Chinese
大正藏第 30 册 No. 1573 壹输卢迦论 No. 1573 壹输卢迦论一卷 龙树菩萨造 后魏瞿昙留支雒阳译 体自体无常 如是体无体 自体性无体 故说空无常 问曰。以何义故造此一偈论。说何等义破何等人。答曰。为读诵者于广大部生懈倦心。又为聪睿先已广习无量诸论于如来法海义中思惟而生懈倦。于无常自体空不异义中。生异相疑。为断此疑故造斯论。说何义者。今当说。谓一切法无常自体空。自体空不离无常。一切法自性自体空。是故无有常。一切诸佛缘觉声闻。于空法中而得出离。非于诸行断常法中而得解脱。偈言。 灭空住有体 则成于常见 若谓后时灭 则成于断见 以此义故。说一切法自体空。诸佛缘觉声闻罗汉。于此义中得利益故。破何等人者。今当说。若有所得人离于诸行。说有无常则非正见。若无常离有为。无常则常犹如虚空。若如是者。则有为无为体无差别。若有为与无为合。无为合故则瓶不可破。若无为与有为合。有为合故则涅槃可坏。若不异者。则一切法不可破坏。如涅槃常非缘生故。若诸行非因缘生。不异虚空涅槃者。则有为法不名无常。若诸行非因缘生。是无常者。则虚空涅槃不名为常。 现代汉语译本： 大正藏第 30 册 No. 1573 《壹输卢迦论》 No. 1573 《壹输卢迦论》一卷 龙树菩萨造 后魏瞿昙留支雒阳译 体自体无常，如是体无体； 自体性无体，故说空无常。 问：以何种意义造这部一偈论？阐述何种义理？破斥何种人？答：为了让读诵者不因广大经部而心生懈怠，也为了让聪慧之人，即使已经广泛学习了无量论典，在如来法海的义理中思惟时，不至于心生懈怠，并且对于无常、自体空、不异之义产生不同的疑惑。为了断除这些疑惑，所以造这部论。要阐述什么义理呢？现在就说：一切法都是无常的，自体是空的，自体空不离无常。一切法的自性、自体都是空的，所以没有常。一切诸佛（Buddha，觉悟者）、缘觉（Pratyekabuddha，独觉者）、声闻（Śrāvaka，听闻佛法而悟道者），都是在空法中得以出离，而不是在诸行的断常法中得以解脱。偈颂说： 灭空住有体，则成于常见； 若谓后时灭，则成于断见。 因为这个缘故，说一切法自体空。诸佛、缘觉、声闻、阿罗汉（Arhat，断尽烦恼的圣者）因此义而得利益。要破斥什么人呢？现在就说：如果有所得之人，离开诸行，说有无常，那就不是正见。如果无常离开有为法，那么无常就变成常，犹如虚空。如果这样，那么有为法和无为法的体性就没有差别。如果有为法与无为法结合，因为无为法结合的缘故，那么瓶子就不可破坏。如果无为法与有为法结合，因为有为法结合的缘故，那么涅槃（Nirvana，寂灭）就可以被破坏。如果不异，那么一切法就不可破坏，如同涅槃是常，不是因缘所生。如果诸行不是因缘所生，不异于虚空涅槃，那么有为法就不能称为无常。如果诸行不是因缘所生，却是无常，那么虚空涅槃就不能称为常。
English
English version: Taisho Tripitaka Volume 30, No. 1573: Ekashloka Shastra No. 1573 Ekashloka Shastra, One Volume Composed by Nagarjuna Bodhisattva (Nāgārjuna, a renowned Buddhist philosopher) Translated by Gautama Prajnaruci (瞿昙留支) of the Later Wei Dynasty in Luoyang The self-nature of the body is impermanent; thus, the body has no self. The self-nature has no self; therefore, it is said that emptiness is impermanent. Question: For what reason was this one-verse treatise composed? What doctrine does it expound? Whom does it refute? Answer: It is to prevent readers from becoming weary of the vast scriptures, and also to prevent the wise, who have already extensively studied countless treatises, from becoming weary when contemplating the meaning of the Dharma-ocean of the Tathagata (如来, Thus Come One), and from developing different doubts about the meaning of impermanence, self-emptiness, and non-duality. To dispel these doubts, this treatise is composed. What doctrine is to be expounded? Now I will say: all dharmas (法, phenomena) are impermanent, and their self-nature is empty; self-emptiness is inseparable from impermanence. The self-nature and self of all dharmas are empty; therefore, there is no permanence. All Buddhas (Buddha, enlightened ones), Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddha, solitary Buddhas), and Shravakas (Śrāvaka, disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Dharma) attain liberation in the Dharma of emptiness, not in the Dharma of permanence and impermanence of conditioned things. The verse says: If emptiness is extinguished and existence remains, it becomes the view of permanence. If it is said to be extinguished later, it becomes the view of annihilation. For this reason, it is said that the self-nature of all dharmas is empty. Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, Shravakas, and Arhats (Arhat, one who has extinguished all afflictions) benefit from this meaning. Whom is it to refute? Now I will say: if someone who has attachments, apart from conditioned things, says there is impermanence, that is not the right view. If impermanence is separate from conditioned things, then impermanence becomes permanent, like space. If that is the case, then there is no difference in the nature of conditioned and unconditioned things. If conditioned things combine with unconditioned things, because of the combination with unconditioned things, then a vase cannot be broken. If unconditioned things combine with conditioned things, because of the combination with conditioned things, then Nirvana (Nirvana, cessation of suffering) can be destroyed. If they are not different, then all dharmas cannot be destroyed, just as Nirvana is permanent and not produced by conditions. If conditioned things are not produced by causes and conditions, and are not different from space and Nirvana, then conditioned dharmas cannot be called impermanent. If conditioned things are not produced by causes and conditions, but are impermanent, then space and Nirvana cannot be called permanent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
若如是者。则有为无为无有胜法。若无常离有为。犹名无常者。则有为离常。应名为常。但是事不然。若如是者。何等修多罗中作如是说。以何义说。汝今所说以何义说。汝今所说义不相应。非汝邪思之所能量。是故汝说非为正见。若人有所得。谓过去未来现在法自体成者。当知是人则非正见。何以故。无因生见故。若言未来体非因缘生自体成者。则现在法亦非因缘生自性体成。以未来现在自性平等无差别故。若性平等者。现在有法皆从缘生。未来法何故非缘生。汝今此义为以修多罗说为依义说。说不相应则无理趣。若无理趣则不可信。若未来法无因缘生自性成者。未来之法犹如虚空无有因缘。离因缘故非因缘生。则无实未来体。无未来故现在过去亦无。现在过去无故三世无体。若有体者则是常见无因生故。若佛弟子有所得见。则与外道迦毗罗等无差别。此论非为迦毗罗忧楼迦诸外道等。为汝等辈同见之人故造斯论。向说破何等人。为令汝等有所得人断除邪见故作斯论。一输卢迦偈句义今当释。偈言自体性无常者。自体名有生。有法故名为体。有所得人于此法中心取为体。此法于阴界入中有声缘转。如说一体二体多体。如彼此人一二众多各有自体故名自体。如地水火风坚湿热动各有自性。如是各各自相自体故言自体。 有所得人谓生住灭同相者。是义不然。自体性无常故。彼体名有所得人分别故生。是故离诸法无无常体。以自相无常故。如佛告比丘。一切诸行皆悉无常。以此说故。离法有无常自相者。是事不然。若汝不了云何无常。我今当说。偈言如是体无体故。体无体者。汝所分别无常者。彼无常无体。是故体无体。自性无体故言无体。偈言自体性无体者。离无体更无别体故。言自体无体。若汝意谓离无体而有体者。是义不然。以汝此法非修多罗说故。若谓无体是自体者。是亦不然。以修多罗所不说故。世尊。于何等修多罗中说如此法。于佛世尊修多罗中。都无此义。以非经说故不成就。非大圣修多罗所说之义则不应信。是故非唯言说而得取证。偈言故说空无常者。如调伏三蜜提经中说。佛告三蜜提。眼空无常无不动。无不坏无不变。何以故。性如是故。耳鼻舌身意亦复如是。世尊。于此修多罗中说空说无常。以是义故。知诸法空无常。无常无体。是故诸法性自无体则无体义成。若能如是入修多罗义。其义则成。若不入修多罗。其义则坏。以我所说入修多罗。其义则成。是故性自无体其义成就。一输卢迦论一卷。凡诸法体性法物事有名异义同。是故或言体。或言性。或言法。或言有。或言物。莫不皆是有之差别。正音云私婆婆。 或译为自体体。或译为无法有法。或译为无自性性。 壹输卢迦论一卷 现代汉语译本： 或者翻译为自体体（Svatma-kaya，指佛陀的法身）。或者翻译为无法有法（A-bhava-bhava，指超越存在与非存在的境界）。或者翻译为无自性性（Nihsvabhava-svabhava，指一切事物本质上没有独立自存的性质）。 《壹输卢迦论》一卷
English
English version: Or translated as Svatma-kaya (referring to the Dharmakaya, the body of the Dharma, of the Buddha). Or translated as A-bhava-bhava (referring to the state beyond existence and non-existence). Or translated as Nihsvabhava-svabhava (referring to the nature of all things as essentially lacking independent self-nature). One fascicle of the Ekasloka-sastra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------