Chinese
大正藏第 31 册 No. 1622 取因假设论 No. 1622 取因假设论一卷 陈那菩萨造 三藏法师义净奉 制译 论曰。为遮一性异性非有边故。大师但依假施设事。而宣法要。欲令有情方便趣入。如理作意。远离邪宗。永断烦恼。如是三边。皆有过故。我当开释。此中取因假设。略有三种。一者总聚。二者相续。三者分位差别。言总聚者。谓于一时有多法聚。随顺世间。以一性说。如身林等。言相续者。谓于异时因果不绝。以一性说。如羯罗罗等位。名之为人。芽等转异。名之为谷。言分位差别者。谓于一事有其多性。异不异时。而为建立。如色生位异无常性。有见有对。业具性故等。由此三义。密意说有补嗢揭罗。及证圆寂。然此三义。但是假设。不可说为一性异性。及总无性。有过失故。此中且辨总聚有聚。无异性言。事唯二种。为当许有。此二自性。遮其性别。谓于有聚。总聚不别。名无异耶。为但无余。说名无异。此有何过。颂曰。 若无异性体无别 有聚更互成无异 或于总聚别事殊 此复便成多种体 论曰。若许手等自性与身是一名无异者。此即于身无别性故。手等更互成无差别。手便成足。违世间故。或复说彼别别支分非身 现代汉语译本： 大正藏第 31 册 No. 1622 《取因假设论》 No. 1622 《取因假设论》一卷 陈那菩萨造 三藏法师义净奉 制译 论曰：为了遮止一性、异性以及非有边这三种错误的观点，大师只是依据假施设的事物，来宣说佛法的要义，想要让有情众生方便地趣入，如理作意，远离邪宗，永远断除烦恼。像这样的一性、异性、非有边三种观点，都有过失。我应当开解阐释。这里所说的取因假设，大致有三种：第一种是总聚，第二种是相续，第三种是分位差别。所说的总聚，是指在同一时间有很多法聚集在一起，随顺世间的说法，以一性来说，例如身体、树林等。所说的相续，是指在不同时间，因果相续不断绝，以一性来说，例如羯罗罗（Kalala，受精卵）等阶段，称之为人；种子、幼芽等转变不同，称之为谷物。所说的分位差别，是指在同一事物上有多种性质，在不同或相同的时间，而建立不同的概念，例如色（Rupa，物质）的生位有异于无常的性质，因为有见、有对，具有业的性质等等。由于这三种意义，密意地说有补特伽罗（Pudgala，补特伽罗，意为‘人’或‘有情’），以及证得圆寂。然而这三种意义，都只是假设，不可以说是单一的性质，或是相异的性质，以及完全没有自性，因为这样会有过失。这里且辨别总聚有聚集，没有异性的说法。事物只有两种，应当许有这两种自性，遮止其性别。对于有聚集的事物，总聚没有差别，称之为没有差异吗？还是仅仅是没有剩余，就说成没有差异？这有什么过失呢？颂曰： 若无异性体无别，有聚更互成无异，或于总聚别事殊，此复便成多种体。 论曰：如果承认手等自性与身体是一个名称，没有差异，那么这就表示对于身体没有分别的性质，手等互相之间就成了没有差别。手就变成了脚，这违背了世间的常识。或者又说那些个别的支分不是身体。
English
English version: Taisho Tripitaka Volume 31, No. 1622: The Treatise on the Assumption of Taking Cause No. 1622 The Treatise on the Assumption of Taking Cause, One Volume Composed by Bodhisattva Dignāga (Chenna) Translated by Tripitaka Master Yijing under Imperial Decree Treatise says: In order to prevent the three kinds of wrong views of oneness, otherness, and non-existence, the great master only relies on the assumed and established things to proclaim the essentials of the Dharma, wanting to make sentient beings conveniently enter, properly focus their minds, stay away from heretical sects, and permanently cut off afflictions. These three views, such as oneness, otherness, and non-existence, all have faults. I should explain and elucidate. The assumption of taking cause here roughly has three kinds: the first is the aggregate, the second is the continuum, and the third is the difference in divisions. The so-called aggregate refers to many dharmas gathering together at the same time, following the worldly saying, speaking of oneness, such as the body, forest, etc. The so-called continuum refers to the continuous succession of cause and effect at different times, speaking of oneness, such as the Kalala (fertilized egg) stage, which is called a person; seeds, sprouts, etc., change differently, which are called grains. The so-called difference in divisions refers to one thing having multiple natures, establishing different concepts at different or the same times, such as the birth position of Rupa (form, matter) being different from the nature of impermanence, because it has visibility, resistance, and the nature of karma, etc. Due to these three meanings, it is secretly said that there is Pudgala (person, sentient being), and the attainment of Nirvana. However, these three meanings are only assumptions, and cannot be said to be a single nature, or different natures, and completely without self-nature, because there will be faults. Here, let's distinguish the saying that the aggregate has gathering, and there is no otherness. There are only two kinds of things, and it should be admitted that there are these two kinds of self-natures, preventing their gender. For things that have gathered, the aggregate has no difference, is it called no difference? Or is it just that there is no remainder, and it is said to be no difference? What is the fault in this? Verse says: If there is no otherness, the substance has no difference, the aggregates mutually become non-different, or in the aggregate, the separate things are different, then this again becomes multiple substances. Treatise says: If it is admitted that the self-nature of the hand, etc., and the body are one name, without difference, then this means that there is no separate nature for the body, and the hands, etc., become non-different from each other. The hand becomes the foot, which violates worldly common sense. Or it is said that those individual parts are not the body. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
自性。于聚集时说为身者。此即全无总聚自体少分可得。为异前义故置或言。若于别事非是总聚自性者。即是自性差别由别性故。于聚集时云何与彼无别自性得成应理。不由总聚舍自性故。此复便成多种体性。总聚于多无异性故。若别若总是无异性。由非总别舍自性故。若顿若渐皆成多性。望彼诸事无异性故。如是且辨二计过失。颂曰。 若言唯遮余有性 二种非有汝成过 若一有性是所遮 非无别故两相似 论曰。若言唯遮余有性。二种非有汝成过者。若于有聚无别总聚名无异者。此即更互相待成无异性。若于一处有无异义。第二亦尔。云何汝得免斯过失。如无总聚。有聚亦无。若异此者。无异之言便成无用。若一有性是所遮者。纵许如是于他所执有分实事。唯遮于此名无异者。此亦不然。事无别故。两处相似由无异言。一处既尔于余亦然。如初无异言故。汝不应但遮一处若言意许唯遮彼者。应可但言无其有分。勿言无异。彼之有性是不乐故。若其许彼体性是有不许异者。说无异言方成应理。又有异义。非无别故。两相似者。如离手等更无别身。是有分故。如是手等亦待指等成。其有分手等。如身亦成。非有如是。乃至极微待于声等。声等复待萨埵等。萨埵等复待喜等。待异功能。此即分与有分同 现代汉语译本 自性（Sva-bhāva，自有的本性）。在聚集时被称为身（Kāya，身体）的东西，实际上完全没有总体的、聚集的自体，甚至连少部分都不可得。为了区别于之前的意义，所以设置了‘或’这个词。如果在其他事物中，不是总体聚集的自性，那就是自性的差别，因为有不同的性质。在聚集的时候，怎么能和那个没有差别的自性成立呢？因为总体聚集没有舍弃自性。这又变成了多种体性。总体聚集对于多种事物没有不同的性质。如果区别或者总体没有不同的性质，因为不是总体和区别舍弃了自性。如果同时或者逐渐地成为多种性质，期望那些事物没有不同的性质。像这样暂且辨别两种计较的过失。颂文说： ‘如果说只是遮止其余的有性，两种非有，你就有了过失。如果一种有性是被遮止的，因为没有区别，所以两者相似。’ 论述：如果说只是遮止其余的有性，两种非有，你就有了过失。如果对于有聚集没有区别的总体聚集，名为没有差异，这就是互相等待成为没有差异的性质。如果在一处有无差异的意义，第二处也是这样。你怎么能免除这个过失呢？就像没有总体聚集一样，有聚集也没有。如果不是这样，没有差异的言语就变得没有用处。如果一种有性是被遮止的，纵然允许这样，对于其他人所执着的有分真实事物，只是遮止这个，名为没有差异，这也是不对的，因为事物没有区别。两处相似，因为没有差异的言语。一处既然这样，其余也是这样。就像最初没有差异的言语一样。你不应该只是遮止一处，如果说意许只是遮止那个，应该只说没有那个有分，不要说没有差异。那个有性是不喜欢的。如果允许那个体性是有，不允许差异，说没有差异的言语才能成立。又有差异的意义，因为没有区别，所以两者相似。就像离开手等，没有其他的身体，是有分的原因。像这样，手等也等待指等成立。那个有分的手等，就像身体也成立。没有像这样，乃至极微（Paramāṇu，最小的物质单位）等待声音等，声音等又等待萨埵（Sattva，纯粹的本质）等，萨埵等又等待喜等，等待不同的功能。这就是部分和有分相同。
English
English version Sva-bhāva (self-nature). What is called Kāya (body) when assembled, in reality, there is absolutely no overall, assembled self-nature, not even a small part can be obtained. To distinguish it from the previous meaning, the word 'or' is set. If, in other things, it is not the self-nature of the overall gathering, then it is the difference of self-nature because of different properties. When gathering, how can it be established with that self-nature that has no difference? Because the overall gathering has not abandoned self-nature. This again becomes multiple natures. The overall gathering has no different nature for multiple things. If the distinction or the whole has no different nature, it is because neither the whole nor the distinction has abandoned self-nature. If simultaneously or gradually becoming multiple natures, expecting those things to have no different nature. In this way, let's temporarily distinguish the faults of the two calculations. The verse says: 'If you say that you only block the remaining existence, you have the fault of two non-existences. If one existence is blocked, because there is no difference, the two are similar.' Discussion: If you say that you only block the remaining existence, you have the fault of two non-existences. If there is no different overall gathering for the gathering of existence, it is called no difference, which means they wait for each other to become no different in nature. If there is a meaning of no difference in one place, the second place is also like this. How can you avoid this fault? Just like there is no overall gathering, there is also no gathering of existence. If it is not like this, the words of no difference become useless. If one existence is blocked, even if it is allowed, for the real things with parts held by others, only blocking this is called no difference, which is also wrong, because things have no difference. The two places are similar because there are no words of difference. Since one place is like this, the rest are also like this. Just like there were no words of difference at the beginning. You should not just block one place. If you say that you only intend to block that, you should only say that there is no that part of existence, do not say there is no difference. That existence is not liked. If it is allowed that the nature is existence and difference is not allowed, then saying the words of no difference can be established. There is also a meaning of difference, because there is no distinction, so the two are similar. Just like leaving the hand, etc., there is no other body, which is the reason for having parts. In this way, the hand, etc., also wait for the finger, etc., to be established. That hand, etc., with parts, is like the body is also established. There is no such thing, even the Paramāṇu (smallest unit of matter) waits for sounds, etc., sounds, etc., wait for Sattva (pure essence), etc., Sattva, etc., wait for joy, etc., waiting for different functions. This is the same for the part and the part-having. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
有分性故。汝所执便成非有。如是且辨许无异性。有二种过。颂曰。 异性亦尔以一边 于支分处别别转 一边便有无穷过 或非是一及全无 论曰。异性亦尔者有二过。言流至于此由彼于自支分转时。或别别转。或复遍转。此中且辨别别转义。若以一边。于手等处。有分转时。彼亦一边。犹如手等。复更应有一边随起。如是展转。有无穷过。或非是一者。异无穷过故置或言。若言身分一边更不转者。此即应无一有分义便成有分唯有一边。若尔应许唯有手等。何烦党执于己支分。有分转耶。及全无者。一边无穷。及更有过故置及言。以此一边。于分转时。此即全无有分可得。由非有分如手足等。有其一边。若言有分离手等时。无别支分。有分体一故若如是者。便成于彼别支分处各各遍转。唯此二计更无第三分别执故。颂曰。 若遍彼成多种性 及于手等互无差 或此非彼故便成 诸事皆同一微性 论曰。若言遍者。所许有分与支分量同。于一一处皆周遍故。彼即便成多种体性。更有异义故置及言。由于一处遍皆有故。由不许彼别处性故。及余支分更互无差。由彼和合。同一处时。事无别故。此则手处应许有足。便违世间共许道理。或此非彼者。更有异计故置或言。为避前过云有分体 现代汉语译本：因为有分性（avayavin）的缘故，你所执着的‘有分’便成为‘非有’。像这样，姑且辨析承认‘无异性’（ananyatva）有两种过失。偈颂说： ‘异性也是如此，因为一边在支分处个别地运转， 一边便有无穷的过失，或者不是一个以及完全没有。’ 论述说：‘异性也是如此’有两种过失。言论流传到这里，由于它在自己的支分运转时，或者个别地运转，或者普遍地运转。这里姑且辨析个别运转的意义。如果以一边在手等处有分地运转时，它也是一边，犹如手等，又更应该有一边随之生起。像这样辗转下去，有无穷的过失。‘或者不是一个’，因为异性有无穷的过失，所以设置‘或’字。如果说身分的一边不再运转，这也就是应该没有‘有分’的意义，便成为‘有分’只有一边。如果这样，应该承认只有手等，何必偏执于自己的支分有分地运转呢？‘以及完全没有’，因为一边无穷，以及更有过失，所以设置‘及’字。以这一边在分运转时，这就完全没有‘有分’可以得到。由于不是‘有分’，如手足等，有它的一边。如果说有分离手等时，没有别的支分，‘有分’的体性是一个，如果像这样，便成为在那别的支分处各自普遍地运转。只有这两种计度，更没有第三种分别执着，所以偈颂说： ‘如果普遍，它便成为多种体性，以及对于手等互相没有差别， 或者这个不是那个，因此便成为诸事都同一微性。’ 论述说：如果说普遍，所承认的‘有分’与支分的量相同，在每一个地方都周遍的缘故，它便成为多种体性。更有不同的意义，所以设置‘及’字。由于在一个地方普遍都有的缘故，由于不承认那别的处所的体性，以及其余的支分更加互相没有差别。由于它们和合，在同一个地方时，事物没有差别。这样，手处应该承认有足，便违背世间的共同承认的道理。‘或者这个不是那个’，更有不同的计度，所以设置‘或’字。为了避免前面的过失，说‘有分’的体性