---
title: "解深密經疏 · 勝義諦相品第二"
description: "解深密經疏由唐代高僧圆测撰寫，是對佛教經典《解深密經》的權威註釋。圓測為玄奘弟子，精通唯識學，該疏成書於7世紀，系統闡釋了唯識思想與三性理論，融合了印度瑜伽行派與中觀學說。內容涵蓋佛法深層義理，包括心識結構、修行次第及成佛之道，是研究唯識學的重要文獻。該疏在漢傳佛教中地位崇高，為後世學者提供了理解《解深密經》的關鍵依據，影響了中國佛教哲學的發展。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcweeqra0bp2jx04v5jxoh3m"
---
## 解深密經疏卷第二
> Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Scroll 2
西明寺沙門 圓測 撰
> Commentary by the Monk Yuan Ce of Ximing Temple
### 勝義諦相品第二
釋此品文，略有二義：一、釋品名，二、正釋文。言勝義諦相品者，諦中之勝號。諦有二種：一者、世俗，二者、勝義。言世俗者，世是隱覆義，俗是麤顯義，謂瓶、衣等世麤顯物，隱覆勝義，故名世俗。名勝義者，勝謂勝智，義即境義，謂真如理是勝智之境義，故名勝義，即六釋中依主釋也。或復義者，即是義利，謂涅槃果即勝義利，名為勝義，即六釋中持業釋也。或復聖道用勝為義，故名勝義，是有財釋。今於此中，且依初義。諦有二義，如瑜伽論五十五說：一、如所說相不捨離義，二、由觀此故到究竟，故名為諦。相謂體相，或是相狀，離言等五皆是真如自體相故，或一真如有離言等五相狀故。於此品內明勝義諦五相之義，故言勝義諦相品第二。
> To explain this chapter, there are two main points: first, explaining the title of the chapter; second, explaining the text itself. Regarding the chapter titled "The Characteristics of Ultimate Truth": this is the supreme designation among truths. There are two kinds of truth: first, conventional truth; second, ultimate truth. "Conventional" means that "worldly" conveys the sense of veiling or concealing, while "conventional" conveys the sense of coarse or apparent. For example, jars, clothes, and other coarse worldly objects conceal ultimate truth, and so they are called "conventional." "Ultimate" means that "ultimate" refers to supreme wisdom, and "truth" refers to the object or realm of that wisdom. That is, the principle of suchness is the object of supreme wisdom, and so it is called "ultimate truth." This follows the dependent-determinant compound in the six types of compounds. Alternatively, "truth" can mean benefit or value. That is, the fruit of nirvana is the supreme benefit, and so it is called "ultimate truth." This follows the possessive-determinant compound in the six types of compounds. Or again, the noble path uses the supreme as its meaning, and so it is called "ultimate truth." This is a descriptive compound. Here, we will follow the first interpretation. "Truth" has two meanings, as stated in the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, Chapter 55: first, the meaning of not departing from what has been taught; second, the meaning of reaching the ultimate by observing it. Hence it is called "truth." "Characteristics" means essence or marks. The five aspects, such as being beyond words, are all the self-nature of suchness. Alternatively, suchness has five marks, such as being beyond words. This chapter clarifies the meaning of the five characteristics of ultimate truth, and so it is called "Chapter Two: The Characteristics of Ultimate Truth."
爾時，如理請問菩薩摩訶薩即於佛前問解甚深義密意菩薩摩訶薩言：
釋曰：第二正釋經文。上來已釋教起因緣分訖，自下第二聖教正說分。於此分中有其七品攝為三段：初有四品明所觀境勝義諦相品、心意識相品、一切法相品、無自性相品，次有二品辨能觀行分別瑜伽品、地波羅蜜多品，後有一品顯所得果如來成所住事品。所以如是說三分者，夫觀行者要藉勝境，依境起行、由行得果。是故世尊阿毗達磨大乘經中說十種勝：初二是境所知依、所知相，次六是行入所知、入因果、戒學、定學、修差別慧學，後二是果彼果斷、彼果智。由是無著攝大乘論，約三無等說十殊勝。慈氏菩薩說十七地亦辨三種：初九是境五識相應地、意地、有尋有伺地、無伺地、無尋唯伺地、無尋無伺地、三摩呬多地、非三摩呬多地、有心地、無心地，次六是行聞所成地、思所成地、修所成地、聲聞地、獨學地、菩薩地，後二是果有餘依地、無餘依地。此經說三無等以為三分，就所觀境復分為二：初有二品明真俗境勝義諦相品明其真諦、心意識相品明世俗諦，後二品明有無性境謂初品明三性境，後品明三無性境。就二諦中本末次第，先真俗故。今此中說勝義諦，依瑜伽論判此品中辨五種相，故七十五云：復次勝義諦有五相：一離名言相、二無二相、三超過尋思所行相、四超過諸法一異性相、五遍一切一味相。今依此經攝為四段：一明離言及無二相，二爾時法涌下明超過尋思所行相，三爾時善清淨慧下辨非一異相，四爾時世尊下釋遍一切一味相。五中離言應通四段，四相皆有離言相故，而與無二一處合說，准可知故。餘三段中略而不說。就前二相文別有二：初長行廣釋，後以頌略說。前中有六：一請問，二略答，三徵問，四廣釋，五重徵，六喻說。依真諦判，四段同前。就初為五：一略說不可言無二，二廣說，三喻顯，四總結，五偈頌。此即第一菩薩請問，於中有二：初發問由序，後依教發問。此即初也。文有四節：一爾時者，發問時也。深密經云：佛婆伽婆大眾圍遶說深法時者，譯家謬也。二如理請問菩薩者，辨能問者順理發問，故名如理請問菩薩。解節經云：如理正問。深密經云：善問菩薩。三即於佛前者，發問處也。此如世親攝大乘云：善入菩薩薄伽梵前者，顯有所敬及無異言。又無性云：顯佛開許堪廣流通，親對世尊無異言故。四同解甚深義密意菩薩言者，標所問人也。今此菩薩能以四辨解釋甚深義理密意，故立其名。此如瑜伽三十七說。解節經云：能解甚深義節菩薩。真諦釋云：解即解釋，節是堅結義。解釋甚深堅結義節，是故名為解釋甚深義節菩薩，亦名寶冠頂。寶冠頂本是佛名，今此菩薩彼佛弟子，從師立號，廣說如彼。深密經云：深密解脫菩薩。
> The commentary says: Next, we formally explain the scriptural text. We have already covered the opening section on the causes and conditions for teaching the Dharma. Now, we come to the second major division: the main body of the sacred teachings. This section contains seven chapters, which are organized into three parts: The first four chapters clarify the objects of contemplationChapters on the Marks of Ultimate Truth, the Marks of Consciousness and Mental States, the Marks of All Phenomena, and the Marks of Absence of Intrinsic Nature; the next two chapters distinguish the practice of contemplationChapters on Distinguishing Yogic Practice and the Stages and Perfections; the final chapter reveals the fruits attainedChapter on the Attainments of the Thus-Gone One. Why are these three divisions made? Because a practitioner must rely on a sublime object—from that object arises practice, and through practice one attains results. Therefore, in the Buddha's \*Abhidharma Mahāyāna Sūtra\*, ten types of excellence are taught: the first two concern the objectthe ground of knowledge and the characteristics of what is known; the next six concern practiceentering the object of knowledge, the causes and effects of entry, the training in ethics, concentration, and the distinctions of insight; the final two concern the resultthe cessation and the wisdom of that result. Thus, Asaṅga's \*Compendium of the Great Vehicle\* presents ten excellences in terms of three unequaled aspects. Maitreya Bodhisattva, likewise, in his teaching of the seventeen grounds, distinguishes three categories: the first nine are objectsthe ground of the five consciousnesses, the ground of the mind, the ground with both applied and sustained thought, the ground without applied thought, the ground with only sustained thought, the ground with neither, the ground of meditative absorption, the ground of non-absorption, the grounds of the mind; the next six are practicesthe ground of learning from listening, the ground of reflection, the ground of cultivation, the ground of the hearers, the ground of the solitary realizers, the ground of the bodhisattvas; the last two are resultsthe ground of remaining residue and the ground of no residue. This sūtra likewise teaches the three unequaled aspects as three divisions. Within the objects of contemplation, there are further subdivisions: the first two chapters clarify the true and conventional objectsThe chapter on the Marks of Ultimate Truth clarifies the ultimate; the chapter on the Marks of Consciousness and Mental States clarifies the conventional.; the final two chapters clarify the objects of existence and non-existence—that is, the first of these teaches the three natures, and the latter teaches the three absences of intrinsic nature. In the order of these two truths, the fundamental and the derivative, the ultimate comes first, then the conventional. Now, the present chapter concerns ultimate truth. According to the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, this chapter discusses five characteristics. Thus, the seventy-fifth fascicle states: "Furthermore, ultimate truth has five characteristics: (1) it transcends verbal designation; (2) it is free from duality; (3) it surpasses the realm of conceptual thought; (4) it surpasses notions of unity and diversity among phenomena; (5) it is the single flavor pervading all things." Based on this sūtra, we divide the chapter into four sections: (1) clarifying the characteristics of transcending speech and non-duality; (2) beginning with "At that time, the bodhisattva Dharmaugha"—clarifying the characteristic of surpassing conceptual thought; (3) beginning with "At that time, the bodhisattva Suddha-prajña"—clarifying the characteristic of neither unity nor diversity; (4) beginning with "At that time, the Blessed One"—explaining the characteristic of the single flavor pervading all things. Among the five characteristics, the one of transcending speech applies to all four sections, for the other four each contain the aspect of transcending verbal designation. Yet it is combined here with non-duality in a single discussion, as can be understood by inference. In the remaining sections, this characteristic is only briefly mentioned without further elaboration. Within the first two characteristics, the text has two parts: first, a detailed prose explanation, then a verse summary. The prose portion consists of six elements: (1) a question, (2) a brief answer, (3) a further inquiry, (4) an extensive explanation, (5) a renewed question, and (6) an illustrative simile. According to Paramārtha's analysis, the four sections remain as above. Within the first, there are five parts: briefly explaining that things are inexpressible and non-dual, expanding the explanation, illustrating with a simile, summarizing, and verses. This is the first instance of a bodhisattva asking a question. This consists of two parts: first, the introductory setting for the question, and second, the formal question presented according to the teaching. Here we have the first part. The passage has four elements: 1. "At that time" indicates the moment of asking.The \*Sūtra of the Deep Mystery\* says, "The Buddha Bhagavān, surrounded by the great assembly, was teaching the profound Dharma," but this is a translator's error. 2. "The bodhisattva Skillful Questioning" identifies the questioner, who asks in accordance with truth, and thus bears this name.The \*Sūtra of the Unraveled Meaning\* calls him "Skillful True Questioning." The \*Sūtra of the Deep Mystery\* refers to him as "the Bodhisattva of Good Questioning." 3. "In the presence of the Buddha" indicates the place of questioning. As Vasubandhu's \*Compendium of the Great Vehicle\* states: "The bodhisattva Well-Entered, in the presence of the Bhagavān," showing reverence and that there is no discrepancy in words. As Asvabhāva explains: "This shows that the Buddha granted permission and that the teaching is worthy of wide circulation, because it is spoken directly before the Teacher with no contradictory speech." 4. "The bodhisattva Skillful Understanding of the Deep Meaning and Secret Intent" designates the one to whom the question is addressed. This bodhisattva is so named because he can interpret the profound meanings and hidden intentions with the four types of discernment. This is like what the thirty-seventh fascicle of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* describes. The \*Sūtra of the Unraveled Meaning\* calls him "the Bodhisattva Who Can Unravel the Deep Meaning." Paramārtha's commentary explains that "unravel" means to explain, and "knot" signifies a tight bond. Explaining the deep, tightly bound knots of meaning, he is thus called "the Bodhisattva Who Explains Deep Meaning." He is also known as "Jeweled Crown." Jeweled Crown was originally the name of a Buddha; this bodhisattva is a disciple of that Buddha and takes his name from his teacher, as elaborated in that text.The \*Sūtra of the Deep Mystery\* calls him "the Bodhisattva of Deep Mystery and Liberation."
最勝子言一切法無二。一切法無二者。何等一切法。云何為無二。
> The Supreme Son said: All dharmas are non-dual. What are all dharmas? And what does it mean for them to be non-dual?
釋曰。此即第二依教發問。文有兩節。初最勝子言。一切法無二者。舉所問教；後一切法無二等者，依教發問。然最勝子、深密、解節皆佛子。真諦記云：佛子有五義：一種子義，謂信樂大乘能為得佛種子。二母義，謂般若度能生佛法，故名為母。三胎處義，菩薩禪定是住處，故名胎處。四乳母義，謂能長養菩薩令得成道，故說慈悲為乳母。五似父義，謂從初地乃至佛地，轉依似佛故言似父，即呼解節菩薩為佛子也。廣說如前。十住論云：菩薩是佛真實之子，是故菩薩名為佛子。今依唐本名最勝子，自有二說：一云最勝是菩薩名，三乘子中最殊勝故，能紹佛種名之為子，是持業釋。一云最勝是世尊號，故無性論云：最勝者，顯佛勝二乘故。又瑜伽云：佛是最勝，於諸外道煩惱等魔能得勝故，宗族姓等暎眾人故。若依此釋，最勝之子名最勝子，故顯揚云：菩薩亦名最勝之子，是故餘處名為佛子。言謂言教，即一切法無二言也。此亦兩釋：一云菩薩言教，一云佛言。如百法論：如世尊言：一切法無我。又下頌云：佛說離言無二義。一切法無二者，舉經兩章：一一切法，二者無二。一切法無二者，何等一切法？云何為無二者，此即第二依教發問，文有兩節：初將欲發問雙牒兩章，後依章別徵即成二問：一問何等一切法，二問云何為無二。依瑜伽釋，汎論發問有其五種：一不解故問，二疑惑故問，三為欲利益安樂故問，四誡驗故問，五輕觸故問。今此菩薩依第三問，為欲利益諸眾生故，或可通三，亦有不解疑惑義故，不依後二，無上法王不可輕觸及誡驗故。解節經云：一切法無二，一切法無二，此義云何？真諦記云：引經為問，重言一切法無二，為五義故：一處處經說故，二有為無為無二故，三內六根外六塵無二故，四凡聖無二故，五因果無二故。今此所說文義云何？是菩薩以所作非所作答也。
> The commentary explains: This is the second section, where the question is raised based on the teaching. The text has two parts. First, the most excellent son says, "All dharmas are non-dual," citing the teaching being questioned. Second, "all dharmas are non-dual, etc.," is the question raised based on the teaching. Now, the most excellent son, the Deep Secret (Samdhinirmocana), and the Explanation of Sections (Sandhinirmocana) are all children of the Buddha. The Commentary of Paramārtha states that "child of the Buddha" has five meanings: First, the meaning of seed—faith and delight in the Great Vehicle can become the seed for attaining Buddhahood. Second, the meaning of mother—the perfection of wisdom can give rise to the Buddha's teachings, hence it is called mother. Third, the meaning of womb—the bodhisattva's meditative concentration is the dwelling place, hence it is called the womb. Fourth, the meaning of wet nurse—compassion nurtures the bodhisattva and enables them to attain enlightenment, hence it is called the wet nurse. Fifth, the meaning of resembling the father—from the first ground to the Buddha ground, the transformation of the basis resembles the Buddha, hence it is called resembling the father. This is how the Bodhisattva of Explanation of Sections is called a child of the Buddha. This has been elaborated on earlier. The Treatise on the Ten Grounds says: "Bodhisattvas are the true sons of the Buddha, therefore bodhisattvas are called children of the Buddha." Now, following the Tang version, the name "Most Excellent Son" has two interpretations: One says "most excellent" is the bodhisattva's name—among the children of the three vehicles, he is the most superior, able to continue the Buddha's lineage, hence called son. This is the holder-action compound (karmadhāraya). The other says "most excellent" is a title of the World-Honored One. Thus, the Treatise on Nonexistence (Asvabhāva) says: "Most excellent" shows that the Buddha surpasses the two vehicles. Also, the Yogācārabhūmi says: "The Buddha is the most excellent—able to conquer all externalist paths and the māras of afflictions, and his clan, family name, and so forth outshine all people." If interpreted this way, "Son of the Most Excellent" means the son of the most excellent one, hence the Demonstration (Saṃdarśana) says: "Bodhisattvas are also called sons of the Most Excellent," and therefore in other places they are called children of the Buddha. "Speech" refers to the teaching—that is, the statement "all dharmas are non-dual." This also has two interpretations: One says it is the bodhisattva's speech, the other says it is the Buddha's speech. As in the Hundred Dharmas Treatise: "Thus the World-Honored One said: 'All dharmas are without self.'" And in the following verse: "The Buddha said that the meaning of non-duality is beyond words." "All dharmas are non-dual" cites two sections from the sutra: one, "all dharmas"; two, "non-dual." "All dharmas are non-dual"—what are all dharmas? What is non-duality? This is the second section, where the question is raised based on the teaching. It has two parts: first, before asking, it raises both sections together; second, it questions each section separately, forming two questions: one asks what all dharmas are, and the other asks what non-duality means. According to the Yogācārabhūmi explanation, there are generally five kinds of questions: one, asking due to lack of understanding; two, asking due to doubt; three, asking to benefit and bring happiness to others; four, asking to test and verify; five, asking casually. This bodhisattva asks according to the third—to benefit all sentient beings. Alternatively, it could include the third as well as the first two, since there is also an aspect of lack of understanding and doubt. The last two are not relied upon, for the supreme king of dharma cannot be casually touched or tested. The Explanation of Sections Sutra says: "All dharmas are non-dual; all dharmas are non-dual—what does this mean?" The Commentary of Paramārtha says: "This quotes the sutra as a question. Repeating 'all dharmas are non-dual' is for five reasons: first, because it is taught in sutras everywhere; second, because conditioned and unconditioned are non-dual; third, because the six internal sense bases and six external sense objects are non-dual; fourth, because ordinary beings and sages are non-dual; fifth, because cause and effect are non-dual." "What is the meaning of the text here?"—this is the bodhisattva answering with what is done and not done.
解甚深義密意菩薩謂如理請問菩薩曰：
> The Bodhisattva who understands the profound meaning and hidden intent, called the Bodhisattva of Proper Inquiry, asked the Bodhisattva:
釋曰：自下第二依問略答。於中有二：初示問答者，後依問正答。此即初也。
> Explanation: Next, the second section provides a brief answer according to the question. It consists of two parts: first, presenting the question-and-answer format; second, giving the proper answer based on the question. This is the first part.
善男子！一切法者，略有二種，所謂有為、無為。
> Good man, all phenomena can be broadly divided into two categories: the conditioned and the unconditioned.
釋曰：第二依問正答，於中有二：初善男子者讚能問者，後一切法下依問正答。此即初也。依智度論三十五云：男子言簡，非男子等不堪教授。善謂善相，謂具慈悲三業無失，樂於善人不顯己德，隨順眾人不說他過，不求世間名譽等樂，但樂道德自業清淨，心貴實相輕賤世事，有如是等無量善法。此相多在男子身中，是故讚言善男子也。問：如何但說有為無為二種法耶？答：如大婆沙說有二意，彼云：為欲遮遣補特伽羅故，及為顯示智殊勝故，說此有為無為二種法也。為欲遮遣補特伽羅者，謂顯唯有有為無為法，畢竟無實補特伽羅故。及為顯示智殊勝者，謂有聰慧智殊勝者。由此二法通達一切法，此二遍攝一切法故。一切法等者，依問正答，於中有二：初答一切，後釋無二。此答一切，文有兩節：初一切法略有二種者，標章舉數；後有為無為者，依數列名。汎論一切有其三種：一者略說唯有二種，所謂有為無為；二者非廣非略有其五種：一者心法，二者心所有法，三者色法，四者心不相應行法，五者無為法。大智度論及密嚴經但列五種而不別釋；三者、廣說，具明百法。今簡中廣，故言略說。言有為、無為者，諸教不同。順正理云：眾緣聚集共所生，故名有為。與此相違，准知無為。婆沙論云：若法依屬因緣和合作用，是名有為；若法不依屬因緣和合作用，是名無為。掌珍論云：眾緣合成有所造作，故名有為；非有為故，說名無為。翻對有為是無為義。無著菩薩波若論云：無為者，是無分別義。准知有為是有分別。又集論云：有生、住、異、滅，是名有為；無生、住、異、滅，是名無為。瑜伽第一百云：言為者，謂有生、滅繫屬因緣。與此相違，應知無為。智度論云：有所得者，名有為；無所得者，是名無為。功德施論亦同此說。又智度論九十三云：取相是有為，不取相是無為。若廣分別，具如別章。然今所說有為、無為，三釋不同。一云：此中所說遍計所執有為、無為，故下經云：決定實有有為、無為，堅固執著，隨起言說。一云：唯約依他所起相分有為、無為，故下經云：決定無實有為、無為，然有分別所起行。一云：有為即依他起，無為即圓成實性。雖有三說，後說為正。所以者何？此中意說，依他有為、圓成無為二法之上，無所執性有為、無為，故言無二也。後當分別。
> Commentary: Second, the formal answer based on the inquiry contains two parts: first, "Good man" praises the questioner; second, "All dharmas" formally answers according to the inquiry. This is the first part. According to the \*Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\*, chapter 35: "Man" indicates concise expression; those who are not men are unworthy of instruction. "Good" signifies wholesome characteristics—possessing compassion and faultlessness in body, speech, and mind, delighting in virtuous people without flaunting one's own merits, accommodating others without speaking of their faults, seeking neither worldly fame nor pleasure, but delighting only in virtue and maintaining pure conduct, cherishing ultimate reality while devaluing worldly affairs—such are innumerable virtuous qualities. These characteristics are mostly found in the body of a man, hence the praise "good man." Question: Why speak only of the two kinds of dharmas—conditioned and unconditioned? Answer: As the \*Great Vibhāṣā\* states, there are two intentions: to refute the notion of a self (pudgala) and to reveal the excellence of wisdom, it speaks of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Refuting the pudgala means showing that only conditioned and unconditioned dharmas exist, with ultimately no real self. Revealing the excellence of wisdom means that those of keen intellect and superior wisdom, through these two dharmas, can comprehend all dharmas, for these two encompass everything. "All dharmas, etc." is the formal answer according to the inquiry, with two parts: first, answering "all"; second, explaining "non-duality." In answering "all," there are two sections: first, "All dharmas have two kinds in brief" marks the topic and number; second, "conditioned and unconditioned" lists the names according to the number. Generally, "all" has three kinds: first, in brief, only two kinds—conditioned and unconditioned; second, neither broad nor brief, five kinds—mind, mental factors, form, mind-disassociated formations, and the unconditioned. The \*Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\* and the \*Ghanavyūha Sūtra\* list the five kinds without further explanation; third, in detail, fully explaining the hundred dharmas. Here, omitting the middle and detailed, it says "in brief." As for "conditioned and unconditioned," various teachings differ. The \*Nyāyānusāra\* says: Assembled from many causes and conditions, produced together—this is called conditioned; opposite to this, know it as unconditioned. The \*Vibhāṣā\* says: A dharma that depends on causes and conditions with combined functions is called conditioned; one that does not depend on causes and conditions with combined functions is called unconditioned. The \*Praise of the Jewel\* says: Assembled from many conditions with constructed activity—this is called conditioned; not being conditioned, it is called unconditioned; being opposed to the conditioned is the meaning of unconditioned. Asaṅga's \*Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā\* says: Unconditioned means the meaning of non-discrimination; correspondingly, conditioned means discrimination. The \*Compendium of Abhidharma\* says: Having birth, abiding, change, and cessation—this is called conditioned; lacking birth, abiding, change, and cessation—this is called unconditioned. The \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, volume 100, says: "Conditioned" means having birth and cessation tied to causes and conditions; opposite to this, know it as unconditioned. The \*Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\* says: Having attainment is called conditioned; having no attainment is called unconditioned. The \*Commentary on Merit\* says likewise. Also, the \*Great Treatise\*, chapter 93, says: Grasping signs is conditioned; not grasping signs is unconditioned. For detailed distinctions, see other chapters. Now, the present explanation of conditioned and unconditioned has three interpretations: First, what is spoken of here is the imagined nature's conditioned and unconditioned, hence the later text says: "Firmly holding that conditioned and unconditioned truly exist, clinging stubbornly, and generating speech." Second, it refers only to the imaged objects of dependent nature's conditioned and unconditioned, hence the later text says: "Conditioned and unconditioned are not truly real, yet there are discriminations arising from mental activity." Third, conditioned refers to dependent nature, and unconditioned refers to the perfected nature. Although there are three explanations, the last is correct. Why? The intent here is that, upon the two dharmas—dependent conditioned and perfected unconditioned—there is no grasped nature of conditioned or unconditioned, hence "non-duality" is stated. This will be explained further later.
是中有為非有為非無為，無為亦非無為非有為。
> What is conditioned is neither truly conditioned nor unconditioned; what is unconditioned is also neither truly unconditioned nor conditioned.
釋曰：第二、釋無二相。此即五中不可言相及無二相。所以者何？不可說言有為、無為故，亦非有為、無為二種相故。然釋此文，諸說不同。解節經云：所作者，非所作，非非所作；非所作者，非非所作，亦非所作。真諦釋云：自下兩句遣有為法，兩句遣無為法也。所作者，即有為法。有為法為因緣聚集所作，故名所作。非所作者，即無為法。無為法本有是常，不為因緣聚集所作，名非所作。先約三義，故遣有為：一、由亂識分別，故有所作。所作實無，但有分別。亦由有所取，故有能取。所取既無，故能取亦無，故非所作。二、由根本是無有為。諸法根本由不正思惟，不正思惟生諸惑，諸惑生諸業，業生果報。不正思惟從執境界實無，謬執為有。由境無故，不正思惟亦無。不正思惟既無，諸惑亦無。諸惑故，諸業亦無。諸業無故，果報亦無。由其根本不實故，一切有為皆非實也。三、由無生。此所作法不離分別、依他二性。此二性既本無相，無生有何作義？是故非所作也。非非所作者，此第二句遣非所作。所作既是有為，非所作即是無為，遂以三義遣此無為。無為亦由亂識分別，故有此所作。而亂識既無，非所作亦不有。亦由亂識分別，故有所作。名體非是實有，故不得成。既無所作之法，非所作即不得有。本以有對無，既其無有，理自無無。二、由根本是無，即以所作為根本。若實有所作，可說非所作名。如先有病，復稱病差。病本是無，何差之有？三、由法本無相無生，離有離無，本非所作，亦非非所作也。非所作者下，次兩句遣無為法。初一句約三義顯無為，故云非非所作；次一句約三義遣有為，故云亦非所作。三義並不異前進退，終不離有為、無為，故無異前辨也。此即是顯不可言及無二義。所以略作此答者：一、為利根人薄聞，使悟者不勞廣說；二、為破高心人，令一聞未悟，再請方解。上來已述真諦師宗以申經意，此地諸師大同真諦。今唐本經云：是中有為、非有為、非無為，無為、亦非無為、非有為。釋此經文，諸說不同。一云：是中有為，即是遍計所執。由彼所執無實法故，故不可說及無二相。有為既非有為，無為、無為亦爾。以所執故，不可說為有為、無為也。故下經云：堅固執著，決定實有有為、無為。故知有為、無為皆所執也。一云：此處有為、無為，皆是依他有為、無為。故下經云：唯有分別所起行相。為遣所執有為、無為，故作此說。是中有為、非有為、非無為，無為、亦非無為、非有為也。一云：是中有為者，依他起性諸有為法。言非有為非無為者，即非遍計所執有為無為。此中意說，依他起上遣所執性有為無為所顯真如為勝義諦。如說依他起上無所執性為圓成實，不取依他以為圓成。言無為者，即是圓成實性離言真如。言亦非無為非有為者，即非遍計所執無為有為。此中意說，圓成實上遣所執性無為有為所顯真如為勝義諦。雖有三說，且依第三。然無二相有其多種，不可具說。且論有為無為無二相中，諸說不同。若集論約無取蘊以說無二，非業煩惱所生故，不可言有為；隨欲現前不現前故，不可言無為。依攝大乘法身五相中一轉依為相、二自法所成為相、三無二為相、四常住為相、五不可思議為相，第三無二。論有三義：一有無無二、二有為無為無二、三一性異性無二。謂有為無為無二為相者，由業煩惱非所為故，自在示現有為相故。今此所說，非遍計所執生滅等有為，非遍計所執無生滅等無為，故言非有為非無為也。即此離言無二體性，即是真如。是故無上依經說如來界五種功德：一不可說相、二無二相、三過覺觀相、四過一異相、五一切處一味相。乃至彼云：一切法藏無變異故，名為如如；無顛倒故，名為實際；過一切相故，名為寂滅；聖人行處無分別之境界故，名第一義。阿難！是如來界，非有非無，不染不淨，自性清淨。此經下云：佛說離言無二義甚深，非愚之所行。故知離言真如為體。問：若爾，大品所說如何會釋？故三十二云：須菩提白佛言：何等是有法？何等是無法？佛言：二是有法，不二是無法。大智度論九十五云：二法名各各別相，不二法名一空相。以是一空相，破各各異相。又大品經三十九云：諸法平等，所謂無相。須菩提白佛言：是法平等，為是有為？是無為法？佛言：非有為法，非無為法。何以故？離有為法，無為法不可得；離無為法，有為法不可得。須菩提！是有為性、無為性，是二法不合不散勘，無色無形，一相所謂無相。佛以世諦故說，非以第一義故。具說如彼。解云：此勝義諦，用如為體。而言無者，以遣所執，故說無言，據實非無。故下經云：一切諸法皆無自性者，通據三性，密意說無，非實全無。此一切法無二觀門，即是唯識性觀，或三中圓成實觀，三無性中勝義無自性觀。真諦師云：即是分別無相觀，或依他無性觀。此中應說不二法門。八不中道，義如別章。
> Explanation: Second, explaining the characteristic of non-duality. This is the inexpressible characteristic and the non-dual characteristic among the five. Why? Because one cannot say it is conditioned or unconditioned, nor can it be characterized by the two aspects of conditioned and unconditioned. However, interpretations of this passage vary. The \*Commentary on the Scripture Unlocking the Meaning\* says: "What is made is not made, nor not-made; what is not made is not not-made, nor made." Paramārtha's commentary explains: "The following two clauses eliminate conditioned phenomena, and two clauses eliminate unconditioned phenomena. What is 'made' refers to conditioned phenomena. Conditioned phenomena are produced by the aggregation of causes and conditions, hence called 'made.' What is 'not made' refers to unconditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena are originally existing and eternal, not produced by the aggregation of causes and conditions, hence called 'not made.'" First, conditioned phenomena are refuted through three aspects: 1. Through deluded consciousness, there is discrimination, hence 'made' exists. But what is 'made' is ultimately nonexistent—it exists only as discrimination. Also, because there is an object perceived, there is a perceiver. Since the object does not exist, the perceiver also does not exist, hence "not made." 2. Because the root is nonexistent for conditioned phenomena. All dharmas originate from improper attention. Improper attention gives rise to various afflictions, afflictions give rise to various actions, and actions give rise to results. Improper attention arises from clinging to an external world that is fundamentally nonexistent, mistakenly clinging to it as real. Because the object does not exist, improper attention also does not exist. Since improper attention does not exist, the afflictions also do not exist. Because the afflictions do not exist, the actions also do not exist. Since the actions do not exist, the results also do not exist. Because their root is unreal, all conditioned phenomena are also unreal. 3. Through being unborn. This 'made' dharma does not depart from the two natures of discrimination and dependent origination. Since these two natures are originally without marks and unborn, what meaning of 'making' can there be? Therefore it is "not made." "Nor not-made"—this second clause refutes unconditioned phenomena. Since what is 'made' is conditioned, what is 'not made' is unconditioned. This unconditioned is also refuted through three aspects. Unconditioned phenomena also arise from deluded consciousness discrimination, hence there is this 'made.' But since deluded consciousness does not exist, 'not-made' also does not exist. Also, because deluded consciousness discriminates, hence there is 'made.' The name and essence are not truly existent, so it cannot be established. Since there is no 'made' dharma, 'not-made' also cannot exist. Originally, existence is defined in contrast to nonexistence—when existence is absent, then nonexistence is naturally absent. 2. Because the root is nonexistent, the 'made' serves as the root. If there were truly a 'made,' one could speak of 'not-made.' For example, if there is first an illness, then one can speak of recovery from illness. If the illness is fundamentally nonexistent, what recovery could there be? 3. Because dharmas are originally without marks and unborn, free from existence and nonexistence, they are originally neither 'made' nor 'not-made' either. "Nor not-made" below—the next two clauses refute unconditioned phenomena. The first clause, through three aspects, reveals unconditioned phenomena, hence saying "nor not-made"; the next clause, through three aspects, refutes conditioned phenomena, hence saying "nor made." The three aspects are no different from earlier—advancing and retreating, they ultimately do not depart from conditioned and unconditioned, hence there is no difference from the previous discussion. This reveals the inexpressible and non-dual meanings. Why give this brief response? First, for those of sharp faculties, a slight hearing enables them to awaken without needing extensive explanation; second, to break the pride of those with arrogant minds, allowing them to understand only after requesting further explanation upon first hearing. Above, we have presented Paramārtha's school to convey the scripture's meaning. The masters of this land largely agree with Paramārtha. Now, the Tang edition of the scripture says: "Herein, conditioned, not conditioned, not unconditioned; unconditioned, also not unconditioned, not conditioned." Interpretations of this scripture text vary. One interpretation says: "Herein, conditioned" refers to the imputed nature. Because what is imputed has no real dharma, it cannot be spoken of and has the non-dual characteristic. Since conditioned is already not conditioned, unconditioned is likewise. Because it is imputed, it cannot be spoken of as conditioned or unconditioned. Hence, the scripture below says: "Firmly clinging, determining that conditioned and unconditioned truly exist." Thus we know that both conditioned and unconditioned are imputed. Another interpretation says: "Herein, conditioned and unconditioned are both dependent-origination conditioned and unconditioned. Hence, the scripture below says: 'Only the mental images arising from discrimination exist.' To eliminate the imputed conditioned and unconditioned, this statement is made: 'Herein, conditioned, not conditioned, not unconditioned; unconditioned, also not unconditioned, not conditioned.'" Another interpretation says: "Herein, conditioned" refers to the various conditioned dharmas of the dependent nature. Saying "not conditioned, not unconditioned" means negating the imputed conditioned and unconditioned. The meaning here is that on the dependent nature, the true suchness revealed by eliminating the imputed conditioned and unconditioned natures is the ultimate truth. Just as it is said that on the dependent nature, the absence of imputed nature is the perfectly accomplished reality—one does not take the dependent nature itself as perfectly accomplished. Saying "unconditioned" refers to the perfectly accomplished reality, the inexpressible true suchness. Saying "also not unconditioned, not conditioned" means negating the imputed unconditioned and conditioned. The meaning here is that on the perfectly accomplished reality, the true suchness revealed by eliminating the imputed unconditioned and conditioned natures is the ultimate truth. Though there are three interpretations, let us rely on the third. As for the non-dual characteristic, there are many kinds that cannot be fully explained. Let us discuss only the non-dual characteristic of conditioned and unconditioned, where interpretations also differ. If the \*Collection of Discussions\* speaks of non-duality in terms of the absence of grasping the aggregates—not produced by afflictions and actions, hence cannot be called conditioned; appearing or not appearing according to wish, hence cannot be called unconditioned—then following the \*Compendium of the Great Vehicle\*, among the five characteristics of the Dharma Body,1. characteristic of the transformation of the basis, 2. characteristic of being accomplished by one's own dharmas, 3. characteristic of non-duality, 4. characteristic of permanence, 5. characteristic of inconceivability the third is non-duality. The treatise gives three meanings: 1. non-duality of existence and nonexistence, 2. non-duality of conditioned and unconditioned, 3. non-duality of being one nature or different natures. The characteristic of non-duality of conditioned and unconditioned means: because it is not acted upon by afflictions and actions, and because it freely manifests conditioned forms. What is said here is: it is not the imputed conditioned with arising and ceasing, nor the imputed unconditioned without arising and ceasing, hence saying "not conditioned, not unconditioned." This inexpressible non-dual essence is precisely true suchness. Therefore, the \*Sūtra of the Supreme\* states that the Thus-Come One's realm has five merits: 1. inexpressible characteristic, 2. non-dual characteristic, 3. characteristic beyond deliberation, 4. characteristic beyond one and different, 5. characteristic of single flavor in all places. Furthermore, it says: "Because all dharma stores are without change, it is called Thusness; because without inversion, it is called Reality; because beyond all characteristics, it is called Cessation; because it is the realm of noble ones' practice, without discrimination, it is called Ultimate Truth. Ānanda! This Thus-Come One's realm is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither defiled nor pure, intrinsically pure." This scripture below says: "The Buddha speaks of the profound meaning of being inexpressible and non-dual, which is not the domain of fools." Hence, we know that the inexpressible true suchness is the essence. Question: If so, how does one reconcile the statement in the \*Great Perfection Sūtra\*? In its thirty-second fascicle: "Subhūti asked the Buddha: 'What are existent dharmas? What are nonexistent dharmas?' The Buddha said: 'Duality is existent dharma; non-duality is nonexistent dharma.'" The \*Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\* (vol. 95) says: "Two dharmas are called having distinct characteristics; non-dual dharma is called one characteristic of emptiness. With this one characteristic of emptiness, it breaks the various distinct characteristics." Also, in the \*Great Perfection Sūtra\* (fascicle 39): "All dharmas are equal, namely, markless." Subhūti asked the Buddha: "This equality of dharmas—is it conditioned or unconditioned?" The Buddha said: "It is neither conditioned nor unconditioned. Why? Apart from conditioned dharmas, unconditioned dharmas cannot be obtained; apart from unconditioned dharmas, conditioned dharmas cannot be obtained. Subhūti! The nature of the conditioned and the nature of the unconditioned—these two dharmas neither combine nor separate,verify colorless and formless, one characteristic, namely markless." The Buddha spoke this from the perspective of worldly truth, not the ultimate truth. The details are explained there. Explanation: This ultimate truth has suchness as its essence. When it says "nonexistent," it is to eliminate imputations, hence saying "nonexistent"; in reality, it is not nonexistent. Hence, the scripture below says: "All dharmas lack self-nature" refers comprehensively to the three natures, saying "nonexistent" with hidden intent, not that they are truly completely nonexistent. This non-dual contemplation of all dharmas is precisely the contemplation of consciousness-only nature, or within the three natures, the contemplation of perfectly accomplished reality; within the three non-natures, the contemplation of the ultimate non-nature. Paramārtha's school says: it is the contemplation of the markless nature of discrimination, or the contemplation of the non-nature of dependent origination. Here, one should explain the non-dual dharma gate. The Eightfold Non-extremes and the Middle Way are explained elsewhere.
如理請問菩薩復問解甚深義密意菩薩言：
> The Bodhisattva Questioning Rightly then asked the Bodhisattva Unraveling the Profound Meaning:
釋曰：第三菩薩徵問。於中有二：初標問答者，後乘前徵問。此即初也。
> The commentary explains: In the third section, the bodhisattva poses a question. This section has two parts: first, it introduces the question and answer; second, it follows up with further inquiry. This is the first part.
最勝子！如何有為非有為非無為，無為亦非無為非有為？
> Supreme One! How is it that the conditioned is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and the unconditioned is likewise neither unconditioned nor conditioned?
釋曰：第二乘前徵。問：前文既言有為無為，依何義故而復說言有為非有為非無為、無為亦非無為非有為？此有何義？
> Explanation: The second vehicle responds to a previous question. In the earlier text, it was stated that there are conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. Why then, based on what meaning, does it again say that the conditioned is not conditioned and not unconditioned, and the unconditioned is likewise not unconditioned and not conditioned? What is the meaning of this?
解甚深義密意菩薩謂如理請問菩薩曰：
> The Bodhisattva who understands the profound meaning and hidden intent, called the Bodhisattva of Proper Inquiry, asked the Bodhisattva:
釋曰：自下第四廣釋，於中有二：初明說之由序，後依問正答。此即初也。
> Explanation: Now we move to the fourth section, which expands on the previous points. It consists of two parts: first, the context that introduces why this teaching is given; second, the direct answer to the question posed. What follows is the first part.
善男子！言有為者，乃是本師假施設句。
> Good man! What is called "conditioned" is merely a conventional expression taught by the original teacher.
釋曰：自下第二依問正答。於中有二：初釋有為無二相；後善男子！言無為者亦是本師下，釋無為無二相。前中有二：初遮三相；後然非無事下，釋外伏難示正道理。遮三相中文別有三：初遮有為；次善男子下，遮無為；後設離下，遮非有為非無為相。此即第一遮有為相。然釋此文，西方諸師三說不同。一云：此文唯依外道名為本師，謂劫初時外道本師假名安立有為諸法。若是外道假名安立，即是遍計所集言辭所說。若是遍計所集言辭所說，即是究竟遍計所執，非實有故。非是有為所集，即是所執異名。故廣百卷第十卷云：般若經中佛自分明判有無義，遍計所執所集所增所取常恒無變易法，如是一切皆名為無，因緣所生皆說為有。一云：此文皆是佛說，謂一切法皆離名言，而佛本師大慈悲力假說有為，此即如來後得智中遍計所集言辭所說，還是究竟遍計後得智所說故，非實有為，故作此言有為非有為也。真諦三藏大同此釋。一云：此文有其三節：初明有為是佛假說；次若是本師等者，辨異生等執假為實；後若是遍計等者，重辨非實結非有為。雖有三說，第三為勝，即說如來號為本師。故深密云：言有為者，唯是如來名字說法。解節經云：此是本師正教言說。又對法云：薄伽梵說一切諸法略有二種，所謂有為、無為。故知本師是如來也。理實無有當名實法，但如幻等非有似有，是故本師於離名言假說有為也。
> Commentary: Next, we address the question according to the proper sequence. This section has two parts: first, we explain the non-dual nature of conditioned phenomena; second, under "Good man! What is called the unconditioned is also the Fundamental Teacher," we explain the non-dual nature of the unconditioned. The first part has two sections: first, we refute the three characteristics; then, under "Yet this is not without substance," we resolve external objections and reveal the correct principle. The refutation of the three characteristics contains three points: first, refuting the conditioned; second, under "Good man," refuting the unconditioned; third, under "Even if one were to depart from," refuting the characteristic of being neither conditioned nor unconditioned. This is the first point, refuting the characteristic of the conditioned. In explaining this passage, Western masters have three different interpretations. One says: This passage refers solely to non-Buddhist teachers as the "Fundamental Teacher," meaning that at the beginning of the world-age, non-Buddhist teachers provisionally established names for conditioned phenomena. If it is a provisional name established by non-Buddhists, then it is the accumulation of conceptual construction expressed in words. If it is the accumulation of conceptual construction expressed in words, then it is ultimately the object of conceptual construction, which is not ultimately real. Therefore, it is not a collection of conditioned phenomena but rather another name for the object of attachment. Thus, the hundredth volume of the \*Great Compendium\* states: In the \*Perfection of Wisdom Sutra\*, the Buddha himself clearly distinguishes existence and non-existence. Whatever is accumulated, increased, and apprehended by conceptual construction, being constant and unchanging, is all called non-existent; whatever arises from causes and conditions is called existent. Another says: This passage is entirely the Buddha's teaching. All phenomena transcend words, yet the Buddha, as the Fundamental Teacher, out of great compassion, provisionally speaks of the conditioned. This is the conceptual construction in the Buddha's post-attainment wisdom, expressed in words. It is still ultimately the post-attainment wisdom's expression of conceptual construction, so it is not truly conditioned. Therefore, it is said that the conditioned is not conditioned. Master Paramārtha's interpretation largely agrees with this. Another says: This passage has three sections: first, it explains that the conditioned is the Buddha's provisional speech; second, under "If it is the Fundamental Teacher," it distinguishes how ordinary beings cling to the provisional as real; third, under "If it is conceptual construction," it reiterates that it is not real and concludes that it is not conditioned. Although there are three interpretations, the third is superior, for it identifies the Tathāgata as the Fundamental Teacher. Thus, the \*Samdhinirmocana Sutra\* says: What is called "conditioned" is solely the Tathāgata's teaching through names. The \*Explanation of the Sections Sutra\* says: This is the Fundamental Teacher's correct teaching and speech. Moreover, the \*Abhidharma\* says: The Bhagavān teaches that all phenomena have two kinds: the conditioned and the unconditioned. Therefore, we know the Fundamental Teacher is the Tathāgata. In reality, there is no actual thing corresponding to a name; it is like an illusion, appearing as existent while not truly so. Thus, the Fundamental Teacher provisionally speaks of the conditioned, which is beyond words.
若是本師假施設句，即是遍計所集言辭所說。
> If the phrases are artificially established by the teacher, they are merely expressions gathered from conceptual constructs and spoken in words.
釋曰：此即第二執假為實。若是如來假施設句，即諸有情遍計所集言辭所說，尋名所執即非實故，非是有為。
> This is the second attachment, regarding the mistaken belief that what is provisional is real. If it is a phrase provisionally designated as “Thus Come One,” then it is merely a collection of words that sentient beings universally imagine and speak of. What is grasped through clinging to the name is not ultimately real, nor is it conditioned.
若是遍計所集言辭所說，即是究竟；種種遍計言辭所說不成實故，非是有為。
> If what is expressed through conceptual imputation and words were ultimately real, then whatever is spoken of through various conceptual imputations would not fail to be true—yet it does. Therefore, such things are not truly existent, nor are they real conditioned phenomena.
釋曰：第三辨非實有，結非有為。此顯有情種種遍計執實有心，言辭所說不成實故，非是有為。三中第一遮有為說。
> Explanation: The third point clarifies that these are not ultimately real, and concludes that they are not conditioned phenomena. This reveals that sentient beings, through various false conceptualizations, cling to a truly existing mind, yet what is expressed in words does not correspond to reality, so it is not conditioned. Among the three, the first refutes the notion of conditioned phenomena.
善男子！言無為者亦墮言辭。
> Good man, what is called "the unconditioned" still falls within the realm of words and speech.
釋曰：第二遮無為法。謂無為法亦墮本師假說言辭，乃至不成實故，非是無為也。三師別釋，准上應知。
> Explanation: The second section refutes the concept of unconditioned dharmas. It states that unconditioned dharmas also fall under the Buddha's conventional teachings and words, and therefore, since they are not ultimately real, they cannot be considered truly unconditioned. The three teachers each provide their own interpretations, which should be understood according to the previous explanations.
設離有為、無為，少有所說，其相亦爾。
> If one sets aside the conditioned and the unconditioned, and speaks even a little, its characteristics are likewise the same.
釋曰：第三遮非有為非無為相。此遮犢子部計彼立五法藏義，所謂三世、無為及不可說法藏。彼所立我不可說為、有為、三世及無為、非世，故名非有為、非無為、非有為，如是名為少有所說。今破彼計，故言設離有為、無為少有所說，常住真我其相亦爾，墮名字故亦非實有。或可此文遮彼轉計未必有執。又智度論第二卷云：一切諸法略有三種：一者有為法、二者無為法、三者不可說法。
> Explanation: The third refutation addresses the claim that phenomena are neither conditioned nor unconditioned. This counters the Vātsīputrīya school's doctrine of five categories of dharmas, namely the three times (past, present, future), the unconditioned, and the inexpressible category. According to them, the self they posit cannot be described as conditioned, belonging to the three times, or unconditioned and beyond time. Hence, it is neither conditioned nor unconditioned. In this way, they make a limited assertion. Now, to refute this view, it is said that even if one posits a real self apart from conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, its nature is likewise—falling under conceptual labels, it is not ultimately real. Alternatively, this passage may simply counter their speculative notion without necessarily implying a fixed position. Furthermore, the \*Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom\* (Volume 2) states: "All dharmas can be briefly classified into three types: conditioned, unconditioned, and inexpressible."
然非無事而有所說。
> Yet it is not that, without any purpose, he speaks.
釋曰：自下第二釋通伏難示正道理。謂外疑難：若有為法即非有為及無為者，如來說言有為無為應無有事。事者體事解節經云：大師說教可無義不？深密經云：不空說事。於中有三：初標宗總答，次菩薩反結，後菩薩正說。此即第一標宗總答。謂佛所說有為無為者，雖無真實有為之法，然非無事而有所說。
> Explanation: Next, the second section clarifies doubts and reveals the correct principle. The external objection is: If conditioned things are neither truly conditioned nor unconditioned, then the Tathagata's teaching of "conditioned" and "unconditioned" would have no basis. "Basis" here means actual existenceThe Jie Jie Jing says: Can the Master's teachings be without meaning? The Shen Mi Jing says: He does not speak without foundation.. This section has three parts: first, stating the general principle; second, the Bodhisattva's concluding reflection; third, the Bodhisattva's proper explanation. This is the first part, stating the general principle. It means that although what the Buddha teaches as "conditioned" and "unconditioned" does not involve truly existing conditioned phenomena, it is not that he speaks without any foundation.
何等為事？
> What are the matters?
釋曰：第二菩薩反結。
> The second Bodhisattva concludes in reverse.
謂諸聖者以聖智聖見離名言故現正等覺，即於如是離言法性，為欲令他現等覺故，假立名想謂之有為。
> It is through their sacred wisdom and sacred vision, apart from words and concepts, that the noble ones realize perfect enlightenment. For the sake of helping others attain this same realization, they provisionally establish names and ideas, and speak of things as “conditioned.”
釋曰：第三菩薩正說，非無有事而有所說。所言聖者，俱舍論云：聖謂己有無漏聖道，遠諸惡法，故名為聖。正理論云：聖謂離縛，或遠眾惡，或善所趣，故名為聖。成實論云：能其泥洹，故名為勝。瑜伽論云：是善是無漏，故名為聖。言智見者，智是決斷義，見是推求義。謂無漏聖慧決斷推求，故名聖慧見也。智見二種合說意者，如智度論二十六云：問曰：解脫智見但言知即得，何以復言見？答曰：智見合說，事得牢固。譬如二繩合為一繩，則得堅牢。廣說如彼。若依世親、波若論意，現量聖智名為知見。若唯說知，謂以比智知；若但言見，謂是肉眼等見。知簡眼見，見簡比知，故知見合說也。今說智見，意同世親。問：此云智見，彼說知見，如何以知證智？解云：五分法身名字新舊不同，依智度論、大品經等名解脫知見，依顯揚等名解脫智見。又解節經名聖知聖見，今此經云聖智聖見，故知智見即知見也。然今釋此，非無有事而有所說，諸說不同。一、真諦記云：若說並非實有，大師所說皆無義耶？答：由不可言體實有，不可言體即真實義也。但有四義，故不可言：一、在真觀無分別智能念真理，爾時無有分別，故不可言；二、出真觀心雖有言說，不在真境，故不可言；三、若言說決定不離人、法及能取、所取、有為、無為，真理過此，故不可言；四者、真理但是證、至二量境界，非是比、信二量境界，故不可言。此意說云：非無實事，實事即是離言法性真如以為實事。為欲令他無分別智覺真如境，是故假說有為以顯實事也。一云：外疑非有為、無為便無有事，如何說言有為、無為？又復疑云：一切諸法皆離名言，何須假說？故作此通。然非無事而有所說，離言緣生法依此自覺，故非無事；為令他覺，故須假說。一云：外疑既無有為、無為便無有法，有何利事而說有為？故作此答。非無有事，事略有三：一、自覺事；二、覺他事；三者、為令他覺起言說事。一一事中皆有多義，不可具說。
> The commentary explains: Third, the bodhisattva's proper explanation—it is not that there is no substance behind the words. As for the term "noble," the \*Abhidharmakośa\* says: "Noble means one who already possesses the supramundane noble path and has turned away from all unwholesome dharmas; hence, called noble." The \*Nyāyānusāra\* says: "Noble means freed from bondage, or far from all evils, or directed toward the good; hence, called noble." The \*Satyasiddhi Śāstra\* says: "Able to reach nirvāṇa, hence called superior." The \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says: "Wholesome and supramundane, hence called noble." As for "wisdom and vision," wisdom means the quality of decisive judgment, and vision means the quality of penetrating investigation. That is, the supramundane noble wisdom both decisively judges and penetrates, hence called "noble wisdom-vision." Regarding why these two—wisdom and vision—are spoken together, the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra\* (chapter 26) asks: "For liberation wisdom-vision, why is it not enough to just say 'knowing'? Why also say 'seeing'?" It answers: "Wisdom and vision are spoken together so that the matter becomes firmly established. For example, two ropes twisted into one become strong." The details are as explained there. According to Vasubandhu and the \*Prajñāpāramitā Śāstra\* interpretation, direct perceptual noble wisdom is called "knowing and seeing." If one only says "knowing," it means knowing through inference; if one only says "seeing," it means seeing with the physical eye. "Knowing" distinguishes from ordinary eye-seeing, and "seeing" distinguishes from inferential knowing—hence, the two are spoken together. The present text says "wisdom and vision," and its intent is the same as Vasubandhu's. Question: This text says "wisdom and vision," while that text says "knowing and seeing"—how can "knowing" be used to prove "wisdom"? Explanation: The names of the five dharmas of the personality differ between old and new translations. According to the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra\* and the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra\*, it is called "liberation knowing and seeing"; according to the \*Saṃdhinirmocana\* and similar texts, it is called "liberation wisdom and vision." The \*Jie Jie Jing\* says "noble knowing, noble seeing," and the present sutra says "noble wisdom, noble vision"—hence, we know that "wisdom and vision" is the same as "knowing and seeing." Now, as for the explanation that it is not without substance that words are spoken, there are various interpretations. First, the \*Paramārtha\* commentary says: If one says all things are not ultimately real, then does the Great Teacher's speech have no meaning at all? Answer: Because the ineffable substance is truly real, the ineffable substance is precisely the ultimate meaning. There are four reasons why it is ineffable: (1) In true contemplation, the non-discriminating wisdom apprehends ultimate truth—at that time there is no discrimination, so it cannot be spoken; (2) after emerging from true contemplation, although there is speech, it no longer rests in the true realm, so it cannot be spoken; (3) if speech occurs, it cannot avoid involving persons, dharmas, subject, object, conditioned, unconditioned—but ultimate truth transcends all these, so it cannot be spoken; (4) ultimate truth is only an object of direct realization and accomplishment, not of inference or faith, so it cannot be spoken. The intent here is: It is not that there is no real substance; the real substance is the ineffable nature of dharmas—suchness—serving as the real foundation. In order to cause others' non-discriminating wisdom to awaken to the realm of suchness, one provisionally speaks of the conditioned to reveal the real substance. Another interpretation: An outsider doubts: If there is no conditioned or unconditioned, then there is no substance at all—so how can one speak of conditioned and unconditioned? Further doubt: All dharmas transcend words—why is provisional speech needed at all? This is the response to that. It is not that there is no substance behind the words; the ineffable dependent-originated dharmas are relied upon for self-realization, so there is no lack of substance. To help others realize, provisional speech is necessary. Another interpretation: An outsider doubts: Since there is no conditioned or unconditioned, there is no dharma at all—so what benefit is there in speaking of the conditioned? This is the answer. It is not that there is no substance. The substance, broadly speaking, has three aspects: (1) the matter of self-realization; (2) the matter of awakening others; (3) the matter of arising speech to awaken others. Within each of these, there are many facets that cannot be fully elaborated.
善男子！言無為者，亦是本師假施設句。
> Good man! What is called the unconditioned is also a phrase provisionally set up by the Original Teacher.
釋曰：自下第二釋無為無二相，於中有二：初歷三相，後然非無事下釋伏難示正道理。前中有三：初遮無為相，次善男子下遮有為相，後設離下釋非無為非有為相。此即第一遮無為相，於中有三：初明無為是假說，次依佛假說執為實有，後辨非實結非無為。此即初也。於中有二釋，准上應知。
> Explanation: From this point onward, the second section explains the non-dual nature of the unconditioned. It has two parts: first, it examines the three characteristics; second, starting from "however, this is not without purpose," it resolves potential objections and reveals the correct principle. The first part has three sections: first, it refutes the characteristic of the unconditioned; second, starting from "good men," it refutes the characteristic of the conditioned; third, starting from "even if one departs," it explains that it is neither unconditioned nor conditioned. This is the first section, refuting the characteristic of the unconditioned, which itself has three parts: first, it clarifies that the unconditioned is a conventional designation; second, following the Buddha's conventional teaching, some cling to it as real; third, it distinguishes that it is not real and concludes it is not the unconditioned. This is the first part. It contains two explanations, as should be understood from the above.
若是本師假施設句，即是遍計所集言辭所說。
> If the phrases are artificially established by the teacher, they are merely expressions gathered from conceptual constructs and spoken in words.
釋曰：此即第二依佛假說執為實有。
> The commentary explains: This refers to the second aspect, where one mistakenly regards what is merely a conventional designation based on the Buddha as inherently real.
若是遍計所集言辭所說，即是究竟；種種遍計言辭所說不成實故，非是無為。
> If what is spoken through conceptual labels were ultimate reality, then all these varied formulations would be the unconditioned. But since whatever is expressed through such constructs is not truly real, it cannot be the unconditioned.
釋曰：第三辨非實有結非無為。
> Explanation: Thirdly, we examine that what is formed is not truly existent and is not unconditioned.
善男子！言有為者亦墮言辭。
> Good man, what is called "conditioned" also falls into the realm of words and speech.
釋曰：第二遮有為相，准上應知。
> Explanation: The second point refutes the existence of conditioned characteristics. This should be understood in accordance with the above.
設離無為、有為，少有所說，其相亦爾。
> To say there is something apart from the unconditioned and the conditioned—any such claim is likewise merely a conceptual construct.
釋曰：第三遮非無為有為相。
> Explanation: The third \[argument\] refutes the idea that \[this\] is neither unconditioned nor possesses the characteristics of conditioned phenomena.
然非無事而有所說。
> Yet it is not that, without any purpose, he speaks.
釋曰：第二釋通伏難示正道理。於中有三：初標宗總答，次反詰，後正說。此即初也。
> Commentary: The second section addresses objections to clarify the correct principle. It consists of three parts: first, a general answer presenting the main point; second, a counter-question; and third, the formal explanation. This is the first part.
何等為事？
> What are the matters?
釋曰：第二反詰。
> The commentary says: This is the second refutation in the form of a counter-question.
謂諸聖者以聖智聖見離名言故現正等覺，即於如是離言法性，為欲令他現等覺故，假立名想謂之無為。
> The noble ones, through their sacred wisdom and insight, transcending words and concepts, realize perfect enlightenment. For the sake of helping others attain the same realization, they provisionally establish names and notions, referring to this reality beyond words as the "Unconditioned."
釋曰：此即第三菩薩正釋。文有兩節：初明諸聖離名言故取正等覺，後即於下為令他故假立名想。若具分別，准上可知。
> Commentary: This is the third section, where the bodhisattva gives the proper explanation. The text has two parts: first, it shows that all sages, being free from verbal distinctions, attain true enlightenment; second, it establishes names and concepts for the sake of others. As for detailed analysis, it can be understood according to the above.
爾時，如理請問菩薩摩訶薩，復問解甚深義密意菩薩摩訶薩言：
> At that time, the great bodhisattva Thus-inquiry asked the great bodhisattva Elucidating the Profound Meaning:
釋曰：自下第五重徵假說，於中有二：初徵問由序，後正徵問。此即第一辨問答者以為由序。
> Explanation: From this point onward, the fifth section re-examines the concept of provisional teaching. This section is divided into two parts: first, the introductory questioning; second, the actual questioning itself. This passage presents the first part, where the dialogue between question and answer serves as the introduction.
最勝子！如何此事，彼諸聖者以聖智聖見離名言故現正等覺，即於如是離言法性，為欲令他現等覺故假立名想，或謂有為或謂無為？
> Foremost of the noble ones! How is it that the saints, through their sacred wisdom and sacred vision, free from conceptual labels, awaken to perfect enlightenment—and yet, for the sake of helping others awaken, they provisionally establish names and ideas, speaking of the conditioned or the unconditioned?
釋曰：此即第二正設徵問，雖已廣說而未能了其喻何等。解節經文脫此徵問，譯家謬也，或可意存略故。
> Explanation: This is the second formal inquiry. Although it has been explained at length, the meaning of the metaphor remains unclear. The version of the sutra text in the "Commentary on the Stages" omits this inquiry, which is a translator's error, or perhaps intentional brevity.
解甚深義密意菩薩謂如理請問菩薩曰：
> The Bodhisattva who understands the profound meaning and hidden intent, called the Bodhisattva of Proper Inquiry, asked the Bodhisattva:
釋曰：自下第六舉喻重說。於中有二：初明說之由序，後依徵廣說。此即初也。
> Here is the translation: "Explanation: Next, the sixth section uses a simile to reiterate the teaching. This section has two parts: first, it explains the reasons for presenting this teaching; then, it provides a detailed explanation based on the inquiry. This is the first part."
善男子！如善幻師或彼弟子，住四衢道積集草葉、瓦礫等，現作種種幻化事業。
> Good man! Just as a skilled illusionist or their apprentice, standing at a crossroads, gathers grass, leaves, and stones, and then performs various magical illusions with them.
釋曰：自下第二依徵廣說，於中有三：初舉喻重說，次如是若有下舉法同喻，後如是善男子下結通外難。前中有三：初幻師幻事喻，次若諸眾生下愚者執實喻，後若有眾生下悟者覺妄喻。此即第一幻師幻事喻也。於中有二：初總明幻事，後所謂下別明幻事。前中有四：一明幻師，二顯幻處，三辨幻所依，四總明幻事。然此喻文意趣難了，故今先述真諦師說，後依諸教釋此經文。真諦記云：說喻意者，此譬眾生由妄顛倒種種分別，久在生死受諸苦報，不知幻本及不可言無二真如，執為實有。聖人明了，識此非真。凡夫不幻幻本，由有無知未得聖慧故。聖人了知幻本及無二不可言體，由斷無知得聖道故。幻師譬聰明凡夫，即是外道。幻弟子譬愚痴凡夫，即是闡提。又幻師喻煩惱，弟子喻業，由惑起業故。又幻師譬因，弟子譬果。於四衢道者，譬三界及無漏界四種生死，或譬根、塵、我、識四種境界。若依真諦金光明記，幻師即是阿賴耶識，無始已來能造虗妄。幻弟子者，喻七識也。微細妄法賴耶所造，中即陀那，麤者六識所造。又見惑為師，愛惑為弟子。又心煩惱為師，皮肉惑弟子。四衢道者，喻四謗之理。今依諸教釋此經者，所言幻師有其四釋：一、十住婆沙以業為師；二、瑜伽六十惑業為師；三、梁攝大乘、唐攝大乘及大品經菩薩為師；四、瑜伽八十四八識為師。言四衢道者有其三釋：一、增一阿含及雜阿含十五卷云四諦為四衢；二、雜阿含第二十等說四念處為四衢道；三、瑜伽八十四以四識住為四衢道也。言積集草葉木瓦礫等者，辨幻所依，謂喻諸種子積集在本識中也。或可三種薰習在賴耶中，草葉細軟譬於善種，木石等麤強喻諸惡種也。言現作種種幻化事業者，總明幻事由草葉等諸幻事起，由善惡種生諸果也。
> Explanation: Next, based on the questions raised, we elaborate in detail. This section has three parts: first, using an analogy to reiterate; second, from “if there are beings” onward, applying the analogy to the teaching; third, from “so, good man” onward, addressing external objections. The first part has three subsections: first, the analogy of the magician’s illusions; second, from “if all beings” onward, the analogy of the ignorant clinging to what is real; third, from “if there are beings” onward, the analogy of the wise recognizing what is illusory. Here, we begin with the first: the analogy of the magician’s illusions. This analogy has two parts: first, a general explanation of illusory acts; second, from “namely” onward, a detailed explanation of illusory acts. The general part has four points: first, clarifying the magician; second, showing the location of the illusions; third, explaining the basis of the illusions; fourth, summarizing the illusory acts. The meaning of this analogy is deeply nuanced, so I will first present the interpretation of Master Zhen Di, then explain the scripture according to various teachings. Master Zhen Di’s commentary states: The purpose of this analogy is to illustrate that beings, through delusion and inversion, engage in various discriminations, remaining long in the cycle of birth and death, experiencing suffering, unaware of the illusory basis and the inexpressible non-dual true suchness, clinging to it as real. The wise clearly understand that this is not real. Ordinary beings do not create the illusory basis because they lack awareness and have not attained holy wisdom. The wise comprehend the illusory basis and the inexpressible, non-dual essence by cutting off ignorance and attaining the holy path. The magician symbolizes clever ordinary beings, namely non-Buddhists. The magician’s disciple symbolizes foolish ordinary beings, namely those who lack faith. Alternatively, the magician represents afflictions, and the disciple represents karma—since delusion gives rise to actions. Again, the magician symbolizes the cause, and the disciple the result. The “four crossroads” symbolizes the three realms and the unconditioned realm—the four types of birth and death—or the four spheres of objects: sense organs, sense objects, self, and consciousness. According to Zhen Di’s commentary on the Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra, the magician represents the alaya consciousness, which since beginningless time creates illusions. The disciple symbolizes the seventh consciousness. Subtle delusions are produced by alaya, medium ones by manas, and coarse ones by the six consciousnesses. Furthermore, the affliction of views is the master, and the affliction of desire is the disciple. Likewise, mental afflictions are the master, and afflictions of body and skin are the disciples. The four crossroads symbolize the principle of the four erroneous views. Now, to explain this scripture according to various teachings: The term “magician” has four interpretations: 1. In the Dashabhumi-vibhasa, karma is the magician. 2. In the Yogacara-bhumi (Sixty), afflictions and karma are the magician. 3. In the Mahayana-samgraha (both Liang and Tang versions) and the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, the bodhisattva is the magician. 4. In the Yogacara-bhumi (Eighty-four), the eight consciousnesses are the magician. The “four crossroads” has three interpretations: 1. The Ekottara Agama and the Samyukta Agama (chapter 15) state that the four truths are the four crossroads. 2. The Samyukta Agama (chapter 20) states that the four foundations of mindfulness are the four crossroads. 3. The Yogacara-bhumi (Eighty-four) states that the four abodes of consciousness are the four crossroads. Regarding “gathering grass, leaves, wood, and pebbles,” this explains the basis of the illusions, illustrating that various seeds are accumulated in the fundamental consciousness. Alternatively, the three kinds of perfuming reside in alaya. Soft grass and leaves symbolize wholesome seeds, while hard wood and stones symbolize unwholesome seeds. The phrase “creating various illusory deeds” summarizes that illusions arise from such materials—that is, from wholesome and unwholesome seeds, various results arise.
所謂象身、車身、馬身、步身、末尼、真珠、瑠璃、螺貝、璧玉、珊瑚、種種財殻、庫藏等身。
> Bodies of elephants, chariots, horses, foot soldiers, and various treasures—pearls, lapis lazuli, conch shells, jade, coral—and all kinds of wealth and storehouses.
釋曰：第二、別明幻事，謂上總標現作種種幻化事業而不別釋，故今別釋。真諦釋云：四兵譬因緣，珠等喻果，由四兵故，能為珠等。或可四兵喻有情類，末尼等者喻非情類。總釋意云：賴耶幻師，七識弟子，住四識住，積集種種名言等種，而生三界、五趣、四生、情、非情等種種諸果。地前迷者，執有真實有為、無為種種諸法；地上悟者，覺知如幻無實諸法。而諸教中說業為幻師，四聖諦等為四衢者，凡論幻師有其三種：一、能造幻故，名為幻師，即惑、業等；二者、如幻故，名為幻師，即是菩薩；三、造幻主故，名為幻師，即八識也。今依第三，或可亦取惑、業，或可通說三種，義亦無失也。其四衢道亦有三義：一、除惑四道，即是四諦；二、初學所觀道，即四念處；三、幻主所住道，即四識住。今依第三，或可通取，義亦無失。
> Explanation: Now we look at the specific details of illusory manifestations. The general statement above merely lists various illusory deeds without explaining them in detail, so here we clarify them individually. According to the commentary on the True Meaning: the four types of armies symbolize causes and conditions, while items like pearls represent results — because of the four armies, pearls and other things can be produced. Alternatively, the four armies can represent sentient beings, while items like precious gems represent non-sentient things. The overall interpretation is this: the storehouse consciousness is the illusionist, the seven consciousnesses are its disciples, dwelling in the four bases of consciousness, accumulating various seeds of names and concepts, thereby producing the three realms, five paths of rebirth, four types of birth, and the many results of sentient and non-sentient beings. Those who are confused before the bodhisattva path cling to the reality of various conditioned and unconditioned phenomena; those who are awakened on the path perceive that all phenomena are illusory and lack true reality. In the teachings, when karma is said to be the illusionist and the four noble truths are compared to the four crossroads, generally the illusionist has three meanings: first, because one can create illusions, one is called the illusionist — this refers to delusion and karma; second, because one is illusory oneself, one is called the illusionist — this refers to bodhisattvas; third, because one is the master who creates illusions, one is called the illusionist — this refers to the eight consciousnesses. Here we follow the third interpretation, though we could also include delusion and karma, or broadly cover all three meanings — none would be wrong. The four crossroads likewise have three meanings: first, the four paths that remove delusion, which are the four noble truths; second, the path observed by beginning practitioners, which is the four foundations of mindfulness; third, the path where the illusion master dwells, which is the four bases of consciousness. Here we follow the third interpretation, though we could also broadly include all meanings — none would be wrong.
若諸眾生，愚痴頑鈍，惡慧種類，無所知曉，
> If sentient beings are foolish and stubborn, with dull and malicious intelligence, and understand nothing,
釋曰：自下第三、愚者執實喻。於中有五：一、明能執人；二、顯所執境；三、正辨起執；四、依執起說；五、勸彼重觀。此即第一、明能執人，謂諸愚夫五蘊假者。真諦記云：愚痴凡夫者，嬰兒凡夫，即是闡提。惡慧種類者，聰明凡夫，即是外道能起見者。今解：愚痴者，出無明體；頑鈍者，顯痴用也。此即起執本也。惡慧出執體性，即是諸見無所知曉者，惡慧用也。此明由痴執為實有，有為、無為也。
> Explanation: Now, the third section: the simile of the foolish person who clings to what is real. This section has five parts: first, clarifying who does the clinging; second, showing what is clung to; third, properly explaining how the clinging arises; fourth, describing what is said based on that clinging; and fifth, urging them to look again more carefully. This is the first part, clarifying who does the clinging—namely, all ordinary foolish beings, who are merely the temporary combination of the five aggregates. According to the \*True Meaning Record\*, "Foolish ordinary beings" refers to those like infants, that is, the \*icchantikas\* (those who lack faith). "Those with evil views" refers to clever ordinary beings, that is, non-Buddhists who can generate wrong views. My interpretation: "Foolish" points to the very essence of ignorance; "dull and stubborn" reveals how that ignorance functions. This is the root of all clinging. "Evil views" indicates the nature of such clinging—that is, all kinds of wrong views, and "those who know nothing" describes how these views operate. This clarifies that it is due to ignorance that one clings to what is conditioned and unconditioned as ultimately real.
於草葉木，瓦礫等上，諸幻化事，
> In blades of grass, in trees, in broken tiles and stones, all these are magical illusions.
釋曰：第二辨所執境，謂草葉等喻善惡業，諸幻化事喻業所感或識所變種種諸事。
> Explanation: The second section clarifies the objects of attachment. It uses examples like grass and leaves to illustrate good and bad karma, while various illusory phenomena represent the many things produced by karma or shaped by consciousness.
見已聞已，作如是念：此所見者，實有象身，實有馬身、車身、步身，末尼、真珠、瑠璃、螺貝、壁玉、珊瑚、種種財糓、庫藏身。
> Having seen and heard, one thinks thus: "What is seen truly has the form of an elephant, truly has the form of a horse, a chariot, or foot soldiers; truly has the forms of various treasures—pearls, gems, crystal, conch shells, jade, coral—and abundant wealth, grain, and storehouses."
釋曰：第三、正明起執，謂由無明起分別見，執實有象等。真諦記云：見已者，謂自見，即是幻師，喻聰明凡夫。聞已，謂從他聞，即是弟子，喻愚痴凡夫。
> Explanation: Third, clarifying the arising of attachment—this refers to how ignorance gives rise to discriminative views, leading one to cling to the reality of elephants and such. According to the True Meaning Commentary: "Having seen" means seeing for oneself, referring to the illusionist, symbolizing the clever ordinary person. "Having heard" means hearing from others, referring to the disciple, symbolizing the ignorant ordinary person.
如其所見，如其所聞，堅固執著，隨起言說，唯此諦實，餘皆愚妄。
> What they see, what they hear, they cling to firmly, and then speak of it, insisting, “Only this is true; all else is false.”
釋曰：第四因執起說，謂不知幻故執為實。有餘人云：不是實者，皆是愚人及以妄語。
> Explanation: The fourth cause for attachment to views is stated as follows—because of not understanding illusion, one clings to what is false as real. Some others say: whatever is not real is all the work of fools and liars.
彼於後時，應更觀察。
> In a later time, he should observe this again.
釋曰：第五勸彼更觀。由彼頑鈍不知是幻執為實有，於後幻滅更審觀察乃知非實。
> The commentary explains: The fifth instruction encourages him to observe further. Because he is dull and stubborn, not realizing that this is an illusion, he clings to it as real. Later, when the illusion fades, he examines it more carefully and then understands it is not real.
若有眾生，非愚非鈍，善慧種類，有所知曉，
> If there are beings who are neither foolish nor dull, who are of a wise and discerning nature and possess understanding,
釋曰：自下第三、悟者覺妄喻。有其五段，翻上應知：一、能悟人；二、所悟境；三、正明覺悟；四、因悟起說；五、勸不重觀。此即第一、明能悟人。文有三節：一、若有眾生者，辨能悟人，謂地前菩薩，或可地上菩薩五蘊假者；二、非愚非鈍者，起悟近緣，謂無痴善根；三、善慧種類有所知曉者，正明悟體以慧為性。此喻地前加行位中分證能取、所取空性，或可地上了知勝義無二之理，名知曉也。
> Explanation: The commentary says: From here onward, the third section explains the simile of the awakened one perceiving delusion. It consists of five parts, mirroring the earlier arrangement: 1) the one who awakens; 2) the object of awakening; 3) the actual realization of awakening; 4) arising speech due to awakening; 5) advising against revisiting illusions. This is the first part, clarifying the one who awakens. The text has three sections: 1) "If there are beings" describes the one who awakens, referring to bodhisattvas before the ground, or possibly the five aggregates' provisional self of bodhisattvas on the ground; 2) "not foolish nor dull" indicates the proximate condition for awakening, namely the root of non-delusion; 3) "of the wise lineage with discernment" directly clarifies the essence of awakening, with wisdom as its nature. This simile represents, in the preparatory stage before the ground, the partial realization of the emptiness of the perceiver and the perceived, or on the ground, the understanding of the non-dual ultimate truth, which is called discernment.
於草葉木，瓦礫等上，諸幻化事，
> In blades of grass, in trees, in broken tiles and stones, all these are magical illusions.
釋曰：第二明所悟境，如文可知。
> The commentary explains: The second \[section\] clarifies the object of enlightenment, as understood from the text.
見已聞已，作如是念：此所見者，無實象身，無實馬身、車身、步身，末尼、真珠、瑠璃、螺貝、璧玉、珊瑚、種種財糓、庫藏等身。
> Having seen and heard this, one would think: What has been seen here is not a real elephant, not a real horse, chariot, or infantry, nor is it real precious gems, pearls, crystal, conch shells, jade, coral, or various treasures and grains stored in warehouses.
釋曰：第三正明覺悟，於中有二：初明實境非有，後然有下明假境非無。此即第一實境非有，如文可知。
> Commentary: The third section directly clarifies awakening. Within it, there are two parts: first, it explains that true reality is not existent; then, starting with the phrase "however, there is," it explains that conventional reality is not non-existent. This first part deals with true reality being non-existent, as is clear from the passage.
然有幻狀迷惑眼事，於中發起大象身想，或大象身差別之想，乃至發起種種財糓庫藏等想，或彼種類差別之想。
> Yet there are illusory forms that beguile the eye, giving rise to thoughts of a great elephant's body, or thoughts of its various parts—even thoughts of abundant wealth, grain, and treasuries, or thoughts of their varied kinds.
釋曰：第二、明假境非無，文有二節：初言然有幻狀迷惑眼事者，正明似境非無；後於中下，示迷惑之相。此即初也。然此幻狀，諸宗不同。薩婆多宗順正理云：如變化色，由定力故，雖是化色，而是實色，是眼識境。如是由幻術力，似幻相起，能發眼識。彼宗自說一切諸心皆緣有境。依經部宗，幻象、馬等皆無有體，緣幻之心緣無境起，故知彼宗緣無亦生心也。今依大乘，自有兩說：一、依龍猛宗，意同經部，緣無亦得生心。故智度論云：五識皆不可誑。故知彼宗眼等五識唯緣實境。第六意識容許緣無。依彌勤宗，無實象等，而有似象相分現前，用此影像色為所緣境。又此幻象喻自有二義：一、依大般若等幻等十喻，喻於空義；二、依阿毗達磨經及攝大乘八喻，顯依他似有非實。此經亦爾，用似義喻依他起。言於中發起大象身想等者，示迷惑相。於中有二：初、大象身想者，迷象自性，總辨象體，名為自相。於中大、小或青、白等，名差別相。是故迷者起二種想。言乃至等者，類釋馬等總、別二想，准上應知。
> Explanation: Secondly, clarifying that the illusory realm is not non-existent. This section has two parts: first, the statement that "illusory forms delude the eyes" directly clarifies that apparent objects are not non-existent; later, it shows the nature of delusion. This is the first part. However, views on these illusory forms differ among various schools. The Sarvāstivāda school, according to the \*Nyāyānusāra\*, says: Like transformation illusions created by meditative power—although they are illusory forms, they are still real forms and objects of eye consciousness. Similarly, through the power of illusion techniques, illusion-like forms arise and can trigger eye consciousness. This school holds that all minds perceive existing objects. According to the Sautrāntika school, illusory elephants, horses, and so forth have no real essence; the mind perceiving illusions arises with non-existent objects. Thus, this school maintains that mind can arise even with non-existent objects. Now, according to the Mahāyāna, there are two interpretations: First, following Nāgārjuna's school, its view aligns with the Sautrāntika—that mind can arise with non-existent objects. Hence, the \*Great Prajñāpāramitā Śāstra\* says: The five consciousnesses cannot be deceived. Therefore, this school holds that the eye and other four consciousnesses only perceive real objects, while the sixth consciousness may perceive non-existent objects. Second, following Maitreya's school, there are no real elephants, yet appearance-like elephant images manifest before the mind, and these image forms serve as the perceived objects. Moreover, this illusion-elephant metaphor has two meanings: First, according to the \*Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra\* and similar texts, the ten metaphors including illusion illustrate emptiness; second, according to the \*Abhidharma Sūtra\* and the \*Compendium of the Mahāyāna\*'s eight metaphors, it illustrates that dependent nature is appearance-like and not real. This sūtra likewise uses the "appearance-like" meaning to illustrate dependent nature. The statement "therein, the notion of a great elephant body arises" shows the nature of delusion. This has two parts: First, the "notion of a great elephant body" refers to delusion about the elephant's own nature—grasping the general characteristic of the elephant's body, called self-characteristic. Within this, "great" or "small," "blue" or "white," and so forth are called distinguishing characteristics. Therefore, deluded beings develop two kinds of notions. The phrase "and so forth" similarly explains that regarding horses and other objects, the general and specific notions should be understood in the same way.
不如所見，不如所聞，堅固執著，隨起言說，唯此諦實，餘皆愚妄。為欲表知如是義故，亦於此中隨起言說。
> What one sees is not as it seems, what one hears is not as it seems. Clinging stubbornly to these perceptions, one speaks accordingly, insisting, "Only this is true; all else is foolishness." To express this meaning, words are also spoken here.
釋曰：第四因悟起說，有其二義：一由智力，悟境非實，不起實言；二為欲下，由智力故，悟境是假，隨起言說。
> Commentary: The fourth point concerns how awakening gives rise to speech, and it has two aspects: first, through the power of wisdom, one realizes that the perceived world is not ultimately real, and thus does not speak of it as real; second, as indicated by the phrase "for the sake of those below," through the power of wisdom, one recognizes that the perceived world is conventional, and accordingly engages in speech for the benefit of others.
彼於後時，不須觀察。
> In later times, there is no need for further examination.
釋曰：第五勸不觀，謂由智力如實知故。
> Explanation: The fifth encouragement is against contemplation, because the power of wisdom perceives reality as it is.
如是，若有眾生是凡夫類、是異生類，未得諸聖出世間慧。
> So it is, that when there are beings of ordinary nature, beings yet unawakened, who have not attained the transcendent wisdom of the sages.
釋曰：自下第二舉法同喻。於中有二：初明迷者執實；後若有下，辨悟者覺妄。前中有五：一明能執人，二明於境不了，三正明起執，四因執起說，五勸彼重觀。此即第一合能執人。言如是者，舉法如喻，故言如是。此能執人有其三名：一名眾生，二名愚夫，三名異生。言眾生者，略有二義：一者眾多法生，故名眾生。故智度論第三十云：言眾生者，於五眾、十二入、十八界、六界、十二緣等眾多法生，故名眾生。大乘同性經、證契經、梁攝論第十四大意亦同。二者受多生故，名曰眾生。故般若灯論云：謂有情者，數數受生，故名眾生。又真諦波若疏云：以前生後生生不絕，故名眾生。若爾，亦有前後滅義，應名眾滅。答：非一例，生成眾生，滅非成故。廣說如彼。言愚夫者，愚謂愚痴，夫謂士夫。有愚之夫，故名愚夫。若依廣百論，愚夫即是異生。故彼論云：諸異生者，說名愚夫。又第一云：隨所有見，皆無諦實，智不清白，故名愚夫。言異生者，依大婆沙四十五云：問：何名異生？答：一切聖者皆名同生。此異於彼，故名異生。問：若爾，聖者異異生故，應名異生？答：一切聖者同會真理，同見同欲，故名同生。異生不爾，可厭賤故，立異生名，不應為難。大德說曰：異於正法及毗奈耶而受生故，名為異生。廣說如彼。此意說云：諸異生類未得三乘無漏聖道，或可未得初地已上諸聖道故，起實有執。
> Explanation: The commentary says: Next, the second point uses a simile to illustrate the Dharma. This has two parts: first, it explains how the deluded cling to what is real; second, starting with "if there are," it clarifies how the awakened perceive illusion. The first part has five sections: first, identifying the one who grasps; second, showing the failure to understand the object; third, directly describing the arising of attachment; fourth, explaining how attachment leads to speech; and fifth, urging them to observe again. This is the first section, matching the one who grasps. The phrase "thus" points to the Dharma being like the simile, hence it is said "thus." This grasping person has three names: "being," "fool," and "ordinary person." Regarding "being," there are briefly two meanings: First, many dharmas arise, hence the name "being." Thus, in the Commentary on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, volume 30, it says: "What is called a being refers to the many dharmas arising in the five aggregates, twelve sense bases, eighteen elements, six elements, twelve links of dependent origination, etc., hence the name 'being.'" The meaning is the same in the Mahayana Sutra of Equality, the Sutra of Realization, and the Summary of the Great Vehicle, volume 14. Second, undergoing many births, hence the name "being." Thus, the Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā says: "Sentient beings, being born again and again, are called 'beings.'" Also, Paramārtha's Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā says: "Because previous births and later births continue without end, they are called 'beings.'" If so, there is also the meaning of previous and later cessation—should they be called "ceasing beings"? Answer: This is not the same case, for birth constitutes a being, while cessation does not constitute a being. For a detailed explanation, see there. Regarding "fool," "foolish" means ignorance, and "man" means a person. A person with ignorance is called a "fool." According to the Extensive Hundred Treatises, a fool is the same as an ordinary person. That treatise says: "All ordinary persons are called fools." Also, in the first chapter: "Whatever views they hold, none are true reality; their wisdom is not clear, hence they are called fools." Regarding "ordinary person," according to the Great Commentary on the Abhidharma, volume 45: "Question: Why are they called ordinary persons? Answer: All noble ones are called 'same-born.' These are different from them, hence called ordinary persons. Question: If so, since noble ones are different from ordinary persons, should they also be called ordinary persons? Answer: All noble ones share the same truth, see the same, and desire the same, hence they are called 'same-born.' Ordinary persons are not like this. Because they are worthy of disdain, they are given the name 'ordinary person.' This is not a valid objection. The Elder says: Because they are born apart from the true Dharma and the monastic code, they are called ordinary persons." For a detailed explanation, see there. The meaning here is: All ordinary beings, not yet having attained the noble path of the three vehicles that transcends the world, or perhaps not yet having attained the noble path from the first bhumi onward, thus cling to what is real as existing.
於一切法，離言法性，不能了知，
> Regarding all phenomena, they fail to understand that their true nature lies beyond words and concepts.
釋曰：第二於境不了言，於一切法離。言法性者，即是一切有為無為諸法自相，離名言故。或可有為無為無二真如名為離言，於此法性不能了知。
> Explanation: The second point concerns failing to understand the nature of reality through words. All phenomena are free from conceptual descriptions. The "nature of phenomena" refers to the intrinsic characteristics of all conditioned and unconditioned things, which lie beyond words and concepts. Alternatively, it may refer to the non-dual suchness that encompasses both the conditioned and the unconditioned, called "beyond speech," which cannot be comprehended through this nature.
彼於一切有為、無為，見已、聞已，作如是念：此所得者，決定實有有為、無為。
> Having seen and heard all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, one may think: "What is obtained here is certainly real—both the conditioned and the unconditioned."
釋曰：第三正明起執，謂諸愚夫以不了知法性理故，於有為等執為實有，如執象等。
> Explanation: The third point clarifies how attachment arises. Because ordinary beings fail to understand the true nature of reality, they cling to conditioned things as if they were ultimately real—just as someone might mistake a rope for a snake or a mirage for water.
如其所見，如其所聞，堅固執著，隨起言說，唯此諦實，餘皆痴妄。
> Based on what they see and hear, they cling stubbornly, asserting their words, claiming "only this is true, all else is delusion."
釋曰：第四隨執起說，准上應知。
> Explanation: The fourth is that attachment arises and then speaking occurs—this should be understood according to the above.
彼於後時，應更觀察。
> In a later time, he should observe this again.
釋曰：第五勸彼重觀，以未能覺非實義故。
> Explanation: The fifth teaching encourages one to observe again, because one has yet to realize that things are not real in essence.
若有眾生非愚夫類，已見聖諦，已得諸聖出世間慧。
> If there are beings who are not among the foolish, who have already seen the noble truths, and have already attained the supramundane wisdom of the saints.
釋曰：自下第二辨其悟者覺境非實。於中有五：一明悟人、二明覺境、三明覺相、四明起說、五勸不重觀。此即第一明能悟人。言若有眾生非愚夫類者，簡異地前愚夫異生。已見聖諦、已得諸聖出世間慧者，正出覺體，已見勝義真如聖諦。或可已見四諦真如、已得諸聖出世間慧者，即是正體，後得無漏聖智。依成唯識，二復次釋出世間智唯是正體。初約一義，後明二義，故第九云：斷世間故名出世間。二取隨眠是世間本，唯能斷獨得出名。或出世間依二義立，謂體無漏及證真如。此智具斯二種義故，獨名出世間。餘智不然，即十地中無分別智。
> Explanation: Next, the second section clarifies that those who have awakened perceive objects as not ultimately real. This section has five parts: first, identifying who is awakened; second, clarifying what is perceived; third, clarifying the nature of perception; fourth, explaining how they teach; and fifth, advising against repeated contemplation. This first part identifies the one who awakens. When it says, "If there are beings who are not like ordinary fools," it distinguishes them from ordinary beings before the path of insight, who are still foolish. "They have already seen the noble truths and already attained the supramundane wisdom of the noble ones" points to the core of awakening—they have directly seen the ultimate truth, the suchness of reality. Alternatively, "they have already seen the suchness of the four truths and attained the supramundane wisdom of the noble ones" refers to both the fundamental and subsequent forms of undefiled wisdom. According to the \*Cheng Weishi Lun\*, there are two explanations for why supramundane wisdom is considered solely fundamental. The first is based on one meaning—that it alone transcends the world by cutting off its roots. The second explains it through two aspects: the wisdom is undefiled by nature and it directly realizes suchness. Since this wisdom embodies both of these characteristics, it alone is called "supramundane." Other forms of wisdom do not fully qualify. This refers to the non-conceptual wisdom attained on the ten bodhisattva grounds.
於一切法，離言法性，如實了知，
> Regarding all phenomena, one truly understands that their true nature lies beyond words and concepts.
釋曰：第二如實覺境，已得出世無漏智故。
> Commentary: Second, the true realization of reality is attained because one has already achieved the supramundane wisdom free from defilements.
彼於一切有為、無為，見已、聞已，作如是念：此所得者，決定無實有為、無為。
> Having seen and heard all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, one reflects: "What is obtained here is truly without substance—whether conditioned or unconditioned."
釋曰：第三正明覺悟，於中有二：初覺實境非有，後然有下悟假境非無。此即初也。若依真諦師，如前所說三種義故，一切有為及無為法皆非實有。若依大唐三藏，約此執性以顯非實。
> The commentary explains: The third section clarifies enlightenment, which consists of two parts: first, realizing that actual reality is non-existent; second, understanding that conventional reality is not nothing. This is the first part. According to Master Zhendi, based on the three principles explained above, all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not truly existent. According to Great Tang Master Xuanzang, this refers to the nature of attachment, showing that things are not ultimately real.
然有分別所起行相，猶如幻事迷惑覺慧，於中發起為無為想，或為無為差別之想。
> Yet distinctions give rise to mental images, which, like illusions, delude the understanding, leading one to form concepts of the conditioned or the unconditioned, or to imagine differences within the unconditioned.
釋曰：第二明假境非無，文有兩節：初明假境非無，後於中下明其假境自性差別。言行相者，行謂見分能緣行解，相即相分有為無為，此明依他相分所攝有為無為假有非無猶如幻事。後於中發起等者，明其假境自性差別二種相也。言為無為想者，出自性想緣自性故。或謂為無為差別之想者，辨差別想緣差別故。
> Explanation: The second section clarifies that provisional objects are not nonexistent. This part has two divisions: first, it clarifies that provisional objects are not nonexistent; second, it explains the distinctions in the intrinsic nature of these provisional objects. "Mental marks" refers to the perceiving aspect that actively cognizes, while "marks" refers to the perceived objects, which include both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. This indicates that the provisional objects, subsumed under the dependent nature, encompassing conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, exist as provisional realities and are not nonexistent—just like magical illusions. Next, the phrase "arising from within" and so forth clarifies the two kinds of marks regarding the distinctions in the intrinsic nature of provisional objects. The notion of "conditioned and unconditioned" pertains to the intrinsic nature, as such cognition is based on intrinsic nature. Alternatively, the notion of "distinctions between conditioned and unconditioned" pertains to differentiating marks, as such cognition is based on distinctions.
不如所見，不如所聞，堅固執著，隨起言說，唯此諦實，餘皆痴妄。為欲表知，如是義故，亦於此中，隨起言說。
> What one sees is not truly as it appears; what one hears is not truly as it sounds. Clinging stubbornly to these perceptions, one generates speech and labels, believing, "Only this is true; all else is delusion." Yet, in order to convey this very meaning, one also relies on words and expressions here.
釋曰：第四依境起說，准上應知。
> Explanation: The fourth \[point\] is that teachings arise based on the context (or level of understanding), as should be understood from the above.
彼於後時，不須觀察。
> In later times, there is no need for further examination.
釋曰：第五勸不重觀，已了知故。
> The commentary states: The fifth encouragement is about not repeatedly observing what has already been fully understood.
如是，善男子！彼諸聖者於此事中，以聖智、聖見離名言故，現正等覺。即於如是離言法性，為欲令他現等覺故，假立名想，謂之有為、謂之無為。
> Thus, good man, in this matter, the noble ones, through their sacred wisdom and sacred vision, transcend conceptual naming and directly realize full enlightenment. And in this same reality, which is free from words and labels, they provisionally establish names and notions—calling it the conditioned and the unconditioned—so that others may also awaken to this truth.
釋曰：此即第三結通外難。難及通意，尋上可知。
> Explanation: This is the third section, which resolves external objections. The objections and their resolutions can be understood by referring to the earlier text.
爾時，解甚深義密意菩薩摩訶薩欲重宣此義而說頌曰：
> At that time, the great bodhisattva who understood the profound meaning and secret intent wished to reiterate this teaching and spoke these verses:
釋曰：就無二相，文別有二：初長行廣釋，後以頌略說。廣釋已訖，自下第二以頌略說。於中有二：初總標頌意，後以頌正說。此即初也。密意菩薩為欲重宣無二義故，說此頌也。言重宣者，真諦釋云：有其四句：一、文重義不重，如說瞿名目九義等；二、義重文不重，如說帝釋有千名等；三、文義俱不重，如說人天等；四、文義俱重，如以結頌重頌前義。今依第四，故說重言。舊人相傳，但說三句，略下不說此第三一句。又釋十二部經，頌有二種：一者應頌，二者諷頌。故雜集論第十一云：應頌者，即諸經中或以頌重頌。又不了義經應更頌釋，故名應頌。諷頌者，謂諸經中以句宣說，或以二句，或三或四，或五或六。今依應頌，故說重言。所言頌者，深密解節皆說偈言。舊來諸師自有兩釋：一云偈者，梵音伽陀，此云重頌，而翻譯者為存略故，或音訛故，但言偈也。一云偈者，此即漢語，竭也，盡也。四句成頌，攝義同盡，故言偈也。不爾，梵音正是伽陀，即應言伽，不應名偈。雖有兩釋，前說為正。西方諸國語音不同，中印度國名為伽陀，餘處名伽他，乃至于闐國名為偈他。譯家略故，但言偈也。然說偈意，依真諦略有六意：一、為忘失；二、為晚來；三、為易受易持；四、為二智利鈍不同；五、為眾生意樂不等；六、顯能說之人善巧方便。故真諦疏云：為有聽眾散亂異緣，忘失前義，欲令更得，故說偈頌。又為晚來不及聞者，欲令得聞，故有偈頌。又為易受易持故，說經及偈。若但說偈不說經者，則理細難受；若但說經不說偈者，則義散難持。為易受易持故，具說經偈。又為利益二種智人具說經偈：一、分別智人，此人根鈍，若為略說，不廣分別，不能得義。為利此人，故廣說經。二者、開智人，神根利故，略說義相，自能分別，得具足解。如舍利弗正聞一義，十重分別，若其廣說，不利此人。為利鈍二人具說經偈也。又眾生有二種：一者、樂說，由慈悲力多故；二者、樂行，由心寂靜故。為利此兩人，故說經偈。又顯能說之人最為善巧，廣而能略，略能廣故，所說正法最為當忠。隨廣略說，皆能利鈍不相違故，具說經偈也。依成實論第二卷中說偈有六意，依十住婆沙有一意，恐繁不述。
> The commentary explains: With regard to the aspect of "non-duality," the text is divided into two parts. First, there is a detailed explanation in prose; second, a concise summary in verse. The prose explanation has already been completed. Now, moving to the second part, the verse summary, which itself has two sections: first, a general introduction to the meaning of the verse; second, the actual verse itself. This is the introductory part. The Bodhisattva, with hidden intent, wished to reiterate the meaning of non-duality, and therefore spoke this verse. Regarding the term "reiterate" (chóng xuān), the true meaning, according to Paramārtha, involves four cases: 1. The words are repeated but the meaning is not, such as when the name "Gautama" refers to nine meanings; 2. The meaning is repeated but the words are not, such as when "Indra" has a thousand names; 3. Neither the words nor the meaning are repeated, such as when speaking of "humans and devas"; 4. Both the words and the meaning are repeated, as when a verse repeats what was previously explained. Here, we follow the fourth case, hence the term "reiteration." Previously, some teachers transmitted only three cases, omitting this third one. Furthermore, in explaining the twelvefold scriptures, there are two types of verses: 1. "Corresponding verses" (geya), which repeat the prose in verse form. As the \*Saṃyuktābhidharma-śāstra\* (Chapter 11) states, "Corresponding verses are those in the scriptures where a verse re-states what was said before." Also, for teachings that are not fully clear, further verse explanation is given, hence the name. 2. "Standalone verses" (gāthā), which are verses that convey teachings independently, whether in two, three, four, five, or six lines. Here, we follow the "corresponding verse" type, hence the term "reiteration." Regarding the term "verse" (sòng), both the \*Saṃdhinirmocana\* and \*Jie Jie\* texts refer to it as "gāthā." Older teachers have offered two interpretations: One says "gāthā" is the Sanskrit term for "repeated verse," and translators, for the sake of brevity or due to pronunciation variations, simply used the word "verse" (jì). Another says "jì" is a Chinese term meaning "to exhaust" or "to complete," as a four-line verse encapsulates the meaning fully, hence the term. If not, the correct Sanskrit term would be "gāthā," and one should say "gā" rather than "jì." Although there are two interpretations, the former is considered correct. In various Western lands, pronunciations differ: in central India, it is called "gāthā," elsewhere "gāthā," and even in Khotan, it is called "jìtā." Translators, for brevity, simply used "jì." According to Paramārtha, there are six purposes for speaking verses: 1. To prevent loss of memory; 2. To accommodate those who arrive late; 3. For ease of understanding and retention; 4. To suit the differing capacities of sharp and dull wisdom; 5. To satisfy the varying preferences of sentient beings; 6. To demonstrate the skillful means of the speaker. Paramārtha's commentary explains: - Because some listeners are distracted by various conditions and forget what was previously taught, verses are spoken so they can regain the meaning. - For those who arrive late and missed the earlier teaching, verses allow them to hear it. - For ease of understanding and retention, both prose and verse are given. If only verses were spoken without prose, the meaning would be too subtle to grasp; if only prose without verses, the meaning would be scattered and hard to retain. Hence, both are provided. - To benefit two types of wise beings, both prose and verse are given: 1. Those with analytical wisdom, who are dull in faculties—if the teaching is too brief without detailed explanation, they cannot grasp the meaning. For them, extensive prose is given. 2. Those with intuitive wisdom, who are sharp—by briefly stating the meaning, they can discern and understand fully on their own. As Shariputra, upon hearing a single point, could analyze it in ten ways; extensive explanation would not benefit such a person. Thus, to benefit both dull and sharp beings, prose and verse are both given. - There are also two kinds of beings: those who delight in preaching, due to strong compassion, and those who delight in practice, due to mental tranquility. To benefit both, prose and verse are given. - This also reveals that the speaker is supremely skillful—able to expand and condense, to condense and expand—so that the teachings are most appropriate. Whether spoken extensively or briefly, they benefit both sharp and dull faculties without contradiction. Hence, both prose and verse are given. According to the \*Satyasiddhi-śāstra\*, Volume 2, there are six purposes for verses, and the \*Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā\* mentions one purpose; to avoid excessive detail, these are not elaborated here.
佛說離言無二義，甚深非愚之所行，愚夫於此痴所惑，樂著二依言戲論。彼或不定或邪定，流轉極長生死苦，復違如正智論，當生牛羊等類中。
> The Buddha teaches that the true meaning transcends words and is non-dual, Profound and beyond the reach of the foolish. Fools, deluded by ignorance, Cling to duality and indulge in conceptual chatter. Some are uncertain, others follow wrong paths, Wandering through endless cycles of birth and death, Turning away from true wisdom, They are reborn among cattle and sheep.
釋曰：第二以頌略說。有其二頌分之為二：初有半頌歎理甚深，謂佛所說離言無二，兩種真如極甚深故，非愚境界。後一頌半顯執過失，於中有三：初有兩句能生戲論失，次有兩句流轉生死失，後有二句當生惡趣失。
> Commentary: Second, the verses briefly explain. This is divided into two verses, further split into two parts: The first half-verse praises the profound nature of truth, meaning that what the Buddha taught is beyond words and non-dual, for both kinds of Suchness are extremely deep, beyond the realm of the ignorant. The latter verse and a half reveal the faults of attachment, which includes three aspects: The first two lines give rise to the fault of conceptual proliferation, the next two lines to the fault of wandering in samsara, and the final two lines to the fault of falling into lower realms.
言愚夫於此痴所惑，樂著二依言戲論者，此即第一能生戲論失。二依即是有為、無為八種戲論所依處故。言戲論者，八種妄想。此中意說，愚夫於此無二離言境中痴所惑故，樂著有為、無為二種法上八種戲論。八種戲論，如瑜伽論三十六說，彼云：又諸愚夫，由於如是所顯真如不了知故，從是因緣，八分別轉，能生三事，能起一切有情世間及器世間。八分別者，一者自性，於一切法分別自性，如色聲等。二者差別，謂即於彼分別可見、不可見等。三者總執，謂即於彼色聲等上，計有情我，舍軍林等。四我分別，五者我所分別，於諸有漏有取法上，即計為我，或計我所。六愛分別，七者非愛，八俱相違，如其次第，於妙、非妙及俱離事所生分別。大唐三藏云：八種分別，皆以無覆無記異熟生慧為其自性，或可尋伺以為自性。生三事者，初三分別，能生戲論所依緣事，六根、六境。次二分別，能生我見及以我慢。後三分別，如次能生貪、瞋、痴。當知此中所依緣事為所依故，生我見、慢。見、慢為依，生貪、瞋、痴。由此三事，能現有情及器世間流轉品法。此中意引顯揚三無性論
> The text explains that ordinary people, confused by ignorance, delight in clinging to two kinds of bases and engaging in conceptual chatter—this is the first major fault that gives rise to such conceptual proliferation. The two bases refer to the conditioned and unconditioned realms, which serve as the foundation for eight kinds of conceptual proliferation. These eight are elaborations of deluded thinking. Here, the meaning is that foolish beings, due to their confusion about the realm free from duality and words, delight in the eight kinds of conceptual proliferation that arise from the two categories of conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. The eight kinds of conceptual proliferation are described in the \*Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra\* (Chapter 36), which states: "Ordinary people, because they fail to understand the thus-revealed Suchness, give rise to eight types of conceptual discrimination. These, in turn, generate three things, which bring about all sentient beings and the material world. The eight discriminations are: 1. \*\*Nature\*\*: discriminating the inherent nature of all things, such as form, sound, etc. 2. \*\*Difference\*\*: distinguishing characteristics such as visible and invisible, etc. 3. \*\*Aggregate grasping\*\*: imputing a self, a being, an army, a forest, etc., on the basis of form and sound. 4. \*\*Self-discrimination\*\*: regarding something as 'I'. 5. \*\*Mine-discrimination\*\*: regarding something as 'mine'. 6. \*\*Attachment\*\* (attraction): discrimination based on pleasant things. 7. \*\*Aversion\*\* (repulsion): discrimination based on unpleasant things. 8. \*\*Both and neither\*\*: discrimination based on things that are neither pleasant nor unpleasant, or both. According to the great Dharma Master Xuanzang, these eight discriminations have as their nature either neutral, untainted ripened wisdom, or else they can be understood as mental inquiry and examination. The three things generated by these eight discriminations are: The first three discriminations generate the objects and bases that serve as the support for conceptual proliferation—namely, the six sense faculties and six sense objects. The next two discriminations give rise to the view of self and self-conceit. The last three discriminations respectively produce desire, aversion, and ignorance. Understand that the sense faculties and objects serve as the foundation, from which the view of self and self-conceit arise. Then, based on these views and conceit, desire, aversion, and ignorance are produced. These three things thus manifest the cycle of transmigration for sentient beings and the material world."This passage is citing the \*Explanation of the Three Non-Natures\* (顯揚三無性論).
言彼或不定或邪定，流轉極長生死苦者，此二句顯流轉生死失。謂彼愚夫愚痴力故，便於三種有情聚中，或在不定聚，或在邪定聚，流轉極長分段生死三聚之處。然此三聚諸說不同，薩婆多宗自有兩說：一依集異門論，有三聚眾生：一邪性定聚，謂成就五無間業。二正性定聚，謂成就學無學法。三不定聚，謂唯成就餘有漏法及無為法。是名三聚之性。界者，邪性定聚一界，少分謂欲界。正性定聚三界，少分不定聚亦爾。趣者，邪性定聚一趣，少分謂人。正性定聚二趣，少分謂人天。不定聚三趣，全謂地獄傍生餓鬼。二趣少分謂人天。二依施設足論，邪性定聚謂五無間業，若彼因若彼果彼等流彼異熟，及成就彼法補特伽羅。正性定聚謂學無學法，若彼因彼果彼等流，及成就彼補特伽羅。不定聚謂諸餘法，若彼因彼果彼等流彼異熟，及成就彼補特伽羅。是名三聚之性。界者如前。趣者，邪性定聚二趣，小分謂地獄人。正性定聚亦二趣，少分謂人天。不定聚二趣，全謂傍生餓鬼。三趣少分謂地獄人天。依經部宗，如婆沙論百八十六云：譬喻者說，無間地獄乃至有頂皆有三聚。彼說般涅槃法名正性定聚，不般涅槃法名邪性定聚，不決定聚者名不定聚。若廣分別，如大婆沙百八十六等。今依大乘略有十門，且依十地論判十地經五門三聚。經曰：是菩薩如實知眾生三聚：一、正定相、邪定相，離此二不定相。二、正見正定相、邪見邪定相，離此二不定相。三、五逆邪定相、五根正定相，離此二不定相。四、八邪邪定相、正位正定相，更不作故，離此二不定相。五、妬恡惡行不轉邪定相、修行無上聖道正定相，離此二不定相。皆如實知。佛子！菩薩隨順如是智，名為安住菩薩善慧地。十地論第十一云：論曰：眾生三聚行稠林差別五種：一、有涅槃法、無涅槃法，三乘中一向定差別，如經是菩薩如實知眾生三聚正定相、邪定相，離此二不定相故。二、善行惡行因差別，如經正見正定相、邪見邪定相，離此二不定相故。三、惡道善道因差別，如經五逆邪定相、五根正定相，離此二不定相故。四、外道聲聞因差別，如經八邪邪定相、正位正定相，更不作故，離此二不定相故。五、菩薩差別示現，如經妬恡惡行不轉邪定相，修行無上聖道正定相，離此二不定相皆是如實知故。捨可化眾生名妬，不喜他財名恡，通能生他苦行不轉。菩薩波羅蜜相違邪定，菩薩是名法師方便成就智。復有五門：一業惑趣寂，如瑜伽論第一百云：邪性定法聚者，謂無間業及斷善根。正性定法聚者，謂學無學所有諸法。不定法聚者，餘非學非無學法。智度論第四十五意同瑜伽。二斷不斷倒門，如智度論八十四云：為破顛倒分別有三：能破顛倒名為正定，必不能破名為邪定，有緣能破無緣不破名為不定。具說如彼。三堪不堪任門，如大菩薩藏經第五卷：云何正定？謂由因力先世方便開智利根之所生故。若諸如來為說不說堪任法器，若為說法速得解脫。云何不定性？由外緣力如法教授可得解脫，不得如法教授教誡不得解脫。為如是等得義利故，諸佛世尊出興於世。云何邪定聚？謂有情性煩惱所弊不修淨業，識性薄弱愚痴深厚，住邪見網非正法器。若使如來為說不說，終不堪任證於解脫。具如彼經。四著有無等門，如無上依經彼第一云：世間中有三品眾生：一者著有；二者著無；三者不著有無。著有者復有二種：一者背涅槃道無涅槃性，不求涅槃願樂生死；二者於法中不生偈仰誹謗大乘，乃至廣說。著斷無者亦有二種：一者行無方便；二者行有方便。行無方便復有二人：一者在佛法外九十六種異學外道；二者在佛法中能生信心，堅著我見不愛正理，我說此人同彼外道。復有增上慢人，在正法中觀空生於有無二見。是真空者，直向無上菩提一道正解脫門，如來顯了開示正說，於中生空見，我說不可治。阿難！若有人執我如須彌山大，我不驚恠亦不毀呰。增上慢執著空見，如一髮髮作十六分，我不許可。行有方便亦有二人：一聲聞乘；二緣覺乘。不著有無者，最上利根修行大乘。是人不著生死如闡提，不行無方便如外道，不行有方便如二乘具說。如佛告阿難：若人貪著三有誹謗大乘，名一闡提，墮邪定聚。若人著無行無方便，墮不定聚。復有著無行有方便，不著有無行平等道，名正定聚。五、可不可治門，如央掘魔羅經第三卷。爾時大目揵連以偈問曰：
> The text speaks of those who are either indeterminate or wrongly determined, revolving for an extremely long time in the suffering of birth and death—these two lines reveal the loss of wandering through samsara. That is, due to the power of their ignorance, foolish beings fall into one of three types of sentient gathering: either the indeterminate gathering, or the wrongly determined gathering, revolving for an extremely long time through the stages of birth and death in these three gatherings. However, the various schools explain these three gatherings differently. The Sarvastivada school has two explanations: First, based on the \*Collection of Different Meanings Treatise\* (\*Sangitiparyaya\*), there are three gatherings of beings: 1. The wrongly determined gathering—those who accomplish the five heinous deeds. 2. The rightly determined gathering—those who accomplish the truths of the learner and the adept. 3. The indeterminate gathering—those who only accomplish the remaining defiled dharmas and unconditioned dharmas. This is called the nature of the three gatherings. As for realms: the wrongly determined gathering belongs to one realm, partially—the desire realm. The rightly determined gathering belongs to three realms, partially, and the indeterminate gathering likewise. As for destinies: the wrongly determined gathering belongs to one destiny, partially—humans. The rightly determined gathering belongs to two destinies, partially—humans and gods. The indeterminate gathering belongs to three destinies, fully—hells, animals, and hungry ghosts—and two destinies, partially—humans and gods. Second, based on the \*Treatise on the Five Aggregates\* (\*Prajnapti\*), the wrongly determined gathering refers to the five heinous deeds, including their causes, results, their continuation, their retribution, and the persons who accomplish those dharmas. The rightly determined gathering refers to the truths of the learner and the adept, including their causes, results, their continuation, and the persons who accomplish them. The indeterminate gathering refers to all other dharmas, including their causes, results, their continuation, their retribution, and the persons who accomplish them. This is called the nature of the three gatherings. As for realms: same as above. As for destinies: the wrongly determined gathering belongs to two destinies, partially—hells and humans. The rightly determined gathering also belongs to two destinies, partially—humans and gods. The indeterminate gathering belongs to two destinies, fully—animals and hungry ghosts—and three destinies, partially—hells, humans, and gods. According to the Sautrantika school, as stated in the \*Great Commentary on the Abhidharma\* (\*Mahavibhasa\*), volume 186: The譬喻者 (metaphorists) say that from the uninterrupted hell up to the peak of existence, all have the three gatherings. They say that those who are destined for nirvana are called the rightly determined gathering, those who are not destined for nirvana are called the wrongly determined gathering, and those who are undecided are called the indeterminate gathering. For a detailed explanation, see the \*Great Vibhasa\*, volume 186, and so forth. Now, following the Mahayana, there are roughly ten categories. Let us first rely on the \*Commentary on the Ten Stages\* (\*Dashabhumika-vyakhyana\*) to judge the five categories of the three gatherings in the \*Ten Stages Sutra\*. The sutra says: "This bodhisattva truly knows the three gatherings of beings: 1. The characteristics of right determination and wrong determination; apart from these two, the indeterminate characteristics. 2. The characteristics of right view and right determination, wrong view and wrong determination; apart from these two, the indeterminate characteristics. 3. The characteristics of the five heinous deeds and wrong determination, the five faculties and right determination; apart from these two, the indeterminate characteristics. 4. The characteristics of the eight wrong paths and wrong determination, the right position and right determination—because they no longer commit—apart from these two, the indeterminate characteristics. 5. The characteristics of jealousy, stinginess, and unwholesome actions not turning, and right determination; apart from these two, the indeterminate characteristics. All these he truly knows." "Children of the Buddha! A bodhisattva who follows such wisdom is called one who abides in the bodhisattva's stage of excellent wisdom." The \*Commentary on the Ten Stages\*, volume 11, says: "The commentary states: The differences in the dense forest of the three gatherings of beings' actions are fivefold: 1. The difference between those who have the nature for nirvana and those who do not, and among the three vehicles, the definite difference. As the sutra says: 'This bodhisattva truly knows the three gatherings of beings: right determination, wrong determination, and apart from these two, indeterminate characteristics.' 2. The difference in the causes of wholesome and unwholesome actions. As the sutra says: 'Right view and right determination, wrong view and wrong determination, apart from these two, indeterminate characteristics.' 3. The difference in the causes of the evil destinies and the good destinies. As the sutra says: 'The five heinous deeds and wrong determination, the five faculties and right determination, apart from these two, indeterminate characteristics.' 4. The difference in the causes of the outsiders and the listeners (\*shravakas\*). As the sutra says: 'The eight wrong paths and wrong determination, the right position and right determination—because they no longer commit—apart from these two, indeterminate characteristics.' 5. The difference showing the bodhisattva. As the sutra says: 'Jealousy, stinginess, and unwholesome actions not turning indicate wrong determination; cultivating the unsurpassed noble path indicates right determination; apart from these two, indeterminate characteristics—all these are truly known.'" "Abandoning beings who can be converted is called jealousy; not delighting in others' wealth is called stinginess; the practice of causing suffering to others that does not turn around. The bodhisattva's perfection is opposed to these, and this is called wrong determination. The bodhisattva is thus called a dharma teacher with accomplished wisdom." There are five more categories: 1. The category of actions, afflictions, destinies, and cessation: According to the \*Yogacarabhumi\*, volume 100: "The gathering of wrongly determined dharmas refers to the five heinous deeds and those who have cut off the roots of goodness. The gathering of rightly determined dharmas refers to all dharmas of the learner and the adept. The gathering of indeterminate dharmas refers to the rest—those who are neither learners nor adepts." The \*Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\*, volume 45, is consistent with the \*Yogacarabhumi\*. 2. The category of cutting off and not cutting off the inverted views: According to the \*Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\*, volume 84: "To destroy inverted discrimination, there are three types: that which can destroy the inverted is called right determination; that which definitely cannot destroy is called wrong determination; that which can destroy when conditions are present and cannot when absent is called indeterminate." The details are as stated there. 3. The category of capacity and incapacity: According to the \*Great Bodhisattva Treasury Sutra\*, volume 5: "What is right determination? It is caused by the power of causes—the wisdom of sharp faculties developed through past skillful means. Whether the Thus-Gone Ones teach or not, such a one is capable of being a vessel for the Dharma; if taught the Dharma, they quickly attain liberation. What is indeterminate nature? Through the power of external conditions, if taught properly according to the Dharma, liberation is attained; if not taught properly according to the Dharma, liberation is not attained. For the benefit of such beings, the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, appear in the world. What is the wrongly determined gathering? It refers to beings whose natures are obscured by afflictions, who do not cultivate wholesome deeds, whose consciousness is weak and shallow, whose ignorance is deep, who dwell in the net of wrong views and are not proper vessels for the Dharma. Whether the Thus-Gone Ones teach or not, they are ultimately incapable of attaining liberation." The details are as stated in that sutra. 4. The category of attachment to existence, non-existence, and so forth: According to the \*Unsurpassed Reliance Sutra\*, volume 1: "In the world, there are three grades of beings: 1. Those attached to existence. 2. Those attached to non-existence. 3. Those attached to neither existence nor non-existence." "Those attached to existence are of two kinds: 1. Those who turn away from the path of nirvana and have no nature for nirvana, seeking not nirvana but delighting in birth and death. 2. Those who, in the Dharma, do not generate reverence but slander the Great Vehicle—and so forth, as extensively explained." "Those attached to annihilation and non-existence are also of two kinds: 1. Those who practice without skillful means. 2. Those who practice with skillful means." "Those who practice without skillful means again have two types: 1. Those outside the Buddha's teaching—the ninety-six kinds of heterodox outsiders. 2. Those within the Buddha's teaching who can generate faith but firmly cling to the view of self, not loving the true principle. I say such people are the same as those outsiders." "There are also people of arrogant superiority who, within the true Dharma, observe emptiness and generate views of existence and non-existence. This true emptiness is the single gate of the unsurpassed bodhi, the gate of right liberation, which the Thus-Gone One clearly reveals and properly teaches. If one generates a view of emptiness within it, I say such a person is incurable. Ananda! If someone clings to a self as large as Mount Sumeru, I would not be alarmed nor would I criticize. But if an arrogant person clings to a view of emptiness—even as small as a hair split into sixteen parts—I do not approve." "Those who practice with skillful means also have two types: 1. The vehicle of the listeners (\*shravakas\*). 2. The vehicle of the solitary realizers (\*pratyekabuddhas\*)." "Those attached to neither existence nor non-existence are of the highest sharp faculties, cultivating the Great Vehicle. Such a person is not attached to birth and death like the icchantika, does not practice without skillful means like the outsiders, and does not practice with skillful means like the two vehicles—as extensively stated." "Thus the Buddha told Ananda: 'If a person craves attachment to the three realms and slanders the Great Vehicle, they are called an icchantika, falling into the wrongly determined gathering. If a person clings to non-existence and practices without skillful means, they fall into the indeterminate gathering. Further, there are those who cling to non-existence but practice with skillful means, and those who are attached to neither existence nor non-existence, practicing the equal path—these are called the rightly determined gathering.'" 5. The category of the curable and the incurable: According to the \*Angulimala Sutra\*, volume 3. At that time, the great Maudgalyayana asked in verse:
云何世間病， 分別說三種？ 或有醫治差，或不能醫治， 或復有病人， 雖得醫不差。是故諸病人， 分別有三種。
> How does the world define illness, Which is spoken of in three kinds? Some may be cured by a healer, Some cannot be healed at all, And some, though they see a healer, Still fail to be made whole. Thus all the afflicted, Are distinguished as three types.
爾時，央堀魔羅以偈答曰：
> At that time, Angulimala replied in verse:
是義則不爾， 不應說三種： 可治、不可治。唯二無有三， 若作三分別， 亦是聲聞乘。若諸聲聞乘， 佛說蚊蝄乘， 以彼無智故，分別有三種， 所言邪定者， 謂彼一闡提，正定謂如來。
> This is not how it should be understood; One should not speak of three kinds: Curable, and incurable. Only two exist, not three; If one makes a threefold distinction, That is the Vehicle of the Listeners. If the Vehicle of the Listeners, The Buddha spoke of as the "Mosquito Vehicle," Because they lack wisdom, They distinguish three kinds. What is called "wrongly fixed" refers to those Who are the incorrigible ones (icchantikas), And the "rightly fixed" refers to the Thus-Come One (Tathāgata).
菩薩及二乘釋義差別，義如別章。
> The meanings of "Bodhisattva" and "the Two Vehicles" (Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha) differ, as explained in a separate chapter.
言復違如是正智論，當生牛羊等類中者，此後有二句，明能生惡趣失。謂彼愚夫，非但違於無二真義，復違如是正智及論。正智即是證無二智，論謂言論，即說無二聖教言論。由此復違正智論等，當生牛等諸惡趣中也。
> Moreover, whoever goes against such true wisdom and its teachings will be reborn among cattle and similar creatures. This is followed by two lines that make clear the fault of being born in a lower realm. Such ignorant people not only go against the ultimate truth of non-duality, but also oppose this true wisdom and its teachings. True wisdom is the direct realization of non-duality, while the teachings refer to the scriptures and discourses that explain this non-dual sacred doctrine. Therefore, by going against true wisdom and its teachings, they will be reborn in miserable realms such as among cattle and other animals.
爾時，法涌菩摩訶薩白佛言：世尊！
> At that time, the great bodhisattva Fayong said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One!"
釋曰：自下第二釋超過尋思所行相，於中有二：初長行廣釋，後以頌略說。就長行中復分為六：一菩薩問，二爾時下世尊略答，三何以故者菩薩徵問，四我說下如來廣說，五法涌當知下喻說，六如是法涌下舉法同喻，或可結答或可有六：一問，二答，三徵，四釋，五喻，六合。依真諦記，一菩薩問，二如來正說，三譬說，四合結，五偈頌。就初請中文別有三：初標有所請，次陳所請事，後正陳所念。此即初也。言爾時者，發問時也。法涌菩薩等者，辨問答也。解節、深密皆云曇無竭，依智度論名為法盛，故九十七云：問：曇無竭菩薩因緣云何？答：伽陀秦言盛，達磨秦言法，謂此菩薩在眾香城隨意說法，令諸眾生廣種善根，故名法盛。真諦記云：曇無竭菩薩若存天笠，正語應云檀蘭無竭多，此云法上。然此菩薩住居八地，依法身上起，故名法上。具說如彼。一云：曇者梵音，此云法也。言無竭者，此即漢語，胡漢並陳故云曇無竭。大唐三藏翻為法涌菩薩，法辨用而無竭，猶如涌泉，法喻雙舉故名法涌。
> Explanation: The next section elaborates on the meaning of "beyond the scope of conceptual thought." It has two parts: first, a detailed explanation in prose; second, a concise summary in verse. The prose section is further divided into six parts: first, the bodhisattva's question; second, the World-Honored One's brief reply beginning with "At that time"; third, the bodhisattva's further inquiry beginning with "Why"; fourth, the Tathagata's extensive explanation beginning with "I say"; fifth, the analogy beginning with "Dharma Courage, you should know"; sixth, the application of the analogy to the teaching beginning with "Thus, Dharma Courage," or alternatively, a concluding responseAlternatively, there may be six parts: one, question; two, answer; three, further inquiry; four, explanation; five, analogy; six, synthesis. According to the Record of True Meaning, the six are: one, the bodhisattva's question; two, the Tathagata's direct teaching; three, the analogical teaching; four, the synthesis and conclusion; five, the verse summary. Within the opening request, the text has three parts: first, indicating that a request is being made; second, stating the matter requested; third, directly stating what is being contemplated. This is the first part. "At that time" refers to the moment of asking. "Dharma Courage Bodhisattva" and so forth indicates the exchange of questions and answers. Both the \*Unraveling the Knots\* and \*Profound Secret\* texts call him "Dharmodgata" (Dharma Superior). According to the \*Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\*, his name means "Dharma Abundance." Thus, in chapter ninety-seven, it is asked: "What is the origin of Dharmodgata Bodhisattva?" The answer: "Gāthā in Qin translation means 'abundance,' and Dharma in Qin translation means 'the teaching.' This bodhisattva teaches freely in the City of Fragrance, leading countless beings to plant roots of goodness, hence his name 'Dharma Abundance.'" The \*Record of True Meaning\* says: "If Dharmodgata Bodhisattva lived in India, the correct wording would be 'Dharmottara,' which means 'Dharma Supreme.' Because this bodhisattva dwells in the eighth ground, arising from the Dharmakāya, he is called 'Dharma Supreme.'" The full details are as given there. Some say: "Udgata" (曇) is a Sanskrit sound, meaning "Dharma"; "無竭" is the Chinese term, so both Sanskrit and Chinese are combined in "Dharmodgata" (曇無竭). The great Tang dynasty master Xuanzang translated it as "Dharma Courage Bodhisattva." His eloquence in teaching never runs dry, like a gushing spring. Thus, both the teaching and the analogy are combined in the name "Dharma Courage."
從此東方過七十二殑伽沙等世界，有世界名具大名稱，是中如來號廣大名稱，我於先日從彼佛土發來至此。
> From here, traversing eastward across as many worlds as there are sands in seventy-two Ganges Rivers, there exists a world called "Great Name." In that world, the Tathagata is known as "Wide and Great Name." I set out from that Buddha-land earlier and have now arrived here.
釋曰：自下第二陳所請事。此意說言，外道聚集論勝義諦竟不能決，故知勝義超尋思境。於中有四：一陳往來處、二見其聚集、三諍論不決、四顯不決相。此即第一陳往來處。文有兩節：初言從此等者，顯其往處；後云我於等者，辨其來處。此明法涌從此世界往彼，名稱世界助化眾生。問：從此乃至發來至此者，說何處所名為此邪？答：有三說。一云：此者娑呵世界。故解節云：從此娑呵世界向東最遠。真諦記云：娑訶世界者，娑訶是梵王名，此云能忍。此人見他勝事，常生隨喜不起嫉妬，能忍許他有勝德事，故名為忍，非關忍辱說名忍也。由此娑訶領千世界，即是千界主，從主立名號曰娑訶也。一云：從此者，從此十八圓滿淨土也。是故二本經中皆無娑訶之言也。問：若爾，淨土即無日月，如何說言我從先日從彼處發？解云：約餘世界日月而說。一云：如佛地論如實義者，從此住處自有二種：一者淨土、二者穢土。由此義故，通說兩處名為此也。所以如是諸本異者，譯家別故，或可梵本有此差別。言殑伽者，舊云恒河也，此是神名勘西域傳。問：如何諸經但言恒河不說餘河？答：如智度論第七卷說，彼云：問曰：閻浮提中種種大河亦有過恒河者，何以常言恒河沙等？答曰：恒河沙多，餘河不爾。復次是恒河是佛生處、遊行處，弟子眼見，故以為喻。復次閻浮提雪山中有阿耨達池，出四大河：東面象頭出恒河入東海，南面牛頭出辛頭河入南海，西面馬頭出婆叉河入西海，北面師子頭出私陀河入北海。是四河中恒河最大，四遠諸人經書皆以恒河為福德吉河。若入中洗者，諸罪垢惡皆悉除盡。以人敬事此河，皆共識知，故以恒河沙為喻。復次餘河名字喜轉，是恒河世世不轉。以是故以恒河沙為喻，不取餘河。問曰：恒河中沙為有幾許？答曰：一切算數所不能知，唯有諸佛及法身菩薩能知其數。佛及法身菩薩，一切閻浮提中微塵生滅多少皆能數知，何況恒河沙。如佛在祗桓外林中樹下坐，有一婆羅門來到佛所，問佛：此林有幾許葉？佛即便答：有若干數。婆羅門心疑：誰證知者？婆羅門去至一樹邊取小樹葉，還來問佛：定有幾葉？佛即答云：少若干葉。如其所取語之。婆羅門知已，心大敬信，求出家，後得阿羅漢道。以是故知佛能知恒河沙數。又金剛仙論云：恒河沙者，從清涼池出，入於東海，長八萬四千由旬，廣四十里，或有廣十里處。以從沙山中過故，有流沙色白，水亦同白色，狀如乳，出河即清。此沙極深，若象馬車乘入者皆沒。又天竺國皆見此河，引此為喻。所以能到遠世界者，真諦記云：神通有三：一者舉身，如鳥飛空，由定功能單身遠至，恒須神通攝持。若忘不攝，身即退落，故名舉身。三中下品。二如意神通，隨聖意欲，轉遠令近、轉近令遠，或內或外。若內轉者，世界不促，但身能遠至。若外轉者，身不遠至，但促遠世界令其在近，轉步則著。此即中品。三心速疾通，此通最勝，八地已上獨所能得，令身輕捷至已成滿，止於一心即便至彼，故令菩薩以心速通往彼世界。若依俱舍第二十七及順正理，意勢神通唯佛所有。故順正理七十六云：行有三種：一者運身，謂乘空行，猶如飛鳥俱舍亦同。二者勝解，謂極遠方作近思惟，便能速至上同俱舍已下乘也。若於極遠色究竟天作近思惟，即便能至。本無去知來，何謂速行？此實亦行，但由近解行極速故，得勝解名。或世尊言：靜慮境界不思議故，唯佛能了。三者意勢，謂極遠方舉心緣時，身即能至。此勢如意，得意勢名上同俱舍已下乘也。如心取境，頓至色究竟故已上正理。於此三中，意勢唯佛運身，勝解亦通餘乘。謂我世尊神通迅速，隨方遠近舉心即至。由此世尊作如是說：諸佛境界不可思議上同俱舍。如日舒光，蘊流亦爾，能頓至遠，故說為行。若謂不然，此沒彼出，中間既斷，行義應無。或佛威神不思議故，舉心即至，不可測量。故意勢行唯世尊有，勝解兼餘聖，運身并異生。今依大乘大智度論，法用少異。故第五云：如意有三：一者能到，二轉變自在，三聖如意。能到有四：一者身能飛行如鳥無礙當正理初行也，二者移遠令近不往而到，三者此沒彼出此二即當正理第二，四者一念能至當正理第二。轉變自在者，大能作小、小能作大、一能作多、多能作一，種種諸物皆能轉變。外道轉變極久不過七日，佛及弟子轉變自在無有久近。聖如意者，外六塵中不愛不淨物能觀令淨、愛淨物能觀令不淨，是自在法唯佛獨有。又大智度論第三云：問：如經說彈指頃有六十念，若一念中能至一方恒河沙等世界尚不可信，何況十方恒河沙等世界時少而所到處多？答曰：經說五事不可思議，所謂眾生多少、業果報、坐禪人力、諸龍力、諸佛力。於五不可思議中，佛力最不可思議，菩薩入深禪定生不可思議神，故一念中悉到十方諸佛世界。如說四種神通中，唯佛菩薩有如意疾遍神通。
> Commentary says: Next, the second section presents the matter requested. This means: the heretics gathered together but could not settle the matter of ultimate truth, so we know that ultimate truth transcends the realm of intellectual speculation. This section has four parts: first, describing the place of departure; second, observing their gathering; third, the unresolved debate; fourth, showing the signs of non-resolution. This is the first part, describing the place of departure. The text has two sections: the opening phrase "from this place" indicates where the departure occurs; the later phrase "I, from..." clarifies the origin. This explains that Dharma Current (Fayong) went from this world to that world called Reputation (Mingsheng) to help and guide sentient beings. Question: When it says "from this place... and arrived here," what place is referred to as "this"? Answer: There are three explanations. First: "this" refers to the Saha world. Thus, the Explanation of the Scripture says: "From this Saha world, heading east to the farthest point." The True Meaning Record says: "The Saha world — Saha is the name of the Brahma king, meaning 'able to endure.' This person, seeing others' superior achievements, always feels joy and never harbors jealousy. He can tolerate and acknowledge others' fine qualities, hence called 'enduring' — this is not about patience in the sense of enduring hardship, but about tolerance." Thus, this Saha governs a thousand worlds; it is the lord of a thousand worlds, named after its ruler as "Saha." Second: "From this" means from this eighteen-fold complete pure land. Therefore, neither of the two scriptural versions contains the word "Saha." Question: If so, the pure land has no sun or moon — how can it say "I, from a past day, departed from that place"? Explanation: This refers to days and months in other worlds. Third: As the Treatise on the Buddha's Ground states regarding the true meaning: "This dwelling place itself has two kinds: one is the pure land, the other is the impure land." For this reason, both places are collectively called "this." The differences among these versions arise from different translators, or possibly the Sanskrit originals had such variations. The term "Ganga" — formerly called "Heng River" in old translations — is the name of a deity (check the Record of the Western Regions). Question: Why do the scriptures always mention the Ganga River and not other rivers? Answer: As stated in volume seven of the Treatise on Great Wisdom: "Question: In Jambudvipa, there are various great rivers, some even exceeding the Ganga — why does it always say 'sands of the Ganga'? Answer: The Ganga has more sand than other rivers. Moreover, the Ganga is where the Buddha was born and where he traveled; his disciples saw it with their own eyes, so it is used as a simile. Furthermore, in the Snow Mountains of Jambudvipa, there is Lake Anavatapta, from which four great rivers flow: from the elephant's head on the east flows the Ganga into the Eastern Sea; from the bull's head on the south flows the Sindhu into the Southern Sea; from the horse's head on the west flows the Vakshu into the Western Sea; from the lion's head on the north flows the Sita into the Northern Sea. Among these four rivers, the Ganga is the greatest. People from all regions, in their scriptures, regard the Ganga as a river of merit and good fortune. Those who bathe in it have all their sins and defilements washed away. Because people revere this river and all know it, the sands of the Ganga are used as a simile. Moreover, the names of other rivers often change, but the Ganga's name has never changed through the ages. For these reasons, the Ganga's sand is used as the simile, not other rivers." "Question: How much sand is in the Ganga? Answer: It cannot be known by any form of calculation — only the Buddhas and Dharma-body bodhisattvas can know the number. The Buddha and Dharma-body bodhisattvas can count even the number of births and deaths of all dust motes in Jambudvipa, so how much more the sands of the Ganga! For example, when the Buddha was sitting under a tree in the grove outside Jeta Park, a Brahmin came to the Buddha and asked: 'How many leaves are in this grove?' The Buddha immediately answered with an exact number. The Brahmin was doubtful: 'Who can verify this?' He then went to a tree, plucked a small branch with leaves, and returned to ask the Buddha: 'Exactly how many leaves are here?' The Buddha immediately replied: 'A few less than such-and-such a number,' and stated exactly what the Brahmin had taken. Upon hearing this, the Brahmin was filled with great faith and respect, sought ordination, and later attained arhatship. Therefore, we know the Buddha can know the number of sands in the Ganga." Furthermore, the Treatise on the Vajra Immortal says: "The Ganga's sand flows from the Cool Clear Lake and enters the Eastern Sea. It is 84,000 yojanas long and 40 li wide, with some places 10 li wide. Because it flows through sand mountains, the drifting sand is white, and the water is likewise white, like milk; once it leaves the mountains, the river becomes clear. The sand is extremely deep — elephants, horses, and carts that enter all sink. Moreover, people in India all see this river, so it is used as a simile." Regarding the ability to reach distant worlds, the True Meaning Record says: "There are three types of spiritual powers: First, 'body-lifting' — like a bird flying through the sky. Through meditative power, one's body alone can travel far, but it constantly requires spiritual power to sustain it. If one forgets to maintain it, the body falls back, hence called 'body-lifting.' This is the lowest of the three. Second, 'mind-wish' spiritual power — following the sage's intention, one can turn far into near, or near into far, whether internally or externally. If turned internally, the world is not compressed, but the body can travel far. If turned externally, the body does not travel far, but the distant world is compressed to be near, and with one step one arrives. This is the middle level. Third, 'mind-speed' spiritual power — this power is supreme, attainable only by bodhisattvas at the eighth ground and above. It makes the body swift and light, reaching completion; with a single thought, one arrives there. Thus, bodhisattvas use mind-speed to reach other worlds." According to the Abhidharma-kosha, chapter twenty-seven, and the Correct Principle Discourse, the "mind-momentum" spiritual power belongs exclusively to the Buddha. Thus, the Correct Principle Discourse, section seventy-six, says: "There are three types of movement: First, 'body-transport' — traveling through space like a bird (the Kosha agrees). Second, 'superior realization' — thinking of an extremely distant place as near, and then arriving swiftly (as above, from the Kosha onward). If one thinks of the extremely distant Akanishtha heaven as near, one can arrive immediately. But if there is no departing from here or arriving there, what is meant by 'swift travel'? This is indeed actual movement, but because the movement based on near-realization is extremely swift, it is called 'superior realization.' Or, as the World-Honored One said: 'The realm of meditative absorption is inconceivable; only the Buddha can understand it.' Third, 'mind-momentum' — when the mind turns toward an extremely distant place, the body immediately arrives. This momentum follows the mind, hence called 'mind-momentum' (as above, from the Kosha onward). Just as the mind takes hold of an object, one instantly reaches Akanishtha (as above from the Correct Principle Discourse). Among these three, mind-momentum belongs only to the Buddha; body-transport and superior realization also apply to other vehicles. That is, our World-Honored One's spiritual power is so swift that wherever one turns the mind, far or near, one arrives instantly. Thus, the World-Honored One said: 'The realm of the Buddhas is inconceivable' (as above, from the Kosha). Like the sun spreading its light, so too does the continuum of aggregates — it can reach far away instantly, hence it is called 'movement.' If one says this is not so — appearing here and vanishing there, with a gap in between — then the meaning of 'movement' would be lost. Or, because the Buddha's majestic power is inconceivable, lifting the mind and arriving instantly cannot be measured. Therefore, the 'mind-momentum' movement belongs only to the World-Honored One; 'superior realization' also belongs to other sages; 'body-transport' also belongs to ordinary beings." Now, according to the Mahayana Great Treatise on Wisdom, the functions differ slightly. Thus, in its fifth chapter: "The mind-wish power has three kinds: (1) ability to arrive, (2) free transformation, and (3) sage-wish. Ability to arrive has four aspects: (a) the body can fly like a bird without obstruction (corresponding to the first movement in the Correct Principle Discourse); (b) moving far near so one arrives without traveling (this and the next correspond to the second type in the Correct Principle Discourse); (c) appearing here and vanishing there; (d) arriving in a single thought (corresponding to the second type). Free transformation means: large can become small, small can become large, one can become many, many can become one — all kinds of things can be transformed. When heretics transform, the utmost limit is no more than seven days; the Buddha and his disciples transform freely without any time limit. Sage-wish means: among the six sense objects, what is disliked and impure can be seen as pure, and what is liked and pure can be seen as impure. This free power belongs exclusively to the Buddha." Also, in the Great Treatise on Wisdom, chapter three: "Question: The scriptures say there are sixty thought-moments in a finger-snap. If in a single thought one can reach worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganga in one direction, this is already hard to believe — how much more so reaching worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganga in ten directions, with so little time and so many places reached? Answer: The scriptures speak of five inconceivable things: the number of sentient beings, karmic retribution, the power of meditators, the power of dragons, and the power of Buddhas. Among these five, the Buddha's power is the most inconceivable. Bodhisattvas who enter deep meditative absorption produce inconceivable spiritual powers, and so in a single thought they reach the Buddha-worlds of all ten directions. As stated, among the four types of spiritual powers, only Buddhas and bodhisattvas possess the 'mind-wish swift pervasive' spiritual power."
我於彼佛土曾見一處，有七萬七千外道并其師首同一會坐。
> In that Buddha-land, I once witnessed a gathering where seventy-seven thousand non-Buddhist practitioners, along with their leaders, were seated together in one assembly.
釋曰：第二見其聚集，為欲思量故一會坐。
> Explanation: Secondly, seeing them gathered together, they sat in one assembly in order to contemplate.
為思諸法勝諦義相，彼共思議稱量觀察遍尋求時，於一切法勝義諦相竟不能得。
> When seeking to contemplate the ultimate meaning of all phenomena, upon reflection, scrutiny, and thorough investigation, the ultimate nature of all things remains ultimately unobtainable.
釋曰：第三諍論不決。真諦記云：夫論立義有其三義：一者現量、二依比量、三聖言量。為思諸法勝義諦相，於彼思議，即是外道所說現量。言稱量者，即是比量。言觀察者，是聖言量，如四韋陀論等。依此三量遍尋求時，於勝義諦竟不能得。又解：立義有其三義：一者立義，即是立宗；二者證義，即是辨因；三者立喻，是同法喻。言思議者，即是立宗；稱量，即是立因；觀察，是喻。依此三種遍尋求時，不得勝義。若廣分別，如真諦記云依真諦記十四五紙，恐繁不述。
> The commentary explains: The third dispute remains unresolved. According to the record of Paramārtha: When establishing an argument, there are three valid means of knowledge: first, direct perception; second, inference; and third, testimony from sacred scriptures. When one contemplates the ultimate nature of all phenomena through these, the contemplation by the misguided is what is called direct perception. What is called "weighing" is inference. What is called "examining" is reliance on sacred testimony, such as the four Vedas and similar texts. When one thoroughly seeks through these three means, the ultimate truth cannot be found at all. Another interpretation: Establishing an argument has three aspects: first, the proposition—that is, the thesis; second, the evidence—that is, the reason; and third, the example—which is the analogous case. What is called "contemplation" refers to the thesis; "weighing" refers to the reason; and "examining" refers to the example. When one thoroughly seeks through these three aspects, the ultimate truth is not obtained. If one wishes to elaborate further, according to the record of ParamārthaAccording to Paramārtha's record, about fourteen to fifteen pages, it is too lengthy to detail here.
唯除種種意解、別異意解、變異意解，互相違背，共興諍論，口出矛䂎，更相䂎刾。既惱壞已，各各離散。
> But setting aside all kinds of interpretations, differing views, and changing opinions—these clash with one another, giving rise to disputes. They hurl sharp words like spears, stabbing at each other. Having harmed and corrupted one another, they each go their separate ways.
釋曰：第四顯示決相，文有三節：初明意業相違，次共興下口業違諍，後既惱壞下顯身業乖違。言唯除種種等者，是名意業相違。謂諸外道種種推求，意不能得真勝義諦，唯除謬執三種意解，謂一種種意解、二別異意解、三變異意解依解節經，但言起種種執，不并三種。依深密經，生異異見、異異執，立異朋黨也。然三意解，諸說不同。一云：種種意解者，即用種種諸法以為勝義，無別真如，故名種種意解。利異意解者，離諸法外別有勝義，與一切法決定別異，故言別異意解。言變異者，理實勝義無有變異而言變異，非謂常住，故言變異。一云：初句是總，後二是別。釋義如上。一云：三種義無差別，眾計非一，故言種種；意趣各別，故言別異；展轉異計無決定相，故言變異。意業乖諍，如上已說。次明語業口出矛䂎，後明身業更相損壞。故解節經云：由口刀杖互相傷毀，便各分散。又瑜伽論九十七云：是諸外道薩迦邪見以為根本，種種見趣意各別故，彼此展轉互相違戾，遍於一切四聖諦中，尚無有能施設其教，況當覺悟？
> Explanation: The fourth section reveals the characteristics of discord. This text has three parts: first, it clarifies the conflict in mental action; second, starting from "then together they incite," it clarifies the conflict of verbal action in disputes; third, starting from "then, having harmed and troubled," it clarifies the discord in physical action. The phrase "setting aside various kinds" refers to the conflict in mental action. That is, the heretics, through various investigations, cannot attain in their minds the true ultimate meaning, setting aside only their erroneous attachments to three types of mental interpretations: first, various interpretations; second, distinct interpretations; third, changeable interpretations According to the Explanation of the Sūtra on Unraveling, it only mentions "arising various attachments," without including the three types. According to the Sūtra on the Profound Secret, it speaks of giving rise to different views, different attachments, and establishing different factions.. However, there are different explanations of these three mental interpretations. One explanation says: "Various interpretations" means using various phenomena as the ultimate meaning, with no separate true suchness, hence called "various interpretations." "Distinct interpretations" means apart from phenomena, there is a separate ultimate meaning, which is definitively different from all phenomena, hence called "distinct interpretations." "Changeable interpretations" means that in truth, the ultimate meaning has no change yet is spoken of as changeable—not referring to permanence, hence called "changeable." Another explanation says: the first phrase is general, while the latter two are specific. The meaning is explained as above. Another explanation says: the three types have no difference in meaning; the many assertions are not singular, hence "various"; the intentions are each different, hence "distinct"; and the alternating assertions have no fixed pattern, hence "changeable." The conflict in mental action has been explained above. Next, verbal action is clarified as words that stab like spears; afterward, physical action is clarified as mutual harm. Thus, the Explanation of the Sūtra on Unraveling says: "Through verbal swords and physical weapons, they harm and destroy one another, then each disperses." Moreover, the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, chapter ninety-seven, says: "These heretics, with the view of self as their root, because their various views are each different in intention, turn against one another. Throughout the four noble truths, they are not even able to establish their teachings, let alone awaken to them."
我於爾時竊作是念：如來出世甚奇希有，由出世故，乃於如是超過一切尋思所行勝義諦相，亦有通達作證可得。說是語已。
> At that time, I secretly thought to myself: The Tathāgata's appearance in the world is truly extraordinary and rare. Because of this appearance, even the ultimate truth—which surpasses all conceptual thinking—can be directly realized and personally experienced. Having said this, I began to speak further.
釋曰：第三陳己所念。謂彼菩薩見諸外道尋思不決，便知勝義超尋思境，便竊作念讚佛希有，由佛出世善方便說，亦有令他作證可得。
> The commentary explains: The third point expresses what the bodhisattva contemplates. Seeing that the externalists are still entangled in speculative thought and unable to decide, the bodhisattva realizes that ultimate truth lies beyond the reach of such mental deliberation. Inwardly, the bodhisattva reflects and praises the rarity of the Buddha, for through the Buddha's appearance in the world, he skillfully teaches with expedient means, enabling others to attain direct realization and verification as well.
爾時，世尊告法涌菩薩摩訶薩曰：善男子！如是，如是！如汝所說。我於超過一切尋思勝義諦相現正等覺，現等覺已，為他宣說、顯現、開解、施設、照了。
> At that time, the World-Honored One said to the great bodhisattva Fa Yong: "Good man, it is exactly as you have said. I have fully awakened to the ultimate truth, which transcends all conceptual thinking. Having awakened to it, I have taught it to others, made it clear, explained it, established it, and illuminated it."
釋曰：第二依問略答。文有三節：初爾時等者，說之由序。次善男子等者，贊請順理。文義但順，或可俱順自他二利，是故重言如是如是依大品經，帝釋贊言：供養般若功德無量。佛言：如是如是。龍樹釋云：恐疑帝釋非一切智，所說或錯，故佛印可所說，重言如是如是。此經亦爾，下文所說皆應准此。後我於超過者作問略答，於勝義諦現成等覺亦為他說。
> Explanation: Second, a brief answer to the question based on the text. The passage has three sections. The first, beginning with "At that time," etc., serves as the introductory preface to the discourse. The second, beginning with "Good man," etc., expresses praise and a request that aligns with reason. The wording and meaning are both in accord, or may refer to benefiting both oneself and others, hence the repetition "So it is, so it is"According to the Greater Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Śakra praised: "The merit of making offerings to Prajñā is immeasurable." The Buddha said: "So it is, so it is." Nāgārjuna explained: Fearing that Śakra, not being omniscient, might have spoken erroneously, the Buddha affirmed his words by repeating "So it is, so it is." This sūtra follows the same principle, and all subsequent teachings should be understood accordingly.. The third section is a brief response to the question posed with "I, in the supreme," etc., stating that in the ultimate truth, enlightenment is realized and also taught to others for their benefit.
何以故？
> Why is this so?
釋曰：第二菩薩徵。詰：以何義故超尋思境？
> The commentary says: The second Bodhisattva asks: For what reason does this transcend the realm of conceptual thought?
我說勝義是諸聖者內自所證，尋思所行是諸異生展轉所證。
> I declare that the ultimate truth is what the noble ones directly realize within themselves, while what ordinary beings infer through reasoning is what they collectively attest to through mutual understanding.
釋曰：自下第四依問廣釋。以五相釋超尋思境，即分為五：一內自所證、二無相所行、三不可言說、四絕諸表示、五息諸諍論。例有兩段：先釋、後結。就內自所證，文別有二：初釋、後結。此即釋也。謂諸聖者無分別智緣真如境，內證自體。然此內證，諸說不同。一云：一切根本、後得內證真如而不變影，以無漏智緣真如故。一云：根本及後得智皆能變影而非親證。不爾，唯識理不成故。一云：正智親證自體不變，而緣自證分無別相分；後所得智變影而緣，以分別故。若不爾者，圓鏡智等緣真如境，正體、後得應無差別。雖有三說，大唐三藏及護法宗後說為正。若廣分別，如成唯識第九卷釋及佛地論第三卷說。尋思所行即是異生依他言說，非內所證，故言展轉。問：解節、深密皆作是言過覺觀境，此本即云過尋思境，如何會釋？答：有兩釋。一云：舊諸經論皆云覺觀，大唐三藏翻為尋伺。尋謂尋求，伺即伺察。如瑜伽論等，一一皆用思慧為體。而此經言名尋思者，通說尋伺皆名尋思，皆有推求思量義故。然此尋伺，諸說不同。薩婆多宗，離心以外別有心所實有體性，始從欲界至初靜慮，一切心中皆有尋伺，中間靜慮無尋有伺，第二靜慮以上諸地皆名無尋無伺，通於六識有漏、無漏。若廣分別，如俱舍等。依經部宗，離心已外無別自性，亦非一心尋伺俱起。故成實論？覺觀品云：有說覺觀在一心者，此事不然。解云：經部大同大乘，然差別者，成實論宗以心為體，依大乘宗思慧為體。又經部宗三地別者，如大毗婆沙，欲界乃至有頂地具有尋伺。而說三地有差別者，欲界初定一切善染無覆無記，靜慮中間乃至有頂染汙心等，名有尋有伺地；靜慮中間善及無覆無記心等，名無尋唯伺地；第二靜慮乃至有頂善及無覆無記等，名無尋無伺地。今依大乘，如成唯識第七卷說：尋求令心怱遽，於意言境麤轉為性；伺謂伺察令心怱遽，於意言境細轉為性。此二俱以安不安住身心分位所依為業，並用思慧一分為體，非一剎那二法相應，一類麤細前後異故。若廣分別，如瑜伽、顯揚、成唯識等。三地別者，大唐三藏云：瑜伽論意自性離欲建立三地，謂欲界乃至初靜慮中諸有為法，未能遠離自性欲故，名有尋伺；中間靜慮諸有為法，已離下地自性欲故，名無尋唯伺地；第二靜慮已上乃至非想諸有為法，已離尋伺自性欲故，名無尋無伺地。若廣分別，如瑜伽？釋論第一卷說。今此所說超尋思者，依此尋伺而說。一云：此中尋思即用三界有漏心心所法以為尋思，即五法中分別所攝。然尋思言自有兩種：一者四尋思用慧為體，推求名等未決定故；二者此中所說尋思，即用三界有漏心等。故今但言尋思，不名尋伺。
> Commentary: Following this, the fourth section provides detailed explanation based on the questions. It explains the state beyond conceptual thought through five aspects, divided into five parts: first, personal direct realization; second, operation without signs; third, inexpressibility; fourth, transcendence of all expressions; fifth, cessation of all disputes. Each has two sections: first, explanation; second, conclusion. Regarding personal direct realization, the text has two parts: first, explanation; then conclusion. This is the explanation. It means that saints, through non-discriminative wisdom, directly realize the nature of suchness within themselves. However, there are different views on this direct realization. One view holds that all fundamental and subsequent wisdom directly realize suchness without transforming into mental images, because stainless wisdom perceives suchness. Another view says both fundamental and subsequent wisdom can transform into mental images but are not direct realization. Otherwise, the principle of consciousness-only would be inconsistent. Another view states that true wisdom directly realizes its own essence without transformation, perceiving the self-cognizing aspect without a separate perceived image; while subsequently attained wisdom transforms into images and perceives with discrimination. Otherwise, the perfect mirror wisdom and others perceiving suchness would make fundamental and subsequent wisdom indistinguishable. Although there are three views, the last one is considered correct by the great Tang Tripitaka Master and Master Dharmapala. For detailed explanation, see Chapter Nine of the \*Cheng Weishi Lun\* and Chapter Three of the \*Buddhabhumi Sutra Shastra\*. What conceptual thought operates on is ordinary beings' dependent verbalization, not personal direct realization, hence it is called "transmitted" or "indirect." Question: Both the \*Jiejie Sutra\* and the \*Shenmi Sutra\* state "beyond the sphere of reflection and observation," while this text says "beyond conceptual thought." How to reconcile this? Answer: There are two explanations. One: old scriptures and treatises say "reflection and observation," while the great Tang Tripitaka Master translated them as "seeking and observing." Seeking means pursuing, and observing means scrutinizing. As in the \*Yoga Shastra\* and others, both use discriminative wisdom as their essence. This sutra says "conceptual thought" as a general term for both seeking and observing, as both involve pursuing and pondering meanings. However, there are various views on seeking and observing. The Sarvastivada school holds that apart from mind, there are separate mental factors with real existence. From the desire realm to the first meditative absorption, all minds have seeking and observing. In the intermediate meditative state, there is observation without seeking. From the second meditative absorption upward, all stages are called without seeking and observation, applying to the six consciousnesses with or without defilements. For detailed explanation, see the \*Abhidharmakosha\* and others. According to the Sutra school, apart from mind, there is no separate nature, nor do seeking and observation arise together in one mind. Therefore, the \*Chengshi Lun\* in the section on reflection and observation says: Some say reflection and observation exist in one mind, but this is not so. Explanation: The Sutra school largely agrees with the Mahayana, but the difference is that the \*Chengshi Lun\* school regards mind as the essence, while the Mahayana school regards discriminative wisdom as the essence. Also, the Sutra school's distinction of three stages is as follows: according to the \*Mahavibhasha\*, from the desire realm to the peak of existence, all have seeking and observation. The three stages are distinguished because in the desire realm and first meditative absorption, all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral states are included; from the intermediate meditative state to the peak of existence, defiled minds and so forth are called the stage with seeking and observation; the intermediate meditative state's wholesome and neutral minds are called the stage with observation only, without seeking; from the second meditative absorption to the peak of existence, wholesome and neutral minds are called the stage without seeking or observation. Now, according to the Mahayana, as stated in Chapter Seven of the \*Cheng Weishi Lun\*: Seeking makes the mind hurried, operating coarsely on mental objects; observation means scrutinizing, making the mind hurried, operating subtly on mental objects. Both function as the basis for physical and mental states of stability or instability, using one part of discriminative wisdom as their essence. They do not arise together in a single moment, as they differ in coarseness and subtlety before and after. For detailed explanation, see the \*Yoga Shastra\*, \*Xianyang\*, \*Cheng Weishi Lun\*, and others. Regarding the three stages, the great Tang Tripitaka Master says: The \*Yoga Shastra\* establishes three stages based on freedom from the nature of desire. That is, from the desire realm to the first meditative absorption, all conditioned phenomena have not yet transcended the nature of desire in themselves, hence called having seeking and observation; in the intermediate meditative state, conditioned phenomena have already transcended the nature of desire of the lower realm, hence called having observation without seeking; from the second meditative absorption upward to the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, conditioned phenomena have already transcended the nature of seeking and observation, hence called without seeking or observation. For detailed explanation, see Chapter One of the \*Yoga Shastra Commentary\*. What is mentioned here as transcending conceptual thought is explained based on this seeking and observation. Another view: Here, conceptual thought refers to all defiled mental and mental factors in the three realms, which fall under conceptual discrimination in the five categories. The term "conceptual thought" itself has two types: one, the four kinds of conceptual investigation using wisdom as their essence, as they seek names and so forth without certainty; two, the conceptual thought mentioned here, which refers to all defiled mental factors in the three realms. Hence, the text only says "conceptual thought" and not "seeking and observation."
是故，法涌！由此道理，當知勝義超過一切尋思境相。
> Therefore, Dharmodgata, you should understand based on this reasoning that ultimate truth transcends all forms of conceptual investigation.
釋曰：第二結文可知。
> The commentary explains: The second concluding passage is understood accordingly.
我說勝義無相所行，尋思但行有相境界。
> I speak of the ultimate truth, which has no characteristics—yet conceptual thinking only operates within the realm of forms.
釋曰：第二無相所行，先釋後結。此即釋也。解節經云：我說真實非相行處。真諦記云：相行處者，謂十八界。相即六塵，行即六識，處即六根。此根塵識但覺觀境，真如非覺觀境，是故非十八界攝。今唐本云：無相所行。然此無相，諸說不同。一云：能觀無分別智名為無相，遠離能取所取相故。若依此說，無相觀智之所行故，名無相所行。是依主釋。一云：無相即是真如涅槃，此是無相三昧所行。俱舍、佛地第一皆作是說：無十相故名為無相，謂五境男女及生老無常。若依此釋，無相即是智所行故，名無相所行。是六釋中持業釋也。一云：平等真如法性離諸相故，名為無相。如無量義經說：無量義者，從一法生。其一法者，即無相也。如是無相、無相不相、不相無相，名為實相。諸處所說真如無相，依此而說。又廣百論云：又真空理離有無等一切法相，故名無相。又瑜伽七十三云：問：如是五事，當知幾種取所行義？答：略有三種：一、有言有相取所行義，二、無言有相取所行義，三、無言無相取所行義。此中最初是言說隨覺者取所行境，第二是言說隨眠者取所行境，第三是於言說離隨眠者取所行境。又初二是世俗諦取，最後是勝義諦取。又廣百論釋云：初於名言能有覺悟，次於名言雖有隨眠而無覺悟，後於名言隨眠覺悟一切永無。初二緣世俗，後一緣勝義。復有永離言說後所得心，通緣二諦。問：大般若等云：蘊界處等乃至菩提皆無所得，即是無相。此說何義？解云：經意所說不同，依清辨宗通約三性說無所得，護法等宗唯違所執，無自性品當廣分別。尋思但行有相境者，尋思即用分別為體，是故不證無相真如。
> Explanation: The second is the practice of the signless. First, it is explained, then summarized. This is the explanation. The \*Commentary on the Scripture of Unraveling\* says: "I say that the true is not the domain of sign-based practice." According to the \*Record of True Meaning\*, "the domain of sign-based practice" refers to the eighteen elements. Signs are the six sense objects, practice is the six consciousnesses, and domains are the six sense faculties. These faculties, objects, and consciousnesses are only the spheres of conceptual observation. Suchness is not the sphere of conceptual observation, so it is not included in the eighteen elements. The current Tang edition says: "the practice of the signless." However, there are various explanations of this "signless." One says: the signless refers to the non-discriminating wisdom that observes, because it is free from the signs of grasped and grasper. According to this explanation, the signless is the object of signless contemplation wisdom, hence "the practice of the signless." This is the dependent-owner interpretation. Another says: the signless is suchness or nirvana, which is the object of the signless concentration. Both the \*Abhidharma-kośa\* and the \*Buddhabhūmi\* first volume state: "It is called signless because it lacks ten signs: the five sense objects, male, female, birth, aging, and impermanence." According to this explanation, since the signless is the object of wisdom, it is called "the practice of the signless." This is the action-holder interpretation among the six types of compounds. Another says: the equal suchness and the nature of phenomena, being free from all signs, is called the signless. As the \*Scripture of Immeasurable Meanings\* says: "Immeasurable meanings arise from a single dharma. That single dharma is the signless." Such signlessness, no-sign as non-sign, and non-sign as no-sign—this is called the real mark. The descriptions of signless suchness in various texts follow this explanation. Furthermore, the \*Broad Hundred Treatise\* says: "The principle of emptiness, being free from signs of existence and non-existence and all other dharma signs, is therefore called signless." Also, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, volume seventy-three, asks: "Among these five matters, how many kinds of objects do grasping activities perceive?" It answers: "There are generally three kinds: first, objects grasped through speech and signs; second, objects grasped through speechless signs; third, objects grasped through speechless and signless means. Among these, the first is the realm of those who awaken through verbal expression; the second is the realm of those with latent tendencies toward verbal expression; the third is the realm of those free from latent tendencies toward verbal expression. The first two pertain to conventional truth, and the last pertains to ultimate truth." The \*Broad Hundred Treatise\* further explains: "The first involves awakening in relation to words; the second, though having latent tendencies toward words, lacks awakening; the third involves the complete absence of both latent tendencies and awakening regarding words. The first two rely on conventional truth, the last on ultimate truth. Additionally, there is the mind that arises after completely transcending speech, which encompasses both truths." Question: The \*Great Perfection of Wisdom\* and other scriptures say: "The aggregates, elements, sense bases, and even enlightenment are all unobtainable; this is the signless." What does this mean? Explanation: The scriptures' meanings differ. According to Bhāvaviveka's tradition, it generally speaks of unobtainability in terms of the three natures. According to Dharmapāla's school, it only negates the imagined nature, which will be explained in detail in the section on the absence of intrinsic nature. Conceptual thought only operates on objects with signs because it is based on discrimination; therefore, it cannot realize the signless suchness.
是故，法涌！由是道理，當知勝義超過一切尋思境相。
> Therefore, O Dharmodgata! In this way, you should understand that the ultimate truth surpasses all realms of conceptual thought.
釋曰：第二結文可知。
> The commentary explains: The second concluding passage is understood accordingly.
法涌！我說勝義不可言說尋思，但行言說境界。
> Fayong! I say that ultimate truth cannot be expressed in words or grasped by thought; it lies beyond the realm of conceptualization and verbal expression.
釋曰：第三不可言說相，謂真如、勝義，遠離有為、無為等故。然不可說，依諸聖教乃有多種：一非四藏故名不可說，如犢子部立五法藏，謂三世無為及不可說法藏。不可說法藏即真我也，不可說為三世無為及不可說。成唯識論比量破云：汝說真我不可說，為是我非我不可說，為有為無故，猶如空化。二離損益等名不可說，如薩婆多宗。如大婆沙第十五說：若可說者，說火應燒舌，說食應除飢。廣說如彼。三依大乘略有四義：一離損益等名不可說，如智度論說火應燒舌，同薩婆多。二現量境故名不可說，如理門論：一切諸法皆有二相：一者自相，現量所得不可言說；二共相，比量所得即可言說。由斯道理，諸聖言量、比量所攝諸法自相不可說也。問：說諸法言，為是表詮？為遮詮耶？大唐三藏總相判云：諸部皆云：說諸法言多是表詮，但比量中異法喻言唯是遮詮。大乘亦爾。故入理論同法喻云：謂若所作，見彼無常，譬如瓶等。異法喻云：謂若是常，見非所作，如虗空等。此中常言表非無常，非所作言表無所作，故知異喻皆是遮詮。又掌珍論第一卷云：為遮異品立異法喻，異品無故遮義已成。又第二云：又遮詮言遮止為勝，遮所遮已功能即盡，無能更表所詮差別。今依大乘，一切言說皆是遮詮。故理門論云：喻有二種：同法、異法。前是遮詮，後唯止濫。具說如彼。解云：此簡二喻差別，前是同喻，後是異喻。諸法自相不可言說，若詮共相要遮餘法，如說青言遮非青等。又廣百論第九卷云：我諸所說皆是遮言。標宗遮謂遮他生滅等執，無生非滅唯為遮生，無滅非生但為遮滅。正釋非斷常等，類此應知。類釋雖涅槃時生滅斷滅，此方便說是假非真，如說天中有常樂等，是隨俗說非稱實言。釋通伏難應以前說諸句文詞，隨其所應破諸妄執。我等皆妄，誰復為真？謂畢竟空心言路絕，分別戲論皆不能行，唯諸聖賢內智所證。示正道理三、名義相對，互為客故，不可言說。如攝大乘第五云：復次云何得知如依他起自性、遍計所執自性顯現而非稱體？由名前覺無，稱體相違故；由名有眾多，多體相違故；名不決定，雜體相違故。若廣分別，如世親及無性釋、三無性論及瑜伽、菩薩地，具說如彼。四、一切法無所得故，不可言說。故金剛般若等云：如來所說法，皆不可取、不可說。何以故？一切聖人皆以無為法而有差別。又無垢稱經不二法門，有諸菩薩隨所了知各別說已，同時發問妙吉祥言：云何菩薩名為悟入不二法？時妙吉祥告諸菩薩：汝等所言雖皆是無，如我意者，汝等所說猶名為二。若諸菩薩於一切法無言無說、無表無示，離諸戲論、絕諸分別，是為悟入不二法門。時妙吉祥復問無垢稱言：我等隨意各別說已，仁者當說。無垢稱默然無說。具說如彼。肇師釋云：此品有三分：初諸菩薩以言說明不二，次文殊遣言明不二，後維摩詰杜默明不二。言說明不二者，示藉教以生解，依言以通理。遣言明不二者，示雖由言以通理，著言則乖宗。杜默明不二者，示心寂則會真，有心則墮二。復次諸菩薩依法明不二，文殊依理明不二，維摩無依明不二。依法者除教依觀，依理者捨觀依空，無依者捨空而滅觀。此是入道，深淺不同。如上所說四種義中，有說：此經依第四義，一切諸法不可得故。有說：如攝大乘名義互為客等，故名不可說。是故瑜伽七十三云：問：如是五事，為攝一切法？為不如是耶？答曰：如是。問：彼一切法以何為性？答：諸法性不言說。問：云何應觀彼諸法相？答：如幻事相非令無有，乃至唯有名相可得，無有自性。問：可言中不可言，可說諸法不可說；不可言中不可言，如何諸法不可說？答：正立宗時，不可言言亦已遮遣。為令覺知如是義故，方便施設譬喻等言。問：一切法不可言說，如何世尊為他宣說？答：如瑜伽三十六說：若不起言說，則不能為他說。一切法離言自，他性亦不聞。若無有聞，即不能知此一切法離言自性。為欲令他聞知諸法離言自性，是故於此離言自性而起言說。問：一切言說皆依尋伺不？答：諸說不同。親光師說：八地已上不依尋伺而起言說，以諸尋伺唯有漏故。護法說云：十地菩薩必假尋伺而起言說。復說尋伺亦通無漏後得智。問：無分別智現在前時能說法不？解云：說亦無妨。於一剎那二智並行，於中無分別智非尋伺俱，後所得智與尋伺俱起言說故。依智度論第十七云：菩薩常入禪定，攝心不動，不生覺觀，亦能說法。廣說如彼。
> Commentary explains: The third aspect, "inexpressible nature," refers to Suchness and Ultimate Reality, which transcend distinctions like conditioned and unconditioned. However, "inexpressible" appears in various forms across sacred teachings: 1. \*\*Not classified among the four categories\*\*: The Vātsīputrīya school posits five categories—past, present, future, unconditioned, and the inexpressible. The inexpressible category is the true self, which cannot be labeled as temporal, unconditioned, or otherwise. The \*Demonstration of Consciousness Only\* refutes this with logical inference: if the true self is said to be inexpressible, is it inexpressible as self or non-self, existent or non-existent? Such ambiguity is like an illusion or emptiness. 2. \*\*Beyond benefit and harm\*\*: The Sarvāstivāda school holds this view. As \*Great Commentary on the Abhidharma\* (Vol. 15) states: If things were expressible, saying "fire" would burn the tongue, and saying "food" would satisfy hunger. 3. \*\*Four meanings in Mahāyāna\*\*: - \*\*Beyond benefit and harm\*\*: Similar to the Sarvāstivāda position, as in the \*Treatise on Great Perfection of Wisdom\*, where fire as a concept does not burn. - \*\*Direct perception\*\*: According to \*Logic,\* all phenomena have two aspects: intrinsic nature (directly perceived, inexpressible) and general characteristics (inferable, expressible). Thus, what is known through scripture or inference cannot capture the intrinsic nature of things. \*Question\*: Are statements about phenomena affirmative or negative in form? Master Xuanzang summarized: Most statements are affirmative, but in logical inference, dissimilar examples are negative. Thus, in \*Introduction to Logic,\* a similar example says: "Whatever is made is impermanent, like a pot." A dissimilar example says: "Whatever is permanent is not made, like space." Here "permanent" negates impermanence, and "not made" negates being made, showing that dissimilar examples are purely negative. The \*Jewel in Hand Treatise\* (Vol. 1) states: Dissimilar examples are used to exclude opposite categories; since such opposites do not exist, negation is already accomplished. Vol. 2 adds: Negative statements excel at stopping errors; once the error is negated, no further positive meaning is conveyed. In Mahāyāna, all speech is ultimately negative. The \*Logic\* says: Two types of examples exist—similar and dissimilar. The former negates, the latter merely prevents confusion. This distinguishes the two: the similar example is negative, the dissimilar one only curbs misunderstandings. Intrinsic nature cannot be spoken; even general descriptions require excluding others, such as saying "blue" means "not non-blue." The \*Treatise on the Hundred Verses\* (Vol. 9) says: All my teachings are negations. \*\[Core thesis\]\* Negation counters attachments to arising, ceasing, etc. Saying "no arising, no ceasing" merely refutes arising; "no ceasing, no arising" merely refutes ceasing. \*\[Explanation\]\* Similarly, "neither permanent nor annihilated" follows this pattern. \*\[Further clarification\]\* Though nirvāṇa involves the cessation of arising and ceasing, such conventional descriptions are provisional, not ultimate—like saying devas experience eternal bliss, which is worldly parlance, not exact truth. \*\[Resolving objections\]\* The earlier words, in their respective contexts, dismantle false views. If we are all deluded, who then is real? True reality is utterly empty, beyond words and thoughts, untouched by conceptual proliferation—only realized by the inner wisdom of sages. \*\[True principle\]\* - \*\*Name and meaning are mutually dependent\*\*: According to \*Compendium of Mahāyāna\* (Vol. 5): Why is the appearance of dependent nature as conceptualized nature not true to reality? Because recognizing arises before the name, yet contradicts the essence; because many names exist, yet the essence is singular; because names are not fixed, yet the essence is mixed. Detailed explanations appear in Vasubandhu's and Asaṅga's commentaries, the \*Treatise on Three Natures,\* and the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* on Bodhisattva stages. - \*\*All phenomena are unobtainable\*\*: The \*Diamond Sūtra\* states: The Tathāgata's teachings are neither graspable nor expressible, for all sages differ based on the unconditioned dharma. The \*Vimalakīrti Sūtra\* on the non-dual Dharma gate recounts: After bodhisattvas shared their understandings, they asked Mañjuśrī, "How does a bodhisattva enter the non-dual Dharma?" Mañjuśrī replied, "Your words, though correct, still constitute duality. If a bodhisattva remains wordless, silent, unexpressed, free from conceptualization and discrimination, that is entering the non-dual Dharma." Then Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti, who remained silent. \*\[Master Zhao's commentary: This chapter has three parts: bodhisattvas express non-duality through words, Mañjuśrī transcends words, and Vimalakīrti's silence. Words show how to use teachings to generate understanding; Mañjuśrī shows that clinging to words deviates from truth; silence shows that mental stillness meets reality, while mental activity falls into duality. Moreover, bodhisattvas rely on teachings to clarify non-duality, Mañjuśrī on principle, and Vimalakīrti on nothing at all—the former uses practice, the middle uses emptiness, the latter abandons even emptiness, marking progressively deeper entry into the path.\]\* Among the four meanings above, some say this sūtra follows the fourth—all phenomena being unobtainable. Others say it follows the third—name and meaning being mutually dependent. Thus \*Yogācārabhūmi\* (Vol. 73) asks: Do the five categories encompass all dharmas? Yes. What is their nature? Their nature is inexpressible. How should one view them? Like illusions—not absent, yet only name and form are obtainable, without intrinsic substance. \*Question\*: If the expressible is already inexpressible, how can we say phenomena are inexpressible? \*Answer\*: In establishing the thesis, even the phrase "inexpressible" is itself negated. To help realize this, expedient illustrations and words are used. \*Question\*: If all phenomena are inexpressible, how did the Buddha teach others? \*Answer\*: Per \*Yogācārabhūmi\* (Vol. 36): Without speech, one cannot teach. All phenomena are beyond words; naturally, others cannot hear them. Without hearing, one cannot know this wordless nature. To enable others to hear and know this, speech is employed regarding the inexpressible. \*Question\*: Does all speech depend on mental inquiry? \*Answer\*: Various views exist. Master Jinagupta says: From the eighth bodhisattva ground onward, one speaks without mental inquiry, as such inquiry is inherently defiled. Dharmapāla says: Bodhisattvas on all ten grounds necessarily use mental inquiry to speak, and inquiry can also accompany the post-awakening wisdom that is undefiled. \*Question\*: Can one teach while in non-discriminating wisdom? \*Answer\*: Yes, it is possible. In a single moment, both wisdoms operate: non-discriminating wisdom does not co-arise with inquiry, but the subsequently attained wisdom does, enabling speech. According to the \*Treatise on Great Perfection of Wisdom\* (Vol. 17): Bodhisattvas constantly dwell in meditation, with minds settled and unmoving, free from discursive thought, yet still able to teach.
是故，法涌！由此道理，當知勝義超過一切尋思境相。
> Therefore, Dharmodgata, you should understand based on this reasoning that ultimate truth transcends all forms of conceptual investigation.
釋曰：第二結文應知。
> Explanation: The second concluding statement should be understood accordingly.
法涌！我說勝義，絕諸表示尋思，但行表示境界。
> Fayong! I speak of the ultimate truth, which transcends all signs and conceptualization, and can only be understood through direct experience beyond the realm of signs and thoughts.
釋曰：第四絕諸表示，先釋、後結。此即釋也。解節經云：復次法上我說真實絕於四事，謂見聞覺知，一切覺觀緣四事起。解云：四事即所見等。深密經中但云離諸言語，而不說四事也。此明勝義離名等故，非見聞等四種境界之所表示。所以者何？見聞覺知皆是有漏戲論所攝，勝義諦理非見聞等所取之境，是故不可所見等事表示勝義。問：言說、表示有何差別？答：非言所說，非見聞等所表示境，故有差別。見聞覺知具如別章。然此所說見聞覺知，諸說不同。薩婆多宗依六根說：眼根名見，耳根為聞，三根名覺，意根名知。故雜心論第一卷云：若眼隨生見，耳界隨生聞，三界隨生覺，意界隨生識。解云：六根名隨生者，謂眼等根皆有隨根生識同分所攝，約同分根為見等體，故約隨生以說見等。俱舍亦爾。故十六云：何等名為所見相？頌曰：由眼耳意識，並餘三所證，如次第名為，所見聞知覺。廣說如彼。大婆沙一百二十一云：此中眼識所受名見，耳識所受名聞，三識所受名覺，意識所受名知。說四境故，見聞覺知是根非識。然舉識者，顯眼等根必由識助方能了境，以同分根能有作用，非彼同分故。問：如何眼耳意三根各立為一？雜心釋云：彼三界以方便得、離欲得、修得、神通性、四支、五支定果，是故彼隨生各別建立。餘三隨生無彼相分，故共建立一。廣如婆沙。問：如何鼻等三根合說為覺？答：雜心頌云：境界唯無記，覺心於中轉，隨生三種識，是則名為覺。俱舍復云：香、味、觸三無記性故，如死無覺。故能證者偏立覺名。問：第六意根設不生識，得成同分，亦得成知。不爾，羅漢最後念意應不成知。而雜心云意界隨生識者，欲顯有識之根，且說隨生。若細分別，如順正理。〔此〕二依經部宗，有其三釋。依成實論，約三量等以辨見等。故第十四八語品云：問：見、聞、知、覺有何差別？答曰：有三種信：見名現在信，聞名信賢聖語，知名比知，覺名分別三種信慧。此三種慧，或皆是實，或皆顛倒，具如彼說。六識之心得現境界，名之為現，故論說言：見名現信。不現境界，藉教而知，說之為聞，故論說言：聞名信於賢聖之語。於彼不見不聞境界，依前見聞譬度知者，說之為知，故論說言：知名比知。前三心後重分別心，名之為覺。云何分別？先因見已，後重思惟，起於見想，或忘前見，起不見想，此則是其見後覺也。聞知後覺，類亦可知。然此覺心非直從於見及知三心後起，其亦從於不見不聞不知後生。先不見，後忘不見，生於見想，此則是其不見後覺。不聞、不知生覺例然。若依俱舍十六，有二師說：一云：有餘師說：若是五根現所證境，名為所見；若他傳聞，說為所聞；若運自心，以種種理比度所許，名為所覺；若意現證，名為所知。於五境中，一一容起見、聞、覺、知四種言說。於第六境，除見有三，具說如彼。此師意說：若是五根現量所證五境，以分明故，名為所見；若依教量，從他傳說六境，名為所聞；若依比量，運自己心，以種種理比度所許六境，名為所覺；若意識依現量證六境，名為所知。謂意識親從五識後起，現量證五。若在定意識現量證法，或在定意現量六能，通證六境。先軌範師作如是說：眼所現見，名為所見；從他傳聞，名為所聞；自運己心諸所思搆，名為所覺；自內所受及自所證，名為所知。解云：此師意說：眼現量所見，名為所見。所以唯眼名為見者，色境顯現最分明故，故眼唯見。若依教量，從他傳聞六境，名為所聞；若依比量，自運己心諸所思搆，名為所覺。又依現量，耳、鼻、舌、身自內所受四境，及意根現量自內所證六境，〔但〕名所知。若依此釋，見唯在眼，聞、覺唯意，知通耳、鼻、舌、身、意。於六境中，色境容起四種，聲等五境容起聞、覺、知三。今依大乘，諸教不同。依智度論第四十云：眼識所知名為所見，耳識所知名為所聞，鼻舌身三識所知名為所覺，意識所緣名為所知。具說如彼。依雜集論第一卷云：見聞覺知義者，眼所受是見義，耳所受是聞義，自然思搆應如是如是是覺義，自內所受是知義。又瑜伽第二卷云：云何四種言說？謂依見聞覺知所有言說。依見言說者，謂依眼故現見外色，由是因緣為他宣說。依聞言說者，謂從他聞，由此因緣為他宣說。依覺言說者，謂不見不聞，但自然思搆稱量觀察，由此因緣為他宣說。依知言說者，謂各別於內所受所證所觸所得，由此因緣為他宣說。所言見者，自有三釋：一云：眼根名見，故云眼所受是見義意同薩婆多。一云：眼識名見，故瑜伽第二卷云：謂依眼故現見外色，而言眼所受是見義者，識依眼故。一云：眼相及識名見，故雜集云：眼所受是見義。又瑜伽云：謂依眼故現見外色，故知眼根及識以為見體。問：若爾，如何雜集第二云：問：為眼見色、為識等耶？答：非眼見色亦非識等，以一切法無作用故，由有和合假立為見。又由六相，眼於見色中最勝非識等，是故說眼能見諸色六相如論。問：瑜伽五十六云：約勝義道理，非是眼等，亦非彼識。何以故？諸法自性，眾緣生故，剎那滅故，無作用故。約世俗道理，眼等最勝。故可於彼假立見者，具如彼說。如何說言眼根及識二俱為見？答：為遮根識各別為見，故言見等非根非識。非遮根識和合名見，是故根識俱名為見。又解：見聞覺知中，見與見色，見不同故，不相違也。若依智度論，四法和合，謂耳根、耳識、意識及聲，和合名聞，具說如彼。所言聞者，聞他所說聞思慧等以為自性，此即意識相應心聚以為自性。問：若爾，如何瑜伽說聞為聖言量？答：聖言量自有二種：一、聖者言教為聖言量，此即聖言即量，名聖言量，是持業釋。二、聞慧等名聖言量，此即聖言之量，故言聖言量，是依主釋。瑜伽依此，故說聞慧等為聖言量。若自運己心，自然思搆，比量意識以為覺性。若耳等四識及現量意識皆名為知，故瑜伽云：依知言說者，謂各別於內所受、所證、所觸、所得。解云：耳識名所受，鼻舌二識名所證，身識名所觸，現量意識名所得。或可耳等四識並取其根，而雜集論但言自內所受是知義者，攝所證等皆名內所受，皆內現量，受境同故。問：第七八識為見等不？答：據實為論，第七末那非量攝故，不立見等。第八賴耶唯現量故，攝在知中。而大母經等且依六識，故不說之。若依瑜伽，約三量義以辨見等，故彼九十三云：又即依止四種言說，應知一切所依三量。若見、若知二種言說，是依現量；若覺言說，是依比量；若聞言說，依至教量。問：眼等根是現量不？若是現量，如何理門論說此中現量謂無分別智？若有正智，於色等義離名種等。若非現量，何故雜集說云眼所受是見義，瑜伽即云見是現量？答：此有兩解：一云根非現量，現量依故，瑜伽等云色根現量。一云有二種：一是色根，如瑜伽第十五云色根現量者，謂五色根所行境界；二即心等，如理門論故說眼等亦名現量。問：八地已上聞諸聖教，第六意識即是定心，如何不說是現量耶？解云：有其二義：一者現量，得自相故；或聖言量，量聖言故。問：若爾，如何陳那菩薩但立二量，謂現量、比量？其聖言量，比量所攝。解云：二菩薩宗其義不同，故不可會。釋文云：陳那菩薩云聖言量是比量者，約聖教說，故不相違。若依顯揚第十八，言說差別約界分別，謂欲界中具有四種言說，色界無覺、無推度故，無色界中一切無有。解云：於欲界中具有見等及四言說。於色界中據實應有微細推度，而言無者，約麤相說。無色界中無別三種，尋即可知。論其知體據實亦有，以微細故略而不說。彼無言說，義顯可知。
> Commentary: The fourth section concerns transcending all forms of expression. It first explains, then summarizes. This is the explanation. This clarifies that the ultimate truth transcends names and characteristics, and therefore cannot be expressed or indicated by the four types of objects—seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. Why? Because seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing all fall within the realm of defiled mental fabrications, while the ultimate truth is not an object that can be grasped by these faculties. Thus, the ultimate truth cannot be indicated by things seen, heard, and so forth. Question: What is the difference between verbal expression and indication? Answer: The ultimate is neither spoken of in words nor indicated by seeing, hearing, etc., so there is a difference. The details of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing are explained elsewhere. However, there are various interpretations of what this "seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing" means. The Sarvāstivāda school explains it in terms of the six sense faculties: the eye faculty is called "seeing," the ear faculty "hearing," three faculties "sensing," and the mind faculty "knowing." Thus, the \*Miscellaneous Mind Treatise\* (first volume) says: "When the eye arises with perception, it is called seeing; when the ear arises with perception, it is called hearing; when three faculties arise with perception, they are called sensing; when the mind faculty arises with perception, it is called knowing." The commentary explains: "The six faculties are called 'arising with perception' because the eye and other faculties each have consciousness arising dependent on them, all within the same category. It is in terms of this same-category faculty that seeing and so on are defined, so they are described as 'arising with perception'." The \*Abhidharma Kośa\* also says the same, stating (in chapter sixteen): "What are the characteristics of what is seen? The verse says: By the eye, ear, mind, and consciousness, and the remaining three as objects of proof, in order, they are called what is seen, heard, known, and sensed." The details are explained there. The \*Great Vibhāṣā\* (section 121) says: "Here, what is received by the eye consciousness is called seen; what is received by the ear consciousness is called heard; what is received by the three consciousnesses (nose, tongue, body) is called sensed; what is received by the mind consciousness is called known." Because it speaks of four objects, seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing pertain to the faculties, not the consciousnesses. However, consciousness is mentioned to show that the eye and other faculties must be assisted by consciousness to perceive objects, since only same-category faculties can function, not those of a different category. Question: Why are the eye, ear, and mind faculties each established as one, while the others are grouped? The \*Miscellaneous Mind Treatise\* explains: "The three faculties (eye, ear, mind) are obtained through practice, through detachment, through cultivation, are miraculous in nature, and are the fruits of the four- and five-stage meditations. Therefore, each of these 'arising with perception' faculties is established separately. The other three 'arising with perception' faculties lack such distinct characteristics, so they are combined into one." The details are as found in the \*Vibhāṣā\*. Question: Why are the nose, tongue, and body faculties combined as "sensing"? Answer: The \*Miscellaneous Mind Treatise\* verse says: "Their objects are only neutral, and the sensing mind operates within them; the three types of consciousness arising with them are called sensing." The \*Kośa\* further notes: "Odors, tastes, and tangibles are neutral in nature, like the dead, without sensation. Therefore, that which can perceive them is specifically given the name 'sensing.'" Question: Even if the sixth mind faculty generates no consciousness, can it still be same-category and thus be "knowing"? No—if so, an arhat's final moment of mind should not be knowing. But the \*Miscellaneous Mind Treatise\* says "the mind faculty arises with perception" to indicate a faculty possessing consciousness, so it speaks conditionally of "arising with perception." (For finer distinctions, see the \*Nyāyānusāra\*.) According to the Sautrāntika school, there are three interpretations. According to the \*Satyasiddhi Śāstra\*, it distinguishes seeing and so on in terms of the three forms of valid cognition. Thus, in its fourteenth chapter (the section on eight phrases): "Question: What is the difference between seeing, hearing, knowing, and sensing? Answer: There are three types of trust: seeing is trusting what is present; hearing is trusting the words of sages; knowing is inference; sensing is discriminating the wisdom of these three types. These three types of wisdom may all be real or all inverted," as detailed there. According to the \*Kośa\* (chapter sixteen), there are two masters' views: One says: "Some other masters say: Whatever is directly perceived by the five faculties is called 'seen'; what is transmitted by others is called 'heard'; what one reasons out oneself by various logical inferences is called 'sensed'; what is directly realized by the mind is called 'known.' For each of the five sense objects, four types of description—seeing, hearing, sensing, knowing—can arise. For the sixth object, three apply (excluding seeing)," as detailed there. The first master's intent: "Whatever the five faculties directly perceive in its distinct form is called 'seen' due to its clarity; whatever is learned from another's transmission about the six objects according to scriptural authority is called 'heard'; whatever one reasons out by inference using one's own mind about the six objects is called 'sensed'; whatever the mind consciousness directly perceives is called 'known,' noting that the mind consciousness, arising right after the five consciousnesses, directly perceives the five; and in meditative states, the mind consciousness directly perceives mental objects, or in meditative absorption, directly perceives all six objects." The earlier teacher (ācārya) said: "What is directly seen by the eye is called 'seen'; what is transmitted from others is called 'heard'; what one ponders and constructs with one's own mind is called 'sensed'; what is personally received and personally realized is called 'known.'" The commentary explains: "This teacher's view is that what is directly perceived by the eye is called 'seen,' because only the eye is called seeing since forms appear most distinctly. Thus, only the eye sees. What is learned from others about the six objects according to scriptural authority is called 'heard'; what one reasons out by inference with one's own mind is called 'sensed.' Moreover, what is personally received by the ear, nose, tongue, and body as the four objects, and what is personally realized by the mind faculty as the six objects, is called 'known.' According to this interpretation, seeing is only in the eye; hearing and sensing are only in the mind; knowing encompasses the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. Among the six objects, form can give rise to all four types, while sound and the others can give rise to hearing, sensing, and knowing." Now, according to the Mahāyāna, various texts differ. According to the \*Great Prajñāpāramitā Śāstra\* (chapter forty): "What is received by the eye consciousness is called 'seen'; what is received by the ear consciousness is called 'heard'; what is received by the nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses is called 'sensed'; what is taken as an object by the mind consciousness is called 'known,'" as detailed there. According to the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* (first volume): "The meaning of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing: what the eye receives is the meaning of 'seeing'; what the ear receives is 'hearing'; naturally pondering 'it should be thus and thus' is 'sensing'; personally receiving within is 'knowing.'" Also, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* (second volume) says: "What are the four types of expression? Namely, expressions based on seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. Expressions based on seeing: relying on the eye, one directly sees external forms, and through that cause speaks to others. Expressions based on hearing: hearing from others, through that cause one speaks to others. Expressions based on sensing: not seeing or hearing, but naturally pondering, weighing, and observing, through that cause one speaks to others. Expressions based on knowing: what one personally receives, realizes, touches, and obtains within, through that cause one speaks to others." Regarding the term "seeing," there are three interpretations: (1) The eye faculty is called seeing, so "what the eye receives" means seeing (same as the Sarvāstivāda view). (2) The eye consciousness is called seeing, so the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says "relying on the eye, one directly sees external forms," and "what the eye receives" because consciousness depends on the eye. (3) Both the eye's characteristics and consciousness are called seeing, so the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says "what the eye receives means seeing," and the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says "relying on the eye, one directly sees external forms," showing that both the eye faculty and consciousness constitute seeing. Question: If so, how does the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* (chapter two) state: "Question: Does the eye see forms, or does consciousness? Answer: Neither the eye sees forms nor consciousness, because all phenomena lack function; due to their conjunction, 'seeing' is provisionally established. Also, by six characteristics, the eye is supreme in seeing forms, not consciousness, so the eye is said to see all forms" (the six characteristics are as in the text). Also, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* (chapter fifty-six) says: "From the ultimate perspective, it is neither the eye faculty nor that consciousness. Why? Because the self-nature of all phenomena arises from multiple causes, perishes moment by moment, and lacks function. From the conventional perspective, the eye faculty is supreme, so 'seer' can be provisionally applied to it," as detailed there. Now, how can it be said that both the eye faculty and consciousness are "seeing"? Answer: To counter the view that the faculty or consciousness alone constitutes seeing, it is said that seeing is neither faculty nor consciousness. This does not deny that the conjunction of faculty and consciousness constitutes seeing; therefore both are called seeing. Another interpretation: In "seeing, hearing, sensing, knowing," "seeing" as a faculty and "seeing forms" differ, so there is no contradiction. According to the \*Great Prajñāpāramitā Śāstra\* (chapter forty), four elements combine—ear faculty, ear consciousness, mind consciousness, and sound—and their conjunction is called "hearing," as detailed there. Regarding "hearing": hearing what others say, with the wisdom of listening and reflection as its nature; this is the mental grouping associated with the mind consciousness as its nature. Question: If so, how does the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* say hearing is "authoritative speech" (\*āgama\*)? Answer: "Authoritative speech" has two types: (1) The teachings of sages are authoritative speech—that is, the speech itself is authority, called "authoritative speech" (a dependent compound). (2) The wisdom of listening, etc., is authoritative speech—that is, the authority of sacred speech, called "authoritative speech" (a possessive compound). The \*Yogācārabhūmi\* follows this, so it says the wisdom of listening is authoritative speech. If one relies on one's own mind naturally pondering, comparing, and inferring, the inference consciousness is the nature of "sensing." If the ear and other four consciousnesses and the direct-perceiving mind consciousness are called "knowing," the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says: "Expressions based on knowing: personally receiving, realizing, touching, and obtaining within." The commentary explains: "The ear consciousness is called 'receiving'; the nose and tongue consciousnesses 'realizing'; the body consciousness 'touching'; the direct-perceiving mind consciousness 'obtaining.' Or, the ear and other four consciousnesses each involve their faculties, but the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says 'personally receiving within' is knowing, covering realizing, touching, etc., all as 'personally receiving within'—all direct internal perception, receiving objects alike." Question: Are the seventh and eighth consciousnesses included in seeing and so on? Answer: In ultimate terms, the seventh consciousness (manas) is not included in valid cognition, so it is not established as seeing, etc. The eighth consciousness (\*ālaya\*) is solely direct perception, so it falls under "knowing." The \*Great Mother Sūtra\* and others refer only to the six consciousnesses, so they do not mention it. According to the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, which distinguishes seeing and so on in terms of three forms of valid cognition, its ninety-third chapter states: "Relying on the four types of expression, one should understand all bases as three forms of valid cognition. The two types of expression—seeing and knowing—are based on direct perception; the expression of sensing is based on inference; the expression of hearing is based on authoritative speech." Question: Are the eye and other faculties direct perception? If so, how does the \*Nyāyamukha\* say direct perception is non-discriminative cognition? If there is correct cognition, regarding forms and other objects, free from names and categories. If not direct perception, why does the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* say "what the eye receives means seeing," and the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says seeing is direct perception? Answer: There are two interpretations: (1) Faculties are not direct perception, but the basis of direct perception; the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* and others say "the direct perception of material faculties"—a dependent relation. (2) There are two types: one is the material faculties, as the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* (chapter fifteen) says: "Direct perception of material faculties means the objects traversed by the five material faculties"; the second is mind, etc., as in the \*Nyāyamukha\*, so the eye and others are also called direct perception. Question: For those on the eighth bodhisattva stage and above, hearing sacred teachings, their sixth consciousness is a meditative mind—how is it not said to be direct perception? Commentary: There are two aspects: (1) It is direct perception, because it grasps the characteristic itself; (2) It is authoritative speech, because it measures sacred speech. Question: If so, how does Master Diṅnāga establish only two forms of valid cognition—direct perception and inference? Authoritative speech is subsumed under inference. Commentary: The two masters' systems differ, so they cannot be reconciled. The explanation says: Master Diṅnāga said authoritative speech is inference, referring to scriptural teachings, so there is no contradiction. According to the \*Saṃdhinirmocana\* (chapter eighteen), the differences in expression are distinguished by realms: the desire realm has all four types of expression; the form realm lacks sensing, since there is no deliberation; in the formless realm, all are absent. (Commentary: The desire realm has seeing and the other four expressions. The form realm, in reality, should have subtle deliberation, but it is said to lack it, speaking of gross characteristics. The formless realm lacks the distinct three—immediately inferable. Considering the essence of "knowing," it actually exists there too, but being subtle, it is omitted. That they lack verbal expression is evident in meaning.)
是故，法涌！由是道理，當知勝義超過一切尋思境相。
> Therefore, O Dharmodgata! In this way, you should understand that the ultimate truth surpasses all realms of conceptual thought.
釋曰：第二結文可知。
> The commentary explains: The second concluding passage is understood accordingly.
法涌！我說勝義絕諸諍論，尋思但行諍論境界。
> Dharma-flood! I declare that ultimate truth transcends all contentious debate; speculation only operates within the realm of argumentation.
釋曰：自下第五絕諸諍論相，先釋後結，此即釋也。言諍論者，謂我我所見，於五蘊中執有真我而是真如，離我我所非我見等諍論煩惱所行之處，故名絕諸諍論。真諦解云：鬪諍二種：一者在家於五塵境由思推煩惱故起鬪諍，二出家人由相違所起諸見故生鬪諍。依俱舍論第一卷云：有漏名取蘊，亦說名有諍。長行釋云：煩惱名取蘊，從取生故名取蘊，如草糠火；或蘊屬取故名取蘊，如帝王臣；或蘊生取故名取蘊，如華菓樹。此有漏法亦名有諍。煩惱名諍，觸動善品故，損害自他故，諍隨增故，名為有諍，猶如有漏。依大毗婆沙第一百七十九云：諍有三種：一煩惱諍，二蘊諍，三鬪諍。煩惱諍者，謂百八煩惱。蘊諍者，謂死鬬淨者，謂諸有情互相㥄辱，言語相違。雜心第一，意亦同此。依集論等以貪瞋痴為諍體性，故第二卷云：云何有諍？幾是有諍？為何義故觀有諍耶？謂依如是貪瞋痴故，執持刀杖，發起一切鬪訟違諍故，彼自性故，彼相屬故，彼所縛故，彼所隨故，彼隨順故，彼種類故，是有諍義。乃至有漏有爾所量，有諍亦爾。雜集第三亦同集論。然彼所說自性等者，如有漏中說，准即可知。漏自性者，諸漏自性漏性合故，名為有漏。漏相屬者，謂漏共有心心法，及眼等漏相應故，漏所依故，如其次第名有漏。漏所縛者，謂有漏善法，由漏勢力招後有故。漏所隨者，謂餘地法，亦為餘地諸漏麤重所隨逐故。漏隨順者，謂順決擇分，雖為煩惱麤重所隨，然得建立為無漏性，以背一切有，順彼對治故。漏種類者，謂阿羅漢有漏諸蘊，前生煩惱所起故。五取蘊十五界十處全，及三界二處少分是有漏，謂除最後三界二處少分聖道眷屬，及諸無為非有漏。或依瑜伽論，一切煩惱皆名有諍。故第八云：煩惱差別者，多種差別應知，謂結縛隨眠，乃至有諍等。
> The commentary states: Hereafter, the fifth section concerns the cessation of all grounds for disputes. It first explains and then concludes; this is the explanation. When it speaks of "disputes," it refers to the views of "self" and "what belongs to self." Within the five aggregates, one clings to a true self as being reality itself. Apart from self and what belongs to self, there is no place where views and other afflictions of dispute operate. Therefore, it is called "the cessation of all disputes." According to the explanation based on ultimate truth: There are two kinds of conflict: First, laypeople, due to mental deliberation and afflictions regarding the five sense objects, give rise to quarrels. Second, monastics, due to conflicting views arising from opposing opinions, give rise to disputes. According to the first volume of the Abhidharma Treasury: "Defiled aggregates are called 'appropriated aggregates,' and they are also said to be 'possessing disputes.'" The prose commentary explains: Afflictions give rise to clinging, so they are called "appropriated aggregates," just as fire fueled by grass and chaff is named after its fuel. Or, the aggregates belong to clinging, so they are called "appropriated aggregates," like a king's ministers. Or, the aggregates give rise to clinging, so they are called "appropriated aggregates," like fruit trees that produce blossoms. These defiled phenomena are also said to "possess disputes." Afflictions are called "disputes" because they disturb wholesome qualities, harm oneself and others, and grow stronger through contention. Thus, they are called "possessing disputes," just as they are "defiled." According to the Great Commentary on the Abhidharma, volume 179: There are three kinds of disputes: disputes of affliction, disputes of the aggregates, and disputes of quarreling. "Disputes of affliction" refer to the 108 afflictions. "Disputes of the aggregates" refer to death and contention. "Disputes of quarreling" refer to sentient beings insulting one another and speaking in opposition. The first volume of the Miscellaneous Mind commentary agrees with this view. According to the Compendium of Abhidharma and related texts, greed, aversion, and delusion constitute the nature of dispute. Therefore, in the second volume: "What is 'possessing dispute'? How much is 'possessing dispute'? Why observe 'possessing dispute'? That is, based on such greed, aversion, and delusion, one grasps weapons, giving rise to all fighting, litigation, and opposition. As its intrinsic nature, as its associates, as what binds it, as what follows it, as what accords with it, as its type—this is the meaning of 'possessing dispute.'" Whatever extent is defiled, to that same extent is "possessing dispute." The third volume of the Miscellaneous Compendium agrees with the Compendium of Abhidharma. Regarding what is said about "intrinsic nature" and so forth: Understanding is possible by referring to the explanation of "defiled." The intrinsic nature of defilements is that the nature of all defilements combined is called "defiled." "Defiled associates" refers to the mind and mental factors that accompany defilements, and the eye and other sense bases that correspond to defilements, and serve as their support—each respectively is called "defiled." "Bound by defilements" refers to wholesome defiled dharmas, which, by the power of defilements, produce future existence. "Followed by defilements" refers to dharmas of other stages, which are also accompanied by the coarser defilements of those other stages. "Accordance with defilements" refers to dharmas conducive to certainty of liberation: although coarser defilements accompany them, they are still established as undefiled, because they turn away from all existence and accord with the remedy. "Types of defilements" refers to the defiled aggregates of an arhat, which are produced by past afflictions. The five appropriated aggregates, the fifteen sense realms, and all of the ten sense bases are defiled. Also included are parts of the three realms and two sense bases—excluding the final three realms and parts of the two sense bases, which are the noble path and its retinue, as well as unconditioned dharmas, which are not defiled. Alternatively, according to the Discourse on the Stages of Yogic Practice, all afflictions are called "possessing dispute." Therefore, in volume eight: "The distinctions of afflictions should be known as many, such as binding, fetters, latent tendencies, and even possessing disputes, and so forth."
是故，法涌！由此道理，當知勝義超過一切尋思境相。
> Therefore, Dharmodgata, you should understand based on this reasoning that ultimate truth transcends all forms of conceptual investigation.
釋曰：第二結文可知。
> The commentary explains: The second concluding passage is understood accordingly.
法涌當知，譬如有人盡其壽量習辛苦味，於蜜、石蜜上妙美味，不能尋思、不能比度、不能信解。
> Fayong, know this: just as a person who spends their entire life accustomed to bitter tastes cannot imagine, compare, or believe in the exquisite sweetness of honey or sugar candy.
釋曰：自下第五舉喻重釋，有其五喻喻上五法。真諦三藏配五種樂以為五喻，釋上五法。言五樂者，一出家樂、二遠離樂、三寂靜樂、四正覺樂、五涅槃樂。五樂次第者，唯涅槃樂是最真實，所餘四樂是方便。方便有四：初出家樂是涅槃緣起，由信根成；次遠離樂是涅槃資糧，由精進根成；三寂靜樂是涅槃道依止，即涅槃緣，由定根成；四正覺樂是涅槃正道，由慧根成。念根通此四處，皆諸憶念故。由是四方便，次第得涅槃常樂我淨。今解此經，依瑜伽等無惱害樂所攝四樂，開為五樂以釋此經。言四樂者，一出家樂、二遠離樂、三寂靜樂、四菩提樂。解云：第四菩提樂中開為二種：一菩提樂、二涅槃樂。故瑜伽論三十八云：二智二斷皆名菩提。善戒經、地持論亦同瑜伽。又涅槃二十五云：諸佛如來有二種樂：一寂滅樂、二覺知樂。今先辨五種樂義，後方便釋文。五種樂義具如別章。就釋文中，依五種樂喻上五相，即分為五：一出家上味勝樂喻、二遠離五欲妙樂喻、三賢聖嘿然靜樂喻、四滅諸表示寂靜喻、五離諸諍論覺樂喻。此即第一出家上味勝樂喻。言譬如有人等者，如人一生常食苦味，於石蜜味不能尋思比度信解。在家亦爾，久在生死，恒習在世間憂苦麤味，於出家樂妙梵行味不能尋思比度信解。故瑜伽云：正信捨家，趣於非家，解脫煩籠，居家迫迮，種種大苦，名出離樂。又涅槃云：居家迫迮，喻如牢獄，一切煩惱由之而生。出家寬曠，猶如虗空，一切善法由之增長。若在家不得盡壽淨修梵行，我今應剃除𩯭髮，出家修學無上菩提。又智度論第三卷云：孔雖有色嚴身，不如鴻鴈能遠飛；白衣雖有富貴力，不如出家功德勝。然此出家自有二種：一形出家，如上所說；二心出家，如維摩云：雖為白衣，奉持沙門清淨律行；雖處居家，不著三界，示有妻子，常修梵行。又彼復云：但發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，是即出家，是即具足。依成實論有其四句，謂有僧威儀無僧德，無僧威儀有僧德，有僧威儀有僧德，無僧威儀無僧德。尋思即可知。此喻意云：尋思比度信解世間三智，但得有漏麤境之味，未得出世三無漏根，自內所證真如妙樂。真諦三藏亦同此意。解節經云：覺觀比度憶念。深密經云：不能覺，不能量，不能信思也。
> Commentary: Now, the fifth section uses parables to further explain the previous five points, employing five analogies. Master Paramārtha aligns these with five kinds of joy to clarify the five points. The five joys are: 1) the joy of renunciation, 2) the joy of detachment, 3) the joy of tranquility, 4) the joy of awakening, and 5) the joy of nirvana. Regarding the order, only nirvana's joy is ultimate; the other four are means. These four means correspond to steps: renunciation joy arises from faith as the basis for nirvana; detachment joy comes from diligence as the groundwork; tranquility joy rests on meditative focus—the immediate cause; awakening joy is the true path, from wisdom. Mindfulness weaves through all four, as it involves recollection. Through these four means, one progressively attains nirvana's lasting bliss. Here, I interpret this scripture alongside Yogācāra texts, which speak of four non-harmful joys, expanded into five. The four are: renunciation, detachment, tranquility, and bodhi. The fourth is split into two: bodhi joy itself and nirvana joy. Thus, Yogācārabhūmi explains that both knowledge and its objects are termed bodhi, as do related texts. Similarly, the Nirvana Sutra mentions two kinds of joy for buddhas: the joy of cessation and the joy of awareness. I'll first outline these five joys, then explain the text. The meanings are detailed elsewhere. In the text, the five analogies correspond to five aspects, divided as: 1) sublime taste of renunciation, 2) bliss of leaving desires, 3) silent calm of sages, 4) stillness beyond signs, 5) joy of transcending disputes. This first analogy illustrates renunciation's unmatched sweetness. The “person” refers to someone who always tastes bitterness and cannot even imagine or trust the flavor of rock sugar. Similarly, householders, long trapped in cyclic existence, habitually savor the coarse bitterness of worldly worries and cannot conceive the pure joy of renouncing home life. Thus, it's said: true renunciation frees one from the cage of afflictions, for household life is cramped and painful—this is the joy of leaving. The Nirvana Sutra compares home to a prison of afflictions, while renunciation is open space where virtues grow. If one cannot live purely chaste at home, one should shave, renounce, and pursue the supreme awakening. As the Śāstra says, peacocks are glamorous but geese can fly far; laypeople may have wealth, but renunciation’s merit is greater. Renunciation has two types: physical, as described, and mental, as Vimalakīrti says: even as a layperson, one can uphold pure practices, not cling to the world, and maintain chastity. He adds that merely resolving to attain supreme awakening is itself renunciation, itself complete. According to some texts, there are combinations of outward form and inner virtue—some lack both, some have one, some have both, which one can discern by reflection. The point here: worldly insight only grasps contaminated, coarse objects, but not the inner, profound bliss of realizing suchness beyond the three transcendental faculties. Master Paramārtha agrees. The Explanation Sūtra says: perception, examination, recollection. The Transcendence Sūtra says: cannot perceive, cannot measure, cannot trust in thought.
或於長夜由欲貪勝解，諸欲熾火所燒然故，於內除滅一切色、聲、香、味、觸相，妙遠離樂，不能尋思，不能比度，不能信解。
> Or in the long night, burning with the blaze of craving and attachment, consumed by the fierce fire of desires, one cannot seek out, cannot measure, cannot even begin to understand the sublime joy of true renunciation—the inner peace found in letting go of all forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches.
釋曰：第二遠離五欲妙樂喻，此即四種樂中遠離樂也。故瑜伽云：斷除諸欲惡不善法，證初禪慮，離生喜樂，名遠離樂。如何此中初後具說？譬如等言中三略者，此即如來文辭善巧也。或可為存略故，餘二本經皆具說者，譯家別故。或可梵本有此不同。言長夜者，謂生死長夜。言欲貪者，欲貪即是十煩惱中貪欲為性。言勝解者，即別境中勝解為體。此中舉欲，意取勝解。言諸欲熾火所燒然故者，此有兩釋：一云：諸欲即是色等五境，五境非一，能生貪欲，故說五境名為諸欲熾火。即是五境上貪能損害故，名為熾火。故智度論云：若人貪著五境，諸結使火盡皆熾然，燒害人身，如火燒人。又十四云：有捕魚師名𪫟波伽，求欲不遂，憂恨懊惱，婬火內發，自燒而死。廣說如彼。若依此釋，諸欲之熾火，故言諸欲熾火，即六釋中依主釋也。一云：諸欲即五境中貪，即說五貪名為熾火。故智度論云：五欲燒人，如逆風執炬。即六釋中持業釋也。言於內除滅等者，內謂內定，簡外散亂，名之為內。於內除滅一切聲香味觸相妙遠離樂者，此明初靜慮定相應樂受，遠離欲界五境上貪，遍身怡適，故言妙遠離樂。據實初定具離五蓋，貪蓋是初，舉初顯後也。廣釋五欲五蓋過患，如智度論第十七卷。若依薩婆多宗，入根本定，唯喜非樂。今依大乘，一剎那喜，令心適悅，名之為喜；令身怡適，名之為樂。如顯揚說，故說初定亦名為樂。此喻意說，由引貪欲勝解勢力，於五欲境上起貪火故，於離五境初靜慮樂不能了知。如是有尋思者，不能了知離色等相無相真如。
> Explanation: The second analogy concerns the bliss of freedom from the five desirable objects, which corresponds to the bliss of detachment among the four kinds of bliss. Thus, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states: "Having abandoned desires and unwholesome qualities, one attains the first meditative absorption, giving rise to joy and happiness born of detachment—this is called the bliss of detachment." How is it that both the beginning and the end are elaborated here? The middle three are briefly summarized with terms like "for example," which reflects the Buddha's skillful use of language. Alternatively, it may be for the sake of brevity; the other two original scriptures elaborate fully, differing due to translators' choices. Or perhaps the Sanskrit versions themselves vary. "Long night" refers to the long night of birth and death (saṃsāra). "Craving and attachment" denotes craving and clinging, whose nature is greed among the ten afflictions. "Strong inclination" (adhimokṣa) has firm conviction as its essence among the particular mental factors. Here, desire is mentioned to imply strong inclination. As for "burned by the blazing fire of desires," there are two interpretations: First, desires refer to the five sense objects such as form and sound; these five objects, being multiple, give rise to greed, so they are called "desires." The "blazing fire" means that greed regarding these five objects harms beings, hence it is called a blazing fire. Thus, the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra\* says: "If a person clings to the five sense objects, all the fires of defilements blaze intensely, burning and harming the body, just as fire burns a person." Also in chapter fourteen: "There was a fisherman named Vibhaka, who, unable to fulfill his desires, was consumed by worry and remorse; the fire of lust blazed within, burning him to death." The details are explained there. According to this interpretation, "the blazing fire of desires" uses the dependent-determinant compound (tatpuruṣa). Second, desires refer to greed regarding the five sense objects, so the five types of greed are called a blazing fire. Thus, the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra\* says: "The five desires burn a person, like holding a torch against the wind." This uses the appositional compound (karmadhāraya). As for "removing internally," "internal" refers to meditative concentration, distinguishing it from external scatteredness—hence called "internal." "Removing all perceptions of sound, fragrance, and touch within, and experiencing the sublime bliss of detachment" clarifies that the pleasurable feeling associated with the first meditative absorption, having distanced itself from greed regarding the five sense objects of the desire realm, brings comfort throughout the body, hence called "sublime bliss of detachment." Strictly speaking, the first absorption removes all five hindrances; the hindrance of greed is listed first, so mentioning it indicates the rest. For a detailed explanation of the faults of the five desires and five hindrances, see chapter seventeen of the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra\*. According to the Sarvāstivāda tradition, entering the fundamental absorption involves joy but not happiness. Here, following the Mahāyāna, in a single moment, joy delights the mind—this is called joy; comfort that soothes the body is called happiness. As the \*Saṃdarśana\* explains, the first absorption is thus also called happiness. This analogy conveys that through the force of craving and strong inclination, the fire of greed arises toward the five sense objects; therefore, one fails to recognize the bliss of the first absorption, which is free from the five objects. Likewise, those with discursive thought cannot perceive the signless true suchness that is free from the marks of form and other phenomena.
或於長夜由言說勝解，樂著世間綺言說故，於內寂靜聖默然樂，不能尋思、不能比度、不能信解。
> Or in the long night of ignorance, because they delight in worldly chatter and take pleasure in clever but empty words, they cannot seek out, cannot compare, cannot comprehend, the inner stillness and the noble silence of the wise.
釋曰：第三賢聖默然寂靜樂喻，此即四種樂中寂靜樂也。故瑜伽云：第二靜慮已上諸定，尋伺止息，名寂靜樂。諸教中說三種法能成三行：一者身行，謂出入息成身之行，故名身行，入第四定能滅身行；二者語行，所謂尋伺發語之行，名為語行，第二靜慮即能除滅。大小乘教皆作此說。第二靜慮已上諸地無尋伺故，將欲發語，皆依下地尋思而說；三者心行，謂受想等助心之行，名為心行，若無心所，心不行故，入滅定時能滅心行。今於此中約言行說，二定已上無尋伺故，不能發言，不發言故，名為寂靜聖嘿然樂。此中意說，有尋伺者，樂著世間綺言說故，不能了知二定已上聖嘿然樂。如是有尋思者，由尋思力行言說境，而不能說離言法性寂靜真如。
> Commentary: The third simile is the noble silence and tranquil joy of the sages. This refers to the joy of tranquility among the four kinds of joy. Thus, the Yogācārabhūmi states: In the second absorption and above, the stilling of thought and examination is called the joy of tranquility. In various teachings, three factors are described as constituting three kinds of activity: First, bodily activity, which is the in-and-out breath that forms the body's activity, hence called bodily activity; it is extinguished upon entering the fourth absorption. Second, verbal activity, which is the thinking and examining that give rise to speech, hence called verbal activity; it can be eliminated at the second absorption. Both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna teachings state this. In the realms of the second absorption and above, there is no thought or examination, so when one wishes to speak, one relies on the thinking of a lower realm. Third, mental activity, which includes feeling, perception, and other factors that assist the mind's functioning, hence called mental activity; without mental factors, the mind does not operate, and entering the absorption of cessation can extinguish mental activity. Here, the discussion focuses on speech: in the second absorption and above, since there is no thought or examination, one cannot utter speech; because one does not speak, it is called the noble silent tranquil joy of the sages. This means that those who still have thought and examination delight in worldly idle talk and cannot understand the noble silent joy of the sages in the second absorption and above. Likewise, those with thoughts, through the power of thinking, engage in verbal description, yet cannot express the tranquil true reality that transcends words.
或於長夜由見聞覺知表示勝解，樂著世間諸表示故，於永除斷一切表示薩迦邪滅究竟涅槃，不能尋思，不能比度，不能信解。
> Or in the long night, through what is seen, heard, perceived, and known, they cling to signs and delight in the world's various indications. Thus, for the ultimate cessation of all indications—the extinction of the conditioned self and final nirvana—they can neither contemplate it, nor reason about it, nor place their trust in it.
釋曰：第四、絕諸表示寂樂喻。此即四種樂中菩提樂也。故瑜伽云：一切煩惱畢竟離繫，於所知事如實等覺，名菩提樂。又彼復云：無惱害樂所攝最後三菩提樂，由當來世此勝義苦永寂滅故，於現法中附在所依諸煩惱品，一切麤重永寂滅故，說名為樂。解云：依瑜伽論，明菩提樂自有二種：一、唯智非滅，如前所引文；二、唯滅非智，如後所引文也。今依此經取滅非智，不同真諦舉滅取智。言表示者，如上所說見、聞、覺、知四種表示。薩迦邪者，此是梵音。依薩婆多，薩名為有，迦邪名身，彼五蘊身有實體故。依經部宗，薩名虗偽，迦邪名身，彼宗五蘊是虗偽故。今依大乘無性攝論，同經部說。故第十云：迦邪名身，虗偽名薩，其身虗偽名薩迦邪。世親釋云：即說三界名薩迦邪五蘊。釋論云：薩謂敗壞義，迦邪謂和合積聚義。若廣分別，如雜心第四、俱舍十九、順正理四十七、婆沙第八及四十九、成實十六、增一阿含十五、瑜伽第八、顯揚十五、梁論十五、涅槃經二十五。言涅槃者，若具梵音，應言波利䁥縛喃，此云圓寂。今順舊說，故言涅槃。於此涅槃有其二義：一、永斷一切見等表示，二、薩迦邪滅究竟涅槃。此即是其無餘涅槃，究竟永滅五蘊身故，名為究竟涅槃。問：此涅槃依何乘說？解云：依彌勒宗，三乘皆有無餘涅槃，後當分別解節經云：絕四事處，滅離身見，是般涅槃者，譯家謬也。深密經云：內身寂滅，離見聞覺知樂。解云：深密意同此經，配五樂中何樂。此中意說，於生死長夜由表示勝解樂，著世間諸表示故，不能了知永寂之樂。如是有尋思者，但行表示境界，不能尋思勝義諦相；絕表示境
> The commentary explains: Fourth, the metaphor of "cessation of all signs, leading to supreme peace." This refers to the bliss of enlightenment among the four kinds of bliss. Thus, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states: "When all afflictions are ultimately liberated from their bondage, and one truly and fully awakens to all knowable phenomena, this is called the bliss of enlightenment." It further states: "Within the bliss of freedom from harm, the last three types of bliss belong to enlightenment. Because in the future, this ultimate suffering will be forever extinguished, and in the present life, all the coarseness associated with the afflictions attached to the body will be forever silenced, this is called bliss." The explanation: According to the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, the bliss of enlightenment has two aspects: 1) It is solely wisdom, not cessation, as cited in the earlier passage; 2) It is solely cessation, not wisdom, as cited in the later passage. Here, this sūtra adopts the cessation aspect, not the wisdom aspect—differing from Paramārtha's approach, which highlights cessation and takes wisdom. "Signs" refers to the four types of signs—seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing—as mentioned above. "Satyakāya" is a Sanskrit term. According to the Sarvāstivāda school, \*sat\* means "existent," and \*kāya\* means "body"; thus, the five aggregates are considered to have real substance. According to the Sautrāntika school, \*sat\* means "illusory," and \*kāya\* means "body"; in this school, the five aggregates are considered illusory. Here, following the Mahāyāna \*Asaṅga's Abhidharma\*, we align with the Sautrāntika interpretation. Thus, the tenth chapter says: "Kāya means body, sat means illusory; the body that is illusory is called satyakāya."Vasubandhu's commentary says: "The three realms are called the satyakāya of the five aggregates." The explanatory commentary says: "Sat means impermanent, kāya means combination and accumulation." For a detailed explanation, see \*Miscellaneous Abhidharma\*, vol. 4; \*Abhidharmakośa\*, vol. 19; \*Nyāyānusāra\*, vol. 47; \*Vibhāṣā\*, vols. 8 and 49; \*Satyasiddhi\*, vol. 16; \*Ekottarikāgama\*, vol. 15; \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, vol. 8; \*Saṃdhinirmocana\*, vol. 15; \*Liang Lun\*, vol. 15; \*Nirvāṇa Sūtra\*, vol. 25. "Nirvāṇa" — to give its full Sanskrit form, it should be "Pari-nirvāṇa," which means "perfect stillness." Here, following traditional usage, we say "nirvāṇa." This nirvāṇa has two meanings: 1) The permanent severance of all signs, such as seeing, etc.; 2) The cessation of satyakāya, leading to ultimate nirvāṇa. This is nirvāṇa without remainder—where the five aggregates are ultimately and permanently extinguished, hence called "ultimate nirvāṇa." Question: To which vehicle does this nirvāṇa belong? Explanation: According to Maitreya's tradition, all three vehicles have nirvāṇa without remainder, as will be explained laterThe \*Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra\* says: "The cessation of the four characteristics, the separation from self-view, is parinirvāṇa"—this is a translator's error. The \*Ghanavyūha Sūtra\* says: "The inner body's cessation, the bliss of being free from seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing." Explanation: The \*Ghanavyūha\* shares the same meaning as this sūtra; how does it correspond to the five types of bliss?. The meaning here is that, throughout the long night of saṃsāra, due to delight in signs and concepts, beings cling to the signs of the world and thus cannot understand the bliss of eternal stillness. Likewise, those who engage in conceptual thought merely dwell in the realm of signs and cannot contemplate the true nature of ultimate reality; for the realm of signs is entirely transcended.
法涌當知，譬如有人於其長夜，由有種種我所攝受諍論勝解，樂著世間諸諍論故，於北拘盧洲無我所、無攝受、離諍論，不能尋思、不能比度、不能信解。
> Fayong, you should know that this is like a person who, over a long night, due to various attachments to "mine" and contentious views, delights in worldly disputes. Because of this, they cannot conceive, cannot compare, cannot believe in or understand the Northern Continent of Kuru, where there is no "mine," no attachment, and no disputes.
釋曰：第五離諸諍論覺樂喻，此即四種樂中菩提樂也。故瑜伽云：一切煩惱畢竟離繫，於所知事如實等覺，名菩提樂。此即取智非滅，不同真諦取滅非智。謂有諍論諸勝解者，樂著世間自所攝受父母妻子兄弟朋友及庫藏等攝受事故，不能了知北洲有情無妻子等攝受諍論。如是為尋思者，但行煩惱諍等為諍論境，不能尋思勝義諦相無煩惱等離諍論境解節經云：譬如有人由恒畜財樂行征伐，北單越無我所、無積畜，不相鬪諍，樂不能比。度深密經云：如人長夜取我我相，不能知北單越無我我所樂。今依唐本云拘盧，此云勝處，或云勝生。
> Commentary: The fifth simile, "the joy of leaving behind all disputes," refers to the joy of enlightenment among the four types of joy. Thus, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says: "When all afflictions are ultimately liberated and one truly and equally awakens to all knowable things, this is called the joy of enlightenment." This refers to taking wisdom, not cessation, which differs from the ultimate truth that takes cessation, not wisdom. It is said that those who hold various contentious views become attached to the worldly things they claim as their own—parents, spouses, children, friends, and stored wealth—and because of such attachments, they cannot understand that beings in the northern continent have no such attachments or disputes over spouses, children, and the like. Likewise, those who engage in intellectual speculation only move within the sphere of afflictions and disputes as objects of contention, and cannot contemplate the characteristic of ultimate truth, which is free from afflictions and beyond the sphere of disputes.
如是，法涌！諸尋思者，於超一切尋思所行勝義諦相，不能尋思、不能比度、不能信解。
> Thus, O Dharmadhara! Those who are given to conceptual thinking cannot fathom, cannot measure, cannot truly comprehend the ultimate truth, which transcends all conceptual thought.
釋曰：第六舉法同喻，謂諸尋思行相麤故，不能了知勝義諦理。釋其合喻，如上應知。
> Commentary: The sixth point uses a simile to illustrate that the coarse nature of mental proliferations prevents one from comprehending the ultimate truth. The application of this simile should be understood as described above.
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說頌曰：
> At that time, the World-Honored One, wishing to reiterate this meaning, spoke these verses:
釋曰：就釋超過尋思相中，文別有二：初長行廣釋，後以頌略說。上來已釋長行，自下舉頌略說。於中有二：初略標頌意，彼舉頌正釋。此即初也。
> Explanation: In explaining the aspect of transcending conceptual thought, the text is divided into two parts: first, a detailed explanation in prose, and later, a brief summary in verse. The prose has been explained above; now the verse summary follows. This section also has two parts: first, a brief outline of the verse's meaning, followed by the verse itself with its proper explanation. This is the first part.
內證無相之所行，不可言說絕表示，息諸諍論勝義諦，超過一切尋思相。
> Inner realization operates beyond all forms, Beyond words, beyond all expression. It stills all debate—this ultimate truth Transcends every realm of thought and concept.
釋曰：此即第二舉頌略說。有一頌文分之為二：初有二句四字別頌五相，後三字一句通頌五相。言內證者頌第一相，無相之所行者頌第二相，不可言說者頌第三相，絕表示者頌第四相，息諸諍論者頌第五相。後勝義等三字一句通頌五相，如文可知。
> The commentary explains: This is the second part, where verses are cited for a brief explanation. There is one verse, divided into two sections. The first section consists of two lines of four characters each, specifically praising the five characteristics. The last three-character line collectively praises the five characteristics. "Inner realization" praises the first characteristic. "What is practiced by the formless" praises the second. "Ineffable" praises the third. "Beyond all representation" praises the fourth. "Cessation of all disputes" praises the fifth. The final three-character line, "higher truth," collectively praises all five characteristics, as is clear from the text.
爾時，善清淨慧菩薩摩訶薩白佛言：世尊！甚奇！乃至世尊善說。
> At that time, the great bodhisattva Supraśānta-vimala-prajñā addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One! How wondrous! Even the World-Honored One's excellent teachings are fully expressed."
釋曰：自下第三釋超過諸法一異性相，於中有二：初長行廣說，後以頌略說。就長行中復分為五：一菩薩問，二爾時下如來正答，三喻，四合，五結。此即問也。於中有三：初贊凡善說，次顯眾諍論，後世尊我見下申己疑情。讚善說中復分為二：初讚佛善說，後略申善說。此即初也。爾時者，發問時。言善清淨慧菩薩者，從慧立名，正智後得，是善無漏，離諸染汙，故名善清淨慧。深密亦同。解節經云：淨慧菩薩。真諦解云：此菩薩位居九地，善答問，常轉法輪，在淨慧位。復有淨慧，復能生他淨慧，故名淨慧。具說如彼。謂佛世尊自有二德，所謂自利、利他。初贊自利，故言世尊甚奇；復贊利他，故言世尊善說。若依瑜伽甚奇善說，通自利、利他。故四十六云：有五甚希奇法：一者於諸有情非有因緣而生親愛，二者唯為饒益諸有情故常處生死，三者於多煩惱難伏有情善能解了調伏方便，四者於極難解真實義理能順悟入，五者具不可思議大威神力。解云：彼說菩薩德，准釋佛德，於理無違，尋即可知。言善說者，如瑜伽論第七十云：由二因緣，佛世尊法名為善說：一言詞文句皆清美故，二易可通達故。難解法由佛說故，易可通達也。又八十三云：言善說者，道理相應故，任持勝德故。又瑜伽九十四云：由四種相，佛所說教名為善說。具釋如彼。
> The commentary explains: Next, the third section clarifies the transcendence of characteristics regarding unity and diversity in all phenomena. This is divided into two parts: first, a detailed explanation in prose; second, a concise summary in verse. The prose section is further divided into five parts: first, the Bodhisattva's question; second, beginning with "At that time," the Thus Come One's proper answer; third, a simile; fourth, the application; fifth, the conclusion. This passage is the question. Within it are three parts: first, praise for the Buddha's excellent teaching; second, the display of various contentious views; third, beginning with "World-Honored One, from my perspective," the expression of doubt. The praise section is itself divided into two: first, praising the Buddha's excellent teaching; second, briefly presenting this excellent teaching. This is the first part. "At that time" refers to the moment of asking. "The Bodhisattva Pure Wisdom" is named after wisdom itself—correct wisdom acquired subsequently, which is wholesome and undefiled, free from all impurities, hence called "Pure Wisdom." This is consistent with the \*Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra\*. The \*Jiejie Jing\* calls him "Bodhisattva Pure Wisdom." The commentary of Paramārtha explains: This Bodhisattva dwells at the ninth ground, skillfully answers questions, constantly turns the wheel of Dharma, and abides in the position of pure wisdom. Moreover, having pure wisdom himself, he can also generate pure wisdom in others, hence the name "Pure Wisdom." The details are as explained there. The Buddha, the World-Honored One, possesses two virtues: self-benefit and benefiting others. The first praise concerns self-benefit, hence "how remarkable, World-Honored One"; the second praise concerns benefiting others, hence "the World-Honored One teaches excellently." According to the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, "remarkable" and "excellent teaching" together encompass both self-benefit and benefiting others. Thus, as stated in Chapter 46: There are five extremely rare qualities: first, toward all beings, one develops affection without any prior cause; second, solely for the benefit of all beings, one constantly abides in the cycle of birth and death; third, toward beings who are afflicted by many defilements and difficult to tame, one skillfully understands the means of taming them; fourth, toward extremely difficult and profound truths, one can conform and awaken to them; fifth, one possesses inconceivable great spiritual powers. Commentary: Though that passage speaks of Bodhisattva qualities, when applied in explanation to the Buddha's qualities, there is no conflict in principle—this can be understood upon examination. "Excellent teaching" is explained, as in the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, Chapter 70: For two reasons, the Buddha's Dharma is called "well taught": first, because the words, phrases, and expressions are all refined and beautiful; second, because it is easy to comprehend. Difficult-to-understand principles become easily accessible because they are taught by the Buddha. Again, in Chapter 83: "Well taught" means it corresponds to reason and upholds supreme virtue. Additionally, in \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, Chapter 94: By four aspects, the Buddha's teachings are called "well taught," as elaborated there.
謂世尊言：勝義諦相微細甚深，超過諸法一異性相，難可通達。
> The World-Honored One said: "The mark of ultimate truth is subtle and profound, surpassing the characteristics of oneness or difference in all phenomena—it is difficult to comprehend."
釋曰：第二略申善說，謂佛世尊無上依經等作如是說：勝義諦相乃至難可通達真諦。解云：或約三人，非凡所知故名微細，非二乘所知故名甚深，非地前菩薩所能證見故名難可通達。或約三義，真如與行不一故微細，不異故甚深，過一異故難可通達。又非聞慧境故名微細，非思慧境故說甚深，非凡夫二乘初學菩薩修慧境故說難可通達。解云：真諦三釋，第三為勝。故大般若五百六十七云：真如法界是出世般若及後得無分別智境，非三慧境。所以者何？實相般若甚深微妙，聞慧麤淺不能得見，是勝義故思不能量，出世法故修不能行。
> Commentary: Second, briefly explain the excellent teachings. The Bhagavan Buddha, in the \*Supreme Reliance Sutra\* and similar texts, speaks thus: the characteristics of ultimate truth are even difficult to thoroughly comprehend—the true reality. Explanation: Either in terms of three types of people—because it is not known by ordinary beings, it is called subtle; because it is not known by the two vehicles' sages, it is called profound; because it cannot be directly witnessed by bodhisattvas before the grounds, it is called difficult to thoroughly comprehend. Or in terms of three meanings—because true thusness and practices are not identical, it is subtle; because they are not different, it is profound; because it transcends both identity and difference, it is difficult to thoroughly comprehend. Furthermore, because it is not the sphere of hearing-based wisdom, it is subtle; because it is not the sphere of reflection-based wisdom, it is called profound; because it is not the sphere of cultivation-based wisdom for ordinary beings, the two vehicles, or beginning bodhisattvas, it is called difficult to thoroughly comprehend. Explanation: Among the three explanations of true reality, the third is superior. Thus, the \*Great Perfection of Wisdom\* in five hundred sixty-seven says: true thusness and the dharma realm are the sphere of supramundane wisdom and the subsequent non-discriminating wisdom, not the sphere of the three wisdoms. Why? Because reality-wisdom is profound and subtle; hearing-based wisdom is coarse and shallow and cannot see it; because it is ultimate truth, reflection cannot measure it; because it is supramundane dharma, cultivation cannot practice it.
世尊！我即於此曾見一處，有眾菩薩等正修行勝解行地，同一會坐，皆共思議勝義諦相，與諸行相一異性相。
> World-Honored One! In this very place, I once saw a gathering of bodhisattvas earnestly practicing the stage of superior understanding, seated together in one assembly, all contemplating together the characteristics of ultimate truth and the nature of its unity or difference with the characteristics of conditioned phenomena.
釋曰：自下第二顯眾諍論，於中有二：初總明共集諍論，後別敘三計。此即初也。言我即於此者，於此娑訶世界，或可於此贍部洲中，餘二本中皆闕此言。曾見一處即王舍城等而非淨土，勝解行地諸菩薩眾所集處故。勝解行地即是地前初僧祗位，是故大唐攝大乘云：論曰：謂勝解行補特伽羅，經初大劫修行圓滿。又梁攝論第十一云：願樂行人自有四種，謂十信、十解、十行、十迴向。菩薩聖道有四方便，故有四人，如須陀洹道前有四方便。此四種人名願樂地，第一僧祗修行圓滿。然此地名略有四種：一願樂地，如梁攝論及解節經；二信行地，如深密經；三勝解行地，如唐攝論、瑜伽地持及善戒經；四意樂地，如瑜伽論意樂品等。如何地名有此異者？謂此地名略有二種：一者總名，梵音阿世邪，此云意樂。欲、信、勝解三法為性，故瑜伽等名為意樂。二者別名，有三種：一名願樂，即是樂欲之異名也；五別境中欲為自性，故唯識云：樂欲謂欲。二名信行，善十一中信為自體，故智度論云：佛法大海，信為能入，智慧能度。三名勝解行，亦別境中勝解為性，是故無性攝大乘云：勝解行者未證真如，但依勝解勤修諸行。又復彼云：一得勝解，謂得諸地深信解者，於他教法決定印可真實如是。於此地中未證真如，有此諍論也。
> Explanation: The commentary says: From this point onward, the second main section reveals the disputes among the assembled practitioners. This section has two parts: first, a general account of how they came together in dispute; second, a detailed presentation of three viewpoints. The current passage is the first part. The phrase "I, right here" refers to this Sahā world, or possibly this Jambudvīpa continent. The other two versions of this text omit this phrase. There is a place known as Rājagṛha and so forth, which is not a pure land, because it is a gathering place for bodhisattvas at the stage of superior resolve. The stage of superior resolve refers to the first great eon of practice before attaining the ground of enlightenment. Thus, the Great Tang interpretation of the \*Compendium of the Great Vehicle\* states: "The treatise says: A person at the stage of superior resolve completes their practice after the first great eon." Furthermore, the Liang dynasty interpretation of the \*Compendium\*, in its eleventh chapter, says: "Those who aspire with joyful dedication have four types: the ten faiths, the ten understandings, the ten practices, and the ten dedications." The noble path of a bodhisattva has four preparatory means, so there are four types of people, just as there are four preparatory stages before the attainment of stream-entry. These four types of people are called the stage of joyful aspiration, and their practice is completed within the first great eon. This stage has four names in total: first, the stage of joyful aspiration, as found in the Liang \*Compendium\* and the \*Sūtra of Unraveling the Realms\*; second, the stage of faithful practice, as in the \*Sūtra of Profound Secrets\*; third, the stage of superior resolve, as in the Tang \*Compendium\*, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, the \*Bodhisattva Grounds\*, and the \*Sūtra of the Good Precepts\*; fourth, the stage of joyful intention, as in the chapter on joyful intention in the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*. Why do these names differ? The reason is that this stage has two types of names. First, the general name: in Sanskrit it is called \*āśaya\*, which means "joyful intention." Desire, faith, and superior understanding constitute its nature, so the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* and others call it "joyful intention." Second, there are three specific names: first, "joyful aspiration," which is another term for joyful desire; among the five specific mental factors, desire is its essence, so the \*Consciousness-Only Treatise\* says: "Joyful desire means wanting." Second, "faithful practice," where faith is its foundation among the eleven wholesome factors; thus, the \*Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\* says: "In the great ocean of the Buddhadharma, faith is what allows entry, and wisdom is what enables crossing." Third, "superior resolve," which takes superior understanding as its essence among the specific mental factors; therefore, Asaṅga's \*Compendium of the Great Vehicle\* says: "A practitioner of superior resolve has not yet realized suchness, but relies on superior understanding to diligently cultivate various practices." It further states: "Attaining superior understanding means gaining deep conviction in the various grounds, firmly affirming and certifying the teachings of others as truly thus." Within this stage, since suchness has not yet been realized, such disputes arise.
於此會中一類菩薩作如是言：勝義諦相與諸行相都無有異。
> In this assembly, some bodhisattvas said: "The characteristic of ultimate truth is in no way different from the characteristics of all conditioned phenomena."
釋曰：自下第二別敘三計，即分為三，此即初計。離諸法外無別勝義，勝智所緣故名勝義，俗智所緣名為世俗。
> Explanation: From here, the second section separately presents the three viewpoints, which are divided into three parts. This is the first viewpoint. Apart from all phenomena, there is no separate ultimate truth. What is cognized by supreme wisdom is called the ultimate truth, while what is cognized by conventional wisdom is called the conventional truth.
一類菩薩復作是言：非勝義諦相與諸行相都無有異，然勝義諦相異諸行相。
> Some bodhisattvas also said: "The mark of ultimate truth is not entirely different from the marks of all conditioned phenomena; nevertheless, the mark of ultimate truth is indeed distinct from the marks of conditioned phenomena."
釋曰：此即第二師計離諸法外有別勝義條然別體。
> Explanation: This is the view of the second school, which holds that apart from the various phenomena, there exists a distinct and ultimate reality as a separate, independent entity.
有餘菩薩疑惑猶豫，復作是言：是諸菩薩誰言諦實？誰言虗妄？誰如理行？誰不如理？或唱是言：勝義諦相與諸行相都無有異。或唱是言：勝義諦相異諸行相。
> Some Bodhisattvas still had doubts and uncertainty, saying: "Among these Bodhisattvas, who speaks the truth? Who speaks falsely? Who practices in accordance with reality? Who does not?" Some declared: "The characteristic of ultimate truth is no different from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena." Others declared: "The characteristic of ultimate truth is different from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena."
釋曰：第三師計，於上二說猶豫不決，非別有計。今於此中合有四計，所謂一異及與俱非。所以者何？亦一亦異是相違諦，非一非異是戲論故。而此經意為存略故，准可知故且破一異。然此所說一異二執，十散動中一異執也。對治如是一異分別，諸教不同。若依世親攝大乘釋第四卷云：為對治一性散動故，即彼經言：色空非色。何以故？若依他起與圓成實是一性者，此依他起應如圓成實是清淨境此約依他色對圓成空破彼一執。為對治異性散動故，即彼經言：色不離空。何以故？此二若異，法與法性亦應有異。若有異性，不應道理，如無常法與無常性此亦約依他色對圓成空破彼異執。若取遍計所執自性，色即是空、空即是色。何以故？遍計所執色無所有即是空性，此性即是彼無所有，非如依他起與圓成實不可說一此約所執色對所執空破彼異執。梁論第五同世親論。若依無性攝論第四，色空非色同世親論，以依他色對圓成空破彼一執，色不離空等約所執色對所執空破彼異執。雜集十四，色空非色約所執色對圓成空破彼一執，色不離空等約所執色對所執空破彼異執。莊嚴第五但配經文而不解釋。今此經意，約依他起對圓成實破一異執，同世親初釋。故成唯識第八卷云：此圓成實與彼依他起非異非不異，異應真如非彼實性，不異此性應是無常。彼此俱應淨非淨境，則本後智用應無別。云何二性非異非一？如彼無常無我等性，無常等性與行等法，異應彼法非無常等，不異此應非彼共相。由斯喻顯，此圓成實與彼依他非一非異。廣辨一異，如後當說。
> Explanation: The third school's position is that they are indecisive between the two views above, not that they hold a separate view. Here, there are altogether four views: identity, difference, both identity and difference, and neither identity nor difference. Why? "Both identity and difference" is a contradictory truth, while "neither identity nor difference" is mere intellectual play. The intent of this scripture is to be concise, so it can be inferred that it only refutes identity and difference. However, these two attachments to identity and difference are among the ten conceptual distortions. The methods to counter such discriminations of identity and difference vary among different teachings. According to Vasubandhu's \*Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha\*, Volume Four: "To counter the distortion of singularity, the scripture says: 'Form is empty, not form.' Why? If the dependent nature and the perfected nature were of a single nature, then the dependent nature would, like the perfected nature, be a pure object." \[Note: This refutes the attachment to identity, using dependent form against perfected emptiness.\] "To counter the distortion of difference, the scripture says: 'Form is not separate from emptiness.' Why? If these two were different, then phenomena and their true nature would also be different. If they were different, it would be unreasonable, like impermanent phenomena and their impermanence." \[Note: This also refutes the attachment to difference, using dependent form against perfected emptiness.\] If one takes the imagined nature, then "form is emptiness, emptiness is form." Why? The imagined form, being non-existent, is itself emptiness, and this emptiness is precisely that non-existence, not like the dependent and perfected natures, which cannot be said to be one. \[Note: This refutes the attachment to difference, using imagined form against imagined emptiness.\] The \*Liang Commentary\*, Volume Five, agrees with Vasubandhu's treatise. According to Asaṅga's \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\*, Volume Four, "form is emptiness, not form" agrees with Vasubandhu's treatise, using dependent form against perfected emptiness to refute the attachment to identity, while "form is not separate from emptiness" uses imagined form against imagined emptiness to refute the attachment to difference. The \*Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra\*, Volume Fourteen, uses imagined form against perfected emptiness to refute the attachment to identity in "form is emptiness, not form," and imagined form against imagined emptiness to refute the attachment to difference in "form is not separate from emptiness." The \*Ornament of the Mahāyāna Sūtras\*, Volume Five, merely matches the scripture's words without explanation. The intent of this scripture is to refute the attachments to identity and difference by using the dependent nature against the perfected nature, agreeing with Vasubandhu's initial explanation. Hence, the \*Cheng Weishi Lun\*, Volume Eight, says: "The perfected nature and the dependent nature are neither different nor not different. If they were different, then thusness would not be the true nature of the dependent nature. If they were not different, the perfected nature would be impermanent. Both would then be both pure and impure objects, and the fundamental and subsequent wisdoms would be no different. How can the two natures be neither different nor one? Like impermanence and selflessness: if impermanence and selflessness were different from conditioned phenomena, then those phenomena would not be impermanent or selfless; if not different, then they would not be their universal characteristics. Thus, this analogy shows that the perfected nature and the dependent nature are neither one nor different." A detailed discussion of identity and difference will be provided later.
世尊，我見彼已，竊作是念：是諸善男子愚痴頑鈍，不明不善，不如理行，於勝義諦微細甚深超過諸行，一異性相不能解了。說是語已。
> World-Honored One, having seen them, I secretly thought to myself: these good men are foolish and dull, lacking understanding and virtue, not practicing in accordance with the truth. They are unable to comprehend the ultimate truth—which is subtle, profound, and transcends all conditioned phenomena—nor can they grasp the nature of unity or difference. Having spoken these words, ...
釋曰：第三申己疑情。言愚痴者，出無明體。言頑鈍者，辨無明用。謂善清淨慧菩薩作如是念：此諸善男子，由無明故頑鈍，由頑鈍故有其三用：一不明者，未得未知根故；二不善者，未得未知根故；三不知理者，未得具知根故。由此未證非一異相勝真如理。
> The commentary explains: The third section presents the practitioner's own doubts. "Ignorant" refers to the essence of delusion, while "dull-witted" describes its function. This means that the bodhisattva, who embodies pure wisdom, has this thought: these virtuous individuals are dull-witted because of delusion, and because of this dullness, they exhibit three deficiencies: first, they lack clarity, since they have not yet attained the root of unknown understanding; second, they are unskillful, since they have not yet attained the root of unknown understanding; third, they fail to perceive the truth, since they have not yet attained the root of complete understanding. Because of this, they have not yet realized the supremely true principle of reality, which transcends the duality of identity and difference.
爾時，世尊告善清淨慧菩薩摩訶薩曰：善男子，如是，如是，如汝所說。此諸善男子，愚痴頑鈍，不明不善，不如理行，於勝義諦微細甚深，超過諸行一異性相不能解了。
> At that time, the World-Honored One said to the Great Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Shure Pure Wisdom: "Good man, so it is, so it is, as you have said. These good men are foolish and dull, lacking clarity and virtue, not practicing in accordance with the truth. They are unable to comprehend the ultimate truth, which is subtle and profound, transcending the characteristics of oneness and difference among all conditioned phenomena."
釋曰：自下第二如來正答。於中有五：一如來印可、二菩薩徵詰、三如來略答、四菩薩重徵、五如來廣釋。此即第一如來印可。重意如是，准上應知。
> The commentary explains: From here on, the second section contains the Buddha's direct response. This section has five parts: first, the Buddha's acknowledgment; second, the bodhisattva's inquiry; third, the Buddha's brief answer; fourth, the bodhisattva's further questioning; and fifth, the Buddha's detailed explanation. This is the first part—the Buddha's acknowledgment. The emphasis is the same as before, and one should understand it according to the above.
何以故？
> Why is this so?
釋曰：第二菩薩徵詰。徵詰之意，以何義故不能解了？
> The commentary says: The second Bodhisattva's questioning—what is the reason that he cannot understand?
善清淨慧！非於諸行如是行時，名能通達勝義諦相，或於勝義諦為得作證。
> Good and Pure Wisdom! It is not through engaging with the conditioned formations in such a manner that one is said to have penetrated the mark of ultimate truth, or to have attained realization of the ultimate truth.
釋曰：第三如來略答。此答意者，非於諸行如是執著，與勝義諦或一或異，而能通達或得作證，有多過故。失相如後當說。然此通達作證了別者，知勝義名為通達，能得涅槃及菩提果名為作證。又無間道名為通達，其解脫道名為通達亦名作證，證無間為故。又後得智名為通達，其正體智名為作證。故大般若五百六十七云：世尊！云何能證能得如是法界？佛言：出世般若及後得所得無分別智能證能得。世尊！證得義有何異？佛言：出世般若能如實見故名為證，後智通達故名為得。然此作證且依薩婆多宗，以其聖道對無為法有兩重四句：一多念四句、二一剎那四句。多念四句者，一身證慧不證，謂緣三諦解脫道時，證無為故名為身證，不緣滅故名慧不證。二慧證身不證，謂緣滅諦無間道時，緣無為故名為慧證，未得滅故名身不證。三身慧俱證，謂緣滅諦解脫道時，慧緣無為及得滅故。四身慧俱不證，謂緣三諦無間道時，慧不緣滅未得滅故。一剎那四句者，且如以滅法智得一來果時，一剎那中有其四句：一身證慧不證，謂上二界見所斷惑所得無為，以得果時頓得彼故。二慧證身不證，謂欲界九品中後三修所斷惑所得無為，慧雖能緣而未得故。三身慧俱證，謂欲界修所斷中斷前六品及欲界見四諦所斷諸惑所得無為。四身慧俱不證，謂上二界修所斷惑所證無為，
> Commentary: Third, the Tathāgata’s brief answer. The intent of this answer is that one cannot, by clinging to the aggregates in such a manner, either comprehend or realize the ultimate truth as being either one with or different from them—because there are many faults in doing so. The faults of missing the mark will be explained later. Here, however, “comprehension” and “realization” are distinct: knowing the ultimate truth is called “comprehension,” while attaining nirvāṇa and the fruit of awakening is called “realization.” Furthermore, the uninterrupted path is called “comprehension,” while the path of liberation is called both “comprehension” and “realization”—because it realizes the uninterrupted state. Additionally, the wisdom acquired after enlightenment is called “comprehension,” while the fundamental wisdom itself is called “realization.” Thus, in the \*Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra\*, section 567, it is said: “Bhagavān, how does one realize and attain such a dharma-realm?” The Buddha replied: “The supramundane prajñā and the non-discriminative wisdom attained after enlightenment can realize and attain it.” “Bhagavān, what is the difference between realization and attainment?” The Buddha said: “Because supramundane prajñā sees things as they truly are, it is called ‘realization’; because subsequent wisdom penetrates and understands, it is called ‘attainment.’” This “realization” is explained here according to the Sarvāstivāda school, which presents two sets of four propositions regarding the sacred path and unconditioned dharmas: one concerning multiple moments, and another concerning a single instant. \*\*Four propositions concerning multiple moments:\*\* 1. Body realizes but wisdom does not—when the path of liberation contemplates the three truths, it realizes the unconditioned, hence called “body realizes”; but because it does not contemplate cessation, wisdom is said to not realize. 2. Wisdom realizes but body does not—when the uninterrupted path contemplates the truth of cessation, wisdom contemplates the unconditioned, hence called “wisdom realizes”; but because cessation has not yet been attained, the body is said to not realize. 3. Both body and wisdom realize—when the path of liberation contemplates the truth of cessation, wisdom contemplates the unconditioned and attains cessation. 4. Neither body nor wisdom realizes—when the uninterrupted path contemplates the three truths, wisdom does not contemplate cessation and has not yet attained it. \*\*Four propositions concerning a single instant:\*\* For example, when one attains the fruit of a once-returner through the dharma-wisdom of cessation, in that single instant there are four propositions: 1. Body realizes but wisdom does not—the unconditioned attained by cutting off the afflictions of the two higher realms through the path of seeing, because at the moment of attaining the fruit, one suddenly gains that. 2. Wisdom realizes but body does not—the unconditioned attained by cutting off the last three of the nine grades of afflictions in the desire realm through the path of cultivation; though wisdom can contemplate it, it has not yet been attained. 3. Both body and wisdom realize—the unconditioned attained by cutting off the first six grades of afflictions in the desire realm through cultivation, and the afflictions cut off through seeing the four truths in the desire realm. 4. Neither body nor wisdom realizes—the unconditioned attained by cutting off afflictions through cultivation in the two higher realms.
何以故？
> Why is this so?
釋曰：此即第四菩薩重徵甚深所由。
> The commentary explains: This is the fourth time the Bodhisattva asks again about the profound reason behind this matter.
善清淨慧。若勝義諦相。與諸行相。都無異者。
> Clear and pure wisdom, if the mark of ultimate truth were entirely identical to the marks of all conditioned phenomena, then...
釋曰。自下第五依徵廣釋。有三復次。即分為三。初約三五過破一異執。次善清淨慧。若勝義諦相與諸行相都無異者下。約淨共相。破一異執。後善清淨慧若勝義諦相與諸行相都無異者下。約行無別及無我等破一異執。就初復次分為二：初反釋破執，後善清淨慧下順釋破執或可初就宗隨情破，後約義隨理破。就返破中復分為二：初約三失以破一執，後約五失破其異執。破一執中先牒後破，此即將破牒彼一執也。
> The commentary explains: From here onward, the fifth section expands the teaching based on the questions raised. This is divided into three parts, each presented as a sequence of reasoning. The first part addresses the mistaken views of "oneness" and "difference" using the three kinds of faults and the five kinds of faults. The second part, beginning with "Good and pure wisdom, if the characteristic of ultimate truth is in no way different from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena," refutes the views of oneness and difference by examining the shared characteristic of purity. The third part, beginning with "Good and pure wisdom, if the characteristic of ultimate truth is in no way different from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena," refutes these views by examining the lack of distinction in practice and the absence of a self. Within the first sequence of reasoning, there are two divisions: first, the refutation through negation, and second, the refutation through affirmation, which begins with "Good and pure wisdom." In the refutation through negation, there are again two parts: the first addresses the view of oneness by pointing out three kinds of faults, and the second addresses the view of difference by pointing out five kinds of faults. In refuting the view of oneness, the text first states the view and then refutes it. This is the initial statement of the view of oneness that is to be refuted.
應於今時，一切異生皆已見諦。
> At this time, all ordinary beings have already seen the truth.
釋曰：此即第二正以三過破彼一執。三過失者，一異生已見諦理失、二已得涅槃失、三已得菩提失。此即第一異生已見諦理失，謂汝若許諸行即理，異生見色應則見理，色則理故。
> The commentary explains: This is the second section, where three faults are used to refute that single attachment. The three faults are: first, the fault of ordinary beings already seeing the ultimate truth; second, the fault of already attaining Nirvana; third, the fault of already attaining Enlightenment. This first fault concerns ordinary beings already seeing the ultimate truth—if you accept that all phenomena are identical to the ultimate truth, then when ordinary beings see forms, they should see the ultimate truth, since forms are that truth.
又諸異生皆應已得無上方便安穩涅槃。
> Moreover, all ordinary beings should have already attained the supreme means to the serene and secure state of Nirvana.
釋曰：此顯第二異生應證涅槃失無上方便，即是道諦無漏聖道。言涅槃者，略有四種：一者本來自性清淨、二者有餘、三者無餘、四者無住處，後當分別。今於此中約有餘依及無住處，本來清淨元來有故，其無餘依身已滅故。或可此中亦依無餘，滅有漏依得無餘故。舉方便道顯涅槃果，故言無上方便安穩涅槃也。
> Explanation: This reveals the second fallacy—that ordinary beings can attain Nirvana—and points out the lack of the supreme skillful means, which is the noble path of the undefiled truth of the path. Speaking of Nirvana, there are generally four kinds: first, the intrinsically pure nature; second, Nirvana with remainder; third, Nirvana without remainder; and fourth, the abiding Nirvana. These will be elaborated later. Here, we refer to Nirvana with remainder and the abiding Nirvana, as the intrinsically pure nature has always existed, and Nirvana without remainder occurs when the body has ceased. Alternatively, this can also be understood in terms of Nirvana without remainder, for by extinguishing the defiled aggregates, one attains Nirvana without remainder. By citing the skillful means, we reveal the fruit of Nirvana, hence it is said that the supreme skillful means leads to the tranquil Nirvana.
或應已證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。
> Or perhaps they have already attained Supreme Perfect Enlightenment.
釋曰：此顯第三異生應證菩提。失菩提言者，此是梵音，此地翻譯新舊不同。一云：阿之言無，耨多羅云，上三名正，藐之言真，後三名正，菩提曰道，總言無上正真正道。一云：阿之言無，耨多羅云，上三名正，藐之言遍，後三云知，菩提名覺。如理智緣真名正，如量智緣俗言遍，無分別智斷二無知名知菩提，出眠夢之表稱之曰覺。此四智是菩提體，超二乘果故名無上，總云無上正遍知覺。大唐三藏釋云：阿之言無，耨多羅云上，前三名正，藐之云等，後三言正，菩提名覺。無法可過故名無上，理事遍知故云正等，離妄照真故曰正覺，即是無上正等正覺。此意釋云：若無異者，諸異生類皆已了知色等行相，亦應了知勝義諦相，與餘行相無別異故，由斯應證無上菩提。既不證得，故知非一也。
> Explanation: This clarifies the third point—that ordinary beings (異生) should also attain Enlightenment. The term "anuttara" is a Sanskrit word, and its translations differ between old and new versions. One interpretation says: "A" means "no," "nuttara" means "above," the first three \[characters\] mean "right," "samyak" means "true," the last three mean "right," and "bodhi" means "the Way." Altogether, it means "unsurpassed, right, true, and correct Way." Another interpretation says: "A" means "no," "nuttara" means "above," the first three mean "right," "samyak" means "universal," the last three mean "knowledge," and "bodhi" means "awakening." The wisdom that understands reality as it is (suchness) is called "right," the wisdom that understands conventional truths is called "universal," and the non-dual wisdom that cuts off both forms of ignorance is called "knowledge." Awakening, being beyond the states of sleep and dreaming, is called "enlightenment." These four wisdoms form the essence of bodhi, which transcends the fruits of the two lesser vehicles, hence it is called "unsurpassed." Altogether, it means "unsurpassed, universal, true awakening." Master Xuanzang of the Tang Dynasty explains: "A" means "no," "nuttara" means "above," the first three mean "right," "samyak" means "equal," the last three mean "right," and "bodhi" means "awakening." Nothing surpasses it, so it is called "unsurpassed." It thoroughly understands both principles and phenomena, hence it is called "right and equal." It is free from delusion and sees reality, so it is called "right awakening." This is the unsurpassed, right and equal, true awakening. The point here is: if ordinary beings were not distinct \[from awakened ones\], then they would all already understand the characteristics of forms and other phenomena, and they would also understand the characteristics of ultimate truth, since these would not differ from other characteristics. Therefore, they would all attain unsurpassed bodhi. But since they do not attain it, we know that ordinary beings and awakened beings are not the same.
若勝義諦相與諸行相一向異者。
> If the mark of ultimate truth were entirely different from the mark of conditioned things.
釋曰：自下第二約五種失破其異執，於中有二：先牒、後破。此即將破，先牒異執也。謂勝義諦與諸行相條然異者，應有五失。
> Explanation: Next, the second section addresses five faults in the mistaken view of difference. This is divided into two parts: first, stating the view; second, refuting it. Here, before refuting, the mistaken view is first stated. That is, if ultimate truth and conditioned phenomena were completely distinct, there would be five faults.
已見諦者，於諸行相應不除遣。
> One who has seen the truth does not abandon or remove the characteristics of all conditioned phenomena.
釋曰：自下第二別顯五失。言五失者：一、已見諦者行相不遣失，二、相縛不脫失，三、麤重縛不脫失，四、不證涅槃失，五、不證菩提失。此釋第一行相不遣失。言行相者，行謂見分，能緣行解。相是相分，此即行之相，故名為行相。此依主釋。或可行相者，行謂生滅、遷流、不住，相即體相。此破意云：若勝義諦與諸行相一向異者，已見諦者於諸行相不應除遣，以勝義諦與行異故。然能除遣，故應非異。問：見勝義時，如何能遣依他起相？解云：真如觀時，眾相不現，故說除遣。非如所執，無自性故，名之為遣。准何得知？如成唯識第九卷說四善根觀行頌云：現前立少物，謂是唯識性，以有所得故，非實住唯識。長行釋云：以彼空有二相未除，帶相觀心有所得故。具說如彼。又瑜伽云：極善定心、第四靜慮、順決擇分，未遣諸相，未脫二縛。故知此云除遣相者，空有相分通名為相。
> Explanation: From this point onward, the text separately clarifies the five losses. What are the five losses? First, the loss of not eliminating the marks of objects for one who has seen the truth; second, the loss of not being free from the bondage of signs; third, the loss of not being free from the bondage of coarseness; fourth, the loss of not attaining nirvāṇa; fifth, the loss of not attaining enlightenment. This explains the first, the loss of not eliminating the marks of objects. When it says "marks of objects," "objects" refers to the seeing division, the perceiving activity; "marks" refers to the image division, which is the object of that activity. Together, they are called "marks of objects." This is a dependent compound. Alternatively, "marks of objects" can be understood as: "objects" means arising, ceasing, flowing, and impermanence; "marks" are the essential nature. The intention of this refutation is: if ultimate truth were entirely different from the marks of all conditioned phenomena, then one who has seen the truth would not eliminate the marks of objects, because ultimate truth is different from them. However, one does eliminate them, so it cannot be entirely different. Question: When seeing ultimate truth, how can one eliminate the marks of dependent origination? Answer: In the contemplation of suchness, the marks of all phenomena do not appear, so this is called elimination. It is not like the imagined nature, which, being without self-nature, is called "eliminated." How do we know this? As the \*Cheng Weishi Lun\* (Demonstration of Consciousness Only), volume nine, states in the verse on the four roots of goodness: "Before one, a small object is set up, / Said to be the nature of consciousness only; / Because there is something attained, / One does not truly abide in consciousness only." The prose explanation says: "Because the dual marks of emptiness and existence have not been removed, the mind carries signs and observes with something attained." The full explanation is as given there. Furthermore, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says: "In utmost concentration, the fourth dhyāna, and the stages of ascertaining liberation, one has not yet eliminated all signs, nor escaped the two bondages." Thus, we know that here "eliminating signs" refers to the signs of emptiness and existence, collectively called "signs."
若不除遣諸行相者，應於相縛不得解脫。
> If one does not eliminate the patterns of conditioned formations, they will not be freed from the bondage of signs.
釋曰：第二不斷相縛失，謂不了知如幻事故。諸心心所於所緣相不得自在，故說相分名為相縛。
> Commentary: The second loss is the failure to be free from the bonds of perceived forms. This means not understanding that things are like illusions. Because of this, the mind and its mental factors cannot freely control the objects they perceive. Therefore, the perceived aspect of experience is described as being bound by forms.
此見諦者，於諸相縛不解脫故，於麤重縛亦應不脫。
> One who has seen the truth, because they are still bound by attachment to forms, would likewise not be free from the heavy bonds.
釋曰：第三、不斷麤重失，謂於相縛不自在故，諸麤重縛亦應不斷。然此二縛，諸說不同。大唐三藏云：西方諸師自有兩說：一云、一切有漏相分以為相縛，謂由有漏相分力故，見分心等不能了知諸有漏法皆如幻等，非有似有，由無明故，便執實有色心等法。若依此釋，即相是縛，故名相縛，即六釋中持業釋也。即相分上能縛諸惑，名麤重縛，行相麤故。此亦持業，准上應知。總說意者，所緣相分名為相縛，能緣見分貪等諸惑名麤重縛。是故瑜伽五十一云：亦能通達阿賴耶識外為相縛所縛，內為麤重縛所縛。具說如彼。一云、相縛即末那識以為自性。此意說云：由末那識相應四惑勢分力故，六識中惑於諸相分不能了知如幻事等，故說末那名為相縛。若依此釋，相謂相分，縛即末那，相之縛故，名為相縛，即六釋中依主釋也。言麤重縛自有二種：一、六識中惑名為麤重，義如上說；二者、煩惱、所知二障勢力，令諸有漏五蘊等法無所堪任，即說此為麤重縛也。今於此中說前非後也。有云：麤重縛者，諸煩惱見分種子，相縛即是煩惱相分種子。又現起相、見亦是二縛。若依三無性論，有兩節文，故彼上卷云：分別性名為相惑，依他起性名麤重惑。故上卷云：次辨相惑、麤重惑。若分別性起，能為二惑繫縛眾生：一者、相惑，二、麤重惑。相惑即分別性，麤重惑即依他性。故此二惑所以得立者，於依他起性中執為分別性，故得立。釋曰：呼分別性為相惑者，相謂相貌，說相貌惑能為惑緣，故說為惑。但依他性是正惑，而說輕重者，分別性但是惑緣，說惑故名為輕；依他起性正是惑體，故說麤重。同顯揚論。故彼第十六云：是依他起自性，以相及麤重為體。云何說為依他起？由此二種更互為緣而得生故。謂相為緣起於麤重，麤重為緣又能生相。依梁攝論第四卷云：結有二種：一、相結，二、麤重結。相結難解，麤重結難滅。心分別諸塵名相結，由此分別起欲、瞋等惑，說名麤重結。若得無分別智，即解相結，相結不起，麤重結即隨滅。真諦解云：相結即是分別執相，謂一切六識心識所緣外境是有，未達此並是自心分別所作故。若見相並是分別所作，欲、瞋等則無從即生。大唐世觀論都無此文也。勘大業本。依解節經云：眾相繫縛、麤重繫縛。又復下云：相結、麤重惑。真諦記云：五識境名相繫縛，意識境名麤重繫縛。又眾相繫縛即分別性，麤重繫縛謂依他性。又解：一切苦諦名眾相繫縛，由解脫得離故；一切集諦名麤重繫縛，由道所滅故。廣說如彼。深密經云：相縛、煩惱縛。若廣分別，義如別章。
> Here is the translation: \*\*Commentary\*\*: Third, the fault of not eliminating the coarser obstructions. Because one is not free with respect to the marks that bind, the coarser bonds should also not be eliminated. However, there are various explanations of these two kinds of bonds. The great Tang master Xuanzang said: The Western teachers have two interpretations. One says that all defiled sense-objects constitute the "bond of marks." That is, because of the power of defiled sense-objects, the perceiving mind and its functions cannot understand that all defiled phenomena are like illusions—they seem to exist but do not truly exist. Due to ignorance, one clings to physical and mental phenomena as real. According to this explanation, the object itself is the bond, so it is called the "bond of marks." This is the "holder-action" compound in the six types of compounds. The afflictions within the sense-object itself that bind are called the "bond of coarseness," because their manner of operation is coarse. This is also a holder-action compound, understood in the same way as above. The general meaning is: the perceived object is called the "bond of marks," while the perceiving mind with its greed and other afflictions is called the "bond of coarseness." Therefore, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* (Chapter 51) says: "One can also penetrate the store consciousness, which is bound externally by the bond of marks and internally by the bond of coarseness." This is explained fully there. Another interpretation says: The bond of marks has the manas (the seventh consciousness) as its nature. This means: because of the power of the four afflictions associated with the manas, the afflictions in the six consciousnesses cannot understand sense-objects as being like illusions. Therefore, the manas is called the "bond of marks." According to this explanation, "mark" refers to the sense-object, and "bond" refers to the manas. It is the bond of the mark, so it is called the "bond of marks." This is the "dependent-master" compound in the six types of compounds. The "bond of coarseness" itself has two kinds: First, the afflictions in the six consciousnesses are called "coarse," as explained above. Second, the forces of the two obstructions—afflictive and cognitive—cause all defiled aggregates and other phenomena to have no capacity \[for liberation\]; this is also called the "bond of coarseness." Here in this text, we take the former, not the latter. Some say: "Bond of coarseness" refers to the seeds in the perceiving aspect of afflictions; "bond of marks" refers to the seeds in the perceived aspect of afflictions. Also, the arising perceived and perceiving aspects are also the two bonds. According to the \*Treatise on the Three Natures\*, there are two passages. In its first fascicle it says: "The conceptualized nature is called the 'mark-affliction'; the dependent nature is called the 'coarse affliction.'" The text says: "Next, distinguish the mark-affliction and the coarse affliction. If the conceptualized nature arises, it can bind sentient beings with two afflictions: first, the mark-affliction; second, the coarse affliction. The mark-affliction is the conceptualized nature; the coarse affliction is the dependent nature. Therefore, these two afflictions are established because within the dependent nature one grasps it as the conceptualized nature." \*\*Commentary\*\*: We call the conceptualized nature the "mark-affliction" because "mark" means appearance. We say that the appearance-affliction can serve as a condition for affliction, hence it is called an affliction. But the dependent nature is the actual affliction. The distinction between "light" and "heavy" is: the conceptualized nature is merely a condition for affliction, so it is called "light"; the dependent nature is the actual substance of affliction, so it is called "coarse." This agrees with the \*Saṃdhinirmocana\* (Demonstration of the Profound) treatise. In its sixteenth chapter it says: "The dependent nature has marks and coarseness as its essence. Why is it called dependent? Because these two arise in mutual dependence—marks give rise to coarseness, and coarseness in turn gives rise to marks." According to the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* (Compendium of the Great Vehicle) as translated by Paramārtha, fourth fascicle: "There are two kinds of bonds: first, the mark-bond; second, the coarse-bond. The mark-bond is difficult to untie; the coarse-bond is difficult to eliminate. The mind's discrimination of sense-objects is called the mark-bond. From this discrimination arise desire, aversion, and other afflictions, which are called the coarse-bond. If one attains non-discriminating wisdom, the mark-bond is untied; when the mark-bond does not arise, the coarse-bond is extinguished." Paramārtha's explanation: "The mark-bond is the grasping of marks, meaning that one takes all objects perceived by the six consciousnesses as existing externally, not realizing that they are all creations of one's own discrimination. If one sees that both the perceiving and the perceived are products of discrimination, then desire and aversion have no basis to arise." The treatise by the great Tang \[Xuanzang\] does not contain this passage at all. Check the Daye edition. According to the \*Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra\* (Sūtra of the Profound), it speaks of "the bondage of the multitudes of marks" and "the bondage of coarseness." Further below, it also speaks of "mark-bond" and "coarse affliction." Paramārtha's notes say: "The objects of the five consciousnesses are called the bondage of marks; the objects of the mental consciousness are called the bondage of coarseness. Also, the multitudes of marks refer to the conceptualized nature, and the bondage of coarseness refers to the dependent nature. Another explanation: All the truths of suffering are called the bondage of multitudes of marks, because they are abandoned by liberation; all the truths of origin are called the bondage of coarseness, because they are eliminated by the path." This is explained fully there. The \*Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra\* says: "The bond of marks and the bond of afflictions." If one were to elaborate extensively, the meaning is as discussed in separate chapters.
由於二縛不解脫故，已見諦者應不能得無上方便安穩涅槃。
> Because these two bonds have not been released, even those who have seen the truth should not be able to attain the supreme skillful means of serene Nirvana.
釋曰：第四不證涅槃失，准上應知。
> Explanation: The fourth fault is the failure to realize Nirvana. This should be understood in accordance with the preceding discussion.
或不應證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。
> Nor should one seek to realize Supreme Perfect Enlightenment.
釋曰：第五不證菩提失，准上應知。
> Explanation: The fifth loss—not attaining enlightenment—should be understood according to the above.
善清淨慧！由於今時非諸異生皆已見諦。
> Good and Clear Wisdom! At this time, not all ordinary beings have yet realized the truth.
釋曰：自下第二順釋道理破一異執，於中有二：初舉無三失破彼一執，後善清淨慧下約無五失破彼異執。此之二義翻上可知。就舉無三失中文別有二：先釋、後結。此即釋也。於中釋無三失即分為三，此即第一釋非已見諦，如文可知。
> The commentary explains: From this point onward, the second section elaborates on the reasoning to refute the notions of unity and difference. This section is divided into two parts: first, it cites the absence of three faults to refute the idea of unity; second, it cites the absence of five faults—beginning with "Good and Pure Wisdom"—to refute the idea of difference. These two meanings are understood by reversing the preceding discussion. Within the section citing the absence of three faults, there are two divisions: first, the explanation; second, the conclusion. This is the explanation. Within it, the explanation of the absence of three faults is further divided into three; this is the first part, explaining that "not yet seeing the truth" is as described in the text.
非諸異生已能獲得無上方便安穩涅槃。
> Not all sentient beings have yet attained the supreme skillful means of the peaceful refuge of Nirvana.
釋曰：第二明證涅槃，如文可知。
> Explanation: The second part clarifies the realization of Nirvana, as is evident from the text.
亦非已證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。
> Nor has he attained Supreme Perfect Enlightenment.
釋曰：第三非證菩提，破其一執可知。
> Explanation: The third point is that enlightenment is not something to be attained—this refutes one particular attachment, as can be understood.
是故勝義諦相與諸行相都無有異，不應道理。
> Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim that the characteristic of ultimate truth and the characteristics of conditioned phenomena are entirely distinct.
釋曰：自下第二結破一執，於中有二：初以理總結，後牒計重結。此即初也，謂上所說反順釋故，彼執一計不應道理。
> Explanation: From here, the second section concludes by refuting a particular attachment. It consists of two parts: first, a general summary based on reasoning; second, a reiteration of the attachment to emphasize the point. This is the first part. It says that because the earlier explanations were both contradictory and supportive, that attachment to a single view does not hold up logically.
若於此中作如是言：勝義諦相與諸行相都無異。者，由此道理，當知一切非如理行、不如正理。
> If someone says here: "The mark of ultimate truth and the mark of conditioned phenomena are entirely the same," then based on that reasoning, you should know that all such views and practices are not in line with reality and do not accord with true principle.
釋曰：此即第二牒計重結，謂由上說反順釋故。彼計一執及所執義，不應正行及正理也。
> Explanation: This is the second recapitulation and re-conclusion. Based on the above explanation that reverses and confirms the reasoning, that view of "one" as a grasping and what is grasped does not align with right practice or right principle.
善清淨慧！由於今時非見諦者，於諸行相不能除遣，然能除遣。
> Good pure wisdom! Although those who have not yet perceived the truth in this present time are unable to eliminate all traces of mental formations, they are still able to do so.
釋曰：自下第二五種順釋道理破彼異過，於中有二：先釋、後結。此即釋也。釋五無失即分為五，此即第一顯除遣相破彼異執，謂諸聖者如實了知如幻事等無實性故。
> Explanation: From here, the second part presents five types of reasoning to refute opposing views. This section has two parts: first the explanation, then the conclusion. This is the explanation. Explaining the five aspects without error is divided into five parts—this is the first, which shows how dispelling appearances refutes mistaken views. That is, awakened beings truly understand that things, like illusions and such, have no real essence.
非見諦者，於諸相縛不能解脫，然能解脫。
> One who has not yet seen the truth remains bound by all forms and cannot be freed from them. However, they can be freed.
釋曰：此顯第二能除相縛，如實了知無異相故。
> This reveals the second ability to remove the bonds of conceptualization, by truly understanding that there is no distinction in characteristics.
非見諦者，於麤重縛不能解脫，然能解脫。
> Those who have not yet seen the truth cannot be freed from heavy bonds, yet they can be freed.
釋曰：第三除麤重縛，斷相縛故。
> The commentary explains: The third stage removes the heavy bondage, because it cuts off the bonds of appearances.
以於二鄣能解脫故，亦能獲得無上方便安穩涅槃。
> Because it liberates one from the two hindrances, it also leads to the attainment of the supreme expedient, the peaceful and secure Nirvana.
釋曰：此顯第四能證涅槃，斷二縛故。
> Commentary: This reveals the fourth \[benefit\]—attaining Nirvāṇa, because it severs the two bonds.
或有能證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。
> Perhaps someone may realize Supreme Perfect Enlightenment.
釋曰：此顯第五能證菩提，斷鄣盡故。
> Here is the translation: "Commentary: This reveals the fifth point—that one can attain enlightenment because all obstacles are completely eradicated."
是故勝義諦相與諸行相一向異相，不應道理。
> Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim that the characteristic of ultimate truth and the characteristics of conditioned phenomena are entirely different from each other.
釋曰：此下第二結異過失。於中有二：初以理總結，後牒計重結。此即初也。
> Explanation: Below is the second section, which summarizes the errors in the differing views. Within it, there are two parts: first, a general conclusion based on reasoning; second, a restatement of the positions to reinforce the point. This passage is the first part.
若於此中作如是言：勝義諦相與諸行相一向異。者，由是道理，當知一切非如理行、不如正理。
> If within this context one claims that the nature of ultimate reality and the characteristics of conditioned phenomena are completely distinct, such a view should be understood as not aligning with correct reasoning or the true path, and is therefore an improper mode of practice.
釋曰：此即第二牒計重結。謂由前說五過失故，勝義諸行不可言異。
> Explanation: This is the second reiteration and re-conclusion of the view. Because of the five faults mentioned earlier, the ultimate nature of all conditioned things cannot be said to be different.
善清淨慧！若勝義諦相與諸行相都無異者，如諸行相墮雜染相，此勝義諦相亦應如是墮雜染相。
> Good and pure wisdom! If the ultimate truth were completely identical in nature to all conditioned phenomena, then just as conditioned phenomena are subject to defilement, so too would the ultimate truth be subject to defilement.
釋曰：自下三復次中，第二復次約淨共相破彼一異，於中有二：初釋、後結。釋中有二：初反解、順釋。前中有二：初約墮雜染相破彼一執，後約共相破其異執。此即初也。謂勝義諦應墮雜染，與諸行相都無異故，猶如雜染。
> Explanation: In the following three further points, the second point refutes the idea of unity or difference based on the shared characteristic of purity. This has two parts: first the explanation, then the conclusion. The explanation has two parts: first a reverse argument, then a direct one. The reverse argument has two parts: first refuting the belief in unity based on the aspect of falling into impurity, then refuting the belief in difference based on the shared characteristic. This is the first part. That is, the ultimate truth would fall into impurity, since it is no different from conditioned phenomena, just like impurity itself.
善清淨慧！若勝義諦相與諸行相一向異者，應非一切行相名勝義諦相。
> Good pure wisdom! If the mark of ultimate truth were entirely different from the mark of all conditioned phenomena, then the mark of all conditioned phenomena would not be called the mark of ultimate truth.
釋曰：第二約共相義破其異執，謂一切法皆有二相。一者自相，如說色是質礙為相、識為了別，以不遍故名為自相。二者共相，謂一切法無我性等，真如勝義遍諸法故名為共相。今破異執，若勝義諦異諸行相，應非諸行共相，與彼諸行一向異故。
> Explanation: The second point refutes the mistaken view by examining the shared characteristics of things. All phenomena have two aspects. The first is their unique nature, such as form being defined by physical obstruction, or consciousness by discernment—these are called unique because they do not apply universally. The second is their shared nature, such as the absence of a permanent self in all phenomena. This ultimate truth, being the essential reality, pervades all things, so it is called a shared characteristic. Now, to counter the mistaken view: if ultimate truth were entirely separate from the characteristics of conditioned things, then it could not be their shared nature, because it would be completely distinct from those things.
善清淨慧！由於今時勝義諦相，非墮雜染相、諸行共相，名勝義諦相。
> Good and Pure Wisdom! Because the ultimate truth at this moment does not fall into the realm of impurity or common characteristics of conditioned phenomena, it is called the mark of ultimate truth.
釋曰：此即第二依順道理破一異計，如經應知。
> Explanation: This is the second refutation, based on reasoning, of the concepts of unity and difference—understanding this should be as taught in the scriptures.
是故勝義諦相與諸行相都無異相不應道理，勝義諦相與諸行相一向異相不應道理。
> Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim that the mark of ultimate truth and the mark of conditioned phenomena are entirely the same, nor is it reasonable to claim that they are completely different.
釋曰：自下第二結一異過。於中有二：初以理雙結，後牒計重結。此即雙結。
> Explanation: Next, the second section concludes the error of both unity and difference. Within this, there are two parts: first, both are concluded through reasoning; then, taking up the views, they are concluded again. This is the dual conclusion.
若於此中作如是言：勝義諦相與諸行相都無有異，或勝義諦相與諸行相一向異。者，由此道理，當知一切非如理行、不如正理。
> If one were to say within this context: "The marks of ultimate truth are in no way different from the marks of conditioned phenomena," or "The marks of ultimate truth are entirely distinct from the marks of conditioned phenomena," based on this reasoning, it should be understood that all such assertions do not align with reality or with correct principle.
釋曰：第二牒計重結一異執過。
> The commentary states: The second section addresses the erroneous reestablishment of the concepts of unity and difference.
善清淨慧！若勝義諦相與諸行相都無異者，如勝義諦相於諸行相無有差別，一切行相亦應如是無有差別。
> Good and Pure Wisdom! If the ultimate truth were entirely identical to the characteristics of all conditioned phenomena, then just as the ultimate truth has no distinction from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena, so too should all conditioned phenomena themselves be without distinction.
釋曰：自下第三復次約行無別及無我等破其一異。於中有二：先破、後結。前中有二：初反解顯失，後善清淨慧下順釋顯過。前有二：初約二相破無異過，後約二相破一向異。前中有二：初約諸行差別破無異過，後約更求勝義破無異執。此即初也。謂若勝義與蘊處等無別異者，蘊等應無蘊處等異。
> Explanation: Next, the third section discusses the ideas of no distinction among conditioned phenomena and no self, in order to refute the views of oneness and difference. This section has two parts: first, refutation; second, conclusion. The refutation itself has two parts: first, a reverse explanation to reveal faults; second, starting with "Good and pure wisdom," a forward explanation to show errors. The first part has two sections: first, refuting the fault of no difference based on two aspects; second, refuting the fault of total difference based on two aspects. The first of these has two parts: first, refuting the fault of no difference based on the distinctions among conditioned phenomena; second, refuting attachment to no difference by seeking a higher meaning. This is the first part. It says: If the ultimate truth were no different from the aggregates, elements, and sense bases, then the aggregates and so on would not have distinctions such as aggregates, elements, and sense bases.
修觀行者於諸行中，如其所見、如其所聞、如其所覺、如其所知，復於後時更求勝義。
> For practitioners of insight meditation, within all conditioned phenomena—whether seen, heard, felt, or known—they continue, at a later time, to seek a deeper and more definitive meaning.
釋曰：第二更求勝義破無異執。謂若勝義與諸行相都無異者，所見等境如其所見其義已了，不應後時更求勝義。既求勝義，故知非一。見聞覺知義如前說。
> Explanation: Next, we seek a deeper truth to break the attachment to sameness. If the ultimate truth were completely identical to the nature of all conditioned things, then the objects we perceive—such as what we see, hear, feel, and know—would already be fully understood as they appear. There would be no need to later seek a higher truth. But since we do seek that deeper truth, we can see they are not the same. The meaning of seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing is as explained earlier.
若勝義諦相與諸行相一向異者，應非諸行唯無我性、唯無自性之所顯現是勝義相。
> If the characteristics of ultimate truth were entirely distinct from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena, then it would not be the case that the ultimate characteristics are revealed solely through the absence of a self and the absence of inherent nature in all conditioned things.
釋曰：自下第二約唯無我等破一向異。於中有二：初約唯無我等破一向異，後約非別相成立破一向異。此即初也。謂世尊說一切諸法皆唯無我，或說諸法皆無自性，故知勝義與一切行非一向異。一向異者，應非諸行唯無我性、唯無自性之所顯現。
> Explanation: Next, the second section addresses the mistaken view of absolute difference from the perspective of "only non-self," refuting the idea that things are entirely separate. This section has two parts: first, it refutes absolute difference based on "only non-self"; second, it refutes absolute difference based on the absence of distinct characteristics. Here, we focus on the first part. The Buddha taught that all phenomena are solely non-self, or that all things lack inherent nature. Therefore, ultimate truth is not absolutely different from all conditioned things. If they were completely different, then conditioned things would not manifest as merely non-self or lacking inherent nature.
又應俱時別相成立，謂雜染相及清淨相。
> Furthermore, it should be understood that two distinct aspects arise simultaneously: the aspect of defilement and the aspect of purity.
釋曰：此即第二非別相立破一向異。然釋此文自有諸說。有說：又應俱時別相成立等者，除遣名等五事影像證無相真如，是故證無相時諸相不顯現。若諸相顯現時無相不顯現，是故不應俱時成立。若如汝說一向異者，即應俱時別相成立，各別體故，如色聲等。有說：又應俱時別相成立染淨二法。所以者何？勝義與行調然異故。是則見淨時應不除染，見染時應不障淨。有說：勝義與行一向異者，即應俱時別相成立一切諸法本染本淨。然經但說其性本淨，故知諸行與勝義諦非一向異也。或可不應說言俗即是真、真即是俗，調然異故真諦有釋，恐繁不述。
> Commentary: This is the second point, refuting the notion that the ultimate and conventional are entirely separate. There are several interpretations of this passage. Some say: The phrase "one should also establish distinct characteristics simultaneously" refers to removing the five mental images such as names to realize the signless true nature. Thus, when realizing the signless, all characteristics do not appear. If characteristics appear, the signless does not appear. Therefore, they cannot be established simultaneously. If, as you claim, they are entirely separate, then distinct characteristics should be established simultaneously, since they have separate essences, like form and sound. Others say: One should also establish the distinct characteristics of the defiled and pure dharmas simultaneously. Why? Because the ultimate truth and conventional activities are entirely different. Thus, when seeing purity, one should not remove defilement, and when seeing defilement, one should not obstruct purity. Yet others say: If the ultimate and conventional are entirely separate, then one should establish all dharmas as inherently defiled and inherently pure simultaneously. However, the scriptures only state that their nature is inherently pure, so we know that conventional activities and the ultimate truth are not entirely separate. Alternatively, one should not say that the conventional is the ultimate or the ultimate is the conventional, since they are entirely distinctThe true meaning has other interpretations, which are omitted here for brevity..
善清淨慧！由於今時一切行相皆有差別，非無差別。
> Good Pure Wisdom! At this time, all phenomena appear distinct and varied—not without distinction.
釋曰：自下第三順釋道理破彼一異。於中有二：初約二相破彼不異，後約二相破一向異。前中二相即分為二，此即第一約差別體破彼無異。
修觀行者於諸行中，如其所見、如其所聞、如其所覺、如其所知，復於後時更求勝義。
釋曰：第二更求勝義，破彼不異，如文可知。
> The commentary says: Next, seeking a higher meaning, this refutes the idea that they are not different, as is evident from the text.
又即諸行唯無我性、唯無自性之所顯現，名勝義相。
> It is also the case that all conditioned phenomena appear solely as lacking a self and lacking an inherent nature—this is called the ultimate characteristic.
釋曰：自下第二約二種相破一向異。此即第一唯無我性所顯義故，破一向異也。
> Explanation: Now, the second point, regarding the two aspects, refutes the one-sided view of difference. This first aspect concerns the meaning revealed solely through the absence of a self, thereby refuting the one-sided view of difference.
又非俱時染淨二相別相成立。
> Nor do the defiled and pure aspects exist simultaneously as distinct, established realities.
釋曰：此即第二約非別相立以破一向異。如契經云：一切諸法皆唯本清淨故。
> Explanation: This is the second instance where, based on the absence of distinct characteristics, we refute the notion of absolute difference. As the scripture states: "All dharmas are fundamentally pure in nature."
是故勝義諦相與諸行相都無有異，或一向異，不應道理。
> Therefore, the characteristic of ultimate truth and the characteristics of conditioned phenomena are not different, nor are they entirely the same; to claim otherwise would be unreasonable.
釋曰：自下第二結破二失，於中有二：初以理總結，後牒計重結。此即第一總破一異。
> Here is the translation: Explanation: From here, the second section concludes by refuting two errors. Within it, there are two parts: first, it briefly concludes with reasoning; second, it reiterates the refutation by citing the original view. The first part is the general refutation of the concept of oneness and difference.
若於此中作如是言：勝義諦相與諸行相，都無有異或一向異。者，由此道理，當知一切非如理行、不如正理。
釋曰：此即第二牒計重結。結破一異，如文可知。佛性論第二、三無性論第二、瑜伽七十二，真如與相若一若異皆有三過。佛性論第四，約法約人破真與俗若一若異，恐繁不述。
> The commentary states: This is the second section that reiterates and summarizes the earlier argument. It refutes the views of both identity and difference, as explained in the text. In the \*Ratnagotravibhāga\* (Uttaratantra) chapter two, \*Three Absolutes\* chapter two, and \*Yogācārabhūmi\* section seventy-two, if Suchness and its characteristics are considered either identical or different, each view has three faults. In \*Ratnagotravibhāga\* chapter four, both the dharma and persons are used to refute the views of identity or difference between the ultimate and the conventional. For brevity, these are not elaborated here.
善清淨慧，如螺貝上鮮白色性不易施設，與彼螺貝一相、異相。
> Good and pure wisdom is like the fresh white nature of a conch shell—it cannot be easily defined as being the same as or different from the conch itself.
釋曰：自下第三舉喻重釋。有十種喻，即分為十。雖有十義，如其次第約六境說：初二約色，次一約聲，次一約香，次二約味，次二約觸，後二約法。此即第一螺貝白色一異喻。梵音傷佉，此云螺貝。謂彼螺貝喻諸行相，四塵異故。鮮白色性喻勝義諦，色性通故。由如螺貝與鮮白色不可言一，四塵色性總別異故。或可通別異故，不可言異，無別體故。真諦記云：第三喻說，為顯利鈍兩種方便。若但說義不立譬者，唯利能入、鈍不能入。若具足說義喻二種，利鈍俱入，故借淺事以顯深理。此中具舉六塵為譬，若解一種，餘類可知。傷佉即是白色螺也。白色與螺若言一者，則但色是螺，餘三塵四大皆應非螺。又如白色唯眼境界，螺亦應爾。又如白色通餘諸物，螺亦應爾。螺既不通，白色亦爾，不應通物，無此義故，不可言一。若言異者，義亦不可見其白色，不應通螺，體別異故。又此白色應無所依，不關螺故。又應此螺不具八物，與色異故。赤色與金乃至於觸，例皆如是，具說如彼深密經云：譬如珂白，不可言一異。解節經云：譬如傷佉白色，不可言一異。
> Explanation: Next, the third section uses analogies to further clarify the teaching. There are ten analogies, divided into ten parts. Although there are ten meanings, in order, they correspond to the six sense objects: the first two relate to form (color), the next one to sound, the next one to smell, the next two to taste, the next two to touch, and the last two to mental objects. This is the first analogy, which illustrates whether the conch shell and its white color are one or different. In Sanskrit, "śaṅkha" means conch shell. The conch shell is used as a metaphor for the characteristics of all conditioned phenomena, because it is composed of four elements (visible form, sound, touch, and taste) that differ from each other. The pure white color symbolizes the ultimate truth, because its nature of visible form is universal. Just as one cannot say the conch shell and its white color are the same—since the four elements and the quality of visible form differ in general and particular aspects—one also cannot say they are entirely different, because they share no separate essence. According to the \*Commentary on the True Meaning\*, this third analogy is presented to show the skillful means for both sharp and dull faculties. If only the meaning is taught without a metaphor, only the sharp can enter, while the dull cannot. If both meaning and metaphor are fully explained, both sharp and dull can enter. Therefore, simple examples are used to illuminate profound principles. Here, all six sense objects are cited as analogies; if one is understood, the rest can be inferred similarly. "Śaṅkha" refers to a white conch shell. If one says white and the conch are the same, then only the color would be the conch, and the other three elements (sound, touch, taste) and the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) would not be the conch. Moreover, white is only perceived by the eye, so the conch should also be limited to that. Again, white extends to other objects, so the conch should as well. But since the conch does not extend to other things, white too should not extend, and since this is not the case, they cannot be said to be identical. If one says they are different, that is also untenable: one cannot see white as separate from the conch, because their essence is not distinct. Also, this white would have no basis, as it would not depend on the conch. Furthermore, the conch would not possess its eight constituent substances, being separate from color. The same reasoning applies to red color and gold, and so on up to touch, as fully detailed in the sūtras. The \*Sūtra of the Unraveled Intention\* says: "For example, a white conch cannot be said to be one or different." The \*Sūtra of the Explanation of the Sections\* says: "For example, the white color of a conch cannot be said to be one or different."
如螺貝上鮮白色性，金上黃色亦復如是。
> Just as a conch shell is naturally pure white, so too is gold naturally yellow.
釋曰：此即第二金與黃色一異喻，例前可知。
> Explanation: This is the second simile, comparing gold and its yellow color as one and not the same, following the same reasoning as before.
如箜篌聲上美妙曲性不易施設，與箜篌聲一相、異相。
> Just as the beautiful quality of a melody in a lute's sound cannot be readily identified as being the same as, or different from, the sound of the lute itself.
釋曰：此顯第三箜篌聲曲一異喻。謂聲與曲不可言一，總別異故聲是總、曲是別。或可聲曲異故不可言異，無別體故若依深密，箜篌與聲辨非一異。若依彼經，箜篌是總，具五塵故；聲是其別，是一分故。解節亦同。故彼經云：如毗拏音聲，不可言一異。真諦記云：毗拏者是音樂器，此間毗巴大略相似。
> Here, the commentary explains the third analogy: the differentiation between the sound and the melody of a harp. The sound and the melody cannot be considered identical, because the whole (sound) and its parts (melody) are distinct. Alternatively, they cannot be considered entirely separate either, because the melody has no independent existence apart from the sound.
如黑沉上有妙香性不易施設，與彼黑沉一相、異相。
> Just as the wonderful fragrance embedded in dark aloeswood is not easy to define as either identical to it or different from it.
釋曰：第四沈與妙香一異喻。沉與妙香不可言一，總別異故；不得言異，無別體故深密經云：沉水香味不可言一異。解節經云：如沉香香氣不可言一異也。
> Explanation: The fourth point concerns whether "sinking fragrance" and "wondrous fragrance" are the same or different. They cannot be said to be the same, because one is a general category and the other is a specific instance. Nor can they be said to be different, because they share the same essenceThe Profound Secret Sutra says: The scent of sinking wood cannot be described as either one or different. The Explanation of the Sections Sutra says: Like the fragrance of aloeswood, it cannot be described as either one or different..
如胡椒上辛猛利性不易施設，與彼胡椒一相一異。
> Just as the sharp, intense heat of pepper is not easily handled, it is neither the same as nor different from the pepper itself.
釋曰：第五胡椒辛味一異喻。椒與辛味不可言一，總別異故；不得言異，無別體故深密經云：畢鉢辛味不可言一異。解節經云：摩梨遮與辛辢味不可言一異。
> Explanation: Fifth, the simile of pepper and its pungent flavor—examining their identity and difference. Pepper and pungency cannot be said to be identical, because they are distinguished as a whole versus its attribute; nor can they be said to be different, since pungency has no separate essence apart from pepper.
如胡椒上辛猛利性，訶利淡性，亦復如是。
> Just as pepper has a sharp and intense nature, and myrobalan has a mild and soothing quality, so too is this the same.
釋曰：第六訶梨淡味一異喻，准上應知深密經云：訶梨勒苦味，不可言一異。解節經云：呵梨勒澁。
> Explanation: The sixth simile concerns the astringent and bitter taste of the myrobalan fruit, illustrating the concept of oneness and difference. As noted in the \*Deep Secret Sūtra\*: "The myrobalan's bitter taste cannot be described as either one or different." The \*Unraveling the Knots Sūtra\* states: "The myrobalan is astringent."
如蠧羅綿上有柔耎性不易施設，與蠹羅綿一相異相。
> Just as a wad of soft cotton wool has a yielding, compressible nature that is not easy to handle or define—yet it is not the same as the cotton itself, nor entirely different from it.
釋曰：第七、綿與柔耎一異喻。蠹羅綿者，相傳說是蒲柳華也。綿與耎觸不可言一，總別異故；不得言異，無別體故。深密經云：兜羅柔輭。解節經云：綿纊柔輭。
> Explanation: Seventh, the analogy of the difference and sameness between cotton and softness. "Mulberry cotton" is traditionally said to be the flower of the pussy willow. Cotton and the sensation of softness cannot be said to be identical, as they are distinct in terms of general and specific characteristics; nor can they be said to be different, as they share no separate essence.The \*Deep Secret Sutra\* says: "Mulberry cotton is soft." The \*Unraveling the Knots Sutra\* says: "Cotton wadding is soft."
如熟蘇上所有醍醐不易施設，與彼熟蘇一相、異相。
> Just as the finest cream on top of thick yogurt cannot be easily separated, yet it is neither exactly the same as the yogurt nor completely different from it.
釋曰：第八熟蘇醍醐一異喻。雖舉醍醐，意取滑觸。蘇與醍醐不可言一，總別異故；不可言異，無別體故。真諦記云：蘇與醍醐但舉其觸，不談其味。深密解節亦同此經。
> Explanation: The eighth simile—comparing cooked butter to ghee—illustrates a distinction within unity. Although ghee is mentioned, the focus is on its smooth texture. Butter and ghee cannot be called identical, as they differ in general and specific characteristics; nor can they be called entirely different, as they share the same underlying substance. According to the Commentary on the Ultimate Truth, the comparison between butter and ghee refers only to texture, not taste. The Explanation of the Profound Secrets also aligns with this scripture.
又如一切行上無常性、一切有漏法上苦性、一切法上補特伽羅無我性，不易施設與彼行等一相、異相。
> Similarly, the impermanence present in all conditioned things, the suffering inherent in all defiled phenomena, and the absence of a permanent self in all things—these are not easy to define as being either the same as or different from those phenomena themselves.
釋曰：第九、理事一異喻。言一切行無常性者，行謂一切有漏、無漏，四相所遷，故名無常。故涅槃云：諸行無常，是生滅法。一切有漏法上苦性者，諸有漏法麤重所隨，說名為苦，如對法說。一切法上補特伽羅無我性者，一切法言，總攝有為、無為諸法。補特伽羅者，此云數取趣，以諸有情隨善惡業數取諸趣，名數取趣。舊云人者，譯家謬也。然無我義有其二種：一者、生空，二者、法空。今於此中說前非後，故云補特伽羅無我性也。問：理有四種，何為說三而不明空？答：今於此中顯三法印，謂有漏者皆悉是苦，諸有為者皆是無常，遍一切法悉皆無我，空無所印，故此不論。此中意云：無常等性與行等法不可言一，事理別故；不可言異，無別體故。是故世親三十頌云：依他起自性，分別緣所生，圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性，非不見此彼。護法釋云：此圓成實與依他起非異非不異，異應真如非彼異性，非異此性應是無常，彼此俱應淨非淨境，即本後智用應無別。云何二性非異非一？如彼無常、無我等性，無常等性與行等法，異應彼法非無常等，不異彼應非彼共相。由斯喻顯此圓成實與彼依他非一非異，法與法性理必應然，勝義、世俗相待有故。
> Explanation: Ninth, the analogy of identity and difference between principle and phenomena. When it is said that "all conditioned phenomena are impermanent," "phenomena" refers to all things, whether tainted or undefiled, that are subject to the four characteristics of arising, abiding, change, and ceasing, hence called impermanent. Thus, the Nirvana Sutra states: "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent; they are phenomena of arising and ceasing." When it is said that "all tainted phenomena possess the nature of suffering," all tainted phenomena are accompanied by coarseness and heaviness, and are therefore called suffering, as explained in the Abhidharma. When it is said that "all phenomena lack a self-nature of a person," the term "all phenomena" encompasses both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. "Person" (pudgala) means "one who repeatedly takes birth," referring to sentient beings who, following their good and evil actions, repeatedly take birth in various realms of existence. The old translation as "person" was a mistake by early translators. Now, the meaning of no-self has two aspects: first, the emptiness of the self of persons, and second, the emptiness of the self of phenomena. Here, only the former is discussed, not the latter, hence it is said "lack of a self-nature of a person." Question: Since there are four kinds of principles, why only three are explained without mentioning emptiness? Answer: Here, the three Dharma seals are revealed: all tainted things are suffering, all conditioned things are impermanent, and all phenomena lack a self. Emptiness is not a separate seal, so it is not discussed here. The meaning is that impermanence and other qualities and conditioned phenomena cannot be said to be identical, because principle and phenomena are distinct; nor can they be said to be different, because they have no separate essence. Therefore, Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses state: "The nature of dependent origination arises from conditions, while the perfectly accomplished reality is always removed from the former." Thus, this is neither different nor not different from the dependent nature, like the qualities of impermanence, etc. Dharmapala explains: This perfectly accomplished reality and the dependent nature are neither different nor not different. If they were different, then suchness would not be the nature of the dependent. If they were not different, then the dependent would be impermanent. Both would be pure and impure objects, and the fundamental and subsequent wisdom would be indistinguishable. How can these two natures be neither different nor identical? Like impermanence and no-self: if these qualities were different from conditioned phenomena, then those phenomena would not be impermanent; if they were not different, then those phenomena would not be their universal characteristics. Thus, this analogy shows that the perfectly accomplished reality and the dependent nature are neither one nor different. Phenomena and their principle must necessarily be thus, as ultimate truth and conventional truth are relative to each other.
又如貪上不寂靜相及雜染相，不易施說此與彼貪一相、異相；如於貪上，於瞋、痴上當知亦爾。
> Furthermore, just as it is difficult to clearly explain whether greed and its states—such as restlessness and defilement—are the same or different, the same applies to aversion and delusion.
釋曰：此即第十煩惱性相一異喻，謂貪、瞋、痴性皆有二相：一者、自相，謂貪、瞋等性各別故；二者、共相，謂雜染等皆共有故。共相有二：一、不寂靜相，以囂動故；二、雜染相，相應、所緣二縛雜故。謂彼貪等性相別故，不可言一；相離貪等無別體故，不可言異。問：貪、瞋等一一皆有不寂滅相及離染相，諸宗共許法處所攝。然此所說一切行與無常等，共相道理應通十二，如何此經唯法處攝？解云：薩婆多宗說一切行及無常等，一一皆通十二處攝。然彼法處唯別非總，謂受、想、行三種無為及無表色，如是七種，餘十一處所不攝故。依經部宗，法處有二：一、別，二、通。若別法處，大同薩婆多而差別者，彼宗無作，非色非心。通法處者，彼宗十二皆名法處，第六意識所緣境故。今依大乘，大同經部，通、別二種皆名法處。故成唯識第五卷云：色等五識唯了色等，名色等識。法識通能了一切法，故名法識。或能了別法，獨得法識名。解云：准此，大乘法處具有二種。今於此中據實為論，一切行等通十二處。此經且依意識所緣及通法處二種義故，一切行等皆名法處。
> Explanation: This passage discusses the tenth aspect of the nature of defilements—whether they are identical or different. It states that greed, aversion, and delusion each possess two characteristics: their own specific nature, which distinguishes each individually, and a shared nature, such as being defiled, which they all have in common. The shared aspect has two parts: the quality of being restless, due to agitation, and the quality of being defiled, through being bound by both mental factors and their objects. Because the natures of greed and so forth are distinct from each other, they cannot be said to be identical; and because apart from greed there is no separate essence, they cannot be said to be different. Question: Each of the defilements like greed and so forth has the characteristics of being unpeaceful and impure, and various schools agree that these belong to the category of mental objects. However, the principle of shared characteristics, as applied here to all conditioned phenomena and impermanence, should apply to all twelve sense bases. Why does this scripture only include them under the category of mental objects? Answer: According to the Sarvastivada school, all conditioned phenomena and impermanence each encompass all twelve sense bases. However, their category of mental objects is specific and not universal, comprising only feeling, perception, volition, the three unconditioned phenomena, and unmanifest form—these seven types, which are not included in the other eleven sense bases. According to the Sautrantika school, the mental object category has two types: specific and universal. The specific type is largely similar to the Sarvastivada view, with the difference that this school does not accept unmanifest form as either matter or mind. The universal mental object category holds that all twelve sense bases are called mental objects, because they are the objects of the sixth consciousness. Now, according to the Mahayana, which largely follows the Sautrantika, both the specific and universal types are called mental objects. Therefore, the \*Demonstration of Consciousness Only\*, in its fifth chapter, states: "The five consciousnesses of form and so forth only perceive forms, hence they are called form consciousnesses. The mental consciousness can perceive all dharmas, hence it is called the mental consciousness. Or, because it can distinguish dharmas, it alone is named the mental consciousness." From this, we understand that in Mahayana, the mental object category has both types. Here, speaking from the ultimate perspective, all conditioned phenomena and so forth encompass all twelve sense bases. This scripture, however, specifically mentions mental objects based on two principles—being objects of the sixth consciousness and being the universal mental object category—thus all conditioned phenomena and so forth are included under mental objects in this context.
如是，善清淨慧！勝義諦相不可施設，與諸行相一相、異相。
> Thus, O Clear Wisdom! The mark of ultimate truth cannot be defined as being either the same as or different from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena.
釋曰：此即第四舉法同喻，如文可知。
> The commentary explains: This is the fourth example, which uses a simile derived from the same principle, as is evident from the text.
善清淨慧！我於如是微細極微細、甚深極甚深、難通達極難通達，超過諸法一異性相、勝義諦相，現正等覺；現正等覺已，為他宣說、顯示、開解、施設、照了。
> Good Pure Wisdom! I have fully awakened to this truth—so subtle, so profound, so hard to comprehend, surpassing the distinctive marks of oneness or separateness in all phenomena, the ultimate reality. Having awakened to it, I have taught it to others, revealed it, explained it, established it, and illuminated it.
釋曰：此即第五結通外疑。謂佛所說甚深勝義如何了知？故佛說言：我於如是超過諸法一異性相，成等正覺為他宣說。然此勝義超過十信已前外異生境，非彼所說、非彼所思，故言微細極微細。又過地前內異生位，非言所及、非思所思，故言甚深極甚深。或過等覺已下諸菩薩位，非言所說、非心所及，故言難通達極難通達。又解：過三僧祗所說所思，故說六句。如是等義，如理應思也。
> Explanation: This is the fifth section, resolving lingering doubts. The Buddha's teaching on the ultimate truth—how can it be understood? Thus, the Buddha said: "I have attained perfect enlightenment and proclaimed it to others, transcending all notions of unity and difference in phenomena." Yet this ultimate truth goes beyond the realm of ordinary beings before the Ten Faiths stage. It cannot be expressed or conceived by them, hence it is called "subtle, extremely subtle." It further surpasses the stage of inner ordinary beings prior to the bodhisattva path, where it cannot be reached by words or grasped by thought, hence it is called "profound, extremely profound." Or it transcends the positions of bodhisattvas below the stage of equal enlightenment, where it cannot be spoken of or mentally reached, hence it is called "hard to penetrate, extremely hard to penetrate." Another interpretation: it surpasses what can be spoken or conceived over three immeasurable eons, hence the six phrases are stated. Such meanings should be contemplated according to reason.
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說頌曰：
> At that time, the World-Honored One, wishing to reiterate this meaning, spoke these verses:
釋曰：自下第二舉頌略說。於中有二：初發起頌文，後舉頌略說。此即初也。
> Commentary: Next, the second part presents a summary through verses. It consists of two sections: first, the introductory verse; second, the detailed explanation through verses. Here begins the first section.
行界勝義相，離一異性相，若分別一異，彼非如理行。眾生為相縛，及為麤重縛，要勤修止觀，爾乃得解脫。
> The ultimate nature of elements transcends all notions of unity and difference. If one discriminates between unity and difference, that is not practicing in accordance with reality. Sentient beings are bound by conceptual appearances and by the weight of latent tendencies. Only through diligent cultivation of calm-abiding and insight meditation can they attain liberation.
釋曰：自下第二舉頌略說，於中有三：初之二句歎理甚深，次有四句顯執有失，後之二句明修得果。言行界者，行謂遷流有為諸行。界是性義，自有二說：一云有為自性名之為界，一云諸行皆以真如為自性故名為行界，即以行界為勝義也。次有四句顯執有失，謂執一異等皆非如理，非如理故二縛所縛，二縛之理如上已說。後有二句明修得果，謂迷執者要修止觀方得解脫。梵音名奢摩他，此翻名止，體即定，止息散亂名之為止。梵音毗鉢舍那，此云觀也，體即是慧，審察諸法名之為觀。後瑜伽處當廣分別。解脫即是有為無為二種解脫，有為解脫者即是心慧二種解脫，無為解脫即是無為四種涅槃。此意說言：若欲斷除二種縛者，要經三大阿僧祗劫勤修止觀，方可解脫二種縛也。瑜伽五十九意同此經，故彼論云：復次云何能斷煩惱？云何當言已斷煩惱？謂修奢摩他故、修毗鉢舍那故能斷煩惱。若諸相縛已得解脫，諸麤重縛亦得解脫，當言已斷一切煩惱。如世尊言：相縛縛眾生，亦由麤重善，縛雙修止觀，方乃俱解脫。
## 解深密經疏卷第二
> Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Scroll 2