English
English version: Therefore, all origins are merely cause and effect. What arises from cause and effect originates from the mind and actions. The arising of cause and effect takes the mind and actions as its root. Because the mind can create causes, and the mind can also receive effects. If the mind itself does not exist, how much less so does the body? According to the reasoning explained above, the mind is unattainable. How much less so is the physical body created by the mind truly existent? If the body and mind do not exist, how much less so does 'I' exist? Moreover, if the mind does not exist, then cause and effect are also empty. If cause and effect are empty, how much less so does 'I' exist? Moreover, if cause and effect are empty, then the twelve links of dependent origination are also empty. How much less so are there agents, recipients, and so on? As the sutra says, 'Bodhisattvas observe the twelve links of dependent origination as being like empty space, inexhaustible.' This is what it means. The above is 'kṣaṇa-bhaṅga' (destruction in an instant). What is 'anuloma-pratiloma' (gradual and reverse treatment)? It means that if someone is attached to the existence of 'I', then let them extinguish the view of 'existence'; this is directed at the attachment to 'I' that still remains after the previous analogy-based refutation. If no one is attached to the existence of 'I', then let them extinguish the view of 'non-existence'; this is precisely to gradually refute the fault of being attached to 'no-self'. The reason for doing this is that first refuting the attachment to 'I' is to distance oneself from the wrong views of external paths; but if one is attached to 'no-self', one will fall into the bias of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). Therefore, now gradually refute the view of being attached to 'non-existence'. 'I' originally does not exist, how much less so is there the existence or non-existence of 'I'? Therefore, the two types of observation, general and specific, are both for refuting the attachment to 'I'. The sutra says, 'If the mind arises, then let it extinguish the nature of extinction; if the mind ceases, then let it extinguish the nature of arising; extinguishing the nature of this view, one enters reality (tathatā).' The treatise says, 'The second part below is to counter the view of clinging to the 'mind'. It is divided into two parts: formal counteraction and re-explanation. People of the Two Vehicles, etc., are attached to the Dharma, clinging to the existence of the 'mind', believing that there is a mind that is subject to arising and ceasing, impermanent. Therefore, one must refute this clinging to arising and ceasing, clinging to the 'mind'. If clinging to the arising of the 'mind' becomes a disease, then one must refute the previous nature of 'extinction'. Because one must rely on the previous 'extinction' for the present 'arising' to exist. If one clings to the later 'extinction', believing that there is a present 'mind', even if the mind does not cease, it is as non-existent as a rabbit's horn. Therefore, one must refute such a view, letting it extinguish the nature of 'arising'. Without arising, yet there is extinction, this is unreasonable. 'Extinguishing is the nature of the view, one enters reality', refuting the clinging to the nature of 'extinction', one will certainly not cling to 'arising'; refuting the clinging to the nature of 'arising', one will certainly not cling to 'extinction'. Not clinging to arising and ceasing, one will certainly not cling to the existence of the 'mind'. The sutra says, 'Why? Because the original arising does not cease, non-ceasing does not arise, non-ceasing does not arise, non-arising does not cease, the characteristics of all dharmas are also like this.' The treatise says, 'This is a re-explanation. Why say, 'Seeing the mind arise, let it extinguish the nature of extinction; seeing the mind cease, let it extinguish the nature of arising'? Therefore, it says, 'Why?' Below is an explanation of this question.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
本生不灭者。求前生心永不可得。不可得有何法而灭。如是不存前心灭性即不得取今心之生。故言不灭不生。是释令灭灭性之由。次言不灭不生。牒前不灭今不得生。如是不得今心生性。则不得取此心之灭。故言不生不灭。是释令灭生性之由。如于心法无灭无生。其余诸法亦同是观。故言一切法亦如是。 问。若计心生真破此生。何须破彼前心之灭。 答。今生是现破有不易。前心己过解空不难。故先破易而遣其难。依此次第破今生性。由是即遣后灭之执。是谓医王善巧之术耶。 经曰。解脱菩萨而白佛言尊者若有众生见法生时令灭何见。 论曰。此下第三问答。次前问答明所灭之见之病。今此问答显能灭之见之药。又前破生灭二际之见。今破有无二边之见。今问意言若观行者。顺佛教意观法生时令灭何见。灭何见者问佛教意。且举一边兼显观灭。 经曰。佛言菩萨若有众生见法生时令灭无见见法灭时令灭有见若灭是见得法真无入决定性决定无生。 论曰。见法生时者。正观俗法因缘生时。此时能离取空之见。故言令灭无见。见法灭时者。正观俗法本来灭时。此时能离取有之见。故言令灭有见。此中何故言令灭者。佛教能令观者灭故。此意正明修观行者观法生时只离无见而不存 现代汉语译本： ‘本生不灭’是指，如果试图寻找前一刻的心，是永远无法找到的。既然无法找到，又有什么法可以被消灭呢？如果前一刻的心不存在，那么也就无法获得现在这一刻心的产生。所以说‘不灭不生’，这是解释了使灭的‘灭性’的由来。接下来讲‘不灭不生’，是承接前面的‘不灭’，所以现在也无法产生。如果无法获得现在这一刻心的产生，那么也就无法获得这一刻心的消灭。所以说‘不生不灭’，这是解释了使灭的‘生性’的由来。如果对于心法来说，没有灭也没有生，那么其余诸法也同样应该这样观察。所以说‘一切法亦如是’。 问：如果认为心的产生是真实的，从而破斥这种产生，为什么还要破斥前一刻心的消灭呢？ 答：现在的产生是显而易见的，破斥‘有’并不容易。前一刻的心已经过去，理解‘空’并不难。所以先破斥容易的，从而遣除困难的。依照这个次第破斥现在产生的自性，由此就能遣除对‘灭’的执着。这就是所谓的医王善巧的医术啊。 经文说：解脱菩萨向佛说：‘尊者，如果有众生看到法产生的时候就让它灭，这是什么见解？’ 论中说：下面是第三个问答。前面的问答阐明了所要消灭的见解的病症，现在的问答则显示了能够消灭这些见解的药。而且前面破斥了生灭两个边际的见解，现在破斥有无两个极端的见解。现在的提问意思是说，如果观行者顺应佛教的旨意，观察法产生的时候就让它灭，这是什么见解？‘灭何见者’是询问佛教的旨意，这里只是举出一个方面，兼而显示了观灭。 经文说：佛说：‘菩萨，如果有众生看到法产生的时候就让它灭，这是‘无见’；看到法灭的时候就让它灭，这是‘有见’。如果消灭了这些见解，就能获得法的真如，进入决定性的、决定无生的境界。’ 论中说：‘见法生时’，是指正确地观察世俗法因缘生起的时候，这个时候能够远离执取空的见解，所以说‘令灭无见’。‘见法灭时’，是指正确地观察世俗法本来寂灭的时候，这个时候能够远离执取有的见解，所以说‘令灭有见’。这里为什么说‘令灭’呢？因为佛教能够使观行者灭除这些见解。这里的意义正是说明修观行者在观察法产生的时候，只是远离‘无见’而不执着。
English
English version: 'Non-origination and non-cessation' means that if one tries to find the previous moment of mind, it is forever impossible to find. Since it cannot be found, what dharma can be extinguished? If the previous moment of mind does not exist, then it is impossible to obtain the arising of the present moment of mind. Therefore, it is said 'non-cessation and non-origination,' which explains the origin of the 'nature of cessation' that causes cessation. Next, 'non-cessation and non-origination' is a continuation of the previous 'non-cessation,' so it is impossible to arise now. If it is impossible to obtain the arising of the present moment of mind, then it is impossible to obtain the cessation of this moment of mind. Therefore, it is said 'non-origination and non-cessation,' which explains the origin of the 'nature of origination' that causes cessation. If, with regard to the dharma of mind, there is neither cessation nor origination, then all other dharmas should also be observed in the same way. Therefore, it is said 'all dharmas are also like this.' Question: If one considers the arising of mind to be real and thereby refutes this arising, why is it necessary to refute the cessation of the previous moment of mind? Answer: The present arising is obvious, and refuting 'existence' is not easy. The previous moment of mind has passed, and understanding 'emptiness' is not difficult. Therefore, first refute the easy and thereby dispel the difficult. According to this sequence, refute the self-nature of the present arising, and thereby dispel the attachment to 'cessation.' This is what is called the skillful art of the king of physicians. The sutra says: The Bodhisattva of Liberation said to the Buddha: 'Venerable One, if there are sentient beings who, when they see the arising of a dharma, cause it to cease, what is this view?' The treatise says: The following is the third question and answer. The previous question and answer clarified the illness of the view to be extinguished, while the present question and answer reveals the medicine that can extinguish these views. Moreover, the previous one refuted the views of the two extremes of origination and cessation, while the present one refutes the views of the two extremes of existence and non-existence. The meaning of the present question is that if a practitioner, in accordance with the Buddha's intention, observes the arising of a dharma and causes it to cease, what is this view? 'What view to extinguish' is asking about the Buddha's intention, and here only one aspect is mentioned, while also revealing the observation of cessation. The sutra says: The Buddha said: 'Bodhisattva, if there are sentient beings who, when they see the arising of a dharma, cause it to cease, this is 'non-view'; when they see the cessation of a dharma, cause it to cease, this is 'existence-view'. If these views are extinguished, one can attain the true suchness of dharma and enter the realm of decisive nature and decisive non-origination.' The treatise says: 'Seeing the arising of a dharma' refers to correctly observing the arising of conditioned dharmas, at which time one can be free from the view of clinging to emptiness, so it is said 'cause the non-view to cease.' 'Seeing the cessation of a dharma' refers to correctly observing the original quiescence of conditioned dharmas, at which time one can be free from the view of clinging to existence, so it is said 'cause the existence-view to cease.' Why is it said here 'cause to cease'? Because Buddhism can cause practitioners to extinguish these views. The meaning here is precisely to explain that a practitioner who cultivates observation, when observing the arising of a dharma, only distances himself from 'non-view' without clinging. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
生。观寂灭时唯离有见而不取灭。所以然者。若存生耶生本寂灭。若取灭耶灭即生起。如下颂曰。因缘所生义是义灭非生。灭诸生灭义是义生非灭。所以能离二边而不着中。如其离无取有破有取空。此为妄空而非真无。今虽离有而不存空。如是乃得诸法真无故。言得法真无。决定性义如前已说。得真空时观心不生远离一切有无心故。故言决定无生。 经曰。解脱菩萨而白佛言尊者令彼众生住于无生是无生耶。 论曰。此下第四问答。前明真观离二边相。今显妄解不离生住。谓有寡学修观行者意言分别。观法无生能摄散乱住无生境。作如是念谓是无生。后出定时起增上慢。意谓已得无生法忍。为破是病举病问言。住于无生是无生耶。 经曰。佛言住于无生即是生何以故无住无生乃是无生。 论曰。答中有二。略答重详。此即略答。有其二句。上句顺明是生。住无生境即是分别之心生故。下句反释无生。若心无住于无生境离诸分别。是无生忍。故知有住非无生忍。如是反释。略答文竟。 经曰。菩萨若生无生以生灭生生灭俱灭本生不生心常空寂空寂无住心无有住乃是无生。 论曰。此是重详。于中有二。先详是生。后详无生。若有住心生于无生之境。即是以生灭其境界之生。故言若 现代汉语译本： 生。观察寂灭的时候，只是远离有见，而不执取灭见。为什么这样说呢？如果执着于生，生的本质就是寂灭的；如果执取于灭，灭就是生起的开端。如下面的偈颂所说：‘因缘所生的意义是，这个意义的灭是非生；灭除所有生灭的意义是，这个意义的生是非灭。’所以能够远离有和无这两种边见，而不执着于中道。就像远离无见而取有见，破除有见而取空见一样，这是一种虚妄的空，而不是真正的无。现在虽然远离有见，却不执着于空见。这样才能得到诸法的真无的道理。说到得到法的真无，决定性的意义在前面已经说过了。得到真空的时候，观察心不生起，远离一切有和无的心，所以说是决定无生。 解脱菩萨于是问佛说：‘尊者，您让那些众生安住于无生，这个无生是真正的无生吗？’ 这是第四个问答。前面说明了真观是远离两种边见的。现在显示了虚妄的理解是不能够离开生和住的。有些学识浅薄的修行人，用意念分别，认为观法无生能够摄持散乱的心，安住在无生的境界中。他们这样认为，就以为这就是无生。后来出定的时候，生起增上慢，认为自己已经得到了无生法忍。为了破除这种毛病，提出问题说：‘安住于无生，这个无生是真正的无生吗？’ 佛说：‘安住于无生，实际上就是生。为什么呢？因为无住的无生才是真正的无生。’ 回答中有两个部分。一个是简略的回答，一个是详细的解释。这里是简略的回答，有两句话。上句顺着说明是生，安住在无生的境界，实际上就是分别之心生起。下句反过来解释无生，如果心不住于无生的境界，远离各种分别，这才是无生法忍。所以知道有所住就不是无生法忍。这样反过来解释，简略的回答就结束了。 菩萨，如果生起安住于无生的心，就是以生灭来生起，生灭同时灭尽，本来不生，心常空寂，空寂而无所住，心无所住才是真正的无生。 这是详细的解释。其中有两个部分。先详细解释什么是生，后详细解释什么是无生。如果心有所住，生起安住于无生的境界，就是用生灭来生起那个境界的生。