iha cāsmābhiḥ pūrvam eva sarveṣāṃ bhāvānāṃ vistarataḥ śūnyatvam upapāditam | tatra prāṅ nāmno ’pi śūnyatvam uktam |
sa bhavān aśūnyatvaṃ parigṛhya parivṛtto vaktuṃ yadi bhāvānāṃ svabhāvo na syād asvabhāva iti nāmāpīdaṃ na syād iti tasmād apratijñopālambho ’yaṃ bhavataḥ saṃpadyate | na hi vayaṃnāma sadbhūtam iti brūmaḥ |
yat punar bhavatoktaṃ atha vidyate svabhāvaḥ sa ca dharmāṇāṃ na vidyate tasmāt | dharmair vinā svabhāvaḥ sa yasya tad yuktam upadeṣṭum iti || atra brūmaḥ |
此偈明何義 我前已說 一切法空亦說名空 取空名而有所說
若一切法皆無自體名亦無體 我如是說義宗無過 我不說名有自體故
又復汝說偈言若離法有名 不在於法中說離法有名 彼人則可難此偈 我今答 偈言
’dir ṅed cag gi sṅar dṅos po thams cad kyi stoṅ pa ñid rgya cher bstan pas der miṅ yaṅ stoṅ pa ñid du bstan pa yin no ||
de’i phyir dam bcas pa med par yaṅ khyod klan ka ’di tshol bar byed kyi | ṅed miṅ yod do źes mi smra’o |
gźan yaṅ khyod kyis | ’on te ’di ltar raṅ bźin yod || de ni chos la medce na || chos rnams med par raṅ bźin te || gaṅ gi yin par de bstan rigs || źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa ’di la bśad par bya ste |
Here we have already established in detail the voidness of all things. Even the name has already been stated to be void.
Now you, assuming non-voidness, have returned to the charge. If the things had nointrinsic nature, then even the name ‘absence of intrinsic nature’would not exist. Your criticism, therefore, turns out to be one of something which is not a proposition. We do not say, indeed, that the name is existent.
Complete text
Verse 1-10