T42n1826_十二門論宗致義記

大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1826 十二門論宗致義記

No. 1826 [cf. Nos. 1568, 1825]

十二門論宗致義記捲上

京西大原寺沙門釋法藏述

夫以玄綱絕待。真俗所以俱融。素范超情。空有以茲雙泯。但以性空未嘗不有。即有以辨于空。幻有未始不空。即空以明於有。有空有故不有。空有空故不空。邊執既亡。聞見隨喪。竭邪源之有寄。則四執云銷。挺正法之無虧。則二諦斯在。是故如來在世。曜般若於昏衢。上品之流。契玄津于累外。大師沒後。異執紛綸。或趣邪途或奔小徑。於是九十五種競扇邪風。一十八部爭揮爝火。遂使真空慧日。匿耀昏云。般若玄珠。惑茲魚目。爰有大士。厥稱龍猛。位登極喜。應兆金言。慨此頹綱。悼斯淪溺。將欲然正法炬。覆邪見幢。故使製作繁多。溢於天竺。然則要妙之述。此論為先。標十二之宏綱。坦幽途而顯實。令即相還源。融神妙寂。開情煥理。故號為門。往復折徴。複稱為論。門有十二。因以為名。余義下當別釋。

將釋此論。略作十門。一明教起所因。二藏部所攝。三顯教分齊。四教所被機。五能詮教體。六所詮宗趣。七造論時代。八傳譯緣起。九釋論題目。十隨文解釋。

第一教起

所因者。略有十因。造此等論。一為是論主本願力故。以此龍樹住于初地。理應以誓願力。于佛滅后。弘法攝生。是其所作。況論主見楞伽等經。佛既記我當來。然正法炬。滅邪見幢。是故理應廣造諸論。以扶嘉唱。二為佛滅后。外道競興。邪說紛綸。訕謗佛法。為破彼等。令歸正故。三為諸二乘不信于大。破彼異執。令向大故。四為于大乘。謬解真空。滯于情執。令彼破情。見正理故。五為顯示大乘真實究竟。令彼信受。不疑惑故。六為欲略顯大乘般若真空最為要妙。依之方得成萬行故。七為欲解釋大乘經中深妙之義。令顯現故。八為令一類依論解釋得開悟者。因此而得入正法故。九為欲于佛滅后。助佛揚化。護大乘法令久住故。十為以美辭妙頌。廣宣流佈此大乘法。成法供養。報佛恩故。

第二藏部攝者。聲聞菩薩二藏之中。菩薩藏攝。修多羅等三藏之內。對法藏收。十二部中。論議經攝。問。既非佛說。何得然耶。答。由二義故。一由是彼類。是故彼攝。二但諸佛說法。有其三種。一佛自說。二加他說。三懸許說。此論則當懸許之類。以入楞伽經。及摩耶經中。佛記龍樹然正法炬。故知懸記許可說也。是故亦入至教量收。達磨藏攝。

第三定教分齊者。此方南北諸師。異說紛紜。無勞敘記。且辨西

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：造論的因緣，略有十種原因，促使作者撰寫這些論著：第一，因為論主（指龍樹，Nāgārjuna）本身具有願力。龍樹菩薩安住于初地菩薩的果位，理應以誓願之力，在佛陀滅度之後，弘揚佛法，攝受眾生，這是他應盡的職責。更何況論主親見《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）等經典，佛陀已經授記他將來會燃起正法的火炬，摧滅邪見的旗幟。因此，理應廣泛地撰寫各種論著，以扶持和讚揚正法。第二，因為佛陀滅度后，外道競相興起，邪說紛繁雜亂，誹謗佛法。爲了破斥他們，使他們歸於正道。第三，爲了使那些不相信大乘佛法的聲聞乘和緣覺乘修行者，破除他們固有的執見，引導他們趨向大乘佛法。第四，對於那些修習大乘佛法，卻錯誤地理解真空的含義，停留在情感執著中的人，使他們破除情感的束縛，見到正確的義理。第五，爲了顯示大乘佛法真實究竟的道理，使他們信受奉行，不再疑惑。第六，爲了簡要地闡明大乘般若真空最為重要和微妙，只有依靠它才能成就萬行。第七，爲了解釋大乘經典中深奧微妙的含義，使之顯現出來。第八，爲了使那些依靠論著的解釋而得到開悟的人，因此而能夠進入正法。第九，爲了在佛陀滅度后，幫助佛陀弘揚教化，護持大乘佛法，使之長久住世。第十，爲了用優美的辭藻和巧妙的頌歌，廣泛地宣揚和流佈這部大乘佛法，成就法供養，報答佛陀的恩德。第二，關於此論屬於哪個藏部所攝：在聲聞藏和菩薩藏這兩個藏部中，此論屬於菩薩藏所攝。在修多羅藏（Sūtra，經藏）、毗奈耶藏（Vinaya，律藏）和阿毗達磨藏（Abhidharma，論藏）這三個藏部中，此論屬於對法藏（即論藏）所收。在十二部經中，此論屬於論議經。問：既然不是佛陀親口所說，怎麼能算數呢？答：因為有兩個原因：第一，因為此論與佛陀所說教義屬於同一型別，所以歸於佛陀所說。第二，佛陀說法有三種方式：一是佛陀自己宣說，二是允許他人宣說，三是懸記許可宣說。此論屬於懸記許可宣說的那一類。因為在《入楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）和《摩耶經》（Māyā Sūtra）中，佛陀都曾授記龍樹菩薩將燃起正法的火炬，所以知道是佛陀懸記許可他宣說的。因此，此論也屬於至教量所收，屬於達磨藏（Dharma，法藏）所攝。第三，關於判別教義的界限：此地（指中國）南北各地的法師，對此有各種不同的說法，不必一一記錄。這裡只辨析西

【English Translation】 English version: The reasons for writing the treatises are roughly ten, prompting the author to compose these works: First, because the treatise master (referring to Nāgārjuna) himself possesses the power of vows. Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, abiding in the stage of the first ground (prathama-bhūmi), should, by the power of his vows, propagate the Dharma and gather sentient beings after the Buddha's parinirvana; this is his duty. Moreover, the treatise master personally saw scriptures such as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, in which the Buddha had already prophesied that he would ignite the torch of the true Dharma and destroy the banners of false views. Therefore, it is reasonable to widely compose various treatises to support and praise the true Dharma. Second, because after the Buddha's parinirvana, non-Buddhist paths arose in competition, with diverse and chaotic false teachings slandering the Buddha's Dharma. To refute them and lead them back to the right path. Third, to enable those who do not believe in the Mahāyāna Dharma, the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna practitioners, to break their inherent attachments and guide them towards the Mahāyāna Dharma. Fourth, for those who practice the Mahāyāna Dharma but misunderstand the meaning of emptiness (śūnyatā), remaining attached to emotional attachments, to enable them to break free from the bonds of emotion and see the correct meaning. Fifth, to reveal the true and ultimate principles of the Mahāyāna Dharma, enabling them to believe and practice it without doubt. Sixth, to briefly explain that the Prajñā (wisdom) of emptiness (śūnyatā) in Mahāyāna is the most important and subtle, and only by relying on it can one accomplish all practices. Seventh, to explain the profound and subtle meanings in the Mahāyāna scriptures, making them manifest. Eighth, to enable those who attain enlightenment by relying on the explanations of the treatises to enter the true Dharma as a result. Ninth, to assist the Buddha in propagating teachings after his parinirvana, protecting the Mahāyāna Dharma and ensuring its long-lasting presence in the world. Tenth, to widely proclaim and disseminate this Mahāyāna Dharma with beautiful words and skillful verses, accomplishing the offering of Dharma and repaying the Buddha's kindness. Second, regarding which collection (piṭaka) this treatise belongs to: Among the Śrāvakapiṭaka and Bodhisattvapiṭaka, this treatise belongs to the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. Among the Sūtrapiṭaka, Vinayapiṭaka, and Abhidharmapiṭaka, this treatise is collected in the Abhidharmapiṭaka. Among the twelve divisions of scriptures, this treatise belongs to the treatise-discussion scripture. Question: Since it was not spoken by the Buddha himself, how can it be considered valid? Answer: Because of two reasons: First, because this treatise belongs to the same category as the teachings spoken by the Buddha, it is therefore attributed to the Buddha's teachings. Second, there are three ways in which the Buddha teaches: one is that the Buddha himself proclaims, two is that he allows others to proclaim, and three is that he predicts and permits proclamation. This treatise belongs to the category of predicted and permitted proclamation. Because in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Māyā Sūtra, the Buddha had prophesied that Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna would ignite the torch of the true Dharma, it is known that the Buddha predicted and permitted him to proclaim it. Therefore, this treatise also belongs to the collection of authoritative teachings, belonging to the Dharmapiṭaka. Third, regarding the demarcation of doctrinal teachings: The Dharma masters in various regions, both north and south of this land (referring to China), have various different opinions on this, which need not be recorded one by one. Here, we will only analyze the Western

國諸德所傳。親問大原寺翻經。中天竺三藏法師。地婆訶羅。唐言日照。說云。近代中天竺那爛陀寺。同時有二大德論師。一名戒賢。一名智光。並神解超倫。聲高五印。六師稽顙。異部歸依。大乘學人。仰之日月如。天竺獨步。軌範成規。遂各守一宗互為矛盾。謂戒賢。則遠承彌勒無著。近踵護法難陀。依深密等經。瑜伽等論。明法相大乘。廣分名數。用三教開宗。顯自所依為真了義。謂佛初鹿園轉於四諦小乘法輪。雖說人空。翻諸外道。然于緣生定說實有。第二時中。雖依遍計所執。而說諸法自性皆空。翻彼小乘然于依他圓成猶未說有。第三時中。就大乘正理。具說三性三無性等。方為盡理。是故於因緣生法。初時唯說有。則墮有邊。次說于空。則墮空邊。既各墮邊。俱非了義。后時具說所執性空。餘二為有。契會中道。方爲了義。是故依此所說。判般若等。經多說空宗。是第二教攝。非爲了義。此依解深密經判也。二智光論師。遠承文殊龍樹。近稟青目清辨。依般若等經。中觀等論。顯無相大乘。廣辨真空。亦以三教開宗。顯自所依真爲了義。謂佛初鹿園。為諸小根轉於四諦小乘法輪。說心境俱有。次於第二時。為中根說法相大乘。境空心有。則唯識義等。以根猶劣。故未能全入平等真空。故作是說。于第三時

【現代漢語翻譯】這是各國諸位有德之士所傳述的。我親自向大原寺翻譯佛經的地婆訶羅（Divakara，意為日照）三藏法師請教。法師說，近代的印度那爛陀寺（Nalanda Monastery）同時有兩位大德論師，一位名叫戒賢（Śīlabhadra），一位名叫智光（Jñānaprabha）。他們都才智超群，名聲響徹五印（古代印度分為東、西、南、北、中五個區域），使得六師（古印度六個外道教派的老師）都低頭，其他學派都歸附。大乘佛法的學習者，都仰望他們如同日月一般。他們是印度獨一無二的典範。於是各自堅守一個宗派，互相辯駁。戒賢認為，他遠承彌勒（Maitreya）、無著（Asanga），近承護法（Dharmapala）、難陀（Nanda），依據《解深密經》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）等經和《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）等論，闡明法相大乘，廣泛地分析名相和術語，用三時教判來開宗立派，認為自己所依據的才是真正的了義。佛陀最初在鹿野苑（Sarnath）轉動四諦（Four Noble Truths）的小乘法輪，雖然說了人空，駁斥了各種外道，但是對於緣起法，仍然確定是實有的。在第二時中，雖然依據遍計所執性（Parikalpita），而說諸法自性皆空，駁斥了小乘，但是對於依他起性（Paratantra）和圓成實性（Pariniṣpanna），仍然沒有說有。在第三時中，就大乘正理，完整地說了三性（Three Natures）、三無性等，才是窮盡了真理。因此，對於因緣所生法，最初只說有，就落入了有邊；其次說空，就落入了空邊。既然各自落入一邊，都不是了義。後來完整地說所執性空，其餘二性為有，契合中道，才是了義。因此依據這種說法，判斷《般若經》（Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）等經典大多說空宗，是第二時教所攝，不是了義。這是依據《解深密經》所作的判決。智光論師，遠承文殊（Mañjuśrī）、龍樹（Nāgārjuna），近承青目（Piṅgala）、清辨（Bhāvaviveka），依據《般若經》等經和中觀（Madhyamaka）等論，闡明無相大乘，廣泛地辨析真空，也用三時教判來開宗立派，認為自己所依據的才是真正的了義。佛陀最初在鹿野苑，為那些根器淺薄的人轉動四諦的小乘法輪，說心和境都是有的。其次在第二時，為中等根器的人說法相大乘，說境空心有，也就是唯識（Vijñānavāda）的意義等。因為他們的根器仍然很差，所以未能完全進入平等真空，所以這樣說。在第三時

【English Translation】 These are the teachings transmitted by virtuous individuals from various countries. I personally inquired about this from the Tripiṭaka master Divākara (meaning 'Sun Illumination' in Chinese), who was translating scriptures at the Dayuan Monastery. He said that in recent times, at Nālandā Monastery in Central India, there were two great and virtuous debaters, one named Śīlabhadra and the other Jñānaprabha. Both possessed extraordinary wisdom and their reputations resounded throughout the Five Indias (ancient India divided into East, West, South, North, and Central regions), causing the Six Teachers (teachers of the six heterodox schools of ancient India) to bow their heads and other schools to take refuge. Students of Mahāyāna Buddhism looked up to them as they would the sun and moon. They were unparalleled exemplars in India. Consequently, each adhered to a particular school of thought, engaging in mutual refutation. Śīlabhadra believed that he inherited from Maitreya and Asaṅga in the distant past, and from Dharmapāla and Nanda in more recent times. Based on scriptures such as the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, he elucidated the Dharma-lakṣaṇa Mahāyāna, extensively analyzing terms and concepts, and establishing his school based on the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma, considering his own teachings to be the truly definitive ones. The Buddha initially turned the Wheel of the Four Noble Truths of the Śrāvakayāna (Small Vehicle) at Sarnath, teaching the emptiness of the self (pudgala-śūnyatā) and refuting various heterodox views, but still affirmed the substantial existence of conditioned phenomena (pratītyasamutpāda). In the second turning, although he taught the emptiness of the inherent nature of all phenomena based on the imagined nature (parikalpita), refuting the Śrāvakayāna, he still did not affirm the existence of the dependent nature (paratantra) and the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna). In the third turning, based on the correct principles of Mahāyāna, he fully explained the Three Natures (trisvabhāva) and the Three Natures of Non-Existence (trisvabhāva-niḥsvabhāvatā), which was the complete and ultimate truth. Therefore, regarding conditioned phenomena, initially only affirming existence falls into the extreme of existence; subsequently teaching emptiness falls into the extreme of emptiness. Since each falls into an extreme, neither is definitive. Later, fully explaining the emptiness of the imagined nature while affirming the existence of the other two natures aligns with the Middle Way and is definitive. Therefore, based on this explanation, it is judged that the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, which mostly teach emptiness, are included in the second turning and are not definitive. This judgment is based on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. The debater Jñānaprabha inherited from Mañjuśrī and Nāgārjuna in the distant past, and from Piṅgala and Bhāvaviveka in more recent times. Based on scriptures such as the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and treatises such as the Madhyamaka, he elucidated the Anābhāsa Mahāyāna, extensively analyzing the true emptiness, and also established his school based on the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma, considering his own teachings to be the truly definitive ones. The Buddha initially turned the Wheel of the Four Noble Truths of the Śrāvakayāna for those with inferior faculties at Sarnath, teaching that both mind and objects exist. Secondly, in the second turning, he taught the Dharma-lakṣaṇa Mahāyāna for those with intermediate faculties, teaching that objects are empty but the mind exists, which is the meaning of Vijñānavāda. Because their faculties were still inferior, they could not fully enter into the equal and true emptiness, so he taught in this way. In the third turning

。方為上根。說此無相大乘。顯心境俱空。平等一味。為真了義。又初則為破外道自性等。故說因緣生法決定是有。次則為破小乘實有。說此緣生但是假有。以恐彼怖畏此真空。故猶存有而接引之。第三方就究竟大乘。說此緣生即是性空。平等一相。此亦是入法之漸次也。則依此說。判法相大乘有所得等。為第二教。非了義也。此三教次第。智光法師般若燈論釋中。引大乘妙智經所說。是故依此教理。般若等經。是真了義。余法相名數。是方便說耳。問。如前二師所說。何得何失。答。若以機會教。二說俱得。以各依聖教為定量故。何者。謂此二說三教次第。俱不可以三時前後定限而取。何以知之。如密跡力士經說。佛初鹿園。轉四諦法輪。無量眾生得初果二果。乃至阿羅漢果。無量眾生髮菩提心。無量菩薩得無生法忍。住初地二地等。乃至廣說。大品經中亦同此說。是故不可定說前後。但知如來施設教則了不了義。有其二門。一約攝機寬狹。言教具闕。以明瞭不了。二約攝機入法。顯理增微。以明瞭不了。初是戒賢所得。何者。謂如解深密經中。初施鹿園。唯為發趣聲聞乘者。以四諦相轉正法輪等。第二時唯為發趣修大乘者。依一切法皆無自性。乃至以隱密相轉正法輪。第三時普為發趣一切乘者。依一切法皆無自性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這才是上等根器。所說的這種無相大乘，顯示心和境都是空性的，平等而唯一，才是真正的究竟之義。而且最初是爲了破斥外道的自性等觀點，所以說因緣生法決定是存在的。其次是爲了破斥小乘的實有觀點，說這種緣生只是假有，因為恐怕他們怖畏這種真空，所以仍然保留『有』來接引他們。第三步就究竟大乘來說，說這種緣生就是性空，平等一相。這也是進入佛法的漸進次第。那麼依照這種說法，判斷法相大乘有所得等，是第二教，不是究竟之義。這三種教的次第，智光法師在《般若燈論釋》中，引用了《大乘妙智經》所說。因此依照這種教理，《般若》等經，才是真正的究竟之義，其餘法相名數，只是方便之說罷了。問：如前面兩位法師所說，有什麼得失？答：如果從適應根機的角度來說，兩種說法都成立，因為各自都依據聖教作為衡量標準。為什麼呢？因為這兩種關於三教次第的說法，都不能用三個時期的先後順序來限定。為什麼知道呢？如《密跡力士經》所說，佛陀最初在鹿野苑，轉四諦法輪，無量眾生證得初果、二果，乃至阿羅漢果，無量眾生髮起菩提心，無量菩薩證得無生法忍，安住于初地、二地等，乃至廣說。《大品經》中也同樣這樣說。所以不可定說前後。但要知道如來施設教法，了義不了義，有兩個方面。一是根據攝受根機的寬窄，言教是否完備，來表明了義不了義。二是根據攝受根機進入佛法，顯現的道理是深是淺，來表明了義不了義。前者是戒賢的觀點。為什麼呢？就像《解深密經》中說，最初在鹿野苑，只是爲了引導趣向聲聞乘的人，以四諦之相轉正法輪等。第二時只是爲了引導趣向修習大乘的人，依據一切法皆無自性，乃至以隱秘之相轉正法輪。第三時普遍爲了引導趣向一切乘的人，依據一切法皆無自性。

【English Translation】 English version: This is the superior root. This 'Anatta Mahayana' (無相大乘, formless Mahayana) that is spoken of reveals that both mind and environment are empty, equal and of one flavor, is the true ultimate meaning. Moreover, initially it was to refute the views of external paths such as 'Svabhava' (自性, self-nature), therefore it is said that the 'Hetupratyaya' (因緣, cause and condition) produced dharmas are definitely existent. Secondly, it was to refute the 'Sarvastivada' (小乘, Hinayana) view of real existence, saying that this 'Pratityasamutpada' (緣生, dependent origination) is only provisionally existent, because they were afraid of this 'Sunyata' (真空, true emptiness), so they still retained 'existence' to guide them. Thirdly, in terms of the ultimate Mahayana, it is said that this dependent origination is 'Svabhava-sunyata' (性空, emptiness of self-nature), equal and of one aspect. This is also a gradual sequence of entering the Dharma. Then, according to this statement, judging the 'Lakshana Mahayana' (法相大乘, Dharma Characteristic Mahayana) as having attainment, etc., is the second teaching, not the ultimate meaning. This sequence of the three teachings is quoted by 'Jiguang Fashi' (智光法師, Master Zhiguang) in the commentary of 'Prajnapradipa-tika' (般若燈論釋, Commentary on the Lamp of Wisdom), from the 'Mahaprajna Sutra' (大乘妙智經, Great Wisdom Sutra) as spoken. Therefore, according to this teaching principle, the 'Prajna Sutra' (般若經, Wisdom Sutra), etc., are the true ultimate meaning, and the remaining Dharma Characteristic names and numbers are just expedient teachings. Question: As the previous two masters said, what are the gains and losses? Answer: If based on the opportunity of teaching, both statements are valid, because each relies on the 'Agama' (聖教, holy teachings) as a measure. Why? Because these two statements about the sequence of the three teachings cannot be limited by the order of the three periods. How do we know this? As the 'Guhyasamaja Tantra' (密跡力士經, Secret Assembly Sutra) says, the Buddha initially turned the 'Caturaryasatya' (四諦, Four Noble Truths) wheel in 'Mrigadava' (鹿野苑, Deer Park), countless beings attained the first fruit, second fruit, up to the 'Arhat' (阿羅漢, Arhat) fruit, countless beings aroused 'Bodhi-citta' (菩提心, Bodhi mind), countless 'Bodhisattvas' (菩薩, Bodhisattvas) attained 'Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti' (無生法忍, non-origination Dharma forbearance), dwelling in the first 'Bhumi' (地, ground), second ground, etc., and so on. The 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra' (大品經, Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) also says the same. Therefore, it cannot be definitively said to be before or after. But know that the 'Tathagata' (如來, Thus Come One)'s establishment of teachings, definitive or non-definitive, has two aspects. One is according to the breadth of receiving beings, whether the teachings are complete or lacking, to clarify definitive or non-definitive. The second is according to the receiving of beings entering the Dharma, whether the revealed principle is deep or shallow, to clarify definitive or non-definitive. The former is the view of 'Silabhadra' (戒賢, Silabhadra). Why? Just as the 'Samdhinirmocana Sutra' (解深密經, Sutra Unraveling the Thought) says, initially in 'Mrigadava' (鹿野苑, Deer Park), it was only to guide those who are interested in the 'Sravakayana' (聲聞乘, Hearer Vehicle), turning the 'Dharmacakra' (法輪, Dharma wheel) of the Four Noble Truths, etc. The second time was only to guide those who are interested in practicing the 'Mahayana' (大乘, Great Vehicle), relying on all dharmas being without self-nature, and even turning the 'Dharmacakra' (法輪, Dharma wheel) with hidden aspects. The third time was universally to guide those who are interested in all vehicles, relying on all dharmas being without self-nature.

。乃至無自性性。以顯了相轉正法輪。解云。準此經文。初則唯攝聲聞。次則唯攝菩薩。攝機狹故。名非了義。后具攝小大。故云普為發趣一切乘者說也。又初唯說小教。次唯大乘。此二言教各互闕。故名非了。后具說二教。用攝二機。此則教具。故名了義。非是理有淺深。又準此文。亦不可定判般若等為第二時教。以大品經云。若人慾得須陀洹果者。當學般若波羅密。乃至欲得阿羅漢果。及無上菩提等。皆云當學般若波羅密。故知般若經等。亦具攝大小。亦是普為發趣一切乘者說。智論亦云。此摩訶衍中。具攝菩薩聲聞二眾故也。解云。既具二諦。俱攝兩機。豈得定判為第二教。是故若定判般若。則違此所引。若定執前後。則違力士經文。是故但約攝機有寬狹。言教有具闕。判此三教有了不了者。理教無也。二約攝機入法。顯理增微門者。智光所承立也。謂初說心境俱有。不達性空。次顯境空心有。已顯一分性空。後心境俱空。平等具顯。方爲了義。又于緣生。初說實有。次說似有。後方說空。此文並是入法有漸次。顯理有增微。以明三教了不了義。若定執前後。定判經文。亦有違害。準可知耳。又戒賢約教判。以教具爲了義。智光約理判。以理玄爲了義。是故二說。所據各異。分齊顯然。優劣淺深。於斯可見。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：乃至無自性性（沒有自性的性質）。用以顯示了相轉正法輪（顯現諸法實相，轉動正法之輪）。解釋說：根據這段經文，最初只攝受聲聞（聽聞佛陀教誨而修行的弟子），其次只攝受菩薩（立志成佛的修行者）。由於攝受的根器狹窄，所以稱為非了義（不了義，指教義不究竟）。後來具足攝受小乘和大乘，所以說普遍地為發趣一切乘（所有乘，指聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的人說法。又最初只說小乘教法，其次只說大乘教法，這兩種言教各自有所欠缺，所以稱為非了義。後來具足宣說二乘教法，用來攝受兩種根器的眾生，這樣教法就完備了，所以稱爲了義（了義，指教義究竟）。這並不是說理有深淺之分。又根據這段經文，也不可以斷定般若（智慧）等經典為第二時教法。因為《大品經》（《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》）說：『如果有人想要得到須陀洹果（小乘初果），應當學習般若波羅蜜（通過智慧到達彼岸）。』乃至想要得到阿羅漢果（小乘最高果位）以及無上菩提（無上正等正覺，即佛果）等，都說應當學習般若波羅蜜。所以知道般若經等，也具足攝受小乘和大乘，也是普遍地為發趣一切乘的人說法。《智論》（《大智度論》）也說：『這摩訶衍（大乘）中，具足攝受菩薩和聲聞二眾。』解釋說：既然具足二諦（真諦和俗諦），同時攝受兩種根器的眾生，怎麼可以斷定為第二時教法呢？因此，如果斷定般若為第二時教法，就違背了這裡所引用的經文。如果一定執著於前后次第，就違背了《力士經》的經文。所以，只是根據攝受根器的寬窄，言教的完備與欠缺，來判斷這三種教法有了義和不了義，在理上和教義上並沒有深淺之分。二、根據攝受根器入法，顯現理的增微之門，這是智光所承立的。認為最初說心和境都是實有，不通達性空（諸法本性為空）；其次顯示境空心有，已經顯示了一部分性空；後來心和境都空，平等地具足顯示，才爲了義。又對於緣生（因緣和合而生），最初說實有，其次說似乎有，最後才說空。這些文字都是入法有漸次，顯現理有增微，用來說明三種教法的了義和不了義。如果一定執著於前后次第，斷定經文，也會有違背和損害。參照可知。又戒賢（佛教論師）根據教法來判斷，以教法完備爲了義；智光（佛教論師）根據理來判斷，以理玄妙爲了義。所以這兩種說法，所依據的各有不同，界限分明，優劣深淺，在這裡可以看出來。

【English Translation】 English version: Even to the nature of no self-nature (the nature of lacking inherent existence). This is to reveal the turning of the correct Dharma wheel of manifested appearances (manifesting the true nature of all phenomena and turning the wheel of the correct Dharma). The explanation says: According to this sutra text, initially it only encompasses Shravakas (disciples who practice by hearing the Buddha's teachings), and then only encompasses Bodhisattvas (practitioners who aspire to Buddhahood). Because the capacity of those encompassed is narrow, it is called non-definitive (not definitive, referring to teachings that are not ultimate). Later, it fully encompasses both the Small Vehicle and the Great Vehicle, so it is said to universally teach those who are inclined towards all vehicles (all vehicles, referring to the Shravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle). Also, initially it only teaches the Small Vehicle teachings, and then only the Great Vehicle teachings. These two teachings each have deficiencies, so they are called non-definitive. Later, it fully teaches the two vehicles, using them to encompass beings of two different capacities. In this way, the teachings are complete, so they are called definitive (definitive, referring to teachings that are ultimate). This does not mean that the principles have shallow or deep aspects. Also, according to this text, it is not possible to definitively judge the Prajna (wisdom) sutras as the teachings of the second period. Because the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'If someone wants to attain the result of a Stream-enterer (the first fruit of the Small Vehicle), they should study Prajnaparamita (reaching the other shore through wisdom).' Even wanting to attain the result of an Arhat (the highest fruit of the Small Vehicle) and Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled complete enlightenment, i.e., Buddhahood), it is said that they should study Prajnaparamita. Therefore, it is known that the Prajna Sutras also fully encompass both the Small Vehicle and the Great Vehicle, and universally teach those who are inclined towards all vehicles. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra also says: 'In this Mahayana (Great Vehicle), it fully encompasses both the Bodhisattva and Shravaka assemblies.' The explanation says: Since it fully encompasses the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) and simultaneously encompasses beings of two different capacities, how can it be definitively judged as the teachings of the second period? Therefore, if Prajna is definitively judged as the teachings of the second period, it contradicts the sutra text quoted here. If one insists on the order of before and after, it contradicts the Bala Sutra. Therefore, only based on the breadth of encompassing capacities and the completeness or deficiency of the teachings, can one judge these three teachings as definitive or non-definitive. There is no depth or shallowness in terms of principle or doctrine. Second, according to encompassing beings to enter the Dharma, the gate of revealing the increasing subtlety of principle, this is what Zhiguang (Buddhist scholar) established. He believes that initially it is said that both mind and environment are real, not understanding emptiness of nature (the inherent nature of all phenomena is empty); then it reveals that the environment is empty and the mind exists, already revealing a portion of emptiness of nature; later, both mind and environment are empty, equally and fully revealing, only then is it definitive. Also, regarding dependent origination (arising from causes and conditions), initially it is said to be real, then it is said to be seemingly real, and finally it is said to be empty. These texts all show that entering the Dharma has a gradual progression, and revealing the principle has increasing subtlety, using this to explain the definitive and non-definitive nature of the three teachings. If one insists on the order of before and after and definitively judges the sutra texts, there will also be contradictions and harm. This can be understood by reference. Also, Jiexian (Buddhist commentator) judges based on the teachings, considering the completeness of the teachings as definitive; Zhiguang (Buddhist commentator) judges based on the principle, considering the profundity of the principle as definitive. Therefore, these two statements are based on different things, the boundaries are clear, and the superiority and depth can be seen here.

第四教所被機者。于大乘中。自分兩教。若依大乘始教。一切眾生五性差別。于中但是菩薩種性。及不定性。是此所為。余非正為。兼為無違。以此論宗同諸般若。兼益二乘及人天故。若依大乘終教。則一切眾生皆此所為。以近說五性雖有差別。遠論皆當得菩提故。以悉有心皆有佛性。佛性論中。約謗大乘人。于無量時不能發心等故。說名無佛性。非謂究竟無清凈性。以皆得無上菩提故。依寶性論無上依經等。設令二乘入寂已后。受變易身。受佛教化。向大菩提。是故依前始教。約五性不同。說三乘差別。依此終教。約並有佛性。悉當得佛。是故依此說唯一乘。此論宗意。通前二說。準可知耳。

第五辨能詮教體者。以名句文。及所依聲。而為自性。或說五法為性。一名。二句。三唱。四字。五聲。然通論此體。總有四重。一約事。具假實二法如上辨。二約實。以假歸實。唯以聲為性。三約似。謂唯識所現似聲等為性。四約性。謂此聲等即空無性。無名無聲。無無名無無聲。為自性。謂離性之性也。

第六所詮宗趣者。謂語之所表曰宗。宗之所歸曰趣。則以十二種門破執為宗。顯理成行入法為趣。謂回二乘等令入大乘。是其意也。總說雖然。于中分別。略作四門。一泛明立破儀軌。二別揀此中所破

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

第四，關於教義所針對的根機。在大乘之中，自分為兩種教義。如果依據大乘始教，一切眾生有五種根性的差別（五性差別：菩薩種性、緣覺種性、聲聞種性、不定種性、無性闡提）。其中只有菩薩種性和不定種性，是此教義主要針對的對象。其餘的根性並非主要針對，兼顧也無妨。因為此論的宗旨與諸部《般若經》相同，兼能利益聲聞乘、緣覺乘以及人天乘的眾生。如果依據大乘終教，那麼一切眾生都是此教義所針對的對象。因為從近處說，五性雖然有差別，但從長遠來看，都應當能夠證得菩提（菩提：覺悟）。因為一切眾生都有心，都有佛性（佛性：成佛的可能性）。《佛性論》中，針對誹謗大乘的人，說他們在無量的時間裡不能發起菩提心等等，所以說他們沒有佛性，並非說他們究竟沒有清凈的自性。因為他們最終都能證得無上菩提。依據《寶性論》（Ratnagotravibhāga）《無上依經》等經典，即使聲聞乘、緣覺乘的修行者進入寂滅之後，也會接受變易身，接受佛的教化，趨向大菩提。所以，依據前面的始教，根據五性的不同，說有三乘的差別。依據此終教，根據一切眾生都有佛性，最終都能成佛，所以說只有一乘。此論的宗旨，貫通前兩種說法，可以依此推知。第五，辨析能詮教體。以名、句、文，以及所依的音聲，作為它的自性。或者說以五法為自性：一、名（nāma），二、句（pada），三、唱（udāna），四、字（vyañjana），五、聲（ghoṣa）。然而，通論此教體，總共有四重：一、約事，具備假、實二法，如上文所辨析。二、約實，以假歸於實，唯以音聲為自性。三、約似，指唯識所現的相似音聲等為自性。四、約性，指此音聲等即是空無自性，無名無聲，無無名無無聲，作為自性。是指遠離自性的自性。第六，所詮宗趣。所謂語言所表達的叫做宗，宗所歸向的叫做趣。那麼，以十二種門破除執著為宗，顯現真理、成就修行、進入法性為趣。是指引導聲聞乘、緣覺乘等眾生進入大乘，是其意圖。總的來說雖然如此，但在其中分別，略作四門：一、泛泛地說明立論和破斥的儀軌。二、分別揀擇此論中所破斥的對象。

【English Translation】 English version

Fourth, regarding the beings to whom the teachings are directed. Within the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), there are two divisions of teachings. If based on the Initial Teaching of the Mahayana, all sentient beings have five distinct natures (pañca gotra: Bodhisattva-gotra, Pratyekabuddha-gotra, Śrāvaka-gotra, Aniyata-gotra, and Agotraka). Among them, only those with the Bodhisattva nature and the Undetermined nature are primarily intended for this teaching. Others are not the primary focus, but including them is not contradictory. This is because the doctrine of this treatise is the same as the various Prajñā (Wisdom) scriptures, and it also benefits those of the Śrāvakayāna (Vehicle of Hearers), Pratyekabuddhayāna (Vehicle of Solitary Buddhas), as well as humans and devas (gods). If based on the Final Teaching of the Mahayana, then all sentient beings are the intended audience. Although the five natures are said to have differences in the near term, in the long run, all should attain Bodhi (Enlightenment). Because all beings have mind and possess Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu: the potential for Buddhahood). In the Treatise on Buddha-nature (Fo Xing Lun), it is said that those who slander the Mahayana cannot generate the aspiration for Bodhi for countless eons, and thus are said to be without Buddha-nature, but this does not mean that they ultimately lack pure nature. Because they can all attain unsurpassed Bodhi. According to the Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature), the Anuttarāśraya Sūtra (Unsurpassed Reliance Sutra), etc., even if those of the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna enter Nirvana (extinction) after death, they will receive a transformation body, receive the Buddha's teachings, and move towards Great Bodhi. Therefore, according to the Initial Teaching, based on the differences in the five natures, the Three Vehicles are spoken of. According to this Final Teaching, based on the fact that all have Buddha-nature and will all attain Buddhahood, it is said that there is only One Vehicle. The doctrine of this treatise encompasses both of the preceding views, and can be understood accordingly. Fifth, distinguishing the teaching as the means of expression. Names (nāma), phrases (pada), and sentences, as well as the sounds (ghoṣa) upon which they rely, are considered its nature. Or it is said that the five dharmas are its nature: 1. Name (nāma), 2. Phrase (pada), 3. Utterance (udāna), 4. Syllable (vyañjana), 5. Sound (ghoṣa). However, generally speaking, this teaching-body has four aspects: 1. Regarding phenomena, it possesses both false and real dharmas, as discussed above. 2. Regarding reality, the false returns to the real, and only sound is considered its nature. 3. Regarding semblance, it refers to the appearance of sound, etc., manifested by consciousness-only, as its nature. 4. Regarding nature, it refers to the fact that these sounds, etc., are empty and without inherent nature, without name and without sound, without non-name and without non-sound, as its nature. This refers to the nature that is apart from nature. Sixth, the doctrine and purpose of what is being expressed. What language expresses is called the doctrine (Skt: siddhānta), and what the doctrine leads to is called the purpose (Skt: prayojana). Thus, using the twelve gates to refute attachments is the doctrine, and revealing the truth, accomplishing practice, and entering the Dharma-nature is the purpose. This refers to guiding beings of the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna, etc., to enter the Mahayana, which is its intention. Although this is the general explanation, within it, we can distinguish four aspects: 1. Generally explaining the rules for establishing and refuting arguments. 2. Specifically selecting what is being refuted in this treatise.

。三總申三論義意。四會諸異說。初泛明經論立破儀軌者。佛法大綱。有其二種。一為上品純機。直示教義。不立不破。二為中下雜機。方便顯示。有立有破。佛在世時。多明初義。兼明後義。如諸經中所辨。佛滅度后。多明後義。兼明初義。如諸論中所辨。就此有立破中。略以三句顯其分齊。一明破。二明立。三雙辨無礙。初者。聖以大悲。假諸言論。破除見執。務祛其病。言無定準。今約相有五。一譏徴破。謂如佛破長爪梵志云。汝若一切不受。亦受此不受不。如此等是已熟之根。故生愧得果也。二隨宜破。謂如佛見彼眾生根宜。若以此勢而得入法。則當以彼而破其計。令其悟道。未必要具諸量理例。此為上根少生於前。待佛多言方為信伏。如破先尼外道等。此上二種約破外道。若約破二乘。如法華等中。汝等所得涅槃非真滅度等。則為破也。如破三歸一等亦是準之。三隨執破。謂如龍樹聖天等所造三論。對彼外道及小乘等。隨其所執。以種種理例。徴破其計。務令執心無寄。順入真空。則為成益。何必要具三支五分比量道理。以根猶勝。易受入故。不假勢也。四標量破。謂如龍樹所造方便心論及回諍論。世親所造如實論等。並各略標世間因明。三支五分比量道理。校量破計。要顯正法。而亦不存此比量法。是故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三總申三論（Sanlun）義意：總括地闡述三論的義理。四會諸異說：會合各種不同的說法。初泛明經論立破儀軌者：首先概括地說明經論中建立和破斥的規範。佛法大綱，有其二種：佛法的主要綱領，有兩種。一為上品純機，直示教義，不立不破：一是對於上等根器的純粹之人，直接開示教義，不建立也不破斥。二為中下雜機，方便顯示，有立有破：二是對於中等和下等根器的複雜之人，用方便的方法來顯示教義，有建立也有破斥。佛在世時，多明初義，兼明後義，如諸經中所辨：佛在世的時候，多闡明第一種意義，兼顧第二種意義，就像各種經典中所辨析的那樣。佛滅度后，多明後義，兼明初義，如諸論中所辨：佛滅度之後，多闡明第二種意義，兼顧第一種意義，就像各種論著中所辨析的那樣。就此有立破中，略以三句顯其分齊：就這建立和破斥之中，大致用三句話來顯示它的界限。一明破：一是說明破斥。二明立：二是說明建立。三雙辨無礙：三是同時辨析建立和破斥，兩者之間沒有障礙。初者，聖以大悲，假諸言論，破除見執，務祛其病：第一種，聖人以大慈悲心，藉助各種言論，破除各種錯誤的見解和執著，務必去除這些病根。言無定準，今約相有五：言論沒有固定的準則，現在根據情況有五種。一譏徴破：一是譏諷詰問式的破斥。謂如佛破長爪梵志（Changzhua Fanzhi）云：『汝若一切不受，亦受此不受不？』如此等是已熟之根，故生愧得果也：比如佛破斥長爪梵志說：『如果你一切都不接受，那麼你是否也接受這個『不接受』呢？』像這樣是已經成熟的根器，所以產生慚愧而獲得成果。二隨宜破：二是隨順根機而破斥。謂如佛見彼眾生根宜，若以此勢而得入法，則當以彼而破其計，令其悟道，未必要具諸量理例：比如佛看到那些眾生的根器適合，如果用這種方式可以讓他們進入佛法，那麼就應當用這種方式來破斥他們的計較，讓他們領悟真理，不必要具備各種衡量和推理的例子。此為上根少生於前，待佛多言方為信伏，如破先尼外道（Xianni waidao）等：這是因為上等根器的人很少先產生，要等待佛多說一些才能信服，比如破斥先尼外道等。此上二種約破外道，若約破二乘，如法華等中，汝等所得涅槃非真滅度等，則為破也：以上兩種是關於破斥外道，如果關於破斥二乘，比如在《法華經》等經典中，說『你們所得到的涅槃不是真正的滅度』等，這就是破斥。如破三歸一等亦是準之：比如破斥『三歸一』等也是按照這個準則。三隨執破：三是隨順執著而破斥。謂如龍樹（Longshu）聖天（Shengtian）等所造三論（Sanlun），對彼外道及小乘等，隨其所執，以種種理例，徴破其計，務令執心無寄，順入真空，則為成益：比如龍樹、聖天等所造的《三論》，針對那些外道和小乘等，隨著他們所執著的，用各種各樣的推理和例子，詰問和破斥他們的計較，務必使他們執著的心沒有寄託，從而順利進入真空，這樣就能夠成就利益。何必要具三支五分比量道理，以根猶勝，易受入故，不假勢也：何必要具備三支五分的比量道理，因為他們的根器還算好，容易接受和進入，不需要藉助外力。四標量破：四是標明衡量標準而破斥。謂如龍樹所造方便心論（Fangbianxin lun）及回諍論（Huizheng lun），世親（Shiqin）所造如實論（Rushi lun）等，並各略標世間因明，三支五分比量道理，校量破計，要顯正法，而亦不存此比量法：比如龍樹所造的《方便心論》和《回諍論》，世親所造的《如實論》等，都各自簡略地標明了世間的因明，三支五分的比量道理，校對衡量和破斥各種計較，要顯示正法，但也不執著于這種比量的方法。是故：

【English Translation】 English version The meaning of 'Three Summaries Explaining the Three Treatises' (Sanlun): comprehensively elucidating the doctrines of the Sanlun school. Four Assemblies of Various Discourses: bringing together various different viewpoints. Initially, a general explanation of the establishment and refutation norms in sutras and treatises: Firstly, a general explanation of the norms for establishing and refuting in sutras and treatises. The main principles of the Buddha-dharma are of two kinds: The main principles of the Buddha-dharma are of two kinds. One is for those of superior and pure faculties, directly showing the teachings, neither establishing nor refuting: One is for those of superior faculties, directly showing the teachings, neither establishing nor refuting. The second is for those of mixed faculties, using expedient means to reveal, with both establishment and refutation: The second is for those of mixed faculties, using expedient means to reveal, with both establishment and refutation. When the Buddha was in the world, he mostly explained the first meaning, while also explaining the second meaning, as explained in the various sutras: When the Buddha was in the world, he mostly explained the first meaning, while also explaining the second meaning, as explained in the various sutras. After the Buddha's parinirvana, the second meaning was mostly explained, while also explaining the first meaning, as explained in the various treatises: After the Buddha's parinirvana, the second meaning was mostly explained, while also explaining the first meaning, as explained in the various treatises. Regarding this establishment and refutation, briefly use three sentences to show its distinctions: Regarding this establishment and refutation, briefly use three sentences to show its distinctions. First, explain refutation: First, explain refutation. Second, explain establishment: Second, explain establishment. Third, explain the unobstructedness of both: Third, explain the unobstructedness of both establishment and refutation. Firstly, the sage, with great compassion, uses various discourses to refute views and attachments, striving to remove their illness: Firstly, the sage, with great compassion, uses various discourses to refute views and attachments, striving to remove their illness. There are no fixed standards for words; now, according to circumstances, there are five: There are no fixed standards for words; now, according to circumstances, there are five. First, refutation by ridicule and questioning: First, refutation by ridicule and questioning. For example, when the Buddha refuted Changzhua Fanzhi (Long-nailed Brahmin), he said, 'If you do not accept everything, do you also accept this non-acceptance?' Such are roots that are already ripe, so they feel ashamed and attain the fruit: For example, when the Buddha refuted Changzhua Fanzhi (Long-nailed Brahmin), he said, 'If you do not accept everything, do you also accept this non-acceptance?' Such are roots that are already ripe, so they feel ashamed and attain the fruit. Second, refutation according to suitability: Second, refutation according to suitability. For example, when the Buddha sees that the faculties of those beings are suitable, if they can enter the Dharma by this method, then he should use that method to refute their calculations, so that they can awaken to the truth, without necessarily having all the examples of measurement and reasoning: For example, when the Buddha sees that the faculties of those beings are suitable, if they can enter the Dharma by this method, then he should use that method to refute their calculations, so that they can awaken to the truth, without necessarily having all the examples of measurement and reasoning. This is because superior faculties rarely arise first, and they wait for the Buddha to say more before they believe and submit, such as refuting Xianni waidao (Sanniya heretics) and others: This is because superior faculties rarely arise first, and they wait for the Buddha to say more before they believe and submit, such as refuting Xianni waidao (Sanniya heretics) and others. The above two types are about refuting external paths; if about refuting the two vehicles, such as in the Lotus Sutra and others, 'The nirvana you have attained is not true liberation,' then this is refutation: The above two types are about refuting external paths; if about refuting the two vehicles, such as in the Lotus Sutra and others, 'The nirvana you have attained is not true liberation,' then this is refutation. For example, refuting 'Three Returns as One' and others is also according to this standard: For example, refuting 'Three Returns as One' and others is also according to this standard. Third, refutation according to attachment: Third, refutation according to attachment. For example, the Three Treatises (Sanlun) composed by Longshu (Nagarjuna), Shengtian (Aryadeva), and others, against those external paths and the Hinayana, according to their attachments, use various reasoning and examples to question and refute their calculations, striving to make their attached minds have no place to rely on, so that they can smoothly enter the empty nature, and this will be beneficial: For example, the Three Treatises (Sanlun) composed by Longshu (Nagarjuna), Shengtian (Aryadeva), and others, against those external paths and the Hinayana, according to their attachments, use various reasoning and examples to question and refute their calculations, striving to make their attached minds have no place to rely on, so that they can smoothly enter the empty nature, and this will be beneficial. Why is it necessary to have the reasoning of three parts and five aspects of comparison, because their faculties are still good, easy to accept and enter, so there is no need to borrow external force: Why is it necessary to have the reasoning of three parts and five aspects of comparison, because their faculties are still good, easy to accept and enter, so there is no need to borrow external force. Fourth, refutation by marking the measurement: Fourth, refutation by marking the measurement. For example, the Treatise on the Mind of Expedient Means (Fangbianxin lun) and the Treatise on Turning Back Disputes (Huizheng lun) composed by Longshu, and the Treatise on Reality (Rushi lun) composed by Shiqin (Vasubandhu), and others, all briefly mark the Hetu-vidya of the world, the reasoning of three parts and five aspects of comparison, to compare and measure and refute various calculations, to show the true Dharma, but also do not adhere to this method of comparison: For example, the Treatise on the Mind of Expedient Means (Fangbianxin lun) and the Treatise on Turning Back Disputes (Huizheng lun) composed by Longshu, and the Treatise on Reality (Rushi lun) composed by Shiqin (Vasubandhu), and others, all briefly mark the Hetu-vidya of the world, the reasoning of three parts and five aspects of comparison, to compare and measure and refute various calculations, to show the true Dharma, but also do not adhere to this method of comparison. Therefore:

論中后自破之。此所為根。稍劣於前。故用功多也。五定量破。謂如陳那所造因明等論。清辯所造般若燈論及掌珍論等。並依抉擇宗因喻等定量道理。出他宗過無違失者。方可得為是真能破。若於宗等不善出過。名似能破。不成破也。此所對根。最下劣故。執見深重。難受入故。廣以世間五明之中因明理例。校量是非。方始信伏。若至此位猶不信伏。彼愚之甚不可言故。更不至第六門也。第二立義者。法本離言。機緣罕悟。聖悲巧引。務令被益。致使隨緣立義。勢變多端。大略而言。亦有其五。一應機立。如涅槃中。外道見佛金色身等。而言。瞿曇雖是好人。枉理說空。而是斷見。佛則告言。我不言空。一切眾生有佛性故。有常樂我凈等。聞已入法。后悟道跡。而實文中佛性名第一義空。如是等。楞伽中。為恐怖空者。說如來藏有三十二相等。文意亦同。具如經說。二斥破立。謂此龍樹於三論等中。隨破彼執盡滅之處。心無寄故。真空便顯。則為是立。謂無立立也。三隨時立。謂如聖天菩薩。於一時中。有外道論議。便立二蘊。以對擔人為證義故。如人兩肩有荷擔故。義已極成。後於大眾之中。便立五蘊。其本外道則問。若爾。何故先立二耶。答。前為對擔人。更無智者。今對智眾。方具足說。如是等。四翻邪立。謂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本論中，通過後面的破斥來自然顯現。這是破斥的基礎，稍微遜色於前面的破斥，因此需要更多的努力。五、定量破：指的是像陳那（Dignāga，古印度佛教邏輯學家）所造的《因明正理門論》等論著，清辯（Bhāviveka，古印度中觀論師）所造的《般若燈論》以及《掌珍論》等，都依據抉擇宗（Prasaṅgika，中觀宗的一個分支）的因、宗、喻等定量道理，指出其他宗派的過失而沒有違背之處，才可以認為是真正的能破。如果對於宗等不能很好地指出過失，就叫做『似能破』，不能構成破斥。這種破斥所針對的根器最為下劣，因為他們的執見深重，難以接受，所以廣泛地運用世間五明（聲明、工巧明、醫方明、因明、內明）之中的因明理例，來衡量是非，才能使他們信服。如果到了這個階段仍然不信服，那他們的愚癡就到了無法形容的地步，也就不需要進行第六種破斥了。第二，立義：佛法的根本是超越言語的，能夠領悟的人很少，所以聖者以慈悲和巧妙的引導，務求使眾生受益，因此隨著不同的機緣而建立不同的義理，形式變化很多。大致來說，也有五種：一、應機立：比如在《涅槃經》中，外道看到佛陀金色的身軀等，就說：『喬達摩（Gautama，釋迦牟尼佛的姓）雖然是好人，但枉自說空，這是斷見。』佛陀就告訴他們：『我不說空，一切眾生都有佛性，有常、樂、我、凈等。』外道聽了之後就進入佛法，後來領悟了道跡。而實際上，經文中的佛性，名為第一義空。像這樣，《楞伽經》中，爲了使那些害怕空的人安心，就說如來藏有三十二相等，文意也是相同的，具體可以參考經文。二、斥破立：指的是像龍樹（Nāgārjuna，中觀學派創始人）在《三論》等論著中，隨著破斥對方執著的徹底消滅，心中沒有寄託，真空便自然顯現，這就是立，也就是無立之立。三、隨時立：指的是像聖天（Āryadeva，龍樹弟子）菩薩，在某個時候，有外道來辯論，就隻立二蘊（色蘊和名蘊），用來對抗抬擔的人，作為證明。就像人兩肩有擔子一樣，意義已經非常明確。後來在大眾之中，就立五蘊。原本的外道就問：『如果這樣，為什麼先前隻立二蘊呢？』回答說：『先前是對抬擔的人，沒有更有智慧的人，現在是對有智慧的大眾，所以才完整地說。』像這樣。四、翻邪立：指的是

【English Translation】 English version In debate, it arises naturally through subsequent refutations. This is the foundation of refutation, slightly inferior to the previous ones, thus requiring more effort. 5. Refutation by Valid Cognition (pramāṇa-parikṣā): This refers to treatises such as Dignāga's Hetucakraḍamaru (The Wheel of Reason), Bhāviveka's Prajñāpradīpa (The Lamp of Wisdom) and Tarkajvālā (Blaze of Reasoning), which rely on the definitive principles of cause (hetu), thesis (pakṣa), and example (dṛṣṭānta) of the Prasangika school (a branch of Madhyamaka), pointing out the faults of other schools without contradiction, can be considered a true refutation. If one cannot properly point out the faults in the thesis, etc., it is called a 'pseudo-refutation' and does not constitute a valid refutation. The audience for this type of refutation is the most inferior, because their attachments are deep-rooted and difficult to accept, so the principles of logic (hetuvidyā) from the five sciences (pañcavidyāsthāna) are widely used to measure right and wrong in order to convince them. If they are still not convinced at this stage, their ignorance is beyond description, and there is no need to proceed to the sixth type of refutation. Second, Establishing a Doctrine (sthāpanā): The essence of Dharma is beyond words, and few can comprehend it, so the sages use compassion and skillful means to benefit beings, thus establishing different doctrines according to different circumstances, resulting in many variations. Generally speaking, there are also five types: 1. Establishing according to the audience (āśayānurūpa-sthāpanā): For example, in the Nirvana Sutra, when non-Buddhists saw the golden body of the Buddha, they said, 'Gautama (Śākyamuni Buddha's family name) is a good person, but he wrongly speaks of emptiness, which is nihilism.' The Buddha then told them, 'I do not speak of emptiness, because all beings have Buddha-nature, possessing permanence, bliss, self, and purity.' After hearing this, the non-Buddhists entered the Dharma and later realized the path. In reality, the Buddha-nature mentioned in the sutra is called the ultimate emptiness. Similarly, in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, to reassure those who are afraid of emptiness, it is said that the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) has thirty-two characteristics, the meaning is the same, as detailed in the sutra. 2. Establishing through Refutation (nirākaraṇa-sthāpanā): This refers to how Nāgārjuna (founder of the Madhyamaka school) in treatises such as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), as the opponent's attachments are completely eliminated through refutation, the mind has no attachment, and emptiness naturally appears, which is establishment, that is, establishment through non-establishment. 3. Establishing according to the time (kālānurūpa-sthāpanā): This refers to how Āryadeva (Nāgārjuna's disciple), at one time, when non-Buddhists came to debate, only established two aggregates (skandha) (form and name), to counter the burden-bearers, as proof. Just as people have burdens on both shoulders, the meaning is very clear. Later, in the assembly, he established the five aggregates. The original non-Buddhists then asked, 'If so, why did you only establish two aggregates earlier?' The answer was, 'Earlier it was for the burden-bearers, there were no more intelligent people, now it is for the intelligent assembly, so I speak completely.' Like this. 4. Establishing by Reversing Wrong Views (viparyāsa-sthāpanā): This refers to

如聖天菩薩。對八方外道。立三寶義。若有見屈。當斬首謝。眾敵雖攻。而義理無墮。遂令外道歸信入法。此等所立。未必有三支五分比量道理。但以勝辯隨時顯說。令義堅固。使其信伏。亦言無所在故也。五定量立。謂要依彼世間因明。于宗因喻無諸過類。義理極成。名真能立。若於宗等有過墮者。名似能立。不成立也。又如以八種比量道理。證大乘經真是佛語等。是故當知如上所說立破等義。並悉方便。務令前機歸伏生信。未必得具佛法深旨。且如真如無同法喻。故不得立者。豈可真如為非法也。是故要當離此立破之諍論等。方為順實究竟義也。第三立破無礙者。以情執非理。當體即空。致使無破之破。破即無破。若執有破。還同所破。是故非破。今既非所破。是故以無破為破。則能所俱絕。心無所寄。為究竟破。取意思之。勿著于言。又以法既超情。何容得立。約情假立。立即無立。若能了此立即無立。無立之立。為究竟立。若如言取立。則是情計。非所立故。則無立也。是故情中亦無立。以非是法故。情外亦無立。以無緣對故。但可會情入法。立即無立。無立即立。取意思之。其致可見。是謂立破紛然。未曾有說。伏機入法。何嘗對敵。又以遣情無不契理。故破無不立。立法無不銷情。故立無不破。是以破即

立。故無破。立即破。故無立。無立無破。不礙立破。是故立破。一而恒二。二而常一。有不礙空。空不礙有。是謂立破無礙大意也。第二定其所破者。有師說云。此三論宗。但破小乘及外道等。遍計所執實我實法。不破大乘依他起性。以是幻有。非過失故。若此亦破。則是斷滅惡取空攝。非正法故。有說三論一切皆破。設使大乘瑜伽等論所立依他。此中亦破。以諸緣生無不空故。若此不破。見不亡故。理非盡故。問。如此二說有和會不。答。有師說不可和會。亦不須強會。以此則是大乘之中。諸部不同。致有違諍。如小乘中諸羅漢等。異部不通。菩薩異部。當知亦爾。故不可怪。良以佛法極甚深故。通其異諍。各有教理。義自極成。故不可會。今更重釋無不可會。以理自通故。何者。謂若不破依他幻有令至不有。彼遍計執不永盡故。以此幻有是不有有故。若不受不有。即是所執。是故破執欲令蕩盡。必至幻有不有之際。要破幻有令其永盡。方至所執不有之際。是故二說義不相違。又彼小乘是半字教。理義不盡。容有異諍。大乘滿教。義理周備。豈亦同彼而有分部。又諸羅漢。不得諸法一味法界。法執相應。起見造論。故有相違。如入地菩薩。通達諸法中道實相。豈亦同彼執見相違。是故龍猛及無著等。諸大論主不相

違者。是良證也。第三總申宗意者。通辨三論。總以二諦中道為宗趣。今釋此義。略作三門。一示義理。二約成觀。三顯德用。初門內復作三義。一約依他起性。明二諦中道。二約餘二性。三通約三性。初義者。謂諸法起。無不從緣。從緣有故。必無自性。由無自性。所以從緣。緣有性無。更無二法。但約緣有萬差。名為俗諦。約無性一味。名為真諦。是故於一緣起。二理不雜。名為二諦。緣起無二。雙離兩邊。名為中道。總說如是。若更別釋。略作三門。一約開合。二約一異。三約有無。初中先開后合。開者。於一緣起。開為二義。一緣起幻有義。二無性真空義。初義中亦二義。一非有義。謂舉體全空。無所有故。二非不有義。謂不待壞彼差別相故。大品云。諸法無所有。如是有。是故非有非不有。名為幻有。二真空中亦二義。一非空義。謂以空無空相故。二非不空義。謂餘一切相無不盡故。是故非空非不空。名為真空。經云。空不空不可得。名為真空。中論云。無性法亦無。一切法空故。合者。此有五重。一謂彼非有。則是非不有。以此無二。為幻有故。是故莊嚴論云。無體非無體。非無體即體。無體體無二。是故說是幻。此文意以無體為幻體。故說無二也。由此無二不墮一邊。故名中道。此是俗諦中道。二真中

【現代漢語翻譯】違背這些（教義）的人，是好的證明。第三，總的來說明宗派的意旨：貫通地辨析三論（《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》），總的以二諦（俗諦、真諦）中道為宗趣。現在解釋這個意義，略作三個方面：一、揭示義理，二、依據成就觀行，三、彰顯德用。第一個方面中又作三個意義：一、依據依他起性（緣起性），闡明二諦中道；二、依據其餘二性（遍計所執性、圓成實性）；三、貫通地依據三性。第一個意義是說，諸法生起，沒有不是從因緣而來的。因為從因緣而有，必定沒有自性。因為沒有自性，所以從因緣。因緣有，性空無，更沒有兩種法。只是依據因緣而有萬千差別，名為俗諦；依據無性，一味平等，名為真諦。因此，對於一個緣起，兩種道理不相混雜，名為二諦。緣起沒有二，雙雙遠離兩邊，名為中道。總的來說是這樣。如果更分別解釋，略作三個方面：一、依據開合（展開與收合），二、依據一異（同一與差異），三、依據有無（存在與不存在）。首先說開合，先展開后收合。展開是說，對於一個緣起，展開為兩種意義：一、緣起幻有義，二、無性真空義。第一個意義中也有兩種意義：一、非有義，是說舉體全空，一無所有；二、非不有義，是說不依賴於破壞那些差別相。如《大品般若經》所說：『諸法無所有，如是有。』所以說非有非不有，名為幻有。第二個意義，真空中也有兩種意義：一、非空義，是說以空無空相的緣故；二、非不空義，是說其餘一切相沒有不窮盡的緣故。所以說非空非不空，名為真空。經中說：『空不空不可得，名為真空。』《中論》說：『無性法也沒有，一切法都是空性的緣故。』收合是說，這裡有五重含義：一、是說那個非有，就是非不有，因為這兩者沒有二致，是幻有的緣故。所以《莊嚴論》說：『無體非無體，非無體即是體，無體與體沒有二致，所以說是幻。』這段文字的意思是以無體為幻體，所以說沒有二致。由此沒有二致，不落入一邊，所以名為中道。這是俗諦中道。二、真諦中道現代漢語譯本 English version Those who violate these (teachings) are good evidence. Third, to generally explain the intent of the sect: to comprehensively analyze the Three Treatises (the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論), the Śataśāstra (百論), and the Dvādaśamukhaśāstra (十二門論)), and to generally take the Two Truths (satya-dvaya) (conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya)) and the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad) as its doctrine and purpose. Now, to explain this meaning, we will briefly discuss three aspects: first, to reveal the meaning and principles; second, to rely on the accomplishment of contemplation; and third, to manifest the virtuous functions. Within the first aspect, there are again three meanings: first, based on the dependent arising nature (paratantra-svabhāva), to elucidate the Middle Way of the Two Truths; second, based on the other two natures (the imputed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva) and the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva)); third, to comprehensively base on the three natures. The first meaning is that all phenomena arise, none of which do not come from conditions. Because they exist from conditions, they certainly have no self-nature (svabhāva). Because they have no self-nature, they therefore come from conditions. Conditions exist, nature is empty and non-existent, and there are no two separate dharmas. It is only based on the myriad differences that arise from conditions that it is called conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya); based on non-self-nature, the single flavor of equality, it is called ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Therefore, for a single dependent arising, the two principles are not mixed, and it is called the Two Truths. Dependent arising has no duality, and it is doubly separated from both extremes, and it is called the Middle Way. This is the general explanation. If we explain it more specifically, we will briefly discuss three aspects: first, based on opening and closing (expansion and contraction); second, based on sameness and difference (identity and difference); third, based on existence and non-existence (being and non-being). First, let's talk about opening and closing, first expanding and then contracting. Expansion means that for a single dependent arising, it is expanded into two meanings: first, the meaning of illusory existence of dependent arising; second, the meaning of non-self-nature and true emptiness. In the first meaning, there are also two meanings: first, the meaning of non-existence, which means that the entire body is completely empty, and there is nothing at all; second, the meaning of non-non-existence, which means that it does not depend on destroying those differences. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'All dharmas are non-existent, and they exist as such.' Therefore, it is said to be neither existent nor non-existent, and it is called illusory existence. In the second meaning, true emptiness also has two meanings: first, the meaning of non-emptiness, which means that emptiness has no characteristic of emptiness; second, the meaning of non-non-emptiness, which means that all other characteristics are exhausted. Therefore, it is said to be neither empty nor non-empty, and it is called true emptiness. The sutra says: 'Emptiness and non-emptiness are unattainable, and it is called true emptiness.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Dharmas without self-nature also do not exist, because all dharmas are empty.' Contraction means that there are five levels of meaning here: first, it means that that non-existence is non-non-existence, because there is no difference between the two, and it is illusory existence. Therefore, the Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras says: 'Non-entity is not non-entity, non-non-entity is entity, non-entity and entity are not different, therefore it is said to be illusion.' The meaning of this passage is to take non-entity as the illusory entity, so it is said that there is no difference. Because there is no difference, it does not fall into one side, so it is called the Middle Way. This is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Second, the Middle Way of ultimate truth.

【English Translation】 Those who violate these (teachings) are good evidence. Third, to generally explain the intent of the sect: to comprehensively analyze the Three Treatises (the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the Śataśāstra, and the Dvādaśamukhaśāstra), and to generally take the Two Truths (satya-dvaya) (conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya)) and the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad) as its doctrine and purpose. Now, to explain this meaning, we will briefly discuss three aspects: first, to reveal the meaning and principles; second, to rely on the accomplishment of contemplation; and third, to manifest the virtuous functions. Within the first aspect, there are again three meanings: first, based on the dependent arising nature (paratantra-svabhāva), to elucidate the Middle Way of the Two Truths; second, based on the other two natures (the imputed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva) and the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva)); third, to comprehensively base on the three natures. The first meaning is that all phenomena arise, none of which do not come from conditions. Because they exist from conditions, they certainly have no self-nature (svabhāva). Because they have no self-nature, they therefore come from conditions. Conditions exist, nature is empty and non-existent, and there are no two separate dharmas. It is only based on the myriad differences that arise from conditions that it is called conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya); based on non-self-nature, the single flavor of equality, it is called ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Therefore, for a single dependent arising, the two principles are not mixed, and it is called the Two Truths. Dependent arising has no duality, and it is doubly separated from both extremes, and it is called the Middle Way. This is the general explanation. If we explain it more specifically, we will briefly discuss three aspects: first, based on opening and closing (expansion and contraction); second, based on sameness and difference (identity and difference); third, based on existence and non-existence (being and non-being). First, let's talk about opening and closing, first expanding and then contracting. Expansion means that for a single dependent arising, it is expanded into two meanings: first, the meaning of illusory existence of dependent arising; second, the meaning of non-self-nature and true emptiness. In the first meaning, there are also two meanings: first, the meaning of non-existence, which means that the entire body is completely empty, and there is nothing at all; second, the meaning of non-non-existence, which means that it does not depend on destroying those differences. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'All dharmas are non-existent, and they exist as such.' Therefore, it is said to be neither existent nor non-existent, and it is called illusory existence. In the second meaning, true emptiness also has two meanings: first, the meaning of non-emptiness, which means that emptiness has no characteristic of emptiness; second, the meaning of non-non-emptiness, which means that all other characteristics are exhausted. Therefore, it is said to be neither empty nor non-empty, and it is called true emptiness. The sutra says: 'Emptiness and non-emptiness are unattainable, and it is called true emptiness.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Dharmas without self-nature also do not exist, because all dharmas are empty.' Contraction means that there are five levels of meaning here: first, it means that that non-existence is non-non-existence, because there is no difference between the two, and it is illusory existence. Therefore, the Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras says: 'Non-entity is not non-entity, non-non-entity is entity, non-entity and entity are not different, therefore it is said to be illusion.' The meaning of this passage is to take non-entity as the illusory entity, so it is said that there is no difference. Because there is no difference, it does not fall into one side, so it is called the Middle Way. This is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Second, the Middle Way of ultimate truth.

非空。則是非不空。以此無二為真空。雙離二邊。名為中道。此是真諦中道。三幻中非有。則真中非不空義。幻中非不有。則是真中非空義。以並無二故。由此無二。與前無二復無二故。是故二諦俱融。不墮一邊。名為中道。此是二諦中道。四幻中非有。與真中非空。融無二故。名為中道。此是非有非空之中道。經云。非有非無。名為中道。五幻中非不有。則是真中非不空。此非非有非非無之中道。謂絕中之中也。是故二諦镕融。妙絕中邊。是其意也。二約一異門者。有四句。一不異義者。以若不緣生。不無性故。謂緣有者。顯不自有。不自有者。則是無性。又無自性者。顯非自有。非自有者。則是緣有。是故經云。色即是空。空即是色。論云。智障極盲闇。謂真俗別執。此之謂也。亦不得以性空故。而不許緣生。以無緣生。空不立故。論云。有為法空。以從緣生故。又此是真空。非斷空故。若待滅緣生方為空者。是則情中惡取空也。又亦不得許緣有故。違害真空。以若不空。非是緣有。自若有者。非緣生故。又不異有之空。方為真空。不異空之有。方是幻有。是故此二不二。故無異也。經云。色色空為二。色即是空。非色滅空。色性自空。于其中而通達者。是為入不二法門。又大品云。非以空色。故名色空。但以色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本非空，則（幻有）是非不空。以這種無二（幻有與真空無二）的狀態為真空（Śūnyatā）。雙雙遠離有和無兩邊，名為中道（Madhyamāpratipad）。這是真諦（Paramārtha-satya）中的中道。在幻有（Māyā）中說『非有』，那麼在真（真空）中就體現了『非不空』的意義。在幻有中說『非不有』，那麼在真（真空）中就體現了『非空』的意義。因為兩者本來就沒有差別。由於這種無二，與之前的無二（幻有與真空無二）也沒有差別。所以說，二諦（Dvaya-satya）相互融合，不落入任何一邊，名為中道。這是二諦中的中道。幻有中說『非有』，與真空中的『非空』，融合而無差別，所以名為中道。這是非有非空的中道。《經》中說：『非有非無，名為中道。』幻有中說『非不有』，那麼在真空中就體現了『非不空』。這是非非有非非無的中道，指的是超越了中道的中道。所以說，二諦相互融合，精妙地超越了中邊，這就是它的意思。二、從一異的角度來說，有四句：一、不異的意義：如果不是緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda）的，就不會是無自性（Niḥsvabhāva）的。所謂緣起而有，就顯示了它不是自己存在的。不是自己存在的，就是無自性的。又，無自性的，就顯示了它不是自己存在的。不是自己存在的，就是緣起而有的。所以《經》中說：『色（Rūpa）即是空（Śūnyatā），空即是色。』《論》中說：『智慧的障礙是極度的盲暗，指的是對真俗二諦的分別執著。』說的就是這個意思。也不能因為性空（Svabhāva-śūnyatā）就不承認緣起，因為沒有緣起，空性就無法成立。《論》中說：『有為法（Saṃskṛta）是空的，因為它從因緣而生。』而且這是真空（Śūnyatā），不是斷滅空。如果等待滅的因緣產生才為空，那就是情識中的惡取空。也不能因為承認緣起而違背真空，因為如果不空，就不是緣起而有的。如果自己本來就有，就不是緣起而生的。而且不是不同於有的空，才是真空；不是不同於空的有，才是幻有。所以這兩者沒有差別，因此沒有不同。《經》中說：『空為二，色即是空，不是色滅了才空，而是色的本性本來就是空。于其中而通達的人，就是進入了不二法門。』又《大品般若經》中說：『不是因為空了才說色是空，而是因為色』

【English Translation】 English version Non-empty, then (illusory existence) is non-non-empty. Taking this non-duality (the non-duality of illusory existence and emptiness) as emptiness (Śūnyatā). Doubly departing from the two extremes of existence and non-existence is called the Middle Way (Madhyamāpratipad). This is the Middle Way in the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya). Saying 'non-existent' in illusion (Māyā), then in truth (emptiness) it embodies the meaning of 'non-non-empty'. Saying 'non-non-existent' in illusion, then in truth (emptiness) it embodies the meaning of 'non-empty'. Because there is originally no difference between the two. Due to this non-duality, there is also no difference from the previous non-duality (the non-duality of illusory existence and emptiness). Therefore, the two truths (Dvaya-satya) merge with each other, not falling into either extreme, and are called the Middle Way. This is the Middle Way in the two truths. Saying 'non-existent' in illusion, and 'non-empty' in emptiness, merge without difference, so it is called the Middle Way. This is the Middle Way of neither existence nor non-existence. The Sutra says: 'Neither existence nor non-existence is called the Middle Way.' Saying 'non-non-existent' in illusion, then in emptiness it embodies 'non-non-empty'. This is the Middle Way of neither non-existence nor non-non-existence, referring to the Middle Way that transcends the Middle Way. Therefore, the two truths merge, subtly transcending the middle and the extremes, and that is its meaning. Two, from the perspective of oneness and difference, there are four statements: One, the meaning of non-difference: If it is not dependently originated (Pratītyasamutpāda), it will not be without self-nature (Niḥsvabhāva). What is called dependently originated shows that it does not exist on its own. What does not exist on its own is without self-nature. Also, what is without self-nature shows that it does not exist on its own. What does not exist on its own is dependently originated. Therefore, the Sutra says: 'Form (Rūpa) is emptiness (Śūnyatā), emptiness is form.' The Treatise says: 'The obstacle of wisdom is extreme blindness, referring to the clinging to the distinction between the two truths.' That is what it means. One cannot deny dependent origination because of emptiness (Svabhāva-śūnyatā), because without dependent origination, emptiness cannot be established. The Treatise says: 'Conditioned phenomena (Saṃskṛta) are empty because they arise from conditions.' Moreover, this is true emptiness (Śūnyatā), not annihilation emptiness. If waiting for the conditions of cessation to arise is emptiness, then that is the evil grasping of emptiness in consciousness. One cannot violate emptiness by acknowledging dependent origination, because if it is not empty, it is not dependently originated. If it originally exists on its own, it is not dependently originated. Moreover, it is not emptiness different from existence that is true emptiness; it is not existence different from emptiness that is illusory existence. Therefore, these two are not different, so there is no difference. The Sutra says: 'Emptiness is two, form is emptiness, not that form ceases and then is empty, but that the nature of form is originally empty. The one who understands this is entering the non-dual dharma gate.' Also, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'It is not because of emptiness that form is called empty, but because of form.'

即是空。空即是色。又大般若經三百八十九云。善現。以因緣不異本性空。本性空不異因緣。因緣即本性空。本性空即因緣。又云。善現。以從緣所生諸法不異本性空。本性空不異從緣所生諸法。從緣所生諸法即本性空。本性空即從緣所生諸法。如是等文。明此不異門也。問。若爾。應壞二諦。以因果即空故。失幻有。壞俗諦。空即因果故。失真空。壞真諦。答。正由不異。二諦得存。若不爾者。則失二諦。何者。謂異空之因果。非幻法故。失於俗諦。異因果之空。非真空故。失於真諦。是故二諦得存。由於不異。不異則是中道平等。是則由中道而有二諦。則是中道二諦也。二不一門者。此緣起法由性空故。令彼幻有亦不得有。是故一切唯是真空。經云。諸法畢竟空。無有毫末相。空無有分別。同若如虛空。又經云。一切法空。如劫盡燒等。大般若云。色等空故。空中無色。如是等。依彼幻有非有之門。及依真空非不空門。說彼真空永害幻有。是故遂令俗相永盡而為真諦。又此緣起法由幻有相故。令彼真空亦成不空。唯是緣起幻有差別。是故楞伽云。非遮滅復生。相續因緣起等。又攝論瑜伽等中。明依他起法。永不是無等。如是並依真空非空門。及依幻有非不有門。說彼緣有永非是空。永非空故。方為俗諦。如是二諦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本即是空（śūnyatā，佛教術語，指空性）。空即是色（rūpa，佛教術語，指物質現象）。《大般若經》三百八十九卷說：『善現（Subhūti，須菩提，佛陀的十大弟子之一）。因緣（hetupratyaya，佛教術語，指事物產生的條件）與本性空（prakṛti-śūnyatā，佛教術語，指事物本來的空性）沒有差異，本性空與因緣沒有差異。因緣就是本性空，本性空就是因緣。』又說：『善現。從因緣所生的諸法（dharma，佛教術語，指一切事物和現象）與本性空沒有差異，本性空與從因緣所生的諸法沒有差異。從因緣所生的諸法就是本性空，本性空就是從因緣所生的諸法。』這些經文闡明了『不異』之門。問：如果這樣，豈不是破壞了二諦（dvisatya，佛教術語，指真諦和俗諦）？因為因果（hetuphala，佛教術語，指原因和結果）即是空，所以失去了幻有（māyā-astitva，佛教術語，指虛幻的存在），破壞了俗諦。空即是因果，所以失去了真空（paramārtha-śūnyatā，佛教術語，指終極的空性），破壞了真諦。答：正是由於『不異』，二諦才能存在。如果不是這樣，就會失去二諦。為什麼呢？因為與空不同的因果，不是虛幻的法，所以失去了俗諦。與因果不同的空，不是真空，所以失去了真諦。因此，二諦得以存在，是由於『不異』。『不異』就是中道（madhyamā-pratipad，佛教術語，指不偏不倚的道路）平等。因此，由於中道而有二諦，這就是中道二諦。二、不一門：此緣起法（pratītyasamutpāda-dharma，佛教術語，指事物相互依存的法則）由於性空的緣故，使得那幻有也不得存在。因此，一切唯是真空。經中說：『諸法畢竟空（atyanta-śūnyatā，佛教術語，指一切事物最終都是空性的），沒有絲毫的相狀。空沒有分別，如同虛空。』又經中說：『一切法空，如劫盡燒等。』《大般若經》說：『色等是空，所以空中無色。』等等。依據那幻有非有之門，以及依據真空非不空之門，說明那真空永遠消滅幻有。因此，就使得俗相永遠消失而成為真諦。又，此緣起法由於幻有相的緣故，使得那真空也成為不空。唯是緣起幻有的差別。因此，《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）說：『非遮滅復生，相續因緣起等。』又《攝論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）等中，說明依他起法（paratantra-svabhāva，佛教術語，指依賴他緣而生起的法）永遠不是無等等。這樣也依據真空非空門，以及依據幻有非不有門，說明那緣有永遠不是空。永遠不是空，才成為俗諦。像這樣就是二諦。

【English Translation】 English version That is emptiness (śūnyatā). Emptiness is form (rūpa). Moreover, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, chapter 389, states: 'Subhūti (Śāriputra). Conditioned arising (hetupratyaya) is not different from intrinsic emptiness (prakṛti-śūnyatā), and intrinsic emptiness is not different from conditioned arising. Conditioned arising is intrinsic emptiness, and intrinsic emptiness is conditioned arising.' It also states: 'Subhūti. Phenomena arising from conditions (dharma) are not different from intrinsic emptiness, and intrinsic emptiness is not different from phenomena arising from conditions. Phenomena arising from conditions are intrinsic emptiness, and intrinsic emptiness is phenomena arising from conditions.' Such passages elucidate the 'non-difference' gate. Question: If that is the case, wouldn't it destroy the two truths (dvisatya)? Because cause and effect (hetuphala) are emptiness, illusory existence (māyā-astitva) is lost, destroying the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). Emptiness is cause and effect, so ultimate emptiness (paramārtha-śūnyatā) is lost, destroying the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Answer: It is precisely because of 'non-difference' that the two truths can exist. If it were not so, the two truths would be lost. Why? Because cause and effect different from emptiness are not illusory phenomena, thus losing the conventional truth. Emptiness different from cause and effect is not ultimate emptiness, thus losing the ultimate truth. Therefore, the two truths can exist due to 'non-difference'. 'Non-difference' is the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad) of equality. Thus, the two truths exist due to the Middle Way, which is the Middle Way of the two truths. Two, the non-one gate: This law of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda-dharma), due to its emptiness, prevents that illusory existence from existing. Therefore, everything is solely ultimate emptiness. The sutra states: 'All phenomena are ultimately empty (atyanta-śūnyatā), without the slightest characteristic. Emptiness has no distinctions, like the void.' Another sutra states: 'All phenomena are empty, like the burning of the end of a kalpa.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: 'Form, etc., is empty, therefore there is no form in emptiness.' And so on. Based on the gate of illusory existence being non-existent, and based on the gate of ultimate emptiness being not non-empty, it is explained that ultimate emptiness eternally annihilates illusory existence. Therefore, it causes conventional appearances to eternally vanish and become the ultimate truth. Furthermore, this law of dependent origination, due to the characteristic of illusory existence, causes that ultimate emptiness to also become not empty. It is solely the difference of dependent origination and illusory existence. Therefore, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states: 'Not cessation and rebirth, continuous causal arising, etc.' Moreover, the Abhidharma-samuccaya and Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, etc., explain that dependently arisen phenomena (paratantra-svabhāva) are never non-existent, etc. Thus, also based on the gate of ultimate emptiness being non-empty, and based on the gate of illusory existence being not non-existent, it is explained that dependently existent phenomena are never empty. Because they are never empty, they become the conventional truth. Such is the two truths.

極相形奪。方成本性。如瓔珞云。世諦有故不空。真諦空故不有。此等皆依非一門辨。問。若據前門。以真空滅幻有令不有者。此則斷滅俗諦。壞業果故。是惡取空。又此性空既由幻有。若令幻有亦不有者。幻有無故。依何得立彼性空宗。是則亦失自真空義。又前非異門中明不壞幻有。此門復壞。豈不二說自相違耶。又若據后義。以有奪空令空不空者。此則實有非是幻有。乖真空故。是情執有。又此緣有既由性空。若此亦無。緣有亦壞。則失緣有義。又前非異門中明不損真空。此門復壞。豈不相違。答。釋此諸難。明真俗空有與奪存壞。有二門四句。一唯真空有四義。一由此空故不壞緣有。以性若有者。非從緣有故。二由是空故壞盡緣有。以空必害緣有故。有若不盡。非真空故。三由空故亦壞真空。以此性空既由緣有。緣有存故。則無真空。無真空者。由真空也。四由空故不壞真空。以壞於緣有。盡彼空相。方是真空故。二唯幻有亦有四義。一由緣有故不害性空。以從緣之有。必是性空。定無性故。二由緣有故必乖性空。以緣有不無故。三由緣有故則壞緣有。以從緣之有必是性空。性空現故。必害緣有。害緣有者。由緣有也。四由緣有故不壞緣有。以從緣之有。必害空盡。有方為緣有也。非是無故。如是緣有性空。或

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本極相形奪：當兩種極端相對立的觀點相互爭奪時。方成本性：才能顯露出事物的真實本性。如瓔珞云：就像瓔珞（一種裝飾品）一樣。世諦有故不空：在世俗諦（相對真理）的層面，事物是存在的，因此不是空無的。真諦空故不有：在勝義諦（絕對真理）的層面，事物是空性的，因此不是實在存在的。此等皆依非一門辨：這些道理都是依據『非一』的視角來辨析的。問：如果按照前面的觀點，用真空（śūnyatā）來消滅幻有（māyā），使之不存在，這豈不是斷滅了俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya），破壞了業果（karma-phala）的規律？這是錯誤的執著于空性。又，這種性空（svabhāva-śūnyatā）既然是由幻有而成立的，如果讓幻有也不存在，幻有既然不存在，又依靠什麼來建立那性空的宗義呢？這樣也就失去了自真空（svataḥ-śūnyatā）的意義。而且，前面在『非異門』中說明不破壞幻有，而這裡又破壞幻有，這豈不是兩種說法自相矛盾嗎？又，如果按照後面的觀點，用『有』來否定『空』，使『空』不是空無，這豈不是執著于實有（sat），而不是幻有？這違背了真空的道理，是情執之有。又，這種緣有（pratītyasamutpāda）既然是由性空而成立的，如果這種緣有也不存在，緣有也就被破壞了，那就失去了緣有的意義。而且，前面在『非異門』中說明不損害真空，而這裡又損害真空，這豈不是自相矛盾？答：解釋這些疑問，說明真俗（satya）的空有（śūnyatā-bhāva）與奪（相互作用）存壞（存在與毀滅）的道理，有兩扇門和四句。一、唯真空有四義：只有真空有四種意義。一、由此空故不壞緣有：因為是空性，所以不會破壞緣起的存在。如果自性是實有的，那就不是從因緣而生起的。二、由是空故壞盡緣有：因為是空性，所以會完全破壞緣起的存在。如果『有』沒有完全消失，那就不是真空。三、由空故亦壞真空：因為是空性，所以也會破壞真空。因為這種性空是由緣有而成立的，如果緣有存在，那就沒有真空。沒有真空，是因為真空的緣故。四、由空故不壞真空：因為是空性，所以不會破壞真空。因為破壞了緣起的存在，消除了『有』的假象，這才是真空的真正含義。二、唯幻有亦有四義：只有幻有也有四種意義。一、由緣有故不害性空：因為是緣起的存在，所以不會損害自性空。因為是從因緣而生起的『有』，必定是自性空，決定沒有自性。二、由緣有故必乖性空：因為是緣起的存在，必定與自性空相違背。因為緣起的存在不是空無的。三、由緣有故則壞緣有：因為是緣起的存在，所以會破壞緣起的存在。因為從因緣而生起的『有』必定是自性空，自性空顯現，必定會損害緣起的存在。損害緣起的存在，是因為緣起存在的緣故。四、由緣有故不壞緣有：因為是緣起的存在，所以不會破壞緣起的存在。因為從因緣而生起的『有』，必定會消滅空性，『有』才能成為緣起的存在，而不是空無的。像這樣，緣起的存在和自性空，或者...

【English Translation】 English version Extreme forms seize and snatch away: When two extreme opposing views contend with each other. Only then does the true nature become established: Only then can the true nature of things be revealed. Like a necklace cloud: Just like a necklace (an ornament). Because conventional truth exists, it is not empty: On the level of conventional truth (relative truth), things exist, therefore they are not empty. Because ultimate truth is empty, it is not existent: On the level of ultimate truth (absolute truth), things are empty, therefore they are not truly existent. All these are distinguished based on the non-one perspective: These principles are all analyzed based on the 'non-one' perspective. Question: If according to the previous view, using emptiness (śūnyatā) to eliminate illusory existence (māyā), causing it not to exist, wouldn't this be annihilating conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), destroying the law of karma and its results (karma-phala)? This is a wrong attachment to emptiness. Furthermore, since this self-emptiness (svabhāva-śūnyatā) is established by illusory existence, if illusory existence is also made not to exist, since illusory existence does not exist, what is relied upon to establish that doctrine of self-emptiness? In that case, the meaning of self-emptiness (svataḥ-śūnyatā) is also lost. Moreover, earlier in the 'non-different gate' it was explained that illusory existence is not destroyed, but here it is destroyed again. Aren't these two statements contradictory? Furthermore, if according to the later view, using 'existence' to negate 'emptiness', causing 'emptiness' not to be empty, wouldn't this be clinging to real existence (sat), rather than illusory existence? This violates the principle of emptiness and is existence based on emotional attachment. Furthermore, since this dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) is established by emptiness, if this dependent origination also does not exist, dependent origination would be destroyed, and the meaning of dependent origination would be lost. Moreover, earlier in the 'non-different gate' it was explained that emptiness is not harmed, but here emptiness is harmed again. Aren't these contradictory? Answer: Explaining these questions, clarifying the principles of emptiness and existence (śūnyatā-bhāva), interaction (withholding) and existence/destruction (existence and annihilation) of truth and convention (satya), there are two doors and four sentences. One, only emptiness has four meanings: Only emptiness has four meanings. One, because of this emptiness, dependent origination is not destroyed: Because it is emptiness, it will not destroy the existence of dependent arising. If self-nature were real, then it would not arise from conditions. Two, because it is empty, dependent origination is completely destroyed: Because it is emptiness, it will completely destroy the existence of dependent arising. If 'existence' does not completely disappear, then it is not emptiness. Three, because of emptiness, emptiness is also destroyed: Because it is emptiness, it will also destroy emptiness. Because this self-emptiness is established by dependent origination, if dependent origination exists, then there is no emptiness. The absence of emptiness is due to emptiness. Four, because of emptiness, emptiness is not destroyed: Because it is emptiness, it will not destroy emptiness. Because the existence of dependent arising is destroyed, eliminating the illusion of 'existence', this is the true meaning of emptiness. Two, only illusory existence also has four meanings: Only illusory existence also has four meanings. One, because of dependent existence, self-emptiness is not harmed: Because it is dependent existence, it will not harm self-emptiness. Because the 'existence' that arises from conditions is certainly self-empty, and definitely has no self-nature. Two, because of dependent existence, it must contradict self-emptiness: Because it is dependent existence, it must contradict self-emptiness. Because dependent existence is not empty. Three, because of dependent existence, dependent existence is destroyed: Because it is dependent existence, it will destroy dependent existence. Because the 'existence' that arises from conditions is certainly self-empty, and when self-emptiness manifests, it will certainly harm dependent existence. Harming dependent existence is due to the existence of dependent origination. Four, because of dependent existence, dependent existence is not destroyed: Because it is dependent existence, it will not destroy dependent existence. Because the 'existence' that arises from conditions will certainly eliminate emptiness, 'existence' can become dependent existence, and not be empty. Like this, the existence of dependent origination and self-emptiness, or...

相奪全盡。或相與全存。或自壞自存。無有障礙。是故若就相與門。則不壞有之空。與彼不壞空之有。理不雜故。是非一門也。二若就相奪門。則此壞有之空。與盡空之有。全奪。故非一也。三若就各自存門。則不相是。故非一也。四若就各自壞門。則無一可一。故非一也。以存壞無礙。二理不雜。不墮邊故。不失中道。是謂二諦中道也。三者。此非一與前非異。復無有異。以緣起無二故。謂壞有之空。即是盡空之有。如是空有無障礙故。極相違反。還極相順。是故相奪相與。復無有二。緣起镕融。義理無礙故也。由非一即非異。故即二諦為中道。由非異即非一。故即中道為二諦。四者。此非一與非異。亦非一。是故即非一之非異。與即非異之非一。義不雜故。而非一也。謂不異中之二。不異二之中。雖義融通。理不雜故。非中非二。具足中二。是謂中邊無障無礙。思之可見。第三約有無者有二門。先約表。后約遮。前中二。初總。后別。總者。於一緣起。融成四句。各不墮邊。謂不礙空之有。雖盡空單有。而不墮有邊。二不礙有之空。雖盡有唯空。而不墮空邊。三無異之空有。雖極相違。而俱辨不墮於二邊。四極反之空有。雖無二雙泯。而俱非不墮于邊。是故四句歷然。而不墮四邊。又亦可得依上義門。四句俱得說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：相互爭奪以至完全消失。或者相互依存而完全存在。或者自身壞滅而自身存在，沒有任何障礙。因此，如果就相互依存的層面來說，那麼不壞滅『有』（bhava）的『空』（śūnyatā），與那不壞滅『空』的『有』，道理不混雜，所以不是『一』（ekatva）的層面。第二，如果就相互爭奪的層面來說，那麼這壞滅『有』的『空』，與窮盡『空』的『有』，完全爭奪，所以不是『一』。第三，如果就各自存在的層面來說，那麼互不相是，所以不是『一』。第四，如果就各自壞滅的層面來說，那麼沒有什麼是可以被認為是『一』的，所以不是『一』。因為存在和壞滅沒有障礙，兩種道理不混雜，不落入任何一邊，所以不失去中道（madhyamā-pratipad），這就是所謂的二諦（dve satye）中道。第三，這『非一』（naikatva）與之前的『非異』（nānātva）既相同，又沒有不同，因為緣起（pratītyasamutpāda）沒有二元性。所謂壞滅『有』的『空』，就是窮盡『空』的『有』。像這樣，『空』和『有』沒有障礙，極其相反，反而極其順應。因此，相互爭奪和相互依存，也沒有二元性，緣起融合，義理沒有障礙。由於『非一』即是『非異』，所以即二諦為中道。由於『非異』即是『非一』，所以即中道為二諦。第四，這『非一』與『非異』，也不是『一』。因此，即『非一』的『非異』，與即『非異』的『非一』，義理不混雜，所以不是『一』。所謂『不異』中的『二』，『不異』『二』中的『一』，雖然義理融通，道理不混雜，所以非中非二，具足中和二，這就是所謂的中邊沒有障礙，思考就可以明白。第三，關於『有』和『無』（astitva-nāstitva）有兩種層面。先說表述的層面，后說遮遣的層面。前面兩種情況中，先是總的，后是別的。總的來說，在一個緣起中，融合成四句，各自不落入任何一邊。所謂不障礙『空』的『有』，雖然窮盡『空』而只有『有』，但不落入『有』的邊。第二，不障礙『有』的『空』，雖然窮盡『有』而只有『空』，但不落入『空』的邊。第三，沒有差異的『空』和『有』，雖然極其相反，但都辨別而不落入二邊。第四，極其相反的『空』和『有』，雖然沒有二元性而雙雙泯滅，但都不是不落入任何一邊。因此，四句分明，而不落入四邊。又可以依據上面的義理層面，四句都可以說。

【English Translation】 English version: They seize from each other completely, or they coexist completely with each other, or they self-destruct and self-exist, without any obstruction. Therefore, if we consider the aspect of mutual coexistence, then the 'emptiness' (śūnyatā) that does not destroy 'existence' (bhava) coexists with the 'existence' that does not destroy 'emptiness'. Because the principles are not mixed, it is not a single aspect. Secondly, if we consider the aspect of mutual seizure, then the 'emptiness' that destroys 'existence' and the 'existence' that exhausts 'emptiness' completely seize from each other, so they are not one. Thirdly, if we consider the aspect of self-existence, then they do not affirm each other, so they are not one. Fourthly, if we consider the aspect of self-destruction, then nothing can be considered as one, so they are not one. Because existence and destruction are unobstructed, and the two principles are not mixed, not falling into any extreme, therefore not losing the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad). This is what is called the Middle Way of the Two Truths (dve satye). Thirdly, this 'non-one' (naikatva) is both the same as and not different from the previous 'non-different' (nānātva), because dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) has no duality. The 'emptiness' that destroys 'existence' is the 'existence' that exhausts 'emptiness'. In this way, 'emptiness' and 'existence' are unobstructed, extremely contradictory, yet extremely harmonious. Therefore, mutual seizure and mutual coexistence are also not dualistic. Dependent origination is fused, and the meaning and principles are unobstructed. Because 'non-one' is 'non-different', therefore the Two Truths are the Middle Way. Because 'non-different' is 'non-one', therefore the Middle Way is the Two Truths. Fourthly, this 'non-one' and 'non-different' are also not one. Therefore, the 'non-different' of 'non-one' and the 'non-one' of 'non-different' are not mixed in meaning and principle, so they are not one. The 'two' in 'non-difference' and the 'one' in 'non-difference' of 'two', although the meaning and principles are fused, the principles are not mixed, so they are neither the Middle Way nor the Two Truths, fully possessing both the Middle Way and the Two Truths. This is what is called the unobstructed and unimpeded Middle and Extremes, which can be understood through contemplation. Thirdly, regarding 'existence' and 'non-existence' (astitva-nāstitva), there are two aspects. First, the aspect of expression, and then the aspect of negation. In the previous two cases, first is the general, and then the specific. Generally speaking, in one dependent origination, four statements are fused, each not falling into any extreme. The 'existence' that does not obstruct 'emptiness', although it exhausts 'emptiness' and only has 'existence', does not fall into the extreme of 'existence'. Secondly, the 'emptiness' that does not obstruct 'existence', although it exhausts 'existence' and only has 'emptiness', does not fall into the extreme of 'emptiness'. Thirdly, the 'emptiness' and 'existence' without difference, although extremely contradictory, both discern and do not fall into the two extremes. Fourthly, the extremely contradictory 'emptiness' and 'existence', although without duality and both annihilated, are not not falling into any extreme. Therefore, the four statements are distinct, and do not fall into the four extremes. Furthermore, based on the above meaning and principles, all four statements can be made.

邊。是故或非中非邊。具足中邊。可知。二別者。或以幻有為有。無性為空。或無性為有。以理實故。幻有為空。以不實故。皆俱融雙泯。各不墮邊。是名有無中道。故涅槃云。亦有亦無。名為中道。並準上思之。二約遮者。亦先總后別。總中。問。依他是有耶。答。不也。以無自性故。是空耶。不也。不壞緣相故。是亦有亦無耶。不也。無二法故。不相違故。是非有非無耶。不也以有無既離。無所待故。不礙二義故。是故由前三句。離有離無。故不著邊。由第四句。離非有非無。亦不著中。如此不著中。不著邊。方為無寄中道。二別者。先約幻有。問。幻有是有耶。答。不也。是幻有必不有故。是無耶。不也。以有既不有。無可無故。又不礙幻事。非斷滅故。是亦有亦無耶。不也。以二義形奪。俱不存故。非有非無耶不也。以無有無。無所待故。具此二義。是幻有故。是故單就幻有。四句皆絕。亦無寄中道也。二約真空者。問。真空是空耶。答。不也。以是真空。非斷空故。是有耶。不也。相無不盡故。是俱耶。不也。無二法故。不相違故。是俱非耶。不也。以絕待故。具實義故。是故真空。亦絕四句。具顯中道故也。上來總約依他起性。明二諦中道竟。第二約餘二性者。先別。后總。別中先約遍計所執。此有二義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本邊。因此，或者既非中也非邊，或者同時具備中和邊，這是可以理解的。第二種區別在於：或者認為幻有是實有，無自性是空；或者認為無自性是實有，因為從理上來說是真實的；幻有是空，因為它不是真實的。兩者都融合且雙雙泯滅，各自不落入任何一邊。這稱為有無中道。所以《涅槃經》說：『亦有亦無，名為中道。』可以參照以上思路來理解。第二種是關於遮詮的，也是先總說后別說。總說中道。問：依他起性是實有嗎？答：不是的，因為它沒有自性。是空嗎？不是的，因為它沒有破壞緣起之相。是亦有亦無嗎？不是的，因為它沒有兩種法，不互相違背。是非有非無嗎？不是的，因為有和無都已經遠離，沒有什麼可以依賴的，不妨礙兩種意義。因此，通過前面三句，遠離了有和無，所以不執著于邊。通過第四句，遠離了非有非無，也不執著于中。這樣不執著于中，不執著于邊，才是無所寄託的中道。第二種是別說，先說幻有。問：幻有是實有嗎？答：不是的，因為幻有必定不是實有。是無嗎？不是的，因為有既然不是實有，就沒有什麼可以無的，而且不妨礙幻事，不是斷滅。是亦有亦無嗎？不是的，因為兩種意義互相沖突，都不能存在。是非有非無嗎？不是的，因為沒有有和無，沒有什麼可以依賴的。具備這兩種意義，是因為它是幻有。因此，單就幻有來說，四句都斷絕了，也沒有可以寄託的中道。第二種是關於真空的。問：真空是空嗎？答：不是的，因為這是真空，不是斷滅空。是實有嗎？不是的，因為相已經完全消失了。是亦有亦無嗎？不是的，因為沒有兩種法，不互相違背。是非有非無嗎？不是的，因為是絕對的，具備真實的意義。因此，真空也斷絕了四句，完全顯現了中道。以上總體上是關於依他起性，闡明二諦中道。第二部分是關於其餘兩種自性，先別說，后總說。別說中先說遍計所執。這裡有兩種意義：

【English Translation】 English version Edge. Therefore, it is either neither middle nor edge, or it fully possesses both middle and edge, which can be understood. The second distinction is that either illusory existence is considered real existence, and non-self-nature is considered emptiness; or non-self-nature is considered real existence because it is true in principle; illusory existence is emptiness because it is not real. Both are integrated and mutually annihilated, each not falling into any extreme. This is called the Middle Way of existence and non-existence. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Both existence and non-existence are called the Middle Way.' This can be understood by referring to the above ideas. The second is about negation, which is also first general and then specific. General Middle Way. Question: Is dependent origination real existence? Answer: No, because it has no self-nature. Is it emptiness? No, because it does not destroy the characteristics of conditions. Is it both existence and non-existence? No, because it has no two dharmas and does not contradict each other. Is it neither existence nor non-existence? No, because existence and non-existence have already been separated, and there is nothing to rely on, and it does not hinder the two meanings. Therefore, through the first three sentences, it is separated from existence and non-existence, so it is not attached to the edge. Through the fourth sentence, it is separated from neither existence nor non-existence, and it is not attached to the middle either. In this way, not being attached to the middle and not being attached to the edge is the Middle Way without any dependence. The second is specific, first talking about illusory existence. Question: Is illusory existence real existence? Answer: No, because illusory existence must not be real existence. Is it non-existence? No, because since existence is not real existence, there is nothing that can be non-existent, and it does not hinder illusory events, and it is not annihilation. Is it both existence and non-existence? No, because the two meanings conflict with each other and cannot exist at the same time. Is it neither existence nor non-existence? No, because there is no existence or non-existence, and there is nothing to rely on. Possessing these two meanings is because it is illusory existence. Therefore, just in terms of illusory existence, all four sentences are cut off, and there is no Middle Way to rely on. The second is about true emptiness. Question: Is true emptiness emptiness? Answer: No, because this is true emptiness, not annihilation emptiness. Is it real existence? No, because the characteristics have completely disappeared. Is it both? No, because there are no two dharmas and they do not contradict each other. Is it neither? No, because it is absolute and has real meaning. Therefore, true emptiness also cuts off the four sentences and fully reveals the Middle Way. The above is generally about dependent origination, clarifying the Middle Way of the two truths. The second part is about the other two natures, first specific and then general. The specific part first talks about the completely conceptualized nature. There are two meanings here:

。故瑜伽云。遍計所執。情有理無。此中約妄情謂有。如空華于病眼。是凡愚所取以為俗。約理中實無。如空華于凈眼。是聖智所知為真。此無彼有。交徹無礙。融為一性。故百論中。猶如一柰。于瓜為小。于棗為大。大小無礙。名為一柰。當知此中有無亦爾。如是無二。名為中道。故論云。無二有此無。是二名中道。論自釋云。無二者。無能取所取有也。有此無者。有此能取所取無也。此有彼無。無二為中道。此中有此無者。只是無彼有故也。此是情理相望說。若單就情。一切皆是情謂虛妄。若唯約理。一切有無等虛無所有。無所有亦無所有。一切皆絕。亦無中無邊。二約圓成實者。此有三重。一約言就詮。亦得為俗。離言舍詮。非安立故。方乃為真。俱融無礙。以為中道。二約絕諸相故。是空義。約真德實故。是不空義。此空不空無二為中。如經中空不空如來藏等是也。三約此真如當體無礙。則無所有。為空。則此真體不可壞故。名不空。此空不空不二為中。第二總辨者亦二重。一約迷真起妄為俗。會妄歸實為真。真妄俱融。交徹無礙。以為中道。是真該妄末。妄徹真源。真俗混融。以為中道也。二攝真從妄。則俗有真無。攝妄從真。則俗無真有。如是真俗有無無礙。以為中道。第三通約三性辨者。先開。后合。

開者。所執有二義。謂情有理無。依他亦二義。謂幻有性空。圓成亦二義。謂體有相無。合者。以所執情有。依他幻有。圓成種無。如是有無無二。為俗諦中道。所執理無。依他性空。圓成體有。如是有無無二。名真諦中道。如是真俗。合而恒離。離而恒合。離合無礙。是二諦中道。此上二門。亦有一異遮表等。各有句數。並準初門應知。上來示義理竟。第二約成觀者。此真空法平等二諦。三世諸佛之所同依。一切菩薩離此無路。是故若欲于真大乘求出要者。於此深空。偏攻作意。觀察既久。遂能照理伏惑。今略明此真空之觀。以作三門。一識病。此有二。一粗。謂有修行。為求名聞求利養等。巧偽不真。為令他知。及不護戒行。如是等類。不能得入此真空觀。二細。謂縱有質直趣理之心。不識自心執見過患。是故無心翻情入理。故亦不能入此觀也。是故行者欲入此觀。于上粗細之患。極須善識。求遠離之。二揀境者。亦二。一倒境。謂聞空謂斷無。聞有謂實有等。並如情所取。非是法境。二真境。如上說空有俱融無礙之法難名目者是也。極須揀之。若不爾者。則入魔網故也。三定智者。亦二。一解。謂於前真空。善分析揀擇。不與三種空亂意相應。又亦解知此解。與行不同。若不爾者。於此法上墮不生解。則謂此解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：開者（Kaizhe）：所執（Suozhi）有二義，謂情有理無。依他（Yita）亦二義，謂幻有性空。圓成（Yuancheng）亦二義，謂體有相無。合者：以所執（Suozhi）情有，依他（Yita）幻有，圓成（Yuancheng）種無。如是有無無二，為俗諦（S諦）中道。所執（Suozhi）理無，依他（Yita）性空，圓成（Yuancheng）體有。如是有無無二，名真諦（Z諦）中道。如是真俗，合而恒離，離而恒合，離合無礙，是二諦（Er諦）中道。此上二門，亦有一異遮表等，各有句數，並準初門應知。上來示義理竟。第二約成觀者：此真空法平等二諦（Er諦），三世諸佛之所同依，一切菩薩離此無路。是故若欲于真大乘求出要者，於此深空，偏攻作意。觀察既久，遂能照理伏惑。今略明此真空之觀，以作三門。一識病：此有二，一粗，謂有修行，為求名聞求利養等，巧偽不真，為令他知，及不護戒行，如是等類，不能得入此真空觀。二細，謂縱有質直趣理之心，不識自心執見過患，是故無心翻情入理，故亦不能入此觀也。是故行者欲入此觀，于上粗細之患，極須善識，求遠離之。二揀境者：亦二，一倒境，謂聞空謂斷無，聞有謂實有等，並如情所取，非是法境。二真境，如上說空有俱融無礙之法難名目者是也。極須揀之。若不爾者，則入魔網故也。三定智者：亦二，一解，謂於前真空，善分析揀擇，不與三種空亂意相應。又亦解知此解，與行不同。若不爾者，於此法上墮不生解，則謂此解

【English Translation】 English version: Opening (Kaizhe): What is clung to (Suozhi) has two meanings: that emotions exist but reason does not. Dependent origination (Yita) also has two meanings: that illusion exists but its nature is empty. Perfected nature (Yuancheng) also has two meanings: that the essence exists but its form does not. Combination: Because what is clung to (Suozhi) has emotions, dependent origination (Yita) has illusions, and perfected nature (Yuancheng) has no seeds. Such existence and non-existence are non-dual, which is the Middle Way of conventional truth (S諦). What is clung to (Suozhi) has no reason, dependent origination (Yita) is empty in nature, and perfected nature (Yuancheng) has essence. Such existence and non-existence are non-dual, which is called the Middle Way of ultimate truth (Z諦). Thus, conventional and ultimate truths are combined and yet always separate, separate and yet always combined, and separation and combination are unobstructed, which is the Middle Way of the Two Truths (Er諦). These two approaches above also have aspects of one and different, negation and affirmation, etc., each with a number of phrases, and should be understood according to the first approach. The explanation of the meaning and principles is now complete. Secondly, regarding the cultivation of contemplation: This true emptiness, the Dharma, the equality of the Two Truths (Er諦), is what all Buddhas of the three times rely on together, and all Bodhisattvas have no other path apart from this. Therefore, if one wishes to seek the essential path to liberation in the true Mahayana, one should focus intently on this profound emptiness. After observing for a long time, one will be able to illuminate the principles and subdue afflictions. Now, I will briefly explain this contemplation of true emptiness, dividing it into three aspects. First, recognizing the illness: This has two aspects. The first is coarse, referring to those who practice seeking fame, gain, and other things, being skillful and deceptive but not genuine, trying to make others know, and not protecting precepts and conduct. Such individuals cannot enter this contemplation of true emptiness. The second is subtle, referring to those who, even with a sincere and straightforward mind inclined towards reason, do not recognize the faults of clinging to their own minds and views. Therefore, without the intention to transform emotions and enter into reason, they also cannot enter this contemplation. Therefore, practitioners who wish to enter this contemplation must be extremely good at recognizing the above coarse and subtle faults and seek to distance themselves from them. Second, selecting the object: This also has two aspects. The first is the inverted object, referring to hearing emptiness and thinking it is annihilation, hearing existence and thinking it is real existence, etc., all according to what emotions grasp, which are not Dharma objects. The second is the true object, which is the indescribable Dharma of emptiness and existence merging without obstruction, as mentioned above. It is extremely important to select it carefully. If not, one will enter the net of demons. Third, fixed wisdom: This also has two aspects. The first is understanding, referring to skillfully analyzing and selecting the aforementioned true emptiness, not corresponding to the confused mind of the three types of emptiness. Also, understanding that this understanding is different from practice. If not, one will fall into non-arising understanding regarding this Dharma, and will think this understanding

便是行心。非正理故。不名解也。二行。謂以行心觀正理時。決定不如前之所解。以解不能至故。行心順法。亡情念故。謂于真境。不作空解。不作有解。不作俱解。亦不作俱非解。於一念間。一切解心動念總絕。亦無不動之解。所解亦絕。此絕亦絕。境智俱融。於一念間。此謂情開理現難可宣說。至者當知。龍樹說空。意在於此。第三顯德用者。中論云。以有空義故。一切法得成。又云。以一切法空故。得有三寶四諦等。大品云。若一切法不空。則無道無果。又云。若諸法如毫釐許有者。則諸佛不出世。如是等文。皆明以有真空故。方有諸法也。又由觀真空。方成諸行。是故十度等行。皆由空成。菩提等果。皆由空立。是故從此真空無住。建立諸法。又令諸法得相即相入無障無礙等。並是此門之大用也。第四會異說者。于中有二。先敘異說。後會無違。前中。此大乘內。于緣生法二宗盛諍。一執為有。二說為空。且執有者。說此緣生決定不空。以有因緣之所生故。猶如幻事。不可言無。若言空者。應非緣生。如兔角等。若爾。則便斷滅因果。破壞二諦。以若無心心法。何斷何證。何修何益。故唯識論云。若一切空。何有智者為除幻敵。求石女兒以為軍旅。如是等。設有處說緣生空者。應知此就遍計所執。說緣生法無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本便是以行動的心態去實踐。因為不符合正確的道理，所以不能稱之為理解。第二種行動，是指以行動的心態觀察正確的道理時，會確定之前的理解是不正確的，因為理解無法達到真理。行動的心態順應佛法，消除了情感和執念，指的是對於真實的境界，不作空性的理解，不作實有的理解，不作既空又有的理解，也不作既非空又非有的理解。在一念之間，一切理解的心念和動念全部斷絕，也沒有不動的理解，所理解的也斷絕，這種斷絕也斷絕，境界和智慧完全融合。在一念之間，這被稱為情感消融而真理顯現，難以用語言表達，證悟者自會明白。龍樹菩薩（Nagarjuna，佛教中觀學派創始人）說空性的意義就在於此。第三，彰顯德行和作用。《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā，龍樹菩薩的代表作）中說：『因為有空性的意義，所以一切法才能成立。』又說：『因為一切法是空性的，所以才能有三寶（Triratna，佛、法、僧）、四諦（Four Noble Truths，苦、集、滅、道）等。』《大品般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra，般若經的代表經典）中說：『如果一切法不是空性的，那麼就沒有道，沒有果。』又說：『如果諸法像毫毛那麼一點點實有，那麼諸佛就不會出世。』像這樣的經文，都是說明因為有真空，才會有諸法。又因為觀察真空，才能成就各種修行，所以佈施等十度（Ten Perfections，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧、方便、愿、力、智）等修行，都是由空性成就的，菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）等果位，都是由空性建立的。所以從這種真空無住的狀態，建立諸法，又使諸法能夠相即相入，沒有障礙，沒有阻礙等等，都是這個法門的大作用。第四，會通不同的說法。其中有兩種情況：先敘述不同的說法，然後說明沒有衝突。在前一種情況中，在大乘佛教內部，對於緣生法（dependent origination，諸法生起是互相依賴的）有兩種盛行的爭論：一種執著于『有』，一種主張『空』。先說執著于『有』的觀點，認為這種緣生法絕對不是空性的，因為是由因緣所生的，就像幻術一樣，不能說是沒有。如果說是空性的，那麼就應該不是緣生，就像兔角一樣。如果是那樣，就會斷滅因果，破壞二諦（Two Truths，勝義諦和世俗諦）。因為如果沒有心和心法，要斷滅什麼，要證悟什麼，要修行什麼，有什麼益處？所以《唯識論》（Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra，唯識宗的根本論典）中說：『如果一切都是空性的，那麼哪裡會有智者爲了消除幻術般的敵人，而尋求石女的兒子作為軍隊呢？』像這樣，即使有些地方說緣生是空性的，應該知道這是就遍計所執性（Parikalpita，虛妄分別）而言的，說緣生法沒有。

【English Translation】 English version It is practicing with the mind of action. Because it does not conform to correct reasoning, it cannot be called understanding. The second action refers to observing correct reasoning with the mind of action, determining that the previous understanding was incorrect because understanding cannot reach the truth. The mind of action conforms to the Dharma, eliminating emotions and attachments, referring to not making an understanding of emptiness, not making an understanding of existence, not making an understanding of both emptiness and existence, and not making an understanding of neither emptiness nor existence regarding the true realm. In a single moment of thought, all understanding thoughts and movements are completely cut off, and there is no unmoved understanding. What is understood is also cut off, and this cutting off is also cut off. The realm and wisdom are completely integrated. In a single moment of thought, this is called emotions dissolving and truth manifesting, which is difficult to express in words. Those who attain it will understand. Nāgārjuna (founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism) speaks of emptiness with this intention. Third, manifesting virtue and function. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Nāgārjuna's representative work) says: 'Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas can be established.' It also says: 'Because all dharmas are empty, there can be the Three Jewels (Triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), the Four Noble Truths (suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path) and so on.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, representative of the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras) says: 'If all dharmas were not empty, then there would be no path and no fruit.' It also says: 'If dharmas were as real as a hair's breadth, then all Buddhas would not appear in the world.' Such scriptures all explain that because there is true emptiness, there are all dharmas. Also, because of observing true emptiness, various practices can be accomplished. Therefore, the ten perfections (Dāna, Śīla, Kṣānti, Vīrya, Dhyāna, Prajñā, Upāya, Praṇidhāna, Bala, Jñāna) and other practices are all accomplished by emptiness, and the fruits such as Bodhi (enlightenment) are all established by emptiness. Therefore, from this state of true emptiness and non-abiding, all dharmas are established, and all dharmas can be interpenetrating, without obstruction, without hindrance, etc., which are all great functions of this Dharma gate. Fourth, reconciling different views. There are two situations: first, narrating different views, and then explaining that there is no conflict. In the former situation, within Mahayana Buddhism, there are two prevalent disputes regarding dependent origination (the arising of all dharmas is mutually dependent): one adheres to 'existence' and the other advocates 'emptiness'. First, the view that adheres to 'existence' believes that this dependent origination is definitely not empty, because it is produced by causes and conditions, just like an illusion, it cannot be said to be non-existent. If it is said to be empty, then it should not be dependently originated, like a rabbit's horn. If that were the case, it would cut off cause and effect and destroy the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth). Because if there is no mind and mental dharmas, what is to be cut off, what is to be realized, what is to be practiced, and what benefit is there? Therefore, the Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra (Treatise on Consciousness-Only, fundamental text of the Yogācāra school) says: 'If everything is empty, then where would there be a wise person seeking the son of a barren woman as an army to eliminate illusory enemies?' Like this, even if some places say that dependent origination is empty, it should be known that this is in terms of the imagined nature (Parikalpita), saying that dependent origination has no reality.

二我故。密意言空。非謂彼法舉體全無。若此無者。則是斷無惡取空見。甚為可畏經云。寧起有見如須彌山。不起空見如芥子許。中論云。若復見於空。諸佛所不化。如是空見既是深過。明知緣生必定不無。攝論瑜伽深密經等決定說有。不可違故。二執空者。言此緣生法。決定是空。以從緣生。必無自性故。猶如幻事。不可言有。若言有者。則不從緣。不從緣故。則非緣起之法也。設有處說緣生法體是有者。應知但是隨俗假說。非謂彼體實是不空。以若有體則不從緣。不從緣故。則無知斷證修。亦壞於二諦。大品云。若諸法不空。則無道無果。中論云。若一切不空。則無三寶四諦。成大邪見。智論云。觀一切法從因緣生。從因緣生。則無自性。無自性故。畢竟皆空。又若言此幻事不空者。今且問如幻巾為兔。此兔為在巾內。為在巾外。為即是巾。為離巾有。為有皮毛。為有骨肉。既並絕無。依何執有。當知此兔。不待滅而自亡。本不生而虛現。是故要由性空。得有二諦。又汝以我宗為空見者。此過屬汝。何者。若汝執有。則不藉緣。不藉緣故。則斷因果。豈非空見。橫執有法。豈非有見。有無二見。雙負汝宗。何不生畏。又汝不了我所說空離有無見。執為空見而生怖者。此是汝自空見。非關我宗又汝橫怖自見而執情有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第二，關於我（二我）所說的。密意是指『空』（Sunyata）。並非說任何事物都完全不存在。如果這樣理解『空』，那就是斷滅論的惡見，非常可怕。《經》中說：『寧願持有如須彌山般大的有見，也不要持有如芥子般小的空見。』《中論》中說：『如果有人執著于空，諸佛也無法教化他。』這樣的空見是極大的過失，因此，很明顯緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda）的事物必定不是不存在的。《攝論》、《瑜伽師地論》、《深密經》等都明確說明存在，不可違背。第二種執著于空的人說，這些緣起法，一定是空的，因為它們從因緣而生，必定沒有自性（Svabhava）。就像幻術變出的事物一樣，不能說它存在。如果說它存在，那就不是從因緣而生。不是從因緣而生，就不是緣起之法。如果有些地方說緣起法的本體是存在的，應該知道這只是隨順世俗的假說，並非說它的本體實際上不是空的。因為如果它有本體，那就不是從因緣而生。不是從因緣而生，就沒有知、斷、證、修，也會破壞二諦（Dva Satya）。《大品般若經》中說：『如果諸法不空，就沒有道，沒有果。』《中論》中說：『如果一切不空，就沒有三寶（Triratna）、四諦（Aryasatya），就會形成大邪見。』《大智度論》中說：『觀察一切法從因緣而生，從因緣而生，就沒有自性。沒有自性，畢竟都是空的。』而且，如果說幻術變出的事物不是空的，現在且問，比如幻術變出的布變成兔子，這兔子是在布里面，還是在布外面，還是就是布，還是離開布而存在，是有皮毛，還是有骨肉？既然這些都沒有，依據什麼執著它存在？應當知道這兔子，不用等到滅亡就自己消失了，本來沒有生而虛幻地顯現。所以，一定要通過性空（Svabhava-sunyata），才能有二諦。還有，你認為我所說的空是空見，這個過失屬於你。為什麼呢？如果你執著于存在，就不依賴因緣。不依賴因緣，就斷滅因果。這難道不是空見嗎？橫加執著于有法，難道不是有見嗎？有見和無見，兩種見解都與你的宗義相悖，難道不應該感到畏懼嗎？還有，你不了知我所說的空是遠離有無二見的，執著為空見而感到害怕，這是你自己的空見，與我的宗義無關。還有，你橫生恐懼於自己的見解，而執著于情有。

【English Translation】 English version: Secondly, regarding what I (the two selves) say. The secret meaning refers to 'emptiness' (Sunyata). It doesn't mean that any dharma is entirely non-existent. If 'emptiness' is understood in that way, it is the nihilistic view of annihilation, which is very frightening. The Sutra says: 'It is better to hold a view of existence as large as Mount Sumeru than to hold a view of emptiness as small as a mustard seed.' The Madhyamaka-karika says: 'If someone clings to emptiness, the Buddhas cannot transform him.' Such a view of emptiness is a great fault. Therefore, it is clear that things arising from dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) must not be non-existent. The Samgraha, Yogacarabhumi-sastra, Samdhinirmocana Sutra, etc., all clearly state that they exist, and cannot be contradicted. The second type of people who cling to emptiness say that these dharmas arising from dependent origination must be empty because they arise from causes and conditions and must not have inherent existence (Svabhava). Like things conjured up by illusion, it cannot be said that they exist. If it is said that they exist, then they do not arise from causes and conditions. If they do not arise from causes and conditions, then they are not dharmas of dependent origination. If some places say that the essence of dharmas arising from dependent origination exists, it should be known that this is only a conventional expression following worldly customs, and it does not mean that its essence is actually not empty. Because if it has an essence, then it does not arise from causes and conditions. If it does not arise from causes and conditions, then there is no knowing, cutting off, realization, or cultivation, and it also destroys the two truths (Dva Satya). The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'If all dharmas are not empty, then there is no path and no fruit.' The Madhyamaka-karika says: 'If everything is not empty, then there are no Three Jewels (Triratna) and Four Noble Truths (Aryasatya), and it will form a great wrong view.' The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says: 'Observing that all dharmas arise from causes and conditions, and arising from causes and conditions, then there is no inherent existence. Without inherent existence, they are ultimately empty.' Moreover, if it is said that things conjured up by illusion are not empty, let us now ask, for example, if a cloth conjured up by illusion becomes a rabbit, is this rabbit inside the cloth, or outside the cloth, or is it just the cloth, or does it exist apart from the cloth, does it have fur, or does it have bones and flesh? Since none of these exist, based on what do you cling to its existence? It should be known that this rabbit disappears by itself without waiting for extinction, and it appears illusory without ever being born. Therefore, it is necessary to have emptiness of inherent existence (Svabhava-sunyata) in order to have the two truths. Also, you think that the emptiness I speak of is a view of emptiness, but this fault belongs to you. Why? If you cling to existence, then you do not rely on causes and conditions. If you do not rely on causes and conditions, then you cut off cause and effect. Is this not a view of emptiness? Arbitrarily clinging to existing dharmas, is this not a view of existence? The two views of existence and non-existence both contradict your doctrine, shouldn't you be afraid? Also, you do not understand that the emptiness I speak of is far from the two views of existence and non-existence, and you are afraid of clinging to a view of emptiness, this is your own view of emptiness, and it has nothing to do with my doctrine. Also, you are arbitrarily afraid of your own views and cling to emotional existence.

。覆成有見。俱失佛法。于顛倒情而恒流轉。雖染法衣。常在法外。是汝之失。又汝云何有智者為除幻敵等者。諸大乘經。何處不說諸法如化。菩薩修幻智。斷幻惑。成幻行。得幻果等。如是聖教。豈不違害。何不生怖。又汝意謂有斷證故非如幻者。非如幻故。非從緣生。非緣生故。何有斷證。是故反是大邪見也。又汝無著菩薩。順中論內。尊承龍樹。稱阿阇黎。師其所說。釋彼餘論。況護法等而輒譭謗。入楞伽中。佛記龍樹。住初歡喜地。能破有無見。住生安樂國。既是破有無見。何曾是空。若言龍樹是空見者。深成誹謗。此既佛所讚歎。餘人譭謗。與佛違諍。非釋種矣。第二會無違者。諸緣起法。未嘗有體。未曾損壞。無體無壞。無二無礙。為緣起法。是故龍樹等。雖說盡有之空。而不待滅有。既不損有。即是不違有之空也。故龍樹說空。離有離無。為真空也。無著等。雖說盡空之有。而不損真空。既不損空。即是不違空之有也。故亦離有無之幻有。何相違耶。當知二說。全體相與。際限無遺。雖各述一義。而舉體圓具。故無違也。如其不爾。恐墮空無。勵意立有。不達此有是不異空之有故。是故不受彼空。反失自有。失自有者。良由取有。又若恐墮有所得故。猛勵立空。不達此空是不異有之空故。是故不受緣有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：又回覆到有見，完全失去了佛法，在顛倒的情識中恒常流轉。即使穿著染色的法衣，也常常在佛法之外。這是你的過失。還有，你為什麼說有智者能夠去除幻象之敵等等？各大乘經典，哪一部沒有說諸法如幻？菩薩修習幻智，斷除幻惑，成就幻行，得到幻果等等。這樣的聖教，難道不是互相違背嗎？為什麼不感到害怕？還有，你認為因為有斷證，所以不是如幻的；因為不是如幻的，所以不是從因緣生起的；因為不是從因緣生起的，哪裡會有斷證？所以，這反而是大邪見啊。還有，你無著菩薩，順從《中論》的觀點，尊崇龍樹（Nagarjuna，佛教哲學家），稱他為阿阇黎（Acharya，導師），以他所說的為師，解釋其他的論著，更何況護法（Dharmapala，佛教術語，護持佛法者）等人竟然譭謗他。在《入楞伽經》（Lankavatara Sutra）中，佛陀記述龍樹，安住于初歡喜地（first bhumi，菩薩修行階位），能夠破除有無見，安住在生安樂國。既然是破除有無見，怎麼會是空呢？如果說龍樹是空見，那就深深地構成了誹謗。這既然是佛所讚歎的，其他人卻譭謗他，與佛違背爭論，就不是釋迦的後裔了。第二次集會沒有違背的人，諸緣起法，未曾有自體，未曾損壞。無自體無損壞，無二無礙，是為緣起法。所以龍樹等人，雖然說盡有之空，而不等待滅有。既然不損害有，就是不違背有的空。所以龍樹說空，離開有離開無，是真空。無著等人，雖然說盡空之有，而不損害真空。既然不損害空，就是不違背空的幻有。有什麼互相違背的呢？應當知道這兩種說法，全體互相給予，界限沒有遺漏。雖然各自陳述一個義理，而整體圓滿具備，所以沒有違背。如果不是這樣，恐怕會墮入空無，努力地建立有，不明白此有是不異於空的有。所以不接受那樣的空，反而失去了自有。失去自有的人，是因為執取有。又如果害怕墮入有所得，猛烈地建立空，不明白此空是不異於有的空，所以不接受緣有。 English version: Furthermore, reverting to the view of existence completely loses the Buddha-dharma, constantly revolving in inverted emotions. Even wearing the dyed robes of a monk, one is always outside the Dharma. This is your mistake. Moreover, why do you say that a wise person can eliminate the enemy of illusion, etc.? Which Mahayana sutra does not say that all dharmas are like illusions? Bodhisattvas cultivate illusory wisdom, sever illusory delusions, accomplish illusory practices, and attain illusory fruits, etc. Are such sacred teachings not contradictory? Why are you not afraid? Furthermore, you believe that because there is cessation and realization, it is not like an illusion; because it is not like an illusion, it is not produced from conditions; because it is not produced from conditions, where would there be cessation and realization? Therefore, this is actually a great wrong view. Moreover, your Asanga (無著，Buddhist philosopher), following the views of the Madhyamaka-karika (中論，Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), reveres Nagarjuna (龍樹，Buddhist philosopher), calling him Acharya (阿阇黎，teacher), taking what he said as his teacher, and explaining other treatises. How much more so should Dharmapala (護法，Dharmapala) and others not slander him. In the Lankavatara Sutra (入楞伽經), the Buddha predicted that Nagarjuna, abiding in the first bhumi (初歡喜地，first stage of bodhisattva path), is able to break through the views of existence and non-existence, and abides in the Land of Bliss. Since he breaks through the views of existence and non-existence, how could he be emptiness? If you say that Nagarjuna is a view of emptiness, then you are deeply slandering him. Since this is praised by the Buddha, and others slander him, contradicting and arguing with the Buddha, then they are not descendants of the Shakya clan. Those who were not in contradiction at the second council, all conditioned dharmas have never had a self-nature, and have never been destroyed. Without self-nature and without destruction, without duality and without obstruction, this is the conditioned dharma. Therefore, Nagarjuna and others, although they speak of the emptiness of all existence, do not wait for the extinction of existence. Since they do not harm existence, it is the emptiness that does not contradict existence. Therefore, Nagarjuna speaks of emptiness, being apart from existence and non-existence, as true emptiness. Asanga and others, although they speak of the existence of all emptiness, do not harm true emptiness. Since they do not harm emptiness, it is the illusory existence that does not contradict emptiness. What contradiction is there? It should be known that these two teachings, in their entirety, give to each other, and the boundaries have no omissions. Although each states one meaning, the whole is completely and perfectly present, so there is no contradiction. If it is not like this, fearing falling into emptiness and nothingness, one strives to establish existence, not understanding that this existence is not different from emptiness. Therefore, not accepting that emptiness, one loses one's own existence. Those who lose their own existence do so because they grasp onto existence. Furthermore, if fearing falling into something attained, one fiercely establishes emptiness, not understanding that this emptiness is not different from existence, therefore, one does not accept conditioned existence.

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, reverting to the view of existence completely loses the Buddha-dharma, constantly revolving in inverted emotions. Even wearing the dyed robes of a monk, one is always outside the Dharma. This is your mistake. Moreover, why do you say that a wise person can eliminate the enemy of illusion, etc.? Which Mahayana sutra does not say that all dharmas are like illusions? Bodhisattvas cultivate illusory wisdom, sever illusory delusions, accomplish illusory practices, and attain illusory fruits, etc. Are such sacred teachings not contradictory? Why are you not afraid? Furthermore, you believe that because there is cessation and realization, it is not like an illusion; because it is not like an illusion, it is not produced from conditions; because it is not produced from conditions, where would there be cessation and realization? Therefore, this is actually a great wrong view. Moreover, your Asanga (無著，Buddhist philosopher), following the views of the Madhyamaka-karika (中論，Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), reveres Nagarjuna (龍樹，Buddhist philosopher), calling him Acharya (阿阇黎，teacher), taking what he said as his teacher, and explaining other treatises. How much more so should Dharmapala (護法，Dharmapala) and others not slander him. In the Lankavatara Sutra (入楞伽經), the Buddha predicted that Nagarjuna, abiding in the first bhumi (初歡喜地，first stage of bodhisattva path), is able to break through the views of existence and non-existence, and abides in the Land of Bliss. Since he breaks through the views of existence and non-existence, how could he be emptiness? If you say that Nagarjuna is a view of emptiness, then you are deeply slandering him. Since this is praised by the Buddha, and others slander him, contradicting and arguing with the Buddha, then they are not descendants of the Shakya clan. Those who were not in contradiction at the second council, all conditioned dharmas have never had a self-nature, and have never been destroyed. Without self-nature and without destruction, without duality and without obstruction, this is the conditioned dharma. Therefore, Nagarjuna and others, although they speak of the emptiness of all existence, do not wait for the extinction of existence. Since they do not harm existence, it is the emptiness that does not contradict existence. Therefore, Nagarjuna speaks of emptiness, being apart from existence and non-existence, as true emptiness. Asanga and others, although they speak of the existence of all emptiness, do not harm true emptiness. Since they do not harm emptiness, it is the illusory existence that does not contradict emptiness. What contradiction is there? It should be known that these two teachings, in their entirety, give to each other, and the boundaries have no omissions. Although each states one meaning, the whole is completely and perfectly present, so there is no contradiction. If it is not like this, fearing falling into emptiness and nothingness, one strives to establish existence, not understanding that this existence is not different from emptiness. Therefore, not accepting that emptiness, one loses one's own existence. Those who lose their own existence do so because they grasp onto existence. Furthermore, if fearing falling into something attained, one fiercely establishes emptiness, not understanding that this emptiness is not different from existence, therefore, one does not accept conditioned existence.

。反失真空。失真空者。良由取空。是故舉體全空之有。無著等說。舉體全有之空。龍樹等說。非直二說互不相違。亦乃二義相由全攝。故無二也。問。若爾。何故清辯護法。後代論師。互相破耶。答。此乃相成。非是相破。何者。為末代有情。根器漸鈍。聞說幻有。謂為定有。故清辯等破有令盡。至畢竟空。方乃得彼緣起幻有。若不至此畢竟性空。則不成彼緣起幻有。是故為成有故破于有也。又彼聞說緣生性空。謂為斷無。故護法等破空存有。幻有存故。方乃得彼不異有之空。以若不全體至此幻有。則不是彼真性之空。是故為成空故。破于空也。若無如此後代論師。以二理交徹全體相奪。無由得顯緣起甚深。是故相破反是相成。由緣起法幻有真空有二義故。一極相順。謂冥合一相。舉體全攝。二極相違。謂各互相害。全奪永盡。若不相奪永盡。無以舉體全收。是故極違即極順也。龍樹無著。就極順門。故無相破。清辯護法。據極違門。故須相破。違順無礙故。方是緣起。是故前後不相違也。余義準上思之。諸諍無不和會耳。

第七造論時代者。有說龍樹。佛滅度后八百年出。依摩訶摩耶經。佛滅后七百年出近問三藏云。西國有傳龍樹。從佛滅后。三百年出南天竺。共一國王。以藥自持。擬待彌勒。至八百年。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：反過來會失去真空的境界。之所以失去真空，是因為執著于空。因此，『舉體全空』的有，是無著（Asanga）等人所說；『舉體全有』的空，是龍樹（Nagarjuna）等人所說。這兩種說法不僅互不矛盾，而且兩種含義相互依存，完全包容，所以不是二元對立的。問：如果這樣，為什麼清辯（Bhavaviveka）、護法（Dharmapala）以及後代的論師們要互相破斥呢？答：這實際上是相互成就，而不是相互破斥。為什麼呢？因為末代的眾生，根器逐漸遲鈍，聽到說幻有，就認為是實有。所以清辯等人破斥有，使其窮盡，達到畢竟空，才能證得緣起幻有。如果不達到這種畢竟性空，就不能成就那種緣起幻有。所以，是爲了成就『有』，才破斥『有』的。另外，那些人聽到說緣生性空，就認為是斷滅空無。所以護法等人破斥空，儲存有，因為幻有存在，才能證得不異於有的空。如果不能完全達到這種幻有，就不是那種真性的空。所以，是爲了成就『空』，才破斥『空』的。如果沒有這些後代的論師，用兩種道理交相滲透，完全奪取，就無法彰顯緣起的甚深含義。所以，相互破斥反而是相互成就。由於緣起法，幻有和真空有兩種含義，一是極其相順，指的是冥合為一，完全包容；二是極其相違，指的是各自互相損害，完全奪取，永不留存。如果不互相奪取，永不留存，就無法完全包容。所以，極其相違就是極其相順。龍樹和無著，是從極其相順的角度來說的，所以沒有相互破斥。清辯和護法，是從極其相違的角度來說的，所以需要相互破斥。違背和順從沒有障礙，才是緣起。所以，前後並不矛盾。其餘的含義可以參照上面的內容思考，各種爭論都會和諧統一。

第七，關於造論的時代。有人說龍樹是佛陀滅度后八百年出現的。依據《摩訶摩耶經》（Mahamaya Sutra），佛陀滅度后七百年出現。近問三藏（a Tripitaka master）說，西國有傳說，龍樹是從佛陀滅度后三百年出現在南天竺（South India），與一位國王一起，用藥物維持生命，準備等待彌勒（Maitreya）佛，直到八百年。

【English Translation】 English version: Conversely, one loses the true emptiness. The loss of true emptiness arises from clinging to emptiness. Therefore, the 'existence of complete emptiness' is taught by Asanga (無著), and the 'emptiness of complete existence' is taught by Nagarjuna (龍樹). These two teachings are not only not contradictory, but also mutually dependent and completely inclusive, thus they are not dualistic. Question: If this is the case, why do Bhavaviveka (清辯), Dharmapala (護法), and later commentators refute each other? Answer: This is actually mutual accomplishment, not mutual refutation. Why? Because sentient beings in the degenerate age have increasingly dull faculties, and upon hearing about illusory existence, they mistake it for real existence. Therefore, Bhavaviveka and others refute existence to its exhaustion, reaching ultimate emptiness, in order to realize the illusory existence of dependent origination. If one does not reach this ultimate emptiness, one cannot accomplish that illusory existence of dependent origination. Therefore, it is to accomplish 'existence' that they refute 'existence'. Furthermore, those people, upon hearing about emptiness of dependent arising, mistake it for nihilistic non-existence. Therefore, Dharmapala and others refute emptiness to preserve existence, because illusory existence exists, one can realize the emptiness that is not different from existence. If one cannot fully reach this illusory existence, it is not the true emptiness of suchness. Therefore, it is to accomplish 'emptiness' that they refute 'emptiness'. Without these later commentators, who interpenetrate the two principles, completely seizing each other, there would be no way to reveal the profound meaning of dependent origination. Therefore, mutual refutation is actually mutual accomplishment. Because the Dharma of dependent origination, illusory existence and true emptiness have two meanings: one is extremely harmonious, referring to merging into one, completely inclusive; the other is extremely contradictory, referring to each harming each other, completely seizing, never remaining. If they do not mutually seize, never remaining, there is no way to completely include. Therefore, extreme contradiction is extreme harmony. Nagarjuna and Asanga speak from the perspective of extreme harmony, so there is no mutual refutation. Bhavaviveka and Dharmapala speak from the perspective of extreme contradiction, so mutual refutation is necessary. Since there is no obstruction between contradiction and harmony, it is dependent origination. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the former and the latter. The remaining meanings can be considered in light of the above, and all disputes will be harmonized.

Seventh, regarding the era of writing treatises. Some say that Nagarjuna appeared 800 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana. According to the Mahamaya Sutra (摩訶摩耶經), he appeared 700 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana. A Tripitaka master (近問三藏) said that there is a tradition in the Western Regions that Nagarjuna appeared 300 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana in South India (南天竺), and together with a king, used medicine to sustain his life, preparing to wait for Maitreya (彌勒) Buddha, until 800 years.

彼王諸子。並皆老死。無嗣位者。后一太子恨無得位。母氏教云。汝父不死。是龍樹所持。汝乞彼首。父則隨喪。子便依言往乞。菩薩剔頸與之。於是而卒。既五百年在世。是故諸說皆會。然其所造雖復廣多。唯於此論。自造本頌。還自造釋。既不雜余言。亦將為甚妙也。

第八傳譯緣起者。三藏法師鳩摩羅什。此云童壽。赍梵本至此。以大秦弘始年。于逍遙園中。與生肇融睿等諸德。共譯茲論。睿公筆受。與中百及智論等同譯。故肇公披閱四論。若日月之入懷。彼評云。百論廣破外道。門論廣破小乘。中論具破內外。智論解釋大乘。文勢如此也。是故三論玄旨。派流於九壞。龍樹宗傳。實什公之方也。雖復譯在關河。然盛傳於江表。則興皇朗之功也。

第九釋論題目者。然此三論。得名不同。或就所顯為名。如中觀論。以中道是所顯故。或約所遣及所託為目。如此論。以十二門法為所遣託故。或約數為名。如百論。以論有百偈故。此中十二者。有人解云。此是隨語中一大數也。如一日十二時。一年十二月。又表十二。入十二緣等。此恐不然。今釋十二有三義。一約所遣。謂所執萬端。別祛難盡。故今總攝。十二統收。無別表也。二約所託。謂津悟多方。數窮八萬。要略所仗。十二為號。如下文云。當以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：那位國王的眾多兒子，都相繼老死，沒有留下繼承王位的人。後來，其中一個太子因為沒有得到王位而感到怨恨。他的母親告訴他說：『你的父王並沒有死，是因為龍樹（Nāgārjuna，佛教哲學家）持有他的性命。你去向他乞求他的頭顱，你的父王就會隨之死去。』太子便按照母親的話去乞求。菩薩（菩薩，指發菩提心，立志成佛的修行者）割下自己的頭顱給了他，於是就去世了。他已經在世五百年了，所以各種說法都彙集於此。然而，他所創作的著作雖然非常多，只有這部論，是他自己創作了原本的頌文，又自己做了註釋。既沒有摻雜其他人的言論，也可以說是非常精妙的。

第八，關於翻譯的緣起。三藏法師鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva，著名佛經翻譯家），『鳩摩羅什』在這裡的意思是『童壽』。他帶著梵文字來到這裡，在大秦弘始年間，在逍遙園中，與僧肇（Sengzhao，鳩摩羅什的弟子）、僧睿（Sengrui，鳩摩羅什的弟子）、慧遠（Huiyuan，東晉時期佛教領袖）等高僧大德，共同翻譯這部論。僧睿負責筆錄。這部論與《中論》、《百論》和《大智度論》等同時翻譯。所以僧肇閱讀這四部論著，就像日月進入懷抱一樣。他評論說，《百論》廣泛地破斥外道，《十二門論》廣泛地破斥小乘，《中論》全面地破斥內外道，《大智度論》解釋大乘。文章的態勢就是這樣。因此，三論的玄妙旨趣，流傳於各地。龍樹宗的傳承，實際上是鳩摩羅什的功勞。雖然翻譯是在關中地區進行的，但盛行於江南地區，這是興皇法朗（Falang，三論宗的實際創始人）的功勞。

第九，關於解釋論的題目。這三部論，得名的方式不同。有的根據所闡明的內容來命名，如《中觀論》，因為中道是所闡明的內容。有的根據所破斥的和所依託的來命名，如這部論，因為以十二門法作為所破斥和所依託的。有的根據數量來命名，如《百論》，因為這部論有一百首偈頌。這部《十二門論》中的『十二』，有人解釋說，這是隨語中的一個大數。如一日有十二時，一年有十二月。又表示十二因緣等。這種說法恐怕不對。現在解釋『十二』有三種含義。一是根據所破斥的來說，因為所執著的有萬端，分別破斥難以窮盡，所以現在總括起來，用十二來統攝，沒有其他的表示。二是根據所依託的來說，因為通達領悟的方法有很多，數量窮盡有八萬四千法門，要簡要地說明所憑藉的，就用十二作為名稱。如下文說，應當以...

【English Translation】 English version: Those king's sons all grew old and died, leaving no one to succeed to the throne. Later, one of the princes resented not having obtained the throne. His mother taught him, 'Your father is not dead because Nāgārjuna (Buddhist philosopher) is holding his life. If you beg for his head, your father will die.' The prince followed her words and went to beg for it. The Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, referring to a practitioner who has generated Bodhicitta and is determined to become a Buddha) cut off his own head and gave it to him, and then he died. He had been in the world for five hundred years, so all the accounts converge here. However, although he created many works, only this treatise was composed with original verses and self-commentary. Since it does not contain other people's words, it can be said to be very subtle.

Eighth, regarding the origins of the translation. The Tripiṭaka Master Kumārajīva (Kumārajīva, a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures), 'Kumārajīva' here means 'Childhood Longevity.' He brought the Sanskrit text here, and during the Hongshi era of the Great Qin Dynasty, in the Xiaoyao Garden, he and Sengzhao (Sengzhao, Kumārajīva's disciple), Sengrui (Sengrui, Kumārajīva's disciple), Huiyuan (Huiyuan, a Buddhist leader during the Eastern Jin Dynasty), and other virtuous monks, jointly translated this treatise. Sengrui was responsible for writing it down. This treatise was translated at the same time as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Śataśāstra, and Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Therefore, when Sengzhao read these four treatises, it was like the sun and moon entering his bosom. He commented that the Śataśāstra extensively refutes external paths, the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra extensively refutes the Hinayana, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā comprehensively refutes both internal and external paths, and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains the Mahayana. The style of the writing is like this. Therefore, the profound meaning of the Three Treatises spread everywhere. The transmission of the Nāgārjuna school is actually due to Kumārajīva's efforts. Although the translation was done in the Guanzhong region, it flourished in the Jiangnan region, which is due to the efforts of Falang (Falang, the actual founder of the Three Treatise School).

Ninth, regarding the explanation of the title of the treatise. These three treatises have different ways of being named. Some are named according to what is elucidated, such as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, because the Middle Way is what is elucidated. Some are named according to what is refuted and what is relied upon, such as this treatise, because the twelve gates of Dharma are what are refuted and relied upon. Some are named according to the number, such as the Śataśāstra, because the treatise has one hundred verses. The 'twelve' in this Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra, some people explain as a large number in language. For example, one day has twelve hours, and one year has twelve months. It also represents the twelve links of dependent origination, etc. This explanation is probably not correct. Now, there are three meanings to explain 'twelve.' First, according to what is refuted, because there are myriad attachments, and it is difficult to refute them individually, so now they are summarized and encompassed by twelve, without other representations. Second, according to what is relied upon, because there are many ways to understand and realize, and the number is exhausted by eighty-four thousand Dharma gates, to briefly explain what is relied upon, twelve is used as the name. As the following text says, one should use...

十二門入于空義。此是入真空之勝方便也。三合此二義。謂非遣執無以入空。遣即托也。非入空無以遣執。托即遣也。門者。亦有三義。一是收攝義。謂此十二。以一一統收諸餘所遣無量諸法。故以為門。如章門等。二是開示義。謂於此十二。開示顯現真空理故。以此為門。如開方便門示真實相等。三是通入義。謂令依此游履。通入彼真空故。此中十二即門。帶數釋也。亦有本。作觀十二門。觀者鑑照義。且鑑照有二。一照俗。謂觀照此十二類法。二觀真。謂即於此十二法上。破相開示。照達真空。令心無寄。故云觀也。此中據后義說。觀則是智。十二門是境。境智合目。如此境智。是所詮義。論者。是能詮教。謂以理窮核。使諸相永盡。故云論也。又以巧辯徴責。令執心無寄。亦云論也。觀因緣門者。當別目。謂親辨法體為因。疏而助發為緣。推求無性為觀。開悟真空曰門。十二之初。故云第一。(觀因緣門第一六字古本連在論題之下故於此處釋之)龍樹菩薩造者。梵語名作那伽阿順那。那伽。此雲龍。阿順那者。羅什翻為樹。慈恩三藏翻為猛。並非敵對正翻。所以知者。近問大原三藏云。西國俗盡說。前代有猛壯之人。名阿順那。翻為猛者。但指彼人。非正譯其名。又西國有一色樹。亦名阿順那。此菩薩在樹下生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本十二門入于空義（進入空性的十二種方法）。這是進入真空狀態的殊勝方便法門。三合此二義，意思是說，不破除執著就無法進入空性，破除執著即是依託；不進入空性就無法破除執著，依託即是破除。『門』也有三重含義：一是收攝義，指這十二門，以每一門統攝收攝其餘所要破除的無量諸法，所以稱為『門』，如章門等。二是開示義，指通過這十二門，開示顯現真空的道理，因此以此為『門』，如開啟方便之門，顯示真實相等等。三是通入義，指使人依此修行，通達進入那真空之境。這其中，『十二』即是『門』，是帶數目的解釋。也有版本寫作『觀十二門』，『觀』是鑑照的意思。而且鑑照有二種：一是照俗，指觀照這十二類法；二是觀真，指就在這十二法上，破除表相，開示照達真空，使心無所寄託，所以稱為『觀』。這裡根據后一種含義來說，『觀』就是智慧，『十二門』是境界，境界與智慧相結合。如此境界與智慧，是所要詮釋的意義。『論』是能詮釋的教法，指用道理來窮盡考察，使諸種表相永遠消失，所以稱為『論』。又用巧妙的辯論來徵詢責問，使執著的心無所寄託，也稱為『論』。『觀因緣門』，應當單獨列出。指親身辨別法體為『因』，疏遠而輔助引發為『緣』，推求無自性為『觀』，開悟真空為『門』。是十二門之首，所以稱為『第一』。（『觀因緣門第一』六字古本連在論題之下，所以在此處解釋它。）龍樹菩薩造，梵語名字是那伽阿順那（Nagarjuna）。那伽（Naga），這裡翻譯為『龍』。阿順那（Arjuna），鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）翻譯為『樹』，慈恩三藏（Ci En Sanzang）翻譯為『猛』，都不是敵對的正譯。之所以知道這一點，是因為最近問過大原三藏（Da Yuan Sanzang），他說西國習俗都說，前代有勇猛壯健之人，名叫阿順那，翻譯為『猛』，只是指那個人，不是正確翻譯他的名字。而且西國有一種色樹，也名叫阿順那。這位菩薩在樹下出生。

【English Translation】 English version The twelve gates entering into the meaning of emptiness. This is a supreme and expedient method for entering the true emptiness. These two meanings are combined, meaning that without eliminating attachments, one cannot enter emptiness; eliminating attachments is reliance. Without entering emptiness, one cannot eliminate attachments; reliance is elimination. 'Gate' also has three meanings: first, the meaning of encompassing, referring to these twelve gates, each of which encompasses and gathers all the countless dharmas to be eliminated, hence they are called 'gates,' like chapter gates, etc. Second, the meaning of revealing, referring to revealing and manifesting the principle of true emptiness through these twelve gates, therefore they are called 'gates,' like opening the gate of expedient means to reveal the true aspect, etc. Third, the meaning of leading to, referring to enabling people to practice according to these gates and reach the realm of true emptiness. Among these, 'twelve' is 'gate,' which is an explanation with a number. There are also versions that write 'Contemplating the Twelve Gates,' where 'contemplation' means discerning and illuminating. Moreover, there are two kinds of discerning and illuminating: first, illuminating the mundane, referring to contemplating these twelve categories of dharmas; second, contemplating the truth, referring to, on these twelve dharmas, breaking through appearances, revealing and illuminating true emptiness, so that the mind has no attachment, hence it is called 'contemplation.' Here, according to the latter meaning, 'contemplation' is wisdom, and 'twelve gates' are the realm. The realm and wisdom are combined. Such realm and wisdom are the meaning to be explained. 'Treatise' is the teaching that can explain, referring to using reason to exhaustively examine, so that all appearances disappear forever, hence it is called 'treatise.' Also, using skillful debate to inquire and question, so that the attached mind has nothing to rely on, it is also called 'treatise.' 'Contemplating the Gate of Conditions' should be listed separately. It refers to personally distinguishing the substance of dharma as 'cause,' being distant and assisting in initiating as 'condition,' seeking non-self-nature as 'contemplation,' and enlightening to true emptiness as 'gate.' It is the first of the twelve gates, so it is called 'first.' (The six characters 'Contemplating the Gate of Conditions First' are connected to the title in the ancient version, so it is explained here.) Composed by Nagarjuna Bodhisattva, whose Sanskrit name is Nagarjuna. Naga, here translated as 'dragon.' Arjuna, Kumarajiva translated as 'tree,' Ci En Sanzang translated as 'fierce,' neither of which is an opposing correct translation. The reason for knowing this is that I recently asked Da Yuan Sanzang, who said that the customs of the Western countries all say that in the previous generation there was a brave and strong person named Arjuna, and translating it as 'fierce' only refers to that person, and is not a correct translation of his name. Moreover, there is a colored tree in the Western countries that is also called Arjuna. This Bodhisattva was born under the tree.

。因名阿順那。是故翻為樹者。亦指彼樹。非正翻名。阿順那雖俱無正翻。就義指事。樹得人失。以于樹下而生。龍宮悟道。故云龍樹。菩薩者。若具應云菩提薩埵。諸論通釋。總有三義。一菩提。此云覺。則所求也。薩埵。此云生。則所度也。此二俱是所緣境。則從境為名。如白骨觀等。二菩提同前。是所求境。薩埵。是能求行者。則能所合目。境智為名。三薩埵。此云勇猛。謂于大菩提。勇猛求故。以菩下略提。薩下略埵。故云菩薩也。造者。是製作也。

第十隨文解釋者。諸論之首。皆有歸敬等頌。此論無者。為存略也。以此論是略論故。亦是作者隨意。有無無在。就此論中。文別有二。初標宗辨意。二從釋空者下。開宗解釋。前中三。先標宗。二問曰下。辨意。三大分下。會意歸宗。前中說曰者。問答稱論。直言曰說。又成教傳通曰論。曲授門人曰說。曰者。語辭也。略解者。略有四義。一約人。謂對佛果圓音大無礙辯。廣說般若二十萬頌。今此龍樹。位居不足。證法未圓。所說非廣。故云略也。二約教。謂龍樹所造大無畏論十萬頌。對彼說此以為略也。三約義。謂空為法本。有為末相。若演本從末。隨俗萬差。以為廣說。若攝末歸本。就理要妙。以為略說。則要略之略也。故文云但解空義。此之謂也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，（此樹）被命名為阿順那（Asun那，樹名）。所以，翻譯為『樹』，也是指那棵樹，並非是名字的直接翻譯。阿順那（Asun那）雖然都沒有直接的翻譯，但就意義而言，是指那件事。『樹』得到了，『人』卻失去了，因為（龍樹菩薩）在樹下出生，在龍宮悟道，所以稱為龍樹（Nāgārjuna）。菩薩（Bodhisattva）這個詞，如果完整地說，應該是菩提薩埵（Bodhisattva）。各種論著普遍解釋說，總共有三種含義：第一，菩提（Bodhi），這裡譯為『覺悟』，是所追求的目標。薩埵（Sattva），這裡譯為『眾生』，是所要度化的對象。這兩者都是所緣的境界，因此從境界來命名，如白骨觀等。第二，菩提（Bodhi）與前相同，是所追求的境界。薩埵（Sattva）是能追求的修行者。這是能與所的結合，以境界和智慧來命名。第三，薩埵（Sattva），這裡譯為『勇猛』，指的是對於大菩提（Mahābodhi），勇猛地追求。因為菩提薩埵（Bodhisattva）中，『菩』省略了『提』，『薩』省略了『埵』，所以稱為菩薩（Bodhisattva）。『造』，是製作的意思。第十，隨文解釋：各種論著的開頭，都有歸敬頌等。這部論著沒有，是爲了省略。因為這部論著是簡略的論著。也是作者隨意的，有或沒有都可以。就這部論著來說，從文體上分為兩部分：首先是標明宗旨，辨明意義；其次是從『釋空者』開始，展開對宗旨的解釋。在第一部分中，又分為三部分：首先是標明宗旨；其次是『問曰』以下，辨明意義；再次是『大分』以下，會合意義，歸於宗旨。在第一部分中，『說曰』指的是問答稱為論，直接說為『曰』或『說』。又，成就教法，傳揚流通稱為『論』，委婉地傳授給門人稱為『說』。『曰』是語氣詞。『略解』有四種含義：第一，就人而言，相對於佛果圓滿的音聲和大無礙辯才，廣說般若二十萬頌，現在這位龍樹（Nāgārjuna），地位不足，證悟的法還不圓滿，所說的不是廣說，所以說是『略』。第二，就教法而言，相對於龍樹（Nāgārjuna）所造的大無畏論十萬頌，對此而言，這部論著是簡略的。第三，就意義而言，空是法的根本，有是末端的現象。如果從根本演化到末端，隨著世俗的千差萬別，就是廣說。如果攝末歸本，就理而言，精要微妙，就是略說。這是精要中的精要。所以文中說『但解空義』，就是這個意思。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is named Asun那 (Asun那, name of a tree). So, translating it as 'tree' also refers to that tree, and is not a direct translation of the name. Although neither Asun那 (Asun那) has a direct translation, in terms of meaning, it refers to that event. 'Tree' is obtained, but 'person' is lost, because (Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva) was born under the tree and attained enlightenment in the Dragon Palace, so it is called Nāgārjuna (Nāgārjuna). The term Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva), if said in full, should be Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva). Various treatises generally explain that there are three meanings in total: First, Bodhi (Bodhi), here translated as 'awakening', is the goal to be pursued. Sattva (Sattva), here translated as 'sentient beings', is the object to be liberated. Both of these are the objects of contemplation, so they are named from the object, such as the White Bone Contemplation, etc. Second, Bodhi (Bodhi) is the same as before, it is the object to be pursued. Sattva (Sattva) is the practitioner who can pursue. This is the combination of the able and the object, named by the realm and wisdom. Third, Sattva (Sattva), here translated as 'courageous', refers to the courageous pursuit of Mahābodhi (Mahābodhi). Because in Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva), '菩' omits '提', and '薩' omits '埵', so it is called Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva). '造' means to create. Tenth, explaining the text: At the beginning of various treatises, there are verses of homage, etc. This treatise does not have them, in order to omit them. Because this treatise is a concise treatise. It is also up to the author, whether to have them or not. In terms of this treatise, it is divided into two parts in terms of style: first, to state the purpose and distinguish the meaning; second, starting from '釋空者', to unfold the explanation of the purpose. In the first part, it is divided into three parts: first, to state the purpose; second, from '問曰' onwards, to distinguish the meaning; third, from '大分' onwards, to combine the meaning and return to the purpose. In the first part, '說曰' refers to question and answer being called a treatise, directly saying '曰' or '說'. Also, accomplishing the Dharma, propagating and circulating it is called '論', and subtly imparting it to disciples is called '說'. '曰' is a modal particle. '略解' has four meanings: First, in terms of people, relative to the Buddha's perfect sound and great unobstructed eloquence, broadly speaking of the Prajna of 200,000 verses, now this Nāgārjuna (Nāgārjuna), his position is insufficient, and the Dharma he has realized is not yet complete, what he says is not broad, so it is said to be '略'. Second, in terms of the Dharma, relative to the Great Fearless Treatise of 100,000 verses created by Nāgārjuna (Nāgārjuna), this treatise is concise in comparison. Third, in terms of meaning, emptiness is the root of the Dharma, and existence is the end phenomenon. If it evolves from the root to the end, following the myriad differences of the world, it is a broad explanation. If the end is brought back to the root, in terms of principle, it is essential and subtle, it is a concise explanation. This is the essence of the essence. Therefore, the text says '但解空義', which is what it means.

。四約機。謂佛在世。為利根大士所說為廣。佛滅度后。菩薩為彼末世鈍根所說為略。今此文中。具斯四釋。故云略也。言解者。辨釋也。但佛經所說。義理多門。未知今者解釋何義。為揀彼小乘非此所釋。故云摩訶衍義。摩訶。此云大。衍者。此云乘。此大乘名。后論自釋。義者。是所以也。則是所詮義理。謂真空也。第二辨意中。有三番問答。以辨其意。初一明法義利。次一彰略非廣。后一顯法名義。初中先問后答。答中二。先嘆本法甚深。后明作論之意。前中有二種甚深。初嘆證甚深。謂諸佛所有故。二嘆阿含甚深。為大功德利根者說故。又初則主勝故法深。后則機勝故法深。以若非諸佛大人無以能說。若非菩薩大士無以堪受。是故此法。玄軌妙則。無不甚深。故名為法。則法含攝蘊積。包容諸勝德故。名之為藏。大功德是福勝。利根是智深。者是人。謂具勝福深智之者。方堪為器。顯法深也。后明作論意。于中二。先答利。后光闡下。答義。何故此中先利后義者。謂表菩薩大士宜以接物為先故也。又釋。初是饒益有情。后是成就佛法。依瑜伽等論。然諸菩薩從初發心。常修如此二種正行。亦是二利行也。前中二。先明所被劣根。后明論主設教。前中末世者。時劣也。此有二義。一從佛滅后。總名末世。二謂正

【現代漢語翻譯】四約機（根據四種根機）。說佛在世時，為利根大士（具有敏銳根器的大菩薩）所說的法廣博。佛滅度后，菩薩為末世鈍根（根器遲鈍的眾生）所說的法簡略。現在這篇文章中，具備這四種解釋，所以說是『略』。『解』是指辨析解釋。但是佛經所說的義理有很多方面，不知道現在解釋的是哪種義理。爲了區別于小乘，說明這裡解釋的是『摩訶衍義』。『摩訶』，譯為『大』。『衍』，譯為『乘』。這個大乘的名稱，後面的論述會自行解釋。『義』，是『所以』，也就是所要詮釋的義理，指的是真空。第二部分辨析意義，有三番問答來辨析它的意義。第一部分闡明法義利益，第二部分彰顯簡略而非廣博，第三部分顯示法名意義。第一部分先問后答。回答中分為兩部分，先讚歎本法的甚深，后說明寫作論著的意圖。前面讚歎甚深又分為兩種，首先讚歎證悟的甚深，因為是諸佛所證得的。其次讚歎阿含的甚深，因為是為具有大功德和利根的人所說。又，前者是因為主體的殊勝所以法深，後者是因為根機的殊勝所以法深。如果不是諸佛大人，就無法宣說；如果不是菩薩大士，就無法承受。因此，這個法，玄妙的法則，無不甚深，所以稱為『法』。『法』包含、蘊積、包容各種殊勝的功德，所以稱之為『藏』。大功德是福德殊勝，利根是智慧深厚。『者』是指人，指具有殊勝福德和深厚智慧的人，才能成為法器，彰顯法的甚深。後面說明寫作論著的意圖，分為兩部分，先回答利益，后在『光闡』之下，回答意義。為什麼這裡先說利益后說意義呢？是爲了表明菩薩大士應該以接引眾生為先。又一種解釋是，前面是饒益有情（利益眾生），後面是成就佛法。依據《瑜伽師地論》等論著，諸位菩薩從最初發心，常常修習這兩種正行，也是二利行（利益自己和利益他人）。前面又分為兩部分，先說明所教化的劣根，后說明論主設立教法。前面所說的末世，是指時代不好。這裡有兩種含義，一種是從佛滅度后，總稱為末世，另一種是指正

【English Translation】 The Four Considerations of Capacity (Si Yue Ji). It is said that when the Buddha was in the world, the Dharma spoken for those with sharp faculties, the great Bodhisattvas (Ligen Dashi, Bodhisattvas with keen faculties), was extensive. After the Buddha's Parinirvana, the Dharma spoken by Bodhisattvas for those with dull faculties in the degenerate age (Mo Shi Dun Gen, beings with dull faculties in the degenerate age) was concise. Now, this text encompasses these four explanations, hence it is called 'concise'. 'Explanation' (Jie) refers to distinguishing and interpreting. However, the principles and meanings spoken of in the Buddhist scriptures are multifaceted, and it is unknown which meaning is being explained here. To differentiate it from the Hinayana, it is stated that what is being explained here is the 'Mahayana meaning' (Mohe Yan Yi). 'Mahayana' (Mohe) is translated as 'Great'. 'Yana' (Yan) is translated as 'Vehicle'. The name of this Great Vehicle will be explained later in the treatise itself. 'Meaning' (Yi) is 'the reason why', which is the principle to be elucidated, referring to Emptiness (Zhen Kong). The second part, discerning the meaning, has three sets of questions and answers to discern its meaning. The first part elucidates the benefits of the Dharma's meaning, the second part highlights conciseness rather than extensiveness, and the third part reveals the meaning of the Dharma's name. The first part is question and answer. The answer is divided into two parts: first, praising the profoundness of the fundamental Dharma; second, explaining the intention of writing the treatise. The preceding praise of profoundness is further divided into two types: first, praising the profoundness of realization, because it is what all Buddhas have realized. Second, praising the profoundness of the Agamas, because they are spoken for those with great merit and sharp faculties. Furthermore, the former is profound because of the superiority of the subject, and the latter is profound because of the superiority of the capacity. If it were not for the great Buddhas, it would be impossible to proclaim; if it were not for the great Bodhisattvas, it would be impossible to receive. Therefore, this Dharma, the profound principles, is all profound, hence it is called 'Dharma'. 'Dharma' encompasses, accumulates, and includes all kinds of superior virtues, hence it is called 'Treasury' (Cang). Great merit is superior fortune, and sharp faculties are profound wisdom. 'Those' (Zhe) refers to people, referring to those with superior fortune and profound wisdom, who can become vessels of the Dharma, revealing the profoundness of the Dharma. The latter explains the intention of writing the treatise, divided into two parts: first, answering the benefit; second, under 'elucidating', answering the meaning. Why is benefit mentioned before meaning here? It is to indicate that great Bodhisattvas should prioritize guiding sentient beings. Another explanation is that the former is benefiting sentient beings (Rao Yi You Qing, benefiting sentient beings), and the latter is accomplishing the Buddha Dharma. According to treatises such as the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Yuqie Shidi Lun), all Bodhisattvas, from the initial aspiration, constantly cultivate these two correct practices, which are also the two beneficial practices (Er Li Xing, benefiting oneself and others). The preceding is further divided into two parts: first, explaining the inferior capacity being taught; second, explaining the treatise master establishing the teachings. The degenerate age (Mo Shi) mentioned earlier refers to a bad era. There are two meanings here: one is that from the Buddha's Parinirvana onwards, it is generally called the degenerate age; the other refers to the Proper

法五百年已后。總名末世。眾生薄福等者。人劣也。謂六大五蘊積成眾生。故云眾生。薄福。翻上大功德。鈍根顯智劣。翻上利根也。尋經不達者。謂雖尋文。而不達其義。聞說有無。皆隨言定解。故是迷謬失也。我愍此下。明論主起悲設教。論興由致。答利益也。第二答義中。謂此菩薩光揚開闡無上大法。令久住世報佛恩故。是瑜伽論菩薩造論六意之中。為令失沒種種義門重開顯故。此之謂也。第二問答顯略說中。先問后答可知。第三顯名義中。先問后答中。大有七義。一對小超過故。二能至大處故。三大人所乘故。亦是曾運大。四利用廣大故。五多所乘故。亦是現運大。六廣大甚深故。謂廣盡其邊。則是無邊之邊。量智境也。深窮其底。則是無底之底。理智境也。七攝功德大故佛經自說。又如集論。乘有七義。起信論中三義。皆有運轉義。是乘以無分別智為性等。廣如別說。第三會意歸宗中亦三。先標舉法體。大分者。是大都之言耳。謂諸法萬差。大都總相。無非是空故。不礙諸法。未嘗不空。故說真空。名為深義。二明其勝用者。若通達如此真空。則萬行皆悉圓備。略舉六度以為行本。無障礙者。此有三義。一約境。謂真空不礙萬行。萬行不礙真空。故云無礙。亦乃即真空為萬行。萬行未曾不空。即萬行為真空

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本法五百年之後，總稱為末世。眾生薄福等等，是指人的素質低劣。所謂眾生，是指六大（地、水、火、風、空、識）五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）積聚而成，所以稱為眾生。薄福，是相對於大功德而言。鈍根，是顯示智慧的低下，相對於利根而言。尋經不達，是指雖然尋覓經文，卻不能理解其中的含義。聽聞有無之說，都隨言語而固定理解，所以是迷惑謬誤。我憐憫這些（眾生），下面闡明論主發起悲心而設立教法，論著興起的緣由和目的，是爲了利益眾生。第二點回答意義中，是指這位菩薩光大弘揚無上大法，使之長久住世以報答佛恩。這是《瑜伽師地論》中菩薩造論的六種意圖之一，爲了使已經失落的各種義理重新開啟顯現。這就是這個意思。第二問答顯示略說中，先問后答，可以理解。第三顯示名義中，先問后答中，『大』有七種含義：一是對小而言，有超過之義；二是能到達大的境界；三是大人物所乘坐的（工具），也是曾經運載過大的（事物）；四是利用廣大；五是多數人所乘坐的，也是現在運載大的（事物）；六是廣大而又深邃，所謂廣盡其邊，就是無邊之邊，是衡量智慧的境界；深究其底，就是無底之底，是理智的境界；七是包含功德之大。佛經自己這樣說。又如《集論》。『乘』有七種含義，《起信論》中有三種含義，都有運轉的含義。『乘』是以無分別智為體性等等，詳細內容如其他論述。第三會意歸宗中也有三點。首先標舉法的本體。大分，是大概、總體的意思。是指諸法萬千差別，大概總體的相狀，無非是空，所以不妨礙諸法。未曾不是空，所以說真空，稱為深義。二是闡明它的殊勝作用，如果通達如此真空，那麼萬行都能夠圓滿具備。簡略地舉出六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）作為修行的根本。無障礙，這裡有三種含義：一是就境界而言，所謂真空不妨礙萬行，萬行不妨礙真空，所以稱為無礙。也就是真空即是萬行，萬行未曾不是空，即萬行是真空。

【English Translation】 English version After the first five hundred years of the Dharma, it is generally called the degenerate age (末世). 'Sentient beings with meager blessings (眾生薄福)' refers to people of inferior quality. 'Sentient beings (眾生)' refers to the accumulation of the six great elements (六大) (earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness) and the five aggregates (五蘊) (form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness), hence the name 'sentient beings.' 'Meager blessings (薄福)' is in contrast to great merit. 'Dull roots (鈍根)' indicates the inferiority of wisdom, in contrast to sharp roots (利根). 'Seeking scriptures without understanding (尋經不達)' means seeking the words but not grasping their meaning. Hearing about existence and non-existence, they fix their understanding according to the words, hence it is delusion and error. 'I pity these (我愍此下)' below clarifies that the author of the treatise arises with compassion to establish the teachings, the cause and purpose of the treatise's emergence, is to benefit sentient beings. The second point in answering the meaning is that this Bodhisattva greatly propagates and elucidates the unsurpassed Dharma, enabling it to abide in the world for a long time to repay the Buddha's kindness. This is one of the six intentions of Bodhisattvas composing treatises in the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (瑜伽師地論), to re-open and reveal the various meanings that have been lost. This is what it means. In the second question and answer, showing the brief explanation, the question comes before the answer, which can be understood. In the third, showing the name and meaning, in the question and answer, 'Great (大)' has seven meanings: first, in relation to small, it has the meaning of exceeding; second, it can reach a great realm; third, it is what great people ride, and it is also what has carried great things; fourth, it is widely used; fifth, it is ridden by many people, and it is also what is currently carrying great things; sixth, it is vast and profound, so-called 'widely exhausting its edge' is the edge of boundlessness, which is the realm of measuring wisdom; 'deeply investigating its bottom' is the bottom of bottomlessness, which is the realm of rational wisdom; seventh, it encompasses the greatness of merit. The Buddhist scriptures themselves say this. Also, like the Abhidharma-samuccaya (集論). 'Vehicle (乘)' has seven meanings, the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (起信論) has three meanings, all of which have the meaning of turning. 'Vehicle' is characterized by non-discriminating wisdom, etc., as detailed in other discussions. In the third, understanding the meaning and returning to the source, there are also three points. First, it highlights the substance of the Dharma. 'Great division (大分)' means general, overall. It refers to the myriad differences of all dharmas, the general overall characteristics, are none other than emptiness, so it does not hinder all dharmas. It has never not been empty, so it is called true emptiness (真空), which is called profound meaning. Second, it clarifies its excellent function, if one understands such true emptiness, then all practices can be fully equipped. Briefly listing the six perfections (六度) (generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom) as the foundation of practice. 'Without obstruction (無障礙)' has three meanings here: first, in terms of realm, so-called true emptiness does not hinder myriad practices, myriad practices do not hinder true emptiness, so it is called unobstructed. That is, true emptiness is myriad practices, myriad practices have never not been empty, that is, myriad practices are true emptiness.

。真空未嘗不行。故云無礙也。二約智。謂照空之智。則具萬行。萬行即智。無有障礙。故云若通達。通達則是智也。三約俱融。謂智有二義。一從緣虛故。虛無不盡。智同境也。二虛盡唯空。未嘗失照。境即智也。以即空之妙智。還照即智之真空。是故終日照而無照。終日境而無境。無境無智。而境智宛然。故名通達。亦云無障礙也。是故下。第三結意歸宗可知。

第二大段開宗解釋。于中二。先標數開門。后初是下。隨門別釋中。十二門則為十二段。

觀因緣門第一

初門中三。初標起章門。二立頌略示。后釋頌廣顯。頌中上半舉法。下半徴情。又上半明緣生故無性。下半顯無性故即空。若具言此中有兩重比量。以初成后。何者。上半明一切有為法皆無自性。宗。以從緣生故。因。喻可知。下半明有為法定空。宗。以無自性故。因。喻亦可知。三釋頌廣顯中二。初明有為空。后類顯我及無為一切皆空。前中三。一牒舉果。二如是下。破顯無性。三是故下。結有為空。初中三。先開果有內外。二開緣亦內外。三釋顯內外緣果此中先辨外事。有五事。各有因緣及所生法。並可知。后顯內報。謂十二因緣。依小乘宗。皆前支為因生后支故。具有因緣及所生法。亦可知。亦是釋頌中初句竟。二破顯無性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本真空從未停止執行。因此說沒有阻礙。第二是關於智慧。指的是照亮空性的智慧，具備萬行（各種修行）。萬行即是智慧，沒有障礙。因此說如果通達。通達就是智慧。第三是關於俱融。指的是智慧有兩種含義。一是由於因緣而虛空，虛空無窮無盡，智慧與境界相同。二是虛空窮盡唯有空性，從未失去照耀，境界即是智慧。用這即空（當下就是空性）的微妙智慧，反過來照耀這即智（當下就是智慧）的真空。因此整天照耀卻好像沒有照耀，整天處於境界中卻好像沒有境界。沒有境界沒有智慧，而境界和智慧卻又清晰分明。因此名為通達，也叫做沒有障礙。因此下面，第三部分總結意義迴歸宗旨，可以理解。第二大段，開宗明義地解釋。其中分為兩部分。先標出數量開啟門徑，后'初是下'，隨著門徑分別解釋。十二門就是十二段。觀因緣門第一第一門中分為三部分。首先標出章節的開始，其次立頌簡略地揭示，最後解釋頌文廣泛地闡明。頌文中，上半部分舉出法，下半部分提出疑問。又上半部分說明緣起所以無自性，下半部分顯示無自性所以即是空。如果完整地說，這裡面有兩重比量（推理）。用第一個來成就第二個。什麼呢？上半部分說明一切有為法（有條件的事物）都沒有自性。這是宗（論點），因為是從因緣而生。這是因（理由）。比喻可以理解。下半部分說明有為法必定是空性。這是宗（論點），因為沒有自性。這是因（理由）。比喻也可以理解。第三部分解釋頌文廣泛地闡明，分為兩部分。首先說明有為是空性，然後類比地顯示我和無為（無條件的事物）一切都是空性。前面一部分中分為三部分。首先列舉果（結果），其次'如是下'，破除並顯示無自性，最後'是故下'，總結有為是空性。第一部分中分為三部分。首先區分果有內外，其次區分緣也有內外，再次解釋並顯示內外因緣果。這裡面首先辨別外事。有五件事，各有因緣和所生法，並且可以理解。然後顯示內報，指的是十二因緣。按照小乘宗的觀點，都是前一個支（環節）作為因產生后一個支，因此具有因緣和所生法，也可以理解。這也是解釋頌文中第一句完畢。第二部分，破除並顯示無自性。

【English Translation】 English version The true emptiness has never ceased to function. Therefore, it is said to be without obstruction. Second, regarding wisdom (智, zhì). It refers to the wisdom that illuminates emptiness, possessing myriad practices (萬行, wàn xíng). Myriad practices are wisdom, without obstruction. Therefore, it is said 'if one penetrates.' Penetration is wisdom. Third, regarding the mutual fusion (俱融, jù róng). It refers to wisdom having two meanings. First, due to conditions being empty, emptiness is inexhaustible, wisdom is the same as the realm. Second, when emptiness is exhausted, only emptiness remains, never losing its illumination, the realm is wisdom. Using this wondrous wisdom of 'is emptiness' (即空, jí kōng), it reflects back upon the true emptiness of 'is wisdom' (即智, jí zhì). Therefore, all day long it illuminates as if not illuminating, all day long it is in the realm as if not in the realm. Without realm and without wisdom, yet the realm and wisdom are clearly distinct. Therefore, it is named 'penetration,' also called 'without obstruction.' Therefore, below, the third part concludes the meaning and returns to the principle, which can be understood. The second major section, explaining the doctrine by opening up its meaning. It is divided into two parts. First, it marks the number to open the gate, then '初是下' (chū shì xià), explains separately according to the gate. The twelve gates are twelve sections. The Gate of Observing Conditions (觀因緣門, guān yīn yuán mén) First The first gate is divided into three parts. First, it marks the beginning of the chapter, second, it establishes a verse to briefly reveal, and finally, it explains the verse extensively. In the verse, the first half cites the Dharma, and the second half raises questions. Also, the first half explains that arising from conditions means no self-nature, and the second half reveals that no self-nature means it is emptiness. If stated completely, there are two layers of inference here. Using the first to accomplish the second. What is it? The first half explains that all conditioned dharmas (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) have no self-nature. This is the thesis (宗, zōng), because it arises from conditions. This is the reason (因, yīn). The analogy can be understood. The second half explains that conditioned dharmas are definitely emptiness. This is the thesis, because there is no self-nature. This is the reason. The analogy can also be understood. The third part explains the verse extensively, divided into two parts. First, it explains that conditioned things are emptiness, and then analogously shows that I and unconditioned things (無為, wú wéi) are all emptiness. The first part is divided into three parts. First, it lists the result (果, guǒ), second, '如是下' (rú shì xià), refutes and reveals no self-nature, and finally, '是故下' (shì gù xià), concludes that conditioned things are emptiness. The first part is divided into three parts. First, it distinguishes the result as internal and external, second, it distinguishes the conditions as internal and external, and third, it explains and reveals the internal and external conditions and results. Here, it first distinguishes external matters. There are five matters, each with causes and conditions and the dharmas produced, and can be understood. Then it reveals the internal retribution, referring to the twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣, shí èr yīn yuán). According to the Hinayana school's view, each preceding link is the cause of the subsequent link, therefore having causes and conditions and the dharmas produced, and can also be understood. This also completes the explanation of the first sentence in the verse. Second part, refuting and revealing no self-nature.

中二。先總顯。謂內外法既各如是攬緣而成。豈非即是無自性耶。若有自體。豈更緣故。涅槃經云。譬如青黃合成綠色。當知是二。本無綠性。若本有者。何須合成。二若法自性無下。別顯無性。于中先外后內。外中二。先正破。后類結。前中初標。列自他共。三章俱無。二何以故下。徴釋。于中先徴后釋。釋中先釋自性無。后釋他性無。不釋第三共生。以自他若破。無別共故。就釋初中。謂自性若有。則不因他。以因他故。自性無也。二若謂下。釋他性無中有三。初他成別體故非因。二若謂下。因同果體故非他。三又蒲下。因復無性失自他。又釋此三。初約疏。二約親。三俱非。初中二。先約情縱破。謂若他生者。牛應生馬。種梨生柰等也。后而實不然者。就理奪破也。二若謂下。就親破。亦是明因同果體故非他。于中三。初牒救總非。謂外計云。他有二種。一非因之他。如牛于馬可不相生。二是因之他。如蒲于席何得不生。前文但云他不言因。此中說因而不言他故也。此救非理。故云不然。二徴不然所以。三正釋破。于中初存因失他。故非因是奪破也。若謂是因而非他者。因既于果而非他。則蒲席一體體既是一。則失於因。因既失矣。他生之義安在。二存他失因。是緣破也。謂若是他。因非因故。前則以因為他不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中二。首先總的顯示。意思是內外之法既然各自如此，聚合因緣而成，難道不是就是沒有自性嗎？如果存在自體，哪裡還需要因緣呢？《涅槃經》說：『譬如青色和黃色混合成綠色，應當知道這兩種顏色，本來沒有綠色的性質。如果本來就有，何必混合呢？』二、如果法自性不存在，下面分別顯示無自性。其中先說外法，后說內法。外法中分二：先是正面破斥，后是類比總結。前面（正破）中，首先標出，列出自性、他性、共生三種情況，都說它們不存在。二、『何以故下』，是征問解釋。其中先征問，后解釋。解釋中，先解釋自性不存在，后解釋他性不存在。不解釋第三種共生，因為自性和他性如果被破斥，就沒有單獨的共生了。在解釋自性不存在中，意思是如果自性存在，就不依賴於其他。因為依賴於其他，所以自性不存在。二、『若謂下』，解釋他性不存在，其中有三點：第一，他（因）和果成為不同的個體，所以不是因；第二，『若謂下』，因和果的本體相同，所以不是他；第三，『又蒲下』，因又沒有自性，失去了自性和他性。又解釋這三點，第一點從粗略的角度說，第二點從親近的角度說，第三點是兩者都不是。第一點中分二：先是從情理上縱容對方的觀點進行破斥，意思是如果他能生，那麼牛應該生馬，梨樹應該生柰等。后『而實不然者』，是從道理上駁奪破斥。二、『若謂下』，從親近的角度破斥，也是說明因和果的本體相同，所以不是他。其中有三點：第一，先是引用對方的辯解並總的否定，意思是外道認為，他有兩種，一種是非因的他，比如牛和馬可以不互相產生；另一種是因的他，比如蒲草和蓆子怎麼能不互相產生。前面的經文只是說『他』，沒有說『因』，這裡說『因』而沒有說『他』。這種辯解不合道理，所以說『不然』。第二，征問為什麼不合道理。第三，正式解釋破斥。其中首先儲存因，失去他，所以非因是駁奪破斥。如果說是因而不是他，因既然對於果而不是他，那麼蒲草和蓆子就是一體，本體既然是一，就失去了因。因既然失去了，他生的意義在哪裡？第二，儲存他，失去因，這是緣破。意思是如果是他，因就不是因了，前面是以因為他不對。

【English Translation】 English version Two. First, a general display. This means that the internal and external dharmas are each as they are, assembled by conditions. Isn't this precisely the absence of inherent nature (Skt: svabhāva)? If there were an inherent self, why would it need conditions? The Nirvana Sutra says: 'For example, when blue and yellow are combined to make green, one should know that these two originally did not have the nature of green. If it originally existed, why would it need to be combined?' Two, if the inherent nature of dharmas does not exist, then separately show the absence of inherent nature. Among them, first discuss external dharmas, then internal dharmas. In external dharmas, there are two parts: first, a direct refutation; second, an analogy for conclusion. In the first part (direct refutation), first label, listing self-nature, other-nature, and co-arising, all three are said to be non-existent. Two, 'Why below' is a question and explanation. Among them, first question, then explain. In the explanation, first explain the non-existence of self-nature, then explain the non-existence of other-nature. The third, co-arising, is not explained, because if self and other are refuted, there is no separate co-arising. In explaining the non-existence of self-nature, it means that if self-nature exists, it does not depend on others. Because it depends on others, self-nature does not exist. Two, 'If you say below', explains the non-existence of other-nature, which has three points: First, the other (cause) and the effect become different entities, so it is not a cause; Second, 'If you say below', the substance of the cause and the effect are the same, so it is not other; Third, 'Also, the cattail below', the cause also has no self-nature, losing both self-nature and other-nature. Also explain these three points, the first point is from a rough perspective, the second point is from a close perspective, and the third point is neither. The first point is divided into two: first, from a rational perspective, indulge the other party's point of view for refutation, meaning that if it can produce, then a cow should produce a horse, a pear tree should produce a nara (a type of fruit), etc. Later, 'But in reality it is not so', is to refute and break from the principle. Two, 'If you say below', refute from a close perspective, also explaining that the substance of the cause and the effect are the same, so it is not other. There are three points: First, first quote the other party's defense and generally deny it, meaning that the heretics believe that there are two kinds of other, one is the other that is not a cause, such as cows and horses may not produce each other; the other is the other that is a cause, such as cattails and mats, how can they not produce each other. The previous scripture only said 'other', did not say 'cause', here it says 'cause' but does not say 'other'. This defense is unreasonable, so it says 'not so'. Second, ask why it is unreasonable. Third, formally explain the refutation. Among them, first preserve the cause, lose the other, so non-cause is a refutation. If it is said to be a cause but not other, since the cause is for the effect but not other, then the cattails and the mat are one body, and since the substance is one, the cause is lost. Since the cause is lost, where is the meaning of other-birth? Second, preserve the other, lose the cause, this is a conditional refutation. It means that if it is other, the cause is not a cause, the previous one was wrong because the cause was other.

成。后則以他為因。又前由一故不成生。後由異故亦不生。是故他不生也。亦可前中量云。因定不生果。以與果法不別故。猶如果法。后義量云。因定不生果。以與果異故。猶如非因法。三推因無性失他。于中遮外救云。上來或異同非因。或一同果法。俱不得生。而實生理非一非異。故得相生。今破意云。若有此因。可與果非一異。而能生於果。今推求此因亦無自性。以從眾緣成故。猶如果法。是故無體可能生也。文中有四。初標。二徴。三釋。四結。釋中先釋蒲無自體。后辨無力成席。謂自體尚無。何有力用。是故下結可知。二餘瓶下。類餘一切外因緣法皆不可得。第二釋破內法緣果之中有二。初略指同前破。亦是懸標後文破。二引頌廣顯破。此中二。初引頌。相傳此七十論。亦是龍樹所造。有七十頌。故名也。頌中初句顯正理。次句牒執。下二句徴破。又可初句奪破。后三句縱破。又可初句標無生。后三句釋無生。二釋頌中。先釋文顯宗。后結因果俱空。釋中先立正義。亦是釋頌初句。就理奪破。二若謂下。破外情計。亦釋下三句縱破。此中三。先開兩關定。二次第別破。三雙結俱非。第二別破中二。先約一心破俱。縱其所立。謂正無明上心時。行等亦應同時。又因果下。奪其因果。文中。先標舉。后釋成。二約

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本成。之後則以『他』（其他因緣）作為原因。又，先前因為『一』（相同）的緣故，不能產生；之後因為『異』（不同）的緣故，也不能產生。所以，『他』不能產生。也可以用前面的量式來說：『因』必定不能產生『果』，因為它與『果』的法沒有區別，就像『果』的法一樣。後面的義量式說：『因』必定不能產生『果』，因為它與『果』不同，就像非『因』的法一樣。三次推論『因』沒有自性，否定『他』。其中，爲了遮止外道的辯解，他們說：『上面所說的或者相同或者不同都不是『因』，或者相同于『果』的法，都不能產生。但實際上，事物產生的原因既非『一』也非『異』，所以才能相互產生。』現在破斥這種觀點：『如果存在這樣的『因』，可以與『果』既非『一』也非『異』，並且能夠產生『果』，那麼現在推求這個『因』也沒有自性，因為它是由眾多因緣和合而成，就像『果』的法一樣。所以，沒有實體的東西不可能產生任何事物。』文中包含四個部分：第一是標示，第二是征問，第三是解釋，第四是結論。解釋中，先解釋蒲草沒有自體，后辨析蒲草沒有力量編成蓆子。意思是說，自體尚且不存在，哪裡來的力量和作用呢？所以，下面的結論部分可以自己理解。二、『余瓶』（其他的瓶子）以下，類似於其他一切外在因緣法，都是不可得的。第二部分解釋破斥內在法緣果，其中包含兩個部分：第一是簡略地指出與前面破斥相同，也是懸置標示後面的破斥。第二是引用頌文廣泛地顯示破斥。這裡面包含兩個部分：第一是引用頌文。相傳這《七十論》也是龍樹（Nagarjuna）所造，因為有七十個頌，所以得名。頌文的第一句顯示正理，第二句重複執著，下面兩句征問破斥。也可以說第一句是奪取破斥，後面三句是縱容破斥。也可以說第一句標示無生，後面三句解釋無生。第二部分解釋頌文，先解釋文句，顯示宗義，后總結『因』和『果』都是空性的。解釋中，先確立正義，也是解釋頌文的第一句，就道理上奪取破斥。二、『若謂』（如果說）以下，破斥外道的想法，也是解釋下面三句縱容破斥。這裡面包含三個部分：第一是開啟兩個關卡來確定，第二是按次第分別破斥，第三是雙重總結都是錯誤的。第二部分分別破斥中包含兩個部分：第一是就一心來破斥俱生，縱容他們所立的觀點，認為正當無明生起心識的時候，『行』（行為）等也應該同時產生。又，『因果』（原因和結果）以下，奪取他們的『因』和『果』。文中，先標舉，后解釋成就。二、就

【English Translation】 English version It is established. Then, 'other' (other causes and conditions) is taken as the cause. Furthermore, previously, because of 'one' (sameness), it cannot arise; later, because of 'different' (difference), it also cannot arise. Therefore, 'other' cannot arise. It can also be expressed using the previous formula: 'Cause' definitely cannot produce 'effect,' because it is no different from the dharma of 'effect,' just like the dharma of 'effect.' The later formula states: 'Cause' definitely cannot produce 'effect,' because it is different from 'effect,' just like non-'cause' dharma. Three times the argument that 'cause' has no self-nature negates 'other.' Among them, to prevent the externalists' defense, they say: 'What was said above, whether the same or different, is not a 'cause,' or the same as the dharma of 'effect,' cannot arise. But in reality, the cause of things arising is neither 'one' nor 'different,' so they can arise mutually.' Now refuting this view: 'If there exists such a 'cause' that can be neither 'one' nor 'different' from 'effect,' and can produce 'effect,' then now examining this 'cause,' it also has no self-nature, because it is formed by the aggregation of many causes and conditions, just like the dharma of 'effect.' Therefore, something without substance cannot produce anything.' The text contains four parts: first, the indication; second, the inquiry; third, the explanation; and fourth, the conclusion. In the explanation, first explain that the reeds have no self-nature, then analyze that the reeds have no power to weave a mat. The meaning is that if the self-nature does not exist, where does the power and function come from? Therefore, the following conclusion can be understood by oneself. 2. 'Other jars' (other jars) and below, similar to all other external causal conditions, are unattainable. The second part explains the refutation of internal dharma-dependent origination, which contains two parts: first, briefly pointing out the similarity to the previous refutation, also suspending the indication of the subsequent refutation. Second, quoting verses to widely display the refutation. This contains two parts: first, quoting verses. It is said that this 'Seventy Verses' was also created by Nagarjuna, because it has seventy verses, hence the name. The first sentence of the verse reveals the correct principle, the second sentence repeats the attachment, and the following two sentences inquire and refute. It can also be said that the first sentence is a seizing refutation, and the last three sentences are a permissive refutation. It can also be said that the first sentence indicates non-arising, and the last three sentences explain non-arising. The second part explains the verses, first explaining the sentences, revealing the doctrine, and then summarizing that both 'cause' and 'effect' are empty. In the explanation, first establish the correct meaning, which is also explaining the first sentence of the verse, seizing and refuting in terms of reason. 2. 'If it is said' and below, refuting the externalists' ideas, also explaining the following three sentences of permissive refutation. This contains three parts: first, opening two barriers to determine; second, refuting separately in order; and third, doubly concluding that both are wrong. The second part of separate refutation contains two parts: first, refuting co-arising in terms of one mind, indulging their established view, believing that when ignorance arises in the mind, 'action' (karma) etc. should also arise simultaneously. Also, 'cause and effect' (hetuphala) and below, seizing their 'cause' and 'effect.' In the text, first indicate, then explain and accomplish. 2. Regarding

多心破有三。初因果別異破。以不相構及。故非緣生法也。二後果無因破。謂先分無明。與前心俱謝。後分行等。誰為其因。三遮救重破。謂外救云。我前念無明雖滅。能引後行支故為因。如等無間緣。本識中種子。前滅後生等。今破云。汝前心。為已滅。為未滅。若已滅。滅是無物。以何為因。若未滅。則果不得生。以前心破故。三十二因緣下。雙結可知。第三是故下。結緣果皆空可知。二類破中四。初結有為法空可知。二有為尚空下。以法空故。顯我無依。故亦空也。論說法執為因。人執為果。本因既亡。末果隨喪也。以此論明人法二空故。先辨法空者。以正破二乘。兼破外道故。此中三。一標況破。二釋法破。三引證破。釋中二。先順釋。謂因三科有為法積聚故。假說為我。有為既空。假我安在。可然是薪。然是火。反釋可知。引證中。如經說。因我故有我所。如因法有我相似。又釋前法空故我空。此明我空故所空。以所是我之用故。此乃從本向末以說空也。三類顯無為空中。先標類。謂涅槃名寂滅也。二何以故下。釋成。釋成中三。初無法可滅故無滅。二無能得滅故無滅。三複次下。明闕生待對故無滅。四是故下。結三空可知。

十二門論宗致義記捲上大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1826 十二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本多心破有三：第一，因果別異破。因為（前後的心）不互相構成，所以不是緣生法。第二，後果無因破。即先前的無明，與前一剎那的心一同消逝，那麼后一剎那的行等，誰是它的因？第三，遮救重破。即外道辯解說：『我前唸的無明雖然滅了，但能引生后一剎那的行支，所以是因，如同等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，十二因緣之一，指前念為后念生起的直接和無間斷的條件），本識（Ālayavijñāna，阿賴耶識，佛教唯識宗所說的第八識，被認為是儲存一切種子的地方）中的種子，前滅後生等。』現在反駁說：『你的前心，是已經滅了，還是沒有滅？如果已經滅了，滅是空無一物，用什麼作為因？如果未滅，那麼果就不得生，因為被前心阻礙了。』三十二因緣下，雙重總結，可以理解。第三，『是故』下，總結緣和果都是空，可以理解。二類破中有四：第一，總結有為法（Saṃskṛta，由因緣和合而成的法）是空，可以理解。第二，『有為尚空』下，因為法是空的，所以顯示我沒有依靠，因此也是空的。論中說，法執（Dharmagraha，對法的執著）是因，人執（Ātmāgraha，對自我的執著）是果，根本的因已經消亡，末端的果也隨之喪失。用這部論來闡明人法二空，所以先辨析法空，是爲了既破斥二乘（Śrāvaka，聲聞乘，佛教中追求自我解脫的修行方式），又破斥外道（Tīrthika，指佛教以外的其他宗教或哲學流派）。此中分三：第一，標況破。第二，釋法破。第三，引證破。解釋中分二：先順釋，即因為三科（五蘊、十二處、十八界）的有為法積聚，所以假說為我，有為既然是空的，虛假的我又在哪裡？可以理解為柴是燃料，燃燒是火焰。反過來解釋，可以理解。引證中，如經中所說，因為我，所以有我所（Mamakāra，屬於我的事物），如同因為法，所以有我相似。又解釋前文的法空，所以我是空的。這說明我是空的，所以我的所有物也是空的，因為所有物是我的作用。這是從根本到末端來說明空。三類顯無為空中：首先標明類別，即涅槃（Nirvāṇa，佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）名為寂滅。第二，『何以故』下，解釋成立。解釋成立中分三：第一，沒有法可以滅，所以沒有滅。第二，沒有能得到滅的人，所以沒有滅。第三，『複次』下，說明缺少生起的對待，所以沒有滅。第四，『是故』下，總結三空，可以理解。《十二門論宗致義記捲上》大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1826

【English Translation】 English version There are three refutations of the multiple minds' existence. First, the refutation based on the difference between cause and effect. Because they (the preceding and following minds) do not constitute each other, they are not conditioned arising (Pratītyasamutpāda). Second, the refutation based on the absence of a cause for the subsequent effect. That is, the preceding ignorance (Avidyā), together with the previous moment of mind, vanishes. Then, who is the cause for the subsequent actions (Karma) and so on? Third, the repeated refutation of defenses. That is, externalists argue: 'Although my previous moment of ignorance has ceased, it can lead to the subsequent branch of action, so it is a cause, like the immediate condition (Samanantarapratyaya, one of the twelve links of dependent origination, referring to the direct and uninterrupted condition for the arising of the subsequent thought), the seeds in the storehouse consciousness (Ālayavijñāna, the eighth consciousness in Buddhist Yogācāra, considered the place where all seeds are stored), ceasing before and arising after, and so on.' Now, refuting this by saying: 'Is your previous mind already extinguished, or not yet extinguished? If it is already extinguished, extinction is nothing, what is used as the cause? If it is not extinguished, then the effect cannot arise, because it is obstructed by the previous mind.' The following thirty-two conditions can be understood by double summarizing. Third, under 'Therefore,' it is concluded that both cause and effect are empty, which can be understood. There are four in the second type of refutation: First, it is concluded that conditioned phenomena (Saṃskṛta, phenomena that arise from the combination of causes and conditions) are empty, which can be understood. Second, under 'Conditioned phenomena are still empty,' because phenomena are empty, it shows that I have no reliance, so it is also empty. The treatise says that attachment to phenomena (Dharmagraha, clinging to the idea of phenomena as real) is the cause, and attachment to self (Ātmāgraha, clinging to the idea of a self as real) is the effect. The fundamental cause has already perished, and the final effect also perishes with it. This treatise clarifies the emptiness of both self and phenomena, so first analyzing the emptiness of phenomena is to refute both the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, the path of self-liberation in Buddhism) and the externalists (Tīrthika, referring to religious or philosophical schools outside of Buddhism). Within this, there are three parts: First, the refutation by stating the situation. Second, the refutation by explaining the phenomena. Third, the refutation by citing evidence. Within the explanation, there are two parts: First, the explanation in accordance, that is, because the three aggregates (the five aggregates, the twelve sense bases, and the eighteen realms) of conditioned phenomena accumulate, it is falsely said to be 'I.' Since conditioned phenomena are empty, where is the false 'I'? It can be understood that firewood is fuel, and burning is fire. The reverse explanation can be understood. In the citation of evidence, as the sutra says, because of 'I,' there is 'mine' (Mamakāra, things belonging to me), just as because of phenomena, there is something similar to 'I.' Also, explaining the emptiness of phenomena in the previous text, so 'I' is empty. This explains that 'I' is empty, so what belongs to 'I' is also empty, because what belongs to 'I' is the function of 'I.' This is explaining emptiness from the root to the end. In the third type, revealing non-being in emptiness: First, state the category, that is, Nirvāṇa (Nirvāṇa, a Buddhist term referring to the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death) is called quiescence. Second, under 'Why is that so,' explain the establishment. Within the explanation of establishment, there are three parts: First, there is no phenomenon that can be extinguished, so there is no extinction. Second, there is no one who can attain extinction, so there is no extinction. Third, under 'Furthermore,' it is explained that there is no extinction because of the lack of arising and opposition. Fourth, under 'Therefore,' it is concluded that the three emptinesses can be understood. The Meaning Notes on the Essentials of the Twelve Gates Treatise, Volume 1 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42, No. 1826

門論宗致義記

十二門論宗致義記卷下

京西大寺沙門釋法藏述

觀有果無果門第二

釋此門略作四句。一釋名者。諸門名皆有三義。一舉觀智為能觀。二舉所遣托為門。則所觀有果無果是也。三入門見真。則下文真空是。皆從初二義題章。二來意者有二義。一前品總破因緣及果皆空。今此別克因中有無。以顯無生。故次來也。二前以因緣及果自他形奪。以顯無生。今則以因中有無。徴辨無生。令前真空轉極明瞭故。令執有無者心轉無寄故。是故來也。三宗趣者。先敘所破。一外道。謂僧佉計因中有果。衛世計因中無果。尼揵計因中亦有果亦無果。若提計因中非有果非無果。二小乘。薩婆多計因中有果性。經部計因中無果體。又大眾部計過未是無。則是中無果也。犢子部計亦有亦無。以無事而有性故。義準。法相大乘說非有非無。以待緣故不有。為因故不無。如是等文。皆是所破。二所顯宗。謂只由此四句為所由故。俱不得生。不待生處。是所入宗也。四釋文中四。一總標。二別釋。三結宗。四類遣。初中二。先標宗生起。后舉頌立宗。此可知。二別釋中二。初舉頌立三章門。二何以故下釋。釋中三。先釋因中有果不生。次釋無。后釋俱。釋有不成生中。有十五番。初一恒生不生破。于中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《十二門論宗致義記》卷下京西大寺沙門釋法藏述觀有果無果門第二解釋此門，略作四句說明：一、解釋名稱。所有門的名稱都有三重含義：一是舉觀智作為能觀之智；二是舉所要破斥的對象作為門，那麼所觀的有果無果就是所破斥的對象；三是通過此門而見到真空的真理，也就是下文所說的真空。所有章節的標題都從前兩種含義出發。二、說明來意。有兩個方面的意義：一是前一品總的破斥了因緣和果都是空，現在這裡特別針對因中是否有果進行辨析，以顯示無生之義，所以接著而來。二是前面通過因緣和果的自體和他體的相互否定來顯示無生，現在則通過因中是否有果來徵詢辨析無生之義，使前面的真空之理更加明瞭，使執著于有無的人心中不再有所寄託，所以才有了這一品。三、說明宗趣。首先敘述所要破斥的觀點：一、外道。如僧佉派認為因中存在果，衛世派認為因中不存在果，尼揵派認為因中既存在果也可能不存在果，若提派認為因中既非存在果也非不存在果。二、小乘。薩婆多部認為因中存在果性，經部認為因中不存在果體。另外，大眾部認為過去和未來是無，也就是認為中間不存在果。犢子部認為既存在也可能不存在，因為無事而有其性。由此類推，法相大乘認為非有非無，因為依賴於因緣所以不是有，因為是因所以不是無。像這樣的說法，都是所要破斥的。其次說明所要顯示的宗義，就是憑藉這四句，一切都不能產生，不依賴於產生之處，這就是所要進入的宗義。四、解釋文中的內容，分為四個部分：一是總標，二是別釋，三是結宗，四是類遣。首先在總標中分為兩部分：先標明宗義的生起，然後舉出頌文來確立宗義，這都是可以理解的。其次在別釋中分為兩部分：先舉出頌文來確立三個章節的門，然後是『何以故』以下進行解釋。在解釋中分為三個部分：首先解釋因中存在果不能產生，其次解釋無，最後解釋俱。在解釋有不能產生中，有十五種情況。第一種是恒常產生不能產生之破斥，其中又分為……

【English Translation】 English version The Meaning of the Twelve Gates Treatise - Notes on the Doctrine, Volume 2 By Śramaṇa Śhì Fǎzàng of the Great Temple in Jingxi Chapter 2: Contemplating the Existence or Non-Existence of a Result To explain this gate, we briefly make four statements: 1. Explaining the name. All gate names have three meanings: First, it cites contemplative wisdom as the ability to contemplate. Second, it cites what is to be refuted as the gate, which is the contemplation of whether a result exists or not. Third, entering the gate to see the truth of emptiness, which is the vacuum mentioned below. All chapter titles start from the first two meanings. 2. Explaining the intention. There are two aspects: First, the previous chapter generally refuted that both cause and condition and result are empty. Now, this specifically analyzes whether there is a result in the cause, in order to reveal the meaning of non-origination, so it comes next. Second, the previous chapter used the mutual negation of cause and condition and result to reveal non-origination. Now, it uses the existence or non-existence of a result in the cause to inquire and analyze the meaning of non-origination, making the previous principle of emptiness clearer and eliminating the attachment to existence or non-existence in people's minds, so this chapter comes about. 3. Explaining the doctrine. First, narrate the views to be refuted: 1. Externalists (外道, wàidào, non-Buddhist schools of thought). For example, the Samkhya (僧佉, Sēngqié) school believes that a result exists in the cause, the Vaisheshika (衛世, Wèishì) school believes that a result does not exist in the cause, the Nirgrantha (尼揵, Níjiān) school believes that a result may or may not exist in the cause, and the Ajivika (若提, Ruòtí) school believes that a result neither exists nor does not exist in the cause. 2. Hinayana (小乘, Xiǎochéng, Lesser Vehicle). The Sarvastivada (薩婆多, Sàpóduō) school believes that the nature of a result exists in the cause, and the Sautrantika (經部, Jīngbù) school believes that the substance of a result does not exist in the cause. In addition, the Mahasanghika (大眾部, Dàzhòngbù) school believes that the past and future are non-existent, which means they believe that a result does not exist in the middle. The Vatsiputriya (犢子部, Dúzǐbù) school believes that it both exists and may not exist, because it has a nature without an event. By analogy, the Dharmalaksana (法相, Fǎxiàng) Mahayana (大乘, Dàchéng, Great Vehicle) believes that it is neither existent nor non-existent, because it depends on conditions so it is not existent, and because it is a cause so it is not non-existent. Such statements are all to be refuted. Second, explain the doctrine to be revealed, which is that by relying on these four statements, everything cannot arise, and does not depend on the place of arising, which is the doctrine to be entered. 4. Explaining the content of the text, divided into four parts: First, a general statement; second, a separate explanation; third, a conclusion; and fourth, a classification and dismissal. First, the general statement is divided into two parts: First, state the arising of the doctrine, and then cite the verse to establish the doctrine, which is understandable. Second, the separate explanation is divided into two parts: First, cite the verse to establish the three chapter gates, and then explain from 'Why is it so' (何以故, héyǐgù) onwards. The explanation is divided into three parts: First, explain that a result existing in the cause cannot arise; second, explain non-existence; and third, explain both. In explaining that existence cannot arise, there are fifteen situations. The first is the refutation of constant arising not arising, which is further divided into...

四。初出過。二牒計破。三遮救破。四結成破。前二縱破。謂將已生同未生。則應恒生。后二奪破。將未生同已生。則應恒不生。前中第二牒計破中。量云。因應生果已更生。以因中常有果故。如未生果因。以未生與生因位不改故。又以已生之果不異未生時故。是故因中恒有常生也。從是有邊復應更生者。謂此果法在因出因俱是有故。在因既生。出因何得不生。是故生已更生。是則無窮。此是重生無窮。三遮救破。亦是恒不生破。于中先牒外救云。已生是事成。事成不須生。未生是性有。性有故鬚生。后正破云。無生理者。既已生是有。而不更生。未生亦有。應亦不生。故云終無生理。亦有量云。未生因應不生果。以因中有果無生理故。如已生果因。此是常不生過。若以已同未。則應常生。若以未同已。則應常不生。由具斯失。是故第四總結無生。第二俱有不齊破。破意云。若已未俱有。遂得一生一不生。亦可已生與未生。一有一不有。若言未是性有故有生。已是事有故不生。亦可生亦有二生。一是性生故。二是事生故。不生文中。初牒執。后正破。可知。第三已未相違破。此中先正破。后釋成。初者。生與未生既是相違。未生是有。生已應無。以相違故。如明闇等。釋中二作亦相違者。未生以有作相。生已亦以有作

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本四。初出過（一開始就出現過失）。二牒計破（重複計算的駁斥）。三遮救破（遮掩辯護的駁斥）。四結成破（總結成立的駁斥）。前二縱破（縱容錯誤而駁斥）。意思是將已生的事物等同於未生的事物，那麼就應該永遠都在產生。后二奪破（剝奪立論而駁斥）。意思是將未生的事物等同於已生的事物，那麼就應該永遠都不產生。前中第二牒計破中（在前面的重複計算的駁斥中）。論證說：因為因產生果之後已經產生，因為因中常常有果的緣故。比如未生的果的因，因為未生和產生的原因位置沒有改變的緣故。又因為已經產生的果和未產生的時候沒有差異的緣故。因此因中永遠都有常生的狀態。從這裡說有邊還要再次產生的原因是：這個果法在因中和出因的時候都是存在的緣故。在因中已經產生，出因的時候為什麼不能產生？因此產生之後還要再次產生，這樣就是無窮無盡的。這是重生無窮的過失。三遮救破（第三個遮掩辯護的駁斥），也是恒不生破（永遠不產生的駁斥）。其中先重複外道的辯護說：已生是事成（已經產生是事情已經完成），事情已經完成就不需要再產生。未生是性有（未產生是本體具有），本體具有所以需要產生。後面正式駁斥說：沒有產生的原因是，既然已經產生是存在的，就不應該再次產生。未產生也是存在的，也應該不產生。所以說最終沒有產生的原因。也有論證說：未產生的因不應該產生果，因為因中有果沒有產生的原因的緣故。比如已經產生的果的因。這是常不生的過失。如果將已生的等同於未生的，那麼就應該永遠產生。如果將未生的等同於已生的，那麼就應該永遠不產生。由於具備這樣的缺失，所以第四個總結為無生。第二俱有不齊破（第二種俱有但不一致的駁斥）。駁斥的意思是：如果已生和未生同時存在，就會出現一個產生一個不產生的情況。也可以已生和未生，一個存在一個不存在。如果說未生是本體具有所以產生，已生是事情已經完成所以不產生。也可以產生也有兩種產生，一種是本體產生，一種是事情產生。不產生的文章中，先重複執著，後面正式駁斥，可以知道。第三已未相違破（第三種已生和未生相互違背的駁斥）。這裡面先正式駁斥，後面解釋成立。開始說：產生和未產生既然是相互違背的，未產生是存在的，產生之後就應該不存在。因為相互違背的緣故，比如光明和黑暗等。解釋中兩種作用也是相互違背的，未產生以存在作為作用，產生之後也以存在作為作用。

【English Translation】 English version Four. First, the fault of initial emergence. Second, the refutation of repeated calculations. Third, the refutation of concealment and defense. Fourth, the refutation of conclusive establishment. The first two are refutations by indulgence, meaning that equating what has already arisen with what has not yet arisen would imply constant arising. The latter two are refutations by deprivation, meaning that equating what has not yet arisen with what has already arisen would imply constant non-arising. In the second refutation of repeated calculations, the argument states: Because the cause produces the effect after it has already arisen, and because the cause always contains the effect. For example, the cause of an unarisen effect, because the position of the unarisen and the cause of arising has not changed. Also, because the effect that has already arisen is no different from when it had not yet arisen. Therefore, the cause always has a state of constant arising. From here, the reason why there should be further arising from the side of existence is: Because this effect-dharma exists both in the cause and when it emerges from the cause. Since it has already arisen in the cause, why can't it arise when it emerges from the cause? Therefore, after arising, it must arise again, which is endless. This is the fault of endless rebirth. The third refutation of concealment and defense is also a refutation of constant non-arising. Among them, first, repeat the externalist's defense, saying: 'Arisen is the completion of an event; when an event is completed, there is no need to arise again. Unarisen is inherent existence; because of inherent existence, it needs to arise.' Later, formally refute, saying: 'The reason for non-arising is that since what has already arisen exists, it should not arise again. What has not arisen also exists, so it should also not arise.' Therefore, it is said that there is ultimately no reason for arising. There is also an argument stating: 'The unarisen cause should not produce an effect, because the cause contains the effect without a reason for arising.' Like the cause of an effect that has already arisen. This is the fault of constant non-arising. If what has already arisen is equated with what has not arisen, then there should be constant arising. If what has not arisen is equated with what has already arisen, then there should be constant non-arising. Because of possessing such deficiencies, the fourth concludes with non-arising. The second is the refutation of co-existence but disparity. The meaning of the refutation is: If what has already arisen and what has not arisen exist simultaneously, there will be a situation where one arises and one does not arise. It is also possible that what has already arisen and what has not arisen, one exists and one does not exist. If it is said that what has not arisen has inherent existence, so it arises, and what has already arisen is the completion of an event, so it does not arise. It is also possible that arising has two kinds of arising, one is inherent arising, and the other is event arising. In the text of non-arising, first repeat the attachment, and later formally refute, which can be known. The third is the refutation of the contradiction between what has already arisen and what has not arisen. Here, first formally refute, and later explain its establishment. It begins by saying: Since arising and non-arising are contradictory, and non-arising exists, then after arising, it should not exist. Because they are contradictory, like light and darkness, etc. In the explanation, the two functions are also contradictory, non-arising takes existence as its function, and after arising, it also takes existence as its function.

相。已未既其相反。作相那不相違。故令不齊也。亦可此是易位失體破。謂未生既是有後作。生已應失自體。以失未生位故。第四已未無別破。謂汝若不受相違之患。則墮無差之咎。量云。未生應即是已生。以體俱有無別故。猶如已生前。以已未徴自體。自體不得一。今以自體徴已未。已未不得殊。文中三。謂標釋結可知。第五先成無用破。謂果已先有。因無生用。如果在器。器無生果之用。故云作已不作等也。文中三。初正破。二舉例。三結非。可知。第六已有應見破。先正破。謂果若有而不見者。更以何法知此有耶。量云。有是不有。以不見故。猶如無物。二破救。救以未變無相。是故不見。破意泥中既未變而無瓶相者。與泥中亦無馬相。是二有何別。泥中無馬相。亦則無馬體。泥中無瓶相。豈得有瓶體。量可知。結可知。又泥中無馬相。無由知有馬。泥中亦無瓶相。以何知有瓶。亦有量可知。此後亦是徴果以相破。第七窮變失果破。于中二。先正破。后破救。前中三。初以變同果破。果有變亦有者。今應可見。此縱破也。而實下。就理結非。則奪破也。二若謂未變下。以果同變破。變無果亦無。則失於果法。以變初無。后畢不有。以彼宗中果若先無後終不生故。是故變終不得有。變終不得有故。果則永無也。三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本相（laksana，事物呈現出的狀態）。『已』（已經發生）和『未』（尚未發生）既然是相反的，那麼『作相』（產生狀態）就不會有不相違背的情況，所以導致不整齊。也可以說這是易位失體破，意思是說，如果『未生』（尚未產生）就已經存在，那麼後來產生的『生』（產生）就應該失去它自身的體性，因為它失去了『未生』的狀態。第四，『已』和『未』沒有區別的破斥，意思是說，如果你不接受『相違』的過患，那麼就會陷入『無差別』的過失。可以這樣論證：『未生』應該就是『已生』，因為它們的體性都存在，沒有區別，就像『已生』之前一樣。用『已』和『未』來證明自體，自體不能是同一個。現在用自體來證明『已』和『未』，『已』和『未』就不能是不同的。文中分為三部分，即標示、解釋和結論，可以理解。第五，先成無用的破斥，意思是說，如果結果已經預先存在，那麼原因就沒有產生的功用。如果結果已經在容器中，那麼容器就沒有產生結果的功用。所以說『作已不作』等等。文中分為三部分，首先是正式的破斥，其次是舉例，最後是總結否定，可以理解。第六，已有應該可見的破斥。首先是正式的破斥，意思是說，如果結果已經存在，但是卻看不見，那麼用什麼方法才能知道它存在呢？可以這樣論證：存在就是不存在，因為看不見，就像沒有東西一樣。其次是破斥對方的辯解。對方辯解說，因為還沒有變化，沒有相，所以看不見。破斥的意思是，泥土中既然沒有變化，沒有瓶子的相，那麼和泥土中也沒有馬的相有什麼區別呢？泥土中沒有馬的相，也就沒有馬的體性。泥土中沒有瓶子的相，怎麼能有瓶子的體性呢？論證可以理解。結論可以理解。而且泥土中沒有馬的相，就沒有理由知道有馬。泥土中也沒有瓶子的相，用什麼知道有瓶子呢？也有論證可以理解。這之後也是用相來證明結果，進行破斥。第七，窮盡變化失去結果的破斥。其中分為兩部分，首先是正式的破斥，然後是破斥對方的辯解。前一部分分為三部分，首先是用變化等同於結果來破斥。如果結果有變化也有，那麼現在應該可以看見。這是縱容的破斥。而實際上，下面是就道理總結否定，是奪取的破斥。第二，如果說還沒有變化，用結果等同於變化來破斥。變化沒有，結果也沒有，那麼就失去了結果的法則。因為變化最初沒有，最後完全沒有。因為在他們的宗派中，結果如果先前沒有，那麼最終也不會產生。所以變化最終不可能存在。變化最終不可能存在，那麼結果就永遠不存在。第三

【English Translation】 English version Laksana (相, characteristics, the state of things as they appear). Since 'already' (已, that which has already occurred) and 'not yet' (未, that which has not yet occurred) are opposites, then 'making characteristics' (作相, the process of generating characteristics) will not be without contradiction, thus causing disarray. Alternatively, this can be seen as a displacement and loss of essence refutation, meaning that if 'not yet arisen' (未生, that which has not yet arisen) already exists, then the 'arising' (生, the act of arising) that occurs later should lose its own nature, because it has lost the state of 'not yet arisen'. Fourth, the refutation of 'already' and 'not yet' having no difference, meaning that if you do not accept the fault of 'contradiction', then you will fall into the error of 'no difference'. It can be argued that 'not yet arisen' should be the same as 'already arisen', because their natures both exist, without difference, just like before 'already arisen'. Using 'already' and 'not yet' to prove self-nature, self-nature cannot be the same. Now using self-nature to prove 'already' and 'not yet', 'already' and 'not yet' cannot be different. The text is divided into three parts, namely indication, explanation, and conclusion, which can be understood. Fifth, the refutation of pre-existence being useless, meaning that if the result already exists beforehand, then the cause has no function of producing. If the result is already in the container, then the container has no function of producing the result. Therefore, it is said 'having made, not making' etc. The text is divided into three parts, first the formal refutation, second the example, and third the concluding negation, which can be understood. Sixth, the refutation of already existing should be visible. First, the formal refutation, meaning that if the result already exists, but is not seen, then by what method can it be known that it exists? It can be argued that existence is non-existence, because it is not seen, just like nothing. Second, the refutation of the opponent's defense. The opponent defends by saying that because it has not yet changed, there is no characteristic, therefore it is not seen. The meaning of the refutation is that since there is no characteristic of a pot in the mud because it has not yet changed, then what is the difference between that and there being no characteristic of a horse in the mud? If there is no characteristic of a horse in the mud, then there is no nature of a horse. If there is no characteristic of a pot in the mud, how can there be the nature of a pot? The argument can be understood. The conclusion can be understood. Moreover, if there is no characteristic of a horse in the mud, there is no reason to know that there is a horse. If there is no characteristic of a pot in the mud, how can it be known that there is a pot? There is also an argument that can be understood. After this, it is also using characteristics to prove the result, conducting a refutation. Seventh, the refutation of exhausting change losing the result. Among them are two parts, first the formal refutation, then the refutation of the opponent's defense. The former part is divided into three parts, first using change being the same as the result to refute. If the result has change and also exists, then it should be visible now. This is a permissive refutation. But in reality, below is summarizing and negating based on reason, it is a seizing refutation. Second, if saying that it has not yet changed, using the result being the same as change to refute. If change does not exist, then the result also does not exist, then the law of the result is lost. Because change initially does not exist, and finally completely does not exist. Because in their sect, if the result did not exist previously, then it will not arise in the end. Therefore, change can never exist in the end. If change can never exist in the end, then the result will never exist. Third

有無不定破。乖本計故。違自言故。文可見。二破救中四。一外救。二正破。三重救四重破。初外救意。引世八緣。證變是有而無示現。是故上來諸難無不雪也。文中三。初一句標自宗。二凡物下引自類。三汝說因中下結破非。引類中四。一標。二列。三釋。四結。並可知。外意取第八為量耳。二正破中三。初總揀不同。二次第別揀。三別破第八。謂始終一故。俱定有故。不得改也。比量可知。三重救可知。四重破中三。一以果同粗失果破。謂汝言未生時細。則粗果先無。乖汝自宗。二又因中下。以細奪粗失果破。謂汝若言生已轉粗。則細非果。不得言果細故。不可得也。粗細並撿。果體本無。三如是下結呵情計。第八自壞因果破中。初牒計標壞。二何以故下釋顯壞相。此中先釋因壞。以因無因。但是果法所寄住處故。如器中果。器非果因故。縷等是法。器等為喻。比量可知。二若因壞下釋果壞。初相待破。次釋破可知。第九失法虛求破。于中三。先標不作故壞於果。謂果若先有。先有故。則非所作。非所作故。不得名果。則失果也。二何以故下。釋不作故壞於因。謂終不以果於中住故。說因有能作。是故無能作故。則無因也。三如是下結虛求。謂因果既俱無。何須妄求于有無。又前門則因壞故果壞。此門果壞又失因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有無不定破：因為與根本的計度相違背，也違背了自己的言論，這些在經文中都可以看到。二重破救中包含四個部分：一是外救，二是正破，三重救，四重破。首先是外救的意圖：引用世俗的八種因緣，來證明變化是有的，而無是示現的。因此，上面所有的責難都可以消除。文中包含三個部分：第一句標明自己的宗派，第二句『凡物下』引用同類事物，第三句『汝說因中下』總結並破斥對方的觀點。引用的同類事物中包含四個部分：一是標明，二是列舉，三是解釋，四是總結，這些都可以理解。外救的意圖是取第八識（Alaya-vijnana）作為衡量標準。二是正破，包含三個部分：首先是總的揀擇不同之處，其次是次第分別揀擇，最後是分別破斥第八識。意思是說，因為始終如一，都是確定的有，所以不能改變。比量可以得知。三重救，內容可以理解。四重破，包含三個部分：一是以果和粗大的事物相同，從而導致失去果的過失來破斥對方。意思是說，如果你說未生的時候是細微的，那麼粗大的果實一開始就不存在，這與你自己的宗派相違背。二，『又因中下』，以細微的事物奪取粗大的事物，從而導致失去果的過失來破斥對方。意思是說，如果你說生出來之後就轉變為粗大的，那麼細微的就不是果，不能說果是細微的，所以不可得。粗細都要檢查，果的本體原本就不存在。三，『如是下』，總結並呵斥情識的計度。第八識自身破壞因果的破斥中，首先是依照對方的計度，標明這種破壞。其次，『何以故下』，解釋並顯示這種破壞的相狀。這裡首先解釋因的破壞，因為因沒有因，只是果法所寄住的地方，就像器皿中的果實，器皿不是果實的因。線等是法，器皿等是比喻。比量可以得知。二，『若因壞下』，解釋果的破壞。首先是相待破，其次是解釋破斥，這些都可以理解。第九，失去法而虛妄尋求的破斥。其中包含三個部分：首先是標明因為不作為，所以破壞了果。意思是說，如果果一開始就存在，因為一開始就存在，所以不是所作的。因為不是所作的，所以不能稱為果，那麼就失去了果。二，『何以故下』，解釋因為不作為，所以破壞了因。意思是說，最終不會因為果在其中存在，就說因有能作。因此，因為沒有能作，所以就沒有因。三，『如是下』，總結虛妄的尋求。意思是說，因為因果都已不存在，何必虛妄地尋求有無呢？而且，前面的門徑是因破壞所以果破壞，這個門徑是果破壞又失去了因。

【English Translation】 English version The Undetermined Refutation of Existence and Non-existence: Because it contradicts the fundamental calculation and violates one's own words, these can be seen in the scriptures. The double refutation and rescue contains four parts: first, external rescue; second, direct refutation; third, repeated rescue; and fourth, repeated refutation. First is the intention of external rescue: citing the eight worldly conditions to prove that change exists, while non-existence is a manifestation. Therefore, all the above criticisms can be eliminated. The text contains three parts: the first sentence marks one's own school, the second sentence '凡物下' (fan wu xia) cites similar things, and the third sentence '汝說因中下' (ru shuo yin zhong xia) summarizes and refutes the other party's point of view. The cited similar things contain four parts: first, marking; second, listing; third, explaining; and fourth, summarizing, which can be understood. The intention of external rescue is to take the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana) as the measure. Second is the direct refutation, containing three parts: first, generally distinguishing the differences; second, sequentially distinguishing; and third, separately refuting the eighth consciousness. It means that because it is consistent from beginning to end, and is definitely existent, it cannot be changed. The analogy can be known. The triple rescue, the content can be understood. The quadruple refutation contains three parts: first, using the similarity between the fruit and coarse things, resulting in the fault of losing the fruit to refute the other party. It means that if you say it is subtle when it is not yet born, then the coarse fruit does not exist from the beginning, which contradicts your own school. Second, '又因中下' (you yin zhong xia), using subtle things to seize coarse things, resulting in the fault of losing the fruit to refute the other party. It means that if you say it becomes coarse after it is born, then the subtle is not the fruit, and you cannot say that the fruit is subtle, so it is unattainable. Both coarse and subtle must be examined, the essence of the fruit does not exist from the beginning. Third, '如是下' (ru shi xia), summarizing and scolding the calculation of emotions and consciousness. In the refutation of the eighth consciousness itself destroying cause and effect, first, according to the other party's calculation, mark this destruction. Second, '何以故下' (he yi gu xia), explain and show the appearance of this destruction. Here, first explain the destruction of the cause, because the cause has no cause, it is just the place where the fruit Dharma resides, like the fruit in a vessel, the vessel is not the cause of the fruit. Threads are Dharma, vessels are metaphors. The analogy can be known. Second, '若因壞下' (ruo yin huai xia), explain the destruction of the fruit. First is mutual destruction, and second is explaining the refutation, which can be understood. Ninth, the refutation of losing the Dharma and falsely seeking. It contains three parts: first, marking that because of inaction, the fruit is destroyed. It means that if the fruit exists from the beginning, because it exists from the beginning, it is not what is made. Because it is not what is made, it cannot be called a fruit, then the fruit is lost. Second, '何以故下' (he yi gu xia), explain that because of inaction, the cause is destroyed. It means that ultimately it will not be said that the cause has the ability to act because the fruit exists in it. Therefore, because there is no ability to act, there is no cause. Third, '如是下' (ru shi xia), summarizing the false seeking. It means that because both cause and effect no longer exist, why falsely seek existence and non-existence? Moreover, the previous path is that the fruit is destroyed because the cause is destroyed, and this path is that the cause is lost because the fruit is destroyed.

。因以生果為能作。果以從生為所作。果既先有。則因失能作之功。果壞從生之義。是故俱失也。第十相無體失破。此與前責泥中瓶相何別者。前徴體相。此責標相。故異也。文中三。初縱有徴相。二舉例指事。三如是下正奪情執。並可知。第十一責果無從破。于中三。先牒果不從因。二若因不下撿果正無從。三若果無下結俱無。可知。第十二自壞二聚破。于中四。初標執示過。量云。果應是常。以無從作故。如涅槃性。二若果下壞失有為。三若一切下壞失無為。四結非呵止。並可知。第十三因因無窮破。于中二。先正破。后破救。初中三。先牒執示過。二如㲲下引類。亦是約情縱有。謂因中有果。此果復為余因。于中復有餘果。如是則無窮。依涅槃經。如牛中先有乳。此乳有酪。乃至醍醐。是故牛中五味已具。又云。明當服酥。今已患嗅。乃至食中應有等。又賣草馬應取駒中復有駒。如是一馬應則是一群。此之謂也。三而實下就理奪無。謂既因中果內異果是無。不與作因。因中之果是則不有也。二破救中四。初牒執總非。二何以故下釋非顯破。破意云。若如地香要待緣發者。未發之時不名為果。汝以可了為果故。水是能了。香是可了。了是作故可名果。瓶等既先有。非是作故。不是果也。三重釋。四結非。並可知。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為如果把生果（已經存在的果實）當作能作者，那麼果實就是從生因產生的所作者。如果果實已經先存在，那麼生因就失去了能作的功用，果實也喪失了從生因產生的意義。因此，兩者都失去了意義。第十，破斥『相無自體』的觀點。這與前面破斥泥中瓶的觀點有什麼不同呢？前面是針對體相的破斥，這裡是針對標相的破斥，所以不同。文中分為三部分：首先，假設有相而進行破斥；其次，舉例說明；最後，『如是下』直接否定對方的執著，這些都容易理解。第十一，破斥果實沒有生因的觀點。其中分為三部分：首先，指出果實不是從因產生的；其次，如果因不能產生果，那麼果實就無從產生；第三，如果果實沒有生因，那麼因和果都將不存在。這些都容易理解。第十二，破斥『自壞二聚』的觀點。其中分為四部分：首先，標明對方的執著並指出其過失，論證說：『果實應該是常有的，因為它沒有生因，就像涅槃的自性一樣。』；其次，『若果下』破斥有為法的壞滅；第三，『若一切下』破斥無為法的壞滅；第四，總結並加以呵斥。這些都容易理解。第十三，破斥『因因無窮』的觀點。其中分為兩部分：首先，直接破斥；其次，破斥對方的辯解。在直接破斥中，又分為三部分：首先，指出對方的執著並指出其過失；其次，『如㲲下』引用類似的例子，這也是從情理上假設對方的觀點，認為因中含有果實，而這個果實又成為另一個因，其中又含有另一個果實，這樣就無窮無盡了。就像《涅槃經》中說，『牛中先有乳，此乳有酪，乃至醍醐，所以牛中五味已具。』又說，『明明應當服用酥油，現在卻已經厭惡它的氣味。』甚至認為食物中應該含有酥油等等。又像賣草馬應該取小馬駒，而小馬駒中又含有小馬駒，這樣一匹馬就應該是一群馬。說的就是這個意思。第三，『而實下』從道理上否定對方的觀點，認為如果因中的果實與因不同，那麼果實就是不存在的，不能作為生因；如果因中的果實與因相同，那麼果實就不是新產生的。第二部分是破斥對方的辯解，分為四部分：首先，指出對方的執著並加以否定；其次，『何以故下』解釋否定的原因，從而顯露破斥的意圖。破斥的意圖是：如果像地上的香氣要等待因緣才能顯發，那麼在沒有顯發的時候就不能稱為果實。你認為可以被瞭解的才是果實，水是能瞭解的，香氣是可以被瞭解的，瞭解是作用，所以可以稱為果實。瓶子等已經先存在，不是作用產生的，所以不是果實。第三，再次解釋；第四，總結並加以否定。這些都容易理解。

【English Translation】 English version Because if we consider the 'produced fruit' (Sheng Guo, already existing fruit) as the agent, then the fruit is the object produced from the 'producing cause' (Sheng Yin). If the fruit already exists, then the producing cause loses its function as an agent, and the fruit loses the meaning of being produced from the producing cause. Therefore, both lose their meaning. Tenth, refuting the view of 'phenomena without inherent substance' (Xiang Wu Ziti). How does this differ from the previous refutation of the 'bottle in the mud'? The previous one targeted the substance-aspect (Ti Xiang), while this one targets the sign-aspect (Biao Xiang), so they are different. The text is divided into three parts: first, refuting by assuming the existence of signs; second, giving examples; and third, 'Ru Shi Xia' directly denying the other party's attachment, which are all easy to understand. Eleventh, refuting the view that fruit has no producing cause. It is divided into three parts: first, pointing out that the fruit is not produced from the cause; second, if the cause cannot produce the fruit, then the fruit cannot be produced; third, if the fruit has no producing cause, then both cause and fruit will not exist. These are all easy to understand. Twelfth, refuting the view of 'self-destruction of two aggregates' (Zi Huai Er Ju). It is divided into four parts: first, stating the other party's attachment and pointing out its fault, arguing: 'The fruit should be permanent because it has no producing cause, just like the nature of Nirvana.'; second, 'Ruo Guo Xia' refuting the destruction of conditioned dharmas (You Wei Fa); third, 'Ruo Yi Qie Xia' refuting the destruction of unconditioned dharmas (Wu Wei Fa); fourth, summarizing and rebuking. These are all easy to understand. Thirteenth, refuting the view of 'cause of cause is endless' (Yin Yin Wu Qiong). It is divided into two parts: first, direct refutation; second, refuting the other party's defense. In the direct refutation, it is further divided into three parts: first, pointing out the other party's attachment and pointing out its fault; second, 'Ru Die Xia' citing similar examples, which is also assuming the other party's view from the perspective of reason, believing that the cause contains the fruit, and this fruit becomes another cause, which contains another fruit, so it is endless. Just like the Nirvana Sutra says, 'There is milk in the cow first, and this milk has cheese, and even ghee, so the five flavors are already complete in the cow.' It also says, 'Clearly should take ghee, now already hate its smell.' Even think that food should contain ghee and so on. Also like selling grass horses should take foals, and foals contain foals, so one horse should be a group of horses. That's what it means. Third, 'Er Shi Xia' denying the other party's view from the perspective of reason, believing that if the fruit in the cause is different from the cause, then the fruit does not exist and cannot be a producing cause; if the fruit in the cause is the same as the cause, then the fruit is not newly produced. The second part is refuting the other party's defense, which is divided into four parts: first, pointing out the other party's attachment and denying it; second, 'He Yi Gu Xia' explaining the reason for the denial, thus revealing the intention of refutation. The intention of refutation is: if the fragrance on the ground has to wait for conditions to manifest, then it cannot be called fruit when it is not manifested. You think that what can be understood is the fruit, water is what can be understood, fragrance is what can be understood, understanding is action, so it can be called fruit. Bottles and so on already exist, not produced by action, so they are not fruit. Third, explain again; fourth, summarize and deny. These are all easy to understand.

第十四同了失生破。謂汝以水發地香但是了因。瓶等爾者。應兼成余。如燈照瓶。亦照余故。又汝為以作為果。為以了為果。果若是作。瓶等先有。非作不名果。果若是了泥等了瓶。何不亦兼生余物耶。文中四。初法二喻三合四結。並可知。第十五二作不成破。謂以果先有故。何者今作。何者當作。彼宗計有二作異故。失自執也。文中先責后結。可知。上來釋先有不生章訖。第二大段。釋先無亦不生。于中有五番。一因同非因破。于中二。先正破。后破救。破救中。先救后破。破中二。先等無生異果。后齊無為異因。比量並可知。第二一因多果破。于中先正破。后破救。前中約縱破。謂一因應生一切物等。以是無故。后若因中下奪破。謂若無者。不應諸因於諸果各各有力能生果。今既諸因各各于自果有力。故知非無。如須油下舉事曉示。二破救中。先牒計總非。二釋顯非義。謂從麻出油是生。此世人虛妄謂生。而實不生。與沙無別。是故徴責則不成生。更以何法知有生也。三是故下結非呵執。第三猶豫同疑破。于中三。初標自意。謂恐外人雖無執因中無果。見論主以沙例麻麻中無義不成。則謂論主許其是有。意欲移無執有。是故論主還遮云。我非直破汝計無。有等亦破。故云破一切因果也。二若因中下釋一切不成。謂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第十四，關於『同了失生破』（認為相同的了因會導致失去生起）。意思是說，你認為水、火、地、香等只是了因（alambana-hetu，輔助因），瓶子等也是如此。如果這樣，那麼它們應該也能同時產生其他事物，就像燈照亮瓶子的同時也照亮其他東西一樣。此外，你是認為『作為』是果，還是認為『了』是果？如果果是『作為』，那麼瓶子等事物在『作為』之前就已經存在，如果不是『作為』，就不能稱為果。如果果是『了』，那麼泥土等了因產生瓶子，為什麼不能同時產生其他事物呢？文中分為四部分：第一是法，第二是比喻，第三是合，第四是結論。這些都可以理解。第十五，關於『二作不成破』（認為兩種作用不能成立的破斥）。意思是說，因為果已經先存在了，那麼現在『作』什麼？將來又『作』什麼？他們的宗派認為有兩種不同的『作』，因此失去了自己的主張。文中先是責難，然後是結論。這些都可以理解。以上解釋了『先有不生』（先已存在的事物不會產生）這一章的內容。第二大段，解釋『先無亦不生』（先前不存在的事物也不會產生）。其中有五種破斥。第一種是『因同非因破』（認為原因相同但結果不同的破斥）。其中分為兩部分：先是正式破斥，然後是破斥救護。在破斥救護中，先是救護，然後是破斥。破斥中分為兩部分：先是等同於無而產生不同的結果，然後是等同於無為而產生不同的原因。比量都可以理解。第二種是『一因多果破』（認為一個原因產生多個結果的破斥）。其中先是正式破斥，然後是破斥救護。前面是從縱向進行破斥，意思是說，一個原因應該產生一切事物等等，因為它是『無』的緣故。後面是如果原因中存在某種能力的反駁性破斥，意思是說，如果原因中什麼都沒有，那麼各種原因就不應該對各種結果各自具有產生結果的能力。現在既然各種原因各自對自己的結果具有能力，所以可知原因並非『無』。就像從芝麻中榨油一樣，舉例說明。二，在破斥救護中，先是陳述對方的觀點並總括其錯誤，二是解釋並揭示其錯誤的含義。意思是說，從麻中出油是『生』，這是世人虛妄地認為是『生』，但實際上並沒有生，與從沙子中榨油沒有區別。因此，責問就不能成立『生』。那麼用什麼方法才能知道有『生』呢？三，因此，下面總結並呵斥這種執著。第三種是『猶豫同疑破』（認為猶豫和懷疑相同的破斥）。其中分為三部分：首先標明自己的意圖，意思是說，恐怕外人雖然沒有執著于原因中沒有結果，但看到論主用沙子來比喻麻子，認為麻子中沒有油的說法不成立，就認為論主承認其中是有油的。意圖是將『無』的執著轉移到『有』的執著上。因此，論主反過來遮止說，我不僅僅是破斥你認為沒有，『有』等等我也破斥，所以說破斥一切因果。二，如果原因中存在某種東西，那麼下面解釋一切都不能成立。意思是說，

【English Translation】 English version Fourteenth, concerning 'Sameness of Condition Leading to Loss of Production' (arguing that identical auxiliary causes lead to the loss of arising). It means that you consider water, fire, earth, and fragrance to be merely auxiliary causes (alambana-hetu), and so are jars and the like. If so, then they should also be able to produce other things simultaneously, just as a lamp illuminates the jar and also illuminates other things. Furthermore, do you consider 'action' to be the result, or do you consider 'understanding' to be the result? If the result is 'action,' then jars and other things already exist before the 'action'; if it is not 'action,' it cannot be called a result. If the result is 'understanding,' then the mud and other auxiliary causes produce the jar, why can't they produce other things at the same time? The text is divided into four parts: first is the principle, second is the analogy, third is the combination, and fourth is the conclusion. These can all be understood. Fifteenth, concerning 'Two Actions Cannot Be Established' (arguing that two kinds of action cannot be established). It means that because the result already exists, what is being 'done' now? What will be 'done' in the future? Their school believes that there are two different 'actions,' thus losing their own argument. The text first presents the refutation and then the conclusion. These can all be understood. The above explains the content of the chapter 'What Already Exists Does Not Arise.' The second major section explains 'What Did Not Exist Does Not Arise.' Among them, there are five refutations. The first is 'Refutation of Same Cause, Different Result' (arguing that the same cause cannot produce different results). It is divided into two parts: first is the formal refutation, and then the refutation of the defense. In the refutation of the defense, first is the defense, and then the refutation. The refutation is divided into two parts: first is equating to non-existence to produce different results, and then equating to non-doing to produce different causes. The comparative measurements can all be understood. The second is 'Refutation of One Cause, Many Results' (arguing that one cause cannot produce many results). It is divided into formal refutation and refutation of the defense. The former is refutation from a vertical perspective, meaning that one cause should produce all things, etc., because it is 'non-existent.' The latter is a rebuttal refutation if there is some ability in the cause, meaning that if there is nothing in the cause, then various causes should not each have the ability to produce results for various results. Now that various causes each have the ability to produce their own results, it can be known that the cause is not 'non-existent.' Just like extracting oil from sesame seeds, an example is given to illustrate. Two, in the refutation of the defense, first is stating the other party's view and summarizing its errors, and second is explaining and revealing the meaning of its errors. It means that extracting oil from sesame is 'arising,' which people falsely believe to be 'arising,' but in reality, there is no arising, no different from extracting oil from sand. Therefore, the question cannot establish 'arising.' Then what method can be used to know that there is 'arising'? Three, therefore, the following summarizes and scolds this attachment. The third is 'Refutation of Hesitation and Doubt Being the Same' (arguing that hesitation and doubt are the same). It is divided into three parts: first, stating one's own intention, meaning that fearing that outsiders, although not attached to the fact that there is no result in the cause, see that the master of debate uses sand to compare sesame, and think that the statement that there is no oil in sesame is not established, they think that the master of debate admits that there is oil in it. The intention is to transfer the attachment of 'non-existence' to the attachment of 'existence.' Therefore, the master of debate turns around and stops, saying that I am not only refuting you for thinking that there is nothing, I am also refuting 'existence' and so on, so I say that I am refuting all causes and results. Two, if there is something in the cause, then the following explains that everything cannot be established. It means that,

三因俱不成生。三是故下結同疑。謂汝但言見麻出油。而不知麻中為是有。為是無。為俱有無。是則汝于自因同疑不了。何得成生。第四因相不成破。于中二。先牒執不成因。二釋顯不成相。于中先釋因不成。謂親疏非一故云諸因。于中無果法故云無法也。若一種俱無果法。不知何者是親因故能作。何者是疏因故能成。又若無果法。何作何成。無作成故。則非因也。此文倒。應云。若無果法此因能作何等。能成何等。以無成作故亦無因。二釋果不成。如是因不成故親因名作者。不得有所作果也。使作者是疏因。亦不得有果也。又有論本使字作所字。則作者是匠人。無果法可作。故不得有所作。所作是泥因。亦不得有所作。以泥是人功所用作故。第五反難乖宗破。于中三。初外人反難論主。二論主顯彼乖宗之失。三結非呵止。初中外人反難內有二難。一反質難。云汝破我。以因中無果故則無作者。無作者故是則無因。若爾者。汝則因中有果故有作作者。為諸法因耶。二齊過難。謂若我因中無果故則無作非因者。汝因中先有果。亦無作作者。以先有不須作故。此中難作及難有也。作者是人。作是業用。作法是所作果。文中標是初難。釋是后難。可知。二論主反答破中二。初牒執總非。二別釋二難。于中二。初答齊過難云。

今破彼作者作法。此非我立。故不成難。若能破彼彌順我空宗。亦不成難。文二可知。是故下結可知。二答反質難中二。初正答。謂彼有果本非我宗。汝自唐勞助成我義。二遮難。謂恐彼難云。汝既不受有果。則同我無計。故云亦不受無果也。上來破無訖。第三大段破亦有亦無俱執者何故來者。謂彼外人先計有不成。則移執于無。又見論主破已不成。則謂由我偏計有無故不成。因雙取二義。應順道理。是故破門來。又根有三品。上根于初門便悟。中根至二。下根至此。故有此來。文中兩番。第一性自相違破。于中四。初舉執總非。二釋顯相違。三引例指事。四總結不生。又可一宗二因三喻四結。第二指同前二破。文可見。大段第三結宗本中二。先結上三門不生。二於一切下結歸無生。第四類遣中有三。初類遣有為。二遣無為。三遣我。並可知。

觀緣門第三

釋此門四義同前。初辨名者。發果為緣。觀緣無性。故以為門。二來意者。前于因中求生不得。今于緣中求亦無生。故次來也。又以多門遣執盡故。又顯觸途皆無生故。三明品中所明者。謂推求四緣。皆無生理。是所宗也。四釋文中五。初標宗。二破有。三破無。四破緣。五類遣。初中諸法是果及緣皆不成故也。二破有中三。初舉頌略標。二出彼緣相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本現在來破斥那些作者的造作之法。這並非我所立的觀點，因此不能構成詰難。如果能夠破斥他們的觀點，反而更加順應我空宗的宗旨，也不能構成詰難。這兩點從文中的兩處可知。所以，下面的結論也是可以理解的。二、回答反詰難中有兩點。首先是正面回答，即他們所說的有果本來就不是我宗的觀點，你們自己徒勞無功，反而幫助成就了我的義理。其次是遮止詰難，即恐怕他們會反駁說：『你既然不接受有果，那就和我的無的觀點一樣了。』所以說，也不接受無果。上面破斥了無的觀點。第三大段，破斥那些執著于亦有亦無的人。為什麼會有這一段呢？因為那些外道先執著于有，但不能成立，於是就轉而執著于無。又看到論主破斥了無也不能成立，就認為是因為我偏執于有和無，所以才不能成立。因此，同時採取有和無兩種觀點，應該順應道理。所以，破斥這種觀點的法門就來了。而且，眾生的根器有上、中、下三品，上根的人在第一個法門就能領悟，中根的人到第二個法門，下根的人到這個法門才能領悟。所以，才會有這一段的出現。文中分為兩部分。第一部分，從自性上互相違背的角度來破斥。其中分為四點。首先，總的提出他們所執著的錯誤。其次，解釋並顯明其中的互相違背之處。第三，引用例子來指明事實。第四，總結出不生。也可以理解為一宗、二因、三喻、四結。第二部分，指明和前面兩種破斥方法相同。文中可以看出來。第三大段，總結宗的根本，分為兩點。首先，總結上面三種法門都是不生的。其次，在『於一切下』總結歸於無生。第四部分，用類比的方法來遣除執著，其中分為三點。首先，類比遣除有為法。其次，遣除無為法。第三，遣除我（ātman）。這些都可以理解。

觀緣門第三

解釋這個法門，有四種含義和前面一樣。首先是辨別名稱，發果為緣（pratyaya），觀察緣起無自性，所以稱為門。其次是說明來意，前面在因（hetu）中求生不可得，現在在緣中求也無生，所以接著而來。又因為用多種法門來遣除執著，又顯明觸及之處都是無生的。第三是說明品中所要說明的內容，即推求四緣（catvāri pratyayāḥ），都無生之理，這是所宗的宗旨。第四是解釋文中的內容，分為五點。首先是標明宗旨。其次是破斥有。第三是破斥無。第四是破斥緣。第五是用類比的方法來遣除執著。首先在標明宗旨中，諸法是果以及緣，都是不能成立的。第二，在破斥有中，分為三點。首先用偈頌來簡略地標明。

【English Translation】 English version Now, I will refute the methods created by those authors. This is not a view established by me, so it cannot constitute a valid objection. If it can refute their views, it will further align with my Śūnyatā (emptiness) school, and thus it also cannot constitute a valid objection. These two points can be understood from two places in the text. Therefore, the conclusion below is also understandable. Second, there are two points in answering counter-objections. The first is a direct answer, stating that their so-called 'existing result' (sat-phala) is not originally my school's view. You are laboring in vain and helping to accomplish my doctrine. The second is to prevent objections, fearing that they might retort: 'Since you do not accept an existing result, you are the same as my view of non-existence (abhāva).' Therefore, it is said that we also do not accept a non-existing result. The above refutes the view of non-existence. The third major section refutes those who cling to both existence and non-existence. Why does this section come about? Because those heretics first cling to existence, but cannot establish it, so they shift to clinging to non-existence. Furthermore, seeing that the proponent has refuted non-existence and it cannot be established, they think it is because I am biased towards existence and non-existence that it cannot be established. Therefore, they simultaneously adopt the two meanings of existence and non-existence, which should accord with reason. Therefore, the Dharma-door of refuting this view comes about. Moreover, beings have three kinds of faculties: superior, medium, and inferior. Those with superior faculties awaken at the first Dharma-door, those with medium faculties at the second, and those with inferior faculties at this Dharma-door. Therefore, this section comes about. The text is divided into two parts. The first part refutes from the perspective of inherent self-contradiction, which is divided into four points. First, it generally points out the errors of their clinging. Second, it explains and clarifies the contradictions. Third, it cites examples to point out the facts. Fourth, it concludes with non-arising. It can also be understood as one thesis, two reasons, three metaphors, and four conclusions. The second part points out that it is the same as the previous two refutation methods. This can be seen in the text. The third major section concludes the root of the doctrine, which is divided into two points. First, it concludes that the above three Dharma-doors are all non-arising. Second, it concludes with non-arising under 'in all things'. The fourth part uses analogy to dispel attachments, which is divided into three points. First, it uses analogy to dispel conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma). Second, it dispels unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma). Third, it dispels the self (ātman). These can all be understood.

Chapter 3: Observation of Conditions

Explaining this Dharma-door has four meanings, the same as before. First is distinguishing the name: 'arising of result' is condition (pratyaya), observing the condition is without self-nature, therefore it is called a 'door'. Second is explaining the intention: previously, seeking arising in cause (hetu) was unattainable, now seeking it in condition is also non-arising, therefore it comes next. Furthermore, because various Dharma-doors are used to dispel attachments, it also reveals that all that is touched is non-arising. Third is explaining what is to be explained in the chapter, namely, investigating the four conditions (catvāri pratyayāḥ), all are without the principle of arising, which is the doctrine of the school. Fourth is explaining the content of the text, which is divided into five points. First is stating the thesis. Second is refuting existence. Third is refuting non-existence. Fourth is refuting conditions. Fifth is using analogy to dispel attachments. First, in stating the thesis, all dharmas are results and conditions, and cannot be established. Second, in refuting existence, it is divided into three points. First, it briefly states the thesis with a verse.

。三徴破明空。初中先立頌后略釋。頌中上半奪破。下半結呵。又上半顯理。下半徴情。略釋中。一一緣是廣。和合是略。此二門中求有生不可得也。二辨緣相中二。先問后答。答中先頌。后釋。頌中上半案定。下半列名。以外道立神我為第五緣。故此無也。釋中二。先列名后釋相。釋相中。釋四緣則為四。此中各有三義。謂標釋結。初中因緣者。以因為緣故云因。此則因即緣故名因緣。非是親疏並舉。名為因緣。謂所從生者。顯親生義也。又此從生是果法體是有為故。三世攝耳。二中法已滅者。前心法謝滅也。次第生者。由前心心法雖謝滅。然有開避引導之力。令後心法無間而生。故云次第生。與次第法為緣故名也。新翻名等無間緣也。此唯心法有。余皆無也。三中緣者所緣也。以所緣法緣起能緣心心法等故名緣。則所緣為緣故云緣緣。新名所緣緣。釋中所念則是所緣。理實但起心心法。為身語二業依止。思法上立故。亦通舉三業耳。四中。以此法于彼法有增上勝力故云增上。增上即緣故云增上緣。此有二種。一不相礙增上。二勝力助成增上。此文通二。據后而說。第三徴破明空。于中五。初總標。二別徴。三雙責。四結無。五結宗。別中。初以緣奪因明因中無。二以因奪緣明緣中無。三若於下雙徴責。四是故下結

無。五如是一一下結正徴情。一一是別責故廣也。和合是總徴故略也。三破無中三。先立頌。頌中上半牒外計。下半以非緣並破。后釋顯。謂外意云。緣中略廣求雖不得。何妨此果從四緣生。破意云。既緣與非緣同是無果。而得從緣出。何得不從非緣出耶。立量等可知。三是故下結無生。四破緣中二。先標宗。謂生果故名緣。果既不生。何得有緣。后釋先緣後果者。此是案情求理破。謂若先緣無果。是誰緣。故非也。第五類遣中三。先類結有為空。二無為空。三我空。是故三空除二我也。

觀相門第四

釋此門四句同前。一釋名者。觀破能相及所相法盡以至真空故云也。二來意者。前破所相。次破能相。義次第故是故來。又執見之者聞前門緣不生果。或謂相能生法。為破彼故而興此門。又以多門顯理。使明凈故也。三品所明者。破盡三相。令見心無寄。以成正觀故也。四釋文中四。初標宗。二立頌。三釋破。四類遣。頌中初句舉法體。次一句辨相空。下半依相空遣法體。三釋中二。先釋標中有為相空。后釋標中無為相空。初中亦二。初有五頌破薩婆多師大小相相產生共有因義。后五破大眾部師以有為相自生生他義。前中亦二。先正破。后破救。初中先一句立宗。謂有為法不由於相而成彼法故云也。二正顯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無。五個『如是』（指如是信、如是聞、如是時、如是說、如是處）一一總結並糾正（經文的）情感。每一個『如是』都是單獨的職責，所以是廣義的。『和合』是總體的糾正，所以是簡略的。三重破除『無』中的三重含義。首先設立偈頌。偈頌中上半部分是針對外道的計較，下半部分用『非緣』一同破除。之後進行解釋和顯明。意思是外道認為：『在緣中，無論如何尋找廣義或簡略的（因），即使找不到，又有什麼妨礙這個果從四緣而生呢？』破除的意思是：既然『緣』和『非緣』一樣都是沒有結果的，卻能從『緣』中產生（果），為什麼不能從『非緣』中產生呢？設立論證等可以知道。第三，因此總結『無生』。第四，破除『緣』中的兩種含義。首先標明宗旨，意思是產生結果才叫做『緣』，既然沒有結果產生，怎麼能有『緣』呢？之後解釋『先緣後果』，這是根據實際情況尋求道理進行破除。意思是如果先有『緣』而沒有結果，那麼是誰的『緣』呢？所以是不成立的。第五，類別遣除中有三重含義。首先類別總結『有為空』，第二是『無為空』，第三是『我空』。因此，三空去除了兩種『我』。

觀相門第四

解釋此門，四句與前面相同。一，解釋名稱，『觀』是破除能相和所相的法，最終達到真空，所以叫做『觀』。二，來意，前面破除所相，接下來破除能相，義理上有次第，所以由此而來。又或者，執著見解的人聽到前面一門說『緣不生果』，或許認為『相』能生法，爲了破除他們的這種想法，所以興起此門。又用多種方法來顯明道理，使之更加明凈。三，品所明，破除所有的三種相，使（修行者）見到心無所寄託，從而成就正觀。四，解釋文中的四個部分。首先標明宗旨，第二設立偈頌，第三解釋破除，第四類別遣除。偈頌中第一句舉出法體，第二句辨析相空，下半部分依據相空遣除法體。三重解釋中分為兩部分。首先解釋標明中的『有為相空』，之後解釋標明中的『無為相空』。第一部分中也分為兩部分。首先用五個偈頌破除薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，一切有部，佛教部派之一）的師父們關於大小相、相產生、共有因的觀點。之後用五個偈頌破除大眾部（Mahasanghika，佛教部派之一）的師父們關於『有為相自生生他』的觀點。第一部分中也分為兩部分。首先是正式破除，之後是破除救助。第一部分中，首先用一句確立宗旨，意思是『有為法』不是由於『相』而成就那個法的。

【English Translation】 English version None. The five 『thus』 (referring to thus believed, thus heard, thus time, thus said, thus place) each summarize and correct the (scriptural) emotions. Each 『thus』 is a separate responsibility, hence it is broad. 『Harmony』 is a general correction, hence it is concise. Triple refutation of the triple meaning in 『non-existence』. First, establish a verse. The first half of the verse addresses the calculations of external paths, and the second half refutes them together with 『non-causes』. Then, explain and reveal. The meaning is that external paths think: 『In causes, no matter how one seeks broadly or concisely (the cause), even if one cannot find it, what prevents this result from arising from the four causes?』 The meaning of the refutation is: Since 『causes』 and 『non-causes』 are the same in that they have no result, yet (the result) can arise from 『causes』, why can't it arise from 『non-causes』? Establishing arguments, etc., can be known. Third, therefore, conclude 『non-arising』. Fourth, refute the two meanings in 『causes』. First, state the purpose, meaning that producing a result is called a 『cause』. Since no result is produced, how can there be a 『cause』? Then explain 『cause precedes result』, this is based on the actual situation to seek reason for refutation. The meaning is that if there is a 『cause』 first and no result, then whose 『cause』 is it? So it is not established. Fifth, the category of elimination has three meanings. First, the category summarizes 『conditioned existence』, second is 『unconditioned existence』, and third is 『selflessness』. Therefore, the three emptinesses remove the two 『selves』.

Chapter Four: Contemplating Characteristics

Explaining this chapter, the four sentences are the same as before. 1. Explaining the name, 『contemplation』 is to refute the characteristics of both the subject and object, ultimately reaching true emptiness, hence it is called 『contemplation』. 2. The intention of coming, the previous chapter refuted the object characteristics, and the next chapter refutes the subject characteristics, there is an order in the meaning, so it comes from this. Or, those who are attached to views hear the previous chapter saying 『causes do not produce results』, perhaps thinking that 『characteristics』 can produce phenomena, in order to refute their thinking, this chapter arises. Also, use multiple methods to reveal the truth, making it clearer. 3. What the chapter clarifies, refutes all three characteristics, so that (practitioners) see that the mind has nothing to rely on, thereby achieving correct contemplation. 4. Explaining the four parts of the text. First, state the purpose, second, establish a verse, third, explain the refutation, and fourth, categorize the elimination. The first sentence in the verse mentions the substance of the Dharma, the second sentence distinguishes the emptiness of characteristics, and the second half eliminates the substance of the Dharma based on the emptiness of characteristics. The triple explanation is divided into two parts. First, explain the 『conditioned characteristic emptiness』 in the statement, and then explain the 『unconditioned characteristic emptiness』 in the statement. The first part is also divided into two parts. First, use five verses to refute the views of the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada, one of the Buddhist schools) masters on large and small characteristics, mutual generation of characteristics, and common causes. Then, use five verses to refute the views of the Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika, one of the Buddhist schools) masters on 『conditioned characteristics arising by themselves and causing others to arise』. The first part is also divided into two parts. First is the formal refutation, and then is the refutation of the rescue. In the first part, first use a sentence to establish the purpose, meaning that 『conditioned phenomena』 are not achieved by 『characteristics』.

中。先一問答舉相案定。后一問答以理正破。初中。先問后答。答中。先辨諸法各自有體狀。如牛瓶等。不須法外別能相。汝此三相若是有為之相者。未知此三相當體為是有為。為是無為。若毗曇成實同云。三相是有法。毗婆阇提云。有為之體不能自固。何能相他。當知三相是無為法。曇無崛人云。生住二相是有為法。滅相是無為法。是故三相是亦有為亦無為。二以理正破中二。先外問受是有為。后內答正破。以無為及俱不待破故。是以文中唯破有為。文中二。先立頌。上半破三相是有為。與出無窮過。下半破三相是無為。與出失相過。又釋。下半破救。言有為法體須相。須相更不須者。是則法體須相。相法體是有為。相既不須相。相應是無為。相若是無為。云何為有為法作相。故言何名有為相。釋中順此。二釋中二。先釋頌。后類遣。前中。先釋上半頌。后釋下半頌。前中。先釋生。謂一無窮過。如文顯。二若生中有滅則相違。無滅非有為。是故有滅亦不成。無滅亦不成。故生空也。二類住滅亦爾也。二若生是無為下釋下半頌。亦初釋生有三義。一二聚乖違破。謂滅此有為方是無為。極相反故。猶如明闇。豈可明與闇為相。二責相失體破。謂若是無為則無生住滅。離此三相。誰知此有為法之生耶。三複下次無分別破

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中。先用一個問答來確定現象的依據。後用一個問答用正理來破斥。首先，先提問后回答。回答中，先辨析諸法各自有其體性和狀態，如牛、瓶等，不需要在法之外另有能相。你所說的這三種相，如果是『有為』（saṃskṛta，指因緣和合而生滅變化的現象）之相，那麼，這三種相的本體是有為還是無為（asaṃskṛta，指不生不滅、無為造作的現象）呢？如果像毗曇宗（Abhidharma）和成實宗（Satya-siddhi-śāstra）一樣認為，三相是有法，那麼毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）會說，有為法的本體不能自存，又怎麼能作為其他法的相呢？應當知道，三相是無為法。曇無崛（Dharmagupta）的人認為，生相和住相是有為法，滅相是無為法。因此，三相既可以是有為，也可以是無為。其次，用正理破斥分為兩部分。先從外人提問，接受『受』是有為的觀點，然後從內部回答，用正理破斥，因為無為以及有為無為都不依賴於三相，所以破斥它們沒有意義。因此，文中只破斥有為。文中分為兩部分。先立一個偈頌，上半部分破斥三相是有為，會產生無窮的過失；下半部分破斥三相是無為，會產生失去相的過失。又解釋說，下半部分是用來破斥對方的辯解，即有為法的本體需要相，如果相不需要其他的相，那麼法的本體需要相，相的本體是有為，相既然不需要相，那麼相就應該是無為。相如果是無為，又怎麼能作為有為法的相呢？所以說『何名有為相』（什麼是名為有為的相）。解釋中順著這個思路。其次，解釋分為兩部分。先解釋偈頌，後用類比來排除。前面一部分中，先解釋上半部分偈頌，后解釋下半部分偈頌。前面一部分中，先解釋生相，指出一個無窮的過失，如文中所顯。其次，如果生相中有滅相，則相互矛盾；如果沒有滅相，就不是有為。所以有滅相不成立，沒有滅相也不成立，所以生相是空性的。其次，住相和滅相也是如此。其次，如果生相是無為，那麼解釋下半部分偈頌，也首先解釋生相，有三種含義。第一，兩種聚合相互違背而破斥，即滅掉這個有為法才是無為，兩者是完全相反的，就像光明和黑暗一樣，怎麼能讓光明和黑暗互為相呢？第二，責備相失去本體而破斥，即如果是無為，就沒有生、住、滅。離開了這三種相，誰知道這個有為法的生起呢？第三，再次是無分別的破斥。

【English Translation】 English version Here, a question and answer are first used to establish the basis of phenomena. Then, a question and answer are used to refute with correct reasoning. Initially, there is first a question, then an answer. Within the answer, there is first a distinction made that all dharmas (法, phenomena) each have their own substance and state, such as cows and bottles, etc., and there is no need for a separate characteristic outside of the dharma that can be a characteristic. If these three characteristics you speak of are 'conditioned' (saṃskṛta, referring to phenomena that arise and cease due to causes and conditions) characteristics, then is the substance of these three characteristics conditioned or unconditioned (asaṃskṛta, referring to phenomena that neither arise nor cease, and are not created)? If, like the Abhidharma (毗曇宗) and Satyasiddhi-śāstra (成實宗), it is thought that the three characteristics are conditioned dharmas, then the Vaibhāṣika (毗婆沙師) would say that the substance of conditioned dharmas cannot sustain itself, so how can it be a characteristic of other dharmas? It should be known that the three characteristics are unconditioned dharmas. The people of Dharmagupta (曇無崛) believe that the characteristics of arising and abiding are conditioned dharmas, and the characteristic of cessation is an unconditioned dharma. Therefore, the three characteristics can be both conditioned and unconditioned. Secondly, the refutation with correct reasoning is divided into two parts. First, from the perspective of an outsider, the view that 'reception' is conditioned is accepted, and then from within, the view is refuted with correct reasoning, because it is meaningless to refute unconditioned or both conditioned and unconditioned, as they do not depend on the three characteristics. Therefore, only the conditioned is refuted in the text. The text is divided into two parts. First, a verse is established, the first half refuting that the three characteristics are conditioned, which would lead to infinite faults; the second half refuting that the three characteristics are unconditioned, which would lead to the fault of losing the characteristic. It is also explained that the second half is used to refute the other party's defense, that is, the substance of conditioned dharmas needs a characteristic. If the characteristic does not need other characteristics, then the substance of the dharma needs a characteristic, and the substance of the characteristic is conditioned. Since the characteristic does not need a characteristic, then the characteristic should be unconditioned. If the characteristic is unconditioned, how can it be a characteristic of conditioned dharmas? Therefore, it is said 'What is called a conditioned characteristic?' The explanation follows this line of thought. Secondly, the explanation is divided into two parts. First, the verse is explained, and then analogy is used to exclude. In the first part, the first half of the verse is explained first, and then the second half of the verse is explained. In the first part, the characteristic of arising is explained first, pointing out an infinite fault, as shown in the text. Secondly, if there is a characteristic of cessation in the characteristic of arising, then they contradict each other; if there is no characteristic of cessation, then it is not conditioned. Therefore, the existence of cessation is not established, and the non-existence of cessation is also not established, so the characteristic of arising is empty. Secondly, the characteristics of abiding and cessation are also the same. Thirdly, if the characteristic of arising is unconditioned, then explaining the second half of the verse, the characteristic of arising is also explained first, with three meanings. First, the two aggregates are mutually contradictory and refuted, that is, the unconditioned is only when this conditioned dharma is extinguished, and the two are completely opposite, like light and darkness, how can light and darkness be characteristics of each other? Secondly, the characteristic is blamed for losing its substance and refuted, that is, if it is unconditioned, there is no arising, abiding, or cessation. Apart from these three characteristics, who knows the arising of this conditioned dharma? Thirdly, again, there is a non-discriminating refutation.

。謂是無為一際無二。何處有生得異住滅。是故無生下例于住滅。故云亦爾也。二類遣中三。一以相無遣法體。二遣無為。三通結一切。第二破救中。先外救。后正破。初中二。先牒前過。二立理救。于中。先頌后釋。頌中救前二難。謂上半救無為難。以生生之本生故本生既從生生生。是故非無為法。下半救無窮過。以本生之生生故生生既還從本生生。是故無無窮過。于中初句舉生生體。以是本生家之所生故云之所生也。次句辨生生之用。下二句反準此知。二釋中三。先開法。二救過。三結離。就救過中。本生除自體生六法者。以親生本有為法體。故名本生。則本之生故。又以生此本名為生生。則生之生故。亦名大生小生。此大生與六法為生相。唯不與自作相。以自大生用小生為相故。大住滅亦爾。是故大相通能相大小。然唯不自相。小相不通相大小。然唯相一大。以小無力生法少故名為小。大相有力生法多故名為大。如大生中以小生為生相。大住滅為住滅相。大住以小住為住相。大生滅為生滅相。大滅以小滅為滅相。大生住為生住相。若小生中具有三大相。小住滅亦爾。是故無彼無窮過。此則六因之中。共有因。謂俱時起故共有。更互託故名因。此中有共有共有因。有共有而非因。若將法體望六相。得作共有共有因

。若將大生望六法。亦是共有共有因。大住大滅亦爾。若將小生望大生。共有共有因。小住望大住。小滅望大滅。亦共有共有因。小生望五法。共有而非因。小住小滅望五法亦然。然大小二生彼宗以剎那頃共相賴起。住滅亦爾。故無前失也。三是故下結離過。下例住滅二。答曰下正斥破。于中二。初有二頌。明是所無能破。后一頌未能無所破。又釋。初二是前後不生破。后一是同時不生破。前中二頌。一小不生大。二大不生小。初則小生在先大生在後。小生不生大生。后則大生在先。小生在後。大生不生小生。后釋頌中二。先牒計總非。二釋非所以。二同時破中三。先牒計總非。二立頌正破。謂上半約情縱。下半就理奪。三釋破。破意云。夫相生之道必有體能生無體從生。今言同時。為是俱有。為是俱無。若是俱有。何須相生。若是俱無。阿誰相生。若一有一無何得同時。又豈得互生。第二破大眾部師計有為相自生生他。于中二。初牒計總非。二以理斥破。此中二。先有四頌破喻。后一頌破法。前中四。初一頌明已然不到破。第二頌明然時不到破。第三頌明近遠互從破。第四燈闇反並破。初中三。先頌中。上半明由無自他所照闇故。下半遂無能照燈也。二釋。三是故下結非呵止。並可知。第二然時不到破者。先問。問

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若以大生（Mahā-utpāda，大生起）觀察六法（六種要素），也是共有共有的因。大住（Mahā-sthiti，大住立）、大滅（Mahā-bhaṅga，大壞滅）也是如此。若以小生（Alpa-utpāda，小生起）觀察大生，是共有共有的因。小住觀察大住，小滅觀察大滅，也是共有共有的因。小生觀察五法（五蘊），是共有而非因。小住、小滅觀察五法也是如此。然而大小二生，他們宗派認為是剎那頃互相依賴而生起，住、滅也是如此，所以沒有之前的過失。三、因此下面總結以消除過失。下面以住、滅二者為例。回答說下面正式駁斥破除。其中分為二部分。最初有二頌，說明是有能破除的。后一頌未能破除任何東西。又作解釋。最初的二頌是前後不生破。后一頌是同時不生破。前面的二頌中，一是小不生大，二是大不生小。最初是小生在先，大生在後，小生不生大生。後面是大生在先，小生在後，大生不生小生。後面解釋頌文分為二部分。先是總括否定他們的觀點，二是解釋否定的原因。二、同時破斥中分為三部分。先是總括否定他們的觀點，二是立頌正式破斥。所謂上半部分是順著情理假設，下半部分是就道理駁奪。三是解釋破斥。破斥的意思是，相生的道理必然有體和能生，沒有體就無法產生。現在說是同時，是都存在呢，還是都不存在呢？如果是都存在，何須相生？如果是都不存在，誰來相生？如果一個有，一個沒有，怎麼能同時？又怎麼能互相產生？第二、破斥大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）的師說，認為有為法（Saṃskṛta-dharma）是自己產生，也產生其他。其中分為二部分。最初是總括否定他們的觀點，二是以道理駁斥破除。這裡分為二部分。先有四頌破斥比喻，后一頌破斥法。前面的四頌中，第一頌說明已然不到破，第二頌說明然時不到破，第三頌說明近遠互相依從破，第四燈和黑暗互相反對並存破。最初的一頌中分為三部分。先是頌文，上半部分說明由於沒有自己和他所照的黑暗，下半部分於是就沒有能照的燈了。二是解釋。三、因此下面總結否定呵止。都可以知道。第二、然時不到破，先是提問。

【English Translation】 English version If one observes the six dharmas (elements) with Mahā-utpāda (great arising), it is also a shared and common cause. The same applies to Mahā-sthiti (great abiding) and Mahā-bhaṅga (great ceasing). If one observes Alpa-utpāda (small arising) with respect to Mahā-utpāda, it is a shared and common cause. Observing Alpa-sthiti with respect to Mahā-sthiti, and Alpa-bhaṅga with respect to Mahā-bhaṅga, it is also a shared and common cause. Observing Alpa-utpāda with respect to the five dharmas (five skandhas), it is shared but not a cause. The same applies to observing Alpa-sthiti and Alpa-bhaṅga with respect to the five dharmas. However, these two arisings, great and small, are considered by their school to arise interdependently in an instant, and the same applies to abiding and ceasing, so there is no previous fault. Three, therefore, the following concludes to eliminate faults. The following uses abiding and ceasing as examples. The answer says that the following formally refutes and destroys. It is divided into two parts. Initially, there are two verses, explaining that there is something that can be refuted. The latter verse fails to refute anything. It is also explained. The initial two verses are the refutation of non-arising before and after. The latter verse is the refutation of simultaneous non-arising. In the preceding two verses, one is that the small does not give rise to the great, and the other is that the great does not give rise to the small. Initially, the small arises first, and the great arises later, the small arising does not give rise to the great arising. Later, the great arises first, and the small arises later, the great arising does not give rise to the small arising. The latter explanation of the verses is divided into two parts. First, it is a general negation of their view, and second, it explains the reason for the negation. Two, the simultaneous refutation is divided into three parts. First, it is a general negation of their view, and second, it establishes a verse to formally refute. The so-called first half assumes according to reason, and the second half refutes based on principle. Three, it explains the refutation. The meaning of the refutation is that the principle of arising must have a substance and the ability to produce, and without a substance, it cannot be produced. Now it is said to be simultaneous, do they both exist, or do they both not exist? If they both exist, why is there a need for arising? If they both do not exist, who will arise? If one exists and one does not, how can they be simultaneous? And how can they arise mutually? Second, refuting the teacher of the Mahāsāṃghika (Great Assembly School), who believes that conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta-dharmas) arise by themselves and also produce others. It is divided into two parts. Initially, it is a general negation of their view, and second, it refutes and destroys with reason. Here it is divided into two parts. First, there are four verses refuting the analogy, and the latter verse refutes the dharma. In the preceding four verses, the first verse explains the refutation of not reaching what has already happened, the second verse explains the refutation of not reaching the time of burning, the third verse explains the mutual dependence of near and far, and the fourth explains the opposition and coexistence of light and darkness. In the initial verse, it is divided into three parts. First, the verse explains that because there is no darkness illuminated by oneself and others, the latter half then has no light to illuminate. Second, it explains. Three, therefore, the following concludes the negation and prohibition. All can be known. Second, the refutation of not reaching the time of burning, first is the question.

意云。燈初生時體未足故。焰內有闇。明未盛故。室中猶昏。燈體漸圓昏闇斯盡。當知破闇是初生燈。故云然時能破闇。謂自照照彼也。二答中。先頌。上半徴計。下半正破。謂即此初生燈時闇已謝滅。是故終無初生之燈與未謝闇俱。以不俱故亦不及闇。不及闇故不名破。若及闇亦不破。長行釋可知。第三近遠互從破中。初頌。上半牒計。下半正破。后釋中。以俱不到為因有四難。一以近同遠。應俱不破。二以遠同近。則應俱破。三既俱不到闇故。破近不破遠。亦應俱不到故。破遠不破近。四既有破不破。應有到不到。文中三。初牒計。二正破。先縱后奪。三結呵。第四相違反並破。于中二。先頌后釋。頌中。上半牒計。下半以闇例破。謂明闇正違。明既有照闇之功。闇亦應有障明之力。有此力故。燈不能破闇也。又若燈既自照亦照闇。闇亦應自蔽亦蔽燈。燈若為闇蔽。豈可能破闇。設彼救云。明是勝故。照他還自照。闇是劣故。蔽自不蔽他。則還難云。明是勝故能違闇。闇是劣故不違明。若使俱相違。何不須相破。通論以俱相違為因。亦有四難。一以燈從闇破。燈應不破闇。以俱相違故。如闇不蔽燈。二以闇從燈破。闇定能障燈。亦以相違故。如燈能破闇。三燈既違于闇。而燈則能破闇。闇不能蔽于燈。亦可闇亦違

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他問道：『你認為呢？燈剛點燃的時候，它的形體還不完整，所以火焰內部有黑暗。光明還不強盛，所以房間里仍然昏暗。等到燈的形體逐漸圓滿，黑暗就會完全消失。』應當知道，破除黑暗的是剛點燃的燈。所以說，點燃的時候能夠破除黑暗，指的是既能照亮自己，也能照亮別人。在第二個回答中，先用偈頌概括。上半部分是提出對方的觀點，下半部分是正面駁斥。意思是說，就在這燈剛點燃的時候，黑暗就已經消退滅亡了。因此，最終不會出現剛點燃的燈和未消退的黑暗同時存在的情況。因為它們不同時存在，所以燈也無法觸及黑暗。因為無法觸及黑暗，所以不能稱為『破』。如果燈能夠觸及黑暗，那也無法破除黑暗。長行的解釋可以理解。第三個問題是關於遠近互相作用的破除。首先用偈頌概括，上半部分是陳述對方的觀點，下半部分是正面駁斥。後面的解釋中，以燈和黑暗都無法到達對方為理由，提出了四個難題：第一，如果近處和遠處一樣，都無法到達，那麼燈應該都無法破除黑暗。第二，如果遠處和近處一樣，都能到達，那麼燈應該都能破除黑暗。第三，既然燈和黑暗都無法到達對方，那麼燈破除近處的黑暗卻不能破除遠處的黑暗，也應該燈和黑暗都無法到達對方，所以燈破除遠處的黑暗卻不能破除近處的黑暗。第四，既然有破除和不破除的情況，那麼就應該有到達和無法到達的情況。文中分為三部分：首先是陳述對方的觀點，然後是正面駁斥，先是順著對方的思路，然後是駁倒對方，最後是總結並呵斥。第四個問題是關於相互違反並破除。其中分為兩部分：先是偈頌，然後是解釋。偈頌中，上半部分是陳述對方的觀點，下半部分是用黑暗來類比並進行駁斥。意思是說，光明和黑暗是完全相反的。光明既然有照亮黑暗的作用，黑暗也應該有遮蔽光明的作用。有了這種作用，燈就不能破除黑暗了。又如果燈既能照亮自己也能照亮黑暗，那麼黑暗也應該既能遮蔽自己也能遮蔽燈。如果燈被黑暗遮蔽，怎麼可能破除黑暗呢？假設對方辯解說：『光明是強大的，所以能照亮別人也能照亮自己；黑暗是弱小的，所以只能遮蔽自己不能遮蔽別人。』那麼就可以反駁說：『光明是強大的，所以能違背黑暗；黑暗是弱小的，所以不能違背光明。』如果光明和黑暗都互相違背，為什麼不需要互相破除呢？總的來說，以互相違背為理由，也有四個難題：第一，如果燈聽從黑暗的，那麼燈就不應該破除黑暗，因為光明和黑暗互相違背，就像黑暗不能遮蔽燈一樣。第二，如果黑暗聽從燈的，那麼黑暗一定能遮蔽燈，也因為光明和黑暗互相違背，就像燈能破除黑暗一樣。第三，燈既然違背黑暗，而燈卻能破除黑暗，那麼黑暗也可以違背燈，

【English Translation】 English version: He asked: 'What do you think? When a lamp is first lit, its form is not yet complete, so there is darkness within the flame. The light is not yet strong, so the room is still dim. When the lamp's form gradually becomes complete, the darkness will completely disappear.' It should be known that what dispels the darkness is the newly lit lamp. Therefore, it is said that when lit, it can dispel darkness, referring to both illuminating oneself and illuminating others. In the second answer, it begins with a summary in verse. The first half presents the opponent's view, and the second half is a direct refutation. It means that at the very moment the lamp is first lit, the darkness has already receded and perished. Therefore, there will ultimately be no instance of a newly lit lamp and undispelled darkness coexisting. Because they do not coexist, the lamp cannot reach the darkness. Because it cannot reach the darkness, it cannot be called 'dispelling.' If the lamp could reach the darkness, it would not be able to dispel it. The explanation in the prose section can be understood. The third question concerns the mutual interaction of near and far in dispelling. It begins with a summary in verse, the first half stating the opponent's view, and the second half being a direct refutation. In the subsequent explanation, using the reason that neither the lamp nor the darkness can reach the other, four difficulties are presented: First, if near and far are the same, unable to reach, then the lamp should not be able to dispel darkness at all. Second, if far and near are the same, able to reach, then the lamp should be able to dispel darkness in all cases. Third, since neither the lamp nor the darkness can reach the other, then the lamp dispelling the darkness near but not far should also mean that neither the lamp nor the darkness can reach the other, so the lamp dispelling the darkness far but not near. Fourth, since there are cases of dispelling and not dispelling, then there should be cases of reaching and not reaching. The text is divided into three parts: first, stating the opponent's view; then, directly refuting, first following the opponent's line of reasoning, then overturning it; and finally, summarizing and rebuking. The fourth question concerns mutual contradiction and dispelling. It is divided into two parts: first, the verse; then, the explanation. In the verse, the first half states the opponent's view, and the second half uses darkness as an analogy to refute. It means that light and darkness are completely opposite. Since light has the function of illuminating darkness, darkness should also have the function of obscuring light. With this function, the lamp cannot dispel darkness. Furthermore, if the lamp can both illuminate itself and illuminate darkness, then darkness should both obscure itself and obscure the lamp. If the lamp is obscured by darkness, how can it dispel darkness? Suppose the opponent argues: 'Light is strong, so it can illuminate others and illuminate itself; darkness is weak, so it can only obscure itself and not obscure others.' Then it can be countered: 'Light is strong, so it can oppose darkness; darkness is weak, so it cannot oppose light.' If light and darkness both contradict each other, why is there no need for mutual dispelling? In general, using mutual contradiction as a reason, there are also four difficulties: First, if the lamp follows darkness, then the lamp should not dispel darkness, because light and darkness contradict each other, just as darkness cannot obscure the lamp. Second, if darkness follows the lamp, then darkness must be able to obscure the lamp, also because light and darkness contradict each other, just as the lamp can dispel darkness. Third, since the lamp contradicts darkness, and the lamp can dispel darkness, then darkness can also contradict the lamp,

于燈。而闇則能蔽燈。燈不能破于闇。四若一破一不破。應一違一不違。若闇不違燈。燈中應有闇。闇中應有燈。並可知。文中釋結可知。破喻竟。第二破法中二。先牒計后斥破。破中。先頌后釋。頌中略舉自不成生。上半約舉未生破。下半舉已生破。釋中二。先釋一頌。后總結一門。前中二。先釋生。后例住滅。前中三。初釋破自生。二釋破生彼。三雙結呵非。初中三。先案定。二若未生下正破。先約未生破。既未有自。誰能自生。若謂生已下舉已生破。既已生。何須更自生。三是故下結。二若不自生下破生彼。自尚不生。況能生彼。三汝說下雙結呵非。二例住滅可知。二是故下總結一門。第二破無為中二。先牒前起后。謂以相空例所相亦空。此有為空故。起后無為亦空。二正破中。先正破后破救。前中。初標后釋。釋中二。初破無為體。謂明滅卻有為。是則無物。更有何法名作無為。是故無此無為法體。又有為既空。無可滅故。無無為也。二複次下破無為相。謂無表相故無體也。三相既是有為。無三即是無法。豈以無法為相。是故無也。二若謂下破救。于中二。初破當體表相。二破反對顯相。前中二。初牒計總非。二正破。正破中三。初總徴知相。二別就有相徴。三別就無相徴。謂若有則乖宗。若無則失表故。並

【現代漢語翻譯】于燈（燈：照明工具）。而黑暗則能遮蔽燈光。燈光不能驅散黑暗。四種情況如果有一種成立，就有一種不成立。如果一種不違背，就有一種不違背。如果黑暗不違背燈光，那麼燈光中應該有黑暗，黑暗中應該有燈光。這些都可以知道。文中解釋了這些糾結之處，可以理解。破除比喻結束。第二部分是破除法，分為兩部分。首先提出對方的觀點，然後進行駁斥。駁斥中，先是概括，然後是解釋。概括中，略微提出『自不成生』的觀點。上半部分是概括未生的情況進行駁斥，下半部分是舉出已生的情況進行駁斥。解釋中分為兩部分。先解釋概括，后總結這一門。前面一部分分為兩部分。先解釋『生』，然後類比『住』和『滅』。前面一部分分為三部分。首先解釋破除『自生』，其次解釋破除『生彼』，最後雙重總結並呵斥錯誤觀點。首先解釋破除『自生』，分為三部分。先是確定觀點，然後是正式駁斥。先從『未生』的角度進行駁斥，既然還沒有『自』，誰能自己產生自己呢？如果說已經產生，那麼舉出『已生』的情況進行駁斥，既然已經產生，為什麼還需要自己產生自己呢？第三部分是總結。其次是破除『生彼』，如果自己都不能產生，更何況能產生其他事物呢？第三部分是雙重總結並呵斥錯誤觀點。其次是類比『住』和『滅』，可以理解。第三部分是總結這一門。第二部分是破除『無為』，分為兩部分。首先提出對方的觀點，然後進行駁斥。認為用『相空』來類比『所相』也空，因為『此有為』的緣故，所以提出『無為』也空。其次是正式駁斥，分為先駁斥，后補救。前面一部分，先標明觀點，然後解釋。解釋中分為兩部分。首先破除『無為』的本體，認為如果滅除了『有為』，那麼就什麼都沒有了，還有什麼法可以稱作『無為』呢？所以沒有這種『無為』的本體。而且『有為』既然是空，沒有可以滅除的東西，也就沒有『無為』了。其次是破除『無為』的相狀，認為因為沒有表相，所以沒有本體。相既然是『有為』，沒有三相就是沒有法，怎麼能用沒有法作為相狀呢？所以沒有『無為』。其次是駁斥對方的補救，分為兩部分。首先破除當體表相，其次破除反對顯相。前面一部分分為兩部分。首先提出對方的觀點並全部否定，然後正式駁斥。正式駁斥分為三部分。首先總的詢問『知相』，其次分別就『有相』進行詢問，第三分別就『無相』進行詢問。認為如果有相就違背了宗旨，如果沒有相就失去了表徵。

【English Translation】 Regarding the lamp (燈: dēng - lighting tool). Darkness can obscure the lamp. The lamp cannot dispel the darkness. If one of the four conditions holds, then one does not hold. If one does not contradict, then one does not contradict. If darkness does not contradict the lamp, then there should be darkness in the lamp, and there should be a lamp in the darkness. These can all be known. The explanation of these entanglements in the text can be understood. The refutation by analogy ends. The second part is the refutation of the Dharma, which is divided into two parts. First, present the opponent's view, and then refute it. In the refutation, first summarize, and then explain. In the summary, briefly present the view of 'self-non-arising' (自不成生: zì bù chéng shēng). The first half is to refute from the perspective of the unarisen, and the second half is to refute by citing the arisen. The explanation is divided into two parts. First explain the summary, and then summarize this school. The first part is divided into two parts. First explain 'arising' (生: shēng), and then analogize 'dwelling' (住: zhù) and 'cessation' (滅: miè). The first part is divided into three parts. First explain the refutation of 'self-arising' (自生: zì shēng), second explain the refutation of 'other-arising' (生彼: shēng bǐ), and finally doubly summarize and rebuke the wrong views. First explain the refutation of 'self-arising', which is divided into three parts. First determine the view, and then formally refute it. First refute from the perspective of 'unarisen', since there is no 'self' (自: zì) yet, who can produce themselves? If it is said that it has already arisen, then cite the case of 'arisen' to refute, since it has already arisen, why is it necessary to produce itself again? The third part is the conclusion. Secondly, refute 'other-arising', if one cannot produce oneself, how can one produce other things? The third part is a double summary and rebuke of wrong views. Secondly, the analogy of 'dwelling' and 'cessation' can be understood. The third part is to summarize this school. The second part is to refute 'unconditioned' (無為: wú wéi), which is divided into two parts. First, present the opponent's view, and then refute it. It is believed that using 'emptiness of characteristics' (相空: xiāng kōng) to analogize 'what is characterized' (所相: suǒ xiāng) is also empty, because of 'this conditioned' (此有為: cǐ yǒu wéi), so it is proposed that 'unconditioned' is also empty. Secondly, the formal refutation is divided into first refuting, and then remedying. In the first part, first state the view, and then explain. The explanation is divided into two parts. First refute the substance of 'unconditioned', believing that if 'conditioned' is extinguished, then there is nothing, what Dharma can be called 'unconditioned'? So there is no such substance of 'unconditioned'. Moreover, since 'conditioned' is empty, there is nothing to be extinguished, so there is no 'unconditioned'. Secondly, refute the characteristics of 'unconditioned', believing that because there is no outward appearance, there is no substance. Since characteristics are 'conditioned', the absence of the three characteristics is the absence of Dharma, how can the absence of Dharma be used as a characteristic? So there is no 'unconditioned'. Secondly, refute the opponent's remedy, which is divided into two parts. First refute the inherent characteristics, and second refute the opposing manifested characteristics. The first part is divided into two parts. First, present the opponent's view and deny it all, and then formally refute it. The formal refutation is divided into three parts. First, generally ask about 'knowing characteristics' (知相: zhī xiāng), second, ask about 'having characteristics' (有相: yǒu xiāng) separately, and third, ask about 'not having characteristics' (無相: wú xiāng) separately. It is believed that if there are characteristics, it violates the doctrine, and if there are no characteristics, it loses its representation.

可知。二若謂下破反對顯相。于中四。先牒計總非。謂先喻后法。外意如眾衣皆有別記驗之相。唯一衣無記驗相。則名此衣名無相衣。非謂無此衣法。但以對眾衣有相。說此為無。無為亦爾。故非是無法。二釋破。三是故下結非。四懸指后破。謂此後門中破有相無相者是。四類遣一切無不歸空。可知。

觀有相無相門第五

四句同前。一釋名者。于有無二門徴遣其相。從是所遣故以為名。二來意者。前門破相。恐猶未悟故更責。可相法中。有相故相。無相故相。為俱故相。是故來也。三所明者。有無都盡。無寄觀空是也。四釋文有四。一標。二釋三結四類。初中。一切法者。是有為無為等一切皆空也。二釋中二。初徴標略破。后釋頌廣破。前中。先何以故。徴標。謂何以得知一切法空。后立頌略釋。于中初句破有相。二破無相。三破俱。四結空。二廣釋中三。先釋破有。二破無。三破俱。初中三。先奪令失相破有。標釋可知。二縱則二相破。謂新舊二相故。三是故下結非。二破無中。初標。后舉事釋顯。前破有中。以執有故無能相。能相無故亦無所相。此中以執無故無所相。所相無故亦無能相。是文意也。三如是下釋破俱句。以離二無第三故空也。三是故下第三總結非。四類遣中六。一以相類遣法有標釋

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：可知。第二，如果說下面破除反對以顯示實相，其中有四點。首先，列舉計算總括性的否定。意思是先比喻后說法。外道的想法是，如同眾多的衣服都有各自不同的標記來驗證其相狀，只有一件衣服沒有任何標記來驗證其相狀，那麼就稱這件衣服為『無相衣』。這並非說沒有這件衣服的法，只是因為相對於眾多的有相衣服，才說這件衣服是『無』。『無為』也是如此，所以並非是沒有法。第二，解釋破除。第三，『是故』以下總結否定。第四，懸置指向後面的破除。意思是說，這後面的門中破除有相無相的說法。四種類別遣除一切，最終無不歸於空，這是可以知道的。

觀有相無相門第五

四句與前面相同。第一，解釋名稱。對於有無二門徵詢遣除其相狀，因為是從所遣除的相狀出發，所以以此為名。第二，說明來意。前面的門破除了相狀，恐怕還是沒有領悟，所以進一步責問。在可相法中，是因為有相的緣故才有相，還是因為無相的緣故才有相，還是因為有相和無相共同的緣故才有相？所以才有了這一門。第三，所要闡明的是，有和無都窮盡，沒有寄託而觀空，這就是要闡明的。第四，解釋經文有四個部分：一、標示；二、解釋；三、總結；四、類別。首先，在標示中，『一切法』是指有為法、無為法等一切都是空。第二，在解釋中有兩個部分：先是徵詢標示並簡略破除，后是用偈頌廣泛破除。在前面一部分中，先用『何以故』徵詢標示，意思是憑什麼得知一切法空。後面用偈頌簡略解釋，其中第一句破除有相，第二句破除無相，第三句破除有相和無相共同，第四句總結為空。第二部分是廣泛解釋，其中有三個部分：先解釋破除有相，再破除無相，最後破除有相和無相共同。在破除有相的部分中，有三個部分：先剝奪使其失去相狀來破除有相，標示和解釋可以知道。第二，縱容則有新舊二相來破除，意思是新相和舊相的緣故。第三，『是故』以下總結否定。第二部分是破除無相，先標示，后舉事例來解釋顯明。前面破除有相中，因為執著于有，所以沒有能相，能相沒有了，也就沒有所相。這裡因為執著于無，所以沒有所相，所相沒有了，也就沒有能相，這就是文中的意思。第三，『如是』以下解釋破除有相和無相共同的句子，因為離開了有和無，沒有第三種可能，所以是空。第三，『是故』以下第三次總結否定。第四，在類別遣除中，有六種：一是用相來類別遣除法有，標示和解釋可以知道。

【English Translation】 English version: Knowable. Secondly, if it is said that the following refutes opposition to reveal the true nature, there are four points within this. First, enumerate and calculate the overall negation, meaning first metaphor and then dharma. The externalist's idea is like many clothes that have different marks to verify their characteristics, only one piece of clothing has no marks to verify its characteristics, then this piece of clothing is called 'formless clothing' (Wu Xiang Yi). This does not mean that there is no dharma of this clothing, but only because it is relative to the many clothes with form that this clothing is said to be 'without'. 'Non-action' (Wu Wei) is also like this, so it is not that there is no dharma. Second, explain the refutation. Third, 'Therefore' below summarizes the negation. Fourth, suspend and point to the subsequent refutation, meaning that the following gate refutes the saying of form and formlessness. The four categories eliminate everything, and ultimately all return to emptiness, which is knowable.

The Fifth Gate of Observing Form and Formlessness (Guan You Xiang Wu Xiang Men)

The four sentences are the same as before. First, explain the name. For the two gates of existence and non-existence, inquire and eliminate their characteristics. Because it starts from the characteristics that are eliminated, it is named accordingly. Second, explain the intention. The previous gate refuted the characteristics, fearing that it was still not understood, so further questioning. In the dharma of what can be characterized, is it because of form that there is form, or because of formlessness that there is form, or because of both form and formlessness that there is form? Therefore, this gate arises. Third, what is to be clarified is that existence and non-existence are exhausted, and observing emptiness without reliance is what is to be clarified. Fourth, explaining the text has four parts: one, indication; two, explanation; three, conclusion; four, categories. First, in the indication, 'all dharmas' refers to all such as conditioned dharmas (You Wei Fa), unconditioned dharmas (Wu Wei Fa), etc., are all empty. Second, in the explanation, there are two parts: first, inquire and indicate and briefly refute, and then widely refute with verses. In the first part, first use 'Why?' (He Yi Gu) to inquire and indicate, meaning how to know that all dharmas are empty. Later, briefly explain with verses, in which the first sentence refutes form, the second sentence refutes formlessness, the third sentence refutes both form and formlessness, and the fourth sentence concludes with emptiness. The second part is a broad explanation, in which there are three parts: first, explain the refutation of form, then refute formlessness, and finally refute both form and formlessness. In the part of refuting form, there are three parts: first, deprive it of its characteristics to refute form, the indication and explanation are knowable. Second, allowing it, there are two new and old characteristics to refute, meaning because of the new and old characteristics. Third, 'Therefore' below summarizes the negation. The second part is to refute formlessness, first indicate, and then give examples to explain and clarify. In the previous refutation of form, because of attachment to existence, there is no able to characterize, and if there is no able to characterize, there is no characterized. Here, because of attachment to non-existence, there is no characterized, and if there is no characterized, there is no able to characterize, which is the meaning of the text. Third, 'Thus' below explains the sentence of refuting both form and formlessness, because apart from existence and non-existence, there is no third possibility, so it is empty. Third, 'Therefore' below summarizes the negation for the third time. Fourth, in the category elimination, there are six types: one is to use characteristics to categorize and eliminate the existence of dharma, the indication and explanation are knowable.

可知。二以一類遣多亦有標釋。三以有類遣無。四以物類遣有為。五類遣無為。六類遣我。是故成上標宗一切法空也。

觀一異門第六

初釋名者。以一異是所遣故。又說。遣一異以造真空故以為門。二來異者。前以有無破相可相已盡。但以更有一異門重破使執心永盡正理堅固。是故結相可相一異及俱而重破也。三所明者。以破相可相一異俱盡。令觀心照理故也。四釋文中二。先一句標宗。后釋破。破中二。先正破。后破救。初中三。先頌。上半破一異。下半破相可相。亦是結無。二釋。謂若一則相無能表。同所相故。若異不成表。不相因故。同餘法故。故云一異不可得者。一異不可得下釋下半可知。三是故下類遣結宗。二破救中二。先外救。后釋破。救中以聞相法俱空執情靡據。故將形似之事類救二關。又向釋頌遣事無不周。但人情多惑。故須假設外救廣破所迷。于中三。初牒破驚呵。二立相救法。三結破不然。第二立相救中二。先開三章。則翻上三句。后釋三事。則為三段。初釋一中二。初舉識受二例。如識以了別為相。亦以了別為體。受亦如是。二如是下結宗。二釋異中亦二。初舉滅信二例。后是名下結。前中。初外謂愛滅異於涅槃。后以三事在身口屬色蘊。信是心法屬識蘊。外見有此三。知內有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：可知。第二，通過一類事物來排除多種可能性，這也有明確的標示和解釋。第三，用存在的類別來排除不存在的事物。第四，用事物的類別來排除有為法（saṃskṛta，指有生滅變化的事物）。第五，用類別來排除無為法（asaṃskṛta，指無生滅變化的事物）。第六，用類別來排除『我』（ātman）。因此，成就上述標示的宗旨是：一切法皆空（sarva-dharma-śūnyatā）。

觀一異門第六

首先解釋名稱。因為『一』（ekatva）和『異』（nānātva）是所要排除的對象。另一種說法是，通過排除『一』和『異』來達到真空（śūnyatā），因此稱之為『門』。其次，闡述來由的差異。前面已經用『有』（bhāva）和『無』（abhāva）破除了『相』（lakṣaṇa）和『可相』（lakṣaṇīya），但爲了更進一步地破除，使執著之心永遠消失，正理更加穩固，所以再次用『一』、『異』以及『俱』（ubhaya）來重複破除。第三，所要闡明的是，通過破除『相』、『可相』、『一』、『異』以及『俱』，使觀照之心能夠照亮真理。第四，解釋文中有兩部分。先用一句標明宗旨，然後解釋破除。破除中又分為兩部分，先是正面破除，然後是破除辯解。首先是正面破除，其中分為三部分。先是頌文，上半部分破除『一』和『異』，下半部分破除『相』和『可相』，這也是對『無』的總結。其次是解釋，意思是如果是一，那麼『相』就無法表達，因為它與所『相』是相同的。如果是異，就無法成為表達，因為它們不相互依存，與其他的法相同。所以說『一異不可得』。『一異不可得』以下解釋下半部分，可以理解。第三，『是故』以下是用類別排除來總結宗旨。其次是破除辯解，分為兩部分。先是外來的辯解，然後是解釋破除。辯解中，因為聽說『相』和『法』都是空，執著的感情沒有依據，所以用相似的事情來類比，試圖辯解這兩個關卡。而且，之前的解釋頌文已經周全地排除了所有的事情，但因為人們的情感多有迷惑，所以需要假設外來的辯解，廣泛地破除迷惑。其中分為三部分。首先是引用破除並加以驚嚇呵斥，其次是建立『相』來辯解，第三是總結破除，認為辯解不成立。第二，建立『相』來辯解，分為兩部分。首先是展開三個章節，也就是顛倒上面的三句話。然後解釋三件事，也就是分為三個段落。首先解釋『一』，分為兩部分。首先舉出『識』（vijñāna）和『受』（vedanā）兩個例子。比如『識』以了別為『相』，也以了別為『體』（svabhāva）。『受』也是如此。其次，『如是』以下是總結宗旨。其次解釋『異』，也分為兩部分。首先舉出『滅』（nirodha）和『信』（śraddhā）兩個例子。然後『是名』以下是總結。前面一部分中，首先外人認為『愛滅』（taṇhā-nirodha）不同於涅槃（nirvāṇa）。然後用三件事來說明，『滅』在身口，屬於色蘊（rūpa-skandha），『信』是心法，屬於識蘊。外人看到有這三件事，知道內心有。

【English Translation】 English version: It can be known. Secondly, using one category to eliminate multiple possibilities also has clear indications and explanations. Thirdly, using the category of existence to eliminate non-existence. Fourthly, using the category of things to eliminate conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta, referring to phenomena that arise and cease). Fifthly, using categories to eliminate unconditioned phenomena (asaṃskṛta, referring to phenomena that do not arise and cease). Sixthly, using categories to eliminate 『self』 (ātman). Therefore, the accomplishment of the above-mentioned principle is that all dharmas are empty (sarva-dharma-śūnyatā).

Chapter Six: Observing the Gate of Oneness and Difference

Firstly, explaining the name. Because 『oneness』 (ekatva) and 『difference』 (nānātva) are the objects to be eliminated. Another explanation is that eliminating 『oneness』 and 『difference』 leads to the realization of emptiness (śūnyatā), hence it is called a 『gate』. Secondly, explaining the difference in origin. Previously, 『existence』 (bhāva) and 『non-existence』 (abhāva) were used to refute 『characteristics』 (lakṣaṇa) and 『characterizable』 (lakṣaṇīya), but to further eliminate and make the clinging mind disappear forever, and to solidify the correct reasoning, 『oneness』, 『difference』, and 『both』 (ubhaya) are used again to refute. Thirdly, what is to be clarified is that by refuting 『characteristics』, 『characterizable』, 『oneness』, 『difference』, and 『both』, the observing mind can illuminate the truth. Fourthly, there are two parts in the explanation. First, a sentence states the principle, and then the refutation is explained. The refutation is further divided into two parts: first, the direct refutation, and then the refutation of defenses. First is the direct refutation, which is divided into three parts. First is the verse, the first half refutes 『oneness』 and 『difference』, and the second half refutes 『characteristics』 and 『characterizable』, which is also a summary of 『non-existence』. Secondly, the explanation means that if it is one, then the 『characteristic』 cannot express it, because it is the same as what is 『characterized』. If it is different, it cannot become an expression, because they do not depend on each other, and are the same as other dharmas. Therefore, it is said that 『oneness and difference are unattainable』. The explanation below 『oneness and difference are unattainable』 explains the second half, which can be understood. Thirdly, 『therefore』 below uses category elimination to summarize the principle. Secondly, the refutation of defenses is divided into two parts. First is the external defense, and then the explanation of the refutation. In the defense, because it is heard that 『characteristics』 and 『dharmas』 are all empty, and clinging emotions have no basis, similar things are used to analogize and try to defend these two gates. Moreover, the previous explanation of the verse has comprehensively eliminated all things, but because people's emotions are often confused, it is necessary to assume external defenses and widely refute the confusion. It is divided into three parts. First, quoting the refutation and scolding with surprise, second, establishing 『characteristics』 to defend, and third, summarizing the refutation, believing that the defense is not valid. Secondly, establishing 『characteristics』 to defend is divided into two parts. First, unfolding three chapters, which is reversing the above three sentences. Then explain the three things, which is divided into three paragraphs. First, explain 『oneness』, which is divided into two parts. First, give the examples of 『consciousness』 (vijñāna) and 『feeling』 (vedanā). For example, 『consciousness』 takes discernment as its 『characteristic』 and also takes discernment as its 『nature』 (svabhāva). 『Feeling』 is also the same. Secondly, 『thus』 below is the summary of the principle. Secondly, explain 『difference』, which is also divided into two parts. First, give the examples of 『cessation』 (nirodha) and 『faith』 (śraddhā). Then 『this is called』 below is the summary. In the first part, first, outsiders believe that 『cessation of craving』 (taṇhā-nirodha) is different from nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa). Then use three things to explain that 『cessation』 is in the body and speech, belonging to the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha), and 『faith』 is a mental dharma, belonging to the consciousness aggregate. Outsiders see these three things and know that there is something inside.

信心。是故色與心作相。故知異。三釋亦一亦異中二。初舉二例。后結。初中。先舉正見例。謂如正見是道體故少分是可相。復是八正中道支故少分是能相。又正見是慧。正是道諦通體。然是八中一數故云少分。是通故是能相。是別故為可相。二舉三相例。謂約小乘七十五法。分為二聚。前七十二是有為。后三是無為。就有為聚中。生住滅三通與一切有為法作相。自體復是有為法中數內少分。是故若與所相有為不是異者。不應於此有為法中開說此三。若與有為不是一者。自應非是有為法攝。是故當知亦一亦異。后如是下結。三是故或相下總結非破。可知。第二釋破中破上三計。文則為三。初破一中亦三。初法無自表破。于中三。先牒執總非。二釋非所以。三是故下結非呵止。就釋中。謂所相必以相而知故名為可相。所用表示者名為相也。是故相所相是非一。若一自能表示者。指應自觸等。反詰責也。二複次下相失能所破。若是一者。謂不應分別。此是相此是可相。若泯分別者。汝應是顛倒。有言無義故。三複次下因果雜亂破。于中先標次釋后結。並可知。二破異中二。先正破。后破救。初中二。先牒計總非。后別破釋非。于中初別破二例。后總示無窮。前中先破初例。謂愛滅則無相。愛有復非涅槃相。二破信者相有二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本信心。因此，色（rupa, 物質現象）與心（citta, 精神現象）互為相（laksana, 特徵）。所以說它們是既一又異的。第三重解釋『亦一亦異』包含兩部分：首先舉出兩個例子，然後總結。在第一部分中，先舉正見（samma ditthi, 正確的見解）為例。正見是道（magga, 道路）的本體，因此少部分是可相（laksana, 被標識的特徵），又因為它是八正道（ariya atthangika magga, 八聖道）中的道支，所以少部分是能相（laksana, 能標識的特徵）。而且，正見是慧（panna, 智慧），正是道諦（dukkha nirodha gamini patipada ariya sacca, 導向滅苦的真理）的通體。然而，它是八正道中的一個組成部分，所以說是少分。因為它貫通整體，所以是能相；因為它又是獨立的個體，所以是可相。第二個例子是三相（tilakkhana, 三種特徵）。從小乘（Hinayana）的七十五法（dhamma, 法）的角度來看，可以分為兩類：前七十二是有為法（sankhata dhamma, 有條件的法），后三是無為法（asankhata dhamma, 無條件的法）。在有為法中，生（uppada, 生起）、住（thiti, 持續）、滅（bhanga, 滅壞）這三相普遍地作為一切有為法的特徵。它們自身又是眾多有為法中的少部分。因此，如果說這三相與它們所標識的有為法不是不同的，那麼就不應該在有為法中單獨提出這三相。如果說它們與有為法不是相同的，那麼它們自身就不應該被歸類為有為法。所以，應當明白它們是既一又異的。然後，『如是下』總結。『三是故或相下』總結了非破，可以理解。第二重解釋是破斥對上述三種觀點的破斥，分為三部分：首先破斥『一』，其中又分為三部分：首先，從法（dhamma, 法）無自表（svalaksana, 自性）的角度進行破斥，其中又分為三部分：先總的否定執著，然後解釋否定的原因，最後以『是故下』總結否定並加以制止。在解釋原因的部分，可相必須通過相才能被認知，所以稱為可相；用來表示可相的被稱為相。因此，相和可相不是一。如果它們是一，那麼能夠自我表示的，就應該能自我觸及等等，這是反詰和責備。其次，『複次下』從相失去能所的角度進行破斥。如果相和可相是一，那麼就不應該區分『這是相』，『這是可相』。如果泯滅了這種區分，那麼你就是顛倒的，因為有言語而無意義。再次，『複次下』從因果雜亂的角度進行破斥，其中先標明觀點，然後解釋，最後總結，都可以理解。第二部分是破斥『異』，分為兩部分：先是直接破斥，然後是破斥辯解。在直接破斥的部分，又分為兩部分：先是分別破斥兩個例子，然後是總的揭示無窮的過失。在前面的部分，先破斥第一個例子，即愛（tanha, 渴愛）滅則無相，愛有則又不是涅槃（Nibbana, 涅槃）之相。第二個例子是信者相有二

【English Translation】 English version Confidence. Therefore, rupa (material phenomena) and citta (mental phenomena) act as laksana (characteristics) to each other. Hence, it is known that they are both one and different. The third explanation of 'both one and different' contains two parts: first, two examples are given, and then a conclusion is drawn. In the first part, the example of samma ditthi (right view) is given first. Right view is the essence of the magga (path), so a small part of it is laksana (the characteristic being identified), and because it is a factor of the ariya atthangika magga (Noble Eightfold Path), a small part of it is laksana (the characteristic that identifies). Moreover, right view is panna (wisdom), which is precisely the entirety of the dukkha nirodha gamini patipada ariya sacca (the truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering). However, it is one of the components of the Eightfold Path, so it is said to be a small part. Because it pervades the whole, it is the identifying characteristic; because it is also an independent entity, it is the characteristic being identified. The second example is tilakkhana (the three characteristics). From the perspective of the seventy-five dhamma (elements) of Hinayana (Small Vehicle), they can be divided into two categories: the first seventy-two are sankhata dhamma (conditioned elements), and the last three are asankhata dhamma (unconditioned elements). Among the conditioned elements, uppada (arising), thiti (duration), and bhanga (cessation) universally serve as characteristics of all conditioned elements. They themselves are also a small part of the many conditioned elements. Therefore, if these three characteristics are not different from the conditioned elements they identify, then these three characteristics should not be singled out in the conditioned elements. If they are not the same as the conditioned elements, then they themselves should not be classified as conditioned elements. Therefore, it should be understood that they are both one and different. Then, 'as such below' concludes. 'Three, therefore, or characteristics below' summarizes the non-refutation, which can be understood. The second explanation is the refutation of the refutation of the above three views, which is divided into three parts: first, the refutation of 'one', which is further divided into three parts: first, the refutation from the perspective of dhamma (elements) having no svalaksana (self-nature), which is further divided into three parts: first, the general denial of attachment, then the explanation of the reason for the denial, and finally the conclusion of the denial and its prohibition with 'therefore below'. In the part explaining the reason, the characteristic being identified must be recognized through the characteristic, so it is called the characteristic being identified; what is used to represent the characteristic being identified is called the characteristic. Therefore, the characteristic and the characteristic being identified are not one. If they are one, then what can represent itself should be able to touch itself, etc., which is a rhetorical question and blame. Secondly, 'further below' refutes from the perspective of the characteristic losing its ability to identify. If the characteristic and the characteristic being identified are one, then there should be no distinction between 'this is the characteristic' and 'this is the characteristic being identified'. If this distinction is obliterated, then you are inverted, because there are words but no meaning. Again, 'further below' refutes from the perspective of the confusion of cause and effect, in which the view is first stated, then explained, and finally summarized, all of which can be understood. The second part is the refutation of 'different', which is divided into two parts: first, the direct refutation, and then the refutation of the defense. In the direct refutation part, it is divided into two parts: first, the two examples are refuted separately, and then the infinite faults are generally revealed. In the previous part, the first example is refuted first, that is, the absence of tanha (craving) means no characteristic, and the presence of craving is not the characteristic of Nibbana (Nirvana). The second example is that the characteristics of believers are two

。初無異破。謂有詐善之人實無信心而亦詐現有此三相。豈亦有信以與信者不殊。故云俱不異信。又此論意似將三事與信不殊故云不異以破其異(云云勘)二不定破。謂汝以三事知有信。則信是可相。三是能相。今更以理推。乃由有信故始能作此三事。是故三事反是可相。故云無信無三事。又責云。汝未施等前有此信心不。若有以何相而知。若無後依何起施。故云也。二示無窮破中。可相定有為。別有能相法。能相是有為。應亦別有能相法。如是則無窮。二破救中。先救后破。破中二。先指同前破。后自語相違破。又亦可先破喻后破法。可知。三破俱句中。初標非。后釋破。謂指同上二門破。以不離一異故。三如是下結非。四是故下類遣。可知。

觀有無門第七

一釋名者。生住是有。滅相是無。求此有無理不成故以為門也。二來意者。以一異門重顯令理堅故。除盡執見故。此通來也。別者。前約相可相破。此就所相中相違破。故來也。三所明者。謂就四相中有無自相違。不得同一念。則失有為法以辨真空。令成正觀故也。四釋文中四。一標二釋三結四類。初中二。先長行生起有標釋。后立頌略辨。以薩婆多宗立四相體同時具。以成有為故。用先後發。以離相違故。破意云。先後非有為。同體相違失。又

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：最初並沒有什麼不同之處可以打破。如果說有虛偽善良的人，實際上沒有信心，卻也假裝顯現有這三種表象，難道他們也具有與真正有信心的人沒有區別的信心嗎？所以說，（他們的虛假表象）都與真正的信心沒有區別。而且，這篇論的意圖似乎是將這三件事與信心視為沒有區別，所以說『不異』，以此來打破他們之間的差異。（云云勘）二、不定破：你說通過這三件事知道有信心，那麼信心就是可被認識的表象（可相），這三件事就是能認識的表象（能相）。現在用道理來推論，乃是因為有信心，才能做出這三件事。所以，這三件事反而是可被認識的表象。所以說，沒有信心就沒有這三件事。又責問說：你在佈施等等之前，有這個信心嗎？如果有，用什麼表象知道的？如果沒有，後來依靠什麼產生布施？所以說『也』。二、顯示無窮破中：可被認識的表象（可相）必定是有為法，另外有能認識的表象法（能相）。能認識的表象（能相）是有為法，應該也有另外的能認識的表象法。這樣下去，就會無窮無盡。二、破救中：先是辯護，然後是破斥。破斥中分為兩部分：先是指責與前面相同，然後是自己說話前後矛盾。也可以先破斥比喻，后破斥法理，可以理解。三、破斥『俱』句中：首先標明否定，然後解釋破斥。指的是與上面兩種方式相同的破斥，因為不離一異的緣故。三、『如是』以下是總結否定。四、『是故』以下是類比排除，可以理解。

觀有無門第七

一、解釋名稱：生和住是『有』，滅相是『無』。尋求這個『有無』的道理卻不能成立，所以稱之為『門』。二、來意：用一異門再次顯明，使道理更加堅固，消除所有執著見解。這是總體的來意。具體來說，前面是就表象（相）和可被認識的表象（可相）來破斥，這裡就所相中的相互矛盾來破斥，所以才這樣安排。三、所要闡明的內容：就是說，就四相（生、住、異、滅）中的『有無』自相矛盾，不能存在於同一念頭中，那麼就失去了有為法，從而辨明真空，使之成就正確的觀察。四、解釋文中的四個部分：一、標明；二、解釋；三、總結；四、類比。最初的部分分為兩部分：先用長行文引出『有』，標明並解釋；然後用偈頌簡略地辨析。因為薩婆多部（Sarvastivadins）（一切有部，主張一切法皆實有）認為四相的本體同時存在，以此來成就『有為』，所以用先後發生來避免相互矛盾。破斥的意圖是：先後發生不是有為，同體存在則相互矛盾。又

【English Translation】 English version: Initially, there is no difference to break. If there are those who are falsely good, who in reality have no faith, but also falsely appear to have these three characteristics, do they also possess faith that is no different from those who truly have faith? Therefore, it is said that (their false appearances) are no different from true faith. Moreover, the intention of this treatise seems to be to regard these three things as no different from faith, so it is said 'not different,' in order to break the differences between them. (Yunyun kan) Second, the uncertain refutation: You say that through these three things you know there is faith, then faith is the knowable characteristic (lakshana-grahaka), and these three things are the knowing characteristic (lakshana). Now, reasoning further, it is because there is faith that these three things can be done. Therefore, these three things are instead the knowable characteristic. Therefore, it is said that without faith, there are no these three things. Also, it is questioned: Before giving alms, etc., did you have this faith? If you did, by what characteristic did you know it? If you did not, what did you rely on to generate alms later? Therefore, it is said 'also'. Second, in the refutation of showing infinity: The knowable characteristic (lakshana-grahaka) must be conditioned dharma (samskrta-dharma), and there is another knowing characteristic dharma (lakshana). The knowing characteristic (lakshana) is conditioned dharma, and there should also be another knowing characteristic dharma. If it goes on like this, it will be endless. Second, in the refutation of defense: First is the defense, then the refutation. The refutation is divided into two parts: first, pointing out that it is the same as before, and then contradicting oneself. It is also possible to first refute the analogy and then refute the principle, which can be understood. Third, in the refutation of the 'both' phrase: First, the negation is marked, and then the refutation is explained. It refers to the same refutation as the above two methods, because it does not depart from oneness and difference. Third, 'Thus' below is the conclusion of negation. Fourth, 'Therefore' below is the analogy of exclusion, which can be understood.

Chapter 7: Contemplating the Gate of Existence and Non-existence

First, explaining the name: Birth and abiding are 'existence' (asti), and the characteristic of cessation is 'non-existence' (nasti). Seeking the principle of this 'existence and non-existence' cannot be established, so it is called a 'gate'. Second, the intention: Using the gate of oneness and difference to further clarify, making the principle more solid, and eliminating all clinging views. This is the overall intention. Specifically, the previous was to refute based on the characteristic (lakshana) and the knowable characteristic (lakshana-grahaka), and this is to refute based on the mutual contradiction in the characterized (laksana), so it is arranged in this way. Third, the content to be elucidated: That is to say, regarding the 'existence and non-existence' in the four characteristics (birth, abiding, change, cessation) as self-contradictory, they cannot exist in the same thought, then the conditioned dharma (samskrta-dharma) is lost, thereby distinguishing true emptiness (sunyata), so that correct observation is achieved. Fourth, the four parts of explaining the text: First, marking; second, explaining; third, concluding; fourth, analogy. The initial part is divided into two parts: first, using prose to introduce 'existence', marking and explaining; then using verses to briefly analyze. Because the Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivadins) (the 'All Exists' school, which advocates that all dharmas are real) believe that the essence of the four characteristics exists simultaneously, in order to achieve 'conditioned dharma', they use sequential occurrence to avoid mutual contradiction. The intention of the refutation is: sequential occurrence is not conditioned dharma, and simultaneous existence is mutually contradictory. Also

成唯識中。前三同一念。后念方至滅。爾者壞有為。一一念中以相不具故。頌中。初句破同時。次句破先後。謂離滅相之無令生住之有亦不得有。故云離無有亦無也。以非有為故下二句釋初句頌。以生住之有不離滅相之無故。則有當為無所害。故恒是無也。又亦應云。不離有有無。無則應常有。又亦應有釋上第二句先後計云。若離無有有。有則非有為。但為頌迮故也。二釋中二。初正破。后破救。前中四。一釋初句頌。如中論成壞品云。離成及共成。是中無有壞。離壞及共壞。是中亦無成。二若謂下釋第二句頌。于中二。先牒執總非。二釋非中。七法內滅相是無。余皆是有。又有是法體。共無常相生。無常中既具滅。明知離此無有不得生。三若不離下釋下二句頌。于中三。初舉失。後轉釋。轉釋中。以不離滅無故此有常是無。以初生即壞滅不能得至住。故云初無等也。又不曾暫有住。故云也。三結非可知。四若離下釋頌中所應有文。以離無常滅相等而有有為法生等者。皆不可也。第二破救中二。先外救。后釋破。救中三。初立體同時。故無上不生之過。二如是下釋五事。明用前後故。謂勢用有時。豈容有常無之責。又生制滅不令斷。住能制生不令增。滅制住不令分。異通前後。謂變生至住等。又彼計一剎那中剎那初是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本在《成唯識論》中，前一剎那（念）與后一剎那（念）相同，后一剎那才達到滅的狀態。如果是這樣，那就破壞了有為法的特性，因為每一剎那的相狀都不完備。頌文中的第一句破斥了同時存在的觀點，第二句破斥了先後存在的觀點。意思是說，離開了滅相的『無』，令生、住存在的『有』也是不可能存在的，所以說『離無有亦無』。因為不是有為法，所以下面兩句解釋第一句頌文。因為生、住的『有』離不開滅相的『無』，那麼『有』就應當被『無』所損害，所以恒常是『無』。又可以這樣說，不離開『有』，『有』就是『無』，『無』就應當是常有。也可以這樣解釋上面第二句，針對先後存在的觀點：如果離開『無』而有『有』，那麼『有』就不是有為法。但這只是爲了頌文的簡略。以上解釋分為兩部分，首先是正面破斥，然後是破斥對方的辯解。在正面破斥中，又分為四個部分：一是解釋第一句頌文。如《中論·成壞品》所說：『離開成以及共同的成，其中就沒有壞。離開壞以及共同的壞，其中也沒有成。』二是『若謂』以下，解釋第二句頌文。其中分為兩部分：先是總的否定對方的執著，然後解釋否定的理由。七法中，滅相是『無』，其餘都是『有』。『有』是法的本體，與無常相共同產生。無常中已經包含了滅，明確地知道離開這個『無』，『有』是不可能產生的。三是『若不離』以下，解釋下面兩句頌文。其中分為三個部分：首先提出過失，然後進行轉釋。在轉釋中，因為不離開滅的『無』，所以這個『有』常常是『無』。因為剛產生就壞滅，不能達到住的狀態，所以說『初無』等等。又因為不曾暫時存在，所以說『也』。三是總結否定，可以知道。四是『若離』以下，解釋頌文中所應有的文句。如果離開無常的滅相等而有有為法的生等等，那都是不可能的。第二部分是破斥對方的辯解，分為兩部分：先是對方的辯解，然後是解釋破斥。在辯解中，分為三個部分：首先建立同時存在，所以沒有上面不生的過失。二是『如是』以下，解釋五事，說明作用有先後。意思是說，勢用有時間，怎麼能責備它常無呢？又生制約滅，不讓它斷絕；住能制約生，不讓它增長；滅制約住，不讓它分離；異貫通前後，意思是說變生到住等等。又他們認為一剎那中，剎那的最初是...

【English Translation】 English version In the Cheng Weishi Lun (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-only), the preceding moment (nian) is the same as the subsequent moment (nian), and the subsequent moment then reaches extinction. If this is the case, then the characteristic of conditioned dharmas is destroyed, because the characteristics of each moment are incomplete. The first line of the verse refutes the view of simultaneous existence, and the second line refutes the view of successive existence. It means that apart from the 'non-existence' of extinction, the 'existence' that causes arising and abiding is also impossible, so it is said 'apart from non-existence, there is also no existence'. Because it is not a conditioned dharma, the following two lines explain the first line of the verse. Because the 'existence' of arising and abiding cannot be separated from the 'non-existence' of extinction, then 'existence' should be harmed by 'non-existence', so it is always 'non-existence'. It can also be said that without leaving 'existence', 'existence' is 'non-existence', and 'non-existence' should be permanent existence. It can also be explained in this way for the second line above, targeting the view of successive existence: if there is 'existence' apart from 'non-existence', then 'existence' is not a conditioned dharma. But this is only for the brevity of the verse. The above explanation is divided into two parts, first a direct refutation, and then a refutation of the opponent's defense. In the direct refutation, it is divided into four parts: one is to explain the first line of the verse. As the Madhyamaka-karika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), Chapter on Formation and Destruction, says: 'Apart from formation and common formation, there is no destruction in it. Apart from destruction and common destruction, there is also no formation in it.' Second, 'If it is said' below, explains the second line of the verse. It is divided into two parts: first, a general denial of the opponent's attachment, and then an explanation of the reason for the denial. Among the seven dharmas, the characteristic of extinction is 'non-existence', and the rest are 'existence'. 'Existence' is the substance of the dharma, which is produced together with the characteristic of impermanence. Since impermanence already contains extinction, it is clearly known that apart from this 'non-existence', 'existence' cannot be produced. Third, 'If not apart' below, explains the following two lines of the verse. It is divided into three parts: first, the fault is pointed out, and then a reinterpretation is made. In the reinterpretation, because it does not leave the 'non-existence' of extinction, this 'existence' is often 'non-existence'. Because it is destroyed as soon as it arises, it cannot reach the state of abiding, so it is said 'initially non-existent' and so on. Also, because it has never existed temporarily, it is said 'also'. Third, the conclusion is denied, which can be known. Fourth, 'If apart' below, explains the sentences that should be in the verse. If there is the arising of conditioned dharmas apart from the extinction of impermanence, etc., then it is all impossible. The second part is to refute the opponent's defense, which is divided into two parts: first, the opponent's defense, and then an explanation of the refutation. In the defense, it is divided into three parts: first, the simultaneous existence is established, so there is no fault of non-arising above. Second, 'Thus' below, explains the five matters, explaining that the functions have a sequence. It means that the potential has time, how can it be blamed for being permanently non-existent? Also, arising restricts extinction, preventing it from being cut off; abiding restricts arising, preventing it from increasing; extinction restricts abiding, preventing it from separating; difference penetrates before and after, meaning that change arises to abiding, etc. Also, they believe that in one moment, the very beginning of the moment is...

生相用。剎那次是住相用。剎那后是滅相用。故用有前後也。言得者。是此四通名不相應行。法前得等。如繩系物等。謂大小相得令四相常成就。三是故下結非。二正破中。先破體同時具。后破用前後發。初中先破生滅。后破住老。前中二。先易奪互失破。二複次下明相違俱失破。有標釋可知。二破住老中。先標后釋。亦有易奪相違破。三是故下總結錯亂。有標釋可知。二如能識下破用前後發。于中三。初舉事例破。謂彼外計云。生時雖已有壞體而未發。滅時方發者。破云。如不能識則不名識。餘六亦爾。如是不能壞生不名有滅。二舉法示過。于中初舉法。二若生住下示過。謂先無用后失無過。三是故下結非。第三如是下總結成。第四類遣。並可知。

觀性門第八

初釋名者。性是體性。徴責非有。洞契真空。故為門也。所遣所託為名。二來意者。通意如前。別者。初三品破法。次四門破能相。今更破體性。故來也。又外人執義有二種。一是事。二是性。性據未成。事據現在。前有無門破現在事不立。但執情難祛。謂諸法未成先有體性。藉現因緣起性成事。若爾諸法還立。何得云一切法空。此門破彼故次來也。又上來破相。外人云。謂外相雖亡內性猶實。為破此計故有此門來也。三所明者。破性明空。觀

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『生相用』（Sheng Xiang Yong，生起的功用）。『剎那次』（Chana Ci，剎那之後）是『住相用』（Zhu Xiang Yong，住留的功用）。『剎那后』（Chana Hou，剎那之後）是『滅相用』（Mie Xiang Yong，滅壞的功用）。所以功用有前後之分。說的『得』（De，獲得），是指這四種不相應行法（Bu Xiangying Xing Fa）共同的名字。先前得到等等，就像繩子繫住東西等等。意思是說，大小諸相得到，使得四相（Si Xiang，生、住、異、滅）常常成就。『三是故下結非』（San Shi Gu Xia Jie Fei，第三因此總結否定）。『二正破中』（Er Zheng Po Zhong，第二正式破斥之中）。先破斥體性同時具備，后破斥功用前後發生。最初之中分為兩部分。先破斥容易被奪取和互相失去的觀點，第二『複次下明相違俱失破』（Fu Ci Xia Ming Xiang Wei Ju Shi Po，再次說明互相違背一同失去的破斥）。有標示和解釋可以知道。第二破斥『住老』（Zhu Lao，住和老）之中。先標示后解釋。也有容易被奪取和互相違背的破斥。『三是故下總結錯亂』（San Shi Gu Xia Zongjie Cuoluan，第三因此總結錯亂）。有標示和解釋可以知道。第二『如能識下破用前後發』（Ru Neng Shi Xia Po Yong Qianhou Fa，如果能夠識別下破斥功用前後發生）。其中分為三部分。最初舉出事例破斥。說他們外道的計較說，生起的時候雖然已經有了壞滅的體性但是沒有發生，滅壞的時候才發生。破斥說，如果不能識別就不叫做識別，其餘六識也是這樣。像這樣不能壞滅生起就不叫做有滅壞。第二舉出法來顯示過失。其中最初舉出法，第二『若生住下示過』（Ruo Sheng Zhu Xia Shi Guo，如果生住下顯示過失）。說先前沒有功用後來失去沒有過失。『三是故下結非』（San Shi Gu Xia Jie Fei，第三因此總結否定）。第三『如是下總結成』（Ru Shi Xia Zongjie Cheng，像這樣下總結完成）。第四種類推遣除。都可以知道。觀性門第八（Guan Xing Men Di Ba，觀察體性之門第八）最初解釋名稱。『性』（Xing，體性）是體性。征責它並非實有。徹底契合真空。所以稱為『門』（Men，門）。所要遣除和依託的，作為名稱。第二說明來意。總體的意思如前所述。特別的是，最初三品破斥法，其次四門破斥能相，現在更要破斥體性，所以才有了這一門。另外，外人的執著有兩種，一是事，二是性。性是根據未成形的狀態，事是根據現在的狀態。前面的『有無門』（You Wu Men，有無之門）破斥現在的『事』（Shi，事物）不能成立。但是執著的情感難以去除。說諸法未成形之前先有體性，憑藉現在的因緣生起體性成為事物。如果這樣，諸法還是能夠成立。怎麼能說一切法空呢？這一門就是爲了破斥他們而來的。另外，上面破斥了相，外人說，外在的相雖然消失了，內在的體性還是真實的。爲了破斥這種計較，所以有了這一門。第三說明所要闡明的內容。破斥體性，闡明空性，觀察。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Sheng Xiang Yong' (生相用, the function of arising). 'Chana Ci' (剎那次, the moment after) is 'Zhu Xiang Yong' (住相用, the function of abiding). 'Chana Hou' (剎那后, the moment after) is 'Mie Xiang Yong' (滅相用, the function of ceasing). Therefore, the functions have a sequence of before and after. The term 'De' (得, obtaining) refers to the common name for these four non-associated formations (Bu Xiangying Xing Fa). Obtaining earlier, like a rope tying an object, etc. It means that the great and small characteristics are obtained, so that the four characteristics (Si Xiang, arising, abiding, changing, ceasing) are always accomplished. 'San Shi Gu Xia Jie Fei' (三是故下結非, the third, therefore, concludes with negation). 'Er Zheng Po Zhong' (二正破中, the second, in the midst of formal refutation). First, refute the simultaneous possession of the substance; then, refute the sequential occurrence of the function. The first part is divided into two sections. First, refute the view of easy seizure and mutual loss; second, 'Fu Ci Xia Ming Xiang Wei Ju Shi Po' (複次下明相違俱失破, again, explain the refutation of mutual contradiction and simultaneous loss). The indication and explanation are knowable. The second refutation is of 'Zhu Lao' (住老, abiding and aging). First, indicate, then explain. There is also refutation of easy seizure and mutual contradiction. 'San Shi Gu Xia Zongjie Cuoluan' (三是故下總結錯亂, the third, therefore, concludes with confusion). The indication and explanation are knowable. Second, 'Ru Neng Shi Xia Po Yong Qianhou Fa' (如能識下破用前後發, if one can recognize, then refute the sequential occurrence of the function). It is divided into three parts. First, cite examples to refute. It is said that their external calculation says that although the substance of destruction already exists at the time of arising, it has not occurred; it only occurs at the time of ceasing. Refute by saying that if one cannot recognize, it is not called recognition; the other six consciousnesses are also like this. In this way, not being able to destroy arising is not called having ceasing. Second, cite the Dharma to show the fault. Among them, first cite the Dharma; second, 'Ruo Sheng Zhu Xia Shi Guo' (若生住下示過, if arising abides, then show the fault). It is said that there is no fault in not having function earlier and losing it later. 'San Shi Gu Xia Jie Fei' (三是故下結非, the third, therefore, concludes with negation). Third, 'Ru Shi Xia Zongjie Cheng' (如是下總結成, in this way, conclude with completion). The fourth category is to infer and eliminate. All can be known. Guan Xing Men Di Ba (觀性門第八, The Eighth Gate of Observing Nature) First, explain the name. 'Xing' (性, nature) is the substance. Questioning and blaming it for not being real. Thoroughly conforming to the empty truth. Therefore, it is called 'Men' (門, gate). What is to be eliminated and relied upon is taken as the name. Second, explain the intention. The general meaning is as mentioned before. Specifically, the first three sections refute the Dharma; the next four gates refute the able-aspect; now, we further refute the substance, so this gate comes into being. In addition, outsiders have two kinds of attachments: one is 'Shi' (事, phenomena), and the other is 'Xing' (性, nature). Nature is based on the unformed state, and phenomena are based on the present state. The previous 'You Wu Men' (有無門, Gate of Existence and Non-existence) refutes that the present 'Shi' (事, phenomena) cannot be established. However, the emotional attachment is difficult to remove. It is said that before the phenomena are formed, there is first a substance, and the substance arises as phenomena by relying on the present conditions. If so, the phenomena can still be established. How can it be said that all phenomena are empty? This gate is for refuting them. In addition, the above refutes the aspects. Outsiders say that although the external aspects have disappeared, the internal substance is still real. To refute this calculation, this gate comes into being. Third, explain what is to be elucidated. Refute the substance and elucidate emptiness, observe.

心無寄以成正故也。四釋文四。一標二釋三結四類。就釋中三。初生起。二立頌。三釋頌。頌中。上半破有性。下半破無性。三釋中二。先釋破有性。后破無性。前中三。先破自。二破他。三雙結。初中二。先正破。后破救。初中三。先變異乖性破。破意汝若未成先有性者。夫性是不改為義。汝許變異。性義安在。故云也。二緣作失性破。初順釋。謂性有天真。豈假緣成。今既緣作。明非性有。二不作下反釋。謂不作名性。故知作則非也。三是故下結宗。二破救中二。先外人牒破示過難。后論主開章還過答。初中。外人聞現在事法已被責破未成體性又被破盡。則起智見以過論主為大邪見。文中二。初牒破示過。外以生滅無常為苦諦故。余文可解。二是事下結非呵止。答中五。初舉二諦法。先列名。后依俗得真。謂聖說俗諦因緣之法。擬於此法上令會無性以得真空。故說俗諦。非謂存此俗諦而不入真。故云也。二若人下明知法之益。于中初知諦成二利。謂依俗說真為利他。照真得果為自利。又二利一行成者是共也。二明二諦相資。以不二而二故。此明正知法益。三汝今下明迷法之失。謂汝聞說蘊界等法。不知但是世諦虛假。謬取謂為第一義諦。是故聞破謂欲自墮失處。反此則無咎矣。四釋顯法義。于中先標法甚深。就佛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本心若不執著于任何事物，就能成就真正的智慧。四釋文四：一、標示；二、解釋；三、總結；四、分類。在解釋中又分三部分：首先是生起，其次是立頌，最後是解釋頌文。頌文中，上半部分破斥『有性』的觀點，下半部分破斥『無性』的觀點。解釋頌文又分兩部分：先解釋破斥『有性』，后破斥『無性』。在破斥『有性』中又分三部分：先破斥『自性』，再破斥『他性』，最後是雙重總結。在破斥『自性』中又分兩部分：先正面破斥，后破斥對方的辯解。在正面破斥中又分三部分：首先是通過變異違背自性的方式破斥。破斥的意圖是：如果你們認為在事物未形成之前就已存在自性，那麼『性』的意義在於不改變。如果你們承認事物會變異，那麼『性』的意義又在哪裡呢？所以說『也』。其次是通過因緣造作而失去自性的方式破斥。首先是順著對方的觀點解釋，即自性應該是天然存在的，怎麼會依賴因緣而成呢？既然是因緣造作而成，那就明顯不是自性。其次是『不作下反釋』，即不造作才可稱為自性，所以造作就不是自性。第三是『是故下結宗』，即總結宗義。在破斥對方的辯解中又分兩部分：首先是外人指出論主的過失，提出責難；然後是論主重新開章，迴應責難。首先，外人指出論主的過失，提出責難。外人聽到現在的事物和法則已經被責難破斥，未形成其體性，又被破斥殆盡，於是認為論主的智慧見解是極大的邪見。文中分為兩部分：首先是指出過失，提出責難。外人認為生滅無常是苦諦的緣故，其餘的文字可以理解。其次是『是事下結非呵止』，即總結對方的錯誤，加以呵斥制止。在回答中分為五部分：首先是舉出二諦法（Two Truths）。先列出名稱，然後依據世俗諦（Conventional Truth）而證得真諦（Ultimate Truth）。聖人宣說世俗諦的因緣之法，是爲了藉助這些法，使人領會無自性（Emptiness）的道理，從而證得真空（Śūnyatā）。所以說世俗諦，並不是要人們執著於世俗諦而不進入真諦，所以說『也』。其次是『若人下明知法之益』，即闡明瞭解佛法的益處。其中首先是瞭解真諦能成就兩種利益，即依據世俗諦宣說真諦是爲了利益他人，照見真諦是爲了自我利益。而且兩種利益通過修行都能成就，這是共同的。其次是闡明二諦相互資助，以不二（Non-duality）而二的緣故。這裡闡明了正確瞭解佛法的益處。第三是『汝今下明迷法之失』，即闡明迷惑佛法的過失。你們聽到宣說蘊（Skandha）、界（Dhātu）等法，不知道這些只是世俗諦的虛假存在，錯誤地認為它們是第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya）。因此，聽到破斥這些法，就認為是要自我墮落到失去之處。反之，就不會有過失了。第四是解釋顯明佛法的意義。其中首先是標明佛法甚深，就佛（Buddha）

【English Translation】 English version The mind, without attachment, achieves true wisdom. Four explanations in four parts: 1. Indication; 2. Explanation; 3. Conclusion; 4. Classification. The explanation is divided into three parts: first, origination; second, establishing the verse; and third, explaining the verse. In the verse, the first half refutes the view of 'inherent existence' (svabhāva), and the second half refutes the view of 'non-inherent existence'. The explanation of the verse is divided into two parts: first, explaining the refutation of 'inherent existence', and then refuting 'non-inherent existence'. The refutation of 'inherent existence' is divided into three parts: first, refuting 'self-existence' (ātmasvabhāva); second, refuting 'other-existence' (parabhāva); and third, a double conclusion. The refutation of 'self-existence' is divided into two parts: first, direct refutation; and second, refuting the opponent's defense. The direct refutation is divided into three parts: first, refuting through the way that change contradicts inherent existence. The intention of the refutation is: if you believe that inherent existence exists before things are formed, then the meaning of 'inherent existence' is that it does not change. If you admit that things change, then where is the meaning of 'inherent existence'? Therefore, it says 'also'. Second, refuting through the way that conditioned creation loses inherent existence. First, explaining in accordance with the opponent's view, that inherent existence should be naturally existing, how could it depend on conditions to be formed? Since it is created by conditions, it is clearly not inherent existence. Second, 'not created below, reverse explanation', that is, not created can be called inherent existence, so creation is not it. Third, 'therefore below, concluding the doctrine', that is, concluding the tenets. The refutation of the opponent's defense is divided into two parts: first, the outsider points out the master's fault and raises a question; then the master reopens the chapter and responds to the question. First, the outsider points out the master's fault and raises a question. The outsider hears that the present things and laws have been criticized and refuted, not forming their essence, and have been refuted to the end, so he thinks that the master's wisdom and insight are great heresies. The text is divided into two parts: first, pointing out the fault and raising a question. The outsider believes that arising and ceasing is the cause of suffering (duḥkha), and the rest of the text can be understood. Second, 'this matter below, concluding the wrong and stopping', that is, concluding the other party's mistake and stopping it. The answer is divided into five parts: first, citing the Two Truths. First, list the names, and then according to the Conventional Truth, one attains the Ultimate Truth. The sage speaks of the law of conditioned arising of the Conventional Truth, in order to use these laws to make people understand the principle of no self-existence (anatta), so as to attain emptiness (Śūnyatā). Therefore, it is said that the Conventional Truth is not to make people cling to the Conventional Truth without entering the Ultimate Truth, so it says 'also'. Second, 'if people below, explain the benefit of knowing the law', that is, explain the benefit of understanding the Dharma. Among them, first, understanding the truth can achieve two benefits, that is, speaking the truth according to the Conventional Truth is to benefit others, and seeing the truth is for self-interest. And both benefits can be achieved through practice, which is common. Second, it clarifies that the Two Truths help each other, because of non-duality and duality. This clarifies the benefits of correctly understanding the Dharma. Third, 'you now below, explain the loss of being confused by the law', that is, explain the fault of being confused by the Dharma. You hear the preaching of the aggregates (Skandha), realms (Dhātu), etc., and do not know that these are only the false existence of the Conventional Truth, and mistakenly think that they are the Ultimate Truth (Paramārtha-satya). Therefore, hearing the refutation of these laws, one thinks that one is going to fall into a lost place. On the contrary, there will be no fault. Fourth, explain and clarify the meaning of the Dharma. Among them, first, indicate that the Dharma is very profound, concerning the Buddha.

所說因緣法為深。非汝二乘所說之者。又約佛智論因緣法。方得稱彼因緣之法。故云諸佛因緣法名甚深也。二是因緣下釋成甚深所以。又此因緣法。宜應正是俗諦。何故乃云是第一義。釋云。以無自性故無性而說因緣。是故深也。問前語外人。汝聞世諦謂是第一義。今論主亦云因緣則是第一義。而與彼何異。答外人謂因緣之事是第一義。論主以因緣之理為真諦。又論主意凡佛說因緣世諦法。意欲令知無性以悟真諦。非謂存此因緣之法。故上云因世諦知第一義。故地論中。隨順觀世諦則入第一義諦。此之謂也。五若諸法下正還過於彼。謂若有性則不從緣。不從緣故則無諸法。是故中論云。以有空義故一切法得成。若無空義者。一切法不成。又應知有多諸過患。汝自不知。反來咎我。故中論云。汝今自有過。而以迴向我。如人乘馬者。自忘其所乘。今此壞六事。還是汝之過。就中六。一壞四諦。二若無四聖諦下明壞四行。三壞八賢聖。四壞三寶。五壞世俗。六壞因果。並可知。二破他性中二。先牒計總徴。后正破。破中初形自奪他破。謂對自名他。自既無矣。對誰名他。二同自無他破。謂望自還是自。是故自無他亦無。有標釋可知。三若自性他性下雙結俱非。第三若有不成下總結成宗。第四類遣。可知。

觀因果門

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所說的因緣法（pratītyasamutpāda，指事物相互依存的法則）是極其深奧的，不是你們二乘（Śrāvakayāna和Pratyekabuddhayāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘，小乘佛教的兩種主要流派）所能理解的。而且，只有依據佛陀的智慧來討論因緣法，才能真正稱得上是那因緣之法。所以說，諸佛的因緣法名為甚深。二是『因緣』下解釋成就甚深的原因。而且，這因緣法，本來應當是世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理，世俗層面的真理）。為什麼又說是第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，絕對真理，終極真理）呢？解釋說，因為諸法無自性（svabhāva，事物自身固有的、不變的性質），因為無自性而宣說因緣，所以是深奧的。問：之前對外道說，你們認為世俗諦是第一義諦，現在論主（指作者，通常指龍樹菩薩）也說因緣就是第一義諦，這和他們有什麼區別？答：外道認為因緣之事是第一義諦，論主以因緣之理為真諦。而且論主的意思是，凡是佛陀所說的因緣世俗諦法，意在使人明白無自性，從而領悟真諦，而不是要人執著于這因緣之法。所以上面說，通過世俗諦瞭解第一義諦。因此，《地論》中說，隨順觀察世俗諦就能進入第一義諦，說的就是這個道理。五、如果諸法下，正是反過來責備他們。意思是，如果諸法有自性，就不會從因緣而生。不從因緣而生，就不會有諸法。所以《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）說，因為有空性（śūnyatā，空虛、無自性）的意義，所以一切法才能成立。如果沒有空性的意義，一切法就不能成立。而且應當知道有很多過患，你們自己不知道，反而來責怪我。所以《中論》說，你們現在自己有過錯，卻反過來推給我。就像騎馬的人，自己忘記了所騎的馬。現在你破壞了六事，還是你們的過錯。其中六事，一是破壞四聖諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，苦、集、滅、道），二、如果無四聖諦下，說明破壞四行（四聖諦的四種行相，如苦諦的逼迫性等），三、破壞八賢聖（八正道，aṣṭāṅgamārga），四、破壞三寶（triratna，佛、法、僧），五、破壞世俗，六、破壞因果。這些都可以理解。二、破他性中分為二，先是引用對方的觀點進行總的提問，然後正式破斥。破斥中，首先是形成自我的同時否定他者，意思是，如果存在自我，那麼誰能被稱為他者？既然自我都不存在了，又以誰為對像來稱呼他者呢？二是與自我相同則沒有他者，意思是，如果從自我的角度來看還是自我，那麼自我都不存在了，他者又怎麼會存在呢？有標示和解釋，可以理解。三、如果自性他性下，總結說兩者都不成立。第四，用類似的例子來排除，可以理解。觀因果門

【English Translation】 English version: The Law of Dependent Origination (pratītyasamutpāda, the principle of interdependence) as spoken is profound. It is not what you Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna, the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Realizer Vehicle, the two main streams of Theravada Buddhism) speak of. Moreover, only when discussing the Law of Dependent Origination based on the wisdom of the Buddha can it truly be called the Law of Dependent Origination. Therefore, it is said that the Law of Dependent Origination of all Buddhas is extremely profound. Secondly, 『Dependent Origination』 below explains the reason for its profoundness. Furthermore, this Law of Dependent Origination should properly be the Conventional Truth (saṃvṛti-satya, relative truth, truth on the conventional level). Why then is it said to be the Ultimate Truth (paramārtha-satya, absolute truth, ultimate truth)? The explanation is that because all dharmas are without inherent existence (svabhāva, intrinsic, unchanging nature), and because of this absence of inherent existence, Dependent Origination is spoken of, hence it is profound. Question: Previously, to the non-Buddhists, you said that they consider Conventional Truth to be the Ultimate Truth. Now, the author (referring to the writer, usually Nāgārjuna) also says that Dependent Origination is the Ultimate Truth. What is the difference between this and what they say? Answer: The non-Buddhists consider the events of Dependent Origination to be the Ultimate Truth. The author considers the principle of Dependent Origination to be the True Truth. Moreover, the author's intention is that all the Conventional Truth teachings of Dependent Origination spoken by the Buddha are intended to make people understand the absence of inherent existence, thereby realizing the True Truth, and not to have people cling to this Law of Dependent Origination. Therefore, it was said above that one understands the Ultimate Truth through the Conventional Truth. Thus, in the Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice (Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra), it is said that by observing the Conventional Truth in accordance with reality, one enters the Ultimate Truth. This is what it means. Fifth, 『If all dharmas』 below, it is precisely turning back to blame them. It means that if all dharmas had inherent existence, they would not arise from conditions. If they did not arise from conditions, there would be no dharmas. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) says that because there is the meaning of emptiness (śūnyatā, emptiness, absence of inherent existence), all dharmas can be established. If there were no meaning of emptiness, all dharmas could not be established. Moreover, it should be known that there are many faults, which you yourselves do not know, and yet you come to blame me. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says, 『You now have faults of your own, but you turn them back to me. It is like a person riding a horse who forgets what he is riding on. Now you destroy the six things, and it is still your fault.』 Among the six things, one is destroying the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, suffering, origin, cessation, path), two, 『If there are no Four Noble Truths』 below, explains destroying the four aspects (the four aspects of the Four Noble Truths, such as the compelling nature of the Truth of Suffering), three, destroying the Eight Noble Ones (the Eightfold Path, aṣṭāṅgamārga), four, destroying the Three Jewels (triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), five, destroying the conventional, and six, destroying cause and effect. These can all be understood. Second, in refuting the inherent existence of others, it is divided into two parts: first, quoting the other party's viewpoint to make a general question, and then formally refuting it. In the refutation, first, forming the self while negating the other, meaning that if there is a self, then who can be called the other? Since the self does not exist, who is the object to be called the other? Second, being the same as the self means there is no other, meaning that if viewed from the perspective of the self, it is still the self, then if the self does not exist, how can the other exist? There are labels and explanations, which can be understood. Third, 『If inherent existence and other-existence』 below, concludes that both are not established. Fourth, using similar examples to exclude, which can be understood. The Gate of Observing Cause and Effect

第九

初釋名者有二義。一借因生果。破果從余處自然而來。二復觀因緣中亦無果。無果故無因。是故因果俱破。約初義從能破為名。約后義從所破為名。二來意者。前來雖復廣顯從緣因果無性。而狂惑之徒復謂自然而有。為破此執故有此門來。三品所明者。此明果法內外俱空。因等皆爾。以成空觀。四釋文中三。一標宗。二釋顯。三類遣。釋中三。先生起。二立頌。上半破內生。下半破外來。又上半牒前諸門緣不生果義。下半正明此門體。但依前起后故須說也。三釋顯中二。先釋后結。釋中二。先釋上半破緣內有生同前。二釋下半頌。破余處自然來等。謂有計微塵世性時方自在天等所造。今破若爾則不從緣生。緣亦無和合功力。是故不從外來。二若果眾緣中無下總結性空。三類遣。並可知。

觀作者門第十

初釋名者。于自他四處求作之者不得故以為名。二來意者。前略以內外求。今廣於四處求。故來也。又一說。上來九品已一遍破因果。自下三品是第二遍破因果。與前何異者。前廣此略故也。初二品破能生。后一破所生。故來也。三品所明者。破此四作有二門。一顯所破亦二。初約外道就人。一我作。二自在天作。三如劫初一男一女共生眾生是共作。四如無因外道等執自然生等。是無因作。如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第九品

首先解釋品名，有兩種含義。一是藉由因產生果，從而破斥果是從其他地方自然而來的觀點。二是進一步觀察因緣，發現其中也沒有果。因為沒有果，所以也沒有因。因此，因和果都被破斥。從第一種含義來說，品名是從能破的角度命名的；從第二種含義來說，品名是從所破的角度命名的。其次，說明本品的來意。前面已經廣泛闡述了從緣而生的因果沒有自性，但那些迷惑之人仍然認為果是自然而有的。爲了破除這種執著，所以有了這一品。第三，說明本品所要闡明的內容。本品闡明果法內外皆空，因等也是如此，從而成就空觀。第四，解釋經文，分為三個部分：一、標明宗旨；二、解釋顯明；三、類比遣除。解釋顯明又分為三個部分：首先生起論點；其次立頌，上半部分破斥內生，下半部分破斥外來。或者說，上半部分是重申前面各品所說的緣不生果的含義，下半部分是正面闡明本品的體性。但因為依前啟后，所以需要說明。第三，解釋顯明又分為兩部分：先解釋，后總結。解釋又分為兩部分：先解釋上半部分，破斥緣內有生，這與前面的觀點相同；其次解釋下半部分的頌，破斥從其他地方自然而來等觀點。所謂有人認為是由微塵、世性、時間、空間、自在天等所造。現在破斥這種觀點，如果是這樣，那麼果就不是從緣而生。緣也沒有和合的功力。所以不是從外而來。第二，如果果在眾多因緣中沒有，那麼就總結為空性。第三，類比遣除，這些都可以理解。

觀作者品第十

首先解釋品名，因為在自身和他人的四個方面都找不到作者，所以以此為名。其次，說明本品的來意。前面只是概括地從內外兩個方面來尋找，現在廣泛地從四個方面來尋找，所以有了這一品。還有一種說法，前面九品已經一遍破斥了因果，從下面的三品開始是第二遍破斥因果。與前面有什麼不同呢？前面是廣泛地破斥，這裡是概括地破斥。前面的兩品破斥能生，後面的一品破斥所生，所以有了這一品。第三，說明本品所要闡明的內容。破斥這四種作者有兩種方式。一是顯明所破，也有兩種。首先從外道的角度來說，就人而言，一是『我』（Atman）作，二是自在天（Ishvara）作，三是像劫初時一男一女共同產生眾生，這是共同作，四是像無因外道等執著自然產生等，這是無因作。

【English Translation】 English version: Chapter 9

Firstly, explaining the name has two meanings. One is to borrow the cause to produce the effect, thereby refuting the view that the effect comes naturally from elsewhere. The second is to further observe the conditions and find that there is no effect in them either. Because there is no effect, there is no cause. Therefore, both cause and effect are refuted. From the first meaning, the name is named from the perspective of what can be refuted; from the second meaning, the name is named from the perspective of what is refuted. Secondly, explain the intention of this chapter. The previous chapters have extensively explained that the cause and effect arising from conditions have no self-nature, but those who are confused still believe that the effect is natural. In order to dispel this attachment, this chapter exists. Thirdly, explain what this chapter intends to clarify. This chapter clarifies that the fruit dharma is empty both internally and externally, and so are the causes, thereby achieving the view of emptiness. Fourthly, explain the scripture, divided into three parts: 1. State the purpose; 2. Explain and clarify; 3. Analogize and eliminate. Explaining and clarifying is divided into three parts: first, raise the argument; second, establish the verse, the first half refutes internal arising, and the second half refutes external coming. Or, the first half is to reiterate the meaning of the previous chapters that conditions do not produce effects, and the second half is to positively clarify the nature of this chapter. But because it builds on the previous and leads to the next, it needs to be explained. Thirdly, explaining and clarifying is divided into two parts: first explain, then summarize. The explanation is divided into two parts: first explain the first half, refuting the arising of internal conditions, which is the same as the previous view; second, explain the verses in the second half, refuting the view that it comes naturally from other places, etc. It is said that some people believe that it is created by atoms, world nature, time, space, the god Ishvara (自在天) , etc. Now refute this view, if so, then the effect is not born from conditions. Conditions also have no power of combination. So it does not come from outside. Second, if the effect is not in the many conditions, then it is summarized as emptiness. Third, analogy and elimination, these can be understood.

Chapter 10: Examining the Agent

Firstly, explaining the name, because the agent cannot be found in the four aspects of oneself and others, it is named accordingly. Secondly, explain the intention of this chapter. The previous chapter only generally sought from the two aspects of inside and outside, now it is widely sought from the four aspects, so this chapter exists. There is also a saying that the previous nine chapters have refuted cause and effect once, and the following three chapters begin the second refutation of cause and effect. What is the difference from the previous one? The previous one is a broad refutation, and this one is a summary refutation. The previous two chapters refute what can be produced, and the following one refutes what is produced, so this chapter exists. Thirdly, explain what this chapter intends to clarify. There are two ways to refute these four agents. One is to clarify what is refuted, and there are also two types. First, from the perspective of external paths, in terms of people, one is 『self』 (Atman 我) as the agent, the second is Ishvara (自在天) as the agent, the third is like a man and a woman jointly producing beings at the beginning of the kalpa, this is joint action, and the fourth is like the causeless external paths who cling to natural production, etc., this is causeless action.

烏鳥非染等。二約小乘就法。一自分因生。二報因。因是善惡。果是無記。故是他也。三如共有因。謂七法共生。四無因作。或云。經部師無明支前托空而起。故亦無因(云云)。二能破中亦二。初唯遮破。如中論及此文。二亦遮亦表。如地論云。因不生。緣生故。緣不生。自因生故。不共生。無知者故。作時不住故。不無因生。隨順有故。又對法論云。自種有故不從他。待眾緣故非自作。無作用故不共生。有功能故非無因。凡諸緣起亡雙句者。已為甚深。況總亡四句。是故緣起最極甚深。解云。此二論意以因為自。用緣為他。此因與緣相待故各有二義。一有力義。二無力義。以因無為緣有故不自生。以緣無為因有故不他生。一有一無無二故不共生。二有二無不俱故亦不共生。則由此無性方得起此不起之果。故不無因。不無如此不自不他不共之因故也。若約顯法性緣起融通無礙門說者。四門俱有作。何者。謂因緣各有三義。一有。二無。三亦有亦無。各別開初義故自作亦他作。合第三義故共作。合第二義故無因作。以各無力故。此同從無住本立一切法。思之可見。此後論說非三論意。但同流類故引說之耳。四釋文中三。初標二釋三類。釋中三。初徴標開章。二立頌略破。上半牒四門。下半顯俱非。三依章廣釋中二。先

釋頌正破。后引教證成。初中釋四章門則為四。就初釋破自作中。初牒非。二釋破。三喻破。四結非。亦是立宗出因舉喻結宗。並可知。二釋破他作中二。先正破。后破救。初中先標非。二釋破。言他何能作者。謂自尚不能。他何能作。又自既未有。說誰為他。又離自無別他。故自無他亦無。故云何能作也。二破救中。先救后破。救意我以因望果為他。非是余法之他。破中二。先正破。后如是苦下結非。破中二。初同果非他破。于中先法次喻后合。謂若合衆緣以成果。豈得緣果為他也。二他無自在破中。初正破。后引中論頌。謂此眾緣既還藉緣成。是則無自性之有。故不得自在。不自在故不能生果。二結文可知。三破共作中三。一牒非。二正破。謂雙具前二失故。是故指同前。三是故下結。四破無因作。于中二。先牒執總非。有無量過者。以彼小乘宗亦同不許故。又諸法亂生等故有多過也。二引證中四。初舉教。二會意。三外救。四會破。初中外以四句存生。不達苦之實性。故佛置而不答。二如是下會意明空有二種所由。一從緣生故空。二佛不答故空。此中以苦體本無。何處得苦從自他等生。如問兔角為從自他等生耶。若答則墮負。何者。謂若答言不自生等者。彼則謂兔角是有。不從自他生等。若答無此兔角者。他本

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：解釋頌文以糾正錯誤的觀點。之後引用經文來證實。最初的部分，解釋四章門，分為四個部分。關於最初的解釋和駁斥自生論的部分，分為四個小節。第一小節，先提出否定。第二小節，解釋駁斥。第三小節，用比喻駁斥。第四小節，總結否定。這也相當於立宗、提出原因、舉出比喻、總結論點，這些都是可以理解的。第二部分，解釋駁斥他生論，分為兩個小節。首先是正面駁斥，然後是駁斥辯護。在正面駁斥中，首先標明否定，然後解釋駁斥。說『他如何能生』，意思是自己尚且不能生，他如何能生？而且自己既然不存在，說誰是『他』呢？而且離開自己就沒有其他的『他』，所以自己不存在，『他』也不存在，所以怎麼能生呢？第二部分，駁斥辯護，先提出辯護，然後進行駁斥。辯護的觀點是，我以因望果為『他』，不是其他的法。駁斥分為兩個小節。首先是同果非他之駁斥，其中先說法，然後用比喻，最後總結。如果聚合眾緣以成就果，那麼緣和果怎麼能是『他』呢？第二是他無自在之駁斥，首先是正面駁斥，然後引用《中論》的偈頌。這些眾緣既然還要依靠緣才能成就，那麼就是沒有自性的存在，所以不能自在。因為不自在，所以不能生果。第二部分，總結，文義可以理解。第三部分，駁斥共生論，分為三個小節。第一小節，提出否定。第二小節，正面駁斥，因為同時具備前兩種過失，所以這裡說的『是故』和前面相同。第三小節，用『是故』來總結。第四部分，駁斥無因生。分為兩個小節。首先是提出執著，總的否定，說有無量的過失，因為小乘宗也不允許這種觀點，而且諸法會混亂產生等等，所以有很多過失。第二小節，引用經文來證明，分為四個小節。首先是舉出教義，第二是會通意義，第三是外道的辯護，第四是會通駁斥。最初，外道用四句來存立生，不瞭解苦的真實性質，所以佛陀不回答。第二，用『如是』來會通意義，說明空和有這兩種情況的原因。一是由於從緣而生所以是空，二是佛陀不回答所以是空。這裡用苦的本體本來就沒有，哪裡能找到苦是從自、他等產生的呢？就像問兔角是從自、他等產生的嗎？如果回答就會落入失敗。為什麼呢？如果回答說不是自生等，那麼他們就會說兔角是存在的，不是從自、他等產生的。如果回答沒有兔角，那麼對方本來

【English Translation】 English version: Explaining the verses to correct erroneous views, followed by citing scriptures for confirmation. The initial part, explaining the four-chapter gate, is divided into four sections. Regarding the initial explanation and refutation of self-origination, it is divided into four subsections. The first subsection presents the negation. The second subsection explains the refutation. The third subsection refutes with a metaphor. The fourth subsection concludes with the negation. This is equivalent to establishing the thesis, presenting the reason, giving an example, and concluding the argument, all of which are understandable. The second part, explaining the refutation of other-origination, is divided into two subsections. First is the direct refutation, then the refutation of the defense. In the direct refutation, first, the negation is stated, then the refutation is explained. Saying 'How can the other originate?', it means that if the self cannot originate, how can the other originate? Moreover, since the self does not exist, who is the 'other'? And apart from the self, there is no other 'other', so if the self does not exist, the 'other' also does not exist, so how can it originate? The second part, refuting the defense, first presents the defense, then refutes it. The defense's view is that 'I consider the cause looking towards the effect as the 'other', not another dharma.' The refutation is divided into two subsections. First is the refutation of the same result not being 'other', in which first the dharma is stated, then a metaphor is used, and finally, a conclusion is drawn. If the aggregation of conditions is used to achieve a result, how can the cause and effect be 'other'? The second is the refutation of the other not being independent, first, the direct refutation, then quoting the verses from the Madhyamaka-karika (中論). Since these conditions still rely on conditions to be achieved, then it is an existence without self-nature, so it cannot be independent. Because it is not independent, it cannot produce the result. The second part, the conclusion, the meaning of the text is understandable. The third part, refuting co-origination, is divided into three subsections. The first subsection presents the negation. The second subsection, the direct refutation, because it simultaneously possesses the previous two faults, so the 'therefore' mentioned here is the same as before. The third subsection concludes with 'therefore'. The fourth part, refuting causeless origination, is divided into two subsections. First, the attachment is presented, the general negation, saying that there are countless faults, because the Hinayana (小乘) schools also do not allow this view, and the dharmas will be produced in a chaotic manner, etc., so there are many faults. The second subsection, citing scriptures to prove it, is divided into four subsections. First, the teachings are presented, second, the meaning is reconciled, third, the tirthika's (外道) defense, fourth, the reconciliation and refutation. Initially, the tirthikas use the four sentences to establish origination, not understanding the true nature of suffering, so the Buddha did not answer. Second, using 'thus' to reconcile the meaning, explaining the reasons for both emptiness and existence. One is that it is empty because it arises from conditions, and two, it is empty because the Buddha did not answer. Here, since the essence of suffering originally does not exist, where can one find suffering arising from self, other, etc.? It is like asking whether a rabbit's horn arises from self, other, etc.? If one answers, one will fall into failure. Why? If one answers that it is not self-originated, etc., then they will say that the rabbit's horn exists, not arising from self, other, etc. If one answers that there is no rabbit's horn, then the other party originally

問從生。不問有無。問異答故亦不然。是故經中問佛。若如來不能答十四難者。何名一切智。佛言。若如來答十四難則非一切智。是故當知不答意者為明彼法空無故也。三外救中三。初非內會意。二釋經顯意。三結非成證。初中外謂論主都不得佛意。佛何曾言由不答故說苦是空。但佛不答自有別意。別意有二。一但彼眾生宜應不答而得入法。故須不答。何必以明空耶。二為破外道四邪說故。是故須爾。文中破四執則為四。初舉執會經。二苦實非下以理正破。正破中二。初我同無常破。于中二。先標后釋。釋中二。先失能作破。謂若無常則失我體無能作也。二若我無常下失所作破。謂以無所依故也。二苦無解脫破。于中二。初標。二何以故下釋。謂若言我作苦者。能須在先。而實離所作苦之前無能作苦之我。何以故。以未有所依陰身故。我何處住。若無此陰身而我獨能作苦者。得解脫者亦是無身。有我亦應常是苦。此是前際無身而作苦。后際亦無身。亦應恒是苦。以無異因故。結文可見。二破他作中二。初破后結。破中有十五番。初一同體非他破。何有他人造苦授與此人。故云也。二因果不相似破。此是邪因不平等因。于中先舉執會經。后而實下以理正破。標釋可知。三苦樂相違破。謂是父應與樂。何乃與苦耶。亦是乖

失父子破。于中。先正破。后顯救。謂若不能生子知恩之心。何名自在能生萬物。又若實能生而故不生者。則是無恩。何所識耶。又愚類供天。則是識恩。何不免苦。猶有貧窮等苦。故知不然也。文中初約情縱破。二而實下就理奪破。可知。四不應所所破。謂彼自在更何所須而作眾生等耶。若有所須而作者。是則非自在。若無所須作者。則同小兒戲也。五逆窮作者破。謂自在若自作。眾生亦應爾。自在若他作。則不自在如眾生。二種比量可知。六業乖自在破。于中三。先以正徴。二引邪教。三破邪教。以待苦行方能作物。明知不自在。又一種苦行何不一種受果。然乃初作毒蟲等。當知由業不關邪苦行也。初則以苦行奪自在。后則以正業奪苦行。可知。七徴處失作破。于中三。先案定作處。二以兩關責。三釋二作失。初自作不成破。謂處處無窮耳。二他作乖宗破。處謂器世界等。八求他無力破。準此應彼經中說自在處有所求故非自在。又此文應倒。應云若是自在何故有人苦行供養從求所愿。顯喜與愿既受求等。明不自在也。九所作不定破。謂如人作車成已。后時不可變作船。自在初作人。此人後時時應作畜等。而實隨業種種轉變。故非自在作也。十舉果驗因破。于中初縱破。謂若自在作皆應一種不應有好醜等異。又罪福

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本破斥『自在天』（Maheśvara）的『父子破壞』論。其中，先破斥，后顯明救濟。如果不能使兒子產生知恩之心，怎能稱之為『自在』，能夠創造萬物呢？又如果確實能夠創造而不創造，那就是沒有恩德，又憑什麼認識呢？此外，愚昧之人供奉天神，這便是認識恩德。為何不能免除痛苦，仍然有貧窮等苦難？由此可知，『自在天』的說法是不成立的。文中，首先從情理上破斥，其次從實際道理上駁斥。可以得知，『自在天』不應該有所需求而創造眾生等。如果有所需求而創造，那就不是『自在』。如果沒有需求而創造，那就如同小孩子玩遊戲一樣。破斥『自在天』逆反窮盡創造者。如果『自在天』自己創造，那麼眾生也應該如此。如果『自在天』由他者創造，那麼它就不『自在』，如同眾生一樣。這兩種比量可以得知。破斥『自在天』的業力乖離『自在』。其中分為三點：首先是正面質問，其次是引用邪教的說法，最後是破斥邪教的說法。他們認為必須通過苦行才能創造事物，這明明是不『自在』。又如果一種苦行只能獲得一種結果，為何最初創造毒蟲等？應當知道這是由業力所致，與邪教的苦行無關。最初是用苦行來否定『自在』，後來是用正業來否定苦行，可以得知。破斥『自在天』創造之處的缺失。其中分為三點：首先是確定創造之處，其次是用兩方面來責問，最後是解釋兩種創造的缺失。首先是破斥『自在天』不能自己完成創造，因為創造之處是無窮無盡的。其次是破斥他者創造違背宗義，這裡的『處』指的是器世界等。破斥尋求他者無力。按照這個道理，應該像經中所說的那樣，『自在天』在創造之處有所求，所以不是『自在』。而且這段文字應該倒過來理解，應該說：如果『自在天』是『自在』的，為何有人要通過苦行供養來向它祈求願望？既然顯現歡喜並給予願望，又接受祈求等，就說明它不是『自在』的。破斥『自在天』所作不確定。比如人造車完成之後，以後不可能變成船。『自在天』最初創造人，這個人以後應該隨時可以變成畜生等。但實際上，人是隨著業力而種種轉變的，所以不是『自在天』創造的。通過結果來驗證原因，從而破斥『自在天』。其中首先是縱容破斥，如果『自在天』創造的都應該是一種，不應該有好醜等差異。而且罪福（Punya，善業；Papa，惡業）...

【English Translation】 English version Refutation of the 'Father-Son Destruction' theory regarding Maheśvara (the 'Self-Existent Lord'). Among these, first refuting, then revealing salvation. If one cannot generate a sense of gratitude in his son, how can he be called 'Self-Existent,' capable of creating all things? Furthermore, if he is truly capable of creating but does not, then he is without grace, and what is he to recognize? Moreover, foolish people worship gods, which is recognizing grace. Why can they not be freed from suffering, and still experience poverty and other hardships? Therefore, it is known that the theory of Maheśvara is untenable. In the text, first, it is refuted based on sentiment and reason, and then it is refuted based on actual principles. It can be understood that Maheśvara should not have any needs to create sentient beings, etc. If he creates because of needs, then he is not 'Self-Existent.' If he creates without needs, then it is the same as children playing games. Refutation of Maheśvara as the creator who is rebellious and exhaustive. If Maheśvara creates himself, then sentient beings should also do so. If Maheśvara is created by another, then he is not 'Self-Existent,' like sentient beings. These two analogies can be understood. Refutation of the discrepancy between Maheśvara's karma and 'Self-Existence.' This is divided into three points: first, a direct question; second, citing the teachings of heretics; and third, refuting the teachings of heretics. They believe that one must practice asceticism to create things, which is clearly not 'Self-Existent.' Furthermore, if one type of asceticism can only obtain one type of result, why did he initially create poisonous insects, etc.? It should be known that this is due to karma and has nothing to do with the asceticism of heretics. Initially, asceticism is used to negate 'Self-Existence,' and later, righteous karma is used to negate asceticism, which can be understood. Refutation of the flaws in Maheśvara's place of creation. This is divided into three points: first, determining the place of creation; second, questioning from two aspects; and third, explaining the flaws in the two creations. First, it is refuted that Maheśvara cannot complete the creation himself because the place of creation is endless. Second, it is refuted that creation by another violates the doctrine; the 'place' here refers to the vessel world, etc. Refutation of the inability to seek others. According to this principle, it should be as stated in the sutra that Maheśvara seeks something in the place of creation, so he is not 'Self-Existent.' Moreover, this passage should be understood in reverse; it should say: If Maheśvara is 'Self-Existent,' why do people seek wishes from him through ascetic offerings? Since he shows joy and grants wishes, and accepts requests, etc., it shows that he is not 'Self-Existent.' Refutation of the uncertainty of Maheśvara's creations. For example, after a person makes a car, it cannot be transformed into a boat later. Maheśvara initially creates a person, and this person should be able to transform into animals, etc., at any time. But in reality, people transform according to their karma, so it is not created by Maheśvara. Verifying the cause through the result, thereby refuting Maheśvara. Among these, first, there is permissive refutation. If everything created by Maheśvara should be of one kind, there should be no differences such as good and bad. Moreover, merit (Punya) and demerit (Papa)...

應俱無。二奪破中。而實有罪福者。以彼此俱許有故。以理奪破也。十一憎愛違宗破。謂皆應愛。何得有憎。又以有憎愛惑所縛。故不自在。何能作萬物。十二以事驗惑破。謂何以知彼有憎愛耶。以作苦樂二人非但作樂故也。又為不能作一類。明不自在。十三方便失作破。謂若自在作者。眾生不應更作衣食等事又作諸善惡業。十四無因失果破。于中初縱破。謂初果無從因得。后因無益果能。后以理奪破可知。十五有無業齊破。于中三。先齊有。二齊無。三無窮。無窮則無始。無始則無因。上皆有比量。並可知。第二如是等下結非。二如是邪見下會經意。三破共作中。具前二失故。如二盲共不成一見故。四破無因中。以苦從眾緣生故非無因也。三是故下外人結非論主為證不成。四答曰下論主會經顯意。何者。謂佛說苦從緣生有二意。一為破邪見如前說。二為明苦是空。以苦從緣必無性故。汝但知一而不知二。又破邪見是淺意。顯真空是深意。汝但得淺不得深。又明法空是正。破邪見是兼。汝知兼不知正。文中三。初印淺顯深。二說苦從眾緣下標起空宗。三何以故下釋顯空義。第三類遣可知。

觀三時門第十一

初釋名者。于現已未三時求法及時。俱不可得。故以為門。二來意者。通意如前。別意。前以四句

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：應俱無。二，奪破中：如果罪和福實際上存在，那是因為我們雙方都承認它們的存在。這是通過道理來駁斥的。十一，憎愛違宗破：應該愛一切眾生，怎麼會有憎恨呢？而且因為被憎恨和愛慾所束縛，所以不自在，怎麼能創造萬物呢？十二，以事驗惑破：怎麼知道他有憎恨和愛慾呢？因為他創造了苦和樂，而不僅僅是創造了樂。而且，因為他不能創造單一的事物，這表明他不自在。十三，方便失作破：如果自在的創造者存在，眾生就不應該再做衣食等事，也不應該再做各種善惡之事。十四，無因失果破：其中，首先是縱容的駁斥，即最初的結果不是從原因中獲得的，後來的原因對結果沒有幫助。後來用道理駁斥，這是可以理解的。十五，有無業齊破：其中有三點。首先是齊有，第二是齊無，第三是無窮。無窮則無始，無始則無因。以上都有比量，並且是可以理解的。第二，『如是等』以下總結了非理。第二，『如是邪見』以下會合經文的意義。第三，在破斥共同創造中，具備了前兩種過失，就像兩個盲人共同不能形成一個視覺一樣。第四，在破斥無因中，因為苦是從各種因緣產生的，所以不是無因的。三，『是故』以下，外人總結說論主的論證不成立。四，『答曰』以下，論主會合經文來顯明意義。什麼意義呢？就是佛說苦從因緣生，有兩種意義。一是為破斥邪見，如前所說。二是為說明苦是空，因為苦從因緣生，必定沒有自性。你只知道其一，而不知道其二。而且，破斥邪見是淺顯的意義，顯明真空是深奧的意義。你只得到了淺顯的，而沒有得到深奧的。而且，明瞭法空是正面的，破斥邪見是兼帶的。你只知道兼帶的，而不知道正面的。文中分為三點。首先是印證淺顯，顯明深奧。第二是說苦從各種因緣生，標舉空宗。第三是『何以故』以下，解釋顯明空義。第三類遣除是可以理解的。觀三時門第十一首先解釋名稱：在現在、過去、未來這三個時間裡尋求法和時間，都不可得，所以稱之為門。第二說明來意：總體的來意如前所述。特別的來意：前面用四句

【English Translation】 English version: 'Should all be non-existent.' Two, 'Refuting through deprivation': If merit and demerit truly exist, it is because both parties acknowledge their existence. This is refuted through reason. Eleven, 'Contradicting the doctrine with hatred and love': All beings should be loved, so how can there be hatred? Moreover, being bound by hatred and love, one is not free, so how can one create all things? Twelve, 'Refuting delusion through events': How do we know that he has hatred and love? Because he creates suffering and joy, and not just joy. Furthermore, because he cannot create a single type of thing, it shows that he is not free. Thirteen, 'Refuting creation through the loss of means': If a free creator exists, beings should no longer need to create clothing, food, and other things, nor should they create various good and evil deeds. Fourteen, 'Refuting the loss of result due to no cause': Among these, the first is refutation through indulgence, that is, the initial result is not obtained from a cause, and the later cause does not help the result. Later, refutation through reason is understandable. Fifteen, 'Refuting the equality of existence and non-existence of karma': Among these, there are three points. First, equality of existence; second, equality of non-existence; third, infinity. Infinity implies no beginning, and no beginning implies no cause. All of the above have analogies and are understandable. Second, 'Such and so forth' below summarizes the unreasonableness. Second, 'Such wrong views' below combines the meaning of the sutras. Third, in refuting joint creation, the previous two faults are present, just as two blind men cannot jointly form a single vision. Fourth, in refuting no cause, because suffering arises from various conditions, it is not without cause. Three, 'Therefore' below, the outsider concludes that the proponent's argument is not established. Four, 'The answer is' below, the proponent combines the sutras to reveal the meaning. What meaning? That is, the Buddha said that suffering arises from conditions, with two meanings. First, to refute wrong views, as mentioned before. Second, to explain that suffering is emptiness, because suffering arises from conditions and must have no self-nature. You only know one, but you do not know the other. Moreover, refuting wrong views is a shallow meaning, and revealing true emptiness is a profound meaning. You only obtain the shallow, but you do not obtain the profound. Moreover, clarifying the emptiness of phenomena is the correct view, and refuting wrong views is incidental. You only know the incidental, but you do not know the correct. The text is divided into three points. First, confirming the shallow and revealing the profound. Second, saying that suffering arises from various conditions, highlighting the doctrine of emptiness. Third, 'Why is it so' below, explaining and revealing the meaning of emptiness. The third type of removal is understandable. The Eleventh Gate of Contemplating the Three Times First, explaining the name: Seeking the Dharma and time in the three times of present, past, and future, both are unattainable, so it is called a gate. Second, explaining the intention: The general intention is as mentioned before. The specific intention: Previously, using four phrases

求。今以三時責。故來也。三所明者。破法及時以顯真空。成觀無寄故也。四釋文中三。初標宗。二釋因。三結類。就第二釋中三。初徴標開章。二立頌略顯。三釋頌廣陳。初中有因法者是果法。為欲密顯因不先於果。要由果故方說為因。是故說果名為有因。以令因成有是果法故。二頌中。上半舉正理。下半徴情有。謂因果先後共現既不成者。從因生法雲何得成。三釋中二。先正破。后破救。初中釋破三時因果。文則為三。薩婆多說因先果后。又如來藏中先有果法體。后時待緣扶起亦是果先因后。又如共有因及成實宗潤生煩惱與果俱時亦是因果同時。又如成唯識等本識中種前滅即生后應死。鳥能鳴等比量可知。又先有種子因。後方生現行果。亦是先後。又如種子望種子等是先後。又義理望是同時。如俱有義等。今細克三時。並俱不成。縱慾安立。終竟無路。是故因果等法畢竟是空。文並可見。二破救中有四。一外人舉宗例破難。二論主反破成宗答。三外人舉現因事難。四徴現無因答。初中外意以論主因果三時不成生。例論主破可破三時不成破。謂若汝三時得相破。我因果三時還得相生。若汝破可破三時不成。破復亦不得。破我義。我義還則立。外意如此。二答中有三。先反示過。汝今此難亦負此責。故云汝亦有是過。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本求（尋求）。現在用過去、現在、未來三時來責難（你的觀點），所以我來了。這三時所要闡明的是：破除（對法的）執著，及時顯現真空（的道理）；成就觀行，不依賴任何事物。因此，在解釋（這段）文字時，分為三個部分：首先標明宗旨，其次解釋原因，最後總結歸類。在第二部分解釋原因中，又分為三個部分：首先提出問題，開啟論述；其次用偈頌概括地顯明；最後解釋偈頌，廣泛地陳述。在第一個部分中，『有因法者是果法』，是爲了秘密地顯示因不先於果。必須通過果（的顯現），才能說（它）是因。所以說果名為『有因』，以此來使因成立，因為『有』是果法。在第二個偈頌中，上半部分舉出正理，下半部分質疑（對方的）執著。如果因果的先後、同時出現都不能成立，那麼從因產生的法又怎麼能夠成立呢？在第三部分解釋中，分為兩部分：先正面破斥，后破斥對方的辯解。在正面破斥中，解釋破斥過去、現在、未來三時的因果關係，文字上分為三個部分。薩婆多（Sarvastivada，一切有部）認為因先於果后。又如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來藏）中先有果法的體性，後來等待因緣扶持而生起，也是果先因后。又如俱有因（Sahabhu-hetu，俱有因）以及成實宗（Satyasiddhi-sastra，成實論）認為潤生的煩惱與果同時，也是因果同時。又如成唯識（Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi，唯識學）等認為本識（alaya-vijnana，阿賴耶識）中的種子前滅即生后，（人）應該死亡，鳥能鳴叫等比量可以知道（這個道理）。又有先有種子因，後方生出現行果，也是先後。又如種子望種子等是先後。又義理望是同時，如俱有義等。現在仔細地考察這三時，都不能成立。縱然想要安立（某種觀點），最終也是沒有出路的。所以因果等法畢竟是空。文字都可以看到。在第二部分破斥對方的辯解中，分為四個部分：一、外人舉出（論主的）宗義，用類比破斥來責難；二、論主反駁破斥，成就自己的宗義來回答；三、外人舉出現實的因果事例來責難；四、論主提出現實中沒有因的情況來回答。在第一個部分中，外人的意思是，論主認為因果的三時不能成立，那麼類比論主破斥（對方）可以破斥的三時也不能成立。如果論主破斥可以破斥的三時不能成立，那麼破斥也就不能成立，（這樣）我的義理就又成立了。外人的意思是這樣。在第二個回答中，分為三個部分：首先反過來指出（對方的）過失，你現在這樣的責難也同樣有這樣的過失，所以說『你也有這樣的過失』。

【English Translation】 English version Seeking. Now, I come to challenge (your views) using the three times: past, present, and future. What these three times aim to clarify is: to break through attachment (to dharmas), promptly revealing the truth of emptiness (sunyata); to achieve contemplation, without relying on anything. Therefore, in explaining (this) text, it is divided into three parts: first, stating the purpose; second, explaining the reason; and third, summarizing and categorizing. In the second part, explaining the reason, it is further divided into three parts: first, raising the question, initiating the discussion; second, using a verse to summarize and clearly reveal; and third, explaining the verse, extensively elaborating. In the first part, 'the dharma with a cause is the dharma with a result' is to secretly show that the cause does not precede the result. It is necessary through the (manifestation of the) result that it can be said to be the cause. Therefore, the result is called 'having a cause,' to establish the cause, because 'having' is the dharma of the result. In the second verse, the first half raises the correct principle, and the second half questions (the opponent's) attachment. If the precedence, sequence, and simultaneous appearance of cause and effect cannot be established, then how can the dharma produced from the cause be established? In the third part of the explanation, it is divided into two parts: first, directly refuting; and second, refuting the opponent's defense. In the direct refutation, the explanation refutes the cause-and-effect relationship of the past, present, and future three times, and the text is divided into three parts. Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada, the 'All Exists' school) believes that the cause precedes the result. Also, in the Tathagatagarbha (Tathagatagarbha, the womb of the Tathagata), the nature of the result dharma exists first, and later it arises with the support of conditions, which is also the result preceding the cause. Also, like the co-existent cause (Sahabhu-hetu, co-existent cause) and the Satyasiddhi-sastra (Satyasiddhi-sastra, the 'Establishment of Truth' school) believe that the afflictions that nourish life are simultaneous with the result, which is also the cause and effect being simultaneous. Also, like the Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi (Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi, the 'Establishment of Consciousness-Only') and others believe that the seed in the alaya-vijnana (alaya-vijnana, storehouse consciousness) perishes before and is born after, (people) should die, and the analogy of birds being able to sing can be used to know (this principle). There is also the seed cause first, and then the manifest result arises, which is also sequential. Also, like seeds looking at seeds, etc., are sequential. Also, the meaning and principle look at the same time, such as the meaning of co-existence, etc. Now, carefully examining these three times, none can be established. Even if one wants to establish (a certain view), there is ultimately no way out. Therefore, the dharmas of cause and effect are ultimately empty. The text can be seen. In the second part, refuting the opponent's defense, it is divided into four parts: first, the outsider raises (the proponent's) doctrine and uses analogy to refute and challenge; second, the proponent refutes and establishes his own doctrine to answer; third, the outsider raises real-world examples of cause and effect to challenge; fourth, the proponent raises the situation where there is no cause in reality to answer. In the first part, the outsider means that the proponent believes that the three times of cause and effect cannot be established, then the analogy of the proponent refuting (the opponent's) refutable three times cannot be established. If the proponent's refutation of the refutable three times cannot be established, then the refutation cannot be established, (so) my meaning is established again. That's what the outsider means. In the second answer, it is divided into three parts: first, turning around to point out (the opponent's) fault, your current challenge also has this fault, so it is said 'you also have this fault.'

二助成宗。謂汝若以三時責我能破令無破。我今受汝責不執有能破。我能破若壞。汝生義寧存。是故無三時生。無三時破。明知是空。是空故助成我宗。何得成難。又汝若以三時破我破。汝已受三時不得生竟。已成我義訖。我更無所說。又百論云。破如所破等。又涅槃云。以我不平破汝不平。若平則是我平。皆同此例。故云若諸法空等也。三揀非例。謂若我如汝定執三時生。可得如我責破汝。我今但為汝妄執。是故破汝。於我實無破。是故不例。汝不應難。故云若我說等也。三外人舉現因事難。謂前據言說不立。今以眼見為真。于中二。先證有三因。后結非論主。前中三。初中外意以先有陶師為因。後作瓶為果。二中。以師為果。弟子為因。因作弟子得師名。則持此證有果先因后。三中。如燈明雖一時起然要因燈有明。是知同時而具有因果。二結非論主可知。四論主徴現無因答。于中釋破前三。文則為三。初中先牒計總非。二釋非正破。三如陶師下例破余法。二中標釋結可知。三中同疑因者。既燈明一時有。則必知為因燈有明。為因明有燈。由此不定故曰同疑因。又云燈明一時有。仍以燈為明因。不得明為燈因。反責燈明一時有。明既不能作燈因。燈亦不能作明因。彼竟不能決。故曰同疑因。又品初已破因果一時不立

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二助成宗。意思是說，如果你用過去、現在、未來這三時來責難我，認為我能破斥你的觀點，並且能讓你無法反駁。我現在接受你的責難，但不執著於我能破斥你。如果我能破斥的觀點被破壞了，你的義理就能成立並存在。因此，不存在過去、現在、未來這三時的產生。既然沒有三時的產生，也就沒有三時的破斥。這清楚地表明一切都是空性的。因為是空性，反而有助於我的宗義成立，怎麼能成為對我的責難呢？而且，如果你用三時來破斥我的破斥，那麼你就已經接受了三時，你的觀點就無法成立。這樣一來，我的義理就已經成立了，我沒有什麼可說的了。此外，《百論》中說：『破斥就像所破斥的對象一樣。』《涅槃經》中說：『用我的不平等來破斥你的不平等，如果平等了，那就是我的平等。』這些都與此類似。所以說，『如果諸法是空性的等等。』三、揀擇非例。意思是說，如果我像你一樣，一定執著於三時的產生，那麼就可以像我責難你一樣來破斥你。但我現在只是爲了破除你的妄執，所以破斥你。對我來說，實際上並沒有被破斥，所以不能類比。你不應該責難我。所以說，『如果我說等等。』三、外人舉出現實的事例來責難。意思是說，前面是根據言說來否定，現在以親眼所見為真。其中分為兩部分：一是先證明有三因，二是總結不是論主。第一部分又分為三點：第一點，外人的意思是先有陶師這個因，然後才有製作的瓶子這個果。第二點，以師父為果，弟子為因。因為弟子做了事情，師父才得到師父的名號，以此來證明有果先於因。第三點，比如燈和光明雖然同時產生，但必須要有燈才能有光明。由此可知，同時存在因果關係。二、總結不是論主，這部分內容容易理解。四、論主提出現實中沒有因的觀點來回答。其中分為三部分來解釋破斥前面的三種觀點。第一部分，先總括地否定對方的觀點。第二部分，解釋否定，進行真正的破斥。第三部分，用陶師的例子來破斥其他法。第二部分，標明觀點並總結，這部分內容容易理解。第三部分，對於同疑因，既然燈和光明是同時存在的，那麼就必然要知道是因為燈才有光明，還是因為光明才有燈。由此產生不確定性，所以說是同疑因。又說，燈和光明是同時存在的，仍然認為燈是光明的因，不能認為光明是燈的因。反過來責問，燈和光明同時存在，光明既然不能作為燈的因，燈也不能作為光明的因。他們最終無法確定，所以說是同疑因。此外，在品的第一部分就已經破斥了因果同時不成立的觀點。

【English Translation】 English version The Second Aid to Establishing the Doctrine. It means, if you use the three times (past, present, and future) to criticize me, thinking that I can refute your views and leave you unable to argue back. I now accept your criticism, but I am not attached to my ability to refute you. If my ability to refute is destroyed, your doctrine can be established and exist. Therefore, there is no arising of the three times. Since there is no arising of the three times, there is no refutation of the three times. This clearly shows that everything is emptiness (sunyata). Because it is emptiness, it actually helps my doctrine to be established, how can it become a criticism against me? Moreover, if you use the three times to refute my refutation, then you have already accepted the three times, and your view cannot be established. In this way, my doctrine has already been established, and I have nothing more to say. Furthermore, the Sata-sastra (Hundred Treatise) says: 'Refutation is like the object being refuted.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Use my inequality to refute your inequality; if it is equal, then it is my equality.' These are all similar to this. Therefore, it is said, 'If all dharmas are emptiness, etc.' Third, distinguishing non-examples. It means, if I, like you, were definitely attached to the arising of the three times, then you could refute me as I criticize you. But I am now only refuting your false attachment, so I am refuting you. For me, there is actually no being refuted, so it cannot be compared. You should not criticize me. Therefore, it is said, 'If I say, etc.' Third, outsiders raise real-world examples to criticize. It means that the previous negation was based on speech, and now what is seen with the eyes is taken as truth. It is divided into two parts: first, to prove that there are three causes; second, to conclude that it is not the proponent's view. The first part is further divided into three points: First, the outsider's meaning is that there is first the potter (陶師) [potter] as the cause, and then the made pot as the effect. Second, the teacher is the effect, and the disciple is the cause. Because the disciple does things, the teacher gets the title of teacher, using this to prove that the effect precedes the cause. Third, for example, although the lamp and light arise simultaneously, there must be a lamp for there to be light. From this, it can be known that cause and effect exist simultaneously. Second, concluding that it is not the proponent's view, this part is easy to understand. Fourth, the proponent raises the view that there is no cause in reality to answer. It is divided into three parts to explain and refute the previous three views. The first part, first, generally negates the other party's view. The second part, explains the negation and carries out the real refutation. The third part, uses the example of the potter to refute other dharmas. The second part, marks the view and summarizes, this part is easy to understand. The third part, regarding the uncertain cause, since the lamp and light exist simultaneously, then it must be known whether it is because of the lamp that there is light, or because of the light that there is a lamp. This creates uncertainty, so it is called an uncertain cause. It is also said that the lamp and light exist simultaneously, and it is still considered that the lamp is the cause of the light, and the light cannot be considered the cause of the lamp. Conversely, asking, since the lamp and light exist simultaneously, since the light cannot be the cause of the lamp, the lamp cannot be the cause of the light. They ultimately cannot determine, so it is called an uncertain cause. In addition, in the first part of the chapter, the view that cause and effect cannot be established simultaneously has already been refuted.

。汝已疑不成。今處引燈明一時為證。還同前疑。故云也。言燈明等者。決俱非因也。三類遣可知。

觀生門第十二

初釋名者。徴破法生以至無生。故以為門。二來意者。前二門偏破能生。此門別破所生。故來也。三所明者。無生正觀是此所說。四釋文者四。初標二釋三結四類。第二釋中三。先徴宗開章。二立頌略標。三釋頌廣辨。廣辨中二。初釋顯三時。后以理正破。于中三。先釋已生不生。于中初正破。后破救。前中三。初標。二何以故下釋破。謂作無窮破。以前生生已復生後生。如是乃至第四。顯無窮過也。三是故下結不生。二複次下破救。于中先牒救總非。謂彼外人救前無窮過故。言我雖生已生。然所用生生是不生而生。非是已生之生故。故但一生無無窮失。二正破中。初破次例后結。初中。初生不生而生者。此是所用生性是未生生也。以有二生故。前言但有已生生者。是則不定。若救可還墮前失。故云作已不作等。二釋破不生亦不生中二。先正破。后破救。初中四。初就奪失相破。謂若與生法合不名不生生。若不與生法合則是無生法。云何名生。故云也。二約縱依無為破。謂若不生法有生者。涅槃是無生法。亦應作生。虛空等亦爾。三壞有為破。亦是乖位失法破。可知。四無因生法破。不壞

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：你已經產生了懷疑，無法消除。現在引用燃燈佛（Dipankara Buddha，過去佛之一）的例子來證明，你的疑惑仍然存在，所以說『也』。提到燃燈佛等，是爲了明確地說明這些都不是原因。三種情況的遣除可以理解。

觀生門第十二

首先解釋名稱：從探究破除『法生』（dharma-utpāda，諸法生起）一直到『無生』（anutpāda，不生不滅的真理），因此稱為『門』。其次說明來意：前面的兩個『門』偏重於破除『能生』（hetu，原因），這個『門』則特別破除『所生』（phala，結果），所以設立此『門』。第三說明所要闡明的：『無生正觀』（anutpāda-samyag-darśana，對不生不滅的正確觀察）是這裡所要說的。第四解釋經文，分為四個部分：首先是標宗，其次是解釋，再次是總結，最後是分類。在第二部分的解釋中，又分為三個部分：首先是提綱挈領地提出宗旨，其次是立頌簡要地標明，再次是解釋頌文詳細地辨析。在詳細的辨析中，又分為兩個部分：首先是解釋並闡明三時（過去、現在、未來），然後是用道理來正式破斥。在用道理來正式破斥的部分中，又分為三個部分：首先是解釋『已生』（jāta，已經生起）和『不生』（ajāta，尚未生起），在解釋『已生』和『不生』的部分中，首先是正式破斥，然後是破斥辯解。在正式破斥的部分中，又分為三個部分：首先是標明，其次是『何以故』（hetu，原因）以下解釋破斥，即用『無窮』（ananta，沒有窮盡）來破斥，因為『以前生生已復生後生』（pūrva-jāta punar jāta paścāt jāta，先前已生的又再次生，之後又生），像這樣乃至第四，顯示了無窮的過失。第三是『是故』（tasmāt，因此）以下總結『不生』。其次是『複次』（punar api，再次）以下破斥辯解。在破斥辯解的部分中，首先是照錄辯解並總括否定，即那些外道爲了挽救前面無窮的過失，說：『我雖然生已生，然而所用的生生是不生而生，不是已生的生，所以只有一生，沒有無窮的過失。』其次是正式破斥，分為三個部分：首先是破斥，其次是類比，最後是總結。在破斥的部分中，首先是生不生而生，這是所用的生性是未生之生。因為有二生，所以前面說只有已生之生，這是不確定的。如果辯解可以成立，就會再次墮入前面的過失，所以說『作已不作』等。

其次解釋破斥『不生亦不生』，分為兩個部分：首先是正式破斥，然後是破斥辯解。在正式破斥的部分中，分為四個部分：首先是就奪取喪失的相狀來破斥，即如果與生法結合，就不稱為『不生生』；如果不與生法結合，那就是無生法，怎麼能稱為生呢？所以說『也』。其次是憑藉順從依賴無為法來破斥，即如果不生法有生，那麼涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）是無生法，也應該產生生，虛空等也是如此。第三是破壞有為法來破斥，這也是乖離位置喪失法的破斥，可以理解。第四是用無因而生的法來破斥，不破壞。

【English Translation】 English version: You already have doubts that cannot be dispelled. Now, citing the example of Dipankara Buddha (a Buddha of the past) as evidence, your doubts still remain, hence the word 'also'. Mentioning Dipankara Buddha and others is to clearly state that these are not causes. The elimination of the three categories can be understood.

Chapter 12: Observing Production

First, explaining the name: From investigating and refuting 'dharma-utpāda' (the arising of phenomena) to 'anutpāda' (the truth of non-arising and non-ceasing), hence it is called a 'gate'. Second, explaining the intention: The previous two 'gates' focused on refuting 'hetu' (cause), while this 'gate' specifically refutes 'phala' (result), hence the establishment of this 'gate'. Third, explaining what is to be elucidated: 'Anutpāda-samyag-darśana' (the correct observation of non-arising) is what is to be discussed here. Fourth, explaining the text, divided into four parts: First is the statement of the principle, second is the explanation, third is the conclusion, and fourth is the classification. In the second part of the explanation, it is further divided into three parts: First is to concisely state the principle, second is to establish a verse to briefly indicate, and third is to explain the verse in detail. In the detailed analysis, it is further divided into two parts: First is to explain and elucidate the three times (past, present, future), and then to formally refute with reason. In the part of formally refuting with reason, it is further divided into three parts: First is to explain 'jāta' (already arisen) and 'ajāta' (not yet arisen), and in the part of explaining 'jāta' and 'ajāta', first is the formal refutation, and then the refutation of the defense. In the part of formal refutation, it is further divided into three parts: First is the statement, second is the explanation of the refutation following 'hetu' (cause), which is to refute with 'ananta' (infinity), because 'pūrva-jāta punar jāta paścāt jāta' (previously arisen again arises, and then arises), like this up to the fourth, showing the fault of infinity. Third is the conclusion of 'anutpāda' following 'tasmāt' (therefore). Second is the refutation of the defense following 'punar api' (again). In the part of refuting the defense, first is to transcribe the defense and generally deny it, that is, those heretics, in order to save the previous fault of infinity, say: 'Although I produce what is already produced, the production used is non-arising production, not the production of what is already produced, so there is only one production, and there is no fault of infinity.' Second is the formal refutation, divided into three parts: First is the refutation, second is the analogy, and third is the conclusion. In the part of refutation, first is the production of non-arising, which is the nature of production used is the production of what is not yet produced. Because there are two productions, so the previous statement that there is only the production of what is already produced is uncertain. If the defense can be established, it will fall into the previous fault again, so it is said 'having done, not doing', and so on.

Second, explaining the refutation of 'non-arising is also not produced', divided into two parts: First is the formal refutation, and then the refutation of the defense. In the part of formal refutation, it is divided into four parts: First is to refute based on the aspect of seizing and losing, that is, if it combines with the dharma of production, it is not called 'non-arising production'; if it does not combine with the dharma of production, then it is a dharma of non-arising, how can it be called production? So it is said 'also'. Second is to refute by relying on the unconditioned, that is, if the dharma of non-arising has production, then nirvāṇa (cessation) is a dharma of non-arising, it should also produce production, and so should space and so on. Third is to refute by destroying conditioned dharmas, which is also a refutation of deviating from position and losing dharma, which can be understood. Fourth is to refute with dharmas that arise without cause, without destroying.

法阿羅漢是不動種性。揀去退相羅漢等。以彼宗許退起煩惱非此因故。又凡夫菩提是應生不生。作應生責。羅漢煩惱是不應生而生。作應生責也。二破救中。先外救。救意前論主作不應生而生難。外人不受。故云非一切不生而生。有因緣和合本無今有名生。何得言一向無。我宗中無。有二種。一是可有無。二是畢竟無。此二中我說可有無。何得將畢竟無為難。如上凡夫菩提未生而生。謂有因緣遇善友等則生也。二正破。破中三。先牒救。二徴責。三結非。就責中。若言不同畢竟無而是可有無者。此等緣中為有故生。為無故生。俱及非等皆不成生。如前諸門說。三破生時生中四。一離已未破。標釋可知。二離法無時破。謂若離生有時。可有生法之能。離生既無時。何有生時生。三時法二生破。謂既有生時復有生法。是則有二生。前句以時無法亦無。此句以法有時亦有。四生無行處破。謂彼生行處是名生時。既未有時生無生也。三如是下總結無生。四類遣中五。一類生遣住滅。二遣有為。三遣無為。四遣眾生。五總結一切都空。

十二門論宗致義記卷下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本法阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）是不動種性。這裡排除了會退轉的阿羅漢等，因為他們的宗義允許退轉並生起煩惱，而這（不動種性）不是這種情況的原因。此外，凡夫的菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）是『應生』但『不生』。如果認為它『應生』，就加以責難。阿羅漢的煩惱是『不應生』而『生』。如果認為它『應生』，也加以責難。在兩種破斥和辯護中，首先是外道的辯護。辯護的意圖是，之前的論主提出了『不應生而生』的責難，外道並不接受。所以說，並非一切『不生而生』都是如此，因為有因緣和合，本來沒有的現在有了，怎麼能說它一向沒有呢？我的宗義中沒有『畢竟無』，只有兩種：一是『可有無』，二是『畢竟無』。在這兩種中，我說的是『可有無』，怎麼能用『畢竟無』來責難呢？就像上面說的凡夫的菩提，未生而生，指的是有因緣，遇到善友等就會生起。其次是正式的破斥。破斥分為三部分：首先是引述辯護，其次是提出責難，最後是總結否定。在責難中，如果說它不同於『畢竟無』，而是『可有無』，那麼這些因緣中，是因為『有』而生，還是因為『無』而生？『俱』（既有又無）和『非』（既非有也非無）等都不能成立生，就像前面各種情況所說的那樣。第三是破斥『生時生』，分為四部分：一是離開『已』和『未』進行破斥，標明和解釋是顯而易見的。二是離開『法』和『無時』進行破斥，意思是如果離開生而有時間，或許有生法的能力。既然離開生就沒有時間，哪裡有生時生呢？三是『時』和『法』二者都生進行破斥，意思是既然有生時，又有生法，那就是有兩個生。前一句說的是以時間而言，沒有法也沒有。這一句說的是以法而言，有時間也有。四是破斥生沒有行處，意思是那個生所行之處叫做生時，既然沒有時間，生就沒有生。像這樣，下面總結說沒有生。第四是分類排除，分為五部分：一是類比生來排除住和滅。二是排除有為法。三是排除無為法。四是排除眾生。五是總結一切都是空。 English version The Arhat (法阿羅漢), who has attained Nirvana, is of an immovable nature. This excludes Arhats who may regress, as their doctrine allows for regression and the arising of afflictions, which is not the cause in this case (immovable nature). Furthermore, the Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment) of ordinary beings is 『should arise』 but 『does not arise.』 If it is considered 『should arise,』 then it is challenged. The afflictions of an Arhat are 『should not arise』 but 『arise.』 If it is considered 『should arise,』 it is also challenged. In the two refutations and defenses, first is the external defense. The intention of the defense is that the previous debater raised the challenge of 『should not arise but arises,』 which the external party does not accept. Therefore, it is said that not everything that 『does not arise but arises』 is like that, because there are conditions coming together, and what was originally not there now exists. How can it be said that it never exists? In my doctrine, there is no 『absolute non-existence (畢竟無),』 there are only two types: one is 『potentially non-existent (可有無),』 and the other is 『absolutely non-existent (畢竟無).』 Among these two, I am referring to 『potentially non-existent,』 how can you use 『absolutely non-existent』 to challenge me? Like the Bodhi of ordinary beings mentioned above, not yet arisen but arises, referring to having conditions, encountering good friends, etc., then it will arise. Second is the formal refutation. The refutation is divided into three parts: first, quoting the defense; second, raising the challenge; and third, concluding with negation. In the challenge, if it is said that it is different from 『absolutely non-existent,』 but is 『potentially non-existent,』 then in these conditions, does it arise because of 『existence (有)』 or because of 『non-existence (無)』? 『Both (俱)』 (both existence and non-existence) and 『neither (非)』 (neither existence nor non-existence) etc., cannot establish arising, as said in the previous various cases. Third is refuting 『arising at the time of arising (生時生),』 divided into four parts: first, refuting by separating 『already (已)』 and 『not yet (未),』 the labeling and explanation are obvious. Second, refuting by separating 『dharma (法)』 and 『no time (無時),』 meaning if there is time apart from arising, perhaps there is the ability of the dharma of arising. Since there is no time apart from arising, where is the arising at the time of arising? Third, refuting with both 『time (時)』 and 『dharma (法)』 arising, meaning since there is a time of arising and also a dharma of arising, then there are two arisings. The previous sentence refers to that in terms of time, there is no dharma either. This sentence refers to that in terms of dharma, there is time as well. Fourth, refuting that arising has no place to go, meaning that the place where arising goes is called the time of arising, since there is no time, arising has no arising. Like this, below it is concluded that there is no arising. Fourth is classifying and excluding, divided into five parts: first, using arising as an analogy to exclude abiding and ceasing. Second, excluding conditioned dharmas (有為法). Third, excluding unconditioned dharmas (無為法). Fourth, excluding sentient beings (眾生). Fifth, concluding that everything is empty.

【English Translation】 The Dharma Arhat is of an immovable nature. Select away the Arhat of regressive nature, etc., because their sect allows for the arising of afflictions, which is not the cause here. Also, the Bodhi of ordinary people is 'should arise' but 'does not arise'. Make a charge of 'should arise'. The afflictions of an Arhat are 'should not arise' but 'arise'. Make a charge of 'should arise' as well. In the two refutations and defenses, first is the external defense. The intention of the defense is that the previous debater made a difficult point of 'should not arise but arises'. Outsiders do not accept this, so it is said that not everything that 'does not arise but arises' is like that, because there are causes and conditions that come together, and what was originally not there now exists. How can it be said that it is always non-existent? There is no 'absolutely non-existent' in my sect, there are two types: one is 'possibly non-existent', and the other is 'absolutely non-existent'. Among these two, I am talking about 'possibly non-existent', how can you use 'absolutely non-existent' to make a difficult point? Like the Bodhi of ordinary people mentioned above, not yet born but born, meaning that if there are causes and conditions, such as encountering good friends, then it will be born. Second is the formal refutation. The refutation is divided into three parts: first, quoting the defense; second, raising the charge; and third, concluding with negation. In the charge, if it is said that it is not the same as 'absolutely non-existent' but is 'possibly non-existent', then in these conditions, is it born because of 'existence' or because of 'non-existence'? 'Both' and 'neither', etc., cannot establish birth, as said in the previous various cases. Third is breaking the 'birth at the time of birth', divided into four parts: one is breaking away from 'already' and 'not yet', the labeling and explanation are knowable. Two is breaking away from 'dharma' and 'no time', meaning that if there is time away from birth, there may be the ability of the dharma of birth. Since there is no time away from birth, how can there be birth at the time of birth? Three is breaking the two births of 'time' and 'dharma', meaning that since there is a time of birth and a dharma of birth, then there are two births. The previous sentence says that with time, there is no dharma. This sentence says that with dharma, there is also time. Four is breaking the birth without a place to go, meaning that the place where birth goes is called the time of birth. Since there is no time, there is no birth. Like this, the following concludes that there is no birth. Fourth is classifying and sending away, divided into five parts: one is classifying birth to send away abiding and extinction. Two is sending away conditioned phenomena. Three is sending away unconditioned phenomena. Four is sending away sentient beings. Five is concluding that everything is empty.