23. The Dharma Transcends Existence and Nonexistence 二三、法离有无
Coauthored by Teacher Qi and His Junior Disciple | 2018-06-23 | Download | AI assisted translation
| 【尔时大慧菩萨复请世尊：惟愿为说一切法有、无有相，令我及余菩萨摩诃萨离有、无有相，疾得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。佛告大慧：谛听谛听，善思念之，当为汝说。大慧白佛言：善哉世尊，唯然受教。佛告大慧：此世间依有二种，谓依有及无，堕性非性，欲见不离离相。】 |
[At that time, the bodhisattva Mahāmati again entreated the World-Honored One: “May you please explain the characteristics of existence and nonexistence in all dharmas, so that I and the other great bodhisattvas may be free from the characteristics of existence and nonexistence and swiftly attain unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment.” The Buddha told Mahāmati: “Listen carefully, listen carefully, and consider this well. I shall explain it to you.” Mahāmati said to the Buddha: “Excellent, World-Honored One. Yes, I respectfully receive your instruction.” The Buddha told Mahāmati: “The world relies on two kinds of views: reliance on existence and reliance on nonexistence. It falls into views of nature and no nature, seeking to see liberation without being free of the characteristic of liberation.”] |
| “一切法有、无有相”：“无有”就是无。一切法有、无有相，即：计著一切法为有或无。 |
“The characteristics of existence and nonexistence in all dharmas”: “nonexistence” simply means absence. The characteristics of existence and nonexistence in all dharmas means clinging to all dharmas as either existing or nonexistent. |
| “此世间依有二种”：世间的人所依著的，是两种见。 |
“The world relies on two kinds of views”: what people in the world rely upon are two kinds of views. |
| “谓依有及无”：依著于有见或者无见。 |
“Reliance on existence and nonexistence”: relying on a view of existence or a view of nonexistence. |
| “堕性非性”：“性”，有性。“非性”，非有性，即无性。堕性非性，就是由于妄想执著，因而堕于诸法要么有自性、要么无自性的二边之见中，通俗说，就是要么存在，要么不存在。 |
“It falls into views of nature and no nature”: “nature” means having an inherent nature. “No nature” means not having an inherent nature, that is, being without nature. To fall into views of nature and no nature is, through deluded thought and attachment, to fall into the two extreme views that dharmas either possess inherent nature or lack inherent nature. Put simply, things either exist or do not exist. |
| “欲见不离离相”：“欲见”：想发现。“不离离相”：并未出离出离之相。这句话的意思就是，妄认为已经出离，但实际并没有真正出离。为什么呢？因为又别立了一个出离的相。 |
“Seeking to see liberation without being free of the characteristic of liberation”: “seeking to see” means wishing to discover. “Not being free of the characteristic of liberation” means not having actually left behind the characteristic of liberation. The meaning is that one mistakenly believes one has already attained liberation, when one has not truly done so. Why? Because one has set up yet another characteristic of liberation. |
| 什么是出离相？以为此世间实有，以断灭的无相为出离。比如，世间人若觉生之痛苦，会认为弃生赴死就是解脱而选择自杀。又或，有种修行，感妄想之惑乱，便认为压服妄想不生，进入枯寂不动的状态就是解脱等等，这样都是“欲见不离离相”邪见。 |
What is the characteristic of liberation? It is to regard this world as truly existent and take annihilative nonexistence as liberation. For example, when worldly people perceive the suffering of life, they may think that abandoning life for death is liberation and choose suicide. Or there are practices in which, distressed by the confusion of deluded thoughts, one believes that suppressing thoughts so that they do not arise and entering a withered, quiescent, unmoving state is liberation. Such views are all the erroneous view of “seeking to see liberation without being free of the characteristic of liberation.” |
| 上上一门讲了差即是同，上一门则说，无说是佛说。会者当下则会，不会者不禁罔错。为什么会这样？这是由于大众总是堕于有、无边见，不知道有和无都是虚妄错误的见解。所以大慧祈请世尊：希望为我们说明，一切法的真相是什么，到底是有还是无？怎样离开有、无边见而得觉悟呢？ |
The section before last explained that difference is itself sameness; the preceding section said that non-speaking is the Buddha’s teaching. Those who understand will understand at once, while those who do not understand cannot help but become confused. Why is this so? It is because people generally fall into the extreme views of existence and nonexistence, not knowing that both existence and nonexistence are false and mistaken views. Therefore, Mahāmati entreated the World-Honored One: Please explain to us the true reality of all dharmas. Do they ultimately exist or not exist? How can one leave behind the extreme views of existence and nonexistence and attain awakening? |
| 佛说：世间人的看法，归根结底，要么依有，要么依无。一切世间观点、见解都是从“有”或者“无”作为根本依据而起的，这是“依有及无”。众生由于持有、无边见，就堕进要么存在，要么不存在的常、断邪见中。更有甚者，别立一个断灭出离之相，认为这就是解脱，实则这并不是真正的超越有无的出离解脱，而是深堕断灭邪见。 |
The Buddha said: Ultimately, worldly people’s views rely either on existence or on nonexistence. All worldly opinions and views arise by taking “existence” or “nonexistence” as their fundamental basis; this is “reliance on existence and nonexistence.” Because sentient beings hold to the extreme views of existence and nonexistence, they fall into the erroneous views of eternalism or annihilationism—that things either exist or do not exist. Worse still, they separately establish a characteristic of annihilative liberation and take this to be liberation. In fact, this is not true liberation that transcends existence and nonexistence, but a deep fall into the erroneous view of annihilationism. |
| 这是佛先总批驳：世间依有，或者依无，都是堕入二边的邪见。下面分开批驳了这两种邪见： |
Here the Buddha first refutes the matter in general: whether one relies on existence or on nonexistence, one falls into the erroneous views of the two extremes. Below, he refutes these two erroneous views separately: |
| 【大慧，云何世间依有？谓有世间因缘生，非不有，从有生，非无有生。大慧，彼如是说者，是说世间无因。大慧，云何世间依无？谓受贪恚痴性已，然后妄想计著贪恚痴性非性。大慧，若不取有性者，性相寂静故，谓诸如来、声闻、缘觉，不取贪恚痴性为有为无。】 |
[“Mahāmati, what is the world’s reliance on existence? It is to say that the world arises from causes and conditions and is not nonexistent; it arises from existence and not from nonexistence. Mahāmati, those who speak in this way assert that the world is without cause. Mahāmati, what is the world’s reliance on nonexistence? It is to first accept the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance, and then, through deluded thought, cling to the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance as without nature. Mahāmati, if one does not grasp at having a nature, then, because nature and characteristics are quiescent, the Tathāgatas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas do not take the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance to be either existent or nonexistent.”] |
| “谓受贪恚痴性已，然后妄想计著贪恚痴性非性”：“受”，受取。取贪恚痴三毒，饮酒食肉、为盗行淫、听意顺情，毫无忌惮。这样受取后，又妄说贪恚痴是根本不存在的。 |
“It is to first accept the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance, and then, through deluded thought, cling to the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance as without nature”: “accept” means to take up. One indulges in the three poisons of greed, anger, and ignorance—drinking alcohol and eating meat, stealing and engaging in sexual misconduct, following one’s intentions and desires without restraint. After indulging in these, one falsely claims that greed, anger, and ignorance fundamentally do not exist. |
| 什么是世间依有？他们认为世间实有生因，实有能生之种，以此为因而生出了世间一切法，一切诸法从有种生，非从无种而生，这就是计能生之种和所生之法为实有。这么认为，其实是认为世间无因了。 |
What is the world’s reliance on existence? Such people believe that the world truly has causes of arising and truly has seeds capable of producing things. On the basis of these causes, all dharmas of the world arise; all dharmas arise from existent seeds, not from nonexistent seeds. This is to regard both the seeds that produce and the dharmas that are produced as truly existent. To think in this way is, in fact, to hold that the world is without cause. |
| 为什么这么说？如果一切诸法由实有的因缘造作而生，那么，最初那个实有之因是从哪里造作产生的呢？？如果也是从“有”产生，那诸法就永远没有产生的第一因了！所以这实际是“无”因论者，即“世间无因”。 |
Why is this said? If all dharmas are produced through truly existent causes and conditions, then from where was that first truly existent cause itself produced? If it too arose from “existence,” then there could never be a first cause for the arising of dharmas. Thus, this is actually a theory of causelessness—the assertion that “the world is without cause.” |
| 这里“世间无因”，谈锡永的楞伽译本有不同的翻译看法，认为应是“世间有因”：“此句旧译皆作‘无因见’，与梵本不合，梵此句为lokasya ca hetVastiVadibhavati，应为‘因见’。依文义，亦作‘因见’始合”。 |
Here, regarding “the world is without cause,” Tan Xiyong’s translation of the Laṅkāvatāra offers a different interpretation, holding that it should read “the world has cause”: “In the old translations this sentence is invariably rendered as ‘the view of no cause,’ which does not accord with the Sanskrit original. In Sanskrit, this sentence is lokasya ca hetVastiVadibhavati, and should be rendered ‘the view of cause.’ According to the meaning of the passage, only ‘the view of cause’ is appropriate.” |
| （关于谭锡永版本由来：虽然楞伽文字古奥难读，但据记载，仍有梵文原典留存。维基百科记载：楞伽经梵文原典由一位英國外交官在尼泊爾偶然發現，1923年，日本人南條文雄校刊梵文本行世。 |
(Concerning the origin of Tan Xiyong’s version: although the language of the Laṅkāvatāra is ancient, abstruse, and difficult to read, records indicate that a Sanskrit original has nevertheless survived. Wikipedia states that the Sanskrit original of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra was accidentally discovered in Nepal by a British diplomat, and that in 1923 the Japanese scholar Nanjo Bunyu edited and published the Sanskrit text. |
| 2005年談錫永根據南條文雄所校刊的梵文本，又參考現存的三種漢譯本，以及二種藏譯本而翻出《入楞伽經梵本新譯》。故本文在此引用该本不同的翻译，以供读者多一条参考思路。） |
In 2005, Tan Xiyong based his New Translation of the Sanskrit Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra on the Sanskrit text edited and published by Nanjo Bunyu, also consulting the three extant Chinese translations and two Tibetan translations. This work therefore cites the differing translation in that version, in order to offer readers an additional line of inquiry.) |
| 总之，无论是归结到世间有因或者无因，都说明“世间依有”这样的见解，是错误的邪见。 |
In short, whether the conclusion is that the world has causes or that it is without causes, this shows that the view of “the world’s reliance on existence” is an erroneous view. |
| 什么是世间依无呢？就是先受贪嗔痴为有，造诸恶业以后，又妄计为无。 |
What is the world’s reliance on nonexistence? It is first to accept greed, anger, and ignorance as existent, commit all kinds of evil karma, and then falsely reckon them nonexistent. |
| 还有一种见解则不这样：由于了知诸法之自性不生不灭，湛然常寂，所以并没有什么可以被污染，这叫不取有。也不会另立一个“什么都没有”，这叫不取无。佛、声闻、缘觉就是这样不取贪嗔痴自性为有、为无。 |
There is another view that is not like this: because one understands that the inherent nature of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases and is serenely and ever quiescent, there is nothing that can be defiled. This is called not grasping at existence. Nor does one separately establish a “nothing whatsoever”; this is called not grasping at nonexistence. Buddhas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas do not take the inherent nature of greed, anger, and ignorance as either existent or nonexistent in this way. |
| 【大慧，此中何等为坏者？大慧白佛言：世尊，若彼取贪恚痴性，后不复取。佛告大慧：善哉善哉，汝如是解。大慧，非但贪恚痴性非性为坏者，于声闻、缘觉及佛，亦是坏者。】 |
[“Mahāmati, which of these is erroneous? Mahāmati said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One, it is when they first grasp at the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance and later no longer grasp at it.’ The Buddha told Mahāmati: ‘Excellent, excellent. You understand it thus. Mahāmati, it is not only those who hold the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance to be without nature who are mistaken; śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas may also be mistaken.’] |
| 佛问大慧：那么，“世间依无”和“不取有性”，其中哪种见解是错误的呢？ |
The Buddha asked Mahāmati: Then, between “the world’s reliance on nonexistence” and “not grasping at having a nature,” which view is erroneous? |
| 大慧说：前者，先受贪嗔痴造作恶业后，又认为贪嗔痴没有，这种见解是错误的。 |
Mahāmati said: The former is erroneous: after first accepting greed, anger, and ignorance and committing evil karma, one then believes that greed, anger, and ignorance do not exist. |
| “大慧，非但贪恚痴性非性为坏者，于声闻、缘觉及佛，亦是坏者”——这种持“无”的邪见，实则有两种情况，即：“非但贪恚痴性非性为坏者；（贪恚痴有性，后）于声闻、缘觉及佛（令之为非性），亦是坏者”。 |
“Mahāmati, it is not only those who hold the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance to be without nature who are mistaken; śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas may also be mistaken”—this erroneous view that holds to “nonexistence” in fact has two forms: “It is not only those who hold the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance to be without nature who are mistaken; [after holding greed, anger, and ignorance to have nature, they make] śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas [without nature], and this too is mistaken.” |
| 意思是：佛说，是的！贪嗔痴先有，而恣意造业受报，然后又计为无，这种见解是错误的，坏世间因果；而且，还有一种依无的邪见，认为贪嗔痴实有，众生实受其染。而声闻、缘觉及诸佛，可以通过修行，最终灭除掉贪嗔痴污染。这种见解也是错误的，坏出世间因果。 |
The meaning is this: the Buddha says, yes. To first take greed, anger, and ignorance as existent, indulge in creating karma and undergo retribution, and then reckon them nonexistent—this view is erroneous and undermines worldly cause and effect. Moreover, there is another erroneous view relying on nonexistence: it holds greed, anger, and ignorance to be truly existent, and sentient beings to be truly defiled by them; yet it maintains that śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas can, through cultivation, ultimately eliminate the defilement of greed, anger, and ignorance. This view too is erroneous, and it undermines supramundane cause and effect. |
| 《六祖坛经》中，神秀所作偈：“身似菩提树，心如明镜台。时时勤拂拭，勿使染尘埃。”这就是认为实有贪嗔痴，须拂拭而得戒定慧之净果。果然，五祖见后便道，“神秀入门未得，不见自性”。 |
In the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch, Shenxiu composed this verse: “The body is like a bodhi tree; the mind is like a bright mirror stand. At all times diligently wipe it clean; do not let it be stained by dust.” This is the view that greed, anger, and ignorance truly exist and must be wiped away in order to attain the pure fruition of precepts, samādhi, and wisdom. Indeed, when the Fifth Patriarch saw it, he said, “Shenxiu has entered the gate but has not yet attained it; he has not seen his true nature.” |
| 【所以者何？谓内外不可得故，烦恼性异不异故。大慧，贪恚痴，若内、若外，不可得。贪恚痴性无身故、无取故，非佛、声闻、缘觉是坏者。佛、声闻、缘觉，自性解脱故，缚与缚因非性故。大慧，若有缚者，应有缚，是缚因故。大慧，如是说坏者，是名无有相。】 |
[“Why is this so? Because inner and outer cannot be obtained, and because the nature of afflictions is neither different nor not different. Mahāmati, greed, anger, and ignorance, whether inner or outer, cannot be obtained. The nature of greed, anger, and ignorance has no body and cannot be grasped. Thus Buddhas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas are not those who destroy them. Buddhas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas are liberated in their own nature, because bondage and the cause of bondage are without nature. Mahāmati, if there were bondage, there would have to be one who is bound, for that would be the cause of bondage. Mahāmati, to speak of destruction in this way is called the characteristic of nonexistence.”] |
| 为什么认为实有贪嗔痴可灭，是坏佛法呢？因为一切内根、外尘，了不可得。“烦恼性异不异故”，即烦恼之性，非有非无。 |
Why is it said that to regard greed, anger, and ignorance as truly existent and capable of being eliminated damages the Buddhadharma? Because all inner faculties and external objects are utterly unobtainable. “Because the nature of afflictions is neither different nor not different” means that the nature of afflictions is neither existent nor nonexistent. |
| 大慧，贪嗔痴烦恼，其内能受者，与外所接触之染污境界，都是了不可得的。而且，贪嗔痴本身也没有实际自性，实无可取。是为贪嗔痴“性无身”及“无取”。那么，即然本来就无可取，谈何坏之呢！所以，修行并不是佛及声闻缘觉将贪嗔痴坏灭了。 |
Mahāmati, the afflictions of greed, anger, and ignorance—the inner experiencer and the externally encountered defiling objects—are all utterly unobtainable. Moreover, greed, anger, and ignorance themselves have no actual inherent nature and truly cannot be grasped. This is what is meant by their “nature having no body” and by their being “ungraspable.” Since there is originally nothing to grasp, how could there be anything to destroy? Thus cultivation does not mean that Buddhas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas destroy greed, anger, and ignorance. |
| “佛、声闻、缘觉，自性解脱故，缚与缚因非性故。大慧，若有缚者，应有缚，是缚因故。 |
“Buddhas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas are liberated in their own nature, because bondage and the cause of bondage are without nature. Mahāmati, if there were bondage, there would have to be one who is bound, for that would be the cause of bondage.” |
| 大慧，如是说坏者，是名无有相”——佛、声闻和缘觉之所以证果，是因为自性本具解脱；因为实无能缚和所缚，是彻证根本就不曾被束缚过。 |
“Mahāmati, to speak of destruction in this way is called the characteristic of nonexistence”—Buddhas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas attain fruition because liberation is inherently complete in their own nature; because there is truly neither that which binds nor that which is bound, they thoroughly realize that they have fundamentally never been bound. |
| 而并非是修行者另外造就了戒定慧，灭掉了贪嗔痴；或是另立一个解脱，而灭掉了束缚。大慧，要是有能束缚众生的贪嗔痴，那么就一定应该有能接受束缚的众生，这样才有受束缚的真正之因。然而众生本空，哪有一个受贪嗔痴所缚之者呢！？大慧，这样了证贪嗔痴乃至戒定慧当体即空，才是大乘的无相见。 |
This does not mean that practitioners separately produce precepts, samādhi, and wisdom in order to eliminate greed, anger, and ignorance, or separately establish a liberation in order to eliminate bondage. Mahāmati, if greed, anger, and ignorance could bind sentient beings, then there would necessarily have to be sentient beings capable of receiving that bondage; only then would there be a real cause for being bound. Yet sentient beings are originally empty—where could there be anyone bound by greed, anger, and ignorance? Mahāmati, to realize fully in this way that greed, anger, and ignorance, and even precepts, samādhi, and wisdom, are empty in their very being—this alone is the Mahāyāna view of no characteristics. |
| 所以惠能看到神秀所呈之偈，即回颂“菩提本无树，明镜亦非台。本来无一物，何处惹尘埃？”即，烦恼无自性，本不曾生，本不曾受过，更何有去除？这是真去除。一切先圣所除，皆是如此。 |
Therefore, when Huineng saw the verse presented by Shenxiu, he immediately responded with this verse: “Bodhi originally has no tree, nor is the bright mirror a stand. Originally there is not a single thing—where could dust alight?” That is, afflictions have no inherent nature; they have never arisen, nor have they ever been undergone. What, then, is there to remove? This is true removal. What all the sages of old have removed is just this. |
| 【大慧，因是故，我说宁取人见如须弥山，不起无所有增上慢空见。大慧，无所有增上慢者，是名为坏，堕自、共相见希望，不知自心现量。见外性无常，刹那展转坏，阴界入相续流注变灭，离文字相妄想，是名为坏者。】 |
[“Mahāmati, for this reason I say that it is better to hold a view of self as solid as Mount Sumeru than to give rise to the empty view of the arrogant conceit of nonexistence. Mahāmati, those with the arrogant conceit of nonexistence are called destroyers: they fall into expectations based on views of particular and general characteristics, and do not know the manifestations of their own mind. They see external things as impermanent, perishing successively from moment to moment; they see the continuing stream of the aggregates, realms, and sense-fields changing and passing away, and abandon conceptual discriminations based on verbal signs. Such persons are called destroyers.”] |
| “堕自共相见希望”，“自共相”，独自个别的体相，与其他诸法不共通，称为自相；与自相相对，不囿限于自相的诸法共通之相，称为共相。“堕自共相见希望”，就是堕于计著分别诸法的差异和相同，而不能通达。简单说，就是堕于妄想分别。 |
“They fall into expectations based on views of particular and general characteristics.” “Particular characteristics” are the individual forms and attributes of a dharma that it does not share with other dharmas. In contrast, “general characteristics” are features common to dharmas that are not confined to their individual characteristics. To “fall into expectations based on views of particular and general characteristics” is to become caught in discriminating the differences and similarities among dharmas, without being able to penetrate them. Simply put, it is to fall into deluded discriminations. |
| 大慧，所以我说，宁可持有见如须弥山一样坚固，也不应该执持断灭无这种增上慢的顽空邪见。大慧，持这种断灭无的增上慢邪见者，堕妄想分别，不知道一切都是自心所现。 |
Mahāmati, therefore I say that it is better to hold a view of existence as firm as Mount Sumeru than to cling to the stubbornly empty and erroneous view of the arrogant conceit of annihilationist nonexistence. Mahāmati, those who hold this erroneous view of the arrogant conceit of annihilationist nonexistence fall into deluded discriminations and do not know that everything is manifested by their own mind. |
| “见外性无常，刹那展转坏，阴界入相续流注变灭，离文字相妄想，是名为坏者”——他们只看到诸法无常变化，刹那辗转坏灭，一切万法（即五阴、十八界、六入）都是不停的在变异和坏灭着，所以连解脱道、文字言说等种种理论更是不须言说和建立，这就是增上慢顽空见。 |
“They see external things as impermanent, perishing successively from moment to moment; they see the continuing stream of the aggregates, realms, and sense-fields changing and passing away, and abandon conceptual discriminations based on verbal signs. Such persons are called destroyers.” That is, they see only that dharmas are impermanent and changing, perishing from moment to moment. They see all phenomena—the five aggregates, eighteen realms, and six sense-fields—as ceaselessly changing and perishing. Thus, they believe that there is even less need to speak of or establish such theories as the path of liberation and verbal expression. This is the stubbornly empty view of arrogant conceit. |
| 因为他们这连解脱也认为是没有，是无常，这是由断灭无起的无佛无法之见了。所以是增上慢的无所有顽空邪见。 |
Because they even regard liberation as nonexistent and impermanent, they give rise, from annihilationist nonexistence, to the view that there is no Buddha and no Dharma. Thus, this is the erroneous, stubbornly empty view of the arrogant conceit of nonexistence. |
| 这就像盛水的器皿，假如盛满了叫做“无所有”的水，就无法再容纳其他了，这怎么能是法器呢？入佛修行都难了！相反，执有者，由于缠缚坚固，反而会视佛法渡筏如救命稻草，就此痛彻发心修证。 |
It is like a vessel for holding water: if it is filled with the water called “nonexistence,” it can hold nothing else. How could it then be a vessel of Dharma? Even entering the Buddha’s path of practice becomes difficult. By contrast, those attached to existence, because their fetters are so firm, may instead regard the raft of the Buddhadharma as a lifesaving straw, thereby arousing a deeply earnest resolve to practice and realize. |
| 故庞蕴居士临化之前，唯劝：“但愿空诸所有，慎勿实诸所无。”当然，修证过程必然是如上段所说：起初迷，认为有缚，所以求解脱。真解脱则是从未被束缚过，更说什么解脱啊！这才是佛法的真解脱。 |
Therefore, before his passing, Layman Pang Yun offered only this counsel: “May you empty all that is possessed; take care not to make real what is not.” Of course, the process of practice and realization must necessarily be as described in the preceding passage: at first one is deluded and thinks there are fetters, so one seeks liberation. But true liberation means that one has never been bound in the first place—so what is there to call liberation? This is the true liberation of the Buddhadharma. |
| 综上，这一门佛批驳了世间两种邪见：依有和依无。其中着重批驳了依无的邪见，依无一是恣意造作、拨无因果，坏世间法；另一种“无”更甚，认为一切归于断灭，这是坏诸佛法、坏出世间解脱道。实则佛法超越了有无二见。下面佛又用偈颂方式再次说明： |
In summary, in this section the Buddha refutes two erroneous worldly views: reliance on existence and reliance on nonexistence. He particularly refutes the erroneous view that relies on nonexistence. One form of such reliance is reckless conduct that denies cause and effect, thereby destroying worldly dharmas. The other kind of “nonexistence” is even worse: it holds that everything returns to annihilation, thereby destroying the Buddhadharma and the supramundane path of liberation. In truth, the Buddhadharma transcends both views of existence and nonexistence. The Buddha next explains this again in verse: |
| 【尔时世尊欲重宣此义，而说偈言： |
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke these verses: |
| 有无是二边。乃至心境界。净除彼境界。平等心寂灭。】 |
Existence and nonexistence are the two extremes, extending even to the realm of mind. When that realm is thoroughly purified, the equal mind is quiescent. |
| 应遣除有、无两边，一切都遣除后，方是寂灭平等。 |
One should abandon both extremes of existence and nonexistence. Only after everything has been relinquished is there quiescence and equality. |
| 【无取境界性。灭非无所有。有事悉如如。如贤圣境界。】 |
[“Not grasping the nature of objects does not mean that there is nothing at all. All existent things are thusness, like the realm of sages.”] |
| 但是不取境界，并不是什么都没有的死空寂。一法不生处，正好万物森然，即是“悉如如”。 |
Yet not grasping objects does not mean a dead emptiness in which nothing whatsoever exists. At the place where not a single dharma arises, the myriad things stand forth in profusion: this is precisely that all things are thusness. |
| 【无种而有生。生已而复灭。因缘有非有。不住我教法。非外道非佛。非我亦非余。】 |
[“Without a seed, there is arising; having arisen, there is again cessation. Conditioned existence is not existence. Those who do not abide in my teaching are neither non-Buddhists nor Buddhas, neither self nor other.”] |
| 因为无，所以显现万法，一切法有生而又再灭。这些因缘所生之法，幻有，实无。而不住有和无，才是佛法。不住，既不住外道有、无边见，也无佛见可住，“非外道非佛”，这才是真实佛智。 |
Because there is no inherent existence, the myriad dharmas appear; all dharmas arise and then cease again. These dharmas produced by causes and conditions have illusory existence but are actually nonexistent. Not abiding in either existence or nonexistence alone is the Buddhadharma. Non-abiding means neither abiding in the extreme views of existence and nonexistence held by non-Buddhists nor retaining any view of Buddha in which to abide. “Neither non-Buddhist nor Buddha”—this is true Buddha-wisdom. |
| 【因缘所集起。云何而得无。谁集因缘有。而复说言无。】 |
[“What is brought forth through the gathering of causes and conditions—how can it be said to be nonexistent? Who gathers the causes and conditions into existence, yet again declares them nonexistent?”] |
| 一切都是因缘和合而生，怎么能说是无呢？但是又是谁和合了这些因缘呢？并没有一个主体呀，所以又说没有。 |
Everything arises through the coming together of causes and conditions; how can it be called nonexistent? Yet who has brought these causes and conditions together? There is no independent subject, and so it is also said to be nonexistent. |
| 【邪见论生灭。妄想计有无。】 |
[“Erroneous views discuss arising and ceasing; deluded discrimination imputes existence and nonexistence.”] |
| 外道邪见妄想，见世间生灭之相，就妄计诸法自性是实有或者实无的。 |
Those with the deluded discriminations of erroneous non-Buddhist views see the appearances of arising and ceasing in the world and mistakenly impute that the inherent nature of dharmas is truly existent or truly nonexistent. |
| 【若知无所生。亦复无所灭。观此悉空寂。有无二俱离。】 |
[“If one knows that nothing arises, then nothing ceases. Contemplating this, all is empty and quiescent; both existence and nonexistence are abandoned.”] |
| 应当了知，本无所生，更无所灭。这不生不灭的湛然空寂，是离开有、无二边的。 |
One should understand that nothing originally arises, much less ceases. This limpid emptiness and quiescence of neither arising nor ceasing is free from the two extremes of existence and nonexistence. |
| 本门概要： |
Summary of This Section: |
| 本门关键词：“世间依有”，“世间依无”，“不取贪嗔痴性为有为无”，“有、无二俱离”。世间邪见，妄计诸法之自性要么依有、要么依无。其中依无见最恶，会堕到无所有的顽空，而坏世出世间法。 |
Key terms in this section: “worldly reliance on existence,” “worldly reliance on nonexistence,” “not taking the nature of greed, anger, and ignorance as existent or nonexistent,” and “free from both existence and nonexistence.” Erroneous worldly views mistakenly impute that the inherent nature of dharmas relies either on existence or on nonexistence. The view relying on nonexistence is the most harmful: it falls into the stubborn emptiness of nonexistence and thereby destroys both worldly and supramundane dharmas. |
| 实则诸法辗转变化，只是因缘和合而现的幻生幻灭，而自性本质非有、非无，不生不灭，湛然常寂。所以觉者不取有、不取无，有、无二俱离，说有正是寂灭平等，说无正是万象森罗。 |
In truth, dharmas undergo successive transformations; their illusory arising and ceasing merely appear through the coming together of causes and conditions. Their inherent nature is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither arising nor ceasing, limpidly and ever quiescent. Therefore, the awakened do not grasp existence or nonexistence, but are free from both. To speak of existence is precisely to speak of quiescent equality; to speak of nonexistence is precisely to speak of the profusion of all appearances. |
