English
English version: No. That (the nature of change and death) is definitely not non-existent. Therefore, dwelling in the body (self-nature) is of great help. From this, it should be known that the nature of change and death is included in the conditioned Vipāka (result of actions). For unconditioned karma, it is the Adhipati-phala (dominant result). The cycle of birth and death in the past, present, and future does not depend on external causes but is entirely determined by the internal consciousness. The continuous flow of pure Dharma should also be understood in this way. That is to say, from beginningless time, relying on the Ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness), there are unconditioned seeds, which are repeatedly triggered by the evolving consciousnesses, gradually increasing in excellence, until finally, when Buddhahood is attained, the originally defiled seeds of consciousness are transformed and abandoned, and the initially arising pure seeds of consciousness are obtained, which uphold all the seeds of merit. Due to the power of the original vows, until the endless future, various wonderful functions arise, continuously and endlessly. From this, it should be known that there is only internal consciousness. The above explanation of the objections against reason is complete. Next, six verses are used to explain the objections against the teachings. The first three verses explain the objections against the three natures, and the last three verses explain the objections against non-nature. Explaining the initial objection, the treatise arises and says: 'If there is only consciousness, why did the World Honored One speak of the three natures in many scriptures?' It should be known that the three natures are also not separate from consciousness. Why is that? The verse says: 'Because of various Parikalpita (imagination), imagining various things, the nature of this Parikalpita-svabhāva (imagined nature) is completely non-existent. The Paratantra-svabhāva (dependent nature) is born from discriminative conditions. The Parinispanna-svabhāva (perfected nature) in that (Paratantra) is always far away from the previous (Parikalpita) nature. Therefore, this (Parinispanna) and the other dependent (Paratantra) are neither not different nor different. Like the nature of impermanence, etc., it is not that one does not see this (Parinispanna) and that (Paratantra).' The explanation says: These three lines of verse explain the objections against the three natures. The first verse explains the Parikalpita-svabhāva. Among them, the first sentence shows the ability to imagine. The second sentence indicates the object of imagination. The latter half states the Parikalpita-svabhāva. The ability to imagine is the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, which pervasively calculate, so it is called Parikalpita. The categories are numerous, so it is said 'various'. Calculation and discrimination are the ability to imagine. Because the fifth and eighth consciousnesses do not calculate. Attachment to self and Dharma must be due to wisdom. The eighth consciousness is not associated with wisdom. Although the fifth consciousness is associated with subtle wisdom, it relies on spontaneous conditions and does not calculate. Although the Manas (mind consciousness) does not universally condition all objects, it is also called consciousness because it can grasp categories. What is imagined is the Paratantra-svabhāva. Because it is the object of the Parikalpita mind, etc. The Parinispanna-svabhāva is not that object because it is Suchness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
妄执所缘境故。依展转说亦所遍计。遍计所执虽是彼境。而非所缘缘故非所遍计。遍计所执其相云何。与依他起复有何别。谓有一切心及心所由熏习力所变二分从缘生故皆依他起。遍计依斯妄执定实有无一异俱不俱等。此二方名遍计所执。此所执性都无所有。教理推微不可得故。其次半颂显依他起。所言分别缘所生者。以诸染净心心所法皆名分别。别缘遍故。是则一切染净依他皆是此中依他起摄。后一颂半显圆成实。即前二句正显其性。其次三句显与依他非一非异。其第四句显由证此了依他幻。二空所显圆满成就诸法实性名圆成实。显此遍常体非虚谬。简自共相虚空我等。无漏有为离倒究竟胜用周遍亦得此名。然今颂中说初非后。此即于彼依他起上常远离前遍计所执。二空所显真如为性。说于彼言显圆成实与依他起不即不离。常远离言显妄所执能所二取理恒非有。前言义显不空依他。性显二空非圆成实。真如离有离无性故。由前理故。此圆成实与彼依他起非异非不异。异应真如非彼实性。不异此性应是无常。彼此应净非净境。则本后智用应无别。如彼无常无我等性与行等法非一非异。异应彼法非无常等。不异此应非彼共相。由斯喻显此圆成实与依他起非一非异。法与法性理必应然。胜义世俗相待立故。非不证见此圆成 现代汉语译本： 因为错误地执着于所缘之境，所以依他起性也被认为是遍计所执性。遍计所执性虽然是依他起性的境界，但并非所缘之缘，因此不是依他起性。遍计所执性的相状是怎样的呢？它与依他起性又有什么区别呢？ 一切心和心所，由于熏习的力量而变现出能取和所取二分，这些都是从因缘而生，所以称为依他起性。而遍计所执性，则是基于依他起性，错误地执着于事物是真实存在的，或者不存在，或者是一，或者是异，或者是同时存在，或者不是同时存在等等。只有这两种情况结合起来，才能称为遍计所执性。这种被执着的自性，实际上是完全不存在的，因为通过教理的推究，是无法找到的。 接下来的半颂经文揭示了依他起性。经文中所说的‘分别缘所生’，是指所有染污和清净的心和心所法，都可称为‘分别’，因为它们是分别各种境界而产生的。因此，一切染污和清净的依他起性，都属于这里所说的依他起性。 后面的一颂半经文揭示了圆成实性。前面的两句经文直接揭示了圆成实性的体性。接下来的三句经文揭示了圆成实性与依他起性既非一也非异。最后一句经文揭示了通过证悟圆成实性，就能了知依他起性如幻如化。通过对空性和无相的证悟所显现的，圆满成就诸法实性的，就叫做圆成实性。这表明圆成实性是普遍存在的，恒常不变的，其体性并非虚妄谬误。这与自相和共相的虚空、我等不同。无漏的有为法，远离颠倒，达到究竟的殊胜作用，周遍一切，也可以称为圆成实性。然而，现在颂文中所说的是前者，而不是后者。这指的是在依他起性上，恒常远离前面所说的遍计所执性。通过对空性和无相的证悟所显现的真如，就是圆成实性。经文中说‘于彼’，表明圆成实性与依他起性不即不离。‘常远离’表明妄想所执着的能取和所取二者，在理上是恒常不存在的。前面的经文的含义表明依他起性不是空无所有的。‘性’表明空性和无相并非圆成实性。真如的体性是既非有也非无的。 由于前面的道理，圆成实性与依他起性既非相同也非不同。如果相同，那么真如就不是依他起性的真实体性。如果不同，那么圆成实性就应该是无常的。彼此都应该是清净的，而不是清净的境界。那么根本智和后得智的作用就应该没有区别。就像无常、无我等自性与行等法既非相同也非不同一样。如果相同，那么行等法就不是无常等。如果不同，那么无常等就不是行等法的共相。通过这个比喻可以明白，圆成实性与依他起性既非相同也非不同。法与法性的关系必然是这样的，因为胜义谛和世俗谛是相互依存而成立的。如果不能证悟和见到这个圆成实性，
English
English version: Because of falsely clinging to the object of perception (所缘境, *suo yuan jing*), the dependent nature (依他起, *yi ta qi*) is also said to be the completely conceptualized nature (遍计所执, *bian ji suo zhi*). Although the completely conceptualized nature is the object of the dependent nature, it is not the condition of perception, and therefore not the dependent nature. What is the nature of the completely conceptualized nature? And what is the difference between it and the dependent nature? All minds and mental factors, due to the power of habituation, manifest as two aspects of the perceiver and the perceived. These arise from conditions, and are therefore called the dependent nature. The completely conceptualized nature, based on the dependent nature, falsely clings to things as being real or unreal, one or different, simultaneous or non-simultaneous, and so on. Only the combination of these two can be called the completely conceptualized nature. This clung-to nature is actually completely non-existent, because it cannot be found through the investigation of doctrine and reason. The next half-verse reveals the dependent nature. The 'arising from discrimination' (分别缘所生, *fen bie yuan suo sheng*) mentioned in the verse refers to all defiled and pure minds and mental factors, which can be called 'discrimination' because they arise from discriminating various objects. Therefore, all defiled and pure dependent natures are included in the dependent nature mentioned here. The following one and a half verses reveal the perfectly established nature (圆成实, *yuan cheng shi*). The first two lines directly reveal the nature of the perfectly established nature. The next three lines reveal that the perfectly established nature is neither one nor different from the dependent nature. The last line reveals that by realizing the perfectly established nature, one can understand the dependent nature as illusory. What is revealed through the realization of emptiness and signlessness, the perfect accomplishment of the real nature of all dharmas, is called the perfectly established nature. This shows that the perfectly established nature is universally present, constant, and its nature is not false or erroneous. This is different from the emptiness, self, etc. of self-characteristics and common characteristics. The unconditioned conditioned dharmas, free from inversion, reaching the ultimate supreme function, pervading everything, can also be called the perfectly established nature. However, what is said in the verse now is the former, not the latter. This refers to the constant separation from the completely conceptualized nature mentioned earlier on the dependent nature. The Suchness (真如, *zhen ru*) revealed through the realization of emptiness and signlessness is the perfectly established nature. The phrase 'on that' in the verse indicates that the perfectly established nature is neither identical nor different from the dependent nature. 'Constantly separated' indicates that the clinging to the perceiver and the perceived by delusion is always non-existent in principle. The meaning of the previous verse indicates that the dependent nature is not empty. 'Nature' indicates that emptiness and signlessness are not the perfectly established nature. The nature of Suchness is neither existent nor non-existent. Due to the preceding reason, the perfectly established nature is neither the same nor different from the dependent nature. If they are the same, then Suchness is not the real nature of the dependent nature. If they are different, then the perfectly established nature should be impermanent. They should both be pure, not the realm of purity. Then the function of fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom should be no different. Just as the nature of impermanence, selflessness, etc. is neither the same nor different from the dharmas of action, etc. If they are the same, then the dharmas of action, etc. are not impermanent, etc. If they are different, then impermanence, etc. are not the common characteristics of the dharmas of action, etc. Through this analogy, it can be understood that the perfectly established nature is neither the same nor different from the dependent nature. The relationship between dharma and dharma-nature must be like this, because the ultimate truth and the conventional truth are established in mutual dependence. If one cannot realize and see this perfectly established nature, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
实而能见彼依他起性。未达遍计所执性空。不如实知依他有故。无分别智证真如已。后得智中方能了达依他起性如幻事等。此中意说。三种自性皆不远离心心所法。谓心心所及所变现众缘生故。如幻事等非有似有诳惑愚夫。一切皆名依他起性。愚夫于此横执我法有无一异俱不俱等。如空花等性相都无。一切皆名遍计所执。依他起上彼所妄执我法俱空。此空所显识等真性名圆成实。是故此三不离心等。虚空择灭非择灭等何性所摄。三性容摄。心等变似虚空等相随心生故依他起摄。愚夫于此妄执实有。此即遍计所执性摄。若于真如假施设有虚空等义圆成实摄。有漏心等定属依他。无漏心等容二性摄。众缘生故摄属依他。无颠倒故圆成实摄。三性五事相摄云何。诸圣教说相摄不定。依不杂乱义相说者说。依他起摄彼相名分别正智。圆成实性摄彼真如。遍计所执不摄五事。彼说有漏心心所法变似所诠说名为相。似能诠现施设为名。能变心等立为分别。无漏心等离戏论故。但总名正智。不说能所诠。四从缘生皆依他起。三解脱门所行境界与此三性相摄云何。理实皆通随相各一。空无相愿如次应知。缘此复生三无生忍。一本性无生忍。二自然无生忍。三惑苦无生忍。如次此三是此境故。此三云何摄彼二谛。应知世俗具此三种。胜义 现代汉语译本： 真实地能够见到依他起性（缘起性，指事物由因缘和合而生起的性质）。如果未能通达遍计所执性（虚妄分别性，指事物由虚妄分别而产生的性质）的空性，那是因为没有如实地了解依他起性的存在。当无分别智证悟了真如之后，在后得智中才能完全了达依他起性如同幻象等。这里的意思是说，这三种自性都不离心和心所法。所谓心和心所，以及它们所变现的、由众多因缘产生的现象，都像幻象一样，并非真实存在，却又似乎存在，以此来迷惑愚夫，这一切都称为依他起性。愚夫对此横生执着，认为我（主体）和法（客体）有或无、一或异、俱或不俱等等。这些都像空中的花朵一样，其体性和相状都根本不存在，这一切都称为遍计所执。在依他起性上，那些被虚妄执着的我法都是空性的。而这种空性所显现的识等的真实体性，就称为圆成实性（真实成就性，指事物真实圆满的性质）。因此，这三种自性都不离心等。虚空、择灭、非择灭等属于哪种自性所摄？这三种自性都可以包含。心等变现出类似虚空等相，随心而生，因此属于依他起性所摄。愚夫对此妄执为真实存在，这就属于遍计所执性所摄。如果对于真如假立施设虚空等的意义，则属于圆成实性所摄。有漏的心等必定属于依他起性。无漏的心等可以属于两种自性。因为由众缘所生，所以属于依他起性；因为没有颠倒，所以属于圆成实性。三种自性和五事（相、名、分别、正智、真如）如何相互包含？诸圣教所说的相互包含是不定的。如果按照不杂乱的意义来说，依他起性包含相、名、分别。正智包含在依他起性中，圆成实性包含真如。遍计所执不包含五事。他们说，有漏的心和心所法变现出类似所诠释的对象，这称为相；类似能诠释的现象，施设为名；能变现的心等，立为分别；无漏的心等远离戏论，所以只总称为正智，不说是能诠和所诠。四种从缘而生的现象都属于依他起性。三种解脱门（空解脱门、无相解脱门、无愿解脱门）所行境界与这三种自性如何相互包含？从道理上说，都是相通的，但随其相状各有侧重。空、无相、无愿，依次对应于空解脱门、无相解脱门、无愿解脱门。缘此又生起三种无生忍（对法不生不灭的证悟）。一是本性无生忍，二是自然无生忍，三是惑苦无生忍。这三种无生忍依次是上述三种境界的果。这三种无生忍如何包含二谛（世俗谛和胜义谛）？应当知道，世俗谛具足这三种无生忍。胜义谛...