English
English version: His teachings arise from the Buddha's mind. How can it be said that the Dharma has no arising? To dispel this doubt, there are two layers of meaning. The first is direct negation, and the second is repeated determination. This is direct negation. It says that this Dharma arises from the mind, and it is the Dharma that can grasp and be grasped. Now, the Dharma that you consider to arise from the mind is merely the deluded mind grasping and being grasped. It is like the empty flowers seen by drunken eyes. This Dharma is not real. The Dharma that you consider to arise from the mind is like those empty flowers. This Dharma is also the same, not the arising that you speak of. This meaning precisely clarifies that the Dharma you consider is empty and without substance because it is the object of grasping, just like empty flowers. The Dharma that I speak of transcends words and thoughts; both the grasped and the grasper are beyond expression. The Sutra says: 'At that time, Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva (Earth Treasury Bodhisattva, known for his vow 'Not until the hells are emptied will I become a Buddha') said: If the Dharma is like this, then the Dharma is without dependence; the Dharma without dependence should be self-accomplished.' Thereupon, the Venerable spoke in verse: 'Dharma originally has no being or non-being; self and other are also like this; without beginning and without end; success and failure do not abide.' The Treatise says: This is the second determination. Within it, there are two points. First, a question is raised, and then the question is resolved. This is the meaning of the question: If the Dharma of the Buddha's teachings is not the object of grasping, and therefore not ultimately empty like empty flowers, then this Dharma should be naturally accomplished because it has no dependence, just like Suchness (Tathata). To resolve this question, this verse is spoken. The meaning of this verse is: The Dharma that I speak of transcends names and words, so originally there is no being or non-being; self and other are also like this; there is no beginning and no end; success and failure cannot abide. How can it be said to be naturally accomplished? This shows that that cause has the fault of mutual contradiction. It says that the Dharma has no success or failure because it has no dependence, just like having nothing to grasp. Also like Suchness. Because of this reason, that question cannot be established. Because the question cannot be established, the doubt is eliminated. The Sutra says: 'At that time, Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva said: All Dharmas are in their essence Nirvana (Nirvana); Nirvana and the aspect of emptiness are also like this; there are no such Dharmas; this Dharma should be as the Buddha said, there are no such Dharmas; this Dharma is Suchness.' The Treatise says: Below is the third determination, raising doubt in entering the Actual Reality chapter. There it says that Mahabala Bodhisattva (Great Strength Bodhisattva) said: 'The mind-aspect of sentient beings, the aspect is also the Tathagata (Thus Come One).' The minds of sentient beings should have no other realm. The Buddha said: 'Yes, the minds of sentient beings truly have no other realm.' Why? Because the mind is originally pure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。理无秽故。有依是文作是念言。本净之心正是如理。本来清净自性涅槃。若使涅槃亦空无者。应是邪无不为如理。为遣是疑故说皆如。就文有四。先问次许三领四述。初问意言。若以空义。一切诸法相即是本来清净涅槃。复融涅槃及其空相。即无涅槃及空差别。是一味法。是法应如。反彼所执故作是问。第二答中许如所问。 经曰。地藏菩萨言不可思议如是如相非共不共意取业取即皆空寂空寂心法俱不俱取亦应寂灭。 论曰。此是第三领解。为遣伏难。有闻前说作是难言。本来涅槃既是一如。若融涅槃及其空相是第二如。如是二如为共不共。若言共者即非如理。有二并故。若不共者即不更空。唯一如故。为遣是难故言非共不共。非共者。无二如故。非不共者。有双遣故。所遣虽双遣处无二。故彼所难皆不应理。意取业取即皆空寂者。是显双遣。遣处无二。言意取者。所谓涅槃。缘寂灭心之所取故。言业取者。即是生死。诸烦恼业之所取故。此二皆空。空寂无二。空寂心法俱不俱取亦应寂灭者。明一心法亦不守一。生死涅槃空寂无二。无二之处是一心法。依一心法有二种门。然俱取二门即不得心二非一故。若废二门不俱而取亦不得心无非心故。由是义故无二心法俱不俱取亦应寂灭。 经曰。于是尊 现代汉语译本：理体本无染污的缘故。有人依据这段经文产生这样的想法：‘本净之心’正是真如实理，本来清净就是自性涅槃。如果涅槃也是空无，那就成了邪见，不符合真如实理。为了消除这种疑惑，所以说‘皆如’。就这段经文有四个部分：先是提问，然后是允许，三是领会，四是陈述。最初提问的意思是：如果按照空性的意义，一切诸法的相就是本来清净的涅槃，又融合涅槃以及它的空相，就没有涅槃和空性的差别，成为一种味道的法，这种法应当是如如不动的。为了反驳他们所执着的观点，所以这样提问。第二部分回答中，允许如所提问。 经文说：‘地藏菩萨（Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva）说，不可思议，如是如相，非共不共，意取业取，即皆空寂，空寂心法，俱不俱取，亦应寂灭。’ 论中说：这是第三部分领会。为了消除潜在的诘难。有人听了前面的说法，提出这样的诘难：本来涅槃既然是一如，如果融合涅槃和它的空相，就是第二如。这样两个‘如’是共同还是不共同？如果说是共同的，那就不符合真如实理，因为有两个并列。如果说是不共同的，那就没有进一步的空性，因为只有一个‘如’。为了消除这种诘难，所以说‘非共不共’。‘非共’，因为没有两个‘如’。‘非不共’，因为有双重否定。所否定的是双重的，但否定的处所没有两个，所以他们的诘难都不合理。‘意取业取，即皆空寂’，这是显示双重否定，否定的处所没有两个。‘意取’，指的是涅槃，因为是缘于寂灭之心所取。‘业取’，指的是生死，是诸烦恼业所取。这两者都是空性的，空寂没有二致。‘空寂心法，俱不俱取，亦应寂灭’，说明一心之法也不执守于一。生死涅槃空寂没有二致，没有二致之处就是一心之法。依据一心之法有两种门。然而，如果同时取两种门，就不能得到一心，因为二不是一。如果废弃两种门，不一起取，也不能得到一心，因为没有不是心。因为这个缘故，没有二心之法，同时取或不一起取，都应当寂灭。 经文说：‘于是尊（Venerable）…
English
English version: Because the principle has no defilement. Some, relying on this text, conceive the thought: 'The originally pure mind' is precisely Suchness (Tathata), the true principle. Original purity is Self-Nature Nirvana. If Nirvana is also empty and non-existent, it would be a heretical view, not in accordance with Suchness. To dispel this doubt, it is said 'all are Suchness'. Regarding this text, there are four parts: first, the question; then, the permission; third, the understanding; and fourth, the statement. The meaning of the initial question is: If according to the meaning of emptiness (sunyata), the characteristics of all dharmas are originally pure Nirvana, and if Nirvana and its aspect of emptiness are merged, there would be no difference between Nirvana and emptiness, becoming a single-flavored dharma. This dharma should be Suchness. To refute their clinging to views, this question is posed. In the second part of the answer, it is permitted as asked. The Sutra says: 'Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva (Earth Treasury Bodhisattva) said, inconceivable, such is the aspect of Suchness, neither common nor uncommon, intentional grasping and karmic grasping, all are empty and still, empty and still, mind and dharma, both grasping and not grasping, should also be extinguished.' The Treatise says: This is the third part of understanding. To dispel potential objections. Some, hearing the previous explanation, raise this objection: Since original Nirvana is one Suchness, if Nirvana and its aspect of emptiness are merged, it is the second Suchness. Are these two 'Suchness' common or uncommon? If they are said to be common, then it is not in accordance with Suchness, because there are two side by side. If they are said to be uncommon, then there is no further emptiness, because there is only one 'Suchness'. To dispel this objection, it is said 'neither common nor uncommon'. 'Neither common', because there are not two 'Suchness'. 'Neither uncommon', because there is double negation. What is negated is double, but the place of negation is not two, so their objections are all unreasonable. 'Intentional grasping and karmic grasping, all are empty and still', this shows double negation, the place of negation is not two. 'Intentional grasping' refers to Nirvana, because it is grasped by the mind that is connected to stillness and extinction. 'Karmic grasping' refers to Samsara (birth and death), which is grasped by the karmic actions of all afflictions. Both of these are empty, empty and still without difference. 'Empty and still, mind and dharma, both grasping and not grasping, should also be extinguished', this explains that the dharma of one mind does not cling to one. Samsara and Nirvana are empty and still without difference, the place without difference is the dharma of one mind. Based on the dharma of one mind, there are two gates. However, if both gates are grasped simultaneously, one cannot attain the one mind, because two is not one. If both gates are abandoned, not grasped together, one cannot attain the one mind, because there is nothing that is not mind. Because of this meaning, there is no dharma of two minds, whether grasping together or not grasping together, all should be extinguished. The Sutra says: 'Then the Venerable (Venerable)…' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
者而说偈言一切空寂法是法寂不空彼心不空时是得心不有。 论曰。此是第四如来述成。一切空寂法者。生死涅槃一切空寂之法。是法寂不空者。无二之心法非都无法故。虽非无法而不是有。是故解心不空之时是时得知心之不有。所以前说俱不俱取皆应寂灭者不违道理也。 经曰。尔时地藏菩萨言是法非三谛色空心亦灭是法本灭时是法应是灭于是尊者而说偈言法本无自性由彼之所生不于如是处而有彼如是。 论曰。此是第四决本觉利品中起疑。彼言无住菩萨言。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。依此述文。于彼生疑云。若是一心亦不是有故寂灭者。何故前说一觉不坏故不同彼色心之空。今乘是疑故作是问。是法非三谛者。即前颂说。是一心法非色心空。故非三谛。然三谛门略有三种。一者色谛心谛第一义谛。二者有谛无谛中道第一义谛。三者如此品中后文所说。今此问意且依初门。色空心亦灭者。是法既非三谛摄故。色相本空心亦寂灭。是色心法本寂灭时是一心法应同寂灭。即前偈言。心不有故。是即前说不同空者。徒为虚谈。如是疑也颂中对此明其不同。法本无自性者。色心之法本无自性。由彼之所生者。由彼本觉之心所生。 现代汉语译本： 佛说偈语道：‘一切空寂之法，此法寂静而非空，当内心不执着于空时，才能真正领悟心的不存在。’ 论曰：这是第四位如来阐述成就之理。‘一切空寂法’指的是生死涅槃一切皆空的法。‘是法寂不空’指的是无二之心法并非完全不存在，虽非实有，但也不是完全没有。因此，理解内心不执着于空的时候，才能真正得知心的不存在。所以前面所说的一起取或不一起取都应寂灭，这并不违背道理。 经曰：当时，地藏菩萨（Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva）说：‘此法并非三谛（three truths），色（form）空（emptiness），心（mind）也灭。此法本已寂灭时，此法应是寂灭。’于是尊者说偈语道：‘法本无自性（self-nature），由彼之所生，不于如是处而有彼如是。’ 论曰：这是在第四决本觉利品中产生的疑问。无住菩萨（Anavatapta Bodhisattva）说：‘一切境空，一切身空，一切识空，觉也应空。’佛说：‘可有一觉者，不毁不坏决定性，非空非不空，无空不空。’依据此文，对此产生疑问说：‘如果一心也不是实有，所以寂灭，为何前面说一觉不坏，所以不同于色心之空？’现在借着这个疑问，所以作此提问。‘是法非三谛’，即前面颂文所说，一心之法并非色心空，所以不是三谛。然而三谛之门略有三种：一者，色谛、心谛、第一义谛（ultimate truth）；二者，有谛、无谛、中道第一义谛；三者，如此品中后文所说。现在此问的意图且依据第一种。‘色空心亦灭’，此法既然不属于三谛所摄，所以色相本空，心也寂灭。这色心之法本已寂灭时，一心之法应一同寂灭，即前面偈语所说，心不存在。这就是前面所说不同于空，只是徒劳的空谈。’如此疑问。颂文中对此说明其不同。‘法本无自性’，色心之法本无自性。‘由彼之所生’，由彼本觉之心所生。