T31n1588_唯識論
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1588 唯識論
No. 1588 [Nos. 1589, 1590; cf. No. 1591]
唯識論一卷(一名破色心論)
天親菩薩造
後魏瞿曇般若流支譯
唯識無境界 以無塵妄見 如人目有翳 見毛月等事 若但心無塵 離外境妄見 處時定不定 人及所作事 處時等諸事 無色等外法 人夢及餓鬼 依業虛妄見 如夢中無女 動身失不凈 獄中種種主 為彼所逼惱 畜生生天中 地獄不如是 以在於天上 不受畜生苦 若依眾生業 四大如是變 何故不依業 心如是轉變 業熏于異法 果云何異處 善惡熏於心 何故離心說 說色等諸入 為可化眾生 依前人受法 說言有化生 依彼本心智 識妄取外境 是故如來說 有內外諸入 觀虛妄無實 如是入我空 觀于諸異法 入諸法無我 彼一非可見 多亦不可見 和合不可見 是故無塵法 六塵同時合 塵則有六廂 若六唯一處 諸大是一塵 若微塵不合 彼合何所成 言微塵無廂 能成則有廂 有法方所別 彼不得言一 影障若非大 則彼二非彼
若一行不次 取捨亦不同 差別無量處 微細亦應見 現見如夢中 見所見不俱 見時不分別 云何言現見 先說虛妄見 則依彼虛憶 見虛妄夢者 未寤則不知 迭共增上因 彼此心緣合 無明覆於心 故夢寤果別 死依於他心 亦有依自心 及種種因緣 破失自心識 經說檀拏迦 迦陵摩燈國 仙人瞋故空 是故心業重 諸法心為本 諸法心為勝 離心無諸法 唯心身口名 他心知于境 不如實覺知 以非離識境 唯佛如實知 作此唯識論 非我思量義 諸佛妙境界 福德施群生
問曰。此初偈者明何等義。答曰。凡作論者皆有三義。何等為三。一者立義。二者引證。三者譬喻。立義者。如偈言。唯識無境界故。引證者。如偈言。以無塵妄見故。譬喻者。如偈言。如人目有翳見毛月等事故。又復有義。如大乘經中說三界唯心。唯是心者。但有內心無色香等外諸境界。此云何知。如十地經說。三界虛妄但是一心作故。心意與識及了別等。如是四法義一名異。此依相應心說。非依不相應心說。心有二種。何等為二。一者相應心。二者不相應心。相應心者。所謂一切煩惱結使受想行等諸心相應。以是故言。心意與識及了別等義一名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若一行不謹慎，取捨也會不同。 差別有無量處，細微之處也應看見。 （所見）如夢中顯現，見者與所見之物並非同時存在。 見的時候沒有分別，怎麼能說是現見呢？ 先說虛妄之見，然後依賴那虛妄的記憶。 見到虛妄夢境的人，未醒來時不會知道（那是虛妄）。 （夢境是）互相增上的因緣，彼此的心念因緣和合。 無明覆蓋於心，所以夢境與醒來的結果不同。 死亡依賴於他人的心念，也有依賴於自身心念的。 以及種種因緣，破壞喪失自身的心識。 經書上說檀拏迦（Daṇḍaka），迦陵摩燈國（Kāliṅgamataṅga）， 因為仙人的嗔恨而變為空無，所以說心業很重要。 一切法以心為根本，一切法以心為殊勝。 離開心就沒有諸法，只有心、身、口有名相。 他人之心知曉境界，不如實地覺知。 因為不是脫離識的境界，只有佛才能如實知曉。 作此《唯識論》，不是我思量出來的意義。 諸佛的微妙境界，是福德施予眾生的。
問：這最初的偈頌說明了什麼意義？ 答：凡是著論的人都有三種意義。哪三種呢？ 一是立義，二是引證，三是譬喻。 立義，如偈頌所說：『唯識無境界故』。 引證，如偈頌所說：『以無塵妄見故』。 譬喻，如偈頌所說：『如人目有翳見毛月等事故』。 又有一種意義，如大乘經中所說，三界唯心。所謂『唯是心』，只是有內心而沒有色香等外在的各種境界。這怎麼知道呢？如《十地經》所說：三界虛妄，只是由一心所造作。心、意、識以及了別等等，這四法意義相同而名稱不同。這是依據相應心而說的，不是依據不相應心而說的。心有兩種，哪兩種呢？一是相應心，二是不相應心。相應心，就是說一切煩惱、結使、受、想、行等諸心相應。因此說，心、意、識以及了別等等，意義相同。
【English Translation】 English version If a single action is not careful, acceptance and rejection will also differ. Differences exist in countless places; subtle points should also be seen. What is seen appears like in a dream; the seer and the seen do not exist simultaneously. When seeing, there is no differentiation; how can it be called direct perception? First, speak of false views, then rely on that false memory. One who sees false dreams does not know (they are false) before awakening. (Dreams are) mutually increasing causes; each other's thoughts and conditions combine. Ignorance covers the mind, so the results of dreams and waking are different. Death relies on the minds of others; it also relies on one's own mind. And various causes and conditions destroy and lose one's own consciousness. The scriptures say Daṇḍaka (檀拏迦), Kāliṅgamataṅga (迦陵摩燈國), Became empty because of the anger of the immortals; therefore, mental karma is important. All dharmas have the mind as their root; all dharmas have the mind as superior. Without the mind, there are no dharmas; only mind, body, and speech have names. The minds of others know the realm, but do not truly perceive it. Because it is not a realm apart from consciousness, only the Buddha truly knows. This Treatise on Consciousness-Only is not the meaning I have contemplated. The wonderful realms of all Buddhas are blessings bestowed upon all beings.
Question: What meaning does this initial verse explain? Answer: All treatise writers have three meanings. What are the three? First is establishing the meaning, second is citing evidence, and third is using analogies. Establishing the meaning, as the verse says: 'Because Consciousness-Only has no realm'. Citing evidence, as the verse says: 'Because there is no dust or false view'. Analogy, as the verse says: 'Like a person with cataracts seeing hairy moons and other things'. There is also another meaning, as the Mahayana Sutras say, the three realms are only mind. 'Only mind' means there is only inner mind and no external realms of form, smell, etc. How is this known? As the Ten Stages Sutra says: The three realms are illusory, created only by a single mind. Mind, thought, consciousness, and discernment, these four dharmas have the same meaning but different names. This is based on the associated mind, not the non-associated mind. There are two types of mind, what are the two? First is the associated mind, second is the non-associated mind. The associated mind refers to all afflictions, bonds, sensations, thoughts, actions, and other minds that are associated. Therefore, it is said that mind, thought, consciousness, and discernment have the same meaning.
異故。不相應心者。所謂第一義諦常住不變自性清凈心故。言三界虛妄但是一心作。是故偈言。唯識無境界故。已明立義。次辯引證。問曰。以何事驗得知色等外境界無。但有內心能虛妄見前境界也。答曰。偈言以無塵妄見故。無塵妄見者。明畢竟無色等境界。但有內心妄生分別。能見色等外諸境界。已明引證。次顯譬喻。
問曰。若無色等外境界者。為但有言說。為亦有譬況。答曰。偈言如人目有翳見毛月等事故。此明何義。譬如人目或有膚翳熱氣病等。是故妄見種種諸事。于虛空中睹見毛炎等見第二月。及以夢幻乾闥婆城。如是等法實無前事。但虛妄見而有受用色香味等。外諸境界皆亦如是。無始世來內心倒惑妄見有用。實無色等外諸境界。問曰。偈言。
若但心無塵 離外境妄見 處時定不定 人及所作事
此偈明何義。若離色等外諸境界虛妄見者。以何義故。于有色處眼則見色。余無色處則不見色。又復有難。若無色等外諸境界虛妄見者。以何義故。即彼見處於有色時眼則見色。于無色時則不見色。又復有難。若無色等外諸境界虛妄見者。如是則應一切時見。若不如是應一切時悉皆不見。是故偈言。若但心無塵離外境妄見處時定不定故。又復有難。若無色等外諸境界虛妄見者。以何義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 變異的緣故。不與心相應的法，是因為第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，最高的真理）是常住不變、自性清凈的心的緣故。說三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）虛妄，都只是一心的作用。所以偈頌說：『唯有識而沒有境界』，已經闡明了立論的要義。接下來辨析引證。 問：用什麼來驗證得知色等外在境界並不存在，只有內心能夠虛妄地見到外在境界呢？答：偈頌說：『因為沒有塵埃的虛妄見』。『沒有塵埃的虛妄見』，說明畢竟沒有色等境界，只有內心虛妄地產生分別，能夠見到色等外在的各種境界。已經闡明了引證。接下來顯示譬喻。 問：如果沒有色等外在境界，是隻有言說，還是也有譬喻呢？答：偈頌說：『比如人的眼睛有翳病，見到毛髮、月亮等事物』。這說明什麼意義呢？譬如人的眼睛或者有膚翳、熱氣等疾病，因此虛妄地見到種種事物，在虛空中看到毛髮、火焰等，見到第二個月亮，以及夢幻、乾闥婆城（Gandharva-pura，海市蜃樓）。像這些法實際上並沒有前面的事物，只是虛妄地見到而有受用色香味等。外在的各種境界也都是這樣，從無始以來內心顛倒迷惑，虛妄地見到有用，實際上沒有色等外在的各種境界。問：偈頌說： 『如果只是心沒有塵埃， 遠離外在境界的虛妄見， 處所、時間是固定還是不固定， 人和所做的事情。』 這首偈頌說明什麼意義？如果遠離色等外在的各種境界的虛妄見，因為什麼緣故，在有色的地方眼睛就能見到顏色，在沒有色的地方就見不到顏色。又有一個難題，如果沒有色等外在的各種境界的虛妄見，因為什麼緣故，就在那個能見的地方，在有色的時候眼睛就能見到顏色，在沒有色的時候就見不到顏色。又有一個難題，如果沒有色等外在的各種境界的虛妄見，那麼就應該一切時候都能見到，如果不是這樣，就應該一切時候都見不到。所以偈頌說：『如果只是心沒有塵埃，遠離外在境界的虛妄見，處所、時間是固定還是不固定』。又有一個難題，如果沒有色等外在的各種境界的虛妄見，因為什麼緣故
【English Translation】 English version Because of the difference. That which does not correspond to the mind is because the First Noble Truth (Paramārtha-satya, the highest truth) is the permanent, unchanging, and self-nature pure mind. It is said that the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm) are illusory and are only created by the mind. Therefore, the verse says: 'Only consciousness, without external objects,' which has already clarified the meaning of the established doctrine. Next, we will discuss the evidence. Question: How can we verify and know that external objects such as form do not exist, but only the mind can falsely see external objects? Answer: The verse says: 'Because there is no delusion of dust.' 'No delusion of dust' means that there are ultimately no objects such as form, but only the mind falsely generates distinctions and can see various external objects such as form. The evidence has been clarified. Next, we will show the analogy. Question: If there are no external objects such as form, is there only speech, or is there also an analogy? Answer: The verse says: 'For example, a person's eyes have cataracts and see things like hair and the moon.' What does this mean? For example, a person's eyes may have skin cataracts, heat, or other diseases, so they falsely see various things, seeing hair, flames, etc. in the empty space, seeing a second moon, as well as dreams and Gandharva cities (Gandharva-pura, mirages). These phenomena do not actually have the preceding things, but are falsely seen and have the enjoyment of form, smell, taste, etc. All external objects are also like this. From beginningless time, the mind has been inverted and deluded, falsely seeing usefulness, but there are actually no external objects such as form. Question: The verse says: 'If only the mind has no dust, Away from the delusion of external objects, Are the place and time fixed or unfixed, The person and the things done.' What does this verse mean? If it is a false view that is away from the various external objects such as form, for what reason can the eyes see color in a place with color, and not see color in a place without color? There is also a difficult question: if it is a false view that is away from the various external objects such as form, for what reason can the eyes see color in a place with color, and not see color in a place without color? There is also a difficult question: if it is a false view that is away from the various external objects such as form, then one should be able to see at all times, and if not, one should not be able to see at all times. Therefore, the verse says: 'If only the mind has no dust, away from the delusion of external objects, the place and time are fixed or unfixed.' There is also a difficult question: if it is a false view that is away from the various external objects such as form, for what reason
故。多人共集同處同時。于有色處則同見色。于無色處則同不見。又復有難。若無色等外諸境界虛妄見者。以何義故。眼翳之人。妄見日月毛輪蠅等。凈眼之人。則不妄見。又復有難。若等無有色香味等外諸境界虛妄見者。以何義故。眼翳之人。所見日月毛輪蠅等皆悉無用。凈眼之人。有所見者皆悉有用。又復有難。若等無有色香味等外諸境界虛妄見者。以何義故。夢中所見飲食飢飽刀杖毒藥。如是等事皆悉無用。寤時所見飲食飢飽刀杖毒藥。如是等事皆悉有用。又復有難。若等無有色香味等外諸境界虛妄見者。以何義故。乾闥婆城實無有城而無城用。自余城者皆實有城而有城用。以是義故。色香味等外諸境界皆悉實有。不同翳夢乾闥婆城等。是故處時人所作業皆是實有。不同夢等。是故偈言。處時定不定人及所作事故。答曰。偈言。
處時等諸事 無色等外法 人夢及餓鬼 依業虛妄見
此偈明何義。汝言。以何義故。于有色處眼則見色。余無色處不見色者。此義不然。何以故。以彼夢中於無色處則見有色于有色處不見色故。又汝言。以何義故。即彼見處於有色時眼則見色。若無色時不見色者。汝以何義故。于彼夢中一處見有聚落城邑及男女等。或即彼處聚落城邑及男女等皆悉不見。或時有見。或
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，多人聚集在同一處所，同一時間，在有色的地方就共同看到顏色，在無色的地方就共同看不到。又有人提出疑問：如果無色等外在的各種境界是虛妄的，那麼為什麼有眼翳的人，會虛妄地看到日月毛輪、蒼蠅等，而眼睛清凈的人，就不會虛妄地看到呢？又有人提出疑問：如果色、香、味等外在的各種境界都是虛妄的，那麼為什麼有眼翳的人所看到的日月毛輪、蒼蠅等，都沒有實際用處，而眼睛清凈的人所看到的，都有實際用處呢？又有人提出疑問：如果色、香、味等外在的各種境界都是虛妄的，那麼為什麼夢中所見的飲食飢飽、刀杖毒藥等，都沒有實際用處，而醒來時所見的飲食飢飽、刀杖毒藥等，都有實際用處呢？又有人提出疑問：如果色、香、味等外在的各種境界都是虛妄的，那麼為什麼乾闥婆城（Gandharva city，海市蜃樓）實際上沒有城，也沒有城的作用，而其他的城都是真實存在的，並且有城的作用呢？因為這個緣故，色、香、味等外在的各種境界都是真實存在的，不同於眼翳、夢境、乾闥婆城等，所以處所、時間、人們所做的事情都是真實存在的，不同於夢境等。因此偈頌說：『處所、時間、定與不定，人及所作之事故。』 回答說：偈頌說： 『處所時等諸事，無色等外法，人夢及餓鬼，依業虛妄見。』 這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？你問：『為什麼在有色的地方眼睛就能看到顏色，在無色的地方就看不到顏色呢？』這個說法是不對的。為什麼呢？因為在夢中，在無色的地方也能看到有色，在有色的地方反而看不到顏色。你又問：『為什麼在同一個地方，在有色的時候眼睛就能看到顏色，在無色的時候就看不到顏色呢？』你又為什麼解釋呢？在夢中，同一個地方，有時能看到村落、城邑以及男女等，有時同一個地方，村落、城邑以及男女等都看不到，有時能看到，有時
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, when many people gather in the same place at the same time, they see colors together in places with color, and they do not see anything in places without color. Furthermore, there is a question: If the external realms such as formlessness are falsely seen, then why do people with eye diseases falsely see the sun, moon, hair-wheels, flies, etc., while people with clear eyes do not falsely see them? Furthermore, there is a question: If the external realms such as form, smell, taste, etc., are falsely seen, then why are the sun, moon, hair-wheels, flies, etc., seen by people with eye diseases all useless, while what is seen by people with clear eyes is all useful? Furthermore, there is a question: If the external realms such as form, smell, taste, etc., are falsely seen, then why are things seen in dreams such as food and drink, hunger and satiety, knives and staffs, poison, etc., all useless, while things seen when awake such as food and drink, hunger and satiety, knives and staffs, poison, etc., are all useful? Furthermore, there is a question: If the external realms such as form, smell, taste, etc., are falsely seen, then why is a Gandharva city (Gandharva city, mirage) actually without a city and without the use of a city, while other cities are all real cities and have the use of a city? For this reason, the external realms such as form, smell, taste, etc., are all real and different from eye diseases, dreams, Gandharva cities, etc. Therefore, the place, time, and actions performed by people are all real and different from dreams, etc. Therefore, the verse says: 'Place, time, fixed and unfixed, people and the things they do.' The answer is: The verse says: 'Place, time, and other things, external dharmas such as formlessness, people, dreams, and hungry ghosts, falsely see according to their karma.' What meaning does this verse explain? You ask: 'Why can the eye see color in a place with color, and not see color in a place without color?' This statement is not correct. Why? Because in dreams, one can see color in a place without color, and not see color in a place with color. You also ask: 'Why can the eye see color in a place with color, and not see color in a place without color?' Why do you explain it? In dreams, in the same place, sometimes one can see villages, cities, and men and women, etc., and sometimes in the same place, villages, cities, and men and women, etc., are not seen, sometimes seen, sometimes
時不見。非是常見。又汝言。若無色等外諸境界虛妄見者。如是則應。一切時見。若不如是應一切時不見者。此義不然。何以故。有于處時無色香等外諸境界。亦有同處同時同見。亦有同處同時不見。是故偈言。人夢及餓鬼依業虛妄見故。此明何義。以汝向言若無色等外諸境界。云何有時處等見不見者。此義不成。是虛妄說。何以故。以應離色等外諸境界。時處等事皆悉成故。又汝言。以何義故。多人共集同處同時。于有色處則同見色。于無色處則同不見。又汝言。眼翳之人妄見日月毛輪蠅等。凈眼之人不妄見者。此義不然。何以故。如餓鬼等離色香等外諸境界。處時人等一切皆成。此義云何。如餓鬼等。或百同業。或千同業。同見河中皆悉是膿。或皆見血。或見小便。或見大便。或見流鐵。或見流水。而兩岸邊多有眾人。執持刀杖守掌防護不令得飲。此則遠離色聲香等外諸境界而虛妄見。是故偈言。人夢及餓鬼依業虛妄見故。又汝言。以何義故。眼翳之人所見日月毛輪蠅等皆悉無用。凈眼之人皆悉有用。夢中所見飲食飢飽刀杖毒藥。如是等事皆悉無用。寤時所見飲食飢飽刀杖毒藥。如是等皆悉有用。又汝言。以何義故。乾闥婆城實無有城而無城用。自余城者皆實有城而有城用者。此義不然。何以故。又偈言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 時不見，並非總是能見到。而且你說，如果沒有色等外在的各種境界，都是虛妄的見解，那麼就應該在任何時候都能見到。如果不是這樣，就應該在任何時候都見不到，這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？因為在某個地方某個時間，沒有顏色、香味等外在的各種境界，也有在同一個地方同一個時間，大家一起看到的情況，也有在同一個地方同一個時間，大家卻看不到的情況。所以偈語說：『人做夢以及餓鬼，都是因為業力而虛妄地見到。』這說明什麼呢？因為你之前說，如果沒有顏色等外在的各種境界，怎麼會有時處等見與不見的情況呢？這種說法是不成立的，是虛妄的說法。為什麼呢？因為即使離開了顏色等外在的各種境界，時處等事情也都能成立。而且你說，因為什麼原因，很多人聚集在同一個地方同一個時間，對於有顏色的地方就一起看到顏色，對於沒有顏色的地方就一起看不到呢？而且你說，眼睛有毛病的人虛妄地看到日月毛輪蠅等，眼睛乾淨的人就不會虛妄地看到，這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？就像餓鬼等眾生，離開了顏色、香味等外在的各種境界，處所、時間、人等一切都能成立。這是什麼意思呢？就像餓鬼等眾生，或者一百個有相同業力，或者一千個有相同業力，一起看到河裡全是膿，或者都看到血，或者看到小便，或者看到大便，或者看到流動的鐵水，或者看到流水，而兩岸邊有很多的人，拿著刀杖守護著，不讓它們喝。這就是遠離了顏色、聲音、香味等外在的各種境界而虛妄地見到。所以偈語說：『人做夢以及餓鬼，都是因為業力而虛妄地見到。』而且你說，因為什麼原因，眼睛有毛病的人所看到的日月毛輪蠅等都沒有用處，眼睛乾淨的人所看到的就都有用處。夢中所看到的飲食飢飽刀杖毒藥，等等這些事情都沒有用處，醒來時所看到的飲食飢飽刀杖毒藥，等等這些就都有用處。而且你說，因為什麼原因，乾闥婆城（Gandharva city，海市蜃樓）實際上沒有城，所以沒有城的作用，其他的城都是真實存在的城，所以有城的作用呢？這種說法是不對的。而且偈語說：
【English Translation】 English version Sometimes it is not seen. It is not always seen. And you say, if there are no external realms such as form, etc., and the seeing is a false perception, then one should see at all times. If it is not so, then one should not see at all times. This meaning is not correct. Why? Because there are places and times where there are no external realms such as color and smell, etc. There are also instances of seeing together in the same place at the same time, and there are also instances of not seeing together in the same place at the same time. Therefore, the verse says: 'People in dreams and hungry ghosts see falsely due to karma.' What does this clarify? Because you said earlier, if there are no external realms such as form, etc., how can there be seeing or not seeing in terms of place and time? This meaning is not established; it is a false statement. Why? Because even apart from external realms such as form, etc., matters of place and time can all be established. And you say, for what reason do many people gather together in the same place at the same time, and see form together in a place with form, and not see together in a place without form? And you say, a person with eye disease falsely sees the sun, moon, hair-wheels, flies, etc., while a person with clear eyes does not falsely see them. This meaning is not correct. Why? Like hungry ghosts, etc., apart from external realms such as color and smell, etc., place, time, people, etc., can all be established. What does this mean? Like hungry ghosts, etc., perhaps a hundred with the same karma, or a thousand with the same karma, all see pus in the river, or all see blood, or see urine, or see feces, or see molten iron, or see flowing water, while on both banks there are many people holding knives and staffs, guarding and protecting them from drinking. This is seeing falsely, apart from external realms such as color, sound, and smell. Therefore, the verse says: 'People in dreams and hungry ghosts see falsely due to karma.' And you say, for what reason are the sun, moon, hair-wheels, flies, etc., seen by a person with eye disease all useless, while those seen by a person with clear eyes are all useful? The food, hunger, satiety, knives, staffs, poison, etc., seen in a dream are all useless, while the food, hunger, satiety, knives, staffs, poison, etc., seen when awake are all useful. And you say, for what reason is a Gandharva city (Gandharva city, mirage) actually not a city and therefore has no use as a city, while other cities are all real cities and therefore have the use of a city? This meaning is not correct. And the verse says:
如夢中無女 動身失不凈 獄中種種主 為彼所逼惱
此偈明何義。如人夢中實無女人而見女人與身交會漏失不凈。眾生如是。無始世來。虛妄受用色香味等外諸境界。皆亦如是實無而成。以如是等種種譬喻。離色香等外諸境界。有處時人所作業等四種事成。又復更有一種譬喻。離色香等外諸境界四種事成。皆虛妄不實。是故偈言。獄中種種主為彼所逼惱故。此明何義。彼四種事離色香等外諸境界。一切皆成。云何皆成。如地獄中無地獄主。而地獄眾生依自罪業見地獄主。彼地獄主與種種苦。而起心見。此是地獄。此是地獄處此是地獄時。此是夜時此是晝時。此中前時此中后時。彼是地獄主。我是作罪人。以惡業故見狗見烏。或見鐵鉤或見兩羊。或見兩山從兩邊來逼罪人身。或見劍樹罪人上時劍刃向下罪人下時劍刃向上周匝而有。何以故。以業同故。同共聚集皆悉同見同受果報。若業不同。則不同集亦不同見不同受苦。以是義故。汝言處時定不定人及所作事。應有色等外諸境界。處時及人所作業等皆是實者。彼亦虛妄。以是義故。處時及身所作業等此四種事。唯以一種地獄譬喻皆成虛妄。應如是知。問曰。地獄中主烏狗羊等。為是眾生為非眾生。答曰。非是眾生。
問曰。以何義故非是眾生。答曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『如夢中無女，動身失不凈，獄中種種主，為彼所逼惱』，這首偈語闡明了什麼含義呢？就像人在夢中實際上沒有女人，卻見到女人並與之交合而遺失精液一樣。眾生也是如此，從無始以來，虛妄地受用色、香、味等外在的各種境界，這些境界實際上並不存在，卻被認為是真實存在的。通過這些種種譬喻，說明離開了色、香等外在的各種境界，處所、時間、人和所作之事這四種事物也能成立。此外，還有另一種譬喻，說明離開了色、香等外在的各種境界，這四種事物也能成立，但這一切都是虛妄不實的。因此偈語說：『獄中種種主，為彼所逼惱』。這又說明了什麼含義呢？這說明那四種事物離開了色、香等外在的各種境界，一切都能成立。如何成立呢？就像地獄中並沒有地獄之主，但地獄中的眾生因為自身的罪業而見到地獄之主。那地獄之主給予他們種種苦難，並且他們心中生起這樣的想法：『這是地獄，這是地獄的處所，這是地獄的時間，這是夜晚，這是白天，這是前一刻，這是后一刻，那是地獄之主，我是作惡之人。』因為惡業的緣故，他們見到狗、見到烏鴉，或者見到鐵鉤，或者見到兩隻羊，或者見到兩座山從兩邊而來逼迫罪人的身體，或者見到劍樹，罪人向上爬的時候劍刃向下，罪人向下爬的時候劍刃向上，周匝都是如此。為什麼會這樣呢？因為業力相同，共同聚集在一起，都同樣見到，同樣承受果報。如果業力不同，就不會共同聚集，也不會同樣見到，也不會同樣受苦。因為這個道理，如果你說處所、時間、人和所作之事是確定的，應該有色等外在的各種境界，處所、時間以及人和所作之事都是真實的，那麼這些也是虛妄的。因為這個道理，處所、時間以及自身所作之事這四種事物，僅僅用一種地獄的譬喻就能說明它們都是虛妄的，應該這樣理解。有人問：地獄中的主、烏鴉、狗、羊等，是眾生還是非眾生？回答說：不是眾生。 有人問：因為什麼原因說它們不是眾生呢？回答說：
【English Translation】 English version 『Like in a dream without a woman, moving the body results in the loss of impurity; various lords in hell, are tormented by them.』 What meaning does this verse illuminate? It's like a person in a dream, where there is actually no woman, yet sees a woman and engages in intercourse, resulting in the loss of seminal fluid. Sentient beings are like this as well. From beginningless time, they falsely enjoy external realms such as form, sound, smell, taste, and touch. All these are like that, actually non-existent but perceived as real. Through these various analogies, it is shown that apart from external realms such as form, smell, etc., the four things—place, time, person, and action—can still be established. Furthermore, there is another analogy showing that apart from external realms such as form, smell, etc., these four things can still be established, but all of this is false and unreal. Therefore, the verse says: 『Various lords in hell, are tormented by them.』 What does this mean? It means that those four things, apart from external realms such as form, smell, etc., can all be established. How can they all be established? It's like in hell, there is no lord of hell, but the beings in hell, based on their own karma, see the lord of hell. That lord of hell inflicts various sufferings upon them, and they arise in their minds the thought: 『This is hell, this is the place of hell, this is the time of hell, this is night, this is day, this is the former moment, this is the latter moment, that is the lord of hell, I am the one who committed evil.』 Because of evil karma, they see dogs, see crows, or see iron hooks, or see two sheep, or see two mountains coming from both sides, pressing upon the bodies of the sinners, or see a sword tree, where the blades point downwards when the sinner climbs up, and the blades point upwards when the sinner climbs down, all around. Why is this so? Because the karma is the same; they gather together, all seeing the same things and experiencing the same consequences. If the karma is different, they will not gather together, nor will they see the same things, nor will they experience the same suffering. Because of this reason, if you say that place, time, person, and action are definite, and that there should be external realms such as form, etc., and that place, time, and the person and action are all real, then those are also false. Because of this reason, these four things—place, time, and one's own actions—can all be shown to be false with just one analogy of hell. It should be understood in this way. Someone asks: Are the lords, crows, dogs, sheep, etc., in hell sentient beings or non-sentient beings? The answer is: They are not sentient beings. Someone asks: For what reason are they said not to be sentient beings? The answer is:
以不相應故。此以何義。有五種義。彼地獄主及烏狗等非是眾生。何等為五。一者如地獄中罪眾生等受種種苦。地獄主等若是眾生。亦應如是受種種苦。而彼一向不受如是種種苦惱。以是義故。彼非眾生。二者地獄主等若是眾生。應迭相殺害。不可分別此是罪人此是主等。而實不共遞相殺害。可得分別此是罪人此是獄主。以是義故。彼非眾生。三者地獄主等若是眾生。形體力等應遞相殺害。不應偏為受罪人畏。而實偏為罪人所畏。以是義故。彼非眾生。四者彼地獄地常是熱鐵。地獄主等是眾生者。不能忍苦。云何能害彼受罪人。而實能害彼受罪人。以是義故。彼非眾生。五者地獄主等若是眾生。非受罪人不應于彼地獄中生。而實生於彼地獄中。以是義故。彼非眾生此以何義。彼地獄中受苦眾生。造五逆等諸惡罪業于彼中生。地獄主等不造惡業云何生彼。以如是等五種義故。名不相應。
問曰。若彼主等非是眾生。不作罪業不生彼者。云何天中得有畜生。此以何義。如彼天中有種種鳥諸畜生等生在彼處。于地獄中何故不爾。畜生餓鬼種種雜生令彼為主。答曰偈言。
畜生生天中 地獄不如是 以在於天上 不受畜生苦
此偈明何義。彼畜生等生天上者。彼于天上器世間中有少分業。是故於彼器世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為不相應的緣故。這是什麼意思呢？有五種意義。那些地獄獄主以及烏狗等不是眾生。哪五種呢？第一，比如地獄中的罪惡眾生等遭受種種痛苦，地獄獄主等如果是眾生，也應該像這樣遭受種種痛苦。但是他們一直不遭受這樣的種種苦惱。因為這個緣故，他們不是眾生。第二，地獄獄主等如果是眾生，應該互相殺害，不能夠分辨哪個是罪人，哪個是獄主等。但是實際上他們不互相殺害，可以分辨哪個是罪人，哪個是獄主。因為這個緣故，他們不是眾生。第三，地獄獄主等如果是眾生，形體力量等應該互相殺害，不應該僅僅讓受罪的人畏懼。但是實際上僅僅讓罪人畏懼。因為這個緣故，他們不是眾生。第四，那地獄之地常常是熱鐵，地獄獄主等如果是眾生，不能夠忍受痛苦，怎麼能夠傷害那些受罪的人呢？但是實際上能夠傷害那些受罪的人。因為這個緣故，他們不是眾生。第五，地獄獄主等如果是眾生，不是受罪的人，不應該在那地獄中出生。但是實際上生在那地獄中。因為這個緣故，他們不是眾生。這是什麼意思呢？那些地獄中受苦的眾生，造作五逆（panchanantarika-karma，指殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破和合僧、出佛身血五種極惡之罪）等各種惡罪業，所以在那裡出生。地獄獄主等不造作惡業，怎麼會在那裡出生呢？因為像這樣的五種意義，所以叫做不相應。 問：如果那些獄主等不是眾生，不作罪業，不生在那裡，為什麼天界中會有畜生呢？這是什麼意思呢？比如那些天界中有各種鳥類等畜生生在那裡，在地獄中為什麼不是這樣呢？畜生、餓鬼（preta，六道之一，因慳貪而墮入此道）種種雜類眾生讓他們做獄主嗎？答：用偈語說： 『畜生生天中，地獄不如是，以在於天上，不受畜生苦。』 這偈語說明什麼意義呢？那些畜生等生在天上，因為他們在天上器世間（bhajana-loka，眾生所依賴的物質世界）中還有少許業力，所以在那器世間中。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of non-correspondence. What does this mean? There are five meanings. Those hell wardens and black dogs, etc., are not sentient beings. What are the five? First, for example, the sinful beings in hell suffer all kinds of torments. If the hell wardens were sentient beings, they should also suffer such torments. But they never suffer such torments. For this reason, they are not sentient beings. Second, if the hell wardens were sentient beings, they should kill each other, and it would be impossible to distinguish who is a sinner and who is a warden. But in reality, they do not kill each other, and it is possible to distinguish who is a sinner and who is a hell warden. For this reason, they are not sentient beings. Third, if the hell wardens were sentient beings, their physical strength, etc., should be used to kill each other, and they should not only be feared by the sinners. But in reality, they are only feared by the sinners. For this reason, they are not sentient beings. Fourth, the land of that hell is always hot iron. If the hell wardens were sentient beings, they would not be able to endure the suffering. How could they harm those who are suffering? But in reality, they can harm those who are suffering. For this reason, they are not sentient beings. Fifth, if the hell wardens were sentient beings, those who are not sinners should not be born in that hell. But in reality, they are born in that hell. For this reason, they are not sentient beings. What does this mean? Those sentient beings who suffer in hell, having committed various evil deeds such as the five rebellious acts (panchanantarika-karma, referring to the five gravest offenses: patricide, matricide, killing an Arhat, creating schism in the Sangha, and shedding the blood of a Buddha), are born there. The hell wardens do not commit evil deeds, so how could they be born there? Because of these five meanings, it is called non-correspondence. Question: If those wardens are not sentient beings, do not commit evil deeds, and are not born there, why are there animals in the heavens? What does this mean? For example, there are various birds and other animals born in those heavens. Why is it not so in hell? Are animals and hungry ghosts (preta, one of the six realms, beings who fall into this realm due to greed) and various mixed beings made to be wardens? Answer: It is said in verse: 'Animals are born in the heavens, it is not so in hell, because they are in the heavens, they do not suffer the suffering of animals.' What meaning does this verse explain? Those animals, etc., who are born in the heavens, because they still have a small amount of karma in the container world (bhajana-loka, the material world that sentient beings rely on) in the heavens, therefore in that container world.
間中受樂果報。彼地獄主及烏狗等不受諸苦。以是義故。彼地獄中無有實主及烏狗等。除罪眾生。
問曰。若如是者。地獄眾生依罪業故外四大等種種轉變。形色力等勝者名主及烏狗等。云何名為四大轉變。彼處四大種種轉變。動手腳等及口言說。令受罪人生於驚怖。如有兩羊從兩邊來共殺害彼地獄眾生。見有諸山或來或去殺害眾生。見鐵樹林見棘林等。罪人上時樹刺向下。罪人下時樹刺向上。以是義故。不得說言唯有內心無外境界。答曰。偈言。
若依眾生業 四大如是變 何故不依業 心如是轉變
此偈明何義。汝向言依罪人業。外四大等如是轉變。何故不言依彼眾生罪業力故內自心識如是轉變。而心虛妄分別說言外四大等如是轉變。又偈言。
業熏于異法 果云何異處 善惡熏於心 何故離心說
此偈明何義。以汝虛妄分別說言。依彼眾生罪業力故。外四大等如是轉變。生彼罪人種種怖等。以何義故。不如是說。依彼眾生罪業力故。內自心識如是轉變。是故偈言。業熏于異法果云何異處故。此以何義。彼地獄中。受苦眾生所有罪業。依本心作還在心中。不離於心。以是義故。惡業熏心還應心中受苦果報。何以故。以善惡業熏於心識。而不熏彼外四大等。以四大中無所熏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
間或有享受快樂果報的時候。那些地獄之主以及烏狗等，並不會遭受各種痛苦。因為這個緣故，那些地獄中並沒有真實的主宰以及烏狗等，只有受罪的眾生。
問：如果像你所說的那樣，地獄眾生因為罪業的緣故，外在的四大（地、水、火、風）等種種轉變，形色力量等勝過罪人的被稱為地獄之主以及烏狗等。那麼，什麼叫做四大轉變呢？ 答：在那裡，四大種種轉變，出現動手腳等以及口頭言說，令受罪的眾生心生驚恐。比如有兩隻羊從兩邊來共同殺害那些地獄眾生。看見有各種山或來或去殺害眾生。看見鐵樹林，看見荊棘林等。罪人向上爬的時候，樹上的刺就向下；罪人向下爬的時候，樹上的刺就向上。因為這個緣故，不能說只有內心而沒有外在境界。 答：偈語說：
『若依眾生業，四大如是變， 何故不依業，心如是轉變？』
這句偈語說明什麼道理呢？你剛才說，依靠罪人的業力，外在的四大等這樣轉變。為什麼不說依靠那些眾生的罪業力，內在的自心識也這樣轉變呢？而你的心虛妄分別，說外在的四大等這樣轉變。又有偈語說：
『業熏于異法，果云何異處？ 善惡熏於心，何故離心說？』
這句偈語說明什麼道理呢？因為你虛妄分別，說依靠那些眾生的罪業力，外在的四大等這樣轉變，使那些罪人生起種種恐怖等。為什麼不這樣說呢？依靠那些眾生的罪業力，內在的自心識這樣轉變。所以偈語說：『業熏于異法，果云何異處？』這是什麼意思呢？那些地獄中，受苦眾生所有的罪業，依靠本心所作，還在心中，不離開心。因為這個緣故，惡業薰染心識，還應該在心中承受苦果報。為什麼呢？因為善惡業薰染心識，而不薰染外在的四大等。因為四大中沒有什麼可以被薰染。
【English Translation】 English version:
Occasionally, there are times of experiencing the reward of happiness. Those lords of hell and the hellhounds do not suffer various torments. Therefore, in those hells, there are no real lords or hellhounds, only sentient beings undergoing punishment for their sins.
Question: If it is as you say, that hell beings, due to their karma, cause the external four elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) to transform in various ways, and those with superior forms, strengths, etc., are called lords of hell and hellhounds, then what is meant by the transformation of the four elements? Answer: In that place, the four elements transform in various ways, manifesting as hands, feet, and speech, causing terror in the beings undergoing punishment. For example, two goats come from two sides and jointly kill those hell beings. They see various mountains coming and going, killing beings. They see forests of iron trees and forests of thorns. When sinners climb up, the thorns point downwards; when sinners climb down, the thorns point upwards. For this reason, it cannot be said that there is only the internal mind and no external realm. Answer: The verse says:
'If based on beings' karma, the four elements transform thus, why not based on karma, the mind transforms thus?'
What meaning does this verse convey? You just said that relying on the karma of sinners, the external four elements transform in this way. Why not say that relying on the power of those beings' karma, the internal consciousness also transforms in this way? But your mind falsely distinguishes and says that the external four elements transform in this way. Another verse says:
'If karma taints a different dharma, how can the result be in a different place? Good and evil taint the mind, why speak apart from the mind?'
What meaning does this verse convey? Because you falsely distinguish and say that relying on the power of those beings' karma, the external four elements transform in this way, causing those sinners to experience various terrors, etc. Why not say it this way: relying on the power of those beings' karma, the internal consciousness transforms in this way. Therefore, the verse says: 'If karma taints a different dharma, how can the result be in a different place?' What does this mean? In those hells, all the sins of the suffering beings, based on actions done by the original mind, remain in the mind, not separate from the mind. For this reason, evil karma taints the mind and should still experience the result of suffering in the mind. Why? Because good and evil karma taint the consciousness, but do not taint the external four elements, etc. Because there is nothing in the four elements that can be tainted.
事。云何虛妄分別說言四大轉變。於四大中受苦果報。是故偈言。
善惡熏於心 何故離心說
問曰。如汝向說。何故不言依彼眾生罪業力故內自心識如是轉變。而心虛妄分別說言外四大等如是轉變者。此以何義。以有阿含證驗知故。言阿含者。謂佛如來所說言教。此以何義。若但心識虛妄分別見外境界。不從色等外境界生眼識等者。以何義故。如來經中說眼色等十二種入。以如來說十二入故明知應有色香味等外境界也。答曰。偈言。
說色等諸入 為可化眾生 依前人受法 說言有化生
此偈有何義。以汝向言。以有阿含證驗知故。色香味等十二入外諸境界皆悉是有。若如是者。彼所引經義則不然。何以故。以復有餘修多羅中如來依彼心業相續不斷不絕。是故說有化生眾生又復有餘修多羅中說言。無我無眾生無壽者。唯因緣和合有諸法生。是故偈言。依前人受法說言有化生故。如來如是。說色等入。為令前人得受法故。以彼前人未解因緣諸法體空。非謂實有色香味等外諸境界。是故偈言。說色等諸入為可化眾生故。
問曰。若實無有色等入者。以何義故。如來經中作如是說。答曰。偈言。
依彼本心智 識妄取外境 是故如來說 有內外諸入
此偈明何義。唯
【現代漢語翻譯】 事。云何虛妄分別說言四大轉變。於四大中受苦果報。是故偈言。
善惡熏於心 何故離心說
問曰。如汝向說。何故不言依彼眾生罪業力故內自心識如是轉變。而心虛妄分別說言外四大等如是轉變者。此以何義。以有阿含（Agama，阿含經）證驗知故。言阿含者。謂佛如來所說言教。此以何義。若但心識虛妄分別見外境界。不從色等外境界生眼識等者。以何義故。如來經中說眼色等十二種入。以如來說十二入故明知應有色香味等外境界也。答曰。偈言。
說色等諸入 為可化眾生 依前人受法 說言有化生
此偈有何義。以汝向言。以有阿含證驗知故。色香味等十二入外諸境界皆悉是有。若如是者。彼所引經義則不然。何以故。以復有餘修多羅（Sutra，經）中如來依彼心業相續不斷不絕。是故說有化生眾生又復有餘修多羅中說言。無我無眾生無壽者。唯因緣和合有諸法生。是故偈言。依前人受法說言有化生故。如來如是。說色等入。為令前人得受法故。以彼前人未解因緣諸法體空。非謂實有色香味等外諸境界。是故偈言。說色等諸入為可化眾生故。
問曰。若實無有色等入者。以何義故。如來經中作如是說。答曰。偈言。
依彼本心智 識妄取外境 是故如來說 有內外諸入
此偈明何義。唯 現代漢語譯本： 事情是這樣的。為什麼虛妄分別說四大（地、水、火、風）會轉變，並且在四大之中承受痛苦的果報呢？所以偈頌說：
『善惡的熏習都在心中，為什麼離開心來說這些呢？』
問：正如你剛才所說，為什麼不說依靠那些眾生的罪業之力，內在的自心識這樣轉變，而心卻虛妄分別地說外在的四大等這樣轉變呢？這又是什麼意思呢？因為有阿含（Agama，原始佛教經典）的證據可以驗證。所說的阿含，就是佛如來說的言教。這又是什麼意思呢？如果只是心識虛妄分別見到外在境界，不是從色等外在境界產生眼識等，那麼為什麼如來的經典中說眼、色等十二種入（處）呢？因為如來說了十二入，所以明明知道應該有色、香、味等外在境界啊。答：偈頌說：
『說色等諸入，是爲了可以教化的眾生； 依據先前之人接受佛法的情況，說有化生。』
這個偈頌是什麼意思呢？因為你剛才說，因為有阿含的證據可以驗證，所以色、香、味等十二入之外的各種境界都是存在的。如果這樣的話，那麼你所引用的經文的意義就不對了。為什麼呢？因為還有其他的修多羅（Sutra，佛經）中，如來依據那心業相續不斷絕，所以說有化生眾生。而且還有其他的修多羅中說，沒有我，沒有眾生，沒有壽命者，只有因緣和合才有諸法產生。所以偈頌說，依據先前之人接受佛法的情況，說有化生。如來是這樣，說色等入，是爲了讓先前之人能夠接受佛法。因為那些先前之人還沒有理解因緣諸法體性是空的，不是說真實存在色、香、味等外在的各種境界。所以偈頌說，說色等諸入是爲了可以教化的眾生。
問：如果實在沒有色等入，那麼為什麼如來的經典中這樣說呢？答：偈頌說：
『依據那原本的心智，意識錯誤地執取外在境界； 所以如來說，有內在和外在的各種入。』
這個偈頌說明什麼意義呢？只是 English version: The matter is this: Why does false discrimination say that the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) transform, and that one experiences the suffering of karmic retribution within these four elements? Therefore, the verse says:
'Good and evil are imprinted on the mind; why speak of them apart from the mind?'
Question: As you said earlier, why not say that it is due to the power of sentient beings' sinful karma that the inner self-consciousness transforms in this way, while the mind falsely discriminates and says that the external four great elements transform in this way? What does this mean? It is because there is proof from the Agamas (Agama, early Buddhist scriptures). By 'Agama,' I mean the teachings spoken by the Buddha Tathagata. What does this mean? If it is only the mind's false discrimination that sees external realms, and eye-consciousness and so on do not arise from external realms such as form, then why does the Tathagata's scripture speak of the twelve entrances (spheres) of eye, form, and so on? Because the Tathagata speaks of the twelve entrances, it is clear that there should be external realms such as form, smell, taste, and so on. Answer: The verse says:
'Speaking of the entrances such as form, it is for the sake of transforming sentient beings; Relying on how previous people receive the Dharma, it is said that there are beings born by transformation.'
What does this verse mean? Because you said earlier that there is proof from the Agamas, all the realms outside the twelve entrances such as form, smell, and taste exist. If that is the case, then the meaning of the scripture you cited is not correct. Why? Because in other Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures), the Tathagata relies on the continuous and unbroken succession of mental karma, and therefore says that there are beings born by transformation. Furthermore, other Sutras say that there is no self, no sentient being, no life-span; only through the combination of causes and conditions do all dharmas arise. Therefore, the verse says that relying on how previous people receive the Dharma, it is said that there are beings born by transformation. The Tathagata speaks of the entrances such as form in this way in order to allow previous people to receive the Dharma. Because those previous people have not yet understood that the nature of all dharmas arising from causes and conditions is emptiness, it is not to say that external realms such as form, smell, and taste actually exist. Therefore, the verse says that speaking of the entrances such as form is for the sake of transforming sentient beings.
Question: If there are truly no entrances such as form, then why does the Tathagata's scripture say so? Answer: The verse says:
'Relying on that original mind-wisdom, consciousness mistakenly grasps external realms; Therefore, the Tathagata says that there are internal and external entrances.'
What meaning does this verse clarify? Only
【English Translation】 The matter is this: Why does false discrimination say that the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) transform, and that one experiences the suffering of karmic retribution within these four elements? Therefore, the verse says:
'Good and evil are imprinted on the mind; why speak of them apart from the mind?'
Question: As you said earlier, why not say that it is due to the power of sentient beings' sinful karma that the inner self-consciousness transforms in this way, while the mind falsely discriminates and says that the external four great elements transform in this way? What does this mean? It is because there is proof from the Agamas (Agama, early Buddhist scriptures). By 'Agama,' I mean the teachings spoken by the Buddha Tathagata. What does this mean? If it is only the mind's false discrimination that sees external realms, and eye-consciousness and so on do not arise from external realms such as form, then why does the Tathagata's scripture speak of the twelve entrances (spheres) of eye, form, and so on? Because the Tathagata speaks of the twelve entrances, it is clear that there should be external realms such as form, smell, taste, and so on. Answer: The verse says:
'Speaking of the entrances such as form, it is for the sake of transforming sentient beings; Relying on how previous people receive the Dharma, it is said that there are beings born by transformation.'
What does this verse mean? Because you said earlier that there is proof from the Agamas, all the realms outside the twelve entrances such as form, smell, and taste exist. If that is the case, then the meaning of the scripture you cited is not correct. Why? Because in other Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures), the Tathagata relies on the continuous and unbroken succession of mental karma, and therefore says that there are beings born by transformation. Furthermore, other Sutras say that there is no self, no sentient being, no life-span; only through the combination of causes and conditions do all dharmas arise. Therefore, the verse says that relying on how previous people receive the Dharma, it is said that there are beings born by transformation. The Tathagata speaks of the entrances such as form in this way in order to allow previous people to receive the Dharma. Because those previous people have not yet understood that the nature of all dharmas arising from causes and conditions is emptiness, it is not to say that external realms such as form, smell, and taste actually exist. Therefore, the verse says that speaking of the entrances such as form is for the sake of transforming sentient beings.
Question: If there are truly no entrances such as form, then why does the Tathagata's scripture say so? Answer: The verse says:
'Relying on that original mind-wisdom, consciousness mistakenly grasps external realms; Therefore, the Tathagata says that there are internal and external entrances.'
What meaning does this verse clarify? Only
是內心虛妄分別。見有色等外諸境界。此依無始心意識等種子轉變。虛妄見彼色香味等外諸境界。是故如來依此虛妄二種法故。作如是說。何者為二。一者本識種子。二者虛妄外境界等。依此二法。如來說有眼色等入。如是次第乃至身觸。以虛妄心依無始來心意識等種子轉變。虛妄見彼色香味等外諸境界。是故如來依此虛妄二種法故。作如是說。何者為二。一者本識種子。二者虛妄外境界等。依此二法。如來說有身觸等入。如是次第。是故偈言。依彼本心智識妄取外境。是故如來。說有內外諸入故。
問曰。若依如是義。說有何功德利益。答曰。偈言。
觀虛妄無實 如是入我空 觀于諸異法 入諸法無我
此偈明何義。為令聲聞解知因彼六根六塵生六種識。眼識見色。乃至身識覺觸。無有一法是實見者。乃至無有一法是實覺者。為令可化諸眾生等作是觀察入人無我空。是故偈言。觀虛妄無實如是入我空故。觀于諸異法入諸法無我者。此下半偈復明何義。觀于諸異法者。菩薩觀察唯有內識。云何觀察。謂菩薩觀無外六塵唯有內識。虛妄見有內外根塵。而實無有色等外塵一法可見。乃至實無一觸可覺。如是觀察。得入因緣諸法體空。
問曰。若一切法畢竟無者。何故向言。唯有識等。若爾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是內心虛假的分別念。看到有色等外在的各種境界。這依賴於無始以來的心意識等的種子轉變。虛假地看到那些色香味等外在的各種境界。因此如來依據這兩種虛假的法，這樣說。哪兩種呢？一是本識（Alaya-vijñana，阿賴耶識）的種子，二是虛假的外在境界等。依據這兩種法，如來說有眼色等入（Ayatana，處）。像這樣依次乃至身觸。以虛妄的心，依賴無始以來的心意識等種子轉變，虛假地看到那些色香味等外在的各種境界。因此如來依據這兩種虛假的法，這樣說。哪兩種呢？一是本識的種子，二是虛假的外在境界等。依據這兩種法，如來說有身觸等入。像這樣依次。所以偈頌說：『依賴那個本心智識，虛妄地執取外在境界。因此如來，說有內外各種處。』 問：如果依據這樣的意義，說有什麼功德利益呢？答：偈頌說： 『觀察虛妄沒有真實，像這樣進入我空（Atma-sunyata，人無我）。觀察各種不同的法，進入諸法無我（Dharma-sunyata，法無我）。』 這偈頌說明什麼意義？爲了讓聲聞（Śrāvaka，小乘修行者）瞭解，因為那六根（Indriya，感覺器官）六塵（Visaya，感覺對像）產生六種識（Vijnana，意識）。眼識見色，乃至身識覺觸。沒有一種法是真實能見的，乃至沒有一種法是真實能覺的。爲了讓可以教化的各種眾生等這樣觀察，進入人無我空。所以偈頌說：『觀察虛妄沒有真實，像這樣進入我空。』『觀察各種不同的法，進入諸法無我』，這下半偈又說明什麼意義？觀察各種不同的法，菩薩（Bodhisattva，菩薩）觀察只有內識。如何觀察？菩薩觀察沒有外在的六塵，只有內識。虛假地認為有內外根塵，而實際上沒有色等外在的塵埃一法是可見的，乃至實際上沒有一種觸覺是可以感覺的。像這樣觀察，得以進入因緣諸法體空。 問：如果一切法畢竟是空無的，為什麼剛才說，只有識等？如果這樣...
【English Translation】 English version: It is the false discrimination of the inner mind. Seeing external realms such as form. This relies on the transformation of seeds such as beginningless mind-consciousness. Falsely seeing those external realms such as form, smell, taste, and so on. Therefore, the Tathagata (Tathāgata, 如來) speaks in this way based on these two false dharmas. What are the two? First, the seeds of the Alaya-vijñana (Alaya-vijñana, 阿賴耶識), and second, false external realms, and so on. Based on these two dharmas, the Tathagata says there are entrances such as eye and form (Ayatana, 處). In this way, sequentially, even to body and touch. With a deluded mind, relying on the transformation of seeds such as beginningless mind-consciousness, falsely seeing those external realms such as form, smell, taste, and so on. Therefore, the Tathagata speaks in this way based on these two false dharmas. What are the two? First, the seeds of the Alaya-vijñana, and second, false external realms, and so on. Based on these two dharmas, the Tathagata says there are entrances such as body and touch. In this way, sequentially. Therefore, the verse says: 'Relying on that original mind-consciousness, falsely grasping external realms. Therefore, the Tathagata speaks of internal and external entrances.' Question: If according to such a meaning, what merit and benefit is there in speaking? Answer: The verse says: 'Observing falseness without reality, thus entering Atma-sunyata (Atma-sunyata, 人無我). Observing various different dharmas, entering Dharma-sunyata (Dharma-sunyata, 法無我).' What meaning does this verse explain? To enable the Śrāvaka (Śrāvaka, 小乘修行者) to understand that because of those six Indriya (Indriya, 感覺器官) and six Visaya (Visaya, 感覺對像), six Vijnana (Vijnana, 意識) are produced. Eye-consciousness sees form, and even body-consciousness feels touch. There is not a single dharma that is truly seeing, and even there is not a single dharma that is truly feeling. To enable various sentient beings who can be taught to observe in this way, entering the emptiness of person without self. Therefore, the verse says: 'Observing falseness without reality, thus entering Atma-sunyata.' 'Observing various different dharmas, entering Dharma-sunyata,' what meaning does this second half of the verse explain? Observing various different dharmas, the Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, 菩薩) observes that there is only inner consciousness. How does one observe? The Bodhisattva observes that there are no external six Visaya, only inner consciousness. Falsely thinking there are internal and external roots and dusts, but in reality, there is not a single dharma of external dust such as form that can be seen, and even there is not a single touch that can be felt. Observing in this way, one can enter the emptiness of the nature of conditioned dharmas. Question: If all dharmas are ultimately empty, why did you just say that there is only consciousness, and so on? If so...
彼識等。亦應是無。何故說言唯有內識。答曰。我不說言一切諸法皆畢竟無。如是則入諸法無我。
問曰。若爾云何入法無我。答曰。為遮虛妄法故。遮虛妄法者。以諸外道一切凡夫虛妄分別。實有色等一切法體。為欲遮彼虛妄分別故。說色等一切諸法畢竟空無。非無言處皆悉空無。無言處者。所謂諸佛如來行處。如是唯有真識更無餘識。不能如是分別觀察入于識空。如是依識說入一切諸法無我。非謂一向謗真識我。說言無有佛性實識。
問曰。如汝向言。唯有內識無外境界。若爾內識為可取為不可取。若可取者。同色香等外諸境界。若不可取者。則是無法。云何說言。唯有內識無外境界。答曰。如來方便漸令眾生得入我空及法空故說有內識。而實無有內識可取。若不如是。則不得說我空法空。以是義故虛妄分別。此心知彼心。彼心知此心。
問曰。又復有難。云何得知。諸佛如來依此義故。說有色等一切諸入。而非實有色等諸入。又以識等能取境界。以是義故。不得說言無色等入。答曰。偈言。
彼一非可見 多亦不可見 和合不可見 是故無塵法
此偈明何義。汝向說言。色等諸入皆是實有。何以故。以識能取外境界者。此義不然。何以故。有三義故無色等入。何等為三。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 彼識等（指其他的識），也應該是沒有的。為什麼說只有內識呢？回答說：我不是說一切諸法都畢竟空無，如果這樣就落入了諸法無我（一切事物都沒有獨立不變的自性）的斷見。
問：如果這樣，如何才能證入法無我呢？答：爲了遮止虛妄的法。遮止虛妄的法，是因為那些外道和一切凡夫虛妄分別，認為真實存在色等一切法的實體。爲了遮止他們的虛妄分別，所以說色等一切諸法畢竟空無，而不是說沒有言語之處都空無。沒有言語之處，是指諸佛如來的境界。像這樣唯有真識，沒有其他的識，不能這樣分別觀察而證入識空。這樣依靠識來說明證入一切諸法無我，不是說一概地誹謗真識我，說沒有佛性實識。
問：如你剛才所說，只有內識沒有外境界。如果是這樣，內識是可以被認知的還是不可被認知的？如果可以被認知，就和色香等外在的境界一樣了。如果不可被認知，那就是不存在的。怎麼能說只有內識沒有外境界呢？答：如來方便地引導眾生逐漸證入我空（人無我）和法空（法無我），所以說有內識，但實際上沒有內識可以被認知。如果不是這樣，就不能說我空法空。因為這個緣故，虛妄分別，此心知道彼心，彼心知道此心。
問：又有一個難題，怎麼知道諸佛如來依此義，說有色等一切諸入（六根：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意），而不是真實存在色等諸入？又因為識等能夠取境界，因為這個緣故，不能說沒有色等入。答：偈頌說：
『彼一非可見，多亦不可見， 和合不可見，是故無塵法。』
這個偈頌說明什麼道理？你剛才說，色等諸入都是真實存在的。為什麼呢？因為識能夠取外境界。這個說法不對。為什麼呢？因為有三個原因，所以沒有色等入。哪三個呢？一 English version: Those consciousnesses, etc. (referring to other consciousnesses), should also be non-existent. Why is it said that only inner consciousness exists? The answer is: I am not saying that all dharmas are ultimately non-existent. If that were the case, it would fall into the nihilistic view of 'no self of dharmas' (that all things lack an independent and unchanging essence).
Question: If that's the case, how can one enter the 'no self of dharmas'? Answer: It is to negate false dharmas. Negating false dharmas is because those non-Buddhist and all ordinary beings falsely discriminate, believing that the entities of all dharmas such as form truly exist. In order to negate their false discriminations, it is said that all dharmas such as form are ultimately empty and non-existent, but it is not to say that all places where there are no words are empty and non-existent. Places where there are no words refer to the realm of the Buddhas and Tathagatas. Like this, only true consciousness exists, and no other consciousnesses exist, and one cannot enter the emptiness of consciousness through such discrimination and observation. Thus, relying on consciousness to explain entering the 'no self of all dharmas' is not to indiscriminately slander true consciousness, saying that there is no Buddha-nature or real consciousness.
Question: As you said earlier, there is only inner consciousness and no external realm. If that is the case, is inner consciousness knowable or unknowable? If it is knowable, then it is the same as external realms such as form, smell, etc. If it is unknowable, then it is non-existent. How can you say that there is only inner consciousness and no external realm? Answer: The Tathagata expediently guides sentient beings to gradually enter the emptiness of self (no self of person) and the emptiness of dharmas (no self of phenomena), so it is said that there is inner consciousness, but in reality, there is no inner consciousness that can be grasped. If it were not like this, one could not speak of the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. For this reason, there is false discrimination, this mind knows that mind, and that mind knows this mind.
Question: There is another difficult point. How do we know that the Buddhas and Tathagatas, based on this meaning, say that there are all the sense bases (six roots: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) such as form, etc., but that the sense bases such as form, etc., do not truly exist? Also, because consciousness, etc., can grasp objects, for this reason, it cannot be said that there are no sense bases such as form, etc. Answer: The verse says:
'That one is not visible, many are also not visible, Combination is not visible, therefore there are no dust-dharmas.'
What meaning does this verse explain? You said earlier that the sense bases such as form, etc., are all truly existent. Why? Because consciousness can grasp external objects. This statement is not correct. Why? Because there are three reasons why there are no sense bases such as form, etc. What are the three? One:
【English Translation】 English version: Those consciousnesses, etc. (referring to other consciousnesses), should also be non-existent. Why is it said that only inner consciousness exists? The answer is: I am not saying that all dharmas are ultimately non-existent. If that were the case, it would fall into the nihilistic view of 'no self of dharmas' (that all things lack an independent and unchanging essence).
Question: If that's the case, how can one enter the 'no self of dharmas'? Answer: It is to negate false dharmas. Negating false dharmas is because those non-Buddhist and all ordinary beings falsely discriminate, believing that the entities of all dharmas such as form truly exist. In order to negate their false discriminations, it is said that all dharmas such as form are ultimately empty and non-existent, but it is not to say that all places where there are no words are empty and non-existent. Places where there are no words refer to the realm of the Buddhas and Tathagatas. Like this, only true consciousness exists, and no other consciousnesses exist, and one cannot enter the emptiness of consciousness through such discrimination and observation. Thus, relying on consciousness to explain entering the 'no self of all dharmas' is not to indiscriminately slander true consciousness, saying that there is no Buddha-nature or real consciousness.
Question: As you said earlier, there is only inner consciousness and no external realm. If that is the case, is inner consciousness knowable or unknowable? If it is knowable, then it is the same as external realms such as form, smell, etc. If it is unknowable, then it is non-existent. How can you say that there is only inner consciousness and no external realm? Answer: The Tathagata expediently guides sentient beings to gradually enter the emptiness of self (no self of person) and the emptiness of dharmas (no self of phenomena), so it is said that there is inner consciousness, but in reality, there is no inner consciousness that can be grasped. If it were not like this, one could not speak of the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. For this reason, there is false discrimination, this mind knows that mind, and that mind knows this mind.
Question: There is another difficult point. How do we know that the Buddhas and Tathagatas, based on this meaning, say that there are all the sense bases (six roots: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) such as form, etc., but that the sense bases such as form, etc., do not truly exist? Also, because consciousness, etc., can grasp objects, for this reason, it cannot be said that there are no sense bases such as form, etc. Answer: The verse says:
'That one is not visible, many are also not visible, Combination is not visible, therefore there are no dust-dharmas.'
What meaning does this verse explain? You said earlier that the sense bases such as form, etc., are all truly existent. Why? Because consciousness can grasp external objects. This statement is not correct. Why? Because there are three reasons why there are no sense bases such as form, etc. What are the three? One:
者為實有一微塵。如彼外道衛世師等虛妄分別。離於頭目身份等外。實有神我。微塵亦爾。離色香等實有不耶。二者為實有多微塵差別。可見不耶。三者為多微塵和合。可見不耶。此明何義。若實有彼一微塵者。則不可見。如彼外道衛世師等虛妄分別。離於頭目身份等外。有一神我不可得見。微塵亦爾。離色香等不可得見。是故無一實塵可見。是故偈言。彼一非可見故。若實有多微塵差別者。應一一微塵歷然可見。而不可見。以是義故多塵差別亦不可見。是故偈言。多亦不可見故。若多微塵和合可見者。此亦不然。何以故。以一微塵實無有物故。云何和合。是故不成。是故偈言。和合不可見是故無塵法故。問曰。云何不成。答曰。偈言。
六塵同時合 塵則有六廂 若六唯一處 諸大是一塵
此偈明何義。若諸微塵從六方來六塵和合。若如是者塵有六方。若有六方則有六廂。又若微塵有六處所者不容余塵。是故偈言。六塵同時合塵則有六廂故。若六微塵唯一處者。一微塵處有六微塵。若如是者。六塵一處。若一處者則六微塵不可得見。何以故。彼此微塵無差別故。若如是者。一切粗物山河等事亦不可見。是故偈言。若六唯一處諸大是一塵故。一塵者無物如向前答。一多和合不可得見故。罽賓國毗婆沙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果說存在一個真實的微塵（Paramāṇu，最小的物質單位），就像那些外道衛世師（Vaiseṣika，古印度哲學流派）等人虛妄分別一樣，認為在頭、眼睛、身體等之外，存在一個真實的神我（Ātman，靈魂），那麼微塵也應該如此，離開色（rūpa，顏色）、香（gandha，氣味）等而真實存在，是這樣嗎？如果說存在多個微塵的差別，那這些差別可以被看見嗎？如果說多個微塵和合在一起，那可以被看見嗎？這說明了什麼道理呢？如果真的存在一個真實的微塵，那麼它就不可見，就像那些外道衛世師等人虛妄分別一樣，認為在頭、眼睛、身體等之外，存在一個神我，但卻不可見。微塵也是如此，離開色、香等就不可見。所以，沒有一個真實的微塵是可以被看見的。因此偈頌說：『彼一非可見故』（因為那一個不可見）。如果真的存在多個微塵的差別，那麼每一個微塵都應該清晰可見，但實際上卻不可見。因為這個原因，多個微塵的差別也是不可見的。因此偈頌說：『多亦不可見故』（多個也不可見）。如果多個微塵和合在一起可以被看見，這也是不成立的。為什麼呢？因為一個微塵實際上什麼也不是，怎麼可能和合呢？所以，這種說法是不成立的。因此偈頌說：『和合不可見是故無塵法故』（和合不可見，所以沒有微塵法）。 問：為什麼說不成立呢？ 答：偈頌說： 『六塵同時合，塵則有六廂；若六唯一處，諸大是一塵。』 這首偈頌說明了什麼道理呢？如果各個微塵從六個方向來，六個微塵和合在一起，如果這樣的話，微塵就有六個方向。如果有六個方向，那麼就有六個側面。而且，如果微塵有六個處所，那麼就不能容納其他的微塵。因此偈頌說：『六塵同時合，塵則有六廂故』（六個微塵同時聚合，微塵就會有六個側面）。如果六個微塵在同一個地方，一個微塵的地方就有六個微塵。如果這樣的話，六個微塵就在同一個地方。如果在一個地方，那麼六個微塵就不可見。為什麼呢？因為這些微塵之間沒有差別。如果這樣的話，一切粗大的事物，山河等等，也都不可能被看見。因此偈頌說：『若六唯一處，諸大是一塵故』（如果六個微塵在同一個地方，那麼所有大的事物就是一個微塵）。一個微塵什麼也不是，就像前面回答的那樣。一個、多個、和合都不可見。這是罽賓國（Kashmir）的毗婆沙（Vaibhāṣika，說一切有部）的觀點。
【English Translation】 English version: If there exists a truly singular atom (Paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter), just as those heretical Vaiseṣikas (an ancient Indian philosophical school) and others falsely discriminate, believing that outside of the head, eyes, body, and so on, there exists a true self (Ātman, soul), then the atom should also be like that, existing truly apart from color (rūpa), smell (gandha), and so on. Is that so? If there exist differences among multiple atoms, can these differences be seen? If multiple atoms combine together, can they be seen? What principle does this clarify? If a truly singular atom exists, then it is invisible, just as those heretical Vaiseṣikas and others falsely discriminate, believing that outside of the head, eyes, body, and so on, there exists a self, but it cannot be seen. The atom is also like that, invisible apart from color, smell, and so on. Therefore, no truly singular atom can be seen. Hence, the verse says: 'Because that one is not visible.' If there truly exist differences among multiple atoms, then each atom should be clearly visible, but in reality, they are not visible. Because of this reason, the differences among multiple atoms are also invisible. Hence, the verse says: 'Because the many are also not visible.' If multiple atoms combining together can be seen, this is also not established. Why? Because a single atom is actually nothing, how can it combine? Therefore, this assertion is not established. Hence, the verse says: 'Because combination is not visible, therefore there is no atom-dharma.' Question: Why is it said that it is not established? Answer: The verse says: 'If six atoms combine simultaneously, the atom will have six sides; if the six are in one place, all the great elements are one atom.' What principle does this verse clarify? If each atom comes from six directions, and six atoms combine together, if that is the case, the atom will have six directions. If it has six directions, then it has six sides. Moreover, if the atom has six locations, then it cannot accommodate other atoms. Therefore, the verse says: 'If six atoms combine simultaneously, the atom will have six sides.' If six atoms are in the same place, there will be six atoms in the place of one atom. If that is the case, the six atoms are in the same place. If they are in one place, then the six atoms are invisible. Why? Because there is no difference between these atoms. If that is the case, all coarse things, mountains, rivers, and so on, would also be impossible to see. Therefore, the verse says: 'If the six are in one place, all the great elements are one atom.' One atom is nothing, as answered previously. One, many, and combination are all invisible. This is the view of the Vaibhāṣikas (Sarvāstivāda, the 'All Exists' school) of Kashmir.
問曰。我無如是過失。何以故。以我微塵無六方廂。以離色香味觸而與粗物和合成四大等一切粗物。答曰。偈言。
若微塵不合 彼合何所成 言微塵無廂 能成則有廂
此偈明何義。為微塵和合成四大等。為離微塵別成四大。此明何義。若以微塵成四大者。不得說言微塵無廂不相和合。若離微塵成四大者。彼四大是誰家四大。若如是者。不得說言微塵無六廂。是故偈言。若微塵不合彼合何所成故。此明何義。若彼微塵不相和合成四大者。不得說言塵無六廂與粗物合成四大等。汝言與粗物合成四大者。但有言說都無實事。是故微塵不成一物。若彼微塵不成一物。說言成彼四大等物。悉皆虛妄。是故偈言。微塵無六廂能成則有廂故。又偈言。
有法方所別 彼不得言一 影障若非大 則彼二非彼
此偈明何義。汝向說言微塵和合。此義不然。何以故。偈言有法方所別彼不得言一故。有法方所別者。東方所有微塵方處。異於西方微塵方處。西方所有微塵方處。異於東方微塵方處。如是乃至上方下方微塵方處皆亦如是。若微塵體如是差別。云何言一。是故偈言。有法方所別彼不得言一故。影障若非大者。此明何義。若一一微塵無方處者。以何義故。東方日出西方有影。日在西方東方有影。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：我沒有這樣的過失。為什麼呢？因為我的微塵沒有六個方向的廂（指微塵沒有六個面的方位）。因為離開色、香、味、觸，而與粗糙的物質混合，合成為地、水、火、風四大（構成物質世界的四種基本元素）等一切粗糙的物質。答：偈頌說： 『如果微塵不結合，那麼結合什麼而成的呢？說微塵沒有廂，如果能形成（粗大之物），那麼就有廂。』 這偈頌說明什麼意義？是微塵混合合成為四大等，還是離開微塵另外形成四大？這說明什麼意義？如果用微塵形成四大，就不能說微塵沒有廂，不互相結合。如果離開微塵形成四大，那麼這四大是誰家的四大？如果像這樣，就不能說微塵沒有六個廂。所以偈頌說：『如果微塵不結合，那麼結合什麼而成的呢？』所以，這說明什麼意義？如果那些微塵不互相結合而形成四大，就不能說塵沒有六個廂，與粗糙的物質合成四大等。你說與粗糙的物質合成四大，但這只是說說而已，根本沒有實際的事情。所以微塵不能形成一個物體。如果那些微塵不能形成一個物體，說形成那些四大等物體，全部都是虛妄的。所以偈頌說：『微塵沒有六個廂，如果能形成（粗大之物），那麼就有廂。』又偈頌說： 『有法（指具有性質的事物）方位處所不同，就不能說是一。影子和遮蔽如果不是大的東西造成的，那麼這兩個就不是那個東西的。』 這偈頌說明什麼意義？你剛才說微塵和合，這個說法不對。為什麼呢？偈頌說：『有法方位處所不同，就不能說是一。』有法方位處所不同，是指東方所有的微塵的方位處所，不同於西方微塵的方位處所。西方所有的微塵的方位處所，不同於東方微塵的方位處所。像這樣，乃至上方下方的微塵方位處所也都是這樣。如果微塵的本體是這樣有差別的，怎麼能說是一呢？所以偈頌說：『有法方位處所不同，就不能說是一。』影子和遮蔽如果不是大的東西造成的，這說明什麼意義？如果每一個微塵沒有方位處所，那麼因為什麼緣故，東方日出西方有影子，太陽在西方東方有影子？
【English Translation】 English version: Question: I do not have such faults. Why is that? Because my micro-dusts do not have six-sided compartments (referring to the micro-dusts not having six-sided orientations). Because they are separated from form, smell, taste, and touch, and mixed with coarse matter, combining to form the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind - the four basic elements constituting the material world) and all other coarse matter. Answer: The verse says: 'If micro-dusts do not combine, then what is formed by combining? Saying micro-dusts have no compartments, if they can form (large objects), then they have compartments.' What meaning does this verse explain? Is it that micro-dusts mix and combine to form the four great elements, etc., or that the four great elements are formed separately from micro-dusts? What meaning does this explain? If the four great elements are formed from micro-dusts, then it cannot be said that micro-dusts have no compartments and do not combine with each other. If the four great elements are formed separately from micro-dusts, then whose four great elements are these? If it is like this, then it cannot be said that micro-dusts have no six compartments. Therefore, the verse says: 'If micro-dusts do not combine, then what is formed by combining?' So, what meaning does this explain? If those micro-dusts do not combine with each other to form the four great elements, then it cannot be said that dust has no six compartments and combines with coarse matter to form the four great elements, etc. You say they combine with coarse matter to form the four great elements, but this is just talk, there is no actual substance. Therefore, micro-dusts cannot form one object. If those micro-dusts cannot form one object, saying they form those four great elements, etc., is all false. Therefore, the verse says: 'Micro-dusts have no six compartments, if they can form (large objects), then they have compartments.' Also, the verse says: 'If phenomena (referring to things with qualities) have different locations and places, then they cannot be said to be one. If shadows and obstructions are not caused by large things, then these two are not that thing.' What meaning does this verse explain? You just said that micro-dusts combine, this statement is not correct. Why is that? The verse says: 'If phenomena have different locations and places, then they cannot be said to be one.' Having different locations and places refers to the location and place of micro-dusts in the east being different from the location and place of micro-dusts in the west. The location and place of micro-dusts in the west is different from the location and place of micro-dusts in the east. Like this, even the location and place of micro-dusts above and below are also like this. If the substance of micro-dusts is so different, how can it be said to be one? Therefore, the verse says: 'If phenomena have different locations and places, then they cannot be said to be one.' If shadows and obstructions are not caused by large things, what meaning does this explain? If each micro-dust has no location and place, then for what reason does the sun rise in the east and there is a shadow in the west, and the sun is in the west and there is a shadow in the east?
若微塵無東西方相。以何義故。日照一廂不照余廂。是故微塵不成諸大。是故偈言。影障若非大故。則彼二非。彼者何者為二。一光照處。二影障處。此明何義。若彼微塵不障此塵。則不得言塵有方所。何以故。以微塵無方所分處十方差別。以彼東方微塵來者。不能障于西方微塵。西方微塵亦不能障于東方微塵。若彼此塵不相障者。則一切塵聚在一處。若一切塵聚在一處者。是則無處。以是義故。一切四大皆是微塵。皆微塵者。則不可見。如向所說。
問曰。何故不說四大影障。乃言微塵有影障耶。答曰。我還問汝。為離微塵別有四大。但說四大有影障耶。問曰。難者釋云。不離微塵而有影障。答曰。不離微塵有四大者。則非四大有影障也。以何義故。不言微塵自有影障非四大等有影障耶。
問曰。為是微塵有影障。為是四大有影障耶。且置是事不須分別。而色等入相不全令無。答曰。我還問汝。以何等法是諸入相。
問曰。難者釋言。眼等境界青黃赤白。如是等法此是諸入相。答曰。我意正為思惟此事欲益眾生。何故眼等內入取青黃等外諸境界。為是一物為是多物。若是多物向已說多不可得見。若是一物亦不可取。偈言。
若一行不次 取捨亦不同 差別無量處 微細亦應見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果微塵沒有東西方之分，那麼根據什麼道理，陽光只照亮一邊而不照亮另一邊呢？因此，微塵不能構成諸大（四大：地、水、火、風）。所以偈頌說：『如果影子的遮蔽不是因為大的緣故，那麼那二者就不成立。』那二者是什麼呢？一是光照之處，二是影子遮蔽之處。這說明什麼道理呢？如果那個微塵不遮蔽這個微塵，就不能說塵有方位。為什麼呢？因為微塵沒有方位，無法區分十方。如果東方來的微塵不能遮蔽西方微塵，西方微塵也不能遮蔽東方微塵，如果這些微塵彼此不遮蔽，那麼一切微塵就聚集在一處。如果一切微塵聚集在一處，那就是沒有處所。因為這個道理，一切四大都是微塵，如果一切都是微塵，那就是不可見的，就像前面所說的那樣。
問：為什麼不說四大有影子的遮蔽，而說微塵有影子的遮蔽呢？答：我反過來問你，是離開微塵另外有四大，還是隻說四大有影子的遮蔽呢？問：難者的解釋是，不離開微塵而有影子的遮蔽。答：如果不離開微塵而有四大，那麼就不是四大有影子的遮蔽。根據什麼道理，不說微塵自己有影子的遮蔽，而不是四大等有影子的遮蔽呢？
問：是微塵有影子的遮蔽，還是四大有影子的遮蔽呢？姑且把這件事放在一邊，不需要分別，而色等進入相狀不完整，導致沒有。答：我反過來問你，用什麼法是諸入（六根：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）的相狀呢？
問：難者的解釋是，眼等境界的青黃赤白，像這樣的法，這就是諸入的相狀。答：我的意思正是爲了思考這件事，想利益眾生。為什麼眼等內入（內六根）要取青黃等外諸境界（外六塵：色、聲、香、味、觸、法）呢？是一物還是多物？如果是多物，前面已經說過多不可得見。如果是一物，也不可取。偈頌說：
『如果一行不依次，取捨也不同，差別無量處，微細也應該見。』
【English Translation】 English version: If a fine dust particle has no eastern or western aspect, then by what principle does the sun illuminate one side but not the other? Therefore, a fine dust particle cannot constitute the great elements (四大: earth, water, fire, wind). Therefore, the verse says: 'If the obstruction of a shadow is not due to something large, then those two are not established.' What are those two? One is the place illuminated by light, and the other is the place obstructed by shadow. What principle does this illustrate? If that fine dust particle does not obstruct this fine dust particle, then it cannot be said that dust has a location. Why? Because a fine dust particle has no location, and there is no distinction between the ten directions. If a fine dust particle coming from the east cannot obstruct a fine dust particle in the west, and a fine dust particle in the west cannot obstruct a fine dust particle in the east, if these dust particles do not obstruct each other, then all dust particles would gather in one place. If all dust particles gather in one place, then there is no place. Because of this principle, all four great elements are fine dust particles. If everything is fine dust particles, then it is invisible, as mentioned earlier.
Question: Why not say that the four great elements have shadow obstruction, but instead say that fine dust particles have shadow obstruction? Answer: I ask you in return, are the four great elements separate from fine dust particles, or do you only say that the four great elements have shadow obstruction? Question: The challenger explains that there is shadow obstruction without being separate from fine dust particles. Answer: If there are four great elements without being separate from fine dust particles, then it is not the four great elements that have shadow obstruction. According to what principle do you not say that fine dust particles themselves have shadow obstruction, but rather that the four great elements, etc., have shadow obstruction?
Question: Is it fine dust particles that have shadow obstruction, or is it the four great elements that have shadow obstruction? Let's put this matter aside and not distinguish it, and the appearance of form, etc., entering is incomplete, causing it to be non-existent. Answer: I ask you in return, by what dharma are the appearances of the sense bases (六根: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind)?
Question: The challenger explains that the blue, yellow, red, and white of the realms of the eye, etc., such dharmas are the appearances of the sense bases. Answer: My intention is precisely to contemplate this matter, wanting to benefit sentient beings. Why do the inner sense bases (內六根) such as the eye, etc., take the external realms (外六塵: form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma) such as blue, yellow, etc.? Is it one thing or many things? If it is many things, it has already been said that many cannot be seen. If it is one thing, it also cannot be taken. The verse says:
'If one line is not in order, taking and discarding are also different, differences are in immeasurable places, and the subtle should also be seen.'
此偈明何義。若純一青物不雜黃等。若人分別眼境界者。行於地中不得說言有次第行。是故偈言。若一行不次故。此句明何義。若純一青是一物者。舉一足時即應遍躡一切青處。以不遍躡是故非一。取捨亦不同者。此句明何義。若純一青物者。舉足步時。何故唯當足所躡處足未躡處及步中間所有空處。以何義故。不一時躡而有到處。有不到處。又若一物。則不得言足躡此處不躡彼處。是故偈言。取捨亦不同故。差別無量處者。此句明何義。若純青一段是一物者。以何義故。有多差別。像馬車等不共一處。若是一者。白象住處亦應有馬住。若爾不應有象馬等住處差別。又若一者以何義故。像所到處馬等不到。又若一者。像馬中間何故有空。是故偈言。差別無量處故。微細亦應見者。此句明何義。若彼青等是一物者。于彼水等諸青物中。有青色等粗細諸蟲。以何義故。但見粗蟲不見細蟲。是故偈言。微細亦應見故。
問曰。以何義故。意識思惟彼青黃等。答曰。以汝向言虛妄分別諸入等相青等境界以為實有。是故我觀微塵差別。而彼微塵不成一物。不成一故色等境界眼等不取。是故成我。唯有內識無外境界。問曰。依信說有。信者有四種。一者現見。二者比知。三者譬喻。四者阿含。此諸信中現信最勝。若無色等外
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此偈語闡明了什麼含義呢？如果存在完全純粹的青色物體，不摻雜黃色等其他顏色，那麼如果有人分別觀察眼睛所見的境界，那麼他在行走于地面時，就不能說有次第地行走。因此偈語說：『如果一行沒有次第的緣故』。這句話闡明了什麼含義呢？如果純粹的青色是一個單一的物體，那麼當抬起一隻腳時，就應該遍及所有青色的地方。因為沒有遍及所有青色之處，所以它不是一個單一的物體。『取捨也不同』，這句話闡明了什麼含義呢？如果純粹的青色是一個單一的物體，那麼當抬腳行走時，為什麼僅僅是腳所踩踏的地方才被踩踏，而腳未踩踏的地方以及步子中間的空隙，又是因為什麼原因，不能同時踩踏到所有地方，而有到達的地方和未到達的地方呢？而且如果是一個單一的物體，那麼就不應該說腳踩踏了這個地方而沒有踩踏那個地方。因此偈語說：『取捨也不同故』。『差別無量處』，這句話闡明了什麼含義呢？如果純粹的青色一段是一個單一的物體，那麼因為什麼原因，會有如此多的差別呢？大象、馬、車等不應該共處一地。如果是一個單一的物體，那麼白象居住的地方也應該有馬居住。如果這樣，就不應該有大象、馬等居住地點的差別。而且如果是一個單一的物體，那麼為什麼大象所能到達的地方，馬等卻不能到達呢？而且如果是一個單一的物體，那麼大象和馬的中間為什麼會有空隙呢？因此偈語說：『差別無量處故』。『微細也應該見到』，這句話闡明了什麼含義呢？如果那些青色等是一個單一的物體，那麼在那些水等各種青色物體中，有青色等粗細不同的蟲子，因為什麼原因，只能看到粗大的蟲子而看不到細小的蟲子呢？因此偈語說：『微細也應該見到故』。
問：因為什麼原因，意識會思惟那些青色、黃色等呢？答：因為你之前說虛妄分別諸入等相，將青色等境界認為是真實存在的。因此我觀察微塵的差別，而那些微塵不能成為一個單一的物體。因為不能成為一個單一的物體，所以色等境界，眼睛等無法獲取。因此成就了我所說的，只有內在的意識，沒有外在的境界。問：依據信仰而說有。信仰有四種：一是現見，二是比知，三是譬喻，四是阿含。這些信仰中，現見最為殊勝。如果沒有色等外境...
【English Translation】 English version: What meaning does this verse clarify? If there exists a purely singular blue object, unmixed with yellow or other colors, then if someone distinguishes the objects of the eye's perception, they cannot say they are walking sequentially on the ground. Therefore, the verse says: 'If a single line is without sequence.' What meaning does this phrase clarify? If pure blue is a single object, then when lifting one foot, it should cover all blue places. Because it does not cover all blue places, it is not a single object. 'Taking and discarding are also different,' what meaning does this phrase clarify? If pure blue is a single object, then when lifting a foot to walk, why is it only the place where the foot steps that is stepped upon, while the place where the foot has not stepped and the empty space in between steps, why is it that not all places are stepped upon simultaneously, and there are places reached and places not reached? Moreover, if it is a single object, then it should not be said that the foot steps on this place but not on that place. Therefore, the verse says: 'Taking and discarding are also different.' 'Differences are in immeasurable places,' what meaning does this phrase clarify? If a segment of pure blue is a single object, then for what reason are there so many differences? Elephants, horses, carts, etc., should not be in the same place. If it is a single object, then the place where a white elephant dwells should also have horses dwelling. If so, there should not be differences in the dwelling places of elephants, horses, etc. Moreover, if it is a single object, then why can't horses, etc., reach the places that elephants can reach? Moreover, if it is a single object, then why is there empty space between elephants and horses? Therefore, the verse says: 'Differences are in immeasurable places.' 'Subtleties should also be seen,' what meaning does this phrase clarify? If those blue things, etc., are a single object, then among those various blue objects such as water, there are blue-colored insects of varying coarseness and fineness. For what reason are only the coarse insects seen, and not the fine insects? Therefore, the verse says: 'Subtleties should also be seen.'
Question: For what reason does consciousness contemplate those blue, yellow, etc.? Answer: Because you previously spoke of falsely discriminating the characteristics of the entrances (諸入, Zhū rù), etc., considering the realms of blue, etc., to be truly existent. Therefore, I observe the differences in dust motes (微塵, wēichén), and those dust motes cannot become a single object. Because they cannot become a single object, the realms of color, etc., cannot be grasped by the eyes, etc. Therefore, it establishes what I say: there is only internal consciousness, and no external realm. Question: It is said to exist based on faith (信, xìn). There are four kinds of faith: first, direct perception (現見, xiànjiàn); second, inference (比知, bǐzhī); third, analogy (譬喻, pìyù); and fourth, scriptural authority (阿含, Āhán). Among these faiths, direct perception is the most superior. If there are no external realms of color, etc...
境界者。云何世人言我現見此青等物。答曰。偈言。
現見如夢中 見所見不俱 見時不分別 云何言現見
此偈明何義。我已先說夢見虛妄。諸凡夫人煩惱夢中有所見事皆亦如是。是故偈言。現見如夢中故。見所見不俱者。此句明何義。如現見色不知色義。此明何義如彼現見青色等時。作如是念。我雖現見青黃色等。彼時不見青色等義。何以故。以於後時意識分別然後了知。意識分別時無眼等識。以眼等識于先滅故。云何說言。我現見彼青黃色等。于佛法中無如是義。何以故。以一切法念念不住故。以見色時。無彼意識及以境界。意識起時。無彼眼識及以境界。以是義故。不得說言於四信中現信最勝。是故偈言。見所見不俱見時不分別云何言現見故。
問曰。此義不然。何以故。以凡所見外境界者。先眼識見。后時意識憶念了知。是故必有色香味等外諸境界。以是義故。不得言無彼外境界。何以故。以見青等外諸境界。名為現見青等境界。答曰。此義不然。何以故。汝向說言。先眼識見。后時意識憶念了知。此義不成。何以故。我已先說。內自心識虛妄分別有外境界。而無色等外諸境界。向說眼識虛妄分別。如說夢中一切所見。依彼前時虛妄分別。后時意識思惟憶念。此以何義。依彼前時虛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於境界的問題。為什麼世人說他們親眼見到了青色等事物呢？回答是，用偈語說： 『親眼所見如夢中，能見與所見不俱存，見時若不加分別，怎能說是親眼見？』 這偈語說明了什麼意義呢？我已經說過夢中所見是虛妄的。所有凡夫在煩惱的夢中見到的事物也都是如此。所以偈語說，『親眼所見如夢中』。『能見與所見不俱存』這句又說明了什麼意義呢？就像親眼見到顏色卻不瞭解顏色的含義一樣。這說明了什麼呢？就像他們親眼見到青色等顏色時，會這樣想：我雖然親眼見到了青色、黃色等，但那時並不瞭解青色等的含義。為什麼呢？因為在之後，意識分別之後才能瞭解。意識分別時沒有眼等識，因為眼等識在之前已經滅去了。怎麼能說我親眼見到了那些青色、黃色等呢？在佛法中沒有這樣的道理。為什麼呢？因為一切法都是念念不住的。在見到顏色時，沒有那個意識以及境界。意識生起時，沒有那個眼識以及境界。因為這個緣故，不能說在四信中現信最為殊勝。所以偈語說，『能見與所見不俱存，見時若不加分別，怎能說是親眼見？』 有人問：這個道理不對。為什麼呢？因為凡是所見的外在境界，都是先由眼識見到，之後意識憶念並瞭解。所以一定有色、香、味等外在的各種境界。因為這個緣故，不能說沒有那些外在的境界。為什麼呢？因為見到青色等外在的各種境界，就叫做親眼見到青色等境界。回答說：這個道理不對。為什麼呢？你剛才說，先由眼識見到，之後意識憶念並瞭解。這個道理不成立。為什麼呢？我已經說過，內在的自心識虛妄分別而有外在的境界，實際上並沒有色等外在的各種境界。剛才說的眼識虛妄分別，就像說夢中所見的一切，都是依據之前虛妄分別，之後意識思惟憶念。這是什麼意思呢？依據之前虛妄的...
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the realm of objects. Why do people say they directly perceive things like blue objects? The answer is, as the verse says: 'Direct perception is like a dream; the seer and the seen are not together. If there is no discrimination at the time of seeing, how can one say it is direct perception?' What meaning does this verse clarify? I have already said that what is seen in a dream is illusory. All ordinary people in the dream of afflictions see things that are also like that. Therefore, the verse says, 'Direct perception is like a dream.' What does the phrase 'the seer and the seen are not together' clarify? It is like directly seeing a color but not understanding the meaning of the color. What does this clarify? It is like when they directly see blue color, etc., they think like this: Although I directly see blue, yellow, etc., at that time I do not see the meaning of blue color, etc. Why? Because it is only later, after the consciousness discriminates, that one understands. When the consciousness discriminates, there are no eye consciousnesses, etc., because the eye consciousnesses, etc., have already ceased. How can one say, 'I directly see those blue, yellow, etc.?' In the Buddha's Dharma, there is no such meaning. Why? Because all dharmas are constantly ceasing moment by moment. When seeing a color, there is no consciousness or object. When consciousness arises, there is no eye consciousness or object. Because of this meaning, one cannot say that faith in direct perception is the most superior among the four kinds of faith. Therefore, the verse says, 'The seer and the seen are not together; if there is no discrimination at the time of seeing, how can one say it is direct perception?' Someone asks: This reasoning is not correct. Why? Because all external objects that are seen are first seen by the eye consciousness, and later the consciousness remembers and understands. Therefore, there must be external objects such as color, smell, taste, etc. Because of this meaning, one cannot say that there are no external objects. Why? Because seeing external objects such as blue is called directly seeing blue objects, etc. The answer is: This reasoning is not correct. Why? You just said that the eye consciousness sees first, and later the consciousness remembers and understands. This reasoning is not established. Why? I have already said that the internal self-consciousness falsely discriminates and there are external objects, but in reality, there are no external objects such as color, etc. The eye consciousness falsely discriminates, just like saying that everything seen in a dream is based on the previous false discrimination, and later the consciousness thinks and remembers. What does this mean? Based on the previous false...
妄分別色等境界。虛妄眼識起心相應。虛妄意識虛妄分別。作是思惟。我分別知青等境界故。不得言眼見境界意識分別。以是義故。眼識見色后時憶念。此義不成。
問曰。如夢見色虛妄憶念。寤時亦爾虛妄分別。若如是者以何義故。世人見夢皆知虛妄。寤時所見皆不虛妄。是故寤時所見色等。不同夢時虛妄所見。答曰偈言。
先說虛妄見 則依彼虛憶 見虛妄夢者 未寤則不知
此偈明何義。汝向說言。如夢見色皆是虛妄。寤時所見皆不如是。此比決者義不相應。何以故。以夢見者當未寤時皆謂為實。及至寤時方知虛妄。是故偈言。見虛妄夢者未寤則不知故。如是世間諸凡夫人。為無始來虛妄顛倒分別集熏無明睡夢。夢中不實虛妄分別。見外境界謂以為實。以夢寤者見彼境界皆是虛妄。此以何義。以得出世對治實智無有分別。如實覺知一切世間色等外法皆是虛妄。依彼出世清凈實智。便得世間及出世間勝智現前。如實知見一切境界皆悉虛妄。如是義者與夢不異。問曰。若但自心如是轉變。虛妄分別見外境界。彼無實者。以何義故。遇善知識聞說善法。值惡知識聞說惡法。若無一切外境界者。彼云何說。若不說者云何得聞。若不聞者此云何成。答曰。偈言。
迭共增上因 彼此心緣合
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
虛妄地分別色等境界。虛妄的眼識生起與心相應的活動。虛妄的意識進行虛妄的分別，並這樣思惟：『我分別知曉青色等境界』。因此，不能說眼見境界是意識的分別。因為這個緣故，眼識見色之後再憶念，這個說法是不成立的。
問：如夢中見色，是虛妄的憶念，醒來時也是虛妄的分別。如果這樣，為什麼世人認為夢中所見都是虛妄的，而醒來時所見都不是虛妄的呢？所以醒來時所見的色等，不同於夢中虛妄所見。答：用偈語說：
『先說虛妄見，則依彼虛憶；見虛妄夢者，未寤則不知。』
這個偈語說明什麼道理呢？你剛才說，夢中所見都是虛妄的，醒來時所見都不是這樣。這個比喻的論證是不恰當的。為什麼呢？因為做夢的人在沒有醒來時，都認為是真實的，等到醒來時才知道是虛妄的。所以偈語說：『見虛妄夢者，未寤則不知』。就像世間所有的凡夫，由於無始以來虛妄顛倒的分別積累熏習，處於無明的睡夢中，夢中不真實，虛妄地分別，見到外在境界就認為是真實的。因為夢醒的人見到那些境界都是虛妄的。這是什麼道理呢？因為已經得到出世的對治實智，沒有分別，如實地覺知一切世間的色等外法都是虛妄的。依靠那出世的清凈實智，就能得到世間和出世間的殊勝智慧現前，如實地知見一切境界都是虛妄的。這樣的道理與夢沒有什麼不同。問：如果只是自心這樣轉變，虛妄地分別見到外在境界，那些境界沒有真實性，那麼為什麼遇到善知識聽聞善法，遇到惡知識聽聞惡法呢？如果沒有一切外在境界，那他們怎麼說呢？如果不說，怎麼能聽到呢？如果不聽，這怎麼能成立呢？答：用偈語說：
『迭共增上因，彼此心緣合。』 English version
Falsely discriminating the realms of color and so on. The false eye-consciousness arises in accordance with the mind. The false consciousness makes false discriminations, thinking, 'I discriminate and know the realms of blue and so on.' Therefore, it cannot be said that the eye seeing the realms is the discrimination of consciousness. Because of this, the idea that the eye-consciousness remembers after seeing color is not established.
Question: Like seeing colors in a dream, which is false recollection, so too is false discrimination when awake. If this is so, why do people consider what is seen in dreams to be false, while what is seen when awake is not false? Therefore, what is seen when awake, such as colors, is different from what is falsely seen in dreams. Answer: The verse says:
'First speaking of false seeing, then relying on that false memory; one who sees a false dream, does not know until awakened.'
What meaning does this verse clarify? You said earlier that what is seen in dreams is all false, and what is seen when awake is not like that. This analogy is not appropriate. Why? Because those who dream consider it real when they have not yet awakened, and only realize it is false when they awaken. Therefore, the verse says: 'One who sees a false dream, does not know until awakened.' Just like all ordinary beings in the world, due to the accumulation and conditioning of false and inverted discriminations from beginningless time, are in a sleep of ignorance. In the dream, which is unreal, they falsely discriminate and consider external realms to be real. Because those who are awakened from the dream see those realms as false. What is the reason for this? Because they have attained the transcendental antidote, the true wisdom without discrimination, and truly realize that all worldly external phenomena such as colors are false. Relying on that transcendental pure true wisdom, they can attain the superior wisdom of both the world and beyond, and truly know and see that all realms are false. This principle is no different from a dream. Question: If it is only the mind transforming in this way, falsely discriminating and seeing external realms, and those realms are not real, then why do we encounter good teachers and hear good Dharma, and encounter bad teachers and hear bad Dharma? If there are no external realms, how do they speak? If they do not speak, how can we hear? If we do not hear, how can this be established? Answer: The verse says:
'Reciprocal enhancing cause, the minds mutually connect.'
【English Translation】 English version:
Falsely discriminating the realms of color (色, rupa) and so on. The false eye-consciousness (眼識, caksur-vijnana) arises in accordance with the mind. The false consciousness (意識, manovijnana) makes false discriminations, thinking, 'I discriminate and know the realms of blue and so on.' Therefore, it cannot be said that the eye seeing the realms is the discrimination of consciousness. Because of this, the idea that the eye-consciousness remembers after seeing color is not established.
Question: Like seeing colors in a dream, which is false recollection, so too is false discrimination when awake. If this is so, why do people consider what is seen in dreams to be false, while what is seen when awake is not false? Therefore, what is seen when awake, such as colors, is different from what is falsely seen in dreams. Answer: The verse says:
'First speaking of false seeing, then relying on that false memory; one who sees a false dream, does not know until awakened.'
What meaning does this verse clarify? You said earlier that what is seen in dreams is all false, and what is seen when awake is not like that. This analogy is not appropriate. Why? Because those who dream consider it real when they have not yet awakened, and only realize it is false when they awaken. Therefore, the verse says: 'One who sees a false dream, does not know until awakened.' Just like all ordinary beings in the world, due to the accumulation and conditioning of false and inverted discriminations from beginningless time, are in a sleep of ignorance (無明, avidya). In the dream, which is unreal, they falsely discriminate and consider external realms to be real. Because those who are awakened from the dream see those realms as false. What is the reason for this? Because they have attained the transcendental antidote, the true wisdom (實智, tattva-jnana) without discrimination, and truly realize that all worldly external phenomena such as colors are false. Relying on that transcendental pure true wisdom, they can attain the superior wisdom of both the world and beyond, and truly know and see that all realms are false. This principle is no different from a dream. Question: If it is only the mind transforming in this way, falsely discriminating and seeing external realms, and those realms are not real, then why do we encounter good teachers (善知識, kalyana-mitra) and hear good Dharma, and encounter bad teachers and hear bad Dharma? If there are no external realms, how do they speak? If they do not speak, how can we hear? If we do not hear, how can this be established? Answer: The verse says:
'Reciprocal enhancing cause, the minds mutually connect.'
無明覆於心 故夢寤果別
此偈明何義。一切眾生虛妄分別思惟憶念彼說我聞。依彼前人說者意識。於此聽人聞者意識。起如是心。彼說我聞。而實無有彼前境界。是故偈言迭共增上因彼此心緣合故。問曰。若如夢中虛妄心識無實境界。寤亦爾者。以何義故。夢中寤中行善惡法愛與不愛果報不等。
答曰。偈言無明覆於心故夢寤果別故。此明何義我已先說。唯有內心無外境界。以夢寤心差別不同。是故不依外境界等。成就善業不善業故。問曰。若彼三界唯是內心。無有身口外境界者。以何義故。屠獵師等殺害豬羊及牛馬等。若彼非是屠獵師等殺害豬羊牛馬等者。以何義故。屠獵師等得殺生罪。是故應有外色香等身口境界。答曰。偈言。
死依於他心 亦有依自心 依種種因緣 破失自心識
此偈明何義。如人依鬼毗舍阇等是故失心。或依自心是故失心。或有憶念愛不愛事是故失心。或有夢見鬼著失心。或有聖人神通轉變前人失心。如經中說。大迦旃延比丘。令娑羅那王見惡夢等。又毗尼中有一比丘。夜蹈瓜皮謂殺蝦蟆死入惡道。是故偈言。依種種因緣破失自心識故。死依於他心亦有依自心者。此云何知。以依仙人瞋心瞋毗摩質多羅阿修羅王故殺餘眾生。此依他心他眾生心。虛妄分別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無明覆於心，故夢寤果別』，這句偈語闡明了什麼含義呢？一切眾生虛妄地分別、思惟、憶念，說『他說了，我聽到了』。依據前面說話的人的意識，以及聽的人的意識，產生這樣的想法：『他說了，我聽到了』。但實際上並沒有前面所說的境界。所以偈語說，由於彼此互相增上的因緣，彼此的心緣合在一起的緣故。 有人問：如果像夢中虛妄的心識一樣，沒有真實的境界，醒來也是如此，那麼為什麼夢中和醒來時行善或作惡，愛或不愛的果報卻不一樣呢？ 回答是：偈語說『無明覆於心故夢寤果別故』。這闡明了什麼含義呢？我已經說過，只有內心，沒有外在的境界。因為夢中的心和醒著的心有所不同，所以不依賴外在的境界等，成就善業或不善業。 有人問：如果三界都只是內心，沒有身口外在的境界，那麼為什麼屠夫獵人等要殺害豬羊牛馬等？如果不是屠夫獵人等殺害了豬羊牛馬等，那麼為什麼屠夫獵人等會得到殺生的罪過？所以應該有外在的色香等身口境界。 回答是：偈語說： 『死依於他心，亦有依自心，依種種因緣，破失自心識』。 這句偈語闡明了什麼含義呢？比如人依靠鬼（毗舍阇(pisaca, 食肉鬼)等）而失去心智，或者依靠自己的心而失去心智，或者憶念愛或不愛的事情而失去心智，或者夢見鬼附身而失去心智，或者有聖人以神通轉變使人失去心智。如經中所說，大迦旃延(Mahakatyayana)比丘使娑羅那(Soranaraja)王夢見惡夢等。又毗尼(Vinaya, 戒律)中有一比丘，夜晚踩到瓜皮，以為殺了蝦蟆而死，墮入惡道。所以偈語說，依靠種種因緣，破滅喪失自己的心識的緣故。『死依於他心，亦有依自心』，這又如何得知呢？因為仙人以嗔恨心嗔恨毗摩質多羅(Vemacitrin)阿修羅王(Asura)，因此殺害了其餘眾生。這是依靠他心，其他眾生的心，虛妄分別。
【English Translation】 English version 『Ignorance covers the mind, therefore the consequences of dreams and wakefulness are different.』 What does this verse explain? All sentient beings falsely discriminate, think, and remember, saying, 『He said, I heard.』 Based on the consciousness of the person speaking and the consciousness of the person listening, such a thought arises: 『He said, I heard.』 But in reality, there is no such preceding realm. Therefore, the verse says that due to the mutually increasing causes and conditions, the minds of each other are combined. Someone asks: If, like the false consciousness in a dream, there is no real realm, and it is the same when awake, then why are the consequences of doing good or evil, loving or not loving, different in dreams and when awake? The answer is: The verse says, 『Ignorance covers the mind, therefore the consequences of dreams and wakefulness are different.』 What does this explain? I have already said that there is only the inner mind, and no external realm. Because the mind in a dream and the mind when awake are different, therefore, one does not rely on external realms, etc., to accomplish good or bad karma. Someone asks: If the three realms are only the inner mind, and there are no external realms of body and speech, then why do butchers and hunters kill pigs, sheep, cattle, and horses? If it is not the butchers and hunters who kill the pigs, sheep, cattle, and horses, then why do the butchers and hunters incur the sin of killing? Therefore, there should be external realms of body and speech, such as form and smell. The answer is: The verse says: 『Death relies on the mind of others, and also relies on one's own mind; relying on various causes and conditions, one destroys and loses one's own consciousness.』 What does this verse explain? For example, people lose their minds by relying on ghosts (pisaca(pisaca, flesh-eating ghost), etc.), or they lose their minds by relying on their own minds, or they lose their minds by remembering things they love or do not love, or they lose their minds by dreaming of being possessed by ghosts, or there are sages who use their supernatural powers to transform people and cause them to lose their minds. As it is said in the sutras, the bhiksu(monk) Mahakatyayana(Mahakatyayana) caused King Soranaraja(Soranaraja) to have bad dreams, etc. Also, in the Vinaya(Vinaya, monastic rules), there was a bhiksu(monk) who stepped on a melon rind at night, thinking he had killed a toad, and died and fell into an evil path. Therefore, the verse says that relying on various causes and conditions, one destroys and loses one's own consciousness. 『Death relies on the mind of others, and also relies on one's own mind.』 How is this known? Because the immortal, with a mind of anger, was angry with the Asura(Asura, demigod) king Vemacitrin(Vemacitrin), and therefore killed other sentient beings. This relies on the mind of others, the minds of other sentient beings, and false discrimination.
命根謝滅。以彼身命相續斷絕。應如是知。又偈言。
經說檀拏迦 迦陵摩燈國 仙人瞋故空 是故心業重
此偈明何義。若有死者不依他心不依自心。若如是者。以何義故。如來欲成心業為重。是故經中問優波離長者言。長者。汝頗曾聞。以何因緣檀拏迦國。迦陵迦國。摩燈伽國。曠野空寂無有眾生及草木等。優波離長者白佛言。瞿曇。我昔曾聞。依仙人瞋心。殺害如是無量眾生。是故得知唯有意業。若不爾者。如來何故於諸經中作如是說。是故偈言。經說檀拏迦迦陵摩燈國仙人瞋故空故。
問曰。依仙人瞋心。信仙人鬼殺害如是三國眾生。非依仙人瞋心而死。答曰。如來於汝外道經中。問久學尼乾子言。於三業中何業為重。久學尼乾子答如來言。身業為重。佛言尼乾子。此彼城中所有眾生為多為少。久學外道言。無量無邊不可數知。佛言。尼乾子。若有惡人欲殺害此諸眾生者。幾日可殺。尼乾子言。非是一年二年可殺。佛告久學尼乾子言。摩燈伽等三國眾生。汝頗曾聞云何而死。為身業殺為意業殺。尼乾子言。瞿曇。我昔曾聞。仙人瞋心以意業殺爾數眾生。佛言。尼乾子。若如是者。云何而言身業為重。尼乾子言。如是如是。我不審諦謬聞而說。以是義故證成我義。三界唯心無身口業。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：命根謝滅，這是因為他們的身命相續斷絕。應當這樣理解。又有偈頌說：
『經說檀拏迦（Dandaka，國名），迦陵摩燈國（Kalinga-Matanga，國名）， 仙人瞋故空，是故心業重。』
這偈頌說明什麼意義呢？如果有人死亡不是因為他人的心，也不是因為自己的心，如果是這樣，那麼如來為什麼要把心業說成是重的呢？因此，經中問優波離（Upali，佛陀弟子）長者說：『長者，你可曾聽說，因為什麼因緣，檀拏迦國、迦陵迦國、摩燈伽國，曠野空寂，沒有眾生和草木等？』優波離長者對佛說：『瞿曇（Gautama，佛陀的姓氏），我過去曾聽說，因為仙人的嗔恨心，殺害瞭如此無量的眾生。』因此可以得知只有意業（Manas-karma，心的行為）才是最重要的。如果不是這樣，如來為什麼在各種經典中這樣說呢？所以偈頌說：經說檀拏迦、迦陵摩燈國，仙人嗔恨的緣故而空曠。
問：依據仙人的嗔恨心，相信是仙人或鬼殺害了這三個國家的眾生，而不是因為仙人的嗔恨心而死。答：如來在你們外道的經典中，問久學尼乾子（Nigantha，耆那教徒）說：『在身、口、意三業中，哪個業最重？』久學尼乾子回答如來說：『身業（Kaya-karma，身體的行為）最重。』佛說：『尼乾子，這座城裡所有的眾生是多還是少？』久學外道說：『無量無邊，不可數知。』佛說：『尼乾子，如果有惡人想要殺害這些眾生，需要幾天才能殺完？』尼乾子說：『不是一年兩年可以殺完的。』佛告訴久學尼乾子說：『摩燈伽等三個國家的眾生，你可曾聽說他們是怎麼死的？是被身業所殺，還是被意業所殺？』尼乾子說：『瞿曇，我過去曾聽說，仙人因為嗔恨心，用意業殺害了那麼多的眾生。』佛說：『尼乾子，如果是這樣，為什麼你說身業最重呢？』尼乾子說：『是這樣，是這樣，我不審慎思考，錯誤地聽聞而說了。』因為這個緣故，證明我的義理：三界唯有心，沒有身口業。』
【English Translation】 English version: The cessation of the life-faculty occurs because the continuity of their life is severed. It should be understood in this way. Furthermore, there is a verse that says:
'The Sutra speaks of Dandaka (Dandaka, a country), Kalinga-Matanga (Kalinga-Matanga, a country), Emptied by the anger of a Rishi (sage), therefore mental karma is weighty.'
What meaning does this verse convey? If someone dies not because of another's mind, nor because of their own mind, if that is the case, then why does the Tathagata (如來，another name for Buddha) say that mental karma is weighty? Therefore, in the Sutra, the elder Upali (Upali, a disciple of the Buddha) is asked: 'Elder, have you ever heard of the reason why the country of Dandaka, the country of Kalinga, and the country of Matanga are desolate wildernesses, without living beings or vegetation?' The elder Upali replied to the Buddha: 'Gautama (瞿曇，Buddha's family name), I have heard in the past that due to the anger of a Rishi, countless beings were killed.' Therefore, it can be known that only mental karma (Manas-karma, action of the mind) is the most important. If it were not so, why would the Tathagata say this in various Sutras? Therefore, the verse says: The Sutra speaks of Dandaka, Kalinga-Matanga, emptied by the anger of a Rishi.
Question: Based on the anger of the Rishi, it is believed that the Rishi or ghosts killed the beings of these three countries, and they did not die because of the Rishi's anger. Answer: The Tathagata, in your heretical scriptures, asked the long-studied Nigantha (Nigantha, Jain follower): 'Among the three karmas of body, speech, and mind, which karma is the weightiest?' The long-studied Nigantha replied to the Tathagata: 'Bodily karma (Kaya-karma, action of the body) is the weightiest.' The Buddha said: 'Nigantha, are the beings in this city many or few?' The long-studied heretic said: 'They are countless and immeasurable.' The Buddha said: 'Nigantha, if there were evil people who wanted to kill these beings, how many days would it take to kill them all?' Nigantha said: 'It cannot be done in one or two years.' The Buddha told the long-studied Nigantha: 'Have you ever heard how the beings of the three countries of Matanga and others died? Were they killed by bodily karma or by mental karma?' Nigantha said: 'Gautama, I have heard in the past that the Rishi, because of anger, killed so many beings with mental karma.' The Buddha said: 'Nigantha, if that is the case, why do you say that bodily karma is the weightiest?' Nigantha said: 'It is so, it is so, I did not think carefully and spoke based on erroneous hearing.' Because of this reason, it proves my doctrine: 'The three realms are only mind, there is no bodily or verbal karma.'
以何義。如世人言。賊燒山林聚落城邑不言火燒。此義亦爾。唯依心故善惡業成。以是義故。經中偈言。
諸法心為本 諸法心為勝 離心無諸法 唯心身口名
唯心身口名者。但有心識無身口業。身口業者但有名字。實是意業身口名說。問曰。若但有心無外境界。此義不然。何以故。他心智者。觀察他心他眾生心。是外境界。云何說言無外境界。又復有難。他心智者。為實知心為不實知。若不知者。云何說言知於他心。若實知者。云何說言無外境界。答曰。偈言。
他心知于境 不如實覺知 以非離識境 唯佛如實知
此偈明何義。他心智者不如實知。何以故。以自內心虛妄分別。以為他心不能了知。何以故。以自心意意識雜故。是故偈言。他心知于境不如實覺知以非離識境故。
問曰。為一切聖人皆不能知他眾生心。為有知者。答曰。偈言。唯佛如實知故。此明何義。如彼佛地如實果體無言語處勝妙境界。唯佛能知餘人不知。以彼世間他心智者于彼二法不如實知。以彼能取可取境界虛妄分別故。彼世間人虛妄分別此唯是識。無量無邊甚深境界。非是心識可測量故。偈言。
作此唯識論 非我思量義 諸佛妙境界 福德施群生
此偈明何義。此是諸佛甚深
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以什麼意義來說呢？就像世人說，盜賊焚燒山林、村落、城邑，卻不說火在焚燒。這個道理也是一樣。只有依靠心，善惡業才能成就。因為這個緣故，經中的偈頌說： 『諸法心為本，諸法心為勝，離心無諸法，唯心身口名。』 『唯心身口名』的意思是，只有心識而沒有身口業，身口業只是一個名稱而已。實際上是意業，而用身口的名義來說明。有人問：如果只有心而沒有外在境界，這個說法是不對的。為什麼呢？因為有他心智的人，能夠觀察他人之心、其他眾生之心，這就是外在境界。怎麼能說沒有外在境界呢？又有人提出疑問：他心智的人，是真實地知道他人之心，還是不真實地知道？如果不知道，怎麼能說知道他人之心呢？如果真實地知道，怎麼能說沒有外在境界呢？回答說：偈頌說： 『他心知于境，不如實覺知，以非離識境，唯佛如實知。』 這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？他心智的人不能如實地知道他人之心。為什麼呢？因為他們用自己內心的虛妄分別，來認為是他人的心，不能完全瞭解。為什麼呢？因為自己的心有意識的雜染。所以偈頌說：『他心知于境，不如實覺知，以非離識境故。』 有人問：難道所有的聖人都不能知道其他眾生的心嗎？還是有能知道的呢？回答說：偈頌說：『唯佛如實知故。』這說明了什麼意義呢？就像佛的果地，如實的果體，是無法用言語表達的殊勝境界，只有佛才能知道，其他人不能知道。因為那些世間的他心智者，對於這兩種法不能如實地瞭解，因為他們執取能取和所取的境界，進行虛妄分別。那些世間的人虛妄分別，認為這僅僅是識。無量無邊甚深的境界，不是心識可以測量的。偈頌說： 『作此唯識論，非我思量義，諸佛妙境界，福德施群生。』 這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？這是諸佛甚深的境界。
【English Translation】 English version: In what sense is this? Just as people say that thieves burn down forests, villages, and cities, but do not say that the fire is burning. This principle is also the same. Only by relying on the mind can good and evil karma be accomplished. For this reason, the verse in the sutra says: 'All dharmas have mind as their basis, all dharmas have mind as their superior, without mind there are no dharmas, only mind is named body and speech.' 'Only mind is named body and speech' means that there is only consciousness without the karma of body and speech; the karma of body and speech is only a name. In reality, it is the karma of the mind, but it is explained using the names of body and speech. Someone asks: If there is only mind and no external realm, this statement is not correct. Why? Because those with the wisdom of knowing others' minds can observe the minds of others and the minds of other beings, which is the external realm. How can you say there is no external realm? Furthermore, someone raises a question: Does the one with the wisdom of knowing others' minds truly know the minds of others, or not truly know? If they do not know, how can you say they know the minds of others? If they truly know, how can you say there is no external realm? The answer is: The verse says: 'Knowing others' minds regarding objects, is not truly knowing, because it is not an object apart from consciousness, only the Buddha truly knows.' What meaning does this verse explain? Those with the wisdom of knowing others' minds do not truly know. Why? Because they use their own internal false discriminations to think it is the mind of others, and cannot fully understand. Why? Because their own mind is mixed with the defilements of consciousness. Therefore, the verse says: 'Knowing others' minds regarding objects is not truly knowing, because it is not an object apart from consciousness.' Someone asks: Are all sages unable to know the minds of other beings, or are there some who can know? The answer is: The verse says: 'Only the Buddha truly knows.' What meaning does this explain? Just like the Buddha's ground, the true fruit body, which is a supreme realm beyond words, only the Buddha can know, and others cannot know. Because those worldly knowers of others' minds cannot truly understand these two dharmas, because they grasp the grasping and the grasped realms, and engage in false discriminations. Those worldly people falsely discriminate, thinking that this is merely consciousness. The immeasurable and boundless profound realm is not something that consciousness can measure. The verse says: 'Making this Treatise on Consciousness-Only, is not my own thought, the wonderful realm of all Buddhas, is a blessing bestowed upon all beings.' What meaning does this verse explain? This is the profound realm of all Buddhas.
境界。非是我等思量所知。何以故。以彼非是心意意識思量境界故。若如是者。是誰境界。偈言諸佛妙境界故。此明何義。唯諸佛如來。以一切種智。於一切所知境界。皆如實而知故。
唯識論一卷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這種境界，不是我們這些凡夫俗子通過思考和衡量就能理解的。為什麼呢？因為它不是心、意、意識所能思量和達到的境界。如果這樣說，那麼這是誰的境界呢？正如偈語所說，這是諸佛微妙的境界。這說明了什麼呢？唯有諸佛如來，憑藉一切種智（對一切事物和道理的徹底、全面的智慧），對於一切所知的境界，都能如實地瞭解。
出自《唯識論》第一卷
【English Translation】 English version: This state is not something that we ordinary beings can understand through thinking and deliberation. Why is that? Because it is not a state that can be contemplated and reached by the mind (citta), intellect (manas), and consciousness (vijnana). If that is the case, then whose state is it? As the verse says, it is the wondrous state of all Buddhas. What does this clarify? Only the Tathagatas (如來, Thus Come Ones), with their সর্বজ্ঞতা (sarvajnata, all-knowing wisdom), truly know all knowable states as they really are.
From the first volume of the Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi-sastra (唯識論).