T35n1731_華嚴游意
大正藏第 35 冊 No. 1731 華嚴游意
No. 1731 [cf. No. 278]
華嚴游意
慧日道場沙門胡吉藏撰
且話閻浮得有此經錄雖不載相承云。龍樹有佞弟子勸其師令與釋迦並化。師智德如此。宜作新佛。豈為釋迦弟子即。然其所言剋日月。別制新戒新衣使大同小異。坐水精房中思惟斯事。時有大龍菩薩傷而愍之便接還龍宮。示三世諸佛無量經。復示過去七佛經。于龍宮九旬讀十倍閻浮。所餘題目不可週遍。龍樹從龍宮出。龍王以此一部經送龍樹出。為此因緣故閻浮提得有此經也。
江南講此經者亦須知其原首。前三大法師不講此經。晚建初彭城亦不講。建初晚講。就長干法師借義疏。彭城晚講不聽人問未講之文。前三大法師。后二名德。多不講此經。講此經者起自攝山。時有勝法師為檀越教化。得三千餘解未凡經七處。徒八過設會。始自慧莊嚴終歸止觀。一會則講一會經文。爾時實為隆盛。后興皇繼其遺蹤大弘斯典。講因緣如此也。然此經義正開二佛兩教門凈土三十心十地等。今略明凈土義。凈土凡有四條。一化主。二化處。三教門。四徒眾。此之四種束為兩雙。化主化處即如來依正兩果。化主即是正果。化處即是依果。即依正一雙。教門徒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大正藏第 35 冊 No. 1731 華嚴游意
No. 1731 [cf. No. 278]
華嚴游意
慧日道場沙門胡吉藏撰
且說閻浮提(Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界)能夠得到這部經的緣由，雖然經錄中沒有記載，但相傳是這樣的：龍樹(Nagarjuna，佛教大乘中觀學派創始人)有一個奸佞的弟子，勸說他的老師龍樹，讓他和釋迦(Sakyamuni，佛教創始人)並駕齊驅，共同教化眾生。認為龍樹的智慧和德行如此之高，應該成為新的佛。難道僅僅做釋迦的弟子就足夠了嗎？然而，這個弟子所說的話語狂妄至極，想要另立日月，另外製定新的戒律和服裝，使之與釋迦的教義大同小異。龍樹在一個水晶房中思考這件事。當時有一位大龍菩薩，憐憫龍樹的處境，便將他接回龍宮。向他展示了三世諸佛的無量經典，又展示了過去七佛的經典。在龍宮的九十天里，龍樹所讀的經典相當於在閻浮提的十倍。所剩下的題目，無法全部讀完。龍樹從龍宮出來時，龍王將這部《華嚴經》送給龍樹。因為這個因緣，所以閻浮提才能夠得到這部經。
在江南講解這部經的人，也應該知道它的源頭。前三大法師不講解這部經。後來建初寺和彭城寺也不講解。建初寺後來才開始講解，並且向長干寺的法師借閱義疏。彭城寺後來才開始講解，並且不允許別人提問沒有講解過的經文。前三大法師，后二位名德，大多不講解這部經。講解這部經的人，是從攝山開始的。當時有一位勝法師，爲了教化檀越(danapati，指施主)，得到了三千多個解釋，總共抄寫了七處經文。他的弟子們舉辦了八次法會。開始於慧莊嚴，最終歸於止觀。每次法會就講解一會經文。當時確實非常興盛。後來興皇寺繼承了他的遺志，大力弘揚這部經典。講解的因緣就是這樣。然而，這部經的義理主要闡述了二佛、兩教門、凈土、三十心、十地(bhumi，菩薩修行過程中的十個階段)等。現在簡要說明凈土的義理。凈土大致有四條：一、化主(指阿彌陀佛)；二、化處(指西方極樂世界)；三、教門(指凈土法門)；四、徒眾(指信奉凈土法門的修行者)。這四種可以歸納為兩對。化主和化處，即如來的依報和正報兩種果報。化主是正報，化處是依報。這就是依正一雙。教門和徒眾
【English Translation】 English version T35 No. 1731 The Flower Adornment Sutra - A Roaming Intention
No. 1731 [cf. No. 278]
The Flower Adornment Sutra - A Roaming Intention
Composed by the Shramana Hu Ji-zang of the Wisdom-Sun Temple
Let's talk about how Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, referring to the world we live in) came to have this sutra. Although the records do not contain it, it is said that Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Mahayana Buddhism) had a佞 (sycophantic) disciple who persuaded his teacher to be on par with Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism) and jointly transform sentient beings. He believed that Nagarjuna's wisdom and virtue were so high that he should become a new Buddha. Was it enough to just be a disciple of Sakyamuni? However, the disciple's words were extremely arrogant, wanting to establish a new sun and moon, and to create new precepts and clothing, making them largely the same but slightly different from Sakyamuni's teachings. Nagarjuna was thinking about this matter in a crystal room. At that time, a great Naga Bodhisattva, feeling sorry for Nagarjuna's situation, took him back to the Dragon Palace. He showed him the immeasurable sutras of the Buddhas of the three times, and also showed him the sutras of the past seven Buddhas. In the ninety days in the Dragon Palace, Nagarjuna read ten times more sutras than in Jambudvipa. The remaining topics could not be read completely. When Nagarjuna came out of the Dragon Palace, the Dragon King gave this Flower Adornment Sutra to Nagarjuna. Because of this cause and condition, Jambudvipa was able to obtain this sutra.
Those who lecture on this sutra in Jiangnan should also know its origin. The former three great Dharma masters did not lecture on this sutra. Later, Jianchu Temple and Pengcheng Temple also did not lecture on it. Jianchu Temple started lecturing later, and borrowed the commentaries from the Dharma masters of Changgan Temple. Pengcheng Temple started lecturing later, and did not allow others to ask questions about the unlectured text. The former three great Dharma masters and the latter two eminent monks mostly did not lecture on this sutra. Those who lectured on this sutra started from Sheshan. At that time, there was a Dharma master Sheng who, in order to teach the danapati (danapati, referring to patrons), obtained more than three thousand explanations and copied the sutra in seven places. His disciples held eight Dharma assemblies. It started with Hui Zhuangyan and ended with Zhi Guan. Each Dharma assembly lectured on one chapter of the sutra. At that time, it was indeed very prosperous. Later, Xinghuang Temple inherited his legacy and greatly promoted this classic. The cause and condition of the lecture is like this. However, the meaning of this sutra mainly expounds on the two Buddhas, the two teachings, the Pure Land, the thirty minds, the ten bhumis (bhumi, the ten stages in the bodhisattva's path of cultivation), etc. Now, briefly explain the meaning of the Pure Land. The Pure Land roughly has four aspects: 1. The transformation master (referring to Amitabha Buddha); 2. The transformation place (referring to the Western Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss); 3. The teaching (referring to the Pure Land Dharma); 4. The disciples (referring to practitioners who believe in the Pure Land Dharma). These four can be summarized into two pairs. The transformation master and the transformation place are the two retributions of the Tathagata, the dependent and the principal. The transformation master is the principal retribution, and the transformation place is the dependent retribution. This is the pair of dependent and principal. The teaching and the disciples
眾即緣教一雙教門即緣教。徒眾即教緣故。是緣教一雙。雖有四條束為兩意也。然非但凈土有此四條。三世十方諸佛土一一土中皆具此四條。三世十方土雖復無量不出十種土。十種土者。一凈。二穢。三雜。四本凈末不凈。本是凈土。后薄福眾生本凈反為穢。此名本凈今穢也。五者本不凈末凈。變向可知。此是釋迦土。有五應現。復有五種合成十種土。十種土皆具上四條。據此十種兩雙。攝一切土盡也。十種之中略明凈土一種。四條之內且辨化主一條也。
問此經為是釋迦所說耶為是舍那所說耶。興皇大師開發初即作此問然答此之問。便有南北二解。南方解云。佛教凡有三種。謂頓漸無方不定也。言頓教者。即教無不圓理。無不滿。為大根者說。所以經云。譬如日出先照高山。故言頓教。言漸教者。始自鹿園終至鵠林所說。經教初淺后深。漸漸而說。故稱漸教。就漸教中有五時不同也。言無方不定者。進不及頓。退非是漸。隨緣不定。故言不定教。問。此是大乘。為是小乘耶。解云。是大乘教。金光明勝鬘等經也。用此三經者欲釋此經是釋迦所說。何者此之三教是佛教。是何佛教。解云。是釋迦佛一期出世始終有此三教。若使如此故知華嚴是釋迦佛說也。釋迦雖說此三教復不同。何者若是漸教無方教此是現前說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大眾所聚集之處，即是緣教（Pratyaya-buddha-yana，緣覺乘）所教化的一雙教門，而這教門本身也就是緣教。徒眾即是教化的因緣，因此說是緣教的一雙。雖然有四條原則，但可以歸納為兩種意義。然而，並非只有凈土才有這四條原則，三世十方諸佛的每一處佛土都具備這四條原則。三世十方的佛土雖然無數，但不出十種土。這十種土是：一、凈土；二、穢土；三、雜土；四、本來是凈土後來變得不凈，原本是凈土，後來因為薄福眾生的緣故，原本的清凈反而變成了污穢，這叫做『本凈今穢』；五、本來是不凈土後來變得清凈，這種轉變的方向可以知曉，這是釋迦牟尼佛的國土，有五種應化顯現。再加上五種，合成為十種土。這十種土都具備上述的四條原則。根據這十種土的兩兩相對，就能夠涵蓋一切的佛土了。在這十種土之中，簡略地說明凈土這一種，在四條原則之內，姑且辨析化主這一條。
問：這部經是釋迦牟尼佛所說的呢？還是盧舍那佛（Vairocana，報身佛）所說的呢？興皇大師在開始研究這部經的時候就提出了這個問題。爲了回答這個問題，就有了南北兩種解釋。南方的解釋說，佛教大致有三種，分別是頓教、漸教和無方不定教。所謂頓教，就是教義沒有不圓滿，道理沒有不滿備，是為大根器的人說的。所以經上說，『譬如太陽出來，先照耀高山』，所以說是頓教。所謂漸教，是從鹿野苑開始，到拘尸那迦（Kushinagar，佛陀涅槃處）的鵠林結束所說的經教，開始淺顯後來深奧，漸漸地演說，所以稱為漸教。在漸教中又有五時教的不同。所謂無方不定教，進步不及頓教，退步又不是漸教，隨著因緣而不固定，所以說是無方不定教。問：這部經是大乘佛教的經典呢？還是小乘佛教的經典呢？解釋說：是大乘教的經典，例如《金光明經》、《勝鬘經》等。引用這三部經，是爲了解釋這部經是釋迦牟尼佛所說的。為什麼呢？因為這三種教法是佛教，是什麼佛教呢？解釋說：是釋迦牟尼佛一生出世始終都有這三種教法。如果這樣說，那麼就可以知道《華嚴經》是釋迦牟尼佛說的。釋迦牟尼佛雖然說了這三種教法，但又有所不同。為什麼呢？如果是漸教和無方教，這是現前所說的。
【English Translation】 English version The assembly is the Pratyaya-buddha-yana (Self-Enlightened Vehicle) teaching, a pair of teaching gates that is the Pratyaya-buddha-yana itself. The disciples are the conditions for the teaching, hence it is a pair of Pratyaya-buddha-yana. Although there are four principles, they can be summarized into two meanings. However, it is not only the Pure Land that has these four principles; every Buddha-land in the three times and ten directions possesses these four principles. Although the Buddha-lands in the three times and ten directions are countless, they do not exceed ten types of lands. These ten types of lands are: 1. Pure; 2. Impure; 3. Mixed; 4. Originally pure but later impure. Originally a pure land, but later, due to beings with meager blessings, the original purity turns into impurity. This is called 'originally pure, now impure'; 5. Originally impure but later pure. The direction of change can be known. This is Shakyamuni's (釋迦牟尼) land, with five manifestations. Adding five more, they combine to form ten types of lands. All ten types of lands possess the above four principles. According to these ten types of pairs, all lands are encompassed. Among these ten types, the Pure Land is briefly explained, and within the four principles, the teaching host is discussed.
Question: Is this sutra spoken by Shakyamuni (釋迦牟尼) or by Vairocana (盧舍那) (the Reward Body Buddha)? Master Xinghuang raised this question at the beginning of his study of this sutra. To answer this question, there are two interpretations, Southern and Northern. The Southern interpretation says that Buddhism generally has three types: sudden teaching, gradual teaching, and non-fixed teaching. The so-called sudden teaching is that the teachings are not incomplete, and the principles are not insufficient, spoken for those with great capacity. Therefore, the sutra says, 'Like the sun rising, first illuminating the high mountains,' hence it is called sudden teaching. The so-called gradual teaching is the teachings spoken from the Deer Park (鹿野苑) to the Sal Grove (鵠林) in Kushinagar (拘尸那迦) (the place of Buddha's Nirvana), starting shallow and later becoming profound, gradually expounding, hence it is called gradual teaching. Within the gradual teaching, there are five different periods of teaching. The so-called non-fixed teaching is that progress does not reach the sudden teaching, and regression is not the gradual teaching, following conditions without being fixed, hence it is called non-fixed teaching. Question: Is this sutra a Mahayana (大乘) Buddhist scripture or a Hinayana (小乘) Buddhist scripture? The explanation is: It is a Mahayana scripture, such as the 'Golden Light Sutra' (金光明經), the 'Srimala Sutra' (勝鬘經), etc. Quoting these three sutras is to explain that this sutra is spoken by Shakyamuni. Why? Because these three types of teachings are Buddhism. What Buddhism? The explanation is: Shakyamuni Buddha's entire life of appearing in the world always had these three types of teachings. If this is the case, then it can be known that the 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (華嚴經) is spoken by Shakyamuni. Although Shakyamuni Buddha spoke these three types of teachings, they are different. Why? If it is the gradual teaching and the non-fixed teaching, this is what is currently being spoken.
。若是頓教遙說彼土人華。類如無量壽經釋迦遙說彼西方凈人華。今此國三輩往生。今此經亦爾。是釋迦遙說蓮華藏國土凈人華也。次北方論師解。彼有三佛。一法。二報。三化。華嚴是報佛說。涅槃般若等是化佛說。法佛則不說。彼判舍那是報佛。釋迦是化佛。舍那為釋迦之報。釋迦為舍那之化。華嚴經是舍那佛說。此則是南北兩師釋如此也。
今次難此兩師解。委悉述大師之言。前難南土解。釋迦與舍那不異。今還用前四種責故不得一。一者化主異。涅槃般若是釋迦佛說。七處八會是舍那佛說。舍那是本佛釋迦是跡佛故。菩薩戒經云。我今盧舍那方坐蓮華臺。周匝千華上示現千釋迦。故舍那是本釋迦是跡。若使如此本跡不同那得為一。二者化處異。釋迦在娑婆世界。舍那在蓮華藏國。娑婆是雜惡國土。蓮華藏界是純凈土。二處不同豈得為一。又娑婆國動則六種動。蓮華藏動則十八種動。又臺葉二處不同。舍那在臺釋迦在葉。二處如此之殊。何得為一耶。三者教門異。釋迦則雜說三一。雜說半滿。雜說但不但。舍那純說一大。純滿純不但。釋迦赴雜緣說雜教。赴三一緣說三一教。乃至赴但不但緣說但不但教。舍那唯赴一大緣說一大教。乃至赴滿不但緣說滿不但教。若爾故不得為一也。四者徒眾異。釋迦具有三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果是頓教，（就像）遙遠地說彼土（指西方極樂世界）的人和蓮花，類似於《無量壽經》中釋迦牟尼佛遙遠地說西方凈土的人和蓮花。現在這個國土有三輩往生者，這部經也是如此。這是釋迦牟尼佛遙遠地說蓮花藏國土的清凈之人和蓮花啊。其次，北方論師解釋說，彼土有三佛：一法身佛，二報身佛，三化身佛。《華嚴經》是報身佛所說，《涅槃經》、《般若經》等是化身佛所說，法身佛則不說法。他們判斷盧舍那佛是報身佛，釋迦牟尼佛是化身佛。盧舍那佛是釋迦牟尼佛的報身，釋迦牟尼佛是盧舍那佛的化身。《華嚴經》是盧舍那佛所說。這就是南北兩地論師的解釋。
現在來駁斥這兩位論師的解釋，詳細地陳述大師（指智者大師）的觀點。首先駁斥南方論師的解釋，釋迦牟尼佛與盧舍那佛不是一體的。現在仍然用前面的四種不同來責難，所以不能說是一體。一是化主不同。《涅槃經》、《般若經》是釋迦牟尼佛所說，七處八會是盧舍那佛所說。盧舍那佛是本佛，釋迦牟尼佛是跡佛，所以《菩薩戒經》說：『我今盧舍那方坐蓮華臺，周匝千華上示現千釋迦。』所以盧舍那佛是本，釋迦牟尼佛是跡。如果這樣，本跡不同，怎麼能說是一體呢？二是化處不同。釋迦牟尼佛在娑婆世界，盧舍那佛在蓮花藏世界。娑婆世界是雜惡國土，蓮花藏世界是純凈土。兩個地方不同，怎麼能說是一體呢？而且娑婆世界動的時候是六種震動，蓮花藏世界動的時候是十八種震動。而且臺和葉兩個地方也不同，盧舍那佛在蓮花臺，釋迦牟尼佛在蓮花葉。兩個地方如此不同，怎麼能說是一體呢？三是教門不同。釋迦牟尼佛雜說三乘和一乘，雜說半教和滿教，雜說但教和不但教。盧舍那佛純說一乘，純說滿教，純說不但教。釋迦牟尼佛應和雜緣而說雜教，應和三一之緣而說三一教，乃至應和但不但之緣而說但不但教。盧舍那佛只應和一乘之緣而說一乘教，乃至應和滿不但之緣而說滿不但教。如果這樣，就不能說是一體啊。四是徒眾不同。釋迦牟尼佛具有三乘的徒眾。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is a sudden teaching, (it's like) remotely speaking of the people and lotuses of that land (referring to the Western Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss), similar to how Shakyamuni Buddha remotely speaks of the people and lotuses of the Western Pure Land in the Amitabha Sutra. Now, in this land, there are three grades of rebirth, and this sutra is also like that. This is Shakyamuni Buddha remotely speaking of the pure people and lotuses of the Lotus Treasury World. Secondly, the Northern scholars explain that there are three Buddhas there: one Dharma body Buddha, two Reward body Buddha, and three Manifestation body Buddha. The Avatamsaka Sutra is spoken by the Reward body Buddha, while the Nirvana Sutra, Prajna Sutra, etc., are spoken by the Manifestation body Buddha. The Dharma body Buddha does not speak. They judge that Vairocana Buddha (Lushan na fo) is the Reward body Buddha, and Shakyamuni Buddha (Shijia mouni fo) is the Manifestation body Buddha. Vairocana Buddha is the Reward body of Shakyamuni Buddha, and Shakyamuni Buddha is the Manifestation body of Vairocana Buddha. The Avatamsaka Sutra is spoken by Vairocana Buddha. This is the explanation of the scholars from both the North and the South.
Now, let's refute the explanations of these two scholars, stating in detail the views of the Great Master (referring to Zhiyi, the founder of the Tiantai school). First, refute the Southern scholar's explanation that Shakyamuni Buddha and Vairocana Buddha are not one and the same. Now, we still use the previous four differences to challenge, so they cannot be said to be one. First, the lords of transformation are different. The Nirvana Sutra and Prajna Sutra are spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha, while the seven locations and eight assemblies are spoken by Vairocana Buddha. Vairocana Buddha is the original Buddha, and Shakyamuni Buddha is the trace Buddha, so the Bodhisattva Precept Sutra says: 'I, Vairocana (Lushan na), am now sitting on a lotus platform, manifesting a thousand Shakyamunis on a thousand surrounding lotuses.' Therefore, Vairocana Buddha is the original, and Shakyamuni Buddha is the trace. If this is the case, the original and the trace are different, how can they be said to be one? Second, the places of transformation are different. Shakyamuni Buddha is in the Saha world, and Vairocana Buddha is in the Lotus Treasury World. The Saha world is a world of mixed evils, and the Lotus Treasury World is a pure land. The two places are different, how can they be said to be one? Moreover, when the Saha world moves, there are six kinds of tremors, and when the Lotus Treasury World moves, there are eighteen kinds of tremors. Moreover, the platform and the leaf are also two different places. Vairocana Buddha is on the lotus platform, and Shakyamuni Buddha is on the lotus leaf. The two places are so different, how can they be said to be one? Third, the teachings are different. Shakyamuni Buddha speaks mixedly of the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle, speaks mixedly of the provisional and the complete teachings, and speaks mixedly of the direct and the indirect teachings. Vairocana Buddha speaks purely of the One Vehicle, speaks purely of the complete teaching, and speaks purely of the indirect teaching. Shakyamuni Buddha speaks mixed teachings in response to mixed conditions, speaks the Three-One teaching in response to the conditions of the Three and One, and even speaks the direct and indirect teachings in response to the conditions of the direct and indirect. Vairocana Buddha only speaks the One Vehicle teaching in response to the conditions of the One Vehicle, and even speaks the complete and indirect teaching in response to the conditions of the complete and indirect. If this is the case, they cannot be said to be one. Fourth, the disciples are different. Shakyamuni Buddha has disciples of the three vehicles.
一雜緣但不但緣。如千二百聲聞彌勒等菩薩則是雜緣也。舍那唯一大緣滿緣。普賢菩薩等則是大緣。教既其異緣亦不同。緣既不同故。二佛不得為一。將此四條異彈南人解二佛不得是一也。次更前難何者彼云。釋迦遙說蓮華藏國。如釋迦在此說無量壽國。然此解不知是誰解。山中師及興皇師並述此釋實不成釋。好體不煩須難。何者汝既云舍那即釋迦。何得言釋迦遙說耶。但別有難。今更述之。何者釋迦說無量壽凡有二種經。一者無量壽觀經。二者無量壽經。無量壽觀經為世王母韋提希夫人說。夫人在獄。令其觀佛三昧。若是無量壽經為比丘十六正士說彼國土凈人華。令此間五痛五燒三輩往生。若爾說無量壽國既有所為緣。釋迦遙說蓮華藏國。為何物緣。不見有解故不應言是遙說。好體不須難。大師既有斯言略而述了。此即是借北人異彈南人一竟。
次借南人一彈北人異亦有兩難。彼云。如此二佛有此四殊豈得為一。所以北講華嚴。勝於南土。今次難之還用前四條。難一者。化主不得異。凡舉三處文。難一者此經名號品是第二會。文殊菩薩說文云。或名盧舍那。或名釋迦文。或名悉達多。既稱或名何得言異。若使或名舍那或名釋迦。而言異。或名眼或名目。亦應異。反詰云。第二像法決疑經云。或有見我為舍那。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一雜緣但不但緣（雜緣，指不唯一但也不完全沒有因緣）。例如，一千二百聲聞（Śrāvakā，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的弟子）、彌勒（Maitreya）等菩薩（Bodhisattva，為救度眾生而發菩提心者）就是雜緣。舍那（Vairocana，光明遍照）是唯一的大緣、圓滿的因緣。普賢菩薩（Samantabhadra）等則是大緣。教義既然不同，因緣也不同。因緣既然不同，所以二佛（指盧舍那佛和釋迦牟尼佛）不能視為同一。用這四條不同之處來反駁南方人關於二佛不能是同一的觀點。接下來進一步質問，他們說釋迦（Śākyamuni）遙遠地宣說蓮華藏世界（Lotus Treasury World）。就像釋迦在此宣說無量壽國（Amitābha's Pure Land）一樣。然而這種解釋不知道是誰的解釋。山中的法師和興皇法師都沿用了這種解釋，但實際上不成解釋。好的論點不需要多餘的詰難。既然你們說舍那即是釋迦，為何又說釋迦遙遠地宣說呢？但有其他的詰難。現在進一步闡述，釋迦宣說無量壽國有兩種經。一是《無量壽觀經》（Contemplation Sutra of Immeasurable Life），二是《無量壽經》（Immeasurable Life Sutra）。《無量壽觀經》是為世間的王后韋提希夫人（Vaidehi）所說。夫人在監獄中，讓他觀佛三昧（Buddha Samadhi，通過冥想進入的專注狀態）。如果是《無量壽經》，則是為比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）和十六正士宣說彼國土的清凈和蓮花，使此間的五痛五燒（五種痛苦和五種煩惱）的三輩（三種根器的人）能夠往生。如果這樣，宣說無量壽國是有所為的因緣。釋迦遙遠地宣說蓮華藏世界，是爲了什麼因緣呢？沒有看到有解釋，所以不應該說是遙遠地宣說。好的論點不需要多餘的詰難。大師既然有這樣的說法，就簡略地敘述完畢。這就是借用北方人的不同之處來反駁南方人的一種方式的結束。 接下來借用南方人的一種觀點來反駁北方人的不同之處，也有兩點詰難。他們說，如此二佛有這四種不同之處，怎麼能視為同一呢？所以北方講華嚴（Avataṃsaka Sūtra），勝過南方。現在接下來反駁他們，還是用前面的四條。第一條是，化主（教化的主導者）不能不同。凡是舉出三處經文。第一條是，此經《名號品》是第二會。文殊菩薩（Mañjuśrī）說文云：『或者名為盧舍那，或者名為釋迦文，或者名為悉達多（Siddhartha）。』既然稱為『或者名』，怎麼能說是不同呢？如果說『或者名舍那，或者名釋迦』，就說是不同，那麼『或者名眼，或者名目』，也應該說是不同了。反問說，《第二像法決疑經》云：『或者有人見我為舍那。』
【English Translation】 English version One is a mixed cause, but not only a cause (mixed cause refers to a cause that is not unique but also not completely without conditions). For example, the one thousand two hundred Śrāvakās (disciples who attained enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings), Maitreya (the future Buddha), and other Bodhisattvas (beings who aspire to save all sentient beings) are mixed causes. Vairocana (the Illuminator) is the unique great cause, the complete cause. Samantabhadra and other Bodhisattvas are great causes. Since the teachings are different, the causes are also different. Since the causes are different, the two Buddhas (referring to Vairocana Buddha and Śākyamuni Buddha) cannot be considered the same. Use these four differences to refute the Southerners' view that the two Buddhas cannot be the same. Next, further question, they say that Śākyamuni remotely proclaims the Lotus Treasury World. Just like Śākyamuni proclaims Amitābha's Pure Land here. However, this explanation is not known whose explanation it is. The masters in the mountains and Master Xinghuang have all followed this explanation, but it is actually not an explanation. Good arguments do not need redundant questions. Since you say that Vairocana is Śākyamuni, why do you say that Śākyamuni proclaims remotely? But there are other questions. Now further elaborate, Śākyamuni speaks of Amitābha's Pure Land in two kinds of sutras. One is the Contemplation Sutra of Immeasurable Life, and the other is the Immeasurable Life Sutra. The Contemplation Sutra of Immeasurable Life was spoken for Queen Vaidehi of the world. The lady was in prison, asking her to contemplate the Buddha Samadhi (a state of concentration entered through meditation). If it is the Immeasurable Life Sutra, it is spoken for the Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks) and the sixteen righteous men, proclaiming the purity and lotus flowers of that land, so that the three grades (three types of people) of the five pains and five burns (five kinds of suffering and five kinds of afflictions) here can be reborn there. If so, proclaiming Amitābha's Pure Land has a purpose. Śākyamuni remotely proclaims the Lotus Treasury World, for what cause? No explanation has been seen, so it should not be said to be a remote proclamation. Good arguments do not need redundant questions. Since the master has such a statement, it is briefly described. This is the end of borrowing the differences of the Northerners to refute the Southerners. Next, borrowing a view from the Southerners to refute the differences of the Northerners, there are also two points of questioning. They say, how can these two Buddhas with these four differences be regarded as the same? Therefore, the North's teaching of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is superior to the South. Now, next, refute them, still using the previous four points. The first point is that the teaching master cannot be different. All cite three places in the scriptures. The first point is that this sutra's 'Chapter on Names' is the second assembly. Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva said in the text: 'Or named Vairocana, or named Śākyamuni, or named Siddhartha.' Since it is called 'or named', how can it be said to be different? If it is said that 'or named Vairocana, or named Śākyamuni', it is said to be different, then 'or named eye, or named pupil', it should also be said to be different. Questioning back, the 'Second Sutra on Resolving Doubts about the Semblance Dharma' says: 'Or someone sees me as Vairocana.'
或有見釋迦。此是緣見不同佛為何異。如有見佛身三尺。或有見佛身無邊。如瞿師羅長者見佛短。大梵天王不見佛頂。只是一佛緣見異耳。若緣見舍那釋迦則言二佛異者。緣見長短亦應為異。反詰云。若爾故不應言異也。次第三此經第六會在他化自在宮說十地法門。釋迦放眉間白毫相光加金剛藏說。既是釋迦勸金剛藏說十地。何得言是舍那說。若是舍那說應舍那放光勸。而今是釋迦放勸。故不應言二佛調然迥異也。二者處所不得為異。說此經在摩竭提國寂滅道場。摩竭提還是摩伽陀。此乃是梵音之切緩。何關兩所有異。若爾還是娑婆國說此經也。何以得知。涅槃經云。並及摩竭提阿阇世大王不久須臾至。阿阇世王即是摩伽陀國主。以此而言故知二處不異也。三者教門不得異。何者釋迦說雜教。釋迦說純凈教。釋迦說半滿教。釋迦說純滿教。若為是釋迦說純凈教耶。解云。釋迦勸金剛藏說十地法門。是此經之中。故知釋迦說純凈大教也。四者徒眾亦不異。第八會具列大小乘眾。列五百聲聞身子須菩提等。若爾二佛徒眾亦不異。若使言舍那唯為一大緣則應唯列一大乘眾。何則具列大小眾。為則具大小緣。又列既雜列。緣即是雜緣。教是雜教。又釋迦大緣文殊彌勒等。更無別文殊彌勒。何異舍那。小緣身子須菩提等。無別身
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 或者有人見到釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）。這是否因為因緣所見不同，佛才會有差異呢？有人見到佛身三尺高，也有人見到佛身無邊無際。例如瞿師羅長者（Ghosila）見到佛身矮小，大梵天王（Mahabrahma）看不見佛的頭頂。這只是因為因緣所見不同罷了。如果因為因緣所見而認為盧舍那佛（Vairocana Buddha）和釋迦牟尼佛是不同的兩尊佛，那麼因為因緣所見的身形高矮也應該被認為是不同的佛了。反問說，如果這樣，就不應該說他們是不同的。其次，此經的第六次集會在他化自在天宮（Paranirmita-vasavartin）宣說十地法門（Ten Bhumis）。釋迦牟尼佛從眉間放出白毫相光（urna），加持金剛藏菩薩（Vajragarbha）宣說。既然是釋迦牟尼佛勸金剛藏菩薩宣說十地，怎麼能說是盧舍那佛說的呢？如果是盧舍那佛說的，應該是盧舍那佛放光勸說。而現在是釋迦牟尼佛放光勸說，所以不應該說這兩尊佛截然不同。第二，處所不能被認為是不同的。此經是在摩揭陀國（Magadha）的寂滅道場（Bodhimanda）宣說的。摩揭提（Magadhi）還是摩伽陀（Magadha），這只是梵語發音的快慢不同。這與兩個不同的地方有什麼關係呢？如果這樣，還是在娑婆世界（Saha world）宣說的此經。怎麼知道的呢？《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中說，『並及摩揭提阿阇世大王（Ajatasatru）不久須臾至』。阿阇世王就是摩伽陀國的國王。因此可知兩個地方不是不同的。第三，教門不能是不同的。為什麼呢？釋迦牟尼佛說雜教，釋迦牟尼佛說純凈教，釋迦牟尼佛說半滿教，釋迦牟尼佛說純滿教。如何理解釋迦牟尼佛說純凈教呢？解釋說，釋迦牟尼佛勸金剛藏菩薩宣說十地法門，就在這部經中。因此可知釋迦牟尼佛說的是純凈大教。第四，徒眾也不是不同的。第八次集會詳細列出了大乘和小乘的聽眾，列出了五百聲聞（Sravaka），如舍利弗（Sariputra）、須菩提（Subhuti）等。如果這樣，兩尊佛的徒眾也不是不同的。如果說盧舍那佛只為一大因緣，那麼應該只列出大乘的聽眾。為什麼既列出了大乘的聽眾，又列出了小乘的聽眾呢？因為既有大乘的因緣，也有小乘的因緣。既然列出的是混雜的聽眾，那麼因緣就是混雜的因緣，教法就是混雜的教法。而且釋迦牟尼佛的大因緣是文殊菩薩（Manjusri）、彌勒菩薩（Maitreya）等，沒有另外的文殊菩薩、彌勒菩薩不同於盧舍那佛。小因緣是舍利弗、須菩提等，沒有另外的舍利弗
【English Translation】 English version: Or some may see Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha). Is it because the perceived causes and conditions are different that the Buddhas appear different? Some see the Buddha's body as three feet tall, while others see the Buddha's body as boundless. For example, Elder Ghosila (Ghosila) saw the Buddha's body as short, and Great Brahma King (Mahabrahma) could not see the top of the Buddha's head. This is simply because the perceived causes and conditions are different. If, because of the perceived causes and conditions, it is thought that Vairocana Buddha (Vairocana Buddha) and Sakyamuni Buddha are two different Buddhas, then the height of the body perceived through different causes and conditions should also be considered different Buddhas. It is retorted, 'If so, then it should not be said that they are different.' Secondly, the sixth assembly of this sutra took place in the Paranirmita-vasavartin heaven, expounding the Ten Bhumis (Ten Bhumis). Sakyamuni Buddha emitted a white hair-mark light (urna) from between his eyebrows, blessing Vajragarbha Bodhisattva (Vajragarbha) to expound. Since it was Sakyamuni Buddha who encouraged Vajragarbha Bodhisattva to expound the Ten Bhumis, how can it be said that it was Vairocana Buddha who spoke? If it was Vairocana Buddha who spoke, it should have been Vairocana Buddha who emitted light to encourage. But now it is Sakyamuni Buddha who emits light to encourage, so it should not be said that these two Buddhas are completely different. Secondly, the location cannot be considered different. This sutra was expounded in the Bodhimanda (Bodhimanda) of Magadha (Magadha). Magadhi is still Magadha, which is just a difference in the speed of pronunciation in Sanskrit. What does this have to do with two different places? If so, this sutra was still expounded in the Saha world (Saha world). How do we know this? The Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says, 'And King Ajatasatru (Ajatasatru) of Magadha will arrive shortly.' King Ajatasatru is the ruler of Magadha. Therefore, it is known that the two places are not different. Thirdly, the teachings cannot be different. Why? Sakyamuni Buddha taught mixed teachings, Sakyamuni Buddha taught pure teachings, Sakyamuni Buddha taught half-full teachings, and Sakyamuni Buddha taught purely full teachings. How do we understand that Sakyamuni Buddha taught pure teachings? It is explained that Sakyamuni Buddha encouraged Vajragarbha Bodhisattva to expound the Ten Bhumis, which is in this sutra. Therefore, it is known that Sakyamuni Buddha taught the pure and great teachings. Fourthly, the assembly is also not different. The eighth assembly lists in detail the listeners of the Mahayana and Hinayana, listing five hundred Sravakas (Sravaka), such as Sariputra (Sariputra), Subhuti (Subhuti), etc. If so, the assemblies of the two Buddhas are also not different. If it is said that Vairocana Buddha is only for one great cause, then only the listeners of the Mahayana should be listed. Why are both the listeners of the Mahayana and the listeners of the Hinayana listed? Because there are both Mahayana causes and Hinayana causes. Since the listeners listed are mixed, then the causes are mixed causes, and the teachings are mixed teachings. Moreover, the great causes of Sakyamuni Buddha are Manjusri Bodhisattva (Manjusri), Maitreya Bodhisattva (Maitreya), etc. There are no other Manjusri Bodhisattvas or Maitreya Bodhisattvas different from Vairocana Buddha. The small causes are Sariputra, Subhuti, etc. There is no other Sariputra
子須菩提等。若使如此故知。二佛徒眾亦復不異。四種既其不異。何得釋兩佛調然有殊。
第二別難者。彼云。舍那是報佛。釋迦是化佛。舍那是釋迦之報。釋迦為舍那之化。師難云。此則回互二佛。翻覆世界。混亂教門。言回互二佛者。謂舍那自有報應。舍那自有本跡。釋迦亦自有報應。自為本跡。何得指彼佛為此報。此佛為彼化。彼佛為此本。此佛為彼跡。若指彼佛為此報。此佛為彼化。即有二佛回互之失。言翻覆世界者。釋迦自出華葉上。舍那自在華臺上。二世界各自不同。何得指彼佛為此報。此佛為彼化耶。言混亂教門者。釋迦赴大小緣說大小教。舍那為大緣說大教不同。何得以舍那為釋迦本。釋迦為舍那跡耶。前開借異以破一。此開就異以彈異。大而為言。前借北異彈南一。今借南一破北異。此則互借兩家。彈彼二解竟。
既斥南北一異兩家皆非。彼即反問。汝既彈一異皆非。汝作若為別釋耶。建初法師曾以此問興皇一大學士云。舍那釋迦為一為異耶。答云。舍那釋迦釋迦舍那。建初即云。我已解。若為解。既云舍那釋迦釋迦舍那。豈是一豈是異。作此一答彼即便解也。然何但非一異四句皆非。何者釋迦是舍那。釋迦豈得是異。乃至非異亦爾。又釋迦舍那豈得是一。釋迦舍那豈得是異。釋迦舍
那豈得是亦一亦異非一非異耶。雖非一異四句欲言一異四句亦不失因緣四句。何者釋迦舍那豈一。不一而不失一。釋迦舍那豈是異。不異而不失異。余兩句亦爾。故非四句而不失四句。因緣無礙也。非一異四句而一異四句。並有其文義。何者文云。或名釋迦。或名舍那。故不得其異。而臺葉本跡不同故。不得為一。或為緣見是釋迦。或有緣見是舍那。故得是亦一亦異。或有緣見非是釋迦非是舍那。故得是非一非異。所以因緣無礙。無往不得也。然要須彈他四句乃得明今因緣四句。何者他語是亦須彈語非故。宜須彈語既是何須彈語耶。解云。語雖是而不得因緣無礙意。既其失意不成語故。若是若非皆悉須彈。以彈彼凈。然後始得明今因緣無礙也。用此語者為對他家了非是。今時明因緣義但為對彼定義。南方定云一。北方定異。為破彼定一定異明今因緣一異。此語既答前之一異問也。
次更別明一異四句。或成前意。此四句為異從來四句。言四句者。一則二佛說一教。二則一佛說二教。三則一佛說一教。四則二佛說二教。二佛說一教者。舍那釋迦二佛。舍那是本。釋迦是跡。本跡臺葉不同故。是二佛一教者。涅槃華嚴一教。涅槃即華嚴。華嚴即是涅槃。故是一教也。一佛二教者。一佛即舍那釋迦一佛。舍那即釋迦。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 那怎麼能說是既一又異，又非一非異呢？雖然不是一異四句，但如果想說一異四句，也不會失去因緣四句的意義。為什麼呢？釋迦（Śākyamuni，能仁寂默）和盧舍那（Locana，光明遍照）難道是一嗎？不是一，但又不失其一的性質。釋迦和盧舍那難道是異嗎？不是異，但又不失其異的性質。其餘兩句也是如此。所以，雖然不是四句，但又不失去四句的意義，因為因緣是無礙的。不是一異四句，但又包含一異四句，這其中有其文義。為什麼這麼說呢？經文說：『或者名為釋迦，或者名為盧舍那。』所以不能說他們是異。但臺（蓮臺）和葉（應化之身）的本跡不同，所以不能說他們是一。或者因為因緣而見到的是釋迦，或者因為因緣而見到的是盧舍那，所以可以說是既一又異。或者因為因緣而見到的既不是釋迦也不是盧舍那，所以可以說成是非一非異。因此，因緣是無礙的，沒有什麼是不能成立的。然而，必須要駁斥他人的四句，才能明白現在的因緣四句。為什麼呢？因為他人所說的『是』，也需要駁斥，他人所說的『非』，也需要駁斥。既然是『是』，為什麼還要駁斥呢？解釋說：雖然說是『是』，但沒有領會因緣無礙的意義。既然失去了意義，就不能算是正確的說法。所以，無論是『是』還是『非』，都需要駁斥，通過駁斥他們，使他們清凈，然後才能明白現在的因緣無礙的道理。使用這種說法，是爲了讓對方明白他們所說的『非』是不正確的。現在闡明因緣的意義，只是爲了針對他們所下的定義。南方認為是一，北方認為是異，爲了破除他們所下的『一定』和『定異』的定義，從而闡明現在的因緣一異。這段話既回答了前面關於一異的提問。
接下來，進一步分別闡明一異四句，或者可以成就前面的意思。這四句與之前的四句不同。所說的四句是：一是二佛說一教，二是 一佛說二教，三是 一佛說一教，四是 二佛說二教。二佛說一教，指的是盧舍那和釋迦二佛。盧舍那是本，釋迦是跡。本跡臺葉不同，所以是二佛。一教指的是《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）和《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）是一教。《涅槃經》就是《華嚴經》，《華嚴經》就是《涅槃經》，所以是一教。一佛二教，指的是一佛即盧舍那和釋迦一佛，盧舍那即釋迦。
【English Translation】 English version: How can it be said to be both one and different, and neither one nor different? Although it is not the four phrases of 'one and different,' if one wants to speak of the four phrases of 'one and different,' it does not lose the meaning of the four phrases of dependent origination (因緣, hetu-pratyaya). Why? Are Śākyamuni (釋迦, the Sage of the Śākya clan) and Locana (舍那, the Illuminator) one? Not one, but without losing the nature of one. Are Śākyamuni and Locana different? Not different, but without losing the nature of different. The remaining two phrases are also like this. Therefore, although it is not four phrases, it does not lose the meaning of four phrases, because dependent origination is unobstructed. It is not the four phrases of 'one and different,' but it contains the four phrases of 'one and different,' and there is textual meaning in it. Why is it said so? The scripture says: 'Sometimes named Śākyamuni, sometimes named Locana.' Therefore, one cannot say they are different. But the base (臺, platform) and the branches (葉, leaves) of the original trace are different, so one cannot say they are one. Or, because of dependent origination, what is seen is Śākyamuni, or because of dependent origination, what is seen is Locana, so it can be said to be both one and different. Or, because of dependent origination, what is seen is neither Śākyamuni nor Locana, so it can be said to be neither one nor different. Therefore, dependent origination is unobstructed, and nothing cannot be established. However, one must refute the four phrases of others in order to understand the current four phrases of dependent origination. Why? Because the 'is' spoken by others also needs to be refuted, and the 'is not' spoken by others also needs to be refuted. Since it is 'is,' why still refute it? The explanation is: although it is said to be 'is,' the meaning of unobstructed dependent origination is not understood. Since the meaning is lost, it cannot be considered a correct statement. Therefore, whether it is 'is' or 'is not,' it needs to be refuted. By refuting them, making them pure, then one can understand the current principle of unobstructed dependent origination. Using this statement is to make the other party understand that their 'is not' is incorrect. Now, clarifying the meaning of dependent origination is only to target the definitions they have made. The South considers it one, and the North considers it different. In order to break their definitions of 'fixed one' and 'fixed difference,' thereby clarifying the current 'one and different' of dependent origination. This passage answers the previous question about 'one and different.'
Next, further clarify the four phrases of 'one and different,' or it can accomplish the previous meaning. These four phrases are different from the previous four phrases. The four phrases that are spoken of are: first, two Buddhas preach one teaching; second, one Buddha preaches two teachings; third, one Buddha preaches one teaching; fourth, two Buddhas preach two teachings. Two Buddhas preaching one teaching refers to the two Buddhas Locana and Śākyamuni. Locana is the original, and Śākyamuni is the trace. The original trace, base and branches are different, so they are two Buddhas. One teaching refers to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (涅槃經) and the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經) being one teaching. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra is the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, so it is one teaching. One Buddha preaching two teachings refers to one Buddha, namely Locana and Śākyamuni, one Buddha. Locana is Śākyamuni.
釋迦即舍那。本即是跡。跡即本故。言本跡雖殊不思議一故。是一佛言二教者。涅槃華嚴二故云二教也。二佛二教者。舍那釋迦二佛。涅槃華嚴二故。一佛一教者。釋迦即舍那。涅槃即華嚴也。此是何物四句。解云。合離四句。二佛一教此則離人合教。離舍那釋迦為二。合涅槃華嚴為一。一佛二教者。即合人離教。合釋迦舍那為一佛。離涅槃華嚴為二教。二佛二教離人離教。一佛一教合人合教。斯四句作如此用也。所以用四句者欲答前問。前問云。二佛為一為異。今望此四句答。自有二佛說一教。自有一佛說二教。二佛說一教。舍那說華嚴即是說涅槃。釋迦說涅槃即是說華嚴。一佛二教者。釋迦說涅槃即是舍那佛說。舍那佛說華嚴即是釋迦佛說。餘二句可知。為是故不同他釋也。前作舍那釋迦釋迦舍那語。此為對他家故作此說。然此語復別有義。何者為欲讀經。經云。舍那在臺上。釋迦在葉上。此臺是葉臺。此葉是臺葉。臺葉豈是一豈是異。不得是一不得是異。詺作何物耶。詺作臺葉。葉臺也。臺葉既爾。舍那釋迦亦爾。問。臺葉葉臺成華。舍那釋迦成一佛不。解云。得。難。得稱是何物佛。臺葉成一華華名蓮華。舍那釋迦成一佛佛名何物。解云。臺葉成一蓮華。舍那釋迦為一應佛。臺葉成蓮華。蓮華共一根。舍那釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 釋迦（Śākyamuni）即是毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana）。根本即是示現的形跡，形跡即是根本。所以說，根本和形跡雖然不同，但其不可思議的本體是一致的。『一佛而言二教』是指《涅槃經》和《華嚴經》這二者，所以說是二教。『二佛二教』是指毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛這兩尊佛，以及《涅槃經》和《華嚴經》這二教。『一佛一教』是指釋迦牟尼佛即是毗盧遮那佛，《涅槃經》即是《華嚴經》。 這是何物的四句分別解釋為：合、離四句。『二佛一教』，這是離人合教，將毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛視為二，而將《涅槃經》和《華嚴經》合為一。『一佛二教』，即合人離教，將釋迦牟尼佛和毗盧遮那佛合為一佛，而將《涅槃經》和《華嚴經》視為二教。『二佛二教』是離人離教，『一佛一教』是合人合教。這四句可以這樣理解和運用。 之所以用四句，是爲了回答前面的問題。前面問：『二佛是一還是異？』現在用這四句來回答。既有二佛說一教的情況，也有一佛說二教的情況。二佛說一教，是說毗盧遮那佛說《華嚴經》也就是說了《涅槃經》，釋迦牟尼佛說《涅槃經》也就是說了《華嚴經》。一佛說二教，是說釋迦牟尼佛說《涅槃經》也就是毗盧遮那佛說的，毗盧遮那佛說《華嚴經》也就是釋迦牟尼佛說的。其餘兩句可以依此類推。因此，我的解釋與他人不同。 前面說『毗盧遮那佛釋迦牟尼佛，釋迦牟尼佛毗盧遮那佛』，這是爲了駁斥其他人的觀點而這樣說的。然而，這句話還有別的含義。什麼含義呢？爲了讀經。經中說：『毗盧遮那佛在臺上，釋迦牟尼佛在葉上。』這個臺是葉臺，這個葉是臺葉。臺葉是一還是異呢？既不能說是一，也不能說是異。應該稱作什麼呢？稱作臺葉、葉臺。臺葉既然如此，毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛也是如此。 問：臺葉、葉臺形成華。那麼，毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛能成一佛嗎？答：可以。問：可以稱作什麼佛呢？臺葉成一華，華名叫蓮華。毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛成一佛，佛名叫什麼呢？答：臺葉成一蓮華，毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛成一應化身佛。臺葉成蓮華，蓮華共用一個根，毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛...
【English Translation】 English version: Śākyamuni (Śākyamuni) is Vairocana (Vairocana). The root is the manifested trace, and the trace is the root. Therefore, although the root and the trace are different, their inconceivable essence is the same. 'One Buddha speaking two teachings' refers to the two, the Nirvana Sutra and the Avatamsaka Sutra, hence the two teachings. 'Two Buddhas and two teachings' refers to the two Buddhas, Vairocana and Śākyamuni, and the two teachings, the Nirvana Sutra and the Avatamsaka Sutra. 'One Buddha and one teaching' means that Śākyamuni is Vairocana, and the Nirvana Sutra is the Avatamsaka Sutra. These four phrases of 'what is this' are explained as: combination and separation. 'Two Buddhas, one teaching' is separating the persons and combining the teachings, considering Vairocana and Śākyamuni as two, while combining the Nirvana Sutra and the Avatamsaka Sutra into one. 'One Buddha, two teachings' is combining the persons and separating the teachings, combining Śākyamuni and Vairocana into one Buddha, while considering the Nirvana Sutra and the Avatamsaka Sutra as two teachings. 'Two Buddhas, two teachings' is separating both persons and teachings, and 'one Buddha, one teaching' is combining both persons and teachings. These four phrases can be understood and applied in this way. The reason for using the four phrases is to answer the previous question. The previous question was: 'Are the two Buddhas one or different?' Now, these four phrases are used to answer. There are cases where two Buddhas speak one teaching, and there are cases where one Buddha speaks two teachings. Two Buddhas speaking one teaching means that Vairocana speaking the Avatamsaka Sutra is also speaking the Nirvana Sutra, and Śākyamuni speaking the Nirvana Sutra is also speaking the Avatamsaka Sutra. One Buddha speaking two teachings means that Śākyamuni speaking the Nirvana Sutra is also spoken by Vairocana, and Vairocana speaking the Avatamsaka Sutra is also spoken by Śākyamuni. The remaining two phrases can be inferred accordingly. Therefore, my explanation is different from others'. Earlier, it was said 'Vairocana Śākyamuni, Śākyamuni Vairocana,' which was said to refute the views of others. However, this statement has another meaning. What meaning? For the sake of reading the sutra. The sutra says: 'Vairocana is on the platform, Śākyamuni is on the leaf.' This platform is a leaf-platform, and this leaf is a platform-leaf. Is the platform-leaf one or different? It cannot be said to be one, nor can it be said to be different. What should it be called? It should be called a platform-leaf, a leaf-platform. Since the platform-leaf is like this, so are Vairocana and Śākyamuni. Question: The platform-leaf, leaf-platform forms a flower. Then, can Vairocana and Śākyamuni become one Buddha? Answer: Yes. Question: What kind of Buddha can it be called? The platform-leaf becomes one flower, and the flower is called a lotus flower. Vairocana and Śākyamuni become one Buddha, what is the Buddha called? Answer: The platform-leaf becomes a lotus flower, and Vairocana and Śākyamuni become one Nirmāṇakāya Buddha (應佛). The platform-leaf becomes a lotus flower, and the lotus flower shares one root, Vairocana and Śākyamuni...
迦成一應。應佛同一本。本即是法身佛故。經云。十方諸如來同共一法身界故。二佛同一本。臺葉共一根也。為是兩義故。云舍那釋迦釋迦舍那也。
次明二佛相開不相開義。言相開不相開者。二佛異。二土異。二教門。二徒眾。言二佛異者。舍那釋迦各開本跡。舍那開本跡者。舍那以法身為本。只舍那為跡。釋迦開本跡亦爾。以法身為本。只釋迦為跡。釋迦法身為本。釋迦為跡。然此跡中更開本跡。釋迦是跡中本。此身更起他佛。即跡中跡。如大經受純陀及大眾供。受純陀供跡中本身。受大眾供即跡中跡。此一條既爾。類余亦然。釋迦既有兩重本跡。舍那亦有此兩重本跡。法身為本。舍那為跡。然此跡中更開本跡。不起寂滅道場即跡中本。現身六天宮殿即跡中跡。故二佛有兩重本跡。斯則二佛相開不相開義。恒須因緣語不得單道也。
次明不相開相開者。法身為本。舍那為跡。好體只應有一重本跡。何者十方三世佛出世。唯為一大事因緣故出世。如法華為大事故出。謂開佛知見等。又如大品云。般若為大事故起。不可思議事故起。為無等等事故起。今舍那出世唯為一大事故出。唯為大根性者說一大因緣。故唯應有此本跡。十方三世諸佛正意只應如此。而今于跡中更開本跡者。但穢土中眾生。罪重鈍根不
【現代漢語翻譯】 迦葉尊者贊同一應之說，應化之佛與法身之佛本源相同，因為本源即是法身佛。正如《涅槃經》所說：『十方諸如來共同擁有一個法身界』。兩佛本源相同，如同臺葉共用一個根。爲了說明這兩種含義，所以說毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana，光明遍照）即是釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni，能仁寂默），釋迦牟尼佛即是毗盧遮那佛。
接下來闡明兩佛相開與不相開的含義。所謂相開與不相開，是指兩佛不同，兩土不同，兩教門不同，兩徒眾不同。兩佛不同，是指毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛各自開顯本和跡。毗盧遮那佛開顯本跡，是以法身為本，只以毗盧遮那佛為跡。釋迦牟尼佛開顯本跡也是如此，以法身為本，只以釋迦牟尼佛為跡。釋迦牟尼佛以法身為本，以釋迦牟尼佛為跡。然而，此跡中又再開本跡，釋迦牟尼佛是跡中的本，此身又顯現其他佛，即是跡中的跡。例如《大般涅槃經》中接受純陀（Cunda，人名）以及大眾的供養，接受純陀供養是跡中的本身，接受大眾供養即是跡中的跡。既然這一條是這樣，其餘的也可以類推。釋迦牟尼佛既然有兩重本跡，毗盧遮那佛也有這兩重本跡。以法身為本，以毗盧遮那佛為跡。然而，此跡中又再開本跡，不起于寂滅道場即是跡中的本，現身於六慾天宮殿即是跡中的跡。所以兩佛有兩重本跡。這便是兩佛相開與不相開的含義，必須根據因緣來說，不能單獨地說。
接下來闡明不相開與相開。以法身為本，以毗盧遮那佛為跡，從本體上來說，應該只有一重本跡。為什麼呢？因為十方三世諸佛出世，都是爲了一個重大因緣而出世。如《法華經》所說，爲了大事故而出世，即爲了開佛知見等。又如《大品般若經》所說，般若爲了大事故而生起，爲了不可思議事故而生起，爲了無等等事故而生起。現在毗盧遮那佛出世，也是爲了一個重大事故而出世，只為大根性的人說一大因緣，所以只應有此本跡。十方三世諸佛的正意應該只是如此。而現在於跡中又再開本跡，只是因為穢土中的眾生，罪業深重，根性遲鈍。
【English Translation】 Kasyapa (迦成) agreed with this statement. The manifested Buddha and the Dharma-body Buddha (法身佛) share the same origin, because the origin is the Dharma-body Buddha. As the Nirvana Sutra (經) says: 'All Tathagatas (如來) in the ten directions share one Dharma-body realm.' The two Buddhas share the same origin, like leaves on the same platform sharing one root. To explain these two meanings, it is said that Vairocana (舍那,光明遍照) is Sakyamuni (釋迦,能仁寂默), and Sakyamuni is Vairocana.
Next, we clarify the meaning of the two Buddhas being mutually open and not mutually open. The so-called mutually open and not mutually open means that the two Buddhas are different, the two lands are different, the two teachings are different, and the two assemblies are different. The two Buddhas are different in that Vairocana and Sakyamuni each reveal their origin and traces. Vairocana reveals his origin and traces by taking the Dharma-body as the origin and only Vairocana as the trace. Sakyamuni also reveals his origin and traces in the same way, taking the Dharma-body as the origin and only Sakyamuni as the trace. Sakyamuni takes the Dharma-body as the origin and Sakyamuni as the trace. However, within this trace, the origin and traces are further revealed. Sakyamuni is the origin within the trace, and this body manifests other Buddhas, which are the traces within the trace. For example, in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (大般涅槃經), he receives the offerings of Cunda (純陀, a name) and the assembly. Receiving Cunda's offering is the origin within the trace, and receiving the assembly's offering is the trace within the trace. Since this one is like this, the rest can be inferred. Since Sakyamuni has two layers of origin and traces, Vairocana also has these two layers of origin and traces. Taking the Dharma-body as the origin and Vairocana as the trace. However, within this trace, the origin and traces are further revealed. Not arising in the Bodhi-mandala (寂滅道場) is the origin within the trace, and appearing in the palaces of the six desire heavens (六天宮殿) is the trace within the trace. Therefore, the two Buddhas have two layers of origin and traces. This is the meaning of the two Buddhas being mutually open and not mutually open, which must be explained according to conditions and cannot be stated alone.
Next, we clarify not mutually open and mutually open. Taking the Dharma-body as the origin and Vairocana as the trace, from the perspective of the essence, there should only be one layer of origin and traces. Why? Because the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times appear in the world for one great cause and condition. As the Lotus Sutra (法華經) says, they appear in the world for a great cause, which is to open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, etc. Also, as the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) says, Prajna (般若) arises for a great cause, arises for an inconceivable cause, and arises for an unequaled cause. Now, Vairocana appears in the world also for one great cause, only speaking of one great cause and condition for those with great capacity, so there should only be this origin and traces. The true intention of the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times should only be like this. But now, within the trace, the origin and traces are further revealed, only because the beings in the impure land are heavily burdened with sins and have dull faculties.
堪舍那大化。所以方便於跡中更開本跡。本則為凈土大根性者說大因大果。跡即為穢土鈍根者初說三乘教門。次說般若等。然後始得說法華涅槃等大乘之義。如火宅窮子等譬。初大乘化不得。方便說三乘。然後得說大乘。二佛亦爾。穢眾生不堪舍那大化。更起跡佛方便初說三乘。后說大乘。為此義故。所以舍那跡中更開本跡。舍那為本釋迦為跡。斯即是二佛不相開相開義。然十方三世諸佛本跡雖復無量。以相開不相開。不相開相開二句攝。則無所不盡。為是故明此二種也。
次開四句成前義。四句者。一唯本而不跡。二唯跡而不本。三亦跡亦本。四非本非跡。用此四句安何處。用此四句安不相開相開義。不得漫用用須得處也。問。若為是唯本不跡乃至非本非跡耶。釋云。但本不跡者即是法身故。經云。佛真法身猶如虛空也。言唯跡不本者即是釋迦但是應身。亦跡亦本者是舍那。舍那望法身即是跡。望釋迦即是本故。舍那亦本亦跡也。非本非跡者此則卷前三句。何者前。雖有三句只是本跡二句。法身是本。舍那釋迦並是跡。此本是跡本。此跡是本跡。此本是跡本。非本無以垂跡。此跡是本跡。非跡無以顯本。非本無以垂跡。由本故跡。非跡無以顯本。由跡故本。由本故跡。跡是本跡。由跡故本。本是跡本。跡本則
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 堪舍那佛（Vairocana，報身佛）的大教化。因此，在應化之跡中，更開顯本和跡。本，即為凈土中具有大根性者，說大因大果。跡，即為穢土中鈍根者，最初說三乘教門，其次說般若等，然後才得以說法華、涅槃等大乘之義。如火宅、窮子等譬喻，最初大乘教化行不通，就方便地說三乘，然後才能說大乘。二佛也是如此，穢土眾生不堪忍受堪舍那佛的大教化，就顯現應化之跡佛，方便地先說三乘，后說大乘。爲了這個緣故，所以堪舍那佛在應化之跡中，更開顯本和跡。堪舍那佛為本，釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni，應身佛）為跡。這就是二佛不相開和相開的含義。然而，十方三世諸佛的本和跡雖然無數，用不相開和相開這兩句話來概括，就無所不盡。爲了這個緣故，所以闡明這兩種含義。
其次，用四句來成就前面的含義。四句是：一、唯本而不跡；二、唯跡而不本；三、亦跡亦本；四、非本非跡。用這四句安放在哪裡？用這四句安放在不相開和相開的含義中。不能隨意使用，使用必須得當。問：什麼是唯本不跡，乃至非本非跡呢？解釋說：但本不跡，就是法身佛（Dharmakaya），所以經中說：『佛的真法身猶如虛空』。說唯跡不本，就是釋迦牟尼佛只是應身佛。亦跡亦本，就是堪舍那佛。堪舍那佛相對於法身佛來說就是跡，相對於釋迦牟尼佛來說就是本，所以堪舍那佛亦本亦跡。非本非跡，這則概括了前面的三句。為什麼呢？前面雖然有三句，只是本跡二句。法身是本，堪舍那佛和釋迦牟尼佛都是跡。這個本是跡本，這個跡是本跡。這個本是跡本。沒有本就無法垂跡，這個跡是本跡。沒有跡就無法顯本。沒有本就無法垂跡，因為有本才有跡。沒有跡就無法顯本，因為有跡才有本。因為有本才有跡，跡是本跡。因為有跡才有本，本是跡本。跡本則
【English Translation】 English version: The great teachings of Vairocana (the Sambhogakaya Buddha). Therefore, within the traces of manifestation, the original and the manifested are further revealed. The original refers to the great cause and great effect taught to those with great roots in the Pure Land. The manifested refers to the initial teaching of the Three Vehicles to those with dull roots in the defiled land, followed by the Prajna teachings, and then the teachings of the Mahayana doctrines such as the Lotus Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra. Like the parables of the burning house and the prodigal son, the initial Mahayana teachings were not effective, so the Three Vehicles were taught as a provisional means, and then the Mahayana could be taught. The two Buddhas are also like this: sentient beings in the defiled land are not capable of receiving the great teachings of Vairocana, so the manifested Buddha is revealed, and the Three Vehicles are taught first as a provisional means, followed by the Mahayana. For this reason, Vairocana further reveals the original and the manifested within the traces of manifestation. Vairocana is the original, and Sakyamuni (the Nirmanakaya Buddha) is the manifested. This is the meaning of the two Buddhas being inseparable and separable. However, although the original and manifested forms of the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times are countless, they are all encompassed by the two phrases 'inseparable' and 'separable'. Therefore, these two meanings are clarified.
Next, the previous meaning is accomplished using four phrases. The four phrases are: 1. Only the original and not the manifested; 2. Only the manifested and not the original; 3. Both the manifested and the original; 4. Neither the original nor the manifested. Where are these four phrases placed? These four phrases are placed within the meanings of inseparable and separable. They cannot be used arbitrarily; their use must be appropriate. Question: What is 'only the original and not the manifested' and so on, up to 'neither the original nor the manifested'? Explanation: 'Only the original and not the manifested' refers to the Dharmakaya (the Dharma Body), as the sutra says, 'The true Dharma Body of the Buddha is like empty space.' 'Only the manifested and not the original' refers to Sakyamuni Buddha as merely a manifested body. 'Both the manifested and the original' refers to Vairocana. Vairocana is the manifested in relation to the Dharmakaya, and the original in relation to Sakyamuni, so Vairocana is both the original and the manifested. 'Neither the original nor the manifested' encompasses the previous three phrases. Why? Although there are three phrases, they are only the two phrases of original and manifested. The Dharmakaya is the original, and Vairocana and Sakyamuni are both the manifested. This original is the manifested-original, and this manifested is the original-manifested. This original is the manifested-original. Without the original, there is no way to manifest traces. This manifested is the original-manifested. Without the manifested, there is no way to reveal the original. Without the original, there is no way to manifest traces; because of the original, there are traces. Without the manifested, there is no way to reveal the original; because of the manifested, there is the original. Because of the original, there are traces; the traces are the original-manifested. Because of the manifested, there is the original; the original is the manifested-original. The manifested-original then
非本。本跡則非跡。斯即非本非跡清凈。即本跡雖殊不思議一。舒則遍盈法界。卷即泯無軌跡也。前略明化主竟。
今次辨化處。化處者亦有二處。一者舍那蓮華藏處。二者釋迦娑婆國處。亦得將前二佛類今二處。將正以類依。何者前。云舍那釋迦釋迦舍那。不得言一不得稱異。不得言一亦得因緣一。不得稱異亦得因緣異。故非一非異亦得因緣一異。今處亦爾。蓮華藏娑婆娑婆蓮華藏。不得言一不得稱異。不得言一亦得因緣一。不得稱異亦得因緣異。故二處非一非異亦得因緣一異。此則將正類依。在此依是正。依正既然類依亦爾。何者此正是依正。依正既然。正依豈當不爾。故二佛類二處亦非一異。而不失因緣一異也。次更將前兩本跡類今化處亦有兩條。一者二土各有本跡土。二者二處共論本跡土。二處各論本跡土者。前云舍那有舍那法身為本舍那為跡。舍那跡中更開本跡。今土亦爾。舍那法身即有舍那法身土。舍那跡則有舍那跡土。舍那跡中開本跡即跡中開本跡土。舍那既然釋迦亦爾。問若為作耶。解云。舍那有舍那法身土也。問法身何須土。解云。法身土始是好土。何者以正法為法身即以正法為土。此之身土更無有異。正法為身即名法身。正法所遷托即名為土故。法身始有清凈凈土也。所以仁王經云。三賢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：非本，本和跡就不是跡。這就是非本非跡的清凈狀態。即本和跡雖然不同，卻是不可思議地統一。舒展開來就遍佈整個法界，收攏起來就泯滅得無影無蹤。前面已經簡略地說明了化主。
現在接著辨別化處。化處也有兩個地方。一是毗盧遮那佛（舍那，意為光明遍照）的蓮華藏世界，二是釋迦牟尼佛（釋迦，意為能仁寂默）的娑婆世界。也可以將前面的兩佛比作現在的兩處。用正報來比類依報。什麼是前面的情況呢？說毗盧遮那佛和釋迦牟尼佛，釋迦牟尼佛和毗盧遮那佛，不能說是一，也不能說是異。不能說是一，也可以說是因緣一；不能說是異，也可以說是因緣異。所以說非一非異，也可以說是因緣一異。現在這兩處也是這樣。蓮華藏世界和娑婆世界，娑婆世界和蓮華藏世界，不能說是一，也不能說是異。不能說是一，也可以說是因緣一；不能說是異，也可以說是因緣異。所以說兩處非一非異，也可以說是因緣一異。這是用正報來比類依報。在這裡，依報是正報的依託。依報和正報既然如此，那麼比類依報也是這樣。什麼是正報和依報呢？依報和正報既然如此，正報和依報難道不也是這樣嗎？所以兩佛比作兩處，也不是一也不是異，但不失去因緣一異的關係。其次，再將前面的兩本跡比作現在的化處，也有兩條線索。一是兩個國土各有本跡土，二是兩個地方共同討論本跡土。兩個地方各自討論本跡土的情況是，前面說毗盧遮那佛有毗盧遮那佛的法身為本，毗盧遮那佛為跡。毗盧遮那佛的跡中又開出本跡。現在的國土也是這樣。毗盧遮那佛的法身就有毗盧遮那佛的法身土，毗盧遮那佛的跡就有毗盧遮那佛的跡土。毗盧遮那佛的跡中開本跡，就是在跡中開本跡土。毗盧遮那佛既然如此，釋迦牟尼佛也是這樣。問：如何理解呢？解釋說：毗盧遮那佛有毗盧遮那佛的法身土。問：法身為什麼需要土呢？解釋說：法身土才是好的國土。為什麼呢？因為以正法為法身，就是以正法為土。這個身和土更沒有差異。正法為身就叫做法身，正法所寄託的地方就叫做土，所以法身才有清凈的凈土。所以《仁王經》說，三賢
【English Translation】 English version: If it is not the origin (本), then the origin and manifestation (跡) are not the manifestation. This is the purity of neither origin nor manifestation. That is, although the origin and manifestation are different, they are unified in an inconceivable way. When unfolded, it pervades the entire Dharma Realm; when rolled up, it disappears without a trace. The foregoing briefly explained the Lord of Transformation (化主).
Now, we proceed to distinguish the places of transformation (化處). There are also two places of transformation. One is the Lotus Treasury World (蓮華藏處) of Vairocana Buddha (舍那, meaning 'light shining everywhere'). The other is the Saha World (娑婆國處) of Shakyamuni Buddha (釋迦, meaning 'capable of benevolence and silence'). We can also compare the previous two Buddhas to the present two places, using the principal (正) to categorize the dependent (依). What is the previous situation? It is said that Vairocana Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha, Shakyamuni Buddha and Vairocana Buddha, cannot be said to be one, nor can they be called different. It cannot be said to be one, but it can be said to be one due to conditions (因緣); it cannot be said to be different, but it can be said to be different due to conditions. Therefore, it is neither one nor different, but it can be said to be one or different due to conditions. The present two places are also like this. The Lotus Treasury World and the Saha World, the Saha World and the Lotus Treasury World, cannot be said to be one, nor can they be called different. It cannot be said to be one, but it can be said to be one due to conditions; it cannot be said to be different, but it can be said to be different due to conditions. Therefore, the two places are neither one nor different, but it can be said to be one or different due to conditions. This is using the principal to categorize the dependent. Here, the dependent is the support of the principal. Since the dependent and principal are like this, then the categorization of the dependent is also like this. What are the principal and dependent? Since the dependent and principal are like this, how could the principal and dependent not be like this? Therefore, comparing the two Buddhas to the two places, they are neither one nor different, but they do not lose the relationship of being one or different due to conditions. Next, comparing the previous two origins and manifestations to the present places of transformation, there are also two lines of reasoning. One is that each of the two lands has its own origin and manifestation land; the other is that the two places jointly discuss the origin and manifestation land. The situation where the two places each discuss the origin and manifestation land is that, previously, it was said that Vairocana Buddha has Vairocana Buddha's Dharma Body (法身) as the origin and Vairocana Buddha as the manifestation. Within Vairocana Buddha's manifestation, there is further opening of origin and manifestation. The present land is also like this. Vairocana Buddha's Dharma Body has Vairocana Buddha's Dharma Body Land, and Vairocana Buddha's manifestation has Vairocana Buddha's Manifestation Land. The opening of origin and manifestation within Vairocana Buddha's manifestation is the opening of origin and manifestation land within the manifestation. Since Vairocana Buddha is like this, Shakyamuni Buddha is also like this. Question: How is this understood? Explanation: Vairocana Buddha has Vairocana Buddha's Dharma Body Land. Question: Why does the Dharma Body need a land? Explanation: The Dharma Body Land is the good land. Why? Because taking the Right Dharma (正法) as the Dharma Body is taking the Right Dharma as the land. There is no difference between this body and land. The Right Dharma as the body is called the Dharma Body, and the place where the Right Dharma is entrusted is called the land, so the Dharma Body has a pure land. Therefore, the 'Renwang Sutra' (仁王經) says, 'The Three Sages (三賢)'
十聖住果報。唯佛一人居凈土。此則唯法身佛居清凈第一義土也。言舍那為跡有舍那跡土者。故此經初會普賢菩薩說云。佛子。蓮華藏是舍那過去誓願力之所感故。此土是舍那跡土也。舍那跡土者。前云不起寂滅道場為本。現身六天宮殿為跡。餘事無量寄此一條明耳。今還約此判本跡土。亦得但此義小局。今明舍那跡中本跡土者。蓮華藏界即跡中本土。舍那既王十佛世界海即是跡中跡土也。釋迦亦有此兩重者。釋迦有法身佛即有法身土。如舍那法身土無異。何者十方如來同共法身。法身既同。法身土亦無異。正法為法身。正法遷托為土也。釋迦跡土即此娑婆世界是也。釋迦跡中跡土者。約前跡中本跡亦得。何者受純陀食為跡中本佛即為跡中本土。受大眾供為跡中跡佛即為跡中跡土。但此事非一。如法華釋迦佛及分身諸佛。釋迦佛土為跡中本土。分身諸佛土為跡中跡土故。二佛土皆有此兩重也。
次明二佛共論本跡土。如法身為本舍那為跡。唯有一本一跡佛。亦以法身土舍那土唯是一本一跡土。十方三世佛唯為一大事故出現於世亦唯舍那正直之心成清凈之土。但為薄福罪重鈍根眾生故。跡土中開本跡土。故為娑婆穢土。舍那蓮華藏為跡中本土。釋迦娑婆。為跡中跡土。故菩薩戒經云。我今盧舍那方坐蓮華臺。周匝
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 十聖安住于證果的境界（果報），只有佛陀一人安住于清凈的佛土（凈土）。這指的是隻有法身佛才安住于清凈的第一義諦之土。 說到盧舍那佛（舍那）的應化之跡及其應化之土（舍那跡土），因此這部經的最初集會（初會）中，普賢菩薩說道：『佛子，蓮華藏世界是盧舍那佛過去誓願力所感得的。』因此，這個世界是盧舍那佛的應化之土（舍那跡土）。盧舍那佛的應化之土（舍那跡土）是指，先前所說的以不起于寂滅道場為根本，顯現身於六慾天宮殿為應化之跡。其餘無量的事情都寄託于這一條來闡明。現在仍然可以依此來判別本和跡之土，但這個意義略顯侷限。現在說明盧舍那佛應化之跡中的本和跡之土：蓮華藏世界就是應化之跡中的根本之土（本土），盧舍那佛作為十佛世界海之王，就是應化之跡中的應化之土（跡土）。 釋迦牟尼佛也有這兩重含義。釋迦牟尼佛有法身佛，因此有法身土，如盧舍那佛的法身土一樣，沒有差異。為什麼呢？因為十方如來共同擁有一個法身，法身既然相同，法身土也沒有差異。正法即是法身，正法所依之處即為佛土。 釋迦牟尼佛的應化之土（跡土）就是這個娑婆世界。釋迦牟尼佛應化之跡中的應化之土（跡中跡土），可以參照之前的應化之跡中的本和跡來理解。如何理解呢？接受純陀供養的食物，作為應化之跡中的根本佛，即為應化之跡中的根本之土（本土）；接受大眾的供養，作為應化之跡中的應化佛，即為應化之跡中的應化之土（跡土）。但這件事並非只有一種解釋。如《法華經》中的釋迦牟尼佛和分身諸佛，釋迦牟尼佛的佛土為應化之跡中的根本之土（本土），分身諸佛的佛土為應化之跡中的應化之土（跡土），所以二佛的佛土都有這兩重含義。 接下來闡明二佛共同討論根本之土和應化之土（本跡土）。如法身為根本，盧舍那佛為應化之跡，只有一本一跡佛。同樣，法身土和盧舍那佛土也只有一本一跡土。十方三世諸佛唯爲了一件大事才出現於世，也唯有盧舍那佛正直之心才能成就清凈之土。但爲了福薄罪重、根器遲鈍的眾生，所以在應化之土中開顯根本之土和應化之土。因此顯現為娑婆穢土，盧舍那佛的蓮華藏世界為應化之跡中的根本之土（本土），釋迦牟尼佛的娑婆世界為應化之跡中的應化之土（跡土）。所以《菩薩戒經》中說：『我今盧舍那佛方才坐于蓮華臺之上，周圍……』
【English Translation】 English version: The Ten Saints dwell in the fruition of their deeds (果報, Guǒbào), only the Buddha alone dwells in the Pure Land (凈土, Jìngtǔ). This refers to only the Dharmakāya Buddha dwelling in the pure, ultimate reality land. Speaking of the manifested traces of Vairocana (舍那, Shěnà) and the manifested trace land of Vairocana (舍那跡土, Shěnà jì tǔ), therefore, in the initial assembly (初會, Chū huì) of this sutra, Bodhisattva Samantabhadra said: 'Buddha-son, the Lotus Treasury World is the result of Vairocana's past vows.' Therefore, this land is the manifested trace land of Vairocana (舍那跡土, Shěnà jì tǔ). The manifested trace land of Vairocana (舍那跡土, Shěnà jì tǔ) refers to, as previously stated, taking the unmoving, silent enlightenment ground as the root, and manifesting the body in the palaces of the six desire heavens as the trace. The remaining countless matters are all explained by relying on this one principle. Now, we can still use this to distinguish between the root and trace lands, but this meaning is somewhat limited. Now, explaining the root and trace lands within Vairocana's manifested trace: the Lotus Treasury World is the root land (本土, Běntǔ) within the trace, and Vairocana being the king of the ten Buddha world-seas is the trace land (跡土, Jì tǔ) within the trace. Śākyamuni Buddha also has these two aspects. Śākyamuni Buddha has the Dharmakāya Buddha, therefore there is the Dharmakāya land, just like Vairocana Buddha's Dharmakāya land, there is no difference. Why? Because the Tathāgatas of the ten directions share the same Dharmakāya. Since the Dharmakāya is the same, the Dharmakāya land is also not different. The True Dharma is the Dharmakāya, and the place where the True Dharma resides is the land. Śākyamuni Buddha's manifested trace land (跡土, Jì tǔ) is this Sahā World. Śākyamuni Buddha's trace within a trace land (跡中跡土, Jì zhōng jì tǔ) can be understood by referring to the root and trace within the previous trace. How to understand it? Receiving the food offered by Cunda, as the root Buddha within the trace, is the root land (本土, Běntǔ) within the trace; receiving the offerings of the assembly, as the trace Buddha within the trace, is the trace land (跡土, Jì tǔ) within the trace. However, this matter is not limited to one explanation. For example, in the Lotus Sutra, Śākyamuni Buddha and the manifested Buddhas, Śākyamuni Buddha's land is the root land (本土, Běntǔ) within the trace, and the manifested Buddhas' lands are the trace lands (跡土, Jì tǔ) within the trace. Therefore, both Buddhas' lands have these two aspects. Next, explaining the two Buddhas' joint discussion of the root and trace lands (本跡土, Běn jì tǔ). Like the Dharmakāya being the root and Vairocana being the trace, there is only one root and one trace Buddha. Similarly, the Dharmakāya land and Vairocana Buddha's land are also only one root and one trace land. The Buddhas of the ten directions and three times appear in the world only for one great matter, and only Vairocana's upright mind can accomplish a pure land. But for sentient beings with little merit, heavy sins, and dull faculties, the root and trace lands are revealed within the trace land. Therefore, it appears as the impure Sahā World, Vairocana's Lotus Treasury World is the root land (本土, Běntǔ) within the trace, and Śākyamuni Buddha's Sahā World is the trace land (跡土, Jì tǔ) within the trace. Therefore, the Bodhisattva Precepts Sutra says: 'I, Vairocana, am now sitting on the lotus platform, surrounded by...'
千華上示現千釋迦。一華百億國。一國一釋迦。如是百億國有千百億釋迦。華有千葉一葉一釋迦故有千釋迦。一華有百億國一國一釋迦故有千百億釋迦也。
次將本跡四句類本跡土亦有四句。一者唯本非跡土即是法身土。二者唯跡非本土即是釋迦土。三者亦本亦跡土即是舍那土。望法身土為跡。望釋迦土為本也。四者非本非跡土。還卷前三句。前雖有三句不出本跡二句。法身本舍那釋迦二佛為跡。此是本跡跡本。本跡非本無以明跡。跡本非跡無以明本。非本無以明跡即由本故跡。非跡無以明本即由跡故本。由本故跡。跡是本跡。由跡故本本是跡本。本跡非跡。跡本非本。非本非跡清凈。二佛既然兩土類此可知。斯則卷三句成無句無。句成無句畢竟清凈。雖復無句無句而句。則有依正句本跡句者。則三句為二句。二句為無句。今無句而句。一句而無量句。為量句而一句。無量句即一句。無量中解一。一句即無量句。一中解無量。無量中解一。此是無量一。一中解無量。此是一無量。無量一即非一。一無量即非無量。非一非無量而不失一無量。此言玄妙不易可聞也。
次明二土相開不相開義。然土凡有五種。一凈二穢三不凈凈四凈不凈五雜土。此之五土是僧睿法師所辨。斯之五土橫攝一切土盡。何者只一凈土
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一朵千葉蓮花上示現出千尊釋迦牟尼佛（Śākyamuni）。一朵蓮花包含百億個國土。一個國土有一尊釋迦牟尼佛。像這樣，百億個國土就有千百億尊釋迦牟尼佛。蓮花有千片花瓣，一片花瓣上有一尊釋迦牟尼佛，所以有千尊釋迦牟尼佛。一朵蓮花有百億個國土，一個國土有一尊釋迦牟尼佛，所以有千百億尊釋迦牟尼佛。
接下來，將本（本質）和跡（現象）用四句式來分類，本和跡的國土也有四句。第一種是唯本非跡土，這就是法身土（Dharmakāya-kṣetra）。第二種是唯跡非本土，這就是釋迦土（Śākyamuni-kṣetra）。第三種是亦本亦跡土，這就是舍那土（Vairocana-kṣetra）。相對於法身土來說是跡，相對於釋迦土來說是本。第四種是非本非跡土，這又回到了前面的三句。前面雖然有三句，但沒有超出本跡二句。法身佛是本，舍那佛和釋迦佛是跡。這就是本跡、跡本。本跡如果不是本，就無法說明跡；跡本如果不是跡，就無法說明本。沒有本就無法說明跡，即因為有本才有跡；沒有跡就無法說明本，即因為有跡才有本。因為有本才有跡，跡就是本跡；因為有跡才有本，本就是跡本。本跡不是跡，跡本不是本。非本非跡是清凈的。兩尊佛既然如此，兩個國土也可以依此類推。這樣，捲起三句就成了無句，無句就成了畢竟清凈。雖然是無句，但又是無句而句，就有了依正句、本跡句。那麼，三句就成了二句，二句就成了無句。現在是無句而句，一句而無量句，為量句而一句，無量句就是一句，在無量中理解一，一句就是無量句，在一中理解無量。在無量中理解一，這就是無量一；在一中理解無量，這就是一無量。無量一就不是一，一無量就不是無量。非一非無量，但不失去一和無量。這些話玄妙，不容易聽到。
接下來闡明二土相開（互相包含）和不相開的含義。國土大致有五種：一、凈土；二、穢土；三、不凈凈土；四、凈不凈土；五、雜土。這五種國土是僧睿法師所辨別的。這五種國土橫向涵蓋了一切國土。為什麼只有一種凈土呢？
【English Translation】 English version: A thousand Śākyamuni Buddhas (Śākyamuni) manifest on a thousand-petaled lotus. One lotus contains a hundred billion lands. One land has one Śākyamuni Buddha. Thus, a hundred billion lands have a thousand billion Śākyamuni Buddhas. The lotus has a thousand petals, and one Śākyamuni Buddha is on one petal, so there are a thousand Śākyamuni Buddhas. One lotus has a hundred billion lands, and one land has one Śākyamuni Buddha, so there are a thousand billion Śākyamuni Buddhas.
Next, classify the 'original' (本, essence) and 'trace' (跡, manifestation) using four phrases; the lands of 'original' and 'trace' also have four phrases. The first is the 'only original, not trace' land, which is the Dharmakāya-kṣetra (法身土). The second is the 'only trace, not original' land, which is the Śākyamuni-kṣetra (釋迦土). The third is the 'both original and trace' land, which is the Vairocana-kṣetra (舍那土). Relative to the Dharmakāya-kṣetra, it is a trace; relative to the Śākyamuni-kṣetra, it is the original. The fourth is the 'neither original nor trace' land, which reverts to the previous three phrases. Although there are three phrases before, they do not go beyond the two phrases of 'original' and 'trace'. The Dharmakāya Buddha is the original, and the Vairocana and Śākyamuni Buddhas are the traces. This is 'original-trace' and 'trace-original'. If the 'original-trace' is not the original, there is no way to explain the trace; if the 'trace-original' is not the trace, there is no way to explain the original. Without the original, there is no way to explain the trace, i.e., because there is the original, there is the trace; without the trace, there is no way to explain the original, i.e., because there is the trace, there is the original. Because there is the original, there is the trace; the trace is the 'original-trace'. Because there is the trace, there is the original; the original is the 'trace-original'. The 'original-trace' is not the trace, and the 'trace-original' is not the original. 'Neither original nor trace' is pure. Since the two Buddhas are like this, the two lands can be inferred in the same way. Thus, rolling up the three phrases becomes 'no phrase', and 'no phrase' becomes ultimately pure. Although it is 'no phrase', it is also 'no phrase and phrase', then there are the 'dependent and proper phrase' and the 'original and trace phrase'. Then, the three phrases become two phrases, and the two phrases become 'no phrase'. Now it is 'no phrase and phrase', one phrase and countless phrases, 'for measuring phrases and one phrase', countless phrases are one phrase, understanding one in countless, one phrase is countless phrases, understanding countless in one. Understanding one in countless, this is 'countless-one'; understanding countless in one, this is 'one-countless'. 'Countless-one' is not one, and 'one-countless' is not countless. 'Neither one nor countless' does not lose one and countless. These words are profound and not easy to hear.
Next, clarify the meaning of the two lands being 'mutually inclusive' and 'not mutually inclusive'. Lands generally have five types: first, pure land; second, impure land; third, not-pure-pure land; fourth, pure-not-pure land; fifth, mixed land. These five lands are distinguished by Master Sengrui. These five lands horizontally encompass all lands. Why is there only one pure land?
中有無量凈土故。華嚴經云。有百億阿僧祇品凈土。西方阿彌陀下品凈土。聖服撞世界上品凈土。凈土既其如此。故知餘四土亦復無量。所以云。此五種土橫攝一切土盡。橫既然豎即不定也。五種土中且明凈穢二土。此有無量四句。且辨一種四句。四句者謂。一質一處。異質異處。異質一處。一質異處。此四句極自難解。今當影生師凈土義。及關中法師所辨者而明之。然一質一處異質異處。此二句易解。餘二句難明。且問。何者為質若為稱處。解云。質即是凈穢等。處即是方處之處。如凈質在西方處。穢質在東方處也。所言一質一處者。一凈質一穢質。一凈質在西方安養處。一穢質在東方娑婆處。故言一質一處。言異質異處者。凈穢互望。凈質異穢質。穢質異凈質故。言異質。凈質處異穢質處。穢質處異凈質處。故言異處也。言異質一處者。此句難解。異質一義亦名異質同義。異同在一處也。且明異質同處。若為是異質而同處耶。解云。凈穢異質。同在一娑婆處。如此經蓮華藏國。在娑婆處。凈名經妙莊嚴國。在娑婆處。法華云。餘眾見燒盡。吾凈土不毀。此並是凈質在穢處。此略明凈質同在穢土如此。次問。若為凈質得在穢土耶。解此有數義。一者所以凈質得在穢土者。凈穢無㝵。凈無礙穢故。凈得在穢處。穢無礙
凈故。穢得在凈處。以不相礙故。凈穢得同一處。舊舉首天子為證。首天子是色界凈天。來欲界穢處不相礙。首天子是三界中凈三界。尚不礙三界穢。今蓮華藏寶莊嚴國等。非三界非三界豈當礙於三界。吾凈土不燒者。火是顛倒三界火。亦能燒顛倒三界。凈土非是三界。三界火豈能燒不三界。火是穢火還燒穢。穢火豈能燒凈。故吾凈土不毀天人常充滿也。又寶莊嚴國。只在一娑婆土中。掘鑿娑婆。不掘鑿寶莊嚴國。何者鑿。是三界鑿。只能鑿三界。寶莊嚴國非三界。三界鑿豈能掘非三界。色還鑿色。色豈能鑿妙則。此是什法師所解。從來彈此解。是他何處得此解。解是什法師解。什法師是三論師。即三論義應須云奪取他。是故凈質得在穢處也。二者所以凈土得在穢處且反問同處。汝言。那得此凈土耶。今釋言。此凈土是如來凈業所起。如來身既無礙所感之土。亦無礙身即依正土。即正依無礙依。感得無礙正依亦無礙。斯則正無礙故土無礙。以無礙故得在穢也。
次問。何意凈在穢處耶。前兩義釋凈土得在穢處竟。今釋凈土在穢之意。問。何意凈土在穢處耶。解此亦有二義。一者看華嚴凈名等意。為欲教化眾生故。明凈土在穢處。只凈土在此何意不見。汝薄福鈍根斷常居心不見耳。若道穢土在東方凈土在西方不得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為清凈的緣故。污穢可以存在於清凈的地方，因為它們互不障礙。所以清凈和污穢可以存在於同一個地方。過去曾以首天子（Deva king）為例來證明。首天子是凈天（pure heaven），來到欲界的污穢之處也不會互相妨礙。首天子是三界（Three Realms）中清凈的三界，尚且不障礙三界的污穢。如今蓮華藏寶莊嚴國（Lotus Treasury World）等，不是三界，既然不是三界，怎麼會障礙三界呢？我的凈土不會被燒燬，是因為火是顛倒三界的火，也只能燒燬顛倒的三界。凈土不是三界，三界的火怎麼能燒燬非三界之物呢？火是污穢之火，只能燒燬污穢之物，污穢之火怎麼能燒燬清凈之物呢？所以我的凈土不會被毀壞，天人和眾生永遠充滿。而且寶莊嚴國，只在一個娑婆土（Saha World）中。挖掘娑婆土，卻無法挖掘寶莊嚴國。什麼在挖掘呢？是三界的挖掘，只能挖掘三界。寶莊嚴國不是三界，三界的挖掘怎麼能挖掘非三界之物呢？色（form）還能夠挖掘嗎？怎麼能挖掘妙則（wonderful principle）呢？這是什法師（Kumarajiva）所解釋的。從來都反對這種解釋，他從哪裡得到這種解釋的呢？這種解釋是什法師的解釋，什法師是三論師（Madhyamaka philosopher），那麼三論的意義應該說是奪取了他人的觀點。所以清凈的本質可以存在於污穢的地方。第二，為什麼凈土可以存在於污穢的地方，並且反過來問同一個地方。你說：『那怎麼會有這個凈土呢？』現在解釋說：這個凈土是如來（Tathagata）清凈的業力所產生的。如來的身體既然沒有障礙，所感應的國土，也沒有障礙。身體就是依報，國土就是正報，依報和正報沒有障礙，感應得到的正報和依報也沒有障礙。這樣，正報沒有障礙，所以國土沒有障礙。因為沒有障礙，所以才能存在於污穢的地方。 其次提問：為什麼清凈存在於污穢的地方呢？前面兩種解釋說明了凈土可以存在於污穢的地方。現在解釋凈土存在於污穢之地的意義。提問：為什麼凈土存在於污穢的地方呢？解釋這個問題也有兩種意義。第一，看《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）、《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）等的意義，爲了教化眾生，說明凈土存在於污穢的地方。只是凈土在這裡，為什麼看不見呢？你是因為福報淺薄、根器遲鈍、心懷斷常之見，所以看不見罷了。如果說污穢的國土在東方，凈土在西方，那就錯了。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of purity. Filth can exist in a pure place because they do not obstruct each other. Therefore, purity and filth can exist in the same place. In the past, the Deva king (Shou Tianzi) was cited as proof. The Deva king is a pure heaven (Jing Tian), and coming to the filthy place of the desire realm does not hinder each other. The Deva king is the purest of the Three Realms (San Jie), and still does not hinder the filth of the Three Realms. Now, the Lotus Treasury World (Lian Hua Zang Bao Zhuang Yan Guo), etc., are not the Three Realms, and since they are not the Three Realms, how can they hinder the Three Realms? My Pure Land will not be burned because the fire is the fire of the inverted Three Realms, and it can only burn the inverted Three Realms. The Pure Land is not the Three Realms, how can the fire of the Three Realms burn what is not of the Three Realms? Fire is filthy fire and can only burn filth. How can filthy fire burn purity? Therefore, my Pure Land will not be destroyed, and gods and humans will always be full. Moreover, the Treasure Adorned Land (Bao Zhuang Yan Guo) is only in one Saha World (Suo Po Tu). Digging the Saha World does not dig the Treasure Adorned Land. What is digging? It is the digging of the Three Realms, which can only dig the Three Realms. The Treasure Adorned Land is not the Three Realms, how can the digging of the Three Realms dig what is not of the Three Realms? Can form (Se) still dig? How can it dig the wonderful principle (Miao Ze)? This is what Master Kumarajiva (Shi Fashi) explained. This explanation has always been opposed. Where did he get this explanation from? This explanation is Master Kumarajiva's explanation. Master Kumarajiva is a Madhyamaka philosopher (San Lun Shi), so the meaning of the Three Treatises should be said to be taking away other people's views. Therefore, a pure substance can exist in a filthy place. Second, why can the Pure Land exist in a filthy place, and in turn, ask about the same place. You say, 'How can there be this Pure Land?' Now it is explained that this Pure Land is produced by the pure karma of the Tathagata (Ru Lai). Since the Tathagata's body has no obstacles, the land that is sensed also has no obstacles. The body is the dependent reward (Yi Bao), and the land is the proper reward (Zheng Bao). The dependent reward and the proper reward have no obstacles, and the proper reward and the dependent reward that are sensed also have no obstacles. In this way, because the proper reward has no obstacles, the land has no obstacles. Because there are no obstacles, it can exist in a filthy place. Next question: Why does purity exist in a filthy place? The previous two explanations explained that the Pure Land can exist in a filthy place. Now explain the meaning of the Pure Land existing in a filthy place. Question: Why does the Pure Land exist in a filthy place? There are also two meanings to explain this question. First, looking at the meaning of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Hua Yan Jing), the Vimalakirti Sutra (Wei Mo Jie Jing), etc., in order to teach sentient beings, it is explained that the Pure Land exists in a filthy place. It's just that the Pure Land is here, why can't you see it? It is because you have shallow blessings, dull roots, and a mind dwelling in permanence and annihilation that you cannot see it. If you say that the filthy land is in the east and the Pure Land is in the west, then you are wrong.
化緣。何者凈在西方穢土東方。兩世界遙隔此不得為化。今道凈土即在此。汝顛倒斷常心故不見。謂棄妄存真舍無常取常樂。如此等居心心不凈。心既不凈故。不見凈土。若見凈土者。當須凈心。除如此真妄常無常異。意清凈乃名正觀。以正觀故則佛土凈。為化此眾生故。明凈土在穢處也。二者所以凈土在穢處者。為適緣所見。如來用凈土。何為不如富人畜寶物安置屋裡。如來用多許凈土作底今明。如來以此凈土。為欲適緣。故肇師云。聖人空同無像。豈國土之有垣。聖身尚未曾有。亦復未曾無。豈復有土與不土。聖人未曾像不像。亦復未曾心不心。未曾心不心。心生於有心。未曾像不像。像出於有像。未曾像不像。像不像適緣。緣出於有像。未曾土不土。土不土適緣。未曾凈不凈。凈不凈適緣。緣若應以穢得度者。示之以土沙。若應以凈得道者。現之以寶玉。為此義故。所以凈土在於穢處也。從來直云異質一處。不知何因緣故。凈穢異質在一處。今釋有如此義故也。
次明一質異處。然前三句猶可解。此之一句最難一。何物質而在異處耶。解云。他舉一質。如一凈質在西土東土二處。一穢質在北南兩處。為有此句為無耶。若無則不成四句。若有何者是其事耶。今就數義。明此一句。今且就凈名經辨。只一妙喜
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 化緣。何處是清凈的西方，何處是污穢的東方？兩個世界遙遠阻隔，因此不能前往化緣。現在說凈土就在這裡，是因為你顛倒了斷滅和常存的觀念，所以看不見。認為要拋棄虛妄而儲存真實，捨棄無常而追求常樂，像這樣存心，心就不清凈。心不清凈，所以看不見凈土。如果想看見凈土，就必須清凈自己的心。去除真與妄、常與無常的分別，意念清凈才叫做正觀。因為有正觀，所以佛土清凈。爲了教化這些眾生，所以說明凈土就在污穢之處。第二點，凈土之所以在污穢之處，是爲了適應因緣所顯現。如來運用凈土，就像富人把寶物安置在屋裡一樣。如來用許多凈土做什麼呢？現在說明，如來用這凈土是爲了適應因緣。所以肇法師說：『聖人空寂無相，哪裡會有國土的界限？聖人的身體尚未曾有，也未曾沒有，哪裡會有土與非土的分別？聖人未曾有像與不像的分別，也未曾有心與非心的分別。』未曾有心與非心，心生於有心；未曾有像與不像，像出於有像；未曾有像與不像，像不像適應因緣，因緣出於有像；未曾有土與非土，土非土適應因緣；未曾有凈與不凈，凈不凈適應因緣。如果因緣應該用污穢才能得度，就示現土沙；如果因緣應該用清凈才能得道，就顯現寶玉。爲了這個意義，所以說凈土在於污穢之處。過去一直說異質同處，不知道是什麼因緣，清凈和污穢的異質在一處。現在解釋有這樣的意義。
其次說明一質異處。然而前三句還可以理解，這一句最難理解，什麼物質會在不同的地方呢？解釋說，他舉一個例子，如一個清凈的物質在西方和東方兩個地方，一個污穢的物質在北方和南方兩個地方。是有這句話還是沒有呢？如果沒有，就不能構成四句。如果有，那是什麼事情呢？現在就數量的意義，說明這一句。現在且就《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra）來辨析，只有一個妙喜（Abhirati）世界。
【English Translation】 English version Giving alms. Where is the pure Western realm, and where is the defiled Eastern realm? The two worlds are far apart, so one cannot go there to beg for alms. Now, saying that the Pure Land is right here is because you have inverted notions of annihilation and permanence, so you cannot see it. Thinking that one must abandon the false and preserve the true, forsake impermanence and seek eternal bliss, with such a mindset, the mind is not pure. Because the mind is not pure, one cannot see the Pure Land. If one wishes to see the Pure Land, one must purify one's mind. Eliminate the distinctions between true and false, permanence and impermanence; a clear mind is called right view. Because of right view, the Buddha-land is pure. To teach these beings, it is explained that the Pure Land is in the defiled place. Secondly, the reason why the Pure Land is in the defiled place is to manifest according to conditions. The Tathagata (Tathāgata) uses the Pure Land, just as a rich man keeps treasures in his house. What does the Tathagata use so many Pure Lands for? Now it is explained that the Tathagata uses this Pure Land to accord with conditions. Therefore, Master Zhao (Sengzhao) said: 'The sage is empty and without form, so where would there be boundaries of a country? The sage's body has never existed, nor has it never existed, so where would there be a distinction between land and non-land? The sage has never had the distinction between form and non-form, nor has he had the distinction between mind and non-mind.' Not having mind and non-mind, mind arises from having mind; not having form and non-form, form arises from having form; not having form and non-form, form and non-form accord with conditions, conditions arise from having form; not having land and non-land, land and non-land accord with conditions; not having purity and impurity, purity and impurity accord with conditions. If conditions require defilement to be liberated, then show earth and sand; if conditions require purity to attain the Way, then manifest jewels and jade. For this reason, it is said that the Pure Land is in the defiled place. In the past, it was always said that different substances are in the same place, but it was not known why pure and impure different substances are in the same place. Now the explanation has such a meaning.
Next, explaining one substance in different places. However, the previous three sentences are still understandable, but this sentence is the most difficult to understand: what substance is in different places? The explanation is that he gives an example, such as one pure substance being in the Western and Eastern lands, and one defiled substance being in the Northern and Southern lands. Is this sentence there or not? If not, then it cannot form four sentences. If so, what is the matter? Now, in terms of numerical meaning, explain this sentence. Now, let's analyze it based on the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (凈名經). There is only one Abhirati (妙喜) world.
凈質。經東西二處。何者妙喜。一世界本在東方無動處。凈名斷取來西方娑婆處。若爾只一妙喜凈質經游東西二處。如凈土既然。類穢土等亦爾。故是一質二處也。向前異質一處。凈穢二質。當在一處。今一質異處。亦應一凈質。當在二處。今更據凈名經釋。彼經云。不可思議菩薩。以娑婆世界擲置他方國土。不動本處只捧娑婆。擲置西方安樂。而娑婆宛然不動。可謂。到而不動。不動而至。若爾只此穢質經東西二處。故是一質二處也。如穢質既然。類餘四土亦爾也。
次明只穢質在凈穢二處。前明擲穢質往凈處。穢質經二處。今明只一穢質在凈穢二處。如蓮華藏娑婆世界。只娑婆一穢質。在娑婆處。在蓮華藏處。何者蓮華。不但以臺為蓮華。葉共為一蓮華故。涅槃云。臺葉須等合為蓮華。葉不離華。葉在華中。娑婆既居葉上。故知娑婆即在蓮華藏中。所以菩薩戒經云。我今盧舍那方坐蓮華臺。周匝千華上示現千釋迦。故知裟婆世界在華葉上。葉不離華故。娑婆不離蓮華藏。若使如此娑婆穢土。非但在娑婆處。亦在蓮華藏處。故知是一質在二處。問華藏自在臺。娑婆自在葉。何得是一質在二處耶。解云。具二義。有時明娑婆與蓮華藏異。娑婆界在蓮華藏外。而復臺葉共成。共成一葉。娑婆則不離蓮華藏。何故如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 凈質。經東西二處。哪一個是妙喜（Abhirati）世界？一種說法是，妙喜世界原本在東方不動處，凈名（Vimalakirti，維摩詰）斷取來西方娑婆（Saha）世界。如果這樣，只有一個妙喜凈質，經歷東西兩處。如同凈土一樣，類似於穢土等也是如此。所以是一個本質在兩個地方。之前說的是不同本質在一個地方，凈穢兩種本質，應當在一個地方。現在說一個本質在不同地方，也應該一個凈質，在兩個地方。現在更根據《凈名經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）解釋。該經說，不可思議菩薩，把娑婆世界擲到其他方國土，不動本處，只是捧著娑婆世界，擲到西方安樂世界，而娑婆世界仍然不動。可以說是，到了而不動，不動而到。如果這樣，只有這個穢質經歷東西兩處，所以是一個本質在兩個地方。如同穢質一樣，類似於其餘四土也是如此。 其次說明只有一個穢質在凈穢兩個地方。前面說明了拋擲穢質到凈處，穢質經歷兩個地方。現在說明只有一個穢質在凈穢兩個地方。例如蓮華藏（Lotus Matrix）娑婆世界，只有娑婆一個穢質，在娑婆處，也在蓮華藏處。什麼是蓮華？不僅僅以臺為蓮華，葉子共同構成一個蓮華。所以《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說，臺、葉、須等合成為蓮華，葉不離開華，葉在華中。娑婆既然居住在葉上，所以知道娑婆就在蓮華藏中。所以《菩薩戒經》（Bodhisattva Precept Sutra）說，『我今盧舍那（Locana）方坐蓮華臺，周匝千華上示現千釋迦（Sakyamuni）』。所以知道娑婆世界在華葉上，葉不離開華，所以娑婆不離開蓮華藏。如果這樣，娑婆穢土，不僅在娑婆處，也在蓮華藏處。所以知道是一個本質在兩個地方。問：華藏自在臺，娑婆自在葉，怎麼能是一個本質在兩個地方呢？解答說：具備兩種含義。有時說明娑婆與蓮華藏不同，娑婆界在蓮華藏外，而且臺葉共同構成，共同構成一個葉子，娑婆就不離開蓮華藏。為什麼這樣呢？
【English Translation】 English version Pure substance. Passing through two places, east and west. Which is the Abhirati (妙喜) world? One explanation is that the Abhirati world was originally in the immovable east, but Vimalakirti (凈名) severed it and brought it to the Saha (娑婆) world in the west. If so, there is only one pure substance of Abhirati, experiencing both east and west. Just as with pure lands, so too with impure lands. Therefore, it is one substance in two places. Previously, it was said that different substances are in one place, the pure and impure substances should be in one place. Now, one substance is in different places, so there should also be one pure substance in two places. Now, let's further explain based on the Vimalakirti Sutra (凈名經). That sutra says that the Inconceivable Bodhisattva threw the Saha world to other lands, without moving its original place, but simply holding the Saha world and throwing it to the Western Pure Land of Bliss, while the Saha world remained unmoved. It can be said that it arrived without moving, and arrived without moving. If so, only this impure substance experiences both east and west, so it is one substance in two places. Just as with impure substances, so too with the other four lands. Next, it explains that only one impure substance is in both pure and impure places. The previous explanation was about throwing the impure substance to a pure place, the impure substance experiencing two places. Now, it explains that only one impure substance is in both pure and impure places. For example, the Lotus Matrix (蓮華藏) Saha world, only the Saha is an impure substance, in the Saha place, and also in the Lotus Matrix place. What is the lotus? It is not just the platform that is the lotus, the leaves together form one lotus. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) says that the platform, leaves, stamens, etc., together form a lotus, the leaves do not leave the flower, the leaves are in the flower. Since the Saha resides on the leaves, it is known that the Saha is in the Lotus Matrix. Therefore, the Bodhisattva Precept Sutra (菩薩戒經) says, 'I, Locana (盧舍那), now sit on the lotus platform, and on the surrounding thousand flowers, I manifest a thousand Sakyamunis (釋迦)'. Therefore, it is known that the Saha world is on the flower leaves, the leaves do not leave the flower, so the Saha does not leave the Lotus Matrix. If so, the impure land of Saha is not only in the Saha place, but also in the Lotus Matrix place. Therefore, it is known that it is one substance in two places. Question: The Lotus Matrix's unconstrained platform, the Saha's unconstrained leaves, how can it be one substance in two places? Answer: It has two meanings. Sometimes it is explained that the Saha is different from the Lotus Matrix, the Saha realm is outside the Lotus Matrix, and the platform and leaves together form, together form one leaf, so the Saha does not leave the Lotus Matrix. Why is this so?
此。解云。欲明娑婆與華藏。不可言異。不可言一。二處異故。不可言一。不相離故。不可言異。不可言一而一。不可言異而異。斯則非一非異。而一而異。略明一種四句。如此今更通簡此四句義。問云。他亦明此四句。與他何異。不得道他無此四句。經等具有此義故。他亦明此四句。今亦辨此四。何異。解他不得明此四句義。今時始得明此四句耳。何者雖有四句不出一異二句。他有一可一。不得由異故一。有異可異。不得由一故異。不由異故一。一自性一。不由一故異。異自性異。自性一一則礙異。自性異異則礙一。異既礙一。異豈得同處。異不得同一處則無一。既無一何得有異。既無一異。故四句不成也。縱之如此耳。奪則都無。何者有一可一。不由異起一。有異可異。不由一起異。不由異故一。一不成一。不由一故異。異不成異。一不成一則無一。異不成異則無異。此則無一異論。何物四句有一異可有四句。既無一異則無四句。故他不得明四句義。今時所明者。無四句而四句。要須前彈他有礙性義。始明今因緣無礙義。何者今無一可一。由異故一。無異可異。由一故異。由異故一則由一故一。一由一故異即由異故異。異可謂。無句而句。一句而二句。二句而四句。故大品經云。無句義是菩薩句義。今亦爾。無句
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此。解釋說：想要明白娑婆世界（Saha world，指我們所居住的這個充滿煩惱的世界）與華藏世界（Avatamsaka world，指《華嚴經》所描述的清凈莊嚴的世界），不能說它們是不同的，也不能說它們是相同的。因為兩處有差異，所以不能說是相同的；因為它們不是相互分離的，所以不能說是不同的。不能說是一即是唯一的，也不能說是異即是差異的。這就是非一非異，而一而異。簡略地說明一種四句的表達方式，就像這樣。現在進一步通盤地簡化這四句的含義。 有人問：其他人也闡明這四句，與他們有什麼不同？不能說他們沒有這四句，因為經典等都具有這個含義。他們也闡明這四句，現在我也辨析這四句，有什麼不同？解釋說：他們不能夠明白這四句的含義，現在我才開始能夠明白這四句的含義。為什麼呢？雖然有四句，但不超出『一』和『異』這兩句。他們有一種『可一』，但不能因為『異』的緣故而『一』；有一種『可異』，但不能因為『一』的緣故而『異』。不是因為『異』的緣故而『一』，而是『一』自性就是『一』；不是因為『一』的緣故而『異』，而是『異』自性就是『異』。自性『一』，那麼就會妨礙『異』；自性『異』，那麼就會妨礙『一』。『異』既然妨礙『一』，『異』怎麼能夠與『一』同處呢？『異』不能與『一』同處，那麼就沒有『一』。既然沒有『一』，又怎麼會有『異』呢？既然沒有『一』和『異』，所以四句不能成立。縱容他們這樣說罷了。如果駁斥他們，那就完全沒有道理。為什麼呢？有一種『可一』，但不是由『異』而產生『一』；有一種『可異』，但不是由『一』而產生『異』。不是因為『異』的緣故而『一』，所以『一』不能成立為『一』；不是因為『一』的緣故而『異』，所以『異』不能成立為『異』。『一』不能成立為『一』，那麼就沒有『一』；『異』不能成立為『異』，那麼就沒有『異』。這樣就沒有『一』和『異』的論述。什麼事物有『一』和『異』，才可能有四句？既然沒有『一』和『異』，那麼就沒有四句。所以他們不能夠明白四句的含義。現在我所闡明的是，沒有四句而有四句。一定要先批判他們有障礙性的含義，才能夠明白我現在所說的因緣無礙的含義。為什麼呢？現在沒有『可一』，因為由『異』的緣故而『一』；沒有『可異』，因為由『一』的緣故而『異』。由『異』的緣故而『一』，那麼就是由『一』的緣故而『一』；『一』由『一』的緣故而『異』，也就是由『異』的緣故而『異』。『異』可以說是沒有句而有句，一句而有兩句，兩句而有四句。所以《大品經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說：『無句義是菩薩句義』。現在也是這樣，沒有句。
【English Translation】 English version Here. The explanation says: If you want to understand the Saha world (娑婆, the world we live in, full of suffering) and the Avatamsaka world (華藏, the pure and adorned world described in the Avatamsaka Sutra), you cannot say they are different, nor can you say they are the same. Because the two places have differences, you cannot say they are the same; because they are not separate from each other, you cannot say they are different. You cannot say that 'one' is simply 'one', nor can you say that 'different' is simply 'different'. This is neither one nor different, yet both one and different. Briefly explaining one kind of four-fold statement, it is like this. Now, let's further simplify the meaning of these four statements in a comprehensive way. Someone asks: Others also explain these four statements, what is the difference between them and you? You cannot say that they do not have these four statements, because the scriptures and others all have this meaning. They also explain these four statements, and now I also analyze these four, what is the difference? The explanation says: They cannot understand the meaning of these four statements, and now I am just beginning to be able to understand the meaning of these four statements. Why? Although there are four statements, they do not go beyond the two statements of 'one' and 'different'. They have a 'can be one', but it cannot be 'one' because of 'different'; they have a 'can be different', but it cannot be 'different' because of 'one'. It is not 'one' because of 'different', but 'one' is 'one' by its own nature; it is not 'different' because of 'one', but 'different' is 'different' by its own nature. If the nature of 'one' is 'one', then it will hinder 'different'; if the nature of 'different' is 'different', then it will hinder 'one'. Since 'different' hinders 'one', how can 'different' coexist with 'one'? If 'different' cannot coexist with 'one', then there is no 'one'. Since there is no 'one', how can there be 'different'? Since there is no 'one' and 'different', the four statements cannot be established. Let them say so. If you refute them, then there is no reason at all. Why? There is a 'can be one', but it is not 'one' arising from 'different'; there is a 'can be different', but it is not 'different' arising from 'one'. It is not 'one' because of 'different', so 'one' cannot be established as 'one'; it is not 'different' because of 'one', so 'different' cannot be established as 'different'. If 'one' cannot be established as 'one', then there is no 'one'; if 'different' cannot be established as 'different', then there is no 'different'. Then there is no discussion of 'one' and 'different'. What things have 'one' and 'different' that can have four statements? Since there is no 'one' and 'different', then there are no four statements. So they cannot understand the meaning of the four statements. What I am explaining now is that there are four statements without four statements. It is necessary to first criticize their meaning of having obstacles before understanding the meaning of unobstructed interdependence that I am talking about now. Why? Now there is no 'can be one', because it is 'one' because of 'different'; there is no 'can be different', because it is 'different' because of 'one'. 'One' because of 'different', then it is 'one' because of 'one'; 'one' is 'different' because of 'one', that is, 'different' because of 'different'. 'Different' can be said to have statements without statements, one statement with two statements, and two statements with four statements. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品經) says: 'The meaning of no statement is the meaning of the Bodhisattva's statement'. It is the same now, there are no statements.
而句。一句而四。四而無句。四句即一句。一句還無句。無句而句則非句。句而無句則非無句。非句非無句而句。始是菩薩無礙句。以無礙句故得一質在二處。二質在一處等。故今時明四句與他異也。他所以不得有此四句。他一異礙故。異不得在一處。一不得在異處。如兩柱相礙故。不得容柱。何者柱是色。如釋色是質礙義。柱是色。柱不容柱。土亦是色土不得容土。今時即無礙無礙故。所以一異互得相在。為是故他不得明此四句。今時始得辨此四句也。然此四句約事猶易解。後去四句轉難也。
次更明一種四句。前地架明一種四句竟。今更明一種四句。漸深轉妙。然前之四句眾意不同他論。或同不同。若是今之四句非但意不同論然迥越。言四句者謂。異質一處。一質異處。一質一處。異質異處。言異質一處者。凈穢質異故言異質。此凈穢是因緣凈穢。因緣凈穢。非凈無以明穢。非穢無以明凈。非凈無以明穢。穢是凈穢。非穢無以明凈。凈是穢凈。穢凈則非凈。凈穢則非穢。非穢非凈。凈穢不二名為一處。斯則凈穢二為異。非凈非穢不二為一處也。言一質異處者。前二不二今名不二二。前凈穢非凈穢。今名非凈穢凈穢。非凈非穢名凈名穢。斯則非凈非穢不二為一質。凈穢二為異處反前也。言一質一處者。非凈非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 而句。一句分為四。四而沒有句。四句即是一句。一句還原為沒有句。沒有句而有句則不是句。句而沒有句則不是沒有句。不是句也不是沒有句而有句。這才是菩薩的無礙句。因為有無礙句，所以能得到一個物體在兩個地方，兩個物體在一個地方等等。所以現在明白的四句與其他的不同。他們之所以不能有這四句，是因為他們的一異有障礙。異不能在一個地方，一不能在異處。就像兩根柱子互相妨礙，所以不能容納柱子。為什麼呢？因為柱子是色（Rupa，物質）。如解釋色是質礙的意思。柱子是色，柱子不能容納柱子。土也是色，土不能容納土。現在因為沒有障礙，所以一異可以互相存在。正因為如此，他們不能明白這四句。現在才能夠分辨這四句。然而這四句就事論事還容易理解，後面的四句就更加困難了。
接下來再說明一種四句。前面已經闡明了一種四句。現在再說明一種四句，逐漸深入，更加精妙。然而前面的四句，大家的理解不同於其他的論述，或者相同或者不同。如果是現在的四句，不僅理解不同於其他論述，而且非常超越。所說的四句是指：異質一處，一質異處，一質一處，異質異處。所說的異質一處是指：凈（純凈）和穢（污穢）的性質不同，所以說是異質。這凈穢是因緣凈穢。因為因緣，沒有凈就無法顯明穢，沒有穢就無法顯明凈。沒有凈就無法顯明穢，穢就是凈的穢；沒有穢就無法顯明凈，凈就是穢的凈。穢凈則不是凈，凈穢則不是穢。非穢非凈，凈穢不二，名為一處。這樣，凈穢二者為異，非凈非穢不二為一處。所說的一質異處是指：前面二而不二，現在名為不二而二。前面是凈穢和非凈穢，現在名為非凈穢和凈穢。非凈非穢名為凈，也名為穢。這樣，非凈非穢不二為一質，凈穢二者為異處，與前面相反。所說的一質一處是指：非凈非...
【English Translation】 English version: And a phrase. One phrase divided into four. Four without a phrase. Four phrases are one phrase. One phrase returns to no phrase. No phrase yet a phrase is not a phrase. A phrase yet no phrase is not no phrase. Not a phrase, not no phrase, yet a phrase. This is the Bodhisattva's unobstructed phrase. Because of the unobstructed phrase, one can attain one substance in two places, two substances in one place, and so on. Therefore, the four phrases understood now are different from others. The reason they cannot have these four phrases is because their 'one' and 'different' are obstructed. 'Different' cannot be in one place, 'one' cannot be in a different place. Like two pillars obstructing each other, they cannot accommodate a pillar. Why? Because a pillar is Rupa (form, matter). As explaining Rupa is the meaning of material obstruction. A pillar is Rupa, a pillar cannot accommodate a pillar. Earth is also Rupa, earth cannot accommodate earth. Now, because there is no obstruction, 'one' and 'different' can mutually exist. Precisely because of this, they cannot understand these four phrases. Only now can these four phrases be distinguished. However, these four phrases are easier to understand when discussing matters; the later four phrases become more difficult.
Next, another type of four phrases will be explained. The previous explanation of one type of four phrases is complete. Now, another type of four phrases will be explained, gradually deepening and becoming more subtle. However, the previous four phrases, everyone's understanding differs from other discussions, either the same or different. If it is the current four phrases, not only is the understanding different from other discussions, but it is also very transcendent. The so-called four phrases refer to: different substances in one place, one substance in different places, one substance in one place, different substances in different places. The so-called 'different substances in one place' refers to: the nature of purity (Neti) and impurity (Asubha) are different, so it is said to be different substances. This purity and impurity are conditioned purity and impurity. Because of conditions, without purity, impurity cannot be manifested; without impurity, purity cannot be manifested. Without purity, impurity cannot be manifested; impurity is the impurity of purity. Without impurity, purity cannot be manifested; purity is the purity of impurity. Impurity and purity are not purity; purity and impurity are not impurity. Neither impurity nor purity, purity and impurity are not two, called one place. Thus, purity and impurity are two, being different; neither impurity nor purity are not two, being one place. The so-called 'one substance in different places' refers to: the previous two are not two, now called not two and two. Previously it was purity/impurity and not purity/impurity, now called not purity/impurity and purity/impurity. Not purity and not impurity is called purity, also called impurity. Thus, not purity and not impurity are not two, being one substance; purity and impurity are two, being different places, reversing the previous. The so-called 'one substance in one place' refers to: not purity and not...
穢質。非凈非穢處不二為一質。不二為一處也。言異質異處者。凈穢異質。凈穢異處故。言異質異處也。大師正意在此四句也。問。此四句與前四句何異。解云。前四句約事而辨。今雖有四句只是非凈非穢凈穢凈穢非凈穢一句。開此一句以為四句。故與前異也。問。前亦言質言處。今亦言質言處。與前質處何異。解云。前以凈穢為質。東西方為處。今言異質一處者。以凈穢為異質。非凈非穢為一處。只凈穢宛然不非凈穢。凈穢宛然不而得動心。只二而不二。故二質在一處也。一質異處者。以非凈非穢不二為一質。凈穢二為二處。一質一處者。不二為一質。不二為一處。異質異處者。凈穢二為質。凈穢二為處。雖有四句后二句質處同前質處。意雖同而轉為異。此復是一種四句也。
次更明一種穢四句。四句者謂。一質二見。二質一見。一質一見。二質二見。此之四句初一句難解。后三句易明。且辨一質二見。何者是其事且舉凈名華嚴兩經。凈名經云。螺髻見金玉身子矚土砂。此經第八會祇洹精舍諸大菩薩。見祇洹七寶所成。五百聲聞見須達泥木所起。只是一質兩緣見不同故。言一質二見也。今問。一質一何物質為一。穢質為一。凈質為一。非凈非穢質為一。此之三責便有三家解釋。第一舊成實論師解云。一凈質一
穢質。只一凈質。身子自見木。只一穢質。梵王自見金。祇洹亦爾也。次地論解云。一質是非金非木質。只如林樹。有想心取則成有漏樹。無想心取則成無漏林樹。樹未曾有漏無漏。隨兩心故有漏無漏。今亦爾。未曾凈穢。凈緣見凈穢緣見穢耳。復有三論師。不精得一家意義者。監於此解。一非金非木質緣見金見木。此質未曾金木身子自見木。梵王自見金。名一質異見。今且難之。不難成論地論。難三論師解。三論既壞。所餘自崩。何者汝非金非木一質。身子梵王見木金者。為當身子木非木非金。身子見木。梵王見金。為當梵王金非金非木。身子見木。梵王見金。為當離身子木梵王金別有非金非木。所以身子見木。梵王見金耶。且開此三關責。次第設難。若只使一身子木非金非木故。身子見木梵王見金者。身子之木既被燒。梵王金為被燒為不被燒。更開兩關責此一句。若身子木被燒梵王金燒者則破業果。何者身子惡業感見木。梵王善業感見金。兩業各感一果。身子業壞木自被燒。梵王不壞何得金亦被燒。又身子惡業可壞。梵王善業那應壞。惡業壞善業亦壞。地獄壞天堂亦壞而不爾故。身子木壞梵王金不應壞也。又且善業制不得壞。既共一木。惡業善業制那得壞耶。故不得同壞。若使身子木自壞。梵王金不壞則便二質。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 穢質（不清凈的物質）。只有一種凈質（清凈的物質）。舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）自己看到的是木頭。只有一種穢質。梵天（Brahmā，印度教的創造之神，佛教中護法神之一）自己看到的是黃金。祇洹（Jetavana，即祇樹給孤獨園，佛陀在世時重要的弘法場所）也是如此。接下來是《地論》的解釋：一種物質既不是金也不是木的性質。就像樹林一樣，如果有想念的心去取，就成為有漏的樹；如果沒有想念的心去取，就成為無漏的林樹。樹本身並沒有有漏無漏的性質，而是隨著兩種心而產生有漏無漏。現在也是這樣，事物本身並沒有清凈或不清凈的性質，而是清凈的因緣看到清凈，不清凈的因緣看到不清凈罷了。 還有三論宗的法師，沒有精通一家之義理的人，錯誤地理解了這個解釋，認為一種非金非木的物質，因緣而見金見木。這種物質本身並沒有金木的性質，舍利弗自己看到的是木頭，梵天自己看到的是黃金，這叫做一種物質，不同的見解。現在先來詰難他，不是詰難《成實論》和《地論》，而是詰難三論宗法師的解釋。三論宗的觀點如果被駁倒，其餘的觀點自然崩潰。為什麼呢？你所說的非金非木的一種物質，舍利弗和梵天看到的是木頭和黃金，那麼，是舍利弗所見的木頭既不是木頭也不是黃金，所以舍利弗看到的是木頭，梵天看到的是黃金呢？還是梵天所見的黃金既不是黃金也不是木頭，所以舍利弗看到的是木頭，梵天看到的是黃金呢？還是離開舍利弗的木頭和梵天的黃金，另外存在一種非金非木的物質，所以舍利弗看到的是木頭，梵天看到的是黃金呢？先打開這三個關口來責問，依次進行詰難。如果只是因為舍利弗所見的木頭既不是金也不是木，所以舍利弗看到的是木頭，梵天看到的是黃金，那麼，舍利弗所見的木頭既然被燒燬了，梵天所見的黃金是被燒燬了還是沒有被燒燬？再打開兩個關口來責問這句話。如果舍利弗的木頭被燒燬，梵天的黃金也被燒燬，那就破壞了業果的道理。為什麼呢？因為舍利弗的惡業感得見到木頭，梵天的善業感得見到黃金，兩種業各自感得一種果報。舍利弗的業壞了，木頭自然被燒燬，梵天的業沒有壞，為什麼黃金也被燒燬呢？而且舍利弗的惡業可以壞，梵天的善業不應該壞。惡業壞了，善業也壞了，地獄壞了，天堂也壞了，但事實並非如此。所以舍利弗的木頭壞了，梵天的黃金不應該壞。 而且善業是不能被制止而壞滅的。既然是共同的一棵樹，惡業和善業怎麼能被制止而壞滅呢？所以不能一同壞滅。如果舍利弗的木頭自己壞滅，梵天的黃金沒有壞滅，那就變成了兩種物質。
【English Translation】 English version 'Impure substance.' There is only one pure substance. Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten principal disciples, known for his wisdom) sees only wood. There is only one impure substance. Brahmā (the Hindu god of creation, one of the protective deities in Buddhism) sees only gold. Jeta Grove (Jetavana, an important place for the Buddha to propagate the Dharma during his lifetime) is also like this. Next, the explanation from the Treatise on the Land says: One substance is neither gold nor wood in nature. Just like a forest, if one takes it with a mind of thought, it becomes a tree with outflows; if one takes it without a mind of thought, it becomes a forest of trees without outflows. The tree itself does not have the nature of outflow or no outflow, but it produces outflow or no outflow depending on the two kinds of minds. It is also like this now, things themselves do not have the nature of purity or impurity, but pure conditions see purity, and impure conditions see impurity. There are also teachers of the Three Treatise School, who have not mastered the meaning of one school, and have misunderstood this explanation, thinking that a substance that is neither gold nor wood, sees gold and sees wood due to conditions. This substance itself does not have the nature of gold or wood, Śāriputra himself sees wood, and Brahmā himself sees gold, this is called one substance, different views. Now let's first question him, not questioning the Treatise on the Establishment of Truth and the Treatise on the Land, but questioning the explanation of the teachers of the Three Treatise School. If the views of the Three Treatise School are refuted, the remaining views will naturally collapse. Why? The one substance that you say is neither gold nor wood, Śāriputra and Brahmā see wood and gold, then, is the wood seen by Śāriputra neither wood nor gold, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold? Or is the gold seen by Brahmā neither gold nor wood, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold? Or is there another substance that is neither gold nor wood apart from Śāriputra's wood and Brahmā's gold, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold? First open these three gates to question, and question in order. If it is only because the wood seen by Śāriputra is neither gold nor wood, so Śāriputra sees wood, and Brahmā sees gold, then, since the wood seen by Śāriputra has been burned, is the gold seen by Brahmā burned or not burned? Open two more gates to question this sentence. If Śāriputra's wood is burned and Brahmā's gold is also burned, then it destroys the principle of karmic consequences. Why? Because Śāriputra's evil karma causes him to see wood, and Brahmā's good karma causes him to see gold, and the two karmas each cause a kind of retribution. Śāriputra's karma is destroyed, and the wood is naturally burned, Brahmā's karma is not destroyed, why is the gold also burned? Moreover, Śāriputra's evil karma can be destroyed, Brahmā's good karma should not be destroyed. If evil karma is destroyed, good karma is also destroyed, if hell is destroyed, heaven is also destroyed, but this is not the case. Therefore, if Śāriputra's wood is destroyed, Brahmā's gold should not be destroyed. Moreover, good karma cannot be prevented from being destroyed. Since it is a common tree, how can evil karma and good karma be prevented from being destroyed? Therefore, they cannot be destroyed together. If Śāriputra's wood is destroyed by itself, and Brahmā's gold is not destroyed, then it becomes two substances.
何謂一質二見耶。前關得一質則壞業義。后關得業義則壞一質義也。身子木非金非木見金木既爾。梵王金非金非木亦然。類前可知。次金木別有非金非木一質。二緣見二者。汝非金非木為當非此金木。為當不非此金木耶。若非金非木還非此金非此木。則金木共成非金非木。若爾還著前被燒難。何者既共一質燒木既燒金也。又若共成一非金非木質。兩人見金木則皆顛倒。此質非是金。梵王見金既非顛倒。此木非是木。身子見木亦非倒。非是木。身子見木既倒。非是金。梵王見金亦倒。同皆非金非木。而言身子倒梵王不倒者同皆非金木。豈非梵王倒身子不倒。何以故同是非金木故也。若非金木非不金木者。則離金木別有非金非木者。既離金木何得別有非金木耶。又若離金木別有非金木。則成三體金木二體非金非木。復是一體故成三體。師云。如此一梨時兩盛子。為非金非木一體時金木二體故不成義也。四句義此一句。且難未得解。
今當解后三句。第二句云。二質一見者。此有三義。言二質者。凈穢二質。言一見者。凈穢是因緣凈穢。非凈無以明穢。非穢無以辨凈。由凈故言穢。由穢故稱凈。凈是穢凈穢是凈穢。凈穢不穢。穢凈不凈。只凈穢不凈穢。見二不二故。涅槃經云。明與無明愚者謂二。智者了達其性無二。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什麼叫做『一質二見』呢？如果先執著于『一質』，就會破壞『業』的意義；如果后執著于『業』的意義，就會破壞『一質』的意義。例如，舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）看到木頭，認為它不是金也不是木，而梵天（Brahmā，印度教的創造之神）看到金，也認為它不是金也不是木，情況與之前類似，可以類推得知。其次，金和木分別具有一種既非金也非木的『一質』，兩種因緣導致兩種見解。你所說的『非金非木』，是指不屬於這個金和木，還是並非不屬於這個金和木呢？如果說『非金非木』仍然不屬於這個金和木，那麼金和木就共同構成了『非金非木』。如果是這樣，就會陷入之前被燒燬的困境。為什麼呢？既然共同具有一種性質，那麼燒燬木頭也就等於燒燬金子了。而且，如果共同構成了一種『非金非木』的性質，那麼兩個人看到金和木就都顛倒了。這個性質不是金，梵天看到金卻不是顛倒；這個性質不是木，舍利弗看到木也不是顛倒。如果說不是木，舍利弗看到木卻是顛倒的；如果說不是金，梵天看到金也是顛倒的。同樣都是非金非木，卻說舍利弗顛倒而梵天不顛倒，同樣都是非金非木，難道不是梵天顛倒而舍利弗不顛倒嗎？為什麼呢？因為他們都認為是非金非木。如果說『非金木』並非『不非金木』，那麼就意味著離開金和木，另外存在著『非金非木』。既然離開了金和木，又怎麼能另外存在『非金木』呢？而且，如果離開金和木，另外存在『非金木』，那麼就形成了三種實體：金和木是兩種實體，『非金非木』又是一種實體，因此形成了三種實體。師父說：『就像一個梨子同時裝在兩個盤子里。』因為『非金非木』是一種實體的時候，金和木是兩種實體，所以這個說法是不成立的。四句義中的這一句，暫且難以理解。
現在來解釋後面的三句。第二句說：『二質一見』，這裡有三種意義。所說的『二質』，是指清凈和污穢兩種性質。所說的『一見』，是指清凈和污穢是因緣，清凈和污穢相互依存。沒有清凈就無法說明污穢，沒有污穢就無法辨別清凈。因為有清凈所以才說污穢，因為有污穢所以才稱清凈。清凈就是污穢的清凈，污穢就是清凈的污穢。清凈不污穢，污穢不清凈。只是清凈和污穢不凈不穢，看到二者不二的緣故。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『明與無明，愚者認為是二，智者了達其性無二。』
【English Translation】 English version: What is meant by 'one substance, two views'? If one clings to 'one substance' first, it destroys the meaning of 'karma'; if one clings to the meaning of 'karma' later, it destroys the meaning of 'one substance'. For example, Śāriputra (one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, known for his wisdom) sees wood and thinks it is neither gold nor wood, while Brahmā (the creator god in Hinduism) sees gold and also thinks it is neither gold nor wood. The situation is similar to the previous one, and can be inferred accordingly. Secondly, gold and wood each have a 'one substance' that is neither gold nor wood, and two conditions lead to two views. What you call 'neither gold nor wood', does it mean not belonging to this gold and wood, or does it mean not not belonging to this gold and wood? If 'neither gold nor wood' still does not belong to this gold and wood, then gold and wood together constitute 'neither gold nor wood'. If so, it will fall into the previous predicament of being burned. Why? Since they share a common nature, burning wood is equivalent to burning gold. Moreover, if they jointly constitute a nature of 'neither gold nor wood', then two people seeing gold and wood are both inverted. This nature is not gold, but Brahmā seeing gold is not inverted; this nature is not wood, but Śāriputra seeing wood is also not inverted. If it is said that it is not wood, but Śāriputra seeing wood is inverted; if it is said that it is not gold, but Brahmā seeing gold is also inverted. Both are neither gold nor wood, but it is said that Śāriputra is inverted while Brahmā is not inverted. Both are neither gold nor wood, so isn't it Brahmā who is inverted and Śāriputra who is not inverted? Why? Because they both think it is neither gold nor wood. If 'neither gold nor wood' is not 'not neither gold nor wood', then it means that apart from gold and wood, there is another 'neither gold nor wood'. Since it is separated from gold and wood, how can there be another 'neither gold nor wood'? Moreover, if apart from gold and wood, there is another 'neither gold nor wood', then three entities are formed: gold and wood are two entities, and 'neither gold nor wood' is another entity, thus forming three entities. The master said: 'It's like one pear being placed in two plates at the same time.' Because when 'neither gold nor wood' is one entity, gold and wood are two entities, so this statement is not valid. This sentence in the four-sentence meaning is temporarily difficult to understand.
Now let's explain the latter three sentences. The second sentence says: 'Two substances, one view', there are three meanings here. The 'two substances' refer to the two natures of purity and impurity. The 'one view' refers to purity and impurity being causes and conditions, purity and impurity being interdependent. Without purity, there is no way to explain impurity, and without impurity, there is no way to distinguish purity. Because there is purity, we say impurity, and because there is impurity, we call it purity. Purity is the purity of impurity, and impurity is the purity of purity. Purity is not impure, and impurity is not pure. It is just that purity and impurity are neither impure nor pure, seeing the non-duality of the two. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Brightness and ignorance, fools think are two, wise men understand their nature is not two.'
無二之性即是實性。黑法白法凈不凈法亦爾。故是二質一見也。二者口凈穢二質。深行菩薩並見是凈。故大經云。一切世諦。若於如來成第一義諦。若俗若真于如來皆真。亦若凈若穢。菩薩皆見凈。亦如法華法師功德品云。若甘若苦等味至菩薩口皆成甘露。大品云。菩薩見產業之事。無非般若也。三者惡業眾生。若凈若穢。皆見穢。如餓鬼非但見彼處火。見恒河水亦是火。亦如獅子國採珠。福德人得珠。薄福人見珠成蛇。非但見蛇成蛇。見珠亦成蛇。以是故二質一見也。第三句言一質一見者。非凈非穢質非凈非穢見。斯則中道正土也。此之正土即是法身。波若涅槃此中道正土。本不曾凈。今亦不曾穢。先不有今亦不無。非凈非穢不有不無名為正法身。只此正法可遷托。名為正法土也。此正土何人所見。還以非凈非穢正人所見故。言一質一見也。又言一質一見者。非凈非穢方便穢質即有非凈非穢方便穢見。穢既然凈亦爾。非凈非穢方便凈質。即有非凈非穢方便凈見。故云一質一見。斯則前明方便實一質一見。今明實方便一質一見也。第四句二質二見者。非凈非穢。凈穢雙游。凈穢雙現。如華臺示現千釋迦。華臺舍那為本。釋迦為跡。非本非跡。本跡雙游。亦非凈非穢。凈穢俱現。即既雙現雙見故。云二質二見也。雖然語
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無二之性』就是真實的本性。黑法（指不善之法），白法（指善良之法），清凈之法和不清凈之法也是如此。所以說這是『二質一見』（兩種性質，一種見解）。 第二種情況是口中的清凈和污穢兩種性質。修行精深的菩薩都認為它們是清凈的。所以《大般涅槃經》說：『一切世俗諦，對於如來來說都成為第一義諦。』無論是世俗還是真諦，對於如來來說都是真實的。也像清凈和污穢，菩薩都看到清凈。也像《法華經·法師功德品》所說：『無論是甘甜還是苦澀的味道，到了菩薩口中都變成甘露。』《大品般若經》說：『菩薩看到世俗的產業之事，沒有哪一樣不是般若（智慧）。』 第三種情況是作惡業的眾生，無論是清凈還是污穢，都看到是污穢的。比如餓鬼不僅看到那個地方有火，看到恒河水也是火。也像獅子國採珠的故事，有福德的人得到珍珠，沒有福德的人看到珍珠變成蛇。不僅看到蛇變成蛇，看到珍珠也變成蛇。因此說『二質一見』。 第三句說『一質一見』，指的是非清凈非污穢的性質，以及非清凈非污穢的見解。這就是中道正土（不偏不倚的清凈佛土）。這個正土就是法身（佛的真身），般若（智慧），涅槃（寂滅）所在的中道正土。它本來不曾清凈，現在也不曾污穢。先前沒有，現在也沒有。非清凈非污穢，不有不無，名為正法身。只有這個正法可以寄託，名為正法土。這個正土是什麼人所見呢？還是由非清凈非污穢的正人所見，所以說『一質一見』。 又說『一質一見』，指的是非清凈非污穢的方便穢質（權宜之計的污穢性質）就產生非清凈非污穢的方便穢見（權宜之計的污穢見解）。污穢既然如此，清凈也是一樣。非清凈非污穢的方便凈質（權宜之計的清凈性質）就產生非清凈非污穢的方便凈見（權宜之計的清凈見解）。所以說『一質一見』。這是前面說明方便實相的一質一見，現在說明實相方便的一質一見。 第四句說『二質二見』，指的是非清凈非污穢，清凈和污穢雙重顯現。就像華臺（蓮花寶座）上示現千百個釋迦（Sakyamuni，佛陀）。華臺的盧舍那佛（Vairocana，報身佛）是根本，釋迦是應跡。非根本也非應跡，根本和應跡雙重顯現。也像非清凈非污穢，清凈和污穢共同顯現。既然雙重顯現，也就雙重見到，所以說『二質二見』。 雖然這樣說
【English Translation】 English version 『The nature of non-duality』 is the true nature. The same applies to black dharmas (unwholesome teachings), white dharmas (wholesome teachings), pure dharmas, and impure dharmas. Therefore, it is said that this is 『two natures, one view』 (two qualities, one perspective). The second situation is the two natures of purity and impurity in the mouth. Profoundly practicing Bodhisattvas all see them as pure. Therefore, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says: 『All worldly truths become the ultimate truth for the Tathagata (Buddha).』 Whether it is mundane or true, it is true for the Tathagata. Similarly, like purity and impurity, Bodhisattvas see purity. It is also as the Lotus Sutra, chapter 『Merits of the Dharma Master』 says: 『Whether it is sweet or bitter taste, it all becomes nectar in the mouth of a Bodhisattva.』 The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 『Bodhisattvas see worldly affairs, and there is nothing that is not Prajna (wisdom).』 The third situation is that sentient beings who commit evil karma see everything as impure, whether it is pure or impure. For example, hungry ghosts not only see fire in that place, but also see the water of the Ganges River as fire. It is also like the story of pearl gathering in the country of lions (Sri Lanka), where people with merit obtain pearls, and people without merit see pearls turn into snakes. Not only do they see snakes as snakes, but they also see pearls as snakes. Therefore, it is said 『two natures, one view.』 The third sentence says 『one nature, one view,』 referring to the nature of neither purity nor impurity, and the view of neither purity nor impurity. This is the Middle Way Pure Land (a pure Buddha-land that is neither biased nor inclined). This Pure Land is the Dharmakaya (the true body of the Buddha), Prajna (wisdom), and the Middle Way Pure Land where Nirvana (extinction) is located. It was originally never pure, and it is not impure now. It did not exist before, and it does not not exist now. Neither pure nor impure, neither existent nor non-existent, is called the true Dharmakaya. Only this true Dharma can be entrusted, and it is called the true Dharma Land. Who sees this Pure Land? It is still seen by the righteous person who is neither pure nor impure, so it is said 『one nature, one view.』 Furthermore, 『one nature, one view』 refers to the expedient impure nature (a provisional impure quality) that produces the expedient impure view (a provisional impure perspective) of neither purity nor impurity. Since impurity is like this, so is purity. The expedient pure nature (a provisional pure quality) of neither purity nor impurity produces the expedient pure view (a provisional pure perspective) of neither purity nor impurity. Therefore, it is said 『one nature, one view.』 This is the previous explanation of the one nature, one view of expedient reality, and now it explains the one nature, one view of reality expedient. The fourth sentence says 『two natures, two views,』 referring to neither purity nor impurity, with purity and impurity both appearing. It is like the manifestation of thousands of Sakyamunis (Buddha) on the lotus platform. The Vairocana Buddha (the reward body of the Buddha) of the lotus platform is the root, and Sakyamuni is the trace. Neither root nor trace, the root and trace both appear. It is also like neither purity nor impurity, with purity and impurity both appearing. Since they both appear, they are also both seen, so it is said 『two natures, two views.』 Although it is said like this
並相監。何者前第二句亦不二為一見。第三亦不二為一見何異。解前第二句見二不二為二質一見。第三句本不二見不二為一質一見。故與前異也。
次明土有四種。一穢凈土。二凈穢土。三穢穢土。四凈凈土。言穢凈土者。此是因緣凈穢也。何者一往舍那釋迦開凈穢二舍那為凈釋迦為穢。此凈穢是因緣凈穢。非凈無以明穢。非穢無以明凈。故凈是穢凈。穢是凈穢。故舍那是穢凈。釋迦是凈穢。依果既然。正果亦爾。舍那是本釋迦是跡此因緣本跡。非本無以明跡。非跡無以辨本。本是跡本。跡是本跡也。言穢穢土凈凈土者。此即眾生顛倒業所感。以眾生顛倒穢穢業故。感得穢穢土。顛倒凈凈業故。感得凈凈土。前之二句是眾生顛倒所感也。問。穢穢土是顛倒業所感。凈凈土云何亦為顛倒業所感。顛倒業何得感凈耶。解云。雖同顛倒顛倒中有重有輕。顛倒重故感穢穢土。顛倒輕故感凈凈土。雖同顛倒倒有重輕。雖同土土不同土有穢凈也。今所化眾生。雖同顛倒顛倒不同。有顛倒凈凈顛倒穢穢。前能化諸佛雖同方便方便不同。有凈穢方便。有穢凈方便。然土有此四。見亦有四。因緣凈穢土。因緣穢凈土。即諸佛菩薩因緣穢凈見。因緣凈穢見。眾生穢穢土。凈凈土。則眾生顛倒穢穢見凈凈見。故土有四見亦有四也。明見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
互相觀察。什麼是前句和第二句都將不二視為一見的區別？第三句也將不二視為一見，這有什麼不同？解釋：前句和第二句是將二和不二視為二，本質上視為一見。第三句原本是不二，見不二，視為本質上的一見。所以和前面不同。
接下來闡明土地有四種：一是穢凈土（不凈但又清凈的國土），二是凈穢土（清凈但又不乾淨的國土），三是穢穢土（完全不乾淨的國土），四是凈凈土（完全清凈的國土）。
所謂穢凈土，這是因緣（條件）造成的凈穢。為什麼這麼說呢？比如，舍那佛（Vairocana，報身佛）和釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni，應化身佛）展現了凈穢二相，舍那佛為凈，釋迦牟尼佛為穢。這種凈穢是因緣造成的。沒有凈，就無法顯明穢；沒有穢，就無法顯明凈。所以凈就是穢凈，穢就是凈穢。因此，舍那佛是穢凈，釋迦牟尼佛是凈穢。依據果位是這樣，正果也是如此。舍那佛是本（根本），釋迦牟尼佛是跡（示現）。這種因緣本跡，沒有本，就無法顯明跡；沒有跡，就無法辨別本。本就是跡本，跡就是本跡。
所謂穢穢土和凈凈土，這是眾生顛倒的業力所感召的。因為眾生顛倒的穢穢業，所以感得穢穢土；因為顛倒的凈凈業，所以感得凈凈土。前面的兩句是眾生顛倒所感召的。問：穢穢土是顛倒業所感召的，凈凈土為什麼也是顛倒業所感召的？顛倒業怎麼能感召清凈呢？
解釋說：雖然都是顛倒，顛倒之中有輕有重。顛倒重，所以感得穢穢土；顛倒輕，所以感得凈凈土。雖然都是顛倒，顛倒有輕重；雖然都是土，土有穢凈的不同。現在所教化的眾生，雖然都是顛倒，顛倒也不同，有顛倒凈凈，有顛倒穢穢。先前能教化的諸佛，雖然都是方便，方便也不同，有凈穢方便，有穢凈方便。然而，土地有這四種，見解也有四種：因緣凈穢土，因緣穢凈土，即諸佛菩薩因緣穢凈見，因緣凈穢見。眾生穢穢土，凈凈土，則是眾生顛倒穢穢見，凈凈見。所以土地有四種，見解也有四種。闡明見解。
【English Translation】 English version:
They observe each other. What is the difference between the first and second sentences, both of which regard non-duality as seeing oneness? What is the difference with the third sentence, which also regards non-duality as seeing oneness? Explanation: The first and second sentences regard duality and non-duality as two, essentially seeing them as one. The third sentence originally is non-dual, seeing non-duality, regarding it as essentially seeing oneness. Therefore, it is different from the previous ones.
Next, it clarifies that there are four types of lands: first, impure-pure lands; second, pure-impure lands; third, impure-impure lands; and fourth, pure-pure lands.
What is meant by impure-pure lands is that this is purity and impurity caused by conditions (因緣, hetu-pratyaya). Why is this said? For example, Vairocana (舍那, the reward body Buddha) and Sakyamuni (釋迦, the manifested body Buddha) display the two aspects of purity and impurity, with Vairocana being pure and Sakyamuni being impure. This purity and impurity are caused by conditions. Without purity, impurity cannot be made clear; without impurity, purity cannot be made clear. Therefore, purity is impure-pure, and impurity is pure-impure. Thus, Vairocana is impure-pure, and Sakyamuni is pure-impure. Based on the result, it is like this, and the true result is also like this. Vairocana is the origin (本, fundamental), and Sakyamuni is the trace (跡, manifestation). This causal origin and trace, without the origin, the trace cannot be made clear; without the trace, the origin cannot be distinguished. The origin is the trace-origin, and the trace is the origin-trace.
What is meant by impure-impure lands and pure-pure lands is that this is what sentient beings' inverted karma causes. Because of sentient beings' inverted impure-impure karma, they experience impure-impure lands; because of inverted pure-pure karma, they experience pure-pure lands. The previous two sentences are what sentient beings' inversion causes. Question: Impure-impure lands are caused by inverted karma, so why are pure-pure lands also caused by inverted karma? How can inverted karma cause purity?
Explanation: Although both are inversions, there are heavy and light aspects within inversion. Heavy inversion causes impure-impure lands; light inversion causes pure-pure lands. Although both are inversions, inversions have heavy and light aspects; although both are lands, lands have differences in purity and impurity. The sentient beings being transformed now, although all are inverted, the inversions are different, with some being inverted pure-pure and some being inverted impure-impure. The Buddhas who can transform earlier, although all are skillful means (方便, upaya), the skillful means are different, with some being pure-impure skillful means and some being impure-pure skillful means. However, lands have these four types, and views also have four types: conditioned pure-impure lands, conditioned impure-pure lands, which are the conditioned impure-pure views and conditioned pure-impure views of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Sentient beings' impure-impure lands and pure-pure lands are sentient beings' inverted impure-impure views and pure-pure views. Therefore, lands have four types, and views also have four types. Clarifying views.
凈穢土義未竟。
更辨一穢四句者。一見穢不見凈。二見凈不見穢。三亦見凈亦見穢。四不見穢不見凈。此之四句約兩處辨之。見穢不見凈。見凈不見穢。此兩約何處辨耶。解云。且約祇洹而辨之。只是一祇洹。五百聲聞唯見須達所起祇洹。不見法界祇洹。以其罪重薄福斷常之心故。見穢祇洹丘陵坑坎。良由心有斷常高下故。見祇洹丘墟高下之土。不見法界祇洹清凈之土。既其如此餘三亦然。唯見須達祇洹不見法界祇洹。唯見釋迦受用不見舍那受用。唯見三乘徒眾不見純諸菩薩眾。唯見三乘教不見純一大教門。故言見穢不見凈也。見凈不見穢反前。如法界中普賢文殊等諸菩薩。則見法界祇洹不見須達祇洹。所以然者以諸菩薩心無斷常故。不見丘墟之土。唯見法界祇洹不見須達祇洹。唯見舍那受用不見釋迦受用。唯見大菩薩眾不見三乘眾。唯見大乘教不見三乘教。故言見凈不見穢也。言亦見凈亦見穢。不見凈不見穢。此二句復約何處明耶。釋云。此約華臺辨好也。故經云。我今盧舍那方坐蓮華臺。周匝千華上示現千釋迦。舍那是跡。本釋迦是本跡。臺是穢凈葉是凈穢。諸大行菩薩非但見舍那釋迦本跡亦見釋迦舍那跡本。非但見臺葉凈穢亦見葉臺穢凈。此則凈穢雙見。所以雙見者師云。因中二慧果地二身。良由菩薩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於凈土和穢土的意義還沒有完全闡述清楚。
現在進一步辨析『一穢四句』：一、只見穢土，不見凈土；二、只見凈土，不見穢土；三、既見凈土，也見穢土；四、不見穢土，也不見凈土。這四句是就兩個方面來辨析的。『見穢不見凈』，『見凈不見穢』，這兩句是就什麼地方來辨析的呢？解釋說：暫且就祇洹（Jetavana，意為祇樹給孤獨園）來辨析。明明只有一個祇洹，五百聲聞（Śrāvaka，意為聽聞佛法之弟子）只看見須達（Sudatta，意為給孤獨長者）所建造的祇洹，看不見法界（Dharmadhātu，意為諸法總相）的祇洹。因為他們罪業深重，福德淺薄，心懷斷滅和常存的見解，所以看見的祇洹是丘陵坑坎。正是因為心中有斷滅、常存、高下之分，所以看見的祇洹是丘墟高低不平的土地，看不見法界祇洹清凈的土地。既然如此，其餘三句也是一樣。只看見須達的祇洹，看不見法界的祇洹；只看見釋迦（Śākyamuni，意為釋迦牟尼佛）的受用身，看不見盧舍那（Locana，意為光明遍照）的受用身；只看見三乘（Triyāna，意為聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的徒眾，看不見純粹的諸菩薩眾；只看見三乘的教法，看不見純一的大教門。所以說『見穢不見凈』。
『見凈不見穢』則與前面相反。如法界中的普賢（Samantabhadra，意為遍吉菩薩）、文殊（Mañjuśrī，意為妙吉祥菩薩）等諸菩薩，他們看見法界的祇洹，看不見須達的祇洹。之所以這樣，是因為諸菩薩心中沒有斷滅和常存的見解，所以看不見丘墟的土地。只看見法界的祇洹，看不見須達的祇洹；只看見盧舍那的受用身，看不見釋迦的受用身；只看見大菩薩眾，看不見三乘的徒眾；只看見大乘的教法，看不見三乘的教法。所以說『見凈不見穢』。
『既見凈，也見穢』，『不見凈，也不見穢』，這兩句又是就什麼地方來說明的呢？解釋說：這是就華臺（Lotus Platform，蓮花臺）來辨析的。所以經中說：『我今盧舍那，方坐蓮華臺，周匝千華上，示現千釋迦。』盧舍那是跡（manifestation，示現），本釋迦是本（origin，本源）。臺是穢，葉是凈，葉是凈，臺是穢。諸大行菩薩非但見盧舍那釋迦的本跡，也見釋迦盧舍那的跡本。非但見臺葉的凈穢，也見葉臺的穢凈。這就是凈穢雙見。之所以能夠雙見，師父說：因地修二慧（two wisdoms，兩種智慧），果地證二身（two bodies，兩種身）。正是因為菩薩的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'pure land' and 'defiled land' has not yet been fully explained.
Now, let's further analyze the 'one defilement, four sentences': 1. Only seeing defilement, not seeing purity; 2. Only seeing purity, not seeing defilement; 3. Seeing both purity and defilement; 4. Seeing neither defilement nor purity. These four sentences are analyzed from two perspectives. 'Seeing defilement, not seeing purity' and 'Seeing purity, not seeing defilement' – from what place are these two sentences analyzed? The explanation says: Let's temporarily analyze them based on Jetavana (祇洹, meaning 'Jetavana Monastery'). Clearly, there is only one Jetavana, but the five hundred Śrāvakas (聲聞, meaning 'disciples who hear the Buddha's teachings') only see the Jetavana built by Sudatta (須達, meaning 'Anathapindika'), and do not see the Dharmadhātu (法界, meaning 'the realm of all phenomena') Jetavana. Because their sins are heavy, their blessings are shallow, and their minds hold views of annihilation and permanence, they see the Jetavana as hills, mounds, pits, and hollows. It is precisely because their minds have divisions of annihilation, permanence, high, and low that they see the Jetavana as ruins and uneven land, and do not see the pure land of the Dharmadhātu Jetavana. Since this is the case, the remaining three sentences are also the same. They only see Sudatta's Jetavana, not the Dharmadhātu Jetavana; they only see the enjoyment body of Śākyamuni (釋迦, meaning 'Śākyamuni Buddha'), not the enjoyment body of Locana (盧舍那, meaning 'Vairocana'); they only see the assembly of the Three Vehicles (三乘, meaning 'Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna'), not the pure assembly of all Bodhisattvas; they only see the teachings of the Three Vehicles, not the pure and unified Great Teaching. Therefore, it is said, 'Seeing defilement, not seeing purity'.
'Seeing purity, not seeing defilement' is the opposite of the previous. For example, the Bodhisattvas such as Samantabhadra (普賢, meaning 'Universal Worthy Bodhisattva') and Mañjuśrī (文殊, meaning 'Manjushri Bodhisattva') in the Dharmadhātu see the Dharmadhātu Jetavana and do not see Sudatta's Jetavana. The reason for this is that the minds of the Bodhisattvas do not have views of annihilation and permanence, so they do not see the ruined land. They only see the Dharmadhātu Jetavana, not Sudatta's Jetavana; they only see the enjoyment body of Locana, not the enjoyment body of Śākyamuni; they only see the great assembly of Bodhisattvas, not the assembly of the Three Vehicles; they only see the teachings of the Mahāyāna, not the teachings of the Three Vehicles. Therefore, it is said, 'Seeing purity, not seeing defilement'.
'Seeing both purity and defilement' and 'Seeing neither purity nor defilement' – from what place are these two sentences explained? The explanation says: This is explained based on the Lotus Platform (華臺, meaning 'Lotus Platform'). Therefore, the scripture says: 'I, Locana, now sit upon the Lotus Platform, manifesting a thousand Śākyamunis on a thousand surrounding flowers.' Locana is the manifestation (跡), the original Śākyamuni is the origin (本). The platform is defilement, the leaves are purity; the leaves are purity, the platform is defilement. The great practice Bodhisattvas not only see the origin and manifestation of Locana and Śākyamuni, but also see the manifestation and origin of Śākyamuni and Locana. They not only see the purity and defilement of the platform and leaves, but also see the defilement and purity of the leaves and platform. This is seeing both purity and defilement. The reason for being able to see both is, as the teacher says: In the causal stage, cultivate the two wisdoms (二慧), and in the fruition stage, realize the two bodies (二身). It is precisely because of the Bodhisattvas.
有二慧故。見諸佛二身。非但見跡亦見本。非但見本跡復見跡中無量跡。正既然依亦爾。故云亦見凈亦見穢也。不見凈不見穢者。即是二乘異常之人非但不見釋迦舍那跡本。亦不見舍那釋迦本跡。非但不見葉臺穢凈亦不見臺葉凈穢。所以不見二身兩土者彼無二慧故。菩薩有二慧故見二身。既無二慧豈得見二身。非但不見本亦不見跡。非但不見本跡亦不見跡中無量跡。身既然土亦爾。故云不見凈不見穢也。次更因前二句問后二句。何者前既言諸菩薩見凈不見穢。復何意云諸菩薩亦見凈亦見穢。前既言二乘見穢不見凈。復何意云雙不見耶。
今更開一四句答此兩四句者。一知而不見。二見而不知。三亦見亦知。四不知不見。言知而不見者。此句正取前菩薩見凈不見穢義。所以言菩薩知而不見。菩薩知聲聞以顛倒斷常業感得丘墟不凈土。知彼見此土而菩薩土。而菩薩凈業凈心而不見彼所見土。如佛知餓鬼惡業故見火。而佛不見彼所見火。故云知不見。釋菩薩見凈不見穢義也。言見而不知者。還是諸聲聞。唯見釋迦穢土。不知釋迦是舍那釋迦。不知穢是凈穢。故云見而不知也。言亦知亦見者。菩薩知舍那是釋迦舍那。知釋迦是舍那釋迦。知本是跡本。知跡是本跡。知本是跡本。見本即見跡。知跡是本跡。見跡即見本。本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為有二慧的緣故，才能見到諸佛的二身。不僅僅見到佛的垂跡之身，也見到佛的本地之身。不僅僅見到本地之身，在垂跡之身中還能見到無量的垂跡。正如佛身如此，依報的國土也是如此。所以說，既能見到清凈的國土，也能見到不清凈的國土。而那些『不見凈不見穢』的人，就是那些異於菩薩的二乘人，他們不僅見不到釋迦（Śākyamuni）[能仁，釋迦族]、盧舍那（Locana）[光明遍照]的垂跡之身和本地之身，也見不到盧舍那、釋迦的本地之身和垂跡之身。不僅見不到葉臺（可能指某種國土或境界）的不凈和清凈，也見不到臺葉的清凈和不凈。之所以見不到二身和兩土，是因為他們沒有二慧的緣故。菩薩因為有二慧的緣故，才能見到二身。既然沒有二慧，怎麼能見到二身呢？不僅見不到本地之身，也見不到垂跡之身。不僅見不到本地之身和垂跡之身，也見不到垂跡之身中無量的垂跡。佛身既然如此，佛土也是如此。所以說，『不見凈不見穢』。接下來，更進一步地用前面的兩句來提問後面的兩句：既然前面說諸菩薩『見凈不見穢』，又是什麼意思說諸菩薩『亦見凈亦見穢』呢？前面既然說二乘人『見穢不見凈』，又是什麼意思說他們『雙不見』呢？ 現在進一步開出四句來回答這兩個四句：一、知而不見；二、見而不知；三、亦見亦知；四、不知不見。所謂『知而不見』，這一句正是取前面菩薩『見凈不見穢』的含義。為什麼說菩薩『知而不見』呢？菩薩知道聲聞（Śrāvaka）[聽聞佛法而證悟者]以顛倒的斷常之業感得丘墟不凈的國土，知道他們見到此土，而菩薩所見的是清凈的佛土，菩薩以清凈的業和清凈的心，所以不見聲聞所見的國土。如同佛知道餓鬼因為惡業的緣故而見到火焰，而佛卻不見他們所見的火焰。所以說『知不見』，這是解釋菩薩『見凈不見穢』的含義。所謂『見而不知』，還是指那些聲聞，他們只見到釋迦的穢土，卻不知道釋迦就是盧舍那釋迦，不知道穢土就是清凈的穢土，所以說『見而不知』。所謂『亦知亦見』，菩薩知道盧舍那即是釋迦盧舍那，知道釋迦即是盧舍那釋迦，知道本地之身就是垂跡之本地，知道垂跡之身就是本地之垂跡。知道本地之身就是垂跡之本地，見到本地之身就見到垂跡之身。知道垂跡之身就是本地之垂跡，見到垂跡之身就見到本地之身。
【English Translation】 English version Because of having two wisdoms, one can see the two bodies of all Buddhas. Not only seeing the manifested body (跡 Jī), but also seeing the original body (本 Běn). Not only seeing the original body, but also seeing countless manifestations within the manifested body. Just as the Buddha's body is like this, so is the dependent land. Therefore, it is said that one can see both the pure and the impure lands. Those who 'see neither purity nor impurity' are the two vehicles (二乘 Èrchéng) [Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas] who are different from Bodhisattvas. They not only do not see the manifested and original bodies of Śākyamuni (釋迦 Śākyamuni) [the capable one, of the Śākya clan] and Locana (盧舍那 Locana) [light shining everywhere], but also do not see the original and manifested bodies of Locana and Śākyamuni. Not only do they not see the impurity and purity of Ye Tai (葉臺) [possibly referring to a certain land or state], but also do not see the purity and impurity of Tai Ye. The reason why they do not see the two bodies and two lands is because they do not have two wisdoms. Because Bodhisattvas have two wisdoms, they can see the two bodies. Since they do not have two wisdoms, how can they see the two bodies? Not only do they not see the original body, but also do not see the manifested body. Not only do they not see the original and manifested bodies, but also do not see countless manifestations within the manifested body. Just as the Buddha's body is like this, so is the Buddha's land. Therefore, it is said, 'see neither purity nor impurity.' Next, we further use the previous two sentences to question the latter two sentences: Since it was previously said that all Bodhisattvas 'see purity but do not see impurity,' what is the meaning of saying that all Bodhisattvas 'also see purity and also see impurity'? Since it was previously said that the two vehicles 'see impurity but do not see purity,' what is the meaning of saying that they 'see neither'? Now, we further open up four sentences to answer these two sets of four sentences: 1. Knowing but not seeing; 2. Seeing but not knowing; 3. Also knowing and also seeing; 4. Neither knowing nor seeing. The so-called 'knowing but not seeing,' this sentence precisely takes the meaning of the previous Bodhisattvas 'seeing purity but not seeing impurity.' Why is it said that Bodhisattvas 'know but do not see'? Bodhisattvas know that Śrāvakas (聲聞 Śrāvaka) [those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings] perceive a ruined and impure land due to the inverted karma of permanence and impermanence. They know that they see this land, while Bodhisattvas see the pure Buddha land. Bodhisattvas, with pure karma and a pure mind, do not see the land seen by the Śrāvakas. Just as the Buddha knows that hungry ghosts see flames due to evil karma, but the Buddha does not see the flames they see. Therefore, it is said 'knowing but not seeing,' which explains the meaning of Bodhisattvas 'seeing purity but not seeing impurity.' The so-called 'seeing but not knowing' still refers to those Śrāvakas, who only see the impure land of Śākyamuni, but do not know that Śākyamuni is Locana Śākyamuni, and do not know that the impure land is the pure impure land. Therefore, it is said 'seeing but not knowing.' The so-called 'also knowing and also seeing,' Bodhisattvas know that Locana is Śākyamuni Locana, know that Śākyamuni is Locana Śākyamuni, know that the original body is the manifested original, and know that the manifested body is the original manifested. Knowing that the original body is the manifested original, seeing the original body is seeing the manifested body. Knowing that the manifested body is the original manifested, seeing the manifested body is seeing the original body.
跡既然凈穢亦爾。知凈是穢凈。知穢是凈穢。既識凈穢即見凈穢也。既知本是跡本。知跡是本跡。知臺是葉臺。知葉是臺葉。臺一而葉多則知本一而跡多。知一是多一。知多是一多。知一是多一。無量中解一。知多是一多。一中解無量。無量不礙一。無量中解一。一不礙無量。雖無量而一。雖一而無量。無量一一無量。無量一非一。一無量非無量。非一非無量方便一無量。問若使本跡多一一多無礙。既本一而跡多。何不跡一而本多。解云。例如前所明。而今一往開本跡。本一跡多者。本是體故一。跡是隨緣故無量。又本為一大緣故一。跡為緣不同故無量。本跡佛既然本跡土亦爾。知此本跡土見此本跡也。言不知不見者。凡有三意。一者約前明知本是跡本。知跡是本跡。見本是跡本。見跡是本跡。本跡既然凈穢亦爾。今知無所知見無所見。知凈穢宛然而未曾知凈穢。見凈穢宛然而未曾見凈穢。只見凈穢宛然而未曾凈穢。如石室佛影譬。遙望相好宛然。至邊一無所見。故言不知不見也。次意言不知不見者。二乘不知本是跡本。不知跡是本跡。不知凈是穢凈。不知穢是凈穢。不見本不見跡。不見凈不見穢。斯則[穴/俱]然不知不見。所以經中舉譬云。如二人並眠一人上忉利天。見林苑婇女等事。一人[穴/俱]然不知不覺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：既然跡和本的清凈與污穢也是如此。瞭解清凈即是污穢的清凈，瞭解污穢即是清凈的污穢。既然認識到清凈與污穢，也就見到了清凈與污穢。既然知道本是跡的本，就知道跡是本的跡。知道臺是葉的臺，知道葉是臺的葉。臺是一個而葉是多個，因此知道本是一個而跡是多個。知道一是多的一，知道多是一的多。知道一是多的一，在無量中理解一。知道多是一的多，在一中理解無量。無量不妨礙一，在無量中理解一，一不妨礙無量。雖然是無量而又是一，雖然是一而又是無量。無量即是一一即是無量，無量一並非一，一無量並非無量，非一非無量是爲了方便地理解一和無量。問：如果本跡、多一、一一多都沒有妨礙，既然本是一個而跡是多個，為什麼不跡是一個而本是多個呢？答：例如前面所說明的，現在簡要地闡述本跡。本是一個而跡是多個，因為本是本體所以是一個。跡是隨順因緣所以是無量的。而且本是因為一個大因緣所以是一個，跡是因為因緣不同所以是無量。本跡佛既然如此，本跡土（指佛的本體和應化國土）也是這樣。瞭解這個本跡土，就見到了這個本跡。說不知不見，凡有三種意思。第一種是根據前面所說，瞭解本是跡的本，瞭解跡是本的跡，見到本是跡的本，見到跡是本的跡。本跡既然如此，清凈與污穢也是這樣。現在知道無所知，見到無所見。知道清凈與污穢宛然存在，但卻未曾真正知道清凈與污穢。見到清凈與污穢宛然存在，但卻未曾真正見到清凈與污穢。只見清凈與污穢宛然存在，但卻未曾執著于清凈與污穢。如同石室佛影的比喻，遙望時相好莊嚴宛然存在，走到近處卻一無所見，所以說不知不見。第二種意思是說不知不見，是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）之人不知道本是跡的本，不知道跡是本的跡，不知道清凈是污穢的清凈，不知道污穢是清凈的污穢，不見本不見跡，不見清凈不見污穢。這就是全然不知不見。所以經中舉例說，如同兩個人一起睡覺，其中一個人上了忉利天（欲界六天之一），見到了林苑、婇女等事，另一個人卻全然不知不覺。
【English Translation】 English version: Since the traces (跡) and the pure and impure are also like this. Knowing that purity is the purity of impurity, and knowing that impurity is the impurity of purity. Since one recognizes purity and impurity, one also sees purity and impurity. Since one knows that the origin (本) is the origin of the traces, one knows that the traces are the traces of the origin. Knowing that the platform (臺) is the platform of the leaves, and knowing that the leaves are the leaves of the platform. The platform is one while the leaves are many, therefore one knows that the origin is one while the traces are many. Knowing that one is the one of many, and knowing that many is the many of one. Knowing that one is the one of many, understanding one within the immeasurable. Knowing that many is the many of one, understanding the immeasurable within one. The immeasurable does not hinder one, understanding one within the immeasurable, and one does not hinder the immeasurable. Although it is immeasurable, it is also one; although it is one, it is also immeasurable. The immeasurable is one, one is immeasurable; the immeasurable one is not one, one immeasurable is not immeasurable; neither one nor immeasurable is the expedient of one and immeasurable. Question: If the origin and traces, many and one, one and many are not obstructed, since the origin is one while the traces are many, why are the traces not one while the origin is many? Answer: As explained earlier, now briefly expound on the origin and traces. The origin is one while the traces are many because the origin is the substance, therefore it is one. The traces follow conditions, therefore they are immeasurable. Moreover, the origin is one because of one great condition, and the traces are immeasurable because the conditions are different. Since the origin and traces of the Buddha are like this, so are the origin and traces of the land (本跡土) (referring to the Buddha's original and manifested lands). Understanding this origin and traces land is seeing this origin and traces. Saying 'not knowing, not seeing' has three meanings. The first is based on what was said earlier, understanding that the origin is the origin of the traces, understanding that the traces are the traces of the origin, seeing that the origin is the origin of the traces, seeing that the traces are the traces of the origin. Since the origin and traces are like this, so are purity and impurity. Now knowing there is nothing to know, seeing there is nothing to see. Knowing that purity and impurity are clearly present, but never truly knowing purity and impurity. Seeing that purity and impurity are clearly present, but never truly seeing purity and impurity. Only seeing that purity and impurity are clearly present, but never being attached to purity and impurity. Like the analogy of the Buddha's shadow in a stone room, when viewed from afar, the auspicious marks are clearly present, but when one approaches, nothing is seen, therefore it is said 'not knowing, not seeing'. The second meaning of 'not knowing, not seeing' is that those of the Two Vehicles (二乘) (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) do not know that the origin is the origin of the traces, do not know that the traces are the traces of the origin, do not know that purity is the purity of impurity, do not know that impurity is the impurity of purity, do not see the origin and do not see the traces, do not see purity and do not see impurity. This is complete ignorance and non-perception. Therefore, the sutra gives the example of two people sleeping together, one of whom ascends to the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven (忉利天) (one of the six heavens of the desire realm), seeing gardens, consorts, and other things, while the other person remains completely unaware.
。菩薩與二乘亦爾。知見本跡凈穢等事即彼二乘[穴/俱]然不知不見。所以作此釋者經中有此言。今為釋經故作此語。非是今時有義故作此釋也。第三意言不知不見者。顛倒凡夫不知本。不見釋迦跡身。亦不見釋迦土也。雖有四句約三人。前知而不見菩薩望聲聞。見而不見當聲聞辨。亦知亦見當菩薩。不知不見是眾生不知凈穢亦不見凈穢。此復是一節義意也。
前明一質異見四句釋三句竟。一句難而未解。即是一質異見句。今追解之。然成論地論釋一質異見。所以著前種種責種種難者。良由彼有一質可一質。以有一質可一質故。所以著諸難。今明何曾此一質在中耶。若有此一質在中。則有他所投得為他所難。今明未曾一質。不一質而言一質異見者。明不蓮華藏蓮華藏不娑婆娑婆。不凈凈不穢穢。此則如來正土。非凈非穢土凈穢土出自兩緣。如來正土未曾有未曾無。未曾凈未曾穢。斯則非有非無非穢非凈。不知何以目之。強名中道正土。即第一義土故。云一質二見者。如來正土非凈非穢。凈緣見凈穢緣見穢。正土非凈非穢。身子穢業故見穢。正土非凈非穢。諸菩薩凈業故見凈。亦如祇洹非凈非穢。身子見須達多所記祇桓。見娑婆丘陵。見釋迦所用。若諸菩薩見法界祇洹。見蓮華藏界。見舍那所用。故只若祇洹未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：菩薩與二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也是如此。菩薩了知佛的本地和垂跡，以及凈土和穢土等事，而二乘雖然也『知』（部分地知）『見』（部分地見），但實際上是不完全知，不完全見。之所以這樣解釋，是因為經文中有這樣的說法，現在是爲了解釋經文才這樣說，不是因為現在有什麼新的意義才這樣解釋。第三個意思是說，『不知不見』是指顛倒的凡夫不知道佛的本地，也看不見釋迦牟尼佛的應化之身，也看不見釋迦牟尼佛的國土。雖然有四句，可以對應三種人：『知而未見』對應菩薩相對於聲聞；『見而未見』對應將要成為聲聞的人；『亦知亦見』對應菩薩；『不知不見』是眾生，既不知道凈穢，也看不見凈穢。這又是一層含義。
前面已經闡明了『一質異見』四句中的三句，現在解釋最後一句，也就是『一質異見』句。從前成論師、地論師解釋『一質異見』，之所以有種種責難，是因為他們認為存在一個可以被認定的『一質』。正因為他們認為存在一個可以被認定的『一質』，所以才會有各種各樣的詰難。現在要說明的是，哪裡存在這樣一個『一質』呢？如果存在這樣一個『一質』，那麼就會有可以被他人攻擊的弱點，可以被他人責難的地方。現在要說明的是，根本不存在一個固定的『一質』。說『不一質而言一質異見』，是爲了說明不離蓮華藏世界而有蓮華藏世界，不離娑婆世界而有娑婆世界，不離清凈而有不清凈，不離污穢而有污穢。這才是如來的真正國土。非凈非穢的國土，凈與穢出自兩種因緣。如來的真正國土，未曾有，未曾無，未曾清凈，未曾污穢。這樣就既非有也非無，既非污穢也非清凈，不知道該如何稱呼它，勉強稱之為中道正土，也就是第一義諦的國土。之所以說『一質二見』，是因為如來的真正國土非凈非穢，因清凈的因緣而見清凈，因污穢的因緣而見污穢。正土非凈非穢，舍利弗（Śāriputra）因為污穢的業力而見污穢。正土非凈非穢，諸菩薩因為清凈的業力而見清凈。也像祇洹精舍（Jetavana），非凈非穢，舍利弗看見的是須達多（Sudatta）所建造的祇洹精舍，看見的是娑婆世界的丘陵，看見的是釋迦牟尼佛所使用的。而諸菩薩看見的是法界的祇洹精舍，看見的是蓮華藏世界，看見的是毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana）所使用的。所以說，祇洹精舍本身未...
【English Translation】 English version: Bodhisattvas and the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are also like this. Bodhisattvas know the original ground and manifested traces of the Buddha, as well as things like pure and impure lands, while the two vehicles, although they 'know' (partially know) and 'see' (partially see), in reality do not fully know or see. The reason for this explanation is that there are such statements in the scriptures, and now it is said to explain the scriptures, not because there is any new meaning now. The third meaning is that 'not knowing and not seeing' refers to the inverted ordinary people who do not know the original ground of the Buddha, do not see the manifested body of Śākyamuni Buddha, and do not see the land of Śākyamuni Buddha. Although there are four sentences, they can correspond to three types of people: 'knowing but not seeing' corresponds to Bodhisattvas relative to Śrāvakas; 'seeing but not seeing' corresponds to those who are about to become Śrāvakas; 'knowing and seeing' corresponds to Bodhisattvas; 'not knowing and not seeing' are sentient beings, who neither know purity and impurity nor see purity and impurity. This is another layer of meaning.
The previous explanation clarified three of the four sentences of 'one substance, different views'. Now, the last sentence, which is the 'one substance, different views' sentence, will be explained. In the past, the Cheng Lun masters and Di Lun masters explained 'one substance, different views', and the reason why there were various criticisms was because they believed that there was a 'one substance' that could be identified. Precisely because they believed that there was a 'one substance' that could be identified, there were various kinds of criticisms. Now, what needs to be explained is, where does such a 'one substance' exist? If there is such a 'one substance', then there will be weaknesses that can be attacked by others, and places that can be criticized by others. What needs to be explained now is that there is fundamentally no fixed 'one substance'. Saying 'not one substance, but one substance with different views' is to explain that without leaving the Lotus Treasury World (Padmagarbha), there is the Lotus Treasury World, without leaving the Sahā World, there is the Sahā World, without leaving purity, there is impurity, and without leaving defilement, there is defilement. This is the true land of the Tathāgata. The land that is neither pure nor impure, purity and impurity come from two causes. The true land of the Tathāgata has never been, has never not been, has never been pure, has never been defiled. Thus, it is neither existent nor non-existent, neither defiled nor pure, and it is not known what to call it, so it is reluctantly called the Middle Way True Land, which is the land of the First Principle. The reason for saying 'one substance, two views' is that the true land of the Tathāgata is neither pure nor impure, and purity is seen because of the cause of purity, and defilement is seen because of the cause of defilement. The true land is neither pure nor impure, and Śāriputra sees defilement because of defiled karma. The true land is neither pure nor impure, and the Bodhisattvas see purity because of pure karma. It is also like Jetavana, which is neither pure nor impure. Śāriputra sees the Jetavana built by Sudatta, sees the hills of the Sahā World, and sees what Śākyamuni Buddha used. The Bodhisattvas see the Jetavana of the Dharma Realm, see the Lotus Treasury World, and see what Vairocana Buddha used. Therefore, Jetavana itself has not...
曾凈未曾穢。凈緣見凈穢緣見穢也。問正土未曾凈穢凈穢緣見凈穢。凈穢並是倒不。解云。並是倒。正土非凈非穢。顛倒穢業故見穢。正土非凈非穢。顛倒凈業故見凈。故凈穢並是倒。雖同倒倒有輕重。重倒非凈穢見穢。輕倒非凈穢見凈。故正土非凈非穢兩緣見凈穢。名為一質二見也。問何意作此語。何意云正土非凈非穢緣見凈穢為一質二見耶解云。為釋經。經何意作此語。釋云。為對緣。何者明如來正土非凈非。穢見凈見穢並是顛倒。凈名經一往云。不依佛惠見穢土。亦應云。不依佛正慧見凈土。問。見穢不依佛慧。見凈何亦不依佛慧耶。解云。正土非穢。見穢既不依佛慧。正土非凈。見凈亦不依佛慧。又土非穢見穢則穢見。土非凈見凈則凈見。若使如此凈穢皆不依佛慧。凈穢皆是見皆是倒。為對此緣故。云如來正土非凈非穢緣見穢見凈也。又所以明正土非凈非穢緣見凈穢者。為對由來人。由來人無有非凈非穢土義。若是凈土亦有亦無。成論小乘義無有大乘義有。問。既有苦受樂受不苦不樂受。可得有凈土穢土不凈不穢土不。彼釋云。受有三受土無三土。唯有凈土穢土。無有不凈不穢土。為對如此人明有不凈不穢土。如來第一義土不凈不穢。緣見凈土緣見穢土。為對此所以明一質二見也。義必須有原始。若不得其由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『曾凈未曾穢』，意思是本來清凈的，未曾被污染過。清凈的因緣會看到清凈，污穢的因緣會看到污穢。問：真正的佛土本來沒有清凈和污穢，（那麼）清凈和污穢的因緣如何能看到清凈和污穢呢？清凈和污穢都是顛倒的嗎？答：都是顛倒的。真正的佛土非清凈也非污穢。因為顛倒的污穢業力，所以（眾生）看到污穢。真正的佛土非清凈也非污穢，因為顛倒的清凈業力，所以（眾生）看到清凈。所以說清凈和污穢都是顛倒的。雖然都是顛倒，但顛倒有輕重之分。嚴重的顛倒，在非清凈非污穢的（佛土）中看到污穢；輕微的顛倒，在非清凈非污穢的（佛土）中看到清凈。所以真正的佛土非清凈也非污穢，（卻因為）兩種因緣而看到清凈和污穢，這叫做『一質二見』。 問：為什麼這樣說？為什麼說真正的佛土非清凈也非污穢，（卻因為）因緣而看到清凈和污穢，是『一質二見』呢？答：爲了解釋經典。問：經典為什麼這樣說？答：爲了對治（不同的）因緣。這是爲了說明如來的真正佛土非清凈也非污穢，（眾生）所見的清凈和污穢都是顛倒的。《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra）曾經說過，不依靠佛的智慧，就會看到污穢的國土。也應該說，不依靠佛的正慧，就會看到清凈的國土。問：看到污穢不依靠佛的智慧，那麼看到清凈為什麼也不依靠佛的智慧呢？答：真正的佛土本來不是污穢的，（所以）看到污穢是不依靠佛的智慧；真正的佛土本來不是清凈的，（所以）看到清凈也是不依靠佛的智慧。而且，如果佛土不是污穢的，（卻）看到污穢，那麼（這種）污穢的見解就是錯誤的；如果佛土不是清凈的，（卻）看到清凈，那麼（這種）清凈的見解就是錯誤的。如果這樣，清凈和污穢都不依靠佛的智慧，清凈和污穢都是（錯誤的）見解，都是顛倒的。爲了對治這種因緣，所以說如來的真正佛土非清凈也非污穢，（卻因為）因緣而看到污穢和清凈。 又，之所以說明真正的佛土非清凈也非污穢，（卻因為）因緣而看到清凈和污穢，是爲了對治由來已久的人的觀點。由來已久的人沒有非清凈非污穢的佛土的說法。如果是清凈的佛土，也有有和無兩種說法。《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi Shastra）的小乘義理認為沒有（凈土），大乘義理認為有（凈土）。問：既然有苦受、樂受、不苦不樂受，那麼可以有凈土、穢土、不凈不穢土嗎？他們的解釋是：感受有三種，佛土沒有三種，只有凈土和穢土，沒有不凈不穢土。爲了對治這樣的人，說明有不凈不穢土。如來的第一義諦的佛土是不凈不穢的，（卻因為）因緣而看到清凈的佛土，（也因為）因緣而看到污穢的佛土。爲了對治這些，所以說明『一質二見』。義理必須有原始，如果不能得到它的由來。
【English Translation】 English version 'Once pure, never defiled' means that originally it is pure and has never been contaminated. Pure conditions will see purity, and defiled conditions will see defilement. Question: The true Buddha-land originally has neither purity nor defilement, so how can pure and defiled conditions see purity and defilement? Are both purity and defilement inverted? Answer: Both are inverted. The true Buddha-land is neither pure nor defiled. Because of inverted defiled karma, (sentient beings) see defilement. The true Buddha-land is neither pure nor defiled, because of inverted pure karma, (sentient beings) see purity. Therefore, it is said that both purity and defilement are inverted. Although both are inverted, the inversion has degrees of severity. Severe inversion sees defilement in the (Buddha-land) that is neither pure nor defiled; slight inversion sees purity in the (Buddha-land) that is neither pure nor defiled. Therefore, the true Buddha-land is neither pure nor defiled, (but because of) two conditions, purity and defilement are seen, which is called 'one substance, two views'. Question: Why is this said? Why is it said that the true Buddha-land is neither pure nor defiled, (but because of) conditions, purity and defilement are seen, which is 'one substance, two views'? Answer: To explain the scriptures. Question: Why do the scriptures say this? Answer: To counter (different) conditions. This is to explain that the true Buddha-land of the Tathāgata (如來) is neither pure nor defiled, and the purity and defilement seen (by sentient beings) are all inverted. The Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (維摩詰經) once said that without relying on the wisdom of the Buddha, one will see defiled lands. It should also be said that without relying on the Buddha's right wisdom, one will see pure lands. Question: Seeing defilement does not rely on the wisdom of the Buddha, so why does seeing purity also not rely on the wisdom of the Buddha? Answer: The true Buddha-land is originally not defiled, (so) seeing defilement does not rely on the wisdom of the Buddha; the true Buddha-land is originally not pure, (so) seeing purity also does not rely on the wisdom of the Buddha. Moreover, if the Buddha-land is not defiled, (but) defilement is seen, then (this) defiled view is wrong; if the Buddha-land is not pure, (but) purity is seen, then (this) pure view is wrong. If this is the case, neither purity nor defilement relies on the wisdom of the Buddha, and both purity and defilement are (wrong) views, both are inverted. To counter this condition, it is said that the true Buddha-land of the Tathāgata (如來) is neither pure nor defiled, (but because of) conditions, defilement and purity are seen. Furthermore, the reason for explaining that the true Buddha-land is neither pure nor defiled, (but because of) conditions, purity and defilement are seen, is to counter the views of people who have held them for a long time. People who have held them for a long time do not have the saying of a Buddha-land that is neither pure nor defiled. If it is a pure Buddha-land, there are also two sayings of existence and non-existence. The Hinayana (小乘) teachings of the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論) believe that there is no (pure land), and the Mahayana (大乘) teachings believe that there is (pure land). Question: Since there are painful feelings, pleasant feelings, and neither painful nor pleasant feelings, can there be pure lands, defiled lands, and neither pure nor defiled lands? Their explanation is: There are three kinds of feelings, but there are not three kinds of Buddha-lands, only pure lands and defiled lands, and no lands that are neither pure nor defiled. To counter such people, it is explained that there are lands that are neither pure nor defiled. The Buddha-land of the Tathāgata's (如來) first principle is neither pure nor defiled, (but because of) conditions, pure Buddha-lands are seen, (and also because of) conditions, defiled Buddha-lands are seen. To counter these, it is explained 'one substance, two views'. Meaning must have an origin, if its origin cannot be obtained.
致則不成義。今明為讀經為對他故作此語。若無此意則不須明此。故一家無有義也。問一質二見二質一見。若為對判迷悟得失。解云。若是二質一見則是悟。所以前釋云。明與無明愚者為二。智者了達性無二。凈穢亦爾。智者了凈穢不凈穢故是悟也。若是一質二見即是迷。正土非凈穢緣見凈穢故。不凈穢緣見凈穢是迷。見二不二為悟。見不二二為迷。見二不二為悟。只見此二為不二。見不二二為迷。只見不二為二故。迷悟事同反掌。迷者見二悟者見一。有迷有悟。悟不見二亦不見一。既聖不迷亦復不悟。斯則不一不二不迷不悟清凈也。問。土非凈非穢緣見凈穢為一質異見時可得一凈質。見凈見穢為一質異見。不穢亦作此問。解云。具有三義。非凈非穢質緣見凈穢。此義已如前明。亦得一凈質緣見凈復見穢。一穢質緣見穢復見凈。名為一質異見。責何者是解言。如釋摩南經。摩南城七寶所造。摩南見金柱。餘人則見木柱。只於一金柱復見木柱。此則是一凈質緣見凈穢。名一質異見。一凈質既然。一穢質類爾可知。問。摩界金柱摩南見金柱。餘人見木柱。摩南藏金柱。餘人猶見木柱為不見。解云。具有見不見。何者于摩界金上見木。摩界既藏金則不見木。亦如於珠上見蛇形。既藏珠則無蛇可見。問。若藏金餘人不復見木則
【現代漢語翻譯】 如果執著于文字，就不能理解其真義。現在說明讀經是爲了針對他人而說這些話。如果沒有這個意思，就不需要說明這些。所以一家之言沒有意義。問：一個本體兩種見解，兩種本體一種見解，如何判斷迷悟得失？答：如果是兩種本體一種見解，那就是悟。所以前面解釋說：『明與無明，愚者認為是二，智者了達其性本無二。』凈與穢也是如此。智者了達凈穢的本性非凈非穢，所以是悟。如果是一個本體兩種見解，那就是迷。正土本來非凈非穢，因為因緣而見為凈穢。不凈穢的因緣而見為凈穢，這就是迷。見二而不二是悟，見不二而二是迷。見二而不二是悟，只見到此二者為不二。見不二而二是迷，只見到不二為二。迷悟之事如同反掌。迷者見二，悟者見一。有迷有悟。悟者不見二，也不見一。既然聖人不迷也不悟，這就是不一不二，不迷不悟，清凈的境界。問：土本來非凈非穢，因為因緣而見為凈穢，作為一種本體不同的見解時，可以得到一種清凈的本體嗎？見凈見穢作為一種本體不同的見解，不穢也可以這樣問嗎？答：具有三種含義。非凈非穢的本體，因為因緣而見為凈穢，這個意思已經如前面所說明。也可以得到一種清凈的本體，因為因緣而先見凈后見穢。一種污穢的本體，因為因緣而先見穢后見凈，這叫做一種本體不同的見解。責問哪一種是正確的解釋？答：如《釋摩南經》所說，摩南城是由七寶所造。摩南人見到金柱，其他人則見到木柱。只是在一根金柱上又見到木柱，這是一種清凈的本體，因為因緣而見凈穢，叫做一種本體不同的見解。一種清凈的本體既然如此，一種污穢的本體也可以類推得知。問：摩界（摩南城所處的境界）的金柱，摩南人見到金柱，其他人見到木柱。摩南人藏起金柱，其他人仍然見到木柱還是見不到？答：具有見與不見兩種情況。什麼情況下在摩界的金柱上見到木柱？摩界既然藏起了金柱，就見不到木柱。也像在珠子上見到蛇形，既然藏起了珠子，就沒有蛇可見了。問：如果藏起金柱，其他人不再見到木柱，那麼
【English Translation】 If one clings to the words, one cannot understand their true meaning. Now, explaining the reading of scriptures is to say these words for the sake of others. If there is no such intention, there is no need to explain this. Therefore, the words of one school have no meaning. Question: One substance, two views; two substances, one view. How to judge delusion, enlightenment, gain, and loss? Answer: If it is two substances, one view, then it is enlightenment. Therefore, the previous explanation said: 'Brightness and ignorance, fools consider them as two, wise people understand that their nature is without duality.' Purity and impurity are also like this. Wise people understand that the nature of purity and impurity is neither pure nor impure, so it is enlightenment. If it is one substance, two views, then it is delusion. The true earth is originally neither pure nor impure, but because of conditions, it is seen as pure or impure. Because of the conditions of impurity and filth, it is seen as purity, this is delusion. Seeing two as non-two is enlightenment, seeing non-two as two is delusion. Seeing two as non-two is enlightenment, only seeing these two as non-dual. Seeing non-two as two is delusion, only seeing non-dual as two. The matter of delusion and enlightenment is like turning one's palm. The deluded see two, the enlightened see one. There is delusion and there is enlightenment. The enlightened do not see two, nor do they see one. Since the sage is neither deluded nor enlightened, this is neither one nor two, neither delusion nor enlightenment, a state of purity. Question: The earth is originally neither pure nor impure, but because of conditions, it is seen as pure or impure. As one substance with different views, can one obtain a pure substance? Seeing purity and seeing impurity as one substance with different views, can impurity also be asked in this way? Answer: It has three meanings. The substance that is neither pure nor impure, because of conditions, is seen as pure or impure, this meaning has already been explained as before. One can also obtain a pure substance, because of conditions, first seeing purity and then seeing impurity. An impure substance, because of conditions, first seeing impurity and then seeing purity, this is called one substance with different views. Questioning which is the correct explanation? Answer: As the 釋摩南經 (Shi Mo Nan Jing) says, the city of 摩南 (Mo Nan) is made of seven treasures. The people of 摩南 (Mo Nan) see a golden pillar, while others see a wooden pillar. Only on one golden pillar do they also see a wooden pillar, this is a pure substance, because of conditions, seeing purity and impurity, called one substance with different views. Since a pure substance is like this, an impure substance can be inferred in the same way. Question: The golden pillar in the 摩界 (Mo Jie) (the realm where 摩南 (Mo Nan) is located), the people of 摩南 (Mo Nan) see a golden pillar, others see a wooden pillar. The people of 摩南 (Mo Nan) hide the golden pillar, do others still see the wooden pillar or not? Answer: It has both seeing and not seeing. In what situation do they see a wooden pillar on the golden pillar of 摩界 (Mo Jie)? Since 摩界 (Mo Jie) has hidden the golden pillar, they cannot see the wooden pillar. It is also like seeing the shape of a snake on a pearl, since the pearl is hidden, there is no snake to be seen. Question: If the golden pillar is hidden, and others no longer see the wooden pillar, then
著壞業果義。彼何故見木。由彼惡業所以見木。見木是業果。今既無金不復見木則壞業果義也。解云。顛倒之物並有所屬。摩界金屬摩界。于摩界邊強故。摩界藏金餘人不復見木也。言見者明摩界雖藏金彼猶見木。問若無金猶見木則成兩質義。若是一質無金即不見木。若見則兩質。又且木于金上見木。既無金見何有木耶。解云。雖猶見木而是一質。雖是一質而猶見木。大師於此各舉神蛇為喻。有人行見一蛇即斬之。蛇腹中有酒肉。蛇何處得酒肉。此蛇是神蛇。人酒肉祭神故。蛇得酒肉。此酒肉是人酒肉。蛇將人酒肉去。人猶見酒肉。在人唯見酒肉而非兩酒肉。只是一酒肉。蛇將去人猶見。人將去蛇腹有業行。不可思議如此。故金雖無而猶見木。雖見木而非兩質也。次更舉一事。只是一金質。福德人見金薄福人則見蛇。只是一金質兩人見異。雖見異只是一質也。問。只是一質斷蛇即斷金斷金即斷蛇不。直作此問。不知何答。今明雖得斷蛇則斷金不得斷金即斷蛇。言得斷蛇即斷金者。此是大師所言語。何者如二人同從共行。見一挺金兩人相讓遂不取便棄之。后復一人來見此挺金成一蛇。即斷之兩斷即去。故云二人同心其類斷金故。斷蛇即斷金也。不得斷金即斷蛇者。彼本不見金故。不得斷金即斷蛇也。問斷蛇即斷金者。亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 著壞業果義（導致不好的業報）。他為什麼會看到木頭呢？因為他有惡業，所以才會看到木頭。看到木頭是業報的結果。現在既然沒有金子了，就不再看到木頭，這就破壞了業報的意義。解釋說：顛倒的事物都有其所屬。摩界（Maras' realm）的金屬屬於摩界。在摩界邊上，因為（惡業）強烈，摩界藏起來了金子，其他人就不再看到木頭了。『言見者』說明即使摩界藏了金子，他仍然看到木頭。問：如果沒有金子仍然看到木頭，那就成了兩種物質。如果是一種物質，沒有金子就看不到木頭。如果看到，那就是兩種物質。而且木頭是在金子上看到的，既然沒有金子，又怎麼會有木頭呢？解釋說：雖然仍然看到木頭，但仍然是一種物質。雖然是一種物質，但仍然看到木頭。大師在這裡各舉了神蛇作為比喻。有人行走時看到一條蛇就斬斷了它。蛇的腹中有酒肉。蛇從哪裡得到酒肉的呢？這條蛇是神蛇。人們用酒肉祭祀神，所以蛇得到了酒肉。這些酒肉是人的酒肉。蛇拿走了人的酒肉，人仍然看到酒肉。在人看來，只看到酒肉，而不是兩種酒肉，只是一種酒肉。蛇拿走了，人仍然看到。人拿走了，蛇腹中有業行，不可思議就是這樣。所以金子雖然沒有了，但仍然看到木頭。雖然看到木頭，但不是兩種物質。接下來再舉一個例子。只是一種金質，有福德的人看到的是金子，沒有福德的人看到的是蛇。只是一種金質，兩個人看到的卻不一樣。雖然看到的不一樣，但仍然是一種物質。問：只是一種物質，斷蛇就是斷金，斷金就是斷蛇嗎？直接這樣問，不知道如何回答。現在說明，雖然可以斷蛇就斷金，但不能斷金就斷蛇。『言得斷蛇即斷金者』，這是大師所說的話。為什麼呢？比如兩個人一起行走，看到一塊金子，兩人互相謙讓，於是就放棄了它。後來又有一個人來，看到這塊金子變成了一條蛇，就把它斬斷成兩段然後離開了。所以說兩個人同心，其類斷金。所以斷蛇就是斷金。『不得斷金即斷蛇者』，因為他本來就沒有看到金子，所以不能斷金就斷蛇。問：斷蛇就是斷金，也
【English Translation】 English version This destroys the meaning of bad karma results. Why does he see wood? Because of his bad karma, he sees wood. Seeing wood is the result of karma. Now that there is no gold, he no longer sees wood, which destroys the meaning of karma results. The explanation is: inverted things all have their belonging. The metal of Mara's realm belongs to Mara's realm. On the edge of Mara's realm, because (bad karma) is strong, Mara's realm hides the gold, and others no longer see wood. 'Those who see' indicate that even if Mara's realm hides the gold, he still sees wood. Question: If he still sees wood even without gold, then it becomes two substances. If it is one substance, he cannot see wood without gold. If he sees it, then it is two substances. Moreover, wood is seen on top of gold. Since there is no gold, how can there be wood? The explanation is: although he still sees wood, it is still one substance. Although it is one substance, he still sees wood. The master here uses the example of a divine snake as a metaphor. Someone walking along sees a snake and cuts it in half. The snake has wine and meat in its belly. Where did the snake get the wine and meat? This snake is a divine snake. People offer wine and meat to the gods, so the snake gets the wine and meat. This wine and meat is the people's wine and meat. The snake takes the people's wine and meat, and the people still see the wine and meat. In the people's eyes, they only see wine and meat, not two kinds of wine and meat, just one kind of wine and meat. The snake takes it away, and the people still see it. The people take it away, and the snake's belly has karmic actions, which is inconceivable. Therefore, although the gold is gone, he still sees wood. Although he sees wood, it is not two substances. Next, let's give another example. It is only one gold substance. People with good fortune see gold, while people without good fortune see a snake. It is only one gold substance, but two people see different things. Although they see different things, it is still one substance. Question: Is it the case that if it is only one substance, cutting the snake is cutting the gold, and cutting the gold is cutting the snake? Asking this directly, I don't know how to answer. Now I will explain that although one can cut the snake and thus cut the gold, one cannot cut the gold and thus cut the snake. 'Those who can cut the snake and thus cut the gold' - these are the words of the master. Why? For example, two people are walking together and see a piece of gold. They both defer to each other and then abandon it. Later, another person comes and sees this piece of gold turn into a snake. He cuts it in half and leaves. Therefore, it is said that two people are of one mind, and their kind cuts the gold. Therefore, cutting the snake is cutting the gold. 'Those who cannot cut the gold and thus cut the snake' - because he did not see the gold in the first place, he cannot cut the gold and thus cut the snake. Question: Cutting the snake is cutting the gold, also
應燒穢則燒凈。解云。復為此義說。斷蛇即斷金。亦燒穢即燒凈也。
次將正果類例前依果諸四句。何者前云。土有二質一處。一質二處。一質一處。二質二處。又云。二質一見。一質二見。一質一見。二質二見。可得類正果二佛一處一佛二處等四句。二佛一見一佛二見等四句。不解云。依果既有此二種四句。類正果亦有此兩種四句。此兩種四句。前四句大師作。后四句學士明。言二佛一見者。開本跡二。此是本跡此是跡本因緣本跡。若因緣本跡則非本跡。本跡二為二質。非本跡為一處。故云本跡雖殊不思議一。不思議一是何物紹。隆哲法師豎義。有人問。不思議一一名何物。則解云。一名正性。大師云非解。正性是五性。是五性中。則因與因因。果與果果。四性是緣性非果為正性。不思議一不得道是正性。師云。本跡二處舍那釋迦非本非跡名正法身。本跡雖殊不思議一為二佛一處也。一佛二處。正法非本跡為一佛。非本跡為本跡為二處。此則本跡雖一不思議殊。前雖殊不思議一。一是不思議一。今雖一不思議殊。殊是不思議殊。故云一佛二處也。一佛一處者。非本跡佛在非本跡處也。二佛二處。本跡二佛在本跡二處也。
次明二佛一見等四句。且辨二佛一見者。本跡是因緣本跡。因緣本跡則不本跡。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 應燒掉的污穢就應燒乾凈。解釋說：再次為此義解釋，斬斷蛇就如同斬斷金子，也是燒掉污穢就如同燒乾凈一樣。
接下來將正果類比，按照之前依果的四句：什麼是之前說的，『土有二質一處，一質二處，一質一處，二質二處』。又說：『二質一見，一質二見，一質一見，二質二見』。可以類比正果的『二佛一處，一佛二處』等四句，『二佛一見，一佛二見』等四句。不理解說：依果既然有這兩種四句，類比正果也有這兩種四句。這兩種四句，前四句是天臺大師智顗所作，后四句是湛然法師闡明。說『二佛一見』，是開顯本跡二門。這是本跡，這是跡本因緣本跡。如果是因緣本跡就不是本跡。本跡二者為二質，非本跡為一處。所以說本跡雖然不同，但不可思議的一是一樣的。不可思議的一是什麼？紹隆哲法師豎義。有人問，不可思議的一，它的另一個名字是什麼？解釋說：另一個名字是正性。天臺大師智顗說不是這樣理解。正性是五性，在五性中，因與因因，果與果果，四性是緣性，不是果為正性。不可思議的一不能說是正性。天臺大師智顗說：本跡二處，舍那佛（Vairocana Buddha）和釋迦佛（Sakyamuni Buddha），非本非跡名為正法身。本跡雖然不同，但不可思議的一，是二佛一處。一佛二處，正法非本跡為一佛，非本跡為本跡為二處。這則是本跡雖然一樣，但不可思議的殊異。之前是雖然不同，但不可思議的一。一是不可思議的一，現在是雖然一樣，但不可思議的殊異，殊異是不可思議的殊異。所以說一佛二處。一佛一處，非本跡佛在非本跡處。二佛二處，本跡二佛在本跡二處。
接下來闡明二佛一見等四句。先辨析二佛一見，本跡是因緣本跡，因緣本跡就不是本跡。
【English Translation】 What should be burned away as filth should be burned clean. The explanation says: Again, to explain this meaning, cutting a snake is like cutting gold, and burning filth is like burning clean.
Next, the analogy of the True Fruit is made, following the previous four phrases of Dependent Fruit: What was said before, 'Earth has two substances in one place, one substance in two places, one substance in one place, two substances in two places.' Also said: 'Two substances in one perception, one substance in two perceptions, one substance in one perception, two substances in two perceptions.' This can be analogized to the True Fruit's 'Two Buddhas in one place, one Buddha in two places,' etc., the four phrases, 'Two Buddhas in one perception, one Buddha in two perceptions,' etc., the four phrases. The misunderstanding says: Since Dependent Fruit has these two kinds of four phrases, the analogy of True Fruit also has these two kinds of four phrases. These two kinds of four phrases, the first four phrases were made by Great Master Zhiyi of Tiantai, and the latter four phrases were clarified by Dharma Master Zhanran. Saying 'Two Buddhas in one perception' is to reveal the two gates of Original and Manifestation (本跡). This is Original and Manifestation, this is Manifestation-Original, the causal condition of Original and Manifestation. If it is the causal condition of Original and Manifestation, then it is not Original and Manifestation. The two of Original and Manifestation are two substances, non-Original and non-Manifestation is one place. Therefore, it is said that although Original and Manifestation are different, the inconceivable oneness is the same. What is the inconceivable oneness? Shàolóng Zhé Dharma Master established the meaning. Someone asked, the inconceivable oneness, what is its other name? The explanation says: Another name is True Nature (正性). Great Master Zhiyi said that this is not the understanding. True Nature is the Five Natures, in the Five Natures, cause and cause-cause, effect and effect-effect, the four natures are conditioned nature, not the effect as True Nature. The inconceivable oneness cannot be said to be True Nature. The Master said: In the two places of Original and Manifestation, Vairocana Buddha (舍那佛) and Sakyamuni Buddha (釋迦佛), non-Original and non-Manifestation is called True Dharma Body. Although Original and Manifestation are different, the inconceivable oneness is two Buddhas in one place. One Buddha in two places, True Dharma non-Original and non-Manifestation is one Buddha, non-Original and non-Manifestation as Original and Manifestation is two places. This is that although Original and Manifestation are the same, the inconceivable is different. Before it was although different, the inconceivable oneness. One is the inconceivable oneness, now it is although the same, the inconceivable is different, the difference is the inconceivable difference. Therefore, it is said one Buddha in two places. One Buddha in one place, the non-Original and non-Manifestation Buddha is in the non-Original and non-Manifestation place. Two Buddhas in two places, the Original and Manifestation two Buddhas are in the Original and Manifestation two places.
Next, clarify the four phrases of Two Buddhas in one perception, etc. First, analyze Two Buddhas in one perception, Original and Manifestation is the causal condition of Original and Manifestation, the causal condition of Original and Manifestation is not Original and Manifestation.
前云明無明因緣。智者即了不二。故二佛一見也。一佛二見者。正法身非本非跡不二。何故二緣見本跡二。法身未曾二緣見本跡。法身未曾本跡。故是一佛二見也。一佛一見者。法身佛非本非跡。緣如法身而見。故是一佛一見也。二佛二見者。法身非本跡本跡赴緣。既本跡赴緣緣則見本跡。本跡若不赴緣緣無由見本跡。良由本跡赴緣故。緣得見本跡故。二佛二見。所以正果亦得有兩四句。
次更兩種四句合明依正二果。且明一種四句。何者謂一佛多處。多佛一處。一佛一處。多佛多處。一佛一處者。如涅槃經德王品中明。釋迦有凈土。在西方名曰無勝。此則一釋迦在凈穢等處。大智論云。釋迦有穢土亦有凈土。釋迦穢土既有凈土。彌陀凈土亦有穢土。故云一佛在多處也。多佛在一處者。如法華明。十方佛同在娑婆。亦如五佛共現信相之室也。一佛一處。釋迦有東方。彌陀居西土也。多佛多處者。十方諸佛在十方土處也。
次復有四句者。謂一佛二處。二佛一處。一佛一處。二佛二處。一佛二處者。釋迦即舍那舍那即釋迦為一佛。祇洹凈穢不同為二處。二佛一處者。釋迦舍那二佛。祇洹雖凈穢只是一祇洹為一處。一佛一處。本跡一佛。凈穢祇桓為一處。二佛二處。本跡二佛凈穢二處也。然此四句難解。且作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 前面已經說明了無明（avidyā，對事物真相的無知）的因緣。有智慧的人當下就能明白『不二』的道理。所以說，二佛（兩個佛）能有一見（相同的見解）。一佛二見（一個佛有兩種見解）是什麼意思呢？真正的法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身）既非本（根本），也非跡（示現），是不二的。為什麼會有兩種因緣，見到本和跡兩種不同的狀態呢？法身從未通過兩種因緣來見到本和跡。法身也從未有本和跡的區分。所以說，這是一個佛有兩種見解。一佛一見（一個佛有一種見解）是什麼意思呢？法身佛既非本也非跡，因緣如法身一樣而見，所以說，這是一個佛有一種見解。二佛二見（兩個佛有兩種見解）是什麼意思呢？法身既非本也非跡，本和跡隨順因緣而顯現。既然本和跡隨順因緣，那麼因緣就能見到本和跡。如果本和跡不隨順因緣，那麼因緣就沒有辦法見到本和跡。正因為本和跡隨順因緣，所以因緣才能夠見到本和跡。因此，是二佛二見。所以，正果（正確的果報）也可以有這兩種四句的說法。
接下來再用兩種四句的說法來共同闡明依報（環境）和正報（自身）這兩種果報。先說明一種四句的說法。指的是：一佛多處，多佛一處，一佛一處，多佛多處。一佛一處指的是，如《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）德王品中所說，釋迦牟尼佛（Śākyamuni，佛教創始人）有凈土（buddhakṣetra，佛所居住的清凈國土），在西方，名叫無勝。這就是說，一個釋迦牟尼佛在凈土和穢土（不清凈的國土）等多個地方。大智論（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）中說，釋迦牟尼佛有穢土，也有凈土。既然釋迦牟尼佛的穢土中有凈土，那麼阿彌陀佛（Amitābha，西方極樂世界的佛）的凈土中也有穢土。所以說，一個佛在多個地方。多佛在一處指的是，如《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）所說，十方佛（遍佈十個方向的佛）共同在娑婆世界（Sahā，我們所居住的充滿煩惱的世界）。也像五佛（通常指毗盧遮那佛、阿閦佛、寶生佛、阿彌陀佛和不空成就佛）共同顯現在信相之室一樣。一佛一處，釋迦牟尼佛在東方，阿彌陀佛居住在西方。多佛多處指的是，十方諸佛在十方國土處。
接下來還有四句的說法，指的是：一佛二處，二佛一處，一佛一處，二佛二處。一佛二處指的是，釋迦牟尼佛就是盧舍那佛（Vairocana，報身佛），盧舍那佛就是釋迦牟尼佛，這是一個佛。祇洹（Jetavana，祇樹給孤獨園）有凈土和穢土的不同，這是兩個地方。二佛一處指的是，釋迦牟尼佛和盧舍那佛是兩個佛，祇洹雖然有凈土和穢土，但只是一個祇洹，這是一個地方。一佛一處，本跡（根本和示現）是一個佛，凈土和穢土的祇洹是一個地方。二佛二處，本跡是兩個佛，凈土和穢土是兩個地方。然而這四句很難理解，暫且作為...
【English Translation】 English version Previously, the causes and conditions of ignorance (avidyā, ignorance of the true nature of things) were explained. The wise immediately understand the principle of 'non-duality'. Therefore, it is said that two Buddhas can have one view (the same understanding). What does 'one Buddha with two views' mean? The true Dharmakāya (the Dharma-nature body of the Buddha) is neither the origin nor the trace, it is non-dual. Why are there two kinds of conditions to see the two different states of origin and trace? The Dharmakāya has never seen the origin and trace through two kinds of conditions. The Dharmakāya has never had the distinction of origin and trace. Therefore, it is said that this is one Buddha with two views. What does 'one Buddha with one view' mean? The Dharmakāya Buddha is neither the origin nor the trace, and the conditions are seen as the Dharmakāya, so it is said that this is one Buddha with one view. What does 'two Buddhas with two views' mean? The Dharmakāya is neither the origin nor the trace, and the origin and trace appear according to conditions. Since the origin and trace follow the conditions, then the conditions can see the origin and trace. If the origin and trace do not follow the conditions, then the conditions have no way to see the origin and trace. Precisely because the origin and trace follow the conditions, the conditions are able to see the origin and trace. Therefore, it is two Buddhas with two views. Therefore, the correct result (proper retribution) can also have these two kinds of four-sentence statements.
Next, two kinds of four-sentence statements will be used to jointly explain the two kinds of retributions, the circumstantial (environment) and the principal (oneself). First, explain one kind of four-sentence statement. It refers to: one Buddha in many places, many Buddhas in one place, one Buddha in one place, many Buddhas in many places. 'One Buddha in one place' refers to, as stated in the Virtue King Chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, Śākyamuni (the founder of Buddhism) has a pure land (buddhakṣetra, the pure land where the Buddha resides), in the West, named No Victory. This means that one Śākyamuni Buddha is in many places such as pure lands and impure lands (unclean lands). The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that Śākyamuni has impure lands and also pure lands. Since there are pure lands in Śākyamuni's impure lands, then there are also impure lands in Amitābha's (the Buddha of the Western Pure Land) pure lands. Therefore, it is said that one Buddha is in many places. 'Many Buddhas in one place' refers to, as stated in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddhas of the ten directions (Buddhas throughout the ten directions) are together in the Sahā world (the world we live in, full of afflictions). It is also like the five Buddhas (usually referring to Vairocana, Akshobhya, Ratnasambhava, Amitābha, and Amoghasiddhi) appearing together in the Chamber of Faith. 'One Buddha in one place', Śākyamuni is in the East, Amitābha resides in the West. 'Many Buddhas in many places' refers to the Buddhas of the ten directions being in the lands of the ten directions.
Next, there are also four-sentence statements, referring to: one Buddha in two places, two Buddhas in one place, one Buddha in one place, two Buddhas in two places. 'One Buddha in two places' refers to, Śākyamuni is Vairocana (the Sambhogakāya Buddha), and Vairocana is Śākyamuni, this is one Buddha. Jetavana (Jetavana Monastery) has the difference between pure land and impure land, these are two places. 'Two Buddhas in one place' refers to, Śākyamuni and Vairocana are two Buddhas, although Jetavana has pure land and impure land, it is only one Jetavana, this is one place. 'One Buddha in one place', the origin and trace are one Buddha, the pure and impure Jetavana is one place. 'Two Buddhas in two places', the origin and trace are two Buddhas, the pure land and impure land are two places. However, these four-sentence statements are difficult to understand, let's take it as...
章門如此。至后第八會中更當委釋。略明土義如此。今通問前四句。何者一家明因緣義。若非因緣明不成義彈他自性。明今因緣既皆因緣。一二二一可因緣。一一二二若為是因緣耶。如初彈他有無。他有是自有。無是自無。自有則有故有。自無則無故無。有有無無非因緣。汝今一一二二若為是因緣耶。且釋明四句。因緣因緣四句。因緣四句。不四句四句。四句不四句。此四句皆是因緣。此是總釋。次別釋前總則豎而密。今別則橫而疏。別明四句皆因緣者。由一二故二一。由二一故一二。一二二一因緣若為一一二二因緣耶。解云。由二一故一二得起。何得有一一。由一二故二一則由二一故一一。既由二一故一一。亦由一一故二一則一一因二二。一一因一一由一二有二二。亦由二二故一二則二二因一二。一二因二二。此則四句皆因緣四句。因緣因緣四句則非四句。非非四句非非不四句。畢竟清凈。上雖明如此四句未曾有一家所說。大品云。須菩提告諸天子。我無所說無字可說。此則論無所論。說無所說。今亦爾。無量四句而未曾有四句而無量四句。無量一雖一而無量。一無量雖無量而一。雖無所說而說。雖說而無所說。舒則遍盈法界。合則泯無所有。雖卷而無所不有。只歷我如此。不得歷歷不得漫渾。歷歷則成有得。得漫
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 章門就是這樣。至於後面的第八會中，將會更詳細地解釋。簡略地說明『土義』就是這樣。現在總括地提問前面的四句：哪一句能夠明確地闡明因緣的意義？如果不是因緣，就不能明確地闡明意義，就會駁斥事物的自性。現在說明因緣既然都是因緣，那麼『一二二一』可以被認為是因緣嗎？『一一二二』又該如何被認為是因緣呢？就像最初駁斥有和無一樣，『他有』就是『自有』，『無』就是『自無』。『自有』就是因為有所以有，『自無』就是因為無所以無。『有有』和『無無』都不是因緣。你們現在所說的『一一二二』又該如何被認為是因緣呢？且解釋說明這四句：因緣、因緣四句；因緣四句；非四句四句；四句非四句。這四句都是因緣。這是總體的解釋。接下來分別解釋，之前的總體解釋是縱向的而且緊密的，現在的分別解釋是橫向的而且疏鬆的。分別說明這四句都是因緣的原因是：因為『一二』所以有『二一』，因為『二一』所以有『一二』，『一二』和『二一』是因緣，那麼『一一二二』又該如何是因緣呢？解釋說：因為『二一』所以『一二』才能產生，怎麼會有『一一』呢？因為『一二』所以有『二一』，那麼因為『二一』所以有『一一』。既然因為『二一』所以有『一一』，也因為『一一』所以有『二一』，那麼『一一』是『二二』的因，『一一』是『一一』的因。因為『一二』所以有『二二』，也因為『二二』所以有『一二』，那麼『二二』是『一二』的因，『一二』是『二二』的因。這就是說這四句都是因緣四句。因緣、因緣四句，那麼就不是四句；非非四句，非非不四句，畢竟是清凈的。上面雖然說明了這樣的四句，但沒有哪一家曾經這樣說過。《大品般若經》中說：『須菩提告訴諸天子，我沒有什麼可說的，沒有什麼字可以用來表達。』這就是說，論述的是無所論述，說的是無所說。現在也是這樣，有無量的四句，但又未曾有四句，而又是無量的四句。無量的一，雖然是一，卻是無量的；一的無量，雖然是無量，卻又是一。雖然沒有什麼可說的，卻又在說；雖然在說，卻又沒有什麼可說的。舒展開來就遍滿整個法界，合起來就什麼都沒有。雖然收捲起來，卻又無所不有。只是經歷我這樣，不能歷歷分明，也不能漫無邊際。歷歷分明就會變成有所得，得到漫
【English Translation】 English version The chapter gate is like this. As for the eighth assembly later, it will be explained in more detail. Briefly explaining the 'earth meaning' is like this. Now, generally asking about the previous four sentences: Which sentence can clearly explain the meaning of cause and condition (因緣)? If it is not cause and condition, it cannot clearly explain the meaning, and it will refute the self-nature (自性) of things. Now explaining that since causes and conditions are all causes and conditions, can 'one-two, two-one' be considered a cause and condition? How should 'one-one, two-two' be considered a cause and condition? Just like initially refuting existence and non-existence, 'other existence' is 'self-existence', and 'non-existence' is 'self-non-existence'. 'Self-existence' is because there is existence, so there is existence; 'self-non-existence' is because there is no existence, so there is no existence. 'Existence-existence' and 'non-existence-non-existence' are not causes and conditions. How should 'one-one, two-two' that you are talking about now be considered a cause and condition? Let's explain these four sentences: cause and condition, four sentences of cause and condition; four sentences of cause and condition; four sentences of non-four sentences; four sentences of four sentences. These four sentences are all causes and conditions. This is the overall explanation. Next, explain them separately. The previous overall explanation was vertical and tight, while the current separate explanation is horizontal and sparse. Explaining separately that these four sentences are all causes and conditions is because: because of 'one-two', there is 'two-one'; because of 'two-one', there is 'one-two'. 'One-two' and 'two-one' are causes and conditions, so how can 'one-one, two-two' be causes and conditions? The explanation says: because of 'two-one', 'one-two' can arise. How can there be 'one-one'? Because of 'one-two', there is 'two-one', so because of 'two-one', there is 'one-one'. Since because of 'two-one', there is 'one-one', and also because of 'one-one', there is 'two-one', then 'one-one' is the cause of 'two-two', and 'one-one' is the cause of 'one-one'. Because of 'one-two', there is 'two-two', and also because of 'two-two', there is 'one-two', then 'two-two' is the cause of 'one-two', and 'one-two' is the cause of 'two-two'. This means that these four sentences are all four sentences of cause and condition. Cause and condition, four sentences of cause and condition, then they are not four sentences; non-non-four sentences, non-non-not four sentences, are ultimately pure. Although the above explains these four sentences, no one has ever said it like this. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Subhuti (須菩提) told the gods, I have nothing to say, there is no word that can be used to express it.' This means that what is being discussed is nothing to be discussed, and what is being said is nothing to be said. It is the same now, there are countless four sentences, but there have never been four sentences, and yet there are countless four sentences. The countless one, although it is one, is countless; the countless of one, although it is countless, is still one. Although there is nothing to say, it is still being said; although it is being said, there is nothing to say. When unfolded, it fills the entire Dharma Realm (法界); when combined, there is nothing at all. Although rolled up, there is nothing that is not there. It is just experiencing me like this, it cannot be clearly distinct, nor can it be boundless. Being clearly distinct will become having something to gain, gaining a vague
渾則不可解。今且歷歷而漫渾。漫渾而歷歷也。略明凈土義如此也。然四條義兩條義略竟。
今第三次明教門。前明化主化處則是依正能所。有能化即有所化。有所化即有能化。斯則依正具足能所因緣。明此化主化處作何為。為欲化緣設教所以今第三明教門。就教門中凡有三句。一者能所。二者因果。三者半滿常無常。師雖明此三種並綢格辨商略存大意耳。大師云。能所義最長。因果處中。半滿常無常義最局。然中且明能所義。就此中更開四句。一者能而不所。常無常半滿義。涅槃經初別當廣釋。今提綱振領辨其大要也。三句之而不所。二者所而不能。三者亦能亦所。四者非能非所。言能而不所者。加來設教無有得悟之緣。名為能而不所。所而不能者。或有眾生見葉落而悟道。觀華雕而成聖。如來不被其教名為所而不能也。亦能亦所者。有能被之教有所被之緣。教是緣教緣是教緣。緣教相稱教稱緣。緣稱教緣教和會眾生得道。故名亦能亦所。不能不所者。無如來能被教。無眾生所被緣。故稱不能不所也。
問何故明此四句。解云。雖明此四句今辨教門。正約亦能亦所句以辨之。何故明教明教為欲被緣。所以今約亦能亦所第二句辨。雖亦能亦所且明能被教。后第四即是明所被緣。今即明能被教也。問。釋迦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『渾』（指事理混雜）的狀態是不可理解的。現在姑且將事理歷歷分明地展開，然後再使其漫然渾融。從漫然渾融再到歷歷分明。大致說明凈土的意義就是這樣。然而四條義和兩條義已經大致講完了。
現在第三次說明教門。前面說明化主（指阿彌陀佛）和化處（指西方極樂世界），就是依報和正報、能化和所化。有能化，就有所化；有所化，就有能化。這就是說，依報和正報都具足能化和所化的因緣。說明這化主和化處是爲了什麼呢？爲了教化眾生而設立教法，所以現在第三說明教門。在教門中，總共有三句：一是能所，二是因果，三是半滿常無常。大師雖然說明這三種，但只是粗略地辨別，商量，存留大意而已。大師說：『能所義』最長，『因果』居中，『半滿常無常義』最短。現在先說明『能所義』。在這『能所義』中，又可以分為四句：一是能而不所，二是所而不能，三是亦能亦所，四是非能非所。關於『常無常』和『半滿義』，在《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）的最初部分會有詳細的解釋。現在只是提綱挈領地辨別其中的大要。三句之中的『能而不所』，指的是如來設立教法，卻沒有眾生因此而得悟道的因緣，這叫做『能而不所』。『所而不能』，指的是或者有眾生看見落葉而悟道，觀察花朵凋謝而成聖，如來並沒有教化他們，這叫做『所而不能』。『亦能亦所』，指的是既有能被教化的教法，也有所被教化的因緣。教是緣，緣是教，教和緣相互配合，教與緣相稱，緣與教相稱，緣教和合，眾生因此得道，所以叫做『亦能亦所』。『不能不所』，指的是沒有如來能被教化的教法，也沒有眾生所被教化的因緣，所以叫做『不能不所』。
問：為什麼要說明這四句？ 答：雖然說明這四句，現在辨別教門，正是依據『亦能亦所』這一句來辨別。為什麼要說明教？說明教是爲了教化眾生，所以現在依據『亦能亦所』第二句來辨別。雖然是『亦能亦所』，但先說明能被教化的教法，後面的第四句就是說明所被教化的因緣。現在就是說明能被教化的教法。問：釋迦（Sakyamuni）...
【English Translation】 English version: The state of 'wholeness' (referring to the mixture of affairs and principles) is incomprehensible. Now, let's lay out the affairs and principles distinctly, and then make them naturally blend together. From natural blending back to distinct clarity. Roughly explaining the meaning of Pure Land (Sukhavati) is like this. However, the four-fold meaning and the two-fold meaning have been roughly explained.
Now, for the third time, explaining the teaching gate (Dharma-gate). The previous explanation of the teaching master (Amitabha Buddha) and the teaching place (Western Pure Land) refers to the dependent and principal, the able to transform and the transformed. If there is the able to transform, there is the transformed; if there is the transformed, there is the able to transform. This means that the dependent and principal both possess the causes and conditions for the able to transform and the transformed. What is the purpose of explaining this teaching master and teaching place? It is to establish the teachings in order to transform sentient beings, so now, for the third time, explaining the teaching gate. Within the teaching gate, there are three phrases in total: first, the able and the transformed; second, cause and effect; third, partial and complete, permanent and impermanent. Although the master explains these three, it is only a rough distinction, deliberation, and retention of the main idea. The master says: 'The meaning of the able and the transformed' is the longest, 'cause and effect' is in the middle, and 'the meaning of partial and complete, permanent and impermanent' is the shortest. Now, let's first explain 'the meaning of the able and the transformed'. Within this 'meaning of the able and the transformed', it can be further divided into four phrases: first, able but not transformed; second, transformed but not able; third, both able and transformed; fourth, neither able nor transformed. Regarding 'permanent and impermanent' and 'partial and complete', there will be detailed explanations in the initial part of the Nirvana Sutra. Now, it is only a summary to distinguish the main points. Among the three phrases, 'able but not transformed' refers to the Tathagata (Tathagata) establishing teachings, but no sentient beings have the conditions to attain enlightenment because of it, this is called 'able but not transformed'. 'Transformed but not able' refers to, for example, some sentient beings attain enlightenment upon seeing falling leaves, or become saints upon observing the withering of flowers, the Tathagata did not teach them, this is called 'transformed but not able'. 'Both able and transformed' refers to both the teachings that can be taught and the conditions for being taught. The teaching is the condition, the condition is the teaching, the teaching and the condition cooperate with each other, the teaching and the condition match, the condition and the teaching match, the condition and the teaching harmonize, and sentient beings attain the Way because of this, so it is called 'both able and transformed'. 'Neither able nor transformed' refers to there being no teachings that the Tathagata can teach, and no conditions for sentient beings to be taught, so it is called 'neither able nor transformed'.
Question: Why explain these four phrases? Answer: Although explaining these four phrases, now distinguishing the teaching gate, it is precisely based on the phrase 'both able and transformed' to distinguish it. Why explain the teaching? Explaining the teaching is to transform sentient beings, so now based on the second phrase 'both able and transformed' to distinguish it. Although it is 'both able and transformed', first explain the teachings that can be taught, and the fourth phrase later is to explain the conditions for being taught. Now it is explaining the teachings that can be taught. Question: Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni)...
舍那二佛施教若為同爲異。解云。二佛施教是同。問二佛既異那得教同。解云。二師雖異施教併爲顯道。顯道不異故施教義同。何以故。道是所顯。教是能表。所顯之道既無異。能表之教是同也。二佛既然。類十方諸佛亦爾。十方諸佛施教何所為。並顯道既同。為顯道故教義是同也。
次明二佛教同者。同明因果法門。二佛教雖無量不出因果法門。因果法門。十方諸佛教亦爾。不出因果法門。十方諸佛教不出因果法門。今因果法門攝十方諸佛教盡。既明因果法門是同故二佛教不異也。然此因果非是數人六因五果之因果。論師同時因果。異時因果。四緣三因因果。此等因果並非因果義。大師前將中論因果品來彈此因果。明非此因非此果。撿此因不得非因。求此果不得非果。彈如此因果竟。始得明今時因緣因緣因果。因果則無礙亦得同時亦得異時。因緣同時因緣異時。因緣同時不同時因緣異時不異時。雖不同時而同時。雖不異時而異時。如空谷之嚮明鏡之像。恒須此意要須此前彈他因果。始得明今時因緣因果。因緣因果因果義始成。故二佛同明因果也。
問。若為二佛同明因果耶。解云。二佛同明因果。各有差別無差別無差別差別義。釋迦差別無差別者。一般若因一薩婆若果。一佛性因一涅槃果也。釋迦無差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 舍那佛（Rushanabuddha）和釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）的施教是相同還是不同？解釋說：二佛的施教是相同的。問：二佛既然不同，怎麼能說教義相同呢？解釋說：二位導師雖然不同，但施教都是爲了彰顯『道』（Dharma）。所彰顯的『道』沒有差異，所以施教的意義是相同的。為什麼呢？『道』是所要彰顯的，『教』是能夠表達的。所彰顯的『道』既然沒有差異，那麼能夠表達的『教』就是相同的。二佛既然如此，那麼類推十方諸佛也是這樣。十方諸佛的施教是爲了什麼呢？都是爲了彰顯『道』，既然彰顯的『道』相同，那麼爲了彰顯『道』，教義就是相同的。 其次說明二佛教義相同之處，在於共同闡明因果法門。二佛教義雖然無量，但都離不開因果法門。因果法門，十方諸佛的教義也是如此，離不開因果法門。十方諸佛的教義離不開因果法門，那麼現在的因果法門就涵蓋了十方諸佛的所有教義。既然闡明因果法門是相同的，所以二佛教義沒有差異。然而，這裡的因果並非是數論派（Samkhya）的六因五果之因果，也不是論師所說的同時因果、異時因果、四緣三因之因果。這些因果都不是真正的因果之義。大師之前用《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）的因果品來駁斥這些因果，說明這不是真正的因，也不是真正的果。考察這些『因』，找不到非因的性質；尋求這些『果』，找不到非果的性質。駁斥了這樣的因果之後，才能闡明現在的因緣因果。因緣因果則是無礙的，既可以是同時的，也可以是異時的。因緣同時，因緣異時；因緣同時，但又不是完全同時；因緣異時，但又不是完全異時。雖然不是完全同時，但又是同時；雖然不是完全異時，但又是異時。如同空谷的迴響，明鏡的影像。始終需要這種理解，必須先駁斥其他的因果，才能闡明現在的因緣因果。因緣因果的意義才能成立。所以二佛共同闡明因果。 問：如何說明二佛共同闡明因果呢？解釋說：二佛共同闡明因果，各有差別、無差別、無差別差別之義。釋迦牟尼佛的差別無差別在於，一個般若（Prajna）之因，一個薩婆若（Sarvajna）之果，一個佛性（Buddha-nature）之因，一個涅槃（Nirvana）之果。釋迦牟尼佛的無差別……
【English Translation】 English version Are the teachings of Rushanabuddha (Rushanabuddha) and Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) the same or different? The explanation is: the teachings of the two Buddhas are the same. Question: Since the two Buddhas are different, how can their teachings be the same? The explanation is: Although the two teachers are different, their teachings both aim to reveal the 'Dharma' (Dharma). Since the revealed 'Dharma' is not different, the meaning of their teachings is the same. Why? The 'Dharma' is what is to be revealed, and the 'teaching' is what can express it. Since the 'Dharma' to be revealed is not different, then the 'teaching' that can express it is the same. Since the two Buddhas are like this, then by analogy, all the Buddhas in the ten directions are also like this. What is the purpose of the teachings of the Buddhas in the ten directions? They all reveal the 'Dharma'. Since the 'Dharma' they reveal is the same, then for the sake of revealing the 'Dharma', the meaning of their teachings is the same. Next, it is explained that the similarity between the teachings of the two Buddhas lies in their common elucidation of the law of cause and effect (karma). Although the teachings of the two Buddhas are immeasurable, they do not depart from the law of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect is also the same for the teachings of the Buddhas in the ten directions; they do not depart from the law of cause and effect. Since the teachings of the Buddhas in the ten directions do not depart from the law of cause and effect, then the current law of cause and effect encompasses all the teachings of the Buddhas in the ten directions. Since it is clarified that the law of cause and effect is the same, then there is no difference between the teachings of the two Buddhas. However, this cause and effect is not the cause and effect of the six causes and five effects of the Samkhya (Samkhya) school, nor is it the simultaneous cause and effect, the different-time cause and effect, or the cause and effect of the four conditions and three causes spoken of by the philosophers. These causes and effects are not the true meaning of cause and effect. The master previously used the chapter on cause and effect from the Madhyamaka-karika (Madhyamaka-karika) to refute these causes and effects, explaining that this is not the true cause, nor is it the true effect. Examining these 'causes', one cannot find the nature of non-cause; seeking these 'effects', one cannot find the nature of non-effect. After refuting such causes and effects, one can then elucidate the current cause and effect of conditions. The cause and effect of conditions is then unobstructed, and can be simultaneous or different-time. Conditions are simultaneous, conditions are different-time; conditions are simultaneous, but not completely simultaneous; conditions are different-time, but not completely different-time. Although not completely simultaneous, they are simultaneous; although not completely different-time, they are different-time. Like the echo in an empty valley, the image in a clear mirror. This understanding is always necessary; one must first refute other causes and effects in order to elucidate the current cause and effect of conditions. The meaning of the cause and effect of conditions can then be established. Therefore, the two Buddhas jointly elucidate cause and effect. Question: How can it be explained that the two Buddhas jointly elucidate cause and effect? The explanation is: The two Buddhas jointly elucidate cause and effect, each having the meaning of difference, non-difference, and non-difference-difference. The difference-non-difference of Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) lies in one cause of Prajna (Prajna), one effect of Sarvajna (Sarvajna), one cause of Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature), and one effect of Nirvana (Nirvana). The non-difference of Sakyamuni Buddha...
別差別者。開一般若因為無量因。謂三乘共十地因。開薩婆若果為無量果。謂薩婆若果菩提果涅槃果也。舍那亦有差別無差別無差別差別義者。行一離世間因得一法界果。即是無差別義也。十信十住十行十回向十地等因。十世界海正果。大少相海。及現本跡等身。即是無差別差別義。此即二佛各有差別無差別義。故二佛明因果是同也。言異者釋迦多明差別無差別義。束散明義明一般若因一薩婆若果。不作十十明義。若是舍那多明無差別差別義。散束明義十十明義。十信十地等。乃至普慧菩薩二百句問。普賢菩薩二千句答。一句作十句答。乃至十佛世界海大小相海等故。是無差別差別義。此則二佛教門同異義。如此明二佛教門雖多不出因果。故二佛同明因果。大師從來云。二佛同明因果。明因果不同。言二佛同明因果者。釋迦能化過去行不生滅因今得不斷常果。釋迦能化既然。舍那能化亦爾。舍那能化過去行不生滅因今得不斷常果也。釋迦所化現在行不生滅因未來得不斷常果。釋迦所化既然。舍那所化亦爾。現在行不生滅因。未來得不斷常果也。故二佛明因果。義同而不同者。釋迦能化具明因果。舍那能化俱明果不明因。舍那所化具明因果。釋迦所化但明因不明果。言釋迦能化具明因果者。釋迦教明現是凡夫。行因得果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『別差別者』（區別中的區別）。開啟般若（prajna，智慧）是因為無量因，指三乘（sravaka-yana，聲聞乘；pratyekabuddha-yana，緣覺乘；bodhisattva-yana，菩薩乘）共十地（bhumi，菩薩修行的十個階段）之因。開啟薩婆若（sarvajna，一切智）果為無量果，指薩婆若果、菩提（bodhi，覺悟）果、涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）果。 毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana，光明遍照）也有差別無差別、無差別差別之義。行一離世間因，得一法界（dharma-dhatu，諸法本體）果，即是無差別義。十信（dasasaddha，十種信心）、十住（dasavasa，十種住心）、十行（dasacarya，十種修行）、十回向（dasaparinamana，十種迴向）、十地（dasabhumi，十地）等因，十世界海正果，大小相海，以及現本跡等身，即是無差別差別義。這即是二佛各有差別無差別義，故二佛明因果是相同的。 說到不同之處，釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni，能仁寂默）多明差別無差別義，束散明義，明一般若因一薩婆若果，不作十十明義。若是毗盧遮那佛多明無差別差別義，散束明義，十十明義，十信十地等，乃至普慧菩薩二百句問，普賢菩薩（Samantabhadra，普賢）二千句答，一句作十句答，乃至十佛世界海大小相海等，故是無差別差別義。此則二佛教門同異義。如此明二佛教門雖多不出因果，故二佛同明因果。大師從來云：『二佛同明因果，明因果不同』。言二佛同明因果者，釋迦能化過去行不生滅因，今得不斷常果。釋迦能化既然，毗盧遮那佛能化亦爾，毗盧遮那佛能化過去行不生滅因，今得不斷常果也。釋迦所化現在行不生滅因，未來得不斷常果。釋迦所化既然，毗盧遮那佛所化亦爾，現在行不生滅因，未來得不斷常果也。故二佛明因果。 義同而不同者，釋迦能化具明因果，毗盧遮那佛能化俱明果不明因。毗盧遮那佛所化具明因果，釋迦所化但明因不明果。言釋迦能化具明因果者，釋迦教明現是凡夫，行因得果。
【English Translation】 English version 'Different differentiations.' Opening prajna (wisdom) is due to immeasurable causes, referring to the causes of the Three Vehicles (sravaka-yana, pratyekabuddha-yana, bodhisattva-yana) sharing the Ten Grounds (bhumi, ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice). Opening sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom) fruit is for immeasurable fruits, referring to the sarvajna fruit, bodhi (enlightenment) fruit, and nirvana (cessation) fruit. Vairocana (the Illuminator) also has the meaning of difference without difference, and difference of non-difference. Practicing one cause of leaving the world, one obtains the fruit of the dharma-dhatu (the essence of all dharmas), which is the meaning of non-difference. The causes of the Ten Faiths (dasasaddha), Ten Abidings (dasavasa), Ten Practices (dasacarya), Ten Dedications (dasaparinamana), Ten Grounds (dasabhumi), etc., the correct fruit of the Ten World Seas, the seas of major and minor characteristics, and the manifested original and traced bodies, etc., are the meaning of difference of non-difference. This is the meaning of each of the two Buddhas having difference without difference, therefore the two Buddhas' explanation of cause and effect is the same. Speaking of the differences, Sakyamuni (the Sage of the Sakyas) mostly explains the meaning of difference without difference, summarizing and scattering the meaning, explaining the cause of general prajna and the fruit of one sarvajna, not making the meaning of ten and ten. If it is Vairocana, he mostly explains the meaning of difference of non-difference, scattering and summarizing the meaning, explaining the meaning of ten and ten, the Ten Faiths and Ten Grounds, etc., even to the two hundred questions of Bodhisattva Universal Wisdom, and the two thousand answers of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra (Universal Virtue), one question making ten answers, even to the Ten Buddha World Seas, the seas of major and minor characteristics, etc., therefore it is the meaning of difference of non-difference. This is the meaning of the similarities and differences of the two Buddha's teachings. Thus, explaining that although the two Buddha's teachings are many, they do not go beyond cause and effect, therefore the two Buddhas similarly explain cause and effect. The great master has always said: 'The two Buddhas similarly explain cause and effect, explaining that cause and effect are not the same.' Speaking of the two Buddhas similarly explaining cause and effect, Sakyamuni can transform the past practice of non-arising and non-ceasing cause, and now obtains the uninterrupted and constant fruit. Since Sakyamuni can transform, Vairocana can also do so, Vairocana can transform the past practice of non-arising and non-ceasing cause, and now obtains the uninterrupted and constant fruit. Sakyamuni transforms the present practice of non-arising and non-ceasing cause, and in the future obtains the uninterrupted and constant fruit. Since Sakyamuni transforms, Vairocana also transforms, the present practice of non-arising and non-ceasing cause, and in the future obtains the uninterrupted and constant fruit. Therefore, the two Buddhas explain cause and effect. The meaning is the same but different, Sakyamuni can transform and fully explains cause and effect, Vairocana can transform and both explain the fruit but not the cause. Vairocana transforms and fully explains cause and effect, Sakyamuni transforms but only explains the cause and not the fruit. Speaking of Sakyamuni being able to transform and fully explain cause and effect, Sakyamuni's teaching explains that the present is an ordinary person, practicing the cause and obtaining the fruit.
凡明兩世因。明過去行六度等因。現在逾城學道六年苦行。具明兩世因果故。是明因辨果者。菩提樹下得成正覺即是辨果。故言釋迦能化具明因果也。舍那能化但果不因者。舍那教不明舍那能化行因。何者不明過去行因。不明現在行因。直舍那始成種覺明依正兩果。依果則十國土正果。十佛名號海。故舍那能化但明果不明因也。舍那所化具明因果者。舍那所化修行十信十地等因。得不思議大小相海果。行離世間因得法界果。故云舍那所化具明行因得果也。釋迦所化但明行因不辨得果者。故大品云。菩薩以不住法住般若中具足萬行。此即但明行般若等因不明得薩婆若果。所以釋迦所化但因不果也。然此四句從山中師來已有此語。是一家舊義極自難。後人雖誦得語實不得其意。今且作數問之。何者既言。舍那所化行十信十地等因得不思議大小相海果。行離世間因得法界果。何以得知。此何以得知。十住十地等是舍那所化因。大小相海是舍那所化果。后一週因果亦作此責之。此經七處八會經文。何處道十信十地是舍那所化因。大小相海是舍那所化果。后一週因果亦作此責。此經七處八會經文。何處道離世間是所化因。法界是所化果。又安知十信十住非是舍那能化因。大小相海非是舍那能化果。安知離世間非是舍那能化因。法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 總的來說，『明兩世因』（闡明兩世的因）是指闡明過去世所行的六度（六種修行）等因，以及現在世逾越城墻出家學道和六年苦行。這完整地闡明了兩世的因果關係，因此是『明因辨果』（闡明因並辨別果）。在菩提樹下證得正覺，就是辨別果。所以說，釋迦（Śākyamuni，能仁寂默）的教化具足闡明了因果。而舍那（Vairocana，光明遍照）的教化只闡明果而不闡明因，是因為舍那的教法沒有闡明舍那的教化所行的因。為什麼沒有闡明過去世所行的因？為什麼沒有闡明現在世所行的因？而是直接闡明了舍那最初成就的種覺所依的正報和依報兩種果報。依報的果報是十方國土，正報的果報是十佛名號海。所以說，舍那的教化只闡明果而不闡明因。舍那所教化闡明因果，是指舍那所教化修行十信、十地等因，得到不可思議的大小相海果報；修行遠離世間的因，得到法界果報。所以說，舍那所教化具足闡明了修行因並得到果報。釋迦所教化只闡明修行因而不辨別得到果報，所以《大品般若經》說：『菩薩以不住法住般若中具足萬行。』這只是闡明修行般若等因，而沒有闡明得到薩婆若（Sarvajña，一切智）的果報。所以釋迦的教化只是闡明因而不闡明果。然而，這四句是從山中的老師那裡傳來的，已經有這種說法了。這是一家古老的義理，極其深奧難懂。後人即使能背誦這些話，實際上也不理解其中的含義。現在姑且提出幾個問題來問。既然說，舍那所教化修行十信、十地等因，得到不可思議的大小相海果報；修行遠離世間的因，得到法界果報。那麼，如何得知這些？如何得知十住、十地等是舍那所教化的因，大小相海是舍那所教化的果？後面一週的因果也用這個來責問。這部經的七處八會經文中，哪裡說了十信、十地是舍那所教化的因，大小相海是舍那所教化的果？後面一週的因果也用這個來責問。這部經的七處八會經文中，哪裡說了遠離世間是所教化的因，法界是所教化的果？又怎麼知道十信、十住不是舍那能化的因，大小相海不是舍那能化的果？怎麼知道遠離世間不是舍那能化的因？
【English Translation】 English version Generally speaking, 'elucidating the causes of two lifetimes' means elucidating the causes of the six pāramitās (perfections) practiced in past lives, as well as the act of leaving the city to study the Way and the six years of ascetic practice in this present life. This fully elucidates the cause-and-effect relationship of two lifetimes, and therefore it is 'elucidating the cause and distinguishing the effect.' Attaining perfect enlightenment under the Bodhi tree is distinguishing the effect. Therefore, it is said that Śākyamuni's (the capable and silent sage) teachings fully elucidate cause and effect. Vairocana's (the light shining everywhere) teachings only elucidate the effect but not the cause, because Vairocana's teachings do not elucidate the causes practiced by Vairocana's teachings. Why is the cause practiced in past lives not elucidated? Why is the cause practiced in this present life not elucidated? Instead, it directly elucidates the two kinds of retributions, the principal and the circumstantial, that Vairocana initially achieved in the seed of enlightenment. The circumstantial retribution is the ten directions of lands, and the principal retribution is the ocean of the names of the ten Buddhas. Therefore, it is said that Vairocana's teachings only elucidate the effect but not the cause. Vairocana's teachings elucidate cause and effect, referring to the fact that Vairocana's teachings cultivate the causes of the ten faiths, the ten grounds, etc., and obtain the inconceivable great and small ocean of characteristics as the effect; cultivating the cause of being apart from the world, one obtains the Dharma Realm as the effect. Therefore, it is said that Vairocana's teachings fully elucidate the cultivation of causes and the attainment of effects. Śākyamuni's teachings only elucidate the cultivation of causes but do not distinguish the attainment of effects, so the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'Bodhisattvas dwell in prajñā (wisdom) without dwelling in any dharma, and fully accomplish all practices.' This only elucidates the causes of cultivating prajñā, etc., but does not elucidate the attainment of the effect of Sarvajña (all-knowing). Therefore, Śākyamuni's teachings only elucidate the cause but not the effect. However, these four sentences have been passed down from the teacher in the mountains, and this saying has already existed. This is an old doctrine of one school, extremely profound and difficult to understand. Even if later people can recite these words, they do not actually understand their meaning. Now, let's ask a few questions. Since it is said that Vairocana's teachings cultivate the causes of the ten faiths, the ten grounds, etc., and obtain the inconceivable great and small ocean of characteristics as the effect; cultivating the cause of being apart from the world, one obtains the Dharma Realm as the effect. Then, how do we know these things? How do we know that the ten abodes, the ten grounds, etc., are the causes taught by Vairocana, and the great and small ocean of characteristics is the effect taught by Vairocana? The cause and effect of the later week are also questioned in this way. In which part of the seven locations and eight assemblies of this sutra does it say that the ten faiths and the ten grounds are the causes taught by Vairocana, and the great and small ocean of characteristics is the effect taught by Vairocana? The cause and effect of the later week are also questioned in this way. In which part of the seven locations and eight assemblies of this sutra does it say that being apart from the world is the cause taught, and the Dharma Realm is the effect taught? Also, how do we know that the ten faiths and the ten abodes are not the causes of Vairocana's transformation, and the great and small ocean of characteristics is not the effect of Vairocana's transformation? How do we know that being apart from the world is not the cause of Vairocana's transformation?
界非是能化果耶。又一句責。若言十信十地等是舍那所化因。大小相海是舍那所化果者。舍那所化為當現得大小相海果以不。若使言舍那所化不得大小相海果。乃是舍那為諸菩薩說今諸菩薩修因取果者。此與釋迦所化更復何殊。釋迦亦為諸菩薩說涅槃薩婆若等果。今諸菩薩明因取此果。若爾兩佛所化無異。何得判釋迦所化但因不果。舍那所化具因果耶。若使言舍那所化已得大小相海果者則諸菩薩皆悉是佛。何以故。大小相海果是如來大小相海果。諸菩薩既得此果則諸菩薩即既成佛。那復更行離世間因得法界。紛紜作義此兩句責不可解。所以不可解者。由來師作此語故難解。不具他事。然二佛因果義相是極自難見。前云。釋迦能具因果所但因不果。舍那能但果不因所。其因果何意明此因果不同耶。明此作義大師奮云。所以明此四句因果者。欲辨二佛能所相兼義者。釋迦能化具明因果。舍那所化具明因果。此則能所相對。非能無成所非所無成能。能是所能。所是能所。此之能所皆具因果。雖皆具因果只一因一果義。故釋迦能具明因果。舍那所具明因果。第二句相兼者。舍那能化但果不因。釋迦所化但因不果者。此亦是能所義。非能無以明所非所無以明能。以所能果兼能所因。能所因兼所能因。此之能所亦是一因一果義。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『界』（指佛的境界）難道不是能化生結果的嗎？這是又一句責問。如果說十信、十地等是盧舍那佛（Vairocana，報身佛）所化生的因，大小相海（指佛的莊嚴身相）是盧舍那佛所化生的果，那麼盧舍那佛所化生的，是應當已經獲得大小相海的果，還是沒有獲得？如果說盧舍那佛所化生沒有獲得大小相海的果，而是盧舍那佛為諸菩薩說法，現在諸菩薩修因證果，這與釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni，應化身佛）所化生的又有什麼區別呢？釋迦牟尼佛也為諸菩薩說涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）和薩婆若（Sarvajna，一切智）等果。現在諸菩薩明白因，證得這些果。如果這樣，兩位佛所化生的沒有區別，怎麼能判釋迦牟尼佛所化生的只有因沒有果，而盧舍那佛所化生的具足因果呢？如果說盧舍那佛所化生的已經獲得大小相海的果，那麼諸菩薩就都是佛了。為什麼呢？因為大小相海的果是如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）的大小相海果。諸菩薩既然得到這個果，那麼諸菩薩就已經成佛了，又何必再修行離世間的因，證得法界（Dharmadhatu，諸法總相）呢？紛紜地解釋這些義理，這兩句責問是不可理解的。之所以不可理解，是因為歷來的法師這樣說，所以難以理解，不具備其他的事理。然而，二佛的因果義相是極其難以看清的。前面說，釋迦牟尼佛能具足因果，所化生的只有因沒有果；盧舍那佛能只有果沒有因，所化生的。這其中的因果是什麼意思？說明這因果的不同呢？說明這義理的大師奮說，之所以說明這四句因果，是爲了辨別二佛能所相兼的義理：釋迦牟尼佛能化生的具明因果，盧舍那佛所化生的具明因果。這是能所相對，非能無以成所，非所無以成能。能是所能，所是能所。這能所都具足因果。雖然都具足因果，只是一因一果的義理。所以釋迦牟尼佛能具明因果，盧舍那佛所具明因果。第二句相兼，盧舍那佛能化生的只有果沒有因，釋迦牟尼佛所化生的只有因沒有果，這也是能所的義理。非能無以明所，非所無以明能。以所能的果兼能所的因，能所的因兼所能的因。這能所也是一因一果的義理。所以
【English Translation】 English version Is 『realm』 (referring to the Buddha's realm) not capable of transforming into results? This is another question of reproach. If it is said that the Ten Faiths, Ten Grounds (Bhumi, stages of a Bodhisattva's path), etc., are the causes transformed by Vairocana (the Reward Body Buddha), and the ocean of great and small marks (referring to the Buddha's majestic physical characteristics) is the result transformed by Vairocana, then, concerning what is transformed by Vairocana, should it have already obtained the result of the ocean of great and small marks, or not? If it is said that what is transformed by Vairocana has not obtained the result of the ocean of great and small marks, but rather Vairocana speaks the Dharma for the Bodhisattvas, and now the Bodhisattvas cultivate causes to attain results, then what difference is there between this and what is transformed by Sakyamuni (the Manifestation Body Buddha)? Sakyamuni Buddha also speaks of the results of Nirvana (extinction) and Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom) etc., for the Bodhisattvas. Now the Bodhisattvas understand the causes and attain these results. If this is the case, there is no difference between what is transformed by the two Buddhas. How can it be judged that what is transformed by Sakyamuni Buddha only has causes but no results, while what is transformed by Vairocana Buddha is complete with both causes and results? If it is said that what is transformed by Vairocana has already obtained the result of the ocean of great and small marks, then all Bodhisattvas are Buddhas. Why? Because the result of the ocean of great and small marks is the Tathagata's (Buddha's title) ocean of great and small marks. Since the Bodhisattvas have obtained this result, then the Bodhisattvas have already become Buddhas. Why then would they need to further cultivate the causes of transcending the world to attain the Dharmadhatu (the totality of all phenomena)? To interpret these meanings in a confused manner, these two questions of reproach are incomprehensible. The reason they are incomprehensible is that the Dharma masters of the past have spoken in this way, making it difficult to understand, lacking other principles. However, the meaning of the causes and results of the two Buddhas is extremely difficult to see clearly. Earlier it was said that Sakyamuni Buddha is capable of fully possessing causes and results, but what is transformed only has causes and no results; Vairocana Buddha is capable of only having results and no causes, in what is transformed. What is the meaning of these causes and results? What explains the difference between these causes and results? The master Fen, who explains this meaning, says that the reason for explaining these four sentences of causes and results is to distinguish the meaning of the mutual inclusion of the abilities and what is accomplished by the two Buddhas: Sakyamuni Buddha's ability to transform fully clarifies causes and results, and what is transformed by Vairocana Buddha fully clarifies causes and results. This is the relative nature of ability and what is accomplished; ability cannot be accomplished without what is accomplished, and what is accomplished cannot accomplish without ability. Ability is what ability can do, and what is accomplished is what ability can accomplish. This ability and what is accomplished both fully possess causes and results. Although they both fully possess causes and results, it is only the meaning of one cause and one result. Therefore, Sakyamuni Buddha's ability fully clarifies causes and results, and what is accomplished by Vairocana Buddha fully clarifies causes and results. The second sentence of mutual inclusion is that Vairocana Buddha's ability to transform only has results and no causes, and what is transformed by Sakyamuni Buddha only has causes and no results. This is also the meaning of ability and what is accomplished. Ability cannot clarify what is accomplished without what is accomplished, and what is accomplished cannot clarify ability without ability. The result of what ability can do includes the cause of ability and what is accomplished, and the cause of ability and what is accomplished includes the cause of what ability can do. This ability and what is accomplished is also the meaning of one cause and one result. Therefore,
舍那能但果不因。釋迦所但因不果也。第三句相兼者。釋迦能對舍那能。釋迦能一二義。舍那能二一義。此二是一二。此一是二一。此本是跡本。此跡是本跡。以本跡故一二。以跡本故二一。一二兼二一。二一兼一二。以本跡兼跡本。跡本兼本跡故。釋迦能具明因果。舍那能但因不果也。大師只作此語。
今更問。何意明此四句因果相兼耶。解云。有二義。一者明二佛能所互通。釋迦能化既具明因果顯舍那能化亦爾。舍那能化但果不因顯釋迦能化亦爾。二佛是二句但各顯一義。故一二不同也。能化既然所化亦爾。斯義易知也。二者欲泯能所因果本跡義。釋迦本跡一二。舍那跡本二一。本跡非跡。跡本非本。一二非二。二一非一。能所非所。所能非能。斯則非一非二非本非跡畢竟清凈。此則名大方廣義也。
更釋前一句義。何者云前舍那能化但果不因。所化具因果者。明此經發初但說舍那依正二果。十佛國土即依果。十佛世界海即正果。而不明舍那能化之因。若是舍那所化前明十信十地等五位是所化因。大小相海是所化果。此是一週明所化因果義也。次復一週明所化因果。謂離世間因法界果。此二週因果中間。性起品結前生后。結前者前明五位因。次明大小相海果。性起品即收此因果。還歸不因不果一正性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 舍那佛（Vairocana Buddha）能示現果但不示現因。釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）所示現的只是因而不是果。第三句是說兩者相兼，即釋迦牟尼佛能對應舍那佛的能，釋迦牟尼佛的能是一二之義，舍那佛的能是二一之義。此二者是一二，此一者是二一。這是本是跡本，這是跡是本跡。因為是本跡所以是一二，因為是跡本所以是二一。一二兼二一，二一兼一二。因為本跡兼跡本，跡本兼本跡的緣故。釋迦牟尼佛能完全闡明因果，舍那佛能只闡明因而不闡明果。大師只是這樣說。
現在再問，為何要闡明這四句因果相兼的道理呢？解釋說，有兩個含義。一是闡明二佛的能與所可以互相溝通。釋迦牟尼佛的能化既已完全闡明因果，就顯示舍那佛的能化也是如此。舍那佛的能化只闡明果而不闡明因，就顯示釋迦牟尼佛的能化也是如此。二佛是兩句話，但各自只闡明一個含義，所以一二不同。能化既然如此，所化也是如此，這個道理很容易理解。二是想要泯除能所、因果、本跡的含義。釋迦牟尼佛的本跡是一二，舍那佛的跡本是二一。本跡不是跡，跡本不是本。一二不是二，二一不是一。能所不是所，所能不是能。這樣就既非一也非二，既非本也非跡，畢竟清凈。這就叫做大方廣義。
再解釋前一句的含義。為什麼說前面舍那佛的能化只闡明果而不闡明因，而所化則具足因果呢？這是說明此經開始時只說了舍那佛的依報和正報二果。十佛國土就是依報果，十佛世界海就是正報果。而沒有闡明舍那佛能化的因。如果是舍那佛所化，前面闡明十信、十地等五位是所化的因，大小相海是所化的果。這是一週闡明所化因果的含義。接下來又一週闡明所化因果，即離世間因，法界果。這兩週因果中間，《性起品》承前啓後，承前是指前面闡明五位因，接下來闡明大小相海果。《性起品》就收攝了這些因果，還歸於不因不果的一正性。
【English Translation】 English version Vairocana Buddha (Śāṇā 能但果不因) can manifest the effect but not the cause. Sakyamuni Buddha (Śākyamuni 所但因不果也) manifests only the cause and not the effect. The third sentence says that the two are combined, that is, Sakyamuni Buddha's ability corresponds to Vairocana Buddha's ability. Sakyamuni Buddha's ability is the meaning of 'one-two', and Vairocana Buddha's ability is the meaning of 'two-one'. These two are 'one-two', and this one is 'two-one'. This is the origin being the trace-origin, and this trace is the origin-trace. Because it is the origin-trace, it is 'one-two'; because it is the trace-origin, it is 'two-one'. 'One-two' combines with 'two-one', and 'two-one' combines with 'one-two'. Because the origin-trace combines with the trace-origin, and the trace-origin combines with the origin-trace. Sakyamuni Buddha can fully explain the cause and effect, while Vairocana Buddha can only explain the cause and not the effect. The great master only said this.
Now I ask again, why is it necessary to explain the principle of the combination of cause and effect in these four sentences? The explanation is that there are two meanings. First, it explains that the ability and object of the two Buddhas can communicate with each other. Since Sakyamuni Buddha's ability to transform has fully explained the cause and effect, it shows that Vairocana Buddha's ability to transform is also the same. Vairocana Buddha's ability to transform only explains the effect and not the cause, which shows that Sakyamuni Buddha's ability to transform is also the same. The two Buddhas are two sentences, but each only explains one meaning, so 'one-two' is different. Since the ability to transform is like this, the object of transformation is also like this. This principle is easy to understand. Second, it is to eliminate the meaning of ability and object, cause and effect, origin and trace. Sakyamuni Buddha's origin-trace is 'one-two', and Vairocana Buddha's trace-origin is 'two-one'. The origin-trace is not the trace, and the trace-origin is not the origin. 'One-two' is not two, and 'two-one' is not one. The ability and object are not the object, and the object and ability are not the ability. In this way, it is neither one nor two, neither origin nor trace, and ultimately pure. This is called the great, vast, and extensive meaning.
Let's explain the meaning of the previous sentence again. Why is it said that Vairocana Buddha's ability to transform only explains the effect and not the cause, while the object of transformation is complete with cause and effect? This explains that at the beginning of this sutra, only the two effects of Vairocana Buddha's environment and body are mentioned. The ten Buddha lands are the environmental effect, and the ten Buddha world seas are the bodily effect. But the cause of Vairocana Buddha's ability to transform is not explained. If it is what Vairocana Buddha transforms, the previous explanation of the ten faiths, ten grounds, and other five stages is the cause of what is transformed, and the great and small marks and seas are the effect of what is transformed. This is one cycle explaining the meaning of the cause and effect of what is transformed. Then another cycle explains the cause and effect of what is transformed, that is, the cause of leaving the world and the effect of the Dharma realm. In the middle of these two cycles of cause and effect, the 'Nature Arising' chapter connects the past and opens the future. Connecting the past refers to the previous explanation of the five stages of cause, and then explaining the effect of the great and small marks and seas. The 'Nature Arising' chapter collects these causes and effects and returns them to the one true nature that is neither cause nor effect.
義。生後者由不因不果始得明因果。從體出用義。由非因始得明離世間因。由非果始得辨法界果。故性起品結前生后也。今問。何以得知。此十信十地等因大小相海是舍那所化因果。安知是所化因果非能化因果耶。解云。所以得知十信十地等是所化因者。明如來以如此等因勸所化眾生。令行此因。明汝若能行此因必當得佛。故知此因果是舍那所化因果也。大師云。此則所化長有兼義。何者以舍那所化兼能化因。不得能兼所化。言所化因兼能化因者。明所化行此等因得果。當知舍那能化行此等因令得果也。難。所化因兼能化因。亦應所化果兼能化果。所化因兼能化因。亦應能化果兼所化果。解。不得能化果兼所化果。何者欲嘆舍那所化現在行因別得果故。所以不得能化果兼所化果。難。顯所化別得果。不得能化果兼所化果。亦應能化別有因。不得所化因兼能化因。解云。若併兼則成一義。今各舉一義故不同也。問。何意所因兼能果。不得所果兼所因耶。解云。有兼不兼。不得一例所未了處。復更釋。次更問。何故釋迦所化但因不果。舍那所化具因果耶。解云。凈穢利鈍。所以釋迦所化穢土中。鈍根故行因未即得果。舍那所化凈土中。利根故行因即得果。大判如此耳。細論釋迦所化因不得果。非無具因果。舍那所化因具因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 義（含義）。生後者由不因不果始得明因果（從無因而生，從無果而生，才能明白因果）。從體出用義（從本體顯現作用的含義）。由非因始得明離世間因（從非因而開始，才能明白超脫世間的因）。由非果始得辨法界果（從非果而開始，才能辨別法界之果）。故性起品結前生后也（所以《性起品》總結前文，開啟後文）。 今問（現在提問）：何以得知，此十信十地等因大小相海是舍那（盧舍那佛，意為光明遍照）所化因果？安知是所化因果非能化因果耶（怎麼知道這些是被教化的因果，而不是能教化的因果呢）？ 解云（解釋說）：所以得知十信十地等是所化因者（之所以知道十信十地等是被教化的因），明如來以如此等因勸所化眾生（是因為如來用這些因來勸導被教化的眾生），令行此因（讓他們修行這些因），明汝若能行此因必當得佛（說明你們如果能修行這些因，必定能夠成佛）。故知此因果是舍那所化因果也（所以知道這些因果是舍那佛所教化的因果）。 大師云（大師說）：此則所化長有兼義（這說明被教化者常常兼有能教化的含義）。何者以舍那所化兼能化因（為什麼說舍那佛所教化者兼有能教化的因）？不得能兼所化（不能說能教化者兼有被教化者）。言所化因兼能化因者（說被教化的因兼有能教化的因），明所化行此等因得果（說明被教化者修行這些因得到果），當知舍那能化行此等因令得果也（應當知道舍那佛能教化眾生修行這些因，使他們得到果）。 難（提問）：所化因兼能化因（被教化的因兼有能教化的因），亦應所化果兼能化果（也應該被教化的果兼有能教化的果）。所化因兼能化因（被教化的因兼有能教化的因），亦應能化果兼所化果（也應該能教化的果兼有被教化的果）。 解（解釋）：不得能化果兼所化果（不能說能教化的果兼有被教化的果）。何者欲嘆舍那所化現在行因別得果故（因為要讚歎舍那佛所教化者現在修行因，就能得到特別的果）。所以不得能化果兼所化果（所以不能說能教化的果兼有被教化的果）。 難（提問）：顯所化別得果（既然顯示被教化者能得到特別的果），不得能化果兼所化果（不能說能教化的果兼有被教化的果），亦應能化別有因（也應該能教化者有特別的因），不得所化因兼能化因（不能說被教化的因兼有能教化的因）。 解云（解釋說）：若併兼則成一義（如果都兼有，就成了一個意思）。今各舉一義故不同也（現在各自舉一個意思，所以不同）。 問（提問）：何意所因兼能果（為什麼說被教化的因兼有能教化的果），不得所果兼所因耶（不能說被教化的果兼有被教化的因呢）？ 解云（解釋說）：有兼不兼（有的兼有，有的不兼有），不得一例所未了處（不能一概而論，這是還沒有明白的地方）。復更釋（再次解釋）。 次更問（再次提問）：何故釋迦（釋迦牟尼佛）所化但因不果（為什麼釋迦佛所教化只有因沒有果），舍那所化具因果耶（舍那佛所教化卻具有因果呢）？ 解云（解釋說）：凈穢利鈍（清凈和污濁，銳利和遲鈍）。所以釋迦所化穢土中（所以釋迦佛所教化在污濁的國土中），鈍根故行因未即得果（因為根器遲鈍，所以修行因不能立刻得到果）。舍那所化凈土中（舍那佛所教化在清凈的國土中），利根故行因即得果（因為根器銳利，所以修行因立刻得到果）。大判如此耳（大致判斷是這樣）。 細論釋迦所化因不得果（仔細來說，釋迦佛所教化修行因不得果），非無具因果（並非沒有具足因果）。舍那所化因具因（舍那佛所教化因具足因）
【English Translation】 English version: Meaning. Those who are born later understand cause and effect from non-cause and non-effect (from no cause arising, from no effect arising, then understand cause and effect). The meaning of 'from substance manifesting function'. From non-cause, one understands the cause of transcending the world. From non-effect, one discerns the fruit of the Dharma realm. Therefore, the 'Nature Arising Chapter' connects the preceding and gives rise to the following. Now I ask: How do we know that the causes and effects of the ten faiths, ten grounds, etc., and the ocean of characteristics, both large and small, are the transformed causes and effects of Vairocana (Rushanabuddha, meaning 'light shining everywhere')? How do we know that these transformed causes and effects are not the causes and effects of the transformer? The explanation says: The reason we know that the ten faiths, ten grounds, etc., are the transformed causes is that the Tathagata (如來) uses these causes to exhort the beings to be transformed, causing them to practice these causes, stating that if you can practice these causes, you will surely attain Buddhahood. Therefore, we know that these causes and effects are the transformed causes and effects of Vairocana. The Great Master says: This means that the transformed often has a combined meaning. Why is it that what Vairocana transforms includes the cause of the transformer? The transformer cannot include the transformed. Saying that the transformed cause includes the cause of the transformer means that the transformed, by practicing these causes, attain the fruit. It should be known that Vairocana can transform beings to practice these causes, causing them to attain the fruit. Objection: If the transformed cause includes the cause of the transformer, then the transformed fruit should also include the fruit of the transformer. If the transformed cause includes the cause of the transformer, then the fruit of the transformer should also include the transformed fruit. Explanation: The fruit of the transformer cannot include the transformed fruit. Why? Because we want to praise that those transformed by Vairocana, by practicing the cause now, attain a special fruit. Therefore, the fruit of the transformer cannot include the transformed fruit. Objection: Since it is shown that the transformed attain a special fruit, and the fruit of the transformer cannot include the transformed fruit, then the transformer should also have a special cause, and the transformed cause cannot include the cause of the transformer. Explanation: If they all include each other, they become one meaning. Now, each is given a separate meaning, so they are different. Question: Why is it that the transformed cause includes the fruit of the transformer, but the transformed fruit cannot include the transformed cause? Explanation: Some include, some do not include; one cannot generalize. This is a place that has not yet been understood. Further explanation. Next question: Why is it that Shakyamuni (釋迦牟尼佛)'s transformation only has cause but no fruit, while Vairocana's transformation has both cause and fruit? Explanation: Purity and impurity, sharpness and dullness. Therefore, Shakyamuni's transformation is in an impure land, and because the roots are dull, practicing the cause does not immediately attain the fruit. Vairocana's transformation is in a pure land, and because the roots are sharp, practicing the cause immediately attains the fruit. This is the general judgment. In detail, Shakyamuni's transformation, practicing the cause does not attain the fruit, but it is not without complete cause and effect. Vairocana's transformation, the cause has complete cause
果。非無但因不果義。何者大論云。釋迦轉法輪有二種。秘密法輪中。有得無生有現身成佛。仁王經云。聞說般若現成正覺。釋迦所化因不果。既有因果類舍那所化具因果亦有因而不果。問。既爾何故作此釋。解云。大判如此耳。
華嚴游意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 果。並非沒有因，而是不結果的意義。為什麼這樣說呢？《大智度論》中說，釋迦牟尼佛（Śākyamuni，能仁寂默）轉法輪有兩種，在秘密法輪中，有獲得無生法忍，有現身成佛。而《仁王經》中說，聽聞般若（Prajñā，智慧）就能現產生就正覺。這是因為釋迦牟尼佛所教化的是因不結果。既然有因果的種類，那麼盧舍那佛（Vairocana，光明遍照）所教化，具備因果，也就有因而不果的情況。問：既然如此，為什麼還要作這樣的解釋呢？解釋說：大概的判斷是這樣的。 《華嚴游意》
【English Translation】 English version: Result. It is not that there is no cause, but it is the meaning of not resulting. Why is this said? The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that Śākyamuni (Śākyamuni, the capable and silent one) Buddha's turning of the Dharma wheel is of two kinds. In the secret Dharma wheel, there are those who attain non-origination and those who manifest Buddhahood in their present body. The Humane Kings Sutra says that hearing the Prajñā (Prajñā, wisdom) immediately achieves perfect enlightenment. This is because what Śākyamuni Buddha teaches is cause without result. Since there are types of cause and effect, then what Vairocana (Vairocana, the light that shines everywhere) Buddha teaches, possessing both cause and effect, also has the situation of cause without result. Question: If this is the case, why make this explanation? The explanation says: The general judgment is like this. Avataṃsaka Exploration of Meaning