Chinese
者开四有一。谓念。所以彼四一念所摄。三者开三有一。谓戒。所以彼三一戒所摄。四者开二有一。谓信。信摄彼二。五者立一有四。思受安舍各摄自性。如是十法摄三十七。二摄十法为四种者。第一戒者色法所摄。谓表无表。第二思受遍行心所所摄。第三念定慧别境心所所摄。第四信等四善心所所摄。三摄四法为一义者。觉慧推求如是四法初一色法有方无方俱无所得。后三心所有时无时皆不可得。是则虽非无法而不得有可得之法平等一味。当知四法直是一义。以之故言多名一义。四明一义具三十七者。能所平等一味之义。观身等空是四念处。离诸懈怠是四正勤。散虑寂灭是如意足。离不信等即是根力。灭无明等即七觉分。离八邪法即八正道。如是远离一切杂染。一义具足无量功德。故言是观觉中应具三十七道品法。又言如如之理具一切法。 经曰。舍利弗言一切万法皆悉文言文言之相即非为义如实之义不可言说今者如来云何说法。 论曰。此下大分第三明佛言教称如理说。先问后答。问中言一切万法者。世间言说所安立法。如言之法皆无所得故。唯文言即非为义。诸法实义绝诸言说。今佛说法若是文言即无实义。若有实义应非文言。是故问言云何说法。 经曰。佛言我说法者。以汝众生在生说故 。说不可说是故说之。我所说者义语非文。众生说者文语非义。非义语者皆悉空无。空无之言无言于义。不言义者皆是妄语。如义语者实空不空。空实不实。离于二相中间不中。不中之法离于三相。不见处所。如如如说。如无无有无有于无。如无有无有无于有。有无不在。说不在故不在于如。如不有如不无如说。 论曰。是第二答。于中有二。先是佛说之由。后显文义之异。初中言以汝众生在生说故者。汝谓身子。众生即是一切凡夫。说于无为即在法体。说于有为即生法相。如是在生之说不可说于实义。我异彼说。是故说之。是为佛说言教之由。次显文义不同相中。先标二章后释二章。标中言义语非文者。语当实义故非直空文故。文语非义者。语止空文故不关实义故。第二释中先释后章。言皆悉空无者。直有空文而无实义故。是释文语也。无言于义者。无诠谈于如实之义故。是释非义也。下总结。言皆是妄语者。虽非违想而违义故。犹如不见言见见言不见等语。如义已下次释前章。于中有二。正释重显。初中亦二。先释非文。后释义语。释非文者。谓非空无。非空文故。非无义故释义语者。义合语故。语如义故。初释中言实空不空者。谓说真如实相亦空。如前说言空相亦空故。言实空。而不亡其实相之理故言不 现代汉语译本： 说不可说，所以才说。我所说的，是义理之语而非文字。众生所说的，是文字之语而非义理。不是义理之语，都完全是空无。空无之言，对于义理毫无表达。不表达义理的，都是虚妄之语。如义理之语，是实在的空，而非不空；是空性的实，而非不实。远离二相，中间也不执着。不执着之法，远离三种相。不见处所。如如而说。如无，则无有，无有存在于无中。如无有，则无有存在于有中。有和无都不存在。说不在，所以不在于如。如不有如，不无如，如是说。 论曰（论师说）：这是第二次回答。其中有两点。一是佛陀说法的缘由，二是阐明文字和义理的差异。首先，‘以汝众生在生说故’，‘汝’指的是舍利子（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著称）。‘众生’指的是一切凡夫。说无为法，即在于法体。说有为法，即在于生法之相。像这样，在生之说不能表达实在的义理。我与他们的说法不同。所以才说。这是佛陀说法的缘由。其次，阐明文字和义理的不同之处。先标出两章，后解释两章。标出时说‘义语非文’，是因为语言应当符合实在的义理，所以不是单纯的空洞文字。‘文语非义’，是因为语言只是空洞的文字，所以与实在的义理无关。第二，解释时先解释后一章。说‘皆悉空无’，是因为只有空洞的文字而没有实在的义理。这是解释‘文语’。‘无言于义’，是没有诠释谈论如实的义理。这是解释‘非义’。下面总结。说‘皆是妄语’，虽然没有违背想象，但违背了义理。犹如没看见说看见，看见说没看见等语。如义已下，解释前一章。其中有两点。一是正式解释，二是再次阐明。首先，其中也有两点。一是解释‘非文’，二是解释‘义语’。解释‘非文’，是指不是空无。因为不是空洞的文字，也不是没有义理。解释‘义语’，是因为义理符合语言，语言符合义理。最初的解释中说‘实空不空’，是指说真如（Tathātā，事物的真实如是的状态）实相（Lakṣaṇa，事物所具有的性质和特征）也是空，如前面所说空相也是空。说‘实空’，而不丧失其实相的道理，所以说‘不空’。
English
English version: 'Saying the unsayable, therefore it is said.' What I speak is the language of meaning, not of words. What sentient beings speak is the language of words, not of meaning. Language that is not of meaning is entirely empty and void. Empty and void words have no expression of meaning. Those who do not speak of meaning are all speaking falsely. Like the language of meaning, it is real emptiness, yet not non-empty; it is emptiness of reality, yet not unreal. It is apart from the two characteristics, and in the middle there is no attachment. The Dharma of non-attachment is apart from the three characteristics. It cannot be seen anywhere. It is spoken as it is. Like non-existence, there is no existence, and non-existence exists in non-existence. Like non-existence, there is no existence, and non-existence exists in existence. Existence and non-existence are not present. Because speaking is not present, it is not present in suchness (Tathātā, the true nature of reality). Suchness is not existent, not non-existent, as it is said. Commentary (Śāstra): This is the second answer. There are two points in it. First, the reason for the Buddha's teaching; second, the difference between words and meaning is clarified. First, 'Because you sentient beings speak in existence,' 'you' refers to Śāriputra (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his wisdom). 'Sentient beings' refers to all ordinary people. Speaking of the unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta, that which is not compounded or conditioned), it is in the Dharma body. Speaking of the conditioned (Saṃskṛta, that which is compounded or conditioned), it is in the aspect of arising Dharma. Like this, speaking in existence cannot express the real meaning. My speech is different from theirs. Therefore, it is said. This is the reason for the Buddha's teaching. Second, clarify the difference between words and meaning. First, mark out the two chapters, then explain the two chapters. When marking out, it is said 'meaningful language is not words' because language should conform to the real meaning, so it is not simply empty words. 'Verbal language is not meaning' because language is only empty words, so it has nothing to do with real meaning. Second, when explaining, first explain the latter chapter. It is said 'all are empty and void' because there are only empty words and no real meaning. This is explaining 'verbal language'. 'No words for meaning' means there is no explanation or discussion of the real meaning. This is explaining 'non-meaning'. The following summarizes. It is said 'all are false speech' although it does not violate imagination, it violates meaning. Like saying 'seeing' when not seeing, and saying 'not seeing' when seeing. After 'like meaning', explain the previous chapter. There are two points in it. First, a formal explanation; second, a re-elaboration. First, there are also two points in it. First, explain 'non-verbal'; second, explain 'meaningful language'. Explaining 'non-verbal' means it is not empty and void. Because it is not empty words, nor is it without meaning. Explaining 'meaningful language' is because meaning conforms to language, and language conforms to meaning. The initial explanation says 'real emptiness is not non-empty' which means that saying true suchness (Tathātā, the true nature of reality) and characteristics (Lakṣaṇa, the characteristics and features of things) are also empty, as said before, the aspect of emptiness is also empty. Saying 'real emptiness' does not lose the principle of its real characteristics, so it is said 'not non-empty'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
空。虽非有实而非无实故。空实不实者。谓说真空之理是实故言空实。而不存其真空之理故言不实。虽非无空而非有空故。离于二相中间不中者。不空之语离于空相。不实之语离于实相。故言离于二相。然空实二相之间不存非二之中。故言中间不中。既离二边亦不堕中。故言离于三相。心言行处不过三相。然此佛语远离三相。即于其中心言路绝。故言不见处所。如是妙契绝言之义。所以不同无义之文。此释非文也。如如如说者。是释义语。上一如是契当。下二如是义理。如前远离三相之语契当如如义理而说。所以佛说乃是义语。不同凡语之非义也。如无已下第二重显。先显非文。后显义语。初中言如无无有无有于无者。谓真如理虽非是有而如本无令无其有。谓令无有法于无法中。所以然者。如本非有。无于何有而堕无耶。是故合于实空不空之语也。如无有无有无于有者。谓真如理虽非是无而如本无令有其无。谓令有无法于有法中。所以然者。如本非无。有于何无而堕有耶。是故合于空实不实之语。有无不在者。如无有无故有不在。如无无有故无不在。二既不在。何得有中。即合离于三相之语如义既尔合于义语。是故佛语实非空文。如是重显非文释也。佛说名言如是当理故后得智带如是名。思惟真如即得亲观真如理体故 现代汉语译本 ‘空’，虽然它不是实在的‘有’，但也不是虚无的‘无’。因此说‘空实不实’：说真空的道理是实在的，所以说‘空实’；但不执着于这个真空的道理，所以说‘不实’。虽然它不是没有‘空’，但也不是有‘空’。因此说‘离于二相中间不中’：‘不空’的说法离开了‘空相’，‘不实’的说法离开了‘实相’，所以说‘离于二相’。然而在‘空’和‘实’这两种相之间，并不存在一个‘非二’的中间状态，所以说‘中间不中’。既然离开了两边，也不会落入中间，所以说‘离于三相’。心、言、行所能及之处，不过是这三种相。然而佛的语言远离这三种相，就在其中，心和言语的道路都断绝了，所以说‘不见处所’。像这样巧妙地契合了断绝言语的意义，所以不同于没有意义的文字。这是对‘非文’的解释。‘如如如说’，这是解释意义的语言。第一个‘如是’是契合，后面的两个‘如是’是义理。像前面远离三种相的语言，契合‘如如’的义理而说，所以佛说的是有意义的语言，不同于凡夫语言的没有意义。‘如无已下’是第二重显，先显示‘非文’，后显示‘义语’。开始说‘如无无有无有于无’，意思是说，真如的道理虽然不是‘有’，但好像本来就没有一样，使‘有’归于‘无’，使‘有法’在‘无法’中不存在。之所以这样，是因为真如本来就不是‘有’，‘有’又怎么会落入‘无’呢？所以符合‘实空不空’的说法。‘如无有无有无于有’，意思是说，真如的道理虽然不是‘无’，但好像本来就没有一样，使‘有’归于‘无’，使‘无法’在‘有法’中存在。之所以这样，是因为真如本来就不是‘无’，‘有’又怎么会落入‘有’呢？所以符合‘空实不实’的说法。‘有无不在’，好像没有‘无’一样，所以‘有’不存在；好像没有‘有’一样，所以‘无’不存在。‘有’和‘无’既然都不存在，又怎么能在‘有’中存在呢？这就符合了‘离于三相’的说法。‘如’的意义既然是这样，就符合了‘义语’。所以佛的语言确实不是空洞的文字。像这样重复显示‘非文’的解释。佛所说的名言是如此的符合道理，所以后得智（后得智，智慧的一种，指在根本智之后，为了利益众生而获得的智慧）带有这样的名称。思惟真如，就能亲自体会真如的理体。
English
English version ‘Emptiness’ (空, Kong), although it is not a real ‘being’ (有, You), it is not a non-existent ‘nothingness’ (无, Wu) either. Therefore, it is said ‘emptiness is real and unreal’: saying that the principle of true emptiness is real, so it is said ‘emptiness is real’; but not clinging to this principle of true emptiness, so it is said ‘unreal’. Although it is not without ‘emptiness’, it is not with ‘emptiness’ either. Therefore, it is said ‘apart from the two aspects, the middle is not middle’: the saying of ‘not emptiness’ is apart from the ‘aspect of emptiness’, the saying of ‘not real’ is apart from the ‘aspect of reality’, so it is said ‘apart from the two aspects’. However, between the two aspects of ‘emptiness’ and ‘reality’, there is no ‘non-two’ middle state, so it is said ‘the middle is not middle’. Since it is apart from both sides, it will not fall into the middle either, so it is said ‘apart from the three aspects’. What the mind, speech, and action can reach is only these three aspects. However, the Buddha's language is far away from these three aspects, and in it, the paths of mind and speech are cut off, so it is said ‘no place is seen’. Like this, it subtly corresponds to the meaning of cutting off language, so it is different from meaningless words. This is an explanation of ‘non-text’. ‘Thus thus thus said’, this is the language of explaining meaning. The first ‘thus’ is correspondence, and the latter two ‘thus’ are the principles. Like the language of being far away from the three aspects before, it corresponds to the meaning of ‘thus thus’ and is said, so what the Buddha says is meaningful language, different from the meaninglessness of ordinary people's language. ‘As without below’ is the second re-manifestation, first manifesting ‘non-text’, and then manifesting ‘meaningful language’. Beginning with ‘as without without having without having in without’, it means that although the principle of Suchness (真如, Zhenru) is not ‘being’, it is as if it originally did not exist, causing ‘being’ to return to ‘nothingness’, causing ‘existing dharma’ to not exist in ‘non-existent dharma’. The reason for this is that Suchness is originally not ‘being’, so how can ‘being’ fall into ‘nothingness’? Therefore, it corresponds to the saying of ‘real emptiness not emptiness’. ‘As without having without having without in having’, it means that although the principle of Suchness is not ‘nothingness’, it is as if it originally did not exist, causing ‘being’ to return to ‘nothingness’, causing ‘non-existent dharma’ to exist in ‘existing dharma’. The reason for this is that Suchness is originally not ‘nothingness’, so how can ‘being’ fall into ‘being’? Therefore, it corresponds to the saying of ‘emptiness real unreal’. ‘Being and non-being are not present’, it is as if there is no ‘nothingness’, so ‘being’ does not exist; it is as if there is no ‘being’, so ‘nothingness’ does not exist. Since ‘being’ and ‘nothingness’ do not exist, how can they exist in ‘being’? This corresponds to the saying of ‘apart from the three aspects’. Since the meaning of ‘thus’ is like this, it corresponds to ‘meaningful language’. Therefore, the Buddha's language is indeed not empty words. Like this, the explanation of ‘non-text’ is repeatedly shown. The names spoken by the Buddha are so in accordance with reason, so the subsequent wisdom (后得智, Houdezhi, wisdom obtained after the fundamental wisdom for the benefit of sentient beings) carries such a name. Thinking about Suchness, one can personally experience the principle of Suchness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------