Bibliotheca Polyglotta

If an intrinsic nature of things, whatever they may be, exists nowhere, your [very] statement must be devoid of an intrinsic nature. It is not, therefore, in a position to deny the intrinsic nature [of the things].

yadi sarveṣāṃ bhāvānāṃ hetau pratyayeṣu ca sāmagryāṃ ca pṛthak ca sarvatra svabhāvo na vidyata iti kṛtvā śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti | na hi bīje hetubhūte ’ṅkuro ’sti, na pṛthivyaptejovāyvādīnām ekaikasmin pratyayasaṃjñite, na pratyayeṣu samagreṣu, na hetuprayayasāmagryām, na hetupratyayavinirmuktaḥ pṛthag eva ca | yasmād atra sarvatra svabhāvo nāsti tasmān niḥsvabhāvo ’ṅkuraḥ | yasmān niḥsvabhāvas tasmāc chūnyaḥ | yathā cāyam aṅkuro niḥsvabhāvo niḥsvabhāvatvāc ca śūnyas tathā sarvabhāvā api niḥsvabhāvatvāc chūnyā iti | atra vayaṃ brūmaḥ | yady evam, tavāpi vacanaṃ yad etac chūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti tad api śūnyam | kiṃ kāraṇam | tad api hetau nāsti mahābhūteṣu saṃprayukteṣu viprayukteṣu vā, pratyayeṣu nāsty uraḥkaṇṭhauṣṭhajihvādantamūlatālunāsikāmūrdhaprabhṛtiṣu yatneṣu, ubhayasāmagryāṃ nāsti, hetupratyayavinirmuktaṃ pṛthag eva ca nāsti | yasmād atra sarvatra nāsti tasmān niḥsvabhāvam | yasmān niḥsvabhāvaṃ tasmāc chūnyam | tasmād anena sarvabhāvasvabhāvavyāvartanam aśakyaṃ kartum | na hy asatāgninā śakyaṃ dagdhum | na hy asatā śastreṇa śakyaṃ chettum | na hy asatībhir adbhiḥ śakyaṃ kledayitum | evam asatā vacanena na śakyaḥ sarvabhāvasvabhāvapratiṣedaḥ kartum | tatra yad uktaṃ sarvabhāvasvabhāvaḥ pratiṣiddha iti tad na |

此偈明何義若一切法皆是因緣則是因緣因緣和合離諸因緣是則更無一切自體如是一切諸法皆空如芽非是種子中有非地非水非火非風非虛空等因緣中有非是一一因緣中有非諸因緣和合中有非離因緣因緣和合餘處別有若此等中一切皆無如是得言芽無自體若如是無一切自體彼得言空若一切法皆悉空者則無言語若無言語則不能遮一切諸法若汝意謂言語不空言語所說一切法空是義不然何以故汝言一切諸法皆空則語亦空何以故以因中無四大中無一一中無和合中無因緣和合不和合中一切皆無如是言語咽喉中無脣舌齒根？鼻頂等一一皆無和合中無二處俱無唯有因緣因緣和合若離如是因緣和合更無別法若如是者一切言語皆無自體若如是無言語自體則一切法皆無自體若此言語無自體者唯有遮名穴能遮法譬如無火則不能燒亦如無刀則不能割又如無水則不能瀾如是無語云何能遮諸法自體既不能遮諸法自體而心憶念遮一切法自體迥者義不相應又復有義偈言

gal te dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin ni rgyu daṅ rkyen daṅ | rgyu daṅ rkyen tshogs pa daṅ tha dad pa kun la yod pa ma yin pa’i phyir dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa yin te | myu gu ni rgyu sa bon du gyur pa la yaṅ med | rkyen źes bya bas daṅ chu daṅ me daṅ rluṅ la sogs pa re re la yaṅ med | rkyen ’dus pa dag la yaṅ med | rgyu daṅ rkyen tshogs pa dag la yaṅ med | rgyu daṅ rkyen tshogs pa las ma gtogs pa tha dad pa la yaṅ med do || gaṅ gi phyir raṅ bźin ’di thams cad la yaṅ med pa de’i phyir myu gu’i raṅ bźin med de de bas na stoṅ pa yin no || ji ltar myu gu raṅ bźin med | raṅ bźin med pa ñid yin pa’i phyir | stoṅ pa yin pa de bźin du dṅos po thams cad kyaṅ raṅ bźin med pa ñid yin pa’i phyir | stoṅ pa yin no źe na | gal te de lta ma yin na ni dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa yin no źes bya ba gaṅ yin pa’i khyod kyi tshig de yaṅ stoṅ pa yin no || ci’i phyir źe na | de yaṅ rgyu ’byuṅ ba chen po rnams daṅ mtshuṅs par ldan pa rnams daṅ ldan pa ma yin pa rnams la yaṅ med | rkyen braṅ daṅ | lkog ma daṅ | mchu daṅ | lce rtse daṅ | so’i brun daṅ | rkan daṅ | sna daṅ | spyi bo la sogs pa daṅ | ’bad pa rnams la yaṅ med | gñi ga tshogs pa yaṅ med | rgyu daṅ rkyen tshogs pa la yaṅ med | rgyu daṅ rkyen tshogs pa las ma gtogs pa tha dad pa yaṅ med do | gaṅ gi phyir ’di thams cad la med pa’i phyir ’di raṅ bźin med pa yin te | raṅ bźin med pa’i phyir stoṅ pa yin no || de lta bas na ’dis dṅos po thams cad zlog par byed mi nus so | me med pas kyaṅ sreg par byed mi nus so || mtshon cha med pas kyaṅ gcad par mi nus śiṅ chu med pas kyaṅ baṅs par mi nus pa de bźin du tshig med pas kyaṅ | dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin zlog par byed mi nus pas de la dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin bkag go źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de mi ruṅ ṅo ||

Whether in the causes, in the conditions, in the combination of the causes and the conditions, or in a different thing, nowhere does exist an intrinsic nature of the things, whatever they may be. On this ground it is said that all things are void. For instance, the sprout is neither in the seed, its cause, nor in the things known as its conditions, viz., earth, water, fire, wind, etc., taken one by one, nor in the totality of the conditions, nor in the combination of the causes and the conditions, nor is it anything different from the causes and the conditions. Since there is nowhere an intrinsic nature, the sprout is devoid of an intrinsic nature. Being devoid of an intrinsic nature, it is void. And just as this sprout is devoid of an intrinsic nature and hence void, so also are all the things. Here we observe: if this is so, your statement that all things are void, must also be void. - why? - because your statement is neither in its cause - the [four] great elements, taken collectively or individually; - nor in its conditions, the efforts made in the breast, the throat, the lips, the tongue, the roots of the teeth, the palate, the nose, the head, etc.; nor in the combination of both [the cause and the condition]; - nor again is it anything apart from the cause and the conditions. Since it is nowhere, it is devoid of an intrinsic nature, [and] since it is devoid of an intrinsic nature, it is void. For this reason, it is incapable of denying the intrinsic nature of all things. A fire that does not exist cannot burn, a weapon that does not exist cannot cut, water that does not exist cannot moisten; similarly a statement that does not exist cannot deny the intrinsic nature of all things. In these circumstances, your statement that the intrinsic nature of all things has been denied, is not valid.

atha sasvabhāvam etad vākyaṃ pūrvā hatā pratijñā te |
vaiṣamikatvaṃ tasmin viśeṣahetuś ca vaktavyaḥ ||2||

若語有自體前所立宗壞
如是則有過應更說勝因

| ’on te tshig de raṅ bźin bcas || khyod kyis dam bcas sṅa ma ñams |
|mi ’dra ñid de de yin na || gtan tshigs khyad par brjod par byos |

Now, if this sentence is endowed with an intrinsic nature, your former proposition is destroyed. There is a discordance, and you should state the special reason for it.

athāpi manyase mā bhūd eṣa doṣa iti sasvabhāvam etad vākyaṃ sasvabhāvatvāc cāśūnyaṃ tasmād anena sarvabhāvasvabhāvaḥ pratiṣiddha iti, atra brūmaḥ | yady evam, yā te pūrvā pratijñā śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti hatā sā | kim cānyat | sarvabhāvāntargatam ca tvadvacanam | kasmāc chūnyeṣu sarvabhāveṣu tvadvacanam aśūnyam, yenāśūnyatvāt sarvabhāvasvabhāvaḥ pratiṣiddhaḥ | evaṃ ṣaṭkoṭiko vādaḥ prasaktaḥ | sa punaḥ katham iti | hanta cet punaḥ śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvās tena tvadvacanaṃ śūnyaṃ sarvabhāvāntargatatvāt | tena śūnyena pratiṣedhānupapattiḥ | tatra yaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti so ’nupapannaḥ | upapannaś cet punaḥ śūnyāḥ sarvabhāva iti pratiṣedhas tena tvadvacanam apy aśūnyam | aśūnyatvād anena pratiṣedho ’nupapannaḥ atha śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvās tvadvacanaṃ cāśūnyaṃ yena pratiṣedhaḥ, tena tvadvacanaṃ sarvatrāsaṃgṛhītam | tatra dṛṣṭāntavirodhaḥ | sarvatra cet punaḥ saṃgṛhītaṃ tvadvacanaṃ sarvabhāvāś ca śūnyās tena tad api śūnyam | śūnyavād anena nāsti pratiṣedhaḥ | atha śūnyam asti cānena pratiṣedhaḥ śūnyāḥ sarvabhāva iti tena śūnyā api sarvabhāvāḥ kāryakriyāsamarthā bhaveyuḥ | na caitad iṣṭam | atha śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā na ca kāryakriyāsamarthā bhavanti mā bhūd dṛṣṭāntavirodha iti kṛtvā, śūnyena tvadvacanena sarvabhāvasvabhāvapratiṣedho nopapanna iti | kiṃ cānyat | evaṃ tad astitvād vaiṣamikatvaprasaṅgaḥ kiṃcic chūnyaṃ kiṃcid aśūnyam iti | tasmiṃś ca vaiṣamikatve viśeṣahetur vaktavyo yena kiṃcic chūnyaṃ kiṃcid aśūnyaṃ syāt | sa ca nopadiṣṭo hetuḥ | tatra yad uktaṃ śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti tad na |

此偈明何義若此言語有自體者汝前所立義宗自壞是則有過若爾便應更說勝因若汝意謂語有自體餘法空者如是則違諸法空語汝宗亦壞又復有義言語不離一切法數若一切法皆悉空者言語亦空若言語空則不能遮一切諸法若如是者於六種中諍論相應彼復云何汝不相應汝說一切諸法皆空則語亦空何以故言語亦是一切法故言語若空則不能遮彼若遮言一切法空則不相應又若相應言語能遮一切法體一切法空語則不空語若不空遮一切法則不相應若諸法空言語不空語何以所遮又若此語入一切中喻不相當若彼言語是一切者一切既空言語亦空若語言空則不能遮若語言空諸法亦空以空能遮諸法令空如是則空亦是因緣是則不可又若汝畏喻不相當一切法空能作因緣如是空語則不能遮一切自體又復有義一邊有過以法有空亦有不空彼若有過更說勝因若一邊空一邊不空如是若說一切法空無自體者義不相應

’on te skyon der gyur na mi ruṅ ṅo sñam nas ṅa’i tshig de ni raṅ bźin daṅ bcas pa yin te | de’i phyir stoṅ pa ma yin no || de bas na ’dis ni dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin bkag go sñam du sems na | ’o na de ltar yin na ni dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa yin no źes sṅar dam bcas pa gaṅ yin pa de ñams pa yin no || ’di ltar gźan yaṅ thams cad kyi naṅ du ni khyod kyi tshig kyaṅ ’dus pa yin na | ci’i phyir dṅos po thams cad stoṅ ba yin bźin du ’di ltar stoṅ pa ñid ma yin pa’i phyir des dṅos po thams cad raṅ bźin bkag go źes bya ba’i khyod kyi tshig stoṅ pa ma yin par ’gyur | de lta na ni smras pa mu drug tu thal bar ’gyur ro || de yaṅ ji lta bu źe na | ’on kyaṅ gal te dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa yin no źe na khyod kyi tshig kyaṅ stoṅ pa yin te | thams cad kyi naṅ du || ’dus pa’i phyir || stoṅ pa des pa ni dgag pa mi ’thad pas de la dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa yin no źes dgag pa gaṅ yin pa de ’thad pa ma yin no || gal te ’thad pa yin no źe na | dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa yin źes bkag pas des na khyod kyi tshig kyaṅ stoṅ pa yin la | stoṅ pa ñid yin pa’i phyir des ni ’gog pa mi ’thad do || gal te dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa yin la | gaṅ gis ’gog par byed pa khyod kyi tshig ni stoṅ pa ma yin no źe na | des na khyod kyi tshig thams cad kyi naṅ du ma ’dus pa yin te | de la ’gal ba’i dper ’gyur ro || gal te thams cad kyi naṅ du khyod kyi tshig bsdus so źe na | dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa yin pas des na de yaṅ stoṅ pa yin no || de’i phyir ’dis ’gog pa med do || gal te stoṅ pa yin yaṅ dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa’o źes ’dis ’gog pa yod do źe na | des na dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa yin yaṅ bya ba byed nus par ’gyur te de ni ’dod pa ma yin no || gal te ’gal ba’i dper gyur nas mi ruṅ ṅo sñam nas dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa yin te bya ba byed mi nus so źe na | khyod kyi tshig stoṅ bas kyaṅ dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin ’gog par mi ’thad do || ji ltar gźan yaṅ de skad zer na ni kha cig ni stoṅ | kha cig ni mi stoṅ ṅo źes mi ’dra ba ñid du thal bar ’gyur ro || mi ’dra ba ñid yin na ni gaṅ gis na kha cig ni stoṅ kha cig ni mi stoṅ par gyur pa’i gtan tshigs kyi khyad par yaṅ smros śig | gtan tshigs de yaṅ ma brtan pas de la dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa’o źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de mi ruṅ ṅo ||

Now you may think, in order to avoid this effect: this sentence is endowed with an intrinsic nature, and being endowed with an intrinsic nature, it is non-void; thus the intrinsic nature of all things have been denied by it. – To this we reply: If so, then your former proposition ’All things are void’ is destroyed. Furthermore: Your statement is included in all things. [Now] if all things are void, for that reason is your statement non-void, - that statement which has denied the intrinsic nature of all things because it is [itself] non-void? Thus arises a controversial discussion in six points. How is it? – Well, (1) If all things are void, then your statement is void, being included in all things. [And] a negation by that [statement] which is void is a logical impossibility. In these cirkumstances, the negation that all things are void is not valid. If, on the other hand, the nagation that all things are void is not valid, then your statement is non-void. [But] that negation which it establishes because it is non-void, is not valid. Now, if all things are void, but your statement by which is effected the negation is non void, then your statement is not included in all things. Your proposition, there, is contradicted by the example. If, on the contrary, your statement is included in all things, and if all things are void, then your statement also is void. [And] since it is void, it cannot establish a negation Let us then assume that it is void and that there is the negation by it: ’All things are void’. But, in that case, all things, though void, would be capable of performing actions – which is absurd. Let it be granted, then, that all things are void and that they are not capable of performing actions; let the proposition not be contradicted by the example. In that case, however, the negation of the intrinsic nature of all things by your void statement is not valid. Furthermore: If your statement exists, there arises the following discordance: some things are void, and some other things, non-void. And you should state the special reason for it, explaining why some things are void, while others are not. You have, however, not stated that reason. In these circumstances, your statement that all things are void is not valid.

kiṃ cānyat |
mā śabdavad ity etat syāt te buddhi na caitad upapannam |
śabdena hy atra satā bhaviṣyato vāraṇaṃ tasya ||3||

又復有義偈言
汝謂如勿聲是義則不然
聲有能遮聲無聲何能遮

’di ltar gźan yaṅ |
de sgra ma ’byin lta bu’o źes | khyod blo sems na de mi ’thad |
|’di la sgra ni yod pa yis || ’byuṅ bar ’gyur ba de bzlog yin ||

Moreover: If you think that it is like ’Do not make a sound’, [we reply:] this also is not valid. For here a sound that is existent prevents the other sound that will be.

syāt te buddhiḥ, yathā nāma kaścid brūyān mā śabdaṃ kārṣīr iti svayam eva śabdaṃ kuryāt tena ca śabdena tasya śabdasya vyāvartanaṃ kriyeta, evam eva śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti śūnyena vacanena sarvabhāvasvabhāvasya vyāvartanaṃ kriyata iti | atra vayaṃ brūmaḥ | etad apy anupapannam | kiṃ kāraṇam | satā hy atra śabdena bhaviṣyataḥ śabdasya pratiṣedhaḥ kriyate | na punar iha bhavataḥ satā vacanena sarvabhāvasvabhāvapratiṣedhaḥ kriyate | tava hi matena vacanam apy asat, sarvabhāvasvabhāvo ’py asan | tasmād ayaṃ mā śabdavad iti viṣamopanyāsaḥ |

此偈明何義若汝意謂聲能遮聲如有人言汝莫作聲彼自作聲而能遮聲如是如是一切法空空語能遮此我今說此不相應何以故以此聲有能遮彼聲汝語非有則不能遮諸法自體汝所立義語亦是無諸法亦無如是若謂如勿聲者此則有過

dper na kha cig na re sgra ma ’byin cig ces bdag ñid sgra ’byin te | sgra des sgra zlog par byed do || de bźin du dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa źes stoṅ pa’i raṅ bźin gyi tshig gis dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin zlog par byed do sñam na | ’dir smras pa | der yaṅ ’thad pa ma yin te | ’di la sgra yod pas sgra ’byuṅ bar ’gyur ba ’gog par byed pa yin gyi | ’dir ni khyod kyi yod pa’i tshig gis dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin ’gog par mi byed de | khyod kyi lugs kyi tshig kyaṅ yod pa ma yin | dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin yaṅ yod pa ma yin pas de’i phyir sgra ma ’byin źes pa lta bu’o źes bya ba ’di ni mi mthun par sgra smras pa yin no ||

You may think: When somebody says: ’Do not make a sound’, he himself makes a sound, and that sound prevents the other sound; in just the same manner, the void statement that all things are void prevents the intrinsic nature of all things. -To this we reply: This also is not valid. - Why ? - Because here a sound that is existent negates the future sound. In your case, however, it is not an existent statement that negates the intrinsic nature of all things. For, in your opinion the statement is non-existent, the intrinsic nature of all things is non-existent. Thus, it is like "Do not make a sound" is a defective proposition.

pratiṣedhapratiṣedho ’py evam iti mataṃ bhavet tad asad eva |
evam tava pratijñā lakṣaṇato dūṣyate na mama ||4||

偈言
汝謂遮所遮如是亦不然
如是汝宗相自壞則非我

|’gog pa’i ’gog pa’aṅ de lta źes || ’dod na de yaṅ bzaṅ min te |
| de lta bas na’aṅ khyod dam bcas || mtshan ñid skyon yod ṅed la med |

If you think that the same holds true of the negation of the negation also, that is false. It is your proposition which by virtue of its specific character is thus rendered defective, not mine.

syāt te buddhiḥ pratiṣedhapratiṣedho ’py anena iva kalpenānupapannaḥ, tatra yad bhavān sarvabhāvasvabhāvapratiṣedhavacanaṃ pratiṣedhayati tad anupapannam iti | atra vayaṃ brūmaḥ | etad apy asad eva | kasmāt | tava hi pratijñālakṣaṇaprāptaṃ na mama | bhavān bravīti śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti nāham | pūrvakaḥ pakṣo na mama | tatra yad uktaṃ pratiṣedhapratiṣedho ’py evaṃ saty anupapanna iti tad na |

此偈明何義若汝意謂遮與所遮亦如是者彼不相應若汝說言我語能遮一切諸法有自體者彼不相應此我今說是義不然何以故知如是宗相汝過非我汝說一切諸法皆空如是汝義前宗有過咎不在我若汝說言汝遮所遮不相應者是義不然

khyod kyi blo la rnam pa ’di ñid kyis ’gog pa’i ’gog pa yaṅ mi ’thad de | de la khyod kyis dṅos po thams cad kyi raṅ bźin ’gog pa’i tshig ’gog par byed pa’i tshig gaṅ yin pa de yaṅ mi ’thad do sñam du sems na | ’dir smra bar bya ste | de yaṅ bzaṅ po ma yin te | de ci’i phyir źe na | khyed la ni dam bcas pa’i mtshan ñid kyis ’di ’thob kyi | ṅed la ni med pas de lta yin na ni ’gog pa’i ’gog pa yaṅ ’thad pa ma yin no źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de mi ruṅ ṅo |||’di la skye bo chos kyi gnas skabs la mkhas pa rnams ni dge ba’i chos rnams la brgya rtsa bcu dgur sems te|

You may think: ’According to this very method a negation of negation also is impossible; so your negation of the statement negating the intrinsic nature of all things is impossible’. -To this we reply: This also is false. - Why ? - Because the objection applies [only] to the specific character of your proposition, not to that of mine. It is you who say that all things are void, not I. The initial thesis is not mine. - In these circumstances, your staternent that, such being the case, a negation of negation also is impossible, is not valid.

kiṃ cānyat | pratyakṣeṇa hi tāvad yady upalabhya vinivartayasi bhāvān |
tan nāsti pratyakṣaṃ bhāvā yenopalabhyante ||5||

又復有義
偈言
若彼現是有汝何得有迥
彼現亦是無云何得取迥

’di ltar gźan yaṅ |
re źig dṅos rnams mṅon sum gyis || dmigs nas zlog par byed min na |
| gaṅ gis dṅos rnams dmigs ’gyur ba || mṅon sum de ni med pa yin |

Moreover: Now, if [you say that] you deny the things after having apprehended them through perception, [we reply:] that perception through which the things are apprehended does not exist.

yadi pratyakṣataḥ sarvabhāvānupalabhya bhavān nivartayati śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti tad anupannam | kasmāt | pratyakṣam api hi pramāṇaṃ sarvabhāvāntargatatvāc chūnyam | yo bhāvān upalabhate so ’pi śūnyaḥ | tasmāt pratyakṣeṇa pramāṇena nopalaṃbhabhāvo ’nupalabdhasya ca pratiṣedhānupapattiḥ | tatra yad uktaṃ śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvā iti tad anupapannam | syāt te buddhiḥ, anumānenāgamenopamānena vā sarvabhāvān upalabhya sarvabhāvavyāvartanaṃ kriyata iti, atra brūmaḥ |

此偈明何義若一切法有現有現可取汝得迥我諸法令空而實不爾何以故知之現量入在一切法數則亦是空若汝分別依現有比現比皆空如是無現比何可得現之與比是二皆無云何得遮汝言一切諸法空者是義不然若汝復謂或比或喻或以阿含得一切法如是一切諸法自體我能迥者此義今說

gal te khyod kyis dṅos po thams cad mṅon sum gyi dmigs nas dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa’o źes zlog par byed na ni mi ruṅ ṅo || de yaṅ ’thad pa ma yin te | ci’i phyir źe na | dṅos po thams cad kyi naṅ du ni mṅon sum gyi tshad ma yaṅ ’dus pa’i phyir stoṅ pa yin la | dṅos po la dmigs par byed pa gaṅ yin pa de yaṅ stoṅ pa yin no || de’i phyir mṅon sum gyi tshad mas dmigs pa med do || mi dmigs pa ’gog pa yaṅ mi ’thad pas de la dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa’o źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de ’thad pa ma yin no || ’on te khyod kyi blo la rjes su dpag pa daṅ luṅ daṅ dpes sems ’jal bas dmigs nas dṅos po ’di thams cad zlog par byed do sñam du sems na ’dir smra bar bya ste |

You cannot say that you deny all things in the statement ’All things are void’, after having apprehended them through perception. Why? Because even perception, an instrument of true cognition, is void, being included in all things. The person who apprehends the things is alse void. Thus, there is no such thing as apprehension through perception, an instrument of true cognition; and a negation of that which is not apprehended is a logical impossibility. In these circumstances, your statement that all things are void is not valid. You think, perhaps, that you deny all things after having apprehended them through inference, verbal testimony and identification. To this we reply:

anumānaṃ pratyuktaṃ pratyakṣeṇāgamopamāne ca |
anumānāgamasādhyā te ’rthā dṛṣṭāntasādhyāś ca ||6||

偈言
說現比阿含譬喻等四量
現比阿含成譬喻亦能成

| rjes dpag luṅ daṅ || dpes ’jal daṅ || rjes dpag luṅ gis bsgrub bya daṅ |
| dpes bsgrub bya ba’i don gaṅ yin || mṅon sum gyis ni lan btab po ||

In our refutation of perception, we have [already] refuted inference, verbal testimony and identification, as well as the objects to be established by inference, verbal testimony and identification.

anumānopamānāgamāś ca pratyakṣeṇa pramāṇena pratyuktāḥ yathā hi pratyakṣaṃ pramāṇaṃ śūnyaṃ sarvabhāvānāṃ śūnyatvād evam anumānopamānāgamā api śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvānāṃ śūnyatvāt | ye ’numānasādhyā arthā āgamasādhyā upamānasādhyāś ca te ’pi śūnyāḥ sarvabhāvānāṃ śūnyatvāt | anumānopamānāgamaiś ca yo bhāvān upalabhate so ’pi śūnyaḥ | tasmād bhāvānām upalambhābhāvo ’nupalabdhānāṃ ca svabhāvapratiṣedhānupapattiḥ | tatra yad uktaṃ śūnyaḥ sarvabhāvā iti tad na |

此偈明何義比喻阿含現等四量若現能成比阿含等皆亦能成如一切法皆悉是空現量亦空如是比喻亦空彼量所成一切諸法皆悉是空以四種量在一切故隨何等法若為比成亦譬喻成亦阿含成彼所成法一切皆空汝以比喻阿含等三量一切法所量亦空若如是者法不可得量所量無是故無遮如是若說一切法空無自體者義不相應

rjes su dpag pa daṅ | dpes ’jal ba daṅ | luṅ yaṅ mṅon sum gyi tshad mas lan btab pa yin te | ’di ltar mṅon sum gyi tshad ma ni stoṅ pa yin te | dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa ñid yin pa’i phyir ro || de bźin du rjes su dpag pa daṅ | dpes ’jal ba daṅ | luṅ yaṅ stoṅ pa yin te | dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa ñid yin pa’i phyir ro || rjes su dpag pas bsgrub par bya ba’i don daṅ | luṅ gis bsgrub par bya ba daṅ | dpes bsgrub bar bya ba gaṅ yin pa de dag kyaṅ stoṅ pa ma yin te | dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa ñid yin pa’i phyir ro || rjes su dpag pa daṅ | luṅ daṅ | dpes ’jal ba dag gis dṅos po rnams la dmigs par byed pa gaṅ yin pa de yaṅ stoṅ pa ñid yin te | de’i phyir dṅos po rnams dmigs pa med do || mi dmigs pa’i raṅ bźin ’gog pa mi ’thad pas de la dṅos po thams cad ni stoṅ pa’o źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de mi ruṅ ṅo ||

We have [already] refuted inference, identification and verbal testimony, in our refutation of the ‘instrument of true cognition’, perception. Just as perception, an ‘instrument of true cognition’, is void because all things are void, so also are inference, identification and verbal testimony void because all things are void. Those objects which are to be established by inference, verbal testimony and identification, are also void because all things are void. The person who apprehends the things through inference, identification and verbal testimony, is also void. Thus, there is no apprehension of things, and a negation of the intrinsic nature of things that are not apprehended is a logical impossibility. In these circumstances, your statement that all things are void is not valid.

kiṃ cānyāt | kuśalānāṃ dharmānāṃ dharmāvasthāvidaś ca manyante |
kuśalaṃ janāḥ svabhāvaṃ śeṣeṣv apy eṣa viniyogaḥ ||7||

又復有義偈言
智人知法說善法有自體
世人知有體餘法亦如是

’di ltar gźan yaṅ |
skye bo chos kyi gnas skabs mkhas || dge ba dag gi chos rnams la |
| dge ba’i raṅ bźin yin par ni || sems śiṅ lhag ma rnams la yaṅ |

Moreover:People conversant with the state of things think that the good things have a good intrinsic nature. The same distinction is made with regard to the rest [of the things] too (the bad things, and so on).

iha janā dharmāvasthāvido manyante kuśalānāṃ dharmāṇām ekonaviṃśaśatam | tadyathaikadeśo vijñānasya vedanāyāḥ saṃjñāyāś cetanāyāḥ sparśasya manasikārasya cchandasyādhimokṣasya vīryasya smṛteḥ samādheḥ prajñāyā upekṣāyāḥ prayogasya saṃprayogasya prāpter adhyāśayasyāpratighasya rater vyavasāyasyautsukyasyonmugdher utsāhasyāvighātasya vaśitāyāḥ pratighātasyāvipratisārasya parigrahasyāparigrahasya ...dhṛter adhyavasāyasyānautsukyasyānunmugdher anutsāhasya prārthanāyāḥ praṇidher madasya viṣayāṇāṃ viprayogasyānairyāṇikatāyā utpādasya sthiter anityatāyāḥ samanvāgamasya jarāyāḥ paritāpasyārater vitarkasya prīteḥ prasādasya ... premṇaḥ pratikūlasya pradakṣiṇagrāhasya vaiśāradyasya gauravasya citrīkārasya bhakter abhakteḥ śuśrūṣāyā ādarasyānādarasya praśrabdher hāsasya vāco vispandanāyāḥ siddhasyāprasādasyāpraśrabdheḥ ... dākṣyasya sauratyasya vipratisārasya śokasyopāyāsāyāsasya ... apradakṣiṇagrāhasya saṃśayasya saṃvarāṇāṃ pariśuddher adhyātmasaṃprasādasya bhīrutāyāḥ, śraddhā hrīrārjavam avañcanam upaśamo ’cāpalam apramādo mārdavaṃ pratisaṃkhyānaṃ nirvairaparidāhāvamado ’lobho ’doṣo ’mohaḥ sarvajñātāpratiniḥsargo vibhavo ’patrāpyamaparicchadanaṃ mananaṃ kāruṇyaṃ maitryadīnatāraṇā ... anupanāho ’nīrṣyācetaso ’paryādānaṃ kṣāntir vyavasargo ’sauratyaṃ paribhogānvayaḥ puṇyamasaṃjñisamāpattirnair yāṇikatāsarvajñatāsaṃskṛtā dharmā ity ekonaviṃśaśataṃ kuśalānāṃ dharmāṇāṃ kuśalaḥ svabhāvaḥ. tathākuśalānāṃ dharmāṇām akuśalaḥ svabhāvaḥ, nivṛtāvyākṛtānāṃ nivṛtāvyākṛtaḥ, prakṛtāvyākṛtānāṃ prakṛtāvyākṛtaḥ, kāmoktānāṃ kāmoktaḥ, rūpoktānāṃ rūpoktaḥ, ārūpyoktanāṃārūpyoktaḥ, anāsravāṇām anāsravaḥ, duḥkhasamudayanirodhamārgoktānāṃ duḥkhasamudayanirodhamārgoktaḥ, bhāvanāprahātavyānāṃ bhāvanāprahātavyaḥ, aprahātavyānām aprahātavyaḥ | yasmād evam anekaprakāro dharmasvabhāvo dṛṣṭas tasmād yad uktaṃ niḥsvabhāvāḥ sarvabhāvā niḥsvabhāvatvāc chūnyā iti tad na |

此偈明何義法師說善法善法一百一十有九謂心一相一者受二者想三者覺四者觸五者觀察六者欲七者信解脫八者精進九者憶念十者三摩提十一者慧十二者捨十三者修十四者合修十五者習十六者得十七者成十八者辯才十九者適者二十者勤二十一者思二十二者心二十三者勢力二十四者不疾二十五者自在二十六者善辯才二十七者不悔二十八者悔二十九者少欲三十者不少欲三十一者捨三十二者不思三十三者不心三十四者不願三十五者樂說三十六者不著境界三十七者不行三十八者生三十九者住四十者滅四十一者集四十二者老四十三者熱惱四十四者悶四十五者疑四十六者思量四十七者愛四十八者信四十九者樂五十者不順五十一者順取五十二者不畏大眾五十三者恭敬五十四者作勝法五十五者敬五十六者不敬五十七者供給五十八者不供給五十九者定順六十者宿六十一者發動六十二者不樂六十三者覆六十四者不定六十五者愁惱六十六者心不得六十七者荒亂六十八者懈怠六十九者憂憒七十者希淨七十一者內信七十二者畏七十三者信七十四者懈七十五者質直七十六者不誑七十七者寂靜七十八者不驚七十九者不錯八十者柔軟八十一者開解八十二者嫌八十三者燒八十四者惺八十五者不貪八十六者不瞋八十七者不癡八十八者不一切知八十九者放捨九十者不有九十一者愧九十二者不自隱惡九十三者悲九十四者喜九十五者捨九十六者神通九十七者不執九十八者不…… 九十九者心淨一百者忍辱一百一者利益一百二者能用一百三者福德一百四者無想定一百五者不一切智一百六者無常三昧 S少十三法無處訪本S 如是如是善法一百一十有九如彼善法善法自體依不善法不善法自體如是無記無記本性無記本性無記欲界欲界色界色界無色界無色界無漏無漏苦集滅道苦集滅道修定修定如是如是見有無量種種諸法皆有自體如是若說一切諸法皆無自體如是無體得言空者義不相應

’di la skye bo chos kyi gnas skabs la mkhas pa rnams ni dge ba’i chos rnams la brgya rtsa bcu dgur sems te | ’di lta ste | rnam par śes pa daṅ | tshor ba daṅ | ’du śes daṅ | sems pa daṅ| reg pa daṅ | yid la byed pa daṅ | ’dun pa daṅ | mos pa daṅ | brtson ’grus daṅ | dran pa daṅ | tiṅ ṅe ’dzin daṅ | śes rab daṅ | btaṅ sñoms daṅ | sbyor ba daṅ | yaṅ dag par sbyor ba daṅ | thob pa daṅ | lhag pa’i bsam pa daṅ| khoṅ khro ba med pa daṅ | dga’ ba daṅ | ’bad pa daṅ | rtsol ba daṅ | rmoṅs pa med pa daṅ | spro ba daṅ | gnod pa med pa daṅ | dbaṅ daṅ ldan pa daṅ | khoṅ khro daṅ | yid la gcags pa med pa daṅ | ’dzin pa daṅ | mi ’dzin pa daṅ | dran pa daṅ | brtan pa daṅ| lhag par źen pa daṅ | rmoṅs ’brel daṅ | spro ba med pa daṅ | don du gñer ba daṅ | smon lam daṅ | rgyags pa daṅ | yul daṅ mi ldan pa daṅ | ṅes par ’byin pa ma yin pa daṅ | skye ba daṅ | gnas pa daṅ mi rtag pa daṅ | rga ba daṅ | ldan pa daṅ | yoṅs su gduṅs pa daṅ | mi dga’ ba daṅ | rtog pa daṅ | sdug pa daṅ | daṅ ba daṅ | ’dod pa daṅ | mi mthun pa daṅ | mthun par ’dzin pa daṅ | rjes su mi mthun par bzuṅ ba daṅ | mi ’jigs pa daṅ | źes daṅ | ri mor byed pa daṅ | dad pa daṅ | ma dad pa daṅ | bsgo ba bźin byed pa daṅ | gus pa daṅ | ma gus pa daṅ | rgod pa daṅ | śin tu sbyaṅs pa daṅ| ṅag daṅ| ’gul ba daṅ| grub pa daṅ| ma daṅ ba daṅ| śin tu ma sbyaṅs pa daṅ| rnam par byaṅ ba daṅ| brtan pa daṅ| des pa daṅ| yid la gcags pa daṅ| mya ṅan daṅ| ’khrugs pa daṅ| rgyags pa daṅ| mi mthun par ’dzin pa daṅ| the tshom daṅ| sdom pa daṅ | yoṅs su dag pa daṅ | naṅ legs par daṅ ba daṅ | ’jigs pa’i phyogs gcig daṅ | dad pa daṅ | ṅo tsha śes pa daṅ | gnam pa daṅ | mi ’drid pa daṅ | ñe bar źi ba daṅ | rtab bag ma yin pa daṅ | bag yod pa daṅ | byams par lta ba daṅ | so sor brtag pa daṅ | yid byuṅ ba daṅ | yoṅs su gduṅs pa med pa daṅ | rgyags pa med pa daṅ | chags pa med pa daṅ | źe sdaṅ med pa daṅ | gti mug med pa daṅ | thams cad śes pa ñid daṅ | mi gtoṅ ba daṅ | ’byor ba daṅ | khrel yod pa daṅ | mi ’chab pa daṅ | sñiṅ rje daṅ | sems pa mi gtoṅ ba daṅ | byams pa daṅ | źum pa med pa daṅ | dga’ bral ba daṅ | rdzu ’phrul daṅ | khon du mi ’dzin pa daṅ | phrag dog med pa daṅ | sems yoṅs su gdug pa med pa daṅ | bzod pa daṅ | rnam par spaṅs ba daṅ | des pa ma yin pa daṅ | yoṅs su loṅs spyod pa’i rjes su mthun pa daṅ | bsod nams daṅ | ’du śes pa’i sñoms par ’jug pa daṅ | ṅes par ’byin pa ñid daṅ | thams cad mi śes pa ñid daṅ | ’du ma byas pa’i chos so źes de ltar dge ba’i chos rnams la dge ba’i raṅ bźin brgya rtsa bcu dgu daṅ | de bźin du mi dge ba’i chos rnams pa mi dge ba’i raṅ bźin daṅ | bsgribs la luṅ du ma bstan pa rnams la bsgribs la luṅ du ma bstan pa’i raṅ bźin daṅ ma bsgribs la luṅ du ma bstan pa rnams la ma bsgribs la luṅ du ma bstan pa’i raṅ bźin daṅ | ’dod par gsuṅs pa rnams la ’dod par gsuṅs pa daṅ | gzugs su gsuṅs pa rnams la gzugs su gsuṅs pa daṅ | gzugs med par gsuṅs pa rnams la gzugs med par gsuṅs pa daṅ | zag pa med pa rnams la zag pa med pa daṅ | sdug bsṅal daṅ | kun ’byuṅ ba daṅ | ’gog pa daṅ | lam źes bya ba rnams la sdug bsṅal daṅ | kun ’byuṅ ba daṅ | ’gog pa daṅ | lam źes bya ba’i raṅ bźin daṅ | bsgoms pas spaṅ bar bya ba rnams la bsgoms pas spaṅ bar bya ba daṅ | spaṅ bar bya ba ma yin pa rnams la spaṅ bar bya ba ma yin pa’i raṅ bźin du sems te | de’i phyir de ltar na rnam pa du ma’i chos kyi raṅ bźin mthoṅ bas de bas na dṅos po thams cad ni raṅ bźin med pa ste | raṅ bźin med pa ñid yin pa’i phyir stoṅ pa’o źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de mi ruṅ ṅo ||

kiṃ cānyat | nairyāṇikasvabhāvo dharmā nairyāṇikāś ca ye teṣāṃ |
dharmāvasthoktānām evam anairyāṇikādīnām ||8||

此復有義
偈言出法出法體是聖人所說
如是不出法不出法自體

’di ltar gźan yaṅ |
ṅes ’byin la sogs rnams kyi chos || gnas skabs gsuṅs pa de rnams la |
| ṅes ’byin raṅ bźin chos rnams daṅ || ṅes ’byin min gaṅ tshul de bźin |

And those things which lead to emancipation have an intrinsic nature that leads to emancipation. Similarly with the things which do not lead to emancipation, and so on, things which have been mentioned in connection with the state of things.

iha ca dharmāvasthoktānāṃ nairyāṇikānāṃ dharmānāṃ nairyāṇikaḥ svabhāvaḥ, anairyāṇikānām anairyāṇikaḥ, bodhyaṅgikānāṃ bodhyaṅgikaḥ, abodhyaṅgikānām abodhyaṅgikaḥ, bodhipakṣikāṇāṃ bodhipakṣikaḥ, abodhipakṣikāṇām bodhipakṣikaḥ | evam api śeṣāṇām | tad yasmād evam anekaprakāro dharmāṇāṃ svabhāvo dṛṣṭas tasmād yadyuktaṃ niḥsvabhāvāḥ sarvabhāvā niḥsvabhāvatvāc chūnyā iti tad na |

此偈明何義如說出法出法自體如是不出法不淨法自體覺分覺分自體菩提分菩提分自體非菩提分非菩提分自體如是餘法皆亦如是若如是見彼無量種諸法自體而如是說一切諸法皆無自體以無自體名為空者義不相應

’di la ṅes par ’byin pa’i chos kyi gnas skabs gsuṅs pa rnams la ṅes par ’byin pa’i raṅ bźin daṅ | ṅes par ’byin pa ma yin pa rnams la ṅes par ’byin pa ma yin pa’i raṅ bźin daṅ | byaṅ chub kyi yan lag daṅ ldan pa rnams la byaṅ chub kyi yan lag daṅ ldan pa daṅ | byaṅ chub kyi yan lag daṅ mi ldan pa rnams la byaṅ chub kyi yan lag daṅ mi ldan pa daṅ | byaṅ chub kyi phyogs daṅ ldan pa rnams la byaṅ chub kyi phyogs daṅ ldan pa daṅ | byaṅ chub kyi phyogs daṅ mi ldan pa rnams la byaṅ chub kyi phyogs daṅ mi ldan pa daṅ lhag ma rnams la yaṅ de bźin te | de’i phyir de ltar rnam pa du ma’i chos rnams kyi raṅ bźin mthoṅ ba de’i phyir dṅos po thams cad ni raṅ bźin med pa ste | de bas na stoṅ pa’o źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de mi ruṅ ṅo ||

Thus, since the intrinsic nature of things is in this way seen to be of different kinds, your statement that all things are devoid of an intrinsic nature and that being devoid of an intrinsic nature they are void, is not valid. Furthermore:

kiṃ cānyat | yadi ca na bhavet svabhāvo dharmāṇāṃ niḥsvabhāva ity eva |
nāmāpi bhaven naivaṃ nāma hi nirvastukaṃ nāsti ||9||

又復有義
偈言諸法若無體無體不得名
有自體有名唯名云何名

’di ltar gźan yaṅ |
gal te chos kyi raṅ bźin med || raṅ bźin med ces bya ba’i miṅ |
| miṅ yaṅ de bźin med ’gyur ñid || gźi med miṅ ni med phyir ro |

If the things had no intrinsic nature, then even the name ‘absence of intrinsic nature’ would not exist; for there is no name without an object [to be named].

yadi sarvadharmāṇāṃ svabhāvo na bhavet tatrāpi niḥsvabhāvo bhavet | tatra niḥsvabhāva ity evaṃ nāmāpi na bhavet | kasmāt | nāma hi nirvastukaṃ kiṃcid api nāsti | tasmān nāmasadbhāvāt svabhāvo bhāvānām asti svabhāvasadbhāvāc cāśūnyāḥ sarvabhāvāḥ | tasmad yad uktaṃ niḥsvabhāvāḥ sarvabhāvā niḥsvabhāvatvāc chūnyā iti tad na |

此偈明何義若一切法皆無自體說無自體言語亦無何以故有物有名無物無名以一切法皆有名故當知諸法皆有自體法有自體故不得言一切法空如是若說一切法空無自體者義不相應

gal te chos thams cad kyi raṅ bźin med pa yin na de la yaṅ raṅ bźin med do źes bya ba’i miṅ yaṅ de bźin du med par ’gyur ro || ci’i phyir źe na | gźi med pa’i miṅ ni ’ga’ yaṅ med pa’i phyir ro || de bas na mi srid pa’i phyir dṅos po rnams kyi raṅ bźin yod do || raṅ bźin yod pa’i phyir dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa ma yin no || de bas na chos thams cad raṅ bźin med pa ste | raṅ bźin med pa ñid yin pa’i phyir stoṅ pa’o źes smras pa gaṅ yin pa de rigs pa ma yin no ||

If all things were devoid of an intrinsic nature, there would, nevertheless, be an absence of intrinsic nature. [But] then, even the name ‘absence of intrinsic nature’ would not exist. - Why? - Because there is no name whatsoever without an object [to be named].Thus, since the name exists, there is an intrinsic nature of the things; and since they have an intrinsic nature, all things are non-void. Your statement, therefore, that all things are devoid of an intrinsic nature and that, being devoid of an intrinsic nature, they are void, is not valid.

kiṃ cānyat | atha vidyate svabhāvaḥ sa ca dharmāṇāṃ na vidyate tasmāt |
dharmair vinā svabhāvaḥ sa yasya tadyuktam upadeṣṭum ||10||

偈言若離法有名於彼法中無
說離法有名彼人則可難

| ’on te ’di ltar raṅ bźin yod || de ni chos la med ce na |
| chos rnams med pa’i raṅ bźin te || gaṅ gi yin pa de bstan rigs |

Moreover: Now you may say: There is an intrinsic nature, but that does not belong to the things. There is, then, an intrinsic nature without the things, and you should explain to what it belongs.

atha manyase mā bhūd avastukaṃ nāmeti kṛtvāsti svabhāvaḥ, sa punar dharmāṇāṃ na saṃbhavati, evaṃ dharmaśūnyatāniḥsvabhāvatvād dharmāṇāṃ siddhā bhaviṣyati, na ca nirvastukaṃ nāmeti, atra vayaṃ brūmaḥ | evaṃ yasyedānīṃ sa svabhāvo dharmavinirmuktasyārthasya sa yuktam upadeṣṭum arthaḥ | sa ca nopadiṣṭaḥ | tasmād yā kalpanāsti svabhāvo na sa punar dharmāṇām iti sā hīnā |

此偈明何義若汝意謂有法有名離法有名如是一切諸法皆空無自體成非物無名有物有名此我今說若如是者有何等人說離法體別有名字若別有名別有法者則不得示彼不可示如是汝心分別別有諸法別有名者是義不然

’on te gźi med pa’i miṅ du gyur na mi ruṅ ṅo sñam nas raṅ bźin ni yod la | de yaṅ chos thams cad la ni mi srid do || de ltar na chos rnams raṅ bźin med pa’i phyir chos ni stoṅ par ’gyur la | miṅ gźi med par yaṅ ma yin no sñam du sems na | ’dir smra bar bya ste | de lta yin na raṅ bźin de chos la gtogs pa’i don gaṅ yin pa’i don de bstan par rigs so || de yaṅ ma bstan pas de’i phyir raṅ bźin ni yod la | de yaṅ chos rnams ni med do ces rtog pa gaṅ yin pa de ñams so ||

Now you may fancy: Let there be no name without an object; there is an intrinsic nature, but that does not belong to the things; thus, the voidness of the things because of their being devoid of an intrinsic nature will be established, and the name will not be without an object [to be named ].- To this we reply: You should explain that object, apart from the things, to which now belongs thus that intrinsic nature. You have, however, not explained that. Hence your assumption: ‘there is an intrinsic nature but it does not belong to the things’, is ruled out.

Permanent link

http://www2.hf.uio.no/common/apps/permlink/permlink.php?app=polyglotta&context=ctext&uid=16012676-6fec-11df-870c-00215aecadea

Choose languages

Choose images, etc.

Choose languages

Choose display

ā	ī	ū	ṛ	ṝ	ḷ
ḹ	’	ṃ	ḥ	ṅ	ñ
ṭ	ḍ	ṇ	ṣ	ś	ź
š	č	ǰ	γ