English
English version: The Buddha spoke in verse, saying: 'All phenomena are empty and still; this dharma is tranquil and not empty. When the mind does not cling to emptiness, one can truly realize the non-existence of the mind.' Commentary: This is the fourth Tathagata (如来, one who has thus gone) elucidating the principle of accomplishment. 'All phenomena are empty and still' refers to the dharma of emptiness and stillness of all things in samsara (生死, birth and death) and nirvana (涅槃, liberation). 'This dharma is tranquil and not empty' refers to the non-dual mind-dharma, which is not completely non-existent. Although it is not truly existent, it is not completely non-existent either. Therefore, understanding when the mind does not cling to emptiness, one can truly know the non-existence of the mind. Therefore, what was said earlier, that taking together or not taking together should all be extinguished, does not contradict the principle. The Sutra says: At that time, Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva (地藏菩萨, Earth Treasury Bodhisattva) said: 'This dharma is not the three truths (三谛, three aspects of truth), form (色, rupa) is empty (空, sunyata), and the mind (心, citta) is also extinguished. When this dharma is originally extinguished, this dharma should be extinguished.' Thereupon, the Venerable spoke in verse, saying: 'Dharma originally has no self-nature (自性, svabhava), it is born from that, it does not exist in such a place as it is.' Commentary: This is a doubt arising in the fourth chapter, 'Deciding on the Benefit of Original Enlightenment'. Anavatapta Bodhisattva (无住菩萨, Bodhisattva of No Abode) said: 'All realms are empty, all bodies are empty, all consciousnesses are empty, and enlightenment should also be empty.' The Buddha said: 'There can be one who is enlightened, whose decisive nature is not destroyed or broken, is neither empty nor not empty, is without emptiness or non-emptiness.' Based on this text, a doubt arises, saying: 'If the one mind is also not truly existent, therefore extinguished, why was it said earlier that one enlightenment is not destroyed, therefore different from the emptiness of form and mind?' Now, taking advantage of this doubt, this question is asked. 'This dharma is not the three truths' refers to what was said in the previous verse, that the dharma of the one mind is not the emptiness of form and mind, therefore it is not the three truths. However, there are roughly three kinds of gates to the three truths: first, the truth of form, the truth of mind, and the ultimate truth (第一义谛, paramartha-satya); second, the truth of existence, the truth of non-existence, and the ultimate truth of the Middle Way; third, as mentioned later in this chapter. Now, the intention of this question is based on the first kind. 'Form is empty and the mind is also extinguished', since this dharma is not included in the three truths, therefore the characteristic of form is originally empty, and the mind is also extinguished. When this dharma of form and mind is originally extinguished, the dharma of the one mind should also be extinguished together, as the previous verse said, the mind does not exist. This is what was said earlier, that it is different from emptiness, it is just futile talk.' Such is the doubt. The verse explains the difference. 'Dharma originally has no self-nature', the dharma of form and mind originally has no self-nature. 'It is born from that', it is born from that mind of original enlightenment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
所生色心是差别相。彼本觉心离相离性。不于如是差别之处而有如彼离相一觉。是故空此色心差别相时不得同遣离相一觉。由是道理前非虚说。 经曰。尔时地藏菩萨言一切诸法无生无灭云何不一于是尊者而说偈言法住处无在相数空故无名说二与法是即能所取。 论曰。此是第五决无生行品中起疑。彼言缘起非生。缘谢非灭。在无有处。不见所住。决定性故。是决定性不一不异。有依彼文而起疑云。色心等法无生无灭。即是平等决定实性。是即横无色心之差。纵无生灭之别。无差无别。应是一味。不异可尔。云何不一。颂中对此显不一义。法住处无在者。诸法之住及所住处皆无所有故。相数空故无者。色心等相一异等数悉空故无也。相数既无。那得有一。又无色故即无心相。既非异者。如何是一而有名说之二。及有所说法者。是即能取妄心所取非如实义。有一二等。言名说者。名是诠用。意识所取。说是语声。耳识所了。若言是一即有此二。于中亦有所诠之法。如是等数妄心所取。非彼实义。有如是数。云何于中存一味耶。 经曰。尔时地藏菩萨言。一切诸法相不住于二岸。亦不住中流。心识亦如是。云何诸境界从识之所生。若识能有生是识亦从生。云何无生识能生有所生。于是尊者而说偈言。所 现代汉语译本：所产生的色（Rūpa，物质）和心（Citta，精神）是差别相。而本觉心（original awareness）则离一切相，离一切自性。它不会因为这些差别相而变成像那些离相的单一觉性。因此，当空掉色心这些差别相时，不能同时否定那离相的单一觉性。基于这个道理，之前的说法并非虚妄。 经中说：‘当时，地藏菩萨（Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva）说一切诸法无生无灭，为何不是一体？’于是尊者（指胜鬘夫人，Śrīmālādevī）以偈颂回答说：‘法所住之处无处可寻，相和数量皆空，因此无法用名称来描述。说有二（能取和所取）与法相关，这只是能取和所取。’ 论中说：这是在第五品‘决无生行品’中产生的疑问。他们说缘起（Pratītyasamutpāda，dependent origination）不是生，缘散不是灭，因为它们不存在于任何地方，也看不到它们所住之处，这是决定性的。这种决定性既非一也非异。有人根据这段经文产生疑问说：色心等法无生无灭，这就是平等决定的实性。这样一来，横向上没有色心的差别，纵向上没有生灭的区别。没有差别，就应该是一味，不异是可以接受的，但为何不是一体呢？颂中对此阐明了不一体的含义。‘法住处无在者’，意思是诸法的住处和所住之处都是空无所有的。‘相数空故无者’，意思是色心等相，以及一异等数量，都是空无所有的。既然相和数量都没有，又怎么会有一呢？而且没有色，也就没有心相。既然不是异，又怎么会是一，并且有名和说的二元对立呢？以及有所说法者，这只是能取妄心所取，并非如实的意义。有一二等，‘言名说者’，名是诠释作用，是意识所取；说是语声，是耳识所了。如果说是一，就有了这二。其中也有所诠释的法。像这样的数量都是妄心所取，并非实义。既然有这样的数量，又怎么能存在单一的味道呢？ 经中说：‘当时，地藏菩萨（Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva）说：一切诸法的相不住于二岸（有和无），也不住于中流（非有非无）。心识也是如此。为何诸境界是从识所生？如果识能够生，那么识也是从生而来的。为何无生的识能够生出有所生的事物？’于是尊者以偈颂回答说：
English
English version: The produced Rūpa (form/matter) and Citta (mind/consciousness) are differentiated characteristics. But the original awareness (original mind) is free from all characteristics and free from all self-natures. It does not, in such differentiated places, have that single awareness that is free from characteristics. Therefore, when emptying these differentiated characteristics of Rūpa and Citta, one cannot simultaneously negate that single awareness that is free from characteristics. Based on this principle, the previous statement is not false. The Sutra says: 'At that time, Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva said, 'All dharmas are without arising and without ceasing, why are they not one?' Thereupon, the Venerable (referring to Śrīmālādevī) spoke in verse, saying: 'The place where dharmas abide is nowhere to be found, because characteristics and numbers are empty, therefore they cannot be described by name. To say there are two (the grasper and the grasped) in relation to the dharma, this is merely the grasper and the grasped.' The Treatise says: This is a doubt arising in the fifth chapter, 'Definite No-Arising Practice Chapter'. They say that dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) is not arising, and the dissolution of conditions is not ceasing, because they do not exist in any place, nor can their abiding place be seen; this is definitive. This definiteness is neither one nor different. Someone, based on this passage, raises the doubt: The dharmas of Rūpa and Citta, etc., are without arising and without ceasing; this is the equal and definite true nature. In this way, horizontally there is no difference between Rūpa and Citta, and vertically there is no distinction between arising and ceasing. Without difference, they should be of one flavor; not different is acceptable, but why are they not one? The verse clarifies the meaning of not being one. 'The place where dharmas abide is nowhere to be found' means that the abiding place of all dharmas and the place where they abide are all empty and non-existent. 'Because characteristics and numbers are empty, therefore they are non-existent' means that the characteristics of Rūpa and Citta, etc., and numbers such as one and different, are all empty and non-existent. Since characteristics and numbers do not exist, how can there be one? Moreover, without Rūpa, there is no characteristic of Citta. Since they are not different, how can they be one, and have the duality of name and saying? And the one who speaks about the dharma, this is merely what is grasped by the deluded mind, not the true meaning. Having one, two, etc., 'to say name and saying' means that name is the function of explanation, which is grasped by the consciousness; saying is the sound of speech, which is understood by the ear consciousness. If it is said to be one, then there are these two. Within it, there is also the dharma that is being explained. Such numbers are all grasped by the deluded mind, not the true meaning. Since there are such numbers, how can a single flavor exist within it? The Sutra says: 'At that time, Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva said: The characteristics of all dharmas do not abide on the two shores (existence and non-existence), nor do they abide in the middle stream (neither existence nor non-existence). The mind-consciousness is also like this. Why are all realms born from consciousness? If consciousness is able to give rise, then consciousness also comes from arising. Why can a non-arising consciousness give rise to something that has arising?' Thereupon, the Venerable spoke in verse, saying: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
生能生二是二能所缘。俱本名自无。取有空华幻。识生于未时境不是时生。于境生未时是时识亦灭。彼即本俱无亦不有无有。无生识亦无。云何境从有。 论曰。此是第六决无相法品中起疑。彼言云何生灭虑知相。佛言理无可不。若有可不即生诸念。千思万虑是生灭相。今依后说还疑彼文。若识能生可不之境。境相还生诸念之识即是心识。有生有灭。云何而言不住二岸。若诸心识无生无灭。云何诸识能生境界。乘如是疑发如是问。不住二岸者。无生无灭故。不住中流者。而不是一故。心识既尔无生无灭。云何可不境界从识之所生耶。若识能生境识亦从境生。云何无生识能生有所生。为遣此疑故说三颂。三颂之文即判为二。初之一颂示其道理。后之二颂破相生执。初中言是二能所缘者。谓汝所计识是能生。境是所生。直是妄取能缘所缘俱是本来但名无自。若取为有如取空华及取幻象以为实有。是故不异无生无灭。破中言识生于未时境不是时生者。明识能生未有之时所生境界于时不生也。于境生未时是时识亦灭者。明境能生未有之时其所生识于时亦灭。灭者寂灭谓本来无也。彼即本俱无亦不有无有者。彼二能生本来俱无。既无能生亦不令有。故曰不有。不令有故后时无生。故言无有也。无生识亦无者既无生义。何得 现代汉语译本 生能生二是二能所缘（能动者与被能动者）。俱本名自无。取有空华幻。识生于未有时，境不是在那个时候产生。在境产生于未有时，那个时候意识也寂灭。它们本来都是没有的，既不是有也不是没有。没有产生，意识也就不产生。怎么能说境是从有中产生的呢？ 论曰：这是在第六决无相法品中产生的疑问。他们说，怎么会有生灭的虑知相呢？佛说，理上没有不可以的。如果有什么不可以的，就会产生各种念头。千思万虑就是生灭的相。现在根据后面的说法，反过来怀疑前面的说法。如果意识能够产生可不可以的境，境相还会产生各种念头的意识，这就是心识，有生有灭。怎么能说不住二岸呢？如果各种心识没有生没有灭，怎么各种意识能够产生境界呢？凭借这样的疑问，发出这样的问题。不住二岸，是因为没有生没有灭。不住中流，是因为而不是一。心识既然这样没有生没有灭，怎么可不可以的境界是从意识所产生的呢？如果意识能够产生境，意识也从境产生。怎么没有生的意识能够产生有所生呢？为了消除这个疑问，所以说了三颂。三颂的内容可以分为两部分。第一颂说明道理，后面的两颂破除相生的执着。第一颂中说，是二能所缘，是说你所认为的意识是能生，境是所生，这只是虚妄地执取能缘和所缘，它们本来只是名字，没有自体。如果执取为有，就像执取空中的花和幻象为真实存在一样。所以不异于没有生没有灭。破除中说，识生于未有时境不是时生，是说意识能够产生还没有产生的时候，所产生的境界不是在那个时候产生。于境生未时是时识亦灭，是说境能够产生还没有产生的时候，它所产生的意识在那个时候也寂灭。寂灭就是本来没有的意思。彼即本俱无亦不有无有，是说那两个能生本来都是没有的，既然没有能生，也不会令其有，所以说不有。不令其有，所以后来没有产生，所以说无有。无生识亦无，既然没有产生的意义，怎么能...