Chinese
大正藏第 30 册 No. 1572 百字论 No. 1572 百字论一卷 提婆菩萨造 后魏北印度三藏菩提流支译 我今归依聪睿师 厥名提婆有大智 能以百字演实法 除诸邪见向实相 说曰。何故造论。为破我见等。一切诸法。各有自相。 僧佉曰。一切法一相。是我要誓说。以何因缘。立一切法一相。以尽同共有一故。喻如瓶衣等。物体各有一。以是义故。常知一切法名为一相。是故一义成。内曰。非一。何以故。汝要誓言。立一相义。为一为二。若是一者。唯有要誓。不应有一。以是因缘。汝所立一。此义即破。毗舍师曰。汝言一破。我今立异。舍一过故。内曰。汝若立异。我还立一。何以故。汝若离因立异。我亦离因立一。毗舍师曰。我要立异。所以者何。诸法差别。各异相故。喻如象驼鹿马。如是等类。其相各异。以是故。诸法相异。一切法皆异。是故异义成。内曰。汝以此彼相不同故。言异义成者。以相别故。法各是一。汝所立异。要言则坏。要言坏故。则知异相不立。外曰。以一异相不成故。我今立有相。以法各有相故。当知有相义成。有相成故。当知一异亦成。内曰。汝今立有。必应有因。若无因。而立有我。亦无因而立无。外 现代汉语译本 《百字论》一卷 提婆菩萨造 后魏北印度三藏菩提流支译 我今归依聪睿的老师，他的名字是提婆，具有大智慧，能够用百字来阐述真实的佛法，去除各种邪见，趋向实相。 有人问道：‘为什么要造这部论？’ 回答说：‘为了破除我见等一切执着。一切诸法，各有其自身的体相。’ 僧佉派（Sāṃkhya，印度古代哲学流派，主张二元论）说：‘一切法都是一个相，这是我所要誓言说明的。’ 问道：‘以什么因缘来建立一切法是一个相的观点呢？’ 回答说：‘因为一切事物最终都共同具有一个本体。’ 例如瓶子、衣服等物体，各自有一个本体。因为这个缘故，应当知道一切法都名为一个相。所以，‘一’的意义成立。 内道（佛教）反驳说：‘并非是一个相。’ 问道：‘为什么呢？’ 回答说：‘你誓言要建立一个相的意义，那么这个相是一还是二？如果是一，就只有你的誓言，不应该有其他任何事物。因为这个因缘，你所建立的‘一’的意义就被破斥了。’ 毗舍师派（Vaiśeṣika，印度古代哲学流派，主张实在论和原子论）说：‘你认为‘一’的观点被破斥，我现在建立‘异’的观点，舍弃‘一’的过失。’ 内道反驳说：‘如果你要建立‘异’的观点，我还坚持建立‘一’的观点。’ 问道：‘为什么呢？’ 回答说：‘如果你离开原因而建立‘异’，我也同样可以离开原因而建立‘一’。 毗舍师派说：‘我一定要建立‘异’的观点。’ 问道：‘为什么呢？’ 回答说：‘因为诸法有差别，各自有不同的体相。例如大象、骆驼、鹿、马等等，它们的体相各不相同。因为这个缘故，诸法的体相是不同的，一切法都是‘异’。所以，‘异’的意义成立。’ 内道反驳说：‘你因为彼此体相不同，就说‘异’的意义成立，但因为体相有差别，法各自是一个整体。你所建立的‘异’的誓言就被破坏了。誓言被破坏，就知道‘异’的体相不能成立。’ 外道（佛教以外的学说）说：‘因为‘一’和‘异’的体相都不能成立，我现在建立‘有相’的观点。因为法各自具有体相，应当知道‘有相’的意义成立。‘有相’成立，应当知道‘一’和‘异’也成立。’ 内道反驳说：‘你现在建立‘有’，必定应该有原因。如果没有原因而建立‘有’，我也同样可以没有原因而建立‘无’。’ 外道……
English
English version The Treatise in One Hundred Syllables Composed by Bodhisattva Deva Translated by Tripiṭaka Bodhiruci from Northern India during the Later Wei Dynasty I now take refuge in the wise and intelligent teacher, whose name is Deva, possessing great wisdom, capable of expounding the true Dharma with one hundred syllables, removing all wrong views, and turning towards the true reality. Someone asked: 'Why was this treatise composed?' The answer is: 'To break through the attachment to self and all other attachments. All dharmas (phenomena) each have their own intrinsic nature.' The Sāṃkhya (an ancient Indian philosophical school advocating dualism) says: 'All dharmas are of one nature; this is what I vow to explain.' Asked: 'By what cause and condition do you establish the view that all dharmas are of one nature?' The answer is: 'Because all things ultimately share a common essence.' For example, objects such as bottles and clothes each have an essence. For this reason, it should be known that all dharmas are named as one nature. Therefore, the meaning of 'one' is established. The inner school (Buddhism) refutes: 'It is not of one nature.' Asked: 'Why?' The answer is: 'You vow to establish the meaning of one nature, then is this nature one or two? If it is one, then there is only your vow, and there should be nothing else. Because of this cause and condition, the meaning of 'one' that you have established is refuted.' The Vaiśeṣika (an ancient Indian philosophical school advocating realism and atomism) says: 'You think the view of 'one' is refuted; I now establish the view of 'different,' abandoning the fault of 'one.' The inner school refutes: 'If you want to establish the view of 'different,' I still insist on establishing the view of 'one.' Asked: 'Why?' The answer is: 'If you establish 'different' without a cause, I can also establish 'one' without a cause.' The Vaiśeṣika says: 'I must establish the view of 'different.' Asked: 'Why?' The answer is: 'Because dharmas have differences, each having different characteristics. For example, elephants, camels, deer, horses, and so on, their characteristics are different. For this reason, the characteristics of dharmas are different; all dharmas are 'different.' Therefore, the meaning of 'different' is established.' The inner school refutes: 'Because the characteristics of each are different, you say the meaning of 'different' is established, but because the characteristics are different, each dharma is a whole. The vow of 'different' that you have established is broken. When the vow is broken, it is known that the characteristic of 'different' cannot be established.' The outer school (doctrines outside of Buddhism) says: 'Because the characteristics of 'one' and 'different' cannot be established, I now establish the view of 'having characteristics.' Because dharmas each have characteristics, it should be known that the meaning of 'having characteristics' is established. When 'having characteristics' is established, it should be known that 'one' and 'different' are also established.' The inner school refutes: 'You now establish 'having,' there must be a cause. If you establish 'having' without a cause, I can also establish 'non-being' without a cause.' The outer school... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
曰。我要言立一切法有。何以故。现见诸法。各有相故。喻如虚空中花。无有体相故。不可得瓶衣等物现有用故。当知一切法。皆是有相。以是因缘故。有义得成。内曰。汝立有者。因有相故。有因无相故。有此二俱有过。若以现相故。成有义者。现相是有。有亦是有。二有理不相成。若言因无。要誓则坏。有无俱非因故。有义则破。外曰。若破我有。汝则立无。无义得成。有还得立。喻如世人饮食。先因粗涩。故有美好。以是故。汝破我有。当知是无。内曰。汝立无者。因何而成。汝若无因。而成无我。亦无因而成有。外曰。云何而知。以无体相故。喻如热时炎。自无体相。何况而有。少水可得。以是因缘故。一切法无一尘相可得。是故我立无义成。内曰。汝所立无。为有因。为无因。若言无因。空有要誓。若言有因。要誓则坏。汝若无无亦不成。外曰。一切法有因。汝破有无者。此义则不然。何以故。如有泥缕蒲苇等故。知一切法皆有因。内曰。无因汝。言有因故有。有因则是无。若泥中先有瓶泥蒲缕等。皆非是因。何以故。因中先有故。若因中先无。亦非是因喻。如沙中无油。沙非油因。若言亦有亦无。义亦不成。何以故。有二过故。复次有亦不生。无亦不生。若从无因生。因复何用。为若从有因生。要誓言则 现代汉语译本 外曰：我要主张一切法都是存在的。为什么呢？因为我们能亲眼见到诸法，它们各自都有其相状。比如虚空中的花，因为没有实体和相状，所以不可得；而瓶子、衣服等事物，现在有实际的功用，应当知道一切法都是有相的。因为这个缘故，‘有’的意义得以成立。 内曰：你主张‘有’，是因为‘有相’的缘故。那么，‘有’是因为‘无相’的缘故吗？这两种说法都有过失。如果因为‘现相’的缘故，而成立‘有’的意义，那么‘现相’是‘有’，‘有’也是‘有’，两个‘有’在道理上不能互相成立。如果说因为‘无’，那么你之前的誓言就破灭了，因为‘有’和‘无’都不是原因，所以‘有’的意义就被破坏了。 外曰：如果破斥我的‘有’，你就是主张‘无’，那么‘无’的意义就得以成立，‘有’也可以重新被建立。比如世人饮食，先是因为粗糙难以下咽，所以才觉得美好。因此，你破斥我的‘有’，应当知道那就是‘无’。 内曰：你主张‘无’，是根据什么而成立的呢？如果你没有原因就成立‘无’，那么‘有’也可以没有原因就成立。 外曰：怎么知道是这样呢？因为‘无’没有实体和相状。比如热天时的阳焰（热气形成的虚幻景象），自身没有实体和相状，更何况能有少许水可以得到呢？因为这个缘故，一切法没有一尘的相状可以得到，所以我主张‘无’的意义成立。 内曰：你所主张的‘无’，是有原因的，还是没有原因的？如果说是没有原因的，那就违背了你之前的誓言。如果说是有原因的，那么你之前的誓言就破灭了。如果你没有‘无’，那么‘无’也不能成立。 外曰：一切法都是有原因的，你破斥‘有’和‘无’，这个道理是不对的。为什么呢？比如有泥土、丝线、蒲草、芦苇等，所以知道一切法都是有原因的。 内曰：你说没有原因，又说因为有原因所以有。有原因就是没有原因。如果在泥土中先有瓶子，泥土、蒲草、丝线等，都不是原因。为什么呢？因为原因中先有了结果。如果原因中先没有结果，也不是原因。比如沙子中没有油，沙子就不是油的原因。如果说亦有亦无，这个意义也不能成立。为什么呢？因为有两个过失。而且，‘有’不能生，‘无’也不能生。如果从没有原因而生，原因又有什么用呢？如果从有原因而生，之前的誓言就...
English
English version The Outsider says: I want to assert that all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) exist. Why? Because we directly see all dharmas, each having its own characteristics. For example, flowers in the sky, because they have no substance or characteristics, are unattainable. But things like bottles and clothes have present uses, so we should know that all dharmas have characteristics. Because of this reason, the meaning of 'existence' is established. The Insider says: You assert 'existence' because of 'having characteristics.' Then, does 'existence' exist because of 'not having characteristics'? Both of these statements have faults. If you establish the meaning of 'existence' because of 'present characteristics,' then 'present characteristics' are 'existence,' and 'existence' is also 'existence.' Two 'existences' cannot establish each other in reason. If you say it's because of 'non-existence,' then your previous vow is broken, because neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence' is the cause, so the meaning of 'existence' is destroyed. The Outsider says: If you refute my 'existence,' you are asserting 'non-existence,' then the meaning of 'non-existence' is established, and 'existence' can be re-established. For example, when people eat, they first find it coarse and unpalatable, and then they appreciate the deliciousness. Therefore, when you refute my 'existence,' you should know that it is 'non-existence.' The Insider says: You assert 'non-existence,' based on what is it established? If you establish 'non-existence' without a cause, then 'existence' can also be established without a cause. The Outsider says: How do you know this? Because 'non-existence' has no substance or characteristics. For example, the mirage (a shimmering illusion caused by heat) in hot weather has no substance or characteristics itself, let alone having a little water that can be obtained? Because of this reason, no dharma has even a speck of characteristic that can be obtained, so I assert that the meaning of 'non-existence' is established. The Insider says: The 'non-existence' you assert, does it have a cause, or does it not have a cause? If you say it has no cause, then you violate your previous vow. If you say it has a cause, then your previous vow is broken. If you don't have 'non-existence,' then 'non-existence' cannot be established either. The Outsider says: All dharmas have a cause, and you refute 'existence' and 'non-existence,' this reasoning is incorrect. Why? Because there is clay, thread, reeds, and rushes, so we know that all dharmas have a cause. The Insider says: You say there is no cause, and then you say there is existence because there is a cause. Having a cause is the same as having no cause. If there is a bottle already in the clay, then the clay, reeds, and thread are not the cause. Why? Because the result is already in the cause. If the result is not in the cause, then it is not the cause. For example, there is no oil in the sand, so the sand is not the cause of oil. If you say it is both existent and non-existent, this meaning cannot be established either. Why? Because there are two faults. Moreover, 'existence' cannot arise, and 'non-existence' cannot arise either. If it arises from no cause, then what is the use of a cause? If it arises from a cause, then the previous vow... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
坏。汝先言一切法。皆有因生者。此事则不然。外曰。现有瓶衣等用故。则知一切法皆从因生。不相形故成。内曰。汝言有果故有因。此义不成。何以故。相形有故。若以见果有用故。言有因者。果亦是因。果若是因。则无果。无果故则无因。是故因果俱坏。若言从意自在时方。如是等因生。则是相形因。便是有为法。有为则无常。自在时方。相形而有。则不因成。外曰。我所言真实。先旧诸仙。作如是说。此法决定。终无有异。内曰。汝言法尔。此非正说。如我所说。与汝法异。汝法中所有。我法中则无。我法中所有。汝法中则无。何以故。汝言我法尔故。汝法若尔。则但自是。自是而说。则无理趣。若无理趣。则无所知。若有所知。更说胜因。若无胜因。而言法尔。则无道理。外曰。此是我家法。内曰。汝言我家法。其法则不成。汝法不自成。云何能成法。若当离因者。终无有所成。自是其法者。此则非正理。外曰。无法非因生。如兔角。龟毛。石女儿。虚空花等。如是无法。终不可得。以因缘生。如见压油求麻。作瓶求泥。非以一法为因。能生多法。而物各有因。如泥能成瓶。不为叠因。缕能成叠。不为瓶因。以此类求余法亦尔。内曰。汝言因能生者。因不能生。此因为有所成。为有所坏。若因有所成。成汝亦 现代汉语译本 坏（驳斥）。你先说一切法（dharma，宇宙间的一切事物和现象）都是由因（hetu，原因）而生的，这种说法是不对的。外道（Tirthika，佛教以外的学派）说：现在有瓶子、衣服等作用，因此可知一切法都是从因产生的，因为它们相互依存才能成立。内道（Sva-mata，佛教内部的学派）说：你说因为有果（phala，结果）所以有因，这种说法不成立。为什么呢？因为它们是相互依存而存在的。如果因为看到果的作用就说有因，那么果也是因。如果果是因，那就没有果了。没有果，也就没有因。所以因和果都破灭了。如果说是从意（citta，心意）、自在（Isvara，主宰）、时间（kala，时间）和方位（dis，方向）等因产生的，那就是相互依存的因，便是有为法（samskrta-dharma，由因缘和合而成的法）。有为法就是无常（anitya，变化不定）。自在、时间和方位，都是相互依存而存在的，所以不是因所能成就的。外道说：我所说的是真实的，先前的古仙人们都是这样说的，这种法是决定的，终究不会有不同。内道说：你说‘法尔’（dharmata，事物本性如此），这不是正确的说法。如我所说，与你的法不同。你的法中所有的，我的法中就没有。我的法中所有的，你的法中就没有。为什么呢？因为你说你的法是‘法尔’。你的法如果是这样，那就只是你自己的。只是你自己的说法，就没有道理。如果没有道理，那就无所知。如果有所知，就应该再说出更殊胜的因。如果没有殊胜的因，却说‘法尔’，那就没有道理。外道说：这是我家的法。内道说：你说‘我家的法’，这种法是不成立的。你的法不能自己成立，怎么能成立法呢？如果离开因，终究没有什么可以成就。只是坚持自己的法，这不是正确的道理。外道说：没有无法不是由因生的，比如兔角、龟毛、石女儿、虚空花等。像这样的无法，终究是不可得的，因为它们不是由因缘生的。比如看到压榨油来求麻，制作瓶子来求泥，不是用一种法作为因，就能产生多种法。而且事物各有其因，比如泥能做成瓶子，但不能做成布匹的因；线能做成布匹，但不能做成瓶子的因。用这种方式来推求其他的法也是一样。内道说：你说因能产生果，因是不能产生果的。这个因是为了有所成就，还是为了有所破坏？如果因有所成就，成就你也是