth question is that the cause and effect are not established. If we discuss the eleven difficulties of refutation and rescue, now it is the third, explaining that the function of the cause is abandoned. Question: Why are these two meanings made the title? Answer: Above
來並是問答接次。今此一章直就因中有果別生諸破。不同上來三章。是故具作二義目之。初難有二。前牒外義。是即因因相壞者第二破也。初正破。次釋破。初正破云。若立因中有果者則因果俱壞。而重稱因因者蓋是發語之辭。又一因是外人所立之因。今牒彼立因故言因也。次汝所立因此因不成。故復言因也。果亦爾。問此破與上來破何異耶。答上但明因中不得有果未明因果俱壞。故與上異也。何以故下第二釋。偏釋因相壞。縷器非疊果因故者。此之二事正舉譬破之。若因壞果亦壞者。此乘無因之勢以明無果。何以故下傳釋因無故果亦無。
複次下第四明果相壞。又開三別。一正難。二釋難。三總結。言若不作不名果者。因中前有果則果非因所作。因不能作果故云不作不名果。何以故下第二釋難。明疊寄縷中住疊非縷果縷非疊因。若以奇住便是果者。果寄器住應是器果。此即一切皆果。不爾一切非果。若言疊是縷果果非器果者。亦應果是器果而疊非縷果也。如是即無因無果下第三總結。問此中但應嘖有云何亦嘖無耶。答上來破有略折稍欲入無。故逆呵元也。
複次下第五嘖標相。與前第四破中嘖相異者。前嘖體相今嘖標相。是故異也。今云因中有果而不可得者。序論主上來覓果體及果體相不可得也。應有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
接下來是問答環節。現在這一章直接就因中存在果的情況，從根本上進行破斥，與前面三章不同。因此，特別設立了兩個義項來概括。首先是責難，分為兩部分。前面是重複外道的觀點，也就是對『因因相壞』的第二次破斥。首先是正面破斥，然後是解釋破斥。正面破斥說：『如果認為因中存在果，那麼因和果都會壞滅。』重複稱『因因』，大概是發語的語氣詞。而且，一個『因』是外道所設立的因，現在重複他們的設立，所以說『因』。其次，你所設立的這個『因』不能成立，所以又說『因』。『果』也是一樣。』問：『這個破斥與之前的破斥有什麼不同呢？』答：『之前的破斥只是說明因中不能有果，沒有明確說明因果都會壞滅，所以與之前不同。』『何以故』以下是第二部分解釋，專門解釋因的相狀壞滅。『縷器非疊果因故』，這兩件事正是用來舉例破斥的。『若因壞果亦壞者』，這是藉助沒有因的勢頭來說明沒有果。『何以故』以下是進一步解釋，因為沒有因，所以也沒有果。
接下來是第四部分，說明果的相狀壞滅。又分為三個部分：一是正面責難，二是解釋責難，三是總結。『言若不作不名果者』，如果因中先前就存在果，那麼果就不是因所產生的。因不能產生果，所以說『不作不名果』。『何以故』以下是第二部分解釋責難，說明疊存在於縷中，但疊不是縷的果，縷也不是疊的因。如果認為奇特的存在就是果，那麼果存在於器中，就應該是器的果。這樣就一切都是果，否則就一切都不是果。如果說疊是縷的果，果不是器的果，那麼也應該果是器的果，而疊不是縷的果。『如是即無因無果』以下是第三部分總結。問：『這裡只應該責備有，為什麼也責備無呢？』答：『之前的破斥有稍微折中的意思，想要進入無的境界，所以反過來呵斥有。』
接下來是第五部分，責備標相。與前面第四部分破斥中責備相狀不同的是，前面是責備本體相狀，現在是責備標相，所以不同。現在說『因中存在果而不可得』，這是序論主上來尋找果的本體以及果的本體相狀，但都不可得。應該有。
【English Translation】 English version:
Next comes the question-and-answer session. This chapter directly refutes the existence of the effect in the cause from the root, which is different from the previous three chapters. Therefore, two items are specially set up to summarize. First is the accusation, which is divided into two parts. The first is to repeat the views of the heretics, which is the second refutation of 'cause and cause destroying each other'. First is the direct refutation, and then the explanation of the refutation. The direct refutation says: 'If it is believed that the effect exists in the cause, then both the cause and the effect will be destroyed.' Repeating 'cause and cause' is probably a modal particle. Moreover, one 'cause' is the cause established by the heretics, and now repeating their establishment, so it is called 'cause'. Secondly, the 'cause' you established cannot be established, so it is called 'cause' again. The 'effect' is also the same.' Question: 'What is the difference between this refutation and the previous refutation?' Answer: 'The previous refutation only stated that there cannot be an effect in the cause, and did not explicitly state that both the cause and the effect will be destroyed, so it is different from the previous one.' 'Why' below is the second part of the explanation, which specifically explains the destruction of the characteristics of the cause. 'Thread and container are not the cause of the folded effect', these two things are used as examples to refute. 'If the cause is destroyed, the effect is also destroyed', this is to use the momentum of no cause to explain that there is no effect. 'Why' below is a further explanation, because there is no cause, so there is no effect.
Next is the fourth part, explaining the destruction of the characteristics of the effect. It is divided into three parts: one is the direct accusation, the second is the explanation of the accusation, and the third is the summary. 'If it is said that if it is not made, it is not called an effect', if the effect already exists in the cause, then the effect is not produced by the cause. The cause cannot produce the effect, so it is said that 'if it is not made, it is not called an effect'. 'Why' below is the second part to explain the accusation, explaining that the fold exists in the thread, but the fold is not the effect of the thread, and the thread is not the cause of the fold. If it is believed that the existence of the singularity is the effect, then the effect exists in the container, it should be the effect of the container. In this way, everything is the effect, otherwise everything is not the effect. If it is said that the fold is the effect of the thread, and the effect is not the effect of the container, then it should also be that the effect is the effect of the container, and the fold is not the effect of the thread. 'Thus, there is no cause and no effect' below is the third part of the summary. Question: 'Here, only existence should be blamed, why also blame non-existence?' Answer: 'The previous refutation had a slightly moderate meaning, wanting to enter the realm of non-existence, so it turned around and rebuked existence.'
Next is the fifth part, blaming the mark. The difference between blaming the characteristics in the previous fourth part of the refutation is that the previous one is blaming the characteristics of the body, and now it is blaming the mark, so it is different. Now it is said that 'the effect exists in the cause but cannot be obtained', this is the introduction to the main search for the body of the effect and the characteristics of the body of the effect, but they cannot be obtained. There should be.
相現者正嘖果標相也。如聞香知有華者列此五物皆有標相也。如是因中若先有果應有相現者正嘖果標相。令同上五物也。今果體亦不可得者序上來破體也。相亦不可得者序今求相不可得也。如是當知下總結因中無果也。問聞聲見鳥。聲是鳥標相。今見輪繩即知有瓶。輪繩是瓶標相。何言瓶無標相。答二義不可。一者繩輪猶是瓶因。上已就因內求果無蹤。今不應更舉。二者聲為鳥相。尋聲見鳥。繩為瓶相尋繩不見瓶相。非例也。
複次下第六遍檢果。遍檢果者就若自若他若因若果一切處求果無蹤名遍檢果。凡有五句。初是因中無果。若因不作下明他因無果。若縷不作下明無因不得有果。若果無因亦無者乘無果勢破因也。是故下結非因中有果。
複次下第七有常過。從上遍檢果生。上明因不作非因不作復不得自然而作。而言有此果。是故此果名之為常。文亦五句。初明果常。若果是常下第二句明一切皆常。若一切皆常下第三句明常無常俱無。是故常無常下第四呵嘖其俱無。是故不得言因中前有果下第五結非本宗。
複次下若就五種破門自上已來四門已竟。今是第五嘖異果。所以別開此門者。以上來皆是義勢相接。今更別開章破之。所以復是一門破也。此門亦有四破。一重過。二作為果。三正二因。四二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『相現』指的是作為結果的顯著特徵或標誌。例如，聞到香味就知道有花，這五種事物都有其標誌性的特徵。如果原因中已經存在結果，那麼應該有『相現』，也就是結果的標誌性特徵顯現出來，就像前面提到的五種事物一樣。現在如果結果的本體都無法找到（這是對前面破除實體觀點的總結），那麼『相』也無法找到（這是說現在尋求『相』也是不可能的）。因此，應當知道，原因中實際上沒有結果。 有人可能會問：聽到聲音就能看到鳥，聲音是鳥的標誌性特徵。現在看到輪和繩子就知道有瓶子，輪和繩子是瓶子的標誌性特徵。為什麼說瓶子沒有標誌性特徵呢？回答是：這兩種情況是不同的。第一，繩子和輪子仍然是瓶子的原因，前面已經就原因內部尋求結果而沒有找到軌跡，現在不應該再舉這個例子。第二，聲音是鳥的『相』，通過聲音可以找到鳥。而繩子是瓶子的『相』，通過繩子卻找不到瓶子。所以這不是一個合適的類比。
接下來是第六次全面檢查結果。所謂『全面檢查結果』，是指無論在自身、他者、原因還是結果中，都找不到結果的軌跡，這被稱為『全面檢查結果』。總共有五句話。第一句是原因中沒有結果。『若因不作』（如果原因不產生）以下說明他因中沒有結果。『若縷不作』（如果線不產生）以下說明沒有原因就不能有結果。『若果無因亦無者』（如果結果沒有原因也就不存在），這是藉著沒有結果的勢頭來破除原因的觀點。『是故』（因此）以下總結說原因中沒有結果。
接下來是第七個『有常過』。這是從前面全面檢查結果而產生的。前面說明原因不產生，非原因也不產生，而且也不能自然而然地產生。卻說有這個結果，因此這個結果就被稱為『常』。文章也有五句話。第一句說明結果是常。『若果是常』（如果結果是常）以下第二句說明一切都是常。『若一切皆常』（如果一切都是常）以下第三句說明常和無常都不存在。『是故常無常』（因此常和無常）以下第四句呵斥他們都認為不存在。『是故不得言因中前有果』（因此不能說原因中預先存在結果）以下第五句總結說這不是本宗的觀點。
接下來，如果就五種破門來說，從上面開始的四種破門已經結束。現在是第五種，駁斥不同的結果。之所以單獨開闢這個門，是因為以上都是義理上相互連線的。現在另外開闢一章來破除它。所以這仍然是一個破除的門。這個門也有四種破斥：一、重過；二、作為果；三、正二因；四、二
【English Translation】 English version: 'Appearance of a characteristic' refers to the prominent feature or sign of a result. For example, knowing there are flowers upon smelling a fragrance, these five things all have their characteristic signs. If the result already exists in the cause, then there should be an 'appearance of a characteristic,' that is, the characteristic sign of the result should be manifest, just like the five things mentioned earlier. Now, if the substance of the result cannot be found (this is a summary of the previous refutation of substantialist views), then the 'characteristic' also cannot be found (this is saying that seeking the 'characteristic' now is also impossible). Therefore, it should be known that there is actually no result in the cause. Someone might ask: Hearing a sound allows one to see a bird; the sound is the characteristic sign of the bird. Now, seeing a wheel and rope allows one to know there is a pot; the wheel and rope are the characteristic signs of the pot. Why is it said that the pot has no characteristic sign? The answer is: These two situations are different. First, the rope and wheel are still the cause of the pot; previously, we already sought the result within the cause and found no trace, so we should not bring up this example again. Second, the sound is the 'characteristic' of the bird; one can find the bird through the sound. But the rope is the 'characteristic' of the pot; one cannot find the pot through the rope. So this is not a suitable analogy.
Next is the sixth thorough examination of the result. The so-called 'thorough examination of the result' refers to the fact that no trace of the result can be found whether in itself, others, the cause, or the result; this is called 'thorough examination of the result.' There are a total of five sentences. The first sentence is that there is no result in the cause. 'If the cause does not produce' below explains that there is no result in other causes. 'If the thread does not produce' below explains that there cannot be a result without a cause. 'If the result does not exist without a cause' is leveraging the momentum of the absence of a result to refute the view of a cause. 'Therefore' below concludes that there is no result in the cause.
Next is the seventh 'fault of permanence'. This arises from the previous thorough examination of the result. The previous explanation stated that the cause does not produce, the non-cause does not produce, and it also cannot produce naturally. Yet it is said that there is this result, so this result is called 'permanent'. The text also has five sentences. The first sentence explains that the result is permanent. 'If the result is permanent' below, the second sentence explains that everything is permanent. 'If everything is permanent' below, the third sentence explains that both permanence and impermanence do not exist. 'Therefore, permanence and impermanence' below, the fourth sentence scolds those who think that neither exists. 'Therefore, one cannot say that the result pre-exists in the cause' below, the fifth sentence concludes that this is not the view of this school.
Next, if we consider the five types of refutation, the four types of refutation from above have already been completed. Now is the fifth type, refuting different results. The reason for opening this door separately is that the above are all logically connected. Now we are opening another chapter to refute it. So this is still a door of refutation. This door also has four refutations: 1. Repetition of fault; 2. Production as a result; 3. Correct two causes; 4. Two
作壞。合前七為十一也。今是初。若因中先有果生牒外義也。所以牒者凡有二義。一者義勢不接前。更別開破門故重牒也。二重牒因中前有果為顯成有重果過。良由因中前有故成重果。所以重牒。即果更與果異果作因者。正作重果破也。明縷中已有疊。疊是既縷家果。既已有疊即應可著。著復是疊家之果故是重果。而言異果者著果異疊果。故名異果。而言果更與異果作因者。此縷既有于疊。即為疊作因。此縷中之疊則堪著之。是故此疊復與著作因。故云果更與異果作因。問此與初章無窮過有何異耶。答上明已生果之更復應生。此是前後無窮。今就一時中而頓嘖之。今縷中有疊疊則堪著。疊復為著作因。如母腸中有子此復應有子。如是七世皆在母腸中一時頓有。故與上為異。破本有佛性義。汝言眾生中本有佛性。為異眾生為不異。若不異猶是眾生。眾生既無常佛性亦爾。佛性既常眾生亦爾。若眾生無常佛性常。亦應佛性無常眾生常。若有常無常則不應一也。若眾生與佛性異則已有佛。此佛已應放光動地。已應化眾生。所化眾生複本有佛性。亦應放光動地。如是無窮。若謂如地前有香者第二作為果。作為果者若縷中之疊未堪著。縷緣合始堪著者。此疊非縷中先有。緣合始有。為緣所作非是本有。違本宗義。故名作為果。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 作壞（指錯誤的觀點）。如果將前面的七種錯誤觀點加起來，總共有十一種。現在這是第一種。如果因為在因中先有果，而重複說明外道的主張，那麼重複說明的原因通常有兩個：一是義理上與前面不連貫，需要另外開闢新的論述；二是重複說明因中先有果，是爲了顯示有重複結果的過失。正是因為因中先有果，才導致重複結果。所以要重複說明，即果又與不同的果作為因。這正是爲了破斥重複結果的觀點。比如，線縷中已經有疊（指布匹的雛形），疊是已經完成的線縷的果。既然已經有疊，就應該可以穿戴。穿戴又是疊的果，所以是重複結果。而說『異果』，是因為穿戴的果與疊的果不同，所以稱為『異果』。而說『果又與異果作為因』，是因為這線縷已經有了疊，就為疊作為因。這線縷中的疊就可以用來穿戴。因此，這疊又與穿戴作為因。所以說『果又與異果作為因』。問：這與第一章的無窮過失有什麼不同呢？答：前面是說明已經產生的果，應該再次產生，這是前後無窮。現在是就一時之中而立刻責難。現線上縷中有疊，疊就可以穿戴。疊又作為穿戴的因。如同母親的腸子里有孩子，這孩子又應該有孩子。像這樣七代都在母親的腸子里一時都有。所以與前面不同。破斥本有佛性的觀點。你說眾生中本有佛性，是與眾生相同還是不同？如果不同，仍然是眾生。眾生既然是無常的，佛性也是如此。佛性既然是常的，眾生也是如此。如果眾生是無常的，佛性是常的，也應該佛性是無常的，眾生是常的。如果有常和無常，就不應該是一樣的。如果眾生與佛性不同，那麼就已經有佛了。這佛應該已經放光動地，已經教化眾生。所教化的眾生又本有佛性，也應該放光動地。像這樣無窮。如果說像土地先前有香味一樣，那麼第二種作為果。作為果，如果線縷中的疊還不能穿戴，線縷因緣聚合才能夠穿戴，那麼這疊不是線縷中先前就有的，是因緣聚合才有的。是被因緣所造作的，不是本有的。違背了本宗的義理。所以稱為『作為果』。又
【English Translation】 English version: Making mistakes (referring to incorrect viewpoints). If the previous seven incorrect viewpoints are added together, there are a total of eleven. This is the first one. If, because there is a result already present in the cause, one repeats the explanation of the heretical view, then the reason for repeating the explanation is usually twofold: first, the reasoning is not connected to the previous one, and a new argument needs to be opened up; second, repeating the explanation that the result is already present in the cause is to show the fault of having repeated results. It is precisely because the result is already present in the cause that it leads to repeated results. Therefore, it is necessary to repeat the explanation, that is, the result again acts as a cause for a different result. This is precisely to refute the view of repeated results. For example, in a thread there is already a 'die' (referring to the beginnings of cloth), and the 'die' is the result of the already completed thread. Since there is already a 'die', it should be wearable. Wearing is also the result of the 'die', so it is a repeated result. And saying 'different result' is because the result of wearing is different from the result of the 'die', so it is called 'different result'. And saying 'the result again acts as a cause for a different result' is because this thread already has a 'die', it acts as a cause for the 'die'. The 'die' in this thread can then be used for wearing. Therefore, this 'die' again acts as a cause for wearing. So it is said 'the result again acts as a cause for a different result'. Question: How is this different from the fault of infinity in the first chapter? Answer: The previous one explains that the result that has already arisen should arise again, which is infinite in terms of before and after. Now it is immediately criticizing within a single moment. Now there is a 'die' in the thread, and the 'die' can be worn. The 'die' again acts as a cause for wearing. Just as there is a child in the mother's womb, this child should again have a child. Like this, all seven generations are present in the mother's womb at once. So it is different from the previous one. Refuting the view of inherent Buddha-nature. You say that there is inherent Buddha-nature in sentient beings, is it the same as or different from sentient beings? If it is not different, it is still sentient beings. Since sentient beings are impermanent, so is Buddha-nature. Since Buddha-nature is permanent, so are sentient beings. If sentient beings are impermanent and Buddha-nature is permanent, then Buddha-nature should also be impermanent and sentient beings permanent. If there is permanence and impermanence, then they should not be the same. If sentient beings are different from Buddha-nature, then there is already a Buddha. This Buddha should already be emitting light and shaking the earth, already be transforming sentient beings. The sentient beings who are transformed again inherently have Buddha-nature, and should also be emitting light and shaking the earth. Like this, it is infinite. If it is said that it is like the land previously having fragrance, then the second one acts as a result. Acting as a result, if the 'die' in the thread cannot yet be worn, and it is only when the thread's conditions come together that it can be worn, then this 'die' is not already present in the thread, but is only present when the conditions come together. It is created by conditions, not inherent. It violates the meaning of the original doctrine. So it is called 'acting as a result'. Also
進退皆屈。若本有即為異果作因。若未有待緣作方有即墮因中本無果。
就文為三。一取外意。二正破。三結。非前有取意中前譬后法。所以取意者上以重果過外。外不受此難。明縷中雖有疊疊未堪著。故不得與著作因。如地雖前有香不以水灑此香未有發鼻識之用。縷中雖有疊緣若未會不能與著為因。故無重果之過。是事不然下第二論主破。前總非。次何以故下釋非也。今云不然者不然其法。非是不然其譬。所以不然其法者。若假緣合方有則果成始有。非因中本有。故云不然也。何以故下第二釋不然也。前正釋次傳釋。正釋云。如汝所說可了時名果此是緣合時始名果也。瓶等物非果者明若緣合時始名果則瓶等本有應非果也。此是本始相對緣合方始名果。瓶本有應非果也。何以故下第二傳釋。可了是作瓶等前有非作者。可了是緣合始有。為緣所作。瓶等本有非緣所作。是即以作為果者。依汝義緣合始有為緣所作。此即果也。則應云瓶等本有非緣所作應非是果。此即乖汝本有之宗故。次結云因中有果是事不然。問何故作可了之言耶。答可了者猶是可生。但為外人言地中有香因水故發則生因墮于了因。故作可了之言。又欲發下正二因破故作可了之言也。
複次了因下第三正二因。所以有此破來者。重為釋成上香
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 進退都陷入困境。如果本來就有，那就是為不同的結果製造原因。如果本來沒有，等待因緣和合才產生，那就落入『因中本無果』的謬論。
就文義分為三部分。一是引用外道的觀點，二是正面駁斥，三是總結。『非前有取意中前譬后法』，之所以要引用外道的觀點，是因為前面用『重果』來駁斥外道。外道不接受這種詰難，認為線縷中雖然有重疊，但還不能用來穿綴，所以不能作為著作的原因。就像土地雖然先前有香味，但不用水灑，這種香味就沒有引發鼻識的作用。線縷中雖然有重疊的因緣，如果不能會合，就不能作為穿綴的原因，所以沒有『重果』的過失。
『是事不然』，這是第二部分，論主進行駁斥。先是總體的否定，然後『何以故下』解釋否定的原因。現在說『不然』，是不認可他們的理論，而不是不認可他們的比喻。之所以不認可他們的理論，是因為如果憑藉因緣和合才產生，那麼結果就是開始才有的，不是因中本來就有的，所以說『不然』。『何以故下』，這是第二部分，解釋『不然』的原因。前面是正面的解釋，後面是推論的解釋。正面的解釋說，『如汝所說可了時名果』，可以理解的時候才叫做結果，這就是因緣和合的時候才開始叫做結果。『瓶等物非果者』，說明如果因緣和合的時候才開始叫做結果，那麼瓶子等本來就有的東西就不應該叫做結果。這是『本有』和『始有』相對而言，因緣和合才開始叫做結果，那麼瓶子本來就有的就不應該叫做結果。『何以故下』，這是第二部分，推論的解釋。『可了』是製作瓶子等之前就有的，不是作者製作的。『可了』是因緣和合才開始有的，是被因緣所製作的。『是即以作為果者』，按照你們的觀點，因緣和合才開始有的，是被因緣所製作的，這才是結果。那麼就應該說瓶子等本來就有的，不是因緣所製作的，就不應該是結果。這就違背了你們『本有』的宗旨。然後總結說『因中有果是事不然』。
問：為什麼說『可了』呢？答：『可了』就是可以產生。只是因為外道說土地中有香味，因為水的緣故才散發出來，這樣就把『生因』歸於『了因』了，所以才說『可了』。另外，爲了下面用二因來駁斥，所以才說『可了』。
『複次了因下』，這是第三部分，正面用二因來駁斥。之所以有這樣的駁斥，是爲了再次解釋和闡明上面的香。
【English Translation】 English version: Both advancing and retreating lead to impasse. If it inherently exists, then it creates a cause for a different result. If it does not inherently exist, and only arises when conditions are met, then it falls into the fallacy of 'no result inherently exists within the cause'.
The text can be divided into three parts. First, citing external views; second, direct refutation; and third, conclusion. 'Taking the meaning of non-prior existence, the former analogy precedes the latter Dharma.' The reason for citing external views is that the previous argument used 'heavy result' to refute external views. The externalists do not accept this challenge, arguing that although there are folds in the thread, it is not yet suitable for stringing, so it cannot be the cause of writing. Just as the earth inherently has fragrance, but without water, this fragrance does not have the function of triggering nasal consciousness. Although there are overlapping conditions in the thread, if they cannot be combined, they cannot be the cause of stringing, so there is no fault of 'heavy result'.
'This matter is not so,' this is the second part, where the proponent refutes. First, a general negation, then 'Why is it so?' explains the reason for the negation. Now saying 'not so' means disagreeing with their theory, not disagreeing with their analogy. The reason for disagreeing with their theory is that if it only arises through the combination of conditions, then the result is only newly existent, not inherently existent within the cause, so it is said 'not so'. 'Why is it so?' this is the second part, explaining the reason for 'not so'. The former is a direct explanation, the latter is an inferred explanation. The direct explanation says, 'As you say, when it can be understood, it is called a result,' it is only when conditions are met that it is called a result. 'Things like bottles are not results' indicates that if it is only when conditions are met that it is called a result, then things like bottles that inherently exist should not be called results. This is in contrast to 'inherent existence' and 'new existence', it is only when conditions are met that it is called a result, then bottles that inherently exist should not be called results. 'Why is it so?' this is the second part, the inferred explanation. 'Can be understood' existed before the making of bottles, etc., it was not made by the maker. 'Can be understood' only begins to exist when conditions are met, it is made by conditions. 'This is taking making as the result,' according to your view, what only begins to exist when conditions are met, and is made by conditions, is the result. Then it should be said that bottles, etc., that inherently exist, are not made by conditions, and should not be results. This violates your principle of 'inherent existence'. Then it concludes by saying 'a result exists within the cause, this matter is not so'.
Question: Why say 'can be understood'? Answer: 'Can be understood' means can be produced. It is only because externalists say that there is fragrance in the earth, and it is only emitted because of water, thus attributing the 'productive cause' to the 'manifesting cause', so it is said 'can be understood'. Also, in order to refute with two causes below, it is said 'can be understood'.
'Furthermore, the manifesting cause below,' this is the third part, directly refuting with two causes. The reason for this refutation is to further explain and clarify the above fragrance.
譬故來也。恐外人云如香本有果亦本有。非始造作方有。是故今明。若爾水是香之了因。非是生因。泥應瓶了因非是生因。此文與上進退成難。上得生因則失本有。今得本有則失生因。故有此文來也。言正二因者為外人周正生了二因。則彼義自壞。了因二義。一但能顯物不能生物。二能兼了余物。生因異此二義。一能生物。二但能生瓶。是故不同。何得言果本有耶。果若本有則生因成於了因。了因既有多用。生因亦作多用也。
複次若因中先有果下第四明二作壞。因中既其有果。則皆成已作。無復二作。若謂因中先無果下第二次破因中無果。所以破無者。前破執有家今破執無家。如僧佉衛世及二世有無。又猶是一人改於有宗而執無義。又論主上借無破有。謂論主破有用無。是故執無。又破無為成。破有以無見不息有執還生。是故破無令有心都凈。
文為三別。一破二救三破救。今是初。應有第二頭生者四大中無一頭亦無二頭。既生一頭亦應生二也。又無二不生二。無一亦應不生一。又無二而不生二。無一而生一者。亦應生二而不生一。又有生不生則有有不有。
問曰下第二救。救意云。四大是一頭因緣。故能生一頭。四大非二頭因緣。故不生二頭。以因緣不因緣故有生無生。無四難也。
答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是爲了譬喻的緣故而說的。恐怕外人會說，就像香本身就有果實一樣，果實也是本來就有的。不是一開始製造才有的。所以現在要說明這一點。如果這樣說，水是香的了因（輔助原因），而不是生因（主要原因）。泥土應該是瓶子的了因，而不是生因。這段文字與前面的論述形成進退兩難的局面。如果承認有生因，就失去了果實本有的說法；如果承認果實本有，就失去了生因的說法。所以才有這段文字的出現。說正因和二因，是爲了駁斥外人認為周遍的正因既是生因又是了因的觀點，這樣他們的理論就會自相矛盾。了因有兩種含義：一是隻能顯現事物，不能產生事物；二是能輔助其他事物。生因與這兩種含義不同：一是能產生事物；二是隻能產生瓶子。所以兩者不同。怎麼能說果實是本有的呢？如果果實是本有的，那麼生因就變成了了因。既然了因有很多用途，生因也會有很多用途。 其次，如果因中先有果實，那麼下面的第四點就說明了二作（重複作用）的錯誤。如果因中已經有果實，那麼一切都成了已完成的，不會再有二作。如果說因中先前沒有果實，那麼下面的第二點就破斥了因中無果實的觀點。之所以要破斥無的觀點，是因為前面破斥了執有者的觀點，現在要破斥執無者的觀點。就像僧佉（Samkhya，數論派）、衛世（Vaisheshika，勝論派）以及二世（可能指佛教中的某些派別）對有無的看法一樣。又好像是一個人改變了有宗的觀點而執著于無的意義。而且論主（辯論者）先前借用無來破斥有，意思是論主用無來破斥有。所以才執著于無。而且破斥無是爲了成就。破斥有是因為用無的觀點來看待，有執不會停止，還會產生。所以要破斥無，使有心都清凈。 這段文字分為三個部分。一是破斥，二是救護，三是破斥救護。現在是第一部分，破斥。應該有第二個頭生出來，四大（地、水、火、風）中沒有一個頭，也沒有兩個頭。既然能生出一個頭，也應該能生出兩個頭。又沒有兩個頭就不生出兩個頭，沒有一個頭也應該不生出一個頭。又沒有兩個頭而不生出兩個頭，沒有一個頭而生出一個頭，也應該生出兩個頭而不生出一個頭。又有生有不生，那麼就有有有不有。 下面是第二部分，救護。救護的意思是說，四大是一個頭的因緣，所以能生出一個頭。四大不是兩個頭的因緣，所以不能生出兩個頭。因為有因緣和沒有因緣，所以有生和無生。沒有四種為難的情況。 回答
【English Translation】 English version: This is said for the sake of illustration. Fearing that outsiders might say, 'Just as fragrance inherently possesses fruit, so too is fruit originally present. It is not that it only comes into being through initial creation.' Therefore, we now clarify this point. If that were the case, water would be the 'cause of manifestation' (了因, liao yin) for fragrance, not the 'cause of production' (生因, sheng yin). Mud should be the 'cause of manifestation' for a pot, not the 'cause of production.' This passage creates a dilemma with the preceding arguments. If we accept the 'cause of production,' we lose the notion of inherent existence. If we accept inherent existence, we lose the 'cause of production.' Hence, this passage arises. Speaking of the 'primary cause' (正因, zheng yin) and 'secondary cause' (二因, er yin) is to refute the outsider's view that the pervasive 'primary cause' is both the 'cause of production' and the 'cause of manifestation,' which would contradict their own theory. The 'cause of manifestation' has two meanings: first, it can only reveal things but cannot produce them; second, it can assist other things. The 'cause of production' differs from these two meanings: first, it can produce things; second, it can only produce a pot. Therefore, they are different. How can it be said that fruit is inherently existent? If fruit were inherently existent, then the 'cause of production' would become the 'cause of manifestation.' Since the 'cause of manifestation' has multiple uses, the 'cause of production' would also have multiple uses. Furthermore, if the fruit already exists in the cause, then the fourth point below explains the error of 'double action' (二作, er zuo). If the fruit is already in the cause, then everything is already done, and there will be no more 'double action.' If it is said that the fruit was not previously in the cause, then the second point below refutes the view that there is no fruit in the cause. The reason for refuting the view of non-existence is that previously we refuted the view of those who hold to existence, and now we refute the view of those who hold to non-existence, like the Samkhya (數論派, Shùlùn Pài), Vaisheshika (勝論派, Shènglùn Pài), and the 'two ages' (二世, èr shì) [possibly referring to certain Buddhist schools] regarding existence and non-existence. It is also like a person changing from the view of existence to clinging to the meaning of non-existence. Moreover, the debater previously borrowed non-existence to refute existence, meaning the debater used non-existence to refute existence. That is why they cling to non-existence. Furthermore, refuting non-existence is for the sake of accomplishment. Refuting existence is because viewing things with the perspective of non-existence does not stop the clinging to existence, and it continues to arise. Therefore, we refute non-existence to purify the mind of clinging to existence. This passage is divided into three parts: first, refutation; second, defense; and third, refutation of the defense. Now is the first part, refutation. There should be a second head born. Among the four great elements (四大, sì dà) [earth, water, fire, wind], there is neither one head nor two heads. Since one head can be born, two heads should also be born. Also, if two heads do not give rise to two heads, then one head should also not give rise to one head. Also, if two heads do not give rise to two heads, and one head gives rise to one head, then two heads should also give rise to two heads without giving rise to one head. If there is birth and non-birth, then there is existence and non-existence. Below is the second part, defense. The meaning of the defense is that the four great elements are the cause and condition (因緣, yin yuan) for one head, so they can give rise to one head. The four great elements are not the cause and condition for two heads, so they cannot give rise to two heads. Because of having cause and condition and not having cause and condition, there is birth and non-birth. There are no four difficulties. Answer:
曰下第三破救凡有七破。一多因過。二多果咎。三俱無嘖。四生相壞。五同疑因。六三作廢。七懸構嘖。今第一多因過也。問此破與第一何異。答上捉一因以對二果。今捉一果以對二因。所以異也。如石中無瓶泥中亦無瓶。既從泥亦應從石。泥是瓶因石亦是因。故名多因。然猶得重破上義。泥中無瓶是瓶緣者。亦無二頭應是二頭緣。無二頭非二頭緣者。無瓶亦非瓶緣。此則俱緣俱非緣俱生不生。又顛倒過。泥是瓶緣非二頭緣者亦應是二頭緣非是瓶緣。又若有緣非緣則有有不有。
複次下第二多果過。泥中無一果而生一果。無一切果應生一切果。故名多果過也。
若因中先無果下。第三俱無嘖。沙之與麻二俱無油。則俱不生。俱無則俱生。不爾沙生麻不生。顛倒過也。若麻生沙不生。則麻有而沙無也。
若謂曾見下。第四生相壞。先取外意。外人云。我曾見人取麻不取沙。是故麻生油沙不生。是故取麻不取沙。以曾見之言答四難。以上破不可用言通故。但取眼曾見救。是事不然下總非。何以故下釋非。問此與前第三俱無破何異。答上句以沙無類麻無。今縱有而生相不成。是故異也。生相不成如初門。油不自不他不共也。又汝引曾見救。我亦引曾破。汝生相不可得。又汝引曾見救。何不引曾聞救耶。汝
已曾聞。初門求生相不成。今何故救耶。是故下結呵外人。
複次下第五同疑因。同疑因者因名生疑之所以。若了一事則萬途可明。何故近舍於今麻遠引曾見。今義既惑。曾見亦謬。俱惑所以名同疑因。又我今非但破其現麻。一切三世所有麻悉皆破之。縱汝遠引曾見不出所破。汝已於此現麻生疑。雖引曾見亦懷疑耳。今麻昔麻同不能生。于同生疑。故名同疑。此即指三世麻為因。同疑此因名同疑因。又依文釋者。因中有果無果亦有亦無。此之三種名之為因。汝今不解因中無果。與上不解因中有果及半有半無無異。同不了此三種。故名同疑因。文具有此三種意。問云何得破曾見耶。答外人舌不能通故引曾見為證。但曾見之義符內外大小人情。此事難破故以三門嘖之者。但嘖其見麻生油故也。則汝為曾見麻中有油。為見其無。為見半有半無生油耶。以此三門嘖眼見即眼見便壞。所以然者無有人眼見。麻內有油故生。乳內有酪。童兒已有兒。食已有糞也。故知麻中無油眼無所見。半有同有。半無同無。故以三門嘖之。
複次下第六三作廢。就文為四。一牒外義。諸因相不成下第二標因不成。何以故下釋因不成。所以因不成者夫物得生事在於因。因若前無即造功無用。故云無作無成。作據其始成約其終。既無成作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 我已經聽過了。最初入門時，說求生之相不能成立。現在為何又要救助呢？因此，下面的結論是呵斥外道之人。
再者，下面是第五個『同疑因』。『同疑因』是指產生懷疑的原因。如果明白了一件事，那麼萬事都可以明白。為何要捨棄近在眼前的現在的麻，而去引用遙遠的曾經見過的麻呢？現在的意義既然迷惑不清，那麼曾經見過的也一定是錯誤的。都迷惑不清，所以叫做『同疑因』。而且，我現在不僅要破斥你所說的現在的麻，還要破斥一切三世（過去、現在、未來）所有的麻。縱然你遙遠地引用曾經見過的麻，也無法擺脫被破斥的命運。你已經對現在的麻產生了懷疑，即使引用曾經見過的麻，也仍然是懷疑。現在的麻和過去的麻同樣不能產生（油）。對於相同的事物產生懷疑，所以叫做『同疑』。這裡是指以三世的麻作為原因。對這個原因產生懷疑，所以叫做『同疑因』。另外，按照字面解釋，原因中存在結果，原因中不存在結果，原因中既存在又不存在結果。這三種情況都叫做『因』。你現在不理解原因中不存在結果，與上面不理解原因中存在結果以及一半存在一半不存在結果沒有區別。同樣不明白這三種情況，所以叫做『同疑因』。文字中包含了這三種意思。問：如何才能破斥曾經見過的（麻）呢？答：外道之人言語不通順，所以引用曾經見過的（麻）作為證據。但是，曾經見過的（麻）的意義符合內外大小人情。這件事難以破斥，所以用三種方式責問他。只是責問他所見的麻能生油這件事。那麼，你認為曾經見過的麻中存在油，還是認為它不存在油，還是認為它一半存在一半不存在油而能生油呢？用這三種方式責問他，眼見之說立刻就被破壞了。之所以這樣，是因為沒有人親眼見到麻裡面有油而能生油，就像牛奶裡面有奶酪，小孩已經有了孩子，食物已經有了糞便一樣。所以知道麻中沒有油，眼睛也就無所見。一半存在同於存在，一半不存在同於不存在。所以用這三種方式責問他。
再者，下面是第六個『三作廢』。就文義來說分為四部分。第一部分是轉述外道的觀點。『諸因相不成』，下面是第二部分，標明原因不能成立。『何以故』，下面是解釋原因不能成立。原因不能成立的原因是，事物能夠產生，關鍵在於原因。如果原因在先前不存在，那麼造作的功用就沒有用處。所以說『無作無成』。『作』指的是開始，『成』指的是終結。既然沒有成就和造作
【English Translation】 English version: I have already heard it. Initially, when entering the path, it was said that the characteristic of seeking life cannot be established. Why then do you now seek to save it? Therefore, the following conclusion is a rebuke to those of external paths (外人).
Furthermore, the following is the fifth 'cause of shared doubt' (同疑因). The 'cause of shared doubt' refers to the reason for generating doubt. If one thing is understood, then all things can be understood. Why abandon the present sesame (麻) that is near at hand and instead cite the distant, previously seen sesame? Since the meaning of the present is confusing, then what was previously seen must also be mistaken. Both are confusing, so it is called the 'cause of shared doubt'. Moreover, I am not only refuting your claim about the present sesame, but I am also refuting all sesame of the three times (三世 - past, present, and future). Even if you remotely cite the previously seen sesame, you cannot escape being refuted. You have already doubted the present sesame, so even if you cite the previously seen sesame, it is still doubtful. The present sesame and the past sesame are equally unable to produce (oil). Doubt arises regarding the same thing, so it is called 'shared doubt'. This refers to taking the sesame of the three times as the cause. Doubting this cause is called the 'cause of shared doubt'. In addition, according to the literal explanation, there is a result in the cause, there is no result in the cause, and there is both a result and no result in the cause. These three situations are all called 'cause' (因). You now do not understand that there is no result in the cause, which is no different from not understanding that there is a result in the cause and that there is half a result and half no result in the cause. You equally do not understand these three situations, so it is called the 'cause of shared doubt'. The text contains these three meanings. Question: How can the previously seen (sesame) be refuted? Answer: Those of external paths are inarticulate, so they cite the previously seen (sesame) as evidence. However, the meaning of the previously seen (sesame) conforms to the feelings of people both internal and external, great and small. This matter is difficult to refute, so I question him in three ways. I am only questioning the fact that the sesame he saw can produce oil. So, do you think that there is oil in the sesame you previously saw, or do you think that there is no oil in it, or do you think that it is half there and half not there and can produce oil? By questioning him in these three ways, the claim of seeing with the eyes is immediately destroyed. The reason for this is that no one has ever seen with their own eyes that there is oil inside the sesame that can produce oil, just as there is cheese inside the milk, a child already has children, and food already has feces. Therefore, we know that there is no oil in the sesame, and the eyes have nothing to see. Half existing is the same as existing, and half not existing is the same as not existing. Therefore, I question him in these three ways.
Furthermore, the following is the sixth 'three actions are abandoned' (三作廢). In terms of the text, it is divided into four parts. The first part is to repeat the views of the external paths. 'All causal characteristics are not established', the following is the second part, stating that the cause cannot be established. 'Why is this so', the following is the explanation of why the cause cannot be established. The reason why the cause cannot be established is that the key to things being able to arise lies in the cause. If the cause did not exist beforehand, then the effort of creation would be useless. Therefore, it is said that 'there is no creation and no accomplishment' (無作無成). 'Creation' (作) refers to the beginning, and 'accomplishment' (成) refers to the end. Since there is no accomplishment and no creation.
之功。則無因也。如是作者不得有所作下。第四結無三作。作者名人。使作者名他人。作是現前作是果。因中若無果既無此三事。
若謂因中前有果下第七懸構嘖。所以名懸構嘖者。論主懸構取外人意以難於內與外同過。故名懸構嘖。就文為二。一者假作外難內。二明內通外難。外難內中凡有二難。一者難論主因中有果。二者難內同無三作。若謂因中先有果者。此第一反質。論主執有果也。所以謂內執有果者。以見內借有破無故謂內破無執有。是故云。若謂因中先有果。上破有中亦應有此難。但以後例前。舉一可知。又二世有無及僧佉衛世計因果不出有無。若破有必立無。若破無必立有。前見論主破有謂論主執無。今見論主破無必應立有。是故作此難。又一切破有二門。一內破外。二外破外。上來明內破外意今明外破外。所以內外並破外者。欲明因中有果畢竟不可得。畢竟是障道及壞因果義故也。破因中有果既有內外二破。破因中無果亦有二破也。即不應有作作者作法別異第二齊過難。我執因中無果既無有三作。汝執因中有果亦無三作也。
是故汝說下第二論主通其二難。就文為二。一總非。二別答。總非中有三。初句牒外無三作難也。因中無果下第二敘外難意。汝作此二難以難於我欲成汝因中無果者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：的功用，那麼就沒有原因了。像這樣，作者不應該有所作為。第四部分總結了沒有三種作用。作者被稱為人，使作者被稱為他人。『作』是現在的作用，『是』是結果。如果原因中沒有結果，那麼這三種事物就不存在。
如果說原因中先前就有結果，那麼接下來第七部分是懸構責難。之所以稱為懸構責難，是因為論主懸空構想出外人的意思，以此來為難內部，與外部有相同的過失，所以稱為懸構責難。從文章結構來看，分為兩部分：一是假設外人責難內部，二是說明內部與外部有相同的責難。外人責難內部，總共有兩種責難：一是責難論主認為原因中存在結果，二是責難內部與沒有三種作用相同。如果說原因中先前就有結果，這是第一種反駁。論主堅持認為有結果。之所以說內部堅持認為有結果，是因為看到內部借用『有』來破斥『無』，所以認為內部破斥『無』而堅持『有』。因此說，如果說原因中先前就有結果，那麼之前破斥『有』時也應該有這種責難。但以後面的例子來推斷前面的例子，舉出一個就可以知道。另外，二世的有無以及僧佉（Samkhya，數論派）和衛世（Vaisheshika，勝論派）的理論認為原因和結果不超出有和無。如果破斥『有』，必定要建立『無』；如果破斥『無』，必定要建立『有』。之前看到論主破斥『有』，認為論主堅持『無』。現在看到論主破斥『無』，必定應該建立『有』。因此提出這種責難。另外，一切破斥『有』有兩種途徑：一是內部破斥外部，二是外部破斥外部。上面說明了內部破斥外部的意圖，現在說明外部破斥外部。之所以內外都破斥外部，是爲了說明原因中存在結果終究是不可得的，終究是障礙修行和破壞因果的意義。破斥原因中存在結果，既有內部和外部兩種破斥；破斥原因中不存在結果，也有兩種破斥。
即不應該有作者、作用和作用法的區別，這是第二種齊過難。我堅持認為原因中沒有結果，所以沒有三種作用。你堅持認為原因中存在結果，也沒有三種作用。
因此，你說接下來第二部分是論主迴應這兩種責難。從文章結構來看，分為兩部分：一是總的否定，二是分別回答。總的否定中有三點：第一句是引用外人沒有三種作用的責難。原因中沒有結果，接下來第二點是敘述外人的意圖。你提出這兩種責難來為難我，是想證明你所說的原因中沒有結果。
【English Translation】 English version: of function, then there is no cause. Thus, the author should not have any action. The fourth part concludes that there are no three actions. The author is called a person, making the author called another person. 'Action' is the present action, 'is' is the result. If there is no result in the cause, then these three things do not exist.
If it is said that the result exists in the cause beforehand, then the seventh part is a constructed accusation. The reason why it is called a constructed accusation is that the debater speculates on the meaning of outsiders to make things difficult for the insiders, and has the same faults as the outsiders, so it is called a constructed accusation. From the structure of the article, it is divided into two parts: one is to assume that outsiders accuse the insiders, and the other is to explain that the insiders have the same accusations as the outsiders. Outsiders accuse the insiders, there are two accusations in total: one is to accuse the debater of believing that there is a result in the cause, and the other is to accuse the insiders of being the same as having no three actions. If it is said that the result exists in the cause beforehand, this is the first rebuttal. The debater insists that there is a result. The reason why it is said that the insiders insist that there is a result is that they see the insiders borrowing 'existence' to refute 'non-existence', so they think that the insiders refute 'non-existence' and insist on 'existence'. Therefore, it is said that if it is said that the result exists in the cause beforehand, then this kind of accusation should also exist when refuting 'existence' before. However, infer the previous examples from the following examples, and one example is enough to know. In addition, the existence and non-existence of the two worlds and the theories of Samkhya (數論派) and Vaisheshika (勝論派) believe that cause and effect do not go beyond existence and non-existence. If 'existence' is refuted, 'non-existence' must be established; if 'non-existence' is refuted, 'existence' must be established. Previously, seeing the debater refuting 'existence', it was thought that the debater insisted on 'non-existence'. Now seeing the debater refuting 'non-existence', 'existence' must be established. Therefore, this accusation is put forward. In addition, there are two ways to refute 'existence': one is that the inside refutes the outside, and the other is that the outside refutes the outside. The above explains the intention of the inside refuting the outside, and now explains the outside refuting the outside. The reason why both inside and outside refute the outside is to explain that the existence of the result in the cause is ultimately unattainable, and ultimately hinders practice and destroys the meaning of cause and effect. Refuting the existence of the result in the cause has both internal and external refutations; refuting the non-existence of the result in the cause also has two refutations.
That is, there should be no distinction between the author, the action, and the method of action, which is the second equal fault accusation. I insist that there is no result in the cause, so there are no three actions. You insist that there is a result in the cause, and there are no three actions either.
Therefore, you say that the next second part is the debater's response to these two accusations. From the structure of the article, it is divided into two parts: one is the general negation, and the other is the separate answer. There are three points in the general negation: the first sentence is to quote the outsider's accusation that there are no three actions. There is no result in the cause, and the next second point is to describe the intention of the outsider. You put forward these two accusations to make things difficult for me, and want to prove that what you said is that there is no result in the cause.
故是牒外意也。
是亦不然下。第三論主非其破有立無也。
何以故下第二別答二難。前遂近答第二齊難。論主明。若我執有難無可受汝難。我不執有難無。云何受汝難耶。又我有無俱破。汝今破我有者乃助我破。非破我也。又有無並出汝謂情。今還難汝有汝自通之。非開我也。又汝不立有我亦不立有。汝今破有。此是虛說。竟不開二家。是故因中無果者呵外人立無也。所以呵立無者。外前質有為欲成無在難既非。則無義便壞。故呵無也。複次下答其初難。意同前難。但前據無三作。今明因中非前有果。亦不受因中先無果者。外見論主破有便謂執無故。復明不受于無也。
若謂因中先有果下。第三段次破亦有亦無。凡有二難。一相違破。二指前破。相違破者就因中一果體不得亦是有亦是無。以有無相害故不言因中有性。為有無事為無。此不名通。只問其性之有無為相違耳。複次下第二縱是亦有亦無。同上二門所破。是故下前明因中有果無果等三句竟。此下第二釋偈第四句誰當有生者。並齊萬法即為二別。初結果空。有為空故下第二結歸三空也。
十二門論疏捲上之末 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1825 十二門論疏
十二門論疏卷中之本
釋吉藏撰
觀緣門第三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『故是牒外意也。』——這是重述外道的觀點。
『是亦不然下。第三論主非其破有立無也。』——『並非如此』以下，第三點說明論主的意圖不是爲了破斥『有』而樹立『無』。
『何以故下第二別答二難。前遂近答第二齊難。論主明。若我執有難無可受汝難。我不執有難無。云何受汝難耶。又我有無俱破。汝今破我有者乃助我破。非破我也。又有無並出汝謂情。今還難汝有汝自通之。非開我也。又汝不立有我亦不立有。汝今破有。此是虛說。竟不開二家。是故因中無果者呵外人立無也。所以呵立無者。外前質有為欲成無在難既非。則無義便壞。故呵無也。』——『為什麼呢』以下，第二部分分別回答兩個難題。前面是就近回答第二個難題。論主闡明：如果我執著于『有』，那麼『難』（詰難）無可避免，我可以接受你的詰難。但我不執著于『有』，那麼『難』從何而來呢？我為什麼要接受你的詰難呢？而且，我『有』和『無』都破斥。你現在破斥『有』，實際上是幫助我破斥，而不是在破斥我。『有』和『無』同時出現，你認為是情識的作用。現在反過來詰難你『有』，你自己解釋吧，這並不是在開導我。而且，你不樹立『有』，我也不樹立『有』。你現在破斥『有』，這是虛妄的說法，最終沒有開導我們兩家。所以說，『因中無果』是呵斥外道樹立『無』。之所以呵斥樹立『無』，是因為外道先前質問『有』，是爲了成就『無』，但現在詰難既然不成立，那麼『無』的意義也就破壞了，所以呵斥『無』。
『複次下答其初難。意同前難。但前據無三作。今明因中非前有果。亦不受因中先無果者。外見論主破有便謂執無故。復明不受于無也。』——『其次』以下，回答最初的難題，意思與前面的難題相同。但前面是根據『無』的三種說法來論述，現在說明『因中』並非先前就存在『果』，也不接受『因中』先前不存在『果』的說法。外道看到論主破斥『有』，就認為論主執著于『無』，所以再次說明不接受『無』。
『若謂因中先有果下。第三段次破亦有亦無。凡有二難。一相違破。二指前破。相違破者就因中一果體不得亦是有亦是無。以有無相害故不言因中有性。為有無事為無。此不名通。只問其性之有無為相違耳。複次下第二縱是亦有亦無。同上二門所破。是故下前明因中有果無果等三句竟。此下第二釋偈第四句誰當有生者。並齊萬法即為二別。初結果空。有為空故下第二結歸三空也。』——『如果說因中先前存在果』以下，第三段依次破斥『亦有亦無』的觀點。總共有兩個難題：一是相違破，二是指出前面的破斥。相違破是指就『因中』的一個『果』的本體來說，不能既是『有』又是『無』，因為『有』和『無』相互衝突。所以不說『因中』有自性，是爲了說明『有』和『無』是兩回事。這不能算是通達。只是問它的自性是『有』還是『無』，這才是相互衝突的。『其次』以下，第二點是縱然承認『亦有亦無』，也與上面兩個方面所破斥的相同。『是故』以下，前面說明了『因中有果』、『無果』等三種說法結束。這以下，第二點是解釋偈頌的第四句『誰當有生者』，並且將萬法歸於平等，分為兩個部分。首先是總結『果』是空性的。『有為』是空性的，所以以下第二點是總結歸於三空。
『十二門論疏捲上之末 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1825 十二門論疏』
『十二門論疏卷中之本』
『釋吉藏撰』
『觀緣門第三』
【English Translation】 English version: '故是牒外意也 (gù shì dié wài yì yě).' - This is reiterating the view of the externalists (外道, wài dào).
'是亦不然下 (shì yì bù rán xià). 第三論主非其破有立無也 (dì sān lùn zhǔ fēi qí pò yǒu lì wú yě).' - 'That is not so' and following, the third point clarifies that the intention of the author of the treatise is not to refute 'existence' (有, yǒu) and establish 'non-existence' (無, wú).
'何以故下 (hé yǐ gù xià) 第二別答二難 (dì èr bié dá èr nán). 前遂近答第二齊難 (qián suì jìn dá dì èr qí nán). 論主明 (lùn zhǔ míng). 若我執有難無可受汝難 (ruò wǒ zhí yǒu nán wú kě shòu rǔ nán). 我不執有難無 (wǒ bù zhí yǒu nán wú). 云何受汝難耶 (yún hé shòu rǔ nán yé). 又我有無俱破 (yòu wǒ yǒu wú jù pò). 汝今破我有者乃助我破 (rǔ jīn pò wǒ yǒu zhě nǎi zhù wǒ pò). 非破我也 (fēi pò wǒ yě). 又有無並出汝謂情 (yòu yǒu wú bìng chū rǔ wèi qíng). 今還難汝有汝自通之 (jīn hái nán rǔ yǒu rǔ zì tōng zhī). 非開我也 (fēi kāi wǒ yě). 又汝不立有我亦不立有 (yòu rǔ bù lì yǒu wǒ yì bù lì yǒu). 汝今破有 (rǔ jīn pò yǒu). 此是虛說 (cǐ shì xū shuō). 竟不開二家 (jìng bù kāi èr jiā). 是故因中無果者呵外人立無也 (shì gù yīn zhōng wú guǒ zhě hē wài rén lì wú yě). 所以呵立無者 (suǒ yǐ hē lì wú zhě). 外前質有為欲成無在難既非 (wài qián zhì yǒu wèi yù chéng wú zài nán jì fēi). 則無義便壞 (zé wú yì biàn huài). 故呵無也 (gù hē wú yě).' - 'Why is that' and following, the second part separately answers the two difficulties. The preceding part gives a direct answer to the second simultaneous difficulty. The author of the treatise clarifies: If I were attached to 'existence', then the 'difficulty' (詰難, jié nán) would be unavoidable, and I could accept your difficulty. But I am not attached to 'existence', so where does the 'difficulty' come from? Why should I accept your difficulty? Moreover, I refute both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. You are now refuting 'existence', which is actually helping me to refute it, not refuting me. 'Existence' and 'non-existence' arise together, which you consider to be the function of consciousness. Now I turn around and challenge you on 'existence', explain it yourself, this is not enlightening me. Furthermore, you do not establish 'existence', and I also do not establish 'existence'. You are now refuting 'existence', this is a false statement, and ultimately does not enlighten either of us. Therefore, 'no effect in the cause' is a rebuke to the externalists establishing 'non-existence'. The reason for rebuking the establishment of 'non-existence' is that the externalists previously questioned 'existence' in order to establish 'non-existence', but now that the difficulty is not valid, then the meaning of 'non-existence' is also destroyed, so 'non-existence' is rebuked.
'複次下答其初難 (fù cì xià dá qí chū nán). 意同前難 (yì tóng qián nán). 但前據無三作 (dàn qián jù wú sān zuò). 今明因中非前有果 (jīn míng yīn zhōng fēi qián yǒu guǒ). 亦不受因中先無果者 (yì bù shòu yīn zhōng xiān wú guǒ zhě). 外見論主破有便謂執無故 (wài jiàn lùn zhǔ pò yǒu biàn wèi zhí wú gù). 復明不受于無也 (fù míng bù shòu yú wú yě).' - 'Furthermore' and following, answering the initial difficulty, the meaning is the same as the previous difficulty. But the previous one was based on the three statements of 'non-existence', now it clarifies that 'in the cause' there is not a pre-existing 'effect', and it also does not accept the statement that 'in the cause' there is no pre-existing 'effect'. The externalists see that the author of the treatise refutes 'existence' and therefore think that the author is attached to 'non-existence', so it is clarified again that 'non-existence' is not accepted.
'若謂因中先有果下 (ruò wèi yīn zhōng xiān yǒu guǒ xià). 第三段次破亦有亦無 (dì sān duàn cì pò yì yǒu yì wú). 凡有二難 (fán yǒu èr nán). 一相違破 (yī xiāng wéi pò). 二指前破 (èr zhǐ qián pò). 相違破者就因中一果體不得亦是有亦是無 (xiāng wéi pò zhě jiù yīn zhōng yī guǒ tǐ bù dé yì shì yǒu yì shì wú). 以有無相害故不言因中有性 (yǐ yǒu wú xiāng hài gù bù yán yīn zhōng yǒu xìng). 為有無事為無 (wèi yǒu wú shì wèi wú). 此不名通 (cǐ bù míng tōng). 只問其性之有無為相違耳 (zhǐ wèn qí xìng zhī yǒu wú wèi xiāng wéi ěr). 複次下第二縱是亦有亦無 (fù cì xià dì èr zòng shì yì yǒu yì wú). 同上二門所破 (tóng shàng èr mén suǒ pò). 是故下前明因中有果無果等三句竟 (shì gù xià qián míng yīn zhōng yǒu guǒ wú guǒ děng sān jù jìng). 此下第二釋偈第四句誰當有生者 (cǐ xià dì èr shì jì dì sì jù shuí dāng yǒu shēng zhě). 並齊萬法即為二別 (bìng qí wàn fǎ jí wèi èr bié). 初結果空 (chū jié guǒ kōng). 有為空故下第二結歸三空也 (yǒu wéi kōng gù xià dì èr jié guī sān kōng yě).' - 'If it is said that in the cause there is a pre-existing effect' and following, the third section successively refutes the view of 'both existence and non-existence'. There are two difficulties in general: first, refutation by contradiction; second, pointing out the previous refutations. Refutation by contradiction means that, regarding the substance of one effect 'in the cause', it cannot be both 'existence' and 'non-existence', because 'existence' and 'non-existence' are mutually contradictory. Therefore, it is not said that 'in the cause' there is a nature, in order to explain that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are two different things. This cannot be considered understanding. It only asks whether its nature is 'existence' or 'non-existence', which is mutually contradictory. 'Furthermore' and following, the second point is that even if 'both existence and non-existence' is admitted, it is the same as what was refuted in the previous two aspects. 'Therefore' and following, the preceding explanation of the three statements of 'effect in the cause', 'no effect', etc., is finished. Following this, the second point is to explain the fourth line of the verse, 'who will have birth', and to equate all phenomena to equality, dividing it into two parts. First, concluding that the 'effect' is empty. 'Conditioned' (有為, yǒu wéi) is empty, so the second point below is to conclude with the three emptinesses (三空, sān kōng).
'十二門論疏捲上之末 (shí èr mén lùn shū juàn shàng zhī mò) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1825 十二門論疏 (dà zhèng zàng dì 42 cè No. 1825 shí èr mén lùn shū)'
'十二門論疏卷中之本 (shí èr mén lùn shū juàn zhōng zhī běn)'
'釋吉藏撰 (shì jí zàng zhuàn)'
'觀緣門第三 (guān yuán mén dì sān)'
所以有此門來者凡有八義。一者因緣一門略破生義。第二門廣破生義。今此一門凡有二義。一者結上略廣無生。二者舉非緣決破生義。具此四義破生乃周。是故要須三門。問初上二門云何略廣。答初門長行與偈俱略。偈略者但明無自性門以破于生。長行略者以文略故。次門偈與長行二種俱廣。偈備開三門。長行即有三十四門。故名為廣。略廣求既無蹤故。此門初雙結二義。上求已無若必謂有生者故舉非緣決之。所以須備四義。故有三門。二者因緣門總就因緣中求果無蹤。次門別就因中撿果不得。今門別就緣中求果無生。則要須備三門方具總別觀也。三者經有二說。一者但作因名不作緣名。如六因十因。二者但作緣名不作因名。如四緣十緣。三者因緣兩說。如十二因緣。眾生隨名著名隨相著相。故初品具破因緣。次品破其因義。今門次破其緣。要窮此三病義乃圓。是故有三門也。四者因緣義總。預是佛法無非因緣。從第二門至於生門。此是因緣中別義。以因緣義總故貫在論初。但因緣中別出因果義故有第二第三兩門。所以別相明因果義者。因果是眾義綱維立信根本。故諸佛菩薩敷經說論。但為顯于因果。是故就總義中別明因果。所以有後二門。五者上有果無果門通破內外。今破四緣。正為破內。六者上二門撿無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，設立這個『門』（dharma-door，法門）有八個意義。第一，因緣一門，簡略地破斥『生』（birth, origination）的意義。第二門，廣泛地破斥『生』的意義。現在這一門包含兩個意義：一是總結前面簡略和廣義的『無生』（non-origination），二是舉出『非緣』（non-condition）來決斷地破斥『生』的意義。具備這四個意義，破斥『生』才能周全。所以必須要有三門。 問：最初的兩門如何體現簡略和廣義？答：第一門的長行（散文部分）和偈頌（詩歌部分）都簡略。偈頌簡略是因為只闡明『無自性門』（emptiness of inherent existence）來破斥『生』。長行簡略是因為文字簡略。第二門，偈頌和長行兩種都廣義。偈頌完備地開示了三門。長行則有三十四門，所以稱為廣義。簡略和廣義地尋求都找不到軌跡。這一門首先雙重地總結了兩個意義。前面尋求已經沒有了，如果必定認為有『生』，所以舉出『非緣』來決斷它。所以需要具備四個意義，因此有三門。 第二，因緣門總的就在因緣中尋求果，找不到軌跡。第二門分別就在因中檢查果，得不到。現在這一門分別就在緣中尋求果，沒有『生』。那麼就要具備三門，才能完備總別的觀察。 第三，經文有兩種說法。一是隻說『因』（cause）的名字，不說『緣』（condition）的名字，如六因、十因。二是隻說『緣』的名字，不說『因』的名字，如四緣、十緣。三是因緣兩種都說，如十二因緣。眾生隨著名字而著名，隨著相狀而著相。所以初品完備地破斥因緣，第二品破斥其中的因義，現在這一門接著破斥其中的緣。要窮盡這三種病，義理才能圓滿。所以有三門。 第四，因緣的意義是總的。預先說明佛法沒有不是因緣的。從第二門到生門，這是因緣中的別義。因為因緣的意義是總的，所以貫穿在論的開頭。但因緣中特別提出因果的意義，所以有第二、第三兩門。之所以特別詳細地闡明因果的意義，是因為因果是各種意義的綱維，是建立信仰的根本。所以諸佛菩薩敷演經文、撰寫論著，只是爲了顯明因果。所以就在總的意義中特別闡明因果，所以有後面的兩門。 第五，上面的有果無果門普遍地破斥內外。現在破斥四緣，正是爲了破斥內（inner phenomena）。 第六，上面的兩門檢查沒有（生）
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, there are eight meanings for establishing this 'dharma-door' (門). First, the 'Cause and Condition' (因緣, hetu-pratyaya) door briefly refutes the meaning of 'birth' (生, origination). The second door extensively refutes the meaning of 'birth'. This present door contains two meanings: one is to summarize the preceding brief and extensive 'non-origination' (無生, anutpāda), and the other is to raise 'non-condition' (非緣, ahetu) to decisively refute the meaning of 'birth'. Possessing these four meanings, the refutation of 'birth' can be complete. Therefore, there must be three doors. Question: How do the initial two doors embody brevity and extensiveness? Answer: The prose (長行, prose section) and verses (偈頌, verse section) of the first door are both brief. The verses are brief because they only elucidate the 'door of no self-nature' (無自性門, emptiness of inherent existence) to refute 'birth'. The prose is brief because the text is concise. In the second door, both the verses and prose are extensive. The verses completely reveal the three doors. The prose has thirty-four doors, so it is called extensive. Seeking both briefly and extensively, no trace can be found. This door first doubly summarizes the two meanings. The preceding seeking has already found nothing; if one insists that there is 'birth', then 'non-condition' is raised to decisively refute it. Therefore, it is necessary to possess four meanings, hence there are three doors. Second, the 'Cause and Condition' door generally seeks the result within 'cause and condition', finding no trace. The second door separately examines the result within the cause, obtaining nothing. This present door separately seeks the result within the condition, finding no 'birth'. Then it is necessary to possess three doors in order to completely have a general and specific observation. Third, there are two explanations in the scriptures. One is that only the name of 'cause' (因, hetu) is mentioned, not the name of 'condition' (緣, pratyaya), such as the six causes and ten causes. The other is that only the name of 'condition' is mentioned, not the name of 'cause', such as the four conditions and ten conditions. The third is that both cause and condition are mentioned, such as the twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣, dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda). Sentient beings become attached to names according to names, and become attached to characteristics according to characteristics. Therefore, the initial chapter completely refutes cause and condition, the second chapter refutes the meaning of cause within them, and this present door then refutes the condition within them. Only by exhausting these three illnesses can the meaning be complete. Therefore, there are three doors. Fourth, the meaning of cause and condition is general. It is predetermined that there is no dharma that is not cause and condition. From the second door to the door of birth, this is the specific meaning within cause and condition. Because the meaning of cause and condition is general, it permeates the beginning of the treatise. But the meaning of cause and effect is specifically brought out within cause and condition, so there are the second and third doors. The reason for specifically and elaborately explaining the meaning of cause and effect is that cause and effect are the framework of various meanings and the foundation for establishing faith. Therefore, all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas expound scriptures and write treatises only to reveal cause and effect. Therefore, cause and effect are specifically elucidated within the general meaning, so there are the later two doors. Fifth, the above door of 'with result' and 'without result' universally refutes both internal and external. Now, refuting the four conditions is precisely for refuting the internal (inner phenomena). Sixth, the above two doors examine the absence of (birth).
所生果。今撿無能生緣。七者為釋疑故來。初門略求生不得。次門廣撿生無蹤。或者云。若二門求生無蹤。何故佛說四緣生法。若四緣生諸法雲何言畢竟無生。是故今明。佛所以說四緣生者。為明無生故說四緣生。如為令深識第一義故說世諦耳。汝聞四緣生不知無生。豈識生耶。既不識佛意豈識佛語。又四緣生只是無生。汝計四緣生則無生四緣于汝成生。非是四緣義也。今言破四緣者。無汝所計四緣。何時無佛因緣無生四緣。又此是外道迷權實義。論主為其開方便門示真實相。佛說四緣為表不四。不四為實四是方便。汝但知權四為實不知不四。既不知不四亦不識四。故權實俱迷則無二智。今示不四四為方便。四不四為實令外人生二智。即有自然無師智故得入佛知見得成佛。問論中何處有此意。答中論云。如諸佛所說真實微妙法。於此無緣法。云何有緣緣。下釋云。佛隨凡夫分別故說。實法可信隨宜之言不可為實也。又論主今欲攝用歸體即明從體起用。攝用歸體者明四緣畢竟空。即辨四不四義。既知四不四即明不四四。故是從體起用。三世佛唯有體用。故收入出生。故論主申此二條則一切義盡。問何故就四緣明收入出生耶。答四緣攝一切義盡故就此明之。問論文何處有此收入出生意耶。答觀性門中明有二諦。因世諦故有
第一義。即收入義。因第一義故有世諦。即出生義也。外人聞四緣但住四不得收入。如窮子住立門外不肯入門。既不知收入豈悟出生。如長者往就窮子辨出生義也。又此論正申一乘。如睿師序令六道回宗三乘改跡。今明四緣生六道三乘。若有六道果三乘果必從四緣生。四緣是能生。今求四緣生不得則無復六道三乘因。終歸於空常寂滅相。即整歸駕于道場畢趣心於佛地。八者上二門末結言一切法空。然四緣攝一切法。外人疑雲。若一切法空佛何故說一切法為四緣生耶。論破若是。經說應非。經說若是。論破應非。今請。論主會通經論是非。故今明。佛說空者明一切法畢竟空不言一切法自是有。畢竟空自是空。汝起空有二見。故謂經論相違。今論還申佛說一切法即是畢竟空意。故經論相成不相違也。問破四緣與破有果無果何異。答有同有異。所言同者。上破外人橫計有無。今破橫計四緣。此二但破而不取。是故言同。所言異者有無但出謂情。故破而不取。四緣既是佛教。則有收取之義。故與前異也。問此門為從能破立名。為以所破立名。答以所破立名。外人立有四緣。今以略廣二門求緣無蹤。從所破立名。故云觀緣門也。
就文亦三。初長行發起。第二偈正明門體。第三長行末總結齊法。
略廣眾緣法者第二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 第一義，即收入的意義。因為第一義的緣故，才有世俗諦（Satya，真理），即出生的意義。外道之人聽聞四緣（hetu-pratyaya，因緣）的說法，卻只執著於四緣，不能收入其中，就像窮人站在門外，不肯進入家門一樣。既然不知道收入，又怎麼能領悟出生的道理呢？如同長者前去開導窮人，辨明出生的意義一樣。而且這部論著正是爲了闡明一乘（ekayana，唯一佛乘）的教義，如同睿師的序言所說，要使六道眾生迴歸佛宗，三乘（triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）修行者改變修行的足跡。現在說明四緣產生六道和三乘，如果存在六道果報和三乘果報，必定是從四緣產生的。四緣是能生之因。現在探求四緣的生起而不可得，那麼就沒有六道和三乘的因，最終歸於空寂常滅的境界，也就是將修行迴歸于道場，最終趨向于佛的境界。第八，前面兩個門在結尾都說一切法皆空。然而四緣攝盡一切法，外人疑惑說：『如果一切法皆空，佛為什麼說一切法由四緣所生呢？』論著駁斥這種說法：經書所說是正確的，論著就應該是非的；經書所說如果是非的，論著駁斥就應該是正確的。現在請論主會通經書和論著的是非之處。所以現在說明，佛所說的空，是說明一切法畢竟空，而不是說一切法自身是存在的。畢竟空自身就是空，你們產生了空和有這兩種見解，所以認為經書和論著相互違背。現在論著仍然闡明佛所說的一切法就是畢竟空的意義，所以經書和論著相互成就，並不違背。問：破斥四緣與破斥有果和無果有什麼不同？答：有相同之處，也有不同之處。相同之處在於，前面破斥外道之人橫加計度的有和無，現在破斥橫加計度的四緣。這兩種破斥都只是破斥而不取用，所以說相同。不同之處在於，有和無只是出於情識的妄想，所以破斥而不取用。四緣既然是佛教的教義，就有收取和採用的意義，所以與前面不同。問：這個門是從能破的角度來立名，還是從所破的角度來立名？答：是從所破的角度來立名。外道之人立有四緣，現在用略和廣兩種方法來探求四緣，卻找不到軌跡。從所破的角度來立名，所以叫做觀緣門。
就文義而言，也有三個部分。首先是長行發起，第二是偈頌正式闡明門體的意義，第三是長行在結尾總結齊法。
略廣眾緣法是第二部分。
【English Translation】 English version: The First Meaning is the meaning of inclusion. Because of the First Meaning, there is the mundane truth (Satya), which is the meaning of arising. Outsiders, upon hearing of the Four Conditions (hetu-pratyaya), only cling to the four and cannot include them, like a poor man standing outside the door, unwilling to enter the house. Since they do not know inclusion, how can they understand arising? It is like an elder going to enlighten the poor man, clarifying the meaning of arising. Moreover, this treatise is precisely to expound the doctrine of the One Vehicle (ekayana), as Master Rui's preface says, to make the beings of the six realms return to the Buddhist tradition, and the practitioners of the Three Vehicles (triyana: Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana) change their practice. Now it is explained that the Four Conditions produce the six realms and the Three Vehicles. If there are the fruits of the six realms and the Three Vehicles, they must arise from the Four Conditions. The Four Conditions are the cause of arising. Now, seeking the arising of the Four Conditions and finding it unattainable, then there is no cause for the six realms and the Three Vehicles, and ultimately it returns to the state of emptiness and tranquil extinction, which is to return the practice to the Bodhimanda (place of enlightenment) and ultimately aspire to the Buddha's realm. Eighth, the previous two chapters conclude by saying that all dharmas are empty. However, the Four Conditions encompass all dharmas. Outsiders doubt and say: 'If all dharmas are empty, why does the Buddha say that all dharmas arise from the Four Conditions?' The treatise refutes this saying: If the scriptures say it is correct, the treatise should be incorrect; if the scriptures say it is incorrect, the treatise should refute it as correct. Now, please let the author reconcile the right and wrong of the scriptures and treatises. Therefore, it is now explained that the emptiness spoken of by the Buddha is to explain that all dharmas are ultimately empty, not that all dharmas exist on their own. Ultimate emptiness is itself emptiness. You have generated the two views of emptiness and existence, so you think that the scriptures and treatises contradict each other. Now the treatise still expounds the meaning of the Buddha's saying that all dharmas are ultimately empty, so the scriptures and treatises complement each other and do not contradict each other. Question: What is the difference between refuting the Four Conditions and refuting the existence or non-existence of results? Answer: There are similarities and differences. The similarity is that the previous refutation was of the externalists' arbitrary calculations of existence and non-existence, and now the refutation is of the arbitrary calculations of the Four Conditions. These two refutations only refute and do not adopt, so they are said to be the same. The difference is that existence and non-existence only arise from the delusions of consciousness, so they are refuted and not adopted. Since the Four Conditions are Buddhist teachings, they have the meaning of being collected and adopted, so they are different from the previous ones. Question: Is this chapter named from the perspective of the ability to refute, or from the perspective of what is being refuted? Answer: It is named from the perspective of what is being refuted. Externalists establish the existence of the Four Conditions, but now, using the two methods of brevity and extensiveness, we seek the traces of the Four Conditions but cannot find them. It is named from the perspective of what is being refuted, so it is called the Chapter on Observing Conditions.
In terms of the text, there are also three parts. First, the prose passage initiates; second, the verses formally clarify the meaning of the chapter; third, the prose passage concludes by summarizing the equality of dharmas.
The method of briefly and extensively considering the law of conditions is the second part.
明門體。凡三偈。開為二章。前二偈正就四緣中求果無生。第二偈舉非緣決破也。又初二偈破四緣中求果無蹤。后偈就非緣中撿果不得。故一切法無生。初又二。第一偈正標章門。次長行與偈釋章門。初偈又二。上半正破。下半呵責。釋略廣備如中論。有人言。總為因緣名之為略。離為四緣名之為廣。故中論題觀因緣品而後破於四緣。即是斯意。二者初門名之為略。次門目之為廣。今雙牒上略廣題示外人。上略廣二門就眾緣中求果無蹤。汝云何言果從四緣生。即是用前二門破今因緣生義。三者第二門名之為廣。此品撿之為略。故名略廣。四者開中雲。前門會因。推之曰略。此品列緣。推之曰廣。此意明從所破立名。前品直作因名而就因中推之。故名為略。今品離為四緣。推果無從。故名為廣。五者直就此品自有廣略。因緣合推為略。因緣別撿為廣。下半呵責。可解。
瓶等下第二長行與偈解釋。就解釋為二。第一略釋。第二廣釋。略中初釋上半。若於二門中下次釋下半。問曰下第二廣釋。亦二。第一釋上半。次釋下半。釋上半為二。第一前釋初句中眾緣法三字。次釋略廣及第二句。所以不依偈次第釋者。欲明破立次第故前明於立。即是所觀。次辨于破。即是能觀。初又二。前問次答。外人所以作此問者。既聞上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這段文字是關於《明門體》的討論，共包含三個偈頌，分為兩個章節。前兩個偈頌主要探討在四種緣（因緣、次第緣、緣緣、增上緣）中尋求果的無生性。第二個偈頌通過否定非緣來徹底破除這種觀點。此外，前兩個偈頌旨在破除在四緣中尋找果的軌跡，而後面的偈頌則檢驗在非緣中是否能找到果，從而得出一切法無生的結論。首先，第一部分又分為兩部分：第一偈頌明確標示章節的主題，然後通過長行文字和偈頌來解釋章節的主題。第一個偈頌又分為兩部分：上半部分直接進行破斥，下半部分進行呵責。解釋的詳略程度可以參考《中論》。有人認為，總稱為因緣就是『略』，分離為四緣就是『廣』。因此，《中論》先以『觀因緣品』為題，然後破斥四緣，就是這個意思。第二種觀點認為，第一個章節稱為『略』，第二個章節稱為『廣』。現在同時引用上面的『略』和『廣』，是爲了向外人展示，上面的『略』和『廣』兩個章節都是在眾緣中尋找果的軌跡，既然找不到，你又怎麼說果是從四緣產生的呢？這就是用前面的兩個章節來破斥現在因緣生起的觀點。第三種觀點認為，第二個章節稱為『廣』，而本品（指正在討論的這一部分）的檢驗稱為『略』，所以稱為『略廣』。第四種觀點認為，在開篇中提到，前面的章節會合因，進行推論，所以說是『略』。本品列出各種緣，進行推論，所以說是『廣』。這種觀點表明是從所破的對象來命名的。前面的章節直接以『因』為名，並就因進行推論，所以稱為『略』。現在的章節將因分離為四緣，推論果無從產生，所以稱為『廣』。第五種觀點認為，直接就本品自身而言，因緣合在一起推論就是『略』，因緣分開來檢驗就是『廣』。下半部分的呵責，容易理解。
『瓶等下』是第二段長行文字，與偈頌一起進行解釋。解釋分為兩個部分：第一部分是略釋，第二部分是廣釋。在略釋中，首先解釋上半部分，『若於二門中下』是解釋下半部分。『問曰下』是第二部分廣釋，也分為兩部分：第一部分解釋上半部分，然後解釋下半部分。解釋上半部分又分為兩部分：第一部分先解釋第一句中的『眾緣法』三個字，然後解釋『略廣』以及第二句。之所以不按照偈頌的順序來解釋，是因為想要明確破斥和建立的順序，所以先說明建立，也就是所觀察的對象，然後辨別破斥，也就是能觀察的主體。第一部分又分為兩部分：先是提問，然後是回答。外人之所以提出這個問題，是因為已經聽到了上面的...
【English Translation】 English version:
This text discusses the 'Ming Men Ti', comprising three Gathas (verses) divided into two chapters. The first two Gathas primarily explore the non-origination of effects (果) within the four conditions (緣) (hetu-pratyaya (因緣 - causal condition), samanantara-pratyaya (次第緣 - immediately contiguous condition), alambana-pratyaya (緣緣 - object condition), adhipati-pratyaya (增上緣 - dominant condition)). The second Gatha decisively refutes this view by negating non-conditions (非緣). Furthermore, the initial two Gathas aim to dispel the notion of tracing effects within the four conditions, while the subsequent Gatha examines whether effects can be found in non-conditions, leading to the conclusion that all dharmas (法) are without origination (無生). Firstly, the initial section is further divided into two parts: the first Gatha explicitly marks the chapter's theme, followed by prose and Gathas explaining the chapter's theme. The first Gatha is again divided into two parts: the first half directly refutes, and the second half rebukes. The level of detail in the explanation can be referenced in the 'Madhyamaka-karika' (中論). Some argue that collectively referring to conditions as 'hetu-pratyaya' (因緣) is 'brief' (略), while separating them into four conditions is 'extensive' (廣). Therefore, the 'Madhyamaka-karika' first titles it 'Examination of Conditions' and then refutes the four conditions, which is the intended meaning. The second viewpoint suggests that the first chapter is called 'brief', and the second chapter is called 'extensive'. Now, simultaneously citing the above 'brief' and 'extensive' is to demonstrate to outsiders that the above 'brief' and 'extensive' chapters are both searching for traces of effects within the multitude of conditions. Since they cannot be found, how can you say that effects arise from the four conditions? This is using the previous two chapters to refute the current view of conditioned arising. The third viewpoint suggests that the second chapter is called 'extensive', while the examination in this section (referring to the part being discussed) is called 'brief', hence it is called 'brief and extensive'. The fourth viewpoint suggests that in the opening, it is mentioned that the previous chapter combines causes and infers, so it is said to be 'brief'. This section lists various conditions and infers, so it is said to be 'extensive'. This viewpoint indicates that it is named from the object being refuted. The previous chapter directly takes 'cause' as the name and infers based on the cause, so it is called 'brief'. The current chapter separates the cause into four conditions and infers that effects cannot arise from them, so it is called 'extensive'. The rebuke in the second half is easy to understand.
'Bottle etc. below' is the second prose section, which is explained together with the Gathas. The explanation is divided into two parts: the first part is a brief explanation, and the second part is an extensive explanation. In the brief explanation, the first part explains the first half, and 'If in the two doors below' explains the second half. 'Question says below' is the second part, the extensive explanation, which is also divided into two parts: the first part explains the first half, and then explains the second half. The explanation of the first half is further divided into two parts: the first part first explains the three words 'multitude of conditions dharmas' in the first sentence, and then explains 'brief and extensive' and the second sentence. The reason for not explaining in the order of the Gathas is because it is desired to clarify the order of refutation and establishment, so first explain the establishment, which is the object of observation, and then distinguish the refutation, which is the subject of observation. The first part is again divided into two parts: first is the question, and then is the answer. The reason why outsiders raise this question is because they have already heard the above...
略廣眾緣無生。未知破何物緣意。謂破外道緣不破佛法四緣。以內外未分是故致問。而意謂有內法四緣生果不被破。故致斯問。又作論之體假問發起于答。亦不須作余意。答曰四緣生諸法者第二答也。答意云。我上言略廣眾緣求生不得者。此是汝所計四緣耳。外道所計不足破也。就答為二。初偈本次長行。初偈為三。初句明四緣用。次句辨四緣體。下半列四緣名。問此偈與中論何故顛倒耶。答二論互舉一義。中論從名辨用后辨其體。此自末至本也。今前明其用。次辨其體。后列其名。從本至末也。長行但釋下半則兼釋上半。前牒下半四緣名。因緣者下釋四緣名。則釋上半四緣義。中論已出。余未盡者今略明之。四緣六因能生所生體無廣狹。而有六因者作物不同故也。四緣得名有三。增上從果受名。以果是增上為增上作緣名增上緣。因緣當體立名。以攝五因為緣故名因緣。餘二因果通稱。心心法是詮次之法。故名次第。為次第作緣名次第緣。則從果立名。又云。用次第法為緣。從因立名。論文用前釋。緣緣者初緣字是心。謂心體是能緣之法。萬法為緣作緣名緣緣。從果立名。集師舊用。又解。一切法皆是所緣法。故名緣。此法能生心緣。故名緣緣。從境立名。論文用前。數論異者成論次第緣果。唯是心法。數通二聚。萬
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『略廣眾緣無生』，不知道要破除的是哪種『緣』的意義？你認為是要破除外道的『緣』，而不是破除佛法的四緣。因為內外沒有分清楚，所以才提出這個問題。而你的意思是，內在的佛法四緣產生結果，是不會被破除的，所以才提出這個問題。又或者，這是作論的體例，通過假設的提問來引發回答，也不需要作其他的解釋。 回答說：『四緣生諸法者』，這是第二個回答。回答的意思是，我上面說『略廣眾緣求生不得者』，這只是你所計較的四緣罷了。外道所計較的，不值得破除。就回答分為兩部分，首先是偈頌，其次是長行。首先是偈頌，偈頌又分為三部分。第一句說明四緣的作用，第二句辨別四緣的本體，下半部分列出四緣的名稱。問題是，這個偈頌和《中論》為什麼是顛倒的呢？ 回答說，這兩個論互相闡述一個義理。《中論》從名稱辨別作用，然後辨別它的本體，這是從末到本。現在先說明它的作用，其次辨別它的本體，最後列出它的名稱，這是從本到末。長行只是解釋下半部分，就兼顧解釋了上半部分。前面抄錄下半部分的四緣名稱，『因緣者』，下面解釋四緣的名稱，也就是解釋上半部分的四緣意義。《中論》已經闡述過了，其餘沒有說完的，現在簡略地說明一下。四緣和六因能產生所生之法，本體沒有廣狹之分，而有六因，是因為造作的事物不同。 四緣的得名有三種情況。增上緣是從果實接受名稱，因為果實是增上，為增上作緣，所以叫做增上緣。因緣是按照本體來立名，因為它包含五因，作為緣故叫做因緣。其餘兩種是因果通稱。心心法是詮釋次第的法，所以叫做次第，為次第作緣叫做次第緣，這是從果實立名。又說，用次第法作為緣，是從因立名。論文采用前一種解釋。緣緣，第一個『緣』字是心，意思是心的本體是能緣之法，萬法作為緣，作緣叫做緣緣，是從果實立名。集師舊用。又解釋說，一切法都是所緣之法，所以叫做緣，此法能產生心緣，所以叫做緣緣，是從境界立名。論文采用前一種解釋。與數論不同的是，成論的次第緣果，只有心法，數論則貫通二聚，萬法。
【English Translation】 English version 『Lue Guang Zhong Yuan Wu Sheng』 (Briefly, widely, the aggregation of conditions does not produce). I don't know which meaning of 『condition』 is to be refuted. You think it is to refute the 『conditions』 of external paths, not to refute the four conditions of the Buddha-dharma. Because the internal and external are not clearly distinguished, this question is raised. And you mean that the internal Buddha-dharma's four conditions produce results, which will not be refuted, so this question is raised. Or, this is the style of writing treatises, using hypothetical questions to elicit answers, and there is no need to make other explanations. The answer says: 『The four conditions produce all dharmas,』 this is the second answer. The meaning of the answer is, I said above 『Lue Guang Zhong Yuan Qiu Sheng Bu De Zhe』 (Briefly, widely, seeking production from the aggregation of conditions is unattainable), this is just the four conditions that you are concerned about. The calculations of external paths are not worth refuting. The answer is divided into two parts, first the verse, and second the prose. First is the verse, and the verse is divided into three parts. The first sentence explains the function of the four conditions, the second sentence distinguishes the substance of the four conditions, and the lower half lists the names of the four conditions. The question is, why is this verse reversed from the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way)? The answer is that the two treatises explain a single principle to each other. The Madhyamaka-karika distinguishes the function from the name, and then distinguishes its substance, which is from the end to the beginning. Now, first explain its function, then distinguish its substance, and finally list its names, which is from the beginning to the end. The prose only explains the lower half, and takes into account the upper half. The four conditions' names in the lower half are copied first, 『Hetu-pratyaya』 (causal condition), and the names of the four conditions are explained below, which is to explain the meaning of the four conditions in the upper half. The Madhyamaka-karika has already explained it, and the rest that has not been said is now briefly explained. The four conditions and six causes can produce the produced dharmas, and the substance has no distinction between broad and narrow, but there are six causes because the things created are different. There are three cases for the naming of the four conditions. Adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition) receives its name from the fruit, because the fruit is dominant, and it is called Adhipati-pratyaya because it acts as a condition for dominance. Hetu-pratyaya (causal condition) is named according to its substance, because it contains the five causes, and it is called Hetu-pratyaya because it is a condition. The remaining two are general terms for cause and effect. Citta-caitta dharmas (mind and mental factors) are the dharmas that explain the sequence, so they are called Samanantara-pratyaya (contiguous condition), and acting as a condition for the sequence is called Samanantara-pratyaya, which is named from the fruit. It is also said that using the sequential dharma as a condition is named from the cause. The paper uses the former explanation. Alambana-pratyaya (object condition), the first word 『Alambana』 is the mind, meaning that the substance of the mind is the dharma that can be conditioned, and all dharmas act as conditions, and acting as a condition is called Alambana-pratyaya, which is named from the fruit. The old usage of the Jishi. It is also explained that all dharmas are the dharmas that are conditioned, so they are called Alambana, and this dharma can produce the mind condition, so it is called Alambana-pratyaya, which is named from the realm. The paper uses the former explanation. Different from the Samkhya school, the Samanantara-pratyaya fruit of the Chengshi school only has the mind dharma, while the Samkhya school runs through the two aggregates, all dharmas.
法境是緣。心又詫之復為一緣。從緣立名謂緣緣也。成論過去業及習因依因。此二力強。又從緣立名謂因緣也。六根生識勝於前境。亦從勝立名謂增上緣也。問四緣通三聚耶。答次第緣但是心。果通二聚謂滅盡定及無想定。定上四相遂定而來。雖與定俱不為心所求。非次第緣果也。雜心四句釋之。一無間而次第。初念定也。二無間非次第。初念定上四相也。三次第非無間。第二念定也。四非次第復非無間。第二念定上四相也。二定既非心法。乃是次第。不能開發後心故非緣也。後心果者故是定前心為緣。無想天非心所要。但任運而來。前心雖滅彼非次第也。前心乃非次第緣。是無想天增上緣也。心盡得無餘涅槃亦爾。但前心非是涅槃增上緣。所以然者無為是緣緣。不從四緣生也。次第緣最難解。有二十心不出四句。一非緣非次第。二亦緣亦次第。三緣而非次第。四次第而非緣。方便．生得．報生．威儀。此四心備四句。二煩惱心與工巧心此二心備三句。變化心唯備二句。無有一句也。現親心廣心章。問四緣幾通三性。答次第緣緣緣增上緣緣果並通三性。因緣中有五因。須簡別之。四緣並通漏無漏。而遍報二因但有漏。四緣中凡聖備有。但因緣有具不具。如五因中說。四緣中次第緣。緣果隔世。緣緣增上緣亦隔不隔。四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法境是緣（dharma realm is condition）。心又詫之復為一緣，從緣立名謂緣緣也。意思是說，法塵本身是一種條件，而心又將它視為另一種條件，因此從條件出發而建立名稱，稱之為緣緣。 成論（Cheng Theory）中提到，過去的業以及習因依因，這兩種力量很強。又從條件出發而建立名稱，稱之為因緣也。 六根生識勝於前境，也從殊勝的角度建立名稱，稱之為增上緣也。 問：四緣（four conditions）是否貫通三聚（three categories of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral）？ 答：次第緣（immediate condition）只是心。果（result）貫通二聚，指的是滅盡定（cessation attainment）和無想定（non-perception attainment）。定（samadhi）上的四相（four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing）隨著定而來，雖然與定同時存在，但不是心所追求的，因此不是次第緣的果。 《雜心論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）用四句話來解釋：一是無間而次第，指的是初唸的定。二是無間而非次第，指的是初念定上的四相。三是次第而非無間，指的是第二唸的定。四是非次第也非無間，指的是第二念定上的四相。 二定既然不是心法，而是次第，不能開發後來的心，所以不是緣。後來的心是果，所以是定前的心為緣。無想天（realm of non-perception）不是心所要的，只是任運而來。前心雖然滅了，但它不是次第緣。前心不是次第緣，而是無想天的增上緣。 心盡而得無餘涅槃（nirvana without remainder）也是如此。但前心不是涅槃的增上緣。原因是無為法（unconditioned dharma）是緣緣，不是從四緣所生的。 次第緣最難理解，有二十種心不出四句：一是非緣非次第。二是亦緣亦次第。三是緣而非次第。四是次第而非緣。方便心、生得心、報生心、威儀心，這四種心具備四句。 二煩惱心與工巧心，這兩種心具備三句。變化心只具備二句。沒有一句不具備。 現親心廣心章。 問：四緣有幾種貫通三性（three natures of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral）？ 答：次第緣、緣緣、增上緣、緣果都貫通三性。因緣中有五因，需要加以區分。四緣都貫通有漏（afflicted）和無漏（unafflicted），而遍報二因只有有漏。四緣中，凡夫和聖人都具備，但因緣有具足和不具足的區別，如五因中所說。四緣中，次第緣、緣果隔世。緣緣、增上緣也隔不隔。
【English Translation】 English version The dharma realm is a condition. The mind also considers it as another condition, and based on this condition, a name is established, called 'condition-condition'. The Cheng Theory mentions that past karma and habitual causes are strong. Again, based on the condition, a name is established, called 'causal condition'. The six sense organs generating consciousness are superior to the previous object, and from the perspective of superiority, a name is established, called 'dominant condition'. Question: Do the four conditions (catuḥ प्रत्ययः, catuḥ pratyayaḥ) pervade the three categories (of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral)? Answer: The immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya) is only the mind. The result (phala) pervades two categories, referring to the cessation attainment (nirodha-samāpatti) and the non-perception attainment (asaṃjñā-samāpatti). The four characteristics (lakṣaṇa) of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing on the samadhi (concentration) come with the samadhi, but are not sought by the mind, so they are not the result of the immediate condition. The Abhidharmasamuccaya explains it with four sentences: First, immediate and sequential, referring to the initial thought of samadhi. Second, immediate but not sequential, referring to the four characteristics on the initial thought of samadhi. Third, sequential but not immediate, referring to the second thought of samadhi. Fourth, neither sequential nor immediate, referring to the four characteristics on the second thought of samadhi. Since the two samadhis are not mental dharmas, but sequential, they cannot develop the subsequent mind, so they are not conditions. The subsequent mind is the result, so the mind before the samadhi is the condition. The realm of non-perception (asaṃjñā-loka) is not what the mind seeks, but comes naturally. Although the previous mind has ceased, it is not an immediate condition. The previous mind is not an immediate condition, but a dominant condition for the realm of non-perception. The attainment of nirvana without remainder (anupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) when the mind is exhausted is also like this. But the previous mind is not the dominant condition for nirvana. The reason is that unconditioned dharma (asaṃskṛta dharma) is a 'condition-condition', not born from the four conditions. The immediate condition is the most difficult to understand. There are twenty types of minds that do not go beyond four sentences: First, neither condition nor sequential. Second, both condition and sequential. Third, condition but not sequential. Fourth, sequential but not condition. Expedient mind, innate mind, retribution-born mind, and dignified mind, these four minds possess all four sentences. The two afflicted minds and skillful minds, these two minds possess three sentences. The transformation mind only possesses two sentences. There is no sentence that is not possessed. The chapter on present intimate mind and broad mind. Question: How many of the four conditions pervade the three natures (tri-svabhāva)? Answer: The immediate condition, 'condition-condition', dominant condition, and the result of condition all pervade the three natures. Among the causal conditions, there are five causes that need to be distinguished. The four conditions all pervade afflicted (sāsrava) and unafflicted (anāsrava), while the two pervasive and retributive causes only have afflicted. Among the four conditions, both ordinary beings and sages possess them, but the causal condition has differences in completeness and incompleteness, as mentioned in the five causes. Among the four conditions, the immediate condition and the result of condition are separated by lifetimes. The 'condition-condition' and dominant condition are also separated or not separated.
緣中心法能作四緣。色及不相應能作三緣。無為能作二緣。問法既具從四緣生。何故不具從六因生。答緣門是疏。又是總相明義故得云具從四緣生。因門是親。又別相明義則分別染凈法。如煩惱是染法必不從報因生。如無記等是凈法必不從遍因生。故無有一法備從因緣中五因生。問攝五因為緣名因緣者。亦攝三緣為所作因何故不名緣因。答若言緣因即濫恐謂四緣併爲因。故不言緣因。問若言因緣亦謂六因併爲因緣。答緣門是疏。可得爾也。因門是親。所以非類。問云何開所作因為三緣。答取一切法別生心義為緣緣。別取前後相生義為次第緣。取不障義為增上緣。增上緣與緣緣二果異者。緣緣果但心。增上緣果通三聚。又增上緣亂生果。緣緣生果不亂。如色是眼識緣緣一切法是意識緣緣。問幾義非次第緣。答有三種法。一無學最後心。二隔念心。三未來心。此三非次第緣。如雜心說也。文釋四緣即四別。易知也。
如是四緣皆因中無果下。自上以來釋偈本眾緣法三字竟。今釋略廣求果不可得。又開二。前釋廣求不可得。次釋略求不可得。此中以因緣別推名之為廣。因緣總推為略。所以作略廣者。一為根有利鈍。鈍者具須略廣方悟。利者開一便了也。又欲窮法邊底故備作二門。有人言。總五因為一因緣。將因緣望余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣中心法能夠作為四種緣（四種產生結果的條件）。色法（物質）和不相應行法能夠作為三種緣。無為法能夠作為兩種緣。問：法既然具備從四緣而生，為什麼不具備從六因（六種產生結果的原因）而生？答：緣門是疏遠的，又是總相上說明意義，所以可以說具備從四緣而生。因門是親近的，又是別相上說明意義，因此要分別染凈法。比如煩惱是染污法，必定不從報因生。比如無記等是清凈法，必定不從遍因生。所以沒有一種法完全具備從因緣中的五因而生。問：如果說攝取五因為緣，名為因緣，也攝取三緣為所作因，為什麼不名為緣因？答：如果說緣因，就容易混淆，恐怕認為四緣都成為因，所以不說緣因。問：如果說因緣，也容易認為六因都成為因緣。答：緣門是疏遠的，可以這樣說。因門是親近的，所以不能類比。問：如何開立所作因為三種緣？答：取一切法個別產生心識的意義為緣緣（又稱親因緣）。個別取前後相生的意義為次第緣（又稱等無間緣）。取不障礙的意義為增上緣。增上緣與緣緣二者的果不同：緣緣的果只是心識，增上緣的果貫通三聚（善、惡、無記）。而且增上緣混亂地產生果，緣緣產生果不混亂。比如色法是眼識的緣緣，一切法是意識的緣緣。問：有幾種意義不是次第緣？答：有三種法：一、無學（阿羅漢）的最後心；二、間隔念頭的心；三、未來心。這三種不是次第緣，如《雜心論》所說。文句解釋四緣，即是四種差別，容易理解。
像這樣四種緣，都是因中無果的。從上面以來，解釋偈頌的根本『眾緣法』三個字完畢。現在解釋『略廣求果不可得』。又分為兩種：前面解釋廣求不可得，接下來解釋略求不可得。這裡以因緣分別推求，稱之為廣；因緣總體推求，稱之為略。之所以要作略廣兩種解釋，一是考慮到根器有利鈍。根器遲鈍的人需要詳細和簡略兩種方式才能領悟，根器敏銳的人開示一種方式就明白了。二是想要窮盡法的邊底，所以準備了兩種門徑。有人說，總合五因為一個因緣，將因緣與其餘
【English Translation】 English version The law of the central cause of conditions (緣中心法) can function as four conditions (四緣) (four conditions that produce results). Materiality (色) and non-corresponding formations (不相應行) can function as three conditions. Unconditioned phenomena (無為) can function as two conditions. Question: Since phenomena possess the characteristic of arising from four conditions, why do they not possess the characteristic of arising from six causes (六因) (six causes that produce results)? Answer: The door of conditions (緣門) is distant and explains the meaning in a general sense, so it can be said to possess arising from four conditions. The door of causes (因門) is close and explains the meaning in a specific sense, thus distinguishing defiled and pure phenomena. For example, afflictions (煩惱) are defiled phenomena and certainly do not arise from the retributive cause (報因). For example, neutral phenomena (無記) are pure phenomena and certainly do not arise from the pervasive cause (遍因). Therefore, there is no single phenomenon that fully possesses arising from the five causes within conditions.
Question: If taking the five causes as conditions is called 'cause and condition' (因緣), and also taking the three conditions as the 'caused condition' (所作因), why is it not called 'condition-cause' (緣因)? Answer: If it were called 'condition-cause,' it would be easily confused, fearing that all four conditions would be considered causes, so it is not called 'condition-cause.' Question: If it is called 'cause and condition,' it would also be easily thought that all six causes are 'cause and condition.' Answer: The door of conditions is distant, so it can be said that way. The door of causes is close, so it is not analogous. Question: How is the 'caused condition' (所作因) divided into three conditions? Answer: Taking the meaning of all phenomena individually producing consciousness as the 'condition-condition' (緣緣) (also known as the proximate cause). Individually taking the meaning of arising in sequence as the 'sequential condition' (次第緣) (also known as the immediately preceding condition). Taking the meaning of non-obstruction as the 'dominant condition' (增上緣). The results of the dominant condition and the condition-condition are different: the result of the condition-condition is only consciousness, while the result of the dominant condition pervades the three aggregates (善, 惡, 無記) (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). Moreover, the dominant condition produces results in a confused manner, while the condition-condition produces results in an unconfused manner. For example, materiality is the condition-condition for eye consciousness, and all phenomena are the condition-condition for mind consciousness. Question: How many meanings are not sequential conditions? Answer: There are three types of phenomena: 1. The final mind of a non-learner (無學) (Arhat); 2. A mind with intervening thoughts; 3. A future mind. These three are not sequential conditions, as stated in the Miscellaneous Abhidharma Heart Treatise (雜心論). The explanation of the four conditions in the text is simply the four distinctions, which are easy to understand.
Thus, all four conditions are without result in the cause. From above, the explanation of the three words 'multitude of conditions' (眾緣法) which are the root of the verse, is completed. Now, the explanation of 'seeking the result through brevity or extensiveness is unattainable' (略廣求果不可得). It is further divided into two: the previous explanation was seeking through extensiveness is unattainable, and the next explanation is seeking through brevity is unattainable. Here, seeking through cause and condition separately is called extensiveness; seeking through cause and condition collectively is called brevity. The reason for making both extensive and brief explanations is firstly because the faculties of beings are sharp or dull. Those with dull faculties need both detailed and concise methods to understand, while those with sharp faculties understand with just one method. Secondly, it is to exhaust the boundaries of phenomena, so two paths are prepared. Some say that combining the five causes into one cause and condition, and comparing this cause and condition with the remaining
三緣。若因緣有果應離餘三緣。三緣有果應離一因緣。今謂。谷是牙正因。地水人功是其外緣。若穀子中先有牙者。應離地水人功等緣而有。若地水等緣中有者應離谷因而有。又如眼識以過去行業為因現在空明為緣。亦作此破。若於緣及因下第二次釋略義。即以總為略。謂總就穀子之因地水之緣求果不得也。如是一一中下廣釋前偈下半呵責門。
若果緣中無下。自上以來就四緣中求果無生。今第二偈舉非緣決之。上半牒下半決。決有四意。一者緣非緣俱無則應俱生。二俱應不生。三非緣應生。緣不生。四非緣不生。而緣生者非緣可無。緣應有也。問此中以何為非緣。答有三義。一者如泥是瓶緣乳非緣。二四緣為緣。微塵世性名為非緣。三責外四緣則成非緣。此三備得作前四難。望前三乘六道意者六道因無六道果而生六道。亦無三乘果應生三乘。三乘因中無三乘果而生三乘。亦無六道應生六道。而實不爾。故畢竟無三乘六道因果。故終當畢竟空盡成佛也。
長行雲緣果空故下。品第三舉三空以齊法也。
十二門論疏卷中之本
十二門論疏卷中之末
觀相門第四
所以有此門者有通別二義。通意有三。一者根性不同悟入各異。自有聞求四緣無四不悟聞撿三相無三而得道。故說三相門
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三緣。如果因緣（hetu-pratyaya，產生結果的主要原因和輔助條件）有果，就應該脫離其餘三種緣（指四緣中的其他三種）。如果三種緣有果，就應該脫離一個因緣。現在認為，穀子是牙的正因（sad-dhetu，直接原因），土地、水、人工是它的外緣（bahya-pratyaya，外部條件）。如果穀子中先有牙，就應該脫離土地、水、人工等緣而存在。如果土地、水等緣中有牙，就應該脫離穀子的因而存在。又如眼識（cakṣur-vijñāna，視覺意識）以過去的行業（karma，行為）為因，現在的空明（śūnyatā，空性）為緣。也可以這樣破斥。如果在緣和因下第二次解釋略義，就是以總括為簡略。意思是總的來說，從穀子的因、土地水的緣中求果是得不到的。像這樣，在每一個中下文廣泛解釋前面偈頌的下半部分，即呵責門。
如果果在緣中沒有下文。從上面以來，就四緣（catvāraḥ pratyayāḥ，四種條件：因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）中求果，沒有產生。現在第二個偈頌舉出非緣來決斷。上半部分是陳述，下半部分是決斷。決斷有四種意思。一是緣和非緣（ahetu，非原因）都沒有，就應該一起產生。二是都應該不產生。三是非緣應該產生，緣不應該產生。四是非緣不產生，而緣產生，那麼非緣就可以沒有，緣應該有。問：這裡以什麼為非緣？答：有三種意義。一是像泥土是瓶子的緣，乳汁是非緣。二是四緣為緣，微塵（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）、世性（prakṛti，自性）名為非緣。三是責備外面的四緣就成為非緣。這三種都可以用來作前面的四種責難。如果希望前三乘（triyāna，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）、六道（ṣaḍ-gatayaḥ，地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅、人、天）的意思，那麼六道因中沒有六道果，而產生六道，也沒有三乘果應該產生三乘。三乘因中沒有三乘果，而產生三乘，也沒有六道應該產生六道。但實際上不是這樣。所以畢竟沒有三乘六道的因果。所以最終應當畢竟空盡，成就佛果。
長行說緣果空故下文。品第三舉出三空（trisvabhāva-śūnyatā，自性空、無性空、他性空）來使法平等。
《十二門論疏》卷中之本
《十二門論疏》卷中之末
觀相門第四
之所以有這個門，有共通和個別兩種意義。共通的意義有三種。一是根性不同，悟入也各異。有的人聽聞求四緣無所得，有的人聽聞檢查三相（trilakṣaṇa，諸行無常、諸法無我、涅槃寂靜）無所得而得道。所以說三相門。
【English Translation】 English version The three conditions. If the cause and condition [hetu-pratyaya, the main cause and auxiliary conditions for producing a result] have a result, it should be separate from the other three conditions [referring to the other three of the four conditions]. If the three conditions have a result, they should be separate from one cause and condition. Now it is considered that the grain is the direct cause [sad-dhetu, direct cause] of the sprout, and the land, water, and human effort are its external conditions [bahya-pratyaya, external conditions]. If the sprout is already present in the grain seed, it should exist independently of conditions such as land, water, and human effort. If the sprout is present in conditions such as land and water, it should exist independently of the cause of the grain. Furthermore, the eye consciousness [cakṣur-vijñāna, visual consciousness] takes past actions [karma, actions] as the cause and present emptiness [śūnyatā, emptiness] as the condition. This can also be refuted in this way. If the second explanation of the abbreviated meaning is made under 'condition' and 'cause', it means taking the general as the abbreviation. It means that, in general, seeking a result from the cause of the grain seed and the conditions of land and water is unattainable. In this way, the latter half of the preceding verse, namely the reproach gate, is extensively explained in each of the middle and lower sections.
If the result is not in the condition, the following text. From above, seeking a result from the four conditions [catvāraḥ pratyayāḥ, the four conditions: cause condition, immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition] yields no production. Now, the second verse raises the non-condition to make a judgment. The first half is a statement, and the second half is a judgment. There are four meanings to the judgment. First, if both condition and non-condition [ahetu, non-cause] are absent, they should both arise together. Second, they should both not arise. Third, the non-condition should arise, and the condition should not arise. Fourth, if the non-condition does not arise, but the condition arises, then the non-condition can be absent, and the condition should be present. Question: What is considered a non-condition here? Answer: There are three meanings. First, like mud is the condition for a pot, and milk is a non-condition. Second, the four conditions are conditions, and minute particles [paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter] and nature [prakṛti, nature] are called non-conditions. Third, blaming the external four conditions becomes a non-condition. These three can be used to make the preceding four criticisms. If one hopes for the meaning of the former three vehicles [triyāna, Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna] and the six realms [ṣaḍ-gatayaḥ, hell, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, and devas], then there is no result of the six realms in the cause of the six realms, but the six realms arise, and there is no result of the three vehicles that should arise in the three vehicles. There is no result of the three vehicles in the cause of the three vehicles, but the three vehicles arise, and there are no six realms that should arise. But in reality, it is not like this. Therefore, there is ultimately no cause and effect of the three vehicles and the six realms. Therefore, ultimately, one should completely empty out and achieve Buddhahood.
The long passage says, 'Because the condition and result are empty,' the following text. Chapter 3 raises the three emptinesses [trisvabhāva-śūnyatā, emptiness of self-nature, emptiness of other-nature, emptiness of no-nature] to equalize the Dharma.
The original text of the middle volume of the Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise
The end of the middle volume of the Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise
The Fourth Gate of Observing Characteristics
The reason for having this gate is that there are two meanings, common and individual. There are three common meanings. First, the roots are different, and the enlightenment is also different. Some people hear and seek the four conditions without attainment, and some people hear and examine the three characteristics [trilakṣaṇa, impermanence of all phenomena, non-self of all dharmas, and nirvana is quiescence] without attainment and attain the Way. Therefore, the Gate of the Three Characteristics is spoken.
。二者欲通釋諸方等經。經中自有明四緣畢竟空。自有明三相畢竟空。佛世利根聞並皆得道。末世鈍根尋之未悟故論主曲釋也。三者經有曆法明空曆法觀行。論亦如是。故有此門來也。問今為申三相為破三相。答具有二義。原佛說三相者。無名相中為眾生故強名相說。此是無三說三。所以無三說三者。欲令眾生因三悟不三。問何故無三說三令因三悟不三。答無三說三破于常倒。既為三相所遷豈有常耶。因三悟不三息無常倒。言其無常者明其無有常。寧有于無常。八倒既除則累無不寂。則顯真實相。故非常無常便是法身。故德無不圓。此是不三三。三不三之大意也。又無三說三令識佛智。說三悟不三謂如來智。任運現前為自然智。不從師得為無師智。三世十方諸佛有所施作常為一事。故知說三為開四智同歸一乘。說三既爾。四緣及一切諸法亦應如是知。又十方三世諸佛為一大事故出。如大品云。般若為大事故起示是道非道。無三說三隨顛倒故說示非道。因三悟不三今示是道。又三世諸佛說法不出權實二門。無三說三是方便隨宜門。令因三悟不三此是真實門。現中論破緣緣偈。佛滅后大小有所得人並不識此意。故論主申此意破外人謂三故三病也。問經具有三不三不三三。論何故但申三不三。答如上。不三三是權門。三不三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二者想要通徹地解釋諸方等經（指大乘經典）。經中本身就明確說明了四緣（四種產生事物的原因和條件）畢竟是空性的，也明確說明了三相（生、住、滅）畢竟是空性的。佛在世時，根器銳利的人聽了這些道理都能證悟得道。末法時代，根器遲鈍的人研究這些道理卻不能領悟，所以龍樹菩薩才委婉地解釋這些道理。 第三個原因是，經典中有關於曆法的說明，通過歷法來觀察和修行。論著中也是如此，所以有這一門學問的由來。 問：現在是要闡述三相，還是要破斥三相？ 答：兼具兩種含義。佛陀所說的三相，是在沒有名相的境界中，爲了眾生的緣故，勉強安立名相來說明。這是在沒有三相的情況下說三相。之所以在沒有三相的情況下說三相，是爲了讓眾生通過三相來領悟沒有三相的境界。 問：為什麼要在沒有三相的情況下說三相，從而讓人們通過三相來領悟沒有三相的境界呢？ 答：在沒有三相的情況下說三相，是爲了破除常顛倒。既然被三相所遷流變化，哪裡還有常呢？通過三相來領悟沒有三相的境界，就能止息無常顛倒。說它是無常，是爲了說明它沒有常性，哪裡會有無常呢？八種顛倒一旦消除，所有的煩惱都會寂滅，就能顯現真實的相狀。所以，非常非無常，這就是法身。所以，功德沒有不圓滿的。這就是不三三，三不三的大概意思。 此外，在沒有三相的情況下說三相，是爲了讓人認識佛智。說三相而悟不三相，指的是如來智。任運現前，是自然智。不從師而得，是無師智。三世十方諸佛所做的一切，常常是爲了同一件事。所以要知道，說三相是爲了開啟四智，最終歸於一乘。既然說三相是這樣，那麼四緣以及一切諸法也應該這樣理解。 此外，十方三世諸佛爲了一個大因緣的緣故而出現，如《大品般若經》所說，般若爲了一個大因緣的緣故而興起，指示什麼是道，什麼不是道。在沒有三相的情況下說三相，是隨順顛倒而說，指示什麼不是道。通過三相來領悟沒有三相的境界，現在指示什麼是道。而且三世諸佛說法，不出權巧方便和真實不虛這兩個法門。在沒有三相的情況下說三相，是方便隨宜之門。讓人通過三相來領悟沒有三相的境界，這是真實之門。就像《中論》中破斥緣起的偈頌一樣。佛陀滅度后，大小乘中有所得的人都不明白這個道理，所以龍樹菩薩闡述這個道理，破斥外人認為三相就是三相的錯誤。 問：經典中既有三不三，也有不三三，論著為什麼只闡述三不三呢？ 答：如上所述，不三三是權巧方便之門，三不三
【English Translation】 English version Secondly, they wish to thoroughly explain the various Vaipulya Sutras (referring to Mahayana scriptures). The sutras themselves clearly state that the four conditions (the four causes and conditions that give rise to things) are ultimately empty, and they also clearly state that the three marks (arising, abiding, and ceasing) are ultimately empty. When the Buddha was in the world, people with sharp faculties could attain enlightenment upon hearing these principles. In the Dharma-ending age, people with dull faculties study these principles but cannot comprehend them, so Nagarjuna Bodhisattva subtly explains these principles. The third reason is that the sutras contain explanations of the calendar, using the calendar to observe and practice. The treatises are also like this, so this field of study has come about. Question: Is the purpose now to expound the three marks or to refute the three marks? Answer: It has both meanings. The three marks spoken of by the Buddha are, in a realm without names and forms, established with names and forms for the sake of sentient beings. This is speaking of three marks where there are no three marks. The reason for speaking of three marks where there are no three marks is to enable sentient beings to realize the state of no three marks through the three marks. Question: Why speak of three marks where there are no three marks, so that people can realize the state of no three marks through the three marks? Answer: Speaking of three marks where there are no three marks is to dispel the perversion of permanence. Since it is transformed and changed by the three marks, where is there permanence? Realizing the state of no three marks through the three marks can stop the perversion of impermanence. Saying that it is impermanent is to explain that it has no permanence; where would there be impermanence? Once the eight perversions are eliminated, all afflictions will be extinguished, and the true nature will be revealed. Therefore, neither permanent nor impermanent, this is the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body). Therefore, merits are not incomplete. This is the general meaning of 'not three three' and 'three not three'. Furthermore, speaking of three marks where there are no three marks is to enable people to recognize the wisdom of the Buddha. Speaking of three marks and realizing no three marks refers to the Tathagata's wisdom. Spontaneously appearing is natural wisdom. Not obtained from a teacher is teacherless wisdom. All that the Buddhas of the three times and ten directions do is always for the same thing. So know that speaking of three marks is to open up the four wisdoms, ultimately returning to the One Vehicle. Since speaking of three marks is like this, then the four conditions and all dharmas should also be understood in this way. Furthermore, the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times appear for the sake of a great cause, as the 'Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra' says, 'Prajna arises for the sake of a great cause, indicating what is the path and what is not the path.' Speaking of three marks where there are no three marks is speaking in accordance with perversion, indicating what is not the path. Realizing the state of no three marks through the three marks, now indicates what is the path. Moreover, the Buddhas of the three times speak of the Dharma, not going beyond the two gates of skillful means and true reality. Speaking of three marks where there are no three marks is the gate of skillful means. Enabling people to realize the state of no three marks through the three marks is the gate of true reality. It is like the verses in the 'Middle Treatise' that refute dependent origination. After the Buddha's parinirvana, people in the Hinayana and Mahayana who have attachments do not understand this principle, so Nagarjuna Bodhisattva expounds this principle, refuting the error of outsiders who think that the three marks are just the three marks. Question: The sutras contain both 'three not three' and 'not three three', why does the treatise only expound 'three not three'? Answer: As mentioned above, 'not three three' is the gate of skillful means, 'three not three'
為實門。今論實道。又是諸佛本意。又既識三不三即申不三三。故下明二諦也。問經何處有不三三三不三文耶。答諸方等經遍有文。略引大品凈名。大品色無常。不可得故。色無常即不三三。不可得謂三不三。具破八倒備開實相中道也。凈名不生不滅是無常義亦爾。
次別敘來意亦有三。一者若就無生義釋者。自上三門就四緣中求生不得。惑者復謂。若諸法畢竟無生。何因緣故經說三相能生諸法耶。今隨外所引故復破之。所以言隨外所引者。三相猶屬四緣中因緣門。上既求四緣無蹤。即無三相。但縱外言有。故就覓無從故有此門來也。二者上破四緣破別生法。今破三相破通生法。所以四緣是別生法者。如心法備從四緣生。色法從二緣生。非色非心開為二分。無想滅盡二定從二緣生。自余不相應法從二緣生。故名別生法。三相通生法者。有為三聚無不備從三相所生。今破三相名破通生法。以通別求生不得。故知畢竟無生。三者三空分之。自上以來明求果及緣不可得。名為空門。此下四品撿相無從名無相門。稟教之流若於空門悟入則不須無相門。為于空門不悟是故次說無相門也。又根性不同。自有樂從空門入。自有從無相門入。又見多者從空門入。愛見等者從無相門入。百論疏已具明之。問何以知此下四品明無相門
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是真實的法門。現在討論真實的道理，這又是諸佛的本意。並且既然已經認識了『三不』和『不三即三』，所以下面闡明二諦的道理。問：經典哪裡有『不三三』和『三不三』的說法呢？答：各部方等經典普遍都有這些說法。簡單地引用《大品般若經》和《維摩詰經》。《大品般若經》說，色是無常的，因為不可得。色是無常的，就是『不三三』；不可得，就是『三不三』。這完整地破除了八種顛倒，充分地開啟了實相中道的道理。《維摩詰經》說，不生不滅是無常的意義，也是同樣的道理。
其次，分別敘述來意的也有三種：第一，如果就無生義來解釋，從上面的三個法門，在四緣中尋求生起是找不到的。迷惑的人又會說，如果諸法畢竟是無生的，那麼因為什麼緣故經典說三相能夠生起諸法呢？現在順著外人所引用的說法，所以再次破斥它。之所以說順著外人所引用的說法，是因為三相仍然屬於四緣中的因緣門。上面既然尋求四緣沒有軌跡，就沒有三相。但姑且順著外人的說法，所以就尋找它的無從之處，因此有這個法門出現。第二，上面破斥四緣是破斥個別的生法，現在破斥三相是破斥普遍的生法。四緣之所以是個別的生法，比如心法完全是從四緣生起的，色法是從二緣生起的，非色非心分為兩部分，無想定和滅盡定是從二緣生起的，其餘的不相應法是從二緣生起的，所以叫做個別的生法。三相是普遍的生法，有為的三聚沒有不是從三相所生起的。現在破斥三相，叫做破斥普遍的生法。因為用普遍和個別的方法尋求生起都找不到，所以知道畢竟是無生的。第三，從三空來劃分。從上面以來，說明尋求果和緣是不可得的，叫做空門。這下面的四品，檢查諸相沒有著落，叫做無相門。稟承教義的人，如果在空門悟入，就不需要無相門。爲了在空門沒有悟入，所以接著說無相門。而且根性不同，有的人喜歡從空門入，有的人喜歡從無相門入。而且見解多的人從空門入，貪愛見解等的人從無相門入。《百論疏》已經詳細地說明了。問：憑什麼知道這下面的四品闡明的是無相門呢？
【English Translation】 English version: This is the true Dharma gate. Now we are discussing the true principle, which is also the original intention of all Buddhas. Furthermore, since we have already recognized 'non-three' and 'non-three is three', the following explains the principle of the two truths. Question: Where in the scriptures does it say 'non-three three' and 'three non-three'? Answer: All the Vaipulya Sutras universally have these statements. Briefly quoting the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that form (rupa) is impermanent because it is unattainable. Form is impermanent, which is 'non-three three'; unattainable, which is 'three non-three'. This completely destroys the eight inversions and fully opens up the principle of the Middle Way of true reality. The Vimalakirti Sutra says that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence, and the principle is the same.
Secondly, there are also three aspects to separately narrate the intention of coming: First, if explaining based on the meaning of non-arising, from the above three Dharma gates, seeking arising within the four conditions is unattainable. Confused people will again say, if all dharmas are ultimately non-arising, then for what reason do the scriptures say that the three characteristics (trilaksana) can give rise to all dharmas? Now, following the statements quoted by outsiders, we refute it again. The reason for saying 'following the statements quoted by outsiders' is that the three characteristics still belong to the causal condition (hetu-pratyaya) gate within the four conditions (catuh-pratyaya). Since seeking the four conditions above has no trace, there are no three characteristics. But let's follow the outsider's statement and seek its unattainability, hence this Dharma gate appears. Second, the above refutation of the four conditions is refuting individual arising dharmas, and now the refutation of the three characteristics is refuting universal arising dharmas. The reason why the four conditions are individual arising dharmas is that, for example, mental dharmas (citta-dharma) completely arise from the four conditions, form dharmas (rupa-dharma) arise from two conditions, non-form and non-mind are divided into two parts, the non-thinking samadhi (asanjnasamadhi) and cessation samadhi (nirodha-samapatti) arise from two conditions, and the remaining non-corresponding dharmas (viprayukta-samskara) arise from two conditions, hence they are called individual arising dharmas. The three characteristics are universal arising dharmas, and none of the three aggregates of conditioned existence (samskrta-traya) do not arise from the three characteristics. Now, refuting the three characteristics is called refuting universal arising dharmas. Because seeking arising through universal and individual methods is unattainable, it is known that it is ultimately non-arising. Third, dividing from the three emptinesses (tri-sunyata). From above, explaining that seeking the result and conditions is unattainable is called the emptiness gate (sunyata-mukha). The following four chapters, examining the characteristics without a foothold, are called the signlessness gate (animitta-mukha). Those who receive the teachings, if they attain enlightenment in the emptiness gate, do not need the signlessness gate. Because they have not attained enlightenment in the emptiness gate, the signlessness gate is then explained. Moreover, the dispositions are different, some people like to enter from the emptiness gate, and some people like to enter from the signlessness gate. Furthermore, those with many views enter from the emptiness gate, and those with attachment to views, etc., enter from the signlessness gate. The Shatashastra Commentary has already explained this in detail. Question: How do we know that the following four chapters explain the signlessness gate?
。答文云。有為及無為二法俱無相。則知通破一切諸相。故知是無相門也。上三門破所相開為總別。初門為總二門為別。今四門破相亦二。初門正破。后三門縱破。初門正破者明為無為一切相空。次門縱之更開二關往責。為有為無。若本有相則不須相。若本無相則無法可相。次門更復縱之。必言有相可相者一異求之應得。一異求既無蹤。不應言有。第三門更復蹤有能相。就有無求之又不可得。故三門名為縱破。又四門即為四意。初門破為無為。正破標相。次門破為無為體相。第三門就一異相雙破標體二相。第四門重責標相。又第一門破通相。第二門破別相。第三門合破通別二相。第四門重破通相。此門稱通相者。以三相通為諸法作相故名通相。今此品求三相無蹤。故云觀相門。釋三相義具如中論。今更引婆沙誠文以解釋之。所以須取婆沙釋者。龍樹出世時正對其人。又余義多是人自造。不足可破也。婆沙色品問。生住老無常為是色耶。為是非色耶。答佛經中告諸比丘有三有為相。人不解此義趣故種種解說。譬喻人云。三有為相無有實體。所以者何。三有為相是不相應行行陰所攝。不相應行行陰無有實體。為正此義明三有為相是實有法。則是實體無實體一雙也。又毗婆阇婆提云。此法是無為。若法是有為者其性羸劣。羸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 答：經文說，『有為』（指由因緣和合而成的世間萬物）和『無為』（指不生不滅、無為造作的涅槃境界）這兩種法都沒有固定的表象。由此可知，這是要徹底破除一切表象，所以說是『無相門』。 前面的三個門，是從所要破除的『相』，展開為總相和別相。第一個門是總相，后兩個門是別相。現在這第四個門，破除『相』也分為兩個方面：第一個門是正面破除，後面的三個門是側面破除。第一個門正面破除，說明『有為』和『無為』的一切表象都是空性的。 後面的門就進一步地，又開啟兩重關卡來追問：『有為』和『無為』，如果本來就有『相』，那就沒有必要再去尋求『相』；如果本來就沒有『相』，那就根本沒有法可以去尋求『相』。 再後面的門就更加深入地追問，如果一定要說有『相』可以去尋求，那麼從『一』（相同）或『異』（不同）的角度去尋求，應該可以找到。既然從『一』或『異』的角度去尋求都找不到軌跡，就不應該說有『相』存在。 第三個門更進一步地追問，假設有能去尋求『相』的主體，那麼從『有』或『無』的角度去尋求，也是不可能找到的。所以這三個門被稱為側面破除。 此外，這四個門也代表四種不同的意涵：第一個門破除『有為』和『無為』，正面破除作為標誌的『相』；第二個門破除『有為』和『無為』的本體『相』；第三個門從『一』和『異』的角度，同時破除作為標誌和本體的兩種『相』；第四個門再次追問作為標誌的『相』。 另外，第一個門破除普遍的『相』，第二個門破除個別的『相』，第三個門合併破除普遍和個別的兩種『相』，第四個門再次破除普遍的『相』。這個門被稱為『通相』，是因為這三種『相』普遍地作為諸法的表象，所以稱為『通相』。現在這一品探求這三種『相』都找不到軌跡，所以稱為『觀相門』。關於這三種『相』的解釋，詳細內容在中論中有說明。現在再引用《婆沙論》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）的真實經文來解釋。 之所以需要引用《婆沙論》來解釋，是因為龍樹（Nagarjuna）出世時，正是針對當時的人的觀點。而且其他的解釋大多是人們自己創造的，不值得去破除。《婆沙論·色品》中問道：『生、住、老、無常』（指有為法的四種相狀）是『色』（rupa，物質）嗎？還是非『色』呢？ 回答說：佛經中告訴各位比丘，有三種『有為相』（指有為法的生、住、滅三種相狀）。人們不理解這個意義，所以有各種各樣的解釋。有人比喻說，這三種『有為相』沒有實體。為什麼呢？因為這三種『有為相』是不相應行（citta-viprayukta-samskara，既非色法，亦非心法的存在）所包含的行陰（samskara-skandha，行蘊）所攝。不相應行行陰沒有實體。爲了糾正這種觀點，說明這三種『有為相』是真實存在的法，那麼實體和無實體就是一對概念。 此外，《毗婆沙婆提》（可能是指《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的另一種稱呼）中說：這種法是『無為』。如果法是『有為』，那麼它的性質就脆弱。
【English Translation】 English version Answer: The text says, 'Asamskrta' (unconditioned reality, referring to Nirvana) and 'Samskrta' (conditioned reality, referring to all phenomena arising from causes and conditions) both lack fixed characteristics. From this, it is known that this aims to thoroughly eliminate all characteristics, hence it is called the 'Gate of No-Characteristics'. The previous three gates, from the 'characteristics' to be eliminated, unfold into general and specific characteristics. The first gate is the general characteristic, and the latter two gates are the specific characteristics. Now, this fourth gate, eliminating 'characteristics', is also divided into two aspects: the first gate is direct elimination, and the following three gates are indirect elimination. The first gate directly eliminates, explaining that all characteristics of 'Samskrta' and 'Asamskrta' are empty in nature. The following gates further open two layers of questioning: 'Samskrta' and 'Asamskrta', if they inherently possess 'characteristics', then there is no need to seek 'characteristics'; if they inherently lack 'characteristics', then there is no Dharma to seek 'characteristics'. The subsequent gates delve even deeper, if one insists that there are 'characteristics' to be sought, then seeking from the perspective of 'one' (sameness) or 'different' (difference) should yield results. Since seeking from the perspective of 'one' or 'different' finds no trace, one should not say that 'characteristics' exist. The third gate further questions, assuming there is a subject capable of seeking 'characteristics', then seeking from the perspective of 'existence' or 'non-existence' is also impossible to find. Therefore, these three gates are called indirect elimination. In addition, these four gates also represent four different meanings: the first gate eliminates 'Samskrta' and 'Asamskrta', directly eliminating the 'characteristics' that serve as a sign; the second gate eliminates the 'characteristics' of the essence of 'Samskrta' and 'Asamskrta'; the third gate, from the perspective of 'one' and 'different', simultaneously eliminates the two 'characteristics' that serve as a sign and essence; the fourth gate again questions the 'characteristics' that serve as a sign. Furthermore, the first gate eliminates universal 'characteristics', the second gate eliminates individual 'characteristics', the third gate combines and eliminates both universal and individual 'characteristics', and the fourth gate again eliminates universal 'characteristics'. This gate is called 'General Characteristics' because these three 'characteristics' universally serve as the characteristics of all dharmas, hence it is called 'General Characteristics'. Now, this chapter explores that these three 'characteristics' cannot be found, hence it is called the 'Gate of Observing Characteristics'. The explanation of these three 'characteristics' is detailed in the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way). Now, let's quote the authentic text from the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary on the Abhidharma) to explain it. The reason for needing to quote the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra for explanation is that Nagarjuna appeared in the world precisely to address the views of the people at that time. Moreover, other explanations are mostly created by people themselves and are not worth refuting. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in the chapter on 'Rupa' (form), asks: Are 'birth, duration, decay, and impermanence' (referring to the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas) 'rupa' (matter)? Or are they non-'rupa'? The answer is: The sutras tell the bhiksus (monks) that there are three 'Samskrta-laksanas' (conditioned characteristics, referring to the three characteristics of conditioned dharmas: arising, abiding, and ceasing). People do not understand this meaning, so there are various explanations. Some people use the analogy that these three 'Samskrta-laksanas' have no substance. Why? Because these three 'Samskrta-laksanas' are included in the 'citta-viprayukta-samskara' (non-associated formations, existences that are neither material nor mental) which are governed by the 'samskara-skandha' (aggregate of formations). Non-associated formations and the aggregate of formations have no substance. To correct this view, it is explained that these three 'Samskrta-laksanas' are real existing dharmas, then substance and non-substance are a pair of concepts. Furthermore, the 'Vibhasa-vadins' (possibly referring to another name for the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) say: This dharma is 'Asamskrta' (unconditioned). If a dharma is 'Samskrta' (conditioned), then its nature is weak.
劣故不能生法住法滅法。無為力故能令法生住滅也。又曇摩崛人云。二是有為一是無為。生住是有為。不能滅法。滅相是無為。故能滅法。為正此二人明三相是有為。此為無為第二對也。又有異部云。三相是相應法。又為正如此說彼即法沙門義。其人云。色法生住滅則是色體。乃至識亦如是。故今明。非是色法亦非心法。而通三性通學．無學．非學．非無學通見斷．修斷．不斷。但不通無為。此三對。明即法異法也。問三相為一時前後。答佛但說三相有為。譬喻者云。一剎那中無有三相。若一剎那中有三相者。則一法一時則生則老則無常。此有二過。一者三相便亂。二者共相違生生滅不得滅。滅滅生不得生。便有失用之過。是故三相前後而生。彼云。法初生時名生后時名無常。此二中間名老。婆沙破此義云。此不如實分別。若初者名生最後名無常。若作是說則一法無三相。是故今明一法具三相。問若一法有三相者。云何不一法一時而生則老即無常耶。答大意明。體同時用前後。以體一時故無有自起之過。明有為法不能自起相扶共起免自起過。生用之時未有住用。住用時生用已廢。故無上過也。問四相相貌云何。答世中生為生相。生已而體滿足為住。如初生之外為生乃至果滿足稱住。住已漸衰。如外物萎黃等為異。衰必
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為有缺陷，所以不能產生法、安住法、滅除法。因為無為的力量，才能使法產生、安住、滅除。還有曇摩崛人說，二者是有為，一者是無為。產生和安住是有為，不能滅除法。滅除的相是無為，所以能滅除法。爲了糾正這二人的觀點，說明三種相是有為。這是有為和無為的第二種對比。還有其他部派說，三種相是相應法。爲了糾正這種說法，說明他們就是法沙門義。他們說，色法的產生、安住、滅除就是色體的本身，乃至識也是這樣。所以現在說明，三相不是色法，也不是心法，而是貫通三性（善、惡、無記），貫通有學、無學、非學非無學，貫通見斷、修斷、不斷。但是不貫通無為。這三種對比，說明了即法和異法。問：三種相是一時存在還是有先後順序？答：佛只是說三種相是有為。譬喻者說，一個剎那中沒有三種相。如果一個剎那中有三種相，那麼一個法在同一時間就既產生、又衰老、又無常。這有兩個過失：一是三種相會混亂，二是共相會互相違背，產生和滅除不能滅除，滅除和滅除不能產生，就會有失去作用的過失。所以三種相是先後產生的。他們說，法最初產生時叫做『生』（Jati），之後叫做『無常』（Anitya）。這二者中間叫做『老』（Jara）。《婆沙》駁斥這種觀點說，這種分別不如實。如果最初叫做『生』，最後叫做『無常』，如果這樣說，那麼一個法就沒有三種相。所以現在說明一個法具有三種相。問：如果一個法有三種相，為什麼不是一個法在同一時間既產生、又衰老、又無常呢？答：大意是說，本體是同時的，作用是有先後的。因為本體是同時的，所以沒有自己產生的過失。說明有為法不能自己產生，而是互相扶持共同產生，從而避免自己產生的過失。產生的作用發生時，還沒有安住的作用；安住的作用發生時，產生的用已經廢止，所以沒有上述的過失。問：四種相的相貌是怎樣的？答：世間中，產生叫做『生相』（Jati-lakshana）。產生之後，本體圓滿叫做『住』（Sthiti）。比如最初產生之外叫做生，乃至果實圓滿叫做住。安住之後逐漸衰弱，比如外物枯萎發黃等叫做『異』（Anyathatva）。衰弱必定
【English Translation】 English version Because of imperfection, it cannot generate dharmas, sustain dharmas, or extinguish dharmas. Because of the power of the unconditioned (Asamskrta), it can cause dharmas to arise, abide, and cease. Furthermore, the Dharmaguptakas say that two are conditioned (Samskrta) and one is unconditioned. Arising (Jati) and abiding (Sthiti) are conditioned and cannot extinguish dharmas. The aspect of cessation (Nirodha) is unconditioned, so it can extinguish dharmas. To correct these two people's views, it is explained that the three characteristics are conditioned. This is the second contrast between the conditioned and the unconditioned. Furthermore, other schools say that the three characteristics are associated dharmas. To correct this view, it is explained that they are the meaning of Dharma Sramanas. They say that the arising, abiding, and ceasing of form (Rupa) are the body of form itself, and so on, even consciousness (Vijnana) is the same. Therefore, it is now explained that the three characteristics are neither form nor mind, but penetrate the three natures (good, evil, and neutral), penetrate the learned (Saiksa), the unlearned (Asaiksa), neither learned nor unlearned, and penetrate what is abandoned by seeing (Darshana-heya), what is abandoned by cultivation (Bhavana-heya), and what is not abandoned. But it does not penetrate the unconditioned. These three contrasts explain the dharmas that are the same and different. Question: Are the three characteristics simultaneous or sequential? Answer: The Buddha only said that the three characteristics are conditioned. The parable-makers say that there are no three characteristics in one instant (Ksana). If there are three characteristics in one instant, then one dharma at one time would be born, age, and be impermanent. There are two faults in this: first, the three characteristics would be confused; second, the common characteristics would contradict each other, arising and ceasing could not cease, and ceasing and ceasing could not arise, which would lead to the fault of losing function. Therefore, the three characteristics arise sequentially. They say that when a dharma first arises, it is called 'arising' (Jati), and later it is called 'impermanence' (Anitya). The interval between these two is called 'aging' (Jara). The Vibhasa refutes this view, saying that this distinction is not true. If the first is called 'arising' and the last is called 'impermanence,' if it is said in this way, then one dharma does not have three characteristics. Therefore, it is now explained that one dharma has three characteristics. Question: If one dharma has three characteristics, why is it not that one dharma at the same time is born, ages, and is impermanent? Answer: The general idea is that the substance is simultaneous, and the function is sequential. Because the substance is simultaneous, there is no fault of arising by itself. It explains that conditioned dharmas cannot arise by themselves, but support each other and arise together, thus avoiding the fault of arising by themselves. When the function of arising occurs, there is no function of abiding yet; when the function of abiding occurs, the function of arising has already ceased, so there is no above-mentioned fault. Question: What are the appearances of the four characteristics? Answer: In the world, arising is called 'the characteristic of arising' (Jati-lakshana). After arising, the substance is complete, which is called 'abiding' (Sthiti). For example, what is outside the initial arising is called arising, and even the complete fruit is called abiding. After abiding, it gradually declines, such as external objects withering and yellowing, which is called 'change' (Anyathatva). Decline must
謝滅。如外物死稱之為滅。問三相為是總相為別相。答一解云。是別相。如色自有生住滅。乃至識亦如是。故三相是客相。法體是舊相。又解。三相是總相。以有為法皆有此三故。是總相故諸法體是別相。又解。非總相亦非別相。以非自體故非別相。各有生住故非總相。問既非總別相是何物法。答此是印誠。若有此印誠是有為。若無此印誠非是有為。如涅槃相非是涅槃體。評云。是總相也。問為三相為四相。答迦旃延舊云。生老住無常。後人言生住異滅。故有四相也。或說。三相不明住相。言三相者謂生老無常也。無常即是滅相。問何故明此三相不明住相。答應說住相而不說住者是有餘之義耳。又今欲示有為法。住相似無為法故不說。又相若能令法歷世者則說是有為。如生相移未來來現在。老與無常移現在行過去。住與彼法相著無舍離時。又分別法相時三相墮有為部中。住相墮無為部中。故不說住。問老相無常可得示有為相。生相云何示有為相。答生令諸行散懷甚於老與無常。若生不生諸行來現在者。則老無常不能散懷。以生生諸行來現在故。老令衰微無常能懷。如人在牢固之處有三怨家。一人于牢固之處挽出之。二人共斷其命。若一人不挽出則二人無由得斷其命。彼亦爾。問相與所相何異。答能相是所相過患。如病
【現代漢語翻譯】 謝滅（Xie Mie，感謝消滅）。如同外物死亡稱之為滅。問：三相（San Xiang，生、住、滅）是總相還是別相？答：一種解釋是，是別相。如色（Se，物質）自有生、住、滅，乃至識（Shi，意識）也是如此。故三相是客相，法體（Fa Ti，法的本體）是舊相。又一種解釋是，三相是總相，因為有為法（You Wei Fa，因緣和合而生的事物）皆有此三相，故是總相，因此諸法體是別相。又一種解釋是，非總相亦非別相。因為非自體故非別相，各有生住故非總相。問：既非總別相，是什麼法？答：這是印誠（Yin Cheng，印證），若有此印誠是有為，若無此印誠非是有為。如涅槃相（Nie Pan Xiang，涅槃的表象）非是涅槃體。評：是總相也。問：為三相還是四相？答：迦旃延（Jia Zhan Yan）舊說，生老住無常。後人言生住異滅，故有四相也。或說，三相不明住相，言三相者謂生老無常也。無常即是滅相。問：何故明此三相不明住相？答：應說住相而不說住者是有餘之義耳。又今欲示有為法，住相似無為法（Wu Wei Fa，不依賴因緣的事物）故不說。又相若能令法歷世者則說是有為。如生相移未來來現在，老與無常移現在行過去，住與彼法相著無舍離時。又分別法相時，三相墮有為部中，住相墮無為部中，故不說住。問：老相無常可得示有為相，生相云何示有為相？答：生令諸行散懷甚於老與無常。若生不生諸行來現在者，則老無常不能散懷。以生生諸行來現在故，老令衰微無常能懷。如人在牢固之處有三怨家，一人于牢固之處挽出之，二人共斷其命。若一人不挽出則二人無由得斷其命。彼亦爾。問：相與所相何異？答：能相是所相過患，如病
【English Translation】 Xie Mie (Thanks for the annihilation). It's like calling the death of external objects 'annihilation'. Question: Are the three characteristics (San Xiang, arising, abiding, ceasing) general characteristics or specific characteristics? Answer: One explanation is that they are specific characteristics. For example, form (Se, matter) has its own arising, abiding, and ceasing, and so does consciousness (Shi, awareness). Therefore, the three characteristics are external characteristics, and the substance of the Dharma (Fa Ti, the essence of the Dharma) is the original characteristic. Another explanation is that the three characteristics are general characteristics because all conditioned dharmas (You Wei Fa, things that arise from causes and conditions) have these three characteristics, so they are general characteristics, and therefore the substance of all dharmas are specific characteristics. Another explanation is that they are neither general characteristics nor specific characteristics. Because they are not self-existent, they are not specific characteristics, and because each has arising and abiding, they are not general characteristics. Question: Since they are neither general nor specific characteristics, what kind of Dharma are they? Answer: This is the seal of truth (Yin Cheng, verification). If there is this seal of truth, it is conditioned; if there is no this seal of truth, it is unconditioned. For example, the characteristic of Nirvana (Nie Pan Xiang, the appearance of Nirvana) is not the substance of Nirvana. Comment: It is a general characteristic. Question: Are there three characteristics or four characteristics? Answer: Katyayana (Jia Zhan Yan) used to say, 'arising, aging, abiding, impermanence'. Later people said, 'arising, abiding, change, ceasing', so there are four characteristics. Or it is said that the three characteristics do not clarify the characteristic of abiding, and the three characteristics refer to arising, aging, and impermanence. Impermanence is the characteristic of ceasing. Question: Why clarify these three characteristics and not the characteristic of abiding? Answer: The reason for speaking of the characteristic of abiding without speaking of abiding is that there is a meaning of remainder. Also, now we want to show conditioned dharmas, and abiding is similar to unconditioned dharmas (Wu Wei Fa, things that do not depend on causes and conditions), so it is not spoken of. Also, if a characteristic can cause a Dharma to pass through lifetimes, then it is said to be conditioned. For example, the characteristic of arising moves the future to the present, aging and impermanence move the present to the past, and abiding is attached to that Dharma without separation. Also, when distinguishing the characteristics of dharmas, the three characteristics fall into the category of conditioned, and the characteristic of abiding falls into the category of unconditioned, so abiding is not spoken of. Question: The characteristics of aging and impermanence can be shown as conditioned characteristics, but how can the characteristic of arising be shown as a conditioned characteristic? Answer: Arising causes all actions to scatter and be more troubled than aging and impermanence. If arising does not cause all actions to come into the present, then aging and impermanence cannot scatter and trouble. Because arising causes all actions to come into the present, aging causes decline and impermanence can trouble. It is like a person in a secure place with three enemies. One person pulls him out of the secure place, and two people together cut off his life. If one person does not pull him out, then the two people have no way to cut off his life. It is the same. Question: What is the difference between a characteristic and what is characterized? Answer: The characteristic that can characterize is the fault of what is characterized, like a disease.
是人身過患。經論多但明生住滅三相。問生次於住。住次於滅。住滅中間立其異相者。生住中間何不立長相耶。答數師云。非無此相。何以知然。生漸向住必由長相。然說四相為明過患令物生厭。長是人之所欣。情既欣長翻覆增惑。於物無益故沒而不說。問住亦是人之所貴。既貴于住便增物惑。不應說住相也。答住鄰于異有引異之能。亦為物所厭也。問生亦是人所貴不。答生是八苦名故物不貴。問無常與死何異。答婆沙云。命根斷一剎那此亦是死亦是無常。餘五陰散壞此是無常非死。又解。眾生數散壞名死。非眾生數散壞名無常。問為前法變故為異。為前法滅言異。若滅故言異。異與滅相何別。若變異故名異。與外道變乳作酪何異。答諸行勢盛故云生。勢衰故言異。外道計乳變作酪薪變作灰不說勢衰故名異。問一切時常有老時何不一切時常有頭白。答頭白是色法。此是果報滓。后時方顯如酒滓酒盡方顯。故不一切時現。問頭白是色。老是何相。答非色非心也。問有為法體是生故生。為與生合故生。答體是生。但要由生相顯發。如闇中雖有瓶要須燈顯發不說燈生。彼亦如是。又解。與生相合故生。問此品何故云觀相門不云觀三相門。答此品非但破三相。通破為無為一切法相。是故但標觀相門。問觀相門與中論觀三相何異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這是關於人身存在的過患。經文和論著大多闡明生、住、滅三種相狀（Sheng, Zhu, Mie san zhong xiang）。有人問：『生』之後是『住』，『住』之後是『滅』，在『住』和『滅』之間設立『異』相（Yi xiang）。為什麼在『生』和『住』之間不設立『長』相（Zhang xiang）呢？』 回答：『數論派（Shu lun pai）認為，並非沒有『長』相。怎麼知道呢？從『生』逐漸走向『住』，必定經過『長』相。然而，設立四相（Si xiang）是爲了闡明過患，使眾生厭離。『長』是人們所喜愛的，如果執著于『長』，反而會增加迷惑，對解脫沒有幫助，所以隱沒而不說。』 有人問：『『住』也是人們所看重的，如果看重『住』，也會增加迷惑，不應該說『住』相（Zhu xiang）啊。』 回答：『『住』接近於『異』，有引發『異』的作用，也會使眾生厭離。』 有人問：『『生』也是人們所看重的嗎？』 回答：『『生』是八苦（Ba ku）之一，所以眾生不看重。』 有人問：『無常（Wu chang）和死（Si）有什麼區別？』 回答：『《婆沙論》（Po sha lun）中說：『命根斷絕的一剎那，既是死，也是無常。其餘五陰（Wu yin）散壞，是無常，但不是死。』另一種解釋是：眾生之數的散壞叫做死，非眾生之數的散壞叫做無常。』 有人問：『是因為前一法變化了，所以說是『異』，還是因為前一法滅亡了，所以說是『異』？如果是滅亡了才說是『異』，那麼『異』相和『滅』相有什麼區別？如果是變化了才叫做『異』，那麼這和外道（Wai dao）所說的牛奶變成酪有什麼區別？』 回答：『諸行（Zhu xing）的勢力強盛，所以叫做『生』；勢力衰弱，所以叫做『異』。外道認為牛奶變成酪，柴變成灰，沒有說到勢力衰弱，所以叫做『異』。』 有人問：『一切時常有老相（Lao xiang），為什麼不是一切時常有頭髮變白呢？』 回答：『頭髮變白是色法（Se fa），是果報的殘渣，在後來的時間才顯現，就像酒糟一樣，酒喝完了才顯現。所以不是一切時都顯現。』 有人問：『頭髮變白是色法，那麼老是什麼相？』 回答：『非色法，也非心法。』 有人問：『有為法（You wei fa）的本體是『生』，所以才會有『生』，還是因為與『生』相結合，所以才會有『生』？』 回答：『本體是『生』，但需要由『生』相來顯發。就像黑暗中雖然有瓶子，也要用燈來照亮才能顯現，不能說燈生了瓶子。這裡也是一樣。』另一種解釋是：與『生』相結合，所以才會有『生』。』 有人問：『這一品為什麼叫做『觀相門』（Guan xiang men），而不叫做『觀三相門』？』 回答：『這一品不僅僅是破斥三相，而是普遍破斥有為法和無為法（Wu wei fa）的一切法相。所以只標明『觀相門』。』 有人問：『『觀相門』和《中論》（Zhong lun）的『觀三相』有什麼不同？』
【English Translation】 English version This concerns the faults of human existence. Sutras and treatises mostly elucidate the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing (Sheng, Zhu, Mie san zhong xiang). Someone asks: 'Arising' is followed by 'abiding,' and 'abiding' is followed by 'ceasing.' Between 'abiding' and 'ceasing,' the characteristic of 'change' (Yi xiang) is established. Why isn't the characteristic of 'growth' (Zhang xiang) established between 'arising' and 'abiding?' The answer: 'The Samkhya school (Shu lun pai) believes that there is indeed a characteristic of 'growth.' How do we know this? The gradual progression from 'arising' to 'abiding' must pass through 'growth.' However, establishing the four characteristics (Si xiang) is to clarify the faults and cause beings to become weary of them. 'Growth' is what people desire. If one clings to 'growth,' it will only increase confusion and not help with liberation, so it is hidden and not spoken of.' Someone asks: ''Abiding' is also valued by people. If 'abiding' is valued, it will also increase confusion. Shouldn't the characteristic of 'abiding' (Zhu xiang) be spoken of?' The answer: ''Abiding' is close to 'change' and has the ability to induce 'change,' which will also cause beings to become weary of it.' Someone asks: 'Is 'arising' also valued by people?' The answer: ''Arising' is one of the eight sufferings (Ba ku), so beings do not value it.' Someone asks: 'What is the difference between impermanence (Wu chang) and death (Si)?' The answer: 'The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Po sha lun) says: 'The moment the root of life is severed is both death and impermanence. The disintegration of the remaining five aggregates (Wu yin) is impermanence, but not death.' Another explanation is: The disintegration of the number of sentient beings is called death; the disintegration of non-sentient beings is called impermanence.' Someone asks: 'Is it because the previous dharma changes that it is called 'change,' or is it because the previous dharma ceases that it is called 'change'? If it is said to be 'change' because of cessation, then what is the difference between the characteristic of 'change' and the characteristic of 'cessation'? If it is called 'change' because of transformation, then what is the difference between this and the heretical (Wai dao) view that milk transforms into cheese?' The answer: 'The power of phenomena (Zhu xing) is strong, so it is called 'arising'; the power weakens, so it is called 'change.' The heretics believe that milk transforms into cheese and firewood transforms into ashes, but they do not speak of the weakening of power, so it is called 'change.' Someone asks: 'There is always old age (Lao xiang), so why isn't there always white hair?' The answer: 'White hair is a form (Se fa), the residue of karmic retribution, which manifests later in time, like the dregs of wine, which appear only after the wine is finished. Therefore, it does not always manifest.' Someone asks: 'White hair is a form, so what characteristic is old age?' The answer: 'It is neither form nor mind.' Someone asks: 'Is the essence of conditioned phenomena (You wei fa) 'arising,' so there is 'arising,' or is it because it combines with the characteristic of 'arising' that there is 'arising?' The answer: 'The essence is 'arising,' but it needs to be manifested by the characteristic of 'arising.' Just as there is a vase in the darkness, it needs to be illuminated by a lamp to be seen, and we cannot say that the lamp gives birth to the vase. It is the same here.' Another explanation is: It is because it combines with the characteristic of 'arising' that there is 'arising.' Someone asks: 'Why is this chapter called 'The Gate of Observing Characteristics' (Guan xiang men) and not 'The Gate of Observing the Three Characteristics?' The answer: 'This chapter not only refutes the three characteristics, but also universally refutes all characteristics of conditioned and unconditioned phenomena (Wu wei fa). Therefore, it is only marked as 'The Gate of Observing Characteristics.' Someone asks: 'What is the difference between 'The Gate of Observing Characteristics' and 'Observing the Three Characteristics' in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Zhong lun)?'
。答二義不同。一者就品名有通別。中論稱破三相其名則別。今直稱觀相。其名則通。所以直稱觀相者。明今品為明無相門。明無一切相故名無相。又一切取相心不生故名無一切相也。二者中論廣破三相有為。略破無為。此品略破有為廣破無為。互顯也。問廣破何等無為。答破二種無為。一破三相是無為有二門。如下列之。二破無為法體有四門亦如后說。凡論無為者不出相與體。破此二種一切無為義窮。
此門亦三。第一長行發起。第二偈本正明門體。三最後長行總結齊法。初如文就偈本為二。第一總破相第二別破相。總中又二。初偈總明為無為二法體俱無相。第二偈別明有為法無相。初偈上半明為無為法體俱無相。下半明相無故法體亦無。問此偈為正破法體正破相耶。答此偈文雖體相俱破而正明破相。所以然者。上三門已破法體故也。次長行但釋有為法無相。所以不釋無為法無相者。品末別廣破無為法。是故今文竟第十一偈但破有為家相。
就初長行為三。一總標有為不以相成。問曰下第二問有為相。答曰下第三列有為相。凡出四事。初一雙眾生類非眾生類。次一雙重眾生類非眾生類。所以明四法相者。一欲以體相顯標相。二欲以別相顯通相。
如是生住滅下此生起第二偈。亦三。一總開兩關定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：答：兩種意義不同。一是就品名來說，有通名和別名之分。《中論》稱『破三相』，其名稱是別名。現在直接稱『觀相』，其名稱是通名。之所以直接稱『觀相』，是表明這一品是爲了闡明無相之門，闡明沒有一切相，所以名為『無相』。又因為一切取相之心不生起，所以名為『無一切相』。二是《中論》廣泛地破斥有為的三相，略微地破斥無為。這一品略微地破斥有為，廣泛地破斥無為，互相顯明。問：廣泛地破斥何種無為？答：破斥兩種無為。一是破斥三相是無為，有兩重門徑，如下面所列。二是破斥無為法的本體，有四重門徑，也如後面所說。凡是論述無為，都離不開相和體。破斥這兩種，一切無為的意義就窮盡了。 這一重門也分為三部分。第一部分用長行發起，第二部分用偈頌的原本來正式闡明門體，第三部分最後用長行總結齊法。最初的部分就像文中所說，就偈頌的原本分為兩部分。第一部分總的破斥相，第二部分分別破斥相。總的破斥中又分為兩部分。第一偈總的闡明有為和無為兩種法的本體都沒有相。第二偈分別闡明有為法沒有相。初偈的上半部分闡明有為和無為法的本體都沒有相。下半部分闡明因為相沒有，所以法的本體也沒有。問：這首偈頌是主要破斥法體還是主要破斥相呢？答：這首偈頌文辭上雖然體和相都破斥，但主要闡明破斥相。之所以這樣說，是因為前面的三重門已經破斥了法體。其次的長行只是解釋有為法沒有相。之所以不解釋無為法沒有相，是因為在這一品的末尾會分別廣泛地破斥無為法。因此，現在的文辭到第十一偈為止，只是破斥有為家的相。 就最初的長行分為三部分。第一部分總的標明有為不是以相成就的。『問曰』下面是第二部分，詢問有為的相。『答曰』下面是第三部分，列舉有為的相。總共列出四件事。第一對是眾生類和非眾生類。第二對是重眾生類和非重眾生類。之所以闡明四法相，一是想要用體相來明顯地標示相，二是想要用別相來顯明通相。 『如是生住滅下』，這是生起第二偈。也分為三部分。第一部分總的開啟兩重關卡來確定。
【English Translation】 English version: Answer: There are two different meanings. First, regarding the title of the chapter, there's a general and a specific name. The Madhyamakakarika (中論) is called 'Refuting the Three Characteristics (破三相),' which is a specific name. Now, it's directly called 'Observing Characteristics (觀相),' which is a general name. The reason for directly calling it 'Observing Characteristics' is to clarify that this chapter is to elucidate the gate of no-characteristic (無相門), clarifying that there are no characteristics at all, hence the name 'no-characteristic (無相).' Also, because the mind of grasping onto any characteristic does not arise, it's called 'no characteristics at all (無一切相).' Second, the Madhyamakakarika extensively refutes the three characteristics of the conditioned (有為), and briefly refutes the unconditioned (無為). This chapter briefly refutes the conditioned and extensively refutes the unconditioned, mutually clarifying. Question: What kind of unconditioned is extensively refuted? Answer: Refuting two kinds of unconditioned. First, refuting the three characteristics as unconditioned, there are two approaches, as listed below. Second, refuting the substance of the unconditioned dharma, there are four approaches, also as mentioned later. Generally, discussing the unconditioned cannot be separated from characteristics and substance. Refuting these two exhausts the meaning of all unconditioned. This gate is also divided into three parts. The first part uses prose to initiate, the second part uses the original verses to formally clarify the essence of the gate, and the third part uses prose to summarize the Dharma. The initial part, as the text says, is divided into two parts based on the original verses. The first part generally refutes characteristics, and the second part separately refutes characteristics. The general refutation is further divided into two parts. The first verse generally clarifies that both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas have no characteristics in their substance. The second verse separately clarifies that conditioned dharmas have no characteristics. The first half of the initial verse clarifies that both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas have no characteristics in their substance. The second half clarifies that because there are no characteristics, the substance of the dharma also does not exist. Question: Does this verse mainly refute the substance of the dharma or mainly refute characteristics? Answer: Although this verse refutes both substance and characteristics in its wording, it mainly clarifies the refutation of characteristics. The reason for this is that the previous three gates have already refuted the substance of the dharma. The subsequent prose only explains that conditioned dharmas have no characteristics. The reason for not explaining that unconditioned dharmas have no characteristics is that the unconditioned dharmas will be extensively refuted separately at the end of this chapter. Therefore, the current text, up to the eleventh verse, only refutes the characteristics of the conditioned school. The initial prose is divided into three parts. The first part generally states that the conditioned is not accomplished by characteristics. 'Question:' below is the second part, asking about the characteristics of the conditioned. 'Answer:' below is the third part, listing the characteristics of the conditioned. A total of four things are listed. The first pair is sentient beings (眾生類) and non-sentient beings (非眾生類). The second pair is sentient beings again (重眾生類) and non-sentient beings again (非重眾生類). The reason for clarifying the four dharma characteristics is, first, to clearly indicate characteristics using substance and characteristics, and second, to clarify general characteristics using specific characteristics. 'Thus, arising, abiding, ceasing below,' this is the arising of the second verse. It is also divided into three parts. The first part generally opens two barriers to determine.
之。若直立三相即二關定一。若破二部義即二關定二。問曰下第二偏立相是有為。所以偏立有為者。婆沙評家正用三相是有為法。此既要義故偏立也。又諸部多立相是有為。故偏立也。亦可略舉一耳。答曰下第三正破。
就偈為二。上半牒有為破有為。下半牒無為破無為。此則是牒二部而破二部。薩婆多立有為。而隨無窮之過。毗婆阇婆提立無為。而有非相之失。又破有為通破數論等一切諸部。破無為別破毗婆阇婆提部。二關破通別兩執也。又此二門亦得但破一家。初正破有為。恐回宗提無為義故次破無為。無為亦爾。正破阇婆提無為。恐其從轍執有為義故破有為。便二部進退無路庶情靡托。故具開二關破之。又外人但立三相。論主開為無為二門破之。則為無為是能破門。三相是所破也。又為無為通破大小乘內道外道一切諸相。故百論中。外道亦立三相。是知今文遍破一切也。破全同中論。如彼釋之。古來釋窮無窮莊嚴舊義云。生滅之法窮於剎那。剎那即生滅無初中後分。第二靈味法師剎那有初中後分。而非無窮。第三開善云既有三分。分復有分如是無窮。第四釋云。現在止有生住。以當滅故說滅。此四並是成論師所說也。數人云。一剎那有初中后三分。猶如一馬其頭已入門內身正跨于門其尾猶在門外。故一剎
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果直接確立『生』、『住』、『滅』三相，就相當於用兩個關卡確定一個觀點（有為）。如果破斥『二部』（薩婆多部和毗婆阇婆提部）的義理，就相當於用兩個關卡確定兩個觀點。問：下面的第二部分偏袒地確立『相』是有為的，為什麼偏袒地確立有為呢？答：因為《婆沙論》的評家主要用三相來定義有為法，這既然是重要的義理，所以偏袒地確立有為。而且，許多部派都確立『相』是有為的，所以偏袒地確立有為。也可以只簡略地舉出一個方面。答：下面的第三部分正式破斥。 就偈頌來說，分為兩部分。上半部分針對有為而破斥有為，下半部分針對無為而破斥無為。這實際上是針對『二部』（薩婆多部和毗婆阇婆提部）而破斥『二部』。薩婆多部確立有為，因而陷入無窮的過失。毗婆阇婆提部確立無為，因而有不符合『相』的缺失。而且，破斥有為可以普遍地破斥數論等一切部派。破斥無為則專門破斥毗婆阇婆提部。兩個關卡的破斥貫通了對普遍和個別兩種執著的破斥。而且，這兩個門徑也可以只用來破斥一家之說。最初正式破斥有為，是擔心對方轉而提出無為的義理，所以接著破斥無為。無為也是如此，正式破斥阇婆提部的無為，是擔心他們重蹈覆轍而執著于有為的義理，所以破斥有為。這樣，兩個部派進退無路，各種情見無所依託，所以全面地開啟兩個關卡來破斥他們。而且，外道只是確立三相，論主則開闢為有為和無為兩個門徑來破斥他們。那麼，有為和無為就是能破斥的門徑，三相就是所要破斥的對象。而且，有為和無為可以普遍地破斥大小乘、內道、外道的一切『相』。所以《百論》中，外道也確立三相。由此可知，現在的文句普遍地破斥一切。破斥的方式完全相同于《中論》，就像《中論》的解釋一樣。古來的解釋，關於無窮，莊嚴的舊義說，生滅之法窮盡于剎那。剎那即生滅，沒有初、中、后三個部分。第二種，靈味法師認為剎那有初、中、后三個部分，但並非無窮。第三種，開善認為既然有三個部分，每個部分又可以再分，這樣就無窮了。第四種解釋說，現在只有生和住，因為將要滅亡，所以說滅。這四種都是成論師所說的。數論的人說，一個剎那有初、中、后三個部分，就像一匹馬，它的頭已經進入門內，身體正在跨越門檻，尾巴還在門外，所以一個剎
【English Translation】 English version: If one directly establishes the three characteristics of 『arising』 (生, shēng), 『abiding』 (住, zhù), and 『ceasing』 (滅, miè), it is equivalent to using two gates to define one view (conditioned existence, 有為, yǒu wéi). If one refutes the doctrines of the 『Two Schools』 (二部, èr bù) (Sarvāstivāda and Vajjiputtaka), it is equivalent to using two gates to define two views. Question: The second part below partially establishes 『characteristics』 as conditioned. Why is conditioned existence partially established? Answer: Because the commentators of the Vibhasa primarily use the three characteristics to define conditioned dharmas. Since this is an essential doctrine, conditioned existence is partially established. Moreover, many schools establish 『characteristics』 as conditioned, so conditioned existence is partially established. It is also possible to briefly mention only one aspect. Answer: The third part below formally refutes. Regarding the verses, they are divided into two parts. The first half refutes conditioned existence by targeting conditioned existence, and the second half refutes unconditioned existence by targeting unconditioned existence. This is actually targeting the 『Two Schools』 (Sarvāstivāda and Vajjiputtaka) and refuting the 『Two Schools』. Sarvāstivāda establishes conditioned existence, thus falling into the fault of endlessness. Vajjiputtaka establishes unconditioned existence, thus having the defect of not conforming to 『characteristics』. Moreover, refuting conditioned existence can universally refute all schools such as Samkhya. Refuting unconditioned existence specifically refutes the Vajjiputtaka school. The refutation of the two gates connects the refutation of both universal and individual attachments. Moreover, these two paths can also be used to refute only one school. Initially, conditioned existence is formally refuted, fearing that the opponent will turn to propose the doctrine of unconditioned existence, so unconditioned existence is then refuted. Unconditioned existence is also the same; formally refuting the unconditioned existence of the Vajjiputtaka school, fearing that they will repeat the mistake of clinging to the doctrine of conditioned existence, so conditioned existence is refuted. In this way, the two schools have no way to advance or retreat, and various opinions have nothing to rely on, so the two gates are fully opened to refute them. Moreover, externalists only establish the three characteristics, while the author of the treatise opens up two paths of conditioned and unconditioned existence to refute them. Then, conditioned and unconditioned existence are the paths that can refute, and the three characteristics are the objects to be refuted. Moreover, conditioned and unconditioned existence can universally refute all 『characteristics』 of the Great Vehicle, Small Vehicle, internal and external paths. Therefore, in the Śataśāstra, externalists also establish the three characteristics. From this, it can be known that the current text universally refutes everything. The method of refutation is completely the same as in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, just like the explanation in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Ancient explanations, regarding endlessness, the old doctrine of Zhuangyan says that the dharmas of arising and ceasing are exhausted in a kshana (剎那, chànà, moment). A kshana is arising and ceasing, without the three parts of beginning, middle, and end. The second, Dharma Master Lingwei, believes that a kshana has the three parts of beginning, middle, and end, but it is not endless. The third, Kaishan, believes that since there are three parts, each part can be further divided, so it is endless. The fourth explanation says that now there are only arising and abiding, because it will cease, so it is said to cease. These four are all said by the Chengshi school. The Samkhya people say that a kshana has the three parts of beginning, middle, and end, like a horse, its head has already entered the door, its body is crossing the threshold, and its tail is still outside the door, so a ksha
那有三分。此是申有窮義也。數人此義。一剎那時節極長。今此文具破窮無窮義。
長行為二。初釋偈本次例破諸法。初又二。前釋上半。若生是無為下釋下半凡有二難。初難云。若生是無為云何與有為作相。此是非相破。離生住滅誰能知是生者。若生是無為即生體無生住滅相。相體既無誰能知法從相而生。此語法生也。又釋。生相若離三相即體不可分別。何以知此是生耶。此就相破。文正爾。複次下者上縱離生住滅有此生。無能知者。今明若生無有生住滅則無此生也。所以然者。有為是有可得分別為三相。若是無為則無三體之異。故不可分別有生住滅。生住滅空故下自以來。釋初偈有為法無相故無有為。今類破諸法。釋無為無相故無無為也。
問曰下第二別破三相。又開二別。初破展轉家義。次破不展轉義。所以破此二者。此二攝一切生盡則無生理現。又初是上座后是僧祇。此二是十八部本。亦為五百部根。破本末傾也。又初是毗曇次是成實。又初是內次是外。又初是法說次譬說。又初別破生次寄譬通破明暗解惑也。問何故前破展轉后破不展轉。答展轉得救上二難。不展轉不得救故前破。又是諸部之初故初破。又是盛行天竺故初破之。又正是旃延本立。五百羅漢所許用義。又其人立法體外有非色非心三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有三種情況。這是爲了闡明『有』的窮盡之義。一些人理解這個意義時，認為一剎那的時間非常長。但本文完整地破斥了窮盡和無窮盡的觀點。
長行分為兩部分。首先解釋偈頌，按照次第破斥諸法。第一部分又分為兩部分。前面解釋上半部分。『若生是無為』以下解釋下半部分，其中包含兩個難點。第一個難點是：如果『生』是無為法，怎麼能與有為法作為相呢？這是用『非相』來破斥。如果離開了生、住、滅，誰能知道什麼是『生』呢？如果『生』是無為法，那麼『生』的本體就沒有生、住、滅的相。相的本體既然沒有，誰能知道法是從相而生的呢？這是從語法上破斥『生』。進一步解釋，如果『生相』離開了三相，那麼它的本體就不可分別。怎麼知道這就是『生』呢？這是就相來破斥。文義正是如此。『複次下者』，即使假設離開了生、住、滅，有這個『生』，也沒有人能知道。現在說明，如果『生』沒有生、住、滅，那麼就沒有這個『生』。原因是有為法是有所得，可以分別的，因為它有三種相。如果是無為法，就沒有三種本體的差異，所以不可分別生、住、滅。因為生、住、滅是空性的，所以從『下自以來』開始，解釋第一個偈頌：有為法沒有相，所以沒有有為法。現在用類似的方法破斥諸法，解釋無為法沒有相，所以沒有無為法。
『問曰下』，第二部分分別破斥三相。又分為兩個部分。首先破斥展轉家的觀點，其次破斥不展轉的觀點。之所以要破斥這兩種觀點，是因為這兩種觀點涵蓋了一切『生』，如果『生』窮盡，那麼就沒有『生』的道理顯現。而且，前者是上座部的觀點，後者是僧祇部的觀點。這兩種觀點是十八部的根本，也是五百部的根源。破斥了根本，末流也就傾覆了。而且，前者是毗曇宗的觀點，後者是成實宗的觀點。而且，前者是內道的觀點，後者是外道的觀點。而且，前者是法說，後者是譬喻說。而且，前者是分別破斥『生』，後者是借用譬喻來普遍破斥，從而闡明闇昧，解除疑惑。問：為什麼先破斥展轉，后破斥不展轉？答：因為展轉可以從上面的兩個難點中得到解救，而不展轉則不能得到解救，所以先破斥展轉。而且，因為這是各個部派的初始觀點，所以先破斥。而且，因為這種觀點在天竺非常盛行，所以先破斥它。而且，這正是迦旃延(Kātyāyana)最初建立的，被五百羅漢所認可並使用的觀點。而且，這些人所立的法體，在外有非色(arūpa)非心(acitta)的三。
【English Translation】 English version: There are three aspects to that. This is to explain the meaning of the exhaustion of 'existence'. Some people understand this meaning as a kshana (moment) being extremely long. But this text completely refutes the views of exhaustion and non-exhaustion.
The long passage is divided into two parts. First, it explains the verses, refuting all dharmas in order. The first part is further divided into two. The first part explains the first half of the verse. 'If birth is unconditioned' below explains the second half, which contains two difficulties. The first difficulty is: if 'birth' is unconditioned, how can it be a characteristic of conditioned dharmas? This is refutation using 'non-characteristic'. If one separates from arising, abiding, and ceasing, who can know what 'birth' is? If 'birth' is unconditioned, then the essence of 'birth' has no characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Since the essence of the characteristic does not exist, who can know that a dharma arises from a characteristic? This is refuting 'birth' from a grammatical perspective. Further explaining, if the 'characteristic of birth' is separated from the three characteristics, then its essence cannot be distinguished. How can one know that this is 'birth'? This is refuting from the perspective of the characteristic. The meaning of the text is exactly like this. 'Furthermore, below' means that even if we assume that there is this 'birth' separated from arising, abiding, and ceasing, no one can know it. Now it is explained that if 'birth' has no arising, abiding, and ceasing, then there is no such 'birth'. The reason is that conditioned dharmas are attainable and distinguishable because they have three characteristics. If it is unconditioned, then there is no difference in the three essences, so arising, abiding, and ceasing cannot be distinguished. Because arising, abiding, and ceasing are empty, from 'below onwards', the first verse is explained: conditioned dharmas have no characteristics, so there are no conditioned dharmas. Now, using a similar method, all dharmas are refuted, explaining that unconditioned dharmas have no characteristics, so there are no unconditioned dharmas.
'Question below', the second part separately refutes the three characteristics. It is further divided into two parts. First, it refutes the view of the Sarvāstivāda (the 'transferring' school), and then it refutes the view of non-Sarvāstivāda. The reason for refuting these two views is that these two views cover all 'births', and if 'birth' is exhausted, then there is no principle of 'birth' manifesting. Moreover, the former is the view of the Sthavira school, and the latter is the view of the Mahāsāṃghika school. These two views are the root of the eighteen schools, and also the root of the five hundred schools. If the root is refuted, the branches will also collapse. Moreover, the former is the view of the Abhidharma school, and the latter is the view of the Satyasiddhi school. Moreover, the former is the view of the inner path, and the latter is the view of the outer path. Moreover, the former is a Dharma explanation, and the latter is an explanation using metaphors. Moreover, the former separately refutes 'birth', and the latter universally refutes by borrowing metaphors, thereby clarifying the obscure and resolving doubts. Question: Why refute Sarvāstivāda first and then non-Sarvāstivāda? Answer: Because Sarvāstivāda can be saved from the above two difficulties, while non-Sarvāstivāda cannot be saved, so Sarvāstivāda is refuted first. Moreover, because this is the initial view of each school, it is refuted first. Moreover, because this view is very prevalent in India, it is refuted first. Moreover, this is precisely what Kātyāyana originally established, and it is the view that was recognized and used by the five hundred arhats. Moreover, the dharma-body established by these people has three things outside of it that are neither form (rūpa) nor mind (citta).
相是實有法。不信三相是假名。故自不信諸法無生。是病中最重故偏破之。又立三相是不相應法非佛口說。何以知之。羅什答遠法師問云。不相應行是旃延等說非佛所說。既其橫造。故偏破之。問涅槃經親明生不自生賴生故生。云何云非佛說耶。答涅槃直言大小相生不云別有非色非心法。則知非佛所說。前問次答。就問中為二。一牒論主難。今當說下。生起偈本通論主難。
偈上半立小生大。正明三相是有為。下半明大生小通無窮難也。問其義明九法相扶共起。何故但云大小除自體生八法。答婆沙云。生最有力如母生子。母于子最有力。雖余女人相助不名余女人生子。佛陀人云。如書雖用紙筆等但人用最勝故名人書。彼亦如是。雖假余法共起但生受其名。問何故一剎那中。大生能生二法小生但生大生。答婆沙云。此無過如女人有生一子者有雙生者。問大生能生八法小生云何但生一法。答婆沙云。如豬犬有生一子者有生八子者。問生與生生宜是非色非心。云何名為生耶。答法在未來能生彼法來現在。是功用名。故名生也。生生者亦是功用名。復有能所名。一生是能生一生是所生。能所合目故云生生。大生名能生小生名隨相者體實同時。但大生親生法體。義在於前。大生生小生。而方云小生生大生。義論后也。問法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『相』（laksana）是實有的法。因為不相信『三相』（trilaksana）是假名安立，所以他們不相信諸法是無生的。這是所有病癥中最嚴重的，所以要著重破斥它。而且，他們所立的『三相』是不相應行法，不是佛陀親口所說。憑什麼知道這一點呢？鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）回答遠法師的提問時說，不相應行是迦旃延（Katyayana）等人所說，不是佛所說。既然他們橫加捏造，所以要著重破斥它。有人問：《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）明明說『生』不是自己產生，而是依賴其他條件而產生，為什麼說不是佛所說呢？回答：《涅槃經》只是直接說『大小相生』，沒有說另外存在一種非色非心的法，因此可以知道不是佛所說。前面的提問，接下來的回答，在提問中分為兩部分。一是照錄論主的詰難，接下來將要說的是生起偈的根本，總括論主的詰難。 偈的上半部分是安立小生和大生，正是爲了說明『三相』是有為法。下半部分說明大生能生小生，從而引出無窮的過失。 有人問：它的意義明明是九法互相扶持共同生起，為什麼只說大小生，除了自體之外，只生起八法呢？回答：《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，『生』最有力量，就像母親生孩子一樣。母親對於孩子最有力量，即使有其他女人幫忙，也不能說是其他女人生了孩子。佛陀跋陀羅（Buddhabhadra）說，就像寫字，雖然要用到紙筆等，但因為人使用得最得心應手，所以稱為人書。這裡也是這樣，雖然憑藉其他法共同生起，但『生』承受了這個名稱。有人問：為什麼在一個剎那中，大生能生兩種法，而小生只能生大生呢？回答：《婆沙論》說，這沒有什麼奇怪的，就像女人有生一個孩子的，也有生雙胞胎的。有人問：大生能生八法，小生為什麼只能生一種法呢？回答：《婆沙論》說，就像豬狗有生一個崽的，也有生八個崽的。有人問：『生』和『生生』應該是非色非心的法，為什麼稱為『生』呢？回答：法在未來，能夠生起那個法，來到現在，這是一種功用，所以稱為『生』。『生生』也是一種功用名稱。又有能所的名稱，一個『生』是能生，一個『生』是所生，能所合起來就稱為『生生』。大生稱為能生，小生稱為隨相者，體性實際上是同時的。但大生親近生起法體，意義在於前面。大生生小生，然後才說小生生大生，意義在於後面。有人問：法
【English Translation】 English version 『Laksana』 (相) is a truly existent dharma. Because they do not believe that the 『three laksana』 (三相) are merely nominal designations, they do not believe that all dharmas are unproduced. This is the most serious of all illnesses, so it must be emphatically refuted. Moreover, the 『three laksana』 they establish are non-associated formations, not spoken by the Buddha himself. How do we know this? Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什) answered Dharma Master Yuan's question by saying that non-associated formations are spoken by Katyayana (迦旃延) and others, not by the Buddha. Since they fabricate them arbitrarily, they must be emphatically refuted. Someone asks: The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) clearly states that 『origination』 is not self-produced but arises dependent on other conditions, so why say it was not spoken by the Buddha? Answer: The Nirvana Sutra only directly speaks of 『mutual origination of large and small,』 without saying that there is another dharma that is neither form nor mind, so we can know it was not spoken by the Buddha. The previous question, the following answer, is divided into two parts within the question. One is to transcribe the opponent's challenge; next, we will speak of the root of the verses on origination, summarizing the opponent's challenge. The first half of the verse establishes small origination and large origination, precisely to explain that the 『three laksana』 are conditioned dharmas. The second half explains that large origination can produce small origination, thus leading to the fault of endlessness. Someone asks: Its meaning is clearly that nine dharmas mutually support each other and arise together, so why only speak of large and small origination, which, apart from themselves, only produce eight dharmas? Answer: The Vibhasa (婆沙論) says that 『origination』 is the most powerful, like a mother giving birth to a child. The mother is most powerful for the child, and even if other women help, it cannot be said that other women gave birth to the child. Buddhabhadra (佛陀跋陀羅) said that just like writing, although paper and pen are used, because people use them most skillfully, it is called human writing. It is the same here; although it arises together relying on other dharmas, 『origination』 bears the name. Someone asks: Why, in one instant, can large origination produce two dharmas, while small origination can only produce large origination? Answer: The Vibhasa says that there is nothing strange about this, just as some women give birth to one child, and some give birth to twins. Someone asks: Large origination can produce eight dharmas, so why can small origination only produce one dharma? Answer: The Vibhasa says that just as pigs and dogs sometimes give birth to one offspring, and sometimes give birth to eight. Someone asks: 『Origination』 and 『origination of origination』 should be dharmas that are neither form nor mind, so why are they called 『origination』? Answer: A dharma in the future, able to produce that dharma, comes to the present; this is a function, so it is called 『origination.』 『Origination of origination』 is also a functional name. There are also the names of agent and object; one 『origination』 is the agent of origination, and one 『origination』 is the object of origination; the combination of agent and object is called 『origination of origination.』 Large origination is called the agent of origination, and small origination is called the follower of characteristics; their nature is actually simultaneous. But large origination is close to producing the dharma-body, and its meaning lies in the front. Large origination produces small origination, and then it is said that small origination produces large origination; its meaning lies in the back. Someone asks: Dharma
體本無生滅而假四相生耶。答法體本有生滅性。但假四相發動之耳。法體是有為。既具四相八相亦是有為。亦各具四相。以九法各具四相則九法各是法體。法體具四相易知。大生具四相者。大生體有生性。但不能自生。須小生生故有生相。大住住大生大異異大生大滅滅大生。故具四也。大相具四一小三大。小相四具皆是大相。法體具四亦是大相也。偈文上半立小生生大。通無為難。下半立大生生小。通無窮難。小生生大通無為難者。大生不為小生生可是無為。今為小生生故是有為。問但為小生生。云何有為。答既為小生生。即為大住住大異異大滅滅。則大生具為四相所遷故是有為也。下半通無窮難者。小復從小即是無窮。大還生小故非無窮。問大還生小。但為大生生耶。答既為大生生。則為大住住乃至大滅滅。故小具四相也。
答曰下為二。初兩偈就前後破。次一偈就一時破。就前又二。初偈破其小生生大。提外上半即以下半破之。第二偈破其大生生小。提外下半即以上半破之。難意云。大小既其從他生則不能生他。若能生他則不從他。唯此二義。若言從他復能生他第三義者無有此處。所以然者。能生從生二義相違。故能則不從從則不能故。無第三義也。
若謂生生生時此發起第二段一時門破。中論具二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：本體本無生滅，卻假借四大現象而生嗎？答：法體（Dharma-kaya，佛法之身）本具有生滅的性質，只不過是藉助四大現象來發動而已。法體是有為法（Samskrta，因緣和合而成的法），既然具備生、住、異、滅四相，那麼八相也是有為法，也各自具備四相。因為九法（Nine Dharmas，指一切有為法）各自具備四相，所以九法各自都是法體。法體具備四相容易理解，大生（Great arising，生相的擴大）具備四相是指：大生的本體具有生性，但不能自己產生，必須依靠小生（Small arising，生相的縮小）來產生，所以有生相。大住（Great abiding，住相的擴大）依住于大生，大異（Great change，異相的擴大）依異於大生，大滅（Great ceasing，滅相的擴大）依滅于大生，所以具備四相。大相（Great characteristic，大的現象）具備四相，一小三大。小相（Small characteristic，小的現象）的四相都屬於大相。法體具備四相，也屬於大相。偈文的上半部分立足於小生生大，難以通達無為法（Asamskrta，不依賴因緣和合的法）的道理。下半部分立足於大生生小，難以通達無窮的道理。小生生大難以通達無為法的道理在於：大生不為小生所生，可以被認為是無為法。現在卻爲了小生而生，所以是有為法。問：僅僅爲了小生而生，怎麼能算是有為法呢？答：既然爲了小生而生，就必然爲了大住而住，爲了大異而異，爲了大滅而滅。那麼大生就具備了被四相所遷移的性質，所以是有為法。下半部分難以通達無窮的道理在於：小生又從小生而生，就是無窮無盡的。大生還生小生，所以不是無窮無盡的。問：大生還生小生，僅僅是爲了大生而生嗎？答：既然爲了大生而生，就必然爲了大住而住，乃至爲了大滅而滅，所以小生也具備四相。 答曰下分為二。初兩偈就前後破。次一偈就一時破。就前又二。初偈破其小生生大。提外上半即以下半破之。第二偈破其大生生小。提外下半即以上半破之。難意云。大小既其從他生則不能生他。若能生他則不從他。唯此二義。若言從他復能生他第三義者無有此處。所以然者。能生從生二義相違。故能則不從從則不能故。無第三義也。 若謂生生生時此發起第二段一時門破。中論具二
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is the fundamental substance inherently without arising and ceasing, but arises by borrowing the four characteristics (four marks of conditioned existence)? Answer: The Dharma-kaya (body of the Dharma) inherently possesses the nature of arising and ceasing, but it is only activated by means of the four characteristics. The Dharma-kaya is conditioned (Samskrta, compounded phenomena), since it possesses the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, then the eight characteristics are also conditioned, and each also possesses the four characteristics. Because the nine dharmas (Nine Dharmas, all conditioned phenomena) each possess the four characteristics, therefore each of the nine dharmas is the Dharma-kaya. It is easy to understand that the Dharma-kaya possesses the four characteristics. That the Great Arising (Great arising, the expansion of the arising characteristic) possesses the four characteristics means: the substance of the Great Arising has the nature of arising, but it cannot arise by itself. It must rely on the Small Arising (Small arising, the reduction of the arising characteristic) to arise, so it has the characteristic of arising. The Great Abiding (Great abiding, the expansion of the abiding characteristic) abides in the Great Arising, the Great Change (Great change, the expansion of the changing characteristic) changes from the Great Arising, and the Great Ceasing (Great ceasing, the expansion of the ceasing characteristic) ceases from the Great Arising, so it possesses the four characteristics. The Great Characteristic (Great characteristic, the great phenomenon) possesses four characteristics: one small and three great. The four characteristics of the Small Characteristic (Small characteristic, the small phenomenon) all belong to the Great Characteristic. The Dharma-kaya possesses four characteristics, and also belongs to the Great Characteristic. The first half of the verse establishes the Small Arising arising from the Great, which is difficult to penetrate the principle of the Unconditioned (Asamskrta, phenomena that do not depend on conditioned arising). The second half establishes the Great Arising arising from the Small, which is difficult to penetrate the principle of infinity. The difficulty in penetrating the principle of the Unconditioned in the Small Arising arising from the Great lies in: the Great Arising is not arisen by the Small Arising, and can be considered the Unconditioned. Now it arises for the sake of the Small Arising, so it is conditioned. Question: It only arises for the sake of the Small Arising, how can it be considered conditioned? Answer: Since it arises for the sake of the Small Arising, it must abide for the sake of the Great Abiding, change for the sake of the Great Change, and cease for the sake of the Great Ceasing. Then the Great Arising possesses the nature of being moved by the four characteristics, so it is conditioned. The difficulty in penetrating the principle of infinity in the second half lies in: the Small Arising arises from the Small Arising, which is endless. The Great Arising still arises from the Small Arising, so it is not endless. Question: The Great Arising still arises from the Small Arising, is it only for the sake of the Great Arising? Answer: Since it arises for the sake of the Great Arising, it must abide for the sake of the Great Abiding, and even cease for the sake of the Great Ceasing, so the Small Arising also possesses the four characteristics. The following answer is divided into two parts. The first two verses refute based on before and after. The next verse refutes based on one moment. Regarding the former, there are two parts. The first verse refutes the Small Arising arising from the Great. It takes the first half of the external argument and refutes it with the second half. The second verse refutes the Great Arising arising from the Small. It takes the second half of the external argument and refutes it with the first half. The meaning of the difficulty is: since both the great and small arise from others, they cannot cause others to arise. If they can cause others to arise, then they do not arise from others. There are only these two meanings. If it is said that arising from others can also cause others to arise, there is no such third meaning. The reason is that the two meanings of being able to cause to arise and arising from are contradictory. Therefore, if it can, then it does not arise from; if it arises from, then it cannot. Therefore, there is no third meaning. If it is said that arising arises at the time of arising, this initiates the second section, the door of one moment is refuted. The Middle Treatise contains two.
偈。今但有一偈。偈為二。上半牒外義下半破之。牒中有二。初句牒小從大生。次句牒小能生大。而稱或者小生有重生之名。或可。能生大生。又是惑者所謂。故稱為或。下半亦有兩義。生生猶未生者提其初句以小生從大生生。是故自體未生。何能生本生破第二句。既從大生則未有自體。何能生大生。相生之義必無體鬚生有體能生。然今一時。有則俱有。無則俱無。若俱無則有所生而無能生。若俱有則有能生而無所生。亦唯此二義。無有一時之中有能生復有所生。又汝大小生二體若俱起則失二用。大體既起何用小生。小體既起何用大生。故得二體俱有則失二用。若二體俱未起須二用者。猶無二體用從何生。若言小能生大大體未起須小生之。此得一體一用而義都不成。大體未起唯生於小而言小生大耶。又小若生大必知未有于大。猶未有大誰生於小。猶無小體寧有小用。故諸義不成。
若謂是生生第二次破不展轉相生。就文為二。一長行發起。二偈文正破。此發起與中論異者。中論直分兩家之異前立展轉相生。次立不展轉。今此論則顯改宗立義。還是前展轉家改宗立。又則中論明相與法體論自他。生相能自生。法體由相有。此正是成實者義。此論就相論自他。小生自生本生從他。二論不同者欲遍破一切體相自生生他
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 頌文。現在只有一頌。一頌分為兩部分。前半部分是記錄外道的觀點，後半部分是駁斥它。記錄部分有兩層含義。第一句記錄了『小』是從『大』而生的觀點。第二句記錄了『小』能夠生『大』的觀點。並且稱這種『或者小生有重生之名』的說法為『或可』，即能夠生『大生』。這又是迷惑之人所說的。所以稱為『或』。後半部分也有兩層含義。『生生猶未生者』，這是提煉出第一句的觀點，即『小生』是從『大生』而生的。因此，如果自體都未曾產生，又怎麼能夠產生根本的『生』呢？駁斥第二句，既然是從『大』而生，那麼就沒有自體，又怎麼能夠產生『大生』呢？相生的意義必然是無體的需要產生有體的才能產生。然而現在是一時的。有，則都有；無，則都無。如果都沒有，那麼就只有所生而沒有能生。如果都有，那麼就只有能生而沒有所生。也只有這兩種情況。沒有在同一時間既有能生又有生所生的。而且，你們所說的大小生兩種體，如果同時產生，那麼就失去了兩種作用。大體既然已經產生，又何必需要小生？小體既然已經產生，又何必需要大生？所以，如果兩種體都有，那麼就失去了兩種作用。如果兩種體都沒有產生，卻需要兩種作用，那麼沒有兩種體，作用又從何而來？如果說『小』能夠生『大』，『大體』還沒有產生，所以需要『小生』來產生它。這隻得到一體一用，而道理完全不成立。『大體』還沒有產生，只是生於『小』，就說『小生大』嗎？而且，如果『小』能生『大』，必定知道還沒有『大』。既然還沒有『大』，誰又來生『小』呢？既然沒有『小體』，哪裡會有『小用』？所以各種道理都不能成立。
如果說是『生生』，第二次駁斥不互相輾轉相生。從文章結構上分為兩部分。一是長行發起，二是偈文正式駁斥。這裡的發起與《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）不同。《中論》直接區分兩家的不同，先立『展轉相生』，再立『不展轉』。而這篇論則明顯地改變了宗旨，樹立新的義理。還是之前的『展轉』家改變了宗旨。而且《中論》闡明『相』與『法體』，『生相』能夠自生，『法體』由『相』而有。這正是成實宗（Satya-siddhi-shastra）的義理。這篇論就『相』來論自他，『小生』是自生，『本生』是從他而生。兩篇論的不同之處在於想要普遍地破斥一切體相的自生和他生。
【English Translation】 English version: Verse. Now there is only one verse. The verse is divided into two parts. The first half records the views of external paths, and the second half refutes them. There are two meanings in the recording part. The first sentence records the view that the 'small' is born from the 'large'. The second sentence records the view that the 'small' can generate the 'large'. And calling this statement of 'perhaps the small gives rise to the name of rebirth' as 'maybe', that is, can generate 'large birth'. This is what the confused people say. So it is called 'perhaps'. The second half also has two meanings. 'Birth after birth is still unborn', this is to extract the view of the first sentence, that is, 'small birth' is born from 'large birth'. Therefore, if the self-nature has not yet arisen, how can it generate the fundamental 'birth'? Refuting the second sentence, since it is born from the 'large', then there is no self-nature, how can it generate 'large birth'? The meaning of mutual generation must be that the formless needs to generate the formed to be able to generate. However, now it is momentary. If there is, then there is all; if there is not, then there is none. If there is none, then there is only what is born and not what can be born. If there is all, then there is only what can be born and not what is born. There are only these two situations. There is no such thing as both what can be born and what is born at the same time. Moreover, if the two entities of large and small birth that you speak of arise at the same time, then you lose the two functions. Since the large entity has already arisen, why do you need the small birth? Since the small entity has already arisen, why do you need the large birth? Therefore, if there are two entities, then you lose the two functions. If the two entities have not arisen, but you need the two functions, then without the two entities, where do the functions come from? If you say that the 'small' can generate the 'large', and the 'large entity' has not yet arisen, so you need the 'small birth' to generate it. This only gets one entity and one function, and the reasoning is completely untenable. The 'large entity' has not yet arisen, it is only born from the 'small', and you say 'small generates large'? Moreover, if the 'small' can generate the 'large', you must know that there is no 'large' yet. Since there is no 'large' yet, who will generate the 'small'? Since there is no 'small entity', where will there be 'small function'? Therefore, all the reasons are untenable.
If it is said to be 'birth after birth', the second refutation is not mutually rotating generation. From the structure of the article, it is divided into two parts. One is the long passage initiation, and the other is the verse formal refutation. The initiation here is different from the Madhyamaka-karika. The Madhyamaka-karika directly distinguishes the differences between the two schools, first establishing 'mutually rotating generation', and then establishing 'non-rotating generation'. And this treatise clearly changes the purpose and establishes new righteousness. It is still the previous 'rotating' school that changes the purpose. Moreover, the Madhyamaka-karika clarifies the 'characteristics' (lakṣaṇa) and the 'dharma-nature' (dharmatā), the 'birth characteristic' (janma-lakṣaṇa) can generate itself, and the 'dharma-nature' exists by the 'characteristic'. This is exactly the righteousness of the Satya-siddhi-shastra. This treatise discusses self and other based on 'characteristics', 'small birth' is self-generated, and 'original birth' is generated from others. The difference between the two treatises lies in wanting to universally refute the self-generation and other-generation of all entities and characteristics.
義令盡也。又前二關並破云。小從大生故不能生大。若生大不從大生。次偈云。小生若已有體即不從大生生。若從大生生即小未有。何能生。是故今云。小不從大而能生大。即是提論主破以為立也。
偈本中為二。一破譬說。二破法說。初為四。第一總破燈不照闇。第二別破初燈不能照闇。第三縱二燈能破應遍破闇。第四偈奪破明照闇義。今是初。上半辨二處無所破闇。下半辨無能照明。此過有甚於前。前但得能失所得所失能。今則能所俱失故也。
問曰下生第二偈。此救。三論救燈中最為精巧。上難云。二處無闇。外則提破為立。所以無闇者由初燈力破故無耳。又良由暗滅故有明成。此則無闇有明。云何下半云無能照明耶。答中為二。上半牒而非。下半正破。破意云。汝言初燈破闇令闇無者不然。初燈竟不到闇云何破闇。所以不到者汝義以明暗二法念念不住。前暗既謝后闇應續。而明緣具足起在中間。故后暗住于未來。前暗久謝過去都無相到。云何破耶。初偈辨盛明不見細闇。后偈初明不見粗闇。此如斷惑法上上智慧斷下下惑。下下智慧斷上上惑。
複次下第三偈來者。前明二燈並不到闇破。恐外人云明闇是隔世法雖不相見而能懸破。是故今次破之。又論主借不到破到。今提破而立。上半牒下半
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 義理至此就結束了。前面兩關一併破斥說：『小不能從大產生，所以不能產生大。如果產生大，就不是從小產生。』接下來的偈頌說：『小如果已經有了自體，就不從大產生。如果從小產生，那麼小還沒有產生，怎麼能產生呢？』所以現在說：『小不從大而能產生大』，這就是論主提出破斥來作為立論。
偈頌的原本分為兩部分。一是破斥譬喻之說，二是破斥法義之說。首先是四個部分。第一，總的破斥燈不能照亮黑暗。第二，分別破斥最初的燈不能照亮黑暗。第三，假設兩盞燈能夠破除黑暗，那麼應該普遍地破除黑暗。第四，偈頌否定破除光明照亮黑暗的意義。現在是第一部分。上半部分辨別兩個地方沒有可以破除的黑暗。下半部分辨別沒有能夠照明的東西。這個過失比之前的更嚴重。之前只是得到了能照之物，失去了所照之物，失去了能照的能力。現在則是能照之物和所照之物都失去了。
問：接下來的偈頌是第二偈。這是三論宗對燈的救護中最為精巧的。前面難詰說：『兩個地方沒有黑暗。』外人就提出破斥來作為立論。之所以沒有黑暗，是因為最初的燈的力量破除了黑暗，所以沒有黑暗。又確實是因為黑暗滅了，所以光明才得以成就。這樣就沒有黑暗而有光明。為什麼下半部分說沒有能夠照明的東西呢？答辯分為兩部分。上半部分是照錄並否定，下半部分是正式破斥。破斥的意思是：『你說最初的燈破除了黑暗，使黑暗不存在，不是這樣的。最初的燈最終沒有到達黑暗，怎麼能破除黑暗呢？』之所以沒有到達，是因為按照你的說法，光明和黑暗這兩種法念念不住。之前的黑暗已經過去，之後的黑暗應該延續。而光明的因緣具足，在中間生起。所以之後的黑暗停留在未來，之前的黑暗已經過去，根本沒有相遇，怎麼能破除呢？』最初的偈頌辨別強盛的光明看不見細微的黑暗。後面的偈頌辨別最初的光明看不見粗大的黑暗。這就像斷除迷惑的法門，上上的智慧斷除下下的迷惑，下下的智慧斷除上上的迷惑。
其次，接下來的第三個偈頌到來。前面已經破斥了兩盞燈都不能到達黑暗。恐怕外人會說，光明和黑暗是隔世的法，雖然不能相見，卻能夠遙遠地破除黑暗。所以現在接著破斥它。而且論主借用不到達來破斥到達。現在提出破斥來作為立論。上半部分是照錄，下半部分是正式破斥。
【English Translation】 English version: The meaning ends here. The previous two sections together refuted, saying: 'The small cannot arise from the large, therefore it cannot produce the large. If the large arises, it does not arise from the small.' The following verse says: 'If the small already has its own substance, it does not arise from the large. If it arises from the large, then the small has not yet arisen, how can it produce?' Therefore, it is now said: 'The small can produce the large without arising from the large,' which is the proponent using refutation as a basis for their argument.
The original verse is divided into two parts. First, refuting the analogy. Second, refuting the Dharma teaching. The first part has four sections. First, a general refutation that the lamp cannot illuminate darkness. Second, a separate refutation that the initial lamp cannot illuminate darkness. Third, assuming that two lamps can dispel darkness, then they should universally dispel darkness. Fourth, the verse denies the meaning of light illuminating darkness. This is the first part. The first half distinguishes that there is no darkness to dispel in two places. The second half distinguishes that there is nothing capable of illuminating. This fault is more serious than before. Previously, one only gained the ability to illuminate but lost what was illuminated and the ability to illuminate. Now, both the ability to illuminate and what is illuminated are lost.
Question: The following verse is the second verse. This is the most ingenious defense of the lamp in the Three Treatise School (Sanlun School). The previous objection said: 'There is no darkness in two places.' The outsider then proposes refutation as a basis for argument. The reason there is no darkness is because the power of the initial lamp dispelled the darkness, so there is no darkness. Also, it is precisely because darkness is extinguished that light is achieved. Thus, there is no darkness but there is light. Why does the second half say that there is nothing capable of illuminating? The answer is divided into two parts. The first half is a restatement and denial, the second half is a formal refutation. The meaning of the refutation is: 'You say that the initial lamp dispelled the darkness, causing darkness to not exist, but that is not so. The initial lamp never reached the darkness, how could it dispel the darkness?' The reason it did not reach is because, according to your view, light and darkness, these two dharmas, are constantly changing. The previous darkness has passed, and the subsequent darkness should continue. But the conditions for light are complete, arising in the middle. Therefore, the subsequent darkness remains in the future, and the previous darkness has passed, and they never meet, how can it dispel it?' The initial verse distinguishes that strong light cannot see subtle darkness. The later verse distinguishes that initial light cannot see coarse darkness. This is like the Dharma gate of cutting off delusions, where superior wisdom cuts off inferior delusions, and inferior wisdom cuts off superior delusions.
Next, the third verse arrives. Previously, it was refuted that both lamps cannot reach darkness. Fearing that outsiders would say that light and darkness are dharmas of separate lifetimes, although they cannot see each other, they can remotely dispel darkness. Therefore, now it is further refuted. Moreover, the proponent borrows not reaching to refute reaching. Now, they propose refutation as a basis for argument. The first half is a restatement, the second half is a formal refutation.
破。破意云。若粗細二明不到近輕重二闇。能破近者亦不到遠。應能遍破一切遠闇。二俱應不破。三應破遠不破近。四有破不破有到不到。此偈名縱破者上二門奪其破義辨一切諸明悉不到闇悉不闇破。今縱其破義今一毫之明遍破天下闇也。
第四偈明闇相次稱奪破者。前第三重縱其破義。今辨天下之闇無有破明之理。則天下之明無有破闇之理故名奪破。亦有四難。一明闇俱不相見。明既破闇闇亦破明。二俱不破見明遂不破明。明不見闇亦不破闇。三闇不明不見闇能破闇。闇不見明不破闇者。亦應闇不見明能破明。明不見闇不破闇。四有破不破即有到不到。
如生能下自上以來第一破譬說竟。今第二破法說。云今當更說者。上破譬即是破法竟。今復破者豈非重破。又上就見闇不見闇門破。今就已未二門更開異門。故云更說。偈開已未二門破其自生。自生是體生他是用。猶無有體安有用耶。故但破自。問為自未生為本已生。若自生本未有。未有是無。無何由生。若本已有是生何須更生。婆沙亦有此問為已生生。若已生生則有轉還過。從未來來現在現在更往未來。若未生生則有本無今有過。彼文答二意。約本無事用即未生生約本有體性則已生生。無二過也。將此論望彼二義還成二難。本無有事即是本無今有。墮
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 破。破的含義是說，如果粗細兩種光明都不能到達近處的輕重兩種黑暗，那麼能破除近處黑暗的光明也不能到達遠處。那麼，應該能普遍破除一切遠處的黑暗。或者，兩者都不應該破除黑暗。或者，應該破除遠處的黑暗而不破除近處的黑暗。或者，有破除也有不破除，即有到達也有不到達。這首偈頌名為縱破者，以上述兩種情況否定了破除的含義，辨明一切光明都不能到達黑暗，一切光明都不破除黑暗。現在姑且認可破除的含義，即使一毫之光也能遍破天下的黑暗。
第四首偈頌說明光明和黑暗相互依存，否定破除的說法。前面的第三重論證姑且認可了破除的含義，現在辨明天下之黑暗沒有破除光明的道理，那麼天下之光明也沒有破除黑暗的道理，所以稱為否定破除。也有四種詰難。一是光明和黑暗都不能互相看見，光明既然能破除黑暗，黑暗也能破除光明。二是兩者都不破除，看見光明就不能破除光明，光明不能看見黑暗也不能破除黑暗。三是黑暗不明亮，不能看見黑暗卻能破除黑暗，黑暗不能看見光明，不能破除黑暗，那麼，也應該黑暗不能看見光明卻能破除光明，光明不能看見黑暗，不能破除黑暗。四是有破除也有不破除，即有到達也有不到達。
就像生能從上到下，第一種破除譬喻的說法結束。現在是第二種破除法義的說法。說『現在應當再說』，上面破除譬喻就已經破除了法義，現在又破除，難道不是重複破除嗎？而且上面是從看見黑暗和不能看見黑暗的角度來破除，現在從已生和未生的角度來開啟不同的論證，所以說『再說』。偈頌開啟已生和未生兩種角度，破除其自生。自生是本體，他生是用。沒有本體，哪裡能安立作用呢？所以只破除自生。問：是自體未生，還是本來已生？如果自生本來沒有，沒有就是無，無從何而來？如果本來已有，那麼生又何須再生？《婆沙論》也有這個問題：是已生而生，還是未生而生？如果是已生而生，那麼就有返回的過失，從未來到現在，現在又回到未來。如果是未生而生，那麼就有本來沒有現在有的過失。那篇文章回答了兩種意思：從本來沒有事用的角度來說，就是未生而生；從本來有體性的角度來說，就是已生而生，沒有兩種過失。將這個論點來看待那兩種含義，還是會形成兩種詰難。本來沒有事用，就是本來沒有現在有，墮入...
【English Translation】 English version Refutation. The meaning of 'refutation' is this: If the two kinds of brightness, coarse and fine, cannot reach the two kinds of darkness, light and heavy, then the brightness that can dispel the darkness nearby cannot reach the distance either. Then, it should be able to universally dispel all distant darkness. Or, neither should dispel darkness. Or, it should dispel distant darkness but not dispel nearby darkness. Or, there is dispelling and not dispelling, that is, there is reaching and not reaching. This verse is called 'Admitting the Refutation,' using the above two cases to negate the meaning of dispelling, clarifying that all brightness cannot reach darkness, and all brightness does not dispel darkness. Now, let's tentatively accept the meaning of dispelling, even a tiny bit of light can dispel the darkness of the whole world.
The fourth verse explains that light and darkness are interdependent, denying the claim of dispelling. The previous third argument tentatively accepted the meaning of dispelling. Now, it clarifies that there is no reason for the darkness of the world to dispel light, then there is no reason for the light of the world to dispel darkness, so it is called denying dispelling. There are also four difficulties. First, light and darkness cannot see each other. Since light can dispel darkness, darkness can also dispel light. Second, neither dispels. Seeing light cannot dispel light, light cannot see darkness and cannot dispel darkness. Third, darkness is not bright, cannot see darkness but can dispel darkness, darkness cannot see light, cannot dispel darkness, then, it should also be that darkness cannot see light but can dispel light, light cannot see darkness, cannot dispel darkness. Fourth, there is dispelling and not dispelling, that is, there is reaching and not reaching.
Like birth, from top to bottom, the first refutation by analogy ends. Now is the second refutation by Dharma. Saying 'Now we should say again,' above, refuting the analogy has already refuted the Dharma, now refuting again, isn't it a repeated refutation? Moreover, the above is from the perspective of seeing darkness and not seeing darkness to refute, now from the perspective of already born and not yet born to open up different arguments, so it is said 'say again.' The verse opens up the two perspectives of already born and not yet born, refuting its self-birth. Self-birth is the substance, other-birth is the function. Without the substance, where can the function be established? So only refute self-birth. Question: Is the self not yet born, or originally already born? If self-birth originally does not exist, non-existence is nothingness, from where does nothingness come? If it originally already exists, then why does birth need to be born again? The Vibhasa also has this question: Is it born from what is already born, or born from what is not yet born? If it is born from what is already born, then there is the fault of returning, from the future to the present, and the present back to the future. If it is born from what is not yet born, then there is the fault of originally not having what is now. That article answers two meanings: from the perspective of originally not having function, it is born from what is not yet born; from the perspective of originally having substance, it is born from what is already born, there are no two faults. Looking at those two meanings with this argument, it will still form two difficulties. Originally not having function is originally not having what is now, falling into...
未生生本已有性墮已生生。偈及長行文並可解。是故生住滅下第三總結齊法。從品初第二偈至此長行。前釋品初偈明有為法不以相成。今從此文竟品破無為。釋品初偈無為法不相成。又二。第一別以四句破無為法。第二總結。今是初以有為破無為。有為無故無為則無。複次下前第一明有為體無故無為體亦無。今第二明無為相無故無無為。從初破生。上破云。無有為故無無為。外云。正由無有為則是無為。是故今破。無有為則無有相。有何無為耶。
若謂下第三破。從第二破生。有相故是有為。良由無相故是無為。是以論主開有無二門責覓無相不得。若因有相知無相則有相是無相家相。不名無有相。若以無相知無相。不可知無相。不可知故非是有無為也。
若謂如眾衣第四破。從第三破生。汝以有無二門責無無相者不然。正不可知故即是無相法。喻如眾衣有相故可知一衣無相。亦可知雖無相之可知而有無相可知。就文有三。初牒二總非三正破。初前牒譬說。次牒合譬。是事不然第二總非。何以故下第三正破。破有二。前破法說。明既無有為之相云何因相而知無相。又衣喻下第二次破譬說。是故有為法皆空下。第二總結。以辨三空也。
十二門論疏卷中之末 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1825
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『未生生本已有性墮已生生』，這句偈頌以及後面的長行文都可以解釋。因此，在『生、住、滅』之後，第三部分總結了齊法。從本品開始的第二首偈頌到這段長行文，前面解釋了本品開始的偈頌，說明有為法不是以相而成就的。現在從這段文字結束本品，破斥無為法。解釋本品開始的偈頌，說明無為法不是以相而成就的。又分為兩部分：第一部分分別用四句來破斥無為法；第二部分進行總結。現在是第一部分，用有為法來破斥無為法。因為有為法不存在，所以無為法也不存在。接下來，前面第一點說明有為法的本體不存在，所以無為法的本體也不存在。現在第二點說明無為法的相不存在，所以也沒有無無為。從最初破斥『生』開始。前面破斥說：『因為沒有有為法，所以沒有無為法。』外道辯解說：『正因為沒有有為法，所以才是無為法。』因此現在破斥：沒有有為法，就沒有有為法的相，那有什麼無為法呢？
『若謂』以下是第三次破斥，從第二次破斥『生』開始。因為有相，所以是有為法；正因為沒有相，所以是無為法。因此，論主開啟有和無兩個門來責問，尋找無相卻找不到。如果因為有相而知道無相，那麼有相就是無相家的相，不能稱為沒有有相。如果用無相來了解無相，那是無法瞭解的。因為無法瞭解，所以不是有無為。
『若謂如眾衣』以下是第四次破斥，從第三次破斥『生』開始。你說用有和無兩個門來責問沒有無相是不對的，正因為不可知，所以就是無相法。比喻就像眾多的衣服有相，所以可以知道；一件衣服沒有相，也可以知道。雖然沒有相，但可以知道沒有相，而有無相可知。就文義來說，分為三部分：首先是引述，然後是總體的否定，最後是正式的破斥。首先引述比喻，然後引述合譬。『是事不然』是第二次總體否定。『何以故』以下是第三次正式破斥。破斥分為兩部分：前面破斥法說，說明既然沒有有為法的相，怎麼能因為相而知道無相呢？『又衣喻』以下是第二次破斥譬喻。『是故有為法皆空』以下是第二次總結，用來辨別三空。
《十二門論疏》卷中之末 《大正藏》第42冊 No. 1825
【English Translation】 English version: 『The un-produced is inherently possessed of nature, the fallen already produced.』 This verse and the subsequent prose can both be explained. Therefore, after 『birth, abiding, and decay,』 the third part summarizes the Dharma equally. From the second verse at the beginning of this chapter to this long passage, the preceding explanation of the initial verse of the chapter clarifies that conditioned dharmas (有為法) (saṃskṛta-dharma) are not accomplished by characteristics (相) (lakṣaṇa). Now, from this passage to the end of the chapter, refute unconditioned dharmas (無為法) (asaṃskṛta-dharma). Explaining the initial verse of the chapter, it clarifies that unconditioned dharmas are not accomplished by characteristics. This is further divided into two parts: the first part refutes unconditioned dharmas using four statements separately; the second part provides a summary. Now, this is the first part, using conditioned dharmas to refute unconditioned dharmas. Because conditioned dharmas do not exist, unconditioned dharmas also do not exist. Furthermore, the first point above clarifies that because the substance of conditioned dharmas does not exist, the substance of unconditioned dharmas also does not exist. Now, the second point clarifies that because the characteristics of unconditioned dharmas do not exist, there is also no non-unconditioned. It begins with the initial refutation of 『birth.』 The preceding refutation stated: 『Because there are no conditioned dharmas, there are no unconditioned dharmas.』 The outsider argues: 『Precisely because there are no conditioned dharmas, that is unconditioned.』 Therefore, now refute: if there are no conditioned dharmas, there are no characteristics of conditioned dharmas, then what unconditioned dharma is there?
『If it is said』 below is the third refutation, starting from the second refutation of 『birth.』 Because there are characteristics, it is conditioned dharma; precisely because there are no characteristics, it is unconditioned dharma. Therefore, the author opens the two doors of existence and non-existence to question, seeking characteristics but not finding them. If one knows non-existence of characteristics because of the existence of characteristics, then the existence of characteristics is the characteristic of the school of non-existence of characteristics, and cannot be called the non-existence of characteristics. If one uses non-existence of characteristics to understand non-existence of characteristics, it is impossible to understand. Because it is impossible to understand, it is not the existence of unconditioned.
『If it is said like many clothes』 below is the fourth refutation, starting from the third refutation of 『birth.』 You say that using the two doors of existence and non-existence to question the absence of non-characteristics is incorrect; precisely because it is unknowable, it is the dharma of non-characteristics. The analogy is like many clothes having characteristics, so it can be known; one piece of clothing has no characteristics, and this can also be known. Although there are no characteristics, it can be known that there are no characteristics, and the non-existence of characteristics can be known. Regarding the text, it is divided into three parts: first, quoting; then, general negation; and finally, formal refutation. First, quoting the analogy; then, quoting the combined analogy. 『This is not so』 is the second general negation. 『Why』 below is the third formal refutation. The refutation is divided into two parts: the preceding refutation of the Dharma, clarifying that since there are no characteristics of conditioned dharmas, how can one know non-characteristics because of characteristics? 『Also, the analogy of clothes』 below is the second refutation of the analogy. 『Therefore, all conditioned dharmas are empty』 below is the second summary, used to distinguish the three emptinesses (三空) (tri-śūnyatā).
《Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise》, end of scroll middle Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42, No. 1825
十二門論疏
十二門論疏卷下之本
觀有相無相門第五
問上門明有為無為二法俱無有相。此即破一切法體相皆盡。又上破有為相中有四門。破展轉義前後一時。破不展轉義到不到及已未門。此四能破門破有為相盡。破無為相亦有四門。一用有為破無為體門。二破無為相門。三無相有無為門。四無因待故無有無為門。若爾能破所破一切相窮。何因緣故更說此門。答所相是眾病之根。上破雖窮今重以有無門更責有為無為相。汝必言有有為無為二種相者。此二法為前有相后以相相之。為前無相后將相相之。二門求不可得。云何言有為無為二種相耶。前門名為正破。此門名縱有。故更撿之。二者上破通相。謂生住滅通相一切有為法。今破別相。謂人瓶柱地各有于相。通別備窮相義方盡。又前破隱相。一剎那中有生住異滅。此事微隱難以取悟。今破顯相如瓶柱等。即取悟為易。故說此門。又前破標相。三相能標別法體。是于有為今破體相。如熱為火體相。撿標體二相俱無。諸相乃盡。以一切相盡則心無所取。故取相心斷。又心則是相。求一切相不可得故則無心相。無心相故無能取。此則于外無數于內無心。彼已寂滅名為涅槃也。然相既無。無相亦無。亦相無相非相無相亦無。故四境絕四心斷四言寂。則是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《十二門論疏》卷下之本
第五品 觀有相無相門
問：上一品已經闡明有為法和無為法這兩種法都沒有自性（有相）。這實際上已經破除了所有法的實體和現象，使其歸於空無。而且，上一品破斥有為法的自性時，使用了四種方式：破斥『展轉』（相互作用）的觀點，包括『前後』和『一時』；破斥『不展轉』（非相互作用）的觀點，包括『到』、『不到』以及『已』、『未』。這四種能破之門已經徹底破除了有為法的自性。破斥無為法的自性也有四種方式：一是利用有為法來破斥無為法的本體；二是破斥無為法的現象；三是認為無自性的事物不可能有無為法；四是認為無因無待，所以沒有無為法。如果這樣，能破和所破的一切自性都已窮盡，為何還要再討論這一品呢？
答：執著于『相』是眾病的根源。雖然上一品已經徹底破斥了『相』，但現在再次用『有』和『無』的觀點來進一步責難有為法和無為法的自性。如果你們一定要說有有為法和無為法這兩種自性，那麼這兩種法是先有自性，然後用自性來互相識別呢？還是先沒有自性，然後用自性來識別呢？這兩種方式都無法成立。怎麼能說有有為法和無為法這兩種自性呢？上一品是直接破斥，而這一品是假設對方存在『相』來進行辯駁，所以要再次進行考察。其次，上一品破斥的是共相，比如生、住、滅是所有有為法共有的特徵。而這一品破斥的是別相，比如人和瓶子、柱子、土地各有不同的特徵。只有共相和別相都徹底破斥，才能窮盡『相』的含義。此外，上一品破斥的是隱蔽的『相』，比如一個剎那間有生、住、異、滅，這種現象非常細微隱蔽，難以理解。而這一品破斥的是顯而易見的『相』，比如瓶子、柱子等，更容易理解。所以要討論這一品。還有，上一品破斥的是標相，即三種相能標示不同的法體，這是有為法的特徵。而這一品破斥的是體相，比如熱是火的體相。考察標相和體相，發現兩者都不存在，這樣才能徹底破除一切『相』。因為一切『相』都不存在，所以內心沒有執取。因此，執取『相』的心念就會斷滅。而且，心本身也是一種『相』。探求一切『相』都不可得，所以也就沒有心相。沒有心相，就沒有能執取的主體。這樣，對外沒有無數的境界，對內沒有執取的心念，達到寂滅的狀態，就叫做涅槃。
然而，既然『相』不存在，那麼『無相』也不存在。『亦相亦無相』、『非相非無相』也都不存在。所以，四種境界斷絕，四種心念斷滅，四種言語寂靜，這就是涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version The End of the Second Scroll of the Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise
Chapter 5: Contemplating Existence and Non-existence
Question: The previous chapter clarified that both conditioned (with characteristics) and unconditioned (without characteristics) dharmas lack inherent existence (self-nature). This essentially refutes the inherent substance and characteristics of all dharmas, reducing them to emptiness. Furthermore, the previous chapter refuted the characteristics of conditioned dharmas using four approaches: refuting the notion of 'mutual interaction' (dependent origination), including 'before and after' and 'simultaneous'; refuting the notion of 'non-mutual interaction' (independent origination), including 'arriving,' 'not arriving,' and 'already,' 'not yet.' These four refuting gates thoroughly negate the characteristics of conditioned dharmas. The characteristics of unconditioned dharmas were also refuted using four approaches: first, using conditioned dharmas to refute the substance of unconditioned dharmas; second, refuting the characteristics of unconditioned dharmas; third, arguing that things without characteristics cannot have unconditioned dharmas; fourth, arguing that because there is no cause or condition, there are no unconditioned dharmas. If this is the case, and the characteristics of both the refuter and the refuted are exhausted, why is this chapter being discussed again?
Answer: Attachment to 'characteristics' is the root of all suffering. Although the previous chapter thoroughly refuted 'characteristics,' we now use the perspectives of 'existence' and 'non-existence' to further challenge the characteristics of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. If you insist that there are two types of characteristics, those of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, then do these two dharmas first have characteristics, and then use those characteristics to recognize each other? Or do they first lack characteristics, and then use characteristics to recognize each other? Neither of these approaches holds up. How can you say that there are two types of characteristics, those of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas? The previous chapter was a direct refutation, while this chapter argues by assuming the existence of 'characteristics' to refute them, so it needs to be examined again. Secondly, the previous chapter refuted common characteristics, such as arising, abiding, and ceasing, which are common to all conditioned dharmas. This chapter refutes specific characteristics, such as the different characteristics of people, bottles, pillars, and land. Only by thoroughly refuting both common and specific characteristics can the meaning of 'characteristics' be exhausted. Furthermore, the previous chapter refuted subtle characteristics, such as arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing occurring in a single instant, which is very subtle and difficult to understand. This chapter refutes obvious characteristics, such as those of bottles and pillars, which are easier to understand. That's why this chapter is being discussed. Also, the previous chapter refuted indicative characteristics, that is, the three characteristics that can indicate different dharma-substances, which is a characteristic of conditioned dharmas. This chapter refutes substantial characteristics, such as heat being the substantial characteristic of fire. Examining both indicative and substantial characteristics, we find that neither exists, and only then can all 'characteristics' be thoroughly refuted. Because all 'characteristics' do not exist, the mind has no attachment. Therefore, the mind that clings to 'characteristics' will be extinguished. Moreover, the mind itself is also a kind of 'characteristic.' Seeking all 'characteristics' is unattainable, so there is no mind-characteristic. Without a mind-characteristic, there is no subject that can grasp. In this way, externally there are no countless realms, and internally there is no grasping mind. Reaching the state of quiescence is called Nirvana.
However, since 'characteristics' do not exist, then 'non-characteristics' also do not exist. 'Both characteristics and non-characteristics' and 'neither characteristics nor non-characteristics' also do not exist. Therefore, the four realms are cut off, the four minds are cut off, and the four languages are silenced. This is Nirvana.
實相法身佛性法界也。問有無為是能破為是所破。答具有二種。若直執有相則開有無二門責之故是能破。若執有無則有無是所破。問用何破破有無耶。答有二種。一借有破無借無破有。謂對緣假破。二就有求有無蹤。名就緣假破。
此門亦三。一生起。二門體。三總結齊法。
偈上半開二門以破于相。下半攝法。有相無相不相者有二義。一者如柱。前已有圓相不須更將圓相相之。二前已有相更以相相是則無窮。無相亦有二義。一者若無圓相則無柱體相。無所相。二者物若無相以相相之終自不著。柱是有為。既作二門責。無為亦作二門責之。下半攝法者此二有故相有。二門無故相無。
長行釋上下半。即二。釋上半有無門即二。破有相中又二。一正破二結破。初又二。第一作相無用破。複次下第二重相破也。是故下第二總結。
無相中下破無相中相義。就文為四。初總標無相中相不相。何法名無相下第二責不見無相法。如中論無有無相法。以有為無為各有相故有有為無為。若無相則無有為無為也。如像有雙牙下第三齣無無相法。若離是相下第四結無無相法。
如是有相中者第二釋下半。
是故相無所相下第三總結齊法。又為二。初別結無四法。次結三空。結無四法者。一明相無故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 實相（Shixiang，真實存在的性質）法身（Fashen，佛的法性之身）佛性（Foxing，成佛的內在潛力）法界（Fajie，宇宙萬法的總稱）也是如此。問：『有』和『無』哪個是能破斥的，哪個是所破斥的？』答：『兩者都具有。如果直接執著于『有』的表相，那麼就開啟『有』和『無』兩扇門來責難它，所以『有』是能破斥的。如果執著于『有』和『無』，那麼『有』和『無』就是所破斥的。』問：『用什麼來破斥『有』和『無』呢？』答：『有兩種方法。一是借用『有』來破斥『無』，借用『無』來破斥『有』，這叫做對緣假破。二是在『有』中尋求『有』的軌跡，在『無』中尋求『無』的軌跡，這叫做就緣假破。』
這一門也分為三個部分：一生起，二門體，三總結齊法。
偈的上半部分開啟『有』和『無』兩扇門來破斥表相，下半部分則攝取佛法。『有相』、『無相』、『不相』有兩種含義。一是比如柱子，之前已經有了圓的表相，不需要再用圓的表相去描繪它。二是之前已經有了表相，再用表相去描繪它，那麼就會無窮無盡。『無相』也有兩種含義。一是如果沒有圓的表相，那麼就沒有柱子的形體，也就沒有可以描繪的對象。二是事物如果沒有表相，用表相去描繪它，最終也不會附著。柱子是『有為』法（Youwei，因緣和合而成的現象）。既然已經用『有』和『無』兩扇門來責難『有為』法，那麼也應該用『有』和『無』兩扇門來責難『無為』法（Wuwei，不依賴因緣的永恒狀態）。下半部分攝取佛法，是因為『有』的表相存在，所以『有』的表相才存在；『有』和『無』兩扇門不存在，所以『有』的表相才不存在。
長行解釋偈的上下半部分，分為兩部分。解釋上半部分的『有』和『無』門，也分為兩部分：破斥『有相』，然後總結破斥。在破斥『有相』中，又分為兩部分：一是正面破斥，二是總結破斥。正面破斥又分為兩部分：第一是用作表相沒有用處來破斥，其次是用重複作表相來破斥。最後是總結。
在『無相』中，破斥『無相』中的表相的含義。按照文義分為四個部分：首先總標『無相』中表相不相。其次是責問為什麼看不見『無相』法。如同《中論》所說，沒有『無相』法，因為『有為』和『無為』各有表相，所以才有『有為』和『無為』。如果沒有表相，那麼就沒有『有為』和『無為』。如同大象有雙牙一樣，第三是指出沒有『無無相』法。如果離開這個表相，第四是總結沒有『無無相』法。
『如是有相中者』，第二是解釋下半部分。
『是故相無所相』，第三是總結齊法。又分為兩部分：首先分別總結沒有四法，其次總結三空。總結沒有四法，一是說明表相不存在。
【English Translation】 English version: The true nature of reality (Shixiang), the Dharmakaya (Fashen, the Dharma body of the Buddha), Buddha-nature (Foxing, the inherent potential for Buddhahood), and the Dharmadhatu (Fajie, the totality of all phenomena in the universe) are all like this. Question: 'Which, 'existence' or 'non-existence,' is the one that can refute, and which is the one that is refuted?' Answer: 'Both have two aspects. If one directly clings to the appearance of 'existence,' then the two gates of 'existence' and 'non-existence' are opened to criticize it, so 'existence' is the one that can refute. If one clings to 'existence' and 'non-existence,' then 'existence' and 'non-existence' are what are refuted.' Question: 'What is used to refute 'existence' and 'non-existence'?' Answer: 'There are two methods. One is to borrow 'existence' to refute 'non-existence,' and to borrow 'non-existence' to refute 'existence,' which is called refuting based on conditions. The second is to seek the traces of 'existence' in 'existence,' and to seek the traces of 'non-existence' in 'non-existence,' which is called refuting based on conditions.'
This section is also divided into three parts: first, the arising; second, the essence of the gates; and third, the summary of the equal Dharma.
The first half of the verse opens the two gates of 'existence' and 'non-existence' to refute appearances, while the second half encompasses the Dharma. 'Appearance,' 'non-appearance,' and 'neither appearance nor non-appearance' have two meanings. One is like a pillar, which already has a round appearance, so there is no need to further depict it with a round appearance. Second, if there is already an appearance, depicting it with another appearance would be endless. 'Non-appearance' also has two meanings. One is that if there is no round appearance, then there is no form of the pillar, and there is nothing to depict. Second, if a thing has no appearance, depicting it with an appearance will ultimately not adhere. A pillar is a conditioned phenomenon (Youwei, phenomena arising from the combination of causes and conditions). Since the two gates of 'existence' and 'non-existence' have been used to criticize conditioned phenomena, then the two gates of 'existence' and 'non-existence' should also be used to criticize unconditioned phenomena (Wuwei, the eternal state independent of conditions). The second half encompasses the Dharma because the appearance of 'existence' exists, so the appearance of 'existence' exists; the two gates of 'existence' and 'non-existence' do not exist, so the appearance of 'existence' does not exist.
The long passage explains the first and second halves of the verse, divided into two parts. Explaining the gates of 'existence' and 'non-existence' in the first half is also divided into two parts: refuting 'appearance,' and then summarizing the refutation. In refuting 'appearance,' there are again two parts: first, directly refuting; and second, summarizing the refutation. The direct refutation is divided into two parts: first, refuting by showing that making appearances is useless; and second, refuting by making repeated appearances. Finally, there is the summary.
In 'non-appearance,' the meaning of appearance in 'non-appearance' is refuted. According to the text, it is divided into four parts: first, generally stating that appearance in 'non-appearance' is not appearance. Second, questioning why the Dharma of 'non-appearance' is not seen. As the Madhyamaka-karika (Zhong Lun) says, there is no Dharma of 'non-appearance,' because conditioned and unconditioned phenomena each have appearances, so there are conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. If there is no appearance, then there are no conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. Just as an elephant has tusks, the third is to point out that there is no Dharma of 'no non-appearance.' If one departs from this appearance, the fourth is to conclude that there is no Dharma of 'no non-appearance.'
'As there is appearance in existence,' the second is to explain the second half.
'Therefore, appearance has nothing to appear,' the third is to summarize the equal Dharma. It is again divided into two parts: first, separately summarizing that there are no four Dharmas; and second, summarizing the three emptinesses. Summarizing that there are no four Dharmas, the first is to explain that appearance does not exist.
可相無。二明相可相空故萬法空。三物空故則無物空。次明物無物空故有為空。文處易知。有為空故下結歸三空。
觀一異門第六
問上已破通別隱顯體標諸相竟。何故復有此門。答有二種義。一者外人不受上二門破明我自有相可相一義自有相可相異義。云何言無相可相耶。今破彼一異義故說此門。二者論主前二門破之雖窮。今蹤有之重開一異以破外也。問何故重開一異。答一異之破是諸破中顯。欲令觀心易悟故就一異破。二者一異是十四難本六十二見根。今欲窮其根本就一異門破。一異門破者通問。上二門標體兩相與所相為一為異。故名一異門破。然此一異非但破相可相。真俗惑解人法萬義。但寄相可相一事以例諸法也。問此門為從能破立名所破立名。答具二義。外直立相可相。論主開一異二門責之。則從能破立名。望下救義立於一異。今破彼一異。從所破立名。若一異是所破還用對就二假。如上明之。問何故不題觀相可相一異門直稱觀一異。答一為存略。二欲遍觀一切法一異不可得故不別題相可相一異也。又上有相無相門從別立名。今從通受稱。互舉也。
品亦三。初長行發起。
偈為二。上半牒相可相一異求之無蹤。下半結破明一異無故相可相。
長行為四。一釋偈本。二救。
【現代漢語翻譯】 可相存在嗎？二，說明相是可被認識的空性，因此萬法皆空。三，物體是空性的，因此不存在物體的空性。接下來闡明物體和物體空性的關係，因此存在有為法。這些文句的位置容易理解。因為有為法是空性的，所以下面總結歸於三空。
觀一異門第六
問：上面已經破斥了普遍、個別、隱蔽、顯現的體和標的各種相，為什麼還要有這個門？答：有兩種意義。一是外道不接受上面兩門破斥，認為我自有相和可相的一義，我自有相和可相的異義。怎麼能說沒有相和可相呢？現在爲了破斥他們的一異義，所以說這個門。二是論主前面兩門雖然破斥得很徹底，現在重新開啟一異來破斥外道。問：為什麼要重新開啟一異？答：一異的破斥是各種破斥中最明顯的，想要讓觀心容易領悟，所以就一異來破斥。二是，一異是十四難（chaturdha-prashnah）的根本，是六十二見（shashti-drishti）的根源。現在想要窮盡其根本，就一異門來破斥。一異門的破斥是普遍的提問。上面兩門標明體和兩相與所相是一還是異？所以名叫一異門破。然而，這個一異不僅僅是破斥相和可相，還包括真俗、迷惑和解脫、人法萬義。只是借用相和可相一事來比喻諸法。問：這個門是從能破立名，還是從所破立名？答：兼具兩種意義。外道直接立相和可相，論主開啟一異二門來責問他們。這是從能破立名。相對於下面救義立於一異，現在破斥他們的一異，是從所破立名。如果一異是所破，還用對就二假，如上面所說。問：為什麼不題觀相可相一異門，而直接稱觀一異？答：一是爲了簡略。二是想要普遍觀察一切法的一異都不可得，所以不特別題相可相一異。又，上面有相無相門是從個別立名，現在是從普遍接受來稱呼，是互相舉例。
品也分為三部分。首先是長行發起。
偈頌分為兩部分。上半部分陳述相和可相的一異，尋求卻無軌跡。下半部分總結破斥，說明一異不存在，所以相和可相也不存在。
長行分為四個部分。一是解釋偈頌的根本含義。二是救濟。
【English Translation】 Can the cognizable characteristic exist? Secondly, it explains that characteristics are cognizable emptiness, therefore all dharmas are empty. Thirdly, objects are empty, therefore there is no emptiness of objects. Next, it clarifies the relationship between objects and the emptiness of objects, therefore conditioned dharmas exist. The positions of these sentences are easy to understand. Because conditioned dharmas are empty, the following concludes by returning to the three emptinesses (tri-shunyata).
Chapter Six: Observation of Oneness and Difference
Question: Above, you have already refuted the universal, particular, hidden, and manifest characteristics of substance and mark. Why is there still this chapter? Answer: There are two meanings. First, externalists do not accept the refutations of the previous two chapters, believing in the oneness of 'I' with its own characteristic and cognizable characteristic, and the difference of 'I' with its own characteristic and cognizable characteristic. How can you say there are no characteristic and cognizable characteristic? Now, to refute their views on oneness and difference, this chapter is presented. Second, although the author has thoroughly refuted in the previous two chapters, now he reopens the discussion of oneness and difference to refute externalists. Question: Why reopen the discussion of oneness and difference? Answer: The refutation of oneness and difference is the most obvious among all refutations. To make contemplation easier to understand, we refute based on oneness and difference. Second, oneness and difference are the root of the fourteen unanswerable questions (chaturdha-prashnah) and the source of the sixty-two views (shashti-drishti). Now, to exhaust their root, we refute based on the chapter of oneness and difference. The refutation of the chapter of oneness and difference is a universal question. The previous two chapters marked substance and the two characteristics as being one or different from what is cognized. Therefore, it is called the refutation of the chapter of oneness and difference. However, this oneness and difference not only refutes characteristic and cognizable characteristic, but also includes truth and convention, delusion and liberation, people, dharmas, and all meanings. It merely uses the matter of characteristic and cognizable characteristic as an analogy for all dharmas. Question: Is this chapter named from the ability to refute or from what is being refuted? Answer: It has both meanings. Externalists directly establish characteristic and cognizable characteristic, and the author opens the two doors of oneness and difference to question them. This is named from the ability to refute. Relative to the meaning of salvation established in oneness and difference below, now refuting their oneness and difference is named from what is being refuted. If oneness and difference are what is being refuted, then the two falsities of opposition and dependence are still used, as mentioned above. Question: Why not title it 'Chapter on Observing the Oneness and Difference of Characteristic and Cognizable Characteristic' but directly call it 'Chapter on Observing Oneness and Difference'? Answer: One is for brevity. Two is to universally observe that the oneness and difference of all dharmas are unattainable, so it does not specifically title characteristic and cognizable characteristic oneness and difference. Also, the previous chapter on characteristic and non-characteristic was named from the particular, now it is named from universal acceptance, which is mutual illustration.
The chapter is also divided into three parts. First, the prose passage initiates.
The verses are divided into two parts. The first half states the oneness and difference of characteristic and cognizable characteristic, seeking but finding no trace. The second half concludes the refutation, stating that oneness and difference do not exist, so characteristic and cognizable characteristic also do not exist.
The prose passage is divided into four parts. First, it explains the fundamental meaning of the verses. Second, it provides a remedy.
三破救。四總結。釋偈本為二。初正釋。次例破一切法。初又二。前釋上半。次釋下半。文處易知。
問曰下第二。又開三別。初總立義呵論主。第二別立義釋成己宗。三結成義宗呵論主。初二句前總立總呵。相可相常成此總立也。何故不成總呵也。汝說相可相下別牒論主一異。今當別說許答一異。凡物下第二章別立義釋成己宗。又二。前別立三章。如識相下釋三章門。初章舉識受二法證相可相一。此二種是心法也。只分別是識相。只識能分別。故相可相一也。如佛說下次舉二事證相可相異。初舉涅槃相可相異。以愛為能相。涅槃是所相。則舉果也。如信者下釋次信者相可相異。此舉因。以三事為相。信為可相。如正見下第三舉二事釋第三章門。道具八事。正見為道小分。此舉別法也。生住滅是有為家小分故名小分是能相多分是所相。此舉總法。故此六事有於三雙。初心法一雙。次因果。后總別。是故下第三總結義宗以呵論主答曰下第三破救為二。前別破三事。次總結破。別破三事即三。破相可相一又三。第一明相可相一不應云因相知可相。此則是相相。如自觸指複次下第二明相可相一不應分別是相可相。然法體既不可分別。亦無能分別智。第三明相因可相是果理不應一。汝說相異可相第二次破異。又三。一破
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三破救（三種破斥和辯護）。四總結（四種總結）。解釋偈頌原本分為二部分：首先是正式解釋，其次是舉例破斥一切法。最初的部分又分為二部分：前面解釋上半部分，後面解釋下半部分。文句所在的位置容易辨認。
『問曰』（問道）以下是第二部分，又分為三個小部分：首先是總的樹立觀點並呵斥論主，第二是分別樹立觀點來解釋併成就自己的宗派，第三是總結成就自己的宗派並呵斥論主。最初的兩句是前面總的樹立觀點和總的呵斥。『相可相常』（能相和所相是常有的）成就了這個總的樹立。為什麼不能成就總的呵斥呢？你說的『相可相』（能相和所相）以下是分別列舉論主的一異。現在應當分別說明允許一異。『凡物』（一切事物）以下是第二章，分別樹立觀點來解釋併成就自己的宗派。又分為二部分：前面分別樹立三章，如『識相』（認識的相）以下是解釋三章的門徑。第一章舉出『識』（意識）和『受』（感受）兩種法來證明能相和所相是一致的。這兩種是心法。僅僅分別是認識的相，僅僅認識能夠分別，所以能相和所相是一致的。如『佛說』（佛說）以下是舉出兩件事來證明能相和所相是不同的。首先舉出涅槃的能相和所相是不同的，以愛為能相，涅槃是所相，這是舉出結果。如『信者』（信者）以下是解釋其次信者的能相和所相是不同的，這是舉出原因，以三事為相，信為可相。如『正見』（正見）以下是第三，舉出兩件事來解釋第三章的門徑。道具八事，正見是道的小部分，這是舉出別法。生住滅是有為家的小部分，所以名為小分，是能相，大部分是所相。因此這六件事有三雙：首先是心法一雙，其次是因果，最後是總別。『是故』（因此）以下是第三，總結義宗來呵斥論主。『答曰』（回答說）以下是第三，破斥和辯護分為二部分：前面是分別破斥三件事，後面是總結破斥。分別破斥三件事即是三部分：破斥能相和所相一致，又分為三部分。第一，說明能相和所相一致不應該說因相知可相，這則是相相。如『自觸指』（自己觸控手指）。『複次』（再次）以下是第二，說明能相和所相一致不應該分別是相可相，然而法體既然不可分別，也沒有能分別的智慧。第三，說明能相因可相是果的道理不應該一致。你說的相異可相，第二次破斥相異，又分為三部分：一破
【English Translation】 English version Three refutations and defenses. Four summaries. The explanation of the verses is originally divided into two parts: first, the formal explanation; second, examples to refute all dharmas. The initial part is further divided into two: the first explains the first half, and the second explains the second half. The location of the sentences is easy to recognize.
『Question:』 (問曰) below is the second part, further divided into three sub-parts: first, to establish a general view and criticize the proponent; second, to separately establish views to explain and accomplish one's own school; third, to summarize and accomplish one's own school and criticize the proponent. The first two sentences are the general establishment of a view and the general criticism. 『Aspects are acceptable and constant』 (相可相常) accomplishes this general establishment. Why can't it accomplish a general criticism? What you said about 『aspects are acceptable』 (相可相) below is a separate enumeration of the proponent's sameness and difference. Now, we should separately explain the permission of sameness and difference. 『All things』 (凡物) below is the second chapter, separately establishing views to explain and accomplish one's own school. It is further divided into two parts: the first separately establishes three chapters, such as 『aspect of consciousness』 (識相) below, which is the path to explaining the three chapters. The first chapter cites the two dharmas of 『consciousness』 (識) and 『feeling』 (受) to prove that the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect are consistent. These two are mental dharmas. Merely distinguishing is the aspect of consciousness, and only consciousness can distinguish, so the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect are consistent. As 『the Buddha said』 (佛說) below, two things are cited to prove that the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect are different. First, the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect of Nirvana are cited as different, with love as the capable aspect and Nirvana as the acceptable aspect, which is citing the result. As 『believers』 (信者) below, the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect of the next believers are explained as different, which is citing the cause, with three things as aspects and faith as the acceptable aspect. As 『right view』 (正見) below is the third, citing two things to explain the path to the third chapter. The implements possess eight things, and right view is a small part of the path, which is citing a separate dharma. Birth, abiding, and decay are small parts of the conditioned family, so they are called small parts, which are capable aspects, and most are acceptable aspects. Therefore, these six things have three pairs: first, a pair of mental dharmas; second, cause and effect; and finally, general and specific. 『Therefore』 (是故) below is the third, summarizing the doctrinal view to criticize the proponent. 『Answer:』 (答曰) below is the third, refutation and defense are divided into two parts: the first is to separately refute three things, and the second is to summarize the refutation. Separately refuting three things is three parts: refuting that the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect are consistent, which is further divided into three parts. First, it is explained that the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect should not be said to be known by the cause aspect, which is the aspect of aspect. As 『one's own touch of a finger』 (自觸指). 『Again』 (複次) below is the second, explaining that the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect should not be distinguished as the capable aspect and the acceptable aspect, but since the substance of the dharma cannot be distinguished, there is no wisdom to distinguish it. Third, it is explained that the principle that the capable aspect is the cause and the acceptable aspect is the effect should not be consistent. You said that the aspects are different and acceptable, and the second refutation of the difference is divided into three parts: one refutation.
二救三破救。初又二。第一破其所引二事。第二作無窮難。初破二事即二。破初事中又開二別。初得異墮非相破。次得相墮不異破。初得異墮非相破者。若愛與涅槃異者而愛非涅槃相。故名得異墮非相破。又此是謬引佛經破。源佛正說滅愛為涅槃體相。今乃謂所滅之愛為涅槃相。故名謬引佛經破也。若說愛是涅槃相下第二得相墮無異破。若言滅愛是涅槃體相者此得體相義。而滅愛即是涅槃不得言異。故名得相墮無異破。又汝說信者有三相破其第二事也。然水之與火理不相關可稱為異。此三相由信而有。是因緣相成之法雲何言異。若無信即無三事者釋無異義。由信故有三。故三不得異信。又由信有三則信為能相。三為可相則相可相無定。汝云何言三定是能相信為可相。又相可相異者。第二縱異作無窮破。可相異相而可相謂相者。相異可相相復謂相。又同百論。若以相可相成何故一而不二。問曰下第二救。上有三破。今但救第三。救意云。物用燈照如可相須相。燈能自照故相不須相。則無無窮過也。答曰下第三破救為二。初指前無燈可引破。又自違前說下第二縱有燈違異宗破。汝上言相可相異。亦應有能照所照異。則墮二燈。今遂言燈自照。只是一照。相自能相。只是一相。即違異義宗。又汝墮亦一亦異。燈為能照。瓶是
所照。則相可相異。燈能自照則墮相可相一。又汝說可相下破其第三。少分是相。余為可相此義不定。或墮一中或墮異中。若正見與道一則墮一中。若正見與道異則墮異中。三相亦然。若如毗曇及毗婆阇婆提義相與體異。則墮異中。若即法沙門成實等即墮一中。一異既除。此義亦破。
如是種種因緣下第四總結破。
是故相可相俱空下。大段第三總結一切法空。
觀有無門第七
有無是諸見之根障道之本。故大小經論無不破之。但有無有二種。一通明有無。二別就四相論有無。通明有無者種種不同。若就因中有果無果論有無。第二門已破今不論之。若就有見為有空見為無。后觀性門中自破。若就有為無為明有無者。觀性門中已說。故並不就此三條明有無也。今但約四相論有無。以生住為有異滅為無。二者三相論之。生住是有滅相是無。今欲重破四相故。合四相為有無二義開共離二門責之。故云觀有無門。問與中論破有無品何異。答中論就法體明有無。今門但就四相論有無。又中論通明有無。今別明有無。問上三門已破相。與今何異。答初門明大小二相不能相生。又破生相不能自生及能生他。第二門明法體有相無相不能相法。第三門直責能相所相一異無蹤。今此門就能相中開共離二門撿不可得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所照。那麼相和可相可能是相同，也可能是相異的。如果燈能夠自己照亮自己，那麼就會落入相和可相為一的情況。另外，你所說的可相，用來破斥第三種情況。少部分是相，剩餘的是可相，這個意義是不確定的。或者落入為一的情況，或者落入相異的情況。如果正見與道相同，那麼就落入為一的情況。如果正見與道相異，那麼就落入相異的情況。三相也是這樣。如果像毗曇（Abhidharma，論藏）以及毗婆阇婆提（Vibhashavadins，分別說部）的觀點，相與體是不同的，那麼就落入相異的情況。如果像即法沙門（Yogacara，瑜伽行派）成實（Satyasiddhi，成實論）等，就落入為一的情況。既然一和異都被排除，這個意義也被破斥了。 像這樣種種因緣，下面是第四個總結破斥。 因此，相和可相都是空，下面是大的段落第三個總結一切法空。 觀有無門第七 有和無是各種見解的根源，是阻礙修道的根本。所以大小乘的經論沒有不破斥它們的。但是有和無有兩種。一種是通明的有無，一種是分別就四相來論有無。通明的有無有種種不同。如果就因中是否有果來論有無，第二門已經破斥過了，現在不討論它。如果就有所見為有，空見為無，後面的觀性門中會自己破斥。如果就「有為」（conditioned，有條件的）和「無為」（unconditioned，無條件的）來明有無，觀性門中已經說過了。所以並不就這三條來明有無。現在只就四相來論有無。以生和住為有，異和滅為無。二者用三相來論述。生和住是有，滅相是無。現在想要重新破斥四相，所以合併四相為有無二義，開啟共和離二門來責難它。所以說觀有無門。問：這和中論（Madhyamaka-karika，中觀論頌）破有無品有什麼不同？答：中論就法體來明有無。這個門只就四相來論有無。另外中論通明有無，現在分別明有無。問：上面的三門已經破斥了相，和現在這個門有什麼不同？答：第一門說明大小二相不能互相產生。又破斥生相不能自己產生以及能夠產生其他。第二門說明法體有相無相不能相法。第三門直接責難能相和所相的一異沒有軌跡。現在這個門就能夠相中開啟共和離二門來檢查它，是不可得的。
【English Translation】 English version: That which is illuminated. Then the characteristic and the illuminable characteristic may be the same or different. If a lamp can illuminate itself, then it falls into the situation where the characteristic and the illuminable characteristic are one. Also, what you say about the illuminable characteristic is used to refute the third situation. A small part is the characteristic, and the remainder is the illuminable characteristic; this meaning is uncertain. It either falls into the situation of being one, or it falls into the situation of being different. If right view is the same as the path, then it falls into the situation of being one. If right view is different from the path, then it falls into the situation of being different. The three characteristics are also like this. If, according to the views of the Abhidharma (毗曇，論藏) and the Vibhashavadins (毗婆阇婆提，分別說部), the characteristic and the substance are different, then it falls into the situation of being different. If it is like the Yogacara (即法沙門，瑜伽行派) and the Satyasiddhi (成實，成實論), then it falls into the situation of being one. Since both one and different are eliminated, this meaning is also refuted. Like this, with various causes and conditions, the following is the fourth summary refutation. Therefore, both the characteristic and the illuminable characteristic are empty; the following is the third major section summarizing that all dharmas are empty. Contemplating Existence and Non-existence, the Seventh Gate Existence and non-existence are the root of all views and the basis for obstructing the path. Therefore, the sutras and treatises of both the Great and Small Vehicles all refute them. However, there are two kinds of existence and non-existence. One is the general explanation of existence and non-existence, and the other is the specific discussion of existence and non-existence in terms of the four characteristics. The general explanation of existence and non-existence has various differences. If existence and non-existence are discussed in terms of whether there is a result in the cause, the second gate has already refuted it, so it will not be discussed now. If existence is taken as having views and non-existence as having emptiness views, the gate on contemplating nature will refute it itself later. If existence and non-existence are explained in terms of the conditioned (有為) and the unconditioned (無為), the gate on contemplating nature has already discussed it. Therefore, existence and non-existence are not explained in terms of these three points. Now, only existence and non-existence are discussed in terms of the four characteristics. Birth and duration are taken as existence, and change and cessation are taken as non-existence. The two are discussed in terms of the three characteristics. Birth and duration are existence, and the characteristic of cessation is non-existence. Now, wanting to refute the four characteristics again, the four characteristics are combined into the two meanings of existence and non-existence, and the two gates of commonality and separation are opened to challenge it. Therefore, it is said to be the gate of contemplating existence and non-existence. Question: How is this different from the chapter on refuting existence and non-existence in the Madhyamaka-karika (中論，中觀論頌)? Answer: The Madhyamaka-karika explains existence and non-existence in terms of the substance of dharmas. This gate only discusses existence and non-existence in terms of the four characteristics. In addition, the Madhyamaka-karika generally explains existence and non-existence, while this now specifically explains existence and non-existence. Question: The above three gates have already refuted the characteristics; how is this different from the current gate? Answer: The first gate explains that the two characteristics of large and small cannot produce each other. It also refutes that the characteristic of birth cannot produce itself and can produce others. The second gate explains that the substance of dharmas, whether having characteristics or not having characteristics, cannot characterize dharmas. The third gate directly challenges that the oneness and difference of the characterizing and the characterized have no trace. Now, this gate opens the two gates of commonality and separation within the characterizing to examine it, and it is unattainable.
。故與上為異。又初門破通相。次門破別相。第三門重破別相。今重破通相。以破通別相則一切相盡。取相心不生入無相門。問何故重破能相。答今正欲明為無為一切法空。四相是有為之本次重破之。又異法辨生障無生偏重破。所以然者。即法辨生但須破法而相自無。異法辨生有二種障。一計別有生。故障于無生。二執別有法體。復障無生故須重破也。問何故但三門破法體。而四門破相。答取相是諸煩惱根。如凈名云。貪慾為身本。煩惱為貪本。虛妄分別為煩惱本。是故難除。所以須四門廣破。又空病著空不著于有。有病著有不空。而取相橫計萬法豎著四句。故此病難除。所以四門廣破。又有此門來者上三門破有相便言有無相者。無相復取無相相。是故今破此有明本不有今何時無。未曾有有相豈有無相相耶。問今乃破四相云。破此有無何耶。答寄四相遍破一切有無也。問四相是事有無可相違。今有相為有無相為無是理有無。云何相違。答誰論違不違。但今起有無見則須破之。又事有無即事違。理有無即理違理不違。理非有無。
有無門亦三。長行如前。如偈說者引經偈。恐不信論主破故引經也。
偈為二。上半正破。下半釋破。正破為二。初一時破。二前後破。有無者牒四相也。生住為有異滅為無。然四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所以這與前面所說的不同。而且，第一個門破除的是共同的相狀（通相），第二個門破除的是個別的相狀（別相），第三個門再次破除個別的相狀。現在，第四個門再次破除共同的相狀，因為破除了共同和個別的相狀，那麼一切相狀就都消盡了，執取相狀的心就不會產生，從而進入無相之門。有人問：為什麼再次破除能相呢？回答說：現在正是要闡明有為和無為的一切法都是空性的，而四相是有為法的根本，所以要再次破除它。另外，對於異法而產生的障礙無生，要特別著重地破除。之所以這樣，是因為對於即法而產生的執著，只需要破除法，相自然就沒有了。而對於異法而產生的執著，有兩種障礙：一是認為有個別的生，因此障礙了無生；二是執著有個別的法體，也障礙了無生，所以需要再次破除它。有人問：為什麼只有三個門破除法體，而四個門破除相狀呢？回答說：執取相狀是各種煩惱的根源。如《維摩詰經》所說：『貪慾是身體的根本，煩惱是貪慾的根本，虛妄分別是煩惱的根本。』因此，相狀難以去除，所以需要用四個門廣泛地破除它。而且，空病是執著于空而不執著于有，有病是執著于有而不空。而執取相狀，橫向地計度萬法，縱向地執著於四句，所以這種病難以去除，因此用四個門廣泛地破除它。還有，如果有人從這個門進來，前面三個門破除了有相，就說有無相，那麼無相又會執取無相的相狀。所以現在破除這種有，說明本來就沒有有，現在又從哪裡來的無呢？從來沒有有相，哪裡會有無相的相狀呢？有人問：現在是破除四相，為什麼又說破除這種有無呢？回答說：是藉著四相普遍地破除一切有無。有人問：四相是事相上的有，無可相違，現在有相為有，無相為無，這是理上的有無，怎麼會相違呢？回答說：誰說違不違呢？只是現在如果生起有無的見解，那麼就需要破除它。而且，事相上的有無就是事相上的相違，理上的有無就是理上的相違，理不違，理既非有也非無。 有無門也有三個。長行的解釋如前所述。如偈頌所說，是引用經文的偈頌，恐怕有人不相信論主的破斥，所以引用經文。 偈頌分為兩部分。上半部分是正式的破斥，下半部分是解釋破斥。正式的破斥分為兩部分，一是同時破斥，二是前後破斥。『有無』是指四相。生和住是有，異和滅是無。然而四相
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, this is different from what was said earlier. Moreover, the first gate breaks the common characteristics (samanya-lakshana), the second gate breaks the individual characteristics (vishesha-lakshana), and the third gate breaks the individual characteristics again. Now, the fourth gate breaks the common characteristics again, because when the common and individual characteristics are broken, then all characteristics are exhausted, and the mind that grasps characteristics will not arise, thereby entering the gate of no-characteristics (animitta-dvara). Someone asks: Why break the 'graspable' characteristic again? The answer is: Now it is precisely to clarify that all dharmas of conditioned (samskrita) and unconditioned (asamskrita) are empty (shunya), and the four characteristics are the root of conditioned dharmas, so it must be broken again. In addition, for the obstruction to non-arising (anutpada) that arises from different dharmas, it is especially important to break it. The reason for this is that for the attachment that arises from 'this' dharma, it is only necessary to break the dharma, and the characteristic will naturally disappear. But for the attachment that arises from 'different' dharmas, there are two kinds of obstructions: first, the belief that there is an individual arising, thus obstructing non-arising; second, the clinging to an individual dharma-essence, which also obstructs non-arising, so it needs to be broken again. Someone asks: Why do only three gates break the dharma-essence, while four gates break the characteristics? The answer is: Grasping characteristics is the root of all kinds of afflictions (kleshas). As the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Desire is the root of the body, affliction is the root of desire, and false discrimination is the root of affliction.' Therefore, characteristics are difficult to remove, so it is necessary to use four gates to extensively break them. Moreover, the disease of emptiness is attachment to emptiness and not attachment to existence, while the disease of existence is attachment to existence and not emptiness. And grasping characteristics, horizontally measuring the myriad dharmas, and vertically clinging to the four statements, so this disease is difficult to remove, therefore using four gates to extensively break it. Also, if someone comes from this gate, the previous three gates break the characteristics of existence, and then say there is no-characteristic, then no-characteristic will again grasp the characteristic of no-characteristic. So now breaking this existence, explaining that there was originally no existence, where does the non-existence come from now? There has never been an existence-characteristic, where would there be a no-existence-characteristic? Someone asks: Now it is breaking the four characteristics, why do you say breaking this existence and non-existence? The answer is: It is borrowing the four characteristics to universally break all existence and non-existence. Someone asks: The four characteristics are existence in phenomena, which cannot contradict each other. Now existence-characteristic is existence, and no-existence-characteristic is non-existence, this is existence and non-existence in principle, how can they contradict each other? The answer is: Who is arguing about contradiction or non-contradiction? It's just that if the view of existence and non-existence arises now, then it needs to be broken. Moreover, existence and non-existence in phenomena are contradictions in phenomena, and existence and non-existence in principle are contradictions in principle. Principle does not contradict, principle is neither existence nor non-existence. The gate of existence and non-existence also has three aspects. The explanation in the prose section is as before. As the verse says, it quotes the verses from the sutras, fearing that people will not believe the treatise master's refutation, so it quotes the sutras. The verse is divided into two parts. The first half is the formal refutation, and the second half is the explanation of the refutation. The formal refutation is divided into two parts, one is simultaneous refutation, and the other is sequential refutation. 'Existence and non-existence' refers to the four characteristics. Birth and duration are existence, change and cessation are non-existence. However, the four characteristics
相體皆是有。但生住能令法有。異滅能令法無。故有無耳。有無一時無者。有無一時牒外義也。無者論主破也。一時則相害故皆無也。離無有亦無者前後破也。離無有者牒也。前有生住之有未有異滅之無。是故離無有有也。亦無者破也。既離異滅即生住之有。便不得起之故生住之有亦無也。此二句得破一家義。初破體同時。次破用前後。亦得破二家義。初破毗曇四相一時。次破譬喻四相前後。以一切有無不出前後一時。破此二即破一切盡矣。下半偏釋初句一時義。又二。前句牒不相離。下句正破有。若不離於無無則常害有。故云有即常應無。汝乃言有不能自起假無得起。我則見此無。翻害汝有。令永不得起也。而言常者彼明四相三世常俱。生住若在未來異滅亦在未來。生住若來現在異滅與之同來。過去亦爾。既三世常俱。即生住常為異滅所害。故生住常無。亦異滅常為生住所害。即異滅亦是常無。今略舉顯邊耳。帖文正爾。今次料簡彼義。彼義云。體同時用前後。問若生相時有滅體未有滅用者。亦應待用滅方有。何煩預有耶。答彼云。有為之法不起則已。起則俱起滅則俱滅。若待用方有則滅自起不假生相。既不自起起必假生。雖未有用不得預有也。滅相用事生用則廢而體不謝待滅方謝。用雖前後生滅則俱。問滅相用事
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『相』（laksana，事物之相狀）的本體都是『有』（asti，存在）。但『生』（jati，產生）和『住』（sthiti，持續）能使法（dharma，事物）存在，『異』（anyathatva，變異）和『滅』（vyaya，消滅）能使法不存在，所以才說有和無。『有無一時無』，這是針對外道的說法。『無』，是論主的駁斥。如果『有』和『無』同時存在，就會互相沖突，所以都是不存在的。『離無有亦無』，這是前後次第的駁斥。『離無有』，是重述對方的觀點，即在『生』和『住』的『有』存在時，還沒有『異』和『滅』的『無』，所以說離開『無』，『有』是存在的。『亦無』，是論主的駁斥，既然離開了『異』和『滅』，那麼『生』和『住』的『有』就無法生起，所以『生』和『住』的『有』也是不存在的。這兩句話可以破斥一家之義，首先破斥本體的同時性，其次破斥作用的前後性。也可以破斥兩家之義，首先破斥毗曇宗（Abhidharma，論藏）的四相（生、住、異、滅）一時，其次破斥譬喻師（Drshtantika，以譬喻闡釋佛法的論師）的四相前後。因為一切『有』和『無』都離不開前後和一時，破斥了這兩種觀點，就破斥了一切。下面一半是偏重解釋第一句『一時』的含義。又分為兩部分，前一句是重述『不相離』的觀點，后一句是正式破斥『有』。如果不離開『無』，那麼『無』就會經常損害『有』，所以說『有』就應該經常不存在。你們說『有』不能自己產生，必須藉助『無』才能產生，但我卻看到這個『無』，反而損害了你們的『有』，使它永遠無法產生。說到『常』，他們認為四相在三世（過去、現在、未來）中經常同時存在，『生』和『住』如果在未來，『異』和『滅』也在未來，『生』和『住』如果來到現在，『異』和『滅』也和它們一同到來，過去也是這樣。既然三世經常同時存在，那麼『生』和『住』就經常被『異』和『滅』所損害，所以『生』和『住』經常不存在，同樣，『異』和『滅』也經常被『生』和『住』所損害，所以『異』和『滅』也是經常不存在的。現在只是簡略地舉例說明。帖文正是如此。現在接著來分析他們的觀點。他們的觀點是，本體是同時的，作用是前後的。如果『生』相（jati-laksana，產生之相）存在時，『滅』的本體（vyaya-dravya，消滅之本體）存在，但『滅』的作用（vyaya-karitra，消滅之作用）不存在，那麼也應該等待『滅』的作用出現后，『滅』的本體才存在，何必預先存在呢？他們回答說，有為法（samskrta-dharma，因緣和合而成的法）不生起就算了，生起就同時生起，消滅就同時消滅。如果等待作用才存在，那麼『滅』就會自己產生，不需要藉助『生』相。既然不是自己產生，那麼產生就必須藉助『生』相，雖然還沒有作用，但不能預先存在。『滅』相（vyaya-laksana，消滅之相）起作用時，『生』的作用（jati-karitra，產生之作用）就停止，但本體不會消失，要等到『滅』的作用出現后才會消失。作用雖然有先後，但『生』和『滅』是同時的。如果『滅』相起作用，
【English Translation】 English version The substance of all 『laksana』 (characteristics, aspects of things) is 『asti』 (existence). However, 『jati』 (birth, arising) and 『sthiti』 (duration, abiding) enable the dharma (things, phenomena) to exist, while 『anyathatva』 (change, alteration) and 『vyaya』 (cessation, destruction) cause the dharma to not exist, hence the saying of existence and non-existence. 『Existence and non-existence at the same time is non-existent』 – this is directed at the views of externalists. 『Non-existence』 is the refutation by the author of the treatise. If 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 exist simultaneously, they would contradict each other, therefore both are non-existent. 『Apart from non-existence, existence is also non-existent』 – this is a refutation in a sequential manner. 『Apart from non-existence』 is a restatement of the opponent's view, that when the 『existence』 of 『birth』 and 『duration』 exists, the 『non-existence』 of 『change』 and 『cessation』 does not yet exist, therefore it is said that apart from 『non-existence』, 『existence』 exists. 『Also non-existent』 is the refutation by the author of the treatise; since it is apart from 『change』 and 『cessation』, then the 『existence』 of 『birth』 and 『duration』 cannot arise, therefore the 『existence』 of 『birth』 and 『duration』 is also non-existent. These two sentences can refute the meaning of one school, first refuting the simultaneity of the substance, and then refuting the sequence of the function. It can also refute the meaning of two schools, first refuting the Abhidharma's (Abhidharma, the collection of treatises) four characteristics (birth, duration, change, cessation) as simultaneous, and then refuting the Drstantika's (Drshtantika, teachers who explain the Dharma with parables) four characteristics as sequential. Because all 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 cannot be separated from sequence and simultaneity, refuting these two views refutes everything. The latter half is primarily explaining the meaning of the first sentence, 『simultaneous』. It is further divided into two parts; the first sentence is a restatement of the view of 『non-separation』, and the second sentence is a formal refutation of 『existence』. If it does not depart from 『non-existence』, then 『non-existence』 will constantly harm 『existence』, therefore it is said that 『existence』 should always be non-existent. You say that 『existence』 cannot arise by itself and must rely on 『non-existence』 to arise, but I see that this 『non-existence』 instead harms your 『existence』, causing it to never be able to arise. Speaking of 『constant』, they believe that the four characteristics constantly exist simultaneously in the three times (past, present, future); if 『birth』 and 『duration』 are in the future, 『change』 and 『cessation』 are also in the future; if 『birth』 and 『duration』 come to the present, 『change』 and 『cessation』 also come with them; the past is also like this. Since the three times constantly exist simultaneously, then 『birth』 and 『duration』 are constantly harmed by 『change』 and 『cessation』, therefore 『birth』 and 『duration』 are constantly non-existent; similarly, 『change』 and 『cessation』 are also constantly harmed by 『birth』 and 『duration』, so 『change』 and 『cessation』 are also constantly non-existent. Now it is just a brief example to illustrate. The text is exactly like this. Now, let's analyze their views. Their view is that the substance is simultaneous, and the function is sequential. If the 『jati-laksana』 (characteristic of birth, the aspect of arising) exists, and the 『vyaya-dravya』 (substance of cessation, the essence of destruction) exists, but the 『vyaya-karitra』 (function of cessation, the operation of destruction) does not exist, then it should also wait for the 『function』 of 『cessation』 to appear before the 『substance』 of 『cessation』 exists, why exist in advance? They answer that conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharma, phenomena arising from causes and conditions) will not arise, and if they arise, they will arise simultaneously, and if they cease, they will cease simultaneously. If it waits for the function to exist, then 『cessation』 will arise by itself, without needing to rely on the 『birth』 characteristic. Since it does not arise by itself, then arising must rely on the 『birth』 characteristic; although there is no function yet, it cannot exist in advance. When the 『vyaya-laksana』 (characteristic of cessation, the aspect of destruction) functions, the 『jati-karitra』 (function of birth, the operation of arising) stops, but the substance does not disappear, it will disappear only after the 『function』 of 『cessation』 appears. Although the functions are sequential, 『birth』 and 『cessation』 are simultaneous. If the 『cessation』 characteristic functions,
生用則廢。廢此生用用為自廢滅相廢之耶。答住用既興。得云住用廢生用也。問生廢稱滅滅由住相應云住相是滅相耶。答滅相正滅法體。今論廢者通相滅耳。非滅相滅。此義自成難解。生用廢即無後生。云何言猶有生體至滅相起時方乃謝。若猶有生體云何生用廢。如火有熱用。熱用若廢火體則廢。若猶有火體則猶有熱用。若無熱用猶有火體涅槃經呵云。譬如愚人求無熱火。至此已來遂義難之。于理足屈。又問。有為一剎那無前後。雖有四相同一剎那剎那無前後。四相之用豈得前後。若用有前後則成四剎那。彼答云。剎那乃一時。要從生至滿滿時方歸滅。雖不逕時不無滿未滿異。是故一剎那中有其四用。又問唸唸代謝若初未滿後方滿者。豈非延時長時耶。此終難解。又一剎那有四分。當有生用時後三分未有。若其終時前三分已謝。若爾者則非一剎那時。剎那無四時則無四用次第也。又依百論破之。若初分已有後三分。與初時共並則不名初中後分。若初中後分不得同時則一時中無有三分。故進退不可。又問四相是共有因。相生四用不併云何是共有因耶。答用雖不併相扶而有。豈非共有因耶。又問為是滅用扶生非滅用扶生。彼答云。生有生彼之用。滅有扶生之力。此力非是滅用之力。是扶生力耳。此亦難解。若滅體未有滅用
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生用則廢：如果讓生相的作用持續，就會導致壞滅。那麼，這種壞滅生相的作用，是用住相的壞滅來壞滅它自己嗎？ 答：當住相的作用已經產生，就可以說住相的作用壞滅了生相的作用。 問：生相的壞滅被稱為滅相，而滅相是由住相相應而產生的。那麼，是否可以說住相就是滅相呢？ 答：滅相是真正壞滅法體的。現在討論的『廢』，是通於相的壞滅，而不是滅相的壞滅。這個道理本身就很難理解。生相的作用壞滅，就意味著沒有後續的生相。那麼，為什麼說還有生相的本體，直到滅相生起時才消逝呢？如果還有生相的本體，怎麼能說生相的作用已經壞滅了呢？就像火有熱的作用，如果熱的作用消失了，火的本體也就消失了。如果還有火的本體，就應該還有熱的作用。如果沒有熱的作用，卻說還有火的本體，《涅槃經》對此呵斥說，『譬如愚人求無熱火』。到這裡，這個道理就很難講通了，在邏輯上已經站不住腳了。 又問：有為法在一剎那間沒有前後。即使有生、住、異、滅四相，也是在同一剎那間，剎那沒有前後。那麼，四相的作用怎麼會有前後呢？如果作用有前後，那就變成了四個剎那了。 彼答云：剎那只是一個時間單位。要從生起到圓滿時，才歸於滅。雖然不經歷時間，但有滿和未滿的差別。所以，一個剎那中有四種作用。 又問：唸唸代謝，如果最初未滿，後來才滿，那豈不是延長了時間，變成了長時嗎？這個問題始終難以理解。 又，一剎那有四分，當有生用時，后三分未有。若其終時，前三分已謝。若爾者，則非一剎那時。剎那無四時，則無四用次第也。 又依《百論》破之：如果最初一分已經存在，那麼后三分與最初一分同時存在，就不應該稱為初、中、後分。如果初、中、後分不能同時存在，那麼一個時間單位中就沒有三分。所以，進退兩難。 又問：四相是共有的因，相互產生。四種作用不併存，怎麼能說是共有的因呢？ 答：作用雖然不併存，但相互扶持而存在，這難道不是共有的因嗎？ 又問：是滅用扶持生用，還是非滅用扶持生用？ 彼答云：生有產生彼的作用，滅有扶持生的力量。這種力量不是滅用的力量，而是扶持生的力量。這個也很難理解。如果滅的本體還沒有滅用，
【English Translation】 English version If the 'birth-function' is continuously used, it will be exhausted. Is this exhaustion of the 'birth-function' caused by the exhaustion of the 'dwelling-function'? Answer: Once the 'dwelling-function' has arisen, it can be said that the 'dwelling-function' exhausts the 'birth-function'. Question: The exhaustion of the 'birth-function' is called 'cessation-aspect' (滅相, mie xiang). Since 'cessation' arises in accordance with 'dwelling', can it be said that the 'dwelling-aspect' is the 'cessation-aspect'? Answer: The 'cessation-aspect' is the true cessation of the dharma-body (法體, fa ti). The 'exhaustion' (廢, fei) we are discussing here refers to the general exhaustion of aspects, not the cessation of the 'cessation-aspect' itself. This reasoning is difficult to understand. If the 'birth-function' is exhausted, there will be no subsequent birth. Why then is it said that the 'birth-body' still exists until the 'cessation-aspect' arises and then disappears? If the 'birth-body' still exists, how can the 'birth-function' be exhausted? It's like fire having the function of heat. If the function of heat disappears, the body of fire also disappears. If the body of fire still exists, there should still be the function of heat. If there is no function of heat but the body of fire still exists, the Nirvana Sutra scolds this, saying, 'It is like a fool seeking fire without heat.' Up to this point, the reasoning becomes difficult to explain and logically untenable. Question: Conditioned dharmas (有為法, you wei fa) do not have before and after in a single ksana (剎那, chana). Even though there are four aspects of arising, dwelling, changing, and ceasing, they are all within the same ksana, and a ksana has no before and after. How can the functions of the four aspects have before and after? If the functions have before and after, then it becomes four ksanas. Answer: A ksana is just a unit of time. It is only from arising to the time of fullness that it returns to cessation. Although it does not experience time, there is a difference between full and not full. Therefore, there are four functions in one ksana. Question: If thoughts (唸唸, nian nian) replace each other, and if the beginning is not full and only becomes full later, wouldn't that prolong the time and become a long time? This question is always difficult to understand. Furthermore, a ksana has four parts. When there is the 'birth-function', the latter three parts do not yet exist. If at the end, the first three parts have already passed, then it is not one ksana. If a ksana has no four times, then there is no order of the four functions. Furthermore, based on the Sata-sastra (百論, Bai Lun), it is refuted: If the first part already exists, then the latter three parts exist simultaneously with the first part, and they should not be called the beginning, middle, and end parts. If the beginning, middle, and end parts cannot exist simultaneously, then there are no three parts in one unit of time. Therefore, it is difficult to advance or retreat. Question: The four aspects are shared causes, producing each other. If the four functions do not coexist, how can they be shared causes? Answer: Although the functions do not coexist, they exist by supporting each other. Isn't that a shared cause? Question: Is it the 'cessation-function' that supports the 'birth-function', or is it a non-'cessation-function' that supports the 'birth-function'? Answer: Birth has the function of producing the other, and cessation has the power to support birth. This power is not the power of the 'cessation-function', but the power of supporting birth. This is also difficult to understand. If the body of cessation does not yet have the 'cessation-function',
以何扶生力。若已有扶生力則應已有滅力。若已有滅力則害於生。不生得起。
長行為四。一釋偈本以合離破之。二救。三破救。四總結。釋偈上下半即二。釋上半復二。初釋偈第一句。正明有無不得一時。指中論說者。三相品．本際品．成壞品並破有無一時義。若謂下釋第二句離無有亦無。又為四。初取外意。是事不然下總非。何以故下釋非。凡舉二事釋。一引前三相品明有法共生不應相離。次引阿毗曇明四相共起。婆沙提度並有此文。如相門說。是故下第四句總結。前明一時則為大乘論破。故指中論。次明前後則違小乘宗。故引毗曇破。故前後一時大小無取。又前引他破。次害自宗。自他無取。若不離無常下釋下半。偈中但有不離。今長行欲對偈上半離不離故。今亦開離不離二關。初門就不離破。易見也。若離無常下就相離破。有既離無。則異滅不扶生住。即生住不得生也。此亦進退二失。不離則有常無之過。相離則有不起之失。釋上半取二文。釋下半就兩義。文義無取。亦得為四。初破一時。次破前後。三重破一時。四重破前後。
問曰下第二救。就立中為二。一立外宗二通內難。立外宗為二。初總立次別立。總立中有生時乃已有無常者。此立體同時也。滅時乃發立用前後也。立此二義通前上下半
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以什麼來扶持生起的力量呢？如果已經有了扶持生起的力量，那麼應該已經有了滅壞的力量。如果已經有了滅壞的力量，那麼就會損害生起，導致無法產生。
長行分為四個部分：一是解釋偈頌的原本，用合離破斥的方法；二是救護；三是破斥救護；四是總結。解釋偈頌的上下半部分即是兩個部分。解釋上半部分又分為兩個部分。首先解釋偈頌的第一句，正面說明有和無不能同時存在。這裡指的是《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）的說法。《三相品》（Lakshana-pariksha）、《本際品》（Purva-koti-pariksha）、《成壞品》（Sambandha-pariksha）都破斥了有和無同時存在的觀點。『若謂』（如果說）以下解釋第二句『離無有亦無』（離開無，有也不存在）。又分為四個部分：首先是採納外道的觀點，『是事不然』（這件事是不對的）以下是總體的否定。『何以故』（為什麼呢）以下是解釋否定。凡是舉出兩件事來解釋，一是引用前面的《三相品》來說明有法共同生起不應該相互分離；二是引用《阿毗曇》（Abhidharma）來說明四相共同生起。《婆沙》（Vibhasa）、《提度》（Tidou）都有這段文字，如相門所說。『是故』（因此）以下是第四句的總結。前面說明同時存在，就被大乘論所破斥，所以指的是《中論》。其次說明前後存在，就違背了小乘的宗旨，所以引用《毗曇》來破斥。因此，前後和同時，大小乘都不能採納。前面是引用其他宗派來破斥，其次是損害自己的宗派，自宗和他宗都不能採納。『若不離無常』（如果不離開無常）以下解釋下半部分。偈頌中只有『不離』，現在長行想要對應偈頌上半部分的『離』和『不離』，所以現在也展開『離』和『不離』兩個方面。首先從『不離』的角度來破斥，這是容易理解的。『若離無常』（如果離開無常）以下就『相離』的角度來破斥。有既然離開了無，那麼異滅就不能扶持生住，也就是生住不能產生。這也是進退兩難的過失。不離開，就有常和無的過失；相離開，就有不能產生的過失。解釋上半部分採取了兩段文字，解釋下半部分就兩種含義。文字和含義都不能採納。也可以分為四個部分：首先破斥同時存在；其次破斥前後存在；三重破斥同時存在；四重破斥前後存在。
『問曰』（問道）以下是第二救護。就立論來說分為兩個部分：一是建立外道的宗派，二是疏通內在的詰難。建立外道的宗派分為兩個部分：首先是總體的建立，其次是分別的建立。總體的建立中有『生時乃已有無常者』（產生的時候就已經有了無常），這是建立同時存在的觀點。『滅時乃發立用前後也』（滅壞的時候才發生作用，這是前後存在的觀點）。建立這兩種觀點是爲了疏通前面上下半部分的疑問。
【English Translation】 English version By what is the power of arising supported? If there is already the power to support arising, then there should already be the power of destruction. If there is already the power of destruction, then it harms arising, causing it to be unable to arise.
The long passage is divided into four parts: first, explaining the original verse using the method of combination, separation, and refutation; second, defense; third, refutation of the defense; and fourth, conclusion. Explaining the upper and lower halves of the verse constitutes two parts. Explaining the upper half is further divided into two parts. First, explaining the first line of the verse, directly stating that existence and non-existence cannot coexist. This refers to the statements in the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way). The Lakshana-pariksha (Examination of Characteristics), Purva-koti-pariksha (Examination of the Beginning), and Sambandha-pariksha (Examination of Conditions) all refute the view that existence and non-existence can coexist. 'If it is said' below explains the second line, 'Apart from non-existence, existence also does not exist.' This is further divided into four parts: first, adopting the view of externalists; 'This is not the case' below is a general negation. 'Why?' below explains the negation. In all cases, two points are raised for explanation: first, citing the preceding Lakshana-pariksha to explain that dharmas arising together should not be separated from each other; second, citing the Abhidharma (Higher Doctrine) to explain that the four characteristics arise together. The Vibhasa (Great Commentary) and Tidou both contain this passage, as explained in the section on characteristics. 'Therefore' below is the conclusion of the fourth line. The preceding explanation of coexistence is refuted by the Mahayana treatises, hence the reference to the Madhyamaka-karika. The subsequent explanation of sequential existence contradicts the tenets of the Hinayana, hence the citation of the Abhidharma for refutation. Therefore, neither sequential nor simultaneous existence is acceptable to either the Greater or Lesser Vehicle. Furthermore, the preceding argument cites others for refutation, while the subsequent argument harms one's own school. Neither one's own nor others' schools are acceptable. 'If not apart from impermanence' below explains the lower half. The verse only contains 'not apart,' but the long passage intends to correspond to the 'apart' and 'not apart' of the upper half of the verse, so it now unfolds both aspects of 'apart' and 'not apart.' First, refuting from the perspective of 'not apart,' which is easy to understand. 'If apart from impermanence' below refutes from the perspective of 'separation.' Since existence is separated from non-existence, then change and destruction cannot support arising and abiding, that is, arising and abiding cannot arise. This is also a dilemma of advance and retreat. Not being apart leads to the fault of permanence and non-existence; being apart leads to the fault of non-arising. The explanation of the upper half takes two passages, and the explanation of the lower half takes two meanings. Neither the text nor the meaning is acceptable. It can also be divided into four parts: first, refuting simultaneous existence; second, refuting sequential existence; third, again refuting simultaneous existence; and fourth, again refuting sequential existence.
'Question:' below is the second defense. In terms of establishing the argument, it is divided into two parts: first, establishing the externalist's school; and second, clarifying internal difficulties. Establishing the externalist's school is divided into two parts: first, a general establishment; and second, a separate establishment. The general establishment includes 'When arising, there is already impermanence,' which establishes the view of simultaneous existence. 'When destruction occurs, then the function is manifested sequentially,' which is the view of sequential existence. Establishing these two views is to clarify the doubts of the preceding upper and lower halves.
四難。以體同時故無上半違宗之失。及無下半不起之過。以用前後故無上半相違之過。又無下半常無之失也。如是生住滅老得別釋彼義也。正釋用前後得常令四事成就。得是繩系此四相令不失。依毗曇舊義四相是逐法成就。無別得繩。而今此文云有得者。可以二義通之。一者以得得法而四相順來故云得四相耳。二者或可是別部義。今所未詳。是故下第二結難遍答四關。而略非常無之難。答曰下第三破救。凡三週破體同時用前後。初將用同體。體同時用亦同時。第二將體同用。用前後體亦前後。三縱體用而不相因即無相扶之力。初又二。第一四門別破。二總結破。四門破為三意。第一將生對滅有二破。第二以滅對住。第三以住對異。初門二破者。第一俱有破。第二俱無破。俱有破者。汝說無常是滅相與有共生牒彼義也。此中以生相為有滅相為無常也。生時有應壞下論主破也。既生滅一時俱起。即生用時便使有滅用。滅用時即有生用。令其體俱用即俱也。令用同體即是借用破體也。複次下第二俱無破。明體用俱無。明當有生體時不應有滅體。滅體起時不應有生體。又次破其用俱。此是接前破。前明體俱用即俱。今明用若俱便相害都無二相也。複次下第二舉住對滅。亦應作俱有俱無二難。今略作俱無難。老時無住下第三舉老
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四難：因為『體』是同時的，所以沒有上半句違背宗義的過失，以及沒有下半句不能成立的過錯。因為『用』是前後的，所以沒有上半句互相違背的過失，也沒有下半句永遠不存在的過失。像這樣，生、住、滅、老可以分別解釋它們的意義。正確地解釋『用』的前後，可以使常與四事成就。『得』就像繩子一樣繫住這四相，使它們不丟失。按照毗曇的舊義，四相是隨著法成就的，沒有另外的『得』這個繩子。但是現在這段文字說有『得』，可以用兩種意義來解釋。一是通過『得』來獲得法，從而使四相順次而來，所以說『得四相』。二是或許這是別部的義理，現在還不清楚。因此，下面第二部分總結了對四個關卡的提問，並普遍地回答了它們，而省略了『非常無』的難題。回答在下面第三部分，駁斥了救濟之說。總共有三輪駁斥『體』的同時和『用』的前後。首先是將『用』等同於『體』，『體』是同時的，『用』也是同時的。第二是將『體』等同於『用』，『用』是前後的，『體』也是前後的。第三是即使『體』和『用』不互相依存，也就沒有互相扶持的力量。第一部分又分為兩部分。第一部分是四個門分別駁斥，第二部分是總結駁斥。四個門分別駁斥分為三個意思。第一是將生對滅，有兩種駁斥。第二是以滅對住。第三是以住對異。第一門有兩種駁斥，第一種是俱有駁斥，第二種是俱無駁斥。俱有駁斥是：你說無常是滅相，與『有』共同產生，這是針對他們的義理。這裡以生相為『有』，滅相為『無常』。生的時候應該壞滅，下面是論主的駁斥。既然生和滅同時一起產生，那麼生起作用的時候就應該使『有』滅亡，滅起作用的時候就應該使『有』產生，使它們的『體』是共同的，『用』也就是共同的。使『用』等同於『體』，這就是借用『用』來駁斥『體』。接下來是第二種俱無駁斥，說明『體』和『用』都是不存在的。說明當有生『體』的時候，不應該有滅『體』，滅『體』產生的時候，不應該有生『體』。再次駁斥他們的『用』是共同的，這是接著前面的駁斥。前面說明『體』是共同的，『用』也就是共同的，現在說明如果『用』是共同的，就會互相妨害，最終沒有兩種相。接下來是第二部分，舉出『住』對『滅』，也應該作俱有和俱無兩種難題。現在省略了，只作俱無的難題。老的時候沒有『住』，下面是第三部分，舉出老。
【English Translation】 English version The Four Difficulties: Because the 'substance' (體) is simultaneous, there is no fault of the first half contradicting the doctrine, and no fault of the second half being untenable. Because the 'function' (用) is sequential, there is no fault of the first half contradicting each other, and no fault of the second half being eternally non-existent. Thus, birth (生), abiding (住), decay (滅), and aging (老) can each be explained in their respective meanings. Correctly explaining the sequence of 'function' allows permanence and the four events to be accomplished. 'Attainment' (得) is like a rope tying these four characteristics together, preventing them from being lost. According to the old meaning of Abhidharma (毗曇), the four characteristics are accomplished along with the Dharma (法), without a separate rope of 'attainment'. However, this text now says there is 'attainment', which can be explained in two ways. First, through 'attainment', the Dharma is obtained, thus the four characteristics come in sequence, hence the saying 'attaining the four characteristics'. Second, it may be the doctrine of a separate school, which is not yet clear. Therefore, the second part below summarizes the questions to the four gates and answers them universally, omitting the difficulty of 'not permanent and non-existent'. The answer is in the third part below, refuting the salvation theory. There are three rounds of refuting the simultaneity of 'substance' and the sequence of 'function'. First, equating 'function' with 'substance': if 'substance' is simultaneous, 'function' is also simultaneous. Second, equating 'substance' with 'function': if 'function' is sequential, 'substance' is also sequential. Third, even if 'substance' and 'function' do not depend on each other, they have no power to support each other. The first part is further divided into two parts. The first part is refuting each of the four gates separately, and the second part is summarizing the refutation. The separate refutation of the four gates is divided into three meanings. First, comparing birth to decay, there are two refutations. Second, comparing decay to abiding. Third, comparing abiding to difference. The first gate has two refutations, the first is the refutation of co-existence, and the second is the refutation of co-non-existence. The refutation of co-existence is: You say impermanence is the characteristic of decay, co-arising with 'existence', this is targeting their doctrine. Here, the characteristic of birth is taken as 'existence', and the characteristic of decay as 'impermanence'. At the time of birth, there should be destruction, below is the refutation of the master of the treatise. Since birth and decay arise simultaneously, then when birth functions, it should cause 'existence' to decay, and when decay functions, it should cause 'existence' to arise, making their 'substance' common, and 'function' also common. Equating 'function' with 'substance', this is using 'function' to refute 'substance'. Next is the second refutation of co-non-existence, explaining that both 'substance' and 'function' are non-existent. Explaining that when there is a birth 'substance', there should be no decay 'substance', and when a decay 'substance' arises, there should be no birth 'substance'. Again, refuting their 'function' as common, this is following the previous refutation. The previous explanation was that if 'substance' is common, then 'function' is also common, now explaining that if 'function' is common, they will hinder each other, and ultimately there will be no two characteristics. Next is the second part, citing 'abiding' against 'decay', there should also be two difficulties of co-existence and co-non-existence. Now it is omitted, only the difficulty of co-non-existence is made. At the time of aging, there is no 'abiding', below is the third part, citing aging.
對住。亦應作二難。今略明俱無。然婆沙有二種老法。一四相中老是異相。二有大期老法。成論破之云。既有二種老法應有二生法。一四相中生。二大期生。而彼無大期生故此難不可答。是故汝說下。第二總結彼義明有錯亂過。所言錯亂者。以生時即有滅滅即有生故名錯亂。凡物生時無壞者。此泛明天下道理如此也。若爾則四相不俱也。又若避錯亂言生時無壞壞時無生。則墮四相不俱違宗之失。故云爾時非是無無常相耶。
如能識故名識下第二週破用若不同時體亦不同時。所以有此破來者。外不受前錯亂破。若體用俱同時可得錯亂。今體同時用不同時。故無錯亂。是故今次破之。又開二別。一舉事徴之。如能識名識者。以有識能故名為識。若無識能則不名識。若爾當生起時既有滅體應有滅能。若無滅能即不名滅也。前列三事。次舉四相合之。
若生住時下第三週破體同時用前後也。若言當生用時未有滅用后時方有。用者何須共生耶。此明生用時未有滅用則滅無用。何能扶生。故不須共起。若已有扶生之用即已生滅用之也。又至此進退破之。若有扶生之用則滅有滅生之用生不得起。若未有滅生之用亦應未有扶生之用。則生亦不得起。又汝若能扶未能滅亦應有能滅未能扶也。
如是有無第四大段總結。
是故有無空下第三總結齊法。
觀性門第八
自上四門撿相無蹤。今此一品觀性非有。所以此門來。就外人意。上就相立相相皆不成。今舉性證相應當有相。既有為無為萬物之體。豈無相耶。是故今次破性。性無故相即無也。性相異者智度論云。性為其內體不改為性。相為其外事。表彰故名為相。此二是萬物之總要。是故破之。二者復因中有果性。名之為性。此是別性之性。以性非是事故所以稱別。三者執性如執著一切法皆是實有。故名為性。問此與初體性何異。答執有體者未必是性。如假有體家亦言體而非是性。約彼所明故體性義異。若執性之性但詳諸法決定作有無解。故名為性。又執性之性其義則通。裁起有心言異無者則是性有。裁起無心言異有者即是性無。有無既爾。亦有亦無等例然。他云。外道毗曇可是性義。我習大乘非是性也。今問若非性義眾生心神不可朽滅。色法不可為心。真諦四絕不可為不絕。世諦三假不得四絕。豈非定性。地論人真中之真。古今常定不可為不真。豈非性耶。今破此性義從所破立名。故以為門。二者從初品已來法之與相大明無生。然法相微隱非常情所悟。若不以近況遠即幽旨難明。是故此品借現變動之相破其性執。令取悟為易。故有此門來也。三者自上已來破一切法有。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，『有』和『無』以及『空』是第三個總結齊法的要點。
觀性門第八
從前面的四個門（品）來考察，相的軌跡都無法找到。現在這一品『觀性』說明『性』並非實有。所以設立這一門，是爲了迴應外人的觀點。前面是從『相』的角度建立『相』，但所有的『相』都無法成立。現在如果舉出『性』來證明，『相』就應當存在。既然『性』是有為法和無為法以及萬物的本體，怎麼會沒有『相』呢？因此現在接著破斥『性』。『性』如果不存在，『相』也就無從談起。『性』和『相』的差異，《智度論》中說，『性』是內在的本體，不改變其性質，所以稱為『性』；『相』是外在的事物，用來表彰事物，所以稱為『相』。這兩者是萬物的總綱要，所以要破斥它們。其次，『性』是指因中具有果的性質，這被稱為『性』。這是『別性』的『性』，因為『性』不是實在的事物，所以稱為『別』。第三，執著于『性』，就像執著於一切法都是真實存在一樣，所以稱為『性』。問：這和最初的『體性』有什麼不同？答：執著于有『體』的人，未必是執著于『性』。例如，假有『體』，人們也說是『體』，但並非是『性』。根據他們所闡明的，所以『體性』的意義不同。如果執著于『性』的『性』，只是詳細地考察諸法，並決定性地認為它們是有或無，這就稱為『性』。而且，執著于『性』的『性』，其意義是相通的。如果剛一生起『有』的心，就說與『無』不同，這就是『性有』。如果剛一生起『無』的心，就說與『有』不同，這就是『性無』。『有』和『無』既然如此，『亦有亦無』等等也是同樣的道理。其他人說，外道的毗曇（Abhidharma）或許是『性』的意義，我們學習大乘（Mahayana），不是『性』的意義。現在問，如果不是『性』的意義，眾生的心神就不會朽滅，色法（rupa）就不會成為心，真諦（paramārtha-satya）的四絕（catuṣkoṭi）就不會成為不絕，世諦（saṃvṛti-satya）的三假（trayaḥ pudgalāḥ）就不能達到四絕，這難道不是定性嗎？《地論》的人認為，真中的真，古今常定，不會成為不真，這難道不是『性』嗎？現在破斥這種『性』的意義，是從所破斥的對象來立名的，所以稱為『門』。其次，從第一品開始，法和相已經非常明確地闡明了無生（anutpāda）。然而，法相（dharma-lakṣaṇa）微妙隱晦，不是普通人所能領悟的。如果不以近處的情況來比況遠處的情況，那麼深奧的旨意就難以明白。所以這一品借用現前變動的『相』來破斥對『性』的執著，使人們更容易領悟。所以設立這一門。第三，從前面開始，已經破斥了一切法的『有』。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, 'existence' and 'non-existence' as well as 'emptiness' are the key points of the third summary of the equalizing Dharma.
Chapter 8: Observing the Nature
From the previous four chapters, examining the characteristics reveals no trace. Now, this chapter, 'Observing the Nature,' explains that 'nature' is not existent. The reason for this chapter is to address the views of outsiders. Previously, 'characteristics' were established based on 'characteristics,' but all 'characteristics' could not be established. Now, if 'nature' is used as proof, then 'characteristics' should exist. Since 'nature' is the essence of conditioned and unconditioned phenomena and all things, how could it not have 'characteristics'? Therefore, we now proceed to refute 'nature.' If 'nature' does not exist, then 'characteristics' are also non-existent. Regarding the difference between 'nature' and 'characteristics,' the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra states that 'nature' is the inner essence that does not change, hence it is called 'nature'; 'characteristics' are external phenomena used to manifest things, hence they are called 'characteristics.' These two are the general principles of all things, so they must be refuted. Secondly, 'nature' refers to the inherent potential for a result within a cause, which is called 'nature.' This is the 'nature' of 'distinct nature,' because 'nature' is not a real thing, so it is called 'distinct.' Thirdly, clinging to 'nature' is like clinging to all dharmas as being truly existent, hence it is called 'nature.' Question: How is this different from the initial 'essence of substance'? Answer: One who clings to having a 'substance' does not necessarily cling to 'nature.' For example, a falsely existent 'substance' is also called 'substance,' but it is not 'nature.' According to what they explain, the meaning of 'essence of substance' is different. If one clings to the 'nature' of 'nature,' merely examining the dharmas in detail and definitively considering them to be existent or non-existent, this is called 'nature.' Moreover, clinging to the 'nature' of 'nature' has a comprehensive meaning. If one just generates a mind of 'existence' and says it is different from 'non-existence,' then this is 'nature-existence.' If one just generates a mind of 'non-existence' and says it is different from 'existence,' then this is 'nature-non-existence.' Since 'existence' and 'non-existence' are like this, 'both existence and non-existence,' and so on, are the same principle. Others say that the Abhidharma of the non-Buddhists might be the meaning of 'nature,' but we study Mahayana, which is not the meaning of 'nature.' Now, I ask, if it is not the meaning of 'nature,' then the minds of sentient beings would not decay, rupa would not become mind, the catuṣkoṭi of paramārtha-satya would not become non-cessation, and the trayaḥ pudgalāḥ of saṃvṛti-satya could not reach the catuṣkoṭi, wouldn't this be fixed nature? The people of the Daśabhūmika-sūtra believe that the truth within the truth, eternally fixed from ancient times, would not become non-truth, wouldn't this be 'nature'? Now, refuting this meaning of 'nature' is named based on the object being refuted, so it is called a 'chapter.' Secondly, from the first chapter onwards, Dharma and characteristics have clearly explained anutpāda. However, dharma-lakṣaṇa is subtle and hidden, not easily understood by ordinary people. If one does not use nearby situations to compare with distant situations, then the profound meaning is difficult to understand. Therefore, this chapter borrows the present changing 'characteristics' to refute the clinging to 'nature,' making it easier for people to understand. Therefore, this chapter is established. Thirdly, from the beginning, the 'existence' of all dharmas has been refuted.
今之一品雙破有無。則申明二諦辨論大宗有此門來也。
此門亦三。前生起如文。
如經者引經證破。恐不信論主之言故也。
偈為三。上半破性。次破無性。三總結。此偈多含。一上半破外次破內。顯道未曾內外故以門通道也。如僧佉等計有內外總別法體。即是性。但一異不同耳。亦計神體即是性。一異不同耳。二者前明性是毗曇。毗曇則萬法各有體故是性。無性是成實義。成實明五陰中不見眾生為空行。見陰亦空為無我行故是無性。而不捨于無性故為今論所破。又成實破故言性無性。不知一切法體性是空。亦為今論所破也。三者性是小乘人義。以小乘人既名有所得。如涅槃云。有所得者名為二乘。故名為性。性即執著義。猶是有所得異名耳。又小乘人不得法無我計有法體。體即是性。又小乘人有無我理決定是無亦名為性故。破性破小乘人也。破無性破大乘人。大乘人定作無性解。舍性而存無性。宜決破之。又不知即性是無性言性無性。二亦次破之。又大對小故有大耳。既無小云何有大。欲顯正道未曾大小令物悟入也。又破性破攝論師三性。破無性破其三無性。理明不曾有三性。何有三無性。故正道非三不三非性不性。如是五句。問曰無著菩薩依經立三無性。云何破耶。答此是一往對性故言無性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 現在所說的一品雙破有無，是爲了闡明二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）並辨論大乘宗旨，這是由此門而來的。
此門也分為三部分。前面的生起如文中所述。
『如經者引經證破』，是指引用佛經來證明和破斥，因為恐怕人們不相信論主的言論。
偈頌分為三部分。上半部分破斥『性』（svabhāva，自性），中間部分破斥『無性』（nihsvabhāva，無自性），最後一部分是總結。這個偈頌包含很多內容。一種解釋是，上半部分破斥外道，下半部分破斥內道，以此來顯示『道』（mārga，道路、修行方法）從未有內外之分，所以用『門』（dvāra，通道、方法）來通達『道』。例如，數論派（Sāṃkhya）等認為有內外總別法體，這就是『性』，只是在『一』（ekatva，單一）和『異』（anyatva，差異）上有所不同。他們也認為神我（ātman，靈魂）的本體就是『性』，只是在『一』和『異』上有所不同。另一種解釋是，前面所說的『性』是指《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma）的觀點。《阿毗達磨》認為萬法各有自體，所以是『性』。『無性』是指《成實論》（Satyasiddhi-śāstra）的義理。《成實論》認為在五蘊（pañca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）中，看不到眾生，這是空行；看到五蘊也是空，這是無我行，但不捨棄『無性』，所以被本論所破斥。而且，《成實論》破斥『性』，所以說『性無性』，但他們不知道一切法體性是空，所以也被本論所破斥。還有一種解釋是，『性』是小乘人的義理。因為小乘人執著于有所得，如《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）所說：『有所得者名為二乘』，所以稱為『性』。『性』就是執著的另一種說法。而且，小乘人不能證得法無我（dharma-nairātmya，諸法無我），認為有法體，這個『體』就是『性』。而且，小乘人認為無我之理是決定的，『無』也稱為『性』，所以破斥『性』就是破斥小乘人。破斥『無性』就是破斥大乘人。大乘人一定認為『無性』是正確的，捨棄『性』而儲存『無性』，所以應該堅決破斥它。而且，他們不知道『即性是無性』，還說『性無性』，所以也破斥他們。而且，因為有大乘才顯得有小乘，既然沒有小乘，怎麼會有大乘？這是爲了顯示正道沒有大小之分，讓人們覺悟並進入正道。而且，破斥『性』就是破斥《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）的三性（trisvabhāva，遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性），破斥『無性』就是破斥其三無性。道理很明顯，不曾有三性，哪裡會有三無性？所以正道非三非不三，非性非不性。就像這五句一樣。有人問：無著菩薩（Asaṅga）依據佛經而立三無性，為什麼要破斥它呢？回答說：這只是一種針對『性』而說的『無性』。
【English Translation】 English version: The current discussion on 'one category, double negation of existence and non-existence' (eka-prakāra-dvaya-niṣedha-astitva-nāstitva) is to clarify the two truths (satya-dvaya, conventional and ultimate truth) and debate the main tenets of Mahayana, and this comes from this 'gate' (dvāra, door, method).
This 'gate' is also divided into three parts. The preceding origination is as described in the text.
'As the sutra says, citing the sutra to prove and refute' means quoting the Buddhist scriptures to prove and refute, because it is feared that people will not believe the words of the author of the treatise.
The verse (gāthā) is divided into three parts. The first half refutes 'svabhāva' (inherent existence, self-nature), the middle part refutes 'nihsvabhāva' (non-inherent existence, absence of self-nature), and the last part is a summary. This verse contains a lot of content. One explanation is that the first half refutes externalists, and the second half refutes internalists, in order to show that the 'mārga' (path, way of practice) has never had an internal or external division, so the 'dvāra' (gate, method) is used to access the 'mārga'. For example, the Sāṃkhya school, etc., believes that there are internal and external general and specific dharma-entities, and this is 'svabhāva', only differing in 'ekatva' (oneness, singularity) and 'anyatva' (otherness, difference). They also believe that the essence of ātman (self, soul) is 'svabhāva', only differing in 'ekatva' and 'anyatva'. Another explanation is that the 'svabhāva' mentioned earlier refers to the viewpoint of the Abhidharma. The Abhidharma believes that all dharmas have their own entities, so it is 'svabhāva'. 'Nihsvabhāva' refers to the meaning of the Satyasiddhi-śāstra. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra believes that in the pañca-skandha (five aggregates, form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), sentient beings cannot be seen, which is the practice of emptiness; seeing that the aggregates are also empty is the practice of no-self, but it does not abandon 'nihsvabhāva', so it is refuted by this treatise. Moreover, the Satyasiddhi-śāstra refutes 'svabhāva', so it says 'svabhāva-nihsvabhāva', but they do not know that the essence of all dharma-entities is emptiness, so it is also refuted by this treatise. Another explanation is that 'svabhāva' is the doctrine of the Hinayana practitioners. Because Hinayana practitioners are attached to something to be attained, as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Those who have something to be attained are called the Two Vehicles', so it is called 'svabhāva'. 'Svabhāva' is another way of saying attachment. Moreover, Hinayana practitioners cannot attain dharma-nairātmya (no-self of phenomena), and believe that there is a dharma-entity, and this 'entity' is 'svabhāva'. Moreover, Hinayana practitioners believe that the principle of no-self is definite, and 'non-existence' is also called 'svabhāva', so refuting 'svabhāva' is refuting Hinayana practitioners. Refuting 'nihsvabhāva' is refuting Mahayana practitioners. Mahayana practitioners certainly believe that 'nihsvabhāva' is correct, abandoning 'svabhāva' and preserving 'nihsvabhāva', so it should be firmly refuted. Moreover, they do not know that 'svabhāva is nihsvabhāva', and they also say 'svabhāva-nihsvabhāva', so they are also refuted. Moreover, because there is Mahayana, there appears to be Hinayana. Since there is no Hinayana, how can there be Mahayana? This is to show that the correct path has no distinction between large and small, so that people can awaken and enter the correct path. Moreover, refuting 'svabhāva' is refuting the trisvabhāva (three natures, parikalpita-svabhāva, paratantra-svabhāva, pariniṣpanna-svabhāva) of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and refuting 'nihsvabhāva' is refuting its three non-natures. The principle is clear, there has never been three natures, where would there be three non-natures? Therefore, the correct path is neither three nor not three, neither nature nor not nature. It's like these five sentences. Someone asked: Asaṅga (無著菩薩) established the three non-natures based on the sutras, why refute it? The answer is: This is just a 'nihsvabhāva' spoken in response to 'svabhāva'.
耳。性既無無性即無。講者不體論意故宜破也。又論主明無性者明無有性。非謂有無性。講人乃明無有性而有于無性不識論意。問攝論何處有此文。答論有一句語。一切諸法以無所得為本。可細尋之。又破性者破理外有所得大小乘義。破無性者亦除理內無所得義。道豈是得無得內外耶。又上半據無常門破于性執。即是破于常義。下半破無常義。明在常既無亦無無常。所以然者。夫聖人言無常者。明其無有常非謂有無常。上半借無常除常。下半亦舍無常。故云一切法空。所以破常無常者。一切眾生未應實相生心動念。不斷則常。斷則無常。是諸見根。障正觀本。是故此偈前窮其根則枝條自壞。又此偈即是除八倒義。上半借無常破常除生死中常等四倒。下半明無常亦無。復除生死中無常等四。故知生死未曾常無常。如是五句。生死既未曾常無常。如是了悟是涅槃。涅槃豈是常無常耶。故生死及涅槃一切諸倒畢竟寂滅。又此偈即釋凈名經不生不滅是無常義。迦旃延但領上半意以見諸法變異故知無常義。而遂言有無性之無常故。執著無常失下半意。然上單捨本為成雙舍。既失雙舍之意。亦迷單舍之旨。是故今明借無常以破常。既舍于常亦不著無常。乃是諸佛菩薩說無常意。故云不生不滅是無常義。然性無性俱是病。而借無性破
性。生死涅槃二俱是病。而借涅槃以破生死。真妄等萬義例之。問變異云何無性。答實有物體即常不可變異變異即無物體也。
長行為三。一釋偈本。二外過內。三內自免過結論旨歸。初又二。前借變異相以破于性。釋上半。複次下釋眾緣以破于性。仍釋下半。
問曰等下二外人過內。又開三別。一牒內義。二正生過。三總結非內。若一切法空即無生無滅標內義。此文有近有遠。遠者從上七門生。上七門皆結云一切法空故今牒之。近從此品生者。以此品內外數論大小三性三無性理內外一切破洗無遺故。外人興此問也。若無生滅則無苦諦下。第二句為內生過。前過內明無四諦三寶。從亦無世間法過內無世俗法。全同中論四諦品。今言無生滅無苦諦者。此有通別二義。通義者無生即無苦集。無滅即無滅道。二者小乘人以生滅無常名為苦諦。今既無生無滅便無苦諦。余並易知。
答曰下第三內自免過結論旨歸。又二。一者內自免過。二推過還外。內自免過明說空無失。推過還外明執有為失。凡有六句。一總標有二諦。二明二諦相資。三不知二諦失於三利。四辨知二諦得三利。五出不知之人。六明能知之人得。初言有二諦者外人執定有。故以斷滅過於論主。是故今明有於二諦。豈是斷滅耶。明有二諦非但離
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 性（自性）。生死和涅槃兩種狀態都是病患。而借用涅槃來破除生死，真和妄等萬種概念都可以以此類推。問：變異如何能說是無自性呢？答：如果確實有實體，那就是恒常不變異的；如果變異，那就沒有實體。 長行部分分為三段。一是解釋偈頌的原本含義，二是外人指責內義的過失，三是內義自身免除過失並總結歸宿。第一段又分為兩部分。前面借用變異的現象來破斥自性，解釋上半部分偈頌。『複次』（再次）之後解釋眾緣和合來破斥自性，仍然是解釋下半部分偈頌。 『問曰』（問道）等之後是外人指責內義的過失。又分為三個部分。一是列舉內義，二是正式產生過失，三是總結說並非內義的過失。『若一切法空即無生無滅』（如果一切法都是空，那就沒有生滅）是標明內義。這段文字有近有遠兩種含義。遠的是從前面的七門生起。前面的七門都總結說一切法是空，所以現在列舉它。近的是從此品生起，因為此品內外數論、大小乘的三種自性、三種無自性的道理，內外一切都破斥洗滌無遺，所以外人才會提出這個問題。『若無生滅則無苦諦』（如果無生滅，那就沒有苦諦）之後，第二句是為內義產生過失。前面指責內義，說明沒有四諦三寶。從『亦無世間法』（也沒有世間法）指責內義沒有世俗法，完全相同于《中論》的四諦品。現在說沒有生滅就沒有苦諦，這有通和別兩種含義。通義是無生即無苦集，無滅即無滅道。別義是小乘人以生滅無常名為苦諦，現在既然沒有生沒有滅，便沒有苦諦。其餘的都容易理解。 『答曰』（回答說）之後是第三部分，內義自身免除過失並總結歸宿。又分為兩部分。一是內義自身免除過失，二是將過失推還給外人。內義自身免除過失，說明說空沒有過失。將過失推還給外人，說明執著有為法才有過失。總共有六句話。一是總標有二諦（兩種真理），二是說明二諦互相資助，三是不瞭解二諦會失去三種利益，四是辨別瞭解二諦能得到三種利益，五是指出不瞭解二諦的人，六是說明能夠了解二諦的人能得到。開頭說『有二諦』，外人執著于定有，所以用斷滅來指責論主。因此現在說明有二諦，難道是斷滅嗎？說明有二諦並非僅僅是離開
【English Translation】 English version: 'Nature' (Svabhava). Both Samsara (birth and death) and Nirvana are illnesses. However, Nirvana is borrowed to break Samsara, and all ten thousand concepts such as truth and falsehood can be inferred in the same way. Question: How can change be said to be without nature? Answer: If there is indeed a substance, then it is constant and cannot be changed; if it changes, then there is no substance.' The prose section is divided into three parts. The first is to explain the original meaning of the verses, the second is the outsiders criticizing the faults of the inner meaning, and the third is the inner meaning itself avoiding faults and summarizing the destination. The first part is further divided into two parts. The front uses the phenomenon of change to refute nature, explaining the first half of the verses. After 'Furthermore', the explanation of the aggregation of causes and conditions is used to refute nature, still explaining the second half of the verses. 'Question:' and so on, after that is the outsiders criticizing the faults of the inner meaning. It is further divided into three parts. The first is to list the inner meaning, the second is to formally generate faults, and the third is to conclude that it is not the fault of the inner meaning. 'If all dharmas are empty, then there is no birth and no death' is to mark the inner meaning. This passage has two meanings, near and far. The far one arises from the previous seven gates. The previous seven gates all conclude that all dharmas are empty, so now list it. The near one arises from this chapter, because this chapter refutes and washes away without leaving anything of the inner and outer Samkhya, the three natures of the Mahayana and Hinayana, and the principles of the three non-natures, so outsiders will raise this question. 'If there is no birth and death, then there is no suffering' after that, the second sentence is to generate faults for the inner meaning. The front criticizes the inner meaning, explaining that there are no Four Noble Truths and Three Jewels. From 'There is also no worldly dharma' criticizing the inner meaning that there is no mundane dharma, it is completely the same as the Four Noble Truths chapter of the Madhyamaka-karika. Now saying that there is no birth and death, then there is no suffering, this has two meanings, general and specific. The general meaning is that no birth means no suffering and accumulation, and no death means no cessation and path. The specific meaning is that Hinayana practitioners call birth, death, and impermanence suffering, now that there is no birth and no death, there is no suffering. The rest are easy to understand. 'Answer:' after that is the third part, the inner meaning itself avoids faults and summarizes the destination. It is further divided into two parts. The first is the inner meaning itself avoiding faults, and the second is to push the faults back to the outsiders. The inner meaning itself avoids faults, explaining that saying emptiness has no faults. Pushing the faults back to the outsiders explains that clinging to conditioned dharmas has faults. There are a total of six sentences. The first is to generally mark that there are two truths, the second is to explain that the two truths assist each other, the third is that not understanding the two truths will lose three benefits, the fourth is to distinguish that understanding the two truths can obtain three benefits, the fifth is to point out people who do not understand the two truths, and the sixth is to explain that people who can understand the two truths can obtain. The beginning says 'There are two truths', outsiders cling to fixed existence, so they use annihilation to criticize the author. Therefore, now explain that there are two truths, is it annihilation? Explaining that there are two truths is not just leaving
斷滅。亦俱離斷常。雖空而有。故不隨斷。雖有而空。故不著常。立於二諦雙破斷常。即是中道。又我上來明無有者無汝所見有。何時無因緣世俗假名有耶。汝聞我明無有即無一切諸有。是故不識我意。又有二諦者。上來破外人性有無明非有非無。故是中道。從中道始得立假名有無。故非有而有。非無而無。而有而無從中起假。故有二諦。又為外人聞一切空無復二諦。今對破無二之病。是故說二。然諸法未曾二與不二。如是五句。若遂守二諦作解者便成二見也。又有二諦者明佛經一切法空。我申佛明一切法空者。汝言明何義耶。佛法中有二諦。上明一切法空此明第一義空。不明世諦義。汝不得其意。故橫生前難耳。又有時云。破二諦明二諦。三世佛皆依二諦說法。此是因緣不有有不無無。學佛教人遂作定性有無解故。今破此定性二諦明一切法空。今方申佛因緣二諦。
因世諦得說第一義諦者。第二明二諦相資。為釋疑故來。既以空為第一義。第一義有二實。一是實相。二聖所行處。故立第一義。世諦無此二。何用說俗諦耶。是故今明。因空有以悟于有空。故言因世諦悟第一義諦。如中論言無言明於二諦。以無言言為世諦。言無言為第一義諦。要因無言言以悟言無言。故云因世諦得說第一義。因第一義得涅槃者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：斷滅，也完全脫離了斷見和常見。雖然體性是空，但現象上是有的，所以不落入斷見。雖然現象上是有，但體性是空，所以不執著于常見。立足於二諦來同時破斥斷見和常見，這就是中道。而且，我之前所說的『無有』，是指沒有你所見的那種『有』。什麼時候說過沒有因緣和合的世俗假名『有』呢？你聽到我說『無有』，就以為是沒有一切諸『有』，所以是不瞭解我的意思。還有，關於二諦，之前破斥外道所認為的人性『有』、『無』、『非有非無』，所以才是中道。從中道才能建立假名『有』和『無』，所以是非『有』而『有』，非『無』而『無』，而『有』而『無』從中道生起假名，所以才有二諦。另外，爲了防止外人聽到一切皆空，就認為沒有二諦，現在針對破除『無二』的毛病，所以才說二諦。然而，諸法從來沒有『二』與『不二』。像這樣五句，如果執著於二諦來解釋，就會形成二見了。還有，關於二諦，是爲了闡明佛經所說的一切法空。我闡述佛所說的一切法空，你問我闡明什麼意義呢？佛法中有二諦，上面說的一切法空，是闡明第一義空，不是闡明世俗諦的意義。你沒有理解其中的意思，所以才橫生之前的疑問。又有時說，破斥二諦是爲了闡明二諦。三世諸佛都是依據二諦來說法的。這是因緣和合，非『有』而『有』，非『無』而『無』。學習佛教的人就以此作為定性的『有』和『無』來理解，所以現在破斥這種定性的二諦，是爲了闡明一切法空。現在才闡述佛所說的因緣二諦。
因為世俗諦才能說第一義諦，第二點是闡明二諦互相資助，是爲了解釋疑惑而來。既然以空作為第一義，第一義有二種真實，一是實相，二是聖者所行之處，所以才建立第一義。世俗諦沒有這兩種真實，為什麼要說世俗諦呢？所以現在闡明，因為空『有』才能領悟到『有』空，所以說因為世俗諦才能領悟第一義諦。如同《中論》所說，沒有言說才能闡明二諦，以沒有言說的言說作為世俗諦，以言說沒有言說作為第一義諦。一定要通過沒有言說的言說才能領悟到言說沒有言說，所以說因為世俗諦才能說第一義。因為第一義才能得到涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Extinction' also completely departs from both annihilationism and eternalism. Although its essence is emptiness, it exists in phenomena, thus not falling into annihilationism. Although it exists in phenomena, its essence is emptiness, thus not clinging to eternalism. Establishing itself on the two truths, it simultaneously refutes annihilationism and eternalism, which is the Middle Way. Moreover, when I previously spoke of 'non-existence,' I meant the absence of the kind of 'existence' you perceive. When did I ever say there was no conventionally designated 'existence' arising from causes and conditions? When you heard me say 'non-existence,' you assumed it meant the absence of all 'existences,' thus misunderstanding my intention. Furthermore, regarding the two truths, the previous refutation of externalists' views on the nature of beings as 'existence,' 'non-existence,' or 'neither existence nor non-existence' is precisely the Middle Way. Only from the Middle Way can we establish provisional 'existence' and 'non-existence,' thus it is 'existence' that is not 'existence,' and 'non-existence' that is not 'non-existence.' 'Existence' and 'non-existence' arise provisionally from the Middle Way, hence the two truths. Moreover, to prevent outsiders from hearing that all is emptiness and then assuming there are no two truths, we now address the problem of 'non-duality,' thus speaking of the two truths. However, phenomena have never been 'two' or 'not two.' If one clings to the two truths as an interpretation, it will lead to dualistic views. Furthermore, regarding the two truths, it is to clarify the emptiness of all dharmas as taught in the Buddhist scriptures. When I expound on the emptiness of all dharmas as taught by the Buddha, you ask what meaning I am clarifying? In the Buddha-dharma, there are two truths. The above discussion of the emptiness of all dharmas clarifies the ultimate emptiness (Paramārtha-śūnyatā), not the meaning of conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya). You have not understood the meaning, hence the previous questions.
Sometimes it is said that refuting the two truths clarifies the two truths. All Buddhas of the three times teach according to the two truths. This is conditioned arising, 'existence' that is not truly 'existence,' and 'non-existence' that is not truly 'non-existence.' Those who study Buddhism then interpret this as fixed 'existence' and 'non-existence,' so now we refute this fixed view of the two truths to clarify the emptiness of all dharmas. Now we expound the conditioned two truths as taught by the Buddha.
Because of conventional truth, the ultimate truth can be spoken of. The second point clarifies the mutual support of the two truths, coming to resolve doubts. Since emptiness is taken as the ultimate meaning, the ultimate meaning has two realities: one is suchness (Tathātā), and the other is the realm traversed by the noble ones. Therefore, the ultimate meaning is established. Conventional truth does not have these two realities, so why speak of conventional truth? Therefore, it is now clarified that because of empty 'existence,' one can awaken to 'existence' as emptiness, thus it is said that because of conventional truth, one can awaken to ultimate truth. As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says, without speech, the two truths can be clarified, with speech without speech as conventional truth, and speechlessness as ultimate truth. One must, through speech without speech, awaken to speechlessness, thus it is said that because of conventional truth, the ultimate truth can be spoken of. Because of the ultimate truth, one attains Nirvāṇa.
第一義即是實相。見實相故斷諸煩惱。故得涅槃也。
若人不知下第三明不知二諦故失三利。所以有此文來為譏小乘人也。
如是若知世諦下第四知二諦則得三利。贊大乘人也。亦令舍小學大也。悟世諦第一義諦生方便般若為自利。悟第一義世諦生般若方便為他利。具生二慧為共利。又自悟二諦生二慧為自利。依二諦為他說法令得二慧為他利。自他俱悟為共利。又依第一義生般若為自利。悟世諦生方便為他利。
汝今聞世諦謂是第一義諦者。第五明不知之人失。聖經明生滅無常。此是世諦。而旃延之流聞經說此言謂無常生滅是第一義諦。所以然者。彼以生滅無常為十六諦理。故第一義。見此理故斷惑得道。大乘望之猶是世諦。問外人在何處聞耶。答十二門師多雲。聞論主說世諦謂是第一義。故假安我字。今明不然。文無我字。又論主何處說世諦彼謂是第一義耶。故謬釋文也。復有人言。外人聞說不生不滅等世諦謂是第一義諦。此轉謬也。外人何時執不生滅言是第一義。彼若執不生不滅是第一義。便謂生滅應是世諦。若爾云何過論主說空無生無滅無三寶四諦耶。問頗有此義以不。答義乃有之非今所用。言義有者世諦破性說空。無性生滅故稱無生滅。此無生滅屬於世諦。而有所得人謂此為第一義。故云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：第一義（Paramārtha，終極真理）即是實相（tathatā，事物的真實面貌）。見實相的緣故，斷除各種煩惱。因此得以涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。
如果有人不瞭解，下文第三部分闡明了不瞭解二諦（兩條真理，即世俗諦和勝義諦）的緣故，會失去三種利益。所以有這段文字的出現，是爲了譏諷小乘（Hinayana，早期佛教派別）之人。
像這樣，如果瞭解世諦（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）……下文第四部分闡明了了解二諦就能獲得三種利益。這是爲了讚揚大乘（Mahayana，後期佛教派別）之人。也是爲了讓（小乘修行者）捨棄小（乘教法）而學習大（乘教法）。領悟世諦和第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）產生方便般若（upāya-prajñā，善巧智慧）是為自利。領悟第一義諦和世諦產生般若方便（prajñā-upāya，智慧善巧）是為他利。同時產生兩種智慧是為共利。此外，自己領悟二諦，產生兩種智慧是為自利。依據二諦為他人說法，使他人獲得兩種智慧是為他利。自己和他人一同領悟是為共利。此外，依靠第一義諦產生般若是為自利。領悟世諦產生方便是為他利。
你現在聽聞世諦，卻認為是第一義諦。下文第五部分闡明了不瞭解（二諦）之人（的過失）。聖經闡明生滅無常（impermanence，事物不斷變化）。這是世諦。而旃延（Katyayana，人名）之流的人聽聞經典這樣說，就認為無常生滅是第一義諦。之所以這樣，是因為他們把生滅無常當作十六諦理（十六種關於真理的觀點）。因此認為是第一義。因為見到這個道理，就能斷除迷惑，獲得解脫。大乘（修行者）看來，這仍然是世諦。問：外道（非佛教徒）在什麼地方聽到的呢？答：十二門師（一個佛教派別）大多說，聽到論主（佛教論著的作者）說世諦就是第一義。所以假託安立『我』字。現在說明不是這樣。文中沒有『我』字。而且論主在什麼地方說過世諦就是第一義呢？所以這是錯誤的解釋。又有人說，外道聽聞說不生不滅等世諦，認為是第一義諦。這更是錯誤的。外道什麼時候執著不生不滅的言論是第一義？他們如果執著不生不滅是第一義，就認為生滅應該是世諦。如果是這樣，怎麼會責怪論主說空、無生、無滅、無三寶（佛、法、僧）和四諦（苦、集、滅、道）呢？問：有沒有這種意義呢？答：意義是有的，但不是現在所用的。說意義是有的，是指世諦爲了破除自性而說空。因為沒有自性，所以生滅才被稱為無生滅。這個無生滅屬於世諦。而有所得的人認為這是第一義。所以這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version: The first principle (Paramārtha, ultimate truth) is the true nature (tathatā, the true aspect of things). Because of seeing the true nature, all afflictions are cut off. Therefore, Nirvana (liberation) is attained.
If someone does not understand, the third part below clarifies that not understanding the two truths (the two truths, namely conventional truth and ultimate truth) will result in the loss of three benefits. Therefore, the appearance of this text is to satirize those of the Hinayana (early Buddhist school).
Like this, if one understands the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, conventional truth)... The fourth part below clarifies that understanding the two truths can obtain three benefits. This is to praise those of the Mahayana (later Buddhist school). It is also to let (Hinayana practitioners) abandon the small (Hinayana teachings) and learn the great (Mahayana teachings). Realizing the conventional truth and the first principle (paramārtha-satya, ultimate truth) to generate skillful wisdom (upāya-prajñā, skillful means and wisdom) is for one's own benefit. Realizing the first principle and the conventional truth to generate wisdom and skillful means (prajñā-upāya, wisdom and skillful means) is for the benefit of others. Simultaneously generating two kinds of wisdom is for common benefit. In addition, oneself realizing the two truths and generating two kinds of wisdom is for one's own benefit. Relying on the two truths to speak the Dharma for others, enabling others to obtain two kinds of wisdom is for the benefit of others. Oneself and others realizing together is for common benefit. In addition, relying on the first principle to generate wisdom is for one's own benefit. Realizing the conventional truth to generate skillful means is for the benefit of others.
You now hear the conventional truth, but think it is the first principle. The fifth part below clarifies the faults of those who do not understand (the two truths). The sutras clarify impermanence (impermanence, things are constantly changing). This is the conventional truth. But people like Katyayana (Katyayana, a name) hear the sutras say this, and think that impermanence is the first principle. The reason for this is that they regard impermanence as the sixteen truths (sixteen views on truth). Therefore, they think it is the first principle. Because they see this principle, they can cut off delusion and attain liberation. In the eyes of Mahayana (practitioners), this is still the conventional truth. Question: Where did the non-Buddhists (non-Buddhist) hear it? Answer: The Twelve Gate Masters (a Buddhist school) mostly say that they heard the author of the treatise (author of Buddhist treatises) say that the conventional truth is the first principle. Therefore, they falsely establish the word 'I'. Now it is explained that this is not the case. There is no word 'I' in the text. And where did the author of the treatise say that the conventional truth is the first principle? Therefore, this is a wrong interpretation. Some people also say that non-Buddhists hear that the conventional truth such as non-arising and non-ceasing is the first principle. This is even more wrong. When did non-Buddhists cling to the statement of non-arising and non-ceasing as the first principle? If they cling to non-arising and non-ceasing as the first principle, they would think that arising and ceasing should be the conventional truth. If so, how can they blame the author of the treatise for saying emptiness, non-arising, non-ceasing, no Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path)? Question: Is there such a meaning? Answer: The meaning exists, but it is not used now. Saying that the meaning exists means that the conventional truth speaks of emptiness in order to break self-nature. Because there is no self-nature, arising and ceasing are called non-arising and non-ceasing. This non-arising and non-ceasing belongs to the conventional truth. But those who have attainment think that this is the first principle. Therefore, it is said so.
聞說世諦謂是第一義也。又三性三無性並是世諦。第一義非性無性。故前云無性法亦無。一切法空故。而有所得人執三無性是第一義墮在失處。若作三重二諦明義者。若有若無皆世諦。非空非有方是第一義。汝聞說有是世諦空是第一義者。聞我說世諦謂是第一義也。次云。空有為二非空有不二。二不二皆是世諦。非二不二方是第一義。汝聞世諦謂是第一義。南方人聞初重世諦謂是第一義。北土人多聞後重世諦謂是第一義也。
諸佛因緣法名甚深第一義者。第六齣能知之人。即論主也。故論主示其二諦之相有二句。初牒因緣法是第一義。是因緣法無自性故。下釋因緣是第一義。明因緣宛然即畢竟空名第一義。所以明因緣空為第一義凡有三義。一者恐外人謂論主用斷滅空名第一義。二者謂。論主空于性實名第一義。即簡假不空義。謂但空于性不空于假名第一義。三者外人聞二諦便謂世諦實有三實第一義是空。則外人便得世諦義成。故今明。我言世諦是因緣有不如汝性有。汝非但不知第一義亦不知世諦。又簡空假名義言空于假方是第一義。是故今明。假名因緣宛然而即畢竟空名第一義。故作此論。睿師采此品作論序云。正之以十二便有無兼暢。事無不盡正是斯文。
若諸法不從眾緣生下第二回過還外人。就文為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：聽說把世俗諦（Satyasamvriti，指相對真理，即我們通常所認為的真實）當作第一義諦（Paramarthasatya，指絕對真理，超越概念和語言的終極實相）。還有，三自性（trisvabhāva，指遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）和三無自性（triniḥsvabhāvatā，指無相性、無生性、勝義性）都屬於世俗諦。第一義諦既非有自性也非無自性。所以前面說『無自性的法也是不存在的』，因為一切法皆空。然而，有些人執著於三無自性是第一義諦，這是錯誤的。如果用三重二諦來闡明意義，那麼『有』和『無』都屬於世俗諦，『非空非有』才是第一義諦。如果你聽說『有』是世俗諦，『空』是第一義諦，那麼我告訴你，我說世俗諦就是第一義諦。接下來又說，『空』和『有』是二，『非空非有』是不二。『二』和『不二』都屬於世俗諦，『非二非不二』才是第一義諦。你聽說世俗諦就是第一義諦，南方人聽說第一重世俗諦就是第一義諦，北方人大多聽說第二重世俗諦就是第一義諦。
諸佛所說的因緣法（pratītyasamutpāda，指事物相互依存的生起）名為甚深第一義諦。第六點是指出能夠理解這些道理的人，也就是論主（指中觀論的作者，如龍樹菩薩Nāgārjuna）。所以論主揭示二諦的相狀有兩句話。首先是引用因緣法就是第一義諦，因為因緣法沒有自性。下面解釋因緣就是第一義諦，闡明因緣的顯現就是畢竟空（atyanta-śūnyatā，指徹底的空性），名為第一義諦。之所以闡明因緣空為第一義諦，總共有三個意義。第一，是恐怕外人認為論主是用斷滅空（uccheda-śūnyatā，指否定一切的空）作為第一義諦。第二，是說論主所空的，是自性的真實，也就是簡別假有不空的意義。意思是隻空自性，不空假有，名為第一義諦。第三，外人聽到二諦，就認為世俗諦是實有的，第一義諦是空。這樣外人就認為世俗諦的意義成立了。所以現在闡明，我說世俗諦是因緣有，不像你所說的自性有。你不但不知道第一義諦，也不知道世俗諦。又簡別空假名義，說空于假有才是第一義諦。因此現在闡明，假名因緣的顯現就是畢竟空，名為第一義諦。所以才作這部論。鳩摩羅什的弟子僧睿法師採用這一品作為論的序言說，用十二門來匡正，那麼有和無就兼顧暢達，事理沒有不窮盡的，說的就是這篇文章。
『若諸法不從眾緣生』（如果諸法不是從眾緣而生）以下，是第二次反駁外人。就文義來說。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said that the conventional truth (Satyasamvriti, the relative truth, referring to what we usually consider to be real) is regarded as the ultimate truth (Paramarthasatya, the absolute truth, the ultimate reality beyond concepts and language). Furthermore, the three natures (trisvabhāva, referring to parikalpita-svabhāva, paratantra-svabhāva, and pariniṣpanna-svabhāva) and the three non-natures (triniḥsvabhāvatā, referring to the lack of characteristics, the lack of origination, and the ultimate nature) all belong to the conventional truth. The ultimate truth is neither with self-nature nor without self-nature. Therefore, it was previously said that 'the dharma without self-nature is also non-existent,' because all dharmas are empty. However, some people cling to the three non-natures as the ultimate truth, which is a mistake. If the meaning is clarified using a threefold two truths, then 'existence' and 'non-existence' both belong to the conventional truth, and 'neither empty nor existent' is the ultimate truth. If you have heard that 'existence' is the conventional truth and 'emptiness' is the ultimate truth, then I tell you that I say the conventional truth is the ultimate truth. Next, it is said that 'emptiness' and 'existence' are two, and 'neither empty nor existent' is non-dual. 'Duality' and 'non-duality' both belong to the conventional truth, and 'neither dual nor non-dual' is the ultimate truth. You have heard that the conventional truth is the ultimate truth. People in the South have heard that the first level of conventional truth is the ultimate truth, and people in the North mostly have heard that the second level of conventional truth is the ultimate truth.
The dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda, referring to the interdependent arising of things) spoken by the Buddhas is called the profound ultimate truth. The sixth point is to point out the person who can understand these principles, that is, the author of the treatise (referring to the author of the Madhyamaka treatises, such as Nāgārjuna). Therefore, the author reveals the characteristics of the two truths in two sentences. First, it cites that dependent origination is the ultimate truth, because dependent origination has no self-nature. The following explains that dependent origination is the ultimate truth, clarifying that the manifestation of dependent origination is precisely ultimate emptiness (atyanta-śūnyatā, referring to complete emptiness), which is called the ultimate truth. The reason for clarifying that the emptiness of dependent origination is the ultimate truth is for three reasons in total. First, it is to prevent outsiders from thinking that the author is using annihilation emptiness (uccheda-śūnyatā, referring to the emptiness of negation of everything) as the ultimate truth. Second, it is said that what the author empties is the reality of self-nature, which is to distinguish the meaning of provisional existence that is not empty. It means that only self-nature is emptied, not provisional existence, which is called the ultimate truth. Third, when outsiders hear about the two truths, they think that the conventional truth is real and the ultimate truth is empty. In this way, outsiders think that the meaning of the conventional truth is established. Therefore, it is now clarified that I say the conventional truth is dependent existence, unlike what you say is existence with self-nature. You not only do not know the ultimate truth, but also do not know the conventional truth. It also distinguishes the meaning of empty provisional names, saying that emptiness of provisional existence is the ultimate truth. Therefore, it is now clarified that the manifestation of provisional name dependent origination is precisely ultimate emptiness, which is called the ultimate truth. That is why this treatise was written. The Dharma Master Sengrui, a disciple of Kumārajīva, adopted this chapter as the preface to the treatise, saying that by correcting it with the twelve gates, existence and non-existence are both comprehensively expressed, and the principles are fully exhausted, which is what this article is about.
'If dharmas do not arise from conditions' (若諸法不從眾緣生) below, is the second rebuttal of outsiders. In terms of the meaning of the text.
三。一者破外人自性。二破他性。三總結無自他等自性。就自性中又二。初牒彼性義。五陰不生不滅下顯性為過。回過還於外人又開二別。前回無四諦三寶過還於外人。複次下第二回無世間法過還於外人。此性過微細難識。若謂有一毫法體此則不從緣生。便是自性。自性則破世出世一切法也。
若謂諸法無自性下第二外破他性。初就相待門破。又他性下就相即門破。破自性破假有體家有假人假柱體。破他性破用實為假體。如五蘊為人體。有四微為柱體。
若自性不成下第三總結。又二。初別結四法。次總結四法。別結四法者。一結無自性。二結無他性。三結無有性。四結無無性。同中論破有無品四偈。是故下總結無有四性。故一切空。此品第三總結法空。
十二門論疏卷下之本
十二門論疏卷下之末
觀因果門第九
所以有此門來者。上四門求相不可得。次一門明性無蹤。故無量義經云。一切諸法自本來今性相空寂。以外相內性空故一切法空。外人云。若一切法性相空者可言無因果耶。然世出世因果不可言無。云何言無性相。是故今次明非但無有性相求此因果亦不可得。故有此門來也。又近從性門來者。前偈上半明無萬物實體。下半明無萬物假體。外云。若假實二體空故一切法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 三、第一是破斥外道所說的自性（Svarupa，事物自身存在的本性）。第二是破斥他性（Parabhava，依賴於其他事物而存在的本性）。第三是總結沒有自性、他性等自性。在破斥自性中又分為兩部分。首先是照錄對方關於自性的定義。『五陰不生不滅』以下，顯示了自性存在的過失。將過失歸還給外道，又分為兩種情況。前一部分是將沒有四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，佛教的四條真理）、三寶（triratna，佛、法、僧）的過失歸還給外道。『複次』以下是第二部分，將沒有世間法的過失歸還給外道。這種自性的過失非常細微難以識別。如果認為有一絲一毫的實體存在，那麼它就不會從因緣而生。如果是不從因緣而生的，那就是自性。如果承認自性存在，那麼就會破斥世間和出世間的一切法。 如果認為諸法沒有自性，以下是第二部分，從外部破斥他性。首先是從相待門（事物相互依存的方面）進行破斥。『又他性』以下，是從相即門（事物相互統一的方面）進行破斥。破斥自性，就是破斥假有實體，例如房屋有假人，房屋有假柱子等實體。破斥他性，就是破斥以真實為作用的假體，例如五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素）是人體的假體，四個微塵是柱子的假體。 『若自性不成』以下是第三部分，進行總結。又分為兩部分。首先是分別總結四種法。其次是總結四種法。分別總結四種法，包括：第一，總結沒有自性。第二，總結沒有他性。第三，總結沒有有性（bhava-svabhava，存在的本性）。第四，總結沒有無性（abhava-svabhava，不存在的本性）。這與中論破有無論中的四句偈頌相同。『是故』以下，總結沒有四種自性。所以一切都是空性（sunyata，空虛性）。這一品是第三次總結法空（dharma-sunyata，諸法皆空）。 《十二門論疏》卷下之本 《十二門論疏》卷下之末 觀因果門第九 之所以有這一門的原因是：前面四門探求事物的表相而不可得。接下來的一門闡明自性沒有軌跡。《無量義經》說：『一切諸法自本來今性相空寂。』因為外在的表相和內在的自性都是空性的，所以一切法都是空性的。外道說：『如果一切法的自性和表相都是空性的，那麼就可以說沒有因果嗎？』然而，世間和出世間的因果不能說沒有。怎麼能說沒有自性和表相呢？因此，現在接下來闡明，不僅沒有自性和表相，探求這種因果也是不可得的。所以有這一門的原因。另外，從接近自性之門來說：前面的偈頌前半部分闡明沒有萬物的實體。後半部分闡明沒有萬物的假體。外道說：『如果假體和實體都是空性的，那麼一切法』
【English Translation】 English version: Three. First, refuting the self-nature (Svarupa, the inherent nature of things) of outsiders. Second, refuting other-nature (Parabhava, the nature that depends on other things). Third, summarizing that there is no self-nature, other-nature, etc. Within the refutation of self-nature, there are two parts. First, quoting the opponent's definition of nature. 'The five skandhas (pañca-skandha, the five aggregates constituting an individual) neither arise nor cease' below, showing the fault of assuming a self-nature. Returning the fault to the outsiders, there are two further distinctions. The previous part returns the fault of lacking the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, the four truths of Buddhism) and the Three Jewels (triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) to the outsiders. 'Furthermore' below is the second part, returning the fault of lacking worldly dharmas to the outsiders. This fault of self-nature is very subtle and difficult to recognize. If one claims that there is even a tiny bit of substance, then it does not arise from conditions. If it does not arise from conditions, then it is self-nature. If self-nature is admitted, then all worldly and transcendental dharmas are refuted. If one claims that dharmas have no self-nature, the following is the second part, externally refuting other-nature. First, refuting from the perspective of interdependence. 'Furthermore, other-nature' below, refuting from the perspective of identity. Refuting self-nature is refuting the existence of false entities, such as a house having a false person, a house having false pillars, etc. Refuting other-nature is refuting the false entity that uses reality as its function, such as the five skandhas being the false entity of the human body, and four subtle particles being the false entity of the pillar. 'If self-nature is not established' below is the third part, summarizing. It is divided into two parts. First, separately summarizing the four dharmas. Second, summarizing the four dharmas. Separately summarizing the four dharmas includes: first, summarizing that there is no self-nature; second, summarizing that there is no other-nature; third, summarizing that there is no existence-nature (bhava-svabhava, the nature of existence); fourth, summarizing that there is no non-existence-nature (abhava-svabhava, the nature of non-existence). This is the same as the four verses in the chapter on refuting existence and non-existence in the Madhyamaka-karika. 'Therefore' below, summarizing that there are no four natures. Therefore, everything is emptiness (sunyata, voidness). This chapter is the third summary of dharma-sunyata (the emptiness of all dharmas). The end of the lower volume of the Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise The end of the lower volume of the Commentary on the Twelve Gates Treatise Ninth Gate on Observing Cause and Effect The reason for having this gate is: in the previous four gates, seeking the characteristics of things was unattainable. The next gate clarifies that nature has no trace. The Infinite Meaning Sutra says: 'All dharmas are originally, from the beginning until now, empty and still in nature and characteristics.' Because external characteristics and internal nature are empty, all dharmas are empty. Outsiders say: 'If the nature and characteristics of all dharmas are empty, then can it be said that there is no cause and effect?' However, worldly and transcendental cause and effect cannot be said to be non-existent. How can it be said that there is no nature and characteristics? Therefore, now, it is clarified that not only are there no nature and characteristics, but seeking this cause and effect is also unattainable. Therefore, there is this gate. Also, from the perspective of approaching the gate of nature: the first half of the previous verse clarifies that there is no substance of all things. The second half clarifies that there is no false entity of all things. Outsiders say: 'If false entities and substances are empty, then all dharmas'
空。然因果之理不可無。若爾終有因果。有因果故不實即假也。毗曇實有因果體。成實具二義。一者因成。相續。相待論因果。則因實而果假。如四微實。柱是假。若法受名三假則因果皆假。如細色成粗色是法假。四微成四大是受假。四大成五根已去為名假。又五陰為法假。人為受假。人法皆有名為名假。問若無因果與邪見何異。答有五人立無因果。一立有見人謂。實有果體則不從因生。故成無因果。二外道邪見言無因果。三複二乘言無因果。四大乘人言無因果。外道是邪見撥無因果。故言無因果。此是邪見空。二乘言無因果望大乘亦是邪見空。故涅槃云。若以二乘言無佈施是破戒邪見。智度論云。二乘空是但空。四大乘學方廣人謂無世諦因果。五諸佛菩薩言無因果者。因果宛然而畢竟空。故名無所得空。所以有三空異。一邪見空。二但空。三真空。今破前二空令入真空故明因果空也。問令悟因果空有何利。答悟因果宛然即畢竟空故生如來智。雖畢竟空因果宛然。生於佛智因果非因果常爾。而觀行任運純熟為自然智。不從師得為無師智。既生四智入佛知見。即是因果觀行轉明遂得成佛為佛果乘。論主今明因果空。為釋成大乘義故也。問悟因果空但生智慧。云何有功德耶。大乘具以福慧為體。云何但明智慧。答既得如實
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 空，然而因果的道理是不能沒有的。如果這樣說，終究還是有因果。因為有因果的緣故，所以不真實，就是虛假的。Sarvastivadins（一切有部，佛教部派之一，主張一切事物皆實有）認為因果的本體是實有的。Satyasiddhi School（成實宗，佛教部派之一）具有兩種含義：一是因的成就，相續，相互依存來論述因果，那麼因是真實的，而果是虛假的。例如四微是真實的，柱子是虛假的。如果法接受三種虛假之名，那麼因果都是虛假的。例如細色形成粗色是法假，四微形成四大是受假，四大形成五根之後就是名假。又五陰是法假，人是受假，人和法都有名稱是名假。問：如果沒有因果，與邪見有什麼不同？答：有五種人認為沒有因果。第一種是持有實有見解的人，認為果的本體是實有的，因此不是從因產生的，所以就成了沒有因果。第二種是外道的邪見，說沒有因果。第三種是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也說沒有因果。第四種是大乘人也說沒有因果。外道是邪見，否定因果，所以說沒有因果，這是邪見空。二乘說沒有因果，相對於大乘來說也是邪見空。所以《涅槃經》說，如果以二乘的觀點來說沒有佈施，就是破戒邪見。《智度論》說，二乘的空是但空。第四種是大乘學習方廣經典的人，認為沒有世俗諦的因果。第五種是諸佛菩薩說沒有因果，因果明明存在，但畢竟是空，所以稱為無所得空。因此有三種空的差別：一是邪見空，二是但空，三是真空。現在破除前兩種空，使人進入真空，所以闡明因果空。問：領悟因果空有什麼好處？答：領悟因果明明存在，就是畢竟空，因此產生如來智慧。雖然畢竟空，因果明明存在，產生佛的智慧，因果非因果本來就是這樣，而觀行任運純熟就成為自然智，不是從老師那裡得到的，是無師智。既然產生了四智，進入佛的知見，這就是因果觀行更加明瞭，於是得以成佛，成為佛果乘。論主現在闡明因果空，是爲了解釋成就大乘的意義。問：領悟因果空只是產生智慧，怎麼會有功德呢？大乘以福慧為本體，為什麼只闡明智慧？答：既然得到了如實
【English Translation】 English version Emptiness, yet the principle of cause and effect cannot be absent. If so, there will ultimately be cause and effect. Because there is cause and effect, it is not real, that is, it is false. The Sarvastivadins (a school of Buddhism, asserting that all things exist) believe that the substance of cause and effect is real. The Satyasiddhi School (another school of Buddhism) has two meanings: first, the accomplishment of the cause, continuity, and interdependence are discussed in terms of cause and effect, then the cause is real, and the effect is false. For example, the four subtle elements are real, and the pillar is false. If a dharma receives three false names, then both cause and effect are false. For example, subtle color forming coarse color is dharma-falsity, four subtle elements forming the four great elements is reception-falsity, and the four great elements forming the five roots onwards is name-falsity. Furthermore, the five skandhas are dharma-falsity, a person is reception-falsity, and both person and dharma having names is name-falsity. Question: If there is no cause and effect, what is the difference from wrong views? Answer: There are five types of people who assert that there is no cause and effect. The first is those who hold the view of real existence, believing that the substance of the effect is real, therefore it is not produced from a cause, thus becoming no cause and effect. The second is the heretical views of external paths, saying there is no cause and effect. The third is the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) also saying there is no cause and effect. The fourth is the Mahayana practitioners also saying there is no cause and effect. External paths are heretical views, denying cause and effect, so they say there is no cause and effect, this is the emptiness of heretical views. The Two Vehicles saying there is no cause and effect, relative to Mahayana, is also the emptiness of heretical views. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says, 'If one uses the Two Vehicles' view to say there is no giving, it is a precept-breaking heretical view.' The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says, 'The emptiness of the Two Vehicles is merely emptiness.' The fourth is Mahayana practitioners studying the Vaipulya sutras, believing there is no mundane truth of cause and effect. The fifth is the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas saying there is no cause and effect, cause and effect are clearly present, but ultimately empty, therefore it is called the emptiness of no attainment. Therefore, there are three differences in emptiness: one is the emptiness of heretical views, two is mere emptiness, and three is true emptiness. Now, breaking through the first two emptinesses to lead people into true emptiness, therefore clarifying the emptiness of cause and effect. Question: What are the benefits of realizing the emptiness of cause and effect? Answer: Realizing that cause and effect are clearly present, that is, ultimately empty, therefore generating the wisdom of the Tathagata. Although ultimately empty, cause and effect are clearly present, generating the wisdom of the Buddha, cause and effect, non-cause and effect are always like this, and the practice of contemplation becomes purely skilled, becoming natural wisdom, not obtained from a teacher, it is teacherless wisdom. Since the four wisdoms are generated, entering the knowledge and vision of the Buddha, this is the cause and effect contemplation becoming clearer, thus being able to become a Buddha, becoming the Buddha-fruit vehicle. The author of the treatise now clarifies the emptiness of cause and effect, in order to explain and accomplish the meaning of Mahayana. Question: Realizing the emptiness of cause and effect only generates wisdom, how can there be merit? Mahayana takes both merit and wisdom as its substance, why only clarify wisdom? Answer: Since one has obtained the true
悟還為眾生如實說。即是般若大悲。故福慧具足名大乘也。問上來已明因果空竟。今何故復說。答曰自上八門廣破從因生果義。復有計無因自然有果。此三一病猶未除之。是故今品次破之也。問若爾應言破無因有果門。云何言破因果耶。答論主欲對破破無因有果故。此品雙破從因生果及無因有果。故言觀因果。夫論因果不出斯二。斯二既無則因果便空。又因果難明上已廣論。今次略辨故有此門來。又有種種觀門。今作因果觀門以悟入實相。故有此門來也。又上門破因果便備。而更有此門者是泥洹法寶入有多門故也。問與中論因果品何異。答彼品橫闊豎狹。廣破十家因果並是破從因生果義。故言橫闊。不破無因有果。故言豎狹此品略破從因生果。復破無因有果。故橫狹豎闊。故異也。門亦三。初長行發起。為二。一者總唱一切法空。何以故下釋二義。別釋一切法空所以舉二義者。上來已破因果今復論之。似如煩重故逆取偈意而生起之。言二義者。一明諸法無自性。此辨果不從因生。二明亦不從余處來。此正起此門明非因不生果。
偈為二。三句正破一句總結。正破又二。上半明因內無果。次句明因外無果。文易知也。
長行釋二章即二。前釋三句次釋第四句。三句又二。前釋上半又是果下釋第三句。若果眾
緣中無下釋第四句也。
果空故下門中第三結一切法空。
觀作者門第十
所以有此門來者凡有六義。一者若就人法二種無生。自上已來明法無生。此之一品釋人無生。若依觀門次第應前釋人無生后釋法無生。但今就本末次第。法本人末。故前破其本今次破末。二者依內外次第。若破外道應前破神而後破法。佛之弟子多不執神而執有法故。智度論云。佛滅度後分為二分。一者但信眾生空不信法空。二者信眾生空亦信法空。故知佛之弟子多不執神。今此論正破內學。是故前破於法后破于神。二者上諸品末結云有為空故無為空。有為無為尚空。何況我耶。難復以法例人而未別破人。今此一章別破於人。則釋諸門中明人空義。故有此門來也。三者三解脫門明義。上明二門訖今第三竟論釋無作門。三門有淺深無有淺深義。無淺深者一一門無病不破無理不顯。故門初門后皆唱一切法空。有淺深者空門破有無相門破空。此二門非有非空即中道境中道觀。今門明息觀。故三門空有並亡緣觀俱寂。所以論明三門也。四者此論正破內執傍破外邪。自上以來正破內竟。今此一品次破外邪。自在天是邪見之本。謂是造化之主盛行天竺。今此一品中破造化之主名破作者。故今文來也。所以是破內外者。內外並障大乘。內為近
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『緣中無下釋第四句也』，這句話解釋了『緣起性空』中的第四句。
『果空故下門中第三結一切法空』，因此在下面的章節中，第三部分總結了一切法皆空的道理。
觀作者門第十
設立這一章節的原因有六個方面：第一，就人法二種無生而言，從前面開始闡明了法無生。這一品解釋了人無生。如果按照觀門的次第，應該先解釋人無生，后解釋法無生。但現在按照本末的次第，法是根本，人是末節，所以先破除根本，現在破除末節。第二，按照內外次第，如果破除外道，應該先破除神，然後破除法。佛的弟子大多不執著于神，而執著於法。智度論說：『佛滅度後分為二分，一者但信眾生空不信法空，二者信眾生空亦信法空。』由此可知，佛的弟子大多不執著于神。現在這部論正是破除內學，所以先破除法，后破除神。第三，前面的章節末尾總結說，因為有為是空的，所以無為也是空的。有為無為尚且是空的，何況我呢？有人可能會用法來類比人，但還沒有分別破除人。現在這一章分別破除人，從而解釋了各個章節中闡明的人空之義。所以設立這一章節。第四，闡明三解脫門的意義。前面闡明了兩個解脫門，現在第三個解脫門是論述無作門。三門有淺深和無淺深兩種意義。無淺深是指每一門都沒有毛病，沒有破除不了的，沒有道理不顯現的。所以每一門的開始和結尾都宣揚一切法空。有淺深是指空門破除有，無相門破除空。這兩個門是非有非空，即中道境界，中道觀。現在這一門闡明息觀。所以三門空有都消失，緣觀也寂靜。因此，論中闡明了三門。第五，這部論主要是破除內執，順帶破除外邪。從前面開始主要是破除內執，現在這一品順帶破除外邪。自在天（Maheśvara）是邪見的根本，被認為是造物之主，在天竺（India）盛行。現在這一品中破除造物之主，名為破作者。所以現在這一品來了。之所以要破除內外，是因為內外都障礙大乘。
【English Translation】 English version: 『緣中無下釋第四句也』 This sentence explains the fourth line in 『dependent origination is emptiness』.
『果空故下門中第三結一切法空』 Therefore, in the following chapters, the third part concludes that all dharmas are empty.
Chapter Ten: Examining the Author
There are six reasons for establishing this chapter: First, in terms of the two kinds of non-origination, of persons and dharmas, from the beginning, the non-origination of dharmas has been explained. This chapter explains the non-origination of persons. If following the order of the contemplation gates, one should first explain the non-origination of persons and then explain the non-origination of dharmas. However, now following the order of root and branch, dharmas are the root, and persons are the branch, so first the root is refuted, and now the branch is refuted. Second, according to the internal and external order, if refuting external paths, one should first refute the self and then refute dharmas. Most of the Buddha's disciples do not cling to a self but cling to the existence of dharmas. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says: 『After the Buddha's parinirvana, they were divided into two groups: one group only believed in the emptiness of beings but did not believe in the emptiness of dharmas, and the other group believed in the emptiness of beings and also believed in the emptiness of dharmas.』 From this, it can be known that most of the Buddha's disciples do not cling to a self. Now, this treatise is precisely refuting internal learning, so first dharmas are refuted, and then the self is refuted. Third, clarifying the meaning of the three doors of liberation. The previous chapters clarified two doors of liberation, and now the third door of liberation discusses the door of non-action. The three doors have meanings of depth and no depth. No depth means that each door has no fault, nothing cannot be refuted, and no principle is not revealed. Therefore, the beginning and end of each door proclaim that all dharmas are empty. Depth means that the door of emptiness refutes existence, and the door of signlessness refutes emptiness. These two doors are neither existence nor emptiness, which is the realm of the Middle Way, the contemplation of the Middle Way. Now, this door clarifies the contemplation of cessation. Therefore, the three doors of emptiness and existence both disappear, and the contemplation of conditions is also still. Therefore, the treatise clarifies the three doors. Fourth, this treatise mainly refutes internal clinging and incidentally refutes external heresies. From the beginning, it mainly refutes internal clinging, and now this chapter incidentally refutes external heresies. Maheśvara (自在天) is the root of heretical views, considered the creator, and prevalent in India (天竺). Now, this chapter refutes the creator, called refuting the author. So, this chapter has come about. The reason for refuting both internal and external is that both internal and external obstruct the Mahayana.
障外為遠障。內為細障外為粗障。又欲令外回邪入正內轉小歸大。是菩薩廣遠之意。又破內令三乘徒轍。破外使六道回宗。併入大乘俱成佛也。五者接上門來者。外云。若言因與無因並不生果者。能有作因之人受果之者。既有作因之人受果之者則因果不無。是故前破法因果今破人因果。前明法無故人無。今辨人無故法無六者三世佛菩薩出世之意。為欲拔苦與樂。拔苦令累無不寂。與樂使德無不圓。故成中道法身。而內外同欲離苦。不識苦因故生四謬。非但不得離苦反更增苦。今破四謬令識因緣苦則畢竟空。一得病除。二得解苦。三得離苦。故有此門來也。問解苦空有何利。答解苦是因緣故不起著樂顛倒。知苦亦空不起苦倒。故八倒病得消。又解苦是因緣故破凡夫著三界樂。樂去苦亦除故破二乘病。故六道回宗三宗歸佛。有此大利故說此門。問與中論破作者品何異。答此品乃與中論破苦品大同。與作者品其義各異。
此門亦三。初長行發起。如文。
偈本為二。三句破四種作。第四句總結無苦。問作者應破一切。今何故偏破苦。答如上明之。四作者為因苦則是果。但苦為大患之本。物競求離而不識苦。非但不能離苦。而於苦中更復造苦。是故偏破苦也。四門求苦既爾。四門求樂不苦不樂義並類然。問為破法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：外在的障礙是遠障（指距離較遠的障礙），內在的障礙是細障，外在的障礙是粗障。進一步說，（菩薩）想要使外道迴歸正道，使內在的小乘轉向大乘，這是菩薩廣闊深遠的用意。進一步說，破除內在的障礙，使三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的修行者不再停留于舊的軌跡；破除外在的障礙，使六道眾生迴歸佛法根本。最終都進入大乘，共同成就佛果。第五，接續前面的法門而來。外道說：『如果說因和無因都不能產生果，那麼誰是有造作之因的人，誰是承受果報的人？』既然有造作之因的人，也有承受果報的人，那麼因果就不是虛無的。所以前面破斥了法的因果，現在破斥人的因果。前面闡明法是空無的，所以人也是空無的。現在辨析人是空無的，所以法也是空無的。第六，三世（過去、現在、未來）諸佛菩薩出世的用意，是爲了拔除眾生的痛苦，給予眾生快樂。拔除痛苦，使一切煩惱都寂滅；給予快樂，使一切功德都圓滿。因此成就中道法身。而（眾生）內外都想要脫離痛苦，卻不認識痛苦的根源，所以產生四種謬見。非但不能脫離痛苦，反而更加增添痛苦。現在破除這四種謬見，使眾生認識因緣，痛苦也就畢竟空。一是得到病除，二是得到解脫痛苦的方法，三是得到脫離痛苦的境界。所以有這個法門到來。問：瞭解痛苦是空性有什麼利益？答：瞭解痛苦是因緣所生，所以不會生起執著快樂的顛倒。知道痛苦也是空性的，不會生起苦的顛倒。所以八種顛倒的病癥得以消除。又，瞭解痛苦是因緣所生，所以能破除凡夫執著三界（欲界、色界、無色界）之樂。快樂去除，痛苦也消除，所以能破除二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）的病癥。所以六道眾生迴歸佛法根本，三乘歸向佛法。有這樣大的利益，所以宣說這個法門。問：這和《中論》破斥作者品有什麼不同？答：這一品和《中論》破斥苦品非常相似，和作者品則意義各不相同。 這一法門也分為三個部分。首先是長行發起，就像經文所說的那樣。 偈頌原本分為兩個部分。前三句破斥四種作者，第四句總結沒有痛苦。問：作者應該破斥一切，現在為什麼偏偏破斥痛苦？答：就像上面所闡明的那樣，四種作者是因，痛苦則是果。只是痛苦是最大的禍患之本，萬物競相尋求脫離，卻不認識痛苦。非但不能脫離痛苦，反而在痛苦中更加造作痛苦。所以偏偏破斥痛苦。四門尋求痛苦既然如此，四門尋求快樂、不苦不樂的意義也類似這樣。問：爲了破斥法
【English Translation】 English version: External obstacles are distant obstacles (referring to obstacles that are far away), internal obstacles are subtle obstacles, and external obstacles are coarse obstacles. Furthermore, (the Bodhisattva) wants to make external paths return to the right path, and make the internal Small Vehicle turn to the Great Vehicle. This is the Bodhisattva's broad and far-reaching intention. Furthermore, breaking the internal obstacles makes the practitioners of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) no longer stay on the old track; breaking the external obstacles makes the beings of the Six Realms return to the root of the Dharma. Ultimately, they all enter the Mahayana and jointly achieve Buddhahood. Fifth, it comes after the previous Dharma gate. Externalists say: 'If it is said that cause and no-cause cannot produce fruit, then who is the person who creates the cause, and who is the person who receives the retribution?' Since there is a person who creates the cause, and there is also a person who receives the retribution, then cause and effect are not non-existent. Therefore, the cause and effect of the Dharma were refuted earlier, and now the cause and effect of people are refuted. Earlier, it was clarified that the Dharma is empty, so people are also empty. Now it is analyzed that people are empty, so the Dharma is also empty. Sixth, the intention of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the Three Times (past, present, future) appearing in the world is to remove the suffering of sentient beings and give them happiness. Removing suffering makes all afflictions cease; giving happiness makes all merits complete. Therefore, the Middle Way Dharmakaya is achieved. And (sentient beings) both internally and externally want to get rid of suffering, but they do not recognize the root of suffering, so four wrong views arise. Not only can they not get rid of suffering, but they add more suffering. Now, these four wrong views are refuted, so that sentient beings can recognize the causes and conditions, and suffering will ultimately be empty. First, the disease is cured, second, the method of liberation from suffering is obtained, and third, the state of liberation from suffering is obtained. Therefore, this Dharma gate has arrived. Question: What is the benefit of understanding that suffering is emptiness? Answer: Understanding that suffering arises from causes and conditions, so the delusion of attachment to happiness does not arise. Knowing that suffering is also empty, the delusion of suffering does not arise. Therefore, the diseases of the eight inversions can be eliminated. Also, understanding that suffering arises from causes and conditions, so it can break the ordinary people's attachment to the happiness of the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). When happiness is removed, suffering is also removed, so it can break the diseases of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna). Therefore, the beings of the Six Realms return to the root of the Dharma, and the Three Vehicles turn to the Buddha. There is such a great benefit, so this Dharma gate is spoken. Question: How is this different from the chapter on refuting the maker in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way)? Answer: This chapter is very similar to the chapter on refuting suffering in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, but it has different meanings from the chapter on the maker. This Dharma gate is also divided into three parts. First, the prose passage initiates, just like the text says. The verses are originally divided into two parts. The first three lines refute the four kinds of makers, and the fourth line summarizes that there is no suffering. Question: The maker should refute everything, so why refute suffering in particular? Answer: Just like what was clarified above, the four kinds of makers are the cause, and suffering is the result. It's just that suffering is the root of the greatest misfortune, and all things compete to seek liberation, but they do not recognize suffering. Not only can they not get rid of suffering, but they create more suffering in suffering. Therefore, suffering is refuted in particular. Since the four gates seek suffering in this way, the meaning of the four gates seeking happiness, neither suffering nor happiness is similar to this. Question: In order to refute the Dharma
四作破人四作。答具破二種。若迦旃延流計有法作。犢子等類具計有人法作。又內道執有法四外道計有人四。今具破人法四作也。所言法四者如數人謂。苦有自性則是自作。假緣而生名為他作。自他共合方有苦生名為共作。乃不立無因。而本來有此苦性。即是無因。約成實義無明初念即有行苦。托空而起爾前無因名無因作。外道四作後文自列也。
長行有三。第一正釋偈本明苦非四作。故苦是空。第二外人與論主諍經。執苦是有非是辨空。第三論主答外人申佛經明是苦空。就初文又二。第一正釋偈本苦非四作是故苦空。二引經證明苦是空。初破四作則四為四別。破自作如文。他作亦不然下第二次破他作。又三。初正破。問曰下第二救義。此正是攝論。謂因緣生是依他性。前有自性則分別性也。言依他性者果依于因故也。答曰下第三破救。就破救中又開二別。第一縱緣奪他。二緣他俱奪。今是初既言眾緣云何是他耶。若是他者云何名從眾緣耶。複次下第二緣他俱奪。前長行次偈。長行明則此眾緣亦無自性故無眾緣。既無眾緣云何有他。偈是中論因緣品末有二偈結破。今是第一偈。而言不自在只是無自性。故無眾緣也。自作他作亦不然下破第三共作。次破無因。文處易知。
如經中說下第二引經證。苦非四作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 四種造作（四作）破斥人與四種造作。回答說，具備破斥兩種。如果像迦旃延（Kātyāyana，佛教論師）那樣主張有法造作，犢子部（Vātsīputrīya，佛教部派）等則主張有人法造作。此外，內道（佛教內部）執著于有法四作，外道（佛教以外的學說）則主張有人四作。現在一併破斥人法四作。所說的法四作，例如數論派（Sāṃkhya）認為，苦具有自性，這就是自作。憑藉因緣而生，名為他作。自身和他者共同結合才有苦產生，名為共作。不建立無因，而苦的本性本來就存在，這就是無因。按照成實宗（Satya-siddhi-śāstra）的意義，無明（avidyā，佛教指對事物真相的迷惑）最初的念頭就有了行苦（saṃskāra-duḥkha，佛教指由業力產生的苦），依託于空性而生起，在此之前沒有原因，名為無因作。外道的四作在後面的文章中會自行列出。 長行部分有三點。第一，正式解釋偈頌的根本，說明苦不是四種造作，所以苦是空性（śūnyatā）。第二，外人與論主爭論經典，執著于苦是實有，而不是辨明空性。第三，論主回答外人，闡述佛經說明苦是空性。就第一點而言，又有兩點。第一，正式解釋偈頌的根本，苦不是四種造作，因此苦是空性。第二，引用經典證明苦是空性。首先破斥四種造作，則將四種造作分為四種不同的情況。破斥自作如文中所述。『他作亦不然』以下是第二次破斥他作。又有三點。首先是正式破斥。『問曰』以下是第二種救義。這正是攝論（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）所說的，因緣生是依他性（paratantra-svabhāva，佛教指事物依賴其他條件而存在的性質）。之前有自性則是分別性（parikalpita-svabhāva，佛教指虛妄分別的性質）。所說依他性，是指果依賴於因的緣故。『答曰』以下是第三次破斥救義。在破斥救義中又分為兩種情況。第一，縱容因緣而否定他作。第二，因緣和他作一起否定。現在是第一種情況，既然說是眾緣，怎麼能說是他作呢？如果是他作，怎麼能說是從眾緣產生呢？『複次』以下是第二種因緣和他作一起否定。前面的長行之後是偈頌。長行如果明白，那麼這些眾緣也沒有自性，所以沒有眾緣。既然沒有眾緣，怎麼會有他作呢？偈頌是《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）因緣品末尾的兩首偈頌的總結破斥。現在是第一首偈頌。所說不自在只是沒有自性，所以沒有眾緣。『自作他作亦不然』以下是破斥第三種共作。接下來破斥無因。文句所在之處容易理解。 『如經中說』以下是第二點，引用經典證明苦不是四種造作。
【English Translation】 English version: The four 'makings' (catuḥkāraka) refute the person and the four 'makings'. The answer is that it possesses the refutation of two kinds. If, like Kātyāyana (a Buddhist commentator), one asserts that there is dharma-making, then the Vātsīputrīya (a Buddhist school) and others assert that there is person-dharma-making. Furthermore, the insiders (Buddhists) are attached to the four dharma-makings, while the outsiders (non-Buddhists) assert the four person-makings. Now, all person-dharma-makings are refuted together. The so-called four dharma-makings, for example, the Sāṃkhya (a school of Indian philosophy) believes that suffering has its own nature, which is self-making (svayam-kṛta). Arising by means of conditions is called other-making (para-kṛta). Only when oneself and others combine together does suffering arise, which is called both-making (ubhayakṛta). Not establishing no-cause, but the nature of suffering exists from the beginning, which is no-cause (ahetu). According to the meaning of the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (a Buddhist text), the first thought of ignorance (avidyā, in Buddhism, refers to the delusion of the true nature of things) has saṃskāra-duḥkha (suffering of formations, in Buddhism, refers to suffering caused by karmic forces), arising based on emptiness, and before that there is no cause, which is called no-cause-making. The four 'makings' of the outsiders will be listed in the following text. The long passage has three points. First, it formally explains the root of the verses, stating that suffering is not the four 'makings', so suffering is emptiness (śūnyatā). Second, outsiders argue with the commentator about the scriptures, clinging to the idea that suffering is real, rather than clarifying emptiness. Third, the commentator answers the outsiders, elaborating that the Buddhist scriptures explain that suffering is emptiness. Regarding the first point, there are two points. First, formally explain the root of the verses, suffering is not the four 'makings', therefore suffering is emptiness. Second, cite scriptures to prove that suffering is emptiness. First, refute the four 'makings', then divide the four 'makings' into four different situations. The refutation of self-making is as described in the text. 'Other-making is also not so' below is the second refutation of other-making. There are also three points. The first is the formal refutation. 'Question' below is the second salvation. This is exactly what the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (a Buddhist text) says, that dependent arising is paratantra-svabhāva (dependent nature, in Buddhism, refers to the nature of things that exist depending on other conditions). Before that, having self-nature is parikalpita-svabhāva (imputed nature, in Buddhism, refers to the nature of false discrimination). The so-called dependent nature means that the result depends on the cause. 'Answer' below is the third refutation of salvation. In the refutation of salvation, there are two situations. First, indulge in conditions and deny other-making. Second, conditions and other-making are denied together. Now is the first situation, since it is said to be many conditions, how can it be said to be other-making? If it is other-making, how can it be said to arise from many conditions? 'Furthermore' below is the second situation where conditions and other-making are denied together. The preceding long passage is followed by verses. If the long passage is clear, then these many conditions also have no self-nature, so there are no many conditions. Since there are no many conditions, how can there be other-making? The verses are the concluding refutation of the two verses at the end of the chapter on conditions in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (a Buddhist text). Now is the first verse. The so-called non-self-existence is just no self-nature, so there are no many conditions. 'Self-making and other-making are also not so' below is the refutation of the third both-making. Next, refute no-cause. The location of the sentences is easy to understand. 'As it is said in the scriptures' below is the second point, citing scriptures to prove that suffering is not the four 'makings'.
明苦是空。前雖推義恐外不信。故引經證成。問此是小乘經文大乘經耶。答引小乘經。所以引小乘者凡有五義。一者若引大乘經則小乘人聞不信受。故還引小乘。即鬚生信。二者欲顯執有之徒若不信苦空則俱迷大小故引小破之。三者舉小況大。小乘教中尚明法空況大乘耶。四者引小乘經得內外俱破。論主既破小乘。而小乘人復破外道。如射虎之譬。虎正取鹿。今但射虎便取鹿。虎鹿俱弊也。五者欲顯小乘經密說大也。裸形迦葉問佛等者。其人修于苦行是故裸形。欲求離苦所以問佛。
問曰下第二外人與內諍經。明佛乃破外道四作無外道之苦。而實有內苦故非是空。此但諍小乘經不諍大乘經。以大乘經明苦是空。如雲五受陰空是苦義。又云解苦無苦。是故無苦而有真諦。以小乘經多說有法少說空法故外人諍也。問小乘亦有明法空文何故不信。答今此文明苦空義隱。但非四作不似明苦是空。故外諍也。又有二種小。一信法空。二不信法空。今是不信法空人諍也。就問有三意。一總非論主不識經意。第二為論主釋經。三總結非論主。今是初。
隨可度眾生故作是說第二為論主釋。前總釋是裸形迦葉下第二別釋。就別破四作即為四別。今前第一破苦是自作。又二。第一序外道義明佛不答所以。第二正破外道。今是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『明苦是空』（闡明痛苦的本質是空性）。之前雖然推論其意義，恐怕外人不相信，所以引用經文來證實。問：『這是小乘經文還是大乘經文？』答：『引用的是小乘經。』之所以引用小乘經典，凡有五個意義：第一，如果引用大乘經典，那麼小乘人聽了不會相信接受，所以還是引用小乘經典，就必須會產生信任。第二，想要顯示執著于『有』的那些人，如果不相信痛苦是空性，那麼就會一起迷惑于大乘和小乘，所以引用小乘經典來破除他們的執著。第三，舉小可以類比大，小乘教義中尚且闡明法是空性，更何況是大乘呢？第四，引用小乘經典可以內外一起破除。論主既然破除了小乘的觀點，而小乘人又破除了外道的觀點，就像射虎的比喻一樣。老虎正要抓鹿，現在只要射虎，鹿自然就得救了，老虎和鹿都遭殃了。第五，想要顯示小乘經典隱秘地闡述了大乘的教義。『裸形迦葉問佛等者』（裸形迦葉問佛等等），這些人修行苦行，所以裸露身體，想要尋求脫離痛苦，所以才來問佛。
『問曰下第二外人與內諍經』（提問：下面第二段是外人和內教爭論經典），說明佛陀破斥了外道『四作』（四種造作苦的原因）沒有外道的痛苦，而實際上有內在的痛苦，所以並非是空性。這只是爭論小乘經典，不是爭論大乘經典。因為大乘經典闡明痛苦是空性，如經文所說『五受陰空是苦義』（五種感受蘊的空性就是痛苦的意義）。又說『解苦無苦』（解脫了痛苦就沒有痛苦）。所以沒有痛苦而有真諦。因為小乘經典大多說『有法』（實有之法），很少說『空法』（空性之法），所以外人爭論。問：『小乘經典也有闡明法空的經文，為什麼不相信呢？』答：『現在這段經文闡明痛苦是空性的意義比較隱晦，只是否定了「四作」，不像直接闡明痛苦是空性那樣明顯，所以外人爭論。』又有兩種小乘人，一種相信法空，一種不相信法空。現在是不相信法空的那些人在爭論。就提問有三種用意，第一，總的來說是否定論主不認識經文的含義。第二，為論主解釋經文。第三，總結否定論主。現在是第一種。
『隨可度眾生故作是說』（隨順可以被度化的眾生，所以這樣說），第二是為論主解釋。前面是總的解釋，『是裸形迦葉下第二別釋』（從裸形迦葉以下是第二種分別解釋）。就分別破斥『四作』，即分為四種分別。現在是第一種，破斥痛苦是自己造作的。又分為兩種，第一，敘述外道的觀點，說明佛陀不回答的原因。第二，正式破斥外道的觀點。現在是第一種。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Ming Ku Shi Kong' (Clarifying that the nature of suffering is emptiness). Although the meaning was previously inferred, it was feared that outsiders would not believe it, so scriptures were cited to prove it. Question: 'Is this a Hinayana (Small Vehicle) or Mahayana (Great Vehicle) scripture?' Answer: 'It is a Hinayana scripture that is cited.' There are five reasons for citing Hinayana scriptures: First, if Mahayana scriptures were cited, Hinayana practitioners would not believe or accept them, so Hinayana scriptures are cited instead, which will inevitably generate trust. Second, it is intended to show that those who cling to 'existence' will be confused about both Mahayana and Hinayana if they do not believe that suffering is emptiness, so Hinayana scriptures are cited to dispel their clinging. Third, the small can be compared to the large. If even Hinayana teachings clarify that phenomena are empty, how much more so does Mahayana? Fourth, citing Hinayana scriptures can refute both internal and external views. Since the author refutes the Hinayana view, and Hinayana practitioners refute the externalist view, it is like the analogy of shooting a tiger. The tiger is about to seize a deer, but now if you just shoot the tiger, the deer will naturally be saved, and both the tiger and the deer will suffer. Fifth, it is intended to show that Hinayana scriptures secretly expound the Mahayana teachings. 'Naked Kāśyapa asked the Buddha, etc.' (Naked Kāśyapa asked the Buddha, etc.), these people practiced asceticism, so they exposed their bodies, wanting to seek liberation from suffering, so they came to ask the Buddha.
'Question: The second section below is the sutra of externalists arguing with internalists,' explaining that the Buddha refuted the externalist 'four causes' (four causes of creating suffering), that there is no suffering of externalists, but in reality, there is internal suffering, so it is not emptiness. This is only arguing about Hinayana scriptures, not arguing about Mahayana scriptures. Because Mahayana scriptures clarify that suffering is emptiness, as the scripture says, 'The emptiness of the five skandhas of feeling is the meaning of suffering.' It also says, 'Liberating from suffering, there is no suffering.' Therefore, there is no suffering, but there is ultimate truth. Because Hinayana scriptures mostly speak of 'existing phenomena' (real phenomena), and rarely speak of 'empty phenomena' (empty nature), so externalists argue. Question: 'Hinayana scriptures also have scriptures clarifying the emptiness of phenomena, why don't they believe it?' Answer: 'The meaning of clarifying that suffering is emptiness in this scripture is more obscure, it only denies the 'four causes', it is not as obvious as directly clarifying that suffering is emptiness, so externalists argue.' There are also two kinds of Hinayana practitioners, one believes in the emptiness of phenomena, and one does not believe in the emptiness of phenomena. Now it is those who do not believe in the emptiness of phenomena who are arguing. There are three intentions in the question, first, generally denying that the author does not understand the meaning of the scriptures. Second, explaining the scriptures for the author. Third, summarizing and denying the author. Now it is the first.
'Following the sentient beings who can be liberated, therefore it is said,' the second is to explain for the author. The previous is a general explanation, 'From Naked Kāśyapa onwards is the second separate explanation.' Regarding separately refuting the 'four causes', it is divided into four separate refutations. Now it is the first, refuting that suffering is self-created. It is further divided into two, first, narrating the externalist view, explaining the reason why the Buddha did not answer. Second, formally refuting the externalist view. Now it is the first.
初門。苦實非我作第二破外道義釋佛不答之意。又開二別。第一作無常難。第二作無解脫難。所以作二難者。作無常難明生死義壞。作無解脫難涅槃義壞。此二既要故作兩難。此實是龍樹作二難。寄言小乘人耳。無常者我能作苦即是生因。苦是所作即從因生。所生之苦既是無常。能生之我亦是無常。如泥生瓶之與泥二俱無常。若我是苦因下第二無解脫破。明二種我俱無解脫。一明即陰我無有解脫。二明離陰我無有解脫。即陰我無有解脫者即苦是我誰受解脫。故文云離苦無我能作苦者。以無身故言無身者。即是五陰之苦以為我身。離五陰苦無有我身。既常有於我即常有五陰便常苦。云何有解脫耶。若無身而能作苦者。第二破離陰我無有解脫。若無身能作苦者得涅槃時無五陰身。應更造苦。若爾即畢竟無有解脫。
他作苦亦不然第二次破他作。又開二別。初破我他次破自在天他。凡論有他不出人天。又此二俱是造作之本。我自造作六道之身自在天造作六道身。破此二道一切造作義盡。又令眾生入無作門故。顯正破造化故息邪。破我他云離苦。無我誰作于苦與此人耶。同中論破苦品。
複次下第二破自在他又二。初總牒外義釋佛不答所以。而實不從自在天作下第二別破自在天作。又二。初正破二總結。正破有十
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 初門。『苦實非我作』第二，破斥外道義，解釋佛陀不回答的用意。又分為兩部分。第一，用無常來詰難。第二，用無解脫來詰難。之所以提出這兩個詰難，是因為用無常的詰難來說明生死的意義是虛妄的，用無解脫的詰難來說明涅槃的意義是虛妄的。這兩點既然重要，所以提出兩個詰難。這實際上是龍樹菩薩提出的兩個詰難，寄託于小乘修行人罷了。所謂無常，是指我能製造痛苦，這就是產生的原因。痛苦是被製造出來的，所以是從原因產生的。被產生出來的痛苦既然是無常的，那麼能產生痛苦的我也同樣是無常的。就像泥土和用泥土製造的瓶子一樣，兩者都是無常的。如果我是痛苦的原因，那麼下面第二點就用無解脫來破斥，說明兩種『我』都沒有解脫。一是說明即陰『我』沒有解脫，二是說明離陰『我』沒有解脫。即陰『我』沒有解脫，是指即苦是我，那麼誰來接受解脫呢？所以文中說，離開痛苦就沒有能製造痛苦的『我』。因為沒有身體，所以說沒有身體，就是指以五陰的痛苦作為我的身體。離開五陰的痛苦就沒有我的身體。既然常有『我』，那麼就常有五陰，便常受痛苦，怎麼會有解脫呢？如果沒有身體卻能製造痛苦，那麼第二點就破斥離開五陰的『我』沒有解脫。如果沒有身體也能製造痛苦，那麼得到涅槃時沒有五陰之身，應該會再次製造痛苦。如果這樣，那就永遠沒有解脫。 他人制造痛苦也是不對的，這是第二次破斥他人制造。又分為兩部分。首先破斥我他，其次破斥自在天他。凡是討論有他，都離不開人和天。而且這兩者都是造作的根本。我自身造作六道之身，自在天造作六道之身。破斥這兩種道理，一切造作的意義就都消失了。又讓眾生進入無作之門，所以顯現正道，破斥造化，從而止息邪見。破斥我他，說離開痛苦，沒有『我』，那麼是誰製造痛苦給這個人呢？這與《中論》破斥苦品相同。 其次，下面第二點破斥自在天，又分為兩部分。首先總括外道的意義，解釋佛陀不回答的原因。而實際上不是自在天製造的，下面第二點分別破斥自在天製造。又分為兩部分。首先是正式破斥，然後是總結。正式破斥有十個方面。
【English Translation】 English version: Initial entry. 'Suffering is not created by me' is the second refutation of heretical views, explaining the Buddha's intention in not answering. It is further divided into two parts. First, challenging with impermanence. Second, challenging with no liberation. The reason for raising these two challenges is that the challenge of impermanence shows the meaning of birth and death to be false, and the challenge of no liberation shows the meaning of Nirvana to be false. Since these two points are important, two challenges are raised. This is actually Nagarjuna's two challenges, entrusted to the practitioners of Hinayana. Impermanence means that 'I' can create suffering, which is the cause of birth. Suffering is created, so it arises from a cause. Since the suffering that is created is impermanent, then the 'I' that can create suffering is also impermanent. Just like clay and the bottle made from clay, both are impermanent. If 'I' am the cause of suffering, then the second point below uses no liberation to refute, showing that neither of the two 'selves' has liberation. One is to show that the 'I' that is identical to the skandhas (five aggregates of existence) has no liberation, and the other is to show that the 'I' that is separate from the skandhas has no liberation. The 'I' that is identical to the skandhas has no liberation, meaning that if suffering is 'I', then who receives liberation? Therefore, the text says that without suffering, there is no 'I' that can create suffering. Because there is no body, it is said that there is no body, which means taking the suffering of the five skandhas as my body. Without the suffering of the five skandhas, there is no my body. Since there is always 'I', then there are always the five skandhas, and one always suffers. How can there be liberation? If one can create suffering without a body, then the second point refutes that the 'I' separate from the skandhas has no liberation. If one can create suffering without a body, then when attaining Nirvana, there is no body of the five skandhas, and one should create suffering again. If so, then there will never be liberation. It is also incorrect for others to create suffering; this is the second refutation of creation by others. It is again divided into two parts. First, refuting 'I' and others, and second, refuting Ishvara (自在天) and others. Whenever there is a discussion of 'other', it cannot be separated from humans and gods. Moreover, these two are the root of creation. 'I' create the body of the six realms myself, and Ishvara creates the body of the six realms. Refuting these two principles, the meaning of all creation disappears. It also allows sentient beings to enter the gate of non-creation, so it reveals the right path, refutes creation, and thus stops wrong views. Refuting 'I' and others, it says that without suffering, there is no 'I', so who creates suffering for this person? This is the same as the refutation of the suffering chapter in the Madhyamaka-karika (中論). Secondly, the second point below refutes Ishvara, and is again divided into two parts. First, summarizing the meaning of heretics, explaining the reason why the Buddha did not answer. But in reality, it is not created by Ishvara, and the second point below separately refutes creation by Ishvara. It is again divided into two parts. First is the formal refutation, and then the summary. The formal refutation has ten aspects.
五句。開為四章。初三句破自在天作。即是破自在用義。次五句破自在即破自在體義。第三六句明眾生自行所招重破自在用。第四有一句。重破自在體。天有自在不出體用。若破體用即自在不成。所以十五門廣破自在者。佛未出世乃至於今盛行於世。亦多有神驗世人信之。故廣破也。然實是大乘人破。而寄小乘人者一示外邪不足破。小乘尚能破。況大乘耶。二欲分大小異。小乘粗破邪見破作者明粗無作門。大乘破細作明細無作門。二門例爾。三示大乘人精解小乘巧破外道。小乘人不能爾。四示小乘是半字法半解半不解。半解者解破邪。半不解者不解因緣苦是空。五示小乘是取捨義。舍外道邪苦而取內道正苦。六示小乘但除樂等四倒未除苦等四倒。七示小乘人但解佛顯教不解密教。密教者明因緣苦即畢竟空。令此入畢竟空亦成佛故也。初中有三。一破二救三破救。破中有二。初父子不相似破。複次下作傷慈破。問曰下第二救正通傷慈之難。答曰下第三破救有二難。一者猶提捉前無慈難。父有大慈子不識恩終自與樂。而自在不爾。亦應但供養下作報恩不勉苦難。若言不識恩故與苦者。今報恩供養則應得樂。不須修福。
複次下第二五句破自在體。初句明有所須。故不自在破。複次下以果徴因破。眾生之果既由自在。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：五句經文分為四個章節。前三句是破斥自在天（Mahesvara，佛教中欲界頂天的天主）的作用，也就是破斥自在天的『用』的含義。接下來的五句是破斥自在天，也就是破斥自在天的『體』的含義。第三部分六句經文闡明眾生自身行為所招致的果報，從而再次破斥自在天的『用』。第四部分有一句經文，再次破斥自在天的『體』。天神的自在不超出『體』和『用』的範疇，如果破斥了『體』和『用』，那麼自在天就不成立了。因此，用十五個方面廣泛破斥自在天，是因為佛陀未出世乃至今日，自在天的信仰在世間盛行，並且多有靈驗，世人信奉它，所以要廣泛破斥。然而，實際上是大乘修行人在破斥，而假借小乘修行人的名義，一是表明外道的邪說不值得破斥，小乘尚且能破斥，更何況是大乘呢？二是想要區分大小乘的差異。小乘粗略地破斥邪見，破斥作者，闡明粗略的『無作』之門。大乘破斥細微的『作』，闡明細微的『無作』之門。兩種法門可以類比。三是表明大乘修行人精通小乘，巧妙地破斥外道，小乘修行人不能做到這樣。四是表明小乘是半字法，半解半不解。半解是指理解破斥邪見，半不解是指不理解因緣、苦是空性的道理。五是表明小乘是取捨之義，捨棄外道的邪見和苦，而取內道的正見和苦。六是表明小乘只是除去了樂等四倒，沒有除去苦等四倒。七是表明小乘修行人只理解佛陀的顯教，不理解密教。密教闡明因緣和苦就是畢竟空（sunyata，一切法無自性），令眾生由此進入畢竟空，也能成佛。最初的部分有三點：一是破斥，二是救護，三是破斥救護。破斥中有兩點：首先是用父子不相似來破斥。『複次』之後是用傷害慈悲來破斥。『問曰』之後是第二點，救護，正面迴應傷害慈悲的責難。『答曰』之後是第三點，破斥救護，有兩個責難。一是仍然提出之前沒有慈悲的責難，父親有大慈悲，兒子不識恩情，最終還是會給予快樂，而自在天不是這樣。也應該只是供養，作為報恩，而不勉強給予痛苦的責難。如果說因為不識恩情所以給予痛苦，那麼現在報恩供養就應該得到快樂，不需要修福。 『複次』之後是第二部分，五句經文破斥自在天的『體』。第一句闡明有所需求，所以不自在，進行破斥。『複次』之後是用果來驗證因，進行破斥。眾生的果報既然是由自在天決定的。
【English Translation】 English version: These five verses are divided into four chapters. The first three verses refute the actions of Mahesvara (the lord of the highest heaven in the desire realm in Buddhism), which is to refute the meaning of Mahesvara's 'function'. The next five verses refute Mahesvara, which is to refute the meaning of Mahesvara's 'essence'. The third part, six verses, clarifies the karmic retribution that sentient beings bring upon themselves through their own actions, thereby refuting Mahesvara's 'function' again. The fourth part has one verse, which refutes Mahesvara's 'essence' again. The freedom of the gods does not go beyond the scope of 'essence' and 'function'. If 'essence' and 'function' are refuted, then Mahesvara will not be established. Therefore, the reason for widely refuting Mahesvara in fifteen aspects is that from before the Buddha's appearance in the world until today, the belief in Mahesvara has been prevalent in the world, and there are many miraculous events, and people believe in it, so it must be widely refuted. However, in reality, it is Mahayana practitioners who are refuting, but under the guise of Hinayana practitioners, one is to show that the heretical views of external paths are not worth refuting, and Hinayana can still refute them, let alone Mahayana? The second is to distinguish the differences between Mahayana and Hinayana. Hinayana roughly refutes heretical views, refutes the creator, and clarifies the rough 'non-action' gate. Mahayana refutes subtle 'action' and clarifies the subtle 'non-action' gate. The two Dharma gates can be compared. The third is to show that Mahayana practitioners are proficient in Hinayana and skillfully refute external paths, which Hinayana practitioners cannot do. The fourth is to show that Hinayana is half-word Dharma, half-understanding and half-not-understanding. Half-understanding refers to understanding and refuting heretical views, and half-not-understanding refers to not understanding the principles of karma and that suffering is emptiness. The fifth is to show that Hinayana is the meaning of taking and abandoning, abandoning the heretical views and suffering of external paths, and taking the correct views and suffering of the inner path. The sixth is to show that Hinayana only removes the four inversions such as pleasure, but does not remove the four inversions such as suffering. The seventh is to show that Hinayana practitioners only understand the exoteric teachings of the Buddha, but do not understand the esoteric teachings. The esoteric teachings clarify that karma and suffering are ultimately emptiness (sunyata, the absence of inherent existence in all phenomena), so that sentient beings can enter ultimate emptiness and also become Buddhas. The initial part has three points: one is refutation, the second is rescue, and the third is refutation of rescue. There are two points in the refutation: first, it is refuted by the dissimilarity between father and son. After 'Furthermore', it is refuted by harming compassion. After 'Question', the second point is rescue, which positively responds to the accusation of harming compassion. After 'Answer', the third point is refutation of rescue, there are two accusations. One is to still raise the previous accusation of not having compassion, the father has great compassion, the son does not recognize the kindness, and will eventually give happiness, but Mahesvara is not like this. It should also be just offering, as a reward for kindness, and not forcing the accusation of giving suffering. If it is said that suffering is given because of not recognizing kindness, then now offering in return for kindness should bring happiness, and there is no need to cultivate merit. After 'Furthermore' is the second part, five verses refuting Mahesvara's 'essence'. The first sentence clarifies that there is a need, so there is no freedom, and refutes it. After 'Furthermore', the cause is verified by the effect, and refuted. Since the karmic retribution of sentient beings is determined by Mahesvara.
自在之因應更有所從。反覆結之。複次下不能無障礙破。複次下第四責住處破。複次下第五從他不自在破。此意明自在先行苦行供養於他。從求愿即不自在。複次下第三段六句重破自在用。與前破用異者。前直破自在用。今舉眾生業行所招以破自在。是故有異。第一複次就不定門破。第二複次無罪福破。第三複次就增愛門破。第四複次就苦樂門破。第五複次就無作門破。第六複次就自在門破。
複次下第四段一句。重破自在體就因無因門破。
如是等種種因緣第二段結破。
共作亦不然下破第三句。眾因緣和合生果下。破第四無因句。
是故此經下第三大段結非論主。答曰下品第三申經以破于外。此中明二種空。一者空無四種邪見故名為空。此大小乘人同得此空。說苦從因緣生下。明因緣苦即畢竟空。唯大乘得此空。小乘人不得。正是申經意。如凈名云。五受陰洞達空是苦義。即今文是矣。
如苦空下門中第三總結一切法空。
觀三時門第十一
問九門破法。第十洗人。人法併除。又九門破內第十門破外。內外俱泯。何故更有此門。答所以有此門來者凡有三義。一者凡因果有三。一者前因後果。二因果一時。三果前因后。自上十門已破二事。今次破第三果前因后。故有此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：自在的因由取決於什麼。反覆推敲這個問題。『複次下』是說自在不能沒有障礙而被打破。『複次下』是第四個方面，駁斥自在的住處。『複次下』是第五個方面，駁斥自在是從其他地方得來的。這裡的意思是說，如果自在需要先行苦行，供養他人，然後從他人那裡求愿，那麼它就不是真正的自在。 『複次下』是第三段，用六句話來再次駁斥自在的作用。這與之前駁斥自在的作用不同，之前是直接駁斥自在的作用，現在是舉出眾生的業行所招致的果報來駁斥自在。因此有所不同。第一個『複次』是從不確定的角度來駁斥。第二個『複次』是從沒有罪福的角度來駁斥。第三個『複次』是從增長愛慾的角度來駁斥。第四個『複次』是從苦樂的角度來駁斥。第五個『複次』是從無作為的角度來駁斥。第六個『複次』是從自在的角度來駁斥。 『複次下』是第四段，用一句話來再次駁斥自在的本體，從有因無因的角度來駁斥。 『如是等種種因緣』是第二段，總結駁斥。 『共作亦不然下』是駁斥第三句。『眾因緣和合生果下』是駁斥第四句，即無因。 『是故此經下』是第三大段，總結並非論主的觀點。『答曰下』是品第三，引用佛經來駁斥外道。這裡闡明兩種空。一是空無四種邪見，所以稱為空。這是大小乘人都能夠理解的空。『說苦從因緣生下』，闡明因緣所生的苦就是畢竟空。只有大乘才能理解這種空，小乘不能理解。這正是佛經的本意。如《維摩詰經》所說：『五受陰洞達空是苦義』，就是本文的意思。 『如苦空下』是門中第三，總結一切法空。 觀三時門第十一 問：前面用九個門來破斥法，第十個門來洗滌人，人和法都被消除了。而且前面九個門是破斥內在的，第十個門是破斥外在的，內外都被泯滅了，為什麼還要有這個門呢？答：之所以有這個門，有三個原因。一是凡是因果有三種情況：一是前因後果，二是因果同時，三是果前因后。前面的十個門已經破斥了兩種情況，現在要破斥第三種情況，即果前因后，所以有這個門。
【English Translation】 English version: The cause of self-existence depends on what. Ponder over this question repeatedly. '複次下' (fù cì xià) means that self-existence cannot be without obstacles and be broken. '複次下' (fù cì xià) is the fourth aspect, refuting the abode of self-existence. '複次下' (fù cì xià) is the fifth aspect, refuting that self-existence comes from elsewhere. The meaning here is that if self-existence requires preliminary ascetic practices, offering to others, and then seeking wishes from others, then it is not true self-existence. '複次下' (fù cì xià) is the third section, using six sentences to refute the function of self-existence again. This is different from the previous refutation of the function of self-existence. Previously, it was a direct refutation of the function of self-existence. Now, it is citing the retribution caused by the karma of sentient beings to refute self-existence. Therefore, there is a difference. The first '複次' (fù cì) refutes from the perspective of uncertainty. The second '複次' (fù cì) refutes from the perspective of no sin or merit. The third '複次' (fù cì) refutes from the perspective of increasing desire. The fourth '複次' (fù cì) refutes from the perspective of suffering and happiness. The fifth '複次' (fù cì) refutes from the perspective of non-action. The sixth '複次' (fù cì) refutes from the perspective of self-existence. '複次下' (fù cì xià) is the fourth section, using one sentence to refute the substance of self-existence again, refuting from the perspective of cause and no cause. '如是等種種因緣' (rú shì děng zhǒng zhǒng yīn yuán) is the second section, summarizing the refutation. '共作亦不然下' (gòng zuò yì bù rán xià) is refuting the third sentence. '眾因緣和合生果下' (zhòng yīn yuán hé hé shēng guǒ xià) is refuting the fourth sentence, which is no cause. '是故此經下' (shì gù cǐ jīng xià) is the third major section, summarizing that it is not the view of the author. '答曰下' (dá yuē xià) is the third chapter, quoting the Buddhist scriptures to refute the heretics. Here, it clarifies two kinds of emptiness. One is emptiness without the four kinds of wrong views, so it is called emptiness. This is the emptiness that both Mahayana and Hinayana can understand. '說苦從因緣生下' (shuō kǔ cóng yīn yuán shēng xià) clarifies that the suffering arising from causes and conditions is ultimately empty. Only Mahayana can understand this emptiness, Hinayana cannot understand it. This is exactly the original intention of the Buddhist scriptures. As the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'The five skandhas are thoroughly understood as empty is the meaning of suffering', which is the meaning of this text. '如苦空下' (rú kǔ kōng xià) is the third in the door, summarizing that all dharmas are empty. Observing the Three Times Gate Eleventh Question: Previously, nine gates were used to refute the Dharma, and the tenth gate was used to wash away people, and both people and Dharma were eliminated. Moreover, the previous nine gates refuted the internal, and the tenth gate refuted the external, and both internal and external were annihilated. Why is there this gate? Answer: There are three reasons for this gate. One is that there are three kinds of causes and effects: one is the cause before the effect, the second is the cause and effect at the same time, and the third is the effect before the cause. The previous ten gates have refuted two situations, and now we must refute the third situation, that is, the effect before the cause, so there is this gate.
門來。問誰計果前因后。答此義亦有所由。如須達始欲造因天宮已現。難陀猶未持犯而苦樂果報已彰。惑者既聞佛經作如是說。便謂因前有于果后修因取之。又如前有屋法然後備于柱樑。又如本有佛果而修因取之。是故計前果後有因。又聞論主上破前因後果及因果一時。便謂論主應執前果后因。所以然者。夫論因果不出此三。既破於二必當論主存一。是故立也。二者自上十門雖破人破法總名破法。今此一品次破於時明若法若時皆畢竟空。故說此品。三者自上十門已破所破。此一門次破能破。破所破明緣盡于觀。破能破明觀盡于緣。今悟不觀不緣內外並冥。緣觀俱寂。則具足大乘。便登佛地故有此門來。
此門亦三。初長行發起為二。前總牒一切法空。何以故下略釋一切法空。因則是因。果名有因者以果必從因故名有因。又果更與果作因故名有因。問若爾因必生果。應詺因為有果。答亦得爾也。但互現說耳。又不倒者果必從於因。故果名有因。當因時猶未有果。又或可。因差而不得果。故因不名有果。
偈本為二。上半牒總明不成。下半結破無果。
長行為五。一破三時因果以釋偈本。二外過於內。三內自免過。四外更立法。五內破外立。初又二。前釋上半次釋下半。釋上半破三時因果。即三。今初
破第一前因後果。此破數論及大乘人未有果時前已有因。破意云。本以果故名之為因。果若未起與誰為因。他救云。現因與當果為因。今問當果已異空已出有。即是現因現果。不名為當。若未出空未入有。即是畢竟無果。與誰為因。若前有因后因者破第二前果后因。破意云。前已有果何用為因。若因有因一時下次破第三因果一時。夫論因果能生為因從生為果。從生之義即是無體。能生之義即有體。若法一時有即俱有。無俱無。俱無唯有可生而無能生。俱有唯有能生無有可生。是故一時無因果義。此破數人大小相生一時因果。亦破成實。無明初念同時因果五陰成人四微成柱。亦是一時。入此門破。是故三時因果下總結釋下半。
問曰下第二外過於內。有此破者凡四義。一者遠從上十門生。外謂。論主用一空觀以破諸法。是故外人慾破此觀。二者即從三時門生。外人既見論主破三時因果。便回此破以破于內。三者論主假作外問欲令所破心凈。故破能破。若有能破即所破不除。今欲除所破故破能破。四者上來破立即是單空。今次破破明空病亦空。三門破破即為三別。前有能破有二種過。一無待過。二自破過。既無所破而有于破。當知此破自破能破。若前有可破亦有二過。一者無待過。二不可破過。既前有可破即可破已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 破斥第一種「先有因後果」的觀點。這是爲了駁斥數論派（Samkhya）以及大乘佛教徒認為在果產生之前就已經存在因的觀點。駁斥的要點在於：原本是因為有果才稱之為因，如果果尚未產生，那麼這個「因」又是誰的因呢？ 對方辯解說：『現在的因是未來果的因。』現在反問：未來的果要麼已經脫離空性而進入實有，那就已經是現在的因和現在的果，不能稱之為『未來』。要麼尚未脫離空性，尚未進入實有，那就是畢竟空無的果，又怎麼能成為任何東西的因呢？如果說先有因，後有果，那麼接下來駁斥第二種觀點：『先有果後有因』。駁斥的要點在於：既然已經有了果，又何必需要因呢？如果說因能產生果，並且因果同時存在，那麼接下來駁斥第三種觀點：『因果同時』。如果說因果是能生和所生的關係，那麼能生是因，從生是果。從生的意義在於沒有自體，能生的意義在於有自體。如果一個法在同一時間既有自體又沒有自體，那麼要麼同時存在，要麼同時不存在。如果同時不存在，那麼只有可生而沒有能生；如果同時存在，那麼只有能生而沒有可生。因此，因果同時的說法是不成立的。這裡駁斥的是數論派大小相生、因果同時的觀點，也駁斥了成實宗（Satyasiddhi）認為無明初念和同時產生的因果，以及五陰成人、四微成柱也是同時產生的觀點。這些都可以用這個方法來駁斥。因此，『三時因果』是總結和解釋下半部分的內容。
『問曰』以下是第二部分，討論外道觀點勝過內部觀點的情況。這裡有四種含義：一是追溯到前面的十門而產生。外道是指論主用空觀來破斥諸法，因此外道想要反過來破斥這種空觀。二是直接從『三時』之門產生。外道既然看到論主破斥『三時因果』，就反過來用這種破斥來破斥內部的觀點。三是論主假裝提出外道的問題，想要讓被破斥的一方內心清凈，所以要破斥能破斥的一方。如果存在能破斥的一方，那麼被破斥的一方就無法消除。現在想要消除被破斥的一方，所以要破斥能破斥的一方。四是前面破斥的觀點立即變成了單空。現在進一步破斥這種破斥，表明空病也是空。這三門破斥可以分為三種不同的情況。前面存在能破斥的一方，有兩種過失：一是無待過，二是自破過。既然沒有被破斥的一方，卻存在破斥的行為，那麼應當知道這種破斥會自我破斥。如果前面存在可以被破斥的一方，也有兩種過失：一是無待過，二是不可破過。既然前面存在可以被破斥的一方，那麼可以被破斥的一方已經...
【English Translation】 English version Refuting the first cause and effect: 'Prior Cause, Subsequent Effect'. This refutes the Samkhya school and Mahayana Buddhists who believe that a cause exists before the effect arises. The point of refutation is: originally, it is because there is an effect that it is called a cause. If the effect has not yet arisen, then whose cause is this 'cause'? The opponent defends by saying: 'The present cause is the cause of the future effect.' Now we ask in return: the future effect either has already departed from emptiness and entered existence, which means it is already the present cause and present effect, and cannot be called 'future'. Or it has not yet departed from emptiness and has not yet entered existence, which means it is ultimately an empty effect, so how can it be the cause of anything? If it is said that there is a cause first and then an effect later, then next we refute the second view: 'Prior Effect, Subsequent Cause'. The point of refutation is: since there is already an effect, what is the need for a cause? If it is said that the cause can produce the effect, and the cause and effect exist simultaneously, then next we refute the third view: 'Cause and Effect Simultaneously'. If cause and effect are the relationship of that which can produce and that which is produced, then that which can produce is the cause, and that which is produced is the effect. The meaning of that which is produced is that it has no self-nature, and the meaning of that which can produce is that it has self-nature. If a dharma (law, phenomenon) has both self-nature and no self-nature at the same time, then either they exist simultaneously or they do not exist simultaneously. If they do not exist simultaneously, then there is only that which can be produced but not that which can produce; if they exist simultaneously, then there is only that which can produce but not that which can be produced. Therefore, the idea of cause and effect being simultaneous is not valid. Here, what is refuted is the Samkhya school's view of mutual generation of large and small, and simultaneous cause and effect. It also refutes the Satyasiddhi school's view that the initial thought of ignorance and the simultaneously arising cause and effect, as well as the five skandhas (aggregates) forming a person and the four subtle particles forming a pillar, are also simultaneous. These can all be refuted using this method. Therefore, 'Three Times of Cause and Effect' is a summary and explanation of the second half of the content.
The section 'Question' below is the second part, discussing the situation where the external view surpasses the internal view. There are four meanings here: first, it traces back to the previous ten gates and arises. The external refers to the proponent using the view of emptiness to refute all dharmas, so the external party wants to refute this view of emptiness in return. Second, it arises directly from the gate of 'Three Times'. Since the external party sees that the proponent refutes 'Three Times of Cause and Effect', they turn around and use this refutation to refute the internal view. Third, the proponent pretends to raise the question of the external party, wanting to purify the mind of the party being refuted, so they want to refute the party that can refute. If there is a party that can refute, then the party being refuted cannot be eliminated. Now, wanting to eliminate the party being refuted, they want to refute the party that can refute. Fourth, the view refuted earlier immediately becomes single emptiness. Now, further refuting this refutation shows that the disease of emptiness is also empty. These three gates of refutation can be divided into three different situations. Earlier, there was a party that could refute, and there are two faults: one is the fault of being without dependence, and the other is the fault of self-refutation. Since there is no party being refuted, but there is the act of refutation, then it should be known that this refutation will self-refute. If earlier there was a party that could be refuted, there are also two faults: one is the fault of being without dependence, and the other is the fault of being un-refutable. Since earlier there was a party that could be refuted, then the party that could be refuted has already...
成。故不可破。若破所破一時亦有二過。一者俱無過。既一時能破破可破令無所破。所破破能破亦令能破無也。二假令俱有能所失相待過。
答曰下第三內自免過。又開二別。一推過還外。二正自免過。推過還外者。汝上來有立此是汝立。覓之無從。今謂有于破此是汝破。汝自撿之不得。若破若立並出汝心。非關我也。又今過甚前。上但立義而不破立。今立於破復自破破。又推過與我。三種因緣故過甚前也。又汝立於立則受他破。今立於破即著自破亦著他破。問論主何故示破立皆有過。答立破立皆是有所依住有所得心。有所得心尚不成問答。云何欲求道耶。問云何不成問答。釋云有所立故不成答。立於破故不成問也。又立於破立是有所得。有所得雖行萬行不動。不出不成乘義。今正欲釋大乘行無所得萬行能動能出。以不立破立心無所得。順此無所得觀得於順忍為動。無所得現前得無生忍為出也。若諸法空下第二內自免過。明我正辨諸法空非但辨于立空亦辨破空。汝今破破助我明空。故無過也。又我不立破汝亦不立破。而汝忽破于破此是虛破。竟不關我義也。
問曰下第四外更立法。所以更立法者。有得之流不能心無依著。初立於法立既不成更立於破。破既不成今還復立。是故凡夫猶如獼猴舍一取一。問外
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，它是不可破的。如果破除了所要破除的，一時之間也會有兩個過失。一是俱無的過失。既然一時之間能破除能破的，使沒有什麼是可以被破除的，那麼所破除的破除了能破的，也會使能破的也消失了。二是假設俱有，就會有能所失去相互依存的過失。
回答說，下面是第三個內部自我免除過失。又分為兩個部分。一是把過失推給外面，二是真正地自我免除過失。把過失推給外面是說，你之前所立的，說是你立的，但尋找卻無從找到。現在說有，要破除它，說是你破除的，你自己檢查也得不到。無論是破還是立，都出自你的心，與我無關。而且現在的過失比之前更嚴重。之前只是立義而不破立，現在立於破，又自己破除破除。又把過失推給我，因為這三種因緣，所以過失比之前更嚴重。而且你立於立，就會受到他人的破斥。現在立於破，既執著于自我破斥，也執著於他人破斥。問：論主為什麼說破立都有過失？答：立破立都是有所依住、有所得的心。有所得的心尚且不能成就問答，又怎麼能求得道呢？問：為什麼不能成就問答？解釋說，因為有所立，所以不能成就答。立於破，所以不能成就問。而且立於破立是有所得。有所得即使修行萬行也不會動搖，不能超出不成乘的意義。現在正是要解釋大乘行無所得，萬行能動能出。以不立破立的心，達到無所得，順應這無所得的觀照，得到順忍為動。無所得現前，得到無生忍為出。
如果諸法空，下面是第二個內部自我免除過失。說明我正在辨析諸法空，不僅僅是辨析立空，也是辨析破空。你現在破除破除，幫助我闡明空性，所以沒有過失。而且我不立破，你也不立破，而你忽然破除破除，這是虛妄的破除，最終與我的義理無關。
問：下面是第四個外部重新立法。之所以重新立法，是因為有得之流不能使心無所依著。最初立於法，立既然不能成立，就重新立於破。破既然不能成立，現在又重新立。所以凡夫就像獼猴一樣，捨棄一個又取一個。問：外面
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it cannot be broken. If what is to be broken is broken, there will be two faults at once. One is the fault of mutual non-existence. Since it can break what can be broken at once, making nothing able to be broken, then what is broken breaks what can break, also causing what can break to disappear. Two, assuming mutual existence, there will be the fault of the loss of interdependence between the able and the object.
The answer is, the third below is an internal self-exemption from fault. It is further divided into two parts. One is to push the fault outward, and the other is to truly exempt oneself from fault. Pushing the fault outward means that what you established earlier, saying it was established by you, but cannot be found when searching. Now saying there is, wanting to break it, saying it is broken by you, but you cannot obtain it when examining it yourself. Whether it is breaking or establishing, it all comes from your mind and has nothing to do with me. Moreover, the current fault is more serious than before. Before, you only established meaning without breaking the establishment, but now you establish on breaking and then break the breaking yourself. Furthermore, pushing the fault to me, because of these three causes, the fault is more serious than before. Moreover, if you establish on establishment, you will be subject to others' refutation. Now establishing on breaking, you are attached to both self-refutation and others' refutation. Question: Why does the master of the treatise say that both breaking and establishing have faults? Answer: Establishing, breaking, and establishing are all minds that have something to rely on, something to attain. A mind that has something to attain cannot even accomplish questions and answers, so how can one seek the path? Question: Why can't it accomplish questions and answers? Explanation: Because there is something established, it cannot accomplish the answer. Establishing on breaking, it cannot accomplish the question. Moreover, establishing on breaking is having something to attain. Even if one practices ten thousand practices with something to attain, one will not move, not go beyond the meaning of non-accomplishment. Now, we want to explain the Mahayana practice of non-attainment, where ten thousand practices can move and go beyond. With a mind that does not establish breaking and establishing, attaining non-attainment, conforming to this contemplation of non-attainment, one obtains compliance-patience (shun ren) as movement. Non-attainment manifests, and one obtains non-origination-patience (wu sheng ren) as going beyond.
If all dharmas are empty, the second below is an internal self-exemption from fault. It explains that I am currently distinguishing the emptiness of all dharmas, not only distinguishing the establishment of emptiness but also distinguishing the breaking of emptiness. You are now breaking the breaking, helping me to clarify emptiness, so there is no fault. Moreover, I do not establish breaking, and you do not establish breaking, but you suddenly break the breaking, which is a false breaking and ultimately has nothing to do with my meaning.
Question: The fourth below is an external re-establishment of the law. The reason for re-establishing the law is that those who flow with attainment cannot make their minds without reliance. Initially establishing on the law, since the establishment cannot be established, they re-establish on breaking. Since breaking cannot be established, they now re-establish again. Therefore, ordinary people are like monkeys, abandoning one and taking another. Question: Outside
人云何通論主三難。答外人不解通。但據眼現見三事以立三法耳。就文為二。初別立三時因果。即三別。前因後果如陶師作瓶。前有陶師然後作瓶。故陶師為因以瓶為果。亦有後時因如因弟子有師。其人師為果弟子為因。師學業成就故是果。弟子未成就故名因。前有師果后弟子來就師學。故果在前而因在後。問文云后識知是弟子。此言何謂。答由師果乃識弟子因。如他問云。是誰弟子。答云某甲弟子。是故因師乃識弟子。弟子居后而師果在前。亦有一時因如燈與明。寸炎為燈滿室為明。實一時有要而因燈有明故名一時因。若說前因下第二結非論主。
答曰下第五破立破。三句即三餘二易知。若說一時如燈明亦同是疑因者。有人言。外不解一時因即不解前後因不異。於此三種因中同皆生疑。故言同疑因。有人言。外實前疑明於燈不能作因。而強立燈與明為因。論主責之還同前疑名同疑因。又品初已破一時。而外更引燈明證一時。還同初疑。依文釋者燈之與明一時而有。外謂證為明因明非燈因。今責。既一時有。明若非燈因燈亦非明因。二種之因同皆生疑故名同疑因。問大小內外一切因果不出三時。論主並破即應無因果耶。答三種因果皆出佛經。並是如來適化之說。一切諸法無決定性。佛有無量方便而為利人顯道。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有人說，『通論主』（Sarvāstivādin，一切有部論師）提出了三個難題。回答是，外道不理解『通』（Sarva，一切），只是根據眼睛所見的三件事來建立三種『法』（Dharma，事物、規律）。 就文義來說，分為兩部分。首先是分別建立三種時間的因果關係，即三種不同的因果關係。前因後果，就像陶工製作瓶子。先有陶工，然後才能製作瓶子。所以陶工是『因』（Hetu，原因），瓶子是『果』（Phala，結果）。也有後時的『因』，比如因為有弟子，所以有老師。這個人（老師）的老師是『果』，弟子是『因』。老師學業成就，所以是『果』，弟子未成就，所以是『因』。先有老師的『果』，後有弟子來向老師學習。所以『果』在前，而『因』在後。有人問，經文中說『后識知是弟子』，這是什麼意思？回答是，由老師的『果』才能認識弟子的『因』。比如別人問，『是誰的弟子？』回答說『是某甲的弟子』。因此，因為有老師，才能認識弟子。弟子在後，而老師的『果』在前。也有一種同時的『因』，比如燈和光明。一寸火焰是燈，照亮整個房間是光明。實際上是同時存在的，但因為有燈才有光明，所以稱為同時『因』。如果說前因，下面第二點總結說不是『論主』（Vādin，辯論者）。 回答說，下面第五點是破斥對方的立論。三句話就是三種（因），其餘兩種容易理解。如果說同時的『因』，比如燈和光明，也同樣是『疑因』（Saṃśayahetu，可疑的原因），有人說，外道不理解同時的『因』，就是不理解前後『因』沒有不同。在這三種『因』中，都同樣產生懷疑。所以說是『同疑因』（Samasamśayahetu，共同懷疑的原因）。有人說，外道實際上先前懷疑光明不能作為燈的『因』，而強行建立燈和光明為『因』，『論主』責備他們，還是和先前懷疑一樣，稱為『同疑因』。而且，在這一品的開始已經破斥了同時『因』，而外道又引用燈明來證明同時『因』，還是和最初的懷疑一樣。按照文義解釋，燈和光明是同時存在的。外道認為這可以證明光明是『因』，光明不是燈的『因』。現在責備他們，既然是同時存在，光明如果不是燈的『因』，燈也不是光明的『因』。兩種『因』都同樣產生懷疑，所以稱為『同疑因』。有人問，大小、內外一切『因果』都離不開這三種時間，『論主』全部破斥，那麼就應該沒有『因果』了嗎？回答是，這三種『因果』都出自佛經，都是如來爲了適應不同情況而說的。一切諸法沒有決定性，佛有無量方便來利益眾生，顯現真理。
【English Translation】 English version Someone says that the Sarvāstivādin (the 'All Exists' school philosopher) poses three difficulties to the 'Master of Discourse' ( 通論主 ). The answer is that outsiders do not understand 'All' ( 通, Sarva), but merely establish three 'Dharmas' ( 法, things, laws) based on the three things seen by the eye. In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts. First, there is the separate establishment of cause and effect in three times, which are three distinctions. The prior cause and subsequent effect are like a potter making a pot. First, there is the potter, and then the pot is made. Therefore, the potter is the 'cause' ( 因, Hetu), and the pot is the 'effect' ( 果, Phala). There is also a 'cause' in a later time, such as a teacher because of a disciple. The teacher of that person (the teacher) is the 'effect,' and the disciple is the 'cause.' The teacher's learning is accomplished, so it is the 'effect,' and the disciple is not yet accomplished, so it is called the 'cause.' First, there is the 'effect' of the teacher, and then the disciple comes to learn from the teacher. Therefore, the 'effect' is in front, and the 'cause' is behind. Someone asks, 'The text says, 'Later, one recognizes that he is a disciple.' What does this mean?' The answer is that it is through the 'effect' of the teacher that one recognizes the 'cause' of the disciple. For example, someone asks, 'Whose disciple is he?' The answer is, 'He is the disciple of so-and-so.' Therefore, because of the teacher, one recognizes the disciple. The disciple is behind, and the 'effect' of the teacher is in front. There is also a simultaneous 'cause,' such as a lamp and light. An inch of flame is the lamp, and illuminating the entire room is the light. In reality, they exist simultaneously, but because there is a lamp, there is light, so it is called a simultaneous 'cause.' If one speaks of the prior cause, the second point below concludes that it is not the 'Master of Discourse' ( 論主, Vādin). The answer is that the fifth point below is to refute the opponent's argument. The three sentences are the three (causes), and the other two are easy to understand. If one says that the simultaneous 'cause,' such as the lamp and light, is also a 'doubtful cause' ( 疑因, Saṃśayahetu), someone says that outsiders do not understand the simultaneous 'cause,' which means they do not understand that the prior and subsequent 'causes' are no different. In these three 'causes,' doubt arises equally. Therefore, it is called a 'cause of common doubt' ( 同疑因, Samasamśayahetu). Someone says that outsiders actually previously doubted that light could not be the 'cause' of the lamp, but forcibly established the lamp and light as 'causes.' The 'Master of Discourse' rebukes them, saying that it is still the same as the previous doubt, and it is called a 'cause of common doubt.' Moreover, at the beginning of this chapter, the simultaneous 'cause' has already been refuted, but outsiders again cite the lamp and light to prove the simultaneous 'cause,' which is still the same as the initial doubt. According to the meaning of the text, the lamp and light exist simultaneously. Outsiders think that this can prove that light is the 'cause,' and light is not the 'cause' of the lamp. Now, they are rebuked, saying that since they exist simultaneously, if light is not the 'cause' of the lamp, then the lamp is not the 'cause' of the light. Both 'causes' equally give rise to doubt, so it is called a 'cause of common doubt.' Someone asks, 'Are all causes and effects, whether large or small, internal or external, inseparable from these three times? If the 'Master of Discourse' refutes them all, then should there be no cause and effect?' The answer is that these three 'causes and effects' all come from the Buddhist scriptures and are all spoken by the Tathagata ( 如來 ) to adapt to different situations. All dharmas have no fixed nature, and the Buddha has countless expedient means to benefit sentient beings and reveal the truth.
但學人封執定性。故論主並須破之。然後無方可適時而用。今明第一義故三種無。世諦假名三種並用。又一切義有三門。一者一切皆破。以執封故。二者一切皆用。顯道利物故。如思益云一切法正一切法邪。三者於一時前後中隨時取捨隨義廢立。此通明三論意。非局此門也。
如是因緣下第三總結齊法。
觀生門第十二
所以有此門來者凡有六義。一者自上十一門破異法之生。今此一門破即法之生。如婆沙云。即法沙門部明生法即五陰即三聚。是故有此門來。二者自上以來破于生相。今此一門次破法體。何以知然。文云生果則不生。故知破法體也。三者上來十一門明能破所破俱不可得。則是無生。外人便謂。生病既滅無生觀生。如諸法不生故般若生。今復破除此生。故有今門來也。四者總收諸法結入畢竟無生門。是故最後觀于生也。五者無生有種種門。上來以示十一種門。今復說三時門。故有此門來也。六者無生門有淺深不同。智度論云。何為無生忍。謂一切法不生不滅。非不生非不滅。不共非不共。是名無生忍。既絕四句方是無生。則四句皆是生。上來但對生辨無生。今破一切生故有此門來。
門亦三。長行為二。初總結辨一切法空。何以故下釋一切法空。復開為二。初總明三時不可得。
今生已下別明三時不可得。
偈為二。上半就已未門明無生。下半就生時門明無生。
長行為三。一總明三時生。二別破三時生。三總結三時無生。生名果起出者此可擬二義。一者因法體生故標于果。二者破即法辨生異。上離法有生故目果也。問起與出何異。答起論果體起也。出辨從因出也。又入有為起出空為出。
是中生果不生者此第二別破三時生。則為三。別破已生生中又三。謂標釋結。就別釋中又三。一無窮破。二不定破。三理奪破。就無窮破中為四。初標無窮之過。若生生已下第二正作無窮義明一物無窮過生。故名無窮。而至四生者欲成無窮過故也。如初生已有第二生此第三釋成無窮也。此是從本推末。初生既是已生而生。則第二生是已生而生。故名無窮。是事不然下第四總結。唯有一物則但應一生。云何一物有無窮生。若無窮生則應有無窮物。又若一物有無窮生則無窮物應是一生。複次若謂下第二取意不定破。又四。一取外意。二總非。三釋非。四結不定。取外意者救上無窮過也。我初生未曾經生。今始生故名生已生。只據未生者始生名生已生。非是生已更復生。是故無無窮過。而言所用生生是生不生而生者。以後生因初生而起故初生是後生所用。故名所用生生。是生不生而生者。牒初
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 今生已下，分別說明過去、現在、未來三時皆不可得。
偈頌分為兩部分。上半部分從已生、未生的角度說明無生，下半部分從生時的角度說明無生。
長行分為三部分。一是總說三時生，二是分別破斥三時生，三是總結三時無生。』生』，名為果的生起和出現，這裡可以比擬兩種含義。一是因法的本體生起，所以標示于果；二是破斥即法而辨別生起的差異。上面是離開法而有生，所以著眼於果。問：』起』與』出』有什麼不同？答：』起』是論果的本體生起，』出』是辨別從因中出現。又，進入有為法為』起』，從空性中顯現為』出』。
』是中生果不生者』，這是第二部分，分別破斥三時生，分為三部分。分別破斥已生之生，又分為三部分，即標示、解釋、總結。在分別解釋中又分為三部分，一是無窮破，二是不定破，三是理奪破。在無窮破中分為四部分，首先標示無窮的過失。』若生生已』以下，第二部分正式闡述無窮的含義，說明一物有無窮的生起，所以名為無窮。』而至四生者』，是爲了成就無窮的過失。例如，初生已經存在，又有第二生，這是第三部分解釋成就無窮。這是從根本推到末端。初生既然是已生而生，那麼第二生也是已生而生，所以名為無窮。』是事不然』以下，第四部分總結。只有一物，就應該只有一生，怎麼可能一物有無窮的生？如果無窮生，就應該有無窮物。又如果一物有無窮生，那麼無窮物應該是一生。複次，』若謂』以下，第二部分採取意念不定來破斥，又分為四部分。一是採取外人的意念，二是總的否定，三是解釋否定，四是總結不定。採取外人的意念，是爲了救護上面的無窮過失。』我初生未曾經生，今始生故名生已生』，只是根據未生者，開始生起名為生已生，不是生了之後又再生，所以沒有無窮的過失。而言所用生生，是生不生而生者，是因為後生因初生而起，所以初生是後生所用，所以名為所用生生。』是生不生而生者』，是重複初生。
【English Translation】 English version Now, having already descended, separately explain that the three times (past, present, future) are unattainable.
The verse is in two parts. The first half explains non-origination from the perspective of what has already arisen and what has not yet arisen. The second half explains non-origination from the perspective of the time of origination.
The prose is in three parts. First, a general explanation of origination in the three times. Second, a separate refutation of origination in the three times. Third, a conclusion that there is no origination in the three times. 'Origination' is named as the arising and appearance of a result, which can be compared to two meanings. First, the substance of the causal dharma (dharma) arises, so it is indicated in the result. Second, it distinguishes the difference in origination by refuting the dharma. Above, there is origination apart from the dharma, so it focuses on the result. Question: What is the difference between 'arising' and 'appearing'? Answer: 'Arising' discusses the substance of the result arising. 'Appearing' distinguishes appearing from the cause. Also, entering into conditioned existence is 'arising', and manifesting from emptiness is 'appearing'.
'Among these, the result of origination does not originate.' This is the second part, separately refuting origination in the three times, which is divided into three parts: indication, explanation, and conclusion. Within the separate explanation, there are also three parts: first, refutation of infinity; second, refutation of uncertainty; and third, refutation by reason. Within the refutation of infinity, there are four parts: first, indicating the fault of infinity. 'If origination originates...' below, the second part formally elaborates on the meaning of infinity, explaining that one thing has infinite origination, so it is called infinity. 'And reaching four origination' is to accomplish the fault of infinity. For example, since the initial origination already exists, there is a second origination. This is the third part, explaining the accomplishment of infinity. This is inferring from the root to the branch. Since the initial origination is already originated and then originates, then the second origination is already originated and then originates, so it is called infinity. 'This is not the case...' below, the fourth part concludes. There is only one thing, so there should only be one origination. How can one thing have infinite origination? If there is infinite origination, there should be infinite things. Also, if one thing has infinite origination, then infinite things should be one origination. Furthermore, 'If it is said...' below, the second part adopts the idea of uncertainty to refute, which is also divided into four parts: first, adopting the idea of others; second, general negation; third, explaining the negation; and fourth, concluding uncertainty. Adopting the idea of others is to protect against the above fault of infinity. 'My initial origination has never originated, now it begins to originate, so it is called already originated.' It is only based on what has not yet originated that the beginning of origination is called already originated. It is not that after originating, it originates again, so there is no fault of infinity. And what is said to be used for origination is that origination originates from non-origination, because the later origination arises from the initial origination, so the initial origination is used by the later origination, so it is called origination used for origination. 'Origination originates from non-origination' is repeating the initial origination.
所用生本來未生而今生故名不生而生。是事不然下總非。何以故下釋非。初生不生而生第二生是生已而生。汝一言之中含不定之過也。又詳論二複次破其生已生之言。所以然者。外人生已生含二事。一者生已。二者更生。若言更生即招無窮之過。若言生已則墮未生之失。故有二破。如作已下第三理奪。若避不定執定生已生即墮無窮過。是故生法不生第三總結也。
不生法亦不生下第二破不生生。為三。初破次救第三破救。初有三。一破不與生合。即謂以因徴果破。既未與生緣合果云何生耶。第二依名亂並破。若不生即是生。不食應是食。如此一切亂。第三有一切不生生過。又三。初破大乘謂凡夫未生菩提。即今應現生。次破小乘。既云不生生應不壞者是壞。第三破世間。若不生者得生無角應生角。三破中初一令當生者現生。后二不應生者生也。救中為二。初正義宗。次答論主難。正義宗云。我言不生生者。本未生假緣合故生名不生生。不言未生即是生。即以此通前二難。可得有未生令生。復何謂猶有不食即是食耶。非一切不生而生此正答論主第三難。第三難中有三難。初難已入正宗中答之。凡夫菩提緣合即便生。未會則不生也。不壞法羅漢及馬角。無生緣會故不得生也。答曰下第三縱未生生更以三門責之易知。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『所用生本來未生而今生故名不生而生』：你所說的『生』，本來是未生的，因為現在生了，所以叫做『不生而生』。這是不對的，下面總的來說都是不對的。 『何以故下釋非』：為什麼不對呢？下面解釋為什麼不對。首先，『生不生而生』，其次，『生是生已而生』。你一句話里就包含了不確定的過失。 『又詳論二複次破其生已生之言』：再詳細討論，第二次破斥『生已生』的說法。為什麼呢？外道所說的『生已生』包含兩件事：一是『生已』，二是『更生』。如果說是『更生』，就會招致無窮的過失；如果說是『生已』，就會陷入『未生』的錯誤。所以有兩次破斥。 『如作已下第三理奪』：就像『作已』一樣，第三次從道理上駁奪。如果避免不確定性，堅持『生已生』，就會陷入無窮的過失。所以，『生法不生』，這是第三次總結。 『不生法亦不生下第二破不生生』：『不生法也不生』，下面第二次破斥『不生生』。分為三部分：首先是破斥，其次是辯護，第三次是破斥辯護。首先的破斥有三點：一是破斥『不與生合』，也就是用因來推導果，破斥說既然沒有和『生』的因緣結合，果怎麼會生呢？二是依照名稱混淆並破斥，如果不生就是生，那麼不吃就應該是吃，這樣一切都亂了。三是有一切不生生的過失。 『又三。初破大乘謂凡夫未生菩提。即今應現生。次破小乘。既云不生生應不壞者是壞。第三破世間。若不生者得生無角應生角。三破中初一令當生者現生。后二不應生者生也。』：又有三點：首先破斥大乘，認為凡夫沒有生起菩提（bodhi，覺悟），那麼現在就應該顯現生起。其次破斥小乘，既然說『不生生』，那麼不應該壞滅的就應該壞滅。第三破斥世間，如果說不生的東西能夠生，那麼沒有角的動物就應該生出角。 『救中為二。初正義宗。次答論主難。正義宗云。我言不生生者。本未生假緣合故生名不生生。不言未生即是生。即以此通前二難。可得有未生令生。復何謂猶有不食即是食耶。非一切不生而生此正答論主第三難。』：辯護分為兩部分：首先是正義宗的觀點，其次是回答論主的詰難。正義宗說：我說『不生生』，是因為本來未生的東西，憑藉因緣聚合而生，所以叫做『不生生』。我沒有說未生就是生，用這個來解釋前面的兩個詰難。可以有未生的東西令其生。又怎麼能說不吃就是吃呢？不是所有不生的東西都會生，這是正面回答論主的第三個詰難。 『第三難中有三難。初難已入正宗中答之。凡夫菩提緣合即便生。未會則不生也。不壞法羅漢及馬角。無生緣會故不得生也。答曰下第三縱未生生更以三門責之易知。』：第三個詰難中有三個難點，第一個難點已經在正義宗的觀點中回答了。凡夫的菩提（bodhi，覺悟）因緣聚合就會生起，沒有聚合就不會生起。不壞滅的阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟者）以及馬的角，因為沒有生起的因緣聚合，所以不能生起。回答說，下面第三次即使承認『未生生』，仍然用三個方面來責難，很容易理解。
【English Translation】 English version 'What is used to be unborn originally, but now is born, is called unborn-birth': What you call 'birth' was originally unborn, but because it is now born, it is called 'unborn-birth'. This is not correct; everything below is generally incorrect. 'Why is it incorrect? Below explains why it is incorrect': Why is it incorrect? Below explains why it is incorrect. First, 'birth is unborn-birth'; second, 'birth is already-born-birth'. In one sentence, you contain the fault of uncertainty. 'Furthermore, discussing in detail, the second time refutes the statement of already-born-birth': Discussing in more detail, the second time refutes the statement of 'already-born-birth'. Why? The 'already-born-birth' that the outsider speaks of contains two things: first, 'already born'; second, 're-birth'. If it is said to be 're-birth', it will lead to the fault of infinity; if it is said to be 'already born', it will fall into the error of 'unborn'. Therefore, there are two refutations. 'Like already done, the third time deprives from reason': Like 'already done', the third time deprives from reason. If you avoid uncertainty and insist on 'already-born-birth', you will fall into the fault of infinity. Therefore, 'the dharma of birth is unborn'; this is the third summary. 'The unborn dharma is also unborn, below the second time refutes unborn-birth': 'The unborn dharma is also unborn', below the second time refutes 'unborn-birth'. It is divided into three parts: first is refutation, second is defense, and third is refutation of the defense. The first refutation has three points: first, refuting 'not combining with birth', which is using cause to deduce effect, refuting that since there is no combination with the cause and condition of 'birth', how can the effect be born? Second, confusing and refuting according to names, if unborn is birth, then not eating should be eating, and everything will be chaotic. Third, there is the fault of all unborn-birth. 'Again three. First refuting Mahayana, saying that ordinary people have not given rise to Bodhi (bodhi, enlightenment), then it should manifest now. Second refuting Hinayana, since it is said 'unborn-birth', then what should not be destroyed should be destroyed. Third refuting the world, if what is unborn can be born, then animals without horns should grow horns': Again, there are three points: first, refuting Mahayana, believing that ordinary people have not given rise to Bodhi (bodhi, enlightenment), then it should manifest now. Second, refuting Hinayana, since it is said 'unborn-birth', then what should not be destroyed should be destroyed. Third, refuting the world, if what is unborn can be born, then animals without horns should grow horns. 'Defense is divided into two parts. First, the view of the righteous school. Second, answering the question of the debater. The righteous school says: I say 'unborn-birth' because what was originally unborn is born through the combination of conditions, so it is called 'unborn-birth'. I did not say that unborn is birth, using this to explain the previous two questions. It is possible to have something unborn cause it to be born. How can it be said that not eating is eating? Not everything unborn will be born; this is a direct answer to the debater's third question.' 'The third question has three difficulties. The first difficulty has already been answered in the view of the righteous school. The Bodhi (bodhi, enlightenment) of ordinary people will arise when conditions combine, and will not arise when they do not combine. The Arhat (arhat, enlightened being) that does not decay and the horns of horses cannot arise because there is no combination of conditions for arising. The answer is that even if 'unborn-birth' is admitted the third time, it is still easy to understand by questioning from three aspects.'
破生時生中有四破。一理奪破。二無體破。三二體破。四無依破。理奪破者無有生時。生既墮已未已未前已說過也。無體已下三破並是縱關。縱有生時便有三過。無體者由生有時。時則無體無體則無時。生何所賴耶。二體破者。若時有體則墮二生。一以生為時體。二賴時而生。便有二生。故名二體也。四無依破者。若避二生謂不以生為時體但有賴時生者便墮無依。無依者既不以生為時體。時無所依。無所依則無時生。何所賴。全同中論三相品。又同去來品。文處易知。
如是生不生下第三總結例萬法。
是故當知下。論第三大段總結論意明無生畢竟空即是諸佛行處。為令眾生至佛所至也。
十二門論疏卷下之末(終)
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 破生時，生中有四種破斥。第一是理奪破，第二是無體破，第三是二體破，第四是無依破。 理奪破是指沒有產生的時候。既然產生已經墮落，那麼在未開始之前就已經結束了，之前已經說過了。 無體破以下的這三種破斥都是縱容的關卡。縱容有產生的時候，便會有三種過失。無體破是指由於產生有時，時間就沒有自體，沒有自體就沒有時間，產生依靠什麼呢？ 二體破是指如果時間有自體，就會墮入兩種產生。一種是以產生作為時間的自體，另一種是依賴時間而產生，便有兩種產生，所以叫做二體。 無依破是指如果爲了避免兩種產生，認為不以產生作為時間的自體，但有依賴時間而產生的，便會墮入無所依賴。無所依賴是指既然不以產生作為時間的自體，時間就沒有所依賴，沒有所依賴就沒有時間產生，產生依靠什麼呢？完全如同《中論》的三相品，又如同《去來品》，文句之處容易理解。 像這樣，產生不產生以下是第三部分，總結並類比萬法。 『是故當知』以下，是論的第三大段，總結論的意義，闡明無生畢竟空就是諸佛所行之處，爲了使眾生到達佛所到達的地方。 《十二門論疏》卷下之末（終）
【English Translation】 English version When refuting origination, there are four refutations related to origination. First, the refutation by depriving of principle (理奪破, lǐ duó pò). Second, the refutation of no substance (無體破, wú tǐ pò). Third, the refutation of two substances (二體破, èr tǐ pò). Fourth, the refutation of no reliance (無依破, wú yī pò). The refutation by depriving of principle means there is no time of origination. Since origination has already fallen, it has already ended before it even started, as has been said before. The three refutations from the refutation of no substance onwards are all permissive obstacles. If origination is permitted to have a time, then there will be three faults. The refutation of no substance means that because origination has a time, time has no substance. If there is no substance, then there is no time. What does origination rely on? The refutation of two substances means that if time has a substance, then it will fall into two origination. One is to take origination as the substance of time, and the other is to rely on time for origination. There will be two origination, so it is called two substances. The refutation of no reliance means that if, in order to avoid two origination, it is thought that origination is not taken as the substance of time, but there is reliance on time for origination, then it will fall into no reliance. No reliance means that since origination is not taken as the substance of time, time has nothing to rely on. If there is nothing to rely on, then there is no time for origination. What does origination rely on? It is completely the same as the 'Examination of the Three Characteristics' chapter and the 'Examination of the Going and Not-Going' chapter in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論, Zhōnglùn). The meaning of the text is easy to understand. Like this, the section from origination and non-origination onwards is the third part, summarizing and analogizing all dharmas. From 'Therefore, it should be known' onwards, is the third major section of the treatise, summarizing the meaning of the treatise, clarifying that no origination and ultimate emptiness is the place where all Buddhas walk, in order to enable sentient beings to reach the place where the Buddhas reach. End of the Lower Scroll of the Commentary on the Twelve Gate Treatise (十二門論疏, Shí'èr Mén Lùn Shū) (The End)