English
English version Pure substance. Passing through two places, east and west. Which is the Abhirati (妙喜) world? One explanation is that the Abhirati world was originally in the immovable east, but Vimalakirti (净名) severed it and brought it to the Saha (娑婆) world in the west. If so, there is only one pure substance of Abhirati, experiencing both east and west. Just as with pure lands, so too with impure lands. Therefore, it is one substance in two places. Previously, it was said that different substances are in one place, the pure and impure substances should be in one place. Now, one substance is in different places, so there should also be one pure substance in two places. Now, let's further explain based on the Vimalakirti Sutra (净名经). That sutra says that the Inconceivable Bodhisattva threw the Saha world to other lands, without moving its original place, but simply holding the Saha world and throwing it to the Western Pure Land of Bliss, while the Saha world remained unmoved. It can be said that it arrived without moving, and arrived without moving. If so, only this impure substance experiences both east and west, so it is one substance in two places. Just as with impure substances, so too with the other four lands. Next, it explains that only one impure substance is in both pure and impure places. The previous explanation was about throwing the impure substance to a pure place, the impure substance experiencing two places. Now, it explains that only one impure substance is in both pure and impure places. For example, the Lotus Matrix (莲华藏) Saha world, only the Saha is an impure substance, in the Saha place, and also in the Lotus Matrix place. What is the lotus? It is not just the platform that is the lotus, the leaves together form one lotus. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃经) says that the platform, leaves, stamens, etc., together form a lotus, the leaves do not leave the flower, the leaves are in the flower. Since the Saha resides on the leaves, it is known that the Saha is in the Lotus Matrix. Therefore, the Bodhisattva Precept Sutra (菩萨戒经) says, 'I, Locana (卢舍那), now sit on the lotus platform, and on the surrounding thousand flowers, I manifest a thousand Sakyamunis (释迦)'. Therefore, it is known that the Saha world is on the flower leaves, the leaves do not leave the flower, so the Saha does not leave the Lotus Matrix. If so, the impure land of Saha is not only in the Saha place, but also in the Lotus Matrix place. Therefore, it is known that it is one substance in two places. Question: The Lotus Matrix's unconstrained platform, the Saha's unconstrained leaves, how can it be one substance in two places? Answer: It has two meanings. Sometimes it is explained that the Saha is different from the Lotus Matrix, the Saha realm is outside the Lotus Matrix, and the platform and leaves together form, together form one leaf, so the Saha does not leave the Lotus Matrix. Why is this so? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
此。解云。欲明娑婆与华藏。不可言异。不可言一。二处异故。不可言一。不相离故。不可言异。不可言一而一。不可言异而异。斯则非一非异。而一而异。略明一种四句。如此今更通简此四句义。问云。他亦明此四句。与他何异。不得道他无此四句。经等具有此义故。他亦明此四句。今亦辨此四。何异。解他不得明此四句义。今时始得明此四句耳。何者虽有四句不出一异二句。他有一可一。不得由异故一。有异可异。不得由一故异。不由异故一。一自性一。不由一故异。异自性异。自性一一则碍异。自性异异则碍一。异既碍一。异岂得同处。异不得同一处则无一。既无一何得有异。既无一异。故四句不成也。纵之如此耳。夺则都无。何者有一可一。不由异起一。有异可异。不由一起异。不由异故一。一不成一。不由一故异。异不成异。一不成一则无一。异不成异则无异。此则无一异论。何物四句有一异可有四句。既无一异则无四句。故他不得明四句义。今时所明者。无四句而四句。要须前弹他有碍性义。始明今因缘无碍义。何者今无一可一。由异故一。无异可异。由一故异。由异故一则由一故一。一由一故异即由异故异。异可谓。无句而句。一句而二句。二句而四句。故大品经云。无句义是菩萨句义。今亦尔。无句 现代汉语译本 此。解释说：想要明白娑婆世界（Saha world，指我们所居住的这个充满烦恼的世界）与华藏世界（Avatamsaka world，指《华严经》所描述的清净庄严的世界），不能说它们是不同的，也不能说它们是相同的。因为两处有差异，所以不能说是相同的；因为它们不是相互分离的，所以不能说是不同的。不能说是一即是唯一的，也不能说是异即是差异的。这就是非一非异，而一而异。简略地说明一种四句的表达方式，就像这样。现在进一步通盘地简化这四句的含义。 有人问：其他人也阐明这四句，与他们有什么不同？不能说他们没有这四句，因为经典等都具有这个含义。他们也阐明这四句，现在我也辨析这四句，有什么不同？解释说：他们不能够明白这四句的含义，现在我才开始能够明白这四句的含义。为什么呢？虽然有四句，但不超出‘一’和‘异’这两句。他们有一种‘可一’，但不能因为‘异’的缘故而‘一’；有一种‘可异’，但不能因为‘一’的缘故而‘异’。不是因为‘异’的缘故而‘一’，而是‘一’自性就是‘一’；不是因为‘一’的缘故而‘异’，而是‘异’自性就是‘异’。自性‘一’，那么就会妨碍‘异’；自性‘异’，那么就会妨碍‘一’。‘异’既然妨碍‘一’，‘异’怎么能够与‘一’同处呢？‘异’不能与‘一’同处，那么就没有‘一’。既然没有‘一’，又怎么会有‘异’呢？既然没有‘一’和‘异’，所以四句不能成立。纵容他们这样说罢了。如果驳斥他们，那就完全没有道理。为什么呢？有一种‘可一’，但不是由‘异’而产生‘一’；有一种‘可异’，但不是由‘一’而产生‘异’。不是因为‘异’的缘故而‘一’，所以‘一’不能成立为‘一’；不是因为‘一’的缘故而‘异’，所以‘异’不能成立为‘异’。‘一’不能成立为‘一’，那么就没有‘一’；‘异’不能成立为‘异’，那么就没有‘异’。这样就没有‘一’和‘异’的论述。什么事物有‘一’和‘异’，才可能有四句？既然没有‘一’和‘异’，那么就没有四句。所以他们不能够明白四句的含义。现在我所阐明的是，没有四句而有四句。一定要先批判他们有障碍性的含义，才能够明白我现在所说的因缘无碍的含义。为什么呢？现在没有‘可一’，因为由‘异’的缘故而‘一’；没有‘可异’，因为由‘一’的缘故而‘异’。由‘异’的缘故而‘一’，那么就是由‘一’的缘故而‘一’；‘一’由‘一’的缘故而‘异’，也就是由‘异’的缘故而‘异’。‘异’可以说是没有句而有句，一句而有两句，两句而有四句。所以《大品经》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）说：‘无句义是菩萨句义’。现在也是这样，没有句。
English
English version Here. The explanation says: If you want to understand the Saha world (娑婆, the world we live in, full of suffering) and the Avatamsaka world (华藏, the pure and adorned world described in the Avatamsaka Sutra), you cannot say they are different, nor can you say they are the same. Because the two places have differences, you cannot say they are the same; because they are not separate from each other, you cannot say they are different. You cannot say that 'one' is simply 'one', nor can you say that 'different' is simply 'different'. This is neither one nor different, yet both one and different. Briefly explaining one kind of four-fold statement, it is like this. Now, let's further simplify the meaning of these four statements in a comprehensive way. Someone asks: Others also explain these four statements, what is the difference between them and you? You cannot say that they do not have these four statements, because the scriptures and others all have this meaning. They also explain these four statements, and now I also analyze these four, what is the difference? The explanation says: They cannot understand the meaning of these four statements, and now I am just beginning to be able to understand the meaning of these four statements. Why? Although there are four statements, they do not go beyond the two statements of 'one' and 'different'. They have a 'can be one', but it cannot be 'one' because of 'different'; they have a 'can be different', but it cannot be 'different' because of 'one'. It is not 'one' because of 'different', but 'one' is 'one' by its own nature; it is not 'different' because of 'one', but 'different' is 'different' by its own nature. If the nature of 'one' is 'one', then it will hinder 'different'; if the nature of 'different' is 'different', then it will hinder 'one'. Since 'different' hinders 'one', how can 'different' coexist with 'one'? If 'different' cannot coexist with 'one', then there is no 'one'. Since there is no 'one', how can there be 'different'? Since there is no 'one' and 'different', the four statements cannot be established. Let them say so. If you refute them, then there is no reason at all. Why? There is a 'can be one', but it is not 'one' arising from 'different'; there is a 'can be different', but it is not 'different' arising from 'one'. It is not 'one' because of 'different', so 'one' cannot be established as 'one'; it is not 'different' because of 'one', so 'different' cannot be established as 'different'. If 'one' cannot be established as 'one', then there is no 'one'; if 'different' cannot be established as 'different', then there is no 'different'. Then there is no discussion of 'one' and 'different'. What things have 'one' and 'different' that can have four statements? Since there is no 'one' and 'different', then there are no four statements. So they cannot understand the meaning of the four statements. What I am explaining now is that there are four statements without four statements. It is necessary to first criticize their meaning of having obstacles before understanding the meaning of unobstructed interdependence that I am talking about now. Why? Now there is no 'can be one', because it is 'one' because of 'different'; there is no 'can be different', because it is 'different' because of 'one'. 'One' because of 'different', then it is 'one' because of 'one'; 'one' is 'different' because of 'one', that is, 'different' because of 'different'. 'Different' can be said to have statements without statements, one statement with two statements, and two statements with four statements. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品经) says: 'The meaning of no statement is the meaning of the Bodhisattva's statement'. It is the same now, there are no statements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
而句。一句而四。四而无句。四句即一句。一句还无句。无句而句则非句。句而无句则非无句。非句非无句而句。始是菩萨无碍句。以无碍句故得一质在二处。二质在一处等。故今时明四句与他异也。他所以不得有此四句。他一异碍故。异不得在一处。一不得在异处。如两柱相碍故。不得容柱。何者柱是色。如释色是质碍义。柱是色。柱不容柱。土亦是色土不得容土。今时即无碍无碍故。所以一异互得相在。为是故他不得明此四句。今时始得辨此四句也。然此四句约事犹易解。后去四句转难也。 次更明一种四句。前地架明一种四句竟。今更明一种四句。渐深转妙。然前之四句众意不同他论。或同不同。若是今之四句非但意不同论然迥越。言四句者谓。异质一处。一质异处。一质一处。异质异处。言异质一处者。净秽质异故言异质。此净秽是因缘净秽。因缘净秽。非净无以明秽。非秽无以明净。非净无以明秽。秽是净秽。非秽无以明净。净是秽净。秽净则非净。净秽则非秽。非秽非净。净秽不二名为一处。斯则净秽二为异。非净非秽不二为一处也。言一质异处者。前二不二今名不二二。前净秽非净秽。今名非净秽净秽。非净非秽名净名秽。斯则非净非秽不二为一质。净秽二为异处反前也。言一质一处者。非净非 现代汉语译本： 而句。一句分为四。四而没有句。四句即是一句。一句还原为没有句。没有句而有句则不是句。句而没有句则不是没有句。不是句也不是没有句而有句。这才是菩萨的无碍句。因为有无碍句，所以能得到一个物体在两个地方，两个物体在一个地方等等。所以现在明白的四句与其他的不同。他们之所以不能有这四句，是因为他们的一异有障碍。异不能在一个地方，一不能在异处。就像两根柱子互相妨碍，所以不能容纳柱子。为什么呢？因为柱子是色（Rupa，物质）。如解释色是质碍的意思。柱子是色，柱子不能容纳柱子。土也是色，土不能容纳土。现在因为没有障碍，所以一异可以互相存在。正因为如此，他们不能明白这四句。现在才能够分辨这四句。然而这四句就事论事还容易理解，后面的四句就更加困难了。 接下来再说明一种四句。前面已经阐明了一种四句。现在再说明一种四句，逐渐深入，更加精妙。然而前面的四句，大家的理解不同于其他的论述，或者相同或者不同。如果是现在的四句，不仅理解不同于其他论述，而且非常超越。所说的四句是指：异质一处，一质异处，一质一处，异质异处。所说的异质一处是指：净（纯净）和秽（污秽）的性质不同，所以说是异质。这净秽是因缘净秽。因为因缘，没有净就无法显明秽，没有秽就无法显明净。没有净就无法显明秽，秽就是净的秽；没有秽就无法显明净，净就是秽的净。秽净则不是净，净秽则不是秽。非秽非净，净秽不二，名为一处。这样，净秽二者为异，非净非秽不二为一处。所说的一质异处是指：前面二而不二，现在名为不二而二。前面是净秽和非净秽，现在名为非净秽和净秽。非净非秽名为净，也名为秽。这样，非净非秽不二为一质，净秽二者为异处，与前面相反。所说的一质一处是指：非净非...