迴諍論偈初分第一
Chapter 1: Verses on Refutation
龍樹菩薩造
Composed by Bodhisattva Nagarjuna
後魏三藏毘目智仙共瞿曇流支譯
Translated by the Later Wei Tripitaka Masters Vimokshaprajna and Gautama Shiladha
問曰：
偈言：
The verse says:
「若一切無體， 言語是一切，
言語自無體， 何能遮彼體？
若語有自體， 前所立宗壞，
如是則有過， 應更說勝因。
汝謂如『勿』聲， 是義則不然，
聲有能遮聲， 無聲何能遮？
汝謂遮所遮， 如是亦不然，
如是汝宗相， 自壞則非我。
若彼現是有， 汝可得有迴；
彼現亦是無， 云何得取迴？
說現比阿含、 譬喻等四量，
現彼阿含成， 譬喻亦能成。
智人知說法， 善法有自體，
世人知有體， 餘法亦如是。
出法出自體， 是聖人所說，
如是不出法， 不出法自體。
諸法若無體， 無體不得名；
有自體有名， 唯名云何名？
若離法有名， 於彼法中無，
說離法有名， 彼人則可難。
法若有自體， 可得遮諸法，
諸法若無體， 竟為何所遮？
如有瓶有埿， 可得遮瓶埿，
見有物則遮， 見無物不遮。
若法無自體， 言語何所遮？
若無法得遮， 無語亦成遮。
如愚癡之人， 妄取炎為水，
若汝遮妄取， 其事亦如是。
取所取能取、 遮所遮能遮，
如是六種義， 皆悉是有法。
若無取所取， 亦無有能取，
則無遮所遮， 亦無有能遮。
若無遮所遮， 亦無有能遮，
則一切法成， 彼自體亦成，
汝因則不成， 無體云何因？
若法無因者， 云何得言成？
汝若無因成， 諸法自體迴；
我亦無因成， 諸法有自體。
若有因無體， 是義不相應，
世間無體法， 則不得言有。
前遮後所遮， 如是不相應，
若後遮及並， 如是知有體。」
"If all things lack inherent nature, yet speech is all things, And speech itself has no inherent nature, how can it negate that nature?
If speech had inherent nature, the earlier position (that all things are empty) would be destroyed. Thus there is a flaw; you should present a superior reason.
You say it is like the sound of 'Don't' — but this principle is not correct. Sound can negate sound; without sound, how can there be negation?
You speak of 'negating what is to be negated'— this too is not correct. Thus, the characteristics of your position self-destruct, not mine.
If that object appeared to exist, you would be able to reverse it; But that object also appears non-existent; how can you apprehend it to reverse it?
The four means of valid cognition are stated: direct perception, inference, scripture, and analogy. Direct perception and scripture establish, and analogy can also establish.
Wise people know that the teaching on good qualities has inherent nature. Worldly people know what has inherent nature; other things are also like this.
Arising from its own inherent nature — this is stated by the noble ones. Likewise, non-arising from its own inherent nature is the nature of non-arising things.
If all things lack inherent nature, the 'natureless' itself does not merit a name. Only that which has inherent nature has a name; how can a mere name name it?
If there is a name apart from the thing, which is not present in that thing, One who says there is a name apart from the thing could be challenged.
If things had inherent nature, we could negate all things. If all things lack inherent nature, what on earth is being negated?
For example, if a pot has clay, we can negate the pot’s clay. When a thing is seen, it is negated; when no thing is seen, there is no negation.
If things have no inherent nature, what does speech negate? If negation could occur without a thing being negated, then absence of speech would also constitute negation.
Like a foolish person who mistakenly takes a mirage for water, If you negate that mistaken grasping, the situation is just the same.
Grasper, grasped, and the act of grasping; negator, negated, and the act of negation — These six categories are all existent things.
If there is no grasper, no grasped, and no act of grasping, Then there is no negator, no negated, and no act of negation.
If there is no negated and no act of negation, Then all things are established, and their own nature is also established.
Your reason then does not hold; lacking inherent nature, how can it be a reason? If a thing has no cause, how can it be said to be established?
If you achieve a thing without a cause, the nature of all things is reversed; I too achieve things without a cause, but things have inherent nature.
If there is a cause yet no inherent nature, that principle is incompatible. In the world, a thing without inherent nature cannot be said to exist.
Earlier negation and later negated — these are incompatible. But if later negation and simultaneous negation are acknowledged, know that [things] have inherent nature."