[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [中觀論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824) › 1.37 # 中觀論疏 1.37 中觀論疏 1.37 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.37) 「龍樹菩薩為是等故」下，第四明論主出世造論。可具三意：一者總對前大小二人，破先計有令有不有，故令有見息。破前執空，令空不空，故空見便息，即是中道。問：非有非無是愚癡論，云何是中道？答不取非有非無為中，乃明離有無見乃名為中耳。若離有無而著非有非無者，即非中也。二者別對上小乘人。一往小乘人計諸法有，得於世諦；不知諸法空，即失第一義。然既不識第一義，亦不識世諦，故俱失二諦。今申二諦中道，令小乘人識二諦中道，發生正觀、戲論斯滅，故龍樹造此《中論》也。三者對上學大乘人。一往大乘人得諸法畢竟空，得第一義；失於世諦，然既不識世諦，亦不識第一義。雖畢竟空，宛然而有，故不滯空；雖因緣有，常畢竟空，故不著於有。即是二諦中道。今為破斷常二邊、申於二諦，令學大乘人識，人識中道發生正觀，故言為是等故造此《中論》。 > From “Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, for the sake of these people” downward is fourth, clarifying that the author of the treatise appeared in the world to compose it. This contains three purposes: First, addressing comprehensively both the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna practitioners above: refuting the previous positing of existence causes existence not to be existence, so that the view of existence ceases; refuting the previous clinging to emptiness causes emptiness not to be emptiness, so that the view of emptiness ceases—this is the middle way. Question: The assertion that it is neither existent nor non-existent is foolish sophistry; how can it be the middle way? Answer: It does not take “neither existent nor non-existent” as the middle; it clarifies that being free from the views of existence and non-existence is called the middle. If one leaves existence and non-existence yet attaches to neither existent nor non-existent, that is not the middle. Second, addressing specifically the Hīnayāna practitioners above. Provisionally speaking, Hīnayāna practitioners posited that phenomena exist, thus obtaining conventional truth; not knowing that phenomena are empty, they lost the ultimate truth. But since they did not recognize the ultimate truth, neither did they recognize conventional truth, and thus lost both truths. Now he elucidates the middle way of the two truths, enabling Hīnayāna practitioners to recognize the middle way of the two truths, generate right contemplation, and extinguish prapañca; therefore Nāgārjuna composed this Madhyamaka-śāstra. Third, addressing the Mahāyāna students above. Provisionally speaking, Mahāyāna practitioners attained the ultimate emptiness of phenomena, thus obtaining the ultimate truth; but they lost the conventional truth. Yet since they did not recognize conventional truth, neither did they recognize the ultimate truth. Although phenomena are ultimately empty, they distinctly exist, and thus one does not linger in emptiness; although they exist through causes and conditions, they are ever ultimately empty, and thus one does not attach to existence. This is the middle way of the two truths. Now, to destroy the two extremes of annihilation and permanence and elucidate the two truths, causing Mahāyāna students to recognize the middle way and generate right contemplation, it says: “for the sake of these people, he composed this Madhyamaka-śāstra.” > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.36) - [Next: 1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.38) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.1.37) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.37) · Pramāṇa