Change History
Message: ä¸è«–觀如來å“第二å二 Examination of Tathagata
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 19, 2009 10:32AM
ä¸è«–觀如來å“第二å二 Examination of Tathagata
T30n1564_p0029c02(00)â•‘ä¸è«–å·ç¬¬å››
T30n1564_p0029c03(00)â•‘
T30n1564_p0029c04(00)║    é¾æ¨¹è©è–©é€ 梵志é’目釋
T30n1564_p0029c05(00)║    姚秦三è—鳩摩羅什è¯
T30n1564_p0029c06(00)║  觀如來å“第二å二(åå…åˆ)
T30n1564_p0029c07(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚一切世ä¸å°Šã€‚唯有如來æ£é知。
T30n1564_p0029c08(02)║號為法王。一切智人是則應有。ç”曰。今諦æ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c09(00)║若有應å–。若無何所å–。何以故。如來。
-å–ï¼What does this exactly mean? If translated as “grasp,†this is an ontological explanation; if “employ,†this is an epistemological explanation.
T30n1564_p0029c10(00)║ éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
T30n1564_p0029c11(00)║ 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
--<i>Not the constituents, not different from the constituents, the constituents are not in him, and he is not in them. A tathagata is not possessed of a constituent; in this, which is a tathagata?</i>
--If tathÄgataḥ is real, it is only possible when the tathÄgataḥ (nom. sg.) <i>T</i> and the five skandhÄḥ (pl./ skandhÄ sg./ skandhas) <i>S</i> are in one of the following relations:
(1)<i>T</i> is <i>S</i>
(2)<i>T</i> is distinct away from <i>S</i>
(3)<i>S</i> is in <i>T</i>
(4)<i>T</i> is in <i>S</i>
(5)<i>T</i> is possessed of <i>S</i>
Now, NÄgÄrjuna has refuted all of the possibilities, it is then only possible that the premise is not acceptible and that tathÄgataḥ isn't real.
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(1)is not acceptable, because if so, tathÄgataḥ would be as “real†as empirical objects which “would be born and would die.†If tathÄgataḥ were as such, it contradicts the eight denials. Besides, the employer å—者 and the employed å—法 are one and the same, which we find implausible here.
--Critique: However, saying tathÄgataḥ is the five skandhÄḥ does not necessarily mean the former is the product of the latter. TathÄgataḥ could yet be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that (a- transcendental reading) the former is the transcendental subject which makes the empirical objects fit the characteristics of possessing the aspects of the latter, so that it can be reasonable that the former could be so transcendentally idealized; (b-absolute reading) the former is an “external†cause of the latter (which is denied in (2)) that the cause makes possible the effect from which five skandhÄḥ can be empirically distinguished.
--Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “means of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? But, Candrakirti's criticism that if DignÄga's theory is accepted then there would be infinite regress problem regarding the svasamvitti's pre-existence, is not plausible if we explain away the realist's paralogism regarding the pramÄṇa-pramÄṇaphala distinction... How would NÄgÄrjuna himself response to the question here?
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(2) is not acceptable, because if so, the independent tathÄgataḥ would be free of birth-death, and then tathÄgataḥ would be external 常, which contradicts the eight denials.
Besides, if there were such independent tathÄgataḥ, the functioning of the five senses could not result in as such, as known to the subject (tathÄgataḥ).
--Critique: How should we treat the eight denials? Are they the end of the argument or the beginning of the argument?
--Suggest: In 深觀ã€æ³¢è‹¥æ³¢ç¾…蜜, it is intuited that the ultimate reality is best conventionally characterized as such, and hence the eight denials need argued for conventionally, yet the argument can be made <i>only</i> with the ultimate, <i>a priori</i>, intuition to “consult with†– a reconstruction from Kant's idea of pure intuition.
--Reflection: Eight denials are all conventional characterization. People who has observed the intuitive source of them can both ultimately and conventionally “grasp†the characterization; people who has not observed the intuitive source of them can only conventionally grasp it. That's why Buddha's words is a practical teach!
--Critique: the argument é’ç›® offers here can only rule out the absolute reading (b) above, for a transcendental tathÄgataḥ is not independent from the five skandhÄḥ. The transcendental reading still survives.
--Critique: Besides, if we say, further tuned transcendental reading, that the tathÄgataḥ could be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that both terms are just names å‡å for in ultimate truth, tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ be not reasonable at all: we have conventional, empirical experience as such, which can be characterized with the the skandhÄḥ theory and hence it can be postulated that there might reasonably be tathÄgataḥ. But the characterization and the postulation above can only be valid in relation to experience; hence, the transcendental reading is tuned to tone with the denial of “tathÄgataḥ being the five skandhÄḥ.â€
é’ç›®'s explanation:
(3)and
(4)are not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the container of the latter or vise versa; and if the former and the latter are different, it contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
(5)Is not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•° as well, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the possessor of the latter; and if so, it also contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
--Critique: Again, how should we treat the eight denials?
--Summary: With the absolute reading of the tathÄgataḥ-skandhÄḥ problem, it is then said all the five postulations are wrong; with the reading bearing the idea that tathÄgataḥ is not real (our conventional demand for reality always targets the ultimate reality, based upon which the reality as such should be denied so that the ultimate reality and the conventional reality can both be preserved)*, similarly, with the transcendental reading, it just does not matter at all whether you hold the five postulations or not.
*The real in “tathÄgataḥ is not real†is paralgic for what we can say ever of the real and what is demanded in the sentence is not mutually qualified. Hence, the denial of such “reality†can break the paralogism embedded: denying the absolute, cognition-free, skandhÄḥ-free reality of tathÄgataḥ is actually the refuse to such a demand from conventional realm to the ultimate realm; without such a crossover, it just does not matter with the five postulations.
T30n1564_p0029c12(00)║若如來實有者。為五陰是如來。
T30n1564_p0029c13(04)║為離五陰有如來。為如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c14(06)║為五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。為如來有五陰。是事皆ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c15(04)║五陰éžæ˜¯å¦‚來。何以故。生滅相故。五陰生滅相。
T30n1564_p0029c16(03)║若如來是五陰。如來å³æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…相。若生滅相者。
T30n1564_p0029c17(01)║如來å³æœ‰ç„¡å¸¸æ–·æ»…ç‰éŽã€‚åˆå—者å—法則一。
T30n1564_p0029c18(01)â•‘å—者是如來。å—法是五陰。是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c19(04)║是故如來éžæ˜¯äº”陰。離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c20(04)║若離五陰有如來者。ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ç”Ÿæ»…相。若爾者。
T30n1564_p0029c21(02)║如來有常ç‰éŽã€‚åˆçœ¼ç‰è«¸æ ¹ä¸èƒ½è¦‹çŸ¥ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c22(03)║但是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚是故離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c23(04)║如來ä¸äº¦ç„¡äº”陰。何以故。若如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c24(03)║如器ä¸æœ‰æžœæ°´ä¸æœ‰éšè€…。則為有異。若異者。
T30n1564_p0029c25(02)â•‘å³æœ‰å¦‚上常ç‰éŽã€‚是故如來ä¸ç„¡äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c26(04)â•‘åˆäº”é™°ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。何以故。若五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。
T30n1564_p0029c27(03)║如床上有人器ä¸æœ‰ä¹³è€…。如是則有別異。
T30n1564_p0029c28(03)║如上說éŽã€‚是故五陰ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。如來亦ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c29(00)║何以故。若如來有五陰。如人有å。
T30n1564_p0030a01(03)║如是則有別異。若爾者。有如上éŽã€‚是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a02(02)║是故如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。如是五種求ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a03(02)║何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來。å•æ›°ã€‚如是義求如來ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a04(02)║而五陰和åˆæœ‰å¦‚來。ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030a05(00)║ 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
T30n1564_p0030a06(00)â•‘ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
--<i>If a buddha [exists] by means of the constituents, he does not exist with regard to self-nature. And if he does not exist with regard to self-nature, how can he with regard to other-nature.</i>
--If a buddha's existence “depends†on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ, then such an existence is not with svabhava. Without svabhava equals without his-nature.
--Critique: The baseline is, the existence of a buddha is free of svabhava; based on this, the verse can be read that the existence of a buddha indeed depends on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ and hence has no svabhava and hence no his-nature. Then, perhaps it is one option to say that the existence of a buddha “depends†on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ. But here comes a question: if this verse fundamentally contradict with the first verse? Is such a dependence not one of the five possibilities, say, T<i> is S</i>, then the existence becomes a birth-death matter, empirical, post-cognition?
T30n1564_p0030a07(00)║若如來五陰和åˆæ•…有。å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030a08(00)â•‘å› äº”é™°å’Œåˆæœ‰æ•…。å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a09(06)║如來ä¸ä»¥è‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½†å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ç”曰。若無自性。
T30n1564_p0030a10(03)â•‘äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½•ä»¥æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§äº¦ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a11(04)â•‘åˆç„¡ç›¸å¾…å› æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§ä¸å¯å¾—。ä¸å¯å¾—æ•…ä¸å為他。
T30n1564_p0030a12(01)║復次。
T30n1564_p0030a13(00)â•‘ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
T30n1564_p0030a14(00)║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--<i>It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if the sayings are his stand, then NÄgÄrjuna seems to contradict his own theory of the denial of svabhava. It is either NÄgÄrjuna's stand or not. But on this level of decision between either-or, it is only revealed that the it just does not work to think of buddha's existence in terms of “nature性†which is always <i>a posteriori</i>, post-cognition. Or it is neither NÄgÄrjuna's stand nor not. On this level, his stand can at last be revealed: away from the idea of nature 性見, one can begin to “talk about†tathÄgataḥ.
--é’ç›®'s explanation: Just as the five fingers make a fist possible for the latter depends on the former's certain function, the five skandhÄḥ make a self possible. What is made possible in the above analogy has no self-existence, for it “depends†on others. Then it is asked what a buddha's existence can be?
--Critique: This verse is a response to the former verse's left-over question: a buddha's existence cannot depend on the coordinated operation of five skandhÄḥ, for if so, the former would depend on others and then loose self-nature; without self-nature, how can it be the existence of buddha.
--Critique: Now NÄgÄrjuna becomes someone for self-nature? NO! The term “anÄtmÄ iti†non-self does not equal self-nature. Self-nature is an abstract, absolute nature which is regarded as self-dependent; non-self is non-subjectivity. TathÄgataḥ has no self-nature, but has to have subjectivity! However, why not the case that tathÄgataḥ depends on five skandhÄḥ and still has subjectivity? Does the analogy of finger-fist work? I do not think so. Finger and fist are both cognized objets, whereas tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ may not so decisive. But perhaps this is NÄgÄrjuna's point? Perhaps tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ are cognized objects, too, since it is the case that we “know†there is athÄgataḥ and we “know†there are skandhÄḥ, and hence our in-decisiveness is the cause of all problems? But with the reconstruction to “transcendentalize†the “know†here, the problem of the “dependence†here may be resolved, since the know become an “idealization†and no longer a linguistic reference!
T30n1564_p0030a15(00)â•‘è‹¥æ³•å› çœ¾ç·£ç”Ÿã€‚å³ç„¡æœ‰æˆ‘。
T30n1564_p0030a16(05)â•‘å¦‚å› äº”æŒ‡æœ‰æ‹³ã€‚æ˜¯æ‹³ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªé«”ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å› äº”é™°å我。
T30n1564_p0030a17(01)║是我å³ç„¡è‡ªé«”。我有種種å。
T30n1564_p0030a18(06)║或å眾生人天如來ç‰ã€‚è‹¥å¦‚ä¾†å› äº”é™°æœ‰ã€‚å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a19(02)║無自性故無我。若無我云何說å如來。
T30n1564_p0030a20(03)║是故åˆä¸èªªæ³•è‹¥å› 他生是å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘。
T30n1564_p0030a21(05)║若法éžæˆ‘者云何是如來。復次。
T30n1564_p0030a22(00)║ 若無有自性  云何有他性
T30n1564_p0030a23(00)║ 離自性他性  何å為如來
--<i>If there is not self-nature, how would there be other-nature? Without self-nature and other nature, who is this tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the verse is a question: if without svabhava and parabhava, what is sufficient for calling a tathagata? I would answer: subjectivity.
T30n1564_p0030a24(00)║若無自性。他性亦ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a25(05)â•‘å› è‡ªæ€§æ•…å他性。æ¤ç„¡æ•…彼亦無。是故自性他性二俱無。
T30n1564_p0030a26(00)║若離自性他性。誰為如來。復次。
T30n1564_p0030a27(00)║ 若ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
T30n1564_p0030a28(00)║ 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
--<i>If there were to exist a tathagata not employing the constituents, he would be employing [them] at this moment, therefore he would exist employing them.</i>
--If we assume that there were to exist a subject before any employment of the five skandas; only when the subject were employing them there would exist such a subject.
--Critique: this verse is too jumpy in relation to the former arguments...
T30n1564_p0030a29(00)║ 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
T30n1564_p0030b01(00)║ 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
--<i>There does not exist any tathagata who is not employing the constituents; and he who does not exist, not employing [them], how does he employ [them]?</i>
--Critique: The verse is a response to the former verse, saying that the later half of the former verse is actually a self-contradiction. If only the subject with the operation of the five skandas were to exist, there would exist no subject without the operation of the five skandas. Also, if the subject without the operation of five skandas were not to exist, what would be going to employ them? Given that the subject without operation of five skandas is assumed, it is then only an assumption.
--Critique: What if we just idealize the subject whose ideality can only base itself on the ground of the operation of the five skandas? Also, if we do not assume a subject, how can we believe the operations of the five skandas belong to certain identity?
T30n1564_p0030b02(00)║ 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
T30n1564_p0030b03(00)║ 無有無å—法  而å為如來
--<i>The tathagata never exists as an ungrasped grasping; and in no way is there a tathagata without grasping.</i>
--Critique:鳩摩羅什's translation is not quite following the Sanskrit in the first half of the verse. The translation means: without employment, what the employment (the grasping) is resulted in cannot be entitled “graspedâ€. This half nonetheless obviously indicates that the non-employed employment makes no sense, refusing the model of non-employed employer which is potential to employ the five skandas. The later half of the verse reinforce the statement.
--Critique: the transcendental subject as a mere idea whose basis can only be found in the employment of five skandas, is indeed a tathagata non-employed yet potential to employ which only exists at the moment of employment. Would NÄgÄrjuna reject that?
T30n1564_p0030b04(00)║ 若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾—
T30n1564_p0030b05(00)║ 五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
--<i>The tathagata, who being sought after in five ways through identity and difference does not exist, through the act of grasping, how can he be understood?</i>
--The tathagata, that we try to find with the method of identity and difference, i.e., ckeck with the criteria of ä¸ä¸€ã€ä¸ç•°, that we have rejected by arguing that since tathagata and five skandas cannot be different (as suggested in the claiming of the five possibilities for tathagata to be real), cannot be found either in the argument of employment.
T30n1564_p0030b06(00)║ åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
T30n1564_p0030b07(00)║ 若無自性者  云何有他性
<i>Also that which is grasping at this place, that is not known through self-nature; and what does not exist through self-nature, from where is that through other nature? </i>
--Besides, we can understand that tathagata cannot be found also with the method of 無自性他性.
T30n1564_p0030b08(00)║若未å—五陰。先有如來者。
T30n1564_p0030b09(06)║是如來今應å—五陰。已作如來。
T30n1564_p0030b10(10)║而實未å—五陰時先無如來。今云何當å—。åˆä¸å—五陰者。
T30n1564_p0030b11(04)║五陰ä¸å為å—。無有無å—而å為如來。
T30n1564_p0030b12(05)â•‘åˆå¦‚來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。
T30n1564_p0030b17(00)║ 以如是義故  å—空å—者空
T30n1564_p0030b18(00)║ 云何當以空  而說空如來
--<i>In this way, both the act of grasping and the person who is grasping are altogether empty. And how is an empty tathagata understood through what is empty?</i>
T30n1564_p0030b19(00)║以是義æ€æƒŸã€‚å—åŠå—者皆空。若å—空者。
T30n1564_p0030b20(01)║云何以空å—。而說空如來。å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030b21(05)â•‘æ±è¬‚å—空å—者空。則定有空耶。ç”æ›°ä¸ç„¶ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b22(00)║ 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
T30n1564_p0030b23(00)║ 共ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
<i>It is not to be said that he could be “empty†or “non-empty,†“both†or “neitherâ€; For it is described [thus only] for the purpose of explanation.</i>
T30n1564_p0030b24(00)║諸法空則ä¸æ‡‰èªªã€‚諸法ä¸ç©ºäº¦ä¸æ‡‰èªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0030b25(01)║諸法空ä¸ç©ºäº¦ä¸æ‡‰èªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0030b26(08)â•‘éžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºäº¦ä¸æ‡‰èªªã€‚ä½•ä»¥æ•…ã€‚ä½†ç ´ç›¸é•æ•…。以å‡å說。
T30n1564_p0030b27(02)║如是æ£è§€æ€æƒŸã€‚諸法實相ä¸ã€‚ä¸æ‡‰ä»¥è«¸é›£ç‚ºé›£ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030b28(00)║何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b29(00)║ 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
T30n1564_p0030c01(00)║ 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
<i>In this matter, in the undisturbed state, from where are the fourfold permanent, impermanent and the rest? Also in this matter, in the undisturbed state, from where are the fourfold limited, limitless and the rest?</i>
--Critique (A Kantian reconstruction) If we make sure that the empty is properly received, how do we understand the ultimate truth it self, i.e., time and space? Time and space are not external, independent property nor external, independent relations, but cognition-dependent and thus experience-dependent “sense†through which we present the world in time and space to ourself-- and hence they are mediate and the fundamental assay for further inference. The eternity, non-eternity, not eternal and not non-eternal that we “realize†are possible only in “experience世間,†cognition-dependent and experience-dependent. Leave cognition and experience, we cannot still stick to the “sense†of time, and it just does not matter regarding the four aspects of the temporal sense; space is similar with its four aspects: limitless, limit, not limitless and not limit. Everything begins with the birth of space and time, altogether, not only the objects we realize in them, but also the aspects of the senses of space and time themselves. The same reason as we reject the svabhava of everything, we reject the svabhava of space and time.
T30n1564_p0030c02(00)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å¾®å¦™å¯‚æ»…ã€‚ä½†å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–。
T30n1564_p0030c03(01)║起四種邪見。世間有常。世間無常。
T30n1564_p0030c04(04)║世間常無常。世間éžå¸¸éžç„¡å¸¸ã€‚寂滅ä¸ç›¡ç„¡ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030c05(01)║諸法實相。畢竟清淨ä¸å¯å–。空尚ä¸å—。
T30n1564_p0030c06(02)║何æ³æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å››ç¨®è¦‹çš†å› å—生。
T30n1564_p0030c07(05)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ç„¡æ‰€å› å—。四種見皆以自見為貴。他見為賤。
T30n1564_p0030c08(00)║諸法實相無有æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c09(08)║是故說寂滅ä¸ç„¡å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å¦‚å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–有四種見。
T30n1564_p0030c10(04)â•‘å› æœªä¾†ä¸–æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹äº¦å¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ä¸–é–“æœ‰é‚Šã€‚ä¸–é–“ç„¡é‚Šã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c11(01)║世間有邊無邊。世間éžæœ‰é‚Šéžç„¡é‚Šã€‚å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c12(01)â•‘è‹¥å¦‚æ˜¯ç ´å¦‚ä¾†è€…ã€‚å‰‡ç„¡å¦‚ä¾†è€¶ã€‚ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030c13(00)║ 邪見深厚者  則說無如來
T30n1564_p0030c14(00)║ 如來寂滅相  分別有亦éž
<i>By whom is held firmly the understanding that a solid tathagata “exists,†conjecturing, he would also imagine “he does not exist†in the ceased [state].</i>
T30n1564_p0030c15(00)â•‘é‚ªè¦‹æœ‰äºŒç¨®ã€‚ä¸€è€…ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c16(05)â•‘äºŒè€…ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“ã€‚ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚è€…ã€‚æ˜¯éº¤é‚ªè¦‹ã€‚è¨€ç„¡ç½ªç„¡ç¦ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c17(00)║無如來ç‰è³¢è–。起是邪見æ¨å–„為惡。
T30n1564_p0030c18(02)â•‘å‰‡ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“者。貪著於我。分別有無。
T30n1564_p0030c19(00)║起善滅惡。起善故得世間樂。
T30n1564_p0030c20(05)║分別有無故ä¸å¾—涅槃。是故若言無如來者。
T30n1564_p0030c21(04)║是深厚邪見。乃失世間樂。何æ³æ¶…槃。若言有如來。
T30n1564_p0030c22(01)║亦是邪見。何以故。如來寂滅相。而種種分別故。
T30n1564_p0030c23(00)║是故寂滅相ä¸ã€‚分別有如來。亦為éžã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c24(00)║ 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
T30n1564_p0030c25(00)║ 如來滅度後  分別於有無
<i>And with this being empty in respect to self-nature, the thought is never plausible [that] beyond cessation a buddha either “is†or “is notâ€.</i>
T30n1564_p0030c26(00)║諸法實相性空故。
T30n1564_p0030c27(09)â•‘ä¸æ‡‰æ–¼å¦‚來滅後æ€æƒŸè‹¥æœ‰è‹¥ç„¡ã€‚若有無。如來從本已來畢竟空。
T30n1564_p0030c28(00)║何æ³æ»…後。
T30n1564_p0030c29(00)║ 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
T30n1564_p0031a01(00)â•‘ã€€æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›
<i>[Those] who dewell on a buddha passed beyond hinderances and imperishable, they all afflicted by hinderances, do not see the tathagata.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a02(00)║戲論å憶念å–相分別æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a03(05)║言佛滅ä¸æ»…ç‰ã€‚是人為戲論。
T30n1564_p0031a04(10)║覆慧眼故ä¸èƒ½è¦‹å¦‚來法身。æ¤å¦‚來å“ä¸ã€‚åˆä¸å¾Œæ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a05(05)║如來定性ä¸å¯å¾—。是故åˆèªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a06(00)║ 如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
T30n1564_p0031a07(00)║ 如來無有性  世間亦無性
<i>What is the tathagata as self-nature, that is this world as self-nature; the tathagata is without self-nature, this world is without self-nature.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a08(00)â•‘æ¤å“ä¸æ€æƒŸæŽ¨æ±‚。如來性å³æ˜¯ä¸€åˆ‡ä¸–間性。
T30n1564_p0031a09(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來性。ç”曰。如來無有性。
T30n1564_p0031a10(01)â•‘åŒä¸–間無性。
<div align=center>--------------------------</div>
å˜—è©¦å°‡é Œæ–‡è¯æˆç™½è©±æ¼¢èªžï¼š
 觀如來å“第二å二
é Œä¸€ï¼š
éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
白話:如來ä¸æ˜¯äº”蘊,也ä¸é›¢äº”蘊,彼æ¤ä¸åœ¨å½¼æ¤ä¸ï¼Œå¦‚來ä¸å…·æœ‰äº”蘊,那哪裡有如來呢?
é ŒäºŒï¼š
 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
白話:五蘊和åˆå¦‚來始å˜æœ‰ï¼Œé‚£éº¼å¦‚來應無自性,如果如來無自性,怎麼能說有他性?
é Œä¸‰ï¼š
ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
白話:事物åªè¦ä¾ä»–ç‰©ç‚ºå› è€Œç”Ÿï¼Œå…¶è‡ªèº«å°±ç„¡æˆ‘ï¼Œå¦‚æžœæŸäº‹å±¬æ–¼æ¤é¡žï¼Œé‚£æ–·éžå¦‚來,那什麼是如來?
é Œå››ï¼š
 若無有自性  云何有他性
 離自性他性  何å為如來
白話:如果沒有自性,怎樣會有他性呢?若判離自性他性,那如來到底是怎樣而å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來呢?
 
é Œäº”ï¼š
è‹¥ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
白話:如果如來ä¸ä¾äº”è˜Šç‚ºä»–å› è€Œå…ˆæ–¼äº”è˜Šå˜æœ‰ï¼Œå¾…如來作動ã€äº”蘊始有,而該作動五蘊者稱作如來,這åˆå¦‚何?
é Œå…:
 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
白話:事實上,如果在如來ä¸ä½œå‹•è€Œäº”蘊ä¸èµ·ä¹‹éš›ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªæœ‰å¦‚來實有呢?如果說五蘊ä¸èµ·å¦‚來ä¸ä½œå‹•å‰‡ç„¡å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來,我們ç¾åœ¨é‚„能說是誰在作動呢?
é Œä¸ƒï¼š
 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
 無有無å—法  而å為如來 
ç™½è©±ï¼šå¦‚æžœå¦‚ä¾†é‚„æœªæœ‰ä½œå‹•ï¼Œè¢«ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„å› æœªç™¼ç”Ÿè€Œä¸è©²è¢«ç¨±ä½œä½œå‹•ï¼Œè€Œæ²’有那種未作動而有的任何å˜æœ‰å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來。(按鳩摩羅什漢è¯ï¼‰
如來從未以一種未å–çš„æ‘å–者å˜åœ¨ï¼Œä¸”ä¸å¯èƒ½æœ‰ä¸€ç¨®æœªæ‘å–的如來。(據梵英å°ç…§è¯ï¼‰
é Œå…«ï¼š
若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾— 
五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€æ¥èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 18, 2009 11:18AM
ä¸è«–觀如來å“第二å二 Examination of Tathagata
T30n1564_p0029c02(00)â•‘ä¸è«–å·ç¬¬å››
T30n1564_p0029c03(00)â•‘
T30n1564_p0029c04(00)║    é¾æ¨¹è©è–©é€ 梵志é’目釋
T30n1564_p0029c05(00)║    姚秦三è—鳩摩羅什è¯
T30n1564_p0029c06(00)║  觀如來å“第二å二(åå…åˆ)
T30n1564_p0029c07(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚一切世ä¸å°Šã€‚唯有如來æ£é知。
T30n1564_p0029c08(02)║號為法王。一切智人是則應有。ç”曰。今諦æ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c09(00)║若有應å–。若無何所å–。何以故。如來。
-å–ï¼What does this exactly mean? If translated as “grasp,†this is an ontological explanation; if “employ,†this is an epistemological explanation.
T30n1564_p0029c10(00)║ éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
T30n1564_p0029c11(00)║ 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
--<i>Not the constituents, not different from the constituents, the constituents are not in him, and he is not in them. A tathagata is not possessed of a constituent; in this, which is a tathagata?</i>
--If tathÄgataḥ is real, it is only possible when the tathÄgataḥ (nom. sg.) <i>T</i> and the five skandhÄḥ (pl./ skandhÄ sg./ skandhas) <i>S</i> are in one of the following relations:
(1)<i>T</i> is <i>S</i>
(2)<i>T</i> is distinct away from <i>S</i>
(3)<i>S</i> is in <i>T</i>
(4)<i>T</i> is in <i>S</i>
(5)<i>T</i> is possessed of <i>S</i>
Now, NÄgÄrjuna has refuted all of the possibilities, it is then only possible that the premise is not acceptible and that tathÄgataḥ isn't real.
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(1)is not acceptable, because if so, tathÄgataḥ would be as “real†as empirical objects which “would be born and would die.†If tathÄgataḥ were as such, it contradicts the eight denials. Besides, the employer å—者 and the employed å—法 are one and the same, which we find implausible here.
--Critique: However, saying tathÄgataḥ is the five skandhÄḥ does not necessarily mean the former is the product of the latter. TathÄgataḥ could yet be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that (a- transcendental reading) the former is the transcendental subject which makes the empirical objects fit the characteristics of possessing the aspects of the latter, so that it can be reasonable that the former could be so transcendentally idealized; (b-absolute reading) the former is an “external†cause of the latter (which is denied in (2)) that the cause makes possible the effect from which five skandhÄḥ can be empirically distinguished.
--Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “means of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? But, Candrakirti's criticism that if DignÄga's theory is accepted then there would be infinite regress problem regarding the svasamvitti's pre-existence, is not plausible if we explain away the realist's paralogism regarding the pramÄṇa-pramÄṇaphala distinction... How would NÄgÄrjuna himself response to the question here?
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(2) is not acceptable, because if so, the independent tathÄgataḥ would be free of birth-death, and then tathÄgataḥ would be external 常, which contradicts the eight denials.
Besides, if there were such independent tathÄgataḥ, the functioning of the five senses could not result in as such, as known to the subject (tathÄgataḥ).
--Critique: How should we treat the eight denials? Are they the end of the argument or the beginning of the argument?
--Suggest: In 深觀ã€æ³¢è‹¥æ³¢ç¾…蜜, it is intuited that the ultimate reality is best conventionally characterized as such, and hence the eight denials need argued for conventionally, yet the argument can be made <i>only</i> with the ultimate, <i>a priori</i>, intuition to “consult with†– a reconstruction from Kant's idea of pure intuition.
--Reflection: Eight denials are all conventional characterization. People who has observed the intuitive source of them can both ultimately and conventionally “grasp†the characterization; people who has not observed the intuitive source of them can only conventionally grasp it. That's why Buddha's words is a practical teach!
--Critique: the argument é’ç›® offers here can only rule out the absolute reading (b) above, for a transcendental tathÄgataḥ is not independent from the five skandhÄḥ. The transcendental reading still survives.
--Critique: Besides, if we say, further tuned transcendental reading, that the tathÄgataḥ could be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that both terms are just names å‡å for in ultimate truth, tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ be not reasonable at all: we have conventional, empirical experience as such, which can be characterized with the the skandhÄḥ theory and hence it can be postulated that there might reasonably be tathÄgataḥ. But the characterization and the postulation above can only be valid in relation to experience; hence, the transcendental reading is tuned to tone with the denial of “tathÄgataḥ being the five skandhÄḥ.â€
é’ç›®'s explanation:
(3)and
(4)are not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the container of the latter or vise versa; and if the former and the latter are different, it contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
(5)Is not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•° as well, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the possessor of the latter; and if so, it also contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
--Critique: Again, how should we treat the eight denials?
--Summary: With the absolute reading of the tathÄgataḥ-skandhÄḥ problem, it is then said all the five postulations are wrong; with the reading bearing the idea that tathÄgataḥ is not real (our conventional demand for reality always targets the ultimate reality, based upon which the reality as such should be denied so that the ultimate reality and the conventional reality can both be preserved)*, similarly, with the transcendental reading, it just does not matter at all whether you hold the five postulations or not.
*The real in “tathÄgataḥ is not real†is paralgic for what we can say ever of the real and what is demanded in the sentence is not mutually qualified. Hence, the denial of such “reality†can break the paralogism embedded: denying the absolute, cognition-free, skandhÄḥ-free reality of tathÄgataḥ is actually the refuse to such a demand from conventional realm to the ultimate realm; without such a crossover, it just does not matter with the five postulations.
T30n1564_p0029c12(00)║若如來實有者。為五陰是如來。
T30n1564_p0029c13(04)║為離五陰有如來。為如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c14(06)║為五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。為如來有五陰。是事皆ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c15(04)║五陰éžæ˜¯å¦‚來。何以故。生滅相故。五陰生滅相。
T30n1564_p0029c16(03)║若如來是五陰。如來å³æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…相。若生滅相者。
T30n1564_p0029c17(01)║如來å³æœ‰ç„¡å¸¸æ–·æ»…ç‰éŽã€‚åˆå—者å—法則一。
T30n1564_p0029c18(01)â•‘å—者是如來。å—法是五陰。是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c19(04)║是故如來éžæ˜¯äº”陰。離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c20(04)║若離五陰有如來者。ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ç”Ÿæ»…相。若爾者。
T30n1564_p0029c21(02)║如來有常ç‰éŽã€‚åˆçœ¼ç‰è«¸æ ¹ä¸èƒ½è¦‹çŸ¥ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c22(03)║但是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚是故離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c23(04)║如來ä¸äº¦ç„¡äº”陰。何以故。若如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c24(03)║如器ä¸æœ‰æžœæ°´ä¸æœ‰éšè€…。則為有異。若異者。
T30n1564_p0029c25(02)â•‘å³æœ‰å¦‚上常ç‰éŽã€‚是故如來ä¸ç„¡äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c26(04)â•‘åˆäº”é™°ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。何以故。若五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。
T30n1564_p0029c27(03)║如床上有人器ä¸æœ‰ä¹³è€…。如是則有別異。
T30n1564_p0029c28(03)║如上說éŽã€‚是故五陰ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。如來亦ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c29(00)║何以故。若如來有五陰。如人有å。
T30n1564_p0030a01(03)║如是則有別異。若爾者。有如上éŽã€‚是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a02(02)║是故如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。如是五種求ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a03(02)║何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來。å•æ›°ã€‚如是義求如來ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a04(02)║而五陰和åˆæœ‰å¦‚來。ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030a05(00)║ 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
T30n1564_p0030a06(00)â•‘ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
--<i>If a buddha [exists] by means of the constituents, he does not exist with regard to self-nature. And if he does not exist with regard to self-nature, how can he with regard to other-nature.</i>
--If a buddha's existence “depends†on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ, then such an existence is not with svabhava. Without svabhava equals without his-nature.
--Critique: The baseline is, the existence of a buddha is free of svabhava; based on this, the verse can be read that the existence of a buddha indeed depends on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ and hence has no svabhava and hence no his-nature. Then, perhaps it is one option to say that the existence of a buddha “depends†on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ. But here comes a question: if this verse fundamentally contradict with the first verse? Is such a dependence not one of the five possibilities, say, T<i> is S</i>, then the existence becomes a birth-death matter, empirical, post-cognition?
T30n1564_p0030a07(00)║若如來五陰和åˆæ•…有。å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030a08(00)â•‘å› äº”é™°å’Œåˆæœ‰æ•…。å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a09(06)║如來ä¸ä»¥è‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½†å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ç”曰。若無自性。
T30n1564_p0030a10(03)â•‘äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½•ä»¥æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§äº¦ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a11(04)â•‘åˆç„¡ç›¸å¾…å› æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§ä¸å¯å¾—。ä¸å¯å¾—æ•…ä¸å為他。
T30n1564_p0030a12(01)║復次。
T30n1564_p0030a13(00)â•‘ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
T30n1564_p0030a14(00)║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--<i>It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if the sayings are his stand, then NÄgÄrjuna seems to contradict his own theory of the denial of svabhava. It is either NÄgÄrjuna's stand or not. But on this level of decision between either-or, it is only revealed that the it just does not work to think of buddha's existence in terms of “nature性†which is always <i>a posteriori</i>, post-cognition. Or it is neither NÄgÄrjuna's stand nor not. On this level, his stand can at last be revealed: away from the idea of nature 性見, one can begin to “talk about†tathÄgataḥ.
--é’ç›®'s explanation: Just as the five fingers make a fist possible for the latter depends on the former's certain function, the five skandhÄḥ make a self possible. What is made possible in the above analogy has no self-existence, for it “depends†on others. Then it is asked what a buddha's existence can be?
--Critique: This verse is a response to the former verse's left-over question: a buddha's existence cannot depend on the coordinated operation of five skandhÄḥ, for if so, the former would depend on others and then loose self-nature; without self-nature, how can it be the existence of buddha.
--Critique: Now NÄgÄrjuna becomes someone for self-nature? NO! The term “anÄtmÄ iti†non-self does not equal self-nature. Self-nature is an abstract, absolute nature which is regarded as self-dependent; non-self is non-subjectivity. TathÄgataḥ has no self-nature, but has to have subjectivity! However, why not the case that tathÄgataḥ depends on five skandhÄḥ and still has subjectivity? Does the analogy of finger-fist work? I do not think so. Finger and fist are both cognized objets, whereas tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ may not so decisive. But perhaps this is NÄgÄrjuna's point? Perhaps tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ are cognized objects, too, since it is the case that we “know†there is athÄgataḥ and we “know†there are skandhÄḥ, and hence our in-decisiveness is the cause of all problems? But with the reconstruction to “transcendentalize†the “know†here, the problem of the “dependence†here may be resolved, since the know become an “idealization†and no longer a linguistic reference!
T30n1564_p0030a15(00)â•‘è‹¥æ³•å› çœ¾ç·£ç”Ÿã€‚å³ç„¡æœ‰æˆ‘。
T30n1564_p0030a16(05)â•‘å¦‚å› äº”æŒ‡æœ‰æ‹³ã€‚æ˜¯æ‹³ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªé«”ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å› äº”é™°å我。
T30n1564_p0030a17(01)║是我å³ç„¡è‡ªé«”。我有種種å。
T30n1564_p0030a18(06)║或å眾生人天如來ç‰ã€‚è‹¥å¦‚ä¾†å› äº”é™°æœ‰ã€‚å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a19(02)║無自性故無我。若無我云何說å如來。
T30n1564_p0030a20(03)║是故åˆä¸èªªæ³•è‹¥å› 他生是å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘。
T30n1564_p0030a21(05)║若法éžæˆ‘者云何是如來。復次。
T30n1564_p0030a22(00)║ 若無有自性  云何有他性
T30n1564_p0030a23(00)║ 離自性他性  何å為如來
--<i>If there is not self-nature, how would there be other-nature? Without self-nature and other nature, who is this tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the verse is a question: if without svabhava and parabhava, what is sufficient for calling a tathagata? I would answer: subjectivity.
T30n1564_p0030a24(00)║若無自性。他性亦ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a25(05)â•‘å› è‡ªæ€§æ•…å他性。æ¤ç„¡æ•…彼亦無。是故自性他性二俱無。
T30n1564_p0030a26(00)║若離自性他性。誰為如來。復次。
T30n1564_p0030a27(00)║ 若ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
T30n1564_p0030a28(00)║ 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
--<i>If there were to exist a tathagata not employing the constituents, he would be employing [them] at this moment, therefore he would exist employing them.</i>
--If we assume that there were to exist a subject before any employment of the five skandas; only when the subject were employing them there would exist such a subject.
--Critique: this verse is too jumpy in relation to the former arguments...
T30n1564_p0030a29(00)║ 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
T30n1564_p0030b01(00)║ 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
--<i>There does not exist any tathagata who is not employing the constituents; and he who does not exist, not employing [them], how does he employ [them]?</i>
--Critique: The verse is a response to the former verse, saying that the later half of the former verse is actually a self-contradiction. If only the subject with the operation of the five skandas were to exist, there would exist no subject without the operation of the five skandas. Also, if the subject without the operation of five skandas were not to exist, what would be going to employ them? Given that the subject without operation of five skandas is assumed, it is then only an assumption.
--Critique: What if we just idealize the subject whose ideality can only base itself on the ground of the operation of the five skandas? Also, if we do not assume a subject, how can we believe the operations of the five skandas belong to certain identity?
T30n1564_p0030b02(00)║ 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
T30n1564_p0030b03(00)║ 無有無å—法  而å為如來
--<i>The tathagata never exists as an ungrasped grasping; and in no way is there a tathagata without grasping.</i>
--Critique:鳩摩羅什's translation is not quite following the Sanskrit in the first half of the verse. The translation means: without employment, what the employment (the grasping) is resulted in cannot be entitled “graspedâ€. This half nonetheless obviously indicates that the non-employed employment makes no sense, refusing the model of non-employed employer which is potential to employ the five skandas. The later half of the verse reinforce the statement.
--Critique: the transcendental subject as a mere idea whose basis can only be found in the employment of five skandas, is indeed a tathagata non-employed yet potential to employ which only exists at the moment of employment. Would NÄgÄrjuna reject that?
T30n1564_p0030b04(00)║ 若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾—
T30n1564_p0030b05(00)║ 五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
--<i>The tathagata, who being sought after in five ways through identity and difference does not exist, through the act of grasping, how can he be understood?</i>
T30n1564_p0030b06(00)║ åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
T30n1564_p0030b07(00)║ 若無自性者  云何有他性
<i>Also the world in time and space to ourself-- and hence they are mediate and the fundamental assay for further inference. The eternity, non-eternity, not eternal and not non-eternal hagata and fivewhich we “realize†are possible only in “experience世間,†cognition-dependent and experience-dependent. Leave cognition and experience, we cannot still stick to the “sense†of time, and it just does not matter regarding the four aspects of the temporal sense; space   云何有他性
<i>Also that which isgrsimilar with its four e, ects: limitless, limit, not limitless and not limit. Everythst tbegins with the birth of space and time, altogether, not only the objects we realize in them, but also the aspects of the senses of space and time themselves. The same reason as we reject the svabhava of everything, we reject the svabhava of space and time.
T30n1564_p0030c02(00)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å¾®å¦™å¯‚æ»…ã€‚ä½†å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–。
T30n1564_p0030c03(01)║起四種邪見。世間有常。世間無常。
T30n1564_p0030c04(04)║世間常無常。世間éžå¸¸éžç„¡å¸¸ã€‚寂滅ä¸ç›¡ç„¡ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030c05(01)║諸法實相。畢竟清淨ä¸å¯å–。空尚ä¸å—。
T30n1564_p0030c06(02)║何æ³æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å››ç¨®è¦‹çš†å› å—生。
T30n1564_p0030c07(05)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ç„¡æ‰€å› å—。四種見皆以自見為貴。他見為賤。
T30n1564_p0030c08(00)║諸法實相無有æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c09(08)║是故說寂滅ä¸ç„¡å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å¦‚å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–有四種見。
T30n1564_p0030c10(04)â•‘å› æœªä¾†ä¸–æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹äº¦å¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ä¸–é–“æœ‰é‚Šã€‚ä¸–é–“ç„¡é‚Šã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c11(01)║世間有邊無邊。世間éžæœ‰é‚Šéžç„¡é‚Šã€‚å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c12(01)â•‘è‹¥å¦‚æ˜¯ç ´å¦‚ä¾†è€…ã€‚å‰‡ç„¡å¦‚ä¾†è€¶ã€‚ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030c13(00)║ 邪見深厚者  則說無如來
T30n1564_p0030c14(00)║ 如來寂滅相  分別有亦éž
<i>By whom is held firmly the understanding thn]a solid tathagata “exists,†conjecturing, he would also imagine “he does not exist†in the ceased [state].</i>
T30n1564_p0030c15(00)â•‘é‚ªè¦‹æœ‰äºŒç¨®ã€‚ä¸€è€…ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c16(05)â•‘äºŒè€…ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“ã€‚ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚è€…ã€‚æ˜¯éº¤é‚ªè¦‹ã€‚è¨€ç„¡ç½ªç„¡ç¦ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c17(00)║無如來ç‰è³¢è–。起是邪見æ¨å–„為惡。
T30n1564_p0030c18(02)â•‘å‰‡ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“者。貪著於我。分別有無。
T30n1564_p0030c19(00)║起善滅惡。起善故得世間樂。
T30n1564_p0030c20(05)║分別有無故ä¸å¾—涅槃。是故若言無如來者。
T30n1564_p0030c21(04)║是深厚邪見。乃失世間樂。何æ³æ¶…槃。若言有如來。
T30n1564_p0030c22(01)║亦是邪見。何以故。如來寂滅相。而種種分別故。
T30n1564_p0030c23(00)║是故寂滅相ä¸ã€‚分別有如來。亦為éžã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c24(00)║ 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
T30n1564_p0030c25(00)║ 如來滅度後  分別於有無
<i>And with ver d tcusible [that] beyond cessation a buddha either “is†or “is notâ€.</i>
T30n1564_p0030c26(00)║諸法實相性空故。
T30n1564_p0030c27(09)â•‘ä¸æ‡‰æ–¼å¦‚來滅後æ€æƒŸè‹¥æœ‰è‹¥ç„¡ã€‚若有無。如來從本已來畢竟空。
T30n1564_p0030c28(00)║何æ³æ»…後。
T30n1564_p0030c29(00)║ 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
T30n1564_p0031a01(00)â•‘ã€€æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›
<i>[Those] who dewell on a buddha passed beyond hinderances and imperishabl64_p0031a03(05)║言佛滅ä¸æ»…ç‰ã€‚是人為戲論。
T30n1564_p0031a04(10)║覆慧眼故ä¸èƒ½è¦‹å¦‚來法身。æ¤å¦‚來å“ä¸ã€‚åˆä¸å¾Œæ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a05(05)║如來定性ä¸å¯å¾—。是故åˆèªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a06(00)║ 如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
T30n1564_p0031a07(00)║ 如來無有性  世間亦無性
<i>What is the tathagata as self-nature, horum removal]the tathagata is without rience-dependfrom where tht. that through other world is without self-perien? .e, we cannot still0b1atick to若未å—五陰。先有如來者ä¸æ€æƒŸæŽ¨æ±‚。如來性å³æ˜¯ä¸€åˆ‡ä¸–間性oval]0b doe6)â•‘0)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚何ç‰emoval]今應å—五陰。已作如來來無有性the four aspe0bcts1001f t實未å—五陰時先無如來。今云何當å—。åˆä¸å—五陰者。
T30n1564_p0030b11(04)║五陰ä¸å為å—。無有無å—而å為如來。
T30n1564_p0030b12(05)â•‘åˆå¦‚來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。無性。al sense; space is similar with its four aspects: limitless, limit, not limitless and not limit. Everything begins with the birth of space and time, altogether, not only the objects we realize in them, but also the aspects of the senses of space and time themselves. The same reason as we reject the svabhava of everything, we reject the svabhava of space and time.
T30n1564_p0030c02(00)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å¾®å¦™å¯‚æ»…ã€‚ä½†å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–。
T30n1564_p0030c03(01)║起四種邪見。世間有常。世間無常。
T30n1564_p0030c04(04)║世間常無常。世間éžå¸¸éžç„¡å¸¸ã€‚寂滅ä¸ç›¡ç„¡ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030c05(01)║諸法實相。畢竟清淨ä¸å¯å–。空尚ä¸å—。
T30n1564_p0030c06(02)║何æ³æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å››ç¨®è¦‹çš†å› å—生。
T30n1564_p0030c07(05)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ç„¡æ‰€å› å—。四種見皆以自見為貴。他見為賤。
T30n1564_p0030c08(00)║諸法實相無有æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c09(08)║是故說寂滅ä¸ç„¡å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å¦‚å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–有四種見。
T30n1564_p0030c10(04)â•‘å› æœªä¾†ä¸–æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹äº¦å¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ä¸–é–“æœ‰é‚Šã€‚ä¸–é–“ç„¡é‚Šã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c11(01)║世間有邊無邊。世間éžæœ‰é‚Šéžç„¡é‚Šã€‚å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c12(01)â•‘è‹¥å¦‚æ˜¯ç ´å¦‚ä¾†è€…ã€‚å‰‡ç„¡å¦‚ä¾†è€¶ã€‚ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030c13(00)║ 邪見深厚者  則說無如來
T30n1564_p0030c14(00)║ 如來寂滅相  分別有亦éž
<i>By whom is held firmly the understanding that a solid tathagata “exists,†conjecturing, he would also imagine “he does not exist†in the ceased [state].</i>
T30n1564_p0030c15(00)â•‘é‚ªè¦‹æœ‰äºŒç¨®ã€‚ä¸€è€…ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c16(05)â•‘äºŒè€…ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“ã€‚ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚è€…ã€‚æ˜¯éº¤é‚ªè¦‹ã€‚è¨€ç„¡ç½ªç„¡ç¦ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c17(00)║無如來ç‰è³¢è–。起是邪見æ¨å–„為惡。
T30n1564_p0030c18(02)â•‘å‰‡ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“者。貪著於我。分別有無。
T30n1564_p0030c19(00)║起善滅惡。起善故得世間樂。
T30n1564_p0030c20(05)║分別有無故ä¸å¾—涅槃。是故若言無如來者。
T30n1564_p0030c21(04)║是深厚邪見。乃失世間樂。何æ³æ¶…槃。若言有如來。
T30n1564_p0030c22(01)║亦是邪見。何以故。如來寂滅相。而種種分別故。
T30n1564_p0030c23(00)║是故寂滅相ä¸ã€‚分別有如來。亦為éžã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c24(00)║ 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
T30n1564_p0030c25(00)║ 如來滅度後  分別於有無
<i>And with this being empty in respect to self-nature, the thought is never plausible [that] beyond cessation a buddha either “is†or “is notâ€.</i>
T30n1564_p0030c26(00)║諸法實相性空故。
T30n1564_p0030c27(09)â•‘ä¸æ‡‰æ–¼å¦‚來滅後æ€æƒŸè‹¥æœ‰è‹¥ç„¡ã€‚若有無。如來從本已來畢竟空。
T30n1564_p0030c28(00)║何æ³æ»…後。
T30n1564_p0030c29(00)║ 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
T30n1564_p0031a01(00)â•‘ã€€æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›
<i>[Those] who dewell on a buddha passed beyond hinderances and imperishable, they all afflicted by hinderances, do not see the tathagata.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a02(00)║戲論å憶念å–相分別æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a03(05)║言佛滅ä¸æ»…ç‰ã€‚是人為戲論。
T30n1564_p0031a04(10)║覆慧眼故ä¸èƒ½è¦‹å¦‚來法身。æ¤å¦‚來å“ä¸ã€‚åˆä¸å¾Œæ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a05(05)║如來定性ä¸å¯å¾—。是故åˆèªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a06(00)║ 如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
T30n1564_p0031a07(00)║ 如來無有性  世間亦無性
<i>What is the tathagata as self-nature, that is this world as self-nature; the tathagata is without self-nature, this world is without self-nature.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a08(00)â•‘æ¤å“ä¸æ€æƒŸæŽ¨æ±‚。如來性å³æ˜¯ä¸€åˆ‡ä¸–間性。
T30n1564_p0031a09(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來性。ç”曰。如來無有性。
T30n1564_p0031a10(01)â•‘åŒä¸–間無性。
<div align=center>--------------------------</div>
å˜—è©¦å°‡é Œæ–‡è¯æˆç™½è©±æ¼¢èªžï¼š
 觀如來å“第二å二
é Œä¸€ï¼š
éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
白話:如來ä¸æ˜¯äº”蘊,也ä¸é›¢äº”蘊,彼æ¤ä¸åœ¨å½¼æ¤ä¸ï¼Œå¦‚來ä¸å…·æœ‰äº”蘊,那哪裡有如來呢?
é ŒäºŒï¼š
 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
白話:五蘊和åˆå¦‚來始å˜æœ‰ï¼Œé‚£éº¼å¦‚來應無自性,如果如來無自性,怎麼能說有他性?
é Œä¸‰ï¼š
ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
白話:事物åªè¦ä¾ä»–ç‰©ç‚ºå› è€Œç”Ÿï¼Œå…¶è‡ªèº«å°±ç„¡æˆ‘ï¼Œå¦‚æžœæŸäº‹å±¬æ–¼æ¤é¡žï¼Œé‚£æ–·éžå¦‚來,那什麼是如來?
é Œå››ï¼š
 若無有自性  云何有他性
 離自性他性  何å為如來
白話:如果沒有自性,怎樣會有他性呢?若判離自性他性,那如來到底是怎樣而å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來呢?
 
é Œäº”ï¼š
è‹¥ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
白話:如果如來ä¸ä¾äº”è˜Šç‚ºä»–å› è€Œå…ˆæ–¼äº”è˜Šå˜æœ‰ï¼Œå¾…如來作動ã€äº”蘊始有,而該作動五蘊者稱作如來,這åˆå¦‚何?
é Œå…:
 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
白話:事實上,如果在如來ä¸ä½œå‹•è€Œäº”蘊ä¸èµ·ä¹‹éš›ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªæœ‰å¦‚來實有呢?如果說五蘊ä¸èµ·å¦‚來ä¸ä½œå‹•å‰‡ç„¡å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來,我們ç¾åœ¨é‚„能說是誰在作動呢?
é Œä¸ƒï¼š
 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
 無有無å—法  而å為如來 
ç™½è©±ï¼šå¦‚æžœå¦‚ä¾†é‚„æœªæœ‰ä½œå‹•ï¼Œè¢«ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„å› æœªç™¼ç”Ÿè€Œä¸è©²è¢«ç¨±ä½œä½œå‹•ï¼Œè€Œæ²’有那種未作動而有的任何å˜æœ‰å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來。(按鳩摩羅什漢è¯ï¼‰
如來從未以一種未å–çš„æ‘å–者å˜åœ¨ï¼Œä¸”ä¸å¯èƒ½æœ‰ä¸€ç¨®æœªæ‘å–的如來。(據梵英å°ç…§è¯ï¼‰
é Œå…«ï¼š
若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾— 
五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€æ¥èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 17, 2009 06:51AM
ä¸è«–觀如來å“第二å二agataination of Tathagata
T30n1564_p0029c02(00)â•‘ä¸è«–å·ç¬¬å››
T30n1564_p0029c03(00)â•‘
T30n1564_p0029c04(00)║    é¾æ¨¹è©è–©é€ 梵志é’目釋
T30n1564_p0029c05(00)║    姚秦三è—鳩摩羅什è¯
T30n1564_p0029c06(00)║  觀如來å“第二å二(åå…åˆ)
T30n1564_p0029c07(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚一切世ä¸å°Šã€‚唯有如來æ£é知。
T30n1564_p0029c08(02)║號為法王。一切智人是則應有。ç”曰。今諦æ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c09(00)║若有應å–。若無何所å–。何以故。如來。
-å–ï¼What does this exactly mean? If translated as “grasp,†this is an ontological explanation; if “employ,†this is an epistemological explanation.
T30n1564_p0029c10(00)║ éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
T30n1564_p0029c11(00)║ 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
--<i>Not the constituents, not different from the constituents, the constituents are not in him, and he is not in them. A tathagata is not possessed of a constituent; in this, which is a tathagata?</i>
--If tathÄgataḥ is real, it is only possible when the tathÄgataḥ (nom. sg.) <i>T</i> and the five skandhÄḥ (pl./ skandhÄ sg./ skandhas) <i>S</i> are in one of the following relations:
(1)<i>T</i> is <i>S</i>
(2)<i>T</i> is distinct away from <i>S</i>
(3)<i>S</i> is in <i>T</i>
(4)<i>T</i> is in <i>S</i>
(5)<i>T</i> is possessed of <i>S</i>
Now, NÄgÄrjuna has refuted all of the possibilities, it is then only possible that the premise is not acceptible and that tathÄgataḥ isn't real.
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(1)is not acceptable, because if so, tathÄgataḥ would be as “real†as empirical objects which “would be born and would die.†If tathÄgataḥ were as such, it contradicts the eight denials. Besides, the employer å—者 and the employed å—法 are one and the same, which we find implausible here.
--Critique: However, saying tathÄgataḥ is the five skandhÄḥ does not necessarily mean the former is the product of the latter. TathÄgataḥ could yet be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that (a- transcendental reading) the former is the transcendental subject which makes the empirical objects fit the characteristics of possessing the aspects of the latter, so that it can be reasonable that the former could be so transcendentally idealized; (b-absolute reading) the former is an “external†cause of the latter (which is denied in (2)) that the cause makes possible the effect from which five skandhÄḥ can be empirically distinguished.
--Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “means of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? But, Candrakirti's criticism that if DignÄga's theory is accepted then there would be infinite regress problem regarding the svasamvitti's pre-existence, is not plausible if we explain away the realist's paralogism regarding the pramÄṇa-pramÄṇaphala distinction... How would NÄgÄrjuna himself response to the question here?
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(2) is not acceptable, because if so, the independent tathÄgataḥ would be free of birth-death, and then tathÄgataḥ would be external 常, which contradicts the eight denials.
Besides, if there were such independent tathÄgataḥ, the functioning of the five senses could not result in as such, as known to the subject (tathÄgataḥ).
--Critique: How should we treat the eight denials? Are they the end of the argument or the beginning of the argument?
--Suggest: In 深觀ã€æ³¢è‹¥æ³¢ç¾…蜜, it is intuited that the ultimate reality is best conventionally characterized as such, and hence the eight denials need argued for conventionally, yet the argument can be made <i>only</i> with the ultimate, <i>a priori</i>, intuition to “consult with†– a reconstruction from Kant's idea of pure intuition.
--Reflection: Eight denials are all conventional characterization. People who has observed the intuitive source of them can both ultimately and conventionally “grasp†the characterization; people who has not observed the intuitive source of them can only conventionally grasp it. That's why Buddha's words is a practical teach!
--Critique: the argument é’ç›® offers here can only rule out the absolute reading (b) above, for a transcendental tathÄgataḥ is not independent from the five skandhÄḥ. The transcendental reading still survives.
--Critique: Besides, if we say, further tuned transcendental reading, that the tathÄgataḥ could be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that both terms are just names å‡å for in ultimate truth, tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ be not reasonable at all: we have conventional, empirical experience as such, which can be characterized with the the skandhÄḥ theory and hence it can be postulated that there might reasonably be tathÄgataḥ. But the characterization and the postulation above can only be valid in relation to experience; hence, the transcendental reading is tuned to tone with the denial of “tathÄgataḥ being the five skandhÄḥ.â€
é’ç›®'s explanation:
(3)and
(4)are not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the container of the latter or vise versa; and if the former and the latter are different, it contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
(5)Is not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•° as well, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the possessor of the latter; and if so, it also contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
--Critique: Again, how should we treat the eight denials?
--Summary: With the absolute reading of the tathÄgataḥ-skandhÄḥ problem, it is then said all the five postulations are wrong; with the reading bearing the idea that tathÄgataḥ is not real (our conventional demand for reality always targets the ultimate reality, based upon which the reality as such should be denied so that the ultimate reality and the conventional reality can both be preserved)*, similarly, with the transcendental reading, it just does not matter at all whether you hold the five postulations or not.
*The real in “tathÄgataḥ is not real†is paralgic for what we can say ever of the real and what is demanded in the sentence is not mutually qualified. Hence, the denial of such “reality†can break the paralogism embedded: denying the absolute, cognition-free, skandhÄḥ-free reality of tathÄgataḥ is actually the refuse to such a demand from conventional realm to the ultimate realm; without such a crossover, it just does not matter with the five postulations.
T30n1564_p0029c12(00)║若如來實有者。為五陰是如來。
T30n1564_p0029c13(04)║為離五陰有如來。為如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c14(06)║為五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。為如來有五陰。是事皆ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c15(04)║五陰éžæ˜¯å¦‚來。何以故。生滅相故。五陰生滅相。
T30n1564_p0029c16(03)║若如來是五陰。如來å³æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…相。若生滅相者。
T30n1564_p0029c17(01)║如來å³æœ‰ç„¡å¸¸æ–·æ»…ç‰éŽã€‚åˆå—者å—法則一。
T30n1564_p0029c18(01)â•‘å—者是如來。å—法是五陰。是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c19(04)║是故如來éžæ˜¯äº”陰。離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c20(04)║若離五陰有如來者。ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ç”Ÿæ»…相。若爾者。
T30n1564_p0029c21(02)║如來有常ç‰éŽã€‚åˆçœ¼ç‰è«¸æ ¹ä¸èƒ½è¦‹çŸ¥ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c22(03)║但是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚是故離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c23(04)║如來ä¸äº¦ç„¡äº”陰。何以故。若如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c24(03)║如器ä¸æœ‰æžœæ°´ä¸æœ‰éšè€…。則為有異。若異者。
T30n1564_p0029c25(02)â•‘å³æœ‰å¦‚上常ç‰éŽã€‚是故如來ä¸ç„¡äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c26(04)â•‘åˆäº”é™°ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。何以故。若五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。
T30n1564_p0029c27(03)║如床上有人器ä¸æœ‰ä¹³è€…。如是則有別異。
T30n1564_p0029c28(03)║如上說éŽã€‚是故五陰ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。如來亦ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c29(00)║何以故。若如來有五陰。如人有å。
T30n1564_p0030a01(03)║如是則有別異。若爾者。有如上éŽã€‚是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a02(02)║是故如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。如是五種求ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a03(02)║何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來。å•æ›°ã€‚如是義求如來ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a04(02)║而五陰和åˆæœ‰å¦‚來。ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030a05(00)║ 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
T30n1564_p0030a06(00)â•‘ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
--<i>If a buddha [exists] by means of the constituents, he does not exist with regard to self-nature. And if he does not exist with regard to self-nature, how can he with regard to other-nature.</i>
--If a buddha's existence “depends†on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ, then such an existence is not with svabhava. Without svabhava equals without his-nature.
--Critique: The baseline is, the existence of a buddha is free of svabhava; based on this, the verse can be read that the existence of a buddha indeed depends on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ and hence has no svabhava and hence no his-nature. Then, perhaps it is one option to say that the existence of a buddha “depends†on the coordinated operation of skandhÄḥ. But here comes a question: if this verse fundamentally contradict with the first verse? Is such a dependence not one of the five possibilities, say, T<i> is S</i>, then the existence becomes a birth-death matter, empirical, post-cognition?
T30n1564_p0030a07(00)║若如來五陰和åˆæ•…有。å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030a08(00)â•‘å› äº”é™°å’Œåˆæœ‰æ•…。å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a09(06)║如來ä¸ä»¥è‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½†å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ç”曰。若無自性。
T30n1564_p0030a10(03)â•‘äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½•ä»¥æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§äº¦ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a11(04)â•‘åˆç„¡ç›¸å¾…å› æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§ä¸å¯å¾—。ä¸å¯å¾—æ•…ä¸å為他。
T30n1564_p0030a12(01)║復次。
T30n1564_p0030a13(00)â•‘ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
T30n1564_p0030a14(00)║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--<i>It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if the sayings are his stand, then NÄgÄrjuna seems to contradict his own theory of the denial of svabhava. It is either NÄgÄrjuna's stand or not. But on this level of decision between either-or, it is only revealed that the it just does not work to think of buddha's existence in terms of “nature性†which is always <i>a posteriori</i>, post-cognition. Or it is neither NÄgÄrjuna's stand nor not. On this level, his stand can at last be revealed: away from the idea of nature 性見, one can begin to “talk about†tathÄgataḥ.
--é’ç›®'s explanation: Just as the five fingers make a fist possible for the latter depends on the former's certain function, the five skandhÄḥ make a self possible. What is made possible in the above analogy has no self-existence, for it “depends†on others. Then it is asked what a buddha's existence can be?
--Critique: This verse is a response to the former verse's left-over question: a buddha's existence cannot depend on the coordinated operation of five skandhÄḥ, for if so, the former would depend on others and then loose self-nature; without self-nature, how can it be the existence of buddha.
--Critique: Now NÄgÄrjuna becomes someone for self-nature? NO! The term “anÄtmÄ iti†non-self does not equal self-nature. Self-nature is an abstract, absolute nature which is regarded as self-dependent; non-self is non-subjectivity. TathÄgataḥ has no self-nature, but has to have subjectivity! However, why not the case that tathÄgataḥ depends on five skandhÄḥ and still has subjectivity? Does the analogy of finger-fist work? I do not think so. Finger and fist are both cognized objets, whereas tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ may not so decisive. But perhaps this is NÄgÄrjuna's point? Perhaps tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ are cognized objects, too, since it is the case that we “know†there is athÄgataḥ and we “know†there are skandhÄḥ, and hence our in-decisiveness is the cause of all problems? But with the reconstruction to “transcendentalize†the “know†here, the problem of the “dependence†here may be resolved, since the know become an “idealization†and no longer a linguistic reference!
T30n1564_p0030a15(00)â•‘è‹¥æ³•å› çœ¾ç·£ç”Ÿã€‚å³ç„¡æœ‰æˆ‘。
T30n1564_p0030a16(05)â•‘å¦‚å› äº”æŒ‡æœ‰æ‹³ã€‚æ˜¯æ‹³ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªé«”ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å› äº”é™°å我。
T30n1564_p0030a17(01)║是我å³ç„¡è‡ªé«”。我有種種å。
T30n1564_p0030a18(06)║或å眾生人天如來ç‰ã€‚è‹¥å¦‚ä¾†å› äº”é™°æœ‰ã€‚å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a19(02)║無自性故無我。若無我云何說å如來。
T30n1564_p0030a20(03)║是故åˆä¸èªªæ³•è‹¥å› 他生是å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘。
T30n1564_p0030a21(05)║若法éžæˆ‘者云何是如來。復次。
T30n1564_p0030a22(00)║ 若無有自性  云何有他性
T30n1564_p0030a23(00)║ 離自性他性  何å為如來
--<i>If there is not self-nature, how would there be other-nature? Without self-nature and other nature, who is this tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the verse is a question: if without svabhava and parabhava, what is sufficient for calling a tathagata? I would answer: subjectivity.
T30n1564_p0030a24(00)║若無自性。他性亦ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a25(05)â•‘å› è‡ªæ€§æ•…å他性。æ¤ç„¡æ•…彼亦無。是故自性他性二俱無。
T30n1564_p0030a26(00)║若離自性他性。誰為如來。復次。
T30n1564_p0030a27(00)║ 若ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
T30n1564_p0030a28(00)║ 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
--<i>If there were to exist a tathagata not employing the constituents, he would be employing [them] at this moment, therefore he would exist employing them.</i>
--If we assume that there were to exist a subject before any employment of the five skandas; only when the subject were employing them there would exist such a subject.
--Critique: this verse is too jumpy in relation to the former arguments...
T30n1564_p0030a29(00)║ 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
T30n1564_p0030b01(00)║ 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
--<i>There does not exist any tathagata who is not employing the constituents; and he who does not exist, not employing [them], how does he employ [them]?</i>
--Critique: The verse is a response to the former verse, saying that the later half of the former verse is actually a self-contradiction. If only the subject with the operation of the five skandas were to exist, there would exist no subject without the operation of the five skandas. Also, if the subject without the operation of five skandas were not to exist, what would be going to employ them? Given that the subject without operation of five skandas is assumed, it is then only an assumption.
--Critique: What if we just idealize the subject whose ideality can only base itself on the ground of the operation of the five skandas? Also, if we do not assume a subject, how can we believe the operations of the five skandas belong to certain identity?
T30n1564_p0030b02(00)║ 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
T30n1564_p0030b03(00)║ 無有無å—法  而å為如來
--<i>The tathagata never exists as an ungrasped grasping; and in no way is there a tathagata without grasping.</i>
--Critique:鳩摩羅什's translation is not quite following the Sanskrit in the first half of the verse. The translation means: without employment, what the employment (the grasping) is resulted in cannot be entitled “graspedâ€. This half nonetheless obviously indicates that the non-employed employment makes no sense, refusing the model of non-employed employer which is potential to employ the five skandas. The later half of the verse reinforce the statement.
--Critique: the transcendental subject as a mere idea whose basis can only be found in the employment of five skandas, is indeed a tathagata non-employed yet potential to employ which only exists at the moment of employment. Would NÄgÄrjuna reject that?
T30n1564_p0030b04(00)║ 若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾—
T30n1564_p0030b05(00)║ 五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
--<i>The tathagata, who being sought after in five ways through identity and difference does not exist, through the act of grasping, how can he be understood?</i>
T30n1564_p0030b06(00)║ åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
T30n1564_p0030b07(00)║ 若無自性者  云何有他性
<i>Also that which is grasping at this place, that is not known through self-nature; and what does not exist through self-nature, from where is that through other nature?
T30n1564_p0030b08(00)║若未å—五陰。先有如來者。
T30n1564_p0030b09(06)║是如來今應å—五陰。已作如來。
T30n1564_p0030b10(10)║而實未å—五陰時先無如來。今云何當å—。åˆä¸å—五陰者。
T30n1564_p0030b11(04)║五陰ä¸å為å—。無有無å—而å為如來。
T30n1564_p0030b12(05)â•‘åˆå¦‚來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。<i>Also hagata and fivewhich   云何有他性
<i>Also that which isgre, st t如來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。al sense; space is similar with its four aspects: limitless, limit, not limitless and not limit. Everything begins with the birth of space and time, altogether, not only the objects we realize in them, but also the aspects of the senses of space and time themselves. The same reason as we reject the svabhava of everything, we reject the svabhava of space and time.
T30n1564_p0030c02(00)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å¾®å¦™å¯‚æ»…ã€‚ä½†å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–。
T30n1564_p0030c03(01)║起四種邪見。世間有常。世間無常。
T30n1564_p0030c04(04)║世間常無常。世間éžå¸¸éžç„¡å¸¸ã€‚寂滅ä¸ç›¡ç„¡ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030c05(01)║諸法實相。畢竟清淨ä¸å¯å–。空尚ä¸å—。
T30n1564_p0030c06(02)║何æ³æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å››ç¨®è¦‹çš†å› å—生。
T30n1564_p0030c07(05)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ç„¡æ‰€å› å—。四種見皆以自見為貴。他見為賤。
T30n1564_p0030c08(00)║諸法實相無有æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c09(08)║是故說寂滅ä¸ç„¡å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å¦‚å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–有四種見。
T30n1564_p0030c10(04)â•‘å› æœªä¾†ä¸–æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹äº¦å¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ä¸–é–“æœ‰é‚Šã€‚ä¸–é–“ç„¡é‚Šã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c11(01)║世間有邊無邊。世間éžæœ‰é‚Šéžç„¡é‚Šã€‚å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c12(01)â•‘è‹¥å¦‚æ˜¯ç ´å¦‚ä¾†è€…ã€‚å‰‡ç„¡å¦‚ä¾†è€¶ã€‚ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030c13(00)║ 邪見深厚者  則說無如來
T30n1564_p0030c14(00)║ 如來寂滅相  分別有亦éž
<i>By whom is held firmly the understanding that a solid tathagata “exists,†conjecturing, he would also imagine “he does not exist†in the ceased [state].</i>
T30n1564_p0030c15(00)â•‘é‚ªè¦‹æœ‰äºŒç¨®ã€‚ä¸€è€…ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c16(05)â•‘äºŒè€…ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“ã€‚ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚è€…ã€‚æ˜¯éº¤é‚ªè¦‹ã€‚è¨€ç„¡ç½ªç„¡ç¦ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c17(00)║無如來ç‰è³¢è–。起是邪見æ¨å–„為惡。
T30n1564_p0030c18(02)â•‘å‰‡ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“者。貪著於我。分別有無。
T30n1564_p0030c19(00)║起善滅惡。起善故得世間樂。
T30n1564_p0030c20(05)║分別有無故ä¸å¾—涅槃。是故若言無如來者。
T30n1564_p0030c21(04)║是深厚邪見。乃失世間樂。何æ³æ¶…槃。若言有如來。
T30n1564_p0030c22(01)║亦是邪見。何以故。如來寂滅相。而種種分別故。
T30n1564_p0030c23(00)║是故寂滅相ä¸ã€‚分別有如來。亦為éžã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c24(00)║ 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
T30n1564_p0030c25(00)║ 如來滅度後  分別於有無
<i>And with this being empty in respect to self-nature, the thought is never plausible [that] beyond cessation a buddha either “is†or “is notâ€.</i>
T30n1564_p0030c26(00)║諸法實相性空故。
T30n1564_p0030c27(09)â•‘ä¸æ‡‰æ–¼å¦‚來滅後æ€æƒŸè‹¥æœ‰è‹¥ç„¡ã€‚若有無。如來從本已來畢竟空。
T30n1564_p0030c28(00)║何æ³æ»…後。
T30n1564_p0030c29(00)║ 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
T30n1564_p0031a01(00)â•‘ã€€æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›
<i>[Those] who dewell on a buddha passed beyond hinderances and imperishable, they all afflicted by hinderances, do not see the tathagata.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a02(00)║戲論å憶念å–相分別æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a03(05)║言佛滅ä¸æ»…ç‰ã€‚是人為戲論。
T30n1564_p0031a04(10)║覆慧眼故ä¸èƒ½è¦‹å¦‚來法身。æ¤å¦‚來å“ä¸ã€‚åˆä¸å¾Œæ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a05(05)║如來定性ä¸å¯å¾—。是故åˆèªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a06(00)║ 如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
T30n1564_p0031a07(00)║ 如來無有性  世間亦無性
<i>What is the tathagata as self-nature, that is this world as self-nature; the tathagata is without self-nature, this world is without self-nature.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a08(00)â•‘æ¤å“ä¸æ€æƒŸæŽ¨æ±‚。如來性å³æ˜¯ä¸€åˆ‡ä¸–間性。
T30n1564_p0031a09(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來性。ç”曰。如來無有性。
T30n1564_p0031a10(01)â•‘åŒä¸–間無性。
<div align=center>--------------------------</div>
å˜—è©¦å°‡é Œæ–‡è¯æˆç™½è©±æ¼¢èªžï¼š
 觀如來å“第二å二
é Œä¸€ï¼š
éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
白話:如來ä¸æ˜¯äº”蘊,也ä¸é›¢äº”蘊,彼æ¤ä¸åœ¨å½¼æ¤ä¸ï¼Œå¦‚來ä¸å…·æœ‰äº”蘊,那哪裡有如來呢?
é ŒäºŒï¼š
 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
白話:五蘊和åˆå¦‚來始å˜æœ‰ï¼Œé‚£éº¼å¦‚來應無自性,如果如來無自性,怎麼能說有他性?
é Œä¸‰ï¼š
ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
白話:事物åªè¦ä¾ä»–ç‰©ç‚ºå› è€Œç”Ÿï¼Œå…¶è‡ªèº«å°±ç„¡æˆ‘ï¼Œå¦‚æžœæŸäº‹å±¬æ–¼æ¤é¡žï¼Œé‚£æ–·éžå¦‚來,那什麼是如來?
é Œå››ï¼š
 若無有自性  云何有他性
 離自性他性  何å為如來
白話:如果沒有自性,怎樣會有他性呢?若判離自性他性,那如來到底是怎樣而å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來呢?
 
é Œäº”ï¼š
è‹¥ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
白話:如果如來ä¸ä¾äº”è˜Šç‚ºä»–å› è€Œå…ˆæ–¼äº”è˜Šå˜æœ‰ï¼Œå¾…如來作動ã€äº”蘊始有,而該作動五蘊者稱作如來,這åˆå¦‚何?
é Œå…:
 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
白話:事實上,如果在如來ä¸ä½œå‹•è€Œäº”蘊ä¸èµ·ä¹‹éš›ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªæœ‰å¦‚來實有呢?如果說五蘊ä¸èµ·å¦‚來ä¸ä½œå‹•å‰‡ç„¡å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來,我們ç¾åœ¨é‚„能說是誰在作動呢?
é Œä¸ƒï¼š
 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
 無有無å—法  而å為如來 
ç™½è©±ï¼šå¦‚æžœå¦‚ä¾†é‚„æœªæœ‰ä½œå‹•ï¼Œè¢«ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„å› æœªç™¼ç”Ÿè€Œä¸è©²è¢«ç¨±ä½œä½œå‹•ï¼Œè€Œæ²’有那種未作動而有的任何å˜æœ‰å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來。(按鳩摩羅什漢è¯ï¼‰
如來從未以一種未å–çš„æ‘å–者å˜åœ¨ï¼Œä¸”ä¸å¯èƒ½æœ‰ä¸€ç¨®æœªæ‘å–的如來。(據梵英å°ç…§è¯ï¼‰
é Œå…«ï¼š
若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾— 
五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€æ¥èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 17, 2009 06:47AM
ä¸è«–觀如來å“第二å二ination of Tathagata
T30n1564_p0029c02(00)â•‘ä¸è«–å·ç¬¬å››
T30n1564_p0029c03(00)â•‘
T30n1564_p0029c04(00)║    é¾æ¨¹è©è–©é€ 梵志é’目釋
T30n1564_p0029c05(00)║    姚秦三è—鳩摩羅什è¯
T30n1564_p0029c06(00)║  觀如來å“第二å二(åå…åˆ)
T30n1564_p0029c07(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚一切世ä¸å°Šã€‚唯有如來æ£é知。
T30n1564_p0029c08(02)║號為法王。一切智人是則應有。ç”曰。今諦æ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c09(00)║若有應å–。若無何所å–。何以故。如來。
-å–ï¼What does this exactly mean? If translated as “grasp,†this is an ontological explanation; if “employ,†this is an epistemological explanation.
T30n1564_p0029c10(00)║ éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
T30n1564_p0029c11(00)║ 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
--<i>Not the constituents, not different from the constituents, the constituents are not in him, and he is not in them. A tathagata is not possessed of a constituent; in this, which is a tathagata?</i>
--If tathÄgataḥ is real, it is only possible when the tathÄgataḥ (nom. sg.) <i>T</i> and the five skandhÄḥ (pl./ skandhÄ sg./ skandhas) <i>S</i> are in one of the following relations:
(1)<i>T</i> is <i>S</i>
(2)<i>T</i> is distinct away from <i>S</i>
(3)<i>S</i> is in <i>T</i>
(4)<i>T</i> is in <i>S</i>
(5)<i>T</i> is possessed of <i>S</i>
Now, NÄgÄrjuna has refuted all of the possibilities, it is then only possible that the premise is not acceptible and that tathÄgataḥ isn't real.
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(1)is not acceptable, because if so, tathÄgataḥ would be as “real†as empirical objects which “would be born and would die.†If tathÄgataḥ were as such, it contradicts the eight denials. Besides, the employer å—者 and the employed å—法 are one and the same, which we find implausible here.
--Critique: However, saying tathÄgataḥ is the five skandhÄḥ does not necessarily mean the former is the product of the latter. TathÄgataḥ could yet be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that (a- transcendental reading) the former is the transcendental subject which makes the empirical objects fit the characteristics of possessing the aspects of the latter, so that it can be reasonable that the former could be so transcendentally idealized; (b-absolute reading) the former is an “external†cause of the latter (which is denied in (2)) that the cause makes possible the effect from which five skandhÄḥ can be empirically distinguished.
--Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “means of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? But, Candrakirti's criticism that if DignÄga's theory is accepted then there would be infinite regress problem regarding the svasamvitti's pre-existence, is not plausible if we explain away the realist's paralogism regarding the pramÄṇa-pramÄṇaphala distinction... How would NÄgÄrjuna himself response to the question here?
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(2) is not acceptable, because if so, the independent tathÄgataḥ would be free of birth-death, and then tathÄgataḥ would be external 常, which contradicts the eight denials.
Besides, if there were such independent tathÄgataḥ, the functioning of the five senses could not result in as such, as known to the subject (tathÄgataḥ).
--Critique: How should we treat the eight denials? Are they the end of the argument or the beginning of the argument?
--Suggest: In 深觀ã€æ³¢è‹¥æ³¢ç¾…蜜, it is intuited that the ultimate reality is best conventionally characterized as such, and hence the eight denials need argued for conventionally, yet the argument can be made <i>only</i> with the ultimate, <i>a priori</i>, intuition to “consult with†– a reconstruction from Kant's idea of pure intuition.
--Reflection: Eight denials are all conventional characterization. People who has observed the intuitive source of them can both ultimately and conventionally “grasp†the characterization; people who has not observed the intuitive source of them can only conventionally grasp it. That's why Buddha's words is a practical teach!
--Critique: the argument é’ç›® offers here can only rule out the absolute reading (b) above, for a transcendental tathÄgataḥ is not independent from the five skandhÄḥ. The transcendental reading still survives.
--Critique: Besides, if we say, further tuned transcendental reading, that the tathÄgataḥ could be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that both terms are just names å‡å for in ultimate truth, tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ be not reasonable at all: we have conventional, empirical experience as such, which can be characterized with the the skandhÄḥ theory and hence it can be postulated that there might reasonably be tathÄgataḥ. But the characterization and the postulation above can only be valid in relation to experience; hence, the transcendental reading is tuned to tone with the denial of “tathÄgataḥ being the five skandhÄḥ.â€
é’ç›®'s explanation:
(3)and
(4)are not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the container of the latter or vise versa; and if the former and the latter are different, it contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
(5)Is not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•° as well, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the possessor of the latter; and if so, it also contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
--Critique: Again, how should we treat the eight denials?
--Summary: With the absolute reading of the tathÄgataḥ-skandhÄḥ problem, it is then said all the five postulations are wrong; with the reading bearing the idea that tathÄgataḥ is not real (our conventional demand for reality always targets the ultimate reality, based upon which the reality as such should be denied so that the ultimate reality and the conventional reality can both be preserved)*, similarly, with the transcendental reading, it just does not matter at all whether you hold the five postulations or not.
*The real in “tathÄgataḥ is not real†is paralgic for what we can say ever of the real and what is demanded in the sentence is not mutually qualified. Hence, the denial of such “reality†can break the paralogism embedded: denying the absolute, cognition-free, skandhÄḥ-free reality of tathÄgataḥ is actually the refuse to such a demand from conventional realm to the ultimate realm; without such a crossover, it just does not matter with the five postulations.
T30n1564_p0029c12(00)║若如來實有者。為五陰是如來。
T30n1564_p0029c13(04)║為離五陰有如來。為如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c14(06)║為五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。為如來有五陰。是事皆ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c15(04)║五陰éžæ˜¯å¦‚來。何以故。生滅相故。五陰生滅相。
T30n1564_p0029c16(03)║若如來是五陰。如來å³æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…相。若生滅相者。
T30n1564_p0029c17(01)║如來å³æœ‰ç„¡å¸¸æ–·æ»…ç‰éŽã€‚åˆå—者å—法則一。
T30n1564_p0029c18(01)â•‘å—者是如來。å—法是五陰。是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c19(04)║是故如來éžæ˜¯äº”陰。離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c20(04)║若離五陰有如來者。ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ç”Ÿæ»…相。若爾者。
T30n1564_p0029c21(02)║如來有常ç‰éŽã€‚åˆçœ¼ç‰è«¸æ ¹ä¸èƒ½è¦‹çŸ¥ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c22(03)║但是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚是故離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c23(04)║如來ä¸äº¦ç„¡äº”陰。何以故。若如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c24(03)║如器ä¸æœ‰æžœæ°´ä¸æœ‰éšè€…。則為有異。若異者。
T30n1564_p0029c25(02)â•‘å³æœ‰å¦‚上常ç‰éŽã€‚是故如來ä¸ç„¡äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c26(04)â•‘åˆäº”é™°ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。何以故。若五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。
T30n1564_p0029c27(03)║如床上有人器ä¸æœ‰ä¹³è€…。如是則有別異。
T30n1564_p0029c28(03)║如上說éŽã€‚是故五陰ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。如來亦ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c29(00)║何以故。若如來有五陰。如人有å。
T30n1564_p0030a01(03)║如是則有別異。若爾者。有如上éŽã€‚是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a02(02)║是故如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。如是五種求ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a03(02)║何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來。å•æ›°ã€‚如是義求如來ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a04(02)║而五陰和åˆæœ‰å¦‚來。ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030a05(00)║ 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
T30n1564_p0030a06(00)â•‘ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
--<i>If a buddha [exists] by means of the constituents, he does not exist with regard to self-nature. And if he does not exist with regard to self-nature, how can he with regard to other-nature.</i>
T30n1564_p0030a07(00)║若如來五陰和åˆæ•…有。å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030a08(00)â•‘å› äº”é™°å’Œåˆæœ‰æ•…。å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a09(06)║如來ä¸ä»¥è‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½†å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ç”曰。若無自性。
T30n1564_p0030a10(03)â•‘äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½•ä»¥æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§äº¦ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a11(04)â•‘åˆç„¡ç›¸å¾…å› æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§ä¸å¯å¾—。ä¸å¯å¾—æ•…ä¸å為他。
T30n1564_p0030a12(01)║復次。
T30n1564_p0030a13(00)â•‘ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
T30n1564_p0030a14(00)║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--<i>It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if the sayings are his stand, then NÄgÄrjuna contradicts his own theory of the denial of svabhava. It is either NÄgÄrjuna's stand or not. . If a buddha's exis(of decision between on the coordi), , ted operation of skandhÄḥ, then such an existence is not with svabhav 's existence abhava equals without his-nature.
--Critique: The baseline is, the existence of a buddha is free of svabhava; based on this, the verse can be read that the existence of a buddha indeed depends on the coordinated operation of skandhç›®'s explanation: Just as the five fingers make a fist possible for the latter depends on the former's certain function, the five skandhÄḥ make a self possible. What is made possible in the above analogy has no self-existence, for it “depends†on others. Then it is asked what a buddha's existence can be?
--Critique: This verse is a response to the former verse's left-over question: a buddha's existence cannot depend on the coordinated operation of five skandhÄḥ, for if so, the former would depend on others and then loose self-nature; without self-nature, how can it be the existence of buddha.
--Critique: Now NÄgÄrjuna becomes someone for self-nature? NO! The term “anÄtmÄ iti†non-self does not equal self-nature. Self-nature is an abstract, absolute nature which is regarded as self-dependent; non-self is non-subjectivity. TathÄgataḥ has no self-nature, but has to have subjectivity! However, why not the case that ║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--<i>It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if t.
pends on five skandhÄḥ and still has subjectivity? Does the analogy of finger-fist work? I do not think so. Finger and fist are both cognized objets, whereas tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ may not so decisive. But perhaps this is NÄgÄrjuna's point? Perhaps tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ are cognized objects, too, since it is the case that we “know†there is athÄgataḥ and we “know†there are skandhÄḥ, and hence our in-decisiveness is the cause of all problems? But with the reconstruction to “transcendentalize†the “know†here, the problem of the “dependence†here may be resolved, since the know become an “idealization†and no longer a linguistic reference!
possible. What is made possible in the above analogy has no self-existence, for it “depends†on others. Then it is asked what a buddha's existence can be?
--Critique: This verse is a response to the former verse's left-over question: a buddha's is this tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the verse is a question: if without svabhava and parabhava, what is sufficient for calling a tathagata? I would answer: subjectivity.
T30n1564_p0030a24(00)║若無自性。他性亦ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a25(05)â•‘å› è‡ªæ€§æ•…å他性。æ¤ç„¡æ•…彼亦無。是故自性他性二俱無。
T30n1564_p0030a26(00)║若離自性他性。誰為如來。復次。
T30n1564_p0030a27(00)║ 若ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
T30n1564_p0030a28(00)║ 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
--<i>If there were to exist a tathagata not employing the constituents, he would be employing [them] at this moment, therefore he would exist employing them.</i>
--If we assume that there were to exist a subject before any employment of the five skandas; only when the subject were employing them there would exist such a subject.
--Critique: this verse is too jumpy in relation to the former arguments...
T30n1564_p0030a29(00)║ 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
T30n1564_p0030b01(00)║ 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
--<i>There does not exist any tathagata who is not employing the constituents; and he who does not exist, not employing [them], how does he employ [them]?</i>
--Critique: The verse is a response to the former verse, saying that the later half of the former verse is actually a self-contradiction. If only the subject with the operation of the five skandas were to exist, there would exist no subject without the operation of the five skandas. Also, if the subject without the operation of five skandas were not to exist, what would be going to employ them? Given that the subject without operation of five skandas is assumed, it is then only an assumption.
--Critique: What if we just idealize the subject whose ideality can only base itself on the ground of the operation of the five skandas? Also, if we do not assume a subject, how can we believe the operations of the five skandas belong to certain identity?
T30n1564_p0030b02(00)║ 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
T30n1564_p0030b03(00)║ 無有無å—法  而å為如來
--<i>The tathagata never exists as an ungrasped grasping; and in no way is there a tathagata without grasping.</i>
--Critique:鳩摩羅什's translation is not quite following the Sanskrit in the first half of the verse. The translation means: without employment, what the employment (the grasping) is resulted in cannot be entitled “graspedâ€. This half nonetheless obviously indicates that the non-employed employment makes no sense, refusing the model of non-employed employer which is potential to employ the five skandas. The later half of the verse reinforce the statement.
--Critique: the transcendental subject as a mere idea whose basis can only be found in the employment of five skandas, is indeed a tathagata non-employed yet potential to employ which only exists at the moment of employment. Would NÄgÄrjuna reject that?
T30n1564_p0030b04(00)║ 若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾—
T30n1564_p0030b05(00)║ 五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
--<i>The tathagata, who being sought after in five ways through identity and difference does not exist, through the act of grasping, how can he be understood?</i>
T30n1564_p0030b06(00)║ åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
T30n1564_p0030b07(00)║ 若無自性者  云何有他性
<i>Also that which is grasping at this place, that is not known through self-nature; and what does not exist through self-nature, from where is that through other nature?
T30n1564_p0030b08(00)║若未å—五陰。先有如來者。
T30n1564_p0030b09(06)║是如來今應å—五陰。已作如來。
T30n1564_p0030b10(10)║而實未å—五陰時先無如來。今云何當å—。åˆä¸å—五陰者。
T30n1564_p0030b11(04)║五陰ä¸å為å—。無有無å—而å為如來。
T30n1564_p0030b12(05)â•‘åˆå¦‚來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。asping.</i>
--Critique:鳩摩羅什's translation is not quite following the Sanskrit in the first half of the verse. The translation means: without employment, what the employment (the grasping) is resulted in cannot be entitled “graspedâ€. This half nonetheless obviously indicates that the non-employed employment makes no sense, refusing the model of non-employed employer which is potential to employ the five skandas. The later half of the verse reinforce the statement.
--Critique: the transcendental subject as a mere idea whose basis can only be found in the employment of five skandas, is indeed a tathagata non-employed yet potential to employ which only exists at the moment of employment. Would NÄgÄrjuna reject that?
T30n1564_p0030b04(00)║ 若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾—
T30n1564_p0030b05(00)║ 五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
--<i>The tathagata, who being sought after in five ways through identity and difference does not exist, through the act of grasping, how can he be understood?</i>
T30n1564_p0030b06(00)║ åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
T30n1564_p0030b07(00)║ 若無自性者  云何有他性
<i>Also that which is grasping at this place, that is not known through self-nature; and what does not exist through self-nature, from where is that through other nature?
T30n1564_p0030b08(00)║若未å—五陰。先有如來者。
T30n1564_p0030b09(06)║是如來今應å—五陰。已作如來。
T30n1564_p0030b10(10)║而實未å—五陰時先無如來。今云何當å—。åˆä¸å—五陰者。
T30n1564_p0030b11(04)║五陰ä¸å為å—。無有無å—而å為如來。
T30n1564_p0030b12(05)â•‘åˆå¦‚來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。<i>Also hagata and fivewhich   云何有他性
<i>Also that which isgre, st t如來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。al sense; space is similar with its four aspects: limitless, limit, not limitless and not limit. Everything begins with the birth of space and time, altogether, not only the objects we realize in them, but also the aspects of the senses of space and time themselves. The same reason as we reject the svabhava of everything, we reject the svabhava of space and time.
T30n1564_p0030c02(00)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å¾®å¦™å¯‚æ»…ã€‚ä½†å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–。
T30n1564_p0030c03(01)║起四種邪見。世間有常。世間無常。
T30n1564_p0030c04(04)║世間常無常。世間éžå¸¸éžç„¡å¸¸ã€‚寂滅ä¸ç›¡ç„¡ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030c05(01)║諸法實相。畢竟清淨ä¸å¯å–。空尚ä¸å—。
T30n1564_p0030c06(02)║何æ³æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å››ç¨®è¦‹çš†å› å—生。
T30n1564_p0030c07(05)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ç„¡æ‰€å› å—。四種見皆以自見為貴。他見為賤。
T30n1564_p0030c08(00)║諸法實相無有æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c09(08)║是故說寂滅ä¸ç„¡å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å¦‚å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–有四種見。
T30n1564_p0030c10(04)â•‘å› æœªä¾†ä¸–æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹äº¦å¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ä¸–é–“æœ‰é‚Šã€‚ä¸–é–“ç„¡é‚Šã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c11(01)║世間有邊無邊。世間éžæœ‰é‚Šéžç„¡é‚Šã€‚å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c12(01)â•‘è‹¥å¦‚æ˜¯ç ´å¦‚ä¾†è€…ã€‚å‰‡ç„¡å¦‚ä¾†è€¶ã€‚ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030c13(00)║ 邪見深厚者  則說無如來
T30n1564_p0030c14(00)║ 如來寂滅相  分別有亦éž
<i>By whom is held firmly the understanding that a solid tathagata “exists,†conjecturing, he would also imagine “he does not exist†in the ceased [state].</i>
T30n1564_p0030c15(00)â•‘é‚ªè¦‹æœ‰äºŒç¨®ã€‚ä¸€è€…ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c16(05)â•‘äºŒè€…ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“ã€‚ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚è€…ã€‚æ˜¯éº¤é‚ªè¦‹ã€‚è¨€ç„¡ç½ªç„¡ç¦ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c17(00)║無如來ç‰è³¢è–。起是邪見æ¨å–„為惡。
T30n1564_p0030c18(02)â•‘å‰‡ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“者。貪著於我。分別有無。
T30n1564_p0030c19(00)║起善滅惡。起善故得世間樂。
T30n1564_p0030c20(05)║分別有無故ä¸å¾—涅槃。是故若言無如來者。
T30n1564_p0030c21(04)║是深厚邪見。乃失世間樂。何æ³æ¶…槃。若言有如來。
T30n1564_p0030c22(01)║亦是邪見。何以故。如來寂滅相。而種種分別故。
T30n1564_p0030c23(00)║是故寂滅相ä¸ã€‚分別有如來。亦為éžã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c24(00)║ 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
T30n1564_p0030c25(00)║ 如來滅度後  分別於有無
<i>And with this being empty in respect to self-nature, the thought is never plausible [that] beyond cessation a buddha either “is†or “is notâ€.</i>
T30n1564_p0030c26(00)║諸法實相性空故。
T30n1564_p0030c27(09)â•‘ä¸æ‡‰æ–¼å¦‚來滅後æ€æƒŸè‹¥æœ‰è‹¥ç„¡ã€‚若有無。如來從本已來畢竟空。
T30n1564_p0030c28(00)║何æ³æ»…後。
T30n1564_p0030c29(00)║ 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
T30n1564_p0031a01(00)â•‘ã€€æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›
<i>[Those] who dewell on a buddha passed beyond hinderances and imperishable, they all afflicted by hinderances, do not see the tathagata.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a02(00)║戲論å憶念å–相分別æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a03(05)║言佛滅ä¸æ»…ç‰ã€‚是人為戲論。
T30n1564_p0031a04(10)║覆慧眼故ä¸èƒ½è¦‹å¦‚來法身。æ¤å¦‚來å“ä¸ã€‚åˆä¸å¾Œæ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a05(05)║如來定性ä¸å¯å¾—。是故åˆèªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a06(00)║ 如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
T30n1564_p0031a07(00)║ 如來無有性  世間亦無性
<i>What is the tathagata as self-nature, that is this world as self-nature; the tathagata is without self-nature, this world is without self-nature.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a08(00)â•‘æ¤å“ä¸æ€æƒŸæŽ¨æ±‚。如來性å³æ˜¯ä¸€åˆ‡ä¸–間性。
T30n1564_p0031a09(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來性。ç”曰。如來無有性。
T30n1564_p0031a10(01)â•‘åŒä¸–間無性。
<div align=center>--------------------------</div>
å˜—è©¦å°‡é Œæ–‡è¯æˆç™½è©±æ¼¢èªžï¼š
 觀如來å“第二å二
é Œä¸€ï¼š
éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
白話:如來ä¸æ˜¯äº”蘊,也ä¸é›¢äº”蘊,彼æ¤ä¸åœ¨å½¼æ¤ä¸ï¼Œå¦‚來ä¸å…·æœ‰äº”蘊,那哪裡有如來呢?
é ŒäºŒï¼š
 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
白話:五蘊和åˆå¦‚來始å˜æœ‰ï¼Œé‚£éº¼å¦‚來應無自性,如果如來無自性,怎麼能說有他性?
é Œä¸‰ï¼š
ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
白話:事物åªè¦ä¾ä»–ç‰©ç‚ºå› è€Œç”Ÿï¼Œå…¶è‡ªèº«å°±ç„¡æˆ‘ï¼Œå¦‚æžœæŸäº‹å±¬æ–¼æ¤é¡žï¼Œé‚£æ–·éžå¦‚來,那什麼是如來?
é Œå››ï¼š
 若無有自性  云何有他性
 離自性他性  何å為如來
白話:如果沒有自性,怎樣會有他性呢?若判離自性他性,那如來到底是怎樣而å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來呢?
 
é Œäº”ï¼š
è‹¥ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
白話:如果如來ä¸ä¾äº”è˜Šç‚ºä»–å› è€Œå…ˆæ–¼äº”è˜Šå˜æœ‰ï¼Œå¾…如來作動ã€äº”蘊始有,而該作動五蘊者稱作如來,這åˆå¦‚何?
é Œå…:
 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
白話:事實上,如果在如來ä¸ä½œå‹•è€Œäº”蘊ä¸èµ·ä¹‹éš›ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªæœ‰å¦‚來實有呢?如果說五蘊ä¸èµ·å¦‚來ä¸ä½œå‹•å‰‡ç„¡å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來,我們ç¾åœ¨é‚„能說是誰在作動呢?
é Œä¸ƒï¼š
 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
 無有無å—法  而å為如來 
ç™½è©±ï¼šå¦‚æžœå¦‚ä¾†é‚„æœªæœ‰ä½œå‹•ï¼Œè¢«ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„å› æœªç™¼ç”Ÿè€Œä¸è©²è¢«ç¨±ä½œä½œå‹•ï¼Œè€Œæ²’有那種未作動而有的任何å˜æœ‰å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來。(按鳩摩羅什漢è¯ï¼‰
如來從未以一種未å–çš„æ‘å–者å˜åœ¨ï¼Œä¸”ä¸å¯èƒ½æœ‰ä¸€ç¨®æœªæ‘å–的如來。(據梵英å°ç…§è¯ï¼‰
é Œå…«ï¼š
若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾— 
五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€æ¥èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。
Changed By: gustav
Change Date: November 16, 2009 11:23AM
ä¸è«–觀如來å“第二å二ination of Tathagata
T30n1564_p0029c02(00)â•‘ä¸è«–å·ç¬¬å››
T30n1564_p0029c03(00)â•‘
T30n1564_p0029c04(00)║    é¾æ¨¹è©è–©é€ 梵志é’目釋
T30n1564_p0029c05(00)║    姚秦三è—鳩摩羅什è¯
T30n1564_p0029c06(00)║  觀如來å“第二å二(åå…åˆ)
T30n1564_p0029c07(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚一切世ä¸å°Šã€‚唯有如來æ£é知。
T30n1564_p0029c08(02)║號為法王。一切智人是則應有。ç”曰。今諦æ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c09(00)║若有應å–。若無何所å–。何以故。如來。
-å–ï¼What does this exactly mean? If translated as “grasp,†this is an ontological explanation; if “employ,†this is an epistemological explanation.
T30n1564_p0029c10(00)║ éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
T30n1564_p0029c11(00)║ 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
--<i>Not the constituents, not different from the constituents, the constituents are not in him, and he is not in them. A tathagata is not possessed of a constituent; in this, which is a tathagata?</i>
--If tathÄgataḥ is real, it is only possible when the tathÄgataḥ (nom. sg.) <i>T</i> and the five skandhÄḥ (pl./ skandhÄ sg./ skandhas) <i>S</i> are in one of the following relations:
(1)<i>T</i> is <i>S</i>
(2)<i>T</i> is distinct away from <i>S</i>
(3)<i>S</i> is in <i>T</i>
(4)<i>T</i> is in <i>S</i>
(5)<i>T</i> is possessed of <i>S</i>
Now, NÄgÄrjuna has refuted all of the possibilities, it is then only possible that the premise is not acceptible and that tathÄgataḥ isn't real.
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(1)is not acceptable, because if so, tathÄgataḥ would be as “real†as empirical objects which “would be born and would die.†If tathÄgataḥ were as such, it contradicts the eight denials. Besides, the employer å—者 and the employed å—法 are one and the same, which we find implausible here.
--Critique: However, saying tathÄgataḥ is the five skandhÄḥ does not necessarily mean the former is the product of the latter. TathÄgataḥ could yet be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that (a- transcendental reading) the former is the transcendental subject which makes the empirical objects fit the characteristics of possessing the aspects of the latter, so that it can be reasonable that the former could be so transcendentally idealized; (b-absolute reading) the former is an “external†cause of the latter (which is denied in (2)) that the cause makes possible the effect from which five skandhÄḥ can be empirically distinguished.
--Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “means of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? ? Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “well way s of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? But, Candrakirti's criticism that if DignÄga's theory is accepted then there would be infinite regress problem regarding the svasamvitti's pre-existence, is not plausible if we explain away the realist's paralogism regarding the pramÄṇa-pramÄṇaphala distinction... How would NÄgÄrjuna himself response to the question here?
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(2) is not acceptable, because if so, the independent tathÄgataḥ would be free of birth-death, and then tathÄgataḥ would be external 常, which contradicts the eight denials.
Besides, if there were such independent tathÄgataḥ, the functioning of the five senses could not result in as such, as known to the subject (tathÄgataḥ).
--Critique: How should we treat the eight denials? Are they the end of the argument or the beginning of the argument?
--Suggest: In 深觀ã€æ³¢è‹¥æ³¢ç¾…蜜, it is intuited that the ultimate reality is best conventionally characterized as such, and hence the eight denials need argued for conventionally, yet the argument can be made <i>only</i> with the ultimate, <i>a priori</i>, intuition to “consult with†– a reconstruction from Kant's idea of pure intuition.
--Reflection: Eight denials are all conventional characterization. People who has observed the intuitive source of them can both ultimately and conventionally “grasp†the characterization; people who has not observed the intuitive source of them can only conventionally grasp it. That's why Buddha's words is a practical teach!
--Critique: the argument é’ç›® offers here can only rule out the absolute reading (b) above, for a transcendental tathÄgataḥ is not independent from the five skandhÄḥ. The transcendental reading still survives.
--Critique: Besides, if we say, further tuned transcendental reading, that the tathÄgataḥ could be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that both terms are just names å‡å for in ultimate truth, tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ be not reasonable at all: we have conventional, empirical experience as such, which can be characterized with the the skandhÄḥ theory and hence it can be postulated that there might reasonably be tathÄgataḥ. But the characterization and the postulation above can only be valid in relation to experience; hence, the transcendental reading is tuned to tone with the denial of “tathÄgataḥ being the five skandhÄḥ.â€
é’ç›®'s explanation:
(3)and
(4)are not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the container of the latter or vise versa; and if the former and the latter are different, it contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
(5)Is not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•° as well, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the possessor of the latter; and if so, it also contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
--Critique: Again, how should we treat the eight denials?
--Summary: With the absolute reading of the tathÄgataḥ-skandhÄḥ problem, it is then said all the five postulations are wrong; with the reading bearing the idea that tathÄgataḥ is not real (our conventional demand for reality always targets the ultimate reality, based upon which the reality as such should be denied so that the ultimate reality and the conventional reality can both be preserved)*, similarly, with the transcendental reading, it just does not matter at all whether you hold the five postulations or not.
*The real in “tathÄgataḥ is not real†is paralgic for what we can say ever of the real and what is demanded in the sentence is not mutually qualified. Hence, the denial of such “reality†can break the paralogism embedded: denying the absolute, cognition-free, skandhÄḥ-free reality of tathÄgataḥ is actually the refuse to such a demand from conventional realm to the ultimate realm; without such a crossover, it just does not matter with the five postulations.
T30n1564_p0029c12(00)║若如來實有者。為五陰是如來。
T30n1564_p0029c13(04)║為離五陰有如來。為如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c14(06)║為五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。為如來有五陰。是事皆ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c15(04)║五陰éžæ˜¯å¦‚來。何以故。生滅相故。五陰生滅相。
T30n1564_p0029c16(03)║若如來是五陰。如來å³æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…相。若生滅相者。
T30n1564_p0029c17(01)║如來å³æœ‰ç„¡å¸¸æ–·æ»…ç‰éŽã€‚åˆå—者å—法則一。
T30n1564_p0029c18(01)â•‘å—者是如來。å—法是五陰。是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c19(04)║是故如來éžæ˜¯äº”陰。離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c20(04)║若離五陰有如來者。ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ç”Ÿæ»…相。若爾者。
T30n1564_p0029c21(02)║如來有常ç‰éŽã€‚åˆçœ¼ç‰è«¸æ ¹ä¸èƒ½è¦‹çŸ¥ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c22(03)║但是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚是故離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c23(04)║如來ä¸äº¦ç„¡äº”陰。何以故。若如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c24(03)║如器ä¸æœ‰æžœæ°´ä¸æœ‰éšè€…。則為有異。若異者。
T30n1564_p0029c25(02)â•‘å³æœ‰å¦‚上常ç‰éŽã€‚是故如來ä¸ç„¡äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c26(04)â•‘åˆäº”é™°ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。何以故。若五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。
T30n1564_p0029c27(03)║如床上有人器ä¸æœ‰ä¹³è€…。如是則有別異。
T30n1564_p0029c28(03)║如上說éŽã€‚是故五陰ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。如來亦ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c29(00)║何以故。若如來有五陰。如人有å。
T30n1564_p0030a01(03)║如是則有別異。若爾者。有如上éŽã€‚是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a02(02)║是故如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。如是五種求ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a03(02)║何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來。å•æ›°ã€‚如是義求如來ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a04(02)║而五陰和åˆæœ‰å¦‚來。ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030a05(00)║ 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
T30n1564_p0030a06(00)â•‘ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
--<i>If a buddha [exists] by means of the constituents, he does not exist with regard to self-nature. And if he does not exist with regard to self-nature, how can he with regard to other-nature.</i>
T30n1564_p0030a07(00)║若如來五陰和åˆæ•…有。å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030a08(00)â•‘å› äº”é™°å’Œåˆæœ‰æ•…。å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a09(06)║如來ä¸ä»¥è‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½†å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ç”曰。若無自性。
T30n1564_p0030a10(03)â•‘äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½•ä»¥æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§äº¦ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a11(04)â•‘åˆç„¡ç›¸å¾…å› æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§ä¸å¯å¾—。ä¸å¯å¾—æ•…ä¸å為他。
T30n1564_p0030a12(01)║復次。
T30n1564_p0030a13(00)â•‘ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
T30n1564_p0030a14(00)║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--<i>It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if the sayings are his stand, then NÄgÄrjuna contradicts his own theory of the denial of svabhava. It is either NÄgÄrjuna's stand or not. If a buddha's exis(on the coordi), ted operation of skandhÄḥ, then such an existence is not with svabhav abhava equals without his-nature.
--Critique: The baseline is, the existence of a buddha is free of svabhava; based on this, the verse can be read that the existence of a buddha indeed depends on the coordinated operation of skandh║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--<i>It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?</i>
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if t.
possible. What is made possible in the above analogy has no self-existence, for it “depends†on others. Then it is asked what a buddha's existence can be?
--Critique: This verse is a response to the former verse's left-over question: a buddha'sasping.</i>
--Critique:鳩摩羅什's translation is not quite following the Sanskrit in the first half of the verse. The translation means: without employment, what the employment (the grasping) is resulted in cannot be entitled “graspedâ€. This half nonetheless obviously indicates that the non-employed employment makes no sense, refusing the model of non-employed employer which is potential to employ the five skandas. The later half of the verse reinforce the statement.
--Critique: the transcendental subject as a mere idea whose basis can only be found in the employment of five skandas, is indeed a tathagata non-employed yet potential to employ which only exists at the moment of employment. Would NÄgÄrjuna reject that?
T30n1564_p0030b04(00)║ 若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾—
T30n1564_p0030b05(00)║ 五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
--<i>The tathagata, who being sought after in five ways through identity and difference does not exist, through the act of grasping, how can he be understood?</i>
T30n1564_p0030b06(00)║ åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
T30n1564_p0030b07(00)║ 若無自性者  云何有他性
<i>Also that which is grasping at this place, that is not known through self-nature; and what does not exist through self-nature, from where is that through other nature?
T30n1564_p0030b08(00)║若未å—五陰。先有如來者。
T30n1564_p0030b09(06)║是如來今應å—五陰。已作如來。
T30n1564_p0030b10(10)║而實未å—五陰時先無如來。今云何當å—。åˆä¸å—五陰者。
T30n1564_p0030b11(04)║五陰ä¸å為å—。無有無å—而å為如來。
T30n1564_p0030b12(05)â•‘åˆå¦‚來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。<i>Also hagata and fivewhich   云何有他性
<i>Also that which isgre, st t如來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。al sense; space is similar with its four aspects: limitless, limit, not limitless and not limit. Everything begins with the birth of space and time, altogether, not only the objects we realize in them, but also the aspects of the senses of space and time themselves. The same reason as we reject the svabhava of everything, we reject the svabhava of space and time.
T30n1564_p0030c02(00)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å¾®å¦™å¯‚æ»…ã€‚ä½†å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–。
T30n1564_p0030c03(01)║起四種邪見。世間有常。世間無常。
T30n1564_p0030c04(04)║世間常無常。世間éžå¸¸éžç„¡å¸¸ã€‚寂滅ä¸ç›¡ç„¡ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030c05(01)║諸法實相。畢竟清淨ä¸å¯å–。空尚ä¸å—。
T30n1564_p0030c06(02)║何æ³æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å››ç¨®è¦‹çš†å› å—生。
T30n1564_p0030c07(05)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ç„¡æ‰€å› å—。四種見皆以自見為貴。他見為賤。
T30n1564_p0030c08(00)║諸法實相無有æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c09(08)║是故說寂滅ä¸ç„¡å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å¦‚å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–有四種見。
T30n1564_p0030c10(04)â•‘å› æœªä¾†ä¸–æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹äº¦å¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ä¸–é–“æœ‰é‚Šã€‚ä¸–é–“ç„¡é‚Šã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c11(01)║世間有邊無邊。世間éžæœ‰é‚Šéžç„¡é‚Šã€‚å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c12(01)â•‘è‹¥å¦‚æ˜¯ç ´å¦‚ä¾†è€…ã€‚å‰‡ç„¡å¦‚ä¾†è€¶ã€‚ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030c13(00)║ 邪見深厚者  則說無如來
T30n1564_p0030c14(00)║ 如來寂滅相  分別有亦éž
<i>By whom is held firmly the understanding that a solid tathagata “exists,†conjecturing, he would also imagine “he does not exist†in the ceased [state].</i>
T30n1564_p0030c15(00)â•‘é‚ªè¦‹æœ‰äºŒç¨®ã€‚ä¸€è€…ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c16(05)â•‘äºŒè€…ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“ã€‚ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚è€…ã€‚æ˜¯éº¤é‚ªè¦‹ã€‚è¨€ç„¡ç½ªç„¡ç¦ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c17(00)║無如來ç‰è³¢è–。起是邪見æ¨å–„為惡。
T30n1564_p0030c18(02)â•‘å‰‡ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“者。貪著於我。分別有無。
T30n1564_p0030c19(00)║起善滅惡。起善故得世間樂。
T30n1564_p0030c20(05)║分別有無故ä¸å¾—涅槃。是故若言無如來者。
T30n1564_p0030c21(04)║是深厚邪見。乃失世間樂。何æ³æ¶…槃。若言有如來。
T30n1564_p0030c22(01)║亦是邪見。何以故。如來寂滅相。而種種分別故。
T30n1564_p0030c23(00)║是故寂滅相ä¸ã€‚分別有如來。亦為éžã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c24(00)║ 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
T30n1564_p0030c25(00)║ 如來滅度後  分別於有無
<i>And with this being empty in respect to self-nature, the thought is never plausible [that] beyond cessation a buddha either “is†or “is notâ€.</i>
T30n1564_p0030c26(00)║諸法實相性空故。
T30n1564_p0030c27(09)â•‘ä¸æ‡‰æ–¼å¦‚來滅後æ€æƒŸè‹¥æœ‰è‹¥ç„¡ã€‚若有無。如來從本已來畢竟空。
T30n1564_p0030c28(00)║何æ³æ»…後。
T30n1564_p0030c29(00)║ 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
T30n1564_p0031a01(00)â•‘ã€€æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›
<i>[Those] who dewell on a buddha passed beyond hinderances and imperishable, they all afflicted by hinderances, do not see the tathagata.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a02(00)║戲論å憶念å–相分別æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a03(05)║言佛滅ä¸æ»…ç‰ã€‚是人為戲論。
T30n1564_p0031a04(10)║覆慧眼故ä¸èƒ½è¦‹å¦‚來法身。æ¤å¦‚來å“ä¸ã€‚åˆä¸å¾Œæ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a05(05)║如來定性ä¸å¯å¾—。是故åˆèªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a06(00)║ 如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
T30n1564_p0031a07(00)║ 如來無有性  世間亦無性
<i>What is the tathagata as self-nature, that is this world as self-nature; the tathagata is without self-nature, this world is without self-nature.</i>
T30n1564_p0031a08(00)â•‘æ¤å“ä¸æ€æƒŸæŽ¨æ±‚。如來性å³æ˜¯ä¸€åˆ‡ä¸–間性。
T30n1564_p0031a09(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來性。ç”曰。如來無有性。
T30n1564_p0031a10(01)â•‘åŒä¸–間無性。
<div align=center>--------------------------</div>
å˜—è©¦å°‡é Œæ–‡è¯æˆç™½è©±æ¼¢èªžï¼š
 觀如來å“第二å二
é Œä¸€ï¼š
éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
白話:如來ä¸æ˜¯äº”蘊,也ä¸é›¢äº”蘊,彼æ¤ä¸åœ¨å½¼æ¤ä¸ï¼Œå¦‚來ä¸å…·æœ‰äº”蘊,那哪裡有如來呢?
é ŒäºŒï¼š
 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
白話:五蘊和åˆå¦‚來始å˜æœ‰ï¼Œé‚£éº¼å¦‚來應無自性,如果如來無自性,怎麼能說有他性?
é Œä¸‰ï¼š
ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
白話:事物åªè¦ä¾ä»–ç‰©ç‚ºå› è€Œç”Ÿï¼Œå…¶è‡ªèº«å°±ç„¡æˆ‘ï¼Œå¦‚æžœæŸäº‹å±¬æ–¼æ¤é¡žï¼Œé‚£æ–·éžå¦‚來,那什麼是如來?
é Œå››ï¼š
 若無有自性  云何有他性
 離自性他性  何å為如來
白話:如果沒有自性,怎樣會有他性呢?若判離自性他性,那如來到底是怎樣而å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來呢?
 
é Œäº”ï¼š
è‹¥ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
白話:如果如來ä¸ä¾äº”è˜Šç‚ºä»–å› è€Œå…ˆæ–¼äº”è˜Šå˜æœ‰ï¼Œå¾…如來作動ã€äº”蘊始有,而該作動五蘊者稱作如來,這åˆå¦‚何?
é Œå…:
 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
白話:事實上,如果在如來ä¸ä½œå‹•è€Œäº”蘊ä¸èµ·ä¹‹éš›ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªæœ‰å¦‚來實有呢?如果說五蘊ä¸èµ·å¦‚來ä¸ä½œå‹•å‰‡ç„¡å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來,我們ç¾åœ¨é‚„能說是誰在作動呢?
é Œä¸ƒï¼š
 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
 無有無å—法  而å為如來 
ç™½è©±ï¼šå¦‚æžœå¦‚ä¾†é‚„æœªæœ‰ä½œå‹•ï¼Œè¢«ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„å› æœªç™¼ç”Ÿè€Œä¸è©²è¢«ç¨±ä½œä½œå‹•ï¼Œè€Œæ²’有那種未作動而有的任何å˜æœ‰å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來。(按鳩摩羅什漢è¯ï¼‰
如來從未以一種未å–çš„æ‘å–者å˜åœ¨ï¼Œä¸”ä¸å¯èƒ½æœ‰ä¸€ç¨®æœªæ‘å–的如來。(據梵英å°ç…§è¯ï¼‰
é Œå…«ï¼š
若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾— 
五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€æ¥èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。
Original Message
作者: gustav
Date: November 16, 2009 11:21AM
ä¸è«–觀如來å“第二å二ination of Tathagata
T30n1564_p0029c02(00)â•‘ä¸è«–å·ç¬¬å››
T30n1564_p0029c03(00)â•‘
T30n1564_p0029c04(00)║    é¾æ¨¹è©è–©é€ 梵志é’目釋
T30n1564_p0029c05(00)║    姚秦三è—鳩摩羅什è¯
T30n1564_p0029c06(00)║  觀如來å“第二å二(åå…åˆ)
T30n1564_p0029c07(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚一切世ä¸å°Šã€‚唯有如來æ£é知。
T30n1564_p0029c08(02)║號為法王。一切智人是則應有。ç”曰。今諦æ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c09(00)║若有應å–。若無何所å–。何以故。如來。
-å–ï¼What does this exactly mean? If translated as “grasp,†this is an ontological explanation; if “employ,†this is an epistemological explanation.
T30n1564_p0029c10(00)║ éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
T30n1564_p0029c11(00)║ 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
--
Not the constituents, not different from the constituents, the constituents are not in him, and he is not in them. A tathagata is not possessed of a constituent; in this, which is a tathagata?
--If tathÄgataḥ is real, it is only possible when the tathÄgataḥ (nom. sg.)
T and the five skandhÄḥ (pl./ skandhÄ sg./ skandhas)
S are in one of the following relations:
(1)
T is
S
(2)
T is distinct away from
S
(3)
S is in
T
(4)
T is in
S
(5)
T is possessed of
S
Now, NÄgÄrjuna has refuted all of the possibilities, it is then only possible that the premise is not acceptible and that tathÄgataḥ isn't real.
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(1)is not acceptable, because if so, tathÄgataḥ would be as “real†as empirical objects which “would be born and would die.†If tathÄgataḥ were as such, it contradicts the eight denials. Besides, the employer å—者 and the employed å—法 are one and the same, which we find implausible here.
--Critique: However, saying tathÄgataḥ is the five skandhÄḥ does not necessarily mean the former is the product of the latter. TathÄgataḥ could yet be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that (a- transcendental reading) the former is the transcendental subject which makes the empirical objects fit the characteristics of possessing the aspects of the latter, so that it can be reasonable that the former could be so transcendentally idealized; (b-absolute reading) the former is an “external†cause of the latter (which is denied in (2)) that the cause makes possible the effect from which five skandhÄḥ can be empirically distinguished.
--Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “means of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? Critique: Besides, why not the employer and the employed cannot be one and the same, if, resonated with DignÄga's svasamvitti theory, the “resulting cognition (pramÄṇaphala)†and the “well s of cognition (pramÄṇa)†should not be separated as the realists believe. Is exactly at this very point that Madhyamika find DignÄga's theory non-acceptable? But, Candrakirti's criticism that if DignÄga's theory is accepted then there would be infinite regress problem regarding the svasamvitti's pre-existence, is not plausible if we explain away the realist's paralogism regarding the pramÄṇa-pramÄṇaphala distinction... How would NÄgÄrjuna himself response to the question here?
--é’ç›®'s explanation:
(2) is not acceptable, because if so, the independent tathÄgataḥ would be free of birth-death, and then tathÄgataḥ would be external 常, which contradicts the eight denials.
Besides, if there were such independent tathÄgataḥ, the functioning of the five senses could not result in as such, as known to the subject (tathÄgataḥ).
--Critique: How should we treat the eight denials? Are they the end of the argument or the beginning of the argument?
--Suggest: In 深觀ã€æ³¢è‹¥æ³¢ç¾…蜜, it is intuited that the ultimate reality is best conventionally characterized as such, and hence the eight denials need argued for conventionally, yet the argument can be made
only with the ultimate,
a priori, intuition to “consult with†– a reconstruction from Kant's idea of pure intuition.
--Reflection: Eight denials are all conventional characterization. People who has observed the intuitive source of them can both ultimately and conventionally “grasp†the characterization; people who has not observed the intuitive source of them can only conventionally grasp it. That's why Buddha's words is a practical teach!
--Critique: the argument é’ç›® offers here can only rule out the absolute reading (b) above, for a transcendental tathÄgataḥ is not independent from the five skandhÄḥ. The transcendental reading still survives.
--Critique: Besides, if we say, further tuned transcendental reading, that the tathÄgataḥ could be the five skandhÄḥ in the sense that both terms are just names å‡å for in ultimate truth, tathÄgataḥ and skandhÄḥ be not reasonable at all: we have conventional, empirical experience as such, which can be characterized with the the skandhÄḥ theory and hence it can be postulated that there might reasonably be tathÄgataḥ. But the characterization and the postulation above can only be valid in relation to experience; hence, the transcendental reading is tuned to tone with the denial of “tathÄgataḥ being the five skandhÄḥ.â€
é’ç›®'s explanation:
(3)and
(4)are not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the container of the latter or vise versa; and if the former and the latter are different, it contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
(5)Is not acceptable, for, by applying the method 一異 in the denial ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•° as well, it is required that tathÄgataḥ and the five skandhÄḥ are different so that the former could be the possessor of the latter; and if so, it also contradicts the denial ä¸å¸¸.
--Critique: Again, how should we treat the eight denials?
--Summary: With the absolute reading of the tathÄgataḥ-skandhÄḥ problem, it is then said all the five postulations are wrong; with the reading bearing the idea that tathÄgataḥ is not real (our conventional demand for reality always targets the ultimate reality, based upon which the reality as such should be denied so that the ultimate reality and the conventional reality can both be preserved)*, similarly, with the transcendental reading, it just does not matter at all whether you hold the five postulations or not.
*The real in “tathÄgataḥ is not real†is paralgic for what we can say ever of the real and what is demanded in the sentence is not mutually qualified. Hence, the denial of such “reality†can break the paralogism embedded: denying the absolute, cognition-free, skandhÄḥ-free reality of tathÄgataḥ is actually the refuse to such a demand from conventional realm to the ultimate realm; without such a crossover, it just does not matter with the five postulations.
T30n1564_p0029c12(00)║若如來實有者。為五陰是如來。
T30n1564_p0029c13(04)║為離五陰有如來。為如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c14(06)║為五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。為如來有五陰。是事皆ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c15(04)║五陰éžæ˜¯å¦‚來。何以故。生滅相故。五陰生滅相。
T30n1564_p0029c16(03)║若如來是五陰。如來å³æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…相。若生滅相者。
T30n1564_p0029c17(01)║如來å³æœ‰ç„¡å¸¸æ–·æ»…ç‰éŽã€‚åˆå—者å—法則一。
T30n1564_p0029c18(01)â•‘å—者是如來。å—法是五陰。是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c19(04)║是故如來éžæ˜¯äº”陰。離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c20(04)║若離五陰有如來者。ä¸æ‡‰æœ‰ç”Ÿæ»…相。若爾者。
T30n1564_p0029c21(02)║如來有常ç‰éŽã€‚åˆçœ¼ç‰è«¸æ ¹ä¸èƒ½è¦‹çŸ¥ã€‚
T30n1564_p0029c22(03)║但是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚是故離五陰亦無如來。
T30n1564_p0029c23(04)║如來ä¸äº¦ç„¡äº”陰。何以故。若如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c24(03)║如器ä¸æœ‰æžœæ°´ä¸æœ‰éšè€…。則為有異。若異者。
T30n1564_p0029c25(02)â•‘å³æœ‰å¦‚上常ç‰éŽã€‚是故如來ä¸ç„¡äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c26(04)â•‘åˆäº”é™°ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。何以故。若五陰ä¸æœ‰å¦‚來。
T30n1564_p0029c27(03)║如床上有人器ä¸æœ‰ä¹³è€…。如是則有別異。
T30n1564_p0029c28(03)║如上說éŽã€‚是故五陰ä¸ç„¡å¦‚來。如來亦ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。
T30n1564_p0029c29(00)║何以故。若如來有五陰。如人有å。
T30n1564_p0030a01(03)║如是則有別異。若爾者。有如上éŽã€‚是事ä¸ç„¶ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a02(02)║是故如來ä¸æœ‰äº”陰。如是五種求ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a03(02)║何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來。å•æ›°ã€‚如是義求如來ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030a04(02)║而五陰和åˆæœ‰å¦‚來。ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030a05(00)║ 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
T30n1564_p0030a06(00)â•‘ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
--
If a buddha [exists] by means of the constituents, he does not exist with regard to self-nature. And if he does not exist with regard to self-nature, how can he with regard to other-nature.
T30n1564_p0030a07(00)║若如來五陰和åˆæ•…有。å³ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030a08(00)â•‘å› äº”é™°å’Œåˆæœ‰æ•…。å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a09(06)║如來ä¸ä»¥è‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½†å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ç”曰。若無自性。
T30n1564_p0030a10(03)â•‘äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æ€§æœ‰ã€‚ä½•ä»¥æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§äº¦ç„¡è‡ªæ€§ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030a11(04)â•‘åˆç„¡ç›¸å¾…å› æ•…ã€‚ä»–æ€§ä¸å¯å¾—。ä¸å¯å¾—æ•…ä¸å為他。
T30n1564_p0030a12(01)║復次。
T30n1564_p0030a13(00)â•‘ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
T30n1564_p0030a14(00)║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--
It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if the sayings are his stand, then NÄgÄrjuna contradicts his own theory of the denial of svabhava. It is either NÄgÄrjuna's stand or not. If a buddha's exis(on the coordi), ted operation of skandhÄḥ, then such an existence is not with svabhav abhava equals without his-nature.
--Critique: The baseline is, the existence of a buddha is free of svabhava; based on this, the verse can be read that the existence of a buddha indeed depends on the coordinated operation of skandh║ 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
--
It is plausible to call he who is independent on other-nature “non-selfâ€; And he who is non-self, then how will he be the tathagata?
--Critique: the sayings of the above two verses are puzzling, for if t.
possible. What is made possible in the above analogy has no self-existence, for it “depends†on others. Then it is asked what a buddha's existence can be?
--Critique: This verse is a response to the former verse's left-over question: a buddha'sasping.
--Critique:鳩摩羅什's translation is not quite following the Sanskrit in the first half of the verse. The translation means: without employment, what the employment (the grasping) is resulted in cannot be entitled “graspedâ€. This half nonetheless obviously indicates that the non-employed employment makes no sense, refusing the model of non-employed employer which is potential to employ the five skandas. The later half of the verse reinforce the statement.
--Critique: the transcendental subject as a mere idea whose basis can only be found in the employment of five skandas, is indeed a tathagata non-employed yet potential to employ which only exists at the moment of employment. Would NÄgÄrjuna reject that?
T30n1564_p0030b04(00)║ 若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾—
T30n1564_p0030b05(00)║ 五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
--
The tathagata, who being sought after in five ways through identity and difference does not exist, through the act of grasping, how can he be understood?
T30n1564_p0030b06(00)║ åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
T30n1564_p0030b07(00)║ 若無自性者  云何有他性
Also that which is grasping at this place, that is not known through self-nature; and what does not exist through self-nature, from where is that through other nature?
T30n1564_p0030b08(00)║若未å—五陰。先有如來者。
T30n1564_p0030b09(06)║是如來今應å—五陰。已作如來。
T30n1564_p0030b10(10)║而實未å—五陰時先無如來。今云何當å—。åˆä¸å—五陰者。
T30n1564_p0030b11(04)║五陰ä¸å為å—。無有無å—而å為如來。
T30n1564_p0030b12(05)â•‘åˆå¦‚來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。Also hagata and fivewhich   云何有他性
Also that which isgre, st t如來一異ä¸æ±‚ä¸å¯å¾—。五陰ä¸äº”種求亦ä¸å¯å¾—。
T30n1564_p0030b13(02)║若爾者。云何於五陰ä¸èªªæœ‰å¦‚來。åˆæ‰€å—五陰。
T30n1564_p0030b14(00)â•‘ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚若謂從他性有。
T30n1564_p0030b15(04)â•‘è‹¥ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ã€‚云何從他性有。何以故。
T30n1564_p0030b16(04)║以無自性故。åˆä»–性亦無。復次。al sense; space is similar with its four aspects: limitless, limit, not limitless and not limit. Everything begins with the birth of space and time, altogether, not only the objects we realize in them, but also the aspects of the senses of space and time themselves. The same reason as we reject the svabhava of everything, we reject the svabhava of space and time.
T30n1564_p0030c02(00)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ã€‚å¦‚æ˜¯å¾®å¦™å¯‚æ»…ã€‚ä½†å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–。
T30n1564_p0030c03(01)║起四種邪見。世間有常。世間無常。
T30n1564_p0030c04(04)║世間常無常。世間éžå¸¸éžç„¡å¸¸ã€‚寂滅ä¸ç›¡ç„¡ã€‚何以故。
T30n1564_p0030c05(01)║諸法實相。畢竟清淨ä¸å¯å–。空尚ä¸å—。
T30n1564_p0030c06(02)║何æ³æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å››ç¨®è¦‹çš†å› å—生。
T30n1564_p0030c07(05)â•‘è«¸æ³•å¯¦ç›¸ç„¡æ‰€å› å—。四種見皆以自見為貴。他見為賤。
T30n1564_p0030c08(00)║諸法實相無有æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c09(08)║是故說寂滅ä¸ç„¡å››ç¨®è¦‹ã€‚å¦‚å› éŽåŽ»ä¸–有四種見。
T30n1564_p0030c10(04)â•‘å› æœªä¾†ä¸–æœ‰å››ç¨®è¦‹äº¦å¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ä¸–é–“æœ‰é‚Šã€‚ä¸–é–“ç„¡é‚Šã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c11(01)║世間有邊無邊。世間éžæœ‰é‚Šéžç„¡é‚Šã€‚å•æ›°ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c12(01)â•‘è‹¥å¦‚æ˜¯ç ´å¦‚ä¾†è€…ã€‚å‰‡ç„¡å¦‚ä¾†è€¶ã€‚ç”曰。
T30n1564_p0030c13(00)║ 邪見深厚者  則說無如來
T30n1564_p0030c14(00)║ 如來寂滅相  分別有亦éž
By whom is held firmly the understanding that a solid tathagata “exists,†conjecturing, he would also imagine “he does not exist†in the ceased [state].
T30n1564_p0030c15(00)â•‘é‚ªè¦‹æœ‰äºŒç¨®ã€‚ä¸€è€…ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c16(05)â•‘äºŒè€…ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“ã€‚ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚è€…ã€‚æ˜¯éº¤é‚ªè¦‹ã€‚è¨€ç„¡ç½ªç„¡ç¦ã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c17(00)║無如來ç‰è³¢è–。起是邪見æ¨å–„為惡。
T30n1564_p0030c18(02)â•‘å‰‡ç ´ä¸–é–“æ¨‚ã€‚ç ´æ¶…æ§ƒé“者。貪著於我。分別有無。
T30n1564_p0030c19(00)║起善滅惡。起善故得世間樂。
T30n1564_p0030c20(05)║分別有無故ä¸å¾—涅槃。是故若言無如來者。
T30n1564_p0030c21(04)║是深厚邪見。乃失世間樂。何æ³æ¶…槃。若言有如來。
T30n1564_p0030c22(01)║亦是邪見。何以故。如來寂滅相。而種種分別故。
T30n1564_p0030c23(00)║是故寂滅相ä¸ã€‚分別有如來。亦為éžã€‚
T30n1564_p0030c24(00)║ 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
T30n1564_p0030c25(00)║ 如來滅度後  分別於有無
And with this being empty in respect to self-nature, the thought is never plausible [that] beyond cessation a buddha either “is†or “is notâ€.
T30n1564_p0030c26(00)║諸法實相性空故。
T30n1564_p0030c27(09)â•‘ä¸æ‡‰æ–¼å¦‚來滅後æ€æƒŸè‹¥æœ‰è‹¥ç„¡ã€‚若有無。如來從本已來畢竟空。
T30n1564_p0030c28(00)║何æ³æ»…後。
T30n1564_p0030c29(00)║ 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
T30n1564_p0031a01(00)â•‘ã€€æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›
[Those] who dewell on a buddha passed beyond hinderances and imperishable, they all afflicted by hinderances, do not see the tathagata.
T30n1564_p0031a02(00)║戲論å憶念å–相分別æ¤å½¼ã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a03(05)║言佛滅ä¸æ»…ç‰ã€‚是人為戲論。
T30n1564_p0031a04(10)║覆慧眼故ä¸èƒ½è¦‹å¦‚來法身。æ¤å¦‚來å“ä¸ã€‚åˆä¸å¾Œæ€æƒŸã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a05(05)║如來定性ä¸å¯å¾—。是故åˆèªªã€‚
T30n1564_p0031a06(00)║ 如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
T30n1564_p0031a07(00)║ 如來無有性  世間亦無性
What is the tathagata as self-nature, that is this world as self-nature; the tathagata is without self-nature, this world is without self-nature.
T30n1564_p0031a08(00)â•‘æ¤å“ä¸æ€æƒŸæŽ¨æ±‚。如來性å³æ˜¯ä¸€åˆ‡ä¸–間性。
T30n1564_p0031a09(00)â•‘å•æ›°ã€‚何ç‰æ˜¯å¦‚來性。ç”曰。如來無有性。
T30n1564_p0031a10(01)â•‘åŒä¸–間無性。
--------------------------
å˜—è©¦å°‡é Œæ–‡è¯æˆç™½è©±æ¼¢èªžï¼š
 觀如來å“第二å二
é Œä¸€ï¼š
éžé™°ä¸é›¢é™°ã€€ã€€æ¤å½¼ä¸ç›¸åœ¨
 如來ä¸æœ‰é™°ã€€ã€€ä½•è™•æœ‰å¦‚來
白話:如來ä¸æ˜¯äº”蘊,也ä¸é›¢äº”蘊,彼æ¤ä¸åœ¨å½¼æ¤ä¸ï¼Œå¦‚來ä¸å…·æœ‰äº”蘊,那哪裡有如來呢?
é ŒäºŒï¼š
 陰åˆæœ‰å¦‚來  則無有自性
ã€€è‹¥ç„¡æœ‰è‡ªæ€§ã€€ã€€äº‘ä½•å› ä»–æœ‰
白話:五蘊和åˆå¦‚來始å˜æœ‰ï¼Œé‚£éº¼å¦‚來應無自性,如果如來無自性,怎麼能說有他性?
é Œä¸‰ï¼š
ã€€æ³•è‹¥å› ä»–ç”Ÿã€€ã€€æ˜¯å³ç‚ºéžæˆ‘
 若法éžæˆ‘者  云何是如來
白話:事物åªè¦ä¾ä»–ç‰©ç‚ºå› è€Œç”Ÿï¼Œå…¶è‡ªèº«å°±ç„¡æˆ‘ï¼Œå¦‚æžœæŸäº‹å±¬æ–¼æ¤é¡žï¼Œé‚£æ–·éžå¦‚來,那什麼是如來?
é Œå››ï¼š
 若無有自性  云何有他性
 離自性他性  何å為如來
白話:如果沒有自性,怎樣會有他性呢?若判離自性他性,那如來到底是怎樣而å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來呢?
 
é Œäº”ï¼š
è‹¥ä¸å› 五陰  先有如來者
 以今å—陰故  則說為如來
白話:如果如來ä¸ä¾äº”è˜Šç‚ºä»–å› è€Œå…ˆæ–¼äº”è˜Šå˜æœ‰ï¼Œå¾…如來作動ã€äº”蘊始有,而該作動五蘊者稱作如來,這åˆå¦‚何?
é Œå…:
 今實ä¸å—陰  更無如來法
 若以ä¸å—無  今當云何å—
白話:事實上,如果在如來ä¸ä½œå‹•è€Œäº”蘊ä¸èµ·ä¹‹éš›ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªæœ‰å¦‚來實有呢?如果說五蘊ä¸èµ·å¦‚來ä¸ä½œå‹•å‰‡ç„¡å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來,我們ç¾åœ¨é‚„能說是誰在作動呢?
é Œä¸ƒï¼š
 若其未有å—  所å—ä¸åå—
 無有無å—法  而å為如來 
ç™½è©±ï¼šå¦‚æžœå¦‚ä¾†é‚„æœªæœ‰ä½œå‹•ï¼Œè¢«ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„å› æœªç™¼ç”Ÿè€Œä¸è©²è¢«ç¨±ä½œä½œå‹•ï¼Œè€Œæ²’有那種未作動而有的任何å˜æœ‰å¯ç¨±ä½œå¦‚來。(按鳩摩羅什漢è¯ï¼‰
如來從未以一種未å–çš„æ‘å–者å˜åœ¨ï¼Œä¸”ä¸å¯èƒ½æœ‰ä¸€ç¨®æœªæ‘å–的如來。(據梵英å°ç…§è¯ï¼‰
é Œå…«ï¼š
若於一異ä¸ã€€ã€€å¦‚來ä¸å¯å¾— 
五種求亦無  云何å—ä¸æœ‰
白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€æ¥èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。白話:如果用一異的方法(以ä¸ä¸€ä¸ç•°ç‚ºåˆ¤æº–)去看,å‰è¿°äº”個å‡è‹¥å¯¦æœ‰å¦‚來而如來å¯èƒ½å˜æœ‰çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œé‚£æ€Žéº¼å¯ä»¥èªªé€éŽé€™ç¨®ä½œå‹•èªªè€Œå¯ä»¥èªªæ˜Žå¦‚來的å˜æœ‰å‘¢ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‹¥çª®èˆ‰çª®ç›¡å¦‚來實有æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹çš„å¯èƒ½æ€§éƒ½ä¸€ä¸€ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è©²æ¢ä»¶æœ¬èº«ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œè‹¥å¦‚來ä¸å¯¦æœ‰ï¼Œä½•å¿…得用作動說來說明如來的實有?這æ¢è·¯é‚„是行ä¸é€šçš„ï¼ï¼‰
é Œä¹ï¼š
åˆæ‰€å—五陰  ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰
若無自性者  云何有他性  
白話:åˆåœ¨ä»¥ä½œå‹•ä¸è€Œæœ‰ç”Ÿèµ·çš„五蘊就表示它們自身ä¸å¾žè‡ªæ€§æœ‰ï¼ˆç„¡è‡ªæ€§ä¸”ä¸ç¨ç«‹æ–¼ä½œå‹•è€Œå¯¦æœ‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸è—‰ç”±è‡ªæ€§è€Œæœ‰ï¼Œæ€Žéº¼èƒ½èªªè—‰ç”±ä»–性而能å˜åœ¨ï¼Ÿï¼ˆè‡ªæ€§ã€ä»–性都在åŒä¸€æ¢ä»¶ä¸‹æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³åœ¨ç”Ÿæ»…ä¸æˆç«‹ï¼Œå¦‚果我們說在如來作動ä¸æœ‰äº”蘊生起,則ä¸è«–是作動ã€ç”Ÿèµ·ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯ç”Ÿæ»…事,所以作動說ä¸è¶³ä»¥èªªæ˜Žéžç”Ÿæ»…事的如來實相。這是å°é‡è«–ã€çŸ¥è˜è«–ç«‹å ´å¾ˆå¤§ã€ä½†æ‡‰å¯å…‹æœçš„挑戰ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå:
以如是義故  å—空å—者空
云何當以空  而說空如來
白話:就æ¤æ„ç¾©ï¼Œä½œå‹•èˆ‡å› ä½œå‹•è€Œç”Ÿçš„éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„ï¼Œé‚£å¦‚ä½•å¯ä»¥é€éŽç©ºè€Œèªªæ˜Žå¦‚來空性?
é Œå一:
 空則ä¸å¯èªªã€€ã€€éžç©ºä¸å¯èªª
å…±ä¸å…±åµèªªã€€ã€€ä½†ä»¥å‡å說
白話:空ä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œéžç©ºä¹Ÿä¸å¯è¨€èªªï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦ä¸ç©ºä¸å¯èªªï¼Œéžç©ºéžä¸ç©ºä¸å¯
èªªï¼Œï¼ˆå› ç‚ºç©ºçš„ç¯„åŸŸèˆ‡è¨€èªªã€ç”Ÿæ»…的範域就èªè˜ä¾†èªªç‚ºorthogonal),å°ç©ºçš„一切談論 都是以方便å‡å而說。
é Œå二:
 寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€å¸¸ç„¡å¸¸ç‰å››
寂滅相ä¸ç„¡ã€€ã€€é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››
白話:空ã€å¯‚滅相ä¸ä¸€åˆ‡çš†ç„¡ï¼Œæ™‚間亦無,所以常ã€ç„¡å¸¸ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•éƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去;åŒæ¨£åœ°ï¼Œç©ºé–“亦無,所以有é™ã€ç„¡é™ã€äºŒè€…皆是與二者皆éžé€™äº›æƒ³æ³•ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½å¥—用上去。(åéŽä¾†èªªï¼Œåœ¨è¨€èªžã€ç”Ÿæ»…的經驗範åœä¾†èªªï¼Œæ˜¯å› 為空間與時間這樣的生滅基礎相在èªè˜ç•¶ä¸å¿…然被套用,所以常無常ç‰å››èˆ‡é‚Šç„¡é‚Šç‰å››æˆç‚ºå¯æ€é‡çš„想法。空ä¸ç„¡æ™‚é–“ã€ç©ºé–“ï¼ï¼‰
é Œå三:
邪見深厚者  則說無如來  
如來寂滅相  分別有亦éžã€€
白話:邪見深厚的人,藉æ¤å°±æœƒèªªé‚£æ ¹æœ¬å°±ç„¡å¦‚來å˜åœ¨å•Šã€‚其實脫離生滅在空ä¸è¦åŽ»åˆ†è¾¨æœ‰æˆ–無,本來就是亂套(有無是生滅事,ä¸æ˜¯ç©ºä¸äº‹ï¼‰ã€‚
é Œå四:
 如是性空ä¸ã€€ã€€æ€æƒŸäº¦ä¸å¯
如來滅度後  分別於有無 
白話:在空ä¸ï¼Œæ€ç¶æ˜¯ç„¡ç”¨çš„。如來滅度後,與有無是兩回事(入空與有無是兩回事,一個是發生的ã€ä¸€å€‹æ˜¯èªè˜çš„)。
é Œå五:
 如來éŽæˆ²è«–  而人生戲論
æˆ²è«–ç ´æ…§çœ¼ã€€ã€€æ˜¯çš†ä¸è¦‹ä½›ã€€
白話:若說如來是「超越ã€æˆ²è«–的,這是人所想åƒçš„æˆ²è«–ï¼Œé€™æ¨£çš„æˆ²è«–ç ´å£žäº†æ™ºæ…§ä¹‹çœ¼è€Œå§‹äººä¸å¾—見佛陀。
é Œåå…:
如來所有性  å³æ˜¯ä¸–間性
如來無有性  世間亦無性
  
白話:一切如來的性質,就是世間的性質;如來沒有自性,世間也沒有自性。