English
English version: 'Constantly using the One Enlightenment' indicates the fundamental nature of what can be transformed. 'Transforming the various consciousnesses into Amala (pure consciousness)' indicates the destination of what is transformed. There are two types of explanations: direct explanation and re-explanation. In the direct explanation, 'all sentient beings' original enlightenment' explains the aforementioned fundamental nature of what can be transformed—the One Enlightenment. All sentient beings share the same original enlightenment, hence 'One Enlightenment.' The Buddhas realize this original enlightenment and are thus able to universally teach, hence 'constantly using.' Using this original enlightenment to awaken others, hence 'constantly using the One Enlightenment to awaken all sentient beings.' 'Causing those sentient beings to attain original enlightenment' explains the destination of what is transformed. Original enlightenment is precisely the Amala consciousness. 'Attaining original enlightenment' explains the meaning of 'entering.' Upon entering original enlightenment, one realizes that the various eight consciousnesses are originally quiescent and extinguished. Because the realization is ultimate, the various consciousnesses no longer arise, hence 'the various consciousnesses are quiescent and unarising.' This sentence directly explains 'transforming the various consciousnesses.' This passage fully reveals both original and initial enlightenment. 'Namely, all sentient beings' original enlightenment, etc.' is the meaning of original enlightenment. 'Realizing that the various emotional consciousnesses are quiescent and unarising' is the meaning of initial enlightenment. This reveals that initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment. 'Why is this so?' below is the second re-explanation, explaining the quiescence realized by the aforementioned initial enlightenment. Although the various eight consciousnesses move and change according to conditions, seeking their fixed nature yields nothing, hence 'the determined original nature is originally without movement; because it is originally without movement, it is originally quiescent and extinguished.' The sutra says: 'The Non-Abiding Bodhisattva asked: Since all eight consciousnesses arise in dependence on external objects, how can you say they are unmoving?' The treatise says: 'Below is the second reiteration, which has two parts: first, expounding initial enlightenment; second, expounding original enlightenment. The initial exposition of initial enlightenment also has two parts: first, expounding the emptiness and quiescence of the various consciousnesses; second, expounding the non-arising of the various consciousnesses. The former is what is realized by initial enlightenment; the latter is the initial enlightenment that can realize. In the initial exposition of the emptiness and quiescence of the various consciousnesses, there are six rounds of questions and answers. Among them, there are three parts: first, the first two questions and answers directly clarify emptiness and quiescence; second, the third question and answer clarifies the differences; third, the last three questions and answers clarify the non-differences. This first question and answer clarifies non-arising and non-moving. 'The words 'can one' mean all. 'Namely, all sentient beings' eight consciousnesses all arise in dependence on objects'—among the four conditions (causal condition, immediately preceding condition, object-condition, and dominant condition), let us provisionally cite the object-condition to refute non-movement.' The sutra says: 'The Buddha said: All objects are originally empty, all consciousnesses are originally empty; emptiness has no conditioning nature, how can it condition?' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 起。 论曰。且遣境缘显识无起。
Chinese
经曰。无住菩萨言一切境空如何见佛言见即为妄何以故一切万有无生无相本不自名悉皆空寂一切法相亦复如是一切众生身亦如是身尚不有云何见。 论曰。此下第二问答明见是妄。妄故真空。谓境空故见有境即是妄。见亦空故计有见亦是妄。释中有二。总明别显。总明者。阴界等有本不自名我为色等。但由妄心名为色等。是故一切悉皆空寂也。别显中言一切法相亦如是者。谓外山河等六尘法相。一切众生身亦如是者。内色受等五阴之身。身体尚无。何有见用故。 经曰。无住菩萨言一切境空一切身空一切识空觉亦应空佛言可一觉者不毁不坏决定性非空非不空无空不空。 论曰。此下第三番明觉不觉之不同相。问意言觉亦应空者。从缘生识既空。从缘起觉亦空。识既空故其见是妄。觉亦空故其觉亦妄也。佛答意言一切觉者。不坏道理故非可空。不存自性亦非不空。是故觉中无空不空。诸识不尔。妄取诸法违反真理。可空可遣。如是不同。何得相类也。决定性者。谓真如性不可破坏。性自尔故。言不毁者。不取有相。以伤空故。言不坏者。不计无性。以损真故。谓不毁坏于决定性也。 经曰。无住菩萨言诸境亦然非空相非无空相佛言如是彼可境者 现代汉语译本： 起。 论曰：姑且认为境和缘显现的识是没有生起的。 经曰：无住菩萨说一切境都是空性的，如何能见到佛呢？佛说，认为能见就是虚妄的。为什么呢？一切万有，无生无相，本来就没有自性名称，全部都是空寂的。一切法相也是如此，一切众生的身体也是如此，身体尚且不存在，又怎么能见呢？ 论曰：下面第二段问答说明见是虚妄的，因为虚妄所以才是真空。意思是说，因为境是空性的，所以认为有境的见就是虚妄的。见也是空性的，所以认为有见的见也是虚妄的。解释中有总说和别显两种。总说就是，阴、界等有，本来就没有自性的名称，我执著为色等，只是由于虚妄的心才称之为色等，因此一切都是空寂的。别显中说一切法相也是如此，指的是外在的山河等六尘法相。一切众生的身体也是如此，指的是内在的色受等五阴之身。身体本身尚且不存在，哪里来的见的作用呢？ 经曰：无住菩萨说，一切境空，一切身空，一切识空，那么觉也应该空吧？佛说，真正的觉悟者，不毁坏也不断灭，具有决定的自性，非空非不空，没有空与不空的对立。 论曰：下面第三段说明觉与不觉的不同之处。菩萨提问的意思是，觉也应该空，因为从因缘生起的识既然是空性的，那么从因缘生起的觉也应该是空性的。识既然是空性的，那么它的见就是虚妄的；觉如果是空性的，那么它的觉也是虚妄的。佛回答的意思是，一切觉悟者，不坏灭真如的道理，所以不是可以空掉的。觉悟不执著于自性，所以也不是不空的。因此，在觉悟中没有空与不空的对立。各种识不是这样，它们虚妄地执取诸法，违背真理，是可以空掉可以舍弃的。这样不同，怎么能相提并论呢？决定性，指的是真如的自性，不可破坏，自性本来就是如此。说不毁坏，是不执著于有相，以免损伤空性。说不断灭，是不执著于无性，以免损害真如。意思是不毁坏也不断灭决定的自性。 经曰：无住菩萨说，诸境也是这样，不是空相，也不是没有空相。佛说，是的，那些可以作为境的东西
English
English version: Beginning. Treatise says: Let's consider that the consciousness manifested by the environment and conditions has no arising. Sutra says: Wuzhu Bodhisattva (无住菩萨, Bodhisattva of Non-Abiding) said, 'All realms are empty, how can one see the Buddha?' The Buddha said, 'To think one can see is delusion. Why? All phenomena are without arising and without form, originally without self-name, all are empty and still. All dharma characteristics are also like this, and the bodies of all sentient beings are also like this. If the body itself does not exist, how can one see?' Treatise says: The second question and answer below explains that seeing is illusory, and because of illusion, there is true emptiness. It means that because the realm is empty, the seeing that assumes there is a realm is illusory. Seeing is also empty, so the assumption that there is seeing is also illusory. There are two types of explanations: general and specific. The general explanation is that the aggregates (阴, skandha), realms (界, dhātu), etc., originally have no self-name. I cling to them as form (色, rupa), etc., but it is only due to the illusory mind that they are called form, etc. Therefore, everything is empty and still. The specific explanation says that all dharma characteristics are also like this, referring to the external dharma characteristics of mountains, rivers, etc., which are the six sense objects (六尘, ṣaḍviṣaya). The bodies of all sentient beings are also like this, referring to the internal body of the five aggregates (五阴, pañcaskandha) such as form, feeling (受, vedanā), etc. If the body itself does not exist, where does the function of seeing come from? Sutra says: Wuzhu Bodhisattva (无住菩萨, Bodhisattva of Non-Abiding) said, 'All realms are empty, all bodies are empty, all consciousnesses are empty, so awareness (觉, jñāna) should also be empty?' The Buddha said, 'The one who is truly aware does not destroy or annihilate, has a definite nature, is neither empty nor not empty, and is without the duality of emptiness and non-emptiness.' Treatise says: The third section below explains the difference between awareness and non-awareness. The meaning of the question is that awareness should also be empty, because since consciousness arising from conditions is empty, then awareness arising from conditions should also be empty. Since consciousness is empty, then its seeing is illusory; if awareness is empty, then its awareness is also illusory. The Buddha's answer means that all who are enlightened do not destroy the principle of Suchness (真如, tathātā), so it cannot be emptied. Enlightenment does not cling to self-nature, so it is not non-empty either. Therefore, in enlightenment, there is no duality of emptiness and non-emptiness. The various consciousnesses are not like this; they falsely grasp all dharmas, violating the truth, and can be emptied and abandoned. They are so different, how can they be compared? 'Definite nature' refers to the nature of Suchness (真如, tathātā), which cannot be destroyed, and its nature is originally like this. 'Not destroyed' means not clinging to the aspect of existence, so as not to harm emptiness. 'Not annihilated' means not clinging to non-existence, so as not to harm Suchness (真如, tathātā). It means not destroying or annihilating the definite nature. Sutra says: Wuzhu Bodhisattva (无住菩萨, Bodhisattva of Non-Abiding) said, 'All realms are also like this, neither the aspect of emptiness nor the aspect of non-emptiness.' The Buddha said, 'So it is, those that can be realms' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
性本决定决定性根无有处所无住菩萨言觉亦如是无有处所佛言如是觉无处故清净清净无觉物无处故清净清净无色。 论曰。此下三番明不异相。于中前二番明觉与境同相。后一问答显觉与识同相。初中前番明境同觉。谓诸妄境本来不有。既无其有。何有空相。既非有空。何得无空。故言非空相非无空相。以此而言则不异觉。答中言性本决定者。明本不有故非空相。无有处所者。明非有空故非无空也。后番问答明觉同境。觉亦如是者。觉亦缘生。本性空故。答中言清净无觉者。觉空之理离一切相故曰清净。觉性既空空中无觉。如色空中无色相故。前明境同觉者。以境非空非不空义同于前觉非空非不空义。今明觉同境者。以觉性空无相之理同于境空无相之义。二文不同应如是知。 经曰。无住菩萨言心眼识亦复如是不可思议佛言心眼识亦复如是不可思议何以故色无处所清净无名不入于内眼无处所清净无见不出于外心无处所清净无上无有起处识无处所清净无动无有缘别性皆空寂。 论曰。此第三番明识同觉。心眼识者。谓眼识种子积集之心及此种子所起眼识。略举此二标其性空。下就四缘明眼识空。色无处所者。色性自空故。清净无名者。空中无色故。不入于内者。不与眼根作境界故。是明所缘缘空也。 现代汉语译本 经曰：‘性本决定，决定性根无有处所。’（性本决定：自性的本质是决定的；决定性根无有处所：决定的自性之根没有固定的处所。）无住菩萨言：‘觉亦如是，无有处所。’（觉：觉悟的智慧。）佛言：‘如是，觉无处故清净，清净无觉物，无处故清净，清净无色。’ 论曰：此下三番明不异相。于中前二番明觉与境同相。后一问答显觉与识同相。初中前番明境同觉。谓诸妄境本来不有。既无其有。何有空相。既非有空。何得无空。故言非空相非无空相。以此而言则不异觉。答中言性本决定者。明本不有故非空相。无有处所者。明非有空故非无空也。后番问答明觉同境。觉亦如是者。觉亦缘生。本性空故。答中言清净无觉者。觉空之理离一切相故曰清净。觉性既空空中无觉。如色空中无色相故。前明境同觉者。以境非空非不空义同于前觉非空非不空义。今明觉同境者。以觉性空无相之理同于境空无相之义。二文不同应如是知。 经曰：无住菩萨言：‘心眼识亦复如是，不可思议。’（心眼识：此处指深层意识中的眼识种子以及由此产生的眼识。）佛言：‘心眼识亦复如是，不可思议。何以故？色无处所，清净无名，不入于内；眼无处所，清净无见，不出于外；心无处所，清净无上，无有起处；识无处所，清净无动，无有缘别，性皆空寂。’ 论曰：此第三番明识同觉。心眼识者。谓眼识种子积集之心及此种子所起眼识。略举此二标其性空。下就四缘明眼识空。色无处所者。色性自空故。清净无名者。空中无色故。不入于内者。不与眼根作境界故。是明所缘缘空也。