T45n1853_大乘玄論

大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1853 大乘玄論

No. 1853

大乘玄論卷第一

胡吉藏撰

二諦義有十重。

第一標大意　第二釋名　第三立名　第四有無　第五二諦體　第六中道　第七相即　第八攝法　第九辨教　第十同異

二諦者。蓋是言教之通詮。相待之假稱。虛寂之妙實。窮中道之極號。明如來常依二諦說法。一者世諦。二者第一義諦。故二諦唯是教門不關境理。而學者有其巧拙。遂有得失之異。所以若有巧方便慧。學此二諦。成無所得。無巧方便慧學教。即成有所得。故常途三師置辭各異。開善云。二諦者法性之旨歸。一真不二之極理。莊嚴云。二諦者蓋是祛惑之勝境。入道之實津。光宅云。二諦者蓋是聖教之遙泉。靈智之淵府。三說雖復不同。或言含智解。或辭兼聖教。同以境理為諦。若依廣州大亮法師。定以言教為諦。今不同此等諸師。問攝嶺興皇何以言教為諦耶。答其有深意。為對由來以理為諦故。對緣假說。問中論云諸佛依二諦說法。涅槃經云隨順眾生故說二諦。是何諦耶。答能依是教諦所依是于諦。問于諦為失教諦為得不。答凡夫于為失如來於為得。聖人于亦得亦失。而師云。于諦為失教諦為得者。乃是學教成迷。本於是通迷學教於別

迷。通迷是本別迷末。本是前迷末是后迷。問何意開凡聖二于諦耶。答云。示凡聖得失。令轉凡成聖。問于諦為失者何以言諦耶。答論文自解。諸法性空。世間顛倒謂有。於世人為實。名之為諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。于聖人是實名之為諦。此即二于諦。諸佛依此而說。名為教諦耳。問教若為名諦耶。答有數意。一者依實而說故所說亦實。是故名諦。二者如來誠諦之言。是故名諦。三者說有無教實能表道。是故名諦。四者說法實能利緣。是故名諦。五者說不顛倒。是故名諦。與他家異有十種異。一者理教異。彼明。二諦是理。三假是俗。四絕是真。今明。二是教。不二是理。他家有理無教。今明。有教有理。二者相無相異。他家住有無故是有相。今明。有表不有無表不無。不住有無故名無相。三者得無得異。他家住有無故名有得。今明。不住有無故名無得。四者理內外異。他家住有無故名理外。今明。不住有無故名理內。五者開覆異。他有住有無住無。此有無覆如來因緣有無。今明。二諦是教。是有表不有無表不無。即開如來教無有壅滯。六者半滿異。他家唯有二無不二。故唯教無理名為半字。今明。具足理教名為滿字。七者愚智異。涅槃云。明無明愚者謂二。智者了達無二。真俗二者即愚。不二者即智。故知。不二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『迷』（Mī，迷惑）這個概念。『通迷』（Tōng mī，貫通迷惑）是根本的迷惑和末端的迷惑的區別。『本』（Běn，根本）是指最初的迷惑，『末』（Mò，末端）是指後來的迷惑。問：為什麼要在真諦（dì，終極真理）上區分凡夫和聖人呢？答：爲了揭示凡夫和聖人在真諦上的得與失，從而使凡夫轉變為聖人。問：如果說真諦對某些人來說是『失』（shī，失去），為什麼還稱之為『諦』（dì，真理）呢？答：論文字身會解釋。諸法的自性本空（xìng kōng，本質為空性），世間的顛倒認知卻認為實有。對於世人來說，這種顛倒認知是真實的，所以稱之為『諦』。而諸位賢聖真正了知這種顛倒的自性本空，對於聖人來說，這種空性才是真實的，所以也稱之為『諦』。這就是二種真諦。諸佛依據這二種真諦而說法，所以稱之為教諦（jiào dì，教導的真理）。問：教法為什麼能被稱為『諦』呢？答：有多種原因。一是教法依據真實而說，所以所說的也是真實的，因此稱為『諦』。二是如來說誠實不虛妄的語言，所以稱為『諦』。三是說有說無的教法，實際上能夠表達真理，所以稱為『諦』。四是說法確實能夠利益有緣眾生，所以稱為『諦』。五是所說的不顛倒，所以稱為『諦』。與其他學派的觀點不同，有十種不同之處。一是理和教的不同。他們認為，二諦是理，三假是俗諦，四絕是真諦。而我們認為，二諦是教，不二是理。他們只有理而沒有教，我們既有教也有理。二是相和無相的不同。他們執著于有和無，所以是有相。我們既用『有』來表達『非有』，又用『無』來表達『非無』，不執著于有和無，所以稱為無相。三是得和無得的不同。他們執著于有和無，所以是有所得。我們不執著于有和無，所以是無所得。四是理的內外不同。他們執著于有和無，所以理在外面。我們不執著于有和無，所以理在裡面。五是開和覆的不同。他們執著于有和無，這種有無覆蓋瞭如來的因緣有無。我們認為，二諦是教，用『有』來表達『非有』，用『無』來表達『非無』，這就開啟瞭如來的教法，沒有壅塞。六是半和滿的不同。他們只有二諦而沒有不二，所以只有教而沒有理，稱為半字教。我們具足理和教，稱為滿字教。七是愚和智的不同。《涅槃經》（Niè pán jīng，Nirvana Sutra）說：『不明無明的人認為有二，有智慧的人了達無二。』認為真諦和俗諦是二，就是愚癡；了達不二，就是智慧。所以要知道，不二……

【English Translation】 English version: The concept of 『Mī』 (迷, delusion). 『Tōng mī』 (通迷, penetrating delusion) distinguishes between the fundamental delusion and the ultimate delusion. 『Běn』 (本, root) refers to the initial delusion, and 『Mò』 (末, end) refers to the subsequent delusion. Question: Why differentiate between ordinary beings and sages in terms of truth (dì, 諦, ultimate truth)? Answer: To reveal the gains and losses of ordinary beings and sages in relation to truth, thereby enabling ordinary beings to transform into sages. Question: If truth is considered a 『loss』 (shī, 失, losing) for some, why is it still called 『truth』 (dì, 諦, truth)? Answer: The treatise itself will explain. The nature of all dharmas is emptiness (xìng kōng, 性空, emptiness of inherent existence), but worldly inverted perceptions consider them to be real. For worldly people, this inverted perception is real, so it is called 『truth』. However, the noble sages truly know that the nature of this inversion is emptiness; for the sages, this emptiness is real, so it is also called 『truth』. These are the two truths. All Buddhas speak based on these two truths, so it is called the teaching truth (jiào dì, 教諦, teaching of truth). Question: Why can the teaching be called 『truth』? Answer: There are several reasons. First, the teaching is based on reality, so what is said is also real; therefore, it is called 『truth』. Second, the Tathagata (如來, Rúlái, Thus Come One) speaks truthful and non-deceitful words, so it is called 『truth』. Third, the teaching that speaks of existence and non-existence can actually express the path, so it is called 『truth』. Fourth, the teaching can truly benefit sentient beings with affinity, so it is called 『truth』. Fifth, what is said is not inverted, so it is called 『truth』. It differs from the views of other schools in ten ways. First, the difference between principle and teaching. They believe that the two truths are principle, the three provisionalities are conventional truth, and the four absolutes are ultimate truth. We believe that the two truths are teaching, and non-duality is principle. They only have principle without teaching, while we have both teaching and principle. Second, the difference between form and formlessness. They cling to existence and non-existence, so they have form. We use 『existence』 to express 『non-existence』 and 『non-existence』 to express 『non-non-existence』, not clinging to existence and non-existence, so it is called formlessness. Third, the difference between attainment and non-attainment. They cling to existence and non-existence, so there is attainment. We do not cling to existence and non-existence, so there is no attainment. Fourth, the difference between inner and outer principle. They cling to existence and non-existence, so the principle is outside. We do not cling to existence and non-existence, so the principle is inside. Fifth, the difference between opening and covering. They cling to existence and non-existence, which covers the conditioned existence and non-existence of the Tathagata. We believe that the two truths are teaching, using 『existence』 to express 『non-existence』 and 『non-existence』 to express 『non-non-existence』, which opens up the Tathagata's teaching without obstruction. Sixth, the difference between half and full. They only have the two truths without non-duality, so there is only teaching without principle, called the half-word teaching. We have both principle and teaching, called the full-word teaching. Seventh, the difference between ignorance and wisdom. The Nirvana Sutra (Niè pán jīng, 涅槃經) says: 『Those who are ignorant of non-ignorance consider there to be two, while the wise understand non-duality.』 Considering the conventional truth and ultimate truth as two is ignorance; understanding non-duality is wisdom. Therefore, know that non-duality...

是理二是教。八者體用異。彼有用無體。今即具有體用。九者本末異。不二是本二是末。他但有末無本。今具有本末。十者了不了異。他家二諦。住有無故名不了。今明。說有欲顯不有。說無慾顯不無。有無顯不有不無。故名了義。他但以有為世諦。空為真諦。今明。若有若空皆是世諦。非空非有始名真諦。三者空有為二。非空有為不二。二與不二皆是世諦。非二非不二名為真諦。四者此三種二諦皆是教門。說此三門。為令悟不三。無所依得始名為理。問前三皆是世諦不三為真諦。答如此。問若爾理與教何異。答自有二諦為教不二為理。皆是轉側適緣無所防也。問何故作此四重二諦耶。答對毗曇事理二諦。明第一重空有二諦。二者對成論師空有二諦。汝空有二諦是我俗諦。非空非有方是真諦。故有第二重二諦也。三者對大乘師依他分別二為俗諦。依他無生分別無相不二真實性為真諦。今明。若二若不二。皆是我家俗諦。非二非不二。方是真諦。故有第三重二諦。四者大乘師復言。三性是俗。三無性非安立諦為真諦。故今明。汝依他分別二真實不二是安立諦。非二非不二三無性非安立諦皆是我俗諦。言忘慮絕方是真諦。文含多義。後文當釋。問若以有無為教表非有非無理者。何不以非有非無之教表非有非無之理。必以有

無之教表非有非無理耶。答不可以月指月。應以指指月。若利根菩薩。應如是說。但凡夫著有無故。以有無表非有非無。問若以于諦為眾生說者更增其患。何以依二于諦說法耶。答曰。凡夫著有二乘滯空。今明。如來因緣有無假有假無。假有故不有。假無故不無。云何增患耶。問成論師云。十六知見非二諦所攝。十六知見道理無。此出自外道橫計。故非世諦。既非世諦。其即空亦非真諦。此義云何。答若言十六知見出外道橫計非二諦所攝者。陰界入等亦出凡夫橫計。何得云二諦所攝。若凡夫所見即是世諦者。凡夫人應是聖人。

釋名第二。若如他釋。俗以浮虛為義。真以真固為名。世是隔別為義。第一莫過為旨。此是隨名釋義。非是以義釋名。若爾可謂世間諸法者有字無義。今明。俗以不俗為義。真以不真為義。若具足論之。應以非俗非不俗遣四句為俗義。但今對他浮虛是俗義。今明。不俗為義。是名出世法者。有字有義。今引凈名經。不生不滅是無常義。五陰空無所有是苦義。常途真實是諦義。還以諦釋諦。義例前可見。解諦義有四家不同。一云四諦理實是為諦。遺教經云。日可令冷月可令熱。佛說苦諦真實是苦。不可令樂故。以理實為諦。第二家云。境理非諦。能觀智為諦。大經云。若苦是聖諦者。地獄眾

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：用『無』的教義來表達非有非無的道理，可以嗎？答：不能像用手指指向手指一樣。應該用手指指向月亮。如果對於有很高智慧的菩薩，應該那樣說。但是凡夫執著于有和無，所以用有和無來表達非有非無的道理。問：如果用二諦（于諦）為眾生說法，會增加他們的困惑，為什麼還要依據二諦說法呢？答：凡夫執著于『有』，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）滯留于『空』。現在說明，如來說的因緣有無是假有假無。因為是假有，所以不是真有；因為是假無，所以不是真無。怎麼會增加困惑呢？問：成論師說，十六知見不屬於二諦所包含。十六知見的道理是虛無的，這是出自外道的胡亂猜測，所以不是世俗諦。既然不是世俗諦，那麼它的空性也不是真諦。這個道理是什麼呢？答：如果說十六知見是出自外道的胡亂猜測，不屬於二諦所包含，那麼陰、界、入等也出自凡夫的胡亂猜測，怎麼能說是二諦所包含的呢？如果凡夫所見就是世俗諦，那麼凡夫人就應該是聖人了。現代漢語譯本：釋名第二。如果按照其他人的解釋，『俗』以浮虛為意義，『真』以真固為名稱，『世』以隔別為意義，『第一』以莫過為宗旨。這是隨名稱解釋意義，而不是用意義解釋名稱。如果這樣說，可以說世間諸法只有字而沒有意義。現在說明，『俗』以不俗為意義，『真』以不真為意義。如果完整地論述，應該用非俗非不俗來排除四句，作為俗的意義。但現在針對他人的浮虛，說浮虛是俗的意義。現在說明，不俗為意義，這叫做『出世法』，有字也有意義。現在引用《維摩詰經》，『不生不滅』是無常的意義，『五陰空無所有』是苦的意義，『常途真實』是諦的意義。還是用諦來解釋諦，義例和前面一樣可以理解。解釋諦的意義有四家不同。第一家說，四諦的道理真實就是諦。《遺教經》說，『太陽可以變冷，月亮可以變熱，佛說的苦諦真實是苦，不可能變成樂』，所以用理實作為諦。第二家說，境和理不是諦，能觀的智慧才是諦。《大般涅槃經》說，『如果苦是聖諦，那麼地獄』

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is it appropriate to use the teaching of 'non-existence' to express the principle of neither existence nor non-existence? Answer: It cannot be like pointing a finger at a finger. One should point a finger at the moon. If it is for Bodhisattvas with sharp faculties, it should be said that way. However, ordinary people are attached to existence and non-existence, so existence and non-existence are used to express the principle of neither existence nor non-existence. Question: If the Two Truths (Satya) are used to teach sentient beings, will it increase their confusion? Why then rely on the Two Truths to teach? Answer: Ordinary people are attached to 'existence,' and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are stuck in 'emptiness.' Now, it is explained that the conditioned existence and non-existence spoken of by the Tathagata are provisional existence and provisional non-existence. Because it is provisional existence, it is not truly existent; because it is provisional non-existence, it is not truly non-existent. How can it increase confusion? Question: The Tattvasiddhi School says that the sixteen knowledges are not included in the Two Truths. The principle of the sixteen knowledges is non-existent; this comes from the random speculations of externalists, so it is not conventional truth (saṁvṛti-satya). Since it is not conventional truth, its emptiness is also not ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). What is the meaning of this? Answer: If it is said that the sixteen knowledges come from the random speculations of externalists and are not included in the Two Truths, then the skandhas (khandha), dhātus (dhātu), and āyatanas (āyatana) also come from the random speculations of ordinary people. How can they be said to be included in the Two Truths? If what ordinary people see is conventional truth, then ordinary people should be sages. English version: Explanation of Names, Second. According to others' explanations, 'conventional' (saṁvṛti) means superficial and unreal, 'truth' (satya) means genuine and solid, 'world' (loka) means separate and distinct, and 'first' (prathama) means unsurpassed as its purpose. This is explaining the meaning according to the name, not explaining the name according to the meaning. If that were the case, it could be said that worldly dharmas have words but no meaning. Now, it is explained that 'conventional' means not unconventional, and 'truth' means not untrue. If discussed completely, one should use neither conventional nor unconventional to exclude the four possibilities as the meaning of conventional. But now, in response to others' superficiality, it is said that superficiality is the meaning of conventional. Now, it is explained that not unconventional is the meaning; this is called 'transcendental dharma,' which has both word and meaning. Now, quoting the Vimalakirti Sutra, 'no birth, no death' is the meaning of impermanence (anitya), 'the five skandhas are empty and without substance' is the meaning of suffering (duhkha), and 'the constant path is real' is the meaning of truth (satya). Still using truth to explain truth, the meaning and examples are understandable as before. There are four different schools of thought on explaining the meaning of truth. The first school says that the truth of the Four Noble Truths is truth. The Sutra of the Bequeathed Teachings says, 'The sun can be made cold, the moon can be made hot, but the suffering truth spoken by the Buddha is truly suffering and cannot be made into happiness,' so reality is used as truth. The second school says that the object and principle are not truth, but the wisdom that can observe is truth. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says, 'If suffering is a noble truth, then hell'

生有苦。應是苦聖諦。而今地獄等苦。非聖諦。豈得前境為諦。第三解。取能詮理之文言為諦。第四家云。合取境智文理為諦。若單境不智亦非諦。單取智文理亦非諦。今明。四解並是並非。如眾盲摸象不得像體。然不離象。經中非無此釋。諸佛方便隨從眾生。故作此說。今還一一難之。第一解云境理審實名諦者。地獄畜生應是苦聖諦。毒蛇瞋雀多欲應是集聖諦。第二解云以智為諦者。應名權實諦。第三解云文言詮審實為諦者。文言終不得理。那得為諦。第四解云若以境智合為諦者。境智既其非諦。今合那得為諦。如一沙不能出油合二沙不得油也。今明。此真俗是如來二種教門。能表為名則有二諦。若從所表為名則唯一諦。故非只以審實為義。若二于諦。即以審實為諦。若就因緣教諦即有多義。或以誠諦之言釋諦。此二教表不二之道。教必不差違即是諦義。依名釋諦如是。若依義釋諦。諦以不諦為義。此是豎論。若橫論。諦以諸法為義。例如真俗義中說。俗以浮虛為義。俗以真為義。俗以不俗為義。真亦然。更料簡諦待不諦有五條意。一者二諦相望是二不諦。俗非真真非俗。故二諦成二不諦。二者非有非無。是二不諦義。能表是有無。所表非有無。故成二不諦。三者二智是二不諦義。真俗既二境。境自待不境。不境即

是智。四者義有三種。一者就理外凡聖二緣二境。二者就理內凡聖二緣二境。三者豎理內外相望。有凡聖諦不諦義。理外凡聖者。如有于凡實。所以為諦。空于凡不實。即是不諦。空于聖亦然。凡聖二人各行一實一虛。故有諦不諦義。理內凡聖亦然。次豎論者。若理外凡聖。皆是顛倒有所得行。俱是凡夫理內若凡若聖。皆名為聖。二諦亦然。理外若真若俗。俱是俗諦。理內若真若俗。皆是真諦。理內所行。非外所行。理外所行。非內所行。有諦不諦義。五者直就凡聖各自有諦不諦。如有于凡是實。即此有于聖為不實。只此一有自有實不實。不須他釋。次更明於諦教諦合論有三句。一者能諦所非諦。二者所諦能非諦。三者亦能亦所諦。能諦所非諦者。即是于諦。有于凡實。空于聖實。取兩情為諦。不取空有二境為諦。言教諦是所非能者。二智是能說。二諦是所說。此就境智判能所。亦能亦所諦者。合取于教二諦。更就教諦中復有三句。一能名諦。二所名諦。三亦能亦所名諦。言能名諦者。即是真俗二教。以能表道故名諦。言所名諦者。真俗所表理實故。能表之教亦實。此從表實為名。亦能亦所者。即理教合說。非理即不教。非教即不理。理教因緣。此二皆實。故能所皆諦。于諦有三句。一皆得二皆失三亦得亦失。言亦得

【現代漢語翻譯】這是關於『智』（Prajna，智慧）的討論。『四者義』（四種意義）有三種解釋：第一種是就『理外』（超越真理之外）的凡夫和聖人的兩種因緣和兩種境界而言；第二種是就『理內』（真理之內）的凡夫和聖人的兩種因緣和兩種境界而言；第三種是豎向看待『理內』和『理外』，有凡夫和聖人的『諦』（Satya，真諦）與『不諦』（Asatya，非真諦）的意義。『理外』的凡夫和聖人，例如，『有』（Bhava，存在）對於凡夫來說是真實的，所以是『諦』；『空』（Sunyata，空性）對於凡夫來說是不真實的，那就是『不諦』。『空』對於聖人來說也是如此。凡夫和聖人各自奉行一種真實和一種虛假，所以有『諦』與『不諦』的意義。『理內』的凡夫和聖人也是如此。接下來是豎向的論述，如果『理外』的凡夫和聖人，都是顛倒和有所得的修行，都是凡夫；『理內』的凡夫和聖人，都被稱為聖人。『二諦』（Dva Satya，二諦）也是如此，『理外』的真諦和俗諦，都是俗諦；『理內』的真諦和俗諦，都是真諦。『理內』所修行的，不是『理外』所修行的；『理外』所修行的，不是『理內』所修行的，所以有『諦』與『不諦』的意義。第五種是直接就凡夫和聖人各自有『諦』與『不諦』。例如，『有』對於凡夫來說是真實的，但這個『有』對於聖人來說是不真實的。僅僅這一個『有』，自身就有真實和不真實，不需要其他的解釋。接下來進一步闡明，關於『諦』、『教』（Dharma，佛法）、『諦合論』（真諦與教義結合的理論）有三種說法：第一種是『能諦所非諦』（能詮釋真諦，但本身不是真諦）；第二種是『所諦能非諦』（本身是真諦，但不能詮釋真諦）；第三種是『亦能亦所諦』（既能詮釋真諦，本身也是真諦）。『能諦所非諦』，就是指『有』對於凡夫來說是真實的，『空』對於聖人來說是真實的，選取兩種情況作為真諦，不選取『空』和『有』這兩種境界作為真諦。說『教諦』是『所非能』，是因為『二智』（兩種智慧）是能說的，『二諦』是所說的。這是就境界和智慧來判斷能和所。『亦能亦所諦』，是將教義和二諦結合起來說。進一步就教義和真諦中又有三種說法：第一種是『能名諦』（能詮釋真諦的名稱）；第二種是『所名諦』（所詮釋真諦的名稱）；第三種是『亦能亦所名諦』（既能詮釋真諦，也是所詮釋真諦的名稱）。說『能名諦』，就是指真諦和俗諦兩種教義，因為能夠表達道路，所以稱為真諦。說『所名諦』，是真諦和俗諦所表達的理體是真實的，所以能表達的教義也是真實的，這是從表達真實的角度來命名的。『亦能亦所』，就是理體和教義合起來說，沒有理體就沒有教義，沒有教義就沒有理體，理體和教義是因緣關係，這兩者都是真實的，所以能詮釋的和所詮釋的都是真諦。對於真諦有三種說法：第一種是『皆得』（全部獲得）；第二種是『皆失』（全部失去）；第三種是『亦得亦失』（既有獲得也有失去）。說『亦得』這是關於『智』（Prajna，智慧）的討論。『四者義』（四種意義）有三種解釋：第一種是就『理外』（超越真理之外）的凡夫和聖人的兩種因緣和兩種境界而言；第二種是就『理內』（真理之內）的凡夫和聖人的兩種因緣和兩種境界而言；第三種是豎向看待『理內』和『理外』，有凡夫和聖人的『諦』（Satya，真諦）與『不諦』（Asatya，非真諦）的意義。『理外』的凡夫和聖人，例如，『有』（Bhava，存在）對於凡夫來說是真實的，所以是『諦』；『空』（Sunyata，空性）對於凡夫來說是不真實的，那就是『不諦』。『空』對於聖人來說也是如此。凡夫和聖人各自奉行一種真實和一種虛假，所以有『諦』與『不諦』的意義。『理內』的凡夫和聖人也是如此。接下來是豎向的論述，如果『理外』的凡夫和聖人，都是顛倒和有所得的修行，都是凡夫；『理內』的凡夫和聖人，都被稱為聖人。『二諦』（Dva Satya，二諦）也是如此，『理外』的真諦和俗諦，都是俗諦；『理內』的真諦和俗諦，都是真諦。『理內』所修行的，不是『理外』所修行的；『理外』所修行的，不是『理內』所修行的，所以有『諦』與『不諦』的意義。第五種是直接就凡夫和聖人各自有『諦』與『不諦』。例如，『有』對於凡夫來說是真實的，但這個『有』對於聖人來說是不真實的。僅僅這一個『有』，自身就有真實和不真實，不需要其他的解釋。接下來進一步闡明，關於『諦』、『教』（Dharma，佛法）、『諦合論』（真諦與教義結合的理論）有三種說法：第一種是『能諦所非諦』（能詮釋真諦，但本身不是真諦）；第二種是『所諦能非諦』（本身是真諦，但不能詮釋真諦）；第三種是『亦能亦所諦』（既能詮釋真諦，本身也是真諦）。『能諦所非諦』，就是指『有』對於凡夫來說是真實的，『空』對於聖人來說是真實的，選取兩種情況作為真諦，不選取『空』和『有』這兩種境界作為真諦。說『教諦』是『所非能』，是因為『二智』（兩種智慧）是能說的，『二諦』是所說的。這是就境界和智慧來判斷能和所。『亦能亦所諦』，是將教義和二諦結合起來說。進一步就教義和真諦中又有三種說法：第一種是『能名諦』（能詮釋真諦的名稱）；第二種是『所名諦』（所詮釋真諦的名稱）；第三種是『亦能亦所名諦』（既能詮釋真諦，也是所詮釋真諦的名稱）。說『能名諦』，就是指真諦和俗諦兩種教義，因為能夠表達道路，所以稱為真諦。說『所名諦』，是真諦和俗諦所表達的理體是真實的，所以能表達的教義也是真實的，這是從表達真實的角度來命名的。『亦能亦所』，就是理體和教義合起來說，沒有理體就沒有教義，沒有教義就沒有理體，理體和教義是因緣關係，這兩者都是真實的，所以能詮釋的和所詮釋的都是真諦。對於真諦有三種說法：第一種是『皆得』（全部獲得）；第二種是『皆失』（全部失去）；第三種是『亦得亦失』（既有獲得也有失去）。說『亦得』

【English Translation】 This is a discussion about 『Prajna』 (智, wisdom). There are three interpretations of the 『fourfold meanings』 (四者義): The first is in terms of the two conditions and two realms of ordinary beings and sages 『outside of principle』 (理外, beyond the truth); the second is in terms of the two conditions and two realms of ordinary beings and sages 『within principle』 (理內, within the truth); the third is to view 『within principle』 and 『outside of principle』 vertically, with the meanings of 『Satya』 (諦, truth) and 『Asatya』 (不諦, non-truth) for ordinary beings and sages. For ordinary beings and sages 『outside of principle』, for example, 『Bhava』 (有, existence) is real for ordinary beings, so it is 『Satya』; 『Sunyata』 (空, emptiness) is unreal for ordinary beings, which is 『Asatya』. 『Emptiness』 is also the same for sages. Ordinary beings and sages each uphold a reality and a falsehood, so there is the meaning of 『Satya』 and 『Asatya』. The ordinary beings and sages 『within principle』 are also the same. Next is the vertical discussion, if the ordinary beings and sages 『outside of principle』 are all practicing with inverted views and attachments, they are all ordinary beings; the ordinary beings and sages 『within principle』 are all called sages. The 『Two Truths』 (二諦, Dva Satya) are also the same, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth 『outside of principle』 are both conventional truths; the conventional truth and the ultimate truth 『within principle』 are both ultimate truths. What is practiced 『within principle』 is not what is practiced 『outside of principle』; what is practiced 『outside of principle』 is not what is practiced 『within principle』, so there is the meaning of 『Satya』 and 『Asatya』. The fifth is that ordinary beings and sages each directly have 『Satya』 and 『Asatya』. For example, 『existence』 is real for ordinary beings, but this 『existence』 is unreal for sages. This single 『existence』 itself has reality and unreality, without needing other explanations. Next, it is further clarified that there are three statements about 『Satya』, 『Dharma』 (教, teachings), and the 『theory of the combination of Satya』 (諦合論, the theory of combining truth and teachings): The first is 『that which can be truth but is not truth』 (能諦所非諦); the second is 『that which is truth but cannot be truth』 (所諦能非諦); the third is 『both can be truth and is truth』 (亦能亦所諦). 『That which can be truth but is not truth』 refers to 『existence』 being real for ordinary beings, and 『emptiness』 being real for sages, selecting the two situations as truth, not selecting the two realms of 『emptiness』 and 『existence』 as truth. Saying that 『Dharma-Satya』 is 『that which is truth but cannot be truth』 is because the 『Two Wisdoms』 (二智, two kinds of wisdom) are what can be spoken, and the 『Two Truths』 are what are spoken. This is judging the able and the object based on realm and wisdom. 『Both can be truth and is truth』 is combining the teachings and the Two Truths. Furthermore, within the teachings and truth, there are three statements: The first is 『the name that can be truth』 (能名諦); the second is 『the name that is truth』 (所名諦); the third is 『the name that both can be truth and is truth』 (亦能亦所名諦). Saying 『the name that can be truth』 refers to the two teachings of conventional truth and ultimate truth, because they can express the path, so they are called truth. Saying 『the name that is truth』 is that the principle expressed by the conventional truth and ultimate truth is real, so the teachings that can express it are also real, this is named from the perspective of expressing reality. 『Both can be and is』 is the principle and teachings combined, without principle there are no teachings, without teachings there is no principle, principle and teachings are causal conditions, both of these are real, so what can express and what is expressed are both truth. There are three statements about truth: The first is 『all are attained』 (皆得); the second is 『all are lost』 (皆失); the third is 『both are attained and lost』 (亦得亦失). Saying 『both are attained』

亦失者。凡於是有。此有為失。諸賢聖真知性空。此空為得。二皆失者。二皆是于故二皆失。二皆得者。只知於二即知不二。既非二非不二。五句皆凈。然此三句。前二句即于諦。后一句即教諦。前二句即于境。后一句教境。于境即不轉。教境即轉也。

立名第三。三門分別。前辨立名。次辨絕名。后辨借名。立名者不真不俗。亦是中道。亦名無所有。亦名正法。亦名無住。此非真非俗無名。今假為立名。此名以無名之所立名。如提羅波夷真不食油強為食油。二諦亦爾。以其真表不真俗表不俗。假言真俗。以其假言。名無得物之功。物無應名之實。凈名經云。從無住本立一切法。無住即無本。故云。若能若所。皆以無住為本。大品云。般若猶如大地。出生萬物。波若正法無住。此三眼目之異名。若就用中。辨二諦反覆得立名。俗為真立名。世為第一立名。如言由世故第一。真俗亦如是。真應對世。第一對第二。而今真對俗。世對第一。非正相待義。聖人未必以對立名。故經云。法無有彼此。離相待故。次明相待者。真俗當體受名。世與第一。用中褒貶為稱也。第二辨絕名。常途相傳。世諦不絕名。引成論文。劫初時物未有名。聖人立名字。如瓶衣等物故。世諦不絕名。真諦與佛果三師不同。光宅云。此二皆不絕

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：亦失者（失去的人）。凡是執著于『有』的，這種『有』就變成了失去。諸位賢聖真正認識到自性本空，這種『空』就是得到。如果說兩者都是失去，那是因為兩者都執著于『有』，所以兩者都是失去。如果說兩者都是得到，那是因為只知道『二』，也就知道了『不二』。既然既非『二』也非『不二』，那麼五句（指五種判斷句式，即肯定、否定、肯定否定、既肯定又否定、以及超越這四種）都清凈了。然而這三句中，前兩句是關於真諦的，后一句是關於教諦的。前兩句是關於境界的，后一句是關於教導的境界。對於真實的境界，是不需要轉變的；對於教導的境界，是需要轉變的。

立名第三。分為三個方面來辨析。首先辨析『立名』，其次辨析『絕名』，最後辨析『借名』。所謂『立名』，既不真也不俗，這正是中道。也可以稱之為『無所有』，也可以稱之為『正法』，也可以稱之為『無住』。這些既非真也非俗，本來沒有名字，現在姑且為它立個名字。這個名字是用沒有名字的東西來立的。就像提羅波夷（一種鳥名），實際上不吃油，卻勉強說它吃油。二諦（真諦和俗諦）也是這樣，用真諦來表達不真，用俗諦來表達不俗，所以才假借言說真俗。因為是假借的言說，所以名字沒有得到實物的功用，實物也沒有應合名字的實際。維摩詰經說：『從無住的根本建立一切法。』無住就是沒有根本，所以說，能和所，都以無住為根本。大品般若經說：『般若（智慧）猶如大地，出生萬物。』般若、正法、無住，這三個是眼目的不同名稱。如果從作用上來說，辨析二諦，反覆可以建立名字。用俗諦為真諦立名，用世間為第一義諦立名，比如常說因為有世間，所以有第一義諦。真俗也是這樣。真諦應對世間，第一義諦應對第二義諦。而現在真諦應對俗諦，世間應對第一義諦，這不是正相對待的意義。聖人未必用對待的方式來立名，所以經上說：『法沒有彼此，因為離開了相對待的緣故。』接下來闡明相對待的情況，真俗當體接受名字，世間與第一義諦，是用褒貶來稱呼的。第二辨析『絕名』。通常的說法是，世俗諦不絕名，引用成實論的論文，劫初的時候，事物還沒有名字，聖人給事物立名字，比如瓶子、衣服等物，所以世俗諦不絕名。真諦與佛果，三師的觀點不同。光宅（地名，指光宅寺）的觀點是，這兩種都是不絕名。

【English Translation】 English version: Also lost ones. All who cling to 'existence,' this 'existence' becomes loss. All virtuous sages truly realize that self-nature is empty; this 'emptiness' is gain. If both are said to be lost, it is because both cling to 'existence,' so both are lost. If both are said to be gained, it is because knowing 'duality' is also knowing 'non-duality.' Since it is neither 'two' nor 'not two,' then all five sentences (referring to the five types of judgment sentences: affirmative, negative, affirmative-negative, neither affirmative nor negative, and transcending these four) are pure. However, in these three sentences, the first two sentences are about the Truth of Reality (諦, Dì), and the last sentence is about the Truth of Teaching (教諦, Jiào Dì). The first two sentences are about the realm of experience, and the last sentence is about the realm of teaching. For the true realm, there is no need for transformation; for the realm of teaching, transformation is needed.

Establishing Names, Part Three. Analyze from three aspects: first, analyze 'establishing names'; second, analyze 'abolishing names'; and third, analyze 'borrowing names.' 'Establishing names' is neither true nor conventional; this is precisely the Middle Way. It can also be called 'nothing whatsoever,' or 'Right Dharma,' or 'non-abiding.' These are neither true nor conventional, originally without names, but now temporarily given a name. This name is established by that which has no name. It's like the Tilopa bird (提羅波夷, Tí Luō Bō Yí), which actually doesn't eat oil, but is forced to be said to eat oil. The Two Truths (二諦, Èr Dì, Truth of Reality and Conventional Truth) are also like this: using the Truth of Reality to express what is not true, and using the Conventional Truth to express what is not conventional, so we falsely speak of truth and convention. Because it is a false expression, the name does not have the function of obtaining the object, and the object does not have the reality of corresponding to the name. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'From the root of non-abiding, establish all dharmas.' Non-abiding is without a root, so it is said that both the able and the object take non-abiding as their root. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Prajna (般若, Bō Rě, wisdom) is like the earth, giving birth to all things.' Prajna, Right Dharma, and non-abiding are three different names for the eye. If we speak from the perspective of function, analyzing the Two Truths, we can repeatedly establish names. Using the Conventional Truth to establish a name for the Truth of Reality, using the mundane to establish a name for the First Principle. For example, it is often said that because there is the mundane, there is the First Principle. The Truth of Reality and the Conventional Truth are also like this. The Truth of Reality corresponds to the mundane, and the First Principle corresponds to the Second Principle. But now the Truth of Reality corresponds to the Conventional Truth, and the mundane corresponds to the First Principle; this is not the meaning of proper correspondence. Sages do not necessarily establish names in a relative way, so the sutra says: 'Dharma has no self or other, because it is apart from relative conditions.' Next, we clarify the situation of relativity: the Truth of Reality and the Conventional Truth inherently receive names; the mundane and the First Principle are called by praise and criticism in their function. Second, analyze 'abolishing names.' The usual saying is that the Conventional Truth does not abolish names, quoting the treatises of the Chengshi School. At the beginning of the kalpa, things did not have names; sages gave names to things, such as bottles and clothes, so the Conventional Truth does not abolish names. The Truth of Reality and the Fruit of Buddhahood have different views from the three teachers. Guangzhai (光宅, Guāng Zhái, a place name, referring to Guangzhai Temple) holds that both of these do not abolish names.

名。真諦有真如實際之名。佛果有常樂我凈之名。但絕粗名不絕細名。莊嚴云。此二皆絕名。佛果出於二諦外。是故絕名。真諦本來自虛。忘四句絕百非故絕名。開善云。真諦絕名。佛果不絕名。真諦之理絕四句百非。故是絕名。佛果此世諦。所以不絕名。若佛智冥如絕名。今明。一往為論何為不得。然非理實說。今問。若劫初物作名銘者。以真諦無名。假名銘者與真何異。又問。火名為當即火離火。若使此火名即火。呼火即燒口。若使火名離火。何故不得水耶。故知。非即離體有名。若在口中不在火上。是即火絕名。且復從來蛇床虎杖世諦絕名。復問。人是何物。人頭手等何意呼人耶。強為立名。豈非皆絕。次難佛果有三家。今先難初家。若使言真諦與佛果但絕粗名不絕細名者。今難。本以絕故妙。若不絕即不妙。難第二家。真諦與佛果俱絕名者。今難。若以名求真不得真者。此名便有文爾無理。真諦有文無理。如私陀言涅槃。佛果有理無文。如犢子存焉。難第三家。佛果不絕真諦絕名。同前二家所見。不具辨也。今明。以四句辨之。一者俱絕。二者俱不絕。三者真絕俗不絕。四者俗絕真不絕。所言二諦俱絕者。二諦皆如。奈得皆不絕。二諦俱不絕者。得是如相名為如來。得是二如相所以皆不絕。又言。如來常依二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：真諦（Zhendi，終極真理）有真如實際（Zhenru shiji，事物的真實本性）之名。佛果（Foguo，佛的果位）有常樂我凈（Chang le wo jing，永恒的快樂、真我和純凈）之名。但只是斷絕粗顯的名相，而不是斷絕細微的名相。《莊嚴經論》（Zhuangyan jinglun）說：『這二者都斷絕了名相。』佛果超出二諦（Erdi，兩種真理：世俗諦和勝義諦）之外，所以斷絕名相。真諦本來就是空虛的，忘卻四句（Siju，四種邏輯可能性）斷絕百非（Baifei，一百種否定），所以斷絕名相。開善（Kaisan，僧人名）說：『真諦斷絕名相，佛果不斷絕名相。』真諦的道理超越四句百非，所以是斷絕名相。佛果屬於世俗諦（Shudi），所以不斷絕名相。如果佛智與真如冥合，就斷絕名相。現在說明，姑且這樣認為又有什麼不可以呢？但這並非是理性的真實說法。現在提問，如果劫初（Jiechu，宇宙的最初時期）的物體被命名，用真諦的無名來假立名相，那麼這個名相與真諦有什麼區別？又問，火的名字是等同於火還是脫離於火？如果說火的名字等同於火，那麼呼喊火就會燒傷嘴。如果說火的名字脫離於火，為什麼不能得到水呢？所以要知道，不是等同或脫離本體而有名相。如果在口中而不在火上，這就是等同於火而斷絕名相。而且蛇床（Shechuang，一種草藥）和虎杖（Huzhang，另一種草藥）這些世俗諦的名相也斷絕了嗎？又問，人是什麼？人頭、手等為什麼叫做人呢？這是勉強建立的名相，難道不是都斷絕了嗎？其次是針對佛果的三種觀點進行辯難。現在先辯難第一種觀點。如果說真諦與佛果只是斷絕粗顯的名相而不是斷絕細微的名相，現在進行辯難。本來因為斷絕才顯得玄妙，如果不斷絕就不玄妙。辯難第二種觀點。真諦與佛果都斷絕名相。現在進行辯難。如果用名相來尋求真理而得不到真理，那麼這個名相就只有文字而沒有道理。真諦只有文字而沒有道理，就像私陀（Situo，外道）所說的涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。佛果有道理而沒有文字，就像犢子部（Duzi bu，佛教部派）仍然存在。辯難第三種觀點。佛果不斷絕名相，真諦斷絕名相，與前面兩種觀點相同。不再詳細辨別了。現在說明，用四句來辨別。一是兩者都斷絕，二是兩者都不斷絕，三是真諦斷絕而世俗諦不斷絕，四是世俗諦斷絕而真諦不斷絕。所說二諦都斷絕，二諦都如（Ru，真如），怎麼能都不斷絕呢？二諦都不斷絕，得到這個如相就叫做如來（Rulai，佛的稱號之一）。得到這兩個如相，所以都不斷絕。又說，如來常常依靠二諦。

【English Translation】 English version: Zhendi (Ultimate Truth) has the name of Zhenru shiji (the true nature of things). Foguo (Buddha-fruit) has the name of Chang le wo jing (eternity, bliss, true self, and purity). However, it only cuts off coarse names, not subtle names. The Zhuangyan jinglun (Adornment Sutra) says: 'These two both cut off names.' Foguo is beyond the two truths (Erdi, two truths: conventional truth and ultimate truth), so it cuts off names. Zhendi is originally empty, forgetting the four sentences (Siju, four logical possibilities) and cutting off the hundred negations (Baifei, one hundred negations), so it cuts off names. Kaisan (a monk's name) said: 'Zhendi cuts off names, Foguo does not cut off names.' The principle of Zhendi transcends the four sentences and the hundred negations, so it is cutting off names. Foguo belongs to Shudi (conventional truth), so it does not cut off names. If Buddha's wisdom merges with Suchness, it cuts off names. Now explain, what's wrong with thinking this way for now? But this is not a rational truth. Now ask, if the objects at the beginning of the kalpa (Jiechu, the beginning of the universe) are named, using the namelessness of Zhendi to falsely establish names, then what is the difference between this name and Zhendi? Also ask, is the name of fire identical to fire or separate from fire? If the name of fire is identical to fire, then calling fire will burn the mouth. If the name of fire is separate from fire, why can't you get water? So you need to know that there are names that are not identical or separate from the body. If it is in the mouth and not on the fire, this is identical to the fire and cuts off the name. Moreover, do the conventional truths of Shechuang (a kind of herb) and Huzhang (another kind of herb) also cut off names? Also ask, what is a person? Why are the human head, hands, etc. called people? This is a forced establishment of names, isn't it all cut off? Next, there are three views on Foguo that are debated. Now let's first debate the first view. If it is said that Zhendi and Foguo only cut off coarse names but not subtle names, now we debate. Originally, it is mysterious because it is cut off, and if it is not cut off, it is not mysterious. Debate the second view. Zhendi and Foguo both cut off names. Now we debate. If you use names to seek truth and cannot get truth, then this name only has words and no reason. Zhendi only has words and no reason, like what Situo (an outsider) said about Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation). Foguo has reason but no words, just like the Duzi bu (a Buddhist school) still exists. Debate the third view. Foguo does not cut off names, Zhendi cuts off names, which is the same as the previous two views. No more detailed distinction. Now explain, use four sentences to distinguish. One is that both are cut off, two is that neither is cut off, three is that Zhendi is cut off and Shudi is not cut off, and four is that Shudi is cut off and Zhendi is not cut off. What is said that the two truths are cut off, the two truths are both Suchness (Ru, Suchness), how can they not be cut off? The two truths are not cut off, getting this Suchness aspect is called Tathagata (Rulai, one of the titles of the Buddha). Getting these two Suchness aspects, so they are not cut off. It is also said that the Tathagata often relies on the two truths.

諦說法。大論云。如瓶衣等法。世界悉檀即有。第一義悉檀即無。真如實際等。于第一義悉檀即有。世界悉檀即無。此名字互有互無。故知。二種俱絕俱不絕。三者真絕俗不絕。此文即多。經云。以世諦法故說。非第一義。四俗絕真不絕。如言生不可說不生亦不可說生不生亦不可說不生非不生亦不可說。四句皆不可說。即是世諦絕名。今更作一種方言。世諦即絕實不絕假。真諦即絕假復絕實。何者眾生計有為有。計無為無。此之有無。是斷常二見。即是性實。今破有故言不有。破無故言不無。所以明。佛說假有假無為世諦。此假有不名有。此假無不名無。問此假有何物有。明此假有不名實有。假無亦是不名實無。是即此假有假無名為世諦。所以其不名實有實無。故言絕。而此不有。為成假有。不無為成假無。此即是不絕假義。若言二諦俱絕者。真諦絕四句。離百非。世諦亦絕四句離百非。然此義從來所無。唯今家有也。言二諦皆絕四句離百非者。俗不定俗。俗名真俗。真不定真。真名俗真。真俗假俗。俗真假真。假俗即百是不能是。百非不能非。假真亦爾。何者假俗即是是不能是。百是亦不能是。非非不能非。百非亦不非。假真即非是不能是。百是亦不是。是非不能非。百非亦不非。是故皆離四句。絕百非也。雖二諦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本諦說法。《大智度論》說，像瓶子、衣服這樣的法，在世俗諦（Satyasamvriti，指世俗的、約定俗成的真理）中是存在的，但在第一義諦（Paramarthasatya，指究竟的、真實的真理）中是不存在的。而真如、實際等，在第一義諦中是存在的，在世俗諦中是不存在的。這些名字互相存在或不存在，因此可知，兩種諦既是俱絕（都超越），也是俱不絕（都不超越）。第三種情況是真諦絕（超越），俗諦不絕（不超越）。這種說法在很多經文中都有。例如經中說：『因為世俗諦的緣故而說，並非第一義諦。』第四種情況是俗諦絕（超越），真諦不絕（不超越）。例如說：『生不可說，不生也不可說，生不生也不可說，非生非不生也不可說。』這四句都不可說，就是世俗諦超越了名言。現在我再用一種方便的說法：世俗諦是絕實（超越真實）而不絕假（不超越虛假），真諦是絕假（超越虛假）而又絕實（超越真實）。為什麼呢？因為眾生執著有為法為有，執著無為法為無。這種有和無，是斷見和常見兩種邊見，是性實。現在爲了破除有，所以說不有；爲了破除無，所以說不無。因此，佛陀所說的假有假無是世俗諦。這種假有不能稱為有，這種假無不能稱為無。問：這種假有是什麼東西有呢？答：這種假有不能稱為實有，假無也不能稱為實無。這就是這種假有假無被稱為世俗諦的原因。所以它不被稱為實有實無，因此說是『絕』。而這種不有，是爲了成就假有；不無，是爲了成就假無。這就是不絕假的含義。如果說二諦俱絕，那麼真諦就超越四句，遠離百非；世俗諦也超越四句，遠離百非。然而這種意義是從來沒有的，只有我們家（指天臺宗）才有。說二諦都超越四句，遠離百非，是指俗諦不是固定的俗諦，俗諦之名是真俗；真諦不是固定的真諦，真諦之名是俗真。真俗是假俗，俗真是假真。假俗就是『是』不能是，百個『是』也不能是；『非』不能非，百個『非』也不能非。假真也是這樣。為什麼呢？假俗就是『是』不能是，百個『是』也不能是；『非』不能非，百個『非』也不能非。假真就是『非是』不能是，百個『是』也不是；『是非』不能非，百個『非』也不是。所以都遠離四句，超越百非。雖然二諦...

【English Translation】 English version He speaks the truth. The Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa (大智度論) says: 'Laws such as bottles and clothes exist in the Samvriti-satya (世俗諦, conventional truth), but do not exist in the Paramartha-satya (第一義諦, ultimate truth). True Thusness (真如), Reality (實際), etc., exist in the Paramartha-satya, but do not exist in the Samvriti-satya.' These names mutually exist or do not exist. Therefore, it is known that the two truths are both transcendent and not transcendent. The third case is that the ultimate truth is transcendent, while the conventional truth is not. This is mentioned in many sutras. For example, the sutra says: 'Because of the conventional truth, it is said, not the ultimate truth.' The fourth case is that the conventional truth is transcendent, while the ultimate truth is not. For example, it is said: 'Birth cannot be spoken of, non-birth cannot be spoken of either, birth and non-birth cannot be spoken of either, neither non-birth nor non-non-birth can be spoken of either.' These four statements are all unspeakable, which means that the conventional truth transcends language. Now I will use a convenient way of speaking: the conventional truth transcends reality but does not transcend illusion, while the ultimate truth transcends illusion and also transcends reality. Why? Because sentient beings cling to conditioned dharmas as existent and unconditioned dharmas as non-existent. This existence and non-existence are the two extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism, which are substantial in nature. Now, in order to break existence, it is said to be non-existent; in order to break non-existence, it is said to be not non-existent. Therefore, the provisional existence and provisional non-existence spoken of by the Buddha are the conventional truth. This provisional existence cannot be called existence, and this provisional non-existence cannot be called non-existence. Question: What does this provisional existence exist as? Answer: This provisional existence cannot be called real existence, and provisional non-existence cannot be called real non-existence. This is why this provisional existence and provisional non-existence are called the conventional truth. Therefore, it is not called real existence or real non-existence, so it is said to be 'transcendent'. And this non-existence is to accomplish provisional existence; non-non-existence is to accomplish provisional non-existence. This is the meaning of not transcending illusion. If it is said that both truths are transcendent, then the ultimate truth transcends the four statements and is apart from the hundred negations; the conventional truth also transcends the four statements and is apart from the hundred negations. However, this meaning has never existed before; only our school (referring to the Tiantai school) has it. To say that both truths transcend the four statements and are apart from the hundred negations means that the conventional truth is not a fixed conventional truth; the name of the conventional truth is true conventional. The ultimate truth is not a fixed ultimate truth; the name of the ultimate truth is conventional true. True conventional is provisional conventional, and conventional true is provisional true. Provisional conventional means that 'is' cannot be 'is', and a hundred 'is' cannot be 'is' either; 'not' cannot be 'not', and a hundred 'not' cannot be 'not' either. Provisional true is also like this. Why? Provisional conventional means that 'is' cannot be 'is', and a hundred 'is' cannot be 'is' either; 'not' cannot be 'not', and a hundred 'not' cannot be 'not' either. Provisional true means that 'not is' cannot be 'is', and a hundred 'is' are not 'is' either; 'is not' cannot be 'not', and a hundred 'not' are not 'not' either. Therefore, all are apart from the four statements and transcend the hundred negations. Although the two truths...

皆離四句絕百非。然二諦俱絕爾大異。何者俗諦絕即絕實。真諦絕即絕假。俗諦絕實者。是是即是實是。非非即是性非。以俗諦絕實故。是是不能是。百是亦不是。非非不能非。百非不能非也。真諦絕假者。非是是與假是非非與假非。真諦絕性假故。非但是是不能是。非是亦不是。非但非非不能非。是非亦不非。是是與非是。一切不能是。非非與是非。一切不能非。真諦雙絕世諦絕實。此即漸舍明二諦皆絕義。俗諦絕實真諦絕假實。第二次就平道明二諦俱絕義。俗不定俗。由真故俗。真不定真。由俗故真。由真故俗。俗是假俗也。由假俗故真。真是假真。既云假俗。即四句皆絕。假俗非俗。假俗非不俗。假俗非亦俗亦不俗。假俗非非俗非不俗。假真亦爾。第三論借名。就借與不借故。是絕不絕耳。若二諦俱絕。即是兩種皆借名。二俱不絕。即相與不借。今亦次還辨前三家所說。彼三家同明。世諦有物有名以名召物。即得來故不借名。真諦佛果。解有三家。今先難世諦不絕。若世諦有物即有名者。劫初時便應有名。不須聖人為立名耶。若物本無名。何異真諦本無名后為真立名。問是假借名者后為物立名。何故非借名耶。汝若以名求真。去真遠矣。我亦以名求物。去物遠矣。又問。今世諦以名求物物得應名者。今且問。以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本皆已遠離四句，超越一切是非。然而，二諦（二諦：俗諦和真諦）俱絕與前者大不相同。何為俗諦絕？即是斷絕實在。何為真諦絕？即是斷絕虛假。俗諦斷絕實在，是『是』即是實在的『是』，『非』即是本質上的『非』。因為俗諦斷絕實在的緣故，『是』不能是其自身，任何『是』都不是；『非』不能是非其自身，任何『非』都不是。真諦斷絕虛假，『非是』是與虛假相對的『是』，『非非』是與虛假相對的『非』。真諦斷絕本質上的虛假，所以不僅『是』不能是其自身，『非是』也不是；不僅『非』不能是非其自身，『是非』也不是。『是是』與『非是』，一切都不能是；『非非』與『是非』，一切都不能非。真諦雙重斷絕，世諦斷絕實在，這便是逐漸捨棄，闡明二諦皆斷絕的意義。俗諦斷絕實在，真諦斷絕虛假，這是第二次就平等之道闡明二諦俱皆斷絕的意義。俗諦不是固定的俗諦，而是因為真諦的緣故才是俗諦；真諦不是固定的真諦，而是因為俗諦的緣故才是真諦。因為真諦的緣故才是俗諦，所以俗諦是虛假的俗諦。因為虛假的俗諦的緣故才是真諦，所以真諦是虛假的真諦。既然說是虛假的俗諦，那麼四句（四句：有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）皆被斷絕。虛假的俗諦既不是俗諦，也不是非俗諦，也不是既是俗諦又不是俗諦，也不是既非俗諦又非非俗諦。虛假的真諦也是如此。第三點討論借名，就借用與不借用名稱的緣故，就是斷絕與不斷絕。如果二諦都斷絕，那就是兩種都是借用名稱。如果兩種都不斷絕，那就是相互之間不借用名稱。現在也依次辨析前面三家所說的。那三家共同闡明，世諦有事物有名稱，用名稱來稱呼事物，因為是得來的，所以不借用名稱。真諦佛果（佛果：成佛的果位），理解上有三家。現在先詰難世諦不斷絕的觀點。如果世諦有事物就有名稱，那麼在開天闢地之初就應該有名稱，不需要聖人來創立名稱啊。如果事物本來沒有名稱，那和真諦本來沒有名稱後來為真諦創立名稱有什麼區別？如果說是假借名稱，後來為事物創立名稱，為什麼就不是借用名稱呢？你如果用名稱來尋求真理，那就離真理遠了。我如果用名稱來尋求事物，那就離事物遠了。又問，現在世諦用名稱來尋求事物，事物得到了應有的名稱，現在且問，用

【English Translation】 English version All are apart from the four phrases and beyond all affirmations and negations. However, the 'both truths are negated' is vastly different. What is the negation of the conventional truth (conventional truth: saṃvṛti-satya)? It is the negation of reality. What is the negation of the ultimate truth (ultimate truth: paramārtha-satya)? It is the negation of the unreal. The conventional truth negates reality, meaning 'is' is the real 'is', and 'is not' is the essential 'is not'. Because the conventional truth negates reality, 'is' cannot be itself, and no 'is' is; 'is not' cannot be itself, and no 'is not' is. The ultimate truth negates the unreal, meaning 'not is' is 'is' relative to the unreal, and 'not is not' is 'is not' relative to the unreal. Because the ultimate truth negates the essential unreal, not only can 'is' not be itself, but 'not is' is also not; not only can 'is not' not be itself, but 'is is not' is also not. 'Is is' and 'not is', nothing can be 'is'; 'not is not' and 'is is not', nothing can be 'is not'. The ultimate truth doubly negates, and the conventional truth negates reality. This is gradually abandoning, clarifying the meaning of both truths being negated. The conventional truth negates reality, and the ultimate truth negates the unreal. This is the second time clarifying the meaning of both truths being negated on the path of equality. The conventional is not fixed as conventional; it is conventional because of the ultimate. The ultimate is not fixed as ultimate; it is ultimate because of the conventional. Because of the ultimate, it is conventional, so the conventional is the false conventional. Because of the false conventional, it is ultimate, so the ultimate is the false ultimate. Since it is said to be the false conventional, then all four phrases (four phrases: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) are negated. The false conventional is neither conventional, nor not conventional, nor both conventional and not conventional, nor neither conventional nor not not conventional. The false ultimate is also the same. The third point discusses borrowed names, based on the reason of borrowing or not borrowing names, which is negation or non-negation. If both truths are negated, then both are borrowing names. If both are not negated, then they are not borrowing names from each other. Now, let's also analyze what the previous three schools said in order. Those three schools commonly clarify that the conventional truth has things and has names, using names to call things, because it is obtained, so it does not borrow names. The ultimate truth, the Buddha-fruit (Buddha-fruit: the state of becoming a Buddha), has three schools of understanding. Now, let's first challenge the view that the conventional truth is not negated. If the conventional truth has things and then has names, then there should have been names at the beginning of the kalpa, and there is no need for sages to create names. If things originally had no names, what is the difference between the ultimate truth originally having no names and later creating names for the ultimate truth? If it is said to be borrowing names, later creating names for things, why is it not borrowing names? If you use names to seek truth, then you are far from truth. If I use names to seek things, then I am far from things. Also asked, now the conventional truth uses names to seek things, and things get the names they should have, now let's ask, using

瓶名為在瓶上為在口中。具如先難。若在瓶上何處有名。若在口中瓶即無名。豈非是絕名。此即與真何異。若言真本無名就世諦借者。今世諦中。若有真名可言其借。而今世諦中。無有法名真如絕離可得言借。且復經言。第一義諦有名有實。何時道無名。經又云。一切諸法。但有假名。但有名無實故言絕。但有名字故謂為借。若有名但假設。何意空就有借名而有不就空借名也。故若言真諦無名就世諦借名。其義不可。今問。若以名求真去真遠者。此真名為表真理不耶。若使此名錶理。依名得理。何謂真理絕名名即無用。此名既其不得理。此名終此浪說。可謂有理而無文。常途解真諦佛果有三家。光宅二種俱不絕妙名。即不須借。莊嚴云。二種俱絕。所以須借。若是開善明。佛果是世諦。有名故不須借。真諦無名。所以須借。此三解依前而難之。此不復重出。望前可見。今明。藉此假之異名。然此經論所無。大小乘經。不載此說。恐不應借語。而今言借者。只是隨他意語耳。今明。藉此假之異名。今二諦既有四句。辨絕不絕義。今借與不借。準此可知。若二俱絕。即二諦俱不借。二諦不絕。即二俱借。若一絕一不絕。即一借一不借。若言二諦俱絕而論其借義。明真不可說名。二諦之名。無法可說。二諦俱絕故不明借。今

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本瓶子的『名』，在於瓶子的表面，也存在於瓶子的口沿處。這就像先前的詰難一樣。如果在瓶子的表面，那麼『名』在哪個位置呢？如果在瓶子的口沿處，那麼瓶子的表面就沒有『名』了。這難道不是『絕名』嗎？這和真如（Tathata）有什麼區別呢？如果說真如本來就沒有名字，是從世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya）借用的，那麼現在世俗諦中，如果有真如的名字，還可以說是借用。但是現在世俗諦中，沒有一種法（Dharma）的名字可以用來描述真如的絕對離相，所以不能說是借用。而且經書中說，第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya）有名有實，什麼時候又說無名了呢？經中又說，一切諸法，都只是假名，只是有名而無實，所以說是『絕』。只是有名字，所以說是『借』。如果有名只是假設，為什麼空性（Śūnyatā）就可以借用名字，而有的空性就不能借用名字呢？所以如果說真諦（Paramārtha-satya）沒有名字，是從世俗諦借用名字，這個說法是不對的。現在我問，如果用名字來求真，反而離真更遠，那麼這個『真』的名字是用來表達真理的嗎？如果這個名字可以表達真理，依靠名字可以得到真理，為什麼說真理是『絕名』，名字就沒有用了呢？如果這個名字不能表達真理，那麼這個名字最終只是空談。可以說是『有理而無文』。通常解釋真諦佛果有三家：光宅的兩種都不『絕妙名』，所以不需要借用。莊嚴說，兩種都『絕』，所以需要借用。如果是開善的觀點，認為佛果是世俗諦，有名，所以不需要借用；真諦無名，所以需要借用。這三種解釋都可以用前面的問題來詰難，這裡不再重複，可以參考前面的內容。現在我說明，借用這個虛假的異名，是經論中所沒有的。大小乘的經典，都沒有記載這種說法。恐怕不應該說『借』，而現在說『借』，只是隨順他人的意思而已。現在我說明，借用這個虛假的異名。現在二諦有四句，辨別『絕』與『不絕』的含義。現在『借』與『不借』，可以根據這個來判斷。如果二諦都『絕』，那麼二諦都不借。如果二諦都不『絕』，那麼二諦都借。如果一個『絕』，一個不『絕』，那麼一個借，一個不借。如果說二諦都『絕』，而討論借用的含義，說明真如不可說名。二諦的名字，沒有辦法可以說。二諦都『絕』，所以不明說借用。現在

【English Translation】 English version The 'name' of a bottle is on the surface of the bottle and also at the mouth of the bottle. This is like the previous difficulty. If it is on the surface of the bottle, where is the 'name'? If it is at the mouth of the bottle, then the surface of the bottle has no 'name'. Isn't this 'absolute naming'? What is the difference between this and Tathata (真如)? If it is said that Tathata originally has no name and is borrowed from Saṃvṛti-satya (世俗諦), then in Saṃvṛti-satya, if there is a name of Tathata, it can be said to be borrowed. But now in Saṃvṛti-satya, there is no Dharma (法) name that can describe the absolute separation of Tathata, so it cannot be said to be borrowed. Moreover, the scriptures say that Paramārtha-satya (第一義諦) has name and reality, when did it say it has no name? The scriptures also say that all Dharmas are just provisional names, only have names but no reality, so it is said to be 'absolute'. It only has a name, so it is said to be 'borrowed'. If the name is only hypothetical, why can Śūnyatā (空性) borrow a name, while some Śūnyatā cannot borrow a name? Therefore, if it is said that Paramārtha-satya has no name and borrows a name from Saṃvṛti-satya, this statement is incorrect. Now I ask, if using a name to seek truth leads further away from the truth, then is this 'truth' name used to express the truth? If this name can express the truth, and the truth can be obtained by relying on the name, why is it said that the truth is 'absolute naming' and the name is useless? If this name cannot express the truth, then this name is ultimately just empty talk. It can be said to be 'having reason but no text'. Usually, there are three schools of thought explaining the Paramārtha-satya Buddha-fruit: Guangzhai's two kinds do not 'absolutely wonderful name', so there is no need to borrow. Zhuangyan said that both kinds are 'absolute', so they need to be borrowed. If it is Kaisan's view, it is believed that the Buddha-fruit is Saṃvṛti-satya, has a name, so there is no need to borrow; Paramārtha-satya has no name, so it needs to be borrowed. These three explanations can be challenged with the previous questions, which will not be repeated here, and can be referred to the previous content. Now I explain that borrowing this false different name is not found in the scriptures and treatises. The scriptures of both the Mahayana and Hinayana do not record this statement. I am afraid that it should not be said 'borrow', but now saying 'borrow' is just following the meaning of others. Now I explain that borrowing this false different name. Now the two truths have four sentences to distinguish the meaning of 'absolute' and 'not absolute'. Now 'borrow' and 'not borrow' can be judged according to this. If both truths are 'absolute', then neither of the two truths borrows. If neither of the two truths is 'absolute', then both truths borrow. If one is 'absolute' and the other is not 'absolute', then one borrows and the other does not borrow. If it is said that both truths are 'absolute', and the meaning of borrowing is discussed, it shows that Tathata cannot be named. The names of the two truths cannot be said. Both truths are 'absolute', so borrowing is not explicitly stated. Now

以非真假言真。非俗可言俗。俗待真故說。俗從真借名。真待俗故說。真從俗借名。所以二諦俱不絕。假論借名。然此借名亦是不借。今以真不自真。由俗故說。真不自故。所以須他。故言借。若不借者。明若由真故說真。可得是借。由真故俗。那得是借也。故言此俗亦是不借也。橫論借名如此。若豎論。真從不真以借名。俗從不俗以借名。又問言。若從不真借名。只應真名不真。那得名為真。俗亦如是。答今明。真不真一。亦不得借。異亦不得借。因緣假名字故言借。借是待之異名。若不待不真不得說真。由不真故真。由真故不真。真不真因緣假說。故言借。

有無第四。今先辨假有。后辨假無。常途所明。凡有三種假名。一者因成假。以四微成柱。五陰成人。故言因成。二者相續假。前念自滅續成后念。兩念接連。故言相續假。三者相待假。如君臣父子大小。名字不定。皆相隨待故言相待假。若入道所捉三乘不同。聲聞用因成。緣覺用相續。菩薩用相待。而成論三藏為宗。多明因成。以入道。所以然者。凡有二義。一者因成是世諦體。續待為用。若體已空。用即自遣。二者因成多重數。觀行自淺至深。初捉五根以空眾生。次捉四大四微以折法。所以多捉因成。若是續待二假。即無此重故不用。今明。正大品

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以非真實和非虛假的方式來談論真實，以非世俗的方式來談論世俗。世俗是依賴於真實才被說出來的，世俗是從真實那裡借用名稱。真實是依賴於世俗才被說出來的，真實是從世俗那裡借用名稱。因此，真諦和俗諦兩者都不會斷絕。假立的理論是借用名稱，然而這種借用名稱也是不借用。現在因為真實不能自己證明自己是真實的，而是通過世俗來說明。真實不是獨立存在的，所以需要依賴於其他事物，因此說是『借』。如果不借用，如果能通過真實來說明真實，那還可以說是借用。通過真實來說明世俗，那怎麼能說是借用呢？所以說這種世俗也是不借用的。橫向來說借用名稱是這樣。如果縱向來說，真實是從非真實那裡借用名稱，世俗是從非世俗那裡借用名稱。又有人問：如果從非真實那裡借用名稱，那麼真實的名字就應該是不真實的，怎麼能稱為真實呢？世俗也是這樣。回答說：現在說明，真實和非真實是一體的，既不能說是借用，也不能說是不同。因為因緣和合而假立名字，所以說是『借』。『借』是依賴的另一種說法。如果不依賴於非真實，就不能說真實。因為有非真實，所以有真實；因為有真實，所以有非真實。真實和非真實是因緣和合而假立的，所以說是『借』。有無第四。現在先辨析假有，然後辨析假無。通常所說，凡是有三種假名：第一種是因成假（hetu-siddha-kalpana），由四微塵組成柱子，五蘊組成人，所以說是因成。第二種是相續假（santati-kalpana），前一念自己滅去，延續成為后一念，兩個念頭連線在一起，所以說是相續假。第三種是相待假（apeksa-kalpana），如君臣、父子、大小，名字不固定，都是相互依賴，所以說是相待假。如果進入佛道，所採用的三乘（triyana）不同。聲聞乘（sravakayana）用因成假，緣覺乘（pratyekabuddhayana）用相續假，菩薩乘（bodhisattvayana）用相待假。《成實論》（Satyasiddhi-sastra）以三藏（tripitaka）為宗，多說明因成假，用來進入佛道。之所以這樣，凡是有兩種意義：第一，因成假是世俗諦（samvrti-satya）的本體，相續假和相待假是作用。如果本體已經空了，作用自然就會消失。第二，因成假有很多重疊的層次，觀行的過程由淺入深。最初抓住五根（panca indriyani）來空掉眾生，其次抓住四大（catvari mahabhutani）和四微塵（paramanu）來破除法。所以多抓住因成假。如果是相續假和相待假這兩種假，就沒有這種重疊的層次，所以不用。現在說明，《正大品》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）...

【English Translation】 English version: To speak of truth in a way that is neither true nor false. To speak of the mundane in a way that is not mundane. The mundane is spoken of because it relies on the truth; the mundane borrows its name from the truth. The truth is spoken of because it relies on the mundane; the truth borrows its name from the mundane. Therefore, both the two truths (dve satyani) are not severed. The provisional theory is the borrowing of names, yet this borrowing of names is also not borrowing. Now, because the truth cannot prove itself to be true, it is explained through the mundane. The truth is not self-existent, so it needs to rely on other things; therefore, it is said to 'borrow'. If it does not borrow, if it can explain the truth through the truth, then it can be said to be borrowing. To explain the mundane through the truth, how can it be said to be borrowing? Therefore, it is said that this mundane is also not borrowing. Horizontally speaking, the borrowing of names is like this. If vertically speaking, the truth borrows its name from the non-truth, and the mundane borrows its name from the non-mundane. Someone asks again: If borrowing a name from the non-truth, then the name of the truth should be non-true; how can it be called truth? The mundane is also like this. The answer is: Now it is explained that truth and non-truth are one; it cannot be said to be borrowing, nor can it be said to be different. Because of the conditional arising and the provisional naming, it is said to 'borrow'. 'Borrowing' is another way of saying reliance. If it does not rely on the non-truth, then the truth cannot be spoken of. Because there is non-truth, there is truth; because there is truth, there is non-truth. Truth and non-truth are provisionally spoken of due to conditional arising, so it is said to 'borrow'. The Fourth on Existence and Non-existence. Now, first, we will distinguish provisional existence, and then we will distinguish provisional non-existence. As commonly explained, there are three types of provisional names: First, causal-arising provisionality (hetu-siddha-kalpana), where four subtle particles form a pillar, and the five aggregates (panca skandhas) form a person; therefore, it is said to be causal-arising. Second, continuous provisionality (santati-kalpana), where the previous thought self-destructs and continues to become the next thought, and the two thoughts are connected; therefore, it is said to be continuous provisionality. Third, mutually dependent provisionality (apeksa-kalpana), such as ruler and subject, father and son, large and small, where the names are not fixed and are mutually dependent; therefore, it is said to be mutually dependent provisionality. If entering the path, the three vehicles (triyana) adopted are different. The Sravakayana (sravakayana) uses causal-arising provisionality, the Pratyekabuddhayana (pratyekabuddhayana) uses continuous provisionality, and the Bodhisattvayana (bodhisattvayana) uses mutually dependent provisionality. The Satyasiddhi-sastra (Satyasiddhi-sastra) takes the Tripitaka (tripitaka) as its doctrine and mostly explains causal-arising provisionality for entering the path. The reason for this is that there are two meanings: First, causal-arising provisionality is the substance of conventional truth (samvrti-satya), while continuous and mutually dependent provisionality are its functions. If the substance is already empty, the functions will naturally disappear. Second, causal-arising provisionality has many overlapping layers, and the process of contemplation goes from shallow to deep. Initially, one grasps the five roots (panca indriyani) to empty sentient beings, and then one grasps the four great elements (catvari mahabhutani) and four subtle particles (paramanu) to break down the dharma. Therefore, one mostly grasps causal-arising provisionality. If it is continuous and mutually dependent provisionality, these two types of provisionality do not have this overlapping layer, so they are not used. Now, let us explain, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra)...

中三假為宗。一者法二者受三名。解三假不同。今所用者。以四微成根大並法假。眾生假人。此是受假。一切名皆是名假。名假本通。就名假中。取能成義為法假。所成義為受假。不如他家法假為體餘二為用。故大品云。波若及五陰為法假。菩薩為受假。一切名字為名假。內法如此。外法可知。四微四大為法假。世界為受假。一切名字為名假。今明。相待為本者。欲明大士觀行。凡有三義。一者相待假通。無非是待。因續二假未必盡假。二者相待假。無有實法。遣病即凈。因續二假。即有實法。遣病有餘。三者相待假無礙。長既待短。短還待長。因續二假。即成義有礙。唯以四微成大。不以大成四微。唯得續前不得續後。故用相待假。若是聲聞因成為體。續待為用。體空用自去。今觀相待體本來不生今亦無滅。因續用去。從來有通別相待。通是開避相待。別是相集相待。如人瓶衣柱。是通相待。長短方圓等是別相待。問若相待空因續自去者。觀相待時觀何物相待。豈非先有因成後有續待。答不然。小乘觀行。先有法體折法入空。故但見於空不見不空。今大乘觀相待者。不立法體。諸法本來不生。今即無滅。初念為無礙道。后念為解脫道。是故經言。不但見空。亦見佛性不空。問曰。非有非無而有而無為疏假為是密假。

答曰。此是疏假。何故爾。以其兩來就有無二法辨故是疏假。若辨密假。非有非不有而有而不有。以其就一法明義。是即兩法為疏。一法故密。今何故辨此疏密。疏密者。為明經中兩種百非兩種對治。若言苦樂無我等。此是疏對治。若言實不實眾生非眾生安非安等密對治。若言如來涅槃非有非無。此是疏百非。若言非因非不因非果非不果。此是密義辨非。此明假有疏密。問前言非有非無。何物非有非無耶。答前非有非無。非性有無。為成世諦如義。問后明非有非不有。何物有不有耶。答今如是假有不有故。言非有非不有。言非有者。非不有有。言非不有者。非有不有。此既壞假成真諦如。問有不有是何物。答諸法本從無生。皆以阿字為本。是即諸法皆歸阿字一無生門。故經言。四十二字皆歸阿字也。

二諦體第五。常解不同。有五家。初家明。有為體空為用。何故爾明世諦是有。行者折有入空。無有因空入有。故有是其本。空為其末。第二家云。以空為體。有是其用。何以故明。空為理本。古今常定。有是世間法。皆從空而生。故空為其本。有是其用。第三云。二諦各自有體。以世諦假有是世諦體假有即空無相是真諦體故。言二諦各有體。第四云。二諦雖是一體。以義約之為異。若以有來約之。即名俗諦。以空

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：答：這是疏假（不緊密的假說）。為什麼這麼說呢？因為它從兩個方面來辨析有和無兩種法，所以是疏假。如果辨析密假（緊密的假說），就是非有非不有，而有而不有。因為它只從一個方面來闡明意義，這樣兩種法就顯得疏遠，一種法就顯得緊密。現在為什麼要辨析這種疏密呢？辨析疏密是爲了闡明經文中的兩種百非（一百種否定）和兩種對治（對治煩惱的方法）。如果說苦樂、無我等，這是疏對治。如果說實不實、眾生非眾生、安非安等，這是密對治。如果說如來涅槃非有非無，這是疏百非。如果說非因非不因、非果非不果，這是密義辨非。這闡明了假有（虛假的有）的疏密。

問：前面說非有非無，什麼東西非有非無呢？

答：前面說的非有非無，是指非自性有無。爲了成就世俗諦（相對於真諦的世俗真理），就像它本來的樣子。問：後面闡明非有非不有，什麼東西有不有呢？

答：現在像這樣假有不有，所以說非有非不有。說『非有』，是指非不有之有。說『非不有』，是指非有之不有。這既破壞了假有，成就了真諦如（真理的如實狀態）。問：有不有是什麼東西？

答：諸法（一切事物）本來是從無生出來的，都以阿字（梵文字母）為根本。這就是說諸法都歸於阿字這一無生之門。所以經文說，四十二字都歸於阿字。

二諦體第五。常有的解釋不同，有五家。第一家認為，有為（有生滅變化的事物）是體，空為用。為什麼這麼說呢？因為闡明世俗諦是有，修行者折斷有而進入空，沒有因為空而進入有的。所以有是它的根本，空是它的末端。第二家說，以空為體，有是其用。為什麼這麼說呢？因為闡明空是理體的根本，自古至今恒常不變。有是世間法，都是從空而生，所以空是它的根本，有是它的用。第三家認為，二諦各自有體。因為世俗諦的假有是世俗諦的體，假有即是空無相，是真諦的體。所以說二諦各有體。第四家認為，二諦雖然是一個體，但從意義上來說是不同的。如果從有來概括它，就叫做俗諦（世俗諦）。以空

【English Translation】 English version: Answer: This is a loose hypothesis (Shu Jia). Why is that? Because it analyzes the two dharmas of existence and non-existence from two aspects, so it is a loose hypothesis. If analyzing a tight hypothesis (Mi Jia), it is neither existent nor non-existent, and existent yet non-existent. Because it clarifies the meaning from only one aspect, in this way, the two dharmas appear distant, and one dharma appears tight. Now, why analyze this looseness and tightness? Analyzing looseness and tightness is to clarify the two kinds of 'hundred negations' (a hundred kinds of negations) and the two kinds of antidotes (methods to counteract afflictions) in the scriptures. If it is said that suffering and happiness, non-self, etc., these are loose antidotes. If it is said that real and unreal, sentient beings and non-sentient beings, peace and non-peace, etc., these are tight antidotes. If it is said that the Nirvana of the Tathagata (Tathagata: 'Thus Gone One', a title for the Buddha) is neither existent nor non-existent, this is a loose 'hundred negations'. If it is said that it is neither cause nor non-cause, neither effect nor non-effect, this is a tight analysis of negation. This clarifies the looseness and tightness of provisional existence (Jia You).

Question: Earlier it was said neither existent nor non-existent, what is it that is neither existent nor non-existent?

Answer: The earlier mentioned neither existent nor non-existent refers to not being existent or non-existent by nature. In order to accomplish the mundane truth (relative truth compared to ultimate truth), just as it is. Question: Later it is clarified neither existent nor non-non-existent, what is it that is existent and non-existent?

Answer: Now, like this, provisional existence is non-existent, therefore it is said neither existent nor non-existent. Saying 'non-existent' refers to not being the existence of non-existence. Saying 'non-non-existent' refers to not being the non-existence of existence. This both destroys provisional existence and accomplishes the true suchness (the true state of reality). Question: What is existence and non-existence?

Answer: All dharmas (all things) originally arise from non-existence, and all take the 'A' syllable (a Sanskrit letter) as their root. This means that all dharmas return to the gate of non-arising of the 'A' syllable. Therefore, the scripture says that all forty-two syllables return to the 'A' syllable.

The fifth on the substance of the Two Truths. The usual interpretations differ, there are five schools. The first school believes that conditioned phenomena (phenomena that arise and cease) are the substance, and emptiness is the function. Why is that? Because it clarifies that mundane truth is existence, practitioners break through existence and enter emptiness, there is no entering existence because of emptiness. Therefore, existence is its root, and emptiness is its end. The second school says that emptiness is the substance, and existence is its function. Why is that? Because it clarifies that emptiness is the root of principle, constant and unchanging from ancient times to the present. Existence is worldly dharma, all arising from emptiness, therefore emptiness is its root, and existence is its function. The third school believes that the two truths each have their own substance. Because the provisional existence of mundane truth is the substance of mundane truth, and provisional existence is emptiness and no-characteristics, which is the substance of ultimate truth. Therefore, it is said that the two truths each have a substance. The fourth school believes that although the two truths are one substance, they are different in meaning. If it is summarized from existence, it is called conventional truth (mundane truth). With emptiness

約之。名為真諦。而今此二諦唯一。約用有二。第五云。二諦以中道為體。故云。不二而二二諦理明。二而不二中道義立。彼家有時亦作體用相即。今皆不然。問第一解。若言以有為體空為用者。可以有為理空為用不。體是理之異名。既言有為體。是即有為理。然皆見理得道。今若以有為理。即見有得道。今聖人皆見空斷結。明知。空是理。問第二解。空為體有為用者。是即成一諦。何謂二諦。汝今指空當體。是即但空是諦有非諦。若空有俱諦。何得偏用一空為體。故不然。問第三解。假有是世諦體假有即空為真諦體。若二諦各有體。即應成兩理。有自有為理。空自空為理。碩反。何得辨其相即。問第四解。二諦唯一體以義約之為異者。今何以二諦唯是一體。是何物體。為當一有體為當一空體。何處離此空有別有一體。而言以空有約之故二諦之別。問第五解。二諦同中道為體者。今問。汝言若用中道為體。為是二諦攝為是二諦外物。彼解云。終是一無名無相。還是二諦攝。此是開善所用。攝山高麗朗大師。本是遼東城人。從北土遠習羅什師義。來入南土。住鐘山草堂寺。值隱士周顒。周顒因就師學。次梁武帝。敬信三寶。聞大師來。遣僧正智寂十師。往山受學。梁武天子。得師意捨本成論。依大乘作章疏。開善亦聞此

【現代漢語翻譯】約之，名為真諦（Paramārtha，勝義諦）。而今此二諦唯一。約用有二。第五云：『二諦以中道（Madhyamaka，中觀）為體。』故云：『不二而二，二諦理明；二而不二，中道義立。』彼家有時亦作體用相即，今皆不然。問：第一解，若言以有為體，空為用者，可以有為理，空為用不？體是理之異名。既言有為體，是即有為理。然皆見理得道，今若以有為理，即見有得道。今聖人皆見空斷結，明知空是理。問：第二解，空為體，有為用者，是即成一諦，何謂二諦？汝今指空當體，是即但空是諦，有非諦。若空有俱諦，何得偏用一空為體？故不然。問：第三解，假有是世諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）體，假有即空為真諦體。若二諦各有體，即應成兩理。有自有為理，空自空為理，碩反，何得辨其相即？問：第四解，二諦唯一體，以義約之為異者，今何以二諦唯是一體？是何物體？為當一有體，為當一空體？何處離此空有別有一體，而言以空有約之故二諦之別？問：第五解，二諦同中道為體者，今問，汝言若用中道為體，為是二諦攝，為是二諦外物？彼解云：『終是一無名無相。』還是二諦攝。此是開善所用。攝山高麗朗大師，本是遼東城人，從北土遠習鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）師義，來入南土，住鐘山草堂寺，值隱士周顒。周顒因就師學。次梁武帝，敬信三寶，聞大師來，遣僧正智寂十師，往山受學。梁武天子，得師意捨本成論，依大乘作章疏。開善亦聞此。

【English Translation】 It is called the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya). Now, these two truths are one. There are two aspects in their application. The fifth explanation says: 'The two truths take the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) as their substance.' Therefore, it is said: 'Not two yet two, the principle of the two truths is clear; two yet not two, the meaning of the Middle Way is established.' Sometimes they also consider substance and function as identical, but now it is not so. Question: In the first explanation, if you say that existence is the substance and emptiness is the function, can existence be the principle and emptiness be the function? Substance is another name for principle. Since you say existence is the substance, then existence is the principle. However, all attain enlightenment by seeing the principle. If existence is the principle, then one attains enlightenment by seeing existence. Now, the sages all see emptiness and sever afflictions, clearly knowing that emptiness is the principle. Question: In the second explanation, if emptiness is the substance and existence is the function, then it becomes one truth. What are the two truths? If you point to emptiness as the substance, then only emptiness is truth, and existence is not truth. If both emptiness and existence are truth, how can you exclusively use emptiness as the substance? Therefore, it is not so. Question: In the third explanation, conditioned existence is the substance of conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya), and conditioned existence being emptiness is the substance of ultimate truth. If the two truths each have their own substance, then there should be two principles. Existence has its own principle of existence, and emptiness has its own principle of emptiness. If so, how can you distinguish their identity? Question: In the fourth explanation, if the two truths are one substance, and their difference is based on definition, then why are the two truths only one substance? What is this substance? Is it the substance of existence or the substance of emptiness? Where is there a separate substance apart from existence and emptiness, that you say the difference between the two truths is based on defining them with existence and emptiness? Question: In the fifth explanation, if the two truths share the Middle Way as their substance, then I ask, if you say the Middle Way is used as the substance, is it included within the two truths or is it something outside the two truths? Their explanation says: 'Ultimately, it is nameless and formless.' It is still included within the two truths. This is what Kaishan used. Master Lang of Goryeo from Sheshan, originally from Liaodong City, learned the teachings of Kumārajīva from the northern lands and came to the southern lands, residing in the thatched cottage temple on Zhongshan Mountain, where he met the recluse Zhou Yong. Zhou Yong then studied with the master. Emperor Wu of Liang, revering the Three Jewels, heard of the master's arrival and sent the Sangha administrator Zhiji and ten other teachers to the mountain to study. Emperor Wu of Liang, understanding the master's intention, abandoned the original Cheng Lun and composed commentaries based on the Mahayana. Kaishan also heard of this.

義。得語不得意。今意有第三諦。彼無第三諦。彼以理為諦。今以教為諦。彼以二諦為天然之理。今明。唯一實諦方便說二。如唯一乘方便說三。故言異。雖復有五解。不出四句之計。初一有句。第二無句。第三第四亦有亦無句。第五解非有非無。既束為四句。是橫計。何得扶道。問何處經文中道為二諦體也。答中論云。因緣所生法我說即是空。亦為是假名。亦是中道義。因緣生法是俗諦。即是空是真諦。亦是中道義是體。華嚴云。一切有無法。了達非有非無。故有無為二諦。非有非無為體。經云。非有非無假說有無。涅槃經云。隨順眾生說有二諦。故以教門為諦。仁王經云。有諦無諦中道第一義諦。故知。有第三諦。問教諦為是一體為是異體。答如前言。中道為體故是一體。若約用為論。亦得假為二體。但非正義。問若言一體者。與他家一體何異。答他家定一定異定亦一亦異。今明。約第一重故作此語。至第二第三第四重。不可言一。不可言異。問于諦為是一體為是異體。答約二妄情為二體。爾終無有兩物。如眼病空華異空無華故。以一中道為體問假有假無為二諦。非有非無為中道也。答一往開中假義故。假非中中非假也。究竟而言。假亦是中。故涅槃經文。有無即是非有非無。亦得中為假。一切言說皆是假故。問

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本意義在於領會，而不僅僅是字面。他們只得其語，不得其意。現在我方認為有第三諦（satyadvaya），而他們沒有第三諦。他們以理為諦，我們以教為諦。他們認為二諦（dve satye）是天然之理，而我們闡明，唯一的真實諦（paramārtha-satya）是爲了方便而說成二諦，如同唯一的佛乘（ekayāna）爲了方便而說成三乘（triyāna）。所以說法不同。即使有五種解釋，也逃不出四句的範疇。第一種是有句，第二種是無句，第三和第四種是亦有亦無句，第五種解釋是非有非無。既然被束縛於四句，就是橫向的推測，怎麼能扶助正道呢？問：哪部經文中說中道（madhyamā-pratipad）是二諦的本體呢？答：《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）中說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空（śūnyatā），亦為是假名（prajñapti），亦是中道義。』因緣所生法是俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya），即是空是真諦（paramārtha-satya），亦是中道義是本體。《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）中說：『一切有無法，了達非有非無。』所以有無為二諦，非有非無為本體。經中說：『非有非無假說有無。』《涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra）中說：『隨順眾生說有二諦。』所以以教門為諦。《仁王經》（Renwang jing）中說：『有諦無諦中道第一義諦。』所以知道有第三諦。問：教諦（deśanā-satya）是一體還是異體？答：如前所說，中道為本體，所以是一體。如果從作用上來說，也可以假說為二體，但這不是正義。問：如果說是一體，與他們家的一體有什麼不同？答：他們家是定一、定異、定亦一亦異。現在我們說明，約第一重故作此語。至第二、第三、第四重，不可言一，不可言異。問：于諦（satya）是一體還是異體？答：約二妄情為二體，但終究沒有兩樣東西，如同眼病所見空華，異於無病時所見空無華。所以以一中道為本體。問：假有假無為二諦，非有非無為中道嗎？答：從一開始是爲了開顯中道的假義，所以假非中，中非假。究竟而言，假也是中，所以《涅槃經》文說，有無即是非有非無，也可以說中為假，一切言說都是假故。問

【English Translation】 English version The meaning lies in understanding, not just the words. They only get the words, not the meaning. Now, we believe there is a third truth (satyadvaya), but they do not have a third truth. They take reason as truth, and we take teaching as truth. They believe that the two truths (dve satye) are natural principles, while we explain that the only ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is conveniently spoken of as two truths, just as the only Buddha vehicle (ekayāna) is conveniently spoken of as three vehicles (triyāna). Therefore, the teachings are different. Even if there are five interpretations, they cannot escape the scope of the four propositions. The first is the 'is' proposition, the second is the 'is not' proposition, the third and fourth are the 'both is and is not' proposition, and the fifth interpretation is 'neither is nor is not'. Since it is bound by the four propositions, it is a horizontal speculation, how can it support the right path? Question: In which scripture does it say that the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad) is the essence of the two truths? Answer: The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'Whatever arises from conditions, I say is emptiness (śūnyatā), it is also a provisional designation (prajñapti), and it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.' What arises from conditions is the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), what is emptiness is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), and the meaning of the Middle Way is the essence. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Flower Garland Sutra) says: 'All existence and non-existence are understood as neither existence nor non-existence.' Therefore, existence and non-existence are the two truths, and neither existence nor non-existence is the essence. The scripture says: 'Neither existence nor non-existence is provisionally spoken of as existence and non-existence.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana Sutra) says: 'According to sentient beings, there are two truths.' Therefore, the teaching is taken as truth. The Renwang jing (Sutra of Humane Kings) says: 'There is truth, no truth, the Middle Way is the ultimate truth.' Therefore, it is known that there is a third truth. Question: Is the teaching truth (deśanā-satya) one entity or different entities? Answer: As mentioned earlier, the Middle Way is the essence, so it is one entity. If we talk about its function, it can also be provisionally said to be two entities, but this is not the correct meaning. Question: If it is said to be one entity, what is the difference between it and their one entity? Answer: Theirs is definitely one, definitely different, definitely both one and different. Now we explain that this is said in relation to the first level. To the second, third, and fourth levels, it cannot be said to be one, and it cannot be said to be different. Question: Is truth (satya) one entity or different entities? Answer: According to the two deluded emotions, they are two entities, but in the end, there are not two things, just like the empty flowers seen by a diseased eye are different from the empty non-flowers seen when there is no disease. Therefore, the one Middle Way is taken as the essence. Question: Are provisional existence and provisional non-existence the two truths, and is neither existence nor non-existence the Middle Way? Answer: Initially, it was to reveal the provisional meaning of the Middle Way, so the provisional is not the Middle, and the Middle is not the provisional. Ultimately, the provisional is also the Middle, so the Nirvana Sutra says that existence and non-existence are neither existence nor non-existence, and it can also be said that the Middle is provisional, because all speech is provisional. Question

何物是體假用假。何為體中用中耶。答假有假無是用假。非有非無是體假。有無是用中。非有非無是體中。復言。有無非有非無皆是用中用假。非二非不二。方是體假體中。合有四假四中。方是圓假圓中耳。

明中道第六。初就八不明中道。后就二諦明中道。初中師有三種方言。第一方言云。所以牒八不在初者。欲洗凈一切有所得心。有得之徒。無不墮此八計中。如小乘人言。謂有解之可生惑之可滅。乃至眾生。從無明流來反本還源。故去。今八不。橫破八迷。豎窮五句。以求彼生滅不得故。言不生不滅。生滅既去。不生不滅亦生滅亦不生滅非生滅非不生滅五句自崩。然非生非不生既是中道。而生而不生即是假名。假生不可言生。不可言不生。即是世諦中道。假不生不可言不生。不可言非不生。名為真諦中道。此是二諦各論中道。然世諦生滅是無生滅生滅。第一義無生滅。是生滅無生滅。然無生滅生滅。豈是生滅。生滅無生滅。豈是無生滅。故非生滅非無生滅名二諦。合明中道。第二方言云。所以明三種中道者。為顯如來從得道夜至涅槃夜常說中道。又學佛教人。作三中不成故墮在偏病。今對彼中義不成故辨三中。問云何學佛教人三中不成。答他云。實法滅故不常。假名相續故不斷。今謂。不常猶是斷。不斷猶

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本什麼是體假用假？什麼是體中用中呢？回答：假有假無是『用假』。非有非無是『體假』。有無是『用中』。非有非無是『體中』。進一步說，有無、非有非無都是『用中』、『用假』。非二、非不二，才是『體假』、『體中』。合起來有四假四中，才是圓假圓中。

闡明中道第六。首先就八不（八不中道）闡明中道，然後就二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）闡明中道。最初的闡明中，師父有三種說法。第一種說法是：之所以把八不放在最開始，是爲了洗凈一切有所得的心。有所得的人，沒有不墮入這八種計較中的。例如小乘人說，認為有可以解除的，有迷惑可以消滅的，乃至眾生，從無明流轉而來，返回到本源。所以要去除。現在用八不，橫向破除八種迷惑，縱向窮盡五句（生、滅、亦生亦滅、非生非滅、非不生非滅），以求得那生滅而不可得，所以說不生不滅。生滅既然去除，不生不滅、亦生亦滅、非生滅非不生滅這五句自然崩塌。然而非生非不生既然是中道，而生而不生就是假名。假生不可說生，不可說不生，這就是世俗諦的中道。假不生不可說不生，不可說非不生，這稱為真諦的中道。這是二諦各自論述中道。然而世俗諦的生滅是無生滅的生滅，第一義諦的無生滅是生滅的無生滅。然而無生滅的生滅，難道是生滅嗎？生滅的無生滅，難道是無生滅嗎？所以非生滅非無生滅，名為二諦合起來闡明中道。第二種說法是：之所以闡明三種中道，是爲了顯示如來從得道之夜到涅槃之夜，常常說中道。而且學習佛教的人，做三種中道不成，所以墮入偏頗的毛病。現在針對他們中道的意義不成，所以辨別三種中道。問：為什麼學習佛教的人三種中道不成？答：他們說，實法滅所以不是常，假名相續所以不斷。現在認為，不常仍然是斷，不斷仍然是

【English Translation】 English version What is 'illusory entity and illusory function'? What is 'central entity and central function'? Answer: 'Illusory existence and illusory non-existence' are 'illusory function'. 'Neither existence nor non-existence' is 'illusory entity'. 'Existence and non-existence' are 'central function'. 'Neither existence nor non-existence' is 'central entity'. Furthermore, existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, all are 'central function' and 'illusory function'. 'Neither duality nor non-duality' is precisely 'illusory entity' and 'central entity'. Combining the four illusory and four central aspects constitutes the complete illusory and complete central.

Elucidating the Middle Way, Sixth. First, the Middle Way is elucidated based on the Eight Negations (八不, bā bù, eight negations of the Middle Way), then based on the Two Truths (二諦, èr dì, conventional truth and ultimate truth). In the initial elucidation, the master has three explanations. The first explanation is: The reason for placing the Eight Negations at the beginning is to cleanse all minds that grasp at attainment. Those who grasp at attainment inevitably fall into these eight considerations. For example, Hinayana practitioners say that there is something to be liberated from and something to be extinguished from delusion, even sentient beings, flowing from ignorance and returning to the source. Therefore, it must be removed. Now, the Eight Negations horizontally break through the eight confusions and vertically exhaust the five statements (birth, death, both birth and death, neither birth nor death, neither non-birth nor non-death) to seek that birth and death are unattainable, hence the saying 'neither birth nor death'. Since birth and death are removed, the five statements of neither birth nor death, both birth and death, neither birth nor death, nor non-birth nor non-death naturally collapse. However, since neither birth nor non-birth is the Middle Way, birth and non-birth are provisional names. Provisional birth cannot be said to be birth, nor can it be said to be non-birth, which is the Middle Way of conventional truth (世俗諦, shì sú dì). Provisional non-birth cannot be said to be non-birth, nor can it be said to be non-non-birth, which is called the Middle Way of ultimate truth (真諦, zhēn dì). This is the separate discussion of the Middle Way in the Two Truths. However, the birth and death of conventional truth are the birth and death of non-birth and non-death, and the non-birth and non-death of ultimate truth are the non-birth and non-death of birth and death. However, is the birth and death of non-birth and non-death birth and death? Is the non-birth and non-death of birth and death non-birth and non-death? Therefore, neither birth nor death nor non-birth nor non-death is named the combined elucidation of the Middle Way in the Two Truths. The second explanation is: The reason for elucidating the three Middle Ways is to show that the Tathagata constantly spoke of the Middle Way from the night of enlightenment to the night of Nirvana. Moreover, those who study Buddhism fail to achieve the three Middle Ways, thus falling into the fault of bias. Now, in response to their failure to achieve the meaning of the Middle Way, the three Middle Ways are distinguished. Question: Why do those who study Buddhism fail to achieve the three Middle Ways? Answer: They say that because the real dharma (實法, shí fǎ, real existence) ceases, it is not permanent; because the provisional name (假名, jiǎ míng, temporary designation) continues, it is not discontinuous. Now, it is considered that not permanent is still discontinuous, and not discontinuous is still

是常。唯見斷常。何中之有。為對此三中不成。明三種中道。今明。中道者。無生滅生滅為俗諦中。生滅無生滅為真諦中。無生滅生滅。豈是生滅。生滅無生滅。豈是無生滅。故非生滅非無生滅。二諦合明中道。問后明三中與前何異。答前明二諦中道。是因緣假。名破性中。第三雙泯二假稱為體中。亦名因緣表中道。故前語有四重階級。一者初章四句求性有無不可得故。言非有非無名為中道。外人既聞非有非無。即謂無復真俗二諦。便起斷見。是故第二說而有而無以為二諦。接其斷心。第三欲顯而有而無明其是中道是因緣有無。不同汝性有無義故。第三明二諦用中。雙彈兩性。第四次欲轉假有無二故明體中。初明性空。次後明假。第三明用中。第四明體中故有四階。此是攝嶺興皇始末對由來義有此四重階級。得此意者。解一師立中假體用四種意也。又初非性有無以為中者。此是假前中義。次而有而無名為二諦。是中后假義。次假有非有。假無非無。二諦合明中道者。此是假后中義。問破性中因緣表中道者。云何中前假中后假耶。答中前假者。未說體中。前明於假。即上破性中后而有而無是也。中后假者。說用中體中竟。方說而有而無。正是動而常寂。寂而常用。乃是方便智化眾生。又中前假。從用入體。中后假從體起

【現代漢語翻譯】是常（永恒不變）。唯見斷常（斷滅與常存）。何中之有（哪裡有中道的存在）？為對此三中不成（爲了破斥這三種錯誤的觀點），明三種中道（闡明三種中道）。今明（現在闡明）：中道者（中道是），無生滅生滅為俗諦中（不生不滅的生滅是世俗諦中的中道），生滅無生滅為真諦中（生滅的不生滅是真諦中的中道）。無生滅生滅（不生不滅的生滅），豈是生滅（怎麼會是真正的生滅）？生滅無生滅（生滅的不生滅），豈是無生滅（怎麼會是真正的不生滅）？故非生滅非無生滅（所以既不是生滅也不是不生滅），二諦合明中道（真俗二諦合起來闡明中道）。問（問）：后明三中與前何異（後面闡明的三種中道與前面有什麼不同）？答（答）：前明二諦中道（前面闡明的是真俗二諦的中道），是因緣假（是依因緣而有的假象），名破性中（稱為破除自性的中道）。第三雙泯二假稱為體中（第三個同時泯除真俗二諦的假象，稱為本體的中道），亦名因緣表中道（也稱為依因緣而顯現的中道）。故前語有四重階級（所以前面的說法有四重階級）：一者初章四句求性有無不可得故（第一，最初的四句，探求自性的有無而不可得），言非有非無名為中道（說非有非無，稱為中道）。外人既聞非有非無（外道聽聞非有非無），即謂無復真俗二諦（就認為沒有真俗二諦），便起斷見（就生起斷滅的見解）。是故第二說而有而無以為二諦（所以第二說有和無，作為真俗二諦），接其斷心（接引他們斷滅的心）。第三欲顯而有而無明其是中道是因緣有無（第三，想要顯示有和無，說明這中道是依因緣而有的有無），不同汝性有無義故（不同於你們所說的自性的有無的意義）。第三明二諦用中（第三闡明真俗二諦的用中），雙彈兩性（同時破斥兩種自性）。第四次欲轉假有無二故明體中（第四，想要轉變假有的有無兩種觀點，所以闡明本體的中道）。初明性空（最初闡明自性空），次後明假（然後闡明假有），第三明用中（第三闡明用中），第四明體中（第四闡明體中），故有四階（所以有四個階段）。此是攝嶺興皇始末對由來義有此四重階級（這是攝嶺興皇從始至終對由來意義的理解，有這四重階級）。得此意者（理解這個意思的人），解一師立中假體用四種意也（就理解了一位法師建立中道、假有、本體、作用這四種意義）。又初非性有無以為中者（又，最初說非自性的有無作為中道），此是假前中義（這是假有之前的中的意義）。次而有而無名為二諦（其次，說有和無作為真俗二諦），是中后假義（這是中道之後的假有的意義）。次假有非有（其次，假有的有不是真正的有），假無非無（假有的無不是真正的無），二諦合明中道者（真俗二諦合起來闡明中道），此是假后中義（這是假有之後的中道的意義）。問（問）：破性中因緣表中道者（破除自性的中道和依因緣而顯現的中道），云何中前假中后假耶（什麼是中道之前的假有，什麼是中道之後的假有）？答（答）：中前假者（中道之前的假有），未說體中（在沒有闡明本體的中道之前），前明於假（前面闡明假有），即上破性中后而有而無是也（就是上面破除自性的中道之後所說的有和無）。中后假者（中道之後的假有），說用中體中竟（說完用中和體中之後），方說而有而無（才說有和無），正是動而常寂（正是動的時候也是常寂），寂而常用（寂靜的時候也是常用），乃是方便智化眾生（這才是用方便智慧來教化眾生）。又中前假（又，中道之前的假有），從用入體（是從作用進入本體）。中后假從體起（中道之後的假有是從本體起作用）。

【English Translation】 'It is permanence (eternal and unchanging). Only see annihilation and permanence (cessation and permanence). What middle is there (where is the existence of the Middle Way)? To counter these three incompleteness (to refute these three incorrect views), clarify the three Middle Ways (elucidate the three Middle Ways). Now clarify (now elucidate): The Middle Way is (the Middle Way is), non-arising and non-ceasing arising and ceasing is the Middle in the conventional truth (the non-arising and non-ceasing arising and ceasing is the Middle Way in the mundane truth), arising and ceasing non-arising and non-ceasing is the Middle in the ultimate truth (arising and ceasing non-arising and non-ceasing is the Middle Way in the ultimate truth). Non-arising and non-ceasing arising and ceasing (non-arising and non-ceasing arising and ceasing), how can it be arising and ceasing (how can it be true arising and ceasing)? Arising and ceasing non-arising and non-ceasing (arising and ceasing non-arising and non-ceasing), how can it be non-arising and non-ceasing (how can it be true non-arising and non-ceasing)? Therefore, neither arising and ceasing nor non-arising and non-ceasing (therefore, it is neither arising and ceasing nor non-arising and non-ceasing), the two truths together clarify the Middle Way (the two truths, conventional and ultimate, together elucidate the Middle Way).' 'Question (question): What is the difference between the later clarification of the three Middle Ways and the previous one (what is the difference between the three Middle Ways clarified later and the previous one)? Answer (answer): The previous clarification of the Middle Way of the two truths (the previous clarification is the Middle Way of the two truths, conventional and ultimate), is conditioned existence (is the illusion that arises from conditions), called the Middle of breaking self-nature (called the Middle Way of breaking self-nature). The third, simultaneously eliminating the two illusions, is called the Middle of the essence (the third, simultaneously eliminating the illusions of the two truths, is called the Middle Way of the essence), also called the Middle Way of conditioned expression (also called the Middle Way of conditioned expression). Therefore, the previous statement has four levels (therefore, the previous statement has four levels): First, the initial four lines seek the existence or non-existence of self-nature and find it unattainable (first, the initial four lines seek the existence or non-existence of self-nature and find it unattainable), saying neither existence nor non-existence is called the Middle Way (saying neither existence nor non-existence is called the Middle Way). Outsiders, having heard neither existence nor non-existence (outsiders, having heard neither existence nor non-existence), immediately think there are no longer the two truths, conventional and ultimate (immediately think there are no longer the two truths, conventional and ultimate), and then arise the view of annihilation (and then arise the view of annihilation). Therefore, the second says existence and non-existence as the two truths (therefore, the second says existence and non-existence as the two truths), to receive their mind of annihilation (to receive their mind of annihilation). The third wants to show that existence and non-existence clarify that the Middle Way is conditioned existence and non-existence (the third wants to show that existence and non-existence clarify that the Middle Way is conditioned existence and non-existence), different from your meaning of existence and non-existence of self-nature (different from your meaning of existence and non-existence of self-nature). The third clarifies the Middle Way of the two truths in function (the third clarifies the Middle Way of the two truths in function), simultaneously refuting the two self-natures (simultaneously refuting the two self-natures). The fourth then wants to transform the two views of illusory existence and non-existence, so clarifies the Middle Way of the essence (the fourth then wants to transform the two views of illusory existence and non-existence, so clarifies the Middle Way of the essence). First clarify the emptiness of self-nature (first clarify the emptiness of self-nature), then clarify illusion (then clarify illusion), the third clarifies the Middle Way in function (the third clarifies the Middle Way in function), the fourth clarifies the Middle Way of the essence (the fourth clarifies the Middle Way of the essence), so there are four levels (so there are four levels). This is She Ling Xing Huang's understanding of the meaning from beginning to end, having these four levels (this is She Ling Xing Huang's understanding of the meaning from beginning to end, having these four levels). Those who understand this meaning (those who understand this meaning), understand the four meanings of a teacher establishing the Middle Way, illusion, essence, and function (understand the four meanings of a teacher establishing the Middle Way, illusion, essence, and function).' 'Also, the initial saying of neither existence nor non-existence of self-nature as the Middle Way (also, the initial saying of neither existence nor non-existence of self-nature as the Middle Way), this is the meaning of the Middle Way before illusion (this is the meaning of the Middle Way before illusion). Then saying existence and non-existence as the two truths (then saying existence and non-existence as the two truths), this is the meaning of illusion after the Middle Way (this is the meaning of illusion after the Middle Way). Then illusory existence is not true existence (then illusory existence is not true existence), illusory non-existence is not true non-existence (illusory non-existence is not true non-existence), the two truths together clarify the Middle Way (the two truths together clarify the Middle Way), this is the meaning of the Middle Way after illusion (this is the meaning of the Middle Way after illusion). Question (question): The Middle Way of breaking self-nature and the Middle Way of conditioned expression (the Middle Way of breaking self-nature and the Middle Way of conditioned expression), what is illusion before the Middle Way and what is illusion after the Middle Way (what is illusion before the Middle Way and what is illusion after the Middle Way)? Answer (answer): Illusion before the Middle Way (illusion before the Middle Way), before clarifying the Middle Way of the essence (before clarifying the Middle Way of the essence), the previous clarification of illusion (the previous clarification of illusion), is the existence and non-existence after breaking self-nature above (is the existence and non-existence after breaking self-nature above). Illusion after the Middle Way (illusion after the Middle Way), after speaking of the Middle Way in function and the Middle Way of the essence (after speaking of the Middle Way in function and the Middle Way of the essence), then saying existence and non-existence (then saying existence and non-existence), is precisely moving and constantly still (is precisely moving and constantly still), still and constantly functioning (still and constantly functioning), is using expedient wisdom to transform sentient beings (is using expedient wisdom to transform sentient beings). Also, illusion before the Middle Way (also, illusion before the Middle Way), enters the essence from function (enters the essence from function). Illusion after the Middle Way arises from the essence (illusion after the Middle Way arises from the essence).'

用。問第一方言出諸師計。後方言出諸師三中不成。云何異耶。答第一方言。破性外道八迷。破性明中。但出諸師計。諸法師計亦有性義。亦言。正破外傍破內。故出諸師計。第三方言云。世諦即假生假滅。假生不生。假滅不滅。不生不滅。為世諦中道。非不生非不滅為真諦中道。二諦合明中道者。非生滅非不生滅。問此與上何異。答此有二意。一者即世諦生是不生。如色即是空故。不生即是世諦。真諦不生者。此即相因義。因世諦生明真諦不生。二者世諦中不生不滅。即是真諦假。非是破性明中。為明世諦假生雖生不起。世諦假滅雖滅不失。故生滅宛然而未曾生滅。故世諦中即是真諦假。問此與上何異。答雖同生滅為俗不生滅為真。但不生有三種。初方言破定性生明不生。第二方言破假生明不生。此中有異。破定性生但破不收。破假生亦破亦收。第三方言。約平道門本來不生故言不生。不言破病也。第二就二諦明中道。此中有三意。第一單義論單復。第二復義論單復。第三就二諦論單復。就初有兩。初正明單復。后明互相出入。今先正論單復中假義。偏說一假有不說無。是單假。偏說一假無不說有。亦是單假。偏說一非有即是單中。非無亦爾。雙說假有假無。是復假。雙說非有非無。是復中。次釋其所以。凡有二義

【現代漢語翻譯】問：第一種方言出自諸位法師的計較，后一種方言出自諸位法師的三種不成立的說法，這有什麼不同呢？答：第一種方言，是爲了破斥那些執著于自性的外道所產生的八種迷惑，在破斥自性的闡明中，只是出自諸位法師的計較。諸位法師的計較中也有自性的含義，他們也說，既正面破斥外道，也從側面破斥內道，所以說是出自諸位法師的計較。第三種方言說：『世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，指世俗層面的真理）即是虛假的生起和虛假的滅亡，虛假的生起不是真正的生起，虛假的滅亡不是真正的滅亡，沒有生起也沒有滅亡，這是世俗諦中的中道。』『不是不生起也不是不滅亡，這是真諦（Paramartha-satya，指勝義層面的真理）中的中道。』這兩種真諦合起來闡明中道，就是非生滅也非不生滅。問：這和上面所說的有什麼不同呢？答：這裡面有兩層意思。第一層意思是，世俗諦的生起就是不生起，比如色（Rupa，指物質現象）即是空（Sunyata，指空性）的緣故。不生起就是世俗諦，真諦的不生起，這指的是相因的含義，因為世俗諦的生起才闡明真諦的不生起。第二層意思是，世俗諦中的不生不滅，就是真諦的假象，不是破斥自性來闡明的。爲了闡明世俗諦的虛假生起，雖然生起了但實際上沒有生起；世俗諦的虛假滅亡，雖然滅亡了但實際上沒有失去。所以生滅宛然存在，但實際上從未曾生滅。因此世俗諦中就是真諦的假象。問：這和上面所說的有什麼不同呢？答：雖然都認為生滅是世俗諦，不生滅是真諦，但是不生滅有三種。第一種方言是破斥固定的自性生來闡明不生。第二種方言是破斥虛假的生來闡明不生。這裡面有不同，破斥固定的自性生只是破斥而不收回，破斥虛假的生既破斥也收回。第三種方言，是從平等之道的角度來說，本來就沒有生起，所以說不生，而不是說破除病癥。第二種方言是就兩種真諦來闡明中道。這裡面有三層意思。第一是單義論的單和復，第二是復義論的單和復，第三是就兩種真諦來論單和復。就第一種來說，有兩點。首先是正面闡明單和復，然後是闡明互相出入。現在先正面論述單和復中的假義。偏頗地說一種假有而不說無，這是單假。偏頗地說一種假無而不說有，這也是單假。偏頗地說一種非有，這就是單中，非無也是這樣。同時說假有假無，這是復假。同時說非有非無，這是復中。接下來解釋其中的原因。總共有兩種含義。

【English Translation】 Question: The first dialect comes from the calculations of the teachers, and the latter dialect comes from the three unestablished statements of the teachers. What is the difference? Answer: The first dialect is to refute the eight confusions produced by those heretics who cling to inherent existence (Svabhava). In the explanation of refuting inherent existence, it only comes from the calculations of the teachers. The calculations of the teachers also have the meaning of inherent existence. They also say that they both directly refute external paths and indirectly refute internal paths, so it is said to come from the calculations of the teachers. The third dialect says: 'Conventional truth (Samvriti-satya) is false arising and false ceasing. False arising is not true arising, and false ceasing is not true ceasing. There is no arising and no ceasing, which is the Middle Way in conventional truth.' 'Not non-arising and not non-ceasing is the Middle Way in ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya).' These two truths together explain the Middle Way, which is neither arising nor ceasing, nor non-arising nor non-ceasing. Question: What is the difference between this and what was said above? Answer: There are two meanings here. The first meaning is that the arising of conventional truth is non-arising, such as form (Rupa) is emptiness (Sunyata). Non-arising is conventional truth, and the non-arising of ultimate truth refers to the meaning of interdependence, because the arising of conventional truth explains the non-arising of ultimate truth. The second meaning is that non-arising and non-ceasing in conventional truth is the appearance of ultimate truth, which is not explained by refuting inherent existence. In order to explain the false arising of conventional truth, although it arises, it does not actually arise; the false ceasing of conventional truth, although it ceases, it does not actually disappear. Therefore, arising and ceasing are clearly present, but in reality, they have never arisen or ceased. Therefore, conventional truth is the appearance of ultimate truth. Question: What is the difference between this and what was said above? Answer: Although both consider arising and ceasing to be conventional truth and non-arising and non-ceasing to be ultimate truth, there are three types of non-arising and non-ceasing. The first dialect is to refute fixed inherent arising to explain non-arising. The second dialect is to refute false arising to explain non-arising. There is a difference here. Refuting fixed inherent arising only refutes without retracting, while refuting false arising both refutes and retracts. The third dialect, from the perspective of the path of equality, originally there was no arising, so it is said to be non-arising, rather than saying to eliminate the disease. The second dialect explains the Middle Way based on the two truths. There are three meanings here. The first is the single and compound in the single meaning theory, the second is the single and compound in the compound meaning theory, and the third is the single and compound in the two truths theory. In the first case, there are two points. First, the single and compound are explained directly, and then the mutual entry and exit are explained. Now, let's first discuss the false meaning in the single and compound directly. To partially say that a false existence exists without saying non-existence is a single false. To partially say that a false non-existence exists without saying existence is also a single false. To partially say a non-existence is a single middle, and the same is true for non-non-existence. To say both false existence and false non-existence is a compound false. To say both non-existence and non-non-existence is a compound middle. Next, explain the reasons for this. There are two meanings in total.

。一者為利根人說單假。約鈍根人說復假。正言。利根之者聞一悟十故。若聞說假有即解假無。乃至聞說非有即解非無。所以不勞具明兩義。為鈍根之人隨言得解。若不具說。無有玄悟。所以雙明兩義也。二者為鈍根人說單。為利根人說復。為鈍根之人不堪受圓教。所以且說單義破其執。若利根人堪受圓教。所以為說復義。便皆領受。次明互相出入有八句。第一從單假入單中。或言。假有不名有。從有入非有。無亦例爾。第二從單中出單假。或言。非有假說有。非無假說無。第三從復假入復中。假有不名有。假無不名無。有無入非有無。第四從復中出復假。非有非無假說有無。第五從單假入復中。或言。假有不名有。假有不名無。從假有入非有非無。假無亦例爾。第六從復中出單假。或言。非有非無假說有。非無非有假說無之。第七從復假入單中。有無即非有。第八從單中出復假。非有假說有不有。非無假說無不無。次釋所以有二義。一者破眾生執實之病。隨計隨遣。所以遂有多句。二者大士觀行神通自在。無有隔礙故。或眼根入正受等。不復委釋。大品云。或從散心中起入滅受定。滅受定起入散心中也。第二就復義論單復亦有二。初正明單復。二明出入。初正明單復中假。假有是俗諦。假無是真諦。此是單假。非有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一者，為利根之人說單假（暫時性的存在）。針對鈍根之人說復假（複雜的存在）。確切地說，利根之人聽聞一件事就能領悟十件事，因此，如果聽到說假有，就能理解假無，乃至聽到說非有，就能理解非無。所以不需要詳細說明兩種含義。而對於鈍根之人，只能根據所說的話來理解，如果不詳細說明，就無法玄妙地領悟。所以要同時說明兩種含義。二者，為鈍根之人說單（簡單），為利根之人說復（複雜）。因為鈍根之人無法接受圓滿的教義，所以先說簡單的道理來破除他們的執著。如果利根之人能夠接受圓滿的教義，就為他們說複雜的道理，他們就能全部領會。接下來闡明互相出入的八種情況。第一，從單假（簡單的暫時存在）進入單中（簡單的中道）。或者說，假有不能稱為有，從有進入非有，無也是同樣的道理。第二，從單中（簡單的中道）出來進入單假（簡單的暫時存在）。或者說，非有假說為有，非無假說為無。第三，從復假（複雜的暫時存在）進入復中（複雜的中道）。假有不能稱為有，假無不能稱為無，有無進入非有非無。第四，從復中（複雜的中道）出來進入復假（複雜的暫時存在）。非有非無假說為有無。第五，從單假（簡單的暫時存在）進入復中（複雜的中道）。或者說，假有不能稱為有，假有不能稱為無，從假有進入非有非無，假無也是同樣的道理。第六，從復中（複雜的中道）出來進入單假（簡單的暫時存在）。或者說，非有非無假說為有，非無非有假說為無。第七，從復假（複雜的暫時存在）進入單中（簡單的中道）。有無即非有。第八，從單中（簡單的中道）出來進入復假（複雜的暫時存在）。非有假說為有不有，非無假說為無不無。接下來解釋原因，有兩種含義。一是破除眾生執著于真實的病，隨著他們的執著而遣除，所以才有很多種說法。二是大士（偉大的修行者）的觀行神通自在，沒有隔閡阻礙。或者眼根進入正受等，不再詳細解釋。《大品般若經》說，或者從散亂心中起身進入滅受想定，從滅受想定起身進入散亂心中。第二，就復義（複雜的含義）來討論單復（簡單和複雜），也有兩種情況。首先是明確單復，其次是闡明出入。首先明確單復中假（暫時存在），假有是俗諦（世俗真理），假無是真諦（勝義真理），這是單假（簡單的暫時存在）。非有

【English Translation】 English version Firstly, for those with sharp faculties, we speak of simple provisionality (single false). Regarding those with dull faculties, we speak of complex provisionality (double false). To speak precisely, those with sharp faculties understand ten things upon hearing one. Therefore, if they hear of provisional existence (假有), they immediately understand provisional non-existence (假無), and even if they hear of non-existence (非有), they understand non-non-existence (非無). Thus, it is unnecessary to explain both meanings in detail. But for those with dull faculties, they understand only what is said. If not explained fully, they cannot have a profound realization. Therefore, both meanings are explained together. Secondly, we speak of the simple (single) for those with dull faculties, and the complex (double) for those with sharp faculties. Because those with dull faculties are incapable of receiving the complete teaching, we first speak of the simple meaning to break their attachments. If those with sharp faculties are capable of receiving the complete teaching, we speak of the complex meaning for them, and they will all comprehend it. Next, we clarify the eight cases of mutual entry and exit. First, from simple provisionality (單假) enters simple the Middle Way (單中). Or it is said, 'Provisional existence is not called existence.' From existence enters non-existence, and non-existence is the same. Second, from simple the Middle Way (單中) exits to simple provisionality (單假). Or it is said, 'Non-existence is provisionally called existence, and non-non-existence is provisionally called non-existence.' Third, from complex provisionality (復假) enters complex the Middle Way (復中). Provisional existence is not called existence, and provisional non-existence is not called non-existence. Existence and non-existence enter non-existence and non-non-existence. Fourth, from complex the Middle Way (復中) exits to complex provisionality (復假). Non-existence and non-non-existence are provisionally called existence and non-existence. Fifth, from simple provisionality (單假) enters complex the Middle Way (復中). Or it is said, 'Provisional existence is not called existence, and provisional existence is not called non-existence.' From provisional existence enters non-existence and non-non-existence, and provisional non-existence is the same. Sixth, from complex the Middle Way (復中) exits to simple provisionality (單假). Or it is said, 'Non-existence and non-non-existence are provisionally called existence, and non-non-existence and non-existence are provisionally called non-existence.' Seventh, from complex provisionality (復假) enters simple the Middle Way (單中). Existence and non-existence are precisely non-existence. Eighth, from simple the Middle Way (單中) exits to complex provisionality (復假). Non-existence is provisionally called existence and non-existence, and non-non-existence is provisionally called non-non-existence. Next, we explain the reasons, which are twofold. First, to break the disease of beings clinging to reality, we dispel their attachments accordingly, so there are many statements. Second, the great Bodhisattvas' (大士) contemplation and spiritual powers are free and unhindered. Or the eye-faculty enters correct reception, etc., which will not be explained in detail. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) says, 'Or from a scattered mind, one arises and enters the cessation of perception and sensation samadhi (滅受想定), and from the cessation of perception and sensation samadhi, one arises and enters a scattered mind.' Secondly, regarding the simple and complex (單復) in terms of the complex meaning (復義), there are also two aspects. First, we clarify the simple and complex directly, and second, we clarify entry and exit. First, clarifying the provisional (假) within the simple and complex, provisional existence (假有) is conventional truth (俗諦), and provisional non-existence (假無) is ultimate truth (真諦). This is simple provisionality (單假). Non-existence (非有)

非無是中道。此是單中。假有假無為二。是俗諦。非有非無不二為真諦。此是復假。非二非不二是中道。此是復中。正言。非二盡有無。非不二盡非有非無。所以是復中。次釋其所以有二義。一往為言。單中單假明義即淺。復中復假明義即深。所以然者。單家之二諦。至復義時。還是俗諦。單家之中道。至復義時。還成真諦。單家之中道。正盡有無二。未能盡不二。復家之中道。盡不二也。二者單明義即勝。復明義悉劣。所以然者。復假之有無。猶是前單假之有義。復中之非有非無。猶是前單假之無義。復之非二非不二。猶是前單中之非有非無也。但前直言有。便攝得有無。只直言無。攝得非有非無。只言非有非無。便攝得非二非不二。言略意廣。所以為勝。復家中假。言廣意劣。所以有勝劣。次明互相出入有八句。第一從單假入單中。假有不名有。假無不名無。入非有非無中道。第二從單中出單假。非有假說有為俗。非無假說無為真。第三從復假入復中。假二不名二。假不二不名不二。入非二非不二中道。第四從復中出復假。非二假說二為俗。非不二假說不二為真。第五從單假入復中。假有不名二。假無不名不二。從假有無入非二非不二中道。第六從復中出單假。非二假說有為俗。非不二假說無為真。第七從復假入

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『非無是中道』。這是單中（簡單的中道）。『假有假無』為二，是俗諦（世俗諦）。『非有非無』不二為真諦（真理諦）。這是復假（複雜的假）。『非二非不二』是中道。這是復中（複雜的中道）。正確地說，『非二』窮盡了『有』和『無』，『非不二』窮盡了『非有』和『非無』。所以這是復中。接下來解釋它之所以是復中的兩個原因。從一方面來說，單中和單假（簡單的假）所闡明的意義比較淺顯，而復中和復假所闡明的意義比較深刻。原因在於，單家的二諦，到了復義的時候，仍然是俗諦；單家的中道，到了復義的時候，仍然是真諦。單家的中道，只是窮盡了『有』和『無』這二者，未能窮盡『不二』。而復家的中道，則窮盡了『不二』。另一方面，單中闡明的意義比較優勝，而復中闡明的意義則比較遜色。原因在於，復假中的『有』和『無』，仍然是前面單假中的『有』的意義；復中中的『非有非無』，仍然是前面單假中的『無』的意義；復中的『非二非不二』，仍然是前面單中中的『非有非無』。只是前面直接說『有』，就涵蓋了『有』和『無』；只是直接說『無』，就涵蓋了『非有非無』；只是說『非有非無』，就涵蓋了『非二非不二』。言語簡略而意義廣博，所以比較優勝。復假中的言語廣博而意義遜色，所以有優勝和遜色之分。接下來闡明互相出入的八句。第一，從單假進入單中。『假有』不稱為『有』，『假無』不稱為『無』，進入『非有非無』的中道。第二，從單中出來進入單假。『非有』假說為『有』，是俗諦；『非無』假說為『無』，是真諦。第三，從復假進入復中。『假二』不稱為『二』，『假不二』不稱為『不二』，進入『非二非不二』的中道。第四，從復中出來進入復假。『非二』假說為『二』，是俗諦；『非不二』假說為『不二』，是真諦。第五，從單假進入復中。『假有』不稱為『二』，『假無』不稱為『不二』，從假『有』『無』進入『非二非不二』的中道。第六，從復中出來進入單假。『非二』假說為『有』，是俗諦；『非不二』假說為『無』，是真諦。第七，從復假進入...

【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-being is the Middle Way.' This is the simple Middle Way (single middle). 'Provisional being and provisional non-being' are duality, which is the Samvriti Satya (conventional truth). 'Neither being nor non-being' is non-duality, which is the Paramartha Satya (ultimate truth). This is complex provisionality (double provisionality). 'Neither duality nor non-duality' is the Middle Way. This is the complex Middle Way (double middle). To speak correctly, 'neither duality' exhausts 'being' and 'non-being', and 'neither non-duality' exhausts 'neither being nor non-being'. Therefore, this is the complex Middle Way. Next, explain the two reasons why it is the complex Middle Way. From one perspective, the meaning clarified by the simple Middle Way and simple provisionality (single provisionality) is shallow, while the meaning clarified by the complex Middle Way and complex provisionality is profound. The reason is that the two truths of the single school, when it comes to the complex meaning, are still the Samvriti Satya; the Middle Way of the single school, when it comes to the complex meaning, still becomes the Paramartha Satya. The Middle Way of the single school only exhausts the duality of 'being' and 'non-being', and fails to exhaust 'non-duality'. The Middle Way of the complex school exhausts 'non-duality'. From another perspective, the meaning clarified by the single is superior, while the meaning clarified by the complex is inferior. The reason is that the 'being' and 'non-being' of complex provisionality are still the meaning of 'being' in the previous single provisionality; the 'neither being nor non-being' of the complex Middle Way is still the meaning of 'non-being' in the previous single provisionality; the 'neither duality nor non-duality' of the complex is still the 'neither being nor non-being' of the previous single Middle Way. It's just that previously, directly saying 'being' encompasses 'being' and 'non-being'; just directly saying 'non-being' encompasses 'neither being nor non-being'; just saying 'neither being nor non-being' encompasses 'neither duality nor non-duality'. The words are concise and the meaning is broad, so it is superior. The words in the complex school are broad and the meaning is inferior, so there is superiority and inferiority. Next, clarify the eight sentences of mutual entry and exit. First, from single provisionality entering the single Middle Way. 'Provisional being' is not called 'being', and 'provisional non-being' is not called 'non-being', entering the Middle Way of 'neither being nor non-being'. Second, from the single Middle Way exiting into single provisionality. 'Neither being' is provisionally said to be 'being', which is the Samvriti Satya; 'neither non-being' is provisionally said to be 'non-being', which is the Paramartha Satya. Third, from complex provisionality entering the complex Middle Way. 'Provisional duality' is not called 'duality', and 'provisional non-duality' is not called 'non-duality', entering the Middle Way of 'neither duality nor non-duality'. Fourth, from the complex Middle Way exiting into complex provisionality. 'Neither duality' is provisionally said to be 'duality', which is the Samvriti Satya; 'neither non-duality' is provisionally said to be 'non-duality', which is the Paramartha Satya. Fifth, from single provisionality entering the complex Middle Way. 'Provisional being' is not called 'duality', and 'provisional non-being' is not called 'non-duality', entering the Middle Way of 'neither duality nor non-duality' from provisional 'being' and 'non-being'. Sixth, from the complex Middle Way exiting into single provisionality. 'Neither duality' is provisionally said to be 'being', which is the Samvriti Satya; 'neither non-duality' is provisionally said to be 'non-being', which is the Paramartha Satya. Seventh, from complex provisionality entering...

單中。假二不名有。假不二不名無。從二不二入非有非無中道。第八從單中出復假。非有假說二為俗。非無假說不二為真。第三階就二諦論單復有兩。一正明單復。二出入。一者俗諦明單復。二者真諦明單復。假有是俗諦。假無是真諦。是單假。復者假有假不有。是俗諦復假。假無假不無。真諦復假。非有為中道。此是俗諦單中。以非無為中道。此是真諦單中。非有非不有。此是俗諦復中。非無非不無。此是真諦復中。第二明出入有三。一就俗二就真三交絡。先就世諦明有八句。第一從俗諦單假入俗諦單中。假有不名有。即是假有入非有。第二從俗諦單中出俗諦單假。非有假說有。第三從俗諦復假入俗諦復中。假有假不有入非有非不有。第四從俗諦復中出俗諦復假。非有非不有假說有非有。第五從俗諦單假入復中。假有入非有非不有。第六從俗諦復中出單假。非有非不有。假說為假有。第七從俗諦復假入單中。假有不有入非有。第八從俗諦單中出復假。非有假說有不有。第二就真諦辨有八句。第一從真諦單假入單中。假無不名無也。第二從真諦單中出單假。非無假說無。第三從真諦復假入復中。假無假不無。非無非不無。第四從真諦復中出復假。非無非不無假說無不無。第五從真諦單假入復中。假無非無。假無非不無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本單中：如果只是假設為二，就不能稱之為『有』（存在）；如果假設為『不二』，就不能稱之為『無』（不存在）。從『二』和『不二』進入『非有非無』的中道。第八，從中道返回到假設：假設『非有』，並假說『二』，這是俗諦；假設『非無』，並假說『不二』，這是真諦。第三個階段，就二諦討論單復，分為兩個部分：一是直接說明單復，二是說明出入。一是俗諦中說明單復，二是真諦中說明單復。假設的『有』是俗諦，假設的『無』是真諦，這是單假。復假：假設『有』和假設『非有』，這是俗諦的復假；假設『無』和假設『非無』，這是真諦的復假。『非有』是中道，這是俗諦的單中；『非無』是中道，這是真諦的單中。『非有非非有』，這是俗諦的復中；『非無非非無』，這是真諦的復中。第二，說明出入，分為三個方面：一是就俗諦，二是就真諦，三是交錯。首先就俗諦說明有八句：第一，從俗諦的單假進入俗諦的單中：假設的『有』不稱為『有』，即是假設的『有』進入『非有』。第二，從俗諦的單中出來進入俗諦的單假：『非有』假設為『有』。第三，從俗諦的復假進入俗諦的復中：假設的『有』和假設的『非有』進入『非有非非有』。第四，從俗諦的復中出來進入俗諦的復假：『非有非非有』假設為『有』和『非有』。第五，從俗諦的單假進入復中：假設的『有』進入『非有非非有』。第六，從俗諦的復中出來進入單假：『非有非非有』假設為假設的『有』。第七，從俗諦的復假進入單中：假設的『有』和『非有』進入『非有』。第八，從俗諦的單中出來進入復假：『非有』假設為『有』和『非有』。第二，就真諦辨別有八句：第一，從真諦的單假進入單中：假設的『無』不稱為『無』。第二，從真諦的單中出來進入單假：『非無』假設為『無』。第三，從真諦的復假進入復中：假設的『無』和假設的『非無』進入『非無非非無』。第四，從真諦的復中出來進入復假：『非無非非無』假設為『無』和『非無』。第五，從真諦的單假進入復中：假設的『無』進入『非無非非無』。

【English Translation】 English version Single Middle: If it is merely assumed as 'two', it cannot be called 'existence' (yu 有). If it is assumed as 'non-two', it cannot be called 'non-existence' (wu 無). From 'two' and 'non-two', enter the Middle Way of 'neither existence nor non-existence' (fei you fei wu 非有非無). Eighth, from the Middle Way, return to the assumption: Assuming 'non-existence' (fei you 非有), and hypothetically stating 'two', this is the mundane truth (su di 俗諦); assuming 'non-non-existence' (fei wu 非無), and hypothetically stating 'non-two', this is the ultimate truth (zhen di 真諦). The third stage, discussing single and composite in terms of the two truths, is divided into two parts: first, directly explaining single and composite; second, explaining entry and exit. First, explaining single and composite in the mundane truth; second, explaining single and composite in the ultimate truth. Hypothetical 'existence' is the mundane truth; hypothetical 'non-existence' is the ultimate truth. This is single assumption (dan jia 單假). Composite assumption (fu jia 復假): Hypothetical 'existence' and hypothetical 'non-existence' (jia you jia bu you 假有假不有) is the composite assumption of the mundane truth; hypothetical 'non-existence' and hypothetical 'non-non-existence' (jia wu jia bu wu 假無假不無) is the composite assumption of the ultimate truth. 'Non-existence' is the Middle Way, this is the single middle of the mundane truth; 'non-non-existence' is the Middle Way, this is the single middle of the ultimate truth. 'Neither existence nor non-non-existence' (fei you fei bu you 非有非不有), this is the composite middle of the mundane truth; 'neither non-existence nor non-non-existence' (fei wu fei bu wu 非無非不無), this is the composite middle of the ultimate truth. Second, explaining entry and exit, divided into three aspects: first, regarding the mundane truth; second, regarding the ultimate truth; third, intertwined. First, explaining eight sentences regarding the mundane truth: First, from the single assumption of the mundane truth, enter the single middle of the mundane truth: Hypothetical 'existence' is not called 'existence', that is, hypothetical 'existence' enters 'non-existence'. Second, from the single middle of the mundane truth, exit and enter the single assumption of the mundane truth: 'Non-existence' is assumed as 'existence'. Third, from the composite assumption of the mundane truth, enter the composite middle of the mundane truth: Hypothetical 'existence' and hypothetical 'non-existence' enter 'neither existence nor non-non-existence'. Fourth, from the composite middle of the mundane truth, exit and enter the composite assumption of the mundane truth: 'Neither existence nor non-non-existence' is assumed as 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Fifth, from the single assumption of the mundane truth, enter the composite middle: Hypothetical 'existence' enters 'neither existence nor non-non-existence'. Sixth, from the composite middle of the mundane truth, exit and enter the single assumption: 'Neither existence nor non-non-existence' is assumed as hypothetical 'existence'. Seventh, from the composite assumption of the mundane truth, enter the single middle: Hypothetical 'existence' and 'non-existence' enter 'non-existence'. Eighth, from the single middle of the mundane truth, exit and enter the composite assumption: 'Non-existence' is assumed as 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Second, distinguishing eight sentences regarding the ultimate truth: First, from the single assumption of the ultimate truth, enter the single middle: Hypothetical 'non-existence' is not called 'non-existence'. Second, from the single middle of the ultimate truth, exit and enter the single assumption: 'Non-non-existence' is assumed as 'non-existence'. Third, from the composite assumption of the ultimate truth, enter the composite middle: Hypothetical 'non-existence' and hypothetical 'non-non-existence' enter 'neither non-existence nor non-non-existence'. Fourth, from the composite middle of the ultimate truth, exit and enter the composite assumption: 'Neither non-existence nor non-non-existence' is assumed as 'non-existence' and 'non-non-existence'. Fifth, from the single assumption of the ultimate truth, enter the composite middle: Hypothetical 'non-existence' enters 'neither non-existence nor non-non-existence'.

。第六從真諦復中出單假。非無非不無。假說為無。第七從真諦復假入單中。假無不無入非無。第八從真諦單中出復假。非無假說無不無。交絡明出入有十二句。第一從俗諦單假入真諦單中。假有不名無。壞有入非無。第二從真諦單中出俗諦單假。非無假說有。第三從真諦單假入俗諦單中。假無不名有。壞無入非有。第四從俗諦單中出真諦單假。非有假說無。第五從俗諦復假入真諦復中。假有假不有。入非無非不無。第六從真諦復中出俗諦復假。非無非不無。假說有不有。第七從真諦復假入俗諦復中。假無假不無入非有非不有。第八從俗諦復中出真諦復假。非有非不有。假說無不無。第九從真諦單假入俗諦復中。假無不名有。亦不名不有。即是非有非不有。第十從俗諦復中出真諦單假。非有非不有。假說名為無。第十一從俗諦單假入真諦復中。假有不名無。亦不名非無。即是非無非不無。第十二從真諦復中出俗諦單假。非無非不無假說名為有。

第七重明相即。次辨二諦相即。經有兩文。若使大經云世諦者即第一義諦。第一義諦即是世諦。此直道即作不相離。故言即。此語小寬。若如波若經空即是色色即是空。此意為切也。開善明。二諦一體。用即是即。龍光明。二諦各體。用不相離即。眾師雖多不出此二。今

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第六，從真諦（Paramārtha-satya， ultimate truth）的復中（double middle）出來是單假（single provisional）。不是沒有，也不是不沒有。假說為沒有。第七，從真諦的復假（double provisional）進入單中（single middle）。假沒有不是沒有，進入非沒有。第八，從真諦的單中出來是復假。不是沒有，假說沒有不是沒有。交錯地闡明出入，共有十二句。第一，從俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，conventional truth）的單假進入真諦的單中。假有不名為沒有。壞有進入非沒有。第二，從真諦的單中出來是俗諦的單假。非沒有，假說為有。第三，從真諦的單假進入俗諦的單中。假沒有不名為有。壞沒有進入非有。第四，從俗諦的單中出來是真諦的單假。非有，假說為沒有。第五，從俗諦的復假進入真諦的復中。假有假不有，進入非沒有非不沒有。第六，從真諦的復中出來是俗諦的復假。非沒有非不沒有，假說有不有。第七，從真諦的復假進入俗諦的復中。假沒有假不沒有，進入非有非不有。第八，從俗諦的復中出來是真諦的復假。非有非不有，假說沒有不沒有。第九，從真諦的單假進入俗諦的復中。假沒有不名為有，也不名為不有，即是非有非不有。第十，從俗諦的復中出來是真諦的單假。非有非不有，假說名為沒有。第十一，從俗諦的單假進入真諦的復中。假有不名為沒有，也不名為非沒有，即是非沒有非不沒有。第十二，從真諦的復中出來是俗諦的單假。非沒有非不沒有，假說名為有。第七重說明相即。接下來辨析二諦（two truths）相即。經文有兩處。如果《大經》說世諦（Saṃvṛti-satya）就是第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya），第一義諦就是世諦。這直接說明即是，不相分離，所以說『即』。這種說法稍微寬泛。如果像《般若經》所說，空即是色，色即是空，這種說法就比較切要。開善法師認為，二諦是一體，用『即』來表達。龍光法師認為，二諦各有自體，用不相離來表達『即』。眾位法師的觀點雖然很多，但都離不開這兩種。

【English Translation】 English version: Sixth, from the double middle arising from Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth) emerges the single provisional. It is neither non-being nor not non-being. It is provisionally said to be non-being. Seventh, from the double provisional of Paramārtha-satya enters the single middle. Provisional non-being is not non-being, entering non-non-being. Eighth, from the single middle of Paramārtha-satya emerges the double provisional. It is not non-being; it is provisionally said that non-being is not non-being. Intertwined, it clarifies the entering and exiting, totaling twelve sentences. First, from the single provisional of Saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth) enters the single middle of Paramārtha-satya. Provisional being is not named non-being. Destroying being enters non-non-being. Second, from the single middle of Paramārtha-satya emerges the single provisional of Saṃvṛti-satya. It is non-non-being; it is provisionally said to be being. Third, from the single provisional of Paramārtha-satya enters the single middle of Saṃvṛti-satya. Provisional non-being is not named being. Destroying non-being enters non-being. Fourth, from the single middle of Saṃvṛti-satya emerges the single provisional of Paramārtha-satya. It is non-being; it is provisionally said to be non-being. Fifth, from the double provisional of Saṃvṛti-satya enters the double middle of Paramārtha-satya. Provisional being and provisional non-being enter non-non-being and not non-non-being. Sixth, from the double middle of Paramārtha-satya emerges the double provisional of Saṃvṛti-satya. It is non-non-being and not non-non-being; it is provisionally said to be being and non-being. Seventh, from the double provisional of Paramārtha-satya enters the double middle of Saṃvṛti-satya. Provisional non-being and provisional not non-being enter non-being and not non-being. Eighth, from the double middle of Saṃvṛti-satya emerges the double provisional of Paramārtha-satya. It is non-being and not non-being; it is provisionally said to be non-being and not non-being. Ninth, from the single provisional of Paramārtha-satya enters the double middle of Saṃvṛti-satya. Provisional non-being is not named being, nor is it named not being; that is, it is neither being nor not being. Tenth, from the double middle of Saṃvṛti-satya emerges the single provisional of Paramārtha-satya. It is non-being and not non-being; it is provisionally said to be named non-being. Eleventh, from the single provisional of Saṃvṛti-satya enters the double middle of Paramārtha-satya. Provisional being is not named non-being, nor is it named non-non-being; that is, it is neither non-non-being nor not non-non-being. Twelfth, from the double middle of Paramārtha-satya emerges the single provisional of Saṃvṛti-satya. It is non-non-being and not non-non-being; it is provisionally said to be named being. The seventh section explains the mutual identity. Next, it distinguishes the mutual identity of the two truths (two truths). There are two passages in the scriptures. If the Mahayana Sutra says that Saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth) is Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth), and Paramārtha-satya is Saṃvṛti-satya, this directly states 'is', not being separate, therefore saying 'is'. This statement is slightly broad. If, as the Prajna Sutra says, emptiness is form, and form is emptiness, this statement is more precise. Master Kaishan believes that the two truths are one body, using 'is' to express it. Master Longguang believes that the two truths each have their own substance, using non-separation to express 'is'. Although there are many views from various masters, they do not deviate from these two.

難。若二諦各體如牛角。並違諸經論。不足難也。今問。開善色即空時。為色起時空與色同起故言色即空。為當色未起已有此空故言色即空耶。若使色未起時。已有即色之空者。即空本有。色即始生。本與始為異。云何相即。本有是常始有無常。常無常異。不得即也。若言常無常一體者。燒俗時應燒真諦。俗生滅時。真應生滅。若言一體者。俗即真時。俗應是常。二諦但常。若真即俗時。真應無常。二諦俱無常。若是一體而言俗無常真常者。我亦言。一體故俗常真無常。次難。汝色即空。為有分際為無分際。若有分際。異體不得相即。若無分際。即混成一體。皆常皆無常。無分際得一即失二諦。有分際得二諦失相即。若為通耶。龍光二諦異體。開善一體。今明。二諦非一非異。離四句為體。亦明。非一非異非不相離即非即是即。離四句為即。若於諦為論。謂二諦各體。約兩情為異若約無所有為論。空有皆無所有。故言一體。若教諦為論。約用有二體。約中道為論。終是一體。問若爾與他一異有何異耶。答曰。他人二諦定境定理定一定異。今明。于諦如空華。眼病故見空華。無有一異。無華故不得言與空一體。教諦者。非有非無假說有無。未曾有無。不得有二體。亦不得言一體故與他人異。既無有無。論何物即不即。四

【現代漢語翻譯】難點在於，如果二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）各自的本體像牛角一樣截然不同，那就違背了諸多的經論，不值得辯駁。現在我問：開善法師說『色即是空』的時候，是因為色法生起的同時，空性也與色法一同生起，所以才說『色即是空』呢？還是因為在色法尚未生起之前，就已經存在這種空性，所以才說『色即是空』呢？如果說在色法尚未生起的時候，就已經存在即色的空性，那麼空性就是本來就有的，而色法是後來才產生的。本來就有的和後來才產生的，這兩者是不同的，怎麼能說是『即』呢？本來就有的就是常，後來才產生的則是無常，常和無常是不同的，不能說是『即』。如果說常和無常是一體的，那麼在燒燬世俗諦的時候，就應該同時燒燬真諦；在世俗諦生滅的時候，真諦也應該生滅。如果說是一體的，那麼在世俗諦就是真諦的時候，世俗諦就應該是常，二諦都應該是常。如果說真諦就是世俗諦的時候，真諦就應該是無常，二諦都應該是無常。如果說是一體，但世俗諦是無常而真諦是常，我也可以說，因為是一體，所以世俗諦是常而真諦是無常。其次一個難點是，你說的『色即是空』，是有分際的還是沒有分際的？如果有分際，那麼不同的本體就不能說是『即』。如果沒有分際，那就混成一體，要麼都是常，要麼都是無常。沒有分際，得到『一』就失去了二諦；有分際，得到二諦就失去了『相即』。你打算如何解釋呢？龍光法師認為二諦是異體，開善法師認為是一體。現在我說明，二諦非一非異，以離四句（否定四種可能性：存在、不存在、既存在又不存在、既不存在也不存在）為本體。也可以說明，非一非異，非不相離，即非即是即，以離四句為『即』。如果從諦的角度來討論，認為二諦各自有本體，那是從兩種情狀的角度來看是不同的；如果從無所有的角度來討論，空和有都是無所有的，所以說是一體。如果從教諦的角度來討論，從作用的角度來看是有二體的；如果從中道的角度來討論，終究是一體。問：如果這樣，和他人所說的一異有什麼不同呢？答：他人認為二諦是固定的境、固定的理，固定為一或固定為異。現在我說明，從諦的角度來看，就像空中的花朵，因為眼睛有病才看到空中的花朵，實際上沒有一異。因為沒有花朵，所以不能說與空是一體。教諦，是非有非無，假說有無，未曾有過有無，不能說有二體，也不能說是一體，所以與他人不同。既然沒有有無，還討論什麼『即』不『即』呢？

【English Translation】 The difficulty lies in that if the two truths (satya-dvaya, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth) each have their own distinct substance, like the horns of a cow, then it contradicts various sutras and treatises, and is not worth arguing. Now I ask: When Master Kaishan says 'form is emptiness,' is it because emptiness arises simultaneously with the arising of form, hence the saying 'form is emptiness'? Or is it because this emptiness already exists before form arises, hence the saying 'form is emptiness'? If emptiness already exists before form arises, then emptiness is originally existent, while form is newly produced. What is originally existent and what is newly produced are different; how can they be said to be 'identical'? What is originally existent is permanent, while what is newly produced is impermanent. Permanence and impermanence are different, and cannot be said to be 'identical'. If you say that permanence and impermanence are one entity, then when burning the conventional truth, the ultimate truth should also be burned simultaneously; when the conventional truth arises and ceases, the ultimate truth should also arise and cease. If you say they are one entity, then when the conventional truth is the ultimate truth, the conventional truth should be permanent, and both truths should be permanent. If the ultimate truth is the conventional truth, then the ultimate truth should be impermanent, and both truths should be impermanent. If they are one entity, but the conventional truth is impermanent while the ultimate truth is permanent, I can also say that because they are one entity, the conventional truth is permanent while the ultimate truth is impermanent. Another difficulty is, is your 'form is emptiness' with or without distinction? If with distinction, then different entities cannot be said to be 'identical'. If without distinction, then they are mixed into one entity, either all permanent or all impermanent. Without distinction, obtaining 'one' loses the two truths; with distinction, obtaining the two truths loses 'identity'. How do you intend to explain this? Master Longguang believes the two truths are different entities, while Master Kaishan believes they are one entity. Now I explain that the two truths are neither one nor different, taking the negation of the four possibilities (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) as their substance. It can also be explained that neither one nor different, nor not separate, is both not identical and identical, taking the negation of the four possibilities as 'identity'. If discussing from the perspective of truth, considering that the two truths each have their own substance, that is seeing them as different from the perspective of two situations; if discussing from the perspective of non-existence, both emptiness and existence are non-existent, hence the saying they are one entity. If discussing from the perspective of teaching truth, from the perspective of function there are two entities; if discussing from the perspective of the Middle Way, ultimately they are one entity. Question: If so, what is the difference between this and what others say about one and different? Answer: Others believe the two truths are fixed realms, fixed principles, fixed as one or fixed as different. Now I explain that from the perspective of truth, it is like flowers in the sky, seeing flowers in the sky because of eye disease, in reality there is no one or different. Because there are no flowers, it cannot be said to be identical with emptiness. Teaching truth is neither existent nor non-existent, falsely speaking of existence and non-existence, there has never been existence or non-existence, it cannot be said there are two entities, nor can it be said they are one entity, therefore it is different from others. Since there is no existence or non-existence, what is there to discuss about 'identical' or 'not identical'?

句皆流。彼有色有空。以色即空故著前難。今明。色畢竟空。將何物即空耶。為眾生見色故。言色即空耳。有一方言云。假名說有為世諦。假名說空為真諦。既明假有。即非有為有。既明假空。即非空為空。非有為有。非異空之有。非空為空。非異有之空。非異空之有。有名空有。非異有之空。空名有空。有名空有。故空有即有空。空名有空故。有空即空有。

攝法第八。論二諦攝法。為當盡不盡耶。常有三解。第一莊嚴云。二諦攝法不盡。所以然者。若是惑因感虛果。此即是世諦。虛果故可空。即是真諦。而常住佛果體非虛假。故非世諦。不復可空。故非真諦。引仁王般若云。超出二諦外。第二開善解。二諦攝盡。故云。法無不總義無不該者。真俗之理。舒之即無法不是。卷之即二諦爾已。故大品云。設有一法出過涅槃者。我亦說如幻如夢。大涅槃空如來空。第三冶城解云。佛果為真諦所攝而非俗諦。所以然者。佛果是真實之法。無復虛假舉體妙絕。故真諦。舉譬如水本澄渟以風潮因緣故生波浪。若風息浪靜還複本水之清。內合本唯真諦之理顯。煩惱之風起致生死之浪。生死既息。還一真之理故。大經云。世諦生死時名生不生死者盡也。不生死即是佛果。生滅言世諦。今並不同。第一解佛果出二諦外者。大品

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：每一句話都像流水一樣自然。有人認為，現象（色，rupa）和空性（空，sunyata）是並存的。因為他們認為現象即是空性，所以產生了之前的疑問。現在我闡明，現象的本質畢竟是空性的，那麼用什麼東西來等同於空性呢？只是因為眾生看到了現象，所以才說現象即是空性。有一種說法是，用假名來描述存在，這是世俗諦（samvriti-satya）；用假名來描述空性，這是勝義諦（paramartha-satya）。既然闡明了是假有的，那麼就不是以『有』為『有』；既然闡明了是假空的，那麼就不是以『空』為『空』。不是以『有』為『有』，就不是與空性相異的『有』；不是以『空』為『空』，就不是與『有』相異的『空』。不是與空性相異的『有』，就叫做空有；不是與『有』相異的『空』，就叫做有空。因為叫做空有，所以空有就是有空；因為空性叫做有空，所以有空就是空有。

第八部分，關於涵蓋一切法（dharma）的問題。討論二諦（two truths）是否能涵蓋一切法。對此通常有三種解釋。第一種，莊嚴的觀點認為，二諦不能涵蓋一切法。原因是，如果是由於迷惑的因所感召的虛幻的果，這就是世俗諦。因為是虛幻的果，所以可以被視為空性，這就是勝義諦。但是常住的佛果（Buddha-phala）本體不是虛假的，所以不是世俗諦；不能再被視為空性，所以不是勝義諦。引用《仁王般若經》（Renwang jing）中的話說，『超出二諦之外』。第二種，開善的觀點認為，二諦涵蓋一切。所以說，『法沒有不總括的，義沒有不包含的』。真諦和俗諦的道理，展開來說，沒有哪個法不是；收起來說，就是二諦而已。所以《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中說，『假設有一種法超出涅槃（nirvana）之外，我也說它如幻如夢』。《大涅槃經》（Mahaparinirvana Sutra）中說，空的是如來（Tathagata）。第三種，冶城的觀點認為，佛果被勝義諦所涵蓋，而不是世俗諦。原因是，佛果是真實之法，沒有虛假，整體上是微妙絕倫的，所以屬於勝義諦。舉個例子，水本來是清澈平靜的，因為風的緣故才產生波浪。如果風停了，波浪平靜了，水就恢復了本來的清澈。內在與本來的勝義諦之理相合而顯現。煩惱的風興起，導致生死的波浪。生死平息了，就回歸到唯一的真理。所以《大涅槃經》中說，世俗諦是生死的時候，叫做生，不生死的時候叫做盡。不生死就是佛果。生滅是世俗諦的說法，現在並不認同。第一種解釋認為佛果超出二諦之外，《大品般若經》中說

【English Translation】 English version: Every sentence flows like water. Some believe that phenomena (rupa) and emptiness (sunyata) coexist. Because they think phenomena are emptiness, the previous question arises. Now I clarify that the essence of phenomena is ultimately emptiness, so what can be equated with emptiness? It's only because sentient beings see phenomena that it's said that phenomena are emptiness. There is a saying that using provisional names to describe existence is conventional truth (samvriti-satya); using provisional names to describe emptiness is ultimate truth (paramartha-satya). Since it's clarified that it's provisionally existent, then it's not taking 'existence' as 'existence'; since it's clarified that it's provisionally empty, then it's not taking 'emptiness' as 'emptiness'. Not taking 'existence' as 'existence' means it's not 'existence' different from emptiness; not taking 'emptiness' as 'emptiness' means it's not 'emptiness' different from existence. Not 'existence' different from emptiness is called emptiness-existence; not 'emptiness' different from existence is called existence-emptiness. Because it's called emptiness-existence, emptiness-existence is existence-emptiness; because emptiness is called existence-emptiness, existence-emptiness is emptiness-existence.

Part Eight, concerning the inclusion of all dharmas (dharma). Discussing whether the two truths (two truths) can include all dharmas. There are usually three explanations for this. First, the Adornment view believes that the two truths cannot include all dharmas. The reason is that if it's a illusory result caused by the cause of delusion, this is conventional truth. Because it's a illusory result, it can be seen as emptiness, which is ultimate truth. But the permanent Buddha-fruit (Buddha-phala) essence is not illusory, so it's not conventional truth; it cannot be seen as emptiness, so it's not ultimate truth. Quoting the Renwang jing (Renwang jing), it says, 'Beyond the two truths'. Second, the Kaishan view believes that the two truths include everything. So it says, 'There is no dharma that is not included, no meaning that is not encompassed'. The principle of truth and convention, when expanded, there is no dharma that is not; when contracted, it's just the two truths. So the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra) says, 'Suppose there is a dharma beyond nirvana (nirvana), I also say it's like a illusion or a dream'. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra (Mahaparinirvana Sutra) says that what is empty is the Tathagata (Tathagata). Third, the Yecheng view believes that the Buddha-fruit is included in ultimate truth, not conventional truth. The reason is that the Buddha-fruit is a real dharma, without illusion, and is subtle and wonderful as a whole, so it belongs to ultimate truth. For example, water is originally clear and calm, but waves are produced because of the wind. If the wind stops and the waves calm down, the water returns to its original clarity. The inner aligns with the original principle of ultimate truth and manifests. The wind of afflictions arises, causing the waves of birth and death. When birth and death cease, it returns to the one truth. So the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says that conventional truth is the time of birth and death, called birth, and the time of no birth and death is called cessation. No birth and death is the Buddha-fruit. Birth and death is the saying of conventional truth, which is not agreed with now. The first explanation believes that the Buddha-fruit is beyond the two truths, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says

云。不見有法出法性者。是名與般若相應。今還有一法出二諦外。即非相應也。不同第二解者。若言佛果為二諦攝。即佛果定在二諦之內。定是有無。成論云。佛雖在世不攝有無。況滅后耶。中論云。如來在世不言有與無。如來滅后不言有與無。云何有無所攝也。不同第三解者。若言佛果唯是真諦無世諦者。即失機照之能也。問今時所明二諦攝法盡不盡耶。解云。大乘經具有二文。此並是如來方便為緣之說。有時為緣說二諦攝法盡。有時為緣說攝法不盡。具有盡不盡二種法門也。又欲令攝盡即盡。欲令攝不盡即不盡。無所妨礙。何者一家有單復六種二諦。前後明三種二諦。有時有三諦。有諦無諦非有非無中道第一義諦。有時攝三諦為二諦。有無並世諦。非有非無為第一義諦。乃至二不二為世諦。非二非不二為第一義諦。就此義得無有出二諦。問學佛二諦云何得失。請為陳之。答有十句。一者定性二諦為失。因緣假名二諦為得。問今只舉成論明三假義不墮失門。彼明。三假為世諦。三假空為真諦。即三假而常四忘。即四忘而常三假。即三假而常四絕故。有不自有。即四絕而常三假故。空不自空故非性義。今問。三假為世諦四絕為真諦者。世諦之有為待真空。彼答云。世諦待真諦者。即世諦為能待。真諦為所待。二諦便是

相待假。何得云三假為世諦四絕為真耶。若三假世諦之有不待真空者。既不相待。便成自性故不可答也。真諦之名為是世諦攝為真諦攝。若是世諦攝者。即世諦還待世諦。長還待長。若真諦之名為真諦攝者。真諦無名。何得攝名。問相待假者。成實師云。成已而待。中假師云。待已而成。此云何答。不然。論文自破云。未成云何待。成已云何待。今義待時即是成。成時即是待。故無前後之失。二者有無門。山中興皇和上述攝嶺大朗師言。二諦是教。又言。五眼不見理外眾生及一切法。此是二諦外。二諦不攝。理內二諦。宛然而有。不解大師意。執理內理外有異。三者有本無本門明得失。他無本今義有本。不二正道。是有無之本。華嚴云。正法性遠離一切言語道。一切趣不趣。悉皆寂滅性。故非有非無非亦有亦無非非有非非無。故言遠離一切趣。問何故以二諦為教門。答以有無為教略有五義。一對理明二諦是教。以理無二故非有非無。今說有說無故有無為教。二者望聖人體。有無未曾有無。今說有無。此為教緣。故有無為教。三者為拔見。舊義執有無是理。由來既久。即二見根深難可傾拔。攝嶺大師。對緣斥病。欲拔二見之根令舍有無兩執故。說有無能通不二理。有無非是畢竟。不應住有無中。有無為教。四者以有無是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『相待假』（相互依存的假象）。怎麼能說『三假』（三種假象）是『世諦』（世俗諦），『四絕』（四種斷絕）是『真諦』（勝義諦）呢？如果『三假』的『世諦』之有不依賴於『真空』（空性），既然不相互依存，便成了『自性』（獨立存在的實體），所以不可回答。『真諦』之名是被『世諦』所包含，還是被『真諦』所包含？如果是被『世諦』所包含，那麼『世諦』還是依賴於『世諦』，長還是依賴於長。如果『真諦』之名是被『真諦』所包含，『真諦』無名，怎麼能包含名呢？問『相待假』，『成實師』（成實宗的學者）說，『成已而待』（已經成就之後才依賴），『中假師』（中觀宗的學者）說，『待已而成』（依賴之後才成就）。這該如何回答？不然。論文自己破斥說，『未成云何待』（未成就怎麼依賴），『成已云何待』（成就之後怎麼依賴）。現在的意思是，依賴之時就是成就之時，成就之時就是依賴之時，所以沒有前後顛倒的過失。二者，『有無門』（有和無的法門）。山中的興皇和尚以及攝嶺的大朗師說，『二諦』是教（教法）。又說，『五眼』（五種智慧之眼）看不見理外的眾生以及一切法。這是『二諦』之外，『二諦』不包含。理內的『二諦』，宛然存在。不理解大師的意圖，執著于理內理外有差異。三者，『有本無本門』（有根本和無根本的法門）闡明得失。他們認為無本，現在的意思是認為有本，不二的正道，是有無的根本。《華嚴經》說，『正法性遠離一切言語道，一切趣不趣，悉皆寂滅性』。所以非有非無，非亦有亦無，非非有非非無。所以說遠離一切趣。問：為什麼以『二諦』為教門？答：以有無為教，略有五義：一對理說明『二諦』是教。因為理無二，所以非有非無。現在說有說無，所以有無為教。二者，望聖人體悟。有無未曾有無。現在說有無，這是教的因緣。所以有無為教。三者，爲了拔除見解。舊的觀點執著于有無是理，由來已久，這兩種見解根深蒂固難以傾拔。攝嶺大師，針對因緣斥責病癥，想要拔除兩種見解的根，使人捨棄有無兩種執著，所以說有無能通達不二之理。有無並非是畢竟的，不應住在有無之中。有無是

【English Translation】 English version 'Xiang Dai Jia' (mutually dependent illusion). How can it be said that 'San Jia' (three illusions) are 'Shi Di' (conventional truth), and 'Si Jue' (four absolutes) are 'Zhen Di' (ultimate truth)? If the existence of 'Shi Di' in 'San Jia' does not depend on 'Zhen Kong' (emptiness), since they do not depend on each other, they become 'Zi Xing' (independent entity), so it cannot be answered. Is the name of 'Zhen Di' included in 'Shi Di' or in 'Zhen Di'? If it is included in 'Shi Di', then 'Shi Di' still depends on 'Shi Di', long still depends on long. If the name of 'Zhen Di' is included in 'Zhen Di', 'Zhen Di' has no name, how can it include a name? Asking about 'Xiang Dai Jia', the 'Cheng Shi Shi' (scholars of the Chengshi School) say, 'Cheng Yi Er Dai' (dependent after accomplishment), the 'Zhong Jia Shi' (scholars of the Madhyamaka School) say, 'Dai Yi Er Cheng' (accomplishment after dependence). How should this be answered? No. The thesis itself refutes, 'Wei Cheng Yun He Dai' (how to depend before accomplishment), 'Cheng Yi Yun He Dai' (how to depend after accomplishment). The current meaning is that the time of dependence is the time of accomplishment, and the time of accomplishment is the time of dependence, so there is no fault of reversing the order. Secondly, the 'You Wu Men' (the Dharma gate of existence and non-existence). The monk Xinghuang in the mountains and the master Dalang of Sheling said, 'Er Di' (the two truths) are teachings (Dharma). It also said that the 'Wu Yan' (five eyes of wisdom) cannot see sentient beings and all dharmas outside of reason. This is outside of 'Er Di', and 'Er Di' does not include it. The 'Er Di' within reason exists clearly. Not understanding the master's intention, clinging to the difference between inside and outside of reason. Thirdly, the 'You Ben Wu Ben Men' (the Dharma gate of having a root and not having a root) clarifies gains and losses. They think there is no root, but the current meaning is that there is a root, the non-dual right path is the root of existence and non-existence. The 'Huayan Sutra' says, 'The nature of the right Dharma is far from all paths of language, all interests and non-interests, all are the nature of stillness'. Therefore, it is neither existence nor non-existence, neither both existence and non-existence, nor neither existence nor non-existence. Therefore, it is said to be far from all interests. Question: Why are 'Er Di' used as the teaching gate? Answer: Using existence and non-existence as teaching, there are briefly five meanings: First, explain that 'Er Di' is teaching in relation to reason. Because reason is non-dual, it is neither existence nor non-existence. Now saying existence and saying non-existence, so existence and non-existence are teaching. Second, looking at the enlightenment of the saints. Existence and non-existence have never existed or not existed. Now saying existence and non-existence, this is the cause of teaching. So existence and non-existence are teaching. Third, in order to eradicate views. The old view clings to existence and non-existence as reason, which has been around for a long time, and these two views are deeply rooted and difficult to eradicate. Master Sheling, in response to the cause, rebukes the disease, wanting to eradicate the root of the two views, so that people abandon the two attachments of existence and non-existence, so it is said that existence and non-existence can lead to the non-dual principle. Existence and non-existence are not ultimately, and should not live in existence and non-existence. Existence and non-existence are

諸見根。一切經論盛呵二見。斥于有無。如凡夫著有二乘著無。又愛多者著有。見多者著無。又四見多者著有。邪見多者執無。又佛法中。五百論師。執有聞畢竟空。如刀傷心。方廣執無不信因果。又為九十六種外道所執不出有無。諸佛出世復云有無是二理者。便增諸見心。何由可拔。故今明有無是教門。能通不二之理。不應住有無中。以欲息諸見故。經論明有無是教門。五者稟教之徒。聞有無是教。能通正道。超凡成聖。故有無是教。問以何文證二諦是教。答文處甚多。舉一經一論。論云。佛依二諦說法。故二諦為教。大品云。菩薩住二諦中。為眾生說法。為著有者說空。爲著空者說有。經論佛菩薩皆明二諦是教。問若以五義二文證二諦為教者。今亦以五難二文明二諦非教。一者若二諦是教者。佛說時即有。不說即應無二諦。若爾本以二諦生於二智。佛不說二即無二智。既無二諦。佛何所照有二智。二者若世諦是教。六度等行皆是世諦。佛不說世諦即無世諦。便無六度等行。若爾但有詮教法寶。便無涅槃法寶。三者二諦為境發生二智。二諦名境界法寶。若二諦是教。但有詮教法寶。亦無境界法寶。若言教生智故轉名境者。佛不說教即無教可轉。便無有境。四者若二諦是教。色等萬法皆是世諦。世諦既是教者。色等萬

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本諸見根（各種錯誤的見解的根源）。一切經論都極力呵斥有見和無見這兩種見解，認為它們都是錯誤的。例如，凡夫執著于『有』，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）執著于『無』。又如，貪愛多的人執著于『有』，知見多的人執著于『無』。再如，持有四種錯誤見解的人執著于『有』，持有邪見多的人執著于『無』。此外，在佛法中，五百論師執著于『有』，聽到『畢竟空』的道理，就像刀刺傷心臟一樣痛苦。而執著于『無』的人不相信因果。而且，九十六種外道所執著的觀點，也都沒有超出『有』和『無』的範圍。如果諸佛出世后，仍然說『有』和『無』是兩種道理，那隻會增加人們心中的各種錯誤見解，又怎麼能夠拔除它們呢？所以現在要說明，『有』和『無』只是教法上的方便，能夠通向不二的真理，不應該執著于『有』或『無』之中，目的是爲了止息各種錯誤的見解。經論中說明『有』和『無』是教法上的方便。第五個意思是，稟承教法的修行者，聽到『有』和『無』是教法，能夠通達正道，超越凡夫，成就聖人，所以『有』和『無』是教法。問：用什麼經文來證明二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）是教法呢？答：相關的經文很多，這裡舉一部經和一部論。論中說：佛依據二諦說法，所以二諦是教法。《大品般若經》中說：菩薩安住於二諦之中，為眾生說法，為執著于『有』的人說『空』，為執著于『空』的人說『有』。經論中，佛和菩薩都說明二諦是教法。問：如果用以上五種意義和兩段經文來證明二諦是教法，那麼現在也可以用五種反駁和兩段經文來說明二諦不是教法。第一，如果二諦是教法，那麼佛說法時就有二諦，佛不說法時就應該沒有二諦。如果是這樣，本來是用二諦來產生二智（根本智和后得智），佛不說法時就沒有二智。既然沒有二諦，佛用什麼來照見而產生二智呢？第二，如果世俗諦是教法，那麼六度等修行都是世俗諦。佛不說法時就沒有世俗諦，也就沒有六度等修行。如果是這樣，就只有詮釋教法的法寶，而沒有涅槃法寶。第三，二諦是二智所觀照的境界，二諦可以稱為境界法寶。如果二諦是教法，就只有詮釋教法的法寶，也沒有境界法寶。如果說教法產生智慧，所以可以轉而稱為境界，那麼佛不說法時就沒有教法可以轉，也就沒有境界。第四，如果二諦是教法，色等萬法都是世俗諦。世俗諦既然是教法，色等萬法

【English Translation】 English version The root of all views (various incorrect views). All sutras and treatises strongly condemn the two views of existence and non-existence, considering them both to be wrong. For example, ordinary people are attached to 'existence,' while the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are attached to 'non-existence.' Furthermore, those with much craving are attached to 'existence,' while those with much knowledge are attached to 'non-existence.' Moreover, those who hold the four wrong views are attached to 'existence,' while those who hold many heretical views cling to 'non-existence.' In addition, within Buddhism, the five hundred teachers who are attached to 'existence' feel as if a knife has pierced their heart when they hear the doctrine of 'ultimate emptiness (Śūnyatā).' Those who are attached to 'non-existence' do not believe in cause and effect (karma). Moreover, the views held by the ninety-six kinds of non-Buddhist paths do not go beyond the scope of 'existence' and 'non-existence.' If the Buddhas, after appearing in the world, still say that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are two separate principles, it will only increase the various wrong views in people's minds, and how can they be eradicated? Therefore, it must now be explained that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are merely expedient teachings (upāya), capable of leading to the non-dual (advaita) truth. One should not be attached to 'existence' or 'non-existence,' with the aim of ceasing all wrong views. Sutras and treatises explain that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are expedient teachings. The fifth meaning is that practitioners who receive the teachings, upon hearing that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are teachings, can understand the right path, transcend ordinary beings, and attain sainthood. Therefore, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are teachings. Question: What scriptures can be used to prove that the two truths (saṃvṛti-satya and paramārtha-satya) are teachings? Answer: There are many relevant scriptures; here, I will cite one sutra and one treatise. The treatise says: The Buddha teaches according to the two truths, therefore the two truths are teachings. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: Bodhisattvas abide in the two truths and teach sentient beings, explaining emptiness (Śūnyatā) to those who are attached to 'existence' and explaining existence to those who are attached to 'emptiness.' In sutras and treatises, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas all explain that the two truths are teachings. Question: If the above five meanings and two scriptures are used to prove that the two truths are teachings, then now five refutations and two scriptures can also be used to explain that the two truths are not teachings. First, if the two truths are teachings, then when the Buddha teaches, the two truths exist, and when the Buddha does not teach, the two truths should not exist. If this is the case, originally the two truths are used to generate the two wisdoms (fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom), but when the Buddha does not teach, there are no two wisdoms. Since there are no two truths, what does the Buddha use to illuminate and generate the two wisdoms? Second, if conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) is a teaching, then the six perfections (ṣaṭ-pāramitā) and other practices are all conventional truth. When the Buddha does not teach, there is no conventional truth, and therefore there are no six perfections and other practices. If this is the case, there is only the Dharma Jewel of explanatory teachings, and there is no Dharma Jewel of Nirvāṇa. Third, the two truths are the objects contemplated by the two wisdoms, and the two truths can be called the Dharma Jewel of objects. If the two truths are teachings, there is only the Dharma Jewel of explanatory teachings, and there is no Dharma Jewel of objects. If it is said that teachings generate wisdom, so they can be transformed and called objects, then when the Buddha does not teach, there are no teachings to transform, and therefore there are no objects. Fourth, if the two truths are teachings, then all phenomena such as form (rūpa) are conventional truth. Since conventional truth is a teaching, all phenomena such as form

法亦應是教。若爾佛不說世諦。即無色等萬法。五者世諦是教者。世諦唯有教火應無實火用。若火唯是教。口中說火即應燒口。次二文證二諦非教。若言真諦是教者。經云有佛無佛性相常住。而教即有佛方有。無佛即無。何即得常住。經云十二因緣有佛無佛常自有之。故知。世諦非教。答諦有二種。一于諦二教諦。于諦者。色等未曾有無。而於凡是有名俗諦。約聖是空名真諦。于凡是有名俗諦故。萬法不失。于聖是空名真諦故。有佛無佛性相常住。教諦者。諸佛菩薩了色未曾有無。為化眾生故說有無。為二諦教。欲令因此有無悟不有無故。有無是教。而舊義明二諦是理者。此是于諦耳。于諦望教諦。非但失不二理。亦失能表之教。問于凡是有既失者。于聖是空亦是失不。答一往對凡夫明聖為得。若望教諦皆是失也。以色未曾有無而作有無解故為失。問經云。一切世諦若於如來即是第一義諦。亦是失耶。答一往于諦非但不得表不二理。亦不得能表之教。但是謂情所見耳。若識兩種二諦。即五難自祛。問雖有此通。猶未可見今說色有無是教諦者。不說有無即無教諦。答以說為教者。佛不說即無教諦也。問若爾者唯恒有二于諦耳。即無因緣有無。答一切法常是二于諦有無。亦恒是因緣有無。若於二緣即是二于諦有無。諸佛菩

薩了此色即因緣有無。然于與教未曾二於二教。若因緣有無未曾有無。如此有無能不有不無。故名為教。問他亦云因緣有無。與今何異。答今言因緣有無。此是方便說耳。聖為教化眾生故。說是有無。敘此有無為教也。他明道理既是有無。故今不同。但取此一意為正答也。問有無望佛菩薩即是因緣有無。即是因緣境。云何言是教。答是因緣有無可兩望之。發智即境。能開不有不無不二即是教也。問佛照有無有無名境。佛說有無有無是教門。他亦云。照有無有無是境。說有無有無亦是教。與今何異。答他但得二于定性有無。此有無不得開不有不無故不教也。又因緣有無是境耳。定性有無非境也。何者有不自有。由無故有。無不自無。由有故無。是有由無故有。有是無有。悟此因緣有無。能生二慧。既是定性有無。即生斷常二見故不得名境也。次說不說門明得失。他但明世諦說真諦不說。世諦是三假。假故可說。真諦是四絕。絕不可說。眾師同此一解。今問。世諦唯可說真諦不可說。豈非定性耶也。答今義世諦雖可說。說即真不可說。真不可說即俗可說故。非是定性。問俗即真故不可說。此為是俗不可說為是真不可說。還是真不可說者。若爾即俗無不可說義。豈非定性耶。答今總觀經論。具有四句。一世諦說真不說。二真

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本薩了此色（Sarva citta）的產生是由於因緣和合的有和無。然而，『教』這個概念並非簡單地等同於有和無的二元對立。如果因緣的有和無本身就是絕對的有或無，那麼這種有和無就無法超越有和無的侷限。因此，這種超越有無的狀態才被稱為『教』（Dharma，佛法）。有人會問，其他宗派也說因緣的有和無，這與你所說的有什麼不同？回答是，我們所說的因緣有無，這只是一種方便的說法。聖人爲了教化眾生，才說有和無。敘述這種有無，是爲了闡明『教』。而其他宗派所闡明的道理，僅僅是執著于有無的定性，所以與我們不同。我們只取這種超越有無的意境作為正確的答案。有人問，從佛菩薩的角度來看，有無就是因緣的有無，就是因緣的境界，怎麼能說是『教』呢？回答是，這種因緣的有無，是不可執著于兩端的。啓發智慧，就是境界。能夠開啟不有不無、非二元對立的智慧，就是『教』。有人問，佛照見有無，有無就成為境界；佛說有無，有無就成為教門。其他宗派也說，照見有無，有無是境界；說有無，有無也是教。這與你所說的有什麼不同？回答是，他們只是執著于定性的有無。這種有無無法開啟不有不無的智慧，所以不是『教』。而且，因緣的有無才是境界，定性的有無不是境界。為什麼呢？因為有不是自己產生的，而是由無而有；無也不是自己產生的，而是由有而無。有是由無而有，有就是無有。領悟這種因緣的有無，能夠產生兩種智慧。如果是定性的有無，就會產生斷見和常見兩種錯誤的見解，所以不能稱為境界。接下來討論說與不說的門徑，以闡明得失。其他宗派只說明世俗諦可以宣說，而真諦不可宣說。世俗諦是三種假象（三假），因為是假象所以可以宣說。真諦是四種絕待（四絕），因為是絕待所以不可宣說。各宗派都持這種觀點。現在我問，世俗諦只能說，真諦不能說，這難道不是定性嗎？回答是，我們所說的世俗諦雖然可以宣說，但宣說世俗諦的同時，也包含了真諦的不可宣說。真諦不可宣說，也意味著世俗諦可以宣說。所以，這不是定性。有人問，世俗諦就是真諦，所以不可宣說。那麼，是世俗諦不可宣說，還是真諦不可宣說？如果是真諦不可宣說，那麼世俗諦就沒有不可宣說的意義，這難道不是定性嗎？回答是，我們總覽經論，其中包含四句：一是世俗諦可說，真諦不可說；二是...

【English Translation】 English version The arising of Sarva citta (all thoughts) is due to the presence and absence of conditions (hetupratyaya). However, the concept of 'teaching' (Dharma) is not simply equivalent to the duality of presence and absence. If the presence and absence of conditions were themselves absolute presence or absence, then such presence and absence could not transcend the limitations of presence and absence. Therefore, this state of transcending presence and absence is called 'teaching'. Someone might ask, other schools also talk about the presence and absence of conditions, what is the difference between what you say and what they say? The answer is, what we say about the presence and absence of conditions is just a convenient way of speaking. The sage speaks of presence and absence in order to teach sentient beings. Describing this presence and absence is to clarify the 'teaching'. The principles elucidated by other schools, however, are merely attached to the fixed nature of presence and absence, so they are different from us. We only take this state of transcending presence and absence as the correct answer. Someone asks, from the perspective of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, presence and absence are the presence and absence of conditions, which is the realm of conditions, how can it be said to be 'teaching'? The answer is, this presence and absence of conditions is not to be attached to the two extremes. Inspiring wisdom is the realm. Being able to open up the wisdom of neither presence nor absence, non-duality, is 'teaching'. Someone asks, when the Buddha sees presence and absence, presence and absence become the realm; when the Buddha speaks of presence and absence, presence and absence become the gate of teaching. Other schools also say that seeing presence and absence, presence and absence are the realm; speaking of presence and absence, presence and absence are also the teaching. What is the difference between what you say and what they say? The answer is, they are only attached to the fixed nature of presence and absence. This presence and absence cannot open up the wisdom of neither presence nor absence, so it is not 'teaching'. Moreover, the presence and absence of conditions is the realm, the fixed nature of presence and absence is not the realm. Why? Because presence does not arise by itself, but arises from absence; absence does not arise by itself, but arises from presence. Presence arises from absence, presence is non-presence. Realizing this presence and absence of conditions can generate two kinds of wisdom. If it is the fixed nature of presence and absence, it will generate the two wrong views of annihilationism and eternalism, so it cannot be called the realm. Next, we will discuss the path of speaking and not speaking, in order to clarify the gains and losses. Other schools only explain that conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) can be spoken, while ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) cannot be spoken. Conventional truth is three kinds of illusion (tri-mithya), because it is an illusion, it can be spoken. Ultimate truth is four kinds of absoluteness (catuskoṭika), because it is absolute, it cannot be spoken. All schools hold this view. Now I ask, conventional truth can only be spoken, ultimate truth cannot be spoken, is this not a fixed nature? The answer is, what we say about conventional truth, although it can be spoken, also includes the unspeakability of ultimate truth at the same time. The unspeakability of ultimate truth also means that conventional truth can be spoken. Therefore, this is not a fixed nature. Someone asks, conventional truth is ultimate truth, so it cannot be spoken. Then, is it conventional truth that cannot be spoken, or is it ultimate truth that cannot be spoken? If it is ultimate truth that cannot be spoken, then conventional truth has no meaning of being unspeakable, is this not a fixed nature? The answer is, we survey the scriptures and treatises, which contain four sentences: one is that conventional truth can be spoken, ultimate truth cannot be spoken; two is...

說世不說。三俱說。四俱不說。此四句有多門。今具敘之。一者世諦說生滅。真諦不說生滅。故云世諦說真諦不說也。二真諦說不生滅俗不說不生滅。故真諦說世諦不說也。三世諦說生滅真諦說無生滅。故二諦俱說。四世諦不說無生滅真諦不說生滅。故二諦俱不說也。問此四句出何處。答釋論初捲雲。人等世諦故有。第一義故無。如法性等。第一義故有。世諦故無。即是斯義。二者明生滅。此是世諦說。不生滅是世諦不說。不生不滅是真諦說。非不生非不滅是真諦不說。是即二諦俱說俱不說也。三者說生滅說不生滅。皆是世諦故說。真諦不說生滅。亦不說不生不滅。故云。世諦說真諦不說也。四真諦說世諦不說者。世諦雖說生滅不生滅。實無所說。真諦雖無所說。而無所不說。問世諦雖說而無所說。無所說即入真諦。真諦無所說。而無所不說。還是世諦。何處有世諦不說真諦說耶。答有所得定性義如此耳。世諦自是說。若無所說即屬真諦。真諦自無所說。若有說還屬世諦。如此真俗皆是障礙法門。今明。諸佛菩薩無所得空有。因緣無礙故。空是有空。有是空有。空是有空。雖空而有。有是空有。雖有是空。說是不說說。不說是說不說。說是不說說故。雖說而不說。不說是說不說故。雖不說而常說。故得世諦不說而真說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『說世不說』（在世俗層面說，但在真理層面不說）。『三俱說』（三種情況都說）。『四俱不說』（四種情況都不說）。這四句包含多種含義，現在一一敘述。一、世俗諦（Satyasamvriti，指世俗的認知）說生滅（產生和消滅），真諦（Paramārtha，指究竟的真理）不說生滅，所以說『世諦說真諦不說』。二、真諦說不生滅，世俗諦不說不生滅，所以說『真諦說世諦不說』。三、世俗諦說生滅，真諦說無生滅，所以說『二諦俱說』（兩種真理都說）。四、世俗諦不說無生滅，真諦不說生滅，所以說『二諦俱不說』。問：這四句出自何處？答：《釋論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa，即《大智度論》）初卷說：『人等世諦故有，第一義（Paramārtha，指最高的真理）故無，如法性等。第一義故有，世諦故無。』就是這個意思。二、說明生滅。這是世俗諦所說。不生滅是世俗諦所不說。不生不滅是真諦所說。非不生非不滅是真諦所不說。這就是二諦俱說俱不說。三、說生滅、說不生滅，都是世俗諦的說法。真諦不說生滅，也不說不生不滅。所以說：『世諦說真諦不說』。四、真諦說世諦不說：世俗諦雖然說生滅、不生滅，實際上什麼也沒說。真諦雖然無所說，但無所不說。問：世俗諦雖然說但無所說，無所說就進入了真諦。真諦無所說，但無所不說，還是世俗諦。哪裡有世俗諦不說而真諦說的情況呢？答：有所得（認為有實在的東西可以獲得）的定性（固定的性質）是這樣的。世俗諦自然是說，如果無所說就屬於真諦。真諦自然無所說，如果有所說還屬於世俗諦。這樣，真諦和俗諦都是障礙法門。現在說明，諸佛菩薩無所得，空有（空性和有性）因緣無礙，所以空是有空，有是空有。空是有空，雖然空卻是有。有是空有，雖然有卻是空。說是不說，不說說是說不說。說是不說，所以雖然說而不說。不說說是說不說，所以雖然不說而常說。所以得到世俗諦不說而真諦說。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Saying the mundane is not saying' (speaking at the conventional level, but not speaking at the level of ultimate truth). 'Three all say' (three situations all say). 'Four all do not say' (four situations all do not say). These four sentences contain multiple meanings, which will now be described one by one. 1. The conventional truth (Satyasamvriti, referring to conventional cognition) speaks of arising and ceasing (birth and death), while the ultimate truth (Paramārtha, referring to the ultimate truth) does not speak of arising and ceasing, so it is said 'the conventional truth speaks, the ultimate truth does not speak'. 2. The ultimate truth speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing, while the conventional truth does not speak of non-arising and non-ceasing, so it is said 'the ultimate truth speaks, the conventional truth does not speak'. 3. The conventional truth speaks of arising and ceasing, while the ultimate truth speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing, so it is said 'both truths speak' (both truths speak). 4. The conventional truth does not speak of non-arising and non-ceasing, while the ultimate truth does not speak of arising and ceasing, so it is said 'both truths do not speak'. Question: Where do these four sentences come from? Answer: The first volume of the Treatise (Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa, i.e., the Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says: 'People and others exist because of the conventional truth, and do not exist because of the ultimate meaning, such as the nature of Dharma and so on. They exist because of the ultimate meaning, and do not exist because of the conventional truth.' This is the meaning. 2. Explaining arising and ceasing. This is what the conventional truth speaks of. Non-arising and non-ceasing is what the conventional truth does not speak of. Non-arising and non-ceasing is what the ultimate truth speaks of. Neither non-arising nor non-ceasing is what the ultimate truth does not speak of. This is both truths speaking and not speaking. 3. Speaking of arising and ceasing, speaking of non-arising and non-ceasing, are all statements of the conventional truth. The ultimate truth does not speak of arising and ceasing, nor does it speak of non-arising and non-ceasing. Therefore, it is said: 'The conventional truth speaks, the ultimate truth does not speak'. 4. The ultimate truth speaks, the conventional truth does not speak: Although the conventional truth speaks of arising and ceasing, and non-arising and non-ceasing, in reality it says nothing. Although the ultimate truth says nothing, it says everything. Question: Although the conventional truth speaks, it says nothing, and saying nothing enters the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth says nothing, but it says everything, and it is still the conventional truth. Where is the situation where the conventional truth does not speak and the ultimate truth speaks? Answer: The fixed nature of having something to gain (thinking there is something real to be gained) is like this. The conventional truth naturally speaks, and if it says nothing, it belongs to the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth naturally says nothing, and if it says something, it still belongs to the conventional truth. In this way, both the conventional and ultimate truths are obstacles to the Dharma. Now, it is explained that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have nothing to gain, and the causes and conditions of emptiness and existence (emptiness and existence) are unobstructed, so emptiness is the emptiness of existence, and existence is the existence of emptiness. Emptiness is the emptiness of existence, and although it is empty, it exists. Existence is the existence of emptiness, and although it exists, it is empty. Saying is not saying, and not saying is saying not saying. Saying is not saying, so although it is said, it is not said. Not saying is saying not saying, so although it is not said, it is always said. Therefore, the conventional truth is not said, but the ultimate truth is said.

也。問中論云。俗諦有言說。第一義諦無言說。諸人言。真諦無名言。一切名言皆是世諦。若言教為真諦者。言教生滅故真諦應生滅。若真無生滅。汝今何以言真諦並是教耶。答不以言教為真諦。乃言。說真說俗故言真俗耳。四者顯不顯明得失。有所得有無。定住有無。不能顯道。無所得有無。方能顯道故言顯不顯門。五者理教得失門。他但有理無教。今有理教。六者淺深門明得失。他但明空有為二諦故淺。今明四重二諦故言深。七者理內外門明得失。一理外義。二理內義。若心行理外故云理外。心行理內故云理內。八者無定性門明得失。如一色未曾自性。亦非是假。于性緣成性。于假緣成假。理內外得無得亦然。如一色未曾真俗。貪人見色為凈。不凈觀人。色為不凈也。九者約相待門明得失。問此對治何人耶。答凡有三義。一為學攝論人不執三性存三無性理。三性者依他分別真實。分別性者。即是六塵為識。所分別故言分別性。依他性者。本識為種子所依故名依他。真實性者。二無我真如。三無性者。知塵無相故。言分別無相性。依他無生性者。知本識無生故言無生性。知無我理無性故真實無生性。三論云無性法亦無。他家不遣三無性。今論遣三無性故。言皆得相待也。十者泯得失門。若見上來諸義為失。以無內外

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：也。《中論》中說，俗諦有言說，第一義諦沒有言說。有些人說，真諦沒有名言，一切名言都是世俗諦。如果說言教是真諦，那麼言教有生滅，真諦也應該有生滅。如果真諦沒有生滅，你現在為什麼說真諦就是言教呢？回答說，不是以言教作為真諦，而是說，因為既說真諦也說俗諦，所以才說真俗二諦。第四是顯與不顯的得失。有所得、有無、定住有無，都不能顯現道。無所得、有無，才能顯現道，所以說是顯不顯門。第五是理教得失門。他們只有理而沒有教，我們既有理也有教。第六是淺深門明得失。他們只明白空有作為二諦，所以淺。我們明白四重二諦，所以說深。第七是理內外門明得失。一是理外義，二是理內義。如果心行在理外，就說是理外。心行在理內，就說是理內。第八是無定性門明得失。比如一個色，未曾有自性，也不是假。因緣而成性，因假緣而成假。理內外得無得也是這樣。比如一個色，未曾是真俗。貪愛的人見色為凈，修不凈觀的人，見色為不凈。第九是約相待門明得失。問：這是對治什麼人呢？答：總共有三種意義。一是為學習《攝大乘論》的人，不執著三性而存有三無性之理。三性是依他起性、分別性、真實性。分別性，就是六塵為識所分別，所以說是分別性。依他起性，是本識為種子所依，所以名為依他。真實性，是二無我真如。三無性是：知道塵沒有相，所以說分別無相性。依他無生性，是知道本識沒有生，所以說無生性。知道無我之理沒有自性，所以真實無生性。《三論》說無性法也是沒有的。他們不遣除三無性，現在我們論述遣除三無性，所以說都是相待的。第十是泯得失門。如果認為以上這些意義是過失，因為沒有內外。

【English Translation】 English version: Also. The Madhyamaka-karika (Zhong Lun) says: Conventional truth (sūtra-satya) has expression, ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) has no expression. Some people say: The true reality has no names and words; all names and words are conventional truth. If verbal teachings are the true reality, then verbal teachings arise and cease, so the true reality should also arise and cease. If the true reality has no arising and ceasing, why do you now say that the true reality is entirely the teachings? The answer is: We do not take verbal teachings as the true reality, but rather, because we speak of both the true and the conventional, we speak of the two truths. Fourth is the gain and loss of manifestation and non-manifestation. Having something to gain, having or not having, fixed having or not having, all cannot manifest the path. Not having something to gain, having or not having, can manifest the path, so it is called the gate of manifestation and non-manifestation. Fifth is the gate of gain and loss of principle and teaching. They only have principle but no teaching; we have both principle and teaching. Sixth is the gain and loss of shallowness and depth. They only understand emptiness and existence as the two truths, so it is shallow. We understand the fourfold two truths, so it is said to be deep. Seventh is the gate of gain and loss of internal and external principle. One is the meaning of external principle, and the other is the meaning of internal principle. If the mind acts outside the principle, it is said to be external principle. If the mind acts within the principle, it is said to be internal principle. Eighth is the gate of non-fixed nature, clarifying gain and loss. For example, a color has never had self-nature, nor is it false. It becomes nature due to conditions, and it becomes false due to false conditions. The gain and loss of internal and external principle are also like this. For example, a color has never been true or conventional. A person with greed sees color as pure; a person practicing impurity contemplation sees color as impure. Ninth is the gate of dependence, clarifying gain and loss. Question: Whom does this counteract? Answer: There are three meanings in total. First, it is for those who study the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (She Da Cheng Lun), who do not cling to the three natures but maintain the principle of the three non-natures. The three natures are: the dependent nature (paratantra), the imputed nature (parikalpita), and the perfected nature (parinispanna). The imputed nature is the six sense objects distinguished by consciousness, so it is called the imputed nature. The dependent nature is the fundamental consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) on which the seeds depend, so it is called dependent. The perfected nature is the two no-selves (dvi-nairātmya) and suchness (tathātā). The three non-natures are: knowing that dust has no characteristics, so it is called the non-characteristic of imputation. The non-arising of dependence is knowing that the fundamental consciousness does not arise, so it is called the non-arising nature. Knowing that the principle of no-self has no self-nature, so it is the true non-arising nature. The Sanlun (Three Treatise School) says that the non-nature dharma is also non-existent. They do not eliminate the three non-natures; now our treatise eliminates the three non-natures, so it is said that they are all interdependent. Tenth is the gate of obliterating gain and loss. If one considers the above meanings as faults, because there is no internal or external.

泯性假為得。故皆為失。若能無得無失。不知何以目之。強稱為得。故以十門分別他今二義也。

辨教第九。常途諸師。頓漸無方三種判教。于漸教中有五時二諦。初四諦教時。事理二諦。般若教時。空有二諦。凈名經褒貶二諦。法華經三一二諦。涅槃教常無常二諦也。今義菩薩聲聞藏判于佛教。今明。小乘明事理二諦。一切大乘經。通明空有二諦。問若爾者涅槃經明。空者二十五有。不空者大涅槃。以空為世諦。以妙有不空為第一義諦耶。答此對三修比丘昔日灰身滅智為無餘涅槃。今日妙有不空。非是判於二諦。若汝所問。何故經云迦毗羅城空大涅槃亦空。亦空並空。豈非空為第一義有為世諦耶。問四重二諦有文證耶。答文證甚多。經云。或說世諦為第一義諦。或說第一義為世諦。或說空有為世諦。非有非無為第一義諦。問華嚴經為是釋迦所說耶。答釋迦有兩名。盧舍那釋迦。盧舍那名普遍凈。乃是功德之名。釋迦性名。又見者不同有二佛。故舍那在凈土說法。釋迦在穢土說法。故約見者。修者為報佛短者化佛。乃如此方釋迦為本。十方分身釋迦為跡。故言。舍那為本釋迦是跡耳。

明同異第十。有兩師。一者空假名。二者不空假名。不空假名者。但無性實有。假世諦不可全無。如鼠嘍栗。第二空假名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：泯滅自性而假立為『得』（De，獲得），所以一切都成了『失』（Shi，失去）。如果能夠無得無失，不知道該如何稱呼它。勉強稱之為『得』，所以用十個方面來區分『他』（Ta，其他）和『今』（Jin，現在）的兩種含義。

辨教第九。通常的諸位法師，用頓教、漸教、無方教三種方式來判別佛教的教義。在漸教中又有五時二諦。最初的四諦教時，是事理二諦。般若教時，是空有二諦。《維摩詰經》（凈名經）褒貶二諦。《法華經》三一二諦。《涅槃經》常無常二諦。現在的觀點是，菩薩藏和聲聞藏判別于佛教。現在闡明，小乘佛教闡明事理二諦。一切大乘經典，普遍闡明空有二諦。問：如果這樣，那麼《涅槃經》闡明，空的是二十五有（Ershiwu You，佛教術語，指欲界、色界、無色界中的二十五種存在狀態），不空的是大涅槃。以空作為世俗諦，以妙有不空作為第一義諦嗎？答：這是針對過去修習三修的比丘灰身滅智，進入無餘涅槃的狀態而言的。現在所說的妙有不空，不是用來判別二諦的。如果按照你所問的，為什麼經中說迦毗羅城空，大涅槃也空，亦空並空？難道不是以空為第一義諦，有為世俗諦嗎？問：四重二諦有經文可以證明嗎？答：經文證明很多。經中說：『或者說世俗諦就是第一義諦，或者說第一義諦就是世俗諦，或者說空有是世俗諦，非有非無是第一義諦。』問：《華嚴經》是釋迦牟尼（Shijia Muni）所說的嗎？答：釋迦牟尼有兩個名字，盧舍那（Lushena）釋迦牟尼。盧舍那的意思是普遍清凈，是功德之名。釋迦是本性之名。而且見者不同，有兩尊佛。所以盧舍那在凈土說法，釋迦牟尼在穢土說法。所以根據見者和修行者，報身佛是短的，化身佛也是短的。因此，此方的釋迦牟尼是根本，十方分身的釋迦牟尼是示現的。所以說，盧舍那是根本，釋迦牟尼是示現罷了。

明同異第十。有兩類法師。一類是空假名，一類是不空假名。不空假名認為，只是沒有自性實有，虛假的世俗諦不可能完全沒有，就像鼠嘍栗（Shu Lou Li，一種比喻）。第二類是空假名。

【English Translation】 English version: Effacing the self-nature and falsely establishing it as 'Gain' (De), therefore everything becomes 'Loss' (Shi). If one can be without gain or loss, it is not known what to call it. Forcibly calling it 'Gain', therefore, the two meanings of 'other' (Ta) and 'now' (Jin) are distinguished by ten aspects.

Discriminating Teachings, Ninth. The usual teachers use three kinds of teachings to judge the Buddhist doctrines: sudden, gradual, and non-directional. In the gradual teaching, there are five periods and two truths. In the initial period of the Four Noble Truths teaching, there are the two truths of phenomena and principle. In the Prajna teaching, there are the two truths of emptiness and existence. In the Vimalakirti Sutra (Jingming Jing), there are the two truths of praise and criticism. In the Lotus Sutra (Fahua Jing), there are the three truths and the one truth, and the two truths. In the Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Jing), there are the two truths of permanence and impermanence. The current view is that the Bodhisattva Pitaka and the Sravaka Pitaka are distinguished in Buddhism. Now it is clarified that the Hinayana Buddhism clarifies the two truths of phenomena and principle. All Mahayana sutras universally clarify the two truths of emptiness and existence. Question: If so, then the Nirvana Sutra clarifies that what is empty is the Twenty-five Existences (Ershiwu You, a Buddhist term referring to the twenty-five states of existence in the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm), and what is not empty is the Great Nirvana. Is emptiness taken as the conventional truth, and the wonderful existence that is not empty as the ultimate truth? Answer: This is in response to the past practice of the Bhikkhus who cultivated the Three Studies, who extinguished their bodies and minds, entering the state of Nirvana without remainder. The wonderful existence that is not empty now is not used to distinguish the two truths. If according to your question, why does the sutra say that Kapilavastu is empty, and the Great Nirvana is also empty, also empty and completely empty? Isn't it that emptiness is taken as the ultimate truth, and existence as the conventional truth? Question: Is there textual evidence for the fourfold two truths? Answer: There is much textual evidence. The sutra says: 'Sometimes the conventional truth is said to be the ultimate truth, sometimes the ultimate truth is said to be the conventional truth, sometimes emptiness and existence are the conventional truth, and neither existence nor non-existence is the ultimate truth.' Question: Was the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing) spoken by Shakyamuni (Shijia Muni)? Answer: Shakyamuni has two names, Vairocana (Lushena) Shakyamuni. Vairocana means universal purity, which is the name of merit. Shakyamuni is the name of the essence. Moreover, the viewers are different, and there are two Buddhas. Therefore, Vairocana speaks in the Pure Land, and Shakyamuni speaks in the impure land. Therefore, according to the viewers and practitioners, the Reward Body Buddha is short, and the Transformation Body Buddha is also short. Therefore, the Shakyamuni of this land is the root, and the Shakyamunis who are emanations in the ten directions are manifestations. Therefore, it is said that Vairocana is the root, and Shakyamuni is the manifestation.

Clarifying Similarities and Differences, Tenth. There are two types of teachers. One type is emptiness as a provisional name, and the other type is non-emptiness as a provisional name. Non-emptiness as a provisional name believes that there is only no self-nature and real existence, and the false conventional truth cannot be completely non-existent, like Shulu Li (Shu Lou Li, a metaphor). The second type is emptiness as a provisional name.

。謂此世諦舉體不可得。若作假有觀。舉體世諦。作無觀之舉體是真諦。如水中案爪手舉爪令體出。是世諦。手案爪令體沒是真諦。今明義。就此兩義為三階。一往俱非前二解。不同食栗者。假有法恒不空。假壁內空無性。豈非即有是空耶。所以亦不同第二解者。若沒舉體空。即無復世諦。若出時舉體俗有。無復真諦。亦不得並有時便空空時便有。第二階會時。亦並得會。雖復有而空。即空而有。但言空時。亦不失有。言有時。亦不傷空。還同第一不空世諦義。而未始有一有而不空。無有一空而不有。空時舉體空。有時一切有。亦得還同第二空世諦義。第三階一取一舍。碩乖食栗。取用案爪。從來二諦。不成案爪義。從來有二理各別。豈得稱為案爪二諦。今始得用此義。以唯是一爪本非出沒。譬如唯是一道非有非無。而爪用中有時而出。有時而沒。譬二諦用。或時說俗。或時說真。所以始是案爪義。此譬亦小分之說。爪沒時不出。出時不沒。今無有有時不空空時不有。此處不齊。不得舉出沒為譬。今出無別出。還是沒者出。沒無別沒。還是出者沒。故空無別空。說有者為空。有無別有。說空為有故也。次周顒明三宗二諦。一不空假二空假三假空。空假者。開善等用。假空者。四重二諦中初重二諦。雖空而宛然假。雖假

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本謂此世諦舉體不可得（指世俗諦的整體是不可獲得的）。若作假有觀（如果從假有的角度觀察），舉體世諦（整個世俗諦），作無觀之舉體是真諦（從無的角度觀察，其整體就是真諦）。如水中案爪手（就像在水中按爪子的手），舉爪令體出（抬起爪子使其顯現），是世諦（這就是世俗諦）。手案爪令體沒（手按爪子使其隱藏），是真諦（這就是真諦）。今明義（現在闡明這個道理），就此兩義為三階（就這兩個意義分為三個階段）。一往俱非前二解（第一種觀點完全否定前兩種解釋）。不同食栗者（不同於吃栗子的比喻），假有法恒不空（假有的法永遠不是空性的），假壁內空無性（虛假的墻壁內部是空無自性的），豈非即有是空耶（難道不是有即是空嗎）？所以亦不同第二解者（所以也不同於第二種解釋），若沒舉體空（如果隱藏時整體皆空），即無復世諦（就沒有世俗諦了）。若出時舉體俗有（如果顯現時整體俗有），無復真諦（就沒有真諦了）。亦不得並有時便空空時便有（也不能同時存在有時就空，空時就有的情況）。第二階會時（第二階段會合時），亦並得會（也可以同時會合）。雖復有而空（雖然有卻是空），即空而有（即空即是有）。但言空時（但說空的時候），亦不失有（也不失去有）。言有時（說有的時候），亦不傷空（也不損害空）。還同第一不空世諦義（還和第一種不空世俗諦的意義相同）。而未始有一有而不空（從來沒有一個有不是空的），無有一空而不有（沒有一個空不是有的）。空時舉體空（空的時候整體皆空），有時一切有（有的時候一切皆有）。亦得還同第二空世諦義（也可以和第二種空世俗諦的意義相同）。第三階一取一舍（第三階段，要麼取要麼舍），碩乖食栗（碩果和吃栗子的比喻相悖），取用案爪（取用按爪子的比喻），從來二諦（從來二諦），不成案爪義（不能構成按爪子的意義）。從來有二理各別（從來有二理各自不同），豈得稱為案爪二諦（怎麼能稱為按爪子的二諦）？今始得用此義（現在才開始用這個意義），以唯是一爪本非出沒（因為只有一個爪子，本來就沒有出現和隱藏）。譬如唯是一道非有非無（譬如只有一條道路，非有非無）。而爪用中有時而出（而爪子的作用中有時顯現），有時而沒（有時隱藏）。譬二諦用（譬如二諦的作用），或時說俗（有時說世俗），或時說真（有時說真理）。所以始是案爪義（所以才開始是按爪子的意義）。此譬亦小分之說（這個比喻也只是小部分的說法），爪沒時不出（爪子隱藏時不會顯現），出時不沒（顯現時不會隱藏）。今無有有時不空空時不有（現在沒有有時不空，空時不有的情況）。此處不齊（這裡不一致），不得舉出沒為譬（不能用出現和隱藏來比喻）。今出無別出（現在顯現沒有別的顯現），還是沒者出（還是隱藏的那個顯現）。沒無別沒（隱藏沒有別的隱藏），還是出者沒（還是顯現的那個隱藏）。故空無別空（所以空沒有別的空），說有者為空（說有就是空）。有無別有（有沒有別的有），說空為有故也（說空就是有）。次周顒明三宗二諦（接下來周顒闡明三宗的二諦），一不空假（一是不空假），二空假（二是空假），三假空（三是假空）。空假者（空假，指的是），開善等用（開善等人所用）。假空者（假空，指的是），四重二諦中初重二諦（四重二諦中的第一重二諦）。雖空而宛然假（雖然是空，但宛然是假），雖假（雖然是假）

【English Translation】 English version It is said that this worldly truth (Satya, conventional truth) is entirely unattainable. If one contemplates it as provisionally existent, the entirety of the worldly truth, when contemplated as non-existent, its entirety is the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya, ultimate truth). It is like pressing a claw into the water with a hand (a metaphor), lifting the claw to make its form appear is the worldly truth. Pressing the claw with the hand to make its form disappear is the ultimate truth. Now, clarifying the meaning, these two meanings are divided into three stages. The first view completely negates the previous two interpretations. It is different from the analogy of eating chestnuts, because provisionally existent dharmas (phenomena) are never empty (Śūnyatā, emptiness). The inside of a provisional wall is empty and without inherent existence. Isn't it that existence is emptiness? Therefore, it is also different from the second interpretation, because if the entirety disappears into emptiness, then there is no worldly truth left. If the entirety is conventionally existent when it appears, then there is no ultimate truth left. It is also not possible for existence and emptiness to coexist, where existence is immediately emptiness and emptiness is immediately existence. In the second stage of convergence, they can also converge simultaneously. Although there is existence, it is empty; that is, emptiness is existence. But when speaking of emptiness, existence is not lost. When speaking of existence, emptiness is not harmed. It is still the same as the first meaning of the worldly truth not being empty. There has never been an existence that is not empty, and there has never been an emptiness that is not existent. When it is empty, the entirety is empty; when there is existence, everything exists. It can also be the same as the second meaning of the worldly truth being empty. In the third stage, one either takes or abandons, which greatly deviates from the analogy of eating chestnuts. Taking the analogy of pressing the claw, the two truths from the beginning cannot form the meaning of pressing the claw. From the beginning, there have been two distinct principles, so how can they be called the two truths of pressing the claw? Now, this meaning can finally be used, because there is only one claw that inherently neither appears nor disappears. It is like there is only one path that is neither existent nor non-existent. And in the function of the claw, sometimes it appears, and sometimes it disappears. This is like the function of the two truths, sometimes speaking of the conventional, and sometimes speaking of the ultimate. Therefore, it is only now that it is the meaning of pressing the claw. This analogy is also a partial explanation. When the claw disappears, it does not appear; when it appears, it does not disappear. Now, there is no situation where existence is not empty, and emptiness is not existent. Here, they are not aligned, so the appearance and disappearance cannot be used as an analogy. Now, appearance is not a separate appearance; it is still the disappearance that appears. Disappearance is not a separate disappearance; it is still the appearance that disappears. Therefore, emptiness is not a separate emptiness; saying existence is emptiness. Existence is not a separate existence; saying emptiness is existence. Next, Zhou Yong clarifies the two truths of the three schools: first, non-empty provisionality; second, empty provisionality; and third, provisional emptiness. Empty provisionality refers to what is used by Kaisan and others. Provisional emptiness refers to the first of the fourfold two truths. Although it is empty, it is clearly provisional; although it is provisional,

而宛然空。空有無礙。問若假空者。假生不生時。為當不于實生不假生耶。答不生有三種。若假生不生。此無性實生義。二者自有假生不生不于假生為世諦中道。用真諦之假為世諦中。三者明假生即不生。安不生置真諦。若不生不滅合論有三種不生不滅。一者不性生滅明於俗諦。二者不假生滅明真諦。三者俗諦為有故明不生。真諦無故明不滅。二諦合論故言不生不滅。

大乘玄論卷第一(終) 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1853 大乘玄論

大乘玄論卷第二

胡吉藏撰

八不義有六重。

第一辨大意　第二明三種中道　第三論智慧中道　第四雜問　第五論單復諸句　第六明不有有

第一辨大意者。八不者蓋是諸佛之中心。眾聖之行處也。故華嚴經云。文殊法常爾。一切無畏人。一道出生死。更無異趣也。即是論初八不。故豎貫眾經橫通諸論也。故經云。不一亦不二。不常亦不斷。不來亦不出。不生亦不滅也。又經中明百非。非與不及無。三名亦得通目一法。亦不無其異。不得一向一種。后別明之。異者如不有非有及與無有。不得不異義。如食無食。則未曾有食。若言不食。則非是無食。故知有異也。雖異而為洗諸法。即明三字不異。還是一意。以八不洗除。盡凈諸法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：而宛然是空。空和有之間沒有阻礙。問：如果說是假立的空，那麼假立的事物在產生和不產生的時候，是不依賴於真實而產生，還是不依賴於假立而產生呢？答：不產生有三種情況。第一種，如果假立的事物不產生，這就是無自性的真實產生之義。第二種，自有假立的事物不產生，不是不依賴於假立而產生，這是世俗諦中的中道，用真諦的假立作為世俗諦中的中道。第三種，闡明假立的產生即是不產生，將不產生安置於真諦。如果不產生和不滅合起來討論，有三種不生不滅。第一種，不自性生滅，闡明於世俗諦。第二種，不假立生滅，闡明真諦。第三種，世俗諦因為有，所以闡明不生；真諦因為無，所以闡明不滅。二諦合起來討論，所以說不生不滅。

《大乘玄論》卷第一（完）大正藏第45冊 No. 1853 《大乘玄論》

《大乘玄論》卷第二

胡吉藏撰

八不義有六重意義：

第一，辨明大意；第二，闡明三種中道；第三，論述智慧中道；第四，雜問；第五，論述單句和複句；第六，闡明不有有。

第一，辨明大意：這八不，大概是諸佛的中心，眾聖的修行之處。所以《華嚴經》說：『文殊（Manjusri，菩薩名）的法常常是這樣，一切無畏的人，通過一條道路出生死，沒有其他的途徑。』這就是論述最初的八不，所以它縱向貫穿眾多經典，橫向貫通各種論著。所以經中說：『不一也不二，不常也不斷，不來也不不出，不生也不滅。』另外，經中闡明百非，非和不及、無，三個名稱也可以用來統稱一種法，但也不是沒有差異。不能一概而論，後面會分別闡明。差異之處比如不有、非有以及與無有。不得不說它們有差異，比如食和無食，就是未曾有食。如果說不食，那就不是無食。所以知道它們是有差異的。雖然有差異，但爲了洗滌諸法，這說明三個字沒有差異，還是一種意思。用八不來洗除，完全清凈諸法。

【English Translation】 English version: And it is clearly empty. There is no obstruction between emptiness and existence. Question: If it is said to be a provisional emptiness, when a provisional thing arises or does not arise, does it arise without relying on reality, or does it not rely on provisionality to arise? Answer: There are three kinds of non-arising. First, if a provisional thing does not arise, this is the meaning of the real arising of no self-nature. Second, the self-existent provisional thing does not arise, not without relying on the provisional to arise, this is the Middle Way in the mundane truth, using the provisional of the ultimate truth as the Middle Way in the mundane truth. Third, it clarifies that provisional arising is non-arising, placing non-arising in the ultimate truth. If non-arising and non-cessation are discussed together, there are three kinds of non-arising and non-cessation. First, non-self-nature arising and cessation, clarifying in the mundane truth. Second, non-provisional arising and cessation, clarifying the ultimate truth. Third, the mundane truth, because it exists, clarifies non-arising; the ultimate truth, because it does not exist, clarifies non-cessation. The two truths are discussed together, so it is said non-arising and non-cessation.

Mahayana Profound Treatise, Volume 1 (End) Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 45, No. 1853, Mahayana Profound Treatise

Mahayana Profound Treatise, Volume 2

Composed by Huijizang

The meaning of the Eight No's has six layers:

First, distinguishing the general meaning; second, clarifying the three kinds of Middle Way; third, discussing the wisdom Middle Way; fourth, miscellaneous questions; fifth, discussing single and compound sentences; sixth, clarifying non-existence existence.

First, distinguishing the general meaning: These Eight No's are probably the center of all Buddhas, the place of practice for all sages. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Manjusri's (Manjusri, name of a Bodhisattva) Dharma is always like this, all fearless people, through one path, are born from death, there is no other way.' This is discussing the initial Eight No's, so it vertically penetrates many scriptures and horizontally connects various treatises. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Not one nor two, not constant nor discontinuous, not coming nor going out, not arising nor ceasing.' In addition, the sutra clarifies the hundred negations, non- and not reaching, and non-existence, three names can also be used to collectively refer to one Dharma, but it is not without differences. It cannot be generalized, and it will be clarified separately later. The differences are like non-existence, non-existence, and non-existence. It must be said that they have differences, such as eating and not eating, which is never having eaten. If you say not eating, then it is not non-eating. So know that they are different. Although there are differences, but in order to wash away all Dharmas, this shows that the three words are not different, but still one meaning. Use the Eight No's to wash away, completely purify all Dharmas.

。故經中具有百非。即還是百不百無等。故多有所關義。所以豎入群經之深奧。橫通諸論之廣大也。明經之深處即是八不。不則不於一切法也。以不而明義。故知。其深奧也。如成論等釋。雖言百非百不及與絕等。而有理存焉。謂得還成失。即是小乘觀行有所得。不離斷常心。非關經之深遠也。今明。以不而為義。義即該廣也。言豎者謂之縱。縱只是深。即經之深旨。如言非不無等。亦復不于無等。經之深處也。橫通諸論者。橫只是廣闊之稱。亦為對治藥病。如有無相治等。悉是橫論。如言有即為橫。不有為豎。亦如絕為橫。不絕為豎。若不絕為橫。則非絕非不絕為豎。以不義據初。如是深不亦于不。何所而不不。如言為橫不言為豎。橫豎亦不定。隨而望之。若有無斷常相治為橫。病息藥除故為豎。故以隨處得論。而言八不豎入經深者。深義經也。橫通諸論者。辨論破病用。經未始無橫。如三修八倒斷常相破。論未始不明豎。如十二門論言。若使無有有。云何當有無。有無既已無。知有無者。誰豈非遠豎義。故經明深豎不義。不義不有有故。未始無橫。論辨而明藥病。藥病無而明不。未始無豎。不不一切。以不明義。豈不窮深。深義亦不。即是菩薩觀行。若謂有此深遠。即是聲聞觀也。然不義。非止入經深。亦廣明眾

【現代漢語翻譯】因此，這部經中具有『百非』（否定一切的否定）。也就是說，還是『百不』、『百無』等等。因此，它包含著多方面的意義。所以說，它縱向深入群經的深奧之處，橫向貫通諸論的廣大範圍。闡明經的深奧之處，就是『八不』（不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不來、不去）。『不』就是不執著於一切法。通過『不』來闡明意義，所以可知其深奧。例如《成實論》等的解釋，雖然說到『百非』、『百不及』與『絕』等等，但其中有理存在。所謂『得還成失』，就是小乘的觀行有所得，沒有離開斷常之心，與經的深遠意義無關。現在闡明，以『不』作為意義，這個意義就包含廣泛。說到『豎』，就是指縱向，縱向就是指深，也就是經的深旨。例如說『非不無』等等，也是不執著于『無』等等，這就是經的深奧之處。橫向貫通諸論，『橫』只是廣闊的稱謂，也是爲了對治藥病。例如『有』與『無』相互對治等等，都是橫向的論述。例如說『有』就是橫向，『不有』就是縱向。又如『絕』是橫向，『不絕』是縱向。如果不絕是橫向，那麼『非絕非不絕』就是縱向。以『不』的意義為根本，像這樣，深『不』也適用於『不』，有什麼不是『不』呢？例如說『為』是橫向，『不言』是縱向。橫向和縱向也不是固定的，隨著觀察的角度而變化。如果有無、斷常相互對治是橫向，病息藥除就是縱向。所以說，可以隨處進行論述。說『八不』縱向深入經的深奧之處，是因為深義在於經。橫向貫通諸論，是爲了辨論破除病患。經文並非沒有橫向，例如三修、八倒、斷常相互破除。論典並非不闡明縱向，例如《十二門論》說，『如果本來沒有有，怎麼會有無呢？有無既然已經沒有了，那麼知道有無的人是誰呢？』這難道不是深遠的縱向意義嗎？所以經文闡明深遠的縱向『不』的意義，因為『不』的意義是不執著于『有』，所以並非沒有橫向。論典辨析而闡明藥病，藥病消除而闡明『不』，並非沒有縱向。『不不』一切，以『不』闡明意義，難道不是窮盡深奧嗎？深奧的意義也是『不』，這就是菩薩的觀行。如果認為有這種深遠，那就是聲聞的觀點。然而『不』的意義，不僅僅是深入經的深奧之處，也廣泛地闡明眾生。現代漢語譯本

【English Translation】 Therefore, this sutra possesses 'hundred negations' (a negation of all negations). That is to say, it is still 'hundred nots', 'hundred non-existences', and so on. Therefore, it contains multifaceted meanings. Thus, it is said that it vertically penetrates the profound depths of all sutras and horizontally connects the vast scope of all treatises. Clarifying the profound depths of the sutra is the 'Eight No's' (no birth, no death, no cessation, no permanence, no oneness, no difference, no coming, no going). 'No' means not being attached to all dharmas. By clarifying the meaning through 'no', one can understand its profundity. For example, the explanations in the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論) and others, although they speak of 'hundred negations', 'hundred insufficiencies', and 'cessation' etc., there is reason within them. The so-called 'gain turning into loss' refers to the gains of the Śrāvakayāna's (小乘) contemplative practice, which does not depart from the mind of permanence and annihilation, and is unrelated to the profound and far-reaching meaning of the sutra. Now, it is clarified that 'no' is taken as the meaning, and this meaning encompasses vastness. When speaking of 'vertical', it refers to depth, which is the profound purpose of the sutra. For example, saying 'not not non-existence' etc., is also not being attached to 'non-existence' etc., and this is the profound depth of the sutra. Horizontally connecting all treatises, 'horizontal' is merely a term for vastness, and it is also for curing ailments with medicine. For example, 'existence' and 'non-existence' counteracting each other etc., are all horizontal discourses. For example, saying 'existence' is horizontal, 'not existence' is vertical. Also, 'cessation' is horizontal, 'not cessation' is vertical. If 'not cessation' is horizontal, then 'neither cessation nor not cessation' is vertical. Taking the meaning of 'no' as the foundation, in this way, the deep 'no' also applies to 'no', what is there that is not 'no'? For example, saying 'doing' is horizontal, 'not speaking' is vertical. Horizontal and vertical are also not fixed, they change depending on the perspective of observation. If existence and non-existence, permanence and annihilation counteracting each other is horizontal, the ailment ceasing and the medicine being removed is vertical. Therefore, it can be discussed anywhere. Saying that the 'Eight No's' vertically penetrate the profound depths of the sutra is because the profound meaning lies in the sutra. Horizontally connecting all treatises is for debating and eliminating ailments. The sutra is not without horizontal aspects, such as the three trainings, the eight inversions, and the mutual destruction of permanence and annihilation. The treatises are not without clarifying vertical aspects, such as the Twelve Gate Treatise (十二門論) saying, 'If there was originally no existence, how could there be non-existence? Since existence and non-existence are already gone, then who is the one who knows existence and non-existence?' Is this not a profound vertical meaning? Therefore, the sutra clarifies the profound vertical meaning of 'no', because the meaning of 'no' is not being attached to 'existence', so it is not without horizontal aspects. The treatises analyze and clarify medicine and ailments, and the medicine and ailments are eliminated to clarify 'no', so it is not without vertical aspects. 'Not not' everything, clarifying the meaning with 'no', is it not exhausting the profound? The profound meaning is also 'no', and this is the contemplative practice of the Bodhisattva (菩薩). If one thinks there is such profundity, that is the view of the Śrāvaka (聲聞). However, the meaning of 'no' is not only penetrating the profound depths of the sutra, but also widely clarifying sentient beings. English version

行。行波若之因。會涅槃之果。皆為八不所不。不此深勝法。以不而為深義。深義亦不也。但釋八不名者故如。不生者。諸論師言。此法不生。而不妨有種種釋生相也。今明。此不不于生。生本來不生。亙十方橫。通三世豎。一切佛法皆同無非不生也。如成實論師云。真理名不生理境也。今大乘義。若有理如是生。無有一法是有而不生也。若言有理存焉是不生者。亦應有存焉非是有。如本有常住不生等。如是破求之。今明。諸法不生。不生故名無生。無生法忍既爾。不生何得有滅之對生。生故方滅。既不生亦復不滅也。以有無三時等。撿求滅相不可得。如論破乳。不于乳時滅。亦不異時滅。具出彼論也。

第二明三種中道。成論師解八不不同。一云八不併是真諦中道。亦是真諦也。二云不生不滅是中道。即是真諦不有不無中道。餘六不是俗諦中道也。今謂不然。彼不解大乘論意。小乘義意判如此耳。今云。八不具三種中道。即是二諦也。但成論師解三種中道。一世諦中道。二真諦中道。三真俗合論中道也。世諦中道者。世諦不出三假故。依三假明中道。一因成假不一不異明中道也。何者一柱攬四微為一。是不一而一。四塵同成一假。不異而假實殊故異。故不一一故。不異異故。不一不異。因成明中道也。二相續

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：行。行般若（Prajna，智慧）之因，會涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）之果，皆為八不所不。不此深勝法，以『不』而為深義，深義亦『不』也。但解釋八不之名者，故如：『不生』者，諸論師言，此法不生，而不妨有種種解釋生相也。今明，此『不』不于生，生本來不生，亙十方橫，通三世豎，一切佛法皆同無非『不生』也。如成實論師云，真理名不生理境也。今大乘義，若有理如是生，無有一法是有而不生也。若言有理存焉是『不生』者，亦應有存焉非是有。如本有常住不生等，如是破求之。今明，諸法不生，不生故名無生。無生法忍既爾，『不生』何得有滅之對生？生故方滅，既不生亦復不滅也。以有無三時等，撿求滅相不可得。如論破乳，不于乳時滅，亦不異時滅，具出彼論也。第二明三種中道。成論師解八不不同。一云八不併是真諦中道，亦是真諦也。二云不生不滅是中道，即是真諦不有不無中道。餘六不是俗諦中道也。今謂不然，彼不解大乘論意。小乘義意判如此耳。今云，八不具三種中道，即是二諦也。但成論師解三種中道，一世諦中道，二真諦中道，三真俗合論中道也。世諦中道者，世諦不出三假故，依三假明中道。一因成假不一不異明中道也。何者一柱攬四微為一，是不一而一。四塵同成一假，不異而假實殊故異，故不一一故，不異異故，不一不異。因成明中道也。二相續

【English Translation】 English version: Practice. The cause of practicing Prajna (wisdom), the result of realizing Nirvana (extinction), are all negated by the Eight No's. This profound and supreme Dharma is negated, using 'no' as the profound meaning, and the profound meaning is also 'no'. But explaining the names of the Eight No's, for example: 'No Birth', the various masters say, this Dharma does not arise, but it does not prevent various explanations of the appearance of arising. Now it is clear that this 'no' is not about arising, arising is originally not arising, extending horizontally in the ten directions, and vertically through the three periods of time, all Buddhadharma is the same, all are 'no arising'. As the Satyasiddhi Shastra masters say, the truth is called the realm of no arising. Now, according to the meaning of Mahayana, if there is a principle that arises in this way, there is no Dharma that exists and does not arise. If it is said that there is a principle that exists and is 'no arising', then there should also be something that exists that is not existent. Such as originally existing, permanent, not arising, etc., and thus refute and seek it. Now it is clear that all Dharmas do not arise, and because they do not arise, they are called no arising. Since the forbearance of no arising is like this, how can 'no arising' have the opposite of extinction? Because of arising, there is extinction, and since there is no arising, there is also no extinction. Using existence, non-existence, and the three times, examining and seeking the appearance of extinction is impossible to obtain. Like the shastra refuting milk, it does not extinguish at the time of milk, nor does it extinguish at a different time, fully explaining that shastra. Secondly, explaining the three kinds of the Middle Way. The Satyasiddhi Shastra masters interpret the Eight No's differently. One says that the Eight No's are all the Middle Way of the ultimate truth, and are also the ultimate truth. The second says that no birth and no extinction are the Middle Way, which is the Middle Way of the ultimate truth of neither existence nor non-existence. The remaining six are not the Middle Way of conventional truth. Now it is said that this is not the case, they do not understand the meaning of the Mahayana shastras. The meaning of the Hinayana is judged in this way. Now it is said that the Eight No's possess the three kinds of the Middle Way, which are the two truths. But the Satyasiddhi Shastra masters explain the three kinds of the Middle Way, one is the Middle Way of conventional truth, the second is the Middle Way of ultimate truth, and the third is the Middle Way of combining conventional and ultimate truths. The Middle Way of conventional truth, the conventional truth does not go beyond the three provisionalities, so the Middle Way is explained based on the three provisionalities. First, the provisionality of cause and condition is neither one nor different, explaining the Middle Way. Why is one pillar composed of four subtle particles as one, which is not one but one. The four dusts together form one provisionality, which is not different, but the provisionality is actually different, so it is different, so it is not one, and because it is different, it is not one and not different. The provisionality of cause and condition explains the Middle Way. Second, continuous

不常不斷明中道。但相續假不同。一云補處明續假也。二云前玄與后一明續假。如識心之終想心之初當中央為假。三龍光傳開善云。明續假。後起接前。前轉作后。即是生至共成假也。雖三師說不同。而相與續故不斷滅故不常。不斷不常明相續中道也。三相待假明中道。即是有開避相待。如色心等法。名為通待。亦名定待也。如長短君臣父子等法。短不自短。形長故短。長不自長。形短故長。如此相奪待。乃至君臣父子等。名為別待。亦名不定待也。通別雖殊。悉是相待假明中道。假而非真。稱當於理故非虛。非真非虛。通明世諦中道也。真諦中道。無名無相。寄名相待。真待真無故。無表非無。亦復非有。非有非無名真諦中道也。真俗閤中道者。如俗諦言有。有非實有。真諦名無。無非定無。非有非無名為兩閤中道也。梁武帝。敕開善寺藏法師令作義疏。法師講務無閑。諸學士共議。出安城寺開公安樂寺遠子。令代法師作疏。此二人善能領語。精解外典。聽二遍成就十四卷。為一部上。簡法師。法師自手執疏讀一遍。印可言之。亦得去送之。此疏云。二諦中道云何談物耶。以諸法起者未契法性也。既未契故有有。則此有是妄有。以其空故是俗也。虛體即無相。無相即真也。真諦非有。非無而無也。以其非妄有故。俗

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『不常不斷明中道』。意思是既不是永恒不變，也不是完全斷滅，而是闡明了中道。『但相續假不同』。只是相續的方式不同而已。第一種說法，『一云補處明續假也』。是指從補處菩薩的角度來闡明相續的假象。第二種說法，『二云前玄與后一明續假』。是指前一念的玄妙與后一念的統一來闡明相續的假象。例如，識心的終結與想心的開始，當中的過渡狀態是假象。第三種說法，『三龍光傳開善云。明續假。後起接前。前轉作后。即是生至共成假也』。龍光所傳開善的觀點認為，闡明相續的假象在於後起的念頭接續前一個念頭，前一個念頭轉變為后一個念頭，這就是從產生到共同形成（果報）的假象。『雖三師說不同。而相與續故不斷滅故不常。不斷不常明相續中道也』。雖然三位法師的說法不同，但都認為諸法是相互連續的，因此不是斷滅，也不是永恒不變。不斷滅、不常，闡明了相續的中道。『三相待假明中道』。三種相互依存的假象闡明了中道。『即是有開避相待。如色心等法。名為通待。亦名定待也』。例如，色法和心法等，是普遍的相互依存，也稱為固定的相互依存。『如長短君臣父子等法。短不自短。形長故短。長不自長。形短故長。如此相奪待。乃至君臣父子等。名為別待。亦名不定待也』。例如，長短、君臣、父子等關係，短不是自身就是短，因為有長才顯得短；長不是自身就是長，因為有短才顯得長。這種相互對立依存的關係，乃至君臣、父子等，稱為特殊的相互依存，也稱為不固定的相互依存。『通別雖殊。悉是相待假明中道。假而非真。稱當於理故非虛。非真非虛。通明世諦中道也』。普遍的相互依存和特殊的相互依存雖然不同，但都是相互依存的假象，闡明了中道。是假象而不是真理，但符合道理，因此不是虛妄。非真非虛，普遍地闡明了世俗諦的中道。『真諦中道。無名無相。寄名相待。真待真無故。無表非無。亦復非有。非有非無名真諦中道也』。真諦的中道，沒有名稱，沒有形象，借用名稱來表達相互依存。真諦的依存是真正的空無，因此，雖然沒有外在的表象，但並非完全沒有，也不是實有。非有非無，稱為真諦的中道。『真俗閤中道者。如俗諦言有。有非實有。真諦名無。無非定無。非有非無名為兩閤中道也』。真諦和俗諦結合的中道，例如，在俗諦中說『有』，但這個『有』不是真實的存在；在真諦中稱為『無』，但這個『無』不是絕對的空無。非有非無，稱為兩方面結合的中道。『梁武帝。敕開善寺藏法師令作義疏。法師講務無閑。諸學士共議。出安城寺開公安樂寺遠子。令代法師作疏。此二人善能領語。精解外典。聽二遍成就十四卷。為一部上。簡法師。法師自手執疏讀一遍。印可言之。亦得去送之』。梁武帝下令讓開善寺的藏法師撰寫義疏。藏法師因為講經事務繁忙，沒有空閑。眾位學士共同商議，推舉安城寺的開公和安樂寺的遠子代替法師撰寫義疏。這兩位學士善於理解語言，精通外道典籍。聽了兩遍講解，完成了十四卷的義疏，作為一部上呈給簡法師。簡法師親自拿著義疏讀了一遍，認可說：『也可以送上去』。『此疏云。二諦中道云何談物耶。以諸法起者未契法性也。既未契故有有。則此有是妄有。以其空故是俗也。虛體即無相。無相即真也。真諦非有。非無而無也。以其非妄有故。俗』。這篇義疏說：『用二諦中道如何談論事物呢？因為諸法生起時，還沒有契合法性。既然沒有契合，所以才會有『有』，那麼這個『有』是虛妄的存在，因為它的本性是空，所以是俗諦。虛幻的本體就是無相，無相就是真諦。真諦既不是有，也不是無，而是空無。因為它不是虛妄的存在，所以是俗諦。』

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not permanent, not discontinuous, illuminates the Middle Way.' This means it is neither eternally unchanging nor completely annihilated, but elucidates the Middle Way. 'But the appearances of continuity are different.' It's just that the ways of continuity are different. The first explanation, 'One says that the position of the successor illuminates the appearance of continuity.' This refers to elucidating the appearance of continuity from the perspective of a Bodhisattva in the position of successor. The second explanation, 'Two say that the mystery of the previous thought and the unity of the subsequent thought illuminate the appearance of continuity.' This refers to elucidating the appearance of continuity through the mystery of the previous thought and the unity of the subsequent thought. For example, the end of consciousness and the beginning of thought, the transitional state in between is an illusion. The third explanation, 'Three, Longguang's transmission of Kaisan says. Illuminates the appearance of continuity. The subsequent arising connects to the previous. The previous transforms into the subsequent. This is the illusion of birth to common formation.' Longguang's transmitted view of Kaisan believes that elucidating the appearance of continuity lies in the subsequent arising of thoughts connecting to the previous thought, and the previous thought transforming into the subsequent thought, which is the illusion from arising to common formation (of karmic retribution). 'Although the three masters' explanations are different, they are continuous with each other, so they are not annihilated and not permanent. Not annihilated, not permanent, illuminates the Middle Way of continuity.' Although the three Dharma masters' explanations are different, they all believe that all dharmas are continuous with each other, therefore they are not annihilated and not eternally unchanging. Not annihilated, not permanent, elucidates the Middle Way of continuity. 'Three, the illusion of mutual dependence illuminates the Middle Way.' The three kinds of mutually dependent illusions elucidate the Middle Way. 'That is, there is mutual dependence of opening and avoiding. For example, dharmas such as form and mind. This is called universal dependence. It is also called fixed dependence.' For example, form and mind, etc., are universal mutual dependence, also called fixed mutual dependence. 'For example, dharmas such as long and short, ruler and subject, father and son, etc. Short is not short by itself. It is short because of the shape of long. Long is not long by itself. It is long because of the shape of short. Such mutual deprivation and dependence. Even ruler and subject, father and son, etc. This is called separate dependence. It is also called unfixed dependence.' For example, relationships such as long and short, ruler and subject, father and son, etc., short is not short by itself, it is short because there is long; long is not long by itself, it is long because there is short. This kind of mutually opposing and dependent relationship, even ruler and subject, father and son, etc., is called special mutual dependence, also called unfixed mutual dependence. 'Although universal and separate are different, they are all mutually dependent illusions that illuminate the Middle Way. Illusion but not truth. It is called appropriate to reason, so it is not false. Not truth, not false. Universally illuminates the Middle Way of the mundane truth.' Although universal mutual dependence and special mutual dependence are different, they are all mutually dependent illusions that elucidate the Middle Way. It is an illusion but not the truth, but it conforms to reason, therefore it is not false. Not truth, not false, universally elucidates the Middle Way of the conventional truth (Samvriti-satya). 'The Middle Way of the ultimate truth. Without name, without form. Relying on name for mutual dependence. The truth depends on true non-existence. Therefore, without external appearance, it is not non-existence. It is also not existence. Not existence, not non-existence is called the Middle Way of the ultimate truth.' The Middle Way of the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya), has no name, no form, and borrows names to express mutual dependence. The dependence of the ultimate truth is true emptiness, therefore, although there is no external appearance, it is not completely non-existent, nor is it truly existent. Not existent, not non-existent, is called the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. 'The Middle Way of the combination of the ultimate and conventional truths. For example, in the conventional truth, it is said 'existence'. But this 'existence' is not real existence. In the ultimate truth, it is called 'non-existence'. But this 'non-existence' is not absolute non-existence. Not existence, not non-existence is called the Middle Way of the combination of the two truths.' The Middle Way of the combination of the ultimate and conventional truths, for example, in the conventional truth it is said 'existence', but this 'existence' is not real existence; in the ultimate truth it is called 'non-existence', but this 'non-existence' is not absolute non-existence. Not existence, not non-existence, is called the Middle Way of the combination of the two aspects. 'Emperor Wu of Liang. Ordered Dharma Master Zang of Kaisan Temple to write a commentary. The Dharma Master was busy with lecturing and had no free time. The scholars discussed together and recommended Kai Gong of Ancheng Temple and Yuan Zi of Anle Temple to write the commentary on behalf of the Dharma Master. These two scholars were good at understanding language and were proficient in external scriptures. After listening to the explanation twice, they completed fourteen volumes of commentary and presented it as a whole to Dharma Master Jian. Dharma Master Jian personally held the commentary and read it once, approvingly saying: 'It can also be sent up'.' 'This commentary says. How can we talk about things with the Middle Way of the two truths? Because when all dharmas arise, they have not yet conformed to the Dharma nature. Since they have not conformed, there is 'existence', then this 'existence' is a false existence, because its nature is emptiness, so it is the conventional truth. The illusory essence is no form, and no form is the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is neither existence nor non-existence, but emptiness. Because it is not a false existence, it is the conventional truth.'

雖非有非無而有。以其假有故也。與物舉體即真故非有。舉體即俗故非無。則非有非無真俗一中道也。真諦無相故非有非無。真諦中道也。俗諦是因假。即因非即果故非有。非不作果故非無。此非有非無俗諦中道也。龍光作三種中道。與開善作三種中道。言方少異。綽師有二體。藏師一體。而意趣是同。並是有所得。終恐不離斷常。須一一破之也。先破俗諦中道。汝因成中道。假名不一一。實法不異異。且問。不異異為是二名詺二法為詺一法。若謂汝四塵是異異目四塵。四塵其實有異。何得言不異異。不異之名。復可得安假上耶。汝言。假名不二一。名詺假不得目實。實名不一。只見兩名詺二法。云何是中道。若二名名二法而名為中道。總別二名名二法亦應中道。色心二名名二法亦應是中道。若言色心異故不辨中者。如三聚成假。寧得假實明中道耶。若言相成故名中道者。色心相因故亦得論中也。又汝言不一不異為中者。不一除四塵。不異除假名。除假除實。以何為中。兩除則無物。不可名大虛為中。故安中無所。故虛妄說也。破開善義。汝言有。即此有是妄有。既言妄有有。個妄有法。那得是中道。妄有則顛倒之別名。故非中道也。又言。即因非即果故非有。非無作果故非無。此非有非無俗諦中道者。此是何物中道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：雖說既非『有』也非『無』，但卻呈現為『有』的狀態，這是因為它是一種假有的存在。從萬事萬物整體來看，它們即是真如實相，所以說它不是『有』；從萬事萬物整體來看，它們又是世俗現象，所以說它不是『無』。因此，非『有』非『無』，才是真諦和俗諦統一的中道。真諦沒有具體的形象，所以既非『有』也非『無』，這便是真諦的中道。俗諦是基於因緣和合的假象。說『即因非即果』，所以它不是『有』；說『非不作果』，所以它不是『無』。這種非『有』非『無』，便是俗諦的中道。龍光法師提出了三種中道的說法，開善法師也提出了三種中道的說法，他們的表達方式略有不同。綽法師持有二體論，藏法師持有一體論，但他們的意趣是相同的，都屬於有所得的範疇，最終恐怕都無法脫離斷見和常見。需要一一破除這些觀點。首先破除俗諦中道的觀點。你認為因緣和合而成中道，假名與一一（每個）不同，實法與異異（種種不同）也不同。那麼請問，這個『不異異』是指用兩個名稱來稱呼兩種法，還是用一個名稱來稱呼一種法？如果說你認為四大（地、水、火、風）是『異異』，用『異異』來指稱四大，而四大實際上是有差異的，那麼怎麼能說『不異異』呢？『不異』這個名稱，又怎麼能安立在假名之上呢？你說假名不是二一（兩個一，即兩個獨立的存在），用名稱來稱呼假名，就不能用名稱來指稱實法，實名不是一（一個獨立的存在），只能看到兩個名稱稱呼兩種法，這怎麼能說是中道呢？如果說兩個名稱稱呼兩種法就可以稱為中道，那麼總名和別名這兩個名稱稱呼總法和別法也應該是中道。色法和心法這兩個名稱稱呼色法和心法也應該是中道。如果說因為色法和心法不同，所以不能算是中道，那麼就像三聚（戒聚、定聚、慧聚）和合而成假象一樣，又怎麼能用假象和實相來闡明中道呢？如果說因為相互成就所以稱為中道，那麼色法和心法相互依存，也可以討論中道了。而且，你說『不一不異』是中道，『不一』排除了四大，『不異』排除了假名。排除了假名和實法，用什麼作為中道呢？兩者都排除，那就什麼都沒有了，不能把空無一物的大虛空稱為中道。所以安立中道是沒有任何依據的，這是一種虛妄的說法。下面破除開善法師的觀點。你說『有』，這個『有』是虛妄的『有』。既然說是虛妄的『有』，那麼這個虛妄的『有』的法，怎麼能是中道呢？虛妄的『有』是顛倒的另一種說法，所以不是中道。又說，『即因非即果』所以不是『有』，『非無作果』所以不是『無』，這種非『有』非『無』是俗諦的中道。那麼，這到底是什麼東西的中道呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Although it is neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence,' it appears as 'existence' because it is a provisional existence. When considering all things as a whole, they are identical to true reality (真如實相, zhen ru shi xiang), hence it is said to be not 'existence.' When considering all things as a whole, they are also worldly phenomena, hence it is said to be not 'non-existence.' Therefore, neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence' is the unified Middle Way (中道, zhong dao) of truth (真諦, zhen di) and convention (俗諦, su di). True reality has no specific form, so it is neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence,' and this is the Middle Way of true reality. Conventional reality is based on the illusion of conditioned arising (因緣和合, yin yuan he he). Saying 'it is the cause but not immediately the result,' it is therefore not 'existence'; saying 'it is not that it does not produce a result,' it is therefore not 'non-existence.' This neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence' is the Middle Way of conventional reality. Master Longguang (龍光法師, Long Guang Fa Shi) proposed three kinds of Middle Way, and Master Kaishan (開善法師, Kai Shan Fa Shi) also proposed three kinds of Middle Way. Their expressions are slightly different. Master Zhuo (綽法師, Chuo Fa Shi) holds the two-entity theory, and Master Zang (藏法師, Zang Fa Shi) holds the one-entity theory, but their intentions are the same, belonging to the category of having something to attain, and ultimately they may not be able to escape from nihilism (斷見, duan jian) and eternalism (常見, chang jian). These views need to be refuted one by one. First, refute the view of the Middle Way of conventional reality. You believe that conditioned arising constitutes the Middle Way, provisional names are different from each one (一一, yi yi), and real entities are also different from various differences (異異, yi yi). Then, please tell me, does this 'not different from differences' refer to using two names to call two dharmas, or using one name to call one dharma? If you say that you consider the four elements (四大, si da - earth, water, fire, wind) as 'differences from differences,' using 'differences from differences' to refer to the four elements, and the four elements are actually different, then how can you say 'not different from differences'? How can the name 'not different' be established on provisional names? You say that provisional names are not two ones (二一, er yi - two independent existences), using names to call provisional names, then you cannot use names to refer to real entities. Real names are not one (一, yi - one independent existence), you can only see two names calling two dharmas, how can this be called the Middle Way? If saying that two names calling two dharmas can be called the Middle Way, then the general name and the specific name, these two names calling the general dharma and the specific dharma, should also be the Middle Way. The two names of form (色法, se fa) and mind (心法, xin fa) calling form and mind should also be the Middle Way. If you say that because form and mind are different, they cannot be considered the Middle Way, then just like the three aggregates (三聚, san ju - aggregates of precepts, concentration, and wisdom) combining to form an illusion, how can you use illusion and reality to explain the Middle Way? If you say that because they mutually accomplish each other, they are called the Middle Way, then form and mind are interdependent, and the Middle Way can also be discussed. Moreover, you say that 'neither one nor different' is the Middle Way, 'not one' excludes the four elements, and 'not different' excludes provisional names. Excluding provisional names and real entities, what is used as the Middle Way? If both are excluded, then there is nothing, and the great void (大虛空, da xu kong) of nothingness cannot be called the Middle Way. Therefore, establishing the Middle Way has no basis, and this is a false statement. Now, refute the view of Master Kaishan. You say 'existence,' this 'existence' is a false 'existence.' Since it is said to be a false 'existence,' then how can this dharma of false 'existence' be the Middle Way? False 'existence' is another way of saying delusion (顛倒, dian dao), so it is not the Middle Way. Also saying, 'it is the cause but not immediately the result' so it is not 'existence,' 'it is not that it does not produce a result' so it is not 'non-existence,' this neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence' is the Middle Way of conventional reality. Then, what exactly is the Middle Way of this thing?

。可非似小兒戲耶。睹百草之中。非關佛法之中。正是外道義也。百論云。迦毗羅弟子。誦僧佉經云。泥團非即瓶故非有。非不作瓶故非無。非有無為中道。若爾豈非正是僧佉義耶。次破相續中道。續假雖有三說。人所盛用。後起接前義也。問無常唸唸不住。豈得轉前作後後起續前令前不滅義。彼答云。有為法有二義。一念念滅不論續。二應滅而不滅論相續假也。今謂不然。若言應滅而不滅者。亦應應有而不有。而諸法無非有新新生滅。如居士經云。即生即老即死。寧有應滅而不滅。舉體遂不滅者。復誰滅耶。若舉體滅者。復誰在不滅耶。而滅者剎那唸唸恒滅。不曾不滅。不滅者恒不滅。只見斷常兩片。何得中道。彼謂。一法有此滅不滅二義。故得明中道也。今謂。不然。一法有滅有不滅義者。滅義邊無有一法不滅。舉體消亡。何處有不滅義。辨相續假耶。又汝為是一法為中。為是二名為中。若二名為中。二名詺何物。為目二法為目一法。若二名目二法。只見兩名兩法。何得是中耶。若二名詺一法。只見一法上有兩名。如童子上眼目二名。寧得是中道耶。汝言安何處一法有滅不滅義。安一法上。一法是何物。是心是虛空。是心者。心是事有故非中也。應滅不滅。兩義復相違。故非中也。若一名名中者。如色一名。名一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這難道不像小孩子玩遊戲嗎？觀察百草，與佛法無關，正是外道的義理。《百論》中說，迦毗羅（Kapila，數論派創始人）的弟子誦讀《僧佉經》（Samkhya Sutra，數論派的根本經典）說：『泥團不是瓶子，所以說「非有」；不是不能做成瓶子，所以說「非無」；非有非無是中道。』如果這樣，那豈不正是數論派的義理嗎？其次是破斥相續中道。相續假名雖然有三種說法，但人們最常用的是後起接前義。問：無常是念念不住的，怎麼能把前念轉為后念，讓後起接續前念，使前念不滅呢？他們回答說：『有為法有兩種含義：一是念念滅，不論相續；二是應該滅而不滅，論相續假名。』我（作者）認為不對。如果說應該滅而不滅，也應該說應該有而不有。而諸法沒有不是新新生滅的。如《居士經》（Vimalakirti Sutra，維摩詰經）中說：『即生即老即死。』哪裡有應該滅而不滅的？如果整個形體都不滅，又是誰滅呢？如果整個形體都滅了，又是誰在不滅呢？而滅的剎那唸唸都在恒常地滅，不曾不滅；不滅的恒常不滅。只見斷和常兩種極端，哪裡有中道？他們認為，一法有滅和不滅兩種含義，所以能說明中道。我（作者）認為不對。一法有滅有不滅的含義，滅的方面沒有一法是不滅的，整個形體都消亡了，哪裡有不滅的含義來辨別相續假名呢？而且，你是認為一法是中道，還是認為兩個名稱是中道？如果是兩個名稱是中道，這兩個名稱指稱什麼？是稱呼兩個法，還是稱呼一個法？如果兩個名稱稱呼兩個法，只見兩個名稱和兩個法，怎麼能是中道呢？如果兩個名稱稱呼一個法，只見一個法上有兩個名稱，如童子有『上眼』和『目』兩個名稱，怎麼能是中道呢？你說把一法有滅和不滅的含義安放在哪裡？安放在一法上。這一法是什麼？是心還是虛空？如果是心，心是實有的，所以不是中道。應該滅而不滅，兩種含義又相互矛盾，所以不是中道。如果一個名稱是中道，如『色』一個名稱，稱呼一個 English version: Is this not like children playing games? Observing the myriad plants is unrelated to the Buddhadharma; it is precisely the meaning of externalist (non-Buddhist) doctrines. The Hundred Treatises (Śataśāstra) states that the disciples of Kapila (founder of the Samkhya school) recite the Samkhya Sutra (the fundamental scripture of the Samkhya school), saying: 'A lump of clay is not a pot, therefore it is said to be 'non-existent'; it is not incapable of being made into a pot, therefore it is said to be 'not non-existent'; non-existent and not non-existent is the Middle Way.' If that is the case, is that not precisely the meaning of the Samkhya school? Next is the refutation of the Middle Way of continuity. Although there are three explanations of the provisionality of continuity, the most commonly used is the meaning of the subsequent arising connecting to the preceding. Question: Impermanence is the ceaseless arising and ceasing of thoughts; how can one turn the preceding thought into the subsequent thought, allowing the subsequent arising to continue the preceding, causing the preceding thought not to cease? They answer: 'Conditioned dharmas have two meanings: first, the ceaseless arising and ceasing of thoughts, regardless of continuity; second, that which should cease but does not cease, discussing the provisionality of continuity.' I (the author) believe this is incorrect. If one says that which should cease but does not cease, one should also say that which should exist but does not exist. And all dharmas are without exception newly arising, newly ceasing. As the Vimalakirti Sutra states: 'Immediately born, immediately old, immediately dead.' Where is there that which should cease but does not cease? If the entire form does not cease, then who ceases? If the entire form ceases, then who is it that does not cease? And the moment of cessation is the constant cessation of every thought, never not ceasing; that which does not cease is constantly not ceasing. One only sees the two extremes of permanence and annihilation; where is the Middle Way? They believe that one dharma has both the meaning of ceasing and not ceasing, therefore it can explain the Middle Way. I (the author) believe this is incorrect. If one dharma has the meaning of ceasing and not ceasing, on the side of ceasing there is no dharma that does not cease; the entire form vanishes. Where is the meaning of not ceasing to distinguish the provisionality of continuity? Moreover, do you consider one dharma to be the Middle Way, or do you consider two names to be the Middle Way? If two names are the Middle Way, what do these two names refer to? Do they refer to two dharmas, or do they refer to one dharma? If two names refer to two dharmas, one only sees two names and two dharmas; how can that be the Middle Way? If two names refer to one dharma, one only sees two names on one dharma, like a child having two names, 'upper eye' and 'eye'; how can that be the Middle Way? You say, where do you place the meaning of one dharma having ceasing and not ceasing? You place it on one dharma. What is this one dharma? Is it mind or emptiness? If it is mind, mind is substantial, therefore it is not the Middle Way. That which should cease but does not cease, the two meanings contradict each other, therefore it is not the Middle Way. If one name is the Middle Way, like the one name 'form,' referring to one

【English Translation】 Is this not like children playing games? Observing the myriad plants is unrelated to the Buddhadharma; it is precisely the meaning of externalist (non-Buddhist) doctrines. The Hundred Treatises (Śataśāstra) states that the disciples of Kapila (founder of the Samkhya school) recite the Samkhya Sutra (the fundamental scripture of the Samkhya school), saying: 'A lump of clay is not a pot, therefore it is said to be 'non-existent'; it is not incapable of being made into a pot, therefore it is said to be 'not non-existent'; non-existent and not non-existent is the Middle Way.' If that is the case, is that not precisely the meaning of the Samkhya school? Next is the refutation of the Middle Way of continuity. Although there are three explanations of the provisionality of continuity, the most commonly used is the meaning of the subsequent arising connecting to the preceding. Question: Impermanence is the ceaseless arising and ceasing of thoughts; how can one turn the preceding thought into the subsequent thought, allowing the subsequent arising to continue the preceding, causing the preceding thought not to cease? They answer: 'Conditioned dharmas have two meanings: first, the ceaseless arising and ceasing of thoughts, regardless of continuity; second, that which should cease but does not cease, discussing the provisionality of continuity.' I (the author) believe this is incorrect. If one says that which should cease but does not cease, one should also say that which should exist but does not exist. And all dharmas are without exception newly arising, newly ceasing. As the Vimalakirti Sutra states: 'Immediately born, immediately old, immediately dead.' Where is there that which should cease but does not cease? If the entire form does not cease, then who ceases? If the entire form ceases, then who is it that does not cease? And the moment of cessation is the constant cessation of every thought, never not ceasing; that which does not cease is constantly not ceasing. One only sees the two extremes of permanence and annihilation; where is the Middle Way? They believe that one dharma has both the meaning of ceasing and not ceasing, therefore it can explain the Middle Way. I (the author) believe this is incorrect. If one dharma has the meaning of ceasing and not ceasing, on the side of ceasing there is no dharma that does not cease; the entire form vanishes. Where is the meaning of not ceasing to distinguish the provisionality of continuity? Moreover, do you consider one dharma to be the Middle Way, or do you consider two names to be the Middle Way? If two names are the Middle Way, what do these two names refer to? Do they refer to two dharmas, or do they refer to one dharma? If two names refer to two dharmas, one only sees two names and two dharmas; how can that be the Middle Way? If two names refer to one dharma, one only sees two names on one dharma, like a child having two names, 'upper eye' and 'eye'; how can that be the Middle Way? You say, where do you place the meaning of one dharma having ceasing and not ceasing? You place it on one dharma. What is this one dharma? Is it mind or emptiness? If it is mind, mind is substantial, therefore it is not the Middle Way. That which should cease but does not cease, the two meanings contradict each other, therefore it is not the Middle Way. If one name is the Middle Way, like the one name 'form,' referring to one

色亦應是中道。如向無與向有二義上兩名目者。只見二名詺二義。不見中道。若兩除則無所。無所何為中也。次破相侍假明中。彼云。因成假為體。相續為用。相侍為法立名。若言假故不真不真是虛稱當於理不虛者。此假虛是當理。當理故不虛。以何言耶。若言外道說為虛故不此虛者。他假不當稱理。汝假當理之假虛。不虛不真安何處耶。又若約長短明中者。亦不然。以五尺為短一丈為長。長自在長不在於短。短自在短不在於長。只見長短兩片。中名出何處耶。若長自長長則不須短者。亦應只用長成於中。若不爾者。二物共為一長。二物共長。定是誰長耶。又言不短不長不彼不此名為中者。此則成兩除。則無所。無所何名為中。如是應廣破。如論品品悉破相待。自現於文中。如燃可燃品中破也。次破真諦中道。彼云。真不生不滅無相無名。所以寄名名真。無而非無。有而非有。寄名名中道也。今云不然。若言真無名寄名名真為中者。有能寄有所寄。以不。若有所寄即有所名物。若無所寄非能非所者。則無真理。則同邪見也。若言真是世諦假名寄名真諦者。世諦虛假。何者為真。真名為實。世諦浮虛。何得名實。又真諦絕名。何勞須寄名。名若可寄。則不應絕。絕則不須寄也。又行人尋真得真。得云何名中道。若寄名名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本色（Rūpa，物質）也應該是中道。比如，『向無』（沒有朝向）和『向有』（有朝向）這兩種意義上的兩個名稱，僅僅是針對這兩個名稱和兩種意義而言，並沒有見到中道。如果將兩者都去除，那就什麼都沒有了。什麼都沒有，又怎麼能說是中道呢？接下來破斥『相待假』（相互依存的假象）來闡明中道。他們說，因為『成假』（形成假象）是本體，『相續』（連續不斷）是作用，『相侍』（相互依存）是建立名稱的方法。如果說因為是『假』所以不真，不真就是虛假的稱謂，那麼在道理上不虛假的是什麼呢？如果這個『假』是符合道理的，符合道理所以不虛假，這是根據什麼說的呢？如果說外道所說是虛假的，所以這個『假』不是虛假的，他們的『假』不符合道理，你的『假』是符合道理的假，不虛假也不真實，那又在哪裡呢？還有，如果用長短來闡明中道，也是不對的。用五尺作為短，一丈作為長，長自在於是長，不在於短；短自在於是短，不在於長。僅僅看到長短這兩個方面，『中』這個名稱從哪裡來的呢？如果長自己就是長，長就不需要短，那麼就應該只用長來成就中道。如果不是這樣，兩種事物共同成為一個長，兩種事物共同長，那麼究竟是誰長呢？又說，不短不長，不彼不此，叫做中道，這就會變成兩者都去除，那就什麼都沒有了。什麼都沒有，又怎麼能叫做中道呢？像這樣應該廣泛地破斥。就像《論》中每一品都破斥『相待』（相互依存），自然會在文中顯現。就像《燃可燃品》中破斥的那樣。接下來破斥真諦中道。他們說，真（Satya，真理）不生不滅，沒有形象，沒有名稱，所以借用名稱叫做『真』，無而不是沒有，有而不是有，借用名稱叫做中道。現在說，不是這樣的。如果說『真』沒有名稱，借用名稱叫做『真』為中道，那麼有能借用的和所借用的嗎？如果有能借用的和所借用的，那就有所命名的事物。如果沒有能借用的和所借用的，那就既不是能，也不是所，那就沒有真理，那就等同於邪見了。如果說『真』是世諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）的假名，借用名稱叫做真諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦），世諦是虛假的，那麼什麼是真呢？真這個名稱是真實，世諦是虛浮的，怎麼能叫做真實呢？而且真諦是超越名稱的，何必需要借用名稱呢？名稱如果可以借用，那就不應該超越。超越了，就不需要借用了。還有，修行人尋求真理得到真理，得到又怎麼能叫做中道呢？如果借用名稱叫做

【English Translation】 English version Rūpa (form, matter) should also be the Middle Way. For example, with the two terms 'towards non-existence' (absence of direction) and 'towards existence' (presence of direction), one only sees the two names designating the two meanings, and does not see the Middle Way. If both are removed, then there is nothing. If there is nothing, how can it be the Middle Way? Next, refuting the 'dependent origination' (相待假) to clarify the Middle Way. They say that 'forming a false appearance' (成假) is the substance, 'continuous succession' (相續) is the function, and 'mutual dependence' (相侍) is the method for establishing names. If it is said that because it is 'false' it is not true, and not true is a false designation, then what is it that is not false in principle? If this 'false' is in accordance with reason, and in accordance with reason it is not false, according to what is this said? If it is said that what the heretics say is false, so this 'false' is not false, their 'false' does not accord with reason, your 'false' is a false that accords with reason, neither false nor true, then where is it? Furthermore, if one uses length to clarify the Middle Way, that is also not right. Using five feet as short and ten feet as long, long is long in itself and not dependent on short; short is short in itself and not dependent on long. One only sees the two aspects of long and short, where does the name 'middle' come from? If long is long by itself, and long does not need short, then one should only use long to accomplish the Middle Way. If it is not like this, two things together become one long, two things together are long, then who is long? Also, saying that not short, not long, not that, not this, is called the Middle Way, this will become both removed, then there is nothing. If there is nothing, how can it be called the Middle Way? Like this, one should widely refute. Just as in each chapter of the Treatise (論), 'dependent origination' (相待) is refuted, it will naturally appear in the text. Just like the refutation in the Fuel and Combustible chapter. Next, refuting the Middle Way of ultimate truth. They say that Truth (Satya, 真) is neither born nor dies, has no form, has no name, so it borrows a name and is called 'Truth' (真), non-existent but not without existence, existent but not with existence, borrows a name and is called the Middle Way. Now I say, it is not like this. If it is said that 'Truth' (真) has no name, borrowing a name is called 'Truth' (真) as the Middle Way, then is there that which can borrow and that which is borrowed? If there is that which can borrow and that which is borrowed, then there is a named thing. If there is nothing that can borrow and nothing that is borrowed, then it is neither the able nor the object, then there is no truth, then it is the same as a heretical view. If it is said that 'Truth' (真) is a false name of conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya, 世諦), borrowing a name is called ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya, 真諦), conventional truth is false, then what is true? The name Truth (真) is reality, conventional truth is fleeting and empty, how can it be called reality? Moreover, ultimate truth transcends names, why is it necessary to borrow a name? If a name can be borrowed, then it should not transcend. If it transcends, then it is not necessary to borrow. Furthermore, a practitioner seeks truth and obtains truth, how can obtaining be called the Middle Way? If borrowing a name is called

真。所寄之理不可寄者。只不可寄是名。何謂是無名也。若寄名詺真。真理無名無相者。亦不應言智會真。真不被會故。亦無人會真斷結。若言實理可會者。亦應實理有名。若言世諦有中真理無中不中。此乃是世諦中道。真理無中。云何言真諦中道。開善義。本言虛體則無相無相是真諦者。虛是俗理。無相是真理。既有二理。即是二物。云何是中道也。又真理非有非無而無也。此而無之無。非無為無。既言非無。那是無。若言對有之無。此無是偏無。故非中也。次破合二諦辨中道。彼言。世諦言非無真諦言非有。非有非無合明中道也。今謂不然。既言兩舍。何名中道。又非無則是有世諦。非有隻是真諦無。兩名兩處。兩名兩處不同。何得名中道耶。開善義。本云。舉體即真故非有。舉體即俗故非無。則非有非無真俗一中道也。今云不然。既言舉體即真。即是無相。無名則失俗。復有何物而言相即。非有非無為中道耶。故雖有三種中道。撿之無所無當。故但有語言。非佛法中道也。次破地論中道。彼云。阿梨耶識本來不生不滅。古今常定。非始非終。但違真故起妄想。故。彼云。六識熾惱。隨覆梨耶名為如來藏。后修十地之解。分分斷除妄想六識。六識既盡。妄想之解亦除。顯真成用名為法身。譬如風起云除風息皎日獨

【現代漢語翻譯】真。所寄託的真理是無法寄託的。正因為無法寄託，所以才稱之為『名』。什麼是『無名』呢？如果寄託于名來稱說『真』，那麼真理本應是無名無相的。因此，也不應該說智慧能夠領會『真』，因為『真』是無法被領會的。也沒有人能夠通過領會『真』來斷除煩惱。如果說實在的道理可以被領會，那麼實在的道理也應該是有名的。如果說世俗諦是有，真諦是無，不有不無是中道，這只是世俗諦的中道。真理本是無，怎麼能說是真諦的中道呢？開善義的根本意思是，虛幻的本體就是無相，無相就是真諦。虛是世俗的道理，無相是真理。既然有二種道理，那就是二種事物，怎麼能說是中道呢？而且，真理既非有也非無，而是一種『無』。這種『而無』的『無』，不是無為的『無』。既然說『非無』，那又是什麼『無』呢？如果說是相對於『有』的『無』，這種『無』是偏頗的『無』，所以不是中道。接下來破斥合二諦來辨析中道。他們說，世俗諦說『非無』，真諦說『非有』，『非有非無』合起來說明中道。我認為不是這樣。既然說是兩邊都捨棄，怎麼能叫中道呢？而且，『非無』就是『有』，是世俗諦；『非有』只是真諦的『無』。兩個名稱在兩個地方，兩個名稱和兩個地方不同，怎麼能叫中道呢？開善義的根本意思是，整個本體就是真，所以『非有』；整個本體就是俗，所以『非無』。『非有非無』就是真俗一體的中道。我認為不是這樣。既然說整個本體就是真，那就是無相無名，那就失去了世俗。又有什麼東西可以稱之為相即呢？『非有非無』怎麼能是中道呢？所以，雖然有三種中道，考察起來沒有一個是恰當的。所以只有語言，不是佛法的中道。接下來破斥《地論》的中道。他們說，阿梨耶識（Alaya-vijnana，藏識）本來不生不滅，自古至今恒常不變，沒有開始也沒有終結。只是因為違背了真理，才生起妄想。所以，他們說，六識（six consciousnesses）熾盛煩惱，覆蓋阿梨耶識，就叫做如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來藏）。後來通過修習十地（Ten Bhumis）的解脫，逐漸斷除妄想和六識。六識既然斷盡，妄想的束縛也解除，顯現真如的作用，就叫做法身（Dharmakaya，法身）。譬如風起雲涌，云消散后，皎潔的太陽獨自顯現。

【English Translation】 Truth. The principle that is entrusted cannot be entrusted. It is precisely because it cannot be entrusted that it is called 'name'. What is 'no-name'? If one relies on name to speak of 'truth', then the truth should be nameless and formless. Therefore, it should not be said that wisdom can comprehend 'truth', because 'truth' cannot be comprehended. Nor can anyone sever afflictions by comprehending 'truth'. If it is said that the real principle can be comprehended, then the real principle should also have a name. If it is said that conventional truth is existence, and ultimate truth is non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle Way, this is only the Middle Way of conventional truth. The truth is originally non-existence, how can it be said to be the Middle Way of ultimate truth? The fundamental meaning of the Kai Shan commentary is that the illusory essence is formlessness, and formlessness is ultimate truth. Illusion is the conventional principle, and formlessness is the ultimate truth. Since there are two principles, then there are two things, how can it be said to be the Middle Way? Moreover, truth is neither existence nor non-existence, but a kind of 'non-existence'. This 'non-existence' is not the 'non-existence' of non-action. Since it is said 'not non-existence', then what 'non-existence' is it? If it is said to be 'non-existence' relative to 'existence', this 'non-existence' is a biased 'non-existence', so it is not the Middle Way. Next, refuting the combination of the two truths to analyze the Middle Way. They say that conventional truth says 'not non-existence', and ultimate truth says 'not existence', and 'neither existence nor non-existence' together explains the Middle Way. I think it is not like this. Since it is said that both sides are abandoned, how can it be called the Middle Way? Moreover, 'not non-existence' is 'existence', which is conventional truth; 'not existence' is only the 'non-existence' of ultimate truth. Two names are in two places, two names and two places are different, how can it be called the Middle Way? The fundamental meaning of the Kai Shan commentary is that the entire essence is truth, so 'not existence'; the entire essence is conventional, so 'not non-existence'. 'Neither existence nor non-existence' is the Middle Way of the unity of truth and conventionality. I think it is not like this. Since it is said that the entire essence is truth, that is formlessness and namelessness, then it loses conventionality. What else can be called identity? How can 'neither existence nor non-existence' be the Middle Way? Therefore, although there are three kinds of Middle Way, upon examination, none of them are appropriate. So there are only words, not the Middle Way of the Buddha-dharma. Next, refuting the Middle Way in the Treatise on the Stages of the Earth (Dashabhumika-sutra). They say that the Alaya-vijnana (store consciousness) is originally neither born nor destroyed, constant from ancient times to the present, without beginning or end. It is only because it goes against the truth that delusion arises. Therefore, they say that the six consciousnesses are intensely afflicted, covering the Alaya-vijnana, which is called the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha-nature). Later, through the practice of the Ten Bhumis (ten stages of bodhisattva path), delusion and the six consciousnesses are gradually eliminated. Since the six consciousnesses are completely eliminated, the bondage of delusion is also removed, and the function of true thusness is revealed, which is called the Dharmakaya (Dharma body). It is like when the wind rises and the clouds surge, and after the clouds dissipate, the bright sun appears alone.

朗。法身既顯。有諸應能。所以不生現生。不滅現滅不因不果。因果等諸用非一。故經云。佛真法身猶如虛空。應物現形如水中月也。今謂不然。法身本有。為何因可得。若為因得則非本有。無因則同外道義。若言本有。何以名中道耶。又本來有此四句百非清凈法。自應遣顛倒。那急為煩惱所覆。后修得十地之解。尚能遣煩惱。本來常定法身。不能遣之。翻成未之修解卻惑。本即不能未亦不能也。今大乘無所得義。約八不明三種中道。言方新舊不同。而意無異趣也。山中師對寂正作之。語待不語不語待語。語不語並是相待假名。故假語不名語。假不語不名不語。不名不語不為無。不名語不為有。即是不有不無世諦中道。但相待假故。可有說生可無說滅。故以生滅合為世諦也。真諦亦然。假不語不名不語。假非不語不名非不語。不名非不語。不為非不無。不名不語。不為非不有。則是非不有非不無真諦中道也。相待假故。可有說不滅。可無說不生。即是不生不滅故合為真諦也。二諦合明中道者。假語不名語。假不語不名不語。非語非不語。即是非有非不有非無非不無二諦合明中道也。生滅不生滅合明。類此可尋也。今明。必須對他故起。他有有可有。則有生可生。有滅可滅。有生可生。生是定生。有滅可滅。滅是定滅。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：朗（指明亮、清晰）。法身（Dharmakaya，佛的真身）既然已經顯現，就具備各種應化之能力。因此，說它不生而能顯現生，不滅而能顯現滅，不依賴於因，也不依賴於果。因、果等各種作用並非單一不變。所以經書上說：『佛的真法身猶如虛空，應物而顯現各種形態，就像水中之月一樣。』現在有人說不是這樣。法身如果是本來就有的，那麼又是因為什麼原因才能得到呢？如果是因為某種原因而得到，那就不是本來就有的。如果沒有原因，那就和外道的觀點一樣了。如果說是本來就有的，那又為什麼稱之為中道呢？而且，本來就具有這四句百非（指否定一切的四種句式）的清凈法，自然應該去除顛倒妄想。怎麼反而被煩惱所覆蓋呢？後來通過修行獲得十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）的智慧，尚且能夠去除煩惱，而本來就常住不動的法身，卻不能去除煩惱，反而變成了沒有修行和理解就迷惑了。這樣說來，本來不能去除，沒有修行也不能去除啊。現在大乘的無所得之義，是根據八不（不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不異，不來不去）和三種中道（世諦中道、真諦中道、二諦合明中道）來說明的。雖然說法的新舊不同，但意思並沒有什麼差異。山中的老師對寂正（人名）這樣說：『說話等待不說話，不說話等待說話。說話和不說話都是相互依賴的假名。所以，假說的『語』不能稱為真正的『語』，假說的『不語』也不能稱為真正的『不語』。不稱為『不語』，並不是沒有；不稱為『語』，並不是有。』這就是不有不無的世諦中道。因為是相互依賴的假象，所以可以說有生，也可以說有滅。因此將生滅合起來作為世諦。真諦也是這樣。假說的『不語』不能稱為真正的『不語』，假說的『非不語』不能稱為真正的『非不語』。不稱為『非不語』，並不是非不無；不稱為『不語』，並不是非不有。這就是非不有非不無的真諦中道。因為是相互依賴的假象，所以可以說不滅，也可以說不生。因此將不生不滅合起來作為真諦。二諦合起來說明中道，就是說：假說的『語』不能稱為真正的『語』，假說的『不語』不能稱為真正的『不語』，既不是語也不是不語，這就是非有非不有、非無非不無的二諦合明中道。生滅和不生不滅合起來說明中道，可以依此類推。現在說明，必須因為有『他』（相對的一方）才會有『起』（產生）。『他』有『有』，才會有『可有』，那麼有生才會有可生，有滅才會有可滅。有生可生，那麼生就是確定的生；有滅可滅，那麼滅就是確定的滅。

【English Translation】 English version: Lang (meaning bright, clear). Since the Dharmakaya (the true body of the Buddha) has manifested, it possesses all kinds of responsive abilities. Therefore, it is said that it manifests birth without being born, and manifests cessation without ceasing, neither depending on cause nor on effect. The functions of cause, effect, and so on, are not singular and unchanging. Therefore, the scriptures say: 'The true Dharmakaya of the Buddha is like empty space, manifesting forms in response to things, like the moon in water.' Now some say it is not like this. If the Dharmakaya is originally existent, then what cause can lead to its attainment? If it is attained through some cause, then it is not originally existent. If there is no cause, then it is the same as the views of the heretics. If it is said to be originally existent, then why is it called the Middle Way? Moreover, the pure Dharma that originally possesses these four negations (referring to the four types of negation that deny everything) should naturally remove inverted thoughts. How can it be covered by afflictions instead? Later, through cultivation, one attains the wisdom of the Ten Grounds (the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice), which can still remove afflictions, but the Dharmakaya, which is originally constant and unmoving, cannot remove them, and instead becomes confused without cultivation and understanding. In this case, it cannot remove them originally, nor can it remove them without cultivation. Now, the meaning of 'no attainment' in Mahayana is explained based on the Eight No's (no birth, no death, no permanence, no cessation, no oneness, no difference, no coming, no going) and the Three Middle Ways (the Middle Way of Conventional Truth, the Middle Way of Ultimate Truth, and the Middle Way of the Combination of the Two Truths). Although the ways of speaking are different between the old and the new, the meaning is not different. The teacher in the mountain said to Ji Zheng (a person's name): 'Speaking waits for not speaking, and not speaking waits for speaking. Speaking and not speaking are mutually dependent false names. Therefore, the 'speaking' that is falsely said cannot be called true 'speaking', and the 'not speaking' that is falsely said cannot be called true 'not speaking'. Not being called 'not speaking' does not mean it is non-existent; not being called 'speaking' does not mean it is existent.' This is the Middle Way of Conventional Truth, which is neither existent nor non-existent. Because it is a mutually dependent phenomenon, it can be said to have birth, and it can be said to have cessation. Therefore, birth and cessation are combined as Conventional Truth. The Ultimate Truth is also like this. The 'not speaking' that is falsely said cannot be called true 'not speaking', and the 'not not speaking' that is falsely said cannot be called true 'not not speaking'. Not being called 'not not speaking' does not mean it is not non-existent; not being called 'not speaking' does not mean it is not existent. This is the Middle Way of Ultimate Truth, which is neither not existent nor not non-existent. Because it is a mutually dependent phenomenon, it can be said to have no cessation, and it can be said to have no birth. Therefore, no birth and no cessation are combined as Ultimate Truth. Combining the Two Truths to explain the Middle Way means that the 'speaking' that is falsely said cannot be called true 'speaking', and the 'not speaking' that is falsely said cannot be called true 'not speaking', which is neither speaking nor not speaking. This is the Middle Way of the Combination of the Two Truths, which is neither existent nor not existent, neither non-existent nor not non-existent. Combining birth and cessation with no birth and no cessation to explain the Middle Way can be inferred in a similar way. Now it is explained that 'arising' must occur because of the presence of 'other' (the relative side). If 'other' has 'existence', then there will be 'possible existence', so if there is birth, there will be possible birth, and if there is cessation, there will be possible cessation. If there is birth that can be born, then birth is definite birth; if there is cessation that can be ceased, then cessation is definite cessation.

生是定生。生在滅外。滅是定滅。滅在生外。生在滅外。生不待滅。滅在生外。滅不待生。生不待滅。生則獨存。滅不待生。滅則孤立。如斯生滅。皆是自性。非因緣義宗也。今則不爾。無有可有。以空故有。無生可生。亦無滅可滅。但以世諦故。假名說生滅。假生生非定生。假滅滅非定滅。生非定生滅外無生。滅非定滅生外無滅。滅外無生由滅故生。生外無滅由生故滅。由滅故生。生不獨存。由生故滅。滅不孤立。此之生滅。皆是因緣假名。因緣生生而不起。所以不生。因緣滅滅而不失。所以不滅。故不生不滅名為世諦中道也。余句例之可尋。不復具出也。次明。對世諦有生滅故。名真諦不生不滅。所以空有為世諦假生假滅。有空為真諦假不生假不滅。此不生不滅。非自不生不滅。待世諦假生滅。明真諦假不生滅。世諦假生滅既非生滅。真諦假不生滅亦非不生滅。故非不生非不滅為真諦中道也。余句不例之可知也。次明二諦閤中道者。有為世諦有生有滅。空為真諦不生不滅。此不生滅。即是生滅不生滅。此生滅。即是不生滅生滅。不生滅生滅。是則非生滅。生滅不生滅。是即非不生滅。故非生滅非不生滅。是二諦合明中道也。生滅既爾。余句應例可解也。又論釋不常不斷。文言。有人不受不生不滅。而信不常不斷也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『生是定生。生在滅外。滅是定滅。滅在生外。』——意思是說，如果『生』是固定不變的『生』（Śūnyatā），那麼它就存在於『滅』（nirodha）之外；如果『滅』是固定不變的『滅』，那麼它就存在於『生』之外。『生在滅外。生不待滅。滅在生外。滅不待生。』——『生』存在於『滅』之外，所以『生』不需要等待『滅』；『滅』存在於『生』之外，所以『滅』不需要等待『生』。『生不待滅。生則獨存。滅不待生。滅則孤立。』——『生』不需要等待『滅』，所以『生』可以獨自存在；『滅』不需要等待『生』，所以『滅』可以孤立存在。『如斯生滅。皆是自性。非因緣義宗也。』——像這樣的『生』和『滅』，都是各自獨立的自性（svabhāva），而不是因緣（hetu-pratyaya）和合的意義。『今則不爾。無有可有。以空故有。無生可生。亦無滅可滅。』——但現在不是這樣。沒有什麼可以被認為是真實存在的，因為一切都是空（Śūnyatā）性的，所以才顯現有；沒有什麼可以被認為是真實產生的，也沒有什麼可以被認為是真實消滅的。『但以世諦故。假名說生滅。』——只是因為世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）的緣故，才假名安立『生』和『滅』。『假生生非定生。假滅滅非定滅。』——虛假的『生』並不是固定不變的『生』，虛假的『滅』也不是固定不變的『滅』。『生非定生滅外無生。滅非定滅生外無滅。』——『生』不是固定不變的『生』，所以在『滅』之外沒有『生』；『滅』不是固定不變的『滅』，所以在『生』之外沒有『滅』。『滅外無生由滅故生。生外無滅由生故滅。』——在『滅』之外沒有『生』，因為由『滅』的緣故才顯現『生』；在『生』之外沒有『滅』，因為由『生』的緣故才顯現『滅』。『由滅故生。生不獨存。由生故滅。滅不孤立。』——因為由『滅』的緣故才顯現『生』，所以『生』不能獨自存在；因為由『生』的緣故才顯現『滅』，所以『滅』不能孤立存在。『此之生滅。皆是因緣假名。』——這樣的『生』和『滅』，都是因緣和合的假名安立。『因緣生生而不起。所以不生。因緣滅滅而不失。所以不滅。』——因緣和合而顯現的『生』，實際上並沒有真正產生，所以說它是不生的；因緣和合而顯現的『滅』，實際上並沒有真正消失，所以說它是不滅的。『故不生不滅名為世諦中道也。』——所以，不生不滅就稱為世俗諦中的中道。『余句例之可尋。不復具出也。』——其餘的句子可以依此類推，不再一一詳細解釋。『次明。對世諦有生滅故。名真諦不生不滅。』——接下來闡明，因為相對於世俗諦的『有生有滅』，所以才說勝義諦（paramārtha-satya）是『不生不滅』。『所以空有為世諦假生假滅。有空為真諦假不生假不滅。』——因此，『空』和『有』是世俗諦的假『生』假『滅』，『有』和『空』是勝義諦的假『不生』假『不滅』。『此不生不滅。非自不生不滅。待世諦假生滅。明真諦假不生滅。』——這個『不生不滅』，不是自身本來就不生不滅，而是相對於世俗諦的假『生』假『滅』，才顯明勝義諦的假『不生』假『不滅』。『世諦假生滅既非生滅。真諦假不生滅亦非不生滅。』——世俗諦的假『生』假『滅』既然不是真正的『生』『滅』，那麼勝義諦的假『不生』假『不滅』也不是真正的不『生』不『滅』。『故非不生非不滅為真諦中道也。』——所以，非不生非不滅就是勝義諦的中道。『余句不例之可知也。』——其餘的句子不依此類推也可以明白。『次明二諦閤中道者。有為世諦有生有滅。空為真諦不生不滅。』——接下來闡明二諦和合的中道：『有』是世俗諦，有生有滅；『空』是勝義諦，不生不滅。『此不生滅。即是生滅不生滅。此生滅。即是不生滅生滅。』——這個『不生滅』，就是『生滅』中的『不生滅』；這個『生滅』，就是『不生滅』中的『生滅』。『不生滅生滅。是則非生滅。生滅不生滅。是即非不生滅。』——『不生滅』和『生滅』，就不是單純的『生滅』；『生滅』和『不生滅』，就不是單純的『不生滅』。『故非生滅非不生滅。是二諦合明中道也。』——所以，非生滅非不生滅，這是二諦和合闡明的中道。『生滅既爾。余句應例可解也。』——『生滅』是這樣，其餘的句子應該依此類推可以理解。『又論釋不常不斷。文言。有人不受不生不滅。而信不常不斷也』——另外，論中解釋『不常不斷』，文中說：有人不接受『不生不滅』的觀點，卻相信『不常不斷』的說法。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Birth is fixed birth. Birth is outside cessation. Cessation is fixed cessation. Cessation is outside birth.' - This means if 'birth' (Śūnyatā) is a fixed and unchanging 'birth', then it exists outside of 'cessation' (nirodha); if 'cessation' is a fixed and unchanging 'cessation', then it exists outside of 'birth'. 'Birth is outside cessation. Birth does not await cessation. Cessation is outside birth. Cessation does not await birth.' - 'Birth' exists outside of 'cessation', so 'birth' does not need to wait for 'cessation'; 'cessation' exists outside of 'birth', so 'cessation' does not need to wait for 'birth'. 'Birth does not await cessation. Birth then exists alone. Cessation does not await birth. Cessation then stands isolated.' - 'Birth' does not need to wait for 'cessation', so 'birth' can exist independently; 'cessation' does not need to wait for 'birth', so 'cessation' can exist in isolation. 'Such birth and cessation are all self-nature. They are not the meaning of dependent origination.' - Such 'birth' and 'cessation' are all independent self-natures (svabhāva), and not the meaning of the aggregation of conditions (hetu-pratyaya). 'Now it is not so. There is nothing that can be had. Because of emptiness, there is existence. There is no birth to be born. There is also no cessation to be ceased.' - But now it is not like that. There is nothing that can be considered truly existent, because everything is empty (Śūnyatā), so it appears to exist; there is nothing that can be considered truly produced, and there is nothing that can be considered truly ceased. 'But because of conventional truth, birth and cessation are nominally spoken of.' - It is only because of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) that 'birth' and 'cessation' are nominally established. 'False birth is not fixed birth. False cessation is not fixed cessation.' - False 'birth' is not a fixed and unchanging 'birth', and false 'cessation' is not a fixed and unchanging 'cessation'. 'Birth is not fixed birth; outside cessation, there is no birth. Cessation is not fixed cessation; outside birth, there is no cessation.' - 'Birth' is not a fixed and unchanging 'birth', so outside of 'cessation', there is no 'birth'; 'cessation' is not a fixed and unchanging 'cessation', so outside of 'birth', there is no 'cessation'. 'Outside cessation, there is no birth; because of cessation, there is birth. Outside birth, there is no cessation; because of birth, there is cessation.' - Outside of 'cessation', there is no 'birth', because 'birth' appears because of 'cessation'; outside of 'birth', there is no 'cessation', because 'cessation' appears because of 'birth'. 'Because of cessation, there is birth; birth does not exist alone. Because of birth, there is cessation; cessation does not stand isolated.' - Because 'birth' appears because of 'cessation', 'birth' cannot exist independently; because 'cessation' appears because of 'birth', 'cessation' cannot exist in isolation. 'This birth and cessation are all nominal designations of dependent origination.' - Such 'birth' and 'cessation' are all nominal designations of dependent origination. 'Birth arises from conditions, yet does not arise. Therefore, it is not born. Cessation ceases from conditions, yet is not lost. Therefore, it is not ceased.' - The 'birth' that appears from the aggregation of conditions does not actually arise, so it is said to be unborn; the 'cessation' that appears from the aggregation of conditions does not actually disappear, so it is said to be unceased. 'Therefore, non-birth and non-cessation are called the Middle Way in conventional truth.' - Therefore, non-birth and non-cessation are called the Middle Way in conventional truth. 'The remaining sentences can be found by analogy. They will not be fully explained.' - The remaining sentences can be understood by analogy and will not be explained in detail. 'Next, it is explained that because conventional truth has birth and cessation, ultimate truth is called non-birth and non-cessation.' - Next, it is explained that because conventional truth has 'birth and cessation', ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is said to be 'non-birth and non-cessation'. 'Therefore, emptiness and existence are false birth and false cessation in conventional truth. Existence and emptiness are false non-birth and false non-cessation in ultimate truth.' - Therefore, 'emptiness' and 'existence' are false 'birth' and false 'cessation' in conventional truth, and 'existence' and 'emptiness' are false 'non-birth' and false 'non-cessation' in ultimate truth. 'This non-birth and non-cessation are not self-non-birth and non-cessation. They await the false birth and cessation of conventional truth to clarify the false non-birth and non-cessation of ultimate truth.' - This 'non-birth and non-cessation' is not inherently non-birth and non-cessation, but relative to the false 'birth' and false 'cessation' of conventional truth, the false 'non-birth' and false 'non-cessation' of ultimate truth are clarified. 'Since the false birth and cessation of conventional truth are neither birth nor cessation, the false non-birth and non-cessation of ultimate truth are also neither non-birth nor non-cessation.' - Since the false 'birth' and false 'cessation' of conventional truth are not true 'birth' and 'cessation', the false 'non-birth' and false 'non-cessation' of ultimate truth are also not truly non-'birth' and non-'cessation'. 'Therefore, neither non-birth nor non-cessation is the Middle Way of ultimate truth.' - Therefore, neither non-birth nor non-cessation is the Middle Way of ultimate truth. 'The remaining sentences can be understood without analogy.' - The remaining sentences can be understood without analogy. 'Next, it is explained that the Middle Way combines the two truths. Existence is conventional truth, with birth and cessation. Emptiness is ultimate truth, without birth and cessation.' - Next, it is explained that the Middle Way combines the two truths: 'Existence' is conventional truth, with birth and cessation; 'emptiness' is ultimate truth, without birth and cessation. 'This non-birth and cessation are the non-birth and cessation within birth and cessation. This birth and cessation are the birth and cessation within non-birth and cessation.' - This 'non-birth and cessation' is the 'non-birth and cessation' within 'birth and cessation'; this 'birth and cessation' is the 'birth and cessation' within 'non-birth and cessation'. 'Non-birth and cessation with birth and cessation are therefore not birth and cessation. Birth and cessation with non-birth and cessation are therefore not non-birth and cessation.' - 'Non-birth and cessation' and 'birth and cessation' are not simply 'birth and cessation'; 'birth and cessation' and 'non-birth and cessation' are not simply 'non-birth and cessation'. 'Therefore, neither birth and cessation nor non-birth and cessation is the Middle Way that combines the two truths.' - Therefore, neither birth and cessation nor non-birth and cessation is the Middle Way that combines the two truths. 'Since birth and cessation are like this, the remaining sentences should be understood by analogy.' - Since 'birth and cessation' are like this, the remaining sentences should be understood by analogy. 'Also, the treatise explains not permanent and not discontinuous. The text says, 'Some people do not accept non-birth and non-cessation but believe in not permanent and not discontinuous.'' - Also, the treatise explains 'not permanent and not discontinuous'. The text says: 'Some people do not accept the view of 'non-birth and non-cessation' but believe in the statement of 'not permanent and not discontinuous'.

。成實師釋文云。以相續故常。唸唸生滅不自顧為斷。以見斷常故。所以不信不常不斷。須廣破。如前說也。論言。有人不受不生不滅。而信不常不斷者。一云。不受不生不滅者。即是悟不生不滅。而於不常不斷等未悟故。言而信不常不斷。以見有斷常故也。二云。長安影法師云。非是不信不常不斷。但自有人得悟不同。解心未遍。雖知諸法不生不滅。而未悟不常不斷。如前說也。今謂。諸法究竟不生。理自不滅。以不生故。何得有常。以無常故。何得有斷。若望論文后解為勝。文言。雖聞不生不滅與不常不斷。猶謂四門成諸法故也。若例者。雖聞不生不滅。猶謂六門成諸法者未悟也。故大品經相行品云。行亦不受不行亦不受。行不行亦不受。非行非不行亦不受。不受亦不受也。又似如成論賢聖品云。知不作者不信作等。是名上人也。不常不斷者。若以有為有則常是實常。斷是實斷也。今以空故有。常不名常。斷不名斷。世諦假名說有常有斷。假常不可常。假斷不可斷。即是不斷不常世諦中道也。不一不異者。然不一或可對二乃至百千等。而言對不異者。異一之外二三等悉是異。謂有一異也。但成論師明假實。有一異義。若以有故有。即是實一異。如前破也。亦如論說。若言有一。不應為諸法成。以不一故。如手足等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：成實師的解釋說：因為相續的緣故，所以說是常。唸唸生滅，不能自顧，所以說是斷。因為執著于斷和常的觀點，所以不相信既不是常也不是斷的說法，需要廣泛地破斥，就像前面所說的那樣。《成實論》中說，有人不接受不生不滅的觀點，卻相信既不是常也不是斷的說法。一種解釋是，不接受不生不滅的觀點，是因為還沒有領悟不生不滅的道理，而對於既不是常也不是斷的道理還沒有領悟，所以說相信既不是常也不是斷的說法，因為他們認為存在斷和常的現象。另一種解釋是，長安影法師說，並非是不相信既不是常也不是斷的說法，只是每個人領悟的程度不同，理解還不全面。雖然知道諸法不生不滅，但還沒有領悟既不是常也不是斷的道理，就像前面所說的那樣。我認為，諸法究竟來說是不生的，從道理上講自然也不會滅。因為不生，怎麼會有常呢？因為無常，怎麼會有斷呢？如果參照《成實論》後面的解釋，后一種解釋更好。《成實論》中說，即使聽說了不生不滅和既不是常也不是斷的說法，仍然認為四種因緣和合而成諸法。如果類比來說，即使聽說了不生不滅的說法，仍然認為六種因緣和合而成諸法，這是因為還沒有領悟不生不滅的道理。所以《大品般若經·相行品》中說，行也不接受，不行也不接受，行和不行都不接受，非行非不行也不接受，不接受也不接受。又好像《成實論·賢聖品》中說，知道不造作者，不相信造作等等，這叫做上人。既不是常也不是斷的說法，如果認為有為法是真實存在的，那麼常就是真實的常，斷就是真實的斷。現在因為空性的緣故，有為法存在，常不能稱為常，斷也不能稱為斷。在世俗諦的假名中，說有常有斷，但假立的常不是真實的常，假立的斷也不是真實的斷，這就是既不是斷也不是常的世俗諦中道。既不是一也不是異的說法，不一可以針對二乃至百千等數量來說，但針對不異來說，除了單一之外，二三等都屬於異，也就是說存在一和異的對立。但《成實論》的作者闡明假和實的道理，有一和異的含義。如果認為有為法是真實存在的，那麼一和異就是真實的一和異，就像前面破斥的那樣。也像《成實論》所說，如果說是一，就不應該由諸法和合而成，因為不是單一的緣故，就像手足等肢體一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Chengshi's commentary explains: 'Because of the continuity, it is considered permanent (常). The continuous arising and ceasing of thoughts, without self-awareness, is considered discontinuous (斷). Because of adhering to the views of permanence and discontinuity, one does not believe in neither permanence nor discontinuity, which needs to be extensively refuted, as mentioned earlier.' The Chengshi Lun (成實論) states, 'Some people do not accept non-arising and non-ceasing, but believe in neither permanence nor discontinuity.' One explanation is that not accepting non-arising and non-ceasing means not having realized non-arising and non-ceasing. Because they have not realized neither permanence nor discontinuity, they are said to believe in neither permanence nor discontinuity, as they see the existence of discontinuity and permanence. Another explanation is that the Dharma Master Ying (影法師) of Chang'an (長安) said, 'It is not that they do not believe in neither permanence nor discontinuity, but that each person's realization differs, and their understanding is not comprehensive. Although they know that all dharmas do not arise and do not cease, they have not realized neither permanence nor discontinuity, as mentioned earlier.' I believe that, ultimately, all dharmas do not arise, and naturally, they do not cease. Because they do not arise, how can there be permanence? Because of impermanence, how can there be discontinuity? If we refer to the later explanation in the Chengshi Lun, the latter explanation is better. The text states, 'Even if they have heard of non-arising and non-ceasing and neither permanence nor discontinuity, they still believe that the four conditions form all dharmas.' By analogy, even if they have heard of non-arising and non-ceasing, they still believe that the six conditions form all dharmas, because they have not realized non-arising and non-ceasing. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, Chapter on Characteristics of Actions, states, 'Action is not accepted, non-action is not accepted, action and non-action are not accepted, neither action nor non-action is not accepted, non-acceptance is not accepted.' It is also similar to what is said in the Chengshi Lun, Chapter on the Virtuous and Holy, 'Knowing non-creation means not believing in creation, etc.; this is called a superior person.' Regarding neither permanence nor discontinuity, if one considers conditioned dharmas as truly existing, then permanence is true permanence, and discontinuity is true discontinuity. Now, because of emptiness, conditioned dharmas exist, but permanence cannot be called permanence, and discontinuity cannot be called discontinuity. In the conventional truth of provisional names, it is said that there is permanence and discontinuity, but provisional permanence is not true permanence, and provisional discontinuity is not true discontinuity; this is the Middle Way of conventional truth, which is neither discontinuity nor permanence. Regarding neither oneness nor otherness, 'not one' can be directed towards two, or even hundreds or thousands, etc. But regarding 'not other', everything besides one is other, such as two or three, etc., meaning there is an opposition between one and other. However, the author of the Chengshi Lun clarifies the principles of provisionality and reality, and the meaning of oneness and otherness. If one considers conditioned dharmas as truly existing, then oneness and otherness are true oneness and otherness, as refuted earlier. It is also as the Chengshi Lun says, 'If it is said to be one, it should not be formed by the combination of all dharmas, because it is not singular, like hands and feet, etc.'

諸分成身。何得言異相。異相亦不可得。故論破云。若一者不應芽莖等別。若謂谷有可芽葉等別異者。等是異相。何不名樹等芽葉耶。故知不異。亦復不一故。諸法本來不生。何得有一異。但一是不一一。異是不異異。假一不可為一。假異不可為異。既無一無異。即是世諦中道也。不來不出者。既言不來。則應對不去。而言不出者。義有所兼。非止此八。則應有無量。不來則應對有不去。不出應對有不入。是互舉耳。凡有二義。一者示有所兼非止有八事。二者雖異而內有所兼者。既有不來則有不去。既有不出則有不入。不生不滅不有不無等。一切諸法相攝門也。如成論與外道師等所計。或言從冥初來。微塵世性等來。亦如初流水反去出離等。今大乘明義。由出故去。出即是去。由入故來。入即是來。若有來去說作來去者。即實來實去。今明。以空來去故不名來去。以世諦假說來去。雖來不可來。雖去不可去。故來無所從。去無所至。故金剛波若經云。若言如來有來有去者。是人不解佛所說義。若言空故說來去。則來無所從。去無所至。故言如來也。有凈名經云。對文殊言。不來相而來。不見相而見。文殊答云。如居士言。來不更來。去不更去。若來有所從。則來已更來。若去有所至。則去已更去。故今來無所從。去無

所至也。故論云。如蛇從穴出鳥來棲樹等。不見有如是等相。故知。無有來出也。問八不中何故云不來不出是攝法有所兼。而不生不滅等非耶。答不生不滅等亦是攝法。如不生則攝一切有生等皆盡。不滅則收一切滅無等。此二自足收攝悉盡。但為得悟者不同。雖聞不生不滅。而信不常不斷。故須說不常不斷。欲令觀行周普故。今不來不出亦然。而言攝法者。為不來應對不去出即對入。來出既不對故。以來攝去。出攝入。生滅既對。對故不言攝。如不生外。如是不不生。豈得不攝。須得此意釋之。可尋也。但明對有二義。一者對治。如不凈觀治貪慾慈悲治瞋恚等。皆是相對治明對義。二者相對名味敵對。如大經言。常樂觀察諸對治門。所謂苦樂乃至恒不恒。恒應對不暫不恒。而不無賒切亦是攝法意也。苦樂對義則切。止明二法。異外如是不攝。若言苦不苦異苦外如是不苦。攝義則廣遠。如凈不凈。凈對穢等。一切例然。皆有賒切意。可尋。不須復曆法辨也。作三種中道相多種勢。意終是同。但方言異耳。今二種方法作。如前所說也。問何故世諦假生假滅。真諦假不生假不滅耶。答有二種勢。一者世諦破性明性空。即是假生假滅。真諦破假明因緣空故。即是假不生假不滅也。問世諦破性明性空。性空為世諦中道。應用性有

【現代漢語翻譯】所至之處也是如此。所以《論》中說：『就像蛇從洞穴出來，鳥兒來樹上棲息一樣。』（比喻諸法本無所來，亦無所去）沒有看見有像這樣來去的現象，所以知道，實際上並沒有來和出。問：在『八不』（不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不來、不出）中，為什麼說『不來』、『不出』是包含其他法，有所兼顧的，而『不生』、『不滅』等卻不是這樣呢？答：『不生』、『不滅』等也是包含其他法的，比如『不生』就包含了一切『有生』等都窮盡了，『不滅』就收攝了一切『滅』、『無』等。這兩者自身就足以收攝一切窮盡。只是因為證悟者的理解不同，即使聽聞『不生不滅』，卻仍然相信是『不斷』、『不常』。所以需要說『不常』、『不斷』，想要使觀行周遍普遍的緣故。現在『不來』、『不出』也是這樣，說包含其他法，是因為『不來』對應『不去』，『不出』對應『不入』。『來』、『出』既然不對立，所以用『來』來包含『去』，用『出』來包含『入』。『生』、『滅』既然對立，因為對立所以不說包含。比如『不生』之外，像這樣『不不生』，難道不能包含嗎？需要理解這個意思來解釋它，可以仔細尋思。只是說明對立有兩種含義：一種是對治，比如用『不凈觀』來對治貪慾，用『慈悲』來對治嗔恚等，都是相對對治，說明對立的含義。另一種是相對，名味敵對，比如《大涅槃經》中說：『常常觀察各種對治之門，所謂苦樂乃至常與無常。』常對應不暫短的無常，而不無賒切也是包含其他法的意思。苦樂對立的含義則很貼切，只說明兩種法。異於之外像這樣不包含。如果說『苦』、『不苦』，異於『苦』之外像這樣『不苦』，包含的意義就廣遠了。像『凈』、『不凈』，『凈』對應『穢』等，一切都可以依此類推，都有包含其他法的意思，可以仔細尋思，不需要再一一歷數辨別了。作出三種中道相，多種態勢，意思最終是相同的，只是方言不同罷了。現在用兩種方法來作，就像前面所說的那樣。問：為什麼世俗諦是假生假滅，真諦是假不生假不滅呢？答：有兩種態勢，一種是世俗諦破除自性，顯明自性空，這就是假生假滅。真諦破除假有，顯明因緣空，這就是假不生假不滅。問：世俗諦破除自性，顯明自性空，自性空是世俗諦的中道，應該用自性有

【English Translation】 It is also the same with what is reached. Therefore, the Treatise says: 'Like a snake coming out of a hole, or birds coming to rest in a tree.' (Metaphor for the fact that all dharmas do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere.) One does not see such phenomena of coming and going, so one knows that there is actually no coming or going. Question: Among the 'Eight No's' (no birth, no death, no cessation, no permanence, no oneness, no difference, no coming, no going), why is it said that 'no coming' and 'no going' include other dharmas and are all-encompassing, while 'no birth' and 'no death' etc. are not? Answer: 'No birth' and 'no death' etc. also include other dharmas. For example, 'no birth' includes the exhaustion of all 'having birth' etc., and 'no death' encompasses all 'death', 'non-existence' etc. These two themselves are sufficient to encompass everything exhaustively. It is just because the understanding of those who attain enlightenment is different. Even if they hear 'no birth, no death', they still believe in 'non-cessation' and 'non-permanence'. Therefore, it is necessary to speak of 'non-permanence' and 'non-cessation', wanting to make the contemplation practice comprehensive and universal. Now, 'no coming' and 'no going' are also like this. Saying that they include other dharmas is because 'no coming' corresponds to 'no going', and 'no going out' corresponds to 'no entering'. Since 'coming' and 'going out' are not opposed, 'coming' is used to include 'going', and 'going out' is used to include 'entering'. Since 'birth' and 'death' are opposed, because they are opposed, it is not said that they are inclusive. For example, outside of 'no birth', like this 'not no birth', how can it not be inclusive? It is necessary to understand this meaning to explain it, and it can be carefully pondered. It only explains that opposition has two meanings: one is to counteract, such as using 'impure contemplation' to counteract greed, and using 'loving-kindness and compassion' to counteract anger etc., all of which are relatively counteracting, explaining the meaning of opposition. The other is relative, with names and tastes being antagonistic, such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra saying: 'Always observe the various doors of counteraction, so-called suffering and joy, even permanence and impermanence.' Permanence corresponds to the impermanence of not being temporary, and not without sheqie (Sanskrit: asesa, meaning 'without remainder, complete') is also the meaning of including other dharmas. The meaning of the opposition between suffering and joy is very apt, only explaining two dharmas. Different from the outside, like this, it is not inclusive. If one says 'suffering', 'not suffering', different from 'suffering', like this 'not suffering', the meaning of inclusion is broad and far-reaching. Like 'pure', 'impure', 'pure' corresponds to 'defilement' etc., everything can be inferred in this way, all have the meaning of including other dharmas, which can be carefully pondered, and there is no need to enumerate and distinguish them one by one. Making three kinds of Middle Way appearances, with various postures, the meaning is ultimately the same, only the dialects are different. Now, two methods are used to make it, just like what was said before. Question: Why is conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) provisionally born and provisionally extinguished, while ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is provisionally unborn and provisionally unextinguished? Answer: There are two kinds of situations. One is that conventional truth breaks through self-nature and reveals self-nature emptiness, which is provisional birth and provisional extinction. Ultimate truth breaks through provisional existence and reveals emptiness of dependent origination, which is provisional non-birth and provisional non-extinction. Question: Conventional truth breaks through self-nature and reveals self-nature emptiness. Self-nature emptiness is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Should one use self-nature existence

為世諦。既以假有為世諦。則用假空為中道也。答今明。無別有性空。只詺假為性空。從功用作名。誰能空此性。假能空此性。名假作性空。性空邊故即是中道。假故即名世諦也。二者假生假滅。自是不生不滅中。假不生假不滅。自是非不生非不滅中。即是表義。但橫兩相望。自是因緣義。則遣二執也。又攝嶺師云。假前明中是體中。假后明中是用中。中前明假是用假中。后明假是體假。故非有非無而有而無是體中。假有不名有。假無不名無。故非有非無是用中。非有非無而有而無是體假。假有不名有。假無不名無。是用假。故用中假皆屬能表之教。無假無中乃是所表之理也。

第三明智慧中道。所言二智中道者。二智是方便慧及以實慧。亦具三中道也。實方便。豈可言方便。豈可言非方便。方便實。豈可言實。豈可言不實。則是二慧各明中道。實方便則非方便。方便實則非實。非實非方便名為二慧合明中道也。然非實非方便名為一正觀。非真非俗名為一正中。亦得是正境故。金光明經云。游于無量甚深法性也。但是境智。是則非智。既是智境。是則非境。非智非境。眇然無際。前雖開境智。竟無所開。今雖泯智境。未曾是合也。若能如此演說。即能滅諸戲論故。亦有能說是因緣。是故龍樹致敬也。問何故不例

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本為世諦（Satya，俗諦）。既然以假有為世諦，那麼就用假空為中道。回答：現在說明，沒有另外的自性空，只是稱假為自性空，從功用上取名。誰能空此自性？假能空此自性。稱假為自性空。自性空這邊就是中道。假，所以就叫做世諦。二者，假生假滅，自然是不生不滅之中。假不生假不滅，自然是非不生非不滅之中，這就是表義。只是橫向兩相對望，自然是因緣義，那麼就遣除了二執。又攝嶺師說，假前明中是體中，假后明中是用中，中前明假是用假中，后明假是體假。所以非有非無而有而無是體中。假有不名為有，假無不名為無，所以非有非無是用中。非有非無而有而無是體假。假有不名為有，假無不名為無，是用假。所以用中假都屬於能表之教，無假無中乃是所表之理。

第三，說明智慧中道。所說的二智中道，二智是方便慧以及實慧，也具備三種中道。實方便，怎麼能說是方便？怎麼能說不是方便？方便實，怎麼能說是實？怎麼能說不是實？這就是二慧各自說明中道。實方便則非方便，方便實則非實。非實非方便，名為二慧合明中道。然而非實非方便，名為一正觀。非真非俗，名為一正中，也可以說是正境。金光明經說，游于無量甚深法性。但是境智，就是非智。既然是智境，就是非境。非智非境，渺然無際。前面雖然開顯境智，最終沒有開顯什麼。現在雖然泯滅智境，未曾是合。如果能夠如此演說，就能滅除各種戲論。也有能說這種因緣，所以龍樹（Nagarjuna）致敬。問：為什麼不效仿……

【English Translation】 English version It is the Satya (conventional truth). Since provisional existence is taken as Satya, then provisional emptiness is used as the Middle Way. Answer: Now it is explained that there is no separate self-nature emptiness. It is only called provisional as self-nature emptiness, named from its function. Who can empty this self-nature? Provisionality can empty this self-nature. Calling provisionality as self-nature emptiness. The side of self-nature emptiness is the Middle Way. Provisionality, therefore, is called Satya. Secondly, provisional arising and provisional ceasing are naturally within non-arising and non-ceasing. Provisional non-arising and provisional non-ceasing are naturally within non-non-arising and non-non-ceasing. This is expressing the meaning. Only horizontally viewing each other, it is naturally the meaning of dependent origination, then it eliminates the two attachments. Furthermore, Master Sheling said, 'The Middle before provisionality is the Middle of essence. The Middle after provisionality is the Middle of function. The provisionality before the Middle is the provisionality of function. The provisionality after the Middle is the provisionality of essence.' Therefore, 'neither existent nor non-existent, yet existent and non-existent' is the Middle of essence. 'Provisional existence is not called existence, provisional non-existence is not called non-existence,' therefore 'neither existent nor non-existent' is the Middle of function. 'Neither existent nor non-existent, yet existent and non-existent' is provisionality of essence. 'Provisional existence is not called existence, provisional non-existence is not called non-existence' is provisionality of function. Therefore, the Middle of function and provisionality both belong to the teaching that can express, while neither provisionality nor the Middle is the principle that is expressed.

Thirdly, explaining the Middle Way of wisdom. The so-called Middle Way of the two wisdoms, the two wisdoms are expedient wisdom and real wisdom, also possessing the three Middle Ways. Real expediency, how can it be said to be expedient? How can it be said to be not expedient? Expedient reality, how can it be said to be real? How can it be said to be not real? This is the two wisdoms each explaining the Middle Way. Real expediency is then non-expedient, expedient reality is then non-real. Non-real and non-expedient is called the two wisdoms combined to explain the Middle Way. However, non-real and non-expedient is called one correct view. Non-true and non-conventional is called one correct Middle, and can also be said to be the correct object. The Golden Light Sutra says, 'Wandering in the immeasurable profound Dharma-nature.' However, the object of wisdom is then non-wisdom. Since it is the wisdom of the object, it is then non-object. Non-wisdom and non-object, vast and boundless. Although the object of wisdom was revealed earlier, ultimately nothing was revealed. Although the wisdom of the object is now extinguished, it has never been combined. If one can explain in this way, one can extinguish all discursive fabrications. There is also the ability to speak of this cause and condition, therefore Nagarjuna pays homage. Question: Why not emulate...

二諦三種中道。假方便智非方便智。假實智非實智。非方便非實明中道。假非方便智非不方便智。假非實智非不實智。非不方便非不實智合明中道等耶。答亦得。但欲示多種勢耳。又明二智中道。然諦智非前非后。亦非一時故。非諦非智。諦智因緣。假名不二而二。故如來內智明審潛謀密照。外彰口吐名諦也。然諦非二。亦復不一諦。此二緣故言二也。如二諦中說。而由智慧諦所尋。此智何因而得。亦由悟諦故生。故諦能智所。能所因緣不一不二。乃至應波若此能所則通也。若佛自然人。則佛智是能諦是所。若弟子望此者。佛諦能論主智所。然此能所復何定。智生於境托諦則境也。論主智慧照。境是所照。但此諦則是論主所也。佛非因非果。而詺如來為果。波若非因非果。而假名為因。故假名所設差別不同。或名生忍法忍順忍違忍無生忍等。十地亦名十忍。三十心亦名三十忍。即是一無量。無量一等也。然二諦明中道。諦智因緣不一不二。亦非前非后。而為前緣開因緣前後方便之教。若無內智明審外照根緣。何能吐此諦。故智慧諦所。但佛智不空。而已必由諦故。發諦能智所。是論主。只悟諦能為智所智所見諦能。能所不一不異。二諦既論中道。在智亦名中道。觸事悉得也。但波若非因非果。非佛非菩薩。故假名佛菩

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二諦（Satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）三種中道。假方便智（upāya-kauśalya-jñāna）非方便智。假實智（tattva-jñāna）非實智。非方便非實智合起來闡明中道。假非方便智非不方便智。假非實智非不實智。非不方便非不實智合起來闡明中道等等，可以這樣說嗎？答：也可以這樣說。只不過是爲了展示多種角度而已。又闡明二智的中道。然而，諦智（satya-jñāna）並非先也非后，也非一時俱有，所以說非諦非智。諦智是因緣和合的產物，假名安立為不二而二。因此，如來的內在智慧明察審慎，深謀遠慮，秘密照見，外在彰顯于口，吐露出來，名為諦。然而，諦並非二，也並非一，因為這二者的因緣，所以稱之為二。正如二諦中所說，而由智慧去尋覓諦。這智慧又由何因而得？也是由於領悟諦而產生。所以，諦是智所尋覓的，智是能尋覓諦的，能所因緣不一不二。乃至應以般若（prajñā，智慧）來理解，此能所關係則是相通的。如果從佛是自然人的角度來看，那麼佛智是能，諦是所。如果從弟子來看，佛諦是能，論主的智慧是所。然而，這能所關係又有什麼定論呢？智慧生於對境的認識，依託于諦，那麼境就是所。論主的智慧能夠照亮，境是被照亮的。但是，這諦又是論主所認識的。佛非因非果，而稱如來為果。般若非因非果，而假名為因。所以，假名安立的差別不同，或者名為生忍（kṣānti，忍辱）法忍順忍違忍無生忍等等。十地（daśa-bhūmi）也名為十忍。三十心也名為三十忍。即是一即是無量，無量即是一等等。然而，二諦闡明中道，諦智因緣不一不二，也非前非后，而是爲了之前的因緣，開示因緣前後方便的教義。如果沒有內在智慧的明察審慎，對外照見根緣，又怎麼能吐露這諦？所以，智是能，諦是所，但佛智並非空無，而且必定由諦而生。諦是能，智是所，這是論主。只是領悟諦才能成為智所，智所才能見到諦，能所不一不異。二諦既然闡明中道，在智也名為中道，觸事都能通達。但是，般若非因非果，非佛非菩薩，所以假名為佛菩薩。

【English Translation】 English version The three aspects of the Middle Way in the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya): provisional expedient wisdom (upāya-kauśalya-jñāna) and non-expedient wisdom; provisional real wisdom (tattva-jñāna) and non-real wisdom. The combination of non-expedient and non-real wisdom elucidates the Middle Way. Provisional non-expedient wisdom and non-non-expedient wisdom; provisional non-real wisdom and non-non-real wisdom; the combination of non-non-expedient and non-non-real wisdom elucidates the Middle Way, and so on. Is this correct? Answer: It is also acceptable. It is merely to demonstrate multiple perspectives. Furthermore, it elucidates the Middle Way of the Two Wisdoms. However, Truth-Wisdom (satya-jñāna) is neither prior nor subsequent, nor is it simultaneous; therefore, it is said to be neither Truth nor Wisdom. Truth-Wisdom arises from conditions; it is provisionally named as non-dual yet dual. Thus, the Tathagata's (如來) inner wisdom is clear, discerning, prudent, and secretly illuminating. Outwardly manifested through speech, it is called Truth. However, Truth is neither two nor one; it is called two because of these two conditions. As stated in the Two Truths, Truth is sought by wisdom. From what cause does this wisdom arise? It also arises from the realization of Truth. Therefore, Truth is what wisdom seeks, and wisdom is what seeks Truth; the cause and condition of the seeker and the sought are neither one nor two. Even to the extent that one should understand Prajna (prajñā, wisdom) in this way, the relationship between the seeker and the sought is interconnected. If viewed from the perspective that the Buddha is a natural person, then the Buddha's wisdom is the seeker, and Truth is the sought. If viewed from the perspective of a disciple, the Buddha's Truth is the seeker, and the wisdom of the commentator is the sought. However, what definitive conclusion can be drawn about this relationship between the seeker and the sought? Wisdom arises from the recognition of an object, relying on Truth; therefore, the object is the sought. The commentator's wisdom can illuminate, and the object is what is illuminated. However, this Truth is also what the commentator recognizes. The Buddha is neither cause nor effect, yet the Tathagata is referred to as the effect. Prajna is neither cause nor effect, yet it is provisionally named as the cause. Therefore, the distinctions established by provisional names are different, or they are called forbearance of birth (kṣānti, patience), forbearance of Dharma, compliant forbearance, contrary forbearance, non-birth forbearance, and so on. The Ten Grounds (daśa-bhūmi) are also called the Ten Forbearances. The Thirty Minds are also called the Thirty Forbearances. That is, one is immeasurable, and immeasurable is one, and so on. However, the Two Truths elucidate the Middle Way; the cause and condition of Truth-Wisdom are neither one nor two, nor are they prior nor subsequent, but rather, for the sake of the previous conditions, they reveal the teachings of expedient means before and after cause and condition. If there is no inner wisdom that is clear and discerning, outwardly illuminating the roots and conditions, how can one utter this Truth? Therefore, wisdom is the seeker, and Truth is the sought, but the Buddha's wisdom is not empty; it necessarily arises from Truth. Truth is the seeker, and wisdom is the sought; this is the commentator. Only by realizing Truth can one become what wisdom seeks, and only by what wisdom seeks can one see Truth; the seeker and the sought are neither one nor different. Since the Two Truths elucidate the Middle Way, in wisdom it is also called the Middle Way, and one can attain understanding in all matters. However, Prajna is neither cause nor effect, neither Buddha nor Bodhisattva; therefore, it is provisionally named Buddha-Bodhisattva.

薩。佛菩薩所行名為因。名為波若。菩薩佛所行名為果。名為薩波若。故無差別差別。說因為十地。始則歡喜。終乎法雲。五忍三十心非是豎論也。至論波若。非言可名。非能非所。第一義中行為無學所行。諸佛能行。行亦不受。不行亦不受。行不行亦不受。非行非不行亦不受。不受亦不受。能說是因緣。正明二智中道。能說是佛智。能說于因緣八不正教也。又言。是論主稟佛正經生智。智所諦能。論主得悟生智。智慧論所。能造論申經故。佛與論主。師弟相成。其道無異。即是入如來室坐如來座也。論主歸敬。佛能說因緣正經。稟學得解。解由於佛。今申經造論。歸敬三寶。殊于外道。因緣之經。經常無所從出也。諸說中第一者。如來雖複種種說法及常合道。說小乘教未是了義之言。乃是大乘之由漸也。八不顯了究竟之說故。八不收束皆盡。諸佛同此一致故言第一。又佛弟子說。仙人說。諸天說。變化人說。未是第一。今佛說因緣教故云第一也。二智中道。由諦故智。二諦中道。由智故諦。所以諦智智諦。非諦非智。假名中道。佛意權實是因緣。如前說。亦有人言。論主能說生下論。今亦不乖此言。但今謂嘆佛智明審鑒達根緣。能吐此二諦之八不正教。明諸法因緣一道清凈故。戲論門盡。故言為論其意可明。故顯佛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：薩（Sarva，一切）。佛菩薩所修行的被稱為『因』，也稱為『般若』（Prajna，智慧）。菩薩成佛后所修行的被稱為『果』，也稱為『薩婆若』（Sarvajna，一切智）。因此，（因和果）沒有差別中的差別。說『因』為十地（Bhumi，菩薩修行的十個階段），開始於歡喜地（Pramudita），結束於法云地（Dharmamegha）。五忍（Ksanti，五種忍辱）和三十心（菩薩修行過程中的三十種心）並非是豎立的論述。至於討論般若，不是言語可以描述的，沒有能和所。在第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，最高的真理）中，行為是無學（Asaiksa，不再需要學習）所修行的，諸佛能夠修行，修行也不執著於行，不修行也不執著于不行，行和不行都不執著，非行非不行也不執著，不執著于不執著。能夠說出這個因緣，正是闡明二智（兩種智慧）的中道（Madhyamaka，不落兩邊的中正之道）。能夠說出這是佛的智慧，能夠說出因緣的八不正教（關於因緣的八種不正見）。又說，論主（著論者）秉承佛的正經而生出智慧，智慧所證實的能夠（造論）。論主因此得悟而生出智慧，智慧能夠論述（佛經），能夠造論來闡述佛經。所以，佛與論主，師徒互相成就，其道沒有差異，就是進入如來室，坐如來座。論主歸敬，佛能夠說出因緣的正經，（論主）秉承學習而得到理解，理解來源於佛。現在闡述佛經，造論，歸敬三寶（佛、法、僧），不同於外道。因緣的經典，經常沒有從哪裡產生。在各種說法中，（佛的說法）是第一的，如來雖然反覆用種種說法以及常合道，說小乘教（Hinayana，較小的乘法）還不是了義之言（最終的意義），而是大乘（Mahayana，較大的乘法）的由漸。八不（八不正）沒有顯了究竟的說法。八不收束一切，諸佛都一致，所以說是第一。而且佛弟子說，仙人說，諸天說，變化人說，都不是第一。現在佛說因緣教，所以說是第一。二智中道，由諦（Satya，真諦）而有智，二諦中道，由智而有諦。所以諦智智諦，非諦非智，假名中道。佛意權實是因緣，如前所說。也有人說，論主能夠說出產生下論。現在也不違背這個說法。但現在是讚歎佛的智慧明審鑒達根緣，能夠吐出這二諦的八不正教，闡明諸法因緣一道清凈，所以戲論（無意義的辯論）之門盡，所以說為論，其意可以明白，所以彰顯佛。

【English Translation】 English version: Sarva (everything). What Buddhas and Bodhisattvas practice is called 'cause,' also called 'Prajna' (wisdom). What Bodhisattvas practice after becoming Buddhas is called 'fruit,' also called 'Sarvajna' (omniscience). Therefore, there is no difference within difference (between cause and fruit). 'Cause' is said to be the ten Bhumis (stages of Bodhisattva practice), starting with Pramudita (Joyful Ground) and ending with Dharmamegha (Cloud of Dharma). The five Ksantis (patience) and thirty minds (thirty aspects of mind in Bodhisattva practice) are not a vertical argument. As for discussing Prajna, it cannot be named by words, there is no subject or object. In the Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth), the practice is what the Asaiksa (no more learning) practices, Buddhas can practice, and the practice is not attached to practice, not attached to non-practice, not attached to both practice and non-practice, not attached to neither practice nor non-practice, not attached to non-attachment. Being able to speak of this cause and condition is precisely clarifying the Middle Way (Madhyamaka, the middle path avoiding extremes) of the two wisdoms. Being able to say this is the wisdom of the Buddha, being able to speak of the eight incorrect teachings (incorrect views on dependent origination) of cause and condition. Furthermore, it is said that the author (of the treatise) receives wisdom from the Buddha's correct sutras, and what the wisdom confirms is able (to create treatises). The author thus attains enlightenment and generates wisdom, and the wisdom is able to discuss (the sutras), able to create treatises to explain the sutras. Therefore, the Buddha and the author, as teacher and disciple, mutually accomplish each other, and their path is not different, which is entering the Tathagata's chamber and sitting on the Tathagata's seat. The author pays homage, the Buddha is able to speak of the correct sutras of cause and condition, (the author) receives learning and obtains understanding, and the understanding comes from the Buddha. Now, explaining the sutras and creating treatises, paying homage to the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), is different from external paths. The sutras of cause and condition constantly do not originate from anywhere. Among all the teachings, (the Buddha's teaching) is the first, although the Tathagata repeatedly uses various teachings and constantly accords with the Tao, speaking of the Hinayana (smaller vehicle) is not the ultimate meaning, but is the gradual cause of the Mahayana (larger vehicle). The eight 'not's (eight negations) do not reveal the ultimate teaching. The eight 'not's encompass everything, and all Buddhas are consistent with this, so it is said to be the first. Moreover, the Buddha's disciples' teachings, the immortals' teachings, the devas' teachings, and the transformation beings' teachings are not the first. Now the Buddha speaks of the teaching of cause and condition, so it is said to be the first. The Middle Way of the two wisdoms, wisdom arises from Satya (truth), the Middle Way of the two truths, truth arises from wisdom. Therefore, truth-wisdom and wisdom-truth, neither truth nor wisdom, are the Middle Way of provisional names. The Buddha's intention of expedient and real is cause and condition, as said before. Some also say that the author is able to speak of producing the lower treatise. Now it does not contradict this statement. But now it is praising the Buddha's wisdom for clearly discerning the roots and conditions, being able to utter the eight incorrect teachings of these two truths, clarifying that the cause and condition of all dharmas is one path of purity, so the door of frivolous debate is exhausted, so it is said to be a treatise, its meaning can be understood, so it manifests the Buddha.

圓智慧說誠諦之言故是智是諦。故龍樹學佛所為。智之未足故。沒其智諦之名也。若未應波若。以來應有所為莫非戲論。若解教體理。能滅於戲論。凡夫二乘心所行。無非戲論。理外行心。無非戲論。應須消滅損之。凡有三種相對。或時四種。一者善惡相對。惡是墮墜。乖理無出功故。十惡為戲論。善是清升。扶理有出之義故。十善非戲論。成實論亦云。一等四執為戲論。又言。三性中善惡非戲論。無記是戲論。何者善惡二性有果可記。故非戲論。無記泛淡。無得果之功故。名為戲論也。今依華嚴經云。唯善非戲論。惡無記並是戲論。明惡亦得苦果。但非是趣向歸理得佛義故。名為戲論唯善法能得佛果。故大經云。雖覆疊華千斤。不如真金一兩也。二者有相無相相對明之。亦言有漏無漏相對也。有相是分別故為戲論。無相無分別故非戲論。有相善還屬戲論。故大品經云。相善不動不出不為乘也。故佛藏經云。為人說有相法。是眾生惡知識。為眾生說無相法。是眾生善知識。有相乖理。故經云。寧起五逆。一念不起有相心。經所以作此語者。明相心傷理大故所以重。實是兩罪盡重。而起五逆者。五逆但損惱身。而不妨心用。得近理義。有相心傷理故。無得近理義故求相善。比丘則遠離於佛。所以相心現前。定無波若義也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：圓智慧說真實不虛的話，所以說是智慧，是真諦。所以龍樹（Nāgārjuna）學習佛法所追求的，就是因為智慧還不夠圓滿。因此要泯滅其智慧和真諦的名稱。如果還沒有達到般若（Prajñā），那麼一切所作所為無非是戲論。如果理解了教法的本體和真理，就能滅除戲論。凡夫和二乘（聲聞和緣覺）的心所行之處，無非是戲論。在真理之外用心，無非是戲論。應當消滅和捨棄這些戲論。總共有三種相對，有時是四種。第一種是善惡相對。惡是墮落，因為違背真理，沒有出離的功用，所以十惡是戲論。善是清凈上升，因為扶助真理，有出離的意義，所以十善不是戲論。《成實論》也說，一等四執是戲論。又說，三性中善惡不是戲論，無記是戲論。為什麼呢？因為善惡二性有果報可以記述，所以不是戲論。無記泛泛淡淡，沒有獲得果報的功用，所以稱為戲論。現在依照《華嚴經》所說，只有善不是戲論，惡和無記都是戲論。說明惡也會得到苦果，但不是趣向和歸於真理，得到佛果的意義，所以稱為戲論。只有善法才能得到佛果。所以《大般涅槃經》說，即使堆積一千斤鮮花，也不如一兩真金。第二種是有相無相相對來闡明，也可以說是說有漏無漏相對。有相是因為有分別，所以是戲論。無相是因為沒有分別，所以不是戲論。有相的善也屬於戲論。所以《大品般若經》說，有相的善不能動，不能出離，不能成為乘（vehicle）。所以《佛藏經》說，為他人說有相法，是眾生的惡知識。為眾生說無相法，是眾生的善知識。有相違背真理，所以經中說，寧願造作五逆重罪，也不要生起一念有相心。經文之所以這樣說，是因為有相心傷害真理太大，所以罪過更重。實際上是兩種罪過都同樣嚴重。而造作五逆重罪，只是損害身體，不妨礙心性作用，可以接近真理的意義。有相心傷害真理，所以不能接近真理的意義。追求有相的善，比丘就會遠離佛。所以有相心現前，一定沒有般若的意義。

【English Translation】 English version: Perfect wisdom speaks truthful words, therefore it is wisdom, it is truth. Therefore, what Nāgārjuna pursued in studying Buddhism was because wisdom was not yet complete. Therefore, the names of his wisdom and truth should be extinguished. If one has not yet attained Prajñā, then all actions are nothing but frivolous discussions. If one understands the essence and principle of the teachings, one can extinguish frivolous discussions. The minds of ordinary people and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas) are engaged in nothing but frivolous discussions. Using the mind outside of principle is nothing but frivolous discussion. These frivolous discussions should be eliminated and discarded. There are generally three kinds of relativity, sometimes four. The first is the relativity of good and evil. Evil is falling, because it goes against principle and has no function of liberation, so the ten evils are frivolous discussions. Good is pure and ascending, because it supports principle and has the meaning of liberation, so the ten goods are not frivolous discussions. The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra also says that the four attachments of 'one' are frivolous discussions. It also says that among the three natures, good and evil are not frivolous discussions, while indeterminate is frivolous discussion. Why? Because the two natures of good and evil have consequences that can be recorded, so they are not frivolous discussions. Indeterminate is vague and bland, and has no function of obtaining consequences, so it is called frivolous discussion. Now, according to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, only good is not frivolous discussion, while evil and indeterminate are both frivolous discussions. It clarifies that evil will also receive bitter consequences, but it is not oriented towards and returning to principle, obtaining the meaning of Buddhahood, so it is called frivolous discussion. Only good dharmas can obtain Buddhahood. Therefore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says that even piling up a thousand pounds of flowers is not as good as one ounce of true gold. The second is to clarify the relativity of form and formlessness, which can also be said to be the relativity of defilement and non-defilement. Form is because there is discrimination, so it is frivolous discussion. Formlessness is because there is no discrimination, so it is not frivolous discussion. Good with form also belongs to frivolous discussion. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says that good with form cannot move, cannot liberate, and cannot become a vehicle. Therefore, the Buddha-pitaka Sūtra says that teaching the dharma with form to others is an evil friend to sentient beings. Teaching the dharma without form to sentient beings is a good friend to sentient beings. Form goes against principle, so the sutra says that it is better to commit the five heinous crimes than to generate a single thought with form. The reason why the sutra says this is because the mind with form harms principle too much, so the sin is heavier. In reality, both sins are equally serious. Committing the five heinous crimes only harms the body, but does not hinder the function of the mind, and can approach the meaning of principle. The mind with form harms principle, so it cannot approach the meaning of principle. Seeking good with form will cause a Bhikṣu to be far away from the Buddha. Therefore, when the mind with form is present, there is definitely no meaning of Prajñā.

。五逆事雖起。而不妨用心見理義也。有漏即有相。無漏則是無相。有漏之善。唯得三有果報。未能出離生死。正是不動不出。故名戲論。無漏之法。破裂生死。故不名戲論也。又地攝成數等師。恐落求相善比丘宗彼聞之驚怖。而聽大乘無所得宗。人見此意耳。彼師徒無有覺此意也。三者一異相對。雖言有相是戲論無相非戲論。若是有相異無相。便是戲論。見相無相不異。乃名非戲論。乃至善惡生死涅槃解惑等。並類然。故大經云。明與無明。凡夫謂二。智者了達其性無二也。故大品經三慧品云。諸有二者名有所得。無有二者名無所得也。又大經云。有所得者。無道無果。無所得者。有道有果也。若以異為非。不二為是。此則不識不二。還成戲論。復須遣之。無一無二故。有時就四法辨行四句。是戲論。不行四句。則非戲論也。故反折論云。若言諸法有。是增益謗。若言諸法無。損減謗。若言諸法亦有亦無。是相違謗。若言諸法非有非無。是戲論謗。若言諸法非非有非非無。是無慚愧謗也。故思益經云。一切法邪。一切法正也。又大品經云。菩薩無方便。行色無常苦等。並是戲論。故凡厥有所得行心。于波若紛然乖則戲論師也。故因緣門中一不可得。二亦不可得。亦一亦二非一非二非不一非不二。皆不可得也。如五句

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：五逆之罪雖然已經犯下，但並不妨礙用心去領悟佛理和正義。有漏之法即是有形相的，無漏之法則是沒有形相的。有漏的善行，只能得到三有（欲有、色有、無色有）的果報，不能脫離生死輪迴。這正是因為執著于不動和不出的狀態，所以被稱為戲論。無漏之法，能夠破除生死輪迴，所以不被稱為戲論。另外，地攝成數等師，恐怕會墮入追求形相的善良比丘的宗派，他們聽到這些會感到驚恐，因此聽從了大乘無所得宗的觀點。人們看到了這種意圖。但那些師徒並沒有覺察到這種意圖。第三點是一異相對的觀點。雖然說有相是戲論，無相不是戲論，但如果認為有相與無相是不同的，那就是戲論。認識到有相與無相沒有差別，才叫做非戲論。乃至善與惡、生死與涅槃、解與惑等等，都可以此類推。所以《大般涅槃經》說：『明與無明，凡夫認為是二，智者了達它們的本性沒有差別。』所以《大品般若經·三慧品》說：『凡是執著於二者，就叫做有所得；不執著於二者，就叫做無所得。』另外，《大般涅槃經》說：『有所得的人，沒有道，沒有果；無所得的人，有道，有果。』如果認為不同就是錯誤的，不二就是正確的，這就是不認識不二的道理，仍然是戲論，還需要去除這種觀念。因為既沒有一，也沒有二。有時就四法（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）來辨別修行，執著于這四句就是戲論，不執著于這四句就不是戲論。所以反折論說：『如果說諸法是有，就是增益謗；如果說諸法是無，就是損減謗；如果說諸法亦有亦無，就是相違謗；如果說諸法非有非無，就是戲論謗；如果說諸法非非有非非無，就是無慚愧謗。』所以《思益經》說：『一切法是邪，一切法是正。』另外，《大品般若經》說：『菩薩沒有方便，執著於色無常、苦等，都是戲論。』所以凡是執著于有所得的修行之心，對於般若智慧來說，都是紛亂乖謬的戲論師。所以在因緣門中，一不可得，二也不可得，亦一亦二、非一非二、非不一非不二，都是不可得的。如五句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無、非非有非非無）。

【English Translation】 English version: Although the five rebellious acts (五逆事) may have been committed, it does not hinder one from using the mind to understand the principles and righteousness of the Dharma. That which is with outflows (有漏) has form, while that which is without outflows (無漏) is without form. Good deeds with outflows only result in the fruits of the Three Realms (三有) [desire realm, form realm, formless realm], and cannot lead to liberation from birth and death. This is precisely because of attachment to stillness and non-emergence, hence it is called 'playful discourse' (戲論). The Dharma without outflows shatters birth and death, therefore it is not called 'playful discourse'. Furthermore, teachers like Di She Cheng Shu (地攝成數) and others fear falling into the sect of virtuous Bhikkhus (比丘) who seek after forms. Hearing this, they become frightened and listen to the Mahayana (大乘) doctrine of non-attainment (無所得宗). People see this intention. However, those teachers and disciples do not realize this intention. Thirdly, there is the relativity of one and different (一異相對). Although it is said that having form is playful discourse and not having form is not playful discourse, if one considers having form to be different from not having form, then it is playful discourse. Recognizing that having form and not having form are not different is called non-playful discourse. This applies similarly to good and evil, birth and death, Nirvana (涅槃), delusion and enlightenment, and so on. Therefore, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (大般涅槃經) says: 'Enlightenment and non-enlightenment are considered as two by ordinary people, but the wise realize that their nature is not two.' Therefore, the Three Wisdoms chapter of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經·三慧品) says: 'Those who have duality are called those who have attainment; those who have no duality are called those who have no attainment.' Furthermore, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (大般涅槃經) says: 'Those who have attainment have no path and no fruit; those who have no attainment have path and fruit.' If one considers difference to be wrong and non-duality to be right, then this is not recognizing non-duality and still becomes playful discourse, which must be discarded. Because there is neither one nor two. Sometimes, based on the four characteristics (有, 無, 亦有亦無, 非有非無), one distinguishes practice. Attachment to these four statements is playful discourse, while non-attachment to these four statements is not playful discourse. Therefore, the Refutation Treatise (反折論) says: 'If one says that all dharmas exist, it is an increase-and-defamation; if one says that all dharmas do not exist, it is a decrease-and-defamation; if one says that all dharmas both exist and do not exist, it is a contradictory-defamation; if one says that all dharmas neither exist nor do not exist, it is a playful-discourse-defamation; if one says that all dharmas are neither non-existent nor non-non-existent, it is a shameless-defamation.' Therefore, the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra (思益經) says: 'All dharmas are wrong, all dharmas are right.' Furthermore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) says: 'If a Bodhisattva (菩薩) lacks skillful means and clings to impermanence, suffering, etc. of form, it is all playful discourse.' Therefore, all those who have a mind of attainment in practice are confused and deviate from the wisdom of Prajna (波若), and are teachers of playful discourse. Therefore, in the gate of dependent origination (因緣門), one is unattainable, two is also unattainable, both one and two, neither one nor two, neither not-one nor not-two are all unattainable. Like the five statements (有, 無, 亦有亦無, 非有非無, 非非有非非無).

三昧。不與二乘共廣大之用也。故四對此三。無出無離。何者諸有所得。別有住處論其出。今謂。本自不住。今亦無出無住。無出故非戲論。若言有戲論可滅是無戲論。亦是戲論。亦是戲論故今明。八不不戲論。非止滅戲論。不戲論亦滅。滅者非是小乘斷德之滅。此是大乘摩訶衍凈悟。諸法本來不生。今亦不滅。畢竟凈名滅故言善也。故戲論無戲論論。因緣具足。方便假名不一不二一道平等。戲論之善。是善巧權行故名善。善者能也。問戲論不戲論等皆滅。即前來所明記無記乃至二不二善惡等。望道悉非者。戲論既非。不戲論亦是戲論也。答須識之。只八不不二善是非戲論。若是不二還成戲論。非謂不二不戲論。自非八不不者。則戲論不滅也。何異絕絕絕不絕。即無絕無不絕。豈可以言言絕不絕耶。

第四雜問難問。八不明中假二諦。自心所作有出處耶。答有文有理。文則八不。處處經論散出。但菩薩瓔珞本業經下捲雲。二諦義者。不一亦不二。不常亦不斷。不來亦不去。不生亦不滅也。又大經二十五師子吼品云。十二因緣不生不滅不常亦不斷不一不二不來不去非因非果。與中論次第小異。而意同也。理則二諦是教。故假生假滅等是世諦。假不生假不滅是真諦。故具明中假義也。問八不是不生不滅等。教不生不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三昧（Samadhi，一種精神集中狀態），不與二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）共通，具有廣大的作用。因此，四句（指某種邏輯結構）對此三昧，既不超出也不脫離。為什麼呢？因為所有有所得的，另外有住處，可以論述其超出。現在說的是，本來就沒有住處，現在也沒有超出，沒有住處。沒有超出，所以不是戲論（Prapañca，虛妄分別）。如果說有戲論可以滅除，那『無戲論』也是一種戲論。正因為如此，現在闡明，八不（不生不滅、不常不斷、不一不異、不來不去）是不戲論。不是僅僅滅除戲論，不戲論也要滅除。這個『滅』不是小乘斷滅功德的『滅』，而是大乘摩訶衍（Mahāyāna，大乘）的清凈覺悟，諸法本來不生，現在也不滅，畢竟清凈，所以說『滅』是善的。所以，戲論和非戲論的論述，因緣具足，方便假名，不一不二，一道平等。戲論的善，是善巧方便的權宜之行，所以稱為『善』，『善』是能。問：戲論、非戲論等都滅除，那麼前面所說的有記無記乃至二不二善惡等，相對於道來說，都是錯誤的嗎？戲論既然是錯誤的，那麼非戲論也是戲論嗎？答：必須認識到，只有八不、不二才是非戲論。如果是不二，反而成了戲論。不是說不二就是非戲論。如果不是八不，那麼戲論就不會滅除。這和『絕、絕、絕、不絕』有什麼不同？即無絕、無不絕，怎麼可以用言語來表達絕與不絕呢？

第四個雜問難是：八不的闡明中，假二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）是自心所作，有出處嗎？答：有經文和道理。經文就是八不，處處經論都有散出。但《菩薩瓔珞本業經》下卷說：『二諦的意義是不一也不二，不常也不斷，不來也不去，不生也不滅。』又《大般涅槃經》第二十五師子吼品說：『十二因緣不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不二，不來不去，非因非果。』與《中論》的次第稍有不同，但意思相同。道理上，二諦是教法，所以假生假滅等是世俗諦，假不生假不滅是真諦，所以具明瞭中假之義。問：八不是不生不滅等，教法不生不...

【English Translation】 English version Samadhi (a state of mental concentration), is not shared with the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), and has vast functions. Therefore, the four statements (referring to a certain logical structure) regarding this Samadhi neither exceed nor depart from it. Why? Because all that is attained has another dwelling place, and its exceeding can be discussed. What is being said now is that originally there is no dwelling place, and now there is neither exceeding nor dwelling. Because there is no exceeding, it is not Prapañca (conceptual proliferation). If it is said that there is Prapañca that can be extinguished, then 'non-Prapañca' is also Prapañca. Precisely because of this, it is now clarified that the Eight No's (no birth, no death; no permanence, no cessation; no oneness, no difference; no coming, no going) are non-Prapañca. It is not merely extinguishing Prapañca; non-Prapañca must also be extinguished. This 'extinction' is not the 'extinction' of the virtues of severance in the Lesser Vehicle, but the pure enlightenment of the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle), that all dharmas are originally unborn, and now are not extinguished. Ultimately pure, therefore it is said that 'extinction' is good. Therefore, the discussion of Prapañca and non-Prapañca, with complete causes and conditions, expedient provisional names, neither one nor two, the one path is equal. The goodness of Prapañca is the skillful and expedient provisional conduct, therefore it is called 'good'; 'good' is ability. Question: If Prapañca, non-Prapañca, etc., are all extinguished, then are the previously mentioned marked and unmarked, and even the two not two, good and evil, etc., all wrong in relation to the path? Since Prapañca is wrong, is non-Prapañca also Prapañca? Answer: It must be recognized that only the Eight No's and non-duality are non-Prapañca. If it is non-duality, it becomes Prapañca instead. It is not that non-duality is non-Prapañca. If it is not the Eight No's, then Prapañca will not be extinguished. How is this different from 'absolute, absolute, absolute, not absolute'? That is, there is no absolute, no not absolute. How can one express absolute and not absolute in words?

The fourth miscellaneous question is: In the clarification of the Eight No's, are the provisional two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) created by one's own mind, and is there a source? Answer: There are scriptures and reasoning. The scriptures are the Eight No's, which are scattered throughout the sutras and treatises. However, the lower volume of the Bodhisattva Garland Sutra says: 'The meaning of the two truths is neither one nor two, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither coming nor going, neither born nor extinguished.' Also, the twenty-fifth chapter, Lion's Roar, of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'The twelve links of dependent origination are unborn, unextinguished, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor two, neither coming nor going, neither cause nor effect.' The order is slightly different from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, but the meaning is the same. In terms of reasoning, the two truths are teachings, so provisional birth and provisional extinction, etc., are conventional truth, and provisional non-birth and provisional non-extinction are ultimate truth, so the meaning of provisionality in the middle is fully clarified. Question: The Eight No's are no birth, no death, etc., the teachings are not born, not...

滅。為理不生不滅之不生不滅等耶。答具含兩不生不滅等。但理為正教則傍也。問何以知之。答彼經中烈八不竟云。而相即聖智無二。故是諸佛菩薩智母也。大經云。涅槃之體非有無。非亦有亦無也。大品經相行品。身子白佛。諸法實相云何有。佛云。諸法無所有如是有。如是有無所有。是事不知名為無明也。中論序大意云。聞不生不滅畢竟空便失二諦也。又四諦品云。諸法雖無生而有二諦也。故知。具含中假。而中為正宗。二諦為傍。具如二諦中說也。問八不是佛說者。龍樹造中論時。即引經中八不安論初為非。答不可定判。或賓伽引經中安處。或可。龍樹引經中八不序無畏論初。故注論者。安中論序意初也。而應非是釋論中八不牽安處。大論中。至難處即指中論。為正觀論。如正觀論中說。故知。釋論中論后造也。又亦可。青目于千年中出世注中論。或可。引釋論中八不。安處中論序意也。問釋論中指正觀論者。何必是中論耶。答中論觀法品云。正觀論之稱。故知。中論是正觀論也。故相傳云。中論是釋論之骨髓也。問八不八非八無是一是異。答亦可一亦可異。是一眼目異名也。異者八不中為正。故八不無對。非等有對故異也。問八不中不生不滅得云兩不為不得耶答既云不生不滅。那非兩不也。問不生復不滅兩過

道所不。所以言兩不者。不生復不滅兩過道不。故得論兩不。不滅不生故應是兩中也。答雙除生滅始是正中也。問若雙除生滅方是正中者。亦應生滅雙除。唯是一不不。答不生復不滅。雙不于生滅。所以一中也。問若雙除故一正中者。亦應雙除二諦故一正中則無三種中也。答實是一道正中。為除病故辨三種中。亦除執故。兩不二中並得義也。問假生不生假滅不滅。不生不滅名為世諦中。假不生非不生假不滅非不滅。非不生非不滅名為真諦中道者。世諦不生不滅中。與真諦假不生假不滅。若為異耶。答安假簡異中不生等故則殊也。問假不假寧異耶。答對假生假滅。明假不生假不滅。此假不生等。皆是不二中道之用。除假生假滅與假不生假不滅等。不生非不生不滅非不滅。方是正中也。故假不生假不滅。如假生假滅。悉是假。亦是用。亦是末也。不生不滅中。如非不生非不滅中。皆是中。亦是體。亦是本也。雖體用與中假等開。而無軌跡。非體非用非中非假。強名體用中假等也。問中論四諦品云。因緣所生法我說即是無。亦是假名亦是中道。則是三義云何耶。答明此偈多種勢。今一種意釋之。此一偈有三句。即勝八不。八不正是一中道句。言因緣所生者。是因緣所生之生滅法。此所生之生滅。既從因緣而生。故無可為生。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本道所不能及。之所以說『兩不』，是因為不生不滅兩種偏頗都不能達到『道』。所以才能討論『兩不』。不滅不生，所以應該是『兩中』。回答：同時去除生滅才是真正的『正中』。問：如果同時去除生滅才是『正中』，那麼也應該是生滅同時去除，唯一一個『不』，而不是『不不』。回答：不生也不滅，同時否定生滅，所以才是『一中』。問：如果因為同時去除才是『一正中』，那麼也應該同時去除二諦才是『一正中』，那就沒有三種『中』了。回答：實際上只有一個『道』是『正中』，爲了去除執著才分辨出三種『中』，也是爲了去除執著，『兩不』、『二中』都具有意義。問：假生不生，假滅不滅，不生不滅名為世諦中；假不生非不生，假不滅非不滅，非不生非不滅名為真諦中道，那麼世諦的不生不滅中，與真諦的假不生假不滅，有什麼不同呢？回答：安立『假』是爲了區分，『中』不生等等，因此就不同了。問：『假』與『不假』有什麼不同呢？回答：針對『假生』、『假滅』，闡明『假不生』、『假不滅』。這『假不生』等等，都是不二中道的運用，去除『假生』、『假滅』與『假不生』、『假不滅』等等，『不生非不生』、『不滅非不滅』，才是真正的『正中』。所以『假不生』、『假不滅』，如同『假生』、『假滅』，都是『假』，也是『用』，也是『末』。『不生不滅』中，如同『非不生非不滅』中，都是『中』，也是『體』，也是『本』。雖然『體』、『用』與『中』、『假』等分開，卻沒有軌跡，非『體』非『用』非『中』非『假』，勉強稱之為『體』、『用』、『中』、『假』等。問：《中論》四諦品說：『因緣所生法，我說即是無，亦是假名，亦是中道。』這三種意義是什麼呢？回答：說明這偈頌有多種含義，現在用一種意思來解釋它。這一偈有三句，勝過八不（八不正）。『八不』正是『一中道』句。說『因緣所生』，是指因緣所生的生滅法。這所生的生滅，既然從因緣而生，所以無可認為是『生』。

【English Translation】 English version That which the Dao (The Way) does not reach. The reason for saying 'two nots' is that neither arising nor ceasing, these two extremes, reach the Dao. Therefore, we can discuss 'two nots'. Not ceasing, not arising, therefore it should be 'two middles'. Answer: Simultaneously eliminating arising and ceasing is the true 'right middle'. Question: If simultaneously eliminating arising and ceasing is the 'right middle', then it should also be that arising and ceasing are simultaneously eliminated, only one 'not', not 'not not'. Answer: Neither arising nor ceasing, simultaneously negating arising and ceasing, therefore it is 'one middle'. Question: If because of simultaneous elimination it is 'one right middle', then it should also be that simultaneously eliminating the two truths is 'one right middle', then there would be no three kinds of 'middle'. Answer: In reality, there is only one Dao that is the 'right middle'. For the sake of removing attachment, three kinds of 'middle' are distinguished, and also for the sake of removing attachment, 'two nots' and 'two middles' both have meaning. Question: False arising not arising, false ceasing not ceasing, not arising not ceasing is called the mundane truth middle (Satyasamvriti); false not arising not not arising, false not ceasing not not ceasing, not not arising not not ceasing is called the ultimate truth middle way (Paramarthasatya), then what is the difference between the not arising not ceasing middle of the mundane truth and the false not arising false not ceasing of the ultimate truth? Answer: Establishing 'false' is for the sake of distinguishing, the 'middle' not arising, etc., therefore they are different. Question: What is the difference between 'false' and 'not false'? Answer: In response to 'false arising' and 'false ceasing', clarify 'false not arising' and 'false not ceasing'. These 'false not arising', etc., are all the application of the non-dual middle way, removing 'false arising', 'false ceasing' and 'false not arising', 'false not ceasing', etc., 'not arising not not arising', 'not ceasing not not ceasing', is the true 'right middle'. Therefore, 'false not arising' and 'false not ceasing', like 'false arising' and 'false ceasing', are all 'false', and also 'application', and also 'end'. In 'not arising not ceasing', like in 'not not arising not not ceasing', all are 'middle', and also 'essence', and also 'origin'. Although 'essence', 'application', 'middle', and 'false' are separated, there are no traces, not 'essence' not 'application' not 'middle' not 'false', forcibly called 'essence', 'application', 'middle', 'false', etc. Question: The Four Noble Truths chapter of the Middle Treatise (Madhyamaka-karika) says: 'That which arises from conditions, I say is emptiness, it is also a provisional name, it is also the middle way.' What are these three meanings? Answer: Explain that this verse has many meanings, now use one meaning to explain it. This verse has three lines, surpassing the eight negations (eight not right). The 'eight negations' are precisely the 'one middle way' line. Saying 'arising from conditions' refers to the arising and ceasing dharma that arises from conditions. This arising and ceasing that arises, since it arises from conditions, therefore it cannot be considered 'arising'.

無可為滅。只是空生空滅。所生既空。能生此生滅之因緣亦空。能生所生既並無故。言我說即是無也。故中論觀法品云。生時空生滅時空滅也。涅槃論云。王宮生生而不起。雙林滅滅而不無也。亦是假名者。即是第三句。以假故有能生之因緣。以假故有所生之生滅。假生不名生。假滅不名滅也。以假生滅不名生滅。故即是第三句不生不滅中道。故云亦是中道義也。大乘論明義有二種法門。一云義次二謂根緣次也。義次者。必須前後相生始終次第也。根緣者。有疾即除。有緣即說。不必須前後相生也。明因緣義則總。若識因緣者名為佛法。不識因緣則非佛法。故中論四諦品云。若見因緣則見佛與法也。今破外因緣則總破眾病。申佛因緣則總申佛教也。故因緣在論初也。問二諦亦總收眾教。此中論既言二諦為宗者。若學教之流正迷二諦。何不題破二諦品耶。答亦得不得。得者。外人聞不生不滅畢竟空。便失二諦。欲申二諦故造論。又迷佛二諦故生諍論。為此造論。亦得二諦在論初也。不得者。二諦語局。因緣則通。以二諦但是二非不二。但是教而非理。若是教之與理二與不二。並是因緣。義則總也。問因緣既總。何故不以因緣為宗。答二諦為宗。豈離因緣。但諸佛說法常依二諦。今正與外人共諍佛二諦。故以二諦為宗也。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無可作為『滅』（Nirvana，寂滅）。只是空性的生起和空性的寂滅。既然所生之法是空性的，那麼能生起這些生滅的因緣也是空性的。能生之法和所生之法既然都沒有，所以說『我』（Atman，神我）就是不存在的。所以《中論·觀法品》說：『生時是空性的生，滅時是空性的滅。』《涅槃經》說：『國王在王宮出生，但實際上沒有真正的生起；在雙林樹下示現寂滅，但實際上並沒有真正的斷滅。』『亦是假名者』，就是第三句（非空非有）。因為是假有的緣故，所以有能生的因緣；因為是假有的緣故，所以有所生的生滅。假有的生不叫做生，假有的滅不叫做滅。因為假有的生滅不叫做生滅，所以就是第三句『不生不滅』的中道。所以說也是中道之義。《大乘論》闡明意義有兩種法門：一是義理的次第，二是根機的緣分次第。義理的次第，必須前後相生，有始終的次第。根機的緣分次第，有疾病就去除，有因緣就宣說，不必須前後相生。闡明因緣的意義就總括一切。如果認識因緣，就叫做佛法；不認識因緣，就不是佛法。所以《中論·四諦品》說：『如果見到因緣，就見到了佛和法。』現在破斥外道的因緣，就總破一切病；闡述佛的因緣，就總闡述佛教。所以因緣在論的開頭。問：二諦（Two Truths，真諦和俗諦）也總括一切教義，這部《中論》既然說二諦為宗旨，如果學教之流派真正迷惑於二諦，為什麼不專門立一品來破斥二諦呢？答：也可以，也可以不。說可以，是因為外道聽到『不生不滅』、『畢竟空』，就喪失了對二諦的理解。爲了闡述二諦，所以造這部論。又因為迷惑于佛的二諦，所以產生諍論，為此造這部論，也可以說二諦在論的開頭。說不可以，是因為『二諦』這個詞語比較侷限，『因緣』則比較通達。因為二諦只是『二』，不是『不二』，只是教法，而不是真理。如果是教法與真理，『二』與『不二』，都是因緣，意義就總括了。問：因緣既然總括一切，為什麼不以因緣為宗旨？答：以二諦為宗旨，難道離開了因緣嗎？只是諸佛說法常常依據二諦，現在正是與外道共同諍論佛的二諦，所以以二諦為宗旨。 English version: There is nothing to be 'extinguished' (Nirvana). It is merely the arising of emptiness and the ceasing of emptiness. Since what arises is empty, the causes and conditions that give rise to this arising and ceasing are also empty. Since what can arise and what is arisen both do not exist, it is said that 'I' (Atman) is also non-existent. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, in the chapter on Examination of the Self, says: 'When arising, it is the empty arising; when ceasing, it is the empty ceasing.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'The king is born in the palace, but there is no actual arising; he demonstrates extinction under the twin Sala trees, but there is no actual cessation.' 'Also, it is a provisional name' refers to the third phrase (neither empty nor existent). Because it is provisional, there are causes and conditions that can give rise; because it is provisional, there is the arising and ceasing of what is arisen. Provisional arising is not called arising; provisional ceasing is not called ceasing. Because provisional arising and ceasing are not called arising and ceasing, it is the Middle Way of 'neither arising nor ceasing,' which is the third phrase. Therefore, it is said to also be the meaning of the Middle Way. The Mahayana Treatise explains that there are two kinds of Dharma gates for clarifying meaning: one is the order of meaning, and the other is the order of roots and conditions. The order of meaning must have a sequential arising, with a beginning and an end. The order of roots and conditions is that if there is an illness, it is removed; if there is a condition, it is spoken. It does not necessarily have a sequential arising. Clarifying the meaning of causes and conditions encompasses everything. If one recognizes causes and conditions, it is called the Buddha-dharma; if one does not recognize causes and conditions, it is not the Buddha-dharma. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, in the chapter on the Four Noble Truths, says: 'If one sees causes and conditions, one sees the Buddha and the Dharma.' Now, refuting the external causes and conditions is a general refutation of all illnesses; expounding the Buddha's causes and conditions is a general exposition of the Buddha's teachings. Therefore, causes and conditions are at the beginning of the treatise. Question: The Two Truths (Satya-dvaya, the relative and ultimate truths) also encompass all teachings. Since this Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states that the Two Truths are the principle, if those who study the teachings are truly confused about the Two Truths, why not dedicate a chapter to refuting the Two Truths? Answer: It can be done, and it cannot be done. It can be done because outsiders, upon hearing 'neither arising nor ceasing' and 'ultimate emptiness,' lose their understanding of the Two Truths. To expound the Two Truths, this treatise is written. Also, because of confusion about the Buddha's Two Truths, disputes arise. For this reason, this treatise is written, and it can be said that the Two Truths are at the beginning of the treatise. It cannot be done because the term 'Two Truths' is limited, while 'causes and conditions' is more comprehensive. Because the Two Truths are only 'two,' not 'non-two,' they are only teachings, not the ultimate truth. If it is teaching and truth, 'two' and 'non-two,' all are causes and conditions, and the meaning is comprehensive. Question: Since causes and conditions encompass everything, why not take causes and conditions as the principle? Answer: Taking the Two Truths as the principle, is it separate from causes and conditions? It is just that the Buddhas' teachings always rely on the Two Truths. Now, it is precisely to dispute with outsiders about the Buddha's Two Truths that the Two Truths are taken as the principle.

【English Translation】 There is nothing to be 'extinguished' (Nirvana). It is merely the arising of emptiness and the ceasing of emptiness. Since what arises is empty, the causes and conditions that give rise to this arising and ceasing are also empty. Since what can arise and what is arisen both do not exist, it is said that 'I' (Atman) is also non-existent. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, in the chapter on Examination of the Self, says: 'When arising, it is the empty arising; when ceasing, it is the empty ceasing.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'The king is born in the palace, but there is no actual arising; he demonstrates extinction under the twin Sala trees, but there is no actual cessation.' 'Also, it is a provisional name' refers to the third phrase (neither empty nor existent). Because it is provisional, there are causes and conditions that can give rise; because it is provisional, there is the arising and ceasing of what is arisen. Provisional arising is not called arising; provisional ceasing is not called ceasing. Because provisional arising and ceasing are not called arising and ceasing, it is the Middle Way of 'neither arising nor ceasing,' which is the third phrase. Therefore, it is said to also be the meaning of the Middle Way. The Mahayana Treatise explains that there are two kinds of Dharma gates for clarifying meaning: one is the order of meaning, and the other is the order of roots and conditions. The order of meaning must have a sequential arising, with a beginning and an end. The order of roots and conditions is that if there is an illness, it is removed; if there is a condition, it is spoken. It does not necessarily have a sequential arising. Clarifying the meaning of causes and conditions encompasses everything. If one recognizes causes and conditions, it is called the Buddha-dharma; if one does not recognize causes and conditions, it is not the Buddha-dharma. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, in the chapter on the Four Noble Truths, says: 'If one sees causes and conditions, one sees the Buddha and the Dharma.' Now, refuting the external causes and conditions is a general refutation of all illnesses; expounding the Buddha's causes and conditions is a general exposition of the Buddha's teachings. Therefore, causes and conditions are at the beginning of the treatise. Question: The Two Truths (Satya-dvaya, the relative and ultimate truths) also encompass all teachings. Since this Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states that the Two Truths are the principle, if those who study the teachings are truly confused about the Two Truths, why not dedicate a chapter to refuting the Two Truths? Answer: It can be done, and it cannot be done. It can be done because outsiders, upon hearing 'neither arising nor ceasing' and 'ultimate emptiness,' lose their understanding of the Two Truths. To expound the Two Truths, this treatise is written. Also, because of confusion about the Buddha's Two Truths, disputes arise. For this reason, this treatise is written, and it can be said that the Two Truths are at the beginning of the treatise. It cannot be done because the term 'Two Truths' is limited, while 'causes and conditions' is more comprehensive. Because the Two Truths are only 'two,' not 'non-two,' they are only teachings, not the ultimate truth. If it is teaching and truth, 'two' and 'non-two,' all are causes and conditions, and the meaning is comprehensive. Question: Since causes and conditions encompass everything, why not take causes and conditions as the principle? Answer: Taking the Two Truths as the principle, is it separate from causes and conditions? It is just that the Buddhas' teachings always rely on the Two Truths. Now, it is precisely to dispute with outsiders about the Buddha's Two Truths that the Two Truths are taken as the principle.

又青目序品意云。因緣即是八不。八不即是因緣。八不既貫論初。因緣亦標論首也。問何以知八不即是因緣耶。答偈及長行並有文證。偈言能說是因緣。即能說八不因緣。長行雲說因緣相。所謂不生不滅等也。問八不是因緣。若破因緣即破八不。若申八不即應申因緣耶。答若體因緣即是八不。無假須破。但外人不識因緣即是八不。八不自是真諦。因緣自是世諦。彼解因緣僻故。所以破因緣品也。問龍樹為稱佛教申為不稱教申。若稱教申者。佛前說小后說大。今何故前明大后說小。若不稱教申。即是顛倒也。答有四義。一龍樹稱佛本意申佛教也。所以者何。諸佛出世為一大事因緣故。謂一乘道。但為淺鈍之緣。曲為小教。今申佛本意故。前申大也。二欲明中百兩論互相開避。百論前淺后深。中論前深后淺也。三佛自前說小后明大。中論自說大乘實不欲說小。但為外人不堪學大乘觀行故。論主更為說小乘也。四欲示小乘從大乘出。是故前大后小也。問因緣語通。故生與不生皆是因緣。八不但是不生。云何言因緣即是八不也。答八不不生。此是因緣不生。故不生即得生也。故中論云。如經中說。若見因緣即名見法。見法即見佛也。若不見因緣。即不見法。不見法即不見佛也。此是借因緣破不因緣也。故大經云。是諸外道。無

【現代漢語翻譯】又《青目序品》的意義是說，因緣就是八不（不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不去、不來），八不就是因緣。八不貫穿整部論的開端，因緣也標示在論的首要位置。問：憑什麼知道八不就是因緣呢？答：偈頌和長行都有文字可以證明。偈頌說，能夠解說因緣，就能解說八不的因緣。長行說，解說因緣的相狀，就是所謂的不生不滅等等。問：八不是因緣，如果破斥因緣，就破斥了八不。如果闡述八不，就應該闡述因緣嗎？答：如果體悟因緣就是八不，就不需要假借破斥。只是外人不認識因緣就是八不，八不本身就是真諦，因緣本身就是世諦。他們對因緣的理解有偏差，所以要破斥《因緣品》。問：龍樹（Nāgārjuna）是爲了稱合佛教的教義而闡述，還是爲了不稱合佛教的教義而闡述？如果稱合佛教的教義而闡述，佛陀（Buddha）之前說小乘，之後說大乘，現在為什麼先闡明大乘，后說小乘？如果不稱合佛教的教義而闡述，那就是顛倒了。答：有四種原因。一是龍樹稱合佛陀的本意來闡述佛教。為什麼這麼說呢？諸佛出世是爲了一個重大因緣，就是一乘道。只是爲了適應淺薄遲鈍的根器，才權宜地說了小乘教法。現在闡述佛陀的本意，所以先闡述大乘。二是想說明《中論》和《百論》互相開合。《百論》前淺后深，《中論》前深后淺。三是佛陀自己先說小乘，后說明大乘。《中論》本身是說大乘，實際上不想說小乘，但是因為外人不能夠學習大乘的觀行，所以論主才為他們說小乘。四是想顯示小乘是從大乘中出來的，所以先說大乘，后說小乘。問：因緣這個詞語是通用的，所以生和不生都是因緣。八不只是不生，怎麼說因緣就是八不呢？答：八不的不生，這是因緣的不生，所以不生就得到了生。所以《中論》說，如經中所說，如果見到因緣，就叫做見到法，見到法就見到佛。如果不見因緣，就不能見到法，不能見到法就不能見到佛。這是借用因緣來破斥不因緣。所以《大經》說，這些外道，沒有見因緣故。不見佛性。是故不見佛也。

【English Translation】 Furthermore, the meaning of the 'Introduction to the Chapter on the Blue Eyes' is that dependent origination (因緣) is precisely the eight negations (八不) (neither arising, nor ceasing; neither permanent, nor impermanent; neither identical, nor different; neither coming, nor going), and the eight negations are precisely dependent origination. The eight negations run through the beginning of the treatise, and dependent origination is also marked at the head of the treatise. Question: How do we know that the eight negations are precisely dependent origination? Answer: Both the verses and the prose sections have textual evidence. The verses say that being able to explain dependent origination is being able to explain the dependent origination of the eight negations. The prose sections say that explaining the characteristics of dependent origination is what is called neither arising nor ceasing, and so on. Question: If the eight negations are dependent origination, then if dependent origination is refuted, the eight negations are refuted. If the eight negations are expounded, should dependent origination be expounded? Answer: If one realizes that dependent origination is precisely the eight negations, then there is no need to falsely refute it. It is just that outsiders do not recognize that dependent origination is precisely the eight negations. The eight negations themselves are the ultimate truth (真諦), and dependent origination itself is the conventional truth (世諦). Their understanding of dependent origination is biased, so the 'Chapter on Dependent Origination' is refuted. Question: Does Nāgārjuna (龍樹) expound in accordance with the Buddha's (佛陀) teachings, or does he expound not in accordance with the Buddha's teachings? If he expounds in accordance with the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha first spoke of the Small Vehicle (小乘) and later spoke of the Great Vehicle (大乘), so why does he now first explain the Great Vehicle and later speak of the Small Vehicle? If he expounds not in accordance with the Buddha's teachings, then that is a reversal. Answer: There are four reasons. First, Nāgārjuna expounds the Buddha's original intention in expounding the Buddhist teachings. Why is this so? The Buddhas appear in the world for one great cause and condition, which is the One Vehicle path (一乘道). It is only for the sake of those with shallow and dull faculties that the Small Vehicle teachings are expediently spoken. Now, expounding the Buddha's original intention, he first expounds the Great Vehicle. Second, he wants to clarify that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論) and the Śataśāstra (百論) mutually open and avoid each other. The Śataśāstra is shallow at the beginning and deep at the end, while the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is deep at the beginning and shallow at the end. Third, the Buddha himself first spoke of the Small Vehicle and later explained the Great Vehicle. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā itself speaks of the Great Vehicle and does not actually want to speak of the Small Vehicle, but because outsiders are not capable of learning the contemplation and practice of the Great Vehicle, the author of the treatise speaks of the Small Vehicle for them. Fourth, he wants to show that the Small Vehicle comes from the Great Vehicle, so he first speaks of the Great Vehicle and later speaks of the Small Vehicle. Question: The term 'dependent origination' (因緣) is universal, so both arising and not arising are dependent origination. The eight negations are only not arising, so how can it be said that dependent origination is precisely the eight negations? Answer: The not arising of the eight negations is the not arising of dependent origination, so not arising obtains arising. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says, as it is said in the sutras, if one sees dependent origination, it is called seeing the Dharma (法), and seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha. If one does not see dependent origination, one cannot see the Dharma, and not seeing the Dharma is not seeing the Buddha. This is using dependent origination to refute non-dependent origination. Therefore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (大經) says, these non-Buddhist, without seeing dependent origination, do not see the Buddha-nature (佛性), therefore they do not see the Buddha.

有一法不從因緣生。佛性不爾。不從因生故。是借不因緣破因緣也。問佛性既非因緣。是無因以不。答亦得。故云涅槃無因而體是果。然佛性非因亦非果也。故中論具有二義。如破無因等外道計故。說十二因緣。此是借因破無因。又文中破四緣生。故是借非因緣破因緣。至論正法。未曾是因緣及不因緣也。問能說是因緣善滅諸戲論與因緣所生法二處因緣。是因緣是同是異。答既云兩處。寧得是同。復是假名因緣。那得異。而意同也。今大乘明因緣義。因者如依因習因生因等。並是說緣為因。若如四緣等。皆是說因為緣。若緣緣于因。因即是緣。緣義為因。若因因於緣。緣義亦因。故因緣義通。而言八不不生不滅等為因緣。但因緣義。無差別差別開為三義。一者當體得因緣名。只八不是因緣故何者因不生故不滅。不滅故不生。則八不是因緣。只八不不生等。是言說故無非因緣故。云當相是因緣。名八不為因緣佛八不不一切故也。二者八不是因緣本故名因緣。則因緣空壞因緣故。八不非因緣。既八不不一切不生不滅等亦不因緣與不不因緣。豈得當體是因緣。是故因緣本也。三者破因緣已得名。如毗曇辨六因等明諸法等也。今明。八不不一切。辨無因緣法。破外道因緣義。故名因緣。然備有此三義。遂得悟不同。抑沒不無淺

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有一法不是從因緣和合而生起的，佛性（Buddha-nature）不是這樣。因為它不是從因生起的，所以這是借用『非因緣』來破斥『因緣』的說法。問：佛性既然不是因緣所生，那麼它是不是無因而生呢？答：也可以這樣說。所以說涅槃（Nirvana）是無因而體是果。然而，佛性既非因也非果。所以《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）具有兩種含義：例如，爲了破斥無因等外道的觀點，宣說了十二因緣（Twelve Nidanas）。這是借用『因』來破斥『無因』。另外，文中破斥了四緣生（Four Conditions），所以這是借用『非因緣』來破斥『因緣』。至於論述正法（True Dharma），從來沒有什麼是因緣或者非因緣的。問：能夠說『因緣』善於滅除各種戲論，以及『因緣所生法』這兩處的『因緣』，是相同還是不同呢？答：既然說是兩處，怎麼能相同呢？而且是假名安立的『因緣』，又怎麼能說不同呢？而其意是一樣的。現在大乘（Mahayana）闡明『因緣』的含義，『因』比如依因、習因、生因等，都是說『緣』作為『因』。如果像四緣等，都是說『因』作為『緣』。如果『緣』緣于『因』，那麼『因』就是『緣』，『緣』的含義就是『因』。如果『因』因於『緣』，那麼『緣』的含義也是『因』。所以『因緣』的含義是相通的。而說『八不』（Eight No's）——不生不滅等——為『因緣』，只是『因緣』的含義沒有差別，將差別開為三種含義：一是當體得到『因緣』之名，只是『八不』不是『因緣』，為什麼呢？因為不生故不滅，不滅故不生，那麼『八不』不是『因緣』。只是『八不』——不生等——是言說，所以沒有不是『因緣』的，所以說當相是『因緣』，稱『八不』為『因緣』，佛說『八不』不是一切的緣故。二是『八不』是『因緣』的根本，所以名為『因緣』，那麼『因緣』空性壞滅『因緣』的緣故，『八不』不是『因緣』。既然『八不』不是一切，不生不滅等，也不是『因緣』與『不因緣』，怎麼能當體是『因緣』呢？所以是『因緣』的根本。三是破斥『因緣』之後得到這個名稱，如毗曇（Abhidharma）辨別六因等，闡明諸法等。現在闡明，『八不』不是一切，辨別無因緣法，破斥外道的『因緣』之義，所以名為『因緣』。然而具備這三種含義，於是得到的領悟不同，抑制沒有淺薄的領悟。

【English Translation】 English version There is a Dharma that does not arise from conditions (hetu-pratyaya). Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhatu) is not like that. Because it does not arise from a cause, it is using 'non-condition' to refute 'condition'. Question: Since Buddha-nature is not produced by conditions, is it causeless? Answer: It can also be said that way. Therefore, it is said that Nirvana (Nirvana) is causeless, and its essence is the result. However, Buddha-nature is neither cause nor result. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) has two meanings: for example, to refute the views of externalists who believe in causelessness, the Twelve Nidanas (Twelve Links of Dependent Origination) are expounded. This is using 'cause' to refute 'no cause'. In addition, the text refutes the Four Conditions (Cattari Pratyaya), so this is using 'non-condition' to refute 'condition'. As for discussing the True Dharma (Saddharma), there has never been anything that is either condition or non-condition. Question: The 'condition' that can be said to be good at eliminating all conceptual proliferations, and the 'condition' in the 'Dharmas produced by conditions' in these two places, are they the same or different? Answer: Since it is said to be two places, how can they be the same? Moreover, it is a 'condition' established by a provisional name, so how can it be said to be different? But the meaning is the same. Now, Mahayana (Mahayana) clarifies the meaning of 'condition': 'cause' such as dependent cause, habitual cause, generative cause, etc., all refer to 'condition' as 'cause'. If it is like the Four Conditions, etc., they all refer to 'cause' as 'condition'. If 'condition' conditions 'cause', then 'cause' is 'condition', and the meaning of 'condition' is 'cause'. If 'cause' causes 'condition', then the meaning of 'condition' is also 'cause'. Therefore, the meaning of 'condition' is interconnected. And saying that the 'Eight No's' (asta-nasti) – no birth, no death, etc. – are 'conditions', it is just that the meaning of 'condition' has no difference, and the difference is opened into three meanings: First, the entity itself obtains the name of 'condition', but the 'Eight No's' are not 'conditions', why? Because there is no birth, therefore there is no death, and because there is no death, therefore there is no birth, then the 'Eight No's' are not 'conditions'. It is just that the 'Eight No's' – no birth, etc. – are speech, so there is nothing that is not a 'condition', so it is said that the appearance is 'condition', and the 'Eight No's' are called 'conditions', because the Buddha said that the 'Eight No's' are not all. Second, the 'Eight No's' are the root of 'condition', so they are called 'condition', then because the emptiness of 'condition' destroys 'condition', the 'Eight No's' are not 'conditions'. Since the 'Eight No's' are not all, no birth, no death, etc., are also not 'condition' and 'non-condition', how can the entity itself be 'condition'? Therefore, it is the root of 'condition'. Third, this name is obtained after refuting 'condition', such as Abhidharma (Abhidharma) distinguishing the six causes, etc., clarifying all dharmas, etc. Now clarifying, the 'Eight No's' are not all, distinguishing the causeless Dharma, refuting the externalist meaning of 'condition', so it is called 'condition'. However, possessing these three meanings, then the understanding obtained is different, suppressing there is no shallow understanding.

深之異。而具有三義。名觀因緣品也。問能說因緣者。唯障邪說是戲論。邪觀亦是戲論。答有通有不通。何者二而不二通。不二而二別。問若通者邪觀亦是邪說不。答既未邪言。云何是邪說。問若未邪言未是邪說者。亦未戲言未是戲論也。答戲論是借譬之名。故名邪觀。于道無所克獲。如小兒戲論為耳。問未邪說已是戲論者。未正說已是正說經也。答亦如前。無差別差別即不得。差別無差別亦有明之。故大經云。迦葉佛時非無此經。但不說耳。問以不戲論止戲論。亦以戲論止戲論不。答亦通得也。問若以戲論止戲論令不戲論。亦應以不戲論止不戲論令成戲論反決也。答兩途既皆言止故。相與令息。故戲論止戲論尚令不戲論。豈況不戲論止不戲論。而令成戲論耶。問既以戲論止戲論。即以言止言。答得。自有以不聲遮聲。自有以聲遮聲也。問若以言止言。亦應㨝出㨝。以病治病。即應以長待長也。答相待論相成。就相顯發為論。止治令有所去離故。此義即通。所以不例也。問上云。常無常等四句並戲論者。四句悉戲論不。答有所得四句並是戲論。無所得方便說四句。悉非戲論。亦是正說。問無所得四句非戲論者。亦應無所得顛倒非戲論也。答無所得假名說四句則便。假安顛倒則不便。何故爾。以眾生多顛倒少不顛倒故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：深奧之處在於它們的差異，並且具有三重含義，這就是所謂的『觀因緣品』。問：能夠闡述因緣的人，如果只是爲了阻止邪說而進行辯論，那也是一種戲論（prapañca，無意義的言語遊戲）。錯誤的觀點也是一種戲論。答：有共通之處，也有不共通之處。什麼情況下是『二而不二』的共通，什麼情況下是『不二而二』的差別？問：如果共通，那麼錯誤的觀點也是錯誤的言論嗎？答：既然還沒有錯誤的言論，怎麼能說是錯誤的言論呢？問：如果還沒有錯誤的言論就不是錯誤的言論，那麼還沒有戲論的言論就不是戲論了嗎？答：戲論是借用比喻的名稱，所以稱為錯誤的觀點。對於證悟正道沒有任何幫助，就像小孩子的遊戲言論一樣。問：還沒有錯誤的言論已經是戲論，那麼還沒有正確的言論就已經可以算是正確的經典了嗎？答：也像前面所說，沒有差別，差別就是無法獲得。差別和無差別也有明確的說明。所以《大般涅槃經》中說，在迦葉佛（Kāśyapa Buddha）時代並非沒有這部經典，只是沒有宣說而已。問：用不戲論來阻止戲論，也可以用戲論來阻止戲論嗎？答：也可以這樣說。問：如果用戲論來阻止戲論，使之不再是戲論，那麼也應該用不戲論來阻止不戲論，使之變成戲論，這樣就反過來了。答：兩種途徑都說是爲了『止息』，所以相互作用使之平息。因此，用戲論來阻止戲論，尚且能使之不再是戲論，更何況用不戲論來阻止不戲論，怎麼會使之變成戲論呢？問：既然用戲論來阻止戲論，那就是用言語來阻止言語。答：可以這樣說。有的是用無聲來遮蔽聲音，有的是用聲音來遮蔽聲音。問：如果用言語來阻止言語，也應該用尖銳的東西刺穿尖銳的東西，用疾病治療疾病，也應該用長處來等待長處。答：相互對待的理論是相互成就的，就相互顯發而言是成立的。『止』和『治』是爲了使之有所去除和遠離，所以這個道理是通順的，因此不能類比。問：上面說，常、無常等四句都是戲論，那麼所有的四句都是戲論嗎？答：有所得的四句都是戲論。無所得，方便地說四句，都不是戲論，也是正確的言說。問：無所得的四句不是戲論，那麼也應該無所得的顛倒也不是戲論嗎？答：無所得，假借名相來說四句，這樣就方便。假借安立顛倒，就不方便。為什麼呢？因為眾生多是顛倒的，少是不顛倒的。

【English Translation】 English version: The profundity lies in their differences and possesses three meanings, which is called 'The Chapter on Observing Conditioned Arising'. Question: Can those who explain conditioned arising only obstruct wrong views by saying it is mere verbal proliferation (prapañca)? Are wrong views also verbal proliferation? Answer: There is commonality and non-commonality. In what case is it 'two but not two' in common, and in what case is it 'not two but two' in difference? Question: If it is common, then is a wrong view also wrong speech? Answer: Since there has not yet been wrong speech, how can it be called wrong speech? Question: If not yet wrong speech is not wrong speech, then is not yet verbal proliferation not verbal proliferation? Answer: Verbal proliferation is a borrowed metaphorical name, hence it is called a wrong view. It does not help in attaining the path, like a child's playful speech. Question: If not yet wrong speech is already verbal proliferation, then can not yet right speech already be considered a right sutra? Answer: It is also as said before, there is no difference, and difference means unobtainable. Difference and non-difference also have clear explanations. Therefore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says that in the time of Kāśyapa Buddha (Kāśyapa Buddha), this sutra was not absent, but it was not spoken. Question: Can non-verbal proliferation be used to stop verbal proliferation, and can verbal proliferation also be used to stop verbal proliferation? Answer: It can also be said that way. Question: If verbal proliferation is used to stop verbal proliferation, making it no longer verbal proliferation, then should non-verbal proliferation also be used to stop non-verbal proliferation, making it become verbal proliferation, thus reversing the argument? Answer: Both paths are said to 'cease', so they interact to pacify each other. Therefore, using verbal proliferation to stop verbal proliferation can still make it no longer verbal proliferation, let alone using non-verbal proliferation to stop non-verbal proliferation, how could it make it become verbal proliferation? Question: Since verbal proliferation is used to stop verbal proliferation, that is using speech to stop speech. Answer: It can be said that way. Some use silence to cover sound, and some use sound to cover sound. Question: If speech is used to stop speech, then should a sharp object also be used to pierce a sharp object, disease be used to cure disease, and length be used to wait for length? Answer: Theories that are mutually dependent are mutually accomplished, and are established in terms of mutual manifestation. 'Stopping' and 'curing' are to remove and distance something, so this principle is coherent, therefore it cannot be analogized. Question: Above it was said that the four statements of permanence, impermanence, etc., are all verbal proliferation, then are all four statements verbal proliferation? Answer: The four statements with attainment are all verbal proliferation. The four statements without attainment, spoken expediently, are not verbal proliferation, and are also correct speech. Question: If the four statements without attainment are not verbal proliferation, then should the inversions without attainment also not be verbal proliferation? Answer: Without attainment, using borrowed names to speak of the four statements is convenient. Borrowing and establishing inversions is not convenient. Why? Because sentient beings are mostly inverted, and few are not inverted.

若任而論之。正善具成就。演說四顛倒即倒也。問若有所得四句皆是戲論。無所得四句並非戲論耶。答一往相對論。常是戲論。無常非戲論。又無常是戲論。常非戲論。復常無常俱是戲論。非常非無常非戲論。總括始終明之。凡論相心四句。成有所得並是戲論。就後方便皆非戲論也。故反折論云謗也。

第五辨單復中假義有三意。第一明單義論單復。第二明覆義論單復。第三辨二諦單復義。就初有兩。第一正明單復。第二論互得相入也。今先正論單復中假義。若偏說假有不說無。是單假也。偏說假無不說有。亦是單假。偏說一非有。是單中。偏說一非無。亦是單中。雙說假有假無。是復假。雙說非有非無。是復。中也。問何意明單複句耶。答凡有二義。一者一往為利根人說單假。為鈍根人說復假。利根人者。聞一修行十。若聞說假有則悟解假無。乃至聞說非有則解非無。所以不勞具明有二義也為鈍根人隨言得解。若不具說。不能懸悟故。所以雙明二義也。二者為鈍根人說單假。為利根人說復假。以鈍根人不堪圓教。所以說單義破其病執。若利根人堪聞圓旨。所以說復假義。便能領持也。次明互得相入出有八句。第一從單假入單中。或言假有不名有。從有入非有。無亦然也。第二明從單中出單假。或言非有假說有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果執著于任何一方來討論，即使是正確的善也會變成不圓滿。宣講四顛倒（指常、樂、我、凈四種顛倒見）就是一種顛倒。問：如果有所得之心，那麼四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）都是戲論；如果沒有所得之心，那麼四句就不是戲論嗎？答：從相對的角度來說，執著于常就是戲論，執著于無常就不是戲論。反過來說，執著于無常是戲論，執著于常就不是戲論。再者，執著于亦常亦無常，就是戲論；執著于非常非無常，就不是戲論。總而言之，凡是用分別心來討論事物，四句都帶有有所得之心，都是戲論。如果放下這些執著，那麼就不是戲論。所以，反駁這種觀點，就叫做誹謗。

第五，辨析單句和複句中的假義，有三種含義。第一，從單義的角度來討論單句和複句。第二，從復義的角度來討論單句和複句。第三，辨析二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）中單句和複句的含義。首先討論第一種情況，又分為兩點：第一，正面闡明單句和複句；第二，討論相互獲得和相互進入。現在先正面討論單句和複句中的假義。如果只說假有，而不說假無，這就是單假。如果只說假無，而不說假有，這也是單假。如果只說非有，這就是單中。如果只說非無，這也是單中。如果同時說假有和假無，這就是復假。如果同時說非有和非無，這就是復中。問：為什麼要闡明單句和複句呢？答：有兩種含義。第一，針對利根之人，說單假；針對鈍根之人，說復假。利根之人，聽一就能修行十，如果聽到說假有，就能領悟假無，乃至聽到說非有，就能理解非無。所以不需要詳細說明兩種含義。而鈍根之人，只能根據所說的話來理解，如果不詳細說明，就不能領悟，所以要同時說明兩種含義。第二，針對鈍根之人，說單假；針對利根之人，說復假。因為鈍根之人不能接受圓滿的教義，所以說單義來破除他們的執著。而利根之人能夠聽聞圓滿的教義，所以說復假義，他們就能領會和堅持。接下來闡明相互獲得和相互進入，有八句。第一，從單假進入單中，例如說假有，但不稱為有，從有進入非有，無也是如此。第二，闡明從單中出來進入單假，例如說非有，但假說為有。

【English Translation】 English version If one clings to any side in a discussion, even correct goodness becomes imperfect. Expounding the four inversions (referring to the four inverted views of permanence, happiness, self, and purity) is itself an inversion. Question: If there is a mind of attainment, then the four statements (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) are all playful fabrications; if there is no mind of attainment, then the four statements are not playful fabrications? Answer: From a relative perspective, clinging to permanence is a playful fabrication, while clinging to impermanence is not. Conversely, clinging to impermanence is a playful fabrication, while clinging to permanence is not. Furthermore, clinging to both permanence and impermanence is a playful fabrication; clinging to neither permanence nor impermanence is not a playful fabrication. In summary, whenever one discusses things with a discriminating mind, the four statements all carry a mind of attainment and are all playful fabrications. If one lets go of these attachments, then they are not playful fabrications. Therefore, refuting this view is called slander.

Fifth, distinguishing the meaning of 'provisionality' in single and compound statements has three meanings. First, discussing single and compound statements from the perspective of single meaning. Second, discussing single and compound statements from the perspective of compound meaning. Third, distinguishing the meaning of single and compound statements in the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth). First, discussing the first situation, which is divided into two points: First, positively clarifying single and compound statements; Second, discussing mutual attainment and mutual entry. Now, let's first positively discuss the meaning of 'provisionality' in single and compound statements. If one only speaks of provisional existence without speaking of provisional non-existence, this is a single provisionality. If one only speaks of provisional non-existence without speaking of provisional existence, this is also a single provisionality. If one only speaks of non-existence, this is a single middle. If one only speaks of non-non-existence, this is also a single middle. If one speaks of both provisional existence and provisional non-existence, this is a compound provisionality. If one speaks of both non-existence and non-non-existence, this is a compound middle. Question: Why clarify single and compound statements? Answer: There are two meanings. First, for those with sharp faculties, single provisionality is spoken; for those with dull faculties, compound provisionality is spoken. Those with sharp faculties can hear one and practice ten; if they hear of provisional existence, they can understand provisional non-existence, and even if they hear of non-existence, they can understand non-non-existence. Therefore, there is no need to explain the two meanings in detail. Those with dull faculties can only understand according to what is said; if it is not explained in detail, they cannot understand, so both meanings must be explained simultaneously. Second, for those with dull faculties, single provisionality is spoken; for those with sharp faculties, compound provisionality is spoken. Because those with dull faculties cannot accept the complete teachings, single meaning is spoken to break their attachments. Those with sharp faculties can hear the complete teachings, so compound provisionality is spoken, and they can understand and uphold it. Next, clarifying mutual attainment and mutual entry, there are eight statements. First, from single provisionality entering single middle, for example, saying provisional existence, but not calling it existence, from existence entering non-existence, non-existence is also the same. Second, clarifying from single middle exiting and entering single provisionality, for example, saying non-existence, but provisionally calling it existence.

。非無假說無也。第三明從復假入復中。假有不名有。假無不名無。則是有無入非有非無。無亦然也。第四明從復中出復假。明非有非無說有無非無非有說無有也。第五明從單假入復中。或言。有入非有非無。無入非無非有也。第六明從復中出單假。或言。非有非無假說有。非無非有假說無也。第七明從復假入單中。有無則非有。無有則非無也。第八明從單中出復假。非有假說有不有。非無假說無不無也。次釋所以然者有二義。一者破眾生執實之病。隨計遣所以遂成多句也。二者明大士觀行融通自在無有滯礙。故地持云。從有無方便入非有非無也。華嚴經云。或東方入正受三昧等。不復具出。又大品經云。或散心中起入滅盡定。滅盡定起入散心中。則是迴轉總持入出無礙方便也。第二就復義論單復。復有二。初正明單復。后明出入義。初正明單復中假。假有是世諦。假無是真諦。此是單假。非有非無是中道也。此是單中。假有假無為二。是俗諦復假。非有非無不二是俗諦。復中二不二是真諦。是復假。非二非不二是中道。此是復中。正言非二非不二。盡有無非有非無。所以正中也。次明其所以有二義。一往為言。單中單假明義則淺。復中復假明義則深也。所以然者。單義之二諦。至復義時。還俗諦。單家之中道至復義

【現代漢語翻譯】非無假說無也。第三，闡明從複合假入于複合中。假立的有不稱為有，假立的無不稱為無，那麼就是有和無進入了非有非無的狀態。無也是這樣。第四，闡明從複合中出離複合假。闡明非有非無說是『有無』，非無非有說是『無有』。第五，闡明從單一假入于複合中。或者說，有進入非有非無，無進入非無非有。第六，闡明從複合中出離單一假。或者說，非有非無假立為『有』，非無非有假立為『無』。第七，闡明從複合假入于單一中。有無則為非有，無有則為非無。第八，闡明從單一中出離複合假。非有假立為『有不有』，非無假立為『無不無』。接下來解釋這樣說的原因，有兩個意義。一是破除眾生執著實有的病，隨順眾生的計度而遣除，所以成就多種說法。二是闡明大士的觀行融通自在，沒有滯礙。所以《地持經》說：『從有無的方便進入非有非無。』《華嚴經》說：『或者從東方進入正受三昧』等等，不再一一列舉。又《大品經》說：『或者在散亂心中起入滅盡定，從滅盡定起入散亂心中。』這就是迴轉總持，出入無礙的方便。第二，就複合的意義來討論單一和複合。複合有兩種。首先，正式闡明單一和複合；然後，闡明出入的意義。首先，在正式闡明單一和複合中，假立的有是世俗諦（conventional truth），假立的無是真諦（ultimate truth），這是單一假。非有非無是中道（Middle Way），這是單一中。假立的有和假立的無為二，是世俗諦的複合假。非有非無不二是世俗諦，是複合中。非二非不二是真諦，是複合假。正說非二非不二，窮盡有無非有非無，所以是正中。接下來闡明它之所以如此的原因，有兩個意義。從一方面來說，單一中和單一假闡明的意義淺顯，複合中和複合假闡明的意義深刻。之所以如此，是因為單一意義的二諦（two truths），到了複合意義時，還是世俗諦。單一家的中道到了複合意義時

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not-non-existence' is provisionally called 'non-existence'. Thirdly, it clarifies entering the compound from the compound provisional. A provisional 'existence' is not called 'existence'; a provisional 'non-existence' is not called 'non-existence'. Then 'existence' and 'non-existence' enter the state of 'neither existence nor non-existence'. The same applies to 'non-existence'. Fourthly, it clarifies exiting the compound provisional from the compound. It clarifies that 'neither existence nor non-existence' is said to be 'existence and non-existence', and 'neither non-existence nor existence' is said to be 'non-existence and existence'. Fifthly, it clarifies entering the compound from the single provisional. Or it is said that 'existence' enters 'neither existence nor non-existence', and 'non-existence' enters 'neither non-existence nor existence'. Sixthly, it clarifies exiting the single provisional from the compound. Or it is said that 'neither existence nor non-existence' is provisionally called 'existence', and 'neither non-existence nor existence' is provisionally called 'non-existence'. Seventhly, it clarifies entering the single from the compound provisional. 'Existence and non-existence' are then 'not existence', and 'non-existence and existence' are then 'not non-existence'. Eighthly, it clarifies exiting the compound provisional from the single. 'Not existence' is provisionally called 'existence not existence', and 'not non-existence' is provisionally called 'non-existence not non-existence'. Next, the reason for this is explained, and there are two meanings. One is to break the disease of sentient beings clinging to reality, following their calculations to dispel it, thus achieving multiple statements. The second is to clarify that the Bodhisattva's (Great Being) contemplation is harmonious and free, without any stagnation. Therefore, the Dasabhumika Sutra says: 'Entering neither existence nor non-existence from the expedient of existence and non-existence.' The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Or entering the correct Samadhi (state of meditative consciousness) from the East,' etc., which will not be listed in detail again. Also, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Or arising from a scattered mind to enter the extinction Samadhi, and arising from the extinction Samadhi to enter a scattered mind.' This is the expedient of revolving total retention, entering and exiting without obstruction. Secondly, discussing the single and compound in terms of the compound meaning. There are two types of compound. First, formally clarifying the single and compound; then, clarifying the meaning of entering and exiting. First, in formally clarifying the single and compound, provisional existence is the samvriti-satya (conventional truth), and provisional non-existence is the paramartha-satya (ultimate truth). This is a single provisional. Neither existence nor non-existence is the madhyama-pratipada (Middle Way), this is a single middle. Provisional existence and provisional non-existence are two, which is the compound provisional of the conventional truth. Neither existence nor non-existence, not two, is the conventional truth, which is the compound middle. Neither two nor not two is the ultimate truth, which is the compound provisional. Correctly saying neither two nor not two, exhausting existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, therefore it is the correct middle. Next, clarifying the reason why it is so, there are two meanings. From one perspective, the single middle and single provisional clarify the meaning shallowly, while the compound middle and compound provisional clarify the meaning deeply. The reason for this is that the two truths of the single meaning, when it comes to the compound meaning, are still the conventional truth. The Middle Way of the single school, when it comes to the compound meaning

時。還成真諦。單家之中道。止有無未能盡不二。復家之中道盡二復盡不二也。二者單明義則勝。復明義翻劣。所以然者。復假之有無。猶是單假之有義。復假之非有非無。猶是前單假之無義也。又復中之非二非不二。猶是前單中之非有非無義也。但前直言有。便攝得有無。止言無便攝得非有非無。止言非有非無。便攝得非二非不二。言略意廣。所以為勝復家中假言廣意略。所以為劣也。后明互得相出入有八句也。第一從單假入單中。假有不名有。假無不名無。入非有非無中道也。第二從單中出單假。非有假說有為俗。非無假說無為真也。第三從復假入復中。假二不名二。假不二不名不二。入非二非不二中道也。第四從復中出復假。非二假說二為俗。非不二假說不二為真也。第五從單假入復中。假有不名二。假無不名不二。從假有無入非二非不二中道也。第六從復中出單假。非二假說有為俗。非不二假說無為真也。第七從復假入單中假二不名有。假不二不名無。從二不二入非有非無也。第八從單中出復假。非有假說二為俗。非無假說不二為真也。第三就二諦論單復。復有二。一正明單復義。二論出入義。正明覆有兩。一者俗單復。二者真單復也。假有是俗單。假無是真單也。復假者。假有假不有是俗諦復。假無假不無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：當時，還成就了真諦。單家（指某種哲學流派）的中道，僅僅用『無』還不能完全表達不二的境界。復家（指另一種哲學流派）的中道，則既要窮盡『二』，也要窮盡『不二』。在『二』的問題上，單家闡明的義理就顯得高明，而復家闡明的義理則顯得遜色。為什麼會這樣呢？因為復家所假立的『有』和『無』，仍然是單家所假立的『有』的範疇；復家所假立的『非有非無』，仍然是前面單家所假立的『無』的範疇。進一步說，復家所說的『非二非不二』，仍然是前面單家所說的『非有非無』的義理。但是，單家直接說『有』，就包含了『有』和『無』；只說『無』，就包含了『非有非無』；只說『非有非無』，就包含了『非二非不二』。言語簡略而意蘊深廣，所以顯得高明。而復家假立的言辭繁多，意蘊卻顯得狹隘，所以顯得遜色。後面闡明相互得到、相互出入共有八種情況。第一種，從單假（指單家的假說）進入單中（指單家的中道）：假立的『有』不稱為『有』，假立的『無』不稱為『無』，從而進入『非有非無』的中道。第二種，從單中出來進入單假：不是『有』而假說為『有』，這是世俗諦；不是『無』而假說為『無』，這是真諦。第三種，從復假（指復家的假說）進入復中（指復家的中道）：假立的『二』不稱為『二』，假立的『不二』不稱為『不二』，從而進入『非二非不二』的中道。第四種，從復中出來進入復假：不是『二』而假說為『二』，這是世俗諦；不是『不二』而假說為『不二』，這是真諦。第五種，從單假進入復中：假立的『有』不稱為『二』，假立的『無』不稱為『不二』，從假立的『有』和『無』進入『非二非不二』的中道。第六種，從復中出來進入單假：不是『二』而假說為『有』，這是世俗諦；不是『不二』而假說為『無』，這是真諦。第七種，從復假進入單中：假立的『二』不稱為『有』，假立的『不二』不稱為『無』，從『二』和『不二』進入『非有非無』。第八種，從單中出來進入復假：不是『有』而假說為『二』，這是世俗諦；不是『無』而假說為『不二』，這是真諦。第三，就二諦（指真諦和俗諦）來討論單家和復家。復家有兩種情況：一是正面闡明單家和復家的義理，二是討論出入的義理。正面闡明復家有兩種情況：一是俗諦的單復，二是真諦的單復。假立的『有』是俗諦的單家，假立的『無』是真諦的單家。復假是：假立的『有』和假立的『不有』是俗諦的復家，假立的『無』和假立的『不無』是真諦的復家。

【English Translation】 English version: At that time, the ultimate truth was also realized. The Middle Way of the 'Single' school (Dan jia) (referring to a certain philosophical school) cannot be fully expressed by 'non-being' alone. The Middle Way of the 'Double' school (Fu jia) (referring to another philosophical school) must exhaust both 'duality' and 'non-duality'. Regarding 'duality', the meaning elucidated by the Single school is superior, while the meaning elucidated by the Double school is inferior. Why is this so? Because the 'being' and 'non-being' provisionally established by the Double school still fall within the category of 'being' provisionally established by the Single school. The 'neither being nor non-being' provisionally established by the Double school is still the meaning of 'non-being' provisionally established by the Single school earlier. Furthermore, the 'neither duality nor non-duality' in the Double school is still the meaning of 'neither being nor non-being' in the Single school earlier. However, the Single school directly states 'being', which encompasses 'being' and 'non-being'; it only states 'non-being', which encompasses 'neither being nor non-being'; it only states 'neither being nor non-being', which encompasses 'neither duality nor non-duality'. The language is concise but the meaning is profound, hence it is superior. The Double school provisionally establishes many words, but the meaning appears narrow, hence it is inferior. Later, it explains that there are eight situations of mutual attainment and mutual entry and exit. The first is from Single provisionality (referring to the Single school's provisionality) entering Single Middle (referring to the Single school's Middle Way): provisional 'being' is not called 'being', provisional 'non-being' is not called 'non-being', thus entering the Middle Way of 'neither being nor non-being'. The second is from Single Middle exiting into Single provisionality: not 'being' but provisionally saying 'being' is conventional truth; not 'non-being' but provisionally saying 'non-being' is ultimate truth. The third is from Double provisionality (referring to the Double school's provisionality) entering Double Middle (referring to the Double school's Middle Way): provisional 'duality' is not called 'duality', provisional 'non-duality' is not called 'non-duality', thus entering the Middle Way of 'neither duality nor non-duality'. The fourth is from Double Middle exiting into Double provisionality: not 'duality' but provisionally saying 'duality' is conventional truth; not 'non-duality' but provisionally saying 'non-duality' is ultimate truth. The fifth is from Single provisionality entering Double Middle: provisional 'being' is not called 'duality', provisional 'non-being' is not called 'non-duality', from provisional 'being' and 'non-being' entering the Middle Way of 'neither duality nor non-duality'. The sixth is from Double Middle exiting into Single provisionality: not 'duality' but provisionally saying 'being' is conventional truth; not 'non-duality' but provisionally saying 'non-being' is ultimate truth. The seventh is from Double provisionality entering Single Middle: provisional 'duality' is not called 'being', provisional 'non-duality' is not called 'non-being', from 'duality' and 'non-duality' entering 'neither being nor non-being'. The eighth is from Single Middle exiting into Double provisionality: not 'being' but provisionally saying 'duality' is conventional truth; not 'non-being' but provisionally saying 'non-duality' is ultimate truth. Third, discussing the Single and Double schools in terms of the Two Truths (Er di) (referring to ultimate truth and conventional truth). The Double school has two situations: one is to positively explain the meaning of the Single and Double schools, and the other is to discuss the meaning of entry and exit. Positively explaining the Double school has two situations: one is the Single and Double of conventional truth, and the other is the Single and Double of ultimate truth. Provisional 'being' is the Single school of conventional truth, and provisional 'non-being' is the Single school of ultimate truth. Double provisionality is: provisional 'being' and provisional 'non-being' are the Double school of conventional truth, and provisional 'non-being' and provisional 'non-non-being' are the Double school of ultimate truth.

是真諦復。非有為中道。是俗諦單中。非無為中道。是真諦單中。非有非不有。是俗諦復中。非無非不無。是真諦復中也。第二明互出入有三。一明俗二明真三明交絡。先約世諦明有八句。第一從俗諦單假入俗諦單中。假有不名有。即從有入非有也。第二從俗諦單中出俗單假。假非有說為有也。第三從俗復假入俗復中。假有假不有。非有非不有也。第四從俗諦復中出俗諦復假。云非有非不有假說有非有也。第五從俗諦單假入復中。假有非有。假有非不有也。第六從俗諦復中出單假。非有非不有說為一假有也。第七從俗諦復假入單中。假有不有入于非有也。第八從俗諦單中出復假。非有假說有不有也。第二就真諦辨亦有八句。第一從真諦單假入單中。假無不名無也。第二從真諦單中出單假。非無假說無也。第三從真諦復假入復中。云假無假不無。非無非不無也。第四從真諦復中出復假。云非無非不無。假說無不無也。第五從真諦單假入復中。假無非無。假無非不無也。第六從真諦復中出單假。云非無非不無假說為無也。第七從真諦復假入單中。云假無假不無入一非無也。第八從真諦單中出復假。云非無假說無不無也。第三約二諦交絡。明出入有十二句。第一從俗諦單假入真諦單中。云假有不名無。壞有入非無也。第二從

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『是真諦復』（勝義諦的重複），並非『有為中道』（由因緣和合而生的中道）。『是俗諦單中』（世俗諦的單一中道），並非『無為中道』（不依賴因緣的絕對中道）。『是真諦單中』（勝義諦的單一中道）。『非有非不有』，是『俗諦復中』（世俗諦的重複中道）。『非無非不無』，是『真諦復中』（勝義諦的重複中道）。第二，闡明相互出入有三種方式：一是闡明世俗諦，二是闡明勝義諦，三是闡明二諦交絡。首先，就世俗諦而言，有八句：第一，從『俗諦單假』（世俗諦的單一假有）進入『俗諦單中』（世俗諦的單一中道），假有不被稱為有，即從有進入非有。第二，從『俗諦單中』（世俗諦的單一中道）出到『俗諦單假』（世俗諦的單一假有），假非有被說成有。第三，從『俗諦復假』（世俗諦的重複假有）進入『俗諦復中』（世俗諦的重複中道），假有假不有，即非有非不有。第四，從『俗諦復中』（世俗諦的重複中道）出到『俗諦復假』（世俗諦的重複假有），說非有非不有，假說有非有。第五，從『俗諦單假』（世俗諦的單一假有）進入『俗諦復中』（世俗諦的重複中道），假有非有，假有非不有。第六，從『俗諦復中』（世俗諦的重複中道）出到『俗諦單假』（世俗諦的單一假有），非有非不有，被說成一個假有。第七，從『俗諦復假』（世俗諦的重複假有）進入『俗諦單中』（世俗諦的單一中道），假有不有，進入非有。第八，從『俗諦單中』（世俗諦的單一中道）出到『俗諦復假』（世俗諦的重複假有），非有假說有不有。第二，就勝義諦辨析，也有八句：第一，從『真諦單假』（勝義諦的單一假有）進入『真諦單中』（勝義諦的單一中道），假無不被稱為無。第二，從『真諦單中』（勝義諦的單一中道）出到『真諦單假』（勝義諦的單一假有），非無被假說為無。第三，從『真諦復假』（勝義諦的重複假有）進入『真諦復中』（勝義諦的重複中道），說假無假不無，即非無非不無。第四，從『真諦復中』（勝義諦的重複中道）出到『真諦復假』（勝義諦的重複假有），說非無非不無，假說無不無。第五，從『真諦單假』（勝義諦的單一假有）進入『真諦復中』（勝義諦的重複中道），假無非無，假無非不無。第六，從『真諦復中』（勝義諦的重複中道）出到『真諦單假』（勝義諦的單一假有），說非無非不無，假說為無。第七，從『真諦復假』（勝義諦的重複假有）進入『真諦單中』（勝義諦的單一中道），說假無假不無，進入一個非無。第八，從『真諦單中』（勝義諦的單一中道）出到『真諦復假』（勝義諦的重複假有），說非無假說無不無。第三，就二諦交絡而言，闡明出入有十二句：第一，從『俗諦單假』（世俗諦的單一假有）進入『真諦單中』（勝義諦的單一中道），說假有不被稱為無，壞有進入非無。

【English Translation】 English version 'Is the repetition of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated ultimate truth), not the 'conditioned Middle Way' (the Middle Way arising from causes and conditions). 'Is the single Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single Middle Way of conventional truth), not the 'unconditioned Middle Way' (the absolute Middle Way not dependent on causes and conditions). 'Is the single Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the single Middle Way of ultimate truth). 'Neither existent nor non-existent' is the 'repeated Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of conventional truth). 'Neither non-existent nor not non-existent' is the 'repeated Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of ultimate truth). Secondly, clarifying mutual entry and exit has three aspects: first, clarifying conventional truth; second, clarifying ultimate truth; and third, clarifying the interweaving of the two truths. First, regarding conventional truth, there are eight phrases: First, from 'single provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single provisional existence of conventional truth) entering 'single Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single Middle Way of conventional truth), provisional existence is not called existence, that is, from existence entering non-existence. Second, from 'single Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single Middle Way of conventional truth) exiting to 'single provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single provisional existence of conventional truth), provisional non-existence is spoken of as existence. Third, from 'repeated provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of conventional truth) entering 'repeated Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of conventional truth), provisional existence and provisional non-existence, that is, neither existent nor non-existent. Fourth, from 'repeated Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of conventional truth) exiting to 'repeated provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of conventional truth), saying neither existent nor non-existent, provisionally speaking of existence as non-existence. Fifth, from 'single provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single provisional existence of conventional truth) entering 'repeated Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of conventional truth), provisional existence is non-existent, provisional existence is not non-existent. Sixth, from 'repeated Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of conventional truth) exiting to 'single provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single provisional existence of conventional truth), neither existent nor non-existent is spoken of as a single provisional existence. Seventh, from 'repeated provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of conventional truth) entering 'single Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single Middle Way of conventional truth), provisional existence and non-existence enter non-existence. Eighth, from 'single Middle Way of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single Middle Way of conventional truth) exiting to 'repeated provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of conventional truth), non-existence is provisionally spoken of as existence and non-existence. Secondly, regarding the analysis of Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth), there are also eight phrases: First, from 'single provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the single provisional existence of ultimate truth) entering 'single Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the single Middle Way of ultimate truth), provisional non-existence is not called non-existence. Second, from 'single Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the single Middle Way of ultimate truth) exiting to 'single provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the single provisional existence of ultimate truth), non-non-existence is provisionally spoken of as non-existence. Third, from 'repeated provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of ultimate truth) entering 'repeated Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of ultimate truth), saying provisional non-existence and provisional not non-existence, that is, neither non-existent nor not non-existent. Fourth, from 'repeated Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of ultimate truth) exiting to 'repeated provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of ultimate truth), saying neither non-existent nor not non-existent, provisionally speaking of non-existence as not non-existence. Fifth, from 'single provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the single provisional existence of ultimate truth) entering 'repeated Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of ultimate truth), provisional non-existence is not non-existent, provisional non-existence is not not non-existent. Sixth, from 'repeated Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated Middle Way of ultimate truth) exiting to 'single provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the single provisional existence of ultimate truth), saying neither non-existent nor not non-existent, provisionally speaking of as non-existence. Seventh, from 'repeated provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of ultimate truth) entering 'single Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the single Middle Way of ultimate truth), saying provisional non-existence and provisional not non-existence, entering a not non-existence. Eighth, from 'single Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the single Middle Way of ultimate truth) exiting to 'repeated provisional existence of Paramārtha-satya' (the repeated provisional existence of ultimate truth), saying not non-existence provisionally speaking of non-existence as not non-existence. Thirdly, regarding the interweaving of the two truths, clarifying entry and exit has twelve phrases: First, from 'single provisional existence of Saṃvṛti-satya' (the single provisional existence of conventional truth) entering 'single Middle Way of Paramārtha-satya' (the single Middle Way of ultimate truth), saying provisional existence is not called non-existence, destroying existence entering non-non-existence.

真諦單中出俗諦單假。云非無不乖有。非無假說有也。第三從真諦單假入俗諦單中。云假無不名有。壞無入非有也。第四從俗諦單中出真諦單假。云非有不乖無。非有假說無也。第五從俗諦復假入真諦復中。云假有不有入非無非不無也。第六從真諦復中出俗諦復假。云非無非不無假說有不有也。第七從真諦復假入俗諦復中。云假無假不無。非有非不有也。第八從俗諦復中出真諦復假。云非有非不有假說無不無。第九從真諦單假入俗諦復中。云假無不名有。亦不名不有。即是非有非不有也。第十從俗諦復中出真諦單假。云非有非不有假說為無也。第十一從俗諦單假入真諦復中。云假有不名無。亦不名不無。則是非無非不無也。第十二從真諦復中出俗諦單假。云非無非不無假說為有也。

第六料簡不有有也。若了單復諸句。則解不有有義。若不了單復。不有有亦難解。故須廣辨也。此意望兩大經宗明之。一經無所有為宗。故經云。正法寶城善有。一經有所無為宗。故大品第三卷相行品云。身子白佛云。諸法實相云何。佛言。諸法無所有。如是有如是無所有。是事不知名為無明也。不有有若相對而解釋。有十六意也。第一不有有者。明其道非有非無。而結為有故言不有有也。然只結正道為有。不論其用。體無二相故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：真諦的單假進入俗諦的單中。意思是說，並非沒有，但又不違背有。並非沒有，只是假說為有。第三，從真諦的單假進入俗諦的單中。意思是說，假若沒有，就不能稱之為有。壞滅的無進入非有。第四，從俗諦的單中出來真諦的單假。意思是說，並非有，但又不違背無。並非有，只是假說為無。第五，從俗諦的復假進入真諦的復中。意思是說，假若有，就不是有，進入非無非不無的狀態。第六，從真諦的復中出來俗諦的復假。意思是說，非無非不無，假說為有不有。第七，從真諦的復假進入俗諦的復中。意思是說，假若無，假若不無，就是非有非不有。第八，從俗諦的復中出來真諦的復假。意思是說，非有非不有，假說為無不無。第九，從真諦的單假進入俗諦的復中。意思是說，假若沒有，就不能稱之為有，也不能稱之為不有，即是非有非不有。第十，從俗諦的復中出來真諦的單假。意思是說，非有非不有，假說為無。第十一，從俗諦的單假進入真諦的復中。意思是說，假若有，就不能稱之為無，也不能稱之為不無，那就是非無非不無。第十二，從真諦的復中出來俗諦的單假。意思是說，非無非不無，假說為有。

第六，簡要分析『不有有』的含義。如果瞭解單句和複句的含義，就能理解『不有有』的意義。如果不瞭解單句和複句，『不有有』也很難理解，所以需要廣泛辨析。這個意思希望參照兩大經的宗旨來闡明。一部經以無所有為宗旨。所以經中說：『正法寶城善有。』一部經以有所無為宗旨。所以《大品般若經》第三卷《相行品》中說：身子（Śāriputra）(舍利弗，佛陀十大弟子之一)問佛說：『諸法的實相是什麼？』佛說：『諸法無所有，如是有如是無所有，這件事不知道就叫做無明。』『不有有』如果相對照來解釋，有十六種含義。第一種，『不有有』，說明其道既非有也非無，而最終歸結為有，所以說『不有有』。然而只是歸結正道為有，不論其作用，體性沒有二種相狀的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: The single false of Paramārtha (真諦) enters the single middle of Saṃvṛti (俗諦). It means, 'It is not non-existent, yet it does not contradict existence.' It is not non-existent, but is provisionally said to be existent. Third, from the single false of Paramārtha enters the single middle of Saṃvṛti. It means, 'If it were false and non-existent, it could not be called existent.' The destruction of non-existence enters non-existence. Fourth, from the single middle of Saṃvṛti emerges the single false of Paramārtha. It means, 'It is not existent, yet it does not contradict non-existence.' It is not existent, but is provisionally said to be non-existent. Fifth, from the compound false of Saṃvṛti enters the compound middle of Paramārtha. It means, 'If it were falsely existent, it would not be existent, entering the state of neither non-existent nor not non-existent.' Sixth, from the compound middle of Paramārtha emerges the compound false of Saṃvṛti. It means, 'Neither non-existent nor not non-existent, provisionally said to be existent and not existent.' Seventh, from the compound false of Paramārtha enters the compound middle of Saṃvṛti. It means, 'If it were falsely non-existent, falsely not non-existent, it would be neither existent nor not existent.' Eighth, from the compound middle of Saṃvṛti emerges the compound false of Paramārtha. It means, 'Neither existent nor not existent, provisionally said to be non-existent and not non-existent.' Ninth, from the single false of Paramārtha enters the compound middle of Saṃvṛti. It means, 'If it were falsely non-existent, it could not be called existent, nor could it be called not existent, that is, neither existent nor not existent.' Tenth, from the compound middle of Saṃvṛti emerges the single false of Paramārtha. It means, 'Neither existent nor not existent, provisionally said to be non-existent.' Eleventh, from the single false of Saṃvṛti enters the compound middle of Paramārtha. It means, 'If it were falsely existent, it could not be called non-existent, nor could it be called not non-existent, that is, neither non-existent nor not non-existent.' Twelfth, from the compound middle of Paramārtha emerges the single false of Saṃvṛti. It means, 'Neither non-existent nor not non-existent, provisionally said to be existent.'

Sixth, a brief analysis of the meaning of 'not existent existence'. If one understands the meaning of single and compound sentences, one can understand the meaning of 'not existent existence'. If one does not understand single and compound sentences, 'not existent existence' is also difficult to understand, so it needs to be widely analyzed. This meaning hopes to be clarified with reference to the tenets of the two major sutras. One sutra takes non-existence as its tenet. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The treasure city of the true Dharma is well existent.' One sutra takes existence and non-existence as its tenet. Therefore, the third volume of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (大品般若經), Chapter on Conduct (相行品), says: Śāriputra (身子) asked the Buddha, 'What is the true nature of all dharmas?' The Buddha said, 'All dharmas are non-existent, thus there is existence and thus there is non-existence, not knowing this is called ignorance.' If 'not existent existence' is explained in relation to each other, there are sixteen meanings. The first, 'not existent existence', explains that its path is neither existent nor non-existent, but ultimately concludes as existent, so it is called 'not existent existence'. However, it only concludes the true path as existent, regardless of its function, because the nature has no two aspects.

若結為有。不得結為無。結為無不得結為有。此是結獨義。只道非有復非無。非是有而結為有故。言不有有也。約不無無類然也。第二不有有。就假上明之。三假有是不有有也。他假有是有故有。今假有是不有有也。第三不有有者。道非有非無。而側出有一用故言不有有。然道非有非無。而起用應雙起。而但起一用故言側出也。不無無亦然也。第四不有有者。明用假有非是有。故言不有。結用歸體。體是有故。今言不有有也。此異前約體上言不有有。亦異第三體不有是有而起一有用。此但以不特名用。用不是有而體是有故。言不有有也。不無無類之。第五不有有者。為破有執故。執者謂有是有。不知不有為有故。今破者。明有非有故有乃是不有有。此是以有破有。但能破是不有有。所破是有有也。約不無無類也。第六不有有者。為破無執執法是無。今以不有有破之。若以有有破無。此乃是敵義。故執不去。今以不有有破無。無而得去。故言不有有也。不無無亦爾也。第七不有有者。破一切有。若有有若不有有。皆以不特不之。故言不有。而起一切有用。若有有若不有有為用故。合言不有有也。不無無亦類也。以不特不一切無故言不無。而起一切無為用故。合不無無也。第八不有有者。重進明義。明不有則不一切有一切

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若執著于『有』，就不能理解『非有』的真諦；執著于『無』，就不能理解『非無』的真諦。這就是『結獨義』（結：執著；獨：片面）。只說『非有』又『非無』，是因為並非實有而執著于『有』，所以說『不有有』（即非有之有）。對於『非無』的理解也是如此。第二種『不有有』，是就假有（因緣和合而成的假象）上來說明的。第三種假有，是『不有有』。因為其他的假有，是因為『有』而有，現在的假有，是『不有有』。第三種『不有有』，是說既非『有』也非『無』，而側重顯現『有』的作用，所以說『不有有』。然而，說道理上既非『有』也非『無』，那麼起作用應該同時起『有』和『無』的作用，但現在只起『有』的作用，所以說是側重顯現。『不無無』也是同樣的道理。第四種『不有有』，是說明作用是假有，並非實有，所以說『不有』。作用歸於本體，本體是『有』，所以現在說『不有有』。這與前面從本體上說『不有有』不同，也與第三種本體非『有』而起『有』的作用不同。這裡只是用『不』來特別說明作用，作用不是『有』，而本體是『有』，所以說『不有有』。『不無無』也是同樣的道理。第五種『不有有』，是爲了破除對『有』的執著。執著的人認為『有』就是『有』，不知道『非有』才是真正的『有』。現在破除這種執著，說明『有』並非實有，所以『有』就是『不有有』。這是用『有』來破除『有』。但只能破除『不有有』，所要破除的是『是有有』（執著于實有的『有』）。對於『不無無』的理解也是如此。第六種『不有有』，是爲了破除對『無』的執著。執著的人認為法是『無』，現在用『不有有』來破除這種執著。如果用『有有』來破除『無』，這就像是敵對的雙方，所以執著無法去除。現在用『不有有』來破除『無』，『無』才能被去除，所以說『不有有』。『不無無』也是同樣的道理。第七種『不有有』，是爲了破除一切『有』，無論是『有有』還是『不有有』，都用『不』來特別否定它，所以說『不有』。從而顯現一切『有』的作用，無論是『有有』還是『不有有』都作為作用，所以合起來說『不有有』。『不無無』也是同樣的道理。用『不』來特別否定一切『無』，所以說『不無』，從而顯現一切『無』的作用，所以合起來說『不無無』。第八種『不有有』，是再次深入地闡明意義。明白『不有』，就不會執著於一切『有』，一切

【English Translation】 English version If one clings to 'existence' (有), one cannot understand the true meaning of 'non-existence' (非有); if one clings to 'non-existence' (無), one cannot understand the true meaning of 'non-non-existence' (非無). This is the meaning of 'exclusive attachment' (結獨義) (結: attachment; 獨: one-sided). To only say 'neither existence nor non-existence' is because one clings to 'existence' even though it is not truly existent, therefore it is said 'not existence existence' (不有有) (i.e., existence of non-existence). The understanding of 'non-non-existence' is similar. The second type of 'not existence existence' (不有有) is explained in terms of the false existence (假有) (illusory phenomena arising from the combination of causes and conditions). The third type of false existence is 'not existence existence'. Because other false existences exist because of 'existence', the current false existence is 'not existence existence'. The third type of 'not existence existence' (不有有) is saying that it is neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence', but emphasizes the function of 'existence', therefore it is said 'not existence existence'. However, in principle, it is neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence', then the function should arise simultaneously with both 'existence' and 'non-existence', but now only the function of 'existence' arises, so it is said to be emphasized. The principle of 'not non-existence non-existence' (不無無) is the same. The fourth type of 'not existence existence' (不有有) is explaining that the function is false existence, not truly existent, therefore it is said 'not existence'. The function returns to the essence, the essence is 'existence', so now it is said 'not existence existence'. This is different from the previous saying 'not existence existence' from the essence, and also different from the third type where the essence is not 'existence' but the function of 'existence' arises. Here, 'not' is only used to specifically explain the function, the function is not 'existence', but the essence is 'existence', so it is said 'not existence existence'. The principle of 'not non-existence non-existence' is the same. The fifth type of 'not existence existence' (不有有) is to break the attachment to 'existence'. Those who are attached think that 'existence' is 'existence', not knowing that 'non-existence' is the true 'existence'. Now breaking this attachment, explaining that 'existence' is not truly existent, so 'existence' is 'not existence existence'. This is using 'existence' to break 'existence'. But it can only break 'not existence existence', what needs to be broken is 'existence existence' (執著于實有的『有』) (attachment to real existence). The understanding of 'not non-existence non-existence' is similar. The sixth type of 'not existence existence' (不有有) is to break the attachment to 'non-existence'. Those who are attached think that the Dharma is 'non-existence', now using 'not existence existence' to break this attachment. If using 'existence existence' to break 'non-existence', this is like opposing sides, so the attachment cannot be removed. Now using 'not existence existence' to break 'non-existence', 'non-existence' can be removed, so it is said 'not existence existence'. The principle of 'not non-existence non-existence' is the same. The seventh type of 'not existence existence' (不有有) is to break all 'existence', whether it is 'existence existence' or 'not existence existence', all are specifically negated by 'not', so it is said 'not existence'. Thus revealing the function of all 'existence', whether it is 'existence existence' or 'not existence existence' are used as functions, so together it is said 'not existence existence'. The principle of 'not non-existence non-existence' is the same. Using 'not' to specifically negate all 'non-existence', so it is said 'not non-existence', thus revealing the function of all 'non-existence', so together it is said 'not non-existence non-existence'. The eighth type of 'not existence existence' (不有有) is to further deeply explain the meaning. Understanding 'not existence', one will not be attached to all 'existence', all

無。合空故言不有。而起一切有一切無為用故。合言不有有。不無無亦爾也。不無以不於一切有無故言不無。而起一切有無故言不無無。然起一切有無用。此用應是有。何得言是無。然今望本為言。此有無起不有無故此有無。故是無也。又從他所起皆無體故是無也。第九不有有者。橫門明義。不有自有。以無為有故言不有有。然以無為有故。是以不有為有。故言不有有。不無無亦類也。以有為無故言不無無也。第十不有有者。只以不特不此有有之故言不有有。異前合用不有有破有有。亦異前以不特一切有合無。以起一切有無故言不有有。今但單用一不特。不此有有之執。令盡而不令起故言不有有也。不無無亦爾也。第十一不有有者。合明具八意。何者為八意。一不有有屬非有。一不有有屬非無。一不有有屬非亦有亦無。一不有有屬非非有非非無。一不有有屬有。一不有有屬無。一不有有屬亦有亦無。一不有有屬非有非無。何者初言不有有。豈可是有。非是有故屬非有也。第二不有有不是無故屬非無。第三不有有既不是有無故。不屬亦有亦無。故言屬非亦有亦無。第四不有有不屬非有無。故言屬非非有非非無。然不有有乃當屬有無二句。豈是非有無。故言非非有非非無也。第五不有有屬有者。以不有為有。豈不是有耶。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『無。合空故言不有。』因為是空性的結合，所以說『不有』。『而起一切有一切無為用故。合言不有有。不無無亦爾也。』因為生起一切有和一切無作為作用，所以結合起來說『不有有』，『不無無』也是同樣的道理。『不無以不於一切有無故言不無。』因為不執著於一切有和一切無，所以說『不無』。『而起一切有無故言不無無。』因為生起一切有和一切無，所以說『不無無』。然而生起一切有和無的作用，這個作用應該是『有』，為什麼說是『無』呢？然而現在是從根本上來說，這個『有無』生起于『不有無』，所以這個『有無』是『無』。而且，從他處所生起的都是沒有自性的，所以是『無』。第九，『不有有』，是從橫向的角度來闡明意義。『不有自有』，因為以『無』作為『有』，所以說『不有有』。因為以『無』作為『有』，所以是以『不有』作為『有』，因此說『不有有』。『不無無』也是類似的道理，因為以『有』作為『無』，所以說『不無無』。第十，『不有有』，只是因為不特別執著于這個『有有』的緣故，所以說『不有有』。不同於前面結合作用的『不有有』，破除『有有』。也不同於前面以不特別執著一切有而結合『無』，因為生起一切有和無的緣故，所以說『不有有』。現在只是單獨用一個『不』字，不執著于這個『有有』的執著，使它窮盡而不生起，所以說『不有有』。『不無無』也是同樣的道理。第十一，『不有有』，綜合說明具備八種含義。哪八種含義呢？一，『不有有』屬於『非有』。二，『不有有』屬於『非無』。三，『不有有』屬於『非亦有亦無』。四，『不有有』屬於『非非有非非無』。五，『不有有』屬於『有』。六，『不有有』屬於『無』。七，『不有有』屬於『亦有亦無』。八，『不有有』屬於『非有非無』。為什麼最初說『不有有』，難道可以是『有』嗎？不是『有』的緣故，所以屬於『非有』。第二，『不有有』不是『無』，所以屬於『非無』。第三，『不有有』既然不是『有』也不是『無』，所以不屬於『亦有亦無』，因此說屬於『非亦有亦無』。第四，『不有有』不屬於『非有無』，所以說屬於『非非有非非無』。然而『不有有』應當屬於『有』和『無』這兩句，難道不是『非有無』嗎？所以說『非非有非非無』。第五，『不有有』屬於『有』，因為以『不有』作為『有』，難道不是『有』嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: 'Wu. He kong gu yan bu you.' Because it is a combination of emptiness, it is said 'not-being' (bu you). 'Er qi yi qie you yi qie wu wei yong gu. He yan bu you you. Bu wu wu yi er ye.' Because it arises with all being and all non-being as its function, it is combined and said 'not-being being' (bu you you), and 'not-non-being non-being' (bu wu wu) is the same principle. 'Bu wu yi bu yu yi qie you wu gu yan bu wu.' Because it does not cling to all being and non-being, it is said 'not-non-being' (bu wu). 'Er qi yi qie you wu gu yan bu wu wu.' Because it arises with all being and non-being, it is said 'not-non-being non-being' (bu wu wu). However, the function of arising with all being and non-being, this function should be 'being' (you), why is it said to be 'non-being' (wu)? However, now speaking from the root, this 'being and non-being' arises from 'not-being and non-being' (bu you wu), so this 'being and non-being' is 'non-being'. Moreover, what arises from elsewhere has no self-nature, so it is 'non-being'. Ninth, 'not-being being' (bu you you), clarifies the meaning from a horizontal perspective. 'Not-being self-being' (bu you zi you), because it takes 'non-being' as 'being', it is said 'not-being being'. Because it takes 'non-being' as 'being', it is taking 'not-being' as 'being', therefore it is said 'not-being being'. 'Not-non-being non-being' (bu wu wu) is a similar principle, because it takes 'being' as 'non-being', it is said 'not-non-being non-being'. Tenth, 'not-being being' (bu you you), is simply because it does not particularly cling to this 'being being', therefore it is said 'not-being being'. It is different from the previous 'not-being being' that combines function, breaking 'being being'. It is also different from the previous one that combines 'non-being' by not particularly clinging to all being, because it arises with all being and non-being, it is said 'not-being being'. Now, it simply uses a single 'not' (bu), not clinging to the clinging of this 'being being', causing it to be exhausted and not arise, therefore it is said 'not-being being'. 'Not-non-being non-being' (bu wu wu) is the same principle. Eleventh, 'not-being being' (bu you you), comprehensively explains that it possesses eight meanings. What are the eight meanings? One, 'not-being being' belongs to 'non-being' (fei you). Two, 'not-being being' belongs to 'non-non-being' (fei wu). Three, 'not-being being' belongs to 'non-both being and non-being' (fei yi you yi wu). Four, 'not-being being' belongs to 'non-neither non-being nor non-non-being' (fei fei you fei fei wu). Five, 'not-being being' belongs to 'being' (you). Six, 'not-being being' belongs to 'non-being' (wu). Seven, 'not-being being' belongs to 'both being and non-being' (yi you yi wu). Eight, 'not-being being' belongs to 'neither being nor non-being' (fei you fei wu). Why is it initially said 'not-being being', could it be 'being'? Because it is not 'being', therefore it belongs to 'non-being'. Second, 'not-being being' is not 'non-being', therefore it belongs to 'non-non-being'. Third, since 'not-being being' is neither 'being' nor 'non-being', therefore it does not belong to 'both being and non-being', therefore it is said to belong to 'non-both being and non-being'. Fourth, 'not-being being' does not belong to 'non-being and non-non-being', therefore it is said to belong to 'non-neither non-being nor non-non-being'. However, 'not-being being' should belong to the two phrases 'being' and 'non-being', is it not 'non-being and non-non-being'? Therefore it is said 'non-neither non-being nor non-non-being'. Fifth, 'not-being being' belongs to 'being', because it takes 'not-being' as 'being', is it not 'being'?

第六不有有屬無者。只以不有為有。此望本故是無也。第七不有有屬亦有亦無者。既雙明不有有。豈不是亦有亦無耶。第八不有有屬非有非無者。不有有不名有。不有有不名無。故名非有非無。故此一章門中合明八意。正為八意相次第故。不煩離明。而前十章不可合說。故離辨也。不無無亦如是也。第十二明不有有兼用者。不有有故離斷過。何者。若不有不復有可是斷。而今不有有故離斷過。亦離常過者。若以有為有可是常過。而今只不有為有。故離常過。如是一異有無是非即離等過皆勉也。不無無亦爾也。第十三不有有若攝諸法者。不有有攝得因得果一切法等故。言不有有也。不無無亦然也。第十四不有有類諸法者。不有有既具上十意八意及相益相攝等。不因因不果果。如是不常常不生生等。雖一法皆具上意。故可謂。是一中解無量。無量中解一。如是展轉生非實智者。即無所畏也。第十五不有有得失意者。如經試問。答言諸法不有有即為得。即具五義。一得不二義。二得不自假名義。三得相待義。四得無所得空義。五得中道義也。若答者言諸法是有為有者。即失五義故。不有有判道非道義也。不無無亦類也。第十六不有有離門明義者。向合言不有有。今有時復須單言不有。有時應須單言有也。今此中單言不有者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第六，『不有有』（既非有也不是有的有）屬於『無』（空無）的範疇。僅僅因為『不有』才稱之為『有』，從其本源來看，它實際上是『無』。第七，『不有有』屬於『亦有亦無』（既是有也是無）的範疇。既然已經明確說明了『不有有』，難道不就是『亦有亦無』嗎？第八，『不有有』屬於『非有非無』（既非有也非無）的範疇。『不有有』不能被稱作『有』，『不有有』也不能被稱作『無』，所以稱之為『非有非無』。因此，這一章總共闡明了八種含義。正是因為這八種含義相互關聯，所以不必分開說明。而前面的十章不能合併來說，所以要分別辨析。『不無無』（既非無也不是無的無）的情況也是如此。第十二，闡明『不有有』兼具的作用。因為『不有有』，所以避免了『斷見』（認為事物徹底斷滅的錯誤觀點）。為什麼呢？如果『不有』之後不再有，那就是『斷見』。而現在是『不有有』，所以避免了『斷見』。同時也避免了『常見』（認為事物恒常不變的錯誤觀點）。如果認為『有』就是『有』，那就是『常見』。而現在僅僅因為『不有』才稱之為『有』，所以避免了『常見』。像這樣，『一』和『異』（同一和差異），『有』和『無』，『是』和『非』，以及『即』和『離』（相同和不同）等方面的過失，都可以勉力避免。『不無無』的情況也是如此。第十三，如果說『不有有』能夠涵蓋一切諸法（世間萬物），那麼『不有有』就涵蓋了因（原因）、果（結果）等一切法。所以才說是『不有有』。『不無無』也是這樣。第十四，『不有有』類似於一切諸法。『不有有』既具備了上述的十種含義、八種含義，以及相互增益、相互涵蓋等特性，也包含了『不因因』（非原因的原因）、『不果果』（非結果的結果），以及『不常常』（非常常的常）、『不生生』（非出生的出生）等等。即使是一個法，也具備了上述的含義。所以可以說，從一個法中可以理解無量的法，從無量的法中可以理解一個法。像這樣輾轉相生，如果不是真正的智慧，就會無所畏懼。第十五，『不有有』的得失之意。例如，如果被提問，回答說諸法『不有有』，那就是『得』，即具備了五種含義：一、得不二義（獲得非二元的意義）；二、得不自假名義（獲得不依賴自身而假立名稱的意義）；三、得相待義（獲得相互依存的意義）；四、得無所得空義（獲得無所得的空性意義）；五、得中道義（獲得中道的意義）。如果回答者說諸法『是有為有』，那就是『失』，即失去了五種含義。所以，『不有有』能夠判斷什麼是正道，什麼不是正道。『不無無』的情況也是如此。第十六，『不有有』從離門（超越對立的途徑）闡明意義。之前是合起來說『不有有』，現在有時需要單獨說『不有』，有時應該單獨說『有』。現在這裡單獨說『不有』，

【English Translation】 English version Sixth, 'Not-being-being' (something that is neither being nor the being of being) belongs to the category of 'non-being' (emptiness). It is only called 'being' because of 'not-being'; from its origin, it is actually 'non-being'. Seventh, 'Not-being-being' belongs to the category of 'both being and non-being'. Since 'not-being-being' has been clearly explained, isn't it 'both being and non-being'? Eighth, 'Not-being-being' belongs to the category of 'neither being nor non-being'. 'Not-being-being' cannot be called 'being', nor can 'not-being-being' be called 'non-being', so it is called 'neither being nor non-being'. Therefore, this chapter clarifies eight meanings in total. It is precisely because these eight meanings are interconnected that there is no need to explain them separately. However, the previous ten chapters cannot be combined, so they must be analyzed separately. The case of 'not-non-being' (something that is neither non-being nor the non-being of non-being) is similar. Twelfth, clarifying the combined function of 'not-being-being'. Because of 'not-being-being', the fault of 'annihilationism' (the mistaken view that things are completely annihilated) is avoided. Why? If there is no longer being after 'not-being', that would be 'annihilationism'. But now it is 'not-being-being', so the fault of 'annihilationism' is avoided. It also avoids the fault of 'eternalism' (the mistaken view that things are constant and unchanging). If 'being' is considered to be 'being', that would be 'eternalism'. But now it is only called 'being' because of 'not-being', so the fault of 'eternalism' is avoided. In this way, the faults of 'one' and 'different', 'being' and 'non-being', 'is' and 'is not', and 'same' and 'different', etc., can all be diligently avoided. The case of 'not-non-being' is similar. Thirteenth, if 'not-being-being' can encompass all dharmas (all things in the world), then 'not-being-being' encompasses all dharmas such as cause (hetu) and effect (phala). That is why it is said to be 'not-being-being'. 'Not-non-being' is also like this. Fourteenth, 'not-being-being' is similar to all dharmas. 'Not-being-being' possesses the above-mentioned ten meanings, eight meanings, and characteristics such as mutual benefit and mutual encompassment. It also includes 'not-cause-cause' (the cause of non-cause), 'not-effect-effect' (the effect of non-effect), and 'not-constant-constant' (the constant of non-constant), 'not-birth-birth' (the birth of non-birth), and so on. Even a single dharma possesses the above meanings. Therefore, it can be said that from one dharma, countless dharmas can be understood, and from countless dharmas, one dharma can be understood. Like this, if it is not true wisdom that arises in turn, there will be no fear. Fifteenth, the meaning of gain and loss in 'not-being-being'. For example, if asked and answered that all dharmas are 'not-being-being', that is 'gain', which possesses five meanings: 1. Gaining the meaning of non-duality; 2. Gaining the meaning of not relying on oneself to establish a name; 3. Gaining the meaning of interdependence; 4. Gaining the meaning of emptiness of no-attainment; 5. Gaining the meaning of the Middle Way. If the respondent says that all dharmas 'are being as being', that is 'loss', which loses the five meanings. Therefore, 'not-being-being' can judge what is the right path and what is not the right path. The case of 'not-non-being' is similar. Sixteenth, 'not-being-being' clarifies the meaning from the perspective of transcending duality. Previously, 'not-being-being' was said together, but now sometimes it is necessary to say 'not-being' alone, and sometimes 'being' should be said alone. Now, here, 'not-being' is said alone,

此為欲明有義。何者。我以不不此有。不以不此無故。不有得是有也。若以不不于無。可令是無。而今以不不有故。只不有是有。事如小乘明義。色即是好。不可此色非好也。故得不有是有義。得此義故。聞破不畏。得訶不瞋等也。次得言有反成破有義。何者。我本破有故言有。如世人不耐惡而言惡。此惡之言。豈不令除此惡。今有亦然。我不耐此有故言有。豈不破此耶。又直言有。不說有因緣故。是破有義。單言無亦然。次單言有則是中道。不得言有非方是中道也。何者。直言有。此非是非有亦是有有。此有既非是是有復非非有。豈非是中道乎。又有上自有是非。我直言有不言其是。復不言非。故此有即離是非。故是中道。若有雖離是非。而有此有故非中道者。汝中道雖離有無而有此中故得是中道者。何妨我有離是非故得是中道耶。且自我直言有亦不言有此有。知無此有故言是中道。單無亦然。次單明有具足一切諸法。何者。此有是無所有故。若有所無即失一切法。今是無所有名有。故具足一切法也。單言無亦然。但是無所得故言無。此無豈不具足一切法耶。次釋性空意者。然有無所以得有諸法。意無礙者正由有性空故爾。今須釋性空。亦是多意。但辨八意也。一者明本性是空。但遇緣故有。有止還本性。故言性空

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本這是爲了闡明『有』的含義。什麼是『有』呢？我不是因為『不不此有』（雙重否定此有）才說『有』，而是因為『不此無』（否定此無）的緣故。不是『有』才能得到『是有』的結論。如果因為『不不于無』（雙重否定於無）就可以說是『無』，那麼現在因為『不不有』（雙重否定有），所以僅僅『不有』就是『是有』。這就像小乘佛教闡明義理時，認為『色』就是『好』，不能說這個『色』不是『好』。因此，得出『不有』就是『是有』的含義。領悟了這個含義，聽到破斥也不畏懼，受到訶責也不嗔恨等等。接下來，得到『說有反而成了破有』的含義。為什麼呢？我本來就是要破除『有』才說『有』的，就像世人厭惡壞事才說『惡』一樣。說『惡』這個詞，難道不是爲了去除這個『惡』嗎？現在說『有』也是這樣，我不喜歡這個『有』才說『有』，難道不是爲了破除這個『有』嗎？而且，直接說『有』，不說『有』的因緣，這就是破『有』的含義。單獨說『無』也是這樣。接下來，單獨說『有』就是中道，不能說『非有』才是中道。為什麼呢？直接說『有』，這個『有』既不是『是有』，也不是『非有』，難道不是中道嗎？而且，上面說的『有』自有『是』和『非』，我直接說『有』，不說它是『是』，也不說它是『非』，所以這個『有』就脫離了『是』和『非』，所以是中道。如果說，即使『有』脫離了『是』和『非』，但因為有這個『有』所以不是中道，那麼你說的中道即使脫離了『有』和『無』，但因為有這個『中』所以才是中道嗎？那麼我說的『有』脫離了『是』和『非』，為什麼不能是中道呢？況且我直接說『有』，也不說有這個『有』，知道沒有這個『有』，所以說是中道。單獨說『無』也是這樣。接下來，單獨闡明『有』具足一切諸法。為什麼呢？這個『有』是無所有的，如果有所，無所，就失去了一切法。現在是無所有而名為『有』，所以具足一切法。單獨說『無』也是這樣，只是因為無所得才說『無』，這個『無』難道不具足一切法嗎？接下來解釋性空的含義。然而，『有』和『無』之所以能夠產生諸法，是因為沒有阻礙，這正是因為有『性空』的緣故。現在需要解釋『性空』，也有多種含義，這裡只辨析八種含義。第一種是說明本性是空，只是因為遇到因緣才顯現有，顯現有停止了就回歸本性，所以說『性空』。

【English Translation】 English version This is to clarify the meaning of 'existence' (有, yǒu). What is 'existence'? I do not say 'existence' because of 'not not this existence' (不不此有, bù bù cǐ yǒu) [double negation of this existence], but because of 'not this non-existence' (不此無, bù cǐ wú) [negation of this non-existence]. It is not 'existence' that leads to the conclusion of 'is existence'. If 'not not in non-existence' (不不于無, bù bù yú wú) [double negation in non-existence] could be said to be 'non-existence', then now because of 'not not existence' (不不有, bù bù yǒu) [double negation of existence], merely 'not existence' is 'is existence'. This is like when the Theravada (小乘, xiǎo chéng) school clarifies the meaning, considering 'form' (色, sè) to be 'good' (好, hǎo), and it cannot be said that this 'form' is not 'good'. Therefore, it is concluded that 'not existence' is the meaning of 'is existence'. Understanding this meaning, one is not afraid of refutation when hearing it, and one is not angry when being scolded, and so on. Next, it is understood that 'speaking of existence instead becomes breaking existence'. Why? I originally wanted to break existence, so I speak of existence, just as people dislike bad things and say 'bad' (惡, è). Does saying the word 'bad' not remove this 'bad'? Now saying 'existence' is also like this. I dislike this 'existence', so I speak of existence. Does it not break this existence? Moreover, directly saying 'existence', without speaking of the causes and conditions (因緣, yīnyuán) of 'existence', this is the meaning of breaking 'existence'. Saying 'non-existence' (無, wú) alone is also like this. Next, saying 'existence' alone is the Middle Way (中道, zhōngdào), and it cannot be said that 'non-existence' is the Middle Way. Why? Directly saying 'existence', this 'existence' is neither 'is existence' nor 'is not existence'. Is it not the Middle Way? Moreover, the 'existence' mentioned above has its own 'is' and 'is not'. I directly say 'existence', not saying that it 'is', nor saying that it 'is not', so this 'existence' is separated from 'is' and 'is not', so it is the Middle Way. If it is said that even though 'existence' is separated from 'is' and 'is not', but because there is this 'existence', it is not the Middle Way, then is your Middle Way, even though it is separated from 'existence' and 'non-existence', but because there is this 'middle', is it the Middle Way? Then why can't my 'existence', separated from 'is' and 'is not', be the Middle Way? Moreover, I directly say 'existence', and do not say that there is this 'existence', knowing that there is no this 'existence', so it is said to be the Middle Way. Saying 'non-existence' alone is also like this. Next, explaining alone that 'existence' is complete with all dharmas (法, fǎ). Why? This 'existence' is without anything possessed. If there is something possessed, something not possessed, then all dharmas are lost. Now it is without anything possessed and is named 'existence', so it is complete with all dharmas. Saying 'non-existence' alone is also like this. It is only because there is nothing to be obtained that 'non-existence' is spoken of. Does this 'non-existence' not possess all dharmas? Next, explaining the meaning of emptiness of nature (性空, xìng kōng). However, the reason why 'existence' and 'non-existence' can produce all dharmas is because there is no obstruction, which is precisely because there is 'emptiness of nature'. Now it is necessary to explain 'emptiness of nature', which also has multiple meanings, but here only eight meanings are distinguished. The first is to explain that the original nature is empty, but it only manifests when encountering conditions (緣, yuán). When the manifestation stops, it returns to the original nature, so it is said to be 'emptiness of nature'.

也。二者明本性是空。而末是假有。如是意故性空也。三者本性常空。無有不空時故言性空也。四者明只因緣諸法是空故。言性空也。五者破性有得此空故。言性空也。六者破無性法。此法明止空有性故。言性空也。七者明無所有法性是空故。言性空也。八者有所無法性空故。言性空也。今略明八意異相。而大意無異。但是一性空。如是諸法性空隨義便用。用一即度之須得意。如空中織羅紋也。性空既爾。畢竟亦然。次明因性空辨得失待不待義也。失此性空故失。失不待得。得性空故為得。得即待失。何者正為得失反故。失既失得。故失不待得。得者得於失。故得待失。此分際義也。第一須得意。最急事也。如中道絕假故不待假。假不絕故假待中也。次辨斂開意。然得失由斂開故須釋也。但斂開自有橫豎。判自有二望取也。橫開為能。豎即斂。菩薩習行諸行。望道即是自行是斂。若望眾生。即是化他亦是能。但不化他時。是化他。只自行即是化他。如是不有有。有病藥相治去留成壞理內外有得無得反順等種種用。不可具列也。大意如此也。問既有不有有多種勢者。有不有亦多種勢不。答亦得。假有還結有不有也。又假有不有表理結體也。余例可尋也。

大乘玄論卷第二(終) 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "也。二者說明本性是空，而現象是假有。因為這個意思，所以說是性空。三者說明本性常常是空，沒有不空的時候，所以說是性空。四者說明僅僅因為因緣和合而生的諸法是空，所以說是性空。五者說明爲了破除實有的自性，從而證得這個空性，所以說是性空。六者說明爲了破除沒有自性的法，這個法說明止息空和有自性，所以說是性空。七者說明無所有法的自性是空，所以說是性空。八者說明有所得和無所得的法，其自性是空，所以說是性空。現在簡略地說明這八種意思的差異，而大體意思沒有不同，都是一個性空。像這樣，諸法的性空可以根據意義方便使用，使用其中一個就能度化眾生，必須領會其意，就像在空中織出羅紋一樣。性空既然如此，畢竟空也是這樣。接下來闡明因性空辨別得失、待和不待的意義。失去這個性空，所以是失去。失去不待，才能得到。得到性空，所以是得到，得到就依賴於失去。為什麼正是因為得失相反呢？失去既然失去了得到，所以失去不依賴於得到。得到是得到于失去，所以得到依賴於失去。這是分際的意義，第一要領會其意，是最緊急的事情。如同中道斷絕了虛假，所以不依賴於虛假，虛假沒有斷絕，所以虛假依賴於中道。接下來辨別收斂和開展的意義。然而得失是由收斂和開展造成的，所以需要解釋。但是收斂和開展自有橫向和縱向，判斷自有兩種期望和取捨。橫向開展是能，縱向就是收斂。菩薩修習諸行，期望于道，就是自行，是收斂。如果期望于眾生，就是化他，也是能。但不化他的時候，就是化他。只是自行就是化他。像這樣，不有有，有病藥，相治，去留，成壞，理內外，有得無得，反順等等種種作用，不可一一列舉。大意是這樣。問：既然有不有有多種態勢，那麼有不有也有多種態勢嗎？答：也可以。假有還結合有不有。又假有不有，表述理體結合。其餘可以類推。《大乘玄論》卷第二(終)", "English version", "Also. The former explains that the fundamental nature is emptiness, while phenomena are provisionally existent. Because of this meaning, it is said to be 'inherent emptiness' (性空, xìng kōng). Secondly, it explains that the fundamental nature is always empty, there is no time when it is not empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Thirdly, it explains that all dharmas arising solely from causes and conditions are empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Fourthly, it explains that in order to break through the inherent existence of self-nature and thereby attain this emptiness, it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Fifthly, it explains that in order to break through the dharma of no self-nature, this dharma explains the cessation of emptiness and the existence of self-nature, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Sixthly, it explains that the nature of non-existent dharmas is empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Seventhly, it explains that the nature of what is obtained and not obtained is empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Now, briefly explain the differences in these eight meanings, but the general meaning is not different, they are all one 'inherent emptiness'. Like this, the inherent emptiness of all dharmas can be used conveniently according to the meaning, using one of them can liberate sentient beings, one must grasp its meaning, just like weaving damask patterns in the sky. Since inherent emptiness is like this, ultimate emptiness is also like this. Next, clarify the meaning of distinguishing gain and loss, dependence and non-dependence, based on inherent emptiness. Losing this inherent emptiness is losing. Losing does not depend on gaining to be lost. Gaining inherent emptiness is gaining, gaining depends on losing. Why? Precisely because gain and loss are opposite. Since losing loses gaining, losing does not depend on gaining. Gaining gains from losing, so gaining depends on losing. This is the meaning of distinction, the first thing is to grasp its meaning, it is the most urgent matter. Just as the Middle Way cuts off falsity, so it does not depend on falsity, falsity is not cut off, so falsity depends on the Middle Way. Next, distinguish the meaning of contraction and expansion. However, gain and loss are caused by contraction and expansion, so it needs to be explained. But contraction and expansion have their own horizontal and vertical aspects, judgment has its own two expectations and choices. Horizontal expansion is the 'able' (能, néng), vertical is contraction. Bodhisattvas practice all practices, expecting the Path, which is self-practice, it is contraction. If expecting sentient beings, it is transforming others, it is also the 'able'. But when not transforming others, it is transforming others. Just self-practice is transforming others. Like this, not-being-being, having disease-medicine, mutual treatment, leaving-staying, becoming-decaying, reason-internal-external, having gain-no gain, reverse-compliance, and so on, various functions cannot be listed one by one. The general meaning is like this. Question: Since there are many states of not-being-being, are there also many states of being-not-being? Answer: It is also possible. Provisional existence also combines being-not-being. Also, provisional existence and not-being express the combination of principle and substance. The rest can be inferred by analogy.", "The Great Treatise on the Profound [Doctrine of] Mahāyāna, Volume 2 (End)" ], "english_translations": [ "English version", "Also. The former explains that the fundamental nature is emptiness, while phenomena are provisionally existent. Because of this meaning, it is said to be 'inherent emptiness' (性空, xìng kōng). Secondly, it explains that the fundamental nature is always empty, there is no time when it is not empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Thirdly, it explains that all dharmas arising solely from causes and conditions are empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Fourthly, it explains that in order to break through the inherent existence of self-nature and thereby attain this emptiness, it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Fifthly, it explains that in order to break through the dharma of no self-nature, this dharma explains the cessation of emptiness and the existence of self-nature, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Sixthly, it explains that the nature of non-existent dharmas is empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Seventhly, it explains that the nature of what is obtained and not obtained is empty, therefore it is said to be 'inherent emptiness'. Now, briefly explain the differences in these eight meanings, but the general meaning is not different, they are all one 'inherent emptiness'. Like this, the inherent emptiness of all dharmas can be used conveniently according to the meaning, using one of them can liberate sentient beings, one must grasp its meaning, just like weaving damask patterns in the sky. Since inherent emptiness is like this, ultimate emptiness is also like this. Next, clarify the meaning of distinguishing gain and loss, dependence and non-dependence, based on inherent emptiness. Losing this inherent emptiness is losing. Losing does not depend on gaining to be lost. Gaining inherent emptiness is gaining, gaining depends on losing. Why? Precisely because gain and loss are opposite. Since losing loses gaining, losing does not depend on gaining. Gaining gains from losing, so gaining depends on losing. This is the meaning of distinction, the first thing is to grasp its meaning, it is the most urgent matter. Just as the Middle Way cuts off falsity, so it does not depend on falsity, falsity is not cut off, so falsity depends on the Middle Way. Next, distinguish the meaning of contraction and expansion. However, gain and loss are caused by contraction and expansion, so it needs to be explained. But contraction and expansion have their own horizontal and vertical aspects, judgment has its own two expectations and choices. Horizontal expansion is the 'able' (能, néng), vertical is contraction. Bodhisattvas practice all practices, expecting the Path, which is self-practice, it is contraction. If expecting sentient beings, it is transforming others, it is also the 'able'. But when not transforming others, it is transforming others. Just self-practice is transforming others. Like this, not-being-being, having disease-medicine, mutual treatment, leaving-staying, becoming-decaying, reason-internal-external, having gain-no gain, reverse-compliance, and so on, various functions cannot be listed one by one. The general meaning is like this. Question: Since there are many states of not-being-being, are there also many states of being-not-being? Answer: It is also possible. Provisional existence also combines being-not-being. Also, provisional existence and not-being express the combination of principle and substance. The rest can be inferred by analogy.", "The Great Treatise on the Profound [Doctrine of] Mahāyāna, Volume 2 (End)" ] }

853 大乘玄論

大乘玄論卷第三

胡吉藏撰

佛性義十門。

一大意門　二明異釋門　三尋經門　四簡正因門　五釋名門　六本有始有門　七內外有無門　八見性門　九會教門　十料簡門

甘藥停山由來已久。圓珠沉水實自積時。而隨其流處六味不同。競捉瓦石三乘成異。謬言羊角之刀。復據如繩之像。敢承佛意輕布弱言。庶得影現鏡中。面還得所。少失鄉土名為弱喪。不知反本稱曰無明。蕩識還原目為佛性。

異釋第二。古來相傳釋佛性不同。大有諸師。今正出十一家。以為異解。就十一師皆有名字。今不復據列。直出其義耳。第一家云。以眾生為正因佛性。故經言正因者。謂諸眾生。緣因者謂六波羅蜜。既言正因者。謂諸眾生。故知。以眾生為正因佛性。又言一切眾生悉有佛性。故知。眾生是正因也。第二師以六法為正因佛性。故經云。不即六法不離六法。言六法者。即是五陰及假人也。故知。六法是正因佛性也。第三師以心為正因佛性。故經云。凡有心者。必定當得無上菩提。以心識異乎木石無情之物。研習必得成佛。故知。心是正因佛性也。第四師以冥傳不朽為正因佛性。此釋異前以心為正因。何者。今直明神識有冥傳不朽之性。說此用為正因耳。第五師以避

苦求樂為正因佛性。一切眾生。無不有避苦求樂之性。實有此避苦求樂之性。即以此用為正因。然此釋復異前以心為正因之說。今只以避苦求樂之用為正因耳。故經云。若無如來藏者。不得厭苦樂求涅槃。故知。避苦求樂之用為正因佛性也。第六師以真神為正因佛性。若無真神。那得成真佛。故知。真神為正因佛性也。第七師以阿梨耶識自性清凈心。為正因佛性也。第八師以當果為正因佛性。即是當果之理也。第九師以得佛之理為正因佛性也。第十師以真諦為正因佛性也。第十一師以第一義空為正因佛性。故經云。佛性者名第一義空。故知。第一義空為正因佛性也。但河西道朗法師與曇無讖法師。共翻涅槃經。親承三藏作涅槃義疏。釋佛性義正以中道為佛性。爾後諸師。皆依朗法師義疏。得講涅槃乃至釋佛性義。師心自作各執異解。悉皆以涅槃所破之義以為正解。豈非是經中所喻解像之殊哉。雖不離象。無有一人得像者也。是故應須破洗。今一一問義若得立。可得以為正因。義若不成。豈不取邪因為正因耶。大略言有十一家。其間細論更有諸釋。今時無有用者故。不復出之。然十一家。大明不出三意。何者。第一家以眾生為正因。第二以六法為正因。此之兩釋。不出假實二義。明眾生即是假人。六法即是五陰及假人也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本以苦求樂作為根本原因的佛性。一切眾生，沒有誰不具有逃避痛苦、追求快樂的本性。確實存在這種逃避痛苦、追求快樂的本性，就用這種作用作為根本原因。然而這種解釋又不同於之前用心作為根本原因的說法。現在僅僅以逃避痛苦、追求快樂的作用作為根本原因。所以經中說：『如果沒有如來藏（Tathagatagarbha），就不能厭惡痛苦、追求涅槃（Nirvana）。』因此可知，逃避痛苦、追求快樂的作用是根本原因的佛性。第六位老師以真神（True Self）作為根本原因的佛性。如果沒有真神，怎麼能成就真佛？因此可知，真神是根本原因的佛性。第七位老師以阿梨耶識（Alaya-vijñana）自性清凈心，作為根本原因的佛性。第八位老師以當來的果報作為根本原因的佛性，也就是當來果報的道理。第九位老師以證得佛果的道理作為根本原因的佛性。第十位老師以真諦（Paramārtha-satya）作為根本原因的佛性。第十一位老師以第一義空（Paramārtha-śūnyatā）作為根本原因的佛性。所以經中說：『佛性就是第一義空。』因此可知，第一義空是根本原因的佛性。但是河西的道朗法師與曇無讖法師，共同翻譯《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra），親自秉承三藏（Tripitaka）著作《涅槃義疏》，解釋佛性的意義，正是以中道（Madhyamaka）為佛性。此後的各位老師，都依據朗法師的《義疏》，得以講解《涅槃經》乃至解釋佛性的意義。他們各自憑著自己的想法，執著于不同的見解，都把《涅槃經》所破斥的意義當作正確的解釋。這難道不是經中所比喻的盲人摸象的差別嗎？雖然沒有離開大象，卻沒有一個人真正瞭解大象。因此應該破除這些錯誤的見解。現在一一詢問這些義理，如果能夠成立，才可以作為根本原因；如果義理不能成立，豈不是把邪見當作根本原因嗎？大略來說有十一家，其中詳細的論述還有很多解釋，現在沒有用處，所以不再列舉。然而這十一家，大體上沒有超出三種意思。哪三種意思呢？第一家以眾生為根本原因，第二家以六法為根本原因。這兩種解釋，沒有超出假和實兩種意義。說明眾生就是假人，六法就是五陰（Skandha）和假人。

【English Translation】 English version Taking seeking pleasure from suffering as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. All sentient beings invariably possess the nature of avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure. Indeed, this nature of avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure exists, and this function is used as the primary cause. However, this explanation differs from the previous one that takes the mind as the primary cause. Now, only the function of avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure is taken as the primary cause. Therefore, the sutra says: 'If there were no Tathagatagarbha (如來藏), one could not厭惡 suffering and seek Nirvana (涅槃).' Thus, it is known that the function of avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure is the primary cause of Buddha-nature. The sixth teacher takes the True Self (真神) as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. If there were no True Self, how could one attain true Buddhahood? Thus, it is known that the True Self is the primary cause of Buddha-nature. The seventh teacher takes the self-nature pure mind of Alaya-vijñana (阿梨耶識) as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. The eighth teacher takes the future retribution as the primary cause of Buddha-nature, which is the principle of future retribution. The ninth teacher takes the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. The tenth teacher takes Paramārtha-satya (真諦) as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. The eleventh teacher takes Paramārtha-śūnyatā (第一義空) as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Buddha-nature is called Paramārtha-śūnyatā.' Thus, it is known that Paramārtha-śūnyatā is the primary cause of Buddha-nature. However, Dharma Master Dao Lang of Hexi and Dharma Master Tanwuchen (曇無讖), jointly translated the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經), personally inheriting the Tripitaka (三藏) and writing the Nirvana Commentary, explaining the meaning of Buddha-nature precisely as the Middle Way (Madhyamaka 中道). Later teachers all relied on Dharma Master Lang's commentary to explain the Nirvana Sutra and even the meaning of Buddha-nature. They each relied on their own ideas, clinging to different interpretations, and all regarded the meaning refuted by the Nirvana Sutra as the correct explanation. Is this not like the differences in the analogy of the blind men touching the elephant in the sutra? Although they are not apart from the elephant, no one truly understands the elephant. Therefore, these erroneous views should be refuted. Now, each of these meanings is questioned. If it can be established, it can be taken as the primary cause; if the meaning cannot be established, wouldn't it be taking a false view as the primary cause? Roughly speaking, there are eleven schools, and there are many more detailed discussions among them, but they are not useful now, so they are not listed. However, these eleven schools generally do not exceed three meanings. What are the three meanings? The first school takes sentient beings as the primary cause, and the second school takes the six dharmas as the primary cause. These two explanations do not exceed the two meanings of false and real. It explains that sentient beings are false persons, and the six dharmas are the five Skandhas (五陰) and the false person.

。次以心為正因。及冥傳不朽避苦求樂及以真神阿梨耶識。此之五解。雖復體用真偽不同。並以心識為正因也。次有當果與得佛理及以真諦第一義空。此四之家。並以理為正因也。今次第須破之。第一師以眾生為正因者。今只問。何者是眾生。而言以此為正因耶。經云。若菩薩有我相人相眾生相則非菩薩。又言。如來說眾生即非眾生。正因本為菩薩。經既說言有眾生相則非菩薩。寧得以眾生為正因耶。故知。有眾生者皆是妄想。何可以妄想顛倒得為正因耶。又若以眾生為正因者。只問。昔日初教已明有眾生不。若初教已明有眾生者。便應初教已明正因佛性。彼釋言。初教已明眾生。但未說為正因耳。若爾後教說眾生為正因者。還指初教眾生以為正因不。若爾初教眾生理中已是正因。若理中已是正因者。則理中已明佛性也。若不可言初教已辨佛性者。云何以眾生為正因耶。又汝引經言一切眾生悉有佛性。故知。眾生是正因佛性者不然。既言眾生有佛性。那得言眾生是佛性耶。若言眾生是佛性者。可得言一切眾生悉有眾生。一切佛性悉有佛性不。若不得者。故知。眾生與佛性有異。不得言眾生是佛性也。又難第二家。經云。佛性者不即六法不離六法者。言此是何語而橫引之此文乃明佛性。非是即六法。復非是離六法。何時

明六法是佛性耶。若言不離六法故六法是佛性者。復言不即六法故六法非是佛性。此語若為得通。明知。以不解讀經故。所以致謬耳。次問中有五家。雖復五解言異或體或用。而皆是心家體用。前第三家。以心為正因佛性者不然。經云。有心必得菩提者。此明有心之者必得菩提。何時言心是正因佛性耶。於時畏有如此謬故。即下經云。心是無常佛性常。故心非佛性也。經既分明。言心非佛性而強言是者。豈非與佛共諍耶。心既不成。心家諸用冥傳不朽避苦求樂等。悉皆同壞也。大涅槃經。處處皆明佛性。是故時人解佛性者。盡引涅槃為證。何處文辨冥傳不朽避苦求樂為正因佛性耶。勝鬘經云。若無如來藏者。不得厭苦樂求涅槃者。此正明由如來藏佛性力故。所以眾生得厭苦求樂。何時明厭苦求樂是正因佛性耶。彼師云。指當果為如來藏。以有當果如來藏故。所以眾生得厭苦求樂者不然。性品云。我者即是如來藏。如來藏者即是佛性。明佛性本來有之如貧女寶藏。何勞指當果為如來藏。且當果體。猶尚未有而能令眾生厭苦求樂。豈非是漫語者哉。若據人證者。舊來誰作如此釋。此是光澤法師。一時推畫。作如此解。經無證句。非師所傳故不可用也。乃至第八阿梨耶識。亦非佛性故。攝大乘論。云是無明母生死根本。故知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：明六法（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官）是佛性嗎？如果說六法不離佛性，所以六法是佛性，又說六法不等於佛性，所以六法不是佛性。這種說法怎麼能講得通？答：很明顯，這是因為不理解經文的緣故，所以才會導致謬誤。其次，關於『有』的討論中有五家學說，雖然這五種解釋在言語上有所不同，有的說是『體』，有的說是『用』，但都屬於心家的『體』和『用』。前面提到的第三家，認為心是正因佛性，這是不對的。經中說：『有心必得菩提』，這是說明有心的人必定能夠獲得菩提，什麼時候說過心是正因佛性呢？當時，佛陀爲了避免出現這樣的謬誤，所以在後面的經文中說：『心是無常，佛性常』，所以心不是佛性。經文已經說得很清楚，心不是佛性，卻硬要說是，這難道不是和佛陀爭辯嗎？心既然不能成立，那麼心家所說的各種作用，比如冥傳不朽、避苦求樂等等，也都會一同壞滅。《大涅槃經》處處都闡明佛性，所以現在的人解釋佛性，都引用《涅槃經》作為證據。但是《涅槃經》的哪一處經文說明冥傳不朽、避苦求樂是正因佛性呢？《勝鬘經》說：『如果沒有如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來所具有的清凈佛性），就不能厭惡痛苦，欣樂涅槃』，這正是說明由於如來藏佛性的力量，所以眾生才能夠厭惡痛苦，欣樂涅槃。什麼時候說過厭惡痛苦，欣樂涅槃是正因佛性呢？那位法師說：『指當來的果位為如來藏，因為有當來的果位如來藏，所以眾生才能夠厭惡痛苦，欣樂涅槃』，這種說法是不對的。《性品》中說：『我就是如來藏，如來藏就是佛性』，說明佛性本來就存在，就像貧女家中的寶藏一樣，何必指當來的果位為如來藏呢？況且當來的果位，都還沒有出現，卻能夠讓眾生厭惡痛苦，欣樂涅槃，這難道不是胡說八道嗎？如果按照人證來說，以前有誰這樣解釋過？這是光澤法師一時推測，作出的這種解釋。經文中沒有證據，也不是師父所傳授的，所以不能採用。乃至第八阿梨耶識（Alaya-vijnana，又稱阿賴耶識，含藏一切事物種子識），也不是佛性，所以《攝大乘論》說它是無明的母親，是生死輪迴的根本，由此可知。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Are the six sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) the Buddha-nature? If it is said that the six sense bases are inseparable from the Buddha-nature, therefore the six sense bases are the Buddha-nature, and yet it is also said that the six sense bases are not identical to the Buddha-nature, therefore the six sense bases are not the Buddha-nature. How can this statement be reconciled? Answer: It is clear that this is due to a lack of understanding of the scriptures, which leads to errors. Secondly, there are five schools of thought regarding 'existence.' Although these five interpretations differ in their wording, some referring to 'essence' and others to 'function,' they all belong to the 'essence' and 'function' of the mind school. The third school mentioned earlier, which considers the mind to be the direct cause of Buddha-nature, is incorrect. The scripture says, 'Those with a mind will surely attain Bodhi.' This explains that those who have a mind will certainly attain Bodhi. When was it ever said that the mind is the direct cause of Buddha-nature? At that time, to avoid such errors, the Buddha said in the subsequent scripture, 'The mind is impermanent, but the Buddha-nature is permanent.' Therefore, the mind is not the Buddha-nature. The scripture has clearly stated that the mind is not the Buddha-nature, yet to insist that it is, is this not arguing with the Buddha? Since the mind cannot be established, then all the functions of the mind school, such as the secret transmission of immortality, avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure, will all be destroyed together. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra clarifies the Buddha-nature everywhere, so people today interpret the Buddha-nature by citing the Nirvana Sutra as evidence. But which passage in the Nirvana Sutra states that the secret transmission of immortality, avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure, is the direct cause of Buddha-nature? The Srimala Sutra says, 'If there were no Tathagatagarbha (Tathagatagarbha, the pure Buddha-nature possessed by the Tathagata), one could not厭苦樂求涅槃 (厭苦樂求涅槃, dislike suffering and seek Nirvana).' This precisely explains that it is due to the power of the Tathagatagarbha Buddha-nature that sentient beings are able to dislike suffering and seek pleasure. When was it ever said that disliking suffering and seeking pleasure is the direct cause of Buddha-nature? That teacher says, 'Referring to the future fruition as the Tathagatagarbha, because there is the future fruition Tathagatagarbha, sentient beings are able to dislike suffering and seek pleasure.' This statement is incorrect. The Nature Chapter says, 'The 'I' is the Tathagatagarbha, and the Tathagatagarbha is the Buddha-nature,' explaining that the Buddha-nature is inherently present, like a treasure in the home of a poor woman. Why refer to the future fruition as the Tathagatagarbha? Moreover, the future fruition has not yet appeared, yet it is able to cause sentient beings to dislike suffering and seek pleasure. Is this not nonsense? According to human testimony, who has ever interpreted it this way before? This is an interpretation made by Dharma Master Guangze based on his own speculation. There is no evidence in the scriptures, nor is it transmitted by the teacher, so it cannot be adopted. Even the eighth Alaya-vijnana (Alaya-vijnana, also known as the Alaya Consciousness, which contains the seeds of all things), is not the Buddha-nature. Therefore, the Mahayana-samgraha says that it is the mother of ignorance and the root of samsara, from which it can be known.

。六識七識乃至八九。設使百千無量諸識皆非佛性。何以故皆是有所得五眼所不見。故次有第三四家。並以理為正因佛性。而不無小異。前之兩家。以當果與得佛之理為正因佛性者。彼言。是世諦之理。次有兩家。以真諦與第一義空為正因佛性者。此是真諦之理也。以第一義空為正因佛性者。此是北地摩訶衍師所用。今問。若依涅槃文。以第一義空為佛性者。下文即言空者。不見空與不空名為佛性。故知。以中道為佛性。不以空為佛性也。真諦為佛性者。此是和法師小亮法師所用。問真諦為佛性。何經所出。承習是誰。無有師資亦無證句。故不可用也。當果為正因佛性。此是古舊諸師多用此義。此是始有義。若是始有。即是作法。作法無常。非佛性也。得佛理為佛性者。此是零根僧正所用。此義最長。然闕無師資相傳。學問之體。要須依師承習。今問。以得佛理為正因佛性者。何經所明。承習是誰。其師既以心為正因佛性。而弟子以得佛理為正因佛性者。豈非背師自作推畫耶。故不可用也。通論十一家。皆計得佛之理。今總破得佛之理。義通十一解。事既廣。宜作三重破之。第一作有無破。只問。得佛之理。為當有此理為當是無。若言是有。有已成事。非謂為理。若言是無。無即無理。即墮二邊不得言理也。第二作三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：六識、七識乃至八識、九識，假設百千無量諸識都不是佛性，為什麼呢？因為這些都是有所得，五眼所不能見的。因此接下來有第三、第四家，都以理作為正因佛性，但並非沒有細微差別。前面兩家，以當果和得佛之理作為正因佛性，他們說，這是世諦之理。後面兩家，以真諦和第一義空作為正因佛性，這是真諦之理。以第一義空作為正因佛性，這是北方地區的摩訶衍師所用的。現在問，如果依據《涅槃經》的文義，以第一義空為佛性，那麼下文就說空，不見空與不空，這才能稱為佛性。所以可知，是以中道為佛性，不是以空為佛性。以真諦為佛性，這是和法師、小亮法師所用的。問，真諦為佛性，出自哪部經？傳承學習的師承是誰？沒有師資傳承，也沒有可以證明的語句，所以不可用。以當果為正因佛性，這是古老的諸位法師大多采用的義理，這是始有義。如果是始有，那就是作法，作法是無常的，不是佛性。以得佛理為佛性，這是零根僧正所用的。這個義理最為冗長，然而缺乏師資相傳。學習的體系，必須要依靠師承學習。現在問，以得佛理為正因佛性，哪部經文有所闡明？傳承學習的師承是誰？他的老師既然以心為正因佛性，而弟子卻以得佛理為正因佛性，這難道不是背離老師，自己妄加推測嗎？所以不可用。總論這十一家，都計較於得到成佛的道理。現在總破得到成佛的道理，義理貫通十一種解釋。事情既然廣泛，應該做三重破斥。第一重，作有無破。只問，得到成佛的道理，是應當有這個道理，還是應當沒有。如果說是有，有就已經成為事實，不能稱之為理。如果說是沒有，沒有就是沒有道理，就落入二邊，不能稱之為理。第二重，作三 English version: The six consciousnesses, the seven consciousnesses, and even the eighth and ninth consciousnesses. Suppose that hundreds of thousands of immeasurable consciousnesses are not Buddha-nature. Why? Because they are all 'attained' (有所得, yǒusuǒdé, having something obtained) and cannot be seen by the five eyes. Therefore, there are the third and fourth schools, which both take 'principle' (理, lǐ, principle, reason) as the 'direct cause' (正因, zhèngyīn, direct cause) of Buddha-nature, though not without slight differences. The first two schools, which take 'the fruit to be attained' (當果, dāngguǒ, the fruit to be attained) and 'the principle of attaining Buddhahood' (得佛之理, dé fó zhī lǐ, the principle of attaining Buddhahood) as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, say that this is the 'mundane truth' (世諦之理, shìdì zhī lǐ, mundane truth). The latter two schools, which take 'ultimate truth' (真諦, zhēndì, ultimate truth) and 'the emptiness of the first principle' (第一義空, dìyī yì kōng, the emptiness of the first principle) as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, say that this is the ultimate truth. Taking the emptiness of the first principle as the direct cause of Buddha-nature is what the 'Mahayana masters of the Northern Region' (北地摩訶衍師, Běidì Móhēyǎn shī, Mahayana masters of the Northern Region) use. Now I ask, if according to the text of the Nirvana Sutra, the emptiness of the first principle is Buddha-nature, then the following text says 'emptiness' (空, kōng, emptiness), not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness is called Buddha-nature. Therefore, it is known that the 'Middle Way' (中道, zhōngdào, Middle Way) is Buddha-nature, not emptiness. Taking ultimate truth as Buddha-nature is what Dharma Master He (和法師, Hé Fǎshī) and Dharma Master Xiaoliang (小亮法師, Xiǎoliàng Fǎshī) use. I ask, which sutra does the idea of ultimate truth as Buddha-nature come from? Who is the teacher from whom it was learned? There is no teacher-student transmission, nor any verifiable statement, so it cannot be used. Taking the fruit to be attained as the direct cause of Buddha-nature is what many ancient masters mostly use. This is the 'beginning existence' (始有義, shǐ yǒu yì, beginning existence) meaning. If it is beginning existence, then it is 'created dharma' (作法, zuòfǎ, created dharma). Created dharma is impermanent, not Buddha-nature. Taking the principle of attaining Buddhahood as Buddha-nature is what Monk Zheng Linggen (零根僧正, Línggēn Sēngzhèng) uses. This meaning is the longest, but it lacks teacher-student transmission. The system of learning must rely on teacher-student learning. Now I ask, which sutra clarifies taking the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the direct cause of Buddha-nature? Who is the teacher from whom it was learned? Since his teacher takes 'mind' (心, xīn, mind) as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, and the disciple takes the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, isn't this turning one's back on the teacher and making one's own speculations? So it cannot be used. Generally speaking, all eleven schools calculate on attaining the principle of Buddhahood. Now I generally refute the principle of attaining Buddhahood, the meaning of which encompasses eleven interpretations. Since the matter is broad, it should be refuted in three ways. First, refute with existence and non-existence. I only ask, should the principle of attaining Buddhahood exist, or should it not exist? If you say it exists, existence has already become a fact, and cannot be called a principle. If you say it does not exist, non-existence is no principle, and you fall into two extremes, and cannot be called a principle. Second, make three

【English Translation】 The six consciousnesses, the seven consciousnesses, and even the eighth and ninth consciousnesses. Suppose that hundreds of thousands of immeasurable consciousnesses are not Buddha-nature. Why? Because they are all 'attained' (有所得) and cannot be seen by the five eyes. Therefore, there are the third and fourth schools, which both take 'principle' (理) as the 'direct cause' (正因) of Buddha-nature, though not without slight differences. The first two schools, which take 'the fruit to be attained' (當果) and 'the principle of attaining Buddhahood' (得佛之理) as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, say that this is the 'mundane truth' (世諦之理). The latter two schools, which take 'ultimate truth' (真諦) and 'the emptiness of the first principle' (第一義空) as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, say that this is the ultimate truth. Taking the emptiness of the first principle as the direct cause of Buddha-nature is what the 'Mahayana masters of the Northern Region' (北地摩訶衍師) use. Now I ask, if according to the text of the Nirvana Sutra, the emptiness of the first principle is Buddha-nature, then the following text says 'emptiness' (空), not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness is called Buddha-nature. Therefore, it is known that the 'Middle Way' (中道) is Buddha-nature, not emptiness. Taking ultimate truth as Buddha-nature is what Dharma Master He (和法師) and Dharma Master Xiaoliang (小亮法師) use. I ask, which sutra does the idea of ultimate truth as Buddha-nature come from? Who is the teacher from whom it was learned? There is no teacher-student transmission, nor any verifiable statement, so it cannot be used. Taking the fruit to be attained as the direct cause of Buddha-nature is what many ancient masters mostly use. This is the 'beginning existence' (始有義) meaning. If it is beginning existence, then it is 'created dharma' (作法). Created dharma is impermanent, not Buddha-nature. Taking the principle of attaining Buddhahood as Buddha-nature is what Monk Zheng Linggen (零根僧正) uses. This meaning is the longest, but it lacks teacher-student transmission. The system of learning must rely on teacher-student learning. Now I ask, which sutra clarifies taking the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the direct cause of Buddha-nature? Who is the teacher from whom it was learned? Since his teacher takes 'mind' (心) as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, and the disciple takes the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the direct cause of Buddha-nature, isn't this turning one's back on the teacher and making one's own speculations? So it cannot be used. Generally speaking, all eleven schools calculate on attaining the principle of Buddhahood. Now I generally refute the principle of attaining Buddhahood, the meaning of which encompasses eleven interpretations. Since the matter is broad, it should be refuted in three ways. First, refute with existence and non-existence. I only ask, should the principle of attaining Buddhahood exist, or should it not exist? If you say it exists, existence has already become a fact, and cannot be called a principle. If you say it does not exist, non-existence is no principle, and you fall into two extremes, and cannot be called a principle. Second, make three

時破。只問。得佛之理。為是已理為是未理為是理時有理。若言已理。則理已不用。無復有理。若言未理。未理故未有。若言理時有理者。若法已成則是已。若法未有則墮未。故無別第三法稱為理也。第三即離破。只問。得佛之理。為當即空為當離空。若言即空者。則早已是空。無復有理。若言離空有此理者。空不可離。豈得離空而言有理。又離空而有理者。則成二見。經云。諸有二者。無道無果。豈可以二見顛倒為正因耶。作此三條推求不可得。非唯四家義壞。通十一計皆碎也。問破他可爾。今時何者為正因耶。答一往對他則須並反。彼悉言有。今則皆無。彼以眾生為正因。今以非眾生為正因。彼以六法為正因。今以非六法為正因。乃至以真諦為正因。今以非真諦為正因。若以俗諦為正因。今以非俗諦為正因。故云非真非俗中道為正因佛性也。以藥治病則須此說。對他雖爾。又須橫豎論之。故此非眾生義有淺有深橫論為藥。則如向辨。豎則望道。只非眾生等即是正因。若言是是非是。亦何者非眾生而說眾生乎。但非眾生而說眾生。此之眾生豈可言其是有。豈可言其是無。豈可言其是亦有亦無非有非無耶。若識此眾生者。何為問非正因。乃至六法真諦義亦如此。若徹了深悟。此則正因佛性義已具足。前是橫論一重。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：時破。只是問：『證得佛的道理，是已經證得了理，還是未證得理，還是證理時才有理？』如果說是已經證得了理，那麼理已經用過了，不再有理。如果說是未證得理，因為未證得，所以還沒有理。如果說是證理時才有理，如果法已經成就，那就是『已』；如果法還沒有，那就落入『未』。所以沒有另外的第三種法可以稱為『理』。這第三種說法就離開了破斥。只是問：『證得佛的道理，是應當即是空，還是應當離開空？』如果說是即是空，那麼早就已經是空了，不再有理。如果說是離開空而有此理，空是不可離開的，怎麼能離開空而說有理呢？而且，離開空而有理，那就成了二見。經書上說：『凡是有二的，就沒有道，沒有果。』怎麼能以二見的顛倒作為正因呢？用這三條來推求，是不可得的。不僅四家的義理被破壞，所有的十一種計度也都粉碎了。問：『破斥他人可以這樣，現在什麼才是正因呢？』答：『一般情況下針對他人，就需要全部反駁。他們都說有，我們都說無。他們以眾生為正因，我們以非眾生為正因。他們以六法為正因，我們以非六法為正因。乃至他們以真諦為正因，我們以非真諦為正因。如果他們以俗諦為正因，我們以非俗諦為正因。』所以說非真非俗的中道才是正因佛性。用藥治病就需要這樣說。針對他人是這樣，還需要橫向和縱向地來論述。所以這非眾生的意義有淺有深，橫向論述作為藥，就像前面辨析的那樣。縱向則指向道，只是非眾生等就是正因。如果說是是、非是，又是什麼不是眾生而說眾生呢？只是非眾生而說眾生，這眾生怎麼能說它是有，怎麼能說它是無，怎麼能說它是亦有亦無，非有非無呢？如果認識到這眾生，為什麼還要問非正因？乃至六法、真諦的意義也是這樣。如果徹底領悟，這正因佛性的意義就已經完備了。前面是橫向論述的第一重，這

【English Translation】 English version: Shi Po. Just asking: 'Attaining the principle of the Buddha, is it that the principle has already been attained, or not yet attained, or is there a principle only when attaining the principle?' If it is said that the principle has already been attained, then the principle has already been used and there is no more principle. If it is said that the principle has not yet been attained, because it has not been attained, there is no principle yet. If it is said that there is a principle only when attaining the principle, if the Dharma has already been accomplished, then it is 'already'; if the Dharma is not yet, then it falls into 'not yet'. Therefore, there is no other third Dharma that can be called 'principle'. This third statement departs from refutation. Just asking: 'Attaining the principle of the Buddha, should it be immediately emptiness, or should it be apart from emptiness?' If it is said that it is immediately emptiness, then it has already been emptiness, and there is no more principle. If it is said that there is this principle apart from emptiness, emptiness cannot be separated from, how can one speak of principle apart from emptiness? Moreover, having principle apart from emptiness becomes two views. The scriptures say: 'All those who have two have no path and no fruit.' How can one take the inversion of two views as the right cause?' Using these three points to seek is unattainable. Not only are the meanings of the four schools destroyed, but all eleven calculations are also shattered. Asking: 'Refuting others may be so, what is the right cause now?' Answering: 'Generally, in response to others, it is necessary to refute everything. They all say there is, we all say there is not. They take sentient beings (Sattvas) as the right cause, we take non-sentient beings as the right cause. They take the six dharmas (六法) as the right cause, we take non-six dharmas as the right cause. Even they take the truth (Satya) as the right cause, we take non-truth as the right cause. If they take conventional truth (Samvriti-satya) as the right cause, we take non-conventional truth as the right cause.' Therefore, it is said that the middle way of neither truth nor conventionality is the right cause, the Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhatu). Using medicine to cure illness requires saying this. It is like this in response to others, and it is also necessary to discuss it horizontally and vertically. Therefore, the meaning of this non-sentient being has shallow and deep aspects. Discussing it horizontally as medicine is like the previous analysis. Vertically, it points to the path, only non-sentient beings, etc., are the right cause. If it is said that it is yes and no, then what is not a sentient being that speaks of sentient beings? Only non-sentient beings speak of sentient beings, how can this sentient being be said to be existent, how can it be said to be non-existent, how can it be said to be both existent and non-existent, neither existent nor non-existent? If one recognizes this sentient being, why ask about the non-right cause? Even the meaning of the six dharmas and truth is also like this. If one thoroughly understands, the meaning of this right cause, the Buddha-nature, is already complete. The previous is the first level of horizontal discussion, this

復是豎論一重。便成兩重論正因義也。

尋經第三。既識佛性。應須遍讀眾經。由來舊辨阿含經中亦明佛性。但有小妨耳。故云。一切眾生悉有聲聞性。悉有辟支佛性。悉有佛性。阿含既爾。其餘諸經。亦有說佛性語。但不甚分明。如是眾經明佛性。亦復何嫌。故新金光明經云。若了義說是身。即是大乘。即如來藏。即如來性也。華嚴經云。菩薩隨喜心不斷如來性又言。欲不斷佛種性者。當發菩提心。又華嚴性起品。即是明佛性義。從寶王如來性。而起離世間因。得入法界果。結前因果。生后因果。故華嚴明佛性有因有果。而未作正因緣因之名。亦未作果與果果之秤。至如具足明佛性義。即如涅槃中所辨。故具明有因有因因有果有果果。今時一師每以涅槃經為證。然此一教處處皆明佛性。故哀嘆品中琉璃珠喻。亦是具足明佛性義。如是如來性品皆明佛性義。乃至師子吼迦葉廣明佛性事。義乃顯然。故一師所引文句。以師子吼文為正也。故師子吼菩薩問言。云何為佛性。以何義故名為佛性。如是凡有五問佛性。如來次第答。答第一問言。善男子汝問云何為佛性者。善男子佛性者。名第一義空。第一義空名為智慧。斯則一往第一義空以為佛性。又言第一義空名為智慧。豈不異由來義耶。今只說境為智。說智為境。復

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：再從豎向立論一層，就成了兩重，論證正因的意義。

尋找經典第三。既然已經認識了佛性（Buddha-nature），就應該廣泛閱讀各種經典。自古以來，舊有的《阿含經》（Agama Sutra）中也闡明了佛性，只是稍微有些不足。所以說：『一切眾生都有聲聞性（Sravaka-nature），都有辟支佛性（Pratyekabuddha-nature），都有佛性。』《阿含經》既然如此，其餘的經典，也有說到佛性的話語，只是不很分明。像這樣，眾多經典闡明佛性，又有什麼可嫌棄的呢？所以新譯的《金光明經》（Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra）說：『如果瞭解義理，說這個身，就是大乘（Mahayana），就是如來藏（Tathagatagarbha），就是如來性（Tathagata-nature）。』《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）說：『菩薩隨喜心不斷如來性。』又說：『想要不斷佛種性（Buddha-gotra）的人，應當發起菩提心（Bodhi-citta）。』而且《華嚴經·性起品》就是闡明佛性的意義。從寶王如來性（Ratnaraja Tathagata-nature），而生起離世間的因，得到進入法界的果。連線前面的因果，產生後面的因果。所以《華嚴經》闡明佛性有因有果，但沒有作出正因緣因（hetu-pratyaya-hetu）的名稱，也沒有作出果與果果（phala-phala-phala）的稱量。至於具足闡明佛性意義的，就是像《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中所辨析的那樣，所以具足闡明有因有因因（hetu-hetu-hetu），有果有果果（phala-phala-phala）。現在有一位法師總是以《涅槃經》作為證據，然而這一教法處處都闡明佛性。所以《哀嘆品》中的琉璃珠比喻，也是具足闡明佛性的意義。像這樣，《如來性品》都闡明佛性的意義，乃至《師子吼迦葉品》（Simhanada Kasyapa）廣泛闡明佛性的事理，意義才顯得明顯。所以那位法師所引用的文句，以《師子吼品》的文句為正。所以師子吼菩薩（Simhanada Bodhisattva）問道：『什麼是佛性？以什麼意義的緣故名為佛性？』像這樣，總共有五問佛性。如來（Tathagata）依次回答。回答第一個問題說：『善男子，你問什麼是佛性？善男子，佛性，名叫第一義空（Paramartha-sunyata）。第一義空名為智慧（Prajna）。』這就像是暫且以第一義空作為佛性。又說第一義空名為智慧，難道不是不同於以往的意義嗎？現在只是說境為智，說智為境，又

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, establishing a layer of argument vertically results in a double layer, demonstrating the meaning of the direct cause.

Searching for Sutras, Part 3. Having recognized Buddha-nature, one should extensively read various sutras. Historically, the old Agama Sutras also clarified Buddha-nature, but with slight imperfections. Therefore, it is said: 'All sentient beings possess Sravaka-nature, Pratyekabuddha-nature, and Buddha-nature.' Since the Agama Sutras are like this, other sutras also contain words about Buddha-nature, though not very clearly. Thus, with numerous sutras clarifying Buddha-nature, what is there to object to? Therefore, the newly translated Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra states: 'If one understands the meaning and speaks of this body, it is the Mahayana, it is the Tathagatagarbha, it is the Tathagata-nature.' The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'The Bodhisattva's rejoicing mind does not sever the Tathagata-nature.' It also says: 'Those who wish to not sever the Buddha-gotra should generate Bodhi-citta.' Moreover, the 'Nature Arising' chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra clarifies the meaning of Buddha-nature. From the Ratnaraja Tathagata-nature arises the cause of transcending the world, attaining the fruit of entering the Dharmadhatu. Connecting the preceding cause and effect, it generates the subsequent cause and effect. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra clarifies that Buddha-nature has cause and effect, but it does not create the names of direct cause-condition-cause, nor does it measure fruit with fruit-fruit. As for fully clarifying the meaning of Buddha-nature, it is as analyzed in the Nirvana Sutra, thus fully clarifying that there is cause-cause-cause, and fruit-fruit-fruit. Nowadays, one teacher always uses the Nirvana Sutra as evidence, yet this teaching clarifies Buddha-nature everywhere. Therefore, the analogy of the crystal bead in the 'Lamentation Chapter' also fully clarifies the meaning of Buddha-nature. Likewise, the 'Tathagata-nature Chapter' clarifies the meaning of Buddha-nature, even the Simhanada Kasyapa chapter extensively clarifies the matter of Buddha-nature, making the meaning clear. Therefore, the sentences quoted by that teacher take the sentences from the Simhanada chapter as correct. Therefore, Simhanada Bodhisattva asks: 'What is Buddha-nature? For what reason is it called Buddha-nature?' Thus, there are five questions about Buddha-nature in total. The Tathagata answers in order. Answering the first question, he says: 'Good man, you ask what is Buddha-nature? Good man, Buddha-nature is called Paramartha-sunyata. Paramartha-sunyata is called Prajna.' This is like temporarily taking Paramartha-sunyata as Buddha-nature. Furthermore, it is said that Paramartha-sunyata is called Prajna, is this not different from the previous meaning? Now, it is only said that the object is wisdom, and wisdom is the object, and

云。所言空者。不見空與不空。對此為言。亦應云。所言智者。不見智與不智。即不見空除空。不見不空除不空。除智又除不智。遠離二邊名聖中道。又言。如是二見不名中道。無常無斷乃名中道。此豈非以中道為佛性耶。是以除不空則離常邊。又除于空即離斷邊。不見智與不智義亦如是。故以中道為佛性。是以文云佛性者。即是三菩提中道種子也。是故今明。第一義空名為佛性。不見空與不空。不見智與不智。無常無斷名為中道。只以此為中道佛性也。若以此足前十一師。則成第十二解。然若識正道知。道無有一。豈復有二釋于其間哉。而言第一義空為佛性者。非是由來所辨第一義空。彼明第一義空但境而非智。斯是偏道。今言智慧。亦非由來所明之智慧。彼明智慧但智而非境。斯亦是偏道義。非謂中道也。但中道義難識。具如二諦中辨。非中非邊不住中邊。中邊平等假名為中。若瞭如是中道。則識佛性。若了今之佛性。亦識彼之中道。若了中道。即了第一義空。若了第一義空。即了智慧。了智慧即了金光明諸佛行處。若了金光明諸佛行處。則了此經云光明者名為智慧。若了智慧即了佛性。若了佛性即了涅槃也。

簡正因第四。但正因難識。今作兩種檢之。一作車輪明義。無始終檢。二作三世明義。有始終檢

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：所說的『空』（Śūnyatā，佛教中的一個重要概念，指一切事物沒有固定不變的自性）是什麼意思？答：是指既不執著于『空』，也不執著于『不空』。同樣，如果說『智者』，也應該理解為既不執著于『智慧』，也不執著于『不智慧』。既不因為見到『空』就去除『空』，也不因為見到『不空』就去除『不空』。去除『智慧』，也去除『不智慧』。遠離這兩種極端，就叫做『聖中道』（Arya-madhyamā-pratipad，佛教的核心教義，指不偏袒任何一方的道路）。有人說，像這樣的兩種見解不能稱為『中道』，『無常』（Anitya，佛教中的一個重要概念，指一切事物都在變化，沒有永恒不變的）和『無斷』才是『中道』。這難道不是以『中道』為『佛性』（Buddha-dhātu，指一切眾生皆具成佛的可能性）嗎？因此，去除『不空』就離開了『常』邊（Śāśvata，指永恒不變的極端），去除『空』就離開了『斷』邊（Uccheda，指斷滅的極端）。不見『智慧』與『不智慧』的道理也是一樣。所以說以『中道』為『佛性』。因此經文說，『佛性』就是『三菩提』（Tri-bodhi，指三種覺悟，即聲聞菩提、緣覺菩提和佛菩提）中道的種子。所以現在闡明，『第一義空』（Paramārtha-śūnyatā，指最究竟的空性）就叫做『佛性』。不見『空』與『不空』，不見『智慧』與『不智慧』，『無常』和『無斷』就叫做『中道』。僅僅以此作為『中道佛性』。如果以此來補充之前的十一位法師的觀點，就成了第十二種解釋。然而，如果認識到真正的道路，知道道路沒有唯一性，哪裡還會有兩種解釋存在呢？說『第一義空』為『佛性』，不是指通常所說的『第一義空』。他們所說的『第一義空』只是境界而不是智慧，這是一種片面的道路。現在所說的智慧，也不是通常所說的智慧。他們所說的智慧只是智慧而不是境界，這也是一種片面的道理，不能稱為『中道』。但是『中道』的意義難以認識，詳細的解釋在『二諦』（Satya-dvaya，指真諦和俗諦）中辨析。非『中』非『邊』，不住于『中』也不住于『邊』，『中』和『邊』平等，假名為『中』。如果瞭解了這樣的『中道』，就認識了『佛性』。如果瞭解了現在的『佛性』，也就認識了那樣的『中道』。如果瞭解了『中道』，就瞭解了『第一義空』。如果瞭解了『第一義空』，就瞭解了『智慧』。瞭解了『智慧』，就瞭解了《金光明經》（Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra）中諸佛所行之處。如果瞭解了《金光明經》中諸佛所行之處，就瞭解了此經所說的『光明』名為『智慧』。如果瞭解了『智慧』，就瞭解了『佛性』。如果瞭解了『佛性』，就瞭解了『涅槃』（Nirvāṇa，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）。

簡正因第四：但是『正因』（Hetu，指正確的理由或原因）難以認識，現在用兩種方法來檢驗它。一是作車輪來闡明意義，沒有始終地檢驗；二是作三世（Tri-kāla，指過去、現在和未來）來闡明意義，有始終地檢驗。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is meant by 'emptiness' (Śūnyatā, a key concept in Buddhism referring to the lack of inherent existence)? Answer: It refers to not being attached to either 'emptiness' or 'non-emptiness'. Similarly, if we speak of a 'wise person', it should be understood as not being attached to either 'wisdom' or 'non-wisdom'. Neither removing 'emptiness' because of seeing 'emptiness', nor removing 'non-emptiness' because of seeing 'non-emptiness'. Removing 'wisdom' and also removing 'non-wisdom'. To be apart from these two extremes is called the 'Noble Middle Way' (Arya-madhyamā-pratipad, the core Buddhist teaching of a path that avoids extremes). Some say that such dualistic views cannot be called the 'Middle Way'; 'impermanence' (Anitya, a key concept in Buddhism referring to the changing nature of all things) and 'non-cessation' are the 'Middle Way'. Isn't this taking the 'Middle Way' as 'Buddha-nature' (Buddha-dhātu, the potential for enlightenment inherent in all beings)? Therefore, removing 'non-emptiness' is to depart from the extreme of 'permanence' (Śāśvata, the extreme of eternalism), and removing 'emptiness' is to depart from the extreme of 'cessation' (Uccheda, the extreme of annihilationism). The principle of not seeing 'wisdom' and 'non-wisdom' is the same. Therefore, it is said that the 'Middle Way' is 'Buddha-nature'. Thus, the text says that 'Buddha-nature' is the seed of the 'Middle Way' of 'threefold enlightenment' (Tri-bodhi, referring to the enlightenment of Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas). Therefore, it is now clarified that 'ultimate emptiness' (Paramārtha-śūnyatā, the ultimate nature of emptiness) is called 'Buddha-nature'. Not seeing 'emptiness' and 'non-emptiness', not seeing 'wisdom' and 'non-wisdom', 'impermanence' and 'non-cessation' are called the 'Middle Way'. Only this is taken as the 'Middle Way Buddha-nature'. If this is used to supplement the views of the previous eleven teachers, it becomes the twelfth interpretation. However, if one recognizes the true path and knows that the path is not singular, how can there be two interpretations in between? To say that 'ultimate emptiness' is 'Buddha-nature' does not refer to the commonly discussed 'ultimate emptiness'. Their 'ultimate emptiness' is merely an object and not wisdom; this is a one-sided path. The wisdom now spoken of is not the commonly discussed wisdom. Their wisdom is merely wisdom and not an object; this is also a one-sided principle and cannot be called the 'Middle Way'. However, the meaning of the 'Middle Way' is difficult to recognize; a detailed explanation is found in the discussion of the 'two truths' (Satya-dvaya, referring to conventional truth and ultimate truth). Neither 'middle' nor 'edge', not abiding in the 'middle' nor abiding in the 'edge'; 'middle' and 'edge' are equal, nominally called 'middle'. If one understands such a 'Middle Way', one recognizes 'Buddha-nature'. If one understands the present 'Buddha-nature', one also recognizes that 'Middle Way'. If one understands the 'Middle Way', one understands 'ultimate emptiness'. If one understands 'ultimate emptiness', one understands 'wisdom'. Understanding 'wisdom' is understanding the places where the Buddhas walk in the Golden Light Sutra (Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra). If one understands the places where the Buddhas walk in the Golden Light Sutra, one understands that the 'light' spoken of in this sutra is called 'wisdom'. If one understands 'wisdom', one understands 'Buddha-nature'. If one understands 'Buddha-nature', one understands 'Nirvana' (Nirvāṇa, the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death).

Chapter 4: Briefly Examining the Correct Cause. However, the 'correct cause' (Hetu, the correct reason or cause) is difficult to recognize. Now, two methods are used to examine it. First, using a wheel to clarify the meaning, examining it without beginning or end; second, using the three times (Tri-kāla, past, present, and future) to clarify the meaning, examining it with beginning and end.

也。無始終義。即如涅槃云。十二因緣不生不滅不一不二不常不斷不來不去不因不果。又言。佛性者。有因有因因。有果有果果也。是以無始終義。作四句明之。所言因者。即是境界因。謂十二因緣也。所言因因者。即是緣因。謂十二因緣所生觀智也。境界已是因。此之觀智。因因而有故名因因。好體十二因緣。應是因因而有故名因因。彼向望前。此即望后。皆是因因也。所言果者。即三菩提。由因而得故名為果。所言果果者。即是大般涅槃。由菩提故。得說涅槃以為果果。菩提即是智。涅槃即是斷。由智故說斷也。此是無始終義。何者。如所生觀智因因而有故名因因。十二因緣。亦因因而有。又是因因。既互為因與因因故。是無始終也。第二作三世有始終檢者。凡有三句。一者是因非果。即是境界因。故經言。是因非果如佛性。二者是果非因。即是果果性。故經言。是果非因名大涅槃。三者是因是果。即如了因及三菩提。斯即亦因亦果。望后為因。望前為果。既言境界是因非果涅槃是果非因。所以名為有始終義。問先明四句后說三句。有正因不。答未有正因。問若前明四句后說三句。既並非正因者未知。何者為正因耶。答前四句所明因果。因是傍因果是傍果義。所以然者。因則異果。果則異因。豈非是傍義。故先言

有因有因因有果有果果。皆未是正因。若言非因非果。乃是正因耳。后說三句。是因非果是果非因是因是果。皆未名正若言非因非果。此乃是正。故經云。非因非果名為佛性也。故於四句中。更足第五句。方是正因。於三句中。更足第四句。方是正因。所以佛性非因非果。而說因說果。不因而因。開境智故有二因。謂因與因因也。不果而果。開智斷故有二果。謂果與果果。至論正因。豈是因果。故非因非果。即是中道名為正因。故以中道為正因佛性。故經云。佛性是三菩提中道種子也。所以佛性即是中道種子。亦可。得以中道因為正種子也。若單道義者。此中應須眼見師子吼文也。然先言正因佛性。非因而因故有二因。謂境了二因。非果而果故有二果謂菩提與涅槃。今此二因二果。並非正因。由非因非果正因故。有此因果。所以此二因二果。並皆是傍。若非因非果乃是正因。故若緣若了並非正因。非緣非了乃是正因。若菩提涅槃並非正果。非菩提非涅槃乃是正果也。問若爾則成六種佛性。何者因中有緣因了因。復有正因。豈非三因。果有菩提涅槃則成二果。復有非菩提非涅槃名為正果。豈非六種佛性耶。答亦得六種佛性。今則不爾。所以然者。但因中名為佛性。至果便成性佛。故在因但名為非因。在果則名為非果。只

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『有因有因因有果有果果』，這些都不是真正的正因。如果說『非因非果』，這才是真正的正因。後面說的三句：『是因非果』、『是果非因』、『是因是果』，都不能稱為『正』，如果說『非因非果』，這才是『正』。所以經書上說，『非因非果』名為佛性（Buddha-nature）。因此在四句中，再加第五句，才是真正的正因；在三句中，再加第四句，才是真正的正因。所以佛性『非因非果』，卻又說『因』說『果』，這是『不因而因』，開啟境智的緣故，所以有二因，即因與因因。『不果而果』，這是開啟智慧斷除煩惱的緣故，所以有二果，即果與果果。說到真正的正因，哪裡是因果所能概括的？所以『非因非果』，就是中道，名為正因。所以用中道作為正因佛性。所以經書上說，佛性是三菩提（threefold Bodhi）中道的種子。所以佛性就是中道種子，也可以說，用中道作為正種子。如果只講道理，這裡應該需要眼見師子吼（lion's roar）的文字。然而，先說正因佛性，『非因而因』所以有二因，即境與了二因。『非果而果』所以有二果，即菩提（Bodhi）與涅槃（Nirvana）。現在這二因二果，都不是正因。因為有『非因非果』的正因，才有這因果。所以這二因二果，都只是旁支。如果『非因非果』才是正因，那麼『若緣若了』就不是正因，『非緣非了』才是正因。如果菩提涅槃不是正果，那麼『非菩提非涅槃』才是正果。問：如果這樣，那就成了六種佛性。哪六種呢？因中有緣因、了因，又有正因，豈不是三種因？果有菩提、涅槃，就成了二果，又有『非菩提非涅槃』名為正果，豈不是六種佛性嗎？答：也可以說是六種佛性，但現在不是這樣。為什麼呢？因為在因中名為佛性，到了果就成了性佛。所以在因只是名為『非因』，在果則名為『非果』，只是這樣。

【English Translation】 English version 『There is cause, there is cause-cause, there is effect, there is effect-effect,』 none of these are the true primary cause. If one says 『neither cause nor effect,』 that is the true primary cause. The three sentences that follow: 『is cause, not effect,』『is effect, not cause,』『is cause and effect,』 none of these can be called 『true.』 If one says 『neither cause nor effect,』 that is 『true.』 Therefore, the scriptures say, 『neither cause nor effect』 is called Buddha-nature. Thus, in the four sentences, adding a fifth sentence is the true primary cause; in the three sentences, adding a fourth sentence is the true primary cause. Therefore, Buddha-nature is 『neither cause nor effect,』 yet we speak of 『cause』 and 『effect.』 This is 『cause without cause,』 opening up the realm of wisdom, so there are two causes, namely cause and cause-cause. 『Effect without effect,』 this is opening up wisdom and cutting off afflictions, so there are two effects, namely effect and effect-effect. When it comes to the true primary cause, how can it be encompassed by cause and effect? Therefore, 『neither cause nor effect』 is the Middle Way, called the primary cause. Therefore, the Middle Way is used as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Therefore, the scriptures say that Buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way of the threefold Bodhi. Therefore, Buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way, and it can also be said that the Middle Way is used as the true seed. If only the principle is discussed, then the text of the lion's roar should be seen here. However, first, it is said that the primary cause is Buddha-nature. 『Cause without cause』 therefore has two causes, namely the cause of realm and the cause of understanding. 『Effect without effect』 therefore has two effects, namely Bodhi and Nirvana. Now, these two causes and two effects are not the primary cause. Because there is the primary cause of 『neither cause nor effect,』 there are these causes and effects. Therefore, these two causes and two effects are all secondary. If 『neither cause nor effect』 is the primary cause, then 『if condition, if understanding』 is not the primary cause, 『neither condition nor understanding』 is the primary cause. If Bodhi and Nirvana are not the true effect, then 『neither Bodhi nor Nirvana』 is the true effect. Question: If that is the case, then there are six kinds of Buddha-nature. What are the six? In cause, there is conditional cause, understanding cause, and also primary cause, are there not three causes? In effect, there is Bodhi and Nirvana, which become two effects, and there is also 『neither Bodhi nor Nirvana』 called the true effect, are there not six kinds of Buddha-nature? Answer: It can also be said that there are six kinds of Buddha-nature, but it is not so now. Why is that? Because in cause it is called Buddha-nature, and in effect it becomes nature-Buddha. Therefore, in cause it is only called 『not cause,』 and in effect it is called 『not effect,』 that is all.

是一個非因非果。而今為辨佛性。故經為正因。所以但有五性不為六性也。

釋名第五。釋名有二種。先釋通名次釋別名。通名不同有三家。第一解云。佛性兩字皆是果名。佛名覺者。此故宜非因。性以不改為義。果體既常。所以不改也。因中暗識故非覺者。既其遷改不得名性。但眾生必有當得此佛性之理。故言悉有佛性也。第二師釋。佛性者此是因中。難第一家云。經既言一切眾生悉有佛性。云何言因中無有此名。因中眾生。有覺義故是佛。有必當之理不改名性也。第三家分字解釋。佛是果名。性是因名。還舉第一家為難。眾生愚闇癡惑耳。然未有智慧。若有覺法。可許佛覺。而即眾生都無有覺。云何言眾生是佛。乃研生死小智。終成果地大覺。其果始名為佛。故佛是果名。但眾生必當得。此之理不改故名為性。性只是理。所以性是因中也。然此三說。今並不用。皆須洗之。還以三家義自相難破也。問今義云何。為當在因為當在果為當在因果耶。答今時明義。無在無不在。故云無在無不在。佛所說也。只以如此義故名為佛性。雖無在無不在。而說在說不在者。佛性在因性佛在果。故果因名佛性。因果名性佛。此是不二二義。不二二故二則非二。故云二不二是體不二二是用。以體為用。以用為體。體用平等不二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：它既不是因，也不是果。現在爲了辨明佛性（Buddha-nature），所以經典作為正因。因此只有五性，而不是六性。

第五釋名。解釋名稱有兩種。先解釋通用名稱，再解釋特殊名稱。通用名稱的不同有三家說法。第一種解釋說，『佛性』兩個字都是果位的名稱。『佛』的意思是覺悟者（awakened one）。因此，佛性不應該是因。『性』以不變為含義。果位的本體是恒常的，所以不會改變。因位中的闇昧意識，所以不是覺悟者。既然是遷變的，就不能稱為『性』。但是眾生必定有能夠獲得這種佛性的道理，所以說一切眾生都有佛性。

第二種解釋認為，佛性是因位中的。反駁第一家說，經典既然說一切眾生都有佛性，為什麼說因位中沒有這個名稱？因位中的眾生，有覺悟的意義，所以是佛。有必定能夠達到的道理，不變所以稱為『性』。

第三家分別解釋『佛』和『性』兩個字。『佛』是果位的名稱，『性』是因位的名稱。又舉出第一家的說法來反駁。眾生愚昧、昏暗、迷惑罷了，還沒有智慧。如果有覺悟之法，可以允許說是佛的覺悟。但是眾生完全沒有覺悟，怎麼能說眾生是佛呢？乃至於研究生死的微小智慧，最終成就果地的大覺悟，其果位才開始稱為佛。所以『佛』是果位的名稱。但是眾生必定能夠獲得這個道理，不變所以稱為『性』。『性』只是道理，所以『性』是因位中的。

然而這三種說法，現在都不採用，都需要揚棄。還是用這三家的義理互相駁斥。問：現在的義理是什麼？是在因位，還是在果位，還是在因果位？答：現在闡明義理，無處不在，也無處不在。所以說無處不在，也無處不在。這是佛所說的。正因為如此的義理，所以稱為佛性。雖然無處不在，也無處不在，而說在或說不在，是因為佛性在因位，性佛在果位。所以果位和因位合稱佛性，因位和果位合稱性佛。這是不二和二的含義。不二和二，所以二就是非二。所以說二不二是體，不二二是用。以體為用，以用為體。體和用平等不二。

【English Translation】 English version: It is neither cause nor effect. Now, in order to distinguish Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), the scripture serves as the direct cause. Therefore, there are only five natures, not six.

Fifth: Explanation of Names. There are two types of name explanations. First, explain the general name, then explain the specific name. There are three schools of thought regarding the difference in general names. The first explanation says that both 'Buddha-nature' are names of the fruition. 'Buddha' means 'awakened one'. Therefore, Buddha-nature should not be a cause. 'Nature' means unchanging. Since the essence of the fruition is constant, it does not change. The obscured consciousness in the causal stage is not an awakened one. Since it is changing, it cannot be called 'nature'. However, sentient beings are certain to attain this Buddha-nature, so it is said that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature.

The second explanation believes that Buddha-nature is in the causal stage. It refutes the first school by saying that since the scripture says that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, why is it said that there is no such name in the causal stage? Sentient beings in the causal stage have the meaning of awakening, so they are Buddhas. There is a principle of certainty to be attained, unchanging, so it is called 'nature'.

The third school explains 'Buddha' and 'nature' separately. 'Buddha' is the name of the fruition, and 'nature' is the name of the causal stage. It also cites the first school's statement to refute it. Sentient beings are merely ignorant, dull, and deluded, and do not yet have wisdom. If there is a Dharma of awakening, it can be allowed to be called the Buddha's awakening. But sentient beings have no awakening at all, so how can it be said that sentient beings are Buddhas? Even the small wisdom of studying birth and death ultimately achieves the great awakening of the fruition, and its fruition is then called Buddha. Therefore, 'Buddha' is the name of the fruition. However, sentient beings are certain to attain this principle, unchanging, so it is called 'nature'. 'Nature' is just the principle, so 'nature' is in the causal stage.

However, these three explanations are not adopted now and need to be discarded. The meanings of these three schools are still used to refute each other. Question: What is the current meaning? Is it in the causal stage, or in the fruition stage, or in the causal-fruition stage? Answer: Now, to clarify the meaning, it is nowhere and everywhere. Therefore, it is said that it is nowhere and everywhere. This is what the Buddha said. It is precisely because of this meaning that it is called Buddha-nature. Although it is nowhere and everywhere, and it is said to be present or not present, it is because Buddha-nature is in the causal stage, and nature-Buddha is in the fruition stage. Therefore, the fruition and causal stages are collectively called Buddha-nature, and the causal and fruition stages are collectively called nature-Buddha. This is the meaning of non-duality and duality. Non-duality and duality, so duality is non-duality. Therefore, it is said that duality-non-duality is the substance, and non-duality-duality is the function. Taking the substance as the function, and taking the function as the substance. Substance and function are equal and non-dual.

中道。方是佛性。一切諸師。釋佛性義。或言佛性是因非果。或言是果非因。此是因果二義非佛性也。故經云。凡有二者皆是邪見。故知。一切諸師。不知佛性。各執一邊。是非諍論。失佛性也。若知因果平等不二。方乃得稱名為佛性。故經云非因非果名為佛性也。佛性既爾。涅槃亦然。若知生死涅槃平等不二。此乃得稱名為涅槃。故經云。佛知一切眾生畢竟寂滅。是涅槃相。不復更滅也。次釋別名。先言正因佛性非因非果。非因而因故有二因。謂境界因與了因。非果而果故有二果。謂菩提與涅槃也。言境界因者。即是十二因緣能生觀智。以是觀智境界故名境界因。以能生觀智之前緣故。亦名緣因。言了因者。觀智慧了出佛果故名了因。既了出佛果之緣因故。有時呼了因以為緣因也。菩提者此言正遍知道。是從智為名。涅槃者。此言寂滅。是則從斷為目也。前四句有因者。謂十二因緣。正言十二因緣。非菩提之正因。而言因者。以其能生觀智。與因作因。故名為因。若例此者。大涅槃亦非是正觀之正果。以菩提果為果。故亦應單名為果。若言涅槃與果為果故宜名果果者。十二因緣亦爾。與因作因故應名因因。而經云因因者。謂十二因緣所生觀智。此因因而有故名因因。若爾十二因緣。亦因因而有。何故不名因因。然雖

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中道，才是佛性。所有講師，解釋佛性的意義，有的說佛性是因不是果，有的說是果不是因。這都是因果二義，不是佛性。所以經上說，凡是有二者都是邪見。因此可知，所有講師，都不瞭解佛性，各自執著一邊，爭論是非，失去了佛性。如果知道因果平等不二，才能稱之為佛性。所以經上說，非因非果名為佛性。佛性如此，涅槃也是這樣。如果知道生死涅槃平等不二，這才能稱之為涅槃。所以經上說，佛知道一切眾生畢竟寂滅，這就是涅槃的相，不再有滅亡。接下來解釋別名。先說正因佛性，非因非果。非因而因，所以有二因，即境界因與了因。非果而果，所以有二果，即菩提與涅槃。說境界因，就是十二因緣（Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada）能生觀智。因為是觀智的境界，所以名為境界因。因為能生觀智的前緣，所以也名緣因。說到了因，觀智慧了悟出佛果，所以名爲了因。既然了悟出佛果的緣因，所以有時稱了因為緣因。菩提（Bodhi），這裡說是正遍知道，是從智為名。涅槃（Nirvana），這裡說是寂滅，是從斷為目標。前面四句有因，說的是十二因緣。正說十二因緣，不是菩提的正因，而說是因，是因為它能生觀智，與因作因，所以名為因。如果以此為例，大涅槃也不是正觀的正果。以菩提果為果，所以也應該單名為果。如果說涅槃與果為果，所以應該名叫果果，那麼十二因緣也是這樣，與因作因，所以應該名叫因因。而經上說因因，說的是十二因緣所生的觀智，此因因而有，所以名叫因因。如果這樣，十二因緣，也是因因而有，為什麼不名叫因因？然而雖然

【English Translation】 English version The Middle Way is the Buddha-nature. All teachers explain the meaning of Buddha-nature, some saying that Buddha-nature is a cause and not an effect, and some saying that it is an effect and not a cause. These are the two meanings of cause and effect, and are not Buddha-nature. Therefore, the sutra says, 'All that have two are evil views.' Thus it is known that all teachers do not understand Buddha-nature, each clinging to one side, arguing about right and wrong, and losing Buddha-nature. If one knows that cause and effect are equal and not two, then one can be called Buddha-nature. Therefore, the sutra says, 'Neither cause nor effect is called Buddha-nature.' As Buddha-nature is, so is Nirvana. If one knows that birth and death and Nirvana are equal and not two, then this can be called Nirvana. Therefore, the sutra says, 'The Buddha knows that all beings ultimately attain quiescence; this is the characteristic of Nirvana, and there is no further extinction.' Next, explain the separate names. First, the direct cause, Buddha-nature, is neither cause nor effect. Because it is not a cause but a cause, there are two causes, namely the objective cause and the manifesting cause. Because it is not an effect but an effect, there are two effects, namely Bodhi and Nirvana. The objective cause is the Twelve Nidanas (Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada), which can generate wisdom of observation. Because it is the object of the wisdom of observation, it is called the objective cause. Because it is the prior condition for generating the wisdom of observation, it is also called the conditioning cause. The manifesting cause is that the wisdom of observation can manifest the fruit of Buddhahood, so it is called the manifesting cause. Since it manifests the conditioning cause of the fruit of Buddhahood, sometimes the manifesting cause is called the conditioning cause. Bodhi is here said to be right and universal knowledge, and is named from wisdom. Nirvana is here said to be quiescence, and is aimed at from cessation. The previous four sentences with cause refer to the Twelve Nidanas. Strictly speaking, the Twelve Nidanas are not the direct cause of Bodhi, but they are called cause because they can generate wisdom of observation, and act as a cause with a cause, so they are called cause. If this is taken as an example, Great Nirvana is also not the direct effect of right observation. Because the fruit of Bodhi is taken as the effect, it should also be simply called effect. If it is said that Nirvana and the effect are taken as the effect, so it should be called effect-effect, then the Twelve Nidanas are also like this, acting as a cause with a cause, so they should be called cause-cause. But the sutra says cause-cause, referring to the wisdom of observation generated by the Twelve Nidanas, which exists because of this cause-cause, so it is called cause-cause. If so, the Twelve Nidanas also exist because of cause-cause, why are they not called cause-cause? However, although

復例通有如此義。但十二因緣作因。因始故單名為因。所以經云是因非果也。觀智從十二因緣而生。因因而有故名因因也。所以有果則是三菩提。從觀智因而有故名為果。若言三菩提是觀智之正果故單名果者。觀智亦是三菩提之正因。亦應單名有因。若言觀智從因而有故宜名因因者。三菩提亦從果而有故亦應名果果。而不爾正言三菩提。酬因之始故直名為果。涅槃從三菩提果而有故名果果也。然此四種兩因兩果。並皆是傍不得名正。非因非果乃名正因。不因故有二因。不果故有二果。所以此因是不因。此果是不果故。非因非果乃名為正。然非因非果自可名正。但其在因故名正因。其果則呼為正果然此正義。終不復可定言故。或時呼為道。或時呼為中。或時呼為正因。若齊言而取。終亦不得。何者言其正也。果自不正。因亦非正。亦非是非因非果。亦不非是非因非果也。問若爾是何。答此中無是故。當有以超然悟言解之旨。點此悟心以為正因。付此觀心非言可述。故迦葉每嘆不可思議也。

本有始有第六。問佛性為是本有為是始有。答經有兩文。一云。眾生佛性。譬如暗室瓶瓫力士額珠貧女寶藏雪山甜藥。本自有之非適今也。所以如來藏經。明有九種法身義。二云。佛果從妙因生。責草馬直不責駒直也。明當服蘇

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：復例通有這樣的意義。但十二因緣作為『因』，因為是開始，所以單獨稱為『因』。因此經中說這是『因』而非『果』。觀智從十二因緣而生，因為『因』而有，所以稱為『因因』。因此有了『果』，這個『果』就是三菩提（Samādhi，正定）。從觀智『因』而有，所以稱為『果』。如果說三菩提是觀智的正果，所以單獨稱為『果』，那麼觀智也是三菩提的正因，也應該單獨稱為『因』。如果說觀智從『因』而有，所以應該稱為『因因』，那麼三菩提也從『果』而有，也應該稱為『果果』。但不是這樣，正確的說法是三菩提，酬謝『因』的開始，所以直接稱為『果』。涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）從三菩提『果』而有，所以稱為『果果』。然而這四種，兩『因』兩『果』，都只是傍，不能稱為『正』。非『因』非『果』才稱為『正因』。不因為有二『因』，不果故有二『果』。所以這個『因』是不『因』，這個『果』是不『果』，因此，非『因』非『果』才稱為『正』。然而非『因』非『果』自然可以稱為『正』，但它在『因』的地位，所以稱為『正因』，在『果』的地位，就稱為『正果』。然而這個『正』的意義，最終不能確定地說。有時稱為『道』，有時稱為『中』，有時稱為『正因』。如果齊一地用語言來把握，最終也無法得到。為什麼說它是『正』呢？『果』本身不正，『因』也不是正，也不是非『因』非『果』，也不是非非『因』非『果』。問：如果這樣，那是什麼呢？答：這裡沒有『是』，所以應當用超然的領悟來解釋它的旨意。點明這個領悟的心為『正因』，賦予這個觀心，無法用語言來描述。所以迦葉（Kāśyapa，飲光）總是讚歎不可思議啊！本有始有第六。問：佛性（Buddha-nature）是本有還是始有？答：經中有兩種說法。一種說：眾生的佛性，譬如暗室中的瓶瓫、力士額頭上的寶珠、貧女懷中的寶藏、雪山上的甜藥，本來就有的，不是現在才有的。所以《如來藏經》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra）闡明有九種法身義。另一種說：佛果（Buddha-fruit）從妙因生，責備草馬，不責備小馬。說明應當服用酥油。

【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'repetition and example' is like this. However, the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination act as a 'cause' (hetu), and because it is the beginning, it is singularly called 'cause'. Therefore, the sutra says it is 'cause' and not 'effect'. Wisdom of observation (觀智) arises from the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, and because it exists due to 'cause', it is called 'cause of cause'. Therefore, there is an 'effect', which is the Threefold Enlightenment (Samādhi). Because it exists due to the 'cause' of wisdom of observation, it is called 'effect'. If it is said that the Threefold Enlightenment is the direct effect of wisdom of observation, so it is singularly called 'effect', then wisdom of observation is also the direct cause of the Threefold Enlightenment, and should also be singularly called 'cause'. If it is said that wisdom of observation exists due to 'cause', so it should be called 'cause of cause', then the Threefold Enlightenment also exists due to 'effect', so it should also be called 'effect of effect'. But it is not so; the correct statement is the Threefold Enlightenment, rewarding the beginning of 'cause', so it is directly called 'effect'. Nirvana (Nirvana) exists due to the 'effect' of the Threefold Enlightenment, so it is called 'effect of effect'. However, these four types, two 'causes' and two 'effects', are all secondary and cannot be called 'right'. Non-cause and non-effect are called 'right cause'. Because there is no cause, there are two 'causes'; because there is no effect, there are two 'effects'. Therefore, this 'cause' is non-cause, and this 'effect' is non-effect; therefore, non-cause and non-effect are called 'right'. However, non-cause and non-effect can naturally be called 'right', but it is in the position of 'cause', so it is called 'right cause'; in the position of 'effect', it is called 'right effect'. However, the meaning of this 'right' ultimately cannot be definitively stated. Sometimes it is called 'path', sometimes it is called 'middle', sometimes it is called 'right cause'. If one tries to grasp it uniformly with language, one will ultimately not be able to obtain it. Why is it said to be 'right'? The 'effect' itself is not right, and the 'cause' is also not right, nor is it non-cause and non-effect, nor is it non-non-cause and non-effect. Question: If so, what is it? Answer: There is no 'is' here, so one should use transcendent enlightenment to explain its meaning. Pointing out this enlightened mind as 'right cause', entrusting this observing mind, which cannot be described in words. Therefore, Kāśyapa (Kāśyapa) always praises it as inconceivable! Chapter Six: Originally Existing and Newly Existing. Question: Is Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) originally existing or newly existing? Answer: There are two statements in the sutras. One says: The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is like a bottle in a dark room, a jewel on the forehead of a strong man, a treasure in the womb of a poor woman, sweet medicine on a snowy mountain, originally existing, not just now. Therefore, the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra (Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra) clarifies the meaning of nine kinds of Dharmakaya. The other says: The Buddha-fruit (Buddha-fruit) arises from a wonderful cause, blaming the grass horse, not blaming the foal. It explains that one should take ghee.

今已道臭。食中已有不凈。麻中已有油。則是因中言有之過。故知。佛生是始有。經既有兩文。人釋亦成兩種。一師云。眾生佛性本來自有。理性真神阿梨耶識故。涅槃亦有二種。性凈涅槃本來清凈。方便凈涅槃從修始成也。第二解云。經既說佛果從妙因而生。何容食中已有不凈。故知。佛性始有。復有人言。本有于當故名本有。問若爾便是本有耶。答覆有始有義。又問。若始有應是無常。答我復有本有義。此何異二人作劫張王互答耶。彼若如本有。應如如來藏經諸喻。若言始有。應是無常。而言本有于當。此是何語。定本定當耶。無量世界無邊佛智。應不圓耶。若言如無邊而照可自破之。何勞更難。照若窮盡。即是有邊。照若不盡。智則不圓。此難那得去。本有始有義亦如是。一切有所得義。無不自死。而人不覺耳。故一切諸人莫不網羅于其中矣。若執本有則非始有。若執始有則非本有。各執一文不得會通經意。是非諍競。作滅佛法輪。不可具陳。但地論師云。佛性有二種。一是理性二是行性。理非物造故言本有。行藉修成故言始有。若有所得心。望之一往消文似如得旨。然尋推經意。未必如此。何者。但大聖善巧方便。逐物所宜破病說法。何曾說言理性本有行性始有耶。例如說如來藏義。楞伽經說無我為如來藏。

涅槃說我為如來藏。此兩文復若為配當耶。本有始有其義亦爾。若言理性本有非始行性始有非本者。更執成病聖教非藥。而世間淺識之人。但見其語定以為是。以成迷執也。今一家相傳明佛性義。非有非無非本非始亦非當現。故經云。但以世俗文字數故說有三世。非謂菩提有去來今。以非本非始故。有因緣故。亦可得說故。如涅槃性品明。佛性本有。如貧女寶藏。而諸眾生執教成病。故下文即明始有。故知。佛性非本非始。但為眾生說言本始也。問若言佛性非本始者。以何義故說本始。答至論佛性理實非本始。但如來方便。為破眾生無常病故。說言一切眾生佛性本來自有。以是因緣得成佛道。但眾生無方便故。執言佛性性現相常樂。是故如來。為破眾生現相病故。隱本明始。至論佛性。不但非是本始。亦非是非本非始。為破本始故。假言非本非始。若能得悟本始非本始。是非平等始可得名正因佛性。眾生因是深保成佛道。若不如是非佛性也。若廣論本有始有義。例如新故。何者第一念是新。第二念是故。譬如新米初出者是新。次者非復是新。亦得第一念為故第二念為新。先者名故。后始起者是新。是則先後皆得名新。故言新新生滅。亦可。初后皆得名故。故言初故后亦故。新故既通初后。本有始有義亦復然。新故義通

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《涅槃經》說『我』即是如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來法身的藏處）。這兩段經文應該如何對應理解呢？『本有』和『始有』的含義也是如此。如果說理性是本有的，而修行得來的佛性是始有的，這就又會執著于另一種病態的觀念，聖教（Buddha's teachings）就無法成為對治的良藥了。而世間淺薄無知的人，只看到字面上的意思，就斷定它是正確的，從而形成迷惑和執著。現在我們一家相傳所闡明的佛性之義，既非有也非無，既非本有也非始有，也並非是當下的顯現。所以經中說，只是因為世俗文字的緣故，才說有三世（過去、現在、未來）。並非說菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）有來去今。因為佛性既非本有也非始有，但因為因緣和合的緣故，也可以說它存在。如同《涅槃經·佛性品》所闡明的那樣，佛性本自具有，如同貧女家中的寶藏。但眾生執著于教義而生病，所以下文就闡明了始有。由此可知，佛性既非本有也非始有，只是爲了眾生才說它是本有或始有。問：如果說佛性既非本有也非始有，那麼根據什麼意義才說它是本有或始有呢？答：就佛性的真實理體而言，確實既非本有也非始有。但如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）爲了方便教化，爲了破除眾生認為萬法無常的病態觀念，才說一切眾生本自具有佛性。因為這個因緣才能成就佛道。但眾生沒有方便智慧，就執著于佛性是常、樂、我、凈的顯現。所以如來爲了破除眾生執著于現象的病態觀念，就隱藏本有而闡明始有。就佛性的真實理體而言，不僅不是本有或始有，也不是非本有或非始有。爲了破除對本有和始有的執著，才假借說它非本有也非始有。如果能夠領悟本有和始有都不是真實的本有和始有，是非、平等，這樣才可以稱之為正因佛性。眾生因此能夠深刻地保持這種正見，從而成就佛道。如果不是這樣理解，那就不是真正的佛性。如果要廣泛地論述本有和始有的含義，可以例如新舊的概念。哪一念是第一念是新？第二念是舊？譬如新米剛出來的時候是新的，之後就不是新的了。也可以說第一念是舊的，第二念是新的。先出現的叫做舊的，后開始出現的叫做新的。這樣看來，先後都可以稱為新，所以說新新生滅。也可以說，最初和最後都可以稱為舊的，所以說最初是舊的，之後也是舊的。新舊的概念可以貫通始終，本有和始有的含義也是如此。新舊的含義是相通的。

【English Translation】 English version The Nirvana Sutra says that 'I' is the Tathagatagarbha (the womb of the Tathagata, the place where the Tathagata's dharma body is stored). How should these two passages be understood in relation to each other? The meanings of 'originally existent' and 'newly existent' are similar. If it is said that the principle of reason is originally existent, while the Buddha-nature attained through practice is newly existent, then one will cling to another pathological concept, and the holy teachings (Buddha's teachings) will not be able to serve as a remedy. However, shallow and ignorant people in the world only see the literal meaning and determine that it is correct, thereby forming confusion and attachment. Now, the meaning of Buddha-nature that our lineage transmits is neither existent nor non-existent, neither originally existent nor newly existent, nor is it a present manifestation. Therefore, the sutra says that it is only because of conventional language that we speak of the three times (past, present, and future). It is not that Bodhi (enlightenment) has coming and going. Because Buddha-nature is neither originally existent nor newly existent, but because of the combination of causes and conditions, it can also be said to exist. Just as the Nirvana Sutra, chapter on Buddha-nature, clarifies that Buddha-nature is originally inherent, like a treasure in the home of a poor woman. But sentient beings cling to the teachings and become ill, so the following text clarifies newly existent. From this, it can be known that Buddha-nature is neither originally existent nor newly existent, but it is only for the sake of sentient beings that it is said to be originally existent or newly existent. Question: If it is said that Buddha-nature is neither originally existent nor newly existent, then according to what meaning is it said to be originally existent or newly existent? Answer: In terms of the true essence of Buddha-nature, it is indeed neither originally existent nor newly existent. However, the Tathagata (the title of the Buddha) for the sake of expedient teaching, in order to break the pathological concept of sentient beings that all dharmas are impermanent, says that all sentient beings inherently possess Buddha-nature. Because of this cause and condition, one can attain Buddhahood. However, sentient beings lack expedient wisdom and cling to the manifestation of Buddha-nature as permanent, blissful, self, and pure. Therefore, the Tathagata, in order to break the pathological concept of sentient beings clinging to phenomena, conceals the originally existent and clarifies the newly existent. In terms of the true essence of Buddha-nature, it is not only not originally existent or newly existent, but it is also not non-originally existent or non-newly existent. In order to break the attachment to originally existent and newly existent, it is said to be non-originally existent and non-newly existent. If one can realize that originally existent and newly existent are not truly originally existent and newly existent, that non-existence and equality, then this can be called the right cause of Buddha-nature. Sentient beings can therefore deeply maintain this right view, thereby attaining Buddhahood. If it is not understood in this way, then it is not true Buddha-nature. If one wants to broadly discuss the meaning of originally existent and newly existent, one can use the concept of new and old as an example. Which thought is the first thought that is new? The second thought is old? For example, new rice is new when it first comes out, but after that, it is no longer new. It can also be said that the first thought is old, and the second thought is new. What appears first is called old, and what begins to appear later is called new. In this way, both the first and the last can be called new, so it is said that new is born and dies. It can also be said that both the beginning and the end can be called old, so it is said that the beginning is old, and the end is also old. The concept of new and old can be understood throughout, and the meaning of originally existent and newly existent is also the same. The meanings of new and old are interconnected.

初后。但說初故名新。久新名故。定知。何者為新。何者為故。故知。都無新無故。故釋十號文云。上者名新。士者名故。體大涅槃無新無故。既言體大涅槃無新無故。亦得言體大涅槃無本無始。此一往明無本無始義。然無本無始義。此是清凈體。亦何失寄言本始義耶。今約事論之。如無明初念始起為新佛果後起為故。何異先兩念相望初念為新后念為故耶。亦得佛果始起此則名新。無明住地已久此則名為故。何異兩念相望初念名故后念名新。然本始只是新故。本只是故。始只是新。無明初念與佛果相望。既皆得是新。皆得是故。亦皆得是始。皆得是本。無明與佛果既得如此。生死涅槃亦爾。皆得是始皆得是本。是故生死為始。涅槃為本。涅槃為始。生死為本。生死始有。涅槃本有。何異第一念為新第二念為故。生死本有。涅槃始有。何異第一念為故第二念為新。故生死涅槃。不是本有不是始有。而終是無本無始。而今假名說故更互為本始無異。經言本有今無本無今有。本若是有今則是無。本若是無今則是有。故今之與本。皆得名有。皆得名無。此文意終為明無本無今義。故下文即結言三世有法無有是處。故知。三世皆不得言有。但今假名說故。本有今無本無今有。通生死涅槃。皆是有無。若悟假名。論有論無。至竟終

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：最初和之後。只說最初的緣故，稱之為『新』。長久和新，稱之為『故』。應當確定地知道，什麼是『新』，什麼是『故』？要知道，實際上沒有『新』也沒有『故』。所以解釋十號（如來十號）的文句說：『上』稱為『新』，『士』稱為『故』。體大的涅槃沒有『新』也沒有『故』。既然說體大的涅槃沒有『新』也沒有『故』，也可以說體大的涅槃沒有『本』也沒有『始』。這是一種說明沒有『本』沒有『始』的意義。然而，沒有『本』沒有『始』的意義，這是清凈的本體，寄託于『本始』的意義又有什麼損失呢？現在從現象上來說，比如無明（avidyā）的最初一念開始生起，這是『新』，佛果（Buddha-phala）後來生起，這是『故』。這與先前的兩個念頭相互比較，最初的念頭是『新』，後來的念頭是『故』有什麼不同呢？也可以說佛果開始生起，這稱為『新』，無明住地已經很久，這稱為『故』。這與兩個念頭相互比較，最初的念頭是『故』，後來的念頭是『新』有什麼不同呢？然而，『本始』只是『新故』，『本』只是『故』，『始』只是『新』。無明的最初一念與佛果相互比較，既然都可以是『新』，都可以是『故』，也都可以是『始』，都可以是『本』。無明與佛果既然可以這樣，生死（saṃsāra）與涅槃（nirvāṇa）也是這樣，都可以是『始』，都可以是『本』。所以生死為『始』，涅槃為『本』；涅槃為『始』，生死為『本』。生死最初有，涅槃本來有。這與第一個念頭為『新』，第二個念頭為『故』有什麼不同呢？生死本來有，涅槃開始有。這與第一個念頭為『故』，第二個念頭為『新』有什麼不同呢？所以生死涅槃，不是本來有，也不是開始有，但終究是沒有『本』沒有『始』。而現在假借名義說，互相作為『本始』沒有差異。經文說『本來有現在沒有，本來沒有現在有』，『本』如果是『有』，現在就是『無』，『本』如果是『無』，現在就是『有』。所以現在與『本』，都可以稱為『有』，都可以稱為『無』。這段文字的意義最終是爲了說明沒有『本』沒有『今』的意義。所以下文就總結說三世（過去、現在、未來）有法沒有這樣的道理。所以知道，三世都不能說是『有』。但現在假借名義說，本來有現在沒有，本來沒有現在有。貫通生死涅槃，都是有無。如果領悟假借名義，無論說『有』說『無』，最終都是如此。

【English Translation】 English version: Initially and subsequently. Because only the initial is spoken of, it is called 'new'. Long-lasting and new are called 'old'. It should be definitely known, what is 'new' and what is 'old'? Know that, in reality, there is neither 'new' nor 'old'. Therefore, the explanation of the ten titles (of Tathāgata) says: 'Superior' is called 'new', 'accomplished' is called 'old'. The great body of Nirvāṇa (涅槃) has neither 'new' nor 'old'. Since it is said that the great body of Nirvāṇa has neither 'new' nor 'old', it can also be said that the great body of Nirvāṇa has neither 'origin' nor 'beginning'. This is one way of explaining the meaning of having no 'origin' and no 'beginning'. However, the meaning of having no 'origin' and no 'beginning' is that this is the pure essence; what loss is there in entrusting it to the meaning of 'origin and beginning'? Now, speaking from the perspective of phenomena, for example, the initial thought of ignorance (avidyā) arising is 'new', and the Buddha-fruit (Buddha-phala) arising later is 'old'. What difference is there between this and comparing two previous thoughts, where the initial thought is 'new' and the later thought is 'old'? It can also be said that the Buddha-fruit begins to arise, which is called 'new', and the dwelling place of ignorance has been long-standing, which is called 'old'. What difference is there between this and comparing two thoughts, where the initial thought is 'old' and the later thought is 'new'? However, 'origin and beginning' are simply 'new and old'; 'origin' is simply 'old', and 'beginning' is simply 'new'. The initial thought of ignorance compared with the Buddha-fruit, since both can be 'new', both can be 'old', and both can be 'beginning', both can be 'origin'. Since ignorance and the Buddha-fruit can be like this, Saṃsāra (生死) and Nirvāṇa are also like this; both can be 'beginning', both can be 'origin'. Therefore, Saṃsāra is the 'beginning', and Nirvāṇa is the 'origin'; Nirvāṇa is the 'beginning', and Saṃsāra is the 'origin'. Saṃsāra initially exists, and Nirvāṇa inherently exists. What difference is there between the first thought being 'new' and the second thought being 'old'? Saṃsāra inherently exists, and Nirvāṇa begins to exist. What difference is there between the first thought being 'old' and the second thought being 'new'? Therefore, Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa are neither inherently existent nor initially existent, but ultimately have no 'origin' and no 'beginning'. But now, nominally speaking, mutually acting as 'origin and beginning' makes no difference. The scripture says, 'Originally existent, now non-existent; originally non-existent, now existent'. If 'origin' is 'existent', then now is 'non-existent'; if 'origin' is 'non-existent', then now is 'existent'. Therefore, both now and 'origin' can be called 'existent', and both can be called 'non-existent'. The meaning of this passage is ultimately to clarify the meaning of having no 'origin' and no 'now'. Therefore, the following text concludes by saying that there is no such principle in the dharmas of the three times (past, present, and future). Therefore, know that the three times cannot be said to be 'existent'. But now, nominally speaking, originally existent, now non-existent; originally non-existent, now existent. Connecting Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa, both are existence and non-existence. If one understands nominality, whether speaking of 'existence' or speaking of 'non-existence', it is ultimately so.

是無有無無。故言三世有法無有是處。何異說新故本始至竟終是無有新故本始義耶。當知。說新故本來指新為故。指故為新。本始亦爾指本為始指始為本。指始為本故。此本是始本。指本為始故。此始是本始。本始非始。始本非本。故云至竟終是無本無始義也。

辨內外有無第七。今辨佛性內外有無義。此重最難解。或可。理外有佛性理內無佛性。或可理內有佛性理外無佛性。今先辨理內外次說有無。然由來亦言有理內外凡夫及內道外道。故信等五根未立者。理外行心名外凡夫。五根立者。理內行心名內凡夫。故言理內行心理外行心。既有此語。亦即是理內外義。但舊師等不甚分明。作此名教耳。經言。複次道有二種。一外二內。外道道者。無常無樂。內道道者。有常有樂。菩提解脫亦復如是。聲聞菩提。無常無樂。諸佛菩薩所有菩提。常樂我凈。解脫亦然也。問菩提只是道。何故兩出耶。解云。菩提者是所行之道。先明。道者是能行之道。能所為異也。又若言一切諸法有生滅者。皆是理外。悉屬外道。若一切諸法無生滅者。皆是理內則屬內道。故今明。發心悟不生不滅。如般若中所辨。名為內道也。分理內外竟。今次明佛性之有無。問為理外眾生有佛性。為理內眾生有佛性耶。答曰。問理外眾生有佛性不。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：是無有無無。所以說三世有法沒有這種說法。這和說新故本始到最終都是沒有新故本始的意義有什麼不同呢？應當知道，說新故本來是指新為故，指故為新。本始也是這樣，指本為始，指始為本。因為指始為本，所以這個本是始本。因為指本為始，所以這個始是本始。本始不是始，始本不是本。所以說最終都是沒有本沒有始的意義。

辨內外有無第七。現在辨別佛性在內在外有無的意義。這部分最難理解。或許可以認為，理外有佛性，理內沒有佛性。或許可以認為，理內有佛性，理外沒有佛性。現在先辨別理的內外，再說明有無。然而由來也有理內外凡夫以及內道外道的說法。所以信等五根沒有建立的人，在理外修行，其心稱為外凡夫。五根建立的人，在理內修行，其心稱為內凡夫。所以說理內修行之心，理外修行之心。既然有這種說法，也就是理內外之義。但舊師等不太分明，才作此名教。經中說：『複次，道有兩種，一外二內。外道之道，無常無樂。內道之道，有常有樂。菩提解脫也是這樣。聲聞菩提，無常無樂。諸佛菩薩所有的菩提，常樂我凈。解脫也是這樣。』問：菩提只是道，為什麼兩次提出呢？答：菩提是所行之道，先說明。道是能行之道。能所不同。又如果說一切諸法有生滅，都是理外，都屬於外道。如果一切諸法無生滅，都是理內，就屬於內道。所以現在說明，發心領悟不生不滅，如《般若經》中所辨明的，稱為內道。分理內外完畢。現在說明佛性的有無。問：理外眾生有佛性嗎？理內眾生有佛性嗎？答：問理外眾生有佛性嗎？這

【English Translation】 English version: It is 'no having no non-having'. Therefore, to say that the three times have dharma is not the case. What difference is there in saying that new and old, origin and end, ultimately have no meaning of new and old, origin and end? It should be known that saying 'new and old originally' means pointing to the new as the old, and pointing to the old as the new. The same is true for origin and beginning, pointing to the origin as the beginning, and pointing to the beginning as the origin. Because pointing to the beginning as the origin, this origin is the origin-beginning. Because pointing to the origin as the beginning, this beginning is the origin-beginning. Origin-beginning is not beginning, beginning-origin is not origin. Therefore, it is said that ultimately there is no meaning of no origin and no beginning.

Distinguishing Internal and External Existence and Non-existence, Seventh. Now, I will distinguish the meaning of whether Buddha-nature exists internally or externally. This section is the most difficult to understand. Perhaps it can be considered that Buddha-nature exists outside of principle (li), but not inside of principle. Perhaps it can be considered that Buddha-nature exists inside of principle, but not outside of principle. Now, I will first distinguish the internal and external of principle, and then explain existence and non-existence. However, it has been said that there are internal and external ordinary people (fanfu) as well as internal and external paths (dao). Therefore, those whose five roots (wugen) of faith (xin) etc. are not established, their mind practicing outside of principle is called external ordinary people. Those whose five roots are established, their mind practicing inside of principle is called internal ordinary people. Therefore, it is said 'mind practicing inside of principle', 'mind practicing outside of principle'. Since there is this saying, it is also the meaning of internal and external of principle. But the old teachers etc. were not very clear, and only made this name and teaching. The sutra says: 'Furthermore, there are two kinds of paths, one external and two internal. The path of external ways is impermanent and without joy. The path of internal ways is permanent and with joy. Bodhi (enlightenment) and liberation (jie tuo) are also like this. The Bodhi of the Hearers (shengwen) is impermanent and without joy. The Bodhi of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is permanent, joyful, with self, and pure. Liberation is also like this.' Question: Bodhi is just the path, why is it mentioned twice? Answer: Bodhi is the path that is practiced, first explained. The path is the path that can be practiced. The able and the practiced are different. Also, if it is said that all dharmas have arising and ceasing, they are all outside of principle, all belonging to external ways. If all dharmas have no arising and ceasing, they are all inside of principle, then belonging to internal ways. Therefore, now I explain that the mind of awakening to non-arising and non-ceasing, as explained in the Prajna Sutra, is called the internal way. The division of internal and external of principle is finished. Now, I will explain the existence and non-existence of Buddha-nature. Question: Do sentient beings outside of principle have Buddha-nature? Do sentient beings inside of principle have Buddha-nature? Answer: Asking whether sentient beings outside of principle have Buddha-nature, this

不成問。何者理外本自無有眾生。那得問言理外眾生有佛性不。故如問炎中之水。本自不曾有。何得更問炎中之水從何處來。是故理外既無眾生。亦無佛性。五眼之所不見。故經云。若菩薩有我相人相眾生相。即非菩薩。是故我與人乃至今人無有佛性。不但凡夫無佛性。乃至阿羅漢亦無佛性。以是義故。不但草木無佛性。眾生亦無佛性也。若欲明有佛性者。不但眾生有佛性。草木亦有佛性。此是對理外無佛性。以辨理內有佛性也。問眾生無佛性草木有佛性。昔來未曾聞。為有經文為當自作。若眾生無佛性。眾生不成佛。若草木有佛性。草木乃成佛。此是大事。不可輕言令人驚怪也。答少聞多怪。昔來有事。是故經言。有諸比丘。聞說大乘。皆悉驚怪。從坐起去。是其事也。今更略舉愚見以酬來問。大涅槃哀嘆品中。有失珠得珠喻。以喻眾生。迷故失無佛性。悟故得有佛性。故云。一闡提無佛性。殺亦無罪也。又呵二乘人如燋種。永絕其根。如根敗之士。豈非是明凡聖無佛性耶。眾生尚無佛性。何況草木。以此證知。不但草木無佛性。眾生亦無佛性也。又華嚴明。善財童子。見彌勒樓觀即得無量法門。豈非是觀物見性即得無量三昧。又大集經云。諸佛菩薩。觀一切諸法無非是菩提。此明迷佛性故為生死萬法悟即是菩提。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不成問。如果從理上講，根本就沒有眾生，又怎麼能問理外的眾生有沒有佛性呢？這就好比問火焰中的水。本來就沒有火焰中的水，又怎麼能問火焰中的水從哪裡來呢？所以，理外既然沒有眾生，也就沒有佛性。五眼（肉眼、天眼、慧眼、法眼、佛眼）都看不到。所以經中說：『如果菩薩有我相、人相、眾生相，就不是菩薩。』因此，我和人，乃至其他人都沒有佛性。不僅凡夫沒有佛性，甚至阿羅漢也沒有佛性。因為這個緣故，不僅草木沒有佛性，眾生也沒有佛性。如果想要說明有佛性，不僅眾生有佛性，草木也有佛性。這是針對理外沒有佛性，來辨明理內有佛性。問：眾生沒有佛性，草木卻有佛性，以前從來沒有聽說過。是有經文依據，還是您自己說的？如果眾生沒有佛性，眾生就不能成佛。如果草木有佛性，草木就能成佛。這是大事，不可輕易說，會讓人驚怪的。答：你少見多怪。以前就有這樣的事。所以經中說：『有些比丘，聽到說大乘佛法，都感到驚怪，從座位上站起來離開了。』這就是這樣的事。現在我再簡單地用我的愚見來回答你的問題。《大涅槃經·哀嘆品》中，有失珠得珠的比喻，用來比喻眾生。迷惑時就失去佛性，覺悟時就得到佛性。所以說：『一闡提（斷絕一切善根的人）沒有佛性，殺了也沒有罪。』又呵斥二乘人（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）像焦芽敗種，永遠斷絕了他們的善根。像根已經壞死的樹木，難道不是說明凡夫和聖人都沒有佛性嗎？眾生尚且沒有佛性，何況草木？用這些來證明，不僅草木沒有佛性，眾生也沒有佛性。又《華嚴經》中說明，善財童子見到彌勒（Maitreya，未來佛）樓閣，就得到了無量法門。難道不是說明觀物見性，就能得到無量三昧（Samadhi，禪定）嗎？又《大集經》中說：『諸佛菩薩，觀察一切諸法，沒有不是菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）的。』這說明迷惑于佛性，就成為生死萬法，覺悟就是菩提。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not a valid question.' If, in terms of principle, there are fundamentally no sentient beings, how can one ask whether sentient beings outside of principle have Buddha-nature? It's like asking about water in a flame. Since there is fundamentally no water in a flame, how can one further ask where the water in the flame comes from? Therefore, since there are no sentient beings outside of principle, there is also no Buddha-nature. The five eyes (flesh eye, heavenly eye, wisdom eye, Dharma eye, Buddha eye) cannot see it. Therefore, the sutra says: 'If a Bodhisattva has the perception of self, the perception of person, the perception of sentient being, then they are not a Bodhisattva.' Therefore, I and people, and even other people, do not have Buddha-nature. Not only do ordinary people not have Buddha-nature, but even Arhats do not have Buddha-nature. For this reason, not only do plants and trees not have Buddha-nature, but sentient beings also do not have Buddha-nature. If you want to clarify that there is Buddha-nature, not only do sentient beings have Buddha-nature, but plants and trees also have Buddha-nature. This is in response to the absence of Buddha-nature outside of principle, to clarify the presence of Buddha-nature within principle. Question: Sentient beings do not have Buddha-nature, but plants and trees do have Buddha-nature. I have never heard of this before. Is there scriptural basis for this, or are you saying this yourself? If sentient beings do not have Buddha-nature, sentient beings cannot become Buddhas. If plants and trees have Buddha-nature, plants and trees can become Buddhas. This is a major matter, and it should not be said lightly, as it will cause people to be surprised. Answer: You are making a fuss over something you have rarely heard. There have been such things in the past. Therefore, the sutra says: 'There were some Bhikshus (monks) who, upon hearing the exposition of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), were all astonished and rose from their seats and left.' This is such a case. Now I will briefly use my foolish view to answer your question. In the 'Great Nirvana Sutra, Lamentation Chapter,' there is the analogy of losing a pearl and finding a pearl, used to illustrate sentient beings. When deluded, they lose Buddha-nature; when enlightened, they gain Buddha-nature. Therefore, it is said: 'An Icchantika (one who has severed all roots of goodness) has no Buddha-nature, and there is no sin in killing them.' Furthermore, it scolds the followers of the Two Vehicles (Shravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) as scorched seeds, forever severing their roots of goodness. Like trees whose roots have rotted, does this not clarify that ordinary people and sages do not have Buddha-nature? Sentient beings do not have Buddha-nature, let alone plants and trees? Using these to prove, not only do plants and trees not have Buddha-nature, but sentient beings also do not have Buddha-nature. Furthermore, the Avatamsaka Sutra explains that when Sudhana Kumara saw the tower of Maitreya (the future Buddha), he immediately obtained immeasurable Dharma gates. Does this not illustrate that by observing things and seeing their nature, one can obtain immeasurable Samadhi (meditative absorption)? Furthermore, the Mahasamghata Sutra says: 'All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, observing all Dharmas (phenomena), find that none are not Bodhi (enlightenment).' This explains that being deluded about Buddha-nature leads to the myriad phenomena of birth and death, while enlightenment is Bodhi.

故肇法師云。道遠乎哉。即物而真聖遠乎哉。悟即是神也。若一切諸法無非是菩提。何容不得無非是佛性。又涅槃云。一切諸法中悉有安樂性。亦是經文。唯識論云。唯識無境界。明山河草木皆是心想。心外無別法。此明理內一切諸法依正不二。以依正不二故。眾生有佛性則草木有佛性。以此義故。不但眾生有佛性。草木亦有佛性也。若悟諸法平等。不見依正二相故。理實無有成不成相。無不成故。假言成佛。以此義故。若眾產生佛時。一切草木亦得成佛。故經云。一切諸法皆如也。至於彌勒亦如也。若彌勒得菩提。一切眾生皆亦應得。此明以眾生彌勒一如無二故。若彌勒得菩提一切眾生皆亦應得。眾生既爾。草木亦然故知。理通故欲作無往不得。是故得名大乘無礙。此是通門明義也。若論別門者。則不得然。何以故明眾生有心迷故得有覺悟之理。草木無心故不迷。寧得有覺悟之義。喻如夢覺不夢則不覺。以是義故。云眾生有佛性故成佛草木無佛性故不成佛也。成與不成。皆是佛語。有何驚怪也。上來至此。明理外無佛性理內有佛性也。第二明理外有佛性理內無佛性。如般若經云。如是滅度無量眾生。實無眾生得滅度者。華嚴亦云。平等真法界一切眾生入。真實無所入。既言一切眾生入。當知。是理外眾生入。而實無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所以肇法師說：『道離我們很遠嗎？就在事物中體現真實。聖人離我們很遠嗎？領悟了就是神。』如果一切諸法無一不是菩提（覺悟），怎麼能說沒有無一不是佛性呢？又《涅槃經》說：『一切諸法中都有安樂的本性。』這也是經文。《唯識論》說：『唯識沒有境界。』說明山河草木都是心裡的顯現，心外沒有別的法。這說明在理體之內，一切諸法，依報（環境）和正報（自身）是不二的。因為依報和正報不二的緣故，眾生有佛性，那麼草木也有佛性。因為這個道理，不僅僅是眾生有佛性，草木也有佛性。如果領悟到諸法平等，不見依報和正報的差別，那麼從理體上來說，就沒有成佛和不成佛的相狀。因為沒有不成佛的，所以假說成佛。因為這個道理，如果眾產生佛的時候，一切草木也都能成佛。所以經上說：『一切諸法都是如如不動的。』乃至彌勒（未來佛）也是如如不動的。如果彌勒得到菩提（覺悟），一切眾生也都應該得到。這說明因為眾生和彌勒是一如不二的緣故，如果彌勒得到菩提，一切眾生也都應該得到。眾生既然如此，草木也是這樣。由此可知，理體是通達的，所以想要做什麼沒有不能實現的，因此得名大乘無礙。這是從通門來闡明意義。如果從別門來說，那就不是這樣了。為什麼呢？說明眾生因為有心，所以有迷惑，因此有覺悟的道理。草木沒有心，所以不迷惑，怎麼能有覺悟的意義呢？比喻就像夢醒，不做夢就不會醒。因為這個道理，說眾生有佛性所以能成佛，草木沒有佛性所以不能成佛。成佛與不成佛，都是佛說的話，有什麼可驚訝奇怪的呢？以上到這裡，說明在理體之外沒有佛性，在理體之內有佛性。第二，說明在理體之外有佛性，在理體之內沒有佛性。如《般若經》說：『像這樣滅度無量的眾生，實際上沒有眾生得到滅度的。』《華嚴經》也說：『平等真法界，一切眾生入，真實無所入。』既然說一切眾生入，應當知道，這是理體之外的眾生入，而實際上沒有（真實的）所入。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, Dharma Master Zhao said: 'Is the Dao far away? It is manifested in things as truth. Are the sages far away? Enlightenment is divinity.' If all dharmas are none other than Bodhi (enlightenment), how can it be said that there is nothing that is not Buddha-nature? Moreover, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'In all dharmas, there is the nature of peace and happiness.' This is also a sutra passage. The Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi (Treatise on Consciousness-Only) says: 'Consciousness-only has no objective realm.' This clarifies that mountains, rivers, grass, and trees are all manifestations of the mind; there is no separate dharma outside the mind. This explains that within the principle, all dharmas, the dependent (environment) and the principal (self), are non-dual. Because the dependent and the principal are non-dual, if sentient beings have Buddha-nature, then grass and trees also have Buddha-nature. Because of this principle, not only do sentient beings have Buddha-nature, but grass and trees also have Buddha-nature. If one realizes the equality of all dharmas and does not see the difference between the dependent and the principal, then, in terms of principle, there is no aspect of becoming a Buddha or not becoming a Buddha. Because there is nothing that does not become a Buddha, it is hypothetically said to become a Buddha. Because of this principle, if sentient beings become Buddhas, all grass and trees can also become Buddhas. Therefore, the sutra says: 'All dharmas are suchness (tathata).' Even Maitreya (the future Buddha) is also suchness. If Maitreya attains Bodhi (enlightenment), all sentient beings should also attain it. This explains that because sentient beings and Maitreya are one and non-dual, if Maitreya attains Bodhi, all sentient beings should also attain it. Since sentient beings are like this, grass and trees are also the same. From this, it is known that the principle is all-pervasive, so there is nothing that cannot be achieved if one wishes to do something; therefore, it is named the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) without obstruction. This is clarifying the meaning from the general perspective. If one speaks from the specific perspective, then it is not so. Why? It explains that sentient beings have minds, so they have delusion, and therefore there is the principle of awakening. Grass and trees have no mind, so they are not deluded; how can there be the meaning of awakening? It is like waking from a dream; if one does not dream, one does not awaken. Because of this principle, it is said that sentient beings have Buddha-nature, so they can become Buddhas; grass and trees have no Buddha-nature, so they cannot become Buddhas. Becoming a Buddha or not becoming a Buddha are both words spoken by the Buddha; what is there to be surprised or amazed at? Up to this point, it explains that there is no Buddha-nature outside the principle, but there is Buddha-nature within the principle. Secondly, it explains that there is Buddha-nature outside the principle, but there is no Buddha-nature within the principle. As the Prajna Sutra says: 'In this way, countless sentient beings are liberated, but in reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation.' The Avatamsaka Sutra also says: 'The equal and true Dharma realm, all sentient beings enter, but in reality, there is nothing to enter.' Since it says that all sentient beings enter, it should be known that this is sentient beings outside the principle entering, but in reality, there is no (real) place to enter.

所入者。此入理內無復眾生。故言實無所入。是知。理外有眾生故得入也。如是滅度實無度者。亦作此釋。此至理內。實無眾生得滅度者。當知。理內既無眾生。亦無佛性。理外有眾生可度。故言理外眾生有佛性也。然本有理內故說理外。理內既無理外。豈復有耶。先則為成互動辨義故。理外若無理內則有。理內若無理外則有。或時言內外俱有。或時說內外俱無。故經云。闡提人有善根人無。善根人有闡提人無。二人俱有二人俱無也。問那得作此不定說耶。答此豈得有定。故涅槃經云。若有人說一闡提人定有佛性定無佛性。皆名謗佛法僧。今既不欲謗佛法僧。豈敢定判。義中自有四句。故內外有無不定。所以作此不定說者。欲明佛性非是有無故。或時說有。或時說無也。問若言定為非者不定為是耶。答若言不定為是者。還覆成定。定既非是。不定亦非。具如論破。但破定故言不定有四句如前。若洗凈已。復不定而為定亦何得而無定耶。今只就不定為定者。有理外眾生理外草木。有理內眾生理內草本定何者有佛性。何者無佛性耶。若不定為定說者。經中但明化于眾生。不云化于草木。是則內外眾生有佛性。草木無佛性。雖然至於觀心望之。草木眾生豈復有異。有則俱有無則俱無。亦有亦無非有非無。此之四句皆悉並聽觀

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『所入者』，指的是進入真理的境界，在這個境界內沒有眾生存在。所以說實際上『無所入』。由此可知，真理之外有眾生，所以才能進入。像這樣，『滅度』實際上沒有能被度化的對象，也可以這樣解釋：到達真理的境界內，實際上沒有眾生可以被度化。應當知道，真理的境界內既然沒有眾生，也就沒有佛性。真理之外有可以被度化的眾生，所以說真理之外的眾生有佛性。然而，本來就在真理的境界內，所以才說真理之外。真理的境界內既然沒有，哪裡還會有真理之外呢？先前是爲了成就互動辯論的意義，所以說真理之外如果沒有，真理之內就有；真理之內如果沒有，真理之外就有。有時說內外都有，有時說內外都沒有。所以《涅槃經》說，『一闡提（斷善根的人）人有善根，善根人沒有；善根人有，一闡提人沒有；二人都有，二人都沒有。』問：為什麼會作出這種不確定的說法呢？答：這怎麼能有定論呢？所以《涅槃經》說，『如果有人說一闡提人一定有佛性，一定沒有佛性，都叫做誹謗佛法僧。』現在既然不想誹謗佛法僧，怎麼敢妄下定論呢？義理之中自有四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無），所以內外有無不定。之所以作出這種不確定的說法，是爲了說明佛性並非是有或無。有時說有，有時說無。問：如果說確定為『非』，那麼不確定就是『是』嗎？答：如果說不確定就是『是』，那麼又會變成確定。確定既然不是『是』，不確定也不是。具體如論中所破斥。只是爲了破斥確定，所以說不確定有四句，如前所述。如果洗凈之後，又不確定而成為確定，又怎麼能沒有確定呢？現在只是就以不確定為確定來說，有真理之外的眾生，真理之外的草木；有真理之內的眾生，真理之內的草本，確定哪個有佛性，哪個沒有佛性呢？如果不確定而確定地說，經中只說明度化眾生，沒有說度化草木。那麼就是內外眾生有佛性，草木沒有佛性。雖然如此，至於從觀心的角度來看，草木和眾生難道還有區別嗎？有就都有，沒有就都沒有，亦有亦無，非有非無。這四句都可以聽從觀心。

【English Translation】 English version: 『What is entered』 refers to entering the realm of truth, within which there are no sentient beings. Therefore, it is said that there is actually 『nothing to enter.』 From this, it can be known that there are sentient beings outside of truth, so one can enter. Similarly, 『liberation』 actually has no object to be liberated, which can also be explained as follows: Upon reaching the realm of truth, there are actually no sentient beings who can be liberated. It should be known that since there are no sentient beings within the realm of truth, there is also no Buddha-nature. Outside of truth, there are sentient beings who can be liberated, so it is said that sentient beings outside of truth have Buddha-nature. However, one is originally within the realm of truth, so one speaks of outside of truth. Since there is nothing within the realm of truth, how could there be anything outside of it? Previously, it was to achieve the meaning of interactive debate, so it was said that if there is nothing outside of truth, then there is within truth; if there is nothing within truth, then there is outside of truth. Sometimes it is said that both inside and outside exist, and sometimes it is said that neither inside nor outside exist. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says, 『An icchantika (one who has severed their roots of goodness) has roots of goodness, and one with roots of goodness does not; one with roots of goodness has, and an icchantika does not; both have, and both do not.』 Question: Why are such uncertain statements made? Answer: How can there be a definitive conclusion on this? Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says, 『If someone says that an icchantika definitely has Buddha-nature or definitely does not have Buddha-nature, they are all slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.』 Now, since we do not want to slander the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, how dare we make a definitive judgment? Within the meaning itself, there are four possibilities (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), so the existence or non-existence of inside and outside is uncertain. The reason for making such uncertain statements is to clarify that Buddha-nature is neither existence nor non-existence. Sometimes it is said to exist, and sometimes it is said not to exist. Question: If it is said that 『non-existence』 is definite, then is 『uncertainty』 existence? Answer: If it is said that 『uncertainty』 is existence, then it becomes definite again. Since 『definiteness』 is not existence, 『uncertainty』 is also not existence. This is specifically refuted in the treatise. It is only to refute definiteness that it is said that uncertainty has four possibilities, as mentioned earlier. If, after being cleansed, it is uncertain and becomes definite, how can there be no definiteness? Now, just taking uncertainty as definiteness, there are sentient beings outside of truth, and plants outside of truth; there are sentient beings within truth, and herbs within truth. Which is definitely with Buddha-nature, and which is definitely without Buddha-nature? If, without certainty, one definitively says, the sutras only explain the transformation of sentient beings, and do not say the transformation of plants. Then it is that sentient beings inside and outside have Buddha-nature, and plants do not have Buddha-nature. Even so, as far as observing the mind is concerned, are plants and sentient beings still different? If there is, then both have; if there is not, then both do not have; both exist and do not exist; neither exist nor do not exist. All four of these possibilities can be listened to from the perspective of observing the mind.

心也。至於佛性非有非無。非理內非理外。是故若得悟有無內外平等無二。始可名為正因佛性也。故涅槃論云。眾生有佛性非密。眾生無佛性亦非密。眾生即是佛乃名為密也。所以得言眾生無佛性者。不見佛性故。佛性無眾生者。不見眾生故。亦得言眾生有佛性。依如來藏故亦得言佛性有眾生。如來藏為生死作依持建立故。

明見性第八。迦葉問言。云何諸菩薩能見難見性。師子吼問言。若一切眾生有佛性者。何故不見一切眾生所有佛性。十住菩薩。以何等眼不了了見佛。以何眼而了了見也。性品答。見有二種。一者十地。或言十住。名為慧眼見。舉珠喻釋。二者外道凡夫名為信見。或如羊角。或如火聚等。師子吼品明慧眼見故。見不了了。佛眼見故則了了。經文如此。判釋多言。十住菩薩。方見佛性猶如羅縠。九住以還未見佛性。但華嚴經云初發心時便成正覺。若如此者。初發心時則見佛性。故一師云。涅槃所明十地。應是地前。未得真悟菩薩故。見性不明。而華嚴所明十地。從佛智慧出。此是真悟菩薩。故云初發心時便成正覺。但地論師據行位判。行通位別。涅槃辨位別義。故菩薩位智猶未極。故十地菩薩見性不明。九地猶未見。華嚴明行通義。故云初發心時便成正覺也。又涅槃經云。十地菩薩。但見其終

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心也是如此。至於佛性，它既非有也非無，既不在理之內也不在理之外。因此，如果能夠領悟有與無、內與外的平等不二，才可以稱之為正因佛性。所以《涅槃經》說：『眾生有佛性，這並非秘密；眾生沒有佛性，這亦非秘密。眾生即是佛，這才能稱之為秘密。』之所以說眾生沒有佛性，是因為（人們）沒有看見佛性；佛性沒有眾生，是因為（佛性中）沒有看見眾生。也可以說眾生有佛性，這是依如來藏（Tathagatagarbha）的緣故；也可以說佛性中有眾生，因為如來藏是生死輪迴的依持和建立。

明見性第八。迦葉（Kasyapa）問：『諸菩薩如何能見到難以見到的佛性？』師子吼（Simhanada）問：『如果一切眾生都有佛性，為何看不見一切眾生所具有的佛性？十住菩薩（Dasabhūmika-bodhisattva），以何種眼睛不能清楚地看見佛性？又以何種眼睛才能清楚地看見佛性？』《性品》回答說：『見有兩種，一是十地（Daśabhūmi），或說十住（Daśavāsa），稱為慧眼見，用珠子的比喻來解釋；二是外道凡夫的見，稱為信見，或者像羊角，或者像火聚等。』《師子吼品》說明因為是慧眼見，所以見得不清楚；因為是佛眼見，所以才能清楚地看見。經文就是這樣說的。判釋有很多說法，認為十住菩薩才開始見到佛性，就像隔著羅縠（一種絲織品）觀看一樣，九住菩薩及以下的菩薩還沒有見到佛性。但是《華嚴經》說，初發心時便成正覺。如果這樣說，那麼初發心時就應該見到佛性。所以有一位法師說，《涅槃經》所說的十地，應該是地前（證得十地之前），未得真悟的菩薩，所以見性不明。而《華嚴經》所說的十地，是從佛的智慧中流出的，這是真悟的菩薩，所以說初發心時便成正覺。但是地論師根據行位來判斷，認為行是相通的，位是有區別的。《涅槃經》辨別位次的差別意義，所以菩薩的位次和智慧還沒有達到極致，因此十地菩薩見性不明，九地菩薩甚至還沒有見到佛性。《華嚴經》闡明行是相通的意義，所以說初發心時便成正覺。』又《涅槃經》說，十地菩薩只能看見佛性的終結。

【English Translation】 English version: The mind is also like this. As for Buddha-nature (Buddhadhātu), it is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither within reason nor outside reason. Therefore, if one can realize the equality and non-duality of existence and non-existence, inner and outer, then it can be called the cause of true Buddha-nature. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Sentient beings have Buddha-nature, this is not a secret; sentient beings do not have Buddha-nature, this is also not a secret. Sentient beings are Buddhas, this can be called a secret.' The reason for saying that sentient beings do not have Buddha-nature is because (people) have not seen Buddha-nature; Buddha-nature does not have sentient beings because (in Buddha-nature) sentient beings are not seen. It can also be said that sentient beings have Buddha-nature, this is because of the Tathagatagarbha (Tathāgatagarbha); it can also be said that Buddha-nature has sentient beings, because the Tathagatagarbha is the support and establishment of birth and death.

Chapter 8 on Manifesting the Seeing of the Nature. Kashyapa (Kāśyapa) asked: 'How can the Bodhisattvas see the difficult-to-see Buddha-nature?' Simhanada (Siṃhanāda) asked: 'If all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, why can't they see the Buddha-nature that all sentient beings possess? With what kind of eyes do the Ten-Dwelling Bodhisattvas (Daśabhūmika-bodhisattva) not clearly see the Buddha? And with what kind of eyes can they clearly see it?' The 'Nature Chapter' answers: 'There are two kinds of seeing. One is the Ten Grounds (Daśabhūmi), or the Ten Dwellings (Daśavāsa), called the seeing with the eye of wisdom, explained with the metaphor of a pearl. The second is the seeing of heretics and ordinary people, called seeing with faith, or like a goat's horn, or like a pile of fire, etc.' The 'Simhanada Chapter' explains that because it is seeing with the eye of wisdom, the seeing is not clear; because it is seeing with the Buddha-eye, it can be seen clearly. The sutra text says this. There are many interpretations, believing that the Ten-Dwelling Bodhisattvas only begin to see Buddha-nature, like watching through a silk gauze, and the Bodhisattvas of the Nine Dwellings and below have not yet seen Buddha-nature. However, the Avatamsaka Sutra says that one attains perfect enlightenment at the moment of first aspiration. If this is the case, then one should see Buddha-nature at the moment of first aspiration. Therefore, one master says that the Ten Grounds mentioned in the Nirvana Sutra should be the Bodhisattvas before the Grounds (before attaining the Ten Grounds), who have not attained true enlightenment, so the seeing of the nature is not clear. And the Ten Grounds mentioned in the Avatamsaka Sutra come from the wisdom of the Buddha, these are truly enlightened Bodhisattvas, so it is said that one attains perfect enlightenment at the moment of first aspiration. However, the Shidi Lun master judges according to the stages of practice, believing that practice is interconnected, and the stages are different. The Nirvana Sutra distinguishes the meaning of the difference in stages, so the stage and wisdom of the Bodhisattva have not yet reached the extreme, therefore the Ten-Ground Bodhisattvas do not clearly see the nature, and the Nine-Ground Bodhisattvas have not even seen it. The Avatamsaka Sutra clarifies the meaning that practice is interconnected, so it is said that one attains perfect enlightenment at the moment of first aspiration.' Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra says that the Ten-Ground Bodhisattvas can only see the end of Buddha-nature.

不見其始。諸佛如來始終俱見。諸師釋此文種種不同。或言。十地菩薩未斷無明。故言不見其始。而伏惑已周去佛近故言見終也。又云。十地菩薩。去終近故云見終。去無明住地遠故言不見其始。又云。十地去初地遠故。言不見其始但見其終。佛既眾惑已盡。因圓果備。故云始終俱見。一師云。因果本來不二。乃是無二無不二。故名為不二。雖復不二。而開因果二。菩提心為因。佛則是果。此是一重開也。又明果不可頓階。所以因中開為十地。此是第二重開也。如是於一一地中。或更開為三。乃至為四。如初地先開為十回向。乃至十住等。斯則初地為始。十地為終。十地非初故。云不見其始。則是第十故言見終。亦得對言初地見始不見終也。果既不開。所以始終俱見。此故是無始終始終。不見而見也。

會教第九。經中有明佛性法性真如實際等。並是佛性之異名。何以知之。涅槃經自說佛性有種種名。於一佛性亦名法性涅槃。亦名般若一乘。亦名首楞嚴三昧師子吼三昧。故知。大聖隨緣善巧。于諸經中說名不同。故於涅槃經中。名為佛性。則于華嚴。名為法界。于勝鬘中。名為如來藏自性清凈心。楞伽名為八識。首楞嚴經名首楞嚴三昧。法華名為一道一乘。大品名為般若法性。維摩名為無住實際。如是等名。皆

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不見其始：諸佛如來始終都能見到。各位法師對這句話的解釋各有不同。有人說，十地菩薩尚未斷除無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑），所以說『不見其始』。但因為他們已經降伏了煩惱，接近成佛，所以說『見終』。又有人說，十地菩薩因為接近終點，所以說『見終』；因為遠離無明住地，所以說『不見其始』。還有人說，十地菩薩因為遠離初地，所以說『不見其始』，只能見到終點。佛陀既然已經斷盡一切迷惑，因圓果備，所以說『始終俱見』。一位法師說，因和果本來不是二元對立的，而是非二元和非不二元的，所以稱為『不二』。雖然說不二，但還是可以區分因和果。菩提心（bodhicitta，覺悟之心）是因，佛則是果。這是一種區分。又說明果位不能一下子達到，所以在因地中分為十地。這是第二種區分。像這樣，在每一地中，或者進一步分為三，甚至分為四。比如初地先分為十回向，乃至十住等。這樣看來，初地是開始，十地是終點。十地不是初地，所以說『不見其始』；因為是第十地，所以說『見終』。也可以反過來說，初地見始不見終。果位既然不能再分，所以始終都能見到。這實際上就是沒有始終的始終，不見而見。

會教第九：經典中提到的佛性（Buddha-nature）、法性（Dharmatā，法的本性）、真如（Tathātā，事物的真實如是）、實際（Bhūtatathatā，真實的實際）等，都是佛性的不同名稱。為什麼這麼說呢？《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）自己說佛性有種種名稱，同一個佛性也叫做法性、涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）、也叫做般若（Prajna，智慧）、一乘（Ekayana，唯一乘）、也叫做首楞嚴三昧（Śūraṅgama Samādhi，勇健定）、師子吼三昧（Siṃhanāda Samādhi，獅子吼定）。所以說，大聖（Mahāsattva，偉大的聖人）隨順因緣，善巧方便，在各種經典中使用的名稱不同。所以在《涅槃經》中，叫做佛性，在《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）中，叫做法界（Dharmadhātu，法界），在《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）中，叫做如來藏自性清凈心（Tathāgatagarbha，如來藏）、自性清凈心，在《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）中，叫做八識（Eight Consciousnesses），在《首楞嚴經》（Śūraṅgama Sūtra）中，叫做首楞嚴三昧，在《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）中，叫做一道一乘，在《大品般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）中，叫做般若法性，在《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra）中，叫做無住實際。這些名稱，都是

【English Translation】 English version 『Not seeing its beginning』: All Buddhas and Tathagatas see both the beginning and the end. Various masters interpret this passage differently. Some say that the Bodhisattvas of the Tenth Ground have not yet severed ignorance (avidyā), hence 『not seeing its beginning.』 But because they have subdued afflictions and are close to Buddhahood, they 『see the end.』 Others say that the Bodhisattvas of the Tenth Ground 『see the end』 because they are close to the end; they 『do not see the beginning』 because they are far from the dwelling place of ignorance. Still others say that the Bodhisattvas of the Tenth Ground 『do not see the beginning』 because they are far from the First Ground, only seeing the end. Since the Buddha has exhausted all delusions, and the cause is complete and the fruit is prepared, it is said that they 『see both the beginning and the end.』 One master says that cause and effect are originally non-dual, being neither dual nor non-dual, hence called 『non-dual.』 Although non-dual, cause and effect can be distinguished. The Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) is the cause, and the Buddha is the effect. This is one distinction. It is also explained that the fruit cannot be attained suddenly, so the cause is divided into the Ten Grounds. This is the second distinction. In each of these grounds, there may be further divisions into three or even four. For example, the First Ground is first divided into the Ten Dedications, and then into the Ten Dwellings, etc. Thus, the First Ground is the beginning, and the Tenth Ground is the end. The Tenth Ground is not the First Ground, so it is said 『not seeing its beginning』; because it is the Tenth Ground, it is said 『seeing the end.』 Conversely, it can also be said that the First Ground sees the beginning but not the end. Since the fruit cannot be further divided, both the beginning and the end are seen. This is ultimately a beginning and end without beginning or end, seeing without seeing.

Chapter 9 on Harmonizing Teachings: The terms Buddha-nature, (Buddha-nature), Dharmatā (nature of Dharma), Tathātā (suchness), Bhūtatathatā (true reality), etc., mentioned in the scriptures are all different names for Buddha-nature. How do we know this? The Nirvana Sutra itself says that Buddha-nature has various names. The same Buddha-nature is also called Dharmatā, Nirvana (extinction), Prajna (wisdom), Ekayana (one vehicle), Śūraṅgama Samādhi (heroic march samadhi), and Siṃhanāda Samādhi (lion's roar samadhi). Therefore, the Great Sage (Mahāsattva) skillfully adapts to conditions, using different names in various scriptures. Thus, in the Nirvana Sutra, it is called Buddha-nature; in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Flower Garland Sutra), it is called Dharmadhātu (dharma realm); in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Queen Srimala Sutra), it is called Tathāgatagarbha (womb of the Tathagata), self-nature pure mind; in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Lanka Sutra), it is called the Eight Consciousnesses; in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, it is called Śūraṅgama Samādhi; in the Lotus Sutra, it is called the One Path, One Vehicle; in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra), it is called Prajna Dharmatā; in the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (Vimalakirti Sutra), it is called Non-Abiding Reality. All these names are

是佛性之異名。故經云。無名相法假名相說。於一法中說無量名。於一名中說無量門。以是義故。名義雖異理實無二。問若理實無二以何義故說種種名。答若依名釋義。非無所以。何者。平等大道為諸眾生覺悟之性。名為佛性。義隱生死名如來藏。融諸識性究竟清凈。名為自性清凈心。為諸法體性名為法性。妙實不二故名為真如。盡原之實故名為實際。理絕動靜名為三昧。理無所知。無所不知。名為般若。善惡平等妙運不二。名為一乘。理用圓寂名為涅槃。如此諸義如喻似何譬。如虛空不動無礙有種種名。雖有諸名實無二相。以是故。云名字雖異理實無二也。問若言真如法性並是佛性之異名者。經說真如法性亦是空之異名。今未知。佛性是二諦中第一義空不。若言是者既言是空。那得以此為佛性耶。會通諸經使不相違。善則善矣。然新聞異響未見深旨。一切諸人並皆同疑。愿為開示以遣疑滯也。答涅槃經云佛性者名第一義空。豈非是空為佛性耶。若以空為空者非佛性也。故下文云。所言空者。不見空與不空名為佛性。二乘之人。但見於空不見不空。不見佛性。故知。于有所得人。不但空非佛性。佛性亦非佛性也。若於無所得人。不但空為佛性。一切草木並是佛性也。問若皆是佛性不得言非。若非佛性不可言是。有何所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本是佛性的不同名稱。所以經上說：『沒有名稱和形象的法，用假名來描述。』在一種法中說無數個名稱，在一個名稱中說無數個法門。因為這個緣故，名稱和意義雖然不同，但道理實際上沒有差別。問：如果道理實際上沒有差別，為什麼還要說種種不同的名稱呢？答：如果根據名稱來解釋意義，並非沒有原因。為什麼呢？平等的大道是眾生覺悟的本性，稱為佛性（Buddha-nature）。意義隱藏在生死之中，稱為如來藏（Tathagatagarbha）。融合各種識性，達到究竟清凈，稱為自性清凈心（Self-nature pure mind）。作為諸法的本體，稱為法性（Dharmata）。微妙真實而不二，所以稱為真如（Tathata）。窮盡本源的真實，所以稱為實際（Reality）。道理超越動靜，稱為三昧（Samadhi）。道理無所不知，無所不知，稱為般若（Prajna）。善與惡平等，微妙的執行而不二，稱為一乘（Ekayana）。道理和作用都圓滿寂靜，稱為涅槃（Nirvana）。這些意義，用比喻來說像什麼呢？譬如虛空不動，沒有阻礙，卻有種種名稱。雖然有各種名稱，但實際上沒有兩種不同的相狀。因此說，名字雖然不同，道理實際上沒有差別。問：如果說真如（Tathata）和法性（Dharmata）都是佛性（Buddha-nature）的不同名稱，經上又說真如（Tathata）和法性（Dharmata）也是空的不同名稱。現在不知道，佛性（Buddha-nature）是二諦（Two Truths）中的第一義空（Ultimate Truth of Emptiness）嗎？如果說是，既然說是空，怎麼能用它作為佛性（Buddha-nature）呢？希望能夠融會貫通各種經典，使它們不互相違背。這樣很好。然而，我聽到了一種新的說法，還沒有理解其中的深刻含義。所有人都感到疑惑。希望您能為我們開示，消除我們的疑惑。答：《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說，佛性（Buddha-nature）被稱為第一義空（Ultimate Truth of Emptiness）。難道不是空就是佛性（Buddha-nature）嗎？如果以空為空，那就不是佛性（Buddha-nature）了。所以下文說：『所說的空，是不見空與不空，這稱為佛性（Buddha-nature）。』二乘（Two Vehicles）的人，只見到空，沒有見到不空，所以沒有見到佛性（Buddha-nature）。由此可知，對於有所得的人來說，不僅空不是佛性（Buddha-nature），佛性（Buddha-nature）也不是佛性（Buddha-nature）。如果對於無所得的人來說，不僅空是佛性（Buddha-nature），一切草木都是佛性（Buddha-nature）。問：如果一切都是佛性（Buddha-nature），就不能說不是。如果不是佛性（Buddha-nature），就不能說是。有什麼

【English Translation】 English version These are different names for Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). Therefore, the sutra says, 'The Dharma without names and forms is described with provisional names.' In one Dharma, countless names are spoken; in one name, countless gates are spoken. For this reason, although names and meanings are different, the principle is actually not different. Question: If the principle is actually not different, why are various names spoken? Answer: If the meaning is explained according to the name, it is not without reason. Why? The equal Great Path is the nature of enlightenment for all sentient beings, called Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). The meaning is hidden in birth and death, called Tathagatagarbha (Tathagatagarbha). Fusing all consciousnesses and reaching ultimate purity is called Self-nature pure mind (Self-nature pure mind). As the substance of all dharmas, it is called Dharmata (Dharmata). Subtle and real without duality, it is called Tathata (Tathata). Exhausting the reality of the origin, it is called Reality (Reality). The principle transcends movement and stillness, called Samadhi (Samadhi). The principle knows everything and knows nothing, called Prajna (Prajna). Good and evil are equal, and the subtle operation is non-dual, called Ekayana (Ekayana). The principle and function are both perfectly tranquil, called Nirvana (Nirvana). What are these meanings like in a metaphor? For example, the void is unmoving, unobstructed, but has various names. Although there are various names, there are actually no two different appearances. Therefore, it is said that although the names are different, the principle is actually not different. Question: If it is said that Tathata (Tathata) and Dharmata (Dharmata) are different names for Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), the sutra also says that Tathata (Tathata) and Dharmata (Dharmata) are also different names for emptiness. Now I don't know, is Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) the Ultimate Truth of Emptiness (Ultimate Truth of Emptiness) in the Two Truths (Two Truths)? If so, since it is said to be emptiness, how can it be used as Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature)? I hope to be able to integrate various scriptures so that they do not contradict each other. That's good. However, I have heard a new saying and have not yet understood its profound meaning. Everyone is in doubt. I hope you can enlighten us and dispel our doubts. Answer: The Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says that Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) is called the Ultimate Truth of Emptiness (Ultimate Truth of Emptiness). Isn't emptiness Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature)? If emptiness is taken as emptiness, then it is not Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). Therefore, the following text says: 'The so-called emptiness is not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness, which is called Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature).' People of the Two Vehicles (Two Vehicles) only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness, so they do not see Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). From this, it can be known that for those who have something to gain, not only is emptiness not Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), but Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) is also not Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). If for those who have nothing to gain, not only is emptiness Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), but all plants and trees are Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). Question: If everything is Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), it cannot be said that it is not. If it is not Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), it cannot be said that it is. What is

以。言一切並非而復即言一切並是。豈非是過分答耶。答至論平等佛性之理。非空非不空。非有非不有。非法性非不法性。非佛性非不佛性也。以一切並非故。能得一切並是。何者。平等之理。以非空有故。假名法性。非不空有故。假名空有。以非法性故假名佛性。空有非不法性故。假名法性。以非佛性故。假名法性。空有非不佛性故。假名佛性。當知。平等大道無方無住故。一切並非。無方無礙故。一切並得。若以是為是以非為非者。一切是非並皆是非也。若知無是無非是無非無不非假名為是非者。一切是非並皆是也。故知。上來十一家所說正因。以是為是故。並非正因佛性。若悟諸法平等無二無是無非者。十一家所說。並得是正因佛性。

料簡第十。然料簡中應論得失義。若本來清凈。何因緣故失。本既不失。今云何失。若后失者。先亦應失。先既清凈。后亦應凈。答此義者。如第九卷說解純陀疑差別無差別義。若廣辨者。備舉涅槃一部來解釋。猶亦不可盡。此義不可卒了。且待后問也。

一乘義三門　一釋名門　二出體門　三同異門

釋名第一。一乘者。乃是佛性之大宗。眾經之密藏。反三之妙術。歸一之良藥。迷之即八軸冥若夜遊。悟之即八軸如對白日也。釋名者。唯有一理。唯教一人。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果一方面說一切都不是，另一方面又說一切都是，這難道不是過分的回答嗎？回答是：從至高無上的平等佛性的道理來說，它非空非不空，非有非不有，非法性（Dharmata，諸法的本性）非不法性，非佛性（Buddha-nature，所有眾生皆具的成佛的可能性）非不佛性。因為一切都不是，所以才能得到一切都是。為什麼呢？因為平等的道理，因為非空非有，所以假名為法性；因為非不空非有，所以假名為空有。因為非法性，所以假名為佛性；空有非不法性，所以假名為法性。因為非佛性，所以假名為法性；空有非不佛性，所以假名為佛性。應當知道，平等的大道無方無住，所以說一切都不是；無方無礙，所以說一切都能得到。如果以是為是，以非為非，那麼一切的是非都成了是非。如果知道無是無非，是無非無不非，假名為是非，那麼一切的是非就都是了。所以要知道，上面十一家所說的正因，因為以是為是，所以並非是正因佛性。如果領悟到諸法平等，無二無是無非，那麼，十一家所說的，都能成為正因佛性。料簡第十。然而在料簡中應該討論得失的意義。如果本來清凈，因為什麼因緣而失去？如果本來沒有失去，現在又怎麼會失去？如果後來失去，那麼先前也應該失去。如果先前清凈，那麼後來也應該清凈。回答這個意義，就像第九卷所說，解釋純陀（Cunda，佛陀的弟子）所疑惑的差別無差別的意義。如果要廣泛地辨析，即使窮盡《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra，大乘佛教的重要經典）一部來解釋，也無法完全說明。這個意義不可倉促了結，暫且等待以後的提問吧。一乘義三門：一、釋名門；二、出體門；三、同異門。釋名第一。一乘（Ekayana，唯一通往解脫的道路）者，乃是佛性之大宗，眾經之密藏，反三（將三乘歸一）之妙術，歸一（迴歸唯一真理）的良藥。迷惑時，就像在黑暗中行走，八軸（指錯誤的知見）讓人迷茫；覺悟時，就像在白日下面對事物一樣清晰。解釋名稱，就是說唯有一理，唯教一人。

【English Translation】 English version: If on the one hand it is said that 'everything is not,' and on the other hand it is said that 'everything is,' isn't this an excessive answer? The answer is: From the perspective of the supreme principle of equal Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature, the potential for enlightenment inherent in all beings), it is neither empty nor not empty, neither existent nor not existent, neither Dharmata (Dharmata, the true nature of phenomena) nor not Dharmata, neither Buddha-nature nor not Buddha-nature. Because 'everything is not,' one can attain 'everything is.' Why? Because of the principle of equality. Because it is neither empty nor existent, it is provisionally named Dharmata; because it is neither not empty nor existent, it is provisionally named empty and existent. Because it is not Dharmata, it is provisionally named Buddha-nature; empty and existent are not not Dharmata, so it is provisionally named Dharmata. Because it is not Buddha-nature, it is provisionally named Dharmata; empty and existent are not not Buddha-nature, so it is provisionally named Buddha-nature. It should be known that the great path of equality is without direction and without abiding, therefore it is said that 'everything is not'; without direction and without obstruction, therefore it is said that 'everything can be attained.' If one takes 'is' as 'is' and 'is not' as 'is not,' then all 'is' and 'is not' become 'is not.' If one knows that there is no 'is' and no 'is not,' that it is 'no is no not is,' provisionally named 'is' and 'is not,' then all 'is' and 'is not' become 'is.' Therefore, know that the 'correct cause' spoken of by the eleven schools above, because they take 'is' as 'is,' is not the correct cause of Buddha-nature. If one awakens to the equality of all dharmas, without duality, without 'is' and without 'is not,' then what is spoken of by the eleven schools can all become the correct cause of Buddha-nature. Chapter 10: Analysis. However, in the analysis, the meaning of gain and loss should be discussed. If it is originally pure, for what reason is it lost? If it was not originally lost, how can it be lost now? If it is lost later, then it should have been lost earlier as well. If it was pure earlier, then it should be pure later as well. The answer to this meaning is like what is said in the ninth chapter, explaining the meaning of difference and non-difference that Cunda (Cunda, a disciple of the Buddha) doubted. If one were to extensively analyze it, even if one were to exhaust the entire Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra, an important scripture in Mahayana Buddhism) to explain it, it would still not be fully explained. This meaning cannot be hastily concluded; let us wait for later questions. Three Gates to the Meaning of the One Vehicle: 1. Gate of Explanation of Names; 2. Gate of Revealing the Substance; 3. Gate of Similarities and Differences. First, Explanation of Names. The One Vehicle (Ekayana, the single path to liberation) is the great principle of Buddha-nature, the secret treasury of the sutras, the wonderful technique of reversing the three (unifying the three vehicles), and the good medicine of returning to the one (returning to the one truth). When deluded, it is like walking in the dark, the eight axes (referring to wrong views) causing confusion; when awakened, it is as clear as facing things in the daylight. Explaining the name means that there is only one principle, and only one person is taught.

唯行一因。唯感一果。故名為一。法華論云。一謂同義。如來法身聲聞法身緣覺法身三乘同一法身。故名為一。乘者運出為義。運出有三種。一者以理運人。從因至果。如大品云。是乘從三界出。到薩波若中住。二者以德運人。如法華云。得如是乘。令諸子等喜戲快樂。三者以自運他。如涅槃云。乘涅槃船。入生死海。濟度群生矣。

出體第二。一乘體者。正法中道為體。攝論云性乘行乘果乘。中邊分別論云。乘具五義。一乘本謂真如佛性。二乘行即福慧等。三乘攝謂慈悲等。四乘障謂智障無明。五乘果即佛乘也。唯識論云。乘三體六義。三體者。一自性二乘隨三主得。六義者。一體如空出離四謗。二者因謂福慧。三者攝一切眾生。四者境界真俗。五者障即皮肉心。六者果謂無上菩提。十二門論云。乘具四事。一者乘本謂諸法實相。二者乘主由波若導萬行得成。三者乘行餘一切行。四者果謂薩婆若。法華論云。亦明三種。一者乘體謂如來平等法身。即是佛性。二者乘果謂如來大般涅槃。三乘緣即是六度了因。此猶三種佛性。不說果果性者。果果性屬果門。境界性者。屬因門故。廣說有五。略說唯三也。問乘以何為體。答經論雖種種說。不過三種。謂理行果。今以正法為體。問理是不動云何名運出耶。答以其不動

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本只施行一個因，只會感得一個果，因此稱為『一』。《法華論》中說，『一』是指相同的意思。如來法身、聲聞法身、緣覺法身，三乘都同一法身，所以稱為『一』。『乘』的意思是運載出去，運載出去有三種方式：第一種是以道理運載人，從因到果，如《大品般若經》所說，『此乘從三界出去，到達薩波若（Sarvajna，一切智）中安住。』第二種是以功德運載人，如《法華經》所說，『得到這樣的乘，讓孩子們歡喜快樂。』第三種是以自身運載他人，如《涅槃經》所說，『乘坐涅槃之船，進入生死之海，救度眾生。』

出體第二。一乘的體性，以正法中道為體。《攝大乘論》中說有性乘、行乘、果乘。《中邊分別論》中說，乘具有五種含義：第一，乘的根本是指真如佛性（Tathata-Buddhadhatu）。第二，乘的修行是指福慧等。第三，乘的攝取是指慈悲等。第四，乘的障礙是指智障無明。第五，乘的果實就是佛乘。《唯識論》中說，乘有三體六義。三體是：一、自性；二、乘隨三主而得；六義是：一體如空，出離四種誹謗；二、因是福慧；三、攝取一切眾生；四、境界是真俗；五、障礙是皮肉心；六、果是無上菩提。《十二門論》中說，乘具有四件事：第一，乘的根本是諸法實相。第二，乘的主導是由般若（Prajna，智慧）引導萬行而成就。第三，乘的修行是其餘一切修行。第四，果是薩婆若（Sarvajna，一切智）。《法華論》中說，也闡明三種：第一，乘的體性是如來平等法身，也就是佛性。第二，乘的果實是如來大般涅槃。三乘的緣是六度（Paramita，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）的了因。這就像三種佛性，不說果果性，是因為果果性屬於果門，境界性屬於因門。廣說有五種，略說只有三種。問：乘以什麼為體？答：經論雖然有種種說法，但不過三種，即理、行、果。現在以正法為體。問：理是不動的，為什麼稱為運載出去呢？答：因為它雖然不動

【English Translation】 English version Only performing one cause, only experiencing one result, hence it is called 'One'. The Lotus Sutra Treatise says, 'One' refers to the same meaning. The Dharmakaya (Dharma-body) of the Tathagata (Thus Come One), the Dharmakaya of the Sravaka (Hearer), and the Dharmakaya of the Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha), the Three Vehicles share the same Dharmakaya, hence it is called 'One'. 'Vehicle' means to transport out. There are three ways to transport out: First, to transport people with reason, from cause to effect, as the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 'This vehicle goes out from the Three Realms and abides in Sarvajna (All-knowing wisdom).' Second, to transport people with virtue, as the Lotus Sutra says, 'Obtaining such a vehicle, making the children joyful and happy.' Third, to transport others with oneself, as the Nirvana Sutra says, 'Riding the boat of Nirvana, entering the sea of Samsara (birth and death), saving sentient beings.'

Chapter on Revealing the Substance, Part Two. The substance of the One Vehicle is the Right Dharma Middle Way. The Mahayana-samgraha says there are the Nature Vehicle, the Practice Vehicle, and the Fruit Vehicle. The Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya says that the Vehicle has five meanings: First, the root of the Vehicle refers to the True Thusness Buddha-nature (Tathata-Buddhadhatu). Second, the practice of the Vehicle refers to blessings and wisdom, etc. Third, the embracing of the Vehicle refers to compassion, etc. Fourth, the obstacles of the Vehicle refer to intellectual obscurations and ignorance. Fifth, the fruit of the Vehicle is the Buddha Vehicle. The Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi says that the Vehicle has three substances and six meanings. The three substances are: First, self-nature; second, the Vehicle is obtained following the three masters; the six meanings are: The substance is like emptiness, liberation from the four slanders; second, the cause is blessings and wisdom; third, embracing all sentient beings; fourth, the realm is true and conventional; fifth, the obstacles are skin, flesh, and mind; sixth, the fruit is Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Complete Enlightenment). The Twelve Gate Treatise says that the Vehicle has four aspects: First, the root of the Vehicle is the reality of all dharmas. Second, the master of the Vehicle is accomplished by Prajna (wisdom) guiding myriad practices. Third, the practice of the Vehicle is all other practices. Fourth, the fruit is Sarvajna (All-knowing wisdom). The Lotus Sutra Treatise says that it also elucidates three aspects: First, the substance of the Vehicle is the Tathagata's equal Dharmakaya (Dharma-body), which is the Buddha-nature. Second, the fruit of the Vehicle is the Tathagata's Great Parinirvana. The condition for the Three Vehicles is the causal factor of the Six Paramitas (giving, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom). This is like the three kinds of Buddha-nature, not speaking of the fruit-fruit nature because the fruit-fruit nature belongs to the fruit gate, and the realm nature belongs to the cause gate. Broadly speaking, there are five, concisely speaking, there are only three. Question: What is the substance of the Vehicle? Answer: Although the sutras and treatises have various explanations, they are no more than three: principle, practice, and fruit. Now, we take the Right Dharma as the substance. Question: If the principle is immovable, how can it be called transporting out? Answer: Because although it is immovable

故。能令眾生運出。別而論之。順忽為運。得無生忍為出。通論一一皆運出。因乘自運運他。果乘與理乘。自不運而能運他。問此經明乘。正以何為體。答若就因果用。以果為宗。若就正法體。即以正法為宗。今明若因若果皆正法故。運故以正法為宗。有人言。此經萬善為乘體。有人言。以果萬德為宗。有人言。境智為宗。今明。就用非無此義。而不得乘深體故。以正法中道為經宗。為一乘正體。問三論學者恒彈有所得義。云何稱用異說耶。答若言破相為宗。是有所得義。今申無所得。諸師義皆得皆非。得用不得體。異執永消。同歸一極。無執不破。無義不攝。巧用如甘露。拙服成毒藥也。問大品明理教行果四乘。與今何異耶。答彼經不明開權。與此為異。問勝鬘法華何異。答法華會三乘。為漸悟菩薩說。正對三乘。勝鬘為頓悟菩薩說。不對聲聞緣覺。但對人說。與此為異。問若爾法華究竟說。何故須涅槃教。答失心子須涅槃。不失心子不須涅槃。但為鈍根眾生故說是以大通智勝佛燃燈佛。不說涅槃。利根眾生故。又此經明三事。一車二牛三儐從。車因果萬行萬德。牛亦通因果。中道正觀。離斷常垢。為白牛。由正觀故。引萬行出生死。此即婆若導成萬行。問婆若是乘。云何喻牛耶。答一法兩義。引導如牛。運義如車

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，能夠使眾生執行而出離。分別來說，順於迷妄為『運』，證得無生法忍為『出』。總的來說，一切都是執行而出離。因地的乘是自己執行也執行他人，果地的乘與理地的乘，自己不執行卻能執行他人。問：此經闡明『乘』，究竟以什麼作為本體？答：如果就因果的作用來說，以果地為宗旨。如果就正法的本體來說，就以正法為宗旨。現在闡明無論是因地還是果地，都是正法，因為能執行，所以以正法為宗旨。有人說，此經以萬善為乘的本體。有人說，以果地的萬德為宗旨。有人說，以境智為宗旨。現在闡明，就作用來說並非沒有這些意義，但不能得到乘的深奧本體，所以以正法中道作為經的宗旨，作為一乘的正體。問：三論宗的學者經常批判『有所得』的意義，為什麼稱讚運用不同的說法呢？答：如果說破相為宗旨，就是『有所得』的意義。現在闡明『無所得』，各家師長的意義有對也有不對，得到作用卻得不到本體，不同的執著永遠消失，共同歸於一個極致，沒有執著不能破除，沒有意義不能涵蓋，巧妙運用就像甘露，拙劣服用就變成毒藥。問：《大品般若經》闡明理、教、行、果四乘，與此經有什麼不同呢？答：那部經沒有闡明開權顯實，與此經不同。問：《勝鬘經》與《法華經》有什麼不同？答：《法華經》會三乘，是為漸悟的菩薩說的，主要針對三乘。《勝鬘經》是為頓悟的菩薩說的，不針對聲聞、緣覺，只是對人說的，與此經不同。問：如果這樣，《法華經》是究竟的說法，為什麼還需要《涅槃經》的教導？答：失去本心的人需要《涅槃經》，不失去本心的人不需要《涅槃經》，只是爲了鈍根的眾生才這樣說。因此大通智勝佛（Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū buddha），燃燈佛（Dīpaṃkara Buddha）不說涅槃，因為他們是利根的眾生。又此經闡明三件事：一車、二牛、三儐從。車比喻因果萬行萬德，牛也通於因果，中道正觀，遠離斷常垢，為白牛。由於正觀的緣故，引導萬行出生死，這就是般若（Prajñā）引導成就萬行。問：般若是乘，為什麼比喻為牛呢？答：一個法有兩方面的意義，引導就像牛，執行的意義就像車。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it enables sentient beings to move out of and away from [suffering]. Speaking separately, conforming to delusion is 'moving,' and attaining the Acceptance of the Non-Arising of Dharmas (Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti) is 'going out.' Speaking generally, all are moving out. The vehicle of the causal stage moves itself and moves others; the vehicle of the resultant stage and the vehicle of principle, while not moving themselves, can move others. Question: This sutra elucidates the 'vehicle'; what exactly does it take as its essence? Answer: If considering the function of cause and effect, it takes the resultant stage as its main point. If considering the essence of the Right Dharma, it takes the Right Dharma as its main point. Now, it elucidates that whether it is the causal stage or the resultant stage, all are the Right Dharma; because it can move, it takes the Right Dharma as its main point. Some say that this sutra takes the myriad virtues as the essence of the vehicle. Some say that it takes the myriad merits of the resultant stage as its main point. Some say that it takes the object (境, viṣaya) and wisdom (智, jñāna) as its main point. Now, it elucidates that, in terms of function, these meanings are not absent, but they do not attain the profound essence of the vehicle; therefore, it takes the Right Dharma Middle Way as the sutra's main point, as the true essence of the One Vehicle. Question: Scholars of the Three Treatise School (Sanlun School) constantly criticize the meaning of 'having attainment'; why do you praise the use of different explanations? Answer: If saying that breaking through appearances is the main point, that is the meaning of 'having attainment.' Now, it elucidates 'no attainment'; the meanings of the various teachers are both right and wrong; they attain the function but do not attain the essence; different attachments are forever eliminated, and they commonly return to one ultimate point; no attachment cannot be broken, and no meaning cannot be encompassed; skillful use is like nectar, clumsy consumption becomes poison. Question: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra elucidates the four vehicles of principle, teaching, practice, and result; how is it different from this sutra? Answer: That sutra does not elucidate the opening of the provisional and revealing of the real, which is different from this sutra. Question: How are the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra and the Lotus Sutra different? Answer: The Lotus Sutra integrates the Three Vehicles and is spoken for bodhisattvas of gradual enlightenment, mainly targeting the Three Vehicles. The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra is spoken for bodhisattvas of sudden enlightenment, not targeting śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, but only spoken to people, which is different from this sutra. Question: If so, the Lotus Sutra is the ultimate teaching; why is the teaching of the Nirvana Sutra needed? Answer: Those who have lost their minds need the Nirvana Sutra; those who have not lost their minds do not need the Nirvana Sutra; it is only spoken for sentient beings of dull faculties. Therefore, the Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū buddha, Dīpaṃkara Buddha did not speak of Nirvana, because they were sentient beings of sharp faculties. Furthermore, this sutra elucidates three things: a cart, two oxen, and attendants. The cart is a metaphor for the cause, effect, myriad practices, and myriad merits. The oxen also encompass cause and effect, the Middle Way Right View, being free from the defilements of permanence and annihilation, being white oxen. Because of the Right View, it guides the myriad practices to emerge from birth and death; this is Prajñā guiding and accomplishing the myriad practices. Question: Prajñā is a vehicle; why is it compared to an ox? Answer: One dharma has two aspects of meaning; guiding is like an ox, and the meaning of moving is like a cart.

。余不爾。運出故有車義。無引導之能故無牛義。界內為儐從果地牛者。真慧為牛。六通無垢為白牛。駕游五道運出眾生。儐從者。即界外因為儐從。問此經未明正因佛性。此義何耶。答此人不得經味。法華論云。七處明正因性。今略出四處。諸法從本來常自寂滅相。此明自性住佛性。又云同入法性。此是佛性之異名。又云開示悟入佛之知見。論釋知見明佛性。普賢菩薩及授惡人記有正因性故。問有人言。此經未明常住。此義云何。答此是小乘氣分。此經諸法從本來常自寂滅相。此是法常住義。常在靈鷲山。明人常義。我凈土不毀。此名依報常義依報正報人法皆常。云何是無常耶。依論釋壽量品文。三身壽量法報二身是常。問有人言遣三而一存。此義為得。答此是有所得義。大品云。非三非一故名大乘。此經不可示。言辭相寂滅。此以超四句百非洞遣。強說明乘。三一為二。非三非一為不二。二不二為粗。非二不二為妙。二不二非二非不二為粗。言忘慮絕為妙。三一開會凡有十門。一者開三顯一。二者會三歸一。三者廢三立一。四者破三明一。五者覆三明一。六者三前明一。七者三中明一。八者三后辨一。九者絕三明一。十者無三辨一也。開三顯一者。開昔三乘是方便。示今一乘是真實。故云開三顯一也。會三歸一者

【現代漢語翻譯】我不這樣認為。用車輛運送東西，是因為它具有運載的功能。沒有引導的能力，所以不能用牛來比喻。在界內作為隨從，在果地以牛為象徵的是：真慧（True Wisdom）象徵牛，六通無垢（Six Supernatural Powers without Defilement）象徵白牛。駕著（白牛車）在五道中游歷，運送眾生。作為隨從，指的是在界外以因地作為隨從。問：這部經沒有明確闡述正因佛性（Direct Cause Buddha-nature），這是什麼原因呢？答：這個人沒有領會經文的真意。《法華論》說，有七處闡明了正因佛性。現在簡略地列出四處：『諸法從本來，常自寂滅相』，這闡明了自性住佛性（Self-abiding Buddha-nature）。又說『同入法性』，這是佛性的另一種名稱。又說『開示悟入佛之知見』，《法華論》解釋『知見』就是佛性。普賢菩薩（Samantabhadra）以及為惡人授記，都具有正因佛性。問：有人說，這部經沒有闡明常住（permanence），這是什麼意思呢？答：這是小乘的見解。這部經說『諸法從本來，常自寂滅相』，這就是法常住的含義。『常在靈鷲山』（Grdhrakuta Mountain）闡明了人常住的含義。『我凈土不毀』，這稱為依報常住的含義。依報（environment）、正報（retribution body）、人、法都是常住的，怎麼能說是無常呢？根據《法華論》解釋《壽量品》的經文，法身（Dharmakaya）、報身（Sambhogakaya）二身是常住的。問：有人說，捨棄三（乘）而保留一（乘），這種說法對嗎？答：這是一種有所得的見解。《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說，『非三非一』才稱為大乘。這部經說『不可示，言辭相寂滅』，這是用超越四句百非的方式徹底否定。勉強說明一乘，三和一是對立的，『非三非一』是不二。二和不二還是粗糙的，『非二非不二』才是精妙的。言語止息，思慮斷絕才是精妙的。三（乘）和一（乘）的開合，總共有十個方面：一是開三顯一，二是會三歸一，三是廢三立一，四是破三明一，五是覆三明一，六是三前明一，七是三中明一，八是三后辨一，九是絕三明一，十是無三辨一。開三顯一是指，開示過去的三乘是方便，顯示現在的一乘是真實，所以說開三顯一。會三歸一是指

【English Translation】 English version: I do not think so. The reason why a vehicle is used to transport things is because it has the ability to carry. It does not have the ability to guide, so it cannot be compared to an ox. Those who are attendants within the boundary, and those who symbolize an ox in the fruition ground, are: True Wisdom symbolizes the ox, and the Six Supernatural Powers without Defilement symbolize the white ox. Riding (the white ox cart), traveling in the five paths, and transporting sentient beings. Being an attendant refers to taking the causal ground as an attendant outside the boundary. Question: This sutra does not clearly explain the Direct Cause Buddha-nature, what is the reason for this? Answer: This person has not grasped the true meaning of the sutra. The Lotus Sutra Treatise says that there are seven places that explain the Direct Cause Buddha-nature. Now, I will briefly list four places: 'All dharmas, from the very beginning, are constantly in a state of tranquil extinction.' This explains the Self-abiding Buddha-nature. It also says, 'Entering the Dharma-nature together,' which is another name for Buddha-nature. It also says, 'Opening, showing, awakening, and entering the knowledge and vision of the Buddha.' The Lotus Sutra Treatise explains that 'knowledge and vision' is Buddha-nature. Samantabhadra Bodhisattva and the prediction of enlightenment for evil people both possess the Direct Cause Buddha-nature. Question: Some people say that this sutra does not explain permanence, what does this mean? Answer: This is a Hinayana view. This sutra says, 'All dharmas, from the very beginning, are constantly in a state of tranquil extinction,' which is the meaning of the Dharma's permanence. 'Always abiding on Grdhrakuta Mountain' explains the permanence of the person. 'My pure land is indestructible,' which is called the permanence of the environment. The environment, the retribution body, the person, and the Dharma are all permanent, so how can it be said to be impermanent? According to the Lotus Sutra Treatise's explanation of the Chapter on the Duration of Life, the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya are permanent. Question: Some people say that abandoning the three (vehicles) and retaining the one (vehicle), is this statement correct? Answer: This is a view with attainment. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that 'neither three nor one' is called Mahayana. This sutra says, 'It cannot be shown, the characteristics of words are extinguished,' which is a thorough negation using the transcendence of the four phrases and the hundred negations. Forcibly explaining the One Vehicle, three and one are opposed to each other, 'neither three nor one' is non-duality. Two and non-duality are still coarse, 'neither two nor non-two' is subtle. When speech ceases and thoughts are cut off, that is subtle. There are a total of ten aspects to the opening and closing of the three (vehicles) and the one (vehicle): First, opening the three to reveal the one; second, converging the three to return to the one; third, abolishing the three to establish the one; fourth, breaking the three to clarify the one; fifth, covering the three to clarify the one; sixth, clarifying the one before the three; seventh, clarifying the one within the three; eighth, distinguishing the one after the three; ninth, severing the three to clarify the one; tenth, distinguishing the one without the three. Opening the three to reveal the one means that the past three vehicles are expedient, and the present one vehicle is the truth, so it is said to open the three to reveal the one. Converging the three to return to the one means

。會彼三行歸一佛乘。故云汝等所行是菩薩道也。廢三立一者。廢昔三教立今一乘教。故云于諸菩薩中正直舍方便但說無上道也。破三明一者。破其執三異之情。以明一乘之道也。覆三明一者。如來趣三一兩緣。當有三一之教。昔則以三覆一。今則以一覆三。三前明一者。未趣鹿苑說三之前。寂滅道場已明一實之教。謂三前明一也。三中明一者。從趣鹿苑說於三乘。佛乘第一緣覺第二聲聞第三。謂三中明一也。三后辨一者。三乘之後法華教門。以會彼三乘同歸一道。謂三后一也。絕待一者。如無言世界。外則無言無示。內則無慮無識。故不論一三而已。即此為佛事故。則復是一故。云絕待一也。無三辨一者。如香積佛土。彼土無有二乘名字。謂無三辨一也。但有清凈大菩薩眾。謂有一也。前之五種。就義論一。后之五種。約時處。諸文不同教門差別。故開五也。問云何名會三歸一。答若識會三歸一。先須知開一為三。開一為三者。昔指大乘之因說。為小乘究竟之果也。今還指小乘究竟之果。即是大乘之因。故名會也。問小乘人謂是究竟。為是迷因為是迷果乎。答實是大因。謂是小果故是迷因也。問以何義故明一乘是三乘中佛乘。復以何義明一乘非是三乘中佛乘耶。答若明三乘。攝出世乘盡。故對二乘之方便。明佛乘是

真實。故文云唯此一事實餘二即非真。所以明一乘是三乘中之一也。就佛乘中。復開真應。昔為二乘人說佛方便身。故佛乘是方便身。則以今教明佛身是真實故。真實之乘異方便佛。如師子坐長者異著弊垢衣長者。是以約今昔兩教。明佛有權實不同。是故一乘非三乘中之一也。問此經中始末。或言佛以方便力示以三乘教。則三乘並是方便。又云唯此一事實餘二則非真。則二是方便。兩文相違。何以會通耶。答此二文猶是一義。無相違也。於一佛乘方便說三。次云一乘是實二是方便。如人手內實有一果方便言三果。次第論者。一果是實二是方便。故方便說三及二。是方便猶是一義。不相違也。問為會三歸一為會二歸一。答此亦是一義。智度論云。於一佛乘開為三分。如人分一斗米為三聚亦得合三聚為一聚。亦得言會二聚歸一聚。會三會二。猶是一義不相違也。若究竟為言。中道為宗。論云性乘。若就用為談。萬善為乘體。萬善之中。以般若為體。報習兩善。取習因為乘體。報因住生死不取。問若爾不應會人天五乘為一乘。答曰。人天是報果而此乘體。有習因義故會。乃是增上緣義。別而為論。有漏善非乘體。無漏善為乘體。乘有二種。有漏善為遠乘。無漏善為近乘。乘有二種。一者動乘。二者不動乘。萬行為動乘。如來

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：確實如此。所以經文中說，只有這一個才是真實的，其餘兩個就不是真實的。這是爲了說明一乘是三乘中的一個。在佛乘中，又分為真應二身。過去為二乘人說的是佛的方便身，所以佛乘是方便身。那麼用現在的教義來說明佛身是真實的。真實的乘與方便佛不同，就像獅子座與穿著破舊衣服的長者不同。因此，根據過去和現在的兩種教義，說明佛有權巧和真實的不同。所以，一乘不是三乘中的一個。問：這部經中從始至終，有時說佛以方便力示現三乘教，那麼三乘都是方便。又說，只有這一個才是真實的，其餘兩個就不是真實的，那麼兩個是方便。這兩種說法相互矛盾，應該如何會通呢？答：這兩種說法實際上是一個意思，沒有矛盾。在一種佛乘上方便地說成三種，接著說一種乘是真實的，兩種是方便的。就像人的手中確實有一個果實，方便地說成三個果實。如果按照次第來論，一個果實是真實的，兩個是方便的。所以，方便地說成三種和兩種，實際上是一個意思，沒有矛盾。問：是爲了會合三歸一，還是爲了會合二歸一呢？答：這也是一個意思。《智度論》說，在一種佛乘上分為三部分，就像人把一斗米分成三堆，也可以把三堆合為一堆，也可以說會合兩堆歸為一堆。會合三種和會合兩種，實際上是一個意思，沒有矛盾。如果從究竟來說，以中道為宗旨。《論》中說的是性乘。如果從作用來說，萬善為乘體。萬善之中，以般若為體。報習兩種善，取習因為乘體，報因住在生死中，不取。問：如果這樣，就不應該會合人天五乘為一乘。答：人天是報果，而這個乘體有習因的意義，所以可以會合，乃是增上緣的意義。分別來說，有漏善不是乘體，無漏善是乘體。乘有兩種，有漏善是遠乘，無漏善是近乘。乘有兩種，一種是動乘，一種是不動乘。萬行是動乘，如來（Tathagata）。 English version: Indeed. Therefore, the scripture says, 'Only this one is real, the other two are not true.' This is to clarify that the One Vehicle (Ekayana) is one of the Three Vehicles (Triyana). Within the Buddha Vehicle (Buddhayana), there is a further division into the True and the Manifested. In the past, the Buddha spoke of the expedient body (Upaya-kaya) for the Two Vehicle (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) practitioners, so the Buddha Vehicle is the expedient body. Now, the present teachings clarify that the Buddha's body is real. The real vehicle is different from the expedient Buddha, like a lion's seat is different from an elder wearing tattered clothes. Therefore, based on the past and present teachings, it is explained that the Buddha has provisional (expedient) and real aspects. Thus, the One Vehicle is not one of the Three Vehicles. Question: Throughout this scripture, it is sometimes said that the Buddha uses expedient power to show the Three Vehicle teachings, so all three vehicles are expedient. It is also said, 'Only this one is real, the other two are not true,' so the two are expedient. These two statements contradict each other. How can they be reconciled? Answer: These two statements are actually the same meaning, without contradiction. On one Buddha Vehicle, it is expediently spoken of as three. Then it is said that one vehicle is real and two are expedient. It's like a person has one fruit in their hand, and expediently says there are three fruits. If discussed in order, one fruit is real and two are expedient. Therefore, speaking of three and two expediently is actually the same meaning, without contradiction. Question: Is it to unite the three into one, or to unite the two into one? Answer: This is also the same meaning. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says, 'On one Buddha Vehicle, it is divided into three parts, just like a person divides one dou (a unit of dry measure) of rice into three piles, and can also combine the three piles into one pile, and can also say to unite two piles into one pile.' Uniting three and uniting two is actually the same meaning, without contradiction. If speaking from the ultimate perspective, the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) is the principle. The Sastra speaks of the Nature Vehicle (Svabhava-yana). If speaking from the perspective of function, myriad good deeds are the vehicle body. Among the myriad good deeds, Prajna (wisdom) is the essence. The retribution and habitual good deeds are taken as the habitual cause as the vehicle body, the retribution cause dwells in samsara (cycle of birth and death) and is not taken. Question: If so, then one should not unite the Human-Celestial Five Vehicles into the One Vehicle. Answer: The Human-Celestial is the retribution result, and this vehicle body has the meaning of habitual cause, so it can be united, which is the meaning of supporting condition (Upastambha-pratyaya). Separately speaking, defiled good deeds are not the vehicle body, undefiled good deeds are the vehicle body. There are two types of vehicles, defiled good deeds are the distant vehicle, and undefiled good deeds are the near vehicle. There are two types of vehicles, one is the moving vehicle, and the other is the non-moving vehicle. Myriad practices are the moving vehicle, Tathagata (Thus Come One).

【English Translation】 Indeed. Therefore, the scripture says, 'Only this one is real, the other two are not true.' This is to clarify that the One Vehicle (Ekayana) is one of the Three Vehicles (Triyana). Within the Buddha Vehicle (Buddhayana), there is a further division into the True and the Manifested. In the past, the Buddha spoke of the expedient body (Upaya-kaya) for the Two Vehicle (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) practitioners, so the Buddha Vehicle is the expedient body. Now, the present teachings clarify that the Buddha's body is real. The real vehicle is different from the expedient Buddha, like a lion's seat is different from an elder wearing tattered clothes. Therefore, based on the past and present teachings, it is explained that the Buddha has provisional (expedient) and real aspects. Thus, the One Vehicle is not one of the Three Vehicles. Question: Throughout this scripture, it is sometimes said that the Buddha uses expedient power to show the Three Vehicle teachings, so all three vehicles are expedient. It is also said, 'Only this one is real, the other two are not true,' so the two are expedient. These two statements contradict each other. How can they be reconciled? Answer: These two statements are actually the same meaning, without contradiction. On one Buddha Vehicle, it is expediently spoken of as three. Then it is said that one vehicle is real and two are expedient. It's like a person has one fruit in their hand, and expediently says there are three fruits. If discussed in order, one fruit is real and two are expedient. Therefore, speaking of three and two expediently is actually the same meaning, without contradiction. Question: Is it to unite the three into one, or to unite the two into one? Answer: This is also the same meaning. The 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra' says, 'On one Buddha Vehicle, it is divided into three parts, just like a person divides one 'dou' (a unit of dry measure) of rice into three piles, and can also combine the three piles into one pile, and can also say to unite two piles into one pile.' Uniting three and uniting two is actually the same meaning, without contradiction. If speaking from the ultimate perspective, the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) is the principle. The 'Sastra' speaks of the Nature Vehicle (Svabhava-yana). If speaking from the perspective of function, myriad good deeds are the vehicle body. Among the myriad good deeds, 'Prajna' (wisdom) is the essence. The retribution and habitual good deeds are taken as the habitual cause as the vehicle body, the retribution cause dwells in 'samsara' (cycle of birth and death) and is not taken. Question: If so, then one should not unite the Human-Celestial Five Vehicles into the One Vehicle. Answer: The Human-Celestial is the retribution result, and this vehicle body has the meaning of habitual cause, so it can be united, which is the meaning of supporting condition (Upastambha-pratyaya). Separately speaking, defiled good deeds are not the vehicle body, undefiled good deeds are the vehicle body. There are two types of vehicles, one is the moving vehicle, and the other is the non-moving vehicle. Myriad practices are the moving vehicle, 'Tathagata' (Thus Come One).

藏佛性中道為不動乘。問乘以運出為義。中道佛性不運出。云何名為乘體。答以其不動故。能令萬善動出。亦令行者動出生死住彼涅槃。故名為乘。小乘初教。以果為乘。故言三車在門外。此是盡無生智果。大乘因與果為乘。問曰。若大乘因果為乘者。何故經言于佛果上更無說一乘法事。答曰。此約自不運義。不言不運他。

次同異第三。有人言。因成假為乘用。一善不滿不成乘用。故合為萬方有運用。例如梁椽等。非假則無有用。二云相續為用。若實法念念自滅無有運用故言相續為有用。三云相待為一此中果一故因一。善既眾多。以此一果一于萬善。今明。萬善悉有運出之義。亦如百流一一自有向海義不以海一故百流為一。問曰。若非因成有力。復非相續。云何一念實法善有運出耶。答曰。以不運為運。不續為續故。終是相待為本。是以相待有乘用。次引經文。問曰。經云十方佛土中唯有一乘法無二亦無三。云何名無二無三耶。答曰。有人言。無二者無聲聞緣覺二。無三者無偏行六度菩薩。又昔三乘皆是方便。今教別有一車異昔三也。問何以然。答經云佛以方便力示以三乘教。通以三為方便。則以三為方便。則以一為真實。則會昔三乘歸今一實也。又云愿賜我等三種寶車。昔既索三今便賜一。故索所不與。與

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：藏傳佛教認為，佛性中道是不動乘（不動之教法）。有人問：『乘』的意義在於運載和輸出。中道佛性本身不進行運載和輸出，為什麼還稱之為『乘』呢？』回答說：『正因為它不動，才能使萬善得以生髮和執行。也能使修行者從生死輪迴中解脫，安住于涅槃境界。所以稱之為『乘』。小乘佛教的初期教義，以果位作為『乘』，所以說『三車在門外』，指的是證得無生智的果位。大乘佛教則將因和果都視為『乘』。有人問：『如果大乘佛教以因果為乘，為什麼經典中說在佛果之上，不再有關於一乘法的說法呢？』回答說：『這是就自身不進行運載的意義而言，並不是說不能運載他人。』

其次討論同異之處。有人認為：一是因緣和合而成假有，才能作為『乘』來使用。如果一種善行不圓滿，就不能成為『乘』。所以要將各種善行結合起來，才能發揮作用，就像房梁和椽子等。如果不是假有，就沒有作用。二是認為相續不斷才能發揮作用。如果實法念念生滅，就沒有運載作用，所以說是相續不斷才能發揮作用。三是認為相互對待才能成為一體。這裡果位是唯一的，所以因也是唯一的。善行既然眾多，就用這唯一的果位來統一萬善。現在說明，萬善都具有運載和輸出的意義，就像百川各自有流向大海的意義一樣，不能因為大海是唯一的，就認為百川也是一體的。有人問：『如果不是因緣和合而成，也不是相續不斷，為什麼一念實法的善行也能進行運載呢？』回答說：『以不運為運，以不續為續。』歸根結底，還是以相互對待為根本，所以相互對待才能發揮『乘』的作用。接下來引用經文。有人問：『經典中說，十方佛土中只有一乘法，沒有二乘也沒有三乘。』這是什麼意思呢？回答說：『有人認為，沒有二乘，指的是沒有聲聞乘和緣覺乘。沒有三乘，指的是沒有隻修行六度波羅蜜的菩薩。』又說，過去的三乘都是方便法門，現在所教導的才是真正的一乘。有人問：『為什麼這樣說呢？』回答說：『經典中說，佛以方便力，示現了三乘的教法。』既然說三乘是方便，那麼一乘就是真實的。最終要將過去的三乘會歸到今天的一乘實法。』又說，『希望賜予我們三種寶車。』過去既然索求三種車，現在就只賜予一種。所以索求的是不給予的，給予的是...

【English Translation】 English version: The Madhyamaka (Middle Way) of Buddha-nature in Tibetan Buddhism is considered the Immovable Vehicle (an unmoving teaching). Someone asks: 'The meaning of 'vehicle' (乘) lies in transporting and conveying. The Madhyamaka Buddha-nature itself does not transport or convey, so why is it called a 'vehicle'?' The answer is: 'Precisely because it is immovable, it enables the arising and operation of all good deeds. It also enables practitioners to be liberated from the cycle of birth and death and abide in the state of Nirvana. Therefore, it is called a 'vehicle'. The early teachings of Hinayana Buddhism regard the fruit (果) as the 'vehicle', so it is said that 'the three carts are outside the gate', referring to the fruit of attaining the wisdom of non-origination (無生智). Mahayana Buddhism considers both the cause (因) and the fruit as the 'vehicle'.' Someone asks: 'If Mahayana Buddhism considers cause and fruit as the vehicle, why do the scriptures say that on the fruit of Buddhahood, there is no further teaching of the One Vehicle (一乘法)?' The answer is: 'This refers to the meaning of not transporting oneself, not that it cannot transport others.'

Next, we discuss the similarities and differences. Some people believe: First, that the combination of causes and conditions to form a provisional existence (假有) is what allows it to be used as a 'vehicle'. If a good deed is not complete, it cannot become a 'vehicle'. Therefore, various good deeds must be combined to be effective, like beams and rafters. If it were not provisional, it would be useless. Second, they believe that continuous succession is what makes it useful. If real dharmas (實法) arise and cease moment by moment, there would be no transporting function, so it is said that continuous succession is what makes it useful. Third, they believe that mutual dependence is what makes it one. Here, the fruit is unique, so the cause is also unique. Since good deeds are numerous, this unique fruit is used to unify all good deeds. Now, it is explained that all good deeds have the meaning of transporting and conveying, just as hundreds of rivers each have the meaning of flowing towards the sea. We cannot consider the hundreds of rivers as one just because the sea is unique. Someone asks: 'If it is not formed by the combination of causes and conditions, nor is it a continuous succession, why can a single thought of real dharma's good deed also transport?' The answer is: 'It uses non-transport as transport, and non-succession as succession.' Ultimately, it is based on mutual dependence, so mutual dependence can play the role of a 'vehicle'. Next, we quote the scriptures. Someone asks: 'The scriptures say that in the Buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the One Vehicle Dharma, without the Two Vehicles or the Three Vehicles.' What does this mean? The answer is: 'Some people believe that the absence of the Two Vehicles refers to the absence of the Sravaka Vehicle (聲聞乘) and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle (緣覺乘). The absence of the Three Vehicles refers to the absence of Bodhisattvas who only practice the Six Paramitas (六度波羅蜜).' Furthermore, the past Three Vehicles were all expedient means (方便法門), and what is now taught is the true One Vehicle. Someone asks: 'Why is this so?' The answer is: 'The scriptures say that the Buddha, through expedient power, manifested the teachings of the Three Vehicles.' Since the Three Vehicles are said to be expedient, then the One Vehicle is the true one. Ultimately, the past Three Vehicles will be converged into today's One Vehicle of reality.' It also says, 'May you grant us three precious carts.' Since three carts were requested in the past, only one is now granted. Therefore, what is requested is not given, and what is given is...

所不索。則知。別有大車異昔三。小以文理推之。則有四車也。評曰。三車四車。諍論紛綸由來久矣。了之則一部可通。迷之則八軸皆壅。今以八文徴之。方見此釋為謬。第一文云。如來但以一佛乘故。為眾生說法。無有餘乘。若二若三。此文次第列三乘也。但以一佛乘者。謂佛乘為第一也。無有餘乘若二若三者。無有緣覺為第二聲聞為第三。以此文詳之。則唯有三車。則執四為謬矣。問曰。經常列三乘不作次二次第。今何以然耶。答曰。以佛乘為第一。緣覺為第二。聲聞為第三。此從上數至下。豈非次第耶。問曰。何故作此次第耶。答曰。此正判三乘有無義也。初句明唯有一佛乘。次句無二無三。明無餘乘。以唯有一佛乘故。佛乘為實。無二無三故。二乘為方便也。又普門品中。亦列佛乘為初。次及緣覺后明聲聞。與今同矣。第二文云。尚無二乘何況有三。大論舉況者。皆舉勝以況劣。若言第三是偏行六度菩薩者。昔三乘中。佛乘為勝二乘為劣。若言第三。乃應舉三況餘二。云何舉二況第三耶。三者偈云。唯此一事實餘二則非真。唯此一事者。即一佛乘實也。餘二則非真。緣覺聲聞。此二非真也。則以偈文。釋長行無二無三意。佛恐像末鈍根尋經不解故。轉勢頌之。令煥然易悟。第四文云。諸佛語無異。唯一無二乘

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所不索，則知。別有大車異昔三。小以文理推之，則有四車也。評曰：三車四車，諍論紛紜由來久矣。瞭解它，則整部經文都可以通達；迷惑於它，則八軸經卷都會被阻塞。現在用八個文句來驗證，才發現這種解釋是錯誤的。第一句經文說：『如來只是用一佛乘的緣故，為眾生說法，沒有其他的乘，無論是二乘還是三乘。』這句經文依次列出了三乘。『只是用一佛乘』，是說佛乘是第一位的。『沒有其他的乘，無論是二乘還是三乘』，是沒有緣覺乘作為第二，聲聞乘作為第三。用這句經文詳細分析，就只有三車，那麼執著於四車就是錯誤的了。問：經文中經常列出三乘，但不作第一第二的次序，現在為什麼這樣呢？答：因為佛乘是第一，緣覺乘是第二，聲聞乘是第三。這是從上往下數，難道不是次序嗎？問：為什麼要作這樣的次序呢？答：這正是爲了判斷三乘的有無之義。第一句說明只有一佛乘，第二句『無二無三』，說明沒有其他的乘。因為只有一佛乘的緣故，佛乘是真實的；沒有二乘三乘的緣故，二乘是方便的。又，《普門品》中，也把佛乘列為第一，其次是緣覺乘，最後說明聲聞乘，與現在相同。第二句經文說：『尚且沒有二乘，何況有三乘？』《大智度論》中舉例說明，都是用殊勝的來比況低劣的。如果說第三乘是偏行六度（Paramita）的菩薩，那麼在以前的三乘中，佛乘是殊勝的，二乘是低劣的。如果要說第三乘，就應該用三乘來比況其餘的二乘，怎麼能用二乘來比況第三乘呢？第三句偈頌說：『唯此一事實，餘二則非真。』『唯此一事』，就是一佛乘是真實的。『餘二則非真』，緣覺乘、聲聞乘，這二乘不是真實的。這是用偈頌的文句，來解釋長行文中『無二無三』的含義。佛恐怕末法時代的遲鈍根器的人尋經不解，所以轉變文勢用偈頌來表達，使之煥然易悟。第四句經文說：『諸佛的語言沒有差異，唯一沒有二乘。』

【English Translation】 English version What is not sought is known. There is a great carriage different from the former three. Inferring from the text, there are four carriages. Comment: The dispute over three carriages and four carriages has been going on for a long time. Understanding it allows one to comprehend the entire scripture; being confused by it obstructs all eight scrolls. Now, examining it with eight sentences, it becomes clear that this interpretation is erroneous. The first sentence says: 'The Tathagata (Thus Come One) only uses the cause of the One Buddha Vehicle (Ekayana) to preach to sentient beings; there are no other vehicles, whether two or three.' This sentence lists the three vehicles in order. 'Only uses the One Buddha Vehicle' means that the Buddha Vehicle is the first. 'There are no other vehicles, whether two or three' means there is no Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha) Vehicle as the second, and the Sravaka (Hearer) Vehicle as the third. Analyzing this sentence in detail, there are only three carriages, so adhering to four carriages is erroneous. Question: The scriptures often list the three vehicles but do not make a first or second order. Why is it so now? Answer: Because the Buddha Vehicle is the first, the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle is the second, and the Sravaka Vehicle is the third. This is counting from top to bottom, is it not an order? Question: Why make this order? Answer: This is precisely to judge the meaning of the existence or non-existence of the three vehicles. The first sentence states that there is only one Buddha Vehicle, and the second sentence 'no two, no three' states that there are no other vehicles. Because there is only one Buddha Vehicle, the Buddha Vehicle is real; because there are no two or three vehicles, the two vehicles are expedient. Furthermore, in the 'Universal Gate Chapter', the Buddha Vehicle is also listed as the first, followed by the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and finally the Sravaka Vehicle, which is the same as now. The second sentence says: 'There are not even two vehicles, how much less three vehicles?' The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise) uses examples to illustrate, always using the superior to compare with the inferior. If it is said that the third vehicle is the Bodhisattva (Enlightenment Being) who practices the six Paramitas (Perfections), then in the former three vehicles, the Buddha Vehicle is superior and the two vehicles are inferior. If one were to speak of the third vehicle, one should use the three vehicles to compare with the remaining two vehicles; how can one use the two vehicles to compare with the third vehicle? The third verse says: 'Only this one reality, the other two are not true.' 'Only this one reality' is that the One Buddha Vehicle is real. 'The other two are not true,' the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle and the Sravaka Vehicle, these two vehicles are not real. This uses the verses to explain the meaning of 'no two, no three' in the prose. The Buddha feared that those with dull faculties in the Dharma-ending Age would seek the scriptures without understanding, so he transformed the style and used verses to express it, making it easy to understand. The fourth sentence says: 'The words of all Buddhas are without difference, only without two vehicles.'

。全同前矣。第五文云。但以一乘法教化諸菩薩。無聲聞弟子。此文最分明。既云但以一乘教化菩薩。則有菩薩也。無聲聞弟子。則無餘二乘也。六者信解品云。密遣二人。七者化城喻品云。世間無有二乘而得滅度。唯一佛乘而得滅度耳。八者偈云。唯有一佛乘息處故說二。諸文甚多。略舉八證。此釋既非。則四乘義謬。會三亦失。復有人言。但有三乘。會三歸一者。歸三中佛乘。非三外別有一也。評曰。若但有三乘。不違八證。尋經首尾。復害六文。佛以方便力示三乘教。則知。三乘皆是方便。云何會二方便歸一方便耶。又云。於一佛乘。分別說三。又云。於一佛乘。隨宜說三。又諸子索三。父皆不與。明無三可趣索。有一以賜機。若三中之一是實有者。諸子無所索。父無所賜也。又虛指門外明有三車。諸子出門無三可見。若三中之一。是實有者。父非虛指。子出應見。又三中之一是實者。則會二歸一。不名會三歸一。問立四則違八證。辨三複害六文。請會通之令無豪滯。答世間淺識言不相違。況復一切智人說應鉾楯。又如來說八萬法藏乃至塵沙法門。尚無二言。況一經中應有兩說。以此推之。是知。失在學人。何復敢嫌大聖。今所明者。八證六文猶一意耳。且會二文余皆可領。一云方便說三。次云唯一是實餘二非

【現代漢語翻譯】全同前矣。（譯者註：與之前的觀點完全相同。）第五段經文說：『但以一乘法教化諸菩薩，無聲聞弟子。』（譯者註：只用唯一的佛乘之法教化菩薩，沒有聲聞弟子。）這段經文最為分明。既然說只用一乘之法教化菩薩，那麼就是有菩薩。沒有聲聞弟子，那麼就沒有其餘的二乘。（譯者註：聲聞乘和緣覺乘。）第六，《信解品》中說：『密遣二人。』（譯者註：秘密派遣二人。）第七，《化城喻品》中說：『世間無有二乘而得滅度，唯一佛乘而得滅度耳。』（譯者註：世間沒有通過聲聞乘和緣覺乘而獲得解脫的，只有通過唯一的佛乘才能獲得解脫。）第八，偈頌說：『唯有一佛乘，息處故說二。』（譯者註：本來只有唯一的佛乘，爲了方便休息的處所才說有二乘。）類似的經文有很多，這裡略舉八個證據。這種解釋既然不對，那麼四乘的說法就是錯誤的，會三歸一的說法也錯了。又有人說，只有三乘，會三歸一，是歸於三乘中的佛乘，而不是在三乘之外另外有一個。（譯者註：聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘。）評論說，如果只有三乘，就不符合前面說的八個證據。尋遍經文的首尾，又會損害六段經文。佛以方便之力示現三乘的教法，那麼就知道，三乘都是方便。怎麼能把兩個方便會歸到一個方便呢？又說：『於一佛乘，分別說三。』（譯者註：在唯一的佛乘中，分別說有三乘。）又說：『於一佛乘，隨宜說三。』（譯者註：在唯一的佛乘中，根據不同的情況說有三乘。）又說諸子索要三車，父親都不給，說明沒有三車可以索取，只有一車可以賜予。如果三乘中的一個是真實存在的，諸子就沒有什麼可索取的，父親也沒有什麼可賜予的。又虛指門外，說明有三車，諸子出門卻沒有三車可見。如果三乘中的一個是真實存在的，父親就不是虛指，諸子出門應該能見到。又三乘中的一個是真實存在的，那麼會二歸一，就不能稱為會三歸一。問：立四乘的說法就違背了八個證據，辨析三乘又會損害六段經文，請會通這些說法，使之沒有絲毫的滯礙。答：世間淺薄的見識都說不相違背，更何況一切智人所說的話怎麼會像矛和盾一樣互相矛盾呢？又如來說八萬法藏乃至塵沙法門，尚且沒有兩種說法，何況一部經中怎麼會有兩種說法呢？由此推斷，這是因為學習的人理解有誤，怎麼敢責怪大聖呢？現在所要說明的是，八個證據和六段經文其實是一個意思。姑且會通這兩段經文，其餘的都可以領會。一段經文說方便說三，另一段經文說唯一是實，其餘二乘不是真實的。

【English Translation】 'It is entirely the same as before.' (Translator's note: Completely identical to the previous viewpoint.) The fifth passage says, 'But only with the One Vehicle Dharma do they teach all Bodhisattvas, without any Shravaka disciples.' (Translator's note: Only using the unique Buddha Vehicle Dharma to teach Bodhisattvas, without Shravaka disciples.) This passage is the clearest. Since it says that only the One Vehicle is used to teach Bodhisattvas, then there are Bodhisattvas. Without Shravaka disciples, then there are no other Two Vehicles. (Translator's note: The Shravaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle.) Sixth, in the 'Faith and Understanding' chapter, it says, 'Secretly dispatching two people.' (Translator's note: Secretly sending two people.) Seventh, in the 'Parable of the Phantom City' chapter, it says, 'In the world, there are none who attain Nirvana through the Two Vehicles, only through the One Buddha Vehicle.' (Translator's note: In the world, there is no one who attains liberation through the Shravaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, only through the unique Buddha Vehicle.) Eighth, the verse says, 'Only there is the One Buddha Vehicle; for the sake of a resting place, two are spoken of.' (Translator's note: Originally, there is only the unique Buddha Vehicle; for the sake of convenient resting places, two vehicles are spoken of.) There are many similar passages; here, eight pieces of evidence are briefly cited. Since this explanation is incorrect, then the Four Vehicles theory is wrong, and the merging of the three into one is also wrong. Furthermore, some say that there are only Three Vehicles, and the merging of the three into one is merging into the Buddha Vehicle among the three vehicles, not that there is another one outside the three vehicles. (Translator's note: Shravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle.) The commentary says that if there are only Three Vehicles, it does not conform to the eight pieces of evidence mentioned earlier. Searching through the beginning and end of the sutra, it also harms six passages. The Buddha manifests the teachings of the Three Vehicles through expedient power, so it is known that the Three Vehicles are all expedient. How can two expedients be merged into one expedient? Furthermore, it says, 'Within the One Buddha Vehicle, three are spoken of separately.' (Translator's note: Within the unique Buddha Vehicle, three vehicles are spoken of separately.) It also says, 'Within the One Buddha Vehicle, three are spoken of according to circumstances.' (Translator's note: Within the unique Buddha Vehicle, three vehicles are spoken of according to different situations.) It also says that the children ask for three carts, but the father does not give them, indicating that there are no three carts to ask for, only one cart to give. If one of the Three Vehicles is truly existent, the children would have nothing to ask for, and the father would have nothing to give. Furthermore, pointing vaguely outside the door indicates that there are three carts, but the children do not see three carts when they go out. If one of the Three Vehicles is truly existent, the father would not be pointing vaguely, and the children should see them when they go out. Furthermore, if one of the Three Vehicles is real, then merging two into one cannot be called merging three into one. Question: Establishing the theory of Four Vehicles violates the eight pieces of evidence, and analyzing the Three Vehicles harms the six passages. Please reconcile these statements so that there is no hindrance at all. Answer: Even shallow worldly views say that they do not contradict each other, so how could the words of the All-Knowing One contradict each other like a spear and a shield? Furthermore, the Tathagata speaks of eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures and even countless Dharma gates, yet there are not two different teachings. How could there be two different teachings in one sutra? From this, it can be inferred that the error lies in the understanding of the learner; how dare we blame the Great Sage? What is to be explained now is that the eight pieces of evidence and the six passages actually have the same meaning. Let's reconcile these two passages for now, and the rest can be understood. One passage says that three are spoken of expediently, and the other passage says that only one is real, and the other two vehicles are not real.

實者。唯一佛乘欲引導眾生故。方便說三。考實而言。唯一佛乘。是實餘二非真。是故說三說二。猶一意耳。假設近喻以況遠旨。如父手中唯有一果。欲引諸子說一果為三果。考實而論。唯有一果無二果。是故二文無相違也。以三二既明。會義可領。晚見法華論。釋十方佛土中尚無二乘何況有三。與今意同。論云。此是遮者。明無二乘涅槃唯佛究竟無上菩提有大涅槃耳。此但明無有二乘唯有佛乘。不言無偏行六度菩薩。故光宅失旨也。次論四句。問會三歸一破三歸一開三顯一廢三立一有何異耶。答會三歸一者。乃會教會行會緣。言會教者。昔開三乘五乘之教。併爲顯一道。所表之道既一。能表之教亦復言一。故一切教皆名大乘教也。會行者。汝等所行是菩薩道。如來昔說有三行者。為趣一道。故令修三行。所期之道無二。能趣之行豈三耶。所言會人者。如來出世。本為教菩薩。不教餘人。三所行既是菩薩道。能行之人。皆成菩薩也。故文云但為教菩薩無聲聞弟子。會教正是一時。會行及人。遠令至佛也。問會有幾種。答自有融會稱會。自有會歸稱會。如嚮明也。融會稱會者。既會三歸一竟。緣即疑雲。三若歸一。何故說三。是故釋言。昔以方便故說三。今以如實故說一。此是融會今昔三一之義。亦名會也。若是會歸之

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：真實的情況是，只有唯一的佛乘，爲了引導眾生，才方便地說了三乘。如果考察真實情況來說，只有唯一的佛乘是真實的，其餘二乘並非真實。因此，說三乘或說二乘，都是一個意思。假設一個近似的比喻來比擬深遠的旨意，就像父親手中只有一隻果子，爲了引導孩子們，說一隻果子是三隻果子。如果考察真實情況來說，只有一隻果子，沒有兩隻果子。因此，兩段經文沒有互相違背。因為三乘和二乘的含義已經明白，會歸一乘的意義就可以領會。我後來看到《法華論》中解釋說，十方佛土中尚且沒有二乘，更何況有三乘，與我現在的意思相同。《法華論》說：『這是遮止的意思，表明沒有二乘的涅槃，只有佛的究竟無上菩提才有大涅槃。』這只是說明沒有二乘，只有佛乘，不是說沒有偏重修習六度（paramita）的菩薩（bodhisattva）。所以光宅法師沒有領會其中的旨意。接下來討論四句：會三歸一、破三歸一、開三顯一、廢三立一有什麼不同呢？回答說：會三歸一，是會教、會行、會緣。所謂會教，是說過去開示的三乘、五乘的教法，都是爲了顯示唯一的佛道。所要表達的道既然是唯一的，能夠表達的教法也就可以說是一致的。所以一切教法都可以稱為大乘教。會行，是說你們所修行的都是菩薩道。如來過去說有三種修行，是爲了趨向唯一的佛道，所以讓你們修三種修行。所期望的道沒有兩種，能夠趨向道的修行難道有三種嗎？所謂會人，是說如來出世，本來是爲了教導菩薩，不教導其他人。你們三乘所修行的既然都是菩薩道，能夠修行的人，都將成就菩薩。所以經文中說，『只是爲了教導菩薩，沒有聲聞弟子。』會教正是一時的，會行和會人，是爲了長遠地使他們達到佛的境界。問：會歸一共有幾種？答：有融會稱之為會，有會歸稱之為會，就像前面所說明的那樣。融會稱之為會，是說在會三歸一之後，有人產生疑問，如果三乘歸於一乘，為什麼還要說三乘？所以解釋說，過去因為方便的緣故才說三乘，現在因為如實的緣故才說一乘。這是融會今昔三乘和一乘的意義，也可以稱為會。如果是會歸的會

【English Translation】 English version: The truth is, there is only the One Buddha Vehicle (ekayana), but for the sake of guiding sentient beings, the Three Vehicles (triyana) are expediently taught. Examining the reality, only the One Buddha Vehicle is real, while the other two are not truly real. Therefore, speaking of three vehicles or two vehicles is all the same intention. Let's use a close analogy to illustrate a distant meaning, like a father having only one fruit in his hand, and saying it is three fruits to guide his children. Examining the reality, there is only one fruit, not two. Therefore, the two passages do not contradict each other. Since the meaning of the three and two vehicles is clear, the meaning of converging to the One Vehicle can be understood. I later saw in the Shastra on the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma-pundarika-shastra) that even in the Buddha lands of the ten directions, there are no Two Vehicles, let alone Three Vehicles, which is the same as my current understanding. The Shastra says: 'This is the meaning of negation, clarifying that there is no Nirvana (nirvana) of the Two Vehicles, only the ultimate unsurpassed Bodhi (bodhi) of the Buddha has Great Nirvana.' This only clarifies that there are no Two Vehicles, only the Buddha Vehicle, and does not say that there are no Bodhisattvas (bodhisattva) who practice the Six Perfections (paramita) partially. Therefore, Master Guangzhai missed the point. Next, let's discuss the four phrases: What is the difference between converging the three to one, refuting the three to one, opening the three to reveal one, and abolishing the three to establish one? The answer is: Converging the three to one is converging the teachings, converging the practices, and converging the beings. Converging the teachings means that the teachings of the Three Vehicles and Five Vehicles taught in the past are all to reveal the One Vehicle. Since the path to be expressed is one, the teachings that can express it can also be said to be one. Therefore, all teachings can be called the Mahayana (mahayana) teachings. Converging the practices means that what you are practicing is the Bodhisattva path. The Tathagata (tathagata) said in the past that there are three practices in order to approach the One Vehicle, so he had you cultivate the three practices. Since the path to be expected is not two, how can the practices that can approach the path be three? Converging the beings means that the Tathagata appeared in the world originally to teach Bodhisattvas, not to teach others. Since what you three vehicles are practicing is the Bodhisattva path, those who can practice will all become Bodhisattvas. Therefore, the text says, 'It is only to teach Bodhisattvas, there are no Shravaka (shravaka) disciples.' Converging the teachings is only temporary, while converging the practices and beings is to enable them to reach the state of Buddhahood in the long run. Question: How many kinds of convergence are there in total? Answer: There is merging and calling it convergence, and there is converging and returning and calling it convergence, just like what was explained earlier. Merging and calling it convergence means that after converging the three to one, someone doubts, if the three vehicles converge to one, why still speak of three vehicles? Therefore, it is explained that in the past, the three vehicles were spoken of for the sake of expediency, and now the one vehicle is spoken of for the sake of reality. This is merging the meaning of the three and one vehicles of the past and present, and can also be called convergence. If it is the convergence of converging and returning

義。正就三行。融會之義。宜就教門。所以然者。若會三因同歸作佛。如是之義。會行為正。不用教門作佛故。教非會歸也。問有人言。此經未明佛性。但明緣因。復言。覆相明常。此義云何。答乃是成論淺悟之徒。有如此失。值大寶而不取。遇深經而不求。豈異弱喪與窮子反走于舍宅。此經云。常在靈鷲山。常在此不滅。劫火燒盡時。我凈土不毀。既言依正兩報常住。又法華論。云釋壽量品文。有法身壽量報佛壽量化身壽量。豈非常耶。又處處明法性。法性是佛性之異名。身子言。我等同入法性。云何如來以小乘法而見濟度。又方便品初明佛知見。即是佛性。乘有三種。理乘即是中道佛性。行乘即是緣因佛性。果乘即是果佛性。因因性境界性屬正因。果果性屬果性。故不開五性也。索車義第二問。為是三人索三為是二人索三耶。答舊經師云。三人索三車也。何以知然。下文云。爾時諸子各白父言。愿賜我等三種寶車。故知。三人索三。又所以索三者。實無三乘。但昔於一佛乘方便說三。以是方便行所以索也。評曰。今以十義推之。不應有三人索也。一者本以三車譬於三果。故云。今此三車皆在門外。二乘人。出門外至許車處。覓果不得。可言索果。菩薩之人。未至許處覓佛果不得。何有索佛果耶。答曰。原索意者。

【現代漢語翻譯】義。正就三行。融會之義。宜就教門。所以然者。若會三因同歸作佛。如是之義。會行為正。不用教門作佛故。教非會歸也。問：有人說，此經未闡明佛性（Buddha-nature），只闡明緣因（causal condition）。又說，『覆相明常』，此義如何？答：這是成實論（Satya-siddhi-sastra）淺悟之徒，才有如此缺失。面對大寶而不取，遇到深經而不求，豈不像弱子喪家，窮子反而遠離家宅？此經云：『常在靈鷲山（Vulture Peak Mountain），常在此不滅。劫火燒盡時，我凈土不毀。』既說依報（environment）和正報（retribution body）兩方面都是常住的。又《法華論》（Lotus Sutra Treatise）云，解釋《壽量品》（Chapter on the Duration of Life）的經文，有法身（Dharmakaya）壽量、報佛（reward body of Buddha）壽量、化身（Nirmanakaya）壽量，豈不是常嗎？又處處闡明法性（Dharma-nature），法性是佛性的異名。舍利弗（Sariputra）說：『我等同入法性。』為何如來（Tathagata）用小乘法（Hinayana）來濟度我們？又《方便品》（Chapter on Expedients）一開始就闡明佛知見（Buddha's insight），即是佛性。乘（yana）有三種，理乘（yana of principle）即是中道佛性（Buddha-nature of the Middle Way），行乘（yana of practice）即是緣因佛性，果乘（yana of fruition）即是果佛性（Buddha-nature of fruition）。因因性（causal nature）、境界性（nature of realm）屬於正因（direct cause），果果性（fruitional nature）屬於果性（fruition nature），所以不開五性（five natures）也。索車義第二問：是三人索三車，還是二人索三車？答：舊經師說，是三人索三車。何以知然？下文云：『爾時諸子各白父言，愿賜我等三種寶車。』故知，三人索三。又所以索三者，實無三乘，但昔於一佛乘方便說三，以是方便行所以索也。評曰：今以十義推之，不應有三人索也。一者本以三車譬於三果。故云：『今此三車皆在門外。』二乘人，出門外至許車處，覓果不得，可言索果。菩薩（Bodhisattva）之人，未至許處覓佛果不得，何有索佛果耶？答曰：原索意者。

【English Translation】 Meaning. 'Zheng' refers to the three practices. The meaning of integration should be based on the teachings. The reason is that if the three causes are integrated to attain Buddhahood, then such meaning considers practice as 'zheng'. It does not use the teachings to attain Buddhahood, so the teachings are not the integration. Question: Some people say that this sutra does not clearly explain Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), but only explains causal condition (causal condition). They also say, 'Covering the appearance reveals permanence.' What is the meaning of this? Answer: It is only those with shallow understanding of the Satyasiddhi-sastra (Satya-siddhi-sastra) who have such shortcomings. Facing great treasure but not taking it, encountering profound sutras but not seeking them, how is this different from a weak child losing their home, or a poor child running away from their house? This sutra says: 'Always abiding on Vulture Peak Mountain (Vulture Peak Mountain), always here without perishing. When the fire of the kalpa burns out, my pure land will not be destroyed.' It speaks of both the environment (environment) and the retribution body (retribution body) as being permanent. Also, the Lotus Sutra Treatise (Lotus Sutra Treatise) says, explaining the text of the Chapter on the Duration of Life (Chapter on the Duration of Life), there is the lifespan of the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya), the lifespan of the reward body of Buddha (reward body of Buddha), and the lifespan of the Nirmanakaya (Nirmanakaya). Is this not permanence? Moreover, it explains Dharma-nature (Dharma-nature) everywhere, and Dharma-nature is another name for Buddha-nature. Sariputra (Sariputra) said: 'We all enter the Dharma-nature together.' Why does the Tathagata (Tathagata) use the Hinayana (Hinayana) to save us? Furthermore, the Chapter on Expedients (Chapter on Expedients) initially explains the Buddha's insight (Buddha's insight), which is Buddha-nature. There are three yanas (yana), the yana of principle (yana of principle) which is the Buddha-nature of the Middle Way (Buddha-nature of the Middle Way), the yana of practice (yana of practice) which is the causal condition Buddha-nature, and the yana of fruition (yana of fruition) which is the fruition Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature of fruition). Causal nature (causal nature) and nature of realm (nature of realm) belong to the direct cause (direct cause), and fruitional nature (fruitional nature) belongs to fruition nature (fruition nature), so the five natures (five natures) are not opened either. The second question on the meaning of requesting the carts: Is it three people requesting three carts, or two people requesting three carts? Answer: The old sutra masters say that it is three people requesting three carts. How do we know this? The following text says: 'At that time, the children each said to their father, 'We wish that you would grant us three kinds of precious carts.'' Therefore, we know that it is three people requesting three. Moreover, the reason for requesting three is that there are actually no three vehicles, but in the past, three were expediently spoken of from the one Buddha vehicle, and it is through this expedient practice that they request. Commentary: Now, based on ten meanings, it should not be three people requesting. First, the three carts are originally a metaphor for the three fruits. Therefore, it says: 'Now these three carts are all outside the gate.' People of the two vehicles, going outside the gate to the place where the carts are, cannot find the fruit, so it can be said that they are requesting the fruit. People of the Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) path, not having reached that place, cannot find the Buddha fruit, so how can they be requesting the Buddha fruit? Answer: The original intention of requesting is...

本為昔有今無。是故索耳。若今昔俱有者。必不索也。尋大小乘經始終。皆明佛乘是有。如初教明佛乘是有。至法華亦明佛乘是有。以始終明佛乘是有故不索也。問乘以何物障。答大論既以六度為大乘體。六弊即是障也。若取乘出義。即著生死以為障。若取乘廣大義。即以狹劣為障。若以出世無所得六度故能動出。即以有所得六度為通障。六弊為別障。譬中雲三車在門外者。此總相說耳。依昔義者。二車在三界正使門外。佛果在習氣無知門外。二乘人。以正使限域為門。佛以無知習氣限域為門。昔說二乘人盡無生智在三界正使門外。今二乘人斷正使盡。而不見車。是故索耳。昔說佛果在習氣無知門外。今菩薩斷正使盡。習氣無知即盡。即便成佛亦無索也。問何時索車耶。答舊云。得羅漢已后。法華之前有索。又難。若未說法華已生疑者。身子得果竟。應言我今自於智疑惑不能了為是究竟法為是所行道。豈待法華方有此釋索。故今明。待法華方索也。次論一乘壽量果。有人言。未明常住。又難。若度五百而未常。亦應未度五百。即應是常。若未度非常則已度。是常矣。又經云佛度五百而言未度者。佛昔明度三百亦應未度。若昔言度三百佛實度者。今亦應實度五百也。若順經故遂度五百。則已免三相。何事非常。今所釋者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本本為昔有今無，所以才要尋找（索）。如果過去和現在都有，那就不必尋找了。考察大小乘經典的始終，都闡明佛乘是存在的。比如最初的教義闡明佛乘是存在的，到《法華經》也闡明佛乘是存在的。因為始終都闡明佛乘是存在的，所以不必尋找。問：什麼東西障礙了佛乘？答：《大智度論》既然以六度（dana paramita, sila paramita, ksanti paramita, virya paramita, dhyana paramita, prajna paramita）為大乘的本體，那麼六種弊病（慳貪、毀戒、嗔恚、懈怠、散亂、愚癡）就是障礙。如果從『乘』有運載出去的意義來說，那麼執著生死就是障礙。如果從『乘』有廣大義來說，那麼狹隘和低劣就是障礙。如果因為出世的無所得的六度，所以能夠動身出去，那麼有所得的六度就是共同的障礙，六種弊病就是個別的障礙。譬喻中說三車在門外，這是總體的說法。按照以前的說法，二乘（sravaka-yana, pratyeka-buddha-yana）的車在三界（trailokya）的正使（煩惱）門外，佛果在習氣無知門外。二乘人，以正使的界限作為門，佛以無知習氣的界限作為門。過去說二乘人窮盡無生智，在三界正使門外。現在二乘人斷盡正使，卻看不見車，所以才要尋找。過去說佛果在習氣無知門外，現在菩薩斷盡正使，習氣無知也就窮盡了，這樣就成佛了，也不需要尋找了。問：什麼時候尋找車呢？答：舊的說法是，得到阿羅漢（arhat）之後，《法華經》之前有尋找。又有人提問：如果沒說法華經就已經產生疑惑，舍利弗（Sariputra）得到果位后，應該說『我現在對於智慧疑惑，不能明白這是究竟法還是所行之道』，難道要等到《法華經》才會有這種解釋和尋找嗎？所以現在說明，要等待《法華經》才尋找。接下來討論一乘的壽命和果報。有人說，沒有闡明常住。又有人提問：如果度化了五百弟子而還沒有常住，也應該沒有度化五百弟子，那就應該是常。如果沒度化就非常，那麼已經度化了，就是常了。又經中說佛度化了五百弟子，卻說沒有度化，佛過去說度化了三百弟子，也應該沒有度化。如果過去說度化了三百弟子，佛確實度化了，那麼現在也應該確實度化了五百弟子。如果順應經文的說法，確實度化了五百弟子，那麼就已經免除了三相（生、住、滅），為什麼說非常呢？現在所解釋的是

【English Translation】 English version The original was once present but is now absent, hence the search. If it were present both in the past and now, there would be no need to search. Examining the sutras of both the Small Vehicle (Hinayana) and the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) from beginning to end, they all clarify that the Buddha Vehicle (Buddha-yana) exists. For example, the initial teachings clarify that the Buddha Vehicle exists, and the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Pundarika Sutra) also clarifies that the Buddha Vehicle exists. Because it is consistently clarified that the Buddha Vehicle exists, there is no need to search. Question: What obstructs the Buddha Vehicle? Answer: Since the Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra (Mahayana Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom) considers the Six Perfections (dana paramita, sila paramita, ksanti paramita, virya paramita, dhyana paramita, prajna paramita) as the essence of the Great Vehicle, then the Six Defilements (stinginess, violation of precepts, anger, laziness, distraction, and ignorance) are the obstructions. If we take 'vehicle' to mean carrying out, then attachment to birth and death is the obstruction. If we take 'vehicle' to mean vast and expansive, then narrowness and inferiority are the obstructions. If the Six Perfections of non-attachment to the world enable one to move forward, then the Six Perfections with attachment are a common obstruction, and the Six Defilements are individual obstructions. The analogy of the three carts outside the gate is a general statement. According to the former interpretation, the vehicles of the Two Vehicles (sravaka-yana, pratyeka-buddha-yana) are outside the gate of the fundamental afflictions (kleshas) of the Three Realms (trailokya), and the Buddha Fruit is outside the gate of habitual ignorance. For the followers of the Two Vehicles, the boundary of fundamental afflictions is the gate; for the Buddha, the boundary of habitual ignorance is the gate. In the past, it was said that the followers of the Two Vehicles, having exhausted their wisdom of non-birth, are outside the gate of the fundamental afflictions of the Three Realms. Now, the followers of the Two Vehicles have exhausted their fundamental afflictions but do not see the cart, hence the search. In the past, it was said that the Buddha Fruit is outside the gate of habitual ignorance; now, the Bodhisattvas have exhausted their fundamental afflictions, and habitual ignorance is also exhausted, thus they attain Buddhahood and there is no need to search. Question: When does the search for the cart occur? Answer: The old explanation is that the search occurs after attaining Arhatship (arhat) but before the Lotus Sutra. Another question arises: If doubt arises before the Lotus Sutra is preached, then Sariputra, after attaining the fruit, should say, 'I am now doubtful about wisdom, unable to understand whether this is the ultimate Dharma or the path to be followed.' Why wait until the Lotus Sutra to have this explanation and search? Therefore, it is now clarified that the search awaits the Lotus Sutra. Next, we discuss the lifespan and fruition of the One Vehicle (Ekayana). Some say that permanence has not been clarified. Another question arises: If one has not yet attained permanence after liberating five hundred disciples, then one should not have liberated five hundred disciples, which would mean it is permanent. If not liberating is impermanent, then liberating is permanent. Furthermore, the sutra says that the Buddha liberated five hundred disciples but says that they have not been liberated. If the Buddha said in the past that he liberated three hundred disciples, then they should not have been liberated either. If the Buddha truly liberated three hundred disciples in the past, then he should truly liberate five hundred disciples now. If we follow the sutra's statement and truly liberate five hundred disciples, then we have already avoided the three characteristics (arising, abiding, ceasing). Why say it is impermanent? What is now explained is

。壽量品亦具明三身。法華論云。王宮現生伽耶成佛。名為化佛。久已成佛乃至復倍上數故名為報佛。如實知見三界之相無有生死。若退若出明法身佛。但三身不同。若法華論明三身者。以佛性為法身。修行顯佛性為報佛。化眾生義為化身。若攝大乘論所明。隱名如來藏。顯名為法身耳。此二皆名法身。就應身中自開為二。化菩薩名報身。化二乘名化身。或云。化地上名報身。化地前名化身。地論法華論。是菩提留支所出。攝大乘。是真諦三藏所翻。此三部皆天親之所述作。而明義有異者。或當譯人不體其意。今欲融者。會眾經及論。或二身或三身或四身。今總束為四句。一合本跡。如金光明經。但辨一本跡也。故云佛真法身猶如虛空應物現形如水中月。二開本開跡如此。大凡論明有四佛。開本為二身。一法身二報身。法身即佛性。報身謂修因滿跡。為二身化菩薩名舍那。化二乘名釋迦也。三開本合跡。如地論法華論所明。開本謂二身。謂佛性是法身。佛性顯為報身。四開跡合本。如攝大乘論所明。合佛性及佛性顯皆名法身。開跡身為二。化菩薩名舍那。化二乘名釋迦。此皆經論隨義說之不違。亦皆不體其意故起諍論耳。若常無常者。別而為言。法應二身為常。化身無常。通而為言。三身俱常俱無常。化身以大悲為體

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "《壽量品》也詳細闡明了佛的三身（Trikaya）。《法華論》中說：在王宮示現出生，在伽耶（Gaya，古印度城市，佛陀在此成道）成就佛果，這稱為化佛（Nirmanakaya，應化身）。很久以前就已經成佛，乃至比這還要久遠無數倍，因此稱為報佛（Sambhogakaya，報身）。如實地知見三界的真相，沒有生死，沒有退沒，沒有出現，這闡明了法身佛（Dharmakaya，法身）。但三身有所不同。如果《法華論》闡明三身，那麼就以佛性為法身，修行顯現佛性為報佛，教化眾生的作用為化身。如果按照《攝大乘論》所闡明的，隱沒時名為如來藏（Tathagatagarbha），顯現時名為法身。這二者都名為法身。在應身（化身）中又分為二：教化菩薩名為報身，教化聲聞緣覺二乘名為化身。或者說，教化地上菩薩名為報身，教化地前凡夫名為化身。《地論》和《法華論》是菩提留支（Bodhiruci，北魏時期來華的印度僧人）所翻譯的，《攝大乘論》是真諦三藏（Paramartha，南朝時期來華的印度僧人）所翻譯的。這三部論典都是天親（Vasubandhu，古印度佛教思想家）所著，但闡明的意義有所不同，或許是翻譯者沒有領會其中的意思。現在想要融合這些觀點，會合眾經和論典，或者說二身，或者說三身，或者說四身，現在總括為四句：一、合本跡（本源與示現的軌跡）。如《金光明經》，只辨明一本跡，所以說佛的真法身猶如虛空，應物現形如水中月。二、開本開跡。如《大凡論》闡明有四佛，開本為二身：一法身，二報身。法身即佛性，報身是指修行圓滿的示現。分為二身，教化菩薩名為盧舍那佛（Vairocana），教化二乘名為釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni）。三、開本合跡。如《地論》、《法華論》所闡明，開本為二身，即佛性是法身，佛性顯現為報身。四、開跡合本。如《攝大乘論》所闡明，合佛性以及佛性顯現都名為法身，開跡身為二：教化菩薩名為盧舍那佛，教化二乘名為釋迦牟尼佛。這些都是經論隨著意義而說的，並不矛盾，也都是因為沒有領會其中的意思才引起爭論。如果說常與無常，分別來說，法身和應身是常，化身是無常。總括來說，三身都是常，也都是無常。化身以大悲為本體。", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "",

故是常。法身有隱顯故。義說無常。應身始起義。是無常。金光明經云應化二身無常者。開跡合本。問三身有幾名耶。答經論不同。法身舍那身釋迦身。亦名法身報身化身。亦名法身應身化身。又名佛所見身菩薩所見身二乘凡夫所見身。法身亦名自性身。又名法性身。問若如是者應有六身八身。應有一佛身本跡二身。何故但明三身耶。答依法華論。二身為自德。化身為化他德。攝論法身為自德。二身為化他德。若爾法身為自德。化身為化他德。應身亦自亦化他。故立三身。亦可。法身為體。報身為相。化身為用。體相用故立三身也。

涅槃義三門　一釋名門　二辨體門　三八倒門

涅槃者。蓋是安心之本宅。凡聖所同歸。故肇公云。九流於是乎交歸。群聖於是乎冥會。諸方等經。亦盛談此說。摩訶言大多勝。而大有二種。教大理大。理大者。文言。所言大者。名之曰常。莫先為相。涅槃有二家。一云有翻。二云無翻。無翻有四家。一云佛在西國涅槃。東土無有此語。故無翻。二云涅槃一名含于眾名。其猶一音含無量音故。一音說法以異類各解。三曰涅槃一名含于眾義。故有常樂我凈等。四云涅槃一名不含眾名。亦不含眾義。但以涅槃一名通名諸法。其若先陀波一名四實。同無翻。有翻六家。一云無為。二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所以說是常。法身有隱沒和顯現的緣故，從義理上說就是無常。應身開始顯現的意義，是無常。《金光明經》說應身和化身是無常的，是開顯事蹟而合歸於根本。問：三身有幾種名稱呢？答：經論中的說法不同。法身、舍那身（Vairocana-kaya，毗盧遮那佛身）、釋迦身（Sakyamuni-kaya，釋迦牟尼佛身），也稱為法身、報身（Sambhogakaya，報身佛）、化身（Nirmanakaya，化身佛），也稱為法身、應身（應化身）、化身，又名佛所見身、菩薩所見身、二乘（聲聞和緣覺）凡夫所見身。法身也稱為自性身，又名法性身。問：如果這樣說，應該有六身、八身，應該有一佛身和本跡二身，為什麼只說明三身呢？答：依據《法華論》，報身和法身為自受用之德，化身為化他之德。《攝大乘論》說，法身為自受用之德，報身和化身為化他之德。如果這樣，法身為自受用之德，化身為化他之德，應身既是自受用也是化他。所以建立三身。也可以說，法身為體，報身為相，化身為用，因為體、相、用而建立三身。

涅槃的意義有三門：一、解釋名稱門；二、辨明本體門；三、八倒門（顛倒見）。

涅槃，大概是安心的根本歸宿，凡夫和聖人共同歸向的地方。所以肇法師說：『九流（九種學術流派）在這裡交匯歸宿，眾聖在這裡默默會合。』諸方等經（大乘經典），也盛大地談論這種說法。《摩訶衍論》說大多勝，而大有兩種：教大和理大。理大，從文言上說，所說的大，稱之為常，沒有比這更優先的相狀。關於涅槃，有兩家觀點：一說有翻譯，一說沒有翻譯。沒有翻譯的有四家觀點：一說佛在西國說涅槃，東土沒有這個詞語，所以沒有翻譯。二說涅槃一個名稱包含眾多名稱，就像一個聲音包含無量聲音一樣，一個聲音說法，不同的種類各自理解。三說涅槃一個名稱包含眾多意義，所以有常、樂、我、凈等。四說涅槃一個名稱不包含眾多名稱，也不包含眾多意義，只是用涅槃一個名稱來通稱諸法，就像先陀婆（Saindhava，古印度地名，也指產於該地的馬、鹽等）一個名稱代表四種實物一樣，都屬於沒有翻譯。有翻譯的有六家觀點：一說是無為，二說是滅度。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is said to be constant. Because the Dharmakaya (法身) has concealment and manifestation, it is said to be impermanent in terms of meaning. The meaning of the initial arising of the Response Body (應身) is impermanence. The Suvarnaprabhasottama Sutra (金光明經) says that the Response Body and the Transformation Body (化身) are impermanent, which means revealing the traces and uniting with the root. Question: How many names does the Trikaya (三身) have? Answer: The scriptures and treatises differ. Dharmakaya, Vairocana-kaya (舍那身), and Sakyamuni-kaya (釋迦身) are also called Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya (報身), and Nirmanakaya (化身). They are also called Dharmakaya, Response Body (應身), and Transformation Body. They are also named the body seen by the Buddhas, the body seen by the Bodhisattvas, and the body seen by the two vehicles (聲聞 and 緣覺) and ordinary beings. The Dharmakaya is also called the Svabhavikakaya (自性身), and also called the Dharmata-kaya (法性身). Question: If that is the case, there should be six or eight bodies, there should be one Buddha body and two bodies of origin and traces. Why only explain the Trikaya? Answer: According to the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論), the Reward Body and Dharmakaya are virtues for self-benefit, and the Transformation Body is a virtue for benefiting others. The Mahayana-samgraha (攝大乘論) says that the Dharmakaya is a virtue for self-benefit, and the Reward Body and Transformation Body are virtues for benefiting others. If so, the Dharmakaya is a virtue for self-benefit, the Transformation Body is a virtue for benefiting others, and the Response Body is both for self-benefit and benefiting others. Therefore, the Trikaya is established. It can also be said that the Dharmakaya is the substance, the Reward Body is the form, and the Transformation Body is the function. The Trikaya is established because of substance, form, and function.

The meaning of Nirvana has three aspects: 1. Explanation of the name; 2. Discernment of the substance; 3. The Eight Reversals (八倒).

Nirvana is probably the fundamental abode of peace of mind, the common destination of ordinary beings and sages. Therefore, Master Zhao (肇公) said: 'The nine streams (九流) converge and return here, and the saints silently meet here.' The Vaipulya Sutras (方等經) also extensively discuss this saying. The Mahayana (摩訶衍論) says that it is mostly superior, and there are two kinds of greatness: the greatness of teaching and the greatness of principle. The greatness of principle, in terms of written language, what is said to be great is called constant, and there is no prior characteristic. Regarding Nirvana, there are two schools of thought: one says there is translation, and the other says there is no translation. There are four schools of thought that say there is no translation: one says that the Buddha spoke of Nirvana in the Western Regions, and there is no such word in the Eastern Lands, so there is no translation. The second says that the name Nirvana contains many names, just as one sound contains countless sounds, and one sound speaks the Dharma, and different kinds understand it differently. The third says that the name Nirvana contains many meanings, so there are permanence, bliss, self, purity, etc. The fourth says that the name Nirvana does not contain many names, nor does it contain many meanings, but simply uses the name Nirvana to generally refer to all dharmas, just as the name Saindhava (先陀婆) represents four realities, all belonging to no translation. There are six schools of thought that say there is translation: one says it is non-action (無為), and the second says it is extinction (滅度).

云無累。三云解脫。四云寂滅。五但云滅。六云滅度。若言涅槃不翻者。漢地眾生應無利益。二者大本云大覺世尊將欲涅槃。六卷當此文處。云大牟尼尊今當滅度。經既有翻。云何不翻。今同有翻第六家。但彼一向有翻。今明。相待涅槃有翻。絕待涅槃不可翻也。光宅云法滅人度。今明。若人度法亦應度。生死涅槃。人法俱有。亦應言人滅法度。開善云。滅度之名皆目無法。度言永滅。今明。若凡夫滅不永滅故不明度。暫滅故名滅。亦應言暫度故名度。靈正云。滅主于無。度目有法。舉斷德目妙有。圓體不生煩惱為涅槃。今明。若不生煩惱名涅槃者。不由智滅而名涅槃耶。今明。涅槃離四句。中道正觀。永勉為正度。將人帖之。目人將法。帖之目法。至論度非人非法。此是正度。而此正法。離有所得而假名義。名為正度。涅槃無名。強為立名也。

辨體第二。靈正云。涅槃體者法身是也。尋此法身更非遠物。即昔神明成今法身。神明既是生死萬累之體。法身亦是涅槃萬德之體。今明不然。以用為體。不及涅槃深體。今以中道正法為涅槃體。開善云。總明萬德體無累為滅度。而經初明三德者。簡異昔日二種涅槃。有餘時。身智在解脫不滿。無餘時。解脫滿身智不在。今日涅槃身智在解脫。滿三德之中。法身為體。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云無累（沒有累贅）。三云解脫（從三種束縛中解脫）。四云寂滅（四種煩惱止息）。五但云滅（僅僅說是滅除）。六云滅度（超越滅除）。如果說涅槃（Nirvana，解脫輪迴的境界）不翻譯，漢地（中國）的眾生應該無法獲得利益。其次，《大本經》（Mahaparinirvana Sutra）中說大覺世尊（Greatly Awakened World-Honored One，指佛陀）將要涅槃，六卷本對應此處的經文說大牟尼尊（Great Sage，指佛陀）現在應當滅度。既然經文已經有翻譯，為什麼說不翻譯呢？現在同樣有翻譯的第六種說法。但他們一向都有翻譯，現在說明，相對的涅槃可以翻譯，絕對的涅槃不可翻譯。光宅（指光宅寺）說，法滅人度。現在說明，如果人度，法也應該度。生死和涅槃，人和法都存在，也應該說人滅法度。開善（指開善寺）說，滅度和名稱都指沒有法，度是指永遠滅除。現在說明，如果凡夫的滅不是永遠的滅，所以不明說度。暫時的滅叫做滅，也應該說暫時的度叫做度。靈正（指靈正寺）說，滅主要在於無，度是指有法。舉出斷除煩惱的功德，顯現妙有。圓滿的本體不生煩惱，這叫做涅槃。現在說明，如果不生煩惱就叫做涅槃，難道不是因為智慧滅除煩惱才叫做涅槃嗎？現在說明，涅槃遠離四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無），是中道正觀。永遠勉力修行是真正的解脫。將人貼附於其上，稱之為人；將法貼附於其上，稱之為法。至於說到度既非人也非法，這才是真正的解脫。而這種正法，遠離有所得的執著，而假借名義，稱之為真正的解脫。涅槃本無名，勉強為它建立名稱罷了。辨體第二。靈正（指靈正寺）說，涅槃的本體就是法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）。尋找這個法身，並非遙遠之物，就是過去的神明成就了現在的法身。神明既然是生死萬般累贅的本體，法身也是涅槃萬種功德的本體。現在說明並非如此。以作用為本體，不及涅槃深奧的本體。現在以中道正法為涅槃的本體。開善（指開善寺）說，總的來說，萬德的本體沒有累贅就是滅度。而經文一開始就說明三德（法身、般若、解脫），是爲了區別於過去的兩種涅槃。有餘涅槃時，身智存在，但解脫不圓滿；無餘涅槃時，解脫圓滿，但身智不存在。現在的涅槃，身智存在，解脫圓滿。在三德之中，法身是本體。

【English Translation】 English version: Cloud without accumulation. Three clouds of liberation (deliverance from three bondages). Four clouds of quiescence (cessation of four afflictions). Five only say extinction. Six say passing into extinction. If it is said that Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of rebirth) is not translated, then the sentient beings in Han lands (China) should not receive any benefit. Secondly, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says that the Greatly Awakened World-Honored One (referring to the Buddha) is about to enter Nirvana; the six-fascicle version corresponding to this passage says that the Great Sage (referring to the Buddha) should now pass into extinction. Since the scripture already has a translation, why say that it is not translated? Now there is also the sixth interpretation that has a translation. But they have always had translations; now it is explained that relative Nirvana can be translated, while absolute Nirvana cannot be translated. Guangzhai (referring to Guangzhai Temple) says that the Dharma is extinguished and people are delivered. Now it is explained that if people are delivered, then the Dharma should also be delivered. In birth and death and Nirvana, both people and Dharma exist; it should also be said that people are extinguished and the Dharma is delivered. Kaishan (referring to Kaishan Temple) says that the names of extinction and deliverance both refer to the absence of Dharma; deliverance means eternal extinction. Now it is explained that if the extinction of ordinary beings is not eternal extinction, then deliverance is not clearly stated. Temporary extinction is called extinction; it should also be said that temporary deliverance is called deliverance. Lingzheng (referring to Lingzheng Temple) says that extinction mainly lies in non-existence, while deliverance refers to the existence of Dharma. Raising the merit of cutting off afflictions reveals wondrous existence. The perfect essence does not give rise to afflictions; this is called Nirvana. Now it is explained that if not giving rise to afflictions is called Nirvana, then is it not because wisdom extinguishes afflictions that it is called Nirvana? Now it is explained that Nirvana is apart from the four statements (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence); it is the Middle Way correct view. Eternally striving in practice is true deliverance. Attaching people to it, it is called people; attaching Dharma to it, it is called Dharma. As for saying that deliverance is neither person nor Dharma, this is true deliverance. And this true Dharma is apart from the attachment to what is attained, and borrows names and meanings, calling it true deliverance. Nirvana has no name; it is forced to establish a name for it. Distinguishing the Essence, Part Two. Lingzheng (referring to Lingzheng Temple) says that the essence of Nirvana is the Dharmakaya (the Dharma body of the Buddha). Searching for this Dharmakaya, it is not something far away; it is the past spiritual intelligence that has achieved the present Dharmakaya. Since spiritual intelligence is the essence of the myriad burdens of birth and death, the Dharmakaya is also the essence of the myriad merits of Nirvana. Now it is explained that this is not so. Taking function as the essence does not reach the profound essence of Nirvana. Now the Middle Way correct Dharma is taken as the essence of Nirvana. Kaishan (referring to Kaishan Temple) says that, in general, the essence of myriad virtues without accumulation is extinction and deliverance. And the scripture initially explains the three virtues (Dharmakaya, Prajna, Liberation) in order to distinguish them from the two kinds of Nirvana in the past. In Nirvana with remainder, the body and wisdom exist, but liberation is not complete; in Nirvana without remainder, liberation is complete, but the body and wisdom do not exist. In the present Nirvana, the body and wisdom exist, and liberation is complete. Among the three virtues, the Dharmakaya is the essence.

波若解脫為用。今明。萬德三德為體者。離此無別涅槃用望。若言法身為體。無有萬德。云何是涅槃體。今明。涅槃體者。正法為體。而正法絕能所四句百非。故中論涅槃品云。有亦非涅槃。無亦非涅槃。亦有亦無非有非無亦非涅槃。無得無至。無得者非因果所得。無至者無處可至。開善云。凡夫不會不冥。初地以上亦會亦冥。佛果冥而不會。又云。金剛以還會而不冥。佛果亦會亦冥。今明。若初地以上冥義。應常。亦常亦無常俱有。若佛果冥一者。為智一為境一。一何所目。若智成境者無智耶。彼云。至亡彌存。至亡義成一。彌存義度眾生。彼云。初地以上。稱境而智是會義。而有無當方所不得冥一。佛果萬累永絕。無有方所故冥。若成一者。無有度眾生義。彌存不成。今明。波若無知故冥。無所不知故彌存。為緣故冥。為緣故彌存。非定有冥存。地論云。性凈方便凈涅槃。性凈涅槃。是本有理顯現名性凈涅槃。緣修萬德名方便凈涅槃。二涅槃體別異。今明。二涅槃體無別。非一非異。非亦一亦異。絕四句為涅槃體。成實師云。本有始有涅槃體一。若一者為始有一為本有一。何處離本有始有。別有涅槃一也。今明。于本有詺始有。始有詺本有。非離本有有始有。非離始有名本有。離四句名本有始有二涅槃體也。地論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本以般若解脫為用。現在闡明，萬德和三德為本體，離開這些就沒有其他的涅槃作用可以期望。如果說法身是本體，就沒有萬德，怎麼能說是涅槃的本體呢？現在闡明，涅槃的本體，正是正法為本體。而正法超越了能與所、四句和百非。所以《中論·涅槃品》說：『有也不是涅槃，無也不是涅槃，亦有亦無、非有非無，都不是涅槃。』無所得，無所至。無所得，不是因果所得；無所至，是沒有地方可以到達。開善說：『凡夫不會也不冥。初地以上的菩薩亦會亦冥。佛果是冥而不會。』又說：『金剛智以還會而不冥。佛果是亦會亦冥。』現在闡明，如果初地以上的菩薩有冥的含義，應該是常，或者亦常亦無常，或者俱有。如果佛果的冥是一，那麼是智一還是境一？一是指什麼？如果智成就了境，就沒有智了嗎？他們說：『至亡而彌存。』至亡的意義是成就一，彌存的意義是度化眾生。他們說：『初地以上的菩薩，稱合於境的智慧是會的意義，而有無、當方所都不能得到冥一。佛果萬種牽累永遠斷絕，沒有方所所以冥。』如果成就一，就沒有度化眾生的意義，彌存就不能成立。現在闡明，般若無知所以冥，無所不知所以彌存。爲了緣故冥，爲了緣故彌存。不是一定有冥存。地論說：『性凈涅槃和方便凈涅槃。性凈涅槃，是本有的理顯現，名為性凈涅槃。緣修萬德，名為方便凈涅槃。』兩種涅槃的本體有差別嗎？現在闡明，兩種涅槃的本體沒有差別，非一非異，非亦一亦異，超越四句就是涅槃的本體。成實師說：『本有涅槃和始有涅槃本體是一。』如果是一，那麼是始有一還是本有一？哪裡離開了本有和始有，另外有一個涅槃一呢？現在闡明，在本有上稱作始有，在始有上稱作本有，不是離開了本有有始有，不是離開了始有名為本有。離開四句，就名為本有和始有這兩種涅槃的本體。《地論》

【English Translation】 English version Prajna (wisdom) and liberation are its function. Now it is clarified that the myriad virtues (萬德, wàn dé) and the three virtues (三德, sān dé) are its substance. Apart from these, there is no other Nirvana (涅槃, niè pán) function to expect. If it is said that the Dharmakaya (法身, fǎ shēn) is the substance, then there are no myriad virtues. How can it be the substance of Nirvana? Now it is clarified that the substance of Nirvana is precisely the Right Dharma (正法, zhèng fǎ) as its substance. And the Right Dharma transcends the subject and object, the four propositions (四句, sì jù), and the hundred negations (百非, bǎi fēi). Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika (中論, zhōng lùn), in the chapter on Nirvana, says: 'Existence is not Nirvana, non-existence is not Nirvana, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, are not Nirvana.' There is no attainment, no arrival. No attainment means it is not attained by cause and effect; no arrival means there is nowhere to arrive. Kaishan (開善) said: 'Ordinary people neither understand nor are in the dark. Bodhisattvas (菩薩, pú sà) above the first ground (初地, chū dì) both understand and are in the dark. The Buddha-fruit (佛果, fó guǒ) is in the dark but does not understand.' He also said: 'Vajra-wisdom (金剛智, jīn gāng zhì) understands but is not in the dark. The Buddha-fruit both understands and is in the dark.' Now it is clarified that if Bodhisattvas above the first ground have the meaning of being in the dark, it should be permanent, or both permanent and impermanent, or both existing. If the darkness of the Buddha-fruit is one, then is it wisdom as one or realm as one? What does 'one' refer to? If wisdom completes the realm, is there no wisdom? They say: 'When the ultimate ceases, it endures.' The meaning of the ultimate ceasing is the accomplishment of oneness; the meaning of enduring is to liberate sentient beings. They say: 'Bodhisattvas above the first ground, the wisdom that accords with the realm is the meaning of understanding, but existence and non-existence, the proper location, cannot attain being in the dark as one. The Buddha-fruit is forever free from myriad entanglements, and there is no location, so it is in the dark.' If oneness is accomplished, there is no meaning of liberating sentient beings, and enduring cannot be established. Now it is clarified that Prajna (般若, bō rě) is without knowledge, so it is in the dark; it is without that which it does not know, so it endures. For the sake of conditions, it is in the dark; for the sake of conditions, it endures. It is not necessarily that there is darkness and endurance. The Dasabhumika Sutra (地論, dì lùn) says: 'The Nirvana of self-nature purity and the Nirvana of expedient purity. The Nirvana of self-nature purity is the manifestation of the inherent principle, called the Nirvana of self-nature purity. Cultivating myriad virtues through conditions is called the Nirvana of expedient purity.' Are the substances of the two Nirvanas different? Now it is clarified that the substances of the two Nirvanas are not different, neither one nor different, neither both one and different. Transcending the four propositions is the substance of Nirvana. The Tattvasiddhi School (成實師, chéng shí shī) says: 'The substance of the originally existent Nirvana and the newly existent Nirvana is one.' If it is one, then is it newly existent as one or originally existent as one? Where is there a separate Nirvana that is one, apart from the originally existent and the newly existent? Now it is clarified that the originally existent is called the newly existent, and the newly existent is called the originally existent. It is not that there is a newly existent apart from the originally existent, and it is not that there is an originally existent called the newly existent apart from the newly existent. Separating from the four propositions is called the substance of the two Nirvanas, the originally existent and the newly existent. Dasabhumika Sutra (地論, dì lùn)

師性凈涅槃有二種解。一云本有萬德。二云本無萬德。但是萬德體故言萬德。問修成涅槃假有萬德。正法涅槃有萬德不。答若有亦非。無亦非。四句皆非。故言無受名涅槃。五種不受名五不受三昧。問地論師性凈涅槃。成論師本有涅槃。今日正法涅槃有何異耶。答曰。地論師阿梨耶識。攝論師阿摩羅識。成論師成佛理顯現名為法身。定是有法故。以常為經宗。今明。中道為佛性。中道有何隱顯。若以常為經宗者。大論云。無常一邊常為一邊。非是常為究竟。純陀哀嘆。對生死苦無常。明佛果常樂。至后迦葉。涅槃非常非無常。非有非無。非因非果。今明。四句百非洞遣為涅槃體。常無常是用。諸法師。但得其用不識深體。但解涅槃。不同外道三師小乘二說方等四計。檀提婆羅門。計於此身即是涅槃。蓋明欲界為涅槃。阿羅羅仙人。計無想為涅槃。此計色界為涅槃。郁頭蘭弗。計非想為涅槃。三外道。以三有為涅槃。小乘二師者。毗曇計無為為涅槃。是常是善本有。在煩惱外。斷煩惱起得得之屬於行者。成論明涅槃。但是無法。大乘四種。一明涅槃是妙有為體。是世諦法。二云以空為涅槃。即是實相名第一義諦。三云涅槃非真非俗。出二諦外。四云超出四句方是涅槃。唯四師大明二義。成實明本有始有。地論師性凈方便

凈。攝論師四種涅槃。一本性寂滅涅槃。二有餘。三無餘。四無住處涅槃。法身故不住于生死。應化二身故不住于涅槃。次用無我真如理又三無性理。名無住處涅槃。諸師同釋。涅槃備於三德。謂法身般若解脫。所以三德為涅槃者。略有四種義。生死與涅槃相對。生死有三障。謂煩惱業苦。對報障故名法身。對業障故辨解脫。對煩惱障說于波若。二者欲顯如來三業自在。有法身故身業自在。具波若故口業自在。有解脫故意業自在。三者無境不照名為波若。無感不應名法身。無累不盡稱解脫故。三德為宗。四者為對二乘三德不圓。有身智解脫不足。解脫亦圓則無身智。故名如來三德圓備。成論云。佛果名妙有。若爾應是妙為。若妙故非為。亦妙故非有。彼云。有是法體。為即是相。佛果是法體之有。已離生滅相故。非是有為。並云。若涅槃離相故非為者。亦應離始故非生。若始起故名生。亦始起故名為。又並。若有而非為。亦應為而非有。成論師云。有四種生死。流來生死。分段生死。八地已上變易生死。七地中間生死。攝論師云。有七種生死。三界分段為三種。變易有四種。初二三地為方便生死。四五六地為因緣生死。七八九地為有有生死。第十地名無有生死。夫人經言。有漏業因四住為緣。感分段生死。無漏業因無

明住地為緣。感變易生死。今言方便生死。即是無明住地。因緣生死即是無漏業。有有生死即是生住二相。無有生死即是滅相。若通而為論。一一地皆具四種。地前三阿僧祇地地三阿僧祇三十三阿僧祇。今望經論無定。若言無量阿僧祇是小劫。言三十三阿僧祇是中劫。三阿僧祇劫成佛是大劫。有人言。從初發心斷五住煩惱。同粗同細。又言。地前斷四住煩惱。又攝論師。地前伏四住上心。初地已上方斷種子。成論師明。地前伏見諦。初地斷上品。二地斷中品。三地斷下品盡。四地斷修道上品。五地斷中品。六地斷下品盡。七地斷習氣。八地已上斷無明三品盡。今明。十信伏見一處住地。十解伏欲愛住地。十行伏色愛住地。十回向伏有愛住地。初地初心斷四住地盡。初地已上斷十重無明。地持論云。二障三處過。地前一向伏。初地至十地。斷煩惱障盡。從初地斷智障。至金剛心斷智障習氣。問與他家何異耶。答他家生死在此。涅槃在彼。眾生在生死。佛在涅槃。今明。生死即涅槃。故中論云。若求如來性。即是眾生性。求涅槃性。即是世間性。故經云。明無明愚者謂二。智者了達其性無二。若捨生死別取涅槃。是為愚人。不離生死。若知生死與涅槃無有差別。方得涅槃。他家前有煩惱。後起智慧斷彼煩惱。內外大小乘。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以無明住地（Avidya-sthiti，無明的駐留處）為因緣，會感得變易生死（parinama-marana，一種微細的生死）。現在所說的方便生死，就是指無明住地。因緣生死就是指無漏業（anasrava-karma，沒有煩惱的業）。有有生死，就是指生和住二相。無有生死，就是指滅相。如果通盤而論，每一地都具備四種（生死）。地前需要三個阿僧祇劫（asamkhya-kalpa，無數劫），地地需要三個阿僧祇劫，總共三十三個阿僧祇劫。現在參照經論，沒有定論。如果說無量阿僧祇劫是小劫，三十三個阿僧祇劫是中劫，三個阿僧祇劫成佛是大劫。有人說，從最初發心斷除五住煩惱（panca-vasa-klesa，五種根本煩惱），粗細煩惱同時斷除。也有人說，地前斷除四住煩惱（catuh-sthanika-klesa，四種煩惱）。《攝大乘論》（Mahayanasamgraha）的論師認為，地前只是伏住四住煩惱的上品心，初地以上才開始斷除種子。成實論師認為，地前伏住見諦（darsana-satya，見真理），初地斷上品，二地斷中品，三地斷下品斷盡，四地斷修道上品，五地斷中品，六地斷下品斷盡，七地斷習氣，八地以上斷無明三品斷盡。現在說明，十信位伏住見一處住地，十解位伏住欲愛住地，十行位伏住色愛住地，十回向位伏住有愛住地，初地初心斷四住地斷盡，初地以上斷十重無明。地持論說，二障（dve avarane，兩種障礙：煩惱障和所知障）在三個地方經過。地前一向伏住，初地到十地，斷煩惱障斷盡，從初地斷智障，到金剛心斷智障習氣。問：這與他們家（其他宗派）有什麼不同呢？答：他們家的生死在此，涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）在彼，眾生在生死中，佛在涅槃中。現在說明，生死即是涅槃。所以《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）說，如果尋求如來性（tathagata-dhatu，如來的本性），那就是眾生性；尋求涅槃性，那就是世間性。所以經中說，明與無明，愚者認為是二，智者了達其性無二。如果捨棄生死而另外求取涅槃，這是愚人。不離開生死，如果知道生死與涅槃沒有差別，才能證得涅槃。他們家先有煩惱，後起智慧斷除那些煩惱，無論內外大小乘都是如此。

【English Translation】 English version: Taking Avidya-sthiti (the dwelling place of ignorance) as the condition, one experiences parinama-marana (changeable death and rebirth). What is now referred to as expedient death and rebirth is precisely Avidya-sthiti. Conditioned death and rebirth refers to anasrava-karma (karma without outflows). 'Having existence' death and rebirth refers to the phases of arising and abiding. 'Having no existence' death and rebirth refers to the phase of cessation. If discussed comprehensively, each ground possesses all four (types of death and rebirth). Before the grounds, three asamkhya-kalpas (countless eons) are needed; ground by ground, three asamkhya-kalpas; totaling thirty-three asamkhya-kalpas. Now, referring to the sutras and treatises, there is no fixed conclusion. If it is said that immeasurable asamkhya-kalpas are small kalpas, thirty-three asamkhya-kalpas are middle kalpas, and three asamkhya-kalpas to attain Buddhahood are great kalpas. Some say that from the initial aspiration, the five klesas (panca-vasa-klesa, five fundamental afflictions) are severed, both coarse and subtle simultaneously. Others say that before the grounds, the four sthanika-klesas (catuh-sthanika-klesa, four afflictions) are severed. The Mahayanasamgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) masters believe that before the grounds, only the superior mind of the four sthanika-klesas is subdued, and only from the first ground onwards are the seeds severed. The Tattvasiddhi-sastra masters clarify that before the grounds, the darsana-satya (seeing the truth) is subdued; the first ground severs the superior grade, the second ground severs the middle grade, the third ground severs the inferior grade completely, the fourth ground severs the superior grade of cultivation, the fifth ground severs the middle grade, the sixth ground severs the inferior grade completely, the seventh ground severs habitual tendencies, and from the eighth ground onwards, the three grades of ignorance are severed completely. Now, it is clarified that the ten faiths subdue the dwelling place of seeing one aspect, the ten understandings subdue the dwelling place of desire-love, the ten practices subdue the dwelling place of form-love, the ten dedications subdue the dwelling place of existence-love, the initial mind of the first ground severs the four dwelling places completely, and from the first ground onwards, the ten layers of ignorance are severed. The Bodhisattvabhumi-sastra says that the two avarane (dve avarane, two obscurations: afflictive obscuration and cognitive obscuration) pass through three places. Before the grounds, they are always subdued; from the first ground to the tenth ground, the afflictive obscuration is severed completely; from the first ground, the cognitive obscuration is severed, and at the vajra-like mind, the habitual tendencies of the cognitive obscuration are severed. Question: How is this different from their school (other sects)? Answer: In their school, death and rebirth are here, nirvana (nirvana, extinction) is there, sentient beings are in death and rebirth, and Buddhas are in nirvana. Now, it is clarified that death and rebirth are nirvana. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) says, 'If one seeks the tathagata-dhatu (essence of the Thus-Come One), that is the nature of sentient beings; seeking the nature of nirvana, that is the nature of the world.' Therefore, the sutra says, 'Clarity and ignorance, fools consider them as two; the wise realize that their nature is not two.' If one abandons death and rebirth and seeks nirvana separately, that is foolish. Without leaving death and rebirth, if one knows that there is no difference between death and rebirth and nirvana, then one can attain nirvana. In their school, there are afflictions first, and then wisdom arises to sever those afflictions, whether in the inner, outer, greater, or lesser vehicles.

皆言有煩惱生而今斷滅。即煩惱不滅。今求煩惱。本自不生。今亦無滅。若能如是知。前念為無礙。后念為解脫。故能斷惑。外人見煩惱不煩惱二。即同明無明。愚者謂二。今明。煩惱不煩惱本無二相。故能斷惑。問何以得知。地前為分段。初地已上為變易耶。答涅槃云初地菩薩破二十五有得金剛三昧。法華論云初地以上有無雙照受變易身。若回小入大聲聞。從初發心受變易果報。問成論師云一向無實行聲聞。此義為理不耶。彼言。夫人經云三乘初業不愚於法故。答此義不然。一切經論。皆有聲聞法華經中。內秘菩薩行外現是聲聞者。權行聲聞。故權實二種聲聞。夫人經不愚於法者。是利根人。非是鈍根能爾也。

八倒第三。問經明三修八倒。何等是三修比丘耶。答三修者。一常無常。二苦樂。三我無我。常者凝然也。無常者遷流。樂者怡愈。苦者逼惱。我者性實。無我者不自在通稱。修者習義也。然此三種相對合辨。名為三修。離說即是六修。若具足而應是四修。離即八修。謂凈不凈。所以除凈不凈但明三修六修者。不凈觀是遠方便因中除不凈觀。故果中除凈觀。若對治八倒。應辨八修。因中苦無常無我不凈。果上取常樂我凈故八修。有人言。六修皆是俗觀。又言。果上三修。一向俗觀。因中前三修是俗。無

我是真。今明。通皆是俗皆是真。八倒者。前倒常樂我凈外道時起四倒。謂常倒樂倒我倒凈倒。佛破四倒故。說無常苦無我不凈。比丘佛果上更起苦無常無我不凈。更起后四倒。謂無常倒苦倒無我倒不凈倒。前倒后倒合論故有八倒。外道起生死計有常樂我凈。佛初說四諦破四倒。說生死中但有苦無常無我不凈無有常樂我凈。比丘聞此。非但生死苦無常無我不凈。佛果亦苦無常無我不凈。起后四倒故。涅槃云。但生死苦無常無我不凈。佛果是常樂我凈。破其佛果苦無常無我不凈故。有八修八倒。若外凡夫起八倒者。是見諦煩惱。若學人起八倒者。是修道煩惱。若羅漢起八倒者。是界外煩惱。八倒體者。謂三倒是也。一心倒二想倒三見倒。謂一切心了別是心倒。一切心想像皆是想倒。一切心決了名見倒。今所用也。生死中四倒。正迷生死無常苦。傍迷佛果常樂。果上四倒。正迷佛果常樂。傍迷生死無常苦。所以然者。計生死常。非但不識無常。亦不識常。計佛無常者。非但不識常。亦則不識無常。問若計常者。正迷無常。傍迷常法。計無常者。正迷常傍迷無常者。得言解無常之解即解常。解常之解即解無常不。答惑性浮慢。得言一惑兩迷。解性不漫。解無常解不解常。解常之解不解無常。起倒人者。外凡夫人起前四倒。入

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：我是真。今明。通通都是世俗，通通都是真理。八倒指的是：之前的四倒，即外道在執著于『常樂我凈』時產生的四種顛倒。這四倒分別是常倒、樂倒、我倒、凈倒。佛陀爲了破除這四倒，所以宣說無常、苦、無我、不凈。有些比丘在證得佛果后，反而又生起苦、無常、無我、不凈的觀念，從而產生了后四倒，即無常倒、苦倒、無我倒、不凈倒。將前四倒和后四倒合起來討論，所以總共有八倒。外道因為執著于生死輪迴，所以認為有常、樂、我、凈。佛陀最初宣說四諦，就是爲了破除這四倒，說明在生死輪迴中只有苦、無常、無我、不凈，而沒有常、樂、我、凈。有些比丘聽聞后，不僅認為生死是苦、無常、無我、不凈的，甚至認為佛果也是苦、無常、無我、不凈的，從而產生了后四倒。因此，《涅槃經》說，只有生死是苦、無常、無我、不凈的，而佛果是常、樂、我、凈的，以此來破除他們認為佛果是苦、無常、無我、不凈的錯誤觀念。所以，有八修和八倒的說法。如果外凡夫生起八倒，這是見諦煩惱。如果學人（指正在修行的人）生起八倒，這是修道煩惱。如果阿羅漢生起八倒，這是界外煩惱。八倒的本體，指的是三倒，即一心倒、二想倒、三見倒。所謂一切心的了別是心倒，一切心的想像是想倒，一切心的決斷了知名為見倒，這是現在所用的說法。生死中的四倒，主要是迷惑于生死的無常和苦，同時也間接迷惑于佛果的常和樂。果上的四倒，主要是迷惑于佛果的常和樂，同時也間接迷惑于生死的無常和苦。之所以這樣說，是因為執著于生死是常，不僅不認識無常，也不認識常。認為佛是無常的，不僅不認識常，也不認識無常。問：如果執著于常，主要是迷惑于無常，間接迷惑于常法。認為無常，主要是迷惑于常，間接迷惑于無常。那麼，可以說理解無常的理解就等於理解常，理解常的理解就等於理解無常嗎？答：迷惑的性質是浮躁和輕慢的，可以說一個迷惑包含兩種迷惑。而理解的性質不是輕慢的，理解無常的理解並不等於理解常，理解常的理解也不等於理解無常。生起顛倒的人，外凡夫人會生起前四倒，進入…… 我是真。今明。通皆是俗皆是真。八倒者。前倒常樂我凈外道時起四倒。謂常倒樂倒我倒凈倒。佛破四倒故。說無常苦無我不凈。比丘佛果上更起苦無常無我不凈。更起后四倒。謂無常倒苦倒無我倒不凈倒。前倒后倒合論故有八倒。外道起生死計有常樂我凈。佛初說四諦破四倒。說生死中但有苦無常無我不凈無有常樂我凈。比丘聞此。非但生死苦無常無我不凈。佛果亦苦無常無我不凈。起后四倒故。涅槃云。但生死苦無常無我不凈。佛果是常樂我凈。破其佛果苦無常無我不凈故。有八修八倒。若外凡夫起八倒者。是見諦煩惱。若學人起八倒者。是修道煩惱。若羅漢起八倒者。是界外煩惱。八倒體者。謂三倒是也。一心倒二想倒三見倒。謂一切心了別是心倒。一切心想像皆是想倒。一切心決了名見倒。今所用也。生死中四倒。正迷生死無常苦。傍迷佛果常樂。果上四倒。正迷佛果常樂。傍迷生死無常苦。所以然者。計生死常。非但不識無常。亦不識常。計佛無常者。非但不識常。亦則不識無常。問若計常者。正迷無常。傍迷常法。計無常者。正迷常傍迷無常者。得言解無常之解即解常。解常之解即解無常不。答惑性浮慢。得言一惑兩迷。解性不漫。解無常解不解常。解常之解不解無常。起倒人者。外凡夫人起前四倒。入

【English Translation】 English version: I am real. Now and bright. All are mundane, all are true. The eight inversions are: the previous four inversions, which are the four inversions that arise when non-Buddhists cling to 'permanence, bliss, self, and purity'. These four inversions are the inversion of permanence, the inversion of bliss, the inversion of self, and the inversion of purity. The Buddha, in order to break these four inversions, therefore proclaimed impermanence, suffering, non-self, and impurity. Some Bhikkhus, after attaining Buddhahood, instead give rise to the concepts of suffering, impermanence, non-self, and impurity, thus producing the latter four inversions, which are the inversion of impermanence, the inversion of suffering, the inversion of non-self, and the inversion of impurity. Combining the former four inversions and the latter four inversions for discussion, there are a total of eight inversions. Non-Buddhists, because they cling to the cycle of birth and death, believe that there are permanence, bliss, self, and purity. The Buddha initially proclaimed the Four Noble Truths in order to break these four inversions, explaining that in the cycle of birth and death there are only suffering, impermanence, non-self, and impurity, and there are no permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Some Bhikkhus, after hearing this, not only believe that birth and death are suffering, impermanent, non-self, and impure, but even believe that Buddhahood is also suffering, impermanent, non-self, and impure, thus producing the latter four inversions. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says that only birth and death are suffering, impermanent, non-self, and impure, while Buddhahood is permanent, blissful, self, and pure, in order to break their erroneous notion that Buddhahood is suffering, impermanent, non-self, and impure. Therefore, there is the saying of eight cultivations and eight inversions. If ordinary non-Buddhists give rise to the eight inversions, this is the affliction of seeing the truth. If a learner (referring to someone who is practicing) gives rise to the eight inversions, this is the affliction of cultivation. If an Arhat gives rise to the eight inversions, this is the affliction beyond the realm. The substance of the eight inversions refers to the three inversions, which are the inversion of mind, the inversion of thought, and the inversion of view. The so-called distinguishing of all minds is the inversion of mind, the imagining of all minds is the inversion of thought, and the decisive knowing of all minds is called the inversion of view, which is the current usage. The four inversions in birth and death mainly delude about the impermanence and suffering of birth and death, and also indirectly delude about the permanence and bliss of Buddhahood. The four inversions on the fruit mainly delude about the permanence and bliss of Buddhahood, and also indirectly delude about the impermanence and suffering of birth and death. The reason for saying this is that clinging to birth and death as permanent not only fails to recognize impermanence but also fails to recognize permanence. Thinking that the Buddha is impermanent not only fails to recognize permanence but also fails to recognize impermanence. Question: If one clings to permanence, one is mainly deluded about impermanence and indirectly deluded about the law of permanence. Thinking of impermanence, one is mainly deluded about permanence and indirectly deluded about impermanence. Then, can it be said that understanding the understanding of impermanence is equal to understanding permanence, and understanding the understanding of permanence is equal to understanding impermanence? Answer: The nature of delusion is frivolous and arrogant, and it can be said that one delusion contains two delusions. But the nature of understanding is not arrogant, and understanding the understanding of impermanence is not equal to understanding permanence, and understanding the understanding of permanence is not equal to understanding impermanence. Those who give rise to inversions, ordinary non-Buddhists will give rise to the former four inversions, entering...

內凡位不復起之。后四倒者。入內凡位。乃至羅漢起之。智度論云。三倒生時。前起想心後起見倒。此從輕至重。斷時前斷見倒后斷想心。四倒體者。婆沙云。以慧數為體。前倒是凡夫后倒是聖。合論具八倒也。外謂無常見常為倒。無常見無常不倒。今依中論。倒與不倒皆倒。前後八倒前後八行皆倒。故十六倒。常無常亦常亦無常非常非無常四句皆倒。我樂凈皆四句。皆生死十六倒。佛果上苦無常無我各四句。合十六倒。併合三十二倒。問前明斷伏。以何文證初地斷見諦與思惟。答十住論云。初地斷見諦盡。又斷三界思惟。問以何文證初地以上斷十重無明。答相續解脫經。云斷二十二愚。初地斷二愚。第十地斷二愚。金剛心斷二愚。合為二十二無明。攝論云斷十重無明。初地斷凡夫性無明。問何意初地斷凡夫性無明。答地前猶有習故。離二種我。未真證生法二空。初地以上。真證生法二空。凡夫性無明開為二。一者障一切法無明。二者潤三惡道無明。問何為人斷伏耶。答內凡夫伏惑。聖位斷也。有人言。十解六心為外凡夫。七心以上名內凡夫。今明。若就位退為論。十信六信為外凡夫。七信以上名內凡夫。若就發心為論。未入十信名外凡夫。十信初心名內凡夫。問為空智斷為有智斷。答經云。佛為增上慢人說斷煩惱。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本進入內凡位就不會再退轉。後面的四種顛倒，進入內凡位，乃至阿羅漢才會斷除。《智度論》說：『三種顛倒生起時，先起想心，後起見倒。』這是從輕到重。斷除時，先斷見倒，后斷想心。四倒的本體，《婆沙論》說：『以智慧為體。』前面的顛倒是凡夫，後面的顛倒是聖人。合起來說，就具備了八種顛倒。外道認為無常見常是顛倒，無常見無常不是顛倒。現在依照《中論》，顛倒與不顛倒都是顛倒。前後八倒，前後八行都是顛倒，所以有十六種顛倒。常、無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常這四句都是顛倒。我、樂、凈也各有四句，都是生死的十六種顛倒。佛果上的苦、無常、無我各有四句，合起來是十六種顛倒。總共是三十二種顛倒。問：前面說明斷除和降伏，用什麼經文證明初地斷除見諦和思惟？答：《十住論》說：『初地斷除見諦盡，又斷除三界思惟。』問：用什麼經文證明初地以上斷除十重無明？答：《相續解脫經》說：『斷除二十二愚。』初地斷除二愚，第十地斷除二愚，金剛心斷除二愚，合起來是二十二種無明。《攝論》說斷除十重無明，初地斷除凡夫性無明。問：為什麼初地斷除凡夫性無明？答：因為地前還有習氣，沒有真正證得生空和法空。初地以上，真正證得生空和法空。凡夫性無明分為二種：一種是障礙一切法的無明，一種是滋潤三惡道的無明。問：什麼是人斷伏呢？答：內凡夫降伏惑，聖位斷除。有人說，十解六心是外凡夫，七心以上稱為內凡夫。現在說明，如果就退位來說，十信六信是外凡夫，七信以上稱為內凡夫。如果就發心來說，未入十信是外凡夫，十信初心是內凡夫。問：用空智斷除還是用有智斷除？答：經中說，佛為增上慢人說斷除煩惱。

【English Translation】 English version Once entered into the Inner Ordinary position, one will not regress. The latter four inversions are eradicated by those who enter the Inner Ordinary position, up to the Arhats. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (智度論) says: 'When the three inversions arise, the mind of conception arises first, followed by the inversion of views.' This is from light to heavy. When eradicating, the inversion of views is eradicated first, followed by the mind of conception. The substance of the four inversions, according to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論), is 'wisdom as its substance.' The former inversions belong to ordinary beings, the latter to sages. Combined, they constitute the eight inversions. Externalists consider seeing permanence in impermanence as an inversion, while seeing impermanence in impermanence is not an inversion. Now, according to the Madhyamaka-karika (中論), both inversion and non-inversion are inversions. The preceding and following eight inversions, the preceding and following eight practices are all inversions, hence the sixteen inversions. The four statements of permanence, impermanence, both permanence and impermanence, neither permanence nor impermanence are all inversions. The same applies to self, joy, and purity, each having four statements, all being the sixteen inversions of samsara. In the Buddha-fruit, suffering, impermanence, and non-self each have four statements, totaling sixteen inversions. Combined, there are thirty-two inversions. Question: Earlier, it was explained about cutting off and subduing. What scripture proves that the first bhumi (地, stage of Bodhisattva) cuts off the darśana-satya (見諦, truth of seeing) and bhāvanā (思惟, cultivation)? Answer: The Dasabhumika-sutra (十住論) says: 'The first bhumi cuts off the darśana-satya completely, and also cuts off the bhāvanā of the three realms.' Question: What scripture proves that the first bhumi and above cut off the ten layers of ignorance? Answer: The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (相續解脫經) says: 'Cutting off twenty-two kinds of foolishness.' The first bhumi cuts off two kinds of foolishness, the tenth bhumi cuts off two kinds of foolishness, the Vajra-like Samadhi (金剛心) cuts off two kinds of foolishness, totaling twenty-two kinds of ignorance. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝論) says that it cuts off ten layers of ignorance. The first bhumi cuts off the ignorance of the nature of ordinary beings. Question: Why does the first bhumi cut off the ignorance of the nature of ordinary beings? Answer: Because before the bhumi, there are still habits, and one has not truly realized the emptiness of self and phenomena. From the first bhumi onwards, one truly realizes the emptiness of self and phenomena. The ignorance of the nature of ordinary beings is divided into two types: one is the ignorance that obstructs all dharmas (法, teachings), and the other is the ignorance that nourishes the three evil paths. Question: What is meant by 'human cutting off and subduing'? Answer: Inner ordinary beings subdue afflictions, while the position of sages cuts them off. Some say that the ten understandings and six minds are outer ordinary beings, while seven minds and above are called inner ordinary beings. Now, it is explained that if considering regression in position, the ten faiths and six faiths are outer ordinary beings, while seven faiths and above are called inner ordinary beings. If considering the arising of the mind, those who have not entered the ten faiths are outer ordinary beings, while the initial mind of the ten faiths is an inner ordinary being. Question: Is it cut off with empty wisdom or with existent wisdom? Answer: The sutra says that the Buddha speaks of cutting off afflictions for those with increased pride.

實不斷也。又經云斷。何者是也。若言有煩惱不能斷。無煩惱何所斷也。若言斷者。為見惑斷。若見惑斷者。即明闇並。云何斷煩惱。若不見懸斷者。天竺燃燈。振旦闇皆破。如此推之。即畢竟不斷。如此了悟即是斷也。有所得人。空解斷有解不斷。今明。有所得人。空有俱不斷。無所得空有俱斷。自有中伏假斷。如求性有無不可得故名非有非無。但伏性有無猶未斷也。次明假有假無。即性有無始斷。既識假有假無。知畢竟無有定性有無。故名假斷。次云假伏中斷者。對性有無。說假有無。以伏性有無。故云假伏。悟假有不有假無不無為中道。前性有無惑斷故名假伏中斷。亦得假伏假斷中伏中斷。如識假有無即性有無永斷。名為假斷。自有識假有無但伏性也。問金剛心斷惑盡耶。答開善云。佛地斷惑盡。夫人經云佛智所斷。佛菩提智所斷。今明。金剛心斷惑盡。夫人經云斷者。解脫道遮未來不生。正是金剛心無礙道中斷。問得言地前為無礙初地為解脫不。答開善云爾。今謂不然。初地自開為無礙解脫。問金剛為轉為謝耶。答毗曇則謝。成實則轉。金剛若謝別有佛果。云何波若變名薩波若。轉金剛成者。云何轉無常而後常。今所明者。應有轉謝及不轉不謝。若了悟金剛本不生滅。即金剛是佛。故不轉不謝。經云。一切眾

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "實不斷也。又經云斷。何者是也？若言有煩惱不能斷，無煩惱何所斷也？若言斷者，為見惑（錯誤的見解產生的迷惑）斷。若見惑斷者，即明暗並存。云何斷煩惱？若不見懸斷者，天竺（印度古稱）燃燈，震旦（中國古稱）暗皆破。如此推之，即畢竟不斷。如此了悟即是斷也。有所得人，空解斷有解不斷。今明，有所得人，空有俱不斷。無所得空有俱斷。自有中伏假斷，如求性有無不可得故名非有非無。但伏性有無猶未斷也。次明假有假無，即性有無始斷。既識假有假無，知畢竟無有定性有無，故名假斷。次云假伏中斷者，對性有無，說假有無，以伏性有無，故云假伏。悟假有不有假無不無為中道。前性有無惑斷故名假伏中斷。亦得假伏假斷中伏中斷。如識假有無即性有無永斷，名為假斷。自有識假有無但伏性也。問：金剛心（比喻堅固不壞的求道之心）斷惑盡耶？答：開善（人名）云，佛地（佛的境界）斷惑盡。夫人經云佛智所斷，佛菩提智（覺悟的智慧）所斷。今明，金剛心斷惑盡。夫人經云斷者，解脫道（通往解脫的道路）遮未來不生，正是金剛心無礙道（沒有阻礙的道路）中斷。問：得言地前為無礙初地為解脫不？答：開善云爾。今謂不然。初地自開為無礙解脫。問：金剛為轉為謝耶？答：毗曇（佛教術語，論藏）則謝，成實（佛教術語，成實宗）則轉。金剛若謝別有佛果。云何般若（智慧）變名薩婆若（一切智）？轉金剛成者，云何轉無常而後常？今所明者，應有轉謝及不轉不謝。若了悟金剛本不生滅，即金剛是佛，故不轉不謝。經云，一切眾" ], "english_translations": [ "English version", 'In reality, it is not a continuous severing. Moreover, the sutra speaks of \'severance.\' What does this refer to? If it is said that afflictions cannot be severed when they exist, then what is severed when afflictions do not exist? If it is said that \'severance\' refers to the severance of the delusions of views (Mithya-drishti-moha) (delusions arising from incorrect views), then both light and darkness would coexist. How then are afflictions severed? If one does not see the suspended severance, then the lamps of Tianzhu (ancient India) and the darkness of Zhendan (ancient China) would both be dispelled. Reasoning in this way, there is ultimately no severance. Such realization is severance. Those who grasp at something understand severance in emptiness and non-severance in existence. Now, it is clarified that those who grasp at something do not sever either emptiness or existence. Those who do not grasp at anything sever both emptiness and existence. There is a provisional severance through subduing the middle way, like seeking the nature of existence and non-existence, which is unattainable, hence the name \'neither existence nor non-existence.\' However, the subduing of the nature of existence and non-existence is not yet severed. Next, clarifying provisional existence and provisional non-existence means that the severance of the nature of existence and non-existence begins. Having recognized provisional existence and provisional non-existence, one knows that there is ultimately no fixed nature of existence and non-existence, hence the name \'provisional severance.\' Next, it is said that \'provisional subduing and intermediate severance\' refers to speaking of provisional existence and provisional non-existence in relation to the nature of existence and non-existence, thereby subduing the nature of existence and non-existence, hence the name \'provisional subduing.\' Realizing that provisional existence is not existence and provisional non-existence is not non-existence is the middle way. The severance of the delusions of the nature of existence and non-existence is called \'provisional subduing and intermediate severance.\' It can also be \'provisional subduing, provisional severance, and intermediate subduing and severance.\' For example, recognizing provisional existence and non-existence means that the nature of existence and non-existence is permanently severed, hence the name \'provisional severance.\' There are those who recognize provisional existence and non-existence but only subdue the nature. Question: Does the Vajra mind (vajra-citta) (a mind as firm as diamond) completely sever afflictions? Answer: Kaishan (a person\'s name) says that the Buddha-ground (Buddha-bhumi) (the state of Buddhahood) completely severs afflictions. The Sutra of the Lady says that it is severed by the wisdom of the Buddha, severed by the Bodhi-wisdom (bodhi-jnana) (wisdom of enlightenment) of the Buddha. Now, it is clarified that the Vajra mind completely severs afflictions. The Sutra of the Lady says that \'severance\' refers to the path of liberation (moksha-marga) (the path to liberation) blocking future rebirth, which is precisely the interruption by the unobstructed path (anavarana-marga) (path without obstruction) of the Vajra mind. Question: Can it be said that before the grounds, there is no obstruction, and the first ground is liberation? Answer: Kaishan says so. Now, it is said that it is not so. The first ground itself opens up as unobstructed liberation. Question: Does the Vajra transform or cease? Answer: The Abhidharma (Buddhist texts, Abhidharma Pitaka) says it ceases, while the Satyasiddhi (Buddhist texts, Satyasiddhi School) says it transforms. If the Vajra ceases, there is a separate Buddha-fruit. How does Prajna (wisdom) transform into Sarvajna (all-knowing)? If the Vajra is transformed into completion, how does one transform impermanence into permanence? Now, what is clarified is that there should be transformation, cessation, non-transformation, and non-cessation. If one realizes that the Vajra is fundamentally neither born nor extinguished, then the Vajra is the Buddha, hence it neither transforms nor ceases. The sutra says, \'All beings\'" ] }

生本來寂滅。不復更滅。于妄謂之心。息生滅之見。故名為謝。得了悟之者。為生滅悟無生滅故名為轉。

大乘玄論卷第三大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1853 大乘玄論

大乘玄論卷第四

胡吉藏撰

二智義十二門。

一翻名門　二釋名門　三釋道門　四境智門　五同異門　六長短門　七六智門　八開合門　九斷伏門　十攝智門　十一常無常門　十二得失門

然昔在江南著法花玄論。已略明二智。但此義既為眾聖觀心法身父母。必須精究。故重論之。此義若通。則方等眾經。不待言而自顯。具存梵本。應云波若波羅蜜漚和波羅蜜。故此經云。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。智則波若。度謂波羅蜜也。但翻波若不同。或言智慧。如睿法師云。秦言智慧。或翻為遠離。出放光經。則釋道安用。或翻明度。出六度集經。或翻清凈。亦出大品。睿法師用之。但波若具含智慧明凈遠離等義。譯經之人隨取其一。以用翻之。波若以斷眾惑遠離生死名相之法故云遠離。明瞭無暗。故稱為明。體絕穢染名為清凈。達照解知名為智慧。雖有諸義。多用智慧。智慧單復。又名不同。或單名為智。如釋論及此經稱為智度。或但名為慧。如釋論云。波若秦言慧。或俱翻智慧。眾經多爾。今詳會此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『生本來寂滅。不復更滅。』（生命原本就是寂靜止息的，不會再次消滅。）對於虛妄分別的心，止息生滅的見解，所以稱為『謝』（謝絕、停止）。得了悟的人，因爲了悟了生滅的本性就是不生不滅，所以名為『轉』（轉變）。

《大乘玄論》卷第三（大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1853 《大乘玄論》）

《大乘玄論》卷第四

胡吉藏撰

二智義十二門：

一、翻名門二、釋名門三、釋道門四、境智門五、同異門六、長短門七、六智門八、開合門九、斷伏門十、攝智門十一、常無常門十二、得失門

過去在江南撰寫法華玄論時，已經略微闡明了二智（兩種智慧）。但這個義理既然是眾聖觀心、法身父母，必須精深研究，所以重新論述它。這個義理如果通達，那麼方等眾經，不用多說自然就顯明瞭。完整的梵文字，應該說是般若波羅蜜（Prajnaparamita，智慧到彼岸）漚和波羅蜜。所以這部經說，『智度（智慧的度量）是菩薩的母親，方便是菩薩的父親。』智就是般若（Prajna，智慧），度就是波羅蜜（Paramita，到彼岸）。但是翻譯般若（Prajna，智慧）有所不同，或者說智慧，如睿法師說，秦言（古代漢語）是智慧。或者翻譯為遠離，出自《放光經》，這是釋道安所用的。或者翻譯為明度，出自《六度集經》。或者翻譯為清凈，也出自《大品經》，睿法師用它。但是般若（Prajna，智慧）包含智慧、明凈、遠離等含義，譯經的人隨便選取其中一個來翻譯它。般若（Prajna，智慧）以斷除各種迷惑，遠離生死名相的法，所以說遠離。明瞭沒有黑暗，所以稱為明。本體脫離污穢染著，名為清凈。通達照見，瞭解知曉，名為智慧。雖然有各種含義，大多使用智慧。智慧有單稱和合稱，名稱不同。或者單稱名為智，如《釋論》和這部經稱為智度。或者只稱名為慧，如《釋論》說，般若（Prajna，智慧）秦言（古代漢語）是慧。或者合起來翻譯為智慧，眾多經典大多如此。現在詳細地會合這些。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Birth is originally quiescent and extinguished, and does not extinguish again.』 (Life is originally still and ceased, and will not be extinguished again.) For the mind of false discrimination, cease the view of arising and ceasing, therefore it is called 『謝』 (cessation, stopping). Those who have attained enlightenment, because they have realized that the nature of arising and ceasing is neither arising nor ceasing, are called 『轉』 (transformation).

Mahayana Profound Treatise, Volume 3 (Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 45, No. 1853, Mahayana Profound Treatise)

Mahayana Profound Treatise, Volume 4

Written by Huiji Zang

Twelve Gates on the Meaning of the Two Wisdoms:

Gate of Translating Names
Gate of Explaining Names
Gate of Explaining the Path
Gate of Realm and Wisdom
Gate of Similarities and Differences
Gate of Lengths
Gate of Six Wisdoms
Gate of Opening and Closing
Gate of Severing and Subduing
Gate of Comprehending Wisdom
Gate of Permanence and Impermanence
Gate of Gain and Loss

In the past, when writing the Profound Treatise on the Lotus Sutra in Jiangnan, I had already briefly explained the two wisdoms. But since this principle is the mind-observing and Dharma-body parent of all sages, it must be deeply studied, so I discuss it again. If this principle is understood, then the Vaipulya Sutras will naturally become clear without much explanation. The complete Sanskrit text should be Prajnaparamita (wisdom to the other shore) and Upayaparamita. Therefore, this sutra says, 『Wisdom (智度) is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and skillful means (方便) is the father.』 Wisdom is Prajna (wisdom), and 度 is Paramita (to the other shore). However, the translation of Prajna (wisdom) varies. Sometimes it is said to be wisdom, as Master Rui said, 『Qin language (ancient Chinese) is wisdom.』 Or it is translated as 『separation,』 which comes from the 『Fangguang Jing』 (放光經), and is used by Shi Daoan. Or it is translated as 『bright measure,』 which comes from the 『Jidu Ji Jing』 (六度集經). Or it is translated as 『purity,』 which also comes from the 『Dapin Jing』 (大品經), and is used by Master Rui. But Prajna (wisdom) contains meanings such as wisdom, brightness, purity, and separation. Translators arbitrarily choose one of them to translate it. Prajna (wisdom) is used to sever various delusions and separate from the dharmas of birth, death, names and forms, so it is called 『separation.』 Clear and without darkness, so it is called 『brightness.』 The essence is free from defilement, so it is called 『purity.』 Understanding and illuminating, knowing and understanding, is called 『wisdom.』 Although there are various meanings, wisdom is mostly used. Wisdom has single and combined terms, and the names are different. Sometimes it is simply called 智, as the 『Shilun』 (釋論) and this sutra call it 智度. Or it is only called 慧, as the 『Shilun』 (釋論) says, 『Prajna (wisdom) in Qin language (ancient Chinese) is 慧.』 Or it is translated together as 智慧, which is mostly the case in many sutras. Now, let's examine and combine these in detail.

意。義各有由。通而言之。則智為慧。指慧為智。雖廣略不同。體無異也。翻為慧者。凡有四義。一欲分十度不同。二開空有義異。三明因果差別。四就凡聖為異。十度者。第六名波若。此翻為慧。第十云阇那。此名為智。問阇那為智。術阇翻為何物。答此云明。猶是智見之義耳。空有義異者。照空為慧。鑒有為智故。此經云。知一相門起于慧業。知種種相門起于智業。因果差別者。論云。因名波若。果反名薩婆若。薩婆若名一切智。則知。波若名之為慧。慧名既劣。宜在因中。智則決了故居果地。又佛照空有皆盡。加以一切。菩薩未窮但名慧也。不得云因中名智果名一切智。亦不得云因名智慧果名一切智。但應言因名為慧果名為智。則于因果優劣義彰。凡聖異者。如涅槃經云。波若者一切眾生。此名為慧。慧義既通。則凡聖並有。如十大地中定慧之數。毗婆舍那目之為見。謂一切聖人明見理也。阇那為智。通達決了也。次翻為智凡有三義。一者慧名既劣。智則為勝。今欲稱歎波若名為智。二者欲顯其名語便如雲智度。若言慧度則言不便也。三者欲明智則是慧名異體同故。隨舉其一。次合稱智慧亦具三義。一明波若具鑒空有故名含智慧。慧則照空。智便鑒有。二顯波若通果及因。因中波若為慧。果地波若為智。故三德

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：意義各有由來。總的來說，智可以稱為慧，指慧也可以稱為智。雖然範圍廣狹不同，但本質沒有區別。翻譯為『慧』，大致有四種含義：一是區分十度（paramita，波羅蜜多）的不同；二是闡明空有二義的差異；三是說明因果的差別；四是就凡夫和聖人而言的差異。十度中，第六度名為般若（prajna），這裡翻譯為『慧』。第十度稱為阇那（jnana），這裡名為『智』。問：阇那為智，那麼術阇（原句有誤，應為『阇』）翻譯成什麼？答：這裡是『明』的意思，仍然是智慧見解的意思。空有二義的差異在於：照見空性為慧，鑑別有相為智。所以此經說：『知一相門』生起于慧業，『知種種相門』生起于智業。因果的差別在於：論中說，因位名為般若，果位反而名為薩婆若（sarvajna）。薩婆若名為一切智。由此可知，般若名為慧。慧的名義較為遜色，適宜在因位。智則能決斷明瞭，所以居於果位。而且佛照見空有都已窮盡，再加上『一切』。菩薩尚未窮盡，只能稱為慧。不能說因位名為智，果位名為一切智。也不能說因位名為智慧，果位名為一切智。但應該說因位名為慧，果位名為智，這樣因果的優劣意義就明顯了。凡夫和聖人的差異在於：如《涅槃經》所說，般若是一切眾生所具有的，這名為慧。慧的意義普遍，所以凡夫和聖人都有。如十大地中的定慧之數。毗婆舍那（vipassana）稱之為見，是指一切聖人明見真理。阇那為智，是通達決斷明瞭。其次，翻譯為『智』大致有三種含義：一是慧的名義較為遜色，智則更為殊勝。現在想要稱讚般若，所以名為智。二是想要顯示其名稱簡便，如說『智度』，如果說『慧度』則不順口。三是想要說明智是慧的異名而本體相同，所以隨便舉一個。其次，合稱為『智慧』也具有三種含義：一是說明般若具有鑑別空有的能力，所以名稱包含智慧。慧則照見空性，智則鑑別有相。二是顯示般若貫通果位和因位。因位中的般若為慧，果位中的般若為智。所以三德（法身、般若、解脫）...

【English Translation】 English version: The meanings have their respective origins. Generally speaking, 'jnana' (智, wisdom) can be called 'prajna' (慧, intelligence), and pointing to 'prajna' can also be called 'jnana'. Although the scope is different, the essence is the same. Translating it as 'prajna' roughly has four meanings: First, to distinguish the differences of the ten paramitas (十度); second, to clarify the differences between emptiness and existence; third, to explain the differences between cause and effect; fourth, to differentiate between ordinary people and sages. Among the ten paramitas, the sixth is called prajna (般若), which is translated here as 'prajna' (慧). The tenth is called jnana (阇那), which is named 'jnana' (智) here. Question: If jnana is 'wisdom', then what does 'jna' (術阇) translate to? Answer: Here it means 'clarity', which is still the meaning of wisdom and insight. The difference between emptiness and existence lies in: illuminating emptiness is 'prajna', and discerning existence is 'jnana'. Therefore, this sutra says: 'Knowing the one-aspect gate' arises from the karma of prajna, and 'knowing the various-aspects gate' arises from the karma of jnana. The difference between cause and effect lies in: the treatise says that the cause is called prajna, and the result is called sarvajna (薩婆若). Sarvajna is called all-knowing wisdom. From this, it can be known that prajna is called 'intelligence'. The name of 'intelligence' is relatively inferior, so it is suitable in the causal stage. Jnana can make decisive understanding, so it resides in the fruit stage. Moreover, the Buddha's illumination of emptiness and existence is exhaustive, plus 'all'. Bodhisattvas have not yet exhausted it, so they can only be called 'intelligence'. It cannot be said that the cause is called 'wisdom' and the result is called 'all-knowing wisdom'. Nor can it be said that the cause is called 'intelligence and wisdom' and the result is called 'all-knowing wisdom'. But it should be said that the cause is called 'intelligence' and the result is called 'wisdom', so the meaning of the superiority of cause and effect is obvious. The difference between ordinary people and sages lies in: as the Nirvana Sutra says, prajna is possessed by all sentient beings, and this is called 'intelligence'. The meaning of 'intelligence' is universal, so both ordinary people and sages have it. Such as the number of samadhi and prajna in the ten great grounds. Vipassana (毗婆舍那) is called seeing, which refers to all sages clearly seeing the truth. Jnana is wisdom, which is thorough and decisive understanding. Secondly, translating it as 'wisdom' roughly has three meanings: First, the name of 'intelligence' is relatively inferior, and 'wisdom' is more superior. Now I want to praise prajna, so it is called 'wisdom'. Second, I want to show that its name is convenient, such as saying 'wisdom-paramita', if you say 'intelligence-paramita', it is not smooth. Third, I want to explain that wisdom is a different name of intelligence and the body is the same, so just give one example. Secondly, the combined name 'wisdom and intelligence' also has three meanings: First, it shows that prajna has the ability to discern emptiness and existence, so the name contains wisdom and intelligence. Intelligence illuminates emptiness, and wisdom discerns existence. Second, it shows that prajna runs through the fruit and cause positions. Prajna in the cause position is intelligence, and prajna in the fruit position is wisdom. Therefore, the three virtues (Dharmakaya, Prajna, Liberation)...

中有波若德。三者欲明六度義含於十。經中但明六度不明十者。以波若之名既含智慧。第十智度蘊在其中。問既具三名。以何翻為正。答慧為正翻。余皆義立。所以知然從多論也。此經云慧與方便。釋論云波若道方便道。涅槃云波若一切眾生。阇那為智。則配諸菩薩故。智非波若。又第六名慧。第十為智。皆有彼此二名故知。以慧為正。又論云。波若不屬佛。亦不屬二乘。但屬菩薩。菩薩則道慧道種慧。佛具一切智一切種智。又云。波若名諸法實相慧。如是等諸文非一故。以慧為正翻矣。問若以慧為正翻。何故經中多雲智慧。答經中多說六度故多雲智慧。少說十度故少明慧也。又六度之名皆有復翻。如佈施等不單名施。波若亦爾。雖復是慧。欲對上五。亦存複名故云智慧也。次辨無翻義。有人言。波若名含五義。不可正翻宜以慧當其名。如釋論七十一卷云。波若定實相甚深極重。智慧輕薄故。不能稱于般若。此招提用之。今謂不然。釋論乃明不可稱義。非不可翻也。問稱與翻何異。答稱則天竺已明。翻則來於震旦。反彼為此。前後不同義門各異。又論云。波若定實相故不可稱。不言多含故不可稱。故此釋為謬矣。復有人言。波若不可稱者。此明觀照智慧不能稱實相波若。實相波若性常住。觀照智慧會境始生。故實相為

深重。觀照智為輕薄。北人釋也。是亦不然。經以五嘆嘆于波若。不嘆實相。云何言實相深重耶。又言。波若定實相。則實相為所定。波若為能定。若言實相為深重者。可以實相還定實相耶。復有人言。智慧輕薄不能稱波若者。此是世間智慧二乘智慧。不能稱量菩薩大智慧耳。何者。大智慧照實相理道成眾行。余淺智慧豈能稱耶。此南方人釋也。今謂不然。經云智慧不能稱于般若。不言淺慧不能稱深慧。又淺深俱名為慧。則俱是輕薄。並不能稱波若也。今依論釋之。論云。波若定實相故深重。智慧不能稱也。所言定者。定是契會之名。夫萬化非無宗。而宗之者無相。虛宗非無契。而契之者無心。故聖人以無心之妙慧。契彼無相之虛宗。即內外並冥緣智俱寂。智慧是知照之名。豈能稱絕觀般若。問波若云何能會實相。答由實相生波若故。波若能契會實相也。問依此釋者猶是淺智不能稱深智。答深則愚智皆絕。淺則猶有知照。非淺智不稱深智耶。問定實相既是契會之名。與舊釋冥會義何異耶。答語同而意異也。但釋冥會有二師。一云則會是冥。以符合故冥。冥契不乖故會。無優劣也。此莊嚴龍光之義。二云會是符合之名。冥是混一之義。則冥勝而會劣也。何者。因中凡有四義故未冥。一惑未盡。二體有生滅。三智未周圓。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本深重。認為觀照智是輕薄的。這是北方人的解釋。但這種說法是不對的。《經》用五種讚歎來讚歎般若（Prajna，智慧），而不是讚歎實相（Reality）。怎麼能說實相深重呢？又說，般若能確定實相，那麼實相是被確定的，般若是能確定的。如果說實相是深重的，難道可以用實相來確定實相嗎？又有人說，智慧輕薄，不能衡量般若。這是世間的智慧和二乘（Hinayana，小乘）的智慧，不能衡量菩薩的大智慧。為什麼呢？因為大智慧能照見實相的道理，成就各種修行。其餘淺薄的智慧怎麼能衡量呢？這是南方人的解釋。我認為這種說法不對。《經》中說智慧不能衡量般若，沒有說淺薄的智慧不能衡量深厚的智慧。而且，淺薄和深厚都叫做智慧，那麼都是輕薄的，都不能衡量般若。現在我依據《論》來解釋。《論》中說，般若能確定實相，所以深重，智慧不能衡量它。所說的『定』，是契合的意思。萬物的變化並非沒有根本，但能作為根本的東西是沒有相狀的。虛無的根本並非沒有契合，但能契合它的是沒有心念的。所以聖人以無心之妙慧，契合那無相的虛無根本，即內外都寂滅，緣智也都寂滅。智慧是知照的作用，怎麼能衡量那絕妙觀照的般若呢？問：般若怎麼能契合實相呢？答：因為實相產生般若，所以般若能契合實相。問：按照這種解釋，仍然是淺薄的智慧不能衡量深厚的智慧。答：深奧的境界愚笨和智慧都消失了，淺薄的境界還有知照的作用。難道不是淺薄的智慧不能衡量深厚的智慧嗎？問：確定實相既然是契合的意思，和舊的解釋中『冥會』的意義有什麼不同呢？答：說法相同，但意義不同。解釋『冥會』有兩種說法。一種認為『則會』就是『冥』，因為符合所以『冥』，冥契不相違背所以『會』，沒有優劣之分。這是莊嚴和龍光的觀點。另一種認為『會』是符合的意思，『冥』是混一的意思。那麼『冥』勝過『會』。為什麼呢？因為在因地中凡夫有四種原因所以沒有達到『冥』的境界：一、迷惑沒有斷盡；二、身體有生滅；三、智慧沒有周全圓滿；

【English Translation】 English version Profound and weighty. Considering contemplative wisdom to be light and shallow. This is the interpretation of the northerners. But this is not correct. The Sutra uses five praises to extol Prajna (wisdom), not Reality (true nature of reality). How can it be said that Reality is profound and weighty? Furthermore, it is said that Prajna defines Reality, then Reality is defined, and Prajna is the definer. If it is said that Reality is profound and weighty, can Reality be used to define Reality? Some also say that wisdom is light and shallow and cannot measure Prajna. This is worldly wisdom and the wisdom of the Two Vehicles (Hinayana, lesser vehicle), which cannot measure the great wisdom of the Bodhisattvas. Why? Because great wisdom illuminates the principle of Reality, accomplishing all practices. How can other shallow wisdom measure it? This is the interpretation of the southerners. I say this is not correct. The Sutra says that wisdom cannot measure Prajna, it does not say that shallow wisdom cannot measure deep wisdom. Moreover, both shallow and deep are called wisdom, so both are light and shallow, and neither can measure Prajna. Now I will explain it according to the Treatise. The Treatise says that Prajna defines Reality, therefore it is profound and weighty, and wisdom cannot measure it. The so-called 'define' is the name of accord. All transformations are not without a source, but that which is the source is without form. The empty source is not without accord, but that which accords with it is without mind. Therefore, the sage uses the wondrous wisdom of no-mind to accord with that formless, empty source, that is, both inside and outside are extinguished, and both conditioned knowledge and wisdom are still. Wisdom is the name of knowing and illuminating, how can it measure the unsurpassed contemplation of Prajna? Question: How can Prajna accord with Reality? Answer: Because Reality gives rise to Prajna, therefore Prajna can accord with Reality. Question: According to this explanation, it is still shallow wisdom that cannot measure deep wisdom. Answer: In the deep realm, both foolishness and wisdom disappear, while in the shallow realm there is still the function of knowing and illuminating. Is it not that shallow wisdom cannot measure deep wisdom? Question: Since defining Reality is the meaning of accord, what is the difference between it and the meaning of 'mysterious union' in the old explanation? Answer: The words are the same, but the meanings are different. There are two explanations for 'mysterious union'. One says that 'then union' is 'mysterious', because it conforms, therefore it is 'mysterious', and mysterious accord does not contradict, therefore it is 'union', there is no superiority or inferiority. This is the view of Zhuangyan and Longguang. The other says that 'union' is the meaning of conformity, and 'mysterious' is the meaning of oneness. Then 'mysterious' is superior to 'union'. Why? Because in the causal stage, ordinary beings have four reasons why they have not reached the state of 'mysterious': 1. Delusions have not been completely eradicated; 2. The body is subject to birth and death; 3. Wisdom is not yet complete and perfect;

四體依方所。故但稱會。佛果離此四義。所以談冥。冥與無生為一。則境智不分。無應照之異。而無生不乖俗。冥亦不妨會。佛果舉體冥。舉體會。會故應照滿十方。冥故一切皆絕。今總問之。冥既與境混一者。智為成境為不作境耶。若不作境云何言一。若智作境者。境既無知。智亦無知。智既有知。則境亦應爾。以其一故。若言與法性同絕故言冥會猶與法性異者。則于會冥之日。猶見境智為二。何得經云菩薩與波若相應不見應與不應合與不合耶。又具四義故方成冥者。波若教佛智猶有生滅。則不得稱冥。亦無等法性義。故無定實相之義也。問云何名甚深極重。答夫論可稱則不名極重。良由極重故。故不可稱。論主欲釋經不可稱義故云重也。問但應言重。何故云甚深。答為欲簡釋重義。非如重物之重。乃是甚深故云重耳。問但言甚重。何故復云極耶。答三乘同契實相。但二乘猶如兔馬未盡其原。所以不得般若之名。不名甚深極重。今欲簡異二乘明菩薩照盡其原得名波若。故云甚深極重。問智慧何故云輕薄耶。答波若體絕緣觀。智慧名主于觀。波若體絕智愚。智慧名主知照。波若體絕名字。智慧則猶涉名言。故對波若之重。明智慧之輕。對波若之深。辨智慧之淺。淺猶薄也。問波若體絕智慧。何故立智慧名耶。答不知何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『四體』（指地、水、火、風四大元素）依賴於方位而存在，所以只能說是『會』（聚合）。佛果超越了這四種定義的範疇，所以才說是『冥』（不可言說）。『冥』與『無生』是同一的，那麼境（客觀世界）與智（主觀智慧）就沒有分別，沒有應（反應）與照（覺照）的差異。而『無生』並不違背世俗，『冥』也不妨礙『會』（聚合）。佛果整體是『冥』，整體也是『會』。因為『會』，所以應照遍滿十方；因為『冥』，所以一切都寂滅。現在總的來問：『冥』既然與境混合為一，那麼智是成就境，還是不作用於境呢？如果智不作用於境，怎麼能說『一』呢？如果智作用於境，境既然沒有知覺，智也應該沒有知覺。智既然有知覺，那麼境也應該如此，因為它們是一體的緣故。如果說與法性一同寂滅所以說是『冥』，如果認為『會』仍然與法性不同，那麼在『會』與『冥』的時候，仍然看到境與智是二元對立的，怎麼能說經中說菩薩與般若相應，不見應與不應、合與不合呢？又如果具備四種定義才能成就『冥』，那麼般若教導的佛智仍然有生滅，就不能稱為『冥』，也沒有等同於法性的意義，所以沒有真實不變的實相的意義。問：為什麼稱為『甚深極重』？答：凡是可以稱量的，就不能稱為『極重』。正因為是『極重』，所以不可稱量。論主想要解釋經中不可稱量的意義，所以說是『重』。問：只應該說『重』，為什麼說『甚深』？答：爲了區分解釋『重』的意義，不是像重物的重，而是因為甚深所以說是『重』。問：只說『甚重』，為什麼又說『極』呢？答：三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）共同契合實相，但二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）就像兔子和馬一樣沒有窮盡源頭，所以不能得到般若的名稱，不稱為『甚深極重』。現在想要區分二乘，說明菩薩照盡源頭，得到般若的名稱，所以說是『甚深極重』。問：智慧為什麼說是『輕薄』呢？答：般若的本體斷絕緣慮觀照，智慧則側重於觀照。般若的本體超越智與愚，智慧則側重於知與照。般若的本體超越名字概念，智慧則仍然涉及名言。所以相對於般若的『重』，說明智慧的『輕』；相對於般若的『深』，辨別智慧的『淺』，淺就是薄。問：般若的本體斷絕智慧，為什麼還要設立智慧的名稱呢？答：不知道為什麼。

【English Translation】 English version The 'four elements' (referring to earth, water, fire, and wind) depend on location, so they can only be described as 'assembly' (aggregation). The Buddha-fruit transcends these four definitions, so it is described as 'obscurity' (ineffable). 'Obscurity' and 'non-origination' are one and the same, so there is no distinction between the object (objective world) and wisdom (subjective wisdom), no difference between response (reaction) and illumination (awareness). And 'non-origination' does not contradict the mundane, and 'obscurity' does not hinder 'assembly' (aggregation). The Buddha-fruit is entirely 'obscurity', and entirely 'assembly'. Because of 'assembly', illumination pervades the ten directions; because of 'obscurity', everything is extinguished. Now, to ask in general: Since 'obscurity' is mixed and unified with the object, does wisdom accomplish the object, or does it not act on the object? If wisdom does not act on the object, how can it be said to be 'one'? If wisdom acts on the object, since the object has no awareness, wisdom should also have no awareness. Since wisdom has awareness, then the object should also be so, because they are one. If it is said that it is extinguished together with the Dharma-nature, so it is called 'obscurity', if it is thought that 'assembly' is still different from the Dharma-nature, then at the time of 'assembly' and 'obscurity', the object and wisdom are still seen as dualistic. How can it be said that the sutra says that the Bodhisattva is in accordance with Prajna, and does not see accordance and non-accordance, union and non-union? Furthermore, if the four definitions are required to achieve 'obscurity', then the Buddha-wisdom taught by Prajna still has origination and extinction, so it cannot be called 'obscurity', and there is no meaning of being equal to the Dharma-nature, so there is no meaning of true and unchanging reality. Question: Why is it called 'profoundly deep and extremely weighty'? Answer: Anything that can be measured cannot be called 'extremely weighty'. Precisely because it is 'extremely weighty', it cannot be measured. The author wants to explain the meaning of immeasurability in the sutra, so it is called 'weighty'. Question: It should only be said to be 'weighty', why is it said to be 'profoundly deep'? Answer: In order to distinguish and explain the meaning of 'weighty', it is not like the weight of a heavy object, but because it is profoundly deep, it is called 'weighty'. Question: Only say 'very weighty', why also say 'extremely'? Answer: The Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) commonly correspond to the true reality, but the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna) are like rabbits and horses that have not exhausted the source, so they cannot obtain the name of Prajna, and are not called 'profoundly deep and extremely weighty'. Now, I want to distinguish the Two Vehicles and explain that the Bodhisattva illuminates the source and obtains the name of Prajna, so it is called 'profoundly deep and extremely weighty'. Question: Why is wisdom said to be 'light and thin'? Answer: The essence of Prajna cuts off conditioned contemplation, while wisdom focuses on contemplation. The essence of Prajna transcends wisdom and ignorance, while wisdom focuses on knowledge and illumination. The essence of Prajna transcends names and concepts, while wisdom still involves names and words. Therefore, relative to the 'weight' of Prajna, the 'lightness' of wisdom is explained; relative to the 'depth' of Prajna, the 'shallowness' of wisdom is distinguished, and shallowness is thin. Question: The essence of Prajna cuts off wisdom, why is the name of wisdom still established? Answer: I don't know why.

以目之。強名智慧。雖立智慧之名。實不稱波若之體。問但應言波若體深重波若名輕薄。智慧體深重智慧名輕薄。云何乃言波若深重智慧輕薄。答今依梵本。則云波若體深重波若名輕薄。但用此意。則應云智慧體深重智慧名輕薄。恐此義難顯。故譯經之人藉此方智慧。不能稱梵文波若也。問不可稱與不可量何異。答經有五嘆。謂大事故起。不可稱事不可量事無等事不可思議事起。既別有無量等事故起。則稱非量也。不可量則取無有邊際。不可稱明甚深唯至重。例如法稱品明舍利不能稱波若經卷。今智慧名義不能稱絕觀波若也。問論云波若多智慧少故不能稱。云何為多少耶。答前約重輕釋不可稱。今就多少明不可稱。謂少不能稱多。但解多少不同。有人言。實相則無法不在故多。智慧局之於心故少。今謂不然。前就定實相故明不可稱。今約所含義明不可稱。波若體非愚智慧愚能智。智慧唯主于智。故波若多智慧少。又波若定實相。實相既通。波若亦通。智慧不爾故云少也。問已知波若翻不翻義。方便復云何。答常啼品云漚和俱舍羅大師方便力。漚和為方便。俱舍羅名為勝智。波若之巧名為漚和。其用既勝名勝智也。凈名以方便為父。取其產生之能。大品以漚和為師。明有訓誨之德。善巧化物不證二乘。皆大師之力也。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：用眼睛去看待它，勉強稱之為智慧（Prajna）。雖然建立了智慧（Prajna）這個名稱，實際上並不符合般若（Prajna）的本體。有人問：只能說般若（Prajna）的本體深重，般若（Prajna）的名稱輕薄；智慧（Jnana）的本體深重，智慧（Jnana）的名稱輕薄。為什麼卻說般若（Prajna）深重，智慧（Jnana）輕薄呢？回答：現在依照梵文原本，就說般若（Prajna）的本體深重，般若（Prajna）的名稱輕薄。只要用這個意思，就應該說智慧（Jnana）的本體深重，智慧（Jnana）的名稱輕薄。恐怕這個意義難以顯現，所以翻譯經典的人借用這邊的智慧（Jnana），不能完全表達梵文的般若（Prajna）。有人問：『不可稱』與『不可量』有什麼不同？回答：經文中有五種讚歎，說有重大的事情發生，即『不可稱事』、『不可量事』、『無等事』、『不可思議事』發生。既然另外有『無量』等事情發生，那麼『稱』就不是『量』了。『不可量』是指沒有邊際，『不可稱』是說明非常深奧，極其重要。例如《法稱品》中說明舍利不能完全表達般若（Prajna）經卷。現在智慧（Jnana）的名義不能完全表達絕觀般若（Prajna）。有人問：論典中說般若（Prajna）多，智慧（Jnana）少，所以不能完全表達。什麼是多，什麼是少呢？回答：前面從輕重來解釋『不可稱』，現在就多少來說明『不可稱』，即少不能完全表達多。只是解釋多少不同。有人說，實相（Dharmadhatu）中沒有法不存在，所以多；智慧（Jnana）侷限於心，所以少。現在我認為不是這樣。前面就定實相（Dharmadhatu）來說明『不可稱』，現在就所包含的意義來說明『不可稱』。般若（Prajna）的本體不是愚昧，智慧愚昧能智，智慧（Jnana）只主導智慧，所以般若（Prajna）多，智慧（Jnana）少。而且般若（Prajna）定實相（Dharmadhatu），實相（Dharmadhatu）既然是通達的，般若（Prajna）也是通達的，智慧（Jnana）不是這樣，所以說是少。有人問：已經知道般若（Prajna）的翻譯與不翻譯的意義，方便（Upaya）又是什麼呢？回答：《常啼品》中說漚和俱舍羅（Aukosalya）大師的方便力。漚和（Auka）是方便（Upaya），俱舍羅（Kusalya）名為勝智。般若（Prajna）的巧妙名為漚和（Auka），它的作用既然殊勝，就名為勝智。凈名經中以方便（Upaya）為父，取其產生的能力；《大品般若經》中以漚和（Auka）為師，說明有訓誨的德行。善巧地教化眾生而不證得二乘的果位，都是大師的力量啊。

【English Translation】 English version: We perceive it with our eyes,勉強稱之為強名智慧(Prajna)。 Although the name of wisdom (Prajna) is established, it does not truly match the essence of Prajna. Someone asks: We should only say that the essence of Prajna is profound and weighty, and the name of Prajna is light and thin; the essence of wisdom (Jnana) is profound and weighty, and the name of wisdom (Jnana) is light and thin. Why do you say that Prajna is profound and weighty, and wisdom (Jnana) is light and thin? The answer is: Now, according to the Sanskrit original, it says that the essence of Prajna is profound and weighty, and the name of Prajna is light and thin. As long as we use this meaning, we should say that the essence of wisdom (Jnana) is profound and weighty, and the name of wisdom (Jnana) is light and thin. Fearing that this meaning is difficult to reveal, the person who translated the scriptures borrowed the wisdom (Jnana) of this place, which cannot fully express the Prajna of the Sanskrit text. Someone asks: What is the difference between 'immeasurable' and 'inconceivable'? The answer is: The scriptures have five praises, saying that great events have occurred, namely 'immeasurable events', 'inconceivable events', 'unequaled events', and 'unfathomable events'. Since there are other events such as 'immeasurable', then 'measurable' is not 'inconceivable'. 'Immeasurable' refers to having no boundaries, and 'inconceivable' explains that it is very profound and extremely important. For example, the 'Chapter on Dharma Name' explains that the relics cannot fully express the Prajna scriptures. Now, the meaning of wisdom (Jnana) cannot fully express the absolute contemplation of Prajna. Someone asks: The treatise says that Prajna is much, and wisdom (Jnana) is little, so it cannot fully express it. What is much, and what is little? The answer is: Previously, we explained 'inconceivable' in terms of weight, and now we explain 'inconceivable' in terms of quantity, that is, little cannot fully express much. It only explains the difference in quantity. Some people say that in Dharmadhatu, there is no dharma that does not exist, so it is much; wisdom (Jnana) is limited to the mind, so it is little. Now I think it is not like this. Previously, we explained 'inconceivable' in terms of fixed Dharmadhatu, and now we explain 'inconceivable' in terms of the meaning it contains. The essence of Prajna is not ignorance, intelligence can be ignorant and intelligent, wisdom (Jnana) only dominates intelligence, so Prajna is much, and wisdom (Jnana) is little. Moreover, Prajna fixes Dharmadhatu, and since Dharmadhatu is accessible, Prajna is also accessible, wisdom (Jnana) is not like this, so it is said to be little. Someone asks: We already know the meaning of translating and not translating Prajna, what is Upaya? The answer is: The 'Chapter on Sadaprarudita' says the skillful means of the great master Aukosalya. Auka is Upaya, and Kusalya is called supreme wisdom. The skillfulness of Prajna is called Auka, and since its function is excellent, it is called supreme wisdom. The Vimalakirti Sutra takes Upaya as the father, taking its ability to generate; the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra takes Auka as the teacher, explaining that it has the virtue of instruction. Skillfully teaching sentient beings without attaining the fruit of the Two Vehicles is all the power of the great master.

釋名第二。復有二門。一釋權實。二解大義。通而言之。二智皆如實而照。併名為實。皆有善巧悉稱方便。就別言之。即波若名實。漚和稱方便。略有八義。一者波若照實相境。從所照為名。故稱為實。二者波若從實相生。從能生受名故稱為實。三者如實而照故。當體名實。論云波若波羅蜜實法不顛倒。體離虛妄非顛倒慧。故名為實。四者對凡夫顛倒不實之慧故。嘆波若為實。五者對二乘未實謂實故。明波若為實。六者對方便之用。以波若為體。故名實。七者對虛明實。未是好實。非虛非實乃名妙實。八者虛實為二。非虛實為不二。二與不二皆名不實。非二不二。乃名為實。是故論云念想觀已除言語法亦滅也。方便者是善巧之名。此義多門。今略論十對。一者直照空有名為波若。行空不證。涉有無著。故名方便。此之照巧更無二體。雖巧而照。故名為實。雖照而巧。故名方便。問照空有併名實者。空有二境應俱得稱真。答能照之智皆名實智。所照之境同稱實境。實智之中。有空智有智。實境之中。有真境俗境。此為別也。問既有真俗。云何皆名實境。答是如實智境故名實境。從智受名。又實是真俗。非妄稱之。當體名實。二者照空為實。涉有為方便。如釋論云波若將入畢竟空。方便將出畢竟空。以空是實相故名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第二章解釋名義。分為兩個方面：一是解釋權實，二是解釋大義。總的來說，兩種智慧都能如實地照見，都可稱為『實』。都具有善巧方便，都可稱為『方便』。具體來說，般若（Prajna，智慧）稱為『實』，漚和（Upaya，方便）稱為『方便』。略有八種含義：一是般若照見實相之境，從所照的境界來命名，所以稱為『實』。二是般若從實相而生，從能生的角度來命名，所以稱為『實』。三是如實地照見，所以就其本體而言稱為『實』。《論》中說，般若波羅蜜（Prajnaparamita，般若波羅蜜多）是真實的法，不顛倒。其本體遠離虛妄，是無顛倒的智慧，所以稱為『實』。四是相對於凡夫顛倒不實的智慧而言，讚歎般若為『實』。五是相對於二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）未證得真實卻認為已證得真實而言，說明般若為『實』。六是相對於方便之用而言，以般若為本體，所以稱為『實』。七是相對於虛妄而顯明真實，但尚未達到最好的真實，非虛非實才稱為妙實。八是虛和實是二，非虛非實是不二，二和不二都可稱為不實，非二非不二，才稱為『實』。所以《論》中說，念想觀已經消除，言語表達也寂滅了。方便是善巧之名，此義有很多方面，現在略論十對。一是直接照見空性稱為般若，在空性中修行而不執著于證悟，涉足於有而不執著，所以稱為方便。這種照見和善巧並非兩個獨立的實體，雖然善巧卻能照見，所以稱為『實』，雖然照見卻具有善巧，所以稱為『方便』。問：照見空性和有都稱為『實』，那麼空性和有這兩種境界應該都可以稱為真。答：能照見的智慧都稱為實智，所照見的境界都可稱為實境。實智之中，有空智和有智；實境之中，有真境和俗境，這是它們的區別。問：既然有真俗之分，為什麼都稱為實境？答：因為是如實智的境界，所以稱為實境，從智慧的角度來命名。而且，實是真和俗的本質，並非虛妄的稱謂，就其本體而言稱為『實』。二是照見空性為實，涉足於有為方便。如《釋論》中說，般若將要進入畢竟空（Sunyata，空性），方便將要從畢竟空中出來。因為空是實相，所以稱為『實』。

【English Translation】 English version: Chapter 2: Explanation of Names. This has two aspects: first, explaining provisional and real; second, elucidating the great meaning. Generally speaking, both wisdoms illuminate truthfully and are both called 'real'. Both possess skillful means and are fully called 'expedient'. Specifically, Prajna (wisdom) is called 'real', and Upaya (skillful means) is called 'expedient'. There are roughly eight meanings: first, Prajna illuminates the realm of true reality, named from what is illuminated, hence called 'real'. Second, Prajna arises from true reality, named from what is capable of producing, hence called 'real'. Third, because it illuminates truthfully, it is called 'real' in its essence. The Treatise says, 'Prajnaparamita (perfection of wisdom) is the real dharma, not inverted.' Its essence is apart from falsehood, it is non-inverted wisdom, hence called 'real'. Fourth, in contrast to the inverted and unreal wisdom of ordinary beings, Prajna is praised as 'real'. Fifth, in contrast to the two vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) who have not realized the real but think they have, it clarifies Prajna as 'real'. Sixth, in relation to the function of expedient means, Prajna is taken as the essence, hence called 'real'. Seventh, in contrast to the false, it clarifies the real, but it has not yet reached the best real; neither false nor real is called the wonderful real. Eighth, false and real are two; neither false nor real is non-dual. Both two and non-dual can be called unreal; neither two nor non-dual is called 'real'. Therefore, the Treatise says, 'When thoughts and contemplation are eliminated, language and expression also cease.' Expedient means is the name for skillful means. This meaning has many aspects; now, let's briefly discuss ten pairs. First, directly illuminating emptiness is called Prajna; practicing emptiness without attachment to realization, engaging in existence without attachment, is called expedient means. This illumination and skill are not two separate entities; although skillful, it illuminates, hence called 'real'; although illuminating, it possesses skill, hence called 'expedient'. Question: If illuminating emptiness and existence are both called 'real', then the two realms of emptiness and existence should both be called true. Answer: The wisdom that can illuminate is called real wisdom; the realms that are illuminated are both called real realms. Within real wisdom, there is wisdom of emptiness and wisdom of existence; within real realms, there are true realms and mundane realms. This is their difference. Question: Since there is a distinction between true and mundane, why are they both called real realms? Answer: Because they are the realms of true wisdom, they are called real realms, named from wisdom. Moreover, real is the essence of true and mundane, not a false designation; in its essence, it is called 'real'. Second, illuminating emptiness is real, engaging in existence is expedient means. As the Treatise says, 'Prajna is about to enter ultimate emptiness (Sunyata), expedient means is about to emerge from ultimate emptiness.' Because emptiness is true reality, it is called 'real'.

為實。波若照空故名為實。雖復照空。即能涉有。此用既巧名為方便。問若爾雖復照有即能鑒空。此用亦巧應是方便。答此照雖巧。但實智為體故。隱其巧名與其實稱也。三者以內靜鑒為實。外反動為權。問此義與前何異。答此明若照若巧靜鑒之義皆名為實。以外反動故名為權。四者波若為實。五度為方便。所以然者。波若為空解。空解故名實。五度為有行。有行故名權。問此與上照空為實涉有為權何異。答前照空照有。皆是智慧。故以二解分權實。今約解行以開二門。空解為實有行為權。與上異也。問有行何故為權。答雖復照空即能起行。此義既巧。故為權。又空是實相有非實相。故空解為實有行為權。五者照空為實。知空亦空即能不證空。故名為權。所以然者。二乘不知空。亦復以空為妙極。故名空但空。所以證空。菩薩知空亦空名不可得空。故不證空即能涉有。故名為權。此明直知空義為實。實義即劣。知空亦空即能涉有。此用既勝。故名為權。然此二慧更無兩體。初觀心未妙。故但能照空。既轉精巧。即知空亦空。既知空亦空。而不壞假名。即能涉有。始終論之。猶是一慧。約巧未巧故分權實。六者知苦無常故名為實。而不取滅名為方便。以生死身實是苦空無常過患之法。如實照之故為實。二乘知此。即欲滅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：真實（為實）。般若（Prajna，智慧）照亮空性，因此稱為真實。即使照亮空性，也能涉入存在（有）。這種巧妙的運用稱為方便（Upaya，善巧）。問：如果這樣，即使照亮存在，也能照見空性，這種運用也很巧妙，應該也是方便。答：這種照見雖然巧妙，但以實智為本體，所以隱藏其巧妙之名，而稱其為真實。第三，以內在的寂靜觀照為真實，外在的止息動念為權巧。問：這個意義與前面所說的有什麼不同？答：這說明無論是照見還是巧妙的寂靜觀照的意義，都稱為真實。以外在的止息動念，所以稱為權巧。第四，般若為真實，五度（Paramita，六度中的佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定）為方便。之所以這樣說，是因為般若為空性的理解，空性的理解所以名為真實。五度為存在的行為，存在的行為所以名為權巧。問：這與上面所說的照亮空性為真實，涉入存在為權巧有什麼不同？答：前面所說的照亮空性、照亮存在，都是智慧，所以用兩種理解來區分權實。現在從理解和行為的角度來開顯兩種門徑。空性的理解為真實，存在的行為為權巧，與上面所說的不同。問：存在的行為為什麼是權巧？答：即使照亮空性，也能發起行為，這個意義很巧妙，所以是權巧。而且，空是實相，有不是實相，所以空性的理解為真實，存在的行為為權巧。第五，照亮空性為真實，知道空性也是空性，就能不證入空性，所以稱為權巧。之所以這樣說，是因為二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）不知道空性，又把空性當作最微妙的境界，所以說空性只是空性，所以證入空性。菩薩（Bodhisattva，菩薩）知道空性也是空性，稱為不可得空，所以不證入空性，就能涉入存在，所以稱為權巧。這說明直接知道空性的意義為真實，真實的意義就顯得不足。知道空性也是空性，就能涉入存在，這種運用很殊勝，所以稱為權巧。然而這兩種智慧並沒有兩個不同的本體。最初觀照心性還不圓滿，所以只能照亮空性。等到轉為精巧，就知道空性也是空性。既然知道空性也是空性，而不破壞假名，就能涉入存在。始終來說，仍然是一種智慧。只是從巧妙與不巧妙的角度來區分權實。第六，知道苦、無常，所以稱為真實。而不取滅（涅槃），稱為方便。因為生死之身確實是苦、空、無常的過患之法，如實地照見它，所以是真實。二乘知道這些，就想滅除它。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Real' (為實, wei shi). Because Prajna (般若, Wisdom) illuminates emptiness, it is called 'Real'. Even while illuminating emptiness, it can engage with existence (有, you). This skillful application is called Upaya (方便, Expedient Means). Question: If that's the case, even while illuminating existence, it can perceive emptiness. This application is also skillful, so it should also be Expedient Means. Answer: Although this illumination is skillful, it takes Real Wisdom as its essence. Therefore, it conceals its skillful name and is called 'Real'. Third, taking inner stillness and contemplation as 'Real', and externally reversing movement as 'Expedient'. Question: How is this meaning different from what was said before? Answer: This clarifies that whether it's illumination or the skillful meaning of still contemplation, all are called 'Real'. Because of externally reversing movement, it is called 'Expedient'. Fourth, Prajna is 'Real', and the Five Paramitas (五度, Perfections: Generosity, Discipline, Patience, Diligence, and Meditation) are 'Expedient'. The reason is that Prajna is the understanding of emptiness, and the understanding of emptiness is called 'Real'. The Five Paramitas are actions of existence, and actions of existence are called 'Expedient'. Question: How is this different from the above, where illuminating emptiness is 'Real' and engaging with existence is 'Expedient'? Answer: The previous illuminating emptiness and illuminating existence are both wisdom. Therefore, the two understandings are used to distinguish between 'Expedient' and 'Real'. Now, from the perspective of understanding and action, two paths are opened. The understanding of emptiness is 'Real', and the actions of existence are 'Expedient', which is different from the above. Question: Why are the actions of existence 'Expedient'? Answer: Even while illuminating emptiness, one can initiate action. This meaning is skillful, so it is 'Expedient'. Moreover, emptiness is the real aspect, and existence is not the real aspect. Therefore, the understanding of emptiness is 'Real', and the actions of existence are 'Expedient'. Fifth, illuminating emptiness is 'Real', and knowing that emptiness is also empty allows one not to realize emptiness. Therefore, it is called 'Expedient'. The reason is that the Two Vehicles (二乘, Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) do not know emptiness and regard emptiness as the ultimate subtlety. Therefore, they say emptiness is only emptiness, and thus they realize emptiness. Bodhisattvas (菩薩, Enlightenment Being) know that emptiness is also empty, called unattainable emptiness. Therefore, they do not realize emptiness and can engage with existence, so it is called 'Expedient'. This clarifies that directly knowing the meaning of emptiness is 'Real', and the meaning of 'Real' seems insufficient. Knowing that emptiness is also empty allows one to engage with existence. This application is superior, so it is called 'Expedient'. However, these two wisdoms do not have two different essences. Initially, contemplating the mind is not yet perfect, so one can only illuminate emptiness. Once it becomes refined, one knows that emptiness is also empty. Since one knows that emptiness is also empty without destroying provisional names, one can engage with existence. In the end, it is still one wisdom. 'Expedient' and 'Real' are distinguished from the perspective of skillful and unskillful. Sixth, knowing suffering and impermanence is called 'Real'. And not taking extinction (Nirvana, 涅槃) is called 'Expedient'. Because the body of birth and death is indeed a law of suffering, emptiness, and impermanent faults, truly illuminating it is 'Real'. When the Two Vehicles know this, they want to extinguish it.

之故無方便。菩薩雖知。而安身處疾。自行化人。故名方便。七者直知身病非故非新故名為實。而不厭離稱為方便。此但就有門分權實。八者凈名托跡毗耶。不疾之身為實。現疾之跡為權。此據虛實之義以明權實也。九者以上照空有二為方便。照非空有不二為實。非空非有即是一實諦。照一實諦故名為實。雖非空非有。而空有宛然。不動不二。善巧能二。故名方便。十者空有為二。非空有為不二。照二與不二皆名方便。照非二非不二名實。凈名杜言。釋迦掩室。乃名為實。權實多門。略開此之十對。即一途次第。並有經論。可隨文用之。論大義。問何故波若名摩訶漚和不名摩訶。答通皆得稱大。如上云漚和俱舍羅大師方便力也。別而言之。波若稱大。略明十義。一者實相曠而無邊。深而無底。無有一法出法性外。波若照于實相故名大慧。漚和雖巧。不照實相故不名大。問二乘亦照實相。何不名大。答二乘未盡其邊。菩薩照窮原底。故名為大。二者三乘實智皆從波若中生。所以然者。所照實相既一。即能照波若無二。但根性不堪故。於一波若開為三乘智慧。三乘智慧攝入波若觀中。故名為大。問云何于波若出生三乘慧。答由實相故生波若。由波若故有菩薩。由菩薩故有佛。由佛故有三乘。即波若為本故出生三乘。所以名

【現代漢語翻譯】之故沒有方便。菩薩雖然知道，但安身於病痛之中，自己修行也教化他人，所以稱為方便。第七，直接知道身體的疾病不是舊病也不是新病，這稱為實，而不厭惡離開它，稱為方便。這只是就有的方面來區分權實。第八，維摩詰（Vimalakirti）寄身於毗耶離城（Vaishali），不以生病之身為實，而示現生病的跡象為權。這是根據虛實的意義來闡明權實。第九，以上照空有二者為方便，照非空非有不二之理為實。非空非有即是一實諦。照一實諦所以稱為實。雖然非空非有，但空有依然宛然存在，不動不二，善巧地能區分二者，所以稱為方便。第十，空有為二，非空有為不二，照二與不二都稱為方便，照非二非不二名為實。維摩詰的沉默不語，釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni）的掩室靜坐，才可稱為實。權實有多重門徑，簡略地開啟這十對，就是一種途徑的次第，並且有經論可以根據文意使用。論述大義。問：為什麼般若（Prajna）稱為摩訶（Mahā），漚和（Upaya）不稱為摩訶？答：普遍都可以稱為大，如上面所說，漚和俱舍羅（Upaya-kushala）大師的方便力。分別來說，般若稱為大，簡略地說明十個意義。第一，實相（Reality）曠遠而無邊，深邃而無底，沒有一法超出法性的範圍。般若照見實相，所以稱為大慧。漚和雖然巧妙，但不照見實相，所以不稱為大。問：二乘（Two Vehicles）也照見實相，為什麼不稱為大？答：二乘沒有窮盡它的邊際，菩薩照見窮盡本源，所以稱為大。第二，三乘（Three Vehicles）的實智都從般若中產生。之所以這樣，是因為所照見的實相既然是唯一的，那麼能照見的般若就沒有二致。只是根性不堪承受，所以在一般若中開出三乘智慧。三乘智慧攝入般若觀中，所以稱為大。問：如何從般若中出生三乘慧？答：由於實相的緣故產生般若，由於般若的緣故有菩薩，由於菩薩的緣故有佛，由於佛的緣故有三乘，即以般若為根本，所以出生三乘，所以稱為大。

【English Translation】 Therefore, there is no Upaya (skillful means). Although Bodhisattvas know this, they dwell in a state of illness, practicing for themselves and transforming others, hence it is called Upaya. Seventh, directly knowing that the body's illness is neither old nor new is called Reality, and not being averse to leaving it is called Upaya. This only distinguishes provisional and real from the aspect of existence. Eighth, Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) dwelling in Vaishali (Vaishali), not taking the body of illness as real, but manifesting the appearance of illness as provisional. This explains provisional and real based on the meaning of emptiness and reality. Ninth, above, illuminating emptiness and existence as two is Upaya, illuminating non-emptiness and non-existence as non-dual is Reality. Non-emptiness and non-existence is the One Reality. Illuminating the One Reality is called Reality. Although it is neither empty nor existent, emptiness and existence are still clearly present, unmoving and non-dual, skillfully able to distinguish the two, hence it is called Upaya. Tenth, emptiness and existence are two, non-emptiness and non-existence are non-dual, illuminating both the two and the non-dual are called Upaya, illuminating neither two nor non-two is called Reality. Vimalakirti's (Vimalakirti) silence and Sakyamuni's (Sakyamuni) closing the room are called Reality. Provisional and real have many paths, briefly opening these ten pairs is a sequential path, and there are sutras and treatises that can be used according to the text. Discussing the great meaning. Question: Why is Prajna (Wisdom) called Mahā (Great), and Upaya (Skillful Means) not called Mahā? Answer: Universally, it can be called Great, as mentioned above, the skillful means of the Upaya-kushala (Skillful-Good) master. Specifically speaking, Prajna is called Great, briefly explaining ten meanings. First, Reality (Reality) is vast and boundless, deep and bottomless, and no dharma is outside the scope of Dharma-nature. Prajna illuminates Reality, hence it is called Great Wisdom. Although Upaya is skillful, it does not illuminate Reality, hence it is not called Great. Question: The Two Vehicles (Two Vehicles) also illuminate Reality, why are they not called Great? Answer: The Two Vehicles have not exhausted its boundaries, Bodhisattvas illuminate to the ultimate source, hence it is called Great. Second, the Real Wisdom of the Three Vehicles (Three Vehicles) all arises from Prajna. The reason for this is that since the Reality being illuminated is unique, then the Prajna that illuminates it is not different. It is just that the capacity of the roots is unbearable, so the wisdom of the Three Vehicles is opened up in One Prajna. The wisdom of the Three Vehicles is incorporated into the Prajna contemplation, hence it is called Great. Question: How does the wisdom of the Three Vehicles arise from Prajna? Answer: Due to Reality, Prajna arises, due to Prajna, there are Bodhisattvas, due to Bodhisattvas, there are Buddhas, due to Buddhas, there are the Three Vehicles, that is, Prajna is the root, hence the Three Vehicles arise, hence it is called Great.

大。問三乘同觀實相。乃以實相為本。云何以波若為本。答要由諸佛菩薩體悟波若。然後說三乘教。始得同觀實相故波若為本。問波若本出生三乘。應是三乘通教。答勝鬘攝受正法出生五乘。猶如大地出四寶藏。涅槃云。即是聲聞藏出生聲聞。即因緣藏出生緣覺。即大乘藏出生菩薩。可是三乘通教耶。又如法花明。長者宅內非但具七珍。亦有瓫器等物。而名長者大宅。不名通宅。波若亦爾。雖具有三乘之慧。而名菩薩法不名三乘通教。問若非三乘通教。何故勸三乘同觀。答勸三乘人同觀實相波若。不勸三乘人同學摩訶波若。問摩訶波若何故非三乘通學。答論云。波若不屬二乘。所以然者。既稱摩訶般若。即是大乘。簡非二乘。故知。波若獨菩薩法。又此波若名波羅蜜。波羅蜜者。到佛道彼岸。二乘不到佛道彼岸非波羅蜜故。摩訶波若波羅蜜。獨菩薩法不屬二乘。問經但云欲得聲聞等當學波若。云何乃言。當學實相波若。答釋論作此判。之尋文自當見也。又以理推之。必非二乘人學勸摩訶波若。摩訶波若既是菩薩觀智。豈令二乘學耶。如涅槃云。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。上智觀故得菩薩菩提。此乃明三乘同觀中道。豈令下智學上智耶。問摩訶波若乃是獨菩薩法。而波若教中說三乘人同觀實相。即是三乘通教。答若爾涅槃經

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本大慧（Mahamati，菩薩名）問：三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）共同觀照實相，那麼應該以實相為根本。為什麼又說以般若（Prajna，智慧）為根本呢？答：關鍵在於諸佛菩薩體悟般若，然後宣說三乘教法，才能共同觀照實相，所以說般若為根本。問：般若本源出生三乘，應該屬於三乘共通的教法。答：《勝鬘經》說攝受正法能出生五乘（人天乘、聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘、佛乘），就像大地能生長出四種寶藏。《涅槃經》說：『聲聞藏出生聲聞，因緣藏出生緣覺，大乘藏出生菩薩。』難道能說是三乘共通的教法嗎？又如《法華經》中說，長者宅內不僅有七寶，也有陶器等物，因此稱為長者大宅，而不是稱為共通的宅院。般若也是如此，雖然具有三乘的智慧，但稱為菩薩法，不稱為三乘共通的教法。問：如果不是三乘共通的教法，為什麼勸三乘共同觀照呢？答：勸三乘人共同觀照實相般若，而不是勸三乘人共同學習摩訶般若（Mahaprajna，大智慧）。問：為什麼摩訶般若不是三乘共通學習的呢？答：《大智度論》說，般若不屬於二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）。原因在於，既然稱為摩訶般若，就是大乘的智慧，排除了二乘。所以說，般若是菩薩獨有的法。而且，此般若名為波羅蜜（Paramita，到彼岸），波羅蜜的意思是到達佛道的彼岸。二乘不能到達佛道的彼岸，所以不是波羅蜜。因此，摩訶般若波羅蜜是菩薩獨有的法，不屬於二乘。問：經中只說想要得到聲聞等果位應當學習般若，為什麼又說應當學習實相般若呢？答：《大智度論》作這樣的判釋，仔細尋文自然會明白。又從道理上推斷，一定不是讓二乘人學習摩訶般若。摩訶般若既然是菩薩的觀智，怎麼能讓二乘人學習呢？如《涅槃經》說：『下智觀能得到聲聞菩提，上智觀能得到菩薩菩提。』這說明三乘共同觀照中道，怎麼能讓下智的人學習上智呢？問：摩訶般若乃是菩薩獨有的法，而般若教中說三乘人共同觀照實相，這不就是三乘共通的教法嗎？答：如果這樣說，《涅槃經》...

【English Translation】 English version Mahamati (a Bodhisattva's name) asked: If the Three Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle) all contemplate the Real Mark (reality as it is), then the Real Mark should be the foundation. Why is it said that Prajna (wisdom) is the foundation? The answer is: The key is that all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas realize Prajna, and then expound the teachings of the Three Vehicles, so that they can jointly contemplate the Real Mark. Therefore, Prajna is the foundation. Question: Prajna is the origin of the Three Vehicles, so it should belong to the common teachings of the Three Vehicles. Answer: The 'Srimala Sutra' says that embracing the right Dharma can give rise to the Five Vehicles (Human-Deva Vehicle, Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle, Buddha Vehicle), just as the earth can produce four kinds of treasures. The 'Nirvana Sutra' says: 'The Sravaka Store produces Sravakas, the Conditioned Origination Store produces Pratyekabuddhas, and the Mahayana Store produces Bodhisattvas.' Can it be said that it is a common teaching of the Three Vehicles? Furthermore, as the 'Lotus Sutra' says, the elder's house not only has the seven treasures, but also pottery and other objects, so it is called the elder's mansion, not a common house. Prajna is also like this. Although it has the wisdom of the Three Vehicles, it is called the Bodhisattva Dharma, not the common teaching of the Three Vehicles. Question: If it is not a common teaching of the Three Vehicles, why encourage the Three Vehicles to contemplate together? Answer: It encourages people of the Three Vehicles to jointly contemplate the Real Mark Prajna, but it does not encourage people of the Three Vehicles to jointly study Maha-Prajna (Great Wisdom). Question: Why is Maha-Prajna not a common study for the Three Vehicles? Answer: The 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra' says that Prajna does not belong to the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle). The reason is that since it is called Maha-Prajna, it is the wisdom of the Mahayana, excluding the Two Vehicles. Therefore, Prajna is the unique Dharma of the Bodhisattvas. Moreover, this Prajna is called Paramita (to the other shore), and Paramita means reaching the other shore of Buddhahood. The Two Vehicles cannot reach the other shore of Buddhahood, so it is not Paramita. Therefore, Maha-Prajnaparamita is the unique Dharma of the Bodhisattvas and does not belong to the Two Vehicles. Question: The sutra only says that if you want to obtain the fruits of Sravakas, you should study Prajna. Why do you say that you should study the Real Mark Prajna? Answer: The 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra' makes such a judgment. If you look closely at the text, you will naturally understand. Furthermore, judging from the principle, it is certainly not to let people of the Two Vehicles study Maha-Prajna. Since Maha-Prajna is the wisdom of the Bodhisattvas, how can it be taught to the Two Vehicles? As the 'Nirvana Sutra' says: 'Lower wisdom contemplation can attain Sravaka Bodhi, and higher wisdom contemplation can attain Bodhisattva Bodhi.' This shows that the Three Vehicles jointly contemplate the Middle Way. How can lower wisdom people learn higher wisdom? Question: Maha-Prajna is the unique Dharma of the Bodhisattvas, but the Prajna teachings say that people of the Three Vehicles jointly contemplate the Real Mark. Isn't this the common teaching of the Three Vehicles? Answer: If that's the case, the 'Nirvana Sutra'...

中。說三乘人同觀中道。應是三乘通教耶。問若非三乘通教。何故令二乘人說耶。答長者付財凡有二意。一欲顯教菩薩。二密教二乘。此乃欲息於三乘同成菩薩。云何乃言三乘通教耶。三者由實相生波若。實相既無所依。則波若亦無著。以波若無著。能道成眾行。亦無所著故不住三界。不中息二乘。直趣佛道。以有引導之能故。名為大。問五度本非度。波若引導故名為度。亦應五度本非眼波若引導故得有眼。答通義亦類。別即不齊。如五盲雖隨有眼趣道入城而得度名而盲體性終自無眼。五度雖隨波若趣八正路至佛道城。而五度體性終非波若故。開福慧二嚴意顯於斯。問金剛波若云菩薩不住相佈施如日光明照見種種色。何得波若導五度不成眼耶。答本以般若為眼。五度非眼。但波若導之令成無所得。不住三界。不墮二乘。趣佛道故名為眼。非是成波若之眼也。問若眾行中以無所得為眼。亦應以無所得為慧。云何得開福慧二嚴。答無所得即通。福慧即別。若以無所得為慧。亦有此義。但非波若之慧。所以然者。波若有無所得。復有鑑照。五度但有無所得。無有鑑照。故不名慧也。四者五十二種大賢聖位在波若觀中。故名為大。所以然者。今即唯一波若。但明昧不同故。開成五十二位。五者三大阿僧祇劫。修此大慧故名為大

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：說三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）之人共同觀照中道（不落兩邊的真理），這應是三乘共通的教義嗎？答：如果不是三乘共通的教義，為何要讓二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）之人宣說呢？答：長者（指維摩詰）付託家財，凡有二重用意。一是想要顯揚教化菩薩，二是秘密教化二乘。這是想要止息於三乘共同成就菩薩，為何說是三乘共通的教義呢？三者，由實相（諸法真實不虛的體性）產生般若（智慧）。實相既然沒有所依，那麼般若也沒有執著。因為般若沒有執著，能夠引導成就各種修行，也沒有執著，所以不住於三界（欲界、色界、無色界），不中途止息於二乘，直接趨向佛道。因為有引導的能力，所以名為大。問：五度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定）本來不是度（到達彼岸），因為般若引導的緣故才名為度，也應該五度本來不是眼，因為般若引導的緣故才得以有眼？答：通泛的意義上類似，但區別在於不齊等。比如五個盲人雖然跟隨有眼之人前往道路進入城池而得到度脫之名，但盲人的體性終究自己沒有眼睛。五度雖然跟隨般若前往八正道（八種正確的修行方法）到達佛道之城，但五度的體性終究不是般若。所以，開啟福德和智慧兩種莊嚴，意義就在於此。問：《金剛般若經》說菩薩不住相佈施，如太陽光明照見種種色相，為何般若引導五度不能成為眼呢？答：本來是以般若為眼，五度不是眼，但般若引導它們成就無所得（不執著于任何事物），不住於三界，不墮入二乘，趨向佛道，所以名為眼，不是成就般若之眼。問：如果各種修行中以無所得為眼，也應該以無所得為慧，為何能開啟福德和智慧兩種莊嚴呢？答：無所得是共通的，福德和智慧是區別的。如果以無所得為慧，也有這個意義，但不是般若之慧。之所以這樣說，是因為般若有無所得，又有鑑照（明察），五度只有無所得，沒有鑑照，所以不名為慧。四者，五十二種大賢聖位（菩薩修行過程中的五十二個階位）在般若觀照中，所以名為大。之所以這樣說，現在即是唯一的般若，只是明昧不同，開啟成就五十二個階位。五者，三大阿僧祇劫（極長的時間單位）修習此大慧，所以名為大。

【English Translation】 English version Question: It is said that those of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna) commonly contemplate the Middle Way (the truth that does not fall into either extreme). Should this be a teaching common to the Three Vehicles? Answer: If it is not a teaching common to the Three Vehicles, why would you have those of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) expound it? Answer: The elder (referring to Vimalakīrti) entrusting his wealth has two intentions. First, he wants to reveal and teach Bodhisattvas. Second, he secretly teaches the Two Vehicles. This is to stop the Three Vehicles from jointly becoming Bodhisattvas. Why do you say it is a teaching common to the Three Vehicles? Third, Prajñā (wisdom) arises from reality (the true and unfalsified nature of all dharmas). Since reality has no reliance, then Prajñā also has no attachment. Because Prajñā has no attachment, it can guide the accomplishment of all practices, and also has no attachment, so it does not dwell in the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm), does not stop midway in the Two Vehicles, and goes directly to the Buddha Path. Because it has the ability to guide, it is called 'Great'. Question: The Five Perfections (Dāna, Śīla, Kṣānti, Vīrya, Dhyāna) are not originally perfections (reaching the other shore). Because Prajñā guides them, they are called perfections. Should the Five Perfections not originally be eyes, but because Prajñā guides them, they are able to have eyes? Answer: In a general sense, they are similar, but the difference lies in their inequality. For example, although five blind men follow a sighted person on the road to enter the city and gain the name of deliverance, the nature of the blind men themselves ultimately has no eyes. Although the Five Perfections follow Prajñā on the Eightfold Path (eight correct practices) to reach the city of the Buddha Path, the nature of the Five Perfections is ultimately not Prajñā. Therefore, the meaning of opening up the two adornments of merit and wisdom lies in this. Question: The Diamond Prajñā Sūtra says that Bodhisattvas practice giving without attachment to form, like the sunlight illuminating all kinds of forms. Why can't Prajñā guide the Five Perfections to become eyes? Answer: Originally, Prajñā is the eye, and the Five Perfections are not the eye. But Prajñā guides them to achieve non-attainment (not being attached to anything), not dwelling in the Three Realms, not falling into the Two Vehicles, and going to the Buddha Path, so it is called the eye, not the eye of achieving Prajñā. Question: If non-attainment is the eye in all practices, then non-attainment should also be wisdom. How can one open up the two adornments of merit and wisdom? Answer: Non-attainment is common, while merit and wisdom are distinct. If non-attainment is wisdom, it also has this meaning, but it is not the wisdom of Prajñā. The reason is that Prajñā has non-attainment and also has discernment (clear observation), while the Five Perfections only have non-attainment and do not have discernment, so they are not called wisdom. Fourth, the fifty-two stages of great virtuous and holy positions (the fifty-two stages in the Bodhisattva's path of cultivation) are in the contemplation of Prajñā, so it is called 'Great'. The reason is that now there is only one Prajñā, but the clarity and obscurity are different, opening up and achieving the fifty-two stages. Fifth, cultivating this great wisdom for three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas (extremely long units of time) is why it is called 'Great'.

。六者能斷大惑。所謂無明。是故經云。無明住地其力最大。二乘雖傾四住。未能斷之。菩薩照窮實相。方除此大惑。故名為大。七者拔三界內外一切大苦故名為大。八者諸大菩薩之所行法故名為大。九者于眾行中最勝無過故名為大。十者信之而得大福。毀之而招大罪。故名為大。此之十義。自有偏約波若。自有具通二慧。可隨義配之。問波若待小名大。不待小名大。答具有二義。一者待二乘小慧故名為大。問二乘為小慧菩薩為大慧。二乘小波若菩薩大般若。何故言波若不屬二乘。二乘心中名道品耶。答講者不體其旨。喜滯此言。論云波若不屬二乘。此是摩訶波若。菩薩大慧故。不屬二乘。非二乘之人無有空慧也。不得小名大者。波若體性是大故言不待。不如二乘智慧形凡則大望菩薩即小。問菩薩形二乘即大。望佛即波若為小。故在佛心中變名薩波若。寧言體性大耶。答波若是因中之極功在十地。故名為大。不望佛也。又波若通因果。果地波若即最上無過。故體性為大。如什公云。薩波若即為老波若也。又言絕待大者。得小名大。雖復絕小。猶未絕大。為名言所及。故非好大。大小雙絕。方是好大。問何文證之。答題云摩訶波若。波若深重而智慧不稱。亦摩訶深重。大不能稱。即其證也。又照明品云。不作大小名為摩

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本六者能斷大惑，所謂無明（根本的迷惑和愚昧）。所以經中說，無明住地（無明的根本所在）的力量最大。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）雖然傾覆了四住地煩惱（見一切處住地、欲愛住地、色愛住地、有愛住地），卻未能斷除無明。菩薩照見窮盡實相，才能去除這種大惑，所以稱為大。七者能拔除三界內外一切大苦，所以稱為大。八者是諸大菩薩所修行的法，所以稱為大。九者在一切修行中最殊勝，沒有超過它的，所以稱為大。十者信奉它能得到大福報，譭謗它會招致大罪過，所以稱為大。這十種意義，有的偏重於般若（智慧），有的普遍包含定慧二種智慧，可以根據意義來配合。問：般若憑藉小而稱為大，還是不憑藉小而稱為大？答：兩種意義都有。一是憑藉二乘的小智慧，所以稱為大。問：二乘是小慧，菩薩是大慧。二乘是小般若，菩薩是大般若。為什麼說般若不屬於二乘，二乘心中稱為道品呢？答：講解的人沒有領會其中的旨意，喜歡拘泥於這些言辭。論中說般若不屬於二乘，這是指摩訶般若（大智慧），是菩薩的大慧，所以不屬於二乘。並非說二乘之人沒有空慧。不憑藉小而稱為大，是因為般若的體性本來就是大，所以說不憑藉。不像二乘的智慧，相對於凡夫來說很大，但相對於菩薩來說就很小。問：菩薩相對於二乘來說很大，但相對於佛來說，般若就顯得小了。所以在佛心中，般若就變成了薩婆若（一切種智）。怎麼能說它的體性是大呢？答：般若是因地中的極功，在十地菩薩的修行中起作用，所以稱為大，不是相對於佛而言的。而且般若貫通因果，果地的般若就是最上無過的，所以體性為大。如鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）大師所說，薩婆若就是老般若。又說絕待大，憑藉小而稱為大，即使超越了小，仍然沒有超越大，還是名言所能達到的，所以不是真正的好大。大小雙重超越，才是真正的好大。問：有什麼經文可以證明這一點？答：經題說摩訶般若，般若深重而智慧不能完全稱量，也是摩訶深重，大也不能完全稱量，這就是證明。又《照明品》中說，不作大小之想，名為摩訶（偉大）。

【English Translation】 English version Sixth, it can sever great delusions, namely ignorance (Avidyā). Therefore, the sutra says, 'The abode of ignorance (Avidyā-sthiti) has the greatest power.' Although the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) overturn the Four Abodes (catvāri vāsasthānāni: the abode of seeing all things, the abode of desire-love, the abode of form-love, and the abode of existence-love), they cannot sever ignorance. Bodhisattvas, by illuminating and exhausting the true nature of reality, can remove this great delusion, hence it is called 'Great' (Mahā). Seventh, it can eradicate all great sufferings within and beyond the Three Realms (Tridhātu), hence it is called 'Great'. Eighth, it is the Dharma practiced by all great Bodhisattvas, hence it is called 'Great'. Ninth, it is the most supreme among all practices, with nothing surpassing it, hence it is called 'Great'. Tenth, believing in it brings great blessings, while slandering it incurs great sins, hence it is called 'Great'. These ten meanings, some lean towards Prajñā (wisdom), while others universally encompass both Samādhi (concentration) and Prajñā (wisdom). They can be matched according to their meanings. Question: Does Prajñā become 'Great' by comparison to the 'small', or is it 'Great' without comparison to the 'small'? Answer: It has both meanings. One is that it is called 'Great' in comparison to the small wisdom of the Two Vehicles. Question: The Two Vehicles have small wisdom, while Bodhisattvas have great wisdom. The Two Vehicles have small Prajñā, while Bodhisattvas have great Prajñā. Why is it said that Prajñā does not belong to the Two Vehicles, and is called 'Path Factors' (bodhipakkhiyadhamma) in the minds of the Two Vehicles? Answer: The speaker does not understand the essence of it and likes to dwell on these words. The treatise says that Prajñā does not belong to the Two Vehicles; this refers to Mahā-prajñā (great wisdom), which is the great wisdom of Bodhisattvas, hence it does not belong to the Two Vehicles. It does not mean that people of the Two Vehicles have no wisdom of emptiness. It is not called 'Great' by comparison to the 'small' because the nature of Prajñā is inherently 'Great', hence it is said that it does not depend on comparison. Unlike the wisdom of the Two Vehicles, which is great compared to ordinary beings but small compared to Bodhisattvas. Question: Bodhisattvas are great compared to the Two Vehicles, but compared to the Buddha, Prajñā appears small. Therefore, in the mind of the Buddha, Prajñā transforms into Sarvajña (all-knowing wisdom). How can it be said that its nature is 'Great'? Answer: Prajñā is the ultimate merit in the causal stage and functions in the practice of the Ten Bhūmis (ten stages of Bodhisattva path), hence it is called 'Great', not in comparison to the Buddha. Moreover, Prajñā pervades both cause and effect. Prajñā in the fruition stage is the most supreme and without fault, hence its nature is 'Great'. As Master Kumārajīva said, Sarvajña is old Prajñā. Furthermore, it is said that 'absolute greatness' becomes 'great' by comparison to the 'small'. Even if it transcends the 'small', it still has not transcended the 'great', and can still be reached by language, so it is not truly good 'greatness'. Only when both 'small' and 'great' are transcended is it truly good 'greatness'. Question: What sutra text proves this? Answer: The title says Mahā-prajñā. Prajñā is profound and weighty, and wisdom cannot fully measure it; it is also Mahā profound and weighty, and 'great' cannot fully measure it. This is the proof. Also, the 'Illumination Chapter' says, 'Not making distinctions of small and great is called Mahā (great).'

訶。復是良證。問雙絕大小。今非大非小。嘆美為大。還復待小。何名絕待。答此大絕小絕大。故名絕待。問絕大絕小名之為大。即待大待小皆名為小。還是大小相待。何有絕待大耶。答望前即絕。觀后便待。義不相違。問波若之大與涅槃大何異。答通而為言。即無有異。是故論云。若如法觀佛波若及涅槃。是三即一相。涅槃之照即是波若。波若滅之則是涅槃。涅槃無累不盡名解脫。無境不照名波若。真極可軌稱法身。故具於三德名為涅槃。波若即是涅槃。故亦具三德。波若但是智慧。既名為別。涅槃亦但是果。果亦別也。問波若是涅槃三德中一德。亦應涅槃是波若三德中一德耶。答亦得為例。以波若之別即成涅槃。亦取涅槃之別成波若。波若之別即是智慧。涅槃之別名為滅度。故果德涅槃佛地波若。皆具總別也。問經說三德成涅槃。何故不言三德成波若。答隨舉一德皆攝。何故無耶。但教起各自有由。涅槃教所興。正為斥小乘灰斷不具三德。嘆大涅槃具於三。波若教起。正明因行斥二乘無二慧。辨菩薩具權實也。問涅槃何故據果波若何故約因。答涅槃名滅度。滅度者大患永滅超度四流。此名必是究竟。故就果門。波若名為慧。慧猶未決了。宜約因也。

釋道門第三。問釋論云。菩薩有二道。一波若道。二方便

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：『訶』字再次證明了這一點。請問什麼是雙絕大小？現在說它非大非小，讚美它為大，是否還需要等待小？什麼叫做絕待？答：這是大絕小，小絕大，所以叫做絕待。問：絕大絕小稱之為大，那麼待大待小都稱之為小，這還是大小相對待，怎麼會有絕待的大呢？答：從前面來看就是絕，從後面來看就是待，意義上並不衝突。問：般若（Prajna，智慧）之大與涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）之大有什麼不同？答：總的來說，就沒有不同。所以《釋論》說，如果如法觀察佛的般若和涅槃，這三者就是一體。涅槃的照用就是般若，般若的寂滅就是涅槃。涅槃沒有累贅，沒有窮盡，叫做解脫；沒有境界不照見，叫做般若；真實到了極點，可以作為軌範，稱做法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）。所以具備三種功德，叫做涅槃。般若就是涅槃，所以也具備三種功德。般若只是智慧，既然名為別，涅槃也只是果，果也不同。問：般若是涅槃三德中的一德，那麼涅槃也應該是般若三德中的一德嗎？答：也可以這樣說。用般若的差別就成就了涅槃，也可以用涅槃的差別成就般若。般若的差別就是智慧，涅槃的差別叫做滅度。所以果德涅槃、佛地般若，都具有總相和別相。問：經書上說三德成就涅槃，為什麼不說三德成就般若？答：隨便舉出一個功德都包含全部，怎麼會沒有呢？只是教義的興起各自有原因。涅槃教興起，正是爲了斥責小乘灰身泯智，不具備三德，讚歎大涅槃具備三德。般若教興起，正是爲了闡明因地修行，斥責二乘沒有二種智慧，辨明菩薩具備權巧和真實。問：涅槃為什麼著重於果，般若為什麼著重於因？答：涅槃的意思是滅度，滅度就是大患永遠滅除，超脫四種煩惱的河流。這個名稱必定是究竟的，所以著重於果門。般若的意思是智慧，智慧還沒有決斷了，所以適宜著重於因地修行。解釋道門第三。問：釋論說，菩薩有二道，一是般若道，二是方便道。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: The word 'Ha' further proves this point. What is the dual transcendence of big and small? Now it is said to be neither big nor small, praising it as big. Does it still need to wait for small? What is called absolute transcendence? Answer: This is the transcendence of big over small, and small over big, so it is called absolute transcendence. Question: Calling the transcendence of big and small as big, then treating big and treating small are both called small. Is this still the relative dependence of big and small? How can there be absolute transcendence of big? Answer: Looking from the front, it is transcendence; looking from the back, it is dependence. The meanings do not contradict each other. Question: What is the difference between the greatness of Prajna (Prajna, wisdom) and the greatness of Nirvana (Nirvana, extinction)? Answer: Generally speaking, there is no difference. Therefore, the treatise says, if one observes the Prajna and Nirvana of the Buddha according to the Dharma, these three are one. The illumination of Nirvana is Prajna, and the extinction of Prajna is Nirvana. Nirvana is without burden and without end, called liberation; there is no realm that is not illuminated, called Prajna; the truth reaches the extreme and can be a norm, called Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, the Dharma body of the Buddha). Therefore, possessing the three virtues is called Nirvana. Prajna is Nirvana, so it also possesses the three virtues. Prajna is only wisdom, since it is named separately, Nirvana is also only the result, and the result is also different. Question: Prajna is one of the three virtues of Nirvana, so should Nirvana also be one of the three virtues of Prajna? Answer: It can also be taken as an example. The difference of Prajna achieves Nirvana, and the difference of Nirvana can also achieve Prajna. The difference of Prajna is wisdom, and the difference of Nirvana is called extinction. Therefore, the fruit virtue Nirvana, the Buddha-land Prajna, all have general and specific aspects. Question: The scriptures say that the three virtues achieve Nirvana, why not say that the three virtues achieve Prajna? Answer: Any one virtue includes all, how can it not be there? It's just that the rise of teachings has its own reasons. The Nirvana teaching arose precisely to rebuke the Hinayana for extinguishing the body and mind, not possessing the three virtues, and praising the Great Nirvana for possessing the three. The Prajna teaching arose precisely to clarify the practice of the cause, rebuke the two vehicles for not having two wisdoms, and distinguish that the Bodhisattva possesses expedient and true means. Question: Why does Nirvana focus on the result, and Prajna focus on the cause? Answer: Nirvana means extinction, which means that great suffering is forever extinguished and transcends the four streams of affliction. This name must be ultimate, so it focuses on the fruit. Prajna means wisdom, and wisdom has not yet been decided, so it is appropriate to focus on the cause. Explanation of the Path of Tao, Part 3. Question: The treatise says that Bodhisattvas have two paths, one is the path of Prajna, and the other is the path of expedient means.

道。云何為二道耶。答有人言。波若道即實相波若。方便道謂方便波若。是事不然。大判二道以為三例。一全依梵本應言波若道漚和道。二具開此言應云慧道方便道。三彼此合目如論所明。波若依彼之稱。方便存此之名。今若言實相波若方便波若。皆稱波若。即二道不分。又實相波若是境。方便波若是智。豈可以境智為二道耶。若言實相波若是實慧方便波若是方便慧以為二道。是亦不然。論云波若方便以為二道。何得皆稱波若。若爾二道俱應名方便。又立三波若。皆就波若道中論之。一實相波若。二觀照波若。三文字波若。實相能生波若。故名波若。文字能詮波若。以所詮為稱。亦名波若。三觀照當體名為波若。問何故但立此三不多不少。答凡有三義。實相為能生之境。觀照為所生之智。文字為能詮之文。要具此三不得增減。又合此三以為三雙。實相為境。觀照為智。謂境智一雙。境智為所詮。文字為能顯。能所一雙。境智則自行。為眾生說。故有文字。自行化他一雙。二者實相即無為。波若。觀照即有為波若。所以然者。論云諸法實相者心行言語斷。無生亦無滅寂滅如涅槃。實相既無生滅。故是無為波若。實相能生觀智。觀智始生故名有為波若。一切唯有此二。詮此有為無為。名文字波若。文字從所詮為名。通為無

為。當體明之。有為所攝。三者實相是無為波若。文字是有為波若。觀照亦有為亦無為。菩薩累猶未盡。即未勉生滅故名有為。佛即無惑不凈。無復生滅。故是無為波若。問何故有煩惱即有生滅耶。答以有煩惱。不得了悟本自無生滅故有生滅。若無煩惱。即悟觀心本自無生即是無為。不言轉有為波若故成無為也。此三門總攝境智為無為理教因果故。但立三也。問亦得實相為實慧觀照為方便以不。答若以佛性為實相。本自有之。名為實慧。觀照修習始生名為方便。此非照有為方便照空名為實。若權若實。始有之義皆名方便。本有佛性覺照之義名為實也。地論人。真修波若即本自有之。緣修波若即修習始起。性凈涅槃方便涅槃亦爾。此猶是舊本始之義。問與今何異。答本性清凈名為本有。約緣始悟本凈故名始有耳。然正道未曾本始。亦非垢凈。又舊宗為無為決定是二。今明。未得菩提。即無為成有為。若得菩提。即有為成無為。豈離有為別有無為。如前釋也。為無為例然。諸法本性清凈故名無為。未悟本無生滅名有為。然波若未曾為無為也。問波若道既開三。方便道亦有三不。答通亦有。謂境智文字。但實慧從境立名。故必須辨境。方便從巧受稱。故不須辨境。而文字即通二道也。然方便雖不從境立名。實照世諦之境即亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：為。當體明之。有為所攝。三者，實相是無為般若（prajna，智慧）。文字是有為般若。觀照亦有為亦無為。菩薩的修行尚未圓滿，所以還不能免於生滅，因此稱為有為。佛已經沒有迷惑和不凈，不再有生滅，所以是無為般若。問：為什麼有煩惱就有生滅呢？答：因為有煩惱，不能了悟本來就沒有生滅，所以才有生滅。如果沒有煩惱，就能領悟觀心本來就沒有生，這就是無為。不是說把有為般若轉變成無為。這三門總攝了境、智，作為無為的理、教、因、果，所以隻立這三者。問：也可以把實相作為實慧，觀照作為方便嗎？答：如果把佛性作為實相，本來就有的，就叫做實慧。觀照修習才產生的，叫做方便。這不是說照有為是方便，照空是實。無論是權是實，開始有的意思都叫做方便。本來就有的佛性覺照的意思叫做實。地論師認為，真修般若就是本來就有的，緣修般若就是修習才開始的。性凈涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）和方便涅槃也是這樣。這仍然是舊本始有的意思。問：和現在有什麼不同？答：本性清凈叫做本有，根據因緣才開始領悟本凈，所以叫做始有罷了。然而正道未曾有本始，也不是垢凈。而且舊宗認為無為決定是二。現在說明，沒有得到菩提（bodhi，覺悟）時，無為就變成有為。如果得到菩提，有為就變成無為。難道離開有為另外有無為嗎？就像前面解釋的那樣。有為無為的例子也是這樣。諸法的本性清凈，所以叫做無為。沒有領悟本來沒有生滅，叫做有為。然而般若未曾是有為或無為。問：般若道既然開了三門，方便道也有三門嗎？答：通達來說也有，就是境、智、文字。但是實慧是從境立名的，所以必須辨別境。方便是從巧妙接受而得名的，所以不必辨別境。而文字就通於二道。然而方便雖然不從境立名，實際上照見世諦之境也是。

【English Translation】 English version: is. When the substance is understood, it is encompassed by the conditioned. Thirdly, the true nature is unconditioned prajna (prajna, wisdom). Words are conditioned prajna. Contemplation is both conditioned and unconditioned. The Bodhisattva's accumulation is not yet complete, so they are not yet free from birth and death, hence called conditioned. The Buddha is without delusion and impurity, and no longer has birth and death, so it is unconditioned prajna. Question: Why is it that with afflictions there is birth and death? Answer: Because with afflictions, one cannot realize that originally there is no birth and death, hence there is birth and death. If there are no afflictions, one realizes that contemplating the mind is originally without birth, which is unconditioned. It is not said that transforming conditioned prajna becomes unconditioned. These three doors encompass the realm and wisdom, as the principle, teaching, cause, and effect of the unconditioned, hence only these three are established. Question: Can the true nature be regarded as true wisdom, and contemplation as skillful means? Answer: If Buddha-nature is regarded as the true nature, which is originally present, it is called true wisdom. Contemplation and practice that are newly generated are called skillful means. This is not to say that illuminating the conditioned is skillful means, and illuminating emptiness is the true. Whether provisional or real, the meaning of beginning is called skillful means. The meaning of the Buddha-nature's inherent awareness is called the true. The Dilun masters believe that truly cultivating prajna is originally present, while conditioned prajna is newly arising from practice. The inherently pure nirvana (nirvana, extinction) and expedient nirvana are also like this. This is still the old meaning of original beginning. Question: What is the difference from now? Answer: The inherently pure nature is called original existence. It is only through conditions that one begins to realize the original purity, hence it is called beginning existence. However, the right path has never had a beginning, nor is it defiled or pure. Moreover, the old school believes that the unconditioned is definitely two. Now it is explained that before attaining bodhi (bodhi, enlightenment), the unconditioned becomes conditioned. If one attains bodhi, the conditioned becomes unconditioned. How can there be unconditioned apart from the conditioned? As explained earlier. The example of conditioned and unconditioned is like this. The inherent nature of all dharmas is pure, hence called unconditioned. Not realizing that originally there is no birth and death is called conditioned. However, prajna has never been conditioned or unconditioned. Question: Since the path of prajna has opened three doors, does the path of skillful means also have three doors? Answer: Generally speaking, yes, which are realm, wisdom, and words. However, true wisdom is named from the realm, so it is necessary to distinguish the realm. Skillful means is named from skillful reception, so it is not necessary to distinguish the realm. And words encompass both paths. However, although skillful means is not named from the realm, in reality, illuminating the realm of worldly truth is also

具三也。觀照既有為無為。方便亦爾。如來二智。即是無為。菩薩二道。猶是有為。問實相波若唯是境亦得是智。答有人言。實相波若但是境名也。釋論四十三卷問曰。前說智慧名波若。今何故說空為波若。答果中說因如雲食布。此義應是因中說果。而言果中說因者。逆討明義。智慧正是波若。實相能生智慧。智慧是實相之果。而於智慧說實相為波若。故言果中說因。南北同此釋也。有人言。佛有三種。一者法身二者報身三者化身佛。實相即法身佛。實相可軌。名之為法。此法有體。故名為身。而實相非佛。能生佛故。所以名佛。二者報身。即修行會實相理。實相既常。報佛亦常。以法常故。諸佛亦常。三化佛即應物之用。此北土論師釋也。有人言。修空無相。會理圓通。心意識滅煩惱清凈。此無為波若。即是實相。若有行境。未勉生滅。即菩薩六度。得十地差別。名有為波若。此南方尚禪師義也。復有人言。實相即真諦理。會此理煩惱盡故。離生滅同真如等法性。無為而無不為。即實相是境也。此亦南方成實師義。今辨釋論意。可得有五句文。一者因中說果。如名實相為波若。二果中說因。如說波若為實相。三當因說因。實相非波若。四當果說果。波若非實相。五非因非果。故論釋實相。文云。因是一邊果是一邊。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本具三也。觀照既有為無為，方便亦然。如來的兩種智慧，即是無為；菩薩的兩種修行道路，仍然是有為。問：實相般若（Paramartha-prajna，真實不虛的智慧）僅僅是所觀照的境界，還是也可以是能觀照的智慧？答：有人認為，實相般若僅僅是作為所觀照的境界而存在。釋論（Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa，大智度論）第四十三卷問：前面說智慧名為般若，現在為什麼又說空為般若？答：這是在果中說因，如同用食物來比喻衣服。這個意思應該是在因中說果，而說成在果中說因，是爲了逆向探求以闡明其意義。智慧正是般若，實相能夠產生智慧，智慧是實相的果。所以在智慧中說實相為般若，所以說是果中說因。南北方的解釋相同。有人認為，佛有三種：一是法身佛（Dharmakaya-buddha，體現真理的佛身），二是報身佛（Sambhogakaya-buddha，通過修行獲得的佛身），三是化身佛（Nirmanakaya-buddha，為度化眾生而示現的佛身）。實相即是法身佛，實相可以作為準則，被稱為法。此法有其本體，所以名為身。而實相併非佛，因為它能產生佛，所以名為佛。二是報身，即修行契合實相之理。實相既然是常住不變的，報身佛也是常住不變的。因為法是常住的，所以諸佛也是常住的。三是化身佛，即是應物而生的作用。這是北方論師的解釋。有人認為，修習空和無相，契合理事圓融的道理，心意識滅除，煩惱清凈，這無為的般若，即是實相。如果還有所行之境，未能免除生滅，即是菩薩的六度（Paramita，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧），獲得十地（Bhumi，菩薩修行的十個階段）的差別，名為有為般若。這是南方尚禪師的觀點。又有人認為，實相即是真諦之理，契合此理，煩惱盡除，遠離生滅，等同於真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）等法性，無為而無所不為，即實相是所觀照的境界。這也是南方成實師的觀點。現在辨析釋論的意義，可以得出五句文：一是在因中說果，如稱實相為般若；二是在果中說因，如說般若為實相；三是當因說因，實相非般若；四是當果說果，般若非實相；五是非因非果。所以論中解釋實相，文中說：因是一邊，果是一邊。

【English Translation】 English version It also possesses the three aspects. Contemplation encompasses both the conditioned (有為, Youwei) and the unconditioned (無為, Wuwei), and so does skillful means (方便, Fangbian). The two wisdoms of the Tathagata (如來, Rulai) are the unconditioned, while the two paths of the Bodhisattva (菩薩, Pusa) are still the conditioned. Question: Is the Paramartha-prajna (實相波若, Shixiang bore), the true aspect of reality, only an object of contemplation, or can it also be the wisdom that contemplates? Answer: Some say that Paramartha-prajna is only named as the object of contemplation. The forty-third chapter of the Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa (釋論, Shilun) asks: Previously, it was said that wisdom is called prajna, so why is emptiness now said to be prajna? Answer: This is speaking of the cause in the effect, like using food to represent clothing. The meaning should be speaking of the effect in the cause, but it is said to be speaking of the cause in the effect in order to explore the meaning in reverse. Wisdom is precisely prajna, and Paramartha can generate wisdom; wisdom is the effect of Paramartha. Therefore, in wisdom, Paramartha is said to be prajna, so it is said to be speaking of the cause in the effect. The interpretations of the North and South are the same. Some say that there are three types of Buddha (佛, Fo): first, the Dharmakaya-buddha (法身佛, Fashen fo), the embodiment of truth; second, the Sambhogakaya-buddha (報身佛, Baoshen fo), the Buddha who attained through practice; and third, the Nirmanakaya-buddha (化身佛, Huashen fo), the Buddha who manifests to liberate beings. Paramartha is the Dharmakaya-buddha. Paramartha can be a standard, so it is called Dharma (法, Fa). This Dharma has a substance, so it is called Kaya (身, Shen). However, Paramartha is not the Buddha, because it can generate the Buddha, so it is called Buddha. Second is the Sambhogakaya, which is the practice that aligns with the principle of Paramartha. Since Paramartha is constant, the Sambhogakaya Buddha is also constant. Because the Dharma is constant, all Buddhas are also constant. Third is the Nirmanakaya Buddha, which is the function that arises in response to beings. This is the interpretation of the northern teachers. Some say that cultivating emptiness and non-form, aligning with the principle of perfect interpenetration, the cessation of mind, consciousness, and the purification of afflictions, this unconditioned prajna is Paramartha. If there is still an object of practice, and one has not escaped birth and death, then it is the six Paramitas (六度, Liudu) of the Bodhisattva—giving, morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom—obtaining the differences of the ten Bhumis (十地, Shidi), the ten stages of Bodhisattva practice, and is called conditioned prajna. This is the view of Zen Master Shang of the South. Furthermore, some say that Paramartha is the principle of true reality. Aligning with this principle, afflictions are exhausted, one is separated from birth and death, and is equal to Suchness (真如, Zhenru) and other Dharmata (法性, Faxing), unconditioned yet not inactive, meaning Paramartha is the object of contemplation. This is also the view of the southern Satyasiddhi school. Now, analyzing the meaning of the Shastra, we can derive five sentences: first, speaking of the effect in the cause, such as calling Paramartha prajna; second, speaking of the cause in the effect, such as saying prajna is Paramartha; third, speaking of the cause as the cause, Paramartha is not prajna; fourth, speaking of the effect as the effect, prajna is not Paramartha; fifth, neither cause nor effect. Therefore, the Shastra explains Paramartha, saying in the text: the cause is one side, and the effect is one side.

離此二邊名為中道。緣是一邊觀是一邊。離此二邊名為中道。故知。實相未曾因果。亦非境智。而隨緣逐義。有上四句不同。眾師不應泛引只文以通圓旨也。問舊雲實慧方便慧普皆稱慧。何故二道不得俱名波若。答外國名波若。此方翻為慧。梵本名漚和。此土云方便。譯經之人。欲定彼此方言故分於二道。若並云波若。即兩名相監故。睿公述羅什譯經之體云。故音失者。正之以天竺。秦言謬者。定之以字義。不可變者即而書之。故知。二道不得俱稱波若。問若爾舊何得雲實慧方便慧。答欲明實法方便俱有鑑照之功故。悉稱慧耳。此是義釋。非立二道之名。立二道之名。但云慧與方便。問何故波若名慧方便不名慧耶。答通而言之。波若既照得名為慧。方便亦照亦得稱慧。方便既巧。波若亦巧。但立此二名。欲相開避。隱顯互說。波若顯其照名隱其巧稱。方便顯其巧稱隱其照名。所以然者。波若從實相境立名。又當其體故。顯照隱巧。方便不從照俗境立名。但取巧用故顯巧沒照。又慧名照空。波若既是空慧。所以名慧。方便涉有不得名慧。問波若照空名慧。方便涉有應稱為智。答如前釋之。方便非不照有。正以取巧能故不云智也。問何以知波若為體方便為用。答釋論第百卷云。問上已付囑竟。今何故復囑累。答上說波若體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本離開這兩種邊見就叫做中道（Madhyamaka）。因為執著於一邊，觀察又執著于另一邊，離開這兩種邊見才叫做中道。因此可知，實相（Tathata）從未有因果關係，也不是境（Vishaya）與智（Jnana）的關係。而是隨著因緣和意義的變化，有以上四句不同的說法。各位法師不應該隨便引用隻言片語來概括圓滿的宗旨。有人問：舊的說法中，實慧（real wisdom）、方便慧（skillful wisdom）普遍都稱為慧（Prajna），為什麼二道（指實慧和方便慧）不能都稱為般若（Prajna）呢？回答：外國的名稱是般若，我們這裡翻譯為慧。梵文字名為漚和（Upaya），我們這裡稱為方便（Upaya）。翻譯佛經的人，想要確定彼此的方言，所以才分為二道。如果都稱為般若，那麼兩個名稱就互相混淆了。鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）的弟子僧睿（Sengrui）論述羅什翻譯佛經的原則時說：『如果發音有缺失，就用天竺（印度）的讀音來糾正；如果秦（中國）的語言有錯誤，就用字義來確定；不可改變的就直接書寫。』因此可知，二道不能都稱為般若。有人問：如果這樣，舊的說法為什麼又說實慧、方便慧呢？回答：想要說明實法（real dharma）和方便都具有鑑別照了的功用，所以都稱為慧罷了。這是義理上的解釋，不是建立二道的名稱。建立二道的名稱，只是說慧與方便。有人問：為什麼般若稱為慧，而方便不稱為慧呢？回答：總的來說，般若因為照了而得名為慧，方便也照了，也可以稱為慧。方便既然巧妙，般若也巧妙。但建立這兩個名稱，是爲了互相區分，隱晦和顯明互相說明。般若顯明它的照了之名，隱晦它的巧妙之稱；方便顯明它的巧妙之稱，隱晦它的照了之名。之所以這樣，是因為般若從實相境（境，Vishaya）建立名稱，又因為它本身就是本體，所以顯明照了而隱晦巧妙。方便不從照了世俗境（境，Vishaya）建立名稱，只是取其巧妙的功用，所以顯明巧妙而隱沒照了。而且慧的名稱是照空（Sunyata），般若既然是空慧（Sunyata-Prajna），所以稱為慧。方便涉及有（Bhava），不能稱為慧。有人問：般若照空稱為慧，方便涉及有，應該稱為智（Jnana）。回答：如同前面的解釋，方便並非不照了有，正是因為取其巧妙的功用，所以不稱為智。有人問：憑什麼知道般若為體（essence），方便為用（function）呢？回答：《大智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）第一百卷說：『有人問：上面已經付囑完畢，現在為什麼又囑咐？回答：上面說的是般若的體（essence）。』

【English Translation】 English version That which is apart from these two extremes is called the Middle Way (Madhyamaka). Because one clings to one extreme, and observes and clings to the other extreme, that which is apart from these two extremes is called the Middle Way. Therefore, it is known that True Reality (Tathata) has never had cause and effect, nor is it object (Vishaya) and wisdom (Jnana). But according to the changes of conditions and meanings, there are the above four different statements. All teachers should not casually quote fragments to generalize the complete purpose. Someone asks: In the old sayings, real wisdom (real Prajna), skillful wisdom (skillful Prajna) are generally called wisdom (Prajna), why can't the two paths (referring to real wisdom and skillful wisdom) both be called Prajna? Answer: The foreign name is Prajna, which we translate here as wisdom. The Sanskrit name is Upaya, which we call skillfulness here. The translators of the scriptures wanted to determine each other's dialects, so they divided them into two paths. If both are called Prajna, then the two names will be confused with each other. Sengrui, a disciple of Kumarajiva, discussed Kumarajiva's principles of translating scriptures, saying: 'If the pronunciation is missing, it should be corrected with the pronunciation of India (India); if the language of Qin (China) is wrong, it should be determined by the meaning of the words; what cannot be changed should be written directly.' Therefore, it is known that the two paths cannot both be called Prajna. Someone asks: If so, why did the old saying say real wisdom and skillful wisdom? Answer: I want to explain that both real dharma and skillfulness have the function of discernment and illumination, so they are all called wisdom. This is an explanation of the meaning, not the establishment of the name of the two paths. The establishment of the name of the two paths is only to say wisdom and skillfulness. Someone asks: Why is Prajna called wisdom, but skillfulness is not called wisdom? Answer: Generally speaking, Prajna is called wisdom because of its illumination, and skillfulness also illuminates, and can also be called wisdom. Since skillfulness is ingenious, Prajna is also ingenious. However, the establishment of these two names is to distinguish each other, and to explain each other implicitly and explicitly. Prajna shows its name of illumination and hides its name of ingenuity; skillfulness shows its name of ingenuity and hides its name of illumination. The reason for this is that Prajna establishes its name from the realm of True Reality (Vishaya), and because it is the essence itself, it shows illumination and hides ingenuity. Skillfulness does not establish its name from illuminating the mundane realm (Vishaya), but only takes its ingenious function, so it shows ingenuity and hides illumination. Moreover, the name of wisdom is illuminating emptiness (Sunyata), and since Prajna is emptiness-wisdom (Sunyata-Prajna), it is called wisdom. Skillfulness involves existence (Bhava) and cannot be called wisdom. Someone asks: Prajna illuminates emptiness and is called wisdom, and skillfulness involves existence and should be called Jnana. Answer: As explained earlier, skillfulness does not fail to illuminate existence, but precisely because it takes its ingenious function, it is not called Jnana. Someone asks: How do you know that Prajna is the essence and skillfulness is the function? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, Volume 100, says: 'Someone asks: The entrustment has been completed above, why is it entrusted again now? Answer: What was said above is the essence of Prajna.'

竟。今說方便用。故波若為體。方便為用。論又云。波若與方便本體是一。而隨義有異。譬如金為種種物。此明權實一體約義分二。金喻波若。波若為體。金上之巧。譬于方便。方便為用。問波若何故為體。方便何故為用。答實相為本。波若照實相故。波若亦為本。所以為體。諸法為末。方便照諸法故。方便為用。問何以知。實相為本。答論初捲雲。三悉檀可破。第一義悉檀不可破。滅一切言語。過一切戲論。第一義悉檀即實相。論又云。除實相以外一切皆名為魔。故實相為本。又迷實相故有六道。悟實相即有三乘。故實相為迷悟之原。所以稱本也。此是對虛妄名之為實。若無虛妄即亦無實。如前云。非境非智非果非因。不同舊宗有天然實相境也。問若波若為本。即波若勝方便劣。何故六地名波若七地稱方便。答金雖是體。未作巧物。則金為劣也。制金為巧。即巧勝於金。六地雖得波若之體。未得妙用故波若則劣。至七地時。波若妙用。故稱為方便勝也。是以論云波若清凈反名方便。此言反者。照空之慧。未能涉有。故空慧未巧但名波若。照空之慧。即能涉有。故轉名方便。問曰。既反名方便。應失波若之名便無二慧。所以然者。得波若時。未有方便。得方便即無復波若。答二慧更無別。體巧之空慧。即名方便波若。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：竟。現在說方便的運用。所以般若（Prajna，智慧）是本體，方便是作用。論中又說，般若與方便本體是一樣的，只是隨著意義不同而有所區別。譬如金子可以做成各種各樣的東西。這說明權實一體，只是從意義上分為兩個方面。金子比喻般若，般若是本體。金子上的技巧，比喻方便，方便是作用。問：為什麼般若是本體，方便是作用？答：實相（Reality）是根本，般若照見實相，所以般若也是根本，所以是本體。諸法是末端，方便照見諸法，所以方便是作用。問：憑什麼知道實相是根本？答：論的第一卷說，三種悉檀（Siddhanta，成就）可以被破除，第一義悉檀（Paramartha-siddhanta，勝義成就）不可破除，它滅絕一切言語，超越一切戲論。第一義悉檀就是實相。論中又說，除了實相以外，一切都可以稱為魔。所以實相是根本。又因為迷惑于實相，所以有六道（Six realms of reincarnation）。領悟實相，就有三乘（Three Vehicles）。所以實相是迷惑和覺悟的根源，因此稱為根本。這是針對虛妄而稱之為實。如果沒有虛妄，也就沒有實。如前面所說，非境非智非果非因。不同於舊宗派有天然的實相境。問：如果般若是根本，那麼般若勝過方便，方便就差一些。為什麼六地（Sixth Bhumi）稱為般若，七地（Seventh Bhumi）稱為方便？答：金子雖然是本體，但沒有做成巧妙的東西，那麼金子就顯得差一些。把金子做成巧妙的東西，那麼技巧就勝過金子。六地雖然得到了般若的本體，但沒有得到妙用，所以般若就顯得差一些。到了七地時，般若有了妙用，所以稱為方便勝。因此論中說，般若清凈反而稱為方便。這裡說的『反』，是指照空的智慧，不能涉入有，所以空慧不巧妙，只能稱為般若。照空的智慧，能夠涉入有，所以轉而稱為方便。問：既然轉而稱為方便，應該失去般若之名，就沒有兩種智慧了。之所以這樣，是因為得到般若時，沒有方便。得到方便就沒有般若了。答：兩種智慧沒有別的本體，巧妙的空慧，就叫做方便般若。

【English Translation】 English version: Now, I will explain the application of skillful means (Upaya). Therefore, Prajna (wisdom) is the substance, and skillful means is the function. The treatise also states that Prajna and skillful means are the same in essence, but differ in meaning. It is like gold being made into various objects. This illustrates that the provisional and the real are one, but divided into two aspects in terms of meaning. Gold is a metaphor for Prajna, and Prajna is the substance. The skill in crafting gold is a metaphor for skillful means, and skillful means is the function. Question: Why is Prajna the substance, and skillful means the function? Answer: Reality (Tathata) is the root. Prajna illuminates Reality, so Prajna is also the root, and therefore the substance. All dharmas are the branches. Skillful means illuminates all dharmas, so skillful means is the function. Question: How do we know that Reality is the root? Answer: The first chapter of the treatise states that the three Siddhantas (accomplishments) can be refuted, but the Paramartha-siddhanta (ultimate meaning accomplishment) cannot be refuted. It extinguishes all language and transcends all conceptual play. The Paramartha-siddhanta is Reality. The treatise also states that everything other than Reality can be called Mara (demon). Therefore, Reality is the root. Furthermore, because of delusion about Reality, there are the six realms of reincarnation (Six realms of reincarnation). Upon realizing Reality, there are the Three Vehicles (Three Vehicles). Therefore, Reality is the origin of delusion and enlightenment, and thus it is called the root. This is calling what is illusory as real. If there is no illusion, then there is no reality. As mentioned earlier, it is neither object, nor wisdom, nor result, nor cause. It is different from the old schools that have a natural Reality realm. Question: If Prajna is the root, then Prajna is superior and skillful means is inferior. Why is the Sixth Bhumi (Sixth Bhumi) called Prajna and the Seventh Bhumi (Seventh Bhumi) called skillful means? Answer: Although gold is the substance, if it is not made into a skillful object, then the gold is inferior. When gold is made into a skillful object, then the skill is superior to the gold. Although the Sixth Bhumi attains the substance of Prajna, it does not attain its wonderful function, so Prajna is inferior. When it reaches the Seventh Bhumi, Prajna has its wonderful function, so it is called the superiority of skillful means. Therefore, the treatise says that pure Prajna is instead called skillful means. The word 'instead' here refers to the wisdom that illuminates emptiness, but cannot engage with existence. Therefore, the wisdom of emptiness is not skillful and is only called Prajna. The wisdom that illuminates emptiness can engage with existence, so it is transformed and called skillful means. Question: Since it is transformed and called skillful means, should it lose the name of Prajna, and there would be no two wisdoms? The reason for this is that when Prajna is attained, there is no skillful means. When skillful means is attained, there is no more Prajna. Answer: The two wisdoms have no separate substance. The skillful wisdom of emptiness is called skillful means Prajna.

空慧之巧。稱波若方便。譬如金巧巧金。巧不失金。金未有巧也。問空慧有二巧。一照空不著。二即能涉有無滯。二巧之中。以何為方便。答波若略有四力。一者照實相。二者無所著。三者斷諸惑。四者能導方便。此四用即是次第。由不見一切相。而見實相。實相既無所依。即波若亦無所著。以無所著。眾累寂然。以無累故。能導方便。令涉有無染。若然者照空及於空無著。是波若之力。故囑空慧。即空慧而能涉有。此囑方便。故兩巧不同。問方便涉有具幾力耶。答一有照境之功。二有不證空力。三起行之用。問涉有無著。是方便之功。波若力耶。答涉有即屬方便之力。無著由波若之力。以波若無著。于波若觀中。即有巧方便用。故此方便即能無著。問方便云何能不證空。答波若照諸法實相。方便能照實相諸法。故不沈空觀。名為不證。如釋論云。波若將入畢竟空無諸戲論。方便將出畢竟空嚴土化人。此即證上諸力義。將入畢竟空。即是照實相。無諸戲論。謂無所著及斷惑之功也。方便將出畢竟空。即是為波若所導。又是方便不證照境起行之力。問波若照諸法實相。云何方便即能照實相諸法。答名為諸法實相實相諸法。諸法宛然而實相。實相宛然而諸法。諸法與實相。不二而二。二常不二。由境既爾故。二慧得然。故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：空慧的巧妙運用，稱之為般若方便（Prajna-upaya，智慧與方便）。譬如精巧的工匠打造黃金，工匠的技藝不會使黃金消失，但黃金本身並不具備工匠的技藝。有人問，空慧有兩種巧妙之處：一是照見空性而不執著，二是能夠涉入有無之間而不受阻礙。這兩種巧妙之中，以哪一種作為方便呢？

回答是，般若略有四種力量：一是照見實相（Reality），二是無所執著，三是斷除各種迷惑，四是能夠引導方便。這四種作用是依次產生的。由於不見一切表象，才能見到實相。實相既然沒有所依賴之處，那麼般若也就無所執著。因為沒有執著，各種煩惱就寂靜下來。因為沒有煩惱，就能夠引導方便，使之涉入有無之間而不受污染。如果這樣說，那麼照見空性和對於空性的無執著，是般若的力量，所以要囑咐空慧。即是憑藉空慧而能夠涉入有。這是囑咐方便。所以兩種巧妙不同。

有人問，方便涉入有，具備幾種力量呢？回答是，一是有照見境界的功用，二是有不證悟空性的力量，三是發起行動的作用。

有人問，涉入有而不執著，是方便的功勞，還是般若的力量呢？回答是，涉入有屬於方便的力量，無執著則由般若的力量。因為般若沒有執著，所以在般若的觀照中，就有了巧妙的方便運用。所以這種方便就能夠沒有執著。

有人問，方便如何能夠不證悟空性呢？回答是，般若照見諸法的實相，方便能夠照見實相的諸法，所以不沉溺於空觀，這叫做不證悟。如《大智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）所說，般若將要進入畢竟空，沒有各種戲論；方便將要從畢竟空中出來，莊嚴國土，化度眾人。這正是證明了上述各種力量的含義。將要進入畢竟空，就是照見實相；沒有各種戲論，就是沒有執著以及斷除迷惑的功用。方便將要從畢竟空中出來，就是被般若所引導，又是方便不證悟、照見境界、發起行動的力量。

有人問，般若照見諸法的實相，為什麼方便就能照見實相的諸法呢？回答是，名為諸法的實相，實相的諸法。諸法宛然就是實相，實相宛然就是諸法。諸法與實相，不二而二，二常不二。由於境界是這樣的，所以兩種智慧才能這樣運作。 English version: The skillful application of emptiness-wisdom is called Prajna-upaya (wisdom and skillful means). It's like a skilled craftsman working with gold; the craftsman's skill doesn't make the gold disappear, but the gold itself doesn't possess the craftsman's skill. Someone asks, emptiness-wisdom has two skillful aspects: first, it illuminates emptiness without attachment; second, it can engage with existence and non-existence without hindrance. Among these two skillful aspects, which one serves as the skillful means?

The answer is, Prajna roughly has four powers: first, it illuminates Reality (real nature of all phenomena); second, it is without attachment; third, it cuts off all delusions; fourth, it can guide skillful means. These four functions arise in sequence. Because one doesn't see all appearances, one can see Reality. Since Reality has nothing to rely on, then Prajna is also without attachment. Because there is no attachment, all afflictions become tranquil. Because there are no afflictions, one can guide skillful means, enabling it to engage with existence and non-existence without being tainted.

If that's the case, then illuminating emptiness and non-attachment to emptiness are the powers of Prajna, so emptiness-wisdom must be instructed. That is, relying on emptiness-wisdom, one can engage with existence. This is instructing skillful means. Therefore, the two skillful aspects are different.

Someone asks, how many powers does skillful means possess when engaging with existence? The answer is, first, it has the function of illuminating the realm; second, it has the power of not realizing emptiness; third, it has the function of initiating action.

Someone asks, is engaging with existence without attachment the merit of skillful means or the power of Prajna? The answer is, engaging with existence belongs to the power of skillful means, while non-attachment comes from the power of Prajna. Because Prajna is without attachment, in the contemplation of Prajna, there is the skillful application of skillful means. Therefore, this skillful means can be without attachment.

Someone asks, how can skillful means not realize emptiness? The answer is, Prajna illuminates the Reality of all dharmas (phenomena), while skillful means can illuminate the dharmas of Reality, so it doesn't sink into the contemplation of emptiness; this is called non-realization. As the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says, Prajna is about to enter ultimate emptiness, without all fabrications; skillful means is about to emerge from ultimate emptiness, adorning the land and transforming people. This precisely proves the meaning of the above powers. About to enter ultimate emptiness means illuminating Reality; without all fabrications means without attachment and the function of cutting off delusions. Skillful means is about to emerge from ultimate emptiness, which means being guided by Prajna, and it is also the power of skillful means not realizing, illuminating the realm, and initiating action.

Someone asks, Prajna illuminates the Reality of all dharmas, why can skillful means illuminate the dharmas of Reality? The answer is, it is called the Reality of dharmas, the dharmas of Reality. Dharmas are clearly Reality, and Reality is clearly dharmas. Dharmas and Reality are not two yet two, two yet always not two. Because the realm is like this, the two wisdoms can operate in this way.

【English Translation】 English version: The skillful application of emptiness-wisdom is called Prajna-upaya (wisdom and skillful means). It's like a skilled craftsman working with gold; the craftsman's skill doesn't make the gold disappear, but the gold itself doesn't possess the craftsman's skill. Someone asks, emptiness-wisdom has two skillful aspects: first, it illuminates emptiness without attachment; second, it can engage with existence and non-existence without hindrance. Among these two skillful aspects, which one serves as the skillful means? The answer is, Prajna roughly has four powers: first, it illuminates Reality (real nature of all phenomena); second, it is without attachment; third, it cuts off all delusions; fourth, it can guide skillful means. These four functions arise in sequence. Because one doesn't see all appearances, one can see Reality. Since Reality has nothing to rely on, then Prajna is also without attachment. Because there is no attachment, all afflictions become tranquil. Because there are no afflictions, one can guide skillful means, enabling it to engage with existence and non-existence without being tainted. If that's the case, then illuminating emptiness and non-attachment to emptiness are the powers of Prajna, so emptiness-wisdom must be instructed. That is, relying on emptiness-wisdom, one can engage with existence. This is instructing skillful means. Therefore, the two skillful aspects are different. Someone asks, how many powers does skillful means possess when engaging with existence? The answer is, first, it has the function of illuminating the realm; second, it has the power of not realizing emptiness; third, it has the function of initiating action. Someone asks, is engaging with existence without attachment the merit of skillful means or the power of Prajna? The answer is, engaging with existence belongs to the power of skillful means, while non-attachment comes from the power of Prajna. Because Prajna is without attachment, in the contemplation of Prajna, there is the skillful application of skillful means. Therefore, this skillful means can be without attachment. Someone asks, how can skillful means not realize emptiness? The answer is, Prajna illuminates the Reality of all dharmas (phenomena), while skillful means can illuminate the dharmas of Reality, so it doesn't sink into the contemplation of emptiness; this is called non-realization. As the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says, Prajna is about to enter ultimate emptiness, without all fabrications; skillful means is about to emerge from ultimate emptiness, adorning the land and transforming people. This precisely proves the meaning of the above powers. About to enter ultimate emptiness means illuminating Reality; without all fabrications means without attachment and the function of cutting off delusions. Skillful means is about to emerge from ultimate emptiness, which means being guided by Prajna, and it is also the power of skillful means not realizing, illuminating the realm, and initiating action. Someone asks, Prajna illuminates the Reality of all dharmas, why can skillful means illuminate the dharmas of Reality? The answer is, it is called the Reality of dharmas, the dharmas of Reality. Dharmas are clearly Reality, and Reality is clearly dharmas. Dharmas and Reality are not two yet two, two yet always not two. Because the realm is like this, the two wisdoms can operate in this way.

波若照諸法實相。而方便即能照實相諸法也。問雖復實相而宛然諸法。漚和照此名巧者。亦雖復諸法。而宛然實相。波若照之。何故不巧。答通即例爾。如上隱顯釋之。又波若照實相。而能不著。二乘亦有其分。則巧義不彰。故不名方便。即空而能照有。此用既妙。故聲聞絕分。菩薩獨有故。與方便之名。問若即空而照有。既稱妙者。亦即有而照空。亦是妙也。答既能即有而照空。便能即空而照有。此是慧有方便解。方便有慧解。如此二慧。無有優劣。但對二乘照空不能涉有。故明即空而起有用為妙稱為方便。又對六地但得波若空觀未能即空涉有。故今明即空涉有是方便也。問于有不著于空不證。俱是善巧。何故不著之巧名波若。波若即劣在於六地。不證之巧名方便。方便即勝在七地耶。答如上釋之。又有是俗諦離有即易。故波若巧劣。空是真諦勉無即難。故方便即勝。又入實相觀不著于有。即勉凡夫地。即實相觀而照諸法故不滯空。離二乘地。勉凡即易。故波若劣。超聖即難。故方便勝。所以有六七優劣義也。問若爾六地二慧未等。何得上云初地已並。答初地望地前即並。形七地即未並。所以然者。初地已來。即得無生動寂無礙。但寂義小強動用微弱。故云未並。至於七地。動寂無礙。二慧雙游。故稱並耳。問何以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本般若（Prajna，智慧）照見諸法實相，而方便（Upaya，善巧）即能照見實相中的諸法。問：雖然是實相，但宛然存在諸法，漚和（augha，瀑流）照見此，稱之為巧者。同樣，雖然是諸法，但宛然是實相，般若照見它，為什麼不稱之為巧？答：通達即是如此，如前面隱顯的解釋。又，般若照見實相，而能不執著，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也有其分，則善巧的意義不彰顯，所以不稱為方便。即空而能照有，此作用既微妙，所以聲聞乘無法企及，菩薩獨有，所以給予方便之名。問：如果即空而照有，既然稱之為妙，那麼即有而照空，也是妙的。答：既然能即有而照空，便能即空而照有。這是慧中有方便的理解，方便中有智慧的理解。如此二慧，沒有優劣之分。但相對於二乘照空而不能涉及有，所以說明即空而起作用為妙，稱之為方便。又相對於六地菩薩，只得到般若空觀，未能即空而涉及有，所以現在說明即空而涉及有是方便。問：于有不執著，于空不證得，都是善巧，為什麼不執著的善巧名為般若，般若就顯得不如六地菩薩；不證得的善巧名為方便，方便就顯得勝過七地菩薩呢？答：如上面解釋的。又有，有是俗諦，離開有就容易，所以般若的善巧顯得不足。空是真諦，勉強做到無就困難，所以方便就顯得殊勝。又，進入實相觀而不執著于有，即勉強凡夫地。即實相觀而照見諸法，故不滯留于空，離開二乘地。勉強凡夫容易，所以般若顯得不足；超越聖人困難，所以方便殊勝。所以有六地和七地優劣的意義。問：如果這樣，六地的二慧尚未平等，為何上面說初地已經併合？答：初地相對於地前來說，即是併合。相對於七地來說，即是未併合。之所以這樣，是因為初地以來，即得到無生、動寂無礙，但寂靜的意義稍微強，動用的意義微弱，所以說未併合。至於七地，動寂無礙，二慧雙游，所以稱之為併合。問：為什麼何以

【English Translation】 English version Prajna (Wisdom) illuminates the true nature of all dharmas, and Upaya (Skillful Means) can illuminate all dharmas within that true nature. Question: Although it is true nature, dharmas are still distinctly present. Augha (torrent) illuminates this; is this called skillful? Similarly, although it is dharmas, true nature is still distinctly present. Prajna illuminates it; why isn't it called skillful? Answer: Understanding it is like that, as explained earlier with the hidden and manifest. Furthermore, Prajna illuminates true nature and is able to not be attached. The Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) also have a share in this, so the meaning of skillful is not evident, therefore it is not called Upaya. Being empty and yet able to illuminate existence, this function is so subtle that the Śrāvakas cannot reach it. Only Bodhisattvas possess it, so it is given the name Upaya. Question: If being empty and illuminating existence is called wonderful, then being existent and illuminating emptiness is also wonderful. Answer: Since one can be existent and illuminate emptiness, one can then be empty and illuminate existence. This is wisdom with an understanding of Upaya, and Upaya with an understanding of wisdom. These two wisdoms are not superior or inferior. However, compared to the Two Vehicles, which illuminate emptiness but cannot involve existence, it is explained that being empty and arising with function is wonderful, and is called Upaya. Also, compared to the Bodhisattvas of the Sixth Ground, who only attain the Prajna of emptiness and cannot be empty and involve existence, it is now explained that being empty and involving existence is Upaya. Question: Not being attached to existence and not realizing emptiness are both skillful. Why is the skill of not being attached called Prajna, and Prajna seems inferior to the Bodhisattvas of the Sixth Ground? The skill of not realizing is called Upaya, and Upaya seems superior to the Bodhisattvas of the Seventh Ground? Answer: As explained above. Furthermore, existence is conventional truth, and leaving existence is easy, so Prajna's skill seems insufficient. Emptiness is ultimate truth, and forcing oneself to be without is difficult, so Upaya seems superior. Also, entering the contemplation of true nature and not being attached to existence is forcing the ground of ordinary beings. Contemplating true nature and illuminating all dharmas, therefore not dwelling in emptiness, is leaving the ground of the Two Vehicles. Forcing ordinary beings is easy, so Prajna seems insufficient; surpassing the sages is difficult, so Upaya is superior. Therefore, there is the meaning of the superiority and inferiority of the Sixth and Seventh Grounds. Question: If that is the case, the two wisdoms of the Sixth Ground are not yet equal. Why did it say above that the First Ground has already merged them? Answer: The First Ground is merged compared to before the ground. It is not merged compared to the Seventh Ground. The reason is that since the First Ground, one has attained non-birth, and unobstructed movement and stillness, but the meaning of stillness is slightly stronger, and the meaning of movement is weak, so it is said that they are not merged. As for the Seventh Ground, movement and stillness are unobstructed, and the two wisdoms roam freely, so it is called merged. Question: Why

知然。答若六地已來未並。入空不見有。出有不見空。二乘亦爾。與菩薩何異。故知。初地已來。便能已並。但微有強弱。故說未均耳。問于空無著于空不證有何異耶。答二乘入空不存四句。但是不著而不能不證。菩薩入空既無可存。又即能涉有故名不證。問二乘菩薩入空同無所依。何故聲聞住空菩薩不證。答二乘以空為妙極。依此無依。是故住空。菩薩不以空為妙極。知空亦空名不可得空。不依此無依故能不證。如大品云。行亦不受。不行亦不受。行不行非行非不行乃至不受亦不受。是名菩薩無受三昧廣大之用。不與聲聞辟支佛共。是故能不證空。又二乘無願行資空。故入空便證。菩薩大愿大行。資空故入空不證。問論云。因名般若至佛即反名薩波若。何得又云六地名波若至七地波若清凈反名方便。答如前釋之。六地之時。波若體強方便用弱。以體強故妙。于靜觀故。觀空不著。以用弱故。未能即空涉有于有無滯。至於七地。即體用俱等。既能觀空不染。即能涉有無著。故名等定慧地。等定慧地。即波若用巧。故云反。即從八地已上二慧俱巧。若至佛地。即兩慧同反。實慧即反名薩波若。謂一切智。方便慧反名一切種智也。問若至果反名二智。即因中同名二慧。何故前云波若稱慧方便不名慧耶。答因果立名各有其義

【現代漢語翻譯】知然（你知道嗎）。問：如果六地菩薩尚未完全融合空性，進入空性時不見有，出離有相時不見空性，那麼二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也是如此，這與菩薩有什麼區別呢？答：要知道，初地菩薩開始，就已經能夠融合空性，只是程度有強弱之分，所以說尚未均等。問：對於空性無著和對於空性不證，有什麼區別呢？答：二乘入空，不執著於四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無），只是不執著，但不能不證入空性。菩薩入空，既然沒有什麼可以執著的，又能涉入有相，所以稱為不證。問：二乘和菩薩入空，同樣都是無所依，為什麼聲聞會住在空性中，而菩薩卻不證入呢？答：二乘視空性為最微妙的境界，依此無所依，所以住在空性中。菩薩不視空性為最微妙的境界，知道空性也是空性，名為不可得空，不依此無所依，所以能夠不證入。如《大品般若經》所說：『行也不受，不行也不受，行不行、非行非不行乃至不受也不受。』這叫做菩薩無受三昧廣大之用，不與聲聞、辟支佛相同，所以能夠不證空。而且二乘沒有願行來資助空性，所以入空便證入。菩薩有大愿大行來資助空性，所以入空不證入。問：論中說，因位名為般若（prajna，智慧），到佛果位就反過來名為薩波若（sarvajna，一切智），為什麼又說六地名為般若，到七地般若清凈反過來名為方便（upaya，善巧）呢？答：如前面解釋的，六地的時候，般若的體性強，方便的作用弱。因為體性強，所以微妙，在於靜觀空性而不執著。因為作用弱，所以不能即空涉有，對於有相沒有滯礙。到了七地，體和用就相等了，既能觀空不染著，又能涉入有相而無執著，所以名為等定慧地。等定慧地，就是般若的作用巧妙，所以說反過來。從八地以上，兩種智慧都巧妙。如果到了佛地，兩種智慧就都反過來，實慧反過來名為薩波若，就是一切智。方便慧反過來名一切種智。問：如果到果位反過來名為二智，那麼在因位也同樣名為二慧，為什麼前面說般若稱為慧，而方便不稱為慧呢？答：因果的立名各有其意義。

【English Translation】 Knowing thus. Question: If the sixth Bhumi (ground, stage of bodhisattva development) has not yet fully merged, entering emptiness without seeing existence, and exiting existence without seeing emptiness, and the Two Vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) are the same, what is the difference with a Bodhisattva? Answer: Know that from the first Bhumi onwards, one is already able to merge, but there are degrees of strength and weakness, so it is said to be not yet equal. Question: What is the difference between non-attachment to emptiness and non-realization of emptiness? Answer: The Two Vehicles enter emptiness without clinging to the four propositions (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), they are merely non-attached but cannot help but realize emptiness. Bodhisattvas enter emptiness with nothing to cling to, and are also able to engage with existence, hence the term non-realization. Question: The Two Vehicles and Bodhisattvas both enter emptiness with no reliance, why do Sravakas abide in emptiness while Bodhisattvas do not realize it? Answer: The Two Vehicles regard emptiness as the ultimate subtlety, relying on this non-reliance, therefore they abide in emptiness. Bodhisattvas do not regard emptiness as the ultimate subtlety, knowing that emptiness is also empty, called unattainable emptiness, not relying on this non-reliance, therefore they are able to not realize it. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Neither practice nor non-practice is accepted, practice and non-practice, neither practice nor non-practice, even non-acceptance is not accepted.' This is called the Bodhisattva's vast use of the Samadhi of Non-Acceptance, not shared with Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, therefore they are able to not realize emptiness. Furthermore, the Two Vehicles lack the vows and practices to support emptiness, so they realize emptiness upon entering it. Bodhisattvas have great vows and great practices to support emptiness, so they do not realize emptiness upon entering it. Question: The treatise says that in the causal stage it is called Prajna (wisdom), but upon reaching Buddhahood it is reversed and called Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom), why is it also said that the sixth Bhumi is called Prajna, and in the seventh Bhumi, pure Prajna is reversed and called Upaya (skillful means)? Answer: As explained earlier, in the sixth Bhumi, the essence of Prajna is strong and the function of Upaya is weak. Because the essence is strong, it is subtle, in quiet contemplation of emptiness without attachment. Because the function is weak, it is unable to immediately engage with existence from emptiness, without obstruction in existence. Upon reaching the seventh Bhumi, the essence and function are equal, able to contemplate emptiness without defilement, and able to engage with existence without attachment, hence the name Equal Samadhi-Wisdom Bhumi. In the Equal Samadhi-Wisdom Bhumi, the function of Prajna is skillful, hence the term reversed. From the eighth Bhumi onwards, both wisdoms are skillful. If one reaches Buddhahood, both wisdoms are reversed, true wisdom is reversed and called Sarvajna, which is all-knowing wisdom. Skillful means wisdom is reversed and called all-types of wisdom. Question: If reaching the fruition is reversed and called the Two Wisdoms, then in the causal stage they are also called the Two Wisdoms, why was it said earlier that Prajna is called wisdom, while Upaya is not called wisdom? Answer: The establishment of names in cause and effect each has its own meaning.

。果門照一切空境名一切智。照一切有境名一切種智。俱從境立名。故宜並稱智。因門實慧從境方便約用。故不得併名慧也。問若爾何故菩薩道慧道種慧皆名慧耶。答因中之慧自有多門。立名各異。道慧道種慧。亦是從境立名。故宜並稱慧也。問若爾但應言道慧道種慧至果反名一切智一切種智。云何言波若方便反名二智。答論云。因中名波若。既反名薩波若。因中方便理數反名一切種智。二慧反為二智。故不待言。問論云。波若反為薩波若。何處云方便反名一切種智。答波若名慧。是照境之名。果地一切智。亦從照境為稱。二名相主故。云因名波若果名一切智。方便就用為目。一切種智。從境立名。兩義不同。故經論不云方便反為一切種智。然方便雖不從境立名。而體實照有。故反為種智。雖復無文。理數應爾。又因中名權實二慧。果名權實兩智。亦得即是其文。

論境智門第四。夫智不孤生。必由境發。故境為智本。境非獨立。因智受名。故智為境本。是以非境無以發智。非智無以照境。非境無以發智故。境為能發。智為所發。非智無以照境故。智為能照境為所照。境為能發為智所照。即境能為智所。智為能照為境所發。則智慧為境所。境之所照能發於智故。境所為智慧。智之所發能照于境故。智所為境能。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：果門照見一切皆空的境界，名為一切智（Sarvajnana，指佛陀所具有的，能夠照見一切事物真相的智慧）。照見一切存在的境界，名為一切種智（Sarvakarajnana，指佛陀所具有的，能夠了解一切事物種類和差別的智慧）。兩者都是從所照見的境界來命名的，所以應該並稱為智。因門中的實慧是從境界出發，方便則是從作用上來說，所以不能並稱為慧。問：如果這樣，為什麼菩薩道的道慧（指菩薩在修行道路上所獲得的智慧）和道種慧（指菩薩爲了利益眾生而獲得的智慧）都稱為慧呢？答：因地中的智慧本身就有很多方面，命名的依據也各有不同。道慧和道種慧也是從境界來命名的，所以應該並稱為慧。問：如果這樣，就應該說因地的道慧和道種慧，到了果地反而稱為一切智和一切種智。為什麼說般若（Prajna，指通過修行獲得的智慧）和方便（Upaya，指善巧的方法）到了果地反而稱為二智呢？答：論中說，因地稱為般若，到了果地就反過來稱為薩婆若（Sarvajna，即一切智的另一種說法）。因地中的方便，從理和數量上來說，反過來稱為一切種智。二慧反過來成為二智，所以不需要特別說明。問：論中說，般若反過來成為薩婆若，哪裡說了方便反過來稱為一切種智呢？答：般若名為慧，是照見境界的名稱。果地的一切智，也是從照見境界來稱呼的。兩個名稱相互對應，所以說因地名為般若，果地名為一切智。方便是從作用的角度來命名的，一切種智是從境界來命名的，兩者的含義不同。所以經論中沒有說方便反過來成為一切種智。然而方便雖然不是從境界來命名的，但其本質確實照見一切存在，所以反過來成為種智。即使沒有明確的經文，道理上也應該是這樣。另外，因地稱為權實二慧（指權智和實智），果地稱為權實兩智（指權智和實智），也可以認為是這個意思。論境智門第四。智慧不會憑空產生，必定是由境界引發。所以境界是智慧的根本。境界也不是獨立存在的，因為智慧而獲得名稱。所以智慧是境界的根本。因此，沒有境界就無法引發智慧，沒有智慧就無法照見境界。沒有境界就無法引發智慧，所以境界是能引發者，智慧是被引發者。沒有智慧就無法照見境界，所以智慧是能照見者，境界是被照見者。境界是能引發者，是被智慧所照見的，即境界能夠被智慧所作用。智慧是能照見者，是被境界所引發的，那麼智慧能夠作用於境界。境界的被照見能夠引發智慧，所以境界是被作用者，智慧是能動者。智慧的被引發能夠照見境界，所以智慧是被作用者，境界是能動者。

【English Translation】 English version: The 'fruit' aspect illuminates all empty realms, and is named Sarvajnana (All-knowing wisdom, referring to the wisdom of the Buddha that can illuminate the truth of all things). It illuminates all existing realms, and is named Sarvakarajnana (All-type wisdom, referring to the wisdom of the Buddha that can understand all kinds and differences of things). Both are named based on the realms they illuminate, so they should both be called 'Jnana' (wisdom). The 'cause' aspect's true wisdom (real wisdom) arises from the realm, while skillful means (Upaya) are described in terms of their function. Therefore, they cannot both be called 'wisdom'. Question: If that's the case, why are the wisdom of the Bodhisattva path (wisdom gained by Bodhisattvas on the path of practice) and the wisdom of the types of the path (wisdom gained by Bodhisattvas for the benefit of sentient beings) both called 'wisdom'? Answer: Wisdom in the causal stage has many aspects, and the names are established differently. The wisdom of the path and the wisdom of the types of the path are also named based on the realm, so they should both be called 'wisdom'. Question: If that's the case, then one should say that the wisdom of the path and the wisdom of the types of the path in the causal stage, conversely become Sarvajnana and Sarvakarajnana in the fruit stage. Why is it said that Prajna (wisdom obtained through practice) and Upaya (skillful means) conversely become the two wisdoms? Answer: The treatise says that Prajna is named in the causal stage, and conversely becomes Sarvajna. Skillful means in the causal stage, in terms of principle and number, conversely become Sarvakarajnana. The two wisdoms conversely become the two Jnanas, so there is no need to specifically state it. Question: The treatise says that Prajna conversely becomes Sarvajna. Where does it say that skillful means conversely become Sarvakarajnana? Answer: Prajna is named 'wisdom', which is the name for illuminating the realm. Sarvajnana in the fruit stage is also named based on illuminating the realm. The two names correspond to each other, so it is said that Prajna is named in the causal stage, and Sarvajnana is named in the fruit stage. Skillful means are named from the perspective of function, while Sarvakarajnana is named based on the realm. The two meanings are different, so the sutras and treatises do not say that skillful means conversely become Sarvakarajnana. However, although skillful means are not named based on the realm, their essence truly illuminates all existence, so they conversely become Sarvakarajnana. Even if there is no explicit text, the principle should be like this. Furthermore, the causal stage is named the two wisdoms of provisional and real (referring to provisional wisdom and real wisdom), and the fruit stage is named the two Jnanas of provisional and real, which can also be considered to be the same meaning. Treatise on the Door of Realm and Wisdom, Fourth. Wisdom does not arise in isolation, it must be triggered by a realm. Therefore, the realm is the root of wisdom. The realm is not independent either, it receives its name because of wisdom. Therefore, wisdom is the root of the realm. Thus, without a realm, there is no way to trigger wisdom, and without wisdom, there is no way to illuminate the realm. Without a realm, there is no way to trigger wisdom, so the realm is the trigger, and wisdom is what is triggered. Without wisdom, there is no way to illuminate the realm, so wisdom is the illuminator, and the realm is what is illuminated. The realm is the trigger, and is illuminated by wisdom, meaning the realm can be acted upon by wisdom. Wisdom is the illuminator, and is triggered by the realm, so wisdom can act upon the realm. The illumination of the realm can trigger wisdom, so the realm is the acted upon, and wisdom is the actor. The triggering of wisdom can illuminate the realm, so wisdom is the acted upon, and the realm is the actor.

不得言境前智后。亦非智前境后。亦非一時。唯得名為因緣境智也。問以何為境而能發智。答如來常依二諦說法故。二諦名教。能生二智故。二諦名境。關中曇影法師。注中論親承什公音旨。什公云。傳吾業者。寄在道融曇影僧睿乎。影公序二諦云。真諦故無有。以俗諦故無無。真故無有。雖無而有。俗故無無。雖有而無。雖無而有。不滯于無。雖有而無。不累于有。不滯于無故。斷無見滅。不累于有故。常著冰消。寂此諸邊故名為中。詳此意者。真故無有。雖無而有。即是不動真際。而建立諸法。俗故無無。雖有而無。即是不壞假名而說實相以不壞假名而說實相。雖曰假名。宛然實相。不動真際。建立諸法。雖曰真際。宛然諸法。以真際宛然諸法故。不滯于無。諸法宛然實相。即不累于有。不累于有故不常。不滯于無故非斷。即中道也。由斯二諦發生二智。以了諸法實相故。生漚和波若。以悟實相諸法故。生波若漚和。漚和波若而宛然漚和。波若漚和而宛然波若。以漚和宛然波若故。不著于有。波若宛然漚和故不滯于無。不累于有故常著冰消。不滯于無故斷無見滅。寂此諸邊故名中觀。是以二諦中道。還發生二智中觀。二智中觀。還照二諦中道。故境稱于智。智稱于境。境名智境。智名境智也。二境既正明。二智義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不應該說境在智前，或者智在境后。也不是智在境前，境在智后。也不是同時發生。只能稱之為因緣境智。問：以什麼作為境才能引發智慧？答：如來總是依據二諦（Two Truths，即真諦和俗諦）說法。二諦名為教，能生起二智（Two Wisdoms，即根本智和后得智）。所以二諦名為境。關中曇影法師，註釋《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）時，親自承受鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）大師的音旨。鳩摩羅什大師說：『能傳承我事業的，大概就在道融、曇影、僧睿這些人了吧。』曇影法師在《二諦論》的序言中說：『真諦的緣故，認為一切法空無自性，但依俗諦的緣故，又認為空無自性之空無自性也是不存在的。因為真諦的緣故，一切法空無自性，雖然空無自性，但卻顯現有；因為俗諦的緣故，一切法顯現有，雖然顯現有，但卻空無自性。雖然空無自性而顯現有，卻不執著于空無自性；雖然顯現有卻空無自性，卻不執著于顯現有。不執著于空無自性，所以斷除斷滅見；不執著于顯現有，所以常常見解如冰雪消融。寂滅這些邊見，所以稱為中道。』詳細考察這個意思，因為真諦的緣故，一切法空無自性，雖然空無自性，但卻顯現有，這就是在不動的真如實際之上，而建立諸法。因為俗諦的緣故，一切法顯現有，雖然顯現有，但卻空無自性，這就是在不壞假名（provisional name）的情況下，而宣說實相（true nature）。以不壞假名而宣說實相，雖然說是假名，卻宛然就是實相。在不動的真如實際之上，建立諸法，雖然說是真如實際，卻宛然就是諸法。因為真如實際宛然就是諸法，所以不執著于空無自性。諸法宛然就是實相，就是不執著于顯現有。不執著于顯現有，所以常常見解如冰雪消融；不執著于空無自性，所以斷除斷滅見，這就是中道。由於這二諦，發生二智，以此了知諸法實相的緣故，生起漚和波若（Upaya-prajna，方便智慧）。以悟入實相諸法的緣故，生起波若漚和（Prajna-upaya，智慧方便）。漚和波若而宛然就是漚和，波若漚和而宛然就是波若。以漚和宛然就是波若的緣故，不執著于顯現有。波若宛然就是漚和的緣故，不執著于空無自性。不執著于顯有，所以常常見解如冰雪消融。不執著于空無自性，所以斷除斷滅見。寂滅這些邊見，所以稱為中觀（Madhyamaka）。因此，二諦中道，反而發生二智中觀。二智中觀，反而照耀二諦中道。所以境與智相稱，智與境相稱。境名為智境，智名為境智。二境既然已經正確闡明，二智的意義

【English Translation】 English version: It should not be said that the object (境, realm/object of cognition) is before wisdom, or that wisdom is after the object. Nor is it that wisdom is before the object, and the object is after wisdom. Nor do they occur simultaneously. It can only be called the causal condition of object and wisdom (因緣境智). Question: What serves as the object that can give rise to wisdom? Answer: The Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) always teaches according to the Two Truths (二諦, Satya-dvaya): conventional truth and ultimate truth. The Two Truths are called teachings, and they can generate the Two Wisdoms (二智): wisdom of reality and wisdom of expedient means. Therefore, the Two Truths are called the object. Dharma Master Tan Ying of Guanzhong, in his commentary on the Madhyamaka-karika (中論, Treatise on the Middle Way), personally received the teachings of Master Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什). Master Kumarajiva said, 'Those who will transmit my work are probably Dao Rong, Tan Ying, and Seng Rui.' In his preface to the Two Truths, Dharma Master Tan Ying said, 'Because of ultimate truth, there is non-existence. Because of conventional truth, there is non-non-existence. Because of ultimate truth, there is non-existence, but although there is non-existence, there is manifestation. Because of conventional truth, there is manifestation, but although there is manifestation, there is non-existence. Although there is non-existence and yet there is manifestation, one is not attached to non-existence. Although there is manifestation and yet there is non-existence, one is not attached to existence. Not being attached to non-existence, one cuts off the view of annihilation. Not being attached to existence, constant attachments melt away like ice. Quiescently abiding in these extremes, it is called the Middle Way.' Examining this meaning in detail, because of ultimate truth, there is non-existence, but although there is non-existence, there is manifestation. This is establishing all dharmas (諸法, phenomena) upon the immovable true reality (真際, true suchness). Because of conventional truth, there is manifestation, but although there is manifestation, there is non-existence. This is speaking of true nature (實相, true aspect) without destroying provisional names (假名). Speaking of true nature without destroying provisional names, although it is called provisional name, it is clearly true nature. Establishing all dharmas upon the immovable true reality, although it is called true reality, it is clearly all dharmas. Because true reality is clearly all dharmas, one is not attached to non-existence. All dharmas are clearly true nature, which means one is not attached to existence. Not being attached to existence, constant attachments melt away like ice. Not being attached to non-existence, one cuts off the view of annihilation. This is the Middle Way. From these Two Truths, the Two Wisdoms arise. Because of understanding the true nature of all dharmas, upaya-prajna (漚和波若, skillful means and wisdom) arises. Because of realizing the true nature of all dharmas, prajna-upaya (波若漚和, wisdom and skillful means) arises. Upaya-prajna is clearly upaya, and prajna-upaya is clearly prajna. Because upaya is clearly prajna, one is not attached to existence. Because prajna is clearly upaya, one is not attached to non-existence. Not being attached to existence, constant attachments melt away like ice. Not being attached to non-existence, one cuts off the view of annihilation. Quiescently abiding in these extremes, it is called Madhyamaka (中觀, Middle Way). Therefore, the Middle Way of the Two Truths gives rise to the Middle Way of the Two Wisdoms. The Middle Way of the Two Wisdoms illuminates the Middle Way of the Two Truths. Thus, the object corresponds to wisdom, and wisdom corresponds to the object. The object is called the object of wisdom, and wisdom is called the wisdom of the object. Now that the Two Objects have been correctly explained, the meaning of the Two Wisdoms

明。故須約境以辨于智。二乘不得二智者。良由不見此二諦。不得正觀者。亦由不見二諦即是中道故也。問波若照諸法實相漚和照實相諸法。即波若不照諸法漚和不照實相。將非限局聖心失無礙妙用。答波若為漚和之體。漚和是波若之用。體鑒實相。用照諸法。故開此二門。即智無不圓。照無不盡。若同照實相。並鑒諸法。即二境不分。兩慧相監。問舊說亦然與今何異。答波若體非不能照諸法。但用既照不煩波若照耳。若用既照諸法。而體復照者。即一境二照。亦應二境一智生。是故二慧不併照也。舊義波若不能照諸法。漚和不能照實相。雖復並觀。智用恒別。即是格局聖心。封執二見。問前云波若不著有方便不證空。后何故復云漚和涉有不著波若鑒空無滯。答不著空者。凡有二義。一者波若照實相。實相既無所依。即波若亦無所著。此是般若之力。二不證空名為不著。此方便之力。不著有者亦具二義。一者波若入空故不著有。二者方便為波若所導。故能涉有不著。亦是波若之力也。是故經中又言。波若不著空。方便不著有。或言。波若不著有。方便不證空。各舉一門義無違背。問若波若照空漚和鑒有即二智皆照。何言波若無知。答波若雖知。而無所知。雖無所知。而無所不知。問波若知實相故言無知。亦即知波若故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：明白。所以需要依據境界來分辨兩種智慧（二智）。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）不能獲得兩種智慧，是因為他們沒有見到二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）。不能正確觀察事物的人，也是因為沒有見到二諦即是中道（不落兩邊的中正之道）的緣故。問：般若（Prajna，智慧）照見諸法實相，漚和（Upaya，方便）照見實相諸法，那麼般若不照見諸法，漚和不照見實相嗎？這難道不是限制了聖人的心，失去了無礙的妙用嗎？答：般若是漚和的本體，漚和是般若的作用。本體鑑照實相，作用照見諸法。所以開啟這兩個法門，就是智慧沒有不圓滿的，照見沒有不窮盡的。如果都照見實相，並且鑑照諸法，就是兩種境界不分，兩種智慧互相干擾。問：舊的說法也是這樣，和現在有什麼不同？答：般若本體並非不能照見諸法，但因為作用已經照見，就不需要般若再照見了。如果作用已經照見諸法，而本體又再照見，就是同一個境界被兩種智慧照見，也應該兩個境界由一種智慧產生。所以兩種智慧不能同時照見。舊的說法認為般若不能照見諸法，漚和不能照見實相，即使同時觀察，智慧和作用始終是分別的，這就是格局了聖人的心，固執于兩種見解。問：前面說般若不執著于有，方便不證悟空，後面為什麼又說漚和涉入有而不執著，般若鑑照空而沒有滯礙？答：不執著于空，凡有二種含義。一種是般若照見實相，實相既然沒有所依，那麼般若也沒有所執著。這是般若的力量。另一種是不證悟空，這叫做不執著，這是方便的力量。不執著于有，也具有兩種含義。一種是般若進入空性，所以不執著于有。另一種是方便被般若所引導，所以能夠涉入有而不執著，這也是般若的力量。所以經中又說，般若不執著于空，方便不執著于有。或者說，般若不執著于有，方便不證悟空。各自舉出一個方面，意義沒有違背。問：如果般若照見空，漚和鑑照有，就是兩種智慧都在照見，為什麼說般若無知？答：般若雖然知，但沒有所知；雖然沒有所知，但沒有無所不知。問：般若知道實相，所以說無知，也就是知道般若的緣故嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: Understand. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the two wisdoms (two Prajnas) based on the realm. The two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) cannot attain the two wisdoms because they do not see the two truths (Saṃvṛti-satya and Paramārtha-satya). Those who cannot correctly observe things are also because they do not see that the two truths are the Middle Way (the path of impartiality that does not fall into extremes). Question: Prajna (wisdom) illuminates the true nature of all dharmas, and Upaya (skillful means) illuminates all dharmas of the true nature. Then, does Prajna not illuminate all dharmas, and does Upaya not illuminate the true nature? Isn't this limiting the mind of the sage and losing the wonderful function of unobstructedness? Answer: Prajna is the substance of Upaya, and Upaya is the function of Prajna. The substance contemplates the true nature, and the function illuminates all dharmas. Therefore, opening these two doors means that wisdom is not incomplete, and illumination is not exhaustive. If both illuminate the true nature and contemplate all dharmas, then the two realms are not distinguished, and the two wisdoms interfere with each other. Question: The old saying is also like this, so what is the difference from now? Answer: The substance of Prajna is not incapable of illuminating all dharmas, but because the function has already illuminated them, there is no need for Prajna to illuminate them again. If the function has already illuminated all dharmas, and the substance illuminates them again, then the same realm is illuminated by two wisdoms, and two realms should be produced by one wisdom. Therefore, the two wisdoms do not illuminate simultaneously. The old saying believes that Prajna cannot illuminate all dharmas, and Upaya cannot illuminate the true nature. Even if they observe simultaneously, wisdom and function are always separate, which limits the mind of the sage and clings to two views. Question: Earlier it was said that Prajna does not cling to existence and Upaya does not realize emptiness, but why does it later say that Upaya enters existence without clinging, and Prajna illuminates emptiness without obstruction? Answer: Not clinging to emptiness has two meanings. One is that Prajna illuminates the true nature, and since the true nature has nothing to rely on, Prajna has nothing to cling to. This is the power of Prajna. The other is not realizing emptiness, which is called not clinging, and this is the power of Upaya. Not clinging to existence also has two meanings. One is that Prajna enters emptiness, so it does not cling to existence. The other is that Upaya is guided by Prajna, so it can enter existence without clinging, which is also the power of Prajna. Therefore, the sutra also says that Prajna does not cling to emptiness, and Upaya does not cling to existence. Or it says that Prajna does not cling to existence, and Upaya does not realize emptiness. Each mentions one aspect, and the meanings are not contradictory. Question: If Prajna illuminates emptiness and Upaya contemplates existence, then both wisdoms are illuminating. Why is it said that Prajna is without knowledge? Answer: Although Prajna knows, it has nothing to know; although it has nothing to know, it has nothing that it does not know. Question: Prajna knows the true nature, so it is said to be without knowledge, which means knowing Prajna?

言無知。答既約二境分於二智。即波若知實相故言無知。不得云知波若故無知。若知波若即是方便。問波若契實相即內外並冥緣觀俱寂。方便照俗。何能知此波若。答波若無知而知為方便所知。知而無知。即方便不知。問波若無知而知。知而無知。方便亦得爾不。答指實為權。指權為實。權實不二亦得爾也。不二而二。則無知而知。名為方便。知而無知。稱為波若。問波若照空具知與無知。方便鑒有何不然耶。答二而不二皆具二也。不二而二。波若所知之境。是空能知之智為有。故具知與無知。而方便能知所知境智皆有。故波若有知有無知。而方便但有知也。問云何波若具知無知。答波若知實相即緣觀俱寂。是故無知。而境智宛然。故不失知。此無知而知。知則無知。問若爾與開善至忘彌存何異。答彼彌存之義。終非至忘。至忘之義。終不彌存。今以彌存為至忘。至忘為彌存故為異也。問舊義亦然。與今何異。答彼至忘時智終不作境。境終不成智。則是境智二見。若智即是境。境既無知。智亦應爾。若境則是智。在智既照。境亦應然。今對此一門。略敘大乘樞要觀行淵府。經云。貪慾則是道。恚癡亦復然。如是三法中。無量諸佛道。貪慾則是道者。然貪慾本來寂滅自性清凈。即是實相。如斯了悟便名波若。豈有實相之

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：什麼是『無知』？答：既然將二境（兩種境界）分屬於二智（兩種智慧），即般若（Prajna，智慧）知實相（Reality）的緣故，才說是『無知』。不能說因為知道般若所以是『無知』。如果知道般若，那就是方便（Upaya，善巧）。問：般若契合實相，內外並冥，緣觀俱寂，方便照俗，怎麼能知道這個般若呢？答：般若無知而知，為方便所知；知而無知，即方便不知。問：般若無知而知，知而無知，方便也可以這樣嗎？答：指實為權，指權為實，權實不二，也可以這樣。不二而二，則無知而知，名為方便；知而無知，稱為般若。問：般若照空，兼具知與無知，方便鑒有，為什麼不行呢？答：二而不二，都兼具二者。不二而二，般若所知的境界是空，能知的智慧是有，所以兼具知與無知。而方便能知所知的境智都是有，所以般若有知有無知，而方便只有知。問：怎麼說般若兼具知與無知？答：般若知實相，即緣觀俱寂，所以是無知。而境智宛然，所以不失知。這是無知而知，知則無知。問：如果這樣，與開善（Kaisan）的『至忘彌存』有什麼不同？答：他的『彌存』之義，終究不是『至忘』；『至忘』之義，終究不是『彌存』。現在以『彌存』為『至忘』，『至忘』為『彌存』，所以不同。問：舊義也是這樣，與現在有什麼不同？答：他的『至忘』時，智終究不作為境，境終究不成智，這就是境智二見。如果智就是境，境既然無知，智也應該這樣。如果境就是智，在智既然照，境也應該這樣。現在對此一門，略敘大乘樞要觀行淵府。《經》云：『貪慾則是道，恚癡亦復然。如是三法中，無量諸佛道。』『貪慾則是道』，然貪慾本來寂滅，自性清凈，即是實相。如此了悟，便名般若。哪裡有實相的

【English Translation】 English version Question: What is 'unknowing'? Answer: Since the two realms (two states) are divided into two wisdoms (two kinds of wisdom), that is, because Prajna (wisdom) knows the Reality (true nature of things), it is said to be 'unknowing'. It cannot be said that because one knows Prajna, it is 'unknowing'. If one knows Prajna, then that is Upaya (skillful means). Question: Prajna is in accordance with Reality, both internal and external are merged, and conditioned observation is silent. Upaya illuminates the mundane. How can one know this Prajna? Answer: Prajna is unknowing yet knowing, and is known by Upaya; knowing yet unknowing, which means Upaya does not know. Question: Prajna is unknowing yet knowing, knowing yet unknowing. Can Upaya also be like this? Answer: Pointing to the real as provisional, pointing to the provisional as real, the provisional and the real are not two, it can also be like this. Not two yet two, then unknowing yet knowing is called Upaya; knowing yet unknowing is called Prajna. Question: Prajna illuminates emptiness, possessing both knowing and unknowing. Upaya discerns existence, why is that not the case? Answer: Two yet not two, both possess both. Not two yet two, the realm known by Prajna is emptiness, the wisdom that can know is existence, so it possesses both knowing and unknowing. And Upaya can know that both the realm and wisdom that are known are existence, so Prajna has knowing and unknowing, while Upaya only has knowing. Question: How can it be said that Prajna possesses both knowing and unknowing? Answer: Prajna knows Reality, that is, conditioned observation is silent, so it is unknowing. But the realm and wisdom are clearly present, so it does not lose knowing. This is unknowing yet knowing, knowing then unknowing. Question: If that is so, what is the difference between this and Kaisan's (a Buddhist monk) 'utmost forgetting and complete presence'? Answer: His meaning of 'complete presence' is ultimately not 'utmost forgetting'; the meaning of 'utmost forgetting' is ultimately not 'complete presence'. Now, taking 'complete presence' as 'utmost forgetting', and 'utmost forgetting' as 'complete presence', so they are different. Question: The old meaning is also like this, what is the difference from now? Answer: In his 'utmost forgetting', wisdom ultimately does not act as a realm, and the realm ultimately does not become wisdom, so this is the dualistic view of realm and wisdom. If wisdom is the realm, since the realm is unknowing, wisdom should also be like this. If the realm is wisdom, since wisdom illuminates, the realm should also be like this. Now, regarding this one gate, briefly describing the essential pivot of Mahayana, the profound treasury of contemplation and practice. The Sutra says: 'Greed is the path, anger and delusion are also like that. Within these three dharmas, there are immeasurable paths of all Buddhas.' 'Greed is the path', but greed is originally quiescent, its self-nature is pure, which is Reality. Such understanding is called Prajna. Where is the Reality of

境異波若觀耶。故境智不二。照貪慾雖本寂滅而於眾生宛然有貪。便名方便。傷其無貪謂貪。而欲拔之故。此方便即名大悲。欲令悟貪無貪。與無貪樂。即此大悲複名慈也。故一句觀行。具境智二門慈悲兩觀。初信此法便名十信。次解此法稱為十解。乃至證悟究竟了達名為佛心。豈非一貪觀中具諸佛道。次論二經。問大品明實相不生不滅能生波若。涅槃云十二因緣不生不滅發於觀智。二經同釋境智。有何異耶。答略明四句。一開因果開境智。二合因果合境智。三開因果合境智。四開境智合因果。開因果開境智者。則波若所明。因有道慧道種慧。果則一切智一切種智。謂開因果也。實相能生波若。則實智之境。世諦能生方便。為權智之境。謂開境智也。次合因果合境智者。如涅槃五性之義。一因性。二因因性。三果性。四果果性。五非因非果性。此之五性。更無二體。十二因緣能生之義。則名為境。所發之義。便名觀智。觀智明瞭故稱菩提。菩提無累即是果果。然十二因緣。本性清凈。未曾因果。亦非境智故名非因非果。然此五性既無二體。則轉境為智。反因為果。如斯因果。未曾因果。故名合因果合境智也。三合因果開境智者。亦如大品以波若為因薩婆若為果。因果更無二體。轉波若之因為薩婆若果故。什公云。薩婆

若則是老波若。此名合因果也。開境智者。實相雖能生波若。而不轉實相之境為波若。亦不轉世諦之境。為方便之智。故名開境智。次開因果合境智者。亦如涅槃轉境為智故。名合境智。而有因與因因果與果果故。云開因果也。問既轉境為智亦轉因為果。即應同境智俱合。答經開因與因因果與果果故。言開因果。而取境智。並作因因之名。沒境智之稱故。言合境智。問二經何故開合不同。答涅槃就十二因緣辨境智義。欲明眾生皆有佛性。眾生即是十二因緣。因緣能生即境。所生即智。更無二體故明合境智也。大品辨實相生波若。能生即是無為波若。所生即是有為觀智。故不轉無為波若。成有為波若故。開境智也。此皆不二而二。故二經不同。若二而不二。更無異也。

同異門第五。問凡有五時二智。一照事中之法為權。鑒四諦之理為實。謂三藏教二智也。二照真空為實。鑒俗有為權。此大品教二智也。三知病識藥為權。應病授藥為實。凈名經二智也。四照一乘為實。鑒二乘為權。法花二智也。五照常住為實。鑒無常為權。涅槃二智也。如上所明者。乃是釋大品教意。云何以道凈名經宗。答五時之說四宗之論。乖文傷義。古已詳之。今當略說。尋一經之內。具有五文。不待始終。方備諸智。如大品云。廣說三乘之

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果這是老般若（prajna，智慧），那麼這就叫做合因果。開境智者，實相（tathata，真如實性）雖然能夠產生般若，但是不將實相之境轉變為般若，也不將世諦（samvriti-satya，世俗諦）之境轉變為方便之智（upaya-jnana，權巧方便的智慧），所以叫做開境智。其次，開因果合境智者，也像《涅槃經》那樣，將境轉變為智，所以叫做合境智。因為有因與因因，果與果果，所以說開因果。問：既然轉境為智，也轉因為果，那麼就應該和境智都結合在一起。答：《涅槃經》開因與因因，果與果果，所以說開因果。而取境智，並作為因因的名稱，沒有境智的稱呼，所以說合境智。問：這兩部經為什麼開合不同？答：《涅槃經》就十二因緣（dvadasanga-pratitya-samutpada，十二緣起）辨別境智的意義，想要說明眾生都有佛性（buddha-dhatu，成佛的可能性），眾生就是十二因緣，因緣能夠產生就是境，所產生的就是智，更沒有二體，所以說明合境智。《大品般若經》辨別實相產生般若，能產生的是無為般若（asamskrta-prajna，無為的智慧），所產生的是有為觀智（samskrta-jnana，有為的觀照智慧），所以不將無為般若轉變為有為般若，所以開境智。這些都是不二而二，所以兩部經不同。如果二而不二，就沒有什麼不同了。同異門第五。問：凡是有五時二智。一，照事中的法為權，鑒四諦（arya-satya，四聖諦）的理為實，這是三藏教的二智。二，照真空（sunyata，空性）為實，鑒俗有為權，這是《大品般若經》的二智。三，知病識藥為權，應病授藥為實，《維摩詰經》的二智。四，照一乘（eka-yana，唯一佛乘）為實，鑒二乘（dvi-yana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）為權，《法華經》的二智。五，照常住為實，鑒無常為權，《涅槃經》的二智。如上面所說明的，乃是解釋《大品般若經》的教義，為什麼用來說明《維摩詰經》的宗旨？答：五時的說法，四宗的論述，違背經文，傷害義理，古人已經詳細地論述過了。現在我來簡略地說說。尋找一部經的內部，具有五種文義，不必等到始終，才具備各種智慧。如《大品般若經》說，廣泛地說三乘的

【English Translation】 English version: If this is old prajna (wisdom), then this is called 'combining cause and effect'. Those who 'open the realm of wisdom', although tathata (true reality) can generate prajna, they do not transform the realm of tathata into prajna, nor do they transform the realm of samvriti-satya (conventional truth) into upaya-jnana (skillful means wisdom). Therefore, it is called 'opening the realm of wisdom'. Secondly, those who 'open cause and effect and combine the realm of wisdom' are like the Nirvana Sutra, which transforms the realm into wisdom, so it is called 'combining the realm of wisdom'. Because there are causes and causes of causes, effects and effects of effects, it is said to 'open cause and effect'. Question: Since transforming the realm into wisdom also transforms the cause into effect, then it should be the same as combining both the realm and wisdom. Answer: The Nirvana Sutra opens the cause and causes of causes, the effect and effects of effects, so it is said to 'open cause and effect'. And taking the realm and wisdom, and making it the name of the cause of causes, without the name of the realm and wisdom, it is said to 'combine the realm of wisdom'. Question: Why are the opening and combining different in these two sutras? Answer: The Nirvana Sutra distinguishes the meaning of the realm and wisdom based on the twelve nidanas (twelve links of dependent origination), wanting to explain that all sentient beings have buddha-dhatu (buddha-nature). Sentient beings are the twelve nidanas. The cause that can generate is the realm, and what is generated is wisdom. There is no second entity, so it explains 'combining the realm of wisdom'. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra distinguishes that tathata generates prajna. What can generate is asamskrta-prajna (unconditioned wisdom), and what is generated is samskrta-jnana (conditioned wisdom). Therefore, it does not transform asamskrta-prajna into samskrta-prajna, so it 'opens the realm of wisdom'. These are all non-dual but dual, so the two sutras are different. If it is dual but non-dual, there is no difference. Chapter 5: Differences and Similarities. Question: Generally, there are five periods and two kinds of wisdom. First, illuminating the dharmas in phenomena is expedient (upaya), and discerning the principles of the Four Noble Truths (arya-satya) is ultimate (paramartha). This refers to the two kinds of wisdom in the Tripitaka teachings. Second, illuminating emptiness (sunyata) is ultimate, and discerning conventional existence is expedient. This refers to the two kinds of wisdom in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra. Third, knowing the disease and recognizing the medicine is expedient, and prescribing the medicine according to the disease is ultimate. This refers to the two kinds of wisdom in the Vimalakirti Sutra. Fourth, illuminating the One Vehicle (eka-yana) is ultimate, and discerning the Two Vehicles (dvi-yana, Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) is expedient. This refers to the two kinds of wisdom in the Lotus Sutra. Fifth, illuminating permanence is ultimate, and discerning impermanence is expedient. This refers to the two kinds of wisdom in the Nirvana Sutra. As explained above, it is to interpret the teachings of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra. Why use it to explain the purpose of the Vimalakirti Sutra? Answer: The theory of the five periods and the arguments of the four schools violate the sutra and harm the meaning. The ancients have already discussed it in detail. Now I will briefly explain it. Looking within a sutra, it contains five kinds of meanings. It does not have to wait until the end to have all kinds of wisdom. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, broadly speaking of the Three Vehicles

教。菩薩遍學諸道。即識照四諦之理為實。鑒事中之法為權。故大品教中有三藏二智也。波若鑒空。漚和涉有。九十章經盛談此法。即空有二智。論釋畢定品。引法花經。謂三一二智也。法尚品云。諸佛色身有去來。法身無去來。則常無常二智也。知病識藥。眾經皆具。不待言之。故大品一經。備五二智。凈名經中。具諸智者。問疾品明三空自調為實慧。嚴土化人為方便。即空有二智。弟子品云。佛身無為。不墮諸數。亦出現生死五濁。則常無常二智。不二法門品。明聲聞心菩薩心不二。謂一乘實智。照大小差別名三乘權智。問不二法門云何即一乘耶。答不二之理。則是乘本故名為乘。由體不二之理故。生不二之觀。由不二之觀。能導眾行到薩婆若。故十二門論明大分深義。所謂空也。以通達是義。即通達大乘。具六波羅蜜。無所障礙。問不二之理通為三乘之本。豈但一乘本耶。答理既無二。乘豈三哉。但唱此言則知歸一。又無二之理。即是一乘異名也。又尚明常住。豈不顯一乘。故知。凈名亦具五二智。法花經具諸智者。方便品云。我雖說涅槃。是亦非真滅。諸法從本來常自寂滅相。昔涅槃非真滅。今涅槃為真滅。則昔涅槃非真常。今涅槃是真常。又天親論釋壽量品。具辨三身。化身則有始有終。報身則有始無終。

法身則無始無終。故知。具常無常義。又若一乘之果猶是無常。即因異聲聞。果同灰斷。是事不然。聲聞果則是一乘因也。安樂行品明。知一切法空如實相。則是實智。知因緣生。謂方便智。亦具空有二智也。序品列眾。猶依小乘嘆聲聞德。故知。亦具三藏二智。涅槃備五不復待言。問若一經之內具諸智者。眾經何別。答諸大乘經。通為顯道。道既無二。教豈異哉。但入有多門故。諸部差別。雖一經之內具含五種。而明義傍正不同。三藏一教。唯明事理權實。未辨余門二智。大品以空有為正。余義為傍。法花三一為端。余皆泛辨。涅槃以常無常為正。余悉兼明。問眾經何故有此傍正。答有二種菩薩。一直往佛道。二回小入大。波若為直往菩薩。說方便實慧不墮三界。不住二乘。有兩健人。各扶一腋。直至佛道。故法花云。有佛子。心凈柔濡亦利根。我記如是人來世得作佛。此則指波若時事。不須明三乘為方便一乘為真實。又回小入大之人。于波若時通根未成。故不正明三一之義。而畢定品引法花經。明退不退。蓋是波若後分傍及之耳。三修比丘無常之執。至大品時。其根未傾故。不廣明常住。波若漚和既是因行。復須識果德。是故大品後分略明法身常跡有去來。又常啼本求波若故。以二慧為正。中道疑佛去來故。傍明

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）則是無始無終的。因此可知，法身具備常與無常的意義。又如果一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘）的果位仍然是無常的，那就意味著因與聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟者）不同，而果卻如同灰燼般斷滅。這是不正確的。聲聞的果位正是一乘的因。《安樂行品》闡明，了知一切法空（Śūnyatā，空性）的如實相（Tathātā，真如），這就是實智（真實智慧）。了知因緣生法（Pratītyasamutpāda，緣起），稱為方便智（善巧方便的智慧）。因此，也具備空與有二種智慧。《序品》中列舉大眾，仍然依照小乘（Hinayana，小乘佛教）讚歎聲聞的功德。因此可知，也具備三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經、律、論三部分）和二智（兩種智慧）。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）具備五味（指佛陀教法的五個階段，或比喻佛陀教法的圓滿），無需再多言。問：如果一部經之內就具備各種智慧，那麼眾多經典之間有什麼區別呢？答：諸部大乘經典，都是爲了闡明佛道。佛道既然沒有兩種，教義怎麼會有差異呢？只是入門的途徑有很多種，所以各個經典有所差別。雖然一部經之內就包含了五種智慧，但是闡明義理的側重點不同。《三藏》這一教法，只闡明事理、權實，沒有辨明其他的方面。二智，《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）以空有為主要內容，其餘義理為輔助。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）以三乘歸一為根本，其餘都泛泛而談。《涅槃經》以常與無常為主要內容，其餘全部兼顧闡明。問：眾多經典為什麼有這種主要和輔助的區別呢？答：有二種菩薩（Bodhisattva，發菩提心，行菩薩道者）：一種是直接前往佛道，另一種是回小向大。如果為直接前往佛道的菩薩說法，方便智和實慧就不會墮入三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界），也不會停留在二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）。就像兩個強健的人，各自扶著一個人的腋下，直接到達佛道。所以《法華經》說：『有佛子，心凈柔濡亦利根，我記如是人來世得作佛。』這指的是《般若經》（Prajnaparamita Sutra）時的事情，不需要闡明三乘為方便，一乘為真實。另外，回小向大的人，在《般若經》時根基尚未穩固，所以不著重闡明三乘歸一的意義。而《畢定品》引用《法華經》，闡明退與不退，大概是《般若經》後半部分順帶提及的。《三修比丘》對無常的執著，到《大品般若經》時，其根基尚未動搖，所以沒有廣泛闡明常住。《般若經》的漚和（Upaya，方便）既是因行，又必須認識果德，因此《大品般若經》後半部分略微闡明法身常住的軌跡，有去有來。又常啼菩薩（Sadāprarudita Bodhisattva）本來就是爲了求《般若經》，所以以二慧為主要內容，因為對佛的去來有所懷疑，所以順帶闡明。

【English Translation】 English version The Dharmakaya (法身, the Dharma-nature body of the Buddha) is without beginning or end. Therefore, it is known to possess the meaning of both permanence and impermanence. Furthermore, if the fruit of the Ekayana (一乘, the One Vehicle) is still impermanent, it would mean that the cause is different from that of the Śrāvakas (聲聞, those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings), while the fruit is the same as annihilation like ashes. This is not correct. The fruit of the Śrāvakas is precisely the cause of the Ekayana. The 『Chapter on Peaceful Practices』 clarifies that knowing the true suchness (Tathātā, 如實相) of all dharmas as emptiness (Śūnyatā, 空性) is true wisdom (real wisdom). Knowing the arising of conditioned phenomena (Pratītyasamutpāda, 因緣生法) is called expedient wisdom (skillful means wisdom). Therefore, it also possesses the two wisdoms of emptiness and existence. The assembly listed in the 『Introduction Chapter』 still praises the virtues of the Śrāvakas according to the Hinayana (小乘, the Lesser Vehicle). Therefore, it is known to also possess the Tripitaka (三藏, the three divisions of the Buddhist canon: Sutra, Vinaya, and Abhidharma) and the two wisdoms. The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) possesses the five flavors (referring to the five stages of the Buddha's teachings, or a metaphor for the completeness of the Buddha's teachings), so there is no need to say more. Question: If various wisdoms are contained within one sutra, what is the difference between the various sutras? Answer: All Mahayana sutras are for elucidating the Buddha-path. Since the Buddha-path is not twofold, how can the teachings be different? It is just that there are many paths to enter, so the various sutras differ. Although one sutra contains all five wisdoms, the emphasis on elucidating the meaning is different. The teachings of the Tripitaka only elucidate phenomena and principles, provisional and real, without distinguishing the other aspects. The Prajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) takes emptiness and existence as the main content, and the remaining meanings as auxiliary. The Lotus Sutra (法華經) takes the unification of the three vehicles into one as fundamental, and the rest are discussed generally. The Nirvana Sutra takes permanence and impermanence as the main content, and elucidates all the rest comprehensively. Question: Why do the various sutras have this distinction between main and auxiliary? Answer: There are two types of Bodhisattvas (菩薩, beings who aspire to enlightenment and practice the Bodhisattva path): one goes directly to the Buddha-path, and the other turns from the small to the great. If one speaks to the Bodhisattvas who go directly to the Buddha-path, expedient wisdom and real wisdom will not fall into the three realms (Trailokya, 三界: the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), nor will they remain in the two vehicles (the Śrāvaka vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha vehicle). It is like two strong people, each supporting a person's armpit, directly reaching the Buddha-path. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 『There are Buddha-sons, whose minds are pure, gentle, and sharp-witted. I predict that such people will become Buddhas in the future.』 This refers to the events of the Prajnaparamita Sutra, and there is no need to clarify that the three vehicles are expedient and the one vehicle is real. In addition, those who turn from the small to the great had not yet established a firm foundation in the Prajnaparamita Sutra, so they do not emphasize the meaning of the unification of the three vehicles into one. However, the 『Chapter on Prediction』 quotes the Lotus Sutra, clarifying regression and non-regression, which is probably mentioned in passing in the latter part of the Prajnaparamita Sutra. The attachment of the 『Three Cultivation Bhikkhus』 to impermanence had not yet been shaken at the time of the Prajnaparamita Sutra, so it did not extensively elucidate permanence. Since the Upaya (漚和, expedient means) of the Prajnaparamita Sutra is both the cause and the practice, it is also necessary to recognize the virtues of the fruit. Therefore, the latter part of the Prajnaparamita Sutra briefly elucidates the permanent traces of the Dharmakaya, with coming and going. Furthermore, Sadāprarudita Bodhisattva (常啼菩薩) originally sought the Prajnaparamita Sutra, so he took the two wisdoms as the main content, and because he doubted the Buddha's coming and going, he elucidated it in passing.

本跡。問大品明有為波若無為波若。豈不正辨常無常耶。答無為波若有二種。一者以實相境名無為波若。所生觀智名有為波若。二者以佛果法身名無為波若。菩薩因慧名有為波若。大品經。正明境智為無為義。傍明因果為無為也。是以論云。欲得有為波若。當學無為波若。此明欲得觀智當學實相境。若言欲得于因當學果者。于義不便也。又云。實相能生波若。正是以境生智。若言以果生因。義亦不便也。若以實相則是法身以如為佛者。則此境智便是因果。上五句中。以詳此意。問大品何故以境智為無為是正。涅槃以因果為無為是正耶。答大品明說菩薩行。實相能生波若。波若故有漚和。故以境智為正。涅槃盛明果德故。因位以來皆是無常。如來法身始是常住。故以因果為無為是正宗。問大品明境智為無為。云何傍正。答實相境雖是波若本。而釋論開波若為二慧。二慧則所生。是有為波若。故以有為是正。無為境傍。故不得以境為宗。問大品不住法住波若具足六度等萬行。為是有為為是無為。答不住法者。不住一切有所得法。以不住一切法故。則住波若。此則是實相無為波若。次下具足六波羅蜜中。第六波若則是有為波若。此凡明三法次第。一者能生。謂實相無為波若。二所生觀智有為波若。三導成因果之行。問何以知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本本跡。問：《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中闡明有為般若和無為般若，難道不是正在辨析常與無常嗎？答：無為般若有兩種。一是將實相之境稱為無為般若，由實相境所生的觀智稱為有為般若。二是將佛果法身稱為無為般若，菩薩的因地智慧稱為有為般若。《大品般若經》正是闡明境和智的無為之義，附帶說明因和果的無為之義。因此，《大智度論》中說：『想要獲得有為般若，應當學習無為般若。』這是說明想要獲得觀智，應當學習實相之境。如果說想要在因地學習果地，在義理上就不順暢。又說：『實相能夠產生般若』，這正是以境生智。如果說以果生因，義理上也不順暢。如果認為實相就是法身，以如如智為佛，那麼此境和智便是因和果。以上五句中，詳細說明了這個意思。問：《大品般若經》為什麼以境智為無為是正宗，而《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）以因果為無為是正宗呢？答：《大品般若經》主要闡述菩薩的修行，實相能夠產生般若，因為般若的緣故才有漚和（Upaya，方便），所以以境智為正宗。《涅槃經》盛讚佛果的功德，從因地以來都是無常，如來的法身才是常住，所以以因果為無為是正宗。問：《大品般若經》闡明境智為無為，為什麼說是傍正呢？答：實相之境雖然是般若的根本，但是《大智度論》將般若分為二慧，二慧是所生的，是有為般若，所以以有為是正宗，無為之境是傍。所以不能以境為宗。問：《大品般若經》中『不住法住般若，具足六度等萬行』，這是有為還是無為？答：不住法，就是不住一切有所得法。因為不住一切法，所以安住于般若。這則是實相無為般若。其次，具足六波羅蜜（Six Paramitas）中，第六般若則是有為般若。這裡總共闡明了三法次第：一是能生的，即實相無為般若；二是所生的觀智，有為般若；三是引導成就因果的修行。問：憑什麼知道

【English Translation】 English version Origin and Manifestation. Question: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clarifies conditioned (samskrta) Prajna and unconditioned (asamskrta) Prajna. Isn't it precisely distinguishing between permanence and impermanence? Answer: There are two types of unconditioned Prajna. First, the realm of true reality (bhutathata) is called unconditioned Prajna, and the wisdom of observation arising from it is called conditioned Prajna. Second, the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya) of the Buddha-fruit is called unconditioned Prajna, and the wisdom of the Bodhisattva's causal stage is called conditioned Prajna. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra precisely clarifies the meaning of unconditioned in terms of realm and wisdom, and incidentally explains the meaning of unconditioned in terms of cause and effect. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra says: 'If you want to obtain conditioned Prajna, you should study unconditioned Prajna.' This explains that if you want to obtain wisdom of observation, you should study the realm of true reality. If it is said that one should study the fruit-stage in the causal stage, it would not be logically sound. It also says: 'True reality can generate Prajna,' which is precisely using the realm to generate wisdom. If it is said that the fruit generates the cause, it is also not logically sound. If one considers true reality to be the Dharmakaya, and Tathata (Tathata) as the Buddha, then this realm and wisdom are the cause and effect. The above five sentences explain this meaning in detail. Question: Why does the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra regard realm and wisdom as the primary meaning of unconditioned, while the Nirvana Sutra regards cause and effect as the primary meaning of unconditioned? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra mainly elucidates the practice of Bodhisattvas. True reality can generate Prajna, and because of Prajna, there is Upaya (Upaya, skillful means), so realm and wisdom are regarded as primary. The Nirvana Sutra praises the merits of the Buddha-fruit, and everything from the causal stage is impermanent. Only the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is permanent, so cause and effect are regarded as the primary meaning of unconditioned. Question: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clarifies realm and wisdom as unconditioned, why is it said to be secondary? Answer: Although the realm of true reality is the root of Prajna, the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra divides Prajna into two wisdoms. The two wisdoms are what is produced, which is conditioned Prajna, so conditioned is regarded as primary, and the unconditioned realm is secondary. Therefore, the realm cannot be regarded as the primary meaning. Question: In the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, 'not dwelling in the Dharma, dwelling in Prajna, perfecting the Six Paramitas (Six Paramitas) and myriad practices,' is this conditioned or unconditioned? Answer: Not dwelling in the Dharma means not dwelling in any Dharma that can be attained. Because one does not dwell in any Dharma, one dwells in Prajna. This is unconditioned Prajna of true reality. Next, in perfecting the Six Paramitas, the sixth Prajna is conditioned Prajna. Here, the three Dharmas are explained in order: first, what can generate, which is unconditioned Prajna of true reality; second, the wisdom of observation that is generated, which is conditioned Prajna; and third, the practice that guides and accomplishes cause and effect. Question: How do we know

不住法住波若是實相波若耶。答第六度中既是有為則知。初是無為也。又論辨六家解波若。第六則是實相。仍引不住法住波若。故知。第六則是實相。法花經。正為回小入大之人故。明三乘為方便。令其舍小。示一乘為真實。勸其取大故。正明三一二慧也。既舍小求大。則發菩提心。修菩薩行。須學空有權實。不著三界。不墮二乘。直至佛道。但大品既以廣明故。法花但略說也。三根聲聞。於法花之座。不執無常故。未明常樂。但既說一乘之因。須辨一乘之果。是故後分略明於常。又說常住成前一乘。若是無常。還同灰斷。既異昔三。則知常住。是故略辨常無常也。涅槃教起。正為無常之執。故開常住。三一空有前教已明。但略說之。問波若為直往菩薩。法花為回小入大之人即攝緣已周。涅槃教興復何所為。答設教多意。不可一途。大品為十九因緣。涅槃所為非一。依法花釋此意者。諸子有二。一者失心。即鈍根之人。二不失心。謂利根人。雖有直往之與回小聞波若法花並順悟。謂不失心子利根人也。余失心鈍根。猶未服藥。雙林唱滅為說涅槃。方乃取信。若然者。始蓮花藏終跋提河。但有利鈍二緣。爾前為利根人。涅槃之教為鈍根人。又波若法花之座。皆已得道。今聞涅槃。更復進悟。故云。為人中象王迦葉菩薩。

說是經也。又有二緣。一歷教已得悟道。二但聞涅槃則便取信。故波若法花。雖為兩人。更說涅槃二智。別論二經。問大品凈名二智何異。答凡有三說。五時者云。大品照空有分二智。凈名知病識藥。應緣授教。如上釋之。四時義云。大品凈名同是第二時攝。照空為實。鑒有為權。但大品通說淺深。凈名偏明八地之法。北土人云。凈名是圓頓之教。非染非凈染凈雙游。今謂。並不然。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。一切眾導師。無不由是生。此則空有二慧。斯乃遍貫方等。豈局大品耶。又波若鑒空漚和涉有。此總攝諸智。知病識藥應病授藥。缊在其中。豈得彼波若二智不攝凈名權實。故釋為非。龍樹烈十大經。謂法花等。而波若最勝。豈言大品通說淺深凈名獨明妙道。若言凈名是八地已上之人故法妙者。如來為究竟果德說于波若。即應最深。又身子善吉小人。說之便非大法。若云凈名辨不思議鉅細容入故為深者。大品明指障風力毛舉大千。豈不明耶。又波若漚和不思議之本也。借座請飯不思議之跡也。如大品盛明二慧。則辨不思議本。凈名現通。乃顯不思議跡。何得本通淺深跡獨為妙。若云三乘通學波若故通淺深者。凈名亦辨二乘之人皆以無得為得。豈不通耶。若言此經是圓頓教者。是亦不然。大品等辨菩薩權道方便適化

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：說是經的兩種因緣：一是經歷教法后得以悟道；二是僅僅聽聞涅槃便立即信受。因此，《般若經》（Prajna）和《法華經》（Lotus Sutra），雖然是為兩種人所說，但都進一步闡述了涅槃的兩種智慧。如果分別討論這兩部經，那麼《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）和《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）的兩種智慧有什麼不同呢？回答有三種說法。五時教判認為，《大品般若經》照見空和有，分為兩種智慧；《維摩詰經》瞭解病癥，識別藥物，根據不同情況施教，如前文解釋。四時教判認為，《大品般若經》和《維摩詰經》都屬於第二時所攝，照見空為真實，鑑別有為權巧，但《大品般若經》普遍講述淺顯和深奧的道理，《維摩詰經》則側重闡明八地菩薩的法門。北方的人認為，《維摩詰經》是圓頓的教法，非染非凈，在染凈之間自由遊走。我認為，這些說法都不對。智慧度是菩薩的母親，方便是菩薩的父親，一切眾生的導師，沒有不是從這裡產生的。這說明空和有這兩種智慧，貫穿于整個方等部經典，怎麼能侷限於《大品般若經》呢？而且，《般若經》鑑別空性，漚和涉鑑別有。這總攝了各種智慧。瞭解病癥，識別藥物，根據病癥施藥，都包含在其中。怎麼能說《般若經》的兩種智慧不包含《維摩詰經》的權巧和真實呢？所以這種解釋是不對的。龍樹菩薩推崇十大經典，認為《法華經》等經典，而《般若經》最為殊勝。怎麼能說《大品般若經》普遍講述淺顯和深奧的道理，《維摩詰經》獨自闡明微妙的道理呢？如果說《維摩詰經》是八地以上的人所說的，所以法很微妙，那麼如來為究竟的果德而宣說的《般若經》，就應該最深奧了。而且，舍利弗（Sariputra）和須菩提（Subhuti）這樣的小乘根器的人，宣說《般若經》便不是大法。如果說《維摩詰經》辨析不可思議的鉅細，都能包容，所以很深奧，那麼《大品般若經》明明指出障風的力量，能舉起大千世界，難道不明白嗎？而且，《般若經》是漚和不思議的根本，借座請飯是不思議的跡象。如同《大品般若經》盛大地闡明兩種智慧，就是辨析不思議的根本；《維摩詰經》展現神通，就是顯現不思議的跡象。怎麼能說根本是淺顯和深奧的，而跡象獨自微妙呢？如果說三乘共同學習《般若經》，所以普遍講述淺顯和深奧的道理，那麼《維摩詰經》也辨析二乘之人都是以無所得為所得，難道不普遍嗎？如果說這部經是圓頓的教法，這也是不對的。《大品般若經》等經典辨析菩薩的權巧方便，適應變化。

【English Translation】 English version: It is said that there are two causes for a sutra: first, one attains enlightenment after experiencing the teachings; second, one immediately believes upon hearing of Nirvana. Therefore, the Prajna (Wisdom) and Lotus Sutras, although spoken for two types of people, further elaborate on the two wisdoms of Nirvana. If we discuss these two sutras separately, what is the difference between the two wisdoms of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) and the Vimalakirti Sutra? There are three answers. The Five Periods Teaching classification holds that the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra illuminates emptiness and existence, dividing into two wisdoms; the Vimalakirti Sutra understands the illness, identifies the medicine, and teaches according to the circumstances, as explained earlier. The Four Periods Teaching classification holds that the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra are both included in the second period, illuminating emptiness as reality and discerning existence as expedient, but the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra universally discusses both shallow and profound principles, while the Vimalakirti Sutra focuses on elucidating the Dharma of the Eighth Ground Bodhisattva. People in the north believe that the Vimalakirti Sutra is a perfect and sudden teaching, neither defiled nor pure, freely roaming between defilement and purity. I believe that these statements are incorrect. Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and Upaya (skillful means) is the father of Bodhisattvas. All teachers of beings are born from this. This indicates that the two wisdoms of emptiness and existence permeate the entire Vaipulya (extensive) canon, how can it be limited to the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra? Moreover, the Prajna Sutra discerns emptiness, and Upaya discerns existence. This encompasses all wisdoms. Understanding the illness, identifying the medicine, and prescribing medicine according to the illness are all included within it. How can it be said that the two wisdoms of the Prajna Sutra do not encompass the expedient and reality of the Vimalakirti Sutra? Therefore, this explanation is incorrect. Nagarjuna (Dragon Tree) praised the ten great sutras, considering the Lotus Sutra and others, but the Prajna Sutra is the most supreme. How can it be said that the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra universally discusses shallow and profound principles, while the Vimalakirti Sutra alone elucidates the wonderful path? If it is said that the Vimalakirti Sutra is spoken for those who are on the Eighth Ground and above, so the Dharma is subtle, then the Prajna Sutra, which the Tathagata (Thus Come One) speaks for the ultimate fruit virtue, should be the most profound. Moreover, if Sariputra (Shariputra) and Subhuti (Good Auspicious), who are of small vehicle capacity, speak it, then it is not the great Dharma. If it is said that the Vimalakirti Sutra discerns inconceivable greatness and smallness, and can accommodate everything, so it is profound, then the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clearly points out the power of the obstructing wind, which can lift up a great thousand world, is it not clear? Moreover, the Prajna Sutra is the root of Upaya and the inconceivable, and borrowing a seat and requesting food are signs of the inconceivable. Just as the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra greatly elucidates the two wisdoms, it discerns the root of the inconceivable; the Vimalakirti Sutra manifests supernatural powers, which reveals the signs of the inconceivable. How can it be said that the root is shallow and profound, while the signs alone are wonderful? If it is said that the three vehicles commonly study the Prajna Sutra, so it universally discusses shallow and profound principles, then the Vimalakirti Sutra also discerns that people of the two vehicles all take non-attainment as attainment, is it not universal? If it is said that this sutra is a perfect and sudden teaching, this is also incorrect. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and other sutras discern the skillful means of Bodhisattvas, adapting to change.

不同。寧獨以此經為圓頓耶。今所明者。大品凈名所明二智。有同有異。智度菩薩母。方便以為父二經同辨斯法。但大品前明實慧。后辨方便。故九十章經開為二道。六十六品明波若。后二十四品明方便道。所以前明實慧。后辨方便者。實相為本。諸法為末。波若照實相故。波若為本。方便照諸法故。方便為末。此示二本二末。從本至末從體起用。故前明實慧。后辨方便。二者一切諸見凡有二種。一者有見二者無見。波若斥其有見。方便破其無見。即顯中道。遠離二邊故。前明實慧。后辨方便。謂破見次第也。三者菩薩退有二事。一貪三界二取小乘。方便實慧故。不著三界。實慧方便故。不墮二乘。即入菩薩位。得至佛道。要前離三界。后離二乘。故前辨實慧。后明方便。此如法花經五百由旬險難惡道。三界為三百。二乘為二百。先離三百。后離二百。故先明實慧。后辨權慧。故大品中。以二乘合為一百。但明四百。雖開合為異。與法花大同。如彼廣說。又睿公釋論序云。正覺知邪思之自起故。阿含為之作。鑒滯有之由惑故。波若為之照。若然者。波若即破小乘之有故。前明實慧。雖破著有。復恐證空故。方便破空。此約教之前後為次第也。五就位明次第者。前明波若道。謂六地已還。次約方便道。則七地已上無生法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不同。難道只有這部經是圓頓法門嗎？現在所闡明的內容，與《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）和《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）所闡明的兩種智慧，既有相同之處，也有不同之處。《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamitasastra）說般若是菩薩之母，方便是菩薩之父，這兩部經都闡述了這個道理。但是，《大品般若經》先闡明實慧（prajna，般若智慧），后闡明方便（upaya，善巧方法）。所以九十章的經文分為兩個部分，前六十六章闡明般若，后二十四品闡明方便道。之所以先闡明實慧，后闡明方便，是因為實相（tathata，諸法實相）是根本，諸法是末端。般若照見實相，所以般若是根本；方便照見諸法，所以方便是末端。這顯示了兩個根本和兩個末端，從根本到末端，從本體到作用。所以先闡明實慧，后闡明方便。其次，一切諸見，總共有兩種：一種是有見（bhava-drsti），一種是無見（abhava-drsti）。般若破斥有見，方便破斥無見，從而彰顯中道（madhyama-pratipada），遠離兩種極端。所以先闡明實慧，后闡明方便，這是破除見解的次第。第三，菩薩退轉有兩種情況：一是貪戀三界（trayo dhatavah，欲界、色界、無色界），二是取證小乘（hinayana）。因為有方便和實慧，所以不執著於三界；因為有實慧和方便，所以不墮入二乘。這樣就能進入菩薩的位次，最終到達佛道。必須要先離開三界，后離開二乘。所以先闡明實慧，后闡明方便。這就像《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）中所說的五百由旬的險難惡道，三界是三百由旬，二乘是二百由旬，先離開三百由旬，后離開二百由旬。所以先闡明實慧，后闡明權慧（upaya-prajna，方便智慧）。因此，《大品般若經》中，將二乘合為一百由旬，只說明四百由旬。雖然開合不同，但與《法華經》的道理大體相同，詳細內容可以參考《法華經》。此外，鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）的弟子僧睿（Sengrui）在《智度論》的序言中說：『正覺（samyak-sambuddha，如來）知道邪思的產生原因，所以有《阿含經》（Agama Sutra）的出現；爲了鑑別執著于有的迷惑，所以有般若來照亮。』如果這樣說，般若就是爲了破除小乘的執著于有，所以先闡明實慧。雖然破除了執著于有，但又擔心證入空（sunyata），所以用方便來破除空。這是從教法的先後順序來說明次第。第五，從菩薩的階位來說明次第，先闡明般若道，指的是六地（bhumi，菩薩的階位）及以下；其次闡明方便道，指的是七地及以上，證得無生法忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti）。

【English Translation】 English version Different. Is this the only sutra that is a perfect and immediate teaching? What is being explained now, the two wisdoms explained in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra, have similarities and differences. The Mahaprajnaparamitasastra says that prajna (wisdom) is the mother of the Bodhisattvas, and upaya (skillful means) is the father. Both sutras discuss this dharma. However, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra first explains true wisdom (prajna), and then explains skillful means (upaya). Therefore, the ninety chapters of the sutra are divided into two parts: the first sixty-six chapters explain prajna, and the last twenty-four chapters explain the path of skillful means. The reason for explaining true wisdom first and then skillful means is that suchness (tathata) is the root, and all dharmas are the branches. Prajna illuminates suchness, so prajna is the root; skillful means illuminates all dharmas, so skillful means is the branch. This shows the two roots and two branches, from root to branch, from essence to function. Therefore, true wisdom is explained first, and then skillful means. Secondly, all views are of two kinds: one is the view of existence (bhava-drsti), and the other is the view of non-existence (abhava-drsti). Prajna refutes the view of existence, and skillful means refutes the view of non-existence, thereby revealing the Middle Way (madhyama-pratipada), and staying away from the two extremes. Therefore, true wisdom is explained first, and then skillful means. This is the order of breaking down views. Thirdly, there are two situations in which a Bodhisattva regresses: one is attachment to the three realms (trayo dhatavah, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), and the other is taking refuge in the Small Vehicle (hinayana). Because of skillful means and true wisdom, one is not attached to the three realms; because of true wisdom and skillful means, one does not fall into the Two Vehicles. In this way, one can enter the position of a Bodhisattva and eventually reach the path of Buddhahood. One must first leave the three realms and then leave the Two Vehicles. Therefore, true wisdom is explained first, and then skillful means. This is like the five hundred yojanas of dangerous and difficult evil paths mentioned in the Lotus Sutra: the three realms are three hundred yojanas, and the Two Vehicles are two hundred yojanas. First leave the three hundred yojanas, and then leave the two hundred yojanas. Therefore, true wisdom is explained first, and then expedient wisdom (upaya-prajna). Therefore, in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, the Two Vehicles are combined into one hundred yojanas, and only four hundred yojanas are explained. Although the opening and closing are different, the principle is largely the same as in the Lotus Sutra. For details, please refer to the Lotus Sutra. In addition, Sengrui, a disciple of Kumarajiva, said in the preface to the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra: 'The Samyak-sambuddha (Tathagata) knows the cause of the arising of wrong thoughts, so the Agama Sutra appeared; in order to discern the delusion of clinging to existence, prajna illuminates it.' If so, prajna is to break the Small Vehicle's attachment to existence, so true wisdom is explained first. Although attachment to existence is broken, there is still the fear of realizing emptiness (sunyata), so skillful means is used to break emptiness. This explains the order from the perspective of the sequence of teachings. Fifth, explaining the order from the perspective of the Bodhisattva's stages, the path of prajna is explained first, referring to the sixth bhumi (stage of a Bodhisattva) and below; then the path of skillful means is explained, referring to the seventh bhumi and above, attaining the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti).

忍。此皆大判為言。龍樹云。波若中非無方便。方便中非無波若。但前多明波若。后多明方便。次凈名經辨二慧者。前明方便。后辨于實。所以然者。此教所興正起于疾。故云。其以方便現身有疾。以有疾故便有方丈二會庵園兩集。故前明方便。后辨實也。又成就眾生凈佛國土。此是菩薩方便用故。佛國一品。明凈佛土。方便已去。辨成就眾生。是以此經多明方便。又大品多明實相。少現神通。凈名多現神通。少明實相。又大品多明實慧方便。凈名經多辨權實二慧。問權與方便有何異耶。答通即無別。皆是善巧之義。別而為言。方便則長。權語則短。今總明三句。一照實相為實慧。鑒萬法為權。二靜鑒萬法為實。外反動為權。三就動用。以不疾之身為實。託疾方丈為權。初照實相名為實慧。自餘三門。皆屬方便故。權義短者。但取外示反動名之為權。故權是方便中之別用。所以言短。問權與方便既有短長。兩實亦得爾不。答方便之實則長。權實則短。所以然者。方便既無所不為。實慧照無所不為而實無所為。是故長也。權智但是有中反動。實智是有中之靜鑒。故權實則短。問外示反動為權。則照動無所動為實。但立此二成權實不。答外示反動為權。此是應病授藥。必須內靜鑒根藥為實。方成二慧。空慧不知根藥故。不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本忍。這些都是大判所說的。龍樹（Nāgārjuna，印度佛教哲學家）說，『般若（Prajna，智慧）中並非沒有方便（Upaya，善巧方法），方便中並非沒有般若。』只是前者多闡明般若，後者多闡明方便。其次，《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）辨別二慧，前面闡明方便，後面辨明實相。之所以如此，是因為此經的興起正是爲了快速成就，所以說『以方便示現有疾之身』。因為有疾，便有方丈（Vimalakirti's abode，維摩詰的居所）二會，庵園兩集。所以前面闡明方便，後面辨明實相。又，成就眾生，清凈佛國土，這是菩薩方便的運用。佛國一品，闡明清凈佛土。方便之後，辨別成就眾生。因此，此經多闡明方便。而《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）多闡明實相，少示現神通。《維摩詰經》多示現神通，少闡明實相。《大品般若經》多闡明實慧方便，《維摩詰經》多辨別權實二慧。問：權（expedient means，權宜之計）與方便有什麼不同？答：通而言之，沒有區別，都是善巧之義。區別而言，方便則長，權語則短。現在總明三句：一、照實相為實慧，鑒萬法為權。二、靜鑒萬法為實，外反動為權。三、就動用而言，以不疾之身為實，託疾方丈為權。初照實相名為實慧，其餘三門，都屬於方便。所以權義短，只是取外示反動，名之為權。所以權是方便中的別用，所以說短。問：權與方便既然有短長，兩實也能這樣嗎？答：方便之實則長，權實則短。之所以如此，是因為方便無所不為，實慧照無所不為而實無所為，所以長。權智只是有中反動，實智是有中之靜鑒，所以權實則短。問：外示反動為權，則照動無所動為實，僅僅建立這二者就能成就權實嗎？答：外示反動為權，這是應病授藥，必須內靜鑒根藥為實，才能成就二慧。空慧不知根藥，所以不能。

【English Translation】 English version 'Endurance.' These are all statements made by Da Pan. Nāgārjuna (Nāgārjuna, Indian Buddhist philosopher) said, 'Within Prajna (Prajna, wisdom), there is no lack of Upaya (Upaya, skillful means), and within Upaya, there is no lack of Prajna.' However, the former mostly elucidates Prajna, while the latter mostly elucidates Upaya. Next, the Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra) distinguishes between the two wisdoms, with the former elucidating Upaya and the latter distinguishing reality. The reason for this is that the arising of this teaching is precisely for rapid achievement, hence it is said, 'Manifesting a body with illness through Upaya.' Because of the illness, there are the two assemblies in Vimalakirti's abode (Vimalakirti's abode, Vimalakirti's residence) and the two gatherings in the garden. Therefore, the former elucidates Upaya, and the latter distinguishes reality. Furthermore, accomplishing sentient beings and purifying the Buddha-land, this is the application of the Bodhisattva's Upaya. The 'Buddha-land' chapter elucidates the pure Buddha-land. After Upaya, it distinguishes the accomplishment of sentient beings. Therefore, this Sutra mostly elucidates Upaya. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra) mostly elucidates reality and rarely manifests supernatural powers. The Vimalakirti Sutra mostly manifests supernatural powers and rarely elucidates reality. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra mostly elucidates real wisdom and Upaya, while the Vimalakirti Sutra mostly distinguishes between expedient and real wisdom. Question: What is the difference between expedient means (expedient means) and Upaya? Answer: Generally speaking, there is no difference; both are the meaning of skillful means. Speaking distinctly, Upaya is long, while expedient speech is short. Now, to generally clarify three sentences: First, illuminating reality is real wisdom, and discerning all dharmas is expedient means. Second, quiescently discerning all dharmas is reality, and outwardly reversing movement is expedient means. Third, in terms of application, taking the body without illness as reality and relying on illness in the abode is expedient means. Initially, illuminating reality is called real wisdom; the remaining three aspects all belong to Upaya. Therefore, the meaning of expedient means is short, only taking outward manifestation and reversing movement as expedient means. Therefore, expedient means is a distinct application within Upaya, hence it is said to be short. Question: Since expedient means and Upaya have length, can the two realities also be like this? Answer: The reality of Upaya is long, while expedient reality is short. The reason for this is that Upaya does everything, and real wisdom illuminates everything without doing anything, therefore it is long. Expedient wisdom is only reversing movement within existence, while real wisdom is quiescently discerning within existence, therefore expedient reality is short. Question: Taking outward manifestation and reversing movement as expedient means, and illuminating movement without moving as reality, can merely establishing these two accomplish expedient and real? Answer: Taking outward manifestation and reversing movement as expedient means, this is prescribing medicine according to the illness; it is necessary to have inner quiescent discernment of the root medicine as reality in order to accomplish the two wisdoms. Empty wisdom does not know the root medicine, therefore it cannot.

成二慧也。

長短門第六。總論眾經。具有四句。一實智長權智短。二權長實短。三俱長。四俱短。實智長權智短者。此約動靜以分二智。靜鑒空有為實故。實義即長。外反動為權。權但是有用。所以為短。問內靜鑒空有實智既長。外動雙說空有。如說二諦。又雙現空有。如文殊為世王現虛空身。又示丈六千尺之身。若爾動用亦通空有。則二智俱長。答雖外說空有。但從鑒有智起故。權為短也。所言權長實短者。此約鑒空為實照有為權。分於二智照空為實。實智唯是靜鑒故名為短。照有為權。權備動靜內照根藥為靜。外應病授藥為動。權通動靜故言長也。二智俱長者。就空有以分權實。實智照空。權智鑒有。鑒有之中。明動靜二有。實智照空動靜皆空。是故二智無有長短。二智俱短者。但就有中以分於二。內靜鑒有為實。外動用為權。故俱短也。亦如凈名不病之身為實示疾之義為權。問但就有智開于權實。就照空智亦得開之。答實智明二不二義。又當其體。是故不開。權智是不二二義。又為其用。所以開兩。若欲為類照生空之淺為權。鑒法空之深為實。又二乘之空名為權空。菩薩之空稱為實空。照此權實二空。亦得為權實二智。

六智門第七。興皇和上。昔講此經。明六種二智。以為三雙。謂方便實權實

{ "translations": [ "成二慧也（成就兩種智慧）。", "", "長短門第六。總論眾經（總論諸經）。具有四句（具有四種情況）：一實智長權智短（實智長，權智短）。二權長實短（權智長，實智短）。三俱長（都長）。四俱短（都短）。實智長權智短者（實智長，權智短的情況）：此約動靜以分二智（這是根據動與靜來區分兩種智慧）。靜鑒空有為實故（靜止地覺察空和有為實智），實義即長（實智的意義就是長）。外反動為權（向外應機變化為權智），權但是有用（權智只是有用），所以為短（所以是短）。問內靜鑒空有實智既長（問：內在靜止地覺察空和有的實智既然是長），外動雙說空有（外在應機變化同時宣說空和有），如說二諦（如宣說二諦），又雙現空有（又同時顯現空和有），如文殊為世王現虛空身（如文殊菩薩為世王顯現虛空之身），又示丈六千尺之身（又示現丈六和千尺之身），若爾動用亦通空有（如果這樣，那麼權智的動用也通達空和有），則二智俱長（那麼兩種智慧都長）。答雖外說空有（答：雖然外在宣說空和有），但從鑒有智起故（但權智是從覺察有的智慧生起的），權為短也（所以權智是短的）。所言權長實短者（所說的權智長，實智短的情況）：此約鑒空為實照有為權（這是根據覺察空為實智，照見有為權智來區分兩種智慧）。分於二智照空為實（在兩種智慧中，照見空為實智），實智唯是靜鑒故名為短（實智只是靜止地覺察，所以稱為短）。照有為權（照見有為權智），權備動靜（權智具備動和靜），內照根藥為靜（內在照見眾生的根性和藥物為靜），外應病授藥為動（外在根據病情給予藥物為動），權通動靜故言長也（權智通達動和靜，所以說是長）。二智俱長者（兩種智慧都長的情況）：就空有以分權實（就空和有來區分權智和實智），實智照空（實智照見空），權智鑒有（權智覺察有）。鑒有之中（在覺察有之中），明動靜二有（明白動和靜兩種有）。實智照空動靜皆空（實智照見空，動和靜都是空），是故二智無有長短（所以兩種智慧沒有長短）。二智俱短者（兩種智慧都短的情況）：但就有中以分於二（只是就有的角度來區分兩種智慧）。內靜鑒有為實（內在靜止地覺察有為實智），外動用為權（外在應機變化為權智），故俱短也（所以都短）。亦如凈名不病之身為實（也像維摩詰不生病之身為實），示疾之義為權（示現疾病的意義為權）。問但就有智開于權實（問：只是就有的智慧來開顯權智和實智），就照空智亦得開之（就照見空的智慧也可以開顯權智和實智）。答實智明二不二義（答：實智明白二和不二的意義），又當其體（又符合它的本體），是故不開（所以不開顯）。權智是不二二義（權智是不二和二的意義），又為其用（又是它的作用），所以開兩（所以開顯兩種）。若欲為類（如果要分類），照生空之淺為權（照見生空的淺顯為權智），鑒法空之深為實（覺察法空的深奧為實智）。又二乘之空名為權空（又二乘的空稱為權空），菩薩之空稱為實空（菩薩的空稱為實空）。照此權實二空（照見這權空和實空），亦得為權實二智（也可以作為權智和實智）。", "", "六智門第七。興皇和上（興皇和尚）。昔講此經（過去講解這部經），明六種二智（闡明六種二智），以為三雙（作為三對）：謂方便實權實（即方便實、權實）。" ], "english_translations": [ 'Achieving two kinds of wisdom.', '', 'Chapter Six on Length and Shortness. General discussion of various sutras. It has four aspects: 1. Real wisdom is long, expedient wisdom is short. 2. Expedient wisdom is long, real wisdom is short. 3. Both are long. 4. Both are short. Real wisdom is long and expedient wisdom is short: This distinguishes the two wisdoms based on stillness and movement. Still contemplation of emptiness and existence is real, therefore the meaning of real is long. Outwardly responding with movement is expedient, and expedient wisdom is only useful, so it is short. Question: Since the inner still contemplation of emptiness and existence, which is real wisdom, is long, and the outer movement simultaneously speaks of emptiness and existence, such as speaking of the two truths (two truths), and also simultaneously manifests emptiness and existence, such as Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī) manifesting a body of emptiness for the world king, and also showing a body of sixteen feet or a thousand feet, if that is the case, then the function of movement also penetrates emptiness and existence, so both wisdoms are long. Answer: Although outwardly speaking of emptiness and existence, expedient wisdom arises from the wisdom of contemplating existence, so expedient wisdom is short. What is meant by expedient wisdom being long and real wisdom being short: This distinguishes the two wisdoms based on contemplating emptiness as real and illuminating existence as expedient. Among the two wisdoms, illuminating emptiness is real, and real wisdom is only still contemplation, so it is called short. Illuminating existence is expedient, and expedient wisdom encompasses movement and stillness. Inner illumination of roots and medicine is stillness, and outwardly responding to illness by giving medicine is movement. Expedient wisdom penetrates movement and stillness, so it is called long. Both wisdoms are long: Distinguishing expedient and real based on emptiness and existence, real wisdom illuminates emptiness, and expedient wisdom contemplates existence. Within the contemplation of existence, it clarifies the two existences of movement and stillness. Real wisdom illuminates emptiness, and both movement and stillness are empty, therefore the two wisdoms have no length or shortness. Both wisdoms are short: Only distinguishing the two based on existence. Inner still contemplation of existence is real, and outward function of movement is expedient, so both are short. It is also like Vimalakīrti\'s (Vimalakīrti) body without illness being real, and the meaning of showing illness being expedient. Question: Only opening up expedient and real based on the wisdom of existence, can it also be opened up based on the wisdom of illuminating emptiness? Answer: Real wisdom clarifies the meaning of two and non-two, and it also corresponds to its essence, so it is not opened up. Expedient wisdom is the meaning of non-two and two, and it is also its function, so it opens up both. If one wants to categorize, illuminating the shallowness of emptiness of self is expedient, and contemplating the depth of emptiness of phenomena is real. Also, the emptiness of the two vehicles (two vehicles) is called expedient emptiness, and the emptiness of the bodhisattvas (bodhisattvas) is called real emptiness. Illuminating these two emptinesses of expedient and real can also be considered as expedient and real wisdoms.', '', 'Chapter Seven on Six Wisdoms. The Venerable Xinghuang (Xinghuang) formerly lectured on this sutra, clarifying six kinds of two wisdoms, considering them as three pairs: namely, expedient and real, expedient and real.' ] }

。實方便權方便。方便權實權。故有兩實兩權兩方便也。方便實者。對方便以辨于實。謂知實相慧故名為實也。權實者。凡有二義。一就菩薩辨之。如照有為權。就此權中。更復明實。如內靜鑒根藥為實。外反動為權故名權實。又如不病之身為權中之實。亦明權實。二約聲聞明權實者。二乘照事中之智為權。鑒苦空之理為實。今以大望小明二乘之實者。蓋是權明實耳。非究竟實也。次雙云。實方便權方便者。實方便。即對照實相之智名為實方便。權方便者。即對上二乘之實明二乘方便。此是權方便耳。三雙云。實權方便權者。實權即從實起權。故名實權。如照空有皆名為實但取外用目之為權。又實權者。二乘之權此是虛權。菩薩之權名為實權。方便權者。此以照空為實。照有為方便。就方便中。更復起權。如內照有為實外動用為權。此之六門成長短義也。

論開合門第八。二智具有開合四句。一者開於二慧。如前所明。照諸法實相故名波若。照實相諸法稱為漚和。如來內照此二故有二慧。佛從此二生故。有父有母。外為眾生還說此二。如釋論云。初說波若道。次明方便道。初明佛母經。次明佛父經。所以波若為十方三世諸佛父母尊經。信之而得大福。毀之而招大罪。問既以二慧為父母。何者為祖父母耶。答約境

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：實際上有方便和權宜的方便，權宜和真實的權宜，以及方便、權宜和真實。因此，存在兩種真實、兩種權宜和兩種方便。『方便實』是指通過方便來辨別真實，即認識實相的智慧，因此被稱為『實』。『權實』通常有兩種含義：一是就菩薩而言，例如觀照有為法是權宜，在此權宜中，進一步闡明真實，例如內在的靜觀和鑑別根源的藥物是真實，外在的轉化和運用是權宜，因此稱為『權實』。又如不生病之身是權宜中的真實，這也闡明了『權實』。二是就聲聞乘而言，二乘觀照事物中的智慧是權宜，鑑別苦空的道理是真實。現在用大乘的視角來看小乘，二乘的真實實際上是權宜地闡明真實，並非究竟的真實。其次，雙重地說，『實方便』和『權方便』，『實方便』是指對照實相的智慧，稱為『實方便』。『權方便』是指對照上述二乘的真實，闡明二乘的方便，這只是『權方便』。三重地說，『實權』和『方便權』，『實權』是指從真實出發而產生的權宜，因此稱為『實權』。例如，觀照空和有都被稱為真實，但取其外在的運用，就稱之為權宜。另外，『實權』是指二乘的權宜，這是虛假的權宜，菩薩的權宜被稱為『實權』。『方便權』是指以觀照空為真實，觀照有為方便，在方便中，進一步產生權宜，例如內在觀照有為真實，外在的動用為權宜。這六個方面構成了長短的含義。關於開合門第八。兩種智慧都具有開合四句。一是開啟兩種智慧，如前所述，觀照諸法實相，因此稱為般若（Prajna，智慧），觀照實相諸法，稱為漚和（Upaya，方便）。如來內在觀照這兩種智慧，因此具有兩種智慧。佛從此二者產生，因此有父親和母親。對外為眾生宣說這兩種智慧，如《釋論》所說，首先宣說般若道，其次闡明方便道，首先闡明佛母經，其次闡明佛父經。因此，般若為十方三世諸佛的父母尊經，信仰它就能獲得大福，譭謗它就會招致大罪。問：既然以兩種智慧為父母，那麼什麼是祖父母呢？答：從境界上來說。

【English Translation】 English version: In reality, there are expedient and provisional expedients, provisional and real provisionalities, and expedients, provisionalities, and realities. Therefore, there exist two realities, two provisionalities, and two expedients. 'Expedient Reality' refers to distinguishing reality through expedients, that is, the wisdom of knowing the true nature of reality, hence it is called 'Reality.' 'Provisional Reality' generally has two meanings: first, in terms of Bodhisattvas, for example, contemplating conditioned phenomena is provisional, and within this provisionality, further clarifying reality, such as inner contemplation and discerning the root cause of remedies is reality, while external transformation and application is provisional, hence it is called 'Provisional Reality.' Furthermore, a healthy body is the reality within provisionality, which also clarifies 'Provisional Reality.' Second, in terms of the Sravaka Vehicle, the wisdom of the Two Vehicles in contemplating phenomena is provisional, while discerning the principle of suffering and emptiness is reality. Now, viewing the Small Vehicle from the perspective of the Great Vehicle, the reality of the Two Vehicles is actually an expedient way of clarifying reality, not the ultimate reality. Secondly, doubly speaking, 'Real Expedient' and 'Provisional Expedient,' 'Real Expedient' refers to the wisdom that contrasts with the true nature of reality, called 'Real Expedient.' 'Provisional Expedient' refers to clarifying the expedients of the Two Vehicles in contrast to the reality of the aforementioned Two Vehicles, which is merely 'Provisional Expedient.' Triply speaking, 'Real Provisionality' and 'Expedient Provisionality,' 'Real Provisionality' refers to the provisionality that arises from reality, hence it is called 'Real Provisionality.' For example, contemplating emptiness and existence are both called reality, but taking its external application, it is called provisionality. Additionally, 'Real Provisionality' refers to the provisionality of the Two Vehicles, which is false provisionality, while the provisionality of Bodhisattvas is called 'Real Provisionality.' 'Expedient Provisionality' refers to taking contemplating emptiness as reality and contemplating existence as expedient, and within the expedient, further generating provisionality, such as inner contemplation of existence as reality and external application as provisionality. These six aspects constitute the meaning of length and shortness. Regarding the Chapter on Opening and Closing (開合門) Eighth. Both types of wisdom possess the four phrases of opening and closing. First, opening the two wisdoms, as previously explained, contemplating the true nature of all phenomena, hence it is called Prajna (般若, wisdom), contemplating the true nature of reality and all phenomena, it is called Upaya (漚和, expedient means). The Tathagata internally contemplates these two wisdoms, therefore possessing two wisdoms. The Buddha arises from these two, therefore having a father and a mother. Externally, for sentient beings, these two wisdoms are proclaimed, as stated in the Shastra (釋論), first the path of Prajna is proclaimed, then the path of Upaya is explained, first the Sutra of the Buddha-Mother is explained, then the Sutra of the Buddha-Father is explained. Therefore, Prajna is the revered Sutra of the parents of all Buddhas of the ten directions and three times, believing in it brings great blessings, slandering it incurs great sins. Question: Since the two wisdoms are taken as parents, then what are the grandparents? Answer: In terms of the realm.

智分之。即實相及諸法二境。能發生二智。即祖父母。是故爾炎名為智母。若據眾行為論。由大悲故方有波若。即大悲為波若母。亦由大悲故有方便。是方便之母。即是父義。但合說之耳。此即是開二慧也。問若以波若為母方便為父。何故論云波若為母般舟三昧為父。又云波若母五度為父。答般舟翻為現前。現前者。現前見佛。此是有行。故屬方便名之為父。五度有行。亦屬方便也。次第二合二慧者。明波若與漚和皆是波若。所以然者。波若為體漚和為用。體即波若之體。用是波若之用。故皆名波若。如來雖說大品九十章開。於二道皆稱摩訶波若經。不以後為方便。故知。二慧皆名波若又如論云。以金為種種物。而即是金更無別體。又如六度中合方便與實慧皆名波若。問何以知然。答餘五度。但明五種有行。不辨照知空有。今照空義屬波若。知有義亦屬波若。故知。二慧皆名波若。即是合權實皆名實義也。第三合權實皆名權者。照有功用既名為方便。照空之巧。亦是方便故。二照同巧。即兩皆方便。又如七地中名方便波羅蜜者。釋論云。是時波若清凈反名方便。以至於六地波若用猶未妙故。不名方便。至七地即波若用妙故名方便。如七地文從方便慧起十妙行。雖知三界空而莊嚴三界等。故知。二慧皆名方便。對此義。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：智慧的區分在於，實相和諸法這兩種境界能夠產生兩種智慧，就像祖母和祖父一樣。因此，『爾炎』（Prajna，般若）被稱為智慧之母。如果從眾生修行的角度來說，因為有大悲心才會有般若智慧，所以大悲心是般若智慧之母。也因為有大悲心才會有方便法門，大悲心是方便法門之母，這就像父親的意義一樣。這裡只是合起來說而已，這就是開啟兩種智慧。問：如果以般若為母，方便為父，為什麼經論中說般若是母，般舟三昧（Pratyutpanna-samadhi，常行三昧）為父？又說般若為母，五度（Panca-paramita，五波羅蜜）為父？答：般舟翻譯為現前，現前就是現前見佛，這是有為的修行，所以屬於方便，稱之為父。五度也是有為的修行，也屬於方便。其次，第二種情況是合併兩種智慧，說明般若與漚和（Upaya，方便）都是般若。為什麼這樣說呢？因為般若是體，漚和是用，體就是般若的本體，用是般若的作用，所以都稱為般若。如來雖然說了《大品般若經》九十章，在兩種道中都稱為摩訶般若經（Maha-prajnaparamita-sutra，大般若波羅蜜多經），不以後者為方便，所以知道兩種智慧都稱為般若。又如經論中說，用金子做成各種各樣的物品，但本質還是金子，沒有別的本體。又如六度（Sad-paramita，六波羅蜜）中，合併方便與實慧都稱為般若。問：憑什麼知道是這樣呢？答：其餘五度只是說明五種有為的修行，不辨別照見空與有。現在照見空的意義屬於般若，知道有的意義也屬於般若，所以知道兩種智慧都稱為般若，這就是合併權巧和真實都稱為真實的意義。第三種情況是合併權巧和真實都稱為權巧，照見有的功用既然稱為方便，照見空的巧妙也是方便，所以兩種照見同樣巧妙，也就是兩者都是方便。又如七地（Saptama-bhumi，第七地）中稱為方便波羅蜜（Upaya-paramita，方便波羅蜜），釋論中說，這時般若清凈反而稱為方便，因為到了六地（Sad-bhumi，第六地）般若的運用還不夠巧妙，所以不稱為方便，到了七地就是般若的運用很巧妙，所以稱為方便。如七地經文中說，從方便慧生起十種妙行，雖然知道三界（Tri-dhatu，欲界、色界、無色界）是空的，但仍然莊嚴三界等等。所以知道兩種智慧都稱為方便。對於這個意義。

【English Translation】 English version: The distinction of wisdom lies in the fact that the two realms of reality and all dharmas can generate two kinds of wisdom, just like grandmothers and grandfathers. Therefore, 'Prajna' is called the mother of wisdom. If we consider it from the perspective of sentient beings' practice, prajna wisdom arises because of great compassion, so great compassion is the mother of prajna wisdom. Also, because of great compassion, there are skillful means (Upaya), and great compassion is the mother of skillful means, which is like the meaning of father. This is just a combined way of speaking, and it is the opening of two kinds of wisdom. Question: If prajna is considered the mother and skillful means the father, why do the scriptures say that prajna is the mother and Pratyutpanna-samadhi (the Samadhi of Always Being in the Presence of the Buddhas) is the father? And why do they say that prajna is the mother and the five paramitas (Panca-paramita) are the father? Answer: Pratyutpanna translates to 'present before one.' 'Present before one' means seeing the Buddha right before one's eyes. This is active practice, so it belongs to skillful means and is called the father. The five paramitas are also active practice and belong to skillful means. Secondly, the second case is combining the two wisdoms, explaining that prajna and Upaya are both prajna. Why is this so? Because prajna is the substance and Upaya is the function. The substance is the essence of prajna, and the function is the application of prajna, so both are called prajna. Although the Tathagata spoke of the ninety chapters of the 'Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra,' in both paths, it is called the Maha-prajnaparamita-sutra, not considering the latter as skillful means. Therefore, we know that both wisdoms are called prajna. Furthermore, as the scriptures say, gold is used to make all kinds of objects, but the essence is still gold, with no other substance. Also, in the six paramitas (Sad-paramita), combining skillful means and true wisdom are both called prajna. Question: How do we know this is the case? Answer: The other five paramitas only explain the five kinds of active practice, without distinguishing between illuminating emptiness and existence. Now, the meaning of illuminating emptiness belongs to prajna, and knowing the meaning of existence also belongs to prajna. Therefore, we know that both wisdoms are called prajna, which is the meaning of combining expedient means and reality, both being called reality. The third case is combining expedient means and reality, both being called expedient means. Since the function of illuminating existence is called skillful means, the skillfulness of illuminating emptiness is also skillful means. Therefore, the two illuminations are equally skillful, meaning both are expedient means. Furthermore, as in the seventh bhumi (Saptama-bhumi), it is called Upaya-paramita. The commentary says that at this time, pure prajna is instead called skillful means because, until the sixth bhumi (Sad-bhumi), the application of prajna is not yet subtle enough, so it is not called skillful means. In the seventh bhumi, the application of prajna is very subtle, so it is called skillful means. As the text of the seventh bhumi says, from the wisdom of skillful means arise the ten subtle practices, although knowing that the three realms (Tri-dhatu) are empty, one still adorns the three realms, and so on. Therefore, we know that both wisdoms are called skillful means. Regarding this meaning.

亦得六地有方便與波若皆名波若。又如勝鬘云一乘大方便。一乘之中。若照空照有。說空說有。皆名方便。以悉是諸佛大善巧故。亦是合二慧為方便也。四者不開不合。即泯上三句明諸法。正觀未曾有實。亦未曾是權。亦未曾開。亦未曾合。故云是法不可示言辭相寂滅。佛不能行佛不能到。而今有開合實權者。皆是無名相中。為出處眾生故。明開合不同耳。

斷伏門第九。先依中論疏。先立異家義。然後辨。問二智云何斷煩惱耶。答此經云。佛為增上慢人說斷煩惱。實不斷也。問曰。大小經論皆明斷惑。云何不斷。答若言斷者。今請問之。為有惑可斷耶。如其實有即不可斷。又經云。若法先有後無。諸佛菩薩即有過罪。云何言斷。如其無惑。竟何所斷。又有惑即是有見。無惑名為無見。亦有亦無非有非無。並是煩惱。云何煩惱斷煩惱耶。又縱有煩惱者為所斷慧為能斷。為見惑故斷不見斷耶。如其見者即明闇並。云何斷耶。若不相見。復何所斷。若言解惑相違而懸斷者。即天竺燃燈破震旦闇。一品之解。除一切惑。又慧獨能斷。假伴共除。若獨能斷者。菩薩何故修八聖道。獨慧不斷。雖復假伴。亦不能斷。如一盲不見眾盲亦然。又一念斷為相續耶。若一念者惑亦一念。即與俱謝。何能斷耶。若相續斷者。為滅故續

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本亦可認為，證得六地菩薩果位時，所具有的方便法門與般若智慧，都可稱為般若。又如《勝鬘經》所說，一乘是最大的方便法門。在一乘的教義中，無論是闡述空性還是闡述有性，宣說空還是宣說有，都可以稱為方便，因為這些都是諸佛的大善巧方便。也可以理解為結合兩種智慧作為方便。第四種情況是不開不合，即泯滅以上三種說法，闡明諸法的真實狀態。以正觀來看，諸法從未真正存在過，也從未真正是權宜之計，既沒有開顯，也沒有合攏。所以說，這種法是不可用言語表達的，其境界是寂滅的。佛無法通過修行到達，也無法用言語描述。現在所說的開合、真實、權宜，都是在沒有名相的境界中，爲了引導初學眾生而設立的，只是爲了說明開合的不同而已。

斷伏門第九。首先依據《中論疏》的觀點，先闡述其他學派的觀點，然後再進行辨析。有人問：二智（真智和俗智）如何斷除煩惱呢？回答是：這部經說，佛是為那些增上慢（自以為是）的人說斷除煩惱的，實際上並沒有真正斷除。有人問：大小乘的經論都明確說明可以斷除迷惑，為什麼說沒有斷除呢？回答是：如果說可以斷除，現在請問，是否有真實的迷惑可以斷除呢？如果迷惑真實存在，那麼就不可斷除。而且經中說，如果法是先有後無的，那麼諸佛菩薩就犯了過錯。怎麼能說斷除呢？如果根本沒有迷惑，那麼又斷除什麼呢？如果說有迷惑，那就是有見；沒有迷惑，那就是無見；亦有亦無，非有非無，這些都是煩惱。怎麼能用煩惱來斷除煩惱呢？又假設有煩惱存在，那麼是用所斷的智慧來斷除，還是用能斷的智慧來斷除？是因為見到迷惑才斷除，還是因為沒有見到才斷除呢？如果是因為見到迷惑才斷除，那就是光明和黑暗並存，怎麼能斷除呢？如果互不相見，又斷除什麼呢？如果說理解迷惑是相互違背的，從而懸空斷除，那就如同在天竺點燃燈火來驅散震旦的黑暗一樣，理解一個品類的迷惑，就能消除一切迷惑。又假設智慧獨自能夠斷除，或者藉助輔助才能共同斷除。如果智慧獨自能夠斷除，那麼菩薩為什麼還要修習八聖道呢？如果獨自的智慧不能斷除，即使藉助輔助，也不能斷除，就像一個盲人看不見，一群盲人也一樣看不見。又假設一念之間斷除，或者相續不斷地斷除。如果是一念之間斷除，那麼迷惑也只存在一念之間，隨即消逝，怎麼能斷除呢？如果是相續不斷地斷除，那麼是爲了滅除才相續，

【English Translation】 English version It can also be considered that when attaining the sixth Bhumi (stage of a Bodhisattva), the skillful means (Upaya) and wisdom (Prajna) possessed are both called Prajna. Furthermore, as the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra says, the One Vehicle (Ekayana) is the greatest skillful means. Within the teachings of the One Vehicle, whether elucidating emptiness (Sunyata) or existence (Bhava), speaking of emptiness or speaking of existence, all can be called skillful means, because these are all the great skillful means of the Buddhas. It can also be understood as combining two wisdoms as skillful means. The fourth case is neither opening nor closing, that is, obliterating the above three statements to clarify the true state of all dharmas. From the perspective of right contemplation, dharmas have never truly existed, nor have they ever truly been expedient means, neither revealed nor concealed. Therefore, it is said that this Dharma is inexpressible in words, its realm is quiescent. The Buddha cannot reach it through practice, nor can it be described in words. The opening, closing, reality, and expediency that are spoken of now are all established in the realm of no-names and no-forms, for the sake of guiding initial learners, merely to explain the differences between opening and closing.

Chapter 9 on Cutting Off and Subduing. First, based on the commentary of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, first state the views of other schools, and then analyze them. Someone asks: How do the two wisdoms (True Wisdom and Conventional Wisdom) cut off afflictions (Kleshas)? The answer is: This sutra says that the Buddha speaks of cutting off afflictions for those with increased pride (thinking highly of themselves), but in reality, they are not truly cut off. Someone asks: The sutras and treatises of both the Great Vehicle and the Small Vehicle clearly state that delusion can be cut off, why do you say it is not cut off? The answer is: If you say it can be cut off, I now ask, is there a real delusion that can be cut off? If delusion truly exists, then it cannot be cut off. Moreover, the sutra says that if a dharma is first existent and then non-existent, then the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are at fault. How can you say it is cut off? If there is no delusion at all, then what is being cut off? If you say there is delusion, then that is the view of existence; if there is no delusion, then that is the view of non-existence; both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, these are all afflictions. How can afflictions cut off afflictions? Furthermore, assuming that afflictions exist, is it cut off by the wisdom that is being cut off, or by the wisdom that is cutting? Is it cut off because delusion is seen, or is it cut off because it is not seen? If it is cut off because delusion is seen, then light and darkness coexist, how can it be cut off? If they do not see each other, then what is being cut off? If you say that understanding delusion is mutually contradictory, thereby cutting it off in the air, it is like lighting a lamp in India to dispel the darkness in China, understanding one category of delusion can eliminate all delusions. Furthermore, assuming that wisdom alone can cut off, or that it can be cut off jointly with assistance. If wisdom alone can cut off, then why do Bodhisattvas still cultivate the Eightfold Noble Path? If wisdom alone cannot cut off, even with assistance, it cannot be cut off, just as one blind person cannot see, and a group of blind people cannot see either. Furthermore, assuming that it is cut off in one thought, or that it is cut off continuously. If it is cut off in one thought, then delusion also exists only in one thought, and then disappears, how can it be cut off? If it is cut off continuously, then is it continuous in order to eliminate it,

不滅續耶。滅即復無所續。不滅無復能續。云何續耶。以是推之。即無所斷。是以不應言智斷惑。問若爾應無有斷。何故經云。一念相應慧斷煩惱習耶。答如上推之。即畢竟無斷。如是了悟即是斷也。所以然者。於一切處求解惑無從。即心無所依。心無所依。即眾累清凈。故名為斷也。斷與不斷不相違。問以無所依名為斷者。為波若斷為方便斷耶。答舊云。波若是空慧故斷。方便照有即不斷也。今明。有所得空有二慧俱不能斷。無所得空有俱能斷也。但不二而二。開二慧不同。方便實慧。即不斷而斷。實慧方便。斷而不斷。問何故爾耶。答有所依著。是諸煩惱根。諸法實相。是無著之本。由實相無所依故生波若。波若即無所著故眾惑清凈。故名斷也。問若會境生智。然後斷惑與他何異。答不言惑外別有實相故會實相斷。但了煩惱本自不生今亦不滅。即是實相。故名會實相斷。問為但波若斷薩波若亦斷。答此義舊有二師。或言金剛心斷。是波若斷。或言佛智所斷。即薩波若斷。今明。大品云。菩薩無礙道中行。佛在解脫道中行。無一切暗。詳此文意。無礙解脫俱有斷不斷義。若一念正觀惑不現前。即無礙正斷。解脫出居累外。故解脫不斷。故云。佛在解脫道中行。無一切暗也。若言解脫續于無礙鎮前無惑之處遮未來惑不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：不滅才能延續嗎？如果滅了，就什麼都無法延續了。如果不滅，又沒有什麼可以延續。那麼，如何延續呢？答：從這個角度推論，就沒有什麼可以斷除的。因此，不應該說智慧斷除煩惱。問：如果這樣，就應該沒有什麼可以斷除的。為什麼經中說，『一念相應的智慧斷除煩惱習氣』呢？答：如上推論，就畢竟沒有什麼可以斷除的。如此了悟就是斷除。為什麼這樣說呢？因為在一切處所求解煩惱都無從尋覓，心就無所依。心無所依，各種牽累就清凈，所以稱為斷除。斷與不斷並不矛盾。問：以無所依為斷除，是般若（Prajna，智慧）斷除還是方便（Upaya，善巧方法）斷除呢？答：舊說，般若是空慧所以能斷除，方便照見有所以不能斷除。現在說明，有所得的空有二慧都不能斷除，無所得的空有二慧都能斷除。但不二而二，開顯二慧的不同。方便實慧，就是不斷而斷。實慧方便，就是斷而不斷。問：為什麼這樣說呢？答：有所依著，是各種煩惱的根源。諸法實相，是無著的根本。由於實相無所依，所以生起般若。般若就是無所著，所以各種迷惑清凈，故名斷除。問：如果會合境界生起智慧，然後斷除迷惑，這與其他人有什麼不同？答：不是說在迷惑之外另有實相，所以會合實相來斷除。只是了知煩惱本來不生，現在也不滅，這就是實相。所以名為會合實相斷除。問：是隻有般若斷除，還是薩婆若（Sarvajna，一切智）也斷除？答：這個義理舊有兩種說法。或者說金剛心斷除，是般若斷除。或者說佛智所斷除，就是薩婆若斷除。現在說明，《大品般若經》說，菩薩在無礙道中行，佛在解脫道中行，沒有一切黑暗。詳細考察這段經文的意思，無礙和解脫都具有斷與不斷的含義。如果一念正觀，迷惑不現前，就是無礙正斷。解脫超出各種牽累之外，所以解脫不斷。所以說，佛在解脫道中行，沒有一切黑暗。如果說解脫延續于無礙，鎮壓先前沒有迷惑之處，遮止未來的迷惑，那就不是解脫了。

【English Translation】 English version Question: Does continuation depend on non-cessation? If there is cessation, then nothing can continue. If there is no cessation, then there is nothing to continue. So, how does continuation occur? Answer: From this perspective, there is nothing to be severed. Therefore, it should not be said that wisdom severs afflictions. Question: If that's the case, then there should be nothing to sever. Why does the sutra say, 'Wisdom in accordance with a single thought severs the habitual tendencies of afflictions'? Answer: As reasoned above, ultimately there is nothing to sever. Such realization is severance. Why is this so? Because seeking afflictions everywhere yields no finding, and the mind becomes without reliance. When the mind is without reliance, all burdens are purified, hence it is called severance. Severance and non-severance are not contradictory. Question: If non-reliance is called severance, is it Prajna (wisdom) that severs or Upaya (skillful means) that severs? Answer: The old explanation says that Prajna is the wisdom of emptiness, so it can sever, while Upaya illuminates existence, so it cannot sever. Now, I clarify that both the wisdom of emptiness and existence with attachment cannot sever, while both the wisdom of emptiness and existence without attachment can sever. However, they are non-dual yet dual, revealing the difference between the two wisdoms. Upaya as true wisdom is non-severance yet severance. True wisdom as Upaya is severance yet non-severance. Question: Why is that so? Answer: Attachment is the root of all afflictions. The true nature of all dharmas is the basis of non-attachment. Because the true nature is without reliance, Prajna arises. Prajna is without attachment, so all delusions are purified, hence it is called severance. Question: If wisdom arises from encountering objects, and then afflictions are severed, how is this different from others? Answer: It is not said that there is a true nature separate from afflictions, so one unites with the true nature to sever. It is simply realizing that afflictions are originally unborn and do not cease now, and this is the true nature. Therefore, it is called severance through uniting with the true nature. Question: Is it only Prajna that severs, or does Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom) also sever? Answer: There are two old explanations for this meaning. Some say that the diamond mind severs, which is Prajna severance. Others say that what is severed by the Buddha's wisdom is Sarvajna severance. Now, I clarify that the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 'Bodhisattvas walk in the unobstructed path, Buddhas walk in the path of liberation, without any darkness.' Examining the meaning of this passage in detail, both unobstructedness and liberation have the meaning of severance and non-severance. If, with a single thought of correct contemplation, afflictions do not appear, that is unobstructed correct severance. Liberation is beyond all burdens, so liberation does not sever. Therefore, it is said that Buddhas walk in the path of liberation, without any darkness. If it is said that liberation continues from unobstructedness, suppressing the place where there were no afflictions before, preventing future afflictions, then that is not liberation.

得續生。即有遮斷。故亦名斷。無礙正斷故。得言金剛惑盡。未有解脫遮未來惑。得云不盡故。盡與不盡二既不違。問波若為無礙薩婆若為解脫者。得言地前為無礙初地為解脫不。答有人云。亦得如此。小乘即苦忍之前習行未久。但伏非斷。大乘地前修行積時。是故能斷也。今謂不然。大小乘義。乃優劣懸殊。如來制立大格相似。小乘即七方便伏苦忍斷之。大乘三十心伏初地斷也。初地中自開無礙解脫。無礙正斷解脫遮斷。如上釋也。問為轉無礙為解脫。為無礙謝解脫生耶。答毗曇即謝。成論即轉。斥此二說。余處已明。今略陳之。金剛若謝別有佛果。云何波若反名薩云若。轉金剛而成佛者。云何轉無常之法而作常耶。今明者。具有轉謝及不轉不謝。若了悟金剛本不生滅。即金剛是佛。故不轉不謝。是故經云。一切眾生本來寂滅。不復更滅也。于妄謂之心。息生滅之見。故名為謝。約了悟之者。前謂生滅。今悟無生滅。是故名轉。二文一會義無所違。問若地前伏初地斷者。何得釋論云初地時未舍結七地方斷耶。答眾師不同。生公用大頓悟義。唯佛斷惑。爾前未斷。故佛名為覺。爾前未覺。瑤師用小頓悟義。七地方斷。引向文證之。今明。皆無所妨。大經云。唯佛名眼見佛性。十地已還皆稱聞見。即唯佛斷惑。爾前不斷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本得續生，即有遮斷（阻礙）。故也名為『斷』。因其無礙的正斷，所以說得到『金剛惑盡』（如金剛般堅固的煩惱已盡）。未有解脫，遮斷未來之惑，所以說『不盡』。『盡』與『不盡』二者並不矛盾。問：般若（智慧）是無礙，薩婆若（一切智）是解脫嗎？答：可以說，地前為無礙，初地為解脫嗎？答：有人說，也可以這樣認為。小乘在苦忍（忍受痛苦）之前，習行時間不長，只是伏住煩惱，並非斷除。大乘在地前修行積累時間長，所以能夠斷除煩惱。現在我認為不是這樣。大小乘的意義，優劣差別很大。如來制定的大概相似。小乘是七方便伏住煩惱，苦忍斷除煩惱。大乘是三十心伏住煩惱，初地斷除煩惱。初地中自然開啟無礙解脫。無礙是正斷，解脫是遮斷，如上面解釋的。問：是轉變為無礙，轉變為解脫，還是無礙消失後解脫產生呢？答：毗曇宗認為是消失，成論宗認為是轉變。駁斥這兩種說法，其他地方已經說明。現在簡略陳述：如果金剛智慧消失，另外有佛果，那麼般若為什麼反而名為薩婆若？轉變金剛而成佛，怎麼能轉變無常之法而成為常呢？現在明白，具有轉變、消失以及不轉變、不消失。如果了悟金剛本不生滅，那麼金剛就是佛，所以不轉變也不消失。因此經中說：『一切眾生本來寂滅，不再有生滅。』對於妄想的心，止息生滅的見解，所以名為消失。約了悟的人來說，之前認為是生滅，現在了悟沒有生滅，所以名為轉變。兩種說法融會貫通，意義上沒有違背。問：如果地前伏住煩惱，初地斷除煩惱，為什麼《釋論》中說初地時沒有捨棄結使（煩惱），七地才斷除呢？答：眾位法師的觀點不同。生公用大頓悟的意義，只有佛才能斷除煩惱，在此之前沒有斷除，所以佛名為覺，在此之前沒有覺悟。瑤師用小頓悟的意義，七地才斷除煩惱，引用之前的經文來證明。現在明白，都沒有妨礙。《大經》說：『只有佛的眼睛才能見到佛性，十地菩薩還只能稱為聞見。』即只有佛才能斷除煩惱，在此之前不斷。

【English Translation】 English version One obtains continued existence, which implies obstruction. Therefore, it is also called 'severance'. Because of the unobstructed and correct severance, it is said that one attains 'exhaustion of Vajra delusions' (delusions as firm as Vajra are exhausted). Without liberation, obstructing future delusions, it is said to be 'non-exhaustion'. The two, 'exhaustion' and 'non-exhaustion', are not contradictory. Question: Is Prajna (wisdom) unobstructed, and Sarvajna (omniscience) liberation? Answer: Can it be said that the stage before the ground is unobstructed, and the first ground is liberation? Answer: Some say that it can be considered this way. In the Hinayana, before the forbearance of suffering, the practice is not long, only subduing afflictions, not severing them. In the Mahayana, the practice before the ground accumulates for a long time, so it can sever afflictions. Now I think it is not like this. The meaning of Hinayana and Mahayana is very different in superiority and inferiority. The Tathagata established similar outlines. The Hinayana uses seven expedient means to subdue afflictions, and the forbearance of suffering to sever them. The Mahayana uses thirty minds to subdue afflictions, and the first ground to sever them. In the first ground, unobstructed liberation is naturally opened. Unobstructed is correct severance, and liberation is obstructive severance, as explained above. Question: Is it transformed into unobstructed, transformed into liberation, or does liberation arise after the unobstructed disappears? Answer: The Vibhasa school thinks it disappears, and the Chengshi school thinks it transforms. Refuting these two views, it has been explained elsewhere. Now briefly state: If Vajra wisdom disappears, there is another Buddha fruit, then why is Prajna instead called Sarvajna? Transforming Vajra to become a Buddha, how can one transform impermanent dharma into permanence? Now understand that it has transformation, disappearance, and non-transformation, non-disappearance. If one realizes that Vajra is inherently neither born nor destroyed, then Vajra is Buddha, so it does not transform or disappear. Therefore, the sutra says: 'All sentient beings are originally in stillness and extinction, and there is no more birth and death.' For the deluded mind, stop the view of birth and death, so it is called disappearance. Speaking of those who realize, before it was thought to be birth and death, now it is realized that there is no birth and death, so it is called transformation. The two statements are integrated, and there is no contradiction in meaning. Question: If afflictions are subdued before the ground, and severed in the first ground, why does the Shilun (commentary) say that the fetters (afflictions) are not abandoned in the first ground, and are severed in the seventh ground? Answer: The views of the masters are different. Master Sheng uses the meaning of great sudden enlightenment, only the Buddha can sever afflictions, and before that, they are not severed, so the Buddha is called awakened, and before that, not awakened. Master Yao uses the meaning of small sudden enlightenment, and afflictions are severed in the seventh ground, citing previous sutra texts to prove it. Now understand that none of them are obstacles. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says: 'Only the Buddha's eyes can see the Buddha-nature, and Bodhisattvas of the ten grounds can only be called hearing and seeing.' That is, only the Buddha can sever afflictions, and before that, they are not severed.

也。初地已來。但斷粗累未除細惑。故云不斷。七地除細故言斷耳。故各有其義。不應偏執。問為中伏假斷為假伏中斷。答適緣取悟無有定也。自有中伏假斷。如求性有無不可得故名非有非無。目之為中。此但伏性有無猶未斷也。次明假有假無。即性有無始斷。所以然者。識假有假無。即知畢竟無有定性有無。故名假斷也。次明假伏中斷者。對性有無。說假有無。以伏性有無故云假伏。次明悟假有不有假無不無非有非無名中道。前性有無始得永斷故。名假伏中斷也。問亦得假伏假斷中伏中斷以不。答亦有此義。如識假有無即性有無永斷。名為假斷也。自有識假有無。但伏性有無。猶未斷也。自有悟非有非無。但伏于性。自有悟非有無。性惑永斷不須說假也。問云何名假名惑實法惑耶。答成論師云。緣假迷假稱假名惑。則迷假人法等。緣實迷實名實法惑。如迷五塵等。今明。此是三藏一部之義耳。大乘假實惑者。即向所明之。即前之假名為假惑。即前之實名為實惑。所以然者。諸法未曾假實。今有此假實。良非惑耶。問大乘亦有假名實法義不。答二是假名。不二為中道。中道即是實相。故名實法。迷因緣假名二諦稱為假惑。迷不二實相目實惑也。問云何迷耶。答不二二名為二諦。二不二為中道。二定二故名迷假。不二定

不二稱為迷實。又二不二皆名為假。非二不二方為實。迷此假實名假實惑也。

攝智門第十。問權實二智攝智盡不。答攝智皆盡。經有一智二智三智四智五智乃至七十七智。皆二智攝。攝一智者。即如實智。如實智即是佛眼。佛眼無法不見。而無所見。無法不見。名權智。而無所見名為實智。問如實智但是照實相智。唯應是實智。云何有權智耶。答此明如實而知名如實智。故具二智也。次攝二智者。則一切智一切種智。但此二智凡有六門。一空有分二。一切智為空智。一切種智為有智。此則權實攝也。次以總別分二。總相知為一切智。別相知為一切種智。但總別三門。一以苦無常為總相。陰入界為別相。二以無生滅為總相。諸法差別為別相。三以略為總相。廣為別相。如苦諦為總相。廣分別苦有無量相為別相。三別中取初義。第二義猶是空有。第三義屬后廣略也。三者略說為一切智。廣說為一切種智。如上釋也。四者因為一切智。果為一切種智也。問二智俱是果門。云何分因果耶。答例如菩提涅槃為果及以果果。涅槃既是果果。即菩提亦得為因。此義論因果。今亦然矣。五者小乘名一切智。大乘名一切種智。此明小乘總相知十二入苦空無常。為一切智。大乘遍知一切法為一切種智。六者一切種智為空智。一切智

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本將『不二』（advaita，非二元性）稱為迷妄的真實。『二』（dvaita，二元性）和『不二』都可稱為假象。非『二』非『不二』才是真實。迷惑于這種假象和真實，就叫做假實之惑。

攝智門第十。問：權智（upaya-jnana，方便智）和實智（tathata-jnana，如實智）是否完全包含所有智慧？答：完全包含。經典中說的一智、二智、三智、四智、五智乃至七十七智，都包含在這二智之中。包含一智，就是如實智。如實智就是佛眼（buddha-caksu，佛陀之眼）。佛眼沒有不能見的法，也沒有所見。沒有不能見的法，叫做權智；沒有所見，叫做實智。問：如實智只是照見實相的智慧，應該只是實智，為什麼會有權智呢？答：這裡說明如實而知，所以稱為如實智，因此具備二智。其次，包含二智，就是一切智（sarva-jnana，知一切法總相之智）和一切種智（sarvakarajnata-jnana，知一切法別相之智）。但這二智有六個方面。一是空有之分，一切智是空智，一切種智是有智。這是權實二智的包含。二是總別之分，總相知為一切智，別相知為一切種智。總別有三個方面。一是以苦、無常為總相，陰、入、界為別相。二是以無生滅為總相，諸法差別為別相。三是以略為總相，廣為別相。例如苦諦（duhkha-satya，苦之真諦）為總相，廣泛分別苦有無量相為別相。三種差別中取最初的意義，第二種意義仍然是空有，第三種意義屬於後面的廣略。三是略說是為一切智，廣說是為一切種智，如上面解釋。四是以因為一切智，果為一切種智。問：二智都是果門，為什麼分因果呢？答：例如菩提（bodhi，覺悟）和涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）是果，以及果之果。涅槃既然是果之果，那麼菩提也可以作為因。這個意義上可以討論因果，現在也是這樣。五是小乘（hinayana，小乘佛教）稱為一切智，大乘（mahayana，大乘佛教）稱為一切種智。這說明小乘總相知十二入（dvadasayatana，十二處）的苦、空、無常，為一切智。大乘普遍知一切法為一切種智。六是一切種智為空智，一切智

【English Translation】 English version 『Non-duality』 (advaita) is called deluded reality. Both 『duality』 (dvaita) and 『non-duality』 are called illusion. That which is neither 『duality』 nor 『non-duality』 is the true reality. Being deluded by this illusion and reality is called the delusion of illusion and reality.

Chapter Ten on Comprehending Wisdom. Question: Do expedient wisdom (upaya-jnana) and true wisdom (tathata-jnana) completely encompass all wisdoms? Answer: They completely encompass all wisdoms. The scriptures speak of one wisdom, two wisdoms, three wisdoms, four wisdoms, five wisdoms, up to seventy-seven wisdoms, all of which are encompassed by these two wisdoms. Encompassing one wisdom is the wisdom of suchness (tathata-jnana). The wisdom of suchness is the Buddha-eye (buddha-caksu). There is no dharma that the Buddha-eye does not see, and yet it sees nothing. Not seeing any dharma is called expedient wisdom; seeing nothing is called true wisdom. Question: The wisdom of suchness only illuminates the true nature of reality; it should only be true wisdom. How can it also be expedient wisdom? Answer: This explains that knowing suchness is called the wisdom of suchness, thus possessing both wisdoms. Next, encompassing two wisdoms are all-wisdom (sarva-jnana) and all-knowing wisdom (sarvakarajnata-jnana). These two wisdoms have six aspects. First, dividing them by emptiness and existence, all-wisdom is the wisdom of emptiness, and all-knowing wisdom is the wisdom of existence. This is the encompassing of expedient and true wisdoms. Second, dividing them by general and specific, knowing the general characteristics is all-wisdom, and knowing the specific characteristics is all-knowing wisdom. There are three aspects to general and specific. First, taking suffering and impermanence as general characteristics, and the aggregates, entrances, and realms as specific characteristics. Second, taking non-arising and non-ceasing as general characteristics, and the differences of all dharmas as specific characteristics. Third, taking the concise as general characteristics, and the extensive as specific characteristics. For example, the truth of suffering (duhkha-satya) is a general characteristic, and extensively differentiating the countless aspects of suffering is a specific characteristic. Among the three distinctions, the initial meaning is taken; the second meaning is still emptiness and existence; the third meaning belongs to the later extensive and concise. Third, speaking concisely is all-wisdom, and speaking extensively is all-knowing wisdom, as explained above. Fourth, the cause is all-wisdom, and the result is all-knowing wisdom. Question: Both wisdoms are aspects of the result; why are cause and result distinguished? Answer: For example, enlightenment (bodhi) and nirvana are results, as well as the result of a result. Since nirvana is the result of a result, then enlightenment can also be considered a cause. This meaning allows for the discussion of cause and result, and it is the same here. Fifth, the Hinayana calls it all-wisdom, and the Mahayana calls it all-knowing wisdom. This explains that the Hinayana generally knows the suffering, emptiness, and impermanence of the twelve entrances (dvadasayatana) as all-wisdom. The Mahayana universally knows all dharmas as all-knowing wisdom. Sixth, all-knowing wisdom is the wisdom of emptiness, and all-wisdom

為有智。以種名性。性即實相理為諸法根本。故名為種。一切智知一切法為有智也。次攝三智門者。三智多門。涅槃云。一者波若一切眾生之慧。所謂下智也。二毗婆舍那謂二乘智即是中智也。三阇那佛菩薩智謂上智也。又云。波若別相。智別知諸法。毗婆舍那總相。智總知諸法。阇那為破相。破相者。波若知有。毗婆舍那照空。阇那舍于空有。即中道智也。又如波若三慧品說。二乘為一切智。菩薩道種智。佛一切種智。二乘名為一切智者。十二入攝一切法。二乘知十二苦空無常名一切智。論云。此但有一切智名。而無一切智用。猶如晝燈但有燈名而無燈用。問云何無用。答佛具知一切法別相。然後能知一切總相。故名一切智。二乘但總相。知一切不能一一別相而知。如涅槃云。二乘但知于苦。不能分別是苦有無量相。我于彼經。竟不說之。即二乘不能別知。故但有一切智名。而無一切智用也。道種慧者。菩薩知四種道。人天謂福樂道及三乘道。知佛道自度度他。餘三道但度他也。佛名一切種智者。此一切種智。實異前一切種智。前一切種智。但知有法。今合知空有名一切種智。經云。知一相故名一切種智。又云。知一切法行類相貌。名一切種智也。此三智中。一一皆具照空有。皆有權實二智也。次地持論有三智。一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為有智慧，所以用『種』來命名『性』。『性』就是實相之理，是諸法的根本，所以稱為『種』。一切智慧夠知曉一切法，所以稱為『有智』。接下來是攝取三智門。三智有很多種分類。《涅槃經》中說：第一種是般若（prajna，智慧）——一切眾生的智慧，也就是下智。第二種是毗婆舍那（vipasyana，觀）——指二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的智慧，也就是中智。第三種是阇那（jnana， ज्ञान）——佛菩薩的智慧，也就是上智。經中又說：般若分別事相，智慧分別知曉諸法。毗婆舍那總觀事相，智慧總括知曉諸法。阇那是爲了破除事相。所謂破除事相，就是般若知曉『有』，毗婆舍那照見『空』，阇那捨棄『空』和『有』，這就是中道智。又如《般若三慧品》所說，二乘是『一切智』，菩薩是『道種智』，佛是『一切種智』。二乘被稱為『一切智』，是因為十二入（十二處）涵蓋了一切法，二乘知曉十二入是苦、空、無常，所以稱為『一切智』。《論》中說：『這只是有名為一切智，而沒有一切智的功用。』就像白天的燈，只有燈的名字而沒有燈的功用。問：為什麼沒有功用？答：佛完全知曉一切法的個別事相，然後才能知曉其總體事相，所以稱為『一切智』。二乘只是總括地知曉一切，不能一一分別地知曉，如《涅槃經》所說：『二乘只是知曉苦，不能分別苦有無量的相，我于彼經，竟不說之。』就是說二乘不能分別知曉，所以只是有名為一切智，而沒有一切智的功用。『道種慧』是指菩薩知曉四種道：人天道（指福樂之道）以及三乘道。知曉佛道可以自度度他，其餘三種道只能度他。佛被稱為『一切種智』，這種『一切種智』，實際上不同於前面所說的一切智。前面的一切智，只是知曉『有』法，現在是合起來知曉『空』和『有』，稱為『一切種智』。經中說：『知一相故名一切種智。』又說：『知一切法行類相貌，名一切種智也。』這三種智慧中，每一種都具備照見『空』和『有』的能力，都具有權智和實智兩種智慧。接下來，《地持論》中有三種智慧：第一種是...

【English Translation】 English version Because there is wisdom, 'nature' is named by 'seed'. 'Nature' is the principle of true reality, the root of all dharmas, so it is called 'seed'. All-knowing wisdom knows all dharmas, so it is called 'having wisdom'. Next is the gate of embracing the three wisdoms. There are many categories of the three wisdoms. The Nirvana Sutra says: The first is prajna (prajna, wisdom) - the wisdom of all sentient beings, which is lower wisdom. The second is vipasyana (vipasyana, insight) - referring to the wisdom of the two vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha), which is middle wisdom. The third is jnana (jnana, ज्ञान) - the wisdom of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which is higher wisdom. The sutra also says: Prajna distinguishes phenomena, wisdom distinguishes and knows all dharmas. Vipasyana observes phenomena in general, wisdom knows all dharmas in general. Jnana is for breaking phenomena. Breaking phenomena means that prajna knows 'existence', vipasyana illuminates 'emptiness', and jnana abandons 'emptiness' and 'existence', which is the wisdom of the Middle Way. Also, as stated in the Prajna Three Wisdoms Chapter, the two vehicles are 'all-knowing wisdom', Bodhisattvas are 'wisdom of the path seeds', and Buddhas are 'all-knowing wisdom of all seeds'. The two vehicles are called 'all-knowing wisdom' because the twelve entrances (twelve ayatanas) encompass all dharmas. The two vehicles know that the twelve entrances are suffering, emptiness, and impermanence, so they are called 'all-knowing wisdom'. The Treatise says: 'This only has the name of all-knowing wisdom, but does not have the function of all-knowing wisdom.' It is like a lamp in the daytime, which only has the name of a lamp but does not have the function of a lamp. Question: Why is there no function? Answer: The Buddha fully knows the individual characteristics of all dharmas, and then can know their general characteristics, so he is called 'all-knowing wisdom'. The two vehicles only know everything in general, and cannot know each individual characteristic, as the Nirvana Sutra says: 'The two vehicles only know suffering, and cannot distinguish that suffering has immeasurable aspects. I did not speak of it in that sutra.' That is to say, the two vehicles cannot distinguish and know, so they only have the name of all-knowing wisdom, but do not have the function of all-knowing wisdom. 'Wisdom of the path seeds' refers to Bodhisattvas knowing the four paths: the path of humans and gods (referring to the path of happiness and pleasure) and the three vehicle paths. Knowing the Buddha path can liberate oneself and liberate others, while the other three paths can only liberate others. Buddhas are called 'all-knowing wisdom of all seeds'. This 'all-knowing wisdom of all seeds' is actually different from the all-knowing wisdom mentioned earlier. The previous all-knowing wisdom only knew 'existence', now it is knowing 'emptiness' and 'existence' together, called 'all-knowing wisdom of all seeds'. The sutra says: 'Knowing one aspect is called all-knowing wisdom of all seeds.' It also says: 'Knowing the behavior, categories, and appearances of all dharmas is called all-knowing wisdom of all seeds.' Among these three wisdoms, each one has the ability to illuminate 'emptiness' and 'existence', and each has both expedient wisdom and true wisdom. Next, the Bodhisattva-bhumi Sutra has three wisdoms: the first is...

清凈智。斷五住惑盡故云清凈。即照第一義空智也。二一切智。即照有智也。三無礙智。無功用智。照一切法。無復功用故。云無礙。初是實智。后二為權。次攝大乘論有三智。一加行智。即進求上地心。二正體智。證如之智。謂實智也。三后得智。即寂而動。謂權智也。此三智即為次第。前有進求之智。次正得實觀。后從實起用。地地中皆具此三智也。又四智攝入二智者。攝大乘論云。一切智一切種智無礙智無功用智。前二知空有。次一不從師。后一無有功用。即法花經云。佛智一切智自然智無師智也。前二別照空有。后二通空有也。次四無礙智。此有多門。今略舉一義。知世諦為知法。知第一義為知義。此即二智。樂說及辭皆世諦智也。次明四智義。我生已盡梵行已立所作已辦不受後有。釋此不同。婆沙云。我生已盡。是斷集智。集因能生未來苦果。名之為生。無學斷竟名我生已盡。梵行已立。是修道智。梵名為凈。無漏聖道。能除垢染。離障清凈。名為梵行。無學聖人道行成滿。名為已立。所作已辦。是證滅智。斷惑證滅名為所作。無學證果功成。名為已辦。不受後有。是知苦智。後世苦報。名為後有。無學聖人。於此有不復更受。名不受後有。問經說四諦。先明苦集后明滅道。今何故前斷集修道后證滅知苦。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本清凈智：斷除五住地煩惱（五種根本煩惱）而達到清凈，指的是照見第一義空（事物本性的空性）的智慧。一切智：指的是照見『有』（現象界）的智慧。無礙智：又稱無功用智，能照見一切法，無需任何功用（努力），所以稱為無礙。第一個是實智（根本智），后兩個是權智（方便智）。《攝大乘論》中有三智：一、加行智：指不斷進步追求更高境界的心。二、正體智：證悟真如的智慧，也就是實智。三、后得智：指寂靜中生起作用，也就是權智。這三種智慧是依次產生的。先有不斷進步追求的智慧，然後真正獲得實觀，最後從實觀中生起作用。每一地（菩薩的修行階段）都具備這三種智慧。又，如果將四智攝入二智，《攝大乘論》中說：一切智、一切種智、無礙智、無功用智。前兩個是了知空和有的智慧，第三個是不從師而得的智慧，第四個是沒有功用的智慧。這就像《法華經》中說的：佛智、一切智、自然智、無師智。前兩個分別照見空和有，后兩個則通達空和有。其次是四無礙智。這有很多種解釋，現在簡單舉一個例子。知曉世俗諦（世間真理）是知法，知曉第一義諦（勝義真理）是知義。這就是二智。樂說和辭辯都是世俗諦智。接下來解釋四智的含義：『我生已盡，梵行已立，所作已辦，不受後有』。解釋這些的不同之處。《婆沙論》中說：『我生已盡』，是斷集智。集（煩惱的集合）是產生未來痛苦結果的原因，稱為『生』。無學（阿羅漢）斷盡煩惱，稱為『我生已盡』。『梵行已立』，是修道智。梵（清凈）指的是無漏聖道，能去除污垢，遠離障礙，清凈，稱為『梵行』。無學聖人道行圓滿，稱為『已立』。『所作已辦』，是證滅智。斷除煩惱，證得寂滅，稱為『所作』。無學證得果位，功德圓滿，稱為『已辦』。『不受後有』，是知苦智。後世的痛苦果報，稱為『後有』。無學聖人，對於這種『有』不再承受，稱為『不受後有』。問：經中說四諦（苦、集、滅、道），先說明苦和集，后說明滅和道。現在為什麼先斷集、修道，后證滅、知苦？

【English Translation】 English version Pure Wisdom: 'Pure' because it eradicates the five categories of afflictions (five fundamental defilements). It refers to the wisdom that illuminates the ultimate emptiness (the emptiness of the inherent nature of things). All-Knowing Wisdom: Refers to the wisdom that illuminates 'existence' (the phenomenal world). Unobstructed Wisdom: Also known as effortless wisdom, it can illuminate all dharmas (teachings, phenomena) without any effort, hence it is called unobstructed. The first is Real Wisdom (fundamental wisdom), and the latter two are Expedient Wisdom (skillful means). The Treatise on the Summary of the Great Vehicle (Mahāyānasaṃgraha) mentions three wisdoms: 1. Wisdom of Application: Refers to the mind that constantly strives to pursue higher realms. 2. Wisdom of True Nature: The wisdom of realizing Suchness, which is Real Wisdom. 3. Wisdom Gained Afterwards: Refers to arising from stillness, which is Expedient Wisdom. These three wisdoms arise in sequence. First, there is the wisdom of constantly striving and pursuing; then, one truly attains real insight; and finally, one arises from real insight to put it into practice. Each bhumi (stage of a Bodhisattva's path) possesses these three wisdoms. Furthermore, if the four wisdoms are incorporated into two wisdoms, the Treatise on the Summary of the Great Vehicle states: All-Knowing Wisdom, Wisdom of All Aspects, Unobstructed Wisdom, and Effortless Wisdom. The first two are the wisdoms that know emptiness and existence; the third is the wisdom gained without a teacher; and the fourth is the wisdom without effort. This is like what the Lotus Sutra says: Buddha Wisdom, All-Knowing Wisdom, Natural Wisdom, and Wisdom Without a Teacher. The first two illuminate emptiness and existence separately, while the latter two penetrate both emptiness and existence. Next are the Four Unimpeded Wisdoms. There are many explanations for this, and now I will briefly give one example. Knowing conventional truth (mundane truth) is knowing the Dharma; knowing ultimate truth (supreme truth) is knowing the meaning. These are the two wisdoms. Eloquence and rhetoric are both wisdoms of conventional truth. Next, explain the meaning of the four wisdoms: 'Birth is exhausted, pure conduct is established, what needed to be done is done, there is no more future existence.' Explain the differences between these. The Mahāvibhāṣa says: 'Birth is exhausted' is the wisdom of cutting off accumulation. Accumulation (the collection of afflictions) is the cause of producing future painful results, and is called 'birth'. When an Arhat (one beyond learning) has completely cut off afflictions, it is called 'birth is exhausted'. 'Pure conduct is established' is the wisdom of cultivating the path. Brahma (purity) refers to the undefiled holy path, which can remove defilements, be free from obstacles, and be pure, and is called 'pure conduct'. When the Arhat's path is complete, it is called 'established'. 'What needed to be done is done' is the wisdom of realizing cessation. Cutting off afflictions and realizing cessation is called 'what needed to be done'. When an Arhat attains the fruit, and merit is complete, it is called 'done'. 'There is no more future existence' is the wisdom of knowing suffering. The painful retribution of future lives is called 'future existence'. The Arhat no longer endures this 'existence', and is called 'there is no more future existence'. Question: The sutras speak of the Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path), first explaining suffering and accumulation, and then explaining cessation and path. Why now cut off accumulation and cultivate the path first, and then realize cessation and know suffering?

答四諦示欣厭門。先苦集后滅道。于欣厭門。逆觀次第故。先果后因。四智是順觀門故。先因後果。故前集道。后明滅苦。又要除障。然後善成。故先斷集后修道。後果中。先滅現在過患。后不受未來苦報。故前滅后苦。勝鬘涅槃釋四智又異。今不述之。四智皆入大乘權智。是小乘之實智。次五智攝入二智者。一法住智。二泥洹智。三無諍智。四愿智。五邊際智。依小乘。法住智者。知苦集相生諸法存立名法住智。知道及滅名泥洹智。又云。知苦集道名法住智。知于滅諦名泥洹智。令物不起諍為無諍智。愿知未來一切事。即便得知名為愿智。邊際智者。報身最後名為邊際。聖人修得自在智故。于報身延促自在名邊際智。小乘前二智通利鈍羅漢皆有。后三但利根羅漢有之。又前二通一切定皆能起。后三但第四禪起。前二通漏無漏。后三但有漏。前二三界身得起。后三但欲界三天下身起。前二以三界法為所緣境。無諍智者。但以欲界瞋心為境。大乘五智。一切處一切身五十二位皆得起。通漏無漏也。小乘五智。皆為大乘權智攝。大乘論五智。泥洹即是實相正法屬實智。餘四屬權智。十一智攝入二智者。十智照四諦。是差別智。屬權智攝。如實智照一實諦。即是實相。謂無差別智。故屬實智也。又論云。十智在四眼。如實智

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本答四諦示欣厭門（通過四聖諦來展示欣喜和厭惡的法門）。先說苦和集，后說滅和道。在欣厭門中，因為是逆向觀察次第，所以先說果后說因。四智（法住智、泥洹智、無諍智、愿智、邊際智）是順向觀察的法門，所以先說因后說果。因此前面先說集和道，後面才闡明滅和苦。而且，要先去除障礙，然後才能很好地成就，所以先斷除集（苦因），后修習道（滅苦的方法）。在果報中，先滅除現在的過患，然後才能不受未來的苦報，所以先說滅后說苦。勝鬘經和涅槃經對四智的解釋又有所不同，這裡不詳細敘述。四智都屬於大乘的權智（方便智慧），是小乘的實智（真實智慧）。其次，將五智攝入二智中：一、法住智（Dharmasthiti-jnana，知曉諸法存在狀態的智慧）；二、泥洹智（Nirvana-jnana，知曉涅槃的智慧）；三、無諍智（Aranajnana，不起爭論的智慧）；四、愿智（Pranidhana-jnana，隨愿成就的智慧）；五、邊際智（Maryada-jnana，知曉事物邊界的智慧）。依據小乘的觀點，法住智是指知曉苦和集相生諸法存立的智慧，稱為法住智。知曉道和滅稱為泥洹智。也有說法是，知曉苦、集、道稱為法住智，知曉滅諦稱為泥洹智。使眾生不起爭論的智慧為無諍智。能夠隨愿知曉未來一切事的智慧，稱為愿智。邊際智是指報身（受報之身）的最後階段，稱為邊際。聖人修得自在智，因此對於報身的延續或縮短能夠自在掌控，這稱為邊際智。小乘的前兩種智慧，無論是鈍根還是利根的阿羅漢都具有。后三種智慧只有利根的阿羅漢才具有。而且，前兩種智慧可以通過一切禪定生起，后三種智慧只能通過第四禪生起。前兩種智慧通於有漏和無漏，后三種智慧只有有漏。前兩種智慧可以在三界之身中生起，后三種智慧只能在欲界的三天下之身中生起。前兩種智慧以三界法為所緣境，無諍智只以欲界的嗔心為境。大乘的五智，在一切處、一切身、五十二個位次上都可以生起，通於有漏和無漏。小乘的五智，都被大乘的權智所攝。大乘的論典認為，泥洹智就是實相正法，屬於實智。其餘四智屬於權智。將十一智攝入二智中：十智照見四諦，是差別智，屬於權智所攝。如實智照見一實諦，就是實相，是無差別智，因此屬於實智。論典中又說，十智在四眼（肉眼、天眼、慧眼、法眼）中。

【English Translation】 English version Answering the Question of Showing Delight and Disgust through the Four Noble Truths. First, suffering and accumulation are discussed, followed by cessation and the path. In the context of delight and disgust, the order is reversed because it's an inverse observation, thus the result is discussed before the cause. The Four Wisdoms (Dharmasthiti-jnana, Nirvana-jnana, Aranajnana, Pranidhana-jnana, Maryada-jnana) represent a forward observation, hence the cause precedes the result. Therefore, accumulation and the path are mentioned first, followed by the clarification of cessation and suffering. Moreover, obstacles must be removed before good accomplishment can be achieved, so the accumulation (cause of suffering) is eliminated first, and then the path (method to end suffering) is cultivated. In the results, present afflictions are extinguished first, and then future suffering is avoided, so cessation is discussed before suffering. The 'Shrimala Sutra' and 'Nirvana Sutra' offer different interpretations of the Four Wisdoms, which will not be elaborated upon here. All Four Wisdoms belong to the Expedient Wisdom (Upaya-jnana) of the Mahayana, which is the Real Wisdom (Tathata-jnana) of the Hinayana. Next, the five wisdoms are incorporated into two wisdoms: 1. Dharmasthiti-jnana (智，wisdom of the abiding of dharmas); 2. Nirvana-jnana (智，wisdom of nirvana); 3. Aranajnana (智，wisdom of non-contention); 4. Pranidhana-jnana (智，wisdom of vows); 5. Maryada-jnana (智，wisdom of boundaries). According to the Hinayana perspective, Dharmasthiti-jnana refers to the wisdom of knowing the establishment of all dharmas arising from suffering and accumulation, and is called Dharmasthiti-jnana. Knowing the path and cessation is called Nirvana-jnana. It is also said that knowing suffering, accumulation, and the path is called Dharmasthiti-jnana, and knowing the truth of cessation is called Nirvana-jnana. The wisdom that prevents beings from engaging in disputes is Aranajnana. The wisdom that can know all future events according to one's wishes is called Pranidhana-jnana. Maryada-jnana refers to the final stage of the Reward Body (報身, the body of retribution), which is called Maryada. Sages cultivate and attain the wisdom of freedom, so they can freely control the extension or shortening of the Reward Body, which is called Maryada-jnana. The first two wisdoms of the Hinayana are possessed by both dull and sharp-witted Arhats. The latter three wisdoms are only possessed by sharp-witted Arhats. Moreover, the first two wisdoms can arise through all samadhis, while the latter three wisdoms can only arise through the Fourth Dhyana. The first two wisdoms are common to both defiled and undefiled states, while the latter three wisdoms are only defiled. The first two wisdoms can arise in the bodies of the Three Realms, while the latter three wisdoms can only arise in the bodies of the Three Heavens of the Desire Realm. The first two wisdoms take the dharmas of the Three Realms as their object, while Aranajnana only takes the anger of the Desire Realm as its object. The Five Wisdoms of the Mahayana can arise in all places, in all bodies, and in the fifty-two stages, and are common to both defiled and undefiled states. The Five Wisdoms of the Hinayana are all encompassed by the Expedient Wisdom of the Mahayana. The Mahayana treatises believe that Nirvana-jnana is the True Aspect of Reality and belongs to Real Wisdom. The remaining four wisdoms belong to Expedient Wisdom. Incorporating the Eleven Wisdoms into Two Wisdoms: the Ten Wisdoms illuminate the Four Noble Truths, which are Differentiated Wisdom and belong to Expedient Wisdom. The Wisdom of Reality illuminates the One True Reality, which is the True Aspect and is Non-Differentiated Wisdom, thus belonging to Real Wisdom. The treatises also say that the Ten Wisdoms are in the Four Eyes (肉眼, physical eye; 天眼, divine eye; 慧眼, wisdom eye; 法眼, dharma eye).

為佛眼。若爾四眼中具二智。佛眼中亦具二智也。問菩提與薩婆若十智何智攝。答論云。菩提是十智。即是有智。即一切種智。薩波若為如實智。謂空智。亦是一切智。四十四智者。約十二因緣作之。如雲老死苦老死集老死滅道。一一皆具四諦觀也。七十七智者。生緣老生。不離生緣老死。初是正觀智。次是審法智。又正觀智簡無因。審法智簡異邪因。三世各二為六。此六是法住智。次一是泥洹智。法住為明生死因果增長故多。泥洹滅之智。三世合一。此皆小乘之義。皆屬大乘權智攝之。若大乘泥洹智是實智。如上也。如此皆是無分別中善功分別。雖分別不動無分別。不同數論有所得釋。既是名教。不得不知。問四十四及七十七同從老死起。有何異耶。答四十四觀果由因。其觀易成故。為鈍根人也。觀果由因者。初觀老死是果。次明老死集者。觀果由因也。七十七即觀因生果。如雲生緣老死。生是因。為老死之緣。不離生緣老死亦爾。觀因生果。其事既難。故為利根人。四十四成論文云。在七方便中。七十七文不判位。眾師云。在四現忍中也。問何故不從無明起耶。答尋末至本。此觀易成。又四十四但得從果起。以具四諦故。若從無明起無復因。云何得具四諦耶。七十七不從無明起。但從老死起。其觀易成也。問菩薩

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『佛眼』（Buddha-eye）也是如此。如果這樣說，那麼四種眼都具備兩種智慧。『佛眼』中也具備兩種智慧。問：『菩提』（Bodhi，覺悟）與『薩婆若』（Sarvajnata，一切智）包含在十智中的哪種智慧里？答：論中說，『菩提』是十智，即是有智，也就是一切種智。『薩婆若』是如實智，也就是空智，也是一切智。四十四智，是根據十二因緣來建立的，例如說『老死苦』、『老死集』、『老死滅道』，每一個都具備四諦的觀察。七十七智，是『生緣老』、『不離生緣老死』。最初是正觀智，其次是審法智。正觀智簡別無因，審法智簡別異邪因。三世各有二，共六個，這六個是法住智。其次一個是泥洹智（Nirvana-jnana，涅槃智）。法住智是爲了明白生死因果的增長，所以多。泥洹智是滅除生死的智慧，三世合一。這些都是小乘的意義，都屬於大乘的權智所攝。如果大乘的泥洹智是實智，就像上面所說的。這些都是在無分別中善巧地分別，雖然分別，但不動搖無分別，不同於數論派有所得的解釋。既然是名教，就不能不知道。問：四十四智和七十七智都從老死開始，有什麼不同呢？答：四十四智是觀果由因，這種觀察容易成就，所以是為鈍根的人設立的。觀果由因，最初觀察老死是果，其次說明老死集，是觀果由因。七十七智是觀因生果，例如說『生緣老死』，生是因，是老死的緣，『不離生緣老死』也是這樣。觀因生果，這件事很難，所以是為利根的人設立的。四十四智成就，論文中說，在七方便中。七十七智，論文中沒有判定位，眾位法師說，在四現忍中。問：為什麼不從無明開始呢？答：尋著末端追溯到根本，這種觀察容易成就。而且四十四智只能從果開始，因為具備四諦。如果從無明開始，就沒有因，怎麼能具備四諦呢？七十七智不從無明開始，只從老死開始，這種觀察容易成就。問：菩薩

【English Translation】 English version It is also like the 『Buddha-eye』. If so, then the four eyes all possess two kinds of wisdom. The 『Buddha-eye』 also possesses two kinds of wisdom. Question: Which of the ten wisdoms does 『Bodhi』 (Enlightenment) and 『Sarvajnata』 (All-knowingness) belong to? Answer: The treatise says that 『Bodhi』 is the ten wisdoms, which is having wisdom, that is, all-knowingness. 『Sarvajnata』 is the wisdom of reality, which is the wisdom of emptiness, and is also all-knowingness. The forty-four wisdoms are established according to the twelve links of dependent origination, such as saying 『old age and death are suffering』, 『old age and death are the accumulation』, 『old age and death are the path to cessation』, each of which possesses the observation of the Four Noble Truths. The seventy-seven wisdoms are 『birth conditions old age』, 『not separate from birth conditions old age and death』. The first is the wisdom of right view, and the second is the wisdom of examining the Dharma. The wisdom of right view distinguishes no cause, and the wisdom of examining the Dharma distinguishes different wrong causes. Each of the three times has two, a total of six, and these six are the wisdom of abiding in the Dharma. The next one is Nirvana-jnana (wisdom of Nirvana). The wisdom of abiding in the Dharma is to understand the increase of the causes and effects of birth and death, so it is more. Nirvana-jnana is the wisdom of extinguishing birth and death, and the three times are combined into one. These are all the meanings of the Hinayana, and they all belong to the expedient wisdom of the Mahayana. If the Nirvana-jnana of the Mahayana is the real wisdom, it is as mentioned above. These are all skillful distinctions in non-discrimination. Although there are distinctions, they do not shake non-discrimination, which is different from the explanation of the Samkhya school that something is obtained. Since it is a teaching of names, one must know it. Question: The forty-four wisdoms and the seventy-seven wisdoms both start from old age and death, what is the difference? Answer: The forty-four wisdoms observe the effect from the cause, and this observation is easy to achieve, so it is established for people with dull roots. Observing the effect from the cause, the initial observation is that old age and death are the effect, and the next explanation is that the accumulation of old age and death is observing the effect from the cause. The seventy-seven wisdoms observe the cause giving rise to the effect, such as saying 『birth conditions old age and death』, birth is the cause, and is the condition for old age and death, 『not separate from birth conditions old age and death』 is also like this. Observing the cause giving rise to the effect, this matter is difficult, so it is established for people with sharp roots. The forty-four wisdoms are accomplished, and the treatise says that they are in the seven expedients. The seventy-seven wisdoms are not judged in the treatise, and the masters say that they are in the four present acceptances. Question: Why not start from ignorance? Answer: Tracing the end to the root, this observation is easy to achieve. Moreover, the forty-four wisdoms can only start from the effect, because they possess the Four Noble Truths. If starting from ignorance, there is no cause, how can they possess the Four Noble Truths? The seventy-seven wisdoms do not start from ignorance, but only start from old age and death, and this observation is easy to achieve. Question: Bodhisattva

觀十二因緣屬何智耶。答菩薩無方。不可定判。釋論云。菩薩為眾生故。從果觀十二因緣。

常無常門第十一。略明四句。一境智俱常。唯大乘有之。小乘無也。以小乘凡聖之智皆無常故。但大乘境智俱常。凡有三義。一常智照實相境。如果德觀照波若照實相波若。二常智照虛空常境。如大經云。一切常中虛空第一。今常智照此常境也。若以實相即是虛空。如釋論中說。虛空非有非無言語道斷心行處滅。即是實相。今且據事。以虛空為常。此二句示境智二義也。三者常智還自照智。即是反照智義也。次常照無常凡有二義。一照眾生無常。二照應跡無常也。次無常照常凡為三句。一照虛空之常。二照實相境常。三照法身佛性常。但是照境非照智常。以因中未有常智故也。次無常照無常有二句。一照無常境。二者無常自照無常智。問無常智還照無常智。與常智知常智何異。答常智知常唯有一義。無常智知無常有二義。一者后念智。知前念智。二者一念智。即自能知。得並觀者。具有二義。未能並者。但有前後相知也。常知于常。但有一念自知無前後知也。問北土論師云。初地已上即有常住法身。亦即有常智。是事云何。答須詳此說意。為以證真之智為法身耶。取所證真如佛性為法身耶。若以能證之智為法身常者。是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：觀察十二因緣屬於哪種智慧？答：菩薩的智慧沒有固定的範疇，不能簡單地判斷。釋論中說，菩薩爲了救度眾生，是從果報來觀察十二因緣的。

常與無常之門第十一。簡略地說明四種情況：一、境（所觀之對象）和智（能觀之智慧）都是常。只有大乘佛法才有這種情況，小乘佛法沒有。因為小乘的凡夫和聖人的智慧都是無常的。但是大乘的境和智都是常，一般有三種含義： 1. 常智照見實相之境。比如果地上的功德之智觀照般若，般若照見實相。 2. 常智照見虛空這種常境。如《大般涅槃經》所說：『一切常之中，虛空第一。』現在常智照見的就是這種常境。如果認為實相就是虛空，就像《釋論》中所說：『虛空非有非無，言語道斷，心行處滅，這就是實相。』現在暫且根據事相來說，以虛空為常。這兩種情況顯示了境和智的兩種含義。 3. 常智反過來照見自身之智，這就是反照智的含義。二、常智照見無常，一般有兩種含義： 1. 照見眾生的無常。 2. 照見應化事蹟的無常。三、無常智照見常，一般有三種情況： 1. 照見虛空的常。 2. 照見實相之境的常。 3. 照見法身佛性的常。但這只是照見境是常，而不是照見智慧是常，因為因地中還沒有常智。四、無常智照見無常，有兩種情況： 1. 照見無常之境。 2. 無常智反過來照見無常之智。問：無常智反過來照見無常智，與常智知道常智有什麼不同？答：常智知道常，只有一種含義。無常智知道無常，有兩種含義： 1. 后唸的智慧知道前唸的智慧。 2. 一念的智慧，自身就能知道。能夠同時並觀的，就具有兩種含義。不能同時並觀的，就只有前後相知的關係。常智知道常，只有一念自身知道，沒有前後相知。問：北方地區的論師說，初地以上的菩薩就有了常住法身，也就有了常智，這件事是怎樣的？答：需要詳細考察這種說法的含義。是以證得真如的智慧作為法身呢？還是以所證得的真如佛性作為法身呢？如果以能證得真如的智慧作為法身，並且認為是常，那麼...

【English Translation】 English version: Question: To which wisdom does the contemplation of the Twelve Nidanas (Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada) belong? Answer: A Bodhisattva's (Bodhisattva) wisdom has no fixed scope and cannot be definitively judged. The Shastra (Shastra) says that for the sake of sentient beings, a Bodhisattva contemplates the Twelve Nidanas from the perspective of the result.

Chapter Eleven on Permanence and Impermanence. Briefly explaining four possibilities: 1. Both the object (vishaya) and the wisdom (jnana) are permanent. Only the Mahayana (Mahayana) has this, not the Hinayana (Hinayana), because the wisdom of both ordinary beings and sages in the Hinayana is impermanent. However, in the Mahayana, both the object and the wisdom are permanent, generally in three senses: 1. Permanent wisdom illuminates the realm of true reality (tathata). For example, the wisdom of merit in the fruition contemplates Prajna (Prajna), and Prajna illuminates true reality. 2. Permanent wisdom illuminates the permanent realm of space (akasha). As the Great Nirvana Sutra (Mahaparinirvana Sutra) says, 'Among all that is permanent, space is the foremost.' Now, permanent wisdom illuminates this permanent realm. If one considers true reality to be identical with space, as explained in the Shastra, 'Space is neither existent nor nonexistent, the path of language is cut off, and the activity of the mind ceases; this is true reality.' For now, based on phenomena, we consider space to be permanent. These two possibilities demonstrate the two meanings of object and wisdom. 3. Permanent wisdom reflects back and illuminates itself, which is the meaning of reflexive wisdom. 2. Permanent wisdom illuminates impermanence, generally in two senses: 1. Illuminating the impermanence of sentient beings. 2. Illuminating the impermanence of manifested traces. 3. Impermanent wisdom illuminates permanence, generally in three cases: 1. Illuminating the permanence of space. 2. Illuminating the permanence of the realm of true reality. 3. Illuminating the permanence of the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya) Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhatu). However, this only illuminates the realm as permanent, not the wisdom as permanent, because there is no permanent wisdom in the causal stage. 4. Impermanent wisdom illuminates impermanence, in two cases: 1. Illuminating the realm of impermanence. 2. Impermanent wisdom reflects back and illuminates impermanent wisdom. Question: What is the difference between impermanent wisdom reflecting back and illuminating impermanent wisdom, and permanent wisdom knowing permanent wisdom? Answer: Permanent wisdom knowing permanence has only one meaning. Impermanent wisdom knowing impermanence has two meanings: 1. The wisdom of a later moment knows the wisdom of a previous moment. 2. The wisdom of a single moment can know itself. Those who can contemplate simultaneously have both meanings. Those who cannot contemplate simultaneously only have the relationship of knowing each other sequentially. Permanent wisdom knowing permanence only has a single moment of self-knowing, without sequential knowing. Question: The teachers in the northern lands say that Bodhisattvas above the first ground (bhumi) already have a permanent Dharmakaya and also have permanent wisdom. How is this so? Answer: It is necessary to examine the meaning of this statement in detail. Is it taking the wisdom that realizes true reality as the Dharmakaya? Or is it taking the true reality Buddha-nature that is realized as the Dharmakaya? If it is taking the wisdom that can realize true reality as the Dharmakaya and considering it to be permanent, then...

事不然。釋論云。在菩薩心名為波若。在佛心反名薩波若。若是常者。則無明昧。不應有改反也。又涅槃經云。此常法稱。要是如來。長壽品凡簡三法常義。一者外道。二者小乘。三者菩薩。並無常住故。以佛性常為法身者。此猶是江南舊宗。非北方異說也。問有講攝大乘師云。初地見真與佛地不異。是事云何。答若爾論何得云在菩薩心名波若在佛心反名薩婆若。既其改反。即知。有明昧不同。又論云。波若清凈反名方便。則知。六地波若未凈。又本以見真故斷惑。初地見真與佛不異。則一切惑斷。若不以見真斷惑者。便應是有智斷惑故。此說不然。如此皆是無分別中善巧分別。不爾者。淺學失於眉眼為無巧方便。今既欲釋二智。即廣解方便方便者。無差別差別智。故須善巧分別法門。然後無方無礙之用。后當廣敘得失。未可驚同舊宗也。今據此門可有四句。一者語同意異。語同上來所辨。乃有常無常。問何故語同耶。答語出經論。經論共用。何得不同。而意異者。中論云。言語雖同。其心則異。今明。此是無分別中善巧分別。不二二義。故開常無常境智二義耳。既云不二二。即雖二不二。如大經云。我無我無有二相。常無常亦爾。經云。愚人謂二。智者了達。知其無二。復有愚者但謂不二。智人了知不二而二。何者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不對。釋論中說，在菩薩心中名為般若（prajna，智慧），在佛心中反而名為薩婆若（sarvajna，一切智）。如果是常，就沒有無明（ignorance）和昏昧，不應該有改變和相反的情況。而且《涅槃經》中說，這常法之稱，要是如來（tathagata，佛）。《長壽品》中簡要地說明了三種常的含義：一是外道，二是小乘，三是菩薩，都沒有常住的說法。如果以佛性常為法身（dharmakaya，法身），這仍然是江南舊宗的說法，不是北方不同的見解。有人問，有講《攝大乘論》的法師說，初地菩薩所見的真如（tathata，真如）與佛地所見的沒有差別，這件事怎麼樣？回答說，如果這樣，論中怎麼會說在菩薩心中名為般若，在佛心中反而名為薩婆若呢？既然有改變和相反，就知道有明昧的不同。而且論中說，般若清凈反而名為方便（upaya，善巧方便），就知道六地菩薩的般若還沒有清凈。而且本來是因為見到真如才斷除煩惱，如果初地菩薩所見的真如與佛沒有差別，那麼一切煩惱都應該斷除。如果不是因為見到真如而斷除煩惱，那麼就應該是有智慧才能斷除煩惱，這種說法是不對的。這些都是在無分別中善巧地分別。不然的話，淺學的人就會因為沒有善巧方便而迷失方向。現在既然要解釋二智，就要廣泛地解釋方便，方便就是無差別中的差別智，所以需要善巧地分別法門，然後才能有無方無礙的作用。以後會詳細敘述得失，不必驚訝與舊宗相同。現在根據這個法門可以有四句：一是語同意異。語同於上面所辨析的，有常無常。問：為什麼語同呢？答：語出自經論，經論共同使用，怎麼會不同呢？而意異，中論說，言語雖然相同，其心則不同。現在說明，這是在無分別中善巧地分別，是不二而二的含義，所以開顯常無常的境界和智慧二義。既然說不二而二，就是雖二而不二，如《大涅槃經》說，我無我沒有二相，常無常也是這樣。經中說，愚人認為是二，智者了達，知道其無二。又有愚者只認為不二，智人瞭解不二而二，為什麼呢？

【English Translation】 English version: That is not so. The Shì Lùn (commentary) says that in the mind of a Bodhisattva, it is called Prajna (wisdom), while in the mind of a Buddha, it is called Sarvajna (all-knowing). If it were constant, there would be no ignorance and obscurity, and there should be no change or reversal. Moreover, the Nirvana Sutra says that this designation of 'constant dharma' truly refers to the Tathagata (Buddha). The 'Longevity Chapter' briefly explains the meaning of three kinds of constancy: first, the heretics; second, the Hinayana; and third, the Bodhisattvas. None of them have permanent abiding. If one considers the Buddha-nature as the Dharmakaya (Dharma body), this is still the old Jiangnan school of thought, not a different view from the North. Someone asks, 'A Dharma master who lectures on the Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) says that the seeing of Suchness (tathata, suchness) by a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi (stage) is no different from that of a Buddha. What about this?' The answer is, 'If that were the case, how could the commentary say that in the mind of a Bodhisattva it is called Prajna, while in the mind of a Buddha it is called Sarvajna? Since there is change and reversal, it is known that there are differences in clarity and obscurity. Moreover, the commentary says that pure Prajna is called Upaya (skillful means). Thus, it is known that the Prajna of the sixth Bhumi is not yet pure. Furthermore, originally, afflictions are severed because of seeing Suchness. If the seeing of Suchness by a Bodhisattva on the first Bhumi is no different from that of a Buddha, then all afflictions should be severed. If afflictions are not severed by seeing Suchness, then it should be that afflictions are severed by wisdom. This statement is incorrect. All of this is skillful differentiation within non-differentiation. Otherwise, those with shallow learning will lose their way due to a lack of skillful means. Now, since we want to explain the two wisdoms, we must extensively explain Upaya. Upaya is the wisdom of differentiation within non-differentiation. Therefore, we need skillful differentiation of the Dharma-gate, and then there will be unobstructed and unimpeded function. Later, we will discuss the gains and losses in detail, so there is no need to be surprised that it is the same as the old school. Now, according to this Dharma-gate, there can be four statements: first, the words are the same, but the meaning is different. The words are the same as what was discussed above, regarding constancy and impermanence. Question: Why are the words the same? Answer: The words come from the Sutras and Shastras, which are used in common, so how could they be different? But the meaning is different. The Madhyamaka-karika (Middle Treatise) says that although the words are the same, the minds are different. Now, we explain that this is skillful differentiation within non-differentiation, the meaning of non-duality and duality. Therefore, it reveals the two meanings of the realm of constancy and impermanence, and wisdom. Since it is said that it is non-dual and dual, it is both dual and non-dual. As the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says, 'I and non-I have no two aspects, and so it is with constancy and impermanence.' The Sutra says, 'Fools consider them to be two, while the wise understand and know that they are non-dual.' There are also fools who only consider them to be non-dual, while the wise understand that they are non-dual and dual. Why is that so?'

愚人。不識常無常。不知境智。故是無明。無明故為愚。智人了知常無常。名為智者。是故名為語同意異也。二者語異意異。有所得人。不善分別。無所得大乘能善分別。故名語異。一者是無所得心善分別。二者有所得心不善分別。故名意異。三者語同意同者。語與諸佛菩薩方等經論同。意與諸佛菩薩無依正觀亦同。故名語同意同。又語與有所得人語同。有所得人。復有少分得處。今意亦與彼同。故云語同意同。四語異意同。語雖異經論。而意符合道。亦得用之。又語異舊宗。而意同會佛旨。亦得用之。宜以斯四句總貫諸門。不應一向偏有去取。問何故明此四句。答有二種人。一始學大乘。謂必須一向與舊宗為異。則成謗法。所以然者。語出經論。宜共用之。但得與無得其心各別。不應以意異故令語亦異。二者學小乘人。玄與大乘異。強謂義同。是亦謗法。所以然者。小乘語意與大乘語意實不同。而強謂同。如學成實論者。謂無相滅諦與方等理均。故亦名謗法也。為此大小學人。宜開同異四句。

得失門第十二。權實是聖人之觀心。真俗為眾聖之妙境。上已略明二慧。次廣論真俗。真俗之本。若成權實之末。自正故開十二門詳其得失。

大乘玄論卷第四(終) 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1853

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本愚昧之人不認識常與無常的道理，不瞭解境界與智慧的差別，所以是無明（avidyā，佛教術語，指對事物真相的迷惑和無知）。因為有無明，所以是愚昧的。有智慧的人瞭解常與無常的道理，被稱為智者。因此，這被稱為『語同意異』。第二種情況是『語異意異』。有所得之人（指執著于某種見解或成就的人）不善於分辨，而無所得的大乘（Mahāyāna，佛教宗派，強調空性和菩薩道的修行）能夠善於分辨，所以稱為『語異』。一種情況是無所得的心能夠善於分辨，另一種情況是，有所得的心不能夠善於分辨，所以稱為『意異』。第三種情況是『語同意同』。言語與諸佛菩薩所說的方等經論相同，心意也與諸佛菩薩的無依正觀相同，所以稱為『語同意同』。又，言語與有所得之人的言語相同，有所得之人，又有少分得處，現在心意也與他們相同，所以說『語同意同』。第四種情況是『語異意同』。言語雖然與經論不同，但心意符合于道，也可以採用。又，言語與舊宗（指之前的宗派或觀點）不同，但心意與佛的旨意相合，也可以採用。應該用這四句來總括各個方面，不應該片面地有所取捨。問：為什麼要闡明這四句？答：因為有兩種人。一種是剛開始學習大乘的人，認為必須完全與舊宗不同，這就成了謗法（dharmābhibhāṣa，誹謗佛法）。之所以這樣說，是因為言語出自經論，應該共同使用。只要無所得的心與有所得的心有所區別就可以了，不應該因為心意不同就讓言語也不同。另一種是學習小乘（Hināyāna，佛教宗派，注重個人解脫）的人，表面上與大乘不同，卻強說意義相同，這也是謗法。之所以這樣說，是因為小乘的言語和心意與大乘的言語和心意實際上是不同的，卻強說相同，例如學習成實論的人，認為無相滅諦（nir নিরোধsatya，佛教術語，指涅槃的境界）與方等經的道理相同，所以也稱為謗法。爲了這兩種大小乘的學習者，應該開示同異四句。得失門第十二。權實（upāya-kauśalya and paramārtha，佛教術語，指方便和真實）是聖人的觀心，真俗（satya and saṃvṛti，佛教術語，指真諦和俗諦）是眾聖的妙境。上面已經簡略地說明了二慧（prajñā，佛教術語，指智慧），接下來廣泛地論述真俗。真俗的根本，如果成就權實的末端，自然端正，所以開設十二門來詳細說明其中的得失。大乘玄論卷第四（終）大正藏第45冊No. 1853

【English Translation】 English version The foolish do not recognize permanence and impermanence, and do not understand the difference between realms and wisdom. Therefore, they are in ignorance (avidyā, a Buddhist term referring to delusion and ignorance of the true nature of things). Because of ignorance, they are foolish. The wise understand permanence and impermanence and are called wise. Therefore, this is called 'words agree, meaning differs.' The second case is 'words differ, meaning differs.' Those who have attainment (referring to those who cling to certain views or achievements) are not good at distinguishing, while the Mahāyāna (Mahāyāna, a Buddhist school emphasizing emptiness and the path of the Bodhisattva) of non-attainment is able to distinguish well, so it is called 'words differ.' One case is that the mind of non-attainment is able to distinguish well, and the other case is that the mind of attainment is not able to distinguish well, so it is called 'meaning differs.' The third case is 'words agree, meaning agrees.' The words are the same as the square-and-equal sutras and treatises spoken by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and the intention is also the same as the non-reliant correct view of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, so it is called 'words agree, meaning agrees.' Also, the words are the same as the words of those who have attainment, and those who have attainment also have a small portion of attainment, and now the intention is also the same as theirs, so it is said 'words agree, meaning agrees.' The fourth case is 'words differ, meaning agrees.' Although the words are different from the sutras and treatises, the intention is in accordance with the Dao, and it can also be adopted. Also, the words are different from the old school (referring to the previous school or viewpoint), but the intention is in accordance with the Buddha's intention, and it can also be adopted. These four sentences should be used to summarize all aspects, and there should not be one-sided preferences. Question: Why explain these four sentences? Answer: Because there are two types of people. One is those who are just beginning to learn Mahāyāna, who think that they must be completely different from the old school, which becomes slander of the Dharma (dharmābhibhāṣa, defamation of the Buddha's teachings). The reason for this is that the words come from the sutras and treatises and should be used together. As long as there is a distinction between the mind of non-attainment and the mind of attainment, it is enough, and the words should not be different just because the intention is different. The other is those who study Hināyāna (Hināyāna, a Buddhist school that focuses on individual liberation), who are superficially different from Mahāyāna, but insist that the meaning is the same, which is also slander of the Dharma. The reason for this is that the words and intentions of Hināyāna are actually different from the words and intentions of Mahāyāna, but they insist that they are the same, such as those who study the Satyasiddhi Śāstra, who think that the cessation of suffering without characteristics (nir নিরোধsatya, a Buddhist term referring to the state of Nirvana) is the same as the principles of the square-and-equal sutras, so it is also called slander of the Dharma. For these two types of learners of Mahāyāna and Hināyāna, the four sentences of similarity and difference should be explained. The Twelfth Gate of Gain and Loss. Expedient means and ultimate truth (upāya-kauśalya and paramārtha, Buddhist terms referring to skillful means and ultimate truth) are the contemplation of the mind of the sages, and conventional truth and ultimate truth (satya and saṃvṛti, Buddhist terms referring to relative truth and absolute truth) are the wonderful realm of all the sages. The two wisdoms (prajñā, Buddhist term referring to wisdom) have been briefly explained above, and next, the conventional truth and ultimate truth will be discussed extensively. The root of conventional truth and ultimate truth, if the end of expedient means and ultimate truth is achieved, will naturally be correct, so twelve gates are opened to explain the gains and losses in detail. Mahāyāna Profound Treatise, Volume Four (End) Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 45, No. 1853

大乘玄論

大乘玄論卷第五

胡吉藏撰

教跡義三。

一釋教不同門　二感應門　三凈土門

釋教第一。至理無言所以言者。言生於群心。然群基百差。致令聖教萬殊。萬殊言教解釋不同。成論師。或言四時。或言五時。引涅槃經云。從牛出乳。從乳出酪。從酪出生酥。從生酥出熟酥。從熟酥出醍醐。又從佛出十二部經。從十二部經出修多羅。從修多羅出方等經。從方等經出波若波羅蜜。從般若波羅蜜出大涅槃。成論師。五味相生配五時教。四諦教。有相差別故出十二部經。修多羅名法本。波若是諸法根本故。波若名修多羅。維摩經廣明菩薩不思議法門故。維摩經名方等經。一乘之中般若最勝。故法華經名般若波羅蜜。涅槃經時明常住佛果。故言出大涅槃。今謂不爾。十二部經。是別相修多羅。從十二部經出修多羅者。是通相修多羅。從通別兩教起大乘萬行故。言從修多羅出方等。萬行之中。波若為主。故言從方等出波若波羅密。從此二因得大涅槃果故。言從波若波羅蜜出大涅槃。此乃教行因果相生。非是判五時教也。今此摩訶衍論無作品末云。初轉法輪時。非唯八萬諸天一人得須陀洹果。又無量人。發無上菩提之心。乃至無量人。得一生補處。又成道五年。說十萬偈波若。備明

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

大乘玄論

大乘玄論卷第五

胡吉藏撰

教跡義三。

一釋教不同門二感應門三凈土門

釋教第一。至理無言，所以言者，言生於群心。然群基百差，致令聖教萬殊。萬殊言教解釋不同。成論師，或言四時，或言五時。引《涅槃經》云：『從牛出乳，從乳出酪，從酪出生酥，從生酥出熟酥，從熟酥出醍醐。』又從佛出十二部經，從十二部經出修多羅（Sutra，經），從修多羅出方等經，從方等經出波若波羅蜜（Prajna Paramita，般若波羅蜜），從般若波羅蜜出大涅槃（Maha Nirvana，大涅槃）。成論師，五味相生配五時教。四諦教，有相差別故出十二部經。修多羅名法本，波若是諸法根本故。波若名修多羅。《維摩經》廣明菩薩不思議法門故，《維摩經》名方等經。一乘之中般若最勝，故《法華經》名般若波羅蜜。《涅槃經》時明常住佛果，故言出大涅槃。今謂不爾。十二部經，是別相修多羅。從十二部經出修多羅者，是通相修多羅。從通別兩教起大乘萬行故，言從修多羅出方等。萬行之中，波若為主，故言從方等出波若波羅密。從此二因得大涅槃果故，言從波若波羅蜜出大涅槃。此乃教行因果相生，非是判五時教也。今此《摩訶衍論》無作品末云：『初轉法輪時，非唯八萬諸天一人得須陀洹果（Srotapanna，預流果），又無量人，發無上菩提之心，乃至無量人，得一生補處。』又成道五年，說十萬偈波若，備明

【English Translation】 English version

Mahayana Profound Treatise

Mahayana Profound Treatise, Volume 5

Composed by Hu Jizang

Three Meanings of the Traces of Teachings.

Explanation of Different Schools of Teachings 2. Response and Interaction School 3. Pure Land School

Explanation of Teachings, First. The ultimate truth is beyond words, so the reason for speaking is that words arise from the minds of the multitude. However, the foundations of the multitude differ in hundreds of ways, causing the holy teachings to be infinitely diverse. The explanations of these diverse teachings differ. The Chengshi (Tattvasiddhi) masters speak of either four periods or five periods. Quoting the Nirvana Sutra, it says: 'From the cow comes milk, from milk comes cheese, from cheese comes raw butter, from raw butter comes cooked butter, from cooked butter comes ghee (clarified butter).' Also, from the Buddha come the twelve divisions of scriptures, from the twelve divisions of scriptures come the Sutras, from the Sutras come the Vaipulya Sutras, from the Vaipulya Sutras comes the Prajna Paramita, and from the Prajna Paramita comes the Maha Nirvana. The Chengshi masters match the five flavors that arise in succession with the five periods of teachings. The Four Noble Truths teaching, with its differentiated characteristics, gives rise to the twelve divisions of scriptures. Sutra is named the root of the Dharma, because Prajna is the root of all dharmas. Prajna is named Sutra. The Vimalakirti Sutra extensively elucidates the inconceivable Dharma doors of the Bodhisattvas, hence the Vimalakirti Sutra is named Vaipulya Sutra. Among the One Vehicle, Prajna is the most supreme, hence the Lotus Sutra is named Prajna Paramita. The Nirvana Sutra explains the permanent and abiding Buddha-fruit, hence it is said to come from the Maha Nirvana. Now, we say it is not so. The twelve divisions of scriptures are the Sutras with specific characteristics. That from the twelve divisions of scriptures come the Sutras, these are the Sutras with general characteristics. From the two teachings of general and specific characteristics arise the myriad practices of the Mahayana, hence it is said that from the Sutras come the Vaipulya. Among the myriad practices, Prajna is the main one, hence it is said that from the Vaipulya comes the Prajna Paramita. From these two causes, one obtains the fruit of Maha Nirvana, hence it is said that from the Prajna Paramita comes the Maha Nirvana. This is the arising of teachings, practices, causes, and effects in succession, and is not a judgment of the five periods of teachings. Now, this Mahayana Treatise in the final section of the 'No-Work' chapter says: 'At the time of the initial turning of the Dharma wheel, it was not only eighty thousand devas who attained the Srotapanna fruit, but also countless people who aroused the mind of unsurpassed Bodhi, and even countless people who attained the stage of 'one lifetime away from Buddhahood'.' Also, five years after enlightenment, he spoke ten thousand verses of Prajna, fully explaining

二空。七年為大菩薩說般舟三昧經。明色心皆空。十年說如來藏經。顯本有佛性。應知。十二年中。非只說小乘。若大小俱明。而言但說小乘者。亦可十二年後。雖大小俱說。應名小乘。若俱說大小。而名大乘。我亦十二年前。雖大小俱談。而名大乘教。又論云。善吉曾於法華會。聞說菩薩畢定。后聞大品阿毗跋致品。是故今問。為定為不定。故法華不必第四時耳。又成道已來常說般若。所以不局第二時也。地論師云。有三宗四宗。三宗者。一立相教。二舍相教。三顯真實教。為二乘人說有相教。大品等經廣明無相。故云舍相。華嚴等經。名顯真實教門。四宗者。毗曇是因緣宗。成實謂假名宗。三論名不真宗。十地論為真宗。今謂不然。此人罪過甚深。勿謗波若墮于無間。今依此論具明三佛。又彌勒天親。釋波若經文亦明三佛。故知。波若等經。具明常住佛果佛性正因十地了因。若爾。何不名顯實教。應依四依大聖。莫依凡妄執也。問曰。若言常者。云何此經云三世諸佛皆入無餘涅槃耶。答曰。非是小乘無餘涅槃。若依攝論。大乘無餘涅槃有二種。一者分段因果盡名有餘。變易因果盡名無餘涅槃。二者報應二佛名有餘涅槃。法身名無餘涅槃也。又金剛波若經中。我皆令入無餘涅槃者。是彌勒釋云。大乘第一無餘涅槃也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二空。七年為大菩薩說《般舟三昧經》（Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra）。闡明色（Rupa）和心（Citta）皆是空性。十年時宣講《如來藏經》（Tathagatagarbha Sutra），彰顯眾生本具的佛性（Buddha-dhatu）。應當知曉，十二年中，並非僅僅宣說小乘佛法。如果大小乘佛法都闡明，卻說只是宣說小乘，那麼也可以說，十二年後，雖然大小乘佛法都宣說，也應該被稱作小乘。如果大小乘佛法都宣說，而被稱作大乘，那麼我也認為十二年前，雖然大小乘佛法都談及，也應該被稱作大乘教法。又，《攝大乘論》（Mahayana-samgraha）中說，善吉（Subhuti）曾在《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）法會上，聽聞菩薩必定成佛的說法，後來又聽聞《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中阿毗跋致品（avaivartika-lakshana），因此現在發問，到底是必定成佛還是不一定成佛。所以《法華經》不一定是在第四時才宣說的。而且成道以來，佛陀經常宣說般若（Prajna），所以不侷限於第二時。地論師說，有三宗四宗。三宗是：一、立相教，二、舍相教，三、顯真實教。為二乘人宣說有相教，《大品般若經》等經典廣泛闡明無相，所以稱為舍相。《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）等經典，稱為顯真實教門。四宗是：毗曇宗（Abhidharma）是因緣宗，成實宗（Satyasiddhi）是假名宗，三論宗（Madhyamaka）是不真宗，十地論（Dasabhumika-sastra）是真宗。我認為這種說法不對。這種人罪過非常深重，不要誹謗般若而墮入無間地獄。現在依據此論，詳細闡明三佛（Trikaya）。而且彌勒（Maitreya）、天親（Vasubandhu）解釋《般若經》經文時，也闡明了三佛，因此可知，《般若經》等經典，詳細闡明了常住佛（Nitya-Buddha）的果位、佛性正因、十地了因。如果這樣，為什麼不稱為顯實教呢？應該依止四依大聖（catuh-pratisaranani），不要依止凡夫的虛妄執著。問：如果說是常住，為什麼此經中說三世諸佛都進入無餘涅槃（nirupadhisesa-nirvana）呢？答：不是小乘的無餘涅槃。如果依據《攝大乘論》，大乘的無餘涅槃有兩種：一是分段生死（bhava-cakra）的因果斷盡，稱為有餘涅槃（sopadhisesa-nirvana）；變易生死（parinama-duhkha）的因果斷盡，稱為無餘涅槃。二是報身佛（Sambhogakaya）、應身佛（Nirmanakaya）稱為有餘涅槃，法身佛（Dharmakaya）稱為無餘涅槃。又，《金剛般若經》（Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita Sutra）中，『我皆令入無餘涅槃』，彌勒解釋說，這是大乘第一無餘涅槃。

【English Translation】 English version Twofold emptiness. In the seventh year, the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra (Banzhou Sanmei Jing) was spoken for the great Bodhisattvas, clarifying that both Rupa (form) and Citta (mind) are empty. In the tenth year, the Tathagatagarbha Sutra (Rulaizang Jing) was spoken, revealing the inherent Buddha-dhatu (Buddha-nature) in all beings. It should be known that within these twelve years, it was not solely the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) that was taught. If both Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and Hinayana were clarified, yet it is said that only Hinayana was taught, then it could also be said that after the twelve years, even though both Mahayana and Hinayana were taught, it should still be called Hinayana. If both Mahayana and Hinayana are taught and it is called Mahayana, then I also believe that before the twelve years, even though both Mahayana and Hinayana were discussed, it should be called Mahayana teaching. Furthermore, the Mahayana-samgraha (She Da Cheng Lun) states that Subhuti (Shanjie) once heard at the Lotus Sutra (Fahua Jing) assembly that Bodhisattvas are certain to attain Buddhahood. Later, he heard the avaivartika-lakshana (non-retrogression) chapter in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Da Pin Bore Jing). Therefore, the question is now asked: is it certain or uncertain? Thus, the Lotus Sutra was not necessarily spoken in the fourth period. Moreover, since enlightenment, the Buddha has often spoken of Prajna (wisdom), so it is not limited to the second period. The Dilun (Ten Bhumi Treatise) masters say there are three schools and four schools. The three schools are: 1. The teaching of establishing characteristics; 2. The teaching of abandoning characteristics; 3. The teaching of revealing the true reality. The teaching of establishing characteristics is spoken for the Sravakas (Hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas). The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and other sutras extensively clarify the absence of characteristics, so it is called abandoning characteristics. The Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing) and other sutras are called the teaching of revealing the true reality. The four schools are: Abhidharma (Pitan) is the school of causes and conditions; Satyasiddhi (Chengshi) is the school of provisional names; Madhyamaka (Sanlun) is the school of non-reality; Dasabhumika-sastra (Shidi Lun) is the school of reality. I believe this statement is incorrect. Such a person's offense is very deep; do not slander Prajna and fall into Avici (incessant hell). Now, based on this treatise, the Trikaya (Three Bodies of Buddha) are explained in detail. Moreover, Maitreya (Mile) and Vasubandhu (Tianqin), in their explanations of the Prajna Sutra, also clarify the Three Bodies of Buddha. Therefore, it can be known that the Prajna Sutra and other sutras extensively clarify the fruit of the Nitya-Buddha (Eternal Buddha), the direct cause of Buddha-dhatu, the enabling cause of the ten grounds. If so, why is it not called the teaching of revealing reality? One should rely on the catuh-pratisaranani (Four Reliances of a Great Saint) and not rely on the false attachments of ordinary beings. Question: If it is said to be eternal, why does this sutra say that all Buddhas of the three times enter nirupadhisesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder)? Answer: It is not the Hinayana's nirupadhisesa-nirvana. According to the Mahayana-samgraha, there are two types of Mahayana nirupadhisesa-nirvana: one is the exhaustion of the causes and effects of bhava-cakra (cyclic existence), called sopadhisesa-nirvana (nirvana with remainder); the exhaustion of the causes and effects of parinama-duhkha (suffering of change), called nirupadhisesa-nirvana. The second is that the Sambhogakaya (Enjoyment Body) and Nirmanakaya (Emanation Body) are called sopadhisesa-nirvana, and the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body) is called nirupadhisesa-nirvana. Furthermore, in the Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita Sutra (Diamond Sutra), 'I cause all beings to enter nirupadhisesa-nirvana', Maitreya explains that this is the supreme Mahayana nirupadhisesa-nirvana.

。問曰。若爾何故此經明十力四無畏十八不共等皆是有為耶。答曰。對法身真如空邊故。報佛十力十八不共等。是有法故言有為。非生滅有為也。又攝論云。無常有二種。一者因中本無今有已有還無無常。二者佛果本無今有已有不無無常。而不同因中生滅無常。但是佛果上報梨耶識五根等始起邊名無常耳。問曰。若此經非直明空者。亦說本有不空之法耶。答曰。論主釋初品中法性云。法名涅槃性名本分。如白石中有銀性。黃石中有金性。一切法中有涅槃性。亦如是。今謂。是本有性凈涅槃。是以此經。皆明性凈方便二種涅槃也。問曰。更有明證證此經已明常住已顯真實耶。答曰明證雖多。不可為煩。今但取法尚品以三譬具明三佛。又云諸佛色身有去來。諸佛法身無去來。有去來是應佛。無去來是法佛報佛。又論云。佛有二種。一者父母生身佛。二法性生身佛。父母生身者。是應佛。法性生身。是報佛。若但言法性身。是法身佛。論又云。華色比丘尼不見法身佛。善吉得見法身。又此經。處處皆云十地行滿得無上菩提。云何十地行滿還得無常身耶。是故涅槃云。我無我無有二相。我于摩訶般若波羅蜜經中廣說。涅槃經明佛果真我。即此經明無上菩提。涅槃經明生死無我。即此經明因中菩薩無我。應知。此經佛果真我生死

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：如果這樣，為什麼這部經明明說了十力（Tathāgatabala，如來十種力）、四無畏（Catuvaiśāradya，四種無所畏懼的自信）和十八不共法（Avenikadharma，佛獨有的十八種功德）等都是有為法呢？答：這是針對法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身）、真如（Tathātā，事物的真實本性）和空性（Śūnyatā，空虛的性質）而言的。報身佛（Saṃbhogakāya，佛的報償之身）的十力、十八不共法等，因為是有法，所以說是『有為』，但不是生滅的有為。此外，《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）中說，無常有兩種：一是因中本無今有，已有還無的無常；二是佛果本無今有，已有不無的無常。這不同於因中生滅的無常，只是佛果上的報阿賴耶識（Ālayavijñāna，儲存所有經驗的意識）、五根（Indriya，感覺器官）等開始生起的一面，稱為無常罷了。問：如果這部經不是隻闡明空性，也說了本有的不空之法嗎？答：論主在解釋初品中的法性（Dharmatā，法的性質）時說：『法』名為涅槃（Nirvāṇa，解脫），『性』名為本分。如同白石中有銀的性質，黃石中有金的性質，一切法中都有涅槃的性質，也是這樣。現在說的是本有的性凈涅槃（Prakṛtipariśuddha-nirvāṇa，自性清凈的涅槃）。因此，這部經闡明的是性凈和方便（Upāya，方法）兩種涅槃。問：還有更明顯的證據證明這部經已經闡明常住，已經顯示真實嗎？答：明顯的證據雖然很多，但不想過於繁瑣。現在只用法尚品中的三個比喻，完整地闡明三佛（Trikāya，佛的三身）。經中又說，諸佛的色身（Rūpakāya，佛的形色之身）有去來，諸佛的法身沒有去來。有去來的是應身佛（Nirmāṇakāya，佛的化身），沒有去來的是法身佛和報身佛。《論》中又說，佛有兩種：一是父母生身佛，二是法性生身佛。父母生身是應身佛，法性生身是報身佛。如果只說法性身，就是法身佛。《論》中又說，華色比丘尼（Utpalavarṇā，蓮花色比丘尼）不能見到法身佛，善吉（Subhūti，須菩提）能夠見到法身。而且這部經處處都說，十地（Daśabhūmi，菩薩修行的十個階段）行滿才能得到無上菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺）。怎麼會十地行滿還得到無常之身呢？所以《涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra）說：『我無我無有二相，我于摩訶般若波羅蜜經（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）中廣說。』《涅槃經》闡明佛果的真我（Ātman，真我），就是這部經闡明無上菩提。《涅槃經》闡明生死的無我（Anātman，無我），就是這部經闡明因中菩薩的無我。應該知道，這部經的佛果真我和生死

【English Translation】 English version Question: If that's the case, why does this scripture explicitly state that the Ten Powers (Tathāgatabala), the Four Fearlessnesses (Catuvaiśāradya), and the Eighteen Uncommon Qualities (Avenikadharma), etc., are all conditioned phenomena (Saṃskṛta)? Answer: This is in relation to the Dharmakāya (the body of the Dharma), the Suchness (Tathātā), and the Emptiness (Śūnyatā). The Reward Body Buddha's (Saṃbhogakāya) Ten Powers, Eighteen Uncommon Qualities, etc., are said to be 'conditioned' because they are existing phenomena, but they are not conditioned in the sense of arising and ceasing. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) states that impermanence (Anitya) is of two types: first, the impermanence of something that originally did not exist in the cause, now exists, and having existed, ceases to exist; second, the impermanence of the Buddha-fruit, which originally did not exist, now exists, and having existed, does not cease to exist. This is different from the impermanence of arising and ceasing in the cause; it is merely that the Reward Ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness), the five sense faculties (Indriya), etc., that begin to arise on the Buddha-fruit side are called impermanent. Question: If this scripture does not only elucidate emptiness, does it also speak of the inherently existing non-empty Dharma? Answer: The author, in explaining the Dharma-nature (Dharmatā) in the first chapter, says: 'Dharma' is called Nirvana, and 'nature' is called inherent part. Just as there is a silver nature in white stone and a gold nature in yellow stone, so too is there a Nirvana nature in all Dharmas. What is now being referred to is the inherently pure Nirvana (Prakṛtipariśuddha-nirvāṇa). Therefore, this scripture elucidates both the nature-pure and expedient (Upāya) Nirvanas. Question: Is there more clear evidence to prove that this scripture has already elucidated permanence and revealed truth? Answer: Although there is much clear evidence, I do not wish to be overly verbose. Now, I will only use the three metaphors from the 'Dharma Still' chapter to fully elucidate the Three Bodies of the Buddha (Trikāya). The scripture also says that the Form Body (Rūpakāya) of the Buddhas has coming and going, while the Dharma Body of the Buddhas has no coming and going. That which has coming and going is the Emanation Body Buddha (Nirmāṇakāya), and that which has no coming and going is the Dharma Body Buddha and the Reward Body Buddha. The Treatise also says that there are two types of Buddhas: first, the Buddha born from parents; second, the Buddha born from Dharma-nature. The Buddha born from parents is the Emanation Body Buddha, and the Buddha born from Dharma-nature is the Reward Body Buddha. If only the Dharma-nature body is spoken of, it is the Dharma Body Buddha. The Treatise also says that the Bhikṣuṇī Utpalavarṇā (Lotus-Colored Bhikshuni) cannot see the Dharma Body Buddha, while Subhūti (Good Destiny) is able to see the Dharma Body. Moreover, this scripture everywhere says that only when the practice of the Ten Bhūmis (Daśabhūmi) is complete can one attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment). How could one still attain an impermanent body after the practice of the Ten Bhūmis is complete? Therefore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'I and non-I are not two aspects; I have extensively explained this in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra.' The Nirvana Sutra elucidates the True Self (Ātman) of the Buddha-fruit, which is what this scripture elucidates as Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. The Nirvana Sutra elucidates the non-self (Anātman) of birth and death, which is what this scripture elucidates as the non-self of the Bodhisattva in the cause. It should be known that the True Self of the Buddha-fruit and the birth and death

無我。皆空其相無二。具明八倒。應可信受耳。問曰。或謂。此經未是會三。感誦法華以為盛難。此義云何。答曰。法華會三歸一。則三遣而一存。一存未免守相。故以萬善為乘體。般若即三而不三。則三遣而一亡。無有法之可得故。以無生中道為乘體。無生絕於戲論。竟何三之可會。所謂百華異色共成一陰。萬法殊相同入波若。無可分別。又顯一乘真實凡有二門。若是法華。對三乘方便顯一乘真實相。若是波若凈名。毀小乘為劣。贊大乘為勝。顯一乘真實也。是故不可談其二經勝劣耳。若引涅槃明常而難此經。前已明之。不更煩耳。問曰。若唱成地二家之失。今云何判佛教耶。答曰。菩薩藏聲聞藏。大乘小乘。有餘無餘。作無作。了不了。有邊無邊。頓漸。半滿。常無常。有量無量門往收。不以具足十門方收。但以一一門攝無量法藏。攝門非一。故有十門。問曰。前言應依四依莫依凡妄說者。何等是四依。答曰。四依者有二種。法四依者。依法不依人。依義不依語。依智不依識。依了義經不依不了義經。人四依者。依小乘五方便為第一依。須陀洹斯陀含為第二依。阿那含為第三依。阿羅漢為第四依。若依大乘。地前四十心。具煩惱性為第一依。從初地至六地為第二依。七八九地為第三依。第十地為第四依。今是后四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無我。一切諸法的體性都是空性的，它們的表相沒有差別。完全彰顯了八種顛倒的真相。應當對此信受奉行。有人問：『或許有人認為，《般若經》還不是會三歸一的教義，認為誦持《法華經》才是最殊勝和困難的。』對此該如何理解？回答說：《法華經》會三歸一，是捨棄三種權宜之法而保留唯一真實之法。但保留這個『一』，未免還會執著于表相。所以《法華經》以萬善作為乘的本體。《般若經》即是三又不是三，是捨棄三種權宜之法而消亡唯一真實之法。因為沒有實在的法可以執取，所以《般若經》以無生中道作為乘的本體。無生之理超越了戲論，哪裡還有三種權宜之法可以會歸呢？正如百花顏色各異卻共同構成一片綠蔭，萬法形態不同卻相同地進入般若的智慧之中，無法加以分別。而且，彰顯一乘真實的法門有兩種。如果是《法華經》，則是通過對比三乘的方便法門來彰顯一乘的真實相。如果是《般若經》和《維摩詰經》，則是貶低小乘為低劣，讚揚大乘為殊勝，從而彰顯一乘的真實。因此，不應該討論這兩部經的優劣。如果有人引用《涅槃經》來證明常住不變的真如，從而質疑《般若經》，那麼之前已經解釋過了，不再贅述。有人問：『如果批判成實師和地論師兩家的過失，那麼現在該如何判斷佛教的教義呢？』回答說：菩薩藏（Bodhisattva-pitaka，菩薩所修行的經典），聲聞藏（Śrāvakapiṭaka，聲聞弟子所修行的經典），大乘（Mahāyāna，大乘佛教）小乘（Hīnayāna，小乘佛教），有餘涅槃（sa-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，有餘依涅槃）無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，無餘依涅槃），有作（saṃskṛta，有為法）無作（asaṃskṛta，無為法），了義（nītārtha，究竟了義）不了義（neyārtha，不了義），有邊（sānta，有邊）無邊（ananta，無邊），頓悟（yuganaddha，頓悟）漸悟（kramika，漸悟），半字教（ardhakṣara，不完整的教義）滿字教（paripūrṇākṣara，完整的教義），常（nitya，常）無常（anitya，無常），有量（parimita，有限量）無量（aparimita，無量）等法門，都可以用來收攝一切佛法，不必非要用具足十種法門才能收攝。因為收攝法門的途徑不止一種，所以才會有十種法門。有人問：『之前說應該依止四依，不要依止凡夫的妄說，那麼什麼是四依呢？』回答說：四依有兩種。法四依是：依法不依人，依義不依語，依智不依識，依了義經不依不了義經。人四依是：依止小乘的五方便行者為第一依，依止須陀洹（Srotāpanna，入流果）和斯陀含（Sakṛdāgāmin，一來果）為第二依，依止阿那含（Anāgāmin，不還果）為第三依，依止阿羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢果）為第四依。如果依止大乘，那麼依止十地之前的四十心，具有煩惱的凡夫為第一依，依止從初地（prathamā bhūmi，歡喜地）到六地（ṣaṣṭhā bhūmi，現前地）的菩薩為第二依，依止七地（saptamī bhūmi，遠行地）、八地（aṣṭamī bhūmi，不動地）和九地（navamī bhūmi，善慧地）的菩薩為第三依，依止第十地（daśamī bhūmi，法雲地）的菩薩為第四依。現在所說的是后一種四依。

【English Translation】 English version Non-self. All dharmas are empty in nature, and their appearances are without difference. The eight inversions are fully revealed. One should believe and accept this. Someone asks: 'Perhaps some say that this sutra does not yet represent the unification of the three vehicles, and that reciting the Lotus Sutra is the most supreme and difficult.' What is the meaning of this? The answer is: The Lotus Sutra unifies the three vehicles into one, abandoning the three expedient means and retaining the one true reality. However, retaining this 'one' inevitably leads to attachment to appearances. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra takes the myriad good deeds as the body of the vehicle. The Prajna Sutra is both three and not three, abandoning the three expedient means and eliminating the one true reality. Because there is no real dharma to grasp, the Prajna Sutra takes the unborn Middle Way as the body of the vehicle. The principle of non-birth transcends all conceptual constructs, so where are the three expedient means to be unified? It is like hundreds of flowers of different colors forming a single shade, and myriad dharmas of different forms entering the wisdom of Prajna in the same way, without any distinction. Moreover, there are two ways to reveal the one vehicle's true reality. In the case of the Lotus Sutra, it reveals the true aspect of the one vehicle by contrasting it with the expedient means of the three vehicles. In the case of the Prajna Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra, it disparages the Hinayana (Hīnayāna, Lesser Vehicle) as inferior and praises the Mahayana (Mahāyāna, Great Vehicle) as superior, thereby revealing the one vehicle's true reality. Therefore, one should not discuss the superiority or inferiority of these two sutras. If someone cites the Nirvana Sutra to prove the permanence of true thusness and questions this sutra, then it has already been explained before, and there is no need to repeat it. Someone asks: 'If the faults of the Satyasiddhi School and the Dilun School are criticized, then how should we judge the teachings of Buddhism now?' The answer is: The Bodhisattva-pitaka (Bodhisattva-pitaka, collection of sutras for Bodhisattvas), the Śrāvakapiṭaka (Śrāvakapiṭaka, collection of sutras for Śrāvakas), the Mahayana (Mahāyāna, Great Vehicle) and Hinayana (Hīnayāna, Lesser Vehicle), Nirvana with remainder (sa-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, Nirvana with remainder) and Nirvana without remainder (nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, Nirvana without remainder), conditioned (saṃskṛta, conditioned) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta, unconditioned), definitive meaning (nītārtha, definitive meaning) and provisional meaning (neyārtha, provisional meaning), finite (sānta, finite) and infinite (ananta, infinite), sudden (yuganaddha, sudden) and gradual (kramika, gradual), half-word teaching (ardhakṣara, incomplete teaching) and full-word teaching (paripūrṇākṣara, complete teaching), permanence (nitya, permanence) and impermanence (anitya, impermanence), limited (parimita, limited) and unlimited (aparimita, unlimited) teachings can all be used to encompass all Buddhist teachings, and it is not necessary to use all ten methods to encompass them. Because there is more than one way to encompass the teachings, there are ten methods. Someone asks: 'Earlier it was said that one should rely on the four reliances and not rely on the false words of ordinary people, so what are the four reliances?' The answer is: There are two kinds of four reliances. The four reliances on the Dharma are: rely on the Dharma, not on the person; rely on the meaning, not on the words; rely on wisdom, not on consciousness; rely on sutras of definitive meaning, not on sutras of provisional meaning. The four reliances on people are: rely on the five expedient practitioners of the Hinayana as the first reliance, rely on the Srotāpanna (Srotāpanna, Stream-enterer) and Sakṛdāgāmin (Sakṛdāgāmin, Once-returner) as the second reliance, rely on the Anāgāmin (Anāgāmin, Non-returner) as the third reliance, and rely on the Arhat (Arhat, Arhat) as the fourth reliance. If relying on the Mahayana, then rely on the forty minds before the ten bhumis (prathamā bhūmi, first bhumi), who are ordinary people with afflictions, as the first reliance; rely on the Bodhisattvas from the first bhumi (prathamā bhūmi, Joyful Ground) to the sixth bhumi (ṣaṣṭhā bhūmi, Manifest Ground) as the second reliance; rely on the Bodhisattvas of the seventh bhumi (saptamī bhūmi, Far-Going Ground), eighth bhumi (aṣṭamī bhūmi, Immovable Ground), and ninth bhumi (navamī bhūmi, Good Intelligence Ground) as the third reliance; and rely on the Bodhisattvas of the tenth bhumi (daśamī bhūmi, Cloud of Dharma Ground) as the fourth reliance. What is being discussed now is the latter four reliances.

依也。問曰。前言十二部經。云何但言十二不大不小耶。答曰。有四句。一大小俱明十二者。以十二是一數之圓。又治眾生十二緣病故也。二者大小同明九部者。亦是一數之圓。又為九道眾生說故九部。小乘約法淺故無方廣經。佛記非小乘之宗。又小乘人。無補佛處故。除授記經。小乘法淺有人能問故。除無問自說經。又大士能為眾生作不請之友故。有無問自說。小乘不能。要待請方說。故無無問自說。大乘人根利故除三。大乘之根利直說即解。不須因緣及以譬喻。亦不假論義。故略以此三部。第三句小廣而大略。如地持論說。菩薩藏名方廣經。聲聞藏謂十一部。此意明。大乘十二為明方廣之理。從所詮之理為名。故十二部悉名方廣。小乘十二部。不為明方廣之理故。存其十一部名。沒方廣之稱。第四句大廣小略。顯大乘滿字故。具足十二部。小乘半字故。唯有九部。又得開三。修多羅祇夜伽陀。此三就教別名。即以教為此三部體。余之九部。從別事受名。亦不離此三也。三從文言立名。九從功能受稱。修多羅者。有二種。直說語言為別修多羅。從如是至奉行。通修多羅。三藏中修多羅。豎長橫狹。豎長故攝於十二。橫狹故但一藏。十二部中修多羅。橫闊豎短。不攝十一故豎短。攝三藏故橫闊。伽陀者。第二部謂不等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：前面提到十二部經，為什麼只說十二部不大不小呢？答：有四種情況。第一種，大小都明確說明十二部經，因為十二是一個圓滿的數字，而且是爲了治療眾生十二因緣的病。第二種，大小都說明九部經，也是一個圓滿的數字，而且是為九道眾生說的，所以有九部經。小乘佛法因為比較淺顯，所以沒有方廣經（Vaipulya Sutra，廣大的經典）。佛陀授記說這不是小乘的宗旨。而且小乘修行者不能夠補佛的位置，所以沒有授記經（Vyakarana Sutra，預言的經典）。小乘佛法淺顯，有人能夠提問，所以沒有無問自說經（Udana Sutra，自說的經典）。而大乘菩薩能夠為眾生做不請之友，所以有無問自說經，小乘不能，一定要等待請求才說，所以沒有無問自說經。大乘根器銳利，所以省略三種經。大乘根器銳利，直接說就能理解，不需要因緣和譬喻，也不需要論議，所以省略這三部經。第三種情況，小乘廣大而大乘簡略。如《地持論》（Bodhisattvabhumi Sutra）所說，菩薩藏（Bodhisattva Pitaka）名為方廣經，聲聞藏（Sravaka Pitaka）稱為十一部經。這個意思是說，大乘十二部經是爲了闡明方廣的道理，從所詮釋的道理來命名，所以十二部經都稱為方廣。小乘十二部經，不是爲了闡明方廣的道理，所以保留十一部經的名字，而沒有方廣的稱呼。第四種情況，大乘廣大而小乘簡略。顯示大乘是圓滿的文字，所以具足十二部經。小乘是半字教，所以只有九部經。又可以開出三種，修多羅（Sutra，經）、祇夜（Geya，重頌）、伽陀（Gatha，偈頌）。這三種是就教法來區分名稱，就以教法作為這三部的本體。其餘的九部，是從別的事相來接受名稱，也沒有離開這三種。三種是從文句語言來立名，九種是從功能作用來接受稱呼。修多羅有兩種，直接說的語言是別修多羅，從『如是』到『奉行』是通修多羅。三藏（Tripitaka，三個藏經）中的修多羅，豎長橫窄，豎長所以能夠攝於十二部經，橫窄所以只是一藏。十二部經中的修多羅，橫闊豎短，不能夠攝十一，所以豎短，能夠攝三藏，所以橫闊。伽陀，是第二部，稱為不等頌。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Earlier, you mentioned the twelve divisions of scriptures. Why do you only say that the twelve divisions are neither large nor small? Answer: There are four situations. First, both large and small clearly state the twelve divisions of scriptures because twelve is a complete number, and it is also to cure the disease of the twelve links of dependent origination (dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada) of sentient beings. Second, both large and small equally clarify the nine divisions of scriptures, which is also a complete number, and it is spoken for the sentient beings of the nine realms, hence the nine divisions. Because the Hinayana Dharma (Small Vehicle teachings) is relatively shallow, it does not have the Vaipulya Sutra (extensive scriptures). The Buddha predicted that this is not the doctrine of the Hinayana. Moreover, Hinayana practitioners cannot fill the Buddha's position, so there is no Vyakarana Sutra (prophecy scriptures). Hinayana Dharma is shallow, and people can ask questions, so there is no Udana Sutra (self-spoken scriptures). However, Mahayana Bodhisattvas (Great Vehicle enlightened beings) can be uninvited friends to sentient beings, so there is the Udana Sutra. Hinayana cannot do this; they must wait for a request before speaking, so there is no Udana Sutra. Mahayana practitioners have sharp roots, so three types of scriptures are omitted. Mahayana practitioners have sharp roots, and they can understand directly when spoken to, without the need for causes, conditions, and metaphors, nor do they need arguments, so these three divisions are omitted. Third, the Hinayana is extensive while the Mahayana is concise. As stated in the Bodhisattvabhumi Sutra (Treatise on the Stages of a Bodhisattva), the Bodhisattva Pitaka (Bodhisattva Collection) is called the Vaipulya Sutra, and the Sravaka Pitaka (Hearer Collection) is called the eleven divisions of scriptures. This means that the twelve divisions of Mahayana scriptures are to clarify the principle of Vaipulya. They are named from the principle being explained, so all twelve divisions are called Vaipulya. The twelve divisions of Hinayana scriptures are not to clarify the principle of Vaipulya, so they retain the names of the eleven divisions but do not have the title of Vaipulya. Fourth, the Mahayana is extensive while the Hinayana is concise. It shows that the Mahayana is complete in its words, so it has all twelve divisions of scriptures. The Hinayana is a half-word teaching, so it only has nine divisions. Furthermore, three can be derived: Sutra (scriptures), Geya (repeated verses), and Gatha (verses). These three are distinguished by the teachings, and the teachings are taken as the substance of these three divisions. The remaining nine divisions receive their names from separate phenomena and do not depart from these three. The three are named from the words and language, and the nine receive their names from their functions and effects. There are two types of Sutras: the directly spoken words are separate Sutras, and from 'Thus have I heard' to 'practice accordingly' are common Sutras. The Sutras in the Tripitaka (Three Baskets), are vertically long and horizontally narrow. Because they are vertically long, they can encompass the twelve divisions of scriptures, and because they are horizontally narrow, they are only one basket. The Sutras in the twelve divisions of scriptures are horizontally wide and vertically short. They cannot encompass eleven, so they are vertically short, and they can encompass the Tripitaka, so they are horizontally wide. Gatha is the second division, called unequal verses.

頌。第三祇夜謂等頌。又九從功能受名。謂授記經．本事經．本生經．未曾有經．因緣經譬喻經．無問自說經方廣經．論義經。合為十二部。今小乘九部合為五雙。初長行與偈一雙。諸佛為眾生。或直說修多羅。或命初即為說偈故名伽陀。即知。修多羅不必在前。伽陀不必在後。本事本生。第二自他一雙。本事說他過去世事。如藥王本事品等。說自過去世事為本生經。未曾有因緣經。此明善惡事一雙。未曾有經為善事。如青牛行缽白狗聽經大地振動。因緣謂起罪本末。隨本末而說名因緣經。譬喻祇夜法喻一雙。論義經者。則是能論。上八部四雙名為所論。謂能論所論一雙。佛在世時。自說十二部經。佛滅度后。委付迦葉。十弟子之中。最大有四大聲聞。所謂迦葉目連須菩提舍利弗。何獨付迦葉不付餘人者。舍利弗目連早已滅度。須菩提者為性濡。迦葉為性剛決。故付迦葉。迦葉滅后付阿難。阿難付末田地。末田池付舍那婆斯。舍那婆斯付優婆掘多。如是隔世五師。至一百餘年。分為二部。一者摩訶僧祇部。此云大眾部。二者多羯羅部。此云上坐部。從大眾部分為九部。一名大眾部。二名一說部。三名出世部。四名窟居部。五名多聞部。六名施設論部。七名枝提部。八名阿婆羅部。九名郁他羅部。三百年中。上座部因諍

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本頌。第三祇夜（Gīta）是指等頌。又有九種是根據功能來命名的，分別是授記經、本事經、本生經、未曾有經、因緣經、譬喻經、無問自說經、方廣經、論義經。合起來稱為十二部經。現在小乘的九部經合併爲五對。第一對是長行和偈頌。諸佛爲了眾生，或者直接說修多羅（Sūtra），或者命令開始就說偈頌，所以叫做伽陀（Gāthā）。由此可知，修多羅不一定在前，伽陀不一定在後。本事和本生是第二對，是關於自己和他人的。本事經說的是他過去世的事情，比如藥王本事品等。說自己過去世的事情叫做本生經。未曾有經和因緣經，這說明善惡事是一對。未曾有經是關於善事的，比如青牛行缽、白狗聽經、大地振動。因緣指的是產生罪惡的本末，根據本末來說明，就叫做因緣經。譬喻和祇夜是法喻一對。論義經，則是能進行辯論的。上面的八部經四對，是被稱為所論的。所以能論和所論是一對。佛在世的時候，親自宣說十二部經。佛滅度后，委託給迦葉（Kāśyapa）。十大弟子之中，最重要的是四大聲聞，分別是迦葉、目連（Maudgalyāyana）、須菩提（Subhūti）、舍利弗（Śāriputra）。為什麼只委託給迦葉而不委託給其他人呢？因為舍利弗和目連已經滅度了，須菩提的性格比較柔和，迦葉的性格剛強果決，所以委託給迦葉。迦葉滅度后，委託給阿難（Ānanda）。阿難委託給末田地（Madhyāntika）。末田地委託給舍那婆斯（Śāṇavāsa）。舍那婆斯委託給優婆掘多（Upagupta）。就這樣隔了五代師徒，到一百多年後，分爲了兩部。一部是摩訶僧祇部（Mahāsāṃghika），意思是大眾部。另一部是多羯羅部（Sthavira），意思是上座部。從大眾部分為九部，第一部叫做大眾部，第二部叫做一說部，第三部叫做出世部，第四部叫做窟居部，第五部叫做多聞部，第六部叫做施設論部，第七部叫做枝提部，第八部叫做阿婆羅部，第九部叫做郁他羅部。三百年中，上座部因為爭論

【English Translation】 English version 'Verse. The third Gīta (Gīta) refers to verses of equal length. There are also nine types named according to their function, namely: Vyākaraṇa (prophecy), Itivṛttaka (stories of events), Jātaka (birth stories), Adbhūta-dharma (stories of the marvelous), Nidāna (causation), Avadāna (parables), Udāna (inspired utterances), Vaipulya (extensive teachings), and Upadeśa (doctrinal analysis). These are collectively known as the twelve divisions of scripture. Now, the nine divisions of the Hinayana are combined into five pairs. The first pair is prose and verse. The Buddhas, for the sake of sentient beings, either directly speak the Sūtra (Sūtra), or command the beginning to speak in verses, hence it is called Gāthā (Gāthā). From this, it is known that the Sūtra does not necessarily come first, and the Gāthā does not necessarily come last. Itivṛttaka and Jātaka are the second pair, concerning oneself and others. Itivṛttaka speaks of the past lives of others, such as the Bhaiṣajyarāja-itivṛttaka chapter. Speaking of one's own past lives is called Jātaka. Adbhūta-dharma and Nidāna, this explains that good and evil deeds are a pair. Adbhūta-dharma is about good deeds, such as the blue ox carrying the bowl, the white dog listening to the scripture, and the earth shaking. Nidāna refers to the origin and end of the arising of sins, and according to the origin and end, it is called Nidāna. Avadāna and Gīta are a pair of Dharma and metaphor. Upadeśa is capable of debate. The above eight divisions, four pairs, are called the object of debate. Therefore, the ability to debate and the object of debate are a pair. When the Buddha was in the world, he personally expounded the twelve divisions of scripture. After the Buddha's Parinirvana, he entrusted them to Kāśyapa (Kāśyapa). Among the ten great disciples, the most important are the four great Śrāvakas, namely Kāśyapa, Maudgalyāyana (Maudgalyāyana), Subhūti (Subhūti), and Śāriputra (Śāriputra). Why was it entrusted only to Kāśyapa and not to others? Because Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana had already passed away, Subhūti's nature was gentle, and Kāśyapa's nature was strong and decisive, so it was entrusted to Kāśyapa. After Kāśyapa's Parinirvana, it was entrusted to Ānanda (Ānanda). Ānanda entrusted it to Madhyāntika (Madhyāntika). Madhyāntika entrusted it to Śāṇavāsa (Śāṇavāsa). Śāṇavāsa entrusted it to Upagupta (Upagupta). In this way, after five generations of teachers and disciples, after more than a hundred years, it was divided into two schools. One school is the Mahāsāṃghika (Mahāsāṃghika), which means the Great Assembly School. The other school is the Sthavira (Sthavira), which means the Elders School. From the Mahāsāṃghika, it was divided into nine schools. The first school is called the Mahāsāṃghika, the second is called the Ekavyāvahārika, the third is called the Lokottaravāda, the fourth is called the Gokulika, the fifth is called the Bahuśrutīya, the sixth is called the Prajñaptivāda, the seventh is called the Caityika, the eighth is called the Aparasaila, and the ninth is called the Uttarasaṃghika. Within three hundred years, the Sthavira school, due to disputes'

論事分為十一部。一名薩婆多部。二名雪山部。三名犢子部。四名達磨郁多部。五名跋陀耶尼部。六名三彌底部。七名六城部。八名彌沙塞部。九名曇無德部。十名迦葉唯部。十一名修多羅論部。問經言本二及十八皆從大乘中出。何者為本二及十八耶。答上座大眾兩部為本二。其後弟子分為十八部。又經言五部者。佛三藏中毗尼藏多有此名。又十八部中五部盛行。五部者。一薩婆多部。二曇無德部。三僧祇部。四彌沙塞部。五迦葉唯部。五部之中。薩婆多部盛行。故佛滅后二百年中。從上座部出薩婆多部。偏弘毗曇。佛滅后三百餘年。迦旃延子。作毗曇八犍度。六百年五百阿羅漢。造毗婆沙論百卷。七百年為婆沙太廣。法勝造毗曇論。為法勝太略。千年之間。達磨多羅。造雜心論十一卷。故毗曇盛行。成實論主。從曇無德部出。出於七百年。名訶梨跋摩。龍樹菩薩。出五百年。破諸異部。造大乘百部論。于閻浮提。轉第二法輪。問有人言。般若是三乘通教。凡引多文。欲得聲聞地。當學般若。乃至欲得菩薩地。當學般若。又云。是般若中。廣說三乘之教。故言三乘通教。此義云何。答曰。論云。佛於三藏中。但為聲聞。說四諦法。未說菩薩行。今欲為彌勒等廣說菩薩行故說般若。即知。般若非三乘通教。又論云。般若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本論事分為十一部：第一部名為薩婆多部（Sarvastivada），第二部名為雪山部（Haimavata），第三部名為犢子部（Vatsiputriya），第四部名為達磨郁多部（Dharmottariya），第五部名為跋陀耶尼部（Bhadrayaniya），第六部名為三彌底部（Sammitiya），第七部名為六城部，第八部名為彌沙塞部（Mahisasaka），第九部名為曇無德部（Dharmaguptaka），第十部名為迦葉唯部（Kasyapiya），第十一部名為修多羅論部。問：經中說根本二部及十八部都從大乘中產生，什麼是根本二部及十八部呢？答：上座部（Sthavira）和大眾部（Mahasanghika）兩部是根本二部。其後，它們的弟子又分為十八部。又經中說五部，佛的三藏中，毗尼藏（Vinaya Pitaka）里多有此名。又十八部中，有五部盛行。這五部是：一、薩婆多部（Sarvastivada），二、曇無德部（Dharmaguptaka），三、僧祇部（Mahasanghika），四、彌沙塞部（Mahisasaka），五、迦葉唯部（Kasyapiya）。五部之中，薩婆多部（Sarvastivada）最為盛行。所以佛滅度后二百年中，從上座部（Sthavira）分出薩婆多部（Sarvastivada），專門弘揚毗曇（Abhidharma）。佛滅度后三百多年，迦旃延子（Katyayaniputra）著《毗曇八犍度》。六百年時，五百位阿羅漢造《毗婆沙論》百卷。七百年時，因為《婆沙論》過於廣博，法勝（Dharmasri）造《毗曇論》。又因為法勝的論過於簡略，在千年之間，達磨多羅（Dharmatrata）造《雜心論》十一卷。因此毗曇（Abhidharma）盛行。成實論的作者，是從曇無德部（Dharmaguptaka）中出來的，大約在七百年時，名叫訶梨跋摩（Harivarman）。龍樹菩薩（Nagarjuna）出現在五百年時，破斥各部異見，造大乘百部論，在閻浮提（Jambudvipa）轉第二法輪。問：有人說，《般若經》（Prajnaparamita）是三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）共通的教法，並且引用很多經文，說想要得到聲聞地，應當學習《般若經》，乃至想要得到菩薩地，也應當學習《般若經》。又說，在《般若經》中，廣泛地宣說了三乘的教義，所以說是三乘共通的教法，這個說法是什麼意思呢？答：論中說，佛在三藏中，只是為聲聞（Sravaka）宣說四諦法（Four Noble Truths），沒有說菩薩行。現在想要為彌勒（Maitreya）等廣泛宣說菩薩行，所以才說《般若經》。由此可知，《般若經》不是三乘共通的教法。又論中說，《般若經》

【English Translation】 English version The discussions are divided into eleven schools. The first is named Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada - 'the school that asserts everything exists'), the second is named Haimavata (Haimavata - 'the snow mountain school'), the third is named Vatsiputriya (Vatsiputriya - 'the school of the Vatsa clan'), the fourth is named Dharmottariya (Dharmottariya - 'the school of Dharma-uttara'), the fifth is named Bhadrayaniya (Bhadrayaniya - 'the school of Bhadra'), the sixth is named Sammitiya (Sammitiya - 'the school of the Sammati'), the seventh is named the Six-City School, the eighth is named Mahisasaka (Mahisasaka - 'the school of the Mahisasakas'), the ninth is named Dharmaguptaka (Dharmaguptaka - 'the school that protects the Dharma'), the tenth is named Kasyapiya (Kasyapiya - 'the school of Kasyapa'), and the eleventh is named Sutra School. Question: The sutras say that the original two and the eighteen schools all came from the Mahayana. What are the original two and the eighteen? Answer: The Sthavira (Sthavira - 'the elders') and Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika - 'the great assembly') schools are the original two. Later, their disciples divided into eighteen schools. Also, the sutras mention five schools. The Vinaya Pitaka (Vinaya Pitaka - 'the collection of monastic rules') in the Buddha's three pitakas often contains this name. Furthermore, among the eighteen schools, five schools flourished. These five schools are: 1. Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada), 2. Dharmaguptaka (Dharmaguptaka), 3. Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika), 4. Mahisasaka (Mahisasaka), 5. Kasyapiya (Kasyapiya). Among the five schools, the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) school was the most prevalent. Therefore, two hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) school emerged from the Sthavira (Sthavira) school, specializing in the propagation of the Abhidharma (Abhidharma - 'higher Dharma'). More than three hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, Katyayaniputra (Katyayaniputra - 'son of Katyayani') composed the 'Eight Sections of Abhidharma'. In the sixth century, five hundred Arhats created the 'Vibhasa Sastra' in one hundred volumes. In the seventh century, because the 'Vibhasa Sastra' was too extensive, Dharmasri (Dharmasri - 'glory of Dharma') composed the 'Abhidharma Sastra'. Because Dharmasri's treatise was too brief, Dharmatrata (Dharmatrata - 'protected by Dharma') composed the 'Miscellaneous Heart Sastra' in eleven volumes within a thousand years. Therefore, the Abhidharma (Abhidharma) flourished. The author of the Tattvasiddhi Sastra came from the Dharmaguptaka (Dharmaguptaka) school, around the seventh century, named Harivarman (Harivarman - 'protected by Hari'). Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna - 'dragon tree') Bodhisattva appeared in the fifth century, refuting the heterodox views of various schools, and composed one hundred Mahayana treatises, turning the second Dharma wheel in Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa - 'the continent of the rose-apple tree'). Question: Some people say that the Prajnaparamita (Prajnaparamita - 'perfection of wisdom') is a common teaching for the three vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), and they cite many sutras, saying that if one wants to attain the Sravaka stage, one should study the Prajnaparamita, and even if one wants to attain the Bodhisattva stage, one should also study the Prajnaparamita. It is also said that the teachings of the three vehicles are extensively explained in the Prajnaparamita, so it is said to be a common teaching for the three vehicles. What does this mean? Answer: The treatise says that in the three pitakas, the Buddha only explained the Four Noble Truths (Four Noble Truths) for the Sravakas (Sravaka - 'hearers'), without explaining the Bodhisattva practices. Now, wanting to extensively explain the Bodhisattva practices for Maitreya (Maitreya - 'the loving one') and others, the Prajnaparamita is spoken. From this, it is known that the Prajnaparamita is not a common teaching for the three vehicles. Furthermore, the treatise says that the Prajnaparamita

不屬二乘但屬菩薩。又論云。在菩薩心中名般若。在聲聞心中名道品。若是三乘通教。則在三乘心通名般若。不應有別名。又難云。若三乘通學般若。般若是三乘通教者。涅槃經云。三乘人同觀中道。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。乃至上上智觀故得佛菩提。亦應是三乘通教。大論云。十種大經中。般若波羅蜜最深最大。小般若經云。此經為發大乘者說。最上乘者說故知。般若非三乘通教。又說。三乘同學般若者。是密會一乘。若因同果亦應同。又說聲聞緣覺若智若斷皆是菩薩無生法忍。又說一切處求人不可得云何分別有三乘耶。當知。即是密說一乘。又古舊義。般若已會法但未會人。會法者。一切法皆入法性。皆入摩訶衍中。次云。凈名是抑揚轉法輪嘆凡夫有。及覆毀聲聞為敗根。是亦不然。魔事品云。譬如癡犬不從大家求食從作務者索。犬者聲聞人。大家者大乘教。作務者小乘經。大品經應是抑揚教耶。問何故余經不逗緣說此法耶。答大品法華是合明義。涅槃是開明義。所以合明義者。大品直明無所得因無所得果。破眾生有所得心。即便了悟。不須別開緣正因果也。法華直破異因異果。明一因一果。眾生即得了悟。亦不開緣正因果。大經為鈍根眾生聞上合說未悟故。廣開緣正兩因兩果。始得領解。以根緣宜。聞合以取悟則

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不屬於聲聞乘、緣覺乘，但屬於菩薩乘。又《大智度論》中說：『在菩薩心中名為般若（prajna，智慧），在聲聞（sravaka，聽聞佛法者）心中名為道品（bodhipaksika-dharma，菩提分法，即三十七道品）。』如果是三乘（triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）共通的教法，那麼在三乘心中都應該名為般若，不應該有別的名稱。又有人質疑說：『如果三乘共同學習般若，般若是三乘共通的教法，那麼《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中說，三乘人共同觀照中道（madhyama-pratipada，不落兩邊的中正之道），下等智慧觀照就能得到聲聞菩提（sravaka-bodhi，聲聞的覺悟），乃至上上等智慧觀照就能得到佛菩提（Buddha-bodhi，佛的覺悟），也應該是三乘共通的教法。』《大智度論》中說：『在十種大經中，《般若波羅蜜經》（Prajnaparamita Sutra，以般若智慧到達彼岸的經典）最深最大。』《小品般若經》中說：『這部經是為發大乘（mahayana，菩薩乘）心的人說的，為最上乘的人說的。』由此可知，般若不是三乘共通的教法。又有人說：『三乘共同學習般若，這是秘密地會歸於一乘（ekayana，唯一的成佛之道）。』如果因相同，果也應該相同。又有人說：『聲聞、緣覺（pratyekabuddha，不依師自悟者）的智慧和斷惑都是菩薩的無生法忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，對諸法不生不滅的體悟）。』又有人說：『在一切處都找不到一個固定不變的『人』，怎麼能分別有三乘呢？』應當知道，這都是秘密地宣說一乘。還有古老的說法認為，般若已經會歸了『法』，但還沒有會歸『人』。會歸『法』是指一切法都進入法性（dharmata，諸法的本性），都進入摩訶衍（mahayana，大乘）中。接下來又說，《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）是抑揚轉法輪（dharma-cakra，佛法之輪），讚歎凡夫所有，並且貶低聲聞為敗種，這也是不對的。《魔事品》中說：『譬如愚癡的狗不從主人那裡求食，卻向做工的人索取。』狗比喻聲聞人，主人比喻大乘教，做工的人比喻小乘經。《大品般若經》難道是抑揚教嗎？有人問：『為什麼其他的經典不根據眾生的根器來宣說這種法呢？』回答說：《大品般若經》和《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）是合起來闡明意義的，《涅槃經》是分開闡明意義的。之所以合起來闡明意義，是因為《大品般若經》直接闡明無所得的因和無所得的果，破除眾生有所得的心，這樣就能立刻了悟，不需要另外分開闡明緣、正因和果。《法華經》直接破除異因異果，闡明一因一果，眾生就能立刻了悟，也不分開闡明緣、正因和果。《涅槃經》是為鈍根的眾生說的，他們聽了上面合起來說的道理還不能領悟，所以廣泛地分開闡明緣、正兩因兩果，才能開始領會理解。根據根器的不同，聽了合起來說的道理就能領悟，那麼

【English Translation】 English version It does not belong to the two vehicles (sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayana) but belongs to the Bodhisattva vehicle (bodhisattvayana). Furthermore, the Shastra (treatise) says: 'In the mind of a Bodhisattva, it is called Prajna (prajna, wisdom). In the mind of a Sravaka (sravaka, one who hears the Buddha's teachings), it is called the Aids to Enlightenment (bodhipaksika-dharma, the 37 factors of enlightenment).' If it were a teaching common to the three vehicles (triyana, sravakayana, pratyekabuddhayana, and bodhisattvayana), then in the minds of all three vehicles, it should be called Prajna, and there should be no other name. Furthermore, there is a question: 'If the three vehicles commonly study Prajna, and Prajna is a teaching common to the three vehicles, then the Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says that people of the three vehicles commonly contemplate the Middle Way (madhyama-pratipada, the middle path that avoids extremes). Those with lower wisdom attain Sravaka Bodhi (sravaka-bodhi, the enlightenment of a Sravaka) through contemplation, and those with the highest wisdom attain Buddha Bodhi (Buddha-bodhi, the enlightenment of a Buddha) through contemplation. It should also be a teaching common to the three vehicles.' The Shastra says: 'Among the ten great Sutras, the Prajnaparamita Sutra (Prajnaparamita Sutra, the sutra on the perfection of wisdom) is the deepest and greatest.' The Smaller Prajnaparamita Sutra says: 'This Sutra is spoken for those who have aroused the Mahayana (mahayana, the Great Vehicle) mind, and for those of the highest vehicle.' From this, it is known that Prajna is not a teaching common to the three vehicles. Furthermore, it is said: 'The three vehicles commonly study Prajna, which is a secret convergence to the One Vehicle (ekayana, the one vehicle to Buddhahood).' If the cause is the same, the result should also be the same. Furthermore, it is said that the wisdom and severance of afflictions of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas (pratyekabuddha, one who attains enlightenment independently) are all the forbearance of non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti, the realization of the non-arising and non-ceasing nature of all phenomena) of Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, it is said: 'Since a fixed 'person' cannot be found anywhere, how can there be a distinction of three vehicles?' It should be known that this is a secret teaching of the One Vehicle. Furthermore, the old interpretation is that Prajna has already converged the 'Dharma' but has not yet converged the 'person.' Converging the 'Dharma' means that all dharmas enter the Dharma-nature (dharmata, the nature of phenomena), and all enter the Mahayana. Next, it is said that the Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra) is a teaching that praises the virtues of the Buddha and disparages the Sravakas, but this is also incorrect. The 'Chapter on Demonic Affairs' says: 'It is like a foolish dog that does not seek food from its master but seeks it from the workers.' The dog is a metaphor for Sravakas, the master is a metaphor for the Mahayana teachings, and the workers are a metaphor for the Hinayana Sutras. Is the Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra a teaching of praise and disparagement? Someone asks: 'Why do other Sutras not teach this Dharma according to the capacities of beings?' The answer is: 'The Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra and the Lotus Sutra (Lotus Sutra) explain the meaning together, while the Nirvana Sutra explains the meaning separately. The reason for explaining the meaning together is that the Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra directly explains the cause of non-attainment and the result of non-attainment, breaking the mind of beings that seeks attainment, so that they can immediately awaken without needing to separately explain the conditions, the direct cause, and the result. The Lotus Sutra directly breaks the different causes and different results, explaining one cause and one result, so that beings can immediately awaken without separately explaining the conditions, the direct cause, and the result. The Nirvana Sutra is spoken for beings of dull faculties who, after hearing the above explanations, still cannot understand, so it extensively explains the conditions, the two causes, and the two results separately, so that they can begin to comprehend. According to the different faculties, if they can awaken by hearing the combined explanations, then

為之合。應聞開以受道故為之開也。問就大品法華華嚴正有緣正文以不。答傍有此義。釋論解方便品云。般若為種子是正因。五度等為水是緣因。能生菩提果樹。又大品已有明佛性義。亦有緣正因義也。法華中。明眾生有佛性。即正因。萬行等是緣因。華嚴中正法性起文云。微塵中有一經卷。一經卷中廣記一切事。此即是眾生身中有佛性。破微塵出經卷。即是除煩惱見佛性也。佛性既是正因。諸菩薩修行四十心十地等。即是緣因也。問若皆有緣正二因者。云何有四種之異。答但眾經皆有傍正二義。般若廣破有所得。明無依無得。為正宗。佛性一乘為其傍義。法華廣明一因一果為其正宗。無所得及佛性為其傍義。涅槃廣明佛性常住。為斥無常之病為其正宗。一乘及無所得為其傍義。又眾經逗緣不同。互相開避。般若已廣明無所得實相。故法華不明之。未廣說一乘因果故廣明之。法華已明一乘因果。故涅槃不廣明之。未廣明佛性常住故廣說之。又只是一道三義。說之無境不照義故名般若。真極無二義稱為妙法。常恒不變義目為涅槃。又在菩薩心故名般若。在佛心故名薩般若。具在佛菩薩心故名一乘。又須領眾經顯道無異而作異名說之。如大品。作般若之名。不作一乘及佛性之目。法華作一乘之名。不作般若佛性之稱。乃至

涅槃亦然也。

感應第二。有三義。感應者乃是佛法之大宗。眾經之綱要。言感者牽召義。應者赴接義。眾生有善致彼佛前。垂形赴接。理無乖越。謂之感應。凡夫感而不應。諸佛應而不感。菩薩亦應亦感。感者不同。略有四種。一者感形不感聲。但見佛不聞法。二者感聲不感形。直聞教不見佛。三者形聲俱感。見佛聞法。四者不見佛不聞法。直感神力密益。感應體第二。問三世善何善感耶。答有人言。未來善感。若爾者未來佛應不現在佛應。又言。現在善感。亦言。過去善感。又言。惡感。有人善感。有人善惡共感。若言惡能感者。一切起惡眾生。何故不見佛。若言善能感佛。眾生既有善根。盡能得道。何用佛為。如無病何用藥師為。善惡俱感者。一切眾生皆有善惡。寧不感佛在六道受苦。今明。三世善感。過去現在為正感。未來為傍感。故經云。過去久修善根。及今唸佛得見如來。今明。善惡感者。將滅惡可生善。問與他感應何異。答今明。感是應義。應以感為義。感應相由。是因緣。問佛為有應法起息應名滅。為無應法起而云滅耶。答自古爰今凡有三解。開菩藏師。用弼公義。眾生於法身上見有生滅。佛實無生滅。故經云。慈善根力令彼見之。指實無師子。莊嚴旻法師云。別有應法起。故以本垂跡為生。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本涅槃也是如此。

感應第二。有三種意義。感應是佛法的大綱宗要，是眾多經典的總綱。所謂『感』，是牽引、招致的意思；『應』，是赴約、接應的意思。眾生有善行，能招致佛陀前來，垂下身形來接應，道理上沒有差錯，這就叫做感應。凡夫只能感而不能應，諸佛只能應而不能感，菩薩既能應又能感。感的方式不同，略有四種：一是感應佛的形體而不感應佛的聲音，只能見到佛而聽不到佛法；二是感應佛的聲音而不感應佛的形體，只能聽到教誨而見不到佛；三是形體和聲音都能感應，既能見到佛又能聽到佛法；四是既見不到佛也聽不到佛法，直接感應到佛的神力，得到秘密的利益。感應的本體是第二種。

問：三世的善行，哪一種善行才能感應呢？答：有人說，是未來的善行才能感應。如果這樣說，那麼未來的佛應該不應驗，現在的佛也應該不應驗。又有人說，是現在的善行才能感應。也有人說，是過去的善行才能感應。還有人說，是惡行才能感應。有人說是善行才能感應，有人說是善惡共同作用才能感應。如果說惡行能夠感應，那麼一切作惡的眾生，為什麼見不到佛呢？如果說善行能夠感應佛，眾生既然有善根，都應該能夠得道，那還要佛做什麼呢？就像沒有病，要藥師佛做什麼呢？如果說善惡共同作用才能感應，一切眾生都有善惡，難道不應該感應到佛而在六道中受苦嗎？現在說明，三世的善行都能感應，過去和現在的善行為正感，未來為傍感。所以經典上說，過去長久修習善根，以及現在念佛，才能得見如來。現在說明，善惡感應，是將要滅除惡行，可以生出善行。

問：這與他人的感應有什麼不同？答：現在說明，感就是應的意義，應以感為意義。感應相互依存，是因緣。

問：佛是有應法生起息滅，應名為滅，還是沒有應法生起而說滅呢？答：自古以來有三種解釋。開寶藏師，用弼公的意義，眾生在法身上見到有生滅，佛實際上沒有生滅。所以經典上說，慈善根的力量使他們見到這些。指實無師子。莊嚴旻法師說，另外有應法生起，所以用本垂跡為生。

【English Translation】 English version Nirvana is also like this.

The second is responsiveness. There are three meanings. Responsiveness is the great principle of Buddhism and the outline of many scriptures. 『Responsiveness』 means to attract and summon; 『response』 means to go to and receive. If sentient beings have good deeds, they can attract the Buddha to come and lower his form to receive them. There is no error in principle, and this is called responsiveness. Ordinary people can only sense but cannot respond, while Buddhas can only respond but cannot sense. Bodhisattvas can both respond and sense. There are different ways of sensing, roughly four types: First, sensing the form of the Buddha but not the sound of the Buddha, only seeing the Buddha but not hearing the Dharma; second, sensing the sound of the Buddha but not the form of the Buddha, only hearing the teachings but not seeing the Buddha; third, sensing both form and sound, seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma; fourth, neither seeing the Buddha nor hearing the Dharma, but directly sensing the divine power of the Buddha and receiving secret benefits. The essence of responsiveness is the second type.

Question: Which of the good deeds of the three times can be sensed? Answer: Some say that future good deeds can be sensed. If this is the case, then the future Buddha should not be effective, and the present Buddha should not be effective either. Others say that present good deeds can be sensed. Still others say that past good deeds can be sensed. Some also say that evil deeds can be sensed. Some say that good deeds can be sensed, while others say that good and evil deeds together can be sensed. If it is said that evil deeds can be sensed, then why do all sentient beings who commit evil not see the Buddha? If it is said that good deeds can sense the Buddha, since sentient beings have good roots, they should all be able to attain enlightenment, so what is the need for the Buddha? It's like having no illness, what is the need for the Medicine Buddha? If it is said that good and evil deeds together can be sensed, all sentient beings have both good and evil, shouldn't they sense the Buddha and suffer in the six realms? Now it is explained that good deeds of the three times can be sensed, with past and present good deeds being the primary sense, and future good deeds being the secondary sense. Therefore, the scriptures say that one can see the Tathagata by cultivating good roots for a long time in the past and by reciting the Buddha's name now. Now it is explained that the sensing of good and evil is to eliminate evil deeds and generate good deeds.

Question: What is the difference between this and the responsiveness of others? Answer: Now it is explained that sensing is the meaning of response, and response takes sensing as its meaning. Sensing and response are interdependent, which is cause and condition.

Question: Does the Buddha have responsive dharmas arising and ceasing, and response is called extinction, or are there no responsive dharmas arising and extinction is spoken of? Answer: Since ancient times, there have been three explanations. The Kaibaozang teacher used Bi Gong's meaning, that sentient beings see arising and ceasing in the Dharmakaya, but the Buddha actually has no arising and ceasing. Therefore, the scriptures say that the power of charitable roots allows them to see these. Pointing to the real without a lion. The Zhuangyan Min Dharma master said that there are other responsive dharmas arising, so using the original traces as arising.

息跡歸本稱滅。如經云。金翅鳥王。上升虛空。觀彼水性。及見己影。即其證也。招提琰云。具有二義。今正明。為異論紛綸。或言實滅。或言不實滅。或言有應法起。或言無起。並是諍論。是故龍樹出世破之。諸見若息。然後乃識因緣假名無方大用。非起非不起。亦起亦不起。亦非非起非非不起。適緣而用。得諸善巧。雖具諸義。亦不同舊說。蓋是起無所起名為不起。不起而起名之為起。不可聞起定作起解聞不起定作不起解也。問由佛滅度故眾生起迷。若不滅則不起迷。則咎于佛。答智度論云。佛有三時利益眾生。一為菩薩時。二得佛時。三滅度時。華嚴經云。欲令眾生生歡喜故。現王宮生。欲令眾生生戀慕善。示雙林滅。既云三時益物。知緣自起迷。佛無過耳。問為習因善感為報因善感。答云。習因正感。報因傍感。見佛生樂受故。問善惡感佛者。為善正感為惡正感。答善正感惡傍感。問有人言。無別應起。但法身上見丈六。此何耶。答違經文。大經云。金翅鳥王。飛昇虛空。下觀水性。及見己影。虛空是法身佛。金翅鳥是報身佛。及見己影是化身佛。表應部第三。佛滅度後有形像及經書。此名錶應。非為正應。所以然者。以丈六及言教觀機而現。既其應機。應謂之正應。眾生見聞之後故。造像表其所見。書寫傳

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『息跡歸本』稱之為『滅』。正如經文所說：『金翅鳥王（Garuda，一種神鳥），上升到虛空，觀察水的本性，並且看見自己的影子』，這就是證明。招提琰（Zhaoti Yan，人名，此處指其著作）說，其中具有兩種含義。現在要明確說明，因為存在各種不同的議論，有人說『實滅』，有人說『不實滅』，有人說『有應法生起』，有人說『沒有生起』，這些都是爭論。所以龍樹（Nagarjuna，佛教哲學家）出世來破除這些觀點。各種見解平息之後，才能認識到因緣假名（hetu-pratyaya，空性的表現形式）的無方大用，非起非不起，亦起亦不起，亦非非起非非不起，適應因緣而運用，獲得各種善巧。雖然具備各種含義，也不同於舊的說法。大概是生起而無所生起，稱之為『不起』；不起而生起，稱之為『起』。不可聽到『起』就一定理解為『起』，聽到『不起』就一定理解為『不起』。問：由於佛（Buddha）滅度，所以眾生生起迷惑。如果不滅度，就不會生起迷惑，那麼這就是佛的過錯嗎？答：《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra，佛教論典）說，佛有三個時期利益眾生：一是作為菩薩（Bodhisattva）時，二是成佛時，三是滅度時。《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra，大乘佛教經典）說，爲了讓眾生生起歡喜的緣故，示現在王宮出生；爲了讓眾生生起戀慕善法的緣故，示現在雙林滅度。既然說三個時期都利益眾生，就知道迷惑是因緣自身生起的，佛沒有過錯。問：是習因（habitual cause）的善感，還是報因（resultant cause）的善感？答：是習因正感，報因傍感。見到佛而生起快樂的感受，就是如此。問：善惡感應佛，是善正感，還是惡正感？答：善正感，惡傍感。問：有人說，沒有別的應化生起，只是在法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）上見到丈六金身（佛像）。這是什麼意思？答：這違背了經文。《大經》（Mahayana sutra，大乘經典）說：『金翅鳥王，飛昇到虛空，向下觀察水的本性，並且看見自己的影子。』虛空是法身佛，金翅鳥是報身佛（Sambhogakaya，佛的報應身），看見自己的影子是化身佛（Nirmanakaya，佛的化身）。這表明應化部的第三種含義。佛滅度後有形像以及經書，這叫做表應，不是正應。為什麼這樣說呢？因為丈六金身以及言教是觀察眾生的根機而顯現的。既然是應合根機，就應該稱之為正應。眾生見聞之後，所以造像來表達他們所見到的，書寫來傳揚。

【English Translation】 English version 『Cessation of traces returning to the origin』 is called 『extinction』. As the sutra says: 『The Garuda King (a mythical bird), ascends into the void, observes the nature of water, and sees his own reflection,』 this is the proof. Zhaoti Yan says that it has two meanings. Now it needs to be clarified, because there are various different arguments, some say 『real extinction』, some say 『unreal extinction』, some say 『the arising of responsive dharmas』, some say 『no arising』, these are all disputes. Therefore, Nagarjuna appeared in the world to break these views. After the various views are pacified, then one can recognize the boundless great function of dependent origination and provisional names (hetu-pratyaya, the manifestation of emptiness), neither arising nor not arising, both arising and not arising, neither not arising nor not not arising, adapting to conditions and using them, obtaining various skillful means. Although it possesses various meanings, it is also different from the old sayings. It is probably arising without anything arising, called 『non-arising』; not arising and yet arising, called 『arising』. One should not hear 『arising』 and definitely understand it as 『arising』, hear 『non-arising』 and definitely understand it as 『non-arising』. Question: Because the Buddha (Buddha) passed into extinction, sentient beings arise delusion. If he did not pass into extinction, they would not arise delusion, then is this the Buddha's fault? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (a Buddhist treatise) says that the Buddha benefits sentient beings in three periods: one is when he is a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva), the second is when he becomes a Buddha, and the third is when he passes into extinction. The Avatamsaka Sutra (a Mahayana Buddhist scripture) says that in order to make sentient beings rejoice, he manifests birth in the royal palace; in order to make sentient beings cherish good dharmas, he manifests extinction in the twin trees. Since it is said that all three periods benefit sentient beings, it is known that delusion arises from conditions themselves, and the Buddha is not at fault. Question: Is it the good feeling of habitual cause, or the good feeling of resultant cause? Answer: It is the habitual cause that is directly felt, and the resultant cause that is indirectly felt. Seeing the Buddha and giving rise to a feeling of joy is like this. Question: When good and evil respond to the Buddha, is it good that directly responds, or evil that directly responds? Answer: Good directly responds, evil indirectly responds. Question: Some people say that there is no other responsive transformation arising, but only seeing the sixteen-foot golden body (Buddha image) on the Dharmakaya (the Dharma-nature body of the Buddha). What does this mean? Answer: This violates the sutra text. The Mahayana sutra says: 『The Garuda King, flies up into the void, looks down at the nature of water, and sees his own reflection.』 The void is the Dharmakaya Buddha, the Garuda is the Sambhogakaya Buddha (the reward body of the Buddha), and seeing his own reflection is the Nirmanakaya Buddha (the transformation body of the Buddha). This indicates the third meaning of the responsive transformation section. After the Buddha's extinction, there are images and scriptures, this is called representative response, not the correct response. Why is this so? Because the sixteen-foot golden body and the teachings are manifested by observing the faculties of sentient beings. Since it is in accordance with the faculties, it should be called the correct response. After sentient beings see and hear, they create images to express what they have seen, and write to spread it.

其所聞。既有由眾生非正由佛。故為表應非正應也。今若相從說者。亦入應中。何以知之。形像既相從入佛寶。何為不得相從入應。經書雖是正法。既由眾生書寫。亦相從應也。問諸佛菩薩體不二。能應者未詳不二。是何等法。答成論師真諦謂為不二法門。智度論師謂實相般若。地論師用阿梨耶識。攝論師真諦三藏即阿摩羅識。四宗之內。初二約境。后二據心。雖識境義殊。而同超四句。故釋迦掩室于摩竭。凈名杜口于毗耶。斯皆謂為神御故。口以之而默。豈曰無辨辨所不能言也。今明。乃是不可言境心。不可言不境心。中道佛性理也。問何位菩薩能真俗並觀。應物顯形如水中月濟度人耶。答靈味師云。初地得無生即能真俗並觀。什肇師云。七地並觀。成論師云。八地並觀。今謂。從初發心則學無生習於並觀。故涅槃云。發心畢竟二不別。有四重階級。一者對地前。凡位但明順忍未有無生亦未能真俗並。初地稱聖。始得無生。二觀方並。仁王攝論並有此文。二者初地已上六地已還無生尚淺。與順忍之名。至於七地稱等定慧地。始是無生名為並觀。智度論云。前三地慧多定少。后三地定多慧少。故定慧不等。至於七地定慧均平。云等定慧地。此說般若靜鑒為定。方便動照為慧。六地妙于靜觀拙於涉動。故定慧未均。至於

【現代漢語翻譯】其所聽聞。既然有眾生並非直接由佛陀教導，所以說這是爲了表明應化身並非真正的佛身。現在如果按照相隨的說法，也應歸入應化身中。為什麼這麼說呢？佛像既然可以隨順地歸入佛寶，為什麼經書就不能隨順地歸入應化身呢？經書雖然是正法，但既然是由眾生書寫，也應隨順地歸入應化身。問：諸佛菩薩的本體沒有差別，但能示現應化身者，其未詳的不二法門，是何種法？答：成論師真諦（Paramārtha）認為是不二法門，智度論師認為是實相般若（Prajñāpāramitā），地論師用地論宗的阿梨耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna），攝論師真諦三藏認為是阿摩羅識（Amala-vijñāna）。四宗之中，前兩種是就境界而言，后兩種是就心識而言。雖然識與境的意義不同，但都超越了四句（四種邏輯判斷）。所以釋迦牟尼佛（Śākyamuni）在摩竭陀國（Magadha）掩室，維摩詰（Vimalakīrti）在毗耶離城（Vaiśālī）杜口不言，這些都可說是神妙的運用，所以口才因此而沉默，難道是說沒有辯才，而是辯才無法表達嗎？現在說明，乃是不可言說的境與心，不可言說的不境與心，是中道佛性（Buddha-dhātu）的道理。問：什麼地位的菩薩能夠真正地真俗並觀，應物顯形如同水中月亮一樣濟度世人呢？答：靈味師說，初地菩薩得到無生法忍（anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti）就能真俗並觀。鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）和僧肇（Sengzhao）法師說，七地菩薩才能並觀。成論師說，八地菩薩才能並觀。現在認為，從最初發心就學習無生法忍，習慣於並觀。所以《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）說，『發心畢竟二不別』。有四重階級：第一重是針對十地前的凡夫位，只是明白順忍，還沒有無生法忍，也不能真俗並觀。初地菩薩稱為聖人，才開始得到無生法忍，開始真俗二觀同時進行。仁王經（Renwangjing）和攝大乘論（Saṃgraha-mahāyāna）都有此文。第二重是初地以上到六地菩薩，無生法忍還很淺，還帶有順忍的名稱。到了七地菩薩，稱為等定慧地，才是真正的無生法忍，名為並觀。《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）說，前三地菩薩慧多定少，后三地菩薩定多慧少，所以定慧不相等。到了七地菩薩，定慧均等，稱為等定慧地。這裡說般若（Prajñā）的靜照為定，方便（Upāya）的動照為慧。六地菩薩擅長靜觀，不擅長涉入世間活動，所以定慧不均等。到了七地菩薩，

【English Translation】 What was heard. Since there are sentient beings not directly taught by the Buddha, it is said to indicate that the manifested body is not the true Buddha body. Now, if we follow the explanation of 'following along,' it should also be included in the manifested body. Why is that? Since the Buddha image can be included in the Buddha Jewel, why can't the scriptures be included in the manifested body? Although the scriptures are the true Dharma, since they are written by sentient beings, they should also be included in the manifested body. Question: The essence of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is not different, but those who can manifest responsive bodies, what is the unexplained non-dual Dharma? Answer: The Satyasiddhi School's Paramārtha believes it is the non-dual Dharma gate. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa School believes it is the Reality Prajñā. The Daśabhūmika-sūtra School uses the Ālaya-vijñāna. The Saṃgraha-mahāyāna School's Paramārtha Tripiṭaka believes it is the Amala-vijñāna. Among the four schools, the first two are based on the realm, and the latter two are based on consciousness. Although the meanings of consciousness and realm are different, they all transcend the four propositions (four logical judgments). Therefore, Śākyamuni Buddha closed his room in Magadha, and Vimalakīrti remained silent in Vaiśālī. These can all be said to be miraculous applications, so eloquence is silenced because of this. Is it that there is no eloquence, or is it that eloquence cannot express it? Now, it is explained that it is the inexpressible realm and mind, the inexpressible non-realm and mind, which is the principle of the Middle Way Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu). Question: What level of Bodhisattva can truly observe both truth and convention simultaneously, manifesting forms in response to beings like the moon in water to liberate people? Answer: Master Lingwei said that the Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi, having attained the Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti (patience with the non-arising of phenomena), can observe both truth and convention simultaneously. Kumārajīva and Sengzhao said that the Bodhisattva of the seventh Bhumi can observe simultaneously. The Satyasiddhi School said that the Bodhisattva of the eighth Bhumi can observe simultaneously. Now, it is believed that from the initial aspiration, one learns Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti and becomes accustomed to observing simultaneously. Therefore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'The initial aspiration and the ultimate attainment are not different.' There are four levels: The first level is for ordinary beings before the ten Bhumis, who only understand forbearance and do not yet have Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti, nor can they observe both truth and convention simultaneously. The Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi is called a sage, and only then begins to attain Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti, and begins to observe both truth and convention simultaneously. The Renwangjing and the Saṃgraha-mahāyāna both have this text. The second level is from the first Bhumi to the sixth Bhumi, where Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti is still shallow and still carries the name of forbearance. When reaching the seventh Bhumi, it is called the Samatā-dhyāna-prajñā-bhūmi (ground of equal concentration and wisdom), which is the true Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti, called simultaneous observation. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that in the first three Bhumis, wisdom is more than concentration, and in the latter three Bhumis, concentration is more than wisdom, so concentration and wisdom are not equal. When reaching the seventh Bhumi, concentration and wisdom are equal, called the Samatā-dhyāna-prajñā-bhūmi. Here, the still contemplation of Prajñā is said to be concentration, and the active illumination of Upāya is said to be wisdom. The Bodhisattva of the sixth Bhumi is skilled in still contemplation but unskilled in engaging in worldly activities, so concentration and wisdom are not equal. When reaching the seventh Bhumi,

七地則二用俱巧。名等定慧地。三者七地雖得無生已能並觀。但猶有功用。八地于功用心。永不復生名無生。四者八地雖無功用。猶未究竟。究竟無生。在於佛位。方便品云。久于佛道心已純熟。當知。是佛地無生金粟如來則依斯文已顯。無生具在四處。眾師偏執一。徒以失其旨。

凈土第三。有二義。一通二別。凈土者。蓋是諸佛菩薩之所棲域。眾生之所歸總談佛土凡有五種。一凈二不凈三不凈凈四凈不凈五者雜土。所言凈者。菩薩以善法化眾生。眾生具受善法。同構善緣。得純凈土言不凈者。若眾生造惡緣感穢土也。凈不凈者。初是凈土。此眾生緣盡。后惡眾生來。則土變成不凈也。不凈凈者。不凈緣盡。后凈眾生來。則土變成凈。如彌勒與之釋迦也。言雜土者。眾生具起善惡二業。故感凈穢雜土。此五皆是眾生自業所起。應名眾生土。但佛有王化之功。故名佛土。然報土既五。應土亦然。報據眾生業感。應就如來所現。故合有十土。就凈土中更開四位。一凡聖同居土。如彌勒出時凡聖共在凈土內住。亦如西方九品往生為凡。復有三乘賢聖也。二大小同住土。謂羅漢辟支及大力菩薩。舍三界分段身。生界外凈土中也。三獨菩薩所住土。謂菩薩道過二乘。居土亦異。如香積世界。無二乘名。亦如七寶世界。純

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本七地菩薩在運用智慧和方便時都非常巧妙，因此也被稱為『等定慧地』（指智慧、禪定等同的境界）。第三點，七地菩薩雖然已經證得『無生』（不生不滅的境界），也能夠同時觀察世間萬法，但仍然需要努力修行。而八地菩薩則不再需要刻意用心，自然而然地處於『無生』的狀態，所以稱為『無生』。第四點，八地菩薩雖然已經不需要刻意努力，但還沒有達到究竟圓滿的境界。究竟圓滿的『無生』境界，只有在佛的果位才能達到。《方便品》中說，『長久修習佛道，心已純熟』，應當明白，這就是佛的境界。『無生金粟如來』（指佛的別稱）的說法，已經通過這些經文顯明，『無生』的境界存在於四個不同的階段。有些法師只執著于其中一個階段，反而失去了經文的真正含義。關於凈土，有通和別兩種含義。所謂『凈土』（清凈的國土），是諸佛菩薩居住的地方，也是眾生最終歸宿的地方。總的來說，佛土可以分為五種：一、凈土；二、不凈土；三、不凈凈土；四、凈不凈土；五、雜土。所謂的『凈土』，是指菩薩用善良的教法來教化眾生，眾生也接受這些善良的教法，共同創造善良的因緣，從而得到的純凈的國土。所謂『不凈土』，是指眾生造作惡業，從而感召到的污穢的國土。『凈不凈土』，最初是凈土，但由於居住在此的眾生的善緣已盡，後來有作惡的眾生來到這裡，這片國土就變成了不凈土。『不凈凈土』，是指不凈的因緣已經結束，後來有清凈的眾生來到這裡，這片國土就變成了凈土，比如彌勒（未來佛）所教化的國土和釋迦（釋迦摩尼佛）所教化的國土。所謂『雜土』，是指眾生既有善業，也有惡業，所以感召到的國土既有清凈的部分，也有污穢的部分。這五種國土都是眾生各自的業力所產生的，應該稱為『眾生土』。但由於佛有教化眾生的功德，所以也稱為『佛土』。既然報土有五種，應土也應該有五種。報土是根據眾生的業力感召而來的，應土是根據如來所顯現的。所以合起來共有十種國土。在凈土中，還可以進一步分為四個層次：一、凡聖同居土，比如彌勒佛出世的時候，凡人和聖人共同居住在凈土之中。又比如西方極樂世界的九品往生，其中有凡人，也有聲聞、緣覺、菩薩等聖人。二、大小同住土，指的是阿羅漢（斷絕煩惱，證入涅槃的聖人）、辟支佛（又稱獨覺，不依師教，自己悟道的聖人）以及大力菩薩，他們捨棄了三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的分段生死之身，往生到界外的凈土之中。三、獨菩薩所住土，指的是菩薩的修行境界超過了聲聞和緣覺，他們所居住的國土也與聲聞和緣覺不同，比如香積世界，沒有聲聞和緣覺的名字，又比如七寶世界，純粹是

【English Translation】 English version At the seventh Bhumi (stage of Bodhisattva), both wisdom and skillful means are perfectly employed, hence it is named 'Equal Dhyana-Prajna Bhumi' (a state where wisdom and meditation are equal). Thirdly, although the seventh Bhumi has attained 'non-origination' (the state of not being born or ceasing), it can also observe all phenomena simultaneously, but still requires effort. The eighth Bhumi no longer requires conscious effort, naturally being in the state of 'non-origination', hence it is called 'non-origination'. Fourthly, although the eighth Bhumi no longer requires conscious effort, it has not yet reached the ultimate perfection. Ultimate perfection of 'non-origination' is only attained at the Buddha's stage. The 'Expedient Means' chapter says, 'Having cultivated the Buddha path for a long time, the mind is already pure and mature.' It should be understood that this is the Buddha's state. The saying 'Non-origination Golden Grain Tathagata' (an epithet of the Buddha) has already been revealed through these scriptures, indicating that the state of 'non-origination' exists in four different stages. Some teachers are only attached to one of these stages, thus losing the true meaning of the scriptures. Regarding Pure Land, there are two meanings: general and specific. 'Pure Land' (pure realm) is the place where all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas reside, and also the final destination for sentient beings. Generally speaking, Buddha lands can be divided into five types: 1. Pure Land; 2. Impure Land; 3. Impure-Pure Land; 4. Pure-Impure Land; 5. Mixed Land. 'Pure Land' refers to the pure land obtained when Bodhisattvas use virtuous teachings to transform sentient beings, and sentient beings accept these virtuous teachings, jointly creating virtuous causes. 'Impure Land' refers to the defiled land that sentient beings experience as a result of creating evil karma. 'Pure-Impure Land' initially is a pure land, but because the virtuous conditions of the sentient beings residing there have been exhausted, and later evil sentient beings come to reside there, this land becomes an impure land. 'Impure-Pure Land' refers to when impure conditions have ended, and later pure sentient beings come to reside there, this land becomes a pure land, such as the lands taught by Maitreya (the future Buddha) and Shakyamuni (Shakyamuni Buddha). 'Mixed Land' refers to the land that sentient beings experience as a result of having both virtuous and evil karma, so the land has both pure and defiled aspects. These five types of lands are all produced by the karma of sentient beings, and should be called 'Sentient Being Lands'. However, because the Buddha has the merit of teaching sentient beings, they are also called 'Buddha Lands'. Since there are five types of reward lands, there should also be five types of manifested lands. Reward lands are based on the karma of sentient beings, while manifested lands are based on what the Tathagata manifests. Therefore, there are a total of ten types of lands. Within Pure Land, it can be further divided into four levels: 1. Land of Co-dwelling of Ordinary Beings and Sages, such as when Maitreya Buddha appears in the world, ordinary beings and sages co-reside in the Pure Land. Also, like the nine grades of rebirth in the Western Pure Land, there are ordinary beings, as well as Sravakas (Arhats, those who have cut off afflictions and entered Nirvana), Pratyekabuddhas (also known as Solitary Buddhas, those who attain enlightenment on their own without a teacher), and Bodhisattvas. 2. Land of Co-dwelling of Great and Small, refers to Arhats (saints who have cut off afflictions and entered Nirvana), Pratyekabuddhas (also called Solitary Buddhas, saints who attain enlightenment on their own without a teacher) and powerful Bodhisattvas, who abandon the segmented life and death bodies of the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) and are reborn in the Pure Land beyond the realms. 3. Land Dwelled in Exclusively by Bodhisattvas, refers to the Bodhisattvas' level of cultivation exceeding that of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, and the lands they reside in are also different from those of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, such as the Land of Fragrant Accumulation, where there are no names of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, and like the Seven Treasure World, which is purely

諸菩薩也。四諸佛獨居土。如仁王云。三賢十聖住果報。唯佛一人居凈土。諸凈土位不出此四。即從劣至勝為次第。問以何為土體。答土體有三。一相論其體有五。謂化處凈化主凈教門凈徒眾凈時節凈。無刀兵等。二若就三世間明土世間。則以七珍為體。三者豎論義。望道而言。土以不土為體。要由不土方得有土。即以有空義故。一切法得成也。攝論師云。識所變異是凈土。以心為體。今明。有三種。若是法身凈土。以中道為體。亦是報佛凈土。七珍為體。亦是化身凈土。以應色為體。通而為論。皆是中道為體。以二是用。有人言。佛無凈土。但應眾生報。以化主為言。故言佛土耳。此是成論師意。非經論所明。經論云佛無凈土者。無分段變易凈土。有凈土者。乃是萬行所得真常凈土。故經言法身凈土是真成凈土。報佛凈土。經論處處皆明凈土。問有人言。凈土二處二質。如西方凈土與此穢土。二者二質一處。三者一質二處。如凈名云。斷取妙喜凈土。置此穢土中。且是一土在彼復來此。故一質二處。如是四師各成諍論。今明。各有其義。莫執一邊傷其義味。身子見穢土。梵王見真成凈土。上文十七句所明凈土是報土。足指案地等凈土是應土。余文可知。問經云。眾生見燒盡吾凈土不燒。是何凈土耶。答羅什云。是異

質同處義。凈穢粗細不同。故不相礙。如首真天子身不礙於地。又如無間地獄雖百千共處亦不違妨。又如醍醐不礙粗器。況凈穢二質而相妨耶。故燒穢不燒凈土。佛開三身。以身例土。亦有三土。又仁王云。唯佛一人居凈土。攝論云。真如即是佛所住。法華論亦明真如常住為土。問經云一質異見。是何物一質耶。答一質多種。若以一實相為一質。以失實相故有六道異見。大經云。是一味藥。隨其流處有六種差別。如人見水即有三塵。一鬼見於火。倒心所感故成水火二見。如人見恒河為水。鬼見為火。天見為地。魚見窟宅。凈穢亦爾。業不同故見凈穢。實無如此凈穢。此是中道土質凈穢二緣見其二土。攝論師明。皆唯識為凈土體。就跡為論。一質二見者。身子見佛土穢。但見人土。梵王見天土。而佛土非人天土。如經云寶莊嚴土。而況釋迦真土。問一質二見可然。復凈質見穢。穢被燒凈燒不耶。答惡業故見不凈燒。而凈實不燒也。問凈質壞者穢亦壞不耶。答穢隨壞也。于凈寄見穢耳。以凈壞故即穢緣無所見。如鬼本於水見火水竭不見火也。于穢質見凈亦然。第二別論西方凈土有五之別。一常無常者。有人言。此經猶是無常覆相說常。與法華相似。今明常住。文云。究竟一乘至於彼岸。故知。是常。依論種種說常。二明三

界非三界者。如釋論所明。在地不名色界。無慾染故不名欲界。有色形故不名無色。經云無須彌山大海江河。故知無三界。文云。佛問彌勒阿難。汝見彼國於地以上至於凈居天。其中所有微妙嚴凈自然之物不。阿難對曰。唯然。已見。既言已見。不得無三界。自在物機不可定判。斯則無粗三界有細三界耳。第三有聲聞無聲聞者。經云有得阿羅漢果。解釋不同。一云。下輩生於花中退菩提心。出生之後受二乘果。實有聲聞。二云。法藏比丘設愿。愿國中無有聲聞二乘之名。今言聲聞者。仍本為名。實無聲聞。今謂。如香積佛國。無有聲聞之名。今此經言有。故應有聲聞。第四有天人無天人者。經云非天非人。若依此文。則是一相。豈可分別是人是天。而文云因順余方故有人天之名者。此有時勝者為天。劣者為人。欲引穢土人天生於凈土。實無人天別也。第五有胎生無胎生者。皆應化生。應無胎生。而經言下輩受胎生者。此非胞胎。于花臺中久不出故言胎生。非實胎生。禽獸之類亦如是。實無禽獸而有應禽獸。故經云池中有鳧雁等也。

論跡五門。

一明破申大意　二明四論宗旨　三明經論能所　四明釋中觀論名　五明論緣起

大師讀此論。遍數不同形勢非一。今略出十條。一者有時明四論宗旨。釋

中觀名題。解經論相資諦智傍正破申近遠。然後乃入論文。所以然者。欲明義有詮次文參渙然稟學門徒尋求易曉。二者在論初直爾散說大意。仍進論文。此欲提綱振領揚略要旨。裕其玄莫彰至其後發。三者先盛解二諦竟即釋論文。明佛說二諦以表正道。今論以二諦為宗推功有在也。四者前明二智后入論文。明佛以二智說教。菩薩今以權實顯正破邪。故須斷簡二智也。五者彈碩古今破斥異部。所以然者。自古迄今。凡諸製作。並不稟龍樹之風。皆是斷常。擾于至道故。須廣破始得讀文也。六者前讀關河舊序。如影睿所作。所以然者。為即世人云。數論前興。三論后出。欲示關河相傳師宗有在非今始構也。七者或直唱無行佛藏等經。然後入論。欲明經論相成共顯一道。經旨可見。論意易明也。八者對訶梨所造旃延之作。欲明大小軀分得無得異也。九者或面折異學。仍即入論。欲使執固者改迷慕位者深悟。十者或直爾披文更無別說。欲明此論出自菩薩中心精破妙解蘊在文內。輒抽拙意何以加此。故直讀文也。法師所以講論有多形勢者。略有三義。一者明法師善識根緣調停物性稟悟既甚多種。演暢亦復不窮。二者欲異他人。他人立義定作一說。聽者唯作一解了無轉悟。今明。諸法無一定相。豈唯一種。三者龍樹提婆妙思深遠權

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中觀論題目的解釋。解釋經文和論典，需要憑藉諦智，從側面和正面進行破斥和闡述，由近及遠。然後才進入論文的研讀。這樣做的原因如下：第一，爲了闡明義理有其內在的邏輯順序，而文字則可能顯得分散而不夠清晰，這樣可以方便學習者更容易理解。第二，有些講解在開始時直接散說大意，然後才進入論文。這樣做是爲了提綱挈領，先概括要旨，然後在後面再詳細闡發其玄妙之處。第三，先詳細解釋二諦（satya-dvaya），然後才解釋論文。闡明佛陀宣說二諦是爲了表明正道。現在本論以二諦為宗旨，說明其作用所在。第四，先闡明二智（dve-jnane），然後才進入論文。闡明佛陀以二智說法，菩薩現在用權智和實智來顯明正道，破斥邪說。所以需要簡要地說明二智。第五，駁斥古今的各種觀點，破斥不同的部派。這樣做的原因是，自古至今，所有的著作，都不符合龍樹（Nagarjuna）的風格，都落入斷見和常見，擾亂了至高的真理。所以需要廣泛地破斥，才能開始閱讀論文。第六，先讀關河的舊序，如影睿所作。這樣做是爲了告訴世人，數論（Samkhya）在前興起，三論（Tri-sastra）在後出現。想要表明關河相傳，師承有序，不是現在才開始構建的。第七，或者直接宣唱《無行經》、《佛藏經》等經典，然後進入論典。想要表明經和論相互成就，共同闡明一個道理。經文的旨意顯而易見，論典的意義也容易明白。第八，對照訶梨（Harivarman）所造的《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi-sastra）和旃延（Katyayana）的著作，想要表明大乘和小乘的區分，以及得與不得的差異。第九，或者直接駁斥異學，然後立即進入論典。想要使執迷不悟的人改變迷途，使仰慕佛法的人更加深刻地領悟。第十，或者直接披閱經文，不再作其他的解釋。想要表明這部論典出自菩薩的內心，精妙的破斥和解釋蘊含在經文之中。隨便抽取我拙劣的想法，又能增加什麼呢？所以直接閱讀經文。法師講解論典有多種形式，大致有三種意義：第一，表明法師善於識別眾生的根器和因緣，調和事物的性質，眾生領悟的方式多種多樣，法師的演說也無窮無盡。第二，想要區別於他人。他人立論，只作一種解釋，聽者也只作一種理解，沒有其他的領悟。現在表明，諸法沒有一定的相狀，豈止只有一種解釋。第三，龍樹（Nagarjuna）和提婆（Aryadeva）的思考深遠而精妙，權

【English Translation】 English version Explanation of the Madhyamaka (Middle Way) topics. Explaining sutras and treatises requires relying on the 'truth wisdom' (satya-jnana), refuting and elucidating from the side and the front, from near to far. Only then can one enter the study of the treatise. The reasons for doing so are as follows: First, to clarify that the meaning has its inherent logical order, while the text may seem scattered and unclear, making it easier for learners to understand. Second, some explanations directly discuss the general meaning at the beginning, and then enter the treatise. This is to grasp the key points, first summarize the essentials, and then elaborate on its profound aspects later. Third, first explain the two truths (satya-dvaya) in detail, and then explain the treatise. Clarify that the Buddha's teaching of the two truths is to indicate the right path. Now this treatise takes the two truths as its purpose, indicating its function. Fourth, first explain the two wisdoms (dve-jnane), and then enter the treatise. Clarify that the Buddha teaches with the two wisdoms, and the Bodhisattva now uses expedient wisdom and ultimate wisdom to reveal the right path and refute wrong views. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly explain the two wisdoms. Fifth, refute various views of the past and present, and refute different schools. The reason for doing so is that, from ancient times to the present, all works do not conform to the style of Nagarjuna, and fall into nihilism and eternalism, disturbing the supreme truth. Therefore, it is necessary to widely refute before one can begin reading the treatise. Sixth, first read the old preface of Guanhe, written by Ruying Rui. This is to tell the world that the Samkhya school arose earlier, and the Three Treatise School (Tri-sastra) appeared later. It is intended to show that Guanhe has a lineage of teachers, and it is not something that has just been constructed now. Seventh, or directly chant scriptures such as the 'Anabhoga Sutra' and the 'Buddha Treasury Sutra', and then enter the treatise. It is intended to show that the sutras and treatises complement each other, jointly elucidating a principle. The meaning of the sutras is obvious, and the meaning of the treatise is easy to understand. Eighth, compare Harivarman's 'Tattvasiddhi-sastra' and Katyayana's works, wanting to show the distinction between Mahayana and Hinayana, and the difference between attainment and non-attainment. Ninth, or directly refute heterodox teachings, and then immediately enter the treatise. It is intended to make those who are stubbornly deluded change their ways, and those who admire the Dharma gain a deeper understanding. Tenth, or directly read the text without making other explanations. It is intended to show that this treatise comes from the Bodhisattva's heart, and the subtle refutations and explanations are contained within the text. Casually extracting my clumsy thoughts, what can I add? Therefore, directly read the text. The Dharma master's explanation of the treatise has various forms, roughly with three meanings: First, it shows that the Dharma master is good at identifying the faculties and conditions of sentient beings, harmonizing the nature of things, and the ways in which sentient beings understand are diverse, and the Dharma master's exposition is endless. Second, it is intended to distinguish from others. Others establish theories and only make one explanation, and listeners also only make one understanding, without other insights. Now it is shown that all dharmas do not have a fixed appearance, let alone only one explanation. Third, Nagarjuna and Aryadeva's thinking is profound and subtle, expedient

巧萬端。今時傳述寧可一概。今就論初大為五章。一明破申大意。二者明四論宗旨義有同異。三者明經論能所諦智傍正。四者釋中觀論名。五者明論緣起。問答斷簡。所以須辨破申大意者。無問內外學徒。凡有製作。皆辨破申。故內外並云。自是而非彼。美己而惡人。次內經敘述外道所計云。是事實余皆妄語。次成實破斥數經。以四諦命。重更顯斯實。如此之流。盡欲破他申己。既出虛妄橫構皆不成破申。今時論意。善巧方便助佛揚化。方是破申。故在初明其大意也。破申只是破邪顯正。即是滅邪見幢。燃正法炬。問誰能破邪用何顯正。答不出人法。人即是聖人。法名正法。若備法人。則能破邪顯正。就此則有三雙。一者佛與菩薩。二者經論。三者破申。言佛與菩薩者。佛以中道二智所說名經。菩薩以中道二慧所吐名論。佛以中道二智所說名經。經即是教。教何所示。教則教緣。緣何所稟。緣只稟教。故緣教相應無不悟入。言悟入者。教辨真俗。緣悟不真不俗。教說因果。緣悟不因不果。其餘例然。故因教悟理。悟理故了教。教是理門。故因教達理。感應因緣。冥若扶契。響然而有。壑爾而無。此即佛說教為緣之意也。但教流末代。鈍根薄福。尋教失旨。不知佛意。故論初云。求五陰十二入十八界等決定相。但著文字

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本變化萬端。現在傳述寧可概括起來。現在就最初的（內容）大概分為五章。第一，闡明破斥和闡述的大意。第二，闡明四論（指中觀論等四部論書）的宗旨，說明其意義的相同和不同之處。第三，闡明經論的能詮（能表達真理）和所詮（所表達的真理），以及諦智（真實智慧）的傍（輔助）和正（主要）。第四，解釋《中觀論》的名稱。第五，闡明論的緣起。問答簡略，所以必須辨明破斥和闡述的大意的原因是，無論內外（佛家內外）學徒，凡有著作，都辨別破斥和闡述。所以佛家內外都說，自己是對的而別人是錯的，讚美自己而厭惡別人。其次，內經敘述外道所計（的主張）說：『這是事實，其餘都是虛妄的。』其次，《成實論》破斥數論，以四諦為根本，重新顯明這個真實。像這樣的流派，都想破斥他人，闡述自己。既然是出於虛妄的橫加構造，都不能算是破斥和闡述。現在論的意義是，善巧方便地幫助佛陀弘揚教化，才是破斥和闡述。所以在最初闡明其大意。破斥只是破除邪惡，顯揚正義，也就是滅除邪見之幢，點燃正法之炬。問：誰能破除邪惡，用什麼來顯揚正義？答：離不開人和法。人就是聖人，法名為正法。如果具備了法的人，就能破除邪惡，顯揚正義。就此而言，則有三對。一是佛與菩薩，二是經與論，三是破斥和闡述。說到佛與菩薩，佛以中道二智（根本智和后得智）所說的稱為經，菩薩以中道二慧（聞慧和思慧）所闡述的稱為論。佛以中道二智所說的稱為經，經就是教。教指示什麼？教則指示緣。緣從哪裡稟受？緣只稟受教。所以緣與教相應，沒有不悟入的。說到悟入，教辨別真俗，緣悟得不真不俗。教說因果，緣悟得不因不果。其餘的可以依此類推。所以因教悟理，悟理故瞭解教。教是理之門，所以因教通達理。感應因緣，暗合符契，應聲而有，虛懷若谷。這就是佛說教為緣的意義。但教流傳到末代，鈍根薄福之人，尋教卻失去了宗旨，不知道佛的本意。所以論的開頭說，尋求五陰（色受想行識）、十二入（眼耳鼻舌身意，色聲香味觸法）、十八界（眼耳鼻舌身意，色聲香味觸法，眼識耳識鼻舌身意識）等的決定相，只是執著于文字。

【English Translation】 English version With myriad transformations. Now, in transmission, it's better to generalize. Now, concerning the beginning, it's roughly divided into five chapters. First, to clarify the general meaning of refutation and exposition. Second, to clarify the tenets of the Four Treatises (Madhyamaka-karika and other four treatises), explaining the similarities and differences in their meanings. Third, to clarify the 'able' (that which can express the truth) and 'that which is expressed' (the truth that is expressed) of the sutras and treatises, as well as the auxiliary and primary aspects of true wisdom. Fourth, to explain the name of the Madhyamaka-karika. Fifth, to clarify the origination of the treatise. Questions and answers are concise, so the reason why it is necessary to distinguish the general meaning of refutation and exposition is that, regardless of internal or external (Buddhist and non-Buddhist) disciples, all who write works distinguish between refutation and exposition. Therefore, both internal and external schools say that they are right and others are wrong, praising themselves and disliking others. Secondly, the internal sutras narrate the views held by external paths, saying: 'This is the truth, and all the rest are false.' Secondly, the Tattvasiddhi Shastra refutes the Samkhya school, taking the Four Noble Truths as its foundation, and re-manifesting this truth. Such schools all want to refute others and expound themselves. Since they are based on false and fabricated constructions, they cannot be considered refutation and exposition. Now, the meaning of the treatise is that skillfully and expediently helping the Buddha to propagate and transform is true refutation and exposition. Therefore, at the beginning, its general meaning is clarified. Refutation is simply to eliminate evil and manifest righteousness, which is to extinguish the banner of wrong views and ignite the torch of the right Dharma. Question: Who can eliminate evil, and what is used to manifest righteousness? Answer: It cannot be separated from people and Dharma. People are the sages, and Dharma is called the Right Dharma. If one possesses the Dharma, then one can eliminate evil and manifest righteousness. In this regard, there are three pairs. First, the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas; second, the sutras and treatises; third, refutation and exposition. Speaking of the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas, what the Buddha speaks with the Middle Way and the Two Wisdoms (Fundamental Wisdom and Subsequent Wisdom) is called sutra, and what the Bodhisattvas expound with the Middle Way and the Two Intelligences (Hearing Intelligence and Thinking Intelligence) is called treatise. What the Buddha speaks with the Middle Way and the Two Wisdoms is called sutra, and sutra is teaching. What does the teaching indicate? The teaching indicates conditions. From where do conditions receive? Conditions only receive from the teaching. Therefore, when conditions are in accordance with the teaching, there is no one who does not awaken. Speaking of awakening, the teaching distinguishes between truth and convention, and conditions awaken to neither truth nor convention. The teaching speaks of cause and effect, and conditions awaken to neither cause nor effect. The rest can be inferred by analogy. Therefore, one awakens to the principle through the teaching, and understands the teaching because of awakening to the principle. The teaching is the gate to the principle, so one reaches the principle through the teaching. The causal conditions of response and interaction are secretly in accord, like a tally, responding with sound and being empty like a valley. This is the meaning of the Buddha speaking of the teaching as a condition. But the teaching has flowed down to later generations, and people with dull roots and little merit seek the teaching but lose its purpose, not knowing the Buddha's intention. Therefore, the beginning of the treatise says, seeking the definite characteristics of the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), the twelve entrances (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma), the eighteen realms (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness), etc., only clinging to the words.

不知佛意。聞大乘法中說畢竟空。不知何因緣故空。即生見疑故。于有生見。于空生疑。所以然者。為有所得心有依有得。當聞真俗住真俗。不知本于不真不俗。故還就真俗以求真俗之實。不知就非真非俗以求真俗。還就真俗以解真俗。不知用非真非俗以解真俗。還就末中。求末。不知就本求末。本是末本。既不識非真俗本。故不識真俗之末。因果等諸事義例皆然。故如他人。或謂真俗一體。或言異體。或言因中先有果。或言因中先無果等有所言說。並出彼妄情所構。曾非經論所明。是故斷常交興。生滅競起。邪言隱覆。正教不申。所以龍樹菩薩。府茲弱喪。顯八不教門。折彼斷常。周還不二。破申之義。大略如此也。問若個是邪而言破邪。何者是正而道申正。答邪既無量。正亦多途。大略為言不出二種。謂有得與無得。有得是邪須破。無得是正須申。故大品經善吉致問。何等是菩薩道。何等非菩薩道。佛答云。有所得非菩薩道。無所得是菩薩道。問既破有得申無得。亦應但破性執申假名以不。答性執是有得。假名是無得。今破有得申無得。即是破性執申假名也。問既破性申假。亦應但破有申無。若有無兩洗。亦應性假雙破耶。答不例有無皆是性。所以須雙破。既分性假異。故有破不破。問性有性無皆是性。唯破性不

破假者。亦應性有假有皆是有唯破有不破無也。答雖同是有而有不同。故但破性有不破假有。問若雖同是有而有不同故。但破性有不破假有者。亦應雖同是性而性不同。不破性無但破性有耶。答有例不例。言其例者。既性有性無皆是性。所以兩破。亦性有假有皆是有。亦須二除也。而不例者。明性有住有乖道故須破。假有非有扶道故不除也。次時云。前明破邪顯正。即是佛與菩薩。今問。爰及正化迄平像法。傳持紹繼其人不少。今定取何人破邪顯正。答大格為論。不出四人。一是調御世尊。是能化主。其餘三聖。助佛宣揚。三者所謂馬鳴開士與龍樹提婆也。問此之四人破邪顯正。為當是同爲當有異。答一往且折彼疑。則云不同不異。佛與菩薩。所以不同。同顯實相。所以不異。此是同異不同不異。既得不同異即得同異。佛菩薩具足不具足勝劣故異。皆破邪顯正故同也。言佛菩薩異者。佛即說教樹二諦赴緣。菩薩直助佛揚化無別製作也。就菩薩中自復有異。若是龍樹。作論前破法。后兼凈人我。提婆所造。先正破神我。后兼洗法。所以然者。中論破內弟子。雖知無我。猶計有法。是故前正除法。后兼凈人我。故十二門云。有為無為尚空。何況我耶。百論破外道。如僧伽等。計云有神我。不知無我故。須前正破我后兼破法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：破斥虛假的人，也應該認為自性有、假有都是『有』，只是破斥自性有，不破斥假有嗎？答：雖然都稱為『有』，但『有』的性質不同。所以只破斥自性有，不破斥假有。問：如果因為雖然都稱為『有』，但『有』的性質不同，所以只破斥自性有，不破斥假有。那麼，也應該雖然都稱為『自性』，但『自性』的性質不同，不破斥自性無，只破斥自性有嗎？答：有可以類比的，也有不可以類比的。說可以類比的，既然自性有和自性無都是『自性』，所以兩者都要破斥。同樣，自性有和假有都是『有』，也都需要去除。說不可以類比的，是因為自性有執著于『有』，違背了正道，所以必須破斥。假有並非真正的『有』，反而有助於修行，所以不去除。其次，（經文中）說：前面說明了破斥邪說、顯揚正法，指的是佛（Buddha）與菩薩（Bodhisattva）。現在問：從佛的正法教化，到末法時代，傳承和繼承的人不在少數。現在確定選取哪些人來破斥邪說、顯揚正法？答：從大的方面來說，不出四個人。一是調御世尊（Tathāgata，如來），是能教化的主導者。其餘三位聖者，輔助佛宣揚佛法。這三位就是馬鳴開士（Aśvaghoṣa）與龍樹（Nāgārjuna）、提婆（Āryadeva）。問：這四個人破斥邪說、顯揚正法，是相同還是不同？答：從一方面來說，爲了消除他們的疑惑，可以說不同也不異。佛與菩薩，不同在於佛是教化的主體，菩薩是輔助佛弘揚佛法。相同在於都顯揚實相。這就是同異、不同異。既然得到了不同異，也就得到了同異。佛菩薩在具足與不具足、殊勝與低劣方面不同，但都在破斥邪說、顯揚正法方面相同。說到佛菩薩的差異，佛即是說教，建立二諦（two truths），應合各種因緣。菩薩只是輔助佛弘揚教化，沒有另外的製作。在菩薩中，自身又存在差異。如果是龍樹，造論時先破斥法，后兼顧清凈人我和法。提婆所造的論，先正面破斥神我，后兼顧洗滌法。之所以這樣，是因為《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）破斥內道弟子，他們雖然知道無我，仍然執著于有法。因此先正面去除法，后兼顧清凈人我。所以《十二門論》（Dvādaśamukhaśāstra）說：『有為法和無為法尚且是空，何況我呢？』《百論》（Śataśāstra）破斥外道，如僧伽（Saṃgha）等人，他們認為有神我，不知道無我，所以必須先正面破斥我，后兼顧破斥法。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Should those who refute falsehood also consider that both inherent existence and conventional existence are 'existence,' only refuting inherent existence and not refuting non-existence? Answer: Although both are called 'existence,' the nature of 'existence' is different. Therefore, only inherent existence is refuted, and conventional existence is not refuted. Question: If it is because although both are called 'existence,' the nature of 'existence' is different, so only inherent existence is refuted and conventional existence is not refuted, then should it also be that although both are called 'inherent nature,' the nature of 'inherent nature' is different, not refuting inherent non-existence but only refuting inherent existence? Answer: There are cases that can be compared and cases that cannot be compared. Speaking of what can be compared, since both inherent existence and inherent non-existence are 'inherent nature,' both must be refuted. Similarly, both inherent existence and conventional existence are 'existence,' and both must be removed. Speaking of what cannot be compared, it is because inherent existence clings to 'existence' and goes against the right path, so it must be refuted. Conventional existence is not true 'existence' and instead helps cultivation, so it is not removed. Next, it says: The previous explanation of refuting heresy and revealing the truth refers to the Buddha (Buddha) and Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva). Now I ask: From the Buddha's proper Dharma teachings to the Dharma-ending Age, there are many people who have transmitted and inherited it. Now, who should be selected to refute heresy and reveal the truth? Answer: Broadly speaking, it does not go beyond four people. First, the World Honored One, the taming master (Tathāgata), is the leader who can teach. The other three sages assist the Buddha in propagating the Dharma. These three are the scholar Aśvaghoṣa (Aśvaghoṣa) and Nāgārjuna (Nāgārjuna) and Āryadeva (Āryadeva). Question: Are these four people the same or different in refuting heresy and revealing the truth? Answer: From one perspective, in order to dispel their doubts, it can be said that they are neither the same nor different. The Buddha and Bodhisattvas differ in that the Buddha is the main body of teaching, and the Bodhisattvas assist the Buddha in propagating the Dharma. They are the same in that they all reveal the true nature of reality. This is both the same and different, and neither the same nor different. Since we have obtained the non-difference, we have also obtained the difference. The Buddha and Bodhisattvas differ in terms of completeness and incompleteness, superiority and inferiority, but they are the same in refuting heresy and revealing the truth. Speaking of the differences between Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, the Buddha is the one who teaches, establishes the two truths (two truths), and responds to various conditions. Bodhisattvas simply assist the Buddha in propagating the teachings and do not create anything else. Among the Bodhisattvas, there are differences within themselves. In the case of Nāgārjuna, when composing treatises, he first refutes the Dharma and then also purifies the person and the Dharma. What Āryadeva created first directly refutes the self of God and then also washes away the Dharma. The reason for this is that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) refutes the inner disciples, who, although they know that there is no self, still cling to the existence of Dharma. Therefore, first directly remove the Dharma, and then also purify the person and the Dharma. Therefore, the Dvādaśamukhaśāstra (Dvādaśamukhaśāstra) says: 'Even conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, what about the self?' The Śataśāstra (Śataśāstra) refutes external paths, such as Saṃgha (Saṃgha) and others, who believe that there is a self of God and do not know that there is no self, so it is necessary to first directly refute the self and then also refute the Dharma.

。故破神辨生空。破一異等明法空。此為異也。問既同破邪皆為顯正。何故一論申大小。一論不申大小。答若俱申大小。何有兩論殊。必齊顯小大。焉判兩人異作。折彼問已是消疑。但意趣不然。更須指掌。中論破執大小緣。所以申大小。百論不破執大小緣故。不明申大小。即並中論破執真俗緣。可顯真俗。百論不破執真俗緣。論末應不明真俗。結論歸旨也。釋云。真俗二諦是諸佛教門。譬若眾流皆歸大海。凡欲悟入。莫不因此教門。論既破空破有除斷除常。外人失彼所執情無所寄。即問。佛法為何所說。論主應聲即答。有二諦。以世諦有故不斷。真諦無故不常。令彼斷常見息。是故須說二諦也。問或言破邪顯正。或言豈離邪有正。即撥邪者令正。因邪故得正。此兩言似如乖反。若言破邪顯正。即不應言因邪有正。只令邪者正。若言只因邪故正。又不應言破除邪顯正也。又問。邪正一故言破邪顯正。為邪正異故破邪顯正。他人解。邪正兩端。破除邪故得顯正也。難。若爾瓶衣體異。破瓶顯衣耶。彼云。瓶衣乃異不相違害。非相障法故。不破瓶顯衣。邪正是相障法。邪障正故。破邪顯正也。難。若邪正相違故破邪顯正者。水火相害。何不破水顯火。而不爾。故知。邪正寧可碩異耶。今若道邪言隱覆正教不開破邪言顯正教

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，破除神我之見，辨明眾生皆空的道理；破除一和異等執著，闡明諸法皆空的道理。這就是兩者的不同之處。問：既然同樣是破除邪見以顯正見，為什麼《中論》闡述大乘和小乘，而《百論》不闡述大乘和小乘？答：如果兩部論都闡述大乘和小乘，那兩部論還有什麼區別？必定都同樣地顯揚小乘和大乘，又怎麼能判斷是兩個人不同的作品呢？駁倒他們的提問就已經消除了疑惑，只是意趣不同，更需要明確地指出來。《中論》破除執著大小乘的因緣，所以闡述大乘和小乘。《百論》不破除執著大小乘的因緣，所以不闡述大乘和小乘。也就是說，《中論》破除執著真諦和俗諦的因緣，可以顯明真諦和俗諦。《百論》不破除執著真諦和俗諦的因緣，所以在論末不應該闡明真諦和俗諦。這是結論，歸結要旨。解釋說：真諦和俗諦這二諦，是諸佛的教門，譬如眾多的河流都歸於大海，凡是想要領悟佛法的人，沒有不通過這個教門的。論既然破除空和有，去除斷見和常見，外人失去了他們所執著的，情無所寄託，就會問：佛法到底說了什麼？論主應聲回答：有二諦。因為世俗諦是有的，所以不是斷滅；真諦是空的，所以不是常恒。使他們的斷見和常見止息，所以需要說二諦。問：有時說破除邪見以顯正見，有時說難道離開邪見還有正見嗎？就是撥開邪見使之歸於正見，因為邪見才能得到正見。這兩種說法似乎是矛盾的。如果說破除邪見以顯正見，就不應該說因為邪見才有正見，只是使邪見歸於正見。如果說只是因為邪見才有正見，又不應該說破除邪見以顯正見。又問：因為邪和正是一樣的，所以說破除邪見以顯正見？還是因為邪和正是不同的，所以破除邪見以顯正見？其他人解釋說：邪和正是兩個極端，破除邪見才能顯現正見。反駁：如果這樣，瓶子和衣服的本體是不同的，破除瓶子就能顯現衣服嗎？他們說：瓶子和衣服是不同的，不互相違背妨害，不是互相障礙的法，所以不破除瓶子來顯現衣服。邪和正是互相障礙的法，邪見障礙正見，所以破除邪見才能顯現正見。反駁：如果邪和正是互相違背的，所以破除邪見才能顯現正見，那麼水和火互相妨害，為什麼不破除水來顯現火？而不是這樣，所以知道邪和正難道可以碩大而不同嗎？現在如果說邪見是隱蔽正教使之不能開顯，破除邪見就是顯現正教。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it refutes the notion of a self (神我 – shenwo, the idea of a permanent, independent self), clarifying the emptiness of beings; it refutes notions of oneness and otherness, illuminating the emptiness of all phenomena. This is the difference between the two treatises. Question: Since both aim to dispel wrong views and reveal right views, why does the Madhyamaka-karika (中論 – Zhonglun) elaborate on the Mahayana and Hinayana, while the Sata-sastra (百論 – Bailun) does not? Answer: If both elaborated on the Mahayana and Hinayana, what difference would there be between the two treatises? They would both equally extol the Hinayana and Mahayana, and how could one then distinguish them as the works of two different individuals? Refuting their question already dispels the doubt, but the intent is different and needs further clarification. The Madhyamaka-karika refutes the causes and conditions that lead to attachment to the Mahayana and Hinayana, and therefore elaborates on them. The Sata-sastra does not refute the causes and conditions that lead to attachment to the Mahayana and Hinayana, and therefore does not elaborate on them. That is to say, the Madhyamaka-karika refutes the causes and conditions that lead to attachment to the truth and the conventional, and can thus reveal the truth and the conventional. The Sata-sastra does not refute the causes and conditions that lead to attachment to the truth and the conventional, so it should not elaborate on the truth and the conventional at the end of the treatise. This is the conclusion, summarizing the main point. The explanation says: The two truths, the truth and the conventional (真俗二諦 – zhensu erdi), are the teachings of all Buddhas, like numerous rivers all flowing into the ocean. All who wish to attain enlightenment must pass through this teaching. Since the treatise refutes emptiness and existence, removes annihilationism and eternalism, outsiders lose their attachments and have nowhere to place their emotions, they will ask: What exactly does the Buddha's teaching say? The author of the treatise should immediately answer: There are two truths. Because the conventional truth exists, it is not annihilation; the ultimate truth is empty, so it is not eternal. It stops their views of annihilationism and eternalism, so it is necessary to speak of the two truths. Question: Sometimes it is said that dispelling wrong views reveals right views, and sometimes it is said, 'Can there be right views apart from wrong views?' That is, turning wrong views into right views, because of wrong views, one can attain right views. These two statements seem contradictory. If it is said that dispelling wrong views reveals right views, then it should not be said that right views come from wrong views, but only that wrong views are turned into right views. If it is said that right views only come from wrong views, then it should not be said that dispelling wrong views reveals right views. Another question: Is it because wrong and right are the same that it is said that dispelling wrong views reveals right views? Or is it because wrong and right are different that dispelling wrong views reveals right views? Others explain: Wrong and right are two extremes, dispelling wrong views leads to the revelation of right views. Objection: If that is the case, the substance of a pot and clothing are different, does dispelling the pot reveal the clothing? They say: The pot and clothing are different and do not contradict or harm each other, they are not mutually obstructive dharmas, so dispelling the pot does not reveal the clothing. Wrong and right are mutually obstructive dharmas, wrong views obstruct right views, so dispelling wrong views reveals right views. Objection: If wrong and right are mutually contradictory, so dispelling wrong views reveals right views, then water and fire harm each other, why not dispel water to reveal fire? But it is not so, so know that wrong and right cannot be so greatly different? Now, if it is said that wrong views conceal the right teaching, preventing it from being revealed, dispelling wrong views is revealing the right teaching.

非為不爾。但此邪正疏遠。非一家意。今明。道非邪正。能體道之緣。亦悟非邪正。但以向迷今悟。詺向迷僻為邪。呼今悟為正。此得悟時了無邪正。問若爾定是破邪顯正。定是因邪顯正。答具此兩義。言破邪顯正者。向迷成斷常。所以須破此邪。今得悟不斷不常名為顯正義。是以言破邪顯正。亦可。言因邪有正者。只令悟斷常者不斷常。豈得離迷有悟離斷常別有不斷常耶。問佛出世既有感緣所感。龍樹出世亦為感緣所感不。答例爾。問佛與龍樹出世俱有感緣所感者。佛能照緣。龍樹亦照緣不。答亦例。又問。若爾佛說教。龍樹亦應說教不。答應例而不例。言應例者。佛說經教。龍樹說論教也。言不例者。雖同感而感不同。佛為感緣所感。感佛說二諦教。龍樹雖為感緣所感。但感龍樹破邪。破邪令識佛教也。問雖同感感不同。佛與論主。雖同照照亦不同。答雲實爾。佛照大明。論主照小晦也。問他論有破有申。今論亦有破有申。今他二論。竟有何異乎。又難。若使茍欲為異者。他論可得有破申。今論應唯破不申。答既有一問一難。今亦一答一解。先答第一問。上問。俱有破申。今他二論何異。今明。他論有破而復更立。今論唯破而不立。言他論有破有立者。如破外道神我而更立假名行人。破外道二十五諦而立四諦十六

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：並非不是這樣。只是邪與正的區分比較粗疏，不是從根本上理解。現在說明，道本身沒有邪正之分，能夠體悟道的因緣，也領悟到沒有邪正之分。只是因為先前迷惑而現在覺悟，所以稱先前的迷惑偏頗為『邪』，稱現在的覺悟為『正』。在獲得覺悟的時候，根本沒有邪正的分別。問：如果這樣，那麼一定是破除邪見而彰顯正見，一定是憑藉邪見而彰顯正見嗎？答：兼具這兩種含義。說『破邪顯正』，是因為先前迷惑于斷見和常見，所以需要破除這種邪見。現在領悟到既不斷也不常，這叫做彰顯正義。所以說『破邪顯正』也可以。說『因邪有正』，只是爲了讓執著于斷常的人不再執著于斷常，難道可以離開迷惑而有覺悟，離開斷常而有不斷不常嗎？問：佛陀出世既然有感應的因緣所感召，Nagarjuna（龍樹，印度佛教哲學家）出世也是被感應的因緣所感召嗎？答：同樣如此。問：佛陀與Nagarjuna（龍樹）出世都有感應的因緣所感召，佛陀能夠照見因緣，Nagarjuna（龍樹）也能照見因緣嗎？答：也同樣如此。又問：如果這樣，佛陀宣說教法，Nagarjuna（龍樹）也應該宣說教法嗎？答：應該說相似而不相似。說相似，是因為佛陀宣說經教，Nagarjuna（龍樹）宣說論教。說不相似，是因為雖然同樣是感應，但感應的內容不同。佛陀是被感應的因緣所感召，感應佛陀宣說二諦教。Nagarjuna（龍樹）雖然也是被感應的因緣所感召，但感應Nagarjuna（龍樹）破除邪見，破除邪見是爲了讓人認識佛教。問：雖然同樣是感應，但感應的內容不同，佛陀與論主（Nagarjuna龍樹），雖然同樣是照見，但照見的內容也不同嗎？答：確實是這樣。佛陀照見的是大光明，論主照見的是小黑暗。問：其他的論著有破斥也有闡述，現在的論著也有破斥也有闡述，那麼這兩種論著究竟有什麼不同呢？又問難：如果一定要找出不同之處，其他的論著可以有破斥和闡述，現在的論著應該只有破斥而沒有闡述。答：既然有一個提問和一個問難，現在也用一個回答和一個解釋。先回答第一個問題。上面問到，都有破斥和闡述，那麼這兩種論著有什麼不同。現在說明，其他的論著有破斥之後又重新建立，現在的論著只有破斥而不建立。說其他的論著有破斥有建立，例如破斥外道的『神我』，而重新建立『假名行人』；破斥外道的『二十五諦』，而建立『四諦十六行相』。

【English Translation】 English version: It is not that it is not so. It's just that the distinction between the heterodox and the orthodox is rather crude and not fundamentally understood. Now, it is explained that the Dao itself has no distinction between heterodox and orthodox, and the condition for realizing the Dao also realizes that there is no distinction between heterodox and orthodox. It is only because of past delusion and present enlightenment that the previous delusion and bias are called 'heterodox,' and the present enlightenment is called 'orthodox.' At the time of attaining enlightenment, there is fundamentally no distinction between heterodox and orthodox. Question: If so, then it must be to destroy the heterodox and manifest the orthodox, and it must be to manifest the orthodox by means of the heterodox? Answer: It has both meanings. To say 'destroy the heterodox and manifest the orthodox' is because the previous delusion was in permanence and annihilation, so it is necessary to destroy this heterodox view. Now, realizing that it is neither permanent nor annihilated is called manifesting the orthodox meaning. Therefore, it can also be said 'destroy the heterodox and manifest the orthodox.' To say 'the orthodox arises from the heterodox' is only to make those who are attached to permanence and annihilation no longer attached to permanence and annihilation. Can there be enlightenment apart from delusion, or non-permanence and non-annihilation apart from permanence and annihilation? Question: Since the Buddha's appearance in the world is induced by responsive conditions, is Nagarjuna's (Nagarjuna, Indian Buddhist philosopher) appearance in the world also induced by responsive conditions? Answer: It is the same. Question: Since the Buddha and Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) both appeared in the world induced by responsive conditions, can the Buddha illuminate the conditions, and can Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) also illuminate the conditions? Answer: It is also the same. Furthermore, if so, should Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) also expound the teachings since the Buddha expounds the teachings? Answer: It should be said to be similar and dissimilar. It is similar because the Buddha expounds the sutras, and Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) expounds the treatises. It is dissimilar because, although it is the same response, the content of the response is different. The Buddha is induced by responsive conditions, inducing the Buddha to expound the Two Truths. Although Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) is also induced by responsive conditions, he is induced to destroy heterodox views, and destroying heterodox views is to make people recognize Buddhism. Question: Although it is the same response, the content of the response is different. Although the Buddha and the author of the treatise (Nagarjuna) both illuminate, is the content of their illumination also different? Answer: Indeed, it is so. The Buddha illuminates the great light, and the author of the treatise illuminates the small darkness. Question: Other treatises have refutations and expositions, and the present treatise also has refutations and expositions, so what is the difference between these two treatises? Furthermore, if one must find a difference, other treatises can have refutations and expositions, and the present treatise should only have refutations and no expositions. Answer: Since there is a question and a difficulty, there is now an answer and an explanation. First, answer the first question. The above question asks, both have refutations and expositions, so what is the difference between these two treatises? Now, it is explained that other treatises establish again after refuting, while the present treatise only refutes and does not establish. To say that other treatises have refutations and establishments, for example, refuting the 'self' of the heretics and re-establishing the 'nominal practitioner'; refuting the 'twenty-five principles' of the heretics and establishing the 'sixteen aspects of the Four Noble Truths'.

諦等。外道神我真實不無。汝論世諦假名行人亦不可失。若言外道二十五諦為非。汝四諦十六諦。此亦有過。彼計有人有法既成外道。汝亦計有人法亦是外道。今論不爾。唯破不立。所以然者。論主出世。唯為破顛倒斷常。更無所立。故論序云。言而無當破而不執也。次答第二難云。與他論異者。他論可有破申。今論應唯破不申。今一往答。且如汝所問。他論有破有立。則有破別有所申。今論唯破不立。則唯破不申。所以然者。若經若論。唯破顛倒虛妄更無所申。本由病故有教。在病既除。教藥亦盡故百論下文云。破如可破。此論下文復云。無人亦無法佛亦無所說。佛既無所說。寧當有教可申耶。今次更答。他論有破有立。此乃是增有所得。非唯不能申。亦不能破。自是有得。何能破他。今論但破曾不自立。非止能破。即復能申。故大師舉猛將為譬。前無所立。后無所領。故能剪彼兇丑顯我皇威。菩薩亦爾。無生正觀。了內外諸法。畢竟清凈故。能破洗虛妄斷常。顯出如來真實正法。如此善巧名為破申。故論序云。儻然靡據。而事不失真。蕭焉無累。而理自玄會也。問他論非唯不能申亦不成破。今論具能破申。若爾他論為負今論居勝。此則勝負心生是非見起。乃是斷常屈滯。豈能申于正道。答若有勝有負斯則受屈。只

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本諦等（諦：真理，等：等等）。外道（佛教以外的學說）認為神我（永恒不變的自我）真實存在，並非虛無。你們的論點是世俗諦（相對於勝義諦，指世俗層面的真理）是假名（名義上的存在），但修行人也不能失去它。如果說外道的二十五諦（數論派的二十五種實體）是錯誤的，那麼你們的四諦（苦、集、滅、道）和十六諦（四諦的細分）也存在同樣的問題。他們認為有人有法（主體和客體）就成了外道，你們也認為有人有法也是外道。但我們現在討論的不是這樣。我們只破斥而不建立。原因是，論主（著論者）出現於世，只是爲了破除顛倒（錯誤的認知）和斷常（斷滅和永恒的極端見解），沒有其他目的。所以論的序言說：『言語沒有固定的主張，破斥而不執著。』接下來回答第二個難題：『與其他的論點不同』。其他的論點可能有破斥和闡述，但我們的論點應該只有破斥而沒有闡述。現在先簡單地回答。比如你所問的，其他的論點有破斥也有建立，所以破斥之外還有所闡述。我們的論點只有破斥而不建立，所以只有破斥而沒有闡述。原因是，無論是經還是論，都只是爲了破除顛倒虛妄，沒有其他的闡述。原本是因為有病才有了藥，病既然除掉了，藥也就沒有用了。所以《百論》的下文說：『破斥就像可以破斥的東西。』這篇論的下文又說：『無人也無法，佛也沒有說什麼。』佛既然沒有什麼可說的，哪裡會有教義可以闡述呢？現在再次回答。其他的論點有破斥也有建立，這乃是增加了有所得（執著于某種見解）。不僅不能闡述，也不能破斥。自己有了所得，怎麼能破斥別人呢？我們的論點只是破斥，從來不自己建立。不僅能破斥，而且能闡述。所以大師用猛將做比喻，前面沒有所建立的陣地，後面沒有所統領的軍隊，所以能剪除那些兇惡醜陋的東西，彰顯我皇家的威嚴。菩薩也是這樣，通過無生正觀（對事物不生不滅的正確觀察），瞭解內外諸法（一切事物）畢竟清凈，所以能破除洗滌虛妄斷常，顯現出如來真實正法。這種善巧方便叫做破斥和闡述。所以論的序言說：『好像沒有依據，但事情沒有失去真相；蕭然無累，而道理自然玄妙會通。』問：其他的論點不僅不能闡述，也不能成就破斥，而我們的論點既能破斥又能闡述。如果是這樣，那麼其他的論點就失敗了，我們的論點就勝利了。這樣勝負心就產生了，是非見解就產生了，乃是斷常的侷限和滯礙，怎麼能闡述正道呢？答：如果有勝有負，那就是受到了屈辱，只

【English Translation】 English version Listen carefully. The heretics (those with doctrines outside of Buddhism) believe that Atman (the eternal, unchanging self) is real and not non-existent. Your argument is that conventional truth (relative to ultimate truth, referring to truth at the worldly level) is a nominal existence, but practitioners should not lose sight of it. If you say that the twenty-five Tattvas (twenty-five entities of the Samkhya school) of the heretics are wrong, then your Four Noble Truths (suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the path to the cessation of suffering) and Sixteen Aspects of the Four Noble Truths also have the same problem. They believe that the existence of persons and dharmas (subject and object) makes them heretics, and you also believe that the existence of persons and dharmas makes them heretics. But that's not what we're discussing now. We only refute and do not establish. The reason is that the author of the treatise (the one who wrote the treatise) appeared in the world only to refute inverted views (wrong perceptions) and annihilationism and eternalism (extreme views of annihilation and eternity), and has no other purpose. Therefore, the preface of the treatise says: 'Words have no fixed assertions, refuting without clinging.' Next, answer the second difficulty: 'Different from other arguments.' Other arguments may have refutation and exposition, but our argument should only have refutation and no exposition. Now, let's give a simple answer first. For example, as you asked, other arguments have both refutation and establishment, so there is exposition in addition to refutation. Our argument only refutes and does not establish, so there is only refutation and no exposition. The reason is that whether it is a sutra or a treatise, it is only to refute inverted and false views, and there is no other exposition. Originally, medicine was given because of illness, and since the illness has been removed, the medicine is no longer needed. Therefore, the following text of the Śataśāstra says: 'Refutation is like something that can be refuted.' The following text of this treatise also says: 'There is no person and no dharma, and the Buddha has said nothing.' Since the Buddha has nothing to say, where would there be doctrines to expound? Now, answer again. Other arguments have refutation and establishment, which is to increase attachment to something gained (clinging to a certain view). Not only can it not expound, but it also cannot refute. If you have your own gains, how can you refute others? Our argument only refutes and never establishes itself. It can not only refute, but also expound. Therefore, the great master uses a brave general as a metaphor, with no established position in front and no army to command behind, so he can cut off those fierce and ugly things and show the majesty of my imperial family. The Bodhisattva is also like this, through the unoriginated right view (correct observation of the non-arising and non-ceasing of things), understands that all internal and external dharmas (all things) are ultimately pure, so he can refute and wash away false annihilationism and eternalism, and reveal the true and correct Dharma of the Tathagata. This skillful means is called refutation and exposition. Therefore, the preface of the treatise says: 'It seems that there is no basis, but things have not lost their truth; serene and unburdened, and the principles naturally mysteriously converge.' Question: Other arguments can not only not expound, but also cannot achieve refutation, while our argument can both refute and expound. If this is the case, then other arguments have failed, and our argument has won. In this way, the mind of winning and losing arises, and views of right and wrong arise, which are the limitations and stagnation of annihilationism and eternalism. How can we expound the right path? Answer: If there is winning and losing, then it is being humiliated, only

為無勝無負所以能申。問若有勝有負可得有破。既云無勝無負。汝何所破邪。答實爾。執有勝有負則見有破。今無勝無負。我實無所破。問若有勝有負可得言申。既無勝負更何所申。答若有勝有負。應申更屈。只為無勝無負。屈者得申。而實無所得。問破何物邪申若為正。答云。佛赴緣說真俗兩教。意為顯中實之道。但緣迷二教不悟中實。成斷常病。今破緣邪執。申佛正教也。師云。非無其義。若只作此解。未近一家之意。何故爾。論初八不。為破生滅斷常凈一異來出。若別有二諦中道可申異於破邪。何謂凈斷常除生滅耶。問前云第一章明破邪顯正。今道但凈斷常來出無二諦可申。若依前言。即乖今說。若用今解復反前判。二言鉾楯。若為取中。答有二條。一者反質汝言真俗二諦。是何物。亦聞破病便言不申教。亦聞申教謂非是破邪。作此折疑已略成可見。但復須巧墨解釋。何故說二諦只為破生滅斷常。世諦假生滅真諦不生滅。欲明假生滅實錄不生不滅。令悟生滅不生滅來出無來出。只此破生滅斷常即名為教。是破復是教。今論主還說此破斷常生滅之教。以化物令緣作如此悟。即申破病教。破病教申。只申此破名為破申。今此破得申稱為申破也。破申大意且竟如前。

今次第二明四論宗旨義同異。問四論既興。

【現代漢語翻譯】為無勝無負，所以能夠申明（申：伸張，闡明）。問：如果存在勝和負，是否可以被破斥？既然說無勝無負，你又破斥什麼呢？答：確實如此。執著于勝和負，就會看到有破斥。現在無勝無負，我實際上沒有什麼可破斥的。問：如果存在勝和負，可以說申明。既然無勝負，又申明什麼呢？答：如果存在勝和負，申明之後應該還有屈服。正因為無勝無負，屈服的才能得到申明，但實際上並沒有得到什麼。問：破斥什麼，申明什麼才是正？答：佛陀應機說法，宣講真諦和俗諦兩種教義，意在顯明中實之道（不偏不倚的真實道理）。只是因為眾生迷惑于兩種教義，不能領悟中實之道，形成了斷見和常見（斷常病）。現在破斥眾生錯誤的執著，申明佛陀的正教。老師說：並非沒有道理。如果只這樣解釋，還沒有接近一家之意（指四論宗的宗旨）。為什麼這樣說呢？《中論》最初的八不（八不中道）是爲了破斥生滅、斷常、凈、一、異、來、出。如果另外有二諦、中道可以申明，不同於破斥邪見，那又何謂凈、斷常、除生滅呢？問：前面說第一章闡明破邪顯正，現在說只是凈、斷常、來、出，沒有二諦可以申明。如果依照前面的說法，就違背了現在的說法。如果用現在的解釋，又反駁了前面的判斷。兩種說法相互矛盾，如何取中呢？答：有兩種解釋。一是反過來質問你，真諦和俗諦是什麼？也聽說過破除病患就說不是申明教義，也聽說過申明教義就說不是破斥邪見。這樣反駁疑問已經略微可以看出一些道理。但還需要巧妙地解釋。為什麼說二諦只是爲了破斥生滅斷常？世俗諦是假有的生滅，真諦是不生不滅。想要闡明假有的生滅實際上是不生不滅，使人領悟生滅就是不生滅，來出就是無來出。僅僅是破斥生滅斷常就叫做教義。既是破斥又是教義。現在論主還是在說這種破斥斷常生滅的教義，用來教化眾生，使眾生如此領悟，就是申明破除病患的教義。破除病患的教義就是申明。只是申明這種破斥，叫做破申。現在這種破斥得到申明，稱為申破。破申的大意暫且像前面所說的那樣。現在接下來闡明四論（指《中論》《百論》《十二門論》《大智度論》）的宗旨的相同和不同。問：四論既然興起，（以下內容未完成，請補充完整）

【English Translation】 Because there is neither victory nor defeat, it is possible to expound (Shen: to elaborate, to clarify). Question: If there were victory and defeat, could they be refuted? Since it is said that there is neither victory nor defeat, what are you refuting? Answer: Indeed. If one clings to victory and defeat, one will see refutation. Now that there is neither victory nor defeat, I actually have nothing to refute. Question: If there were victory and defeat, one could say to expound. Since there is neither victory nor defeat, what is being expounded? Answer: If there were victory and defeat, after expounding, there should still be submission. Precisely because there is neither victory nor defeat, what is submitted can be expounded, but in reality, nothing is gained. Question: What is being refuted, and what is being expounded as correct? Answer: The Buddha, responding to circumstances, preached the two teachings of truth and convention (satya and samvriti), intending to reveal the Middle Way of reality (the true principle of impartiality). It is only because beings are deluded by the two teachings and cannot comprehend the Middle Way of reality that they develop the diseases of annihilationism and eternalism (the diseases of discontinuity and permanence). Now, we refute the erroneous attachments of beings and expound the Buddha's correct teaching. The teacher said: It is not without reason. If one only explains it this way, it has not yet approached the meaning of one school (referring to the Madhyamaka school's tenets). Why is that? The initial eight negations (eightfold negation of the Middle Way) in the Madhyamaka-karika are to refute arising and ceasing, annihilation and permanence, purity and impurity, oneness and otherness, coming and going, and entering and exiting. If there are separate two truths (two truths: conventional truth and ultimate truth), and a Middle Way that can be expounded, different from refuting wrong views, then what is meant by purity, annihilation, permanence, and the elimination of arising and ceasing? Question: Earlier, it was said that the first chapter clarifies refuting the wrong and revealing the right. Now it is said that it is only purity, annihilation, permanence, coming, and going, without two truths that can be expounded. If one follows the previous statement, it contradicts the current statement. If one uses the current explanation, it refutes the previous judgment. The two statements are contradictory. How can one find the middle ground? Answer: There are two explanations. One is to question you in return, what are the two truths of conventional and ultimate? It has also been heard that refuting illness is said not to be expounding the teaching, and it has also been heard that expounding the teaching is said not to be refuting wrong views. Such a rebuttal of doubts has already revealed some principles. But it still requires skillful explanation. Why is it said that the two truths are only for refuting arising and ceasing, annihilation and permanence? Conventional truth is the false arising and ceasing, ultimate truth is non-arising and non-ceasing. The intention is to clarify that the false arising and ceasing is actually non-arising and non-ceasing, to make people realize that arising and ceasing is non-arising and non-ceasing, coming and going is non-coming and non-going. Merely refuting arising and ceasing, annihilation and permanence is called teaching. It is both refutation and teaching. Now the author is still talking about this teaching of refuting permanence and annihilation, arising and ceasing, to teach sentient beings, so that sentient beings can realize this, which is expounding the teaching of eliminating illness. The teaching of eliminating illness is expounding. Only expounding this refutation is called refuting-expounding. Now this refutation is expounded, called expounding-refutation. The general meaning of refuting-expounding is temporarily like what was said before. Now, secondly, to clarify the similarities and differences in the tenets of the four treatises (referring to the Madhyamaka-karika, Dvadasanikaya-sastra, Sata-sastra, Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa). Question: Since the four treatises have arisen, (The following content is incomplete, please complete it)

為當是一為當是異。答一往折疑不一不異。所以然者。八不是眾經之妙旨。方等之宏宗。此論啟初即明不生不滅不一不異。故知。四論非一不異。問既不一不異。便應不四不論。若言四言論。即是一是異耶。答只道四論不一不異。若不言四論。語何物不一不異耶。如只道色不生不滅受想行識不生不滅。只道五陰不生不滅色心不空不有。若不言五陰。道誰不生不滅。若不語色心。言何物不空不有。今亦爾。何不言四論。道誰不一不異。問以何義故言其不一。以何義故語其不異。釋云。以論四故。所以不一。以四論故。所以不異。故言不一不異也。問若爾論有四故彌見其是異。同是論故轉見是一。何得言不異不一。答曰。四若是異。四不四論。論若是一。論不論四。只為四非是異耶。所以四論。論非是一。所以論四也。問若非是一異耶。答既非一異。亦復非是非一異。既識非一異。則一異可明也。今亦可言同。亦可辨其異也。言同者有二義。一者能造論人。同是四依。同稟佛教。同有二智也。二者所造之論。同是無依無得。同申正教。若是有得。即不名論。亦不能有所論。若是無得。方可名論。能有所論。是故若不依空。不成問答。故下文云。問不依空問同答者疑。答不依空答同問者所疑也。問此論若不依有。可不當有。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本為『當是』和『一』是相同還是相異？答：從根本上消除疑惑，既不是相同也不是相異。之所以這樣說，是因為八不（不生不滅，不去不來，不一不異，不斷不常）是所有經典的精妙主旨，《方等經》的宏大宗旨。此論一開始就闡明不生不滅、不一不異。因此可知，《四論》並非相同或相異。問：既然不是相同也不是相異，那麼就應該不四也不論。如果說四言論，就是相同還是相異呢？答：只是說四論不是相同也不是相異。如果不說四論，又用什麼來說不是相同也不是相異呢？例如，只是說色（rupa，物質）不生不滅，受（vedana，感受）、想（samjna，知覺）、行（samskara，意志）、識（vijnana，意識）不生不滅，只是說五陰（panca-skandha，構成人身的五種要素）不生不滅，色心（rupa-citta，物質與精神）非空非有。如果不說五陰，誰不生不滅？如果不說色心，又說何物非空非有？現在也是這樣。為什麼不說四論，又說誰不是相同也不是相異？問：根據什麼意義說它不是相同？根據什麼意義說它不是相異？解釋說：因為論有四種，所以不是相同；因為是四種論，所以不是相異。所以說不是相同也不是相異。問：如果這樣，論有四種，就更加顯得它是相異的；同是論，就更加顯得它是相同的。怎麼能說不是相異也不是相同呢？答：四如果真是相異的，那麼四就不成其為論；論如果真是相同的，那麼論就不成其為四。正因為四不是相異的，所以才有四論；論不是相同的，所以才有論四。問：如果不是相同也不是相異，那是什麼呢？答：既然不是相同也不是相異，也就不是既是又不是相同或相異。既然認識到不是相同也不是相異，那麼相同和相異就可以明白了。現在也可以說相同，也可以辨別其相異。說相同有兩種意義：一是能造論的人，同是四依（catuh-pratisarana，依法不依人，依義不依語，依智不依識，依了義經不依不了義經），同稟佛教，同有二智（世俗智和勝義智）。二是所造的論，同是無依無得，同申正教。如果是有所得，就不叫論，也不能有所論。如果是無所得，才可以叫論，才能有所論。因此如果不依空（sunyata，空性），就不能成就問答。所以下文說：『問不依空問，同答者疑惑；答不依空答，同問者所疑。』問：此論如果不依有，難道不應該存在嗎？

【English Translation】 English version Are 『dang shi』 (當是, 'that which is') and 『one』 the same or different? Answer: Fundamentally eliminating doubt, they are neither the same nor different. The reason for this is that the Eight Negations (不生不滅, 不去不來, 不一不異, 不斷不常 - neither arising nor ceasing, neither going nor coming, neither one nor different, neither permanent nor impermanent) are the exquisite essence of all sutras and the grand principle of the Vaipulya Sutras (方等經). This treatise, from its very beginning, clarifies neither arising nor ceasing, neither one nor different. Therefore, it can be known that the Four Treatises (四論) are neither the same nor different. Question: Since they are neither the same nor different, then there should be neither four nor treatises. If you speak of four treatises, are they the same or different? Answer: It is merely said that the Four Treatises are neither the same nor different. If you do not speak of the Four Treatises, what is it that is neither the same nor different? For example, it is merely said that rupa (色, form) does not arise or cease, vedana (受, feeling), samjna (想, perception), samskara (行, mental formations), and vijnana (識, consciousness) do not arise or cease; it is merely said that the panca-skandha (五陰, five aggregates) do not arise or cease, rupa-citta (色心, form and mind) are neither empty nor existent. If you do not speak of the five skandhas, what does not arise or cease? If you do not speak of rupa-citta, what is it that is neither empty nor existent? It is the same now. Why not speak of the Four Treatises, and then say what is neither the same nor different? Question: According to what meaning is it said that they are not the same? According to what meaning is it said that they are not different? Explanation: Because there are four treatises, therefore they are not the same; because they are four treatises, therefore they are not different. Therefore, it is said that they are neither the same nor different. Question: If that is so, the fact that there are four treatises makes it even more apparent that they are different; the fact that they are all treatises makes it even more apparent that they are the same. How can it be said that they are neither different nor the same? Answer: If the four were truly different, then the four would not constitute a treatise; if the treatise were truly the same, then the treatise would not constitute four. Precisely because the four are not different, therefore there are four treatises; the treatise is not the same, therefore there are treatises that are four. Question: If it is neither the same nor different, then what is it? Answer: Since it is neither the same nor different, it is also not both the same and not the same, or both different and not different. Since you recognize that it is neither the same nor different, then the same and different can be understood. Now it can also be said to be the same, and its differences can also be distinguished. There are two meanings to saying it is the same: first, the people who composed the treatises are all reliant on the Four Reliances (catuh-pratisarana - rely on the Dharma, not the person; rely on the meaning, not the words; rely on wisdom, not consciousness; rely on the definitive meaning, not the provisional meaning), all receive the Buddha's teachings, and all possess the Two Wisdoms (世俗智 and 勝義智 - conventional wisdom and ultimate wisdom). Second, the treatises that are composed are all without reliance and without attainment, and all expound the correct teachings. If there is something attained, it is not called a treatise, and it cannot expound anything. If there is nothing attained, then it can be called a treatise, and it can expound something. Therefore, if one does not rely on sunyata (空性, emptiness), one cannot accomplish questions and answers. Therefore, the following text says: 『Questioning without relying on emptiness, those who answer similarly are doubtful; answering without relying on emptiness, those who question similarly are doubted.』 Question: If this treatise does not rely on existence, should it not exist?

既也依空。應是當空。若許當空。則成有當。何謂無依無當耶。答今言依空者。一往對外人多住有。故言依空耳。空依何所依。故是無依無當也。又云。依空者乃了空。此依非謂有空之可依也。次辨異者。一捉釋論望三論辨異。二者就三論中自復有異也。捉釋論望三論異者亦有多義。一者文義通別有殊。二者破收之異。文義通別殊者。若三論即別通論。通申一切諸教罄無不申。通破一切諸迷無迷不洗。故是別通論也。若是釋論即是通別論。意致乃復通漫。而的釋一部文言。是故名通別論也。二者收破之異者。若是三論望釋論。則唯破不收。若釋論望三論亦收亦破。所以然者。三論橫破諸法。豎除五句。故下文云。無人亦無法。佛亦無所說。何處於何時誰起是諸見。即是橫破諸見也。又云。從因緣品來。本末推求。有亦破無亦破。亦有亦無亦破。非有非無亦破。非非有非非無亦破。即是豎論破除五句。故三論唯破不收也。釋論亦破亦收者。破除稟教緣迷。申所迷之教也。問三論破即是舍。釋論收即是取。乃是取捨心生。豈能息諸見。答三論破即不破而破。釋論收即是不收而收。不破而破。破無所舍。不收而收。收無所取。乃顯不破不收無舍無取。故能善息諸見也。傍明四句。一者但破而不收。如迦旃延子所造。自作此說

【現代漢語翻譯】『既也依空，應是當空。若許當空，則成有當。何謂無依無當耶？』（既然也依賴於空，那麼應該是執著于空。如果承認執著于空，那就變成了有所執著。什麼是無所依賴、無所執著呢？）答：今言依空者，一往對外人多住有，故言依空耳。空依何所依？故是無依無當也。（回答：現在說依賴於空，是針對那些執著于『有』的人而說的。空又依賴於什麼呢？所以是無所依賴、無所執著的。）又云：依空者乃了空，此依非謂有空之可依也。（又說：依賴於空，是爲了理解空性，這裡的『依賴』不是指有一個『空』可以依賴。）次辨異者，一捉釋論望三論辨異，二者就三論中自復有異也。（接下來辨別差異，一是拿著《釋論》與《三論》比較來辨別差異，二是就《三論》本身內部也有差異。）捉釋論望三論異者亦有多義，一者文義通別有殊，二者破收之異。（拿著《釋論》與《三論》比較，差異也有多種含義，一是文義的普遍性和特殊性不同，二是破斥和攝受的不同。）文義通別殊者，若三論即別通論，通申一切諸教罄無不申，通破一切諸迷無迷不洗，故是別通論也。（文義的普遍性和特殊性不同在於，《三論》是特殊中的普遍論，普遍闡述一切教義，沒有不闡述的，普遍破斥一切迷惑，沒有不洗滌的，所以是特殊中的普遍論。）若是釋論即是通別論，意致乃復通漫，而的釋一部文言，是故名通別論也。（如果是《釋論》，則是普遍中的特殊論，意旨普遍而寬泛，但明確解釋一部經文的語言文字，所以稱為普遍中的特殊論。）二者收破之異者，若是三論望釋論，則唯破不收，若釋論望三論亦收亦破。（二是破斥和攝受的不同，如果從《三論》來看《釋論》，那麼只有破斥沒有攝受；如果從《釋論》來看《三論》，那麼既有攝受也有破斥。）所以然者，三論橫破諸法，豎除五句，故下文云：『無人亦無法，佛亦無所說。何處於何時誰起是諸見？』即是橫破諸見也。（之所以這樣，是因為《三論》橫向破斥諸法，縱向去除五句，所以下文說：『沒有人也沒有法，佛也沒有說什麼。在什麼地方、什麼時候、誰產生了這些見解？』這就是橫向破斥各種見解。）又云：從因緣品來，本末推求，有亦破無亦破，亦有亦無亦破，非有非無亦破，非非有非非無亦破，即是豎論破除五句，故三論唯破不收也。（又說：從《因緣品》開始，從頭到尾推求，『有』也破，『無』也破，『亦有亦無』也破，『非有非無』也破，『非非有非非無』也破，這就是縱向論述破除五句，所以《三論》只有破斥沒有攝受。）釋論亦破亦收者，破除稟教緣迷，申所迷之教也。（《釋論》既有破斥也有攝受，破除因接受教義而產生的迷惑，闡述所迷惑的教義。）問：三論破即是舍，釋論收即是取，乃是取捨心生，豈能息諸見？（問：《三論》的破斥就是捨棄，《釋論》的攝受就是獲取，這都是取捨心產生，怎麼能平息各種見解呢？）答：三論破即不破而破，釋論收即是不收而收。不破而破，破無所舍；不收而收，收無所取。乃顯不破不收無舍無取，故能善息諸見也。（答：《三論》的破斥是不破而破，《釋論》的攝受是不攝受而攝受。不破而破，破斥了也沒有什麼可捨棄的；不攝受而攝受，攝受了也沒有什麼可獲取的。這才能顯現不破斥、不攝受、無捨棄、無獲取，所以才能很好地平息各種見解。）傍明四句，一者但破而不收，如迦旃延子（Kātyāyana）所造，自作此說。（順便說明四句，一是隻破斥而不攝受，如迦旃延子（Kātyāyana）所造，自己這樣說。)

【English Translation】 'Since it also relies on emptiness, it should be clinging to emptiness. If clinging to emptiness is admitted, then it becomes something to cling to. What is it to be without reliance and without clinging?' Answer: Now, saying 'relying on emptiness' is primarily directed at those who cling to 'existence'. That's why we say 'relying on emptiness'. What does emptiness rely on? Therefore, it is without reliance and without clinging. It is also said: 'Relying on emptiness is understanding emptiness.' This 'relying' does not mean that there is an emptiness to rely on. Next, to distinguish the differences, firstly, to distinguish the differences by comparing the Shastra (釋論) with the Three Treatises (三論); secondly, there are differences within the Three Treatises themselves. Comparing the Shastra with the Three Treatises, there are many meanings to the differences. Firstly, the meanings of the texts differ in generality and specificity; secondly, there is a difference in refutation and inclusion. The difference in generality and specificity of the meanings of the texts is that the Three Treatises are specific-general treatises. They universally expound all teachings without exception, and universally refute all delusions without leaving any unaddressed. Therefore, they are specific-general treatises. If it is the Shastra, it is a general-specific treatise. The intention is broad and extensive, but it specifically explains the language of one scripture. Therefore, it is called a general-specific treatise. The second difference is in refutation and inclusion. If we look at the Shastra from the perspective of the Three Treatises, then there is only refutation and no inclusion. If we look at the Three Treatises from the perspective of the Shastra, there is both inclusion and refutation. The reason for this is that the Three Treatises horizontally refute all dharmas and vertically eliminate the five statements. Therefore, the following text says: 'There is no person, nor is there any dharma. The Buddha also said nothing. Where, when, and who gives rise to these views?' This is the horizontal refutation of all views. It also says: 'From the chapter on conditions (因緣品) onwards, seeking from beginning to end, 'existence' is refuted, 'non-existence' is refuted, 'both existence and non-existence' is refuted, 'neither existence nor non-existence' is refuted, 'neither non-existence nor non-non-existence' is refuted.' This is the vertical argument for eliminating the five statements. Therefore, the Three Treatises only refute and do not include. The Shastra both refutes and includes, refuting the delusions arising from adhering to teachings and expounding the teachings that are being deluded about. Question: The refutation of the Three Treatises is discarding, and the inclusion of the Shastra is taking. This is the arising of a mind of taking and discarding. How can it extinguish all views? Answer: The refutation of the Three Treatises is refuting without refuting, and the inclusion of the Shastra is including without including. Refuting without refuting, there is nothing to discard in the refutation; including without including, there is nothing to take in the inclusion. This reveals non-refutation, non-inclusion, no discarding, and no taking. Therefore, it can skillfully extinguish all views. To clarify the four statements, firstly, there is only refutation without inclusion, as created by Kātyāyana (迦旃延子), who himself made this statement.

。非佛三藏中義二者收而不破。即顯佛方便教門也。三者亦破亦收。破能迷之緣收所迷之教也。四者不收不破。破收非收。收破非破。非收非破乃名實也。此是三論望釋論竟。次就三論中自論異者。凡有八條。一者辨三論受名不同。二者宗旨有異。三者智有長短。四者破有內外。五者用假不同。六者申有遠近。七者破有傍正。八者論對與不對。今前辨三論受名不同。就論立名自有多種。或從譬或從人。如此不定。如甘露味。毗曇從譬為名。若是舍利弗毗曇。則因人受稱。若如成實三論。並從法作名也。若是十二門百論。此是理教為名。中論從教理為稱。通論三論。皆得顯中。然者三論同離斷常。俱顯正觀。豈不俱得名中耶。亦皆得從偈。三皆有偈數也。亦可俱得名門。門是能通。三論盡能通生觀解也。今就別義有其強弱。故立名不同。若是中論。以二諦所顯中實當名。百論面折外道由茲百偈。故以偈數為目。十二能通生觀解。故從門受稱也。第二辨三論宗旨有異。若是中論以智諦為宗。百論以諦智為旨。十二門大望同於中論也。中論以二諦為宗者。發初即唱不生不滅不常不斷。即是二諦。瓔珞經云。二諦者不生不滅。又下論文云。佛滅度後後五百歲像法中人。根轉鈍。聞大乘法中說畢竟空。不知何因緣故空。即生見疑

。若都畢竟空。云何有罪福報應等。如此則失世諦第一義諦。取是空相。而起貪著。龍樹菩薩。愍此等故。所以造論。既云愍失二諦所以作論故。論申二諦。故以二諦為宗也。百論以二智為宗者。提婆面折外道巧用權實。故宜以二智為宗。此是師一時之語。通別圓偏之意耳。若守語作此解者不可也。須具得通別別通之意。乃可明也。通義中論既以二諦為宗。百論亦爾。百論既用二智為旨。則中論亦然。若唯言中論二諦為宗百論不爾。此為不可。言不可者。凡有二意。一者菩薩造論。只為欲申佛教。中論申教以二諦為宗。百論亦為申教。何不得以二諦為宗耶。二者親違關中論序。肇師論序云。通聖心之津涂。開真諦之要論。豈不用二諦為宗。又云。仰慨聖教之陵遲。寧非申教耶。百論末文云。佛說二諦。我今隨佛學亦說二諦。豈不用二諦為宗旨。故兩論皆得二諦為宗。次明中百俱得二智為旨者。提婆面折邪峰巧由權實故。用二智為旨者。中論主。除于內執亦巧由實方便慧。寧不以二智為旨耶。故二論俱可以二智為旨也。而今師云。中論二諦當宗。百論以二智為旨者。此取中百兩相望強弱作此說也。第三明用智短長。若是百論則用權實二智。中論所用實方便智。然者百論主。與外道斗一時頰舌。折挫僧佉衛世。此是權智之

能。若中論主。欲提綱振領匡正佛法辨教之大宗。非諍一時唇舌。故用實方便慧。匡持佛法。不可一時邪。示其用則長。若百論主。善巧一時折挫外道。未是要論佛法正。是權智之能。此用即短也。第四明破有內外。凡有兩義。一者若是中論破內迷。百論除外執。故序云。百論治外以閑邪。斯文祛內以流滯也。二者中論破同學。百論破異學。然者龍樹與失教緣。同稟佛教。但龍樹稟佛教悟解發主中觀。中觀所吐名為中論。外人亦稟佛教。而顛倒不解。雖欲宣暢。並是斷常。雖同學佛教而有悟迷。論主破彼斷常。令識佛教故是破同學也。提婆所破不爾。論主自學佛經教。外道自稟僧佉之典。所習不同故言破異學也。問中論破復有收義。百論所破可得爾不。答亦有此義。何以得知。故經云。圖書讖記文章咒術。皆是佛說。非外道說。以外道迷不解故破。方便故須收也。問百論對緣既有收義。中論所破亦應不收。答亦有此義。雖學佛教。自作己解故。如迦旃延子所作不得三藏中義。是故中論所破亦有不收義也。然百論所破緣根性有三種。一者上根。聞提婆破即解。二者中根。聞提婆破不解。止生信心讀佛經乃悟。三者下根。聞破不解。讀佛經亦不悟。看龍樹論始得悟解也。若上根人。則與中論所破緣得悟者齊。中下之徒。即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本能。如果《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）的作者，想要提綱挈領，匡正佛法，辨明佛教的大宗旨，就不能只爭一時的口舌之利。所以運用真實的方便智慧，匡扶佛法，不能只圖一時之快，這樣才能發揮長遠的作用。《百論》（Śataśāstra）的作者，善於一時折服外道，但未必是要闡明佛法的正義，這只是權巧智慧的作用，所以作用是短暫的。第四點說明破除有內外之分。『有』有兩種含義：一是《中論》破除內在的迷惑，《百論》消除外在的執著。所以序言說，『《百論》治理外道以杜絕邪說，此文（指《中論》）祛除內在的流弊』。二是《中論》破除同學的迷誤，《百論》破除異學的邪見。龍樹（Nāgārjuna）與被破斥者的因緣是，他們都信奉佛教，但龍樹信奉佛教后，悟解併發揚了中觀思想，由中觀思想所闡述的論著名為《中論》。外道也信奉佛教，但顛倒錯亂，不能正確理解，雖然想要宣揚佛法，卻都是斷見和常見。他們雖然是佛教的同學，但有悟解和迷惑之分，所以論主破斥他們的斷見和常見，使他們認識真正的佛教，所以是破斥同學的迷誤。提婆（Āryadeva）所破斥的情況則不同。論主自己學習佛教經典，外道則信奉僧佉（Samkhya）的典籍，所學習的內容不同，所以說是破斥異學。有人問，《中論》的破斥是否也有收攝的含義？回答是，也有這種含義。為什麼這樣說呢？因為佛經上說，『圖、書、讖記、文章、咒術，都是佛所說，不是外道所說』。因為外道迷惑不解，所以要破斥，爲了方便教化，所以需要收攝。有人問，《百論》針對不同根器的人，既然有收攝的含義，《中論》所破斥的也應該有不收攝的含義吧？回答是，也有這種含義。雖然學習佛教，但自作解釋，所以像迦旃延子（Kātyāyanīputra）所作的論述，沒有得到三藏（Tripiṭaka）的真義。因此，《中論》所破斥的也有不收攝的含義。然而，《百論》所破斥的對象，根據根性有三種：一是上根之人，聽了提婆的破斥就能理解；二是中根之人，聽了提婆的破斥不理解，但生起信心，讀佛經后就能領悟；三是下根之人，聽了破斥不理解，讀佛經也不能領悟，看了龍樹的論著才能領悟。如果是上根之人，那麼就和被《中論》所破斥而能領悟的人一樣。中等和下等根器的人，就

【English Translation】 English version Yes. If the author of the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) [中論主 (Zhōnglùn zhǔ), Master of the Middle Treatise], wants to grasp the essentials, rectify the Dharma, and clarify the great principles of Buddhism, he should not merely engage in temporary verbal disputes. Therefore, he uses true expedient wisdom to uphold the Dharma, not just seeking temporary gains, so that its effect can be long-lasting. If the author of the Śataśāstra (Hundred Treatise) [百論主 (Bǎilùn zhǔ), Master of the Hundred Treatise] is skilled at refuting externalist paths temporarily, it does not necessarily mean he is clarifying the true meaning of the Dharma; this is merely the function of skillful wisdom, so its effect is short-lived. Fourthly, it explains the distinction between refuting internal and external 'existence' [有 (yǒu)]. 'Existence' has two meanings: first, the Madhyamaka-karika refutes internal delusion, while the Śataśāstra eliminates external attachments. Therefore, the preface says, 'The Hundred Treatise governs externalism to prevent heresy, while this text (referring to the Madhyamaka-karika) removes internal stagnation.' Second, the Madhyamaka-karika refutes fellow students' misunderstandings, while the Śataśāstra refutes the heterodox views of different schools. The connection between Nāgārjuna [龍樹 (Lóngshù), Nāgārjuna] and those he refutes is that they all adhere to Buddhism, but Nāgārjuna, after adhering to Buddhism, comprehended and developed the Madhyamaka (Middle Way) [中觀 (Zhōngguān)] thought. The treatises expounded from the Madhyamaka perspective are called the Madhyamaka-karika. Externalists also adhere to Buddhism, but they are confused and cannot understand it correctly. Although they want to propagate the Dharma, their views are all based on eternalism and annihilationism. Although they are fellow students of Buddhism, there are differences in understanding and delusion. Therefore, the author refutes their eternalism and annihilationism, so that they can recognize true Buddhism; thus, it is refuting the delusions of fellow students. The situation refuted by Āryadeva [提婆 (Típó), Āryadeva] is different. The author himself studies Buddhist scriptures, while the externalists adhere to the Samkhya [僧佉 (Sēngqié), Samkhya] scriptures. What they study is different, so it is said to be refuting heterodox views. Someone asks, does the refutation in the Madhyamaka-karika also have a meaning of inclusion? The answer is, it also has this meaning. How do we know this? Because the sutras say, 'Diagrams, books, prophecies, writings, and mantras are all spoken by the Buddha, not by externalists.' Because externalists are confused and do not understand, they must be refuted, and for the sake of expedient teaching, they need to be included. Someone asks, since the Śataśāstra has a meaning of inclusion for different dispositions, should the Madhyamaka-karika also have a meaning of non-inclusion in what it refutes? The answer is, it also has this meaning. Although they study Buddhism, they make their own interpretations, so like the treatises made by Kātyāyanīputra [迦旃延子 (Jiāzhānyánzǐ), Kātyāyanīputra], they do not obtain the true meaning of the Tripiṭaka [三藏 (Sānzàng), Tripiṭaka]. Therefore, what the Madhyamaka-karika refutes also has a meaning of non-inclusion. However, the objects refuted by the Śataśāstra have three types according to their dispositions: first, those of superior capacity, who understand as soon as they hear Āryadeva's refutation; second, those of medium capacity, who do not understand when they hear Āryadeva's refutation, but develop faith and understand after reading the Buddhist scriptures; third, those of inferior capacity, who do not understand when they hear the refutation, and cannot understand even after reading the Buddhist scriptures, but can understand after reading Nāgārjuna's treatises. If they are people of superior capacity, then they are the same as those who are refuted by the Madhyamaka-karika and can understand. Those of medium and inferior capacity,

挍一階也。第五明用假不同。假乃眾多。略明四種。一因緣二隨緣三就緣四對緣。若辨甚深因緣義。即是因緣假。隨緣所宜而說。即是隨緣假。就緣撿責。即是就緣假。若一一須對破。如對常說無常等。即是對緣假也。就四緣中。則有偏圓圓偏義。若如因緣。隨就對及隨緣故說因緣。對緣如此。四假未曾相離。即是圓義也。若遂時各用不同。即是偏義。問四假佛與菩薩為當盡具為當不爾。答差別無差別義。二不二義。佛菩薩皆具四假。若無差別差別不二二義。有具不具。佛當化主。所以具足四假。菩薩助申教旨。唯有兩假。所謂就緣對緣。菩薩雖具二假。而用復有強弱。百論則就緣為弱。對緣是強。中論對緣為弱。就緣義強。何故爾。中論初云。諸論師種種說生相。就其責覓生相不得。故言不生。種種說滅相。責滅者不得。故言不滅。即是就緣假義。百論借一對破異等。即是對緣假義也。第六明破申遠近。若兩論相望。中論近申。百論遠申。然者中論之緣。親稟佛經。親迷佛教。亦破即收。故申義成近。百論之緣。不親稟佛經。不親迷佛教。直是自樹己解。遠妨正教。破彼邪執。方入佛法故。申義成遠也。第七明兩論破有正傍。中論正破內迷傍除外執。百論正彈外執傍凈內迷。何故爾。若外道所執與中論所破緣同者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：校勘一階也。第五，闡明運用假名（假，梵語：Prajñapti，指為方便表達而安立的概念）的不同。假名有眾多，此處略明四種：一、因緣假（Hetu-pratyaya-prajñapti，依因緣而立的假名），二、隨緣假（Anuloma-pratyaya-prajñapti，隨順因緣而立的假名），三、就緣假（Upādāna-pratyaya-prajñapti，就因緣而立的假名），四、對緣假（Pratipakṣa-pratyaya-prajñapti，針對因緣而立的假名）。若辨析甚深的因緣之義，即是因緣假。隨順因緣所宜而說，即是隨緣假。就因緣進行檢討責難，即是就緣假。若一一需要對治破斥，如針對常說無常等，即是對緣假。就四緣（指因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）中，則有偏圓、圓偏之義。如果像因緣假一樣，隨就緣、對緣及隨緣的緣故而說因緣，對緣假也是如此，四假未曾相離，即是圓義。如果隨時間各自運用不同，即是偏義。問：四假，佛（Buddha，覺悟者）與菩薩（Bodhisattva，追求覺悟的修行者）是應當全部具備，還是不全部具備？答：有差別無差別之義，二（具足）不二（不具足）之義。佛菩薩都具備四假。若無差別、差別、不二、二義，則有具足與不具足。佛作為教化的主導者，所以具足四假。菩薩輔助闡揚教義，唯有兩假，即就緣假和對緣假。菩薩雖然具備兩假，但運用又有強弱之分。《百論》（Śata-śāstra）中，就緣假為弱，對緣假為強。《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）中，對緣假為弱，就緣假義強。為何如此？《中論》開頭說，諸論師種種說生相，就其責求生相而不可得，故說不生。種種說滅相，責求滅相者不可得，故說不滅。這就是就緣假義。《百論》借一對治破斥異見等，即是對緣假義。第六，闡明破斥和闡述的遠近。若兩論（指《中論》和《百論》）相互比較，《中論》是近申（指靠近佛陀教義來闡述），《百論》是遠申（指遠離佛陀教義來闡述）。《中論》的緣起，是親自稟承佛經，親自迷惑于佛教，亦破亦收，故闡述之義成就於近。《百論》的緣起，是不親自稟承佛經，不親自迷惑于佛教，直接是自己樹立自己的見解，遠離妨礙正教，破斥他們的邪執，才進入佛法，故闡述之義成就於遠。第七，闡明兩論破斥有正有傍。《中論》主要破斥內在的迷惑，順帶消除外道的執著。《百論》主要彈斥外道的執著，順帶清凈內在的迷惑。為何如此？如果外道所執與《中論》所破的緣起相同……

【English Translation】 English version: This is the first stage of collation. Fifth, it elucidates the differences in the use of provisional designations (Prajñapti, meaning concepts established for convenient expression). There are many provisional designations, but here we briefly explain four types: 1. Causal provisional designation (Hetu-pratyaya-prajñapti, provisional designation established based on causes and conditions), 2. Conformative provisional designation (Anuloma-pratyaya-prajñapti, provisional designation established in accordance with conditions), 3. Dependent provisional designation (Upādāna-pratyaya-prajñapti, provisional designation established based on conditions), 4. Counteractive provisional designation (Pratipakṣa-pratyaya-prajñapti, provisional designation established in response to conditions). If one analyzes the profound meaning of causality, it is the causal provisional designation. Speaking in accordance with what is suitable for the conditions is the conformative provisional designation. Examining and questioning based on conditions is the dependent provisional designation. If each one needs to be countered and refuted, such as speaking of impermanence in response to permanence, it is the counteractive provisional designation. Regarding the four conditions (referring to cause, immediate condition, object condition, and dominant condition), there is the meaning of partial and complete, and complete and partial. If, like the causal provisional designation, one speaks of causality because of dependent, counteractive, and conformative conditions, and the counteractive provisional designation is also like this, the four provisional designations are never separate, which is the meaning of complete. If each is used differently according to the time, it is the meaning of partial. Question: Regarding the four provisional designations, should Buddhas (Buddha, the awakened one) and Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva, practitioners seeking enlightenment) possess all of them, or not all of them? Answer: There is the meaning of difference and non-difference, and the meaning of two (possessing) and non-two (not possessing). Buddhas and Bodhisattvas both possess the four provisional designations. If there is no difference, difference, non-duality, and duality, then there is possessing and not possessing. The Buddha, as the leader of teaching, therefore possesses all four provisional designations. Bodhisattvas assist in expounding the teachings and only have two provisional designations, namely the dependent provisional designation and the counteractive provisional designation. Although Bodhisattvas possess two provisional designations, their use also has strengths and weaknesses. In the Śata-śāstra (Hundred Treatise), the dependent provisional designation is weak, and the counteractive provisional designation is strong. In the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), the counteractive provisional designation is weak, and the meaning of the dependent provisional designation is strong. Why is this so? The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā begins by saying that various teachers speak of the characteristic of arising, but when one examines and seeks the characteristic of arising, it cannot be found, therefore it is said that there is no arising. Various people speak of the characteristic of cessation, but when one questions those who seek cessation, it cannot be found, therefore it is said that there is no cessation. This is the meaning of the dependent provisional designation. The Śata-śāstra uses one against to refute differing views, which is the meaning of the counteractive provisional designation. Sixth, it elucidates the proximity and distance of refutation and exposition. If the two treatises (referring to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Śata-śāstra) are compared with each other, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is a near exposition (referring to expounding by being close to the Buddha's teachings), and the Śata-śāstra is a distant exposition (referring to expounding by being far from the Buddha's teachings). The origin of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is that it personally received the Buddhist scriptures and was personally confused by Buddhism, both refuting and accepting, therefore the meaning of exposition is achieved by being near. The origin of the Śata-śāstra is that it did not personally receive the Buddhist scriptures and was not personally confused by Buddhism, but directly established its own views, far from hindering the correct teachings, refuting their heretical views, and then entering the Buddha's teachings, therefore the meaning of exposition is achieved by being far. Seventh, it elucidates that the refutation of the two treatises has both primary and secondary aspects. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā primarily refutes internal confusion and secondarily eliminates external attachments. The Śata-śāstra primarily criticizes external attachments and secondarily purifies internal confusion. Why is this so? If the attachments of external paths are the same as the causality refuted by the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā...

是即從座被破。故中論正破內迷傍洗外執。若有內學執與百論破緣同。亦從座被破。故百論正彈外執傍洗內迷也。次明。中論破有傍有正。若比百論並是傍破。百論破義有正有傍。比中論並是正破也。何故爾明。佛說教本為眾生作明作導。欲令眾生因教悟道。眾生既不識教。則不能悟道。菩薩愍此失道眾生故。欲令佛教如本行世。若不破彼邪執。則正教不申。是故申義為正。破義居傍。百論破自樹外道未曾稟學佛教。破彼邪執。然後方入佛法。是故破正申傍也。第八明所破之緣有對不對。提婆面折外道。所以對緣。龍樹潛懷著筆。是故不對外人。問何故一對一不對。有釋云。龍樹妙思深遠峰辨難當。外人無敢與敵。故不對外人。提婆所明。一時面折外人。所以相對也。然此釋極不可解。若言龍樹妙思深遠無敢與對者。提婆亦爾。便應不對。又且若言龍樹妙思深遠外人不能與對者。佛與外道相對。便應智淺耶。如來智深而與外道相對。故知。不以龍樹智深故不對也。今不用此釋。問若不爾何得二人有對不對。答此亦何定。自有須面折方破外道。自有須潛懷著筆用此破邪。問只當如此。復有餘義。答覆有深致。何者明。龍樹出世之時。是正化之末像法之初。眾生雖復尋教失旨。而佛法尚興邪徒由翳。朋成大道眾生甚多。偏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『是即從座被破』，因此《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）主要是破除內在的迷惑，順帶洗滌外在的執著。如果內在的學說執著與《百論》（Śataśāstra）所破的因緣相同，也會『從座被破』。因此，《百論》主要是駁斥外在的執著，順帶洗滌內在的迷惑。接下來闡明，《中論》破『有』是順帶的，闡明『有』是主要的。如果與《百論》相比，都算是順帶的破斥。《百論》破斥的意義有主要有順帶，與《中論》相比，都算是主要的破斥。為什麼這樣說呢？闡明，佛陀說法的根本是爲了眾生作光明作引導，想要讓眾生通過教法領悟真理。眾生如果不認識教法，就不能領悟真理。菩薩憐憫這些迷失正道的眾生，想要讓佛教像原本那樣在世間流傳。如果不破除那些邪惡的執著，那麼正教就不能弘揚。因此，闡明正義是主要的，破斥邪義是順帶的。《百論》破斥那些自立門戶的外道，他們從未學習過佛教，破斥他們的邪惡執著，然後才能進入佛法。因此，破斥是主要的，闡明是順帶的。第八點闡明所破斥的因緣有『對』和『不對』兩種情況。提婆（Deva）當面駁斥外道，所以是『對緣』。龍樹（Nāgārjuna）暗中懷著想法著書立說，所以是『不對』外人。問：為什麼一個『對』，一個『不對』呢？有一種解釋說，龍樹的精妙思想深遠，辯才難以抵擋，外人沒有敢於與他為敵的，所以『不對』外人。提婆所闡明的，一時當面駁斥外人，所以是『相對』。然而這種解釋非常難以理解。如果說龍樹的精妙思想深遠，外人不能與他對敵，那麼提婆也一樣，就應該『不對』。而且，如果說龍樹的精妙思想深遠，外人不能與他對敵，那麼佛陀與外道相對，豈不是顯得智慧淺薄了嗎？如來的智慧深遠卻與外道相對，所以知道，不是因為龍樹的智慧深遠所以才『不對』。現在不用這種解釋。問：如果不是這樣，為什麼兩個人有『對』有『不對』呢？答：這也沒有定論。有的是需要當面駁斥才能破除外道，有的是需要暗中懷著想法著書立說來破除邪惡。問：僅僅是這樣嗎？還有其他含義嗎？答：還有更深遠的意義。是什麼呢？闡明，龍樹出世的時候，是正法末期，像法初期。眾生雖然尋求教法卻迷失了宗旨，但是佛法仍然興盛，邪徒還很隱蔽。贊成大道的人很多，偏頗

【English Translation】 English version 'Is that immediately broken from the seat.' Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) mainly refutes internal delusions and incidentally washes away external attachments. If internal doctrinal attachments are the same as the causes refuted by the Śataśāstra (Hundred Treatise), they will also be 'broken from the seat.' Therefore, the Śataśāstra mainly criticizes external attachments and incidentally washes away internal delusions. Next, it is clarified that the Madhyamaka-karika's refutation of 'existence' is incidental, while its exposition of 'existence' is primary. Compared to the Śataśāstra, all are considered incidental refutations. The meaning of the Śataśāstra's refutation has both primary and incidental aspects; compared to the Madhyamaka-karika, all are considered primary refutations. Why is this so? It is clarified that the Buddha's teaching is fundamentally to provide light and guidance for sentient beings, intending to enable them to awaken to the truth through the teachings. If sentient beings do not recognize the teachings, they cannot awaken to the truth. Bodhisattvas, out of compassion for these sentient beings who have lost the right path, desire to have Buddhism spread in the world as it originally was. If those evil attachments are not refuted, then the correct teaching cannot be promoted. Therefore, expounding the correct meaning is primary, and refuting the incorrect meaning is incidental. The Śataśāstra refutes those self-established heretics who have never studied Buddhism, refuting their evil attachments so that they can then enter the Buddha's Dharma. Therefore, refutation is primary, and exposition is incidental. Eighth, it is clarified that the causes for refutation are either 'direct' or 'indirect.' Deva (提婆) directly refuted the heretics, so it is a 'direct cause.' Nāgārjuna (龍樹) secretly cherished thoughts and wrote books, so it is 'indirect' to outsiders. Question: Why is one 'direct' and the other 'indirect'? One explanation says that Nāgārjuna's profound thoughts were far-reaching, and his eloquence was difficult to resist; no outsider dared to oppose him, so he was 'indirect' to outsiders. Deva's exposition was a direct refutation of outsiders at the time, so it was 'relative.' However, this explanation is very difficult to understand. If it is said that Nāgārjuna's profound thoughts were far-reaching and outsiders could not oppose him, then Deva is the same, and he should be 'indirect.' Moreover, if it is said that Nāgārjuna's profound thoughts were far-reaching and outsiders could not oppose him, then when the Buddha faced heretics, would it not appear that his wisdom was shallow? The Tathagata's wisdom is profound, yet he faced heretics, so it is known that it is not because Nāgārjuna's wisdom was profound that he was 'indirect.' Now, this explanation is not used. Question: If not, why do the two have 'direct' and 'indirect'? Answer: There is no fixed rule. Sometimes it is necessary to directly refute in order to eliminate heresy, and sometimes it is necessary to secretly cherish thoughts and write books to eliminate evil. Question: Is it just like this? Are there other meanings? Answer: There are deeper meanings. What are they? It is clarified that when Nāgārjuna appeared in the world, it was the end of the Correct Dharma period and the beginning of the Semblance Dharma period. Although sentient beings sought the teachings but lost the purpose, Buddhism was still flourishing, and heretics were still hidden. Many people agreed with the Great Way, and biased

學小心其事蓋少。龍樹既興望風懸揖。止須著筆。邪徒自喪。無敢對面與共擊揚。是故龍樹不對也。提婆出世。是八百餘年。去聖既遠。邪儻盛興。正化訛替。故序云。邪辨逼真殆亂正道。金石一貫。得失莫分。菩薩雖興。猶生拒抗。自非對面折挫辭屈言下。邪心轉熾。無肯改迷。故提婆面對群邪。所以二人有對不對。其意爾也。

次第三章。明經論破立諦智傍正。若如他人所釋。毗曇立而不破。三論破而不立。成實亦立亦破。今問。若言成實破毗曇故名亦立亦破者。毗曇亦破成實。何故非亦立亦破耶。成實破數人根見。立用識見云。若用根能見。死人有根。亦應能見。眼識在耳中。眼根何意不見耶。而今有根無識根不見者。故云。根不能見。故破根立識。名為亦破亦立。數人立根見破識見。若用識見識無障礙。應見障外色。但見障內不見障外者。故知。但是根見非關識見。豈非亦破亦立耶。若止言毗曇立而不破成實論亦立亦破不可也。又云。三論但破不立。亦不然。誰向君道三論不立而存破耶。彼即引肇師百論序云。言而無當破而不立。豈非三論不立而有破耶。今明不然。論序云。破而不立者。只不執此破。故言破而不立。何關不立而存有此破耶。何以知然。下文云。破如可破破本破于可破。可破既無在。破

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：學習要小心謹慎，因為懂得很少。龍樹（Nāgārjuna，佛教哲學家）出現后，人們都仰望他，只要他提筆，邪說就會自行消亡，沒有人敢當面與他辯論。所以龍樹不與人辯論。提婆（Āryadeva，龍樹的弟子）出世，距離佛陀涅槃已經八百多年，離聖人已經很久遠，邪說盛行，正法衰落。所以序言中說，邪說的辯論逼真，幾乎擾亂正道，金石混淆，得失難分。菩薩雖然出現，仍然有人抗拒。如果不是當面折服，言辭屈服，邪心會更加熾盛，不肯改變迷惑。所以提婆要面對各種邪說，這就是他們兩人有辯論和不辯論的原因。

接下來第三章，闡明經論破斥和建立真諦智慧的傍正。如果像其他人解釋的那樣，毗曇（Abhidharma，論藏）是建立而不破斥，三論（Madhyamaka-śāstra，中觀論書）是破斥而不建立，成實論（Satyasiddhi-śāstra，成實論）是既建立又破斥。現在問，如果說成實論破斥毗曇，所以說是既建立又破斥，那麼毗曇也破斥成實論，為什麼不能說是既建立又破斥呢？成實論破斥數論的根見，建立用識見，說如果用根能見，死人有根，也應該能見。眼識在耳中，眼根為什麼看不見呢？現在有根沒有識，根看不見，所以說根不能見。所以破斥根見，建立識見，名為既破又立。數論建立根見，破斥識見，如果用識見，識沒有障礙，應該能看見障礙外的顏色，但只能看見障礙內的，看不見障礙外的，所以知道只是根見，與識見無關。難道不是既破又立嗎？如果只說毗曇是建立而不破斥，成實論是既建立又破斥，是不可以的。又說，三論只是破斥而不建立，也是不對的。誰告訴你說三論不建立而只存在破斥呢？他們就引用肇師（僧肇）的百論序說，『言而無當，破而不立』，難道不是三論不建立而只有破斥嗎？現在說明不是這樣。論序說，破而不立，只是不執著于這種破斥，所以說破而不立。與不建立而只存在這種破斥有什麼關係呢？為什麼知道是這樣呢？下文說，破如可破，破本破于可破，可破既然不存在，破斥也就沒有了。

【English Translation】 English version: Learning requires caution because understanding is limited. When Nāgārjuna (Buddhist philosopher) appeared, people looked up to him with admiration. As soon as he put pen to paper, heretical doctrines would vanish on their own, and no one dared to debate with him face to face. Therefore, Nāgārjuna did not engage in debates. Āryadeva (Nāgārjuna's disciple) was born more than eight hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana (death), far removed from the sages. Heretical doctrines flourished, and the true Dharma declined. Therefore, the preface states that heretical arguments were so convincing that they almost disrupted the true path, confusing gold and stone, making it difficult to distinguish between right and wrong. Although Bodhisattvas appeared, they still faced resistance. Unless they were defeated face to face, their arguments refuted, heretical minds would become even more fervent and unwilling to change their delusions. Therefore, Āryadeva had to confront various heretical doctrines. This is the reason why the two of them sometimes debated and sometimes did not.

Next, the third chapter clarifies the sutras and treatises that refute and establish the true wisdom of reality, both directly and indirectly. If, as others explain, the Abhidharma (collection of philosophical treatises) establishes without refuting, the Madhyamaka-śāstra (treatises on the Middle Way) refutes without establishing, and the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (treatise on the accomplishment of truth) both establishes and refutes. Now, I ask, if it is said that the Satyasiddhi-śāstra refutes the Abhidharma, and therefore it is said to both establish and refute, then the Abhidharma also refutes the Satyasiddhi-śāstra. Why can't it be said to both establish and refute? The Satyasiddhi-śāstra refutes the Samkhya school's view of the senses and establishes the view of consciousness, saying that if the senses could see, then a dead person with senses should also be able to see. If the eye consciousness is in the ear, why can't the eye sense see? Now, there are senses without consciousness, and the senses cannot see. Therefore, it is said that the senses cannot see. Thus, refuting the view of the senses and establishing the view of consciousness is called both refuting and establishing. The Samkhya school establishes the view of the senses and refutes the view of consciousness, saying that if consciousness is used to see, consciousness should have no obstruction and should be able to see colors outside the barrier. But one can only see what is inside the barrier and not what is outside. Therefore, it is known that it is only the senses that see, and it has nothing to do with consciousness. Isn't this also both refuting and establishing? If one only says that the Abhidharma establishes without refuting and the Satyasiddhi-śāstra both establishes and refutes, that is not acceptable. Furthermore, it is said that the Madhyamaka-śāstra only refutes and does not establish, which is also incorrect. Who told you that the Madhyamaka-śāstra does not establish but only refutes? They then quote Master Zhao's (Sengzhao) preface to the Hundred Treatises, saying, 'Words without substance, refuting without establishing.' Isn't this the Madhyamaka-śāstra not establishing but only refuting? Now, I explain that this is not the case. The preface to the treatise says that refuting without establishing only means not being attached to this refutation, so it is said to refute without establishing. What does it have to do with not establishing but only refuting? How do we know this is the case? The following text says, 'Refuting as refutable, refuting the root by refuting the refutable. Since the refutable no longer exists, the refutation also ceases.'

亦盡。只不立有此破。故云破而不立也。今明。論顯中觀。經明正法。既稱中觀正法。豈更有破立可論。但若不因破立。無以顯不破不立。故師子吼經言。若不因一二。云何得辨無一無二。是故今時欲顯無破無立故。方便論于破立。就佛菩薩相望。若是佛不具足而具足故。有破有立。菩薩當具足而不具足故。唯破不立。佛破虛妄邪見。后為說真實正法。是故亦破亦立。菩薩助佛揚化。直破邪迷顯佛方便。無所樹立。是以唯破不立也。人今聞此。便定謂佛有破有立論主唯破不立。即覆成見。今須通釋。非但論主唯破不立。佛亦唯破而不立。非但佛亦破亦立。論主亦得亦破亦立。今人聞此。以復生疑。佛可得有立。論主那得有立。今須返問汝。言佛立者。何所立。佛隻立二諦教門。教門只是教示前緣。諦只是諦目前緣。何容只佛能諦目前緣論主不能諦目前緣。佛既能目前緣。既得有立。論主亦能教示前緣。亦得有立也。次明。非但論主無立。佛亦無立。人以復疑通。論主示可無立。佛何意無立也。今問。汝言佛有立者。相是若為。彼家即道說。佛二諦即是教門。今問汝。言二諦教門。欲何所為。二諦教門。只是眾生病藥。既無有病則無有藥。且又汝信二諦教門。欲表諸法是有。欲表諸法非有。汝既信二諦教門。有表不有。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：也完全消失。只是不設立任何東西來破除這些觀點。所以說『破而不立』。現在說明，佛經闡明中觀（Madhyamaka，佛教哲學的一個重要流派），經典闡明正法（Saddharma，正確的佛法）。既然稱為中觀正法，哪裡還有什麼破立可以討論呢？但是，如果不通過破除和建立，就無法彰顯不破不立的真諦。所以《師子吼經》（Simhanada Sutra）說：『如果不依靠一和二，怎麼能辨別沒有一也沒有二呢？』因此，現在爲了彰顯無破無立的境界，方便地討論破立。就佛（Buddha）和菩薩（Bodhisattva）而言，如果是佛，因為已經具足而又示現不具足，所以既有破除又有建立；菩薩應當具足而不具足，所以只有破除而沒有建立。佛破除虛妄邪見，然後為眾生宣說真實正法，所以既破又立。菩薩幫助佛弘揚教化，直接破除邪迷，彰顯佛的方便法門，沒有自己的主張和建立。因此只有破除而沒有建立。人們現在聽到這些，就斷定佛有破有立，論主只有破沒有立，這就又成了偏見。現在需要全面解釋，不僅僅是論主只有破沒有立，佛也只有破沒有立；不僅僅是佛既破又立，論主也可以既破又立。現在人們聽到這些，又會產生疑問，佛可以有建立，論主怎麼能有建立呢？現在需要反問你，你說佛有建立，建立了什麼？佛只是建立了二諦（Dva Satya，勝義諦和世俗諦）的教門。教門只是教示前緣，諦只是諦目前緣。難道只有佛才能諦目前緣，論主就不能諦目前緣嗎？佛既然能目前緣，就可以有建立，論主也能教示前緣，也可以有建立。接下來闡明，不僅僅是論主沒有建立，佛也沒有建立。人們又會疑惑，論主沒有建立還可以理解，佛為什麼沒有建立呢？現在問你，你說佛有建立，相是什麼樣的？他們就會說，佛的二諦就是教門。現在問你，說二諦教門，想要做什麼？二諦教門，只是眾生的病藥。既然沒有病就沒有藥。而且你相信二諦教門，是想表明諸法是有，還是想表明諸法非有？你既然相信二諦教門，有表明不有。

【English Translation】 English version: also completely disappear. It's just that nothing is established to refute these views. Therefore, it is said 'to destroy without establishing'. Now, it is explained that the sutras clarify Madhyamaka (the Middle Way, an important school of Buddhist philosophy), and the scriptures clarify Saddharma (the true Dharma). Since it is called Madhyamaka Saddharma, where else can there be any discussion of destruction and establishment? However, if not through destruction and establishment, the truth of neither destroying nor establishing cannot be revealed. Therefore, the Simhanada Sutra says: 'If not relying on one and two, how can one distinguish neither one nor two?' Therefore, now, in order to reveal the state of no destruction and no establishment, destruction and establishment are discussed expediently. As far as the Buddha and the Bodhisattva are concerned, if it is the Buddha, because he is already complete and yet manifests incompleteness, there is both destruction and establishment; the Bodhisattva should be complete but not complete, so there is only destruction and no establishment. The Buddha destroys false and heretical views, and then proclaims the true Dharma to sentient beings, so there is both destruction and establishment. The Bodhisattva helps the Buddha to promote teachings, directly destroying heresy and revealing the Buddha's expedient methods, without his own opinions and establishments. Therefore, there is only destruction and no establishment. People now hear these, and conclude that the Buddha has destruction and establishment, and the commentator only has destruction and no establishment, which becomes a prejudice again. Now a comprehensive explanation is needed, not only does the commentator only have destruction and no establishment, but the Buddha also only has destruction and no establishment; not only does the Buddha have both destruction and establishment, but the commentator can also have both destruction and establishment. Now people hear these, and will have doubts again, the Buddha can have establishment, how can the commentator have establishment? Now you need to be asked in return, you say the Buddha has establishment, what has he established? The Buddha only established the teaching of the Two Truths (Dva Satya, ultimate truth and conventional truth). Teaching is just teaching the previous conditions, truth is just the truth of the current conditions. Is it only the Buddha who can be truthful to the current conditions, and the commentator cannot be truthful to the current conditions? Since the Buddha can be truthful to the current conditions, he can have establishment, and the commentator can also teach the previous conditions, and can also have establishment. Next, it is clarified that not only does the commentator have no establishment, but the Buddha also has no establishment. People will doubt again, it is understandable that the commentator has no establishment, why does the Buddha have no establishment? Now ask you, you say the Buddha has establishment, what does it look like? They will say that the Buddha's Two Truths are the teaching. Now ask you, saying the teaching of the Two Truths, what do you want to do? The teaching of the Two Truths is just medicine for the diseases of sentient beings. Since there is no disease, there is no medicine. Moreover, you believe in the teaching of the Two Truths, do you want to show that all dharmas exist, or do you want to show that all dharmas do not exist? Since you believe in the teaching of the Two Truths, there is a statement of non-existence.

無表不無。顯諸法無所有。即是顯諸法無所立。那聞二諦教門即合有立也。故知。非但論主無立。佛亦無立。次更明。非但無立。亦復無破。人以復疑。佛與論主破眾生病。那得無破。今問。汝言破。何所破。破只是破執耳。有執故名破。執無故無破。論主既無執。故論主無破也。問若爾論主既無破。論主應不申。答破本破于執。申本申于屈。論主無所執。故論主無所破。外人有屈。即外人有申。論主既無屈。則論主無有申。問破名本在外人。申名本屬論主。而今申名既屬外人。破名應屬論主。答破本破于執。申本申于屈。論主不曾執。則論主無有破。論主不曾屈。則論主無所申。論主尚不受于申。寧當受屈耶。是故非但無執。亦復無破。非但無屈。亦復無申。蕭然無累名得解脫。故外人問云。如此破得何利。答云。名得解脫義。何以加之。次明諦智傍正。若具足為言。應云諦智慧所傍正。今簡略為語。故云諦智傍正。若為是其相明。佛以二智為能說。二諦為所說。論主以二諦為能論。以二智為所論。佛既二智為能說。即以二智為正。二諦為所說。則以二諦為傍。論主既以二諦為能論。則以二諦為正。二智為所論。則以二智為傍。今辨意。正欲明此之諦智慧所。傍正章門且置。但須泛明四種能所。一者即是就佛明能所

。二者即是境智明能所。三者就論主明能所。四者就論明能所也。若佛二智為能說。二諦為所說。個即是就佛明能所也。若菩薩稟二諦教發生二智。教轉名境。境是能生。智是所生。個即是就境智明能所也。若論主二智為能說。言教為所說。個即是就論主明能所也。若論是能論經是所論。個即是就論明能所。而今何故在此論初須辨諦智慧所。凡有兩義。一者欲明造論所由。二者欲明能所不二。若為是欲明造論所由。論主稟二諦教發生二智。用此二智故能造論破邪。個即是造論所由也。若為是欲明能所不二。然雖有四能所。只成一能所。雖有一能所。只成無能所。故不諦不智。不能不所。不傍不正。個即是欲明能所不二也。今次釋初章門。好體佛以二智為能說。二諦為所說。論主亦以二智為能說。言教為所說。就論主無別智。悟佛教生智。論主無別說。還說佛所說。論主無別論。還論佛所說。故佛若能若所並是所論。論主若所若能並是能論。佛若能若所並是所申。論主若所若能並是能申。何故爾。論主稟二諦教發生二智。諦智不二。以諦成智。故通受諦名。佛以二智說於二諦。諦智不二。以智成諦。故通受智名。佛之諦智。通受智名。故若能若所並是所論。論主之智諦通名諦。故若所若能並是能論。故論主以二諦為能論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二者即是境智（境界與智慧）明能所（能動者與被動者）。三者就論主（著作者）明能所。四者就論（論述）明能所。如果佛以二智（兩種智慧）為能說，二諦（兩種真理）為所說，這便是就佛明能所。如果菩薩稟承二諦之教，發生二智，教義轉化名為境，境是能生，智是所生，這便是就境智明能所。如果論主以二智為能說，言教為所說，這便是就論主明能所。如果論是能論，經是所論，這便是就論明能所。而今為何在此論的開始需要辨明諦智的能所關係？凡有兩層含義。一是想要說明造論的緣由，二是想要說明能所不二。如果說是想要說明造論的緣由，論主稟承二諦之教，發生二智，用這二智所以能夠造論破除邪說，這便是造論的緣由。如果說是想要說明能所不二，雖然有四種能所，最終只成一種能所；雖然有一種能所，最終歸於無能所。所以不諦（不真實）不智（不智慧），不能有所作為。不偏頗，不邪惡，這便是想要說明能所不二。現在解釋第一章的門徑。佛以二智為能說，二諦為所說。論主也以二智為能說，言教為所說。就論主而言，沒有別的智慧，是領悟佛教而生出智慧；論主沒有別的言說，還是說佛所說；論主沒有別的論述，還是論述佛所說。所以佛的能與所都是所論，論主的所與能都是能論。佛的能與所都是所申（闡述），論主的所與能都是能申（闡述）。為什麼這樣說呢？論主稟承二諦之教，發生二智，諦智不二，以諦成就智，所以普遍接受諦的名稱。佛以二智說於二諦，諦智不二，以智成就諦，所以普遍接受智的名稱。佛的諦智，普遍接受智的名稱，所以能與所都是所論。論主的智諦普遍名為諦，所以所與能都是能論。所以論主以二諦為能論。

【English Translation】 English version: The two are the 'knower' and 'known' (境智), clarifying the 'agent' and 'object' (能所). The third concerns the author (論主), clarifying the 'agent' and 'object'. The fourth concerns the treatise (論), clarifying the 'agent' and 'object'. If the Buddha uses the two wisdoms (二智) as the 'agent of speech' and the two truths (二諦) as the 'object of speech', this clarifies the 'agent' and 'object' with respect to the Buddha. If a Bodhisattva receives the teachings of the two truths and develops the two wisdoms, the teachings transform into the 'realm' (境), the realm is the 'producer', and wisdom is the 'produced', this clarifies the 'agent' and 'object' with respect to the 'knower' and 'known'. If the author uses the two wisdoms as the 'agent of speech' and the verbal teachings as the 'object of speech', this clarifies the 'agent' and 'object' with respect to the author. If the treatise is the 'agent of argument' and the sutra is the 'object of argument', this clarifies the 'agent' and 'object' with respect to the treatise. Why is it necessary to distinguish the 'agent' and 'object' of truth and wisdom at the beginning of this treatise? There are two meanings. First, to clarify the reason for writing the treatise. Second, to clarify that the 'agent' and 'object' are not two. If it is to clarify the reason for writing the treatise, the author receives the teachings of the two truths and develops the two wisdoms, and uses these two wisdoms to write the treatise and refute heresies, this is the reason for writing the treatise. If it is to clarify that the 'agent' and 'object' are not two, although there are four 'agents' and 'objects', they ultimately become one 'agent' and 'object'; although there is one 'agent' and 'object', it ultimately returns to no 'agent' and 'object'. Therefore, without truth (諦) and without wisdom (智), there can be no accomplishment. Without being impartial and without being correct, this is to clarify that the 'agent' and 'object' are not two. Now, explain the gateway of the first chapter. The Buddha uses the two wisdoms as the 'agent of speech' and the two truths as the 'object of speech'. The author also uses the two wisdoms as the 'agent of speech' and the verbal teachings as the 'object of speech'. With respect to the author, there is no separate wisdom, but wisdom arises from understanding the Buddha's teachings; the author has no separate speech, but still speaks what the Buddha speaks; the author has no separate treatise, but still discusses what the Buddha discusses. Therefore, the Buddha's 'agent' and 'object' are both what is discussed, and the author's 'object' and 'agent' are both the 'agent of discussion'. The Buddha's 'agent' and 'object' are both what is expounded, and the author's 'object' and 'agent' are both the 'agent of exposition'. Why is this so? The author receives the teachings of the two truths and develops the two wisdoms, truth and wisdom are not two, and wisdom is achieved through truth, so it universally receives the name of truth. The Buddha speaks of the two truths with the two wisdoms, truth and wisdom are not two, and truth is achieved through wisdom, so it universally receives the name of wisdom. The Buddha's truth and wisdom universally receive the name of wisdom, so the 'agent' and 'object' are both what is discussed. The author's wisdom and truth are universally named truth, so the 'object' and 'agent' are both the 'agent of discussion'. Therefore, the author uses the two truths as the 'agent of discussion'.

。以二智為所論。以二智為能說。二諦為所說。故佛以二智為正。二諦為傍。論主以二諦為正。二智為傍。故經以智為能。以諦為所。故論以諦為能。以智為所。是則經能為論所。論能為經所。經所為論能。論所為經能。亦是經傍為論正。論傍為經正。經正為論傍。經能為論所。此所則非所。經所為論能。此能則非能。論傍為經正。此正則非正。論正為經傍。此傍則非傍。故非能非所。非傍非正。不經不論。不師不弟。非能非所而能所。非傍正而傍正。不經論而經論。不師不弟而師弟。是佛菩薩經論師弟因緣相成。並得名中也。

第四章明解中觀論名。然中觀論三字無定。亦言中觀論。亦言觀中論。亦言論中觀。若中觀論約論者為名。若觀中論就觀解為目。若論中觀約論功為稱。所以然者。若為是約論者為名。中則通於理教。即是教中理中。稟二諦教發生二智。教轉名境。中境發生觀智。是故初表中境。次表觀智。中觀既興論名得起。中境發生觀智。用此觀智。能研詳往復。是故名論。故言中觀論。若為是就觀解為目。明用此觀智慧觀中正之境。用此觀智。研核是非。故言觀中論。若為是約論功為稱。明論何所論。論只論于中觀。若是他論則論于偏解。若是今論則論于中觀。故言論中觀也。此釋不無有意。但非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以兩種智慧作為所討論的對象，以兩種智慧作為能說者，二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）作為所說的內容。因此，佛陀以二智為根本，以二諦為輔助。而論主以二諦為根本，以二智為輔助。所以，經典以智慧為能動者，以真諦為所對之境；而論典以真諦為能動者，以智慧為所對之境。這樣，經典所能做的，就是論典所要做的；論典所能做的，就是經典所要做的。經典所對之境，就是論典所能做的；論典所對之境，就是經典所能做的。也可以說，經典中的輔助部分，是論典中的主要部分；論典中的輔助部分，是經典中的主要部分。經典中的主要部分，是論典中的輔助部分；經典所能做的，是論典所對之境。這個『所對之境』就不是真正的『所對之境』。經典所對之境，是論典所能做的，這個『能動者』就不是真正的『能動者』。論典中的輔助部分，是經典中的主要部分，這個『主要』就不是真正的主要。論典中的主要部分，是經典中的輔助部分，這個『輔助』就不是真正的輔助。所以，既非能動，也非所對；既非輔助，也非主要。不依賴經典，也不依賴論典；不依賴老師，也不依賴弟子。雖非能動非所對，卻有能動和所對；雖非輔助非主要，卻有輔助和主要。不依賴經典和論典，卻有經典和論典；不依賴老師和弟子，卻有老師和弟子。這是佛、菩薩、經典、論典、老師、弟子相互依存，因緣和合，共同成就，並且都只是名相上的存在。第四章闡明《中觀論》（Madhyamaka-śāstra）的名稱。然而，《中觀論》這三個字並沒有固定的說法，有時說成『中觀論』，有時說成『觀中論』，有時說成『論中觀』。如果說『中觀論』，那是從論著的角度來命名的；如果說『觀中論』，那是就觀照理解的角度來立目的；如果說『論中觀』，那是從論著的功用來稱謂的。為什麼這樣說呢？如果認為是從論著的角度來命名，那麼『中』就貫通了理和教，也就是教中的理，理中的教。稟承二諦之教，生髮二智（dvi-jñāna，俗智和真智），教義轉化為境界，『中』境生髮觀智。因此，首先標明『中』境，其次標明觀智。『中觀』興起，論著的名稱才得以確立。『中』境生髮觀智，用這種觀智，能夠深入研究，往復推敲，所以叫做『論』，因此說『中觀論』。如果認為是從觀照理解的角度來立目的，那就是說明用這種觀智，能夠觀照中正的境界，用這種觀智，研核是非，所以說『觀中論』。如果認為是從論著的功用來稱謂，那就是說明論著論述的是什麼，論著只論述『中觀』。如果是其他的論著，那就論述片面的理解；如果是現在的論著，那就論述『中觀』，所以說『論中觀』。這種解釋並非沒有道理，但並非...

【English Translation】 English version: The two wisdoms (dvi-jñāna) are taken as the object of discussion, the two wisdoms are taken as the speaker, and the two truths (satya-dvaya) are taken as the content. Therefore, the Buddha takes the two wisdoms as fundamental and the two truths as auxiliary. The treatise master takes the two truths as fundamental and the two wisdoms as auxiliary. Therefore, the sutras take wisdom as the agent and truth as the object; the treatises take truth as the agent and wisdom as the object. Thus, what the sutra can do is what the treatise does; what the treatise can do is what the sutra does. What the sutra is directed towards is what the treatise can do; what the treatise is directed towards is what the sutra can do. It can also be said that the auxiliary part in the sutra is the main part in the treatise; the auxiliary part in the treatise is the main part in the sutra. The main part in the sutra is the auxiliary part in the treatise; what the sutra can do is what the treatise is directed towards. This 'what is directed towards' is not the real 'what is directed towards'. What the sutra is directed towards is what the treatise can do, this 'agent' is not the real 'agent'. The auxiliary part in the treatise is the main part in the sutra, this 'main' is not the real main. The main part in the treatise is the auxiliary part in the sutra, this 'auxiliary' is not the real auxiliary. Therefore, it is neither agent nor object; neither auxiliary nor main. It does not rely on sutras, nor does it rely on treatises; it does not rely on teachers, nor does it rely on disciples. Although it is neither agent nor object, it has agent and object; although it is neither auxiliary nor main, it has auxiliary and main. It does not rely on sutras and treatises, but it has sutras and treatises; it does not rely on teachers and disciples, but it has teachers and disciples. This is the interdependence of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, sutras, treatises, teachers, and disciples, the harmony of conditions, the common achievement, and they are all merely nominal existences. Chapter 4 explains the name of the 'Madhyamaka-śāstra' (中觀論). However, there is no fixed way of saying the three words 'Madhyamaka-śāstra'. Sometimes it is said as 'Madhyamaka-śāstra', sometimes as 'Contemplation of the Middle Treatise' ('觀中論'), and sometimes as 'Treatise on Middle Contemplation' ('論中觀'). If it is said as 'Madhyamaka-śāstra', it is named from the perspective of the treatise; if it is said as 'Contemplation of the Middle Treatise', it is established from the perspective of contemplation and understanding; if it is said as 'Treatise on Middle Contemplation', it is named from the function of the treatise. Why is this so? If it is considered that it is named from the perspective of the treatise, then 'Middle' ('中') penetrates both principle and teaching, that is, the principle in the teaching and the teaching in the principle. Receiving the teaching of the two truths, the two wisdoms (dvi-jñāna) arise, the teaching transforms into a realm, and the 'Middle' realm gives rise to contemplative wisdom. Therefore, first the 'Middle' realm is marked, and then the contemplative wisdom is marked. When 'Madhyamaka' arises, the name of the treatise can be established. The 'Middle' realm gives rise to contemplative wisdom, and with this contemplative wisdom, one can deeply study and repeatedly deliberate, so it is called 'Treatise', therefore it is said 'Madhyamaka-śāstra'. If it is considered that it is established from the perspective of contemplation and understanding, it is to explain that with this contemplative wisdom, one can contemplate the middle and correct realm, and with this contemplative wisdom, one can examine right and wrong, so it is said 'Contemplation of the Middle Treatise'. If it is considered that it is named from the function of the treatise, it is to explain what the treatise discusses, the treatise only discusses 'Madhyamaka'. If it is another treatise, then it discusses one-sided understanding; if it is the current treatise, then it discusses 'Madhyamaka', so it is said 'Treatise on Middle Contemplation'. This explanation is not without reason, but it is not...

一家正意。今問。何故啟初即題中觀耶。答此深有所以。明失道之緣未見佛性。未應般若。心鎮游生滅。意恒涉斷常。行生滅斷常故。所以乖于中道。行邪錯故。所以失正法。虛妄顛倒故。所以無實相。今為對此。明離斷離常。所以是中道。無邪錯故。所以是正法。離虛妄故。所以是中實。故今對此偏虛。故論題中實。問若個是失道之緣。答緣乃無量。大略為言。不出三種。一者即是稟教失旨之緣。二者即是邪見推獲之緣。三者流俗泛爾之緣。亦非稟教失旨。亦非邪見推獲。直是流俗泛爾之緣。今論所除。正破初一兼洗后二也問起自何時迷教失旨耶。答如論初。佛滅度後後五百歲像法中人。根轉鈍。稟中道二諦教不了。則是生滅斷常一異來出。故成八非不。今論主。稟中道二諦教。則了不生不滅不斷不常不一不異不來不出。故是八不。以八非不故成虛妄。以八不故是中實也。問何以詺八非不為虛妄。以八不故名中實耶。答外人謂。有生有滅。今就其責生不可得。故生者不生。今就其責滅不可得。故滅者不滅。彼言有生滅。今責其生滅不可得。故即是無而謂有。故是虛妄。論主言不生不滅。經中辨諸法實錄不生不滅。果自不生不滅。故是中實。舉例如毗曇義。彼義言。分別諸法時。舍名則說等。分別無所舍。是名第一義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一家正意。現在我問：為什麼一開始就以『中觀』為題呢？回答：這其中有深刻的原因。說明失去正道的因緣在於未能見到佛性，未能相應于般若智慧。心始終在生滅中游蕩，意念總是涉及斷滅和常存的偏見。行為產生於生滅斷常的觀念，因此違背了中道。行為邪僻錯誤，因此失去了正法。虛妄顛倒，因此沒有真實相。現在爲了對治這些問題，闡明遠離斷滅和常存，這就是中道；沒有邪僻錯誤，這就是正法；遠離虛妄，這就是真實。所以現在針對這些偏頗虛妄的觀點，本論以『中實』為題。問：什麼是失去正道的因緣呢？答：因緣有很多，大概來說，不出三種：一是接受教義卻失去宗旨的因緣；二是邪見推導而產生的錯誤認識的因緣；三是隨波逐流、泛泛而為的因緣。既不是接受教義卻失去宗旨，也不是邪見推導而產生的錯誤認識，而是直接隨波逐流、泛泛而為的因緣。現在本論所要破除的，正是第一種，兼帶洗滌后兩種。問：從什麼時候開始迷惑于教義而失去宗旨呢？答：如本論開頭所說，佛陀滅度后，后五百年的像法時期，人們的根器變得遲鈍，接受中道二諦的教義卻不能理解，於是產生生滅、斷常、一異、來出等偏見，因此形成了『八非』。現在本論的作者，接受中道二諦的教義，就能理解不生不滅、不斷不常、不一不異、不來不出，所以是『八不』。因為執著于『八非』，所以產生虛妄；因為理解『八不』，所以是中實。問：為什麼稱『八非』為虛妄，而稱『八不』為中實呢？答：外道認為有生有滅，現在就他們的觀點責問，生的自性不可得，所以說『生者不生』；現在就他們的觀點責問，滅的自性不可得，所以說『滅者不滅』。他們說有生滅，現在責問他們的生滅是不可得的，所以就是無而說有，所以是虛妄。本論作者說不生不滅，經典中辨明諸法實相是不生不滅的，果真是自性不生不滅，所以是中實。舉例來說，就像毗曇（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩，論藏）的義理。他們的義理說：在分別諸法的時候，捨棄名稱而說『等』，分別到無所捨棄，這叫做第一義（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）。

【English Translation】 English version: A family's correct intention. Now I ask: Why does it begin by titling 'Madhyamaka' (Middle Way) right from the start? Answer: There is a profound reason for this. Explaining that the cause of losing the path lies in not seeing the Buddha-nature, not corresponding to Prajna (wisdom). The mind constantly wanders in birth and death, and the intention always involves the biases of annihilation and permanence. Actions arise from the concepts of birth, death, annihilation, and permanence, thus deviating from the Middle Way. Actions are perverse and wrong, thus losing the Right Dharma. Being false and inverted, there is no true reality. Now, to counter these problems, it clarifies that being apart from annihilation and permanence is the Middle Way; without perversity and error, this is the Right Dharma; being apart from falsehood, this is true reality. Therefore, now addressing these biased and false views, this treatise is titled 'True Reality'. Question: What is the cause of losing the path? Answer: The causes are countless, but broadly speaking, they do not exceed three types: First, the cause of receiving teachings but losing the purpose; second, the cause of erroneous understanding arising from heretical views; third, the cause of following the common customs and being superficial. It is neither receiving teachings but losing the purpose, nor erroneous understanding arising from heretical views, but directly following common customs and being superficial. What this treatise aims to eliminate is precisely the first type, while also incidentally washing away the latter two. Question: From when does the confusion about teachings and the loss of purpose begin? Answer: As stated at the beginning of this treatise, after the Buddha's Parinirvana (death), in the Dharma-image age of the later five hundred years, people's faculties become dull, and they cannot understand the teachings of the Middle Way and the Two Truths (relative and absolute), thus giving rise to biases such as birth and death, annihilation and permanence, oneness and difference, coming and going, and so forming the 'eight negations'. Now, the author of this treatise, receiving the teachings of the Middle Way and the Two Truths, can understand no birth, no death, no annihilation, no permanence, no oneness, no difference, no coming, no going, so it is the 'eight nots'. Because of attachment to the 'eight negations', falsehood arises; because of understanding the 'eight nots', it is true reality. Question: Why are the 'eight negations' called falsehood, and the 'eight nots' called true reality? Answer: Outsiders believe in birth and death. Now, questioning their view, the nature of birth is unattainable, so it is said 'birth is not born'; now, questioning their view, the nature of death is unattainable, so it is said 'death is not dead'. They say there is birth and death, now questioning their birth and death as unattainable, so it is saying there is something when there is nothing, so it is falsehood. The author of this treatise says no birth and no death, and the sutras clarify that the true nature of all dharmas (phenomena) is no birth and no death, truly the self-nature is no birth and no death, so it is true reality. For example, like the Abhidharma's (阿毗達摩，論藏) meaning. Their meaning says: When distinguishing all dharmas, abandoning the name and saying 'equal', distinguishing to the point of nothing to abandon, this is called the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya，勝義諦).

等。是名世諦故虛妄第一義故則中實。如世諦中言我。責我不得我名。空施無體應名。即是無而謂有。故道舍名則說等。如道十一種色共成色陰。實錄如此。有名召體。有體應名。故無所舍。即是第一義。今時亦爾。外人所說。無而謂有。故是虛妄。論主出言果如經辨。故是中實也。問經中亦辨二諦中道。論中亦辨二諦中道。若為有異。答異。經中即明二諦中道。論中即明中道二諦。所以然者。經中辨因教表理。因二顯不二。即是明二諦中道。論中緣稟空有二教。即住空有二。故成迷失。論主今破空有者不空有。畢竟洗假詺為中。即是前明中道。前明不二。外人便過論主。若爾經中那得辨有無二諦。論主即釋。經中辨有無。個是方便之有無。經中辨二諦。個是假名之二諦。是故論中明中道二諦。次更反此一句語。經中即辨中道二諦。論中即辨二諦中道。所以然者。佛則以中道正觀赴緣。說真俗兩教。個即是從體起用。不二出二。是故經中則辨中道二諦。但緣稟真俗二諦教悉錯。是故成偏。今論主彈真不真。破俗不俗。折彼偏執。皆歸中解。是故明二諦中道也。然此中觀論三名。有時合解。有時離釋。雖複合解。合而不一。雖復離釋。離而不異。合而不一。所以不同。離而不異。所以不別。雖複合釋三義不失。雖復離解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：等等。這被稱為世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理），因此是虛妄的；就第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，勝義諦）而言，則是中實的。例如，在世俗諦中說『我』（Atman）。追究『我』，卻找不到『我』，只是一個『我』的名字。空無施設，沒有實體，只是一個名稱。這就是無而說有，所以說道捨棄名稱才能說等等。如同道家的十一種顏色共同構成色陰（Rupa-skandha，色蘊），真實記錄就是這樣。有名才能召來實體，有實體才能應和名稱，所以沒有什麼可以捨棄的，這就是第一義諦。現在也是這樣，外道所說的，無而說有，所以是虛妄的。論主的言論，果真如經文所辨明的，所以是中實的。問：經文中也辨明二諦中道（Madhyamaka，中觀），論中也辨明二諦中道，這有什麼不同呢？答：不同。經文中是明二諦的中道，論中是明中道的二諦。為什麼這樣說呢？經文中辨明因教來顯示真理，通過二諦來顯現不二，這就是明二諦的中道。論中依憑空有二教，就執著于空有二邊，因此造成迷失。論主現在破斥空有，既不執著于空也不執著于有，徹底洗去虛假的名稱，稱之為中道，這就是先明中道。先明不二，外道就責怪論主。如果這樣，經文中怎麼會辨明有無二諦呢？論主就解釋說，經文中辨明有無，那是方便之有無。經文中辨明二諦，那是假名之二諦。所以論中明中道的二諦。其次，再反過來說這句話，經文中是辨明中道的二諦，論中是辨明二諦的中道。為什麼這樣說呢？佛以中道正觀來應赴因緣，說真俗兩教，這即是從本體起作用，不二而生二，所以經文中辨明中道的二諦。只是因為依憑真俗二諦的教義都錯了，所以才造成偏頗。現在論主彈斥真不真，破斥俗不俗，折服他們的偏執，都歸於中道的理解，所以是明二諦的中道。然而，這《中觀論》有三個名稱，有時合起來解釋，有時分開解釋。即使合起來解釋，也是合而不一；即使分開解釋，也是離而不異。合而不一，所以不同；離而不異，所以不別。即使合起來解釋，三種含義也不會喪失；即使分開解釋，三種含義也不會喪失。

【English Translation】 English version: And so on. This is called Samvriti-satya (conventional truth), therefore it is false; in terms of Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth), it is the middle reality. For example, in Samvriti-satya, we say 'Atman' (self). If we investigate 'Atman', we cannot find 'Atman', it is just a name of 'Atman'. Empty establishment, without substance, just a name. This is saying there is something when there is nothing, so it is said that abandoning the name is to speak and so on. Just as the ten or eleven colors of Taoism together form Rupa-skandha (form aggregate), the true record is like this. Having a name can summon a substance, having a substance can respond to a name, so there is nothing to abandon, this is Paramartha-satya. It is the same now, what the heretics say, saying there is something when there is nothing, so it is false. The words of the treatise master are indeed as clarified by the scriptures, so it is the middle reality. Question: The scriptures also clarify the Madhyamaka (Middle Way) of the two truths, and the treatise also clarifies the Madhyamaka of the two truths, what is the difference? Answer: There is a difference. The scriptures clarify the Middle Way of the two truths, and the treatise clarifies the two truths of the Middle Way. Why is this said? The scriptures clarify the cause teaching to reveal the truth, using the two truths to reveal non-duality, this is clarifying the Middle Way of the two truths. The treatise relies on the teachings of emptiness and existence, and then clings to the two extremes of emptiness and existence, thus causing delusion. The treatise master now refutes emptiness and existence, neither clinging to emptiness nor clinging to existence, completely washing away false names, calling it the Middle Way, this is first clarifying the Middle Way. First clarifying non-duality, the heretics then blame the treatise master. If so, how can the scriptures clarify the two truths of existence and non-existence? The treatise master then explains, the scriptures clarify existence and non-existence, that is the existence and non-existence of skillful means. The scriptures clarify the two truths, that is the two truths of provisional names. Therefore, the treatise clarifies the two truths of the Middle Way. Secondly, reversing this sentence again, the scriptures clarify the two truths of the Middle Way, and the treatise clarifies the Middle Way of the two truths. Why is this said? The Buddha uses the Middle Way correct view to respond to conditions, speaking of the two teachings of truth and convention, this is from the substance arising function, non-duality giving rise to duality, so the scriptures clarify the two truths of the Middle Way. It is just because relying on the teachings of the two truths of truth and convention are all wrong, so it causes bias. Now the treatise master criticizes the true not true, refutes the conventional not conventional, subduing their clinging, all returning to the understanding of the Middle Way, so it is clarifying the Middle Way of the two truths. However, this Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) has three names, sometimes explained together, sometimes explained separately. Even if explained together, it is together but not one; even if explained separately, it is separate but not different. Together but not one, so it is different; separate but not different, so it is not separate. Even if explained together, the three meanings will not be lost; even if explained separately, the three meanings will not be lost.

一意圓通。今前合釋。次明離解。今前合釋。其相若為。中觀論非是用中境表觀智欲明境智異。今明以中釋觀。此是何物觀。此是中觀。此觀是中。名為中觀。體中實發生正觀。只以此正觀能凈斷常。是故名論。所以名中觀論。此論那得異於中觀。何故爾。若行生滅斷常則非中觀。今不行生滅斷常故是中觀。中觀宣之於口。是故名之為論。故是中觀。亦是論中觀也。次明離解。不分自別。但釋中有多師。何故爾。中者言忠。故中只忠理。家家盡言忠理。解解並謂忠文。是故釋中其計非一。略而為論。不出四家。一是外道解中。二是毗曇解中。三是成論解中。四是地論解中。此中道義。后自當廣出。今須略釋外道解中。若迦毗羅解中即言。泥團非瓶。非非瓶。所以然者。不即泥團是瓶故言非瓶。不離泥團有瓶故言非非瓶。亦是不即不離也。若是優樓迦解中聲非大非小。所以然者。如大鐘大聲小鐘小聲。至論此聲。實非大非小也。若勒沙婆解中。光非明非暗。所以然者。初生故。所以不明。破暗故。所以不暗也。今先破初家。汝不即泥團是瓶故為離。不離泥團有瓶故為即。只見是離是即。何處有非離非即耶也。余兩家同此破也。至如成論家。解世諦有三中。如不即四塵有柱。故非即。不離四塵有柱故非離。此計既同外道。

亦如前破。今問。山門所釋中義若為。有人解。道非有非無為中。而有而無為假。今問汝。為當別有非有非無以為中。為當用破有無者非有非無以為中耶。若言別有非有非無。此義不可。何故然。本破有無故得非有非無。而今何處別得此非有非無以為中。是故不可。若言只用破有無者非有非無即用此非有非無以為中義。復不可。何故然。汝本破有者非有。破無者非無。有無既去。非有非無亦除。何得只用此非有非無以為中。假亦如此。為當只用所非之有無為假。為當別起有無為假耶。若言只用所非之有無為假。是亦不然。何故爾。所非之有無既已被破。那得有此而有而無為假。若言別起有無為假不然。本因非有非無故得有無。何處別起而有而無為假耶。今問汝。為當定用非有非無為中而有而無為假。為當不爾。彼言定用。今問。若爾非內非外為中。亦內亦外為假不。答亦然。今難。大經言。非內非外亦內亦外故名中道。若爾非有非無亦有亦無故名中道。那得偏用非有非無為中而有而無為假。若爾應用非內非外為中亦內亦外為假也。且又汝既破有無罷。那得此非有非無為中。故論言。初后既已無。中當云何有。亦是有無既已無。中當云何有。如破緣說非緣。更無非緣法。亦是破有無說非有非無。更無非有非無法。那得此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如同前面破斥的一樣。現在我問：山門所解釋的『中』的含義是什麼？有人解釋說，『非有非無』是中，『而有而無』是假。現在我問你，是另外存在一個『非有非無』作為中，還是用破斥『有』和『無』的『非有非無』作為中呢？如果說另外存在一個『非有非無』，這個說法是不成立的。為什麼呢？本來是因為破斥了『有』和『無』，才得到『非有非無』，現在從哪裡另外得到這個『非有非無』作為中呢？所以這個說法是不成立的。如果說只是用破斥『有』和『無』的『非有非無』，就用這個『非有非無』作為中的含義，也是不成立的。為什麼呢？你本來破斥『有』，所以說『非有』；破斥『無』，所以說『非無』。『有』和『無』既然已經去除，『非有非無』也應該去除，怎麼能只用這個『非有非無』作為中呢？『假』也是如此。是用所破斥的『有』和『無』作為假，還是另外生起『有』和『無』作為假呢？如果說只是用所破斥的『有』和『無』作為假，這也是不對的。為什麼呢？所破斥的『有』和『無』既然已經被破斥，哪裡還能有這個『而有而無』作為假呢？如果說另外生起『有』和『無』作為假，也是不對的。本來是因為『非有非無』，才得到『有』和『無』，從哪裡另外生起『而有而無』作為假呢？現在我問你，是確定用『非有非無』作為中，『而有而無』作為假，還是不是這樣？他們回答說確定用。現在我問，如果是這樣，『非內非外』作為中，『亦內亦外』作為假，對不對？回答說也對。現在我反駁。《大般涅槃經》說，『非內非外亦內亦外』，所以叫做中道。如果是這樣，『非有非無亦有亦無』，所以叫做中道。怎麼能偏用『非有非無』作為中，『而有而無』作為假呢？如果這樣，就應該用『非內非外』作為中，『亦內亦外』作為假了。而且你既然已經破斥了『有』和『無』，哪裡還能有這個『非有非無』作為中呢？所以《中論》說，『初』和『后』既然已經沒有，『中』又怎麼會有呢？也是『有』和『無』既然已經沒有，『中』又怎麼會有呢？如同破斥『緣』，說『非緣』，就沒有另外的『非緣』法。也是破斥『有』和『無』，說『非有非無』，就沒有另外的『非有非無』法。哪裡還能有這個……

【English Translation】 English version: Just like the previous refutation. Now I ask: What is the meaning of 'middle' as explained by the mountain gate? Some explain that 'neither existence nor non-existence' is the middle, and 'both existence and non-existence' is provisional. Now I ask you, is there a separate 'neither existence nor non-existence' that serves as the middle, or is the 'neither existence nor non-existence' that refutes 'existence' and 'non-existence' used as the middle? If you say there is a separate 'neither existence nor non-existence', this is not possible. Why? Originally, 'neither existence nor non-existence' was obtained because 'existence' and 'non-existence' were refuted. Where do you separately obtain this 'neither existence nor non-existence' to serve as the middle now? Therefore, it is not possible. If you say that only the 'neither existence nor non-existence' that refutes 'existence' and 'non-existence' is used, and this 'neither existence nor non-existence' is used as the meaning of the middle, that is also not possible. Why? You originally refuted 'existence', so you said 'non-existence'; you refuted 'non-existence', so you said 'non-non-existence'. Since 'existence' and 'non-existence' have already been removed, 'neither existence nor non-existence' should also be removed. How can you only use this 'neither existence nor non-existence' as the middle? The 'provisional' is also like this. Is the 'existence' and 'non-existence' that is being refuted used as the provisional, or is 'existence' and 'non-existence' separately generated as the provisional? If you say that only the 'existence' and 'non-existence' that is being refuted is used as the provisional, that is also incorrect. Why? Since the 'existence' and 'non-existence' that is being refuted has already been refuted, how can there still be this 'both existence and non-existence' as the provisional? If you say that 'existence' and 'non-existence' is separately generated as the provisional, that is also incorrect. Originally, 'existence' and 'non-existence' were obtained because of 'neither existence nor non-existence'. Where do you separately generate 'both existence and non-existence' as the provisional? Now I ask you, is 'neither existence nor non-existence' definitely used as the middle, and 'both existence and non-existence' as the provisional, or is it not? They answer that it is definitely used. Now I ask, if that is the case, is 'neither inside nor outside' the middle, and 'both inside and outside' the provisional? They answer that it is also so. Now I refute. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'Neither inside nor outside, both inside and outside,' therefore it is called the Middle Way (Madhyamā-pratipad). If that is the case, 'Neither existence nor non-existence, both existence and non-existence,' therefore it is called the Middle Way. How can you biasedly use 'neither existence nor non-existence' as the middle, and 'both existence and non-existence' as the provisional? If that is the case, you should use 'neither inside nor outside' as the middle, and 'both inside and outside' as the provisional. Moreover, since you have already refuted 'existence' and 'non-existence', how can there still be this 'neither existence nor non-existence' as the middle? Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says, 'Since the beginning and the end are already gone, how can there be a middle?' Also, since 'existence' and 'non-existence' are already gone, how can there be a middle? Just as when 'condition' is refuted, and 'non-condition' is spoken of, there is no other 'non-condition' dharma. It is also like refuting 'existence' and 'non-existence', and speaking of 'neither existence nor non-existence', there is no other 'neither existence nor non-existence' dharma. How can there still be this...

非有非無法為中耶。且又汝言非有非無為中。有無亦是中。汝若言而有而無是假。非有非無亦是假。何故爾。假是不自義。本因非有非無故說有無。有無既是假。非有非無何故非假。中本離斷常。汝因有無故說非有非無。非有非無離斷常既是中。而有而無亦離斷常。何意非中耶。若言非有非無不得是假。有無亦不得是假。若言有無不得是中。非有非無亦不得是中。彼道。若爾有無非有非無並是中好不。今明。有是常見無是斷見。非有非無是愚癡論。那忽是中。彼道。若爾並是假好不。今明。汝執無異有。執有異無。非有非無。異有無。那得並是假。今問。汝既破他為非。今中相若為。答師道。只如此破中假即是中。何處別有中。但此意難。更須解釋。個須識法身義。法身無在無所不在。法身無在。不在有不在無。不在亦有亦無。不在非有非無。乃至諸法中義亦爾。無所不在。法身亦在有亦在無。亦在亦有亦無。亦在非有非無。乃至色心諸法中義亦爾。故無非是中。故二夜經明。從得道夜至泥洹夜。常說中道。既是說中道。二夜中間。何容只說非有非無不說有無等。故知。一切諸法無非是中。私云。言其不在只不在有得。有得故非中。言其在也在無得。無得故是中。難。若不在有得。何謂無所不在耶。答今言無所不在。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『非有非無』是中道嗎？而且你說『非有非無』是中道，那麼『有』和『無』也是中道了。如果你說『有』和『無』是假，那麼『非有非無』也是假。為什麼呢？假是不具有自性的。本來是因為『非有非無』才說『有』和『無』。『有』和『無』既然是假，那麼『非有非無』為什麼不是假呢？中道的本意是遠離斷見和常見。你因為『有』和『無』才說『非有非無』。『非有非無』如果遠離斷見和常見是中道，那麼『有』和『無』也遠離斷見和常見，為什麼不是中道呢？如果說『非有非無』不能是假，那麼『有』和『無』也不能是假。如果說『有』和『無』不能是中道，那麼『非有非無』也不能是中道。你認為，這樣說來，『有』、『無』、『非有』、『非無』都是中道，可以嗎？現在我來說明，『有』是常見，『無』是斷見，『非有非無』是愚癡的論調，怎麼能是中道呢？你認為，那麼都說是假，可以嗎？現在我來說明，你執著于『無』不同於『有』，執著于『有』不同於『無』，『非有非無』不同於『有』和『無』，怎麼能都說是假呢？現在我問你，你既然破斥他人為非，那麼中道的相狀是什麼呢？回答說：老師說，僅僅如此破斥中道和假，就是中道，哪裡還有另外的中道呢？但是這個意思難以理解，還需要進一步解釋。需要認識法身（Dharmakaya）的意義。法身無所不在，也無所不在。法身無所在，不在『有』，不在『無』，不在『亦有亦無』，不在『非有非無』，乃至一切諸法的中道之義也是如此。無所不在，法身也在『有』，也在『無』，也在『亦有亦無』，也在『非有非無』，乃至色心諸法的中道之義也是如此。所以沒有哪一樣不是中道。所以《二夜經》中說，從得道之夜到涅槃（Nirvana）之夜，常說中道。既然是說中道，那麼在這兩個夜晚之間，怎麼能只說『非有非無』而不說『有』和『無』等等呢？所以要知道，一切諸法沒有哪一樣不是中道。私下認為，說它不在，只是不在『有』的得到，因為得到了『有』所以不是中道。說它在，只是在『無』的得到，因為得到了『無』所以是中道。反駁：如果不在『有』的得到，怎麼能說是無所不在呢？回答說，現在說無所不在。

【English Translation】 English version Is 『neither being nor non-being』 the Middle Way? Furthermore, you say that 『neither being nor non-being』 is the Middle Way, then 『being』 and 『non-being』 are also the Middle Way. If you say that 『being』 and 『non-being』 are false, then 『neither being nor non-being』 is also false. Why is that? Falsity does not have its own inherent nature. Originally, 『being』 and 『non-being』 were spoken of because of 『neither being nor non-being.』 Since 『being』 and 『non-being』 are false, why is 『neither being nor non-being』 not false? The original meaning of the Middle Way is to be apart from the views of permanence and annihilation. You speak of 『neither being nor non-being』 because of 『being』 and 『non-being.』 If 『neither being nor non-being』 is apart from the views of permanence and annihilation and is the Middle Way, then 『being』 and 『non-being』 are also apart from the views of permanence and annihilation, why are they not the Middle Way? If you say that 『neither being nor non-being』 cannot be false, then 『being』 and 『non-being』 cannot be false either. If you say that 『being』 and 『non-being』 cannot be the Middle Way, then 『neither being nor non-being』 cannot be the Middle Way either. You think, in that case, 『being,』『non-being,』『neither being,』 and 『nor non-being』 are all the Middle Way, is that okay? Now I will explain, 『being』 is the view of permanence, 『non-being』 is the view of annihilation, 『neither being nor non-being』 is a foolish argument, how can it be the Middle Way? You think, then let's just say they are all false, is that okay? Now I will explain, you are attached to 『non-being』 as different from 『being,』 attached to 『being』 as different from 『non-being,』 and 『neither being nor non-being』 as different from 『being』 and 『non-being,』 how can they all be said to be false? Now I ask you, since you refute others as being wrong, then what is the characteristic of the Middle Way? The answer is: The teacher says, merely refuting the Middle Way and falsity in this way is the Middle Way, where else is there another Middle Way? But this meaning is difficult to understand and needs further explanation. It is necessary to understand the meaning of Dharmakaya (法身). The Dharmakaya is everywhere and nowhere. The Dharmakaya is nowhere, not in 『being,』 not in 『non-being,』 not in 『both being and non-being,』 not in 『neither being nor non-being,』 and so is the meaning of the Middle Way in all dharmas. It is everywhere, the Dharmakaya is also in 『being,』 also in 『non-being,』 also in 『both being and non-being,』 also in 『neither being nor non-being,』 and so is the meaning of the Middle Way in all dharmas of form and mind. Therefore, there is nothing that is not the Middle Way. Therefore, the Two Nights Sutra says that from the night of enlightenment to the night of Nirvana (泥洹), the Middle Way is always spoken of. Since the Middle Way is being spoken of, how can only 『neither being nor non-being』 be spoken of between these two nights without speaking of 『being』 and 『non-being,』 etc.? Therefore, it should be known that there is nothing among all dharmas that is not the Middle Way. Privately thinking, saying that it is not present, it is only not present in the attainment of 『being,』 because 『being』 is attained, therefore it is not the Middle Way. Saying that it is present, it is only present in the attainment of 『non-being,』 because 『non-being』 is attained, therefore it is the Middle Way. Refutation: If it is not present in the attainment of 『being,』 how can it be said to be everywhere? The answer is, now it is said to be everywhere.

只在無得。有得是橫謂畢竟無所有故。那得為中一切皆在。論其在也。一切皆在。語其不在。一切皆不在也。問汝既依二夜經明一切諸法無非中者。論初何故但用不生不滅為中。不取生滅為中。答為對病故。緣多著生滅。只見生滅不見不生不滅。是故成偏。今對此生滅之偏故。說不生不滅名為中也。然釋中有三種。一者對偏。二者對邪。三者實義釋中。只就此中字則復有三義。雖復三義。不妨一意。雖復一意。三義不失。所以然者。只由偏故所以邪。邪故所以不正。不正故所以不中。不中故所以不實。不實故。所以是虛。今不偏故所以不邪。不邪故所以正。正故所以中。中故所以實。實故所以不虛。雖復三義。不妨一意。雖復一意。三義不失也。問偏與邪若為異。無差別論。偏故所以邪。邪故所以偏。有差別論。中論則對偏說中。百論對邪故說中。何故爾。偏是偏錯。稟佛教生錯解。所以名偏。是故中論。對偏說中。邪是自樹外道橫生獲不稟佛教。是故名邪。所以百論對邪說中。過此二階。所以名實。何故爾。對偏說中。偏去中亦盡。對邪說中。邪破中亦除。不偏不中不邪不正。過此二階。所以名實也。即是實義釋中了。次時云。前辨釋有三種。一者對偏。二者對邪。三者實義。今問。中者言實那得有三。答中尚不可

一。中復那可三。為緣故亦可一。為緣故亦可三。然雖有三。只是一義。舉例如十方諸如來同共一法身一心一智慧力無畏亦然。雖復十方諸佛。只同共一法身也。今明。中是實義者。然經中釋義不同。略有三種。一者橫論顯發。二者豎論表理。三者依名釋義。若為是橫論顯發。如俗以何為義。俗以真為義。真以何為義。真以俗為義。故經云。欲令深識世諦故說第一。欲令深識第一故說世諦。今問。個自是欲令深識世諦故說第一。何謂真以俗為義。個自是欲令深識第一故說世諦。何謂俗以真為義耶。今明。何故說世諦。只為欲令識第一。豈不是真以俗為義。俗是真家之所以故。真以俗為義。何故說第一。只為欲令識世諦。豈不是俗以真為義。真是俗家之所以故。俗以真為義也。二者豎論表理。如俗表不俗。不俗是俗家之所以故。俗以不俗為義。如真表不真。不真是真家之所以故。真以不真為義。故金鼓經云。知有非有本性清凈。故華嚴經云。若知有非有。則能見如來。故因教識理悟佛法身也。若為是依名釋義。如俗是浮虛為義。真是真實為義。故涅槃經云。苦者迫迮相。集者生相。滅者盡相。道者通相也。今明。釋中亦具三種。如中以何為義。中以不中為義。中以何為義。中以實為義也。次釋觀義。然解中既顯。則觀義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一。中（Madhyamaka）復那可三。為什麼緣故也可以說一？為什麼緣故也可以說三？雖然有三，但只是一種意義。例如十方諸如來共同一個法身、一個心、一個智慧力、一個無畏也是這樣。雖然有十方諸佛，也只是共同一個法身。現在說明，中是實義。然而經書中解釋意義不同，略有三種：一是橫向論述以顯發，二是縱向論述以表理，三是依名解釋意義。什麼是橫向論述以顯發？例如世俗以什麼為意義？世俗以真為意義。真以什麼為意義？真以世俗為意義。所以經中說：『爲了讓人深刻認識世俗諦，所以說第一義諦；爲了讓人深刻認識第一義諦，所以說世俗諦。』現在問：各自是爲了讓人深刻認識世俗諦，所以說第一義諦，那麼什麼是『真以俗為義』？各自是爲了讓人深刻認識第一義諦，所以說世俗諦，那麼什麼是『俗以真為義』呢？現在說明，為什麼說世俗諦？只是爲了讓人認識第一義諦，這豈不是『真以俗為義』？世俗是真之所以存在的基礎，所以說真以俗為義。為什麼說第一義諦？只是爲了讓人認識世俗諦，這豈不是『俗以真為義』？真是世俗之所以存在的基礎，所以說俗以真為義。二是縱向論述以表理。例如世俗代表不世俗，不世俗是世俗之所以存在的基礎，所以世俗以不世俗為意義。例如真代表不真，不真是真之所以存在的基礎，所以真以不真為意義。所以《金鼓經》說：『知道有非有，本性清凈。』所以《華嚴經》說：『如果知道有非有，就能見到如來。』所以通過教義認識道理，領悟佛法身。什麼是依名解釋意義？例如世俗是虛浮不實為意義，真是真實不虛為意義。所以《涅槃經》說：『苦是逼迫相，集是生相，滅是盡相，道是通相。』現在說明，解釋中也具備三種。例如中以什麼為意義？中以不中為意義。中以什麼為意義？中以實為意義。接下來解釋觀的意義。既然中的意義已經顯明，那麼觀的意義也...

【English Translation】 English version I. Madhyamaka (中) again, why can it be three? For what reason can it also be said to be one? For what reason can it also be said to be three? Although there are three, it is only one meaning. For example, all the Tathagatas (如來) in the ten directions share one Dharmakaya (法身), one mind, one wisdom power, and one fearlessness. Although there are Buddhas in the ten directions, they only share one Dharmakaya. Now, it is explained that 'middle' (中) is the meaning of reality. However, the interpretation of meaning in the scriptures is different, with three types briefly: first, horizontal discourse to reveal; second, vertical discourse to express principle; and third, explanation of meaning based on names. What is horizontal discourse to reveal? For example, what does the mundane (俗) take as meaning? The mundane takes truth (真) as meaning. What does truth take as meaning? Truth takes the mundane as meaning. Therefore, the scripture says: 'To enable deep understanding of conventional truth (世諦), the ultimate truth (第一義諦) is spoken; to enable deep understanding of ultimate truth, conventional truth is spoken.' Now I ask: Each is to enable deep understanding of conventional truth, so ultimate truth is spoken, then what is 'truth taking the mundane as meaning'? Each is to enable deep understanding of ultimate truth, so conventional truth is spoken, then what is 'the mundane taking truth as meaning'? Now I explain, why is conventional truth spoken? Only to enable recognition of ultimate truth, is this not 'truth taking the mundane as meaning'? The mundane is the foundation upon which truth exists, so it is said that truth takes the mundane as meaning. Why is ultimate truth spoken? Only to enable recognition of conventional truth, is this not 'the mundane taking truth as meaning'? Truth is the foundation upon which the mundane exists, so it is said that the mundane takes truth as meaning. Second is vertical discourse to express principle. For example, the mundane represents the non-mundane, and the non-mundane is the foundation upon which the mundane exists, so the mundane takes the non-mundane as meaning. For example, truth represents the non-truth, and the non-truth is the foundation upon which truth exists, so truth takes the non-truth as meaning. Therefore, the Golden Drum Sutra says: 'Knowing that there is non-being, the original nature is pure.' Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'If one knows that there is non-being, then one can see the Tathagata.' Therefore, through doctrine, one recognizes the principle and comprehends the Dharmakaya. What is explanation of meaning based on names? For example, the mundane is taken as meaning floating and unreal, and truth is taken as meaning real and not false. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Suffering is the characteristic of oppression, accumulation is the characteristic of arising, cessation is the characteristic of extinction, and the path is the characteristic of passage.' Now I explain, the explanation of 'middle' also possesses three aspects. For example, what does 'middle' take as meaning? 'Middle' takes 'not middle' as meaning. What does 'middle' take as meaning? 'Middle' takes reality as meaning. Next, the meaning of 'contemplation' (觀) is explained. Since the meaning of 'middle' has already been revealed, then the meaning of 'contemplation' is...

可明。何故爾。既稱中觀。中離斷離常。觀亦離常。觀亦離常離斷。是故既解中即是釋觀。雖然今時復須解釋。中既有多種。觀亦復多途。如外道攀上厭下。下則苦粗障。上則勝妙出。亦是觀義。如毗曇。總別念處五停心觀亦是觀義。成論人亦解觀義。不能具出。今迄陌為論。凡有二種。一者有得小乘觀。二者無得大乘觀。若是有得小乘觀。則境無生滅。智有生滅。斷煩惱故即是滅。修智慧故即是生。煩惱則本有今無。智慧則本無今有。是則境智殊生滅異。若是無得大乘觀。不爾。境智無二。境無生滅智亦無生滅。煩惱本自不生。今亦不滅。智慧本自不滅。今亦不生。是境智不二有無平等也。故言。我觀如來。前際不來。后際不去。中亦不住。如此觀者。名為正觀。異斯觀者。名為邪觀也。然觀是何為義。觀是了達義。亦是履照義。然尋此論要意。即是檢校為義。觀察為義。檢校斷常。觀察虛妄。今何處文是。品品皆檢校斷常。章章並觀察虛妄。只八不即是其相。彼謂是生滅。彼謂是斷常。今就其責生滅不生不滅。求斷常不斷不常。個即是觀察斷常者不斷常。檢校虛妄者不虛妄。故觀法品云。若法從緣生。不即不異因。是則名實觀。不斷亦不常也。然一家釋。中發於觀觀發於中。今明。非是用中境發觀智用觀智照中境

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：可明（可以明白嗎）。什麼緣故這樣說呢？既然稱為中觀（Madhyamaka，中道之觀），中（madhya，中道）遠離斷見（ucchedadṛṣṭi）和常見（śāśvatadṛṣṭi），觀（dṛṣṭi，見）也遠離常見，觀也遠離常見和斷見。因此，理解了中，就是解釋了觀。雖然現在還需要進一步解釋。中有很多種，觀也有很多途徑。例如外道（tīrthika，佛教以外的修行者）攀登上界而厭惡地獄，認為地獄是苦、粗糙、有障礙，上界是殊勝、美妙、超出，這也是觀的含義。例如毗曇（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩），總相念處、別相念處、五停心觀（pañca sthāna citta，五種停止妄念的觀法）也是觀的含義。《成實論》（Satyasiddhi-śāstra）的作者也解釋了觀的含義，不能全部列出。現在我將要論述。觀有兩種，一種是有得小乘觀（Hinayana dṛṣṭi，小乘之見），一種是無得大乘觀（Mahayana dṛṣṭi，大乘之見）。如果是有得小乘觀，那麼境（viṣaya，對像）沒有生滅，智（jñāna，智慧）有生滅。斷除煩惱的緣故就是滅，修習智慧的緣故就是生。煩惱是本來有現在沒有，智慧是本來沒有現在有。這就是境和智的生滅不同。如果是無得大乘觀，就不是這樣。境和智沒有二元對立。境沒有生滅，智也沒有生滅。煩惱本來就不生，現在也不滅。智慧本來就不滅，現在也不生。這是境智不二，有和無平等。所以說，我觀察如來（Tathāgata，佛），前際（過去）不來，后際（未來）不去，中間（現在）也不住。這樣觀察，稱為正觀（samyagdṛṣṭi，正確的見解）。與此不同的觀察，稱為邪觀（mithyādṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）。然而觀是什麼含義呢？觀是了達的含義，也是履踐和照見的含義。然而探尋這部論的要旨，就是檢校的含義，觀察的含義。檢校斷常，觀察虛妄。現在哪裡的文句是這樣呢？每一品都在檢校斷常，每一章都在觀察虛妄。僅僅是八不（不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不異，不來不去）就是它的相貌。他們認為是生滅，他們認為是斷常。現在就他們的生滅來責問不生不滅，就他們的斷常來求證不斷不常。這就是觀察斷常者不斷常，檢校虛妄者不虛妄。所以《觀法品》說，如果法（dharma，事物）從因緣（hetupratyaya，原因和條件）而生，不即是因，也不異於因，這就叫做實觀（bhūta-darśana，如實的觀察），不斷也不常。然而一家之說，中（madhya，中道）啓發于觀，觀啓發于中。現在說明，不是用中境啓發觀智，用觀智照中境。

【English Translation】 English version: Kemin (Can it be understood?). What is the reason for saying this? Since it is called Madhyamaka (the Middle Way view), the middle (madhya) is apart from the views of annihilation (ucchedadṛṣṭi) and permanence (śāśvatadṛṣṭi), and the view (dṛṣṭi) is also apart from the view of permanence, and the view is also apart from the views of permanence and annihilation. Therefore, understanding the middle is explaining the view. Although further explanation is needed now. There are many kinds of middle, and there are many paths of view. For example, the Tirthikas (non-Buddhist practitioners) climb to the upper realms and dislike the lower realms, considering the lower realms to be suffering, coarse, and obstructive, and the upper realms to be superior, wonderful, and transcendent, which is also the meaning of view. For example, the Abhidharma, the general mindfulness, the specific mindfulness, and the five stopping-mind contemplations (pañca sthāna citta) are also the meaning of view. The author of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra also explained the meaning of view, but cannot list them all. Now I will discuss. There are two kinds of view, one is the Hinayana view with attainment, and the other is the Mahayana view without attainment. If it is the Hinayana view with attainment, then the object (viṣaya) has no arising or ceasing, and the wisdom (jñāna) has arising and ceasing. Because of cutting off afflictions, it is cessation; because of cultivating wisdom, it is arising. Afflictions are originally present but now absent, and wisdom is originally absent but now present. This is the difference between the arising and ceasing of object and wisdom. If it is the Mahayana view without attainment, it is not like this. Object and wisdom are not dualistic. The object has no arising or ceasing, and the wisdom also has no arising or ceasing. Afflictions originally do not arise, and now they do not cease. Wisdom originally does not cease, and now it does not arise. This is the non-duality of object and wisdom, and the equality of existence and non-existence. Therefore, it is said, 'I observe the Tathagata (Buddha), the past does not come, the future does not go, and the present does not abide.' Such observation is called right view (samyagdṛṣṭi). Observation different from this is called wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭi). However, what is the meaning of view? View is the meaning of understanding, and it is also the meaning of practicing and illuminating. However, exploring the essence of this treatise is the meaning of examining and the meaning of observing. Examining permanence and annihilation, observing illusion. Now, where are the sentences like this? Each chapter examines permanence and annihilation, and each section observes illusion. Only the eight negations (neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going) are its appearance. They think it is arising and ceasing, they think it is permanence and annihilation. Now, based on their arising and ceasing, question the non-arising and non-ceasing; based on their permanence and annihilation, seek the non-permanent and non-annihilated. This is observing the permanence and annihilation that is neither permanent nor annihilated, and examining the illusion that is not illusory. Therefore, the chapter on the contemplation of dharmas says, 'If a dharma (thing) arises from causes and conditions (hetupratyaya), it is neither identical to nor different from the cause, this is called true observation (bhūta-darśana), neither annihilated nor permanent.' However, according to one school's explanation, the middle (madhya) arises from the view, and the view arises from the middle. Now it is explained that it is not using the middle object to inspire the wisdom of view, but using the wisdom of view to illuminate the middle object.

。但此正觀。能體悟中實。中實即是正觀。無中實異正觀用中實發正觀。無正觀異中實。用正觀照中實。故如以中為名者照其實也。非別有此實用照此實。但顯中即是實故言照實。今亦爾。只體悟此中實顯我正觀。我正觀即是中實。故中實發我正觀。中實即是正觀也。然觀是了達義。亦稱履照義。明照即俱照邪正。觀則俱觀得失。俱照邪正者。識邪即識正。識正能破邪。俱觀得失者。了失即了得。了得能破失。故涅槃云。正善具成就。演說四顛倒。若不成就正善。豈能演說顛倒。今亦爾。若不解正。豈能破邪。故如喚人字為入字。非但不識人。亦復不識入。今若識人也。非但識人。亦復識入。今亦爾。若不識正亦不識邪。今良由識正故破邪。識邪故能解正。今明。得失相若為。如論初求五陰十二入十八界等故。是有是生滅。此即為失。今就其責。有者不有。生滅者是不生滅。此即為得。邪正亦爾。本因失故得。既破失得亦去。無失亦無得。邪正亦爾。此即是緣盡于觀。此得失緣。由觀得盡故。是緣盡于觀。即是觀盡于緣。何故爾。觀本觀緣。緣既盡觀亦盡故。緣盡則觀凈。觀盡則緣凈。緣盡則觀凈。此觀則非觀。觀盡則緣凈。此緣則非緣。故非緣非觀。緣觀俱盡始名好中觀也。離釋中觀已竟。今次解論。然論是何為義

【現代漢語翻譯】然而，這種正觀（Sam্যক-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解）。能夠體悟中實（Madhyamaka-satya，中觀實相）。中實即是正觀。沒有離開中實的正觀，用中實來啓發正觀。沒有離開正觀的中實，用正觀來照亮中實。所以，就像以『中』為名，是爲了照亮它的真實。並非另外存在一個實用去照亮這個實相，只是爲了顯示『中』就是實相，所以說是照亮實相。現在也是這樣，只是體悟這個中實，顯現我的正觀。我的正觀就是中實。所以中實啓發我的正觀，中實就是正觀。然而，『觀』是了達的意義，也稱為履踐和照耀的意義。明照就是同時照亮邪正（Mithya-satya，錯誤的見解和Sam্যক-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解），觀就是同時觀察得失。同時照亮邪正，就是認識邪惡就認識了正義，認識正義就能破除邪惡。同時觀察得失，就是了解失去就瞭解得到，瞭解得到就能破除失去。所以《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『正善具足成就，才能演說四種顛倒。』如果不成就正善，怎麼能演說顛倒？現在也是這樣，如果不瞭解正義，怎麼能破除邪惡？所以就像把『人』字叫作『入』字，不僅不認識『人』，也不認識『入』。現在如果認識『人』，不僅認識『人』，也認識『入』。現在也是這樣，如果不認識正義，也不認識邪惡。現在正是因為認識正義，所以破除邪惡；認識邪惡，所以能夠理解正義。現在說明，得失的相互關係是怎樣的。就像論中最初尋求五陰（Skandha，構成人身的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）、十二入（Ayatana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根及其對應的六境）和十八界（Dhatu，六根、六境、六識），所以是有，是生滅，這就是失去。現在就其責難，有者不是真有，生滅者是不生滅，這就是得到。邪正也是這樣，本來因為失去而得到，既然破除了失去，得到也消失了，沒有失去也沒有得到。邪正也是這樣，這就是緣盡于觀。這種得失的緣，由於觀而得以止息，所以是緣盡于觀，也就是觀盡于緣。為什麼這樣說？觀本來是觀照緣起，緣起既然止息，觀也止息。所以緣盡則觀凈，觀盡則緣凈。緣盡則觀凈，這種觀就不是觀。觀盡則緣凈，這種緣就不是緣。所以非緣非觀，緣觀都止息，才叫做好的中觀。離開解釋中觀已經結束，現在接著解釋論，然而論是什麼意義？ However, this Samyak-dṛṣṭi (正觀, Right View). can realize Madhyamaka-satya (中實, the truth of the Middle Way). Madhyamaka-satya is Samyak-dṛṣṭi. There is no Samyak-dṛṣṭi apart from Madhyamaka-satya; Madhyamaka-satya inspires Samyak-dṛṣṭi. There is no Madhyamaka-satya apart from Samyak-dṛṣṭi; Samyak-dṛṣṭi illuminates Madhyamaka-satya. Therefore, just as naming something 'middle' is to illuminate its reality. It's not that there's a separate function to illuminate this reality; it's just to show that 'middle' is reality, so it's called illuminating reality. It's the same now; just realize this Madhyamaka-satya, and manifest my Samyak-dṛṣṭi. My Samyak-dṛṣṭi is Madhyamaka-satya. Therefore, Madhyamaka-satya inspires my Samyak-dṛṣṭi; Madhyamaka-satya is Samyak-dṛṣṭi. However, 'view' (觀) means understanding, and it's also called the meaning of practice and illumination. Clear illumination means simultaneously illuminating right and wrong (邪正, Mithya-satya and Samyak-dṛṣṭi), and view means simultaneously observing gain and loss. Simultaneously illuminating right and wrong means recognizing wrong is recognizing right, and recognizing right can break wrong. Simultaneously observing gain and loss means understanding loss is understanding gain, and understanding gain can break loss. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) says: 'Perfect goodness is fully accomplished, and then the four inversions can be explained.' If perfect goodness is not accomplished, how can inversions be explained? It's the same now; if right isn't understood, how can wrong be broken? Therefore, it's like calling the character 'person' the character 'enter'; not only is 'person' not recognized, but 'enter' is also not recognized. Now, if 'person' is recognized, not only is 'person' recognized, but 'enter' is also recognized. It's the same now; if right isn't recognized, neither is wrong recognized. Now, it's precisely because right is recognized that wrong is broken; because wrong is recognized, right can be understood. Now, explain how gain and loss relate to each other. It's like initially seeking the five Skandhas (五陰, aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), twelve Ayatanas (十二入, sense bases: six internal and six external), and eighteen Dhatus (十八界, elements: six senses, six objects, and six consciousnesses); therefore, there is existence, there is arising and ceasing, and this is loss. Now, in response to this criticism, what exists is not truly existent, and what arises and ceases is not non-arising and non-ceasing; this is gain. It's the same with right and wrong; originally, gain comes from loss, but once loss is broken, gain also disappears; there is no loss and no gain. It's the same with right and wrong; this is the cessation of conditions in view. This condition of gain and loss is stopped by view; therefore, it's the cessation of conditions in view, which is also the cessation of view in conditions. Why is this so? View originally contemplates conditions; once conditions cease, view also ceases. Therefore, when conditions cease, view is pure; when view ceases, conditions are pure. When conditions cease, view is pure; this view is not view. When view ceases, conditions are pure; these conditions are not conditions. Therefore, neither conditions nor view, when both conditions and view cease, is it called good Middle Way view. The explanation of leaving the Middle Way view is now complete; now, we will explain the treatise. However, what is the meaning of 'treatise' (論)?

【English Translation】 However, this Right View (Samyak-dṛṣṭi). can realize the Middle Way Truth (Madhyamaka-satya). The Middle Way Truth is Right View. There is no Right View apart from the Middle Way Truth; the Middle Way Truth inspires Right View. There is no Middle Way Truth apart from Right View; Right View illuminates the Middle Way Truth. Therefore, just as naming something 'middle' is to illuminate its reality. It's not that there's a separate function to illuminate this reality; it's just to show that 'middle' is reality, so it's called illuminating reality. It's the same now; just realize this Middle Way Truth, and manifest my Right View. My Right View is the Middle Way Truth. Therefore, the Middle Way Truth inspires my Right View; the Middle Way Truth is Right View. However, 'view' means understanding, and it's also called the meaning of practice and illumination. Clear illumination means simultaneously illuminating wrong and right, and view means simultaneously observing gain and loss. Simultaneously illuminating wrong and right means recognizing wrong is recognizing right, and recognizing right can break wrong. Simultaneously observing gain and loss means understanding loss is understanding gain, and understanding gain can break loss. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Perfect goodness is fully accomplished, and then the four inversions can be explained.' If perfect goodness is not accomplished, how can inversions be explained? It's the same now; if right isn't understood, how can wrong be broken? Therefore, it's like calling the character 'person' the character 'enter'; not only is 'person' not recognized, but 'enter' is also not recognized. Now, if 'person' is recognized, not only is 'person' recognized, but 'enter' is also recognized. It's the same now; if right isn't recognized, neither is wrong recognized. Now, it's precisely because right is recognized that wrong is broken; because wrong is recognized, right can be understood. Now, explain how gain and loss relate to each other. It's like initially seeking the five Skandhas (aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), twelve Ayatanas (sense bases: six internal and six external), and eighteen Dhatus (elements: six senses, six objects, and six consciousnesses); therefore, there is existence, there is arising and ceasing, and this is loss. Now, in response to this criticism, what exists is not truly existent, and what arises and ceases is not non-arising and non-ceasing; this is gain. It's the same with right and wrong; originally, gain comes from loss, but once loss is broken, gain also disappears; there is no loss and no gain. It's the same with right and wrong; this is the cessation of conditions in view. This condition of gain and loss is stopped by view; therefore, it's the cessation of conditions in view, which is also the cessation of view in conditions. Why is this so? View originally contemplates conditions; once conditions cease, view also ceases. Therefore, when conditions cease, view is pure; when view ceases, conditions are pure. When conditions cease, view is pure; this view is not view. When view ceases, conditions are pure; these conditions are not conditions. Therefore, neither conditions nor view, when both conditions and view cease, is it called good Middle Way view. The explanation of leaving the Middle Way view is now complete; now, we will explain the treatise. However, what is the meaning of 'treatise'?

。論是論辨為義。只論辨法相。若依睿師序。論是盡言為義。則云盡其言窮其慮。若一言不盡。則眾異扶疏。若一慮不窮。則顛倒亂起。今盡其言故。即眾異息。今窮其慮故。則顛倒凈。是故論則盡言窮慮。論功方顯故。所以言盡慮窮。故論非但盡言。亦復盡觀。觀非但盡緣。亦復盡論。中非但盡觀。亦復盡論。是故今表中觀論名。只欲盡凈諸法。不如人解以論欲釋中觀義。但欲盡凈諸法可爾。今表一中。非但中是中。辨諸法皆中。既道諸法中。復有何法可有。故表中則盡凈諸法。中既爾。觀論亦爾。是故中發於觀辨流神口。所以名論。中發於觀。即是方便實慧。辨流神口。即是實方便慧。方便實慧。即是如說而行。實方便慧。即是如行而說。如說而行。即是二智。如行而說。即是二諦。故如說而行。行則行我所說。如行而說。則說己所行。故所行如所說。所說如所行。是故行說不二。諦智平等也。今明。盡言為論。此義難。今須問。若是影公則道。問答折徴。所以為論若是睿師則道。以論為稱者。盡其言也。個則兩語石乖。二言鐵反。答乃是各據其義。非謂相違。影師就始為言。睿公約終為語。何故爾。良由問答故得盡言。言何因得盡。良由問答。是故二語相成。兩言相順。影公就始為言。睿師約終為語也。今道盡

言為論者。若使外人言是。即道龍樹為非。若使龍樹言是。即道若外人為非。是即諍諍莫窮。云云無已。若何猶可見。若使據其本末得失。終自歸龍樹為得。外人為失。外人為失故言則盡。良由外人有言故。龍樹有語。外人之言既盡。龍樹之語亦窮。舉譬如張王二人共爭一珠。張謂是張寶。王謂是王物。是則兩人各諍。紛然未決。今據其本末得失。終自有歸。實是張物。而王侶志今果是張物。王即無言。王既無言。張亦不語。今龍樹外人亦然。龍樹實是外人道非。今龍樹果是。外人無言。外人無言。既盡龍樹語亦窮。問龍樹外人言俱盡。那得獨稱龍樹論。答雖復二人語俱盡。盡有所由。良由龍樹撿是非故。外人為失。外人言則盡。外人之言既盡。龍樹之言亦盡。二人言盡。功由龍樹。所以稱為龍樹論。舉譬如兩人相費雖復俱倒而有勝負。下者為負上者為勝。龍樹外人亦復如此。雖復俱息言。龍樹為勝。外人為負。是故稱為龍樹論也。

第五論緣起。龍樹菩薩者。出南天竺梵志種也。天聰奇悟事不再告。在乳餔之中。聞諸梵志誦四韋陀典。而識其義。弱冠馳名。獨步諸國。天文地理及諸道術。無不悉綜。契友三人。一生之樂。唯有隱身之術。俱至術師。術師唸曰。此四梵志。擅名一世。草芥群生。才明絕世。我不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

如果以外人的言論為準，那就等於說龍樹（Nagarjuna，佛教中觀學派創始人）是錯的；如果以龍樹的言論為準，那就等於說外人是錯的。這樣爭論下去，永無止境，沒完沒了。那麼，怎樣才能辨明真相呢？如果根據事情的本末和得失來判斷，最終會歸結為龍樹是對的，外人是錯的。因為外人錯了，所以他的話也就說不下去了。正是因為外人先說了什麼，龍樹才會有所迴應。當外人的話已經說完，龍樹的話也就沒有必要再說了。舉個例子，就像張和王兩個人爭奪一顆寶珠，張說是張家的寶物，王說是王家的東西。這樣兩人各執己見，爭論不休，無法解決。現在如果根據事情的本末和得失來判斷，最終會有一個歸屬，確定這寶珠確實是張家的東西。如果王的同伴也承認這確實是張家的東西，王就無話可說了。王既然無話可說，張也就不再爭辯了。現在龍樹和外人的情況也是這樣。龍樹實際上是正確的，而外人所說的並不正確。現在如果確定龍樹是正確的，外人就無話可說了。外人無話可說，他的言論也就窮盡了，龍樹的言論也就沒有必要再說了。有人問：龍樹和外人的言論都窮盡了，為什麼單單稱之為《龍樹論》呢？回答說：雖然兩人的言論都窮盡了，但窮盡的原因不同。正是因為龍樹辨別了是非，所以外人才會理虧，外人的言論才會窮盡。外人的言論既然窮盡了，龍樹的言論也就沒有必要再說了。兩人言論的窮盡，功勞在於龍樹，所以才稱之為《龍樹論》。舉個例子，就像兩個人互相搏鬥，雖然最終都會倒下，但還是有勝負之分，倒在下面的是輸了，倒在上面的是贏了。龍樹和外人的情況也是如此，雖然最終都停止了爭論，但龍樹是勝者，外人是敗者。所以才稱之為《龍樹論》。

第五論緣起。龍樹菩薩（Nagarjuna，佛教中觀學派創始人）是南印度婆羅門種姓出身。他天資聰穎，有過目不忘的本領。還在吃奶的時候，就能聽懂婆羅門誦讀的四韋陀典籍的含義。弱冠之年就已馳名遠揚，在各國中獨佔鰲頭。天文、地理以及各種道術，沒有不精通的。他有三個好朋友，一生的樂趣就是追求隱身之術。他們一起去拜訪一位術士。術士心想：這四個婆羅門，名聲顯赫，視眾生如草芥，才智超群，我不能...

【English Translation】 English version:

If we take the words of the outsider as the standard, it is equivalent to saying that Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism) is wrong. If we take the words of Nagarjuna as the standard, it is equivalent to saying that the outsider is wrong. If we argue like this, there will be no end, it will never end. So, how can we discern the truth? If we judge according to the beginning and end and the gains and losses of the matter, it will ultimately come down to Nagarjuna being right and the outsider being wrong. Because the outsider is wrong, his words will come to an end. It is because the outsider said something first that Nagarjuna responded. When the outsider's words are exhausted, there is no need for Nagarjuna's words to continue. For example, it is like Zhang and Wang arguing over a pearl. Zhang says it is Zhang's treasure, and Wang says it is Wang's property. In this way, the two hold their own opinions and argue endlessly, unable to resolve the matter. Now, if we judge according to the beginning and end and the gains and losses of the matter, there will ultimately be an attribution, determining that the pearl is indeed Zhang's property. If Wang's companion also admits that it is indeed Zhang's property, Wang will have nothing to say. Since Wang has nothing to say, Zhang will no longer argue. The situation of Nagarjuna and the outsider is also like this. Nagarjuna is actually correct, while what the outsider says is not correct. Now, if it is determined that Nagarjuna is correct, the outsider will have nothing to say. When the outsider has nothing to say, his words will be exhausted, and there is no need for Nagarjuna's words to continue. Someone asks: Nagarjuna's and the outsider's words are both exhausted, why is it only called 'Nagarjuna's Treatise'? The answer is: Although the words of both are exhausted, the reasons for the exhaustion are different. It is because Nagarjuna distinguished right from wrong that the outsider is at a disadvantage, and the outsider's words will be exhausted. Since the outsider's words are exhausted, there is no need for Nagarjuna's words to continue. The exhaustion of the words of both is due to Nagarjuna, so it is called 'Nagarjuna's Treatise'. For example, it is like two people fighting each other, although they will eventually fall down, there is still a distinction between victory and defeat. The one who falls below is the loser, and the one who falls above is the winner. The situation of Nagarjuna and the outsider is also like this. Although they both eventually stop arguing, Nagarjuna is the victor and the outsider is the loser. That is why it is called 'Nagarjuna's Treatise'.

Fifth Treatise on Dependent Origination. The Bodhisattva Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism) was born into a Brahmin family in South India. He was intelligent by nature and had the ability to remember everything he saw. While still breastfeeding, he could understand the meaning of the four Vedas recited by the Brahmins. At a young age, he was already famous and stood out among all countries. He was proficient in astronomy, geography, and various Taoist arts. He had three good friends, and their lifelong pleasure was to pursue the art of invisibility. Together, they visited a magician. The magician thought: These four Brahmins are famous, regard sentient beings as grass, and are extremely intelligent. I cannot...

與術法。與青藥一丸。藥盡必來。龍樹磨此藥時。聞其香氣皆識之。分數多少。如其方藥。藥師怪而嘆曰。若此人者。聞之猶難。而況相遇。我之賤術。足惜之耶。具授術方。四人得術。常入王宮。宮中美女懷妊者多。王太不悅。有舊老智臣言。可以細土置諸門中斷諸往行者。若是術人。即見其跡自現。可以兵除。若是鬼神。而無其跡。可以咒滅。見四人跡。令諸力士揮刀宮中斬三人死。唯龍樹不死。出家受戒。九十日中。誦通三藏。后得大乘經。甚大愛樂。大龍菩薩。見其如是。接入海宮。授方等經藏。龍樹深入無生二忍具足。其中有婆羅門。善知咒術。欲與龍樹爭勝。王言。汝大愚癡。此菩薩者。明與日月爭光。智與佛並照。何不宗敬。婆羅門咒作大池千葉蓮華。自坐其上。龍樹咒作六牙白象。以鼻絞拔。高舉擲地。婆羅門化作十頭羅剎。龍樹化作毗沙門天王。諸羅剎恐怖而退。婆羅門化作毒龍。雨諸瓦石。龍樹化作曼陀羅華。外道折伏。出家作弟子。龍樹菩薩。作百部論。大行閻浮提。涅槃之後。國國作塔供養也。

大乘玄論卷第五

晨旦名德　　法諱吉藏　　歷劫仕佛　三論顯揚　　深奧宗義　　末世如忘　先師悲此　　專懷感傷　　彼遷化后　屢送星霜　　弘安聖歷　　第三初商　一十

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他們一起學習了法術，並得到了一顆青色的藥丸。藥師告訴他們，藥用完后一定要回來。龍樹（Nāgārjuna，菩薩名）在磨這藥的時候，聞到藥的香氣就能辨識出來，並且能準確分辨出藥的成分和劑量，完全符合藥方。藥師對此感到驚奇，嘆息道：『像這樣的人，僅僅是聽到（藥方）都很難做到，更何況是親身遇到。我的這些微不足道的法術，難道還值得吝惜嗎？』於是藥師將法術的秘方全部傳授給了他們。這四個人得到法術后，經常進入王宮。當時宮中有很多美女懷孕，國王非常不高興。有一位年老的智臣建議說：『可以把細土撒在宮門前，以此來阻斷那些來往的人。如果是術士，他們的軌跡就會顯現出來，可以用武力剷除；如果是鬼神，就不會留下痕跡，可以用咒語消滅。』結果發現了這四個人的軌跡，國王命令力士在宮中揮刀，殺死了三人，只有龍樹（Nāgārjuna）沒有死。之後龍樹（Nāgārjuna）出家受戒，在九十天內，誦讀通曉了三藏（Tripiṭaka，佛教經典）。後來他得到了大乘經典，非常喜愛。大龍菩薩（Mahānāga Bodhisattva）見他如此，便將他接入海宮，傳授了方等經藏（Vaipulya Sutra Pitaka）。龍樹（Nāgārjuna）深入經藏，證得了無生法忍（Anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti）的初忍和二忍。當時有一個婆羅門（Brahmin），擅長咒術，想要與龍樹（Nāgārjuna）爭個高下。國王說：『你太愚蠢了！這位菩薩的光明可以與日月爭輝，智慧可以與佛陀並駕齊驅，為何不尊敬他呢？』婆羅門（Brahmin）用咒語變出一個大池塘，池塘裡長滿了千葉蓮花，他自己坐在蓮花上。龍樹（Nāgārjuna）用咒語變出一頭六牙白象，用鼻子將蓮花連根拔起，高高舉起后摔在地上。婆羅門（Brahmin）又變化成十個頭的羅剎（Rakshasa）。龍樹（Nāgārjuna）則變化成毗沙門天王（Vaiśravaṇa）。諸羅剎（Rakshasa）感到恐懼，紛紛退去。婆羅門（Brahmin）又變化成一條毒龍，降下瓦片和石頭。龍樹（Nāgārjuna）則變化成曼陀羅花（Mandala flower）。外道被折服，出家做了龍樹（Nāgārjuna）的弟子。龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva）撰寫了百部論著，在大閻浮提（Jambudvipa，我們所居住的這個世界）廣為流傳。涅槃（Nirvana）之後，各個國家都建造佛塔來供養他。

《大乘玄論》卷第五

晨旦名德，法諱吉藏（Jizang，人名），歷劫仕佛，三論顯揚，深奧宗義，末世如忘，先師悲此，專懷感傷，彼遷化后，屢送星霜，弘安聖歷，第三初商，一十

【English Translation】 English version: Together, they learned magical arts and received a cyan-colored pill. The pharmacist told them that they must return when the pill was used up. When Nāgārjuna (菩薩名, a Bodhisattva's name) ground the pill, he could recognize it by its fragrance and accurately identify the ingredients and dosage, matching the prescription perfectly. The pharmacist was amazed and sighed, 'Someone like this, it is difficult even to hear about, let alone encounter in person. Are my insignificant magical arts worth being stingy with?' So the pharmacist imparted all the secrets of the magical arts to them. After obtaining the magical arts, the four often entered the royal palace. At that time, many beautiful women in the palace were pregnant, which greatly displeased the king. An old and wise minister suggested, 'We can spread fine soil in front of the palace gate to block those who come and go. If they are magicians, their traces will be revealed, and we can eliminate them with force; if they are ghosts or spirits, they will not leave any traces, and we can dispel them with spells.' As a result, the traces of the four were discovered, and the king ordered the strongmen to wield their swords in the palace, killing three of them. Only Nāgārjuna (菩薩名) did not die. Later, Nāgārjuna (菩薩名) renounced the world and took vows, mastering the Tripiṭaka (佛教經典, the Buddhist scriptures) within ninety days. Later, he obtained the Mahayana scriptures and loved them very much. Mahānāga Bodhisattva (菩薩名, a Bodhisattva's name), seeing him like this, took him into the sea palace and taught him the Vaipulya Sutra Pitaka (佛教經典, a collection of Buddhist scriptures). Nāgārjuna (菩薩名) delved deeply into the scriptures and attained the first and second forbearance of Anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti (佛教術語, the patience with the non-arising of dharmas). At that time, there was a Brahmin (印度種姓, a member of the priestly class in ancient India) who was skilled in spells and wanted to compete with Nāgārjuna (菩薩名). The king said, 'You are too foolish! This Bodhisattva's light can compete with the sun and moon, and his wisdom can be compared to the Buddha's. Why don't you respect him?' The Brahmin (印度種姓) used a spell to create a large pond filled with thousand-petaled lotus flowers, and he sat on top of the lotus. Nāgārjuna (菩薩名) used a spell to create a six-tusked white elephant, which uprooted the lotus with its trunk, lifted it high, and threw it to the ground. The Brahmin (印度種姓) then transformed into ten-headed Rakshasas (惡魔, demons). Nāgārjuna (菩薩名) transformed into Vaiśravaṇa (佛教護法神, a guardian deity in Buddhism). The Rakshasas (惡魔) were terrified and retreated. The Brahmin (印度種姓) then transformed into a poisonous dragon, raining down tiles and stones. Nāgārjuna (菩薩名) transformed into Mandala flowers (佛教供品, offerings in Buddhism). The heretics were subdued, and they renounced the world and became Nāgārjuna's (菩薩名) disciples. Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva (菩薩名) wrote hundreds of treatises, which spread widely throughout Jambudvipa (佛教地理概念, the world we live in). After his Nirvana (佛教概念, the state of enlightenment), various countries built pagodas to make offerings to him.

《Mahayana Profound Treatise》 Volume 5

Virtuous by name at dawn, with the Dharma name Jizang (人名, a person's name), serving the Buddha through countless kalpas, glorifying the Three Treatises, the profound and esoteric doctrines, forgotten in the degenerate age, the late teacher grieved for this, with special sorrow in his heart, after his passing, many years have passed, the Hong'an Shengli era, the third first merchant, ten

三歲　　忌景雲當　　為資追福　大乘玄章　　謹開印板　　以耀餘光　納清瀧宮　　法樂增莊　　不圖斯印　回祿遭殃　　醍醐學侶　　不耐愁腸　衣缽各投　　論文再彰　　攝嶺云盡　八不月涼　　金陵風扇　　一實華芳　所生慧業　　迴向無強　　萬乘聖化　德褊三皇　　四海靜謐　　慶暨百王　七世恩所　　佛道增長　　廣施群類　利益堂堂

於時永仁三年三月二十一日菩薩戒比丘寂性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：三歲時，爲了追悼和祈福，忌景雲當（忌景雲當：具體含義不明確，可能是一個人名或事件名）。恭敬地開啟《大乘玄章》（大乘玄章：大乘佛教的深奧篇章）的印板，以彰顯其剩餘的光輝。將其納入清瀧宮（清瀧宮：可能是一個寺廟或宮殿的名稱），以增加法樂的莊嚴。未曾料到這次印刷會遭遇火災。醍醐學侶（醍醐學侶：指學習醍醐流派的僧侶）難以忍受愁苦的心情。各自投奔衣缽，再次彰顯論文。攝嶺（攝嶺：可能是一個山名）的雲霧消散，八不（八不：佛教術語，指不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不去、不來）的月光清涼。金陵（金陵：南京的古稱）的風吹拂，一實（一實：佛教術語，指真實的本體）的華美芬芳。所產生的智慧之業，迴向給無上的力量。萬乘（萬乘：指帝王）的聖化，其德行超越三皇（三皇：指中國古代傳說中的三位帝王）。四海平靜安寧，慶祝的喜悅遍及百王（百王：指歷代君王）。愿七世的恩情所及之處，佛道得以增長，廣泛地施予眾生，利益無量。

時值永仁三年三月二十一日，菩薩戒比丘寂性（寂性：一位受過菩薩戒的比丘的名字）。

【English Translation】 English version: At the age of three, in order to commemorate and pray for blessings, Ji Jingyun Dang (忌景雲當: specific meaning unclear, possibly a person's name or an event). Respectfully opening the printing plate of the 'Great Vehicle Profound Chapters' (大乘玄章: profound chapters of Mahayana Buddhism) to illuminate its remaining radiance. Incorporating it into Qinglong Palace (清瀧宮: possibly the name of a temple or palace) to enhance the solemnity of Dharma music. Unexpectedly, this printing would encounter a fire disaster. The disciples of the Daigo school (醍醐學侶: refers to monks studying the Daigo school) could not bear the sorrowful feelings. Each went to their respective alms bowls, once again demonstrating the thesis. The clouds of Mount She (攝嶺: possibly the name of a mountain) dissipated, the moonlight of the Eight Negations (八不: Buddhist term, referring to no birth, no extinction, no cessation, no permanence, no oneness, no difference, no going, no coming) was cool. The wind of Jinling (金陵: the ancient name of Nanjing) blows, the magnificent fragrance of the One Reality (一實: Buddhist term, referring to the true essence). The wisdom karma that is generated, is dedicated to the unsurpassed power. The sage transformation of the myriad chariots (萬乘: refers to the emperor), its virtue surpasses the Three Sovereigns (三皇: refers to the three emperors in ancient Chinese legends). The four seas are peaceful and tranquil, the joy of celebration extends to the hundred kings (百王: refers to the emperors of past dynasties). May the grace of the seven generations extend to all places, and may the Buddha's path grow, widely bestow upon all beings, immeasurable benefits.

At the time of the 21st day of the 3rd month of the 3rd year of Einin, Bodhisattva Precepts Bhikkhu Jakusho (寂性: the name of a Bhikkhu who has received the Bodhisattva precepts).