壹輸盧迦論一卷
One Stanza Treatise, One Scroll
龍樹菩薩造
Composed by Bodhisattva Nagarjuna
後魏瞿曇留支雒陽譯
Translation: "Later Wei, Gautama [Ratnamati?] Translated at Luoyang"
體自體無常， 如是體無體；
自體性無體， 故說空無常。
The essence itself is impermanent; Thus the essence has no fixed self. Since its nature has no enduring self, It is described as empty and impermanent.
問曰：以何義故造此一偈論？說何等義破何等人？
Question: For what purpose was this one-verse treatise composed? What meaning does it explain, and what kind of people does it refute?
答曰：為讀誦者於廣大部生懈倦心，又為聰叡先已廣習無量諸論於如來法海義中思惟而生懈倦，於無常自體空不異義中生異相疑，為斷此疑故造斯論。說何義者，今當說。謂一切法無常自體空，自體空不離無常。一切法自性自體空，是故無有常。一切諸佛緣覺聲聞於空法中而得出離，非於諸行斷常法中而得解脫。偈言：
It is said: For those reading and reciting, weariness may arise from lengthy texts. For the wise who have already broadly studied countless treatises, weariness may arise when contemplating the vast meaning of the Tathāgata's Dharma ocean. They may develop doubts about the intrinsic emptiness of impermanence, mistakenly seeing distinctions where there are none.
To dispel these doubts, this treatise is composed. What meaning does it express? Let it now be spoken:
All phenomena are intrinsically empty by nature of impermanence. This intrinsic emptiness is not separate from impermanence. All phenomena, by their own nature, are intrinsically empty—thus, nothing is permanent.
All Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Śrāvakas attain liberation within the Dharma of emptiness, not through the doctrines of permanence or annihilation regarding conditioned phenomena.
As the verse says:
「滅空住有體， 則成於常見；
若謂後時滅， 則成於斷見。」
"If you deny Emptiness but cling to existence as real, You fall into the trap of eternalism.
If you claim things exist only to later be destroyed, You fall into the trap of nihilism."
以此義故，說一切法自體空。諸佛緣覺聲聞羅漢，於此義中得利益故。破何等人者，今當說。若有所得人離於諸行說有無常，則非正見。若無常離有為，無常則常，猶如虛空。若如是者，則有為無為體無差別。若有為與無為合，無為合故則瓶不可破。若無為與有為合，有為合故則涅槃可壞。若不異者，則一切法不可破壞，如涅槃常，非緣生故。若諸行非因緣生，不異虛空涅槃者，則有為法不名無常。若諸行非因緣生、是無常者，則虛空涅槃不名為常。若如是者，則有為無為無有勝法。若無常離有為猶名無常者，則有為離常應名為常；但是事不然。若如是者，何等修多羅中作如是說？以何義說？汝今所說以何義說？汝今所說義不相應，非汝邪思之所能量，是故汝說非為正見。若人有所得，謂過去未來現在法自體成者，當知是人則非正見。何以故？無因生見故。若言未來體非因緣生自體成者，則現在法亦非因緣生自性體成，以未來現在自性平等無差別故。若性平等者，現在有法皆從緣生，未來法何故非緣生？汝今此義為以修多羅說？為依義說？說不相應則無理趣，若無理趣則不可信。若未來法無因緣生自性成者，未來之法猶如虛空無有因緣，離因緣故非因緣生則無實未來體，無未來故現在過去亦無，現在過去無故三世無體。若有體者，則是常見，無因生故。若佛弟子有所得見，則與外道迦毘羅等無差別。此論非為迦毘羅、憂樓迦諸外道等，為汝等輩同見之人故造斯論。向說破何等人？為令汝等有所得人斷除邪見故作斯論。
Based on this principle, it is taught that all phenomena are inherently empty of any fixed, independent essence. Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, Shravakas, and Arhats all gain benefit from understanding this truth.
Now it will be explained which people are refuted here. If someone who holds a view of “attainment” (believing in inherent existence) asserts that impermanence exists separately from conditioned phenomena (the constructed world), that is not a correct view. If they claim that impermanence is separate from the conditioned and therefore impermanence itself is permanent, like empty space, then there would be no difference between conditioned and unconditioned things. If the conditioned merges with the unconditioned, then a clay pot, because of its link to the unconditioned, could never be broken. If the unconditioned merges with the conditioned, then because of this link, nirvana could be destroyed. If they are not different, then all phenomena would be indestructible, as permanent as nirvana, which is not produced by causes.
If conditioned phenomena (all activities) were not produced by causes and conditions, and were no different from empty space or nirvana, then they could not be called “impermanent.” If something is not produced by causes and yet is impermanent, then empty space and nirvana would have to be called “impermanent” as well. Following this logic, there would be no superior quality of the unconditioned over the conditioned.
If impermanence, when separate from the conditioned, could still be called “impermanence,” then the conditioned, when separate from permanence, should be called “permanent.” But this is not the case. Where in any scripture is such a teaching found? On what basis? Your explanation is contradictory and beyond the scope of your mistaken reasoning. Therefore, your view is not correct.
If someone, holding a view of “attainment,” believes that past, future, and present phenomena have an inherent, self-existing nature, that person does not have a correct view. Why? Because this is the view that things arise without a cause. If you claim that future things are not produced by causes but exist inherently, then present things would also have to exist inherently, without being produced by causes. This is because future and present would share the same inherent nature. If their natures are the same, but present things obviously depend on causes, why would future things not also depend on causes? Is this teaching of yours based on scripture or on reason? If it doesn't match either, it is illogical. If it is illogical, it should not be believed.
If future things have an inherent nature without causes, then they would be like empty space, lacking any causes. Without causes, they are not “produced” at all, so there is no real, inherent “future” to speak of. Without a future, the present and past would also be nonexistent. Without past, present, or future, the three times would have no real existence. If they did have an inherent existence, they would be permanent, because they are uncaused.
If a follower of the Buddha holds a view of “attainment,” they are no different from non-Buddhists like Kapila. This treatise (the Madhyamaka Shastra) is not written for non-Buddhists like Kapila and Uluka, but for people like you who hold similar views. Now, earlier we asked: “Which people are being refuted?” It is precisely to help you, people who hold a view of “attainment,” to cut off your wrong views that this treatise is written.
一輸盧迦偈句義今當釋。偈言自體性無常者，自體名有生，有法故名為體。有所得人於此法中心取為體，此法於陰界入中有聲緣轉，如說一體二體多體，如彼此人一二眾多各有自體故名自體。如地水火風堅濕熱動各有自性，如是各各自相自體，故言自體。有所得人謂生住滅同相者，是義不然，自體性無常故。彼體名有所得人分別故生，是故離諸法無無常體，以自相無常故。如佛告比丘：「一切諸行皆悉無常。」以此說故，離法有無常自相者，是事不然。若汝不了云何無常？我今當說。偈言如是體無體故，體無體者，汝所分別無常者，彼無常無體，是故體無體。自性無體，故言無體。偈言自體性無體者，離無體更無別體，故言自體無體。若汝意謂離無體而有體者，是義不然，以汝此法非修多羅說故。若謂無體是自體者，是亦不然，以修多羅所不說故。世尊於何等修多羅中說如此法？於佛世尊修多羅中都無此義，以非經說故不成就。非大聖修多羅所說之義則不應信，是故非唯言說而得取證。偈言故說空無常者，如《調伏三蜜提經》中說，佛告三蜜提：「眼空、無常、無不動、無不壞、無不變。何以故？性如是故。耳鼻舌身意亦復如是。」世尊於此修多羅中說空、說無常，以是義故，知諸法空無常。無常無體，是故諸法性自無體，則無體義成。若能如是入修多羅義，其義則成；若不入修多羅，其義則壞。以我所說入修多羅，其義則成。是故性自無體，其義成就。一輸盧迦論一卷，凡諸法體性法物事有名異義同，是故或言體、或言性、或言法、或言有、或言物，莫不皆是有之差別。正音云私婆婆，或譯為自體體，或譯為無法有法。或譯為無自性性。
Now I will explain the meaning of the verse. The verse says: "Self-nature is impermanent."
"Self-nature" refers to what arises, what exists as a phenomenon. Because it exists, it is called a "nature." Those who cling to notions of possession take this phenomenon to heart as a fixed nature. This phenomenon circulates and is expressed within the aggregates, sense bases, and elements—for example, as one nature, two natures, or many natures. Just as here or there, groups of one, two, or many each have their own self-nature. For instance, earth, water, fire, and wind each have their own properties—solidity, wetness, heat, and motion—each with its own characteristic and self-nature. Therefore, it is called "self-nature."
Those who cling to possession think that arising, dwelling, and ceasing share the same characteristic. But this is not correct, because self-nature is inherently impermanent. That nature arises only from the discriminative thinking of those who cling to possession. Therefore, apart from all phenomena, there is no separate entity of impermanence, because each phenomenon's own characteristic is impermanent. As the Buddha told the monks: "All conditioned things are impermanent." With this teaching, the idea that impermanence exists as a separate self-nature apart from phenomena is incorrect.
If you do not understand, "How is it impermanent?" I will explain now. The verse says: "Thus nature is without nature." The impermanence you discriminate—that impermanence has no fixed nature. Therefore, the nature has no nature. Because self-nature itself has no inherent existence, it is called "no nature."
The verse says: "Self-nature is without nature." Because apart from "no nature," there is no other nature, it is called "self-nature is without nature." If you think there is a nature separate from "no nature," this is incorrect, because your idea is not taught in the scriptures. If you say that "no nature" itself is self-nature, this is also incorrect, because it is not stated in the scriptures.
In which scripture did the World-Honored One teach such a principle? In the scriptures of the Buddha, there is no such meaning. Because it is not taught in the scriptures, it is not established. One should not believe in meanings that are not taught in the scriptures of the Great Sage. Therefore, the truth is not realized merely through verbal expression.
The verse says: "Thus it is taught that emptiness is impermanence." As stated in the *Samiddhi Sutra*, the Buddha told Samiddhi: "The eye is empty, impermanent, not fixed, not indestructible, not unchanging. Why? Because its nature is thus. The ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are also the same." In this sutra, the World-Honored One speaks of emptiness and impermanence. Therefore, one should know that all phenomena are empty and impermanent. Impermanence has no fixed nature. Thus, all phenomena are by nature without inherent nature—so the meaning of "no inherent nature" is established.
If one can enter the meaning of the sutra in this way, that meaning is established. If one does not enter the meaning of the sutra, that meaning collapses. Because what I teach enters the meaning of the sutra, that meaning is established. Therefore, the principle that all things are by nature without inherent nature is firmly established.
(In one scroll of the *Ekaśloka Treatise*, all terms such as "nature" [体], "characteristic" [性], "phenomenon" [法], "existence" [有], and "thing" [物] have different names but the same meaning. Therefore, whether one says "nature," "characteristic," "phenomenon," "existence," or "thing," they all refer to variations of existence. The original Sanskrit term is *svabhāva*, sometimes translated as "self-nature," sometimes as "existence and non-existence," or as "nature of no self-nature.")
壹輸盧迦論一卷
One Stanza Treatise, One Scroll