English
English version: Here follows the second question and answer, clarifying the principle of 'no cessation'. The questioner's intention is: if there is fundamentally no deluded thought, then there is nothing to cease. Because there is nothing to cease, the subject that ceases also does not exist. If there is no subject that ceases, then there should be no initial awakening (shijue). This is the questioner's difficulty. The Sutra says: The Buddha said, 'The root of a Bodhisattva's delusion does not arise, so there is no delusion to cease. Knowing that the true mind is no-mind, because it is no-mind, there is nothing to cease. There is no division, because there is no aspect-division (xiangfen) in relation to the seeing-division (jianfen). There is no difference, because there is no seeing-division different from the aspect-division. Since the aspect-division and seeing-division have no difference, the present consciousness (xian shi) originally does not arise. It does not arise in the past or future; this is known by both the foolish and the wise. Here, we explain the non-arising of the fundamental nature in terms of the present. Since there is nothing to cease, the arising of non-awakening ceases, and there is no difference in the initial awakening that can cease non-awakening. This is affirmed based on the door of non-difference. 'Also, it is not no cessation,' meaning there is no initial awakening that is not different from the original awakening (benjue). 'The cessation of no cessation' means because it can cease the deluded mind of non-arising. Although it arises, it is unattainable and not merely non-arising, so it is not without something to cease. Therefore, it is not without the awakening that can cease. This is the Buddha's answer. Vimoksha Bodhisattva then said to the Buddha, 'Venerable One, if cessation is no cessation, then cessation is arising. What is meant by non-arising?' The Treatise says: Here follows the third question and answer, clarifying the view of non-arising. The questioner's intention is: if there exists an awakening that can cease, then the concept of being able to cease will arise. Even if the arising of non-awakening is removed, the arising of initial awakening still exists. How can one then attain the view of non-arising? The Sutra says: The Buddha said, 'A Bodhisattva should cease this arising. After ceasing, there is no cessation. Also, do not cling to no cessation, and do not cling to no clinging. What is arising?' The Treatise says: The meaning of the answer has two layers. First, affirmation, then negation. Affirmation is allowing arising to exist in expedient contemplation (fangbian guan), because it can cease the arising of the mind. For example, at the time of the World's First Dharma (shi di yi fa), although the arising of consciousness is ceased, one does not cling to the arising of consciousness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
识。而能止心取无而生。当此止时即许是生。以之故言当止是生。过此一念即不取无。不取无故取心不生。以之故言止已无止。此时远离一切分别故。不住于无止之无。亦不取其自无住心。能所永绝。平等平等。云何是时可得是生。如是答也。 经曰。解脱菩萨而白佛言尊者无生之心有何取舍住何法相佛言无生之心不取不舍住于不心住于不法。 论曰。此是第四问答遣增减见。谓诸学者犹作是念。入观之心取无相理舍诸相事。为遣此增益见故言不取不舍。或作是念。入观之时都无所住法。亦无能住心。如是不异于毕竟无为。除此损减见故言住于不心住于不法。虽非有住而非无住。非无住故得言住也。 经曰。解脱菩萨而白佛言尊者云何住于不心住于不法佛言不生于心是住不心不生于法是住不法。 论曰。此下第五问答重遣疑情。疑情之言。既言住者即应是心是法。若不心法即应言是不住。此言甚深。云何信解。如是疑也。佛答意言。不存能证观心不存所证理法。故言不生于心。不生于法生犹存也。既恒不存心法。非或失念而存。故言是住不心。是住不法住犹恒也。恒不退失故名为住。住义如是。弥顺不心。何容相违于其间哉。如是正答。下即重显。 经曰。善男子不生心法即无依止不 现代汉语译本： 识。而能止心取无而生：当能够停止妄心，并执取‘无’的状态时，新的念头就会产生。当止息妄心的时候，就允许新的念头产生。因此说，当止息妄心的时候，新的念头就会产生。超过这一念，就不再执取‘无’。因为不执取‘无’，所以执取妄心的念头就不会产生。因此说，止息之后就没有止息。这个时候远离一切分别，所以不住于‘无止’的‘无’，也不执取那自以为‘无’的住心，能与所永远断绝，达到平等平等的状态。在什么时候可以得到这种‘生’呢？这是对此的回答。 经曰：解脱菩萨（Vimoksha Bodhisattva）而白佛言：尊者，无生之心有何取舍？住何法相？佛言：无生之心不取不舍，住于不心，住于不法。 论曰：这是第四个问答，用来去除增减见。有些学习者仍然这样认为：入观的心，是取无相之理，舍弃诸相之事。为了去除这种增益见，所以说‘不取不舍’。或者认为，入观的时候，都没有所住的法，也没有能住的心，这样就与毕竟无为没有什么不同了。为了去除这种损减见，所以说‘住于不心，住于不法’。虽然不是有住，也不是无住。因为不是无住，所以才能说是住。 经曰：解脱菩萨（Vimoksha Bodhisattva）而白佛言：尊者，云何住于不心，住于不法？佛言：不生于心，是住不心；不生于法，是住不法。 论曰：这是第五个问答，再次去除疑虑。疑虑在于，既然说是‘住’，就应该是心是法。如果不是心法，就应该说是不住。这个说法非常深奥，如何才能相信和理解呢？佛的回答是，不存能证的观心，不存所证的理法，所以说‘不生于心，不生于法’，‘生’就是存的意思。既然一直不存心法，不是偶尔失念才不存，所以说‘是住不心，是住不法’，‘住’就是恒常的意思。恒常不退失，所以称为‘住’。‘住’的含义就是这样，更加顺应‘不心’，怎么会与它相违背呢？这是正确的回答。下面将再次显明。 经曰：善男子，不生心法，即无依止，不
English
English version: Consciousness. And being able to stop the mind and grasp non-being, then birth arises. When this stopping occurs, it is permissible to say that birth arises. Therefore, it is said that when stopping occurs, birth arises. Beyond this one thought, one no longer grasps non-being. Because one does not grasp non-being, the thought of grasping the mind does not arise. Therefore, it is said that after stopping, there is no stopping. At this time, one is far from all discriminations, so one does not dwell in the non-being of 'no stopping,' nor does one grasp the mind that dwells in self-non-being. The ability and the object are forever cut off, achieving equality and equality. How can this 'birth' be obtained at this time? This is the answer to that. The Sutra says: Vimoksha Bodhisattva (解脱菩萨) said to the Buddha: Venerable One, what is taken and what is discarded by the mind of no-birth? In what Dharma characteristic does it dwell? The Buddha said: The mind of no-birth neither takes nor discards; it dwells in no-mind, it dwells in no-Dharma. The Treatise says: This is the fourth question and answer, used to dispel the views of increase and decrease. Some learners still think this way: the mind that enters contemplation grasps the principle of no-form and abandons the affairs of all forms. To dispel this view of increase, it is said, 'neither takes nor discards.' Or they think that when entering contemplation, there is no Dharma to dwell in, nor is there a mind that can dwell. In this way, it is no different from ultimate non-action. To remove this view of decrease, it is said, 'dwells in no-mind, dwells in no-Dharma.' Although it is not dwelling in existence, it is also not dwelling in non-existence. Because it is not dwelling in non-existence, it can be said to be dwelling. The Sutra says: Vimoksha Bodhisattva (解脱菩萨) said to the Buddha: Venerable One, how does one dwell in no-mind and dwell in no-Dharma? The Buddha said: Not arising in the mind is dwelling in no-mind; not arising in the Dharma is dwelling in no-Dharma. The Treatise says: This is the fifth question and answer, again dispelling doubts. The doubt is that since it is said to 'dwell,' it should be mind and Dharma. If it is not mind and Dharma, it should be said to be non-dwelling. This statement is very profound; how can one believe and understand it? The Buddha's answer is that one does not retain the contemplating mind that can prove, nor does one retain the principle and Dharma that are proven. Therefore, it is said, 'not arising in the mind, not arising in the Dharma,' where 'arising' means retaining. Since one constantly does not retain mind and Dharma, it is not that one occasionally loses mindfulness and does not retain them. Therefore, it is said, 'is dwelling in no-mind, is dwelling in no-Dharma,' where 'dwelling' means constant. Constantly not regressing is called 'dwelling.' The meaning of 'dwelling' is like this, further conforming to 'no-mind.' How can it be contradictory in between? This is the correct answer. Below, it will be revealed again. The Sutra says: Good man, not arising in mind and Dharma means no reliance, not --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
住诸行心常空寂无有异相譬彼虚空无有动住无起无作无彼无此得空心眼得法空身五阴六入悉皆空寂。 论曰。此下第二重显。于中有二。先显远离诸相周遍三世。后显随顺法界具修六度。初中三句谓法喻合。不生心法者。牒前正答句。即无依止者。横无能依所依之异。不住诸行者。纵无曾当今现之行。无曾当故心常空寂。无能所故无有异相。譬彼已下第二引喻。无有动住者。如世虚空无为常住无有前灭后生之动。喻于不住诸行。亦无能依所依之住。比于即无依止。无起无作。即同心常空寂。无彼无此。不异无有异相。故举虚空。喻不生观也。合中言得空心眼者。由不生能观心得无所不观故。得法空身者。由不生所观法得平等法身故。五阴皆空者。以得空心眼达于三世五阴空故。合前虚空无起作也。六入悉空者。以得法空身。遍于内外六入空故。合前虚空无彼此也。 经曰。善男子修空法者不依三界不住戒相清净无念无摄无放性等金刚不坏三宝空心不动具六波罗密。 论曰。是第二显具修六度。修空法者者。牒前空寂之心。下别显具六度。不依三界故具施度。不住戒相故具戒度。清净无念故具忍度。无摄无放故具精进。性等金刚故具禅定。不坏三宝故具般若。何以故。唯一观心遍照可轨。绝诸诤论故 现代汉语译本： ‘住诸行心常空寂，无有异相’，意思是安住于诸行之心，恒常空寂，没有种种不同的表相，‘譬彼虚空无有动住’，就像那虚空一样，没有动摇和停住，‘无起无作，无彼无此’，没有生起和造作，没有彼此的分别，‘得空心眼，得法空身’，证得空性的心眼，证得法空的身体，‘五阴六入悉皆空寂’，五阴（色、受、想、行、识）和六入（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）全部都是空寂的。 论曰：下面第二重显现。其中有二部分。首先是显现远离诸相，周遍三世；然后是显现随顺法界，具足修习六度（布施、持戒、忍辱、精进、禅定、般若）。初中三句是法喻结合。‘不生心法者’，是重复前面的正确回答，也就是没有依止。‘即无依止者’，横向上没有能依和所依的差别。‘不住诸行者’，纵向上没有过去、现在、未来的诸行。没有过去、未来，所以心恒常空寂；没有能依和所依，所以没有种种不同的表相。‘譬彼已下第二引喻’，下面第二是引用比喻。‘无有动住者’，就像世间的虚空，无为而常住，没有前灭后生的动摇，比喻不住诸行，也没有能依和所依的停住，比作即无依止。‘无起无作’，就等同于心恒常空寂。‘无彼无此’，不异于没有种种不同的表相。所以举出虚空，比喻不生观。 结合起来说，‘得空心眼者’，因为不生能观之心，所以心得无所不观。‘得法空身者’，因为不生所观之法，所以证得平等法身。‘五阴皆空者’，因为证得空性的心眼，通达三世五阴皆空。结合前面的虚空无起作。‘六入悉空者’，因为证得法空之身，周遍内外六入皆空。结合前面的虚空无彼此。 ‘经曰：善男子，修空法者，不依三界，不住戒相，清净无念，无摄无放，性等金刚，不坏三宝，空心不动，具六波罗密（布施、持戒、忍辱、精进、禅定、般若）。’ 论曰：这是第二显现具足修习六度。‘修空法者者’，是重复前面的空寂之心。下面分别显现具足六度。‘不依三界故具施度（Dāna-pāramitā）’，因为不依三界，所以具足布施度。‘不住戒相故具戒度（Śīla-pāramitā）’，因为不住于戒相，所以具足持戒度。‘清净无念故具忍度（Kṣānti-pāramitā）’，因为清净无念，所以具足忍辱度。‘无摄无放故具精进（Vīrya-pāramitā）’，因为没有收摄和放纵，所以具足精进度。‘性等金刚故具禅定（Dhyāna-pāramitā）’，因为自性等同金刚，所以具足禅定度。‘不坏三宝故具般若（Prajñā-pāramitā）’，因为不坏三宝，所以具足般若度。为什么呢？因为唯一观心，普遍照耀，可以作为轨范，断绝种种争论。