English
English version: And a phrase. One phrase divided into four. Four without a phrase. Four phrases are one phrase. One phrase returns to no phrase. No phrase yet a phrase is not a phrase. A phrase yet no phrase is not no phrase. Not a phrase, not no phrase, yet a phrase. This is the Bodhisattva's unobstructed phrase. Because of the unobstructed phrase, one can attain one substance in two places, two substances in one place, and so on. Therefore, the four phrases understood now are different from others. The reason they cannot have these four phrases is because their 'one' and 'different' are obstructed. 'Different' cannot be in one place, 'one' cannot be in a different place. Like two pillars obstructing each other, they cannot accommodate a pillar. Why? Because a pillar is Rupa (form, matter). As explaining Rupa is the meaning of material obstruction. A pillar is Rupa, a pillar cannot accommodate a pillar. Earth is also Rupa, earth cannot accommodate earth. Now, because there is no obstruction, 'one' and 'different' can mutually exist. Precisely because of this, they cannot understand these four phrases. Only now can these four phrases be distinguished. However, these four phrases are easier to understand when discussing matters; the later four phrases become more difficult. Next, another type of four phrases will be explained. The previous explanation of one type of four phrases is complete. Now, another type of four phrases will be explained, gradually deepening and becoming more subtle. However, the previous four phrases, everyone's understanding differs from other discussions, either the same or different. If it is the current four phrases, not only is the understanding different from other discussions, but it is also very transcendent. The so-called four phrases refer to: different substances in one place, one substance in different places, one substance in one place, different substances in different places. The so-called 'different substances in one place' refers to: the nature of purity (Neti) and impurity (Asubha) are different, so it is said to be different substances. This purity and impurity are conditioned purity and impurity. Because of conditions, without purity, impurity cannot be manifested; without impurity, purity cannot be manifested. Without purity, impurity cannot be manifested; impurity is the impurity of purity. Without impurity, purity cannot be manifested; purity is the purity of impurity. Impurity and purity are not purity; purity and impurity are not impurity. Neither impurity nor purity, purity and impurity are not two, called one place. Thus, purity and impurity are two, being different; neither impurity nor purity are not two, being one place. The so-called 'one substance in different places' refers to: the previous two are not two, now called not two and two. Previously it was purity/impurity and not purity/impurity, now called not purity/impurity and purity/impurity. Not purity and not impurity is called purity, also called impurity. Thus, not purity and not impurity are not two, being one substance; purity and impurity are two, being different places, reversing the previous. The so-called 'one substance in one place' refers to: not purity and not... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
秽质。非净非秽处不二为一质。不二为一处也。言异质异处者。净秽异质。净秽异处故。言异质异处也。大师正意在此四句也。问。此四句与前四句何异。解云。前四句约事而辨。今虽有四句只是非净非秽净秽净秽非净秽一句。开此一句以为四句。故与前异也。问。前亦言质言处。今亦言质言处。与前质处何异。解云。前以净秽为质。东西方为处。今言异质一处者。以净秽为异质。非净非秽为一处。只净秽宛然不非净秽。净秽宛然不而得动心。只二而不二。故二质在一处也。一质异处者。以非净非秽不二为一质。净秽二为二处。一质一处者。不二为一质。不二为一处。异质异处者。净秽二为质。净秽二为处。虽有四句后二句质处同前质处。意虽同而转为异。此复是一种四句也。 次更明一种秽四句。四句者谓。一质二见。二质一见。一质一见。二质二见。此之四句初一句难解。后三句易明。且辨一质二见。何者是其事且举净名华严两经。净名经云。螺髻见金玉身子瞩土砂。此经第八会祇洹精舍诸大菩萨。见祇洹七宝所成。五百声闻见须达泥木所起。只是一质两缘见不同故。言一质二见也。今问。一质一何物质为一。秽质为一。净质为一。非净非秽质为一。此之三责便有三家解释。第一旧成实论师解云。一净质一 秽质。只一净质。身子自见木。只一秽质。梵王自见金。祇洹亦尔也。次地论解云。一质是非金非木质。只如林树。有想心取则成有漏树。无想心取则成无漏林树。树未曾有漏无漏。随两心故有漏无漏。今亦尔。未曾净秽。净缘见净秽缘见秽耳。复有三论师。不精得一家意义者。监于此解。一非金非木质缘见金见木。此质未曾金木身子自见木。梵王自见金。名一质异见。今且难之。不难成论地论。难三论师解。三论既坏。所余自崩。何者汝非金非木一质。身子梵王见木金者。为当身子木非木非金。身子见木。梵王见金。为当梵王金非金非木。身子见木。梵王见金。为当离身子木梵王金别有非金非木。所以身子见木。梵王见金耶。且开此三关责。次第设难。若只使一身子木非金非木故。身子见木梵王见金者。身子之木既被烧。梵王金为被烧为不被烧。更开两关责此一句。若身子木被烧梵王金烧者则破业果。何者身子恶业感见木。梵王善业感见金。两业各感一果。身子业坏木自被烧。梵王不坏何得金亦被烧。又身子恶业可坏。梵王善业那应坏。恶业坏善业亦坏。地狱坏天堂亦坏而不尔故。身子木坏梵王金不应坏也。又且善业制不得坏。既共一木。恶业善业制那得坏耶。故不得同坏。若使身子木自坏。梵王金不坏则便二质。 现代汉语译本 秽质（不清净的物质）。只有一种净质（清净的物质）。舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著称）自己看到的是木头。只有一种秽质。梵天（Brahmā，印度教的创造之神，佛教中护法神之一）自己看到的是黄金。祇洹（Jetavana，即祇树给孤独园，佛陀在世时重要的弘法场所）也是如此。接下来是《地论》的解释：一种物质既不是金也不是木的性质。就像树林一样，如果有想念的心去取，就成为有漏的树；如果没有想念的心去取，就成为无漏的林树。树本身并没有有漏无漏的性质，而是随着两种心而产生有漏无漏。现在也是这样，事物本身并没有清净或不清净的性质，而是清净的因缘看到清净，不清净的因缘看到不清净罢了。 还有三论宗的法师，没有精通一家之义理的人，错误地理解了这个解释，认为一种非金非木的物质，因缘而见金见木。这种物质本身并没有金木的性质，舍利弗自己看到的是木头，梵天自己看到的是黄金，这叫做一种物质，不同的见解。现在先来诘难他，不是诘难《成实论》和《地论》，而是诘难三论宗法师的解释。三论宗的观点如果被驳倒，其余的观点自然崩溃。为什么呢？你所说的非金非木的一种物质，舍利弗和梵天看到的是木头和黄金，那么，是舍利弗所见的木头既不是木头也不是黄金，所以舍利弗看到的是木头，梵天看到的是黄金呢？还是梵天所见的黄金既不是黄金也不是木头，所以舍利弗看到的是木头，梵天看到的是黄金呢？还是离开舍利弗的木头和梵天的黄金，另外存在一种非金非木的物质，所以舍利弗看到的是木头，梵天看到的是黄金呢？先打开这三个关口来责问，依次进行诘难。如果只是因为舍利弗所见的木头既不是金也不是木，所以舍利弗看到的是木头，梵天看到的是黄金，那么，舍利弗所见的木头既然被烧毁了，梵天所见的黄金是被烧毁了还是没有被烧毁？再打开两个关口来责问这句话。如果舍利弗的木头被烧毁，梵天的黄金也被烧毁，那就破坏了业果的道理。为什么呢？因为舍利弗的恶业感得见到木头，梵天的善业感得见到黄金，两种业各自感得一种果报。舍利弗的业坏了，木头自然被烧毁，梵天的业没有坏，为什么黄金也被烧毁呢？而且舍利弗的恶业可以坏，梵天的善业不应该坏。恶业坏了，善业也坏了，地狱坏了，天堂也坏了，但事实并非如此。所以舍利弗的木头坏了，梵天的黄金不应该坏。 而且善业是不能被制止而坏灭的。既然是共同的一棵树，恶业和善业怎么能被制止而坏灭呢？所以不能一同坏灭。如果舍利弗的木头自己坏灭，梵天的黄金没有坏灭，那就变成了两种物质。
English
English version 'Impure substance.' There is only one pure substance. Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten principal disciples, known for his wisdom) sees only wood. There is only one impure substance. Brahmā (the Hindu god of creation, one of the protective deities in Buddhism) sees only gold. Jeta Grove (Jetavana, an important place for the Buddha to propagate the Dharma during his lifetime) is also like this. Next, the explanation from the Treatise on the Land says: One substance is neither gold nor wood in nature. Just like a forest, if one takes it with a mind of thought, it becomes a tree with outflows; if one takes it without a mind of thought, it becomes a forest of trees without outflows. The tree itself does not have the nature of outflow or no outflow, but it produces outflow or no outflow depending on the two kinds of minds. It is also like this now, things themselves do not have the nature of purity or impurity, but pure conditions see purity, and impure conditions see impurity. There are also teachers of the Three Treatise School, who have not mastered the meaning of one school, and have misunderstood this explanation, thinking that a substance that is neither gold nor wood, sees gold and sees wood due to conditions. This substance itself does not have the nature of gold or wood, Śāriputra himself sees wood, and Brahmā himself sees gold, this is called one substance, different views. Now let's first question him, not questioning the Treatise on the Establishment of Truth and the Treatise on the Land, but questioning the explanation of the teachers of the Three Treatise School. If the views of the Three Treatise School are refuted, the remaining views will naturally collapse. Why? The one substance that you say is neither gold nor wood, Śāriputra and Brahmā see wood and gold, then, is the wood seen by Śāriputra neither wood nor gold, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold? Or is the gold seen by Brahmā neither gold nor wood, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold? Or is there another substance that is neither gold nor wood apart from Śāriputra's wood and Brahmā's gold, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold? First open these three gates to question, and question in order. If it is only because the wood seen by Śāriputra is neither gold nor wood, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold, then, since the wood seen by Śāriputra has been burned, is the gold seen by Brahmā burned or not burned? Open two more gates to question this sentence. If Śāriputra's wood is burned and Brahmā's gold is also burned, then it destroys the principle of karmic consequences. Why? Because Śāriputra's evil karma causes him to see wood, and Brahmā's good karma causes him to see gold, and the two karmas each cause a kind of retribution. Śāriputra's karma is destroyed, and the wood is naturally burned, Brahmā's karma is not destroyed, why is the gold also burned? Moreover, Śāriputra's evil karma can be destroyed, Brahmā's good karma should not be destroyed. If evil karma is destroyed, good karma is also destroyed, if hell is destroyed, heaven is also destroyed, but this is not the case. Therefore, if Śāriputra's wood is destroyed, Brahmā's gold should not be destroyed. Moreover, good karma cannot be prevented from being destroyed. Since it is a common tree, how can evil karma and good karma be prevented from being destroyed? Therefore, they cannot be destroyed together. If Śāriputra's wood is destroyed by itself, and Brahmā's gold is not destroyed, then it becomes two substances. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
何谓一质二见耶。前关得一质则坏业义。后关得业义则坏一质义也。身子木非金非木见金木既尔。梵王金非金非木亦然。类前可知。次金木别有非金非木一质。二缘见二者。汝非金非木为当非此金木。为当不非此金木耶。若非金非木还非此金非此木。则金木共成非金非木。若尔还着前被烧难。何者既共一质烧木既烧金也。又若共成一非金非木质。两人见金木则皆颠倒。此质非是金。梵王见金既非颠倒。此木非是木。身子见木亦非倒。非是木。身子见木既倒。非是金。梵王见金亦倒。同皆非金非木。而言身子倒梵王不倒者同皆非金木。岂非梵王倒身子不倒。何以故同是非金木故也。若非金木非不金木者。则离金木别有非金非木者。既离金木何得别有非金木耶。又若离金木别有非金木。则成三体金木二体非金非木。复是一体故成三体。师云。如此一梨时两盛子。为非金非木一体时金木二体故不成义也。四句义此一句。且难未得解。 今当解后三句。第二句云。二质一见者。此有三义。言二质者。净秽二质。言一见者。净秽是因缘净秽。非净无以明秽。非秽无以辨净。由净故言秽。由秽故称净。净是秽净秽是净秽。净秽不秽。秽净不净。只净秽不净秽。见二不二故。涅槃经云。明与无明愚者谓二。智者了达其性无二。 现代汉语译本： 什么叫做‘一质二见’呢？如果先执着于‘一质’，就会破坏‘业’的意义；如果后执着于‘业’的意义，就会破坏‘一质’的意义。例如，舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著称）看到木头，认为它不是金也不是木，而梵天（Brahmā，印度教的创造之神）看到金，也认为它不是金也不是木，情况与之前类似，可以类推得知。其次，金和木分别具有一种既非金也非木的‘一质’，两种因缘导致两种见解。你所说的‘非金非木’，是指不属于这个金和木，还是并非不属于这个金和木呢？如果说‘非金非木’仍然不属于这个金和木，那么金和木就共同构成了‘非金非木’。如果是这样，就会陷入之前被烧毁的困境。为什么呢？既然共同具有一种性质，那么烧毁木头也就等于烧毁金子了。而且，如果共同构成了一种‘非金非木’的性质，那么两个人看到金和木就都颠倒了。这个性质不是金，梵天看到金却不是颠倒；这个性质不是木，舍利弗看到木也不是颠倒。如果说不是木，舍利弗看到木却是颠倒的；如果说不是金，梵天看到金也是颠倒的。同样都是非金非木，却说舍利弗颠倒而梵天不颠倒，同样都是非金非木，难道不是梵天颠倒而舍利弗不颠倒吗？为什么呢？因为他们都认为是非金非木。如果说‘非金木’并非‘不非金木’，那么就意味着离开金和木，另外存在着‘非金非木’。既然离开了金和木，又怎么能另外存在‘非金木’呢？而且，如果离开金和木，另外存在‘非金木’，那么就形成了三种实体：金和木是两种实体，‘非金非木’又是一种实体，因此形成了三种实体。师父说：‘就像一个梨子同时装在两个盘子里。’因为‘非金非木’是一种实体的时候，金和木是两种实体，所以这个说法是不成立的。四句义中的这一句，暂且难以理解。 现在来解释后面的三句。第二句说：‘二质一见’，这里有三种意义。所说的‘二质’，是指清净和污秽两种性质。所说的‘一见’，是指清净和污秽是因缘，清净和污秽相互依存。没有清净就无法说明污秽，没有污秽就无法辨别清净。因为有清净所以才说污秽，因为有污秽所以才称清净。清净就是污秽的清净，污秽就是清净的污秽。清净不污秽，污秽不清净。只是清净和污秽不净不秽，看到二者不二的缘故。《涅槃经》（Nirvana Sutra）说：‘明与无明，愚者认为是二，智者了达其性无二。’