English
English version: Those in the heavens must have the karma of appreciating heavenly musical instruments, thus being born there and experiencing the pleasure derived from those instruments. Unlike the prison guards of hell, who experience the suffering caused by the instruments in hell. Therefore, it should not be allowed that *paryavasita* (animals) and *preta* (ghosts) beings are born in *naraka* (hell). If so, it should be allowed that the increased power of *naraka* karma produces different *mahabhuta* (great elements, the elements that make up the material world), thus giving rise to differences in shape, appearance, quantity, and force, and that the names of prison guards, etc., are assigned to those places in order to instill fear in beings, manifesting various actions such as moving hands and feet, like the *Dhumraka* mountains (mountains in hell) that separate and join, and the *Asipatravana* forest (forest of swords) with its thorns sometimes low and sometimes high. It is not that these things are completely non-existent, but this explanation is unreasonable. The verse says: 'If it is allowed that different *mahabhuta* are produced by the power of karma, giving rise to such transformations, why is it not allowed for consciousness?' The treatise says: Why is it not allowed that consciousness transforms in this way due to the power of karma, while clinging to the *mahabhuta*? Furthermore, the verse says: 'Karma is imprinted elsewhere, yet one clings to the idea that the result is elsewhere. The consciousness that is imprinted has a result, but why is it not allowed?' The treatise says: One clings to the idea that *naraka* produces different *mahabhuta* due to one's own karma, thus giving rise to transformations in shape, etc. This karma imprint should be allowed to exist in the stream of consciousness, not elsewhere. You do not allow the consciousness that is imprinted to have a result transformation; instead, you cling to the idea that there is a result in a place where there is no imprint. What is the reason for this? Someone says: 'The teaching is the reason.' That is, if only consciousness manifests phenomena similar to form, etc., and there are no other forms, etc., the Buddha should not have said that there are places of form, etc. This teaching is not the reason, because there is another hidden meaning. The verse says: 'Depending on those who are to be transformed, the World Honored One's hidden intention is to say that there are places of form, etc., like beings born by transformation.' The treatise says: Just as the Buddha said that there are beings born by transformation, this is only said based on the continuous stream of consciousness that can go to future lives, with a hidden intention, not saying that there are truly beings born by transformation. The Buddha said that there are no sentient beings, only the cause of phenomena, so the sutras that speak of places of form, etc., are also like this. Based on the teachings that are suitable for the beings to be transformed, it is said with a hidden intention, not causing any other harm. Based on what hidden intention are the ten places of form, etc., spoken of? The verse says: 'Consciousness arises from its own seed, transforming into an appearance similar to an object. In order to establish the internal and external places, the Buddha said that they are ten.' The treatise says: What does this mean? The consciousness that appears similar to form transforms from the combination of its own seed and conditions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
差别而生。佛依彼种及所现色。如次说为眼处色处。如是乃至似触现识从自种子缘合转变差别而生。佛依彼种及所现触。如次说为身处触处。依斯密意说色等十。此密意说有何胜利。颂曰。 依此教能入 数取趣无我 所执法无我 复依余教入 论曰。依此所说十二处教受化者能入数取趣无我。谓若了知从六二法有六识转。都无见者乃至知者。应受有情无我教者。便能悟入有情无我。复依此余说唯识教。受化者能入所执法无我。谓若了知唯识现似色等法起。此中都无色等相法。应受诸法无我教者。便能悟入诸法无我。若知诸法一切种无。入法无我。是则唯识亦毕竟无何所安立。非知诸法一切种无乃得名为入法无我。然达愚夫遍计所执自性差别诸法无我。如是乃名入法无我。非诸佛境离言法性亦都无故名法无我。余识所执此唯识性其体亦无。名法无我。不尔余识所执境有。则唯识理应不得成。许诸余识有实境故。由此道理。说立唯识教。普令悟入一切法无我。非一切种拨有性故。复云何知佛依如是密意趣说有色等处。非别实有色等外法为色等识各别境耶。颂曰。 以彼境非一 亦非多极微 又非和合等 极微不成故 论曰。此何所说。谓若实有外色等处。与色等识各别为境。如是外境 现代汉语译本：差别而生。佛陀依据那些种子以及所显现的色法，依次说为眼处和色处。像这样，乃至相似的触所显现的识，也是从自身的种子、因缘和合、转变差别而生。佛陀依据那些种子以及所显现的触，依次说为身处和触处。依据这个秘密的意图说色等十处。这个秘密的意图有什么殊胜的利益呢？颂曰： ‘依靠此教法，能证入数取趣无我（Pudgala-nairatmya，人无我），所执法无我（Dharma-nairatmya，法无我），又依靠其他教法证入。’ 论曰：依靠这个所说的十二处教法，被教化者能够证入数取趣无我。也就是说，如果了解从六根、六境这十二法有六识的生起和运转，根本没有能见者乃至能知者，那么应该接受有情无我教法的人，便能领悟有情无我。又依靠这个之外所说的唯识教法，被教化者能够证入所执法无我。也就是说，如果了解唯有识显现出类似色等法的现象，这其中根本没有色等相状的法，那么应该接受诸法无我教法的人，便能领悟诸法无我。如果认为诸法在一切方面都不存在，而证入法无我，那么唯识也将毕竟不存在，又如何安立呢？不是说了解诸法在一切方面都不存在，才叫做证入法无我。而是通达愚夫所普遍计度的、执著的自性差别诸法是无我的，这样才叫做证入法无我。不是说诸佛的境界、离言语的法性也都不存在，才叫做法无我。其他识所执著的这个唯识的自性，它的本体也是不存在的，才叫做法无我。如果不是这样，其他识所执著的境是存在的，那么唯识的道理就应该不能成立，因为已经允许了其他识有真实的境。由于这个道理，才说建立唯识教法，普遍地使人领悟一切法无我，而不是在一切方面都否定事物的存在。又怎么知道佛陀是依据这样的秘密意图而说有色等处，而不是另外真实地存在色等外法作为色等识各自的境呢？颂曰： ‘因为那些境不是单一的，也不是众多的极微（paramāṇu，最小的物质单位），又不是和合等，因为极微不能成立。’ 论曰：这是说的什么呢？如果真实地存在外在的色等处，与色等识各自作为境，那么外境
English
English version: arise from differences. The Buddha, based on those seeds and the manifested forms, sequentially speaks of them as the eye-sphere and the form-sphere. Similarly, even the consciousness manifested as seeming contact arises from the transformation and differentiation of its own seeds, conditions, and combinations. The Buddha, based on those seeds and the manifested contact, sequentially speaks of them as the body-sphere and the touch-sphere. Based on this secret intention, the ten spheres of form, etc., are spoken of. What are the special benefits of this secret intention? The verse says: ‘Relying on this teaching, one can enter into the absence of self of the individual (Pudgala-nairatmya, no-self of person), the absence of self of phenomena (Dharma-nairatmya, no-self of phenomena), and also enter through other teachings.’ Commentary: Relying on this teaching of the twelve spheres, those who are taught can enter into the absence of self of the individual. That is, if one understands that from the twelve dharmas of the six sense organs and six sense objects, the six consciousnesses arise and operate, and there is fundamentally no seer or knower, then those who should receive the teaching of the absence of self of sentient beings can realize the absence of self of sentient beings. Furthermore, relying on the teaching of Consciousness-Only (唯识, Vijnanavada) that is spoken of in addition to this, those who are taught can enter into the absence of self of phenomena. That is, if one understands that only consciousness manifests phenomena resembling forms, etc., and there are fundamentally no phenomena with characteristics such as forms within this, then those who should receive the teaching of the absence of self of phenomena can realize the absence of self of phenomena. If one thinks that all phenomena do not exist in any way and enters into the absence of self of phenomena, then Consciousness-Only will also ultimately not exist, and how can it be established? It is not that understanding that all phenomena do not exist in any way is called entering into the absence of self of phenomena. Rather, it is understanding that the selflessness of the differentiated phenomena of nature that are universally conceived and clung to by foolish people is called entering into the absence of self of phenomena. It is not that the realm of the Buddhas, the nature of dharma beyond words, also does not exist, and is called the absence of self of phenomena. The nature of this Consciousness-Only that is clung to by other consciousnesses, its essence also does not exist, and is called the absence of self of phenomena. If it is not like this, and the objects clung to by other consciousnesses exist, then the principle of Consciousness-Only should not be able to be established, because it has already been allowed that other consciousnesses have real objects. Because of this reason, it is said that the teaching of Consciousness-Only is established to universally enable people to realize the absence of self of all phenomena, and not to deny the existence of things in every way. Furthermore, how do we know that the Buddha spoke of the spheres of form, etc., based on such a secret intention, and not that external dharmas such as form exist separately and truly as the respective objects of the consciousnesses of form, etc.? The verse says: ‘Because those objects are not singular, nor are they many ultimate particles (paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter), nor are they combinations, etc., because ultimate particles cannot be established.’ Commentary: What is this saying? If external spheres such as form truly exist, and each serves as the object of the consciousnesses of form, etc., then the external object --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
或应是一。如胜论者执有分色。或应是多。如执实有众多极微各别为境。或应多极微和合及和集。如执实有众多极微皆共和合和集为境。且彼外境理应非一。有分色体异诸分色不可取故。理亦非多。极微各别不可取故。又理非和合或和集为境。一实极微理不成故。云何不成。颂曰。 极微与六合 一应成六分 若与六同处 聚应如极微 论曰。若一极微六方各与一极微合。应成六分。一处无容有余处故。一极微处若有六微。应诸聚色如极微量。展转相望不过量故。则应聚色亦不可见。加湿弥罗国毗婆沙师言。非诸极微有相合义。无方分故离如前失。但诸聚色有相合理有方分故此亦不然。颂曰。 极微既无合 聚有合者谁 或相合不成 不由无方分 论曰。今应诘彼所说理趣。既异极微无别聚色。极微无合聚合者谁。若转救言聚色展转亦无合义。则不应言极微无合无方分故。聚有方分亦不许合故。极微无合不由无方分。是故一实极微不成。又许极微合与不合。其过且尔。若许极微有分无分。俱为大失。所以者何。颂曰。 极微有方分 理不应成一 无应影障无 聚不异无二 论曰。以一极微六方分异。多分为体。云何成一。若一极微无异方分。日轮才举光照触时云何 现代汉语译本： 或者外境应该是一个。就像胜论派（Vaisheshika，印度哲学流派，主张宇宙由原子构成）认为有分割的颜色。或者外境应该是多个。就像他们认为真实存在众多极微（paramāṇu，最小的物质单位，不可再分）各自为境。或者应该是多个极微的和合（samāgama，聚集）及和集（samuccaya，组合）。就像他们认为真实存在众多极微都共和合和集为境。而且，那个外境理应不是一个。因为有分割的颜色与各个部分的颜色不同，所以不可取。道理上也不是多个。因为各个极微不可取。又道理上不是和合或和集为境。因为一个真实的极微在道理上不能成立。为什么不能成立？颂文说： ‘极微与六合，一应成六分；若与六同处，聚应如极微。’ 论述说：如果一个极微在六个方向上各自与一个极微结合，应该成为六个部分。因为一个地方没有容纳其他地方的空间。如果一个极微的地方有六个极微，那么所有的聚集色（聚合物）应该像极微一样小。因为辗转相望不超过极微的量。那么，聚集色也应该不可见。加湿弥罗国（Kashmir）的毗婆沙师（Vaibhāṣika，说一切有部论师）说：不是所有的极微都有相互结合的意义。因为没有方位，所以如同之前的过失。但是所有的聚集色有相互结合的道理，因为有方位。这种说法也不对。颂文说： ‘极微既无合，聚有合者谁？或相合不成，不由无方分。’ 论述说：现在应该诘难他们所说的道理。既然不同的极微没有别的聚集色，极微没有结合，那么聚合的是谁？如果转而辩解说聚集色辗转也没有结合的意义。那么就不应该说极微没有结合是因为没有方位。聚集色有方位也不允许结合。极微没有结合不是因为没有方位。因此，一个真实的极微不能成立。又允许极微结合与不允许极微结合，其过失且是这样。如果允许极微有分割或没有分割，都是大的过失。为什么呢？颂文说： ‘极微有方分，理不应成一；无应影障无，聚不异无二。’ 论述说：因为一个极微的六个方向的分割不同，以多个分割为本体。怎么能成为一个？如果一个极微没有不同的方位分割，太阳轮才升起，光照触的时候，怎么会……