English
English version: The manifested sprouts emerge from the ground, hence it is said, 'The manifested sprouts emerge from the ground.' As for 'the principle of the root is extinguished,' it means that when one investigates the root and the texture of the trunk of a tree to seek the cause of the fruit's arising, ultimately no source of arising can be found. Therefore, it is said to be 'extinguished.' In the place of non-existence, one cannot see where it dwells. The reason for this is its 'decisive nature.' The meaning of 'decisive nature' is as previously explained. The sutra says: 'This decisive nature is neither one nor different, neither continuous nor permanent, neither entering nor exiting, neither arising nor ceasing, free from all four slanders, the path of language is cut off, the nature of the unarisen mind is also like this. How can one speak of arising or non-arising, having forbearance or not having forbearance?' The treatise explains: Next, it clarifies the 'eight negations.' It is not merely naturally so, not just the preceding 'four negations,' but also completely cuts off the eight opposing concepts such as 'one' and 'different.' The reason for this is that the seed of the fruit and the fruit itself are not exactly the same; their forms are different. But it cannot be said to be 'different' either, because without the seed there is no fruit. The seed and the fruit are also not discontinuous, because the fruit arises in continuation of the seed. But it cannot be said to be 'permanent' either, because when the fruit arises, the seed ceases. The seed does not enter the fruit, because when the fruit exists, there is no seed. The fruit does not come out of the seed, because when the seed exists, there is no fruit. Because of 'not entering' and 'not exiting,' there is 'no arising'; because of 'not continuous' and 'not permanent,' there is 'no ceasing.' Because of 'no ceasing,' it cannot be said to be 'non-existent'; because of 'no arising,' it cannot be said to be 'existent.' Being far from these two extremes of existence and non-existence, it cannot be said to be 'both existent and non-existent.' Not clinging to a single middle state, it cannot be said to be 'neither existent nor non-existent.' Therefore, it is said to be free from the four slanders, and the path of language is cut off. Just like the Amalaka fruit, it cannot be described with words. The understanding of the unarisen Dharma-kṣānti (forbearance of non-arising) is also the same as this. Therefore, it is said, 'the nature of the unarisen mind is also like this,' and so on. The sutra says: 'If there are those who say that the mind can be obtained, can abide, and can see, then they will not attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (unexcelled, complete and perfect enlightenment) and Prajna (wisdom), and it will be a long night.' The treatise explains: This is the third example of pointing out incorrect views. If someone says that the mind of the forbearance of non-arising can be obtained, can abide in non-arising, and can see the principle of non-arising, then they do not understand the nature of the mind, and are merely falsely clinging, which will obstruct Bodhi (enlightenment) and Prajna (wisdom). This explains that one cannot attain the self-nature pure Bodhi (enlightenment), and therefore cannot realize Prajna (wisdom). Bodhi (enlightenment) refers to the Bodhi (enlightenment) that initially arises; Prajna (wisdom) refers to the cause of Bodhi (enlightenment). Not attaining the cause of enlightenment is like being in a long night, because beginningless delusion is like a great dream. The sutra says: 'Those who understand the nature of the mind know that the nature of the mind is such, and the nature is also such, and they practice non-arising.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
论曰。此是第四显是。言了别心性者。即以自心了自心性。如经言。若能以其能取作意还能通达能取作意。如是方乃能缘所缘平等平等。无漏智生通达圣谛故。知心性如者。知自观心体性平等故。是性亦如者。是能知用。用性平等故。如是观心体用平等。无生无灭无始无终。以之故言是无生行。上明四不之无生者。显无生理。理通凡圣。今明知如之无生者。明无生行。行别在圣。在圣之行与理一味。遍通之理与智平等。平等一味故圣人所不能异也。有通有别故圣人所不能同也。不能同者即同而异也。不能异者即异而同也。同者辨同于异。异者明异于同。明异于同者非分同为异也。辨同于异者非销异为同也。良由同非销异故不可说是同。异非分同故不可说是异。但以不可说异故可得说是同。不可说同故可得说是异耳。说与不说无二无别矣。 经曰。心王菩萨言尊者心若本如无生于行诸行无生生行不生不生无行即无生行也。 论曰。此下第二反诘问答。于中有八。一举行难理。二反诘有证。三仰报无证。四反诘有得。五仰报无得。六述无证得。七更陈所疑。八决其所疑。此即第一举行难理。言心若本如无生于行者。举前所说行无生义。谓即前言知心性如是性亦如是无生行。谓无生于生灭之行。即是正举无生行 现代汉语译本：论曰：这是第四个‘显是’（显明指示）。‘言了别心性者’，就是用自己的心去了解自己的心性。如经中所说：‘如果能够用能取作意（能认知的心）来通达能取作意，这样才能使能缘（所认知的心）与所缘（所认知的对象）平等平等’。无漏智（没有烦恼的智慧）产生，通达圣谛（真理）的缘故。‘知心性如者’，是说了解自己观照的心的体性是平等的缘故。‘是性亦如者’，是说能知的作用，其作用的体性也是平等的缘故。像这样观照心的体和作用是平等的，没有生灭，没有开始也没有终结，因此说这是‘无生行’。上面所说的四不（四种否定）的无生，是显明无生的道理，这个道理贯通凡夫和圣人。现在所说的‘知如’的无生，是说明无生的修行，这种修行只在圣人。在圣人的修行与道理是一致的，普遍贯通的道理与智慧是平等的。平等一致的缘故，圣人也不能使它不同。有贯通也有差别，所以圣人也不能使它相同。不能相同就是同中有异，不能不同就是异中有同。同是辨别同在异之中，异是阐明异在同之中。阐明异在同之中，不是把同分割为异；辨别同在异之中，不是把异消除为同。正是因为同不是消除异，所以不能说是同；异不是分割同，所以不能说是异。只是因为不可说异，所以可以说它是同；不可说同，所以可以说它是异罢了。说与不说，没有两样也没有分别。 经曰：心王菩萨（菩萨名）说：‘尊者，心如果本来如如不动，就没有生于行（行为）的道理，诸行（一切行为）没有生，生行（已生的行为）不生，不生没有行，就是无生行啊。’ 论曰：下面是第二部分，反诘问答。其中有八个方面：一是提出难以理解的道理，二是反诘并要求提供证据，三是仰答说没有证据，四是反诘说有所得，五是仰答说没有所得，六是陈述没有证据的所得，七是进一步陈述所怀疑的地方，八是解决所怀疑的地方。这里是第一点，提出难以理解的道理。‘言心若本如无生于行者’，是举出前面所说的行无生的意义，就是前面所说的‘知心性如，是性亦如，无生行’，是说没有生于生灭的行为，这就是正确地提出了无生行。
English
English version: Treatise says: This is the fourth 'manifestation of isness'. 'Speaking of understanding the nature of the mind', means using one's own mind to understand one's own mind-nature. As the sutra says: 'If one can use the perceiving mind (the mind that cognizes) to understand the perceiving mind, then the perceived (the mind being cognized) and the perceiver (the object being cognized) are equally equal'. Because non-outflow wisdom (wisdom without afflictions) arises, penetrating the Holy Truths (the truth). 'Knowing the mind-nature as such', means understanding that the essence of the mind one contemplates is equal. 'This nature is also such', means that the function of knowing, the essence of that function is also equal. Contemplating the essence and function of the mind as equal, without arising or ceasing, without beginning or end, therefore it is called 'non-arising practice'. The non-arising of the four negations mentioned above manifests the principle of non-arising, which pervades both ordinary beings and sages. The 'knowing as such' non-arising now clarifies the practice of non-arising, which is unique to sages. The practice of sages is one with the principle, and the universally pervading principle is equal to wisdom. Because of this equality and oneness, sages cannot make it different. There is pervasion and there is distinction, so sages cannot make it the same. Not being able to be the same means being the same while being different. Not being able to be different means being different while being the same. Being the same is distinguishing sameness within difference. Being different is clarifying difference within sameness. Clarifying difference within sameness is not dividing sameness into difference. Distinguishing sameness within difference is not eliminating difference into sameness. Precisely because sameness does not eliminate difference, it cannot be said to be sameness. Difference does not divide sameness, so it cannot be said to be difference. Only because difference cannot be spoken of can it be said to be sameness. Because sameness cannot be spoken of, it can be said to be difference. Speaking and not speaking are neither two nor separate. Sutra says: Mind King Bodhisattva (name of a Bodhisattva) said: 'Venerable one, if the mind is originally such as it is, unmoving, then there is no arising in action (behavior), all actions (all behaviors) have no arising, arising action (action that has already arisen) does not arise, not arising has no action, which is non-arising action.' Treatise says: The following is the second part, question and answer in rebuttal. There are eight aspects: first, raising a difficult-to-understand principle; second, questioning back and requesting evidence; third, answering that there is no evidence; fourth, questioning back that there is attainment; fifth, answering that there is no attainment; sixth, stating the attainment without evidence; seventh, further stating the doubts; eighth, resolving the doubts. Here is the first point, raising a difficult-to-understand principle. 'Speaking of the mind being originally such as it is, without arising in action', is raising the meaning of non-arising in action mentioned earlier, which is the 'knowing the mind-nature as such, this nature is also such, non-arising practice' mentioned earlier, meaning there is no arising in the actions of arising and ceasing, which is correctly raising non-arising practice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
相。言诸行无生者。举理无生。谓诸众生五阴诸行本来无生。生行不生者。明理无生异行无生。谓生起行即空不生非由证理灭心不生。言不生无行者。显理不生类行无生。谓不生门亦无心行。如无生忍无分别行故应即是无生行耶。若如是者一切凡夫莫不证得无生忍矣。 经曰。佛言善男子汝以无生而证无生行耶。 论曰。此是第二反诘有证。诘意而言。汝于入观无生忍时以依诸行无生之理而得无生行耶。所以如是反诘问者。彼以理无生别异行无生而难理无生亦是行无生故。今诘言。汝入观时理行别异。有能所耶。 经曰。心王菩萨言不何以故如无生行性相空寂无见无闻无得无失无言无说无知无相无取无舍云何取证若取证者即为诤论无诤无论乃无生行。 论曰。此是第三奉答无证。于中有三。初明无证。二者举非。三者显是。初中亦二。前标后释。如无生行性相空寂者。是总标句。言性空寂。谓观心体性离生灭相。即前所说知心性如也。相空寂者。观心知用。用相亦如。即前是性亦如之谓也。下以十无释此总句。无见无闻者。心性希夷。夷故绝色非像所表。希故绝声非教所诠也。无得无失者。显空而无所得。遣生而无所失故。如是四无释性空寂也。无言无说者。心行既寂不起言说故。无知无相 现代汉语译本：‘相’。说‘诸行无生’，是举理上的无生。意思是说，所有众生的五阴诸行本来就没有产生。‘生行不生’，是说明理上的无生不同于行上的无生。意思是说，生起的行当下就是空，不是通过证悟道理、灭除心念才不生。说‘不生无行’，是显示理上的不生类似于行上的无生。意思是说，不生之门也没有心行。如果像无生忍那样没有分别行，那么就应该是无生行了吗？如果这样的话，岂不是所有凡夫都能证得无生忍了？ 经文说：‘佛说：善男子，你用无生来证得无生行吗？’ 论中说：这是第二次反问有证。反问的意思是说，你在进入观想无生忍的时候，是依靠诸行无生的道理而得到无生行吗？之所以这样反问，是因为他用理上的无生不同于行上的无生来质疑理上的无生也是行上的无生。现在反问说，你入观的时候，理和行是不同的，有能证和所证吗？ 经文说：‘心王菩萨说：不是的。为什么呢？像无生行的体性和相状都是空寂的，没有见，没有闻，没有得，没有失，没有言，没有说，没有知，没有相，没有取，没有舍，怎么能取证呢？如果取证，那就是诤论，没有诤论才是无生行。’ 论中说：这是第三次奉答无证。其中有三点。第一是说明没有证，第二是举出否定，第三是显示肯定。第一点中也有两点。前面是标示，后面是解释。‘像无生行的体性和相状都是空寂的’，这是总标句。说‘性空寂’，是说观心体的体性，远离生灭的相状，就是前面所说的‘知心性如’。‘相空寂’，是说观心知用，用和相也是如，就是前面所说的‘是性亦如’的意思。下面用十个‘无’来解释这个总句。‘无见无闻’，是说心性虚无幽深。因为幽深，所以断绝了色相，不是形象所能表达的；因为虚无，所以断绝了声音，不是教义所能诠释的。‘无得无失’，是显示空而没有什么可以得到，遣除生而没有什么可以失去。这四个‘无’是解释性空寂。‘无言无说’，是说心行已经寂静，不起言说。‘无知无相’