Chinese
所言论别者。佛既有生灭无生灭二方便。末代之缘薄福钝根。禀此二教并皆失旨也。闻生灭即住。不知此生灭是无生灭生灭故。虽生灭即是无生灭也。闻无生灭即住无生灭。不知无生灭是生灭无生灭故。虽无生灭即是生灭也。是以马鸣龙树即是四依大人。破此二缘故申佛无生灭教。即是无生灭论。申佛生灭论方便故名生灭。此是论别意也。今且置生灭之经及生灭论。正明无生灭经。以对无生灭论也。无生灭经虽复无穷。略明般若涅槃始终二教。明三种义者。一者明二因二果。二者明一因一果。三者明非因非果。所言二因二果者。大品所明。般若为因。萨婆若为果。涅槃云。佛性为因。涅槃为果。此即二因二果义也。然般若之因。犹是佛性之因故。虽二因终是一因。萨婆若果。犹是涅槃果故。虽二果终是一果。此是一因一果义也。而由因故果。果是因果。所因非果。由果故因。因是果因。所以非因。是故非因非果。施名正法。在经为正法。在论为中实。中实所发名之为观。观之所宜名之为论也。然正由于缘缘既非缘正生非正。所以非缘亦复非正。既非正即非观非中则不经不论非佛非菩萨。泯然无际其道乃平故。开之弥论法界。卷之则一豪无从也。 第二重明四论大归。就中凡有二意。明四论意同。二明四论意异也 现代汉语译本： 所说的‘论别’，指的是佛陀具有生灭和无生灭两种方便法门。末法时代的众生，因缘浅薄，福德不足，根器迟钝，如果执着于这两种教义，都会偏离佛陀的本意。听到‘生灭’就执着于‘生灭’，却不知道这种‘生灭’是建立在‘无生灭’基础上的‘生灭’，所以说‘生灭’即是‘无生灭’。听到‘无生灭’就执着于‘无生灭’，却不知道这种‘无生灭’是建立在‘生灭’基础上的‘无生灭’，所以说‘无生灭’即是‘生灭’。因此，马鸣（Aśvaghoṣa）和龙树（Nāgārjuna）是四依大人，为了破除众生对这两种观点的执着，阐述佛陀的‘无生灭’教义，这就是‘无生灭论’。阐述佛陀的‘生灭论’是为了方便教化，所以称为‘生灭’。这就是‘论别’的含义。现在暂且放下关于‘生灭’的经典和‘生灭论’，主要阐明‘无生灭经’，用来对应‘无生灭论’。《无生灭经》虽然内容无穷无尽，但略微阐明《般若经》（Prajñā）和《涅槃经》（Nirvāṇa）的始终二教，说明三种意义：一是说明二因二果，二是说明一因一果，三是说明非因非果。所说的‘二因二果’，是《大品般若经》所阐明的，以般若（Prajñā）为因，萨婆若（Sarvajña，一切智）为果。《涅槃经》说，以佛性（Buddha-nature）为因，涅槃（Nirvāṇa）为果。这就是‘二因二果’的意义。然而，般若（Prajñā）之因，仍然是佛性（Buddha-nature）之因，所以虽然是二因，最终还是一因。萨婆若（Sarvajña，一切智）之果，仍然是涅槃（Nirvāṇa）之果，所以虽然是二果，最终还是一果。这就是‘一因一果’的意义。因为有因才有果，果是因的果，但所依赖的因本身不是果；因为有果才有因，因是果的因，所以不是因。因此，‘非因非果’，被称为正法（Dharma）。在经中称为正法（Dharma），在论中称为中实。从中实所生发出来的，称为观。适合观的，称为论。然而，正法（Dharma）依赖于因缘，因缘本身不是因缘，正法（Dharma）的产生也不是真正的产生，所以说非因缘也非正法（Dharma）。既然不是正法（Dharma），就不是观，不是中实，那么就既不是经，也不是论，不是佛，也不是菩萨。泯灭一切差别，达到无边无际的境界，道路才能平坦。展开来说，它遍布整个法界（Dharmadhātu）；收拢来说，它细微到无处可寻。 第二重意义是阐明四论的大归宿。其中包含两种含义：一是说明四论的意义相同，二是说明四论的意义不同。
English
English version: What is meant by 'distinguishing treatises' refers to the Buddha having two expedient means: arising and ceasing, and neither arising nor ceasing. In the Dharma-ending age, beings with shallow affinities, meager blessings, and dull faculties, if they cling to either of these two teachings, will deviate from the Buddha's original intention. Hearing of 'arising and ceasing,' they cling to 'arising and ceasing,' not knowing that this 'arising and ceasing' is 'arising and ceasing' based on 'neither arising nor ceasing,' so 'arising and ceasing' is 'neither arising nor ceasing.' Hearing of 'neither arising nor ceasing,' they cling to 'neither arising nor ceasing,' not knowing that this 'neither arising nor ceasing' is 'neither arising nor ceasing' based on 'arising and ceasing,' so 'neither arising nor ceasing' is 'arising and ceasing.' Therefore, Aśvaghoṣa (马鸣) and Nāgārjuna (龙树) are great masters who rely on the Four Reliances. To dispel beings' attachment to these two views, they expound the Buddha's teaching of 'neither arising nor ceasing,' which is the 'Treatise on Neither Arising nor Ceasing.' Expounding the Buddha's 'Treatise on Arising and Ceasing' is for the sake of expedient teaching, so it is called 'arising and ceasing.' This is the meaning of 'distinguishing treatises.' Now, let us set aside the sutras and treatises on 'arising and ceasing' and mainly elucidate the 'Sutra on Neither Arising nor Ceasing' to correspond to the 'Treatise on Neither Arising nor Ceasing.' Although the 'Sutra on Neither Arising nor Ceasing' is infinitely vast, it briefly explains the two teachings of beginning and end in the Prajñā (般若) and Nirvāṇa (涅槃) Sutras, clarifying three meanings: first, explaining two causes and two effects; second, explaining one cause and one effect; and third, explaining neither cause nor effect. The 'two causes and two effects' are explained in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sutra, with Prajñā (般若) as the cause and Sarvajña (萨婆若, all-knowing wisdom) as the effect. The Nirvāṇa (涅槃) Sutra says that Buddha-nature (佛性) is the cause and Nirvāṇa (涅槃) is the effect. This is the meaning of 'two causes and two effects.' However, the cause of Prajñā (般若) is still the cause of Buddha-nature (佛性), so although there are two causes, ultimately there is one cause. The effect of Sarvajña (萨婆若, all-knowing wisdom) is still the effect of Nirvāṇa (涅槃), so although there are two effects, ultimately there is one effect. This is the meaning of 'one cause and one effect.' Because there is a cause, there is an effect; the effect is the effect of the cause, but the cause on which it relies is not itself the effect. Because there is an effect, there is a cause; the cause is the cause of the effect, so it is not a cause. Therefore, 'neither cause nor effect' is called the True Dharma (Dharma). In the sutras, it is called the True Dharma (Dharma); in the treatises, it is called the Middle Reality. What arises from the Middle Reality is called contemplation. What is suitable for contemplation is called a treatise. However, the True Dharma (Dharma) depends on conditions, and conditions are not themselves conditions; the arising of the True Dharma (Dharma) is not a true arising, so it is said to be neither conditions nor the True Dharma (Dharma). Since it is not the True Dharma (Dharma), it is not contemplation, not the Middle Way, so it is neither sutra nor treatise, neither Buddha nor Bodhisattva. Effacing all distinctions, reaching a boundless realm, the path becomes level. Unfolded, it pervades the entire Dharmadhātu (法界); contracted, it is so subtle that it cannot be found. Secondly, it clarifies the great convergence of the four treatises. Within this, there are two meanings: first, clarifying that the meanings of the four treatises are the same; second, clarifying that the meanings of the four treatises are different. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。第一明四论意同者。略有二种同。一者人同二者法同也。人同者。马鸣龙树提婆天亲。虽复人世有殊。同是四依菩萨出世行化。是故涅槃云。四人出世。能多利益。为世四依。当知如佛也。虽同是依。而传持法藏始末为论有二十三人也。始自摩诃迦叶终讫仰子比丘也。问马鸣付属何人乃至提婆付属何人。答马鸣去世付属比罗比丘。比罗比丘去世付属龙树。龙树去世付属提婆。提婆去世付属罗什。如是相承乃至付属师子比丘也。问法胜呵梨乃至旃延达摩付属何人。答此并是诸论议师异部相承。非传法藏。皆为马鸣龙树之所破也。次言法同者。略明四种。一明四论虽复名部不同。同是摩诃衍论。无依无得为圣大宗。二者四论是佛灭后。为正教凌迟迷错失道故。此四论同为破迷。同申佛大教也。三者明龙树提婆。虽是师弟子有殊。同禀如来二谛教发生二智故。慈风外扇着此共论也。四者龙树提婆四依之人。同是佛性河中作此行化。了悟诸法不生不灭乃至无来无去故。能申佛教也。若法胜呵梨。既成断常生灭。即属生死十二缘河也。今之四论。申明八不破于断常。即是欲使佛性水生缘河竭义。是故四依出世作此四论。大意同也。 次明四论虽同而异者。先就三论对释论明异。次明就三论自明异义也。对三论明释论异者 现代汉语译本：第一，阐明四论意义相同之处。大致有两种相同：一是人相同，二是法相同。人相同是指：马鸣（Aśvaghoṣa，佛教哲学家）、龙树（Nāgārjuna，中观学派创始人）、提婆（Āryadeva，龙树弟子）、天亲（Vasubandhu，瑜伽行派创始人）。虽然他们出现在人世的时间不同，但同样是依于四依法（依法不依人，依义不依语，依智不依识，依了义经不依不了义经）的菩萨，出世行化。所以《涅槃经》说：‘四人出世，能够多多利益众生，作为世间的四种依靠，应当知道他们如同佛陀一样。’虽然同样是依靠，但传持法藏，从开始到最后著作为论的有二十三人。开始于摩诃迦叶（Mahākāśyapa，释迦十大弟子之一），结束于仰子比丘。问：马鸣付嘱了何人？乃至提婆付嘱了何人？答：马鸣去世后付嘱给比罗比丘，比罗比丘去世后付嘱给龙树，龙树去世后付嘱给提婆，提婆去世后付嘱给鸠摩罗什（Kumārajīva，著名佛经翻译家）。如此互相传承，乃至付嘱给师子比丘。问：法胜（Dharmaśreṣṭhin）、呵梨（Harivarman）乃至旃延达摩（Kātyāyanīputra）付嘱了何人？答：这些都是各论议师，异部相承，并非传持法藏。都被马鸣、龙树所破斥。其次说法相同之处，大致说明四种：一，说明四论虽然名称和部类不同，但同样是大乘论，以无依无得作为圣人的大宗旨。二，四论是佛陀灭度后，为了正教衰微，人们迷惑错失道路，所以这四论一同为了破除迷惑，一同阐扬佛陀的大教义。三，说明龙树、提婆，虽然是师徒关系，但同样禀承如来的二谛（世俗谛和胜义谛）教义，发生二智（根本智和后得智），慈悲之风向外传播，共同撰写这些论著。四，龙树、提婆是四依之人，同样在佛性之河中作此行化，了悟诸法不生不灭，乃至无来无去，所以能够阐扬佛教。如果法胜、呵梨，已经成为断灭和常恒，生灭之见，就属于生死十二因缘之河。如今的四论，阐明八不（不生不灭，不常不断，不一不异，不来不去），破斥断常之见，就是要使佛性之水生起，使因缘之河干涸。所以四依之人出世，撰写这四论，大意是相同的。 其次说明四论虽然相同而有不同之处。先就三论（中观论疏、百论疏、十二门论疏）对照释论（十住毗婆沙论）说明不同，其次就三论自身说明不同之处。对照三论说明释论的不同之处。
English
English version: First, clarifying the similarities in the meaning of the Four Treatises. There are roughly two kinds of similarities: one is the similarity in people, and the other is the similarity in Dharma. The similarity in people refers to: Aśvaghoṣa (Buddhist philosopher), Nāgārjuna (founder of the Madhyamaka school), Āryadeva (Nāgārjuna's disciple), and Vasubandhu (founder of the Yogācāra school). Although they appeared in the world at different times, they are all Bodhisattvas who rely on the Four Reliances (rely on the Dharma, not on the person; rely on the meaning, not on the words; rely on wisdom, not on consciousness; rely on definitive meaning, not on provisional meaning), and they manifested in the world to practice transformation. Therefore, the *Nirvana Sutra* says: 'The appearance of these four people can greatly benefit sentient beings, serving as the four reliances of the world. You should know that they are like the Buddha.' Although they are all reliances, there are twenty-three people who have transmitted and upheld the Dharma treasury, writing treatises from beginning to end. It begins with Mahākāśyapa (one of the ten great disciples of Śākyamuni Buddha) and ends with the monk Yangzi. Question: To whom did Aśvaghoṣa entrust the Dharma? And to whom did Āryadeva entrust the Dharma? Answer: After Aśvaghoṣa passed away, he entrusted it to the monk Bira. After the monk Bira passed away, he entrusted it to Nāgārjuna. After Nāgārjuna passed away, he entrusted it to Āryadeva. After Āryadeva passed away, he entrusted it to Kumārajīva (famous translator of Buddhist scriptures). Thus, they transmitted it to each other, and eventually entrusted it to the monk Simha. Question: To whom did Dharmaśreṣṭhin, Harivarman, and Kātyāyanīputra entrust the Dharma? Answer: These are all teachers of different schools who transmitted it within their respective schools, and they did not transmit the Dharma treasury. They were all refuted by Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna. Secondly, regarding the similarity in Dharma, there are roughly four points: First, it is stated that although the names and categories of the Four Treatises are different, they are all Mahāyāna treatises, taking non-reliance and non-attainment as the great principle of the sages. Second, the Four Treatises were written after the Buddha's Parinirvana, because the correct teachings were declining and people were confused and lost their way. Therefore, these Four Treatises together aim to dispel confusion and together expound the Buddha's great teachings. Third, it is stated that although Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva have a teacher-disciple relationship, they both received the Two Truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) teachings of the Tathagata, giving rise to the Two Wisdoms (fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom). The wind of compassion spread outward, and they jointly wrote these treatises. Fourth, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva are people of the Four Reliances, and they both practice transformation in the river of Buddha-nature, realizing that all dharmas are neither produced nor destroyed, and even neither come nor go. Therefore, they can expound Buddhism. If Dharmaśreṣṭhin and Harivarman have already formed views of annihilation and permanence, arising and ceasing, then they belong to the river of the twelve links of dependent origination of samsara. The current Four Treatises expound the Eight No's (no birth, no death; no permanence, no cessation; no identity, no difference; no coming, no going), refuting the views of annihilation and permanence. This is to cause the water of Buddha-nature to arise and to dry up the river of dependent origination. Therefore, the people of the Four Reliances appeared in the world and wrote these Four Treatises, with the same general intention. Next, explaining the differences between the Four Treatises, although they are similar. First, the *Śāstra* (Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā-śāstra) is explained in contrast to the Three Treatises (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā-vṛtti, Śataśāstra-vṛtti, Dvādaśamukhaśāstra-vṛtti) to show the differences. Secondly, the differences within the Three Treatises themselves are explained. The differences of the *Śāstra* are explained in contrast to the Three Treatises. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------