English
English version The three kinds of 'Ming' (clarities: divine eye, knowledge of past lives, extinction of outflows) in the three 'Shastra' (treatises) differ in their discernment of truth based on different teachings. The four kinds of 'Ming' (clarities: divine eye, knowledge of past lives, extinction of outflows, wisdom) in the three 'Shastra' (treatises) have different strengths and weaknesses in discerning wisdom. The five kinds of 'Ming' (clarities: linguistics, crafts, medicine, logic, inner knowledge) in the three 'Shastra' (treatises) differ in their refutation of dependent origination, having internal and external aspects. The six kinds of 'Ming' (clarities: linguistics, crafts, medicine, logic, inner knowledge, worldly knowledge) in the three 'Shastra' (treatises) differ in their exposition and refutation, having indirect and direct approaches. The seven kinds of 'Ming' (clarities: linguistics, crafts, medicine, logic, inner knowledge, worldly knowledge, transcendental knowledge) in the three 'Shastra' (treatises) differ in their use of the concept of provisional existence, employing different corresponding methods. The eight kinds of 'Ming' (clarities: linguistics, crafts, medicine, logic, inner knowledge, worldly knowledge, transcendental knowledge, secret knowledge) in the three 'Shastra' (treatises) differ in their treatment of dependent origination, some addressing it directly, others not. The nine kinds of 'Ming' (clarities: linguistics, crafts, medicine, logic, inner knowledge, worldly knowledge, transcendental knowledge, secret knowledge, Mahayana knowledge) in the three 'Shastra' (treatises) differ in the depth of understanding of the dependent origination they address. The thirteenth point is that the teachers and disciples appeared in the world at different times, some earlier and some later. Firstly, the establishment of names differs. The various 'Shastra' (treatises) of the Hinayana generally have three ways of naming. The first is to name after a person, such as the 'Śāriputrābhidharma' (Śāriputrābhidharma). The second is to name after a Dharma, such as the 'Satyasiddhi Śāstra' (Satyasiddhi Śāstra). The third is to name after a metaphor, such as the 'Amrita Abhidharma' (Amrita Abhidharma) and the 'Sūryodayā Śāstra' (Sūryodayā Śāstra). Now, these four 'Shastra' (treatises) (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra, Śata Śāstra, and the commentaries) have commonalities and differences in naming. The commonalities are that these four 'Shastra' (treatises) all refute the views of permanence and annihilation, and they all elucidate the Middle Way reality. Therefore, they can all be called 'Middle'. Moreover, these four 'Shastra' (treatises) all aim to open the path, enabling sentient beings to awaken from delusion and enter the truth. Therefore, they can all be called 'Gate of Weighing'. These four 'Shastra' (treatises) all have a number of verses, so they can all be collectively called 'Hundred 'Shastra' (treatises)'. These four 'Shastra' (treatises) all explain the Buddha's intention, so they can all be generally called 'Commentaries'. Within the commonalities, there are also differences, which are reflected in four aspects. In the case of the 'Mūlamadhyamakakārikā' (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), the name is derived from the reality of the principle. In the case of the 'Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra' (Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra), the name is derived from the teachings. In the case of the 'Śata Śāstra' (Śata Śāstra), the name is derived from the number of verses. Someone asks: Why is the 'Mūlamadhyamakakārikā' (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) named after the reality of the principle? If it is named after the reality of the principle and called 'Middle', why not establish the doctrine based on the reality of the principle, with 'Middle' as the doctrine? The answer is: The doctrine is the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth), used to expound the Buddha's teachings. The name is the reality of the principle, wanting to elucidate what the two truths express. The non-dual principle that the two truths express is called 'Middle'. Therefore, the name is the reality of the principle, while the doctrine is the two truths. This is the completeness of teaching and principle. Therefore, the name and the doctrine can be distinguished from each other. The 'Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra' (Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra) is named after the teachings, explaining that practitioners can enter the truth through the teachings. These teachings can open the path, enabling practitioners to awaken and enter the truth. Therefore, it is named after the teachings. So, the 'Mūlamadhyamakakārikā' (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) is named after the reality of the principle, and the 'Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra' (Dvādaśanikāya Śāstra) is named after the teachings. This is the meaning of teaching, principle, condition, expression, and what is expressed. The reason why the 'Śata Śāstra' (Śata Śāstra) is named after the number of verses is because the master (Nāgārjuna) gives an example, saying that just like a hundred strong generals can destroy enemies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
敌使人民安稳国家得全故。叹此人为百健将。提婆亦尔。以此百偈破九十六种外道怨贼。使众生慧明得开如来正法宣流行世故。叹此百偈有能破之功即名为百论也。问百论亦得秤中不。答凡有四句。一者两舍而非中。二者中于而非两舍。三者亦中亦两舍。四者非中非两舍。一言两舍而非中者。即是百论。虽复罪祸两舍。不作中名也。中而非两舍者。此即经中所辨。一色一香并皆是中。未必皆须两舍也。亦中亦两舍者。即是中论。双舍断常故名两舍也。亦强名中实。所以名中也。非中非两舍者。此有二意。一者断常颠倒故非中非两舍。二者诸法本性清净故非中非两舍也。 第二明三论宗教不同者。若是中论以二谛为宗。若是百论以二智为宗。十二门论前后两出。一云同中论以二谛为宗。又云以境智为宗也。中论以二谛为宗者。诸佛说法常依二谛。但龙树与外人。同学佛二谛有其得失。外人学佛二谛。成断常生灭来出一异也。龙树了佛二谛不生不灭乃至无来无去。所以舍初章即牒八不。八不即是二谛。是故以二谛为宗。若是百论面折外道。使故九十六种理屈辞穷故。叹此二智有闲邪显正之功故。以二智为宗百论宗也。 第三明三论辨谛有于教不同者。通明三论辨谛。即有于谛及以教谛。通而致别。百论即明于 谛。中论即明教谛。所以然者。于谛即浅教谛即深。中论明如来假名空有教门。皆是不生不灭。若是百论。即就二缘而明于两谛也。问于谛教谛有何异耶。答教谛就佛成谛之言。于谛即约两缘明二实故。于凡为实也。问经云。一切世谛若于如来即是第一义谛。此何物。于谛。答此谛是因缘于谛也。同若尔。教谛便不就缘用教。何为于谛。便无言教。那得谛名。答教谛非不被缘。但缘禀此教。即便悟理故名教谛也。于谛亦禀佛教。但于恃作解。不能博悟故名于谛也。 第四明三论用智长短者。若是中论明实智方便。百论即明实智与权智故。权智即短实智长也。问何故龙树用实方便智。百论用实与权智。答提婆面折外道。一时权巧功用故。权智即短也。中论匡正佛法。整里家国非时用。是故二智则长。例如大品净名二经辨智有长短。大品即明实方便智故其用则长。净名则明权实二智其用则短也。问二经长短三智与三论长短智云何。答二经明智通于破立故。如大品破有所得。而广明因果法门。净名破但大但小。而广明菩萨不思议用也。若是三论。但破洗诸法不明立也。问佛法大海无量宝聚。三论何但用一破一。而言是佛法通方论耶。将旧医用乳田父食盐。答一切众生未观波若以来。并皆依着禀教成病。是故三论。广破 依着。广破众生病。众生病若消如来正教自开也。是故不须别立。 第五明三论破缘有内外不同者。若是中论与十二门即破内学。若是百论即破外学。所以然者。龙树出时正法始灭像法始兴。此中有内病兴世故。大论云。佛灭后五百岁后有五百部出兴于世。皆执自见为是。他见为非。不知佛意。为于解脱故闻毕竟空法。开邪覆正。是故菩萨破邪显正。所以秤为破内学也。问龙树破内学不但除迷教之病。通收取佛教者。提婆破外学亦有收取义不。答亦有收义。如大经文字品云。一切经书咒术皆是佛说法。非外道说。是故亦有收归内。又大经云。轮王出世还收取诸牛。亦是其事也。问百论破外而有收外义者。中论破内亦有收内义不。答亦有此义。故大论云。诸论义师自作此说。尚不得三藏中意。况大乘此破不收也。 第六明三论申破傍正不同凡有二种。一者就破明傍正。二者就申明傍正也。就破明傍正者。中论正破内傍破外道。百论正破外迷傍破内执也。所以然者。若外执同内执者。中论傍破。若内执同外执者。百论即破也。就申明傍正者。中论正申佛教傍破外道。百论正破外道傍申佛教。所以然者。中论初发始即牒八不二谛。后方破外故。正申傍破也。若是百论初发始即归三宝故。正破傍申也。十二门论与 中论云何。答大师有时云。两诸义无有异。有时云。十二门申义为强破义为弱。故初发即云说曰。今当略解摩诃衍义也。若是中论初牒八不破外人。故论文云。诸法无量。何故但以此八事破。故知。中论正破傍申也。 第七明三论用假不同者。假者四种。一者因缘假。如空有二谛。二者随缘假。如云世者说有我我亦说世智说无我。又百论云。佛随众生意故下中上施戒智。三者就缘假。如众生执有就求有无从。众生执无就求无不得。此是就缘假也。四者对缘假。如说常为对治无常说无常为对治常也。若是经中及以大论具足四假。若是三论唯有二假。一者就缘二者对缘。若中论正因缘假强对缘假故弱故。龙树就外人觅生灭断常皆不可得。若百论对缘假强就缘假弱故。外道执一借异。对破外道执异借一对破也。 第八明三论有对缘不对缘不同者。若是百论。提婆菩萨。广集九十六种外道邪师故。八方论士。皆集四衢各建其宗也。初立无方论者。提婆对面折外道。辨屈邪师也。若中论。龙树菩萨。潜惟着笔。玄收迷情。以为折破。故不面对外人。异提婆也。问何故如此。答龙树出世如第三佛。是故传云。智慧日以颓斯人再辉世。昏寝以久闇此人悟令觉。又云。明即白月争辉。智即圣人并照故。外道小乘闻名立伏。 现代汉语译本： 《中论》讲了什么？回答是，大师有时说，两种意义没有差别。有时说，用十二门来阐述意义是强的，用来破斥意义是弱的。所以一开始就说，现在将简要解释摩诃衍（Mahayana，大乘）的意义。如果是《中论》，一开始就列出八不来破斥外人。所以论文中说，诸法是无量的，为什么只用这八件事来破斥？因此可知，《中论》主要是破斥，附带阐述。 第七，说明三论运用假名（假，provisional）的不同。假名有四种：第一种是因缘假，比如空和有二谛（Two Truths，二谛）。第二种是随缘假，比如《云世经》说，世俗之人说有我（Atman，我），我也随顺世俗说有我；智者说无我，我也随顺智者说无我。又如《百论》说，佛随顺众生的意愿，所以有下、中、上三种布施、持戒和智慧。第三种是就缘假，比如众生执着于有，就顺着他们求有，最终求有而不可得；众生执着于无，就顺着他们求无，最终求无而不可得。这就是就缘假。第四种是对缘假，比如为了对治无常而说常，为了对治常而说无常。如果是经和论，就具足这四种假名。如果是三论，就只有两种假名：一种是就缘，一种是对缘。如果《中论》是因缘假强，对缘假就弱。龙树（Nagarjuna，龙树）就着外人的观点来寻找生灭断常，结果都是不可得。如果《百论》是对缘假强，就缘假就弱。外道执着于一，就借用异来对破；外道执着于异，就借用一对破。 第八，说明三论有对缘和不对缘的不同。如果是《百论》，提婆（Aryadeva，提婆）菩萨广泛收集了九十六种外道邪师的观点，所以八方论士都聚集在十字路口，各自建立自己的宗派。最初设立无方论的人，提婆当面折服外道，辨别驳倒邪师。如果是《中论》，龙树菩萨暗中思考，着笔立论，玄妙地收摄迷惑的情感，以此来进行折服破斥，所以不面对外人，这和提婆不同。问：为什么会这样？答：龙树出世就像第三尊佛一样。所以流传着这样的话：‘智慧的太阳已经衰落，这个人再次照亮世界。’‘昏睡已经很久，这个人觉悟使人醒来。’又说：‘光明就像白月争辉，智慧就像圣人并照。’所以外道小乘听到他的名字就立刻降伏。