English
Those things are also the very nature of those things, and various distinct characteristics. If one understands them, that is not understanding. Therefore, the name is different, and the things like form are also different. In order to be able to express them, those things later have those names. Therefore, form and so on are not the essence of names. The so-called "sudden" means that it arises later, and it is a synonym for "artificial." The so-called "thing of characteristics of formations" means that it arises from causes and conditions, so it is a "formation"; it appears to consciousness, so it is a "characteristic"; it is the nature of things, so it is a "thing." It refers to the basis of what appears as the dharma of formations, and it is a synonym for "thing." After saying this, the noble Maitreya Bodhisattva could not bear that names are sudden, so he asked the Blessed One, "If there is no name called 'form,' then the thing of characteristics of formations will not be able to recognize, understand, and know that name," and so on. Because one does not see the mere thing without a name, one will not fail to recognize 'this is form.' Without seeing the thing, merely uttering the name will not recognize the thing. Regarding this, if the name 'form' arises later and is not its essence, then even if the name is not uttered, those who do not understand the relationship between the name and the thing will understand 'this is form.' Even if the name is uttered, because the name is sudden, one will not develop an understanding of the nature of the thing. In this way, both will become like both. Therefore, form and so on are not the essence of names." This is its synonym. The so-called "without that name, the thing of characteristics of formations" means that if the name is abandoned, the thing of characteristics of formations has no reason to say 'this is form' to that thing. Maitreya, therefore, asked you and so on. The Blessed One explained in three ways that names are sudden and things are not the essence of names. In three ways, one recognizes that names are sudden.
Chinese
因为如果不说出名称，就无法仅凭事物本身来了解，而且会出现一个事物有多个名称，以及多个事物有一个名称的情况。其中第一种情况是：慈氏，您怎么想？例如，您不对造作的相的事物本身执著于名为“色”的名称，不依赖，不住留，不设定等等，这是佛所说的。如果色是名称的自性，那么安住在色的事物上的名为“色”的名称，如果不了解它，那么不了解名称的人仅仅看到事物本身，为什么不会理解这是“色”的名称呢？如果名称是事物本身的自性，那么看到事物是什么样子，就像产生了执持事物差别的特征的识一样，也应该产生了知晓名称的识。但实际上并没有产生。因此，色等等不是名称的自性。第二种情况是：慈氏，您怎么想？名称、诠释、术语、假立，以各种方式对造作的相的事物本身进行安立、术语、假立或执著吗？这是佛所说的。如果事物是名称的自性，那么一个事物会有多个名称。例如，一个受有受、感受、觉、乐、苦、舍等等。如果事物是名称的自性，那么当一个受的事物被说成多个名称时，如果自性会因此而改变，那也不是这样的。因此，应当了知色等等不是名称的自性。第三种情况是：慈氏，您怎么想？对于此处的某些人来说，是否将造作的相的事物本身，用不同于它的其他造作的相的事物来命名呢？这是佛所说的。如果事物是名称的自性，那么当多个事物用一个名称来称呼时，例如蕴、界和
English
Because without uttering the name, it is impossible to understand merely by the thing itself, and it appears that one thing has many names, and many things have one name. The first case is: Maitreya, what do you think? For example, you do not rely on the name called "form" for that particular object of conditioned characteristics, do not depend, do not abide, do not establish, etc., this is what the Buddha said. If form is the nature of the name, then the name called "form" that abides on the object of form, if one does not understand it, then why would those who do not understand the name not understand that this is the name of "form" merely by seeing the object itself? If the name is the nature of the object itself, then seeing what the object is like, just as the consciousness that grasps the characteristics of the difference of the object arises, so should the consciousness that knows the name also arise. But in reality, it does not arise. Therefore, form etc. are not the nature of the name. The second case is: Maitreya, what do you think? Are names, interpretations, terms, designations, in various ways, applied, termed, designated, or clung to the object of conditioned characteristics itself? This is what the Buddha said. If the object is the nature of the name, then one object will have many names. For example, one feeling has feeling, sensation, awareness, happiness, suffering, equanimity, etc. If the object is the nature of the name, then when one object of feeling is spoken of with many names, if the nature would change because of that, then it is not like that. Therefore, it should be known that form etc. are not the nature of the name. The third case is: Maitreya, what do you think? For some people here, do they name the object of conditioned characteristics itself with other objects of conditioned characteristics that are different from it? This is what the Buddha said. If the object is the nature of the name, then when many objects are called by one name, for example, aggregates, elements, and
Chinese
就像“处”等一样。如果那时一切法的自性都变成一个，也不是那样。因此，应当了知色等不是名的自性。如是宣说之后，圣慈氏菩萨请问世尊：“如果那样，那么色的自性岂不是唯独成为所缘了吗？”如果这样问，会如何开示呢？世尊将行相之事物命名，开示为具有所依和具有处所，而不是开示为没有所依和没有处所。因此，因为安住于行相之事物，所以显示出行相的自性是名。然后，世尊说：“慈氏，你认为如何？那是色的自性吗？仅仅是假立而已。”这样来遣除慈氏的说法，像这样，对于那个事物说‘色’这个名称时，是说它的体性的自性呢？还是说它的名称呢？”这样来开示。像这样，说的是名称，因此，那不是那个事物的名称的自性，这很明显，例如世间中“天授”等名称一样。因此，开示说色等不是名称的自性。如是宣说之后，圣慈氏菩萨说：“世尊，如果色是名，受、想、表诠和假立等等”，通过这些来显示色等事物是所缘。像这样，如果世尊宣说‘色只是名，受也只是名’，那么，‘色’这个名称会变成色的自性，‘受’这个名称也会变成受的自性。”这样来开示。如是请问之后，世尊为了遣除这一点，说：“慈氏，你认为如何？‘色’这个名称，以及受、想、表诠、假立和世俗谛仅仅是这些，对于它们，有生起或灭亡，染污或清净吗？”等等，这样宣说。世间中，
English
It is like "spheres" and so on. If at that time the nature of all dharmas were to become one, it would not be like that. Therefore, it should be understood that form and so on are not the nature of name. After saying this, the noble Maitreya asked the Blessed One, "If that is the case, then wouldn't the nature of form only become the object of focus?" If asked in this way, how would it be shown? The Blessed One named the object of the characteristic of formations, and showed that it has a basis and a place, but did not show that it has no basis and no place. Therefore, because it abides in the object of the characteristic of formations, it is shown that the nature of the characteristic of formations is name. Then, the Blessed One said, "Maitreya, what do you think? Is that the nature of form? Or is it just a designation?". In this way, he dispelled Maitreya's words, saying, "When the name 'form' is spoken of that object, is it said to be the nature of its characteristic? Or is it said to be its name?" In this way, it will be shown. In this way, it is said that the name is spoken, therefore, it is clear that it is not the nature of the name of that object, just like the name "Devadatta" and so on in the world. Therefore, it is shown that form and so on are not the nature of name. After saying this, the noble Maitreya said, "Blessed One, if form is name, feeling, conception, indication, and just a designation, etc.", through these, it is shown that the nature of form and other objects is the object of focus. In this way, if the Blessed One says, 'Form is just a name, feeling is also just a name,' then the name 'form' will become the nature of form, and the name 'feeling' will also become the nature of feeling." In this way, it will be shown. After asking in this way, the Blessed One, in order to dispel this, said, "Maitreya, what do you think? Is there birth or death, defilement or purification, for what is only the name 'form,' and feeling, conception, indication, designation, and conventional truth?" and so on. In the world,
Chinese
通达色等诸法是生灭之法，是杂染之法，是清净之法。如果色等诸法是名字的自性，那么名字和生、灭存在，杂染和清净存在就不会改变。即使那样也会改变，因此要知道名字不是诸法的自性。世尊，什么？是否一切以一切相，色都不存在？等等。菩萨这样说：世尊先前所说的色只是名，受只是名，那是什么意思？色等的一切相，一切都不存在吗？是考虑到色等本身一切都不存在而说的吗？这样请问。这样请问后，世尊恐怕执着于断灭，所以说：慈氏，我不会说一切以一切相，色都不存在。等等，这样制止。之后菩萨问：世尊，怎样色才存在呢？等等，这样询问了它存在的相。慈氏，以世间的词语和名称，色是存在的。等等。世尊开示说：以世俗谛而言是存在的，以胜义谛而言是不存在的，这样分别开示。之后圣慈氏说：世尊，如我理解世尊所说之义。等等，这样说：如果说色等在胜义中一切都不存在，那么就会变成断灭论者等走到极端。因此，世尊说在胜义中不存在的意图是：名为色等可以命名的事物，在胜义中是不存在的，而不可命名、不可言说的事物，在胜义中是存在的。这样请问后，世尊，如果不可言说的体性在胜义中存在，那么行相的
English
Understanding that these dharmas, such as form, are of the nature of arising and ceasing, of defilement, and of purification. If the dharmas, such as form, are indeed the nature of name, then if name and arising, existence and ceasing, defilement and purification exist, it would not change. Even so, it would change. Therefore, one should know that name is not the nature of dharmas. Blessed One, what is it? Is it the case that form does not exist at all in all aspects and with all characteristics? etc. The Bodhisattva said this: What is the meaning of what the Blessed One previously said, that form is only name, and feeling is only name? Is it that all characteristics of form, etc., do not exist at all? Is it said with the intention that form, etc., themselves do not exist at all? Thus he asked. After asking this, the Blessed One, fearing that they would grasp at annihilation, said: Maitreya, I do not say that form does not exist at all in all aspects and with all characteristics. etc., thus preventing it. Then the Bodhisattva asked: Blessed One, how does form exist? etc., thus inquiring about the aspect of its existence. Maitreya, form exists by the conventions and terms of the world. etc. The Blessed One taught, distinguishing: It exists according to the conventional truth, but it does not exist according to the ultimate truth. Then the noble Maitreya said: Blessed One, as I understand the meaning of what the Blessed One said. etc., he said this: If it is said that form, etc., do not exist at all in the ultimate sense, then it would become an extreme for those who speak of annihilation, etc. Therefore, the Blessed One's intention in saying that it does not exist in the ultimate sense is this: things that can be named as form, etc., do not exist in the ultimate sense, but things that cannot be named or expressed do exist in the ultimate sense. After asking this, Blessed One, if the inexpressible essence exists in the ultimate sense, then the characteristics of formations