Chinese
爱是涅槃相；若说爱是涅槃相，应言相、可相异；若言灭爱是涅槃相者，则不得言相可相异。 “又汝说信者有三相，俱不异，信若无信则无此三事，是故不得相、可相异。又相、可相异者，相更复应有相，则为无穷。是事不然，是故相、可相不得异。” 问曰：“如灯能自照亦能照彼，如是相能自相亦能相彼。” 答曰：“汝说灯喻，三有为相中已破。又自违先说，汝上言相、可相异，而今言相自能相亦能相彼。是事不然。又汝说可相中少分是相者。是事不然。何以故？此义或在一中、或在异中，一异义先已破故，当知少分相亦破。如是种种因缘相、可相，一不可得、异不可得，更无第三法成相可相，是故相、可相俱空。是二空故，一切法皆空。” 观有无门第七 复次一切法空。何以故？有、无一时不可得，非一时亦不可得。如说： 有、无一时无， 离无有亦无， 不离无有有， 有则应常无。 有无性相违，一法中不应共有。如生时无死、死时无生，是事《中论》中已说。若谓离无有有无过者。是事不然。何以故？离无云何有有？如先说法生时通自体七法共生。如阿毗昙中说，有与无常共生。无常是灭相故名无。是故离无，有则不生。若不离无常有有生者， 现代汉语译本 爱是涅槃（Nirvana）之相；如果说爱是涅槃之相，那么应该说‘相’和‘可相’是不同的；如果说灭爱是涅槃之相，那么就不能说‘相’和‘可相’是不同的。 ‘而且你说信者有三种相，都不相异，如果信没有不信，就不会有这三种事，所以不能说‘相’和‘可相’是不同的。而且如果‘相’和‘可相’是不同的，那么‘相’应该再有‘相’，这样就无穷无尽了。这件事是不成立的，所以‘相’和‘可相’不能说是不同的。’ 问：‘就像灯能自己照亮也能照亮其他事物，这样‘相’能自己显现也能显现其他事物。’ 答：‘你说的灯的譬喻，在三有为相中已经被破斥了。而且你也违背了你先前的说法，你之前说‘相’和‘可相’是不同的，而现在又说‘相’能自己显现也能显现其他事物。这件事是不成立的。而且你说在‘可相’中少部分是‘相’，这件事是不成立的。为什么呢？这个道理或者在一中，或者在异中，一和异的道理先前已经被破斥了，应当知道少部分的‘相’也被破斥了。像这样种种因缘，‘相’和‘可相’，一不可得，异不可得，更没有第三种法能成立‘相’和‘可相’，所以‘相’和‘可相’都是空。因为这二者都是空，所以一切法皆空。’ 观有无门第七 再次说明一切法空。为什么呢？有和无一时不可得，非一时也不可得。就像所说： 有、无一时无， 离无有亦无， 不离无有有， 有则应常无。 有和无的性质相互违背，不应该在一个法中同时存在。就像出生时没有死亡，死亡时没有出生，这件事在《中论》中已经说过了。如果说离开无而有有，没有过失。这件事是不成立的。为什么呢？离开无，怎么会有有呢？就像先前所说，出生时通过自体七法共同出生。就像《阿毗昙》中所说，有和无常共同出生。无常是灭的相，所以叫做无。所以离开无，有就不会产生。如果不离开无常而有产生，
English
English version Love is a characteristic of Nirvana (Nirvana); if it is said that love is a characteristic of Nirvana, then it should be said that ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’ are different; if it is said that the cessation of love is a characteristic of Nirvana, then it cannot be said that ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’ are different. ‘Moreover, you say that a believer has three characteristics, which are not different from each other. If faith does not have non-faith, then these three things would not exist. Therefore, it cannot be said that ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’ are different. Furthermore, if ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’ are different, then the ‘characteristic’ should have another ‘characteristic’, which would be endless. This is not the case, so ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’ cannot be said to be different.’ Question: ‘Just as a lamp can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things, so can a ‘characteristic’ manifest itself and also manifest other things.’ Answer: ‘Your analogy of the lamp has already been refuted in the three conditioned characteristics. Moreover, you contradict your previous statement. You previously said that ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’ are different, but now you say that ‘characteristic’ can manifest itself and also manifest other things. This is not the case. Furthermore, you say that a small part of the ‘characterized’ is the ‘characteristic’. This is not the case. Why? This principle is either in oneness or in otherness, and the principles of oneness and otherness have already been refuted. It should be known that the small part of the ‘characteristic’ is also refuted. Like this, due to various causes and conditions, ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’, oneness is unattainable, otherness is unattainable, and there is no third dharma that can establish ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’. Therefore, ‘characteristic’ and ‘characterized’ are both empty. Because these two are empty, all dharmas are empty.’ Chapter Seven: Contemplating Existence and Non-existence Furthermore, all dharmas are empty. Why? Existence and non-existence are unattainable at the same time, and also unattainable not at the same time. As it is said: Existence and non-existence are non-existent at the same time, existence is also non-existent apart from non-existence, Existence is not apart from non-existence, if there is existence, it should always be non-existent. The natures of existence and non-existence contradict each other, and they should not exist simultaneously in one dharma. Just as there is no death at the time of birth, and no birth at the time of death, this has already been said in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (*Treatise on the Middle Way*). If it is said that there is existence apart from non-existence, there is no fault. This is not the case. Why? How can there be existence apart from non-existence? Just as it was said earlier, at the time of birth, seven dharmas are born together through their own nature. As it is said in the *Abhidhamma*, existence and impermanence are born together. Impermanence is the characteristic of cessation, so it is called non-existence. Therefore, apart from non-existence, existence will not arise. If existence arises without being apart from impermanence, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
有则常无。若有常无者，初无有住，常是坏故。而实有住，是故有不常无。若离无常有有生者。是亦不然。何以故？离无常有实不生。 问曰：“有生时，已有无常而未发，灭时乃发坏是有。如是生、住、灭、老、得皆待时而发：有起时生为用，令有生；生灭中间住为用，持是有；灭时无常为用，灭是有；老变生至住，变住至灭；无常则坏；得常令四事成就。是故法虽与无常共生，有非常无。” 答曰：“汝说无常是灭相与有共生，生时有应坏，坏时有应生。 “复次，生灭俱无。何以故？灭时不应有生，生时不应有灭，生灭相违故。 “复次，汝法无常与住共生，有坏时，应无住，若住则无坏。何以故？住、坏相违故。老时无住，住时无老。是故汝说生、住、灭、老、无常、得本来共生，是则错乱。何以故？是有若与无常共生，无常是坏相，凡物生时无坏相，住时亦无坏相，尔时非是无无常相耶？如能识故名识，不能识则无识相；能受故名受，不能受则无受相；能念故名念，不能念则无念相。起是生相，不起则非生相；摄持是住相，不摄持则非住相；转变是老相，不转变则非老相；寿命灭是死相，寿命不灭则非死相。如是坏是无常相，离坏非无常相。若生、住时，虽有无常不能坏有、后能 现代汉语译本 有，则常常被认为是没有。如果存在总是没有，那么最初就不会有停留，因为总是处于坏灭的状态。但实际上存在停留，因此存在不是永远的没有。如果离开无常而有生起，这也是不成立的。为什么呢？因为离开无常，实际上不会有生起。 有人问：‘在事物生起的时候，已经有了无常但尚未显现，在事物灭亡的时候才显现其坏灭的性质，这就是有。像这样，生、住、灭、老、得，都等待时机而显现作用：事物开始时，生起的作用是使事物产生；生灭之间，停留的作用是保持事物存在；灭亡时，无常的作用是使事物灭亡；衰老使事物从生到住发生变化，从住到灭发生变化；无常则使事物坏灭；获得则使四种要素成就。因此，法虽然与无常共同产生，但有不是永远的没有。’ 回答说：‘你说无常是灭亡的相状，与有共同产生，那么事物生起时就应该坏灭，坏灭时就应该生起。’ ‘再者，生和灭不能同时存在。为什么呢？灭亡的时候不应该有生起，生起的时候不应该有灭亡，因为生起和灭亡是相互违背的。’ ‘再者，你的理论认为无常与住共同产生，那么在事物坏灭的时候，应该没有住，如果存在住，那么就没有坏灭。为什么呢？因为住和坏是相互违背的。衰老的时候没有住，住的时候没有衰老。因此，你说生、住、灭、老、无常、得本来是共同产生的，这是错乱的。为什么呢？如果事物与无常共同产生，无常是坏灭的相状，那么任何事物在生起的时候都没有坏灭的相状，在停留的时候也没有坏灭的相状，那么那时不是没有无常的相状吗？正如能够识别才叫做识别（识，Vijnana），不能识别就没有识别的相状；能够感受才叫做感受（受，Vedana），不能感受就没有感受的相状；能够忆念才叫做忆念（念，Smrti），不能忆念就没有忆念的相状。生起是产生的相状，不生起就不是产生的相状；摄持是停留的相状，不摄持就不是停留的相状；转变是衰老的相状，不转变就不是衰老的相状；寿命灭尽是死亡的相状，寿命不灭尽就不是死亡的相状。这样，坏灭是无常的相状，离开坏灭就不是无常的相状。如果在生起、停留的时候，即使有无常也不能使事物坏灭，之后才能'
English
English version 'There is' is often considered 'there is not'. If 'there is' is always 'there is not', then initially there would be no abiding, because it is always in a state of decay. But in reality, there is abiding, therefore 'there is' is not eternally 'there is not'. If arising exists apart from impermanence, that is also not valid. Why? Because apart from impermanence, arising does not actually occur. Someone asks: 'When something arises, impermanence is already present but not yet manifested. It is when something ceases that its nature of decay manifests, and that is 'there is'. Like this, arising, abiding, ceasing, aging, and obtaining all await the right time to manifest their function: when something begins, the function of arising is to cause the thing to be born; between arising and ceasing, the function of abiding is to maintain the existence of the thing; at the time of ceasing, the function of impermanence is to cause the thing to cease; aging causes the thing to change from arising to abiding, and from abiding to ceasing; impermanence then causes the thing to decay; obtaining then causes the four elements to be accomplished. Therefore, although a dharma arises together with impermanence, 'there is' is not eternally 'there is not'.' The answer is: 'You say that impermanence is the aspect of cessation, arising together with 'there is', then when something arises, it should decay, and when something decays, it should arise.' 'Furthermore, arising and ceasing cannot occur simultaneously. Why? Because at the time of ceasing, there should be no arising, and at the time of arising, there should be no ceasing, because arising and ceasing are mutually contradictory.' 'Furthermore, your theory holds that impermanence arises together with abiding, then when something decays, there should be no abiding, and if there is abiding, then there is no decay. Why? Because abiding and decay are mutually contradictory. At the time of aging, there is no abiding, and at the time of abiding, there is no aging. Therefore, your saying that arising, abiding, ceasing, aging, impermanence, and obtaining originally arise together is confused. Why? If something arises together with impermanence, and impermanence is the aspect of decay, then when anything arises, there is no aspect of decay, and when it abides, there is also no aspect of decay, so at that time, is there not the aspect of impermanence? Just as being able to recognize is called recognition (识, Vijnana), and not being able to recognize has no aspect of recognition; being able to feel is called feeling (受, Vedana), and not being able to feel has no aspect of feeling; being able to remember is called remembering (念, Smrti), and not being able to remember has no aspect of remembering. Arising is the aspect of being born, and not arising is not the aspect of being born; sustaining is the aspect of abiding, and not sustaining is not the aspect of abiding; transforming is the aspect of aging, and not transforming is not the aspect of aging; the extinction of lifespan is the aspect of death, and the lifespan not being extinguished is not the aspect of death. Like this, decay is the aspect of impermanence, and apart from decay, there is no aspect of impermanence. If at the time of arising and abiding, even if there is impermanence, it cannot cause the thing to decay, and only later can it' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
坏有者，何用共生为？如是应随有坏时乃有无常。是故无常虽共生、后乃坏有者，是事不然。 “如是有、无共不成，不共亦不成，是故有、无空。有、无空故，一切有为空；一切有为空故，无为亦空；有为、无为空故，众生亦空。” 观性门第八 复次，一切法空。何以故？诸法无性故。如说： 见有变异相， 诸法无有性； 无性法亦无， 诸法皆空故。 诸法若有性，则不应变异；而见一切法皆变异，是故当知诸法无性。复次，若诸法有定性，则不应从众缘生；若性从众缘生者，性即是作法；不作法不因待他名为性，是故一切法空。 问曰：“若一切法空，则无生无灭；若无生灭，则无苦谛；若无苦谛，则无集谛；若无苦、集谛，则无灭谛；若无苦灭，则无至苦灭道。若诸法空无性，则无四圣谛；无四圣谛故，亦无四沙门果；无四沙门果故，则无贤圣。是事无故，佛、法、僧亦无，世间法皆亦无。是事不然，是故诸法不应尽空。” 答曰：“有二谛：一、世谛，二、第一义谛。因世谛得说第一义谛，若不因世谛，则不得说第一义谛；若不得第一义谛，则不得涅槃。若人不知二谛，则不知自利、他利、共利。如是若知世谛，则知第一义谛；知第一义谛，则知世谛 现代汉语译本 如果‘有’（bhava，存在）的坏灭是‘有者’（bhavin，存在者）的坏灭，那么为什么要说‘共生’（sahajāta，同时生起）呢？如果这样，就应该在‘有’坏灭的时候才有‘无常’（anitya，无常性）。因此，虽然‘无常’是‘共生’的，但后来才坏灭‘有者’，这种说法是不成立的。 ‘有’和‘无’（abhāva，不存在）共同不能成立，不共同也不能成立，所以‘有’和‘无’都是空（śūnya，空性）。因为‘有’和‘无’是空，所以一切‘有为’（saṃskṛta，有为法）都是空；一切‘有为’是空，所以‘无为’（asaṃskṛta，无为法）也是空；‘有为’和‘无为’是空，所以众生（sattva，有情）也是空。 观性门第八 再者，一切法（dharma，法）都是空。为什么呢？因为诸法没有自性（svabhāva，自性）。如经中所说： ‘见到有变异相（vikāra-lakṣaṇa，变异之相），诸法没有自性；没有自性的法也是没有的，所以诸法都是空。’ 如果诸法有自性，就不应该变异；而我们看到一切法都在变异，所以应当知道诸法没有自性。再者，如果诸法有固定的自性，就不应该从众缘（pratyaya，因缘）而生；如果自性是从众缘而生，那么自性就是造作之法；不是造作之法，不依赖于他者而存在的，才叫做自性，所以一切法都是空。 问：‘如果一切法都是空，那么就没有生（utpāda，生）没有灭（nirodha，灭）；如果没有生灭，就没有苦谛（duḥkha-satya，苦谛）；如果没有苦谛，就没有集谛（samudaya-satya，集谛）；如果没有苦、集二谛，就没有灭谛（nirodha-satya，灭谛）；如果没有苦灭，就没有通往苦灭之道（mārga-satya，道谛）。如果诸法是空无自性，那么就没有四圣谛（catvāri ārya satyāni，四圣谛）；没有四圣谛，也就没有四沙门果（catvāri śrāmaṇya phalāni，四沙门果）；没有四沙门果，就没有贤圣（ārya，圣者）。如果这些都没有，佛（Buddha，佛陀）、法（Dharma，佛法）、僧（Saṃgha，僧伽）也就没有了，世间法（laukika dharma，世俗之法）也都没有了。这种说法是不对的，所以诸法不应该完全是空。’ 答：‘有二谛（satya，谛）：一、世谛（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗谛），二、第一义谛（paramārtha-satya，胜义谛）。依靠世谛才能宣说第一义谛，如果不依靠世谛，就不能宣说第一义谛；如果不能证得第一义谛，就不能得到涅槃（nirvāṇa，涅槃）。如果人不知道二谛，就不知道自利、他利、共利。如果知道世谛，就能知道第一义谛；知道第一义谛，就能知道世谛。’