Chinese
曰。此下第二以偈重颂。于中有二。一者如来略宣。二者长者广演。今此颂中所言法者。谓一心法。若妄分别动心海故。若生若灭一切诸相莫不皆从分别所作。若就本觉。本来静门离诸分别故是法非生灭。谓从本来灭诸分别。无生灭因。故非生灭。若使生之与灭皆从分别之所作者。瑜伽所说云何而通。如彼思所成地中云。无灭他用无自灭用。 问。如众缘有故生。亦众缘有故灭耶。 答。众缘有故生。生已自然灭。如是相违云何和会。解云。因缘道理如彼论说。唯识道理如此经说。所以二说皆有道理。 经曰。尔时梵行长者闻说是偈心大欣怿欲宣其义而说偈言诸法本寂灭寂灭亦无生是诸生灭法是法非无生彼即不共此为有断常故此即离于二亦不在一住。 论曰。此下长者广颂有八行偈。即为五分。一者二颂正演前义。二者二颂破诸邪解。三者一颂申己正取。四者二颂礼正说者。五者一颂请说未闻。此即第一正演前偈。于中有三。一者二句演彼下半。二者二句演彼上半。三者一颂总演二义。初言诸法本寂灭者。谓阴界等法本来寂灭故。寂灭亦无生者。非但诸法本来寂灭。寂灭之理亦无生故。第二中言是诸生灭法者。谓阴界等世俗法故。是法非无生者。从分别动有生起故。是就真俗非一之门以显动 现代汉语译本： 说：下面第二部分用偈颂再次阐述。其中分为两部分。一是如来简略宣说，二是长者广泛阐述。现在这首偈颂中所说的‘法’，指的是一心之法。如果妄加分别，扰动心海，那么无论是生起还是灭去，一切诸相无不是从分别所产生的。如果就本觉而言，本来就是寂静之门，远离一切分别，所以这个‘法’不是生灭法。意思是说，从本来就灭除一切分别，没有生灭的原因，所以不是生灭法。如果说生起和灭去都是从分别所产生的，那么《瑜伽师地论》所说的又该如何解释呢？比如在那思所成地中说：‘没有灭他用，没有自灭用。’ 问：如众缘和合而有，所以生起；也是众缘和合而有，所以灭去吗？ 答：众缘和合而生起，生起之后自然灭去。这样相互矛盾，如何调和呢？解释说：因缘的道理如《瑜伽师地论》所说，唯识的道理如此经所说。所以两种说法都有道理。 经文说：当时，梵行长者听到这首偈颂，心中非常欢喜，想要宣扬其中的含义，于是用偈颂说道：‘诸法本寂灭（一切法的本质是寂静的），寂灭亦无生（寂静的本质也是不生不灭的），是诸生灭法（这些生灭的现象），是法非无生（是法，但并非没有生起），彼即不共此（那个与这个不相同），为有断常故（因为有断灭和常恒的缘故），此即离于二（这个就远离了二边），亦不在一住（也不住在单一的一边）。’ 论述说：下面长者广泛地用八行偈颂来阐述，分为五个部分。一是两颂，正面阐述前面的含义。二是两颂，破除各种错误的理解。三是一颂，申明自己正确的理解。四是两颂，礼敬正确的说法者。五是一颂，请求宣说未曾听闻的道理。这第一部分就是正面阐述前面的偈颂，其中分为三部分。一是两句，阐述那偈颂的下半部分。二是两句，阐述那偈颂的上半部分。三是一颂，总括阐述两种含义。最初说‘诸法本寂灭’，意思是说阴界等法本来就是寂静的。‘寂灭亦无生’，不仅仅是诸法本来寂静，寂灭的道理也是没有生起的。第二部分中说‘是诸生灭法’，指的是阴界等世俗法。‘是法非无生’，是从分别动念而有生起的。这是就真俗非一之门来显示动念。
English
English version: He said: The following second part uses a verse to reiterate. There are two parts to it. The first is the Tathagata's brief explanation, and the second is the elder's extensive elaboration. The 'Dharma' mentioned in this verse refers to the Dharma of the One Mind. If one engages in deluded discrimination and disturbs the ocean of the mind, then whether it arises or ceases, all phenomena are produced from discrimination. If one considers the original enlightenment, it is originally the gate of stillness, free from all discrimination, so this 'Dharma' is not subject to arising and ceasing. It means that from the beginning, all discrimination is extinguished, and there is no cause for arising and ceasing, so it is not subject to arising and ceasing. If arising and ceasing are both produced from discrimination, how can the statements in the *Yogacarabhumi-sastra* (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) be reconciled? For example, in the section on the 'mentally constructed ground,' it says: 'There is no function of destroying others, and no function of self-destruction.' Question: Is it that because of the presence of various conditions, there is arising; and also because of the presence of various conditions, there is ceasing? Answer: Because of the presence of various conditions, there is arising; and after arising, there is natural ceasing. How can these contradictions be reconciled? The explanation is: the principle of cause and condition is as explained in the *Yogacarabhumi-sastra*, and the principle of Consciousness-Only is as explained in this sutra. Therefore, both explanations have their own reasons. The sutra says: At that time, the Brahmacarin Elder, hearing this verse, was greatly delighted and wished to proclaim its meaning, so he spoke in verse, saying: 'All dharmas are fundamentally quiescent (the essence of all dharmas is stillness), quiescence is also without arising (the essence of quiescence is also without arising or ceasing), these are the dharmas of arising and ceasing (these phenomena of arising and ceasing), this Dharma is not without arising (is Dharma, but not without arising), that is not the same as this (that is not the same as this), because there is annihilation and permanence (because there is annihilation and permanence), this is apart from the two (this is apart from the two extremes), and does not dwell in one (and does not dwell in one extreme).' The commentary says: The following is the elder's extensive elaboration in eight lines of verse, divided into five parts. The first is two verses, directly explaining the preceding meaning. The second is two verses, refuting various incorrect interpretations. The third is one verse, stating his own correct understanding. The fourth is two verses, paying homage to the correct speaker. The fifth is one verse, requesting the explanation of doctrines not yet heard. This first part is the direct explanation of the preceding verse, divided into three parts. The first is two lines, explaining the latter half of that verse. The second is two lines, explaining the first half of that verse. The third is one verse, summarizing the two meanings. The first statement, 'All dharmas are fundamentally quiescent,' means that the skandhas (aggregates), realms, etc., are originally quiescent. 'Quiescence is also without arising,' means that not only are all dharmas originally quiescent, but the principle of quiescence is also without arising. In the second part, 'These are the dharmas of arising and ceasing,' refers to the mundane dharmas such as the skandhas and realms. 'This Dharma is not without arising,' is because of the arising from discriminating thoughts. This is to reveal the movement of thought from the gate of true and conventional, which are not one. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
静不杂乱义。第三中言彼即不共此者。谓彼寂灭无生之法不与此生灭法共并故。为有断常故者。若彼与此共并有者。此法生灭即有断边。彼法常寂即有常边。同二乘过乖中道故。然佛所说一偈之义不堕断常故。此即离于二。不无动静故。亦不在一住。不在一住者。不守一实一心性故。离于二者举体动静非二法故。当知是事不可思议。 经曰。若说法有一是相如毛轮如焰水迷倒为诸虚妄故若见于法无是法同于空如盲无日倒说法如龟毛。 论曰。此是第二破诸邪解。邪解虽多大邪有二。依甚深教如言取义自谓究竟难可化故。一者闻佛所说动静无二。便谓是一一实一心。由是诽拨二谛道理。二者闻佛所说空有二门。计有二法而无一实。由此诽拨无二中道。是二邪解服药成病甚难可治。今显彼过。此二颂中次第显之。初言若说法有一者。谓如前说计有一实。如自所计说有一法故。是相如毛轮者。谓彼所计一实法相如目曀者所见毛轮故。如焰水迷倒者。谓如渴鹿见焰谓水驰走而求直是迷倒。计有一心亦如是故为诸虚妄故者。渴鹿见水曀者见轮学士计一。如是诸计齐虚妄故。次破无见。若见于法无者。谓如前说计有二谛。无一心法故。是法同于空者。彼计一心同于空理。空理之外本无一实故。如盲无日倒者。谓如生盲 现代汉语译本：‘静不杂乱义’，指的是第三句中说的‘彼即不共此者’。意思是说，寂灭无生的涅槃之法，不与这生灭变异的世间法相混同。‘为有断常故者’，如果涅槃与世间法混同，那么世间法的生灭就落入了断灭的边见，而涅槃的常寂就落入了常恒的边见。这就像小乘的偏颇，违背了中道。然而，佛所说的一偈之义，不会落入断常二见，因此是远离二边的。‘不无动静故’，也不是停滞于一处。‘不在一住者’，是不执着于单一的实相或单一的心性。‘离于二者’，是指整体的动与静都不是单一的法，应当明白这个道理是不可思议的。 经文说：‘若说法有一是相，如毛轮如焰水，迷倒为诸虚妄故；若见于法无是法，同于空如盲无日，倒说法如龟毛。’ 论中说：这是第二次破斥各种邪见。邪见虽然很多，但主要的邪见有两种。他们依据甚深的教义，按照字面意思去理解，自认为已经达到了究竟的境界，难以教化。第一种是听到佛所说的动静不二，就认为只有一个实相，一个心性，因此诽谤二谛的道理。第二种是听到佛所说的空有二门，就认为有两种法，而没有一个实相，由此诽谤无二的中道。这两种邪见就像服药反而生病，很难医治。现在揭示他们的过失。这两颂偈中依次显明这些过失。首先说‘若说法有一者’，是指像前面所说的那样，执着于一个实相，因为他们按照自己所执着的去说有一个法。‘是相如毛轮者’，是指他们所执着的一个实相的法相，就像眼睛有毛病的人所看到的毛轮一样。‘如焰水迷倒者’，就像干渴的鹿看到阳焰以为是水，奔跑着去追逐，这完全是颠倒迷惑。执着于一个心性也是这样。‘为诸虚妄故者’，干渴的鹿看到阳焰，眼睛有毛病的人看到毛轮，学士执着于一个实相，像这样的各种执着都是虚妄的。接下来破斥没有实相的见解。‘若见于法无者’，是指像前面所说的那样，认为有二谛，没有一个心法。‘是法同于空者’，他们认为一个心性等同于空性的道理，因为在空性之外本来就没有一个实相。‘如盲无日倒者’，就像天生的盲人
English
English version: 'Quietness without confusion' means, as stated in the third sentence, 'that which is not shared with this.' It means that the Dharma of Nirvana (Nirvana), which is tranquil and without arising, is not mixed with this Dharma of arising and ceasing (samsara). 'Because there is annihilation or permanence' means that if Nirvana and samsara were mixed, then the arising and ceasing of samsara would fall into the extreme of annihilation, and the constant tranquility of Nirvana would fall into the extreme of permanence. This is like the bias of the Hinayana (Hinayana), which goes against the Middle Way (Madhyamaka). However, the meaning of a verse spoken by the Buddha does not fall into the extremes of annihilation or permanence, and therefore it is free from duality. 'Not without movement and stillness' means that it is not stagnant in one place. 'Not dwelling in one' means not clinging to a single reality or a single mind-nature. 'Free from duality' means that the entirety of movement and stillness are not two separate Dharmas. It should be understood that this principle is inconceivable. The sutra says: 'If one speaks of Dharma as having one aspect, it is like a hair-wheel or mirage water, deluding and causing all kinds of falsities. If one sees Dharma as without Dharma, it is the same as emptiness, like a blind person without the sun, speaking of Dharma is as absurd as turtle hair.' The treatise says: This is the second refutation of various wrong views. Although there are many wrong views, there are two major ones. They rely on the profound teachings, interpret them literally, and consider themselves to have reached the ultimate state, making them difficult to teach. The first is that upon hearing the Buddha's teaching that movement and stillness are not two, they believe that there is only one reality, one mind-nature, and therefore slander the truth of the two truths (two truths). The second is that upon hearing the Buddha's teaching of the two gates of emptiness and existence, they believe that there are two Dharmas and no single reality, thereby slandering the non-dual Middle Way. These two wrong views are like taking medicine and becoming ill, making them very difficult to cure. Now, their faults are revealed. These two verses successively reveal these faults. First, 'If one speaks of Dharma as having one aspect' refers to clinging to a single reality as mentioned earlier, because they speak of having one Dharma according to what they cling to. 'Its aspect is like a hair-wheel' means that the aspect of the one reality they cling to is like the hair-wheel seen by someone with impaired vision. 'Like mirage water causing delusion' is like a thirsty deer seeing a heat haze and mistaking it for water, running to chase after it, which is completely inverted and deluded. Clinging to one mind-nature is also like this. 'Causing all kinds of falsities' means that the thirsty deer seeing a heat haze, the person with impaired vision seeing a hair-wheel, and the scholar clinging to one reality, all such clingings are false. Next, refuting the view of no reality. 'If one sees Dharma as without Dharma' refers to believing in two truths as mentioned earlier, without a single mind-Dharma. 'This Dharma is the same as emptiness' means that they consider one mind-nature to be the same as the principle of emptiness, because there is originally no single reality outside of emptiness. 'Like a blind person without the sun' is like a person born blind --------------------------------------------------------------------------------