English
English version: One should understand the first principle by oneself. Regarding the truth, one should understand the second truth by oneself. By understanding this non-duality, one enters the true first principle. The meaning of the verse is that Suchness (tathatā) is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), while dependent origination (paratantra) and completely imputed nature (parikalpita) are conventional truths (saṃvṛti-satya). Because they are the realms of two kinds of wisdom, they are called truths. The difference lies only in that when observed with true wisdom, it is called liberation, or whether they are one and different or both non-existent, there is no contradiction. The Consciousness-only school also says this. Therefore, this (Suchness) and dependent origination are neither different nor not different. Just like impermanence and other qualities, it is not that one cannot see the difference between this and that. The seventy-fifth volume of the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* says: 'In the Mahayana, there are some who wrongly grasp emptiness and say: Because of conventional truth, everything exists; because of ultimate truth, everything does not exist.' One should tell them: 'What is conventional truth? What is ultimate truth?' If they originally say that all dharmas have no self-nature, this is called ultimate truth; if in the absence of self-nature in all dharmas, self-nature can be obtained, this is called conventional truth. Why? Because in nothingness, conventional hypothetical names are established, and then statements are made. One should tell them: 'What kind of conventional truth do you want? Is it from causes and conditions, and self-nature can be obtained? Or is it merely conventional truth, just talking about it?' If conventional truth is from causes and conditions, then conventional truth is born from causes and conditions, but it is not truly existent, which is unreasonable. One should also tell them: 'Elder, for what reason do those obtainable things not have self-nature here (in ultimate truth)?' (This is a criticism that if conventional truth exists, then ultimate truth should not exist.) They answer: 'Because of delusion.' (Meaning the mind is deluded, taking what is not there as there, like seeing flowers in the sky.) One should also tell them: 'What kind of delusion do you want? Is it existent or non-existent?' If it is said to be existent, then saying that all dharmas have no self-nature because of ultimate truth is unreasonable. If it is said to be non-existent, then because of delusion, those obtainable things do not have self-nature here, which is unreasonable. The proponent of emptiness says: The second volume of the *Mahābodhisattva-piṭaka Sūtra* says: 'Emptiness and the nature of the Bodhisattva are not different. Because they are not different, they cannot be spoken of.' It also says: 'Away from grasping and attachment, in ultimate truth, no dharma can be obtained. Because the nature is empty, it is called emptiness.' Therefore, saying that emptiness is the ultimate meaning is reasonable. Those who think this is reasonable, this cannot be used as evidence. Because relying on the momentary arising and ceasing of the completely imputed nature is non-existent, it is no different from enlightenment. Also, the momentary arising and ceasing of the many emptinesses of Suchness is no different from enlightenment, it is not saying that the essence of Bodhi is empty. If everything is empty, then why? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
空何觉。若云随破妄情空觉无二。据胜义谛无觉无空。即应分别兔角长短。此既不尔。彼云何。又云。远离取执。胜义谛中无法可得。不言非执。胜义谛中亦空无法。又若二谛体性是一而非有者。应无凡圣染净作业人天五趣。即无三恶悲所度生菩萨德自行于勤苦。以空无故。谁为谁说何法何求。不应智者。为除幻敌求石女儿用为军旅。又凡夫妄倒可有世俗色心等法。诸佛如来妄倒已断。何有色身净妙土等。若言以佛悲心为众生故。未现身土众生妄倒。若已断尽诸佛身土亦不立者。胜义既空悲智之心亦应非有。谁为能度众生之本。故言空者。是密意说。教理既然。故与前说掌珍比量作圣教相违过。以违法教不空义故。唯识亦云。彼特违害前所引经。胜空者曰。我亦有教引前所说大般若等为证成故。应理者曰。教有显了及不可义违显了教故汝为过。谓深密经说第二时以隐密相转正法轮说一切空非真了义。又云。相生胜义无自性。如是我皆已显不。若不知佛此密意失坏正道不能往。经既自说诸法无性。无量隐密相非真了义。今判说空为第一说是故为过。问曰。龙猛无著俱登极喜同证法性智见不殊。因何二宗所说有异。答。据其至理平等无差。佛对根宜显密异说。菩萨亦尔。对根宜闻所弘各异。由著有见。龙猛菩萨密弘于空。 空见若生亦成其病故。须双说非有非空远离二边契会中道。如向瑜伽释论等说。又复大乘无相空教。依真智境遣一切相密说皆空。诸大菩萨对著有病弘斯密教非于中道。而不证悟未□不悟广与乖净。岂菩萨有所相违。上通辨宗。随其胜空及应理者。所弘二谛并此经明如功德论咸归通二宗。解智者当悉。别明宗者。题名般若故即为宗。般若有三实相观照及与文字。慈恩三藏依诸经论更加二种。谓即境界及以眷属。通有五法。一般若性。二般若相。三般若因。四般若境。五般若伴。刻性相从俱名般若。有义此经观照为宗说能断故。如大经说。六度之中。其般若度为州为诸为遵为首为灯炬等故。此唯以惠相为宗。即无分别本后二智通生法空。或取加行。亦不违理。由十八住通摄地上位故。有义亦以实相般若为经所宗。能断性故。真理为本智方生故。金宝亦喻如来藏。故经中广明无相真理法身极果。是无相智正所观故。若辨如体诸释不同。如净业障经疏述。问。何不取文字等三。答。非经正明彼□末故。此二本故。菩提涅槃二为体故。即五法性摄三身故。能缘所缘能依所依。若性若相功德本故。第三门讫。第四所被根宜者。初辨根性。后以教被□初根性差别不同。一乘五性自古纷诤。今略叙之三说不同。一云。众生皆有佛性。 现代汉语译本： 如果执着于空，也会成为一种病。所以必须同时阐述非有非空，远离有和空这两种极端，才能契合中道。正如《瑜伽师地论》等所说。此外，大乘的无相空教，依据真实的智慧境界，遣除一切相，秘密地宣说一切皆空。一些大菩萨因为众生执着于有的病，所以弘扬这种秘密的空教，但他们并没有领悟中道。如果尚未证悟，广泛地传授这种与清净本性相违背的教义，难道菩萨之间没有互相违背的地方吗？以上是总体的宗义辨析。无论是推崇空性还是符合正理的宗派，他们所弘扬的二谛以及这部经所阐明的道理，都如功德论所说，最终都归于通达二宗。理解智慧的人应当明白这些。 下面分别阐明宗义。因为经题名为《般若》，所以就以般若为宗。般若有三种：实相般若、观照般若以及文字般若。慈恩三藏依据诸经论，又增加了两种，即境界般若和眷属般若。总共有五法：一、般若性；二、般若相；三、般若因；四、般若境；五、般若伴。般若的体性和相貌都称为般若。有一种观点认为，这部经以观照般若为宗，因为它宣说能够断除烦恼。如《大般若经》所说，在六度（布施、持戒、忍辱、精进、禅定、般若）之中，般若度是首领、是引导、是依靠、是首要、是灯炬等等。因此，这部经仅仅以智慧之相为宗，即无分别的根本智和后得智，通达人空和法空。或者取加行位（指修行过程中的一个阶段），也不违背道理。因为十八住（指菩萨修行的十八个阶段）涵盖了地上菩萨的果位。有一种观点也认为，以实相般若为这部经的宗。因为实相般若具有能断的性质，真理是根本，智慧才能产生。金宝也比喻如来藏。因此，经中广泛地阐明无相的真理，法身是最终的果位，是无相智慧所要观照的。 如果要辨析如如之体，各种解释不同。如《净业障经疏》所述。问：为什么不取文字般若等三种般若？答：因为它们不是经文主要阐明的，而是末端。实相般若是根本。菩提和涅槃是本体，因为五法之性涵盖了三身（法身、报身、应身）。能缘和所缘，能依和所依，无论是体性还是相貌，都是功德的根本。第三个门到此结束。第四个是所教化的根机和适宜的教法。首先辨别根性，然后用教法来教化。首先根性的差别不同。一乘和五性自古以来就存在争议。现在简略地叙述三种不同的说法。一种说法是：众生都有佛性（Buddha-nature）。
English
English version: If attachment to emptiness arises, it also becomes a disease. Therefore, it is necessary to explain both non-existence and non-emptiness simultaneously, staying away from the two extremes of existence and emptiness, to align with the Middle Way. As stated in the *Yogacarabhumi-sastra* (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) and other texts. Furthermore, the *Mahayana* (Great Vehicle) teaching of non-form emptiness, based on the realm of true wisdom, eliminates all forms and secretly proclaims that everything is empty. Some great *Bodhisattvas* (Enlightenment Beings), because beings are afflicted with the disease of attachment to existence, propagate this secret teaching of emptiness, but they have not realized the Middle Way. If one has not yet attained enlightenment and widely teaches doctrines that contradict the pure nature, wouldn't there be contradictions among *Bodhisattvas*? The above is a general analysis of the doctrinal tenets. Whether one advocates emptiness or what is in accordance with reason, the two truths they propagate, as well as the principles elucidated in this *sutra* (Buddhist scripture), all ultimately converge on understanding the two schools, as stated in the *Guna-samcaya* (Collection of Merits). Those who understand wisdom should comprehend these. Now, let's separately clarify the doctrinal tenets. Because the title of the *sutra* is *Prajna* (Wisdom), it is taken as the tenet. *Prajna* has three aspects: *Real-Aspect Prajna*, *Contemplative Prajna*, and *Verbal Prajna*. *Ci'en Sanzang* (Monk Ci'en), based on various *sutras* and *shastras* (treatises), added two more: *Realm Prajna* and *Retinue Prajna*. In total, there are five *dharmas* (teachings): 1. *Prajna*-nature; 2. *Prajna*-aspect; 3. *Prajna*-cause; 4. *Prajna*-realm; 5. *Prajna*-retinue. Both the nature and aspect of *Prajna* are called *Prajna*. One view holds that this *sutra* takes *Contemplative Prajna* as its tenet because it proclaims the ability to cut off afflictions. As stated in the *Maha-prajnaparamita-sutra* (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra), among the six *paramitas* (perfections) (*dana* (generosity), *sila* (discipline), *ksanti* (patience), *virya* (effort), *dhyana* (meditation), *prajna* (wisdom)), the *Prajna paramita* is the leader, the guide, the reliance, the foremost, the lamp, and so on. Therefore, this *sutra* solely takes the aspect of wisdom as its tenet, which is non-discriminating fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom, understanding the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of *dharmas*. Or, taking the stage of application (referring to a stage in the practice process) is also not contrary to reason. Because the eighteen abodes (referring to the eighteen stages of *Bodhisattva* practice) encompass the stages of the *Bodhisattva* on the ground. One view also holds that *Real-Aspect Prajna* is the tenet of this *sutra*. Because *Real-Aspect Prajna* has the nature of being able to cut off, truth is the foundation, and wisdom can arise. Gold and jewels also symbolize the *Tathagatagarbha* (Buddha-nature). Therefore, the *sutra* extensively elucidates the non-form truth, the *Dharmakaya* (Dharma Body) is the ultimate fruit, which is what non-form wisdom is to contemplate. If one wants to analyze the nature of suchness, various explanations differ. As described in the *Jingye Zhang Jing Shu* (Commentary on the Sutra of Pure Karma Obstacles). Question: Why not take *Verbal Prajna* and the other three *Prajnas*? Answer: Because they are not what the *sutra* mainly elucidates, but rather the end. *Real-Aspect Prajna* is the root. *Bodhi* (Enlightenment) and *Nirvana* (Liberation) are the essence, because the nature of the five *dharmas* encompasses the three bodies (Dharma Body, Reward Body, Manifestation Body). The able to perceive and the perceived, the reliant and the relied upon, whether it is nature or aspect, are the root of merit. The third gate ends here. The fourth is the capacity of the beings to be taught and the appropriate teachings. First, distinguish the nature of the beings, and then use the teachings to educate. First, the differences in the nature of the beings are different. The One Vehicle and the Five Natures have been controversial since ancient times. Now, briefly describe three different views. One view is: All beings have *Buddha-nature*. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------