---
title: "菩提道次第廣論 · 第二十"
description: "菩提道次第廣論是藏传佛教格鲁派创始人宗喀巴大师所著的佛教经典著作，由法尊法师译为汉文。该书成书于15世纪初，系统阐述了从凡夫到成佛的完整修行次第，融合了显密教法。内容涵盖下士道、中士道、上士道三主要道，详细指导修行者循序渐进地修习佛法。作为藏传佛教最重要的论典之一，菩提道次第廣論奠定了格鲁派教义基础，在佛教史上具有崇高地位，被誉为\"雪域佛教百科全书\"，对汉藏佛教交流产生了深远影响。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cm983sr3r08ucjo0vq86hwpj3"
---

## 菩提道次第廣論卷二十

> The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Volume 20

宗喀巴大師造

> Composed by Master Tsongkhapa

法尊法師譯

> Master Fazun's Translation

第三、明顯所破之理。分三：一、正明所破義；二、於餘所破加不加此之理；三、釋於所破應不應加勝義簡別。今初

> Third, the rationale for clearly identifying what is to be refuted. This has three parts: 1. Properly defining the object of refutation; 2. Whether this definition applies to other objects of refutation; 3. Explaining whether the qualification "ultimately" should be added to the object of refutation. The first is discussed here.

總所破事略有二種，謂道所破及理所破。初如《辨中邊論》云：「於諸煩惱障，及以所知障，此攝一切障，盡此得解脫。」謂煩惱及所知二障，此所破事於所知有，此若無者，應一切有情不加功用而得解脫故。理所破者，如《迴諍論》云：「又有於化女，起實女邪執，以化而破除，今此亦如是。」《自釋》中云：「若有士夫，於自性空變化婦女，謂是實女而起邪執，邪執彼故遂起貪愛。次有如來或如來弟子變一化身，以此化身遮彼邪執。如是我語空如變化，於一切法無性本空，等同化女，遮遣邪執為有自性。」此說邪執為所破事，及彼所執實有自性亦為所破，故有二種。然正所破厥為後者，以破顛倒心須先破彼所執境故。如緣起因破人法上所有自性，故此所破須所知中無，有則不能破故。雖如是無，然能發生增益執有，故定須破。破除之理，亦非如以錘擊瓶，是於無令起知無定解。若定解無，即能遮遣執有亂識。如是以理成立，亦非如種發芽先無新生，是於如是法起决定智，知其如是。《迴諍論》云：「雖無能破語，其無亦成立，然此語云無，令解非令除。」《自釋》中云：「雖無汝語，若無之滅亦本成立，何為更說一切諸法皆無自性，汝說彼語有何作為？此當為釋說一切法皆無自性，非由此語令一切法成無自性。然說諸法皆無自性，是令了解破無自性。譬如天授原未在家，有云家有天授，有於無彼說云其無，此語非令天授成無，唯顯天授家中非有。如是說云，諸法無性，非由此語令其諸法成無自性，然一切法皆無自性。諸愚眾生，為無明蔽增益自性，如於幻士愚其原無士夫實體，唯為令解自性非有。故汝說云，若性非有，即無語言，不假語言，自性非有亦極成立。說無自性此語何為。此諸言說皆不應理。」此說極顯，當如是知。

> The things to be refuted can be broadly divided into two kinds: what is refuted on the path and what is refuted by reasoning. The first is as stated in the \*Discourse on Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes\*: "Regarding the afflictive obstructions and the obstructions to omniscience, these encompass all obstructions; by overcoming these, one attains liberation." This means that the afflictive obstructions and the obstructions to omniscience are what is to be refuted on the path, and they exist within the knowable. If they did not exist, then all sentient beings would attain liberation without any effort, which is not the case. As for what is refuted by reasoning, the \*Dialogue on Refutation\* states: "Similarly, when someone mistakenly grasps an illusory woman as a real woman, the illusion itself serves to dispel that misconception. This case is the same." In the author's own commentary, it explains: "Suppose a person, seeing a woman created by illusion that is empty of inherent existence, mistakenly believes her to be real and, due to that misconception, develops attachment. Then the Buddha or one of his disciples conjures another apparition to dispel that misconception. Likewise, my words—emptiness like illusion—show that all phenomena are inherently empty, just like the illusory woman, and thereby dispel the misconception that they have real existence." This indicates that the mistaken conception is what is to be refuted, and the object of that misconception—the belief in true inherent existence—is also to be refuted. So there are these two. However, the primary object of refutation is the latter, because to counteract a distorted mind, one must first refute the object it grasps. For example, through the principle of dependent origination, one refutes the inherent nature attributed to persons and phenomena. Therefore, what is to be refuted must be something that does not exist within the knowable—if it existed, it could not be refuted. Even though it does not exist, it still gives rise to the inflated perception that it does, so it certainly must be refuted. The method of refutation is not like smashing a pot with a hammer. Rather, it is generating a definite understanding that it does not exist. Once one has that definite understanding, the distorted perception that grasps it as existing is dispelled. Likewise, establishing through reasoning is not like a seed sprouting into something new that did not exist before. It is developing certain knowledge about such things, understanding them as they truly are. The \*Dialogue on Refutation\* states: "Even without refuting words, the non-existence is still established; but these words saying 'it does not exist' help us understand, not eliminate." In the author's own commentary: "Even without your words, the absence of inherent existence is already established—so why bother declaring that all phenomena lack inherent nature? What purpose does saying that serve? This is to explain that declaring all phenomena to lack inherent nature does not make them lack inherent nature. Rather, saying that all phenomena lack inherent nature is to help us understand the absence of that which is to be refuted—inherent existence. For example, suppose Devadatta was never at home. Someone says, 'Devadatta is at home.' Another person, knowing he is absent, says, 'He is not there.' That statement does not make Devadatta absent from home; it merely indicates that he is not at home. Likewise, saying that phenomena lack inherent nature does not make them lack inherent nature—they already lack it. But ignorant beings, blinded by confusion, inflate inherent existence onto phenomena, just as someone fooled by an illusion thinks there is a real person where there is none. The purpose is simply to help us understand that inherent existence is not present. So when you say, 'If inherent nature does not exist, then no words are needed—without relying on words, the absence of inherent nature is already well established, so what is the point of saying it lacks inherent nature?'—all such objections are unreasonable." This explanation is extremely clear, and this is how it should be understood.

故有說云：有不能破，無不須破，離諸破立，以多破立正理觀察，唯練名言。此全未見正理及道破立影像相違亂言，自現宣說有不能破、無不須破之因，破斥他人破立觀察，而謂不應破立故。又以所立之因，破斥他許之破立，不應正理，有不能破、無不須破故。以正理破者，是為遮遣顛倒錯亂之分別。以正理立者，是能引發無倒定解之方便。故欲遣邪執及欲生正覺，定當隨行龍猛等之正理眾論，於無倒破立引生定解。

> Therefore, some claim: "What exists cannot be refuted, what does not exist needs no refutation. Setting aside all refutation and establishment, the many reasoned analyses of refutation and establishment merely refine conventions." This entirely fails to see the true meaning and the erroneous confused words of refutation and establishment as reflections—contradicting the very points they attempt to uphold. They assert that what exists cannot be refuted and what does not exist needs no refutation, thereby attacking others' reasoned analyses and claiming that one should not engage in refutation or establishment. Moreover, to use one's proposed reason to attack another's acceptance of refutation and establishment is not logically sound—because what exists cannot be refuted, and what does not exist needs no refutation. Refuting through reason serves to dispel mistaken and distorted conceptualizations. Establishing through reason is a method for generating correct and unerring certainty. Therefore, if one wishes to eliminate wrong views and cultivate true awakening, one must certainly follow the reasoned treatises of Nagarjuna and others, and develop firm certainty in correct refutation and establishment that are free from error.

如是以正理破，若是由破倒執，為欲引發無倒定解者，當以正理破何心之境耶？總所破分別，雖無邊際，然以何顛倒分別而為一切過失之根本，當先明彼，破其所執之境，若能破彼，則一切過失悉遮遣故。經說貪等諸餘對治，是一分之對治，說無明對治是一切之對治。無明即是一切過失之根本。如《明顯句論》云：「佛依二諦說，契經等九部，就諸世間行，於此廣宣說。其為除貪說，不能斷瞋恚，為除瞋故說，亦非能盡貪，為斷慢等說，彼不壞餘垢，故彼非廣徧，彼皆無大義。若為斷癡說，彼盡壞煩惱，諸佛說一切，煩惱皆依癡。」何者為癡？謂執內、外諸法由自相生，增益自性之心，此為無明。如《四百論釋》云：「若識增益諸法自性，由彼染汙無知增上貪著諸法，是為流轉生死種子，於一切種永滅除故，即便安立生死還滅。為顯此義故說頌云：『三有種為識，境為彼行境，若見境無我，三有種當滅。』此顯由見境無自性，於一切種破除貪因三有種識，安立聲聞獨覺及得無生法忍菩薩生死還滅。」又即說彼是為實執：「如身根於身，愚癡徧安住，故壞癡能壞，一切諸煩惱。」《四百論釋》云：「癡於諸法分別諦實極愚蔽故，遂於諸法增益實性而轉。」

> When we refute false views through reasoning, what exactly are we trying to disprove? The mistaken thoughts we might challenge are limitless, but the root of all faults lies in one fundamental misconception. To be effective, we should identify that core misunderstanding first, then dismantle the object it clings to—because once that is overturned, all other faults collapse with it. The scriptures say that remedies against greed and other afflictions are only partial cures, but the remedy against ignorance is a complete cure. Ignorance is the very root of all problems. As the \*Clear Words\* commentary states: "The Buddha, based on the two truths, taught the nine divisions of scripture for people living in the world. Teachings given to remove greed do not eliminate hatred; those given to remove hatred do not fully end greed; teachings to break pride do not destroy other defilements—they are limited and lack universal power. But teachings given to dispel ignorance destroy all afflictions at once. For the Buddhas declare that every defilement rests upon ignorance." What is this ignorance? It is the mind that grasps inner and outer things as having an independent, self-existing nature—an invented solidity that things do not truly possess. This is what we call fundamental ignorance. The \*Commentary on Four Hundred Verses\* elaborates: "When consciousness exaggerates the self-nature of things, it becomes tainted by confusion and clings to them as real. This is the seed that keeps us cycling through birth and death. When this seed is utterly destroyed, liberation from the cycle is achieved. To illustrate this, the verse says: 'The seed of worldly existence is consciousness; its objects are what it perceives. When it sees that these objects lack a self, the seed of existence is destroyed.' This shows that by seeing that things lack any fixed essence, one uproots the consciousness that grasps at inherent existence—the very seed of rebirth—and thereby establishes liberation for hearers, solitary realized ones, and bodhisattvas who have attained acceptance of the unborn nature of phenomena." This ignorance is also called "grasping at reality." As the verse puts it: "Just as the sense of touch pervades the whole body, ignorance pervades every aspect of our experience. Therefore, destroying ignorance destroys all afflictions." The \*Commentary on Four Hundred Verses\* adds: "Because ignorance is deeply blinded by its failure to see things as they truly are, it projects an illusion of real, fixed essence onto everything and then acts upon that mistaken projection."

如是若無明是生死根本，則《入中論》與《明顯句論》說薩迦耶見為生死根本不應道理，主要之因無容二故。其無明與薩迦耶見，餘師所許中士道時已宣說訖。此說月稱論師所許，餘中觀師許為所知障之執法諦實，此許為無明，且是染汙無明。如前所引《四百論釋》說為染汙。《入中論釋》云：「由此能令諸有情類，於觀如所住事而起愚蒙，故愚癡無明，法非有性而強增益，於見自性障覆為性，名曰世俗。」又云：「如是由有支所攝染汙無明增上力故，建立世俗諦。」說為十二緣起初支，故是染汙，非所知障。若爾，何為所知障耶？此後當說。故十二支中初無明支是生死根本，又說薩迦耶見為生死根本者，以無明是總，薩迦耶見是別，故不相違。其無明者，謂明相違品，其明亦非任隨何明，是了無我真實義慧。其相違品，非唯無慧及所餘法，是須與彼相違執者，即增益有我。此復有二，謂增益法我及增益補特伽羅我。故法我執與補特伽羅我執，俱是無明。是故宣說薩迦耶見為餘一切煩惱根本，非不宣說無明為本。「乃至有蘊執，爾時有我執。」此說法我愚之無明，為補特伽羅我愚之因，顯示無明內中二執因果之理。故說薩迦耶見除無明外，為餘一切煩惱根本，皆無相違。若不了知如是解釋論師意趣，則說生死有二根本，其相違過極難斷除。如是明無明之理，乃是龍猛菩薩所許。如《七十空性論》云：「因緣所生法，若分別真實，佛說為無明，彼生十二支。見真知法空，無明則不生，此是無明滅，故滅十二支。」《中論》二十六品云：「若永滅無明，諸行當不生，能滅無明者，由知修真實。由前彼彼滅，後彼彼不生，純一大苦蘊，皆當如是滅。」又與「乃至有蘊執」說執蘊為生死根本，極相符順。又是聖天所許，如前所引「如身根於身」等，及「生死本為識」等，顯了宣說。

> If ignorance is indeed the root of cyclic existence, then it would be inconsistent for the \*Entry into the Middle Way\* and the \*Clear Commentary\* to state that the view of the self (Sakāya-diṣṭi) is the root of cyclic existence, since there cannot be two principal causes. The distinction between ignorance and the view of the self, according to other masters, has already been explained in the context of the Middle Stage (Madhyamaka). Here, what Candrakīrti accepts is this: other Mādhyamikas regard the grasping of phenomena as truly existent to be an obscuration to knowledge, whereas here it is accepted as ignorance, and specifically as afflicted ignorance (kleśāvaraṇa). As cited earlier from the \*Commentary on the Four Hundred Verses\*, it is described as afflicted. The \*Entry into the Middle Way\* states: "This is what causes sentient beings to be confused about reality as it truly is, so it is ignorant delusion; it forcibly superimposes existence on what is non-existent, and its nature is to obscure the vision of true reality—this is called the conventional." It further says: "Thus, through the power of afflicted ignorance, which is included within the factors of existence, the conventional truth is established." This is described as the first limb of the twelve links of dependent origination, so it is afflicted, not an obscuration to knowledge. If so, what is an obscuration to knowledge? This will be explained later. Therefore, the first limb, ignorance, among the twelve links is the root of cyclic existence. And when the view of the self is said to be the root of cyclic existence, it is because ignorance is the general category, while the view of the self is a specific instance, so there is no contradiction. What is ignorance? It is the opposite of wisdom. Here, wisdom does not mean just any understanding, but the insight that realizes the true nature of selflessness. The opposite of this is not merely the absence of wisdom or other factors, but rather a grasping that directly contradicts it—namely, the reification of a self. This has two aspects: grasping at a self of phenomena (Dharma-self) and grasping at a self of persons (Pudgala-self). Therefore, both the grasping at a self of phenomena and the grasping at a self of persons are forms of ignorance. Hence, when it is said that the view of the self is the root of all other afflictions, it is not denied that ignorance is their root. As the verse says, "As long as there is grasping at the aggregates, there will be grasping at a self." This indicates that the ignorance that is confused about the self of phenomena is the cause of the ignorance that is confused about the self of persons, showing the causal relationship between the two types of grasping within ignorance. Thus, saying that the view of the self, apart from ignorance, is the root of all other afflictions, is not contradictory. If one fails to understand this interpretation of the masters' intent, then claiming that cyclic existence has two roots gives rise to a contradiction that is extremely difficult to resolve. This way of explaining ignorance and wisdom is exactly what Nāgārjuna accepts. For example, in his \*Seventy Verses on Emptiness\* he says: "Whatever arises from causes and conditions, if one conceptualizes it as truly real, the Buddha calls that ignorance, and from it arise the twelve links. Seeing reality and knowing the emptiness of phenomena, ignorance does not arise—this is the cessation of ignorance, and thus the twelve links cease." In the twenty-sixth chapter of the \*Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way\*, it states: "When ignorance is completely extinguished, the formations will not arise; the one who extinguishes ignorance does so by knowing reality through practice. Through the cessation of each preceding factor, the following ones do not arise—the entire mass of suffering is thus brought to cessation." This is also highly consistent with the statement "As long as there is grasping at the aggregates," which identifies grasping at the aggregates as the root of cyclic existence. Moreover, it is what Āryadeva accepts, as cited earlier with verses like "Just as the sense of touch pervades the body" and "The root of cyclic existence is consciousness," where this is clearly proclaimed.

又阿闍黎於《中論》等盡其所說，破除所破，所有正理，一切皆為破除愚癡，於諸法上增益自性，而顯諸法皆無自性。故所說種種正理，皆是唯為破無明執。如《佛護論》云：「為何義故宣說緣起？答云，阿闍黎耶大悲為性，見諸有情為種種苦之所逼切，為解脫故，欲顯諸法真如實性，隨說緣起。故云：『見非真繫縛，見真實解脫。』何為諸法真實性？答曰：謂無自性。諸不智者，由愚癡闇障蔽慧眼，而於諸法分別自性，由是彼等遂起貪瞋，若時了知緣起，發慧光明除愚癡闇，由智慧眼照見諸法無自性性，爾時無所依處，貪瞋不生。」第二十六品結合文云：「問云，汝已宣說以大乘教轉入勝義，汝今當說以聲聞教轉入勝義。答曰：無明覆後有。」等。第二十七品結合文云：「問云，汝今當依順聲聞乘契經邊際，顯示惡見行相非有。答曰：說過去時生。」等。故佛護論師亦許增益諸法自性為十二支初支無明，及許聲聞獨覺證法無我，極為明顯。是故聲聞獨覺證法無性，最大能立，當知即此以法我執為十二支無明之理。

> Now, the Master (Acharya) in his \*Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way\* and related works presents various lines of reasoning, all aimed solely at破除 the ignorance that superimposes an inherent nature onto phenomena, and at revealing that all phenomena lack any such inherent existence. In other words, every argument he offers is meant only to uproot the clinging to self-existence driven by ignorance. As the \*Commentary by Buddha-Palita\* (Buddhapālita) states: “For what purpose is Dependent Origination taught? The answer: The Master, whose very nature is great compassion, seeing living beings tormented by myriad forms of suffering, and wishing to free them, sets forth Dependent Origination in order to reveal the true reality of phenomena. Thus it is said: ‘Seeing what is not real leads to bondage; seeing reality brings liberation.’ What is the true reality of phenomena? It is their lack of inherent self-existence. Unwise beings, their eye of wisdom clouded by the darkness of ignorance, project an inherent nature onto things. From this, craving and aversion arise. But when one understands Dependent Origination, the light of wisdom dawns, dispelling the darkness of ignorance, and with this wisdom eye one sees that all phenomena are devoid of inherent existence. At that point, there is no basis for craving or aversion to arise.” Similarly, the linking passage before Chapter 26 of the same commentary says: “Question: You have already explained how the Mahayana teachings lead to the ultimate truth. Now please explain how the teachings of the Shravakas (hearers) also lead to the ultimate truth. Answer: ‘Ignorance covers beings and leads to future rebirths,’ and so on.” The linking passage for Chapter 27 states: “Question: Please now, in accordance with the sutras of the Shravakayana, show that the forms of wrong views have no real existence. Answer: ‘They say, “In the past, I was born,” ’ and so on.” Thus, Master Buddha-Palita also clearly holds that the superimposition of an inherent nature onto phenomena is none other than the first link of the twelvefold chain—ignorance—and that Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers) do realize the selflessness of phenomena. This is unmistakable. Therefore, the strongest evidence that Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas attain realization of the lack of inherent existence in phenomena lies precisely in this principle: the grasping at a self-existence of phenomena is what constitutes the ignorance that serves as the first link of the twelvefold chain.

《四百論》云：「縛為分別見，彼是此所破。」其分別者，非說一切分別，是說增益諸法自性之分別。《釋論》云：「分別者，謂增益非真自性之義。」又許彼是染汙無明。若說凡是「念此為此」，一切分別之境，皆是正理所破者，是全未詳細觀察。若不爾者，其真實義，於諸異生非現見故，除分別外無餘方便能解空義。若謂一切分別之境，皆理所違害，則定智之境，亦如增益自性錯亂邪識。若爾，應無正見導赴涅槃，於中觀等論勤聞、思等一切無果。《四百論》云：「言我般涅槃，非不空見空，如來說邪見，不能般涅槃。」又以前說無明所執之境為根本，自他宗部諸師，而更增益眾多差別。若拔無明所執之境，如拔樹根，則由邪宗一切假立一切俱斷，故具慧者當知俱生無明所執之境，為所破之根本，不應專樂破除宗派妄計分別。以破所破者，非無事而尋事，是見邪分別心執所破事，繫縛有情流轉生死，故破其所境。能於生死繫縛一切有情者，是俱生無明故。分別無明唯邪宗方有，為生死本不應理故。故能於此分別决定，極為切要。如是計執所破究竟之邪分別，即十二支之初支，俱生無明。分別所破，亦以彼為根本，唯是增益。故根識等無分別識，一切行相，終非正理之所能破。故正理所破之心，唯屬分別意識。特以二種我執或於我執所計之境，增益差別諸分別心，非謂一切分別。

> The \*Hundred Verses\* states: "Bondage is mental fabrication and conceptual discrimination; this is what is to be refuted here." But "discrimination" here does not mean all forms of conceptual thought. Rather, it refers specifically to the conceptualization that superimposes an intrinsic nature onto phenomena—an essence they do not actually possess. The commentary explains: "Discrimination means the conceptual exaggeration of a reality that is not truly existent." This is also identified as afflicted ignorance. If one were to claim that every instance of thinking "this is that"—all objects of conceptual discrimination—is refuted by reasoned analysis, that would be a complete failure to investigate carefully. Why? Because if that were so, the ultimate truth, not being directly visible to ordinary beings, could never be understood—since apart from conceptual thought, there is no other means to comprehend emptiness. Moreover, if all objects of conceptual discrimination were contradicted by reason, then even the objects of certain, valid cognition would be as mistaken as the deluded mind that superimposes intrinsic nature. In that case, there would be no true view to guide one toward Nirvana, and all the listening, reflecting, and meditating on treatises such as the Madhyamaka texts would be utterly pointless. The \*Hundred Verses\* also states: "One who says 'I will attain Nirvana' without seeing emptiness—such a one, the Tathāgata declares, holds a wrong view and cannot attain Nirvana." Furthermore, the object grasped by the ignorance described earlier serves as the root, upon which various scholastic traditions superimpose many additional conceptual elaborations. If one uproots the object grasped by that ignorance, it is like pulling a tree out by its roots—all the fabrications of mistaken philosophical systems are cut off along with it. Therefore, a wise person should recognize that the object grasped by innate ignorance is the fundamental object to be refuted. One should not take delight merely in refuting the speculative fabrications of philosophical schools. Why? Because refuting the object of negation is not an idle exercise of chasing after problems. Rather, one sees that it is the deluded mind's grasping of its object that binds sentient beings to the cycle of rebirth, and so one refutes that object. What actually binds all beings to cyclic existence is innate ignorance. Speculative ignorance exists only within philosophical systems; it cannot be the root of samsara. Thus, it is crucially important to distinguish these two clearly. The ultimate object to be refuted—the mistaken conceptualization—is the first of the twelve links of dependent origination: innate ignorance. The speculative forms of what is refuted are also rooted in that same ignorance; they are merely additional superimpositions. Therefore, the operations of the sense consciousnesses and other non-conceptual forms of awareness can never be refuted by valid reasoning. What reasoned analysis refutes is exclusively the conceptual mind—particularly the two types of self-grasping and the various discriminative thoughts that elaborate upon the objects conceived by self-grasping. It does not refute all conceptual thought whatsoever.

由彼無明如何增益自性之理者，總此論師之論中，雖於諸世俗義，亦云自性或自體等，設立多名。然此中者，謂於諸法或補特伽羅隨一之境，非由自心增上安立，執彼諸法各從自體，有本住性，即是其相。如彼取境之諸法本體，或名曰我，或名自性，是就假觀察而明。如云：「此皆無自性，是故我非有。」《四百論釋》云：「若法自性、自體、自在、不仗他性。」此說彼諸異名。不仗他者，非謂不仗因緣，是說有境名言之識為他，非由彼增上安立為不仗他。言自在者，謂彼諸境各本安住不共體性，即彼亦名自性、自體。此如計繩為蛇，其蛇唯就妄執之心假計而立。若觀何為彼蛇自性，則於境上蛇全非有，故彼差別無可觀察。如是諸法，亦唯於名言識，如所顯現觀察安立，若於境上觀察諸法本性如何，全無所有。不如是執，謂非唯名言識增上安立，執彼諸法各由自體有可量見本安住性。如《四百論釋》云：「唯有分別方可名有，若無分別則皆非有，此等無疑如於盤繩假計為蛇，定非由其自性所成。」此說自性所成之相。故若非由內心增上安立，於其境上就自性門有所成就，說彼為我或名自性。若於差別事補特伽羅境上無此，名補特伽羅無我。若於眼等法上無者，名法無我。由此當知，若於法上及補特伽羅執有此性，是二我執。如《四百論釋》云：「所言我者，謂若諸法不依仗他，自性自體。若無此者，是為無我。此由法與補特伽羅有差別故，當知有二名，法無我及補特伽羅無我。」

若謂執補特伽羅有自相為補特伽羅我執，不應道理。若不爾者，緣他補特伽羅執有自相，亦應是補特伽羅我執。若爾，應成薩迦耶見，彼不執我薩迦耶見，不應理故。執補特伽羅有自性者，理應許為補特伽羅我執，如前說補特伽羅有性，為補特伽羅我故。然非補特伽羅我執，皆是薩迦耶見。若爾，何為薩迦耶見我執？薩迦耶見分別我執，如正量部一分說緣蘊執我，雖無决定，然俱生我執，《入中論》中破蘊為所緣，《釋》說緣依蘊假立之我，故非緣蘊，唯緣補特伽羅。復須可執為我之補特伽羅，故他補特伽羅亦非所緣。於此所緣執相云何？《入中論釋》云：「薩迦耶見執我我所行相而轉。」謂非但執有自相，須執為我。《入中論釋》云：「唯薩迦耶見是所應斷，此由悟入無我之我，即能斷除。」此說通達所緣之我，無其實我或無自性，由其行相相違而斷，故是執著慧相違品，此後是執補特伽羅有自性，即是執有自相之我。執有我所薩迦耶見，亦當了知。若不執為我及我所，唯執實有補特伽羅，即愚補特伽羅我之無明，非不染汙。由是因緣，以有自性所立之我及念我心取境之我，二中初者是正理所破，後者許名言有，故非所破。此顯不破薩迦耶見俱生所緣，然非不破彼執行相自性之我。譬如不破執聲為常所緣之聲，然破彼執境之聲常，無有相違。故聖父子及此二論師之論中，「若自性有」、「若自體有」、「若自相有」、「若是實有」，其自性等應知如前所說。顯無彼之句義，當知亦是顯示無明所執之義無。

第二、於餘所破加不加之理。

若石女兒及兔角等，諸畢竟無，直可云無，不須簡別。如是雖於所知有，然依時處有有、有無，若說彼時處無，亦不須簡別。若中觀師雖於名言不許彼有，唯由自他實事諸宗不共增益，破彼等時，雖就意樂有時須加，然實無須新加自性簡別，以彼諸宗已許彼義故。除彼所餘，中觀諸師於名言中所立諸義，任破何義皆須簡別。若不簡別，則於能破之正理，過失同轉，唯成似破。又如前說中觀諸師，於名言中所立諸義，必須觀察有無自性之正理及名言量所不能害。若不爾者，則於名言不許大自在等，而許色、聲等所有差別，全不得成。云此是道、此是非道，此宗應理、此不應理等世、出世間，皆無安立之方便。於自性空生死、涅槃一切建立，皆應正理之特法不可成故。若量無害而欲破彼，是為智者輕笑之處。故破彼時定當簡別。《四百論釋》及《六十正理論釋》破所破時有極多處，加彼簡別。《中觀》本論及《佛護釋》、《明顯句釋》，并《入中論》本釋等中，亦多處加，因見文繁及多已加，意其未加亦易通達，故未加處亦定須加，由彼無少加與不加差別理故。又云：「觀察非有。」亦有多加觀察之簡別者，此如前說，若有自性，須許觀察實性正理之所能得，由未得故，則無自性，當知與說無有自性，同一宗要。如《四百論釋》云：「設此諸法，非如火輪及變化等，唯現欺誑而無實事，爾時若以正理觀察，定如金等自性可緣最極顯現，然彼唯由顛倒因生，若以觀察慧火燒煉，其性非有。」

第三、釋於所破應不應加勝義簡別。

說於所破加勝義簡別，唯是中觀自續派者，極不應理。《入中論釋》引《佛母》云：「長老須菩提，豈無所得、無所證耶？須菩提曰：長老舍利子，雖有所得亦有所證，然非二相之理。長老舍利子，其得、證者，是依世間名言而立。預流、一來、不還、阿羅漢、獨覺、菩薩，亦依世間名言而立，若勝義中無得、無證。」須如是許，豈謂《入中論釋》所引為自續派之經耶？如是諸了義經加勝義簡別者，實亦繁多。《七十空性論》云：「住生滅有無，劣等或殊勝，佛依世間說，非是依真實。」《寶鬘論》云：「言有我我所，此於勝義無。」又云：「若種子虛妄，其生豈諦實。」又云：「如是世如幻，雖現有生滅，然於勝義中，生滅皆非有。」於所破加勝義、諦實、真實者極多，未加彼時亦多加無自性、自體、自相等簡別。《佛護論》云：「『諸佛說正法，正依於二諦，世間世俗諦，及以勝義諦。』若以世間世俗諦故，可說有瓶、有席，即以此故，亦可說彼無常，瓶壞、席燒。若時意依真實，爾時瓶、席唯是假名且不應理，况其壞燒云何應理？復次，如來若以世間世俗增上可說無常，謂如來老及說如來已般涅槃。若時意樂依於勝義，爾時如來且不應理，况老、涅槃云何應理？」月稱論師說破實生，非破有生，如《六十正理論釋》云：「若於何相影像可得，緣生虛妄，我不說彼現可得者，名為無生，然於何性立為無生，即於彼性說為無生。為於何性立無生耶？謂許實自性非虛妄性，以許彼於妄性為緣起故。」此說不破虛妄幻生唯破實生，故說緣生與性無生二不相違，即前論云：「生與無生二境異故，有何相違？」又云：「若時我說緣生，即性無生，猶如影像，爾時何有攻難之處？」此答緣生與性無生相違之諍。《入中論》云：「由此次第，當知法實性無生，世間生。」此於無生加實性簡別。又云：「如此瓶等實性無，而於世間許為有，如是一切法皆成，故無過同石女兒。」此說內外一切諸法，於真實無，於名言有，故非於所破不加勝義之簡別。

總於所破，若全不許加勝義簡別，則不可立二諦差別，謂於勝義如此如此，及於世俗如此如此。全未說有如此之中觀師，故唯邪分別。《明顯句論》破於所破加勝義之簡別者，是就破自生，非唯破生，釋中極顯。《入中論》云：「阿闍黎耶未加簡別，總云『不自』而破其生。若簡別云：『諸法勝義不自生，有故，如有思。』當知其勝義之簡別，全無義利。」故中觀自續師與應成師，非就於所破加不加勝義簡別判之為二，然於名言破不破自性則有差別。若於內外諸法破自性時，如應成派則不須新加或勝義或真實或諦實之簡別，以有自性即已成為勝義等故。若自續派於彼不加勝義等者，則不能破，故加勝義或真或諦。然於生滅及繫縛、解脫等，若不簡別或云勝義或自性等而說能破，兩派中觀俱所不許。

若爾，何為勝義無之義？此中義謂所知，勝謂第一，二同一事。又勝謂無分別智，彼智之義或境故名勝義。又無分別智現證勝義，順彼之慧說名勝義。如云：「此中諸地等，於勝義無生。」《熾然分別論釋》云：「言勝義者，是所知故名義，即所觀、所了之增語。勝是第一之異名，略云勝義。謂此是義復是最勝故名勝義。又勝之義，以是無分別勝智之義故名勝義。又順勝義，謂於隨順能證勝義之慧，有彼勝義故名順勝義。」如云於勝義非有，或說云無，彼說之勝義即最後者。如此論云：「若爾，勝義超一切心，破法自性是文字境，是故豈非無可破耶？勝義有二，一、謂無作行轉，出世無漏無諸戲論，二、謂有作行轉，福智資糧隨順清淨，名世間智有諸戲論。此中立宗取彼差別，故無過失。」此取聞思以上，如理觀察真實義慧，不應唯取聖後得智。《中觀光明論》云：「言勝義無生等，其義通許一切聞、思、修所成慧，皆名勝義，無倒心故。是此之勝義故，現與不現而有差別。由彼增上知一切法，皆唯無生。故說勝義無生者，是說彼等由正知故生皆不成。」與前說同。《中觀莊嚴論釋》難云：「何為無自性性？謂於真實。言真實者，謂隨事勢轉，比量所證真實義性，真實義相觀察即空。由此宣說真實及勝義等。又唯真智說名真等，是彼所緣故。由此真智意樂增上，名無自性，非由世俗無智增上。」於無自性加真等簡別，《般若燈論》、《熾然分別》二論多說。猶如《般若燈論釋》十五品云：「若無自性，云何是事？若是事者，應非無性，故以彼語有謗自宗。」謂立宗云，事無自性，則有自語相違過失，即前論中答此諍云：「非許勝義諸事有性，次立宗說彼無自性，故無謗宗義。非因不成，故此無過。」謂許諸法勝義無性，非毀謗故。若於名言謂無自性，許為毀謗極為明顯。又彼論云：「勝義諸內法皆無自性性，所作性故，殊勝言說待所依故，譬如幻師所化人等。」此破自性決定當加勝義簡別。言勝義無者，義謂若以如理觀察之正理，觀實性時，見彼非有。此諸論師一切皆同。故清辨論師論中，立世俗時，亦說不以順見真實觀察，破自性時，多說以理觀察為無，此與前說諸師皆同。然凡有性堪忍觀察實性正理推察，許否不同。此二論師，若有自性，則定須忍觀察實性正理推察，故亦定成勝義中有，如前數說。

破所破時應成自續以誰而破。分二：一、明應成自續之義；二、身生正見當隨誰行。今初

佛護論師釋中，未明分別應成自續，建立應成。然於解釋「非自非從他，非共非無因，諸法隨何處，其生終非有」時，唯依說舉他宗違害而破四生。清辨論師出過破，謂全無能力成立自宗及破他宗。然佛護宗無如是過，月稱論師廣為解釋，謂中觀師自身發生中觀方便，須用應成，自續非理，破他宗已，顯應成宗。

安立應成、自續兩派。分二：一、破除他宗；二、安立自宗。初又分二：一、出計；二、破執。今初

雖有多種安立應成、自續之理，然彼一切孰能盡說？故當於中略說少分。其慶喜師所說，《入中論疏》云：「有作是言，若許應成因，其因為量成耶？抑未成耶？若謂已成，爾時俱成，云何他許？若謂未成，則他不許，云何他許？當答彼曰：凡量所成應是俱成，此非我知，諸立論者立能立時，其所立因自雖量成，然他量成自何能知？他心差別非自現量、比量境故。又自量成亦何能知？錯謬因緣長夜攝持，有欺誑故。故唯由其立論對論，許量之力，許諸法性，故依所許破除他宗。」此說因於敵者量成不成，立者不知，以彼無樂，俱非立者二量成故。自亦不知因是量成，自雖决斷是量所成，亦有欺誑。故無雙方量成之因，就許為量。量雖未成，然就所許，破亦應理。又於自續之因宗云：「若因與所立以量成徧（即同品定有異品遍無也），爾時，當許自續之能立。然徧不成，謂能成徧之量或現或比，現且不能成其為徧，謂於灶房由現可緣不可緣故，遂謂火烟，此有則彼有，彼無則此無，通達無則不生，然非於一切境。亦非由比，彼境定故，謂比量境非通一切，何以故？若有所立相屬之因，唯於彼生無常等智，非一切時、處。故唯依世許成立為徧，非以量成。故應成因破除他宗，如何非理？」此說：「有火徧於有煙，及無常性遍於所作。若以量成，則自續應理，然非量成。若以量成，應須成立一切時、處有火、無常徧煙、所作。然以現、比於灶、瓶等成其為徧，是一分故，故徧亦唯就許而成。」此說若用量成三相是自續派，畢竟唯用他許三相是應成派。

彼之弟子諸譯師云：「中觀師者，唯破他許，餘無自宗。其有法等，二無共許故，自續非理。正理之果，亦唯令捨他宗，除彼之餘，自無所許，故一切種不應宣說自續之因，唯用應成。又能立應成，即自續究竟，故唯應許能破應成。其因及徧就現前許或究竟許，非由量成。依此因緣略有四門，斷他所許或斷戲論。一、舉唯應成，謂他所許生有盡、有義，若許自生，舉相違云，若從自生是有而生，生應無義及無窮盡，故許有義、有盡不應正理。若許彼者，而云自生，不應道理。令他知已，捨宗為果。二、他許比量，如云許自生，芽應不自生，自體有故。舉說他許有法、因等，而反破他。雖云無自生，亦唯破他許之自生，非自成立無自生義，故自無宗。三、能立同所立，他為成立自所宗故，所立因、喻一切如前，皆不極成。四、因相相等，謂若許彼，即當許此因相無別，令其相等。若爾，汝有無欲破他所許？有即是宗，應有立彼自續之因，無則不應宣說正理，破他所許。答：觀勝義時，若許無性或以無生為所立者，則須受許自續宗、因，然不許彼，故無過失。若略有欲即有所宗，則一切欲皆應有宗。」此說自己無所立宗，唯破他宗，雖有所欲亦無所宗。又自無宗，是就觀察勝義之時，謂不立宗無自性等，非說一切全無所許。故於觀察勝義之時，若許無性為所成立，而於自宗成立無性是自續派，若自無許唯破他欲是應成派。

現在自許是應成中觀者，作如是說，隨依勝義及依名言，雖於名言自宗無許。若有彼宗，亦須許有能立因、喻成自續派，故應成派全無自宗。如《迴諍論》云：「若我有少宗，則我有彼過，然我無所宗，故我唯無過。若以現量等，略見有少法，或立或破除，無故我無難。」《六十正理論》云：「諸大德本性，無宗無所諍，彼尚無自宗，豈更有他宗？」《四百論》云：「若有無二俱，誰全非有宗，雖長時於彼，不能舉過難。」說中觀師無宗無立故。《明顯句論》云：「凡中觀師，理不應用自續比量，不許他宗故。」又云：「應成破義亦唯屬他，非屬我等，自無宗故。」《入中論》云：「能破、所破不會破，及會而破所說失，若定有宗彼成過，我無彼宗故無失。」說自無宗過不轉故。故中觀師一切建立皆唯就他而立。《入中論》云：「如汝依他事，我不許世俗，果故此雖無，我依世說有。」《迴諍論》云：「所破無所有，故我全無破，是故云能破，是汝興毀謗。」說破他宗亦非有故。

又昔西藏中觀智者，隨行月稱論師善破諸宗，說中觀師自無所宗及無能立之量。次自宗時，破以正理觀擇自相所許能量、所量建立及事力轉現、比二量，然許名言不加推察，世間共許能量、所量。次中觀師自於敵者建能立言，以真正因立無實義，然非自續，以就世間共許之量，未加推察而安立故。

第二、破執分四。

破第一家。入中論疏派，說因、徧非由量成，說因非以量成之理，且不應理，以許因須由立、敵俱用量成之家，非由立者未知敵成便不許因。故汝彼理不能破，須敵者以量成故。又以未知敵者他心，立為不知他用量成者，亦不應知他許彼義，則以他許而破他等，亦非理故。他雖說云：我如是許，現可决定。然如所說非定許故，及不知他心故。

說徧非以量成之理亦不應理，以於灶上成立有火徧有烟時，灶是所通達處，其上所達之義，唯取有火徧於有烟，非取灶中有火徧灶有烟，豈取時、處一分之徧？若不爾者，灶非此徧已定之處，須更顯示已定之處。如於聲上，所定無常所成立法，須於聲、瓶二事隨轉，非立聲上一分無常。由此道理，許無比量成立能徧，亦當了知不應正理。

如是有說非由量成，唯由立、敵所許而成，亦不應理。唯以彼許為因，不能破他，以他所許其義不成，量於自他俱非有故。若謂所許而分差別，如此則成，此則不成者，如是分別，若以所許為因等同所立，若以量有無而分，失量無欲。

破第二家。觀真實時以不許無自性宗，謂不立自續宗之義者，為以理智觀有無自性，不能立宗，故不許彼宗耶？抑以觀真實時故為因，不許彼宗耶？如初說者，若以理智不能成立無性宗義，則以理智亦不能破有性宗義，因相等故。若謂觀察真實義時，亦不能破有性宗義，極不應理，前說以諸正理觀察破他宗故，無觀察心不能破他宗故。若不爾者，何須別說自宗無立，即破他宗亦不許故。若許應成破他宗者，則破有性即立無性，如前《迴諍》本釋論說，於此更無第三聚故。若不爾者，則翻說云，是立無性、非破有性，有何答難？若謂决斷無性定遮有性，則遮有性定成無性，理相等故。若謂是觀真實義時，故不可立無性等宗，更當宣說其中因相。若謂觀真義時，有所立者即勝義有，故不應許，此不應理。若亦不許觀真義時，應許全無以中觀理觀察時位。若立彼時，亦定須許能觀之人，觀察之理，所觀之事，與誰同觀之敵者等。爾時，所有何須一切皆勝義有。又說應成，唯就他許或究竟許，雖無量成而能出過，非能滿意，如破初家而當破除。又若立云，觀真實時無所受許，名言有許，亦不應理。其觀真實時，非於勝義，須於名言，此相違故。又若觀真義時無，即勝義無之義，凡中觀師全無受許勝義有者，非應成派殊勝法故。

破第三家。說中觀師雖於名言亦無許者，是如前說未善明了正理所破，以彼理性破除他宗，翻難自時，便見自宗亦如是轉，不知安立自宗離過，生死、涅槃一切緣起與大自在，有無相同，是故此乃謗中觀師最鄙惡者。破除此執前已廣說。觀中觀師有許、無許，由具何事名中觀師，則彼中觀定當受許。須許通達全無塵許勝義中有，及許名言緣起之義一切如幻，故有所許。又安立此，亦須破除彼二違品，許勝義有及名言無諸惡言論。故有正量通達立、破，如自所證，以中觀語無倒教他，亦可得故。建立此等，無一敵者而能如法求少分過，是故此宗最極清淨。由是因緣，若自不知安立離過智中觀宗，莫謗為無，應當受許緣起正理，斬斷一切諸惡見網。賢正慧者，應立中觀宗離一切違，不應專求抵賴為能。《明顯句論》云：「如是我宗最極清淨，一切建立無違而住，與彼自宗具粗近過，有相違時，愚蒙不見功德、過失如何而住，汝自諸過失」等。如前所引，此說於中觀宗，由决擇勝義之量及名言量道所興建立，無過可設，最極清淨，生死、涅槃一切建立，皆可安立，當得定解。若不爾者，謂中觀師全無自宗，無過可設，則說一切語言皆是妄語，亦全不能破，以一切因相悉相等故。又不可說，於無所許不可以有許徵察，故無過設，無所許故。若如是者，則說一切語言皆虛妄者，亦說一切語言皆妄，不當觀察彼言為實，不能顯其自語相違。《入中論》云：「若我少成實有事，如心應非不可說。」如犢子部許有實我，而不可說與蘊一、異。破云：若是實有，當說與蘊或一或異，云於此中俱不可說不應道理，則不能破。彼可答云：我說實我，若一若異俱不可說，不可推察或一或異令有說故。若言：「若說實有補特伽羅，不可說與蘊若一若異，則成相違，俱不可說不應正理，故此觀察可於彼轉。」則云：「無許。」已漸有許，亦不可說全無所許，理相等故。若作是言：「云我『無財』，乞云『願施無財之財』。我說無許，教許無許。二說相等。」此乃未解敵者之意，我非總說令許無許。若爾云何？汝云無許，實漸有許，顯示汝言須許無許，故不能斷自語相違。

若汝此說非中觀宗，則引聖父子等正教成立，而成相違，不可立為月稱師宗。又非所餘佛弟子宗。故汝已出此法之外。若是中觀，尤是月稱宗者，許自無宗則成相違。如是意欲解脫有許，云諸建立唯就他立，亦不應理。說唯就他許有色等，此縱未許色等是有，然就他立定須受許，故終不能免脫有許。爾時就誰安立之他及能安立之自等，皆須受許。故說唯就他許，於自無宗非但無益，且有違害。若云：「我全未說無有自宗，唯就他許。唯汝自現。」順世外道，尚所不能抵賴現事，汝全抵賴。汝自所說自無所覺，由我聽聞汝乃了知，實為希有。若如是者，何須定說無許等言，隨說何事，後抵即足，無過難故。若說應成亦說他立，自宗不許，則亦何須破自續派，樹應成教，信月稱宗。如於自宗不許自續，如是應成亦不可許。如就他前可許應成，如是就他所須增上，亦須許自續故。如於自宗不許唯識，唯就他許，不可立彼為唯識師。如是自實若不能立，以應成理決擇中義，唯就他立，則亦非是應成派人，亦非自續。顯然自說非中觀師。

## 菩提道次第廣論卷二十終