English
English version Question: 'You say that besides the three characteristics (tri-lakshana), there are also three characteristics, so it is endless, and birth (jati) should not be a characteristic of conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta). Now I will explain:' 'What is born of birth-birth (jati-jati), is born of that original birth (mula-jati); What is born of original birth, still born of birth-birth.' 'When a dharma (dharma) arises, together with its own nature, seven dharmas arise together: one, dharma; two, birth (jati); three, duration (sthiti); four, cessation (bhanga); five, birth-birth (jati-jati); six, duration-duration (sthiti-sthiti); seven, cessation-cessation (bhanga-bhanga). Among these seven dharmas, the original birth, excluding its own nature, can generate six dharmas; birth-birth can generate the original birth, and the original birth can still generate birth-birth, so although the three characteristics are conditioned phenomena, they are not endless. Duration and cessation are also like this.' Answer: 'If you say that birth-birth, can still generate original birth, birth-birth comes from original birth, how can it generate original birth?' 'If you say that birth-birth can generate original birth, but original birth does not generate birth-birth, then how can birth-birth generate original birth?' 'If you say that it is original birth, that can generate that birth-birth, original birth comes from that birth, how can it generate birth-birth?' 'If you say that original birth can generate birth-birth, and birth-birth, having arisen, in turn generates original birth, this is not correct. Why? The dharma of birth-birth should generate original birth, so it is called birth-birth; but original birth has not actually arisen itself, how can it generate birth-birth?' 'If you say that when birth-birth arises, it can generate original birth, this is also not correct. Why?' 'When birth-birth arises, perhaps it can generate original birth; birth-birth has not yet arisen, how can it generate original birth?' 'When birth-birth arises, perhaps it can generate original birth, but the nature of birth-birth has not yet arisen, it cannot generate original birth.' 'If you say that when birth-birth arises, it can generate itself and also generate that; just as when a lamp is lit, it can illuminate itself and also illuminate that. This is not correct. Why?' 'In the lamp itself there is no darkness, in the place where it dwells there is also no darkness, breaking darkness is called illumination, what does the lamp illuminate?' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
“灯体自无闇，明所住处亦无闇。若灯中无闇，住处亦无闇，云何言灯自照亦能照彼？破闇故名为照，灯不自破闇，亦不破彼闇，是故灯不自照亦不照彼。是故汝先说灯自照亦照彼，生亦如是自生亦生彼者，是事不然。” 问曰：“若灯然时能破闇，是故灯中无闇、住处亦无闇。” 答曰： “云何灯然时， 而能破于闇？ 此灯初然时， 不能及于闇。 “若灯然时不能到闇，若不到闇不应言破闇。复次： “灯若不及闇， 而能破闇者， 灯在于此间， 则破一切闇。 “若谓灯虽不到闇而力能破闇者，此处然灯应破一切世间闇，俱不及故。而实此间然灯不能破一切世间闇，是故汝说灯虽不及闇而力能破闇者，是事不然。 “复次， “若灯能自照， 亦能照于彼， 闇亦应如是， 自蔽亦蔽彼。 “若谓灯能自照亦照彼，闇与灯相违，亦应自蔽亦蔽彼。若闇与灯相违，不能自蔽亦不蔽彼，而言灯能自照亦照彼者，是事不然，是故汝喻非也。 “如生能自生亦生彼者，今当更说： “此生若未生， 云何能自生？ 若生已自生， 已生何用生？ “此生未生时，应若生已生、若未生生。若未生而生，未生名未有，云何能自生 现代汉语译本 ‘灯的本体自身没有黑暗，光明所存在的地方也没有黑暗。如果灯中没有黑暗，存在的地方也没有黑暗，为什么说灯能自己照亮也能照亮其他事物呢？因为破除黑暗才叫做照亮，灯不能自己破除黑暗，也不能破除其他地方的黑暗，所以灯不能自己照亮也不能照亮其他事物。因此，你先前说灯能自己照亮也能照亮其他事物，如同“生”能自己产生也能产生其他事物一样，这种说法是不对的。’ 问：‘如果灯点燃时能破除黑暗，所以灯中没有黑暗，存在的地方也没有黑暗。’ 答： ‘灯如何点燃时， 就能破除黑暗呢？ 这灯刚点燃时， 不能到达黑暗之处。’ ‘如果灯点燃时不能到达黑暗之处，如果不能到达黑暗之处就不应该说破除黑暗。再者：’ ‘如果灯不能到达黑暗， 却能破除黑暗的话， 灯如果在这里， 就能破除一切黑暗。’ ‘如果说灯虽然不能到达黑暗之处，但力量能破除黑暗，那么在这里点燃灯就应该破除一切世间的黑暗，因为都没有到达黑暗之处。但实际上这里点燃灯不能破除一切世间的黑暗，所以你说灯虽然不能到达黑暗之处但力量能破除黑暗，这种说法是不对的。’ ‘再者，’ ‘如果灯能自己照亮， 也能照亮其他事物， 黑暗也应该如此， 自己遮蔽也遮蔽其他事物。’ ‘如果说灯能自己照亮也能照亮其他事物，黑暗与灯相反，也应该自己遮蔽也遮蔽其他事物。如果黑暗与灯相反，不能自己遮蔽也不能遮蔽其他事物，却说灯能自己照亮也能照亮其他事物，这种说法是不对的，所以你的比喻是不恰当的。’ ‘如同“生”能自己产生也能产生其他事物一样，现在我将进一步说明：’ ‘这“生”如果未产生， 如何能自己产生？ 如果“生”已经自己产生， 已经产生还用得着产生吗？’ ‘这“生”在未产生时，应该是已经产生、或者已经自己产生、或者未产生而产生。如果未产生而产生，未产生意味着不存在，如何能自己产生？’
English
English version ‘The lamp's essence itself has no darkness, and the place where light resides also has no darkness. If there is no darkness in the lamp, and no darkness in the place where it resides, how can you say that the lamp can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things? It is because it dispels darkness that it is called illumination. The lamp cannot dispel its own darkness, nor can it dispel the darkness of other places, so the lamp cannot illuminate itself nor illuminate other things. Therefore, your previous statement that the lamp can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things, just as 'birth' can generate itself and also generate other things, is incorrect.’ Question: ‘If the lamp can dispel darkness when it is lit, then there is no darkness in the lamp, and no darkness in the place where it resides.’ Answer: ‘How can the lamp, When it is lit, dispel darkness? When this lamp is first lit, It cannot reach the darkness.’ ‘If the lamp cannot reach the darkness when it is lit, and if it cannot reach the darkness, it should not be said that it dispels darkness. Furthermore:’ ‘If the lamp cannot reach the darkness, But can dispel darkness, If the lamp is here, It can dispel all darkness.’ ‘If you say that although the lamp cannot reach the darkness, its power can dispel darkness, then lighting a lamp here should dispel all the darkness in the world, because it does not reach the darkness. But in reality, lighting a lamp here cannot dispel all the darkness in the world, so your statement that although the lamp cannot reach the darkness, its power can dispel darkness, is incorrect.’ ‘Furthermore,’ ‘If the lamp can illuminate itself, And also illuminate other things, Darkness should also be like this, Conceal itself and also conceal other things.’ ‘If you say that the lamp can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things, then darkness, being the opposite of light, should also conceal itself and also conceal other things. If darkness is the opposite of light, and cannot conceal itself nor conceal other things, yet you say that the lamp can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things, this statement is incorrect, so your analogy is inappropriate.’ ‘Just as 'birth' can generate itself and also generate other things, now I will explain further:’ ‘If this 'birth' is not yet born, How can it generate itself? If 'birth' has already generated itself, Why would it need to generate again?’ ‘When this 'birth' is not yet born, it should be either already born, or already self-generated, or not yet born and then generated. If it is generated without being born, not yet born means non-existent, how can it generate itself?’ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
？若谓生已而生，生已即是生，何须更生？生已更无生，作已更无作，是故生不自生。若生不自生，云何生彼？汝说自生亦生彼，是事不然。住、灭亦如是。 “是故生、住、灭是有为相，是事不然；生、住、灭有为相不成故，有为法空。 “有为法空故，无为法亦空。何以故？灭有为名无为涅槃，是故涅槃亦空。 “复次，无生、无住、无灭，名无为相；无生、住、灭则无法，无法不应作相。 “若谓无相是涅槃相。是事不然。若无相是涅槃相，以何相故知是无相？若以有相知是无相，云何名无相？若以无相知是无相，无相是无，无则不可知。 “若谓如众衣皆有相，唯一衣无相，正以无相为相故，人言取无相衣，如是可知无相衣可取；如是生、住、灭是有为相，无生住灭处当知是无为相。是故无相是涅槃者，是事不然。何以故？生、住、灭种种因缘皆空，不得有有为相，云何因此知无为？汝得何有为决定相，知无相处是无为？是故汝说众相衣中无相衣喻涅槃无相者，是事不然。又衣喻，后第五门中广说。” 是故有为法皆空；有为法空故，无为法亦空；有为、无为法空故，我亦空。三事空故，一切法皆空。 观有相无相门第五 复次，一切法空。何以故？ 现代汉语译本： 问：如果说事物已经产生而再次产生，既然已经产生就是产生了，为什么还需要再次产生？如果已经产生之后不再产生，完成之后不再完成，所以产生不是自己产生自己。如果产生不是自己产生自己，又如何产生其他事物？你说自己产生也产生其他事物，这是不对的。存在、灭亡也是如此。 因此，说产生、存在、灭亡是有为法的特征，这是不对的；因为产生、存在、灭亡的有为法特征不能成立，所以有为法是空性的。 因为有为法是空性的，所以无为法也是空性的。为什么呢？因为灭除有为法被称为无为涅槃（Nirvana，解脱），所以涅槃也是空性的。 进一步说，没有产生、没有存在、没有灭亡，被称为无为法的特征；没有产生、存在、灭亡就没有法，没有法就不应该作为特征。 如果说没有相状就是涅槃的相状，这是不对的。如果无相是涅槃的相状，用什么相状来知道这是无相呢？如果用有相来知道这是无相，怎么能称为无相呢？如果用无相来知道这是无相，无相就是没有，没有就不可知。 如果说就像各种衣服都有相状，只有一件衣服没有相状，正是因为以没有相状作为相状，所以人们说要拿没有相状的衣服，这样就可以知道没有相状的衣服是可以拿取的；就像这样，产生、存在、灭亡是有为法的相状，没有产生、存在、灭亡的地方应当知道是无为法的相状。所以说没有相状就是涅槃，这是不对的。为什么呢？因为产生、存在、灭亡的种种因缘都是空性的，不可能有有为法的相状，怎么能因此知道无为法呢？你得到什么有为法的确定相状，从而知道没有相状的地方是无为法呢？所以你说众多有相状的衣服中用没有相状的衣服来比喻涅槃的无相，这是不对的。而且衣服的比喻，在后面的第五门中会详细说明。 因此，有为法都是空性的；因为有为法是空性的，所以无为法也是空性的；因为有为法、无为法都是空性的，所以我也（Atman，真我）是空性的。这三件事物都是空性的，所以一切法都是空性的。 观察有相无相门第五 进一步说，一切法都是空性的。为什么呢？
English
English version: Question: If you say that something is produced after it has already been produced, and that being produced is simply being produced, then why is there a need for further production? If there is no further production after something has been produced, and no further action after something has been done, then production does not produce itself. If production does not produce itself, how does it produce other things? Your claim that self-production also produces other things is not correct. The same applies to abiding and ceasing. Therefore, to say that production, abiding, and ceasing are characteristics of conditioned phenomena (Samskrta, 有为), is incorrect. Because the characteristics of conditioned phenomena such as production, abiding, and ceasing cannot be established, conditioned phenomena are empty. Because conditioned phenomena are empty, unconditioned phenomena (Asamskrta, 无为) are also empty. Why? Because the cessation of conditioned phenomena is called unconditioned Nirvana (涅槃, liberation), therefore Nirvana is also empty. Furthermore, no production, no abiding, and no ceasing are called the characteristics of unconditioned phenomena. Where there is no production, abiding, or ceasing, there is no dharma (法, law/phenomenon); and where there is no dharma, there should be no characteristic. If you say that the absence of characteristics is the characteristic of Nirvana, that is not correct. If the absence of characteristics is the characteristic of Nirvana, by what characteristic do you know that it is the absence of characteristics? If you know it is the absence of characteristics by the presence of characteristics, how can it be called the absence of characteristics? If you know it is the absence of characteristics by the absence of characteristics, the absence of characteristics is nothingness, and nothingness is unknowable. If you say that just as all clothes have characteristics, but one piece of clothing has no characteristic, and precisely because the absence of characteristics is taken as a characteristic, people say to take the clothing without characteristics, and thus it can be known that clothing without characteristics can be taken; in the same way, production, abiding, and ceasing are characteristics of conditioned phenomena, and the place where there is no production, abiding, or ceasing should be known as the characteristic of unconditioned phenomena. Therefore, to say that the absence of characteristics is Nirvana is not correct. Why? Because the various causes and conditions of production, abiding, and ceasing are all empty, and there cannot be characteristics of conditioned phenomena. How can you know unconditioned phenomena from this? What definite characteristic of conditioned phenomena do you obtain that allows you to know that the place without characteristics is unconditioned phenomena? Therefore, your analogy of using clothing without characteristics among many clothes with characteristics to represent the absence of characteristics in Nirvana is not correct. Moreover, the analogy of clothing will be discussed in detail in the fifth gate later. Therefore, all conditioned phenomena are empty; because conditioned phenomena are empty, unconditioned phenomena are also empty; because both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are empty, the self (Atman, 我) is also empty. Because these three things are empty, all dharmas are empty. The Fifth Gate: Observing Characteristics and Absence of Characteristics Furthermore, all dharmas are empty. Why? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 有相相不相， 无相亦不相； 离彼相不相， 相为何所相？