T45n1852_三論玄義

大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1852 三論玄義

No. 1852

三論玄義

慧日道場沙門吉藏奉命撰

總序宗要。開為二門。一通序大歸。二別釋眾品。初門有二。一破邪。二顯正。

夫適化無方。陶誘非一。考聖心。以息患為主。統教意。以通理為宗。但九十六術棲火宅為凈道。五百異部縈見網為泥洹。遂使鹿苑丘墟。鷲山荊蕀。善逝以之流慟。薩埵所以大悲。四依為此而興。三論由斯而作。但論雖有三。義唯二轍。一曰顯正。二曰破邪。破邪則下拯沉淪。顯正則上弘大法。故振領提綱。理唯斯二也。但邪謬紛綸。難可備序。三論所斥略辨四宗。一摧外道。二折毗曇。三排成實。四呵大執。問以何義故遍斥眾師。答論主究其原。盡其理也。一源不究。則戲論不滅。毫理不盡。則至道不彰。以無源不究。群異乃息。無理不盡。玄道始通。是以斯文遍排眾計。問既無法不究。無言不盡應遍排群異。何故但斥四宗耶。答初一為外。后三為內。內外並收。毗曇明有。成實辨空。空有俱攝。斯二為小。方等稱大。大小該羅。略洗四迷。則紛累都盡耳。問此之四執優降云何。答外道不達二空。橫存人法。毗曇已得無我。而執法有性。跋摩具辨二空。而照猶未盡。大乘乃言究竟。但

封執成迷。自淺至深。四宗階級。問外道邪言可得稱破。余為內教。何得亦破。答總談破顯。凡有四門。一破不收。二收不破。三亦破亦收。四不破不收。言不會道。破而不收。說必契理。收而不破學教起迷。亦破亦收。破其能迷之情。收取所惑之教。諸法實相言忘慮絕。實無可破亦無可收。泯上三門歸乎一相。照斯四句破立皎然(自此以來總明申破。從此已去別斥四宗)。

所言摧外道者。夫至妙虛通目之為道。心遊道外故名外道。外道多端。略陳其二。一天竺異執。二震旦眾師。總論西域九十六術。別序宗要則四執盛行。一計邪因邪果。二執無因有果。三立有因無果。四辨無因無果。問云何名為邪因邪果。答有外道云。大自在天能生萬物。萬物若滅。還歸本天。故云自在。天若瞋。四生皆苦。自在若喜。則六道咸樂。然天非物因。物非天果。蓋是邪心所畫。故名邪因邪果(自在既爾。七計例然)。難曰。夫善招樂報。惡感苦果。蓋是交謝之宅報應之場。以不達義理故生斯謬。又夫人類生人。物類生物。人類生人則人還似人。物類生物物還似物。蓋是相生之道也。而謂一天之因產萬類之報。豈不謬哉。問云何名為無因有果。答覆有外道窮推萬物。無所由籍。故謂無因。而現睹諸法。當知有果。例如莊周魍魎問

影。影由形有。形因造化。造化則無所由。本既自有。即末不因他。是故無因而有果也。問無因自然此有何異。答無因據其因無。自然明乎果有。約義不同。猶是一執。難曰。夫因果相生猶長短相形。既其有果。何得無因。如其無因。何獨有果。若必無因而有果者。則善招地獄。惡感天堂。問曰。有人言。自然有因。自然無因。萬化不同。皆自然有。故無同前過。答曰。蓋未審察之。故生斯謬。如其精究。理必不然。夫論自者。謂非他為義。必是因。他則非自矣。故自則不因。因則不自。遂言因而復自。則義成桙楯。問云何名為有因無果。答斷見之流唯有現在更無後世。類如草木盡在一期。難曰。夫神道幽玄。惑人多昧。義經丘而未曉。理涉旦而猶昏。唯有佛宗乃盡其致。經云如雀在瓶中。羅縠覆其口。縠穿雀飛去。形壞而神走。匡山慧遠釋曰。火之傳於薪。猶神之傳於形。火之傳異薪。猶神之傳異形。前薪非后薪。則知指窮之術妙。前形非后形。則悟情數之感深。不得見形朽於一生。便謂識神俱喪。火窮於一木。乃曰終期都盡矣。後學稱黃帝之言曰。形雖糜而神不化。乘化至變無窮。雖未彰言三世。意已明未來不斷。問曰。云何名為無因無果。答既撥無後世受果。亦無現在之因故。六師云。無有黑業。無有黑業報。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本影子的存在是因為形體的存在。形體的存在是由於造化的作用。而造化則沒有任何原因。根本如果是自身就存在的，那麼末端就不依賴於其他。所以說，沒有原因也會有結果。問：『無因而有』和『自然而有』有什麼不同？答：『無因』強調的是沒有原因，『自然』說明的是結果的存在。雖然措辭不同，但本質上都是一種執著。難：因果相生就像長短互相比較一樣。既然有結果，怎麼會沒有原因呢？如果真的沒有原因，又怎麼會只有結果呢？如果一定要說沒有原因也會有結果，那麼行善會招來地獄，作惡會感應到天堂。問：有人說，自然有其原因，自然也有其無因，萬物的變化各不相同，都是自然而有的，所以沒有你前面說的過失。答：這是因為沒有仔細審察，所以產生了這種謬誤。如果深入研究，道理肯定不是這樣。所說的『自』，指的是不依賴於其他的意思。如果是依賴於其他，那就不是『自』了。所以『自』就不依賴於其他，依賴於其他就不是『自』。如果說既依賴於其他又是『自』，那麼意義上就自相矛盾了。問：什麼叫做『有因無果』？答：斷見者認為只有現在，沒有來世。就像草木一樣，生命只有一期。難：神道幽深玄妙，迷惑了很多人。道理經過反覆思考仍然不明白，意義經過長時間的探究仍然不清楚。只有佛家的宗旨才能徹底明白其中的道理。《經》中說，就像小鳥在瓶子里，用絲綢蓋住瓶口。絲綢破了，小鳥就飛走了，形體壞了，神識就離開了。匡山慧遠解釋說：火傳遞到柴上，就像神識傳遞到形體上。火傳遞到不同的柴上，就像神識傳遞到不同的形體上。之前的柴不是之後的柴，由此可知指窮之術的精妙。之前的形體不是之後的形體，由此可知情數的感應之深。不能因為看到形體在一生中朽壞，就認為神識也一起消亡。不能因為火在一根木頭上燃盡，就說最終全部都消失了。後來的學者引用黃帝的話說：形體雖然腐爛了，但是神識不會消滅，它會隨著造化而變化，無窮無盡。雖然沒有明確地說三世，但是已經表明了未來不會斷滅。問：什麼叫做『無因無果』？答：既否定了來世會受到果報，也否定了現在有造作的原因。所以六師（指六個外道宗師）說：沒有黑業，也沒有黑業的果報。

【English Translation】 English version Shadows exist because of forms. Forms exist because of creation (zaohua). Creation has no cause. If the origin is self-existent, then the end does not depend on others. Therefore, there can be effects without causes. Question: What is the difference between 'having an effect without a cause' and 'being natural'? Answer: 'Without a cause' emphasizes the absence of a cause, while 'natural' clarifies the existence of an effect. Although the wording is different, they are essentially the same attachment. Objection: Cause and effect arise together, just as long and short define each other. Since there is an effect, how can there be no cause? If there is truly no cause, how can there only be an effect? If you insist that there can be an effect without a cause, then good deeds will invite hell, and evil deeds will evoke heaven. Question: Some say that nature has its causes, and nature also has its lack of causes. The transformations of all things are different, and they all arise naturally, so there is no fault as you mentioned earlier. Answer: This is because they have not examined it carefully, which leads to this fallacy. If you study it deeply, the principle must not be so. The so-called 'self' means not depending on others. If it depends on others, then it is not 'self'. Therefore, 'self' does not depend on others, and depending on others is not 'self'. If you say that it both depends on others and is 'self', then the meaning becomes contradictory. Question: What is called 'having a cause without an effect'? Answer: Those with annihilationist views only have the present and no future life. Like plants and trees, life only lasts for one period. Objection: The way of the spirit is profound and mysterious, confusing many people. The meaning is still not understood after repeated consideration, and the principle is still unclear after a long period of exploration. Only the Buddhist doctrine can fully understand the principles within. The Sutra says, 'Like a bird in a bottle, covered with silk over its mouth. When the silk is torn, the bird flies away, the form decays, and the spirit departs.' Huiyuan of Mount Lu (Kuangshan Huiyuan) explained: 'The transmission of fire to firewood is like the transmission of spirit to form. The transmission of fire to different firewood is like the transmission of spirit to different forms. The previous firewood is not the later firewood, thus we know the subtlety of the art of exhausting the finger (zhi qiong zhi shu). The previous form is not the later form, thus we realize the depth of the feeling of emotions and numbers (qing shu). One cannot see the form decaying in one lifetime and then think that the consciousness also perishes. One cannot say that because the fire is exhausted in one piece of wood, it means that everything will eventually disappear.' Later scholars quoted the words of the Yellow Emperor (Huangdi), saying, 'Although the form decays, the spirit does not transform. It rides on transformation to change endlessly.' Although he did not explicitly mention the three lifetimes, he has already made it clear that the future will not be cut off. Question: What is called 'having no cause and no effect'? Answer: Since they deny that there will be retribution in the afterlife, they also deny that there is a cause in the present. Therefore, the six teachers (liu shi) [referring to the six non-Buddhist teachers] say: There is no black karma, and there is no retribution for black karma.

無有白業。無有白業報。四邪之問最為尤弊。現在斷善。後生惡趣。問斯之紛謬起自何時。答釋迦未興盛行天竺。能仁既出殄斯謬計。佛滅度后柯條更繁。龍樹后興重加剪伐。

次排震旦眾師。一研法。二核人。問曰。天竺四術既是外言。震旦三玄應為內教。答釋僧肇云。每讀老子莊周之書。因而嘆曰。美即美矣。然棲神冥累之方猶未盡也。后見凈名經。欣然頂戴謂親友曰。吾知所歸極矣。遂棄俗出家。羅什昔聞三玄與九部同極。伯陽與牟尼抗行。乃喟然嘆曰。老莊入玄故。應易惑耳目。凡夫之智。孟浪之言。言之似極。而未始詣也。推之似盡。而未誰至也。略陳六義明其優劣。外但辨乎一形。內則朗鑒三世。外則五情未達。內則說六通窮微。外未即萬有而為太虛。內說不壞假名而演實相。外未能即無為而游萬有。內說不動真際建立諸法。外存得失之門。內冥二際于絕句之理。外未境智兩泯。內則緣觀俱寂。以此詳之。短羽之於鵬翼。坎井之於天池。未足喻其懸矣。秦人疑其極。吾復何言哉。問伯陽之道道曰太虛。牟尼之道道稱無相。理源既一則萬流並同。什肇抑揚乃諂于佛(此王弼舊疏以無為為道體)。答伯陽之道道指虛無。牟尼之道道超四句。淺深既懸。體何由一。蓋是子佞于道。非余諂佛。問牟尼之道道

為真諦。而體絕百非。伯陽之道道曰杳冥。理超四句。彌驗體一。奚有淺深(此梁武帝新義。用佛經以真空為道體)。答九流統攝。七略該含。唯辨有無。未明絕四。若言老教亦辨雙非。蓋以砂糅金。同盜牛之論(周弘政張機並斥老有雙非之義也)。

核人第二。問佛名大覺。老曰天尊。人同上聖。法俱妙極。茍欲存異。將非杜不二之玄門傷得一之淵府哉(蓋是道士用三洞靈寶等經立義)。答悉達處宮方紹金輪聖帝。能仁出俗遂為三界法王。老為周朝之柱史。清虛是九流之派。子若欲令人一法同。何異堆阜共安明等高。螢燭與日月齊照。問同人者之五情。異人者之神明。跡為柱史。本實天尊。據實而談。齊之一貫。答漢書亦顯品類。以伯陽為賢。何晏王弼稱老未及聖。設令孔是儒童。老為迦葉。雖同聖蹟。聖蹟不同。若圓應十方八相成佛。人稱大覺。法名出世。小利即生人天福善。大益即有三乘賢聖。如斯之流為上跡也。至如孔稱素王說有名儒。老居柱史談無曰道。辨益即無人得聖。明利即止在世間。如此之類為次跡矣。

折毗曇第二。一立宗。二破斥。有薩衛門人。序其宗曰。阿毗曇者名無比法。無漏慧根會理隔凡。其功冠絕。故云無比。超四執之外。越三界之表。群聖之所讚歎。六道之所歸崇。敢有

【現代漢語翻譯】是真諦。而體絕百非。伯陽（老子，姓李名耳，字伯陽）之道道曰杳冥。理超四句。彌驗體一。奚有淺深（此梁武帝新義。用佛經以真空為道體）。答：九流統攝，七略該含。唯辨有無，未明絕四。若言老教亦辨雙非，蓋以砂糅金，同盜牛之論（周弘政張機並斥老有雙非之義也）。

核人第二。問：佛名大覺（指佛陀的覺悟），老（指老子）曰天尊。人同上聖，法俱妙極。茍欲存異，將非杜不二之玄門，傷得一之淵府哉（蓋是道士用三洞靈寶等經立義）。答：悉達（佛陀的本名）處宮方紹金輪聖帝，能仁（佛陀的稱號，意為能以慈悲利益眾生）出俗遂為三界法王。老為周朝之柱史，清虛是九流之派。子若欲令人一法同，何異堆阜共安明等高，螢燭與日月齊照。問：同人者之五情，異人者之神明。跡為柱史，本實天尊。據實而談，齊之一貫。答：漢書亦顯品類，以伯陽為賢。何晏王弼稱老未及聖。設令孔（指孔子）是儒童，老為迦葉（佛陀的十大弟子之一）。雖同聖蹟，聖蹟不同。若圓應十方八相成佛，人稱大覺，法名出世。小利即生人天福善，大益即有三乘賢聖。如斯之流為上跡也。至如孔稱素王說有名儒，老居柱史談無曰道。辨益即無人得聖，明利即止在世間。如此之類為次跡矣。

折毗曇第二。一立宗，二破斥。有薩衛門人，序其宗曰：阿毗曇者名無比法。無漏慧根會理隔凡，其功冠絕，故云無比。超四執之外，越三界之表。群聖之所讚歎，六道之所歸崇。敢有

【English Translation】 Is the true meaning. And its essence transcends all negations. The Dao of Boyang (Laozi, personal name Li Er, courtesy name Boyang) is said to be obscure and profound. Its principle surpasses the four propositions. It fully verifies the oneness of the essence. How can there be shallowness or depth? (This is Emperor Wu of Liang's new interpretation, using the Buddhist scriptures to regard emptiness as the essence of the Dao). Answer: It encompasses the nine schools of thought and includes the seven summaries. It only distinguishes between existence and non-existence, without clarifying the transcendence of the four propositions. If you say that Laozi's teachings also distinguish between double negation, it is like mixing sand with gold, similar to the argument of stealing a cow (Zhou Hongzheng and Zhang Ji both criticized Laozi for having the meaning of double negation).

Refuting People, Part 2. Question: The Buddha is called the Greatly Enlightened One (referring to the Buddha's enlightenment), and Laozi is called the Heavenly Venerable. People are the same as the supreme sages, and the teachings are all supremely wonderful. If you insist on preserving the differences, wouldn't you be blocking the mysterious gate of non-duality and damaging the profound foundation of oneness? (This is probably a Daoist establishing a doctrine based on scriptures such as the Three Caverns and Spiritual Treasures). Answer: Siddhartha (the Buddha's original name) was in the palace and was about to become a Chakravartin (wheel-turning) Holy Emperor. Shakyamuni (an epithet of the Buddha, meaning 'able to benefit beings with compassion') left the secular world and became the Dharma King of the Three Realms. Laozi was the scribe of the Zhou Dynasty, and Qingxu (Purity and Emptiness) is a branch of the Nine Schools. If you want to make people and Dharma the same, how is that different from placing mounds together to make them equally high, or comparing fireflies with the sun and moon to make them equally bright? Question: The five emotions of those who are the same as people, and the spiritual intelligence of those who are different from people. His traces are those of a scribe, but his essence is actually a Heavenly Venerable. Speaking according to reality, they are all unified by one principle. Answer: The Book of Han also clearly distinguishes categories, regarding Boyang as a worthy person. He Yan and Wang Bi said that Laozi had not yet reached sagehood. Suppose Confucius (referring to Confucius) was a Confucian child, and Laozi was Kashyapa (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples). Although they share the same traces of sagehood, the traces of sagehood are different. If one perfectly responds to the ten directions and attains Buddhahood through the eight aspects, people call him the Greatly Enlightened One, and the Dharma is called transcendent. Small benefits lead to blessings in the realms of humans and gods, and great benefits lead to the sages and saints of the Three Vehicles. Such a path is the highest trace. As for Confucius, he is called the Uncrowned King and speaks of famous Confucians. Laozi resides as a scribe and speaks of non-being as the Dao. Distinguishing benefits means that no one can attain sagehood, and clarifying benefits means that they only exist in the world. Such a path is a secondary trace.

Refuting the Abhidharma, Part 2. First, establish the doctrine; second, refute it. There was a follower of the Sarvastivada school who introduced their doctrine, saying: 'Abhidharma is called the Unsurpassed Dharma. The root of non-outflow wisdom meets the principle and separates from the ordinary. Its merit is supreme, therefore it is called unsurpassed. It transcends the four attachments and goes beyond the three realms. It is praised by all the sages and revered by the six paths. Who dares to'

抗言。當屈之以理。問夫欲立理。先須序宗源。未知毗曇凡有幾種。答部類甚多。略明其六。一者如來自說法相毗曇。盛行天竺不傳震旦。二者鄰極亞聖名舍利弗。解佛語故造阿毗曇。凡二十卷。傳來此土。三者佛滅度后三百餘年。有三明六通大阿羅漢。姓迦旃延。造八犍度。凡二十卷。傳來此土。所言八者。一雜。二使。三智。四業。五大。六根。七定。八見。言犍度者。翻之為聚。以其八義各有部類。因之為聚也。四者六百年間有五百羅漢。是旃延弟子。于北天竺共造毗婆沙釋八犍度。毗婆沙者。此云廣解。于西涼州譯出。凡有百卷。值兵火燒之。唯六十卷現在。止解三犍度也。五者七百餘年有法勝羅漢。嫌婆沙太博。略撰要義作二百五十偈。名阿毗曇心。凡有四卷。亦傳此土。六者千年之間有達磨多羅。以婆沙太博四卷極略。更撰三百五十偈。足四卷合六百偈。名為雜心也。其間復有六分毗曇。釋論云。目連和須密及餘論師共造。並不傳此土。唯眾事分毗曇是六內之一。此土有之。復有甘露味毗曇二卷。未詳作者。並傳此土。毗曇雖部類不同。大宗明見有得道也。

破斥第二凡有十門。一乖至道。二扶眾見。三違大教。四守小筌。五迷自宗。六無本信。七有偏執。八非學本。九弊真言。十喪圓旨。蓋無比

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：抗辯應該用道理來折服對方。如果要確立道理，首先需要梳理宗派的源頭。不知道阿毗曇總共有多少種？回答是部類非常多，簡單說明有六種。第一種是如來親自宣說的法相阿毗曇（Dharma-lakṣaṇa Abhidharma），在天竺（India）盛行，但沒有傳到震旦（China）。第二種是地位僅次於聖人的舍利弗（Śāriputra），因為理解佛陀的語言，所以造了阿毗曇，共有二十卷，傳到了中國。第三種是佛陀滅度后三百多年，有具足三明六通的大阿羅漢，姓迦旃延（Kātyāyana），造了八犍度（Aṣṭa-skandha），共有二十卷，傳到了中國。所說的八個是：一雜（Miśra），二使（Hetu），三智（Jñāna），四業（Karma），五大（Mahābhūta），六根（Indriya），七定（Samāpatti），八見（Dṛṣṭi）。犍度（Skandha）的意思是『聚』，因為這八個意義各有部類，因此稱為聚。第四種是六百年間有五百羅漢，是迦旃延（Kātyāyana）的弟子，在北天竺（North India）共同造了毗婆沙（Vibhāṣā）來解釋八犍度（Aṣṭa-skandha）。毗婆沙（Vibhāṣā）的意思是『廣解』，在西涼州翻譯出來，共有百卷，遭遇兵火被燒燬，只有六十卷現在還在，只解釋了三個犍度（Skandha）。第五種是七百多年有法勝羅漢（Dharmaśreṣṭhin），嫌棄毗婆沙（Vibhāṣā）太繁博，簡略地撰寫了要義，作了二百五十偈，名為阿毗曇心（Abhidharma-hṛdaya），共有四卷，也傳到了中國。第六種是千年之間有達磨多羅（Dharmatrāta），認為婆沙（Bhāṣā）太繁博，四卷又過於簡略，於是又撰寫了三百五十偈，加上原來的四卷共六百偈，名為雜心（Saṃkīrṇa-hṛdaya）。這期間還有六分毗曇（Ṣaḍvidha Abhidharma），釋論說，是目連（Maudgalyāyana）、和須密（Vasumitra）及其他論師共同造的，但沒有傳到中國。只有眾事分毗曇（Saṃghāṭa-bheda Abhidharma）是六分中的一種，中國有。還有甘露味毗曇（Amṛtarasa Abhidharma）二卷，不清楚作者是誰，也傳到了中國。阿毗曇（Abhidharma）雖然部類不同，但大體上闡明見地，使人得以悟道。破斥第二共有十個方面：一是違背至高之道，二是扶持各種見解，三是違背大乘教義，四是守護小乘的方便法門，五是迷惑于自己的宗派，六是沒有根本的信仰，七是有偏頗的執著，八不是學習的根本，九是貶低真言，十是喪失圓滿的宗旨。大概沒有比這更嚴重的了。

【English Translation】 English version: Refutations should be done with reason. If one wishes to establish reason, one must first clarify the origin of the school. I wonder how many types of Abhidharma there are in total? The answer is that there are many categories, but let me briefly explain six. The first is the Dharma-lakṣaṇa Abhidharma (Abhidharma of Characteristics of Dharmas) personally expounded by the Tathāgata (Thus Come One), which flourished in India (India) but was not transmitted to China (China). The second is Śāriputra (Sariputta), who is second only to the saints, because he understood the Buddha's words, he created the Abhidharma, which has twenty volumes and was transmitted to this land. The third is that more than three hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, there was a great Arhat (Worthy One) with three insights and six supernormal powers, named Kātyāyana (Kaccāna), who created the Aṣṭa-skandha (Eight Aggregates), which has twenty volumes and was transmitted to this land. The eight mentioned are: 1. Miśra (Miscellaneous), 2. Hetu (Causes), 3. Jñāna (Knowledge), 4. Karma (Action), 5. Mahābhūta (Great Elements), 6. Indriya (Faculties), 7. Samāpatti (Attainments), 8. Dṛṣṭi (Views). The meaning of Skandha is 'collection', because these eight meanings each have categories, hence they are called collections. The fourth is that during the six hundred years, there were five hundred Arhats (Worthy Ones), who were disciples of Kātyāyana (Kaccāna), and together created the Vibhāṣā (Exegesis) in North India (North India) to explain the Aṣṭa-skandha (Eight Aggregates). The meaning of Vibhāṣā (Exegesis) is 'extensive explanation', which was translated in Xiliang Prefecture, with a total of one hundred volumes, but it was burned down by war, and only sixty volumes are still present, only explaining three Skandhas (Aggregates). The fifth is that more than seven hundred years later, there was Dharmaśreṣṭhin (Dhammasena), who disliked the Vibhāṣā (Exegesis) being too extensive, and briefly wrote the essentials, creating two hundred and fifty verses, named Abhidharma-hṛdaya (Heart of Abhidharma), which has four volumes and was also transmitted to this land. The sixth is that during the thousand years, there was Dharmatrāta (Dhammadinna), who thought that the Bhāṣā (Commentary) was too extensive and the four volumes were too brief, so he wrote another three hundred and fifty verses, adding up to six hundred verses with the original four volumes, named Saṃkīrṇa-hṛdaya (Mixed Heart). During this period, there was also the Ṣaḍvidha Abhidharma (Sixfold Abhidharma), which the commentary says was jointly created by Maudgalyāyana (Moggallana), Vasumitra (Vasumitta), and other masters, but it was not transmitted to this land. Only the Saṃghāṭa-bheda Abhidharma (Abhidharma on the Division of the Sangha) is one of the six, and China has it. There are also two volumes of Amṛtarasa Abhidharma (Abhidharma of the Taste of Ambrosia), whose author is unknown, and it was also transmitted to this land. Although the Abhidharma (Abhidhamma) has different categories, it generally clarifies the views and enables people to attain enlightenment. The second refutation has ten aspects: first, it goes against the supreme path; second, it supports various views; third, it goes against the Mahayana teachings; fourth, it protects the expedient methods of the Hinayana; fifth, it is confused about its own school; sixth, it has no fundamental faith; seventh, it has biased attachments; eighth, it is not the root of learning; ninth, it degrades the true words; tenth, it loses the complete purpose. There is probably nothing more serious than this.

之名有餘。所明之理不足。非但遠乖方等。亦近迷三藏。略舉十門顯其虛實。乖至道者。夫道之為狀也。體絕百非。理超四句。言之者失其真。知之者反其愚。有之者乖其性。無之者傷其體。故七辨輟音。五眼冥照。釋迦掩室。凈名杜口。豈可以有而為道哉。第二扶眾見。然道實非有。遂言見有得道。乃是見有。非見道也。故凈名云。法名無染。若染於法。乃是染著。非求法也。又夫見有者名為有見。非見道矣。故法華云。入邪見稠林若有若無等。依止此諸見具足六十二。問若執有無。此有何失。答正觀論云。淺智見諸法若有若無等。是則不能見滅見安隱法。于彼有大過矣。第三違大教。思益經云。于未來世有惡比丘。說有相法得成聖道。佛垂此敕懸誡將來。既曰惡人。理是邪說。違背大教。宜須破之。第四守小筌。夫為未識源者。示之以流。令尋流以得源。未見月者。示之以指。令因指以得月。窮流則唯是一源。亡指則但是一月。蓋是如來說小之意也。而毗曇之徒執固小宗不趣大道。守筌喪實。故造論破之。第五迷自宗。諸聖弟子有所述作。本為通經。而阿含之文親說無相。故善吉觀法空而悟道。身子入空定而佛嘆。阿毗曇人但明見有。故自迷本宗。第六無本信。文殊問經云。十八及本二皆從大乘出。無是亦無非。

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "只是名聲上還殘留著（佛法）的說法，但所闡明的道理卻不足夠。這不僅遠遠地違背了大乘佛法（方等），也接近於迷惑于小乘的三藏教義。我將簡略地舉出十個方面來揭示他們的虛妄和不實。第一，違背至高的佛道。所謂『道』的真實狀態，其本體超越了一切『是』與『非』的對立，其真理超越了『有』、『無』、『亦有亦無』、『非有非無』這四種分別。用語言來描述它，就會失去它的真諦；用知識去理解它，反而會顯得愚昧。執著于『有』，就會違背道的本性；執著于『無』，就會損害道的本體。所以，佛陀以七種辯才也無法完全表達，五眼也只能默默地觀照。釋迦牟尼佛閉門不出，維摩詰（Vimalakirti）(在家菩薩，以其高深的佛法修養著稱)也保持沉默。怎麼可以用『有』來作為『道』呢？", "第二，助長大眾的錯誤見解。佛道的真實狀態並非『有』，但他們卻說『見有』才能得道，這實際上是『見有』，而不是『見道』。所以《維摩詰經》說：『法的真義在於沒有污染，如果執著於法，那就是被污染了，而不是在尋求真法。』而且，『見有』的人，實際上是持有『有見』，而不是真正地『見道』。所以《法華經》說：『進入邪見的稠密森林，執著于『有』或『無』等等，依止這些見解，就會具備六十二種邪見。』", "問：如果執著于『有』或『無』，這有什麼過失？", "答：《中觀論》說：『淺薄的智慧看待諸法，認為它們或者『有』或者『無』等等，這樣就不能見到寂滅和安穩的法，因此會有很大的過失。』", "第三，違背大乘佛教的教義。《思益經》說：『在未來世，會有惡劣的比丘，說執著于『有相』的法才能成就聖道。』佛陀垂示這樣的告誡，是爲了懸示警戒未來。既然說是『惡人』，那麼他們的理論一定是邪說，違背了大乘佛教的教義，應該破斥他們。", "第四，固守小乘的權宜之法。對於那些還不認識源頭的人，（佛陀）會向他們展示河流，讓他們沿著河流去尋找源頭；對於那些還沒有見到月亮的人，（佛陀）會向他們展示手指，讓他們通過手指去看到月亮。窮盡河流，最終只有一個源頭；忘記手指，就只會看到一個月亮。這大概就是如來說小乘教法的用意。但是，毗曇宗（Abhidharma）(小乘佛教的一個重要學派)的人卻固執地堅持小乘的宗義，不趨向大乘的佛道，固守權宜之法而喪失了真實的意義，所以要造論來破斥他們。", "第五，迷惑于自己的宗義。各位聖人的弟子們有所著述，本來是爲了通達經義。但是，《阿含經》（Agama Sutras）(早期佛教經典)的經文親自宣說了『無相』的道理。所以，須菩提（Subhuti）(佛陀的十大弟子之一，以解空第一著稱)觀察諸法空性而悟道，舍利弗（Sariputra）(佛陀的十大弟子之一，以智慧第一著稱)進入空定而受到佛陀的讚歎。阿毗曇宗的人卻只闡明『見有』，所以是迷惑于自己的本宗。", "第六，沒有根本的信心。《文殊問經》說：『十八部派以及根本的二部派，都是從大乘佛教中分離出來的，沒有『是』也沒有『非』。』", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "",

我說未來起。十八者。謂十八部異執也。及本二者。根本唯二部。一大眾部。二上座部。而阿毗曇是十八部內薩婆多部。從大乘出。即大為小本。而執小之流聞大乘不信。是以破之。問何以知執小之人不信大法耶。答智度論云。旃延弟子答龍樹云。我聞大乘心不都信。故外國執小乘者與學大乘人分河飲水。第七有偏執。大集經云。雖有五部。並不妨如來法界及大涅槃。而阿毗曇人保執自宗排斥他說。便違法界拒大涅槃。累障既深。宜須傷嘆。第八非學本。大品經云。欲知四緣。當學般若。外人問龍樹云。欲學四緣。應學毗曇。云何乃學般若。論主答曰。初學毗曇似如可解。轉久推求則成邪見。問曰學毗曇云何乃成邪見。答若言四緣生諸法者。誰復生於四緣。若四緣更從他生。則他復從他。如是無窮。若其四緣自然而有不從他生者。萬物亦應不由四緣。當墮無因。故從則無窮。窮則無因。由此二門則不信因果。故久學毗曇成於邪見。第九弊真言。大集經云。甚深之義不可說。第一義諦無聲字。陳如比丘于諸法獲得真實之知見。本起經云。頞鞞沙門即五人之一。為身子說偈云。一切諸法本。因緣空無主。息心達本源。故號為沙門。身子聞之即得初果。尋大小二經。皆明見空成聖。而阿毗曇謂觀有得道。故隱覆真言。第十喪

圓旨。涅槃經云。欲令眾生深識真諦。是故如來宣說于俗。若使眾生不因俗諦而識真者。諸佛如來終不說俗。毗曇之流雖知俗有。不悟真空。既惑真空。亦迷俗有。是故真俗二俱並喪。

排成實第三。一立義。二破斥。有訶梨跋摩高足弟子。序其宗曰。成實論者。佛滅度后九百年內有訶梨跋摩。此雲師子鎧之所造也。其人本是薩婆多部鳩摩羅陀弟子。慨其所釋近在名相。遂徙轍僧祇大小兼學。鉆仰九經。澄汰五部。再捲邪霧。重舒慧日。於是道振罽賓。聲流赤縣。成是能成之文。實謂所成之理。二百二品十六卷文。四諦建章。五聚明義。說既精巧。歸眾若林。問跋摩既排斥八犍。陶汰五部。成實之宗正依何義。答有人言。擇善而從。有能必錄。棄眾師之短。取諸部之長。有人言。雖復斥排群異。正用曇無德部。有人言。偏斥毗曇。專同譬喻。真諦三藏云。用經部義也。檢俱舍論。經部之義多同成實。破斥第二。問成實為是小乘之論。為是大乘。為含大小。答有人言。是大乘也。有人言。是小乘。有人言。探大乘意以釋小乘。具含大小。夫珉玉精粗。蓋是耳目所睹。尚有昏明殊鏡。況妙道真偽言亡慮絕。豈易識哉。今以十義證。則明是小乘非大乘矣。一舊序證。二依論徴。三無大文。四有條例。五迷本宗。六分大

【現代漢語翻譯】圓旨。《涅槃經》云：『欲令眾生深識真諦（paramārtha-satya，最高真理），是故如來宣說于俗（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）。若使眾生不因俗諦而識真者，諸佛如來終不說俗。』毗曇（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩）之流雖知俗有，不悟真空（śūnyatā，空性）。既惑真空，亦迷俗有。是故真俗二俱並喪。

排成實第三。一立義。二破斥。有訶梨跋摩（Harivarman）高足弟子，序其宗曰：『成實論者，佛滅度后九百年內有訶梨跋摩，此雲師子鎧之所造也。其人本是薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）鳩摩羅陀（Kumāralāta）弟子，慨其所釋近在名相，遂徙轍僧祇大小兼學，鉆仰九經，澄汰五部，再捲邪霧，重舒慧日。於是道振罽賓（Kashmir），聲流赤縣。成是能成之文，實謂所成之理。二百二品十六卷文，四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，四聖諦）建章，五聚明義。說既精巧，歸眾若林。』問：跋摩既排斥八犍，陶汰五部，成實之宗正依何義？答：有人言，擇善而從，有能必錄，棄眾師之短，取諸部之長。有人言，雖復斥排群異，正用曇無德部（Dharmaguptaka）。有人言，偏斥毗曇，專同譬喻（Dṛṣṭāntika）。真諦三藏云：『用經部（Sautrāntika）義也。』檢《俱舍論》，經部之義多同成實。破斥第二。問：成實為是小乘之論，為是大乘，為含大小？答：有人言，是大乘也。有人言，是小乘。有人言，探大乘意以釋小乘，具含大小。夫珉玉精粗，蓋是耳目所睹，尚有昏明殊鏡，況妙道真偽言亡慮絕，豈易識哉。今以十義證，則明是小乘非大乘矣。一舊序證。二依論徴。三無大文。四有條例。五迷本宗。六分大

【English Translation】 The essential meaning. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Wishing to enable sentient beings to deeply understand the paramārtha-satya (真諦, ultimate truth), thus the Tathagata proclaims the saṃvṛti-satya (俗諦, conventional truth). If sentient beings could understand the true without relying on the conventional, then all Buddhas and Tathagatas would ultimately not speak of the conventional.' Those of the Abhidharma (毗曇) school, although knowing the existence of the conventional, do not awaken to śūnyatā (真空, emptiness). Being confused about emptiness, they are also deluded about the conventional. Therefore, both the true and the conventional are lost.

Refuting the Satya-siddhi (成實) School, Part 3: 1. Establishing the doctrine; 2. Refuting. A highly accomplished disciple of Harivarman (訶梨跋摩) introduces his school, saying: 'The Satya-siddhi school was founded by Harivarman within 900 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana. This name means 'Lion Armor'. He was originally a disciple of Kumāralāta (鳩摩羅陀) of the Sarvāstivāda (薩婆多部) school. Lamenting that their explanations were limited to names and forms, he switched to studying both the Mahasamghika and other schools, delving into the nine scriptures, clarifying the five Pitakas, again dispelling the evil mists, and once more spreading the sun of wisdom. Thus, the Dharma flourished in Kashmir (罽賓) and its reputation spread throughout China. 'Satya' refers to the truth that is to be accomplished, and 'siddhi' refers to the doctrine by which it is accomplished. The 202 chapters in 16 volumes establish the catvāri āryasatyāni (四諦, Four Noble Truths) and clarify the meaning of the five aggregates. The explanations are refined and skillful, and those who return to it are like a forest.' Question: Since Harivarman rejected the eight skandhas and refined the five Pitakas, on what doctrine does the Satya-siddhi school truly rely? Answer: Some say that it selects the good and follows it, recording what is capable, abandoning the shortcomings of various teachers, and adopting the strengths of various schools. Some say that although it rejects various differences, it primarily uses the Dharmaguptaka (曇無德部) school. Some say that it particularly rejects the Abhidharma and exclusively agrees with the Dṛṣṭāntika (譬喻) school. Paramārtha Tripiṭaka says: 'It uses the meaning of the Sautrāntika (經部) school.' Examining the Abhidharmakośa, the meaning of the Sautrāntika school is mostly the same as the Satya-siddhi. Refutation, Part 2. Question: Is the Satya-siddhi a Hinayana treatise, a Mahayana treatise, or does it contain both? Answer: Some say it is Mahayana. Some say it is Hinayana. Some say it explores the meaning of Mahayana to explain Hinayana, containing both. The difference between coarse jade and fine jade is something that can be seen by the eyes and ears, and there are still differences in clarity between different mirrors. How much more difficult is it to recognize the truth or falsehood of the wonderful Dharma, where words are lost and thoughts are cut off? Now, using ten arguments to prove it, it is clear that it is Hinayana and not Mahayana. 1. Proof from the old introduction. 2. Evidence based on the treatise. 3. Lacking Mahayana texts. 4. Having Hinayana precepts. 5. Confused about its original school. 6. Dividing the great

小。七格優降。八無相即。九傷解行。十檢世人。舊序證第一。昔羅什法師翻成實論竟。命僧睿講之。什師沒後。睿公錄其遺言。制論序云。成實論者。佛滅度后八百九十年。罽賓小乘學者之匠鳩摩羅陀上足弟子訶梨跋摩之所造也。其論云。色香味觸實也。地水火風假也。精巧有餘。明實不足。推而究之。小乘內之實耳。比于大乘。雖復龍燭之於螢耀。未足喻其懸矣。或有人言。此論明於滅諦。與大乘均致。羅什聞而嘆曰。秦人之無深識。何乃至此乎。吾每疑其普信大乘者。當知悟不由中。而迷可識矣。成實是羅什所翻。僧睿為講論之始。後學不應孤負前匠。依論徴第二。成實文云。諸比丘異論種種。佛皆聽故。我欲正論三藏內實義。訶梨自云正論三藏。故知成實理是小乘。若言斯論亦明大者。過在門人。非跋摩之咎。問何以知三藏是小乘耶。答法華云。亦不親近小乘三藏學者。恐大照未圓小法容染故。智形宜隔。行止勿共。誡于大士。勿親近小人。則知三藏非大乘矣。智度論云。迦葉阿難結集三藏。文殊彌勒集大乘藏。外人問云。何故不於三藏內集大乘耶。論主答云。小乘不受大。不應小內而集大。以此推之。但是小乘耳。無大文第三。原夫作論皆引佛言。如龍樹釋大。而還引大經。訶梨解小經。唯將小證。二百二

【現代漢語翻譯】小。七格優降。八無相即。九傷解行。十檢世人。舊序證第一。昔鳩摩羅什法師翻譯完成《成實論》后，命僧睿講解此論。鳩摩羅什法師去世后，僧睿記錄了他的遺言，寫了《論序》說：《成實論》是佛陀滅度后八百九十年，罽賓（今克什米爾地區）小乘學者的領袖，鳩摩羅陀（Kumāralāta）的上足弟子訶梨跋摩（Harivarman）所造。此論認為，色、香、味、觸是真實的，地、水、火、風是虛假的。此論精巧有餘，但明辨真實不足。推究起來，不過是小乘內部的真實罷了。與大乘相比，即使是龍燭與螢火蟲相比，也不足以比喻其差距之大。有人說，此論闡明滅諦，與大乘一致。鳩摩羅什聽后嘆息說：『秦地之人沒有深刻的見識，怎麼會這樣說呢？我常常懷疑那些普遍相信大乘的人，應當知道領悟不是通過中道，而迷惑是可以認識的。』《成實論》是鳩摩羅什所翻譯，僧睿是講解此論的開始。後來的學習者不應該辜負前人的努力。依論徴第二。《成實論》中說：『諸位比丘的異議種種，佛陀都允許，所以我想要正確地論述三藏（Tripitaka）內的真實意義。』訶梨跋摩自己說是正確地論述三藏，因此可知《成實論》的道理是小乘。如果說此論也闡明大乘，那是門人的過錯，不是訶梨跋摩的罪過。問：憑什麼知道三藏是小乘呢？答：《法華經》中說：『也不親近小乘三藏的學習者。』恐怕大乘的光照還不圓滿，小乘的法容易沾染。智慧的形式應該隔開，行為舉止不要在一起。這是告誡大菩薩，不要親近小人，由此可知三藏不是大乘。《智度論》中說：迦葉（Kāśyapa）、阿難（Ānanda）結集三藏，文殊（Mañjuśrī）、彌勒（Maitreya）集大乘藏。外人問：為什麼不在三藏內結集大乘呢？論主回答說：小乘不接受大乘，不應該在小乘內結集大乘。由此推斷，這只是小乘罷了，沒有大乘的文義。無大文第三。原本著論都要引用佛陀的話，如龍樹（Nāgārjuna）解釋大乘，就引用大乘經典。訶梨跋摩解釋小乘經典，只用小乘的證據。二百二

【English Translation】 Small. Seven categories of superior descent. Eight non-characteristics are identical. Nine injure the practice. Ten examine the people of the world. Old preface evidence first. Formerly, when Tripiṭaka Master Kumārajīva finished translating the Satyasiddhi Śāstra, he ordered the monk Sengrui to explain it. After Tripiṭaka Master Kumārajīva passed away, Sengrui recorded his last words and wrote the preface to the treatise, saying: 'The Satyasiddhi Śāstra was created eight hundred and ninety years after the Buddha's Parinirvana by Harivarman, a leading disciple of Kumāralāta, the master of the Hīnayāna scholars of Kashmir (Kashmir).' The treatise states: 'Form, sound, smell, taste, and touch are real; earth, water, fire, and wind are false.' It is more ingenious than insightful, and upon closer examination, it is merely the truth within the Hīnayāna. Compared to the Mahāyāna, even a dragon's torch compared to a firefly is not enough to illustrate the vast difference. Some say that this treatise clarifies the cessation of suffering and is consistent with the Mahāyāna. When Kumārajīva heard this, he sighed and said, 'The people of Qin lack deep understanding; how could they say such a thing? I often suspect that those who universally believe in the Mahāyāna should know that enlightenment does not come through the middle way, but delusion can be recognized.' The Satyasiddhi Śāstra was translated by Kumārajīva, and Sengrui was the first to explain it. Later learners should not fail the efforts of their predecessors. Evidencing by the Treatise, Section Two. The Satyasiddhi Śāstra states: 'The Buddha allowed various different opinions of the monks, so I want to correctly discuss the true meaning within the Tripiṭaka (Three Baskets).' Harivarman himself said that he was correctly discussing the Tripiṭaka, so it is known that the principles of the Satyasiddhi Śāstra are Hīnayāna. If it is said that this treatise also clarifies the Mahāyāna, that is the fault of the disciples, not the fault of Harivarman. Question: How do you know that the Tripiṭaka is Hīnayāna? Answer: The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Also, do not associate with those who study the Hīnayāna Tripiṭaka.' It is feared that the great light of the Mahāyāna is not yet complete, and the small Dharma of the Hīnayāna is easily contaminated. The form of wisdom should be separated, and behavior should not be shared. This is a warning to the great Bodhisattvas not to associate with petty people, so it is known that the Tripiṭaka is not Mahāyāna. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: Kāśyapa (Kāśyapa) and Ānanda (Ānanda) compiled the Tripiṭaka, and Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī) and Maitreya (Maitreya) compiled the Mahāyāna collection. Outsiders ask: Why not compile the Mahāyāna within the Tripiṭaka? The author of the treatise answers: The Hīnayāna does not accept the Mahāyāna; it is not appropriate to compile the Mahāyāna within the Hīnayāna. From this, it can be inferred that it is only Hīnayāna, without the meaning of Mahāyāna. No Great Text, Section Three. Originally, all treatises cite the words of the Buddha. For example, Nāgārjuna (Nāgārjuna) explains the Mahāyāna and cites the Mahāyāna scriptures. Harivarman explains the Hīnayāna scriptures and only uses Hīnayāna evidence. Two hundred and two.

品並探四阿含。十六卷文竟無方等。以此詳之。即可知矣。有條例第四。問若成實釋小不許兼明於大。亦應三論解大不應兼明於小。答義有條例。不應相濫。佛經有二。一者小乘。二者方等。若明大乘必兼辨小。若辨小乘不兼明大。故大乘經初有小乘眾。小乘經首無菩薩僧。示大能包小。小不含大。佛經既爾。在論例然。大乘之論兼明小乘。小乘之論不兼明大。若弟子之論探大釋小。如來之經義亦應然。則鉅細互兼。何名大小。迷本宗第五。問成實論文盛辨生法二空。與大品明四諦平等。義既無異。故知應是探大釋小。答四阿含教內有二空。論明二空。則還釋三藏。云何乃言探大解小。又身子毗曇亦辨二空。而是小非大。訶梨之論義亦應同。問身子毗曇亦探大釋小。與成實。例同。彼既探大。則此非專小。答身子所造還釋佛毗曇。佛說既是小乘。彼論寧言探大。分大小第六。問小明一空。大辨二空。可有差別。既同其二空。大小何異。答雖同辨二空。二空不同。略明四種。一者小乘拆法明空。大乘本性空寂。二者小乘但明三界內人法二空。空義即短。大乘明三界內外人法並空。空義即長。三者小乘但明於空未說不空。大乘明空亦辨不空。故涅槃云。聲聞之人但見於空不見不空。智者見空及以不空。空者一切生死。不空

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本品評並探討四部《阿含經》。十六卷的《成實論》中沒有涉及方等經典的內容。根據這些來詳細考察，就可以明白了。這是第四條條例。問：如果《成實論》闡釋小乘，不應該兼帶闡明大乘，那麼《三論》解釋大乘，也不應該兼帶闡明小乘。答：義理上有條例，不應該互相混淆。佛經有兩種：一是小乘，二是方等。如果闡明大乘，必定兼帶辨析小乘；如果辨析小乘，不兼帶闡明大乘。所以大乘經典開頭有小乘聽眾，小乘經典開頭沒有菩薩僧眾。這表明大乘能夠包含小乘，小乘不能包含大乘。佛經既然如此，在論著中也是同樣的道理。大乘的論著兼帶闡明小乘，小乘的論著不兼帶闡明大乘。如果是弟子所著的論著，探究大乘來解釋小乘，那麼如來所說的經典義理也應該這樣，那麼大小互相兼顧，還怎麼區分大小呢？這是第五條迷失根本宗旨。問：《成實論》的論文中，極力辨析生法二空，與《大品般若經》所說的四諦平等，義理既然沒有差異，因此可知《成實論》應該是探究大乘來解釋小乘。答：四部《阿含經》教義內就有二空。《成實論》闡明二空，那麼還是在解釋三藏，怎麼能說是探究大乘來解釋小乘呢？而且《舍利弗毗曇》也辨析二空，但它是小乘而不是大乘。《訶梨跋摩論》的義理也應該相同。問：《舍利弗毗曇》也是探究大乘來解釋小乘，與《成實論》情況相同。它既然是探究大乘，那麼《成實論》就不是專門闡釋小乘。答：《舍利弗》所造的論著還是在解釋佛陀的《毗曇》。佛陀所說既然是小乘，那麼《舍利弗毗曇》怎麼能說是探究大乘呢？這是第六條區分大小。問：小乘闡明一空，大乘辨析二空，或許還有差別。既然都相同於二空，那麼大小乘有什麼不同呢？答：雖然都辨析二空，但二空的含義不同。簡略說明四種不同：一是小乘拆解法來闡明空，大乘則認為本性空寂。二是小乘只闡明三界內的人法二空，空的含義就短淺；大乘闡明三界內外的人法都空，空的含義就深遠。三是小乘只闡明空，沒有說不空；大乘闡明空也辨析不空。所以《涅槃經》說：『聲聞之人只見到空，沒有見到不空。智者見到空以及不空。』空，指的是一切生死；不空

【English Translation】 English version Critiquing and exploring the four Agamas (collections of early Buddhist texts). The sixteen-fascicle Satyasiddhi Shastra (Treatise on the Completion of Truth) does not contain content related to Vaipulya sutras (Mahayana sutras). Examining these in detail, one can understand this. This is the fourth regulation. Question: If the Satyasiddhi Shastra, in explaining Hinayana (Small Vehicle), should not concurrently elucidate Mahayana (Great Vehicle), then the Three Treatises (Madhyamaka texts), in explaining Mahayana, should also not concurrently elucidate Hinayana. Answer: There are regulations in the principles, and they should not be confused. There are two types of Buddhist scriptures: one is Hinayana, and the other is Vaipulya. If elucidating Mahayana, one must concurrently analyze Hinayana; if analyzing Hinayana, one does not concurrently elucidate Mahayana. Therefore, Mahayana sutras have Hinayana listeners at the beginning, while Hinayana sutras do not have Bodhisattva Sangha (community) at the beginning. This shows that Mahayana can encompass Hinayana, while Hinayana cannot contain Mahayana. Since Buddhist scriptures are like this, the same principle applies to treatises. Mahayana treatises concurrently elucidate Hinayana, while Hinayana treatises do not concurrently elucidate Mahayana. If it is a treatise written by a disciple, exploring Mahayana to explain Hinayana, then the meaning of the sutras spoken by the Tathagata (Buddha) should also be like this. Then, if both large and small are mutually inclusive, how can one distinguish between large and small? This is the fifth point of losing the fundamental principle. Question: The essays in the Satyasiddhi Shastra vigorously analyze the two emptinesses of phenomena and beings, which is similar in meaning to the equality of the Four Noble Truths as explained in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra). Since the meanings are not different, it can be known that the Satyasiddhi Shastra should be exploring Mahayana to explain Hinayana. Answer: Within the teachings of the four Agamas, there are two emptinesses. The Satyasiddhi Shastra elucidates the two emptinesses, so it is still explaining the Tripitaka (Three Baskets, i.e., the Pali Canon). How can it be said to be exploring Mahayana to explain Hinayana? Moreover, the Sariputra Abhidharma (a Theravada Abhidhamma text) also analyzes the two emptinesses, but it is Hinayana and not Mahayana. The principles of the Harivarman Shastra should be the same. Question: The Sariputra Abhidharma also explores Mahayana to explain Hinayana, which is the same as the Satyasiddhi Shastra. Since it explores Mahayana, then the Satyasiddhi Shastra is not exclusively explaining Hinayana. Answer: The treatise created by Sariputra is still explaining the Buddha's Abhidharma. Since what the Buddha said is Hinayana, how can the Sariputra Abhidharma be said to be exploring Mahayana? This is the sixth point of distinguishing between large and small. Question: Hinayana elucidates one emptiness, while Mahayana analyzes two emptinesses, perhaps there is still a difference. Since they are both the same in the two emptinesses, what is the difference between Mahayana and Hinayana? Answer: Although both analyze the two emptinesses, the meanings of the two emptinesses are different. Briefly explain four differences: First, Hinayana dismantles phenomena to elucidate emptiness, while Mahayana believes that the fundamental nature is empty and tranquil. Second, Hinayana only elucidates the two emptinesses of beings and phenomena within the Three Realms (of existence), so the meaning of emptiness is shallow; Mahayana elucidates that beings and phenomena both within and outside the Three Realms are empty, so the meaning of emptiness is profound. Third, Hinayana only elucidates emptiness and does not speak of non-emptiness; Mahayana elucidates emptiness and also analyzes non-emptiness. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Those of the Sravaka (disciple) Vehicle only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness. The wise see emptiness and also non-emptiness.' Emptiness refers to all birth and death; non-emptiness

者謂大涅槃。四者小乘名為但空。謂但住于空。菩薩名不可得空。空亦不可得也。故知雖明二空。空義有異。故分大小。格優降第七。龍樹釋般若累教品云。善吉觀生法二空。欲比菩薩二空。譬如毛孔之空比十方空。即小空為淺。大空為深。成實所明但是聲聞空。非大士所得耳。無相即第八。法華信解品云。四大聲聞自述所得空云。我等長夜修習空法。無生無滅。無小無大。無漏無為。于佛智慧不生貪著。成實所辨與此全同。故知非大也。問何以知然。答法華之文辨聲聞證空不能即空觀有即有觀空。故無相即。成實所說亦無相即。若明相即。應空有並觀。若空有並觀。與大乘何別。問何以知小乘義無相即耶。答釋論云。小乘內不明生死即畢竟空。唯大乘乃說。故知爾也。傷解行第九。涅槃經云。若以聲聞辟支佛心言無佈施。是即名為破戒邪見。小乘人入于空觀不見佈施。破大乘行。故云破戒。破大乘解。故云邪見。而成實明不見佈施是實法空。以為宗極。欲為大乘。勿起小心也。檢世人第十。秦弘始七年。天竺有剎利。浮海至長安。聞羅什作大乘學。以正觀論等咨而驗之。什公為其敷折。為頂受絕嘆不能已。已白什公曰。當以此明震暉天竺。何由蘊此摩尼乃在邊地。我在天竺。聞諸論師深怪罽賓小乘學者鳩摩羅陀自稱

【現代漢語翻譯】這被稱為大涅槃（Mahaparinirvana）。第四種是小乘（Hinayana）所說的『但空』，意思是隻執著于空。菩薩（Bodhisattva）所證的空是『不可得空』，即空本身也是不可得的。由此可知，雖然都闡明了二空，但空的意義有所不同，因此分為大小乘，這是格調上的優劣第七點。龍樹（Nagarjuna）在《般若經》（Prajnaparamita Sutra）的累教品中解釋說，善吉（Subhuti）觀察眾生和法的二空，想要比擬菩薩的二空，就像毛孔中的空比之於十方虛空。即小乘的空是淺顯的，大乘的空是深遠的。成實宗（Satya-siddhi School）所闡明的只是聲聞（Sravaka）的空，不是大菩薩所證得的。無相即是第八點。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）信解品中，四大聲聞（Four Great Sravakas）自己陳述所證得的空說：『我們長夜修習空法，無生無滅，無小無大，無漏無為，對於佛的智慧不生貪著。』成實宗所辨析的與此完全相同，因此可知不是大乘的空。問：憑什麼知道是這樣呢？答：《法華經》的文句辨明聲聞證悟空，不能即空觀有，即有觀空，所以不是無相即。成實宗所說的也沒有相即。如果闡明相即，應該空有並觀。如果空有並觀，與大乘有什麼區別？問：憑什麼知道小乘的意義沒有相即呢？答：《釋論》（Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa）中說，小乘內部不闡明生死即是畢竟空（Sunyata），只有大乘才這樣說，所以知道是這樣。傷解行是第九點。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中說，如果以聲聞、辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha）的心說沒有佈施，這就是破戒邪見。小乘人入于空觀，不見佈施，破壞了大乘的行，所以說是破戒；破壞了大乘的理解，所以說是邪見。而成實宗闡明不見佈施是實法空，作為宗極，想要成為大乘，不要生起小乘的心。檢世人是第十點。秦弘始七年，天竺（India）有剎利（Kshatriya，印度種姓制度中的武士階層）浮海來到長安，聽說鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）在作大乘學，就用《正觀論》（Mulamadhyamakakarika）等來諮詢驗證他。鳩摩羅什為他詳細地解釋，他頂禮接受，讚歎不已。然後告訴鳩摩羅什說：『應當用這些道理來震動輝耀天竺，為什麼蘊藏著這樣的摩尼寶珠卻在邊地呢？我在天竺，聽諸位論師深深地奇怪罽賓（Kashmir）的小乘學者鳩摩羅陀（Kumaralata）自稱……』

【English Translation】 This is called the Great Nirvana (Mahaparinirvana). The fourth is what the Hinayana calls 'mere emptiness,' meaning only clinging to emptiness. The emptiness realized by a Bodhisattva is 'unattainable emptiness,' meaning that emptiness itself is also unattainable. From this, it can be known that although both explain the two emptinesses, the meaning of emptiness is different, so they are divided into Hinayana and Mahayana, which is the seventh point of superiority and inferiority in style. Nagarjuna, in the 'Accumulation of Teachings' chapter of the Prajnaparamita Sutra, explains that Subhuti observes the two emptinesses of beings and dharmas, wanting to compare them to the two emptinesses of Bodhisattvas, like the emptiness in a pore compared to the emptiness of the ten directions. That is, the emptiness of the Hinayana is shallow, and the emptiness of the Mahayana is profound. What the Satya-siddhi School explains is only the emptiness of the Sravakas, not what the great Bodhisattvas attain. 'Non-interdependence' is the eighth point. In the 'Faith and Understanding' chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Four Great Sravakas themselves state the emptiness they have attained, saying: 'We have practiced the Dharma of emptiness for a long night, without arising or ceasing, without small or large, without outflows or actions, and we do not crave the wisdom of the Buddha.' What the Satya-siddhi School analyzes is exactly the same as this, so it can be known that it is not the emptiness of the Mahayana. Question: How do you know this is the case? Answer: The text of the Lotus Sutra clarifies that Sravakas who realize emptiness cannot view existence as emptiness, or view emptiness as existence, so it is not non-interdependence. What the Satya-siddhi School says also lacks interdependence. If interdependence is explained, emptiness and existence should be viewed together. If emptiness and existence are viewed together, what is the difference from the Mahayana? Question: How do you know that the meaning of the Hinayana lacks interdependence? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa says that the Hinayana does not explain that birth and death are ultimately emptiness, only the Mahayana says this, so it is known to be so. 'Injuring understanding and practice' is the ninth point. The Nirvana Sutra says that if one says there is no giving with the mind of a Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha, this is called breaking the precepts and having wrong views. Hinayana practitioners enter the contemplation of emptiness and do not see giving, destroying the practice of the Mahayana, so it is said to be breaking the precepts; destroying the understanding of the Mahayana, so it is said to be wrong views. The Satya-siddhi School explains that not seeing giving is the emptiness of real dharmas, taking it as the ultimate goal. If you want to become a Mahayana practitioner, do not give rise to the mind of the Hinayana. 'Examining the people of the world' is the tenth point. In the seventh year of the Hongshi reign of the Qin dynasty, a Kshatriya (warrior caste in the Indian caste system) from India came to Chang'an by sea. Hearing that Kumarajiva was practicing Mahayana learning, he consulted and verified him with the Mulamadhyamakakarika and other texts. Kumarajiva explained it to him in detail, and he bowed and accepted it, praising him endlessly. Then he told Kumarajiva: 'These principles should be used to shake and illuminate India. Why is such a Mani jewel hidden in a border region? In India, I heard the teachers deeply wonder that Kumaralata, a Hinayana scholar from Kashmir, claimed...'

朗月之照。偏智小才非此喻也。而訶梨惜其師。以才自傷。以智自病。故作此論。以辨有法之實。明其依實之假。故以成實為名。用天竺剎利之言驗之。跋摩師資皆小乘學也。爰至齊司徒文宣王。誠信三寶每感嘉瑞。以齊永明十年十月。延請名德五百餘人。于普弘寺敷講。文宣王每以大乘經論。為履道之津涯正法之樞鍵。而後生棄本崇末。即請諸法師抄此成實以為九卷。命周顒作序。恐專弘小論廢大乘業。自爾已后。爰至梁武。盛弘大乘排拆成實眾師。不可具記。問若以十義證成實為小乘者。與毗曇優劣云何。答求那跋摩遺文偈云。諸論各異端。修行理無二。偏執有是非。達者無違諍。又釋論云。有四種門。一者阿毗曇門。二者空門。三者昆勒門。此云篋藏。四者非空非有門。不得般若方便學毗曇門。則墮有見。學于空門。則墮空見。學昆勒門。則墮亦空亦有見學非空非有門。則墮愚癡論。若得般若心無染著。隨機適化。通道利人。無相違背。而成實毗曇各執空有。互相排斥。障道增見。皆失佛旨也。問會空斷結方得道耳。鑒有之心何能隔凡。故知毗曇乖宗。成實得理。答若言見空成聖。有不隔凡。三藏教門應無得道。釋迦小乘一化徒然虛設。待成實后興方有大利。豈可然乎。問毗曇但明人空。成實具明二空。云何兩

論無有優劣。答于小乘內分三品。一者俱不得二空。如犢子部云。四大和合有于眼法。五陰和合別有人法。此下根人也。二者薩衛之流。但得人空不得法空。為次根人也。三者譬喻訶梨之流。具得二空。為上根人也。約空義淺深。則毗曇為小乘之劣。成實為小內之勝也。問釋論云。佛滅度後分為二分。一但信人空不信法空。二俱信人法二空。但應有二。何得分三。答犢子入真觀故則見我空。出於俗諦別有人體。龍樹約其入觀義邊。故但分二也。問三論斥外道毗曇。斯事可爾。而龍樹前興。訶梨后出。時節遙隔。何由相破。答俱令執著即便被破。何論前後。若前論不破后迷。亦應古方不治今病。扁鵲之術末世無益矣。問若法勝訶梨著小論以通三藏。馬鳴龍樹作大教以弘方等。鉅細分流。何俟相破。答佛說小乘。本為詮大。保冥之徒守指忘月。經自斥之。故論主依佛。問有人言。成實論探大釋小。此有何過。答上已明之。必有此迷。今當更述。探大釋小。則小大不收。進不馳于白牛。退失駕于羊鹿。騾論之言驗之久矣。

呵大執第四。初立宗。次破斥。有大乘師曰。四術三玄併爲外教。毗曇成實蓋是小乘。明理不周。在文不足。既障大乘。理宜須破。自方等纮宗眾聖軌轍。教稱滿字。理曰無餘。信之則獲福無邊。毀

謗招莫大之罪。但須伏膺甘露頂戴法橋。不應破矣。問必是夜光。宜應頂受止恐多雜偽寶。須陶汰之。若謂無瑕。可陳其要。答大乘博奧。不可具明。統其樞鍵。略標二意。一者辨教莫出五時。二者隔凡宗歸二諦。言五時者。昔涅槃初度江左。宋道場寺沙門慧觀仍制經序。略判佛教凡有二科。一者頓教。即華嚴之流。但為菩薩具足顯理。二者始從鹿苑終竟鵠林。自淺至深。謂之漸教。于漸教內開為五時。一者三乘別教。為聲聞人說於四諦。為辟支佛演說十二因緣。為大乘人明於六度。行因各別得果不同。謂三乘別教。二者般若通化三機。謂三乘通教。三者凈名思益讚揚菩薩抑挫聲聞。謂抑揚教。四者法華會彼三乘同歸一極。謂同歸教。五者涅槃名常住教。自五時已后。雖復改易。屬在其間。教雖五時。不出二諦。三假為俗。四忘為真。會彼四忘故有三乘賢聖。破執第二。前責五時次難二諦。問既有五時。云何分于大小。答初一為小。后四為大。問道理為有大乘。為無大耶。如其有大則是有見。若言無大何所立耶。又若謂有大異小則有小異大。名為二見。大品云。諸有二者無道無果涅槃云。明與無明愚者謂二。又若實有大乘者。名有所得。有所得者為魔眷屬。非佛弟子。又有所得者不動不出無有乘義。不名為乘。又大乘

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本誹謗會招致極大的罪過。但必須信奉甘露（Amrita，不死之藥）並頂戴法橋（Dharma Bridge，佛法之橋），不應該毀壞它。問：如果確定是夜光（precious gem，珍貴的寶石），就應該接受並頂戴，只是擔心其中混雜了偽劣的寶物，需要加以甄別和淘汰。如果認為沒有瑕疵，可以陳述它的要點。答：大乘佛法博大精深，無法全部闡明。總括其關鍵，略微標明兩種意義：一是辨別教義不出五時（Five Periods，佛陀說法的五個時期），二是隔絕凡夫俗子，宗歸二諦（Two Truths，勝義諦和世俗諦）。說到五時，過去涅槃（Nirvana Sutra，涅槃經）最初傳到江左（指長江下游南岸地區），宋代道場寺的沙門慧觀（Huiguan，人名）撰寫經序，大致將佛教分為兩類：一是頓教（Sudden Teaching，頓悟之教），即《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）之類，只是為菩薩（Bodhisattva）圓滿地顯現真理；二是始於鹿野苑（Mrigadava，佛陀初轉法輪之地），終於鵠林（Kushinagar，佛陀涅槃之地），從淺到深，稱為漸教（Gradual Teaching，漸悟之教）。在漸教內又分為五時：一是三乘別教（Three Vehicle Separate Teaching，為不同根器的人分別宣說聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘的教法），為聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而修行的弟子）說四諦（Four Noble Truths，苦、集、滅、道），為辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，緣覺）演說十二因緣（Twelve Nidanas，無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老死），為大乘人闡明六度（Six Perfections，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、般若）。修行的因各不相同，得到的果也不同，這稱為三乘別教。二是般若（Prajna，智慧）通化三機（Three Capacities，上、中、下三種根器），稱為三乘通教（Three Vehicle Common Teaching）。三是《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）、《思益經》（Viseṣacintā-paripṛcchā Sutra）讚揚菩薩，貶抑聲聞，稱為抑揚教（Praising and Deprecating Teaching）。四是《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）會合三乘，共同歸於一極，稱為同歸教（Unifying Teaching）。五是《涅槃經》名為常住教（Eternal Teaching）。從五時之後，即使有所改變，也屬於其中。教義雖然分為五時，但不超出二諦：三假（Three Provisionalities，空假中）為俗諦（Relative Truth），四忘（Four Negations，否定四種執著）為真諦（Ultimate Truth）。會合那四忘，所以有三乘賢聖（Three Vehicles of Sages，聲聞、緣覺、菩薩）。破執第二：先前責難五時，接著詰難二諦。問：既然有五時，如何區分大小乘？答：最初一個為小乘，后四個為大乘。問：道理上是有大乘，還是沒有大乘？如果說有大乘，那就是有見（belief in existence，執著于有）。如果說沒有大乘，又憑什麼立論呢？又如果說有大乘不同於小乘，那就是有小乘不同於大乘，這叫做二見（dualistic view，二元對立的觀點）。《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說：『諸有二者，無道無果。』《涅槃經》說：『明與無明，愚者謂二。』又如果確實有大乘，那就名為有所得（something to be attained，認為有東西可以獲得）。有所得者是魔的眷屬，不是佛的弟子。又有所得者，不動不出，沒有乘的意義，不能稱為乘。又大乘...

【English Translation】 English version Slandering invites the greatest of sins. One must embrace the Amrita (nectar of immortality) and uphold the Dharma Bridge (the teachings of the Dharma), not destroy it. Question: If it is indeed a precious gem (night-shining pearl), it should be accepted and upheld, but there is concern that it may be mixed with counterfeit treasures, which must be discerned and eliminated. If it is deemed flawless, its essentials can be stated. Answer: The Mahayana (Great Vehicle) is vast and profound, impossible to fully explain. To summarize its key points, I will briefly outline two meanings: first, the differentiation of teachings does not go beyond the Five Periods (of the Buddha's teachings); second, separating from ordinary beings, the school returns to the Two Truths (conventional and ultimate). Speaking of the Five Periods, when the Nirvana Sutra (Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra) was first transmitted to Jiangzuo (region south of the Yangtze River), the monk Huiguan (a person's name) of Daochang Temple in the Song Dynasty wrote a preface to the sutra, roughly dividing Buddhism into two categories: first, the Sudden Teaching (teaching of instantaneous enlightenment), such as the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra), which fully reveals the truth for Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings); second, beginning in Mrigadava (Deer Park, where the Buddha first taught) and ending in Kushinagar (where the Buddha passed away), progressing from shallow to deep, called the Gradual Teaching (teaching of gradual enlightenment). Within the Gradual Teaching, there are five periods: first, the Three Vehicle Separate Teaching (teachings separately for Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas), which explains the Four Noble Truths (suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path) for Śrāvakas (listeners), elucidates the Twelve Nidanas (links of dependent origination) for Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers), and clarifies the Six Perfections (generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom) for Mahayana practitioners. The causes of practice are different, and the results obtained are also different, which is called the Three Vehicle Separate Teaching. Second, Prajna (wisdom) universally transforms the Three Capacities (superior, middling, and inferior), called the Three Vehicle Common Teaching. Third, the Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra) and the Viseṣacintā-paripṛcchā Sutra (Sutra on the Questions of Viseṣacintā) praise Bodhisattvas and disparage Śrāvakas, called the Praising and Deprecating Teaching. Fourth, the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) unites the Three Vehicles, all returning to the One Ultimate, called the Unifying Teaching. Fifth, the Nirvana Sutra is called the Eternal Teaching. After the Five Periods, even if there are changes, they belong within them. Although the teachings are divided into Five Periods, they do not go beyond the Two Truths: the Three Provisionalities (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way) are the Relative Truth, and the Four Negations (negating the four attachments) are the Ultimate Truth. Uniting those Four Negations, therefore there are the Three Vehicles of Sages (Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas). Refuting Attachments, Part Two: First criticizing the Five Periods, then challenging the Two Truths. Question: Since there are Five Periods, how are the Mahayana and Hinayana (Small Vehicle) distinguished? Answer: The first one is Hinayana, and the latter four are Mahayana. Question: In principle, is there a Mahayana, or is there no Mahayana? If there is a Mahayana, then there is a belief in existence (attachment to existence). If there is no Mahayana, then what is the basis for the argument? Furthermore, if there is a Mahayana different from the Hinayana, then there is a Hinayana different from the Mahayana, which is called dualistic view. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: 'Those who have duality have no path and no fruit.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'The wise and the ignorant consider light and darkness as two.' Furthermore, if there truly is a Mahayana, then it is called something to be attained (thinking there is something to gain). Those who have something to be attained are the retinue of Mara (demon), not disciples of the Buddha. Furthermore, those who have something to be attained do not move, do not go out, and have no meaning of a vehicle, and cannot be called a vehicle. Furthermore, the Mahayana...

之宗永斷生死。名為斷見。涅槃是常。即是常見。乃為斷常。何大之有。次難五時。前總難。次別責。難曰。但應立大小二教。不應制於五時。略引三經三論證之。大品經云。諸天子嘆曰。我于閻浮見第二法輪轉。龍樹釋云。鹿苑已轉小輪。今復轉大法輪。法華經云。昔于波羅捺轉於四諦。今在靈鷲山說於一乘。涅槃經云。昔于鹿林轉小。今于雙樹說大。故知教唯二門無五時也。智度論云。佛法有二。一者三藏。二者大乘藏。地持論云。十一部經名聲聞藏。方等大乘名菩薩藏。正觀論云。前為聲聞說生滅法。次為菩薩說無生滅法。以經論驗之。唯有二藏無五時矣。問若乃皆是菩薩藏者。華嚴般若法華涅槃。此四何異。答須識四句。眾經煥然。一但教菩薩不化聲聞。謂華嚴經也。二但化聲聞不教菩薩。謂三藏教也。三顯教菩薩密化二乘。大品以上法華之前諸大乘教也。命小乘人說于大法。謂顯教菩薩。密示此法。以為己任。如付窮子財。謂密化聲聞也。四顯教聲聞顯教菩薩。法華教也。菩薩聞是法疑網皆已除。化菩薩也。千二百羅漢悉亦當作佛。化二乘也。四句之中。三義屬菩薩藏內開之。但化二乘為三藏教矣。次別難五時。問若立五時有何過耶。答五時之說非但無文。亦復害理。若言第一名三乘別教。是義不然。依毗

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：斷滅生死之根源，這被稱為『斷見』（認為死後一切皆無的錯誤見解）。如果認為涅槃是永恒不變的，那就是『常見』（認為存在永恒不變的自我的錯誤見解）。執著于斷見和常見，又有什麼了不起的呢？接下來駁斥五時教判。先總的駁斥，再分別責難。駁斥說：只應該建立大乘和小乘兩種教法，不應該設立五時教判。略微引用三部經和三部論來證明這一點。《大品般若經》中說，諸天子讚歎說：『我在閻浮提（我們所居住的這個世界）看見了第二次法輪的轉動。』龍樹菩薩解釋說：『在鹿野苑（佛陀初轉法輪之地）已經轉了小法輪，現在又轉大法輪。』《法華經》中說：『過去在波羅奈（即鹿野苑）轉了四諦法輪，現在在靈鷲山（佛陀說法之地）宣說一乘（唯一的成佛之道）。』《涅槃經》中說：『過去在鹿野苑轉了小法輪，現在在雙樹林（佛陀涅槃之地）宣說大法。』由此可知，教法只有大乘和小乘兩種，沒有五時教判。《智度論》中說：『佛法有兩種，一是三藏（經、律、論），二是大乘藏。』《地持論》中說：『十一部經名為聲聞藏（小乘經典），方等大乘名為菩薩藏（大乘經典）。』《正觀論》中說：『先前為聲聞（小乘修行者）說生滅法，其次為菩薩（大乘修行者）說無生滅法。』用這些經論來驗證，只有兩種藏，沒有五時教判。問：如果都說是菩薩藏，那麼《華嚴經》、《般若經》、《法華經》、《涅槃經》這四部經有什麼不同呢？答：必須明白四句判教，各種經典的區別就清楚了。一、只教菩薩，不化聲聞，指的是《華嚴經》。二、只化聲聞，不教菩薩，指的是三藏教（小乘經典）。三、表面上教菩薩，暗中化度二乘（聲聞和緣覺），指的是《大品般若經》以上到《法華經》之前的各種大乘經典。命令小乘人宣說大法，指的是表面上教菩薩，暗中指示此法，以此為己任，就像把財產交給窮困的兒子，指的是暗中化度聲聞。四、表面上教聲聞，表面上教菩薩，指的是《法華經》。菩薩聽聞此法，疑慮和迷惑都已消除，這是化度菩薩。一千二百羅漢（阿羅漢，證得解脫的聖者）全部都將成佛，這是化度二乘。這四句判教中，三種意義都屬於菩薩藏內展開的。只有化度二乘才屬於三藏教。接下來分別駁斥五時教判。問：如果設立五時教判，有什麼過失呢？答：五時教判的說法不僅沒有經典依據，而且違背道理。如果說第一時是三乘別教，這種說法是不對的。依據《毗

【English Translation】 English version: To completely sever the root of birth and death is called 'annihilationism' (the wrong view that everything ceases to exist after death). If one considers Nirvana to be permanent, that is 'eternalism' (the wrong view that there is a permanent, unchanging self). What greatness is there in clinging to annihilationism and eternalism? Next, to refute the five periods of teaching. First, a general refutation, then a specific criticism. The refutation says: Only two teachings, the Mahayana and Hinayana, should be established; the five periods of teaching should not be established. Briefly cite three sutras and three treatises to prove this. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 'The gods exclaimed, 'In Jambudvipa (the world we live in), I have seen the second turning of the Dharma wheel.'' Nagarjuna (Longshu) explains, 'The small wheel has already been turned in the Deer Park (where the Buddha first turned the Dharma wheel), and now the great Dharma wheel is turned again.' The Lotus Sutra says, 'In the past, the Four Noble Truths were turned in Varanasi (i.e., Deer Park), and now the One Vehicle (the only path to Buddhahood) is preached on Vulture Peak (where the Buddha taught).' The Nirvana Sutra says, 'In the past, the small wheel was turned in the Deer Park, and now the great Dharma is preached in the Shuanglin Grove (where the Buddha entered Nirvana).' Therefore, it is known that there are only two teachings, Mahayana and Hinayana, and not five periods of teaching. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says, 'There are two kinds of Buddhadharma: one is the Tripitaka (Sutras, Vinaya, and Sastras), and the other is the Mahayana Pitaka.' The Yogacarabhumi-sastra says, 'The eleven parts of the scriptures are called the Sravaka Pitaka (Hinayana scriptures), and the Vaipulya Mahayana is called the Bodhisattva Pitaka (Mahayana scriptures).' The Madhyamaka-karika says, 'Previously, the Dharma of arising and ceasing was taught to the Sravakas (Hinayana practitioners), and then the Dharma of non-arising and non-ceasing was taught to the Bodhisattvas (Mahayana practitioners).' Verified by these sutras and treatises, there are only two Pitakas, not five periods of teaching. Question: If all are said to be the Bodhisattva Pitaka, then what is the difference between the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Prajnaparamita Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, and the Nirvana Sutra? Answer: One must understand the four statements of teaching classification, and the differences between the various scriptures will become clear. First, only teaching Bodhisattvas and not transforming Sravakas refers to the Avatamsaka Sutra. Second, only transforming Sravakas and not teaching Bodhisattvas refers to the Tripitaka teaching (Hinayana scriptures). Third, outwardly teaching Bodhisattvas and secretly transforming the Two Vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) refers to the various Mahayana scriptures from the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra up to the Lotus Sutra. Commanding Hinayana practitioners to proclaim the Great Dharma refers to outwardly teaching Bodhisattvas and secretly instructing in this Dharma, taking this as one's own responsibility, like giving wealth to a poor son, referring to secretly transforming Sravakas. Fourth, outwardly teaching Sravakas and outwardly teaching Bodhisattvas refers to the Lotus Sutra. Bodhisattvas hear this Dharma, and doubts and confusions are eliminated; this is transforming Bodhisattvas. The one thousand two hundred Arhats (those who have attained liberation) will all become Buddhas; this is transforming the Two Vehicles. Among these four statements of teaching classification, three meanings belong to the unfolding within the Bodhisattva Pitaka. Only transforming the Two Vehicles belongs to the Tripitaka teaching. Next, to specifically refute the five periods of teaching. Question: If the five periods of teaching are established, what faults are there? Answer: The statement of the five periods of teaching not only has no scriptural basis but also violates reason. If it is said that the first period is the distinct teaching for the Three Vehicles, this statement is incorrect. According to the Vinaya

曇宗。三乘則同見四諦。然後得道。就成實義。但會一滅方乃成聖。據大乘宗。同契無生。然後隔凡。是則初教亦通。何以言別。次云大品是三乘通教。是亦不然。釋論云。般若不屬二乘。但屬菩薩。若大品是三乘通教。則應通屬。何故不屬二乘。問若依釋論明般若但屬菩薩。在經何故勸三乘同學般若。答般若有二種。一者摩訶般若。此云大慧。蓋是菩薩所得。故不屬二乘若以實相之境名為般若。則三乘同觀。故勸三乘令並學之。經師不體二種之說。便謂般若是三乘通教。次云凈名是抑揚教者。是亦不然。大品呵二乘為癡狗。凈名貶聲聞為敗根。挫小既齊。揚大不二。何得以大品為通教。凈名為抑揚。次法華為同歸應無所疑。但在五時之說。雖辨同歸。未明常住。而天親之論釋法華初分。有七處佛性之文。解後段壽量品。辨三身之說。斯乃究竟無餘。不應謂為不了之教。次涅槃為常住教者。然常與無常皆是對治用門。若論涅槃。體絕百非。理超四句。舊宗但得用門未識其體。故亦失旨也。次難二諦。迷失二諦凡有三人。一者毗曇。執定性之有迷於假有。故失世諦。亦不知假有宛然而無所有。復失一真空。二者學大乘者。名方廣道人。執于邪空不知假有。故失世諦。既執邪空迷於正空。亦喪真矣。三者即世所行。雖具知

二諦。或言一體。或言二體。立二不成。復喪真俗也。問真俗一體。此有何過。答若俗與真一真。真俗亦真。若真與俗一俗。俗真亦俗。若真真俗不真。則俗與真異。若俗俗真不俗。則真與俗異。故二途並塞一體不成。問一既有過。異應無咎。答經云。色即是空空即是色。若言各體。相即便壞。若有雙即。便二體不成。故進退無通。異義亦屈。然五時不立。真俗又傾。大乘之宗言將何寄。

顯正第二。自上已來破外道毗曇成實大乘。從此已後序前四宗斥於三論。故通其邪難顯明正理。上既遍斥四宗。於時群難競起咸疑。龍樹非是正師。所造之論應為邪法。是故此章次明顯正義。正義雖多略標二種。一明人正。次顯法正。言人正者。楞伽經大慧菩薩問。世尊滅度后。是法何人持。佛說偈答。於我滅度后。南天大國中。有大德比丘。名龍樹菩薩。住初歡喜地。為人說大乘。能破有無見。往生安養國。次摩耶經云。摩耶問阿難曰。佛滅度后。何人持法。阿難答曰。如來正法五百年。第一百年優婆掘多說法教化住持正法。次二百年尸罹難陀比丘于閻浮提度十億人。次三百年青蓮華眼比丘說法教化度半億人。次四百年間牛口比丘演說法要度一萬人。第五百年寶天比丘度二萬人。八萬眾生髮菩提心正法便滅。六百年間九十六

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二諦（Two Truths，佛教中的真諦和俗諦）。有人說它們是一體的，有人說它們是二體的。如果堅持二體，既不能成立，又會喪失真諦和俗諦的意義。問：如果說真諦和俗諦是一體的，這有什麼過失呢？答：如果俗諦與真諦合為一體而成為真諦，那麼俗諦和真諦就都變成真諦了；如果真諦與俗諦合為一體而成為俗諦，那麼真諦和俗諦就都變成俗諦了。如果真諦是真諦而俗諦不是真諦，那麼俗諦就與真諦不同；如果俗諦是俗諦而真諦不是俗諦，那麼真諦就與俗諦不同。所以，兩條路都走不通，一體的說法不能成立。問：既然一體的說法有錯，那麼二體的說法應該沒有問題吧？答：經書上說：『色即是空，空即是色。』如果說是各自獨立的個體，那麼它們的相互關係就會崩潰。如果說有雙重獨立的個體，那麼二體的說法也不能成立。所以，進退兩難，二體的意義也站不住腳。這樣一來，五時教（Five Periods of Buddha's Teachings）就不能成立，真諦和俗諦的意義也會喪失。大乘佛教的宗旨要寄託在哪裡呢？

顯正第二。從上面開始，已經破斥了外道、毗曇宗（Sarvastivada）、成實宗（Satyasiddhi school）和大乘佛教的觀點。從這裡開始，將敘述前面四宗，並駁斥三論宗（Madhyamaka school）。因此，要駁斥那些邪惡的詰難，闡明正確的道理。上面已經普遍駁斥了四宗的觀點，當時各種詰難紛紛出現，大家都懷疑龍樹（Nagarjuna）不是真正的導師，他所造的論著應該是邪法。因此，這一章接著闡明正義。正義雖然很多，但略微標出兩種：一是闡明人的正，二是闡明法的正。所謂人的正，楞伽經（Lankavatara Sutra）中大慧菩薩（Mahamati）問：世尊（World-Honored One）滅度后，誰來秉持佛法？佛以偈語回答：在我滅度后，南天大國中，有大德比丘，名叫龍樹菩薩。他住在初歡喜地（first bhumi of Bodhisattva），為人宣說大乘佛法，能破除有無二見的偏執，往生安養國（Pure Land）。其次，摩耶經（Maya Sutra）中說，摩耶夫人（Maya）問阿難（Ananda）說：佛滅度后，誰來秉持佛法？阿難回答說：如來（Tathagata）的正法有五百年。第一個一百年，優婆掘多（Upagupta）說法教化，住持正法。第二個二百年，尸罹難陀（Silananda）比丘在閻浮提（Jambudvipa）度化十億人。第三個三百年，青蓮華眼（Nilotpala-netra）比丘說法教化，度化半億人。第四個四百年間，牛口（Go-mukha）比丘演說法要，度化一萬人。第五個五百年，寶天（Ratnadeva）比丘度化二萬人，八萬眾生髮菩提心，正法便滅。第六個六百年間，九十六

【English Translation】 English version: The Two Truths (Satya-dvaya, the two truths in Buddhism: conventional truth and ultimate truth). Some say they are one entity, others say they are two entities. Establishing two entities is not only untenable but also loses the meaning of both conventional and ultimate truths. Question: If the conventional truth and the ultimate truth are one entity, what is the fault in this? Answer: If the conventional truth merges with the ultimate truth and becomes the ultimate truth, then both the conventional and ultimate truths become the ultimate truth. If the ultimate truth merges with the conventional truth and becomes the conventional truth, then both the ultimate and conventional truths become the conventional truth. If the ultimate truth is the ultimate truth and the conventional truth is not the ultimate truth, then the conventional truth is different from the ultimate truth. If the conventional truth is the conventional truth and the ultimate truth is not the conventional truth, then the ultimate truth is different from the conventional truth. Therefore, both paths are blocked, and the concept of one entity cannot be established. Question: Since the concept of one entity is flawed, shouldn't the concept of two entities be without fault? Answer: The scriptures say, 'Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.' If they are said to be separate entities, then their interrelationship will collapse. If there are said to be two independent entities, then the concept of two entities cannot be established. Therefore, there is no way forward or backward, and the meaning of two entities is also untenable. In this way, the Five Periods of Buddha's Teachings cannot be established, and the meaning of the ultimate and conventional truths will also be lost. Where will the tenets of Mahayana Buddhism be based?

Manifesting the Correct (Second Section). From above, the views of external paths, Sarvastivada, Satyasiddhi school, and Mahayana Buddhism have been refuted. From here onwards, the preceding four schools will be narrated, and the Madhyamaka school will be refuted. Therefore, it is necessary to refute those evil challenges and clarify the correct principles. Above, the views of the four schools have been universally refuted. At that time, various challenges arose, and everyone suspected that Nagarjuna was not a true teacher and that his treatises should be heretical teachings. Therefore, this chapter continues to clarify the correct meaning. Although there are many correct meanings, two are briefly highlighted: first, clarifying the correctness of the person; second, clarifying the correctness of the Dharma. Regarding the correctness of the person, in the Lankavatara Sutra, Mahamati Bodhisattva asked: After the World-Honored One passes away, who will uphold the Dharma? The Buddha answered in verse: After my passing, in the great country of South India, there will be a great virtuous Bhikshu named Nagarjuna Bodhisattva. He dwells in the first bhumi of joy, speaks the Mahayana Dharma for people, can break the attachment to views of existence and non-existence, and will be reborn in the Pure Land. Secondly, the Maya Sutra says that Maya asked Ananda: After the Buddha passes away, who will uphold the Dharma? Ananda replied: The Tathagata's true Dharma will last for five hundred years. In the first hundred years, Upagupta will preach and teach, upholding the true Dharma. In the second two hundred years, Bhikshu Silananda will convert ten billion people in Jambudvipa. In the third three hundred years, Bhikshu Nilotpala-netra will preach and teach, converting half a billion people. In the fourth four hundred years, Bhikshu Go-mukha will expound the essentials of the Dharma, converting ten thousand people. In the fifth five hundred years, Bhikshu Ratnadeva will convert twenty thousand people, and eighty thousand sentient beings will generate Bodhicitta, and the true Dharma will then perish. In the sixth six hundred years, ninety-six

種邪見競興破滅佛法。馬鳴比丘摧此外道。七百年間有一比丘。名曰龍樹。善巧說法。燃正法炬滅邪見幢。尋大小乘經。親記龍樹破邪顯正。今內外並呵。大小俱斥。何所疑哉。又馬鳴龍樹佛有誠記。尚復生疑。法勝訶梨無經所印。云何輒受。問法勝乃未見誠文。訶梨亦有明據。阿含經云。實名四諦。是故比丘當成四諦。佛垂此敕。懸鑒有在。逮茲像末。允屬訶梨。為成是法。故造斯論。纮宗若斯。豈虛構哉。答蓋是通指像末。豈別主訶梨。故非所據也。顯法正第二。問龍樹著述部類甚多。三論偏空似非究竟。答僧睿昔在什公門下為翻譯之宗。其論序云。夫百梁之構興則鄙茅茨之仄陋。睹斯論之纮博則知偏悟之鄙倍。故偏主小乘。正歸此論。又如前云。天竺十六大國方八千里。有向化之緣。併爲委誠龍樹為無相佛。敢預學者之徒無不玩味斯論以為喉衿。若是偏空。豈為諸國所重。又羅什本執小乘。因此論而回轍正觀。厥後眾師藉斯文而曉迷。以此詳之。蓋是究竟無餘之說。問若內外並呵大小俱斥。此論宗旨何所依據耶。答若心存內外情寄大小。則墮在偏邪失於正理。既失正理則正觀不生。若正觀不生則斷常不滅。若斷常不滅則苦輪常運。以內外並冥大小俱寂。始名正理。悟斯正理則發生正觀。正觀若生則戲論斯滅。戲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：各種邪見相互爭鬥，興起而破滅佛法。馬鳴（Aśvaghoṣa，人名，佛教詩人、哲學家）比丘摧毀了這些外道。七百年間有一位比丘，名叫龍樹（Nāgārjuna，人名，大乘佛教的重要哲學家）。他善於巧妙地說法，點燃正法的火炬，熄滅邪見的旗幟。他尋閱大小乘經典，親筆記錄龍樹破斥邪說、彰顯正理的事蹟。現在內外道都加以呵斥，大小乘都加以排斥，還有什麼可懷疑的呢？而且馬鳴、龍樹都得到佛的真實授記，尚且還要懷疑，法勝（Dharmavijaya，人名，論師）和訶梨（Harivarman，人名，論師）沒有經典所印證，怎麼可以輕易接受他們的觀點呢？問：法勝的說法我還沒有見到明確的證據，訶梨的說法也有明確的依據。《阿含經》（Āgama，早期佛教經典的總稱）中說：『真實名為四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，佛教的基本教義，即苦、集、滅、道）。』因此比丘應當成就四諦。佛陀垂示這樣的教誨，預先的鑑察是有根據的。到了像法末期，確實應屬於訶梨。爲了成就這個法，所以造這部論。弘揚宗旨像這樣，難道是虛構的嗎？答：這大概是通指像法末期，難道是特別指訶梨嗎？所以不能作為依據。顯法正第二。問：龍樹的著作種類繁多，《三論》（San-lun，指《中論》、《十二門論》、《百論》）偏於空，似乎不是究竟之說。答：僧睿（Sengrui，人名，鳩摩羅什的弟子）過去在鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva，人名，著名佛經翻譯家）門下，是翻譯的主力。他的《論序》中說：『建造百梁的大廈，就鄙視茅草屋的狹窄簡陋；看到這部論的宏大廣博，就知道偏頗的領悟是多麼的鄙陋。』所以偏重於小乘，而真正歸於這部論。又如前面所說，天竺（India）十六大國，方圓八千里，有向佛化導的因緣，都委託龍樹為無相佛。敢於參與學習的人，沒有不玩味這部論，把它當作喉嚨和衣襟一樣重要。如果是偏於空，怎麼會被各國所重視呢？而且鳩摩羅什本來執著于小乘，因為這部論而回轉到正確的見解。後來的眾位法師憑藉這部論而明白迷途。以此詳細考察，這大概是究竟無餘的說法。問：如果內外道都加以呵斥，大小乘都加以排斥，這部論的宗旨依據什麼呢？答：如果心中存有內外之分，情感寄託于大小乘，那就墮落在偏頗邪見中，失去正確的道理。既然失去正確的道理，那麼正確的觀照就不會產生。如果正確的觀照不產生，那麼斷見和常見就不會滅除。如果斷見和常見不滅除，那麼苦難的輪迴就會永遠運轉。以內外道的對立泯滅，大小乘的分別寂靜，才叫做正確的道理。領悟這個正確的道理，就能發生正確的觀照。正確的觀照如果產生，那麼虛妄的戲論就會消滅。

【English Translation】 English version: Various wrong views competed and arose to destroy the Buddha's Dharma. The Bhikṣu Aśvaghoṣa (a Buddhist poet and philosopher) crushed these heretics. Seven hundred years later, there was a Bhikṣu named Nāgārjuna (an important philosopher of Mahayana Buddhism). He was skilled in expounding the Dharma, kindling the torch of the true Dharma and extinguishing the banners of wrong views. He sought out the scriptures of both the Mahayana and Hinayana, and personally recorded Nāgārjuna's refutation of heresy and manifestation of the correct principles. Now both internal and external paths criticize it, and both Mahayana and Hinayana reject it. What is there to doubt? Moreover, Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna both received sincere predictions from the Buddha, yet people still doubt them. Dharmavijaya (a logician) and Harivarman (a scholar) have no scriptural endorsements, so how can their views be readily accepted? Question: I have not yet seen clear evidence for Dharmavijaya's teachings, but Harivarman's teachings have clear support. The Āgama Sutra (a collection of early Buddhist texts) says: 'Truth is named the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, the basic teachings of Buddhism, namely suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path to its cessation).' Therefore, Bhikṣus should accomplish the Four Noble Truths. The Buddha gave this instruction, and his foresight has a basis. In the Dharma-ending Age, it truly belongs to Harivarman. To accomplish this Dharma, this treatise was written. The scope of its principles is like this, so how could it be fabricated? Answer: This probably refers generally to the Dharma-ending Age, and is not specifically about Harivarman. Therefore, it cannot be taken as evidence. Manifesting the Correct Dharma, Section Two. Question: Nāgārjuna's writings are numerous, and the Three Treatises (San-lun, referring to the Middle Treatise, the Twelve Gate Treatise, and the Hundred Treatise) are biased towards emptiness, and do not seem to be the ultimate teaching. Answer: Saṃgharakṣa (Sengrui, a disciple of Kumārajīva) was formerly under Kumārajīva (a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures) and was the main force in translation. In his preface to the treatise, he said: 'Building a mansion with hundreds of beams despises the narrowness and simplicity of thatched huts; seeing the vastness and breadth of this treatise, one knows how inferior and doubled is biased understanding.' Therefore, he favored the Hinayana, but truly returned to this treatise. Also, as mentioned earlier, the sixteen great kingdoms of India (India), eight thousand li in circumference, had the conditions for turning to Buddhist conversion, and all entrusted Nāgārjuna as the Buddha without characteristics. Those who dare to participate in learning all savor this treatise, regarding it as important as their throat and collar. If it were biased towards emptiness, how could it be valued by various countries? Moreover, Kumārajīva originally adhered to the Hinayana, but because of this treatise, he turned back to the correct view. Later, many teachers relied on this text to understand the lost path. Examining this in detail, this is probably the ultimate and complete teaching. Question: If both internal and external paths criticize it, and both Mahayana and Hinayana reject it, what is the basis for the principles of this treatise? Answer: If the mind harbors distinctions between internal and external, and emotions are attached to Mahayana and Hinayana, then one falls into biased and wrong views, losing the correct principle. Since one loses the correct principle, then correct contemplation will not arise. If correct contemplation does not arise, then the views of annihilation and permanence will not be extinguished. If the views of annihilation and permanence are not extinguished, then the cycle of suffering will always turn. Only when the opposition between internal and external paths is extinguished, and the distinctions between Mahayana and Hinayana are silenced, is it called the correct principle. Understanding this correct principle can generate correct contemplation. If correct contemplation arises, then false and deluded discussions will be extinguished.

論斯滅則苦輪便壞。三論大宗其意若此。蓋乃總眾教之旨歸。統群聖之靈府。味道之流豈不棲憑斯趣耶。問若內外併除大小俱斥。乃為斷見。何名正宗。答既內外並冥。則斷常斯寂。二邊既舍。寧非正宗耶。難曰。夫有斷有常故名之為有。無斷無常目之為無。既其是無。何由離斷。答既斷常斯寂。則有無等皆離。不應更復謂染于無。難曰。雖有此通。終不免難。夫有有有無名之為有。無有無無始是大無。既其墮無。何由離斷。答本對有病。是故說無。有病若消。空藥亦廢則知聖道未曾有無。何所滯耶。難曰。是有是無名為兩是。非有非無名為兩非。既墮是非。還同儒墨。答本非二是。故有雙非。二是既亡。雙非亦息。故知非是亦復非非。難曰。非是非非還墮二非。何由免非。答二是生乎夢虎。兩非還見空華。則知本無所是。今亦無非。難曰。若無是無非。亦不邪不正。何故建篇章稱破邪顯正。答夫有非有是此則為邪。無是無非乃名為正。所以命篇辨破邪顯正。難曰。既有邪可破。有正可顯。則心有取捨何謂無依。答為息于邪強名為正。在邪既息則正亦不留。故心無所著。難曰。若邪正並冥。豈非空見。答正觀論云。大聖說空法。為離諸見故。若復見有空。諸佛所不化。如水能滅火。今水還出火。當用何滅。斷常為火。

空能滅之。若復著空。即無藥可滅也。難曰。既著空病。何故不服有藥而言息化。答若以有化。還復滯有。乃至亡言便復著斷。如此之流何由可化。問心有所著。有何過耶。答若有所著便有所縛。不得解脫生老病死憂悲苦惱。故法華云。我以無數方便引道眾生令離諸著。凈名云。不著世間如蓮華。常善入于空寂行。達諸法相無掛礙。稽首如空無所依。三世諸佛為六道眾生心有所著故出世說經。四依開士為大小學人心有所依故出世造論。故有依有得為生死之本。無住無著為經論大宗。難曰。若內外並冥。佛經何故說大小兩教。答法華云。是法不可示。言辭相寂滅。如來於無名相中強名相說。故有大小教門。欲令眾生因此名相悟無名相。而封教之徒聞說大小更生染著。是故造論破斯執情。還令了悟本來寂滅。故四依出世為如佛也。問此論名為正觀。正有幾種。答天無兩日。土無二王。教有多門理唯一正。是故上來破斥四宗。華嚴云。文殊法常爾。法王唯一法。一切無畏人。一道出生死。但欲出處眾生。于無名相法強名相說。令稟學之徒因而得悟。故開二正。一者體正。二者用正。非真非俗名為體正。真之與俗目為用正。所以然者。諸法實相言亡慮絕。未曾真俗。故名之為體。絕諸偏邪目之為正。故言體正。所言用正者。體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本空效能滅除執著。如果又執著于空，那就沒有藥可以醫治了。有人問：既然執著于空是病，為什麼不服用『有』的藥來息滅轉化呢？回答：如果用『有』來轉化，還會再次滯留在『有』的執著中。甚至捨棄言語，又會執著于斷滅。像這樣的情況，怎麼可能轉化呢？問：心中有所執著，有什麼過失呢？答：如果有所執著，就會被束縛，無法解脫生老病死憂悲苦惱。《法華經》說：『我以無數方便引導眾生，令離諸著。』《維摩詰經》說：『不著世間如蓮華，常善入于空寂行，達諸法相無掛礙，稽首如空無所依。』三世諸佛爲了六道眾生心中有所執著，所以出世說法。《四依論師》爲了大小乘學人心有所依，所以出世造論。所以，有所依有所得是生死的根本，無住無著是經論的大宗旨。有人問：如果內外都歸於冥寂，佛經為什麼還說大小乘兩種教法？回答：《法華經》說：『是法不可示，言辭相寂滅。』如來在無名相中勉強用名相來說，所以有大小乘教門，想要讓眾生因此名相悟入無名相。而執著于教義的人，聽到說大小乘，反而產生染著。因此，造論來破除這種執著，使他們領悟本來寂滅。所以《四依論師》出世是爲了像佛一樣。問：這部論名為《正觀》，『正』有幾種？答：天無二日，土無二王，教法有很多門，道理只有一個『正』。所以，上面破斥了四種宗派。《華嚴經》說：『文殊法常爾，法王唯一法，一切無畏人，一道出生死。』只是爲了引導眾生，在無名相法中勉強用名相來說，讓學習的人因此而得悟。所以開示二種『正』：一者體正，二者用正。非真非俗名為體正，真之與俗名為用正。之所以這樣說，是因為諸法實相，言語斷絕，思慮止息，未曾有真俗之分，所以名為『體』。斷絕各種偏頗邪見，稱為『正』，所以說『體正』。所說的『用正』，是說體

【English Translation】 English version The power of emptiness can extinguish attachments. But if one becomes attached to emptiness itself, there is no medicine to cure it. Someone asks: 'Since being attached to emptiness is a disease, why not take the medicine of 'existence' to extinguish and transform it?' The answer is: 'If you use 'existence' to transform it, you will again be stuck in the attachment to 'existence'. Even abandoning words, you will again be attached to annihilation. How can such a situation be transformed?' Someone asks: 'What is the fault of having attachments in the mind?' The answer is: 'If you have attachments, you will be bound and unable to be liberated from birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, and suffering.' The Lotus Sutra says: 'I use countless expedient means to guide sentient beings, causing them to leave all attachments.' The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Not being attached to the world like a lotus flower, constantly and skillfully entering the practice of emptiness and tranquility, understanding the characteristics of all dharmas without hindrance, bowing one's head like emptiness, without anything to rely on.' The Buddhas of the three times, because sentient beings in the six realms have attachments in their minds, appear in the world to teach the Dharma. The Four Reliances Acharyas, because students of the Mahayana and Hinayana have something to rely on in their minds, appear in the world to create treatises. Therefore, having something to rely on and something to gain is the root of birth and death, while non-dwelling and non-attachment are the great principles of the sutras and treatises. Someone asks: 'If both the internal and external are reduced to darkness and silence, why do the Buddhist scriptures still speak of the two teachings of Mahayana and Hinayana?' The answer is: 'The Lotus Sutra says: 'This Dharma cannot be shown, words and speech are silent and extinguished.' The Tathagata, in the absence of names and forms, reluctantly uses names and forms to speak, so there are the teachings of Mahayana and Hinayana, wanting to allow sentient beings to awaken to the absence of names and forms through these names and forms. But those who are attached to the teachings, upon hearing about Mahayana and Hinayana, instead generate attachments. Therefore, treatises are created to break these attachments, causing them to realize the original silence and extinction. Therefore, the Four Reliances appear in the world to be like the Buddha.' Someone asks: 'This treatise is called Right View, how many kinds of 'right' are there?' The answer is: 'Heaven has no two suns, a country has no two kings, there are many doors to the teachings, but the principle is only one 'right'. Therefore, the above refutes the four schools. The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Manjushri's Dharma is always like this, the Dharma King has only one Dharma, all fearless people, through one path, are born from death.' It is only to guide sentient beings, in the Dharma without names and forms, to reluctantly use names and forms to speak, allowing those who learn to awaken through this. Therefore, two kinds of 'right' are revealed: the first is the rightness of the substance, and the second is the rightness of the function. Neither true nor conventional is called the rightness of the substance, and true and conventional are called the rightness of the function. The reason for this is that the true nature of all dharmas is beyond words and thoughts, never having been true or conventional, so it is called 'substance'. Cutting off all biased and evil views is called 'right', so it is said to be 'substance right'. What is called 'function right' is that the substance

絕名言物無由悟。雖非有無強說真俗。故名為用。此真之與俗亦不偏邪。目之為正。故名用正也。問既云真俗則是二邊。何名為正。答如因緣假有目之為俗。然假有不可言其定有。假有不可言其定無。此之假有遠離二邊。故名為正。俗有既爾。真無亦爾。假無不可定無。假無不可定有。遠離二邊故目之為正。問何故辨體用二正耶。答像末鈍根多墮偏邪。四依出世匡正佛法。故明用正。既識正教便悟正理則有體正。但正有三種。一對偏病目之為正。名對偏正。二盡凈于偏名之為正。謂盡偏正也。三偏病既去正亦不留。非偏非正。不知何以美之。強嘆爲正。謂絕待正也。在正既然。觀論亦爾。因於體正發生正觀名為體觀。藉二諦用生二諦觀名為用觀。故觀具二也。觀辨於心。為眾生故如實說體。名為體論。若說于用。名之為用論。故論具二也。正既有對偏盡偏絕待。觀論亦然。類前可知。

次明經論相資。大品經云。雖生死道長眾生性多。菩薩應如是正憶念。生死邊如虛空。眾生性邊亦如虛空。此中無生死往來亦無解脫者。然既無生死亦無涅槃。則知亦無眾生及以于佛。寧有經之與論耶。故內外並冥緣觀俱寂。然雖非生死涅槃。而於眾產生生死。故大品云。諸法無所有如是有。既有眾生故有諸佛。既有諸佛便有教門

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無法通過言語來領悟絕對的真理。雖然它既非『有』也非『無』，但爲了方便理解，勉強稱之為『真』和『俗』（satya and samvriti）。因此，這被稱為『用』（upaya，方便）。這『真』與『俗』並不偏頗于任何一方，所以稱之為『正』（samyak，正確）。因此，稱為『用正』（upaya-samyak）。問：既然說是『真俗』，那就是二邊（dve-anta，兩種極端），為何又稱之為『正』呢？答：比如因緣和合而產生的假有（prajnapti-sat），稱之為『俗』。然而，這假有不能說是絕對的『有』，也不能說是絕對的『無』。這種假有遠離了『有』和『無』的二邊，所以稱之為『正』。『俗有』如此，『真無』（paramartha-sunyata）也是如此。假無不能說是絕對的『無』，也不能說是絕對的『有』。遠離了『有』和『無』的二邊，所以稱之為『正』。問：為何要區分『體正』（vastu-samyak）和『用正』這兩種『正』呢？答：因為末法時代的遲鈍根器之人容易墮入偏頗邪見，所以需要四依菩薩（catuh-pratisarana）出世來匡正佛法。因此，闡明『用正』。既然認識了正確的教義，就能領悟正確的道理，從而有『體正』。但『正』有三種：第一種是針對偏頗的病態而設立的『正』，稱為『對偏正』（pratipaksa-samyak）。第二種是完全清除了偏頗的『正』，稱為『盡偏正』（atyanta-samyak）。第三種是偏頗的病態已經去除，連『正』也不再執著，既非偏頗也非『正』，不知該如何讚美它，勉強稱之為『正』，稱為『絕待正』（nirapeksa-samyak）。『正』是這樣，『觀』（darsana，見）和『論』（sastra，論著）也是如此。因為『體正』而生起正確的『觀』，稱為『體觀』（vastu-darsana）。憑藉二諦（dve-satya，兩種真理）的『用』而生起二諦的『觀』，稱為『用觀』（upaya-darsana）。所以，『觀』具備這兩種。『觀』辨析于內心。爲了眾生的緣故，如實地宣說『體』，稱為『體論』（vastu-sastra）。如果宣說『用』，就稱之為『用論』（upaya-sastra）。所以，『論』具備這兩種。『正』既然有『對偏』、『盡偏』、『絕待』這三種，『觀』和『論』也是如此，可以參照前面的解釋來理解。接下來闡明經（sutra）和論相互資助的關係。《大品經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說：『雖然生死輪迴的道路漫長，眾生的根性繁多，菩薩應當這樣正確地憶念：生死的邊際如同虛空，眾生根性的邊際也如同虛空。』這裡面沒有生死的往來，也沒有解脫的人。既然沒有生死，也沒有涅槃（nirvana），那麼就知道也沒有眾生以及佛。哪裡還有經和論呢？所以，內外都寂滅，因緣和觀照都寂靜。然而，雖然不是生死涅槃，卻爲了眾生而示現生死。所以《大品經》說：『諸法無所有，如是而有。』既然有眾生，所以有諸佛。既然有諸佛，便有教門（dharma）。

【English Translation】 English version Absolute truth cannot be comprehended through words. Although it is neither 『being』 nor 『non-being,』 we tentatively call it 『satya』 (truth) and 『samvriti』 (conventional truth) for the sake of understanding. Therefore, this is called 『upaya』 (means). This 『satya』 and 『samvriti』 do not lean towards either side, so it is called 『samyak』 (correct). Therefore, it is called 『upaya-samyak』 (correct means). Question: Since it is said to be 『satya and samvriti,』 which are two extremes (dve-anta), why is it called 『samyak』? Answer: For example, the provisional existence (prajnapti-sat) that arises from conditions is called 『samvriti.』 However, this provisional existence cannot be said to be absolutely 『being,』 nor can it be said to be absolutely 『non-being.』 This provisional existence is far from the two extremes of 『being』 and 『non-being,』 so it is called 『samyak.』『Samvriti-sat』 (conventional existence) is like this, and 『paramartha-sunyata』 (ultimate emptiness) is also like this. Provisional non-existence cannot be said to be absolutely 『non-being,』 nor can it be said to be absolutely 『being.』 Being far from the two extremes of 『being』 and 『non-being,』 it is called 『samyak.』 Question: Why is it necessary to distinguish between 『vastu-samyak』 (correct substance) and 『upaya-samyak』 (correct means)? Answer: Because people with dull faculties in the Dharma-ending age are prone to falling into biased and wrong views, it is necessary for the Four Reliances (catuh-pratisarana) to appear in the world to correct the Buddha-dharma. Therefore, 『upaya-samyak』 is explained. Since one recognizes the correct teachings, one can comprehend the correct principle, and thus there is 『vastu-samyak.』 But there are three types of 『samyak』: the first is 『samyak』 established to counter biased sickness, called 『pratipaksa-samyak』 (counteractive correctness). The second is 『samyak』 that completely eliminates bias, called 『atyanta-samyak』 (ultimate correctness). The third is when the biased sickness has been removed, and even 『samyak』 is no longer clung to, being neither biased nor 『samyak.』 Not knowing how to praise it, we tentatively call it 『samyak,』 called 『nirapeksa-samyak』 (independent correctness). 『Samyak』 is like this, and 『darsana』 (view) and 『sastra』 (treatise) are also like this. Because of 『vastu-samyak,』 the correct 『darsana』 arises, called 『vastu-darsana.』 Relying on the 『upaya』 of the Two Truths (dve-satya), the 『darsana』 of the Two Truths arises, called 『upaya-darsana.』 Therefore, 『darsana』 possesses these two. 『Darsana』 discerns within the mind. For the sake of sentient beings, truthfully explaining 『vastu』 is called 『vastu-sastra.』 If 『upaya』 is explained, it is called 『upaya-sastra.』 Therefore, 『sastra』 possesses these two. Since 『samyak』 has these three types of 『pratipaksa,』『atyanta,』 and 『nirapeksa,』『darsana』 and 『sastra』 are also like this, which can be understood by referring to the previous explanation. Next, the mutual assistance of sutra and treatise is explained. The 『Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra』 says: 『Although the path of samsara (birth and death) is long, and the natures of sentient beings are numerous, Bodhisattvas should correctly remember thus: the boundary of samsara is like space, and the boundary of the natures of sentient beings is also like space.』 Within this, there is no coming and going of samsara, nor is there anyone who is liberated. Since there is no samsara, nor is there nirvana, then it is known that there are neither sentient beings nor Buddhas. Where then are sutras and treatises? Therefore, both inside and outside are extinguished, and conditions and contemplation are both silent. However, although it is not samsara or nirvana, it manifests samsara for sentient beings. Therefore, the 『Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra』 says: 『All dharmas are without substance, yet they exist thus.』 Since there are sentient beings, there are Buddhas. Since there are Buddhas, there is the Dharma.

。既有諸佛教門則有菩薩之論。諸佛為眾生失道。是故說經。菩薩為眾生迷經。是故造論。然經有通別。在論亦爾。所言經通者。通為息眾生顛倒。通為開顯道門。所言論通者。諸聖弟子造一切論。亦通為息迷教之病申明正道。所言經別者。赴大小二緣說大小兩教。所言論別者。為破大小兩迷申大小兩教。故有大小二論也。然就經論之中具有能所之義。經以二智為能說。二諦為所說。論以二慧為能說。言教為所說。斯則經論各有能所也。

次明經論能所絞絡。有四句不同。一者經能為論所。二者經所為論能。三者論能為經所。四者論所為經能。經能為論所者。如來二智即是論主所悟。故法華明。今昔兩教為直往菩薩及回小向大之人。並令悟入佛慧。故涌出品云。是諸眾生始見我身聞我所說。即便信受入如來慧。此明昔教為直往菩薩入佛慧也。次云。除先修習學小乘者。我今亦令得聞是經入于佛慧。此明今教回小之人入于佛慧。故今昔兩教同明為入佛慧。則知佛慧是所悟也。次明經所為論能者。經所即是二諦。能發生論主二慧故。佛之二諦為能生。論主二慧為所生也。次明論能為經所者。論主二慧由經發生也。次明論所為經能者。論主言教能申佛二諦也。次會四句為二句。經若能若所並是能資。論若能若所皆是所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：既然有了諸佛的教法，那麼就有菩薩的論述。諸佛爲了眾生迷失正道，所以宣說經典。菩薩爲了眾生迷惑于經典，所以撰寫論著。然而經典有通途和特別之分，論著也是如此。所說的經典通途之處，在於普遍地止息眾生的顛倒妄想，普遍地開顯通往真理的道路。所說的論著通途之處，在於諸位聖賢弟子所造的一切論著，也普遍地爲了止息人們對教法的迷惑，闡明正道。所說的經典特別之處，在於應大小兩種根器的眾生，宣說大乘和小乘兩種教法。所說的論著特別之處，在於爲了破除對大乘和小乘兩種教法的迷惑，闡明大乘和小乘兩種教法。所以有大乘和小乘兩種論著。然而就經典和論著之中，具有能詮（能表達）和所詮（所表達）的含義。經典以二智（兩種智慧）作為能詮，以二諦（兩種真理）作為所詮。論著以二慧（兩種智慧）作為能詮，以言教（語言教導）作為所詮。這樣看來，經典和論著各有能詮和所詮。接下來闡明經典和論著的能詮和所詮相互交織的關係，有四種不同的情況。第一種情況是，經典作為能詮，成為論著的所詮。第二種情況是，經典作為所詮，成為論著的能詮。第三種情況是，論著作為能詮，成為經典的所詮。第四種情況是，論著作為所詮，成為經典的能詮。經典作為能詮，成為論著的所詮，例如，《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）闡明，過去和現在的兩種教法，是爲了讓直往菩薩以及回小向大的修行者，都能夠領悟並進入佛的智慧。所以《涌出品》（Chapter on the Emergence of the Bodhisattvas）中說：『這些眾生最初見到我的身相，聽聞我所說的法，就立即信受，進入如來的智慧。』這說明過去的教法是爲了讓直往菩薩進入佛的智慧。接著說：『除了先前修習小乘教法的人，我現在也讓他們聽聞這部經典，進入佛的智慧。』這說明現在的教法是爲了讓回小向大的修行者進入佛的智慧。所以過去和現在的兩種教法都闡明是爲了進入佛的智慧，那麼就知道佛的智慧是所領悟的。接下來闡明經典作為所詮，成為論著的能詮。經典作為所詮，也就是二諦，能夠發生論主的二慧。所以佛的二諦是能生，論主的二慧是所生。接下來闡明論著作為能詮，成為經典的所詮。論主的二慧是由經典發生的。接下來闡明論著作為所詮，成為經典的能詮。論主的言教能夠闡明佛的二諦。接下來將四句話歸納為兩句話。經典無論是能詮還是所詮，都是能資助的。論著無論是能詮還是所詮，都是所資助的。

【English Translation】 English version: Since there are the teachings of all Buddhas, there are discussions by Bodhisattvas. The Buddhas, for the sake of sentient beings who have lost their way, therefore expound the Sutras. The Bodhisattvas, for the sake of sentient beings who are confused about the Sutras, therefore compose treatises. However, Sutras have general and specific aspects, and so do treatises. What is meant by the general aspect of Sutras is that they universally quell the inverted views of sentient beings and universally reveal the path to enlightenment. What is meant by the general aspect of treatises is that all treatises composed by the noble disciples also universally aim to quell the disease of confusion about the teachings and to clarify the correct path. What is meant by the specific aspect of Sutras is that they expound the teachings of the Great Vehicle and the Small Vehicle according to the two kinds of capacities of sentient beings. What is meant by the specific aspect of treatises is that they aim to dispel the confusion about the teachings of the Great Vehicle and the Small Vehicle and to clarify the teachings of both. Therefore, there are two kinds of treatises, those of the Great Vehicle and those of the Small Vehicle. However, within the Sutras and treatises, there are meanings of 'that which expresses' and 'that which is expressed'. Sutras take the two wisdoms as 'that which expresses' and the two truths as 'that which is expressed'. Treatises take the two kinds of prajna (wisdom) as 'that which expresses' and verbal teachings as 'that which is expressed'. Thus, Sutras and treatises each have 'that which expresses' and 'that which is expressed'. Next, it will be explained how the 'that which expresses' and 'that which is expressed' of Sutras and treatises are intertwined, with four different situations. The first situation is that the Sutra as 'that which expresses' becomes the 'that which is expressed' of the treatise. The second situation is that the Sutra as 'that which is expressed' becomes the 'that which expresses' of the treatise. The third situation is that the treatise as 'that which expresses' becomes the 'that which is expressed' of the Sutra. The fourth situation is that the treatise as 'that which is expressed' becomes the 'that which expresses' of the Sutra. The Sutra as 'that which expresses' becomes the 'that which is expressed' of the treatise, for example, the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) clarifies that the past and present teachings are for enabling both the directly advancing Bodhisattvas and those who turn from the Small Vehicle to the Great Vehicle to realize and enter the Buddha's wisdom. Therefore, in the Chapter on the Emergence of the Bodhisattvas, it says: 'These sentient beings, when they first see my body and hear what I say, immediately believe and accept it and enter the Tathagata's wisdom.' This explains that the past teaching is for enabling the directly advancing Bodhisattvas to enter the Buddha's wisdom. Then it says: 'Except for those who have previously practiced and studied the Small Vehicle, I now also enable them to hear this Sutra and enter the Buddha's wisdom.' This explains that the present teaching is for enabling those who turn from the Small Vehicle to the Great Vehicle to enter the Buddha's wisdom. Therefore, both the past and present teachings clarify that they are for entering the Buddha's wisdom, then it is known that the Buddha's wisdom is that which is realized. Next, it will be explained that the Sutra as 'that which is expressed' becomes the 'that which expresses' of the treatise. The Sutra as 'that which is expressed', which is the two truths, can generate the two wisdoms of the treatise master. Therefore, the Buddha's two truths are the generator, and the treatise master's two wisdoms are that which is generated. Next, it will be explained that the treatise as 'that which expresses' becomes the 'that which is expressed' of the Sutra. The treatise master's two wisdoms arise from the Sutra. Next, it will be explained that the treatise as 'that which is expressed' becomes the 'that which expresses' of the Sutra. The treatise master's verbal teachings can clarify the Buddha's two truths. Next, the four sentences will be summarized into two sentences. Whether the Sutra is 'that which expresses' or 'that which is expressed', it is that which can assist. Whether the treatise is 'that which expresses' or 'that which is expressed', it is that which is assisted.

資。又論若能若所悉為能申。經若能若所悉是為所申。故合成一能一所也。次泯一句以歸無句。以能而為所則能非定能。以所而為能則所非定所。以能非定能。是則非能。所非定所。是則非所。故非能非所。非經非論。非佛非菩薩。不知何以目之。故稱正法強名中實也。問能非定能是則非能所非定所是則非所。出何文耶。答中論然可然品云。若法因待成。是法還成待。今則無因待。亦無所成法。即其證也。

次別明造論緣起。然所以造論者。如上所明。如來為失道故說經。論主為迷經故造論。為失道故說經。此是根本失。論主為迷經故造論。此是枝末失。又佛為失道者說經。此失謂一往失。論主為迷經故造論。此失即失中更起失。所以然者。以其迷道此是一失。如來說經為令入道。而復迷經故是失中失也一往之失謂利根人。聞經即悟。失中之失謂鈍根人也。問何等是迷經之人。答即是諸部異執。言諸部異執者。或二部或五部。或十八部。或二十部。或五百部。言二部者。如來二月十五日入涅槃。諸聖弟子四月十五日于王舍城祇阇崛山中結集三藏。爾時即有二部名字。一上座部。謂迦葉為上座。迦葉上陳如一夏。為佛以法付屬迦葉名上座部也。迦葉所領但有五百人。依智度論則有千人。二大眾部。即界外大眾。乃

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：資。又說如果能和所完全是能申述的。經書如果能和所完全是被申述的。所以合成為一個能和一個所。其次泯滅一句而歸於無句。以能作為所，那麼能就不是固定的能。以所作為能，那麼所就不是固定的所。因為能不是固定的能，那麼就不是能。所不是固定的所，那麼就不是所。所以既非能也非所，既非經也非論，既非佛也非菩薩。不知道用什麼來稱呼它，所以稱之為正法，只是勉強稱之為中實罷了。問：『能不是固定的能，那麼就不是能；所不是固定的所，那麼就不是所』，出自哪部經文？答：《中論·然可然品》說：『如果法依靠因緣而成立，那麼這個法反過來也成為因緣的所待。現在如果沒有因緣所待，也就沒有所成立的法。』這就是證明。

其次分別說明造論的緣起。然而造論的原因是，如上面所說，如來因為眾生迷失正道才說經，論主因為眾生迷惑于經義才造論。因為迷失正道才說經，這是根本的迷失。論主因為迷惑于經義才造論，這是枝末的迷失。又佛為迷失正道的人說經，這種迷失可以說是一開始的迷失。論主因為迷惑于經義才造論，這種迷失就是在迷失中又產生了迷失。原因在於，因為他們迷惑于正道，這是一種迷失。如來說經是爲了讓他們進入正道，但他們反而迷惑于經義，所以是迷失中的迷失。一開始的迷失指的是利根之人，聽聞佛經就能領悟。迷失中的迷失指的是鈍根之人。問：什麼樣的人是迷惑于經義的人？答：就是各部派持有不同見解的人。所說的各部派持有不同見解，或者分為二部，或者分為五部，或者分為十八部，或者分為二十部，或者分為五百部。所說的二部，如來在二月十五日入涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴的狀態）。諸位聖弟子在四月十五日在王舍城（Rajagrha）的祇阇崛山（Gridhrakuta）中結集三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經典的總稱）。那時就有了二部的名字：一是上座部（Sthavira Nikaya），以迦葉（Kasyapa）為上座。迦葉比陳如（Ajnatakaundinya）早一個夏天出家，因為佛陀以法囑咐迦葉，所以名為上座部。迦葉所帶領的只有五百人，依據《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）則有一千人。二是大眾部（Mahasanghika），也就是界外大眾，即

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, it is argued that if both the 'able' and the 'object' are entirely what is being expressed by the 'able,' and if the sutras state that both the 'able' and the 'object' are entirely what is being expressed by the 'object,' then they combine to form one 'able' and one 'object.' Next, the sentence is dissolved to return to no sentence. If the 'able' is taken as the 'object,' then the 'able' is not a fixed 'able.' If the 'object' is taken as the 'able,' then the 'object' is not a fixed 'object.' Because the 'able' is not a fixed 'able,' then it is not 'able.' Because the 'object' is not a fixed 'object,' then it is not 'object.' Therefore, it is neither 'able' nor 'object,' neither sutra nor treatise, neither Buddha nor Bodhisattva. It is not known by what to call it, so it is called the True Dharma (Saddharma), a forced name for the Middle Reality. Question: 'The 'able' is not a fixed 'able,' then it is not 'able'; the 'object' is not a fixed 'object,' then it is not 'object'—from which text does this come?' Answer: The Madhyamaka-karika (Mulamadhyamakakarika), in the chapter 'Examination of the Conditioned,' says: 'If a dharma (phenomenon) is established dependent on conditions, then this dharma in turn becomes dependent. Now, if there is no dependence on conditions, then there is no established dharma.' This is the proof.

Next, the reasons for writing the treatise are explained separately. The reason for writing the treatise is, as explained above, that the Tathagata (Buddha) spoke the sutras because beings had lost the path, and the author of the treatise wrote the treatise because beings were confused about the sutras. Speaking the sutras because beings had lost the path is the fundamental loss. The author of the treatise wrote the treatise because beings were confused about the sutras, which is a secondary loss. Furthermore, the Buddha spoke the sutras for those who had lost the path, which can be said to be an initial loss. The author of the treatise wrote the treatise because beings were confused about the sutras, which is a loss arising from loss. The reason is that because they are confused about the path, this is one loss. The Tathagata spoke the sutras to lead them onto the path, but they are instead confused about the sutras, so it is a loss within a loss. The initial loss refers to those of sharp faculties who can understand upon hearing the sutras. The loss within a loss refers to those of dull faculties. Question: What kind of people are those who are confused about the sutras? Answer: They are the various schools holding different views. The various schools holding different views are divided into two schools, five schools, eighteen schools, twenty schools, or five hundred schools. The two schools are: the Tathagata entered Nirvana (Nirvana, Buddhist term, referring to the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death) on the fifteenth day of the second month. The holy disciples gathered the Tripitaka (Tripitaka, the general term for Buddhist scriptures) on the fifteenth day of the fourth month in Rajagrha (Rajagrha) at Gridhrakuta Mountain (Gridhrakuta). At that time, there were the names of two schools: first, the Sthavira Nikaya (Sthavira Nikaya), with Kasyapa (Kasyapa) as the elder. Kasyapa became a monk one summer earlier than Ajnatakaundinya (Ajnatakaundinya), because the Buddha entrusted the Dharma to Kasyapa, it was named the Sthavira Nikaya. Kasyapa led only five hundred people, but according to the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra), there were one thousand people. Second, the Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika), which is the great assembly outside the boundary, that is

有萬數。婆師波羅漢為主。此云淚出。常悲苦眾生而淚墮也。即五比丘中之一人而年大迦葉。教授界外大眾。所以有二眾。迦葉有五百羅漢。前入界內結集三藏。后多人來結集三藏。迦葉並不許之。有二因緣。一者五百皆聰明人故。二者已羯磨竟故。依智度論。阿阇世王但設千人食。故餘人來不得。從是以來至佛滅度后百一十六年。但有二部名字未有異執。百一十六年外有舶主兒名摩訶提婆。端正聰明作三逆罪。后入佛法。凡有二事。一者取諸大乘經內三藏中釋之。諸阿羅漢結集法藏時。已簡除此義。而大眾部用此義。上座部不用之。因爾起諍遂成二部。二者摩訶提婆自作偈言。餘人染污衣。無明疑他度。聖道言所顯。是諸佛正教。以此一偈安置戒后。布薩誦戒竟亦誦此一偈。此偈有五事。一餘人染污衣者。提婆不凈出污衣。而誑弟子言。我是阿羅漢。實無不凈。但是天魔女以不凈污羅漢衣。故云餘人染污衣。然此一語有虛有實。其實是凡夫。誑弟子說如上事。是故為虛。魔女實能以不凈污羅漢衣。是故為實。其眾諍其所說。或虛或實。故分二部。二云無明者。然羅漢乃無三界受生無明。而有無知習氣無明。故云無明。時眾或言羅漢有無明。或言無無明。因此起諍故分二部。三云疑者。須陀洹果乃於三解脫門無疑。而

【現代漢語翻譯】有萬數，以婆師波羅漢（Vashishtha Arhat，意為淚出）為首。之所以稱其為『淚出』，是因為他常為眾生的苦難而流淚。他是五比丘之一，也是年長的大迦葉（Mahakashyapa）。他教授界外的大眾，所以有兩類聽眾。迦葉有五百羅漢。先前，他們進入界內結集三藏（Tripitaka）。後來，許多人前來結集三藏，迦葉都不允許。這有兩個原因：一是五百羅漢都是聰明之人；二是之前的結集已經完成（羯磨，Karma）。根據《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra），阿阇世王（Ajatasatru）只準備了千人的食物，所以其他人無法參與。從那時起，直到佛陀涅槃后一百一十六年，只有兩個部的名字，還沒有不同的執見。一百一十六年後，有一位船主之子，名叫摩訶提婆（Mahadeva），相貌端正，聰明過人，但犯了三種逆罪。後來他進入佛法。他做了兩件事：一是取出大乘經典中的內容，解釋三藏。諸位阿羅漢結集法藏時，已經排除了這些意義，但大眾部（Mahasanghika）採用了這些意義，上座部（Sthavira）沒有采用。因此引起爭論，遂分成兩部。二是摩訶提婆自己作偈說：『餘人染污衣，無明疑他度，聖道言所顯，是諸佛正教。』他將這首偈安置在戒律之後，在布薩（Posadha）誦戒完畢后也誦讀這首偈。這首偈有五件事：一是『餘人染污衣』，指提婆不凈，卻拿出污穢的衣服，欺騙弟子說：『我是阿羅漢，實際上並沒有不凈，只是天魔女用不凈之物玷污了羅漢的衣服。』所以說『餘人染污衣』。這句話有虛有實。實際上他是凡夫，欺騙弟子說了上述的事情，所以是虛假的。魔女確實能用不凈之物玷污羅漢的衣服，所以是真實的。他的追隨者爭論他所說的話，或虛或實，因此分為兩部。二是『無明』，指羅漢沒有三界受生的無明，但有無知習氣無明，所以說『無明』。當時，大眾或者說羅漢有無明，或者說沒有無明，因此引起爭論，所以分為兩部。三是『疑』，指須陀洹果（Srotapanna）對於三解脫門（Three Doors of Liberation）沒有懷疑，但是

【English Translation】 There were tens of thousands, with Vashishtha Arhat (meaning 'tears falling') as their leader. He is called 'tears falling' because he often shed tears for the suffering of sentient beings. He was one of the five Bhikkhus and also the elder Mahakashyapa. He taught the masses outside the boundary, so there were two kinds of audiences. Kashyapa had five hundred Arhats. Previously, they entered the boundary to compile the Tripitaka (Three Baskets). Later, many people came to compile the Tripitaka, but Kashyapa did not allow it. There were two reasons for this: first, the five hundred Arhats were all intelligent people; second, the previous compilation (Karma) had already been completed. According to the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, King Ajatasatru only prepared food for a thousand people, so others could not participate. From then until one hundred and sixteen years after the Buddha's Nirvana, there were only the names of two schools, and there were no different views. One hundred and sixteen years later, there was a shipowner's son named Mahadeva, who was handsome and intelligent, but committed three rebellious sins. Later, he entered the Buddha's Dharma. He did two things: first, he took out the contents of the Mahayana sutras and explained the Tripitaka. When the Arhats compiled the Dharma treasury, they had already excluded these meanings, but the Mahasanghika adopted these meanings, and the Sthavira did not. Therefore, disputes arose, and they were divided into two schools. Second, Mahadeva himself composed a verse saying: 'Others' clothes are stained, ignorance doubts his deliverance, the holy path is revealed by words, these are the correct teachings of all Buddhas.' He placed this verse after the precepts, and also recited this verse after the Posadha recitation of the precepts. This verse has five points: first, 'Others' clothes are stained' refers to Deva being impure, but taking out dirty clothes and deceiving his disciples, saying: 'I am an Arhat, and I am not actually impure, but a celestial demon woman stained the Arhat's clothes with impure things.' Therefore, it is said 'Others' clothes are stained.' This statement is both false and true. In reality, he is a mortal, deceiving his disciples by saying the above, so it is false. The demon woman can indeed stain the Arhat's clothes with impure things, so it is true. His followers argued about what he said, whether it was false or true, so they were divided into two schools. Second, 'Ignorance' refers to Arhats not having the ignorance of being born in the three realms, but having the ignorance of unconscious habits, so it is said 'Ignorance.' At that time, the masses either said that Arhats had ignorance, or that they did not have ignorance, so disputes arose, and they were divided into two schools. Third, 'Doubt' refers to Srotapanna (Stream-enterer) not having doubts about the Three Doors of Liberation, but

于外事有疑。故云疑也。四他度者。鈍根初果而不自知得初果。問善知識。善知識為說。於三寶四諦無疑。是初果相。其自觀察方知得初果。故云他度。五聖道言所顯者。然得聖道時。亦有言所顯。如身子當口誦偈時即得初果。故云言所顯。時眾諍此五義。或是或非。故成二部也。問此二部執何義異耶。答義異乃多。今略明其一。大眾部執生死涅槃皆是假名。上座部執生死涅槃皆是真實。至二百年中。從大眾部又出三部。於時大眾部因摩訶提婆私度住央崛多羅國。此國在王舍城北。此部將華嚴般若等大乘經雜三藏中說之。時人有信者。有不信者。故成二部。不信者唯言阿難等三師所誦三藏此則可信。自三藏外諸大乘經皆不可信。復有信大乘者有三因緣。一者爾時猶有親聞佛說大乘法者。是故可信。二者自思量道理應有大乘。是故可信。三者信其師故。是故可信。言三部者。一一說部。此部執生死涅槃皆是假名。故云一說。二出世說部。此部言。世間法從顛倒生業。業生果。故是不實。出世法不從顛倒生。故是真實。三灰山住部。前二從執義受名。此因住處為目(此山有石。堪作灰。此部住彼山中修道。故以為名)。其執毗曇是實教。經律為權說故。彼引經偈云。隨宜覆身。隨宜飲食。隨宜住處。疾斷煩惱。隨宜覆身者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於外事有所懷疑，所以稱為『疑』。四、『他度』是指：鈍根的初果聖者，自己不知道已經證得初果，於是請教善知識。善知識為他解說，使他對三寶（Buddha, Dharma, Sangha），四諦（duhkha, samudaya, nirodha, marga）不再懷疑，這就是初果的相狀。他自己觀察后才知道證得了初果，所以稱為『他度』。五、『聖道言所顯』是指：在證得聖道的時候，也有通過言語來顯現的情況。例如，舍利弗（Sariputra）在口誦偈頌的時候就證得了初果，所以稱為『言所顯』。當時大眾爭論這五種意義，有的說是，有的說不是，因此形成了兩個部派。問：這兩個部派所執持的義理有什麼不同呢？答：義理上的不同有很多，現在簡略地說明其中一種。大眾部（Mahasanghika）認為生死（samsara）和涅槃（nirvana）都是假名，上座部（Sthavira）認為生死和涅槃都是真實的。到了二百年中，從大眾部又分出了三個部派。當時大眾部因為摩訶提婆（Mahadeva）私自住在央崛多羅國（Anguttara），這個國家在王舍城（Rajagrha）的北面。這個部派將《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）、《般若經》（Prajnaparamita Sutra）等大乘經典摻雜在三藏（Tripitaka）中宣說。當時的人有的相信，有的不相信，所以形成了兩個部派。不相信的人只說阿難（Ananda）等三位老師所誦的三藏才是可信的，三藏之外的各種大乘經典都不可信。又有相信大乘經典的有三種因緣：一是當時還有親自聽聞佛陀宣說大乘佛法的人，所以可信；二是自己思量道理，認為應該有大乘佛法，所以可信；三是相信自己的老師，所以可信。所說的三個部派是：一、說部（Ekavyavaharika）。這個部派認為生死和涅槃都是假名，所以稱為『一說』。二、出世說部（Lokottaravada）。這個部派認為，世間法是從顛倒妄想產生業，業產生果報，所以是不真實的；出世間法不是從顛倒妄想產生，所以是真實的。三、灰山住部（Gokulika）。前兩個部派是從所執持的義理來命名的，這個部派因為居住的地點而得名（這座山有石頭，可以用來做灰，這個部派住在那個山中修行，所以用這個來命名）。他們認為《毗曇》（Abhidhamma）是真實的教法，經（Sutra）、律（Vinaya）是權巧方便的說法。所以他們引用經中的偈頌說：『隨宜覆身，隨宜飲食，隨宜住處，疾斷煩惱。』『隨宜覆身』是指：

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding doubts about external matters, hence the term 'doubt'. Fourth, 'other-delivered' refers to: a dull-rooted Stream-enterer (Sotapanna) who is unaware of having attained Stream-entry, so they ask a virtuous friend (Kalyanamitra). The virtuous friend explains to them, causing them to have no more doubts about the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and the Four Noble Truths (duhkha, samudaya, nirodha, marga), which is the characteristic of Stream-entry. They then observe themselves and realize they have attained Stream-entry, hence the term 'other-delivered'. Fifth, 'manifested by the words of the Noble Path' refers to: when attaining the Noble Path, there are also cases where it is manifested through words. For example, Sariputra (Sariputra) attained Stream-entry when reciting a verse, hence the term 'manifested by words'. At that time, the assembly debated these five meanings, some saying yes, some saying no, thus forming two schools. Question: What are the differences in the doctrines held by these two schools? Answer: There are many differences in doctrines, but I will briefly explain one of them. The Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika) school holds that samsara (samsara) and nirvana (nirvana) are both provisional names, while the Sthavira (Sthavira) school holds that samsara and nirvana are both real. After two hundred years, three more schools emerged from the Mahasanghika school. At that time, the Mahasanghika school, due to Mahadeva (Mahadeva) residing privately in Anguttara (Anguttara), a country north of Rajagrha (Rajagrha), mixed Mahayana sutras such as the Avatamsaka Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra) and Prajnaparamita Sutra (Prajnaparamita Sutra) into the Tripitaka (Tripitaka) and preached them. Some people believed it, and some did not, thus forming two schools. Those who did not believe only said that the Tripitaka recited by the three teachers, Ananda (Ananda) and others, was trustworthy, and that all Mahayana sutras outside the Tripitaka were not trustworthy. There were three reasons why some believed in the Mahayana sutras: first, there were still people at that time who had personally heard the Buddha preach the Mahayana Dharma, so it was trustworthy; second, they reasoned that there should be Mahayana Dharma, so it was trustworthy; third, they believed in their teachers, so it was trustworthy. The three schools mentioned are: first, the Ekavyavaharika (Ekavyavaharika) school. This school holds that samsara and nirvana are both provisional names, hence the term 'one saying'. Second, the Lokottaravada (Lokottaravada) school. This school believes that worldly dharmas arise from inverted thoughts, which produce karma, which produces consequences, so they are unreal; supramundane dharmas do not arise from inverted thoughts, so they are real. Third, the Gokulika (Gokulika) school. The first two schools are named after the doctrines they hold, while this school is named after the place where they reside (this mountain has stones that can be used to make ash, and this school resides in that mountain to practice, so it is named after it). They believe that the Abhidhamma (Abhidhamma) is the true teaching, and that the Sutra (Sutra) and Vinaya (Vinaya) are expedient teachings. Therefore, they quote a verse from the sutra: 'Suitably cover the body, suitably take food, suitably dwell, quickly cut off afflictions.' 'Suitably cover the body' refers to:

。有三衣佛亦許。無三衣佛亦許。隨宜飲食者。時食佛亦許。非時食亦許。隨宜住處者。結界住亦許。不結界亦許。疾斷煩惱者。佛意但令疾斷煩惱。此部甚精進過餘人也。至二百年中。從大眾部內又出一部。名多聞部。大眾部唯弘淺義棄于深義。佛在世時有仙人。值佛得羅漢。恒隨佛往他方及天上聽法。佛涅槃時其人不見。在雪山坐禪。至佛滅度后二百年中。從雪山出覓諸同行。見大眾部唯弘淺義不知深法。其人具足誦淺深義。深義中有大乘義。成實論即從此部出。時人有信其所說者。故別成一部。名多聞部。於二百年中。從大眾部更出一部。名多聞分別部。佛在世時。大迦旃延造論解佛阿含經。至二百年。大迦旃延從阿耨達池出。更分別前多聞部中義。時人有信其所說者。故云多聞分別部。於二百年滿有一外道。名大天。爾時摩伽陀國有優婆塞。大弘佛法。諸外道為利養故。皆剃頭出家。便有賊住比丘。大天為賊住主。大天身自出家。所度弟子依大天眾出家受戒。爾時眾人共諍斯事。上座部云。和上無戒及破戒。阇梨有戒。大眾亦有戒。受戒則得。戒從大眾得。大眾知和上無戒。而與共受戒者。大眾得突吉羅罪。問戒既不從和上得。何故稱和上名。答欲令受戒后和上攝錄教誨弟子耳。薩婆多用此解。餘部言。和上

無戒及破戒。大眾有戒則不得戒。戒從和上得故。因此諍論遂不容大天。徒眾因爾別住山間。於此山間執義又異。故有支提山部及北山部。佛得道及轉法輪處。大眾處名支提。此處有山。名支提山。于彼山北別有山。名北山部也。大眾部合別數。或五或七或八。言五部者。初一說部。二出世說部。三灰山住部。此初破成三也。次多聞部。次多聞分別部。故成五部。言七部者。因外道分成二部。謂支提山部及北山部。前五因內執起。后二因外道起。故成七部。言八部者。則數根本大眾部也。次上座弟子部者。佛滅度后。迦葉以三藏付三師。以修多羅付阿難。以毗曇付富樓那。以律付優婆離。阿難去世。以修多羅付末田地。末田地付舍那婆斯。舍那婆斯付。優婆掘多。優婆掘多付富樓那富樓那付寐者柯。寐者柯付迦旃延尼子。從迦葉至寐者柯二百年已來無異部。至三百年初。迦旃延尼子去世。便分成兩部。一上座弟子部。二薩婆多部。所以分成二部者。上座弟子但弘經。以經為正。律開遮不定。毗曇但釋經。或過本或減本。故不正弘之。亦不棄捨二藏也。而薩婆多謂毗曇最勝。故偏弘之。從迦葉至掘多。正弘經。從富樓那稍棄本弘末。故正弘毗曇。至迦旃延大興毗曇。上座弟子部見其棄本弘末。四過宣令遣其改宗。遂守宗

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無戒和破戒的問題：如果大眾已經受戒，那麼其他人就不能再受戒，因為戒律是從和尚（和上，Upādhyāya）那裡得到的。因為這個原因，爭論不斷，大天（Mahādeva）無法容忍。他的追隨者因此分住在山間。在這些山間，他們的觀點也各不相同，因此形成了支提山部（Cetiyavāda）和北山部（Uttarasaila）。佛陀得道和轉法輪的地方，大眾居住的地方被稱為支提（Cetiya）。這裡有一座山，叫做支提山。在那座山的北面，還有另一座山，因此有了北山部。大眾部的分裂方式有五種、七種或八種。所謂的五部是：第一，說部（Ekavyāvahārika）；第二，出世說部（Lokottaravāda）；第三，灰山住部（Gokulika）。這最初的分裂形成了三個部分。然後是多聞部（Bahusruti），以及多聞分別部（Bahusruti-vibhājavāda），因此形成了五部。所謂的七部是：因為外道而分成了兩部，即支提山部和北山部。前面的五部是因為內部的執著而產生，後面的兩部是因為外道而產生，因此形成了七部。所謂的八部，則包括根本大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）。接下來是上座弟子部（Sthavira）：佛陀涅槃后，迦葉（Kāśyapa）將三藏（Tripiṭaka）交付給三位老師，將修多羅（Sūtra）交付給阿難（Ānanda），將毗曇（Abhidhamma）交付給富樓那（Pūrṇa），將律（Vinaya）交付給優婆離（Upāli）。阿難去世后，將修多羅交付給末田地（Madhyāntika），末田地交付給舍那婆斯（Śāṇavāsa），舍那婆斯交付給優婆掘多（Upagupta），優婆掘多交付給富樓那，富樓那交付給寐者柯（Majjhantika）。從迦葉到寐者柯的兩百年來，沒有出現分裂。到了三百年初，迦旃延尼子（Kātyāyanīputra）去世，於是分成了兩部：一是上座弟子部，二是薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）。之所以分成兩部，是因為上座弟子部只弘揚經藏（Sūtra Piṭaka），以經藏為正宗。對於律藏（Vinaya Piṭaka），開許和遮止是不確定的。對於毗曇藏（Abhidhamma Piṭaka），只是解釋經藏，或者超過原本，或者減少原本，因此不作為正宗來弘揚，但也不拋棄這兩個藏。而薩婆多部認為毗曇藏最為殊勝，因此偏重弘揚毗曇藏。從迦葉到掘多，都是正宗弘揚經藏。從富樓那開始，逐漸拋棄原本而弘揚末流，因此正宗弘揚毗曇藏。到了迦旃延，則大力弘揚毗曇藏。上座弟子部看到他們拋棄原本而弘揚末流，四處宣告，命令他們改變宗派，於是各自堅守自己的宗派。

【English Translation】 English version The issue of non-observance and violation of precepts: If the Sangha (大眾, Dàzhòng) has already received the precepts, then others cannot receive them because the precepts are obtained from the Upādhyāya (和上). Because of this, disputes arose, and Mahādeva (大天) could not tolerate it. His followers therefore lived separately in the mountains. In these mountains, their views also differed, thus forming the Cetiyavāda (支提山部) and the Uttarasaila (北山部). The places where the Buddha attained enlightenment and turned the wheel of Dharma, where the Sangha resided, were called Cetiya (支提). There is a mountain here called Cetiyagiri (支提山). To the north of that mountain, there is another mountain, hence the Uttarasaila. The divisions of the Mahāsāṃghika (大眾部) are in five, seven, or eight ways. The so-called five schools are: first, the Ekavyāvahārika (說部); second, the Lokottaravāda (出世說部); third, the Gokulika (灰山住部). This initial division formed three parts. Then there are the Bahusruti (多聞部), and the Bahusruti-vibhājavāda (多聞分別部), thus forming five schools. The so-called seven schools are: because of external paths, they were divided into two schools, namely the Cetiyavāda and the Uttarasaila. The previous five schools arose because of internal attachments, and the latter two schools arose because of external paths, thus forming seven schools. The so-called eight schools include the original Mahāsāṃghika. Next is the Sthavira (上座弟子部): After the Buddha's Parinirvana (滅度), Kāśyapa (迦葉) entrusted the Tripiṭaka (三藏) to three teachers, the Sūtra (修多羅) to Ānanda (阿難), the Abhidhamma (毗曇) to Pūrṇa (富樓那), and the Vinaya (律) to Upāli (優婆離). After Ānanda passed away, he entrusted the Sūtra to Madhyāntika (末田地), Madhyāntika to Śāṇavāsa (舍那婆斯), Śāṇavāsa to Upagupta (優婆掘多), Upagupta to Pūrṇa, and Pūrṇa to Majjhantika (寐者柯). From Kāśyapa to Majjhantika, there were no divisions for two hundred years. At the beginning of the three hundredth year, Kātyāyanīputra (迦旃延尼子) passed away, and they were divided into two schools: one is the Sthavira, and the other is the Sarvāstivāda (薩婆多部). The reason for the division into two schools is that the Sthavira only propagated the Sūtra Piṭaka (經藏), taking the Sūtra Piṭaka as the orthodox teaching. For the Vinaya Piṭaka (律藏), the permissions and prohibitions were uncertain. For the Abhidhamma Piṭaka (毗曇藏), they only explained the Sūtra Piṭaka, either exceeding the original or reducing the original, so they did not propagate it as the orthodox teaching, but they did not abandon these two Piṭakas either. However, the Sarvāstivāda considered the Abhidhamma Piṭaka to be the most superior, so they emphasized propagating the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. From Kāśyapa to Gupta, they orthodoxly propagated the Sūtra Piṭaka. Starting from Pūrṇa, they gradually abandoned the original and propagated the derivative, so they orthodoxly propagated the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. By the time of Kātyāyana, they greatly promoted the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. The Sthavira saw that they abandoned the original and propagated the derivative, and proclaimed everywhere, ordering them to change their sect, so they each adhered to their own sect.

不改。而上座弟子部移往雪山避之。因名雪山住部。三百年從薩婆多出一部。名可住子弟子部。即是舊犢子部也。言可住子弟子部者。有仙人名可住。有女人。是此仙人種。故名可住子。有阿羅漢。是可住女人之子。故名可住子。此部是此羅漢之弟子。故名可住子弟子也。舍利弗是羅睺羅和上。羅睺羅是可住子和上。此部復是可住子之弟子。舍利弗釋佛九分毗曇名法相毗曇。羅睺羅弘舍利弗毗曇。可住子弘羅睺羅所說。此部復弘可住子所說也。次三百年中從可住子部復出四部。以嫌舍利弗毗曇不足。更各各造論取經中義足之。所執異故。故成四部。一法尚部。即舊曇無德部也。二賢乘部。三正量弟子部。有大正量羅漢。其是弟子。故名正量弟子部。此三從人作名。四名密林部。從住處作名也。三百年從薩婆多部復出一部。名正地部。有婆羅門。是國師名。正地部善解四韋陀。出家得羅漢。取四韋陀好語莊嚴佛經。執義又異。時人有信其所說。故別為一部。三百年中從正地部又出一部。名法護部。其本是目連弟子。得羅漢恒隨目連往色界中。有所說法皆能誦持。自撰為五藏。三藏如常。四咒藏。五菩薩藏。有信其所說者。故別成一部也。三百年中從薩婆多部又出一部。名善歲部。迦留陀夷是其父。及多比丘尼是母。七歲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不改。而上座弟子部移往雪山避之，因此得名雪山住部。三百年後，從薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）分出一部，名為可住子弟子部，也就是舊犢子部。之所以稱為可住子弟子部，是因為有位仙人名叫可住，他與一位女子結合，繁衍後代，因此稱為可住子。有一位阿羅漢是這位可住女子的兒子，所以也稱為可住子。這個部派是這位阿羅漢的弟子，因此稱為可住子弟子部。舍利弗（Sariputra）是羅睺羅（Rahula）的老師，羅睺羅是可住子的老師。這個部派又是可住子的弟子。舍利弗將佛陀所說的九分毗曇（Pitaka，經藏）命名為法相毗曇。羅睺羅弘揚舍利弗的毗曇，可住子弘揚羅睺羅所說的法，這個部派又弘揚可住子所說的法。又過了三百年，從可住子部又分出四部。因為他們認為舍利弗的毗曇不夠完善，所以各自造論，從經文中選取義理來補充，由於所持的見解不同，因此形成了四個部派。一是法尚部，也就是舊曇無德部。二是賢乘部。三是正量弟子部，因為有一位大正量阿羅漢是他們的弟子，所以稱為正量弟子部。這三個部派都是以人名來命名的。四是密林部，這是以住處來命名的。三百年後，從薩婆多部又分出一部，名為正地部。有一位婆羅門，是國王的老師，名為正地。正地部精通四韋陀，出家后證得阿羅漢果，他用四韋陀的優美語言來莊嚴佛經，但所持的義理又有所不同，當時有人相信他所說的，因此獨立成為一個部派。三百年中，從正地部又分出一部，名為法護部。他們的根本是目連（Maudgalyayana）的弟子，證得阿羅漢果后，經常跟隨目連前往**中，凡是目連所說的法，他們都能背誦並記住，自己撰寫了五藏，包括三藏（經藏、律藏、論藏），以及四咒藏和五菩薩藏。有人相信他們所說的，因此獨立成為一個部派。三百年中，從薩婆多部又分出一部，名為善歲部。迦留陀夷（Kaludayi）是他們的父親，許多比丘尼是他們的母親，七歲

【English Translation】 English version It did not change. The Sthavira (Elder) disciples moved to the Himalayas to avoid it, hence the name Haimavata (Snow Mountain Dwelling) school. Three hundred years later, a school emerged from the Sarvastivada (All Exist) school, named Vatsiputriya (Followers of the Calf Son) disciples, which is the old Vatsiputriya school. The reason for the name Vatsiputriya disciples is that there was an immortal named Vatsa (Calf), and a woman. They were the descendants of this immortal, hence the name Vatsiputra (Calf Son). There was an Arhat who was the son of this Vatsa woman, hence the name Vatsiputra. This school is the disciples of this Arhat, hence the name Vatsiputriya disciples. Sariputra (Sariputta) was the preceptor of Rahula (Rahula), and Rahula was the preceptor of Vatsiputra. This school is also the disciples of Vatsiputra. Sariputra named the Buddha's ninefold Pitaka (Basket) as Dharma-lakshana Pitaka (Discourse on the Characteristics of Dharma). Rahula propagated Sariputra's Pitaka, and Vatsiputra propagated what Rahula said. This school also propagated what Vatsiputra said. Three hundred years later, four schools emerged from the Vatsiputriya school. Because they felt that Sariputra's Pitaka was insufficient, they each created treatises, taking meanings from the sutras to supplement it. Because their views differed, they formed four schools. One is the Dharmottariya (Adherents to Higher Dharma) school, which is the old Dharmaguptaka (Dharma Protectors) school. Two is the Bhadrayanika (Auspicious Vehicle) school. Three is the Sammitiya (Right Measure) disciples school. There was a great Sammitiya Arhat who was their disciple, hence the name Sammitiya disciples school. These three are named after people. Four is the Kurukullaka (Dense Forest) school, named after the place of residence. Three hundred years later, a school emerged from the Sarvastivada school, named the Bhadra-sthitiya (Good Abiding Place) school. There was a Brahmin who was the king's teacher, named Bhadra-sthitiya. The Bhadra-sthitiya school was well-versed in the four Vedas. After becoming a monk, he attained Arhatship. He used the beautiful language of the four Vedas to adorn the Buddha's teachings, but his interpretation of the meaning was different. Some people at that time believed what he said, so they formed a separate school. Three hundred years later, a school emerged from the Bhadra-sthitiya school, named the Dharmarakshita (Dharma Protector) school. Their root was the disciples of Maudgalyayana (Moggallana). After attaining Arhatship, they constantly followed Maudgalyayana to the **. Whatever Dharma Maudgalyayana spoke, they could recite and remember. They compiled five Pitakas: the three Pitakas (Sutra Pitaka, Vinaya Pitaka, Abhidhamma Pitaka) as usual, the fourth Mantra Pitaka, and the fifth Bodhisattva Pitaka. Some people believed what they said, so they formed a separate school. Three hundred years later, a school emerged from the Sarvastivada school, named the Samkrantika (Transitioning) school. Kaludayi (Kaludayi) was their father, and many Bhikkhunis were their mothers, at the age of seven

得羅漢。值佛聞法皆能誦持。撰集佛語次第相對。破外道為一類。對治眾生煩惱復為一類。時人有信其所說者。故別為一部也。三百年中從薩婆多部又出一部。名說度部。謂五陰從此世度至後世。得治道乃滅。亦名說經部。謂唯經藏為正。餘二皆成經耳。從上座部都合有十一部。大眾部有七部。合成十八部。足根本二部為二十部。而羅婆多傳有異世五師。有同世五師。異世五師者。一迦葉。二阿難。三末田地。四舍那婆斯。五優婆掘多。此五人持佛法藏各得二十餘年更相付屬。名異世也。同世五師者。于優婆掘多世即分成五部。一時並起。名同世五師。一曇無德。二摩訶僧祇。三彌沙塞。四迦葉維。五犢子部。又大集經亦明五部。而文殊師利經部執論及羅什分別部論。此三皆明二十部。所以有五部復有二十部不同者。取其始終異執故有二十。取其當世盛行故但說五部。而言五部一時起者。則與上二十部義相違。或可見聞各異故也。所言五百部者。智度論釋般若信毀品云。佛滅度后五百歲后。有五百部。不知佛意為解脫故。執諸法有決定相。聞畢竟空如刀傷心。龍樹提婆為諸部異執失佛教意故。造論破迷也。問論主為並破諸部。亦有不破耶。答凡有四句。一破而不取。若是諸部所說乖大小乘經自立義者。則破而不取。故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本證得阿羅漢果位的人，值遇佛陀並聽聞佛法，都能背誦和受持。他們整理佛陀的言語，按照次第相對排列。破斥外道的觀點作為一類，對治眾生的煩惱又作為一類。當時有人相信他們所說的，所以單獨成為一個部派。在佛滅后三百年中，從薩婆多部（一切有部，認為一切法皆實有）又分出一個部派，名叫說度部（又稱經量部，認為只有經是佛語）。他們認為五陰（色、受、想、行、識）從此世過渡到後世，得到修行之道才能滅盡。也叫說經部，認為只有經藏是正確的，其餘二藏（律藏、論藏）都是經的附屬。從上座部總共有十一個部派，大眾部有七個部派，合起來是十八個部派，加上根本的兩個部派，就是二十個部派。而羅婆多（Rahula，羅睺羅）的傳承中有異世五師，也有同世五師。異世五師是：一、迦葉（Kasyapa，飲光），二、阿難（Ananda，慶喜），三、末田地（Madhyantika，中），四、舍那婆斯（Sanavasa，商那和修），五、優婆掘多（Upagupta，近護）。這五人各自持有佛法寶藏二十多年，互相傳授，稱為異世。同世五師是指在優婆掘多時代，就分成了五個部派，同時興起，稱為同世五師。一、曇無德（Dharmaguptaka，法護），二、摩訶僧祇（Mahasanghika，大眾部），三、彌沙塞（Mahisasaka，化地部），四、迦葉維（Kasyapiya，飲光部），五、犢子部（Vatsiputriya）。另外，《大集經》也闡明了五部，而《文殊師利經部執論》以及鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）的《分別部論》，這三部都闡明了二十部。之所以有五部又有二十部不同的說法，是因為取其始終不同的執著，所以有二十部；取其當時盛行的情況，所以只說五部。如果說五部同時興起，就與上面二十部的說法相違背。或許是因為所見所聞各不相同的原因。《智度論》解釋《般若信毀品》時說：『佛滅度后五百歲后，有五百部，不知道佛的本意是爲了解脫，執著諸法有決定的相狀，聽到畢竟空就像刀割傷心一樣。』龍樹（Nagarjuna）和提婆（Aryadeva）爲了各個部派不同的執著而失去佛教的本意，所以造論來破除迷惑。問：論主是全部破斥各個部派，還是也有不破斥的呢？答：總共有四種情況。一是破斥而不採納。如果各個部派所說的違背了大乘和小乘的經典，自己創立義理，那麼就破斥而不採納。

【English Translation】 English version Those who attained the Arhat fruit, encountering the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, were all able to recite and uphold it. They compiled the Buddha's words, arranging them in sequential order. Refuting the views of external paths was categorized as one type, and addressing the afflictions of sentient beings was categorized as another. At that time, some people believed in what they said, so they became a separate school. Three hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, another school emerged from the Sarvastivada (the 'All Exists' school, which believes that all dharmas are real), called the Sautrantika (the 'Sutra School,' which believes that only the Sutras are the Buddha's words). They believed that the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) pass from this life to the next, and can only be extinguished upon attaining the path of cultivation. It is also called the Sutra School, believing that only the Sutra Pitaka is correct, and the other two Pitakas (Vinaya Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka) are subordinate to the Sutras. From the Sthavira school, there were a total of eleven schools, and the Mahasanghika school had seven schools, totaling eighteen schools. Adding the two original schools, there are twenty schools. Rahula's transmission includes five teachers of different generations and five teachers of the same generation. The five teachers of different generations are: 1. Kasyapa (Drinking Light), 2. Ananda (Joy), 3. Madhyantika (Middle), 4. Sanavasa (Linen-Clad), 5. Upagupta (Near Protection). These five people each held the treasure of the Buddha's Dharma for more than twenty years, passing it on to each other, which is called different generations. The five teachers of the same generation refer to the fact that in the era of Upagupta, they were divided into five schools, arising simultaneously, which are called the five teachers of the same generation. 1. Dharmaguptaka (Protected by Dharma), 2. Mahasanghika (Great Assembly School), 3. Mahisasaka (Earth Rule School), 4. Kasyapiya (Kasyapa School), 5. Vatsiputriya (Offspring of a Calf). In addition, the Mahasamnipata Sutra also clarifies the five schools, while the Manjushri Sutra School's Treatise and Kumarajiva's Treatise on Distinguishing Schools all clarify the twenty schools. The reason why there are five schools and twenty schools is that the different attachments from beginning to end are taken into account, so there are twenty schools; the prevailing situation at that time is taken into account, so only five schools are mentioned. If it is said that the five schools arose simultaneously, it contradicts the above statement of twenty schools. Perhaps it is because what is seen and heard is different. The Prajna-paramita-sastra explains in the chapter on 'Belief and Disbelief in Prajna' that 'Five hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, there will be five hundred schools, not knowing that the Buddha's intention is for liberation, clinging to the definite characteristics of all dharmas, and hearing about ultimate emptiness is like a knife cutting the heart.' Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, because the different attachments of the various schools lost the original intention of Buddhism, created treatises to dispel confusion. Question: Does the author of the treatise completely refute all the schools, or are there some that are not refuted? Answer: There are a total of four situations. First, refuting without adopting. If what the various schools say violates the sutras of the Mahayana and Hinayana, and they establish their own doctrines, then they are refuted without being adopted.

智度論呵迦旃延弟子云。三藏無此說。摩訶衍中亦無此說。蓋是諸論義師自作是說。即是其事。二取而不破。如文殊問經云。十八及本二皆從大乘出。無是亦無非。我說未來起。三亦破亦取。破諸部能迷執情。收取諸部所迷之教。四不破不取。就正道門。未曾有破。亦無所取也。

次明諸部通別義。論有二種。一者通論。二者別論。若通破大小二迷。通申大小兩教。名為通論。即中論是也。故前二十五品破大迷申大教。后兩品破小迷申小教。二者別論。別破大小迷。別申大小教。名為別論。如攝大乘論地持論等。謂大乘通論。十地論智度論等。大乘別論。如成實論等。通申三藏。謂小乘通論。馬鳴菩薩師名脅比丘。造四阿含優婆提舍。別釋修多羅藏。善見毗婆沙別釋毗尼藏。智度論云。八十部律八十部毗婆沙釋之。善見律別釋師子國要。用十誦律。舍利弗別釋佛九分毗曇。如此別釋三藏故。是小乘別論。就三藏中復有通別。若具釋一藏名為通論。別釋一藏中一部名為別論也。問中論既通釋大小。應名大小通論。不得名為大乘論也。答雖釋大小。但為顯大故是大乘論。所以然者。以初分明大乘。中分明小乘。後分還明大乘故。以是義故名大乘論耳。問十二門論是何論耶。答是大乘通論。以始終破于大迷。通申大教

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：《智度論》呵斥迦旃延（Kātyāyana，佛陀十大弟子之一，以論議著稱）的弟子說：『三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經典的總稱，包括經、律、論三部分）中沒有這種說法，摩訶衍（Mahāyāna，大乘佛教）中也沒有這種說法。』這大概是各論義師自己作出的說法。這就是其中的一種情況：二取而不破，就像《文殊問經》所說：『十八界（十八界，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根，色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵，以及眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識六識）及本識（根本識）二者都從大乘而出，無所謂是，也無所謂非。我說未來會興起。』第三種情況是亦破亦取，破除各部派可能產生的迷惑和執著，收取各部派所迷惑的教義。第四種情況是不破不取，就正道之門而言，未曾有過破除，也沒有什麼需要取捨的。

接下來闡明各部派的共通和差別之義。論有兩種：一種是通論，一種是別論。如果普遍破除大小乘的兩種迷惑，普遍闡述大小乘的兩種教義，就稱為通論，即《中論》是。所以，《中論》前二十五品破除大乘的迷惑，闡述大乘的教義；后兩品破除小乘的迷惑，闡述小乘的教義。第二種是別論，分別破除大小乘的迷惑，分別闡述大小乘的教義，就稱為別論，如《攝大乘論》、《地持論》等。所謂大乘通論，如《十地論》、《智度論》等，是大乘別論。如《成實論》等，普遍闡述三藏，是小乘通論。馬鳴（Aśvaghoṣa，佛教思想家、作家）菩薩的老師名叫脅比丘，他造了《四阿含優婆提舍》，分別解釋修多羅藏（Sūtrapiṭaka，經藏）。《善見毗婆沙》分別解釋毗尼藏（Vinayapiṭaka，律藏）。《智度論》說，八十部律有八十部毗婆沙解釋它們。《善見律》分別解釋師子國（斯里蘭卡）的要義，採用《十誦律》。舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）分別解釋佛陀的九分毗曇（Abhidharma，論藏）。像這樣分別解釋三藏，所以是小乘別論。在三藏中又有共通和差別。如果全面解釋一藏，就稱為通論；分別解釋一藏中的一部，就稱為別論。問：《中論》既然普遍解釋大小乘，應該稱為大小乘通論，不能稱為大乘論啊？答：雖然解釋大小乘，但爲了彰顯大乘，所以是大乘論。之所以這樣，是因為開始的部分闡明大乘，中間的部分闡明小乘，後面的部分又闡明大乘。因為這個緣故，所以稱為大乘論。問：《十二門論》是什麼論呢？答：是大乘通論，因為它從始至終破除大乘的迷惑，普遍闡述大乘的教義。

【English Translation】 English version: The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra scolds Kātyāyana's (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his skill in argumentation) disciples, saying, 'This is not mentioned in the Tripitaka (the three baskets, the Buddhist canon consisting of Sutra, Vinaya, and Abhidharma), nor is it mentioned in the Mahāyāna (the Great Vehicle).' This is probably a statement made by the śāstra masters themselves. This is one such case: the second is to accept without refuting, as the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchāsūtra says, 'The eighteen dhātus (elements, referring to the six sense organs, six sense objects, and six sense consciousnesses) and the fundamental consciousness both come from the Mahāyāna; there is no right or wrong. I say that it will arise in the future.' The third case is to both refute and accept, refuting the delusions and attachments that various schools may produce, and collecting the doctrines that various schools are deluded about. The fourth case is to neither refute nor accept, as far as the gate of the right path is concerned, there has never been any refutation, nor is there anything to be accepted or rejected.

Next, the common and distinct meanings of the various schools are explained. There are two types of treatises: one is a general treatise, and the other is a specific treatise. If it universally refutes the two delusions of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and universally expounds the two teachings of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, it is called a general treatise, which is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Therefore, the first twenty-five chapters of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā refute the delusions of the Mahāyāna and expound the teachings of the Mahāyāna; the last two chapters refute the delusions of the Hīnayāna and expound the teachings of the Hīnayāna. The second is a specific treatise, which specifically refutes the delusions of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and specifically expounds the teachings of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and is called a specific treatise, such as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, etc. The so-called general treatise of the Mahāyāna, such as the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, etc., are specific treatises of the Mahāyāna. Such as the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, etc., universally expounding the Tripitaka, is a general treatise of the Hīnayāna. Aśvaghoṣa (Buddhist philosopher and writer)'s teacher was named Bhikṣu Pārśva, who created the Four Agamas Upadeśa, separately explaining the Sūtrapiṭaka (the basket of discourses). The Samantapāsādikā separately explains the Vinayapiṭaka (the basket of discipline). The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says that eighty Vinaya texts have eighty Vibhāṣā explaining them. The Samantapāsādikā separately explains the essentials of the Lion Country (Sri Lanka), using the Daśādhyāya-vinaya. Śāriputra (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his wisdom) separately explains the Buddha's ninefold Abhidharma (the basket of higher knowledge). Because it separately explains the Tripitaka in this way, it is a specific treatise of the Hīnayāna. Within the Tripitaka, there are also common and distinct aspects. If one fully explains one basket, it is called a general treatise; if one separately explains one part of one basket, it is called a specific treatise. Question: Since the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā universally explains both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, should it be called a general treatise of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and not a treatise of the Mahāyāna? Answer: Although it explains both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, it is a treatise of the Mahāyāna because it highlights the Mahāyāna. The reason for this is that the beginning part explains the Mahāyāna, the middle part explains the Hīnayāna, and the later part explains the Mahāyāna again. For this reason, it is called a treatise of the Mahāyāna. Question: What kind of treatise is the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra? Answer: It is a general treatise of the Mahāyāna, because it refutes the delusions of the Mahāyāna from beginning to end, and universally expounds the teachings of the Mahāyāna.

。無破小迷別申于小教故。是大乘通論也。問百論復云何。答百論通破障大小之邪。通申如來大小兩正。故是大小通論。但始終為明大乘故。屬大乘通論耳。

次明眾論立名不同門。眾論立名凡有三種。一從法為名。如成實論等。實謂四諦之理。成謂能成之文。故云為成是法故造斯論。謂從法立名也。二從人立名。如舍利弗阿毗曇等。智度論云。犢子道人受持此毗曇。亦名犢子毗曇也。三從喻立名。如甘露味毗曇等。亦如訶梨跋摩師鳩摩羅陀造日出論等也。四論立名。並是從法。非人非喻。就中自開四種。大智度論從所釋之經立名。大謂摩訶。智謂般若。度謂波羅蜜。論釋經題。故從所釋為名。中論從理實立名。十二門從言教為目。百論從偈句為稱也。若通而為言。四論通顯中道理實。並得就理立名。四論同有言教開通理實。並得以教為稱。同有偈句。通得從偈立名。今欲互相開避。故有四部差別。所以立名不同也。

次明眾論旨歸門。通論大小乘經。同明一道。故以無得正觀為宗。但小乘教者正觀猶遠。故就四諦教為宗。大乘正明正觀。故諸大乘經同以不二正觀為宗。但約方便用異故有諸部差別。如明應說不應說。今昔開會名為法華。破斥八倒辨常無常用名為涅槃。至論不二正道更無別異。在經既爾。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為（小乘）是爲了破除對小的迷惑，而不是爲了闡述小乘的教義，所以這是大乘的通論。問：那《百論》又是如何呢？答：《百論》普遍地破斥了障礙大乘和小乘的邪見，普遍地闡述瞭如來關於大乘和小乘的兩種正見，所以是大小乘的通論。但《百論》始終是爲了闡明大乘，所以歸屬於大乘的通論。

下面闡明各種論著在命名上的不同。各種論著的命名大致有三種：一是根據法來命名，例如《成實論》等。『實』是指四諦（苦、集、滅、道）的道理，『成』是指能夠闡明這些道理的文字。所以說，爲了成就這些法，才造了這部論，這是根據法來命名。二是根據人來命名，例如《舍利弗阿毗曇》等。《智度論》說，犢子道人受持這部阿毗曇，所以也叫《犢子阿毗曇》。三是根據比喻來命名，例如《甘露味阿毗曇》等。也像訶梨跋摩（Harivarman）和鳩摩羅陀（Kumaralabdha）所造的《日出論》等。這四部論的命名，都是根據法，而不是根據人或比喻。其中又可以分為四種：《大智度論》是根據所解釋的經典來命名。『大』是指摩訶（Mahā，偉大的），『智』是指般若（Prajñā，智慧），『度』是指波羅蜜（Pāramitā，到達彼岸）。這部論解釋了經的題目，所以是根據所解釋的內容來命名。《中論》是根據理實來命名。《十二門論》是用言教作為標題，《百論》是用偈句作為名稱。如果總括來說，這四部論都普遍地闡明了中道的道理和實相，都可以根據理來命名。這四部論都有言教來開顯道理和實相，都可以用教作為名稱。都有偈句，都可以根據偈句來命名。現在想要互相區分，所以有這四部論的差別，這就是它們命名不同的原因。

下面闡明各種論著的宗旨歸宿。通論大乘和小乘的經典，共同闡明唯一的道路，所以以無所得的正觀為宗旨。但小乘的教義中，正觀還很遙遠，所以以四諦的教義為宗旨。大乘則直接闡明正觀，所以各大乘經典都以不二的正觀為宗旨。但由於方便使用的不同，所以有各種不同的經典。例如，闡明應說和不應說，將過去和現在融會貫通，這叫做《法華經》。破斥八倒（八種顛倒的見解），辨明常與無常的道理，這叫做《涅槃經》。至於論述不二的正道，則沒有其他的差異。經典是這樣，論著也是如此。

【English Translation】 English version: Because (the Hinayana) is to break through the delusion of the small, not to expound the teachings of the Hinayana, therefore it is a common treatise on the Mahayana. Question: Then what about the Śataśāstra (Hundred Treatise)? Answer: The Śataśāstra universally refutes the heretical views that obstruct the Mahayana and Hinayana, and universally expounds the two correct views of the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) regarding the Mahayana and Hinayana, so it is a common treatise on both Mahayana and Hinayana. However, the Śataśāstra is always to clarify the Mahayana, so it belongs to the common treatise on the Mahayana.

Next, clarify the differences in naming various treatises. There are roughly three types of naming for various treatises: First, naming according to the Dharma (法, law/teachings), such as the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra (成實論, Treatise on the Accomplishment of Truth). 'Tattva' refers to the truth of the Four Noble Truths (四諦, suffering, origin, cessation, path), and 'siddhi' refers to the words that can explain these truths. Therefore, it is said that this treatise was created to accomplish these Dharmas, which is naming according to the Dharma. Second, naming according to the person, such as the Śāriputra Abhidharma (舍利弗阿毗曇). The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (智度論, Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says that the Vātsīputrīyas (犢子道人) uphold this Abhidharma, so it is also called the Vātsīputrīya Abhidharma. Third, naming according to metaphor, such as the Amṛta-rasa Abhidharma (甘露味毗曇). It is also like the Sunrise Treatise created by Harivarman (訶梨跋摩) and Kumaralabdha (鳩摩羅陀). The naming of these four treatises is all according to the Dharma, not according to person or metaphor. Among them, there can be divided into four types: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa is named according to the sutra it explains. 'Mahā' means Mahā (摩訶, great), 'Prajñā' means Prajñā (般若, wisdom), and 'Pāramitā' means Pāramitā (波羅蜜, perfection). This treatise explains the title of the sutra, so it is named according to what it explains. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論, Root Verses on the Middle Way) is named according to the truth of reality. The Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra (十二門論, Twelve Gate Treatise) uses verbal teachings as the title, and the Śataśāstra uses verses as the name. Generally speaking, these four treatises all universally clarify the truth of the Middle Way and reality, and can all be named according to the truth. These four treatises all have verbal teachings to reveal the truth and reality, and can all use teachings as the name. They all have verses, and can all be named according to the verses. Now, wanting to distinguish them from each other, there are differences in these four treatises, which is the reason for their different naming.

Next, clarify the ultimate purpose of various treatises. Generally speaking, the Mahayana and Hinayana sutras commonly clarify the one and only path, so they take the correct view of non-attainment as their purpose. However, in the teachings of the Hinayana, the correct view is still far away, so they take the teachings of the Four Noble Truths as their purpose. The Mahayana directly clarifies the correct view, so all the Mahayana sutras take the non-dual correct view as their purpose. However, due to the different uses of skillful means, there are various different sutras. For example, clarifying what should be said and what should not be said, integrating the past and the present, this is called the Lotus Sutra (法華經). Refuting the eight inversions (八倒, eight inverted views) and distinguishing the principles of permanence and impermanence, this is called the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經). As for discussing the non-dual correct path, there are no other differences. This is the case with the sutras, and it is also the case with the treatises.

在論亦然。雖諸部有異。同用不二正觀為宗。又經論同宗。佛說正觀為經。論申正觀為論。經論用異正觀無別。故無量義經云。如水洗穢義同。約井池為異。自昔及今。一切諸教。同治斷常之病。同開正道。但約今昔教用異耳。今四論約用不同故辨四宗差別。智度論正釋大品。而龍樹開大品為二道。前明般若道。次明方便道。此之二道即是法身父母。故大品以實慧方便慧為宗。論申經二慧。還以二慧為宗。如中論申二諦。還以二諦為宗也。問大品何故前明般若。后明方便耶。答般若方便實無前後。而作前後說者般若為體。方便為用。故智度論云。譬如金為體。金上精巧為用。故前明其體。后辨其用也。又非凡夫行。非賢聖行。是菩薩行。般若超凡。方便越聖。要前超凡後方越聖。故前明般若后辨方便。又眾生起見凡有二種。一者有見。二者無見。般若破其有見。方便斥其無見。故前明般若后辨方便。若明次第者。三藏多說有教以破外道。而封執三藏之有故。般若次說空。惑者著般若之空故。次說方便令其離空。故智度論序云。知邪病之自起故。阿含為之作。以滯有之為患故。般若為之照。即斯意也。若約位而言。般若配於六地。故前明之。方便在於七地。故后說也。問舊亦明大品二慧為宗。與今何異。答今明。聖心未

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在論著中也是如此。雖然各個部派之間存在差異，但都共同以不二的正觀作為根本宗旨。而且經典和論著的宗旨相同，佛陀宣說的正觀是經典，論著闡述的正觀是論著。經典和論著的運用不同，但正觀本身沒有區別。所以《無量義經》說：『如水洗滌污穢，作用相同，只是井水和池水有所不同。』自古至今，一切教法都共同醫治斷見和常見的病患，共同開顯正道，只是根據時代不同，教法的運用有所差異罷了。現在四論因為運用不同，所以辨別四宗的差別。《智度論》正是解釋《大品般若經》，而龍樹菩薩將《大品般若經》開分為二道：前面闡明般若道，後面闡明方便道。這二道就是法身的父母。所以《大品般若經》以實慧和方便慧為宗旨。《智度論》闡述經典中的二慧，也同樣以二慧為宗旨，如同《中論》闡述二諦，也同樣以二諦為宗旨一樣。問：為什麼《大品般若經》先闡明般若，后闡明方便呢？答：般若和方便實際上沒有先後之分，而作先後的說法，是因為般若為體，方便為用。所以《智度論》說：『譬如黃金是本體，黃金上的精巧工藝是用。』所以先闡明其體，后辨別其用。而且，既不是凡夫的行，也不是賢聖的行，而是菩薩的行。般若超越凡夫，方便超越聖人。要先超越凡夫，然後才能超越聖人。所以先闡明般若，后辨別方便。而且，眾生生起的見解，凡夫有兩種：一種是有見，一種是無見。般若破除有見，方便斥責無見。所以先闡明般若，后辨別方便。如果說明次第的話，三藏經典大多說有教來破除外道，但有人固執三藏之有，所以般若接著說空。迷惑的人執著般若之空，所以接著說方便，讓他們離開空。所以《智度論序》說：『知道邪病的產生原因，所以阿含經為此而作。因為執著于有是禍患，所以般若經為此而照。』就是這個意思。如果從菩薩的階位而言，般若配於六地，所以先闡明它。方便在於七地，所以後說它。問：舊的說法也闡明《大品般若經》以二慧為宗旨，與現在的說法有什麼不同？答：現在闡明，聖人的心還未……

【English Translation】 English version: The same applies to treatises. Although there are differences among the various schools, they all commonly use the non-dual correct contemplation (正觀, zhèng guān) as their fundamental principle. Moreover, the principles of the sutras and treatises are the same. The correct contemplation spoken by the Buddha is the sutra, and the treatise explains the correct contemplation. The application of the sutras and treatises is different, but the correct contemplation itself is not different. Therefore, the Infinite Meaning Sutra (無量義經, Wúliángyì Jīng) says: 'Like water washing away filth, the function is the same, only the well water and pond water are different.' From ancient times to the present, all teachings commonly cure the illnesses of eternalism (常見, chángjiàn) and nihilism (斷見, duànjiàn), and commonly reveal the correct path, only the application of the teachings differs according to the times. Now, the Four Treatises differentiate the differences of the Four Schools because of their different applications. The Great Wisdom Treatise (智度論, Zhìdù Lùn) precisely explains the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (大品般若經, Dàpǐn Bōrě Jīng), and Nāgārjuna (龍樹, Lóngshù) divides the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra into two paths: the first explains the Prajna (般若, bōrě) path, and the second explains the Upaya (方便, fāngbiàn) path. These two paths are the parents of the Dharmakaya (法身, fǎshēn). Therefore, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra takes actual wisdom (實慧, shí huì) and expedient wisdom (方便慧, fāngbiàn huì) as its principle. The Treatise explains the two wisdoms in the sutra, and also takes the two wisdoms as its principle, just as the Middle Treatise (中論, Zhōnglùn) explains the two truths (二諦, èr dì), and also takes the two truths as its principle. Question: Why does the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra first explain Prajna and then explain Upaya? Answer: Prajna and Upaya actually have no order, but the reason for speaking of them in order is that Prajna is the substance (體, tǐ) and Upaya is the function (用, yòng). Therefore, the Great Wisdom Treatise says: 'It is like gold being the substance, and the exquisite craftsmanship on the gold being the function.' Therefore, first explain the substance, and then distinguish the function. Moreover, it is neither the practice of ordinary people nor the practice of sages, but the practice of Bodhisattvas. Prajna transcends ordinary people, and Upaya transcends sages. One must first transcend ordinary people and then transcend sages. Therefore, first explain Prajna and then distinguish Upaya. Moreover, the views that sentient beings arise have two kinds: one is the view of existence (有見, yǒu jiàn), and the other is the view of non-existence (無見, wú jiàn). Prajna breaks the view of existence, and Upaya refutes the view of non-existence. Therefore, first explain Prajna and then distinguish Upaya. If explaining the order, the Tripiṭaka (三藏, sānzàng) mostly speaks of the teaching of existence to break the heretics, but some people cling to the existence of the Tripiṭaka, so Prajna then speaks of emptiness (空, kōng). Those who are confused cling to the emptiness of Prajna, so then speak of Upaya to make them leave emptiness. Therefore, the preface of the Great Wisdom Treatise says: 'Knowing the cause of the arising of evil diseases, the Agama Sutras (阿含經, Āhán Jīng) are made for this. Because clinging to existence is a disaster, the Prajna Sutras illuminate this.' This is the meaning. If speaking of the stages of Bodhisattvas, Prajna is matched with the sixth ground (六地, liù dì), so first explain it. Upaya is in the seventh ground (七地, qī dì), so speak of it later. Question: The old saying also explains that the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra takes the two wisdoms as its principle, what is the difference from the current saying? Answer: Now it is explained that the mind of the sage has not yet...

曾二。為眾生故無二說二。欲令因二悟于不二。故與舊不同。又雖明二慧。與舊亦異。舊義實慧但照空不達有。漚和但照有不達空。蓋是限局聖心便成二見。今明。至人體無礙之道故有無礙之用。般若既照空即能鑒有。方便既涉有即能鑒空。具如二智中說。次明中論以二諦為宗。所以用二諦為宗者。二諦是佛法根本。如來自行化他皆由二諦。自行由二諦者。如瓔珞經佛母品。明二諦能生佛故。二諦是佛母。蓋取二智為佛。二諦能生二智。故以二諦為母。即是如來自德圓滿由於二諦。化他德由二諦者。如來有所說法教化眾生常依二諦。故中論云。諸佛依二諦為眾生。說法也。問何以知自他兩德並由二諦耶。答十二門論云。以識二諦故。即得自利他利及以共利。即其事也。以二諦是自行化他之本故。申明二諦以為論宗。即令一切眾生具得自他二利也。問何人迷二諦。論主破迷申二諦耶。答有三種人迷於二諦。一者小乘五百部。各執諸法有決定性。聞畢竟空如刀傷心。此人失第一義諦。然既失第一義諦亦失世諦。所以然者。空宛然而有。故有名空有。方是世諦。彼既失空。亦是迷有。故失世諦。故五百部執出如來二諦之外。二者方廣道人。謂一切諸法如龜毛兔角。無罪福報應。此人失於世諦。然有宛然而空。故空名有空。既

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本曾二（僧人名）。爲了眾生的緣故，（現在所說的）『二』，不同於以往所說的『二』。想要讓人們通過『二』來領悟『不二』的道理，所以（現在所說的『二』）與舊有的說法不同。而且，雖然闡明了兩種智慧，也與舊有的理解不同。舊有的理解認為，實慧（bhūtatathatā-jñāna）只是照見空性，不能通達有；漚和（upāya-kauśalya）只是照見有，不能通達空。這實際上是侷限了聖人的心，反而形成了二見。現在所闡明的是，證悟到真理的人，其身體和智慧是無礙的，所以能發揮無礙的作用。般若（prajñā）既然能照見空性，就能鑑別有；方便（upāya）既然涉及有，就能鑑別空。具體內容如同二智（dvi-jñāna）中所說。其次闡明，《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）以二諦（dve satye）為宗旨。之所以用二諦為宗旨，是因為二諦是佛法的根本。如來（Tathāgata）自己修行和教化他人，都依靠二諦。自己修行依靠二諦，如《瓔珞經》（Yingluo jing）佛母品所說，闡明二諦能生佛，所以說二諦是佛母。這大概是取二智為佛，二諦能生二智，所以用二諦為母親。這就是說，如來自身功德的圓滿，是由於二諦。教化他人的功德也是由於二諦，如來所說的法，教化眾生，常常依據二諦。所以《中論》說，諸佛依據二諦為眾生說法。問：憑什麼知道自利和他利兩種功德都由二諦而來呢？答：《十二門論》（Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra）說，因為認識二諦的緣故，就能獲得自利、他利以及共同的利益，這就是事實。因為二諦是自己修行和教化他人的根本，所以要申明二諦作為論的宗旨，就能讓一切眾生都獲得自利和他利兩種利益。問：什麼人迷惑於二諦，論主（śāstṛ）破除迷惑，闡明二諦呢？答：有三種人迷惑於二諦。第一種是小乘（Hinayana）的五百部，各自執著諸法有決定不變的自性。聽到畢竟空（atyanta-śūnyatā）的道理，如同刀割心臟一樣難以接受。這些人喪失了第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）。然而，既然喪失了第一義諦，也就喪失了世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）。為什麼這麼說呢？因為空性宛然存在於有之中，所以稱為空有，這才是世俗諦。他們既然喪失了空性，也就是迷惑于有。所以五百部的執著超出瞭如來二諦的範圍。第二種是方廣道人，認為一切諸法如同龜毛兔角一樣，沒有罪福報應。這些人喪失了世俗諦。然而，有宛然存在於空之中，所以空被稱為有空。既然

【English Translation】 English version Venerable Zeng said, 『For the sake of sentient beings, the 『two』 (truths) now spoken of are different from the 『two』 of the past. Wishing to enable people to realize 『non-duality』 through 『duality,』 therefore (the current 『two』) is different from the old explanations. Moreover, although two kinds of wisdom are elucidated, they are also different from the old understanding. The old understanding held that Real Wisdom (bhūtatathatā-jñāna) only illuminates emptiness and does not reach existence; Upaya (upāya-kauśalya) only illuminates existence and does not reach emptiness. This actually limits the mind of the sage and forms dualistic views. What is now elucidated is that a person who has realized the truth has unimpeded body and wisdom, so they can exert unimpeded functions. Since Prajna (prajñā) illuminates emptiness, it can discern existence; since Upaya (upāya) involves existence, it can discern emptiness. The specifics are as described in the Two Wisdoms (dvi-jñāna).』 Secondly, it is clarified that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way) takes the Two Truths (dve satye) as its doctrine. The reason for using the Two Truths as the doctrine is that the Two Truths are the foundation of the Buddha-dharma. The Tathāgata (Tathāgata) himself practices and teaches others, all relying on the Two Truths. Self-practice relies on the Two Truths, as stated in the 『Buddha-Mother』 chapter of the Yingluo jing, which clarifies that the Two Truths can give birth to Buddhas, so it is said that the Two Truths are the Buddha-Mother. This probably takes the Two Wisdoms as the Buddha, and the Two Truths can give birth to the Two Wisdoms, so the Two Truths are used as the mother. This means that the perfection of the Tathāgata's own merits is due to the Two Truths. The merit of teaching others is also due to the Two Truths. The Dharma spoken by the Tathāgata to teach sentient beings always relies on the Two Truths. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says that all Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to preach the Dharma to sentient beings. Question: How do we know that both self-benefit and other-benefit come from the Two Truths? Answer: The Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra (Twelve Gate Treatise) says that because of recognizing the Two Truths, one can obtain self-benefit, other-benefit, and common benefit. This is the fact. Because the Two Truths are the foundation of self-practice and teaching others, it is necessary to declare the Two Truths as the doctrine of the treatise, so that all sentient beings can obtain both self-benefit and other-benefit. Question: Who is confused about the Two Truths, and whom does the Śāstṛ (teacher) dispel confusion for and clarify the Two Truths for? Answer: There are three types of people who are confused about the Two Truths. The first type is the five hundred schools of the Hinayana (Hinayana), each clinging to the notion that all dharmas have a fixed and unchanging self-nature. Hearing the doctrine of ultimate emptiness (atyanta-śūnyatā) is as unbearable as a knife cutting the heart. These people have lost the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). However, since they have lost the ultimate truth, they have also lost the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). Why is this so? Because emptiness is clearly present in existence, it is called 『empty existence,』 and this is the conventional truth. Since they have lost emptiness, they are also confused about existence. Therefore, the clinging of the five hundred schools goes beyond the scope of the Tathāgata's Two Truths. The second type is the followers of the Vaipulya (方廣) teachings, who believe that all dharmas are like turtle hair and rabbit horns, without karmic consequences of good and bad. These people have lost the conventional truth. However, existence is clearly present in emptiness, so emptiness is called 『existent emptiness.』 Since

失空有。亦失有空。如斯之人亦失二諦。又諸外道亦失二諦。如有見外道迷於真諦。空見外道迷於世諦。又凡夫著有故迷真諦。二乘滯空迷世諦也。第三人得二諦名而失二諦旨。斯執甚多。今略出二種。或言二諦一體。或言二諦異體。並不成二諦之義。具如疏初序之。今破此之失申明二諦。故用二諦為宗也。問何以得知此論用二諦為宗耶。答略有三種。一者瓔珞經佛母品明二諦不生不滅乃至不來不去。今論正明八不。故知即是辨於二諦。故以二諦為宗。二者青目序論意。明外人失二諦。龍樹菩薩為是等故造此中論。即知破外迷失申明二諦。故以二諦為宗也。三者關內曇影中論序云。此論雖無理不窮。無言不盡。統其要歸。會通二諦。今還述舊釋。故知二諦為宗也。問既名中論。何故不用中道為宗。乃以二諦為宗耶。答即二諦是中道。既以二諦為宗。即是中道為宗。所以然者。還就二諦以明中道故。有世諦中道。真諦中道。非真非俗中道。但今欲名宗兩舉故。中諦互說。故宗舉其諦名題其中。若以中道為名。復以中道為宗者。但得不二義失其二義故也。問經何故立二諦耶。答此有兩義。一者欲示佛法是中道故。以有世諦。是故不斷。以第一義。是故不常。所以立於二諦。又二慧是三世佛法身父母。以有第一義故生般若。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

失去空和有。也失去有和空。像這樣的人也失去了二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）。還有那些外道（tirthika，佛教以外的宗教修行者）也失去了二諦。例如，有些外道迷惑于真諦（paramārtha-satya，最高真理），空見外道迷惑於世諦（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）。此外，凡夫執著于有，所以迷惑于真諦。二乘（śrāvaka-yāna和pratyekabuddha-yāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）滯留于空，迷惑於世諦。第三種人得到了二諦的名義，卻失去了二諦的宗旨。這種執著非常多，現在略舉兩種。或者說二諦是一體的，或者說二諦是異體的，都不符合二諦的意義。具體內容如疏鈔的序言中所述。現在破除這些缺失，闡明二諦，所以用二諦作為宗旨。

問：憑什麼知道這部論典以二諦為宗旨呢？

答：略有三種理由。第一，在《瓔珞經》（Yingluo Jing）的佛母品中，闡明二諦不生不滅，乃至不來不去。現在這部論典正是闡明八不（不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不異，不來不去）。所以知道這部論典辨析的是二諦，因此以二諦為宗旨。第二，《青目序》（Qingmu Xu）闡述了論典的意旨，說明外道失去了二諦，龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna）爲了這些人而造了這部《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）。由此可知，這部論典是爲了破除外道的迷惑，闡明二諦，所以以二諦為宗旨。第三，關內曇影《中論序》（Zhonglun Xu）說，這部論典雖然沒有道理不窮盡，沒有言語不完備，但總括其要旨，是會通二諦。現在仍然沿用舊的解釋，所以知道二諦是宗旨。

問：既然名為《中論》，為什麼不用中道（madhyamā-pratipad，不落兩邊的中正之道）為宗旨，而用二諦為宗旨呢？

答：二諦就是中道。既然以二諦為宗旨，也就是以中道為宗旨。之所以這樣說，是因為仍然要依靠二諦來闡明中道。有世諦中道，真諦中道，非真非俗中道。但現在想要標明宗旨，所以同時舉出二者，中和諦互相說明。所以宗旨舉出諦的名義，作為論典的題目。如果以中道為名，又以中道為宗旨，那就只得到不二的意義，而失去了二的意義。

問：佛經為什麼設立二諦呢？

答：這有兩種意義。第一，想要顯示佛法是中道。因為有世諦，所以不是斷滅。因為有第一義（paramārtha，最高意義），所以不是常恒。所以設立二諦。此外，二慧（prajñā和upāya，智慧和方便）是三世諸佛法身（dharma-kāya，佛的法性之身）的父母。因為有第一義，所以產生般若（prajñā，智慧）。 English version:

Losing emptiness and existence. Also losing existence and emptiness. Such people also lose the two truths (satya-dvaya, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth). Furthermore, those non-Buddhist practitioners (tirthika, religious practitioners outside of Buddhism) also lose the two truths. For example, some non-Buddhists are confused about the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, the highest truth), while those who hold views of emptiness are confused about the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, the mundane truth). Moreover, ordinary beings are attached to existence, so they are confused about the ultimate truth. The two vehicles (śrāvaka-yāna and pratyekabuddha-yāna, the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Realizer Vehicle) are attached to emptiness, so they are confused about the conventional truth. The third type of people obtain the name of the two truths, but lose the meaning of the two truths. There are many such attachments, and now I will briefly mention two types. Some say that the two truths are one entity, while others say that the two truths are different entities, neither of which conforms to the meaning of the two truths. The details are as described in the preface of the commentary. Now, to refute these shortcomings and clarify the two truths, the two truths are used as the main principle.

Question: How do we know that this treatise uses the two truths as its main principle?

Answer: There are roughly three reasons. First, in the 'Buddha-Mother' chapter of the Yingluo Jing, it is clarified that the two truths neither arise nor cease, and even neither come nor go. Now, this treatise is precisely clarifying the eight negations (neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going). Therefore, we know that this treatise is analyzing the two truths, and thus uses the two truths as its main principle. Second, the Qingmu Xu explains the intention of the treatise, stating that non-Buddhists have lost the two truths, and Nāgārjuna composed this Mūlamadhyamakakārikā for these people. From this, we know that this treatise is to refute the confusion of non-Buddhists and clarify the two truths, so it uses the two truths as its main principle. Third, the Zhonglun Xu by Tan Ying within the Guan region says that although this treatise does not exhaust any principle and does not leave any words unsaid, to summarize its essence, it connects the two truths. Now, we still follow the old interpretation, so we know that the two truths are the main principle.

Question: Since it is named the Middle Treatise, why not use the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad, the path that does not fall into either extreme) as the main principle, but instead use the two truths as the main principle?

Answer: The two truths are the Middle Way. Since the two truths are used as the main principle, it is also using the Middle Way as the main principle. The reason for this is that we still rely on the two truths to clarify the Middle Way. There is the conventional truth Middle Way, the ultimate truth Middle Way, and the neither conventional nor ultimate truth Middle Way. But now we want to indicate the main principle, so we mention both, and the middle and the truth explain each other. Therefore, the main principle mentions the name of the truth as the title of the treatise. If the name is the Middle Way and the main principle is also the Middle Way, then we only obtain the meaning of non-duality and lose the meaning of duality.

Question: Why does the Buddhist scripture establish the two truths?

Answer: There are two meanings to this. First, it wants to show that the Buddha's teachings are the Middle Way. Because there is the conventional truth, it is not annihilation. Because there is the ultimate meaning (paramārtha, the highest meaning), it is not permanence. Therefore, the two truths are established. Furthermore, the two wisdoms (prajñā and upāya, wisdom and skillful means) are the parents of the dharma-kāya (the body of the Dharma nature of the Buddha) of the Buddhas of the three times. Because there is the ultimate meaning, prajñā (wisdom) arises.

【English Translation】 Losing emptiness and existence. Also losing existence and emptiness. Such people also lose the two truths (satya-dvaya, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth). Furthermore, those non-Buddhist practitioners (tirthika, religious practitioners outside of Buddhism) also lose the two truths. For example, some non-Buddhists are confused about the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, the highest truth), while those who hold views of emptiness are confused about the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, the mundane truth). Moreover, ordinary beings are attached to existence, so they are confused about the ultimate truth. The two vehicles (śrāvaka-yāna and pratyekabuddha-yāna, the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Realizer Vehicle) are attached to emptiness, so they are confused about the conventional truth. The third type of people obtain the name of the two truths, but lose the meaning of the two truths. There are many such attachments, and now I will briefly mention two types. Some say that the two truths are one entity, while others say that the two truths are different entities, neither of which conforms to the meaning of the two truths. The details are as described in the preface of the commentary. Now, to refute these shortcomings and clarify the two truths, the two truths are used as the main principle. Question: How do we know that this treatise uses the two truths as its main principle? Answer: There are roughly three reasons. First, in the 'Buddha-Mother' chapter of the Yingluo Jing, it is clarified that the two truths neither arise nor cease, and even neither come nor go. Now, this treatise is precisely clarifying the eight negations (neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going). Therefore, we know that this treatise is analyzing the two truths, and thus uses the two truths as its main principle. Second, the Qingmu Xu explains the intention of the treatise, stating that non-Buddhists have lost the two truths, and Nāgārjuna composed this Mūlamadhyamakakārikā for these people. From this, we know that this treatise is to refute the confusion of non-Buddhists and clarify the two truths, so it uses the two truths as its main principle. Third, the Zhonglun Xu by Tan Ying within the Guan region says that although this treatise does not exhaust any principle and does not leave any words unsaid, to summarize its essence, it connects the two truths. Now, we still follow the old interpretation, so we know that the two truths are the main principle. Question: Since it is named the Middle Treatise, why not use the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad, the path that does not fall into either extreme) as the main principle, but instead use the two truths as the main principle? Answer: The two truths are the Middle Way. Since the two truths are used as the main principle, it is also using the Middle Way as the main principle. The reason for this is that we still rely on the two truths to clarify the Middle Way. There is the conventional truth Middle Way, the ultimate truth Middle Way, and the neither conventional nor ultimate truth Middle Way. But now we want to indicate the main principle, so we mention both, and the middle and the truth explain each other. Therefore, the main principle mentions the name of the truth as the title of the treatise. If the name is the Middle Way and the main principle is also the Middle Way, then we only obtain the meaning of non-duality and lose the meaning of duality. Question: Why does the Buddhist scripture establish the two truths? Answer: There are two meanings to this. First, it wants to show that the Buddha's teachings are the Middle Way. Because there is the conventional truth, it is not annihilation. Because there is the ultimate meaning (paramārtha, the highest meaning), it is not permanence. Therefore, the two truths are established. Furthermore, the two wisdoms (prajñā and upāya, wisdom and skillful means) are the parents of the dharma-kāya (the body of the Dharma nature of the Buddha) of the Buddhas of the three times. Because there is the ultimate meaning, prajñā (wisdom) arises.

以有世諦故生方便。具實慧方便慧。有十方三世佛。是故立二諦。又知第一義是自利。知世諦故能利他。具知二諦即得共利。故立二諦。又有二諦故佛語皆實。以世諦故說有是實。第一義故說空是實。又佛法漸深。先說世諦因果教化。后為說第一義。又成就得道智者說第一義。無有說世諦。又若不先說世諦因果。直說第一義。則生斷見。是故具明二諦也。次明百論宗者。百論破邪申明二諦。具如空品末說。亦應以二諦為宗。但今欲與中論互相開避。中論以二諦為宗。百論用二智為宗。即欲明諦智互相成也。問百論何故用二智為宗耶。答提婆與外道對面擊揚鬥。一時權巧智慧。但提婆權智巧能破邪巧能顯正。而實無所破亦無所顯。故名實智。一論始終明此二智。故以二智為宗。中論不與內諍一時權巧。但共同學二諦之人諍二諦得失。故以二諦為宗。則中論用所申為宗。百論用能申為宗。欲明佛與菩薩能所共相成也。次明十二門論宗者。此論亦破內迷申明二諦。亦以二諦為宗。但今欲示三論不同。宜以境智為宗。所言境智者。論云。大分深義所謂空也。若通達是義即通達大乘。具足六波羅蜜無所障礙。大分深義謂實相之境。由實相境發生般若。由般若故萬行得成。即是境智之義。故用境智為宗也。

次明四論破申不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為有世俗諦（Satyasamvriti，指相對真理）的緣故，才產生方便（Upaya，指善巧方法）。具備真實的智慧和方便的智慧，才有十方三世一切諸佛。所以要建立二諦（Dvasatya，指真諦和俗諦）。又因為知道第一義諦（Paramarthasatya，指絕對真理）是自利，知道世俗諦才能利他，完全瞭解二諦就能自利利他，所以要建立二諦。又因為有二諦的緣故，佛說的話都是真實的。以世俗諦來說，說有是真實的；以第一義諦來說，說空是真實的。而且佛法是逐漸深入的，先說世俗諦的因果來教化，然後才說第一義諦。又成就得道智慧的人，只說第一義諦，而不說世俗諦。又如果不是先說世俗諦的因果，直接說第一義諦，就會產生斷見（Ucchedadrishti，指認為一切事物死後斷滅的邪見）。所以要詳細說明二諦。接下來闡明《百論》（Śataśāstra）的宗旨。《百論》是爲了破斥邪見，闡明二諦，就像《空品》末尾所說的那樣。也應該以二諦為宗旨。但現在想要和《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）互相區別。《中論》以二諦為宗旨，《百論》用二智為宗旨，就是要闡明諦和智互相成就。有人問：《百論》為什麼用二智為宗旨呢？回答說：提婆（Deva，指聖天論師）和外道面對面辯論，一時運用權巧智慧。但提婆的權智巧妙地能夠破斥邪見，巧妙地能夠顯明正理，而實際上並沒有什麼可破斥的，也沒有什麼可顯明的，所以叫做實智。一部《百論》始終闡明這二智，所以用二智為宗旨。《中論》不和內部爭論一時的權巧，只是和共同學習二諦的人爭論二諦的得失，所以用二諦為宗旨。那麼，《中論》是用所闡明的作為宗旨，《百論》是用能闡明的作為宗旨，想要闡明佛和菩薩能所共同成就。接下來闡明《十二門論》（Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra）的宗旨。這部論也是爲了破斥內在的迷惑，闡明二諦，也以二諦為宗旨。但現在想要顯示三論的不同，應該用境智作為宗旨。所說的境智，論中說：『大分深義就是空。如果通達這個意義，就通達了大乘，具足六波羅蜜（Sat Paramita，指六度）而沒有障礙。』大分深義指的是實相之境。由實相之境發生般若（Prajna，指智慧），由般若的緣故，萬行得以成就，這就是境智的意義。所以用境智作為宗旨。接下來闡明四論的破斥和闡明。

【English Translation】 English version: Because there is conventional truth (Satyasamvriti), expedient means (Upaya) arise. Possessing both real wisdom and expedient wisdom, there are Buddhas throughout the ten directions and three times. Therefore, the two truths (Dvasatya) are established. Furthermore, knowing the ultimate truth (Paramarthasatya) benefits oneself, while knowing the conventional truth benefits others. Fully understanding the two truths leads to mutual benefit, hence the establishment of the two truths. Moreover, because of the two truths, all the Buddha's words are true. According to conventional truth, saying 'existence' is true; according to ultimate truth, saying 'emptiness' is true. Furthermore, the Buddha's teachings gradually deepen. First, the conventional truth of cause and effect is taught for edification, and later, the ultimate truth is explained. Those who have attained the wisdom of enlightenment only speak of the ultimate truth, not the conventional truth. If the conventional truth of cause and effect is not explained first, and the ultimate truth is directly taught, it will lead to nihilistic views (Ucchedadrishti). Therefore, the two truths must be clearly explained. Next, the doctrine of the Śataśāstra (Treatise on One Hundred Verses) is clarified. The Śataśāstra aims to refute heterodox views and elucidate the two truths, as mentioned at the end of the chapter on emptiness. It should also take the two truths as its doctrine. However, to differentiate it from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), while the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā takes the two truths as its doctrine, the Śataśāstra uses the two wisdoms as its doctrine, aiming to clarify that truth and wisdom mutually accomplish each other. Someone asks: Why does the Śataśāstra use the two wisdoms as its doctrine? The answer is: Deva (Aryadeva) debated with heretics face to face, employing skillful wisdom at that time. Deva's skillful wisdom was adept at refuting heterodoxy and revealing the correct principle, but in reality, there was nothing to refute or reveal, hence it is called real wisdom. The entire Śataśāstra elucidates these two wisdoms, so it takes the two wisdoms as its doctrine. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā does not engage in temporary skillful debates internally, but argues with those who jointly study the two truths about the gains and losses of the two truths, so it takes the two truths as its doctrine. Thus, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā uses what is elucidated as its doctrine, while the Śataśāstra uses what elucidates as its doctrine, aiming to clarify that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas mutually accomplish each other through their abilities and actions. Next, the doctrine of the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra (Treatise on the Twelve Gates) is clarified. This treatise also aims to refute internal confusion and elucidate the two truths, also taking the two truths as its doctrine. However, to show the difference between the three treatises, it should use the object and wisdom as its doctrine. Regarding the object and wisdom, the treatise says: 'The profound meaning of the great division is emptiness. If one understands this meaning, one understands the Mahayana, fully possessing the six perfections (Sat Paramita) without obstruction.' The profound meaning of the great division refers to the realm of reality. From the realm of reality, prajna (wisdom) arises, and because of prajna, all practices are accomplished. This is the meaning of object and wisdom. Therefore, it uses object and wisdom as its doctrine. Next, the refutation and elucidation of the four treatises are clarified.

同門。所言破申者。凡有三義。一者破外人迷教之病故名為破。申佛二諦教門故名為申。二者申佛正教而邪迷自破。故名為申破耳。三者論主申明佛破故名申破。諸大乘經破眾生虛妄以顯一道。但末代鈍根不了如來破病顯道之意。四依菩薩還申明佛破故名申破。非是經中自立義。論中自明破也。問何以知龍樹申佛破耶。答最後邪見品云。瞿曇大聖主。憐愍說是法。悉斷一切見。我今稽首禮。故知論主申明佛破。非自有破也。問經中有立有破。論主何故一向破耶。答末世鈍根迷佛立破。並皆成病。是以論主須並破之。然後具得申如來立破。問論主申佛破得稱論主破。論主申佛立應名論主立耶。答亦得爾也。問四論破申云何同異。答三論通破眾迷。通申眾教。智度論別破般若之迷。別申般若之教。就三論中自開二類。百論正破外傍破內。餘二論正破內傍破外。所以三論破內外者。一切眾病不出二種。一外道邪畫起迷。二內人稟教失旨。若破斯二則眾病皆除。問百論破外可有明文。何處有破內文耶。答破塵品中。外人以內義為證。論主即破其所引。具如彼明。問何故得破內耶。答有三種義。一者如向釋之。外人立義不成。引內為證。故須破內。二者內人立義與外道同。如立虛空常遍。乃至立涅槃身智俱無。並與外道同。故須

【現代漢語翻譯】同門（指同一宗派的人）。所謂『破申』（破斥和闡明）有三種含義。第一，破除外道之人對佛教教義的迷惑，所以稱為『破』；闡明佛陀的二諦（俗諦和真諦）教義，所以稱為『申』。第二，闡明佛陀的正教，邪見和迷惑自然就被破除了，所以稱為『申破』。第三，論主（著論者）闡明佛陀的破斥，所以稱為『申破』。諸部大乘經典破除眾生的虛妄，以顯現唯一的真理。但是末法時代的愚鈍之人不瞭解如來破除病根、顯現真理的用意，四依菩薩（指常隨佛學的四種菩薩）才闡明佛陀的破斥，所以稱為『申破』。這並不是經典中自己創立義理，論著中自己闡明破斥。問：憑什麼知道龍樹菩薩是闡明佛陀的破斥呢？答：《最後邪見品》中說：『瞿曇（Gautama，釋迦牟尼佛的姓）大聖主，憐憫眾生而宣說此法，完全斷除一切邪見，我今天稽首禮拜。』因此可知論主是闡明佛陀的破斥，而不是自己有所破斥。問：經典中有『立』（建立）也有『破』（破斥），論主為什麼只是一味地破斥呢？答：末世的愚鈍之人對佛陀的『立』和『破』都迷惑不解，都變成了病根。因此論主必須將它們一併破除，然後才能完整地闡明如來的『立』和『破』。問：論主闡明佛陀的『破』，可以稱為『論主破』，論主闡明佛陀的『立』，應該稱為『論主立』嗎？答：也可以這樣說。問：《四論》（指《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》、《大智度論》）的『破』和『申』有什麼相同和不同？答：《三論》（指《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》）普遍破除各種迷惑，普遍闡明各種教義。《智度論》（《大智度論》）分別破除對般若（Prajna，智慧）的迷惑，分別闡明般若的教義。在《三論》中又可以分為兩類：《百論》主要破斥外道，順帶破斥內道；其餘兩論主要破斥內道，順帶破斥外道。之所以《三論》要破斥內外兩方面，是因為一切眾生的病根不出兩種：一是外道邪說引起的迷惑，二是佛教徒理解教義時產生的偏差。如果破除這兩種病根，那麼一切病根就都消除了。問：《百論》破斥外道有明顯的文句，哪裡有破斥內道的文句呢？答：在《破塵品》中，外道之人以內道的義理作為論證，論主就破斥他所引用的內道義理，具體內容可以參考原文。問：為什麼可以破斥內道呢？答：有三種原因。第一，就像剛才解釋的那樣，外道之人建立的義理不成立，就引用內道的義理作為論證，所以必須破斥內道。第二，內道之人建立的義理與外道相同，例如認為虛空是常住不變、無所不在的，甚至認為涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）是身和智慧都沒有的，這些都與外道相同，所以必須破斥。

【English Translation】 Brothers in the Dharma (those of the same school). The so-called 'demolishing and expounding' (breaking down and clarifying) has three meanings. First, to break down the delusion of those of other paths regarding the Buddhist teachings, hence it is called 'demolishing'; to expound the Buddha's teachings of the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth), hence it is called 'expounding'. Second, by expounding the Buddha's correct teachings, wrong views and delusions are naturally broken down, hence it is called 'demolishing and expounding'. Third, the author of the treatise (the commentator) expounds the Buddha's demolishing, hence it is called 'demolishing and expounding'. The various Mahayana sutras break down the illusions of sentient beings in order to reveal the one true reality. However, people in the degenerate age do not understand the Tathagata's (Tathagata, 'Thus Come One', an epithet of the Buddha) intention of breaking down illness and revealing the path, so the four reliant Bodhisattvas (the four kinds of Bodhisattvas who constantly follow the Buddha's teachings) expound the Buddha's demolishing, hence it is called 'demolishing and expounding'. This is not about creating doctrines in the sutras themselves, or clarifying demolishing in the treatises themselves. Question: How do we know that Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna, a famous Buddhist philosopher) is expounding the Buddha's demolishing? Answer: In the 'Last Wrong Views' chapter, it says: 'The great sage Gautama (Gautama, the Buddha's family name), out of compassion, spoke this Dharma, completely cutting off all wrong views. Today, I bow my head and pay homage.' Therefore, we know that the author of the treatise is expounding the Buddha's demolishing, and not demolishing on his own. Question: The sutras have both 'establishing' and 'demolishing', why does the author of the treatise only demolish? Answer: People in the degenerate age are deluded about the Buddha's 'establishing' and 'demolishing', and both become illnesses. Therefore, the author of the treatise must demolish them together, and then fully expound the Tathagata's 'establishing' and 'demolishing'. Question: The author of the treatise expounds the Buddha's 'demolishing', can it be called 'the author's demolishing'? Should the author of the treatise expound the Buddha's 'establishing' be called 'the author's establishing'? Answer: It can also be said that way. Question: What are the similarities and differences between the 'demolishing' and 'expounding' of the Four Treatises (the Madhyamaka-karika, Sata-sastra, Dvadasanikaya-sastra, and Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra)? Answer: The Three Treatises (the Madhyamaka-karika, Sata-sastra, and Dvadasanikaya-sastra) universally demolish all delusions and universally expound all teachings. The Prajnaparamita-sastra (the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra) separately demolishes the delusions about Prajna (Prajna, wisdom) and separately expounds the teachings of Prajna. Within the Three Treatises, they can be divided into two categories: the Sata-sastra mainly demolishes external paths and secondarily demolishes internal paths; the other two treatises mainly demolish internal paths and secondarily demolish external paths. The reason why the Three Treatises demolish both internal and external aspects is that all illnesses of sentient beings do not go beyond two types: one is the delusion caused by external heretical views, and the other is the deviation in understanding the teachings by Buddhists. If these two illnesses are demolished, then all illnesses will be eliminated. Question: The Sata-sastra has clear statements about demolishing external paths, where are the statements about demolishing internal paths? Answer: In the 'Demolishing Dust' chapter, people of other paths use internal doctrines as proof, and the author of the treatise demolishes the internal doctrines they cite. The specific content can be found in the original text. Question: Why is it possible to demolish internal paths? Answer: There are three reasons. First, as explained earlier, the doctrines established by people of other paths are not valid, so they cite internal doctrines as proof, so it is necessary to demolish internal doctrines. Second, the doctrines established by people of internal paths are the same as those of other paths, such as thinking that space is permanent and omnipresent, or even thinking that Nirvana (Nirvana, extinction) is without body and wisdom, which are the same as those of other paths, so it is necessary to demolish them.

破內。三者外道立義與內人同。故須破之。如破因中無果品說。外道立於三相前後相生。與譬喻部同。立三相展轉一時生。與薩婆多部同。故須破內。故肇法師云。邪辨逼真殆亂正道。問中論何故傍破外耶。答凡有四義。一者欲顯中觀無法不窮。無言不說。若一法不窮。一言不盡。則戲論不滅。中觀不生。是故內外並皆破之。二者內人立義與外道同。故須破外。三者外道立義與內人同。故須破外。四者欲顯中實非內非外不正不邪。故須破外。問百論破外亦有收取義不。答亦有四句。一者破而不取。即是外道邪言。障中迷觀。于緣無益有損。二者取而不破。外道偷竊如來遺余善法。今並收之。如賊盜牛。即其證也。又外道各邪心推盡。冥智與內同。如蟲食木偶得成字。亦取而不破。三者亦破亦取。外道偷竊佛教不識旨歸。今破其迷教之情。收取所迷之教。四者不破不取。即顯道門未曾內外也。

次明別釋三論。問既有四論。何故常稱三論耶。答略有八義。一者一一論各具三義。一破邪。二顯正。三言教。以同具此三義故。合名三論。二者三論具合方備三義。中論明所顯之理。百論破于邪執。十二門名為言教。以三義相成故名為三論。三者中論為廣論。百論為次論。十二門為略論。三部具上中下三品故名三論。四者

一切經論凡有三種。一但偈論。即是中論。二但長行論。所謂百論。三亦長行亦偈論。即十二門論。以三部互相開避而共相成。五者此之三部同是大乘通論。故名三論。六者此三部同顯不二實相。故名三論。七者同是四依菩薩所造。八者同是像末所作。但欲綱維大法也。

次論三論通別門。以智度論對三論。則智度論為別論。三論為通論。就三論中自有三別即為三例。百論為通論之廣。中論為通論之次。十二門為通論之略。所以然者。百論通破障世出世一切邪。通申世出世一切正。故名通論之廣。中論但破大小二迷。通申大小兩教。不破世間迷申世間教。故為通論之次。十二門但破執大之迷。申大乘之教。為通論之略。問何故爾耶。答外道邪興。遍障世出世大小一切教。故提婆遍破眾邪備申眾教。是以論明。始自三歸終竟二諦。無教不申。無邪不破。中論為對大小學人封執二教故。但破二迷但申二教。是以論文有大小二章之說。十二門論辨觀行之精要。明方等之宗本。故正破大迷獨申大教。是以論文命宗。但說略解摩訶衍義。問十二門亦備破小乘外道。云何言但破大迷但申大教也。答雖備破眾病。而正意為申大乘。故論文前明略解大乘。而後則言末世眾生薄福鈍根。雖尋經文不能通了。即知尋大乘失旨。但小乘

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一切經論總共有三種。第一種是隻有偈頌的論，就是《中論》。第二種是隻有長行的論，例如《百論》。第三種是既有長行又有偈頌的論，即《十二門論》。這三部論互相補充，共同成就。這三部論都是大乘的通論，所以稱為『三論』。這三部論共同闡明不二實相，所以稱為『三論』。它們都是四依菩薩所造，都是在像法末法時期所作，只是爲了維護大法。接下來討論三論的通別。如果以《智度論》來對比三論，那麼《智度論》是別論，三論是通論。在三論中，自身又有三種區別，即三種例子。《百論》是通論中的廣論，《中論》是通論中的次論，《十二門論》是通論中的略論。為什麼這樣說呢？《百論》普遍破斥障礙世間和出世間一切邪見，普遍闡述世間和出世間一切正見，所以稱為通論中的廣論。《中論》只破斥大小乘的兩種迷惑，普遍闡述大小乘兩種教義，不破斥世間迷惑，不闡述世間教義，所以是通論中的次論。《十二門論》只破斥執著大乘的迷惑，闡述大乘的教義，是通論中的略論。問：為什麼會這樣呢？答：因為外道邪說興盛，普遍障礙世間、出世間、大乘、小乘一切教義，所以提婆（Deva）普遍破斥各種邪說，完備地闡述各種教義。因此，《百論》從三歸依開始，到二諦結束，沒有不闡述的教義，沒有不破斥的邪說。《中論》是爲了針對大小乘學人封閉執著兩種教義，所以只破斥兩種迷惑，只闡述兩種教義。因此，《中論》的論文中有大小乘兩章的說法。《十二門論》辨析觀行的精要，闡明方等（Vaipulya）的宗本，所以專門破斥大乘的迷惑，單獨闡述大乘的教義。因此，《十二門論》在論文中明確宗旨，只說略解摩訶衍（Mahayana）的意義。問：《十二門論》也普遍破斥小乘和外道，為什麼說只破斥大乘的迷惑，只闡述大乘的教義呢？答：雖然普遍破斥各種病癥，但主要目的是爲了闡述大乘，所以論文前面說明略解大乘，然後說末世眾生福薄根鈍，即使尋找經文也不能通達瞭解，這就知道尋找大乘會失去宗旨，而只執著于小乘。

【English Translation】 English version: There are three types of scriptures and treatises in general. The first type consists of treatises with only verses, such as the Madhyamaka-karika (Zhong Lun). The second type consists of treatises with only prose, such as the Sata-sastra (Bai Lun). The third type consists of treatises with both prose and verses, such as the Dvadasanikaya-sastra (Shi Er Men Lun). These three works complement each other and together achieve completeness. These three treatises are all general treatises on Mahayana, hence they are called the 'Three Treatises'. These three treatises jointly elucidate the non-dual reality, hence they are called the 'Three Treatises'. They were all composed by Bodhisattvas who relied on the Four Reliances, and they were all created during the Image and Final Dharma periods, solely to uphold the Great Dharma. Next, we will discuss the common and distinct aspects of the Three Treatises. If we compare the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Zhi Du Lun) with the Three Treatises, then the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra is a distinct treatise, while the Three Treatises are general treatises. Within the Three Treatises themselves, there are three distinctions, which are three examples. The Sata-sastra is the broadest of the general treatises, the Madhyamaka-karika is the intermediate of the general treatises, and the Dvadasanikaya-sastra is the briefest of the general treatises. Why is this so? The Sata-sastra universally refutes all wrong views that obstruct both worldly and supramundane matters, and universally expounds all correct views on both worldly and supramundane matters, hence it is called the broadest of the general treatises. The Madhyamaka-karika only refutes the two confusions of the Hinayana and Mahayana, and universally expounds the two teachings of the Hinayana and Mahayana. It does not refute worldly confusions or expound worldly teachings, hence it is the intermediate of the general treatises. The Dvadasanikaya-sastra only refutes the confusion of clinging to the Mahayana, and expounds the teachings of the Mahayana, hence it is the briefest of the general treatises. Question: Why is this so? Answer: Because the heretical views of externalists are flourishing, universally obstructing all teachings of the worldly, supramundane, Mahayana, and Hinayana. Therefore, Deva universally refutes all kinds of wrong views and completely expounds all kinds of teachings. Thus, the Sata-sastra, starting from the Three Refuges and ending with the Two Truths, has no teachings that are not expounded and no wrong views that are not refuted. The Madhyamaka-karika is aimed at the Hinayana and Mahayana practitioners who are closed off and attached to the two teachings, so it only refutes the two confusions and only expounds the two teachings. Therefore, the text of the Madhyamaka-karika has the saying of the two chapters of Hinayana and Mahayana. The Dvadasanikaya-sastra distinguishes the essentials of contemplation and practice, and elucidates the fundamental principles of Vaipulya. Therefore, it specifically refutes the confusion of the Mahayana alone and solely expounds the teachings of the Mahayana. Therefore, the Dvadasanikaya-sastra clarifies the purpose in the text, only saying that it briefly explains the meaning of Mahayana. Question: The Dvadasanikaya-sastra also universally refutes the Hinayana and externalists, so why do you say that it only refutes the confusion of the Mahayana and only expounds the teachings of the Mahayana? Answer: Although it universally refutes all kinds of illnesses, the main purpose is to expound the Mahayana. Therefore, the text explains the brief explanation of the Mahayana first, and then says that sentient beings in the Final Age have little merit and dull roots, and even if they seek the scriptures, they cannot understand them thoroughly. This shows that seeking the Mahayana will lose the purpose, and they will only cling to the Hinayana.

外道障彼大乘。故須破之耳。又欲令小乘外道同入大乘故須破之。問百論申大小兩教。與中論何異。答百論總申大小。然中論別申二教。又百論從淺至深。中論從深至淺。問何故爾耶。答百論為回邪入正。始行之人故。始自三歸終入方等。故從淺至深。中論示諸佛本末之義。大乘為本小乘為末。故從深至淺也。

次明四論用假不同門。一切諸法雖並是假。領其要用凡有四門。一因緣假。二隨緣假。三對緣假。四就緣假也。一因緣假者。如空有二諦。有不自有。因空故有。空不自空。因有故空。故空有是因緣假義也。二隨緣假者。如隨三乘根性說三乘教門也。三對緣假者。如對治常說于無常。對治無常是故說常。四就緣假者。外人執有諸法。諸佛菩薩就彼推求檢竟不得。名就緣假。此四假總收十二部經八萬法藏。然四論具用四假。但智度論多用因緣假。以釋經立義門故。中論十二門多用就緣假。百論多用對緣假。

次明四論對緣不同門。著於四論略明二種。提婆菩薩震論鼓于王庭。九十六師一時雲集。各建名理立無方論。提婆面拆邪師。后還閑林。撰集當時之言。以為百論。龍樹菩薩潛帷著筆。探取外情破病申經。故造中論。問何故爾耶。答龍樹聲聞天下。外道小乘不敢與交言。故潛帷著筆以造論也。提婆

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：外道會阻礙大乘佛法，所以必須破斥他們。而且，爲了讓小乘和外道一同進入大乘，也必須破斥他們。有人問：《百論》闡述了大乘和小乘兩種教義，與《中論》有什麼不同？回答：《百論》總體上闡述了大乘和小乘，然而《中論》分別闡述這兩種教義。而且，《百論》從淺入深，《中論》從深入淺。有人問：為什麼會這樣呢？回答：《百論》是爲了使誤入歧途的人迴歸正道，是為初學者而設，所以從最初的三歸依開始，最終進入方等經典，因此是從淺入深。《中論》揭示了諸佛本末的意義，大乘是根本，小乘是末流，所以是從深入淺。

接下來闡明四論運用假名不同的方面。一切諸法雖然都是假名，但把握其要點，大致有四種：一是因緣假，二是隨緣假，三是對緣假，四是就緣假。一、因緣假，例如空（Śūnyatā）和有（Bhava）二諦。有不是自身具有，因為空才顯現有；空不是自身為空，因為有才顯空。所以，空和有是因緣假義。二、隨緣假，例如隨順三乘（Triyāna）根性而說三乘教法。三、對緣假，例如爲了對治常（Nitya）的觀念而說無常（Anitya），爲了對治無常的觀念所以說常。四、就緣假，外道執著于諸法實有，諸佛菩薩就他們的觀點進行推求，最終卻一無所得，這叫做就緣假。這四種假名總括了十二部經（Dvādaśāṅga）和八萬四千法藏。然而，四論都運用了這四種假名，但《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa-śāstra）多用因緣假，因為它是用來解釋經典和建立義理的；《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）十二門多用就緣假，《百論》（Śata-śāstra）多用對緣假。

接下來闡明四論對治外道的角度不同的方面。關於四論，簡略說明兩種情況。《提婆菩薩》（Āryadeva）在王庭擂響論辯的戰鼓，九十六種外道（Tirthika）一時雲集，各自建立名相和理論，提出各種論點。提婆當面駁斥邪師，之後回到閑靜的樹林，收集整理當時的言論，寫成了《百論》。《龍樹菩薩》（Nāgārjuna）在隱秘的帷帳中著筆，探究外道的思想，破除他們的謬誤，闡明佛經的真義，所以撰寫了《中論》。有人問：為什麼會這樣呢？回答：龍樹聲名遠播天下，外道和小乘不敢與他正面交談，所以他在隱秘的帷帳中著筆來造論。提婆

【English Translation】 English version: The heretics obstruct the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), therefore it is necessary to refute them. Moreover, in order to lead the Sravakayana (Vehicle of Hearers) and heretics to enter the Mahayana, it is also necessary to refute them. Someone asks: 'The Śata-śāstra (Treatise in One Hundred Verses) expounds both the Mahayana and Sravakayana teachings, what is the difference between it and the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way)?' The answer is: 'The Śata-śāstra generally expounds both the Mahayana and Sravakayana, while the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā separately expounds these two teachings. Moreover, the Śata-śāstra proceeds from the shallow to the deep, while the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā proceeds from the deep to the shallow.' Someone asks: 'Why is that so?' The answer is: 'The Śata-śāstra is for turning those who have gone astray back to the right path, it is for beginners, so it starts from the initial Three Refuges (Triśaraṇa) and ultimately enters the Vaipulya Sutras (extensive sutras), therefore it proceeds from the shallow to the deep. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā reveals the meaning of the origin and end of all Buddhas, with the Mahayana as the origin and the Sravakayana as the end, therefore it proceeds from the deep to the shallow.'

Next, we will clarify the aspect of how the four treatises use provisional names (prajñapti) differently. Although all dharmas are provisional names, grasping their essential use involves four aspects: first, the provisional name of dependent origination (hetupratyaya-prajñapti); second, the provisional name of following conditions (pratītyasamutpāda-prajñapti); third, the provisional name of opposition (pratipakṣa-prajñapti); and fourth, the provisional name of reliance (upādāna-prajñapti). First, the provisional name of dependent origination, such as the two truths of emptiness (Śūnyatā) and existence (Bhava). Existence does not exist on its own, it exists because of emptiness; emptiness is not empty on its own, it is empty because of existence. Therefore, emptiness and existence are the meaning of the provisional name of dependent origination. Second, the provisional name of following conditions, such as teaching the three vehicles (Triyāna) according to the dispositions of beings. Third, the provisional name of opposition, such as speaking of impermanence (Anitya) to counter permanence (Nitya), and speaking of permanence to counter impermanence. Fourth, the provisional name of reliance, when heretics cling to the existence of dharmas, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas investigate their views, but ultimately find nothing, this is called the provisional name of reliance. These four provisional names encompass the twelve divisions of scriptures (Dvādaśāṅga) and the eighty-four thousand teachings. However, the four treatises all use these four provisional names, but the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa-śāstra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) mostly uses the provisional name of dependent origination, because it is used to explain the scriptures and establish doctrines; the twelve gates of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā mostly use the provisional name of reliance, and the Śata-śāstra mostly uses the provisional name of opposition.

Next, we will clarify the aspect of how the four treatises differ in their approach to refuting heretics. Regarding the four treatises, we will briefly explain two situations. Āryadeva (Noble Deva) sounded the drum of debate in the royal court, and ninety-six types of heretics (Tirthika) gathered at once, each establishing names and theories, and proposing various arguments. Āryadeva refuted the heretical teachers face to face, and then returned to the quiet forest, collected and organized the statements of that time, and wrote the Śata-śāstra. Nāgārjuna (Dragon Tree) wrote in a hidden curtain, exploring the thoughts of the heretics, refuting their errors, and clarifying the true meaning of the sutras, so he wrote the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Someone asks: 'Why is that so?' The answer is: 'Nāgārjuna's reputation spread throughout the world, and heretics and followers of the Sravakayana did not dare to speak to him directly, so he wrote the treatise in a hidden curtain. Āryadeva

既為弟子。物情所不畏憚。故與之交言。故後集以為論。次明三論所破之緣有利鈍不同門。今略舉中百二論明眾生得悟不同。凡有四種。一自有一種根緣。聞百論始舍罪福終破空有。當此言下得悟無生。二有諸外道。雖聞提婆當時所破言理俱屈。猶未得悟。后出家竟稟受佛經方乃得悟。此中根人也。三有諸外道。聞提婆之言。不了尋經。翻更起迷。為中論所破方得悟。此下根人也。四有諸外道。初稟提婆之言。乃至尋中論亦未得解。后因十二門觀玄略方乃得悟也。

次別釋中論名題門。此論立名有廣有略。所言略者。但稱中論。故睿法師序云。中論有五百偈。龍樹菩薩之所造。而後但釋中論兩字。故名為略。問何故但稱中論不題觀耶。答中是所論之理實。論是能論之教門。若明理教故義無不周也。所言廣者。加之以觀。故影法師中論序云。寂此諸邊名之為中。問答拆徴稱之為論。又云。觀者直。以觀辨於心論宣于口耳。問何故具題三字耶。答因中發觀。由觀宣論。要備三法義乃圓足也。次第門。問此三字有何次第耶。答有二種次第。一者能化次第。二者所化次第。能化次第者。中謂三世十方諸佛菩薩所行之道。故前明中。由此道故發生諸佛菩薩正觀。故次明觀。由內有正觀故。佛宣之於口。名之為經。四依菩薩

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：既然是弟子，（提婆菩薩）就不畏懼世俗的情感，所以與他們交談，因此後來彙集成論著。接下來闡明三論所破斥的因緣有利根和鈍根的不同。現在簡略地舉出《百論》和《中論》來說明眾生證悟的不同，總共有四種：第一種是自身就具有某種根基和因緣的人，聽聞《百論》后，開始捨棄罪福之見，最終破除空有之執。當聽到這些話時，就能證悟無生之理。第二種是一些外道，雖然聽聞提婆（Āryadeva）當時所破斥的言論，在道理上都已屈服，但仍然沒有證悟。後來出家，最終稟受佛經，這才得以證悟。這是屬於利根之人。第三種是一些外道，聽聞提婆（Āryadeva）的言論后，不明白，反而更加迷惑。被《中論》所破斥后才得以證悟。這是屬於下根之人。第四種是一些外道，最初稟受提婆（Āryadeva）的言論，乃至研習《中論》也未能理解，後來因為《十二門論觀玄略》才得以證悟。

接下來分別解釋《中論》的名稱。這部論的立名有廣有略。所說的略稱，只稱為《中論》。所以僧睿法師的序言說，《中論》有五百偈，是龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna）所造。後來只解釋《中論》兩個字，所以稱為略稱。問：為什麼只稱《中論》而不題『觀』字呢？答：『中』是所論的真理實相，『論』是能論的教法門徑。如果闡明真理和教法，那麼意義就沒有不周全的。所說的廣稱，加上『觀』字。所以慧影法師的《中論序》說，止息諸邊，名為『中』。問答拆解，稱為『論』。又說，『觀』是直接用心來辨別，『論』是用口耳來宣說。問：為什麼要完整地題寫三個字呢？答：因為由『中』而生『觀』，由『觀』而宣說『論』，要具備這三種法，意義才圓滿充足。次第方面。問：這三個字有什麼次第呢？答：有兩種次第。一是能化（教化者）的次第，二是所化（被教化者）的次第。能化的次第是，『中』是指三世十方諸佛菩薩所行之道，所以先說『中』。因為這個道，才能發生諸佛菩薩的正觀，所以其次說『觀』。因為內心有正觀，所以佛用口宣說，名為經。四依菩薩（Śrāvakayāna）

【English Translation】 English version: Since they are disciples, (Āryadeva) is not afraid of worldly emotions, so he speaks with them, hence it was later compiled into treatises. Next, it elucidates the different conditions for being refuted by the Three Treatises, with differences in sharp and dull faculties. Now, briefly citing the Śataśāstra (Hundred Treatise) and the Madhyamakaśāstra (Middle Treatise), it explains the differences in sentient beings' enlightenment, which are generally of four types: The first type is those who inherently possess certain roots and conditions. Upon hearing the Śataśāstra, they initially abandon the views of merit and demerit, and ultimately break through the attachments to emptiness and existence. Upon hearing these words, they attain enlightenment to the principle of non-origination. The second type is some non-Buddhists who, although hearing Āryadeva's refutations at the time, and being subdued in reason, still did not attain enlightenment. Later, they renounced the household life and eventually received the Buddhist scriptures, and then attained enlightenment. These belong to those with sharp faculties. The third type is some non-Buddhists who, upon hearing Āryadeva's words, did not understand and became even more confused. Only after being refuted by the Madhyamakaśāstra did they attain enlightenment. These belong to those with dull faculties. The fourth type is some non-Buddhists who initially received Āryadeva's words, and even after studying the Madhyamakaśāstra, they still did not understand. Later, they attained enlightenment through the Dvādaśadvāra-śāstra (Twelve Gate Treatise).

Next, it separately explains the title of the Madhyamakaśāstra. The naming of this treatise has both a broad and a concise form. The concise form is simply called Madhyamakaśāstra. Therefore, Dharma Master Rui's preface says, 'The Madhyamakaśāstra has five hundred verses and was composed by Nāgārjuna.' Later, only the two characters Madhyamaka are explained, so it is called the concise form. Question: Why is it only called Madhyamakaśāstra and not titled Observation? Answer: Madhyama (Middle) is the true reality that is being discussed, and Śāstra (Treatise) is the teaching method that is being discussed. If the truth and the teaching are clarified, then the meaning is complete. The broad form adds the word Observation. Therefore, Dharma Master Ying's preface to the Madhyamakaśāstra says, 'Ceasing all extremes is called Middle. Questioning and answering is called Treatise.' It also says, 'Observation is directly discerning with the mind, and Treatise is proclaiming with the mouth and ears.' Question: Why are all three characters fully titled? Answer: Because Observation arises from the Middle, and Treatise is proclaimed from Observation. The meaning is complete only when these three dharmas are complete. Regarding the order. Question: What is the order of these three characters? Answer: There are two kinds of order. One is the order of the one who transforms (the teacher), and the other is the order of the one who is transformed (the student). The order of the one who transforms is that Middle refers to the path practiced by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in the three times and ten directions, so Middle is mentioned first. Because of this path, the correct observation of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas arises, so Observation is mentioned next. Because there is correct observation within, the Buddha proclaims it with his mouth, which is called a sutra. Śrāvakayāna

宣之於口。目之為論也。約所化悟入次第者。稟教之徒因論識中。因中發觀。若望于佛。因教識理。因理髮觀也。次制立門。所以但明三字不多不少者。略有三義。一者諸佛菩薩凡有二德。一者自行。二者化他。中之與觀謂自行也。論之一字即是化他。自行化他義無不攝。故但標三字。二者化于眾生要必具三。一者有所悟之理。二者因理髮觀。三者由觀宣論。故但明三也。三者以中對觀。是境智之名。以觀對論。為行說之稱。因中發觀故。以中為境。以觀為智。如說而行為觀。如行而說為論。以義唯此四故。名字但有三名也。次論通別門。通而為言。三字皆中皆觀皆論。所言皆中者。理實不偏故理名為中。因中理髮觀。觀非偏觀。觀亦名中。因中觀宣論。論非偏論。論亦名中。三字皆觀者。中是義相觀。觀是心行觀。論是名字觀。亦如三種般若。中是實相般若。觀是觀照般若。論是文字般若。三種皆論者。論是能論故名為論。餘二所論亦名為論也。就別而言。理實不偏。與其中名。智是達照。當其觀稱。論是言教。故目之為論。次明互發盡門。就中有中發觀。觀發中。緣盡觀。觀盡緣。所言中發觀者。如涅槃經云。十二因緣不生不滅能生觀智。譬如胡瓜能發熱病也。觀發中者。眾生本謂因緣是生是滅。不知是中。以正

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本宣之於口，稱之為論。按照所教化領悟的次第來說，接受教導的人通過論來認識『中』（指不偏不倚的真理）。從『中』生髮觀照。如果從佛的角度來看，是因為教導而認識真理，因為真理而生髮觀照。接下來是設立門徑，為什麼只說明『中』、『觀』、『論』三個字，不多也不少呢？大概有三種含義。一是諸佛菩薩通常具有兩種德行：一是自行，二是化他。『中』和『觀』指的是自行，『論』這個字指的是化他。自行和化他的含義都包含在內，所以只標明這三個字。二是教化眾生一定要具備三個方面：一是要有所領悟的真理，二是要因真理而生髮觀照，三是要通過觀照來宣講理論，所以只說明這三個方面。三是用『中』來對應『觀』，是境和智的名稱；用『觀』來對應『論』，是行和說的稱謂。因為從『中』生髮觀照，所以用『中』作為境，用『觀』作為智。如按照所說而行就是『觀』，如按照所行而說就是『論』。因為意義只有這四種，所以名稱只有這三個。接下來是論述普遍性和特殊性。從普遍性來說，三個字都是『中』，都是『觀』，都是『論』。所說的都是『中』，是因為理體真實而不偏頗，所以理體稱為『中』。因為從『中』理生髮觀照，觀照不是偏頗的觀照，觀照也稱為『中』。因為從『中』觀宣講理論，理論不是偏頗的理論，理論也稱為『中』。三個字都是『觀』，是因為『中』是義相觀，『觀』是心行觀，『論』是名字觀。也像三種般若，『中』是實相般若，『觀』是觀照般若，『論』是文字般若。三種都是『論』，是因為『論』是能論，所以稱為『論』，其餘兩個所論也稱為『論』。就特殊性而言，理體真實而不偏頗，給予它『中』的名稱。智慧是通達照了，對應于『觀』的稱謂。『論』是言語教導，所以稱之為『論』。接下來闡明相互引發和窮盡的方面。就『中』而言，從『中』生髮『觀』，『觀』生髮『中』，緣分窮盡『觀』，『觀』窮盡緣分。所說的從『中』生髮『觀』，如《涅槃經》所說，十二因緣不生不滅，能夠生髮觀智，譬如胡瓜能夠引發熱病。『觀』生髮『中』，眾生本來認為因緣是生是滅，不知道是『中』，用正確的

【English Translation】 English version It is declared orally and called 'Treatise' (論 - lun). According to the order of transformation and enlightenment, those who receive teachings recognize 'Middle Way' (中 - zhong, referring to the unbiased truth) through the treatise. From the 'Middle Way', contemplation (觀 - guan) arises. If viewed from the perspective of the Buddha, it is through teaching that one recognizes the truth, and through truth that contemplation arises. Next is the establishment of the gateway. Why are only the three words 'Middle Way', 'Contemplation', and 'Treatise' explained, no more and no less? There are roughly three meanings. First, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas generally possess two virtues: self-cultivation and transforming others. 'Middle Way' and 'Contemplation' refer to self-cultivation, while the word 'Treatise' refers to transforming others. The meanings of self-cultivation and transforming others are both included, so only these three words are indicated. Second, transforming sentient beings must necessarily involve three aspects: first, a truth to be enlightened to; second, contemplation arising from the truth; and third, expounding the theory through contemplation, so only these three aspects are explained. Third, using 'Middle Way' to correspond to 'Contemplation' is the name of realm and wisdom; using 'Contemplation' to correspond to 'Treatise' is the designation of action and speech. Because contemplation arises from the 'Middle Way', the 'Middle Way' is used as the realm, and 'Contemplation' is used as wisdom. For example, acting according to what is said is 'Contemplation', and speaking according to what is done is 'Treatise'. Because the meanings are only these four, the names are only these three. Next is the discussion of universality and particularity. Universally speaking, all three words are 'Middle Way', all are 'Contemplation', and all are 'Treatise'. What is said to be all 'Middle Way' is because the principle is real and not biased, so the principle is called 'Middle Way'. Because contemplation arises from the principle of the 'Middle Way', contemplation is not biased contemplation, and contemplation is also called 'Middle Way'. Because the theory is expounded from the 'Middle Way' contemplation, the theory is not biased theory, and the theory is also called 'Middle Way'. All three words are 'Contemplation' because 'Middle Way' is the contemplation of the meaning aspect, 'Contemplation' is the contemplation of mental activity, and 'Treatise' is the contemplation of names. It is also like the three Prajnas: 'Middle Way' is the Real Mark Prajna, 'Contemplation' is the Contemplation Prajna, and 'Treatise' is the Verbal Prajna. All three are 'Treatise' because 'Treatise' is the one who can theorize, so it is called 'Treatise', and the other two that are theorized are also called 'Treatise'. Specifically speaking, the principle is real and not biased, giving it the name 'Middle Way'. Wisdom is thorough understanding and illumination, corresponding to the designation of 'Contemplation'. 'Treatise' is verbal instruction, so it is called 'Treatise'. Next, clarify the aspects of mutual generation and exhaustion. In terms of 'Middle Way', 'Contemplation' arises from 'Middle Way', 'Middle Way' arises from 'Contemplation', conditions exhaust 'Contemplation', and 'Contemplation' exhausts conditions. What is said about 'Contemplation' arising from 'Middle Way' is as stated in the Nirvana Sutra, the twelve links of dependent origination neither arise nor cease, and can generate contemplative wisdom, just as a cucumber can cause fever. 'Contemplation' generates 'Middle Way'. Sentient beings originally thought that dependent origination was arising and ceasing, not knowing it was 'Middle Way'. Using correct

觀檢生滅不得。方悟因緣是中。此則因觀發中。緣盡于觀觀盡于緣者。凡夫二乘及有所得偏邪之緣。盡菩薩正觀之內。故名緣盡于觀。觀盡于緣者。邪緣既盡正觀亦息。故名觀盡于緣。緣盡于觀故非緣。觀盡于緣故非觀。非緣非觀。不知何以美之。強名正觀也。問既得緣盡觀觀盡緣。亦得中盡觀親盡中不。答亦得爾也。中是智境。觀是境智。境不自境。因智故境。智不自智。由境故智。由智故境。境不自境。由境故智。智不自智。不自智則非智。不自境則非境。故是境盡于智。智盡于境。問亦得緣發於觀。觀發於緣不。答由邪緣故得顯正觀。即是緣發於觀。由正觀故顯緣是邪。謂觀發於緣耳。次明別釋三字門。總論釋義凡有四種。一依名釋義。二就理教釋義。三就互相釋義。四無方釋義也。依名釋義者。中以實為義。中以正為義。中以實為義者。如涅槃釋本有今無偈云。我昔本無中道實義。是故現在有無量煩惱。睿師中論序云。以中為名者。照其實也。照謂顯也。立於中名。為欲顯諸法實故。云照其實也。所言正者。華嚴云。正法性遠離一切言語道一切趣非趣。悉皆寂滅相。此之正法即是中道。離偏曰中。對邪名正。肇公物不遷論云。正觀論曰。觀方知彼去。去者不至方。故知中以正為義也。理教釋義者。中以不中為

【現代漢語翻譯】觀照、檢查生滅變化而不可得，才能領悟因緣存在於其中。這就是因為觀察而引發了對『中』（Madhyamaka，中道）的理解。『緣盡于觀』（Nirodha in observation）是指，凡夫、二乘（聲聞、緣覺）以及那些有所得的人所持有的偏頗邪惡的因緣，都在菩薩的正觀之內消盡，所以稱為『緣盡于觀』。『觀盡于緣』（Observation ends in Nirodha）是指，當邪惡的因緣消盡時，正確的觀察也隨之止息，所以稱為『觀盡于緣』。因緣在觀察中消盡，所以不是因緣；觀察在因緣中消盡，所以不是觀察。既非因緣也非觀察，不知該如何讚美它，勉強稱之為『正觀』（Samyag-dṛṣṭi，正見）。問：既然能夠達到『緣盡觀』（Nirodha in observation）、『觀盡緣』（Observation ends in Nirodha），是否也能達到『中盡觀』（Madhyamaka ends in observation）、『觀盡中』（Observation ends in Madhyamaka）呢？答：也可以這樣說。『中』（Madhyamaka，中道）是智慧的境界，『觀』（observation）是境界的智慧。境界不能自己成為境界，是因為智慧的緣故才成為境界；智慧不能自己成為智慧，是因為境界的緣故才成為智慧。因為智慧的緣故才有境界，境界不能自己成為境界；因為境界的緣故才有智慧，智慧不能自己成為智慧。不自己成為智慧，就不是智慧；不自己成為境界，就不是境界。所以是境界在智慧中消盡，智慧在境界中消盡。問：是否也能說『緣發於觀』（Nirodha arises from observation）、『觀發於緣』（Observation arises from Nirodha）呢？答：因為有邪惡的因緣，才能顯現正確的觀察，這就是『緣發於觀』（Nirodha arises from observation）。因為有正確的觀察，才能顯現因緣是邪惡的，這就是所謂的『觀發於緣』（Observation arises from Nirodha）。接下來分別解釋『三字門』（Three Doors to Liberation）。總的來說，解釋含義有四種方式：一是依名釋義，二是就理教釋義，三是就互相釋義，四是無方釋義。依名釋義是指，『中』（Madhyamaka，中道）以『實』（reality）為意義，『中』（Madhyamaka，中道）以『正』（rightness）為意義。『中』（Madhyamaka，中道）以『實』（reality）為意義，例如《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）解釋『本有今無偈』（Verse on Original Existence and Present Non-existence）時說：『我過去本來沒有中道真實的意義，所以現在有無量的煩惱。』鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）的《中論序》（Madhyamaka-kārikā）說：『以「中」（Madhyamaka，中道）為名，是爲了照亮它的真實。』照亮就是顯現。建立「中」（Madhyamaka，中道）這個名稱，是爲了顯現諸法的實相，所以說『照亮它的真實』。所說的『正』（rightness），《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）說：『正法之性遠離一切言語道，一切趣非趣，悉皆寂滅相。』這裡的『正法』（right Dharma）就是中道（Madhyamaka）。離開偏頗叫做『中』（Madhyamaka，中道），針對邪惡叫做『正』（rightness）。僧肇（Sengzhao）的《物不遷論》（Treatise on the Immutability of Things）說，《正觀論》（Arya-akṣayamati-nirdeśa-sūtra）說：『觀察才知道它離去，離去者不會到達方向。』所以知道『中』（Madhyamaka，中道）以『正』（rightness）為意義。理教釋義是指，『中』（Madhyamaka，中道）以不偏不倚為

【English Translation】 One can only realize that causality exists within when observing and examining arising and ceasing without attainment. This is because observation gives rise to the understanding of 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way). 'Nirodha in observation' (緣盡于觀) means that the biased and evil causes and conditions held by ordinary people, Śrāvakas (聲聞, Hearers), Pratyekabuddhas (緣覺, Solitary Buddhas), and those who are attached to attainment, are all exhausted within the Bodhisattva's correct observation. Therefore, it is called 'Nirodha in observation'. 'Observation ends in Nirodha' (觀盡于緣) means that when evil causes and conditions are exhausted, correct observation also ceases. Therefore, it is called 'Observation ends in Nirodha'. Because causes and conditions are exhausted in observation, it is not causes and conditions; because observation is exhausted in causes and conditions, it is not observation. Being neither causes and conditions nor observation, it is unknown how to praise it, so it is tentatively called 'Samyag-dṛṣṭi' (正觀, Right View). Question: Since one can attain 'Nirodha in observation' (緣盡觀) and 'Observation ends in Nirodha' (觀盡緣), can one also attain 'Madhyamaka ends in observation' (中盡觀) and 'Observation ends in Madhyamaka' (觀盡中)? Answer: It can also be said that way. 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way) is the realm of wisdom, and 'observation' is the wisdom of the realm. The realm cannot become a realm by itself; it becomes a realm because of wisdom. Wisdom cannot become wisdom by itself; it becomes wisdom because of the realm. Because of wisdom, there is a realm; the realm cannot become a realm by itself. Because of the realm, there is wisdom; wisdom cannot become wisdom by itself. If it does not become wisdom by itself, it is not wisdom; if it does not become a realm by itself, it is not a realm. Therefore, the realm is exhausted in wisdom, and wisdom is exhausted in the realm. Question: Can it also be said that 'Nirodha arises from observation' (緣發於觀) and 'Observation arises from Nirodha' (觀發於緣)? Answer: Because of evil causes and conditions, correct observation can be revealed. This is 'Nirodha arises from observation'. Because of correct observation, it can be revealed that causes and conditions are evil. This is what is called 'Observation arises from Nirodha'. Next, the 'Three Doors to Liberation' (三字門) are explained separately. In general, there are four ways to explain the meaning: first, to explain the meaning according to the name; second, to explain the meaning according to principle and teaching; third, to explain the meaning according to mutual explanation; and fourth, to explain the meaning without a fixed method. Explaining the meaning according to the name means that 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way) takes 'reality' (實) as its meaning, and 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way) takes 'rightness' (正) as its meaning. 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way) takes 'reality' (實) as its meaning. For example, the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) explains the 'Verse on Original Existence and Present Non-existence' (本有今無偈) by saying: 'In the past, I originally did not have the true meaning of the Middle Way, so now there are countless afflictions.' Kumārajīva's (鳩摩羅什) preface to the Madhyamaka-kārikā (中論序) says: 'The name "Madhyamaka" (中道, the Middle Way) is used to illuminate its reality.' To illuminate is to reveal. Establishing the name "Madhyamaka" (中道, the Middle Way) is to reveal the true nature of all dharmas, so it is said 'to illuminate its reality'. The so-called 'rightness' (正), the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經) says: 'The nature of the right Dharma is far from all paths of language; all destinies, both those that are and are not, are all aspects of tranquil extinction.' The 'right Dharma' (正法) here is the Middle Way (Madhyamaka). To be free from bias is called 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way), and to be directed against evil is called 'rightness' (正). Sengzhao's (僧肇) Treatise on the Immutability of Things (物不遷論) says that the Arya-akṣayamati-nirdeśa-sūtra (正觀論) says: 'Observing, one knows that it departs; the one who departs does not arrive at the direction.' Therefore, it is known that 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way) takes 'rightness' (正) as its meaning. Explaining the meaning according to principle and teaching means that 'Madhyamaka' (中道, the Middle Way) takes impartiality as

義。所以然者。諸法實相非中非不中。無名相法為眾生故強名相說。欲令因此名以悟無名。是故說中為顯不中。問中以不中為義。出何文耶。答華嚴云。一切有無法了達非有無。若爾。一切中偏法了達非中偏。即其事也。所言互相釋義者。中以偏為義。偏以中為義。所以然者。中偏是因緣之義。故說偏令悟中。說中令識偏。如經云。說世諦令識第一義諦。說第一義諦令識世諦也。四無方釋義者。中以色為義。中以心為義。是故華嚴經云。一中解無量。無量中解一。故一法得以一切法為義一切法得以一法為義。問中有幾種。答既稱為中。則非多非一。隨義對緣得說多一。所言一中者。一道清凈更無二道。一道者即一中道也。所言二中者。則約二諦辨中。謂世諦中真諦中。以世諦不偏故名為中。真諦不偏名為真諦中。所言三中者。二諦中及非真非俗中。所言四中者。謂對偏中。盡偏中。絕待中。成假中也。對偏中者。對大小學人斷常偏病。是故說對偏中也。盡偏中者。大小學人有于斷常偏病則不成中。偏病若盡則名為中。是故經云。眾生起見凡有二種。一斷二常。如是二見不名中道。無常無斷乃名中道。故名盡偏中也。絕待中者。本對偏病是故有中。偏病既除中亦不立。非中非偏。為出處眾生強名為中。謂絕待中。故此論

【現代漢語翻譯】義：這是什麼原因呢？因為諸法的真實相狀既不是『中』，也不是『不中』。本來沒有名稱和相狀的法，爲了眾生的緣故，勉強用名稱和相狀來解說，想要讓他們通過這些名稱來領悟那沒有名稱的真理。所以說『中』是爲了顯示『不中』。問：用『不中』來解釋『中』的意義，出自哪部經典？答：《華嚴經》說：『一切有法和無法，完全明白它們既不是有也不是無。』如果這樣，那麼一切『中』和『偏』的法，完全明白它們既不是『中』也不是『偏』，就是這個道理。所說的互相解釋意義，是說『中』用『偏』來解釋意義，『偏』用『中』來解釋意義。這是什麼原因呢？因為『中』和『偏』是因緣的意義，所以說『偏』是爲了讓人領悟『中』，說『中』是爲了讓人認識『偏』。如經中所說：『說世俗諦（Satya，真理）是爲了讓人認識第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦），說第一義諦是爲了讓人認識世俗諦。』四無方解釋意義，是說『中』用『色』（Rūpa，物質）來解釋意義，『中』用心（Citta，精神）來解釋意義。所以《華嚴經》說：『在一法中理解無量法，在無量法中理解一法。』所以一法可以用一切法來解釋意義，一切法可以用一法來解釋意義。問：『中』有幾種？答：既然稱為『中』，就不是多也不是一。隨著意義和因緣，可以說多說一。所說的一『中』，是一道清凈，更沒有第二道，這一道就是一中道（Madhyamā-pratipad，中道）。所說的二『中』，是根據二諦（Dva-satya，二諦）來分辨『中』，即世俗諦中和真諦中。因為世俗諦不偏頗，所以稱為『中』；真諦不偏頗，所以稱為真諦中。所說的三『中』，是二諦中以及非真非俗中。所說的四『中』，是對治『偏』的中、窮盡『偏』的中、絕待中（Nirapekṣa-madhyama，絕待中）、和成假中。對治『偏』的中，是對治大小乘學人斷見和常見的偏頗之病，所以說對治『偏』的中。窮盡『偏』的中，是大小乘學人如果有了斷見和常見的偏頗之病，就不能成就『中』。偏頗之病如果窮盡了，就稱為『中』。所以經中說：『眾生生起見解，總共有兩種，一是斷見，二是常見。像這樣的兩種見解，不叫做中道，沒有斷見沒有常見，才叫做中道。』所以叫做窮盡『偏』的中。絕待中，本來是爲了對治偏頗之病，所以才有了『中』。偏頗之病既然消除了，『中』也不成立了，既不是『中』也不是『偏』，爲了初出茅廬的眾生，勉強稱它為『中』，這就是絕待中。所以這部論...

【English Translation】 Meaning: What is the reason for this? It is because the true nature of all dharmas is neither 'middle' nor 'not middle'. Originally, there are no names or forms for dharmas, but for the sake of sentient beings, names and forms are used to explain them, with the intention of enabling them to realize the nameless truth through these names. Therefore, 'middle' is spoken of to reveal 'not middle'. Question: From which scripture does the meaning of explaining 'middle' with 'not middle' come? Answer: The Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing, Flower Garland Sutra) says: 'Completely understanding all existing and non-existing dharmas as neither existing nor non-existing.' If so, then completely understanding all 'middle' and 'extreme' dharmas as neither 'middle' nor 'extreme' is the same principle. The so-called mutual explanation of meaning refers to 'middle' using 'extreme' to explain meaning, and 'extreme' using 'middle' to explain meaning. What is the reason for this? It is because 'middle' and 'extreme' are the meaning of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda, 因緣), so speaking of 'extreme' is to enable people to realize 'middle', and speaking of 'middle' is to enable people to recognize 'extreme'. As the sutra says: 'Speaking of conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya, 世俗諦) is to enable people to recognize ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya, 勝義諦), and speaking of ultimate truth is to enable people to recognize conventional truth.' The four non-directional explanations of meaning refer to 'middle' using 'form' (Rūpa, 色) to explain meaning, and 'middle' using 'mind' (Citta, 心) to explain meaning. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'In one dharma, understand immeasurable dharmas; in immeasurable dharmas, understand one dharma.' Therefore, one dharma can be used to explain the meaning of all dharmas, and all dharmas can be used to explain the meaning of one dharma. Question: How many kinds of 'middle' are there? Answer: Since it is called 'middle', it is neither many nor one. Depending on the meaning and conditions, it can be said to be many or one. The so-called one 'middle' is one path of purity, with no second path. This one path is the one middle way (Madhyamā-pratipad, 中道). The so-called two 'middles' are distinguished based on the two truths (Dva-satya, 二諦), namely conventional truth and ultimate truth. Because conventional truth is not biased, it is called 'middle'; ultimate truth is not biased, so it is called ultimate truth middle. The so-called three 'middles' are the middle of the two truths and the middle that is neither true nor conventional. The so-called four 'middles' are the middle that counteracts extremes, the middle that exhausts extremes, the absolute middle (Nirapekṣa-madhyama, 絕待中), and the middle that establishes provisionality. The middle that counteracts extremes is to counteract the diseases of the extreme views of annihilation and permanence in learners of both the Great and Small Vehicles, so the middle that counteracts extremes is spoken of. The middle that exhausts extremes is that if learners of both the Great and Small Vehicles have the diseases of the extreme views of annihilation and permanence, they cannot achieve the 'middle'. If the diseases of extreme views are exhausted, it is called 'middle'. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Sentient beings give rise to views, and there are two kinds in total: one is the view of annihilation, and the other is the view of permanence. Such two views are not called the middle way; not annihilation and not permanence are called the middle way.' Therefore, it is called the middle that exhausts extremes. The absolute middle originally existed to counteract the diseases of extreme views, so there is 'middle'. Since the diseases of extreme views have been eliminated, the 'middle' is also not established, being neither 'middle' nor 'extreme'. For the sake of newly initiated sentient beings, it is reluctantly called 'middle', and this is the absolute middle. Therefore, this treatise...

云。若無有始終。中當云何有。經亦云。遠離二邊不著中道。即其事也。成假中者。有無為假。非有非無為中。由非有非無故說有無。如此之中為成於假。謂成假中也。所以然者。良由正道未曾有無。為化眾生假說有無故。以非有無為中。有無為假也。就成假中有單復疏密橫豎等義。具如中假義說。如說有為單假。非有為單中。無義亦爾。有無為復假。非有非無為復中。有無為疏假。非有非無為疏中。不有有為密假。有不有為密中。疏即是橫。密即是豎也。次釋中不同得有四種。一外道明中。二毗曇明中。三成實明中。四大乘人明中也。外道說中者。僧佉人言。泥團非瓶非非瓶。即是中義也。衛世師云。聲不名大不名小。勒沙婆云。光非闇非明。此之三師並以兩非為中。而未知所以為中耳。毗曇人釋中者。有事有理。事中者。無漏大王不在邊地。謂不在欲界及非想也。理中者。謂苦集之理不斷不常也。成實人明中道者。論文直言離有離無名聖中道。而論師云。中道有三。一世諦中道。二真諦中道。三非真非俗中道。四大乘人明中者。如攝大乘論師明。非安立諦不著生死不住涅槃。名之為中也。義本者。以無住為體中。此是合門。于體中。開為兩用。謂真俗。此是用中。即是開門也。又中假師云。非有非無為中。而有而

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云：如果不存在開始和結束，那麼中間又從何而來呢？經書中也說：『遠離有和無兩種邊見，不執著于中道』，說的就是這個道理。所謂『成假中』，是指有和無是假，非有非無是中。因為既非有也非無，所以才說有和無。這樣的『中』成就了『假』，所以稱為『成假中』。之所以這樣說，是因為真正的道從未有過有和無的分別，只是爲了教化眾生才假說有和無，因此以非有非無為『中』，有和無為『假』。關於『成假中』，有單、復、疏、密、橫、豎等多種含義，具體可以參考中假義的解釋。例如，說『有』是單假，『非有』是單中，『無』的含義也是如此。『有無』是復假，『非有非無』是復中。『有無』是疏假，『非有非無』是疏中。『不有有』是密假，『有不有』是密中。疏就是橫，密就是豎。接下來解釋『中』的不同，可以分為四種：一是外道所說的『中』，二是毗曇宗所說的『中』，三是成實宗所說的『中』，四是大乘修行人所說的『中』。外道所說的『中』，例如，僧佉派認為，泥團既不是瓶也不是非瓶，這就是『中』的含義。衛世師認為，聲音既不叫大也不叫小。勒沙婆認為，光既不是黑暗也不是明亮。這三位老師都以『兩非』為『中』，但並不知道為什麼是『中』。毗曇宗解釋『中』，分為事中和理中。事中是指，無漏大王不在邊地，也就是不在欲界和非想非非想處。理中是指，苦和集的道理既不是斷滅也不是恒常。成實宗闡明中道，經文直接說，離開有和無叫做聖中道。論師則說，中道有三種：一是世諦中道，二是真諦中道，三是非真非俗中道。大乘修行人闡明中道，例如《攝大乘論》的論師認為，不執著于安立諦，不執著于生死，不住于涅槃，這叫做『中』。其根本在於，以無住為『體中』。這是合門。在『體中』的基礎上，開出兩種作用，即真諦和俗諦。這是『用中』，也就是開門。另外，中假師認為，非有非無是『中』，而有而 English version: The text says: 'If there is no beginning and no end, how can there be a middle?' The sutra also says: 'Staying away from the two extremes of existence and non-existence, not clinging to the middle way,' which is the same principle. 'Achieving the provisional middle' means that existence and non-existence are provisional, while neither existence nor non-existence is the middle. Because it is neither existence nor non-existence, existence and non-existence are spoken of. This 'middle' achieves the 'provisional,' so it is called 'achieving the provisional middle.' The reason for this is that the true path has never had the distinction of existence and non-existence. It is only for the sake of teaching sentient beings that existence and non-existence are provisionally spoken of. Therefore, neither existence nor non-existence is the 'middle,' and existence and non-existence are the 'provisional.' Regarding 'achieving the provisional middle,' there are various meanings such as single, compound, sparse, dense, horizontal, and vertical, which can be found in the explanation of the meaning of the provisional middle. For example, 'existence' is said to be a single provisional, and 'non-existence' is a single middle. The meaning of 'non-existence' is the same. 'Existence and non-existence' are a compound provisional, and 'neither existence nor non-existence' is a compound middle. 'Existence and non-existence' are a sparse provisional, and 'neither existence nor non-existence' is a sparse middle. 'Non-existence of existence' is a dense provisional, and 'existence of non-existence' is a dense middle. Sparse is horizontal, and dense is vertical. Next, explaining the differences in 'middle' can be divided into four types: first, the 'middle' spoken of by externalists; second, the 'middle' spoken of by the Abhidharma school; third, the 'middle' spoken of by the Satyasiddhi school; and fourth, the 'middle' spoken of by Mahayana practitioners. The 'middle' spoken of by externalists, for example, the Samkhya school believes that a lump of clay is neither a pot nor not a pot, which is the meaning of 'middle.' The Vaisheshika school believes that sound is neither called large nor small. The Nirgrantha school believes that light is neither darkness nor brightness. These three teachers all take 'neither/nor' as the 'middle,' but they do not know why it is the 'middle.' The Abhidharma school explains the 'middle' in terms of event and principle. The event middle refers to the Arhat (Worthy One) not being in a border area, that is, not being in the desire realm or the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. The principle middle refers to the truth of suffering and accumulation being neither annihilation nor permanence. The Satyasiddhi school elucidates the middle way, the sutra directly says that leaving existence and non-existence is called the holy middle way. The commentator says that there are three kinds of middle way: first, the conventional truth middle way; second, the ultimate truth middle way; and third, the neither true nor conventional middle way. Mahayana practitioners elucidate the middle way, for example, the commentator of the Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) believes that not clinging to the established truth, not clinging to samsara (cycle of rebirth), not abiding in nirvana (liberation), is called the 'middle.' The root of this is taking non-abiding as the 'middle of essence.' This is the closed door. Based on the 'middle of essence,' two functions are opened up, namely, the ultimate truth and the conventional truth. This is the 'middle of function,' which is the open door. In addition, the teacher of the provisional middle believes that neither existence nor non-existence is the 'middle,' while existence and

【English Translation】 English version: It is said: 'If there is no beginning and no end, how can there be a middle?' The sutra also says: 'Staying away from the two extremes of existence and non-existence, not clinging to the middle way,' which is the same principle. 'Achieving the provisional middle' means that existence and non-existence are provisional, while neither existence nor non-existence is the middle. Because it is neither existence nor non-existence, existence and non-existence are spoken of. This 'middle' achieves the 'provisional,' so it is called 'achieving the provisional middle.' The reason for this is that the true path has never had the distinction of existence and non-existence. It is only for the sake of teaching sentient beings that existence and non-existence are provisionally spoken of. Therefore, neither existence nor non-existence is the 'middle,' and existence and non-existence are the 'provisional.' Regarding 'achieving the provisional middle,' there are various meanings such as single, compound, sparse, dense, horizontal, and vertical, which can be found in the explanation of the meaning of the provisional middle. For example, 'existence' is said to be a single provisional, and 'non-existence' is a single middle. The meaning of 'non-existence' is the same. 'Existence and non-existence' are a compound provisional, and 'neither existence nor non-existence' is a compound middle. 'Existence and non-existence' are a sparse provisional, and 'neither existence nor non-existence' is a sparse middle. 'Non-existence of existence' is a dense provisional, and 'existence of non-existence' is a dense middle. Sparse is horizontal, and dense is vertical. Next, explaining the differences in 'middle' can be divided into four types: first, the 'middle' spoken of by externalists; second, the 'middle' spoken of by the Abhidharma school; third, the 'middle' spoken of by the Satyasiddhi school; and fourth, the 'middle' spoken of by Mahayana practitioners. The 'middle' spoken of by externalists, for example, the Samkhya (one of the six major schools of Hinduism) school believes that a lump of clay is neither a pot nor not a pot, which is the meaning of 'middle.' The Vaisheshika (one of the six major schools of Hinduism) school believes that sound is neither called large nor small. The Nirgrantha (another name for Jain ascetics) school believes that light is neither darkness nor brightness. These three teachers all take 'neither/nor' as the 'middle,' but they do not know why it is the 'middle.' The Abhidharma school explains the 'middle' in terms of event and principle. The event middle refers to the Arhat (Worthy One) not being in a border area, that is, not being in the desire realm or the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. The principle middle refers to the truth of suffering and accumulation being neither annihilation nor permanence. The Satyasiddhi (a Buddhist school) school elucidates the middle way, the sutra directly says that leaving existence and non-existence is called the holy middle way. The commentator says that there are three kinds of middle way: first, the conventional truth middle way; second, the ultimate truth middle way; and third, the neither true nor conventional middle way. Mahayana practitioners elucidate the middle way, for example, the commentator of the Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) believes that not clinging to the established truth, not clinging to samsara (cycle of rebirth), not abiding in nirvana (liberation), is called the 'middle.' The root of this is taking non-abiding as the 'middle of essence.' This is the closed door. Based on the 'middle of essence,' two functions are opened up, namely, the ultimate truth and the conventional truth. This is the 'middle of function,' which is the open door. In addition, the teacher of the provisional middle believes that neither existence nor non-existence is the 'middle,' while existence and

無為假也。

三論玄義

為弘破邪顯正宗　　新遂開板雕文功　早耀八不正觀月　　速拂三界迷倫霧

於時建長八年(丁巳)三月七日沙門聖守

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『無為』是虛假的。

《三論玄義》

爲了弘揚正法，破除邪見，彰顯正宗，新近完成了開版雕刻文字的功德。早日照耀『八不中道觀』（不生不滅、不常不斷、不一不異、不來不去）的智慧之月，迅速拂去三界（欲界、色界、無色界）迷惑顛倒的迷霧。

時在建長八年（丁巳年）三月七日，沙門聖守（monk Seiju）敬書。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Nirvana』 is false.

The Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises

In order to promote the right Dharma, refute heresies, and reveal the true doctrine, The merit of opening the plate and engraving the text has recently been completed. May the moon of wisdom of the 『Eight No Middle Way』 (no birth and no death, no permanence and no impermanence, no identity and no difference, no coming and no going) shine early, Quickly dispel the fog of delusion and confusion in the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm).

Respectfully written by the monk Seiju on March 7th, the eighth year of Kencho (DingSi year).