English
English version: Consciousness. As the following text says: 'Based on the Alaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness), it is said that there is both awareness and non-awareness arising.' Therefore, 'non-awareness at the branches' refers to all defiled dharmas arising from avidyā (ignorance), which are all called non-awareness. As the following text says: 'All defiled dharmas are aspects of non-awareness.' If, according to the differences in the characteristics of consciousness, we distinguish the meanings of the fundamental and the derivative, then in the Alaya-vijñāna, there are only prakriti-bodhi (original enlightenment) and prakriti-avidya (original non-enlightenment). If, based on the non-duality of the essence of consciousness, we subsume the derivative into the fundamental, then sadya-bodhi (initial enlightenment) and paryanta-avidya (ultimate non-enlightenment) are also meanings within the Alaya-vijñāna. Therefore, the above statement that 'this consciousness has two meanings' comprehensively includes these two meanings. Hence, the following explanation comprehensively cites the meanings of original and initial enlightenment, as well as original and initial non-enlightenment. Question: Is it that the essence of mind simply lacks non-awareness, hence it is called original enlightenment? Or is it that the essence of mind has the function of awareness and illumination, hence it is called original enlightenment? If it is said that it is simply the absence of non-awareness that is called original enlightenment, then it can also be said that there is no awareness and illumination, hence it is non-awareness. If it is said that it is the presence of awareness and illumination that is called original enlightenment, then it is not known whether this enlightenment has severed afflictions or not. If afflictions are not severed, then there is no function of illumination. If afflictions have been severed, then there are no ordinary beings. Answer: It is not only the absence of darkness, but also the presence of bright illumination. Because there is illumination, afflictions can also be severed. What is the meaning of this? If enlightenment is defined as awakening after being asleep, then initial enlightenment has enlightenment, but original enlightenment does not. If enlightenment is defined as not being asleep from the beginning, then original enlightenment is enlightenment, but initial enlightenment is not enlightenment. The meaning of severance is also similar. Having something first and then not having it is called severance, then initial enlightenment has severance, but original enlightenment does not. Being free from delusion from the beginning is called severance, then original enlightenment is severance, but initial enlightenment is not severance. If based on this meaning, afflictions are severed from the beginning, so there are no ordinary beings from the beginning. As the following text says: 'All sentient beings, from the beginning, have entered the dharma of nirvāṇa (liberation) and bodhi (enlightenment).' However, although it is said that there is original enlightenment, so there are no ordinary beings from the beginning, there is no initial enlightenment yet, so there are ordinary beings from the beginning. Therefore, there is no fault. If you say that because there is original enlightenment, there are no ordinary beings from the beginning, then there will ultimately be no initial enlightenment, so what is there to expect ordinary beings from? And if there is ultimately no initial enlightenment, then there is no original enlightenment, so what original enlightenment is there to base the statement that there are no ordinary beings on? It should be known that because there is original enlightenment, there is originally no non-awareness. Because there is no non-awareness, there will ultimately be no initial enlightenment. Because there is no initial enlightenment, there is originally no original. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
觉。至于无本觉者。源由有本觉。有本觉者。由有始觉。有始觉者。由有不觉。有不觉者。由依本觉。如下文云。本觉义者。对始觉义。说以始觉者。即同本觉。始觉者依本觉故。而有不觉。依不觉故。说有始觉。当知如是。展转相依。即显诸法。非无而非有。非有而非无也。问此本觉性。为当。通为染净因性。为当。但是诸净法性。若言但是净法因者。何故经云。如来藏者是善不善因乃至广说。若通作染净者。何故唯说具足性功德。不说具足性染患耶。答此理通与染净作性。是故唯说具性功德。是义云何。以理离净性故。能随缘作诸染法。又离染性故。能随缘作诸净法。以能作染净法故。通为染净性。由离染净性故。唯是性功德。何以得离染净性。乃成诸功德。取着染净性。皆是妄想故。文中先明觉义。于中有二。一略明二种觉义。二又以觉心原故以下。广二种觉相。略中先明本觉。后明始觉。初中有二。一显觉体。二释觉义。 言心体离念者 谓离妄念显无不觉也。 离念相者等虚空界者 非唯无闇。无闇即是智惠。光明遍照法界平等无二故。言等虚空界。如下言智惠光明义故遍照法界义故。 何以故 已下第二释本觉义。是对始始觉。释本觉义。文相可知。 始觉义者 以下明始觉义 现代汉语译本 觉（Jue）：至于无本觉（Wu Ben Jue）者，源由于有本觉（You Ben Jue）。有本觉者，由于有始觉（You Shi Jue）。有始觉者，由于有不觉（You Bu Jue）。有不觉者，由于依本觉。如下文所说：‘本觉义者，对始觉义说，以始觉者，即同本觉。始觉者依本觉故，而有不觉。依不觉故，说有始觉。’应当知道，像这样展转相依，就显现诸法，非无而非有，非有而非无啊。问：这本觉性，是应当通为染净（Ran Jing）的因性，还是应当只是诸净法的性质？如果说只是净法的因，为什么经中说：‘如来藏（Rulai Zang）是善不善因’，乃至广说？如果通作染净，为什么只说具足性功德，不说具足性染患呢？答：这个道理通与染净作为性质。因此只说具足性功德。这意义是什么呢？因为理离净性，所以能随缘作诸染法。又离染性，所以能随缘作诸净法。因为能作染净法，所以通为染净性。由于离染净性，所以只是性功德。怎样才能离染净性，乃成就诸功德？取着染净性，都是妄想的缘故。文中先说明觉的意义，其中有二：一、略明二种觉义；二、又以觉心原故以下，广说二种觉相。略中先明本觉，后明始觉。初中有二：一、显觉体；二、释觉义。 ‘言心体离念者’，谓离妄念，显无不觉啊。 ‘离念相者等虚空界者’，并非只是没有黑暗。没有黑暗就是智慧，光明遍照法界，平等无二，所以说‘等虚空界’。如下文所说‘智慧光明义故，遍照法界义故’。 ‘何以故’，以下第二解释本觉的意义。这是对始始觉，解释本觉的意义。文相可以知道。 ‘始觉义者’，以下说明始觉的意义。
English
English version Awareness (Jue): As for the absence of original awareness (Wu Ben Jue), it originates from the presence of original awareness (You Ben Jue). The presence of original awareness arises from initial awareness (You Shi Jue). Initial awareness arises from non-awareness (You Bu Jue). Non-awareness arises from reliance on original awareness. As the following text says: 'The meaning of original awareness is explained in contrast to the meaning of initial awareness, with initial awareness being the same as original awareness. Initial awareness relies on original awareness, hence there is non-awareness. Based on non-awareness, it is said that there is initial awareness.' It should be understood that, in this way, they depend on each other, revealing that all dharmas are neither non-existent nor existent, neither existent nor non-existent. Question: Should this nature of original awareness be considered as the cause of both defilement and purity (Ran Jing), or should it only be the nature of pure dharmas? If it is said to be only the cause of pure dharmas, why does the sutra say: 'The Tathagatagarbha (Rulai Zang) is the cause of both good and non-good,' and so on? If it serves as both defilement and purity, why is it only said to possess the virtues of nature, and not the afflictions of nature? Answer: This principle serves as the nature of both defilement and purity. Therefore, only the virtues of nature are mentioned. What is the meaning of this? Because the principle is separate from the nature of purity, it can follow conditions to create defiled dharmas. Also, being separate from the nature of defilement, it can follow conditions to create pure dharmas. Because it can create both defiled and pure dharmas, it serves as the nature of both defilement and purity. Because it is separate from the nature of defilement and purity, it is only the virtues of nature. How can one be separate from the nature of defilement and purity to achieve all virtues? Attachment to the nature of defilement and purity is all due to delusion. The text first explains the meaning of awareness, which has two aspects: first, a brief explanation of the two types of awareness; second, starting with 'because the origin of awareness is the mind,' a detailed explanation of the two aspects of awareness. In the brief explanation, original awareness is explained first, followed by initial awareness. The first part has two aspects: first, revealing the substance of awareness; second, explaining the meaning of awareness. 'The statement 'the substance of the mind is free from thought' means that by being free from deluded thoughts, non-awareness is revealed.' 'The aspect of being free from thought is like the realm of empty space' means that it is not merely without darkness. The absence of darkness is wisdom, and the light illuminates the entire dharma realm, being equal and without duality, hence it is said to be 'like the realm of empty space.' As the following text says, 'Because of the meaning of the light of wisdom, it illuminates the entire dharma realm.' 'Why is this so?' The following is the second explanation of the meaning of original awareness. This is in relation to initial initial awareness, explaining the meaning of original awareness. The meaning of the text can be understood. 'The meaning of initial awareness' The following explains the meaning of initial awareness. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 。是对不觉。释始觉义。文相可解。
Chinese
又以觉心原故 以下第二广明二觉。于中有二。初即依近广始觉义。 复次本觉 以下第二广本觉。初中亦二。先总摽满不满。 此义云何 以下第二别解。别解之中。约四相以明究竟不究竟义。此中先略。决择四相之义。然后消文。问此中四相。为当同时。为是前后。此何所疑。若同时耶。论说四位觉时差别。答前后耶。下言四相俱时而有。或有说者。此依萨婆多宗四相。以四体同时四用前后。用前后故觉时差别。体同时故名俱时有。或有说者。是依成实。前后四相。而言俱时者。以本觉望四相。则无四相前后差别故。言四相俱时而有而无自立。或有说者。此是大乘秘密四相。觉四相时。前后浅深。所觉四相。俱时而有。此义云何。夫心性本来离生灭相。而有无明。迷自心性。由违心性离相寂静故。能生起动念四相。无明四相相应力故。能令心体生住异灭。如似小乘论议之中。心在未来。迳生灭而由业力。引能令心体生住异灭。大乘四相义。亦如是。如经云。即此法界。为诸烦恼之所漂动。流转五道。名为众生。此论云。自性清净心。因无明风动。正谓此乎。总相虽然。于中分别者。四相之内。各有差别。谓生三。住四。异六。灭七。生相三者。一名业相。 现代汉语译本：是对不觉的解释，阐释了始觉（Śūru-jñāna）的含义。文句的表面意思容易理解。 ‘又以觉心原故’以下是第二部分，详细阐明了二觉（两种觉悟）。其中分为两部分。第一部分是依据相近的道理来广泛解释始觉的含义。 ‘复次本觉’以下是第二部分，广泛阐明本觉（Mūla-jñāna）。这部分也分为两部分。首先总括地标明了圆满与不圆满。 ‘此义云何’以下是第二部分，分别解释。在分别解释中，通过四相（catvāri-lakṣaṇa）来说明究竟与不究竟的含义。这里先简略地决断四相的含义，然后解释文句。问：这其中的四相，是同时存在，还是有先后顺序？为什么会有这样的疑问？如果是同时存在，论中说四种位次的觉悟有差别。答：如果是有先后顺序，下面会说四相同时存在。或者有人说，这是依据萨婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）的四相，本体是同时的，作用有先后。因为作用有先后，所以觉悟的时间有差别；本体是同时的，所以说同时存在。或者有人说，这是依据成实宗（Satya-siddhi-śāstra），四相有先后顺序，说同时存在，是因为以本觉来看四相，就没有四相的先后差别，所以说四相同时存在，而不是自立的。或者有人说，这是大乘（Mahāyāna）秘密的四相，觉悟四相的时候，有前后深浅的差别，所觉悟的四相，是同时存在的。这是什么含义呢？心性（citta-svabhāva）本来就远离生灭的现象，但因为有无明（avidyā），迷惑了自己的心性，因为违背了心性远离现象的寂静，所以能生起动念的四相。无明四相相互作用的力量，能使心体产生生、住、异、灭。就像小乘（Hināyāna）论议中说的那样，心在未来，经历生灭，由业力牵引，能使心体产生生、住、异、灭。大乘四相的含义，也是这样。如经中所说：‘即此法界（dharma-dhātu），被各种烦恼所漂动，在五道（pañca-gatayaḥ）中流转，名为众生。’此论说：‘自性清净心（prakṛti-pariśuddha-citta），因无明风动。’说的就是这个道理吧。总的来说虽然如此，但其中还是有分别的。在四相之内，各有差别。生相（utpāda-lakṣaṇa）有三种，住相（sthiti-lakṣaṇa）有四种，异相（anyathātva-lakṣaṇa）有六种，灭相（bhaṅga-lakṣaṇa）有七种。生相的三种，第一种名为业相（karma-lakṣaṇa）。