涅槃經本有今無偈論一卷
Nirvana Sutra: Verse on Existence and Non-Existence
天親菩薩造
Composed by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu
陳世真諦三藏於廣州譯
True Reality of the Worldly Truths Translated by the Tripitaka Master at Guangzhou
涅槃經三世義
Here is the translation of the passage from the *Nirvana Sutra* concerning the meaning of
解純陀疑問。論曰：多弟子已成熟，純陀未成熟，佛為純陀未成熟故，顯示大般涅槃，講說大經，受大功德，為成熟故來拘尸那城。云何純陀而有疑心？有二因緣：一、見同相未見別相生疑心；二見別相不見同相故。起疑心者，如遙見杌，疑為是人、為是杌？若見烏鳥集上，鹿從其下過，知是杌非人；若見舉手挑衣者，知人非杌。別相不見同相生疑心者，如空不共相是常住，如見地不共相是無常。聲聞者不共相，於聲聞不共相生疑，為同空是常住、為同地是無常？凡夫為同相故起疑心，聲聞緣覺為別相故起疑心。凡夫為有生法故起疑心，聲聞緣覺為無生法故起疑心。純陀不為此二種故起疑心，為欲利益眾生故生此疑。如此大菩薩，那得於佛生疑？於此大會大有外道聚集，有外道說佛死而更生，復有說如燈盡火滅，復有說佛滅後有盡有不盡。為釋此疑故，佛說偈：
Explanation of Śuddhipanthaka's Doubt. The Treatise says: Many disciples had already reached maturity, but Śuddhipanthaka had not. For the sake of Śuddhipanthaka, who was still immature, the Buddha revealed the Great Parinirvāṇa, expounded the great sutra, and received great merit. He came to Kuśinagarī to help him attain maturity. Why, then, did Śuddhipanthaka feel doubt? There are two causes: first, seeing only the common features but not the distinctive ones gives rise to doubt; second, seeing only the distinctive features but not the common ones gives rise to doubt. For instance, if someone sees a stump from afar, they might wonder: is it a person or a stump? If they see crows gathering on it and deer walking beneath it, they know it is a stump, not a person. If they see it raise a hand or adjust its clothing, they know it is a person, not a stump. Doubt arising from not seeing the common features alongside the distinctive ones is like this: the distinctive feature of space is permanence, while the distinctive feature of earth is impermanence. For a śrāvaka, their distinctive feature causes doubt: does it share space’s permanence, or earth’s impermanence? Ordinary people doubt due to common features; śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas doubt due to distinctive features. Ordinary people doubt because of phenomena subject to birth; śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas doubt because of phenomena free from birth. Śuddhipanthaka did not doubt for these two reasons; he doubted for the sake of benefiting sentient beings. How could such a great bodhisattva doubt the Buddha? Yet in this great assembly, many non-Buddhists had gathered. Some claimed the Buddha died and was reborn; others said it was like a lamp going out—its flame extinguished; still others said after the Buddha’s passing, there was both extinction and non-extinction. To resolve these doubts, the Buddha spoke this verse.
「本有今無， 本無今有， 三世有法，
無有是處。」
What exists now did not exist before, What exists now will cease to be. All conditioned things across the three times— This is the fixed and final truth.
佛為二乘故說偈。煩惱生得，聖修得。凡夫性生得，聖性修得。煩惱縛生得，解縛修得。生死生得，涅槃修得。本生今修，本是生、今是修。為二乘作此解說不謗大乘，為大乘作此解說是謗大乘。此是不相應大乘，誰能令相應大乘？是故我等依義選擇思惟義，不依語言不選擇思惟語言，為修行大乘者說。過三種義，顯了別義，言本有今無、本無今有、三時有。是三種義無有，無有是處。何故三種義不成就？若本有今無者，一切如來等則無解脫。何以故？性不定住故，以前有後無故。一切真有亦無，真有俗有亦無。何以故？真有前後無異故，俗有無本故，是故真俗二義不成就。於此二義不明了，僧佉外道亦如是說因中有果，譬如乳有酪生酥等，是增益僧佉等義。若本無礙，現在時中誰能為障？若汝思惟妨礙因緣和合為障者，是義不然。何以故？前後無異故。若今不障，本時何故不障？有何道理，本不依因緣生，後依那因緣滅？所言本者，以何法為本？為初起、為當相續為本？若初起為本，初不為因緣所生，後如初亦不為因緣所生。若如是，說十二因緣法如如義，皆悉已破，則同外道說無因義。若相續為本者，相續亦不定。何以故？分分不定故。云何相續為本？是故一切有生之法，說本無因。如此說者則無道理。本無今有者，若前是無本而今有，有者則無得解脫者，前煩惱未起則是離解脫，而後生煩惱則無解脫。若前無今有者，最極無生當應得生，如空生花。若汝思惟一則無因。是義不然。何以故？如屋與花，二同是未有，何故因緣生屋、不因緣生花？等是無故。是義無道理。若本無生而今得生，則破本義。是義不然。何以故？初生是本故。若汝思惟因緣，是初生則非初，是故生非是本。是亦不然。何以故？汝意欲破本有故，欲立因緣本者。是故不過本故，前未有法因云何生？若其生者為具足生、為分分生？若具足生者，為一時生、為前後生？若一時生，則因果同時不可分別。若果後生，因在前滅，誰生後果？如煮熟鷄而復作聲還生。若具足者，何用觀因？若分分生者，亦同前失。是故本無今有，欲安立因，是義不然。
The Buddha spoke verses for the sake of the Two Vehicles: Afflictions arise from birth, while the holy path is cultivated through practice. The nature of ordinary beings arises from birth, while the nature of sages is cultivated through practice. The bonds of afflictions arise from birth, while liberation from these bonds is cultivated through practice. Samsara arises from birth, while nirvana is cultivated through practice. That which is originally present is now cultivated; "originally present" refers to birth, and "now cultivated" refers to practice.
Such an explanation for the Two Vehicles does not slander the Mahayana, but giving this same explanation for the Mahayana does slander it. This is a Mahayana that is contradictory; who can make it consistent with the Mahayana? Therefore, we should rely on meaning when we choose and contemplate, not on words—we should not choose and contemplate words. This is said for those who cultivate the Mahayana.
[The text] surpasses three kinds of meanings and clearly reveals a separate meaning. The statements "originally existent, now nonexistent," "originally nonexistent, now existent," and "existent in three periods"—these three meanings are invalid; there is no validity to them at all. Why are these three meanings not established?
If something is originally existent and now nonexistent, then all Tathagatas would have no liberation. Why? Because the nature is not fixed; it exists before and does not exist after. Genuine existence would also be nonexistent, and conventional existence would also be nonexistent. Why? Because genuine existence has no difference before and after, and conventional existence has no original basis. Therefore, both genuine and conventional meanings are not established. When these two meanings are unclear, the Lokāyata heretics also explain in this way that the effect exists within the cause—for example, milk contains butter, yogurt, and so on. This is the position of the Sāṃkhya heretics.
If originally there was no obstruction, who could serve as an obstacle in the present moment? If you think that obstructing causes and conditions coming together is the obstacle, this is not correct. Why? Because there is no difference before and after. If there is no obstacle now, why was there no obstacle originally? What is the principle that something originally is not born from causes and conditions but later is destroyed by causes and conditions?
What is meant by "originally"? Which dharma is considered the origin? Is it the initial arising, or is continuity considered the origin?
If initial arising is the origin, the initial arising is itself not produced by causes and conditions, and what comes after, like the initial, is also not produced by causes and conditions. If this is the case, then the principle of the twelve links of dependent origination is entirely destroyed, and one becomes like a heretic who speaks of a causeless principle. If continuity is considered the origin, continuity itself is not fixed. Why? Because each part is not fixed. How can continuity be the origin? Therefore, for all dharmas that arise, if you say the origin has no cause, such an explanation has no principle.
As for "originally nonexistent, now existent": if there was originally nothing, and now there is existence, then one who attains existence would have no freedom. If afflictions have not yet arisen, one would be free from them, but if afflictions later arise, there can be no liberation. If something originally nonexistent now comes into existence, then that which is utterly unarisen should be able to arise—like a flower in the sky. If you think that [time] alone is without a cause, this is not correct. Why? Consider a house and a flower: both are equally nonexistent initially. Why should causes and conditions produce a house but not produce a flower? They are equally nonexistent. This argument has no principle.
If something originally unarisen now comes to arise, this destroys the meaning of "origin." This is not correct. Why? Because the initial arising is the origin. If you think of causes and conditions, this initial arising is not the origin, and therefore, arising is not the origin. This is also incorrect. Why? Because your intention is to demolish the idea of a preexistent origin and to establish a cause-and-condition origin. Therefore, since it does not transcend the [idea of] origin, before the earlier dharmas, on what basis does the cause arise? If it arises, does it arise fully or arise part by part?
If it arises fully, does it arise simultaneously or sequentially? If it arises simultaneously, then cause and effect are concurrent and cannot be distinguished. If the effect arises later, and the cause is extinguished before, who produces the later effect? It would be like boiling a chicken, which then crows and comes back to life. If it arises fully, what need is there to examine the cause? If it arises part by part, it falls into the same error as before.
Therefore, with "originally nonexistent, now existent," if you seek to establish a cause, such an argument is unfounded.
三時有者，無有是義。若有是三世者，為一義遍三世、為一一義各各三世？如此二義並皆不然。何以故？若一義遍三世者，不得一世有三。何以故？相妨礙故。若義依時，則過去未來分分無窮。若時依義，義一故則無三世。離義故則無別時，是故三時皆不成就。若一物遍三世者，是物則不可說名。何以故？一物二成就故，若爾生死涅槃則是一。若各各世有者，三世各自有，如現世能生果，過去未來何意不能生？若具能生，則無一人得解脫者。若不能生過去未來，誰斷果報？言過去未來是有者，為體故說有、為用故說有？若為體說有，云何可破而為三分？若為用說有者，過去滅、未來未生，云何起用？若汝思惟三世是有為能說，三世不為能說、三世不為體說。若同有體，一則有能、二則無能，是義不然。若汝思惟為時節有，能、不說能。知芭蕉一生果，不能重生。義亦不然。何以故？義不定故。此三時誰之所有？若有因生，難則無窮；若無因生，則時節義不成就。若汝思惟未來是前、現在是中、過去是後，作三世者。何以故？未來力逼出故現在，現在力逼出過去。如恒河水，未來水逼現在水，現在水逼過去水。若一世成就，則三世成就。是義不然。何以故？水是同時，處所別故。故說三時三世有義，是故不然。無無是處者，如小乘說無是處，如外道說無是處。破小乘外道如是，偈義一破邪義、二立正義。破邪義者，依語言說。立正義者，依於義說。所言正義者，本有今有，過於三世，是名正義。本有今有者，從初發心至得涅槃，一味無異，不依生因、不依滅因；有則清淨，凡夫法不能染、聖人法不能清淨。若起四重五逆不能令減、若修慧斷惡不能令增。若有見得清淨眼、若有見得毒惡眼，依方便則過語言道及一切思惟，不可說不可思惟攝受因果非因非果。是地非數量一時能分別，是諸佛如來境界，生死涅槃是地逆順故，若逆是生死、若順是涅槃地。是前際、是後際，是發心地、是金剛後心地，破一切見、清淨一切見，一切眾生應當受用，如來一體最歸依處，攝受一切寶。是大涅槃過三世者，為用說涅槃功德。何者過三世？為生故分別三世。涅槃無生故，不可分別。三世者，未生得生、已生即滅。涅槃無滅故常住，是故自在。以自在故，是故最樂。為體故說清淨，為用故說常樂我。自體故清淨，對生死故常樂我。復次有二種義：若本有今有，則是常見；若過三世，則是斷見。若二義待來，離斷常是中道。如是俗諦真諦相待故，有如是十二因緣真實。何以故？離二邊是真十二因緣。若能善解，即見如來現在於世，是故如來說十二因緣是如來身。於真俗二諦，以不二故，是十二緣真佛道。如是偈有二義：一則對因義，斷於邪道；二、理得義，顯示實。如是二義，是如來事，依大智、依大慈悲。
五常義：一、無窮常；二、無起常；三、恒在常；四、湛然常；五、無變常。無窮常者有十：一、因無邊故常；二、眾生無邊故常；三、大悲無邊故常；四、四如意足無邊故常；五、慧無邊故常；六、恒在定故常；七、安樂清涼故常；八、行於世間八法不能染故常；九、甘露寂靜遠離四魔故常；十、性無生故常。因無邊者，無量劫來捨身命財，為攝持正法。正法既無邊際、無窮盡，此即以無窮之因，得無窮之果。果即三身也。
**The Five Meanings of Permanence:** 1. Permanence through Boundlessness. 2. Permanence through Non-Arising. 3. Permanence through Ever-Presence. 4. Permanence through Serene Stillness. 5. Permanence through Immutability.
**Permanence through Boundlessness has ten aspects:** 1. Permanence because its cause is limitless. 2. Permanence because sentient beings are limitless. 3. Permanence because great compassion is limitless. 4. Permanence because the four bases of spiritual power are limitless. 5. Permanence because wisdom is limitless. 6. Permanence because it constantly abides in stillness. 7. Permanence because it is peaceful, joyful, and cool. 8. Permanence because it moves through the world yet remains unstained by the eight worldly concerns. 9. Permanence because it is the sweet dew of stillness, far from the four demons. 10. Permanence because its nature is unborn.
As for "its cause is limitless": For countless eons, one has given up body, life, and wealth to uphold the true Dharma. Since the true Dharma is without boundary or end, this is using a limitless cause to attain a limitless result. That result is the Three Bodies.
二無起常者，依前際，非本無今有，不為意生身所生故。三恒在常者，依後際，離不可思議死壞故。四湛然常者，依中際，不為無明煩惱病所破壞故。五無變常者，過三際，不為無漏業果報所變異故。第三恒在離死；第四湛然離病；第五無變者，初地至如來地通名無窮。從八地至如來名無起，從九地至如來亦分得名為無變常者。正論五義，併在佛地。
The second is Non-Arising Permanence, which exists in relation to the previous stage. It is not that what was originally nonexistent has now come into being, nor is it produced by the mind-made body. The third is Abiding Permanence, which exists in relation to the future stage, free from the inconceivable destruction of death. The fourth is Serene Permanence, which exists in relation to the present stage, unbroken by the affliction of ignorance and defilement. The fifth is Unchanging Permanence, which transcends all three stages, unaltered by the karmic results of the undefiled path. The third means being forever free from death; the fourth means being forever free from affliction; the fifth means that from the first ground to the stage of Buddhahood, it is generally called "boundless." From the eighth ground to Buddhahood, it is called "non-arising"; from the ninth ground to Buddhahood, it is also partly called "unchanging permanence." Properly speaking, these five meanings all reside in the stage of Buddhahood.
諸行無常， 是生滅法， 生滅滅已，
寂滅為樂。
All conditioned things are impermanent, They have the nature of arising and ceasing. When arising and cease without remainder, That state of stillness is true happiness.
三藏闍梨解旨云：諸行無常者，諸行即是色心諸行，行於三世中也。無常自有五義：一、失滅無常；二、相離無常；三、變異無常，亦名迴轉無常；四、有分無常；五、自性無常。所言失滅者，如百年報盡壽命失滅也。二相離無常者，即是骨肉離散也。三變異者，如骨色初白，後變為鴿色也。迴轉者，即轉白為鴿色。四有分無常，如根塵識三事未和合時，名為本無無常，已有還無名為滅壞，即是已有還無。無常根塵識共聚，總名為有分也。五自性者，為有前四義故，名為自性無常也。是生者，是未來世生也。滅法者，是過去世已滅法也。生滅者，是現在世也。而現在攝生滅者，生而即滅，故云生滅居現在也。言寂滅為樂者，若言滅法為樂，此義不然。何以故？為有現在滅是過去，已滅法為殘，以有殘故非樂也。若滅現在生滅為樂者，此事不然。何以故？為有未來生是現在世殘故，有殘故非樂也。若言未來生是常者，此義不然，生必有滅，故非常也。若能令未來應生法而不得生，乃可為樂耳。寂滅為樂，即其義也。上三句明生死有為法故無常，後一句辨涅槃是無為法故常住。
The master Tripitaka explains: "All conditioned things are impermanent" means that all conditioned phenomena—both mental and physical—constantly flow through the three times (past, present, future). Impermanence has five aspects:
1. **Impermanence of loss**: For example, when a lifespan of a hundred years ends. 2. **Impermanence of separation**: For instance, bones and flesh becoming separated. 3. **Impermanence of change** (also called impermanence of transformation): Such as bones turning from white to gray. 4. **Impermanence of composite existence**: When sense faculties, objects, and consciousness are not yet united, it is called "originally non-existent impermanence." Once arisen and then ceased, it is called "destruction impermanence." When these three factors come together, that composite is called "impermanence of the aggregated." 5. **Impermanence of intrinsic nature**: This refers to the inherent impermanence underlying the previous four aspects.
"What is born" refers to future birth. "What ceases" refers to phenomena already ceased in the past. "Birth and cessation" belong to the present moment. The present contains both arising and perishing—things arise and immediately cease, so birth-and-death dwells in the present.
As for "Nirvana is bliss": It is incorrect to say that ceased phenomena (the past) are bliss, because the cessation of the present still leaves remnants of past cessation, and remnants are not bliss. It is also incorrect to say that ceasing the present moment's birth-and-death is bliss, because future birth remains as a remnant of the present. If one claims that future birth is eternal, that is also wrong—what is born must cease, so it is not eternal. Only when future arising events are prevented from occurring can there be true bliss. This is the meaning of "Nirvana is bliss."
The first three statements describe the conditioned nature of birth and death, hence impermanence. The last statement declares that Nirvana, being unconditioned, is eternal.
涅槃經本有今無偈論