第十六 教誡弟子品
1. 由少因緣故，疑空謂不空，依前諸品中，理教應重遣。
[索]由於實執等少許因緣故，懷疑自性本空諸法為不空，應依前述十五品中所述的理教，並著重加以遣除。
2. 能所說若有，空理則為無，諸法假緣成，故三事非有。
[索]若汝宗有能說、所說、說者存在，則一切法自性空的義理不能成立；諸法唯是藉因緣安立，故能說、所說、說者三事非有自性。
3. 若唯說空過，不空義即成，不空過已明，空義應先立。
[索]如果只由說空性的過失，不空的義理即可成立，那麼不空的過失早已說明了，空性的義理應該先成立。
4. 諸欲壞他宗，必應成己義，何樂談他失，而無立己宗。
[索]凡是要破壞他宗所說空義者，必須先應成立自宗的實有宗義；汝等為何只樂於談論他宗的過失，而無有成立自宗的義理呢？
5. 為破一等執，假立遣為宗，他三執既除，自宗隨不立。
[索]如果說一切法經觀察就無有自性，彼義不能成立為宗，那麼汝等所許的一性、異性、非一非異性等三種，也都不能成立為宗義。
(若觀察即無，彼不成為宗，則一性等三，亦皆非宗義。)
問曰：世人皆可現見瓶等實有不虛，因此實有宗能成立，而許瓶等空無自性，與現量相違故，既無意義也無作用。
6. 許執為現見，空因非有能，餘宗現見因，此宗非所許。
[索]許瓶為現量所見境，故而認為空性的能立因沒有能力作用；餘宗所許的現見等實有因，在空性推理中不能成立，而我們所許的諸法空性因（推理根據），在其餘宗派中也是承許的。
(許瓶為現見，空因非有能，餘宗所說因，此無餘容有。)
問曰：汝等中觀宗許一切皆為空性，應當許有空性的實體，但空性是觀待不空而立，因此諸法應是實有不空。
7. 若無不空理，空理如何成，汝既不立空，不空應不立。
[索]既然無有不空的法，那麼空性又從何而起，就像無有所對治之物，能對治者又怎麼能成立呢？
(既無有不空，空復從何起，如無所治品，能治云何成。)
問曰：如果你們中觀宗許一切皆無自性，如是應一切完全無有，汝空性宗也不能成立為宗。如果你們承認有自宗，那與空性宗相觀待的實有宗也應成立。
8. 若許有無宗，有宗方可立，無宗若非有，有宗應不成。
[索]如果中觀宗承認自宗實有成立，那麼無自性宗即應成為有宗；而無自性宗如果非實有，那麼有宗理應不能成立。
(若許有宗者，無宗即成宗，無宗若非有，有宗應不成。)
問曰：諸有為法是實有，因為火等差別法實有存在故。
9. 若諸法皆空，如何火名煖，此如前具遣，火煖俗非真。
[索]如果諸法皆空無自體，那麼為什麼火名為暖熱呢？暖熱的火亦非有自性，如前述內容中已俱遮遣。
(若諸法皆空，如何火名煖，煖火亦非有，如前已俱遣。)
10. 若謂法實有，遮彼說為空，應四論皆真，見何過而捨。
[索]如果說諸法實有本體，為了遮止彼等才說為空性；有無等四邊若皆為真實，則任何人也不能見到彼等有應被捨棄的過失。
11. 若諸法都無，生死應非有，諸佛何曾許，執法定為無。
[索]諸法之中乃至最細的極微本體都不存在，因而怎麼能生起諸實有體性之法呢？一切智智佛陀也未許本無自性之法實有，因此彼等許諸法有自性之宗皆不應理。
(乃至極微體，都無如何生，佛亦未許無，故彼不應理。)
12. 若真離有無，何緣言俗有，汝本宗亦爾，致難復何為。
[索]如果諸法的真實相遠離有無等一切邊戲，那麼汝等以何因緣說世俗諸法實有呢？所以汝等本宗也應如是承認，而致我們責難又做什麼呢？
13. 諸法若都無，差別應非有，執諸法皆有，差別亦應無。
[索]諸法本無實有體性，不應存在有實無實的差別；諸物上共見諦實空的空性，彼性即是無有任何差別之平等空相。
(諸法無體性，不應有差別，諸物上共見，彼即無差別。)
14. 若謂法非有，無能破有因，破有因已明，汝宗何不立。
[索]如果說以中觀師許一切法皆無有故，自宗不能答難，那麼他宗以因明推理方式破你們自宗，你等為什麼不能成立自宗呢？
(無故於他宗，不能答難者，他因破自宗，何故不自立。)
問曰：雖然我們不能成立自宗，但是要破斥他宗非常容易，世人也經常說：“雖然自己難以做到，但是看別人的過失非常容易。”
15. 說破因易得，是世俗虛言，汝何緣不能，遮破真空義。
[索]說破斥他宗的因容易得到，只是世俗的虛妄之言；否則你等有事宗，為何不能以理遮破真空義呢？
16. 有名詮法有，謂法實非無，無名表法無，法實應非有。
[索]若以有名稱詮釋的法是實有，便說諸法實有而非無自性；那麼以無諦實的名言表達諸法無自性，諸法實體應非有。
17. 由名解法有，遂謂法非無，因名知法無，應信法非有。
[索]若由名稱解說諸法實有，便說諸法非無自性，那麼因名稱而了知諸法無實，也應信解諸法非有實體。
18. 諸世間可說，皆是假非真，離世俗名言，乃是真非假。
[索]如果是世間人所說的諸法實有，那麼都只是世俗名言中的有；而諸法有自性（是勝義中有），怎麼能成為世間有呢？
(若由世間說，皆世間有者，諸法有自性，何成世間有。)
19. 謗諸法為無，可墮於無見，唯蠲諸妄執，如何說墮無。
[索]若諸法本來實在講諸法為無，可以說此是墮於諸法畢竟無有的斷見，但中觀宗只是為除去諸虛妄迷執，怎麼能說是墮於斷滅無邊呢？
20. 有非真有故，無亦非真無，既無有真無，何有於真有。
[索]由於諸法的有性無有故，無性也非實有，有性既然非有存在，那麼觀待而立的無性依何者成立呢？
(由無有性故，無性亦非有，有性既非有，無性依何立。)
問曰：汝等要成立空性，必定要有能立的因，由有因故，所以諸法空性不是空性，成實有。
21. 有因證法空，法空應不立，宗因無異故，因體實為無。
[索]由有證成諸法空性的因，諸法空性不應成立；宗與因二者非是異體故，因的體性實為無有。
22. 謂空喻別有，例諸法非空，唯有喻應成，內我同烏黑。
[索]若說自性空的同喻可以單獨另處存有，由此而例證諸法非為空性，則僅有比喻即應成立，如是內我應同烏鴉一樣是黑色。
問曰：假若因喻皆非實有，則一切法亦應畢竟不能成立，因此汝造論破他實有宗也成唐捐，沒有任何必要。
23. 若法本性空，見空有何德，虛妄分別縛，證空見能除。
[索]如果諸法本來是自性有，那麼現見空性有什麼功德呢？有情為虛妄的實執分別所縛，唯以證空性見方能除滅。
(若法本性有，見空有何德，虛妄分別縛，證空見能除。)
24. 法成一成無，違真亦違俗，故與有一異，二俱不可言。
[索]說一法有而一法無者，非是真諦也非為世俗，因此不能宣說，此是實有彼是非有。
(說一有一無，非真亦非俗，是故不能說，此有彼非有。)
問曰：汝等中觀師善於以理破除實有宗，而我等實有師不能破汝等空性宗，現在我等雖然無法答复，但是仍然有不少人在精進修習各種教法，總有一天有人也會破除汝等觀點，指出空性宗的過失。
25. 有非有俱非，諸宗皆寂滅，於中欲興難，畢竟不能申。
[索]有、非有、亦有亦非有、非有非非有，諸有邊執之宗皆於中觀宗前寂滅，所以於中觀宗欲興問難，畢竟不能申辯成功。
聖天菩薩。造論既周。重敘摧邪。復說頌曰：
我在為燎邪宗火，沷以如來正教酥，又扇因明廣大風，誰敢如蛾投猛焰。
CHAPTER 16
376. For various reasons, that which is empty
Appears nonetheless as if not empty.
These are refuted individually
By all the chapters.
377. When the author and subject also exist
It is incorrect to call them empty.
Also with regard to these three, whatever
Arises in dependence does not exist.
378. If through flaws concerning emptiness
[Things] were established as not empty,
Why would emptiness not be established
Through flaws concerning lack of emptiness?
379. In refuting the thesis of others
And in proving your own thesis,
If on the one hand you like to disprove,
Why do you not like to prove?
380. When thoroughly investigated,
The non-existent is not a thesis.
Then all three, such as oneness,
Are also not theses.
381. Where a pot is directly perceptible,
The argument of emptiness is meaningless.
Here reasons appearing in textual systems
Are not [acceptable]; elsewhere they are.
382. When there is nothing that is not empty,
How can emptiness be so?
When the one does not exist,
Why should the antidote exist?
383. If there were a thesis, absence of the thesis
Would in entity be a thesis,
But where there is no thesis
What can be the counter-thesis?
384. How can fire be hot,
When things do not exist?
This was refuted above: it was said
That even hot fire does not exist.
385. If through seeing things one could refute
The statement that things do not exist,
Who then sees the elimination
Of fallacies regarding all four theses.
386. When there is nowhere, even in particles,
A truly existent entity, how can it occur?
Even for Buddhas it does not exist.
Thus it is irrelevant.
387. If they are not twofold, how can
Anything have an existent entity?
If that is reasonable to you also,
Why raise further arguments?
388. Regarding the non-functional [aspect] of all things,
Differentiations are inappropriate.
That which is seen in all substantial entities
Is not differentiable.
389. If owing to non-existence you claim
No reply is made the other's thesis,
Why should you not also prove
Your own thesis which is refuted by reasons?
390. Though the world says it is easy
To find reasons with which to refute,
Why can the errors regarding
The others' thesis not be stated?
391. If just by saying “They exist”
Things really did exist,
Why should they not also be non-existent
Just by saying “They do not exist”?
392. If a thing is not non-existent
Because the term “existent” is ascribed,
Neither is it existent
Because the term “existent” is applied.
393. If everything is a convention
Because expressed by ordinary people,
How can anything which exists
As [its own] suchness be a convention?
394. If things are non-existent because
Things all do not exist,
In that case it is incorrect that all theses
Concern the non-existence of things.
395. Since a thing does not exist
A non-thing cannot exist.
Without a thing's existence,
How can a non-thing be established?
396. If things are not empty because
They are empty by virtue of reasons,
The thesis would not be distinct from the reasons,
And thus the reasons would not exist.
397. If things are not empty because
There are analogies for emptiness,
Can one say,”Just like the crow,
So too the self is black”?
398. If things exist inherently
What good is it to perceive emptiness?
Perception by way of conceptions binds.
This is refuted here.
399. To say one exists and the other does not
Is neither reality nor the conventional.
Therefore it cannot be said
That this exists and that does not.
400. Against one who holds no thesis that [things]
Exist, do not, or do and do not exist,
Counter-arguments cannot be raised
No matter how long [one tries].
