English
English version How does 'existence' come to be? If it is not separate from otherness (paratva), but arises solely from its own nature (svabhava), and not from both itself and others, then 'birth' (utpada) is definitely non-existent. In terms of time, neither 'before' (purva), 'after' (paschat), nor 'simultaneously' (ekada) can be asserted together. Therefore, 'birth' (utpada), like a pot and other things, is merely a conventional existence, not truly real. If the old exists before the new, then the prior birth is unreasonable; if the old exists after the new, then the subsequent birth cannot be established. The present does not arise from the present, nor does it arise from the past or the future. The future also does not arise from the past, future, or present. If it is already complete, there is no 'coming' (future); if it has already ceased, there should be no 'going' (past). The essence and phenomena of things are like this; the simile of illusion is not false. The three characteristics of 'birth' (utpada), 'duration' (sthiti), and 'cessation' (bhanga) cannot exist simultaneously; existing sequentially in time is also impossible. How can one cling to the belief that they exist? If phenomena such as 'birth' (utpada) have other 'births' (utpada), then 'duration' (sthiti) and 'cessation' (bhanga) should be like 'birth' (utpada), or 'birth' (utpada) and 'duration' (sthiti) should be like 'cessation' (bhanga). What is distinguished by 'characteristics' (lakshana) and what can distinguish 'characteristics' (lakshana), why is the essence not eternal? If there is no distinction, then the four should be the same, or completely non-existent. An existent thing does not produce an existent thing, an existent thing does not produce a non-existent thing; a non-existent thing does not produce an existent thing, a non-existent thing does not produce a non-existent thing. An existent thing cannot become an existent thing, an existent thing cannot become a non-existent thing; a non-existent thing cannot become an existent thing, a non-existent thing cannot become a non-existent thing. Half born and half unborn is not a state of being born. Or, in the state of being unborn, it should also be the state of being born. If the time of birth is the result, then the essence is not the time of birth. If the time of birth is natural, then it should lose the nature of the time of birth. Born and unborn are different, there is an intermediate state. The time of birth is different from these two states, there should be an intermediate state. If it is said that the time of birth is abandoned, then the time of being born can be obtained, then there should be a remainder, which can be seen when obtained. If the state of being born is reached, then there is certainly no time of birth in principle. If the born has a time of birth, how can it arise from there? If the state of being born is not reached, and it is established as the time of birth, why not say there is no pot? Because there is no difference in being unborn. It is not that the time of birth is useful, and can distinguish the time of being unborn; nor is it that the essence is not complete, and is different from the state of being born. The previous state has no time of birth, and the latter state says it exists, taking both into account. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 已生位 故此位非无 有时名已生 无时名未起 除兹有无位 谁复谓生时 诸有执离因 无别所成果 转生及转灭 理皆不可成 教诫弟子品第八 由少因缘故 疑空谓不空 依前诸品中 理教应重遣 能所说若有 空理则为无 诸法假缘成 故三事非有 若唯说空过 不空义即成 不空过已明 空义应先立 诸欲坏他宗 必应成己义 何乐谈他失 而无立己宗 为破一等执 假立遣为宗 他三执既除 自宗随不立 许执为现见 空因非有能 余宗现见因 此宗非所许 若无不空理 空理如何成 汝既不立空 不空应不立 若许有无宗 有宗方可立 无宗若非有 有宗应不成 若诸法皆空 如何火名暖 此如前具遣 火暖俗非真 若谓法实有 遮彼说为空 应四论皆真 见何过而舍 若诸法都无 生死应非有 诸佛何曾许 执法定为无 若真离有无 何缘言俗有 汝本宗亦尔 致难复何为 诸法若都无 差别应非有 执诸法皆有 差别亦应无 若谓法非有 无能破有因 破有因已明 汝宗何不立 说破因易得 是世俗虚言 汝何缘不能 遮破真空义 有名诠法有 谓法实非无 无名表法无 法实应非有 由名解法有 遂谓法非无 因名知法无 应信法非有 诸世间可说 皆是假非真 离世俗名言 乃是真非假 谤诸法为无 可坠于无见 唯蠲诸妄执 如何说堕无 有非真有故 无亦非真无 既无有真无 何有于真有 有因证法空 法空应不立 宗因无异故 因体实为无 谓空喻别有 例诸法非空 唯有喻应成 内我同乌黑 若法本性空 见空有何德 虚妄分别缚 证空见能除 法成一成无 违真亦违俗 故与有一异 二俱不可言 有非有俱非 诸宗皆寂灭 于中欲兴难 毕竟不能申 圣天菩萨。造论既周。重叙摧邪。复说颂曰。 我在为燎邪宗火 沷以如来正教酥 又扇因明广大风 谁敢如蛾投猛焰 广百论本一卷 { "translations": [ "现代汉语译本", "以‘名’来诠释‘法’的存在，是说‘法’实际上并非不存在；", "用‘无名’来表示‘法’的空无，‘法’实际上应该并非存在。", "通过‘名’来理解‘法’的存在，于是认为‘法’并非不存在；", "因为‘名’而知晓‘法’的空无，应该相信‘法’并非存在。", "世间一切可以言说的，都是虚假的而非真实的；", "脱离世俗的名言概念，才是真实的而非虚假的。", "诽谤诸法为空无，可能会堕入虚无主义的见解；", "如果只是去除各种虚妄的执着，又怎么能说是堕入虚无呢？", "存在并非真正的存在，所以空无也并非真正的空无；", "既然没有真正的空无，又哪里会有真正的存在呢？", "如果因为‘有’来证明‘法’的空性，那么‘法’的空性就应该不能成立；", "因为作为理由的‘因’与所要证明的‘宗’没有差别，所以作为理由的‘因’的本体实际上是空无的。", "如果说‘空’只是一个比喻，与其他法不同，以此为例说明诸法并非空性；", "那么只有比喻能够成立，内在的‘我’就如同乌鸦一样是黑色的（意指比喻不当）。", "如果法的本性本来就是空性的，那么见到空性又有什么功德呢？", "正是因为有虚妄分别的束缚，证悟空性的见解才能去除这些束缚。", "如果说‘法’成立为一或成立为无，这既违背了真谛也违背了世俗谛；", "所以，对于‘法’来说，说它与‘一’相同或不同，这两种说法都是不可取的。", "说‘有’、‘非有’、‘亦有亦非有’，各种宗派的争论都应该寂灭；", "如果想要在这些寂灭的争论中兴起辩难，最终也是不能成立的。", "", "圣天菩萨（Āryadeva）在造论完毕之后，再次叙述摧毁邪说的内容，又说了以下偈颂：", "", "我如同燎烧邪说的火焰，浇上如来正教的酥油；", "又扇动因明（Hetuvidyā）广大的风，谁敢像飞蛾一样投入这猛烈的火焰？", "", "《广百论本》一卷", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "