T38n1780_凈名玄論

大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

No. 1780 [cf. Nos. 475, 1781]

凈名玄論卷第一

吉藏法師造

金陵沙門釋吉藏。陪從大尉公晉王。至長安懸芙蓉曲水日嚴精舍。養器乖方。仍抱腳疾。恐旋南尚遠。而朝露非奢。每省慰喻之言。游心調伏之旨。但藏青裳之歲。頂戴斯經。白首之年。玩味彌篤。愿使經胎不失歷劫逾明。因撰所聞。著茲玄論。昔僧睿僧肇悟發天真。道融道生神機秀拔。並加妙思。具析幽微。而意極清玄。辭窮麗藻。但斯經。文約義富。意遠義深。略闡未彰。廣敷似現。故博採南北。捃拾古今。復撿經論。微加檀思。實有過半之功。庶免徒勞之弊。

敘其論意。略為三別。第一名題。第二宗旨。第三敘會處。

第一釋名題　有三。一總釋名。二眾經同異。三別論此經。

一總釋名有三。前總序名。次釋立名本門。后釋本名門。

前總釋名

說曰。夫法身元像。物感即形。至趣無言。而玄藉彌布。故知無像而無不像。無言而無不言。以無像而無不像故。住如幻智。遊戲五道。無言而無不言故。即張大教網。亙生死流。是知斯經人法雙舉。言其人者。所謂凈名。以凈德內充。嘉聲外滿。天

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本

大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

No. 1780 [cf. Nos. 475, 1781]

凈名玄論卷第一

吉藏法師造

金陵沙門釋吉藏，陪同大尉公晉王，至長安懸芙蓉曲水日嚴精舍。因身體不適，又患腳疾，擔心返回南方路途遙遠，生命短暫。每每看到慰問和開導的言語，以及調伏內心的旨意。我從年輕時就開始研讀這部經，到了老年更加深入地體會。希望這部經的精髓不會因為時間的流逝而消失，反而會歷久彌新。因此，我將所聽聞的記錄下來，寫成這部《玄論》。過去僧睿、僧肇領悟並啓發了天性，道融、道生才思敏捷，都加入了精妙的思考，詳細地分析了深奧的道理。他們的思想極其清玄，文辭華麗。但是這部經文簡義豐，意境深遠。簡略地闡述，則未能完全彰顯其內涵；廣泛地鋪陳，又似乎顯得過於表面。因此，我廣泛地採納南北方的觀點，收集古今的資料，再次查閱經論，稍加思考。實際上，超過一半的功勞在於前人，這樣或許可以避免徒勞無功的弊端。

敘述這部論的意旨，大致分為三個部分：第一，解釋題目；第二，闡明宗旨；第三，敘述集會之處。

第一，解釋題目，分為三個方面：一，總的解釋題目；二，與其他經典的同異之處；三，分別論述這部經。

一，總的解釋題目，分為三個部分：首先，總的敘述題目；其次，解釋建立題目的根本；最後，解釋根本的題目。

首先，總的解釋題目

論述說：法身（Dharmakaya）原本沒有固定的形象，隨著眾生的感應而顯現不同的形態。最高的境界無法用語言表達，但微妙的教義卻無處不在。因此，我們知道，法身沒有固定的形象，但又無所不現；無法用語言表達，但又無所不言。因為沒有固定的形象，但又無所不現，所以能夠安住于如幻的智慧中，在五道（Gati）中自由自在地遊戲。因為無法用語言表達，但又無所不言，所以能夠張開廣大的教化之網，貫穿生死輪迴。因此，我們知道這部經是人法並舉。說到人，就是指凈名（Vimalakirti），因為他內在充滿清凈的德行，美好的名聲傳揚在外。

【English Translation】 English version

T. No. 1780 [cf. Nos. 475, 1781]

The Vimalakirti Sutra with Commentary, Volume 1

Composed by Dharma Master Jizang

I, Shramana (Buddhist monk) Jizang of Jinling, accompanied the Grand Commandant, Prince Jin, to the Rigorous Abode of the Hibiscus-Curved Waters in Chang'an. Due to physical discomfort and a foot ailment, I feared the long journey back south and the transience of life. I was often consoled and enlightened by words of comfort and the principles of subduing the mind. From a young age, I have revered this sutra, and in my old age, I have come to appreciate it even more deeply. I hope that the essence of this sutra will not be lost over time but will become even clearer with each passing era. Therefore, I have recorded what I have heard and written this 'Commentary'. In the past, Sengrui and Sengzhao awakened and inspired their innate nature, while Daorong and Daosheng were quick-witted and insightful. They all added their profound thoughts and analyzed the subtle principles in detail. Their ideas were extremely pure and profound, and their language was elegant. However, this sutra is concise in its wording but rich in meaning, and its implications are far-reaching. A brief explanation fails to fully reveal its content, while an extensive exposition seems superficial. Therefore, I have broadly adopted the views of both the North and the South, collected materials from ancient and modern times, and re-examined the sutras and treatises, adding my own thoughts. In fact, more than half of the credit goes to my predecessors, which may avoid the pitfalls of fruitless labor.

Describing the intention of this treatise, it is roughly divided into three parts: first, explaining the title; second, clarifying the purpose; and third, describing the place of assembly.

First, explaining the title, which is divided into three aspects: one, a general explanation of the title; two, the similarities and differences with other sutras; and three, a separate discussion of this sutra.

One, a general explanation of the title, which is divided into three parts: first, a general introduction to the title; second, explaining the foundation for establishing the title; and finally, explaining the fundamental title.

First, a general explanation of the title

The discourse says: The Dharmakaya (法身, the body of the Dharma) originally has no fixed form, but manifests different forms in response to the feelings of sentient beings. The highest state cannot be expressed in words, but the subtle teachings are omnipresent. Therefore, we know that the Dharmakaya has no fixed form, yet it manifests in all forms; it cannot be expressed in words, yet it speaks in all ways. Because it has no fixed form, yet it manifests in all forms, it can abide in illusion-like wisdom and freely roam in the five Gati (五道, realms of existence). Because it cannot be expressed in words, yet it speaks in all ways, it can spread the vast net of teachings, penetrating the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, we know that this sutra emphasizes both the person and the Dharma. When it comes to the person, it refers to Vimalakirti (凈名, 'Pure Name'), because he is inwardly filled with pure virtues, and his good reputation is spread abroad.

下藉甚。故曰凈名。豈止降伏魔怨。制諸外道。五百聲聞自稱不敏。八千菩薩失對當時矣。所言法者。謂不思議解脫。統其大歸。凡有三種。一不思議境。二不思議智。三不思議教。由不思議境。發不思議智。以不思議智。吐不思議教。欲令受化之徒。藉教通理。因理髮智。故此三門理無不攝。但門雖有三。義兼本跡。境之興智。謂不思議本也。教謂不思議跡也。要由境發智。然後應物施教。謂以本垂跡。藉教通理。謂以跡顯本。所言不思議者。謂內無功用。不假思量。外化幽微。物莫能測。故曰不思議也。解脫者。略有二。一登法身之位。舍結業之形。謂果解脫。二者道貫雙流。二慧常並。縱任自在。塵累不拘。謂因解脫也。

次釋立名本

略開十門。一教廣為三門。二合三為二論不二門。三會二為一門。四泯一歸絕門。五同異門。六迷悟門。七釋入門。八攝法門。九體用門。十共說門。

一教廣為三門

凡有十句

一維摩詰不思議解脫本者。謂不二法門。所以然者。由體不二之道。故有無二之智。由無二之智。故能適化無方。是以經云。文殊法常爾。法王唯一法。一切無礙人。一道出生死。故知不二為眾聖之原。夫欲敘其末。要先尋其本。是以建篇論乎不二。問曰。不二法門。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 還缺少什麼呢？所以叫做《凈名經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）。豈止是降伏魔怨，制服各種外道，五百聲聞自稱遲鈍，八千菩薩當時也無法應對。所說的『法』，指的是不可思議的解脫，總括起來，大概有三種：一是不思議境，二是不思議智，三是不思議教。由不思議境，引發不思議智；以不思議智，宣說不思議教。想要讓接受教化的人，通過教義通達真理，因真理而生髮智慧。所以這三個方面，沒有哪一個方面沒有被涵蓋。但是門徑雖然有三個，意義卻兼顧了根本和跡象。境引發智，是不思議的根本；教，是不思議的跡象。要由境引發智，然後才能應機施教，這叫做以根本垂示跡象；通過教義通達真理，這叫做以跡象顯明根本。所說的不思議，指的是內心沒有造作，不依賴思考衡量，外在的教化幽深微妙，事物無法測度，所以叫做不思議。解脫，大概有兩種：一是登上法身之位，捨棄煩惱業力的形體，這叫做果解脫；二是道貫穿真俗二諦，兩種智慧常常並用，縱任自在，不被塵世的牽累所拘束，這叫做因解脫。

下面解釋立名的根本。

大概開啟十個方面：一是將教義擴充套件為三門，二是將三門合為二，論述不二法門，三是會合二為一門，四是泯滅一而歸於絕對，五是同異門，六是迷悟門，七是解釋入門，八是攝法門，九是體用門，十是共說門。

一、教義擴充套件為三門

大概有十句：

一、《維摩詰所說經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）不思議解脫的根本，指的是不二法門。之所以這樣說，是因為體悟不二的道理，所以有無二的智慧；因為有無二的智慧，所以能夠適應各種情況進行教化。因此經中說，『文殊（Manjusri）的法常常如此，法王只有一種法，一切無礙的人，通過一條道路出生死。』所以知道不二是眾聖的根源。想要敘述它的末端，要先尋找它的根本。因此在文章的開頭論述不二。問：什麼是不二法門？

【English Translation】 English version: What is lacking? Therefore, it is called the 'Vimalakirti Sutra' (凈名經). It is not only about subduing demonic forces and taming various heretics, but also the five hundred Sravakas (聲聞) who claimed to be dull-witted, and the eight thousand Bodhisattvas (菩薩) who were unable to respond at that time. The 'Dharma' (法) mentioned refers to inconceivable liberation (解脫), which can be summarized into three aspects: firstly, the inconceivable realm (不思議境); secondly, the inconceivable wisdom (不思議智); and thirdly, the inconceivable teaching (不思議教). From the inconceivable realm arises inconceivable wisdom; with inconceivable wisdom, inconceivable teachings are proclaimed. The aim is to enable those who receive teachings to understand the truth through the teachings, and to generate wisdom from the truth. Therefore, these three aspects encompass everything. Although there are three gateways, their meaning encompasses both the fundamental and the manifested. The realm giving rise to wisdom is the inconceivable fundamental; the teaching is the inconceivable manifestation. It is necessary for the realm to give rise to wisdom, and then to teach according to the circumstances, which is called revealing the manifestation from the fundamental; understanding the truth through the teachings is called revealing the fundamental through the manifestation. The so-called 'inconceivable' refers to the absence of internal effort, not relying on thought and deliberation, and the external teachings being profound and subtle, beyond the comprehension of things, hence it is called 'inconceivable'. Liberation (解脫) can be broadly divided into two types: firstly, attaining the position of the Dharmakaya (法身), abandoning the form of karmic entanglement, which is called the liberation of fruition (果解脫); secondly, the path penetrating the two truths, conventional and ultimate, with the two wisdoms constantly working together, being free and unconstrained, not bound by worldly burdens, which is called the liberation of cause (因解脫).

Next, explaining the root of establishing the name.

Roughly opening ten aspects: firstly, expanding the teachings into three gates; secondly, combining the three into two, discussing the non-dual Dharma gate; thirdly, converging the two into one gate; fourthly, annihilating the one and returning to the absolute; fifthly, the gate of sameness and difference; sixthly, the gate of delusion and enlightenment; seventhly, explaining the entry gate; eighthly, the gate of encompassing the Dharma; ninthly, the gate of essence and function; tenthly, the gate of common discourse.

  1. Expanding the Teachings into Three Gates

There are roughly ten sentences:

  1. The root of the inconceivable liberation in the 'Vimalakirti Sutra' (維摩詰所說經) refers to the non-dual Dharma gate (不二法門). The reason for this is that by realizing the principle of non-duality, one possesses the wisdom of non-duality; because one possesses the wisdom of non-duality, one can adapt to various situations and teach accordingly. Therefore, the sutra says, 'Manjusri's (文殊) Dharma is always like this, the Dharma King has only one Dharma, and all unobstructed people are born and die through one path.' Therefore, it is known that non-duality is the source of all sages. If one wants to describe its end, one must first seek its root. Therefore, the essay begins by discussing non-duality. Question: What is the non-dual Dharma gate?

既為其本。請聞其要。答曰。一道清凈。故名不二。真極可軌。所以云法。至妙虛通。故稱為門。蓋是總眾教之旨歸。統群聖之靈府。凈名現病之本意。文殊問疾之所由。子欲聞之。今當略說。大論不二。凡有三品。一眾人言于不二。未明不二無言。所謂下也。二文殊雖明不二無言。而猶言于無言。所謂中也。三凈名吐默鑒不二無言。而能無言于無言。所謂上也。良以道超四句。故至聖以之沖默。不二為極。意在於斯。問三階之說。實妙會誠文。但以後觀前。似如相害。既云至趣無言。玄藉彌布。即是言于無言。乃見文殊之言深。凈名之默淺。三階之論。意所未詳。答三階之說為明理淺深。未辨應物垂教。以末難本。豈詣玄宗。今當爲子當陳其意。夫不二理者。謂不思議本也。應物垂教。謂不思議跡也。非本無以垂跡。故因理以說教。非跡無以顯本。故藉教以通理。若然者。要須體理無言。然後乃得應物有言耳。眾人雖言于理。未明至理之無言。即未詣理也。文殊雖唱理無言。而猶言于至理。亦未稱理。凈名鑑理無言。而能無言于理。始詣理也。以如理無言。故能無言而言。稱理無像。故能無像而像。眾人未能如理無言。安能無言而言。未能如理無像。安能無像而像。故文殊之言淺。凈名之默深。三階之論。意彰於此

。難曰。三階之說若成。不二之言即壞。何者。既稱不二。寧有三耶。如其有三。何名不二。即事相違。義如桙楯。答蓋是以教惑理。故謂相違。若識理一教三。則有如符契。何者眾人以言泯法。未息泯法之言。則為淺也。文殊欲息泯法之言。故借言以止言。借言以止。言猶未免於言。則為次也。凈名欲息文殊之借言。故默顯于無言。乃為極也。故教有三階。而理無二轍。問。至理無言。而文殊言于無言。可得以言為教。凈名鑑理無言。而能無言于無言。此則是理。云何亦稱為教。答。子未細尋其旨。故有斯疑。若審察之。則前言已顯。何者。凈名寄默然之相。以顯無言之理。所詮無言。即為是理能表之相。故稱之為教。是以教有三門。而理無二矣。問。至理無言。而文殊言于無言。猶未極者。亦至理無相。而凈名相於無相。豈詣理耶。答。文殊既言于無言。亦相於無相。凈名既體理無言。故能無言于無言。亦體理無相。故能無相於無相。故名相斯寂。乃窮不二。問。凈名既體理無相。何故相於無相。答。若不相於無相。何由得止於言。為欲止於言。故相於無相耳。問。若然者。在言雖止而相復存。其猶逃峰赴壑。但不免患。答曰。言猶名也。故名則為妙。相猶形也。在形則粗。既凈名悟理無名。則領道非形相。故峰

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果三階教的說法成立，那麼『不二』的說法就被破壞了。為什麼呢？既然稱為『不二』，怎麼會有『三』呢？如果真有『三』，又怎麼能稱為『不二』呢？這在事相上是矛盾的，就像矛和盾一樣衝突。 答：這是因為你用教義來迷惑真理，所以才覺得矛盾。如果認識到真理是一，而教義有三，那就如同符契一樣相合。為什麼呢？因為一般人以言語來泯滅佛法，如果不能停止這種泯滅佛法的言論，那就是淺顯的理解。文殊菩薩想要停止泯滅佛法的言論，所以借用言語來阻止言語，但借用言語來阻止言語，終究還是沒有脫離言語，這算是其次的境界。維摩詰想要停止文殊菩薩的借用言語，所以用沉默來顯現無言的境界，這才是最高的境界。所以教義有三階，而真理沒有兩種途徑。 問：最高的真理是無法用言語表達的，而文殊菩薩用言語來表達無言的境界，這可以用言語作為教義。維摩詰領悟到真理是無法用言語表達的，並且能夠做到在無言中無言，這才是真理。為什麼也稱之為教義呢？ 答：你沒有仔細探尋其中的含義，所以才有這樣的疑問。如果仔細考察，那麼前面的話已經很明顯了。為什麼呢？維摩詰菩薩借用沉默的表象，來顯現無言的真理。所詮釋的無言，就是真理能夠表達的表象，所以稱之為教義。因此教義有三門，而真理沒有兩種。 問：最高的真理是無法用言語表達的，而文殊菩薩用言語來表達無言的境界，這還不是最高的境界。同樣，最高的真理是沒有形象的，而維摩詰菩薩執著于無相，難道這樣就能達到真理嗎？ 答：文殊菩薩既然用言語來表達無言的境界，也就執著于無相。維摩詰菩薩既然體會到真理是無言的，所以能夠做到在無言中無言，也體會到真理是無相的，所以能夠做到在無相中無相。所以說，名相和實相都寂滅，才能徹底領悟不二的真理。 問：維摩詰菩薩既然體會到真理是無相的，為什麼還要執著于無相呢？ 答：如果不執著于無相，又怎麼能夠停止言語呢？爲了停止言語，所以才執著于無相。 問：如果這樣說，即使言語停止了，但執著于無相仍然存在，這就像逃離山峰卻又跳入山谷一樣，最終還是無法避免災禍。 答：言語就像名字一樣，所以說名字是微妙的。相就像形體一樣，執著于形體就是粗糙的。既然維摩詰菩薩領悟到真理是無名的，那麼他所領悟的道就不是形相，所以山峰

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If the doctrine of the Three Stages (Sanjie Jiao) is established, then the statement of 'non-duality' (buer) is destroyed. Why is that? Since it is called 'non-dual,' how can there be 'three'? If there are truly 'three,' how can it be called 'non-dual'? This contradicts itself in phenomena, conflicting like a spear and a shield. Answer: It is because you use doctrine to confuse the truth, hence you feel it is contradictory. If you recognize that the truth is one, while the teachings are three, then it is as harmonious as a matching tally. Why is that? Because ordinary people use words to obliterate the Dharma. If they cannot stop this talk of obliterating the Dharma, then it is a shallow understanding. Manjusri (Wenshu, Bodhisattva of Wisdom) wanted to stop the talk of obliterating the Dharma, so he borrowed words to stop words. But borrowing words to stop words ultimately does not escape words, so this is considered secondary. Vimalakirti (Jingming) wanted to stop Manjusri's borrowing of words, so he manifested silence in the realm of no-words, which is the ultimate state. Therefore, the teachings have three stages, but the truth has no two paths. Question: The highest truth cannot be expressed in words, but Manjusri used words to express the realm of no-words. This can be used as a teaching with words. Vimalakirti realized that the truth cannot be expressed in words, and he was able to be no-words in no-words. This is the truth. Why is it also called a teaching? Answer: You have not carefully explored its meaning, hence you have such doubts. If you examine it closely, then the previous words are already clear. Why is that? Vimalakirti Bodhisattva borrowed the appearance of silence to manifest the truth of no-words. What is being explained, the no-words, is the appearance that the truth can express, so it is called a teaching. Therefore, the teachings have three doors, but the truth has no two. Question: The highest truth cannot be expressed in words, and Manjusri used words to express the realm of no-words, which is not the highest state. Similarly, the highest truth has no form, but Vimalakirti is attached to no-form. Can this reach the truth? Answer: Since Manjusri used words to express the realm of no-words, he is also attached to no-form. Since Vimalakirti realized that the truth is no-words, he was able to be no-words in no-words, and he also realized that the truth is no-form, so he was able to be no-form in no-form. Therefore, it is said that names and forms are both extinguished, and then one can thoroughly understand the truth of non-duality. Question: Since Vimalakirti realized that the truth is no-form, why is he still attached to no-form? Answer: If one is not attached to no-form, how can one stop words? In order to stop words, one is attached to no-form. Question: If that is the case, even if words are stopped, the attachment to no-form still exists. This is like escaping a peak but jumping into a valley, and ultimately one cannot avoid disaster. Answer: Words are like names, so it is said that names are subtle. Forms are like shapes, and attachment to shapes is crude. Since Vimalakirti realized that the truth is nameless, then the path he realized is not form, so the peak

壑俱逃。患難都免。問。若然者。則眾人之言未極。凈名之默始詣。何不直顯無言。而迂迴三轍。答。仲尼之遇伯雪。可目擊而道存。妙德之對凈名。亦爾。默而相領。但玄悟之賓既置。級引之教須明。故開此三門。以通入不二。問。玄悟之賓既置。級引之教塵沙。何故唯敞三門。而不廣開階位。答。初門以言泯法。次則借言止言。后假默除借言。斯乃理無不備。教無不周。故但明三矣。

二約人釋三門

問。夫適化無方。陶誘非一。若但明三教。將非限局聖心。答。悕玄之士。唯有三根。通理之門。無勞廣說。問。教三已顯。根義未報。請陳其相。答。凈名既為一經之主。不二復是眾教之宗。而不自談。命眾共說者。必有其深致。蓋是欲寄人優劣以彰教有淺深耳。眾人止為翼從樂。道根尚劣。但能以言泯法。未能息泯法之言。文殊既銜高命。而親對擊揚。則神機為次。既能借言泯法。復假言止言。凈名當今教主。即悟入最深。故寄默然。顯理都絕。問。唯就教主。亦約悟緣。答。所以托跡三根。本為引物。下根悟淺但詣初門。中人小深漸階第二。上根徹理蔚登玄室。又上根聞初則領。中人待二始悟下根至三方曉。

三約三慧釋三門

初雖悟不二。未離名言。如始習浮必須依岸。謂聞慧也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 都嚇得逃走了，患難都免除了。問：如果這樣，那麼眾人的言論還沒有達到極致，維摩詰（Vimalakirti）的沉默才算真正達到。為什麼不直接顯示無言的境界，而要迂迴地經過三個階段呢？答：孔子（仲尼）遇到伯雪的事情，可以親眼看到而道理存在其中。妙吉祥（妙德，Manjushri）與維摩詰的對話也是如此，通過沉默來相互領會。但是，既然已經安置了玄悟的賓客，就必須闡明逐步引導的教義。所以開啟這三個門徑，以通向不二法門。問：既然已經安置了玄悟的賓客，逐步引導的教義多如塵沙，為什麼只敞開三個門徑，而不廣泛地開設階位呢？答：第一個門徑用言語來泯滅法，第二個門徑借用言語來停止言語，最後一個門徑通過沉默來去除借用的言語。這實在是道理沒有不完備的，教義沒有不周全的。所以只闡明這三個門徑。 二、約人解釋三門 問：適應教化沒有固定的方法，引導教誨也不是單一的。如果只闡明三種教義，難道不是限制了聖人的心意嗎？答：希望領悟玄妙的修行人，只有三種根器。通達真理的門徑，無需廣泛地解說。問：三種教義已經顯明，根器的含義還沒有說明，請陳述它們的相狀。答：維摩詰既然是一部經的主角，不二法門又是所有教義的宗旨，但他自己不談論，而讓大家一起來說，一定有其深刻的用意。大概是想借用人們的優劣來彰顯教義有淺有深罷了。眾人只是作為隨從，愛好佛法，根器還很差，只能用言語來泯滅法，不能停止泯滅法的言語。文殊既然接受了重要的使命，而親自相對辯論，那麼他的神機是第二等的，既能借用言語來泯滅法，又能借用言語來停止言語。維摩詰是當今的教主，也就是悟入最深的，所以通過沉默來顯示道理完全斷絕。問：只就教主來說，也是根據領悟的因緣嗎？答：所以假託三種根器，本來是爲了引導眾生。下等根器領悟淺顯，只能達到第一個門徑；中等根器稍微深一些，逐漸進入第二個門徑；上等根器徹底明瞭真理，進入玄妙的境界。而且上等根器聽到第一個門徑就領悟，中等根器要等到第二個門徑才開始領悟，下等根器要到第三個門徑才明白。 三、約三慧解釋三門 開始雖然領悟了不二法門，但還沒有離開名言概念，就像剛開始學習游泳必須依靠岸邊一樣，這叫做聞慧。

【English Translation】 English version: All fled in terror, and were spared from suffering. Question: If that is the case, then the words of the assembly have not reached their limit, and Vimalakirti's (Vimalakirti) silence is what truly attains. Why not directly reveal the state of non-duality without words, but circuitously go through three stages? Answer: The encounter of Confucius (仲尼, Zhongni) with Bo Xue can be witnessed, and the principle exists within it. The dialogue between Manjushri (妙德, Miaode) and Vimalakirti is also like this, understanding each other through silence. However, since the guest of profound enlightenment has been settled, the teaching of gradual guidance must be clarified. Therefore, these three gates are opened to lead to the non-dual dharma. Question: Since the guest of profound enlightenment has been settled, and the teachings of gradual guidance are as numerous as the sands, why only open three gates, and not widely establish ranks? Answer: The first gate uses words to obliterate the dharma, the second borrows words to stop words, and the last removes borrowed words through silence. This is truly that the principle is not incomplete, and the teaching is not insufficient. Therefore, only these three are clarified. Two, Explaining the Three Gates in Terms of People Question: Adapting to transformation has no fixed method, and guiding teachings are not singular. If only three teachings are clarified, wouldn't that limit the mind of the sage? Answer: Those who aspire to profound mystery only have three roots. The path to understanding the truth does not require extensive explanation. Question: The three teachings have been revealed, but the meaning of the roots has not been explained. Please state their characteristics. Answer: Since Vimalakirti is the protagonist of a sutra, and the non-dual dharma is the purpose of all teachings, but he does not speak himself, and asks everyone to speak together, there must be a profound intention. It is probably to use the strengths and weaknesses of people to show that the teachings have shallow and deep aspects. The assembly is only as followers, fond of the Dharma, and their roots are still poor. They can only use words to obliterate the dharma, but cannot stop the words that obliterate the dharma. Since Manjushri has accepted an important mission, and personally debates face to face, then his divine mechanism is second-rate. He can both borrow words to obliterate the dharma, and borrow words to stop words. Vimalakirti is the current teacher, that is, the one who has the deepest enlightenment, so he shows that the principle is completely cut off through silence. Question: Is it only based on the teacher, and also based on the conditions for enlightenment? Answer: Therefore, relying on the three roots is originally to guide sentient beings. Those with inferior roots have shallow enlightenment and can only reach the first gate; those with intermediate roots are slightly deeper and gradually enter the second gate; those with superior roots thoroughly understand the truth and enter the profound realm. Moreover, those with superior roots understand when they hear the first gate, those with intermediate roots begin to understand when they wait for the second gate, and those with inferior roots only understand when they reach the third gate. Three, Explaining the Three Gates in Terms of the Three Wisdoms Although one initially understands the non-dual dharma, one has not yet left the concepts of names and words, just like when one first learns to swim, one must rely on the shore. This is called hearing wisdom.

次悟既漸深。不須文字。但猶未會理。復假名言。如習浮稍久漸能深入。學猶未善。或時憑岸。則思慧也。已能契理。不假名言。如妙習浮不須依岸。謂修慧也。問。為就一人明三慧。為約三人辨三慧。答。就彼三人。明於三慧。約其悟緣。斯則不定。自有所化三根還同能化說。初門則得聞慧。乃至后二方具思修。自有上根一聞即具三慧。中人待二始得圓滿。下根至三慧門乃備。

四就三位釋三門

此三門。可得擬於三位。一者十信以上。迴向以還。雖學無生。而未免名相。如雖明不二尚未息言。次從初地以上。七地以還。雖悟無生。猶有功用。如雖唱理絕猶有絕理之言。三者始自八地。終乎佛果。既悟無生。復無功用。如不二無言。復能無言于不二矣。

五就三忍釋三門

此之三門。可配三忍。信忍尚淺。如未離名言。無生忍已深。名相都寂。順忍。形前則勝。故云無言。望后猶劣。所以有言。此皆就登地以上。佛果以還。真聖位中。開三忍也。問。文無此言。云何輒配。答。此章建首。則云得無生法忍。名入不二門。以此觀之。可得相擬也。

六約治病辨三門

問。考聖心以息患為主。統教意以開道為宗。不二之興。為治何病。答。總而言之。為泯生心動念。令悟無得無依

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果最初的領悟逐漸加深，就不需要依賴文字，但這只是還沒有真正理解真理，還需要藉助名相言語來輔助。就像學習游泳，時間長了就能逐漸深入水中。如果學習還不夠精湛，有時還需要依靠岸邊。這對應于思慧（Cintana-prajna）。如果已經能夠契合真理，就不需要依賴名相言語，就像游泳技術高超的人不需要依靠岸邊。這對應于修慧（Bhavana-prajna）。 問：這是就一個人來說明三種智慧，還是就三個人來區分三種智慧？ 答：這是就那三個人來說明三種智慧，根據他們領悟的因緣，情況是不定的。根據他們各自被教化的根器，與能教化的人相同。最初入門時得到聞慧（Suta-prajna），直到後面兩種智慧才具備思慧和修慧。有些人是上等根器，一聽聞就具備三種智慧；中等根器的人要等到第二階段才能圓滿；下等根器的人要到第三個智慧之門才能完備。

四、就三個位次解釋三個門 這三個門，可以比擬於三個位次。一是十信（Dasa-sraddha）以上，迴向（Parināmanā）以下，雖然學習無生（Anutpāda），但還免不了名相的束縛，就像雖然明白不二（Advaita），但還不能停止言說。二是初地（Prathama-bhumi）以上，七地（Saptama-bhumi）以下，雖然領悟無生，但還有功用（Prayoga），就像雖然宣揚真理的超越性，但還有超越真理的言說。三是從八地（Astama-bhumi）開始，直到佛果（Buddha-phala），既領悟無生，又沒有功用，就像不二沒有言說，又能對不二保持無言。

五、就三種忍解釋三個門 這三個門，可以配合三種忍（Ksanti）。信忍（Sraddha-ksanti）還很淺，就像沒有離開名相言語；無生忍（Anutpāda-ksanti）已經很深，名相都寂靜；順忍（Anuloma-ksanti），在前者看來是殊勝的，所以說是無言，但從後者來看還是不足的，所以還有言說。這些都是就登地（Bhumi）以上，佛果以下，真聖位中，開立三種忍。 問：經文中沒有這些話，怎麼能隨便配合？ 答：這一章開頭就說，得到無生法忍（Anutpāda-dharma-ksanti），名為進入不二之門。以此來看，是可以相互比擬的。

六、用治療疾病來辨析三個門 問：考察聖人的心意，以止息憂患為主；統攝佛教的宗旨，以開啟覺悟為根本。不二的興起，是爲了治療什麼疾病？ 答：總的來說，是爲了泯滅生心動念，使人領悟無所得無所依。

【English Translation】 English version: As initial understanding gradually deepens, there is no need for reliance on written words. However, this is merely not yet truly comprehending the principle, and one still needs to borrow nominal terms and language for assistance. It is like learning to swim; with practice, one can gradually go deeper into the water. If the learning is not yet proficient, one still needs to rely on the shore at times. This corresponds to Cintana-prajna (思慧, Contemplative Wisdom). If one is already able to accord with the principle, there is no need to rely on nominal terms and language, just like a skilled swimmer does not need to rely on the shore. This corresponds to Bhavana-prajna (修慧, Cultivation Wisdom). Question: Is this explaining the three wisdoms in relation to one person, or distinguishing the three wisdoms in relation to three people? Answer: This is explaining the three wisdoms in relation to those three people, according to the conditions of their enlightenment. The situation is not fixed. According to their respective capacities to be taught, it is the same as the one who can teach. Upon initially entering the gate, one obtains Suta-prajna (聞慧, Hearing Wisdom). Only later do the latter two wisdoms, Cintana-prajna and Bhavana-prajna, become complete. Some people are of superior capacity; upon hearing, they possess all three wisdoms. People of middling capacity need to wait until the second stage to become complete. People of inferior capacity need to reach the third gate of wisdom to be fully equipped.

  1. Explaining the Three Gates in Relation to the Three Stages These three gates can be likened to three stages. First, from the Ten Faiths (Dasa-sraddha, 十信) upwards, and before dedication (Parināmanā, 迴向), although learning about non-origination (Anutpāda, 無生), one cannot avoid nominal terms and characteristics, just like although understanding non-duality (Advaita, 不二), one cannot stop speaking. Second, from the First Ground (Prathama-bhumi, 初地) upwards, and before the Seventh Ground (Saptama-bhumi, 七地), although realizing non-origination, there is still effort (Prayoga, 功用), just like although proclaiming the transcendence of principle, there is still speech about transcending principle. Third, starting from the Eighth Ground (Astama-bhumi, 八地) and ending with the Fruit of Buddhahood (Buddha-phala, 佛果), one both realizes non-origination and has no effort, just like non-duality has no speech, and is also able to be without speech about non-duality.

  2. Explaining the Three Gates in Relation to the Three Acceptances These three gates can be matched with the three acceptances (Ksanti, 忍). Faith Acceptance (Sraddha-ksanti, 信忍) is still shallow, like not having left nominal terms and language. Non-origination Acceptance (Anutpāda-ksanti, 無生忍) is already very deep; nominal terms and characteristics are all still. Compliant Acceptance (Anuloma-ksanti, 順忍) is superior from the perspective of the former, so it is said to be without speech, but it is still insufficient from the perspective of the latter, so there is still speech. These are all establishing the three acceptances within the true saintly position, from above the Grounds (Bhumi, 地) to below the Fruit of Buddhahood. Question: The text does not have these words; how can you arbitrarily match them? Answer: The beginning of this chapter says, 'Obtaining Non-origination Dharma Acceptance (Anutpāda-dharma-ksanti, 無生法忍) is called entering the Gate of Non-duality.' Looking at it this way, they can be compared to each other.

  3. Discriminating the Three Gates by Using the Treatment of Illnesses Question: Examining the mind of the sages, stopping suffering is the main thing; encompassing the purpose of Buddhism, opening up enlightenment is the root. What illness is the arising of non-duality for the sake of treating? Answer: Generally speaking, it is for extinguishing the arising of thoughts and notions, enabling people to realize no attainment and no reliance.

。故生死以取相為原。涅槃以無著為本。約人不同。總為三類。一凡夫之惑。二小乘勞累。三菩薩煩惱。凡夫惑者。所謂愛見。九十六術諸見紛紜。在家之流。嘉生貪愛。故此門云。我所為二。知此二不二。名入不二門。謂破見也。眼色為二。知眼本空。不生貪染。則破愛也。如此等門。謂破凡夫惑矣。小乘之流。無漏解生。滅斯愛見。此生滅觀。謂二乘煩惱。故今門云。生滅為二。惑本不生。今亦無滅。名入不二法門。三者菩薩之人。謂聲聞為小心。菩薩行大道。小乘則唯破二輪。大士則具傾五住。舍小取大。名菩薩煩惱。故今門云。聲聞心菩薩心為二。達此二無二。名入不二門。問。此門俱通泯諸二。何以則別破三人。答。斯經垣平等之大道。敞不二之洪門。無累不夷。無人不化。故方便品。破彼凡夫。弟子品。行於小道。菩薩章。呵于大見。然後攝此三人。同歸一道。今悟不凡不聖非大非小。然後從緣大小適化聖凡。原夫凡聖。豈凡聖之所能。良以非凡非聖。故能凡能聖耳。問。破此三人。何門所攝。答。三病雖殊。同皆是二。故並屬初門。是以初門歷泯諸法。然後從初門轉入第二。從第二回入第三。便等凈名之默然。同釋迦之掩室。僧那乙愿。豈不滿哉。

七就三法釋三門

問。此門破顛倒二明

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所以說，生死的根源在於執著于表象，涅槃的根本在於沒有執著。根據人的不同，總共分為三類：一是凡夫的迷惑，二是小乘的勞累，三是菩薩的煩惱。凡夫的迷惑，就是所謂的愛和見解。九十六種外道（九十六術）的各種見解紛繁複雜。在家的俗人，喜歡生存貪戀情愛。因此這個法門說：『我』和『我所』（我所為二）是二。知道這二者不是二，就叫做進入不二法門（名入不二門），這是說破除見解。眼睛和顏色（眼色為二）是二。知道眼睛的本性是空，不產生貪戀染著，就破除了愛。像這樣的法門，是用來破除凡夫的迷惑的。小乘的人，無漏的智慧產生，滅除這種愛和見解。這種生滅的觀法，是二乘的煩惱。所以現在的法門說：生和滅（生滅為二）是二，迷惑的根本本來就沒有產生，現在也沒有滅亡，叫做進入不二法門（名入不二法門）。第三種是菩薩，認為聲聞是小心，菩薩行的是大道。小乘只是破除二輪，大士則全部傾覆五住地惑。捨棄小的而取大的，叫做菩薩的煩惱。所以現在的法門說：聲聞的心和菩薩的心（聲聞心菩薩心為二）是二。通達這二者沒有二，叫做進入不二法門（名入不二門）。問：這個法門都能夠泯滅各種二，為什麼特別要破除這三種人？答：這部經闡述了平等的大道，敞開了不二的洪門，沒有哪種障礙不能消除，沒有哪種人不能被教化。所以《方便品》破除凡夫，《弟子品》針對小乘，《菩薩章》呵斥大乘的偏見。然後攝受這三種人，共同歸於一道。現在領悟到既不是凡夫也不是聖人，既不是大也不是小，然後隨順因緣，大小適宜，教化聖凡。原本凡夫和聖人，難道是凡夫和聖人所能決定的嗎？正是因為既不是凡夫也不是聖人，所以才能成為凡夫，才能成為聖人。問：破除這三種人，屬於哪個法門所攝？答：三種病癥雖然不同，但都是『二』，所以都屬於第一個法門。因此第一個法門歷經泯滅各種法，然後從第一個法門轉入第二個，從第二個法門回到第三個，就等同於維摩詰的沉默，等同於釋迦牟尼的掩室。僧那的誓願，難道還不圓滿嗎？ 七、就三法釋三門 問：這個法門破除顛倒的二，闡明

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said that the origin of birth and death lies in attachment to appearances, and the foundation of Nirvana lies in non-attachment. According to the differences in people, they are generally divided into three categories: first, the delusion of ordinary people; second, the toil of the Small Vehicle (Hinayana); and third, the afflictions of Bodhisattvas. The delusion of ordinary people is what is called love and views. The various views of the ninety-six non-Buddhist schools (九十六術) are diverse and complex. Laypeople at home enjoy life and crave love. Therefore, this Dharma gate says: 'I' and 'mine' (我所為二) are two. Knowing that these two are not two is called entering the non-dual Dharma gate (名入不二門), which means breaking through views. The eye and color (眼色為二) are two. Knowing that the nature of the eye is empty and not generating craving and attachment breaks through love. Such Dharma gates are used to break through the delusions of ordinary people. People of the Small Vehicle generate undefiled wisdom and extinguish this love and these views. This contemplation of arising and ceasing is the affliction of the Two Vehicles. Therefore, the current Dharma gate says: arising and ceasing (生滅為二) are two; the root of delusion originally did not arise, and now there is no cessation, which is called entering the non-dual Dharma gate (名入不二法門). The third type is Bodhisattvas, who consider the Hearers (聲聞) to have small minds, while Bodhisattvas practice the Great Vehicle. The Small Vehicle only breaks through the two wheels, while the great beings completely overturn the five abodes of affliction (五住地惑). Abandoning the small and taking the large is called the affliction of Bodhisattvas. Therefore, the current Dharma gate says: the mind of the Hearer and the mind of the Bodhisattva (聲聞心菩薩心為二) are two. Understanding that these two are not two is called entering the non-dual Dharma gate (名入不二門). Question: This Dharma gate can eliminate all kinds of duality, so why specifically break through these three types of people? Answer: This sutra expounds the great path of equality and opens the vast gate of non-duality. There is no obstacle that cannot be eliminated, and no person who cannot be transformed. Therefore, the 'Expedient Means' chapter breaks through ordinary people, the 'Disciples' chapter targets the Small Vehicle, and the 'Bodhisattva' chapter rebukes the prejudices of the Great Vehicle. Then, it gathers these three types of people and leads them to return to the one path together. Now, realizing that it is neither ordinary nor saintly, neither great nor small, then following conditions, adapting to size, and transforming saints and ordinary people. Originally, could ordinary people and saints be determined by ordinary people and saints? It is precisely because it is neither ordinary nor saintly that one can become ordinary and become saintly. Question: Which Dharma gate includes the breaking through of these three types of people? Answer: Although the three illnesses are different, they are all 'two,' so they all belong to the first Dharma gate. Therefore, the first Dharma gate goes through eliminating all kinds of dharmas, and then from the first Dharma gate, it turns to the second, and from the second Dharma gate, it returns to the third, which is equivalent to Vimalakirti's silence and Shakyamuni's closing of the room. Isn't Samantabhadra's vow fulfilled? 7. Explaining the Three Gates Based on the Three Dharmas Question: This gate breaks through the inverted two and clarifies

于不二。為破不顛倒二以明不二。答。歷覽眾門。略為三例。一就顛倒二明不二。如雲我我所為二。達此二不二。名入不二門。次約不顛倒二明於不二。如雲三寶為二。知二不二。名入不二門。三合明顛倒不顛倒二不二。如雲生死涅槃為二。知此二不二。名入不二門　問。為破三種二明於不二。為耶三種二明不二耶。答。若倒心所見三種二者。並須破之。若因緣之二即是不二。不壞假名。而說實相。無可破也。又倒情謂二。實無二可破。故但除其病。而不除其法。又病本性空。亦無可除。但約謂情。故言除耳。所以此門明不二之道。異於小乘析法辨空。破三種二。則屬初門。次遣三法之名。屬於后二。

八約三句明三門

初門寄言明不二。後門假無言明不二。中間亦言亦無言明不二。問。經論之中。多備四門。一無言門。二有言門。三亦言亦無言門。四非言非無言門。今何故但有三門。而無第四門。答。余經四句。各有所由。今此三門。義無不攝。如前說也。

九約三絕釋三門

問。上云道超四句。至聖以之仲默。今此三門。但明不二。唯絕有無二句。非四絕也。則明理未圓。何名滿教。答。蓋是未體無二之言。故興未圓之難耳。何者。今辨三門同皆絕四。故理無不圓。教無不滿。問。既同

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 于不二之法。爲了破除顛倒與不顛倒這二元對立，以闡明不二之理。回答：縱觀各種法門，略舉三個例子。一是就顛倒的二元對立來闡明不二。例如說，『我』（ātman）和『我所』（ātmanīya，屬於我的事物）是二元對立的。通達這二者不二，就叫做進入不二法門。其次是就非顛倒的二元對立來闡明不二。例如說，『三寶』（triratna，佛、法、僧）是二元對立的。了知這二者不二，就叫做進入不二法門。三是合起來闡明顛倒與非顛倒的二元對立的不二。例如說，『生死』（saṃsāra）和『涅槃』（nirvāṇa）是二元對立的。了知這二者不二，就叫做進入不二法門。

問：是爲了破除這三種二元對立來闡明不二，還是通過這三種二元對立來闡明不二呢？答：如果是以顛倒之心所見的三種二元對立，那就都需要破除。如果是因緣和合的二元對立，那就是不二，不破壞假名安立，而宣說實相，沒有什麼可以破除的。而且，顛倒的情執認為有二，實際上並沒有什麼二可以破除。所以只是去除其病，而不去除其法。而且，病的本性是空，也沒有什麼可以去除的。只是就情執的認為而言，所以才說去除。因此，這個法門闡明不二之道，不同於小乘佛教分析法相以辨明空性。破除三種二元對立，就屬於最初的法門。遣除三種法的名稱，就屬於後面的兩個法門。

八、約三句明三門

最初的法門借用言語來闡明不二，後面的法門借用無言來闡明不二，中間的法門既用言語也用無言來闡明不二。問：經論之中，大多具備四種法門：一是無言門，二是有言門，三是亦言亦無言門，四是非言非無言門。現在為什麼只有三種法門，而沒有第四種法門呢？答：其他的經典有四句，各有其緣由。現在這三種法門，意義上沒有不包含的，就像前面所說的那樣。

九、約三絕釋三門

問：上面說，道超越四句，至聖之人因此保持沉默。現在這三種法門，只是闡明不二，只是斷絕有和無這二句，不是四句都斷絕。那麼闡明的道理還不圓滿，怎麼能稱為圓滿的教法呢？答：這是因為沒有體會到無二之言，所以才提出不圓滿的疑問。為什麼呢？現在辨明這三種法門都斷絕四句，所以道理沒有不圓滿的，教法沒有不滿的。問：既然相同 English version: Regarding non-duality. To break down the duality of inversion and non-inversion in order to clarify the principle of non-duality. Answer: Surveying various Dharma gates, let me briefly give three examples. First, clarifying non-duality based on the duality of inversion. For example, it is said that 'self' (ātman) and 'what belongs to self' (ātmanīya, things that belong to me) are dualistic. Realizing that these two are non-dual is called entering the gate of non-duality. Second, clarifying non-duality based on the duality of non-inversion. For example, it is said that the 'Three Jewels' (triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) are dualistic. Knowing that these two are non-dual is called entering the gate of non-duality. Third, combining to clarify the non-duality of the duality of inversion and non-inversion. For example, it is said that 'birth and death' (saṃsāra) and 'nirvana' (nirvāṇa) are dualistic. Knowing that these two are non-dual is called entering the gate of non-duality.

Question: Is it to clarify non-duality by breaking down these three types of duality, or to clarify non-duality through these three types of duality? Answer: If it is the three types of duality seen by an inverted mind, then all of them need to be broken down. If it is the duality of conditioned arising, then it is non-duality, not destroying provisional designations, but proclaiming the true nature, there is nothing to be broken down. Moreover, inverted emotional attachments consider there to be duality, but in reality, there is no duality to be broken down. Therefore, it only removes the illness, but does not remove the Dharma. Moreover, the nature of the illness is empty, and there is nothing to be removed. It is only in terms of emotional attachments that it is said to be removed. Therefore, this Dharma gate clarifies the path of non-duality, which is different from the Theravada Buddhism's analysis of Dharma characteristics to discern emptiness. Breaking down the three types of duality belongs to the initial Dharma gate. Dismissing the names of the three Dharmas belongs to the latter two Dharma gates.

  1. Clarifying the Three Gates Based on the Three Statements

The initial gate uses language to clarify non-duality, the latter gate uses non-language to clarify non-duality, and the middle gate uses both language and non-language to clarify non-duality. Question: In the sutras and treatises, most have four gates: first, the gate of non-language; second, the gate of language; third, the gate of both language and non-language; fourth, the gate of neither language nor non-language. Why are there only three gates now, and not the fourth gate? Answer: Other sutras have four statements, each with its own reason. Now these three gates, in meaning, do not exclude anything, just as mentioned earlier.

  1. Explaining the Three Gates Based on the Three Absolutes

Question: Above it was said that the path transcends the four statements, and the most holy person therefore remains silent. Now these three gates only clarify non-duality, only cutting off the two statements of existence and non-existence, not cutting off all four statements. Then the clarified principle is not yet complete, how can it be called the complete teaching? Answer: This is because one has not realized the words of non-duality, so the question of incompleteness is raised. Why? Now it is clarified that these three gates all cut off the four statements, so the principle is not incomplete, and the teaching is not lacking. Question: Since they are the same

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding non-duality. To break down the duality of inversion and non-inversion in order to clarify the principle of non-duality. Answer: Surveying various Dharma gates, let me briefly give three examples. First, clarifying non-duality based on the duality of inversion. For example, it is said that 'self' (ātman) and 'what belongs to self' (ātmanīya, things that belong to me) are dualistic. Realizing that these two are non-dual is called entering the gate of non-duality. Second, clarifying non-duality based on the duality of non-inversion. For example, it is said that the 'Three Jewels' (triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) are dualistic. Knowing that these two are non-dual is called entering the gate of non-duality. Third, combining to clarify the non-duality of the duality of inversion and non-inversion. For example, it is said that 'birth and death' (saṃsāra) and 'nirvana' (nirvāṇa) are dualistic. Knowing that these two are non-dual is called entering the gate of non-duality.

Question: Is it to clarify non-duality by breaking down these three types of duality, or to clarify non-duality through these three types of duality? Answer: If it is the three types of duality seen by an inverted mind, then all of them need to be broken down. If it is the duality of conditioned arising, then it is non-duality, not destroying provisional designations, but proclaiming the true nature, there is nothing to be broken down. Moreover, inverted emotional attachments consider there to be duality, but in reality, there is no duality to be broken down. Therefore, it only removes the illness, but does not remove the Dharma. Moreover, the nature of the illness is empty, and there is nothing to be removed. It is only in terms of emotional attachments that it is said to be removed. Therefore, this Dharma gate clarifies the path of non-duality, which is different from the Theravada Buddhism's analysis of Dharma characteristics to discern emptiness. Breaking down the three types of duality belongs to the initial Dharma gate. Dismissing the names of the three Dharmas belongs to the latter two Dharma gates.

  1. Clarifying the Three Gates Based on the Three Statements

The initial gate uses language to clarify non-duality, the latter gate uses non-language to clarify non-duality, and the middle gate uses both language and non-language to clarify non-duality. Question: In the sutras and treatises, most have four gates: first, the gate of non-language; second, the gate of language; third, the gate of both language and non-language; fourth, the gate of neither language nor non-language. Why are there only three gates now, and not the fourth gate? Answer: Other sutras have four statements, each with its own reason. Now these three gates, in meaning, do not exclude anything, just as mentioned earlier.

  1. Explaining the Three Gates Based on the Three Absolutes

Question: Above it was said that the path transcends the four statements, and the most holy person therefore remains silent. Now these three gates only clarify non-duality, only cutting off the two statements of existence and non-existence, not cutting off all four statements. Then the clarified principle is not yet complete, how can it be called the complete teaching? Answer: This is because one has not realized the words of non-duality, so the question of incompleteness is raised. Why? Now it is clarified that these three gates all cut off the four statements, so the principle is not incomplete, and the teaching is not lacking. Question: Since they are the same

絕四。寧有三階。答。雖同絕四。四絕不同。初門寄言明理絕。未辨理絕言亦絕。次門明理絕言亦絕。但猶借言明二絕。後門辨理絕言亦絕。借言亦復絕。故眾人得一絕。文殊得二絕。凈名得三絕。故有三門不同。蓋是契玄之妙術。寂累之要門。雖為一篇之經。而實網羅眾教。

十約攝法以釋三門

問。三門雖明絕四。而俱明不二。則是唯絕於二。未泯亦二亦不二非二非不二非非二非非不二。何謂教無不周。理無不足。答。子亦未體其旨。故猶生向疑。今重敘之。便煥然可領。總取諸二。凡有五階。初以兩法為二。如空有等。二者以空有為二。非空有為不二。此二不二相對。還覆成二。三者二與不二。皆名為二。非二非不二。方名不二。此二不二相對。還覆成二。四者上來六句皆名為二。非非二非非不二。名為不二。此二不二相對。還復是成二。五者不泯生心動念。故名為二。若泯生心動念。方名不二。即此泯不泯。還覆成二。故自二之外。無更有法。但唱不二。則教無不周。理無不足。緣無不盡。觀無不凈。問。絕此五階。何門所攝。答。絕此五階。通是釋不二義。若欲分三門所絕異者。若絕五階法體。則屬初門。若絕五階之言。歸於第二。絕五階之借言。則第三門。此則釋前三門。同絕四句。而絕四

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 絕四。寧有三階。問：如何理解『絕四』有三個階段？答：雖然都稱為『絕四』，但這四個『絕』各有不同。第一階段，依附言語來闡明真理，此時『絕』的是依附言語所表達的意義。在尚未辨明真理時，言語和意義都未『絕』。第二階段，闡明真理后，言語也隨之『絕』。但仍然借用言語來闡明前兩個『絕』。第三階段，辨明真理后，言語和意義都『絕』。連借用的言語也一併『絕』。所以，一般人只能達到一個『絕』，文殊菩薩能達到兩個『絕』，維摩詰能達到三個『絕』。因此，這三個階段各有不同。這實在是契合玄妙真理的精妙方法，是止息煩惱的關鍵途徑。雖然只是一篇經文，但實際上涵蓋了所有教義。

十約攝法以釋三門

問：這三個階段雖然都闡明了『絕四』，但也都闡明了『不二』。那麼，是否只是『絕』了『二』，而沒有泯滅『亦二亦不二』、『非二非不二』、『非非二非非不二』這些概念呢？又怎麼能說教義無所不包，真理無所不備呢？答：你還沒有真正領會其中的旨意，所以才會產生這樣的疑問。現在我重新敘述一遍，你就能豁然開朗。總而言之，所有『二』的概念，可以分為五個階段。第一階段，以兩種法作為『二』，比如『空』（śūnyatā，空性）和『有』（bhāva，存在）等。第二階段，以『空』和『有』為『二』，以『非空有』為『不二』。這種『二』和『不二』相對立，仍然構成『二』。第三階段，『二』和『不二』都被稱為『二』，只有『非二非不二』才被稱為『不二』。這種『二』和『不二』相對立，仍然構成『二』。第四階段，以上六句都被稱為『二』，只有『非非二非非不二』才被稱為『不二』。這種『二』和『不二』相對立，仍然構成『二』。第五階段，不泯滅生起的心念，就稱為『二』。如果泯滅生起的心念，才稱為『不二』。而這種泯滅與不泯滅，又構成『二』。所以，在『二』之外，沒有其他的法。只要宣揚『不二』，那麼教義就無所不包，真理就無所不備，因緣就無所不盡，觀照就無所不凈。問：『絕』這五個階段，屬於哪個階段所涵蓋的範圍？答：『絕』這五個階段，都是用來解釋『不二』的含義。如果要區分這三個階段所『絕』的不同之處，那麼『絕』五個階段的法體，就屬於第一階段；『絕』五個階段的言語，就歸於第二階段；『絕』五個階段的借用言語，就屬於第三階段。這就是解釋了前面所說的三個階段，都『絕』四句，而『絕』四句的方式有所不同。

【English Translation】 English version: Severing the Four. Are there three stages? Answer: Although all are called 'Severing the Four,' these four severances are different. The first stage relies on language to clarify the truth, at which point what is 'severed' is the meaning expressed by the language. Before the truth is discerned, neither language nor meaning is 'severed.' The second stage clarifies the truth, and language is also 'severed' along with it. However, language is still borrowed to clarify the first two 'severances.' The third stage discerns the truth, and both language and meaning are 'severed.' Even the borrowed language is 'severed' as well. Therefore, ordinary people can only achieve one 'severance,' Mañjuśrī (文殊, Bodhisattva of wisdom) can achieve two 'severances,' and Vimalakīrti (凈名, a wise lay Buddhist) can achieve three 'severances.' Thus, these three stages are different. This is truly a subtle method for aligning with the profound truth, and a crucial path for ceasing afflictions. Although it is only one scripture, it actually encompasses all teachings.

Ten Agreements to Encompass the Dharma to Explain the Three Gates

Question: Although these three stages all clarify 'Severing the Four,' they also all clarify 'Non-duality.' So, is it only 'severing' the 'duality,' without obliterating concepts like 'both dual and non-dual,' 'neither dual nor non-dual,' 'neither non-dual nor not non-dual'? How can it be said that the teachings are all-encompassing and the truth is all-sufficient? Answer: You have not truly grasped the essence of it, so you still have such doubts. Now I will restate it, and you will suddenly understand. In general, all concepts of 'duality' can be divided into five stages. The first stage uses two dharmas as 'duality,' such as 'emptiness' (śūnyatā, the state of being empty) and 'existence' (bhāva, the state of existing). The second stage uses 'emptiness' and 'existence' as 'duality,' and 'neither emptiness nor existence' as 'non-duality.' This 'duality' and 'non-duality' are opposed to each other, still constituting 'duality.' The third stage calls both 'duality' and 'non-duality' as 'duality,' and only 'neither dual nor non-dual' is called 'non-duality.' This 'duality' and 'non-duality' are opposed to each other, still constituting 'duality.' The fourth stage calls the above six sentences as 'duality,' and only 'neither non-dual nor not non-dual' is called 'non-duality.' This 'duality' and 'non-duality' are opposed to each other, still constituting 'duality.' The fifth stage, not obliterating arising thoughts, is called 'duality.' If arising thoughts are obliterated, it is called 'non-duality.' And this obliteration and non-obliteration constitute 'duality.' Therefore, outside of 'duality,' there is no other dharma. As long as 'non-duality' is proclaimed, then the teachings are all-encompassing, the truth is all-sufficient, conditions are all-exhaustive, and contemplation is all-pure. Question: Which stage does 'severing' these five stages belong to? Answer: 'Severing' these five stages is used to explain the meaning of 'non-duality.' If you want to distinguish the differences in what the three stages 'sever,' then 'severing' the substance of the five stages belongs to the first stage; 'severing' the language of the five stages belongs to the second stage; 'severing' the borrowed language of the five stages belongs to the third stage. This explains that the three stages mentioned earlier all 'sever' the four phrases, but the way of 'severing' the four phrases is different.

不同。問。上三絕釋三門。與攝法明三門。此有何異。答。三絕門但明絕有無四句。絕義猶淺。今攝法門。明絕一切句。故此門則深。問。雖有四句。上已絕之。何得復云后深前淺。答。雖同四句。四句不同。上三絕門。但絕有無單四句耳。今明二不二四句者。則是重複四句。問。何者為單。云何為復。答一有。二無。三亦有亦無。四非有非無。此為單四句也。二不二四句。則是復論四句。此二不二相對。此之兩句。已攝前四句。三者此二不二相對。上三句為二。非非二非非不二以為不二。此二不二相對。還覆成二。后之兩句。超上四句。故以初門四句為單。後門四句為復。絕前四句則淺。絕復四句則深。問。但絕四句。明義已周。何用第五復泯生心動念耶。答。四句絕緣。第五盡觀。故復說也。問。經中明絕百非超四句。屬何門耶。答。亦備三門。若有非非法體。則屬初門。若有非非於言。則屬第二若絕於借言。則是後門故也。問。若歷泯諸二。屬初門者。中論明八不。泯於八法。但屬初門。則不二之門深。中觀之旨淺。答。不二之門。則中實之理。以一道清凈。故云不二。遠離二邊。目之為中。中對偏以受稱。不二待二以得名。約義不同。體無有異。不二之門。既有三階。中實理亦則三實。以言泯八法。則屬初門

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：上三絕釋（超越三種對立解釋）的三門，與攝法明（涵蓋一切法並闡明）的三門，這兩者有什麼不同？ 答：三絕門只是闡明超越有、無等四句（四種邏輯可能性：存在、不存在、既存在又不存在、既非存在又非不存在），其超越的意義還比較淺顯。而現在的攝法門，闡明的是超越一切句，因此這個門就更深奧。 問：即使有四句，上面已經超越了它們，為什麼又說後面的深奧而前面的淺顯呢？ 答：雖然都是四句，但四句有所不同。上面的三絕門，只是超越有無的單一四句。現在闡明的是二不二（二元與非二元）的四句，這是重複的四句。 問：什麼是單一的四句？什麼又是重複的四句？ 答：一是有，二是無，三是亦有亦無，四是非有非無，這是單一的四句。二不二的四句，則是重複論述的四句。這二與不二相對，這兩句已經涵蓋了前面的四句。第三句是這二不二相對，上面的三句為二，非二非非不二則為不二。這二不二相對，又再次形成二。後面的兩句，超越了上面的四句，所以說最初的門的四句是單一的，後面的門的四句是重複的。超越前面的四句就淺顯，超越重複的四句就深奧。 問：僅僅超越四句，闡明的意義已經完備，為什麼還要用第五句來泯滅生心動念呢？ 答：四句是超越緣起，第五句是窮盡觀照，所以再次說明。 問：經中闡明超越百非（否定一切可能性）和超四句，屬於哪個門呢？ 答：也具備這三門。如果有非非法的本體，就屬於初門。如果有非非於言語，就屬於第二門。如果超越借用言語，那就是後門。 問：如果歷經泯滅諸二，屬於初門，那麼《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）闡明八不（不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不來、不去），泯滅八法，僅僅屬於初門，那麼不二之門就深奧，《中觀》（Madhyamaka）的宗旨就淺顯了？ 答：不二之門，是中實（中道真實）的道理，以一道清凈，所以稱為不二。遠離二邊，稱之為中。中是針對偏頗而說的，不二是待二而得名的。約定的意義不同，本體沒有差異。不二之門，既然有三個階段，中實的道理也有三個層次。用言語泯滅八法，就屬於初門。

【English Translation】 English version Question: What is the difference between the three gates of 'Shang San Jue Shi' (上三絕釋, the three gates of transcending three kinds of explanations) and the three gates of 'She Fa Ming' (攝法明, encompassing all dharmas and clarifying them)? Answer: The 'San Jue Men' (三絕門, three gates of transcendence) only clarifies the transcendence of the four sentences such as existence and non-existence, and the meaning of transcendence is still relatively shallow. The current 'She Fa Men' (攝法門, gates of encompassing dharmas) clarifies the transcendence of all sentences, so this gate is deeper. Question: Even if there are four sentences, they have already been transcended above. Why do you say that the latter is profound and the former is shallow? Answer: Although they are both four sentences, the four sentences are different. The above 'San Jue Men' (三絕門, three gates of transcendence) only transcends the single four sentences of existence and non-existence. What is now clarified is the four sentences of 'er bu er' (二不二, duality and non-duality), which are repeated sentences. Question: What are the single four sentences? What are the repeated four sentences? Answer: One is existence, two is non-existence, three is both existence and non-existence, and four is neither existence nor non-existence. These are the single four sentences. The four sentences of 'er bu er' (二不二, duality and non-duality) are the repeated sentences. The duality and non-duality are relative, and these two sentences already encompass the previous four sentences. The third sentence is that the duality and non-duality are relative, the above three sentences are duality, and non-duality is neither non-duality nor non-non-duality. The duality and non-duality are relative, and duality is formed again. The latter two sentences transcend the above four sentences, so the four sentences of the initial gate are single, and the four sentences of the latter gate are repeated. Transcending the previous four sentences is shallow, and transcending the repeated four sentences is deep. Question: Merely transcending the four sentences, the meaning of clarification is already complete. Why use the fifth sentence to extinguish the arising of thoughts? Answer: The four sentences are for transcending dependent origination, and the fifth sentence is for exhausting contemplation, so it is explained again. Question: Which gate does the sutra clarify as transcending 'bai fei' (百非, a hundred negations) and transcending the four sentences? Answer: It also has these three gates. If there is a non-non-dharma essence, it belongs to the initial gate. If there is non-non in language, it belongs to the second gate. If it transcends the use of language, it is the latter gate. Question: If going through the annihilation of all dualities belongs to the initial gate, then the 'Madhyamaka-karika' (中論, Treatise on the Middle Way) clarifies the 'ba bu' (八不, eight negations: no birth, no death, no cessation, no permanence, no identity, no difference, no coming, no going), annihilating the eight dharmas, only belongs to the initial gate, then the gate of non-duality is profound, and the purpose of 'Madhyamaka' (中觀, Middle Way) is shallow? Answer: The gate of non-duality is the principle of 'zhong shi' (中實, the reality of the Middle Way), with one path of purity, so it is called non-duality. Being away from the two extremes is called the Middle. The Middle is said in response to bias, and non-duality is named after duality. The agreed meanings are different, and the essence is not different. Since the gate of non-duality has three stages, the principle of 'zhong shi' (中實, the reality of the Middle Way) also has three levels. Using language to annihilate the eight dharmas belongs to the initial gate.

。次息言不足言。便入第二。若絕借言。即歸第三。問不二既豎究五句。不生亦可然乎。答。此猶一類義耳。如生既生。是不生亦是生。亦生亦不生。非生非不生。非非生非非不生。乃至生心動念。並皆是生。今唱不生。五生皆絕。故釋論云。不生不滅不不生不不滅不共非不共。名無生忍。問。五皆辨生。皆屬二攝。五種之二。可得皆是生耶。答。此亦一類義耳。若有五種之二。皆是生心動念。悉是生矣。所唱一不生。無教不周。無理不足。無緣不盡。觀無不絕。所以八不。是方等之旨歸。環中之妙術矣。問。大小經論。攝法多門。或以一門攝法二三四門。乃至眾多。今以何義。但明二耶。答。二是別法之始。乖道之初。失於一道。則便成二。今泯於二。令歸一道。故但云不二。又二是異義。九十六術五道三乘。皆名為二。今泯斯異。故云不二。又此異道。對於一道。則覆成二。為息此二。故云不二。所以但約二門。明攝法也。

二會二為二論不二門

又有三雙。初明語默二攝於三門。佛敕弟子。常行二事。一聖說法。二聖默然。說實相法。名聖說法。觀實相理。名聖默然。從實相觀。還說實相法。說實相法。還入實相觀。故動靜四儀。皆合實相。若語若默。並應般若。今此三門。還依聖旨。眾人以言泯

法。文殊借言以止言。同就言明不二。謂聖說法。凈名無言明不二。謂聖默然。若然者。要由眾人之說。故顯凈名之默。因凈名之默。以顯眾人之說。命眾共談。意在於此。問。何故。理說即廣。聖默便略。答。說則易悟。故須廣明。默然難曉。所以略示。又說法明教。教有多門。默然觀理。理則無二。又能仁國土多用音聲。無言世界廣明寂漠。次就絕名體二。以攝三門。總收萬化。凡有二種。一者物體。二者物名。此二是生累之所由。起患之根本。故善吉問言。眾生在何處行。如來答曰。一切眾生。皆在名相中行。名謂名言。相則法體。眾人以言歷泯諸二。明無物體。文殊借言以止言。□□□凈名默然。以息借言。同辨無名無相。無名無相則紛累斯寂。故門雖有三。攝唯此二。問。何故泯法則廣。息言便略。答。廣略不併。可二門互現。又法體為本。本則難傾。名為其末。末則易泯。以本難傾。故須廣破。末則易除。二人略遣。后就假名相二以攝三門。經云。無名相中。強名相說。欲令因此名相悟無名相。蓋是垂教之大宗。群聖之本意。若然者。眾人之與文殊。寄名以辨不二。維摩默然假相以明道。故雖有三門不同。唯有名相跡。以因名相之跡。顯無名相之本也。問。前二是名。其義易了。後門為相。事猶未彰。答

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法（Dharma）。文殊（Manjushri）借用言語來止息言語，共同通過言語闡明不二之理。說聖人說法，維摩詰（Vimalakirti）不發一言來闡明不二之理，說聖人沉默。如果這樣的話，需要通過眾人的說法，來彰顯維摩詰的沉默；又因為維摩詰的沉默，來彰顯眾人的說法。讓大家共同討論，用意就在於此。問：為什麼說法就顯得廣博，聖人的沉默就顯得簡略？答：因為說法容易領悟，所以需要廣為闡明；沉默難以理解，所以略微顯示。而且說法闡明教義，教義有很多門徑；沉默是觀察真理，真理只有一個。而且釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）的國土多用音聲教化，無言世界則廣泛闡明寂靜。接下來就從斷絕名相本體二者，來統攝這三個法門，總括萬事萬物。總共有兩種：一是物體，二是物名。這二者是產生累贅的原因，是產生禍患的根本。所以善吉（Subhuti）問道：眾生在何處行？如來（Tathagata）回答說：一切眾生，都在名相中行。名指的是名言，相指的是法體。眾人用言語來消泯諸二，闡明沒有物體。文殊借用言語來止息言語，維摩詰的沉默，用來止息借用言語，共同辨明無名無相。無名無相，那麼紛繁的累贅就會止息。所以法門雖然有三個，統攝起來只有這兩個。問：為什麼消泯法體就顯得廣博，止息言語就顯得簡略？答：廣博和簡略並不衝突，可以兩個法門互相顯現。而且法體是根本，根本難以傾覆；名是末節，末節容易消泯。因為根本難以傾覆，所以需要廣為破除；末節容易去除，所以用兩個人略微遣除。後面就用假名相二者來統攝三個法門。經中說：在無名相中，勉強用名相來說，想要因此名相領悟無名相。這大概是垂示教義的大宗旨，諸位聖人的本意。如果這樣的話，眾人和文殊，借用名來辨明不二；維摩詰沉默，借用相來闡明道。所以雖然有三個法門不同，只有名相的軌跡，用來因為名相的軌跡，彰顯無名相的根本。問：前面兩個是名，其中的含義容易理解；後面的法門是相，事情還不明顯。答：

【English Translation】 English version Dharma. Manjushri borrows words to stop words, jointly clarifying the non-dual principle through words. Saying that the sage speaks the Dharma, Vimalakirti uses silence to clarify the non-dual principle, saying that the sage is silent. If so, it is necessary to use the words of the crowd to highlight Vimalakirti's silence; and because of Vimalakirti's silence, to highlight the words of the crowd. Asking everyone to discuss together, the intention lies in this. Question: Why does speaking the Dharma seem broad, while the sage's silence seems brief? Answer: Because speaking the Dharma is easy to understand, it needs to be explained extensively; silence is difficult to understand, so it is shown slightly. Moreover, speaking the Dharma clarifies the teachings, and the teachings have many paths; silence is observing the truth, and the truth is only one. Moreover, Sakyamuni Buddha's land mostly uses sound to teach, while the world of no words extensively clarifies silence. Next, from the two aspects of cutting off names and forms and the essence, to encompass these three Dharma gates, encompassing all things. There are two types in total: one is objects, and the other is names. These two are the cause of producing burdens, and the root of producing troubles. Therefore, Subhuti asked: Where do sentient beings walk? The Tathagata replied: All sentient beings walk in names and forms. 'Name' refers to names and words, and 'form' refers to the essence of Dharma. The crowd uses words to eliminate all duality, clarifying that there are no objects. Manjushri borrows words to stop words, Vimalakirti's silence is used to stop borrowing words, jointly distinguishing no name and no form. With no name and no form, then the chaotic burdens will cease. Therefore, although there are three Dharma gates, they are encompassed by only these two. Question: Why does eliminating the essence of Dharma seem broad, while stopping words seems brief? Answer: Broadness and brevity do not conflict, and the two Dharma gates can appear mutually. Moreover, the essence of Dharma is the root, and the root is difficult to overturn; name is the end, and the end is easy to eliminate. Because the root is difficult to overturn, it needs to be widely broken; the end is easy to remove, so two people slightly dismiss it. Later, use the two of false names and forms to encompass the three Dharma gates. The sutra says: In the absence of names and forms, reluctantly use names and forms to speak, wanting to realize the absence of names and forms through these names and forms. This is probably the great purpose of showing the teachings, and the original intention of all the sages. If so, the crowd and Manjushri borrow names to distinguish non-duality; Vimalakirti is silent, borrowing forms to clarify the Tao. Therefore, although there are three different Dharma gates, there are only traces of names and forms, used to highlight the root of no name and no form because of the traces of names and forms. Question: The previous two are names, and their meaning is easy to understand; the latter Dharma gate is form, and the matter is not yet clear. Answer:

。眾人既假言說之名。維摩杜口。寄默然之相。故以名相二門。同顯重玄之道。命眾共說。意在於斯。問。何故借名則廣。假相便略。答。廣略互現已漏前通。難易之言。亦如上說。言說則易悟。眾人並知。寂然則難明。唯文殊可獨領。又名是音聲。起緣多用。相為色法。則教門少明。

三次會二歸一門

問初建三門。后明二轍。觀其文殊。似如婉麗。考其大旨。則不二未成。何者。明不二之理無言。應物之教有言。即無言之理。不可有言。有言之教。不可無言。則理教天乖。何名不二。答。子乃曉不二無言。而未悟言即不二。故教滿大千而不言。形究八極而無像。故無言而言。雖言不言。無像而像。雖像不像。乃為一致。何謂天乖。難曰。若言即不二。則文殊之言常默。若不二即言。則凈名之默常言。三階之論渾然。二轍之言便喪。答。三階之論說。寄跡淺深。二轍之言。提引未悟。如其窮達。則不二常言。言常不二。未始不二。未始不言。故莫二之道始成。得一之宗便建。

四次泯一以歸絕門

論曰。夫有無相生。高下相傾。有有故有無。無有故無無。因二故不二。若無二。則亦無不二。故經云。不著不二法。以無一二故。斯則非語非默。不俗不真。絕觀絕緣。何二不二。

五同

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：眾人既然借用言說的名義，維摩詰（Vimalakirti，一位著名的在家菩薩）便保持沉默，寄託于寂然無聲的表相。因此，通過名和相這兩個途徑，共同彰顯重玄之道（double truth，佛教哲學概念）。讓大家共同闡述，意圖就在於此。問：為什麼借用名義就顯得廣博，假借表相就顯得簡略？答：廣博和簡略相互顯現，已經貫通了前面的論述，難易的說法，也如上面所說。言說就容易領悟，大家都明白；寂然就難以明瞭，只有文殊菩薩（Manjusri，智慧的象徵）可以獨自領會。而且，名是音聲，引發事緣時多用；相是色法，那麼在教義闡明上就較少使用。 三次集會，二者歸於一門 問：最初建立三門，後來闡明二轍（two tracks，兩種不同的方法或路徑）。看文殊菩薩的論述，似乎委婉華麗；考察其大旨，則不二之理（non-duality，佛教核心概念）尚未成就。為什麼呢？因為闡明不二的道理是無言的，適應眾生的教化是有言的。那麼，無言的道理，不可以有言；有言的教化，不可以無言。這樣，理和教就天差地別，怎麼能稱為不二呢？答：你只理解了不二的無言，而沒有領悟到言說即是不二。所以教化遍滿大千世界卻不言說，形體窮盡八方卻無具體形象。因此，無言而說，雖說卻不言；無像而像，雖像卻不像。這才是一致的。怎麼說是天差地別呢？難：如果言說即是不二，那麼文殊菩薩的言說就應該常常是沉默的；如果不二即是言說，那麼維摩詰的沉默就應該常常是言說。三階教（Three Levels Sect，中國佛教宗派）的理論就變得混亂，二轍的說法也就喪失了。答：三階教的論說，是寄託于淺顯和深刻的層面；二轍的說法，是提引尚未覺悟的人。如果窮盡通達，那麼不二就是常言，言說就是常不二。未曾有不二，未曾有不言。所以不二之道才得以成就，得一之宗（the principle of oneness）便得以建立。 四次泯滅一，以歸於絕門 論曰：有和無相互產生，高和下相互傾軋。因為有有，所以有無；因為無有，所以無無。因為有二，所以有不二；如果沒有二，那麼也就沒有不二。所以經中說：『不執著于不二法，因為沒有一和二。』這樣就既非言語也非沉默，既非世俗也非真諦，斷絕觀照，斷絕緣起，哪裡還有二和不二呢？ 五同

【English Translation】 English version: Since everyone borrowed the name of speech, Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti, a famous lay Bodhisattva) remained silent, entrusting himself to the aspect of stillness. Therefore, through the two paths of name and form, the profound doctrine of double truth is jointly revealed. The intention of having everyone expound together lies in this. Question: Why does borrowing a name seem broad, while borrowing a form seems brief? Answer: Broadness and brevity manifest each other, already connecting with the previous discussion. The saying of difficulty and ease is also as mentioned above. Speech is easy to understand, and everyone knows it; silence is difficult to understand, and only Manjusri (Manjusri, symbol of wisdom) can comprehend it alone. Moreover, name is sound, which is often used when initiating causes; form is material, so it is less used in explaining doctrines. Three Assemblies, Two Returning to the One Gate Question: Initially establishing three gates, later clarifying two tracks. Looking at Manjusri's discourse, it seems graceful and elegant; examining its main point, the principle of non-duality has not yet been achieved. Why? Because clarifying the principle of non-duality is without words, and teaching in response to beings is with words. Then, the principle of no words cannot have words; the teaching with words cannot be without words. In this way, principle and teaching are vastly different, how can it be called non-duality? Answer: You only understand the non-duality of no words, but have not realized that speech is non-duality. Therefore, teaching fills the great thousand worlds but does not speak, and form exhausts the eight directions but has no concrete image. Therefore, speaking without words, although speaking, it is not speaking; having an image without an image, although having an image, it is not an image. This is consistency. How can it be said to be vastly different? Difficulty: If speech is non-duality, then Manjusri's speech should always be silent; if non-duality is speech, then Vimalakirti's silence should always be speech. The theory of the Three Levels Sect (Three Levels Sect, a Chinese Buddhist sect) becomes chaotic, and the saying of the two tracks is lost. Answer: The discourse of the Three Levels Sect is entrusted to the levels of shallowness and depth; the saying of the two tracks is to guide those who have not yet awakened. If exhausted and understood, then non-duality is constant speech, and speech is constant non-duality. There has never been non-duality, and there has never been no speech. Therefore, the path of non-duality is achieved, and the principle of oneness is established. Four Times Eliminating One to Return to the Gate of Absoluteness The treatise says: Existence and non-existence arise from each other, high and low lean on each other. Because there is existence, there is non-existence; because there is no existence, there is no non-existence. Because there are two, there is non-duality; if there are no two, then there is no non-duality. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Do not cling to the non-dual dharma, because there is no one or two.' Thus, it is neither speech nor silence, neither mundane nor true, cutting off contemplation, cutting off conditions, where is there two or non-duality? Five Same

異門

問。義宗乃廣陳不二。未詳不二定何等法。答。有人言。不二法門則真諦理也。有人言。不二法門謂實相般若。有人言。不二法門則性凈涅槃阿梨耶識。有人言。不二法門謂阿摩羅識自性清凈心。四宗之中。初二約境。后兩據心。雖識境義殊。而同超四句。故釋迦掩室于摩竭。凈名杜口于毗耶。斯皆理為神御故。口以之默。豈曰無辨。辨所不能言也。今總問眾師。且明其正。次開十門四句。別詳得失。眾師既云理不可言者。為有不可言之理。為無此理耶。答有此不可言理。即名有句。何名絕四。若無此不可言理。則皆無所會。凡不可革。聖何由成。撫臆論情。二關之中。雖復絕言。終有絕言之理。既終有此理。終是有見。了何由得道。又終有此理。而不可說其有無者。與犢子部我。有何異耶。犢子執我在第五不可說藏。今計真諦理法不可說在第五藏。彼執有我不可說。名為我見。今計有真諦理不可說。名為法見。若然者。乃具人法二見。不得兩空。何道之有耶。又終有此理。以為宗極者。則此經以有為宗極矣。愿明識君子可詳而覽焉。又真理不可說。俗理則可說。又真理不可說。無有可說義。世諦是可說。無有不可說義。世諦若不可說。則入于真諦。真諦若可說。便入于俗諦中。以此詳之。還成二見。何

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 異門

問：義宗廣泛闡述『不二』的道理，但我不明白『不二』究竟指的是什麼法？ 答：有人說，『不二法門』就是真諦之理。 有人說，『不二法門』指的是實相般若（prajna，智慧）。 有人說，『不二法門』就是自性清凈的涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）和阿梨耶識（ālaya-vijñāna，藏識）。 有人說，『不二法門』指的是阿摩羅識（amalavijñāna，無垢識）和自性清凈心。 這四種說法中，前兩種是從境界的角度說的，后兩種是從心性的角度說的。雖然對識和境的理解不同，但都超越了『有』、『無』、『亦有亦無』、『非有非無』這四句。 所以釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni，佛教創始人）在摩竭陀國（Magadha）掩室靜默，維摩詰（Vimalakīrti）在毗耶離城（Vaiśālī）閉口不言。這都是因為真理是精神的主宰，所以才緘默不語，難道是說他們沒有辯才嗎？只是辯才無法表達罷了。 現在我向各位法師請教，首先明確其正義，然後展開十門四句，詳細分析得失。各位法師既然說真理不可言說，那麼是有不可言說的真理，還是沒有這種真理呢？ 答：有這種不可言說的真理，這就落入了『有』的範疇，怎麼能說是超越了四句呢？如果沒有這種不可言說的真理，那麼就什麼都無法領會，一切都無法改變，聖人又怎麼能成就呢？ 憑著自己的臆測來談論，即使在『絕言』的境界中，終究還是有『絕言』的道理存在。既然終究有這種道理，終究還是有所見。這樣又怎麼能得道呢？ 又，終究有這種道理，卻又不能說它是有還是無，這與犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）所主張的『我』（ātman）有什麼區別呢？犢子部認為『我』存在於第五種不可說的狀態中，現在認為真諦之理存在於第五種不可說的狀態中。他們執著于『有我』而不可說，稱之為『我見』，現在認為『有真諦之理』而不可說，稱之為『法見』。如果這樣，那就同時具備了人見和法見，沒有達到人法兩空，又怎麼能得道呢？ 又，如果終究有這種道理，並以此為宗極，那麼這部經就以『有』為宗極了。希望明智的君子能夠詳細地閱讀和思考。 又，真理不可說，俗理就可以說；或者說，真理不可說，沒有可說的意義；世諦（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）是可說的，沒有不可說的意義。如果世諦不可說，那就進入了真諦；如果真諦可說，那就進入了俗諦中。這樣詳細分析，還是會落入二見，為什麼呢？

【English Translation】 English version Different Gateways

Question: The Yizong school extensively expounds the principle of 'non-duality.' I don't understand what 'non-duality' specifically refers to. Answer: Some say that the 'non-dual Dharma gate' is the principle of ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Some say that the 'non-dual Dharma gate' refers to the true nature of reality, prajna (wisdom). Some say that the 'non-dual Dharma gate' is the self-nature purity of nirvana (extinction) and ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness). Some say that the 'non-dual Dharma gate' refers to amalavijñāna (immaculate consciousness) and the self-nature pure mind. Among these four views, the first two are from the perspective of the objective realm, and the latter two are from the perspective of the mind. Although the understanding of consciousness and the objective realm differs, they all transcend the four phrases: 'existence,' 'non-existence,' 'both existence and non-existence,' and 'neither existence nor non-existence.' Therefore, Śākyamuni (the founder of Buddhism) remained silent in a closed room in Magadha, and Vimalakīrti (a wise Buddhist layman) kept his mouth shut in Vaiśālī. This is all because truth is the master of the spirit, so they remained silent. Does this mean they had no eloquence? It's just that eloquence cannot express it. Now I ask all the Dharma masters, first to clarify its correct meaning, and then to unfold the ten gates and four phrases, and analyze the gains and losses in detail. Since all the Dharma masters say that truth cannot be spoken, is there an unspeakable truth, or is there no such truth? Answer: There is such an unspeakable truth, which falls into the category of 'existence.' How can it be said to transcend the four phrases? If there is no such unspeakable truth, then nothing can be comprehended, nothing can be changed, and how can a sage be accomplished? Relying on one's own speculation to discuss, even in the realm of 'absolute speech,' there is ultimately the principle of 'absolute speech.' Since there is ultimately this principle, there is ultimately something seen. How can one attain the Dao in this way? Moreover, there is ultimately this principle, but it cannot be said whether it exists or does not exist. What is the difference between this and the 'self' (ātman) asserted by the Vātsīputrīya school? The Vātsīputrīya school believes that the 'self' exists in the fifth unspeakable state. Now it is believed that the principle of ultimate truth exists in the fifth unspeakable state. They are attached to the 'existence of self' and cannot speak of it, calling it 'self-view.' Now it is believed that 'there is a principle of ultimate truth' and cannot speak of it, calling it 'Dharma-view.' If so, then one possesses both the view of self and the view of Dharma, and has not achieved the emptiness of both self and Dharma. How can one attain the Dao? Moreover, if there is ultimately this principle and it is taken as the ultimate goal, then this sutra takes 'existence' as the ultimate goal. I hope that wise gentlemen can read and think about it in detail. Furthermore, ultimate truth cannot be spoken, but conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) can be spoken; or rather, ultimate truth cannot be spoken, and there is no meaning to be spoken; conventional truth is speakable, and there is no meaning that cannot be spoken. If conventional truth cannot be spoken, then it enters ultimate truth; if ultimate truth can be spoken, then it enters conventional truth. Analyzing it in detail in this way, it still falls into two views. Why?

名不二法門。大品云。諸有二者。無道無果。涅槃云。明與無明。愚者謂二。皆者了達其性無二。明與無明既爾。真俗亦然。愚者謂二。智者了達其性不二也。問蓋是未悉義宗。故興是問耳。今明。俗雖可說則真不可說。真雖不可說則俗可說。以二諦一體。故名不二。即是不二法門。乃是智人所了。豈是愚者謂二耶。答。子亦未領今之難意。故有斯通耳。既言真即俗者。俗既可說。真可說不耶。若俗可說真亦可說者。便成二負。一違宗負。二失諦負。違宗負者。本立俗諦有三假。三假可說。真理即四忘。四忘不可說。故凈名杜言。釋迦掩室。今真則俗。俗既可說。俗真亦可說。既。三假。真亦三假。何有四忘之宗。故名失宗負。二失諦負者。真既即俗俗。可說。真亦可說。即皆是俗。何有真諦本有真諦。可有俗諦。既無真諦。寧有俗耶。故二諦俱失。真即俗。既有二失。俗即真。亦招兩過。俗既即真。真不可說。俗亦不可說。真既四忘。則俗非三假。謂失宗負也。二者俗即真。真不可說。俗亦不可說。皆是真諦。有何俗耶。既失俗諦。亦無真諦。故二諦共失。若真即俗。俗自可說。真不可說者。亦有二負。一違教負。二違理負。違教負者。經云。色即是空。空即是色。若俗自可說。真不可說者。何名即是。違理負者。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『名不二法門』出自《大品般若經》，其中說：『凡是執著於二元對立的，就無法證得道和果。』《涅槃經》中說：『明與無明，愚昧的人認為是二，智者卻能了達它們的本性並無二致。』既然明與無明如此，真諦和俗諦也是一樣。愚昧的人認為它們是二，智慧的人則了達它們的本性並非二元對立。 問：大概是因為還不完全理解義理的宗旨，所以才提出這樣的問題吧。現在說明，俗諦雖然可以言說，但真諦卻不可言說；真諦雖然不可言說，但俗諦卻可以言說。因為二諦是一體的，所以稱為『不二』。這正是不二法門，是智者所能領悟的，怎麼會是愚者所認為的二元對立呢？ 答：你也沒有領會我所提出的疑問，所以才有這樣的解釋。既然說『真即是俗』，那麼俗諦既然可以言說，真諦也可以言說嗎？如果俗諦可以言說，真諦也可以言說，那就犯了兩個錯誤。一是違背宗義的錯誤，二是喪失真諦的錯誤。違背宗義的錯誤是，本來立論俗諦有三假（sāṃjñā，假名、安立），三假可以言說；真理則是四忘（一切戲論止息），四忘不可言說。現在如果說真即是俗，俗諦既然可以言說，那麼真諦也可以言說，既然如此，真諦也成了三假，哪裡還有四忘的宗旨呢？所以說是違背宗義的錯誤。二是喪失真諦的錯誤是，真諦既然即是俗諦，俗諦可以言說，那麼真諦也可以言說，這樣就全部是俗諦了，哪裡還有真諦？本來有真諦，才能有俗諦，既然沒有真諦，哪裡會有俗諦呢？所以說二諦都喪失了。真即是俗，既然有這兩個錯誤，那麼俗即是真，也會招致兩種過失。俗諦既然即是真諦，真諦不可言說，那麼俗諦也不可言說。真諦既然是四忘，那麼俗諦就不是三假，這就是違背宗義的錯誤。二是俗即是真，真諦不可言說，俗諦也不可言說，全部都是真諦，哪裡還有俗諦呢？既然喪失了俗諦，也就沒有真諦，所以二諦共同喪失。如果說真即是俗，俗諦自身可以言說，真諦不可言說，也有兩個錯誤。一是違背教義的錯誤，二是違背道理的錯誤。違背教義的錯誤是，經中說：『色即是空，空即是色。』如果俗諦自身可以言說，真諦不可言說，怎麼能說是『即是』呢？違背道理的錯誤是，……

【English Translation】 English version: The 『non-duality Dharma gate』 comes from the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, which states: 『Those who are attached to duality cannot attain the path and its fruit.』 The Nirvana Sutra says: 『Enlightenment and ignorance are considered as two by the foolish, but the wise understand that their nature is non-dual.』 Since enlightenment and ignorance are like this, so are the satya (truth) and samvriti (conventional truth). The foolish consider them as two, while the wise understand that their nature is not dualistic. Question: Perhaps it is because the meaning of the doctrine is not fully understood that such a question is raised. Now, it is explained that although samvriti can be spoken of, satya cannot be spoken of; although satya cannot be spoken of, samvriti can be spoken of. Because the two truths are one, it is called 『non-duality.』 This is precisely the non-duality Dharma gate, which is understood by the wise, how could it be the duality perceived by the foolish? Answer: You have also not grasped the intention of my question, hence this explanation. Since it is said that 『satya is samvriti,』 then since samvriti can be spoken of, can satya also be spoken of? If samvriti can be spoken of and satya can also be spoken of, then two errors are committed. First, the error of contradicting the doctrine; second, the error of losing the satya. The error of contradicting the doctrine is that originally it was established that samvriti has three samjnas (假名, provisional names; 安立, establishment), and the three samjnas can be spoken of; the truth is the four vismrtis (一切戲論止息, cessation of all discursive elaborations), and the four vismrtis cannot be spoken of. Now, if satya is samvriti, and samvriti can be spoken of, then satya can also be spoken of. In that case, satya also becomes three samjnas, where is the doctrine of the four vismrtis? Therefore, it is called the error of contradicting the doctrine. The second error of losing the satya is that since satya is samvriti, and samvriti can be spoken of, then satya can also be spoken of, and thus everything is samvriti. Where is the satya? Originally there is satya, then there can be samvriti. Since there is no satya, where can there be samvriti? Therefore, both truths are lost. Since satya is samvriti, and there are these two errors, then samvriti is satya will also incur two faults. Since samvriti is satya, and satya cannot be spoken of, then samvriti also cannot be spoken of. Since satya is the four vismrtis, then samvriti is not the three samjnas, which is the error of contradicting the doctrine. Second, samvriti is satya, and satya cannot be spoken of, then samvriti also cannot be spoken of, and everything is satya. Where is the samvriti? Since samvriti is lost, there is also no satya, so both truths are lost together. If satya is samvriti, and samvriti itself can be spoken of, while satya cannot be spoken of, there are also two errors. First, the error of contradicting the teachings; second, the error of contradicting the reason. The error of contradicting the teachings is that the sutra says: 『Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.』 If samvriti itself can be spoken of, while satya cannot be spoken of, how can it be said to be 『is』? The error of contradicting the reason is that...

若俗即真。俗可說。真不可說者。請問。可說之法與不可說。為一耶。為異耶。既言其一。則互相類。說類不說。相與皆說。不說類說。相與不說。若言可說異不可說。則應色異於空。空異於色故。進退二關。俱不可也。問。真俗體一故。俗恒即真。真常即俗。而真義恒非俗。義俗義常非真義。故真不可說。而俗則可說。答。俗體既則真體者。俗義為則真體。為不即真體。若俗義即真體。真體不可說。俗義亦不可說。若俗義不即真體者。俗義應非三假。俗義既則是三假。豈不即真耶。又經云。既無有一法出於法性。寧言俗義不即真耶。以此推之。則無相即。無相即故。便無不二。若有不二。可有於二。竟無不二。何得有二。故有所得宗皆是戲論義。今更開十門四句。以詳得失。何以約四句明得失。眾師皆言。道超四句。故至聖以之沖默。故宜就四句詳其是非。

一前明單四句。天竺外道九十六術。略而言之。不出人法四句。言人四句者。僧法計神與陰一。世師執神與陰異。勒娑婆明亦一亦異。若提子云非一非異。法四句者。如破長爪經云。一切法忍。即是有見。一切不忍。名為無執。亦忍亦不忍。謂亦有亦無。非忍不忍。名非有非無。但明四句之義。無絕四句之宗。無絕四句之宗。故無不二之道也。

二

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果世俗就是真理，世俗可以言說，而真理不可言說，請問，可言說的法和不可言說的法，是一樣的呢？還是不同的呢？如果說它們是一樣的，那麼互相類似，說類似於不說，相互之間都是說；不說類似於說，相互之間都是不說。如果說可說與不可說不同，那麼就應該像色異於空，空異於色一樣。這樣進退兩方面都說不通。問：真俗本體是一樣的，所以世俗恒常就是真理，真理恒常就是世俗，但是真理的意義恒常不是世俗的意義，世俗的意義恒常不是真理的意義，所以真理不可說，而世俗則可以說。答：世俗的本體既然就是真理的本體，那麼世俗的意義是即真理的本體，還是不即真理的本體？如果世俗的意義即真理的本體，真理的本體不可說，世俗的意義也不可說。如果世俗的意義不即真理的本體，那麼世俗的意義應該不是三假（sānjiǎ，佛教術語，指眾生、壽命、士夫三種虛假的存在）。世俗的意義既然是三假，難道不是即真理嗎？而且經書上說，既然沒有一法超出法性，怎麼能說世俗的意義不即真理呢？由此推斷，就沒有相互即，沒有相互即，就沒有不二。如果有不二，就可以有二。既然沒有不二，怎麼能有二？所以有所得宗（yǒusuǒdézōng，佛教宗派，指執著于有所得的宗派）都是戲論的意義。現在再開十門四句，來詳細說明得失。為什麼要用四句來說明得失呢？眾位法師都說，道超越四句，所以至聖用沉默來應對。所以應該就四句來詳細說明其是非。 一、先說明單四句。天竺（Tiānzhú，印度的古稱）外道九十六術，概括來說，不出人法四句。說人四句，僧法（Sēngfǎ）計神與陰（yīn，五陰，佛教術語）是一樣的。世師（shìshī）執神與陰是不同的。勒娑婆（Lèsāpó）說明也是既一又異。若提子（Ruòtízǐ）說非一非異。法四句，如破長爪經（Pòchángzhuǎjīng）說，一切法忍，就是有見。一切不忍，名為無執。亦忍亦不忍，謂亦有亦無。非忍不忍，名非有非無。只是說明四句的意義，沒有斷絕四句的宗旨。沒有斷絕四句的宗旨，所以沒有不二的道理。 二、

【English Translation】 English version: If the mundane is the ultimate truth, the mundane can be spoken of, but the ultimate truth cannot be spoken of. I ask, are the speakable dharma and the unspeakable dharma the same? Or are they different? If they are said to be the same, then they are similar to each other. Speaking is similar to not speaking, and they both involve speaking. Not speaking is similar to speaking, and they both involve not speaking. If it is said that the speakable is different from the unspeakable, then it should be like form being different from emptiness, and emptiness being different from form. Thus, both advancing and retreating are untenable. Question: Because the essence of the ultimate truth and the mundane is the same, the mundane is always the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is always the mundane. However, the meaning of the ultimate truth is never the meaning of the mundane, and the meaning of the mundane is never the meaning of the ultimate truth. Therefore, the ultimate truth cannot be spoken of, while the mundane can be spoken of. Answer: Since the essence of the mundane is the essence of the ultimate truth, is the meaning of the mundane identical to the essence of the ultimate truth, or is it not identical to the essence of the ultimate truth? If the meaning of the mundane is identical to the essence of the ultimate truth, and the essence of the ultimate truth cannot be spoken of, then the meaning of the mundane also cannot be spoken of. If the meaning of the mundane is not identical to the essence of the ultimate truth, then the meaning of the mundane should not be the three provisionalities (sānjiǎ, Buddhist term referring to the three false existences: sentient beings, lifespan, and individuals). Since the meaning of the mundane is the three provisionalities, isn't it identical to the ultimate truth? Moreover, the scriptures say that since there is no dharma that goes beyond the dharma-nature, how can it be said that the meaning of the mundane is not identical to the ultimate truth? From this, it can be inferred that there is no mutual identity, and without mutual identity, there is no non-duality. If there is non-duality, then there can be duality. Since there is no non-duality, how can there be duality? Therefore, all the doctrines of those who seek attainment (yǒusuǒdézōng, Buddhist schools that cling to attainment) are playful and meaningless. Now, let's open ten doors and four phrases to explain the gains and losses in detail. Why use the four phrases to explain the gains and losses? All the masters say that the Dao transcends the four phrases, so the most holy ones respond with silence. Therefore, we should examine the rights and wrongs of the four phrases in detail. 1. First, explain the single four phrases. The ninety-six heterodox teachings of India (Tiānzhú, ancient name for India), broadly speaking, do not go beyond the four phrases of person and dharma. The four phrases of person are: the Sangha Dharma (Sēngfǎ) considers the spirit and the skandhas (yīn, five skandhas, Buddhist term) to be the same. The worldly teachers (shìshī) hold that the spirit and the skandhas are different. Lesapava (Lèsāpó) explains that they are both the same and different. Ruotizi (Ruòtízǐ) says that they are neither the same nor different. The four phrases of dharma, as the Sutra on Breaking the Long Nails (Pòchángzhuǎjīng) says, all dharma-acceptance is called having views. All non-acceptance is called non-attachment. Accepting and not accepting is called both existent and non-existent. Neither accepting nor not accepting is called neither existent nor non-existent. It only explains the meaning of the four phrases, without cutting off the purpose of the four phrases. Without cutting off the purpose of the four phrases, there is no principle of non-duality. 2.

佛滅度后。五百論師。諸部異宗。亦不出四句之義。如龍樹所引。犢子計有我有法。名為有見。方廣執無我無法。名為空見。薩婆多謂無我有法。即是亦有亦無。訶梨雲世諦有我有法故非無。真諦無我無法故非有。即二諦合明中道非有非無也。問。犢子計我。與外道何異。答犢子明假我。外道執實我。是故為異。廣如俱舍論辨犢子三假之宗。又如釋論所引云。犢子計五陰和合故有人法。四大和合故有眼法。既稱和合。即是假也。故知是假我。問。既是假我。與訶梨所辨。有何異耶。答。犢子計。別有假人體。與陰體不一不異。在第五不可說藏中。故俱舍論出彼義云。如因薪有火。別有火體。雖因陰有人。別有人體。問。不然。今明假有體者。世諦故有。即真故無。而犢子計我不可令空。故非類也。答。蓋是未悉犢子之宗。故作此說耳。如俱舍論云。犢子未入空無我觀。是故有我。入觀之日。則知我空是故當知全同彼說。如此諸部所立義宗。皆墮四句。無絕四句言。無絕四句言故。無不二之道。本有不二。故有於二。既無不二。亦無有二。故理教不成。皆是戲論。障不二法門也。

三明即世所行塵識四句。一薩婆多部。不得法空。計有塵有識。二方廣道人。學毗佛略。執邪無之義。明無識無塵。三藏什未至之前。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：佛陀涅槃后，五百位論師，各部派的異端宗義，也沒有超出四句的範疇。如龍樹菩薩所引用，犢子部認為有我、有法，這被稱為『有見』。方廣部執著于無我、無法，這被稱為『空見』。薩婆多部認為無我而有法，這就是亦有亦無。訶梨跋摩說，世俗諦中，有我、有法，所以不是無；真諦中，無我、無法，所以不是有。這就是用二諦來合起來闡明中道，既非有也非無。問：犢子部所說的『我』，與外道有什麼不同？答：犢子部闡明的是假我，而外道執著的是實我，所以不同。詳細的解釋可以參考《俱舍論》中關於犢子部三假宗的辨析。又如《釋論》所引用，犢子部認為五陰和合所以有人法，四大和合所以有眼法。既然說是『和合』，那就是假的。所以可知這是假我。問：既然是假我，與訶梨跋摩所辨析的有什麼不同呢？答：犢子部認為，另外有一個假的人體，與五陰之體不一也不異，存在於第五不可說藏中。所以《俱舍論》闡述他們的觀點說，就像因為有柴薪所以有火，另外有一個火的本體一樣；雖然因為有五陰所以有人，但另外有一個人的本體。問：不對。現在所說闡明假有體，是因為世俗諦中存在，在真諦中則不存在。而犢子部認為『我』不可令空，所以不是同類。答：這大概是不瞭解犢子部的宗義，所以才這樣說。如《俱舍論》所說，犢子部沒有進入空無我的觀，所以認為有我；進入觀的那一天，就會知道我是空的。所以應當知道完全相同于訶梨跋摩的說法。像這樣各部派所建立的義理和宗派，都落入四句的範疇，沒有超出四句的言論，沒有超出四句的言論，所以沒有不二之道。本來就有不二，所以有對於二的執著。既然沒有不二，也就沒有有二。所以理和教都不能成立，都是戲論，障礙不二法門。 三明是指世間所流行的塵識四句。一是薩婆多部，不瞭解法空，認為有塵有識。二是方廣道人，學習毗佛略，執著于邪無的意義，認為無識無塵。這是鳩摩羅什未到中國之前的情況。

【English Translation】 English version: After the Parinirvana (passing away) of the Buddha, the five hundred teachers and the various sectarian doctrines did not go beyond the meaning of the four propositions (四句, sì jù). As cited by Nāgārjuna (龍樹, Lóngshù), the Vātsīputrīyas (犢子, Dúzi) asserted the existence of self and dharmas, which is called 'existence view' (有見, yǒu jiàn). The Fangguang (方廣) school clung to the non-existence of self and dharmas, which is called 'emptiness view' (空見, kōng jiàn). The Sarvāstivādins (薩婆多, Sàpóduō) claimed that there is no self but there are dharmas, which is both existence and non-existence. Harivarman (訶梨, Hēlí) said that in conventional truth (世諦, shìdì), there are self and dharmas, so it is not non-existence; in ultimate truth (真諦, zhēndì), there are no self and no dharmas, so it is not existence. This is using the two truths to jointly clarify the Middle Way (中道, zhōngdào), which is neither existence nor non-existence. Question: How is the 'self' asserted by the Vātsīputrīyas different from that of the heretics (外道, wàidào)? Answer: The Vātsīputrīyas clarify a provisional self (假我, jiǎ wǒ), while the heretics cling to a real self (實我, shí wǒ), so they are different. A detailed explanation can be found in the analysis of the three provisionalities (三假, sān jiǎ) of the Vātsīputrīyas in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (俱舍論, Jùshèlùn). Also, as cited in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (釋論, Shìlùn), the Vātsīputrīyas believe that the aggregation of the five skandhas (五陰, wǔyīn) results in the existence of person and dharmas, and the aggregation of the four great elements (四大, sìdà) results in the existence of eye and dharmas. Since it is called 'aggregation', it is provisional. So it can be known that this is a provisional self. Question: Since it is a provisional self, what is the difference between it and what Harivarman analyzes? Answer: The Vātsīputrīyas believe that there is another provisional human entity, which is neither identical nor different from the entity of the skandhas, and exists in the fifth inexpressible store (第五不可說藏, dì wǔ bùkě shuō zàng). Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya explains their view by saying that just as there is fire because there is firewood, there is another entity of fire; although there is a person because there are five skandhas, there is another entity of person. Question: That's not right. What is now said to clarify the provisional entity is because it exists in conventional truth and does not exist in ultimate truth. But the Vātsīputrīyas believe that the 'self' cannot be made empty, so it is not the same. Answer: This is probably because you do not understand the doctrines of the Vātsīputrīyas, so you say this. As the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says, the Vātsīputrīyas have not entered the contemplation of emptiness and no-self, so they believe there is a self; on the day they enter the contemplation, they will know that the self is empty. So it should be known that it is completely the same as Harivarman's statement. Like this, the doctrines and schools established by the various sects all fall into the category of the four propositions, and there are no statements that go beyond the four propositions. Because there are no statements that go beyond the four propositions, there is no non-dual path (不二之道, bù èr zhī dào). Originally there is non-duality, so there is attachment to duality. Since there is no non-duality, there is also no duality. Therefore, reason and teaching cannot be established, and they are all playful arguments, obstructing the non-dual Dharma gate (不二法門, bù èr fǎmén). The three clarifications refer to the four propositions of dust and consciousness that are prevalent in the world. First, the Sarvāstivāda school does not understand the emptiness of dharmas and believes that there are dust and consciousness. Second, the Fangguang Daoists (方廣道人, Fāngguǎng Dàorén) learn from the Vipasyana (毗佛略, Pí Fó Lüè) and cling to the meaning of heretical non-existence, believing that there is no consciousness and no dust. This was the situation before Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什, Jiūmóluóshí) arrived in China.

有心無之說。明有塵無識。如肇公不真空論云。無心者。無心於萬物萬物未嘗無。肇公評之云。此得在於神靜。而失在物空也。四計無塵有識。如執唯識無有境界。如此等說。皆墮四門。亦無絕四。故無不二之道。如上斥之。問。有塵有識。是毗曇執有之見。無塵無識。方廣邪無之宗。無識有塵。人師自心。此三可得非之。唯識之旨。蓋是方等之宏宗。菩薩之大論。何以排斥。答。考天親唯識之意者。蓋是借心以忘境。忘境不存心。肅然無寄。理自玄會。非謂塵為橫計心是實有。未學不體其旨。故宜須斥之。故咎在門人。非和修之過。至凈土中。具詳得失也。

四復論四句。上來所列眾師。皆墮單四句內。今次復明四句。一者有有有無。名之為有。二者無有無無。目之為無。三者亦有有有無亦無有無無。為亦有亦無。四非有有有無非無有無無。名非有非無。如釋論就生滅無生滅。復論四句也。次明不二法門絕此四句者。非有有有無。非無有無無。非亦有有有無。非亦無有無無。非非有有有無。非非無有無無。即不二法門。凈名沖默之旨也。問。何故明絕復四句也。答。諸部立宗。尚不得預復四句。況有絕復四句耶。今欲釋凈名默然之旨深。顯異執之宗淺。故須明絕復四句。

五明重複四句。總上來四句。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『有心無』的說法。表明有塵境而無能認識的心識。如同僧肇的《不真空論》所說：『無心的人，對於萬物沒有執著，萬物也未嘗不存在。』僧肇評論說：『這種觀點得在於強調精神的寧靜，而失在於認為萬物是空無的。』四計派認為無塵境而有心識，如同執著于唯識，認為沒有外在境界。像這樣的說法，都落入了四門之中，也沒有超出四門之外。所以沒有不二的道理，如同上面所駁斥的。問：有塵有識，是說一切實有的毗曇宗的觀點；無塵無識，是說一切皆空的方廣道經的邪見；無識有塵，是人師隨自己心意所立的觀點。這三種觀點都可以否定。唯識的宗旨，本是方等經的宏大宗旨，菩薩的大乘理論，為什麼要排斥它呢？答：考察天親（Vasubandhu）的唯識之意，大概是藉由心來忘卻外境，忘卻外境之後，心也不存在，一切寂然無所寄託，真理自然顯現。並非認為塵境是虛妄的計度，而心是真實存在的。沒有深入學習的人不能體會其中的宗旨，所以應該駁斥它。所以過錯在於門人，不是和修（Vasumitra）的過錯。至於其中的得失，在《凈土論》中會詳細說明。

四復論四句。上面所列舉的各位法師，都落入了單四句之內。現在再次說明四句。第一種是有有有無，稱之為『有』。第二種是無有無無，稱之為『無』。第三種是既有有有無，也有無有無無，稱為『亦有亦無』。第四種是非有有有無，也非無有無無，稱為『非有非無』。如同《釋論》就生滅、無生滅，再次論述四句。接下來闡明不二法門超越這四句，即非有有有無，非無有無無，非亦有有有無，非亦無有無無，非非有有有無，非非無有無無，這就是不二法門，是《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）沖默的宗旨。問：為什麼要闡明超越復四句呢？答：各部派建立宗義，尚且不能預設復四句，更何況有超越復四句呢？現在想要解釋《維摩詰經》默然的宗旨之深奧，顯現其他宗派執著的淺薄，所以必須闡明超越復四句。

五明重複四句。總括上面所說的四句。

【English Translation】 English version The saying of 'having mind and not having'. It indicates having dust (objects of perception) but not having consciousness (the ability to recognize). As stated in Sengzhao's 'Treatise on the Unreality of the Unreal' (Bu Zhen Kong Lun): 'Those who have no mind are not attached to the myriad things, and the myriad things have never been non-existent.' Sengzhao comments: 'This view gains in emphasizing the tranquility of the spirit, but loses in considering things as empty.' The Sarvastivadins (four-calculation school) believe in no dust but having consciousness, like clinging to the Vijnanavada (Consciousness-only school), thinking there are no external realms. Such statements all fall into the four categories and do not go beyond them. Therefore, there is no non-dual path, as refuted above. Question: 'Having dust and having consciousness' is the view of the Sarvastivada (Vaibhashika), which holds everything as real; 'no dust and no consciousness' is the heretical view of the Vaipulya Sutras (Fang Guang Dao Jing), which holds everything as empty; 'having consciousness and no dust' is the view established by teachers according to their own minds. These three views can be negated. The essence of Vijnanavada is the grand principle of the Vaipulya Sutras, the great theory of Bodhisattvas. Why reject it? Answer: Examining the meaning of Vasubandhu's Vijnanavada, it is probably to forget the external realm through the mind. After forgetting the external realm, the mind also does not exist. Everything is silent and without reliance, and the truth naturally manifests. It does not mean that dust is a false calculation and the mind is truly existent. Those who have not studied deeply cannot understand its essence, so it should be refuted. Therefore, the fault lies with the disciples, not with Vasumitra. As for the gains and losses, they will be explained in detail in the 'Treatise on the Pure Land'.

The fourfold negation of the four categories. The teachers listed above all fall within the single four categories. Now, I will explain the four categories again. The first is 'having existence and having non-existence', which is called 'having'. The second is 'not having existence and not having non-existence', which is called 'not having'. The third is 'both having existence and having non-existence, and also not having existence and not having non-existence', which is called 'both having and not having'. The fourth is 'neither having existence and having non-existence, nor not having existence and not having non-existence', which is called 'neither having nor not having'. Like the Shastra (Shilun) discussing arising and ceasing, non-arising and non-ceasing, and then discussing the four categories again. Next, it explains that the non-dual Dharma transcends these four categories, that is, neither having existence and having non-existence, nor not having existence and not having non-existence, nor both having existence and having non-existence, and also not having existence and not having non-existence, nor neither having existence and having non-existence, nor not having existence and not having non-existence. This is the non-dual Dharma, the silent essence of the Vimalakirti Sutra (Jingming). Question: Why explain transcending the fourfold negation? Answer: The various schools establishing doctrines cannot even presuppose the fourfold negation, let alone transcend the fourfold negation? Now, I want to explain the profoundness of the silent essence of the Vimalakirti Sutra and reveal the shallowness of the attachments of other schools, so I must explain transcending the fourfold negation.

Five, explaining the repeated four categories. Summarizing the four categories mentioned above.

皆名為有。所以然者。有有。有無。有亦有無。有非有非無。故皆名為有。如龍樹云。無法中有心生。即名為有。次絕此四句。名之為無。亦有四句亦絕四句。為亦有亦無。非有四句非無四句。為非有非無。次明絕此四句。非有四句。非無四句。非亦有四句。亦無四句。非非有四句。非非無四句。故名絕四句也。問。何故明此四句義也。答。異部眾師。立大乘之宗者。但在復四句中有無二句之義耳。尚不得預四句之宗。安有絕四之旨。何以知然。南方真諦之境。北方摩羅之心。皆明絕於有無四句。故墮第二句中。世諦之與八識。皆在四句之中。即為有門所攝。故知皆墮二句之內。無絕四句之言也。又重複四句者。所上單復四句之有。為有句。上單復四句之無。為無句。乃至亦有亦無非有非無。如此絕四。其致淵遠。眾師之宗。都不預斯四句內義。況有絕四之言耶。

六明鑑深四句。初階絕單四句。次階絕復四句。第三絕復重四句。雖複次第漸深。而或者終謂窈[穴/俱]之內有妙理存焉。即名為有。若無此妙理。則名為無。亦有此理亦無此理。名為亦有亦無。非有此理非無此理。為非有非無。若然者。終墮四句之內。何有絕四之宗。是故今明生心動念。則便是魔。若能懷無所寄。方為法印。問。何故明絕此四句

。答。經云。是法不可示。言辭相寂滅。凈名所以杜言。釋迦所以掩室者。在斯一轍之內。方言始得為極。是故明此絕四句也。

七明絕四句。絕四句者。非謂絕於四句名絕四句。乃明雖復洞絕而宛然四句。故名絕四句也。問。何故明此義耶。答。稟教之徒。聞上來絕諸四句。便謂窈[穴/俱]洞絕。同啞法外道。是故今明。至道雖復妙絕。而四句宛然。是以。經云。不動真際而建立諸法。豈聞妙絕而謂妙絕之內不能言哉。又雖復妙絕而四句宛然者。明聖人于無名相中假名相說。而大小乘經論。諸佛菩薩。明有無等一切四句者。皆此一節之內說之。故文殊問經。明諸部義云。十八及本二。皆從大乘出。無是亦無非。我說未來起。如此諸部異義不同。皆是無異相中而明異相。無分別中善巧分別。以不體斯意。異執紛論。成戲論也。

八明四句絕。前明雖絕而宛然四句。今明雖絕四句而都絕。如天女之詰身子。汝乃知解脫無言。而未悟言則解脫。故教滿十方。即是四句常絕。故明四句絕也。問。何故辨此義耶。答。據緣而言。上拔其況情。今息其動念。善吉曰。我無所論。乃至不說一字。般若云。若言如來有所說法。即為謗佛。如此皆是不壞假名而說實相。故明四句絕也。

九明一句絕。如一假有則絕

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：答：經書上說：『這種佛法是無法展示的，言語和辭藻都歸於寂靜滅亡。』維摩詰（Vimalakirti）（一位著名的在家菩薩）之所以沉默不語，釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni）（佛教的創始人）之所以閉口不言，都在於這個道理之中。方言才得以達到極致。因此，要明白這種超越四句的道理。

七、闡明超越四句。所謂超越四句，並非指斷絕四句才叫超越四句，而是說明即使完全超越，四句依然宛然存在，所以稱為超越四句。問：為什麼要闡明這個道理呢？答：那些接受教導的人，聽到前面所說的斷絕一切四句，就認為一切都空空蕩蕩，如同啞巴外道一樣。因此，現在要說明，至高的佛法雖然玄妙，但四句依然存在。所以，經書上說：『在不動的真如實際之上建立一切諸法。』難道聽聞玄妙就認為玄妙之內不能言說嗎？而且，雖然玄妙，但四句依然存在，說明聖人在沒有名相之中假借名相來說法。大小乘的經論，諸佛菩薩，所說的有、無等一切四句，都在這個範圍內闡述。所以，《文殊問經》（Manjusri』s Questions Sutra）闡明各部的教義說：『十八部和根本二部，都從大乘佛教（Mahayana）中產生。』沒有是，也沒有非，我說未來會興起。』如此各部教義不同，都是在沒有差異的相中闡明差異的相，在沒有分別中巧妙地分別。如果不理解這個道理，就會產生各種不同的執著和爭論，成為戲論。

八、闡明四句斷絕。前面闡明了雖然斷絕但四句依然存在，現在闡明雖然斷絕四句但完全斷絕。如同天女詰問舍利弗（Sariputra）（佛陀的著名弟子）一樣：『你只知道解脫是無言的，但沒有領悟到言語就是解脫。』所以，教化充滿十方，就是四句常常斷絕。因此，要闡明四句斷絕。問：為什麼要辨明這個道理呢？答：就因緣而言，前面是爲了拔除其情識的束縛，現在是爲了止息其妄動的念頭。須菩提（Subhuti）（佛陀的著名弟子）說：『我沒有什麼可說的，甚至不說一個字。』《般若經》（Prajna Sutra）說：『如果說如來有所說法，那就是誹謗佛。』這些都是不破壞假名而說實相。因此，要闡明四句斷絕。

九、闡明一句斷絕。如同一假有則斷絕。

【English Translation】 English version: Answer: The sutra says, 'This Dharma cannot be shown; words and speech are extinguished into silence.' That is why Vimalakirti (a famous lay Buddhist) remained silent, and Sakyamuni (the founder of Buddhism) kept his chamber closed, all within the same principle. Only then can dialectical expression reach its ultimate point. Therefore, one must understand this transcendence of the four propositions.

  1. Explaining the Transcendence of the Four Propositions. The so-called transcendence of the four propositions does not mean that severing the four propositions is what is meant by transcendence; rather, it clarifies that even in complete transcendence, the four propositions are still clearly present, hence the name 'transcendence of the four propositions.' Question: Why is this principle explained? Answer: Those who receive teachings, upon hearing the aforementioned severance of all four propositions, mistakenly believe that everything is utterly empty, like the dumb heretics. Therefore, it is now clarified that although the supreme Dharma is profound, the four propositions are still present. Thus, the sutra says, 'Establishing all dharmas upon the immovable true reality.' Does hearing of profundity mean that nothing can be spoken within that profundity? Moreover, the fact that the four propositions are still present even in profundity indicates that the sages use provisional names within the nameless to expound the Dharma. The Mahayana and Hinayana sutras and treatises, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, all speak of the four propositions of existence, non-existence, etc., within this context. Therefore, the Manjusri's Questions Sutra clarifies the doctrines of various schools, saying, 'The eighteen schools and the original two schools all originated from Mahayana Buddhism.' There is neither 'is' nor 'is not'; I say the future will arise.' Such differing doctrines of various schools all clarify differing aspects within the undifferentiated, skillfully differentiating within non-differentiation. Without understanding this principle, various attachments and disputes arise, becoming mere playthings of the mind.

  2. Explaining the Severance of the Four Propositions. The previous section clarified that although severed, the four propositions are still present; this section clarifies that although the four propositions are severed, they are completely severed. It is like the heavenly maiden questioning Sariputra (a prominent disciple of the Buddha): 'You only know that liberation is without words, but you have not realized that words are liberation.' Therefore, teaching fills the ten directions, which means the four propositions are constantly severed. Thus, the severance of the four propositions is explained. Question: Why is this principle clarified? Answer: In terms of conditions, the previous section was to uproot emotional attachments; this section is to cease the arising of deluded thoughts. Subhuti (a prominent disciple of the Buddha) said, 'I have nothing to say, not even a single word.' The Prajna Sutra says, 'If it is said that the Tathagata (another name for the Buddha) has spoken the Dharma, that is slander against the Buddha.' All these speak of the true nature without destroying provisional names. Therefore, the severance of the four propositions is explained.

  3. Explaining the Severance of One Proposition. For example, if one provisional existence is severed.

四句。所以然者。假有不可定有。假有不可定無。假有不可定亦有亦無。假有不可定非有非無。故此假有絕於四句。問。假有何故不可定有。答。既言假有。豈可定有。若是定有。便是定性。何名假有。或者云。假有若不可言有。假有便是無。是故今明。既稱假有。寧是定無。但言假有。云何得亦有亦無。唯稱假有。寧言非有非無。故此假有絕乎四句。問。何故明此義耶。答。或者云。真諦無言可絕四句。不知則假有一句便具四絕。故明一句四絕也。

十明絕一假有。上雖明假有絕四句。未辨絕於假有。是故今明絕於假有。論云。因緣所生法。我說即是空。故知假有無所有。次云。假有若非有。假有便是無。故今明。假有若是有。假有可言無。假有竟非有。故假有亦非無。次云。若爾世諦有假有。真諦無假有。即假有亦有亦無。是故今明。若有有有無。可有亦有亦無。竟無有無無。即何有亦有亦無。次云。若假有不得亦有亦無。便是非有非無。故今明。有無成者。可有非有非無。竟無亦有亦無。云何有非有非無。次云。若爾者。即非四句之內。應有四句之外。故今明。若在四句之內。可在四句之外。既非四句之內。豈在四句外耶。次云。若非四句內外。便應有此假有。故今明雖不在四句內外。而假有宛然。雖假

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 四句都是如此。為什麼呢？因為假有不能確定為有，假有不能確定為無，假有不能確定為亦有亦無，假有不能確定為非有非無。因此，這個假有超越了四句的範疇。問：為什麼假有不能確定為有呢？答：既然說是假有，怎麼能確定為有呢？如果是確定為有，那就是定性了，還叫什麼假有呢？有人說，假有如果不能說是『有』，那假有就是『無』了。所以現在要說明，既然稱為假有，怎麼能確定為『無』呢？只是說是假有，怎麼能說是『亦有亦無』呢？僅僅稱為假有，怎麼能說是『非有非無』呢？所以這個假有超越了四句的範疇。問：為什麼要說明這個道理呢？答：有人說，真諦（Paramārtha-satya）沒有言語可以超越四句。他們不知道，假有這一句就具備了四種超越。所以要說明一句就超越了四句。 十、說明超越一個假有。上面雖然說明了假有超越四句，但沒有辨明超越假有本身。所以現在要說明超越假有。論中說：『因緣所生的法（dharma），我說就是空（śūnyatā）。』由此可知假有是無所有的。接著說：『假有如果不是有，那假有就是無。』所以現在要說明，假有如果是『有』，假有就可以說是『無』。假有最終不是『有』，所以假有也不是『無』。接著說：『如果這樣，世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）中有假有，真諦中沒有假有。』這就是假有亦有亦無。所以現在要說明，如果有『有有無』，就可以有『亦有亦無』。最終沒有『無無無』，那怎麼會有『亦有亦無』呢？接著說：『如果假有不能說是亦有亦無，那就是非有非無。』所以現在要說明，有『有無』成立，就可以有『非有非無』。最終沒有『亦有亦無』，怎麼會有『非有非無』呢？接著說：『如果這樣，就不在四句之內，應該有四句之外。』所以現在要說明，如果在四句之內，就可以在四句之外。既然不在四句之內，怎麼會在四句之外呢？接著說：『如果不在四句內外，就應該有這個假有。』所以現在要說明，雖然不在四句內外，但假有依然存在，雖然是假有。

【English Translation】 English version: The four statements are all like this. Why is that? Because a provisional existence (假有, jiǎ yǒu) cannot be definitively said to exist, a provisional existence cannot be definitively said not to exist, a provisional existence cannot be definitively said to both exist and not exist, and a provisional existence cannot be definitively said to be neither exist nor not exist. Therefore, this provisional existence transcends the scope of the four statements. Question: Why can't a provisional existence be definitively said to exist? Answer: Since it is called a provisional existence, how can it be definitively said to exist? If it were definitively said to exist, then it would be a fixed nature (定性, dìngxìng), what would be called a provisional existence? Someone might say that if a provisional existence cannot be said to 'exist', then a provisional existence is 'non-existent'. Therefore, it is now clarified that since it is called a provisional existence, how can it be definitively said to be 'non-existent'? Just saying it is a provisional existence, how can it be said to 'both exist and not exist'? Merely calling it a provisional existence, how can it be said to be 'neither exist nor not exist'? Therefore, this provisional existence transcends the scope of the four statements. Question: Why is it necessary to explain this principle? Answer: Someone might say that ultimate truth (真諦, Paramārtha-satya) has no language that can transcend the four statements. They do not know that the statement of provisional existence already possesses the four transcendences. Therefore, it is necessary to explain that one statement transcends the four statements. Ten, Explaining the Transcendence of a Single Provisional Existence. Although it was explained above that a provisional existence transcends the four statements, it was not clarified that it transcends the provisional existence itself. Therefore, it is now necessary to explain the transcendence of a provisional existence. The treatise says: 'The dharma (法, dharma) that arises from conditions (因緣, hetu-pratyaya), I say is emptiness (空, śūnyatā).' From this, it can be known that a provisional existence is without any substance. Then it says: 'If a provisional existence is not existent, then a provisional existence is non-existent.' Therefore, it is now necessary to explain that if a provisional existence 'exists', a provisional existence can be said to be 'non-existent'. A provisional existence is ultimately not 'existent', so a provisional existence is also not 'non-existent'. Then it says: 'If this is the case, there is a provisional existence in conventional truth (世俗諦, saṃvṛti-satya), and there is no provisional existence in ultimate truth.' This is a provisional existence that both exists and does not exist. Therefore, it is now necessary to explain that if there is 'existence of existence and non-existence', there can be 'both existence and non-existence'. Ultimately, there is no 'non-existence of non-existence', so how can there be 'both existence and non-existence'? Then it says: 'If a provisional existence cannot be said to both exist and not exist, then it is neither exist nor not exist.' Therefore, it is now necessary to explain that if there is the establishment of 'existence and non-existence', there can be 'neither existence nor non-existence'. Ultimately, there is no 'both existence and non-existence', so how can there be 'neither existence nor non-existence'? Then it says: 'If this is the case, then it is not within the four statements, and there should be outside the four statements.' Therefore, it is now necessary to explain that if it is within the four statements, it can be outside the four statements. Since it is not within the four statements, how can it be outside the four statements? Then it says: 'If it is neither within nor outside the four statements, then there should be this provisional existence.' Therefore, it is now necessary to explain that although it is neither within nor outside the four statements, the provisional existence still exists, although it is provisional.

有宛然。而不在四句內外。問。此句與上一句四絕何異。答。前明假有絕性有四句。今辨絕假四句。前就世諦門絕。今就真諦門絕。是故異也。此之十門。乃是眾經之秘奧。群聖之良術。入道之內路。洗累之要門。坐禪之規模。敷講之弘范也。

六迷悟門

問。若道超四句。至聖以之沖默。則非俗非真。無二不二。今以何因而辨不二。答。無名相中。假名相說。不知何以字之。故強名不二。問。既非二不二。何不強名為二。而名不二。答。失道之流。多滯二見。為泯斯二。故強名不二。不強名二。問。息何二見。強名不二。答。欲明一切眾生本來是佛。顯斯不二。泯於二見。故明不二。所以經云。心佛及眾生。是三無差別。觀身實相。觀佛亦然。涅槃論云。眾生即是佛。故名為蜜。正觀論云。生死涅槃本無二際。蓋是方等之良津。還源之要術。大士興於世者。在斯一門。

難曰。眾生是法身。何由有六道。答。斯處幽微。難以言辨。必須觀悟。乃契玄宗。今彷彿言之。子宜空心領會。于道未始二。于緣未始一。于道未始二。故眾生即是佛。于緣未始一。故六道異法身。六道異法身。故六道覆法身。名為如來藏。如來藏者。謂如來胎。以失於不二。故起二見由斯二見。纏裹不二。不二道不得現前。故

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有宛然（清晰可見的樣子），但又不落入四句（佛教用語，指『有』、『無』、『亦有亦無』、『非有非無』四種斷定）的內外。問：此句與上一句的『四絕』（超越四句）有何不同？答：前面是說明假有的自性超越四句，現在是辨析超越假有的四句。前面是從世俗諦（相對真理）的角度來超越，現在是從真諦（絕對真理）的角度來超越。所以不同。這十門（十種修行法門）是眾多佛經的秘密精髓，是諸位聖人的良好方法，是進入佛道的內在路徑，是洗滌罪業的重要途徑，是坐禪的規範，是敷講佛法的弘大範式。 六、迷悟門 問：如果說道理超越四句，至高的聖人因此保持沉默，那麼就既非世俗也非真理，無所謂二也無所謂不二。現在憑藉什麼原因來辨析不二呢？答：在沒有名稱和相狀之中，假借名稱和相狀來說明，不知道用什麼字來稱呼它，所以勉強稱之為『不二』。問：既然既非二也非不二，為什麼不勉強稱之為『二』，而要稱之為『不二』呢？答：迷失正道的人，大多執著於二元對立的見解，爲了消除這種對立，所以勉強稱之為『不二』，而不是勉強稱之為『二』。問：消除哪兩種對立的見解，要勉強稱之為『不二』呢？答：想要說明一切眾生本來就是佛，彰顯這種『不二』，消除二元對立的見解，所以說明『不二』。所以佛經上說：『心、佛及眾生，是三無差別。』觀察自身的真實相狀，觀察佛也是這樣。《涅槃經》上說：『眾生即是佛，』所以稱之為蜜（比喻佛法的甘美）。《正觀論》上說：『生死涅槃本來沒有兩個界限。』這實在是方等經典（一類大乘經典）的良好渡口，是迴歸本源的重要方法。大菩薩出現在世間，就在於這一法門。 提問：眾生是法身（佛的真身），怎麼會有六道（天道、人道、阿修羅道、地獄道、餓鬼道、畜生道）呢？答：這個地方幽深微妙，難以用言語來辨析，必須通過觀照領悟，才能契合玄妙的宗旨。現在我大概地說一下，你應當虛心領會。在道的層面，從來沒有二；在緣的層面，從來沒有一。在道的層面，從來沒有二，所以眾生就是佛；在緣的層面，從來沒有一，所以六道不同於法身。六道不同於法身，所以六道覆蓋了法身，稱之為如來藏（Tathagatagarbha）。如來藏，就是如來胎，因為失去了不二，所以生起二元對立的見解，由於這種二元對立的見解，纏繞包裹著不二，不二之道不能夠顯現出來，所以……

【English Translation】 English version: There is a clear appearance, yet it is neither within nor without the four sentences (a Buddhist term referring to the four assertions: 'is', 'is not', 'both is and is not', 'neither is nor is not'). Question: How does this sentence differ from the 'four negations' (transcending the four sentences) of the previous sentence? Answer: The former clarifies that the nature of provisional existence transcends the four sentences, while the latter distinguishes the four sentences that transcend provisional existence. The former transcends from the perspective of mundane truth (relative truth), while the latter transcends from the perspective of ultimate truth (absolute truth). Therefore, they are different. These ten gates (ten methods of practice) are the secret essence of numerous sutras, the excellent methods of all sages, the inner path to entering the Buddha's way, the important means of washing away karmic accumulations, the standard for meditation, and the grand model for expounding the Dharma. Six. The Gate of Delusion and Enlightenment Question: If the principle transcends the four sentences, and the supreme sage remains silent because of it, then it is neither mundane nor truth, neither two nor non-two. By what cause do we now distinguish non-duality? Answer: Within the absence of names and forms, we provisionally use names and forms to explain it. We do not know what word to call it, so we reluctantly call it 'non-duality'. Question: Since it is neither two nor non-two, why not reluctantly call it 'two' instead of calling it 'non-duality'? Answer: Those who have lost the path mostly cling to dualistic views. To eliminate this duality, we reluctantly call it 'non-duality', rather than reluctantly calling it 'two'. Question: What two views are eliminated by reluctantly calling it 'non-duality'? Answer: We want to explain that all sentient beings are originally Buddhas, to manifest this 'non-duality', and to eliminate dualistic views, so we explain 'non-duality'. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings are three without difference.' Observing the true aspect of oneself is the same as observing the Buddha. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Sentient beings are Buddhas,' so it is called honey (a metaphor for the sweetness of the Dharma). The Madhyamaka-karika says: 'Birth-and-death and Nirvana originally have no two boundaries.' This is truly the excellent ferry of the Vaipulya sutras (a class of Mahayana sutras), and the important method of returning to the source. The appearance of great Bodhisattvas in the world lies in this one gate. Objection: Sentient beings are the Dharmakaya (Buddha's true body), how can there be six realms (deva realm, human realm, asura realm, hell realm, hungry ghost realm, animal realm)? Answer: This place is profound and subtle, difficult to explain with words. It must be realized through contemplation to accord with the profound principle. Now I will speak of it roughly, and you should empty your mind to comprehend it. In the aspect of the Tao, it has never been two; in the aspect of conditions, it has never been one. In the aspect of the Tao, it has never been two, therefore sentient beings are Buddhas; in the aspect of conditions, it has never been one, therefore the six realms are different from the Dharmakaya. Because the six realms are different from the Dharmakaya, the six realms cover the Dharmakaya, which is called the Tathagatagarbha (Tathagatagarbha). The Tathagatagarbha is the womb of the Tathagata, because it has lost non-duality, it gives rise to dualistic views. Because of these dualistic views, non-duality is entangled and wrapped, and the path of non-duality cannot manifest, therefore...

此二見為不二之胎。又不二之道。隱於二見。名如來藏。涅槃又稱為無明㲉。胎與藏義殊體一。難曰。斯乃由來舊轍。何謂則曰靈宗。答。隱顯之說。親經聖口。斯言不可異。其意不可同。問。既同唱斯言。意云何異。答。非別有一物以覆法身。亦非別有法身隱手胎內。若別有法身在於胎內。其猶辟內有柱。我在色中。蓋是身見之流。何名中道佛性。問。若非別有一物以覆法身。又非如來隱於胎內。能覆所覆。義云何成。答。道本無二。眾生虛妄。失於不二。橫謂二。不悟橫二本無二。故二覆于無二。二覆于無二。故無二隱橫二。無二隱橫二。故名如來藏。若悟橫二本無二。無二顯現。名法身。隱顯大宗。其意若此。問。經云佛性遍覆。猶如虛空。眾生可覆佛性。性云何覆眾生。答。就佛性通之。小成難見今約法界。以釋此文。經云。廣大如法界。究竟如虛空。以法界廣大。六道常在法界。于倒謂眾生常出法界。以常在法界故。法界覆眾生。于眾生常出法界。故眾生覆法界。佛性遍覆。義同於此。法界是佛性之異名。法身之別目。是故經曰。無盡平等妙法界。皆悉充滿如來身。法界既滿如來身如來身。亦滿於法界。故如來身即法界。法界即如來身矣。

問。既得互覆應得互藏。如來為所藏故。名如來藏者。亦如

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這兩種見解是不二之胎（不二的根源）。又是不二之道，隱藏在兩種見解之中，名為如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來所蘊藏的清凈佛性）。涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）又稱為無明㲉（對實相的迷惑）。胎與藏，意義不同而本體相同。有人問：『這乃是由來已久的舊說，什麼是靈宗（最根本的宗旨）？』回答：『隱顯之說，親自經過聖人的口述，這些話不可改變，但其中的意思卻不可相同。』問：『既然同樣唱出這些話，其中的意思有什麼不同？』答：『並非另外有一物來覆蓋法身（Dharmakaya，佛的真身），也並非另外有法身隱藏在胎內。如果另外有法身存在於胎內，那就好比房間內有柱子，我存在於色（Rupa，物質）之中，這都是身見（對自我的執著）的流弊，怎麼能稱為中道佛性（不偏不倚的佛性）呢？』問：『如果並非另外有一物來覆蓋法身，又不是如來（Tathagata，佛）隱藏在胎內，能覆蓋和所覆蓋的意義又如何成立呢？』答：『道（真理）本來沒有二，眾生虛妄，迷失於不二，橫生出二。不領悟橫生的二本來沒有二，所以二覆蓋了無二。二覆蓋了無二，所以無二隱藏在橫生的二之中。無二隱藏在橫生的二之中，所以名為如來藏。如果領悟橫生的二本來沒有二，無二顯現出來，就名為法身。隱顯的根本宗旨，其意義就在於此。』問：『經中說佛性（Buddha-nature，成佛的可能性）普遍覆蓋一切，猶如虛空。眾生可以覆蓋佛性，佛性又如何覆蓋眾生呢？』答：『就佛性普遍而言，細微之處難以見到，現在用「法界」（Dharmadhatu，一切法的總稱）來解釋這段經文。經中說：廣大如法界，究竟如虛空。因為法界廣大，六道（六種輪迴的境界）眾生常在法界之中，于顛倒的見解認為眾生常出離法界。因為常在法界之中，所以法界覆蓋眾生。于眾生認為常出離法界，所以眾生覆蓋法界。佛性普遍覆蓋，意義與此相同。法界是佛性的異名，法身的別稱。所以經中說：無盡平等妙法界，皆悉充滿如來身。法界既然充滿如來身，如來身也充滿於法界，所以如來身即是法界，法界即是如來身了。

問：既然可以互相覆蓋，應該也可以互相藏匿。如來因為是被藏匿的，所以名為如來藏，也像...

【English Translation】 English version These two views are the womb of non-duality (the source of non-duality). They are also the path of non-duality, hidden within the two views, and are called the Tathagatagarbha (the pure Buddha-nature that the Tathagata contains). Nirvana (liberation) is also called ignorance㲉 (delusion about reality). 'Womb' and 'store' have different meanings but the same essence. Someone asks: 'This is an old saying from the past, what is the spiritual essence (the most fundamental principle)?' The answer is: 'The saying of concealment and manifestation has been personally spoken by the sages, these words cannot be changed, but their meanings cannot be the same.' Someone asks: 'Since the same words are spoken, what is the difference in meaning?' The answer is: 'It is not that there is another thing to cover the Dharmakaya (the body of truth, the true body of the Buddha), nor is it that there is another Dharmakaya hidden in the womb. If there is another Dharmakaya in the womb, it would be like a pillar in a room, or me being in form (Rupa, matter). These are all the evils of self-view (attachment to self), how can it be called the Middle Way Buddha-nature (impartial Buddha-nature)?' Someone asks: 'If it is not that there is another thing to cover the Dharmakaya, nor is it that the Tathagata (Buddha) is hidden in the womb, how can the meaning of covering and being covered be established?' The answer is: 'The Tao (truth) is originally not two, sentient beings are deluded, lost in non-duality, and give rise to duality. Not realizing that the horizontal duality is originally not two, so duality covers non-duality. Duality covers non-duality, so non-duality is hidden in horizontal duality. Non-duality is hidden in horizontal duality, so it is called the Tathagatagarbha. If one realizes that horizontal duality is originally not two, non-duality manifests, and it is called the Dharmakaya. The fundamental principle of concealment and manifestation, its meaning lies in this.' Someone asks: 'The sutra says that Buddha-nature (the possibility of becoming a Buddha) universally covers everything, like space. Sentient beings can cover Buddha-nature, how can Buddha-nature cover sentient beings?' The answer is: 'In terms of the universality of Buddha-nature, subtle aspects are difficult to see, now use the 'Dharmadhatu' (the totality of all dharmas) to explain this passage. The sutra says: Vast as the Dharmadhatu, ultimately like space. Because the Dharmadhatu is vast, the six realms (six realms of reincarnation) are always in the Dharmadhatu, and in inverted views, it is thought that sentient beings always leave the Dharmadhatu. Because they are always in the Dharmadhatu, the Dharmadhatu covers sentient beings. Sentient beings think they always leave the Dharmadhatu, so sentient beings cover the Dharmadhatu. The meaning of Buddha-nature universally covering is the same as this. The Dharmadhatu is another name for Buddha-nature, another name for the Dharmakaya. Therefore, the sutra says: The endless, equal, wonderful Dharmadhatu is all filled with the body of the Tathagata. Since the Dharmadhatu is filled with the body of the Tathagata, the body of the Tathagata is also filled with the Dharmadhatu, so the body of the Tathagata is the Dharmadhatu, and the Dharmadhatu is the body of the Tathagata.

Question: Since they can cover each other, they should also be able to hide each other. The Tathagata is called the Tathagatagarbha because he is hidden, just like...

來是能藏。眾生為所藏。應名眾生藏。答。亦有斯義。以眾生無二橫謂二。故二覆于無二。無二隱橫二。故眾生是能藏。如來為所藏。名為如來藏。雖復橫謂二。不出于無二。二常在無二。無二恒覆二。故如來為能藏。眾生為所藏。故名眾生藏。問。二覆于不二。不二既不現。不二覆於二。二亦應不現。答。二覆于不二。隱覆故名覆。故不二不現。不二覆於二。廣大故名覆。于緣二常現。問。于緣二常現。二可覆不二。于道未嘗二。應不覆於二。答二常在不二。故不二恒抱二。如虛空含萬像。法性外無法。

問。于迷恒見二。于悟恒不二。于迷恒見二。六道異法身。于悟恒不二。即眾生恒是佛。答。子妙語誠如所言。難曰。于迷恒見二。不見悟不二。于悟恒見不二。應不見迷二。答。既了悟不二。即不見迷二。是以經云。我有五眼。不見菩提。凡夫無目。豈有所睹。問。迷不見不二。凡不睹于聖。悟不見迷二。即無聖應不接凡。將非凡聖絕交感應便隔。答。蓋是未領不見之宗。故興絕交之難耳。上云了悟不二。則無復迷二。故不見二。若猶見二。即猶有迷二。何名為悟。雖了悟不二。見於迷恒是二。故凡聖道交感應不絕。難曰。若不見迷二。可得異於迷。若見於迷恒是二。即應與迷同是惑。答。雖復見於迷。不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：『如來是能藏，眾生為所藏，應名為眾生藏。』答：『也有這個意義。因為眾生執著於二元對立（橫謂二），所以二元對立覆蓋了非二元對立（無二）。非二元對立隱藏了二元對立，所以眾生是能藏，如來為所藏，名為如來藏。雖然執著於二元對立，但不超出非二元對立。二元對立常在非二元對立之中，非二元對立恒常覆蓋二元對立，所以如來是能藏，眾生為所藏，故名眾生藏。』 問：『二元對立覆蓋了非二元對立，非二元對立既然不顯現，非二元對立覆蓋二元對立，二元對立也應該不顯現。』答：『二元對立覆蓋非二元對立，因為是隱蔽覆蓋，所以稱為覆蓋，因此非二元對立不顯現。非二元對立覆蓋二元對立，因為廣大，所以稱為覆蓋，在因緣中二元對立常顯現。』 問：『在因緣中二元對立常顯現，二元對立可以覆蓋非二元對立。在道中未曾有二元對立，應該不覆蓋二元對立。』答：『二元對立常在非二元對立之中，所以非二元對立恒常包含二元對立，如同虛空包含萬象，法性之外沒有法。』 問：『在迷惑中恒常看見二元對立，在覺悟中恒常不二元對立。在迷惑中恒常看見二元對立，六道不同於法身。在覺悟中恒常不二元對立，那麼眾生恒常是佛。』答：『你說的妙語確實如此。』 難：『在迷惑中恒常看見二元對立，看不見覺悟的不二元對立。在覺悟中恒常看見不二元對立，應該看不見迷惑的二元對立。』答：『既然了悟不二元對立，就看不見迷惑的二元對立。因此經中說：我有五眼，看不見菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）。凡夫沒有眼睛，怎麼能看見什麼呢？』 問：『迷惑看不見不二元對立，凡夫看不見聖人。覺悟看不見迷惑的二元對立，那麼就沒有聖人，應該不接引凡夫，難道凡聖之間的交往感應就隔絕了嗎？』答：『這是沒有領會不見的宗旨，所以才產生絕交的疑問。上面說，了悟不二元對立，就沒有迷惑的二元對立，所以看不見二元對立。如果還看見二元對立，就是還有迷惑的二元對立，怎麼能稱為覺悟呢？雖然了悟不二元對立，看見迷惑恒常是二元對立，所以凡聖之道交往感應不絕。』 難：『如果看不見迷惑的二元對立，就可以不同於迷惑。如果看見迷惑恒常是二元對立，就應該與迷惑相同，都是迷惑。』答：『雖然看見迷惑，不』

【English Translation】 English version: Question: 'The Tathagata (如來) [Thus Come One] is the one who can store, sentient beings are what is stored, so it should be called the Sentient Being Store.' Answer: 'That also has this meaning. Because sentient beings cling to duality (橫謂二), therefore duality covers non-duality (無二). Non-duality conceals duality, so sentient beings are the ones who can store, and the Tathagata (如來) is what is stored, called the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏) [Tathagata Store]. Although clinging to duality, it does not go beyond non-duality. Duality is always within non-duality, and non-duality constantly covers duality, so the Tathagata (如來) is the one who can store, and sentient beings are what is stored, hence the name Sentient Being Store.' Question: 'Duality covers non-duality, and since non-duality does not appear, and non-duality covers duality, duality should also not appear.' Answer: 'Duality covers non-duality, because it is concealed and covered, it is called covering, therefore non-duality does not appear. Non-duality covers duality, because it is vast, it is called covering, and in conditions, duality always appears.' Question: 'In conditions, duality always appears, and duality can cover non-duality. In the Path, there has never been duality, so it should not cover duality.' Answer: 'Duality is always within non-duality, so non-duality constantly contains duality, like the void containing all images, and outside of Dharmata (法性) [the nature of reality] there is no dharma.' Question: 'In delusion, one constantly sees duality, and in enlightenment, one is constantly non-dual. In delusion, one constantly sees duality, and the six realms are different from the Dharmakaya (法身) [Dharma Body]. In enlightenment, one is constantly non-dual, then sentient beings are constantly Buddhas.' Answer: 'Your wonderful words are indeed so.' Objection: 'In delusion, one constantly sees duality, and does not see the non-duality of enlightenment. In enlightenment, one constantly sees non-duality, and should not see the duality of delusion.' Answer: 'Since one has realized non-duality, one does not see the duality of delusion. Therefore, the sutra says: I have five eyes, but I do not see Bodhi (菩提) [enlightenment]. Ordinary people have no eyes, how can they see anything?' Question: 'Delusion does not see non-duality, and ordinary people do not see the sages. Enlightenment does not see the duality of delusion, then there are no sages, and they should not receive ordinary people, could it be that the interaction and response between ordinary people and sages is cut off?' Answer: 'This is because one has not understood the principle of not seeing, so the question of cutting off arises. Above it was said that realizing non-duality means there is no more duality of delusion, so one does not see duality. If one still sees duality, then there is still duality of delusion, how can it be called enlightenment? Although one realizes non-duality, one sees that delusion is always duality, so the interaction and response between the path of ordinary people and sages is not cut off.' Objection: 'If one does not see the duality of delusion, one can be different from delusion. If one sees that delusion is always duality, then one should be the same as delusion, both being delusion.' Answer: 'Although one sees delusion, one does not'

如迷所見。是故不同迷。故法華云。不如三界見於三界。華嚴云。隨順眾生故。普入諸世間。智慧常寂然。不同世所見。問。悟人見不二。復見於迷恒是二。此之二照。是何智耶。答。即波若與方便。般若。恒照不二。見六道常是法身。方便。即照于迷恒二。故眾生異佛。問。于迷恒見二。不見恒不二。可無有般若。既見恒是二。應有于方便。答。迷人不見迷。亦不見不迷。故無有二慧。見迷見不迷。皆是悟人見。是故有權實。問悟人入不二。可得見不二。不入於二門。云何得見二。答。由悟二不二。名為悟不二。既悟二不二。名為悟不二。既悟二不二。則了不二二。是以悟人具有二慧。迷緣既不悟二不二。亦不了不二二。故無二慧。即稱為無明。如大品云。諸法無所有。如是有。如是有無所有。是事不知。名為無明。即其事也問經云。若無明轉。即變為明。寧言眾生即是佛耶。如其是佛。復何所轉。二文相害。請為會通。答。無二橫謂二。故稱為無明。若悟橫二本無二。所以名為轉。橫二本無二。雖轉無所轉。故名為即是。義實冥符。不相害也。問。佛名為覺。若眾生即是佛。應眾生即是覺。答。覺名為悟。了悟橫二本無二。是故名為覺。橫二本無二故。眾生即是覺。又緣觀俱寂。乃為妙覺。眾生緣觀本來寂滅。故

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如同迷惑之人所見。因此與不迷惑之人所見不同。所以《法華經》說：『不如三界（欲界、色界、無色界）所見的三界。』《華嚴經》說：『隨順眾生，普遍進入各個世間。智慧常常寂靜，與世人所見不同。』 問：覺悟之人見不二之理，又見到迷惑之人恒常處於二元對立之中。這兩種照見，是什麼智慧呢？ 答：即是般若（智慧）與方便（善巧）。般若，恒常照見不二之理，見六道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅、人、天）眾生常是法身（佛的真身）。方便，即照見迷惑之人恒常處於二元對立之中，所以眾生與佛不同。 問：對於迷惑之人恒常處於二元對立之中，能夠見到，卻不能見到恒常不二之理，難道是沒有般若嗎？既然見到恒常處於二元對立之中，應該有方便才對。 答：迷惑之人既不能見到迷惑，也不能見到不迷惑，所以沒有兩種智慧。見到迷惑和見到不迷惑，都是覺悟之人所見，因此有權（方便）與實（真實）。 問：覺悟之人進入不二之門，可以見到不二之理。不進入二元對立之門，如何能夠見到二元對立呢？ 答：由於覺悟了二元對立與不二之理，才名為覺悟不二。既然覺悟了二元對立與不二之理，就瞭解了不二即是二元對立。因此覺悟之人具有兩種智慧。迷惑之人因為不覺悟二元對立與不二之理，也不瞭解不二即是二元對立，所以沒有兩種智慧，這就稱為無明（對事物真相的迷惑）。如《大品般若經》所說：『諸法無所有，如是有，如是有無所有，此事不知，名為無明。』就是這個意思。 問：經中說：『如果無明轉變，就變為光明。』難道說眾生就是佛嗎？如果眾生就是佛，又有什麼可以轉變的呢？這兩種說法互相矛盾，請解釋一下。 答：將本來沒有二元對立的，橫生出二元對立的念頭，所以稱為無明。如果覺悟到橫生的二元對立本來沒有二元對立，所以名為轉變。橫生的二元對立本來沒有二元對立，雖然轉變，卻無所轉變，所以名為即是。義理上實在暗合，並不矛盾。 問：佛名為覺（覺悟）。如果眾生就是佛，那麼眾生應該就是覺悟。 答：覺，名為悟（領悟），領悟到橫生的二元對立本來沒有二元對立，所以名為覺。橫生的二元對立本來沒有二元對立，所以眾生就是覺。又，緣（因緣）與觀（觀照）都寂滅，才是妙覺（究竟的覺悟）。眾生的因緣與觀照本來就是寂滅的，所以...

【English Translation】 English version Like what is seen by the deluded. Therefore, it is different from the non-deluded. Hence, the Lotus Sutra says: 'It is not like how the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) see the Three Realms.' The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'In accordance with sentient beings, universally entering all worlds. Wisdom is always tranquil, different from what the world sees.' Question: The enlightened person sees non-duality, and also sees that the deluded are constantly in duality. What wisdom are these two illuminations? Answer: They are Prajna (wisdom) and Upaya (skillful means). Prajna constantly illuminates non-duality, seeing the six realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, gods) as always being the Dharmakaya (the true body of the Buddha). Upaya illuminates the deluded as constantly being in duality, therefore sentient beings are different from the Buddha. Question: Being able to see that the deluded are constantly in duality, but not being able to see constant non-duality, is it that there is no Prajna? Since one sees that they are constantly in duality, there should be Upaya. Answer: The deluded person neither sees delusion nor sees non-delusion, therefore there are no two wisdoms. Seeing delusion and seeing non-delusion are both seen by the enlightened person, therefore there are expedient (means) and real (truth). Question: The enlightened person enters the gate of non-duality, and can see non-duality. Not entering the gate of duality, how can one see duality? Answer: Because one is enlightened to duality and non-duality, it is called enlightenment to non-duality. Since one is enlightened to duality and non-duality, one understands that non-duality is duality. Therefore, the enlightened person possesses two wisdoms. The deluded, because they are not enlightened to duality and non-duality, also do not understand that non-duality is duality, therefore they have no two wisdoms, which is called Avidya (ignorance). As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'All dharmas are without inherent existence, like existence, like non-existence, not knowing this matter is called Avidya.' This is the meaning. Question: The sutra says: 'If Avidya is transformed, it becomes light.' Does this mean that sentient beings are Buddhas? If sentient beings are Buddhas, what is there to transform? These two statements contradict each other, please reconcile them. Answer: Falsely considering what is originally non-dual as dual, is called Avidya. If one realizes that the falsely arisen duality is originally non-dual, it is called transformation. The falsely arisen duality is originally non-dual, so although there is transformation, there is nothing to transform, therefore it is called 'is'. The meanings are actually in harmony and do not contradict each other. Question: Buddha is called Bodhi (awakening). If sentient beings are Buddhas, then sentient beings should be awakening. Answer: Bodhi is called Wu (realization), realizing that the falsely arisen duality is originally non-dual, therefore it is called Bodhi. The falsely arisen duality is originally non-dual, therefore sentient beings are Bodhi. Furthermore, when Hetu (cause) and Phala (effect) are both in quiescence, it is Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (perfect enlightenment). The Hetu and Phala of sentient beings are originally in quiescence, therefore...

即是覺。是以經云。一切眾生即菩提相。本來寂滅。不復更滅。法華云。諸法從本來。常自寂滅相。故知眾生本來寂滅即是佛也。又如即是佛也。一切眾生本來是如。亦本來是佛。故此經云。夫如者不二不異。不異者。三世豎論。故大品云。如名為實不虛如教。中后亦爾。以三世雖殊。如體無改變。故云不異。不二者。此則橫論。雖有凡聖。同皆一如。名為不二。故云彌勒亦如也眾生亦如也。以無二故。眾生是佛。問。既凡聖同一如。一人得見如。一切亦應見。答。雖復同一如。有悟有未悟。是故有見有不見。問。迷悟異於如。可有見有未見。迷悟既同如。亦應得同見。答。如常不異迷。迷常與如異。故迷不見如。問。雖引眾經明眾生是佛。但即是之言。猶未可領。為眾生與佛俱空故。眾生是佛。為有佛有眾生。以眾生即佛故。名為即是。若無佛無眾生。寧言眾生即是佛。若有眾生有佛。復何猶即是。答。察子之情。有無二門。俱非即是。所以然者。有佛有眾生。斯則有見。何猶是佛。無眾生無佛。復為無執。豈是佛耶。若能息此二見。故眾生即是佛。是以經云。寂滅是菩提相。滅諸相故。難曰。若非有非無。亦非佛非不佛。非眾生非不眾生。何得云眾生是佛。答。良由悟非佛非不佛。所以名為佛。若見佛見非佛。乃

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這就是覺悟。因此經書上說：『一切眾生都具有菩提的本性，本來就是寂靜涅槃的，不需要再次滅度。』《法華經》說：『諸法的本性，從一開始就呈現寂靜涅槃的狀態。』所以說眾生本來寂靜涅槃，就是佛。又如就是佛，一切眾生本來就是如，也本來就是佛。所以這部經說：『所謂如，就是不二不異。』不異，是從時間上來說，所以《大品般若經》說：『如名為實不虛如教，過去、現在、未來也是如此。』因為三世雖然不同，如的本體卻沒有改變，所以說不異。不二，是從空間上來說，雖然有凡夫和聖人，但都同樣具有如的本性，名為不二。所以說彌勒也是如，眾生也是如，因為沒有二的分別，所以眾生就是佛。問：既然凡夫和聖人都是一樣的如，那麼一個人得見如，所有人都應該得見。答：雖然都是一樣的如，但有覺悟的和沒有覺悟的，所以有見到的和沒有見到的。問：迷和悟如果不同於如，那麼可以說有見到和沒有見到，如果迷和悟都等同於如，也應該同樣見到如。答：如從來沒有不同於迷，迷卻常常與如不同，所以迷惑的人見不到如。問：雖然引用了很多經書來說明眾生就是佛，但『即是』這兩個字，還是不能理解。是因為眾生和佛都是空，所以眾生是佛嗎？還是因為有佛有眾生，因為眾生就是佛，所以才說是『即是』？如果沒有佛沒有眾生，怎麼能說眾生就是佛？如果有眾生有佛，又為什麼要說是『即是』？答：觀察你的想法，落入了有和無的兩種極端，都不是『即是』的真義。為什麼這樣說呢？有佛有眾生，這就落入了有見，又怎麼能說是佛呢？沒有眾生沒有佛，又落入了無執，怎麼能說是佛呢？如果能夠止息這兩種見解，那麼眾生就是佛。所以經書上說：『寂滅就是菩提的本性，因為滅除了一切相。』難：如果既非有也非無，既非佛也非非佛，既非眾生也非非眾生，怎麼能說眾生是佛？答：正因為領悟了非佛非非佛，所以才稱為佛。如果執著于佛和非佛的觀念，那麼就...

【English Translation】 English version: This is enlightenment. Therefore, the scriptures say, 'All sentient beings possess the nature of Bodhi (enlightenment), originally being in a state of stillness and Nirvana (liberation), not needing further extinction.' The Lotus Sutra says, 'The nature of all dharmas (phenomena), from the very beginning, manifests as stillness and Nirvana.' Therefore, it is known that the original stillness of sentient beings is Buddhahood. Furthermore, 'suchness' (如, tathata) is Buddhahood. All sentient beings are originally 'suchness,' and are also originally Buddhas. Therefore, this scripture says, 'That which is called 'suchness' is neither dual nor different.' 'Not different' refers to the perspective of time. Thus, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 'Suchness is named reality, not false, as taught. The past, present, and future are also like this.' Because although the three times are different, the essence of suchness does not change, hence it is said to be 'not different.' 'Not dual' refers to the perspective of space. Although there are ordinary beings and sages, they all equally possess the nature of suchness, which is called 'not dual.' Therefore, it is said that Maitreya (future Buddha) is also suchness, and sentient beings are also suchness. Because there is no duality, sentient beings are Buddhas. Question: Since ordinary beings and sages are the same in suchness, if one person attains the sight of suchness, everyone should also see it. Answer: Although they are the same in suchness, there are those who are enlightened and those who are not. Therefore, there are those who see and those who do not see. Question: If delusion and enlightenment are different from suchness, then it can be said that there are those who see and those who do not see. If delusion and enlightenment are the same as suchness, then they should also see suchness equally. Answer: Suchness never differs from delusion, but delusion always differs from suchness. Therefore, those who are deluded do not see suchness. Question: Although many scriptures are cited to illustrate that sentient beings are Buddhas, the words 'is' or 'are' are still not understood. Is it because sentient beings and Buddhas are both empty, that sentient beings are Buddhas? Or is it because there are Buddhas and there are sentient beings, and because sentient beings are Buddhas, that it is said to be 'is'? If there are no Buddhas and no sentient beings, how can it be said that sentient beings are Buddhas? If there are sentient beings and there are Buddhas, then why say 'is'? Answer: Observing your thoughts, you have fallen into the two extremes of existence and non-existence, neither of which is the true meaning of 'is.' Why is this so? If there are Buddhas and there are sentient beings, then this falls into the view of existence. How can it then be said to be Buddha? If there are no sentient beings and no Buddhas, then this falls into the attachment of non-existence. How can it then be said to be Buddha? If one can cease these two views, then sentient beings are Buddhas. Therefore, the scriptures say, 'Stillness is the nature of Bodhi, because all forms are extinguished.' Objection: If it is neither existence nor non-existence, neither Buddha nor non-Buddha, neither sentient being nor non-sentient being, how can it be said that sentient beings are Buddhas? Answer: Precisely because one realizes neither Buddha nor non-Buddha, it is called Buddha. If one clings to the concepts of Buddha and non-Buddha, then...

是佛見非佛見。何名為佛耶。問。若息佛見非佛見。即了非眾生非不眾生。方是佛者。斯乃佛是佛耳。未息諸見。即名眾生。若爾眾生非佛。何得眾生即是佛。答。不言息見方名無見。以無見名為佛。良由諸見本來無故。眾生本是佛。問。若諸見本來無故眾生本是佛。何得復云一切眾生皆有佛性未是佛耶。答若悟諸見本無見。即眾生本是佛。不名為佛性。但無見而起見。不見本無見故。無見隱於見。故稱為佛性。未得名性佛。問。佛性與如。為同爲異。若言一者。經云。凡聖皆一如。不言凡聖一佛性。若言異者。復何得云如即是佛。答。此義紛綸。由來久矣。今略敘之。會通異說。若不二二義。開如佛二門。如是二不二義。佛性名不二二義。以如是二不二義故。凡聖皆一如。佛性是不二二義故。不得凡聖同一佛性。問。何故爾耶。答。佛名為覺。覺是智照之名。眾生有佛性。即有于覺性。故照用不同。不可全一。釋論云。如無所知。是所照空境。空無有異。故得凡聖一如。此是不二二義故。開境智不同。空有為異。若二不二義。如即佛性。佛性即如。故論云。亦名如法性涅槃。涅槃豈是無知。亦非空境。若了斯二門。則異說同歸。義無違背。矣。問。十方諸如來。同共一法身。為就如門。為約智用。答。北土以如為法

身佛。凡聖一如故。同一法身。南方云。如是頑境。佛即是靈智。以眾德均等故。云同共一法身。詳其得失。余科已明。今略陳之。大品云。如無去來。如即是佛。此則以如為法身。凡聖同一如故。同共一法身。若云如無所知。佛名為覺。則眾德均等故。同共一法身。故各舉一門。亦無相背。問。在經何故有二說耶。答。由體如故名為如來。故用如為法身。若言佛名為覺。覺是智照。即智。可軌名法。故用智為法身。是以二文各舉一義。此皆不二二義。故開二門。若二不二義。智即是如。如即是智。但照義名智。如實名如。更無二也。故般若云。如無去來。如即是佛。離是之外。更無有佛。豈可以如為境。佛自是心也。問。不二二義。不得凡聖同一佛性。故無一人見佛性即一切皆見。唯凡聖同一如。若一人見如。一切應並見。答。以迷悟不同故。有見有不見。問。迷悟異於如。可有見有不見。迷悟既同如。亦應得同見。答。如常不異迷。迷常與如異。故迷不見如。問。迷悟同一如。悟人既得於悟如。亦證於迷如。答既是一。如則更無二證。故證如之時。凡聖並皆如。如外無凡聖異也。問。如即是佛。了自是如。既其自佛。了他亦是如。應用他法身。答若二不二義。以如為法身。既同共一如。亦同一法身。故無自他異。

【現代漢語翻譯】 身佛（指佛陀的法身）。凡夫和聖人是一樣的，所以具有同一法身（Dharmakāya）。南方禪宗說：『像這樣頑固的境界，佛就是靈智。』因為所有功德都是均等的，所以說共同具有一個法身。詳細的得失分析，已經在其他章節中說明。現在簡略地陳述一下。《大品般若經》說：『如無去來，如即是佛。』這就是以『如』為法身。凡夫和聖人都是一樣的『如』，所以共同具有一個法身。如果說『如』沒有知覺，佛被稱為『覺』，那麼因為所有功德都是均等的，所以共同具有一個法身。因此，各自舉出一個方面，也沒有相互矛盾。 問：為什麼在經文中有兩種說法呢？ 答：因為本體是『如』，所以稱為如來（Tathāgata），因此用『如』作為法身。如果說佛被稱為『覺』，『覺』是智慧的照耀，就是智慧。可以作為準則的稱為『法』，因此用智慧作為法身。所以這兩段經文各自舉出一個含義，這都是不二而二的含義，所以開啟了兩個門徑。如果是不二的含義，智慧就是『如』，『如』就是智慧。只是照耀的意義稱為智慧，如實的意義稱為『如』，再沒有第二個了。所以《般若經》說：『如無去來，如即是佛。』離開這個之外，再沒有佛了。怎麼可以將『如』作為境界，佛本身就是心呢？ 問：不二而二的含義，不能使凡夫和聖人具有同一佛性，所以沒有一個人見到佛性就一切人都見到。只有凡夫和聖人同一『如』，如果一個人見到『如』，一切人都應該同時見到。 答：因為迷惑和覺悟不同，所以有見到和沒見到的區別。 問：迷惑和覺悟與『如』不同，可以有見到和沒見到的區別。迷惑和覺悟既然與『如』相同，也應該同時見到。 答：『如』常常不異於迷惑，迷惑常常與『如』相異，所以迷惑不能見到『如』。 問：迷惑和覺悟同一『如』，覺悟的人既然證悟了『如』，也應該證悟了迷惑的『如』。 答：既然是一，『如』就沒有第二個可以證悟的，所以證悟『如』的時候，凡夫和聖人都是『如』，在『如』之外沒有凡夫和聖人的區別。 問：『如』就是佛，了知自己是『如』，既然自己是佛，了知他人也是『如』，應該用他人的法身。 答：如果是二而不二的含義，以『如』為法身，既然共同具有一個『如』，也共同具有一個法身，所以沒有自己和他人的區別。

【English Translation】 The Dharma body (Dharmakāya) of the Buddha. Ordinary beings and sages are one, therefore possessing the same Dharma body. The Southern Zen school says: 'Like this stubborn state, the Buddha is spiritual wisdom.' Because all merits are equal, it is said that they share one Dharma body. Detailed analysis of gains and losses has already been explained in other chapters. Now, let's briefly state it. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Like without coming or going, like is the Buddha.' This is taking 'like' as the Dharma body. Ordinary beings and sages are the same 'like,' so they share one Dharma body. If it is said that 'like' has no awareness, the Buddha is called 'awakening,' then because all merits are equal, they share one Dharma body. Therefore, each raises one aspect, and there is no contradiction. Question: Why are there two statements in the scriptures? Answer: Because the essence is 'like,' it is called Tathāgata (Thus Come One), therefore using 'like' as the Dharma body. If it is said that the Buddha is called 'awakening,' 'awakening' is the illumination of wisdom, which is wisdom. That which can be a standard is called 'dharma,' therefore using wisdom as the Dharma body. So these two passages each raise one meaning, which are both non-dual and dual meanings, therefore opening two paths. If it is a non-dual meaning, wisdom is 'like,' and 'like' is wisdom. Only the meaning of illumination is called wisdom, and the meaning of reality is called 'like,' and there is no second. Therefore, the Prajna Sutra says: 'Like without coming or going, like is the Buddha.' Apart from this, there is no Buddha. How can 'like' be taken as a realm, the Buddha himself is the mind? Question: The meaning of non-dual and dual cannot make ordinary beings and sages have the same Buddha-nature, so no one sees the Buddha-nature and everyone sees it. Only ordinary beings and sages are the same 'like,' if one person sees 'like,' everyone should see it at the same time. Answer: Because delusion and enlightenment are different, there is a difference between seeing and not seeing. Question: Delusion and enlightenment are different from 'like,' there can be a difference between seeing and not seeing. Since delusion and enlightenment are the same as 'like,' they should also see at the same time. Answer: 'Like' is always not different from delusion, and delusion is always different from 'like,' so delusion cannot see 'like.' Question: Delusion and enlightenment are the same 'like,' since the enlightened person has realized 'like,' he should also realize the deluded 'like.' Answer: Since it is one, there is no second 'like' to realize, so when realizing 'like,' ordinary beings and sages are all 'like,' and there is no difference between ordinary beings and sages outside of 'like.' Question: 'Like' is the Buddha, knowing oneself is 'like,' since oneself is the Buddha, knowing others is also 'like,' one should use the Dharma body of others. Answer: If it is a meaning of two and not two, taking 'like' as the Dharma body, since they share one 'like,' they also share one Dharma body, so there is no difference between self and others.

若以不二二義。眾德均等。名同一法身。即悟緣眾德。顯即用悟法身。迷緣隱未現。故未有法身。即悟緣不得用。

問。此經正明不二法門。云何乃釋法身佛性。答。上引經論。明眾生是佛。稱為不二。將就此義以辨佛性法身。以眾生是佛。故六道即法身。于迷者恒非。故隱名為佛性。問。不二法門品。明眾生與佛俱空。故云不二。中論明生死涅槃皆不可得。是知生死即涅槃。斯乃明真諦空義。云何辨佛性法身。答。若見生死涅槃二。是故名生死。若了悟此二本無二。所以名涅槃。生死涅槃二法既爾。眾生與佛兩人亦然。見有眾生有佛二。即名為眾生。若了無佛無眾生。此乃為佛。是以不二法門。得辨法身佛性。問。涅槃門可說佛性隱顯。法身是常義。凈名經宗。何得已明斷義。答。下云我觀身實相。觀佛亦然。乃明法身絕百非。體含于萬德。豈是明空。空可絕百非。真諦云何含于萬德。以此詳之。明不二義。即是佛性法身義。又若言此經未明法身常者。何得復言佛身無漏諸漏已盡佛身無為不墮諸數。漏盡無復諸漏。無為即不生不滅。豈非常耶。又云。但以名字故有三世。非謂菩提有去來今。即前文辨法身無為。此句明菩提常住。以二文徴之。則五時之教土崩。四宗之說瓦解。宜改舊迷同棲不二矣。

七

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果從不二的角度來看，所有功德都是均等無別的，這被稱為同一法身。領悟到因緣和合的眾多功德，就能顯現並運用法身；迷惑于因緣，法身就會隱沒而不顯現，所以說還沒有證得法身。如果領悟到因緣，就能夠運用法身。

問：這部經明明闡述的是不二法門，為什麼現在要解釋法身和佛性呢？答：前面引用的經論，說明眾生就是佛，這被稱為不二。我們借用這個意義來辨析佛性和法身。因為眾生就是佛，所以六道輪迴即是法身。對於迷惑的人來說，法身始終沒有顯現，所以隱沒時被稱為佛性。問：《不二法門品》說明眾生與佛都是空性的，所以說不二。《中論》說明生死和涅槃都不可得，因此知道生死就是涅槃。這明明是闡明真諦空義，為什麼現在要辨析佛性和法身呢？答：如果看到生死和涅槃是兩種不同的狀態，所以才會有生死。如果領悟到生死和涅槃本來就沒有分別，所以才稱為涅槃。生死和涅槃這兩種法既然如此，眾生和佛也是一樣。如果看到有眾生和佛兩種不同的存在，就稱為眾生。如果領悟到沒有佛也沒有眾生，這就是佛。因此，通過不二法門，可以辨析法身和佛性。問：涅槃之門可以說佛性有隱沒和顯現，法身是常住不變的。但《維摩詰經》的主旨，怎麼能用斷滅的觀點來解釋呢？答：經文下面說『我觀身實相，觀佛亦然』，這明明是闡明法身超越一切對立，本體包含著萬種功德，怎麼能說是闡明空性呢？空性怎麼能超越一切對立，真諦又怎麼能包含萬種功德呢？通過這些來詳細考察，就會明白不二的意義，就是佛性和法身的意義。而且，如果說這部經沒有闡明法身是常住不變的，又怎麼會說『佛身無漏，諸漏已盡，佛身無為，不墮諸數』呢？漏盡就是沒有煩惱，無為就是不生不滅，難道不是常住不變嗎？經中又說：『但以名字故有三世，非謂菩提有去來今』，前面的經文辨析了法身是無為的，這句話說明菩提是常住的。用這兩段經文來驗證，那麼五時判教的理論就會崩潰，四宗的說法也會瓦解。應該改變過去的迷惑，一同歸宿于不二的境界。

七

【English Translation】 English version: If viewed from the perspective of non-duality, all virtues are equal and undifferentiated, and this is called the one Dharmakaya (法身, body of the Dharma). Realizing the multitude of virtues arising from conditions, one can manifest and utilize the Dharmakaya; being deluded by conditions, the Dharmakaya remains hidden and unmanifested, hence it is said that one has not yet attained the Dharmakaya. If one realizes the conditions, one can utilize the Dharmakaya.

Question: This sutra clearly elucidates the non-dual Dharma gate, so why are you now explaining Dharmakaya and Buddha-nature? Answer: The sutras and treatises quoted earlier explain that sentient beings are Buddhas, and this is called non-duality. We use this meaning to analyze Buddha-nature and Dharmakaya. Because sentient beings are Buddhas, the six realms of samsara are the Dharmakaya. For those who are deluded, the Dharmakaya is always unmanifested, so when it is hidden, it is called Buddha-nature (佛性, Buddha nature). Question: The 'Non-Dual Dharma Gate' chapter explains that sentient beings and Buddhas are both empty, so it is called non-dual. The Madhyamaka-karika explains that neither samsara nor nirvana can be attained, therefore we know that samsara is nirvana. This clearly elucidates the meaning of emptiness in ultimate truth, so why are you now analyzing Buddha-nature and Dharmakaya? Answer: If one sees samsara and nirvana as two different states, then there is samsara. If one realizes that samsara and nirvana are originally not different, then it is called nirvana. Since samsara and nirvana are like this, sentient beings and Buddhas are also the same. If one sees two different existences, sentient beings and Buddhas, then one is called a sentient being. If one realizes that there is neither Buddha nor sentient being, then this is a Buddha. Therefore, through the non-dual Dharma gate, one can analyze Dharmakaya and Buddha-nature. Question: The gate of Nirvana can speak of the concealment and manifestation of Buddha-nature, and Dharmakaya is the meaning of permanence. But how can the main point of the Vimalakirti Sutra be explained with the view of annihilation? Answer: The sutra says below, 'I contemplate the true nature of the body, and I contemplate the Buddha in the same way.' This clearly elucidates that the Dharmakaya transcends all dualities, and its essence contains myriad virtues. How can it be said to elucidate emptiness? How can emptiness transcend all dualities, and how can ultimate truth contain myriad virtues? By examining these in detail, one will understand that the meaning of non-duality is the meaning of Buddha-nature and Dharmakaya. Moreover, if you say that this sutra does not elucidate that the Dharmakaya is permanent, then how can it say, 'The Buddha's body is without outflows, all outflows are exhausted, the Buddha's body is unconditioned, not falling into numbers'? Exhaustion of outflows means no afflictions, and unconditioned means neither arising nor ceasing. Is it not permanent? The sutra also says, 'But because of names, there are three times, not that Bodhi has coming and going.' The previous text analyzed that the Dharmakaya is unconditioned, and this sentence explains that Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment) is permanent. If we verify with these two passages, then the theory of the Five Periods of Teaching will collapse, and the sayings of the Four Schools will disintegrate. One should change past delusions and together dwell in the realm of non-duality.

Seven

釋入門義

今次釋入門不二之理。稱門凡有五義。一者至妙虛通常體為門。二欲簡別余法門戶各異。今是不二法門。非余門也。三欲引物悟入故稱為門。四通生觀智所以為門。五因理通教故名為門。此四皆從他受稱也。

問。理既是門。因何得入。答。藉不二教。通不二理。即是以跡顯本教為理門。問。正應以教為門。云何乃以理為門耶。答。文云入不二法門。可言但入教耶。良以入理故稱為入。所以因理為門。問。常云二諦為教門。為通不二理。何故不用二不為不二門。耶答。自有二通不二。以二為不二門。今此中雲入不二法門。不云從二入不二。故不以二為門。問。二諦為門。遂入不二理者。亦應不二為門。應入非二非不二。若不二虛通當體名門。二諦無垂。亦當二名門。答。通即義例。但二諦未極。可得更從二入不二。今此不二既為究竟。不得云從不二入非二非不二矣。

問。不二當體是門。以何為證。答。其例甚多。如法界法門。不可從非法界入於法界。亦不可從法界更入非法界非不法界。故法界當體為門。問。法界何故不得更入非法界非不法界。答。經云廣大如法界。嘆法界圓滿究竟。故不得更有所入。問。法界與不二。何異耶。答。同是一道。但名字不同。何以知之。經云。無盡平等

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 解釋入門的意義

現在解釋入門不二的道理。稱『門』一般有五種含義：第一，至妙、虛通、恒常的本體是門。第二，爲了區分其他法門，各個門戶不同，現在這是不二法門，不是其他的門。第三，爲了引導眾生覺悟而進入，所以稱為門。第四，通過它可以產生觀智，所以是門。第五，因為道理通達教義，所以稱為門。這四種都是從接受他人的教導來說的。

問：道理既然是門，因何才能進入？答：憑藉不二的教義，通達不二的道理。這就是以事蹟來顯現根本，教義作為理之門。問：本來應該以教義為門，為什麼卻以道理為門呢？答：經文說『入不二法門』，難道可以說只是進入教義嗎？正是因為進入道理，所以稱為『入』。因此以道理為門。問：常說二諦（俗諦和真諦）是教義之門，爲了通達不二的道理，為什麼不用『二』不作為『不二』之門呢？答：自有通過『二』通達『不二』，以『二』作為『不二』之門的情況。現在這裡說『入不二法門』，沒有說從『二』進入『不二』，所以不以『二』為門。問：以二諦為門，從而進入不二的道理，也應該以『不二』為門，應該進入『非二非不二』。如果不二虛通，當體是門，二諦沒有垂示，也應當以『二』為門。答：通達即是義理的例子。只是二諦沒有達到極致，可以再從『二』進入『不二』。現在這個『不二』已經是究竟，不能說從『不二』進入『非二非不二』了。

問：『不二』當體是門，以什麼為證明？答：這樣的例子很多。例如法界（Dharmadhatu）法門，不能從非法界進入法界，也不能從法界再進入非法界或非不法界。所以法界當體就是門。問：法界為什麼不能再進入非法界或非不法界？答：經中說『廣大如法界』，讚歎法界圓滿究竟，所以不能再有所進入。問：法界與不二，有什麼不同呢？答：相同的是一條道路，只是名字不同。憑什麼知道呢？經中說：無盡平等。

【English Translation】 English version Explanation of the Meaning of Entering the Gate

Now, I will explain the principle of non-duality in entering the gate. The term 'gate' generally has five meanings: First, the ultimate, subtle, all-pervading, and constant essence is the gate. Second, to distinguish it from other Dharma gates, each gate is different. This is the non-dual Dharma gate, not other gates. Third, it is called a gate because it guides beings to awaken and enter. Fourth, it is a gate because it can generate wisdom of contemplation. Fifth, it is called a gate because the principle penetrates the teachings. These four are all based on receiving teachings from others.

Question: Since the principle is the gate, how can one enter? Answer: By relying on the non-dual teachings, one can penetrate the non-dual principle. This is using events to reveal the root, with the teachings serving as the gate to the principle. Question: It should be the teachings that serve as the gate, so why is the principle the gate? Answer: The scripture says 'enter the non-dual Dharma gate.' Can it be said that one only enters the teachings? It is precisely because one enters the principle that it is called 'entering.' Therefore, the principle is the gate. Question: It is often said that the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) are the gate to the teachings, in order to penetrate the non-dual principle. Why not use 'two' as the 'non-dual' gate? Answer: There is a way to penetrate non-duality through 'two,' using 'two' as the 'non-dual' gate. Here, it says 'enter the non-dual Dharma gate,' not 'enter non-duality from two,' so 'two' is not the gate. Question: If the two truths are the gate, leading to the non-dual principle, then 'non-duality' should also be the gate, leading to 'neither two nor non-two.' If non-duality is all-pervading and the essence is the gate, and the two truths have no guidance, then 'two' should also be the gate. Answer: Penetration is an example of the principle. It is just that the two truths have not reached the ultimate, and one can enter non-duality from 'two.' Now that this 'non-duality' is ultimate, one cannot say that one enters 'neither two nor non-two' from 'non-duality.'

Question: 'Non-duality' itself is the gate. What is the proof? Answer: There are many such examples. For example, the Dharmadhatu (法界) Dharma gate. One cannot enter the Dharmadhatu from non-Dharmadhatu, nor can one enter non-Dharmadhatu or non-non-Dharmadhatu from the Dharmadhatu. Therefore, the Dharmadhatu itself is the gate. Question: Why can't the Dharmadhatu enter non-Dharmadhatu or non-non-Dharmadhatu? Answer: The scripture says 'vast as the Dharmadhatu,' praising the Dharmadhatu as complete and ultimate, so there is nothing more to enter. Question: What is the difference between the Dharmadhatu and non-duality? Answer: They are the same path, but with different names. How do we know this? The scripture says: endless equality.

妙法界。皆悉充滿如來身。法界平等即是不二。不二廣大。無法不含。即是法界也。

問。今但稱不二。即唯攝不二。不攝於二。云何同法界耶。答。若爾者。法界即但攝於法。不攝非法。云何名廣大耶。今明無一法而非法界。亦無一法非是不二。但失不二。強謂為二。竟不曾二。如迷法界而成非法界。所以言出法界。竟無所出。問。誰入此門。答。無人入也。所以然者。有能入之人所入之法。即是人法二見。云何入不二門。問。既不見人法。無能入所入。云何稱入不二門。答。良以不見能入所入。方入此門。如般若開宗身子問。云何菩薩行般若。如來答云。若不見菩薩。不見波若。不見行。不見不行。如是菩薩行於波若。見能行所行。即是諸見。豈行波若耶。問。若了無入不入方入門者。二乘亦悟無入不入。何故不入此門。答。此門明二即不二。名入不二門。二乘在有不見空。在空則舍有。恒是二見中行。何猶得入不二。問。何文明二乘不入不二。答。釋論云。唯摩訶衍中。明生死即是涅槃。三藏中無有此說。何猶入耶。問。經云三乘同入法性。法性即是不二。何故言不入耶。答。二乘析法明空。得小分氣。是故云入。以理言之。實不入也。此義后當具明。

問。何位菩薩得入此門。答。五十二位。皆

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 妙法界（Dharmadhatu，一切法的本源）。完全充滿如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）之身。法界平等，即是不二（non-duality，超越對立）。不二廣大，沒有什麼是它不包含的。這就是法界。

問：現在只說『不二』，豈不是隻包含『不二』，而不包含『二』？怎麼能等同於法界呢？ 答：如果這樣說，法界豈不是隻包含『法』，而不包含『非法』？怎麼能稱為廣大呢？現在說明沒有一法不是法界，也沒有一法不是不二。只是因為迷失了不二，才勉強說成是二，實際上從未曾是二。如同迷失了法界而成為非法界。所以說超出法界，實際上無所超出。 問：誰能進入這不二之門？ 答：沒有人能進入。為什麼呢？因為有能進入的人和所進入的法，就是人法二見（the duality of person and dharma，對人和法的二元執著）。怎麼能進入不二之門呢？ 問：既然不見人法，沒有能入和所入，為什麼還稱作進入不二之門呢？ 答：正因為不見能入和所入，才進入此門。如同《般若經》（Prajna Sutra，般若智慧的經典）開宗時，舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）問：『菩薩（Bodhisattva，發願要成佛的修行者）如何行般若？』如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）回答說：『如果不見菩薩，不見般若，不見行，不見不行，這樣的菩薩才是行於般若。』如果見能行和所行，那就是各種見解，怎麼能行般若呢？ 問：如果完全沒有入和不入才能入門，那麼二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘，佛教中追求自我解脫的兩種修行方式）也領悟了無入無不入，為什麼不能進入此門？ 答：此門闡明二即是不二，所以稱為進入不二之門。二乘執著于有而不能見空，執著于空則捨棄有，始終在二見中修行，怎麼能進入不二之門呢？ 問：什麼經典說明二乘不能進入不二之門？ 答：《釋論》（可能是指《大智度論》，Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra，龍樹菩薩所著的解釋《大品般若經》的論書）說：『只有大乘（Mahayana，佛教中普度眾生的修行方式）中，才闡明生死即是涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經典的總稱）中沒有這種說法。』怎麼能進入呢？ 問：經典說三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）共同進入法性（Dharmata，諸法的本性），法性就是不二，為什麼說不能進入呢？ 答：二乘分析諸法而明瞭空性，得到小部分的領悟，所以說進入。但從究竟的道理來說，實際上沒有進入。這個道理後面會詳細說明。

問：什麼位階的菩薩才能進入此門？ 答：五十二個位階的菩薩都可以。

【English Translation】 English version: The wondrous Dharmadhatu (the realm of all phenomena, the source of all dharmas) is completely filled with the body of the Tathagata (the Thus-Gone One, an epithet of the Buddha). The equality of the Dharmadhatu is none other than non-duality (transcending duality). Non-duality is vast and great, containing everything without exception. This is the Dharmadhatu.

Question: Now, if we only speak of 'non-duality,' doesn't that mean it only encompasses 'non-duality' and not 'duality'? How can it be the same as the Dharmadhatu? Answer: If that were the case, wouldn't the Dharmadhatu only encompass 'dharma' and not 'non-dharma'? How could it be called vast and great? Now, I explain that there is no dharma that is not the Dharmadhatu, and there is no dharma that is not non-dual. It is only because of losing sight of non-duality that we force ourselves to call it duality, but in reality, it has never been dual. It is like being deluded about the Dharmadhatu and becoming non-Dharmadhatu. Therefore, it is said that one goes beyond the Dharmadhatu, but in reality, there is nowhere to go beyond. Question: Who can enter this gate of non-duality? Answer: No one can enter. Why is that? Because having a person who can enter and a dharma that is entered is the duality of person and dharma (the dualistic view of self and phenomena). How can one enter the gate of non-duality? Question: Since one does not see person and dharma, and there is no one who enters and nothing that is entered, why is it still called entering the gate of non-duality? Answer: Precisely because one does not see the one who enters and what is entered, one enters this gate. It is like when Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) asked at the beginning of the Prajna Sutra (the sutra of wisdom): 'How does a Bodhisattva (a being who aspires to Buddhahood) practice Prajna (wisdom)?' The Tathagata (an epithet of the Buddha) answered: 'If one does not see a Bodhisattva, does not see Prajna, does not see practice, and does not see non-practice, such a Bodhisattva practices Prajna.' If one sees the one who practices and what is practiced, that is just various views; how can one practice Prajna? Question: If entering the gate requires the complete absence of entering and not entering, then the Two Vehicles (the Sravaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, two paths in Buddhism that seek individual liberation) also realize the absence of entering and not entering. Why can't they enter this gate? Answer: This gate clarifies that duality is none other than non-duality, so it is called entering the gate of non-duality. The Two Vehicles are attached to existence and cannot see emptiness; attached to emptiness, they abandon existence. They are constantly practicing within dualistic views. How can they enter non-duality? Question: Which scripture explains that the Two Vehicles cannot enter non-duality? Answer: The Sastra (possibly referring to the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, a treatise by Nagarjuna explaining the Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra) says: 'Only in the Mahayana (the Great Vehicle, the path of universal salvation) is it clarified that samsara (birth and death) is none other than Nirvana (liberation). The Tripitaka (the three baskets, the collection of Buddhist scriptures) does not have this teaching.' How can they enter?

Question: The sutras say that the Three Vehicles (the Sravaka Vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Bodhisattva Vehicle) all enter Dharmata (the nature of reality), and Dharmata is non-duality. Why do you say they cannot enter? Answer: The Two Vehicles analyze dharmas and realize emptiness, gaining a small portion of understanding. Therefore, it is said that they enter. But from the ultimate principle, they have not truly entered. This meaning will be explained in detail later.

Question: What level of Bodhisattva can enter this gate? Answer: Bodhisattvas of all fifty-two stages can.

入此門。所以然者。十信則信不二。故名信入。十解解不二。名為解入。十行從解起行。名為行入。十回向解行純熟。名為順入。登地以上。名為證入。佛則究竟入也。問。外凡十信云何已入。答。發心畢竟二不別。故從始發心。終乎后念。皆習中道。恒觀不二。是故能入。問。外凡尚入。二乘雲何不入。答。二乘法中。無有此說。何猶入耶。又十信一阿僧祇劫修行者。良為不二之觀難成。小乘極多雖至百劫者。取捨之心易習故也。

問。佛入空觀。猶見如外有佛佛外有如不。答。若如佛為二。猶為二觀。何名不二。既不見二。亦不見一。如是不見五句。而如佛宛然。斯處幽微。唯佛境界。問。既不見五句。何名不二。答。良以見五明為二見。以不見五。故稱不二。問。如佛不異。可名不二。而境智宛然。何名不二。答。二常不二。故名不二。

八攝法門

問。入不二法門。與三波若。三觀。中。觀。論。五佛性等諸法門何異。答。題云入不二法門。含有三義。一不二教。次不二理。三不二觀。據能化為言。由不二理。發不二觀。由不二智。說不二教。就所化辨者。藉不二教。悟不二理。生不二智也。不二理謂實相般若。不二觀則觀照般若。不二教則是文字波若。此三眼目異名。更無別體也。不二

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：進入此門。之所以這樣說，是因為十信位的修行者，他們的信心是不二的，所以稱為信入。十解位的修行者，他們的理解是不二的，稱為解入。十行位的修行者，從理解出發而修行，稱為行入。十回向位的修行者，理解和修行都純熟了，稱為順入。登地以上的菩薩，稱為證入。佛則是究竟的入。 問：外凡位的十信，為什麼說已經進入了不二法門？答：因為發心和最終的證悟，本質上沒有差別。所以從最初的發心，到最後的念頭，都是在修習中道，恒常地觀察不二的道理。因此能夠進入不二法門。問：外凡位的修行者尚且能夠進入，為什麼二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的修行者不能進入？答：二乘的法門中，沒有這種說法，又怎麼能進入呢？而且，十信位的修行者，要經歷一個阿僧祇劫（無數個大劫）才能修成，這是因為不二的觀想難以成就。小乘的修行者，即使修行到一百個大劫，也容易生起取捨之心。 問：佛進入空觀時，是否仍然看到如（真如，事物的本性）在佛之外，佛在如之外？答：如果如和佛是二個不同的東西，那就是二的觀，怎麼能稱為不二呢？既然不見有二，也不見有一。像這樣不見五句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無、有無皆非），而如和佛依然明視訊記憶體在，這個境界非常幽深微妙，只有佛才能達到。問：既然不見五句，為什麼稱為不二？答：因為見到五句，就表明是二的見解。因為不見五句，所以才稱為不二。問：如和佛沒有差異，可以稱為不二。但是境界和智慧依然分明，怎麼能稱為不二？答：二者常常是不二的，所以稱為不二。 八攝法門 問：進入不二法門，與三般若（實相般若、觀照般若、文字般若），三觀（空觀、假觀、中觀），中觀，論，五佛性等各種法門有什麼不同？答：題目說的是進入不二法門，包含三種含義：一是不二的教法，二是不二的道理，三是不二的觀想。從能教化的角度來說，由於不二的道理，生起不二的觀想；由於不二的智慧，宣說不二的教法。從所教化的角度來說，憑藉不二的教法，領悟不二的道理，產生不二的智慧。不二的道理指的是實相般若，不二的觀想指的是觀照般若，不二的教法指的是文字般若。這三者只是名稱不同，本質上沒有區別。不二

【English Translation】 English version: Entering this gate. The reason for this is that the practitioners of the Ten Faiths have a non-dual faith, hence it is called 'entering through faith'. The practitioners of the Ten Understandings have a non-dual understanding, hence it is called 'entering through understanding'. The practitioners of the Ten Practices, starting their practice from understanding, hence it is called 'entering through practice'. The practitioners of the Ten Dedications, with their understanding and practice becoming pure, hence it is called 'entering in accordance'. Those who have ascended to the Bhumi (grounds) and above are called 'entering through realization'. The Buddha is the ultimate entry. Question: Why is it said that the Ten Faiths of an ordinary person have already entered? Answer: Because the initial aspiration and the ultimate enlightenment are not different in essence. Therefore, from the initial aspiration to the final thought, one is always practicing the Middle Way, constantly observing the non-duality. That is why one can enter. Question: If ordinary people can enter, why can't the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) enter? Answer: There is no such saying in the Dharma of the Two Vehicles, so how can they enter? Moreover, the practitioners of the Ten Faiths need to cultivate for one asaṃkhya-kalpa (countless great eons) to achieve it, because the contemplation of non-duality is difficult to accomplish. The practitioners of the Small Vehicle, even if they cultivate for a hundred kalpas, easily develop a mind of acceptance and rejection. Question: When the Buddha enters into the contemplation of emptiness, does he still see 'Tathatā' (真如, suchness, the true nature of things) outside the Buddha, and the Buddha outside 'Tathatā'? Answer: If 'Tathatā' and the Buddha are two different things, then it is a dualistic view, how can it be called non-duality? Since one does not see duality, one also does not see unity. Like this, one does not see the five statements (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), yet 'Tathatā' and the Buddha are still clearly present. This state is very profound and subtle, only the Buddha can reach it. Question: Since one does not see the five statements, why is it called non-duality? Answer: Because seeing the five statements indicates a dualistic view. Because one does not see the five statements, it is called non-duality. Question: If 'Tathatā' and the Buddha are not different, it can be called non-duality. But the realm and wisdom are still distinct, how can it be called non-duality? Answer: The two are always non-dual, so it is called non-duality. The Eight Methods of Gathering Question: What is the difference between entering the Dharma Gate of Non-Duality and the Three Prajñās (般若, wisdom) (Real Mark Prajñā, Contemplation Prajñā, and Verbal Prajñā), the Three Contemplations (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way), the Middle Way, the Treatises, the Five Buddha-natures, and other Dharma Gates? Answer: The title says 'Entering the Dharma Gate of Non-Duality', which contains three meanings: first, the teaching of non-duality; second, the principle of non-duality; and third, the contemplation of non-duality. From the perspective of the one who teaches, the non-dual contemplation arises from the non-dual principle; the non-dual teaching is spoken from the non-dual wisdom. From the perspective of the one who is taught, the non-dual wisdom arises by understanding the non-dual principle through the non-dual teaching. The non-dual principle refers to Real Mark Prajñā, the non-dual contemplation refers to Contemplation Prajñā, and the non-dual teaching refers to Verbal Prajñā. These three are just different names, and there is no separate entity. Non-duality

理則義相觀。不二觀謂心行觀。不二教謂名字觀。不二理即中道。不二觀謂正觀。不二教則名為論。但為佛印定。故名不二經。菩薩所造。名不二論。更無別體也。不二理即因佛性。不二觀謂因因性。由不二境。發不二智。故是因因。但觀智圓滿。即是菩提。菩提無累。即是涅槃。以此因果。顯非因果。即是正性。故五性不二理。及不二觀。既不立文字性故。不二教不攝之也。問。不二法門云何攝此耶。答。經云。從癡有愛。則我病生。此之二句。總攝十方三世諸佛菩薩能化所化。事無不周。所以然者。由失不二道故名為癡。如成論云。不見空者。常有無明。小論既然。大乘亦爾。由癡故所以起愛。如涅槃云。狂故生貪。以貪愛故受身。受身則有死生。以失不二故。有六道四生。是以不二為生死本也。諸佛菩薩體悟不二。故有波若。見眾生失於不二。無二謂二。而起大悲。此則空悲二道。以空觀故。則體其二不曾二。以大悲門。傷眾生無二橫謂二。既大悲內充。故散身六道。方便誘引。令歸不二。是故不二為眾聖之根。豈但斯一教。

問。經云。波若為母。方便為父。故生眾聖。悟不二。但有波若。無有方便。云何眾聖皆由不二。答。余昔亦疑此言。今已悟矣。夫論悟不二者。必由識二宛然而是不二。方名悟不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：理則、義理、相狀，這三者相互關聯。『不二觀』指的是心行上的觀照。『不二教』指的是通過名相概念進行的觀照。『不二理』就是中道。『不二觀』指的是正確的觀照。『不二教』則被稱為論著。因為經過佛的印證，所以稱為『不二經』。菩薩所造的，稱為『不二論』，沒有其他的本體。『不二理』就是作為原因的佛性。『不二觀』指的是作為原因之原因的自性。由於不二的境界，才能生髮不二的智慧，所以是原因之原因。只要觀照的智慧圓滿，就是菩提（bodhi，覺悟）。菩提沒有累贅，就是涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）。用這種因果關係，來顯示非因非果，就是正性。所以五性（指聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、不定性、無性）的不二理，以及不二觀，因為不立文字的自性，所以不二教不包含這些。問：『不二法門』如何包含這些呢？答：經中說：『從愚癡產生愛，那麼我的病就產生了。』這兩句話，總括了十方三世諸佛菩薩所能教化和所教化的對象，沒有不周遍的。為什麼這樣說呢？因為喪失了不二之道，所以稱為愚癡。如《成實論》所說：『不見空性的人，常常有無明。』小乘論尚且如此，大乘也是一樣。因為愚癡的緣故，所以產生愛。如《涅槃經》所說：『因為狂亂的緣故產生貪慾。』因為貪愛的緣故而受身，受身就有生死。因為喪失不二的緣故，有六道四生。因此，不二是生死的根本。諸佛菩薩體悟不二，所以有般若（prajna，智慧）。見到眾生喪失不二，把無二當成二，而生起大悲心。這就是空和悲兩種道。因為空觀的緣故，就體會到二從來沒有真正地二過。以大悲門，憐憫眾生把無二錯誤地當成二。既然大悲充滿內心，所以散身於六道，方便誘導，使眾生迴歸不二。因此，不二是眾聖的根本，豈止是這一個教義。 問：經中說：般若為母，方便為父，所以生出眾聖。領悟不二，只要有般若，沒有方便，為什麼眾聖都由不二而來？答：我過去也疑惑這個問題，現在已經領悟了。要論領悟不二，必須通過認識到二的宛然存在，而這二實際上是不二，才能稱為領悟。

【English Translation】 English version: Principle, meaning, and appearance are interrelated. 'Non-duality contemplation' (不二觀) refers to contemplation in mind and action. 'Non-duality teaching' (不二教) refers to contemplation through names and concepts. 'Non-duality principle' (不二理) is the Middle Way. 'Non-duality contemplation' (不二觀) refers to correct contemplation. 'Non-duality teaching' (不二教) is called treatises. Because it is affirmed by the Buddha, it is called the 'Non-Duality Sutra' (不二經). What is created by Bodhisattvas is called the 'Non-Duality Treatise' (不二論), and there is no other entity. 'Non-duality principle' (不二理) is the Buddha-nature as the cause. 'Non-duality contemplation' (不二觀) refers to the self-nature as the cause of the cause. Because of the non-dual realm, non-dual wisdom arises, so it is the cause of the cause. As long as the wisdom of contemplation is complete, it is Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment). Bodhi has no burden, which is Nirvana (涅槃, extinction). Using this cause-and-effect relationship to show non-cause and non-effect is the true nature. Therefore, the non-duality principle (不二理) and non-duality contemplation (不二觀) of the five natures (referring to Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas, the undetermined, and the natureless) are not included in the non-duality teaching (不二教) because they do not establish the self-nature of words. Question: How does the 'Non-Duality Dharma Gate' (不二法門) include these? Answer: The sutra says: 'From ignorance arises love, then my illness arises.' These two sentences encompass all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three times, both those who can transform and those who are transformed, without exception. Why is this so? Because losing the path of non-duality is called ignorance. As the Tattvasiddhi Shastra says: 'Those who do not see emptiness always have ignorance.' If the Lesser Vehicle is like this, so is the Greater Vehicle. Because of ignorance, love arises. As the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Because of madness, greed arises.' Because of greed and love, one receives a body, and with a body, there is birth and death. Because of losing non-duality, there are the six realms and four births. Therefore, non-duality is the root of birth and death. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas realize non-duality, so they have Prajna (般若, wisdom). Seeing sentient beings lose non-duality, taking non-duality as duality, they give rise to great compassion. These are the two paths of emptiness and compassion. Because of the contemplation of emptiness, they realize that duality has never truly been dual. With the gate of great compassion, they pity sentient beings who mistakenly take non-duality as duality. Since great compassion fills their hearts, they scatter their bodies in the six realms, using skillful means to guide sentient beings back to non-duality. Therefore, non-duality is the root of all sages, not just this one teaching. Question: The sutra says: Prajna is the mother, and skillful means are the father, so they give birth to all the sages. Realizing non-duality, if there is only Prajna and no skillful means, why do all the sages come from non-duality? Answer: I used to doubt this statement, but now I have realized it. To discuss realizing non-duality, one must recognize the clear existence of duality, and that this duality is actually non-duality, in order to be called realization.

二耳。既識二即不二。便具二慧。何者。二既宛然不二。即不二宛然而二。既識二即不二。名為波若。即解不二而二。名為方便。波若與方便。猶是一觀。如二不二。猶是二法。由悟二即是不二故。波若即是方便。問。既其即是。云何分於二慧。答。一觀兩照。故開權實。照二不二。名為波若。照不二二。故稱方便也。問。波若照何法不二。方便照何法二耶。答。波若照六道顛倒二是不二。亦照佛菩薩不顛倒二是不二。方便照六道無二謂二。亦照佛菩薩隨緣故二。問。不顛倒二。應是不二二。顛倒二云何亦是不二二耶。答。顛倒無二橫謂二故。亦是不二二。但于顛自成二故二耳。故了不二。則具二慧。二慧生一切賢聖。凈名由二慧而生。二慧由不二故有。所以不二是凈名之本。故云立道本也。

九體用門

問不二既為本。應最初則說。不爾最後方陳。何故非初非后。中間說耶。答。欲收用歸體。從體起用。故處中說也。收用歸體者。謂攝經初二用。歸於不二也。又凈名說二。本意令悟不二。欲示從二入不二。故初明二。後方明不二。次從不二更起二用。即是香積品等諸奇特之事。非但一經如此。眾教皆然。但此經文約意含。故偏說耳。若最初即說。但得從體起用。最後說者。唯得收用歸體。以處中明之。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二：既然認識到『二』即是『不二』，便具備了兩種智慧。哪兩種呢？『二』既然宛然存在卻又不是『二』，那麼『不二』也就宛然存在卻是『二』。既然認識到『二』即是『不二』，這叫做般若（prajna，智慧）。理解『不二』而實為『二』，這叫做方便（upaya，善巧）。般若與方便，猶如一種觀照，如『二』與『不二』，猶如兩種法。由於領悟到『二』即是『不二』的緣故，般若也就是方便。問：既然它們是同一個，為什麼還要分為兩種智慧呢？答：一種觀照具有兩種照用，所以開啟了權巧和真實。照見『二』與『不二』，這叫做般若。照見『不二』而實為『二』，所以稱為方便。問：般若照見什麼法是『不二』的？方便照見什麼法是『二』的呢？答：般若照見六道（gati，眾生輪迴的六個去處）的顛倒之『二』是不『二』的，也照見佛菩薩不顛倒之『二』是不『二』的。方便照見六道本無『二』卻妄認為『二』，也照見佛菩薩隨順因緣而示現的『二』。問：不顛倒的『二』，應該是『不二』之『二』，顛倒的『二』為什麼也是『不二』之『二』呢？答：顛倒本無『二』，橫生妄想才認為是『二』，所以也是『不二』之『二』。只是因為在顛倒中自己形成了『二』，所以才成為『二』。因此，瞭解了『不二』，就具備了兩種智慧。兩種智慧產生一切賢聖。維摩（Vimalakirti）由兩種智慧而生。兩種智慧由『不二』而有。所以『不二』是維摩經的根本，所以說『立道本』。 九、體用門 問：『不二』既然是根本，應該最先說，不然也應該最後才陳述，為什麼既不在最先也不在最後，而在中間說呢？答：想要收攝作用歸於本體，從本體生起作用，所以放在中間說。收攝作用歸於本體，是指將經文開始所說的兩種作用，歸於『不二』。而且維摩經說『二』，本意是讓人領悟『不二』，想要顯示從『二』進入『不二』，所以先說明『二』，然後才說明『不二』，接著從『不二』再生起兩種作用，這就是香積品等各種奇特的事情。不只這部經如此，所有的教法都是這樣。只是這部經文簡略而意涵豐富，所以特別說明。如果最先就說，只能得到從本體生起作用，最後說的話，只能得到收攝作用歸於本體，放在中間說明，才能兼顧兩者。

【English Translation】 English version Two: Since one recognizes that 'two' is 'not-two', one possesses two kinds of wisdom. What are they? Since 'two' is clearly present yet not 'two', then 'not-two' is also clearly present yet 'two'. Since one recognizes that 'two' is 'not-two', this is called prajna (wisdom). Understanding 'not-two' as actually 'two' is called upaya (skillful means). Prajna and upaya are like one contemplation, just as 'two' and 'not-two' are like two dharmas. Because of realizing that 'two' is 'not-two', prajna is also upaya. Question: Since they are the same, why are they divided into two kinds of wisdom? Answer: One contemplation has two kinds of illumination, so it opens up provisional and real. Illuminating 'two' and 'not-two' is called prajna. Illuminating 'not-two' as actually 'two' is called upaya. Question: What dharma does prajna illuminate as 'not-two'? What dharma does upaya illuminate as 'two'? Answer: Prajna illuminates the inverted 'two' of the six destinies (gati, the six realms of rebirth) as 'not-two', and also illuminates the non-inverted 'two' of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as 'not-two'. Upaya illuminates the six destinies as originally not 'two' but falsely considering it as 'two', and also illuminates the 'two' manifested by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas according to conditions. Question: The non-inverted 'two' should be the 'two' of 'not-two', why is the inverted 'two' also the 'two' of 'not-two'? Answer: Inversion originally has no 'two', but due to deluded thoughts, it is considered as 'two', so it is also the 'two' of 'not-two'. It is only because 'two' is formed in inversion itself that it becomes 'two'. Therefore, understanding 'not-two' means possessing two kinds of wisdom. Two kinds of wisdom give rise to all sages. Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) is born from two kinds of wisdom. Two kinds of wisdom arise from 'not-two'. Therefore, 'not-two' is the root of the Vimalakirti Sutra, so it is said 'establishing the root of the path'. Nine: The Gate of Essence and Function Question: Since 'not-two' is the root, it should be spoken of first, or at least stated last. Why is it neither first nor last, but spoken of in the middle? Answer: To gather the function back to the essence, and to generate function from the essence, so it is placed in the middle. Gathering the function back to the essence refers to gathering the two functions mentioned at the beginning of the sutra back to 'not-two'. Moreover, the Vimalakirti Sutra speaks of 'two' with the intention of making people realize 'not-two', wanting to show the entry from 'two' into 'not-two', so it first explains 'two', and then explains 'not-two', and then generates two functions from 'not-two', which are the various extraordinary events such as the Fragrant Accumulation Chapter. It is not only this sutra that is like this, all teachings are like this. It is just that this sutra is concise and contains rich meaning, so it is specially explained. If it is spoken of first, one can only obtain generating function from the essence. If it is spoken of last, one can only obtain gathering function back to the essence. Explaining it in the middle allows one to take care of both.

故義得兩兼也。又眾教所起。各自有原。此經之興。事由於疾。統六道以癡愛為原。總群聖以大悲樹本。拔癡愛故。託疾毗耶。有緣之徒。皆來問疾。即說生死過患法身四德。令厭已體求于佛身。即初集意也。佛在庵園。為其集眾。遣使慰之。至門疾品。還論二疾。一菩薩大悲之疾。二眾生癡愛之病。說此二病。名說法門。不可思議品現神通門。觀眾生品明所化非有。故興無緣大悲。佛道品辨能化菩薩無方妙用。反常會道。此四品兩雙。並未得論于不二。今始收此二。歸乎不二。次從不二方更興二矣。

十共釋門

問。不二既攝前生后。何不自說。乃與眾共談。答。凡有十義。欲示不二眾教同歸千聖共轍。故命異人令同說不二。在人雖異。所悟是同。即是顯不二義。二託人優劣顯入有三根。三者示惑病非一教門不同。四顯不二義廣非止一法。五示階級次第令從淺入深。六顯凈名入深令尊人重法。七將欲散席各陳妙悟。八上已嘆凈名文殊德。今次彰大眾之德。九明一切菩薩能說能入。小乘之流闕此二用。十明諸菩薩與物各有因緣。顯非由一人所能化也。

凈名玄論卷第一(名題上) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

凈名玄論卷第二(名題中)

后釋本名門

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，『義』（artha）這個概念可以兼顧兩方面。而且，各種教義的產生，都有各自的根源。這部經的興起，是由於疾病這個事件。它統攝六道輪迴，以愚癡和愛慾為根源；總攝所有聖賢，以大悲心為根本。爲了拔除愚癡和愛慾，就以毗耶離（Vaishali）的疾病為依託。有緣的人們，都來探望疾病。於是就宣說生死輪迴的過患，以及法身（Dharmakaya）的四種功德，使他們厭棄已有的身體，而追求佛身。這就是最初集會的意義。佛陀在庵園（Amra garden），為他們聚集大眾，派遣使者去慰問。到了『至門疾品』，又討論兩種疾病：一是菩薩的大悲之疾，二是眾生的愚癡愛慾之病。宣說這兩種疾病，名為說法門。『不可思議品』展現神通之門，『觀眾生品』闡明所教化之對象並非實有，所以興起無緣大悲。『佛道品』辨析能教化的菩薩，具有無方妙用，反常合道。這四品經文，兩兩成對，但尚未論及不二之理。現在開始將這兩者，歸於不二。然後從不二之理，再興起二法。

十共釋門

問：既然不二之理，能夠統攝前後的生滅，為什麼不自己宣說，而要與大眾共同討論？答：凡有十種意義：一是爲了顯示不二之理，是各種教義共同的歸宿，是所有聖賢共同遵循的道路。所以命令不同的人，共同宣說不二之理。雖然人不同，但所領悟的道理是相同的，這就是顯示不二之義。二是依託人們的優劣，顯示進入不二之門有上中下三根。三是顯示迷惑和疾病並非只有一種，教門也有所不同。四是顯示不二之義廣大，並非只有一種方法。五是顯示階級次第，使人從淺入深。六是顯示維摩詰（Vimalakirti）進入甚深之境，使人尊重法和人。七是將要散席時，各自陳述妙悟。八是上面已經讚歎了維摩詰和文殊（Manjusri）的功德，現在接著彰顯大眾的功德。九是闡明一切菩薩都能說能入，小乘之流缺乏這兩種能力。十是闡明諸位菩薩與眾生各有因緣，顯示並非由一人所能教化。

《凈名玄論》卷第一 (名題上) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 《凈名玄論》

《凈名玄論》卷第二 (名題中)

后釋本名門

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the meaning ('artha') can encompass both aspects. Moreover, the arising of various teachings each has its own origin. The rise of this sutra is due to the event of illness. It encompasses the six realms of samsara, with ignorance and craving as its root; it encompasses all sages, with great compassion as its foundation. To eradicate ignorance and craving, it relies on the illness in Vaishali (Vaishali). Those with affinity all come to inquire about the illness. Thus, it expounds the faults of birth and death, and the four virtues of the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya), causing them to厭棄 their existing bodies and seek the Buddha-body. This is the meaning of the initial gathering. The Buddha, in the Amra garden (Amra garden), gathers the assembly for them, sending messengers to comfort them. In the 'Entering the Gate of Illness' chapter, it discusses two illnesses: one is the illness of great compassion of the Bodhisattvas, and the other is the illness of ignorance and craving of sentient beings. Expounding these two illnesses is called the Dharma-gate. The 'Inconceivable' chapter reveals the gate of supernatural powers, and the 'Contemplating Sentient Beings' chapter clarifies that the objects of transformation are not real, thus arousing causeless great compassion. The 'Buddha-path' chapter distinguishes that the Bodhisattvas who can transform have boundless wonderful functions, reversing the ordinary to accord with the Way. These four chapters, in pairs, have not yet discussed the principle of non-duality. Now, it begins to bring these two into non-duality. Then, from the principle of non-duality, two dharmas arise again.

Ten Shared Explanations

Question: Since the principle of non-duality encompasses the arising and ceasing of the past and future, why not expound it oneself, but discuss it with the assembly? Answer: There are ten meanings: First, to show that the principle of non-duality is the common destination of all teachings, the common path followed by all sages. Therefore, different people are commanded to jointly expound the principle of non-duality. Although the people are different, what they realize is the same, which is to reveal the meaning of non-duality. Second, relying on the strengths and weaknesses of people, it shows that there are three roots—superior, middling, and inferior—for entering the gate of non-duality. Third, it shows that delusion and illness are not just one kind, and the teachings also differ. Fourth, it shows that the meaning of non-duality is vast, not just one method. Fifth, it shows the order of stages, allowing people to enter from shallow to deep. Sixth, it shows that Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) has entered a deep state, causing people to respect the Dharma and the person. Seventh, when the assembly is about to disperse, each person presents their wonderful realization. Eighth, above, the merits of Vimalakirti and Manjusri (Manjusri) have already been praised, and now the merits of the assembly are further manifested. Ninth, it clarifies that all Bodhisattvas can speak and enter, while those of the Hinayana lack these two abilities. Tenth, it clarifies that the Bodhisattvas each have affinities with sentient beings, showing that transformation cannot be accomplished by one person alone.

Neti-Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary, Volume 1 (Title Above) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 38, No. 1780, Neti-Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary

Neti-Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary, Volume 2 (Title Middle)

Later Explanation of the Original Title

論曰。由體不二之理故。有無二智。由無二之智故。適化無方。適化無方則施教不一。施教不一故稱詔不同。是知不二之門為名本也。上已顯其名本。今次敘其本名。敘其本名。略有二種。第一總論眾教。第二別敘此經。

第一總論眾教。凡有五門。一立名不同門。二轉不轉門。三釋首題門。四具義多少門。五人法不同門。

一立名不同門

眾聖敷經。凡有二種。一者直說不別立名。如大品等。九十章內。無有侍者問名如來答題。良以一部明波若事顯。即知是波若經。不煩別立。二者說經亦立名字。如雲此經名為大般涅槃。良由名義未彰。故須別立。此立名不立名一雙也。就自立名之中。復有二種。一佛自立。如雲為諸聲聞說是大乘經名妙法蓮華。二待問方立。如金剛波若。待善吉問名。如來始答。此謂自他一雙。就自立名中。復有二種。一序品已立。如金光明之流。二就正說方立。眾經多爾。此序正一雙也。待問立名中。復有二種。一說經未竟。隨一義說。即立名字。亦如小波若等。二就說經究竟。方始立名。此經是矣。謂前後一雙也。就說經竟立名。復有二種。一者但立一名。眾經多爾。二者立於多名即凈名等是也。故云一名維摩詰經。二名不可思議解脫法門。此一多一雙也。眾經雖多。立

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論曰：由於體性不二的道理，所以有有智和無智這兩種智慧。由於沒有二元對立的智慧，所以適應教化沒有固定的方法。適應教化沒有固定的方法，那麼施行的教義就不統一。施行的教義不統一，所以稱謂和詔令也不同。由此可知，不二法門是名稱的根本。上面已經闡明了名稱的根本，現在接著敘述這個根本的名稱。敘述這個根本的名稱，大致有兩種：第一，總論各種教義；第二，分別敘述這部經。 第一，總論各種教義，總共有五個方面：一是立名不同；二是轉與不轉；三是解釋經題；四是具含義理的多少；五是人與法的不同。 一、立名不同 諸位聖人宣講佛經，大致有兩種情況：一是直接宣說而不另外立名，例如《大品般若經》等。九十章的經文內，沒有侍者詢問經名，如來回答經題的情況。這是因為整部經都在闡明般若（Prajna，智慧）之事，自然就知道是《般若經》，不需要另外立名。二是宣說佛經也同時立下名字，例如說這部經名為《大般涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra）。這是因為經義沒有明顯彰顯，所以需要另外立名。這是立名與不立名的一對情況。在自己立名的情況中，又有兩種：一是佛陀自己立名，例如說『爲了諸位聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法者）宣說這部大乘（Mahāyāna，大乘佛教）經典，名為《妙法蓮華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）』。二是等待提問才立名，例如《金剛般若經》（Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra），等待善吉（Subhuti）提問經名，如來才開始回答。這是自己與他人的情況。在自己立名的情況中，又有兩種：一是序品（Nidāna）中已經立名，例如《金光明經》（Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra）之類。二是就在正文宣說時才立名，多數經典都是這樣。這是序品與正文的情況。等待提問才立名的情況中，又有兩種：一是經典沒有說完，隨著一個義理的宣說，就立刻立下名字，也像《小品般若經》等。二是就在經典宣說完畢，才開始立名，這部經就是這樣。這是前後順序的情況。就在經典說完才立名的情況中，又有兩種：一是隻立一個名字，多數經典都是這樣。二是立下多個名字，就像《凈名經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra）等。所以說，一個名字是《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra），第二個名字是《不可思議解脫法門》（Acintyādhimokṣa-nirdeśa）。這是一個與多個的情況。眾多經典雖然很多，立名

【English Translation】 English version: Treatise states: Because of the principle of non-duality of essence, there are two kinds of wisdom: wisdom of existence and wisdom of non-existence. Because of the wisdom of non-duality, adapting to transformation has no fixed method. If adapting to transformation has no fixed method, then the teachings given will not be uniform. If the teachings given are not uniform, then the titles and decrees will also be different. From this, it can be known that the gate of non-duality is the root of names. The root of names has already been clarified above, and now the fundamental name will be narrated. There are roughly two types of narrating the fundamental name: first, a general discussion of all teachings; second, a separate narration of this scripture. First, a general discussion of all teachings, with a total of five aspects: first, the difference in establishing names; second, turning and not turning; third, explaining the title of the scripture; fourth, the amount of meaning contained; fifth, the difference between person and Dharma. One, the difference in establishing names When the various sages expound the scriptures, there are roughly two situations: first, directly expounding without establishing a separate name, such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) and others. Within the ninety chapters, there is no situation where an attendant asks the name of the scripture and the Tathāgata (Thus Come One) answers the title. This is because the entire scripture clarifies the matter of Prajna (wisdom), and it is naturally known that it is the Prajna Sutra, without the need to establish a separate name. Second, expounding the scripture and also establishing a name, such as saying that this scripture is named the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Great Nirvana Sutra). This is because the meaning of the scripture is not clearly manifested, so it is necessary to establish a separate name. This is a pair of situations: establishing a name and not establishing a name. Within the situation of establishing a name oneself, there are two types: first, the Buddha establishes the name himself, such as saying 'For the Śrāvakas (listeners) to expound this Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle) scripture, named the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra (Lotus Sutra)'. Second, waiting for a question before establishing the name, such as the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Diamond Sutra), waiting for Subhuti to ask the name of the scripture before the Tathāgata begins to answer. This is a pair of situations: oneself and others. Within the situation of establishing a name oneself, there are two types: first, the name is already established in the Nidāna (introduction) chapter, such as the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra (Golden Light Sutra) and others. Second, the name is established during the main exposition, which is the case for most scriptures. This is a pair of situations: introduction and main text. Within the situation of waiting for a question before establishing the name, there are two types: first, the scripture is not finished, and a name is immediately established along with the exposition of a principle, such as the Smaller Prajna Sutra and others. Second, the name is established only after the scripture is completely expounded, which is the case for this scripture. This is a pair of situations: before and after. Within the situation of establishing a name after the scripture is finished, there are two types: first, only one name is established, which is the case for most scriptures. Second, multiple names are established, such as the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (Vimalakirti Sutra) and others. Therefore, it is said that one name is the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra, and the second name is the Acintyādhimokṣa-nirdeśa (Inconceivable Liberation Dharma Door). This is a pair of situations: one and many. Although there are many scriptures, establishing names

名所由。略明十義。問。華嚴一部。何故文無立名。答。此經凡有十萬偈。傳譯未盡。立名當在後也。至長安。見僧曇法師從於闐還。于彼處。見龍樹傳云。華嚴凡有三本。大本有三千大千世界微塵偈一四天下微塵品。中本有四十九萬八千八百偈一千二百品。此二本並在龍宮。龍樹不誦出也。唯誦下本十萬偈三十六品。此土唯有三萬六千偈三十四品。故知華嚴名數在數分矣。菩提流支云。佛滅度后六百年。龍樹從海宮持出也。

二論立名轉不轉門

三世佛經。立名有二。一名字不轉。二隨佛世異。如過去二萬日月燈明佛。說大乘經。名妙法蓮華。現在釋迦。同有斯號。此經名字不轉。二者隨佛出世。名字不同。如十二部中伊帝目多伽經。拘留秦佛出世之轉名甘露谷。拘那含佛為法鏡。迦葉佛時名分別空。釋迦興世稱為契經。蓋是適緣不同。故名隨世異也。

三論標題意門

天竺經題在後。而初皆云悉曇。悉曇云成就。亦云吉法。而回後置初。道安名之也。問。眾經何故首題名字。答。欲令因名知法。因法起行。得解脫果。又根欲不同。說教非一。若不別立名題。則諸部不分。為令眾部各分。故別立名題。又諸佛說法。有略有廣。廣謂一部之文。略即一經之題。攝廣為略。為受持故。開略為廣

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名稱的由來。簡要說明十個方面。問：為什麼《華嚴經》整部經文沒有確定的名稱？答：這部經總共有十萬偈，傳譯尚未完成，確立名稱應該在以後。到長安后，見到僧人曇法師從於闐（Khotan，古代西域國名）回來，他說在那裡見到龍樹（Nagarjuna，佛教大乘中觀學派創始人）所傳，說《華嚴經》總共有三個版本。大本有三千大千世界微塵數偈，一四天下微塵數品。中本有四十九萬八千八百偈，一千二百品。這兩個版本都在龍宮中，龍樹沒有背誦出來。只背誦出下本，有十萬偈，三十六品。我們這裡只有三萬六千偈，三十四品。因此可知《華嚴經》的名稱和數量都在一部分中。菩提流支（Bodhiruci，北魏時期來中國的印度僧人）說，佛陀滅度后六百年，龍樹從海宮中帶出來的。 二、論述立名是否轉變之門 三世（過去、現在、未來）佛經，確立名稱有兩種情況：一是名字不轉變，二是隨著佛陀出世而不同。例如過去二萬日月燈明佛，所說的大乘經典，名為《妙法蓮華》。現在釋迦（Sakyamuni，佛教創始人）佛，也有這個名稱。這種經的名字不轉變。另一種是隨著佛陀出世，名字不同。例如十二部經中的伊帝目多伽經（Itivuttaka，小部經典之一），拘留秦佛（Krakucchanda Buddha，過去七佛之一）出世時轉名為甘露谷，拘那含佛（Kanakamuni Buddha，過去七佛之一）時為法鏡，迦葉佛（Kasyapa Buddha，過去七佛之一）時名為分別空，釋迦佛興盛於世時稱為契經。大概是適應的因緣不同，所以名稱隨著時代而變化。 三、論述標題的意義 在印度，經文的標題放在後面，但開頭都說『悉曇』（Siddham，梵文字母）。『悉曇』的意思是成就，也說是吉祥之法，而道安（釋道安，東晉時期著名佛教學者）將它移到前面。問：為什麼眾多經典首先要標明名字？答：想要通過名稱瞭解佛法，通過佛法開始修行，從而獲得解脫的果實。而且眾生的根性和慾望不同，所說的教義也不一樣。如果不分別確立名稱，那麼各個經典就無法區分。爲了使各個經典能夠區分開來，所以分別確立名稱。而且諸佛說法，有簡略的，有詳細的。詳細的指一部經的全部內容，簡略的就是一部經的標題。將詳細的內容概括為簡略的，是爲了便於受持。將簡略的展開為詳細的，是爲了深入理解。

【English Translation】 English version The origin of the name. Briefly explaining ten aspects. Question: Why does the entire text of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra) not have a definite name? Answer: This sutra has a total of one hundred thousand gathas (verses), and the translation has not been completed. The establishment of the name should be later. After arriving in Chang'an, I saw the monk Tanfa returning from Khotan (ancient kingdom in the Western Regions), who said that he saw Nagarjuna (founder of the Madhyamaka school of Mahayana Buddhism) there, who said that there were three versions of the Avatamsaka Sutra. The large version has gathas equal to the number of dust particles in three thousand great chiliocosms, and chapters equal to the number of dust particles in one four-continent world. The middle version has 498,800 gathas and 1,200 chapters. These two versions are in the Dragon Palace, and Nagarjuna did not recite them. He only recited the lower version, which has 100,000 gathas and 36 chapters. We only have 36,000 gathas and 34 chapters here. Therefore, it can be known that the name and number of the Avatamsaka Sutra are in a part of it. Bodhiruci (Indian monk who came to China during the Northern Wei Dynasty) said that six hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, Nagarjuna brought it out from the Dragon Palace. Two, On the Gate of Whether the Establishment of Names Changes The Buddhist scriptures of the three times (past, present, and future) have two situations for establishing names: one is that the name does not change, and the other is that it differs with the appearance of the Buddha. For example, the two myriad Sun Moon Lamp Buddhas of the past, the Mahayana scriptures they spoke were called the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra (Lotus Sutra). The current Sakyamuni (founder of Buddhism) Buddha also has this name. The name of this sutra does not change. The other is that the name differs with the appearance of the Buddha. For example, the Itivuttaka (one of the Khuddaka Nikaya) among the twelve divisions of scriptures, when Krakucchanda Buddha (one of the past seven Buddhas) appeared in the world, it was renamed Ambrosia Valley, when Kanakamuni Buddha (one of the past seven Buddhas) appeared it was called Dharma Mirror, when Kasyapa Buddha (one of the past seven Buddhas) appeared it was called Differentiated Emptiness, and when Sakyamuni Buddha flourished in the world it was called Sutra. It is probably because the adapting conditions are different, so the name changes with the times. Three, On the Meaning of the Title In India, the title of the scripture is placed at the end, but the beginning always says 'Siddham' (Sanskrit alphabet). 'Siddham' means accomplishment, and it is also said to be auspicious Dharma, but Dao'an (famous Buddhist scholar in the Eastern Jin Dynasty) moved it to the front. Question: Why do many scriptures first indicate the name? Answer: To understand the Dharma through the name, to start practicing through the Dharma, and thus obtain the fruit of liberation. Moreover, the roots and desires of sentient beings are different, and the teachings spoken are also different. If names are not established separately, then the various scriptures cannot be distinguished. In order to distinguish the various scriptures, names are established separately. Moreover, the Buddhas speak Dharma, some are brief, and some are detailed. The detailed refers to the entire content of a scripture, and the brief is the title of a scripture. Summarizing the detailed into the brief is for easy upholding. Expanding the brief into the detailed is for in-depth understanding.

。為解義故。又攝廣為略。為利根人。若聞經名。即解其義。如龍樹等入于海宮。但看經題。具鑒文理。開略為廣。為鈍根人。皆聞名未悟。尋文乃解。是以眾經首題名字。

四論立名具義多少門

自有一義立名。或但從人。或但因法。或單就譬。次二義立名。或人法雙舉。或法譬兩題。或因果合說。次三義立名。如勝鬘為人。師子為譬。一乘大方便為法。華嚴亦然。大方廣為法。佛即是人。華嚴為譬。次四義立名。亦如華嚴。大方廣即眾經之通稱。諸大乘經皆云方等。亦名方廣。如雲大方廣大集經。涅槃亦云方等為甘露。即十二部中。名毗佛略。故方廣之名通稱也。方廣既為通稱。佛華嚴即是別名。謂通別兩義也。就別之中。佛為其人。華嚴為譬。合前通別為四義也。次五義立名。大方廣名含二義。一者對別。即是通義。二者對人。復是法名。足前四義。故成五也。次六義立名。即方廣為法。對華嚴為辟。復為法辟一雙也。合上為六也。次七義立名。加以經字。上六為理。經即是文。謂文理一雙也。如涅槃七善中雲。知法知義知法。即是十二部經。故以經文對上義也。若以大方廣佛華嚴經。即以此七字。亦得為七義立名。以具上七義也。如華嚴題目。作此釋之。自餘眾部。可隨義多少也。問。眾經皆是

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 爲了解釋經文的意義，有時會將廣義的內容概括為簡略的說法，這是爲了方便那些聰慧的人，他們可能一聽到經名就能理解其中的含義，就像龍樹菩薩等人進入龍宮，僅僅看到經題，就能完全理解經文的道理。反之，也會將簡略的內容展開為詳細的解釋，這是爲了幫助那些理解能力較慢的人，他們即使聽到了經名也無法領悟，需要仔細研讀經文才能理解。因此，大多數佛經都會在開頭標明經名。

四論立名具義多少門

經名的確立，所包含的意義有多有少。有些經名只包含一個意義，或者只從人（佛或菩薩）的角度命名，或者只從法（佛法）的角度命名，或者只用比喻來命名。有些經名包含兩個意義，或者同時提及人與法，或者同時使用法與比喻，或者將因與果合併來說明。有些經名包含三個意義，例如《勝鬘經》，勝鬘夫人是人，師子吼是比喻，一乘大方便是法。《華嚴經》也是如此，大方廣是法，佛是人，華嚴是比喻。有些經名包含四個意義，也像《華嚴經》，大方廣是所有經的通稱，所有大乘經典都稱為方等，也叫方廣，例如《大方廣大集經》。《涅槃經》也說方等是甘露，也就是十二部經中的毗佛略。所以，方廣是通稱。方廣既然是通稱，佛和華嚴就是別名，這就是通別兩種意義。在別名中，佛是人，華嚴是比喻。將前面的通別兩種意義合併，就是四種意義。有些經名包含五個意義，大方廣這個名稱包含兩種意義，一是相對於別名而言，它是通義；二是相對於人而言，它又是法名。加上前面的四種意義，就構成了五種意義。有些經名包含六個意義，方廣是法，相對於華嚴是比喻，法和比喻又可以算作一對。合併以上幾種，就是六種意義。有些經名包含七個意義，再加上『經』字，前面的六種是理，『經』就是文，文和理又可以算作一對。例如《涅槃經》七善中說：『知法知義知法』，這裡說的法就是十二部經，所以用經文來對應上面的意義。如果用『大方廣佛華嚴經』這七個字，也可以用七種意義來解釋經名，因為它包含了上面的七種意義。就像《華嚴經》的題目，可以這樣解釋。至於其他的經典，可以根據其意義的多少來解釋。問：所有的經典都是……

【English Translation】 English version: For the sake of explaining the meaning, sometimes the broad is condensed into the concise, for the benefit of those with sharp faculties, who can understand the meaning upon hearing the name of the scripture, like Nāgārjuna (a famous Buddhist philosopher) and others who entered the Dragon Palace and, by merely looking at the title of the scripture, fully understood the principles of the text. Conversely, the concise is expanded into the detailed, for the benefit of those with dull faculties, who cannot comprehend even after hearing the name and must seek understanding by examining the text. Therefore, most scriptures begin by stating the name of the scripture.

The Four Treatises on Establishing Names with Varying Degrees of Meaning

The establishment of a name can contain varying degrees of meaning. Some names contain only one meaning, either solely from the perspective of a person (Buddha or Bodhisattva), or solely from the perspective of the Dharma (Buddhist teachings), or solely using a metaphor. Some names contain two meanings, either mentioning both person and Dharma, or using both Dharma and metaphor, or combining cause and effect to explain. Some names contain three meanings, such as the 『Śrīmālādevī Sūtra』 (The Sutra of Queen Śrīmālā), where Śrīmālā (name of a queen) is a person, the lion's roar is a metaphor, and the One Vehicle Great Expedient is the Dharma. The 『Avataṃsaka Sūtra』 (Flower Garland Sutra) is also like this, where Great, Expansive, and Vast (describing the Dharma) is the Dharma, Buddha is the person, and Flower Adornment is the metaphor. Some names contain four meanings, also like the 『Avataṃsaka Sūtra』, where Great, Expansive, and Vast is the common name for all scriptures, and all Mahāyāna scriptures are called Vaipulya (extensive), also called Fang Guang (方廣, expansive). For example, the 『Mahāvaipulya Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra』 (Great Expansive Great Assembly Sutra). The 『Nirvana Sutra』 also says that Vaipulya is like nectar, which is the Vibuddha (毗佛略) among the twelve divisions of scriptures. Therefore, Fang Guang (方廣) is a common name. Since Fang Guang (方廣) is a common name, Buddha and Flower Adornment are specific names, which are the two meanings of common and specific. Within the specific names, Buddha is the person, and Flower Adornment is the metaphor. Combining the preceding two meanings of common and specific, there are four meanings. Some names contain five meanings, the name Great, Expansive, and Vast contains two meanings, one is that relative to the specific name, it is the common meaning; the other is that relative to the person, it is again a Dharma name. Adding the preceding four meanings, it constitutes five meanings. Some names contain six meanings, Fang Guang (方廣) is the Dharma, relative to Flower Adornment it is a metaphor, and Dharma and metaphor can also be counted as a pair. Combining the above, there are six meanings. Some names contain seven meanings, adding the word 『Sūtra』 (經), the preceding six are the principle, and 『Sūtra』 is the text, text and principle can also be counted as a pair. For example, in the seven good qualities in the 『Nirvana Sutra』, it says: 『Knowing the Dharma, knowing the meaning, knowing the Dharma』, where the Dharma mentioned here is the twelve divisions of scriptures, so the scripture text corresponds to the above meanings. If using the seven characters 『Great, Expansive, Vast, Buddha, Flower Adornment Sūtra』, the name of the scripture can also be explained with seven meanings, because it contains the above seven meanings. Just like the title of the 『Avataṃsaka Sūtra』, it can be explained in this way. As for other scriptures, they can be explained according to the number of meanings they contain. Question: All scriptures are...

佛說。何故華嚴獨標佛耶。答。欲顯華嚴教圓理滿。故偏題佛也。問。余大乘亦皆教圓理滿。何故偏嘆華嚴。答。余經從半入滿。華嚴之滿。不因於半。故偏嘆也。問。既不因半。何由得滿。答。因有多門。不可一例。因於滿理。故有滿教。亦因滿人。故有滿法。不必待半。有人言。七處八會。是一佛華嚴三昧現此法門。故須標佛也。又華嚴偏題佛者。此是佛初成道說之。故題于佛。自爾之前。未有佛說。從此以後。不須標佛。是故斯經獨標佛也。又華嚴七處八會加菩薩說。客謂是菩薩經。非是佛說。是故釋云諸菩薩等承佛神力在佛前說。即是佛說。故題佛也。問。既是佛經。何故不題佛說。但標佛耶。答。非佛自言。但加菩薩說。故不題佛說也。問。佛為教主。應在題初。何故方廣居首耶。答。欲示諸佛所師所謂法也。故先標於法。又如前明佛華嚴三昧。故稱佛華嚴經。則佛與華嚴合為一句。若發趾標佛。則義隔華嚴。故不可也。問。大方廣既是眾經通稱。何故華嚴獨標。答。例如題佛以釋之也。良由教圓理滿。純化大人。又是初成道說。故獨標之。

五論人法不同門

眾經從人立名。凡有四種。一從能說人立名。如維摩等。二從所為人受稱。如提謂經等也。三從能問人立名。如文殊師利所問經等。四

【現代漢語翻譯】 佛說：為什麼《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）要特別標明『佛』呢？答：爲了彰顯《華嚴經》教義圓滿，理體完備，所以特別在經名上標明『佛』。問：其他大乘經典也都是教義圓滿，理體完備，為什麼唯獨讚歎《華嚴經》呢？答：其他的經典是從不圓滿到圓滿，而《華嚴經》的圓滿，不是通過不圓滿而達到的，所以特別讚歎它。問：既然不是通過不圓滿而達到圓滿，那麼是通過什麼途徑達到圓滿的呢？答：途徑有很多，不能一概而論。因為有圓滿的理體，所以有圓滿的教義；也因為有圓滿的人（佛），所以有圓滿的法，不必等待從不圓滿開始。有人說，七處八會（seven locations and eight assemblies）是一佛（one Buddha）以華嚴三昧（Avatamsaka Samadhi）所展現的法門，所以必須標明『佛』。又《華嚴經》特別標明『佛』，是因為這是佛（Buddha）最初成道時所說的，所以經名上標明『佛』。在此之前，沒有佛所說的法，從此以後，就不需要標明『佛』了，所以這部經特別標明『佛』。又《華嚴經》七處八會，有菩薩（Bodhisattva）參與說法，有人認為是菩薩的經典，不是佛說的，所以解釋說諸菩薩等是承蒙佛的神力，在佛前宣說，實際上就是佛說的，所以經名上標明『佛』。問：既然是佛經，為什麼不題『佛說』，只標明『佛』呢？答：因為不是佛親自說的，而是加上菩薩說的部分，所以不題『佛說』。問：佛作為教主，應該在經名之首，為什麼『大方廣』（great, expansive, and vast）放在最前面呢？答：爲了顯示諸佛所尊崇的，就是法（Dharma）。所以先標明法。又如前面所說，佛以華嚴三昧，所以稱為《佛華嚴經》，那麼『佛』與『華嚴』合為一句。如果一開始就標明『佛』，那麼意義上就與『華嚴』隔開了，所以不可以這樣。問：『大方廣』是眾多經典通用的名稱，為什麼《華嚴經》要特別標明呢？答：例如題『佛』來解釋它。正是因為教義圓滿，理體完備，純粹教化大人（指菩薩），又是最初成道時所說，所以特別標明它。 五論人法不同門 眾多經典從人來立名，大致有四種：一是根據能說法的人來立名，如《維摩經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）等；二是根據所教化的人來命名，如《提謂經》（Trapusa and Bhallika Sutra）等；三是根據能提問的人來立名，如《文殊師利所問經》（Manjushri's Questions Sutra）等；四

【English Translation】 The Buddha said: Why does the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing) specifically highlight 'Buddha'? Answer: To manifest that the Avatamsaka teaching is complete in doctrine and perfect in principle, hence the title specifically includes 'Buddha'. Question: Other Mahayana sutras are also complete in doctrine and perfect in principle, why is the Avatamsaka Sutra particularly praised? Answer: Other sutras progress from incomplete to complete, whereas the completeness of the Avatamsaka Sutra is not derived from incompleteness, hence it is particularly praised. Question: Since it does not derive from incompleteness, how is completeness attained? Answer: There are many paths, and they cannot be generalized. Because there is a complete principle, there is a complete teaching; also because there is a complete person (Buddha), there is a complete Dharma, without needing to wait for incompleteness to begin. Some say that the seven locations and eight assemblies (seven locations and eight assemblies) are a Dharma gate manifested by one Buddha (one Buddha) in the Avatamsaka Samadhi (Avatamsaka Samadhi), hence it is necessary to highlight 'Buddha'. Furthermore, the Avatamsaka Sutra specifically highlights 'Buddha' because it was spoken by the Buddha (Buddha) upon first attaining enlightenment, hence the title includes 'Buddha'. Before that time, there was no Dharma spoken by the Buddha; after that time, it is not necessary to highlight 'Buddha', therefore this sutra specifically highlights 'Buddha'. Moreover, in the seven locations and eight assemblies of the Avatamsaka Sutra, Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) participate in the teachings, leading some to believe it is a Bodhisattva sutra, not spoken by the Buddha. Therefore, it is explained that the Bodhisattvas and others, relying on the Buddha's divine power, spoke before the Buddha, which is actually the Buddha speaking, hence the title includes 'Buddha'. Question: Since it is a Buddha sutra, why is it not titled 'Spoken by the Buddha', but only highlights 'Buddha'? Answer: Because it was not spoken by the Buddha alone, but includes the Bodhisattvas' contributions, hence it is not titled 'Spoken by the Buddha'. Question: The Buddha, as the teaching's master, should be at the beginning of the title, why is 'Great, Expansive, and Vast' (great, expansive, and vast) placed at the forefront? Answer: To show what the Buddhas revere, which is the Dharma (Dharma). Therefore, the Dharma is highlighted first. Also, as mentioned earlier, the Buddha is in Avatamsaka Samadhi, hence it is called the 'Buddha Avatamsaka Sutra', so 'Buddha' and 'Avatamsaka' form a single phrase. If 'Buddha' were highlighted at the beginning, the meaning would be separated from 'Avatamsaka', so it is not appropriate. Question: 'Great, Expansive, and Vast' is a common title for many sutras, why does the Avatamsaka Sutra specifically highlight it? Answer: For example, title 'Buddha' to explain it. It is precisely because the teaching is complete in doctrine, perfect in principle, purely transforms great beings (referring to Bodhisattvas), and was spoken upon first attaining enlightenment, hence it is specifically highlighted. The Five Treatises on the Difference Between Person and Dharma Many sutras are named after people, generally in four ways: first, named after the person who can speak the Dharma, such as the Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra) etc.; second, named after the person being taught, such as the Trapusa and Bhallika Sutra (Trapusa and Bhallika Sutra) etc.; third, named after the person who can ask questions, such as the Manjushri's Questions Sutra (Manjushri's Questions Sutra) etc.; fourth

從所說人受稱。如無量壽佛經等。以說無量壽佛事。故以標名。就能說人。復有五種。一者佛口自說。二者弟子說。三者諸天說。四仙人說。五化人說。此經即是弟子說也。問。弟子所說。既得單從人受名。如來所說。亦得爾不。答。通義得齊。別則不類。弟子所說。多從人受稱。如來所說。多從法得名。所以然者。佛說經無量。若皆云佛經。則諸部無別。今欲分諸部各別。故從法為名。弟子若從法立名。則師資相監。如直云不思議解脫經。不題凈名者。容謂此經即是佛說。今簡師資不同。故從人受稱。故佛經不從人。為欲別師。弟子不從法。為欲簡人。問。人法雙題。凡有幾義。答。略有二種。一者人法雙題。合為一名。如仁王波若等。二者人法兩舉。開為二名。謂人為一名。即維摩詰所說經。法為一名。謂不思議解脫法門。

第二別敘此經

復有三門。一總釋是人法門。二別釋人門。三別釋法門。

一總釋人法門

問。此經何故人法雙題。答。略有十義。一者道不孤運。弘之由人。題凈名。標說教之主。辨不思議。明所弘之法。二者欲明通別兩義。題凈名。則為明人別。標不思議。辨其法通。所以然者。此經凡二化主。一者佛說。二者維摩說。若但題凈名之人。不題不思議法者。但得維

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 從所說的人來接受名稱。例如《無量壽佛經》等，因為講述了無量壽佛（Amitabha）的事蹟，所以用他的名字來命名。就所說的人而言，又有五種情況：一是佛親自宣說，二是弟子宣說，三是諸天宣說，四是仙人宣說，五是化人宣說。這部經就是弟子宣說的。問：弟子所說的經，既然可以只從人來接受名稱，如來所說的經，也可以這樣嗎？答：從普遍的意義上來說可以相同，但從特殊的方面來說則不相同。弟子所說的經，大多從人來接受名稱；如來所說的經，大多從法來得到名稱。之所以這樣，是因為佛所說的經數量眾多，如果都叫做『佛經』，那麼各部經典就沒有區別了。現在想要區分各部經典的不同，所以從法來命名。弟子如果從法來立名，就會和老師的名字相混淆，例如直接叫做《不思議解脫經》，不題寫維摩詰的名字，就容易認為這部經是佛說的。現在爲了區分師徒的不同，所以從人來接受名稱。所以佛經不從人來命名，是爲了區別老師；弟子不從法來命名，是爲了區分人。問：人法雙題，一般有幾種含義？答：大致有兩種。一是人法雙題，合為一個名稱，例如《仁王般若經》等；二是人法分別列舉，分為兩個名稱，人是一個名稱，即《維摩詰所說經》，法是一個名稱，即《不思議解脫法門》。 第二，分別敘述這部經 又有三個方面：一是總的解釋人法門，二是分別解釋人門，三是分別解釋法門。 一、總的解釋人法門 問：這部經為什麼人法雙題？答：大致有十種含義：一是道不獨自執行，弘揚它要依靠人。題寫『凈名』，標明宣說教義的主人；闡明『不思議』，說明所弘揚的法。二是想要說明通別兩種含義。題寫『凈名』，就是爲了說明人的差別；標明『不思議』，說明其法的普遍性。之所以這樣，是因為這部經共有兩位化主，一是佛，二是維摩詰。如果只題寫『凈名』這個人，不題寫『不思議』法，那麼只能得到維摩詰

【English Translation】 English version It receives its name from the person who speaks it. For example, the Amitabha Sutra (Wu Liang Shou Fo Jing) and others, because they speak of the deeds of Amitabha Buddha (Wu Liang Shou Fo), are named accordingly. Regarding the speaker, there are five possibilities: first, the Buddha speaks it himself; second, a disciple speaks it; third, the devas speak it; fourth, the immortals speak it; fifth, a transformation body speaks it. This sutra is spoken by a disciple. Question: Since a sutra spoken by a disciple can be named solely after the person, can a sutra spoken by the Tathagata (Ru Lai) also be named in this way? Answer: In a general sense, they can be the same, but in a specific sense, they are different. Sutras spoken by disciples are mostly named after the person; sutras spoken by the Tathagata (Ru Lai) are mostly named after the Dharma. The reason for this is that the Buddha speaks countless sutras, and if they were all called 'Buddha Sutras,' there would be no distinction between the various sections. Now, to differentiate the various sections, they are named after the Dharma. If a disciple were to establish a name based on the Dharma, it would confuse the teacher-student relationship. For example, if it were simply called the 'Inconceivable Liberation Sutra' without mentioning Vimalakirti (Jing Ming), it might be assumed that this sutra was spoken by the Buddha. Now, to distinguish between teacher and student, it is named after the person. Therefore, Buddha's sutras are not named after the person to distinguish the teacher, and disciples' sutras are not named after the Dharma to distinguish the person. Question: How many meanings are there in naming both the person and the Dharma? Answer: There are roughly two types. First, the person and the Dharma are named together as one name, such as the Benevolent Kings Sutra (Ren Wang Bo Re) and others. Second, the person and the Dharma are listed separately as two names, with the person being one name, namely the Vimalakirti Sutra (Wei Mo Jie Suo Shuo Jing), and the Dharma being one name, namely the Inconceivable Liberation Dharma Door (Bu Si Yi Jie Tuo Fa Men). Second, a separate account of this sutra There are also three aspects: first, a general explanation of the person-Dharma gate; second, a separate explanation of the person gate; and third, a separate explanation of the Dharma gate. First, a general explanation of the person-Dharma gate Question: Why is this sutra named after both the person and the Dharma? Answer: There are roughly ten meanings: first, the path does not operate in isolation; its propagation depends on people. Naming 'Vimalakirti' (Jing Ming) indicates the master of the teaching; clarifying 'inconceivable' explains the Dharma being propagated. Second, it is to clarify both the general and specific meanings. Naming 'Vimalakirti' (Jing Ming) is to clarify the distinction of the person; indicating 'inconceivable' explains the universality of the Dharma. The reason for this is that there are two transformation masters in this sutra, one is the Buddha, and the other is Vimalakirti (Wei Mo Jie). If only the person 'Vimalakirti' (Jing Ming) is named without naming the 'inconceivable' Dharma, then only Vimalakirti (Wei

摩之說。便不得佛說。今舉不思議。則具含二說。故人法雙題。三者欲互相顯釋。故人法雙題。所以稱為凈名者。以有不思議解脫德。處穢不染。故稱凈名。即此則以法釋人。次標不思議。舉經之大體。題凈名。辨法起之所由。故舉人釋法也。四者題凈名。尊其人也。標不思議。重其法也。以凈德內充嘉聲外滿。聞其名者。莫不尊仰。下云。一切見敬為供養中最。重其法者。既聞不可思議解脫法門。誰不重哉。五者明此經題具足三業不可思議。故人法雙題。維摩詰者。舉人辨其意業。次云所說。明其口業。次云不可思議解脫。敘其身業。問。何故身業獨云不思議。答。以後貫初。身業既不思議。口意亦爾。故最後說之。又以身業現神通。明不思議事顯。故偏說之。此之三業。即是次第。先明意業察緣。次口說法。后即身現神通。六者人法雙題。即是三事示現。顯凈名謂他心輪。標所說明說法輪。辨不可思議即神通輪。三輪之義。法華玄廣明。今此所用者他心輪。謂知病識藥。說法現神通。應病授藥。又說法輪明聞事不思議。神通輪謂見事不思議。六塵境皆為佛事。但見聞既要。故聖人偏示形色。又說法輪但明音聲為教門。神通具以六塵為佛事。又神通輪多現不可思議跡。說法輪多明不思議本。如借座請飯。皆是神通現

之。故是跡也。如說六度四等及不二法門。即是本也。又他心輪知根鑒藥。神通輪則拔苦與樂。說法輪則滅惑生解。滅惑生解。名為利益。拔苦與樂即是安樂。是故眾經皆云利益安樂一切眾生。則義無不備。六者題維摩。則明託疾方丈。標所說因病演教。舉不思議。明現神通。一部始終。蘊在於題。七者題維摩。為欲簡異於佛示師資不同。次云所說者。上雖標弟子。客謂是對揚之人。今明所說。則知是弘教之主。雖知是弘教之主。或恐說淺近法門。故次明不思議解脫也。八者題凈名。欲簡異邪師。邪師內無凈德。外闕嘉名。標不思議。簡異耶法耶。法淺劣近末。非不思議。正法甚深。莫能測度。九者標凈名。明是菩薩簡非二乘。二乘結習不除。不得稱凈。如后品云。觀諸菩薩華不著者。結習已免。即其事也。舉不思議。簡小乘。明大教甚深不可測度。小乘淺近。易可思議。十者題凈名。嘆高行大士異下位菩薩。舉不思議。顯究竟之宗。簡未了之說。五時之流。謂此經是大乘義猶未了。今明既稱不思議。則是窮微盡化妙絕之稱。

二別釋人門

復有四門。一釋名。二因無因門。三德位門。四現生門。

一釋名門

外國稱毗摩羅詰。羅什僧肇。番為凈名。道生曇詵。云無垢稱。真諦三藏云。具存

【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，這些都是『跡』（方便法門）的體現。例如，所說的六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）、四等（慈、悲、喜、舍）以及不二法門，就是『本』（根本）的體現。此外，他心輪（以他心通了解眾生心念）能知眾生的根器，鑑別藥物；神通輪（以神通力救度眾生）則能拔除眾生的痛苦，給予他們快樂；說法輪（以佛法教化眾生）則能滅除眾生的迷惑，生起智慧。滅除迷惑，生起智慧，這叫做利益；拔除痛苦，給予快樂，這就是安樂。因此，所有的經典都說要利益安樂一切眾生，這樣就義理完備了。 第六，題名『維摩』，表明維摩詰託病于方丈室內，標明此經所說的內容是因病而演教。舉出『不思議』，表明維摩詰所展現的神通。整部經的始終，都蘊含在這個題目之中。 第七，題名『維摩』，是爲了區別于佛陀的示現，表明師資的不同。接著說『所說者』，上面雖然標明是弟子，聽者可能會認為是對話應答之人，現在標明『所說』，就知道維摩詰是弘揚佛法的主人。即使知道他是弘揚佛法的主人，或許又擔心他說的是淺近的法門，所以接著說明是『不思議解脫』。 第八，題名『凈名』，是爲了區別于邪師。邪師內心沒有清凈的德行，外在缺乏美好的名聲。標明『不思議』，是爲了區別于耶教的法門。耶教的法門淺薄低下，接近末法時代，不是不思議的。正法甚深，無法測度。 第九，標明『凈名』，表明維摩詰是菩薩，區別於二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）。二乘的煩惱習氣沒有斷除，不能稱為『凈』。如後面品中所說，觀察諸菩薩，蓮花不沾身，煩惱習氣已經免除，就是這個意思。舉出『不思議』，是爲了區別于小乘。表明大乘的教義深奧不可測度，小乘的教義淺顯易於理解。 第十，題名『凈名』，讚歎高行大士，不同於下位菩薩。舉出『不思議』，彰顯究竟的宗旨，區別于未了義的說法。天臺宗的五時判教認為，《維摩經》是大乘義，但還不是究竟了義。現在表明是『不思議』，就是窮盡微妙變化的最高讚譽。 二、別釋人門 又有四門：一、釋名；二、因無因門；三、德位門；四、現生門。 一、釋名門 外國稱維摩詰為『毗摩羅詰』（Vimalakirti）。鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）和僧肇（Sengzhao）翻譯為『凈名』。道生（Daosheng）和曇詵（Tanshen）譯為『無垢稱』。真諦三藏（Paramartha）說，具足應為『毗摩羅詰』。

【English Translation】 Therefore, these are manifestations of '跡' (Jì, expedient means). For example, the so-called Six Perfections (Dāna, Śīla, Kṣānti, Vīrya, Dhyāna, Prajñā), Four Immeasurables (loving-kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity), and the non-dual Dharma gate are manifestations of '本' (Běn, the fundamental). Furthermore, the 'other-minds wheel' (knowing others' thoughts through telepathy) can understand beings' capacities and discern remedies; the 'miraculous power wheel' (saving beings through supernatural abilities) can remove suffering and give joy; the 'Dharma wheel' (enlightening beings with the Dharma) can eliminate delusion and generate understanding. Eliminating delusion and generating understanding is called benefit; removing suffering and giving joy is called peace and happiness. Therefore, all sutras say to benefit and bring peace and happiness to all beings, thus the meaning is complete. Sixth, the title 'Vimalakirti' indicates that Vimalakirti feigned illness in the square chamber, marking that the content of this sutra is teaching through illness. Mentioning 'inconceivable' clarifies the supernatural powers displayed by Vimalakirti. The beginning and end of the entire sutra are contained within this title. Seventh, the title 'Vimalakirti' is to distinguish it from the Buddha's manifestation, indicating the difference between teacher and disciple. Then saying 'what is spoken' (所說者, suǒ shuō zhě), although it is indicated above that it is a disciple, listeners may think it is a person responding in dialogue. Now indicating 'what is spoken' clarifies that Vimalakirti is the master who propagates the Dharma. Even if it is known that he is the master who propagates the Dharma, there may be concern that he speaks shallow Dharma gates, so it is then clarified that it is 'inconceivable liberation' (不思議解脫, bù sī yì jiě tuō). Eighth, the title 'Pure Name' (凈名, jìng míng) is to distinguish it from heretical teachers. Heretical teachers have no pure virtue within and lack good reputation without. Indicating 'inconceivable' is to distinguish it from the Dharma of other religions. The Dharma of other religions is shallow and inferior, close to the end of the Dharma age, and is not inconceivable. The true Dharma is profound and cannot be fathomed. Ninth, indicating 'Pure Name' clarifies that Vimalakirti is a Bodhisattva, distinguishing him from the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). The afflictions and habits of the Two Vehicles have not been eliminated, so they cannot be called 'pure'. As it is said in later chapters, observing the Bodhisattvas, the lotus does not cling to them, their afflictions and habits have been eliminated, which is the meaning. Mentioning 'inconceivable' is to distinguish it from the Small Vehicle. It clarifies that the teachings of the Great Vehicle are profound and unfathomable, while the teachings of the Small Vehicle are shallow and easy to understand. Tenth, the title 'Pure Name' praises the Bodhisattva of high conduct, different from Bodhisattvas of lower rank. Mentioning 'inconceivable' reveals the ultimate purpose, distinguishing it from teachings of incomplete meaning. The Five Periods of the Tiantai school believe that the Vimalakirti Sutra is of the Great Vehicle, but it is not yet the ultimate meaning. Now indicating 'inconceivable' is the highest praise that exhausts subtle changes. Two, Separate Explanation of the Person Gate There are also four gates: One, Explanation of the Name; Two, Cause and No-Cause Gate; Three, Virtue and Position Gate; Four, Present Life Gate. One, Explanation of the Name Gate In foreign countries, Vimalakirti is called 'Vimalakirti' (毗摩羅詰, Pímóluójié). Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什, Jiūmóluóshí) and Sengzhao (僧肇, Sēngzhào) translated it as 'Pure Name' (凈名, jìng míng). Daosheng (道生, Dàoshēng) and Tanshen (曇詵, Tánshēn) translated it as 'Immaculate Name' (無垢稱, wú gòu chēng). Paramartha (真諦三藏, Zhēndì Sānzàng) said that the full name should be 'Vimalakirti'.

梵本。應言毗摩羅詰利帝。毗為滅。摩羅云垢。吉利帝為鳴。合而言之。謂滅垢鳴。初從所得為名。次從所離為目。滅猶是所離。以聲聞天下。故稱為鳴。鳴猶名義耳。言雖廣略。而意無異也。

二因無因門

總論立名。凡有二種。一有因緣。二無因緣。有因緣者。在名既多。則因緣非一。今略明四種。一從生所立名。如六道等。以生天趣故名為天。二從相貌立名。如有黑白長短等相。即以為稱。三從過失立名。如賊盜之流。四從功德為目。如三乘賢聖。無因緣立名者。涅槃云。低羅婆夷。名為食油。實不食油。釋論云。草名末末利。此云賊草。不劫盜而受賊名。皆無因緣。強立名字。維摩立名。可具二義。一無因緣強立名字。所以然者。既稱諸佛菩薩有解脫名不思議。即是絕名。以心行既斷。名意不思。言語亦滅。故口不議。入法身之位。形不以像測。心不可以智知。豈有名經。但為出處眾生強立名字。故是無因緣也。問。法身既無形名。由佛所感。便有形名。謂即是因緣。何名強立。答。須識強立之義。以法身不可名。而為法身立名。故云無因緣強之名耳。若就物感立名。名因感立。則是有于因緣。故一名中具含二義。問。為法身立名。此名為屬法身。為屬應跡。答。宜兩望之。若為法身立名。則屬

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：梵語原文應為Vimalakirti（維摩羅詰利帝）。'毗'意為滅除，'摩羅'意為垢染，'吉利帝'意為鳴響。合起來說，就是滅除垢染之鳴響。最初是從所得的功德來命名，其次是從所脫離的煩惱來立名。滅除煩惱，就是所要脫離的。因為（他的名聲）響徹聲聞界，所以稱為鳴響。鳴響，也就是名義的意思。言語雖然有廣略之分，但意義沒有差別。

二、因與無因之門

總的來說，立名有兩種方式：一是有因緣，二是無因緣。有因緣的立名，種類繁多，因緣也不止一種。現在簡略說明四種：一是根據所生之處來立名，如六道等。因為生於天道，所以稱為天。二是根據相貌來立名，如有黑、白、長、短等相，就用這些來稱呼。三是根據過失來立名，如賊盜之類。四是根據功德來立名，如三乘的賢聖。無因緣的立名，《涅槃經》中說，'低羅婆夷'，名為食油，實際上並不食油。《釋論》中說，有一種草名為'末末利'，這裡翻譯為賊草，它不劫盜卻被叫做賊草。這些都是無因緣，強行設立名字。維摩（Vimalakirti）的立名，可以包含這兩種含義。一是無因緣強行設立名字。為什麼這麼說呢？既然稱諸佛菩薩有解脫之名，不可思議，那就是超越了名相。因為心行已經斷絕，名相和意念都無法思量，言語也寂滅了，所以口不能議論。進入法身之位，形體不能用形象來衡量，心識不能用智慧來了解。哪裡還有什麼名經？只是爲了救度眾生，才強行設立名字，所以是無因緣的。問：法身既然沒有形名，因為佛的感應，才有了形名，這應該是有因緣，為什麼說是強行設立呢？答：必須明白強行設立的含義。因為法身不可名狀，卻為法身設立名字，所以說是無因緣強行設立的名字。如果就事物感應而立名，那就是因感應而立名，就是有因緣。所以一個名字中包含了兩種含義。問：為法身設立的名字，這個名字是屬於法身，還是屬於應跡身？答：應該從兩方面來看。如果是為法身設立名字，那麼就屬於法身。

【English Translation】 English version: The Sanskrit original should be Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti). 'Vi' means to eliminate, 'Mala' means defilement, and 'Kirti' means to resound. Taken together, it means the resounding of eliminating defilement. Initially, the name is derived from the merits attained, and secondly, from the afflictions that are detached from. Eliminating afflictions is what needs to be detached from. Because (his fame) resounds throughout the Sravaka realm, it is called resounding. Resounding is also the meaning of the name. Although the language may vary in breadth, the meaning is the same.

Two, the Gate of Cause and No Cause

Generally speaking, there are two ways to establish a name: one with cause and condition, and the other without cause and condition. There are many kinds of names established with cause and condition, and the causes and conditions are not just one. Now, briefly explain four types: First, naming according to the place of birth, such as the six realms. Because one is born in the heavenly realm, it is called heaven. Second, naming according to appearance, such as black, white, long, short, etc., these are used as names. Third, naming according to faults, such as thieves and robbers. Fourth, naming according to merits, such as the sages of the Three Vehicles. Naming without cause and condition, the Nirvana Sutra says, 'Tilavayi' is called oil-eating, but it does not actually eat oil. The Sastra says that there is a grass called 'Mamali', which is translated here as thief grass, it does not rob but is called thief grass. These are all without cause and condition, forcibly establishing names. The naming of Vimalakirti can include these two meanings. One is forcibly establishing a name without cause and condition. Why is that? Since it is said that all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have the name of liberation, which is inconceivable, that is beyond names and forms. Because the activities of the mind have been cut off, names and thoughts cannot be conceived, and language is also extinguished, so the mouth cannot discuss it. Entering the position of Dharmakaya (法身), the form cannot be measured by images, and the mind cannot be understood by wisdom. Where are there any name sutras? It is only to save sentient beings that names are forcibly established, so it is without cause and condition. Question: Since the Dharmakaya has no form or name, because of the Buddha's response, there is form and name, this should be with cause and condition, why is it said to be forcibly established? Answer: You must understand the meaning of forcibly establishing. Because the Dharmakaya is indescribable, but a name is established for the Dharmakaya, so it is said to be a name forcibly established without cause and condition. If a name is established according to the response of things, then it is a name established according to the response, which is with cause and condition. Therefore, one name contains two meanings. Question: The name established for the Dharmakaya, does this name belong to the Dharmakaya or to the manifested body? Answer: It should be viewed from both aspects. If a name is established for the Dharmakaya, then it belongs to the Dharmakaya.

法身。此名應物。則名屬跡也。若以無名為本。用名為跡。非是法身為本。應身為跡。故本跡多門。不可一例。問。但法身無名。假為立名。亦生死無名。假立名耶。答。法身體。絕百非。名相不及。可得無名假為立名。生死是名相之法。不可言生死無名強為立名。二者非但法身無名強為立名。亦生死無名強為立名。是故經云。生死非雜亂。涅槃非寂靜。涅槃非寂靜。既強號涅槃。生死非雜亂。亦假名生死。問。此據何門。二名強立。答。此望于正道。未曾生死。亦非涅槃。故生死涅槃皆是強立。問。得云生死無名強立為名。涅槃有名非強立耶。答。亦有斯義。生死虛妄。實無所有。故強名生死。對生死虛妄。嘆涅槃真實。故涅槃有實德。依德立名。故涅槃之名。非強立也。問。此據何門。明生死無名涅槃有名。答。此明生死無本。故生死可空。所以無名。涅槃有本。涅槃不空。是故有名。如此經云。身孰為本。貪慾為本。貪慾孰為本。乃至以顛倒為本。既稱倒相。是故無本。以其無本。則無生死。故生死可空。所以無名強為立名。對生死無本。明涅槃有本。涅槃有本。即是佛性。故隱名如來藏。顯名為法身。是以佛性為佛之本。涅槃有根本。便有涅槃故涅槃有名。非是強立也。問。有生死涅槃俱非強立。答。復有斯

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法身（Dharmakaya）。此名是應機而生，所以名稱屬於事蹟（跡）。如果以『無名』為根本，以『用名』為事蹟，就不是以法身為根本，應身為事蹟。所以根本和事蹟有多重含義，不能一概而論。 問：只是法身沒有名字，假設地為它立名。那麼生死也沒有名字，假設地為它立名嗎？ 答：法身的本體，超越一切對立，言語名相無法觸及，所以可以認為『無名』，然後假設地為它立名。生死是名相之法，不能說生死沒有名字，強行為它立名。這兩者不同，不能說只是法身沒有名字，強行為它立名，也可以說生死沒有名字，強行為它立名。所以經中說：『生死不是雜亂的，涅槃不是寂靜的。』既然勉強稱之為涅槃，那麼『生死不是雜亂的』，也是假名為生死。 問：這是根據什麼角度，說這兩個名字都是勉強安立的？ 答：這是相對於正道而言，正道未曾經歷生死，也並非涅槃，所以生死和涅槃都是勉強安立的。 問：可以說生死沒有名字，勉強安立為名，而涅槃有名字，不是勉強安立的嗎？ 答：也有這種說法。生死是虛妄的，實際上什麼也沒有，所以勉強稱之為生死。爲了對應生死的虛妄，讚歎涅槃的真實，所以涅槃具有真實的功德，依據功德而立名，所以涅槃的名字，不是勉強安立的。 問：這是根據什麼角度，說明生死沒有名字，涅槃有名字？ 答：這是說明生死沒有根本，所以生死可以被空掉，因此沒有名字。涅槃有根本，涅槃不會被空掉，所以有名字。如此經中所說：『身體以什麼為根本？以貪慾為根本。貪慾以什麼為根本？』乃至以顛倒為根本。既然稱為顛倒之相，所以沒有根本。因為它沒有根本，所以沒有生死，所以生死可以被空掉，因此沒有名字，勉強為它立名。爲了對應生死沒有根本，說明涅槃有根本。涅槃有根本，就是佛性（Buddha-nature），所以隱藏時名為如來藏（Tathagatagarbha），顯現時名為法身。因此佛性是成佛的根本，涅槃有根本，便有涅槃，所以涅槃有名字，不是勉強安立的。 問：有生死和涅槃都不是勉強安立的嗎？ 答：還有這種說法。

【English Translation】 English version Dharmakaya (法身). This name arises in response to circumstances, so the name belongs to the traces (跡). If 'no-name' is taken as the root and 'using name' as the trace, then it is not taking Dharmakaya as the root and response-body as the trace. Therefore, root and trace have multiple meanings and cannot be generalized. Question: Only Dharmakaya has no name, and a name is provisionally established for it. Then, does Samsara (生死) also have no name, and a name is provisionally established for it? Answer: The substance of Dharmakaya transcends all duality, and words and names cannot reach it, so it can be considered 'no-name', and then a name is provisionally established for it. Samsara is a dharma of names and forms, and it cannot be said that Samsara has no name and a name is forcibly established for it. These two are different; it cannot be said that only Dharmakaya has no name and a name is forcibly established for it, and it can also be said that Samsara has no name and a name is forcibly established for it. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Samsara is not chaotic, and Nirvana (涅槃) is not tranquil.' Since it is reluctantly called Nirvana, then 'Samsara is not chaotic' is also a provisional name for Samsara. Question: According to what perspective is it said that these two names are both forcibly established? Answer: This is in relation to the Right Path (正道). The Right Path has never experienced Samsara, nor is it Nirvana, so Samsara and Nirvana are both forcibly established. Question: Can it be said that Samsara has no name and is forcibly established as a name, while Nirvana has a name and is not forcibly established? Answer: There is also this view. Samsara is illusory and has no reality, so it is reluctantly called Samsara. To correspond to the illusion of Samsara, the reality of Nirvana is praised, so Nirvana has real merit, and a name is established based on merit, so the name of Nirvana is not forcibly established. Question: According to what perspective is it explained that Samsara has no name and Nirvana has a name? Answer: This explains that Samsara has no root, so Samsara can be emptied, therefore it has no name. Nirvana has a root, and Nirvana will not be emptied, so it has a name. As the sutra says: 'What is the root of the body? Greed is the root. What is the root of greed?' Even to taking inversion as the root. Since it is called the aspect of inversion, it has no root. Because it has no root, there is no Samsara, so Samsara can be emptied, therefore it has no name, and a name is forcibly established for it. To correspond to Samsara having no root, it is explained that Nirvana has a root. Nirvana has a root, which is Buddha-nature (佛性), so when hidden it is called Tathagatagarbha (如來藏), and when manifested it is called Dharmakaya. Therefore, Buddha-nature is the root of becoming a Buddha, Nirvana has a root, then there is Nirvana, so Nirvana has a name and is not forcibly established. Question: Are there Samsara and Nirvana that are not forcibly established? Answer: There is also this view.

義。于生死人有生死故。之生死名。非是強立。于涅槃者有于涅槃。故涅槃之名。亦非強立。此之四門。各據一義。可隨文用之。雖有四句。合而言之。唯成生死涅槃名無名二句。合此二句。以歸一句。蓋是無名無名名。因緣一句義耳。無名名。豈是名耶。名無名。豈是無名耶。故非名亦非無名。非生死亦非涅槃。是以經云。生死及涅槃。二俱不可得。故泯一句。入于無句。無句而句。故非名非無名。而能名能無名。雖能名能無名。而不動非名非無名。以縱任自在。塵累不拘。即是凈德。有斯凈德。故稱凈名。即此凈德無累。名為解脫。物莫能測。稱不思議。故人法不二。不二而二故統御名人。可軌稱法耳。自上以來。明無因緣故強立名字。今次辨有因緣故立名。無因緣立名。即就法身為論。有因緣立名。據跡而言。維摩既托跡毗耶。現從父母。必有名字。父母見此兒生時。有其凈德。依德立字。故號凈名。次即如來印嘆。兼世人嗟美。以有三義。故立凈名。問。一切菩薩。皆有凈德。何維摩獨受其名。答。如諸菩薩。雖皆有慈。彌勒即以慈德為稱。今亦然矣。又此是在家菩薩。居五塵而不染。處眾穢而常凈。故偏受斯名。問。凈名父母姓字云何。答。泛論凡聖。有二種父母。無明為父。貪愛為母。以有癡愛。是故受

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 意義。對於生死之人來說，因為有生死的現象，所以才有了『生死』這個名稱，這並非是強行設立的。對於涅槃來說，因為有涅槃的境界，所以才有了『涅槃』這個名稱，這也不是強行設立的。這四種說法，各自依據一個角度來解釋，可以根據文意靈活運用。雖然有四句，但合起來說，只形成了『生死』、『涅槃』、『名』、『無名』這兩種說法。將這兩種說法合併，歸結為一句，大概就是『無名無名名』，這是因緣和合的一句。『無名名』，難道是名嗎？『名無名』，難道是無名嗎？所以既不是名，也不是無名；既不是生死，也不是涅槃。因此經書上說：『生死和涅槃，兩者都不可得。』所以泯滅一句，進入無句的境界。無句而又句，所以非名非無名，而又能名能無名。雖然能名能無名，卻不為非名非無名所動。因為縱任自在，不被塵世的煩惱所束縛，這就是清凈的德行。因為有這種清凈的德行，所以被稱為『凈名』。這種清凈的德行沒有牽累，被稱為解脫，沒有人能夠測度，所以稱為『不可思議』。因此人與法不是二元對立的，不二而又二，所以能夠統御名人，可以作為法則。以上是從沒有因緣的角度來說明強行設立名字。現在接下來辨析有因緣而設立名字。沒有因緣而設立名字，是從法身的角度來論述的。有因緣而設立名字，是從應化之跡的角度來說的。維摩詰既然示現在毗耶離城，從父母而生，必定有名字。父母見這個孩子出生時，具有清凈的德行，依據這種德行來取名，所以號為『凈名』。接下來是如來的印證讚歎，以及世人的讚美，因為有這三重意義，所以設立『凈名』這個名字。問：一切菩薩都有清凈的德行，為什麼只有維摩詰接受這個名字呢？答：就像諸位菩薩雖然都有慈悲心，但彌勒菩薩就以慈悲的德行作為他的稱號。現在也是這樣。而且這位是在家的菩薩，居住在五欲塵勞之中而不被污染，身處污穢之中而常保清凈，所以特別接受這個名字。問：凈名的父母姓什麼，叫什麼名字呢？答：泛泛而論凡夫和聖人，有兩種父母。無明是父親，貪愛是母親。因為有愚癡和貪愛，所以才受

【English Translation】 English version Meaning. For sentient beings in samsara, because there is birth and death, the name 'samsara' arises. This is not an arbitrary designation. For Nirvana, because there is the state of Nirvana, the name 'Nirvana' arises. This is also not an arbitrary designation. These four statements each rely on a single meaning and can be used according to the context. Although there are four phrases, when combined, they only form the two phrases 'samsara', 'Nirvana', 'name', and 'no-name'. Combining these two phrases and reducing them to one phrase is probably 'no-name no-name name', which is the meaning of a phrase arising from conditions. Is 'no-name name' really a name? Is 'name no-name' really no-name? Therefore, it is neither name nor no-name; neither samsara nor Nirvana. Therefore, the sutra says, 'Samsara and Nirvana, both are unattainable.' Thus, annihilate the phrase and enter the state of no-phrase. No-phrase yet phrase, therefore neither name nor no-name, yet able to name and able to no-name. Although able to name and able to no-name, it is not moved by neither name nor no-name. Because it is free and unconstrained, not bound by the defilements of the world, this is pure virtue. Because of this pure virtue, it is called 'Vimalakirti' ('Pure Name'). This pure virtue is without encumbrance and is called liberation, which no one can fathom, so it is called 'inconceivable'. Therefore, person and Dharma are not dualistic, not two yet two, so it can govern famous people and can be a model for the Dharma. From above, it has been explained that names are arbitrarily established because there is no cause. Now, we will discuss the establishment of names because there is a cause. Establishing names without a cause is discussed from the perspective of the Dharmakaya. Establishing names with a cause is discussed from the perspective of the manifested traces. Since Vimalakirti manifested in Vaishali and was born from parents, he must have a name. When the parents saw that this child had pure virtue at birth, they named him based on this virtue, so he was called 'Vimalakirti'. Next is the Tathagata's endorsement and praise, as well as the praise of the world, because of these three meanings, the name 'Vimalakirti' was established. Question: All Bodhisattvas have pure virtue, why does only Vimalakirti receive this name? Answer: Just as all Bodhisattvas have compassion, but Maitreya is known for his virtue of compassion. It is the same now. Moreover, this is a lay Bodhisattva who dwells in the five desires without being defiled, and remains pure in the midst of filth, so he especially receives this name. Question: What are the surnames and names of Vimalakirti's parents? Answer: Generally speaking of ordinary people and sages, there are two kinds of parents. Ignorance is the father, and craving is the mother. Because there is ignorance and craving, one receives

生。謂凡夫因父母也。雖有癡愛。要假男女為緣。方得受生。名緣父母。諸佛菩薩。亦有二種父母。一權實二熏。謂法身父母。實慧虛凝。與陰同靜。故配之如母。權義流動。與彼陽齊。故喻之如父。由斯二慧。法身得生。故名法身父母。生身父母者。如佛喻經說。凈名姓碩。名大仙。王氏。別傳云。姓雷氏。父名那提。此云智基。母姓釋氏。名喜。年十九嫁。父年二十三婚。至二十七。于提婆羅城內生維摩。維摩有子。字曰善思。甚有父風。佛授其記。未來作佛。別有維摩子經一卷。可尋之也。

三論德位門

問。維摩是何位人。能真俗並觀。答。方便品云。凈名得無生忍。不判其淺深。釋但無生並觀。凡有三說。靈味法師云。初地得無生忍。即能真俗並觀。次關中舊說。七地得無生。真俗始並。如肇公云。七地施極于施而未嘗施。戒極于戒而未嘗戒。故七地並也。江南舊云。七地雖能並觀。未能常並。至於八地。始得令並。凈名即是八地以上人也。復有人釋云。凈名文殊。皆往古如來。現為菩薩。如首楞嚴云。文殊為龍種尊佛。發跡經云。凈名即金粟如來。今明聖蹟無方。難可測度。但無生並觀。經有四文。一對地前凡位。但名順忍。故未有無生。亦未能並觀。初地稱為聖位。始得無生。二觀方並。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生：指的是凡夫因為父母而生。即使有愚癡的愛，也需要男女作為因緣，才能受生。這叫做緣父母。諸佛菩薩也有兩種父母：一是權實，二是熏習。法身父母，指的是真實的智慧虛靜凝定，與陰相同，所以比作母親；權宜之義流動不居，與陽相同，所以比作父親。由於這兩種智慧，法身得以產生，所以稱為法身父母。生身父母，如《佛喻經》所說，維摩（Vimalakirti，意為「無垢稱」）姓碩，名大仙，王氏。《別傳》說，姓雷氏，父親名叫那提（Nati，意為「智基」），母親姓釋氏，名叫喜，十九歲嫁人，父親二十三歲結婚，到二十七歲，在提婆羅城內生下維摩。維摩有兒子，字叫善思，很像他的父親，佛陀為他授記，將來會成佛。另有一卷《維摩子經》，可以查閱。

三論德位門

問：維摩（Vimalakirti，意為「無垢稱」）是什麼地位的人？能夠真俗並觀。答：《方便品》說，凈名（Vimalakirti，意為「無垢稱」）證得無生忍，但沒有判斷其深淺。解釋無生並觀，有三種說法。靈味法師說，初地菩薩證得無生忍，就能真俗並觀。其次是關中舊說，七地菩薩證得無生忍，才能開始真俗並觀。如僧肇法師所說，七地菩薩佈施到了極致卻未曾佈施，持戒到了極致卻未曾持戒，所以七地菩薩才能並觀。江南舊說，七地菩薩雖然能並觀，但不能常常並觀，到了八地菩薩，才能真正做到並觀。凈名（Vimalakirti，意為「無垢稱」）就是八地以上的菩薩。還有人解釋說，凈名（Vimalakirti，意為「無垢稱」）和文殊（Manjusri，意為「妙吉祥」）都是往昔的如來，現在示現為菩薩。如《首楞嚴經》所說，文殊（Manjusri，意為「妙吉祥」）是龍種尊佛。《發跡經》說，凈名（Vimalakirti，意為「無垢稱」）就是金粟如來。現在看來，聖蹟無方，難以測度。但關於無生並觀，《經》中有四種說法：第一種是針對地前凡夫位，只能稱為順忍，所以沒有無生，也不能並觀。初地菩薩稱為聖位，才開始證得無生，才能二觀方並。

【English Translation】 English version 'Birth' refers to ordinary beings being born due to their parents. Even with foolish love, it still requires the union of male and female as conditions for birth. This is called 'conditioned by parents.' Buddhas and Bodhisattvas also have two kinds of parents: first, provisional and real; second, cultivation. 'Dharmakaya parents' refers to the real wisdom that is empty, still, and concentrated, akin to Yin, hence likened to a mother. The meaning of provisional is flowing and unceasing, akin to Yang, hence likened to a father. Due to these two kinds of wisdom, the Dharmakaya is born, hence they are called Dharmakaya parents. As for physical parents, as the 'Buddha Parable Sutra' says, Vimalakirti (meaning 'stainless fame') was surnamed Shuo, named Daxian, of the Wang clan. Another transmission says he was surnamed Lei, his father was named Nati (meaning 'wisdom foundation'), his mother was surnamed Shakya, named Xi, who married at nineteen, his father married at twenty-three, and at twenty-seven, Vimalakirti was born in the city of Devaraja. Vimalakirti had a son named Shansi, who greatly resembled his father, and the Buddha prophesied that he would become a Buddha in the future. There is also a one-volume 'Vimalakirti Son Sutra' that can be consulted.

Chapter on the Virtues and Positions in the Three Treatises

Question: What is the position of Vimalakirti (meaning 'stainless fame')? He is able to simultaneously observe both truth and convention. Answer: The 'Upaya Chapter' says that Vimalakirti (meaning 'stainless fame') attained the 'patience of non-birth,' but it does not judge its depth. There are three explanations for simultaneously observing non-birth. Dharma Master Lingwei says that the first Bhumi attains the 'patience of non-birth' and can then simultaneously observe both truth and convention. Secondly, the old tradition of Guanzhong says that the seventh Bhumi attains non-birth, and only then does the simultaneous observation of truth and convention begin. As Master Zhao said, the seventh Bhumi's giving reaches the extreme of giving without ever giving, and its precepts reach the extreme of precepts without ever holding precepts, so the seventh Bhumi can observe both. The old tradition of Jiangnan says that although the seventh Bhumi can observe both, it cannot always do so; only at the eighth Bhumi can it truly observe both. Vimalakirti (meaning 'stainless fame') is a person above the eighth Bhumi. Some people also explain that Vimalakirti (meaning 'stainless fame') and Manjusri (meaning 'gentle glory') were both Tathagatas of the past, now appearing as Bodhisattvas. As the 'Surangama Sutra' says, Manjusri (meaning 'gentle glory') is the Dragon Seed Buddha. The 'Origin Sutra' says that Vimalakirti (meaning 'stainless fame') is the Golden Millet Tathagata. Now it is clear that the traces of the sages are boundless and difficult to fathom. But regarding the simultaneous observation of non-birth, there are four statements in the Sutra: The first is directed at the position of ordinary beings before the Bhumis, which is only called 'compliant patience,' so there is no non-birth, and they cannot observe both. The first Bhumi is called the position of a sage, and only then does one attain non-birth, and only then can the two observations be simultaneous.

仁王瓔珞經攝大乘論。並有此文。二者初地以上。六地以還。無生尚淺。並義未彰。與順忍之名。至於七地。名等定慧地。故始是無生。名為並觀。問。七地何故名等定慧。答。釋論云。前三地慧多定小。后三地定多慧少。故定慧不等。今定慧平等。故云等定慧。又一義。此說二慧為定慧耳。六地波若靜鑒為定。以方便動照為慧。六地妙于靜鑒。拙於動涉。故定慧未等。至於七地。名為方便。則二慧具足。名定慧等也。問。定慧既等。何故名無生耶。答。釋論云。七地具了眾生及法皆悉無生。名無生忍。不偏著有。有心不生。不偏滯于空。空心不起。故慧常方便。方便常慧。空有雙游。無所偏著。故云無生。三者七地雖得無生已能並觀。但猶有功用心。八地于功用心。永不復生。名為無生。而復任運恒並。四者八地雖無功用。猶未究竟。究竟無生。在於佛地。方便品云。久于佛道。心已純就者。當知是佛地無生。金粟如來。則斯文已顯。以無生具在四處。眾師各偏執一塗。故失其旨也。又取相之流。隨言起著。聞深位則謂定深深。不得為淺深。聞淺位則謂定淺淺。不得為深淺。若定淺。豈可從淺以至深深。若定深深。云何得作淺。今明因緣淺深。無有定相。故淺具淺深。深可得為深淺。淺可得為淺深。故經中凡有四句

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《仁王瓔珞經》和《攝大乘論》中都有這樣的說法：二者，初地（菩薩修行階位的第一層，開始真正進入菩薩道的階段）以上，六地（菩薩修行的第六個階段，接近圓滿）以下，對『無生』（不生不滅的真理）的體悟還很淺，『並義』（同時觀照空和有的智慧）還不明顯，所以稱為『順忍』（順應真理的智慧）。到了七地（菩薩修行的第七個階段），稱為『等定慧地』，才開始真正達到『無生』的境界，稱為『並觀』（同時觀照空和有）。 問：為什麼七地稱為『等定慧』？ 答：《釋論》中說，前三地（初地到三地）慧多定少，后三地（四地到六地）定多慧少，所以定和慧不相等。現在（七地）定和慧平等，所以稱為『等定慧』。還有一種解釋，這裡說的兩種智慧是指『定慧』。六地的般若（智慧）以靜止的觀照為『定』，以方便的動態觀照為『慧』。六地擅長靜止的觀照，不擅長動態的涉入，所以定和慧還不相等。到了七地，稱為『方便』，那麼兩種智慧都具備了，稱為『定慧等』。 問：定和慧既然相等了，為什麼還稱為『無生』呢？ 答：《釋論》中說，七地完全瞭解眾生和法（一切事物）都是『無生』的，稱為『無生忍』。不偏執于『有』，有心不生起；不偏滯于『空』，空心不生起。所以智慧常常伴隨著方便，方便常常伴隨著智慧，在空和有之間自由遊走，沒有偏頗執著，所以稱為『無生』。 三者，七地雖然證得了『無生』，已經能夠『並觀』，但還有功用心的存在。八地（菩薩修行的第八個階段）對於功用心的運用，永遠不再生起，稱為『無生』，而且能夠任運自然地同時觀照空和有。 四者，八地雖然沒有功用，但還沒有達到究竟圓滿的『無生』。究竟圓滿的『無生』，在於佛地（佛的境界）。《方便品》中說：『長期處於佛道，心已經純熟』，應當知道這是佛地的『無生』。金粟如來（過去佛名）就是如此。這段文字已經很明顯地說明了，『無生』分別存在於四個階段。各個法師都偏執于其中的一個方面，所以沒有領會其中的真意。還有那些執著于表象的人，隨著文字而產生執著。聽到高深的境界就認為定力深深，不能理解為有淺有深；聽到淺顯的境界就認為定力淺淺，不能理解為有深有淺。如果定力淺，怎麼能從淺到深呢？如果定力深深，怎麼能說是淺呢？現在說明因緣的淺深，沒有固定的相狀。所以淺中包含著淺深，深可以理解為深淺，淺可以理解為深淺。所以經文中凡是有四句（的說法）。

【English Translation】 English version Both the Ren Wang Ying Luo Jing (The Sutra of the Benevolent Kings' Garland) and the She Da Cheng Lun (Treatise on the Summary of the Great Vehicle) contain this statement: Firstly, from the first bhumi (the first of the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's path, the stage of joy) upwards to the sixth bhumi (the sixth stage, the stage of manifestation), the understanding of wu sheng (non-origination, the truth of no birth and no death) is still shallow, and the meaning of bing yi (simultaneous contemplation, the wisdom of observing both emptiness and existence) is not yet clear. Therefore, it is called shun ren (compliant endurance, wisdom that complies with the truth). Upon reaching the seventh bhumi (the seventh stage, the stage of going afar), it is called the deng ding hui di (stage of equal samadhi and prajna), and only then does wu sheng truly begin, called bing guan (simultaneous observation). Question: Why is the seventh bhumi called deng ding hui (equal samadhi and prajna)? Answer: The Shi Lun (commentary) says that in the first three bhumis (first to third stages), hui (prajna, wisdom) is more and ding (samadhi, concentration) is less. In the latter three bhumis (fourth to sixth stages), ding is more and hui is less. Therefore, ding and hui are not equal. Now (in the seventh bhumi), ding and hui are equal, so it is called deng ding hui (equal samadhi and prajna). Another explanation is that the two wisdoms mentioned here refer to ding and hui. In the sixth bhumi, banruo (prajna) uses still contemplation as ding, and uses expedient dynamic contemplation as hui. The sixth bhumi excels in still contemplation but is clumsy in dynamic involvement, so ding and hui are not yet equal. Upon reaching the seventh bhumi, it is called fangbian (expedient), then both wisdoms are complete, called ding hui deng (equal samadhi and prajna). Question: Since ding and hui are equal, why is it still called wu sheng (non-origination)? Answer: The Shi Lun (commentary) says that the seventh bhumi fully understands that all sentient beings and fa (dharmas, all things) are wu sheng (non-originated), called wu sheng ren (non-origination endurance). It does not cling to you (existence), and the mind of existence does not arise; it does not stagnate in kong (emptiness), and the mind of emptiness does not arise. Therefore, wisdom always accompanies expedient, and expedient always accompanies wisdom, freely roaming between emptiness and existence, without partiality or attachment, so it is called wu sheng (non-origination). Thirdly, although the seventh bhumi has attained wu sheng (non-origination) and is already capable of bing guan (simultaneous observation), there is still the use of intentional effort. In the eighth bhumi (the eighth stage, the stage of immovability), the use of intentional effort will never arise again, called wu sheng (non-origination), and it can naturally and effortlessly contemplate both emptiness and existence simultaneously. Fourthly, although the eighth bhumi is without intentional effort, it has not yet reached the ultimate and complete wu sheng (non-origination). The ultimate and complete wu sheng (non-origination) is in the Buddha bhumi (Buddha's stage). The Fangbian Pin (Chapter on Expedients) says: 'Having been in the Buddha path for a long time, the mind is already pure and accomplished,' one should know that this is the wu sheng (non-origination) of the Buddha bhumi. The Golden Chestnut Tathagata (name of a past Buddha) is like this. This passage clearly shows that wu sheng (non-origination) exists in four stages. Various teachers are biased towards one aspect of it, so they have missed its true meaning. Furthermore, those who cling to appearances become attached to words. Hearing of profound stages, they think that ding (samadhi) is deeply profound, and cannot understand that it has shallowness and depth; hearing of shallow stages, they think that ding is shallowly shallow, and cannot understand that it has depth and shallowness. If ding is shallow, how can one go from shallow to deep? If ding is deeply profound, how can it be said to be shallow? Now explaining the shallowness and depth of conditions, there is no fixed appearance. Therefore, shallowness contains shallow depth, depth can be understood as deep shallowness, and shallowness can be understood as shallow depth. Therefore, in the sutras, there are always four phrases (of saying).

。一淺為深用。初發心菩薩八相成佛。二深為淺用。往古如來為能仁弟子。三深為深用。即佛為佛化。四淺為淺用。其義易知。問。深為淺用。淺為深用。可是方便。深為深用。淺為淺用。亦是方便耶。答。舊云深為淺用是方便。深為深用則非方便。今明非但深為淺用是方便。深為深用亦是方便。良以道門未曾淺淺深深。皆為化物故。並稱方便也。又有所得人皆云後心是凈名。初心非凈名。今明發心畢竟二不別。非但後心是凈名。初心亦是凈名。所以然者。後心凈諸見。既稱凈名。諸見亦是凈名。問。此經三品破於三見。方便品破凡夫見。弟子品破二乘見。菩薩品破菩薩見。後心凈名可破三見。初心既是凈名。亦應破三見也。答。若後心破三見。初心未破三見。今說破三見。可為後心人耳。初心復何所益耶。又佛在世時。有諸羅漢。弟子品可破之。有彌勒等。則菩薩品可破之。末世無此大小之人。經流像教何所益耶。故知初後心皆破三見。問。初心後心皆破三見。則初后何異。答。是故經云。發心畢竟二不別。初心稱為佛心。是三世佛之種子。則與佛無異。故始名初心佛。終稱後心佛。初心佛亦凈三見。後心佛亦凈三見。但初凈三見則晦。后凈三見則明。故開初後有異耳。又有所得人。皆言凡夫處四生之內。凈名升六

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一、以淺顯的道理來闡釋深刻的道理（淺為深用）。例如，初發心的菩薩通過示現八相成佛。 二、以深刻的道理來闡釋淺顯的道理（深為淺用）。例如，往昔的如來化身為能仁（釋迦牟尼佛的稱號）的弟子。 三、以深刻的道理來闡釋深刻的道理（深為深用）。例如，佛為佛說法教化。 四、以淺顯的道理來闡釋淺顯的道理（淺為淺用）。這種含義很容易理解。 問：以深刻的道理來闡釋淺顯的道理，以淺顯的道理來闡釋深刻的道理，這可以算是方便法門。那麼，以深刻的道理來闡釋深刻的道理，以淺顯的道理來闡釋淺顯的道理，也可以算是方便法門嗎？ 答：舊有的觀點認為，以深刻的道理來闡釋淺顯的道理是方便法門，以深刻的道理來闡釋深刻的道理就不是方便法門。現在我認為，不僅僅以深刻的道理來闡釋淺顯的道理是方便法門，以深刻的道理來闡釋深刻的道理也是方便法門。因為佛法沒有淺淺深深的分別，都是爲了教化眾生，所以都可以稱為方便法門。 又，有所得的人都認為後來的心（修行到一定程度的心）才是《維摩經》中所說的凈名（維摩詰的稱號），最初發的心不是凈名。現在我認為，發心之初和最終證悟並沒有差別。不僅僅後來的心是凈名，最初發的心也是凈名。之所以這樣說，是因為後來的心清凈了各種見解，所以稱為凈名，那麼，各種見解本身也是凈名。 問：這部經的三品（《方便品》、《弟子品》、《菩薩品》）破除了三種見解： 《方便品》破除凡夫的見解，《弟子品》破除二乘的見解，《菩薩品》破除菩薩的見解。後來的心是凈名，可以破除三種見解。最初發的心既然也是凈名，也應該破除三種見解吧？ 答：如果說後來的心破除三種見解，最初發的心沒有破除三種見解，那麼現在說破除三種見解，只能對後來的心的人有益處，對最初發心的人有什麼益處呢？而且，佛在世的時候，有各種阿羅漢，可以用《弟子品》來破除他們的見解；有彌勒菩薩等，可以用《菩薩品》來破除他們的見解。末法時代沒有這樣大小根器的人，這部經流傳下來對像法時代的眾生有什麼益處呢？所以說，最初發的心和後來的心都能破除三種見解。 問：最初發的心和後來的心都能破除三種見解，那麼最初發的心和後來的心有什麼區別？ 答：所以經中說，發心之初和最終證悟並沒有差別。最初發的心稱為佛心，是三世諸佛的種子，那麼就和佛沒有區別。所以一開始稱為初心佛，最終稱為後心佛。初心佛也能清凈三種見解，後心佛也能清凈三種見解。但是最初清凈三種見解比較隱晦，後來清凈三種見解比較明顯。所以才說最初發心和最終證悟有所不同。 又，有所得的人都說凡夫處於四生（胎生、卵生、濕生、化生）之內，凈名升入六 English version 1. Using the shallow to explain the profound (Qian wei Shen yong). For example, a Bodhisattva who initially aspires to enlightenment attains Buddhahood by manifesting the eight aspects of Buddhahood. 2. Using the profound to explain the shallow (Shen wei Qian yong). For example, a Tathagata (another name for Buddha) of the past incarnated as a disciple of Nengren (Shijiamouni fo de chenghao) (Shakyamuni Buddha). 3. Using the profound to explain the profound (Shen wei Shen yong). That is, a Buddha teaching and transforming another Buddha. 4. Using the shallow to explain the shallow (Qian wei Qian yong). The meaning of this is easily understood. Question: Using the profound to explain the shallow, and using the shallow to explain the profound, can be considered expedient means (fangbian). Then, using the profound to explain the profound, and using the shallow to explain the shallow, can also be considered expedient means? Answer: The old view is that using the profound to explain the shallow is an expedient means, while using the profound to explain the profound is not an expedient means. Now I clarify that not only is using the profound to explain the shallow an expedient means, but using the profound to explain the profound is also an expedient means. Because the path of enlightenment has no distinction between shallow and profound, all are for the purpose of transforming beings, so they can all be called expedient means. Furthermore, those who are attached to attainment all say that the later mind (the mind that has reached a certain level of practice) is 'Jingming' (Weimojie de chenghao) (Vimalakirti) as mentioned in the 'Vimalakirti Sutra', while the initial mind is not 'Jingming'. Now I clarify that there is no difference between the initial aspiration and the ultimate realization. Not only is the later mind 'Jingming', but the initial mind is also 'Jingming'. The reason for this is that the later mind purifies all views, so it is called 'Jingming', then the views themselves are also 'Jingming'. Question: The three chapters of this sutra (Fangbian pin, Dizi pin, Pusa pin) break down three kinds of views: the 'Expedient Means Chapter' breaks down the views of ordinary people, the 'Disciples Chapter' breaks down the views of the two vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘), and the 'Bodhisattvas Chapter' breaks down the views of Bodhisattvas. The later mind is 'Jingming', which can break down the three views. Since the initial mind is also 'Jingming', it should also break down the three views, right? Answer: If the later mind breaks down the three views, but the initial mind does not break down the three views, then saying that breaking down the three views would only benefit those with the later mind, what benefit would it have for those with the initial mind? Moreover, when the Buddha was in the world, there were various Arhats, whose views could be broken down by the 'Disciples Chapter'; there were Maitreya Bodhisattva and others, whose views could be broken down by the 'Bodhisattvas Chapter'. In the Dharma Ending Age, there are no people of such great or small capacity, so what benefit would this sutra have for the beings of the Dharma Image Age? Therefore, it is known that both the initial and later minds can break down the three views. Question: If both the initial and later minds can break down the three views, then what is the difference between the initial and later minds? Answer: Therefore, the sutra says that there is no difference between the initial aspiration and the ultimate realization. The initial mind is called the Buddha-mind, which is the seed of the Buddhas of the three times, so it is no different from the Buddha. Therefore, it is initially called the initial-mind Buddha, and ultimately called the later-mind Buddha. The initial-mind Buddha can also purify the three views, and the later-mind Buddha can also purify the three views. However, the initial purification of the three views is obscure, while the later purification of the three views is clear. That is why it is said that there is a difference between the initial aspiration and the ultimate realization. Furthermore, those who are attached to attainment all say that ordinary people are within the four births (taishēng, luǎnsheng, shīshēng, huàshēng) (womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, transformation-born), while 'Jingming' ascends to the six

【English Translation】 English version 1. Using the shallow to explain the profound (Qian wei Shen yong). For example, a Bodhisattva who initially aspires to enlightenment attains Buddhahood by manifesting the eight aspects of Buddhahood. 2. Using the profound to explain the shallow (Shen wei Qian yong). For example, a Tathagata (another name for Buddha) of the past incarnated as a disciple of Nengren (Shijiamouni fo de chenghao) (Shakyamuni Buddha). 3. Using the profound to explain the profound (Shen wei Shen yong). That is, a Buddha teaching and transforming another Buddha. 4. Using the shallow to explain the shallow (Qian wei Qian yong). The meaning of this is easily understood. Question: Using the profound to explain the shallow, and using the shallow to explain the profound, can be considered expedient means (fangbian). Then, using the profound to explain the profound, and using the shallow to explain the shallow, can also be considered expedient means? Answer: The old view is that using the profound to explain the shallow is an expedient means, while using the profound to explain the profound is not an expedient means. Now I clarify that not only is using the profound to explain the shallow an expedient means, but using the profound to explain the profound is also an expedient means. Because the path of enlightenment has no distinction between shallow and profound, all are for the purpose of transforming beings, so they can all be called expedient means. Furthermore, those who are attached to attainment all say that the later mind (the mind that has reached a certain level of practice) is 'Jingming' (Weimojie de chenghao) (Vimalakirti) as mentioned in the 'Vimalakirti Sutra', while the initial mind is not 'Jingming'. Now I clarify that there is no difference between the initial aspiration and the ultimate realization. Not only is the later mind 'Jingming', but the initial mind is also 'Jingming'. The reason for this is that the later mind purifies all views, so it is called 'Jingming', then the views themselves are also 'Jingming'. Question: The three chapters of this sutra (Fangbian pin, Dizi pin, Pusa pin) break down three kinds of views: the 'Expedient Means Chapter' breaks down the views of ordinary people, the 'Disciples Chapter' breaks down the views of the two vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘), and the 'Bodhisattvas Chapter' breaks down the views of Bodhisattvas. The later mind is 'Jingming', which can break down the three views. Since the initial mind is also 'Jingming', it should also break down the three views, right? Answer: If the later mind breaks down the three views, but the initial mind does not break down the three views, then saying that breaking down the three views would only benefit those with the later mind, what benefit would it have for those with the initial mind? Moreover, when the Buddha was in the world, there were various Arhats, whose views could be broken down by the 'Disciples Chapter'; there were Maitreya Bodhisattva and others, whose views could be broken down by the 'Bodhisattvas Chapter'. In the Dharma Ending Age, there are no people of such great or small capacity, so what benefit would this sutra have for the beings of the Dharma Image Age? Therefore, it is known that both the initial and later minds can break down the three views. Question: If both the initial and later minds can break down the three views, then what is the difference between the initial and later minds? Answer: Therefore, the sutra says that there is no difference between the initial aspiration and the ultimate realization. The initial mind is called the Buddha-mind, which is the seed of the Buddhas of the three times, so it is no different from the Buddha. Therefore, it is initially called the initial-mind Buddha, and ultimately called the later-mind Buddha. The initial-mind Buddha can also purify the three views, and the later-mind Buddha can also purify the three views. However, the initial purification of the three views is obscure, while the later purification of the three views is clear. That is why it is said that there is a difference between the initial aspiration and the ultimate realization. Furthermore, those who are attached to attainment all say that ordinary people are within the four births (taishēng, luǎnsheng, shīshēng, huàshēng) (womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, transformation-born), while 'Jingming' ascends to the six

道之外。但凡夫感於凈名。凈名應入生死。故託疾略耶。興以斯教。今明一往非無此義。但恐成凡聖道隔成高下二見耳。復須識一心之內即是眾生亦即是佛藏。於此心中。起三種見。便是煩惱。凈此三見。即是凈名。問。云何一心內具起三見。答。若於此心。起凡夫見。名凡夫也。起二乘見。名二乘也。起菩薩見。名菩薩也。未與波若相應以來。于唸唸中。多墮三見。便見三惑。若先念起此三見。后念能凈此三見。則前念名為煩惱。后念即是凈名。故經云。眾生身內。既有毒草。即有藥王。迷悟不離。其猶反掌。豈可定謂凡夫局在四生之內。諸佛升乎六道外耶。故行道坐禪講說懺悔。宜依此門。不爾。於事無益也。問既勸修觀行。今請問研心。若前心起三見稱為垢。后念破三見為凈名者。非但三見名為見。則凈名亦是見。所以然者。前心起三見為有。后念破三見為無。既是有無。名為垢染。何名為凈名。答。不言前起三見為有。后凈三見為無。但了前三見本自不有。今亦不無。故名凈三見耳。問。若了三見本自不有。今亦不無。名凈三見者。此乃息于有無。還染非有非無。何名為凈。又有有有無名之為有。無有無無此即是無。還隨有無。何名離染。答。釋論云。破二不著一。乃名為法忍。今若能進忘兩是。退泯二非。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 道之外。但凡夫感於Vimalakīrti（維摩詰，意為無垢稱）。Vimalakīrti（維摩詰）應入生死輪迴。所以託病示現嗎？興起這樣的教義。現在說明，從一方面來說並非沒有這個道理。但恐怕因此形成凡聖之間的隔閡，成就高下兩種見解罷了。還必須認識到，一心之內既是眾生，也是佛藏。在這心中，生起三種見解，便是煩惱。凈化這三種見解，就是Vimalakīrti（維摩詰）。 問：為什麼一心之內會生起三種見解？ 答：如果在這心中，生起凡夫的見解，就稱為凡夫。生起二乘的見解，就稱為二乘。生起菩薩的見解，就稱為菩薩。在未與般若相應之前，唸唸之中，大多墮入這三種見解，便見到三種迷惑。如果前念生起這三種見解，后念能夠凈化這三種見解，那麼前念就稱為煩惱，后念就是Vimalakīrti（維摩詰）。所以經中說：『眾生身內，既有毒草，即有藥王。』迷惑與覺悟不相分離，就像翻手掌一樣容易。怎麼可以斷定凡夫侷限在四生之內，諸佛昇華到六道之外呢？所以行道、坐禪、講說、懺悔，應該依照這個法門。不然，對於事情沒有益處。 問：既然勸人修習觀行，現在請問研習心性。如果前念生起三種見解稱為垢，后念破除三種見解為Vimalakīrti（維摩詰）的話，不僅僅是三種見解稱為見，那麼Vimalakīrti（維摩詰）也是一種見解。為什麼這樣說呢？前念生起三種見解為『有』，后念破除三種見解為『無』。既然是有無，就名為垢染，怎麼稱為Vimalakīrti（維摩詰）呢？ 答：不是說前念生起三種見解為『有』，后念凈化三種見解為『無』。只是了知前唸的三種見解本來就沒有，現在也不無，所以稱為凈化三種見解。 問：如果了知三種見解本來就沒有，現在也不無，稱為凈化三種見解的話，這乃是止息于有無，反而沾染了非有非無。怎麼稱為凈化？又有有有無，名稱為有；無有無無，這就是無。還是跟隨有無，怎麼能稱為遠離染污？ 答：釋論說：『破除二邊，不執著於一邊，才稱為法忍。』現在如果能夠進一步忘記兩邊的是，退一步泯滅兩邊的非。

【English Translation】 English version: Beyond the Dao. But ordinary people are moved by Vimalakīrti (維摩詰, meaning 'Immaculate Name'). Vimalakīrti (維摩詰) should enter the cycle of birth and death. So he feigns illness to manifest? To promote this teaching. Now, explaining it from one perspective, it's not without this reason. But I fear that it will form a separation between the ordinary and the holy, creating two views of high and low. One must also recognize that within one mind, there are both sentient beings and the Buddha-nature. Within this mind, arising three views is affliction. Purifying these three views is Vimalakīrti (維摩詰). Question: How can three views arise within one mind? Answer: If within this mind, one arises the view of an ordinary person, it is called an ordinary person. If one arises the view of a Two-Vehicle practitioner, it is called a Two-Vehicle practitioner. If one arises the view of a Bodhisattva, it is called a Bodhisattva. Before being in accordance with Prajna, in every thought, one mostly falls into these three views, and then sees the three confusions. If the previous thought arises these three views, and the subsequent thought can purify these three views, then the previous thought is called affliction, and the subsequent thought is Vimalakīrti (維摩詰). Therefore, the sutra says: 'Within the body of sentient beings, there are both poisonous weeds and the medicine king.' Delusion and enlightenment are not separate, as easy as turning over one's palm. How can one definitively say that ordinary people are limited within the four births, and Buddhas ascend beyond the six realms? Therefore, practicing the path, sitting in meditation, lecturing, and repentance should follow this Dharma gate. Otherwise, it is of no benefit to the matter. Question: Since you advise cultivating contemplation, now I ask about studying the mind-nature. If the previous thought arising three views is called defilement, and the subsequent thought breaking the three views is Vimalakīrti (維摩詰), then not only are the three views called views, but Vimalakīrti (維摩詰) is also a view. Why is this so? The previous thought arising three views is 'existence', and the subsequent thought breaking the three views is 'non-existence'. Since there is existence and non-existence, it is called defilement, how can it be called Vimalakīrti (維摩詰)? Answer: It is not said that the previous thought arising three views is 'existence', and the subsequent thought purifying the three views is 'non-existence'. It is only understanding that the previous three views originally did not exist, and now are not non-existent, therefore it is called purifying the three views. Question: If understanding that the three views originally did not exist, and now are not non-existent, is called purifying the three views, then this is ceasing in existence and non-existence, and instead being tainted by neither existence nor non-existence. How can it be called purification? Also, having existence and having non-existence is called existence; not having non-existence and not having non-existence, this is non-existence. Still following existence and non-existence, how can it be called being apart from defilement? Answer: The Shastra says: 'Breaking the two extremes, not clinging to one extreme, is called Dharma-patience.' Now, if one can further forget the right and wrong of both sides, and retreat and extinguish the non-right and non-wrong of both sides.

蕭然無寄。乃名為凈。問。若遣是忘非。乃名凈者。夫有是有非。則名為有。無是無非。始是大無。何名為凈。答。本進彈兩足。退息二非。冀玄悟之賓。蕭然無寄。今遂循環名數。隨逐想心。則取悟無由。若內息情想。無心於內。外夷名相。無數于外。無數于外。則緣盡于觀。無心於內。則觀盡于緣。緣盡于觀。故無緣。觀盡于緣。則無觀。無觀無緣。則紛累都寂。乃名為凈。豈復染無。問。若緣觀都寂。何異滅智灰身。灰身故無緣。滅智則無觀。欲行大道。乃爾小乘。答。緣是生心動念。即是難家。觀謂無生妙悟。名為答者。以無緣則子無所問。以絕觀余無所通。不應更復修環反覆。問。若緣觀俱寂。問答並遣。則任運成啞。答。天親龍樹盛許啞言。故云汝證我法時。汝爾時自啞。但子猶未達其旨。今略陳之。夫論啞者。言而常啞。辨其言者。啞而常言。言而不啞。所謂凡夫。啞而不言。名二乘觀。故至之緣觀俱寂。而境智宛然。應愈動神愈靜。智愈寂照愈明。寧以啞法目聖心。灰斷榜玄道。

四論現生門

經云開閉一切諸惡趣門。而生六道。以現其身。夫法身無生。而無處不生。以無生故。諸趣門閉。無處不生故。而生五道。生五道則有五生。一息苦生。二隨類生。三者勝生。四增上生。五最後生

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 蕭然無寄，這就被稱為『凈』（Nirvana，涅槃）。 問：如果去除『是』（肯定）和『非』（否定），才稱為『凈』，那麼有『是』有『非』，就稱為『有』（存在）。沒有『是』沒有『非』，才是真正的『無』（空性）。這怎麼能稱為『凈』呢？ 答：本來應該像鳥兒一樣，雙足交替前進，休息時則止息『是』和『非』的二元對立，期望玄妙領悟的客人，能夠蕭然無寄。 現在卻循環于名相概念，隨逐于妄想之心，這樣就無法獲得領悟。如果內心止息情感和妄想，內心無所執著；外在捨棄名相，對外境不作分別。對外境不作分別，那麼攀緣外境的因緣就止息于觀照；內心無所執著，那麼觀照也止息于攀緣的因緣。因緣止息于觀照，所以沒有因緣；觀照止息于因緣，所以沒有觀照。沒有觀照，沒有因緣，那麼所有的煩惱都寂靜，這就被稱為『凈』。哪裡還會有染污呢？ 問：如果因緣和觀照都寂滅，這和斷滅智慧、灰身滅智有什麼區別？灰身滅智就沒有因緣，斷滅智慧就沒有觀照。想要修行大道，怎麼能如此小乘呢？ 答：因緣是生起心念，就是『難家』（提問者）。觀照是無生的微妙領悟，就是『答者』（回答者）。因為沒有因緣，所以你無從提問；因為斷絕觀照，所以沒有什麼可以溝通。不應該再重複循環反覆的辯論。 問：如果因緣和觀照都寂滅，問答也都停止，那就只能任由命運，變成啞巴了。 答：天親（Vasubandhu）和龍樹（Nagarjuna）都極力讚許『啞言』。所以說，『你證悟我的法時，你那時就自己變成啞巴了』。只是你還沒有理解其中的旨意。現在我簡略地陳述一下。所謂『啞』，是指言語卻如同無言；善於言語的人，如同無言卻又時常在言語。言語卻不啞，這是凡夫。啞而不言，這是二乘的觀照。所以達到因緣和觀照都寂滅的境界，而境和智卻清晰明瞭。應該越動神思越靜，智慧越寂靜，照了就越光明。怎麼能用『啞法』來衡量聖人的心境，用灰斷來否定玄妙的道呢？ 四論現生門 經中說，『開啟和關閉一切諸惡趣之門，而生於六道，以顯現其身』。法身（Dharmakaya）本無生滅，但又無處不生。因為無生，所以諸惡趣之門關閉；因為無處不生，所以顯現於五道。生於五道則有五種生：一、息苦生，二、隨類生，三、勝生，四、增上生，五、最後生。

【English Translation】 English version 'Xiao ran wu ji' (tranquil and unattached), is called 'Jing' (purity/Nirvana). Question: If removing 'shi' (affirmation) and 'fei' (negation) is called 'Jing', then having 'shi' and 'fei' is called 'you' (existence). Having neither 'shi' nor 'fei' is truly 'wu' (emptiness). How can this be called 'Jing'? Answer: Originally, one should be like a bird, advancing with alternating feet, resting by ceasing the duality of 'shi' and 'fei', hoping that the guest of profound enlightenment can be tranquil and unattached. Now, however, you are cycling through nominal concepts, following deluded thoughts. In this way, there is no way to attain enlightenment. If you internally cease emotions and deluded thoughts, having no attachment within; externally abandon names and forms, making no distinctions towards external objects. Making no distinctions towards external objects, then the causes and conditions of clinging to external objects cease in contemplation; having no attachment within, then contemplation also ceases in the causes and conditions of clinging. Causes and conditions cease in contemplation, therefore there are no causes and conditions; contemplation ceases in causes and conditions, therefore there is no contemplation. Without contemplation and without causes and conditions, then all afflictions are stilled, and this is called 'Jing'. Where would there still be defilement? Question: If both causes and conditions and contemplation are extinguished, what is the difference between severing wisdom and annihilating the body? Annihilating the body means there are no causes and conditions, and severing wisdom means there is no contemplation. If one wants to cultivate the Great Way, how can one be so Hinayana? Answer: Causes and conditions are the arising of thoughts, which is the 'questioner' (the one who asks questions). Contemplation is the subtle enlightenment of non-arising, which is the 'answerer' (the one who answers). Because there are no causes and conditions, you have nothing to ask; because contemplation is cut off, there is nothing to communicate. One should not repeat circular and repetitive debates. Question: If both causes and conditions and contemplation are extinguished, and questions and answers also cease, then one can only be left to fate, becoming mute. Answer: Vasubandhu (Tianqin) and Nagarjuna (Longshu) both highly praised 'mute speech'. Therefore, it is said, 'When you realize my Dharma, you will then become mute yourself.' It's just that you haven't understood the meaning of it yet. Now I will briefly state it. The so-called 'mute' refers to speech that is like no speech; those who are good at speaking are like being silent but often speaking. Speaking but not being mute is the ordinary person. Being mute and not speaking is the contemplation of the Two Vehicles (Hinayana). Therefore, reaching the state where both causes and conditions and contemplation are extinguished, while the realm and wisdom are clearly understood. One should move the mind more and more quietly, and the more silent the wisdom, the brighter the illumination. How can one use 'mute Dharma' to measure the mind of a sage, and use annihilation to deny the profound Way? The Four Treatises - The Chapter on Present Existence The sutra says, 'Opening and closing all the gates of evil destinies, and being born in the six realms, to manifest the body.' The Dharmakaya (Dharma Body) is originally without birth and death, but it is born everywhere. Because there is no birth, the gates of all evil destinies are closed; because it is born everywhere, it manifests in the five realms. Being born in the five realms, there are five kinds of birth: 1. Birth of ceasing suffering, 2. Birth according to kind, 3. Superior birth, 4. Increasing birth, 5. Final birth.

。息苦生者。菩薩以自在力及與願力。受生三界。隨所生處。為息物苦。名息苦生。言隨類生者。菩薩願力自在力。與物同生。教令離惡。化之住善。名隨類生。言勝生者。菩薩自以功德善業。於人天中。受諸勝報。謂壽命色力並皆殊勝。故云勝生。增上生者。初地已上十地王果報。名增上生。最後生者。菩薩學位已窮。受生剎利婆羅門家。得無上道。作一切佛事。名最後生。問。凈名五生之中。何生攝耶。答。據本而言。久成種覺。位在法身。故非五生攝。就跡論者。適化無方。淺深隨物。則具五生。就位而言。此之五生。通遍諸地。約其階級。則前之三生在地前。后之二生則歡喜以上。凈名既得無生忍。則屬后二生但后之二生。受十王果報。名增上生。最後身作佛。稱後邊生。凈名跡居長者報。非十王果報。非作佛身。異最後生。就事言之。謂勝生也。五生之說。地持廣明也。

凈名玄論卷第二(名題中) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

凈名玄論卷第三(名題下)

三別釋法門

有三門。先釋不思議門。次釋解脫門。后釋法門。

先釋不思議有四。一來意。二釋不思議名。三辨不思議體。四釋不思議名多少。

第一來意者。問。諸方等教。皆是不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『息苦生』是指菩薩以自在力和願力，在三界中受生，隨其所生之處，為消除眾生的痛苦而生，故名『息苦生』。 『隨類生』是指菩薩以願力和自在力，與眾生一同受生，教導他們遠離惡行，引導他們安住于善行，故名『隨類生』。 『勝生』是指菩薩憑藉自身的功德和善業，在人天道中，獲得殊勝的果報，如壽命、容貌、力量等都非常殊勝，所以稱為『勝生』。 『增上生』是指初地菩薩以上，乃至十地菩薩所獲得的殊勝王位果報，稱為『增上生』。 『最後生』是指菩薩的修行已經達到最高階段，爲了示現成佛，而受生於剎利（Kshatriya，國王種姓）或婆羅門（Brahmana，祭司種姓）之家，最終證得無上菩提，成就一切佛事，稱為『最後生』。 問：維摩詰（Vimalakirti）的五種受生方式中，屬於哪一種？ 答：從根本上說，維摩詰早已成就覺悟的種子，位在法身，因此不屬於五種受生方式所攝。從示現的跡象來說，維摩詰的教化沒有固定的方式，深淺隨著眾生的根器而變化，因此可以包含五種受生方式。從菩薩的階位來說，這五種受生方式，普遍存在於各個菩薩地。按照菩薩的階級，前面的三種受生方式在地前菩薩，後面的兩種受生方式則屬於歡喜地（初地）以上的菩薩。維摩詰既然已經證得無生法忍，就屬於後面的兩種受生方式。但後面的兩種受生方式中，獲得十地菩薩的王位果報，稱為『增上生』，最後示現成佛，稱為『後邊生』。維摩詰示現居住在長者之家，並非十地菩薩的王位果報，也不是佛身，因此不同於『最後生』。就事相而言，維摩詰屬於『勝生』。關於五種受生的說法，在《地持經》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）中有詳細的說明。

《凈名玄論》卷第二（名題中） 大正藏第38冊 No. 1780 《凈名玄論》

《凈名玄論》卷第三（名題下）

三、分別解釋法門

有三個方面。首先解釋不思議門，其次解釋解脫門，最後解釋法門。

首先解釋不思議門，有四個方面：一、說明來意；二、解釋不思議的名稱；三、辨明不思議的體性；四、解釋不思議名稱的多少。

第一、說明來意。問：諸方等經典，都是不

【English Translation】 English version 'Suffering-cessation birth' refers to a Bodhisattva who, through the power of self-mastery and vows, takes birth in the Three Realms. Wherever they are born, it is to alleviate the suffering of beings, hence the name 'suffering-cessation birth'. 'Birth according to type' refers to a Bodhisattva who, through the power of vows and self-mastery, is born alongside beings, teaching them to turn away from evil deeds and guiding them to abide in goodness, hence the name 'birth according to type'. 'Superior birth' refers to a Bodhisattva who, through their own merits and virtuous deeds, receives superior rewards in the realms of humans and gods, such as exceptional lifespan, appearance, and strength, hence it is called 'superior birth'. 'Augmented birth' refers to the superior kingly rewards attained by Bodhisattvas from the first Bhumi (Joyful Ground) upwards, up to the Tenth Bhumi, known as 'augmented birth'. 'Final birth' refers to a Bodhisattva whose training has reached the highest stage. In order to demonstrate Buddhahood, they take birth in a Kshatriya (warrior caste) or Brahmana (priest caste) family, ultimately attaining unsurpassed Bodhi and accomplishing all the deeds of a Buddha, known as 'final birth'. Question: Among the five types of birth of Vimalakirti, which does he belong to? Answer: Fundamentally speaking, Vimalakirti has long since cultivated the seeds of enlightenment and is positioned in the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body), therefore he is not included in the five types of birth. From the perspective of manifestation, Vimalakirti's teachings have no fixed method, and their depth varies according to the capacity of beings, thus it can encompass the five types of birth. From the perspective of the Bodhisattva stages, these five types of birth are universally present in all Bodhisattva grounds. According to the Bodhisattva stages, the first three types of birth are for Bodhisattvas before the first Bhumi, while the latter two types of birth belong to Bodhisattvas above the Joyful Ground (first Bhumi). Since Vimalakirti has already attained the 'non-origination forbearance', he belongs to the latter two types of birth. However, among the latter two types of birth, attaining the kingly rewards of the Ten Bhumis is called 'augmented birth', and finally manifesting as a Buddha is called 'final birth'. Vimalakirti manifests as residing in the home of a householder, which is not the kingly reward of the Ten Bhumis, nor is it the body of a Buddha, therefore it is different from 'final birth'. In terms of events, Vimalakirti belongs to 'superior birth'. The explanation of the five types of birth is extensively clarified in the 'Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra' (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice).

Vimalakirti's Profound Treatise, Volume 2 (In the Title) Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 38, No. 1780, Vimalakirti's Profound Treatise

Vimalakirti's Profound Treatise, Volume 3 (Below the Title)

Three, Separate Explanation of the Dharma Gate

There are three aspects. First, explain the Inconceivable Gate; second, explain the Liberation Gate; and third, explain the Dharma Gate.

First, explaining the Inconceivable Gate has four aspects: One, explaining the intention; Two, explaining the name 'Inconceivable'; Three, distinguishing the nature of 'Inconceivable'; Four, explaining the number of 'Inconceivable' names.

First, explaining the intention. Question: All the Vaipulya Sutras are in

思議。何故此經獨受其名。答。一切諸經。雖皆是不思議。但此經即以不思議為名。例如一切佛。皆有法寶。而寶積佛即以為名。又不思議。凡有二種。一者通不思議。謂諸佛菩薩境界。並非二乘凡夫之有所能測度。二者別不思議。謂神通奇特。如鉅細相容。眾經多明通不思議。此經多辨別不思議。故偏受斯稱。問。此經凡有二名。一維摩詰。二不思議。何故。別有不思議品。而無別維摩品耶。又此經名不思議經。別有不思議品。眾經何故不爾。如般若等經。何故無般若品耶。答。此經雖有人法二名。而維摩事彰。通為一經之主。不須別立品。不思議。雖通貫一經。但不思議事未顯。須別立品。般若等經。明般若事顯故。不須別立般若品也。問。此經何故辨不思議耶。答。略有五義。一者欲稱歎諸佛菩薩解脫法門不可思議。令稟教之徒。虛心頂受。慕仰信行。二者凈名道德已遠得無功用心。現通說法。有所施為。任運即不假思量議度。既得此悟。還欲示人。故說不思議。三者欲顯一切諸法無定性相。故說不思議。如長若定長。不可促長令短。短若定短。不可延短令長。以可延促。故無定相性。以無定性。諸法即空。因此即悟入實相。故說不思議。四者此經正明不思議法。故立不思議名。如不二法門。心行處滅。言語道

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 思議：為什麼這部經單獨獲得這個名稱？

答：一切經典，雖然都是不可思議的，但這部經直接以『不可思議』為名。例如，一切佛都有法寶，而寶積佛（Ratnakuta Buddha，以寶積為名的佛）就以此為名。而且，不可思議，大致有兩種：一種是通不可思議，指的是諸佛菩薩的境界，不是二乘（聲聞、緣覺）凡夫所能測度的；另一種是別不可思議，指的是神通奇特，例如大小可以互相容納。許多經典多闡明通不可思議，而這部經多辨析別不可思議，所以特別獲得這個稱呼。

問：這部經有兩個名稱，一是維摩詰（Vimalakirti，經中主角），二是不思議。為什麼特別有《不思議品》，而沒有單獨的《維摩品》呢？而且，這部經名為《不思議經》，特別有《不思議品》，其他經典為什麼不是這樣呢？例如《般若經》（Prajna Sutra），為什麼沒有《般若品》呢？

答：這部經雖然有人法兩個名稱，但維摩詰的事蹟很顯著，貫穿整部經的主旨，不需要單獨設立一個品。不思議，雖然貫穿整部經，但不思議的事蹟沒有明顯地展現出來，需要單獨設立一個品。《般若經》等經典，闡明般若的事蹟很明顯，所以不需要單獨設立《般若品》。

問：這部經為什麼闡述不可思議呢？

答：大致有五個意義：一是想要稱讚諸佛菩薩解脫法門的不可思議，讓接受教導的人，虛心接受，仰慕信奉並實踐；二是維摩詰的道德已經達到很高的境界，不用刻意用心，展現神通說法，有所作為，都是自然而然的，不需要思量考慮。既然自己領悟了，還想向別人展示，所以說不可思議；三是想要顯示一切諸法沒有固定的體性和現象，所以說不可思議。例如，長如果是固定的長，就不能縮短；短如果是固定的短，就不能延長。因為可以延長和縮短，所以沒有固定的體性。因為沒有固定的體性，諸法就是空。因此就能領悟實相，所以說不可思議；四是這部經主要闡明不可思議法，所以立名為《不思議經》。例如不二法門（Advaya），心行處滅，言語道

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why does this Sutra uniquely receive this name, 'Inconceivable'?

Answer: Although all Sutras are inconceivable, this Sutra directly takes 'Inconceivable' as its name. For example, all Buddhas possess Dharma treasures, but Ratnakuta Buddha (Buddha named 'Heap of Jewels') is specifically named after it. Furthermore, 'inconceivable' is generally of two types: the common inconceivable, referring to the realm of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which cannot be fathomed by Shravakas, Pratyekabuddhas (the two vehicles), or ordinary beings; and the distinct inconceivable, referring to miraculous powers, such as the mutual containment of large and small. Many Sutras primarily explain the common inconceivable, while this Sutra primarily elucidates the distinct inconceivable; therefore, it uniquely receives this designation.

Question: This Sutra has two names: Vimalakirti (the main character in the sutra) and Inconceivable. Why is there a separate 'Inconceivable Chapter' but no separate 'Vimalakirti Chapter'? Moreover, this Sutra is named the 'Inconceivable Sutra' and has a separate 'Inconceivable Chapter.' Why is this not the case with other Sutras, such as the Prajna Sutra (Perfection of Wisdom Sutra), which does not have a 'Prajna Chapter'?

Answer: Although this Sutra has two names, referring to both a person and the Dharma, Vimalakirti's deeds are prominent and pervade the main theme of the entire Sutra; therefore, there is no need to establish a separate chapter. 'Inconceivable,' although it runs through the entire Sutra, its deeds are not explicitly displayed; therefore, a separate chapter is needed. Sutras such as the Prajna Sutra clearly elucidate the deeds of Prajna; therefore, there is no need to establish a separate 'Prajna Chapter.'

Question: Why does this Sutra expound on the inconceivable?

Answer: There are roughly five reasons: First, to praise the inconceivable Dharma doors of liberation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, causing those who receive the teachings to humbly accept, admire, believe, and practice them. Second, Vimalakirti's morality has already reached a high level, without deliberate effort, he manifests spiritual powers to expound the Dharma, and his actions are natural and spontaneous, without the need for deliberation or consideration. Having realized this himself, he also wants to show it to others; therefore, he speaks of the inconceivable. Third, to reveal that all Dharmas have no fixed nature or characteristics; therefore, he speaks of the inconceivable. For example, if 'long' is fixed as long, it cannot be shortened; if 'short' is fixed as short, it cannot be lengthened. Because it can be lengthened and shortened, it has no fixed nature. Because there is no fixed nature, all Dharmas are empty. Therefore, one can realize the true nature, and thus it is said to be inconceivable. Fourth, this Sutra primarily elucidates the inconceivable Dharma; therefore, it is named the 'Inconceivable Sutra.' For example, the non-dual Dharma door (Advaya), where the activity of the mind ceases, and the path of speech

斷。凈名默即是其事。以正說此法故。辨不思議。五者此經欲示二種人法。故明不思議。一者理外。謂凡夫二乘及有所得大乘人法。若所行之境。能行之智。所說教門。皆是有所得顛倒故。非不思議。二者明理內諸佛菩薩所行之境。能行之智。所說教門。並絕凡夫二乘有所得境界。故方是不可思議。問。何以知然。答。此經呵凡斥聖。破大彈小者。良由凡聖大小皆是有所得顛倒理外行心。所以非不思議。廣說菩薩無方妙用無礙法門。有得之徒。莫能測度。故名不思議。是故。當知。欲開二種義。故明不思議。此是對可思議。故嘆不思議。令舍可思議。悟不思議。既無可思議。亦無不思議。故諸佛菩薩所行之道。非思議。非不思議。問。理外義宗。亦明絕四句。離百非。言語道斷。心行處滅。何故非不思議。無所得。若四句。若絕四句。一切諸法。皆不思議。答。有所得。絕定絕。不可令不絕。不絕定不絕。不可令其絕。如此絕不絕。皆有軌跡處所。可得思議。無所得。絕不絕並是因緣無礙不思議。又有所得絕不絕悉皆不成。竟無此法。論何物不思議耶。無所得絕不絕義始成。故方得有不思議。至二智中。當具說也。

第二釋不思議名

略有三義。

一者約本釋不思議名。由本是不思議故。方有不思

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 斷。凈名（Vimalakirti，維摩詰）的沉默正是這件事。因為正確宣說此法，所以彰顯不可思議。五者，此經想要揭示兩種人法，所以闡明不可思議。一者是理外，指凡夫、二乘以及有所得的大乘人法。如果所行之境、能行之智、所說教門，都是有所得的顛倒，所以不是不可思議。二者是明理內，諸佛菩薩所行之境、能行之智、所說教門，都超越凡夫二乘有所得的境界，所以才是不可思議。問：憑什麼知道是這樣呢？答：此經呵斥凡夫，批評聖人，破斥大乘，貶低小乘，正是因為凡夫、聖人、大乘、小乘都是有所得的顛倒理外行心，所以不是不可思議。廣泛宣說菩薩無方妙用、無礙法門，有所得的人無法測度，所以名為不可思議。因此，應當知道，想要開顯兩種意義，所以闡明不可思議。這是針對可思議，所以讚歎不可思議，令人捨棄可思議，領悟不可思議。既然無可思議，也就沒有不可思議，所以諸佛菩薩所行之道，非思議，非不思議。問：理外義宗，也闡明斷絕四句，遠離百非，言語道斷，心行處滅，為什麼不是不可思議？無所得，無論是四句，還是斷絕四句，一切諸法，都是不可思議。答：有所得，斷絕就一定斷絕，不可能令其不斷絕；不斷絕就一定不斷絕，不可能令其斷絕。如此斷絕與不斷絕，都有軌跡處所，可以思議。無所得，斷絕與不斷絕都是因緣無礙的不可思議。又，有所得的斷絕與不斷絕都不能成立，最終沒有這種法。討論什麼事物是不可思議呢？無所得的斷絕與不斷絕的意義才成立，所以才會有不可思議。到二智中，會詳細說明。

第二，解釋不可思議之名

略有三種意義。

一者，從根本上解釋不可思議之名。由於根本就是不可思議，所以才會有不可思議。 English version: Severance. Vimalakirti's (Vimalakirti, meaning 'Pure Name') silence is precisely about this matter. Because this Dharma is correctly expounded, it reveals the inconceivable. Fifth, this sutra intends to reveal two types of people and Dharma, therefore it clarifies the inconceivable. The first is outside of principle, referring to the Dharma of ordinary people, those of the Two Vehicles, and those of the Mahayana who have attainments. If the realm of practice, the wisdom of practice, and the teachings expounded are all inverted due to having attainments, then it is not inconceivable. The second is clarifying within principle, the realm of practice, the wisdom of practice, and the teachings expounded by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which transcend the realm of attainments of ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles, therefore it is truly inconceivable. Question: How do we know this is the case? Answer: This sutra scolds ordinary people, criticizes sages, refutes the Mahayana, and belittles the Hinayana, precisely because ordinary people, sages, the Mahayana, and the Hinayana all have inverted minds that seek attainments and act outside of principle, therefore it is not inconceivable. It extensively expounds the Bodhisattva's boundless wonderful functions and unobstructed Dharma methods, which those who seek attainments cannot fathom, therefore it is called inconceivable. Therefore, it should be known that in order to reveal two kinds of meanings, it clarifies the inconceivable. This is in contrast to the conceivable, therefore it praises the inconceivable, causing people to abandon the conceivable and awaken to the inconceivable. Since there is no conceivable, there is also no inconceivable, therefore the path practiced by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is neither conceivable nor inconceivable. Question: The meaning and doctrine outside of principle also clarifies severing the four statements and departing from the hundred negations, where the path of language is cut off and the realm of mental activity ceases, why is it not inconceivable? Without attainment, whether it is the four statements or severing the four statements, all Dharmas are inconceivable. Answer: With attainment, severance is definitely severance, it is impossible to make it not sever; non-severance is definitely non-severance, it is impossible to make it sever. Such severance and non-severance both have traces and locations, which can be conceived. Without attainment, severance and non-severance are both inconceivable due to the unobstructedness of conditions. Furthermore, severance and non-severance with attainment cannot be established, ultimately there is no such Dharma. What is being discussed as inconceivable? The meaning of severance and non-severance without attainment is established, therefore there can be inconceivability. It will be explained in detail in the Two Wisdoms.

Second, explaining the name 'inconceivable'

There are briefly three meanings.

First, explaining the name 'inconceivable' from its root. Because the root is inconceivable, there is inconceivability.

【English Translation】 Severance. Vimalakirti's (Vimalakirti, meaning 'Pure Name') silence is precisely about this matter. Because this Dharma is correctly expounded, it reveals the inconceivable. Fifth, this sutra intends to reveal two types of people and Dharma, therefore it clarifies the inconceivable. The first is outside of principle, referring to the Dharma of ordinary people, those of the Two Vehicles, and those of the Mahayana who have attainments. If the realm of practice, the wisdom of practice, and the teachings expounded are all inverted due to having attainments, then it is not inconceivable. The second is clarifying within principle, the realm of practice, the wisdom of practice, and the teachings expounded by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which transcend the realm of attainments of ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles, therefore it is truly inconceivable. Question: How do we know this is the case? Answer: This sutra scolds ordinary people, criticizes sages, refutes the Mahayana, and belittles the Hinayana, precisely because ordinary people, sages, the Mahayana, and the Hinayana all have inverted minds that seek attainments and act outside of principle, therefore it is not inconceivable. It extensively expounds the Bodhisattva's boundless wonderful functions and unobstructed Dharma methods, which those who seek attainments cannot fathom, therefore it is called inconceivable. Therefore, it should be known that in order to reveal two kinds of meanings, it clarifies the inconceivable. This is in contrast to the conceivable, therefore it praises the inconceivable, causing people to abandon the conceivable and awaken to the inconceivable. Since there is no conceivable, there is also no inconceivable, therefore the path practiced by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is neither conceivable nor inconceivable. Question: The meaning and doctrine outside of principle also clarifies severing the four statements and departing from the hundred negations, where the path of language is cut off and the realm of mental activity ceases, why is it not inconceivable? Without attainment, whether it is the four statements or severing the four statements, all Dharmas are inconceivable. Answer: With attainment, severance is definitely severance, it is impossible to make it not sever; non-severance is definitely non-severance, it is impossible to make it sever. Such severance and non-severance both have traces and locations, which can be conceived. Without attainment, severance and non-severance are both inconceivable due to the unobstructedness of conditions. Furthermore, severance and non-severance with attainment cannot be established, ultimately there is no such Dharma. What is being discussed as inconceivable? The meaning of severance and non-severance without attainment is established, therefore there can be inconceivability. It will be explained in detail in the Two Wisdoms. Second, explaining the name 'inconceivable' There are briefly three meanings. First, explaining the name 'inconceivable' from its root. Because the root is inconceivable, there is inconceivability.

議用耳。不思議本即不二法。門不二法門謂諸法實相。諸法實相心行斷故。心不能思。言語滅故。口不能議。十四章經。正為開不二。故前序云。凈名現病之本意。文殊問病之所由。當知為明本不思議。故名不思議也。

二者約凈名二智。由體不二之道。故有不二之智不二之智。能適化無方。善巧妙用。並任運成就。無功用心。不假思量議度。故名不思議。

三者外示不思議跡。若形若聲。及說不思議本。若境若智。並非下位菩薩及與二乘凡夫所能測度。故名不思議。不思議體。但有於三。不思議名。亦唯此三義。問。此與關中舊釋何異。答。肇公云。深遠幽微。二乘不能測。謂不思議三義之中。但是后意耳。生公云。不思議者。凡有二種。一者空理。非惑情所測。二者神奇。非淺識能知。三意之中。具說初二義。什公云。法身菩薩。有所施為。欲能則能。不須作意。三種之中。亦得其一。今且敘三門。復辨本末次第及內外不同。則抱前諸意。

三辨不思議體。問。今就何法。明不思議。答。法雖無量。略有三種。一境。二智。三教門。境即真俗二境不思議。智即權實兩智不思議。教謂二諦教門。此之三門。有二種次第。若據能化。由真俗二境。發權實兩智。由權實兩智故。外說二諦教門。合此二

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

用耳朵聽聞。『不思議』的根本就是『不二法門』。『不二法門』指的是諸法的真實相狀。因為諸法真實相狀是心行止息的境界，所以心無法思量；因為言語止息，所以口無法議論。《維摩詰經》十四章，正是爲了開示『不二』的道理。因此，前面的序言說：『維摩詰示現疾病的根本用意，文殊菩薩問疾的緣由』，應當知道是爲了闡明『本不思議』，所以稱為『不思議』。 二是從維摩詰的二智來說。由於本體『不二』的道理，所以有『不二』的智慧。『不二』的智慧，能夠適應變化無窮的情況，善於巧妙運用，並且自然而然地成就，不需要刻意用心，不依賴於思量議論，所以稱為『不思議』。 三是外在示現『不思議』的跡象，無論是形體還是聲音，以及宣說『不思議』的根本，無論是境界還是智慧，都不是下位菩薩以及二乘凡夫所能測度的，所以稱為『不思議』。『不思議』的本體，只有這三種；『不思議』的名稱，也只有這三種含義。問：這與關中舊的解釋有什麼不同？答：僧肇說：『深遠幽微，二乘不能測度』，指的是『不思議』三種含義之中，只是後面的意思。生公說：『不思議』有兩種，一是空理，不是迷惑的情感所能測度的；二是神奇，不是淺薄的見識所能瞭解的。三種含義之中，具說了前兩種含義。鳩摩羅什說：『法身菩薩，有所施為，想要能就能，不需要刻意』，三種之中，也得到了一種。現在且敘述這三門，再辨別本末次第以及內外不同，就包含了前面的各種意思。 三、辨別不思議的本體。問：現在就什麼法，來闡明『不思議』？答：法雖然無量，略有三種：一、境；二、智；三、教門。境就是真諦和俗諦兩種境界的『不思議』；智就是權智和實智兩種智慧的『不思議』；教就是二諦的教門。這三門，有兩種次第。如果根據能教化者，由真俗二境，引發權實兩智；由權實兩智，所以對外宣說二諦教門。合起來就是這兩種。

【English Translation】 English version:

To be heard with the ear. The root of 'inconceivable' (不思議, bù sī yì) is the 'non-dual dharma gate' (不二法門, bù èr fǎ mén). The 'non-dual dharma gate' refers to the real aspect of all dharmas. Because the real aspect of all dharmas is the state where mental activity ceases, the mind cannot conceive it; because speech ceases, the mouth cannot discuss it. The fourteenth chapter of the Vimalakirti Sutra is precisely to reveal the principle of 'non-duality'. Therefore, the preceding preface says: 'The fundamental intention of Vimalakirti's manifestation of illness, and the reason for Manjushri's inquiry about the illness,' should be understood as clarifying 'original inconceivability' (本不思議, běn bù sī yì), hence it is called 'inconceivable'. Secondly, from the perspective of Vimalakirti's two wisdoms. Because of the principle of the 'non-dual' (不二, bù èr) essence, there is 'non-dual' wisdom. 'Non-dual' wisdom can adapt to infinite changes, is good at skillful application, and naturally achieves without deliberate effort, not relying on thought or discussion, hence it is called 'inconceivable'. Thirdly, outwardly manifesting 'inconceivable' signs, whether in form or sound, and expounding the root of 'inconceivable', whether in realm or wisdom, are beyond the comprehension of lower-level Bodhisattvas and the two vehicles (二乘, èr shèng) and ordinary people, hence it is called 'inconceivable'. The essence of 'inconceivable' is only these three; the name of 'inconceivable' also has only these three meanings. Question: How does this differ from the old interpretation in Guanzhong? Answer: Sengzhao said: 'Profound and subtle, the two vehicles cannot fathom it,' referring to the later meaning among the three meanings of 'inconceivable'. Shenggong said: 'There are two kinds of 'inconceivable': one is the principle of emptiness, which cannot be fathomed by deluded emotions; the other is the miraculous, which cannot be known by shallow knowledge.' Among the three meanings, the first two are fully explained. Kumarajiva said: 'When a Dharmakaya (法身, fǎ shēn) Bodhisattva acts, if they want to be able to, they can, without needing to deliberately intend it,' among the three, one is also obtained. Now, let's first describe these three gates, and then distinguish the order of root and branch, as well as the differences between inner and outer, which encompasses the previous various meanings. Third, distinguishing the essence of the inconceivable. Question: Now, based on what dharma, do we clarify 'inconceivable'? Answer: Although dharmas are limitless, there are roughly three types: first, realm (境, jìng); second, wisdom (智, zhì); and third, teaching gate (教門, jiào mén). Realm is the 'inconceivable' of the two realms of true and conventional truth; wisdom is the 'inconceivable' of the two wisdoms of expedient and real wisdom; teaching is the teaching gate of the two truths. These three gates have two kinds of order. If based on the one who can teach, from the two realms of true and conventional truth, the two wisdoms of expedient and real wisdom are generated; because of the two wisdoms of expedient and real wisdom, the teaching gate of the two truths is outwardly expounded. Combining them is these two.

義。即為二雙。由境發智。由智照境。謂發照一雙。內照二境為行。外彰神口為說。說行一雙。次約所化。三門次第者。稟二諦教。發生二智。二智則照於二諦。合此三義。亦成二雙。初則說行。次則發然。聖人如行而說。眾生稟二諦教。則如說而行。故名說行一雙也。以如說而行。識教悟理。發生二智。故二境為能發。二智為所發。二智為能照。二境為所照。名發照一雙也。問。真俗二諦。為是教名。為是境稱。答。約能化所化。互望不同。就能化為言。內照真俗。故真俗名境。外為眾生。依二諦說法。故真俗名教。就所化為言。稟于真俗。別真俗名教。因真俗。發生二智。真俗名境。然此真俗。未曾境教。問。若爾。何故垣言二諦為教。非是境理。答。此約依二諦說法故。二諦名教。若據發生二智。則真俗名境。又真俗表不二理。則真俗名教。若對二智。則稱為境。不可遍執。問。但應言聖人內照兩境。外為眾生依二諦說法。眾生稟二諦教。發生二智。二智還照二諦。何得復言二諦教表不二理耶。答。此義有開有合。若開理教不同。約能化為論。所悟之理。則非真非俗。能悟之智。亦非實非權。理雖非真俗。為出處眾生。無名相中。假名相說。故開真俗門。說二諦法。故以非真俗為理。真俗為教。二諦門既爾。智

【現代漢語翻譯】 意義。這就是二雙。由境引發智慧，由智慧照亮境。這稱為發照一雙。內在照亮二境作為行動，外在彰顯神口作為言說。言說和行動是一雙。其次是關於所教化者，三門依次是：稟受二諦（Satya-dvaya）教義，發生二智（jnana-dvaya）。二智則照亮二諦。合此三種意義，也構成二雙。最初是言說和行動，其次是啓發和照亮。聖人如行動般言說，眾生稟受二諦教義，則如言說般行動。所以稱為說行一雙。因為如言說般行動，認識教義，領悟真理，發生二智。所以二境為能啓發，二智為所啓發。二智為能照亮，二境為所照亮，稱為發照一雙。問：真諦（Paramārtha-satya）和俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya），是教義的名稱，還是境的稱謂？答：關於能教化者和所教化者，相互看待不同。就教化者而言，內在照亮真俗二諦，所以真俗名為境；對外為眾生，依據二諦說法，所以真俗名為教。就所教化者而言，稟受真俗二諦，區分真俗名為教；因為真俗，發生二智，真俗名為境。然而這真俗二諦，未曾固定為境或教。問：如果這樣，為什麼還說二諦是教義，不是境的道理？答：這是依據二諦說法，所以二諦名為教。如果根據發生二智，則真俗名為境。而且真俗代表不二之理，則真俗名為教；如果針對二智，則稱為境，不可執著於一處。問：只應說聖人內在照亮兩境，對外為眾生依據二諦說法，眾生稟受二諦教義，發生二智，二智還照亮二諦，為何又說二諦教義代表不二之理呢？答：此義有開有合。如果分開，理和教不同。就教化者而言，所領悟的理，則非真非俗；能領悟的智，也非實非權。理雖然非真俗，爲了引導眾生，在無名相中，假借名相來說，所以開啟真俗之門，說二諦法。所以以非真俗為理，真俗為教。二諦之門既然如此，智 現代漢語譯本 English version Meaning. This is two pairs. Wisdom arises from the realm, and wisdom illuminates the realm. This is called the 'arising and illuminating' pair. Internally illuminating the two realms is action, and externally manifesting the divine mouth is speech. Speech and action are a pair. Next, concerning those to be taught, the three doors in order are: receiving the teachings of the two truths (Satya-dvaya), giving rise to the two wisdoms (jnana-dvaya). The two wisdoms then illuminate the two truths. Combining these three meanings also forms two pairs. Initially, there is speech and action, and then there is arising and illuminating. Sages speak as they act, and sentient beings receive the teachings of the two truths, thus acting as they speak. Therefore, it is called the 'speech and action' pair. Because they act as they speak, recognize the teachings, and comprehend the truth, the two realms are what can give rise, and the two wisdoms are what is given rise to. The two wisdoms are what can illuminate, and the two realms are what is illuminated, called the 'arising and illuminating' pair. Question: Are the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) and the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) names of teachings or designations of realms? Answer: Regarding those who can teach and those who are taught, the perspectives differ. From the perspective of the teacher, internally illuminating the two truths, ultimate and conventional, therefore the ultimate and conventional are called realms; externally, for sentient beings, teaching according to the two truths, therefore the ultimate and conventional are called teachings. From the perspective of those being taught, receiving the two truths, distinguishing the ultimate and conventional are called teachings; because of the ultimate and conventional, the two wisdoms arise, and the ultimate and conventional are called realms. However, these two truths, ultimate and conventional, have never been fixed as realms or teachings. Question: If so, why is it said that the two truths are teachings and not the principles of realms? Answer: This is because teaching is based on the two truths, so the two truths are called teachings. If based on the arising of the two wisdoms, then the ultimate and conventional are called realms. Moreover, the ultimate and conventional represent the non-dual principle, then the ultimate and conventional are called teachings; if directed towards the two wisdoms, then they are called realms, and one should not cling to one aspect. Question: One should only say that sages internally illuminate the two realms and externally teach sentient beings according to the two truths, sentient beings receive the teachings of the two truths, giving rise to the two wisdoms, and the two wisdoms illuminate the two truths. Why then say that the teachings of the two truths represent the non-dual principle? Answer: This meaning has opening and closing aspects. If separated, principle and teaching are different. Regarding the teacher, the principle that is comprehended is neither ultimate nor conventional; the wisdom that can comprehend is neither real nor expedient. Although the principle is neither ultimate nor conventional, in order to guide sentient beings, in the absence of names and forms, names and forms are borrowed to speak, therefore opening the door of the ultimate and conventional, teaching the Dharma of the two truths. Therefore, the non-ultimate and non-conventional is taken as the principle, and the ultimate and conventional as the teaching. Since the door of the two truths is like this, wisdom

【English Translation】 Meaning. That is two pairs. Wisdom arises from the realm, and wisdom illuminates the realm. This is called the 'arising and illuminating' pair. Internally illuminating the two realms is action, and externally manifesting the divine mouth is speech. Speech and action are a pair. Next, concerning those to be taught, the three doors in order are: receiving the teachings of the two truths (Satya-dvaya), giving rise to the two wisdoms (jnana-dvaya). The two wisdoms then illuminate the two truths. Combining these three meanings also forms two pairs. Initially, there is speech and action, and then there is arising and illuminating. Sages speak as they act, and sentient beings receive the teachings of the two truths, thus acting as they speak. Therefore, it is called the 'speech and action' pair. Because they act as they speak, recognize the teachings, and comprehend the truth, the two realms are what can give rise, and the two wisdoms are what is given rise to. The two wisdoms are what can illuminate, and the two realms are what is illuminated, called the 'arising and illuminating' pair. Question: Are the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) and the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) names of teachings or designations of realms? Answer: Regarding those who can teach and those who are taught, the perspectives differ. From the perspective of the teacher, internally illuminating the two truths, ultimate and conventional, therefore the ultimate and conventional are called realms; externally, for sentient beings, teaching according to the two truths, therefore the ultimate and conventional are called teachings. From the perspective of those being taught, receiving the two truths, distinguishing the ultimate and conventional are called teachings; because of the ultimate and conventional, the two wisdoms arise, and the ultimate and conventional are called realms. However, these two truths, ultimate and conventional, have never been fixed as realms or teachings. Question: If so, why is it said that the two truths are teachings and not the principles of realms? Answer: This is because teaching is based on the two truths, so the two truths are called teachings. If based on the arising of the two wisdoms, then the ultimate and conventional are called realms. Moreover, the ultimate and conventional represent the non-dual principle, then the ultimate and conventional are called teachings; if directed towards the two wisdoms, then they are called realms, and one should not cling to one aspect. Question: One should only say that sages internally illuminate the two realms and externally teach sentient beings according to the two truths, sentient beings receive the teachings of the two truths, giving rise to the two wisdoms, and the two wisdoms illuminate the two truths. Why then say that the teachings of the two truths represent the non-dual principle? Answer: This meaning has opening and closing aspects. If separated, principle and teaching are different. Regarding the teacher, the principle that is comprehended is neither ultimate nor conventional; the wisdom that can comprehend is neither real nor expedient. Although the principle is neither ultimate nor conventional, in order to guide sentient beings, in the absence of names and forms, names and forms are borrowed to speak, therefore opening the door of the ultimate and conventional, teaching the Dharma of the two truths. Therefore, the non-ultimate and non-conventional is taken as the principle, and the ultimate and conventional as the teaching. Since the door of the two truths is like this, wisdom

亦例然。悟理之智。非權非實。為欲化物。故開二智。以權實二智。照真俗兩境。外為眾生。說真俗二諦。此約能化。開理教境智義也。次約所化明理教境智者。所化眾生。稟真俗二教。即悟非真非俗不二之理。既悟不二之理。即發生不二之觀。所悟境既非真俗。能悟之智亦非權實。既悟理非有無。即識教有真俗。悟理髮生。非權實智。即識教有真俗。故生權實二智。此約能化所化。各開理教境智也。

次合論理教境智者。非真非俗之理。名為真諦。若真若俗之教。併名俗諦。故唯有二諦。非權非實。名為實智。權之與實。併名權智。故唯有二智。既唯有二境。故聖人內照二境。外為眾生。還說二諦。眾生因二諦教。還發生二智也。問。初何故開。后何故合。答。欲顯至理甚深。未曾真俗。聖心微妙。亦非實非權。而今言俗言真。說權說實者。蓋是出處眾生。故強名相說。為此義故。所以須開。復欲就二諦攝法。無義不收。權實該羅。無智不攝。故但明二諦唯有權實。所以合也。又經中具有開合。以釋經故具明之。又對斥舊宗執二諦不知不二。所以須開。尋教之徒。復言二諦之外別有不二之理。所以須合。故開合不同。皆有其義。上來總釋三門。

今次別釋三門。即為三意。初釋二智。復為三門。一明權

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：也是同樣的道理。領悟真理的智慧，既不是權智也不是實智。爲了教化眾生，所以開顯權智和實智。用權智和實智，照亮真諦和俗諦兩種境界。對外為眾生，宣說真諦和俗諦兩種真理。這是從能教化的角度，開顯理、教、境、智的含義。其次從所教化的角度說明理、教、境、智：所教化的眾生，接受真諦和俗諦兩種教法，從而領悟到非真非俗的不二之理。既然領悟了不二之理，就會生起不二之觀。所領悟的境界既然既非真諦也非俗諦，能領悟的智慧也既非權智也非實智。既然領悟的真理並非有也非無，就能認識到教法有真諦和俗諦之分。領悟真理而生起的，不是權智和實智，就能認識到教法有真諦和俗諦之分，所以產生權智和實智。這是從能教化和所教化的角度，各自開顯理、教、境、智。 其次合起來論述理、教、境、智：非真非俗的真理，名為真諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）。若真若俗的教法，都名為俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）。所以只有二諦。非權非實的智慧，名為實智（Bhūta-jñāna，真智）。權智和實智，都名為權智（Upāya-jñāna，方便智）。所以只有二智。既然只有二境，所以聖人對內照亮二境，對外為眾生，還是宣說二諦。眾生因為二諦的教法，還是會生起二智。問：最初為什麼要開顯？後來為什麼要合攏？答：想要顯示至理非常深奧，從來沒有真俗之分。聖人的心微妙，也不是實智也不是權智。而現在說俗說真，說權說實，這都是爲了遷就眾生，所以勉強用名相來說明。爲了這個緣故，所以需要開顯。又想要用二諦來統攝一切法，沒有哪種含義不能包含。權智和實智涵蓋一切，沒有哪種智慧不能統攝。所以只說明二諦，只有權智和實智，所以要合攏。而且經文中有開有合，爲了解釋經文所以全部說明。又爲了駁斥舊宗派執著於二諦而不知道不二，所以需要開顯。尋章摘句的人，又說在二諦之外另有不二之理，所以需要合攏。所以開顯和合攏各有不同的意義。以上總的解釋了三門。 現在分別解釋三門，即為三種含義。首先解釋二智，又分為三門。一是說明權智。

【English Translation】 English version: It is the same principle. The wisdom of understanding the truth is neither expedient nor real. In order to transform beings, the two wisdoms are revealed. Using expedient and real wisdoms, illuminate the two realms of truth and convention. Externally for sentient beings, expound the two truths of truth and convention. This is from the perspective of the one who transforms, revealing the meaning of principle, teaching, realm, and wisdom. Secondly, from the perspective of those being transformed, explain principle, teaching, realm, and wisdom: the sentient beings being transformed receive the two teachings of truth and convention, thereby realizing the non-dual principle of neither truth nor convention. Since they have realized the non-dual principle, they will generate non-dual contemplation. Since the realm being realized is neither truth nor convention, the wisdom that realizes it is neither expedient nor real. Since the principle being realized is neither existence nor non-existence, they can recognize that the teachings have the distinction of truth and convention. What arises from realizing the principle is not expedient or real wisdom, they can recognize that the teachings have the distinction of truth and convention, so expedient and real wisdom arise. This is from the perspective of both the one who transforms and those being transformed, each revealing principle, teaching, realm, and wisdom. Secondly, combining the discussion of principle, teaching, realm, and wisdom: the principle of neither truth nor convention is called Paramārtha-satya (真諦, ultimate truth). The teachings of both truth and convention are called Saṃvṛti-satya (俗諦, conventional truth). Therefore, there are only two truths. The wisdom that is neither expedient nor real is called Bhūta-jñāna (實智, real wisdom). Expedient and real wisdom are both called Upāya-jñāna (權智, expedient wisdom). Therefore, there are only two wisdoms. Since there are only two realms, the sage internally illuminates the two realms and externally for sentient beings, still expounds the two truths. Sentient beings, because of the teachings of the two truths, will still generate the two wisdoms. Question: Why reveal them initially? Why combine them later? Answer: Wanting to show that the ultimate principle is extremely profound, never having the distinction of truth and convention. The sage's mind is subtle, neither real wisdom nor expedient wisdom. But now speaking of convention and truth, speaking of expedient and real, these are all to accommodate sentient beings, so reluctantly using terms to explain. For this reason, it is necessary to reveal them. Also wanting to use the two truths to encompass all dharmas, there is no meaning that cannot be included. Expedient and real wisdom encompass everything, there is no wisdom that cannot be included. Therefore, only explaining the two truths, only having expedient and real wisdom, so they must be combined. Moreover, the sutras have both revealing and combining, to explain the sutras, so explaining everything. Also, to refute the old schools that cling to the two truths and do not know non-duality, so it is necessary to reveal them. Those who seek only the words of the teachings, also say that outside the two truths there is another principle of non-duality, so it is necessary to combine them. Therefore, revealing and combining each have different meanings. The above is a general explanation of the three doors. Now, explaining the three doors separately, which are three meanings. First, explaining the two wisdoms, which are divided into three doors. First, explaining expedient wisdom.

智不思議。二明實智不思議。三合釋二智不思議。問。何等名為權智不思議耶。答。內照外用。皆絕二乘。故並不思議。二乘不能遍知一切病。不能遍識一切藥。故不能測菩薩智。名內照不思議。又菩薩內照。即無照而照。照不動無照。亦非二乘所知。又菩薩雖照。不假功用。二乘作意方乃得知。亦不能思議菩薩無功用智也。次明外動用不思議。此事萬端不可具舉。今就大小容入。以示其相。但釋大小容入。凡有三師。一云大實不入小。小亦不容大。但以神力令應度之人。見其容入耳。二釋云。大實入小。小亦實容大。若不容入者。則諸菩薩無此功能。若明容入。還不容入。則一切諸轉變神通並無用也。

第三釋云。具有二義。一者實不容入。能令見其容入。二實能容入。復令見容入。今明第三釋宜可用之。但此經正明容入。非不容入也。故高廣之座。來入方丈小室。方丈小室。容高廣之座。大小無有增減。而容入宛然。故是不思議也。問。若無增減。名不思不議。寧得文云其室廣博。答。講誦之人。多不細觀。故不見此文意。若以下徴之。未見好釋。若於此一條昧者。則不思議事皆不成矣。今明不思議品。凡有二文。一云其室廣博。二云本相如故。即此二文。自相違背。既云其室廣博。寧得本相如故。若云本

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 智慧不可思議。二，闡明實智不可思議。三，合起來解釋兩種智慧的不可思議。問：什麼叫做權智不可思議呢？答：內在的觀照和外在的運用，都超越了二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘），所以都是不可思議的。二乘不能普遍地知道一切疾病，不能普遍地認識一切藥物，所以不能測度菩薩的智慧，這叫做內在觀照的不可思議。而且菩薩的內在觀照，是無照而照，照而不動，無照也是如此，這不是二乘所能知道的。還有，菩薩雖然觀照，但不假借功用。二乘需要作意才能得知，也不能思議菩薩的無功用智。接下來闡明外在動用的不可思議。這件事千頭萬緒，不能全部列舉，現在就大小互相容納來顯示它的相狀。但解釋大小互相容納，總共有三位法師的說法。第一位說，大的實際上不能進入小的，小的也不能容納大的，只是用神通力讓應該被度化的人，看到它容納進入罷了。第二種解釋說，大的實際上進入小的，小的也確實容納大的。如果不能容納進入，那麼諸位菩薩就沒有這種功能。如果說能容納進入，卻又不能容納進入，那麼一切諸如轉變的神通也就都沒有用了。 第三種解釋說，具有兩種含義。一是實際上不能容納進入，但能讓（眾生）看到它容納進入；二是實際上能容納進入，又讓（眾生）看到容納進入。現在認為第三種解釋可以採用。但這部經正是闡明容納進入，不是不容納進入。所以高大寬廣的座位，來到方丈小室中；方丈小室，容納高大寬廣的座位。大小沒有增加或減少，而容納進入的情形卻清清楚楚，所以這是不可思議的。問：如果沒有增加或減少，叫做不可思不可議，怎麼經文說『其室廣博』呢？答：講誦的人，大多不仔細觀察，所以沒有看到這段經文的用意。如果用下面的經文來徵詢，還沒有看到好的解釋。如果對這一條不明白，那麼不可思議的事情都不能成立了。現在說明《不思議品》，總共有兩段經文。一段說『其室廣博』，另一段說『本相如故』，這兩段經文，互相違背。既然說『其室廣博』，怎麼又說『本相如故』呢？如果說本...

【English Translation】 English version Wisdom is inconceivable. Second, clarifying that true wisdom (Skt: jnana) is inconceivable. Third, combining to explain the inconceivability of the two wisdoms. Question: What is called expedient wisdom (Skt: upaya-jnana) being inconceivable? Answer: Inner illumination and outer application both transcend the Two Vehicles (Skt: Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana), so they are both inconceivable. The Two Vehicles cannot universally know all diseases, nor can they universally recognize all medicines, so they cannot fathom the wisdom of a Bodhisattva, which is called the inconceivability of inner illumination. Moreover, the inner illumination of a Bodhisattva is illuminating without illuminating, illuminating without moving, and not illuminating is also like that, which is not known by the Two Vehicles. Furthermore, although a Bodhisattva illuminates, he does not rely on effort. The Two Vehicles need to make an effort to know, and they cannot conceive of the Bodhisattva's wisdom without effort. Next, clarifying the inconceivability of outer application. This matter has myriad aspects and cannot be fully enumerated. Now, taking the mutual inclusion of large and small to show its appearance. But explaining the mutual inclusion of large and small, there are altogether three teachers' explanations. The first says that the large actually cannot enter the small, and the small also cannot accommodate the large, but uses supernatural power to let those who should be saved see its inclusion and entry. The second explanation says that the large actually enters the small, and the small also actually accommodates the large. If it cannot accommodate and enter, then the Bodhisattvas would not have this function. If it is said that it can accommodate and enter, but then it cannot accommodate and enter, then all the transformations and supernatural powers would be useless. The third explanation says that it has two meanings. One is that it actually cannot accommodate and enter, but can let (sentient beings) see its accommodation and entry; the other is that it actually can accommodate and enter, and also let (sentient beings) see the accommodation and entry. Now it is considered that the third explanation can be adopted. But this sutra is precisely clarifying accommodation and entry, not non-accommodation and entry. Therefore, the tall and wide seat comes into the small room of the Vimalakirti's chamber (Skt: Vimalakirti-nirdesa); the small room of the Vimalakirti's chamber accommodates the tall and wide seat. The large and small do not increase or decrease, but the situation of accommodation and entry is clear, so this is inconceivable. Question: If there is no increase or decrease, it is called inconceivable and un-discussable, how does the text say 'its room is broad and spacious'? Answer: Those who lecture and recite mostly do not observe carefully, so they do not see the intention of this passage. If using the following passage to inquire, a good explanation has not been seen. If one is not clear about this point, then inconceivable matters cannot be established. Now explaining the chapter on 'Inconceivable', there are altogether two passages. One says 'its room is broad and spacious', the other says 'its original appearance remains the same', these two passages contradict each other. Since it says 'its room is broad and spacious', how can it also say 'its original appearance remains the same'? If it says its original...

相如故。何名廣博。今明室有內外。自內而觀。故其室廣博。自外而觀。則本相如故。是以二文不相違也。問。若爾者。何名不思議耶。答。唯是一室。內觀則廣。外觀如故。即是不思議。問。外觀如故。可無增減名不思議。內觀既廣。即是增減。云何名不思議。答。內廣遂令外增。可非不思議。而內廣不令外增。故內廣是不思議。問。不令外廣。可外無增。名外不思議。遂令內廣。便是增內。即內非不思議。答。凈名既能令外不增。亦能令內不廣。何以知之。世小術遂能令尺鏡入于寸瓶。瓶不增。鏡不減。而容入究然。況諸佛菩薩。今遂令室內廣者。凡有二義。一者此經始終敘凈名待賓。凡具四事。一有廣博之室。二設端嚴之座。三有甘露味飯。四有微妙法。言室若不廣。則四中𨷂一。今欲待賓事圓。故令室廣博也。在室雖廣。遂令外增。則非奇特。而外本相如故。所此復是不思議。是以內大外小。各有深致也。二者若內外皆不廣。而令大座入小室者。但得將室對座。辨大小不思議耳。今欲示二種不思議。一大入小不思議。二內外不思議。大小不思議者。大座入小室內。室內雖廣。而外不大。故是大小不思議。二內外不思議者。唯是一室。內觀則廣。外看不大。欲言室大。外相宛然。欲言室小。能容大座。是故此室

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 和原來一樣。什麼叫做廣博呢？現在明亮的房間有內外之分。從裡面看，所以覺得房間廣博；從外面看，那麼它的本來面貌和原來一樣。因此這兩種說法並不矛盾。問：如果這樣，為什麼叫做不可思議呢？答：明明只是一個房間，從裡面看就覺得寬廣，從外面看卻和原來一樣，這就是不可思議。問：從外面看和原來一樣，可以因為沒有增加或減少而叫做不可思議。從裡面看既然寬廣了，就是增加了或減少了，怎麼能叫做不可思議呢？答：如果裡面的寬廣導致了外面的增加，那就不是不可思議了。而裡面的寬廣並沒有導致外面的增加，所以裡面的寬廣才是不可思議。問：不導致外面的寬廣，可以因為外面沒有增加，所以叫做外面的不可思議。如果導致了裡面的寬廣，那就是增加了裡面，那麼裡面就不是不可思議了。答：Vimalakirti (凈名)既然能夠使外面不增加，也能夠使裡面不寬廣。憑什麼知道呢？世間的小法術尚且能夠使一尺長的鏡子進入一寸大小的瓶子，瓶子不增大，鏡子不減小，卻能夠容納進去，何況諸佛菩薩呢？現在使房間裡面寬廣，大概有兩種意義。一是這部經從頭到尾敘述Vimalakirti (凈名)招待賓客，總共有四件事：一是有一個廣博的房間，二是設定端莊華麗的座位，三是有甘露美味的飯食，四是有微妙的佛法。如果房間不寬廣，那麼這四件事就缺少一件。現在想要招待賓客的事情圓滿，所以使房間寬廣。房間雖然寬廣，如果導致了外面的增大，那就不是奇特了。而外面本來面貌和原來一樣，因此這又是不可思議。所以裡面大外面小，各有深刻的含義。二是如果內外都不寬廣，而使大座位進入小房間，那隻能將房間對照座位，辨別大小的不可思議罷了。現在想要顯示兩種不可思議：一是大入小的不可思議，二是內外不可思議。大小不可思議，就是大座位進入小房間內，房間裡面雖然寬廣，而外面並不增大，所以是大小不可思議。二是內外不可思議，明明只是一個房間，從裡面看就覺得寬廣，從外面看卻不增大。要說房間大，外面的樣子仍然如故；要說房間小，卻能容納大座位。所以這個房間

【English Translation】 English version As before. What is called 'vast and broad'? Now, a bright room has an inside and an outside. When viewed from the inside, the room seems vast and broad. When viewed from the outside, its original appearance remains the same. Therefore, these two statements do not contradict each other. Question: If that's the case, why is it called 'inconceivable'? Answer: It is just one room. When viewed from the inside, it seems vast; when viewed from the outside, it remains the same. This is what is called 'inconceivable'. Question: If it remains the same when viewed from the outside, it can be called 'inconceivable' because there is no increase or decrease. Since it is vast when viewed from the inside, there is an increase or decrease. How can it be called 'inconceivable'? Answer: If the vastness inside caused an increase outside, it would not be inconceivable. But the vastness inside does not cause an increase outside, so the vastness inside is inconceivable. Question: If it doesn't cause vastness outside, it can be called 'inconceivable' because there is no increase outside. If it causes vastness inside, then it increases the inside, so the inside is not inconceivable. Answer: Vimalakirti (凈名) is able to prevent the outside from increasing and also able to prevent the inside from becoming vast. How do we know this? Even a small worldly art can make a foot-long mirror enter a one-inch bottle. The bottle doesn't increase in size, and the mirror doesn't decrease, yet it can be accommodated completely. How much more so with Buddhas and Bodhisattvas? Now, making the room vast inside has two meanings. First, this sutra narrates Vimalakirti's (凈名) hospitality to guests from beginning to end, which involves four things: first, having a vast and broad room; second, providing dignified and beautiful seats; third, having food with the flavor of nectar; and fourth, having subtle Dharma. If the room were not vast, then one of these four things would be lacking. Now, to make the hospitality complete, the room is made vast and broad. Although the room is vast, if it caused the outside to increase, it would not be extraordinary. But the original appearance of the outside remains the same, so this is also inconceivable. Therefore, the inside being large and the outside being small each has profound significance. Second, if neither the inside nor the outside were vast, and a large seat entered a small room, then one could only compare the room to the seat and discern the inconceivable nature of their sizes. Now, we want to show two kinds of inconceivability: first, the inconceivability of a large thing entering a small space; second, the inconceivability of the inside and outside. The inconceivability of size is that a large seat enters a small room. Although the inside of the room is vast, the outside does not increase, so it is the inconceivability of size. Second, the inconceivability of the inside and outside is that it is just one room. When viewed from the inside, it seems vast; when viewed from the outside, it does not increase. If you say the room is large, the appearance of the outside remains the same. If you say the room is small, it can accommodate a large seat. Therefore, this room

不可思議。問。有人言。觀至容座。故言室廣。若置座觀室。則本相如故。此釋自能。何勞分內外。今問。室唯方丈。座高八萬。為見室大於座。為室見小於座耶。若見室大於座。云何復言本相如故。若本相如故。即見室猶方丈。云何復見容於大座。此則事相不成。于巧義不足。今詳經文意者。三萬諸座並來入室。舉眾皆見其室廣博。非復猶見方丈。但觀外形。本相如故。可用前通。廢於後釋。

次明實智不思議者。若以照空為實。照有為權者。此之實智。即是般若。般若所鑒實相。百非斯絕。四句皆忘。能鑒般若。亦如實而照。故釋論云。般若波羅蜜。實法不顛倒。念想觀已除。言語法亦滅。故是實智不思議。又波若照實相。不見智為能照。境為所照。故經云。菩薩與波若相應。不見相應。不見不相應。釋論云。緣是一邊。觀是一邊。離是二邊。名為波若。境智不二。豈其不可思議耶。又不見境智二。亦不見不二。如是五句畢竟盡。而能照所照宛然不失。故名實相不思議也。

后合明二智不思議者。正見此經之宗。何以知之。文云。諸佛菩薩有解脫。為不思議。問疾品。正就二智。辨于解脫。故言無方便慧縛。無慧方便縛。此就二慧明縛。無有解脫。故非不思議。有方便慧解。有慧方便解。故二慧解脫

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不可思議。問：有人說，觀看維摩詰的座位，所以說房間寬廣。如果把座位放在房間里觀看房間，那麼房間的本來面貌依舊如故。這種解釋是自圓其說，何必區分內外呢？現在問：房間只有方丈大小（約合十平方英尺），座位高達八萬由旬（古印度長度單位），是看見房間大於座位，還是房間看見小於座位呢？如果看見房間大於座位，為什麼又說房間的本來面貌依舊如故呢？如果房間的本來面貌依舊如故，那麼看見的房間仍然是方丈大小，為什麼又能容納巨大的座位呢？這在事相上是不成立的，在巧妙的義理上也是不足的。現在詳細考察經文的意思，三萬個座位都進入了房間，所有人都看見房間變得寬廣，不再是原來的方丈大小。只是從外形上看，房間的本來面貌依舊如故，可以用前面的解釋來貫通，廢棄後面的解釋。

其次說明實智不可思議。如果認為照見空性是實智，照見有相是權智，那麼這種實智就是般若（智慧）。般若所照見的實相，超越了一切否定，超越了四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）的分別。能照見的般若，也如實地照見。所以《大智度論》說：『般若波羅蜜（到達智慧彼岸），是真實的法，不顛倒，念想和觀想都已經消除，言語和法也滅盡。』所以是實智不可思議。而且般若照見實相，不認為智慧是能照見的，境界是所照見的。所以經文說：『菩薩與般若相應，不見相應，不見不相應。』《大智度論》說：『緣是一邊，觀是一邊，離開這兩邊，叫做般若。』境界和智慧不二，難道不是不可思議嗎？而且不見境界和智慧是二，也不見不是二，像這樣五句（二、不二、亦二亦不二、非二非不二、都不是）畢竟窮盡，而能照見的和所照見的依然清晰存在，所以叫做實相不可思議。

最後合起來說明二智不可思議。正確地看待這部經的宗旨。憑什麼知道呢？經文說：『諸佛菩薩有解脫，因為不可思議。』《問疾品》正是就二智來辨別解脫。所以說沒有方便的智慧束縛，沒有智慧的方便束縛。這是就兩種智慧來說明束縛，沒有解脫，所以不是不可思議。有方便的智慧解脫，有智慧的方便解脫，所以兩種智慧解脫。

【English Translation】 English version: Inconceivable. Question: Some say, 'Because one observes Vimalakirti's (name of a bodhisattva) seat, it is said that the room is spacious.' If one places the seat in the room and observes the room, then the original appearance of the room remains the same. This explanation is self-explanatory; why bother distinguishing between inside and outside? Now I ask: The room is only a square fathom (fangzhang, approximately ten square feet), and the seat is eighty thousand yojanas (yojana, an ancient Indian unit of distance) high. Do you see the room as larger than the seat, or does the room see itself as smaller than the seat? If you see the room as larger than the seat, how can you say that the original appearance of the room remains the same? If the original appearance remains the same, then the room seen is still only a square fathom. How can it accommodate the large seat? This is not logically consistent in terms of phenomena and lacks skillful meaning. Now, examining the meaning of the sutra in detail, thirty thousand seats all entered the room, and everyone saw the room become spacious, no longer just a square fathom. Only from the external form does the original appearance remain the same. The previous explanation can be used to connect, abandoning the later explanation.

Next, explaining the inconceivable nature of true wisdom (real wisdom). If one considers illuminating emptiness as true wisdom and illuminating existence as expedient wisdom, then this true wisdom is prajna (wisdom). The true nature illuminated by prajna transcends all negations and surpasses the distinctions of the four phrases (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence). The prajna that can illuminate also illuminates truthfully. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says, 'Prajnaparamita (perfection of wisdom) is the true dharma, not inverted. Thoughts and contemplations have been eliminated, and language and dharma have also ceased.' Therefore, it is true wisdom that is inconceivable. Moreover, when prajna illuminates true nature, it does not regard wisdom as the illuminator or the realm as the illuminated. Therefore, the sutra says, 'When a bodhisattva is in accordance with prajna, he does not see accordance, nor does he see non-accordance.' The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says, 'Condition is one side, observation is one side; leaving these two sides is called prajna.' The realm and wisdom are not two; is it not inconceivable? Furthermore, one does not see the realm and wisdom as two, nor does one see them as not two. In this way, the five phrases (two, not two, both two and not two, neither two nor not two, and none of these) are ultimately exhausted, yet the illuminator and the illuminated remain clearly present. Therefore, it is called the inconceivable nature of true reality.

Finally, combining to explain the inconceivable nature of the two wisdoms. Correctly view the purpose of this sutra. How do we know this? The text says, 'The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have liberation because it is inconceivable.' The Inquiry of Illness chapter precisely distinguishes liberation based on the two wisdoms. Therefore, it says there is no bondage of expedient wisdom, and no bondage of wisdom expedient. This uses the two wisdoms to explain bondage; there is no liberation, so it is not inconceivable. There is liberation of expedient wisdom, and there is liberation of wisdom expedient; therefore, the two wisdoms are liberated.

名不思議。問。云何名二智縛解。答。文已具詳。今且就山門。敘其得失。先示二慧俱縛。明非不思議次辨二慧俱解名不思議。

二慧俱縛非不思議者。若有權可權。則有實可實。有權可權。不由實故權。有實可實。不由權故實。不由權故實。此實非權實。不由實故權。此權非實權。權非實權。權是自權。實非權實。實是自實。權是自權。權不得為實。實是自實。實不得為權。如此權實。各住自性。不得縱任自在無礙無方。故名為縛。以是縛故。非不思議。乃是凡夫二乘有所得斷常二見。何名為諸佛菩薩之妙觀哉。

次對失明得。辨是解脫不思議者。今明無權可權。則無實可實。無權可權。由實故權。無實可實。由權故實。由實故權。權名實權。由權故實。實名權實。權名實權。權不自權。實名權實。實不自實。權不自權。則非權。實不自實。則非實。非權非實。始成權實。權實則實得為權。實權則權得為實。縱任自在無礙無方。故名解脫。解脫即不思議也。問。經無此言。云何以義約耶。答。文實有之。但子未見耳。今略示其一。則萬義例然。如問疾品云。以嚴土化人二行為方便。三空自調。名之為慧。不能即三空。而起二行。名無方便慧縛。若能即三空而起二行。名有方便慧解。不能即二行而入三空

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名為不可思議。問：什麼叫做二智縛解？答：經文已經詳細說明。現在且就山門，敘述其中的得失。先說明二慧都被束縛，表明並非不可思議；其次辨明二慧都得到解脫，名為不可思議。

二慧都被束縛，並非不可思議：如果存在可以權宜的權宜，那麼就存在可以實在的實在。存在可以權宜的權宜，不是因為實在的緣故才是權宜；存在可以實在的實在，不是因為權宜的緣故才是實在。不是因為權宜的緣故才是實在，這個實在不是權宜的實在；不是因為實在的緣故才是權宜，這個權宜不是實在的權宜。權宜不是實在的權宜，權宜是它自身的權宜；實在不是權宜的實在，實在是他自身的實在。權宜是他自身的權宜，權宜不能成為實在；實在是他自身的實在，實在不能成為權宜。如此權宜和實在，各自安住于自身的性質，不能夠縱任自在，沒有阻礙，沒有方向。所以叫做束縛。因為這種束縛的緣故，不是不可思議，而是凡夫和二乘人有所得的斷見和常見。這怎麼能稱作諸佛菩薩的妙觀呢？

其次針對失去而說明得到，辨明這是解脫不可思議：現在說明沒有可以權宜的權宜，那麼就沒有可以實在的實在。沒有可以權宜的權宜，是因為實在的緣故才是權宜；沒有可以實在的實在，是因為權宜的緣故才是實在。因為實在的緣故才是權宜，權宜就叫做實在的權宜；因為權宜的緣故才是實在，實在就叫做權宜的實在。權宜叫做實在的權宜，權宜不是它自身的權宜；實在叫做權宜的實在，實在不是它自身的實在。權宜不是它自身的權宜，那就不是權宜；實在不是它自身的實在，那就不是實在。不是權宜也不是實在，才成就權宜和實在。權宜和實在，那麼實在就可以成為權宜；實在的權宜，那麼權宜就可以成為實在。縱任自在，沒有阻礙，沒有方向。所以叫做解脫。解脫就是不可思議。問：經典中沒有這些話，為什麼用義理來概括呢？答：經文實際上有這些話，只是你沒有看到罷了。現在略微舉出一個例子，那麼萬種義理都可以依此類推。例如《問疾品》中說：『以嚴土（莊嚴佛土）化人（教化眾生）這兩種行為作為方便，三空（空、無相、無愿）自然調和，稱之為慧。』不能夠即三空而生起二行，叫做沒有方便的慧縛。如果能夠即三空而生起二行，叫做有方便的慧解。不能夠即二行而入三空

【English Translation】 English version: Named 'Inconceivable'. Question: What is meant by the 'Two Wisdoms Bound and Released'? Answer: The text has already explained it in detail. Now, let's discuss its gains and losses from the perspective of the mountain gate (referring to a Buddhist school or tradition). First, it shows that both wisdoms are bound, indicating that it is not inconceivable; then, it distinguishes that both wisdoms are released, which is called inconceivable.

The two wisdoms being bound is not inconceivable: If there is a provisional (upaya) that can be provisional, then there is a real that can be real. The provisional that can be provisional is not provisional because of the real; the real that can be real is not real because of the provisional. The real is not real because of the provisional; this real is not a provisional real. The provisional is not provisional because of the real; this provisional is not a real provisional. The provisional is not a real provisional; the provisional is its own provisional. The real is not a provisional real; the real is its own real. The provisional is its own provisional; the provisional cannot become the real. The real is its own real; the real cannot become the provisional. Thus, the provisional and the real each abide in their own nature, unable to be freely uninhibited, without obstruction, and without direction. Therefore, it is called 'bound'. Because of this bondage, it is not inconceivable, but rather the views of permanence and annihilation held by ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles (Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) who have attachments. How can this be called the wonderful contemplation of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas?

Next, in contrast to loss, it clarifies gain, distinguishing this as liberation and inconceivable: Now, it is clarified that there is no provisional that can be provisional, then there is no real that can be real. There is no provisional that can be provisional; it is provisional because of the real. There is no real that can be real; it is real because of the provisional. It is provisional because of the real; the provisional is called a real provisional. It is real because of the provisional; the real is called a provisional real. The provisional is called a real provisional; the provisional is not its own provisional. The real is called a provisional real; the real is not its own real. The provisional is not its own provisional; then it is not provisional. The real is not its own real; then it is not real. Neither provisional nor real, then provisional and real are accomplished. Provisional and real, then the real can become the provisional. Real provisional, then the provisional can become the real. Freely uninhibited, without obstruction, and without direction. Therefore, it is called 'liberation'. Liberation is inconceivable. Question: The sutras do not have these words; why do you summarize them with meaning? Answer: The text actually has these words, but you have not seen them. Now, let me briefly give one example, and then ten thousand meanings can be inferred in the same way. For example, in the 'Questioning Vimalakirti Sutra' it says: 'Using the two practices of adorning the Buddha-land (Emtu) and transforming beings (Huarin) as a means, the three emptinesses (Sunyata, Animitta, Apranihita) are naturally harmonized, which is called wisdom.' Not being able to immediately arise the two practices from the three emptinesses is called the bondage of wisdom without means. If one can immediately arise the two practices from the three emptinesses, it is called the liberation of wisdom with means. Not being able to enter the three emptinesses from the two practices

。名無慧方便縛。若能即二行而入三空。名有慧方便解。故空有無礙。權實自在。名為解脫。解脫故是不思議。

次明境不思議。亦有三。一者俗境。二真境。三合明二境。所以明境不思議者。以智不自智。由境發智。良由境不思議故。智不思議耳。若智自不思議。境非不思議。豈得以可思議境。發不可思議智。以不思議智。照可思議境耶。

初明俗境不思議者。成實論云。乃至小草思惟觀察尚不可知。況一切法。身子子不知一鳥始末。況一切眾生。故知俗境不思議。今且據大小容入一義作之。問。鉅細殊形。復無增減。云何得相容入。答。南方舊云。既稱不可思議。唯聖境界。二乘不測。凡夫豈有解耶。故置而不釋。今請問之。鉅細容入者。蓋是不思議之跡耳。六度四等。權實兩智。不二法門。謂不思議之本。本跡雖殊。不思議一。而既能解本不思議。云何不達其跡耶。又跡為近事。本為遠理。尚通理本。何不解於事跡耶。北土地論師云。大無大相。故大得入少。少無少相。故少得容大。今請問之。既大無大相。是則無大。誰入小耶。小無小相。是即無小。誰容大耶。若云有無相之大無相之小。故得容入者。今重考之。無相之大。為猶有大。為無大耶。若有大。即猶有相。如其無相。則無有大。若言大

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果執著于沒有智慧的方便法門，就會被束縛。如果能夠同時運用兩種修行方式進入三空（指人空、法空、空空），就叫做具有智慧的方便解脫。所以，空與有之間沒有障礙，權巧方便與真實智慧運用自如，就叫做解脫。因為解脫的緣故，才是不可思議的境界。

接下來闡明境界的不可思議。這也有三種：一是世俗境界，二是真諦境界，三是合起來闡明兩種境界。之所以要闡明境界的不可思議，是因為智慧不能自己產生智慧，而是通過境界來引發智慧。正是因為境界不可思議，所以智慧才不可思議。如果智慧本身就是不可思議的，而境界不是不可思議的，怎麼能用可以思議的境界，引發不可思議的智慧呢？又怎麼能用不可思議的智慧，去照見可以思議的境界呢？

首先闡明世俗境界的不可思議。《成實論》中說，乃至對於小草的思惟觀察，尚且不可知，更何況一切諸法。舍利弗（Śāriputra）不能知道一隻鳥的起始和終末，更何況一切眾生。所以知道世俗境界是不可思議的。現在暫且根據大小互相容納的意義來闡述。問：巨大和細小形狀不同，而且沒有增減，怎麼能夠互相容納呢？答：南方舊有的說法認為，既然稱為不可思議，就只是聖人的境界，二乘（聲聞和緣覺）都不能測度，凡夫怎麼能夠理解呢？所以擱置而不解釋。現在請問：巨大和細小互相容納，這只是不可思議的表象罷了。六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、般若）、四等（慈、悲、喜、舍）、權巧方便與真實智慧兩種智慧，不二法門，才是不可思議的根本。表象和根本雖然不同，但不可思議的本質是一樣的。既然能夠理解根本的不可思議，怎麼不能通達它的表象呢？而且表象是近的事情，根本是遠的道理，尚且能通達道理的根本，為什麼不能理解事情的表象呢？北方《地論》的論師說，大的沒有大的相狀，所以大可以進入小；小的沒有小的相狀，所以小可以容納大。現在請問：既然大沒有大的相狀，那就是沒有大，誰進入小呢？小沒有小的相狀，那就是沒有小，誰容納大呢？如果說有無相的大和無相的小，所以能夠互相容納，現在重新考察：無相的大，是仍然有大，還是沒有大呢？如果有大，那就是仍然有相；如果說沒有相，那就是沒有大。如果說大

【English Translation】 English version: If one clings to expedient means without wisdom, one will be bound. If one can simultaneously practice both paths and enter the Three Emptinesses (referring to emptiness of self, emptiness of phenomena, and emptiness of emptiness), it is called liberation with wisdom and expedient means. Therefore, there is no obstruction between emptiness and existence, and the skillful use of expedient means and true wisdom is called liberation. Because of liberation, it is an inconceivable state.

Next, explaining the inconceivability of realms. There are also three aspects: first, the mundane realm; second, the realm of truth; and third, combining the two realms for explanation. The reason for explaining the inconceivability of realms is that wisdom does not arise from itself, but is triggered by realms. It is precisely because realms are inconceivable that wisdom is inconceivable. If wisdom itself is inconceivable, and the realm is not inconceivable, how can one use a conceivable realm to trigger inconceivable wisdom? And how can one use inconceivable wisdom to illuminate a conceivable realm?

First, explaining the inconceivability of the mundane realm. The Satyasiddhi Shastra says, 'Even contemplating and observing a small blade of grass is unknowable, let alone all phenomena. Śāriputra (舍利弗) could not know the beginning and end of a single bird, let alone all sentient beings.' Therefore, it is known that the mundane realm is inconceivable. Now, let's explain it based on the meaning of the mutual containment of large and small. Question: Large and small have different shapes and do not increase or decrease, how can they contain each other? Answer: The old saying in the South believes that since it is called inconceivable, it is only the realm of sages, which the Two Vehicles (Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha) cannot fathom, let alone ordinary people. Therefore, it is put aside and not explained. Now, let me ask: The mutual containment of large and small is merely a trace of the inconceivable. The Six Perfections (Dāna, Śīla, Kṣānti, Vīrya, Dhyāna, Prajñā), the Four Immeasurables (loving-kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity), the two wisdoms of expedient means and true wisdom, and the non-dual Dharma gate are the root of the inconceivable. Although the trace and the root are different, the essence of the inconceivable is the same. Since one can understand the inconceivability of the root, how can one not understand its trace? Moreover, the trace is a near matter, and the root is a distant principle. If one can understand the root of the principle, why can't one understand the trace of the matter? The Treatise on the Land masters in the North say, 'The large has no characteristic of large, so the large can enter the small; the small has no characteristic of small, so the small can contain the large.' Now, let me ask: Since the large has no characteristic of large, then there is no large, who enters the small? The small has no characteristic of small, then there is no small, who contains the large? If it is said that there is a large without characteristics and a small without characteristics, so they can contain each other, now let's re-examine: Does the large without characteristics still have large, or does it not have large? If it has large, then it still has characteristics; if it has no characteristics, then there is no large. If it is said that large

無相而有大者。亦應無大而有相耶。雖有此言。未見其理。故並不用之。今先開得失以示其相。所言失者。若有大可大。則有小可小。有大可大。不由小故大。有小可小。不由大故小。不由小故大。大是自大。不由大故小。小是自小。大是自大。大非小大。小是自小。小非大小。大非小大。大決定住大。小非大小。小決定住小。大小既爾。容不容亦然。小既本不容大。不容決定不容。不可令容。大本不入于小。不入決定不入。不可令入。故如此大小無容入義。又無如此自性大小。論何物容入耶。又無自性容入。論何物大小。問。何處云決定大小無容入義。又何處云無自性大小耶。答。龍樹云。若先來不見。於今云何見。以其性定故。集先來不斷。不斷定不斷。不斷云何斷。四諦既爾。萬義例之。故知不容定不容。不得容也。又云。執有自性。則無世間出世間法。故知無有自性大小。何所容入耶。次對失辨得者。今明無小可小。則無大可大。由小故大。由大故小。小不自小。大不自大。大名小大。小名大小。大小則非小。小大則非大。非大非小假名大小。故大小義始成。以大小得成。方有容入以小是大小故。小得容大。大是小大故。得大入小。大小既爾。容入亦然。容是不容故容。不容是容不容。以不容是容不容故。小

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無相卻有『大』（maha，偉大的）的說法，那麼是否也應該有無『大』卻有『相』（lakṣaṇa，特徵）的說法呢？雖然有這種說法，但我沒有看到其中的道理，所以不採用它。現在先揭示『得』（gain）『失』（loss）來說明它的『相』（aspect）。 所說的『失』（loss）是指，如果存在可以『大』（increase）的『大』，那麼就存在可以『小』（decrease）的『小』。可以『大』的『大』，不是因為『小』的緣故而『大』；可以『小』的『小』，不是因為『大』的緣故而『小』。不是因為『小』的緣故而『大』，『大』是自己『大』；不是因為『大』的緣故而『小』，『小』是自己『小』。『大』是自己『大』，『大』不是『小』的『大』；『小』是自己『小』，『小』不是『大』的『小』。『大』不是『小』的『大』，『大』決定安住于『大』；『小』不是『大』的『小』，『小』決定安住于『小』。『大』和『小』既然如此，『容』（contain）和『不容』（not contain）也是這樣。『小』本來就不容納『大』，『不容』決定『不容』，不可以讓它『容』。『大』本來就不進入『小』，『不入』決定『不入』，不可以讓它進入。所以這樣的大小沒有『容入』（containing）的意義。又沒有這樣的自性『大小』（inherent size），討論什麼東西『容入』呢？又沒有自性『容入』，討論什麼東西『大小』呢？ 問：哪裡說『決定大小無容入義』，又哪裡說『無自性大小』呢？ 答：龍樹（Nāgārjuna，佛教哲學家）說：『如果先前沒有見過，現在怎麼能見到呢？』因為它的『性』（nature）是決定的。集（samudaya，苦集滅道中的集諦）先前不斷，不斷決定不斷，不斷怎麼能斷？四諦（catuḥ-satya，佛教的四個真理）既然如此，萬事萬物都可以以此類推。所以知道『不容』決定『不容』，不能讓它『容』。又說：『執著于有自性，就沒有世間（loka，世界）和出世間（lokottara，超越世界）法。』所以知道沒有自性『大小』，什麼東西『容入』呢？ 接下來針對『失』（loss）來辨析『得』（gain）。現在說明沒有『小』可以『小』，就沒有『大』可以『大』。因為『小』的緣故而『大』，因為『大』的緣故而『小』。『小』不是自己『小』，『大』不是自己『大』。『大』叫做『小大』，『小』叫做『大小』。『大小』就不是『小』，『小大』就不是『大』。非『大』非『小』，假名為『大小』。所以『大小』的意義才成立。因為『大小』得以成立，才有了『容入』。因為『小』是『大小』的緣故，『小』才能容納『大』；『大』是『小大』的緣故，才能讓『大』進入『小』。『大小』既然如此，『容入』也是這樣。『容』是因為『不容』的緣故而『容』，『不容』是『容不容』。因為『不容』是『容不容』的緣故，『小』...

【English Translation】 English version It is said that there is 'maha' (greatness) without characteristics (lakṣaṇa), should there also be a saying that there is 'characteristics' without 'maha'? Although there is such a saying, I have not seen the reason in it, so I do not use it. Now, I will first reveal 'gain' and 'loss' to illustrate its 'aspect'. What is meant by 'loss' is that if there is 'greatness' that can 'increase', then there is 'smallness' that can 'decrease'. 'Greatness' that can 'increase' does not 'increase' because of 'smallness'; 'smallness' that can 'decrease' does not 'decrease' because of 'greatness'. 'Greatness' does not 'increase' because of 'smallness', 'greatness' is 'great' by itself; 'smallness' does not 'decrease' because of 'greatness', 'smallness' is 'small' by itself. 'Greatness' is 'great' by itself, 'greatness' is not the 'greatness' of 'smallness'; 'smallness' is 'small' by itself, 'smallness' is not the 'smallness' of 'greatness'. 'Greatness' is not the 'greatness' of 'smallness', 'greatness' is determined to abide in 'greatness'; 'smallness' is not the 'smallness' of 'greatness', 'smallness' is determined to abide in 'smallness'. Since 'greatness' and 'smallness' are like this, 'containing' and 'not containing' are also like this. 'Smallness' originally does not contain 'greatness', 'not containing' is determined 'not containing', it cannot be made to 'contain'. 'Greatness' originally does not enter 'smallness', 'not entering' is determined 'not entering', it cannot be made to enter. Therefore, such greatness and smallness have no meaning of 'containing'. Also, there is no such inherent 'size', what is there to discuss 'containing'? Also, there is no inherent 'containing', what is there to discuss 'size'? Question: Where does it say 'determined greatness and smallness have no meaning of containing', and where does it say 'no inherent size'? Answer: Nāgārjuna (Buddhist philosopher) said: 'If you have not seen it before, how can you see it now?' Because its 'nature' is determined. The arising (samudaya, the origin of suffering in the Four Noble Truths) has not been cut off before, not being cut off is determined not being cut off, how can not being cut off be cut off? Since the Four Noble Truths (catuḥ-satya, the four truths of Buddhism) are like this, all things can be inferred from this. Therefore, know that 'not containing' is determined 'not containing', it cannot be made to 'contain'. It is also said: 'If you cling to having inherent nature, there will be no mundane (loka, world) and supramundane (lokottara, beyond the world) dharmas.' Therefore, know that there is no inherent 'size', what is there to 'contain'? Next, analyze 'gain' in response to 'loss'. Now it is explained that if there is no 'smallness' that can 'decrease', there will be no 'greatness' that can 'increase'. Because of 'smallness', there is 'greatness'; because of 'greatness', there is 'smallness'. 'Smallness' is not 'small' by itself, 'greatness' is not 'great' by itself. 'Greatness' is called 'small-greatness', 'smallness' is called 'great-smallness'. 'Great-smallness' is not 'small', 'small-greatness' is not 'great'. Neither 'great' nor 'small', provisionally named 'great-smallness'. Therefore, the meaning of 'great-smallness' is established. Because 'great-smallness' can be established, there is 'containing'. Because 'smallness' is 'great-smallness', 'smallness' can contain 'greatness'; because 'greatness' is 'small-greatness', 'greatness' can enter 'smallness'. Since 'great-smallness' is like this, 'containing' is also like this. 'Containing' is 'containing' because of 'not containing', 'not containing' is 'containing-not containing'. Because 'not containing' is 'containing-not containing', 'smallness'...

不容是容不容。而得容矣。大不入是入不入。而得入矣。問。何故就大小。明定不定。復約容入。明定不定耶。答。有所得義。有二種決定。一大小體定。二容入用定。故無大小之體及容入之用。對此二定。還明因緣體用。一者大小體是因緣故。大小始成。二容入之用是因緣容入故。大小之用即立。故須兩明。問。但大小是俗境。容入之用則應是權智用。云何言大小之體及容入之用皆是俗境。答。俗諦之中。具有體用。但要須權智運之。方能容入。故具有境智也。問。今辨俗諦境不思議。云何乃明權智用耶。答。此中具境智兩義。若明大小之體及容入之用。此是俗境。若以權智運令容入。即是權智用也。

次明真境不思議。俗境則一無量不可思議。真境則無量一不思議。故中論云。諸法實相者。心行言語斷。無生亦無滅。寂滅如涅槃。問二乘亦會實相。云何言實相不可思議耶。答。以此責由來。舊宗亦成難解。既三乘同會真境。皆絕四句。二乘與菩薩所行是同。云何菩薩不思議耶。今明二乘與菩薩不同。略有六義。故有思議不思議。一者二乘但得生空。不得法空。故可思議。菩薩具得二空。故不思議。二者二乘亦不具得生空。所以然者。於我無我不二。是無我義。二乘見我無我二。云何得無我耶。三者利根二乘

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『不容』也是『容』，『不容』即是『容』，所以才得以『容』。『大不入』也是『入』，『不入』即是『入』，所以才得以『入』。問：為何要就『大小』，來闡明『定』與『不定』，又以『容入』，來闡明『定』與『不定』呢？答：因為『有所得』的意義，有兩種決定。一是『大小』的體性是決定的，二是『容入』的作用是決定的。所以沒有『大小』的體性以及『容入』的作用，針對這兩種決定，還要闡明因緣的體用。一是『大小』的體性是因緣所生，所以『大小』才得以成立。二是『容入』的作用是因緣『容入』，所以『大小』的作用才得以確立。所以需要兩方面都闡明。問：但是『大小』是世俗的境界，『容入』的作用應該是權巧智慧的作用，為什麼說『大小』的體性以及『容入』的作用都是世俗的境界呢？答：在世俗諦中，具有體和用。但必須要用權巧智慧來運用它，才能『容入』。所以具有境界和智慧兩方面。問：現在辨析世俗諦的境界不可思議，為什麼又闡明權巧智慧的作用呢？答：這裡面具有境界和智慧兩方面的意義。如果闡明『大小』的體性以及『容入』的作用，這就是世俗的境界。如果用權巧智慧來運作使之『容入』，那就是權巧智慧的作用。 接下來闡明真諦境界的不可思議。世俗境界則是一即是無量，不可思議。真諦境界則是無量即是一，不可思議。所以《中論》說：諸法的實相，是心行和言語都斷絕的，沒有生也沒有滅，寂滅如同涅槃。問：二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也能體會實相，為什麼說實相不可思議呢？答：用這個來責問，舊有的宗派也會變得難以理解。既然三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）共同體會真諦境界，都斷絕了四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無），二乘和菩薩所行的是相同的，為什麼菩薩不可思議呢？現在闡明二乘和菩薩的不同，大概有六個方面。所以有思議和不可思議。一是二乘只證得生空（眾生空），沒有證得法空（諸法空），所以可以思議。菩薩具足證得二空，所以不可思議。二是二乘也沒有完全證得生空。為什麼這樣說呢？對於『我』和『無我』不二，才是無我的意義。二乘見到『我』和『無我』是二，怎麼能證得無我呢？三是利根的二乘

【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-containment' is also 'containment'; 'non-containment' is precisely 'containment', and thus one attains 'containment'. 'The great does not enter' is also 'entering'; 'not entering' is precisely 'entering', and thus one attains 'entering'. Question: Why is it that concerning 'largeness and smallness', one elucidates 'fixed' and 'unfixed', and further, concerning 'containment and entering', one elucidates 'fixed' and 'unfixed'? Answer: Because the meaning of 'something attained' has two kinds of determination. First, the nature of 'largeness and smallness' is fixed. Second, the function of 'containment and entering' is fixed. Therefore, without the nature of 'largeness and smallness' and the function of 'containment and entering', in response to these two determinations, one must further elucidate the nature and function of conditions. First, the nature of 'largeness and smallness' is due to conditions, and thus 'largeness and smallness' are established. Second, the function of 'containment and entering' is due to the conditions of 'containment and entering', and thus the function of 'largeness and smallness' is immediately established. Therefore, both aspects must be elucidated. Question: But 'largeness and smallness' are mundane realms, and the function of 'containment and entering' should be the function of skillful wisdom. Why is it said that the nature of 'largeness and smallness' and the function of 'containment and entering' are both mundane realms? Answer: Within the conventional truth (俗諦, sú dì), there are both nature and function. But it is necessary to use skillful wisdom to operate it in order to 'contain and enter'. Therefore, it has both realm and wisdom. Next, elucidating the inconceivable nature of the true realm. The mundane realm is that one is immeasurable, inconceivable. The true realm is that the immeasurable is one, inconceivable. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika (中論, Zhōnglùn) says: 'The true nature of all dharmas is the cessation of mental activity and speech, without arising or ceasing, quiescent like Nirvana (涅槃, Nièpán)'. Question: The two vehicles (二乘, èr shèng) also realize the true nature, why is it said that the true nature is inconceivable? Answer: Using this to question, the old schools also become difficult to understand. Since the three vehicles (三乘, sān shèng) commonly realize the true realm, all are cut off from the four sentences (四句, sì jù) (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), the practice of the two vehicles and the Bodhisattva (菩薩, Púsà) is the same, why is the Bodhisattva inconceivable? Now elucidating the difference between the two vehicles and the Bodhisattva, there are roughly six aspects. Therefore, there is conceivable and inconceivable. First, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of beings (生空, shēng kōng), and do not attain the emptiness of dharmas (法空, fǎ kōng), therefore it is conceivable. The Bodhisattva fully attains the two emptinesses, therefore it is inconceivable. Second, the two vehicles also do not fully attain the emptiness of beings. Why is this so? Regarding 'self' and 'non-self' as non-dual is the meaning of non-self. The two vehicles see 'self' and 'non-self' as two, how can they attain non-self? Third, the sharp-witted two vehicles

。設得法空。蓋是折法明空。菩薩法空。自性空。自相空。即空為有。即有為空。故二乘法空可思議。菩薩法空不思議。四者。釋論云。二乘得但空。故可思議。菩薩得不可得空。故不思議。五者二乘得小空。如毛孔空。菩薩得空廣。遍如十方空。問。空何有大小耶。答。二乘不能別相一一知諸法空。但總相知十二入空。故名為小。菩薩能別相知一切法。謂粗細大小淺深。然後知其是空。故空廣大。又二乘但得三界內人法空。故約有明空。空義即短。菩薩知三界內人外人法皆空。故約有明空。空義即長。故二乘得小分空。猶如兔馬。菩薩具得多空。猶如香象。故空有多小也。六者明二乘但得生死空。不見大涅槃妙有體絕萬相故空。何況知涅槃妙有即空。故二乘空可思議。菩薩空不可思議。問。若爾二乘與菩薩不同觀實相。何得法華云同入法性。涅槃云同觀中道耶。答。古舊辨三乘同觀。或云三乘異觀。二說紛綸。今略陳之。三乘有同觀。有異觀。以其同見於空。故言同觀。有得二空。不得二空。如上六義。則不同觀。同與不同。各有其義。不應偏執。問。真境唯一不思議。亦得有多不思議。答。實相無二。但約教有淺深。如上入不二法門三階之說。

次合明真俗不思議。亦前示失明非不思議。后明得方是不思議

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：假設證得了法空（Dharmasunyata），那實際上是通過破析法來闡明空性。菩薩的法空，是自性空（Svabhavasunyata）、自相空（Svalaksanasunyata），即空即有，即有即空。因此，二乘（Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha）的法空是可思議的，菩薩的法空是不可思議的。 四者，《釋論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）中說，二乘證得的是但空，所以是可思議的。菩薩證得的是不可得空，所以是不可思議的。 五者，二乘證得的是小空，比如毛孔之空。菩薩證得的空廣大，遍佈如十方虛空。問：空怎麼會有大小呢？答：二乘不能分別一一地知曉諸法皆空，只是總相地知曉十二入（Dvadasayatana）是空的，所以稱為小。菩薩能分別地知曉一切法，無論是粗細大小淺深，然後知曉其是空，所以空廣大。又，二乘只證得三界（Trailokya）內的人法空，所以依據有來闡明空，空的意義就短淺。菩薩知曉三界內外的人法皆空，所以依據有來闡明空，空的意義就深遠。因此，二乘證得小分空，猶如兔馬。菩薩具足證得多空，猶如香象。所以空有大小之分。 六者，說明二乘只證得生死空，不見大涅槃（Mahaparinirvana）妙有之體，斷絕萬相所以為空。更何況知曉涅槃妙有即是空。所以二乘的空是可思議的，菩薩的空是不可思議的。問：如果這樣，二乘與菩薩觀實相（Tattvalaksana）不同，為何《法華經》（Saddharma Pundarika Sutra）說同入法性（Dharmata），《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說同觀中道（Madhyama Pratipada）呢？答：古舊的說法辨別三乘（Triyana）同觀，或者說三乘異觀，兩種說法紛繁。現在簡略陳述。三乘有同觀，有異觀。因為他們共同見到空性，所以說同觀。有證得二空，有不得二空，如以上六義，則不同觀。同與不同，各有其義，不應偏執。問：真境唯一不思議，也可以有多不思議嗎？答：實相無二，但依據教法有淺深，如上入不二法門（Advaya-dharma-mukha）三階的說法。 其次，合併說明真俗不思議。先顯示過失，說明非不思議，后說明證得的方法才是不思議。

【English Translation】 English version: Suppose one attains Dharmasunyata (emptiness of phenomena), that is actually clarifying emptiness by analyzing phenomena. The Dharmasunyata of Bodhisattvas is Svabhavasunyata (emptiness of inherent existence), Svalaksanasunyata (emptiness of self-characteristics), that is, emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. Therefore, the Dharmasunyata of the Two Vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) is conceivable, while the Dharmasunyata of Bodhisattvas is inconceivable. Fourth, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom) says that the Two Vehicles attain only emptiness, so it is conceivable. Bodhisattvas attain unattainable emptiness, so it is inconceivable. Fifth, the Two Vehicles attain small emptiness, such as the emptiness of a pore. Bodhisattvas attain vast emptiness, pervading like the emptiness of the ten directions. Question: How can emptiness have size? Answer: The Two Vehicles cannot individually know that all dharmas are empty, but only generally know that the twelve ayatanas (sense bases) are empty, so it is called small. Bodhisattvas can individually know all dharmas, whether coarse, fine, large, small, shallow, or deep, and then know that they are empty, so emptiness is vast. Also, the Two Vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons and dharmas within the Trailokya (Three Realms), so they explain emptiness based on existence, and the meaning of emptiness is short. Bodhisattvas know that the persons and dharmas within and outside the Three Realms are all empty, so they explain emptiness based on existence, and the meaning of emptiness is profound. Therefore, the Two Vehicles attain a small portion of emptiness, like rabbits and horses. Bodhisattvas fully attain much emptiness, like fragrant elephants. So emptiness has sizes. Sixth, it explains that the Two Vehicles only attain the emptiness of birth and death, and do not see the wonderful existence of Mahaparinirvana (Great Nirvana), which is the cessation of all appearances, so it is empty. How much less do they know that the wonderful existence of Nirvana is emptiness. Therefore, the emptiness of the Two Vehicles is conceivable, while the emptiness of Bodhisattvas is inconceivable. Question: If so, the Two Vehicles and Bodhisattvas have different views of Tattvalaksana (the real aspect of reality), why does the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra (Lotus Sutra) say that they enter Dharmata (the nature of reality) together, and the Nirvana Sutra say that they observe Madhyama Pratipada (the Middle Way) together? Answer: The old sayings distinguish between the Triyana (Three Vehicles) having the same view, or the Three Vehicles having different views, two conflicting statements. Now, I will briefly state it. The Three Vehicles have the same view and different views. Because they commonly see emptiness, it is said that they have the same view. Some attain two emptinesses, and some do not attain two emptinesses, as in the above six meanings, so they do not have the same view. Same and different, each has its own meaning, and should not be biased. Question: The true realm is uniquely inconceivable, can there also be multiple inconceivables? Answer: The real aspect is not two, but according to the teachings, there are shallow and deep, as in the above three stages of entering Advaya-dharma-mukha (the gate of non-duality). Next, combine to explain the inconceivable of truth and convention. First show the faults, explain the non-inconceivable, and then explain that the method of attainment is inconceivable.

。若有所得真俗。各住自性故。真不得是俗。俗不得是真。如此真俗。是斷常二見根本。如法華云。若有若無等。依止此諸見。具足六十二。乃是不思議家彰發生二見之有無耳。何名不思議耶。今明。空有是因緣。有非空則不有。空非有即不空。空宛然而有。有宛然而空。故肇公云。譬如幻化人。非無幻化人。幻化人非真人也。人宛然而非人。非人宛然而人。寶積嘆云。能善分別諸法相。于第一義亦不動。此是不動第一義而分別諸法。分別諸法。不動第一義。如此空有因緣無礙。唯是佛菩薩所行故。名不可思議。上來明三境三智不思議竟。

次泯境智不思議。上開境智二者。此是不二二義耳。而境智是因緣義。非境無以明智。非智無以辨境。故境名智境。智名境智。境智則非智。智境則非境。非境非智。軌跡區尋。故釋論云。緣是一邊。觀是一邊。雖是二邊。名為中道。影公云。夫萬化非無宗。而宗之者無相。虛宗非無契。而契之者無心。故聖人以無心之妙慧。契彼無相之虛宗。則內外並冥。緣智俱寂。雖緣智俱寂。而境智宛然。故名不可思議也。

四明不思議多少。問。不思議凡有幾門。答。數甚多。非可具舉。今略陳五種。示其樞要。一聞不聞不思議。二大小不思議。三通別不思議。四本跡不思議。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果認為有所得，無論是真諦還是俗諦，都是因為各自執著于自己的本性。因此，真諦不能等同於俗諦，俗諦也不能等同於真諦。這種對真俗的理解，是斷見和常見兩種錯誤的根本來源。正如《法華經》所說：『若有若無等，依止此諸見，具足六十二。』這正是那些不思議境界的人，彰顯發生有和無兩種見解。什麼是不思議呢？現在說明，空和有是因緣所生。沒有空，有就不會存在；沒有有，空也不會顯現。空明明是有，有明明是空。所以僧肇大師說：『譬如幻化人，非無幻化人，幻化人非真人也。』幻化的人明明不是真人，但又明明是幻化的人。寶積菩薩讚歎說：『能善分別諸法相，于第一義亦不動。』這就是在不動的真諦中分別諸法，在分別諸法中不動真諦。如此空有因緣，沒有障礙，唯有佛和菩薩才能做到，所以稱為不可思議。以上說明了三境三智的不可思議。

其次說明泯境智的不可思議。上面分開說明境和智，這裡是不二的含義。境和智是因緣關係，沒有境就無法顯明智，沒有智就無法辨別境。所以境可以稱為智境，智可以稱為境智。境智就不是智，智境就不是境。既非境也非智，卻有軌跡可尋。所以《釋論》說：『緣是一邊，觀是一邊，雖是二邊，名為中道。』影公說：『萬化並非沒有根本，但探究其根本卻無相可見。虛宗並非沒有契合之處，但契合它卻要無心。』所以聖人以無心的妙慧，契合那無相的虛宗，內外皆泯，緣智俱寂。雖然緣智俱寂，但境智卻又明明存在，所以稱為不可思議。

第四說明不可思議的多少。問：不可思議總共有多少門？答：數量非常多，無法一一列舉。現在簡略地陳述五種，以揭示其要點：一、聞與不聞的不可思議；二、大與小的不可思議；三、通與別的不可思議；四、本與跡的不可思議。

【English Translation】 English version: If one thinks there is something to be gained, whether it be the true or the conventional (satya and samvriti), it is because each clings to its own nature. Therefore, the true cannot be equated with the conventional, and the conventional cannot be equated with the true. This understanding of the true and the conventional is the root of the two erroneous views of permanence and annihilation. As the Lotus Sutra says: 'If there is, if there is not, etc., relying on these views, one possesses sixty-two.' This is precisely how those in the realm of the inconceivable manifest the views of existence and non-existence. What is the inconceivable? Now, it is explained that emptiness and existence arise from conditions (hetu and pratyaya). Without emptiness, existence cannot be; without existence, emptiness cannot manifest. Emptiness is clearly existence, and existence is clearly emptiness. Therefore, Master Zhao said: 'It is like an illusionary person; it is not that there is no illusionary person, but the illusionary person is not a real person.' The illusionary person is clearly not a real person, yet is clearly an illusionary person. Bodhisattva Ratnakuta (Baoji) praised: 'Being able to skillfully distinguish the characteristics of all dharmas, yet remaining unmoved in the ultimate truth.' This is distinguishing all dharmas while remaining unmoved in the ultimate truth, and remaining unmoved in the ultimate truth while distinguishing all dharmas. Thus, the conditioned arising of emptiness and existence is without obstruction, and only Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can accomplish this, so it is called inconceivable. The above explains the inconceivability of the three realms (trayo dhatavah) and the three wisdoms (trisca jnana).

Next, the inconceivability of merging realm and wisdom is explained. The above separately explained realm and wisdom; here, it is the meaning of non-duality. Realm and wisdom are related by conditions; without realm, wisdom cannot be manifested, and without wisdom, realm cannot be distinguished. Therefore, realm can be called wisdom-realm, and wisdom can be called realm-wisdom. Realm-wisdom is not wisdom, and wisdom-realm is not realm. Neither realm nor wisdom, yet traces can be found. Therefore, the Treatise says: 'Condition is one side, contemplation is one side; although they are two sides, they are called the Middle Way.' Master Ying said: 'The myriad transformations are not without a root, but exploring that root reveals no form. The empty essence is not without a correspondence, but corresponding to it requires no mind.' Therefore, the sage uses the wonderful wisdom of no-mind to correspond to that formless, empty essence, so that both inside and outside are extinguished, and both condition and wisdom are still. Although condition and wisdom are both still, realm and wisdom are clearly present, so it is called inconceivable.

Fourth, the inconceivability of quantity. Question: How many doors are there to the inconceivable? Answer: There are very many, and they cannot all be listed. Now, five are briefly presented to reveal their key points: 1. The inconceivability of hearing and not hearing; 2. The inconceivability of large and small; 3. The inconceivability of general and specific; 4. The inconceivability of origin and manifestation.

五內外不思議。此五門略攝眾數。義無不收。

第一聞不聞不思議者。大品云。諸聲聞等。聞與不聞。皆欲得聞。當學波若。釋論云。佛說不可思議解脫經。聲聞在座。並皆不聞。即佛初成道。說華嚴經。是也。有人謂。釋論所引之不可思議解脫經。是凈名經。其人不讀華嚴。亦不尋釋論。故有斯謬耳。此不思議。唯菩薩得聞。二乘不聞。若凈名經。辨不思議。則大小俱聞故云聞不聞不思議也。

第二大小不思議者。釋論云。小乘法中。有五不思議。一眾生業行不思議。二世間不思議。三龍力。四坐禪人力。五佛力。大乘法中。明六十劫說法華經。時眾謂如食頃。小乘法中。無有此事。謂大小不思議。

第三通別不思議者。然大乘經。通皆是不思議。如肇公云。始自凈國說乎法供養。其文雖殊。不思議一也。故若境若智。若權若實。因之與果。依之與正。皆是諸佛菩薩法門。絕二乘境界。所以然者。理內無依無得。無有彰礙。不出不動。如幻如化。凡夫二乘有所得學大乘人。皆是理外。聞有作有解。聞無起作無心。故不能思量佛菩薩舉足動出之事。況染妙道耶。故通皆是不思議也。別不思議者。雖通唱不思議。恐凡夫二乘有所得人。不肯信受。謂諸佛菩薩。有言無事。故別示其不思議跡。如高廣之

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：五種內外不思議。這五個方面概括了眾多內容，沒有遺漏任何意義。

第一，聞與不聞的不思議。《大品般若經》中說：『諸位聲聞等，無論是聽聞還是沒有聽聞，都想要聽聞，應當學習般若。』《大智度論》中說：『佛陀宣說不可思議解脫經時，聲聞在座，卻都聽不到。』這就是佛陀最初成道時，宣說《華嚴經》的情況。有人認為，《大智度論》所引用的不可思議解脫經，是《維摩詰經》。這是因為那個人沒有讀過《華嚴經》，也沒有仔細研究《大智度論》，所以才會有這樣的錯誤。』這種不思議，只有菩薩才能聽聞，二乘（聲聞和緣覺）無法聽聞。如果《維摩詰經》辨析不思議，那麼大小乘都能聽聞，所以說是聞與不聞的不思議。

第二，大小的不思議。《大智度論》中說：『小乘佛法中有五種不思議：一是眾生的業行不思議，二是世間不思議，三是龍的力量，四是坐禪人的力量，五是佛的力量。』大乘佛法中，闡明佛陀用六十劫的時間宣說《法華經》，當時聽眾感覺像吃一頓飯的時間。小乘佛法中，沒有這樣的事情。這就是所謂的大小不思議。

第三，通與別的不思議。大乘經典，普遍都是不思議的。如僧肇大師說：『從凈土開始宣說法供養，其文辭雖然不同，但都是不思議的。』所以，無論是境還是智，無論是權還是實，無論是因還是果，無論是依還是正，都是諸佛菩薩的法門，超越了二乘的境界。之所以如此，是因為在真理的內在，沒有依賴，沒有獲得，沒有顯現，沒有阻礙，不出不入，如幻如化。凡夫和二乘是有所得的，學習大乘的人，都在真理之外。聽到『有』就產生作為，產生理解；聽到『無』就生起作為，沒有心。所以不能思量佛菩薩舉手投足的事情，更何況是染著微妙的道呢？所以普遍都是不思議的。別的不思議是，雖然普遍宣揚不思議，但恐怕凡夫和二乘中有所得的人，不肯相信接受，認為諸佛菩薩，有言無實。所以特別顯示其不思議的示現，如高廣之…

【English Translation】 English version: Five inconceivable aspects, internal and external. These five aspects briefly encompass numerous meanings, leaving nothing uncollected.

First, the inconceivable of hearing and not hearing. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'All shravakas (hearers), whether they hear or do not hear, desire to hear; they should study prajna (wisdom).' The Mahaprajnaparamitasastra says: 'When the Buddha preached the Inconceivable Liberation Sutra, the shravakas were present but could not hear it.' This is the case when the Buddha first attained enlightenment and preached the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra). Some people think that the Inconceivable Liberation Sutra quoted in the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra is the Vimalakirti Sutra. This is because that person has not read the Avatamsaka Sutra nor carefully studied the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra, hence such a mistake. This inconceivable aspect can only be heard by bodhisattvas, not by the Two Vehicles (shravakas and pratyekabuddhas). If the Vimalakirti Sutra discusses the inconceivable, then both the Great and Small Vehicles can hear it, hence it is called the inconceivable of hearing and not hearing.

Second, the inconceivable of the Great and Small. The Mahaprajnaparamitasastra says: 'In the Small Vehicle (Hinayana) there are five inconceivables: first, the inconceivable karma of sentient beings; second, the inconceivable world; third, the power of dragons; fourth, the power of those in meditation; and fifth, the power of the Buddha.' In the Great Vehicle (Mahayana), it is explained that the Buddha preached the Lotus Sutra for sixty kalpas (eons), but the audience felt it was like the time it takes to eat a meal. There is no such thing in the Small Vehicle. This is the so-called inconceivable of the Great and Small.

Third, the inconceivable of the general and the specific. Generally, the Mahayana sutras are all inconceivable. As Master Zhao said: 'Starting from the Pure Land, preaching the Dharma offering, although the words are different, the inconceivable is the same.' Therefore, whether it is the object or the wisdom, whether it is the expedient or the real, whether it is the cause or the effect, whether it is the reliance or the correct, all are the Dharma doors of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, surpassing the realm of the Two Vehicles. The reason for this is that within the truth, there is no reliance, no attainment, no manifestation, no obstruction, no coming out, no going in, like illusion, like transformation. Ordinary people and the Two Vehicles have attainments; those who study the Mahayana are outside the truth. Hearing 'existence' gives rise to action and understanding; hearing 'non-existence' gives rise to action and no mind. Therefore, they cannot fathom the actions of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, let alone be attached to the subtle path? Therefore, generally, it is all inconceivable. The specific inconceivable is that, although the inconceivable is generally proclaimed, it is feared that ordinary people and those with attainments in the Two Vehicles will not believe and accept it, thinking that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas have words without substance. Therefore, the inconceivable manifestations are specifically shown, such as the high and wide…

座入于小室。小室宛然廣博。就事而觀。淵不可測。假令二乘究劫思惟。而不能解。況復能作目見斯事。便信諸佛菩薩有深妙道。非二乘所知。故稍鄙小心。漸欣大道。亦令未發心者發菩提心。受持頂載。已發心者增進深入。故明別不思議。問。何以知有通別不思議耶。答。題稱不思議經。則一部皆是不思議。謂通不思議也。別有不思議品。示不思議事。謂別不思議也。

第四明本跡不思議。肇公。正用本跡。釋不思議。故以四句明本。以四句辨跡。四句明本者。統萬行。則以權智為主。樹德本。則以六度為根。濟蒙惑。則以慈悲為悲首。語宗極。則以不二為言。此不思議本也。至如借座燈王。請飯香土。室苞干像。手接大千。不思議之跡也。問。此就何義。辨本跡耶。答。講者多誦此言。並謂以法身為本。應物為跡。故云非本無以垂跡。非跡無以顯本。本跡雖殊。不思議一也。今謂非無法身為本應物為跡。但肇公意不然。正以理本為本。事蹟為跡。若次第論之。不出三法。一理。二智。三教。理能發智。則理為智本。智慧說教。則智為教本。今以理智對教。故理智皆是其本。則以教為跡。理智為本者。不二即是理。權實及六度四等。皆是悟理。故成所以。肇公云。語宗極。則以不二為言。理智雖皆是本。但理

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 進入小室禪坐，小室卻宛如廣闊無垠。就事理的深奧程度來看，深不可測。假設二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）用盡無數劫的時間去思考，也不能理解。更何況能親眼見到這種事情，便會相信諸佛菩薩有甚深微妙的道理，不是二乘所能知曉的。因此逐漸輕視狹隘的心量，漸漸欣慕廣大的菩提道。也能使尚未發起菩提心的人發起菩提心，接受並頂戴奉行；已經發起菩提心的人，更加增進深入。所以說明別的不思議。問：憑什麼知道有通別不思議呢？答：經題稱為《不思議經》，那麼整部經都是不思議，這是通不思議。另外有《不思議品》，顯示不思議的事，這是別不思議。

第四說明本跡不思議。鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）的弟子僧肇（Sengzhao）法師，正是用本和跡來解釋不思議。所以用四句話說明本，用四句話辨別跡。四句話說明本是：總攝萬行，就以權智（upāya-jñāna）為主；樹立德本，就以六度（pāramitā）為根本；救濟矇昧迷惑，就以慈悲（karuṇā）為首要；談論宗極，就以不二（advaita）為言語表達。這就是不思議的本。至於像借座于燃燈佛（Dīpaṃkara），請飯于香積佛國（Gandhavyūha），小室容納高大的佛像，用手接住大千世界（mahāsahasra），都是不思議的跡。問：這是就什麼意義來辨別本和跡呢？答：講解的人大多誦讀這些話，並且認為以法身（dharmakāya）為本，應化事物為跡，所以說沒有本就無法垂示跡，沒有跡就無法顯現本，本和跡雖然不同，不思議卻是一樣的。現在我認為並非無法身是本，應化事物是跡，只是僧肇法師的用意不是這樣。正是以理本為本，事蹟為跡。如果按次第來論述，不出理、智、教三法。理能啓發智慧，那麼理就是智的本；智慧宣說教法，那麼智就是教的本。現在以理智對教，所以理智都是其本，那麼就以教為跡。理智為本，不二就是理，權實以及六度四等，都是悟理，所以成就。僧肇法師說，談論宗極，就以不二為言。理智雖然都是本，但理更為根本。

【English Translation】 English version Entering the small room to meditate, the small room appears vast and boundless. Looking at the depth of the matter, it is unfathomable. Suppose the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) spend countless kalpas thinking, they still cannot understand. Moreover, if they can see such things with their own eyes, they will believe that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have profound and subtle principles that are beyond the knowledge of the two vehicles. Therefore, they gradually despise their narrow minds and gradually admire the great Bodhi path. It can also enable those who have not yet aroused Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment) to arouse it, accept and uphold it; those who have already aroused Bodhicitta will further advance and deepen. Therefore, it explains the distinct inconceivable. Question: How do we know that there is both general and specific inconceivable? Answer: The title of the scripture is 'The Inconceivable Scripture,' so the entire scripture is inconceivable, which is the general inconceivable. There is also the 'Inconceivable Chapter,' which shows inconceivable things, which is the specific inconceivable.

Fourthly, it explains the inconceivable of the fundamental and the manifested. The Dharma Master Sengzhao (Sengzhao), a disciple of Kumārajīva (Kumārajīva), uses the fundamental and the manifested to explain the inconceivable. Therefore, he uses four sentences to explain the fundamental and four sentences to distinguish the manifested. The four sentences explaining the fundamental are: to encompass all practices, take expedient wisdom (upāya-jñāna) as the main thing; to establish the foundation of virtue, take the six perfections (pāramitā) as the root; to save the ignorant and confused, take compassion (karuṇā) as the foremost; to talk about the ultimate principle, take non-duality (advaita) as the expression. This is the inconceivable fundamental. As for borrowing a seat from Dīpaṃkara Buddha (Dīpaṃkara), requesting food from the Land of Fragrant Accumulations (Gandhavyūha), the small room accommodating the tall Buddha image, and using the hand to hold the great thousand world (mahāsahasra), these are all inconceivable manifestations. Question: In what sense are we distinguishing the fundamental and the manifested? Answer: Those who explain the scriptures mostly recite these words and believe that the Dharmakāya (dharmakāya) is the fundamental, and the manifested things are the traces, so it is said that without the fundamental, there is no way to show the traces, and without the traces, there is no way to reveal the fundamental. Although the fundamental and the manifested are different, the inconceivable is the same. Now I think it is not that the Dharmakāya is the fundamental and the manifested things are the traces, but that Dharma Master Sengzhao's intention is not like this. It is precisely taking the principle as the fundamental and the events as the traces. If we discuss it in order, it does not go beyond the three dharmas: principle, wisdom, and teaching. Principle can inspire wisdom, then principle is the fundamental of wisdom; wisdom can preach the Dharma, then wisdom is the fundamental of teaching. Now, taking principle and wisdom against teaching, so principle and wisdom are both the fundamental, then teaching is taken as the trace. Principle and wisdom are the fundamental, non-duality is the principle, expedient and real as well as the six perfections and the four immeasurables are all enlightenment of the principle, so they are accomplished. Dharma Master Sengzhao said that talking about the ultimate principle is to take non-duality as the expression. Although principle and wisdom are both the fundamental, principle is more fundamental.

是本中之本。故名宗極。故束此四句。開其二本。一句為理本。三句為行本。跡中四句。應有二跡。一以形為跡。二以言為跡。以形為跡。就形明不思議。以言為跡。就言示不思議。但今四句。皆就形跡。示不思議。不就言跡辨不思議者。良以形跡示不思議顯。故如借座請飯等。言跡示不思議不顯。口雖說本不思議。不現其事者。則取信莫由。故不就言明不思議跡也。問。何故云非本無以垂跡。答。要由根本。有不思議理及不思議智。方得為眾生示不思議。以上化下。故名為垂也。由此不思議事。得顯不思議理。故言非跡無以顯本也。問。但以法身為本。應身為跡。有何失耶。答。但得以智為本。不得以理為本。但得本中之末。不得本中之本。斯意則局。今辨跡者。若形若教。若內身若外報。此土他方。隨有不思議事。皆得因此顯不思議本。非但應身也。問。云何名本跡雖殊不思議一。答。有人言。明本跡二身相即故云一。如雲吾今此身即是法身。有人言。本跡雖殊。明不二二義。不思議一。明二不二義。今謂未解讀他文章。故有異說。原肇公論本跡意者。正欲解不思議。此經既名不思議。約何物法。辨不思議。是故不思議中。有本有跡。故開本跡二門。雖有本有跡。而同是不思議。故明不思議一耳。何勞云云作諸異

釋。若言明本跡不思議一。便作前二解者。肇公又云。始自凈國。終訖法供養。其文雖殊。不思議一也。可復有餘釋耶。而一師云。本跡雖殊。故開於二身。不思議一。明本跡是因緣義。非本無以垂跡。非跡無以顯本。故本是跡本。跡為本跡。本跡則不跡。跡本則不本。不本不跡。名為正法。故稱為一。蓋寄此文。明二不二義耳。聽者不聽其旨。妄咎大師。問。既明本跡不同。云何不思議是一耶。答。既是不思議經。一切不思議。故云不思議一。所以然者。此之本跡。皆是佛菩薩無依無礙法門。凡夫二乘所不能測。故云不思議一。又此本跡。同是無功用心。不假思量議度。故云不思議一。前據所化不思議一。后約能化不思議一。問。既有本跡不思議。亦有本跡解脫不。答。法身為本。應身為跡。亦得有二解脫。又內德為本。外事為跡。即此跡縱任自在。又是諸佛菩薩依果。亦是解脫。

第五明內外不思議者。此但就無功用位明之。大士積因已久。道行純熟。有所施為。任運即成。不假思量。無複議度。故不思議。亦得分此為二。不思而現一切形。不議而說一切教。故名不思議也。又不思而內知。不議而外應。故名不思議。此但稱不思議。不得加之以可。若云不可思議。則此釋非便也。問。既不思。云何能示一切

形。不議。云何能說一切教。答。譬如摩尼珠。無心思量。而能雨一切物。亦如天鼓無心議度。而應諸天意。出種種聲。法身菩薩。亦復如是。此是內不思議。外不思議者。菩薩無方。任運施用。而二乘下位。窮劫。思之不知。議之不解。故云不可思議。須安可字也。問。內無功用。與外不測度。明不思議。云何廣狹耶。答。內無功用。但約智門。又是高位以上。此則局也。若雲物不能測名不思議者。若境若智。若形若聲。二乘下位皆不能測。義門則廣。所以文中但據外不能測。名不思議也。

次釋解脫門。略有五門。一名體門。二因果門。三考得失門。四會教門。五同異門。

一名體門

問。題稱不思議解脫法門。文云有解脫名不思議。何故前後不同。答。各有其義。文云解脫名不思議者。以解脫為體。不思議為名。必由有體。故方立名。故云有解脫名不思議也。題云不思議解脫者。題既欲立其名。先云不思議。由不思議名。題不思議體。故先名而後體也。文中則以本垂跡。題則以跡顯本。欲二義相成。故文題互舉。問。何故以解脫為體。不思議為名耶。答。夫論縱任自在無方妙用。必由體無累結。故就解脫辨不思議。又為對二乘人。二乘人云。解脫但是無累之名。無為不能無所不為。故今明諸

【現代漢語翻譯】 形。不議。問：如何能說一切教法？答：譬如摩尼珠（如意寶珠），沒有心思量度，卻能降雨一切所需之物。又如天鼓，沒有心意籌劃，卻能應諸天之意，發出種種聲音。法身菩薩也是如此。這是內不思議。外不思議是指，菩薩沒有固定的方式，任運施用，而二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）及下位菩薩，窮盡劫數思量也不能知曉，議論也不能理解，所以說不可思議。這裡需要加上『可』字。問：內部沒有功用，與外部不可測度，說明不思議，如何區分廣狹？答：內部沒有功用，只是就智慧之門而言，而且是高位菩薩以上才能達到，因此是區域性的。如果說事物不能測度就名為不思議，那麼無論是境、智、形、聲，二乘及下位菩薩都不能測度，從意義上來說就廣闊了。所以文中只是根據外部不能測度，名為不思議。

其次解釋解脫門。略有五門：一名體門，二因果門，三考得失門，四會教門，五同異門。

一名體門

問：題目稱為不思議解脫法門，文中說有解脫名為不思議，為什麼前後不同？答：各有各的意義。文中說解脫名為不思議，是以解脫為體，不思議為名。必定因為有體，才能立名，所以說有解脫名為不思議。題目說不思議解脫，題目既然想要建立這個名稱，先說不思議，由不思議之名，來統攝不思議之體，所以先名而後體。文中是以本顯跡，題目是以跡顯本，想要兩種意義相輔相成，所以文題互相舉例。問：為什麼以解脫為體，不思議為名呢？答：要論述縱任自在、無方妙用，必定因為本體沒有累贅束縛。所以就解脫來辨明不思議。又爲了對治二乘人，二乘人說，解脫只是沒有累贅的名稱，無為不能無所不為，所以現在說明諸法的不思議。

【English Translation】 Shape. Not to be discussed. Question: How can one speak of all teachings? Answer: It is like a Mani jewel (wish-fulfilling jewel), without thought or deliberation, it can rain down all things needed. It is also like a heavenly drum, without intention or planning, it responds to the intentions of the devas (gods), emitting various sounds. The Dharmakaya (body of the Dharma) Bodhisattva is also like this. This is internal inconceivability. External inconceivability refers to the Bodhisattva having no fixed method, acting spontaneously, while the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) and lower-level Bodhisattvas, even after thinking for countless kalpas (eons), cannot know it, and after discussing it, cannot understand it. Therefore, it is said to be inconceivable. The word 'conceivable' needs to be added here. Question: Internal lack of effort and external immeasurability explain inconceivability. How are they different in scope? Answer: Internal lack of effort only refers to the gate of wisdom, and it is only attainable by Bodhisattvas of higher levels, so it is limited. If it is said that things that cannot be measured are called inconceivable, then whether it is objects, wisdom, forms, or sounds, the Two Vehicles and lower-level Bodhisattvas cannot measure them, so in terms of meaning, it is broad. Therefore, the text only states that external immeasurability is called inconceivability.

Next, explain the Liberation Gate. Briefly, there are five gates: first, the Gate of Essence; second, the Gate of Cause and Effect; third, the Gate of Examining Gain and Loss; fourth, the Gate of Unifying Teachings; fifth, the Gate of Similarities and Differences.

First, the Gate of Essence

Question: The title is called the Inconceivable Liberation Dharma Gate, but the text says there is liberation called inconceivable. Why is there a difference between the beginning and the end? Answer: Each has its own meaning. The text says liberation is called inconceivable because it takes liberation as the essence and inconceivability as the name. There must be an essence in order to establish a name, so it says there is liberation called inconceivable. The title says inconceivable liberation because the title wants to establish this name, first saying inconceivable, using the name of inconceivability to encompass the essence of inconceivability, so it is first the name and then the essence. The text reveals the trace from the origin, while the title reveals the origin from the trace, wanting the two meanings to complement each other, so the text and title cite each other. Question: Why is liberation taken as the essence and inconceivability as the name? Answer: To discuss the freedom, spontaneity, and boundless wonderful functions, it must be because the essence has no burdens or entanglements. Therefore, inconceivability is explained in terms of liberation. Also, it is to counter the Two Vehicles, who say that liberation is only a name for the absence of burdens, and that non-action cannot do everything. Therefore, it is now explained that the inconceivability of all dharmas.

佛菩薩解脫。雖是無為。而能無所不為。故偏就解脫。名不思議。又為對凡夫。凡夫亦有不思議。如五不思議中龍力不思議。而無解脫。是故云有解脫名不思議。又凡夫住有。不能觀空。二乘入空。不能觀有。空有俱縛。故無解脫。以無解脫。故非不思議。今雙斥二見。明非凡夫行非賢聖行。是菩薩行。雖有而常行空。雖空而常涉有。空有無礙。故名解脫也。以有解脫故名不思議。又對有功用位。以不能空有任運無礙。故名為縛。非不思議。以無功用心空有無礙。故稱解脫。名不思議也。問。何故復言不思議解脫。答。解脫多門。如二乘之人。亦有解脫。蓋是思議解脫。今明諸佛菩薩解脫。是不思議解脫。為簡小乘。故作此說也。又大乘中。有無量解脫。今是不思議解脫也。

二論因果門

此經云諸佛菩薩有解脫名不思議。故知解脫通因果也。就佛而明因果解脫者。脫五住煩惱。名因解脫。離二生死。名果解脫。就菩薩明者。得無生忍。破諸煩惱。名因解脫。得法身。舍于肉身。名果解脫。此二並從所離立名。以報身為果累。煩惱為因累。脫因果二累。名因果解脫也。若以佛所得解脫。為果解脫。菩薩所得。為因解脫者。此當體以立名也。問。釋論云。得無生忍故破煩惱魔。得法身故破陰魔。無生法忍與

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛菩薩的解脫，雖然是無為（asamskrta，不造作，不依賴條件），卻能無所不為。因此，特別就解脫而言，稱為不可思議。又爲了與凡夫相對，凡夫也有不可思議之處，如五不思議中龍的力量不可思議，卻沒有解脫。所以說有解脫才稱為不可思議。而且凡夫執著于有，不能觀空；二乘（sravaka-yana，聲聞乘和pratyekabuddha-yana，緣覺乘）入于空，不能觀有。空有都被束縛，所以沒有解脫。因為沒有解脫，所以不是不可思議。現在同時破斥這兩種見解，說明既不是凡夫的行徑，也不是賢聖的行徑，而是菩薩（bodhisattva）的行徑。雖然有，卻常常行於空；雖然空，卻常常涉入有。空有之間沒有障礙，所以稱為解脫。因為有解脫，所以稱為不可思議。又與有功用位相對，因為不能空有任運無礙，所以稱為束縛，不是不可思議。因為沒有功用，心空有無礙，所以稱為解脫，名為不可思議。問：為什麼又說不可思議解脫？答：解脫有很多門徑，如二乘之人，也有解脫，那是思議解脫。現在說明諸佛菩薩的解脫，是不可思議解脫。爲了簡別小乘（hinayana），所以這樣說。又在大乘（mahayana）中，有無量解脫，現在說的是不可思議解脫。 二、論因果門 此經說諸佛菩薩有解脫，名為不可思議。所以知道解脫貫通因果。就佛而言，說明因果解脫：脫離五住煩惱（panca klesa sthana，五種根本煩惱），名為因解脫；離開二生死（dvi marana，分段生死和變易生死），名為果解脫。就菩薩而言，得到無生忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，對諸法不生不滅的真理的證悟），破除各種煩惱，名為因解脫；得到法身（dharma-kaya，佛的真理之身），捨棄肉身，名為果解脫。這兩種都是從所脫離的事物來立名。以報身（sambhoga-kaya，佛的報應之身）為果的累贅，煩惱為因的累贅，脫離因果二種累贅，名為因果解脫。如果以佛所得到的解脫為果解脫，菩薩所得到的為因解脫，這是就其本體來立名。問：釋論說，得到無生忍所以破除煩惱魔，得到法身所以破除陰魔。無生法忍與

【English Translation】 English version The liberation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, although non-active (asamskrta, unconditioned, not relying on conditions), is capable of doing everything. Therefore, specifically in terms of liberation, it is called inconceivable. Furthermore, in contrast to ordinary beings, ordinary beings also have inconceivable aspects, such as the inconceivable power of dragons among the five inconceivables, but without liberation. Therefore, it is said that having liberation is what makes it called inconceivable. Moreover, ordinary beings are attached to existence and cannot contemplate emptiness; those of the Two Vehicles (sravaka-yana, Hearer Vehicle and pratyekabuddha-yana, Solitary Realizer Vehicle) enter emptiness and cannot contemplate existence. Both emptiness and existence are bound, so there is no liberation. Because there is no liberation, it is not inconceivable. Now, both of these views are refuted, explaining that it is neither the conduct of ordinary beings nor the conduct of the virtuous sages, but the conduct of Bodhisattvas (bodhisattva). Although there is existence, they constantly practice emptiness; although there is emptiness, they constantly engage in existence. There is no obstruction between emptiness and existence, so it is called liberation. Because there is liberation, it is called inconceivable. Furthermore, in contrast to the stage of effort, because one cannot effortlessly and without obstruction be in both emptiness and existence, it is called bondage, not inconceivable. Because there is no effort, and the mind is empty and without obstruction in both emptiness and existence, it is called liberation, named inconceivable. Question: Why is it again called inconceivable liberation? Answer: There are many paths to liberation, such as those of the Two Vehicles, who also have liberation, which is liberation through thought. Now, it is explained that the liberation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is inconceivable liberation. To distinguish it from the Small Vehicle (hinayana), this is why it is said. Furthermore, in the Great Vehicle (mahayana), there are countless liberations, and what is being discussed now is inconceivable liberation. Two, On the Gate of Cause and Effect This sutra says that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have liberation, called inconceivable. Therefore, it is known that liberation pervades cause and effect. Regarding the Buddha, explaining liberation in terms of cause and effect: liberation from the five abodes of affliction (panca klesa sthana, five fundamental afflictions) is called liberation of cause; leaving the two deaths (dvi marana, sectional death and variable death) is called liberation of effect. Regarding the Bodhisattva, obtaining the patience with non-origination (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti, realization of the truth of the non-arising and non-ceasing of all dharmas), breaking through various afflictions is called liberation of cause; obtaining the Dharma Body (dharma-kaya, the body of truth of the Buddha), abandoning the physical body is called liberation of effect. Both of these are named based on what is being liberated from. Taking the Reward Body (sambhoga-kaya, the body of recompense of the Buddha) as the burden of effect, and afflictions as the burden of cause, liberation from the two burdens of cause and effect is called liberation of cause and effect. If the liberation obtained by the Buddha is taken as liberation of effect, and that obtained by the Bodhisattva as liberation of cause, this is naming it based on its essence. Question: The Shastra says that obtaining the patience with non-origination breaks through the demon of affliction, and obtaining the Dharma Body breaks through the demon of the skandhas. The patience with non-origination and

法身何異。答。煩惱魔與陰魔。此是因果兩累。無生忍與法身。即因果二解脫。是知異也。問。云何名法性生身。答。此悟法性。是故受身。謂法性生身。問。佛亦悟法性。而受身與菩薩何異。答。佛窮法性之原。以法性常故。佛身亦常。故云諸佛所師所謂法也。以法常故。諸佛亦常。菩薩未窮法性。法性雖常。而身未常。是故異也。若以所悟法性為身。名法性身者。則佛與菩薩法身不二。同皆常也。但論云受法性生身。法性生身者。從法性而生。故不指法性為身也。問。菩薩舍三界分段肉身。則受于變易。分段變易。俱名生死。何故以變易為法身耶。答。此開十地及二生死。今略述之。初地至佛地。有三十三障。十一為煩惱。即生死之緣也。十一為業。即生死之因。十一為報。即生死之果。問。界外煩惱與業何異。答。有所得分別之心。即名煩惱。作意取捨。故名為業。是故異也。此業煩惱。名為集諦。生死之果。即是苦諦。地地有其無生智。滅此苦集。即滅道二諦。故界外具四諦也。今言舍肉身受法性生身者。此約變易生死身。以為法性生身。以法性為緣。煩惱為因。故云法性生身。就變易生死中。復有二身。無生智由悟法性有。故為法身。變易生死果。即是生死報身。此約苦道二諦。分二身也。問。勝鬘云。四

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：法身有什麼不同？答：煩惱魔和陰魔，這是因和果兩種束縛。無生忍和法身，則是因和果兩種解脫。由此可知它們是不同的。問：什麼叫做『法性生身』？答：因為領悟了法性，所以受生之身，稱為法性生身。問：佛也領悟法性，但所受之身與菩薩有什麼不同？答：佛徹底探究了法性的根源，因為法性是永恒的，所以佛的身也是永恒的。所以說諸佛的老師就是法，因為法是永恒的，所以諸佛也是永恒的。菩薩尚未徹底探究法性，法性雖然永恒，但菩薩的身還不是永恒的，所以有不同。如果把所領悟的法性作為身，稱為法性身，那麼佛與菩薩的法身就沒有區別，都是永恒的。但經論中說接受法性生身，法性生身，是從法性而生，所以不是指法性本身就是身。問：菩薩捨棄三界的分段肉身，就接受變易身。分段生死和變易生死，都叫做生死，為什麼把變易生死作為法身呢？答：這裡揭示了十地和兩種生死，現在簡要敘述。從初地到佛地，有三十三種障礙，十一是煩惱，是生死的緣。十一是業，是生死的因。十一是報，是生死的果。問：界外的煩惱和業有什麼不同？答：有所得的分別之心，就叫做煩惱。有作意取捨的行為，就叫做業。所以它們是不同的。這些業和煩惱，叫做集諦，生死的果，就是苦諦。每一地都有其無生智，滅除這些苦和集，就是滅和道二諦，所以在界外也具備四諦。現在說捨棄肉身接受法性生身，這是指變易生死之身，作為法性生身，以法性為緣，煩惱為因，所以說『法性生身』。在變易生死中，又有兩種身。無生智由於領悟法性而產生，所以是法身。變易生死的果，就是生死報身。這是從苦諦和道諦的角度，區分的兩種身。問：《勝鬘經》說，四

【English Translation】 English version Question: What is the difference between Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma Body)? Answer: Klesha Mara (煩惱魔, affliction demon) and Skandha Mara (陰魔, aggregates demon). These are two kinds of bondage of cause and effect. Non-origination forbearance (無生忍) and Dharmakaya are two kinds of liberation of cause and effect. Therefore, they are different. Question: What is called 'Dharmata-born body' (法性生身, Dharma-nature born body)? Answer: Because of the realization of Dharmata (法性, Dharma-nature), the body received is called Dharmata-born body. Question: Buddha also realizes Dharmata, but what is the difference between the body received by Buddha and that of Bodhisattva? Answer: Buddha thoroughly explores the origin of Dharmata. Because Dharmata is eternal, the body of Buddha is also eternal. Therefore, it is said that the teacher of all Buddhas is Dharma. Because Dharma is eternal, all Buddhas are also eternal. Bodhisattva has not thoroughly explored Dharmata. Although Dharmata is eternal, the body of Bodhisattva is not yet eternal. Therefore, there is a difference. If the realized Dharmata is taken as the body, called Dharmata-body, then there is no difference between the Dharmakaya of Buddha and Bodhisattva, and both are eternal. However, the sutras say that the Dharmata-born body is received. Dharmata-born body is born from Dharmata, so it does not mean that Dharmata itself is the body. Question: When Bodhisattva abandons the physical body of the three realms (三界, three realms), he receives the transformation body (變易身). Both the segmented life and death (分段生死) and the transformational life and death (變易生死) are called life and death. Why is transformational life and death regarded as Dharmakaya? Answer: This reveals the ten Bhumis (十地, ten grounds) and the two kinds of life and death. Now, I will briefly describe them. From the first Bhumi to the Buddha Bhumi, there are thirty-three obstacles. Eleven are Kleshas (煩惱, afflictions), which are the conditions for life and death. Eleven are Karma (業, actions), which are the cause of life and death. Eleven are retribution (報), which is the result of life and death. Question: What is the difference between Kleshas and Karma outside the realm? Answer: The mind of attachment and discrimination is called Klesha. The behavior of intentional acceptance and rejection is called Karma. Therefore, they are different. These Karma and Kleshas are called Samudaya Satya (集諦, Truth of the Origin of Suffering). The result of life and death is Dukkha Satya (苦諦, Truth of Suffering). Each Bhumi has its own non-origination wisdom (無生智), which extinguishes these suffering and origin, which are Nirodha Satya (滅諦, Truth of Cessation) and Marga Satya (道諦, Truth of the Path). Therefore, the four truths are also present outside the realm. Now, it is said that abandoning the physical body and receiving the Dharmata-born body refers to the transformational life and death body as the Dharmata-born body, with Dharmata as the condition and Klesha as the cause, so it is called 'Dharmata-born body'. In transformational life and death, there are two kinds of bodies. Non-origination wisdom arises from the realization of Dharmata, so it is Dharmakaya. The result of transformational life and death is the retribution body of life and death. This is the distinction between the two bodies from the perspective of Dukkha Satya and Marga Satya. Question: The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經) says, four

住為緣。有漏為因。得界內分段身。無明為緣。無漏業為因。受變易身。云何言界外並是業煩惱為因緣得生死身耶。答。南北異論。紛綸不同。今不具述。相續解脫經。及攝大乘等。既辨二十二愚。即知十一為業。十一為煩惱。此是有漏。不云無漏也。而勝鬘云。無漏業為因。此據二乘人為論耳。二乘以三界系法為有漏。出三界不繫法為無漏。是故今明以無漏業。生三界外耳。而實定有漏也。問。若據二乘。界內為有漏。界外為無漏。亦應界內為無明。界外非無明。何故云。以無明為緣生界外耶。答。此實例也。但今欲隱顯互明。故作此說耳。問。佛斷五住。即因解脫。名有餘。舍二生死。謂果解脫。即無餘。菩薩可得類耶。答。菩薩得無生。破煩惱。名因解脫。即有餘。得法性生身。舍肉身。謂果解脫。即無餘。故隨分亦具此二也。

三考得失門

問作此釋者。與舊何異。答。此義出經。彼此同用者。言不可異。意不可同。如上釋也。又舊但知界外無漏業生。有諸異釋。不達融會之旨。故通經為謬矣。問。若斷煩惱。為因解脫。捨生死。為果解脫。何得此經云佛為增上慢。說斷煩惱。名解脫。若無增上慢。煩惱即解脫。又云不壞於身。而隨一相。豈得捨生死身名果解脫耶。答。如舊所明者。皆為凈名所

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：住為緣（以執著為條件）。有漏為因（以仍然受煩惱影響的行為作為原因）。因此，獲得界內的分段生死之身（指在欲界、色界、無色界中，生命有生有滅，形體有大小）。無明為緣（以對事物真相的迷惑為條件）。無漏業為因（以不受煩惱影響的行為作為原因）。因此，承受變易身（指聖者在凈土中，心念轉變所產生的微妙變化之身）。為什麼說界外也是以業和煩惱為因緣而得到生死之身呢？回答：南北方的論點不同，紛繁複雜，這裡不詳細敘述。《相續解脫經》以及《攝大乘論》等，既然辨別了二十二種愚癡，就知道其中十一種是業，十一種是煩惱。這些是有漏的，不是無漏的。而《勝鬘經》說，無漏業為因，這是根據二乘人（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的觀點來說的。二乘認為三界（欲界、色界、無色界）所繫縛的法是有漏的，超出三界不被繫縛的法是無漏的。所以現在說明以無漏業，生於三界之外。但實際上必定是有漏的。問：如果根據二乘的觀點，界內是有漏的，界外是無漏的，也應該界內是無明，界外不是無明。為什麼說以無明為緣而生於界外呢？答：這是舉例說明。只是現在想要隱顯相互說明，所以這樣說。問：佛陀斷除五住地煩惱（五種根本煩惱），就是因解脫（從煩惱的束縛中解脫），稱為有餘涅槃（還有殘餘的身體）。捨棄兩種生死（分段生死和變易生死），就是果解脫（從生死輪迴中解脫），就是無餘涅槃（沒有殘餘的身體）。菩薩可以這樣類比嗎？答：菩薩得到無生法忍（對諸法不生不滅的真理的證悟），破除煩惱，稱為因解脫，就是有餘。得到法性生身（證悟法性后所顯現的清凈之身），捨棄肉身，稱為果解脫，就是無餘。所以隨其分位也具備這兩種解脫。

三、考量得失之門

問：作此解釋的人，與舊有的解釋有什麼不同？答：這個意義出自經典，彼此共同使用的，言辭上不可能不同，意義上不可能相同，就像上面解釋的那樣。而且舊有的解釋只知道界外是無漏業所生，有各種不同的解釋，不通達融會貫通的宗旨，所以貫通經典就成了謬誤。問：如果斷除煩惱，是因解脫，捨棄生死，是果解脫，為什麼這部經說佛陀為增上慢者（自以為已經證悟，實際未證悟的人）說斷除煩惱，就名為解脫，如果沒有增上慢，煩惱就立即解脫。又說不壞於身，而隨順於一相（保持身體的完整，而隨順於實相），怎麼能捨棄生死之身而名為果解脫呢？答：像舊有的解釋所說明的，都是爲了《維摩詰經》所

【English Translation】 English version: 'Dwelling' is the condition. 'Leaky' (with outflows of defilements) is the cause. Thus, one obtains the segmented body within the realms (referring to the cycle of birth and death within the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm, where life has beginnings and ends, and forms have sizes). 'Ignorance' is the condition. 'Non-leaky karma' (actions free from defilements) is the cause. Thus, one receives the body of transformation (referring to the subtle changes in the bodies of sages in pure lands, arising from transformations of the mind). Why is it said that even beyond the realms, the body of birth and death is obtained through karma and afflictions as conditions and causes? Answer: The arguments of the North and South differ, being complex and varied, which will not be detailed here. The 'Continuation of Liberation Sutra' and the 'Compendium of the Mahayana' and others, having distinguished twenty-two types of ignorance, it is known that eleven are karma and eleven are afflictions. These are leaky, not non-leaky. However, the 'Srimala Sutra' says that non-leaky karma is the cause, which is according to the perspective of the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana). The Two Vehicles consider the dharmas bound by the Three Realms (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) to be leaky, and the dharmas beyond the Three Realms, not bound, to be non-leaky. Therefore, it is now explained that with non-leaky karma, one is born outside the Three Realms. But in reality, it is definitely leaky. Question: If according to the perspective of the Two Vehicles, within the realms is leaky, and beyond the realms is non-leaky, it should also be that within the realms is ignorance, and beyond the realms is not ignorance. Why is it said that with ignorance as the condition, one is born beyond the realms? Answer: This is an example. It is just that now we want to mutually clarify the hidden and the manifest, so it is said this way. Question: When the Buddha eradicates the five dwelling-places of afflictions (the five fundamental afflictions), it is liberation from the cause (liberation from the bondage of afflictions), called Nirvana with remainder (there is still a remaining body). Abandoning the two types of birth and death (segmented birth and death and transformational birth and death), it is liberation from the effect (liberation from the cycle of birth and death), which is Nirvana without remainder (there is no remaining body). Can Bodhisattvas be compared in this way? Answer: Bodhisattvas attain the forbearance of non-origination (the realization of the truth of the non-arising and non-ceasing of all dharmas), destroying afflictions, called liberation from the cause, which is with remainder. Obtaining the body born of Dharma-nature (the pure body manifested after realizing Dharma-nature), abandoning the physical body, it is called liberation from the effect, which is without remainder. Therefore, according to their respective positions, they also possess these two types of liberation.

Three, The Gate of Examining Gains and Losses

Question: How does the person who makes this explanation differ from the old explanations? Answer: This meaning comes from the scriptures, and what is used in common with each other, the words cannot be different, the meanings cannot be the same, just like the explanation above. Moreover, the old explanations only knew that what is beyond the realms is born of non-leaky karma, and there are various different explanations, not understanding the principle of comprehensive integration, so connecting the scriptures becomes an error. Question: If eradicating afflictions is liberation from the cause, and abandoning birth and death is liberation from the effect, why does this sutra say that the Buddha said to those with increased pride (those who think they have already attained enlightenment, but have not actually attained it) that eradicating afflictions is called liberation, and if there is no increased pride, afflictions are immediately liberated. Also, it says not destroying the body, but conforming to one aspect (maintaining the integrity of the body, while conforming to the true nature), how can abandoning the body of birth and death be called liberation from the effect? Answer: What the old explanations explain are all for the Vimalakirti Sutra.

呵。非解脫之義也。問。何故被呵。答。作此釋者。乃是縛義。未名解脫。豈不被呵。所以然者。雖有煩惱。治道斷。斯謂無煩惱。于煩惱中。起有無見。始成縛義。何有解脫耶。又此乃于煩惱中。更起煩惱。就其縛中。重起纏縛。所以然者。本有舊煩惱。名為舊縛。尋經讀論近友從師。便謂煩惱是有。而斷之令無。故於舊煩惱中。新起有無二見。豈非縛中更復縛耶。又謂。凡夫有煩惱。故起有見。謂聖無煩惱。故起無見。故於若聖若凡。令起有無二見。故凡聖皆為縛。何有解脫耶。問。世諦之中。有于迷悟。真觀惑虛。實虛妄。有何縛解。答。觀子之問。則重起于縛。所以然者。聞世諦之中有縛解。豈不生於有心。聞真諦中無縛解。豈不起于無念。故於真俗。還成煩惱。生心動念。終不離魔。俱撫臆論心。不用虛言往復。又言。煩惱是縛。智慧為解。諸凡夫為縛人。真聖為解人。故舍凡取聖。滅惑生解。以滅惑故。不為惑所縛。而遂有解。則為解所縛。捨生死。不為生死所縛。得涅槃。則為涅槃所縛。如是常與無常。真之與妄。亦復如是。又我師興皇和上。每登高坐。常作是言。行道之人。欲棄非道求于正道。則為道所縛。坐禪之者。息亂求靜。為禪所縛。學問之徒。謂有智慧。為慧所縛。復云。習無生觀。欲破洗

有所得心。則為無生所縛。並是就縛之中。欲舍縛耳。而實不知皆是繫縛。故法華云。不覺不知。不驚不怖。正擬斯人。以若欲舍苦。更非求道也。問。若上來所說。皆是縛者。名何為解脫耶。答。觀問者之心。則離上縛外。別欲求解。便謂縛解為二。經云。明與無明。愚者謂二。則名為縛。何猶解脫耶。問。今不言其一二。但請陳解脫之旨。答。考詳問意。終有所求。則終有所縛。何猶解脫耶。此之一訓。足曉玄悟。如其未了。今略示教門。前云有煩惱而斷之令無。故於煩惱上。起有無新縛。若能了煩惱本不有今不無。則故惑自消。新病不起。畢故不造新。名得解脫也。上云舍煩惱不為煩惱所縛。欲求智慧。為慧所縛。今若能愚智雙棄。凡聖兩舍。即是蕭然無寄。名為解脫。又若由來明欲舍縛。前進求解。今但觀煩惱。煩惱體性則是解脫。云何乃欲舍縛而求解耶。是故經云。三毒即佛道。煩惱名解脫。所以然者。煩惱體性本不生滅。豈非即是解脫也。問。若爾者。此乃是會真諦境。煩惱即空。以悟空為解脫耳。云何言煩惱即是解脫耶。答。即煩惱體性本空。不言煩惱是有。會真諦境。然後方空。如眼病見空華。只華即是空。不可言先有此華。觀真諦境。方知華空。大品云。諸法無所有如是有。如是有無所有。此經云

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有所得之心，就會被『無生』（anutpāda，不生不滅的真理）所束縛。這完全是在被束縛的狀態中，想要捨棄束縛罷了。實際上卻不知道一切都是束縛。所以《法華經》說：『不覺不知，不驚不怖』，正是針對這種人。如果想要捨棄痛苦，就不是在求道了。問：如果上面所說的，都是束縛，那麼什麼叫做解脫呢？答：觀察提問者的心，就會發現除了擺脫上述的束縛之外，還想另外求解脫，於是就認為束縛和解脫是二元對立的。《維摩經》說：『明與無明，愚者謂二』，這就是束縛，哪裡還有什麼解脫呢？問：現在我不說一和二，只是請您闡述解脫的要旨。答：仔細考察提問者的意圖，終究還是有所求，那麼終究還是會被束縛，哪裡還有什麼解脫呢？這一番訓誡，足以讓人明白玄妙的道理。如果還不明白，現在略微開示教門。前面說有煩惱而斷除它，使它不存在，因此在煩惱之上，又產生了『有』和『無』的新束縛。如果能夠明白煩惱本來就沒有產生，現在也不會消失，那麼舊的迷惑自然消散，新的病癥也不會產生。停止舊的惡行，不造新的惡業，就叫做得到解脫。上面說捨棄煩惱，不被煩惱所束縛，想要追求智慧，卻又被智慧所束縛。現在如果能夠愚癡和智慧都拋棄，凡夫和聖人都捨棄，就是蕭然無所寄託，叫做解脫。又如果本來就想捨棄束縛，前進求解脫，現在只要觀察煩惱，煩惱的體性就是解脫。為什麼還要捨棄束縛而求解脫呢？所以經上說：『三毒（貪嗔癡）即是佛道』，煩惱就是解脫。之所以這樣說，是因為煩惱的體性本來就不生不滅，難道不就是解脫嗎？問：如果這樣說，這乃是會歸真諦（paramārtha-satya，最高真理）的境界，煩惱即是空，以領悟空性為解脫罷了。怎麼說煩惱就是解脫呢？答：是說煩惱的體性本來就是空，不是說煩惱是『有』，會歸真諦的境界，然後才變成空。就像眼睛有病的人看到空中的花朵，那花朵本身就是空，不能說先有這花朵，觀察真諦的境界，才知道花朵是空。《大品般若經》說：『諸法無所有如是有，如是有無所有』，《維摩經》說

【English Translation】 English version A mind that seeks to gain something is bound by 'anutpāda' (non-arising; the truth of no birth and no death). This is entirely within the state of being bound, wanting to abandon the bondage. But in reality, one does not know that everything is a bondage. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'Not aware, not knowing, not alarmed, not afraid,' which is precisely aimed at this kind of person. If one wants to abandon suffering, it is not seeking the path. Question: If what was said above is all bondage, then what is called liberation? Answer: Observe the questioner's mind, and you will find that in addition to getting rid of the above bondage, you also want to seek liberation separately, so you think that bondage and liberation are two opposites. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Brightness and ignorance, fools call them two,' this is bondage, where is there any liberation? Question: Now I am not talking about one and two, but please explain the essence of liberation. Answer: Examine the questioner's intention carefully, and in the end, there is still something to seek, then in the end, you will still be bound, where is there any liberation? This admonition is enough for people to understand the profound truth. If you still don't understand, now I will briefly explain the teachings. Earlier it was said that there are afflictions and eliminate them to make them non-existent, so on top of the afflictions, new bondages of 'existence' and 'non-existence' are produced. If you can understand that afflictions originally did not arise, and will not disappear now, then the old confusion will naturally dissipate, and new diseases will not arise. Stopping old evil deeds and not creating new evil karma is called attaining liberation. Above it was said to abandon afflictions and not be bound by afflictions, wanting to pursue wisdom, but being bound by wisdom. Now, if you can abandon both foolishness and wisdom, and abandon both ordinary people and saints, it is detachment with nothing to rely on, which is called liberation. Also, if you originally wanted to abandon bondage and move forward to seek liberation, now just observe afflictions, the nature of afflictions is liberation. Why do you want to abandon bondage and seek liberation? Therefore, the sutra says: 'The three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion) are the Buddha's path,' afflictions are liberation. The reason for this is that the nature of afflictions is originally neither arising nor ceasing, isn't it liberation? Question: If that's the case, this is the realm of converging to the paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth), afflictions are emptiness, and realizing emptiness is liberation. How can you say that afflictions are liberation? Answer: It is said that the nature of afflictions is originally empty, not that afflictions 'exist', and converge to the realm of paramārtha-satya, and then become empty. Just like a person with diseased eyes sees flowers in the air, the flowers themselves are empty. It cannot be said that these flowers existed first, and then by observing the realm of paramārtha-satya, one knows that the flowers are empty. The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says: 'All dharmas are non-existent as they are, as they are non-existent,' the Vimalakirti Sutra says

。從無住本故起妄相分別。是故。有身皆空華義耳。眾生迷故。以空為華。若得了悟。知華本空。問。迷故以空為華。若悟知華本空。與未得菩提時。以菩提為煩惱。得菩提時。以煩惱為菩提何異。答。即是此義。經云寂滅是菩提。眾生未悟寂滅。則寂滅于眾產生煩惱。了悟之日。知煩惱本寂滅。故煩惱是菩提。問。為是迷菩提謂菩提是有。故菩提名煩惱耶答。故自有此一塗。蓋是末中倒耳。然眾生本是寂滅。亦本是菩提。以空倒故。寂滅于眾產生不寂滅。菩提于眾產生不菩提。如前云。諸法無所有。眾生以無所有為有。此是根本倒也。眾生既以無所有為有。聖人為欲息其妄謂之有。故為說菩提。而眾生不知其旨。便謂菩提為有。故菩提覆成煩惱。故有本末二重倒也。若是本倒。則眾生自起。末中論倒。則藉教而生。問。末中論倒。此事不疑。眾生既本是無所有。今以無所有為有。亦應本是菩提。今變成不菩提。若爾者。今得佛竟。亦應變成眾生。如是循環。則無窮也。答。不言眾生本無所有今方是有。但論即此眾生本是無所有。如華本是空。不言變空成華。亦非變華為空。于病人空恒是華。于無病人華恒是空。于眾生。菩提成煩惱。于了悟之人。煩惱常是菩提。故先云。于緣未始一。于道未始二。即其事也。問。若

爾者。蓋是夢虛空華義耳。昔已被彈。今云何用。答。什公云。十喻以悟空。空必待是喻。借言以會意。意盡無會處。既得出長羅。住此無所住。若更執熟空華。還成縛也。

四會教門

問。若不斷煩惱。如不除空華者。經有四句。一斷煩惱。如大品云。一念相應慧。斷煩惱及習。二不斷煩惱。如此經云。不斷煩惱。而入涅槃。三亦斷亦不斷。如涅槃經云。一切眾生。不破煩惱。亦不與俱。既有四文。云何偏用。又四句相害。請為會通。答。為緣故異。而大意猶同。佛為增上慢。未斷煩惱。自謂得聖。故說斷煩惱也。為二乘人言有煩惱可斷。故言不斷耳。欲明中道義。故說亦斷亦不斷。如佛告梵王。今說中道。一切眾生。不能破結。明離其有邊。非不能破。辨離其無邊。欲雙斥凡聖二見。明非斷非俱。非俱故不同凡。非斷故不同聖。故來意異也。所言大意同者。雖有四句。只是一句耳。知煩惱本自不生。今亦無滅。故無所斷。以能如此了悟故。煩惱不復現前。則名為斷。故不斷即是斷。實無所斷。云何破之。而惑不現前。云何不破。以無所破。是故不斷而無惑現前。云何與俱。是以四句猶一句耳。又此經所興明解脫者。正明釋迦一期出世。大小凡聖有所得人諸縛。悉令得解脫。原如來出世。赴緣施教。本

令悟不凡不聖不大不小不二法門。而有凡聖大小者。皆是非凡非聖非大非小。故能凡能聖能大能小耳。雖有凡聖。不動無凡聖。大小亦然。但稟教之徒。聞凡作凡解。聞聖作聖解。大小亦然。故併成有所得。悉系屬於魔。非佛弟子。是知如來命文殊于異方。召維摩於他土。爰集毗耶。共弘斯教。先以三品。破凡夫二乘菩薩三病。令悟不凡不聖不大不小。以解脫此三病。故云解脫。次論能化解脫者。上已辨一義。今更說異門。凈名于染不染。不為染縛。處凈非凈。不為凈縛。雙游染凈。不為非染凈縛。實無所行。不為染凈所縛。是故名為解脫。染凈既爾。萬義類然。

五同異門

問。心慧二解脫。與此經解脫何異。答。今正約二慧明解脫。如上說之。但小乘明心慧二解脫。諸論異釋不同。龍樹云。斷樂愛煩惱。名心解脫。斷樂見煩惱。名慧解脫。又餘論云。斷于定障為心解脫。斷于慧障。為慧解脫。又云。得盡智為心解脫。得無生智為慧解脫。此皆小乘義也。亦得心解脫就體。慧解脫據用。直明於心。是故就體。心有萬用。慧為其主。故慧解脫約用。所以涅槃中。開慧解脫為五通。故知約用也。亦得心解脫就定。慧解脫約慧。慧從定發。故有五通。問。有為解脫。無為解脫。與此經解脫何異。答。小乘人五

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：領悟到既不是凡夫也不是聖人，既不是大也不是小的不二法門。之所以有凡夫和聖人、大和小的區分，都是因為執著于非凡夫、非聖人、非大、非小。因此，才能成為凡夫，也能成為聖人，能大能小。雖然有凡夫和聖人的區別，但其本性是不動搖的，沒有凡夫和聖人的分別。大小也是如此。只是那些接受教導的人，聽到『凡夫』就理解為凡夫，聽到『聖人』就理解為聖人，大小也是這樣理解。因此都變成了有所得，完全被魔所束縛，不是佛的弟子。所以如來命令文殊菩薩到異方，召維摩詰（Vimalakirti，一位在家菩薩的名字）從其他國土來，於是聚集在毗耶離城（Vaishali，古印度城市名），共同弘揚這個教義。首先用三品（指《維摩詰經》中的三個章節）破除凡夫、二乘（聲聞和緣覺）、菩薩的三種病，讓他們領悟到既不是凡夫也不是聖人，既不是大也不是小，從而解脫這三種病，所以稱為解脫。其次討論能夠化解脫的人，上面已經辨析了一種意義，現在再說另一種不同的方法。維摩詰在染污中不被染污，不被染污所束縛；處於清凈中不執著于清凈，不被清凈所束縛；同時處於染污和清凈中，不被非染污非清凈所束縛；實際上沒有（刻意）做什麼，不被染污和清凈所束縛。所以稱為解脫。染污和清凈是這樣，萬事萬物都可以以此類推。 五、同異門 問：心解脫和慧解脫，與這部經所說的解脫有什麼不同？答：現在正是根據心和慧兩種智慧來說明解脫，就像上面所說的那樣。只是小乘所說的心解脫和慧解脫，各種論典的解釋不同。龍樹菩薩（Nagarjuna，佛教哲學家）說：斷除對快樂的貪愛煩惱，叫做心解脫；斷除對快樂的錯誤見解煩惱，叫做慧解脫。還有其他論典說：斷除禪定的障礙，叫做心解脫；斷除智慧的障礙，叫做慧解脫。又說：獲得盡智（知道自己已經斷盡一切煩惱的智慧）叫做心解脫；獲得無生智（知道一切法本來不生不滅的智慧）叫做慧解脫。這些都是小乘的意義。也可以說心解脫是就本體而言，慧解脫是就作用而言。直接明瞭心，所以是就本體而言。心有萬種作用，智慧是其中的主導，所以慧解脫是就作用而言。所以在《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中，將慧解脫開顯為五通（天眼通、天耳通、他心通、宿命通、神足通），所以知道是就作用而言。也可以說心解脫是就禪定而言，慧解脫是就智慧而言。智慧從禪定中產生，所以有五通。問：有為解脫和無為解脫，與這部經所說的解脫有什麼不同？答：小乘人認為五...

【English Translation】 English version: Realize the non-dual Dharma gate that is neither ordinary nor saintly, neither large nor small. The existence of ordinary beings and saints, large and small, arises from clinging to what is neither ordinary nor saintly, neither large nor small. Therefore, one can be ordinary, can be saintly, can be large, can be small. Although there are distinctions between ordinary and saintly, the fundamental nature is unmoved, without the separation of ordinary and saintly. The same applies to large and small. However, those who receive teachings interpret 'ordinary' as ordinary, 'saintly' as saintly, and so on. Thus, they become attached to attainment, completely bound by Mara (demon), and are not disciples of the Buddha. Therefore, the Tathagata (Buddha) commanded Manjushri (Bodhisattva of Wisdom) to go to another direction and summoned Vimalakirti (a lay bodhisattva) from another land, gathering in Vaishali (an ancient Indian city) to propagate this teaching together. First, with the three chapters, he breaks the three illnesses of ordinary beings, two vehicles (Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas), and Bodhisattvas, enabling them to realize that they are neither ordinary nor saintly, neither large nor small, thereby liberating them from these three illnesses, hence it is called liberation. Next, discussing those who can transform and liberate, one meaning has already been analyzed above, and now another different method will be explained. Vimalakirti is not defiled by defilement, not bound by defilement; being in purity, he does not cling to purity, not bound by purity; simultaneously being in defilement and purity, he is not bound by neither defilement nor purity; in reality, he does nothing (deliberately), not bound by defilement and purity. Therefore, it is called liberation. As defilement and purity are like this, all things can be inferred in the same way. Five, the Gate of Similarities and Differences Question: What is the difference between liberation of mind and liberation of wisdom, and the liberation spoken of in this sutra? Answer: Now, we are precisely explaining liberation based on the two wisdoms of mind and wisdom, as mentioned above. However, the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) speaks of liberation of mind and liberation of wisdom, and the interpretations of various treatises differ. Nagarjuna (Buddhist philosopher) says: Cutting off the afflictions of craving for pleasure is called liberation of mind; cutting off the afflictions of wrong views about pleasure is called liberation of wisdom. Other treatises say: Cutting off the obstacles to samadhi (meditative absorption) is called liberation of mind; cutting off the obstacles to wisdom is called liberation of wisdom. It is also said: Obtaining the knowledge of exhaustion (knowing that one has exhausted all afflictions) is called liberation of mind; obtaining the knowledge of non-arising (knowing that all dharmas are originally unborn and unceasing) is called liberation of wisdom. These are all Hinayana meanings. It can also be said that liberation of mind refers to the essence, and liberation of wisdom refers to the function. Directly clarifying the mind, therefore it refers to the essence. The mind has myriad functions, and wisdom is the leader among them, so liberation of wisdom refers to the function. Therefore, in the Nirvana Sutra, liberation of wisdom is revealed as the five supernormal powers (divine eye, divine ear, knowing others' minds, knowing past lives, and divine feet), so it is known that it refers to the function. It can also be said that liberation of mind refers to samadhi, and liberation of wisdom refers to wisdom. Wisdom arises from samadhi, so there are five supernormal powers. Question: What is the difference between conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation, and the liberation spoken of in this sutra? Answer: Hinayana people consider five...

分法身。解脫身謂有為解脫。數滅涅槃是無為解脫。大乘法中。明二智以為解脫。不二而二。開因果不同。因中二智。名為有為解脫。果門權實。謂無為解脫。

后釋法門。即不思議可軌名法。法有虛通。故名為門。又法有無量門。今是不思議門也。又正道未曾思議與不思議。今云不思議者。是通道之門耳也。

凈名玄論卷第三(名題下) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

凈名玄論卷第四(宗旨上)

第二論宗旨

凡有二。一總定宗旨。二別釋二智。

一總定宗旨者

論曰。已知名字。宜識旨歸。旨歸不同。凡有四說。有人言。此經名不思議。即以不思議為宗。標凈名。敘能說之人。題不思議。辨經宗致。故肇公以四句明不思議本。四句明不思議跡。本跡雖殊。不思議一也。有人言。此經雖明不思議解脫。正以因果為宗。如佛國初會。明凈土因果。方便品至不二法門。明法身因果。香積以去竟經。重明凈土行及法身因果。宜以因果為宗。有人言。此經以二行為宗。一凈佛國土行。二成就眾生行。初會明凈土行。次會明成就眾生行。方丈重會雙明二行。問疾至不二法門。重明成就眾生行。香積重明凈土行。庵園後會。且雙明二行。菩薩行品。明成就

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：分法身（Dharmakaya）。解脫身份為有為解脫和無為解脫。數滅涅槃（Nirvana）是無為解脫。大乘佛法中，闡明二智（Two Wisdoms）作為解脫，不二而二，區分因和果的不同。因中的二智，稱為有為解脫。果門中的權巧和真實，稱為無為解脫。

接下來解釋法門。所謂『不思議』，是指超出常理，不可用常規思維衡量，但又遵循一定法則的道理，可以作為修行的途徑，故稱『法』。法具有虛通的特性，所以稱為『門』。而且法有無量的門徑，這裡所說的是不思議門。此外，正道既包含可思議的部分，也包含不可思議的部分。現在說『不思議』，是指通往正道的門徑。

《凈名玄論》卷第三（在標題之下） 《大正藏》第38冊 No. 1780 《凈名玄論》

《凈名玄論》卷第四（宗旨 上）

第二 論宗旨

總共有兩種。一是總的確定宗旨，二是分別解釋二智。

一 總的確定宗旨

論中說：已經知道了名字，應該瞭解其宗旨。宗旨的不同，總共有四種說法。有人說，這部經名為《不思議》，就以『不思議』為宗旨。標明凈名（Vimalakirti），敘述能說法的人。題為『不思議』，辨明經的宗致。所以鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）用四句說明不思議的根本，用四句說明不思議的跡象。根本和跡象雖然不同，但『不思議』是一致的。有人說，這部經雖然闡明不思議解脫，但正是以因果為宗旨。如佛國品最初的集會，闡明凈土的因果。從方便品到不二法門，闡明法身的因果。從香積品到經的結尾，再次闡明凈土的修行以及法身的因果。應該以因果為宗旨。有人說，這部經以兩種行為宗旨。一是凈佛國土行，二是成就眾生行。最初的集會闡明凈土行，第二次集會闡明成就眾生行。方丈室的重聚同時闡明兩種修行。從問疾品到不二法門，再次闡明成就眾生行。香積品再次闡明凈土行。庵園的後來的集會，暫且同時闡明兩種修行。菩薩行品，闡明成就

【English Translation】 English version: Dividing the Dharmakaya (法身, Body of Essence). The body of liberation is divided into conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation. Cessation of Suffering Nirvana (數滅涅槃) is unconditioned liberation. In Mahayana Buddhism, the Two Wisdoms (二智) are explained as liberation, non-dual yet dual, distinguishing the difference between cause and effect. The Two Wisdoms in the cause are called conditioned liberation. The expedient and the real in the realm of effect are called unconditioned liberation.

Next, explaining the Dharma-door. 'Inconceivable' (不思議) refers to a principle that transcends ordinary reasoning and cannot be measured by conventional thinking, yet follows certain rules and can be used as a path for practice, hence called 'Dharma'. Dharma has the characteristic of being empty and pervasive, so it is called a 'door'. Moreover, Dharma has countless doors, and what is being discussed here is the inconceivable door. Furthermore, the right path includes both conceivable and inconceivable aspects. Now, saying 'inconceivable' refers to the gateway to the right path.

Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary, Volume 3 (below the title) Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 38, No. 1780, Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary

Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary, Volume 4 (Purpose, Part 1)

Second, Discussing the Purpose

There are two aspects in general. First, to generally define the purpose. Second, to separately explain the Two Wisdoms.

First, Generally Defining the Purpose

The commentary says: Having already known the name, one should understand its purpose. The purposes differ, and there are four views in total. Some say that this sutra is named 'Inconceivable' (不思議), so it takes 'inconceivable' as its purpose. It identifies Vimalakirti (凈名), narrates the person who can expound the Dharma. It is titled 'Inconceivable', clarifying the sutra's essence. Therefore, Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什) uses four lines to explain the root of the inconceivable, and four lines to explain the traces of the inconceivable. Although the root and traces are different, the 'inconceivable' is the same. Some say that although this sutra explains inconceivable liberation, it is precisely taking cause and effect as its purpose. For example, the initial assembly in the Buddha-land chapter explains the cause and effect of the Pure Land. From the Expedient Means chapter to the Non-Dual Dharma-door, it explains the cause and effect of the Dharmakaya (法身). From the Incense Accumulation chapter to the end of the sutra, it again explains the practice of the Pure Land and the cause and effect of the Dharmakaya. It should take cause and effect as its purpose. Some say that this sutra takes two practices as its purpose. First, the practice of purifying the Buddha-lands. Second, the practice of accomplishing sentient beings. The initial assembly explains the practice of the Pure Land, the second assembly explains the practice of accomplishing sentient beings. The reunion in the square room simultaneously explains the two practices. From the Inquiry of Illness chapter to the Non-Dual Dharma-door, it again explains the practice of accomplishing sentient beings. The Incense Accumulation chapter again explains the practice of the Pure Land. The later assembly in the Ambapali garden temporarily simultaneously explains the two practices. The Bodhisattva Practice chapter explains the accomplishment of

眾生行。見阿閦佛品。明凈佛國土行。故以二行為宗。菩薩得無生忍以後。更無餘事。但欲凈佛國土成就眾生。故一部始終。明此二要行。為此經宗。今所明者。非無前義。但師資所習。正以二智。為宗。問。以何文義用二智為宗。答。法供養品。天主曰。以我雖從佛及文殊。聞百千經。而未曾聞是不可思議自在神通決定實相經典。夫實相是入道本。不思議神通為化物之宗。法中要極。莫過斯二。現自在神通。即實慧方便。決定實相。即方便實慧。雖實相而神通。雖神通而實相。動寂不二。而權實宛然。一部之經。盛談斯法。故以二智為宗。又智度菩薩母。方便以為父。是凈名父母。即為凈名經宗。又此經所興。正起于疾。疾是方便。方便由實。故以二智為宗。又此經名維摩詰經。以菩薩為教主。正以二智名為菩薩。方便實慧。不同凡夫。實慧方便。簡非小道。又方便實慧名為菩薩。實慧方便。名摩訶薩。故以成菩薩法。為菩薩經宗。問。二智由二境生。何故不境智合為經宗。答。爾炎雖是智母。而三乘共觀。二智獨菩薩法。故般若不屬二乘佛。但屬菩薩。般若之巧。名為漚和。般若尚不屬二乘。漚和即聲聞絕分。故以智為宗。不取境也。問。此經。始自凈土終訖法養。其文雖殊。不思議一。何故不用不思議為宗。答

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 眾生的行為。見《阿閦佛品》。闡明清凈佛國土的行為。因此以這兩種行為作為宗旨。菩薩獲得無生法忍之後，便沒有其他事情了，只是想要清凈佛國土，成就眾生。所以整部經始終闡明這兩種重要的行為，作為這部經的宗旨。現在所闡明的，並非沒有之前的意義，只是師父和弟子所學習的，正是以兩種智慧作為宗旨。問：以什麼文義用兩種智慧作為宗旨？答：《法供養品》中，天主說：『我雖然從佛和文殊那裡聽聞了成百上千部經，但從未聽聞過這部不可思議自在神通決定實相的經典。』實相是入道的根本，不可思議神通是教化眾生的宗旨。佛法中最重要最根本的，沒有超過這兩者的。展現自在神通，就是實慧的方便；決定實相，就是方便的實慧。雖然是實相而有神通，雖然有神通而是實相，動與靜不是二元對立的，而權巧和真實又分明存在。整部經都在盛大地談論這種佛法，所以以兩種智慧作為宗旨。另外，智慧是菩薩的母親，方便是菩薩的父親。這《凈名經》中的父母，就是《凈名經》的宗旨。而且這部經的興起，正是因為疾病。疾病是方便，方便源於真實，所以以兩種智慧作為宗旨。而且這部經名為《維摩詰經》，以菩薩為教主，正是以兩種智慧來稱呼菩薩。方便和實慧，不同於凡夫；實慧和方便，區別于小乘。而且方便和實慧稱為菩薩，實慧和方便稱為摩訶薩（Mahasattva）。所以以成就菩薩法，作為菩薩經的宗旨。問：兩種智慧由兩種境界產生，為什麼不將境界和智慧合起來作為經的宗旨？答：般若（Prajna）雖然是智慧之母，但三乘（Triyana）共同觀修。兩種智慧是菩薩獨有的佛法，所以般若不屬於二乘（Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha），只屬於菩薩。般若的巧妙，稱為漚和（Aukha）。般若尚且不屬於二乘，漚和就是聲聞（Sravaka）所不能及的。所以以智慧為宗旨，不取境界。問：這部經，從凈土開始到法供養結束，其文義雖然不同，但不可思議的道理是一樣的，為什麼不用不可思議作為宗旨？答：

【English Translation】 English version The conduct of sentient beings. See the chapter on Akshobhya Buddha (阿閦佛). It elucidates the conduct of a pure Buddha-land. Therefore, these two conducts are taken as the main principle. After a Bodhisattva obtains the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas (無生法忍), there is nothing else to do but purify the Buddha-land and accomplish sentient beings. Therefore, the entire sutra consistently elucidates these two essential conducts as the principle of this sutra. What is being elucidated now does not negate the previous meaning, but what the teacher and disciples learn is precisely taking the two wisdoms as the main principle. Question: With what textual meaning are the two wisdoms taken as the main principle? Answer: In the chapter on 'Dharma Offering' (法供養品), the Lord of Gods (天主) says: 'Although I have heard hundreds of thousands of sutras from the Buddha and Manjushri (文殊), I have never heard this inconceivable, self-existent, supernormal, decisive, and truly real sutra.' True reality (實相) is the root of entering the path, and inconceivable supernormal powers are the principle of transforming sentient beings. In the Dharma, there is nothing more important or fundamental than these two. Manifesting self-existent supernormal powers is the expedient of real wisdom; decisive true reality is the real wisdom of expedient. Although it is true reality with supernormal powers, and although it is supernormal powers with true reality, movement and stillness are not dualistic, while skillful means and reality are clearly present. This entire sutra extensively discusses this Dharma, so it takes the two wisdoms as the main principle. Furthermore, wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and expedient is the father. These parents in the Vimalakirti Sutra (凈名經) are the principle of the Vimalakirti Sutra. Moreover, the arising of this sutra is precisely due to illness. Illness is an expedient, and expedient originates from reality, so it takes the two wisdoms as the main principle. Furthermore, this sutra is named the Vimalakirti Sutra, with the Bodhisattva as the teaching master, and it is precisely with the two wisdoms that Bodhisattvas are named. Expedient and real wisdom are different from ordinary people; real wisdom and expedient are distinct from the Small Vehicle (小乘). Moreover, expedient and real wisdom are called Bodhisattvas, and real wisdom and expedient are called Mahasattvas (摩訶薩). Therefore, accomplishing the Bodhisattva Dharma is taken as the principle of the Bodhisattva Sutra. Question: The two wisdoms arise from two realms, why not combine the realms and wisdoms as the principle of the sutra? Answer: Although Prajna (般若) is the mother of wisdom, it is commonly contemplated by the Three Vehicles (三乘). The two wisdoms are the unique Dharma of Bodhisattvas, so Prajna does not belong to the Two Vehicles (二乘), but only to Bodhisattvas. The skillful means of Prajna is called Aukha (漚和). Prajna does not even belong to the Two Vehicles, and Aukha is beyond the reach of Sravakas (聲聞). Therefore, wisdom is taken as the main principle, not the realm. Question: This sutra, from the Pure Land (凈土) at the beginning to the Dharma offering at the end, although its meaning is different, the principle of inconceivability is the same, why not use inconceivability as the main principle? Answer:

。一部之教雖皆是難思。別而言。正以解脫為不思議。故云諸佛菩薩有解脫。名不思議。住此解脫。能現一切形。能說一切教。而物不能測。故通名不思議解脫。則是二智。故以二智為宗。問。解脫云何即是二智。答。二智無累。故稱解脫。則此解脫。心行處斷故。意不能思。言語又滅故。則口不能議。故知二智則解脫也。問。解脫是二智。既以二智即解脫。何故不以二智解脫為體。答。正以二智為解脫體。不以解脫為二智體。何以知之。經云。慧有方便解。方便有慧解。不言解脫有方便。解脫有于慧。故知二智為解脫。體不以解脫為二智體。問。若以二智為解脫體。何故不稱二智不思議。而名解脫不思議。答。一切法門。凡有二種。一者立名。二者辨體。不思議解脫。即經之名。而此解脫。以二智為體。故名體兩舉。義則多含。若以不思議為名。復以不思議為體。則名體相監。義無多兼。問。無為法身為果解脫。無漏智為因解脫。若以解脫為宗。則因果皆備。今以二智為體。但得因門。答。無為法身。無漏智。不思議解脫。名雖有三。而體無二也。無累不盡。稱為解脫。無境不照。名為智慧。真極可軌。故目為法。即以法為身。故名法身。非但義含因果。而亦體備三德。

二別釋二智。有十一門。一翻名門。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：一部經的教義雖然都是難以思議的，但分別來說，主要是以解脫為不可思議。所以說諸佛菩薩所具有的解脫，名為不可思議。安住于這種解脫，能夠顯現一切形相，能夠宣說一切教法，而眾生無法測度，所以統稱為不可思議解脫。這實際上就是二智（指根本智和后得智）。所以以二智為宗旨。問：解脫為什麼就是二智呢？答：二智沒有煩惱的束縛，所以稱為解脫。這種解脫，心識的活動之處斷絕，所以意識無法思量；言語也止息，所以口不能議論。因此可知二智就是解脫。問：解脫是二智，既然以二智就是解脫，為什麼不以二智解脫為本體呢？答：正是以二智為解脫的本體，而不是以解脫為二智的本體。為什麼知道是這樣呢？經中說：『智慧有方便的解，方便有智慧的解』，沒有說解脫有方便，解脫有智慧。所以知道二智是解脫的本體，而不是以解脫為二智的本體。問：如果以二智為解脫的本體，為什麼不稱二智不可思議，而稱解脫不可思議呢？答：一切法門，凡有兩種，一是建立名稱，二是辨別本體。不可思議解脫，是這部經的名稱。而這種解脫，以二智為本體。所以名稱和本體兩方面都舉出，意義就包含很多。如果以不可思議為名稱，又以不可思議為本體，那麼名稱和本體就相互監督，意義沒有多種兼顧。問：無為法身是果位的解脫，無漏智是因位的解脫。如果以解脫為宗旨，那麼因和果都具備。現在以二智為本體，只得到因的方面。答：無為法身、無漏智、不可思議解脫，名稱雖然有三個，但本體沒有兩個。沒有煩惱的束縛，稱為解脫；沒有境界不照見的，名為智慧；真實到了極點，可以作為軌範，所以稱為法。就以法為身，所以名為法身。不僅僅意義上包含因和果，而且本體上具備法身、般若、解脫三德。

第二部分，分別解釋二智，有十一門。第一是翻譯名稱的門。

【English Translation】 English version: Although all the teachings in a scripture are inconceivable, specifically speaking, it primarily regards liberation (解脫, jie tuo) as inconceivable. Therefore, it is said that the liberation possessed by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is called inconceivable. Abiding in this liberation, one can manifest all forms and expound all teachings, yet beings cannot fathom it. Hence, it is generally called inconceivable liberation. This is actually the two wisdoms (二智, er zhi) (referring to fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom). Therefore, the two wisdoms are taken as the main principle. Question: Why is liberation the two wisdoms? Answer: The two wisdoms are free from the accumulation of afflictions, hence they are called liberation. This liberation is where the activity of the mind is cut off, so consciousness cannot contemplate it; language also ceases, so the mouth cannot discuss it. Therefore, it can be known that the two wisdoms are liberation. Question: Liberation is the two wisdoms, since the two wisdoms are liberation, why not take the two wisdoms liberation as the substance? Answer: It is precisely taking the two wisdoms as the substance of liberation, not taking liberation as the substance of the two wisdoms. How is it known to be so? The scripture says: 'Wisdom has the liberation of means, means has the liberation of wisdom,' it does not say that liberation has means, liberation has wisdom. Therefore, it is known that the two wisdoms are the substance of liberation, not taking liberation as the substance of the two wisdoms. Question: If the two wisdoms are taken as the substance of liberation, why not call the two wisdoms inconceivable, but call liberation inconceivable? Answer: All Dharma doors generally have two aspects: one is establishing a name, and the other is distinguishing the substance. Inconceivable liberation is the name of this scripture. And this liberation takes the two wisdoms as its substance. Therefore, both the name and the substance are mentioned, and the meaning contains much. If inconceivability is taken as the name, and inconceivability is also taken as the substance, then the name and the substance supervise each other, and the meaning does not have multiple considerations. Question: The unconditioned Dharmakaya (無為法身, wu wei fa shen) is the liberation of the fruition, and the non-outflow wisdom (無漏智, wu lou zhi) is the liberation of the cause. If liberation is taken as the main principle, then both cause and effect are complete. Now, if the two wisdoms are taken as the substance, only the aspect of the cause is obtained. Answer: The unconditioned Dharmakaya, the non-outflow wisdom, and inconceivable liberation, although there are three names, the substance is not two. Without the accumulation of afflictions, it is called liberation; without a realm that is not illuminated, it is called wisdom; being truly at the extreme, it can be taken as a norm, so it is called Dharma. It is taking the Dharma as the body, so it is called Dharmakaya. Not only does the meaning contain cause and effect, but the substance also possesses the three virtues of Dharmakaya, Prajna, and liberation.

Part two, explaining the two wisdoms separately, there are eleven aspects. The first is the aspect of translating the name.

二釋名門。三境智門。四同異門。五長短門。六六智門。七開合門。八斷伏門。九攝智門。十常無常門。十一得失門。

一翻名門

昔在江南。著法華玄論。已略明二智。但此義既為眾聖觀心法身父母。必須精究。故重論之。此義若通。則方等眾經。不待言而自顯。具存梵本。應云般若波羅蜜漚和波羅蜜。故此經云。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。智即波若。度謂波羅蜜也。但翻波若不同。或云智慧。如睿法師云。秦言智慧。或翻為遠離。出放光經。即釋道安用。或翻明度。出六度集經。或翻清凈。此出大品。睿法師用之。但般若具含智慧明凈遠離等義。譯經之人。唯取其一。以用翻之。般若能斷眾惑。遠離生死名相之法。故云遠離。明瞭無暗。故稱為明。體絕穢染。名為清凈。達照解知。名為智慧。雖有諸義。多用智慧。智慧單復。又各不同。或單名為智。如釋論及此經。稱為智度。或但名為慧。如釋論云。波若秦言慧。或是具翻智慧。經論多爾。今詳會此意。義各有由。通而言之。即智為慧。指慧為智。廣略不同。體無異也。

翻為慧者。凡有四義。一欲分十度不同。二開空有義異。三明因果差別。四就凡聖為異。十度不同者。第六名般若。此翻為慧。第十云阇那。此名為智。問。阇那為智。術阇

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二、釋名門：解釋名稱的方面。 三、境智門：境界與智慧的方面。 四、同異門：相同與相異的方面。 五、長短門：長與短的方面。 六、六智門：六種智慧的方面。 七、開合門：開顯與收攝的方面。 八、斷伏門：斷除與降伏的方面。 九、攝智門：統攝智慧的方面。 十、常無常門：常與無常的方面。 十一、得失門：獲得與失去的方面。

一、翻名門

過去在江南，我撰寫法華玄論時，已經略微闡明了二智（兩種智慧）。但這個義理既然是所有聖人觀心（觀察自心）的法身父母（根本），就必須深入研究。所以重新論述它。這個義理如果通達，那麼方等眾經（各種大乘經典），不用解釋也能自然明白。梵文字完整儲存，應該說是般若波羅蜜多（Prajnaparamita，通過智慧到達彼岸）漚和波羅蜜多。所以這部經說：『智度（智慧的度量）是菩薩的母親，方便是父親。』智就是般若（Prajna，智慧），度就是波羅蜜多（Paramita，到達彼岸）。但是翻譯般若（Prajna，智慧）有所不同，有的翻譯成智慧，如睿法師說：『秦言（漢語）智慧。』有的翻譯成遠離，出自放光經，這是釋道安（僧人）所用的。有的翻譯成明度，出自六度集經。有的翻譯成清凈，出自大品般若經，睿法師使用這個譯法。但是般若（Prajna，智慧）包含智慧、明凈、遠離等含義。譯經的人，只取其中一個含義來翻譯。般若（Prajna，智慧）能斷除各種迷惑，遠離生死名相之法，所以稱為遠離。明瞭沒有黑暗，所以稱為明。本體沒有污穢染著，稱為清凈。通達照見，瞭解知曉，稱為智慧。雖然有各種含義，但多用智慧。智慧是單稱還是複稱，又各有不同。或者單稱智，如釋論和這部經，稱為智度。或者只稱慧，如釋論說：『般若（Prajna，智慧）秦言（漢語）慧。』或者完整地翻譯成智慧，經論中大多如此。現在詳細地會合這些意思，每個譯法都有它的理由。總的來說，智就是慧，指慧就是智。廣略不同，本體沒有差別。

翻譯成慧，大概有四種原因：一是想要區分十度（十種波羅蜜多）的不同；二是開顯空有（空與有）的含義差異；三是闡明因果（原因和結果）的差別；四是就凡聖（凡夫和聖人）來說明不同。十度（十種波羅蜜多）不同在於，第六種叫般若（Prajna，智慧），這裡翻譯成慧。第十種叫阇那（Jnana，智慧），這裡翻譯成智。問：阇那（Jnana，智慧）是智，術阇（Shu jia）是什麼？

【English Translation】 English version Two, the Gate of Explaining Names: Aspects of explaining the names. Three, the Gate of Realm and Wisdom: Aspects of realm and wisdom. Four, the Gate of Sameness and Difference: Aspects of similarity and difference. Five, the Gate of Length and Shortness: Aspects of length and shortness. Six, the Gate of Six Wisdoms: Aspects of the six kinds of wisdom. Seven, the Gate of Opening and Closing: Aspects of revealing and gathering. Eight, the Gate of Severing and Subduing: Aspects of severing and subduing. Nine, the Gate of Comprehensive Wisdom: Aspects of comprehensively encompassing wisdom. Ten, the Gate of Permanence and Impermanence: Aspects of permanence and impermanence. Eleven, the Gate of Gain and Loss: Aspects of gain and loss.

One, the Gate of Translating Names

In the past, when I was in Jiangnan, I wrote the Profound Treatise on the Lotus Sutra, in which I had already briefly explained the two wisdoms. But since this meaning is the Dharma body parents (fundamental) of all sages' contemplation of the mind, it must be thoroughly studied. Therefore, I re-discuss it. If this meaning is understood, then the Vaipulya Sutras (various Mahayana scriptures) will be self-evident without explanation. The complete Sanskrit text should be Prajnaparamita (Prajnaparamita, reaching the other shore through wisdom) and Upayaparamita. Therefore, this sutra says: 'The measure of wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and expedient means are the father.' Wisdom is Prajna (Prajna, wisdom), and measure is Paramita (Paramita, reaching the other shore). However, the translation of Prajna (Prajna, wisdom) is different. Some translate it as wisdom, as Dharma Master Rui said: 'Qin language (Chinese) is wisdom.' Some translate it as detachment, which comes from the Fangguang Sutra, which is used by Master Shi Dao'an (monk). Some translate it as bright measure, which comes from the Jidu Jijing. Some translate it as purity, which comes from the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, which Dharma Master Rui used. But Prajna (Prajna, wisdom) contains the meanings of wisdom, clarity, detachment, and so on. The translators of the sutras only take one of the meanings to translate. Prajna (Prajna, wisdom) can cut off all delusions and detach from the laws of birth and death, so it is called detachment. Clear and without darkness, so it is called bright. The essence is free from defilement, so it is called purity. Understanding and illuminating, knowing and understanding, is called wisdom. Although there are various meanings, wisdom is mostly used. Whether wisdom is singular or plural is also different. Or it is simply called wisdom, as in the Treatise and this sutra, it is called the measure of wisdom. Or it is only called intelligence, as the Treatise says: 'Prajna (Prajna, wisdom) in Qin language (Chinese) is intelligence.' Or it is fully translated as wisdom, which is mostly the case in sutras and treatises. Now, to understand these meanings in detail, each translation has its reason. Generally speaking, wisdom is intelligence, and referring to intelligence is wisdom. The breadth and brevity are different, but the essence is the same.

There are roughly four reasons for translating it as intelligence: one is to distinguish the differences between the ten perfections (ten Paramitas); two is to reveal the differences in the meaning of emptiness and existence; three is to clarify the differences between cause and effect; and four is to explain the differences between ordinary people and sages. The difference in the ten perfections (ten Paramitas) lies in the fact that the sixth is called Prajna (Prajna, wisdom), which is translated here as intelligence. The tenth is called Jnana (Jnana, wisdom), which is translated here as wisdom. Question: Jnana (Jnana, wisdom) is wisdom, what is Shu jia?

翻為何物。答。此云明。猶是智見之流耳。空有義異者。照空名慧。鑒有為智。故此經云。入一相門。起于慧業。知一切眾生心念。起于智業。因果差別者。論云。因名波若。果變名薩波若。薩波若名一切智。則知波若名之為慧。慧名既劣。宜在因中。智則決了。故居果地。又佛照空有皆盡。加以一切菩薩未究。但名慧也。不得云因中名智。果名一切智。亦不得云因名智慧。果名一切智。但應言因名為慧果名為智。則于因果。優劣義彰。凡聖異者。如涅槃云。般若者。一切眾生。名此為慧。慧名既通。則凡聖並有。如十大地中定慧之數。毗婆舍那。目之為見。謂一切聖人明見理也。阇那為智。通達決了也。

次翻為智。凡有三義。一者慧名既劣。智則為勝。今欲稱難波若。故名為智。二者欲顯其名語便。云智度。若言慧度。言不便也。三者欲明智即是慧。名異體同。故隨舉其一。

次合稱智慧。亦具三義。一明波若具鑒有無。故含智慧。慧則照空。智便鑒有。二顯波若通果及因。因中般若為慧。果地波若為智。故三德中有般若德。三者欲明六度義含於十。經中但明六度。不明十者。以般若之名既含智慧。第十智度。蘊在其中。問。既具三名。以何翻為正。答。慧為正翻。余皆義立。所以知然。從多論也。

此經云。慧與方便。釋論云。般若道方便道。涅槃云。般若者一切眾生。阇那為智。則配諸佛菩薩。故智非波若。又第六名慧。第十為智。皆有彼此二名。故知以慧為正。又論云。波若不屬佛。亦不屬二乘。但屬菩薩。菩薩則道慧道種慧。佛具一切智一切種智。又云。波若名諸法實相慧。如是等諸文非一。故以慧為正翻矣。問。若以慧為正翻。何故經中多雲智慧。答。經中多說六度。故多雲智慧。小說十度。故小明慧也。又六度中。皆有復翻。如佈施等。不單名施。般若亦爾。雖復是慧。欲對上五。亦存複名。故言智慧。

次翻無翻義。有人言。般若名含五義。不可正翻。宜以慧當其名。如釋論七十一卷云。般若定實相。甚深極重。智慧輕薄。故不能稱于般若。此格提用之。今謂不然。釋論乃明不可稱義。非不可翻也。問。稱與翻何異。答。稱則天竺已明。翻則成於振旦。反彼為此。前後不同。義門各異。又論云。般若定實相。故不可稱。不言多含故。不可稱故。此釋為謬矣。復有人言。般若不可稱者。此明觀照智慧。不能稱實相般若。實相般若。性相常住。觀照智慧。會境始生。故實相為深重。觀照智為輕薄。北人釋也。是亦不然。經以五嘆。嘆于般若。不嘆實相。云何言實相深重耶。又言。般若定實相。則

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此經中說，『慧』（prajna，智慧）與『方便』（upaya，善巧方法）。《釋論》（註釋）中說，『般若道』（prajnaparamita-marga，智慧之道）和『方便道』（upaya-marga，善巧方便之道）。《涅槃經》中說，『般若』是指一切眾生，『阇那』（jnana，智）是指智慧，因此『智』（jnana）是諸佛菩薩所具有的。所以，『智』（jnana）並非『般若』（prajna）。此外，第六度名為『慧』（prajna），第十度名為『智』（jnana），兩者都有彼此兩個名稱。因此，可知以『慧』（prajna）作為正確的翻譯。此外，《論》中說，『般若』不屬於佛，也不屬於二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘），只屬於菩薩。菩薩有道慧（智慧之道）、道種慧（通達一切道的智慧）。佛具有一切智（sarvajna，對一切法的總體認識）和一切種智（sarvakarajnata，對一切法的各個方面和種類的認識）。又說，『般若』是指諸法實相的智慧。像這樣等等的經文不止一處。所以，以『慧』（prajna）作為正確的翻譯。 問：如果以『慧』（prajna）作為正確的翻譯，為什麼經中大多說『智慧』（prajna-jnana）？ 答：經中大多說六度（paramita，到達彼岸的方法），所以大多說『智慧』（prajna-jnana）。小乘經典說十度，所以較少明顯地使用『慧』（prajna）。此外，在六度中，都有重複翻譯的情況，例如佈施等，不單獨稱為『施』（dana，佈施），『般若』也是如此。雖然是『慧』（prajna），爲了對應上面的五度，也保留重複的名稱，所以說『智慧』（prajna-jnana）。 接下來討論不翻譯的意義。有人說，『般若』（prajna）這個名稱包含五種含義，無法正確翻譯，應該用『慧』（prajna）來代替它的名稱。如《釋論》第七十一卷中說，『般若』是確定的實相，非常深奧和重要，而『智慧』（jnana）輕浮淺薄，所以不能稱量『般若』。這種說法可以借鑑。但我認為不是這樣。《釋論》只是說明了不可稱量（不可思議）的含義，並非不可翻譯。 問：『稱』（稱量）與『翻』（翻譯）有什麼不同？ 答：『稱』（稱量）是天竺（印度）已經明確的，『翻』（翻譯）是在振旦（中國）完成的，將彼方的語言轉換為此方的語言，前後不同，意義和門徑也各不相同。此外，《論》中說，『般若』是確定的實相，所以不可稱量，沒有說因為它包含多種含義所以不可稱量。因此，這種解釋是錯誤的。還有人說，『般若』不可稱量，這是說明觀照智慧（vipassana-jnana，通過觀察獲得的智慧）不能稱量實相般若（tattva-prajna，對事物真實本性的智慧）。實相般若，其自性與現象常住不變，觀照智慧，是遇到境界才產生的。所以實相深重，觀照智輕薄。這是北方人的解釋。這也是不對的。經典用五種讚歎來讚歎『般若』，而不是讚歎實相。怎麼能說實相深重呢？又說，『般若』是確定的實相，那麼 English version: This sutra says, 'Prajna' (wisdom) and 'Upaya' (skillful means). The 'Shilun' (commentary) says, 'Prajnaparamita-marga' (the path of wisdom) and 'Upaya-marga' (the path of skillful means). The 'Nirvana Sutra' says, 'Prajna' refers to all sentient beings, 'Jnana' (knowledge) refers to wisdom, therefore 'Jnana' is possessed by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Therefore, 'Jnana' is not 'Prajna'. Furthermore, the sixth paramita is called 'Prajna', and the tenth is called 'Jnana', both having these two names. Therefore, it can be known that 'Prajna' is the correct translation. Furthermore, the 'Shilun' says, 'Prajna' does not belong to the Buddha, nor does it belong to the two vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha), but only belongs to the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva has the wisdom of the path (wisdom of the path), and the wisdom of the seeds of the path (wisdom that understands all paths). The Buddha possesses all-knowing wisdom (Sarvajna, overall knowledge of all dharmas) and all-knowing wisdom of all kinds (Sarvakarajnata, knowledge of all aspects and kinds of all dharmas). It also says, 'Prajna' refers to the wisdom of the true nature of all dharmas. There are many such scriptures. Therefore, 'Prajna' is the correct translation. Question: If 'Prajna' is the correct translation, why do the sutras mostly say 'Prajna-jnana' (wisdom)? Answer: The sutras mostly speak of the six paramitas (paramita, methods to reach the other shore), so they mostly say 'Prajna-jnana'. The Hinayana scriptures speak of the ten paramitas, so they use 'Prajna' less obviously. Furthermore, in the six paramitas, there are cases of repeated translations, such as giving, which is not simply called 'Dana' (giving), and so is 'Prajna'. Although it is 'Prajna', in order to correspond to the above five paramitas, it also retains the repeated name, so it is called 'Prajna-jnana'. Next, we discuss the meaning of not translating. Some say that the name 'Prajna' contains five meanings and cannot be translated correctly, so 'Prajna' should be used to replace its name. As the 71st volume of the 'Shilun' says, 'Prajna' is the definite true nature, which is very profound and important, while 'Jnana' is frivolous and shallow, so it cannot measure 'Prajna'. This statement can be used as a reference. But I don't think so. The 'Shilun' only explains the meaning of immeasurability (inconceivable), not that it cannot be translated. Question: What is the difference between 'measuring' and 'translating'? Answer: 'Measuring' is already clear in India, and 'translating' is completed in China, converting the language of the other side into the language of this side, which is different before and after, and the meanings and paths are also different. Furthermore, the 'Shilun' says that 'Prajna' is the definite true nature, so it cannot be measured, and it does not say that it cannot be measured because it contains many meanings. Therefore, this explanation is wrong. Some people also say that 'Prajna' cannot be measured, which means that vipassana-jnana (wisdom gained through observation) cannot measure tattva-prajna (wisdom of the true nature of things). Tattva-prajna, its nature and phenomena are constant, and vipassana-jnana is produced only when encountering a state. Therefore, the true nature is profound and the wisdom of observation is shallow. This is the explanation of the northerners. This is also wrong. The scriptures use five praises to praise 'Prajna', not to praise the true nature. How can it be said that the true nature is profound? It also says that 'Prajna' is the definite true nature, then

【English Translation】 This sutra says, 'Prajna' (wisdom) and 'Upaya' (skillful means). The 'Shilun' (commentary) says, 'Prajnaparamita-marga' (the path of wisdom) and 'Upaya-marga' (the path of skillful means). The 'Nirvana Sutra' says, 'Prajna' refers to all sentient beings, 'Jnana' (knowledge) refers to wisdom, therefore 'Jnana' is possessed by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Therefore, 'Jnana' is not 'Prajna'. Furthermore, the sixth paramita is called 'Prajna', and the tenth is called 'Jnana', both having these two names. Therefore, it can be known that 'Prajna' is the correct translation. Furthermore, the 'Shilun' says, 'Prajna' does not belong to the Buddha, nor does it belong to the two vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha), but only belongs to the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva has the wisdom of the path (wisdom of the path), and the wisdom of the seeds of the path (wisdom that understands all paths). The Buddha possesses all-knowing wisdom (Sarvajna, overall knowledge of all dharmas) and all-knowing wisdom of all kinds (Sarvakarajnata, knowledge of all aspects and kinds of all dharmas). It also says, 'Prajna' refers to the wisdom of the true nature of all dharmas. There are many such scriptures. Therefore, 'Prajna' is the correct translation. Question: If 'Prajna' is the correct translation, why do the sutras mostly say 'Prajna-jnana' (wisdom)? Answer: The sutras mostly speak of the six paramitas (paramita, methods to reach the other shore), so they mostly say 'Prajna-jnana'. The Hinayana scriptures speak of the ten paramitas, so they use 'Prajna' less obviously. Furthermore, in the six paramitas, there are cases of repeated translations, such as giving, which is not simply called 'Dana' (giving), and so is 'Prajna'. Although it is 'Prajna', in order to correspond to the above five paramitas, it also retains the repeated name, so it is called 'Prajna-jnana'. Next, we discuss the meaning of not translating. Some say that the name 'Prajna' contains five meanings and cannot be translated correctly, so 'Prajna' should be used to replace its name. As the 71st volume of the 'Shilun' says, 'Prajna' is the definite true nature, which is very profound and important, while 'Jnana' is frivolous and shallow, so it cannot measure 'Prajna'. This statement can be used as a reference. But I don't think so. The 'Shilun' only explains the meaning of immeasurability (inconceivable), not that it cannot be translated. Question: What is the difference between 'measuring' and 'translating'? Answer: 'Measuring' is already clear in India, and 'translating' is completed in China, converting the language of the other side into the language of this side, which is different before and after, and the meanings and paths are also different. Furthermore, the 'Shilun' says that 'Prajna' is the definite true nature, so it cannot be measured, and it does not say that it cannot be measured because it contains many meanings. Therefore, this explanation is wrong. Some people also say that 'Prajna' cannot be measured, which means that vipassana-jnana (wisdom gained through observation) cannot measure tattva-prajna (wisdom of the true nature of things). Tattva-prajna, its nature and phenomena are constant, and vipassana-jnana is produced only when encountering a state. Therefore, the true nature is profound and the wisdom of observation is shallow. This is the explanation of the northerners. This is also wrong. The scriptures use five praises to praise 'Prajna', not to praise the true nature. How can it be said that the true nature is profound? It also says that 'Prajna' is the definite true nature, then

實相為所定。般若為能定。若言實相為深重者。可以實相還定實相耶。復有人言。智慧輕薄。不能稱般若者。此是世間智慧。離生智慧。二乘智慧。不能稱量菩薩大智慧耳。何者。大智慧照實相理。導成眾行。余淺智慧。豈能稱那。此南方人釋也。今謂不然。唯云智慧不能稱于般若。則不言淺慧。不稱深慧。又淺深俱名為慧。則俱是輕薄。並不能稱般若也。今依論釋之。論云。般若定實相。故深重。智慧不能稱也。所言定者。定是契會之名。夫萬化非無宗。而宗之者無相虛宗。非無契。而契之者無心。故聖人以無心之妙慧。契彼無相之虛宗。則內外並冥。緣智俱寂。智慧是知照之名。豈能稱絕觀般若。問。般若云何能契會實相。答。由實相生般若。故般若能契會實相也。問。依此釋者。猶是淺智。不能稱于深智。答。深則愚智皆絕。淺則猶有知照。故非淺智不稱深智也。問。定實相既是契會之名。與舊辨冥會。義何異耶。答。語同而意異。但釋冥會。自有二師。一云即會是冥。以符合故冥。冥契不乖故會。無優劣也。此莊嚴龍光之義。二云會是符合之名。冥是混一之義。則冥勝而會劣也。何者。因中有四義故未冥。一或未盡。二體有生滅。三智未周圓。四體依方所。故但稱會。佛果離此四義。故所以談冥。冥與無生為

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：實相是被般若所決定的。般若是能決定實相的。如果說實相是深重的話，可以用實相來衡量實相嗎？又有人說，智慧輕薄，不能衡量般若。這是世間智慧、離生智慧、二乘智慧，不能衡量菩薩的大智慧罷了。為什麼呢？因為大智慧照亮實相之理，引導成就各種修行。其餘淺薄的智慧，怎麼能衡量呢？這是南方人的解釋。我認為不是這樣。只說智慧不能衡量般若，就不說淺慧不能衡量，也不說深慧不能衡量。而且淺深都被稱為慧，那麼都是輕薄的，都不能衡量般若。現在依照《論》來解釋。《論》說：般若決定實相，所以深重，智慧不能衡量。所說的『定』，是契合會心的意思。萬事萬物並非沒有根本，而探究其根本的是無相的虛宗。並非沒有契合，而契合它的是無心。所以聖人以無心的微妙智慧，契合那無相的虛宗，那麼內外都寂滅，緣起和智慧都寂靜。智慧是知曉照見的意思，怎麼能衡量那絕觀的般若呢？問：般若如何能契合會心實相呢？答：由於實相產生般若，所以般若能契合會心實相。問：依照這種解釋，仍然是淺薄的智慧，不能衡量深厚的智慧。答：深則愚昧和智慧都消失了，淺則還有知曉照見，所以不是淺薄的智慧不能衡量深厚的智慧。問：決定實相既然是契合會心的意思，與舊的辨析『冥會』，意義有什麼不同呢？答：說法相同而意義不同。只是解釋『冥會』，有兩種不同的說法。一種說法是，會合就是冥，因為符合所以冥，冥契不相違背所以會合，沒有優劣之分。這是莊嚴和龍光的觀點。另一種說法是，會合是符合的意思，冥是混一的意思，那麼冥勝過會合。為什麼呢？因為因中有四種原因所以沒有冥合：一是或者沒有窮盡，二是本體有生滅，三是智慧沒有周全圓滿，四是本體依賴於方所。所以只稱為會合。佛果離開了這四種原因，所以談論冥合。冥合與無生是 English version: 'Reality' is determined by Prajna (wisdom). Prajna is what determines reality. If it is said that reality is profound and weighty, can reality be used to measure reality? Furthermore, some say that wisdom is shallow and cannot measure Prajna. This is worldly wisdom, wisdom that is detached from birth, wisdom of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), and cannot measure the great wisdom of a Bodhisattva. Why? Because great wisdom illuminates the principle of reality and guides the accomplishment of various practices. How can other shallow wisdom measure it? This is the interpretation of people from the South. I say it is not so. Only saying that wisdom cannot measure Prajna does not mean that shallow wisdom cannot measure it, nor does it mean that deep wisdom cannot measure it. Moreover, both shallow and deep are called wisdom, so both are shallow and cannot measure Prajna. Now, I will explain it according to the Treatise. The Treatise says: Prajna determines reality, so it is profound and weighty, and wisdom cannot measure it. What is meant by 'determine' is the name of agreement and understanding. All things do not lack a foundation, and what explores that foundation is the formless, empty foundation. There is no lack of agreement, and what agrees with it is no-mind. Therefore, the sage uses the wonderful wisdom of no-mind to agree with that formless, empty foundation, so that both inside and outside are extinguished, and both conditions and wisdom are silent. Wisdom is the name of knowing and illuminating, how can it measure the Prajna of absolute contemplation? Question: How can Prajna agree with and understand reality? Answer: Because Prajna arises from reality, Prajna can agree with and understand reality. Question: According to this explanation, it is still shallow wisdom that cannot measure deep wisdom. Answer: In depth, both ignorance and wisdom disappear, while in shallowness, there is still knowing and illuminating, so it is not that shallow wisdom cannot measure deep wisdom. Question: Since determining reality is the meaning of agreement and understanding, what is the difference in meaning from the old analysis of 'dark union'? Answer: The words are the same, but the meanings are different. Only explaining 'dark union', there are two different interpretations. One interpretation is that union is darkness, because it conforms, so it is dark; dark agreement does not contradict, so it is union, there is no superiority or inferiority. This is the view of Zhuangyan and Longguang. The other interpretation is that union is the meaning of conformity, and darkness is the meaning of oneness, so darkness surpasses union. Why? Because there are four reasons in the cause why there is no dark union: first, it is not exhausted; second, the substance has birth and death; third, wisdom is not complete and perfect; fourth, the substance depends on location. Therefore, it is only called union. The fruit of Buddhahood is free from these four reasons, so it is discussed as dark union. Dark union and non-birth are

【English Translation】 English version: 'Reality' is determined by Prajna (wisdom). Prajna is what determines reality. If it is said that reality is profound and weighty, can reality be used to measure reality? Furthermore, some say that wisdom is shallow and cannot measure Prajna. This is worldly wisdom, wisdom that is detached from birth, wisdom of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), and cannot measure the great wisdom of a Bodhisattva. Why? Because great wisdom illuminates the principle of reality and guides the accomplishment of various practices. How can other shallow wisdom measure it? This is the interpretation of people from the South. I say it is not so. Only saying that wisdom cannot measure Prajna does not mean that shallow wisdom cannot measure it, nor does it mean that deep wisdom cannot measure it. Moreover, both shallow and deep are called wisdom, so both are shallow and cannot measure Prajna. Now, I will explain it according to the Treatise. The Treatise says: Prajna determines reality, so it is profound and weighty, and wisdom cannot measure it. What is meant by 'determine' is the name of agreement and understanding. All things do not lack a foundation, and what explores that foundation is the formless, empty foundation. There is no lack of agreement, and what agrees with it is no-mind. Therefore, the sage uses the wonderful wisdom of no-mind to agree with that formless, empty foundation, so that both inside and outside are extinguished, and both conditions and wisdom are silent. Wisdom is the name of knowing and illuminating, how can it measure the Prajna of absolute contemplation? Question: How can Prajna agree with and understand reality? Answer: Because Prajna arises from reality, Prajna can agree with and understand reality. Question: According to this explanation, it is still shallow wisdom that cannot measure deep wisdom. Answer: In depth, both ignorance and wisdom disappear, while in shallowness, there is still knowing and illuminating, so it is not that shallow wisdom cannot measure deep wisdom. Question: Since determining reality is the meaning of agreement and understanding, what is the difference in meaning from the old analysis of 'dark union'? Answer: The words are the same, but the meanings are different. Only explaining 'dark union', there are two different interpretations. One interpretation is that union is darkness, because it conforms, so it is dark; dark agreement does not contradict, so it is union, there is no superiority or inferiority. This is the view of Zhuangyan and Longguang. The other interpretation is that union is the meaning of conformity, and darkness is the meaning of oneness, so darkness surpasses union. Why? Because there are four reasons in the cause why there is no dark union: first, it is not exhausted; second, the substance has birth and death; third, wisdom is not complete and perfect; fourth, the substance depends on location. Therefore, it is only called union. The fruit of Buddhahood is free from these four reasons, so it is discussed as dark union. Dark union and non-birth are

一。則境智不分。無應照異。而無生不乖俗。冥亦不妨會。佛果舉體冥。舉體會。會故應照滿十方。冥故一切皆絕。今總問之。冥既與境混一者。智為成境。為不作境耶。若不作境。云何言一。若智作境者。境既無知。智亦無知。智既有知。則境亦應爾。以其一故也。若言與法性同絕。故言冥會。猶與法性異者。即于會冥之日。猶見境智為二。何得經云菩薩般若相應。不見應與不應。合與不合耶。又具四義故。方成冥者。般若教。佛智猶有生滅。則不得稱冥。照無等法性義。故無冥實相之義也。問。云何名甚深極重。答。夫論可稱。則不名極重。良由極重。故不可稱。論主欲釋經不可稱義。故云深也。問。但應言重。何故復云甚深。答。為欲簡擇重義。非如重物重。乃是甚深。故云重耳。問。但言深重。何故復云極耶。答。三乘同觀。並契實相。但二乘猶如兔馬。未盡其原。故不得般若之名。不名甚深極重。今欲簡二乘。明菩薩照盡其原。得名般若。故云甚深極重也。問。智慧何故云輕薄耶。答。般若體絕緣觀。智慧名定於觀。般若體絕愚智。智慧名主知照。般若體絕名字。智慧則猶涉名言。故對般若之重。明智慧之輕。對般若之深。辨智慧之淺。淺猶薄也。問。般若體絕愚智。何故立智慧名耶。答。不知何以目之。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一。如果境（境界，客觀存在）和智（智慧，主觀認知）不分，就沒有應（感應）和照（覺照）的差別。這樣，無生（不生不滅的真如本性）就不會與世俗相違背，冥（幽深、寂滅）也不會妨礙會（融合）。佛果（佛的果位）整體是冥，整體是會。因為會，所以應照遍滿十方；因為冥，所以一切都寂滅。現在總的來問：冥既然與境混合為一，那麼智是成就了境，還是沒有成就境呢？如果智沒有成就境，怎麼能說是一呢？如果智成就了境，境既然沒有知覺，智也應該沒有知覺。智既然有知覺，那麼境也應該如此，因為它們是一體的緣故。如果說與法性（諸法本性）一同寂滅，所以說是冥會，但仍然與法性相異，那麼在會冥之時，仍然看到境和智是二。怎麼能說經中說菩薩與般若（智慧）相應，不見應與不應，合與不合呢？又因為具備四種意義，才能成就冥。般若教（般若的教義）認為，佛智（佛的智慧）仍然有生滅，就不能稱為冥。照（覺照）沒有等同於法性（諸法本性）的意義，所以沒有冥（幽深、寂滅）實相（真實相狀）的意義。問：為什麼稱為甚深極重？答：凡是可以稱量的，就不能稱為極重。正因為極重，所以不可稱量。論主想要解釋經中不可稱量的意義，所以說是深。問：只應該說重，為什麼又說甚深？答：爲了區分重的意義，不是像重物那樣重，而是甚深，所以說是重。問：只說深重，為什麼又說極呢？答：三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）共同觀察，都契合實相（真實相狀）。但二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）就像兔子和馬，沒有窮盡其本源，所以不能得到般若（智慧）之名，不稱為甚深極重。現在想要區分二乘，說明菩薩覺照窮盡其本源，得到般若之名，所以說是甚深極重。問：智慧為什麼稱為輕薄呢？答：般若（智慧）的本體斷絕緣觀（依附外緣的觀照），智慧名為定於觀（侷限於觀照）。般若（智慧）的本體斷絕愚智（愚昧和智慧的分別），智慧名為執著于知照（主觀的認知和覺照）。般若（智慧）的本體斷絕名字（名相概念），智慧則仍然涉及名言（語言文字）。所以相對於般若（智慧）的重，說明智慧的輕；相對於般若（智慧）的深，辨別智慧的淺，淺就是薄。問：般若（智慧）的本體斷絕愚智（愚昧和智慧的分別），為什麼又立智慧之名呢？答：不知道用什麼來稱呼它。

【English Translation】 English version I. If the realm (境, jing - state, objective existence) and wisdom (智, zhi - intelligence, subjective cognition) are not distinct, there is no difference between response (應, ying - response) and illumination (照, zhao - illumination). In this way, non-arising (無生, wusheng - the nature of true thusness that neither arises nor ceases) will not contradict the mundane, and obscurity (冥, ming - profound, stillness) will not hinder union (會, hui - fusion). The Buddha-fruit (佛果, fuo guo - the fruit of Buddhahood) is entirely obscurity, entirely union. Because of union, response and illumination pervade the ten directions; because of obscurity, everything is extinguished. Now, to ask generally: Since obscurity is mixed and one with the realm, does wisdom accomplish the realm, or does it not accomplish the realm? If wisdom does not accomplish the realm, how can it be said to be one? If wisdom accomplishes the realm, since the realm has no awareness, wisdom should also have no awareness. Since wisdom has awareness, then the realm should also be so, because they are one. If it is said that it is extinguished together with Dharma-nature (法性, faxing - the nature of all dharmas), so it is said to be obscure union, but it is still different from Dharma-nature, then at the time of obscure union, the realm and wisdom are still seen as two. How can the sutra say that the Bodhisattva is in accordance with Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom), and does not see response and non-response, union and non-union? Furthermore, because it possesses four meanings, it can achieve obscurity. The Prajna teaching (般若教, banruo jiao - the teachings of Prajna) believes that Buddha-wisdom (佛智, fuo zhi - the wisdom of the Buddha) still has arising and ceasing, so it cannot be called obscurity. Illumination (照, zhao - illumination) has no meaning equal to Dharma-nature (法性, faxing - the nature of all dharmas), so there is no meaning of obscurity (冥, ming - profound, stillness) and true reality (實相, shixiang - true appearance). Question: Why is it called extremely profound and heavy? Answer: Whatever can be measured cannot be called extremely heavy. Precisely because it is extremely heavy, it cannot be measured. The author wants to explain the meaning of immeasurability in the sutra, so it is said to be profound. Question: It should only be said to be heavy, why is it also said to be extremely profound? Answer: In order to distinguish the meaning of heavy, it is not heavy like a heavy object, but extremely profound, so it is said to be heavy. Question: Only say profound and heavy, why also say extremely? Answer: The three vehicles (三乘, sansheng - Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle) observe together and all accord with true reality (實相, shixiang - true appearance). But the two vehicles (二乘, ercheng - Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle) are like rabbits and horses, not exhausting their origin, so they cannot obtain the name of Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom), and are not called extremely profound and heavy. Now, wanting to distinguish the two vehicles, explaining that the Bodhisattva's illumination exhausts its origin, obtaining the name of Prajna, so it is said to be extremely profound and heavy. Question: Why is wisdom called light and thin? Answer: The substance of Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom) cuts off conditioned observation (緣觀, yuanguan - observation dependent on external conditions), wisdom is named as fixed on observation (定於觀, ding yu guan - limited to observation). The substance of Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom) cuts off foolishness and wisdom (愚智, yuzhi - the distinction between foolishness and wisdom), wisdom is named as clinging to knowing and illuminating (知照, zhizhao - subjective cognition and illumination). The substance of Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom) cuts off names (名字, mingzi - nominal concepts), wisdom still involves names and words (名言, mingyan - language). Therefore, relative to the heaviness of Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom), the lightness of wisdom is explained; relative to the depth of Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom), the shallowness of wisdom is distinguished, shallowness is thinness. Question: The substance of Prajna (般若, banruo - wisdom) cuts off foolishness and wisdom (愚智, yuzhi - the distinction between foolishness and wisdom), why is the name of wisdom established? Answer: Not knowing what to call it.

強名智慧。雖立智慧之名。實不稱般若之體。問。但應言般若體深重。般若名輕薄。智慧體深重。智慧名輕薄。云何乃言波若深重智慧輕薄。答。今依梵本。則云般若體深重。般若名輕薄。但用此音。則應云智慧體深重智慧名輕薄。恐此義難顯。故譯經之人。藉此方智慧。不能稱梵文般若也。問。不可稱與不可量何異。答。經有五嘆。謂大事故起。不可稱事起。不可量事起。無等等事起。不可思議事起。既別有無量事起。則稱非量也。不可量則取無有邊際。不可稱明甚深至重。例如法稱品明舍利不能稱般若經卷。今智慧名義不能稱絕觀般若也。問。論云。智慧小。般若多。故不能稱。云何為多小耶。答。有人言。實相則無法不自在故多。智慧局之於心故小。今謂不然。前就定實相故。明不可稱。今約多含義。明不可稱。般若體非愚智。能愚能智。智慧唯主于智。故般若多。智慧小。又般若定實相。實相既遍。般若亦多。智慧不爾。故云小也。問。已知般若翻不翻義。方便復云何。答。常啼云漚和俱舍羅大師方便力。漚和為方便。俱舍羅名為勝智。般若之巧。名為漚和。其用既勝。名勝智也。凈名以方便為父。取其產生之能。大品以漚和為師。明有訓誨之德。善巧化物。不證二乘。皆大師之力也。

二釋名門

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 強名智慧（qiáng míng zhì huì）：雖然建立了智慧之名，實際上並不符合般若（bō rě，梵文Prajna的音譯，指通過修行獲得的智慧）的本體。問：但應該說般若的本體深重，般若的名字輕薄；智慧的本體深重，智慧的名字輕薄。為什麼卻說般若深重而智慧輕薄呢？答：現在依照梵文字，就說般若的本體深重，般若的名字輕薄。如果只用這個發音，就應該說智慧的本體深重，智慧的名字輕薄。恐怕這個意義難以顯現，所以翻譯經典的人，借用這邊的智慧，不能完全表達梵文般若的含義。問：『不可稱』與『不可量』有什麼不同？答：經文有五種讚歎，說有重大的事情發生，即『不可稱』的事情發生，『不可量』的事情發生，『無等等』的事情發生，『不可思議』的事情發生。既然另外有『無量』的事情發生，那麼『稱』就不是『量』了。『不可量』是取其沒有邊際的意思，『不可稱』是說明其非常深奧和重要。例如《法稱品》中說明舍利不能稱量《般若經》的經卷，現在智慧的名義不能稱量絕觀般若。問：論中說，智慧小，般若多，所以不能稱量。什麼是多和少呢？答：有人說，實相（shí xiàng，事物的真實面貌）中沒有不自在的法，所以多；智慧侷限於心，所以小。我認為不是這樣。前面是就定實相而言，說明不可稱量；現在是就多含義而言，說明不可稱量。般若的本體不是愚蠢也不是智慧，能愚能智；智慧只主導智慧，所以般若多，智慧小。而且般若定實相，實相既然普遍，般若也多；智慧不是這樣，所以說小。問：已經知道般若的翻譯和不翻譯的含義，方便（fāng biàn，梵文Upaya的意譯，指善巧的方法）又是什麼呢？答：常啼（cháng tí，菩薩名）說漚和俱舍羅（ōu hé jù shě luó）大師的方便力。漚和是方便，俱舍羅是勝智。般若的巧妙，叫做漚和。它的作用既然殊勝，就叫做勝智。凈名（jìng míng，維摩詰的別稱）以方便為父，取其產生的能力；《大品般若經》以漚和為師，說明有訓誨的德行。善巧地教化眾生，不證得二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘），都是大師的力量啊。

二、釋名門

【English Translation】 English version 『Strongly Named Wisdom』. Although the name of wisdom is established, it does not truly match the essence of Prajna (般若, bō rě, transliteration of Sanskrit Prajna, referring to wisdom attained through practice). Question: But it should be said that the essence of Prajna is profound and weighty, while the name of Prajna is light and thin; the essence of wisdom is profound and weighty, while the name of wisdom is light and thin. Why then is it said that Prajna is profound and weighty while wisdom is light and thin? Answer: Now, according to the Sanskrit text, it says that the essence of Prajna is profound and weighty, while the name of Prajna is light and thin. If only this pronunciation is used, then it should be said that the essence of wisdom is profound and weighty, while the name of wisdom is light and thin. Fearing that this meaning would be difficult to manifest, the person translating the scriptures borrowed the wisdom of this land, which cannot fully express the meaning of Sanskrit Prajna. Question: What is the difference between 『immeasurable』 and 『incalculable』? Answer: The scripture has five praises, saying that a great event has occurred, namely, an 『incalculable』 event has occurred, an 『immeasurable』 event has occurred, an 『unequaled』 event has occurred, and an 『inconceivable』 event has occurred. Since there is also an 『infinite』 event occurring, then 『calculating』 is not 『measuring』. 『Immeasurable』 takes the meaning of having no boundaries, while 『incalculable』 clarifies its profound and utmost importance. For example, the 『Chapter on Dharma Name』 explains that Shariputra (舍利, shè lì) cannot calculate the scrolls of the 『Prajna Sutra』, just as the meaning of the name of wisdom cannot calculate the absolute contemplation of Prajna. Question: The treatise says that wisdom is small, and Prajna is large, so it cannot be calculated. What is meant by large and small? Answer: Some say that in reality (實相, shí xiàng, the true nature of things), there is no Dharma that is not free, so it is large; wisdom is limited to the mind, so it is small. I say that is not the case. The former refers to the fixed reality, explaining that it is incalculable; the latter refers to the meaning of multiplicity, explaining that it is incalculable. The essence of Prajna is neither foolish nor wise, it can be foolish and it can be wise; wisdom only governs wisdom, so Prajna is large, and wisdom is small. Moreover, Prajna fixes reality, and since reality is pervasive, Prajna is also large; wisdom is not like this, so it is said to be small. Question: Having already understood the meaning of translating and not translating Prajna, what is Upaya (方便, fāng biàn, transliteration of Sanskrit Upaya, referring to skillful means)? Answer: Sadaprarudita (常啼, cháng tí, name of a Bodhisattva) said that the Upaya power of the master Avarakosala (漚和俱舍羅, ōu hé jù shě luó). Avara is Upaya, and Kosala is supreme wisdom. The skillfulness of Prajna is called Avara. Since its function is supreme, it is called supreme wisdom. Vimalakirti (凈名, jìng míng, another name for Vimalakirti) takes Upaya as the father, taking its ability to generate; the 『Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra』 takes Avara as the teacher, explaining that it has the virtue of instruction. Skillfully teaching sentient beings, without attaining the Two Vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘), is all the power of the master.

Two, Explanation of Names

復有三門。一釋權實。二解大義。三正二道。

一釋權實

通而言之。二智皆如實而照。併名為實。皆有善巧。悉稱方便。就別言之。則般若名實。漚和稱方便者。略有八義。一者般若照實相境。從所照為名。故稱實。二者般若從實相生。從能生受名。故稱為實。三者如實而照。故當體名實。論云。般若波羅蜜。實法不顛倒。體離虛妄。非顛倒慧。故名為實。四者對凡夫顛倒不實之慧。故難波若為實。五者對二乘未實謂實。故明波若為實。六者對方便之用。以波若為體。故名為實。七者對虛故明實。未是好實。非虛非實。乃名妙實。八者虛義為二。非虛實為不二。二與不二。皆名不實。非二不二。乃名為實。是故。論云。念相觀已除言語法亦滅也。方便者。是善巧之名。此義多門。今略論十對。一者直照空有。名為般若。行空不證。涉有無著。故名方便。此之照巧。更無二體。以巧而照。故名為實。以照而巧。故名方便。問。能照之智。共名實智。所照之境。同稱實境。實智之中。有空智有智。實境之中。有真境俗境。此為例也。問。既有真俗。云何皆名實境。答。是如實智境。故名實境。從智受名。又實是真俗。非妄稱之。當體名實。二者照空為實。涉有為方便。如釋論云。般若將入畢竟空。方便

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 還有三個方面：一是解釋權實（權宜之法與真實之法），二是解釋大義（根本要義），三是正立二道（兩種修行道路）。

一、解釋權實

總的來說，兩種智慧都能如實地照見，都可稱為『實』。都具有善巧方便，都可稱為『方便』。但具體來說，般若（Prajna，智慧）被稱為『實』，漚和（Upaya，方便）被稱為『方便』，這其中略有八個方面的含義：一是般若照見實相之境，從所照的對象來命名，所以稱為『實』。二是般若從實相而生，從能生的角度來命名，所以稱為『實』。三是如實地照見，所以就其本體而言稱為『實』。《論》中說，般若波羅蜜（Prajnaparamita，般若到彼岸），是真實不顛倒的法，其本體遠離虛妄，是無顛倒的智慧，所以稱為『實』。四是相對於凡夫顛倒不實的智慧而言，所以彰顯般若為『實』。五是相對於二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）未證得真實卻以為證得真實而言，所以闡明般若為『實』。六是相對於方便之用而言，以般若為本體，所以稱為『實』。七是相對於虛妄而言，所以闡明真實，但還不是最好的真實，非虛非實，才稱為妙實。八是虛的含義有二，非虛非實為不二，二與不二，都可稱為不實，非二非不二，才稱為實。因此，《論》中說，念相的觀察已經消除，言語表達也止息了。 『方便』是善巧之名，此義有多方面，現在略論十對：一是直接照見空有，稱為般若，行於空而不執著于空，涉入有而不執著于有，所以稱為方便。這種照見的善巧，更無其他本體，以善巧而照見，所以稱為『實』，以照見而善巧，所以稱為『方便』。 問：能照見的智慧，共同稱為實智，所照見的境界，共同稱為實境，實智之中，有空智有智，實境之中，有真境俗境，這可以作為例子嗎？ 問：既然有真俗之分，為何都稱為實境？答：因為是如實智的境界，所以稱為實境，從智慧的角度來命名。而且『實』是真俗的真實，並非虛妄之稱，就其本體而言稱為『實』。二是照見空為實，涉入有為方便。如《釋論》中說，般若將要進入畢竟空，方便

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, there are three aspects: first, explaining provisional and real (expedient means and the true reality); second, explaining the great meaning (fundamental principles); and third, establishing the two paths (two paths of practice).

  1. Explaining Provisional and Real

Generally speaking, both wisdoms illuminate truthfully, and both can be called 'real'. Both possess skillful means, and both can be called 'expedient'. Specifically, Prajna (wisdom) is called 'real', and Upaya (expedient means) is called 'expedient'. There are roughly eight meanings in this: First, Prajna illuminates the realm of true reality, named from the object it illuminates, so it is called 'real'. Second, Prajna arises from true reality, named from the source that generates it, so it is called 'real'. Third, it illuminates truthfully, so it is called 'real' in its essence. The Treatise says, 'Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) is the real and non-inverted Dharma, its essence is free from falsehood, it is non-inverted wisdom, so it is called 'real'.' Fourth, in contrast to the inverted and unreal wisdom of ordinary people, Prajna is shown to be 'real'. Fifth, in contrast to the two vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) who have not attained the real but think they have, Prajna is clarified as 'real'. Sixth, in relation to the function of expedient means, Prajna is taken as the essence, so it is called 'real'. Seventh, in contrast to the false, the real is clarified, but it is not yet the best real; neither false nor real is called the wonderful real. Eighth, the meaning of false has two aspects; neither false nor real is non-dual; dual and non-dual are both called unreal; neither dual nor non-dual is called real. Therefore, the Treatise says, 'The observation of the characteristic of thought has been eliminated, and verbal expression has also ceased.' 'Expedient' is the name of skillful means. This meaning has many aspects, now briefly discussing ten pairs: First, directly illuminating emptiness and existence is called Prajna; practicing emptiness without being attached to emptiness, engaging in existence without being attached to existence, so it is called expedient. This skillful illumination has no other essence; illuminating with skill is called 'real', and being skillful through illumination is called 'expedient'. Question: The wisdom that illuminates is commonly called real wisdom, and the realm that is illuminated is commonly called real realm. Within real wisdom, there is wisdom of emptiness and wisdom of existence; within real realm, there is true realm and mundane realm. Can this be taken as an example? Question: Since there is a distinction between true and mundane, why are they both called real realm? Answer: Because it is the realm of real wisdom, it is called real realm, named from the perspective of wisdom. Moreover, 'real' is the reality of true and mundane, not a false designation; in its essence, it is called 'real'. Second, illuminating emptiness is real, engaging in existence is expedient. As the Treatise says, Prajna is about to enter ultimate emptiness, expedient

將出畢竟空。是實相名為實。般若照空。故名為實。雖復照空。即能涉有。此用既巧。名為方便。問。若爾雖復照有。即能鑒空。此用亦巧。應是方便。答。此照雖巧。但實智為體。故隱其巧名。與其實稱也。三者以內靜鑒為實。外變動為權。問。此義與前何異。答。此明若照若巧靜鑒之義。皆名為實。以外變動。故名為權。四者般若為實。五度為方便。所以然者。般若為空解。空解故名實。五度為有行。有行故名權。問。此與上照空為實涉有為權何異。答。前明照空照有皆是智慧。故以二解分權實。今約解行以開二門。空解為實。有行為權。與上異也。問。有行何故為權。答。雖復照空。即能起行。此義既巧。故名為權。五者照空為實。知空亦空。即能不證空。故名為權。所以然者。二乘不知空亦復空。以空為妙極。故名但空。所以證空。菩薩知空亦空。名不可得空。故不證空。即能涉有。故名為權。此明重空義。明空義為實。實義即劣。知空亦空。即能涉有。此用既勝。故名為權。就此二慧。更無異體。初觀心未妙。故但能照空。既轉精巧。即知空亦空。既知空亦空。而不壞假名。即能涉有。始終論之。猶是一慧。約巧未巧。故分權實。六者知身苦空無常。故名為實。而不取滅。名為方便。以生死身實是苦空無常

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 出畢竟空（一切事物最終都是空性的）。這是實相（真實不虛的性質）的體現，所以稱為『實』。般若（智慧）照見空性，因此名為『實』。雖然照見空性，卻又能涉入有（現象界）。這種運用非常巧妙，所以稱為『方便』。 問：如果這樣，雖然照見有，就能鑑照空性，這種運用也很巧妙，應該也是方便。 答：這種照見雖然巧妙，但以實智（真實的智慧）為本體，所以隱藏了其巧妙之名，與其實質相稱。 三者，以內在的寂靜鑑照為『實』，外在的變動為『權』。 問：這個意義與前面說的有什麼不同？ 答：這裡說明無論是照見還是巧妙的寂靜鑑照的意義，都稱為『實』。因為外在的變動，所以稱為『權』。 四者，般若（智慧）為『實』，五度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定）為『方便』。之所以這樣說，是因為般若為空解（對空性的理解），空解所以名為『實』。五度為有行（實際的行動），有行所以名為『權』。 問：這與上面說的照空為實，涉有為權有什麼不同？ 答：前面說明照空照有都是智慧，所以用兩種理解來區分權實。現在從理解和行動兩個方面來開立二門，空解為實，有行為權，與上面不同。 問：有行為什麼是『權』？ 答：雖然照見空性，就能發起行動。這個意義非常巧妙，所以稱為『權』。 五者，照空為『實』，知道空也是空，就能不證入空性，所以名為『權』。之所以這樣說，是因為二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）不知道空也是空，以空為最妙的境界，所以名為『但空』，因此證入空性。菩薩知道空也是空，名為不可得空，所以不證入空性，就能涉入有，所以名為『權』。這裡說明重空的意義，只說明空的意義為『實』，『實』的意義就顯得不足。知道空也是空，就能涉入有，這種運用非常殊勝，所以名為『權』。就這兩種智慧來說，更沒有不同的本體。最初觀心還不精妙，所以只能照見空性。等到逐漸精巧，就知道空也是空。既然知道空也是空，而不破壞假名（世俗的名稱），就能涉入有。始終來說，仍然是一種智慧。只是從巧妙與否來區分權實。 六者，知道身體是苦、空、無常，所以名為『實』。但不因此而取滅（涅槃），名為『方便』。因為生死之身確實是苦、空、無常。

【English Translation】 English version 'Emerging ultimately from emptiness' (出畢竟空, everything ultimately is empty). This is the manifestation of 'true reality' (實相, the nature of being real and not false), hence it is called 'true' (實). 'Prajna' (般若, wisdom) illuminates emptiness, therefore it is called 'true'. Although it illuminates emptiness, it can still engage with existence (有, the phenomenal world). This application is very skillful, so it is called 'expedient' (方便). Question: If that's the case, although it illuminates existence, it can discern emptiness. This application is also skillful, so it should also be expedient. Answer: Although this illumination is skillful, it takes 'true wisdom' (實智, real wisdom) as its essence, so it conceals its skillful name and matches its essence. Third, taking inner stillness and discernment as 'true' (實), and external change as 'expedient' (權). Question: How is this meaning different from what was said before? Answer: This explains that whether it's illumination or skillful stillness and discernment, it's all called 'true'. Because of external change, it's called 'expedient'. Fourth, 'prajna' (般若, wisdom) is 'true' (實), and the 'five perfections' (五度, generosity, morality, patience, diligence, and meditation) are 'expedient' (方便). The reason for this is that prajna is an 'understanding of emptiness' (空解, understanding of emptiness), so understanding emptiness is called 'true'. The five perfections are 'actual actions' (有行, actual actions), so actual actions are called 'expedient'. Question: How is this different from what was said above about illuminating emptiness being true and engaging with existence being expedient? Answer: The previous explanation stated that illuminating emptiness and illuminating existence are both wisdom, so the two understandings are used to distinguish between expedient and true. Now, the two gates are opened from the aspects of understanding and action. Understanding emptiness is true, and actual actions are expedient, which is different from the above. Question: Why are actual actions 'expedient'? Answer: Although it illuminates emptiness, it can initiate actions. This meaning is very skillful, so it is called 'expedient'. Fifth, illuminating emptiness is 'true' (實), and knowing that emptiness is also empty allows one not to realize emptiness, so it is called 'expedient' (權). The reason for this is that the 'two vehicles' (二乘, Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) do not know that emptiness is also empty, and take emptiness as the ultimate wonderful state, so it is called 'mere emptiness' (但空), and therefore they realize emptiness. 'Bodhisattvas' (菩薩) know that emptiness is also empty, called 'unattainable emptiness' (不可得空), so they do not realize emptiness and can engage with existence, so it is called 'expedient'. This explains the meaning of 'double emptiness' (重空), explaining only the meaning of emptiness is 'true', and the meaning of 'true' seems insufficient. Knowing that emptiness is also empty allows one to engage with existence. This application is very superior, so it is called 'expedient'. In terms of these two wisdoms, there is no different essence. Initially, the contemplation of the mind is not yet subtle, so it can only illuminate emptiness. When it gradually becomes skillful, it knows that emptiness is also empty. Since it knows that emptiness is also empty without destroying 'provisional names' (假名, conventional designations), it can engage with existence. From beginning to end, it is still one wisdom. It is only from the skillfulness or lack thereof that expedient and true are distinguished. Sixth, knowing that the body is suffering, empty, and impermanent is called 'true' (實). But not taking extinction (涅槃, Nirvana) because of this is called 'expedient' (方便). Because the body of birth and death is indeed suffering, empty, and impermanent.

遇患之法。如實照其。故名為實。二乘知此即滅之。故無方便。菩薩雖知。而安身所疾。自行化人。故方便。七者直知身病。非故非新。故為實。而不厭離。稱為方便。此但就有行分權實。八者凈名托跡毗耶。不疾之身為實。現病之跡為權。此據虛實之義。以明權實也。九者以上照空有二。為方便。照非空有不二為實。非空非有。即一實諦。照一實諦。故名為實。雖非空有。而空有宛然。不動不二。善巧能二。故名方便。十者空有為二。非空有為不二。照二與不二。皆名方便。照非二非不二。凈名杜言。釋迦掩室。乃名為實。權實多門。略開十對。此之十對。即一塗次第。並有經論。可隨文用之。

二解大義

問。何故般若名摩訶。漚和不名摩訶。答。通皆得稱大。如上云漚和拘舍羅大師方便力也。別而言之。般若稱大。略明十義。一者實相曠而無邊。深而無底。彼無有一法出法性外。般若照于實相。故名大慧。漚和雖巧。不照實相。故不名大。問。二乘亦照實相。何不名大。答。二乘未盡其邊。菩薩照究原底。故名為大。二者三乘實智。皆從般若中生。所以然者。所實相既一。則能照般若無三。但根性不堪。故於一般若。聞為三乘智慧。三乘智慧。皆攝入般若觀中。故名為大。問。云何于般若出生三乘

慧。答。由實相故生般若。由般若故有菩薩。由菩薩故有佛。由佛故有三乘。則般若為本。故出生三乘。所以名為大。問。三乘同觀實相。乃以實相為本。云何以般若為本。答。要由諸佛菩薩體悟般若。然後說三乘教。始得同觀實相。故般若為本。問。般若為本。出生三乘。應是三乘通教。答。勝鬘攝受正法出生五乘。猶如大地出四實藏。涅槃云。即是聲聞藏出生聲聞。即因緣藏出生緣覺。即大乘藏出生菩薩。可是三乘通教耶。又如法華明。長者宅內。非但具七珍。亦有瓫器等物。而名長者大宅。不名通宅。般若亦爾。雖具有三乘之慧。而名菩薩法。不名三乘通教。問。若非三乘通教。何故勸三乘同學。答。勸三乘人同觀實相。不勸三乘人同學摩訶般若。問。摩訶般若。何故非三乘通學。答。論云。般若不屬二乘。但屬菩薩。所以然者。既稱摩訶般若。即是大慧。簡非二乘。故知般若獨菩薩法。又此般若名波羅蜜。波羅蜜者到佛道彼岸。二乘不到佛道彼岸。非波羅蜜。故摩訶般若波羅蜜。獨菩薩法。不屬二乘。問。經但云欲得聲聞果當學般若。云何乃言當學實相般若。答。釋論作此判之。尋文自易見也。以理推之。必非勸二乘人學摩訶波若。摩訶波若。既是菩薩觀智。豈令二乘學耶。如涅槃云。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 慧（Prajna，智慧）。答：由於實相（Tathata，事物的真實本性）的緣故產生般若（Prajna，智慧）。由於般若的緣故有菩薩（Bodhisattva，追求覺悟的修行者）。由於菩薩的緣故有佛（Buddha，覺悟者）。由於佛的緣故有三乘（Triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）。那麼般若就是根本。所以出生三乘。因此名為大。問：三乘共同觀察實相，那麼應該以實相為根本。為什麼以般若為根本？答：要由諸佛菩薩體悟般若，然後說三乘教法，才能夠共同觀察實相。所以般若為根本。問：般若為根本，出生三乘，應該是三乘共通的教法。答：《勝鬘經》說攝受正法出生五乘，猶如大地出生四種真實的寶藏。《涅槃經》說：『就是聲聞藏出生聲聞，就是因緣藏出生緣覺，就是大乘藏出生菩薩。』可是三乘共通的教法嗎？又如《法華經》說明，長者宅內，非但具有七寶，也有瓦器等物，而名為長者大宅，不名為共通的宅。般若也是這樣，雖具有三乘的智慧，而名為菩薩法，不名三乘共通的教法。問：如果不是三乘共通的教法，為什麼勸三乘人共同學習？答：勸三乘人共同觀察實相，不勸三乘人共同學習摩訶般若（Mahaprajna，大智慧）。問：摩訶般若，為什麼不是三乘共通學習的？答：《大智度論》說：『般若不屬於二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘），只屬於菩薩。』之所以這樣說，既然稱為摩訶般若，就是大智慧，區別於二乘。所以知道般若是菩薩獨有的法。又此般若名為波羅蜜（Paramita，到達彼岸）。波羅蜜就是到達佛道彼岸。二乘不到佛道彼岸，不是波羅蜜。所以摩訶般若波羅蜜，是菩薩獨有的法，不屬於二乘。問：經中只說想要得到聲聞果應當學習般若，為什麼說應當學習實相般若？答：《大智度論》作這樣的判決。尋找經文自己容易見到。以道理推斷，必定不是勸二乘人學習摩訶般若。摩訶般若，既然是菩薩的觀智，怎麼能讓二乘學習呢？如《涅槃經》說：『下等智慧觀察的緣故得到聲聞菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）。』

【English Translation】 English version Prajna (Wisdom). Answer: Because of Tathata (Suchness, the true nature of things), Prajna (Wisdom) arises. Because of Prajna, there are Bodhisattvas (Enlightenment-seeking beings). Because of Bodhisattvas, there are Buddhas (Enlightened Ones). Because of Buddhas, there are the Three Vehicles (Triyana, Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana). Therefore, Prajna is the root. Thus, the Three Vehicles arise. Therefore, it is called 'Great'. Question: The Three Vehicles all contemplate Tathata, so Tathata should be the root. Why is Prajna the root? Answer: Only when Buddhas and Bodhisattvas realize Prajna can they teach the Three Vehicles, and then they can all contemplate Tathata. Therefore, Prajna is the root. Question: Prajna is the root, giving rise to the Three Vehicles, so it should be a common teaching for the Three Vehicles. Answer: The Surangama Sutra says that embracing the True Dharma gives rise to the Five Vehicles, just as the earth produces four real treasures. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'That is, the Sravaka store gives rise to Sravakas, the Conditioned Arising store gives rise to Pratyekabuddhas, and the Mahayana store gives rise to Bodhisattvas.' Is that a common teaching for the Three Vehicles? Also, as the Lotus Sutra explains, the elder's house not only has the seven treasures but also earthenware and other things, and it is called the elder's great house, not a common house. Prajna is also like this. Although it has the wisdom of the Three Vehicles, it is called the Bodhisattva Dharma, not a common teaching for the Three Vehicles. Question: If it is not a common teaching for the Three Vehicles, why encourage the Three Vehicles to study together? Answer: Encourage the Three Vehicles to contemplate Tathata together, but do not encourage the Three Vehicles to study Mahaprajna (Great Wisdom) together. Question: Why is Mahaprajna not a common study for the Three Vehicles? Answer: The Treatise says: 'Prajna does not belong to the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana), but only to Bodhisattvas.' The reason is that since it is called Mahaprajna, it is great wisdom, distinguishing it from the Two Vehicles. Therefore, it is known that Prajna is the unique Dharma of Bodhisattvas. Also, this Prajna is called Paramita (Perfection, reaching the other shore). Paramita is reaching the other shore of the Buddha path. The Two Vehicles do not reach the other shore of the Buddha path, so it is not Paramita. Therefore, Mahaprajnaparamita is the unique Dharma of Bodhisattvas and does not belong to the Two Vehicles. Question: The Sutra only says that if one wants to attain the Sravaka fruit, one should study Prajna. Why does it say that one should study Tathata Prajna? Answer: The Treatise makes this judgment. It is easy to see by searching the text. Reasoning from principle, it is certainly not encouraging the Two Vehicles to study Mahaprajna. Since Mahaprajna is the wisdom of Bodhisattvas, how can it be taught to the Two Vehicles? As the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Because of lower wisdom contemplation, one attains Sravaka Bodhi (Enlightenment).'

上智觀故得菩薩菩提。此乃明二乘同觀中道。豈可勸中下二智學上智耶。問。摩訶般若乃是獨菩薩法。而般若教中。說三乘人同觀實相。則是三乘通教。答。若爾般涅經中說三乘人同觀中道。應是三乘通教耶。問。若非三乘通教。何故令二乘人說耶。答。長者付財。凡有二意。一欲顯教菩薩。二密教二乘。此乃是息於二乘同成菩薩。云何乃言三乘通教耶。三者由實相生般若。實相既無所依。則般若亦無所著。以般若無所著。能導成眾行。亦無所著。故不住三界中。不息二乘。直趣佛道。以有引導之能。故名為大。問。五度本非度。般若引導。故名為度。亦應五度本非眼。般若引導。故得有眼耶。答通義亦類。別則不齊。如五盲雖隨有眼者趣道入城而得度名。而盲體性。終自無眼。五度雖隨般若趣八正路至佛道城。而五度體性。終非般若。故開福慧二嚴。意顯於斯。問。金剛般若云。菩薩不住相佈施。如日光明照見種種色。何所云般若導五不成眼耶。答。本以般若為眼。五度非眼。但般若導之。令成無所得。不住三界。不墮二乘。直趣佛道。故名有眼耳。非是成般若之眼也。問。若眾行中。以無所得為眼。亦應以無所得為慧。云何開福慧二嚴。答。無所得則通。福慧則別。以無得為慧。亦有此義。但非般若之慧。所以然

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為有了上智的觀照，才能證得菩薩的菩提。這說明了二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）共同觀照中道。怎麼能勸中等和下等智慧的人學習上等智慧呢？問：摩訶般若（偉大的智慧）是唯獨菩薩才有的法門。但在般若的教義中，說三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）的人共同觀照實相，那麼這就是三乘共通的教義了。答：如果這樣說，那麼《大般涅槃經》中說三乘人共同觀照中道，也應該是三乘共通的教義嗎？問：如果不是三乘共通的教義，為什麼要讓二乘人宣說呢？答：長者託付財產，通常有兩種用意。一是想彰顯教化菩薩，二是秘密教化二乘。這是爲了讓二乘止息於二乘的境界，共同成就菩薩。怎麼能說是三乘共通的教義呢？三者，由實相產生般若。實相既然沒有所依，那麼般若也沒有執著。因為般若沒有執著，所以能引導成就各種修行，也沒有執著。所以不住在三界中，不耽於二乘，直接趨向佛道。因為有引導的能力，所以稱為大。問：五度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定）本來不是度，因為般若的引導，所以稱為度。也應該是五度本來不是眼，因為般若的引導，所以才有了眼嗎？答：通用的意義上可以類比，但具體則不相同。比如五個盲人雖然跟隨有眼睛的人走向道路進入城市而得名得度，但盲人的體性，終究自己沒有眼睛。五度雖然跟隨般若走向八正道到達佛道之城，而五度的體性，終究不是般若。所以開啟福德和智慧兩種莊嚴，意義就在於此。問：《金剛般若經》說，菩薩不住相佈施，如太陽光明照見種種顏色。為什麼說般若引導五度不能成為眼呢？答：本來是以般若為眼，五度不是眼。但般若引導它們，使它們成就無所得，不住三界，不墮二乘，直接趨向佛道。所以稱為有眼罷了，不是成就般若的眼啊。問：如果眾行中，以無所得為眼，也應該以無所得為慧，為什麼開啟福德和智慧兩種莊嚴？答：無所得是通用的，福德和智慧是分別的。以無所得為慧，也有這個意義。但不是般若的智慧。為什麼呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Through the contemplation of superior wisdom (上智, shang zhi), one attains the Bodhi (菩提, pu ti, enlightenment) of a Bodhisattva (菩薩, pu sa). This clarifies that the Two Vehicles (二乘, er cheng, referring to Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) commonly contemplate the Middle Way (中道, zhong dao). How can one advise those of middle and lower intelligence to learn the wisdom of the superior? Question: Maha Prajna (摩訶般若, mo he ban re, great wisdom) is exclusively the Dharma (法, fa, teachings) of Bodhisattvas. However, in the teachings of Prajna (般若, ban re, wisdom), it is said that beings of the Three Vehicles (三乘, san cheng, Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas) commonly contemplate the true nature of reality (實相, shi xiang). Does this mean it is a common teaching for the Three Vehicles? Answer: If that's the case, then the Nirvana Sutra (般涅經, ban nie jing) says that beings of the Three Vehicles commonly contemplate the Middle Way. Should that also be considered a common teaching for the Three Vehicles? Question: If it is not a common teaching for the Three Vehicles, why is it taught to those of the Two Vehicles? Answer: A wealthy man entrusts his wealth with two intentions. One is to manifest the teachings for Bodhisattvas, and the other is to secretly teach the Two Vehicles. This is to allow the Two Vehicles to cease in their respective paths and together become Bodhisattvas. How can you say it is a common teaching for the Three Vehicles? Thirdly, Prajna arises from the true nature of reality. Since the true nature of reality has no dependence, then Prajna also has no attachment. Because Prajna has no attachment, it can guide and accomplish all practices, also without attachment. Therefore, it does not dwell in the Three Realms (三界, san jie), does not rest in the Two Vehicles, and directly heads towards the Buddha's path. Because it has the ability to guide, it is called 'Great'. Question: The Five Paramitas (五度, wu du, perfections) are not inherently 'crossing over' (度, du), but are called 'crossing over' because of the guidance of Prajna. Should it also be said that the Five Paramitas are not inherently 'eyes', but only have 'eyes' because of the guidance of Prajna? Answer: The general meaning can be compared, but the specifics are not the same. For example, although five blind men follow someone with eyes to reach the road and enter the city and are said to be 'crossed over', the nature of blindness remains that they themselves have no eyes. Although the Five Paramitas follow Prajna to walk the Eightfold Path (八正路, ba zheng lu) and reach the city of the Buddha's path, the nature of the Five Paramitas is ultimately not Prajna. Therefore, opening the two adornments of merit and wisdom (福慧二嚴, fu hui er yan) reveals this meaning. Question: The Diamond Sutra (金剛般若經, jin gang ban re jing) says that Bodhisattvas give without attachment to form, like the sunlight illuminating various colors. Why do you say that Prajna guides the Five Paramitas but cannot become eyes? Answer: Originally, Prajna is considered the eye, and the Five Paramitas are not the eye. But Prajna guides them, enabling them to achieve non-attainment (無所得, wu suo de), not dwelling in the Three Realms, not falling into the Two Vehicles, and directly heading towards the Buddha's path. Therefore, it is called having eyes, but it is not becoming the eye of Prajna. Question: If, among all practices, non-attainment is considered the eye, should non-attainment also be considered wisdom? Why open the two adornments of merit and wisdom? Answer: Non-attainment is universal, while merit and wisdom are distinct. Considering non-attainment as wisdom also has this meaning, but it is not the wisdom of Prajna. Why is that so?

者。般若有無所得。復有鑑照。五度但有無所得。無有鑑照。故不名慧也。四者五十二種大賢聖位。皆在般若藏中。故名為大。所以然者。合則唯一般若。但明昧不同。故開成五十二位。五者三大阿僧祇劫。修此大慧。故名為大。六者能斷大惑。所謂無明。是故。經云無明住地。其力最大。二乘雖傾四住。未能斷之。菩薩照究實相。方除此大惑。故名為大。七者能拔三界內外一切大苦。故名為大。八者諸大菩薩之所行法。故名為大。九者于眾行中。最勝無過。故名為大。十者信之而得大福。毀之而招大罪。故名為大。此之十義。自有遍約緣。自有具通二慧。可隨義配之。問。般若待小名大。不待小名大。答。具有二義。一者待二乘小慧。故名為大。問。二乘為小慧。菩薩為大慧。二乘小般若。菩薩大般若。何故言般若不屬二乘。二乘心中名道品耶。答。講者不體其旨。嘻滯此言。論云。般若不屬二乘。此是摩訶般若菩薩大慧。故不屬二乘。非二乘之人無有空慧也。二者不待小名大者。般若體性是大。故言不待小。不如二乘智慧形凡則大望菩薩則小。問。菩薩形二乘則大。望佛則般若為小。故在佛心中。變名薩云若。寧言體性大耶。答。般若是因中之極。功在十地。故名為大。不望佛也。又般若通因果。果地般若。則最

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：般若有『無所得』（不可得）的特性，又有鑑照的作用。而佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定這五度只有『無所得』的特性，沒有鑑照的作用，所以不能稱為智慧。這是為什麼？ 答：有以下十個原因，所以般若被稱為『大』： 第一，般若具有廣大性，能普遍地照耀一切。 第二，般若具有深刻性，能同時具備體（本體）和用（作用）兩種智慧。 第三，五十二種大賢聖位（菩薩修行的五十二個階位），都包含在般若的寶藏中，所以稱為『大』。之所以這樣說，是因為合起來看，只有一種般若，只是明晰程度不同，所以才開出五十二個階位。 第四，要經歷三大阿僧祇劫（極長的時間）修習這種大智慧，所以稱為『大』。 第五，能夠斷除最大的迷惑，也就是無明（對事物真相的迷惑）。所以經中說，無明住地（無明所停留的地方），它的力量最大。聲聞乘和緣覺乘雖然能傾覆四住地煩惱（四種根本煩惱），卻不能斷除無明。菩薩照見究竟的實相，才能去除這種大迷惑，所以稱為『大』。 第六，能夠拔除三界內外一切的大痛苦，所以稱為『大』。 第七，是諸大菩薩所修行的法，所以稱為『大』。 第八，在一切修行法門中，最殊勝沒有能超過它的，所以稱為『大』。 第九，相信它就能得到大福報，譭謗它就會招致大罪過，所以稱為『大』。 這十個方面的意義，有的普遍地關聯到因緣，有的同時具備體和用兩種智慧，可以根據意義來對應。 問：般若是因為和小的相比才顯得大，還是本身就具有大的特性？ 答：兩種說法都有道理。一種說法是，和二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的小智慧相比，所以稱為『大』。 問：二乘是小智慧，菩薩是大智慧，二乘是小般若，菩薩是大般若，為什麼說般若不屬於二乘，二乘心中所修的只能稱為道品呢？ 答：提問的人沒有理解其中的含義，而拘泥於字面意思。論中說，般若不屬於二乘，指的是摩訶般若（大般若）這種菩薩的大智慧，所以不屬於二乘。並不是說二乘之人沒有空慧（對空性的智慧）。另一種說法是，般若的體性本身就是大的，所以說不依賴於和小的比較。不像二乘的智慧，相對於凡夫來說顯得大，但相對於菩薩來說就顯得小。 問：菩薩相對於二乘來說顯得大，但相對於佛來說，般若就顯得小了，所以在佛心中，般若就變成了薩云若（一切智），怎麼能說般若的體性是大的呢？ 答：般若是因地（修行階段）中的極致，它的功用體現在十地菩薩的修行中，所以稱為『大』，不是和佛相比。而且，般若貫通因地和果地（證果階段），果地的般若，才是最...

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Prajna (wisdom) has the characteristic of 'non-attainment' (unattainability), and also has the function of discernment. However, the five perfections of giving, morality, patience, diligence, and meditation only have the characteristic of 'non-attainment' and do not have the function of discernment, so they cannot be called wisdom. Why is this? Answer: There are ten reasons why prajna is called 'great': First, prajna has vastness and can universally illuminate everything. Second, prajna has profundity and can simultaneously possess both the wisdom of essence (substance) and function (application). Third, the fifty-two stages of great sages (the fifty-two stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) are all contained within the treasury of prajna, so it is called 'great'. The reason for this is that when combined, there is only one prajna, but the degree of clarity is different, so fifty-two stages are opened up. Fourth, it takes three great asamkhya kalpas (extremely long periods of time) to cultivate this great wisdom, so it is called 'great'. Fifth, it can cut off the greatest delusion, which is ignorance (delusion about the true nature of things). Therefore, the sutra says that the abode of ignorance (the place where ignorance dwells), its power is the greatest. Although the Sravakas (Hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas) can overturn the four abodes of affliction (four fundamental afflictions), they cannot cut off ignorance. Only when a Bodhisattva illuminates the ultimate reality can this great delusion be removed, so it is called 'great'. Sixth, it can eradicate all great suffering within and beyond the three realms, so it is called 'great'. Seventh, it is the Dharma practiced by all great Bodhisattvas, so it is called 'great'. Eighth, among all practices, it is the most supreme and unsurpassed, so it is called 'great'. Ninth, believing in it brings great blessings, and slandering it brings great sins, so it is called 'great'. These ten aspects of meaning, some are universally related to conditions, and some simultaneously possess both the wisdom of essence and function, which can be matched according to the meaning. Question: Is prajna called 'great' because it is compared to something small, or does it inherently possess the characteristic of greatness? Answer: Both statements are valid. One statement is that it is called 'great' because it is compared to the small wisdom of the Two Vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas). Question: The Two Vehicles have small wisdom, Bodhisattvas have great wisdom, the Two Vehicles have small prajna, and Bodhisattvas have great prajna. Why is it said that prajna does not belong to the Two Vehicles, and what is cultivated in the minds of the Two Vehicles can only be called the 'limbs of enlightenment' (道品)? Answer: The questioner did not understand the meaning and is clinging to the literal meaning. The treatise says that prajna does not belong to the Two Vehicles, referring to the great wisdom of the Bodhisattva, which is the Maha Prajna (Great Wisdom), so it does not belong to the Two Vehicles. It is not to say that people of the Two Vehicles do not have emptiness wisdom (wisdom of emptiness). Another statement is that the nature of prajna itself is great, so it is said that it does not depend on comparison with something small. Unlike the wisdom of the Two Vehicles, which appears great relative to ordinary people, but appears small relative to Bodhisattvas. Question: Bodhisattvas appear great relative to the Two Vehicles, but relative to the Buddha, prajna appears small. Therefore, in the mind of the Buddha, prajna becomes Sarvajna (all-knowing), so how can it be said that the nature of prajna is great? Answer: Prajna is the ultimate in the causal stage (stage of practice), and its function is reflected in the practice of the Ten Bhumi Bodhisattvas (ten stages of Bodhisattva development), so it is called 'great', not compared to the Buddha. Moreover, prajna penetrates both the causal stage and the fruition stage (stage of enlightenment), and the prajna of the fruition stage is the most...

上無過。故體性是大。如什公云。薩般若即老般若也。又言絕待大者。待小名大。雖復絕小。猶未不絕大。為名言可及。故非好大。大小雙絕。方是好大。問。何文證之。答。題云摩訶般若。般若深重。智慧不能稱。亦摩訶深重。大不能稱。即是證也。又照明品云。不作大小。名為摩訶。復是良證也。問。雙絕大小。可名絕大。今非大非小。嘆美為大。還復待小。何名絕待。答。此大絕小絕大。故名絕待。今問絕大絕小。名之為大。則待大待小。皆名為小。乃是大小相待。何有絕待大耶。答。望前則絕。觀后便待。義不相違。問。般若之大與涅槃大。有何異。答。通而為言。即無有異。是故。論云。若如法觀佛般若及涅槃。是三則一相。涅槃之照即是般若。般若之滅即是涅槃。涅槃無累不盡。名解脫。無境不照。名般若。真極可軌。稱法身。故具於三德。名為涅槃。般若即是涅槃故。亦具三德。般若但是智慧。既名為別。涅槃亦但是果。果亦是別。問。般若是涅槃。三德中一德亦應涅槃。是般若三德中一德耳。答。亦得為例。以般若之別。成涅槃。亦取涅槃之別成般若。般若之別。即是智慧。涅槃之別。名為滅度。故果德涅槃。佛地般若。皆具總別也。問。解脫三德成涅槃。何故不言三德成般若。答。隨舉一德。皆攝

一切德。何故無耶。但教起各自有由。涅槃所興。正為斥小乘灰斷不具三德。嘆大涅槃具於三德。般若教興。正明因行。斥二乘無二慧。辨菩薩具權實也。問。涅槃何故據果。般若何故約因。答。涅槃名滅度。滅度者。大患永滅。超度四流。此名必是究竟。故就果門。般若名為慧。慧猶未決了。宜約因也。

三正二道門

問。釋論云。菩薩有二道。一般若道。二方便道。云何為二道耶。答。有人言。般若道即實相般若。方便道謂方便般若。是事不然。大判二道。以為三例。一今依梵本。應言般若道漚和道。二具開此言。應云慧道方便道。三彼此合目。如論所明。般若舉彼之稱。方便有此之名。今若言實相般若方便般若。皆稱般若。則二道不分。又實相般若是境。方便般若是智。豈可以境智為二道耶。設言實相般若是實慧。方便般若是方便慧。以為二道。是亦不然。論云。般若方便。以為二道。何得皆稱般若。若爾二道應俱名方便。又立三般若。皆就般若道中開之。一實相般若。二觀照般若。三文字般若。實相能生般若。故名般若。文字能詮般若。以所詮為稱。亦名般若。三觀照當體。名為般若。

問何故但立此不多不小。答。凡有三義。實相為能生之境。觀照為所生之智。文字為能詮之文。要具此

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：一切德，為什麼說沒有呢？只是教義的興起各有其原因。涅槃經的興起，正是爲了駁斥小乘的灰身泯智，不具備法身德、般若德、解脫德這三種德。讚歎大涅槃具備這三種德。般若經的興起，正是爲了闡明因地的修行，駁斥二乘沒有權智和實智這兩種智慧，辨明菩薩具備權智和實智。 問：涅槃經為什麼著重於果位，般若經為什麼著重於因地？ 答：涅槃的意思是滅度，滅度就是永遠滅除大患，超脫生老病死四種瀑流。這個名稱必定是究竟的，所以著重於果位。般若的意思是智慧，智慧還沒有決斷了悟，適宜著重於因地。

三正二道門

問：釋論中說，菩薩有二道，一是般若道（Prajna-marga，智慧之道），二是方便道（Upaya-marga，善巧方便之道）。什麼是二道呢？ 答：有人說，般若道就是實相般若（Tattva-prajna，證悟實相的智慧），方便道就是方便般若（Upaya-prajna，運用方便的智慧）。這種說法不對。總的來說，二道可以用三種方式來解釋。一是現在根據梵文版本，應該說般若道和漚和道。二是完整地展開來說，應該說慧道和方便道。三是彼此合稱，就像論中所說的那樣，般若是指對方的稱謂，方便是指這邊的名稱。現在如果說實相般若和方便般若，都稱為般若，那麼二道就無法區分了。而且實相般若是境，方便般若是智，怎麼能把境和智作為二道呢？假設說實相般若是實慧，方便般若是方便慧，作為二道，這也是不對的。論中說，般若和方便，作為二道，怎麼能都稱為般若呢？如果這樣，二道應該都叫做方便。又設立三種般若，都是在般若道中展開的，一是實相般若，二是觀照般若（Vipassana-prajna，觀照實相的智慧），三是文字般若（Akshara-prajna，通過文字理解的智慧）。實相能夠產生般若，所以叫做般若。文字能夠詮釋般若，以所詮釋的內容為稱謂，也叫做般若。觀照當下就是般若。

問：為什麼只設立這不多不少的三種般若？ 答：總共有三種含義。實相是能生般若的境界，觀照是所生的智慧，文字是能詮釋的文字，必須具備這三種。

【English Translation】 English version: All virtues, why say they are non-existent? It's just that the arising of each teaching has its own cause. The arising of the Nirvana Sutra is precisely to refute the Hinayana's annihilation of wisdom, lacking the three virtues of Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya-guna, virtue of the Dharma body), Prajna (Prajna-guna, virtue of wisdom), and Liberation (Vimukti-guna, virtue of liberation). It praises the Great Nirvana as possessing these three virtues. The arising of the Prajna teachings is precisely to clarify the practice in the causal stage, refuting the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) as lacking the two wisdoms of expedient wisdom (Upaya-jnana) and ultimate wisdom (Paramartha-jnana), and distinguishing that Bodhisattvas possess both expedient and ultimate wisdom. Question: Why does the Nirvana Sutra emphasize the fruition stage, and the Prajna Sutra emphasize the causal stage? Answer: Nirvana means extinction and liberation. Extinction and liberation means the eternal extinction of great suffering, transcending the four floods (of birth, old age, sickness, and death). This name must be ultimate, so it emphasizes the fruition stage. Prajna means wisdom, and wisdom has not yet been decisively realized, so it is appropriate to emphasize the causal stage.

The Chapter on the Three Correct and Two Paths

Question: The Shastra says that Bodhisattvas have two paths, one is the Prajna-marga (path of wisdom), and the other is the Upaya-marga (path of skillful means). What are these two paths? Answer: Some say that the Prajna-marga is Tattva-prajna (wisdom of ultimate reality), and the Upaya-marga is Upaya-prajna (wisdom of skillful means). This is not correct. Generally speaking, the two paths can be explained in three ways. First, according to the Sanskrit version, it should be called Prajna-marga and Aupaya-marga. Second, to fully explain it, it should be called the path of wisdom and the path of skillful means. Third, combining the names, as explained in the Shastra, Prajna refers to the other's name, and Upaya refers to this side's name. Now, if we say Tattva-prajna and Upaya-prajna, both are called Prajna, then the two paths cannot be distinguished. Moreover, Tattva-prajna is the object, and Upaya-prajna is the wisdom. How can the object and wisdom be considered as two paths? Suppose we say Tattva-prajna is ultimate wisdom, and Upaya-prajna is expedient wisdom, as the two paths, this is also incorrect. The Shastra says that Prajna and Upaya are the two paths, how can both be called Prajna? If so, the two paths should both be called Upaya. Furthermore, the three Prajnas are established, all of which are developed within the Prajna-marga: first, Tattva-prajna; second, Vipassana-prajna (wisdom of contemplation); and third, Akshara-prajna (wisdom of words). Tattva can generate Prajna, so it is called Prajna. Words can explain Prajna, and it is named after what is explained, so it is also called Prajna. Contemplation itself is Prajna.

Question: Why are only these three Prajnas established, neither more nor less? Answer: There are three meanings in total. Tattva is the realm that can generate Prajna, Vipassana is the wisdom that is generated, and Akshara is the words that can explain it. These three must be present.

三。不得增減。又合此三。以為三雙。實相為境。觀照為智。謂境智一雙。境智為所詮。文字為能顯。能所一雙。境智即自行。為眾生說。故有文字。自行化他一雙。二者實相即無為般若。觀照即有為般若。所以然者。論云。諸法實相者。心行言語斷。無生亦無滅。寂滅如涅槃。實相既無生滅。故是無為般若。實相能生觀智。觀智始生。故名有為般若。一切般若。唯有此二。詮此有為無為。名文字般若。文字從所詮為名。通為無為。當體明之。有為所攝。三者實相常無為般若。文字是有為般若。觀照亦通為無為。菩薩累猶未盡。則未免生滅。故名有為。佛則無惑不凈。無復生滅。故是無為般若。問。何故有煩惱。即有生滅耶。答。以有煩惱。不得了悟。本自無生。故有生滅。若無煩惱。即悟觀心本自無生。即是無為。不言轉有為般若故成無為也。故此三門。總攝境智為無為理教因果。故立三也。

問。亦得實相為實慧。觀照為方便以不。答。若以佛性為實相。本自有之。名為實慧。觀照修習始生。名為方便也。此非照有為方便。照空名為實。若權若實。始有之義。皆名方便。本有佛性覺照之義。名為實也。地論人。真修般若則本自有之。緣修波若。則修習始起。性凈涅槃。方便凈涅槃亦爾。此猶是舊本始之義。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三、不得增減。將這三者結合起來，構成三對：以實相（萬事萬物的真實面貌）為境，以觀照（用智慧觀察）為智，這稱為境智一對。境智是所要表達的內容，文字是能夠顯現的工具，這稱為能所一對。境智即是自身的修行，爲了給眾生宣說，所以才有了文字，這稱為自行化他一對。二者，實相即是無為般若（不造作的智慧），觀照即是有為般若（通過修行獲得的智慧）。之所以這樣說，是因為《論》中說：『諸法的實相，是心行言語都斷絕，沒有生也沒有滅，寂靜如同涅槃。』實相既然沒有生滅，所以是無為般若。實相能夠產生觀智，觀智才開始產生，所以稱為有為般若。一切般若，只有這兩種。詮釋這有為和無為的，稱為文字般若。文字從所詮釋的內容來命名，普遍適用於無為。就其本體來說，屬於有為所包含。三者，實相是常無為般若，文字是有為般若，觀照也普遍適用於有為和無為。菩薩的業力還沒有完全消除，就無法避免生滅，所以稱為有為。佛則沒有迷惑和不清凈，不再有生滅，所以是無為般若。問：為什麼有煩惱，就會有生滅呢？答：因為有煩惱，就不能了悟本來就沒有生，所以才會有生滅。如果沒有煩惱，就能領悟觀心本來就沒有生，這就是無為。不能說將有為般若轉變成無為。所以這三門，總括了境智作為無為的理、教、因、果，所以設立這三者。 問：也可以將實相作為實慧（真實的智慧），觀照作為方便（引導的方法）嗎？答：如果將佛性（覺悟的本性）作為實相，本來就具有，稱為實慧。觀照通過修行才開始產生，稱為方便。這不是觀照有為的方便，觀照空性稱為實。無論是權宜之計還是真實，開始產生的意義，都稱為方便。本來就具有的佛性覺照的意義，稱為實。地論人認為，真正修習般若，那麼本來就具有。通過因緣修習般若，那麼通過修行才開始產生。性凈涅槃（本性清凈的涅槃），方便凈涅槃也是這樣。這仍然是舊本始的意義。

【English Translation】 English version Three, there must be no addition or subtraction. Combining these three, we have three pairs: taking Real Appearance (the true nature of all things) as the object (境, jìng), and Contemplation (using wisdom to observe) as wisdom (智, zhì), this is called the object-wisdom pair. Object and wisdom are what is to be expressed, and words are the tool that can reveal it, this is called the expressing-expressed pair. Object and wisdom are one's own practice, and in order to preach to sentient beings, there are words, this is called the self-practice and transforming others pair. Secondly, Real Appearance is Non-active Prajna (無為般若, wúwéi bōrě, unconditioned wisdom), and Contemplation is Active Prajna (有為般若, yǒuwéi bōrě, conditioned wisdom). The reason for this is that the Treatise says: 'The Real Appearance of all dharmas is where the mind's activities and words are cut off, there is no birth and no death, and it is as silent as Nirvana.' Since Real Appearance has no birth or death, it is Non-active Prajna. Real Appearance can generate Contemplative Wisdom, and Contemplative Wisdom begins to arise, so it is called Active Prajna. All Prajna has only these two. Explaining this Active and Non-active is called Verbal Prajna (文字般若, wénzì bōrě, wisdom of words). Words are named from what is to be explained, and universally apply to Non-active. In its essence, it is included in Active. Thirdly, Real Appearance is Constant Non-active Prajna, words are Active Prajna, and Contemplation also universally applies to Active and Non-active. If a Bodhisattva's karma is not completely exhausted, they cannot avoid birth and death, so it is called Active. A Buddha has no delusion or impurity, and no longer has birth and death, so it is Non-active Prajna. Question: Why is it that with afflictions, there is birth and death? Answer: Because with afflictions, one cannot realize that there is originally no birth, so there is birth and death. If there are no afflictions, one can realize that the contemplation of the mind is originally without birth, and this is Non-active. It cannot be said that Active Prajna is transformed into Non-active. Therefore, these three doors encompass object and wisdom as the principle, teaching, cause, and effect of Non-active, so these three are established. Question: Can Real Appearance also be taken as Real Wisdom (實慧, shíhuì, true wisdom) and Contemplation as Expedient Means (方便, fāngbiàn, skillful means)? Answer: If Buddha-nature (佛性, fóxìng, the nature of enlightenment) is taken as Real Appearance, it is originally possessed and called Real Wisdom. Contemplation begins to arise through practice and is called Expedient Means. This is not the expedient means of contemplating the active; contemplating emptiness is called real. Whether expedient or real, the meaning of beginning to arise is called expedient means. The meaning of the Buddha-nature's awareness and illumination that is originally possessed is called real. The people of the Treatise on the [Ten] Grounds (地論, dìlùn) believe that if one truly practices Prajna, then it is originally possessed. If one practices Prajna through conditions, then it begins to arise through practice. Suchness-purity Nirvana (性凈涅槃, xìngjìng nièpán, Nirvana of pure nature) and Expedient-purity Nirvana are also like this. This is still the meaning of the old original beginning.

問。與今何異。答。本性清凈。名為本有。約緣始悟本凈。故名始有耳。然正道未曾本始。亦非垢凈。又舊宗明為無為決為是二。今明未得菩提。則無為成有為。若得菩提。則有為成無為。豈離有為別有無為。如前釋也。又為無為例然。諸法本性清凈。故名無為。未悟本無生滅。故名有為。然般若未曾為無為也。

問。般若道既開三。方便道亦有三不。答。亦有三。謂境智文字。但實慧從境立名。故必須辨境。方便從巧受稱。故不須辨境。而文字即通二道也。然方便雖不從境立名。實照世諦之境。則亦具三也。觀照既有為無為。方便亦爾。如來二智即是無為。菩薩二道猶是有為。問。實相所表唯是境。亦得是智。答。有人言。實相般若但是境名。引釋論四十三卷。

問。前辨智慧名般若。今何故說空為般若。答。果中說因。如雲食布。此義應是因中說果。而言果中說因者。是逆罰不應是順討明義。智慧正是般若。實相能生智慧。智慧是實相之子。而於智生。說實相為般若。故言果中說因。南北同此釋也。有人言。佛有三種。一法身佛。二者報身佛。三者化身佛。實相即法身佛。實相可軌。名之為法。此法有體。故名為身。而實相非佛。能生佛故。所以名佛。二者報身。即修行會實相理。實相既常。報佛亦

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：這與現在有什麼不同？答：本性清凈，名為本有（原本就有的）。依緣而開始領悟本凈（原本清凈），所以名為始有（開始有）。然而正道從未有本始，也不是垢凈（染污或清凈）。另外，舊宗認為無為（不造作）必定是二者之一。現在說明，未得菩提（覺悟）時，則無為變成有為（造作）；如果得到菩提，則有為變成無為。難道離開有為之外，另有無為嗎？如前面解釋的那樣。又，無為也是如此。諸法本性清凈，所以名為無為。未領悟到本無生滅，所以名為有為。然而般若（智慧）從未是有為或無為。 問：般若道既然開出三種，方便道也有三種嗎？答：也有三種，即境（境界）、智（智慧）、文字。但實慧（真實的智慧）從境而立名，所以必須辨別境。方便（善巧的方法）從巧用而得名，所以不必辨別境。而文字則貫通二道。然而方便雖然不從境立名，實際上照見世諦（世俗諦）之境，所以也具備三種。觀照（觀照）既有為也有無為，方便也是如此。如來的二智（兩種智慧）就是無為，菩薩的二道（兩種道）仍然是有為。問：實相（真實的相狀）所表述的只是境，也可以是智嗎？答：有人說，實相般若只是境的名稱，引用《釋論》第四十三卷。 問：前面辨別智慧名為般若，現在為什麼說空為般若？答：在果中說因，如說『食布』。這個意思應該是因中說果，而說果中說因，是逆罰，不應該是順討明義。智慧正是般若，實相能生智慧，智慧是實相之子。而對於智的產生，說實相為般若，所以說果中說因。南北方都這樣解釋。有人說，佛有三種，一法身佛（體現真理的佛），二者報身佛（通過修行獲得的佛），三者化身佛（為度化眾生而示現的佛）。實相即法身佛，實相可作為準則，名為法。此法有體，所以名為身。而實相非佛，能生佛故，所以名佛。二者報身，即修行契合實相之理，實相既然是常，報佛也

【English Translation】 English version: Question: How is this different from now? Answer: The fundamental nature is pure, called '本有' (Benyou, originally existing). It is through conditions that one begins to realize the fundamental purity, hence it is called '始有' (Shiyou, beginning to exist). However, the right path has never had a beginning, nor is it defiled or pure. Furthermore, the old school clarifies that '無為' (Wuwei, non-action) must be one of the two. Now it is explained that before attaining '菩提' (Bodhi, enlightenment), '無為' (Wuwei) becomes '有為' (Youwei, action); if one attains '菩提' (Bodhi), then '有為' (Youwei) becomes '無為' (Wuwei). Is there '無為' (Wuwei) apart from '有為' (Youwei)? As explained earlier. Moreover, '無為' (Wuwei) is also like this. The fundamental nature of all dharmas is pure, hence it is called '無為' (Wuwei). Not realizing the fundamental non-arising and non-ceasing, hence it is called '有為' (Youwei). However, '般若' (Prajna, wisdom) has never been '有為' (Youwei) or '無為' (Wuwei). Question: Since the path of '般若' (Prajna) opens up three aspects, does the path of '方便' (Upaya, skillful means) also have three? Answer: It also has three, namely '境' (Jing, object), '智' (Zhi, wisdom), and words. But true wisdom is named based on the object, so it is necessary to distinguish the object. '方便' (Upaya) is named based on skillful application, so it is not necessary to distinguish the object. And words connect the two paths. However, although '方便' (Upaya) is not named based on the object, it actually illuminates the object of '世諦' (Shidi, mundane truth), so it also possesses three aspects. Since contemplation has both '有為' (Youwei) and '無為' (Wuwei), so does '方便' (Upaya). The two wisdoms of the '如來' (Tathagata, Thus Come One) are '無為' (Wuwei), while the two paths of the '菩薩' (Bodhisattva, enlightened being) are still '有為' (Youwei). Question: Does '實相' (Shixiang, true nature) only represent the object, or can it also be wisdom? Answer: Some say that '實相般若' (Shixiang Prajna) is only the name of the object, citing the forty-third volume of the '釋論' (Shilun, Commentary). Question: Earlier, wisdom was distinguished as '般若' (Prajna), why is emptiness now said to be '般若' (Prajna)? Answer: Speaking of the cause in the effect, like saying 'eating cloth'. This meaning should be speaking of the effect in the cause, but saying speaking of the cause in the effect is a reverse penalty, it should not be a straightforward explanation. Wisdom is precisely '般若' (Prajna), '實相' (Shixiang) can generate wisdom, wisdom is the child of '實相' (Shixiang). And regarding the arising of wisdom, saying '實相' (Shixiang) is '般若' (Prajna), hence it is said speaking of the cause in the effect. Both the North and South interpret it this way. Some say that there are three types of Buddha: first, '法身佛' (Fashen Fo, Dharmakaya Buddha, the Buddha embodying the truth), second, '報身佛' (Baoshen Fo, Sambhogakaya Buddha, the reward body Buddha), and third, '化身佛' (Huashen Fo, Nirmanakaya Buddha, the transformation body Buddha). '實相' (Shixiang) is the '法身佛' (Fashen Fo), '實相' (Shixiang) can be a standard, called Dharma. This Dharma has a substance, hence it is called body. And '實相' (Shixiang) is not the Buddha, but it can generate the Buddha, hence it is called Buddha. Second, the '報身' (Baoshen), which is the practice of aligning with the principle of '實相' (Shixiang), since '實相' (Shixiang) is constant, the '報佛' (Bao Fo, reward Buddha) is also

常。以法常故。諸佛亦常。三化佛。即應物之用。此北土論師釋也。有人言。修空無相。于會理圓通。心意識煩惱清凈。此無為般若即是實相。若有心行境。未免生死。即菩薩六度。得十地差別。名有為般若。此南方尚禪師義也。復有人言。實相即真諦理。會此理。煩惱盡。故離生滅。同真如。等法性。無為而無不為。則實於是境也。此亦南方成論義也。今詳釋論意。可得有五句文。一者因中說果。如名實相為般若。二果中說因。如說般若為實相。三當因說因。實相非般若。四當果說果。般若非實相。五非因非果。非境非智。故論釋實相文云。因是一邊。果是一邊。離此二邊。名為中道。緣是一邊。觀是一邊。離此二邊。名為中道。故知實相未曾因果。亦非境智。而隨緣逐義。有上四句不同。眾師不應泛引集文以通圓旨也。

問。舊雲實慧方便慧。方便並皆稱慧。何故二道不得俱名般若。答。外國名般若。此方翻為慧。梵本名漚和。此土云方便。譯經之人。欲定彼此方言。故分於二道。若並云般若。則兩名相濫。故睿公述羅什譯經之體云。胡音失者。正之以天竺。秦言謬者。定之以字義。不可翻者。即而書之。故知二道不得但稱般若。問。若爾舊何得雲實慧方便慧。答。欲明實與方便。俱有鑑照之功。故悉稱慧

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 常。因為法是常住不變的，所以諸佛也是常住不變的。三化佛（三種化身佛，即應身佛、報身佛、法身佛）是應物而起的作用。這是北方論師的解釋。有人說，修習空無相，在領會真理時達到圓融通達，使心意識的煩惱清凈，這種無為的般若（智慧）就是實相（事物的真實面貌）。如果心還有所作為，還執著于外境，就無法脫離生死輪迴，這就是菩薩修行的六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧），從而獲得十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）的差別，這被稱為有為般若。這是南方尚禪師的觀點。還有人說，實相就是真諦之理，領會了這個道理，煩惱就會斷盡，因此可以脫離生滅，與真如（事物的本性）相同，與法性（宇宙的普遍規律）相等，無為而無所不為，這就是實相的境界。這也是南方成論師的觀點。現在詳細分析《釋論》的含義，可以得出五種說法。一是因中說果，比如稱實相為般若。二是果中說因，比如稱般若為實相。三是當因說因，實相不是般若。四是當果說果，般若不是實相。五是非因非果，非境非智。所以《釋論》解釋實相時說，因是一邊，果是一邊，離開這兩邊，就叫做中道；緣是一邊，觀是一邊，離開這兩邊，就叫做中道。由此可知，實相未曾是因果，也不是境智，而是隨著因緣和意義的不同，有以上四種不同的說法。各位法師不應該泛泛地引用經文來概括圓滿的宗旨。 問：舊說有實慧和方便慧，方便也都被稱為慧，為什麼二道（實道和方便道）不能都叫做般若？答：外國叫做般若，我們這裡翻譯成慧。梵文字叫做漚和（upāya），我們這裡叫做方便。翻譯經典的人，想要確定兩地的語言，所以把它們分成了二道。如果都叫做般若，那麼兩個名稱就會混淆。所以睿公（鳩摩羅什的弟子僧睿）敘述鳩摩羅什翻譯經典的體例時說，胡語（古代對西方語言的稱呼）有缺失的，用天竺語（古印度語）來糾正；秦語（古代漢語）有錯誤的，用字義來確定。不可翻譯的，就直接書寫。所以知道二道不能只稱為般若。問：如果這樣，舊說為什麼又說實慧和方便慧呢？答：想要說明實與方便，都有鑑照的作用，所以都稱為慧。

【English Translation】 English version: Constant. Because the Dharma is constant, so are all Buddhas. The three manifested Buddhas (Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya, Dharmakaya) are the functions that arise in response to beings. This is the explanation of the northern teachers. Some say that cultivating emptiness and non-form, achieving perfect understanding in comprehending the truth, and purifying the afflictions of mind, consciousness, and intellect, this non-active Prajna (wisdom) is the true nature of reality (Śūnyatā). If the mind still engages in actions and clings to external objects, one cannot escape the cycle of birth and death. This is the Bodhisattva's practice of the six perfections (Dāna, Śīla, Kṣānti, Vīrya, Dhyāna, Prajñā), thereby attaining the distinctions of the ten grounds (Bhūmi), which is called active Prajna. This is the view of Chan Master Shang of the South. Others say that the true nature of reality is the principle of ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya). Comprehending this principle eradicates afflictions, thus transcending birth and death, being identical to Suchness (Tathātā), equal to the Dharma-nature (Dharmatā), non-active yet accomplishing everything, which is the realm of true reality. This is also the view of the southern Cheng Lun school. Now, upon detailed analysis of the meaning of the Treatise (Śāstra), five statements can be derived. First, speaking of the result in the cause, such as calling the true nature of reality Prajna. Second, speaking of the cause in the result, such as calling Prajna the true nature of reality. Third, speaking of the cause as the cause, the true nature of reality is not Prajna. Fourth, speaking of the result as the result, Prajna is not the true nature of reality. Fifth, neither cause nor result, neither object nor wisdom. Therefore, the Treatise explains the true nature of reality by saying that the cause is one extreme, the result is one extreme, and leaving these two extremes is called the Middle Way; condition is one extreme, observation is one extreme, and leaving these two extremes is called the Middle Way. From this, it is known that the true nature of reality has never been cause or result, nor object or wisdom, but according to different conditions and meanings, there are the above four different statements. Teachers should not broadly cite collected texts to generalize the complete meaning. Question: The old texts say there are real wisdom (Śūnya-jñāna) and expedient wisdom (Upāya-jñāna), and expedient is also called wisdom. Why can't the two paths (real path and expedient path) both be called Prajna? Answer: In foreign countries, it is called Prajna, and here we translate it as wisdom. The Sanskrit text is called Upāya, and here we call it expedient. The translators of the scriptures wanted to determine the languages of the two regions, so they divided them into two paths. If both were called Prajna, then the two names would be confused. Therefore, Master Rui (Sengrui, Kumārajīva's disciple) described Kumārajīva's style of translating scriptures by saying that if the foreign language (Hu language, ancient term for Western languages) was deficient, it was corrected with the language of India (Sanskrit); if the Qin language (ancient Chinese) was incorrect, it was determined by the meaning of the words. What could not be translated was written directly. Therefore, it is known that the two paths cannot only be called Prajna. Question: If so, why did the old texts say real wisdom and expedient wisdom? Answer: To clarify that both reality and expediency have the function of discernment, so they are both called wisdom.

耳。此是義釋。非立二道之名。立二道之名。但云慧與方便也。問。何故般若名慧。方便不名慧耶。答。通而言之。般若既照。得名為慧。方便亦照。亦得稱慧。方便既巧。般若亦巧。但立此二名。欲相開避。隱顯互說。般若顯其照名。隱其巧稱。方便顯其巧稱。隱其照名。所以然者。般若從實相境立名。又當其體。故顯照隱巧。方便不從照俗境立名。但取功用。故顯巧沒照。又慧名照空。波若既是空慧。所以名慧。方便涉有。不得名慧。問。般若照空名慧。方便涉有應為智。答。如前釋之。方便非不照有。正取功能。故不云智也。問。何以知般若為體。方便為用。答。釋論第百卷云。問曰。上已付囑竟。今何故復囑累。答。上說般若體。今說方便用。故知般若為體。方便為用。論又云。般若與方便。本體是一。而隨義有異。譬如金為種種物。此則明權實一體。約義分二。金喻般若之體。金上之巧譬于方便。方便為用。

問。般若何故為體。方便何故為用。答。實相為本。般若照實相。故般若亦為本。所以為體。諸法為末。方便照諸法。故方便為用。問。以何知實相為本。答。論初捲雲。三悉檀可破。第一義悉檀不可破。壞滅一切言語。過一切戲論。第一義悉檀即是實相。論又云。除實相以外。一切皆名為魔。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 耳（耳朵）。這是義釋（通過解釋意義來解釋詞語）。並非要建立兩種道的名稱。建立兩種道的名稱，只是說慧（智慧）與方便（善巧的方法）。 問：為什麼般若（智慧）被稱為慧，而方便不被稱為慧呢？ 答：總的來說，般若既然能照見，就可以被稱為慧。方便也能照見，也可以被稱為慧。方便既然巧妙，般若也巧妙。但建立這兩個名稱，是爲了相互開顯和避免，隱沒和顯現相互交替地說明。般若顯現其照見的名稱，隱沒其巧妙的稱謂。方便顯現其巧妙的稱謂，隱沒其照見的名稱。之所以這樣，是因為般若從實相境（真實存在的境界）立名，又當其體（本體），所以顯現照見而隱沒巧妙。方便不從照見俗境（世俗的境界）立名，只是取其功用，所以顯現巧妙而隱沒照見。而且，慧的名稱是照見空性，般若既然是空慧，所以被稱為慧。方便涉及有（存在），不能被稱為慧。 問：般若照見空性被稱為慧，方便涉及有，應該稱為智（智慧）嗎？ 答：如前面解釋的那樣，方便並非不照見有，只是取其功能，所以不稱為智。 問：憑什麼知道般若為體（本體），方便為用（作用）呢？ 答：《釋論》（《大智度論》）第一百卷說：問：上面已經付囑完畢，現在為什麼又囑咐呢？答：上面說的是般若的體，現在說的是方便的用。所以知道般若為體，方便為用。《釋論》又說：般若與方便，本體是一，而隨著意義有差異。譬如金可以做成種種物品。這說明權實（真實與方便）一體，從意義上分為二。金比喻般若的體，金上的技巧比喻方便。方便為用。 問：般若為什麼為體，方便為什麼為用？ 答：實相為本（根本），般若照見實相，所以般若也為本，所以為體。諸法（一切事物）為末（枝末），方便照見諸法，所以方便為用。 問：憑什麼知道實相為本呢？ 答：《釋論》初卷說：三悉檀（三種教義）可以被破斥，第一義悉檀（最高的真理）不可破斥，它能摧毀一切言語，超越一切戲論。第一義悉檀就是實相。《釋論》又說：除了實相以外，一切都稱為魔（障礙）。

【English Translation】 English version Ear. This is an explanation of the meaning. It is not to establish the names of two paths. Establishing the names of two paths only refers to wisdom (慧, huì) and skillful means (方便, fāngbiàn). Question: Why is Prajna (般若, bōrě, wisdom) called wisdom, but skillful means not called wisdom? Answer: Generally speaking, since Prajna illuminates, it can be called wisdom. Skillful means also illuminates, and can also be called wisdom. Since skillful means is skillful, Prajna is also skillful. But establishing these two names is to mutually reveal and avoid, to explain alternately with concealment and manifestation. Prajna manifests its name of illumination, concealing its skillful designation. Skillful means manifests its skillful designation, concealing its name of illumination. The reason for this is that Prajna is named from the realm of reality (實相境, shíxiàng jìng), and it corresponds to its essence (體, tǐ), so it manifests illumination and conceals skillfulness. Skillful means is not named from illuminating the mundane realm (俗境, sújìng), but only takes its function, so it manifests skillfulness and conceals illumination. Moreover, the name of wisdom is to illuminate emptiness, and since Prajna is the wisdom of emptiness, it is called wisdom. Skillful means involves existence (有, yǒu), so it cannot be called wisdom. Question: Prajna illuminating emptiness is called wisdom, skillful means involving existence should be called intelligence (智, zhì)? Answer: As explained earlier, skillful means does not fail to illuminate existence, but only takes its function, so it is not called intelligence. Question: How do we know that Prajna is the essence and skillful means is the function? Answer: The hundredth volume of the Shilun (釋論, commentary, i.e., Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra) says: Question: The entrustment has already been completed above, why is there another entrustment now? Answer: The above speaks of the essence of Prajna, and now speaks of the function of skillful means. Therefore, we know that Prajna is the essence and skillful means is the function. The Shilun also says: Prajna and skillful means, the essence is one, but there are differences according to the meaning. It is like gold being made into various objects. This clarifies that reality and skillful means are one, and divided into two according to meaning. Gold is a metaphor for the essence of Prajna, and the skillfulness on the gold is a metaphor for skillful means. Skillful means is the function. Question: Why is Prajna the essence, and why is skillful means the function? Answer: Reality is the root (本, běn), Prajna illuminates reality, so Prajna is also the root, so it is the essence. All dharmas (諸法, zhūfǎ, all phenomena) are the branches (末, mò), skillful means illuminates all dharmas, so skillful means is the function. Question: How do we know that reality is the root? Answer: The first volume of the Shilun says: The three siddhantas (三悉檀, sānxītán, three kinds of teachings) can be refuted, but the first meaning siddhanta (第一義悉檀, dìyīyì xītán, the highest truth) cannot be refuted. It destroys all language and transcends all playfulness. The first meaning siddhanta is reality. The Shilun also says: Apart from reality, everything is called a demon (魔, mó, obstacle).

故知實相為本。又迷實相故有六道。悟實相即有三乘。故實相為迷悟之原。所以稱本也。此是對虛妄。名之為實。若無虛妄。則亦無實。如前云。非境非智。非果非因。不同舊宗有天然實相境也。問。若般若為本。則般若勝。方便劣。何故六地名般若。七地稱方便。答。金雖是體。未作巧物。則金為劣也。制金為巧。則巧勝於金。六地雖得般若之體。未得妙用。故言般若則劣。至七地時。得般若妙用。稱為方便。故方便勝也。是以論云。般若清凈。變名方便。此言變者。照空之慧。未能涉有。復空慧未巧。但名般若。照空之慧即能涉有。故轉名方便。問。既變名方便。應失般若之名。便無二慧。所以然者。般若時未有方便。得方便則無復般若。答。二慧更無兩體。巧之空慧。即名方便般若。空慧之巧。稱般若方便。譬如金巧巧金。巧不失金。金未有巧也。

問。空慧有二巧。一照空不著。二即能涉有無滯。二巧之中。以何為方便。答。般若略有四力。一者照實相。二者無所著。三者斷諸惑。四者導方便。為之四用。即是次第。由不見一切相。而見實相。實相既無所依。則般若亦無所著。以無所著。則眾累寂然。以無累無著故。能導方便。令涉有無染著。所以然者。照空于空無著。是般若之力。故屬實慧。即空慧

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 由此可知，實相是根本。又因為迷惑于實相，所以有六道輪迴。領悟實相，就有了三乘佛法。所以說實相是迷惑和覺悟的根源。因此稱之為『本』。這是針對虛妄而言，稱之為『實』。如果沒有虛妄，也就沒有真實。如前面所說，非境非智，非果非因。不同於舊宗派認為有天然的實相境存在。問：如果般若（Prajna，智慧）是根本，那麼般若就殊勝，方便（Upaya，善巧）就低劣。為什麼六地稱為般若，七地稱為方便？答：金子雖然是本體，但沒有製成精巧的器物，那麼金子就顯得低劣。把金子製成精巧的器物，那麼精巧就勝過金子。六地雖然得到了般若的本體，但沒有得到妙用，所以說般若就低劣。到了七地時，得到了般若的妙用，稱為方便，所以方便就殊勝。因此，《論》中說：『般若清凈，轉變名稱為方便。』這裡所說的轉變，是指照空的智慧，還不能涉入有，空慧還不夠巧妙，只能稱為般若。照空的智慧能夠涉入有，所以轉變名稱為方便。問：既然轉變名稱為方便，就應該失去般若的名稱，就沒有兩種智慧了。之所以這樣，是因為般若時還沒有方便，得到方便就沒有般若了。答：兩種智慧並沒有兩個本體。巧妙的空慧，就叫做方便般若。空慧的巧妙，稱為般若方便。譬如金和巧工，巧工不離開金，金還沒有巧工。 問：空慧有兩種巧妙，一是照空而不執著，二是能夠涉入有而沒有滯礙。兩種巧妙之中，以哪一種作為方便？答：般若略有四種力量：一是照見實相，二是無所執著，三是斷除各種迷惑，四是引導方便。這四種作用，就是次第。因為不見一切相，而見實相。實相既然沒有所依，那麼般若也就無所執著。因為無所執著，那麼各種煩惱就寂然。因為沒有煩惱沒有執著，所以能夠引導方便，使之涉入有而沒有染著。之所以這樣，是因為照空對於空沒有執著，這是般若的力量，所以屬於實慧，即空慧。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, know that the true nature (Skt: Satya-lakshana) is the root. Moreover, due to being deluded about the true nature, there are the six realms of existence (Skt: Sad-gati). Upon realizing the true nature, there are the Three Vehicles (Skt: Triyana). Hence, the true nature is the origin of delusion and enlightenment. That is why it is called the 'root'. This is in contrast to the illusory, and is named 'true'. If there were no illusion, there would be no truth. As mentioned before, it is neither object nor wisdom, neither result nor cause. It is different from the old schools that believe in a naturally existing realm of true nature. Question: If Prajna (wisdom) is the root, then Prajna is superior and Upaya (skillful means) is inferior. Why is the sixth ground called Prajna and the seventh ground called Upaya? Answer: Although gold is the substance, if it is not crafted into exquisite objects, then the gold is inferior. When gold is crafted into exquisite objects, then the craftsmanship surpasses the gold. Although the sixth ground attains the substance of Prajna, it has not attained its wondrous function, so it is said that Prajna is inferior. When it reaches the seventh ground, it attains the wondrous function of Prajna, and it is called Upaya, so Upaya is superior. Therefore, the Treatise says: 'Prajna is pure, and its name changes to Upaya.' The change mentioned here refers to the wisdom that illuminates emptiness, but cannot yet engage with existence. The wisdom of emptiness is not yet skillful, so it is only called Prajna. The wisdom that illuminates emptiness can engage with existence, so its name changes to Upaya. Question: Since the name changes to Upaya, it should lose the name of Prajna, and there would be no two wisdoms. The reason for this is that there was no Upaya at the time of Prajna, and if Upaya is attained, there is no more Prajna. Answer: The two wisdoms do not have two separate entities. The skillful wisdom of emptiness is called Upaya-Prajna. The skillfulness of the wisdom of emptiness is called Prajna-Upaya. It is like gold and craftsmanship; craftsmanship does not leave the gold, and the gold does not yet have craftsmanship. Question: The wisdom of emptiness has two kinds of skillfulness: one is illuminating emptiness without attachment, and the other is being able to engage with existence without hindrance. Among the two kinds of skillfulness, which one is considered Upaya? Answer: Prajna has roughly four powers: first, it illuminates the true nature; second, it is without attachment; third, it cuts off all delusions; and fourth, it guides Upaya. These four functions are in sequence. Because one does not see all appearances, but sees the true nature. Since the true nature has no reliance, then Prajna is also without attachment. Because there is no attachment, then all afflictions are pacified. Because there are no afflictions and no attachment, it can guide Upaya, enabling it to engage with existence without defilement. The reason for this is that illuminating emptiness has no attachment to emptiness; this is the power of Prajna, so it belongs to true wisdom, which is the wisdom of emptiness.

而能涉有。此屬方便。故兩巧不同也。

問。方便涉有。具幾力耶。答。一有照境之巧。二有不證空力。三窮有行之用。問。涉有無著。是方便之功。般若力耶。答。涉有即屬方便之功。無著由般若之力。以般若無著。于般若觀中。即有巧方便用。故此方便即能無著。問。方便云何能不證空。答。般若照諸法實相。方便即能照實相諸法。故不洗空觀。名為不證。如釋論云。般若將入畢竟空。無諸戲論。方便將出畢竟空。嚴土化人。此即證上諸力之義。將入畢竟空。即是照實相。無諸戲論。即謂無著斷惑之功也。方便將出畢竟空。即是為般若所導。又是方便不證。照境起行之力。問。般若照諸法實相。云何方便即能照實相諸法。答。名為諸法實相實相諸法。諸法宛然而實相。實相宛然而諸法。諸法與實相。不二而二。二常不二。二境既爾。二慧得然。般若照諸法實相。而方便則能照實相諸法也。問。雖復實相。而宛然諸法。漚和照此。既名□者。亦雖復諸法。而宛然實相。波若照之。何以不巧。答。通義例爾。如上隱顯釋之。又波若照實相。而能不著。二乘亦有其分。則巧義不彰。故不名方便。即空而能起有。此用既妙。故聲聞絕分。菩薩獨有。故與方便之名。

問。若即空而起有。既是妙。亦即有而照空

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 而能夠涉入有為法。這屬於方便。所以兩種巧妙不同。

問：方便涉入有為法，具備幾種力量？答：一是有照見境界的巧妙，二是有不證悟空性的力量，三是窮盡有為之行的作用。問：涉入有為法而沒有執著，是方便的功用，還是般若的力量？答：涉入有為法屬於方便的功用，沒有執著則依靠般若的力量。因為般若沒有執著，在般若觀中，就有巧妙方便的作用。所以這種方便就能沒有執著。問：方便為什麼能夠不證悟空性？答：般若照見諸法實相，方便就能照見實相的諸法。所以不洗除空觀，稱為不證。如《釋論》所說：『般若將要進入畢竟空，沒有各種戲論；方便將要從畢竟空中出來，莊嚴國土，教化眾生。』這就是證明上面各種力量的意義。『將入畢竟空』，就是照見實相；『沒有各種戲論』，就是指沒有執著，斷除迷惑的功用。『方便將要從畢竟空中出來』，就是被般若所引導，又是方便不證，照見境界而生起行為的力量。問：般若照見諸法實相，為什麼方便就能照見實相的諸法？答：名為諸法實相，實相諸法。諸法宛然就是實相，實相宛然就是諸法。諸法與實相，不二而二，二常不二。兩種境界既然如此，兩種智慧也就自然如此。般若照見諸法實相，而方便就能照見實相的諸法。問：即使是實相，而宛然就是諸法，漚和（Ogha，瀑流）照見此，既然名為□者，也是即使是諸法，而宛然就是實相，般若照見它，為什麼不巧妙？答：通用的義理就是這樣。如上面隱顯的解釋。而且般若照見實相，而能夠不執著，二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也有其分，那麼巧妙的意義就不明顯。所以不稱為方便。即空而能夠生起有，這種作用既然奇妙，所以聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟者）沒有份，菩薩（Bodhisattva，為利益眾生而發願成佛者）獨有，所以給予方便的名稱。

問：如果即空而起有，既然是奇妙的，也即有而照空

【English Translation】 English version: And is able to engage in conditioned existence. This belongs to skillful means (Upāya). Therefore, the two kinds of skillfulness are different.

Question: When skillful means engage in conditioned existence, how many powers does it possess? Answer: First, it has the skillfulness of illuminating the realm of objects. Second, it has the power of not realizing emptiness. Third, it has the function of exhausting the practice of conditioned existence. Question: Engaging in conditioned existence without attachment, is it the function of skillful means or the power of Prajñā (智慧，wisdom)? Answer: Engaging in conditioned existence belongs to the function of skillful means, while non-attachment relies on the power of Prajñā. Because Prajñā is without attachment, within the contemplation of Prajñā, there is the function of skillful means. Therefore, this skillful means can be without attachment. Question: How can skillful means not realize emptiness? Answer: Prajñā illuminates the true nature of all dharmas (法，phenomena), while skillful means can illuminate the dharmas of true nature. Therefore, not washing away the contemplation of emptiness is called non-realization. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (《大智度論》) says: 『Prajñā is about to enter ultimate emptiness, without any conceptual proliferation; skillful means is about to emerge from ultimate emptiness, adorning the land and transforming people.』 This is to prove the meaning of the above powers. 『About to enter ultimate emptiness』 means illuminating true nature; 『without any conceptual proliferation』 refers to the function of non-attachment and cutting off afflictions. 『Skillful means is about to emerge from ultimate emptiness』 means being guided by Prajñā, and it is also the power of skillful means not realizing, illuminating the realm, and arising into action. Question: Prajñā illuminates the true nature of all dharmas, why can skillful means illuminate the dharmas of true nature? Answer: They are called the true nature of all dharmas, and the dharmas of true nature. All dharmas are distinctly the true nature, and the true nature is distinctly all dharmas. Dharmas and true nature are non-dual yet dual, and dual are constantly non-dual. Since the two realms are like this, the two wisdoms are naturally like this. Prajñā illuminates the true nature of all dharmas, while skillful means can illuminate the dharmas of true nature. Question: Even though it is true nature, it is distinctly all dharmas. Ogha (瀑流，torrent) illuminates this, since it is called □. Also, even though it is all dharmas, it is distinctly true nature. When Prajñā illuminates it, why is it not skillful? Answer: The general principle is like this. As explained above with concealment and manifestation. Moreover, Prajñā illuminates true nature and can be without attachment, the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘) also have a share in this, then the meaning of skillfulness is not obvious. Therefore, it is not called skillful means. Being able to arise into existence from emptiness, since this function is wonderful, therefore the Śrāvakas (聲聞，hearers of the Buddha's teachings) have no part in it, only the Bodhisattvas (菩薩，beings who strive for enlightenment for the benefit of all) have it, so it is given the name of skillful means.

Question: If arising into existence from emptiness is wonderful, then also illuminating emptiness from existence

。亦是妙也。答。既能即有而照空。復能即空而照有。此即空而照有。此是慧有方便解。方便有慧解。如此二慧。無有優劣。但對二乘照空。不能涉有。故明即空而起有為妙。稱為方便。又對六地。但得般若空觀。未能即空涉有。今明即空涉有。是方便也。

問。于有不著。于空不證。俱是善巧。何故不著之巧名般若。般若則劣。在於六地。不證之巧名方便。方便則勝。在七地耶。答。如上釋之。又有是俗諦。離有則易。故般若巧劣。空是真諦。免無則難。故方便則勝。又入實相觀。不著于有。即免凡夫地。即實相觀而照謂法。故不滯空。離二乘地。免凡則易。故般若劣。超聖則難。故方便勝。所以有六七地。簡勝劣義也。問。若爾六地二慧未均。何得上云初地已並。答。初地望地前則並。形七地則未並。所以然著。初地以來。則得無生。動寂無礙。但寂義小強。動用微弱。故云未並。至於七地。動寂無礙。二慧雙游。故稱並耳。問。何故知然。答。若六地以來未並。入空不見有。出有不見空。二乘亦爾。與菩薩何異。故知初地以來。便能已並。但微有強弱故。說未均耳。問。于空不著。于空不證。有何異耶。答。二乘入空。不存四句。但是不著。而不能不證。菩薩入空。既無可存。又即空能涉有。故名不證。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這也是很微妙的。回答：既能從有中照見空性，又能從空性中照見有，這就是從空性中照見有。這是具有方便的智慧解脫，具有智慧的方便解脫。這兩種智慧，沒有優劣之分。只是針對二乘行者只照見空性，不能涉及有，所以說明從空性生起有為微妙，稱為方便。又針對六地菩薩，只得到般若空觀，未能從空性涉及有，現在說明從空性涉及有，是方便。

問：對於有不執著，對於空不證入，都是善巧。為什麼不執著的善巧名為般若，般若就顯得不足，停留在六地。不證入的善巧名為方便，方便就顯得殊勝，在七地呢？答：如上面解釋的那樣。又有是世俗諦，離開有比較容易，所以般若的善巧顯得不足。空是真諦，避免落入空無比較困難，所以方便就顯得殊勝。又進入實相觀，不執著于有，就免除了凡夫地。從實相觀而照見諸法，所以不滯留于空，離開了二乘地。免除凡夫比較容易，所以般若顯得不足，超越聖人比較困難，所以方便殊勝。所以有六地和七地，是爲了區分殊勝和不足的意義。問：如果這樣，六地的兩種智慧還沒有均等，為什麼上面說初地已經併合了呢？答：初地相對於地前來說是併合的，相對於七地來說則未併合。之所以這樣說，是因為初地以來，就證得了無生，動和寂靜沒有障礙，但是寂靜的意義稍微強一些，動用的力量微弱一些，所以說未併合。到了七地，動和寂靜沒有障礙，兩種智慧雙重運用，所以稱為併合。問：為什麼知道是這樣呢？答：如果六地以來沒有併合，進入空性就看不見有，出來進入有就看不見空性，二乘也是這樣，與菩薩有什麼區別呢？所以知道初地以來，便已經能夠併合，只是稍微有強弱，所以說未均等。問：對於空不執著，對於空不證入，有什麼不同呢？答：二乘進入空性，不存留四句，只是不執著，而不能不證入。菩薩進入空性，既然沒有什麼可以存留，又能從空性涉及有，所以名為不證入。

【English Translation】 English version: This is also wonderful. Answer: Since it can illuminate emptiness from existence, and also illuminate existence from emptiness, this is illuminating existence from emptiness. This is wisdom liberation with skillful means, and skillful means liberation with wisdom. These two kinds of wisdom are not superior or inferior. It is only aimed at the Two Vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) who only illuminate emptiness and cannot involve existence, so it is explained that arising from emptiness is wonderful, and it is called skillful means (Upaya). Also, for the Sixth Ground (Bhumis) Bodhisattvas, they only attain Prajna (wisdom) of emptiness, and have not been able to involve existence from emptiness. Now it is explained that involving existence from emptiness is skillful means.

Question: Not being attached to existence and not realizing emptiness are both skillful. Why is the skill of non-attachment called Prajna (wisdom), and Prajna seems insufficient, staying in the Sixth Ground. The skill of non-realization is called Upaya (skillful means), and Upaya seems superior, being in the Seventh Ground? Answer: As explained above. Furthermore, existence is conventional truth (Samvriti-satya), and it is easy to leave existence, so Prajna's skill is insufficient. Emptiness is ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya), and it is difficult to avoid falling into nothingness, so Upaya is superior. Also, entering the contemplation of Suchness (Tathata), not being attached to existence, one avoids the state of ordinary beings. From the contemplation of Suchness, one illuminates all dharmas, so one does not dwell in emptiness, leaving the state of the Two Vehicles. Avoiding ordinary beings is easy, so Prajna seems insufficient, and transcending the sages is difficult, so Upaya is superior. Therefore, there are the Sixth and Seventh Grounds, to distinguish the meaning of superiority and insufficiency. Question: If so, the two wisdoms of the Sixth Ground are not yet equal, why is it said above that the First Ground has already merged? Answer: The First Ground is merged relative to before the Ground, but not merged relative to the Seventh Ground. The reason for this is that since the First Ground, one has attained non-origination (Anutpada), and there is no obstacle between movement and stillness, but the meaning of stillness is slightly stronger, and the power of movement is weak, so it is said that it is not merged. As for the Seventh Ground, there is no obstacle between movement and stillness, and the two wisdoms are used together, so it is called merged. Question: How do you know this is the case? Answer: If it has not been merged since the Sixth Ground, entering emptiness one cannot see existence, and coming out into existence one cannot see emptiness, the Two Vehicles are also like this, what is the difference from the Bodhisattvas? Therefore, it is known that since the First Ground, one has already been able to merge, but there is a slight difference in strength, so it is said that it is not equal. Question: What is the difference between not being attached to emptiness and not realizing emptiness? Answer: The Two Vehicles enter emptiness, not retaining the four propositions, but only not being attached, and cannot not realize it. Bodhisattvas enter emptiness, since there is nothing to retain, and can also involve existence from emptiness, so it is called non-realization.

問。二乘菩薩入空同無所依。何故聲聞住空。菩薩不證耶。答。二乘以空為好極。依此無依。是故住空。菩薩不以空為好極。知空亦空。名不可得空。不依此無依。故能不證。如大品云。行亦不受。不行亦不受。亦行不行。非行非不行。乃至不受亦不受。是名菩薩無受三昧廣大之用。不與聲聞辟支佛共。是故能不證空。又二乘無願行資空。故入空便證。菩薩大愿大行資空。故入空不證。

問。論云。因名般若。至佛則反名薩婆若。何得復云六地名般若。至七地般若清凈。變名方便。答。如前釋之。六地之時。般若體強。方便用弱。以體強故。妙于靜觀。故觀空不著。以用弱故。未能即空涉有于有無滯。至於七地。即體用俱等。既能觀空不染。即能涉有無著。故名等定慧地。等定慧地則般若用巧。故云反耳。從八地以上。二慧俱巧。若至佛地。則兩慧同變。實慧則變名薩般若。謂一切智。方便慧變。名一切種智也。

問。若至果變名二智。則因中同名二慧。何故。前云般若稱慧。方便不名慧耶。答。因果立名。各有其義。果門照一切空境。名一切智。照一切有境。名一切種智。但從境立名。故宜並稱智。因門實慧從境。方便約用。故不得併名慧也。問。若爾。何故。菩薩道慧道種慧。皆名慧耶。答

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：二乘（指聲聞乘和緣覺乘）菩薩入空性時，同樣都是無所依，為什麼聲聞會安住于空性，而菩薩卻不證得空性呢？ 答：二乘人以空性為最好、最究竟的境界，並依此無所依，所以安住于空性。菩薩不以空性為最好、最究竟的境界，知道空性也是空性的，這種空性是不可得的空性，不依此無所依，所以能夠不證得空性。如同《大品般若經》所說：『行也不受，不行也不受，亦行不行也不受，非行非不行也不受，乃至不受也不受。』這叫做菩薩無受三昧廣大之用，不與聲聞、辟支佛（緣覺）相同。所以能夠不證得空性。而且，二乘沒有願行來資助空性，所以入空性便證得。菩薩有大愿大行來資助空性，所以入空性不證得。

問：《瑜伽師地論》說，因位名為般若（智慧），到了佛果位就反過來名為薩婆若（一切智），為什麼又說六地名為般若，到了七地般若清凈，就轉變為方便呢？ 答：如同前面解釋的那樣，在六地的時候，般若的體性強盛，方便的作用微弱。因為體性強盛的緣故，擅長於靜觀，所以觀空而不執著。因為作用微弱的緣故，不能夠即空涉有，對於有和無都有滯礙。到了七地，就體用俱等，既能夠觀空而不染著，也能夠涉有而無執著，所以名為等定慧地。等定慧地則是般若的運用巧妙，所以說是反過來。從八地以上，兩種智慧都巧妙。如果到了佛地，那麼兩種智慧都一同轉變，實慧就轉變為薩婆若，就是一切智，方便慧轉變，名一切種智。

問：如果到了果位轉變為二智，那麼因位也同樣名為二慧，為什麼前面說般若稱為慧，而方便不稱為慧呢？ 答：因果立名，各有其義。果位照見一切空性的境界，名一切智；照見一切有性的境界，名一切種智。只是從境界來立名，所以應該並稱為智。因位實慧是從境界而說，方便是從作用而說，所以不得並稱為慧。問：如果這樣，為什麼菩薩道慧、道種慧，都名為慧呢？答：

【English Translation】 English version: Question: When the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) Bodhisattvas enter emptiness, they are equally without reliance. Why do Śrāvakas abide in emptiness, while Bodhisattvas do not realize it? Answer: The Two Vehicles regard emptiness as the ultimate good and rely on this non-reliance. Therefore, they abide in emptiness. Bodhisattvas do not regard emptiness as the ultimate good, knowing that emptiness is also empty. This emptiness is unattainable emptiness, and they do not rely on this non-reliance. Therefore, they are able to not realize emptiness. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'They do not accept practice, nor do they accept non-practice, nor do they accept both practice and non-practice, nor do they accept neither practice nor non-practice, and even non-acceptance is not accepted.' This is called the Bodhisattva's vast use of the Samādhi of Non-Acceptance, which is not shared with Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas. Therefore, they are able to not realize emptiness. Moreover, the Two Vehicles lack the vows and practices to support emptiness, so they realize emptiness upon entering it. Bodhisattvas have great vows and great practices to support emptiness, so they do not realize emptiness upon entering it.

Question: The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that in the causal stage, it is called Prajñā (wisdom), but in the Buddha's fruition stage, it is called Sarvajñā (all-knowing). Why is it also said that the Sixth Bhūmi is called Prajñā, and when Prajñā becomes pure in the Seventh Bhūmi, it transforms into Upāya (skillful means)? Answer: As explained earlier, in the Sixth Bhūmi, the essence of Prajñā is strong, and the function of Upāya is weak. Because the essence is strong, it excels in quiet contemplation, so it contemplates emptiness without attachment. Because the function is weak, it cannot immediately engage in existence from emptiness, and there is stagnation in both existence and non-existence. In the Seventh Bhūmi, both essence and function are equal. It can contemplate emptiness without being tainted and can engage in existence without attachment. Therefore, it is called the Bhūmi of Equal Samādhi and Wisdom. In the Bhūmi of Equal Samādhi and Wisdom, the use of Prajñā is skillful, so it is said to be reversed. From the Eighth Bhūmi onwards, both wisdoms are skillful. If it reaches the Buddha's stage, then both wisdoms transform together. Real wisdom transforms into Sarvajñā, which is all-knowing, and skillful wisdom transforms into all-knowing wisdom of all kinds.

Question: If it transforms into two wisdoms in the fruition stage, then in the causal stage, they are also called two wisdoms. Why was it said earlier that Prajñā is called wisdom, but Upāya is not called wisdom? Answer: The establishment of names in the causal and fruition stages each has its own meaning. In the fruition stage, illuminating all empty realms is called all-knowing; illuminating all existing realms is called all-knowing wisdom of all kinds. Names are established solely from the realms, so they should both be called wisdom. In the causal stage, real wisdom is spoken of from the perspective of the realm, while Upāya is spoken of from the perspective of function, so they cannot both be called wisdom. Question: If that is the case, why are Bodhisattva's Path Wisdom and Seed Wisdom of the Path both called wisdom? Answer:

。因中之慧。自有多門。立名各異。道慧。道種慧。亦是從境立名。故宜並稱慧也。問。若爾。但應言道慧道種慧。至果變名一切智一切種智。云何言般若方便變名二智。答。論云。因中名般若。既反名薩婆若。因中方便理巧。變名一切種智。二慧變名二智。故不待言。

問。論云。波若變為薩波若。何處云方便變名一切種智。答。般若名慧。是照境之名。果地一切智。亦從照境為稱。二名相主。故云因名般若。果名一切智。方便就用為目。一切種智從境立名。兩義不同。故經論不云方便變為一切種智。然方便雖不從境立名。而體實照有。故得變為種智。雖覆文理。權應爾。又因中名權實二慧。果名權實兩智。亦得即是其文。

凈名玄論卷第四(宗旨上) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

凈名玄論卷第五(宗旨中)

慧日道場沙門胡吉藏撰

三論境智門

智非孤生。必由境發。故境為智本。境非獨立。因智受名。故之智為境本。非境無以發智。非智無以照境。非境無以發智。故境為能發。智為所發。非智無以照境。故智為能照。境為所照。以境為能發。為智所照。即境能為智所。智為能照。為境所發。即智慧為境所。境之所照。能發於智。故境所為智慧

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因地中的智慧，自然有很多門徑，所立名稱也各有不同。道慧（Dàohuì，通向真理的智慧）、道種慧（Dàozhǒnghuì，通向一切種智的智慧）也是從所觀照的境界而立名，所以應該並稱為慧。問：如果這樣，那麼只應該說道慧、道種慧，到了果地才變名為一切智（Yīqièzhì，對一切法普遍的認識）和一切種智（Yīqièzhǒngzhì，對一切法的各個方面和模式的認識），為什麼說般若（Bōrě，智慧）和方便（Fāngbiàn，善巧）變名為二智呢？答：論中說，因地中名為般若，既然反過來就名為薩婆若（Sāpóruò，一切智的另一種音譯）。因地中的方便，其理巧妙，變名為一切種智。二慧變名為二智，所以不必再說。 問：論中說，般若變為薩婆若，哪裡說方便變名一切種智呢？答：般若名為慧，是照境之名，果地的一切智，也是從照境而稱呼。二名相互為主，所以說因名般若，果名一切智。方便就作用而立名，一切種智從境界而立名，兩者的意義不同，所以經論中不說方便變為一切種智。然而方便雖然不從境界立名，但其體性確實照有，所以可以變為種智。即使是文理，權且應該這樣。又因地中名為權實二慧，果地名權實兩智，也可以說是這個意思。 《凈名玄論》卷第四（宗旨上） 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 《凈名玄論》 《凈名玄論》卷第五（宗旨中） 慧日道場沙門胡吉藏撰 三論境智門 智慧不是孤立產生的，必定由境界引發。所以境界是智慧的根本。境界不是獨立存在的，因為智慧而接受名稱。所以智慧是境界的根本。沒有境界就無法引發智慧，沒有智慧就無法照亮境界。沒有境界就無法引發智慧，所以境界是能引發者，智慧是所引發者。沒有智慧就無法照亮境界，所以智慧是能照亮者，境界是所照亮者。因為境界是能引發者，是被智慧所照亮者，所以境界能為智慧所用。智慧是能照亮者，是被境界所引發者，所以智慧能為境界所用。境界所照亮的，能引發智慧，所以境界所為是智慧。

【English Translation】 English version: The wisdom in the causal stage naturally has many paths, and the established names are also different. Dàohuì (道慧, wisdom leading to truth), Dàozhǒnghuì (道種慧, wisdom leading to all kinds of knowledge) are also named from the realm being observed, so they should both be called wisdom. Question: If so, then it should only be said Dàohuì and Dàozhǒnghuì, and only in the fruition stage do they transform into Yīqièzhì (一切智, omniscience) and Yīqièzhǒngzhì (一切種智, knowledge of all aspects and modes of all things). Why is it said that Prajna (Bōrě, 般若, wisdom) and Upaya (Fāngbiàn, 方便, skillful means) transform into the two wisdoms? Answer: The treatise says that in the causal stage it is called Prajna, and when reversed, it is called Sarvajna (Sāpóruò, 薩婆若, another transliteration of omniscience). Upaya in the causal stage, with its skillful reasoning, transforms into Yīqièzhǒngzhì. The two wisdoms transform into the two knowledges, so there is no need to say more. Question: The treatise says that Prajna transforms into Sarvajna, where does it say that Upaya transforms into Yīqièzhǒngzhì? Answer: Prajna is named 'wisdom,' which is the name for illuminating the realm. Yīqièzhì in the fruition stage is also named from illuminating the realm. The two names are mutually primary, so it is said that the cause is named Prajna, and the effect is named Yīqièzhì. Upaya is named based on its function, while Yīqièzhǒngzhì is named based on the realm. The meanings of the two are different, so the sutras and treatises do not say that Upaya transforms into Yīqièzhǒngzhì. However, although Upaya is not named from the realm, its essence does illuminate existence, so it can transform into knowledge of all kinds. Even in terms of wording and reasoning, it should be so for the time being. Also, in the causal stage, they are named the two wisdoms of provisional and real, and in the fruition stage, they are named the two knowledges of provisional and real, which can also be said to be the meaning of the text. 'Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary' Volume 4 (On the Main Principles, Part 1) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 38, No. 1780, 'Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary' 'Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary' Volume 5 (On the Main Principles, Part 2) Composed by the Shramana Huijizang of the Wisdom Sun Monastery The Three Treatises on Realm and Wisdom Wisdom is not born in isolation; it must be triggered by the realm. Therefore, the realm is the root of wisdom. The realm does not exist independently; it receives its name because of wisdom. Therefore, wisdom is the root of the realm. Without the realm, there is no way to trigger wisdom; without wisdom, there is no way to illuminate the realm. Without the realm, there is no way to trigger wisdom; therefore, the realm is the activator, and wisdom is what is activated. Without wisdom, there is no way to illuminate the realm; therefore, wisdom is the illuminator, and the realm is what is illuminated. Because the realm is the activator and is illuminated by wisdom, the realm can be used by wisdom. Wisdom is the illuminator and is activated by the realm, so wisdom can be used by the realm. What the realm illuminates can trigger wisdom; therefore, what the realm does is intelligent.

。智之所發。能照于境。故智所為境能。不得言境前智后。亦非智前境后。亦非一時。唯得名因緣境智也。

問。以何為境。而能發智。答。如來常依二諦說法。故二諦名教。能生二智。故二諦名境。關中曇影法師注中論。親承什公音旨。什師云。傳吾業者。寄在道融曇影僧睿乎。影公序二諦云。以真諦故無有。以俗諦故無無。真故無有。雖無而有。俗故無無。雖有而無。雖無而有。不滯于無。雖有而無。不累于有。不滯于無。故斷無見滅。不累于有。故常著冰消。寂此諸邊。故名為中。詳此意者。真故無有。雖無而有。即是不動真際而建立諸法。俗故無無。雖有而無。即是不壞假名而說實相。以不壞假名而說實相。雖曰假名。宛然實相。不動真際。建立諸法。雖曰真際。宛然諸法。以真際宛然諸法。故不滯于無。諸法宛然實相。則不累于有。不累于有故不常。不滯于無故非斷。即中道也。由斯二諦。發生二智。以了諸法實相故。生漚和波若。以悟實相諸法故。生般若漚和。漚和般若而宛然漚和。般若漚和而宛然般若。以漚和宛然般若故。不著于有。般若宛然漚和故。不滯于無。不累于有。故常著冰消。不滯于無。故斷無見滅。寂此諸邊。故名中觀。是以二諦中道。還發生二智中觀。觀二智中觀。還照二諦中道

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：智慧所生髮之處，能夠照亮所面對的境界。因此，智慧所作用的對象可以稱為『境能』。不能說境界在前，智慧在後，也不是智慧在前，境界在後，更不是同時發生。只能說是因緣和合而產生的境界和智慧。

問：憑藉什麼作為境界，才能生髮智慧？ 答：如來總是依據二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）說法，所以二諦被稱為『教』，能夠產生二智（兩種智慧）。因此，二諦被稱為『境』。關中曇影法師註釋《中論》（Madhyamaka-śāstra）時，親自繼承了鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）的音旨。鳩摩羅什法師說：『傳承我事業的人，大概就在道融、曇影、僧睿這些人中吧。』曇影法師在《二諦論》的序言中說：『因為真諦的緣故，萬法本無自性；因為俗諦的緣故，萬法並非不存在。因為是真諦，所以本無自性，雖然無自性，卻顯現有；因為是俗諦，所以並非不存在，雖然顯現有，卻無自性。雖然無自性卻顯現有，所以不執著于空無；雖然顯現有卻無自性，所以不被實有束縛。不執著于空無，所以斷除了斷滅見；不被實有束縛，所以常見的執著像冰雪消融一樣。寂滅這些邊見，所以稱為中道。』

詳細理解這段話的意思是：因為真諦的緣故，萬法本無自性，雖然無自性，卻顯現有，這就是在不動的真如實際之上建立諸法。因為俗諦的緣故，萬法並非不存在，雖然顯現有，卻無自性，這就是在不壞假名的情況下宣說實相。以不壞假名而宣說實相，雖然說是假名，卻宛然就是實相；在不動的真如實際之上建立諸法，雖然說是真如實際，卻宛然就是諸法。因為真如實際宛然就是諸法，所以不執著于空無；諸法宛然就是實相，所以不被實有束縛。不被實有束縛，所以不是常；不執著于空無，所以不是斷，這就是中道。

由於這二諦，產生了二智。因爲了解諸法實相的緣故，生起了漚和般若（Ogha-prajñā，河流般的智慧）；因為領悟實相諸法的緣故，生起了般若漚和。漚和般若而宛然就是漚和，般若漚和而宛然就是般若。因為漚和宛然就是般若的緣故，不執著于實有；般若宛然就是漚和的緣故，不滯留于空無。不被實有束縛，所以常見的執著像冰雪消融一樣；不滯留于空無，所以斷除了斷滅見。寂滅這些邊見，所以稱為中觀。因此，二諦中道，反過來又生髮了二智中觀。觀二智中觀，反過來又照亮二諦中道。

【English Translation】 English version: The place where wisdom arises can illuminate the realm it faces. Therefore, the object acted upon by wisdom can be called 'Jing Neng' (境能, the ability of the realm). It cannot be said that the realm is before and wisdom is after, nor that wisdom is before and the realm is after, nor that they occur simultaneously. It can only be said that the realm and wisdom arise from the combination of causes and conditions.

Question: What is used as the realm to generate wisdom? Answer: The Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) always teaches according to the two truths (satya-dvaya, 二諦): the conventional truth (samvṛti-satya, 俗諦) and the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, 真諦). Therefore, the two truths are called 'teaching' and can generate two wisdoms. Therefore, the two truths are called 'realm'. When Dharma Master Tan Ying (曇影法師) of Guanzhong annotated the Madhyamaka-śāstra (中論, Middle Treatise), he personally inherited the teachings of Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什). Master Kumārajīva said, 'Those who will inherit my work are probably Dao Rong, Tan Ying, and Seng Rui.' In the preface to his 'Treatise on the Two Truths', Dharma Master Tan Ying said: 'Because of the ultimate truth, all dharmas are without inherent existence; because of the conventional truth, all dharmas are not non-existent. Because it is the ultimate truth, they are without inherent existence, but they appear to exist; because it is the conventional truth, they are not non-existent, but they are without inherent existence. Although they are without inherent existence, they appear to exist, so one does not cling to emptiness; although they appear to exist, they are without inherent existence, so one is not bound by substantial existence. Not clinging to emptiness, one cuts off the view of annihilation; not being bound by substantial existence, the attachment to permanence melts away like ice. Quiescenting these extreme views, it is called the Middle Way.'

To understand this passage in detail: Because of the ultimate truth, all dharmas are without inherent existence, but they appear to exist. This is establishing all dharmas on the unchanging true reality (bhūta-tathatā, 真如實際). Because of the conventional truth, all dharmas are not non-existent, but they are without inherent existence. This is expounding the true nature (tattva, 實相) while not destroying provisional names. Expounding the true nature while not destroying provisional names, although called provisional names, it is clearly the true nature; establishing all dharmas on the unchanging true reality, although called true reality, it is clearly all dharmas. Because the true reality is clearly all dharmas, one does not cling to emptiness; all dharmas are clearly the true nature, so one is not bound by substantial existence. Not being bound by substantial existence, it is not permanent; not clinging to emptiness, it is not annihilation. This is the Middle Way.

Due to these two truths, two wisdoms arise. Because of understanding the true nature of all dharmas, Ogha-prajñā (漚和般若, river-like wisdom) arises; because of realizing the true nature of all dharmas, prajñā-ogha arises. Ogha-prajñā is clearly ogha, and prajñā-ogha is clearly prajñā. Because ogha is clearly prajñā, one does not cling to substantial existence; because prajñā is clearly ogha, one does not linger in emptiness. Not being bound by substantial existence, the attachment to permanence melts away like ice; not lingering in emptiness, one cuts off the view of annihilation. Quiescenting these extreme views, it is called the Middle Way. Therefore, the Middle Way of the two truths, in turn, generates the Middle Way of the two wisdoms. Contemplating the Middle Way of the two wisdoms, in turn, illuminates the Middle Way of the two truths.

。故境稱于智。智稱于境。境名智境。故智名境智也。二境既正。則二智義明。故須幻境以明智也。二乘不得二智。良由不見此二諦。不得正觀。亦由不見二諦即是中道故也。

問。般若照諸法實相。漚和照實相諸法。則般若不照諸法。漚和不照實相。將非限局聖心失無礙妙用。答。般若為漚和之體。漚和是般若之用。體鑒實相。用照諸法。故開此二門。智無不圓。照無不盡。若同照實相。並鑒諸法。則二境不分。兩慧無別。問。舊說亦然。與今何異。答。般若體非不能照諸法。但用既照。不煩般若照耳。若用既照諸法。而體復照者。則一境二照。既一境二照。亦應二境一智生。是故但明般若照實相。漚和照諸法。舊義般若不能照諸法。漚和不能知實相。雖復並觀。智用恒別。則是格局聖心。封執二見也。

問。前云般若不著有。方便不證空。何故。復云漚和涉有不著。般若照空無滯。答。不著空者。凡有二義。一者般若照實相。實相既無所依。則般若亦無所著。此是般若之力。二者不證空名為不著。此方便力也。不著有者。亦具二義。一者般若入空故。言不著有。二者方便為般若所道故。能涉有不著。是般若力。是故。經中或言般若不著空。方便不著有。或言般若不著有。方便不證空。各舉一門。義無

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，境依存於智，智依存於境。境被稱為智境，所以智被稱為境智。當兩種境都正確時，兩種智的意義就明顯了。所以需要幻境來闡明智。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）無法獲得兩種智，是因為他們沒有見到這二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦），無法獲得正確的觀察，也是因為他們沒有見到二諦即是中道。

問：般若（prajna，智慧）照見諸法的實相，漚和（upaya，方便）照見實相的諸法。那麼，般若不照見諸法，漚和不照見實相，這難道不是限制了聖人的心，失去了無礙的妙用嗎？答：般若是漚和的本體，漚和是般若的作用。本體鑑照實相，作用照見諸法。所以開啟這兩個門。智沒有不圓滿的，照沒有不窮盡的。如果都照見實相，並且都鑑照諸法，那麼兩種境就不分，兩種慧就沒有區別。

問：舊的說法也是這樣，與現在有什麼不同？答：般若的本體並非不能照見諸法，只是因為作用已經照見，就不需要般若再照見了。如果作用已經照見諸法，而本體又照見，那麼就是一境二照。既然是一境二照，也應該二境一生智。所以只說明般若照見實相，漚和照見諸法。舊的說法認為般若不能照見諸法，漚和不能知實相，即使一起觀察，智用始終有別，這就是格局了聖人的心，固執于兩種見解。

問：前面說般若不執著于有，方便不證悟空，為什麼又說漚和涉入有而不執著，般若照見空而沒有滯礙？答：不執著于空，凡有二種含義。一是般若照見實相，實相既然沒有所依，那麼般若也沒有所執著。這是般若的力量。二是，不證悟空名為不執著，這是方便的力量。不執著于有，也具有兩種含義。一是般若進入空，所以說不執著于有。二是方便為般若所引導，所以能夠涉入有而不執著，這是般若的力量。因此，經中或者說般若不執著于空，方便不執著于有，或者說般若不執著于有，方便不證悟空，各自舉出一個方面，意義沒有窮盡。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the realm relies on wisdom, and wisdom relies on the realm. The realm is called the 'wisdom-realm,' hence wisdom is called 'realm-wisdom.' When the two realms are correct, the meaning of the two wisdoms becomes clear. Therefore, illusory realms are needed to clarify wisdom. The two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) cannot attain the two wisdoms because they do not see these two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth), cannot attain correct observation, and also because they do not see that the two truths are the Middle Way.

Question: Prajna (prajna, wisdom) illuminates the true nature of all dharmas, and Upaya (upaya, skillful means) illuminates all dharmas of the true nature. Then, prajna does not illuminate all dharmas, and upaya does not illuminate the true nature. Isn't this limiting the mind of the sage and losing the wonderful function of unobstructedness? Answer: Prajna is the substance of Upaya, and Upaya is the function of Prajna. The substance contemplates the true nature, and the function illuminates all dharmas. Therefore, these two doors are opened. Wisdom is complete in everything, and illumination is exhaustive in everything. If both illuminate the true nature and both contemplate all dharmas, then the two realms will not be distinguished, and the two wisdoms will not be different.

Question: The old explanation is also like this, what is the difference from now? Answer: The substance of prajna is not incapable of illuminating all dharmas, but because the function has already illuminated, there is no need for prajna to illuminate again. If the function has already illuminated all dharmas, and the substance illuminates again, then it is one realm with two illuminations. Since it is one realm with two illuminations, there should also be two realms giving rise to one wisdom. Therefore, it is only explained that prajna illuminates the true nature, and upaya illuminates all dharmas. The old meaning is that prajna cannot illuminate all dharmas, and upaya cannot know the true nature. Even if they observe together, the function of wisdom is always different. This is limiting the mind of the sage and clinging to two views.

Question: Earlier it was said that prajna does not cling to existence, and upaya does not realize emptiness. Why is it now said that upaya engages with existence without clinging, and prajna illuminates emptiness without obstruction? Answer: Not clinging to emptiness has two meanings. First, prajna illuminates the true nature, and since the true nature has no reliance, then prajna also has nothing to cling to. This is the power of prajna. Second, not realizing emptiness is called not clinging, this is the power of upaya. Not clinging to existence also has two meanings. First, prajna enters emptiness, so it is said not to cling to existence. Second, upaya is guided by prajna, so it can engage with existence without clinging, this is the power of prajna. Therefore, in the sutras, it is sometimes said that prajna does not cling to emptiness, and upaya does not cling to existence, or it is said that prajna does not cling to existence, and upaya does not realize emptiness. Each mentions one aspect, and the meaning is inexhaustible.

二也。

問。若般若照空。漚和鑒有。則二智俱照。云何言般若無知。答。般若雖知而無所知。雖無所知。而無所不知。問。般若知實相。故言無知。亦則知般若。故言無知。答。既約二境。分於二智。般若但知實相。故言無知。不得云知般若故無知。若知般若。則是方便知。問。般若契實相。則內外並[穴/俱]。緣觀俱寂。方便照俗。何能知此般若。答。般若無知而知。為方便所知。知而無知。則方便不知。問。般若無知而知。知而無知。方便亦得爾不。答。指實為權。指權為實。權實不二。亦得爾也。不二而二。則無知而知。名為方便。二而不二。則知而無知。名為般若。問。般若照空。具知無知。方便鑒有。何故不具知無知耶。答。二而不二。皆具二也。不二而二。般若所知之境是空。能知之慧為有。故具知無知。而亦便能知所知境。智皆有。故波若有知有無知。而方便但有知也。問。云何般若具知無知。答般若知實相。是故名知。既契實相。則內外並[穴/俱]。緣觀俱寂。故名無知。雖緣觀俱寂。而境智宛然。故知無所知。無知而知。

問。此與開善至忌彌存義何異耶。答。彼彌存之義。終非至忌。至忌之義。終非彌存。今以彌存為至忌。至忌為彌存。是故為異。問。舊亦如是。與今何異。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 二也。

問：如果般若（Prajna，智慧）照亮空性，方便（Upaya，善巧方便）洞察有，那麼兩種智慧都照亮一切，為什麼說般若無知呢？答：般若雖然知，但無所知；雖然無所知，但無所不知。

問：般若知曉實相，所以說無知；也可以說知曉般若，所以說無知嗎？答：既然根據兩種境界，區分了兩種智慧，般若只是知曉實相，所以說無知。不能說因為知曉般若所以無知。如果知曉般若，那就是方便知。

問：般若契合實相，那麼內外一切都寂靜，因緣觀照也寂靜。方便照亮世俗，如何能知曉這般若呢？答：般若無知而知，被方便所知。知而無知，那麼方便就不能知。

問：般若無知而知，知而無知，方便也可以這樣嗎？答：指實為權，指權為實，權實不二，也可以這樣。不二而二，那麼無知而知，名為方便；二而不二，那麼知而無知，名為般若。

問：般若照亮空性，具備知和無知；方便洞察有，為什麼不具備知和無知呢？答：二而不二，都具備兩種。不二而二，般若所知的境界是空，能知的智慧是有，所以具備知和無知，而且也能知曉所知的境界。智慧都有，所以般若有知也有無知，而方便只有知。

問：如何理解般若具備知和無知？答：般若知曉實相，所以名為知。既然契合實相，那麼內外一切都寂靜，因緣觀照也寂靜，所以名為無知。雖然因緣觀照都寂靜，但境界和智慧依然清晰，所以知無所知，無知而知。

問：這與開善所說的至忌彌存的意義有什麼不同呢？答：他所說的彌存的意義，最終不是至忌；至忌的意義，最終不是彌存。現在以彌存為至忌，以至忌為彌存，所以不同。問：舊的說法也是這樣，與現在有什麼不同？

【English Translation】 English version: Two.

Question: If Prajna (Wisdom) illuminates emptiness, and Upaya (Skillful Means) discerns existence, then both wisdoms illuminate everything. Why is it said that Prajna is without knowledge? Answer: Although Prajna knows, it knows nothing; although it knows nothing, it knows everything.

Question: Prajna knows the true nature of reality, so it is said to be without knowledge. Can it also be said that it knows Prajna, so it is said to be without knowledge? Answer: Since the two wisdoms are distinguished based on the two realms, Prajna only knows the true nature of reality, so it is said to be without knowledge. It cannot be said that it is without knowledge because it knows Prajna. If it knows Prajna, then it is Upaya-knowledge.

Question: Prajna is in accordance with the true nature of reality, then everything inside and outside is still, and conditioned observation is also still. Upaya illuminates the mundane, how can it know this Prajna? Answer: Prajna knows without knowing, and is known by Upaya. Knowing without knowing, then Upaya cannot know.

Question: Prajna knows without knowing, and knows without knowing, can Upaya also be like this? Answer: Pointing to the real as provisional, and pointing to the provisional as real, the provisional and the real are not two, it can also be like this. Not two but two, then knowing without knowing is called Upaya; two but not two, then knowing and without knowing is called Prajna.

Question: Prajna illuminates emptiness, possessing both knowing and not knowing; Upaya discerns existence, why does it not possess both knowing and not knowing? Answer: Two but not two, both possess two. Not two but two, the realm known by Prajna is emptiness, and the wisdom that can know is existence, so it possesses both knowing and not knowing, and it can also know the realm that is known. Both wisdoms exist, so Prajna has both knowing and not knowing, while Upaya only has knowing.

Question: How to understand that Prajna possesses both knowing and not knowing? Answer: Prajna knows the true nature of reality, so it is called knowing. Since it is in accordance with the true nature of reality, then everything inside and outside is still, and conditioned observation is also still, so it is called not knowing. Although conditioned observation is still, the realm and wisdom are still clear, so it knows without knowing, and knows without knowing.

Question: What is the difference between this and what Kaishan said about the meaning of 'ultimate prohibition and pervasive existence'? Answer: The meaning of 'pervasive existence' that he said is ultimately not 'ultimate prohibition'; the meaning of 'ultimate prohibition' is ultimately not 'pervasive existence'. Now, taking 'pervasive existence' as 'ultimate prohibition' and 'ultimate prohibition' as 'pervasive existence' is why they are different. Question: The old saying is also like this, what is the difference from now?

答。彼至忌之義。知終不作境。境終不成智。則是境智二見。何名至忌。若智則是境。境既無智。無智亦無知。若境則是智。智既無所不知。則境亦無所不知。而實不爾。故終是二見。今對此一門。略敘大乘樞要觀行淵府。經云。貪慾則是道。恚癡亦復然。如是三法中。具無量諸佛道。貪慾則是道者。求貪慾。四句內外畢竟無從。貪慾本來自性清凈。則是實相。如此了悟。便名般若。豈有實相之境異般若觀耶。故境智不二。雖四句內外求貪不得。而則見於眾生宛然有貪慾。便是方便。傷眾生無貪謂貪。而欲拔之。故則此方便。複名大悲。欲令悟貪無貪。與無貪之樂。則此大悲。複名大慈。無故一句觀行。具足境智及慈悲等萬行。初信此法為十信。解此法為十解。乃至證悟此法為十地。究竟了達為佛果。豈非一貪中具無量諸佛道耶。故無不同。舊宗別有真境。會之而生慈悲。起境智至忌就。就一貪作既爾。歷一切法例然。

問。大品明實相不生不滅能生般若。涅槃云。十二因緣不生不滅。乃至非因非果。能發觀智。此二同明境智。有何異耶。答。開合不同。略有四句。一開因果開境智。二合因果合境智。三合因果開境智。四開因果合境智也。開因果開境智者。則般若所明。因有道慧道種慧。果則一切智一切種智。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：回答：那達到至忌（最高禁忌）的意義在於，知道終究不能以境界為實，境界終究不能成就智慧。如果這樣，就是境界和智慧的二元對立見解。怎麼能稱作至忌呢？如果說智慧就是境界，那麼境界就沒有智慧。沒有智慧也就沒有知覺。如果說境界就是智慧，智慧既然無所不知，那麼境界也應該無所不知。但實際上並非如此，所以終究是二元對立的見解。現在針對這一法門，簡要敘述大乘佛教樞要的觀行和淵深的法理。經中說：『貪慾就是道，嗔恚和愚癡也是如此。』像這樣的三種法中，具足無量諸佛之道。『貪慾就是道』的意思是，尋求貪慾，用四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）在內外都無法找到貪慾的來源。貪慾的本來自性是清凈的，這就是實相。如此了悟，就叫做般若。難道有實相的境界不同於般若的觀照嗎？所以境界和智慧不是二元對立的。雖然用四句在內外都無法找到貪慾，但是卻看到眾生確實有貪慾，這就是方便。憐憫眾生沒有貪慾卻以為有貪慾，想要拔除他們的貪慾，所以這種方便，又叫做大悲。想要讓眾生領悟貪慾本無貪，並給予他們無貪的快樂，那麼這種大悲，又叫做大慈。因此，僅僅一句觀行，就具足了境界、智慧以及慈悲等萬行。最初相信此法為十信，理解此法為十解，乃至證悟此法為十地，究竟了達此法為佛果。難道不是在一個貪慾中就具足了無量諸佛之道嗎？所以一切法都是相同的。舊宗派另外設立一個『真境』，通過會合它來產生慈悲，建立境界和智慧的至忌。僅僅就一個貪慾來做觀行就是這樣，歷經一切法也是同樣的道理。 問：大品般若經（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中說明實相（Reality）不生不滅，能夠產生般若（Prajna，智慧）。涅槃經（Nirvana Sutra）中說，十二因緣（Twelve links of dependent origination）不生不滅，乃至非因非果，能夠引發觀智（insightful wisdom）。這兩種經都說明了境界和智慧，有什麼不同呢？答：開合不同。大概有四句：一是開因果，開境界和智慧；二是合因果，合境界和智慧；三是合因果，開境界和智慧；四是開因果，合境界和智慧。開因果，開境界和智慧，就是般若經所說明的。因有道慧（wisdom of the path）、道種慧（wisdom of the seeds of the path），果則是一切智（omniscience）、一切種智（knowledge of all aspects）。

【English Translation】 English version: Answer: The meaning of reaching the 'ultimate taboo' (highest prohibition) lies in knowing that ultimately, one cannot take the realm as reality, and the realm ultimately cannot achieve wisdom. If this is the case, then it is a dualistic view of realm and wisdom. How can it be called the 'ultimate taboo'? If wisdom is said to be the realm, then the realm has no wisdom. Without wisdom, there is also no awareness. If the realm is said to be wisdom, and wisdom knows everything, then the realm should also know everything. But in reality, this is not the case, so it is ultimately a dualistic view. Now, regarding this Dharma gate, I will briefly describe the essential contemplation and profound principles of Mahayana Buddhism. The Sutra says: 'Greed is the path, and so are anger and delusion.' Within these three dharmas, there are countless paths of all Buddhas. 'Greed is the path' means that seeking greed, using the fourfold negation (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), one cannot find the source of greed internally or externally. The original nature of greed is pure, and this is the Reality (Tathata). Realizing this is called Prajna (wisdom). Is there a realm of Reality different from the contemplation of Prajna? Therefore, the realm and wisdom are not dualistic. Although one cannot find greed internally or externally using the fourfold negation, one sees that sentient beings indeed have greed, and this is skillful means (Upaya). Pitying sentient beings who do not have greed but think they do, and wanting to remove their greed, this skillful means is also called great compassion (Mahakaruna). Wanting to make sentient beings realize that greed is inherently without greed, and giving them the joy of non-greed, then this great compassion is also called great loving-kindness (Mahamaitri). Therefore, with just one contemplation, one possesses the realm, wisdom, and countless practices such as loving-kindness and compassion. Initially believing in this Dharma is the Ten Faiths, understanding this Dharma is the Ten Understandings, and even realizing this Dharma is the Ten Grounds, and ultimately understanding this Dharma is the Fruit of Buddhahood. Isn't it that within one greed, one possesses countless paths of all Buddhas? Therefore, all dharmas are the same. The old schools separately establish a 'true realm,' and generate loving-kindness and compassion by uniting with it, establishing the ultimate taboo of realm and wisdom. Just taking one greed as an example for contemplation is like this, and it is the same for all dharmas. Question: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra explains that Reality (Tathata) is unborn and undying, and can generate Prajna (wisdom). The Nirvana Sutra says that the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are unborn and undying, and even neither cause nor effect, and can generate insightful wisdom. Both of these sutras explain the realm and wisdom, what is the difference? Answer: The difference lies in opening and closing. There are roughly four statements: First, opening cause and effect, opening realm and wisdom; second, closing cause and effect, closing realm and wisdom; third, closing cause and effect, opening realm and wisdom; fourth, opening cause and effect, closing realm and wisdom. Opening cause and effect, opening realm and wisdom, is what the Prajna Sutra explains. The cause has the wisdom of the path (marga-jnana), the wisdom of the seeds of the path (marga-bija-jnana), and the fruit is omniscience (sarva-jnana), and the knowledge of all aspects (sarvakarajnata).

謂開因果也。實相能生般若。則實智之境。世諦能生方便。為權智之境。謂開境智也。次合因果合境智者。如涅槃五性之義。一者因性。二者因因性。三者果性。四者果果性。五者非因非果性。此之五性。更無二體。十二因緣能生之義。則名為境。所發之義。便名觀智。觀明瞭故稱菩提。菩提無累。即是果果。然十二因緣。本性清凈。未曾因果。亦非境智。故名非因非果。然此五性。既無二體。但轉境為智。變因為果。如此因果。未曾因果。故五性一體。名合因果合境智也。三合因果開境智者。亦如大品。以般若為因。薩婆若為果。因果更無有二。般若之因。變名薩婆若果。如什公云。薩婆若則老般若。此名合因果也。開境智者。實相雖能生般若。而不轉實相之境為般若。世諦雖生方便。不轉世諦之境。為方便之智。故名開境智也。開因果合境智者。亦如涅槃以轉境為智。故言合境智。而有因與因因。果與果果。故言開因果。

問。涅槃既轉境為智。言合境智者。亦轉因為果。何故非合因果耶。答。文開因與因因果與果果。故言開因果。而取境智。並作因因之名。沒境智之稱。故言合境智也。問。涅槃般若何故開合。答。涅槃就十二因緣。辨境智義。欲明一切眾生皆有佛性。眾生則是十二因緣。十二因緣。能生

則境。所生則智。更無二體。故明合境智也。大品辨實相能生般若。所生即菩薩觀智。是有為般若。能生實相即無為般若。故不轉無為般若成有為般若。故開境智。故般若明不二二。涅槃辨二不二。故二經同明境智。境智不同。

四同異門

問曰。凡有五時二智。一照事中之法為權。鑒四諦之理為實。謂三藏教二智也。二照真空為實。鑒俗有為權。大品教二智也。三知病識藥為實。應病授藥為權。凈名教二智也。四照一無乘為實。鑒三乘為權。法華教二智也。五照常住為實。鑒生死無常為權。涅槃教二智也。如上所明者。乃是釋大品教意。云何乃以解凈名經宗。答。五時之說。四宗之論。人師自心乖文傷義。昔已具詳。今當略說。尋一經之內。具有五文。不待始終。方備諸智。如大品明。廣說三乘之教。則菩薩遍學諸道。即識照四諦之理為實。鑒事中之法為權。故大品教中。有三藏二智也。般若鑒空。漚和涉有。九十章經。盛談此法。則空有二智。釋畢定品。引法華之意。即三一二智也。法尚品說。諸佛色身有去來。法身無去來。即常無常二智也。知病識藥。眾經皆具。不待言之。故大品一經具五二智。何得言但約空有權實。凈名經中。具諸智者。問疾品云。三空自調為慧。嚴土化人為方便。則空有二智

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 境（Dharmadhatu，指一切事物存在的領域）即是所生之智（Jnana，指智慧），兩者並非分離的個體，因此闡明了境與智的結合。 《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）辨析實相（Reality）能夠產生般若（Prajna，指智慧），所產生的即是菩薩的觀智（Wisdom of Bodhisattva），這是有為的般若。 能夠產生實相的即是無為的般若。 因此，不會將無為的般若轉變為有為的般若，所以開顯了境與智。 因此，《般若經》闡明了不二之二（Non-duality of duality）。 《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）辨析二與不二（Duality and Non-duality），因此兩部經共同闡明了境與智，境與智的不同。

四同異門

問：通常有五時二智（Five periods and two wisdoms）。 一，照見事相中的法（Dharma，指事物規律）為權（Upaya，指方便），鑑別四諦（Four Noble Truths）之理為實（Reality），這是三藏教（Tripitaka teachings）的二智。 二，照見真空（Emptiness）為實，鑑別俗有（Conventional existence）為權，這是《大品般若經》的二智。 三，知病識藥為實，應病授藥為權，這是《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）的二智。 四，照見一無乘（One Vehicle）為實，鑑別三乘（Three Vehicles）為權，這是《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）的二智。 五，照見常住（Eternal）為實，鑑別生死無常（Impermanence）為權，這是《涅槃經》的二智。 如上所闡明的是解釋《大品般若經》的教義，為何用它來解釋《維摩詰經》的宗旨？ 答：五時之說，四宗之論，是人師（Teachers）自己的想法，違背經文，損害義理，過去已經詳細說明。 現在簡略地說，尋找一部經的內部，就具有五種文義，不必等到始終，才具備各種智慧。 例如《大品般若經》闡明，廣泛地說三乘的教義，那麼菩薩（Bodhisattva）普遍學習各種道（Paths），即認識照見四諦之理為實，鑑別事相中的法為權。 所以《大品般若經》中，有三藏的二智。 般若鑑別空（Emptiness），漚和涉有（Existing），《九十章經》（Ninety Chapter Sutra）盛大地談論這種法，那麼空有二智。 解釋畢定品（Definite Assurance Chapter）時，引用《法華經》的意義，即三一二智。 《法尚品》（Dharma Still Chapter）說，諸佛（Buddhas）的色身（Physical body）有去來，法身（Dharma body）沒有去來，即常無常二智。 知病識藥，各種經典都具備，不必再說。 所以《大品般若經》一部經具備五種二智，怎麼能說只侷限於空有權實？ 《維摩詰經》中，具備各種智慧，問疾品（Inquiry of Illness Chapter）說，三空自調為慧（Wisdom），嚴土化人為方便（Skillful means），那麼空有二智。

【English Translation】 English version Dharmadhatu (the realm where all things exist) is the Jnana (wisdom) that arises; they are not separate entities, thus clarifying the union of Dharmadhatu and Jnana. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) discerns that Reality can generate Prajna (wisdom), and what is generated is the Wisdom of Bodhisattvas, which is conditioned Prajna. That which can generate Reality is unconditioned Prajna. Therefore, unconditioned Prajna is not transformed into conditioned Prajna, thus revealing Dharmadhatu and Jnana. Hence, the Prajna Sutra clarifies the non-duality of duality. The Nirvana Sutra discerns duality and non-duality, thus both sutras jointly clarify Dharmadhatu and Jnana, the difference between Dharmadhatu and Jnana.

Four Aspects of Similarity and Difference

Question: Generally, there are five periods and two wisdoms. First, illuminating the Dharmas (laws of things) within phenomena as Upaya (expedient means), and discerning the principles of the Four Noble Truths as Reality, which are the two wisdoms of the Tripitaka teachings. Second, illuminating Emptiness as Reality, and discerning conventional existence as Upaya, which are the two wisdoms of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra. Third, knowing the disease and recognizing the medicine as Reality, and prescribing medicine according to the disease as Upaya, which are the two wisdoms of the Vimalakirti Sutra. Fourth, illuminating the One Vehicle as Reality, and discerning the Three Vehicles as Upaya, which are the two wisdoms of the Lotus Sutra. Fifth, illuminating the Eternal as Reality, and discerning the impermanence of birth and death as Upaya, which are the two wisdoms of the Nirvana Sutra. What is explained above is the interpretation of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra's teachings; why use it to interpret the tenets of the Vimalakirti Sutra? Answer: The theory of five periods and the discourse of four schools are the teachers' own ideas, which violate the sutra and harm the meaning, as has been explained in detail in the past. Now, to briefly say, within a single sutra, there are five meanings; it is not necessary to wait until the end to have all kinds of wisdom. For example, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clarifies that by extensively speaking of the teachings of the Three Vehicles, Bodhisattvas universally learn all paths, that is, recognizing and illuminating the principles of the Four Noble Truths as Reality, and discerning the Dharmas within phenomena as Upaya. Therefore, in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, there are the two wisdoms of the Tripitaka. Prajna discerns Emptiness, and the Ninety Chapter Sutra extensively discusses this Dharma, then there are the two wisdoms of Emptiness and Existence. When explaining the Definite Assurance Chapter, the meaning of the Lotus Sutra is cited, which are the three, one, and two wisdoms. The Dharma Still Chapter says that the physical bodies of Buddhas have coming and going, but the Dharma bodies have no coming and going, which are the two wisdoms of permanence and impermanence. Knowing the disease and recognizing the medicine are present in all sutras, so there is no need to say more. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra has five kinds of two wisdoms in one sutra; how can it be said that it is only limited to the expedient means and reality of emptiness and existence? In the Vimalakirti Sutra, there are all kinds of wisdom; the Inquiry of Illness Chapter says that self-regulation through the three emptinesses is wisdom, and purifying the land and transforming people is skillful means, then there are the two wisdoms of emptiness and existence.

。弟子品明。佛身無為不墮諸數。謂本常住。但為出五濁。方便示疾。即跡無常。照此本跡。則常無常二智也。不二法門明。聲聞心菩薩心不二。則是一乘。明大小為二。名為三乘。謂三一二智也。

問。不二法門云何則一乘耶。答。不二之理。則是一乘本。由體不二之理。故生不二之觀。依不二觀能導引眾行。出於生死。到彼薩云。故十二門論云。大分深義。所謂定空也。以通達是義。則通達大乘。具六波羅蜜。無所障礙。問。不二之理。通為三乘之本。豈但一乘本耶。答。理既無二。乘豈三哉。但唱此言。則知歸一。又尚明常住。豈未顯一乘。故知凈名經亦具五二智。法華具五者。方便品云。我雖說涅槃。是亦非真滅。諸法從本來。常自寂滅相。昔涅槃非真滅。今涅槃為真滅。則昔無涅槃非真常。今涅槃為真常。天親之論釋壽量品。具明三身。化身有始有終。報身有始無終。法身無始無終。故知具有常無常義。又若一乘之果。猶是無常。則果同灰斷。云何得因異聲聞。故有常無常二智。安樂行品。明知一切法空如實相。則是實慧。知因緣生。謂方便慧。亦具空有二慧。嘆聲聞德。猶依小乘。故知亦有三藏二智。涅槃具五。不復待言。

問。若一教之中。具含諸智。即但是一經。何有諸部。答。諸大乘

經。通為顯道。道既無二。教豈異哉。故亦得名為一部。所以諸大乘經。通稱方廣。但顯道多門。故有眾經之異。又雖一經之內具明五種。但一義有傍正。故諸部不同。三藏教則但明事理權實。未辨余門。故大品以空有為正。余義為傍。法華三一為端。余皆泛辨。涅槃以常無常為旨。余悉並明。問。眾經何故有此傍正。答。有二種菩薩。一直往菩薩。二回小入大之人。般若為直往菩薩。說方便實慧。令不著三界。實慧方便。令不墮二乘。有兩健人。各扶一腋。直至佛道。不須明三乘為方便。一乘為真實。故法華云。有佛子心凈柔軟亦利根。我記如是人。來世得作佛。是等聞得佛。大喜充遍身。則般若時事也。而回小入大之人。大品之時。根猶未熟。故不正明三一之義。而畢定品。引法華經明退不退者。蓋是般若後分傍及之耳。三明無常之執。至大品時。其根未傾。故不廣說常住。但般若謳和既是因行。復須識果法。是故。大品後分。略明法身常住。跡有去來。又常啼本求般若。故以二慧為正。中路疑佛去來。故傍明本跡。

問。大品明有為般若無為般若。豈不正辨常無常耶。答。無為般若。凡有二種。一者以實相境名無為般若。所生觀智名有為般若。二者以佛果法身名無為般若。菩薩因慧名有為般若。大品中。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：經書普遍是爲了彰顯佛道。佛道既然沒有歧義，那麼教義又怎麼會有不同呢？所以（不同的經書）也可以被看作是一個整體。因此，所有的大乘經典，通常被稱為『方廣』（指內容廣博深遠）。只是因為彰顯佛道的方法有很多，所以才有了眾多經書的差異。此外，即使一部經書之內完整地闡述了五種含義（事、理、權、實、常），但因為某一種含義有主次之分，所以各部經書才有所不同。三藏教（聲聞藏、緣覺藏、菩薩藏）只是闡明了事相、道理、權巧、真實，沒有區分其他的含義。所以《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）以空和有作為主要內容，其餘的含義作為次要內容。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）以三乘歸一乘為根本，其餘的都泛泛而談。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）以常與無常為宗旨，其餘的全部闡明。 問：為什麼眾多的經書會有這種主次之分呢？ 答：有兩種菩薩，一種是直接趨向佛道的菩薩，另一種是從小乘轉入大乘的人。《般若經》（Prajna Sutra）是為直接趨向佛道的菩薩說的，講述方便的智慧和真實的智慧，使他們不執著於三界（欲界、色界、無色界），用真實的智慧和方便的智慧，使他們不墮入二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）。就像有兩個強壯的人，各自扶著一個人的腋下，直接到達成佛的道路，不需要說明三乘是方便，一乘是真實。所以《法華經》說：『如果有佛子心地清凈柔軟，而且根器銳利，我預言這樣的人，來世能夠成佛。』這些人聽到能夠成佛，非常高興，喜悅充滿全身，這是《般若經》時期的事。 而從小乘轉入大乘的人，在《大品般若經》的時候，根基還沒有成熟，所以沒有明確地闡明三乘歸一乘的含義。而《畢定品》引用《法華經》來闡明退轉和不退轉，大概是《般若經》後半部分順帶提及的。之前執著于無常的觀念，到了《大品般若經》的時候，這種觀念的根基還沒有動搖，所以沒有廣泛地講述常住的道理。但是《般若經》的讚頌既是因地的修行，又必須認識果地的法則，因此，《大品般若經》的後半部分，簡略地闡明了法身常住，應化之身有來有去。而且常啼菩薩（Sadaprarudita）本來就是爲了求取般若，所以以二種智慧（方便慧和真實慧）為主要內容，中途懷疑佛的來去，所以順帶闡明了本和跡。 問：《大品般若經》闡明有為的般若和無為的般若，難道不是在辨析常與無常嗎？ 答：無為的般若，大概有兩種。一種是以實相的境界名為無為的般若，由實相境界所產生的觀智名為有為的般若。另一種是以佛果的法身名為無為的般若，菩薩因地的智慧名為有為的般若。《大品般若經》中，

【English Translation】 English version: Sutras are generally for revealing the Buddha-dharma (the way of the Buddha). Since the Buddha-dharma has no ambiguity, how can the teachings be different? Therefore, (different sutras) can also be regarded as a whole. Thus, all Mahayana sutras are commonly called 'Vaipulya' (meaning vast and profound in content). It is only because there are many ways to reveal the Buddha-dharma that there are differences in the numerous sutras. Furthermore, even if a sutra fully explains the five meanings (phenomena, principle, expedient, truth, permanence), because one meaning has primary and secondary aspects, the various sutras differ. The Tripitaka teachings (Sravaka Pitaka, Pratyekabuddha Pitaka, Bodhisattva Pitaka) only explain phenomena, principles, expedients, and truth, without distinguishing other meanings. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) takes emptiness and existence as the main content, and the remaining meanings as secondary content. The Lotus Sutra takes the unification of the three vehicles into one vehicle as fundamental, and the rest are discussed in general terms. The Nirvana Sutra takes permanence and impermanence as its purpose, and clarifies all the rest. Question: Why do the numerous sutras have this distinction between primary and secondary? Answer: There are two types of Bodhisattvas: one is the Bodhisattva who goes directly to the Buddha-path, and the other is the person who turns from the Small Vehicle to the Great Vehicle. The Prajna Sutra (Wisdom Sutra) is spoken for the Bodhisattva who goes directly to the Buddha-path, explaining the wisdom of expedient means and the wisdom of reality, so that they are not attached to the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), and using the wisdom of reality and the wisdom of expedient means, so that they do not fall into the two vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle). It is like two strong people, each supporting a person's armpit, directly reaching the path to Buddhahood, without needing to explain that the three vehicles are expedient means and the one vehicle is the truth. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'If there are Buddha-sons whose minds are pure and gentle, and whose faculties are sharp, I predict that such people will be able to become Buddhas in the future.' These people hear that they can become Buddhas, and are very happy, with joy filling their whole bodies; this is the matter of the Prajna Sutra period. As for those who turn from the Small Vehicle to the Great Vehicle, their roots were not yet mature at the time of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, so the meaning of the unification of the three vehicles into one vehicle was not clearly explained. And the Chapter on Assurance quotes the Lotus Sutra to clarify those who regress and those who do not regress, which is probably mentioned in passing in the latter part of the Prajna Sutra. Previously, there was attachment to the concept of impermanence, but by the time of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, the foundation of this concept had not yet been shaken, so the principle of permanence was not widely discussed. However, the praise of the Prajna Sutra is both the practice of the cause and the need to recognize the laws of the fruit, therefore, the latter part of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra briefly explains that the Dharmakaya (Dharma body) is permanent, and the manifested body has coming and going. Moreover, Sadaprarudita (Ever Weeping Bodhisattva) originally sought Prajna, so he took the two wisdoms (wisdom of expedient means and wisdom of reality) as the main content, and doubted the Buddha's coming and going in the middle, so he incidentally explained the original and the traces. Question: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra explains conditioned Prajna and unconditioned Prajna, isn't it distinguishing between permanence and impermanence? Answer: There are roughly two types of unconditioned Prajna. One is to call the realm of reality unconditioned Prajna, and the wisdom of contemplation arising from the realm of reality is called conditioned Prajna. The other is to call the Dharmakaya (Dharma body) of the Buddha-fruit unconditioned Prajna, and the wisdom of the Bodhisattva's causal ground is called conditioned Prajna. In the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra,

正明境智。為無為義。傍明因果。為無為義。是以論云。欲得有為般若。當學無為。此明欲得觀智。當觀實相境。若言欲得于因當學果者。于義不便也。又實相能生般若。正是以境生智。若言以果生因。義非便也。若以實相則是法身。以如為佛者。則此境智便是因果。上五句中。已詳此意。法華經。正為回小入大之人。故明三乘為方便。令其舍小乘。一乘為真實。勸其取大。故正明三一二慧也。既舍小求大。則發菩提心。修菩薩行。復學空有權實。不著三界。不墮二乘。直至佛道。但大品既已廣明。故法華但略說也。三根聲聞。當法華之席。不執無常。未明常樂。但既說一乘之因。須辨法身之果。是故。後分略辨常與無常。又說常住。成其一乘。若是無常。應同灰斷。既異昔三。則知常住。皆是傍明。非正宗也。

問。大品明境智為無為。云何傍正。答。實相境雖是般若本。而大品始終正明二慧。二慧則所生。是有為般若。故以有為是正也。故不得以境為宗。

問。大品若正明有為般若者。不住法。住般若。具足六度萬行。為是有為。為是無為。答。不住法者。謂不住一切有所得法以不住一切法。故住般若。此則實相般若。以下具足六度。六波羅蜜中第六般若。則是有為般若。由不住一切法故。住實相般

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 闡明實相境和觀照智慧（境智），是爲了說明『無為』的含義。順帶闡明因和果的關係，也是爲了說明『無為』的含義。因此，《大智度論》中說：『想要獲得有為的般若智慧，應當學習無為的般若智慧。』這是說明想要獲得觀照智慧，應當觀照實相之境。如果說想要獲得因，應當學習果，在義理上就不順暢了。而且，實相能夠產生般若智慧，這正是以境生智。如果說以果生因，義理上也是不順暢的。如果認為實相就是法身（Dharmakaya），以『如』為佛，那麼這境和智便是因和果。以上五句話中，已經詳細說明了這個意思。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）正是爲了引導回小向大的人，所以說明三乘（Triyana）是方便法門，讓他們捨棄小乘，一乘（Ekayana）才是真實法門，勸他們取大乘。所以，《法華經》主要闡明三一二慧。既然捨棄小乘而追求大乘，就會發起菩提心（Bodhi-citta），修菩薩行（Bodhisattva-caryā），進而學習空有權實，不執著於三界（Trailokya），不墮入二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna），直至成就佛道。但是，《大品般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）已經廣泛闡明，所以《法華經》只是略說。三根（三種根器）的聲聞（Śrāvaka），在《法華經》的法會上，不執著于無常，但未闡明常樂。但既然說了一乘之因，就必須辨明法身之果。因此，後半部分略微辨析常與無常，又說常住，成就一乘。如果是無常，就應該像灰燼一樣斷滅。既然不同於過去的三乘，就知道是常住。這些都是順帶說明，不是《法華經》的主要宗旨。

問：既然《大品般若經》闡明境智為無為，為什麼說是順帶和主要？ 答：實相境雖然是般若的根本，但是《大品般若經》始終主要闡明二慧。二慧是所生，是有為的般若智慧，所以以有為為主要。因此，不能以境為宗旨。

問：如果《大品般若經》主要闡明有為的般若智慧，那麼『不住法，住般若，具足六度萬行』，是有為還是無為？ 答：『不住法』，是指不住一切有所得法。因為不住一切法，所以住于般若。這指的是實相般若。以下『具足六度』，六波羅蜜（Six Pāramitās）中的第六般若，則是有為的般若智慧。由於不住一切法，所以住于實相般若。

【English Translation】 English version: To clarify the realm of true reality and wisdom (Jñāna) is to explain the meaning of 'non-action' (Asamskrta). To incidentally clarify the relationship between cause and effect is also to explain the meaning of 'non-action'. Therefore, the Treatise states: 'If you want to obtain conditioned Prajñā, you should learn unconditioned Prajñā.' This explains that if you want to obtain wisdom of observation, you should observe the realm of true reality. If it is said that if you want to obtain the cause, you should learn the effect, it is not convenient in terms of meaning. Moreover, true reality can generate Prajñā, which is precisely using the realm to generate wisdom. If it is said that using the effect to generate the cause, the meaning is also not convenient. If true reality is considered the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya), and 'Suchness' is considered the Buddha, then this realm of wisdom is the cause and effect. In the above five sentences, this meaning has been explained in detail. The Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) is precisely for those who turn from the small to the great, so it explains that the Three Vehicles (Triyana) are expedient means, allowing them to abandon the Small Vehicle, and the One Vehicle (Ekayana) is the true vehicle, encouraging them to take the Great Vehicle. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra mainly clarifies the three, one, and two wisdoms. Since abandoning the small and seeking the great, they will generate Bodhicitta (Bodhi-citta), cultivate the Bodhisattva path (Bodhisattva-caryā), and further learn emptiness, existence, expediency, and reality, not clinging to the Three Realms (Trailokya), not falling into the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), until they achieve Buddhahood. However, since the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra has already extensively clarified it, the Lotus Sutra only briefly explains it. The Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka) of the three roots (three kinds of faculties), at the assembly of the Lotus Sutra, do not cling to impermanence, but have not clarified permanence and bliss. But since the cause of the One Vehicle has been spoken of, the fruit of the Dharmakaya must be distinguished. Therefore, the latter part briefly distinguishes between permanence and impermanence, and also speaks of permanence, completing the One Vehicle. If it were impermanent, it should be extinguished like ashes. Since it is different from the past three vehicles, it is known to be permanent. These are all incidental explanations, not the main purpose of the Lotus Sutra.

Question: Since the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra clarifies the realm of wisdom as non-action, why is it said to be incidental and main? Answer: Although the realm of true reality is the root of Prajñā, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra always mainly clarifies the two wisdoms. The two wisdoms are what is produced, which is conditioned Prajñā, so conditioned is considered the main. Therefore, the realm cannot be taken as the main purpose.

Question: If the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra mainly clarifies conditioned Prajñā, then 'not dwelling in the Dharma, dwelling in Prajñā, fully possessing the Six Perfections and myriad practices', is it conditioned or unconditioned? Answer: 'Not dwelling in the Dharma' means not dwelling in all attainable Dharmas. Because one does not dwell in all Dharmas, one dwells in Prajñā. This refers to true reality Prajñā. The following 'fully possessing the Six Perfections', the sixth Prajñā in the Six Pāramitās (Six Pāramitās), is conditioned Prajñā. Because one does not dwell in all Dharmas, one dwells in true reality Prajñā.

若。故生觀智。便具足有為波若。由有為波若故。導成萬行。故明三法。一者實相般若。二觀智般若。三導成因果諸行。問。何以知此是實相般若。答。二義論之。一者前六家解中。第五名無為。第六非有為非無為。則是實相。又若言不住法住般若非實相般若。下六度中。第六復是何般若耶。以第六是觀智有為般若。故知初是實相無為波若。

問。大品何故以境智為無為是正。涅槃以因果為無為是正耶。答。大品說菩薩行。實相生於般若。般若故有區和。是故。以境智無正。涅槃正明果得。故生死因位以來。皆是無常。如來法身。始是常住。涅槃正辨果法。故以因果為無為。是正宗也。涅槃教起。正為無常之執。故開常住。三一空有。前教已明。故但略說。

問。般若等經。為直往菩薩。法華之教。為回小入大之人。則攝緣已周。涅槃教興。復何取為哉。答。設教多意。不可一途。大品十九因緣。涅槃所為非一。依法華意釋此同者。諸子有二。一者失心。則鈍根之人。二不失心。謂利根人也。雖有直往之與回小。聞般若法華。並皆領悟。謂不失心子。利根人也。余失心鈍根。猶未服藥。故入雙林唱滅。為說涅槃。方乃取信。若然者。始蓮華藏。終跋提河。但有利鈍二種緣也。又般若法華之座。皆已得道。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 若（如果）如此，就能產生觀智（觀察事物的智慧），便具足有為般若（通過修行而獲得的智慧）。由於有有為般若的緣故，引導成就萬行（各種修行方法）。所以闡明三種般若：一是實相般若（事物真實本性的智慧），二是觀智般若，三是導成因果的諸行（引導成就因果的各種修行）。

問：憑什麼知道這是實相般若？

答：從兩個方面來論述。一是前面六家解釋中，第五家名為無為（不造作），第六家為非有為非無為，這就是實相。又如果說不住法而住般若，就不是實相般若。下面的六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）中，第六度又是什麼般若呢？因為第六度是觀智有為般若，所以知道最初的是實相無為般若。

問：《大品般若經》為什麼認為以境（境界）智（智慧）為無為是正確的，《涅槃經》卻認為以因果為無為是正確的呢？

答：《大品般若經》說菩薩的修行，實相產生於般若，因為般若才有區別和調和。因此，以境智為無為是正確的。《涅槃經》主要闡明果的獲得，所以從生死因位以來，都是無常的。如來的法身（佛的真身），才是常住的。《涅槃經》主要辨明果法，所以以因果為無為是正宗。《涅槃經》的教義興起，正是爲了破除對無常的執著，所以開示常住。三一空有（三種一體，空與有），之前的教義已經闡明，所以只是簡略地說。

問：《般若經》等經典，是為直往菩薩（直接修行成佛的菩薩）而說，《法華經》的教義，是為回小入大（從小乘轉向大乘）的人而說，那麼攝受因緣已經完備，為什麼還要興起《涅槃經》的教義呢？

答：設立教義有很多用意，不能只從一個方面來看。《大品般若經》有十九種因緣，《涅槃經》的目的不止一個。依照《法華經》的意義來解釋這個相同之處，諸子（孩子們）有兩種，一是失心（失去本心），就是鈍根（根器遲鈍）的人，二是不失心，就是利根（根器敏銳）的人。雖然有直往和回小，聽到《般若經》、《法華經》，都能夠領悟，這是指不失心的孩子，利根的人。其餘失心鈍根的人，還沒有服藥，所以進入雙林（兩棵娑羅樹之間）示現滅度，為他們說《涅槃經》，才能夠取信。如果這樣說，從最初的蓮華藏世界（佛所居的清凈世界）到最後的跋提河（釋迦牟尼佛涅槃的地方），只有利鈍兩種因緣罷了。又《般若經》、《法華經》的法會，都已經有人得道了。

【English Translation】 English version: If so, then the wisdom of observation (Guan Zhi, the wisdom of observing things) arises, and one is fully equipped with conditioned Prajna (You Wei Bo Re, wisdom acquired through practice). Because of conditioned Prajna, it guides and accomplishes myriad practices (Wan Xing, various methods of practice). Therefore, it clarifies the three Prajnas: first, the Prajna of true reality (Shi Xiang Bo Re, the wisdom of the true nature of things), second, the Prajna of observation, and third, the various practices that guide and accomplish cause and effect (Yin Guo, cause and effect).

Question: How do we know that this is the Prajna of true reality?

Answer: Discuss it from two aspects. First, among the six interpretations mentioned earlier, the fifth is called unconditioned (Wu Wei, non-action), and the sixth is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, which is true reality. Also, if it is said that one does not abide in the Dharma but abides in Prajna, then it is not the Prajna of true reality. Among the six Paramitas (Liu Du, Six Perfections: generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom) below, what is the sixth Paramita? Because the sixth is the conditioned Prajna of observation, we know that the first is the unconditioned Prajna of true reality.

Question: Why does the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra consider the realm (Jing, object of perception) and wisdom (Zhi, wisdom) as unconditioned to be correct, while the Nirvana Sutra considers cause and effect as unconditioned to be correct?

Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that the practice of Bodhisattvas, true reality arises from Prajna, and because of Prajna, there are distinctions and harmony. Therefore, considering the realm and wisdom as unconditioned is correct. The Nirvana Sutra mainly clarifies the attainment of the fruit, so from the position of the cause of birth and death, everything is impermanent. The Dharmakaya (Fa Shen, the body of the Dharma) of the Tathagata (Ru Lai, Thus Come One) is permanent. The Nirvana Sutra mainly distinguishes the Dharma of the fruit, so considering cause and effect as unconditioned is the correct doctrine. The teachings of the Nirvana Sutra arose precisely to break the attachment to impermanence, so it reveals permanence. The three ones, emptiness and existence (San Yi Kong You, three in one, emptiness and existence), have already been clarified in previous teachings, so they are only briefly mentioned.

Question: Are the Prajna Sutras and other scriptures for Bodhisattvas who go directly to enlightenment (Zhi Wang Pu Sa, Bodhisattvas who directly practice to become Buddhas), and the teachings of the Lotus Sutra for those who turn from the Small Vehicle to the Great Vehicle (Hui Xiao Ru Da, turning from Hinayana to Mahayana)? Then, the reception of conditions is already complete, so why is the teaching of the Nirvana Sutra still needed?

Answer: There are many intentions in establishing teachings, and they cannot be viewed from only one aspect. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra has nineteen causes and conditions, and the purpose of the Nirvana Sutra is not just one. According to the meaning of the Lotus Sutra to explain this similarity, there are two kinds of children (Zhu Zi, children): one is those who have lost their minds (Shi Xin, lost their original mind), which are those with dull roots (Dun Gen, dull faculties), and the other is those who have not lost their minds, which are those with sharp roots (Li Gen, sharp faculties). Although there are direct going and turning from the Small Vehicle, hearing the Prajna Sutras and the Lotus Sutra, they can all understand, which refers to the children who have not lost their minds, those with sharp roots. The rest, those who have lost their minds and have dull roots, have not yet taken the medicine, so they enter the twin Sala trees (Shuang Lin, between two Sala trees) to show Nirvana, and speak the Nirvana Sutra for them to believe. If so, from the initial Lotus Treasury World (Lian Hua Zang Shi Jie, the pure world where the Buddha resides) to the final Bati River (Ba Ti He, the place where Shakyamuni Buddha entered Nirvana), there are only two kinds of conditions, sharp and dull. Also, in the Dharma assemblies of the Prajna Sutras and the Lotus Sutra, some have already attained the Way.

今聞涅槃更復進悟。故云為人中象王迦葉菩薩說是經也。又有二緣。一歷教已得悟緣。二直聞涅槃則便受道。故波若法華。雖為二人。更說涅槃二智也。別論二經。

問。大品二智與凈名二智何異。答。凡有三說。辨五時義。如上所明。大品鑑空有為二慧。凈名知病識藥。應病授藥。無為權實。用四時。義云大品凈名。同爲第二教。但大品通說淺深。凈名遍明八地以上然同辨照空為實鑒有為權也。此二南土人釋也。有人言。維摩是圓教。非染非凈。染凈雙游。此北土論師釋也。今謂不然。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。一切眾導師。無不由是生。豈得局在波若。不通凈名。又鑒空照有。故名般若漚和。此多明菩薩自行。知病識藥。應病授藥。蓋明大士化他之法。夫為菩薩。皆具斯二。何得以化他而呈凈名。自行以局大品。故前釋為非也。釋論列法華等十種大經。而般若最大。豈言大品通說淺深。凈名獨明妙道。若言凈名是八地以上之人。故法深者。如來為究竟果地。于般若應為宗妙。又身子善吉小人說之。便非大法。若云凈名辨不思議。鉅細容入。復為深者。般若明指障風力。毛舉大千。豈不明耶。又般若謳和。不思議之本也。借座請飯。不思議之跡也。大品盛明二慧。則辨不思議本。凈名現通。乃顯不思議跡。何

得本通淺深。而跡謂為妙。若三乘通學般若。故復般若通淺深。凈名釋于智度菩薩母。則是般若。豈不通。又云。是圓頓教者。是亦不然。般若等亦廣嘆菩薩權道方便。何故獨以凈名為圓頓教耶。今明。大品凈名明二惠有同異。所言同者。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。則知二經。皆照空為實。涉有為權也。所言異者。大品先明實慧。后明方便。九十章經。開為二道。六十六品。明般若道。餘二十四品。辨方便道。所以先明實慧。后辨方便者。實相為本。諸法為末。般若照實相。故波若為本。方便照諸法。故方便為末。此示二本二末。從本至末。從體起用。故先明實慧。后辨方便也。又一切諸見。凡有二種。一者有見。二者無見。般若破其有見。方便破其無見。則顯中道。遠離二邊。故先明實慧。后明方便。則破見次第也。又菩薩退有二事。一貪三界。二取小乘。方便實慧故不著三界。實慧方便故不墮二乘。故入菩薩位。得至佛道。要須先離三界。后離二乘。故先明實慧。后辨方便。此如法華五百由旬險難惡道。三界為三百。二乘為二百。先離三百。后離二百。故先明實慧。后辨權慧。故大品中。以二乘合為一百。但明四百。開合為異。與法華大同。如彼廣說。又睿公釋論序云。正覺知邪思之自起故。阿含為之作。鑒滯有

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 獲得根本的通達，卻只在淺顯處停留，就認為已經掌握了精妙之處。如果三乘（Śrāvakayāna，Pratyekabuddhayāna，Bodhisattvayāna）共同學習《般若經》（Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra），那麼《般若經》也有深淺之分。《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra）解釋說智慧是菩薩之母，這就是《般若經》，難道它不也是共通的嗎？又有人說，《維摩詰經》是圓頓教法，這也是不對的。《般若經》等也廣泛讚歎菩薩的權巧方便之道，為何唯獨認為《維摩詰經》是圓頓教法呢？現在說明，《大品般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）和《維摩詰經》闡明智慧（Prajñā）和方便（Upāya）的同與異。所說的相同之處在於，智慧是菩薩之母，方便是菩薩之父，由此可知這兩部經都以照見空性為真實，涉入有為法為權巧。 所說的不同之處在於，《大品般若經》先闡明實慧，后闡明方便。九十章的經文，分為二道，六十六章闡明般若道，其餘二十四品辨別方便道。之所以先闡明實慧，后辨別方便，是因為實相是根本，諸法是末端。《般若經》照見實相，所以般若是根本，方便照見諸法，所以方便是末端。這顯示了二本二末，從本至末，從體起用，所以先闡明實慧，后辨別方便。又一切諸見，總共有兩種，一種是有見，一種是無見。《般若經》破除有見，方便破除無見，從而顯現中道，遠離二邊。所以先闡明實慧，后辨別方便，這是破除見解的次第。又菩薩退轉有兩件事，一是貪戀三界（Trailokya），二是取證小乘（Śrāvakayāna）。因為有方便和實慧，所以不執著三界；因為有實慧和方便，所以不墮入二乘。因此進入菩薩位，才能到達佛道。必須先離開三界，后離開二乘，所以先闡明實慧，后辨別方便。這就像《法華經》（Lotus Sūtra）中五百由旬（Yojana）的險難惡道，三界是三百由旬，二乘是二百由旬，先離開三百，后離開二百，所以先闡明實慧，后辨別權慧。因此《大品般若經》中，將二乘合併爲一百，只說明四百，開合不同，與《法華經》大體相同，如彼經中廣說。又鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）的弟子僧睿（Sengrui）在《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）的序言中說：『正覺（Sammyak-sambuddha）知道邪思的產生，所以阿含經（Āgama）因此而作，用來鑑別滯留于有'

【English Translation】 English version Gaining a fundamental understanding, yet dwelling only on the superficial, and claiming to have grasped the essence. If the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) jointly study the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, then the Prajñāpāramitā also has depths and shallows. The Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra explains that wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, which is the Prajñāpāramitā, is it not also common? Furthermore, some say that the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra is a 'round and sudden' teaching, but this is also incorrect. The Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, etc., also widely praise the expedient means (Upāya) of Bodhisattvas, why single out the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra as a 'round and sudden' teaching? Now, I will explain that the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra clarify the similarities and differences between wisdom (Prajñā) and expedient means (Upāya). What is said to be the same is that wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and expedient means is the father of Bodhisattvas, from which it can be known that both sutras take illuminating emptiness as reality and engaging in conditioned phenomena as expedient. What is said to be different is that the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra first clarifies real wisdom and then clarifies expedient means. The ninety-chapter sutra is divided into two paths, sixty-six chapters clarify the Prajñāpāramitā path, and the remaining twenty-four chapters distinguish the expedient means path. The reason for first clarifying real wisdom and then distinguishing expedient means is that reality is the root, and all phenomena are the branches. The Prajñāpāramitā illuminates reality, so Prajñāpāramitā is the root, and expedient means illuminates all phenomena, so expedient means is the branch. This shows the two roots and two branches, from root to branch, from essence to function, so first clarify real wisdom and then distinguish expedient means. Furthermore, all views are of two kinds, one is the view of existence, and the other is the view of non-existence. The Prajñāpāramitā breaks the view of existence, and expedient means breaks the view of non-existence, thereby revealing the Middle Way, and staying away from the two extremes. Therefore, first clarify real wisdom and then distinguish expedient means, this is the order of breaking views. Furthermore, there are two things that cause Bodhisattvas to regress, one is attachment to the Three Realms (Trailokya), and the other is taking refuge in the Small Vehicle (Śrāvakayāna). Because of expedient means and real wisdom, one is not attached to the Three Realms; because of real wisdom and expedient means, one does not fall into the Two Vehicles. Therefore, one enters the Bodhisattva position and can reach the Buddha path. One must first leave the Three Realms and then leave the Two Vehicles, so first clarify real wisdom and then distinguish expedient means. This is like the dangerous and evil path of five hundred Yojanas (Yojana) in the Lotus Sūtra, the Three Realms are three hundred Yojanas, and the Two Vehicles are two hundred Yojanas, first leave three hundred, then leave two hundred, so first clarify real wisdom and then distinguish expedient wisdom. Therefore, in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the Two Vehicles are combined into one hundred, only four hundred are explained, the opening and closing are different, and it is largely the same as the Lotus Sūtra, as explained in that sutra. Furthermore, Sengrui, a disciple of Kumārajīva, said in the preface to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: 'The Perfectly Enlightened One (Sammyak-sambuddha) knows the arising of wrong thoughts, so the Āgama Sūtras were made for this reason, to distinguish those who are stuck in existence.'

之由惑故。般若為之內照。若然者。波若則明破小乘之有。故先明實慧。雖破著有。復恐證空。故方便破空。此約教之先後。為次第也。次就位明者。前明般若道。謂六地以還法門。次明方便。則七地以上無生忍。此皆大判為言。龍樹云。般若中非無方便。方便中非無般若。但前多明般若。后多明方便。次凈名經辨二慧者。先明方便。后辨于實。所以然者。此教所興。正起于疾。故云其以方便現身有疾。以有疾故。便有方丈二集庵園兩會。故前明方便。后辨實也。又成就眾生。凈佛國土。此是菩薩方便之用。故佛國一品。明凈佛國土。方便以去。辨成就眾生。是以此經多明方便也。又大品多明自行二慧。凈名多辨外化權實。何以知然。大品明。般若不著有。漚和不證空。此多是菩薩自行二慧。凈名經。內靜鑒根藥。外則廣現神通。故多明化他二慧。又大品多明實慧方便慧。凈名經多明權實二慧。

問權與方便。有何異耶。答。通則無別。皆是善巧之義也。別而為言之。方便則長。權義則短。今總明三意。一者明實相為實。鑒萬法為權。二靜鑒萬法為實。外變動為權。三就動用。以不疾之身為實。託疾方丈為權。初照實相名為實慧。自餘三門。皆屬方便。故方便長也。權義短者。但取靜鑒根藥為實。外示變動以去

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是由於迷惑的緣故。般若（Prajna，智慧）因此進行內在的照耀。如果這樣，般若就能明智地破除小乘（Hinayana）的有見。所以先闡明真實的智慧。即使破除了執著于有的觀念，又擔心會證入空無。所以用方便法門來破除空見。這是按照教義的先後順序來安排的。其次從菩薩的階位來闡明，前面闡明般若之道，指的是六地菩薩之前的法門。後面闡明方便，指的是七地菩薩以上的無生法忍。這些都是大概的說法。龍樹（Nagarjuna）菩薩說，般若中並非沒有方便，方便中並非沒有般若。只是前面更多地闡明般若，後面更多地闡明方便。再次，《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）辨別兩種智慧，先闡明方便，后辨別真實。之所以這樣，是因為此經的興起，正是爲了快速成就。所以說維摩詰以方便示現自身有疾病。因為有疾病的緣故，便有方丈室和二集庵園兩次集會。所以先闡明方便，后辨別真實。又成就眾生，清凈佛國土，這是菩薩方便的運用。所以《佛國品》闡明清凈佛國土，《方便品》之後，辨別成就眾生。因此這部經更多地闡明方便。又《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）更多地闡明自行的兩種智慧，《維摩詰經》更多地辨別外化的權巧和真實。憑什麼知道是這樣呢？《大品般若經》闡明，般若不執著于有，漚和（Upaya，方便）不證入空。這大多是菩薩自行的兩種智慧。《維摩詰經》闡明，內在寂靜地觀察根性和藥物，外在廣泛地示現神通。所以更多地闡明化他的兩種智慧。又《大品般若經》更多地闡明實慧和方便慧，《維摩詰經》更多地闡明權巧和真實兩種智慧。

問：權巧和方便，有什麼不同呢？答：如果從普遍意義上來說，沒有區別，都是善巧的意思。如果從區別上來說，方便的含義更廣，權巧的含義更窄。現在總共闡明三種含義。第一，闡明實相為真實，鑑別萬法為權巧。第二，寂靜地觀察萬法為真實，外在的變動為權巧。第三，就動用而言，以不生病之身為真實，託病于方丈室為權巧。最初照見實相，稱為實慧。其餘三種，都屬於方便。所以方便的含義更廣。權巧的含義更窄，只是取寂靜地觀察根性和藥物為真實，外在示現變動。

【English Translation】 English version: This is due to the cause of delusion. Prajna (Wisdom) therefore performs inner illumination. If so, Prajna can wisely break through the 'existence' view of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle). Therefore, first clarify the real wisdom. Even if the attachment to 'existence' is broken, there is still fear of realizing emptiness. Therefore, use skillful means (Upaya) to break through the view of emptiness. This is arranged according to the order of the teachings. Secondly, clarify from the position of the Bodhisattva, the previous clarification of the Prajna path refers to the Dharma gates before the Sixth Ground Bodhisattva. The later clarification of Upaya refers to the non-origination forbearance of the Seventh Ground Bodhisattva and above. These are all general statements. Nagarjuna (Dragon Tree) Bodhisattva said, 'There is no Upaya in Prajna, and there is no Prajna in Upaya. It's just that Prajna is explained more in the front, and Upaya is explained more in the back.' Again, the Vimalakirti Sutra distinguishes between two wisdoms, first clarifying Upaya, and then distinguishing reality. The reason for this is that the rise of this sutra is precisely for quick achievement. Therefore, it is said that Vimalakirti manifested his illness with Upaya. Because of the illness, there were two gatherings in the square room and the garden. Therefore, first clarify Upaya, and then distinguish reality. Also, accomplishing sentient beings and purifying the Buddha land are the uses of Bodhisattva's Upaya. Therefore, the 'Buddha Land Chapter' clarifies the purification of the Buddha land, and after the 'Upaya Chapter', it distinguishes the accomplishment of sentient beings. Therefore, this sutra clarifies Upaya more. Also, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clarifies the two wisdoms of self-cultivation more, and the Vimalakirti Sutra distinguishes the skillful and real of external transformation more. How do we know this is the case? The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clarifies that Prajna does not cling to existence, and Upaya does not realize emptiness. These are mostly the two wisdoms of Bodhisattva's self-cultivation. The Vimalakirti Sutra clarifies that internally, one quietly observes the roots and medicines, and externally, one widely manifests supernatural powers. Therefore, it clarifies the two wisdoms of transforming others more. Also, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clarifies real wisdom and skillful wisdom more, and the Vimalakirti Sutra clarifies skillful and real wisdom more.

Question: What is the difference between skillful means (Upaya) and expedient (skillful)? Answer: Generally speaking, there is no difference, they both mean skillful. If we speak of the difference, the meaning of Upaya is broader, and the meaning of skillful is narrower. Now, we will clarify three meanings in total. First, clarifying the real aspect is real, and distinguishing all dharmas is skillful. Second, quietly observing all dharmas is real, and external changes are skillful. Third, in terms of action, taking the body without illness as real, and pretending to be ill in the square room is skillful. The initial seeing of the real aspect is called real wisdom. The remaining three all belong to Upaya. Therefore, the meaning of Upaya is broader. The meaning of skillful is narrower, only taking the quiet observation of roots and medicines as real, and externally showing changes.

。皆屬於權。故權智是方便中之別用。所以言短。問。權與方便。既有短長。兩實亦得爾不。答。方便之實。此實則長。以方便既無所不為。實慧亦無所不為。照無爾為。而實無所為。是故長也。權智但是有智中外變動用。則實智但是有智中靜鑒之功。故權實俱短也問。外示變動為權則跡。動無所動為實。但立此二。成權實義不。答。外示變動為權。此是應病授藥。必須內靜鑒根藥為實。方成二慧。空慧不知根藥知故。不成二慧也。

五短長門

總攝眾經。具有四句。一實智長權智短。二權智長實智短。三者俱長。四者俱短。實智長權智短者。此約動靜分二智。靜鑒空有為實。實則通照空有。所以為長。外變動之用為權。權但是有用。所以為短。問。內靜鑒空有實智既長。外變動用雙說空有。如說二諦。又雙現空有。如文殊為世王現虛空之身。是為現空。示丈六千尺。是為示有。若爾動用亦通空有。則二智俱應是長。答。外雖說空有及示空有。但從鑒有智起。以內鑒知病識藥故。外示空有。所以為短。所言權長實短者。此約鑒空為實。照有為權。分於二智。照空為實。實智唯是靜鑒而非變動。故名為短。照有為權。權備動靜。先照根藥為靜。外應病授藥為動。權通動靜。所以長也。此二句。皆取動靜。分

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這些都屬於權宜之計。因此，權智是方便中的特殊運用，所以說它短。問：權和方便，既然有短長之分，那麼兩者的真實（實智）也能這樣區分嗎？答：方便的真實，這種真實是長的，因為方便無所不為，實慧也無所不為，照見一切而無所作為，所以是長的。權智只是有智中的外在變動運用，而實智只是有智中的靜默觀照之功，所以權智和實智都是短的。問：外在示現變動是權，內在不動是實，僅僅建立這兩者，就能成就權實之義嗎？答：外在示現變動是權，這是應病授藥，必須以內在靜默觀照病根和藥物為實，才能成就二慧。空慧不知病根和藥物，所以不能成就二慧。 五、短長門 總括所有經典，具有四句：一是實智長權智短，二是權智長實智短，三是兩者都長，四是兩者都短。實智長權智短，這是從動靜來區分兩種智慧。靜默觀照空有為實智，實智慧夠通照空有，所以是長的。外在變動的運用為權智，權智只是有用，所以是短的。問：內在靜默觀照空有的實智既然是長的，外在變動運用也同時說空有，比如宣說二諦，又同時顯現空有，比如文殊菩薩為世王示現虛空之身，這是示現空，示現丈六千尺之身，這是示現有，如果這樣，動用也通達空有，那麼兩種智慧都應該是長的。答：外在雖然說空有以及示現空有，但是從觀照有智而生起，因為內在鑒知病根和藥物，所以外在示現空有，因此是短的。所說的權智長實智短，這是以觀照空為實智，照見有為權智來區分兩種智慧。照見空為實智，實智只是靜默觀照而不是變動，所以稱為短。照見有為權智，權智具備動靜，先照見病根和藥物為靜，外在應病授藥為動，權智通達動靜，所以是長的。這兩句，都是取動靜來區分。

【English Translation】 English version: These all belong to expedient means (upaya). Therefore, expedient wisdom (upaya-jnana) is a special application within expedient means, hence it is said to be short. Question: Since expedient means and expedient wisdom have short and long aspects, can the two realities (real wisdom) also be distinguished in this way? Answer: The reality of expedient means, this reality is long, because expedient means does everything, and real wisdom also does everything, illuminating everything without doing anything, therefore it is long. Expedient wisdom is only the external changing application within wisdom, while real wisdom is only the function of quiet contemplation within wisdom, therefore both expedient wisdom and real wisdom are short. Question: External manifestation of change is expedient (upaya), internal non-movement is real (tattva). Can the meaning of expedient and real be established merely by establishing these two? Answer: External manifestation of change is expedient, this is prescribing medicine according to the illness. It is necessary to have internal quiet contemplation of the root of the illness and the medicine as real, in order to achieve the two wisdoms. Empty wisdom (sunyata-jnana) does not know the root of the illness and the medicine, therefore it cannot achieve the two wisdoms. 5. The Chapter on Short and Long Comprehensively encompassing all sutras, it has four statements: First, real wisdom (tattva-jnana) is long and expedient wisdom (upaya-jnana) is short. Second, expedient wisdom is long and real wisdom is short. Third, both are long. Fourth, both are short. Real wisdom is long and expedient wisdom is short, this is distinguishing the two wisdoms based on movement and stillness. Quiet contemplation of emptiness and existence is real wisdom, real wisdom can illuminate both emptiness and existence, therefore it is long. External changing application is expedient wisdom, expedient wisdom is only useful, therefore it is short. Question: Since the internal quiet contemplation of emptiness and existence, which is real wisdom, is long, and the external changing application also speaks of emptiness and existence simultaneously, such as expounding the two truths (dve satye), and also simultaneously manifesting emptiness and existence, such as Manjusri Bodhisattva manifesting a body of emptiness for the world king, this is manifesting emptiness, and manifesting a body of sixteen feet, this is manifesting existence, if so, the application also penetrates emptiness and existence, then both wisdoms should be long. Answer: Although externally speaking of emptiness and existence and manifesting emptiness and existence, it arises from the wisdom of contemplating existence, because internally knowing the root of the illness and the medicine, therefore externally manifesting emptiness and existence, hence it is short. What is said about expedient wisdom being long and real wisdom being short, this is distinguishing the two wisdoms by taking contemplation of emptiness as real wisdom and illuminating existence as expedient wisdom. Illuminating emptiness is real wisdom, real wisdom is only quiet contemplation and not change, therefore it is called short. Illuminating existence is expedient wisdom, expedient wisdom possesses both movement and stillness, first illuminating the root of the illness and the medicine is stillness, externally prescribing medicine according to the illness is movement, expedient wisdom penetrates both movement and stillness, therefore it is long. These two statements both take movement and stillness to distinguish.

其長短。三者二智俱長者。但就空有為判。實智照空。權智鑒有。鑒有之中。明動靜二有。實智照空。明動靜皆空。是則二智無有短長也。第四句二智俱短者。俱就有智中分二智故。二智俱短。如以知病識藥為實。應病授藥為權。此二智皆有門所攝。是故俱短。要凈名不病之身為實。示病之義為權也。問。但約有智開權實。明其俱短。亦就空智具于權實。有短長耶。答。實智明二不二義。又當其體。故不開權實。權智是不二二義。又為其用。是故所開。若欲開之。義亦為類。照生空之淺為權。照法空之深為實。又照二乘之空名之為權。所以然者。實無二乘所見之空。昭此權空。故名為權。照菩薩之空。名之為實。以菩薩所智之空是實空。以照實空故。名為實也。

六六智門

興皇和上講此經。明六種二智為三雙。謂方便實權實。實方便權方便。方便權實權。故有兩實兩權兩方便。方便實者。對方便以辨于實。以明知諸法實相。故名為實也。權實者。凡有二義。一就菩薩辨之。如照有為權。就此權中。更復明實。如內靜鑒根藥為實。外變動為權。故名權實。又如不病之身。為權中之實。亦名權實也。二約聲聞明權實者。二乘照事之智為權。照苦空之理為實。今以大望小。明一乘之實者。蓋是權名實耳。非究

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：至於它們的長度。第三種情況是兩種智慧都長。但可以根據空和有來判斷。實智照見空性，權智鑑別有為。在鑑別有為之中，明白動和靜兩種有為。實智照見空性，明白動和靜都是空性。這樣，兩種智慧就沒有長短之分。第四句是兩種智慧都短。都是在有智中分出兩種智慧，所以兩種智慧都短。例如，以知病識藥為實智，應病授藥為權智。這兩種智慧都被有門所攝，所以都短。要以維摩詰（Vimalakirti）不生病之身為實智，示現生病的意義為權智。問：只根據有智來開顯權實，說明它們都短。也可以根據空智具有權實，有長短嗎？答：實智明白二和不二的意義，又當體即是，所以不開顯權實。權智是不二和二的意義，又是它的作用，所以可以開顯。如果要開顯，意義也類似。照見生空的淺顯為權智，照見法空的深奧為實智。又照見二乘的空性，稱之為權智。之所以這樣說，是因為實際上沒有二乘所見的空性。昭示這種權空，所以稱為權智。照見菩薩的空性，稱之為實智。因為菩薩所證悟的空性是實空，因為照見實空，所以稱為實智。 六六智門 興皇和上講解這部經時，闡明六種二智為三雙，即方便實、權實、實方便、權方便、方便權、實權。所以有兩實、兩權、兩方便。方便實，是針對方便來辨別實智，用以明瞭諸法實相，所以稱為實智。權實，一般有兩種含義。一是就菩薩而言，如照見有為是權智，就這種權智中，更進一步闡明實智，如內心平靜地鑑別根和藥是實智，外在的變化是權智，所以稱為權實。又如不生病之身，是權智中的實智，也稱為權實。二是就聲聞而言，二乘照見事相的智慧是權智，照見苦空的道理是實智。現在以大乘望向小乘，說明一乘的實智，大概是權智之名罷了，並非究竟。

【English Translation】 English version: As for their length. The third case is that both wisdoms are long. But it can be judged based on emptiness and existence. True wisdom illuminates emptiness, while expedient wisdom discerns conditioned existence. Within discerning conditioned existence, it clarifies the two types of existence: movement and stillness. True wisdom illuminates emptiness, clarifying that both movement and stillness are empty. Thus, the two wisdoms have no difference in length. The fourth sentence refers to both wisdoms being short. Both are divided into two wisdoms within the wisdom of existence, so both wisdoms are short. For example, knowing the disease and recognizing the medicine is true wisdom, while prescribing the medicine according to the disease is expedient wisdom. Both of these wisdoms are encompassed by the gate of existence, so both are short. It is necessary to take Vimalakirti's (Vimalakirti) non-ill body as true wisdom and the meaning of manifesting illness as expedient wisdom. Question: Only based on the wisdom of existence to reveal the expedient and the true, explaining that they are both short. Can it also be based on the wisdom of emptiness possessing both expedient and true, having length? Answer: True wisdom understands the meaning of two and non-two, and is also the essence itself, so it does not reveal the expedient and the true. Expedient wisdom is the meaning of non-two and two, and is also its function, so it can be revealed. If you want to reveal it, the meaning is also similar. Illuminating the shallowness of the emptiness of beings is expedient wisdom, while illuminating the profundity of the emptiness of phenomena is true wisdom. Also, illuminating the emptiness of the Two Vehicles is called expedient wisdom. The reason for this is that there is actually no emptiness seen by the Two Vehicles. Revealing this expedient emptiness is therefore called expedient wisdom. Illuminating the emptiness of the Bodhisattvas is called true wisdom. Because the emptiness realized by the Bodhisattvas is true emptiness, because it illuminates true emptiness, it is called true wisdom. Six Six Wisdom Gates When the Venerable Xinghuang lectured on this sutra, he explained the six kinds of two wisdoms as three pairs, namely expedient and true, expedient-true, true-expedient, expedient-expedient, expedient-expedient, true-expedient. So there are two true, two expedient, and two expedient. Expedient-true is to distinguish true wisdom from expedient wisdom, in order to understand the true nature of all phenomena, so it is called true wisdom. Expedient-true generally has two meanings. One is in terms of Bodhisattvas, such as illuminating conditioned existence is expedient wisdom, and within this expedient wisdom, further clarifying true wisdom, such as inwardly calmly discerning the roots and medicine is true wisdom, while external changes are expedient wisdom, so it is called expedient-true. Also, like the non-ill body, it is the true wisdom within expedient wisdom, and is also called expedient-true. The second is in terms of the Hearers, the wisdom of the Two Vehicles illuminating phenomena is expedient wisdom, and the wisdom illuminating the principle of suffering and emptiness is true wisdom. Now, looking at the Small Vehicle from the perspective of the Great Vehicle, explaining the true wisdom of the One Vehicle is probably just the name of expedient wisdom, and is not ultimate.

竟實也。次雙云。實方便權方便者。實方便。謂照實相諸法之智故云名實方便。權方便權方便者。則對上二乘之實。明二乘方便。此是權方便耳。三雙云。實權方便權。實權者。從實起權。故名實權。則照空照有。此皆是實。但取外用。名之為權。又實權者。二乘之權是虛。權菩薩權是實權也。方便權者。此以照空為實。照有為方便。就方便中。更復起權。如內照有知于根藥。及外現凈名長者之身。皆名方便。於此方便中。更起權用。如示病等。此六門成上長短之義。

七開合門

二智具有開合四句。一者開於二慧。如前所明。照諸法實相。故名般若。照實相諸法。稱為謳和。如來內照此二。故有二慧。佛從此二生。故有父有母。外為眾生直說此二。如釋論云。初說波若道。次明方便道。初明佛母。次明佛父。經所以般若為十方三世諸佛父母尊經。信之而得大福。毀之而招大罪。問。既以二慧為父母。何者為祖父母耶。答。約境智分之。初實相及諸法二境。能發生二慧則祖父母義。是故爾炎名為智母。若據眾行為論。由大悲故。方有般若。則大悲為波若母。亦由大悲故有方便。是方便之母。則是父義。但合說之耳。此則是開二慧也。問。若以般若為母。方便為父。何故云般若為母般舟三昧為父。又云般若

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 確實如此。接下來是第二組對比：『實方便』和『權方便』。『實方便』，指的是照見諸法實相的智慧，因此稱為『名實方便』。『權方便』，則是相對於前面二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的『實』而言，說明二乘的法門是方便法門，這只是『權方便』而已。 第三組對比：『實權』和『方便權』。『實權』，是從『實』出發而產生的『權』，所以稱為『實權』。也就是照見空性和照見有性，這些都是『實』。但如果取其外在運用，就稱之為『權』。另外，『實權』也可以這樣理解：二乘的『權』是虛假的，而菩薩的『權』是真實的『權』，即『實權』。『方便權』，則是以照見空性為『實』，照見有性為『方便』。在『方便』之中，更進一步產生『權』。例如，內在照見有性，瞭解眾生的根器和所需要的藥物（法門），以及外在顯現為凈名長者之身，這些都稱為『方便』。在這『方便』之中，更進一步產生『權』的運用，例如示現生病等等。這六種對比，成就了前面所說的長短之義。 七、開合門 二智（般若智慧和方便智慧）具有開合四句。第一句是『開於二慧』，如前面所說明的，照見諸法實相，所以稱為般若；照見實相的諸法，稱為謳和。如來內在照見這二者，所以具有二慧。佛從此二慧而生，所以有父有母。外在為眾生直接宣說這二者，如《釋論》所說：『最初宣說般若道，其次說明方便道。最初說明佛母，其次說明佛父。』經典之所以將般若尊為十方三世諸佛的父母，是因為信奉它就能得到大福，譭謗它就會招致大罪。問：既然以二慧為父母，那麼什麼是祖父母呢？答：從境和智的角度來區分。最初的實相和諸法這兩種境界，能夠發生二慧，就是祖父母的含義。因此，《爾炎經》被稱為智母。如果從眾行為的角度來論述，由於大悲心的緣故，才會有般若，所以大悲心是般若的母親。也由於大悲心的緣故，才會有方便，是大方便的母親，也就是父親的含義。但這只是合起來說的。這就是『開二慧』。 問：如果以般若為母親，方便為父親，為什麼又說般若是母親，般舟三昧是父親？又說般若

【English Translation】 English version: Indeed it is. Next is the second pair: 『True Expedient』 and 『Provisional Expedient』. 『True Expedient』 refers to the wisdom that illuminates the true nature of all dharmas (phenomena), hence it is called 『Name and True Expedient』. 『Provisional Expedient』 is in contrast to the 『True』 of the preceding Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), explaining that the teachings of the Two Vehicles are expedient methods, and are merely 『Provisional Expedient』. The third pair: 『True Provisional』 and 『Expedient Provisional』. 『True Provisional』 arises from the 『True』, hence it is called 『True Provisional』. That is, illuminating emptiness and illuminating existence, these are all 『True』. But if one takes their external application, it is called 『Provisional』. Furthermore, 『True Provisional』 can be understood as follows: the 『Provisional』 of the Two Vehicles is false, while the 『Provisional』 of the Bodhisattvas is true 『Provisional』, i.e., 『True Provisional』. 『Expedient Provisional』 takes illuminating emptiness as 『True』 and illuminating existence as 『Expedient』. Within 『Expedient』, further 『Provisional』 arises. For example, internally illuminating existence, understanding the faculties and the needed medicine (dharma) of sentient beings, and externally manifesting as the body of Vimalakīrti (凈名, Vimalakīrti) , these are all called 『Expedient』. Within this 『Expedient』, further 『Provisional』 applications arise, such as showing illness, etc. These six comparisons accomplish the meaning of length and shortness mentioned earlier. 7. The Gate of Opening and Closing The Two Wisdoms (Prajñā wisdom and Upāya wisdom) have four sentences of opening and closing. The first sentence is 『Opening the Two Wisdoms』, as explained earlier, illuminating the true nature of all dharmas, hence it is called Prajñā (般若, wisdom); illuminating the dharmas of true nature is called 謳和. The Tathāgata (如來, Thus Come One) internally illuminates these two, hence he has the Two Wisdoms. The Buddha is born from these Two Wisdoms, hence he has a father and a mother. Externally, he directly proclaims these two to sentient beings, as the Śāstra (釋論, commentary) says: 『First, he proclaims the Prajñā path, then he explains the Upāya path. First, he explains the Buddha-mother, then he explains the Buddha-father.』 The reason why the scriptures venerate Prajñā as the parents of all Buddhas of the ten directions and three times is that believing in it brings great blessings, while slandering it invites great sins. Question: Since the Two Wisdoms are taken as parents, then who are the grandparents? Answer: Distinguish them from the perspective of realm and wisdom. The initial two realms of true nature and all dharmas are able to generate the Two Wisdoms, which is the meaning of grandparents. Therefore, the Eryan Sutra (爾炎經) is called the mother of wisdom. If one discusses it from the perspective of virtuous conduct, because of great compassion, there will be Prajñā, so great compassion is the mother of Prajñā. Also, because of great compassion, there is Upāya, which is the mother of great Upāya, that is, the meaning of father. But this is just a combined explanation. This is 『Opening the Two Wisdoms』. Question: If Prajñā is the mother and Upāya is the father, why is it said that Prajñā is the mother and the Pratyutpanna Samādhi (般舟三昧) is the father? And why is it said that Prajñā

為母五度為父。答。般若舟翻為現前。現前者現前見佛。此是有行。故屬方便。名之為父。五度有行。亦屬方便也。次第二句合二慧者。明般若與謳和皆是般若。所以然者。波若為體。謳和為用。體則般若之體。用是般若之用。故皆名般若。故如來雖說大品九十章。開於二道。皆稱摩訶般若經。不以復為方便經故知二慧皆名般若。又如論云。以金為種種物而物則是金。更無別體。又如雲六度中合方便與實慧皆名般若。問。何以知然。答。餘五度。但明五種有行。不辨照知空有。今照空義屬般若。知有義亦屬般若。故知二慧皆名波若。則是合權實。皆名實義也。第三合權實皆名權者。照有巧用既名為方便。照空之巧亦是方便故。二照同巧。則兩皆方便。又如七地中名方便波羅蜜者。釋論云。是時般若清凈。變名方便。以至於六地時般若用猶未妙。故不名方便。至七地則波若用妙。故名方便。如七地文。從方便慧起十妙行。始知三界空。而莊嚴三界等。故知二慧皆名方便。對此義。亦得六地有方便與波若。皆名波若。又如勝鬘經云一乘大方便。一乘之中。若照空照有。說空說有。皆名方便。以悉是諸佛大善巧故。亦是合二慧為方便也。四者二智不開不合。則泯上三句。明諸佛正觀未曾有實。亦未曾是權。亦未曾開。亦未曾

合。故云是法不可示。言辭相寂滅。佛不能行。佛不能倒。而今有開合實權者。皆是無名相中。為出處眾生。明開合不同。

八斷伏門

問。二智云何斷煩惱耶。答。此經云。佛為增上慢人。說斷煩惱。實不斷也。問。大小經論。皆明斷惑。云何不斷。答。若言斷者。今請問之。為有惑可斷。為無惑可斷耶。如其實有。則不可斷。又經云。若法先有後無。諸佛菩薩。則有過罪。云何言斷。如其無惑。云何所斷。又有惑則是有見。無惑名為無見。亦有亦無。非有非無。並是煩惱。云何煩惱斷煩惱耶。又縱有煩惱為所斷。慧為能斷。為見惑故斷。不見惑斷耶。如其見者。則明暗並立。云何斷耶。若不相見。復何所斷。經若言解惑相違而懸斷者。則天竺燃燈破振旦暗。一品之解除一切惑。又慧獨能斷。借伴共斷。若獨能斷者。菩薩何故修八聖道獨慧不斷。雖復假伴。亦不能斷。如一盲不見眾盲亦然。又為一念斷。相續斷耶。若一念者。惑亦一念則相與俱。與俱謝何能斷耶。若相續斷者。為滅故續爾滅續耶。滅則取無所續。不滅無復能續。云何續耶。以是推之則無所斷。是故不應言智斷惑。問。若爾則應無斷。何故經云一念相應慧斷煩惱耶。答。如上推之。則畢竟無斷。如此了悟。則是斷也。所以然者。於一切處

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 合。所以說這種法是不可示人的，言辭相寂滅，佛也不能強行，佛也不能顛倒。而現在那些懂得開合實權的人，都是在無名相中，為初出茅廬的眾生，說明開合的不同之處。

八斷伏門

問：二智（兩種智慧）如何斷除煩惱呢？答：這部經說，佛是為那些增上慢（自以為是）的人，才說斷除煩惱，實際上並沒有斷除。問：大小乘的經論，都明白地說要斷除迷惑，為什麼說沒有斷除呢？答：如果說斷除，現在請問你，是有迷惑可以斷除，還是沒有迷惑可以斷除呢？如果確實有迷惑，那就不可斷除。而且經中說，如果法是先有後無，那麼諸佛菩薩就會有過失罪責，怎麼能說斷除呢？如果本來就沒有迷惑，又斷除什麼呢？而且有迷惑就是有見，沒有迷惑就叫做無見，亦有亦無，非有非無，這些都是煩惱，怎麼能用煩惱來斷除煩惱呢？而且，就算有煩惱作為被斷除的對象，智慧作為能斷除的主體，是用見惑的緣故來斷除，還是不見惑的緣故來斷除呢？如果是因為見到迷惑才斷除，那就是明暗並立，怎麼能斷除呢？如果互相都不能見到，又斷除什麼呢？經中如果說理解迷惑的相違之處而懸空斷除，那就如同天竺（古印度）燃燈就能破除振旦（中國）的黑暗一樣，一種品類的解除就能解除一切迷惑。而且智慧獨自能斷除，還是藉助伴侶共同斷除呢？如果獨自能斷除，菩薩為什麼還要修八聖道（Eight Noble Paths），獨自的智慧不能斷除。即使藉助伴侶，也不能斷除，就像一個瞎子看不見，一群瞎子也一樣看不見。而且是用一念來斷除，還是用相續不斷的方式來斷除呢？如果是一念斷除，迷惑也是一念，那就和智慧同時存在，同時消逝，怎麼能斷除呢？如果是相續不斷地斷除，是爲了滅除才延續，還是滅除后才延續呢？滅除就取無，無從延續，不滅除又沒有能延續的，怎麼延續呢？由此推斷，就沒有什麼可以斷除的。所以不應該說智慧斷除迷惑。問：如果這樣，那就應該沒有斷除，為什麼經中說一念相應的智慧能斷除煩惱呢？答：如上面推斷的，就畢竟沒有斷除。如此了悟，就是斷除。之所以這樣，是因為在一切處

【English Translation】 English version: Union. Therefore, it is said that this Dharma cannot be shown, words and speech are extinguished, the Buddha cannot force it, and the Buddha cannot reverse it. And now those who understand the real power of opening and closing are all explaining the differences between opening and closing in the realm of no-name and no-form for the sake of newly emerging sentient beings.

The Eight Gates of Cutting Off and Subduing

Question: How do the two wisdoms (two kinds of wisdom) cut off afflictions? Answer: This sutra says that the Buddha speaks of cutting off afflictions for those who are arrogant (conceited), but in reality, they are not cut off. Question: The sutras and treatises of both the Great and Small Vehicles all clearly state that delusions should be cut off. Why do you say they are not cut off? Answer: If you say they are cut off, I now ask you, are there delusions that can be cut off, or are there no delusions that can be cut off? If there are indeed delusions, then they cannot be cut off. Moreover, the sutra says that if a Dharma is first existent and then non-existent, then all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas will have faults and offenses. How can you say it is cut off? If there are no delusions to begin with, then what is being cut off? Furthermore, having delusions is called having views, and not having delusions is called having no views. Both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, are all afflictions. How can afflictions cut off afflictions? Moreover, even if there are afflictions as the object to be cut off, and wisdom as the subject that can cut off, is it because of seeing delusions that they are cut off, or because of not seeing delusions that they are cut off? If it is because of seeing delusions that they are cut off, then light and darkness stand together. How can they be cut off? If they cannot see each other, then what is being cut off? If the sutra says that understanding the contradictory aspects of delusions can lead to cutting them off in the void, then it would be like lighting a lamp in India (ancient India) and dispelling the darkness in China (ancient China), where one category of elimination can eliminate all delusions. Moreover, can wisdom cut off delusions alone, or does it need companions to cut them off together? If it can cut them off alone, why do Bodhisattvas still cultivate the Eight Noble Paths, since wisdom alone cannot cut them off? Even if they rely on companions, they cannot cut them off, just as one blind person cannot see, and a group of blind people cannot see either. Moreover, is it cut off in one thought, or is it cut off continuously? If it is cut off in one thought, then delusions are also one thought, so they exist and vanish simultaneously with wisdom. How can they be cut off? If it is cut off continuously, is it continued in order to eliminate, or is it continued after elimination? Elimination takes nothing to continue, and non-elimination has nothing to continue. How can it be continued? From this reasoning, there is nothing to be cut off. Therefore, one should not say that wisdom cuts off delusions. Question: If that is the case, then there should be no cutting off. Why does the sutra say that wisdom in accordance with one thought can cut off afflictions? Answer: As reasoned above, there is ultimately no cutting off. Such understanding is cutting off. The reason for this is that in all places

。求解惑從。則知心無所依。心無所依。則眾累清凈。故名為斷。與爾斷義無相違。

問。以所依名為斷者。為般若斷。為方便斷。答。舊云般若是空慧故斷。方便照有義不斷。今明有得出有二慧俱不能斷。無所得空有俱能斷也。但不二而二。開二慧不同。方便實慧。則不斷而斷。實慧方便。斷而不斷。問。何故爾耶。答。有所依著。是諸煩惱根。實法實相是無著之本。由實相無所依。故生般若。般若則無所著。故眾惑清凈。故名斷也。

問。若會境生智。然後斷惑。與舊何異。答。不言惑外別有實相。但了煩惱本自不生今亦無滅。則是實相。故名會實相斷。問。為但般若斷。薩婆若亦斷。答。此義舊有二師。或言金剛心斷。則是般若也。斷或言佛智所斷。則薩婆若斷。今明。大品云。菩薩無礙道中行。佛在解脫道中行。無一切暗弊。詳此文意。無礙解脫。俱有斷不斷義。若一念正觀。惑不現前。則無礙正斷。解脫出居累外。故解脫不斷。故云佛在解脫道中行。無一切暗谷也。若言解脫續于無礙。鎮前無惑之處。遮未來惑。令不得續生。則有遮斷。故名斷。無礙正斷。故得言金剛惑盡。未有解脫。遮未來惑。得言不盡。故盡與不盡。二說不違。

問。般若為無礙。薩婆若為解脫者。得言地前為無礙

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果想解除疑惑，就要明白心無所依。心無所依，那麼各種煩惱就會清凈，所以稱為『斷』。這與你所說的『斷』的含義沒有衝突。

問：以『所依』（執著）為『斷』的原因，是依靠般若（智慧）來斷，還是依靠方便（法門）來斷？答：舊的說法認為般若是空性的智慧，所以能斷；方便法門照見諸法實有，所以不能斷。現在說明，有所得的『有』和『二』（二元對立）的智慧都不能斷，無所得的空性和『有』才能斷。但這並非一概而論，而是不二法門中的二，開啟兩種不同的智慧。方便法門是真實的智慧，所以不斷而斷；真實的智慧是方便法門，所以斷而不『斷』。問：為什麼這樣說？答：有所依、有所執著，是各種煩惱的根源。實法（真實的法）、實相（真實的相）是無執著的根本。由於實相無所依，所以產生般若。般若沒有執著，所以各種迷惑清凈，因此稱為『斷』。

問：如果通過領會境界而生起智慧，然後斷除迷惑，這與舊的說法有什麼不同？答：不是說在迷惑之外另有實相，而是明白煩惱本來不生，現在也不會滅，這就是實相。所以稱為領會實相而斷除煩惱。問：僅僅是般若能斷除煩惱嗎？薩婆若（一切智）也能斷除煩惱嗎？答：對於這個問題，舊的說法有兩種觀點。有人說金剛心能斷除煩惱，這就是般若。有人說佛智慧斷除煩惱，這就是薩婆若。現在說明，《大品般若經》中說：菩薩在無礙道中行走，佛在解脫道中行走，沒有一切黑暗的遮蔽。詳細分析這段經文的意思，無礙和解脫都具有『斷』和『不斷』的含義。如果一念正觀，迷惑不現前，這就是無礙的正斷。解脫是超出煩惱的束縛，所以解脫是不斷。所以說佛在解脫道中行走，沒有一切黑暗的遮蔽。如果說解脫接續在無礙之後，在先前沒有迷惑的地方，遮蔽未來的迷惑，使它不能繼續產生，這就是遮斷，所以稱為『斷』。無礙是正斷，所以可以說金剛心能使煩惱斷盡。解脫是遮蔽未來的迷惑，所以可以說煩惱沒有斷盡。因此，『斷盡』和『未斷盡』這兩種說法並不矛盾。

問：如果說般若是無礙，薩婆若是解脫，那麼可以說地前（菩薩十地之前）是無礙

【English Translation】 English version: If you want to resolve doubts, then understand that the mind has nothing to rely on. When the mind has nothing to rely on, then all kinds of afflictions will be purified, therefore it is called 'severance'. This is not in conflict with the meaning of 'severance' as you said.

Question: If 'reliance' (attachment) is the reason for 'severance', is it relying on Prajna (wisdom) to sever, or relying on Upaya (skillful means) to sever? Answer: The old saying believes that Prajna is the wisdom of emptiness, so it can sever; Upaya illuminates the existence of all dharmas, so it cannot sever. Now it is explained that the wisdom of 'existence' and 'duality' (dualistic opposition) with something to be gained cannot sever, while emptiness and 'existence' with nothing to be gained can sever. But this is not absolute, but rather two within non-duality, opening up two different wisdoms. Upaya is true wisdom, so it severs without severing; true wisdom is Upaya, so it severs but does not 'sever'. Question: Why is this so? Answer: Having reliance and attachment is the root of all afflictions. True Dharma (true law) and true nature (true nature) are the foundation of non-attachment. Because true nature has nothing to rely on, Prajna arises. Prajna has no attachment, so all delusions are purified, therefore it is called 'severance'.

Question: If wisdom arises from understanding the realm, and then afflictions are severed, what is the difference between this and the old saying? Answer: It is not saying that there is a true nature outside of afflictions, but rather understanding that afflictions originally do not arise, and now will not cease, this is true nature. Therefore, it is called severing afflictions by understanding true nature. Question: Is it only Prajna that can sever afflictions? Can Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom) also sever afflictions? Answer: Regarding this question, there are two views in the old saying. Some say that the Vajra mind can sever afflictions, which is Prajna. Some say that the Buddha's wisdom can sever afflictions, which is Sarvajna. Now it is explained that the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: Bodhisattvas walk in the unobstructed path, Buddhas walk in the path of liberation, without any darkness or obscuration. Analyzing the meaning of this passage in detail, both unobstructedness and liberation have the meaning of 'severance' and 'non-severance'. If there is a moment of right contemplation, afflictions do not appear, this is the right severance of unobstructedness. Liberation is beyond the bondage of afflictions, so liberation is non-severance. Therefore, it is said that Buddhas walk in the path of liberation, without any darkness or obscuration. If it is said that liberation continues after unobstructedness, in the place where there were no afflictions before, obscuring future afflictions, preventing them from continuing to arise, this is obscuring severance, so it is called 'severance'. Unobstructedness is right severance, so it can be said that the Vajra mind can exhaust afflictions. Liberation is obscuring future afflictions, so it can be said that afflictions have not been exhausted. Therefore, the two statements of 'exhausted' and 'not exhausted' are not contradictory.

Question: If Prajna is unobstructedness, and Sarvajna is liberation, then can it be said that before the grounds (before the ten grounds of a Bodhisattva) is unobstructedness

。初地為解脫不。答。有人言。亦得如此。小乘則苦忍之前。習行未久。但伏非斷。大乘地前明行積時。是故能斷也。今謂不然。大小乘義。乃優劣懸殊。如來制立。大格相似。小乘則七方便伏。苦忍斷之。大乘三十心伏。初地斷也。初地中。自開無礙正斷解脫遮斷。如上釋。問。為封無礙為解脫。為無礙謝解脫生耶。答。毗曇則謝。成論則轉斥此二說。余處已明。今略陳之。金剛若謝有佛果。云何般若變名薩云若。轉金剛而成佛者。云何轉無常之法而作常耶。今所明者。具有轉謝不轉謝。了悟金剛本不生滅。故金剛是佛。故不轉不謝。是故。經云一切眾生本來寂滅。不復更滅也。于妄謂之心。息生滅之見。故名為謝。約了悟之者。前謂生滅。今悟無生滅。是故名轉三文一會義無所違。

問。若地前伏。初地斷者。何故。釋論云。初地時未舍結。七地方斷。答。眾師不同。生公用大頓悟義。唯佛斷惑。爾前未斷。故佛名為覺。爾前未覺。瑤師用小頓悟義。七地方斷。引向文證之。今明皆無所妨。大經云。唯佛名眼見佛性。十地以還。皆稱聞見。則唯佛斷惑。爾前不斷也。初地以來。但斷粗累。未除細惑。故言不斷。七地除細。故言斷耳。故各有得義。不應遍執也。

問。為中伏假斷。為假中斷。答。適緣

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：初地（菩薩修行階位的第一階段）是解脫嗎？答：有人說，也可以這樣認為。小乘在苦忍（小乘修行中的一個階段）之前，修行時間不長，只是伏住煩惱，並非斷除。大乘在初地之前，通過長時間的明行積累，因此能夠斷除煩惱。現在我們認為不是這樣。大小乘的意義，優劣差別很大。如來制定，大的框架相似。小乘是七方便伏住煩惱，苦忍斷除煩惱。大乘是三十心伏住煩惱，初地斷除煩惱。初地中，自然開解無礙，真正斷除解脫遮斷，如上面解釋的。問：是封住無礙，還是解脫？是無礙消失，解脫產生嗎？答：毗曇宗認為是消失。成論宗則駁斥這兩種說法。其他地方已經說明。現在簡略陳述。金剛（比喻堅固的智慧）如果消失才有佛果，為什麼般若（智慧）會變名為薩云若（一切智）？轉金剛而成佛的人，為什麼能將無常的法轉為常呢？現在所說明的是，具有轉、謝、不轉、不謝。了悟金剛本來不生不滅，所以金剛就是佛，所以不轉不謝。因此，經中說一切眾生本來寂滅，不再有生滅。對於妄想的心，止息生滅的見解，所以名為謝。從了悟的角度來說，之前認為是生滅，現在領悟到沒有生滅，所以名為轉。這三種說法，意義統一，沒有違背。 問：如果地前伏住煩惱，初地斷除煩惱，為什麼《釋論》（《大智度論》）說，初地時沒有捨棄煩惱，七地才斷除煩惱？答：眾位法師的說法不同。生公（僧肇）用大頓悟的意義，只有佛才能斷除迷惑，在此之前沒有斷除，所以佛名為覺悟，在此之前沒有覺悟。瑤師（鳩摩羅什）用小頓悟的意義，七地才斷除煩惱，引用前面的經文來證明。現在說明都沒有妨礙。《大般涅槃經》說，只有佛的眼睛才能見到佛性，十地菩薩及以下，都稱為聞見，那麼只有佛才能斷除迷惑，在此之前不斷除。初地以來，只是斷除粗重的煩惱，沒有去除細微的煩惱，所以說沒有斷除。七地去除細微的煩惱，所以說斷除。所以各自都有道理，不應該普遍執著。 問：是中伏假斷，還是假中斷？答：適緣

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is the first Bhumi (the first stage of Bodhisattva practice) liberation? Answer: Some say that it can be considered so. In the Hinayana tradition, before the stage of 'suffering endurance', the practice is not long, and only suppresses afflictions, not eliminates them. In the Mahayana tradition, before the first Bhumi, through a long period of accumulating 'clear conduct', one is able to eliminate afflictions. Now we say that it is not so. The meanings of Hinayana and Mahayana are vastly different in terms of superiority and inferiority. The Tathagata established similar large frameworks. In Hinayana, the seven expedients suppress afflictions, and 'suffering endurance' eliminates them. In Mahayana, the thirty minds suppress afflictions, and the first Bhumi eliminates them. In the first Bhumi, there is natural unobstructed opening, true elimination of liberation and obstructive elimination, as explained above. Question: Is it sealing off unobstructedness, or liberation? Is it the disappearance of unobstructedness, or the arising of liberation? Answer: The Sarvastivada school believes it disappears. The Satyasiddhi school refutes these two views. It has been explained elsewhere. Now, I will briefly state it. If the Vajra (diamond-like wisdom) disappears to have the fruit of Buddhahood, why does Prajna (wisdom) change its name to Sarvajna (all-knowing)? Those who transform the Vajra to become Buddhas, how can they transform impermanent dharmas into permanent ones? What is now explained is that it has transformation, disappearance, non-transformation, and non-disappearance. Realizing that the Vajra is originally neither born nor destroyed, therefore the Vajra is the Buddha, therefore it neither transforms nor disappears. Therefore, the sutra says that all sentient beings are originally in Nirvana, and there is no further extinction. For the deluded mind, cease the view of arising and ceasing, therefore it is called disappearance. From the perspective of realization, before it was considered arising and ceasing, now it is realized that there is no arising and ceasing, therefore it is called transformation. These three statements have a unified meaning and do not contradict each other. Question: If afflictions are suppressed before the Bhumis, and eliminated in the first Bhumi, why does the Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom) say that afflictions are not abandoned in the first Bhumi, and only eliminated in the seventh Bhumi? Answer: The masters have different opinions. Master Sengzhao uses the meaning of great sudden enlightenment, only the Buddha can eliminate delusion, before that it is not eliminated, so the Buddha is called enlightened, before that it is not enlightened. Master Yao (Kumarajiva) uses the meaning of small sudden enlightenment, only the seventh Bhumi eliminates afflictions, citing the previous sutra text to prove it. Now it is explained that none of them are obstacles. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says that only the Buddha's eyes can see the Buddha-nature, the ten Bhumi Bodhisattvas and below are all called hearing and seeing, then only the Buddha can eliminate delusion, before that it is not eliminated. Since the first Bhumi, only coarse afflictions are eliminated, subtle afflictions are not removed, so it is said that they are not eliminated. The seventh Bhumi removes subtle afflictions, so it is said to be eliminated. Therefore, each has its own reason, and one should not be universally attached to one view. Question: Is it suppressing in the middle and falsely eliminating, or falsely eliminating in the middle? Answer: Appropriate conditions

取悟。無有定也。自有中伏假斷。如求性有無不可得。故名非有非無。目之為中。此但伏性有無。猶未斷也。次明假有假無。則性有無始斷。所以然者。既識假有假無。則知畢竟無有定性有無故。定性有無故。名假名斷也。次言假伏中斷者。對性有無。說假有無。以伏性有無。故言假伏。次明悟假有不有。假無不無。非有非無。名為中道。前性有無始得永斷。故云假伏中斷也。問。亦得假伏假斷中伏中斷次不。答。亦有此義。如識假有無。則性有無永斷。名為假斷也。自有識假有無。但伏性有無。猶未斷也。自有悟非有無。伏但性于。自有悟非有無性惑永斷。不須說假也。

問。云何名假名惑實法惑耶。答。成論師云。緣假迷假。稱假名惑。則迷假人法等。緣實迷實。名實法惑。如迷五塵等。今明此是三藏一部之義耳。大乘假實惑者。則向所明之假名為假惑。則前之實名為實惑。所以者。諸法未曾假實。今既有此假實。寧非惑耶。問。大乘亦有假名實法義不。答。二諦是假名。不二為中道。則是實相。故名實法。迷因緣假名二諦。稱為假惑。迷不二實相。目為實惑也。問。云何迷耶。答。不二二。名為二諦。二不為中道。謂二諦定二。故名迷假。不二定不二。稱為迷實。又二不二。法名為假。非二不二。方名為

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：領悟。沒有固定的方法。有從自身中潛伏而暫時斷除的。比如探求自性的有無是不可得的，所以稱為『非有非無』，並稱之為『中』。這只是潛伏了自性的有無，還未完全斷除。接下來闡明假有假無，那麼自性的有無就開始斷除。之所以這樣說，是因為已經認識到假有假無，就知道畢竟沒有固定的自性有無。因為沒有固定的自性有無，所以稱為假名斷除。接下來所說的『假伏中斷』，是針對自性的有無，來說假有無，因為潛伏了自性的有無，所以說是『假伏』。接下來闡明領悟假有不有，假無不無，非有非無，稱為中道。之前自性的有無開始得到永遠的斷除，所以說『假伏中斷』。問：也可以是假伏、假斷、中伏、中斷這樣的次序嗎？答：也有這種道理。比如認識到假有無，那麼自性的有無就永遠斷除，稱為假斷。也有認識到假有無，但只是潛伏了自性的有無，還未斷除的。也有領悟到非有無，潛伏了自性。也有領悟到非有無，自性的迷惑永遠斷除，不需要再說假了。 問：什麼叫做假名惑、實法惑呢？答：成論師說，緣于假而迷惑假，稱為假名惑，比如迷惑假人法等。緣于實而迷惑實，稱為實法惑，比如迷惑五塵等。現在說明這是三藏一部的意義。大乘的假實惑，那麼之前所說的假名就是假惑，之前所說的實名就是實惑。為什麼這樣說呢？諸法未曾有假實，現在既然有了這個假實，難道不是迷惑嗎？問：大乘也有假名實法的意義嗎？答：二諦是假名，不二是中道，那就是實相，所以稱為實法。迷惑因緣假名二諦，稱為假惑。迷惑不二實相，稱為實惑。問：如何迷惑呢？答：不二而說二，名為二諦。二而不歸於中道，認為二諦是固定的二，所以稱為迷假。不二認為是固定的不二，稱為迷實。又二與不二的法稱為假，非二非不二，才稱為...

【English Translation】 English version: Comprehension. There is no fixed method. There is a temporary cessation that lies dormant within oneself. For example, seeking the existence or non-existence of inherent nature is unattainable, hence it is called 'neither existence nor non-existence,' and it is referred to as 'the Middle'. This only conceals the existence or non-existence of inherent nature; it is not yet completely severed. Next, explaining provisional existence and provisional non-existence, then the existence or non-existence of inherent nature begins to be severed. The reason for this is that once one recognizes provisional existence and provisional non-existence, one knows that ultimately there is no fixed inherent nature of existence or non-existence. Because there is no fixed inherent nature of existence or non-existence, it is called the provisional name cessation. The next statement, 'provisional concealment and interruption,' refers to provisional existence and non-existence in relation to the existence or non-existence of inherent nature. Because it conceals the existence or non-existence of inherent nature, it is called 'provisional concealment.' Next, explaining the comprehension of provisional existence not being existence, provisional non-existence not being non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, is called the Middle Way. Previously, the existence or non-existence of inherent nature began to be permanently severed, hence it is said 'provisional concealment and interruption.' Question: Can there also be a sequence of provisional concealment, provisional cessation, Middle concealment, and interruption? Answer: There is also this principle. For example, once one recognizes provisional existence and non-existence, then the existence or non-existence of inherent nature is permanently severed, called provisional cessation. There are also those who recognize provisional existence and non-existence but only conceal the existence or non-existence of inherent nature, which is not yet severed. There are also those who comprehend neither existence nor non-existence, concealing inherent nature. There are also those who comprehend neither existence nor non-existence, and the delusion of inherent nature is permanently severed, so there is no need to speak of the provisional. Question: What are called 'false name delusion' (假名惑) and 'real dharma delusion' (實法惑)? Answer: The Satyasiddhi School (成論師) says, 'Delusion about the false based on the false is called false name delusion,' such as being deluded about false persons and dharmas. 'Delusion about the real based on the real is called real dharma delusion,' such as being deluded about the five sense objects (五塵). Now, I am explaining the meaning of one part of the Tripitaka (三藏). In Mahayana (大乘), the false and real delusions are such that the previously mentioned false name is the false delusion, and the previously mentioned real name is the real delusion. Why is this so? Dharmas have never had false and real, but now that there is this false and real, isn't it delusion? Question: Does Mahayana also have the meaning of false name and real dharma? Answer: The Two Truths (二諦) are false names, and non-duality is the Middle Way, which is the Real Aspect (實相), so it is called real dharma. Being deluded about the Two Truths, which are provisional names of conditions, is called false delusion. Being deluded about the non-dual Real Aspect is called real delusion. Question: How is one deluded? Answer: Speaking of two when there is non-duality is called the Two Truths. Two not returning to the Middle Way, considering the Two Truths as fixedly two, is called delusion about the false. Considering non-duality as fixedly non-dual is called delusion about the real. Furthermore, dharmas that are both two and not two are called false, and only when they are neither two nor not two are they called...

實。迷此假實名惑也。

九攝智門

問。權實二智。攝智盡不。答。攝智皆盡。經有一智二智三智五智乃至七十七智。皆二智攝。言一智者。則如實智。如實則是佛眼。佛眼無法不見。名權智。而無所見。名為實智。問。如實智但是照實相智。唯應是實智。云何有權智慧。答。此明佛眼如實而知。名如實。故是二智也。

次攝二智者。則一切智一切種智。但此二智。凡有六門。一以空有分二。一切智為空智。一切種智為有智。此則權實攝也。次總別分二。總相知為一切智。別相知為一切種智。但總別有三門。一以苦無常為總相。陰界入為別相。二以無生滅為總相。知諸法差別為別相。三以菩諦為總相。分別苦有無量相為別相。三義中。初義第二義。猶是空有。第三義屬后廣略也。三者略說為一切智。廣說為一切種智。猶是向苦諦總別義耳。四者因為一切智。果為一切種智。問。二智俱是果門。云何分因果耶。答。例如菩提涅槃為果及果果。涅槃既是果果。則菩提亦得為因。此義論因果。今亦然矣。五者小乘名一切智。大乘名一切種智。此明小乘總相智十二入苦空無常。名一切智。大乘別智一切法。名一切種智。六者一切種智為空智。一切智為有智。以種種性則實相理為諸法根本相名為一切智。知一

【現代漢語翻譯】 實。迷惑于這虛假的實在之名啊。

九攝智門

問：權智（upāya-jñāna，方便智慧）和實智（tathatā-jñāna，如實智慧）是否涵蓋了所有的智慧？ 答：涵蓋了所有的智慧。經典中說的一智、二智、三智、五智乃至七十七智，都包含在這二智之中。說一智，就是如實智。如實智就是佛眼（buddha-cakṣus）。佛眼沒有看不到的，這稱為權智；而沒有所見，就稱為實智。 問：如實智只是照見實相的智慧，應該只是實智，怎麼會有權智呢？ 答：這裡說明佛眼如實而知，名為如實，所以是二智。

其次，攝二智，就是一切智（sarva-jñāna，知一切法的智慧）和一切種智（sarvākāra-jñāna，知一切法的一切種類的智慧）。但這二智，有六個方面。第一，以空有來區分，一切智為空智，一切種智為有智，這是權智和實智的攝屬。第二，以總別來區分，總相知為一切智，別相知為一切種智。但總別有三個方面：一是以苦和無常為總相，陰界入（skandha-dhātu-āyatana）為別相；二是以無生滅為總相，知諸法差別為別相；三是以菩提（bodhi，覺悟）為總相，分別苦有無量相為別相。三種意義中，第一義和第二義，仍然是空有；第三義屬於後面的廣略。第三，略說為一切智，廣說為一切種智，仍然是前面苦諦總別之義。第四，因為一切智，果為一切種智。問：二智都是果門，怎麼區分因果呢？答：例如菩提和涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）為果及果果。涅槃既然是果果，那麼菩提也可以作為因，此義論因果，現在也是這樣。第五，小乘名為一切智，大乘名為一切種智。這說明小乘總相智，十二入苦空無常，名一切智；大乘別智一切法，名一切種智。第六，一切種智為空智，一切智為有智。以種種性則實相理為諸法根本相，名為一切智。知一

【English Translation】 Real. Deluded by this false name of reality.

The Nine Gates of Comprehending Wisdom

Question: Do the two wisdoms, expedient wisdom (upāya-jñāna) and true wisdom (tathatā-jñāna), encompass all wisdoms? Answer: They encompass all wisdoms. The scriptures speak of one wisdom, two wisdoms, three wisdoms, five wisdoms, up to seventy-seven wisdoms, all of which are included within these two wisdoms. To speak of one wisdom is to speak of true wisdom. True wisdom is the Buddha-eye (buddha-cakṣus). The Buddha-eye sees everything without exception, which is called expedient wisdom; and having nothing to see is called true wisdom. Question: True wisdom is only the wisdom that illuminates true reality; it should only be true wisdom. How can it also be expedient wisdom? Answer: This explains that the Buddha-eye knows things as they truly are, which is called 'as it is,' therefore it is both wisdoms.

Next, encompassing the two wisdoms are the all-wisdom (sarva-jñāna, wisdom of knowing all dharmas) and the all-mode wisdom (sarvākāra-jñāna, wisdom of knowing all modes of all dharmas). But these two wisdoms have six aspects. First, they are divided by emptiness and existence. All-wisdom is the wisdom of emptiness, and all-mode wisdom is the wisdom of existence. This is the inclusion of expedient and true wisdom. Second, they are divided by general and specific. Knowing the general characteristics is all-wisdom, and knowing the specific characteristics is all-mode wisdom. But there are three aspects to general and specific: first, taking suffering and impermanence as general characteristics, and the aggregates, realms, and sense bases (skandha-dhātu-āyatana) as specific characteristics; second, taking non-arising and non-ceasing as general characteristics, and knowing the differences of all dharmas as specific characteristics; third, taking bodhi (bodhi, enlightenment) as general characteristics, and distinguishing the countless aspects of suffering as specific characteristics. Among these three meanings, the first and second meanings are still emptiness and existence; the third meaning belongs to the later broad and concise. Third, concisely speaking, it is all-wisdom; broadly speaking, it is all-mode wisdom, which is still the meaning of the general and specific aspects of the suffering truth mentioned earlier. Fourth, the cause is all-wisdom, and the result is all-mode wisdom. Question: Both wisdoms are fruit-gates, how can cause and effect be distinguished? Answer: For example, bodhi and nirvana (nirvāṇa, extinction) are fruit and fruit of fruit. Since nirvana is the fruit of fruit, then bodhi can also be considered a cause. This meaning discusses cause and effect, and it is the same now. Fifth, the Small Vehicle is called all-wisdom, and the Great Vehicle is called all-mode wisdom. This explains that the Small Vehicle's general characteristic wisdom, the suffering, emptiness, and impermanence of the twelve entrances, is called all-wisdom; the Great Vehicle's specific wisdom of all dharmas is called all-mode wisdom. Sixth, all-mode wisdom is the wisdom of emptiness, and all-wisdom is the wisdom of existence. With various natures, the principle of true reality is the fundamental aspect of all dharmas, called all-wisdom. Knowing one

切法為有智也。雖有六門。不離空有。攝入二智中也。

次攝三智門者。三智義門。涅槃云。一者般若。一切眾生之慧。所謂下智也。二毗婆舍那。謂二乘智。則中智也。三阇那。佛菩薩智。謂上智也。又云。般若別相智。別知諸法。毗婆舍那總相智。總知諸法。阇那為破相。破明者。般若知有。毗婆舍那照空。阇那舍于空有。則中道智也。又如般若三慧品說。二乘為一切智。菩薩道種智。佛一切種智。二乘名為一切智者。十二入攝一切法。二乘知十二苦空無常。名一切智。論云。此但有一切智名。而無一切智用。猶如盡燈。但有燈名。而無燈用。問。云何無。答。佛具知一切法別相。然後能知一切總相。二乘但總相知。不能二別相知。如涅槃云。二乘但知于苦。不能分別是苦有無量相。我于彼經竟不說之。故二乘不能別知。故但有一切智名。而無一切智用也。菩薩名道種慧者。菩薩知四種道。人天乘為福樂道。及三乘道。知佛道。自度度他。餘三但度他也。佛名一切種智者。此一切種智。異前一切種智。前一切種智。但知有法。今合空有。名一切種智。經云。知一切相故一切種智。又云。知一切法行類相自。名一切種智也。此三智中。二皆具照空有。皆有權實二智也。次地持論有三智。一清凈智。斷五住惑盡

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：切法是有智慧的行為。雖然有六種途徑，但不離空和有這兩個概念，最終都歸入兩種智慧之中。

接下來是歸納三種智慧的途徑。關於三種智慧的含義，《涅槃經》中說：第一種是般若（prajna，智慧），是一切眾生的智慧，也就是下等智慧。第二種是毗婆舍那（vipasyana，觀），是二乘（sravaka-yana and pratyeka-buddha-yana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的智慧，也就是中等智慧。第三種是阇那（jnana，智），是佛菩薩的智慧，也就是上等智慧。經中又說，般若是別相智，分別瞭解諸法；毗婆舍那是總相智，總體瞭解諸法；阇那是破相智，破除對空有的執著。從作用上說，般若知有，毗婆舍那照空，阇那捨棄空有，是中道智。

又如《般若經》三慧品所說，二乘是一切智，菩薩是道種智，佛是一切種智。二乘被稱為一切智，是因為十二入（dvadasayatana，內六入和外六入）涵蓋了一切法，二乘了解十二入的苦、空、無常，所以稱為一切智。論中說，這只是有名義上的一切智，而沒有實際的一切智的作用，就像燈油耗盡的燈，只有燈的名字，而沒有燈的作用。問：為什麼沒有實際的作用呢？答：佛完全瞭解一切法的差別相，然後才能瞭解一切法的總體相。二乘只是總體上了解，不能分別瞭解差別相。如《涅槃經》所說，二乘只是瞭解苦，不能分別苦有無量的相，我在經中沒有詳細說明。所以二乘不能分別瞭解，因此只是有名義上的一切智，而沒有實際的一切智的作用。菩薩被稱為道種慧，是因為菩薩瞭解四種道：人天乘是追求福樂的道，以及三乘道，瞭解佛道，既能自度又能度他，其餘三種道只能度他。佛被稱為一切種智，這種一切種智，與前面所說的一切智不同。前面的一切智，只是瞭解有法，現在是結合空有，稱為一切種智。經中說，因爲了解一切相，所以稱為一切種智。又說，瞭解一切法的行類相，所以稱為一切種智。這三種智慧中，兩種都同時照見空有，都具有權智和實智。

接下來，《地持論》中有三種智慧：第一種是清凈智，斷除五住地煩惱（panca-vasa-cittasthiti，五種煩惱的住所）

【English Translation】 English version: Cutting off is an act of wisdom. Although there are six paths, they do not deviate from emptiness and existence. They are all incorporated into the two wisdoms.

Next is the way to incorporate the three wisdoms. Regarding the meaning of the three wisdoms, the Nirvana Sutra says: The first is prajna (wisdom), which is the wisdom of all sentient beings, that is, the lower wisdom. The second is vipasyana (insight), which is the wisdom of the two vehicles (sravaka-yana and pratyeka-buddha-yana, the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Realizer Vehicle), that is, the middle wisdom. The third is jnana (knowledge), which is the wisdom of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, that is, the higher wisdom. The sutra also says that prajna is the wisdom of specific characteristics, understanding all dharmas separately; vipasyana is the wisdom of general characteristics, understanding all dharmas generally; jnana is the wisdom of breaking characteristics, breaking attachment to emptiness and existence. In terms of function, prajna knows existence, vipasyana illuminates emptiness, and jnana abandons emptiness and existence, which is the wisdom of the Middle Way.

Furthermore, as stated in the Prajna Sutra's chapter on the Three Wisdoms, the Two Vehicles are the All-Wisdom, Bodhisattvas are the Wisdom of the Seeds of the Path, and Buddhas are the All-Encompassing Wisdom. The Two Vehicles are called the All-Wisdom because the twelve entrances (dvadasayatana, the six internal sense bases and the six external sense objects) encompass all dharmas. The Two Vehicles understand the suffering, emptiness, and impermanence of the twelve entrances, so they are called the All-Wisdom. The treatise says that this only has the name of All-Wisdom, but does not have the function of All-Wisdom, just like a lamp with exhausted oil, it only has the name of a lamp, but does not have the function of a lamp. Question: Why does it not have the actual function? Answer: The Buddha fully understands the specific characteristics of all dharmas, and then can understand the general characteristics of all dharmas. The Two Vehicles only understand generally, and cannot separately understand the specific characteristics. As the Nirvana Sutra says, the Two Vehicles only understand suffering, and cannot distinguish the countless aspects of suffering. I did not explain it in detail in that sutra. Therefore, the Two Vehicles cannot separately understand, so they only have the name of All-Wisdom, but do not have the actual function of All-Wisdom. Bodhisattvas are called the Wisdom of the Seeds of the Path because Bodhisattvas understand the four paths: the Human and Deva Vehicle is the path to pursue blessings and happiness, as well as the Three Vehicles, understanding the Buddha Vehicle, which can both liberate oneself and liberate others, while the other three paths can only liberate others. Buddhas are called the All-Encompassing Wisdom. This All-Encompassing Wisdom is different from the All-Wisdom mentioned earlier. The All-Wisdom mentioned earlier only understands existence, now it combines emptiness and existence, and is called the All-Encompassing Wisdom. The sutra says that because it understands all aspects, it is called the All-Encompassing Wisdom. It also says that understanding the characteristics of the categories of actions of all dharmas is called the All-Encompassing Wisdom. Among these three wisdoms, two simultaneously illuminate emptiness and existence, and both have expedient wisdom and ultimate wisdom.

Next, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra has three wisdoms: The first is Pure Wisdom, which eradicates the afflictions of the five abodes (panca-vasa-cittasthiti, the five dwelling places of consciousness).

。故云清凈。則第一義空智也。二一切智。則有智也。三無礙智。無功用智。知一切法無復功用。故名無礙。初是實智。后二為權智。次攝大乘論有三智。一加行智。則進求上地心。二正體智。證如之智。謂實智也。三后得智。則寂而動。謂權智也。此三智則為次第。前有進求之智。次正得實觀。后從實起用。

四智攝入二智者。攝大乘論云。一切智。一切種智。無相智。無功用智。前二空有。次一不從師得。后一無功用。則法華經佛智一切智自然智無師智也。前二別分空有。后二通空有也。次四無礙智。此有多門。今略舉一義。知世諦為知法。知第一義為知義。此則二智。樂說及辭。皆世諦智也。次明四知。我生已盡。梵行已立。所作已辦。不受後有。釋此不同。婆娑云。我生已盡者。斷集智。集因能生未來苦果。名之為生。無學斷竟。名我生已盡。梵行已立。是段道智。梵名為凈。無漏聖道。能除恬染。離障清凈。名為梵。無學聖人。道行成滿。名為已立。所作已辦。是證滅智。斷惑證滅。名為所作。無學證果功成。名為已辦。不受後有。則斷苦智。後世在報。名以後有。無學道。於此後有。不復更受。名不受後有。問。經說四諦。先明苦集。后明滅道。今何故前斷集修道。后證滅斷苦。答。四諦示欣厭門

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此稱為清凈，這是第一義空智（指體悟事物本性為空性的智慧）。二、一切智（sarvajna），指具有智慧。三、無礙智（anavarana-jnana），無功用智（anabhoga-jnana），了知一切法不再需要任何功用，因此稱為無礙。最初的是實智（真實智慧），後兩者為權智（方便智慧）。接下來，《攝大乘論》（Mahayana-samgraha）中有三種智慧：一、加行智（prayoga-jnana），指不斷進求更高境界的心。二、正體智（vastu-jnana），證悟真如的智慧，也就是實智。三、后得智（prsthalabdha-jnana），指寂靜之後生起的行動，也就是權智。這三種智慧是次第產生的，先有不斷進求的智慧，然後真正獲得實觀，最後從實觀中生起作用。 如果將四智攝入二智，根據《攝大乘論》所說：一切智（sarvajna）、一切種智（sarvakarajnata）、無相智（animitta-jnana）、無功用智（anabhoga-jnana）。前兩者為空有，第三種是不從老師處獲得的智慧，最後一種是無功用的智慧，也就是《法華經》（Saddharma Pundarika Sutra）中所說的佛智（Buddha-jnana）、一切智（sarvajna）、自然智（svayambhu-jnana）、無師智（asiksajnana）。前兩種分別為空有，后兩種則通於空有。接下來是四無礙智（catura-pratisamvit），這有很多方面，現在簡略地舉一個例子：了知世俗諦（samvrti-satya）為知法，了知第一義諦（paramartha-satya）為知義，這就是二智。樂說和辭辯都是世俗諦智。 接下來闡明四知：『我生已盡，梵行已立，所作已辦，不受後有。』解釋這些不同之處，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說：『我生已盡』，是斷集智（duhkha-samudaya-nirodha-jnana），集（samudaya）是產生未來苦果的原因，稱為生。無學（asaiksa）斷盡了集，稱為『我生已盡』。『梵行已立』，是斷道智（duhkha-marga-nirodha-jnana），梵（brahma）的意思是清凈，無漏聖道（anasrava-arya-marga）能夠去除恬染，遠離障礙而清凈，稱為梵。無學聖人，道行成就圓滿，稱為『已立』。『所作已辦』，是證滅智（duhkha-nirodha-jnana），斷除迷惑，證得寂滅，稱為所作，無學證得果位，功德成就，稱為『已辦』。『不受後有』，是斷苦智（duhkha-jnana），後世的果報，稱為以後有。無學道，對於這以後的果報，不再承受，稱為『不受後有』。問：經中說四諦（catvari-arya-satyani），先說明苦集，后說明滅道，現在為什麼先斷集修道，后證滅斷苦？答：四諦是爲了顯示欣厭之門。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is called purity, which is the wisdom of the first principle of emptiness (meaning the wisdom of realizing the inherent nature of things as emptiness). Second, Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom), refers to having wisdom. Third, Anavarana-jnana (unobstructed wisdom), Anabhoga-jnana (wisdom without effort), knowing that all dharmas no longer require any effort, hence it is called unobstructed. The first is Real Wisdom (true wisdom), and the latter two are Expedient Wisdom (skillful means wisdom). Next, the Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) has three wisdoms: First, Prayoga-jnana (wisdom of application), refers to the mind constantly seeking higher realms. Second, Vastu-jnana (wisdom of the true nature), the wisdom of realizing Suchness, which is Real Wisdom. Third, Prsthalabdha-jnana (wisdom attained afterwards), refers to the action arising after stillness, which is Expedient Wisdom. These three wisdoms arise in sequence, first there is the wisdom of constant seeking, then truly obtaining real insight, and finally arising action from real insight. If the four wisdoms are incorporated into two wisdoms, according to the Mahayana-samgraha: Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom), Sarvakarajnata (wisdom of all aspects), Animitta-jnana (wisdom without characteristics), Anabhoga-jnana (wisdom without effort). The first two are emptiness and existence, the third is wisdom not obtained from a teacher, and the last is wisdom without effort, which is the Buddha-jnana (Buddha wisdom), Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom), Svayambhu-jnana (self-existent wisdom), Asiksajnana (wisdom without learning) mentioned in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra (Lotus Sutra). The first two are distinguished as emptiness and existence, while the latter two are common to both emptiness and existence. Next is the Catura-pratisamvit (four kinds of unobstructed knowledge), which has many aspects, and now briefly give one example: knowing Samvrti-satya (conventional truth) is knowing dharma, knowing Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth) is knowing meaning, which is the two wisdoms. Eloquence and rhetoric are both Samvrti-satya wisdom. Next, clarify the four knowledges: 'My birth is exhausted, the Brahma-conduct is established, what has to be done is done, and there is no more future existence.' Explaining these differences, the Vibhasa says: 'My birth is exhausted' is the Duhkha-samudaya-nirodha-jnana (wisdom of the cessation of the accumulation of suffering), Samudaya (accumulation) is the cause of producing future suffering, called birth. The Asaiksa (one beyond learning) has completely cut off the accumulation, called 'My birth is exhausted'. 'The Brahma-conduct is established' is the Duhkha-marga-nirodha-jnana (wisdom of the cessation of the path to suffering), Brahma means purity, the Anasrava-arya-marga (undefiled noble path) can remove defilement, be free from obstacles and be pure, called Brahma. The Asaiksa saint, the practice of the path is accomplished and complete, called 'established'. 'What has to be done is done' is the Duhkha-nirodha-jnana (wisdom of the cessation of suffering), cutting off delusion and attaining Nirvana, called what has to be done, the Asaiksa attains the fruit, and the merit is accomplished, called 'done'. 'There is no more future existence' is the Duhkha-jnana (wisdom of suffering), the retribution of future lives is called future existence. The Asaiksa path, for this future retribution, is no longer received, called 'no more future existence'. Question: The sutra says the Catvari-arya-satyani (Four Noble Truths), first explaining suffering and accumulation, then explaining cessation and the path, why now first cut off accumulation and cultivate the path, then realize cessation and cut off suffering? Answer: The Four Noble Truths are to show the gate of joy and aversion.

。先苦集。后滅道。于[丘*頁]厭門。逆觀次第。故先果后因。四智是順觀門。故先因後果。故先集道。后明滅苦。又要除障。然後善成。故先斷集后明道。後果中先滅現過。然後不受未來苦報。故先滅后苦。勝鬘涅槃釋四智又異。今不述之。四智皆入大乘權智。是小乘之實智。

次五智攝入二智者。一法住智。二泥洹智。三無凈智。四愿智。五邊際智。依小乘法。法住智者。知苦集相生諸法存立。名法住智。知道及滅。名泥洹智。又云。知苦集道。名法住智。知于滅諦。名泥洹智。令物不起諍。名為無諍智。愿智未來一切事則便得知。名為愿智。邊際智者。報身最後名邊際。聖人縱得自在智。故於報身延促自在。名邊際智。小乘。前二智通利能羅漢皆有。后三但利根羅漢有之。又前二通一切定皆能起。后三但第四禪起。前二通漏無漏。后三但有漏。前二三界身得起。后三但欲界三天下身起。前二以三界法為所緣境。無諍智。但以欲界體心為境。大乘五智。一切處一切方五十二位皆得起。通漏無漏也。小乘五智。皆為大乘權智攝。大乘五智。泥洹則實相正法。屬實智。餘四屬權智也。

十一智攝入二智者。十智照四諦。是差別智。屬權智攝。如實智照一實諦。則是實相。謂無差別智故。屬實智也。又論

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：先說苦集（duhkha-samudaya，苦的生起），后說滅道（nirodha-marga，滅苦之道）。在[丘*頁]厭門（可能是指某種修行方法或場所）中，逆向觀察次第，所以先說果后說因。四智（可能是指四種智慧）是順觀門，所以先說因后說果。因此先說集道（samudaya-marga，苦的生起和滅苦之道），后說明滅苦（duhkha-nirodha，苦的止息）。而且要先去除障礙，然後才能善於成就，所以先斷集（samudaya，苦的生起）后明道（marga，滅苦之道）。在果中，先滅除已經顯現的過去之苦，然後才能不受未來之苦報，所以先說滅（nirodha，苦的止息）后說苦（duhkha，苦）。《勝鬘經》和《涅槃經》對四智的解釋又有所不同，這裡不詳細敘述。四智都屬於大乘的權智（upaya-jnana，方便智慧），是小乘的實智（tathata-jnana，真實智慧）。 其次，將五智攝入二智中：一、法住智（dharma-sthiti-jnana，知曉諸法存在狀態的智慧）；二、泥洹智（nirvana-jnana，知曉涅槃的智慧）；三、無諍智（arana-jnana，無諍的智慧）；四、愿智（pranidhana-jnana，隨愿成就的智慧）；五、邊際智（kotigrata-jnana，知曉事物邊際的智慧）。依據小乘法，法住智是指知曉苦集（duhkha-samudaya，苦的生起）相生諸法存立，稱為法住智。知道及滅（marga-nirodha，滅苦之道和苦的止息），稱為泥洹智。又說，知曉苦集道（duhkha-samudaya-marga，苦的生起和滅苦之道），稱為法住智。知曉滅諦（nirodha-satya，滅苦諦），稱為泥洹智。使事物不起爭端，稱為無諍智。愿智慧夠預先得知未來一切事，稱為愿智。邊際智是指報身（vipaka-kaya，果報之身）的最後階段稱為邊際。聖人即使得到自在智，也能對報身的延續或縮短具有自在力，稱為邊際智。小乘中，前兩種智慧通於利根羅漢（ তীક્ષ্ণेन्द्रিয় अर्हत्，具有敏銳根器的阿羅漢）皆有，后三種智慧只有利根羅漢才有。而且前兩種智慧通過一切禪定都能生起，后三種智慧只能通過第四禪生起。前兩種智慧通於有漏無漏（sasrava-anasrava，有煩惱和無煩惱），后三種智慧只有有漏。前兩種智慧在三界身（trayo-dhatu-kaya，欲界、色界、無色界之身）中都能生起，后三種智慧只能在欲界三天下身中生起。前兩種智慧以三界法為所緣境，無諍智只以欲界體心為境。大乘的五智，在一切處一切方五十二位都能生起，通於有漏無漏。小乘的五智，都屬於大乘的權智（upaya-jnana，方便智慧）所攝。大乘的五智中，泥洹智屬於實相正法，屬於實智（tathata-jnana，真實智慧），其餘四種屬於權智（upaya-jnana，方便智慧）。 將十一智攝入二智中：照見四諦（catvari-arya-satyani，四聖諦）的十智是差別智，屬於權智（upaya-jnana，方便智慧）所攝。如實智照見一實諦，就是實相，是無差別智，所以屬於實智（tathata-jnana，真實智慧）。還有論述。

【English Translation】 English version: First, the duhkha-samudaya (arising of suffering) is discussed, followed by the nirodha-marga (path to the cessation of suffering). In [丘*頁]厭門 (possibly referring to a specific practice or place), the order is observed in reverse, hence the result is mentioned before the cause. The four jnanas (possibly referring to four types of wisdom) are the gates of forward observation, so the cause is mentioned before the result. Therefore, samudaya-marga (arising of suffering and the path to the cessation of suffering) is discussed first, followed by clarifying duhkha-nirodha (cessation of suffering). Moreover, obstacles must be removed first, and then one can achieve well, so samudaya (arising of suffering) is cut off first, and then marga (path to the cessation of suffering) is clarified. Among the results, the past suffering that has already manifested is extinguished first, and then one will not receive future suffering retribution, so nirodha (cessation of suffering) is mentioned before duhkha (suffering). The explanations of the four jnanas in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra and the Nirvana Sutra are different, which will not be elaborated here. All four jnanas belong to the upaya-jnana (expedient wisdom) of the Mahayana, and are the tathata-jnana (true wisdom) of the Hinayana. Next, the five jnanas are incorporated into two jnanas: 1. dharma-sthiti-jnana (wisdom of knowing the abiding state of dharmas); 2. nirvana-jnana (wisdom of knowing nirvana); 3. arana-jnana (wisdom of non-contention); 4. pranidhana-jnana (wisdom of vows); 5. kotigrata-jnana (wisdom of boundaries). According to the Hinayana teachings, dharma-sthiti-jnana refers to knowing the arising of duhkha-samudaya (arising of suffering) and the existence of all dharmas, which is called dharma-sthiti-jnana. Knowing marga-nirodha (path to the cessation of suffering and the cessation of suffering) is called nirvana-jnana. It is also said that knowing duhkha-samudaya-marga (arising of suffering and the path to the cessation of suffering) is called dharma-sthiti-jnana. Knowing nirodha-satya (truth of cessation) is called nirvana-jnana. Preventing things from arising contention is called arana-jnana. pranidhana-jnana can foresee all future events, which is called pranidhana-jnana. kotigrata-jnana refers to the final stage of the vipaka-kaya (retribution body), which is called kotigrata. Even if a sage obtains unobstructed wisdom, they can still have control over the extension or shortening of the retribution body, which is called kotigrata. In the Hinayana, the first two jnanas are common to all তীક્ષ্ণেন্দ্রিয় अर्हत् (arhats with sharp faculties), while the latter three jnanas are only possessed by arhats with sharp faculties. Moreover, the first two jnanas can arise through all samadhis, while the latter three jnanas can only arise through the fourth dhyana. The first two jnanas are common to sasrava-anasrava (with outflows and without outflows), while the latter three jnanas only have outflows. The first two jnanas can arise in the bodies of the trayo-dhatu-kaya (three realms: desire realm, form realm, formless realm), while the latter three jnanas can only arise in the bodies of the three continents of the desire realm. The first two jnanas take the dharmas of the three realms as their object, while arana-jnana only takes the body and mind of the desire realm as its object. The five jnanas of the Mahayana can arise in all places and in all directions in the fifty-two stages, and are common to sasrava-anasrava. The five jnanas of the Hinayana are all included in the upaya-jnana (expedient wisdom) of the Mahayana. Among the five jnanas of the Mahayana, nirvana-jnana belongs to the true dharma of reality, and belongs to tathata-jnana (true wisdom), while the remaining four belong to upaya-jnana (expedient wisdom). Incorporating the eleven jnanas into two jnanas: The ten jnanas that illuminate the catvari-arya-satyani (four noble truths) are differential wisdom, which belongs to upaya-jnana (expedient wisdom). The tathata-jnana (true wisdom) illuminates the one true truth, which is reality, and is non-differential wisdom, so it belongs to tathata-jnana (true wisdom). There are also discussions.

云。十智在四眼。如實智為佛眼。若爾四眼中具二智。佛眼中亦具二智。問。菩提與薩婆若。十智何智攝。答云。並是十智。則是有智。薩婆若為如實智。謂空智也。三十四智者。約十二因緣作之。如老死苦老死集老死滅老死滅道。具四諦觀。七十七智者。生緣老死不離生緣老死。初是正觀智。次審法智。又正觀智簡無因。審法智簡邪因。三世各二為六。此六是法住智。次一智是泥洹智。法住為明生死因果故。多泥洹滅之故。三世合一。此皆小乘之義。皆屬大乘權智攝之。若大乘泥洹智。則是實知如上也。如此皆是無分別中。善巧分別。雖分別。不動無分別。不同數論有所得報。此是名教不得不知。問。四十四及七十七。同從老死起。有何異耶。答。四十四觀果由因。其觀易成。故為鈍根人。觀果由因者。初觀老死是果。次明老死集者。觀果由因也。七十七智。則觀因生果。如雲生緣老死。生是因。為老死之緣。不離生緣老死亦爾。觀因生果者。事既難知。為利根人。四十四。成論文云。在方便中。七十七。文不判位。眾師云。在四現忍中也。問。何故不從無明起耶。答。尋未至本。此觀易成。又四十四。但得從果起。以具四諦故。若從無明起。無因緣。復因云何得具四諦耶。七十七。應得從無明起。但從老死起。觀

【現代漢語翻譯】 云：十智包含在四眼之中，如實智即為佛眼。如果這樣，四眼中也具備兩種智慧，佛眼中也具備兩種智慧。 問：菩提（bodhi，覺悟）與薩婆若（sarvajna，一切智），屬於十智中的哪一種？ 答：都屬於十智。菩提是有智，薩婆若為如實智，也就是空智。 三十四智，是根據十二因緣而建立的，例如觀老死苦、老死集、老死滅、老死滅道，具備四諦的觀照。 七十七智，例如生緣老死，不離生緣老死。最初是正觀智，其次是審法智。正觀智簡別無因，審法智簡別邪因。過去、現在、未來三世各有二智，共六智，這六智是法住智。其次一智是泥洹（nirvana，涅槃）智。法住智是爲了明白生死因果，泥洹智是爲了滅除生死。三世合一。這些都是小乘的義理，都屬於大乘的權智所攝。如果是大乘的泥洹智，那就是實知，如前所述。 這些都是在無分別中，善巧地分別。雖然有分別，但不動搖無分別的根本。這不同於數論派認為有所得的報應。這是名教，不可不知。 問：四十四智和七十七智，都從老死開始，有什麼不同？ 答：四十四智是觀果由因，這種觀照容易成就，所以是為鈍根的人設立的。觀果由因，最初觀老死是果，其次說明老死集，是觀果由因。 七十七智，則是觀因生果，例如說生緣老死，生是因，是老死的緣。不離生緣老死也是如此。觀因生果，事情比較難以理解，是為利根的人設立的。四十四智，在《成唯識論》中說，屬於方便位。七十七智，《成唯識論》中沒有判定位次，眾師說，屬於四現忍位中。 問：為什麼不從無明（avidya，無知）開始呢？ 答：因為尋找未到根本，這種觀照容易成就。而且四十四智，只能從果開始，因為具備四諦。如果從無明開始，沒有因緣，又怎麼能具備四諦呢？七十七智，應該可以從無明開始，但從老死開始觀照。

【English Translation】 Cloud: The ten wisdoms are contained within the four eyes, and the 'as-it-is' wisdom is the Buddha eye. If so, the four eyes also possess two wisdoms, and the Buddha eye also possesses two wisdoms. Question: To which of the ten wisdoms do Bodhi (enlightenment) and Sarvajna (all-knowing) belong? Answer: Both belong to the ten wisdoms. Bodhi is 'having' wisdom, and Sarvajna is the 'as-it-is' wisdom, which is the wisdom of emptiness. The thirty-four wisdoms are established based on the twelve links of dependent origination, such as contemplating the suffering of old age and death, the accumulation of old age and death, the cessation of old age and death, and the path to the cessation of old age and death, possessing the contemplation of the Four Noble Truths. The seventy-seven wisdoms, such as birth conditions old age and death, not separate from birth conditions old age and death. The first is the wisdom of right view, and the second is the wisdom of examining the Dharma. The wisdom of right view distinguishes no cause, and the wisdom of examining the Dharma distinguishes wrong cause. The past, present, and future each have two wisdoms, totaling six wisdoms, and these six wisdoms are the wisdom of abiding in the Dharma. The next wisdom is Nirvana (liberation) wisdom. The wisdom of abiding in the Dharma is to understand the cause and effect of birth and death, and Nirvana wisdom is to extinguish birth and death. The three times are combined into one. These are all the meanings of the Hinayana, and all belong to the expedient wisdom of the Mahayana. If it is the Nirvana wisdom of the Mahayana, then it is real knowledge, as mentioned above. All of these are skillful distinctions within non-distinction. Although there are distinctions, the foundation of non-distinction is not shaken. This is different from the Samkhya school's view of obtaining rewards. This is the teaching of the name, and it is essential to know. Question: The forty-four wisdoms and the seventy-seven wisdoms both arise from old age and death, what is the difference? Answer: The forty-four wisdoms contemplate the effect from the cause, and this contemplation is easy to achieve, so it is established for people with dull faculties. Contemplating the effect from the cause, initially contemplates old age and death as the effect, and then explains the accumulation of old age and death, which is contemplating the effect from the cause. The seventy-seven wisdoms, on the other hand, contemplate the cause giving rise to the effect, such as saying that birth conditions old age and death, birth is the cause, and is the condition for old age and death. Not separate from birth conditions old age and death is also like this. Contemplating the cause giving rise to the effect, the matter is more difficult to understand, and is established for people with sharp faculties. The forty-four wisdoms, in the 'Treatise on Establishing Consciousness Only' says, belongs to the stage of expedient means. The seventy-seven wisdoms, the 'Treatise on Establishing Consciousness Only' does not determine the position, and the teachers say, belongs to the stage of the four acceptances. Question: Why not start from Avidya (ignorance)? Answer: Because searching has not reached the root, this contemplation is easy to achieve. Moreover, the forty-four wisdoms can only start from the effect, because it possesses the Four Noble Truths. If it starts from ignorance, there is no cause and condition, then how can it possess the Four Noble Truths? The seventy-seven wisdoms, should be able to start from ignorance, but starts from contemplating old age and death.

易成故。不從無明起也。問。菩薩觀十二。何阿智耶。答。菩薩無方妙用。不可定判。釋論云。菩薩為示眾生故。從果觀十二因緣。

凈名玄論卷第五(宗旨中) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

凈名玄論卷第六(宗旨下)

十常無常門

略明四句。一境智俱常。唯大乘有之。小乘無也。以小乘凡聖之智皆無常故。但大乘境智俱常。可有三義。一常智照實相境。如果法觀照般若照實相般若。二常智照虛空常境如大經云。一切常中虛空第一。今常智照此常境也。若以實相即是虛空。如釋論中說虛空論非有非無。言語道斷。心行處滅。即是實相。今且據事辨。以虛空為常。此二句分境智二義也。三者常智還自照智。即反照智義也。次常照無常。凡有二義。一照眾生無常。二照應跡無常也。次無常照常。凡有三句。一照虛空之常。二照實相境常。三照法身佛性常義。但是照境。非照智常。以因中未有常智故也。次無常照無常。有二句。一照無常境。二者無常智自照無常智。問。無常智還照智。與常智知常智何異。答。常智知常。唯有一義。無常智知無常。有二義。一者后念智知前念智。二者一念智即自然知。能得並觀者。具有二義。未能並者。但有前後相知也。常知于常。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 容易成就的緣故。不是從無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）產生的。問：菩薩觀察十二因緣（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，佛教關於生命輪迴和解脫的理論），憑藉的是什麼智慧？答：菩薩的無方妙用，不可用固定的方式來判斷。釋論（可能是指《大智度論》）說：菩薩爲了向眾生展示，從果（結果）來觀察十二因緣。

《凈名玄論》卷第五（宗旨中） 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 《凈名玄論》

《凈名玄論》卷第六（宗旨下）

十常無常門

簡略地說明四句：一、境（viṣaya，認識的對象）和智（jñāna，認識的能力）都常（nitya，永恒不變）。只有大乘（Mahāyāna，佛教的一個主要流派）才有這種情況，小乘（Hīnayāna，佛教的另一個主要流派）沒有。因為小乘的凡夫和聖人的智慧都是無常（anitya，變化無常）的。但是大乘的境和智都常，可能有三種含義：一、常智（永恒的智慧）照實相境（tathatā，事物的真實面貌），如果法觀（dharma-dṛṣṭi，對佛法的觀察）照般若（prajñā，智慧）照實相般若。二、常智照虛空常境，如《大般涅槃經》所說：『一切常中虛空第一。』現在常智照這個常境。如果認為實相就是虛空，如《大智度論》中說虛空論非有非無，言語道斷，心行處滅，那就是實相。現在暫且根據事相來辨別，以虛空為常。這二句區分了境和智的兩種含義。三、常智還自照智，就是反照智的含義。其次，常照無常，凡有二種含義：一、照眾生的無常；二、照應跡（佛菩薩應化事蹟）的無常。其次，無常照常，凡有三句：一、照虛空的常；二、照實相境的常；三、照法身（dharma-kāya，佛的法性之身）佛性（buddha-dhātu，成佛的可能性）的常義。但是照的是境，不是照智的常，因為因地中沒有常智的緣故。其次，無常照無常，有二句：一、照無常境；二、無常智自照無常智。問：無常智還照智，與常智知常智有什麼不同？答：常智知常，只有一種含義。無常智知無常，有二種含義：一、后念智知前念智；二、一念智即自然知。能夠同時並觀的人，具有二種含義。不能同時並觀的人，只有前後相知。常知于常。

【English Translation】 English version It is easy to accomplish, therefore. It does not arise from ignorance (avidyā). Question: What wisdom does a Bodhisattva use to contemplate the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda)? Answer: A Bodhisattva's wonderful functions are boundless and cannot be judged in a fixed way. The Shastra (possibly referring to the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra) says: A Bodhisattva, in order to show sentient beings, contemplates the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination from the result.

Vimalakīrti's Profound Treatise, Scroll 5 (In the Section on Tenets) Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 38, No. 1780, Vimalakīrti's Profound Treatise

Vimalakīrti's Profound Treatise, Scroll 6 (Below the Section on Tenets)

The Gate of Ten Permanence and Impermanence

Briefly explaining the four phrases: First, both the object (viṣaya) and the wisdom (jñāna) are permanent (nitya). Only the Mahāyāna (a major branch of Buddhism) has this, not the Hīnayāna (another major branch of Buddhism). This is because the wisdom of both ordinary beings and sages in the Hīnayāna is impermanent (anitya). However, in the Mahāyāna, both the object and the wisdom are permanent, which can have three meanings: First, permanent wisdom illuminates the realm of true suchness (tathatā), such as when Dharma contemplation (dharma-dṛṣṭi) illuminates Prajñā (wisdom) which illuminates true suchness. Second, permanent wisdom illuminates the permanent realm of emptiness, as the Mahāparinirvana Sutra says: 'Among all that is permanent, emptiness is the foremost.' Now, permanent wisdom illuminates this permanent realm. If one considers true suchness to be emptiness, as the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says about emptiness, that it is neither existent nor non-existent, where the path of language is cut off and the realm of mental activity ceases, that is true suchness. For now, let's distinguish based on phenomena, considering emptiness as permanent. These two phrases distinguish the two meanings of object and wisdom. Third, permanent wisdom illuminates itself, which is the meaning of reflective wisdom. Second, the permanent illuminates the impermanent, which has two meanings: First, it illuminates the impermanence of sentient beings; second, it illuminates the impermanence of manifestations (the manifested traces of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas). Third, the impermanent illuminates the permanent, which has three phrases: First, it illuminates the permanence of emptiness; second, it illuminates the permanence of the realm of true suchness; third, it illuminates the permanent meaning of the Dharma-body (dharma-kāya) and Buddha-nature (buddha-dhātu). However, it illuminates the object, not the permanence of wisdom, because there is no permanent wisdom in the causal stage. Fourth, the impermanent illuminates the impermanent, which has two phrases: First, it illuminates the impermanent object; second, impermanent wisdom illuminates itself. Question: What is the difference between impermanent wisdom illuminating wisdom and permanent wisdom knowing permanent wisdom? Answer: Permanent wisdom knowing the permanent has only one meaning. Impermanent wisdom knowing the impermanent has two meanings: First, later thought-wisdom knows earlier thought-wisdom; second, one thought-wisdom naturally knows. Those who can observe simultaneously have both meanings. Those who cannot observe simultaneously only have sequential knowledge. The permanent knows the permanent.

但有一念自知。無前後知也。問。北地論師云。初地以上即有常住法身。亦即有常智。是事云何。答。須詳此說。意為以證真如之智為法身耶。為取所證真如佛性為法身耶。若以能證之智為法身常者。是事不然。釋論云。在菩薩心。名為般若。在佛心變名薩般若。是常者。則無明昧不應有改變也。又涅槃經云。此常法稱要是如來。長壽品。凡簡三法常義。一者外道。二者小乘。三者菩薩。並無常住。故知常義唯在佛果。因中未有現顯之常。若以所證真如佛性為常者。則一切眾生皆有此事。何止初地以上耶。若言初地以上即見佛性。故以佛性常為法身者。此猶是江南舊宗。非北異說此。問。有講攝大乘論師云。初地見真如。與佛地不異。是事云何。答。若示論何得云在菩薩心名般若。在佛心變名薩婆若。既其改變。則知有明昧不同。又論云。般若清凈。變名才便。則知六地般若未凈。又本以見真故斷惑。初地見真。與佛不異。則一切惑斷。若不以見真斷惑。即便應是有智斷惑。故此說不然。如此皆是無分別中善巧分別。不示者淺識者。學失於眉眼。名無巧方便。今既欲釋二智。即廣解方便。方便者無差別。差別智故。前須善巧分別諸門。然後無方無礙之用。后當廣解得失。未可驚同舊宗。今寄此門。可有四句。一者語同

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 但有一個念頭是自己知道的，沒有前後之分。問：北方地區的論師說，初地以上的菩薩就有了常住法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身），也有了常智（永恒不變的智慧）。這件事是怎樣的呢？答：需要詳細考察這種說法。意思是把證悟真如（Tathātā，事物的真實本性）的智慧作為法身呢？還是把所證悟的真如佛性（Buddha-nature，所有眾生皆具的成佛的可能性）作為法身呢？如果把能證悟的智慧作為常住的法身，這是不對的。《釋論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa，大智度論）說：『在菩薩心中，名為般若（Prajñā，智慧）。在佛心中，就轉變為薩婆若（Sarvajña，一切智）。』如果是常住不變的，就不應該有明昧的變化。而且《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra，大般涅槃經）說：『這常法之稱，要是如來（Tathāgata，佛的稱號）。』《長壽品》中，凡是簡略地說明三種常義，一是外道（非佛教的修行者），二是小乘（Hinayana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘），三是菩薩（Bodhisattva，發願成佛的修行者），都沒有常住的說法。所以知道常義只在佛果（Buddhahood，成佛的境界）。因地中沒有顯現的常。如果把所證悟的真如佛性作為常，那麼一切眾生都有這種佛性，何止是初地以上的菩薩呢？如果說初地以上的菩薩就見到了佛性，所以把佛性的常作為法身，這仍然是江南舊宗的觀點，不是北方不同的說法。問：有講解《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha，論述大乘佛教的著作）的論師說，初地菩薩所見的真如，與佛地沒有差別。這件事是怎樣的呢？答：如果這樣說，論中為何說『在菩薩心中名為般若，在佛心中轉變為薩婆若』呢？既然有轉變，就知道有明昧的不同。而且論中說：『般若清凈，轉變為才便。』就知道六地菩薩的般若還沒有清凈。而且本來是因為見到真如才斷除煩惱，如果初地所見的真如與佛沒有差別，那麼一切煩惱都應該斷除。如果不以見真如來斷除煩惱，那麼就應該是用智慧來斷除煩惱。所以這種說法是不對的。這些都是在無分別中巧妙地分別。不明白的人，學了反而失去要點，這就是沒有巧妙的方便。現在既然要解釋二智（根本智和后得智），就要廣泛地解釋方便。方便就是無差別智和差別智。前面必須善巧地分別各種門徑，然後才能無方無礙地運用。後面應當廣泛地解釋得失。不要急於茍同舊宗。現在借用這個門徑，可以有四句，一是語言相同。

【English Translation】 English version But there is one thought that is self-aware, without knowing before or after. Question: The northern land's teachers say that Bodhisattvas above the first ground (Bhumi, the stages of the Bodhisattva path) already have the permanent Dharmakāya (the body of the Dharma, the Buddha's Dharma-nature body), and also have permanent wisdom (eternal and unchanging wisdom). What is the matter with this? Answer: This statement needs to be examined in detail. Does it mean that the wisdom of realizing Suchness (Tathātā, the true nature of things) is taken as the Dharmakāya? Or is the realized Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature, the possibility of all beings becoming Buddhas) taken as the Dharmakāya? If the wisdom that can realize is taken as the permanent Dharmakāya, this is not correct. The Shastra (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says: 'In the mind of a Bodhisattva, it is called Prajñā (wisdom). In the mind of a Buddha, it transforms and is called Sarvajña (all-knowing).' If it is permanent and unchanging, there should be no changes of clarity and obscurity. Moreover, the Nirvana Sutra (Mahāparinirvana Sutra, Great Nirvana Sutra) says: 'This name of permanent Dharma, it must be the Tathāgata (the title of the Buddha).' In the chapter on longevity, whenever the three meanings of permanence are briefly explained, the first is non-Buddhists, the second is the Hinayana (the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Realizer Vehicle), and the third is Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva, practitioners who vow to become Buddhas), none of them have the saying of permanence. So know that the meaning of permanence is only in Buddhahood (Buddhahood, the state of becoming a Buddha). There is no manifested permanence in the causal ground. If the realized Buddha-nature is taken as permanent, then all sentient beings have this Buddha-nature, not just Bodhisattvas above the first ground. If it is said that Bodhisattvas above the first ground have seen the Buddha-nature, so the permanence of the Buddha-nature is taken as the Dharmakāya, this is still the old view of Jiangnan, not the different saying of the North. Question: There are teachers who explain the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium on the Great Vehicle, a work discussing Mahayana Buddhism) who say that the Suchness seen by the Bodhisattva of the first ground is no different from the Buddha ground. What is the matter with this? Answer: If this is shown in the treatise, how can it say 'In the mind of a Bodhisattva, it is called Prajñā, in the mind of a Buddha, it transforms and is called Sarvajña'? Since there is a transformation, it is known that there are differences in clarity and obscurity. Moreover, the treatise says: 'Prajñā is pure, and it transforms into talent and convenience.' It is known that the Prajñā of the sixth ground Bodhisattva is not yet pure. Moreover, originally it was because of seeing Suchness that afflictions were cut off. If the Suchness seen by the first ground is no different from the Buddha, then all afflictions should be cut off. If afflictions are not cut off by seeing Suchness, then it should be that afflictions are cut off by wisdom. So this statement is not correct. These are all skillful distinctions in non-discrimination. Those who do not understand, learn and lose the point, this is without skillful means. Now that we want to explain the two wisdoms (fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom), we must widely explain the means. The means are non-discriminating wisdom and discriminating wisdom. First, we must skillfully distinguish various paths, and then we can use them without hindrance. Later, we should widely explain the gains and losses. Do not rush to agree with the old sect. Now borrowing this path, there can be four sentences, the first is the same language.

意異。語同者。如上來所釋。乃至常無常也。問。何故語同耶。答。語出經論。經論共用。何得不同。而意異者。中論云。言語雖同。其心則異。今明此是無分別中善巧分別。不二二義。故開常無常境智二義耳。既云不二二。即知雖二不二。如大經云。我無我無有二相。常無常亦示。經云。愚者謂二。智者了達。知其無二。復有愚者。但謂不二。智人了知不二而二。何者。愚人不識常無常。不知境智。故是無明。無明故名為愚。智人了知常無常。名為智者。是故名為語同意異也。二者語異意異。有所得人。不善分別。無所得人。善能分別。故名語異。一是無所得心善分別。二者有所得心不善分別。故名意異也。三者語同意同者。語與諸佛菩薩方等經論則同。意與諸佛菩薩無依正觀亦同。故名語同意同。又語與有所得人同。有所得人。復有小分得處今意亦與彼同。故云語同意同。四者語異意同。語異經論而意扶合者。亦得用之。又語異舊宗而意同會佛旨。亦得用之。宜以斯四句總貫諸門。不應一向遍有去取。問。何故明此四句。答。有二種人。一始學大乘。謂必須一向與舊宗為異。則成謗法。所以然者。語出經論。宜共用之。但得與無得。其心各別。不應以意異故。今語亦異。二者學小乘人。云小與大異。強謂義同。是

亦謗法。所以然者。小乘語意與大乘語意。其實不同。而強謂同。如學成實論者。無相滅諦與方等理均。亦名謗法也。為此大小學人。宜開同異四句。

十一得失門

權實是至人之觀心。真俗為眾聖之妙境。上已略明二慧。今須論真俗。真俗之本若成。權實之末自正。故開十二門。詳其得失。一性假門。二有無門。三有本無本門。四顯不顯門。五理教門。六說不說門。七淺深門。八理內外門。九無定性門。十相待門。十一泯得失門。十二體用門。

第一性假門

問。學佛二諦。云何得失。請為陳之。答。定性二諦為失。因緣假名二諦為得。所言定性二諦者。若有有可有。則有無可無。有有可有。不由無故有。有無可無。不由有故無。不由無故有。有非無有。有非無有。不由有故無。無非有無。有非無有。有是自性有。無非有無。無是自性無。有是自性有。有成有見。無是自性無。無成無見。有無二見若成。則六十二見便立。以有無為諸見本。如法華若及若無等。依心此諸見。具足六十二。既有其見。則便起愛以自見生愛。他見起瞋。見是癡使。復有愛恚。則煩惱具足。既有煩惱。則便有業。業惑若成。不得離生老病死憂悲苦惱。名為失也。次對失明得者。今無有可有。則無無可無。無有由無

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 也屬於謗法。這是因為小乘的語意和大乘的語意，實際上是不同的，卻強行說它們相同。例如學習《成實論》的人，認為無相滅諦與方等（Vipulārtha，廣大的意義）的道理相同，這也叫做謗法。因此，大小乘的學習者，應該區分相同和不同這四句。

十一、得失門

權巧和真實是至人觀照內心的法門，真諦和俗諦是眾聖所證悟的微妙境界。前面已經簡略地闡明了二慧（真慧和俗慧），現在需要討論真諦和俗諦。真諦和俗諦的根本如果確立，權巧和真實的末端自然會端正。所以開設十二個門，詳細分析其中的得失：一、性假門，二、有無門，三、有本無本門，四、顯不顯門，五、理教門，六、說不說門，七、淺深門，八、理內外門，九、無定性門，十、相待門，十一、泯得失門，十二、體用門。

第一 性假門

問：學習佛法的二諦（Dve Satya，真諦和俗諦），怎樣才能獲得利益，怎樣會遭受損失？請為我們陳述。 答：執著于定性的二諦就會遭受損失，依于因緣假名的二諦就能獲得利益。所說的定性二諦，如果認為『有』是本來就有的，那麼『無』就是本來就無的。『有』是本來就有的，不是因為『無』才有的；『無』是本來就無的，不是因為『有』才無的。不是因為『無』才有的，所以『有』不是『無』所產生的；不是因為『有』才無的，所以『無』不是『有』所產生的。『有』不是『無』所產生的，『有』是自性本有的；『無』不是『有』所產生的，『無』是自性本無的。『有』是自性本有的，就會形成『有見』；『無』是自性本無的，就會形成『無見』。如果『有見』和『無見』這兩種見解形成，那麼六十二見（Sasthidristi，六十二種邪見）就會產生。因為『有』和『無』是各種見解的根本，如《法華經》所說的『若及若無』等。這些見解都依附於心，具足六十二見。既然有了這些見解，就會產生愛著，因為對自己的見解產生愛著，對他人的見解產生嗔恨。見是癡使（Mohaniya，癡煩惱的驅使），再加上愛和嗔，那麼煩惱就具足了。既然有了煩惱，就會造作惡業。如果業和惑（Klesha，煩惱）形成，就無法脫離生老病死憂悲苦惱。這叫做損失。與損失相對的是獲得，現在認為『有』不是本來就有的，那麼『無』就不是本來就無的。『有』不是因為『無』才有的

【English Translation】 English version It is also slandering the Dharma. The reason is that the meaning of the Small Vehicle (Hinayana) and the meaning of the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) are actually different, but they are forcibly said to be the same. For example, those who study the Satyasiddhi Shastra (Chengshi Lun) consider the Nirodha-satya (cessation of suffering) without characteristics to be the same as the principles of the Vaipulya Sutras (Fangdeng, expansive meaning), which is also called slandering the Dharma. Therefore, students of both the Small and Great Vehicles should distinguish the four possibilities of sameness and difference.

Eleventh: The Gate of Gain and Loss

Skillful means and reality are the contemplation of the mind by the perfect person. Truth and convention are the wonderful realms of all sages. The two wisdoms (truth and conventional wisdom) have already been briefly explained above. Now we need to discuss truth and convention. If the foundation of truth and convention is established, the end of skillful means and reality will naturally be correct. Therefore, twelve gates are opened to analyze their gains and losses in detail: 1. The Gate of Nature and Convention, 2. The Gate of Existence and Non-existence, 3. The Gate of Having a Basis and Not Having a Basis, 4. The Gate of Manifestation and Non-manifestation, 5. The Gate of Principle and Teaching, 6. The Gate of Speaking and Not Speaking, 7. The Gate of Shallow and Deep, 8. The Gate of Inner and Outer Principle, 9. The Gate of No Fixed Nature, 10. The Gate of Relativity, 11. The Gate of Eliminating Gain and Loss, 12. The Gate of Essence and Function.

First: The Gate of Nature and Convention

Question: When studying the Two Truths (Dve Satya, truth and conventional truth) in Buddhism, how can one gain benefit and how can one suffer loss? Please explain this to us. Answer: Holding onto the Two Truths as having fixed nature leads to loss, while relying on the Two Truths as conditioned and nominally existent leads to gain. The so-called Two Truths with fixed nature mean that if 'existence' is considered to inherently exist, then 'non-existence' is considered to inherently not exist. 'Existence' is considered to inherently exist, not because of 'non-existence'; 'non-existence' is considered to inherently not exist, not because of 'existence'. 'Existence' is not caused by 'non-existence', so 'existence' is not produced by 'non-existence'; 'non-existence' is not caused by 'existence', so 'non-existence' is not produced by 'existence'. 'Existence' is not produced by 'non-existence'; 'existence' is inherently existent. 'Non-existence' is not produced by 'existence'; 'non-existence' is inherently non-existent. If 'existence' is inherently existent, it forms the 'view of existence'; if 'non-existence' is inherently non-existent, it forms the 'view of non-existence'. If these two views of 'existence' and 'non-existence' are formed, then the sixty-two views (Sasthidristi, sixty-two heretical views) will arise. Because 'existence' and 'non-existence' are the root of all views, as the Lotus Sutra says, 'whether it exists or does not exist,' etc. These views all depend on the mind and fully possess the sixty-two views. Since these views exist, attachment will arise, because attachment arises to one's own views, and hatred arises towards the views of others. View is driven by ignorance (Mohaniya, driven by the defilement of ignorance), and with the addition of love and hatred, defilements are complete. Since there are defilements, bad karma will be created. If karma and defilements (Klesha, afflictions) are formed, one cannot escape birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, and suffering. This is called loss. Opposite to loss is gain. Now, if 'existence' is not considered to inherently exist, then 'non-existence' is not considered to inherently not exist. 'Existence' is not caused by 'non-existence.'

故有。無無可無。由有故無。由無故有。有是無有。由有故無。無是有無。無則不自無。無有則不自有。不自有故非有。不自無故非無。非有非無。假名有無。

問。何故云非有非無假說有無。答。此欲明有無義耳。既是因緣有無。因緣有無則有無宛然。而非有無。非有無宛然而有無。故言有不自有故非有。無不自無故非無。非有非無。假有假無。可熟思此言。譬如幻人非人。幻人非人故人。映象非像。非像故像像如是。有無非是定性。故不起見愛。不招苦果。故名為得也。問。此言何所出耶。答。此開中舊義。如肇公不真空論明。有非真有。故雖有而空。空非真空。雖空而有。猶如幻化人。非無幻化人。幻化人非真人。作論竟。以示羅什。羅什嘆曰。秦人解空第一者。僧肇其人也。光秦法師撰搜玄論。十四宗二諦。用肇公為本。故是舊宗不名新義。宜可信之。

次考性義。問誰義明有有可有。有無可無。故成自性耶。答。今通明一切內外大小有所得義。必有有可有得。有無可無得。無名有所得故。墮自性也。

問。今且舉成論明三假義不墮失門。何者。彼明三假有為世諦。三假空為真諦。即三假而常四忘。即四忘而常三假。即三假而常四忘故。有不自有。即四忘而常三假故。空不自空。故非性義

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所以說，『有』並非絕對的『有』，因為它可以轉化為『無』；『無』也並非絕對的『無』，因為它來源於『有』。『有』實際上是『無有』，因為『有』會轉化為『無』。『無』實際上是『有無』，『無』本身不能使自己成為『無』，『無有』也不能使自己獨立存在。因為不能獨立存在，所以它不是真正的『有』；因為不能自己成為『無』，所以它不是真正的『無』。既非『有』也非『無』，只是假名為『有』和『無』。

問：為什麼說既非『有』也非『無』，只是假說『有』和『無』呢？答：這是爲了闡明『有』和『無』的含義。既然『有』和『無』是因緣和合而生，那麼因緣和合的『有』和『無』，雖然顯現為『有』和『無』，但並非是絕對的『有』和『無』。雖然顯現為『有』和『無』，但又不是絕對的『有』和『無』，所以說『有』不能獨立存在，因此不是真正的『有』；『無』不能自己成為『無』，因此不是真正的『無』。既非『有』也非『無』，只是假名為『有』，假名為『無』。要仔細思考這些話。比如幻化出來的人，不是真正的人，因為是幻化出來的，所以又可以稱為人。映象不是真正的像，因為不是真正的像，所以又可以稱為像。『有』和『無』也是如此，並非具有固定不變的自性，所以不會產生執見和貪愛，也不會招致痛苦的結果，因此可以稱為『得』。

問：這些話出自哪裡？答：這是開創中觀宗的舊義，如僧肇（Seng Zhao）的《不真空論》所闡明的那樣，『有』不是真實的『有』，所以雖然顯現為『有』，但其本質是空。『空』不是絕對的空，所以雖然是空，但又顯現為『有』。就像幻化出來的人，並非沒有幻化出來的人，但幻化出來的人不是真人。《不真空論》寫完后，拿給鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）看，鳩摩羅什讚歎說：『秦國人理解空性第一人，就是僧肇啊！』光秦法師（Guang Qin Fa Shi）撰寫的《搜玄論》中的十四宗二諦，就是以僧肇的觀點為根本。所以這是舊宗的觀點，不是新的義理，應該相信它。

接下來考察自性之義。問：誰的義理闡明了『有』的『有』是可以『有』的，『有』的『無』是可以『無』的，因此成就了自性呢？答：現在通盤說明一切內外大小所獲得的意義。必定有『有』是可以『有』的，『有』是可以『無』的，因為沒有『無』，所以才稱為有所得，因此落入了自性之中。

問：現在且舉《成實論》（Cheng Shi Lun）闡明三假（San Jia）之義，不落入失誤之門，是什麼呢？答：該論闡明三假之『有』為世俗諦（Shi Di），三假之『空』為真諦（Zhen Di）。即三假而常四忘（Si Wang），即四忘而常三假。即三假而常四忘，所以『有』不能獨立存在。即四忘而常三假，所以『空』不能自己成為『空』。所以不是自性之義。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, 'existence' is not absolutely 'existence', because it can transform into 'non-existence'; 'non-existence' is also not absolutely 'non-existence', because it originates from 'existence'. 'Existence' is actually 'non-existence', because 'existence' will transform into 'non-existence'. 'Non-existence' is actually 'existence-non-existence', 'non-existence' itself cannot make itself become 'non-existence', and 'non-existence' cannot exist independently. Because it cannot exist independently, it is not true 'existence'; because it cannot become 'non-existence' by itself, it is not true 'non-existence'. Neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence', it is only nominally called 'existence' and 'non-existence'.

Question: Why is it said that it is neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence', but only nominally called 'existence' and 'non-existence'? Answer: This is to clarify the meaning of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Since 'existence' and 'non-existence' arise from the combination of conditions, then the 'existence' and 'non-existence' that arise from the combination of conditions, although appearing as 'existence' and 'non-existence', are not absolute 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Although appearing as 'existence' and 'non-existence', they are not absolute 'existence' and 'non-existence', so it is said that 'existence' cannot exist independently, therefore it is not true 'existence'; 'non-existence' cannot become 'non-existence' by itself, therefore it is not true 'non-existence'. Neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence', only nominally called 'existence', nominally called 'non-existence'. You should carefully consider these words. For example, a person transformed by illusion is not a real person, because it is transformed by illusion, so it can be called a person. A mirror image is not a real image, because it is not a real image, so it can be called an image. 'Existence' and 'non-existence' are also like this, not having a fixed and unchanging self-nature, so they will not produce attachment and craving, nor will they incur painful consequences, therefore it can be called 'attainment'.

Question: Where do these words come from? Answer: This is the old meaning of the Madhyamaka school, as explained in Seng Zhao's (Seng Zhao) 'Treatise on Non-Absolute Emptiness', 'existence' is not true 'existence', so although appearing as 'existence', its essence is emptiness. 'Emptiness' is not absolute emptiness, so although it is emptiness, it appears as 'existence'. Just like a person transformed by illusion, it is not that there is no person transformed by illusion, but the person transformed by illusion is not a real person. After the 'Treatise on Non-Absolute Emptiness' was written, it was shown to Kumarajiva (Kumarajiva), who praised: 'The first person in Qin to understand emptiness is Seng Zhao!' The fourteen schools and two truths in the 'Treatise on Searching for the Profound' written by Guang Qin Fa Shi (Guang Qin Fa Shi) are based on Seng Zhao's views. So this is the view of the old school, not a new doctrine, and should be believed.

Next, examine the meaning of self-nature. Question: Whose doctrine clarifies that the 'existence' of 'existence' can be 'existent', and the 'non-existence' of 'existence' can be 'non-existent', thus achieving self-nature? Answer: Now, comprehensively explain the meaning of all internal and external, large and small attainments. There must be 'existence' that can be 'existent', and 'existence' that can be 'non-existent', because there is no 'non-existence', so it is called attainment, therefore falling into self-nature.

Question: Now, let's take the Cheng Shi Lun (Cheng Shi Lun) as an example to clarify the meaning of the three falsities (San Jia), without falling into the gate of error, what is it? Answer: This treatise clarifies that the 'existence' of the three falsities is the conventional truth (Shi Di), and the 'emptiness' of the three falsities is the ultimate truth (Zhen Di). That is, the three falsities are always accompanied by the four forgettings (Si Wang), and the four forgettings are always accompanied by the three falsities. That is, the three falsities are always accompanied by the four forgettings, so 'existence' cannot exist independently. That is, the four forgettings are always accompanied by the three falsities, so 'emptiness' cannot become 'emptiness' by itself. Therefore, it is not the meaning of self-nature.

。答。三假為世諦。四忘為真諦者。世諦之有。為待真空。為不待耶。即此一責。便墮二負門。若言世諦待真諦者。則世諦為能待。真諦為所待。二諦便是相待假。何得定三假是世諦四忘為真諦耶。若言世諦之有不待真空者。既不相待。便成自性。故不可答也。問。世諦之有。不得待真諦之體。以真體絕故。不可相待。答。今世諦之有待世諦。真若之名故。有待于無。無上過也。

問。真諦之名。為是世諦攝。為真諦攝。為真諦攝邪。若是世諦攝者。則世諦如長還待長。短還因短。若真諦之名為真諦攝無名者。真諦無名。何得攝名。真遂攝名者。則真非絕名。若言真理無名為真立名遂屬真者。既生屬真。真則有名。若真不可名。亦不可屬矣。故二諦空有。無相待義。便是性矣。又真絕不可待。俗是待不可絕。豈非性耶。次別問世諦。世諦中長短相待者。待者為長短成竟。而待為相待竟長短始成。二俱不可。若成竟而待者。凡有二過。一者失待過。既生已成。何須復待。凡論待者。本為令成。今既已成。不應更待。二者若成竟而復待。則成一未待時已本成二相待竟。覆成唯一長拒。即何有二成。若有二成。須有二長拒。

問。先有體成。后待竟復得長短名成。以先有體成。未有名成。故須相待。免不待之過

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：如果說三假是世俗諦，四忘是真諦，那麼世俗諦的存在，是依賴於真空，還是不依賴呢？僅僅這一個問題，就陷入了雙重否定。如果說世俗諦依賴於真諦，那麼世俗諦就是能依賴者，真諦就是所依賴者。這樣二諦就成了相互依賴的假象，怎麼能斷定三假是世俗諦，四忘是真諦呢？如果說世俗諦的存在不依賴於真空，既然不相互依賴，那就成了自性，所以無法回答。 問：世俗諦的存在，不能依賴於真諦的本體，因為真體是絕對的，所以不能相互依賴。答：現在世俗諦的存在依賴於世俗諦，真如的名稱，所以有依賴於無，沒有比這更過分的了。 問：真諦的名稱，是屬於世俗諦所包含，還是真諦所包含？如果說是世俗諦所包含，那麼世俗諦就像長依賴於長，短依賴於短。如果真諦的名稱被真諦所包含，沒有名稱，真諦沒有名稱，怎麼能包含名稱呢？如果真諦包含名稱，那麼真諦就不是絕對的無名。如果說真理無名，爲了真理而立名，於是名稱屬於真理，既然產生並屬於真理，真理就有了名稱。如果真理不可名，也不可歸屬。所以二諦的空和有，沒有相互依賴的意義，這就是自性。而且真諦絕對不可依賴，世俗諦是依賴而不可絕對的，難道不是自性嗎？接下來分別問世俗諦。世俗諦中長短相互依賴，是長短已經成就而依賴，還是相互依賴后長短才成就？兩種情況都不可以。如果已經成就而依賴，凡是有兩種過失。一是失去依賴的過失，既然已經產生併成就，何須再次依賴？凡是討論依賴，本來是爲了使其成就，現在既然已經成就，不應該再次依賴。二是如果成就后又依賴，那麼成就一次，未依賴時已經本來成就，兩次相互依賴后，又成就唯一長拒，那麼怎麼會有兩次成就？如果有兩次成就，必須有兩次長拒。 問：先有本體成就，后依賴后才得到長短的名稱成就。因為先有本體成就，沒有名稱成就，所以需要相互依賴，避免不依賴的過失。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If the three falsities are conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), and the four negations are ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), does the existence of conventional truth depend on emptiness (śūnyatā), or does it not? This single question leads to a double bind. If you say that conventional truth depends on ultimate truth, then conventional truth is the dependent, and ultimate truth is the depended upon. Thus, the two truths become mutually dependent illusions. How can you definitively say that the three falsities are conventional truth and the four negations are ultimate truth? If you say that the existence of conventional truth does not depend on emptiness, since they are not mutually dependent, it becomes self-existent (svabhāva), so it is unanswerable. Question: Can the existence of conventional truth not depend on the substance of ultimate truth, because the true substance is absolute, so they cannot depend on each other? Answer: Now the existence of conventional truth depends on conventional truth, the name of Suchness (tathatā), so there is dependence on non-existence (abhāva), nothing is more excessive than this. Question: Does the name of ultimate truth belong to conventional truth or ultimate truth? If it belongs to conventional truth, then conventional truth is like 'long' depending on 'long,' and 'short' depending on 'short.' If the name of ultimate truth is contained by ultimate truth, without a name, how can ultimate truth contain a name? If ultimate truth contains a name, then ultimate truth is not absolutely without a name. If you say that the truth is nameless, and a name is established for the sake of truth, then the name belongs to the truth. Since it arises and belongs to the truth, the truth has a name. If the truth cannot be named, it also cannot belong. Therefore, the emptiness and existence of the two truths have no meaning of mutual dependence; this is self-nature (svabhāva). Moreover, ultimate truth is absolutely undependable, and conventional truth is dependable but not absolute; is this not self-nature? Next, ask separately about conventional truth. In conventional truth, long and short are mutually dependent. Is it that long and short are already accomplished and then depend, or is it that long and short are accomplished after mutual dependence? Neither is possible. If they are already accomplished and then depend, there are two faults. First, the fault of losing dependence. Since they have already arisen and are accomplished, why depend again? All discussions of dependence are originally for the sake of accomplishment; now that they are already accomplished, they should not depend again. Second, if they are accomplished and then depend again, then there is one accomplishment, and originally accomplished when not depending, after two mutual dependencies, there is only one long rejection. So how can there be two accomplishments? If there are two accomplishments, there must be two long rejections. Question: First, there is the accomplishment of the substance, and then after dependence, the names of long and short are accomplished. Because there is first the accomplishment of the substance, without the accomplishment of the name, there is a need for mutual dependence to avoid the fault of non-dependence.

。以相待但有名始成。而體不更成。無重成之咎。答。若相待但有名成而體不成者。則相待一假。唯名待耳。體明非相待假耶。然名與體還復相待。即一切皆待一切皆成也。問。先長短成而後待有此過。先待而後成。有何咎耶。答。本將長成待短耳。先未待短。既生無長。將何待短耶。若將長待短者。還墮先成后待。亦非先後成。今有長短即有待。有待即有長短。一時故無上二過。問。若爾者。長物不待短時。為有此物以不。若有此物。則是不待而有。同先成之失。若不待時。無有此物。同先待之過。若言雖有此物。未待短時。不可名其長短。若爾則還同未待時有物體。體待得名。雖欲一時。不免三失責山門。問。汝先云無有可有。由無故有。無無可無。由有故無。他有有可有。有無可無。此是先成而後待。今無有可有。由無故有。豈非先待而後成耶。答。今對上有有可有。故明無有可耳。非是未待之時未成待竟方成。亦非先有成竟然後待也。故是因緣相待。不可以有無二門責其定性。問。雖有此言。未具共相。請為述之。答。且據長短。短不自短。持長故短。非是先成后待故。短既不自短。短亦非他短。故非先待而後成。若有短體復因長。即是自他共短。此短便有兩過。若有短體。則墮先成后待過。若由他短。則墮

【現代漢語翻譯】 以『相待』（相互依存）但有名相始成立，而本體並不因此改變或形成新的東西，所以沒有重複形成的過失。答：如果『相待』只是名相上的成立，而本體上沒有成立，那麼『相待』就只是一種假象，只有名稱上是『待』（依存），本體上明顯不是『相待』的假象。然而，名稱和本體最終還是相互依存的，也就是說一切都依賴於一切，一切都因此成立。問：先有長短的成立，然後才有『待』（依存），會有這種過失。那麼，先有『待』，然後才有長短的成立，會有什麼過失呢？答：原本是要用長來『待』短的，如果事先沒有『待』短，就已經產生了長，那麼用什麼來『待』短呢？如果用長來『待』短，還是會落入先成立后『待』的境地。也不是先成立或后成立。現在有了長短，就有了『待』，有了『待』，就有了長短，是同時發生的，所以沒有以上兩種過失。問：如果這樣，長的事物在沒有『待』短的時候，是否存在？如果存在，那就是不『待』而有，和先成立的過失一樣。如果不『待』，就沒有這個事物，和先『待』的過失一樣。如果說雖然有這個事物，但在沒有『待』短的時候，不能稱其為長短，那麼這和沒有『待』的時候就有物體是一樣的。本體通過『待』而獲得名稱，即使想要同時發生，也無法避免這三種過失的責難。問：你先前說沒有『可有』（可以存在的事物），因為『無』的緣故而有；沒有『可無』（可以不存在的事物），因為『有』的緣故而無；他有『可有』，有『可無』，這是先成立而後『待』。現在沒有『可有』，因為『無』的緣故而有，難道不是先『待』而後成立嗎？答：現在是針對上面所說的『有可有』，所以才說明『無有可有』。並不是在沒有『待』的時候沒有成立，『待』完之後才成立。也不是先有成立之後才『待』。所以這是因緣相互依存，不能用有無兩種方式來責難它的定性。問：雖然有這種說法，但還沒有完全具備共相，請為我詳細說明。答：且以長短為例，短不是自身就是短，是因為持有長才顯得短。不是先成立后『待』。既然短不是自身就是短，短也不是因為其他事物才是短，所以不是先『待』而後成立。如果短的本體又依賴於長，那就是自身和他者共同構成短，這種短就會有兩種過失。如果存在短的本體，就會落入先成立后『待』的過失。如果是由於他者才顯得短，就會落入... 現代漢語譯本 English version With '相待' (xiangdai, mutual dependence) only the nominal aspects are established, but the substance does not change or form anything new, so there is no fault of repeated formation. Answer: If '相待' only establishes in name and not in substance, then '相待' is just an illusion, only the name is '待' (dependent), and the substance is clearly not a '相待' illusion. However, name and substance ultimately depend on each other, that is, everything depends on everything, and everything is established because of this. Question: If the establishment of long and short comes first, and then there is '待' (dependence), there will be this fault. So, what fault would there be if '待' comes first, and then the establishment of long and short? Answer: Originally, it was intended to use long to '待' short. If there is no '待' short beforehand, and long has already arisen, then what is used to '待' short? If long is used to '待' short, it will still fall into the state of establishing first and then '待'. It is neither establishing first nor establishing later. Now that there are long and short, there is '待'. With '待', there are long and short. They happen simultaneously, so there are no two faults mentioned above. Question: If so, does a long thing exist when it does not '待' short? If it exists, then it exists without '待', which is the same as the fault of establishing first. If it does not '待', then there is no such thing, which is the same as the fault of '待' first. If you say that although this thing exists, it cannot be called long or short when it does not '待' short, then this is the same as having an object when it does not '待'. The substance obtains its name through '待'. Even if you want them to happen simultaneously, you cannot avoid the blame of these three faults. Question: You said earlier that there is no '可有' (keyou, something that can exist), because of '無' (wu, non-existence) it exists; there is no '可無' (kewu, something that can not exist), because of '有' (you, existence) it does not exist; others have '可有', and there is '可無'. This is establishing first and then '待'. Now there is no '可有', because of '無' it exists. Isn't this '待' first and then establishing? Answer: Now it is in response to the '有可有' (youkeyou, existence of something that can exist) mentioned above, so I explain '無有可有' (wuyoukeyou, non-existence of something that can exist). It is not that it is not established when there is no '待', and it is established only after '待' is completed. Nor is it that there is establishment first and then '待'. Therefore, this is cause and condition mutually dependent, and its fixed nature cannot be blamed with the two methods of existence and non-existence. Question: Although there is this statement, it does not fully possess the common characteristics. Please explain it to me in detail. Answer: Let's take long and short as an example. Short is not short by itself. It is short because it holds long. It is not establishing first and then '待'. Since short is not short by itself, short is not short because of other things, so it is not '待' first and then establishing. If the substance of short depends on long again, then the self and others together constitute short. This short will have two faults. If there is a substance of short, it will fall into the fault of establishing first and then '待'. If it is short because of others, it will fall into...

【English Translation】 With 'Xiangdai' (mutual dependence) only the nominal aspects are established, but the substance does not change or form anything new, so there is no fault of repeated formation. Answer: If 'Xiangdai' only establishes in name and not in substance, then 'Xiangdai' is just an illusion, only the name is 'Dai' (dependence), and the substance is clearly not a 'Xiangdai' illusion. However, name and substance ultimately depend on each other, that is, everything depends on everything, and everything is established because of this. Question: If the establishment of long and short comes first, and then there is 'Dai' (dependence), there will be this fault. So, what fault would there be if 'Dai' comes first, and then the establishment of long and short? Answer: Originally, it was intended to use long to 'Dai' short. If there is no 'Dai' short beforehand, and long has already arisen, then what is used to 'Dai' short? If long is used to 'Dai' short, it will still fall into the state of establishing first and then 'Dai'. It is neither establishing first nor establishing later. Now that there are long and short, there is 'Dai'. With 'Dai', there are long and short. They happen simultaneously, so there are no two faults mentioned above. Question: If so, does a long thing exist when it does not 'Dai' short? If it exists, then it exists without 'Dai', which is the same as the fault of establishing first. If it does not 'Dai', then there is no such thing, which is the same as the fault of 'Dai' first. If you say that although this thing exists, it cannot be called long or short when it does not 'Dai' short, then this is the same as having an object when it does not 'Dai'. The substance obtains its name through 'Dai'. Even if you want them to happen simultaneously, you cannot avoid the blame of these three faults. Question: You said earlier that there is no 'Keyou' (something that can exist), because of 'Wu' (non-existence) it exists; there is no 'Kewu' (something that can not exist), because of 'You' (existence) it does not exist; others have 'Keyou', and there is 'Kewu'. This is establishing first and then 'Dai'. Now there is no 'Keyou', because of 'Wu' it exists. Isn't this 'Dai' first and then establishing? Answer: Now it is in response to the 'Youkeyou' (existence of something that can exist) mentioned above, so I explain 'Wuyoukeyou' (non-existence of something that can exist). It is not that it is not established when there is no 'Dai', and it is established only after 'Dai' is completed. Nor is it that there is establishment first and then 'Dai'. Therefore, this is cause and condition mutually dependent, and its fixed nature cannot be blamed with the two methods of existence and non-existence. Question: Although there is this statement, it does not fully possess the common characteristics. Please explain it to me in detail. Answer: Let's take long and short as an example. Short is not short by itself. It is short because it holds long. It is not establishing first and then 'Dai'. Since short is not short by itself, short is not short because of other things, so it is not 'Dai' first and then establishing. If the substance of short depends on long again, then the self and others together constitute short. This short will have two faults. If there is a substance of short, it will fall into the fault of establishing first and then 'Dai'. If it is short because of others, it will fall into...

先待后成過。是故非自他共短。短不自短。復不由他。則非無因有短。今明短名長短。豈可無因。問。既不得四句。亦不得相待。答。大經破自他共無因四句竟。答迦葉云。唯得名為從因得成。今亦爾。唯得名因緣待如幻化物。寧可定責其所由耶。

二有無門明得失

所言有無者。無前性義故。求性有不可得。性無亦不可得。若有有無。可有亦有亦無。非無非非無耳。竟無前二。何有後三。故五句皆不可得也。則五眼不見。昔聽講之日。聞興皇和上述攝嶺大師之言。五眼不見理外眾生及一切法。猶未則信解。久方悟之。如此有所得人法。本無所有。五眼何所見耶。大品經每舉我人為喻。又十六知見畢竟無所有。故五眼不見。今有所得性有人法。五眼不見。亦復如是。問。考察此五句不可得為是真諦之無以不。答。此無是二諦二部外無二諦不攝故。一師有二種無。一者有所無故稱無。二者無所有故稱無。有所無故稱無。即是有所得。五句皆畢竟空。是諸佛菩薩所離。故云無也。無所有義。明無。此是二諦中實諦無。所以然者。二諦宛然有而無故。名無所有。故稱為無也。二者對無明有。既無如此有得所義。即有諸佛菩薩假名因緣無所得二諦。非有故有。不無故無。如此有無。是佛菩薩有無智所行處。故名為

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：先要等待條件具備才能成就結果。因此，不是自身、他者或共同原因造成的缺陷。缺陷不是自身造成的，也不依賴於他者。那麼，就不是沒有原因而產生缺陷。現在說明缺陷名為長短，怎麼可能沒有原因呢？問：既然不能歸於四句（自、他、共、無因），也不能歸於相互依賴。答：《大般涅槃經》已經破斥了自、他、共、無因這四句。答覆迦葉說：『只能說名為從因緣和合而成就。』現在也是這樣，只能說因緣依賴，如同幻化之物，怎麼能確定追究它的由來呢？ 二、有無門明得失 所說的有和無，因為沒有先前的自性之義，所以尋求自性之有是不可得的，自性之無也是不可得的。如果說有有和無，那麼就可以說既有亦有亦無，非無非非無了。既然沒有前面的兩種情況，哪裡會有後面的三種情況呢？所以五句都是不可得的。那麼五眼也看不見。以前聽講的時候，聽到興皇和尚和攝嶺大師說，五眼看不見理外的眾生和一切法，當時還不相信理解。很久之後才明白，像這樣有所得的人法，本來就沒有所有，五眼能看見什麼呢？《大品般若經》經常用我和人來比喻，又說十六知見畢竟沒有所有，所以五眼看不見。現在有所得，自性有人法，五眼看不見，也是這樣。問：考察這五句不可得，是真諦之無嗎？答：這種無，是二諦和二部之外的無，不被二諦所包含。一位法師有兩種無，一種是『有所無』，所以稱為無；另一種是『無所有』，所以稱為無。『有所無』所以稱為無，就是有所得。五句都是畢竟空，是諸佛菩薩所遠離的，所以說是無。『無所有』的意義，說明無。這是二諦中的實諦之無。之所以這樣，是因為二諦宛然存在而又無，所以名為無所有，故稱為無。另一種是針對無明而說有，既然沒有如此有得所的意義，那麼就有諸佛菩薩假名因緣的無所得二諦。非有故有，不無故無。如此的有無，是佛菩薩有無智所行之處，所以名為...

【English Translation】 English version: First, one must wait for the conditions to be met before a result can be achieved. Therefore, it is not a defect caused by oneself, others, or a combination of both. A defect is not caused by itself, nor does it depend on others. Then, it is not that a defect arises without a cause. Now, explaining that a defect is named length and shortness, how could it be without a cause? Question: Since it cannot be attributed to the four possibilities (self, other, both, no cause), nor can it be attributed to mutual dependence. Answer: The Nirvana Sutra has already refuted the four possibilities of self, other, both, and no cause. Answering Kashyapa (a disciple of the Buddha): 'It can only be said that it is named as being achieved from the combination of causes and conditions.' It is the same now; it can only be said that causes and conditions are dependent, like illusory transformations. How can one definitively pursue its origin? Two, the Gate of Existence and Non-existence Clarifies Gain and Loss What is meant by existence and non-existence is that because there is no prior meaning of inherent nature (Skt: svabhava), seeking the existence of inherent nature is unattainable, and the non-existence of inherent nature is also unattainable. If one speaks of existence and non-existence, then one can say that it is both existent and non-existent, neither non-existent nor not-non-existent. Since there are no previous two cases, where would the latter three cases come from? Therefore, all five possibilities are unattainable. Then, the five eyes (of a Buddha) cannot see. In the past, when listening to lectures, I heard the monks Xinghuang and Sheling say that the five eyes cannot see sentient beings and all dharmas outside of principle, and at that time, I did not believe and understand. It was only after a long time that I realized that, like this person and dharma with something to be gained, there is originally nothing to be had. What can the five eyes see? The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra often uses 'I' and 'person' as metaphors, and also says that the sixteen views of knowledge are ultimately without anything to be had, so the five eyes cannot see. Now, with something to be gained, inherent nature, person, and dharma, the five eyes cannot see, and it is the same. Question: Examining these five unattainable possibilities, is it the non-existence of ultimate truth? Answer: This non-existence is outside of the two truths (conventional and ultimate) and the two divisions (Hinayana and Mahayana), and is not encompassed by the two truths. A teacher has two kinds of non-existence: one is 'non-existence of something', so it is called non-existence; the other is 'non-existence of anything', so it is called non-existence. 'Non-existence of something' is called non-existence because there is something to be gained. All five possibilities are ultimately empty, which is what all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have abandoned, so it is called non-existence. The meaning of 'non-existence of anything' clarifies non-existence. This is the ultimate truth of the two truths. The reason for this is that the two truths are clearly existent and yet non-existent, so it is named 'non-existence of anything', hence it is called non-existence. The other is existence in relation to ignorance. Since there is no such meaning of having something to be gained, then there are the two truths of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, nominal causes and conditions, and nothing to be gained. It is existent because it is non-existent, and it is non-existent because it is not non-existent. Such existence and non-existence are the realm of activity of the wisdom of existence and non-existence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, so it is named...

境。問。何故明此有無。答。前有無不成。今有無如立。對彼不成。故辨成義。所以明此有無。又是接斷見故來。或者本執定性有無。忽聞五句皆不可得。便生斷見。謂無二諦因果等法。為此人故。云乃是無汝所見有無耳。非無因緣有無。如中論作者品云。是業從眾緣生。無有決定。如汝所說有。如汝所說無。因緣有無也。又對數論等論。謂彼義有因果二諦。聞三論破一切法。便是起斷見。無有因果二諦等法。今明舊義無有因果及二諦耳。今始得有因果及二諦。所以然者。有所得作緣無因果二諦不成。故成無因果義。今立因果始成。故有因果義也。又先破定性有無。故破其有見。今明因緣有無。故破無見。欲示中道。明有無門。

三有本無門明得失

以無本故失。有本故得。所言無本故失者。有所得有無。無有根本。云何為本。謂不二正道。是有無有之本。華嚴云。正法性遠離一切言語道。一切趣非趣。悉皆寂滅相。故非有非無。非亦有亦無。非非有非非無。故云遠離一切趣。即此一切諸法之本。諸佛菩薩得正法根本。故名聖人。以失正法根本故。流浪六道。正法既非有無。而諸佛菩薩欲出處眾生。于無名相中。假名相說。故說有說無。如此有無。則有根本。有根本故。在未得成。故有無義立。有所得有

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：境。問：為何要闡明這種有無的道理？答：之前的有無之說是不能成立的，現在的有無之說才算是確立。因為要針對之前的不能成立的說法，所以要辨明成立的意義，因此要闡明這種有無的道理。另外，這也是爲了接引那些持斷見的人。有些人本來執著於事物具有固定不變的自性，要麼是有，要麼是無。忽然聽到『五句皆不可得』的說法，就產生了斷見，認為沒有二諦（satyadvaya，真諦和俗諦）、因果等法。爲了這些人，所以說，『這只是沒有你所見的那種有無罷了，並非沒有因緣所生的有無』。如同《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）作者在〈作者品〉中所說：『業從眾多因緣而生，沒有決定不變的自性，如同你所說的有，如同你所說的無，都是因緣所生的有無。』另外，也是爲了對治數論等外道。他們認為義理具有因果二諦。聽到三論宗破斥一切法，就生起斷見，認為沒有因果二諦等法。現在說明，舊的義理是沒有因果及二諦的，現在才開始有因果及二諦。之所以這樣說，是因為有所得心作為緣，則無因果二諦不能成立，所以成就了無因果的義理。現在建立因果，才開始成就，所以有因果的義理。另外，先前破斥了定性的有無，所以破斥了他們的有見。現在闡明因緣所生的有無，所以破斥了他們的無見。想要顯示中道，闡明有無之門。 三有本無門闡明得失：因為以無為根本，所以會失去；以有為根本，所以會得到。所說的以無為根本，所以會失去，是指有所得的有無，沒有根本。什麼是根本呢？就是不二正道。這是有無的根本。《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）說：『正法的體性遠離一切言語道，一切趣（gati，眾生輪迴的去處）非趣，都寂滅無相。』所以說非有非無，非亦有亦無，非非有非非無。所以說遠離一切趣，這就是一切諸法的根本。諸佛菩薩得到正法的根本，所以稱為聖人。因為失去正法的根本，所以在六道（ṣaḍ-gati，天、人、阿修羅、地獄、餓鬼、畜生）中流浪。正法既然不是有無，而諸佛菩薩想要救度眾生，所以在無名相中，假借名相來說，所以說有說無。如此的有無，則有根本。因為有根本，所以在未得成就之前，有無的意義才能成立。有所得的有

【English Translation】 English version: Realm. Question: Why is it necessary to clarify this principle of existence and non-existence? Answer: The previous notions of existence and non-existence were untenable; only the current understanding of existence and non-existence can be established. Because it is aimed at the previous untenable views, it is necessary to distinguish the meaning of establishment, hence the need to clarify this principle of existence and non-existence. Furthermore, this is also to receive those who hold nihilistic views. Some people originally clung to the fixed nature of things, either existence or non-existence. Suddenly hearing the statement that 'all five statements are unattainable,' they develop nihilistic views, believing that there are no Two Truths (satyadvaya, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth), no cause and effect, and so on. For these people, it is said, 'This is merely the absence of the existence and non-existence that you perceive; it is not the absence of existence and non-existence arising from conditions.' As the author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says in the chapter on 'The Agent': 'Action arises from numerous conditions; it has no fixed nature, like the existence you speak of, like the non-existence you speak of, both are existence and non-existence arising from conditions.' Furthermore, it is also to counter the Samkhya and other heterodox schools. They believe that the principle has the Two Truths of cause and effect. Hearing the Three Treatise School refute all dharmas, they give rise to nihilistic views, believing that there are no Two Truths of cause and effect, and so on. Now it is explained that the old meaning has no cause and effect and Two Truths; only now do we begin to have cause and effect and Two Truths. The reason for this is that with a mind of attainment as a condition, the Two Truths of no cause and effect cannot be established, thus accomplishing the meaning of no cause and effect. Now establishing cause and effect, we begin to accomplish it, thus there is the meaning of cause and effect. Furthermore, previously the fixed nature of existence and non-existence was refuted, thus refuting their view of existence. Now clarifying existence and non-existence arising from conditions, thus refuting their view of non-existence. Desiring to show the Middle Way, clarifying the gate of existence and non-existence. The Gate of Three Existences Originally Non-Existent Clarifies Gain and Loss: Because of taking non-existence as the root, there is loss; because of taking existence as the root, there is gain. What is meant by taking non-existence as the root, there is loss, refers to the existence and non-existence of attainment, which has no root. What is the root? It is the non-dual correct path. This is the root of existence and non-existence. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'The nature of the correct Dharma is far from all paths of language, all destinies (gati, realms of rebirth) and non-destinies, are all in a state of tranquil extinction.' Therefore, it is said to be neither existence nor non-existence, neither both existence and non-existence, nor neither existence nor non-existence. Therefore, it is said to be far from all destinies, this is the root of all dharmas. All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas attain the root of the correct Dharma, therefore they are called sages. Because of losing the root of the correct Dharma, they wander in the six realms (ṣaḍ-gati, gods, humans, asuras, hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals). Since the correct Dharma is neither existence nor non-existence, and the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas want to liberate sentient beings, they use provisional names and forms in the absence of names and forms, therefore they speak of existence and non-existence. Such existence and non-existence, then has a root. Because it has a root, before it is accomplished, the meaning of existence and non-existence can be established. The existence of attainment

無定住有無。言二諦有二理。既非非有非無非非有無。故無根本。根本既無。則末亦不立。故有無不成。所以為失也。

老宗。問。何故明此義。答。為成上得失義。諸佛菩薩。所以有得有有無者。以有無有根本故也。性有無既不成。以無根本故也。問。第二有無門中雲。五句求有所得諸法不可得。然後辨今因緣有無。與今明由非有非無故起有無何異。答。此是山門舊義。末學者不識之。好相渾也。前明五句不可得。此是有所無義耳。今明五句不可得者。此是無所有義。故不相關也。問。同明五句不可得。云何一是有所無。一是有所無。一是無所有。答。可細心觀之。前明五句不可得。無有理外法。今明五句不可得者。此目于正道。故先最有所無。今是無所有無。是故異也。問。此二有次第不。答。要先破洗理外諸法。明五句不可得。然後始得辨因緣二諦。由二諦始得表不二正道。約悟入者。有如此次第也。若就佛菩薩明。正道本非有無。為眾生故說有無。始得有二諦。而此二諦。絕性有無五句。故次明無性有無。此據出用次第故。須識山門。辨得失之精要。亦是經論之心骨也。

四者顯道不顯道門明得失

有所得有無定住有無。故有不須表于非有。無定住無。故無不得表于非無。如此有無。既不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有和無沒有固定的住所。談論二諦（Two Truths）包含兩種道理。既然既不是『非有』，也不是『非無』，也不是『非有非無』，所以沒有根本。根本既然沒有，那麼末端也無法成立。因此，有和無都不能成立，這就是過失的原因。

老宗（Lao Zong）。問：為什麼闡明這個道理？答：爲了成就上面所說的得失之義。諸佛菩薩之所以有得有有無，是因為有和無有根本的緣故。自性有無既然不能成立，是因為沒有根本的緣故。問：在第二有無門中說，用五句來尋求有所得的諸法是不可得的，然後辨明現在的因緣有無。這和現在闡明由於非有非無而產生有無有什麼不同？答：這是山門（Shan School）的舊義，後來的學習者不認識它，容易混淆。前面闡明五句不可得，這是有『所無』的意義。現在闡明五句不可得，這是『無所有』的意義，所以不相關。問：同樣闡明五句不可得，為什麼一個是『有所無』，一個是『無所有』？答：可以仔細觀察。前面闡明五句不可得，是沒有理外的法。現在闡明五句不可得，這是針對正道而言的。所以先是『最有所無』，現在是『無所有無』，因此是不同的。問：這兩種有次第嗎？答：要先破除洗滌理外的諸法，闡明五句不可得，然後才能辨明因緣二諦。由二諦才能表達不二正道。就悟入的人來說，有這樣的次第。如果就佛菩薩來說，正道本來就不是有無，爲了眾生才說有無，才會有二諦。而這二諦，超越了自性有無五句，所以接著闡明無自性有無。這是根據出用的次第，所以必須認識山門辨別得失的精要，這也是經論的心髓。

四者，顯道不顯道門闡明得失：

有所得的有無，定住有無。所以有不需要表達『非有』。無定住的無，所以無不能表達『非無』。如此的有無，既然不...

【English Translation】 English version: Existence and non-existence have no fixed abode. To speak of the Two Truths (two aspects of reality) involves two principles. Since it is neither 'not-existence,' nor 'not-non-existence,' nor 'not-existence-and-non-existence,' therefore there is no root. Since there is no root, then the end cannot be established. Therefore, existence and non-existence cannot be established, and this is the reason for the fault.

Lao Zong (Old Master). Question: Why is this principle explained? Answer: In order to accomplish the meaning of gain and loss mentioned above. The reason why Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have gain and have existence and non-existence is because existence and non-existence have a root. Since the inherent nature of existence and non-existence cannot be established, it is because there is no root. Question: In the second gate of existence and non-existence, it is said that seeking all dharmas that can be attained using the five phrases is unattainable, and then the existence and non-existence of present conditions are distinguished. What is the difference between this and the present explanation that existence and non-existence arise from neither existence nor non-existence? Answer: This is the old meaning of the Shan School (Mountain School), which later learners do not recognize and easily confuse. The previous explanation of the unattainability of the five phrases is the meaning of 'what is not.' The present explanation of the unattainability of the five phrases is the meaning of 'nothing at all,' so they are unrelated. Question: Since both explain the unattainability of the five phrases, why is one 'what is not' and the other 'nothing at all'? Answer: You can observe carefully. The previous explanation of the unattainability of the five phrases is that there is no dharma outside of principle. The present explanation of the unattainability of the five phrases is directed at the Right Path. Therefore, first there is 'most what is not,' and now there is 'nothing at all of non-existence,' so they are different. Question: Are these two in sequence? Answer: First, it is necessary to break down and cleanse all dharmas outside of principle, and explain the unattainability of the five phrases, and then one can distinguish the Two Truths of conditions. From the Two Truths, one can express the non-dual Right Path. For those who attain enlightenment, there is such a sequence. If speaking of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, the Right Path is originally neither existence nor non-existence. For the sake of sentient beings, existence and non-existence are spoken of, and then there are the Two Truths. And these Two Truths transcend the five phrases of inherent nature of existence and non-existence, so next, the non-inherent nature of existence and non-existence is explained. This is according to the sequence of emergence and application, so it is necessary to recognize the essence of the Shan School's distinguishing of gain and loss, which is also the marrow of the sutras and treatises.

Fourth, the gate of revealing the Path and not revealing the Path clarifies gain and loss:

The existence and non-existence of what is attained, the fixed abode of existence and non-existence. Therefore, existence does not need to express 'not-existence.' The non-fixed abode of non-existence, so non-existence cannot express 'not-non-existence.' Such existence and non-existence, since they do not...

顯非有非無不二正道。故名為失。因緣假名有無。則有不住有。有表不有。無不住無故。無表不無。如此有無。能表不二正道。故名為得。

考宗。問。何故明表道耶。答。諸佛菩薩。既體道本非有無。欲令物悟。是故知非有無。假說有無。假說有無。還表非有無。前是從道起用。今是以用開道。前是能化方便。今是令物悟入。有所得有無。則無從道起用。以用開道。亦無能化方。及別□物還原故。是失得之大宗也。

五者理教門分得失

有所得有無是理。無所得有無是教。舊云二諦是二理。四絕為真諦理。三假為俗諦理。二理則有佛無佛性相常然。迷之而成六道。悟之而有三乘。今明既是二理則不可改轉。則有無根深。事如盡石。因此決定有無。故起二見。所以然者。既其道理。實有有無。而有無二見。寧得不生耶。又設有二理生。一異則不成。若二理是一。則俗假真亦假。真絕俗亦絕。若有假有不假。有絕有不絕。則非二理為一也。若二理不一。則色不是空。空亦不是色。相即之言則壞。既立二理名。須受一異之問。又僧佉謂。大有是常萬法無常。常與無常一體。衛世師謂。大有是常。萬法無定。是故常無常二體。論主直破常無常。一體而異體。而有與萬法自壞。命詳此義。與二諦常無常。豈

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：顯現的既非『有』（bhava，存在），也非『無』（abhava，不存在），而是不二的中正之道。因此，稱之為『失』（loss）。因緣和合而成的假名『有』和『無』，那麼『有』就不是停留在『有』的狀態，『有』表達了『非有』的含義；『無』也不是停留在『無』的狀態，『無』表達了『非無』的含義。這樣的『有』和『無』，能夠表達不二的中正之道，因此，稱之為『得』（gain）。

考宗（examining the principle）。問：為什麼需要闡明表達『道』呢？答：諸佛菩薩，既然體悟的『道』的本質既非『有』也非『無』，爲了使眾生覺悟，所以知道『道』既非『有』也非『無』，而假借『有』和『無』的概念來闡述。假借『有』和『無』，最終還是爲了表達『非有非無』的『道』。前者是從『道』出發而運用，現在是以運用而開啟『道』。前者是能教化的方便法門，現在是使眾生覺悟而證入。如果執著于『有』和『無』，那就無法從『道』出發而運用，也無法以運用而開啟『道』，也失去了能教化的方便法門，以及使不同根器的眾生迴歸本源的作用。所以，這是『失』與『得』的根本宗旨。

五、從理教（principle and teaching）的角度區分『得』與『失』

執著于『有』和『無』是『理』（principle），不執著于『有』和『無』是『教』（teaching）。舊的說法認為二諦（two truths）是兩種『理』，四絕（four negations）是真諦理（paramārtha-satya，ultimate truth），三假（three provisionalities）是俗諦理（saṃvṛti-satya，conventional truth）。兩種『理』意味著無論有沒有佛，事物的自性（svabhāva，self-nature）和現象（lakṣaṇa，characteristic）都是恒常不變的。迷惑於此，就形成了六道（six realms）；覺悟於此，就證得了三乘（three vehicles）。現在闡明既然是兩種『理』，那就不可改變或轉化，那麼『有』和『無』的根基就根深蒂固，事情就像用盡了石頭一樣（比喻無法改變）。因此，如果執著于『有』和『無』，就會產生二見（two views）。之所以如此，是因為如果道理上確實存在『有』和『無』，那麼『有』和『無』的二見怎麼可能不產生呢？又假設有兩種『理』產生，如果它們既相同又相異，那是不可能的。如果兩種『理』是相同的，那麼俗諦是假，真諦也是假；真諦是絕待，俗諦也是絕待。如果『有』是假，『不有』不是假；『有』是絕待，『不有』不是絕待，那麼就不是兩種『理』合一了。如果兩種『理』不合一，那麼色（rūpa，form）不是空（śūnyatā，emptiness），空也不是色，『相即』（identity）的說法就被破壞了。既然建立了二理之名，就必須接受『一』和『異』的詰問。此外，僧佉（Sāṃkhya）認為，『大有』（great being）是常，萬法（dharma，all phenomena）是無常，常與無常是一體的。衛世師（Vaiśeṣika）認為，『大有』是常，萬法沒有定性，所以常與無常是兩個實體。論主直接破斥常與無常既是一體又是異體的說法，那麼『有』與萬法自然就瓦解了。請詳細考察這個含義，這與二諦的常與無常，難道……

【English Translation】 English version: What is manifested is neither 'being' (bhava, existence) nor 'non-being' (abhava, non-existence), but the non-dual Middle Way (madhyamā pratipadā). Therefore, it is called 'loss'. The provisional names 'being' and 'non-being', arising from conditions, mean that 'being' does not remain in the state of 'being'; 'being' expresses the meaning of 'non-being'. 'Non-being' does not remain in the state of 'non-being'; 'non-being' expresses the meaning of 'non-non-being'. Such 'being' and 'non-being' can express the non-dual Middle Way; therefore, it is called 'gain'.

Examining the Principle (考宗). Question: Why is it necessary to clarify the expression of the 'path' (道)? Answer: Since all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas realize that the essence of the 'path' is neither 'being' nor 'non-being', in order to enlighten sentient beings, they know that the 'path' is neither 'being' nor 'non-being', and they use the concepts of 'being' and 'non-being' to explain it. Borrowing 'being' and 'non-being' ultimately expresses the 'path' of 'neither being nor non-being'. The former is using from the 'path', and now it is opening the 'path' with use. The former is a skillful means of teaching, and now it is to enable sentient beings to awaken and enter. If one is attached to 'being' and 'non-being', then there is no way to use from the 'path', and there is no way to open the 'path' with use, and the skillful means of teaching are lost, as well as the function of returning beings of different capacities to the origin. Therefore, this is the fundamental principle of 'loss' and 'gain'.

  1. Distinguishing 'Gain' and 'Loss' from the Perspective of Principle and Teaching (理教)

Attachment to 'being' and 'non-being' is 'principle' (理), non-attachment to 'being' and 'non-being' is 'teaching' (教). The old saying is that the two truths (二諦) are two 'principles', the four negations (四絕) are the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) principle, and the three provisionalities (三假) are the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) principle. Two 'principles' mean that whether there is a Buddha or not, the self-nature (svabhāva) and phenomena (lakṣaṇa) of things are constant and unchanging. Confused by this, the six realms (六道) are formed; enlightened by this, the three vehicles (三乘) are attained. Now it is clarified that since there are two 'principles', they cannot be changed or transformed, then the foundation of 'being' and 'non-being' is deeply rooted, and things are like exhausting the stone (a metaphor for being unable to change). Therefore, if one is attached to 'being' and 'non-being', two views (二見) will arise. The reason for this is that if 'being' and 'non-being' really exist in principle, how can the two views of 'being' and 'non-being' not arise? Also, suppose two 'principles' arise, if they are both the same and different, that is impossible. If the two 'principles' are the same, then conventional truth is false, and ultimate truth is also false; ultimate truth is absolute, and conventional truth is also absolute. If 'being' is false, 'non-being' is not false; 'being' is absolute, 'non-being' is not absolute, then the two 'principles' are not one. If the two 'principles' are not one, then form (rūpa) is not emptiness (śūnyatā), and emptiness is not form, and the statement of 'identity' (相即) is destroyed. Since the name of two principles has been established, one must accept the question of 'one' and 'different'. In addition, Sāṃkhya (僧佉) believes that 'great being' (大有) is permanent, all phenomena (dharma) are impermanent, and permanence and impermanence are one. Vaiśeṣika (衛世師) believes that 'great being' is permanent, and all phenomena are not fixed, so permanence and impermanence are two entities. The debater directly refutes the statement that permanence and impermanence are both one and different entities, then 'being' and all phenomena will naturally collapse. Please examine this meaning in detail, is this related to the permanence and impermanence of the two truths...

一體二體。令同爲失也。如開善云。真諦是常。萬法無常。常無常一體。龍光云。真諦常。萬法無常。常無常二體。令同二外道義。對失明得。二諦是教。所言教者。以理本不二。而為物說二。故名為教。

考宗。問。何故以二諦為教。答。以有無為教。略有五義。一對理明二諦。是教。以至理無二故。非有非無。今說有說無。故有無為教。二者聖緣。聖人體道未曾有無。今說有無。此為教物。故有無為教。三為技見。舊義執有無。是理。由來既久。則二見其根深。難可傾拔。攝嶺大師。對緣斥病。欲拔二見之根。令舍有無兩執。故說有無能通不二理。非是究竟。不應住有無中。故有無為教。四者以有無是諸見根本。一切經論。盛可二見。斥于有無。如凡夫著有。二乘著無。又愛多者著有。見多者著無。又四見多者有。邪見多者執無。又佛法中五百論師執有。聞畢竟空。如刀傷心。方廣執無。不信因果。又九十六種外道所執。不出有無。諸佛出世。復云有無。是二理者。便增諸見心。何由可秡。故今明有無是教門能。能通不二之理。不應住有無中。以欲息諸見故。經論明有無。是教門也。五者稟教之徒。聞有無是教之能。能通正道。虛心不染有無教廢發意即起乎凡聖。故有無為教生意得矣。

問。以何文

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：一體二體，使（二者）相同或相異都是錯誤的。例如，開善（開善寺，位於中國江蘇）認為，真諦（Paramārtha-satya，最高真理）是常，萬法（Dharma，宇宙間一切事物和現象）無常，常與無常是一體。龍光（僧人名）認為，真諦是常，萬法無常，常與無常是二體。使（二者）相同或相異，都落入了外道的見解。通過破斥錯誤來彰顯正確，二諦（Two Truths，勝義諦和世俗諦）是教（Upadesha，教導）。所謂教，是因為理體原本不是二，但爲了眾生方便而說為二，所以稱為教。

考察宗旨。問：為什麼以二諦作為教？答：因為以有和無作為教，略有五個方面的意義。一是對理說明二諦是教。因為至高的道理沒有二，既非有也非無。現在說有說無，所以有無是教。二是聖人的因緣。聖人體悟的道未曾有過有無的分別，現在說有無，這是爲了教化眾生，所以有無是教。三是爲了對治執著見解。舊的觀點執著于有無，認為這是真理。由來已久，這兩種見解根深蒂固，難以傾覆。攝嶺大師（僧人名），針對這些因緣來斥責這些弊病，想要拔除有無兩種見解的根，使人捨棄有無兩種執著。所以說有無能夠通達不二的真理，並非是究竟的，不應該停留在有無之中。所以有無是教。四是因為有無是各種見解的根本。一切經論，大多可以歸結為有無兩種見解，斥責有無。例如凡夫執著于有，二乘（Śrāvaka，聲聞乘和Pratyekabuddha，緣覺乘）執著于無。又貪愛多的人執著于有，知見多的人執著于無。又四見（常見、斷見、亦常亦斷見、非常非斷見）多的人執著于有，邪見多的人執著于無。又佛法中的五百論師執著于有，聽到畢竟空（Śūnyatā，空性）的道理，如同刀傷心。方廣（經典名）的學者執著于無，不相信因果。又有九十六種外道所執著的，也超不出有無。諸佛出世，又說有無，如果認為這是兩種真理，就會增長各種見解，怎麼能夠止息呢？所以現在說明有無是教門，能夠通達不二的真理，不應該停留在有無之中，因為想要止息各種見解的緣故。經論說明有無，是教門。五是接受教導的人，聽到有無是教的作用，能夠通達正道，虛心不染著有無的教義，廢除（錯誤的見解），發起（菩提）心，就能從凡夫達到聖人的境界。所以有無作為教的意義就明白了。

問：以什麼經文

【English Translation】 English version: To consider them (the two) as the same or different is both a mistake. For example, Kai Shan (Kai Shan Temple, located in Jiangsu, China) believes that the True Reality (Paramārtha-satya, the ultimate truth) is permanent, and all Dharmas (Dharma, all things and phenomena in the universe) are impermanent; permanence and impermanence are one entity. Long Guang (name of a monk) believes that the True Reality is permanent, and all Dharmas are impermanent; permanence and impermanence are two entities. To consider them as the same or different falls into the views of external paths. By refuting the wrong to reveal the right, the Two Truths (Two Truths, the ultimate truth and the conventional truth) are the teaching (Upadesha, teaching). The so-called teaching is because the principle is originally not two, but for the convenience of sentient beings, it is said to be two, so it is called teaching.

Examining the doctrine. Question: Why are the Two Truths regarded as the teaching? Answer: Because existence and non-existence are used as the teaching, there are roughly five meanings. First, explaining the Two Truths in relation to the principle is the teaching. Because the supreme principle is not two, neither existence nor non-existence. Now speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence, therefore existence and non-existence are the teaching. Second, the conditions of the sages. The path realized by the sages has never had the distinction of existence and non-existence. Now speaking of existence and non-existence, this is to teach sentient beings, so existence and non-existence are the teaching. Third, to counter clinging to views. The old view clings to existence and non-existence, considering it to be the truth. Since it has been around for a long time, these two views are deeply rooted and difficult to overturn. Master She Ling (name of a monk) rebukes these ills in response to these conditions, wanting to uproot the roots of the two views of existence and non-existence, so that people abandon the two attachments of existence and non-existence. Therefore, it is said that existence and non-existence can lead to the non-dual truth, but it is not ultimate, and one should not dwell in existence and non-existence. Therefore, existence and non-existence are the teaching. Fourth, because existence and non-existence are the root of all views. Most sutras and treatises can be reduced to the two views of existence and non-existence, rebuking existence and non-existence. For example, ordinary people cling to existence, and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvaka, Hearer Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha, Solitary Realizer Vehicle) cling to non-existence. Also, those who have much greed cling to existence, and those who have much knowledge cling to non-existence. Also, those who have many four views (eternalism, annihilationism, both eternal and non-eternal, neither eternal nor non-eternal) cling to existence, and those who have many wrong views cling to non-existence. Also, the five hundred teachers in Buddhism cling to existence, and when they hear the principle of ultimate emptiness (Śūnyatā, emptiness), it is like a knife stabbing their hearts. Scholars of Fang Guang (name of a scripture) cling to non-existence and do not believe in cause and effect. Also, the ninety-six kinds of external paths that are clung to do not go beyond existence and non-existence. When the Buddhas appear in the world, they also speak of existence and non-existence. If it is thought that these are two truths, it will increase various views, how can it be stopped? Therefore, it is now explained that existence and non-existence are the teaching, which can lead to the non-dual truth, and one should not dwell in existence and non-existence, because one wants to stop various views. The sutras and treatises explain existence and non-existence as the teaching. Fifth, those who receive the teaching, hearing that existence and non-existence are the function of the teaching, can lead to the right path, and with an open mind, they are not attached to the teachings of existence and non-existence, abolish (wrong views), and generate (Bodhi) mind, then they can reach the state of a sage from an ordinary person. Therefore, the meaning of existence and non-existence as the teaching is clear.

Question: With what scripture

證二諦是教。答。文處甚多。且各舉一經一論。論云。諸佛依二諦說法。故二諦為教。大品云。菩薩住二諦中。為眾生說法。為著有者說空。爲著空者說有。故知二諦是教。論舉佛說經明菩薩說。故經論佛菩薩皆明二諦是教也。問。若以五義二文證二諦為教者。今亦以五難二文。明二諦非教。一者若聞說二諦是教者佛說教門。則有二諦。不說則應無二諦。若爾本以二諦生於二智。佛不說二諦。則無二諦。既無二諦。佛何所照有耶。二者若二諦是教。六度等行。皆是世諦。佛不說世諦。則無世諦。便無六度等行。若爾但有詮教法實。便無善業法寶。三者二諦為境。發生二智。二諦名境界法寶。二諦是教。但有詮教法寶。亦無境界法寶。若言教生智故轉名境者。佛不說教。則無教可轉。便無有境也。四者若二諦是教。色等萬法皆是世諦。世諦既是教者。色等萬法。亦應是教。若爾佛不說世諦。即無色等萬法。五者世諦是教者。世諦唯有教火。應無實火用。若火唯是教。口中說火。則應燒口。次引二文。證二諦非教。若言真諦是教者。經云。有佛無佛性相常住。而教則有佛方有。無佛則無。何得常住。經云。十二因緣有佛無常自有之。故知世諦非教。答。諦有二種。一于諦。二教諦。于諦者。色未曾有無。而於凡是有。名俗

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 證二諦是教嗎？答：經文里有很多地方都提到了。我這裡各舉一個經和一個論來說明。論中說：『諸佛依據二諦說法』，所以二諦是教法。 《大品般若經》中說：『菩薩安住於二諦之中，為眾生說法。為執著于『有』的眾生說『空』，為執著于『空』的眾生說『有』。』由此可知，二諦是教法。論中引用佛陀所說的經文，來說明菩薩所說的法。所以經文和論典都表明，佛和菩薩都認為二諦是教法。 問：如果用五種意義和兩種經文來證明二諦是教法，那麼現在也可以用五種詰難和兩種經文，來說明二諦不是教法。第一，如果聽說二諦是教法，佛陀宣說教法時，才會有二諦；如果不宣說，就應該沒有二諦。如果這樣，本來是用二諦產生二智，佛陀如果不宣說二諦，就沒有二諦。既然沒有二諦，佛陀用什麼來照見萬法呢？第二，如果二諦是教法，那麼六度等修行，都是世俗諦。佛陀如果不宣說世俗諦，就沒有世俗諦，也就沒有六度等修行。如果這樣，就只有詮釋教法的法寶，而沒有善業的法寶。第三，二諦是二智所觀照的境界，二諦可以稱為境界法寶。如果二諦是教法，就只有詮釋教法的法寶，也沒有境界法寶。如果說教法產生智慧，所以轉而稱為境界，那麼佛陀如果不宣說教法，就沒有教法可以轉變，也就沒有境界了。第四，如果二諦是教法，色等萬法都是世俗諦。世俗諦既然是教法，色等萬法也應該是教法。如果這樣，佛陀如果不宣說世俗諦，就沒有色等萬法。第五，如果世俗諦是教法，世俗諦就只有教法的『火』，應該沒有實際『火』的作用。如果火僅僅是教法，口中說火，就應該燒口。接下來引用兩種經文，證明二諦不是教法。如果說真諦是教法，經中說：『有佛無佛，（法的）自性、相狀常住』，而教法是有佛才有，沒有佛就沒有，怎麼能常住呢？經中說：『十二因緣，有佛無佛，（其規律）自然存在。』所以知道世俗諦不是教法。答：諦有兩種，一是『于諦』（客觀真理），二是『教諦』（教法之諦）。『于諦』是指，色法未曾有過『無』的狀態，而在凡夫看來是有，這叫做世俗諦（Satyadvaya）。

【English Translation】 English version Is the Two Truths (Satyadvaya) the teaching? Answer: There are many places in the scriptures that mention it. Here, I will cite one sutra and one treatise to illustrate. The treatise says: 'All Buddhas teach according to the Two Truths,' therefore the Two Truths are the teaching. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Bodhisattvas abide in the Two Truths and teach the Dharma to sentient beings. For sentient beings who are attached to 'existence,' they speak of 'emptiness'; for sentient beings who are attached to 'emptiness,' they speak of 'existence'.' From this, it can be known that the Two Truths are the teaching. The treatise quotes the sutras spoken by the Buddha to illustrate the Dharma spoken by the Bodhisattvas. Therefore, both the scriptures and treatises indicate that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas consider the Two Truths to be the teaching. Question: If the Two Truths are proven to be the teaching using five meanings and two scriptures, then now we can also use five refutations and two scriptures to illustrate that the Two Truths are not the teaching. First, if it is heard that the Two Truths are the teaching, then when the Buddha proclaims the teaching, there will be the Two Truths; if it is not proclaimed, then there should be no Two Truths. If this is the case, originally the Two Wisdoms are produced by the Two Truths. If the Buddha does not proclaim the Two Truths, there will be no Two Truths. Since there are no Two Truths, what does the Buddha use to illuminate all phenomena? Second, if the Two Truths are the teaching, then the practice of the Six Perfections (Paramitas), etc., are all Conventional Truth (Samvriti-satya). If the Buddha does not proclaim the Conventional Truth, there will be no Conventional Truth, and therefore no practice of the Six Perfections, etc. If this is the case, there will only be the Dharma Jewel of explanatory teachings, and not the Dharma Jewel of wholesome karma. Third, the Two Truths are the objects contemplated by the Two Wisdoms, and the Two Truths can be called the Dharma Jewel of the object of contemplation. If the Two Truths are the teaching, there will only be the Dharma Jewel of explanatory teachings, and not the Dharma Jewel of the object of contemplation. If it is said that the teaching produces wisdom, and therefore it is transformed into the object of contemplation, then if the Buddha does not proclaim the teaching, there will be no teaching to transform, and therefore no object of contemplation. Fourth, if the Two Truths are the teaching, then all phenomena such as form (rupa), etc., are all Conventional Truth. Since the Conventional Truth is the teaching, all phenomena such as form, etc., should also be the teaching. If this is the case, if the Buddha does not proclaim the Conventional Truth, there will be no phenomena such as form, etc. Fifth, if the Conventional Truth is the teaching, then the Conventional Truth only has the 'fire' of the teaching, and there should be no actual function of 'fire'. If fire is merely the teaching, then speaking of fire in the mouth should burn the mouth. Next, two scriptures are cited to prove that the Two Truths are not the teaching. If it is said that the Ultimate Truth (Paramartha-satya) is the teaching, the scripture says: 'Whether there is a Buddha or not, the nature and characteristics (of Dharma) are always abiding,' but the teaching only exists when there is a Buddha, and does not exist when there is no Buddha, how can it be always abiding? The scripture says: 'The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada), whether there is a Buddha or not, (its laws) exist naturally.' Therefore, it is known that the Conventional Truth is not the teaching. Answer: There are two kinds of Truths, one is 'Truth in itself' (objective truth), and the other is 'Truth as teaching' (the truth of the teaching). 'Truth in itself' refers to the fact that form has never had a state of 'non-existence', but it appears to exist to ordinary beings, this is called Conventional Truth (Samvriti-satya).

諦。于聖是空。名真諦。以于凡是有名俗諦故。萬法不失。于聖是空名真諦故。有佛無佛性相常住。教諦者。諸佛菩薩了色未曾有無。為化眾生故。說有無為二諦。欲令因此有無悟不有無。是教。而舊義明二諦是理者。此是二于諦耳。于諦望教諦。非但失不二理。亦失能表之教耳。

問。于凡是有既失者。于聖是無亦是失不。答。一對凡夫。明聖為得。若望教諦。皆是失也。以色未曾有無。而作有無作解。豈非失也。問。經云。一切世諦。若於如來。即是第一義諦。亦是失。答。一往對凡之有為失。嘆聖之空為得。若望教諦者。于諦非但不得表不二理。亦不得能表之教。但是謂情所見耳。然如來了色實未曾空有也。若識兩種二諦。則五難自[方*立]。問。難有此通。猶未可見。今說色有無是教諦者。不說色有無教諦。答。以說為教者。佛不說則無教諦也。問。若爾者。唯恒有二于諦。則無因緣有無。答。一切法常是二于有無。亦恒是因緣有無。若於二緣即是二于諦有無。諸佛菩薩了此色即是因緣有無。然于與教。未曾二。於二緣則教成。于了悟即于成教。問。若於二緣即是二于有無。望佛菩薩即是因緣有無。此因緣有無。此因緣即是因緣境。云何言是教。答。因緣有無。未曾有無。故雖是有無。而不有不無。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 諦（Satya，真理）。對於聖人來說是空，這被稱為真諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦），因為對於凡人來說是有，這被稱為俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）。萬法（一切事物）並沒有失去其本性，因為對於聖人來說是空，這被稱為真諦。無論有沒有佛，自性（Prakṛti）和現象（Lakṣaṇa）都是常住不變的。教諦（Deśanā-satya，教說諦）是指，諸佛菩薩了知色（Rūpa，物質）從未有過有或無的狀態，爲了教化眾生，才說有和無這兩種諦。想要讓眾生因此有和無而領悟到非有非無的境界，這就是教。而舊的觀點認為二諦是理，這只是二于諦（相對於真諦和俗諦而言的二種真理）。從教諦的角度來看，這不僅失去了不二之理，也失去了能表達真理的教法。

問：如果對於凡人來說是有已經失去了，那麼對於聖人來說是無，是否也失去了？答：相對凡夫而言，說明聖人的境界是證得。如果從教諦的角度來看，都是失去了。因為色從未有過有或無的狀態，卻把它理解為有或無，難道不是失去了嗎？問：經中說，一切世俗諦，如果對於如來（Tathāgata，佛）來說，就是第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦），這也是失去了嗎？答：一方面，相對於凡夫的有為是失去，讚歎聖人的空為證得。如果從教諦的角度來看，于諦不僅不能表達不二之理，也不能表達能表達真理的教法，這只是情識所見而已。然而，如來了知色實際上從未有過空或有。如果認識到這兩種二諦，那麼五難（對空性的五種誤解）自然會消失。問：理解這種通達的困難仍然存在，現在說色有無是教諦，如果不說色有無，就沒有教諦嗎？答：因為說是教，如果佛不說，就沒有教諦。問：如果這樣，只有恒常存在的二于諦，就沒有因緣（Hetupratyaya）所生的有無嗎？答：一切法常常是二于有無，也恒常是因緣有無。如果對於二緣（兩種條件）來說，就是二于諦的有無。諸佛菩薩了知這色就是因緣有無。然而，對於于諦和教諦來說，從未有二。對於二緣來說，教法就成立。對於了悟來說，就成就教法。問：如果對於二緣來說就是二于有無，從佛菩薩的角度來看就是因緣有無，這因緣有無，這因緣就是因緣境（Hetupratyaya-viṣaya，因緣的境界），怎麼說是教呢？答：因緣有無，從未有過有或無的狀態，所以雖然是有無，但不是有也不是無。

【English Translation】 English version: Satya (諦, Truth). That which is empty for the saints is called Paramārtha-satya (真諦, Ultimate Truth), because that which exists for ordinary people is called Saṃvṛti-satya (俗諦, Conventional Truth). The myriad dharmas (萬法, all phenomena) are not lost, because that which is empty for the saints is called Paramārtha-satya. Whether there is a Buddha or not, the nature (性, Prakṛti) and characteristics (相, Lakṣaṇa) are always permanent. Deśanā-satya (教諦, Teaching Truth) means that all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas understand that rūpa (色, form/matter) has never had a state of existence or non-existence. For the sake of transforming sentient beings, they speak of the two truths of existence and non-existence. They want sentient beings to realize the state of neither existence nor non-existence through this existence and non-existence. This is the teaching. But the old view that the two truths are principles is only the two truths relative to each other (二于諦, two truths in relation). From the perspective of Deśanā-satya, not only is the principle of non-duality lost, but also the teaching that can express the truth is lost.

Question: If existence for ordinary people is lost, is non-existence for the saints also lost? Answer: Relative to ordinary people, it is explained that the state of the saints is attainment. If viewed from the perspective of Deśanā-satya, both are lost. Because rūpa has never had a state of existence or non-existence, but it is understood as existence or non-existence, is it not lost? Question: The sutra says that all conventional truths, if they are for the Tathāgata (如來, Buddha), are the ultimate truth (第一義諦, Paramārtha-satya). Is this also lost? Answer: On one hand, relative to the conditioned existence of ordinary people, it is lost. Praising the emptiness of the saints is attainment. If viewed from the perspective of Deśanā-satya, the truth not only cannot express the principle of non-duality, but also cannot express the teaching that can express the truth. This is only what is seen by emotional consciousness. However, the Tathāgata knows that rūpa has never actually been empty or existent. If these two kinds of relative truths are recognized, then the five difficulties (五難, five misunderstandings about emptiness) will naturally disappear. Question: The difficulty in understanding this thorough understanding still exists. Now it is said that the existence and non-existence of rūpa is Deśanā-satya. If the existence and non-existence of rūpa is not spoken of, is there no Deśanā-satya? Answer: Because speaking is teaching, if the Buddha does not speak, there is no Deśanā-satya. Question: If so, there are only the constantly existing two relative truths, and there is no existence or non-existence arising from Hetupratyaya (因緣, causes and conditions)? Answer: All dharmas are often the existence and non-existence of the two relative truths, and are also constantly the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. If it is for the two conditions (二緣, two conditions), it is the existence and non-existence of the two relative truths. All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas know that this rūpa is the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. However, for the truth and the teaching, there has never been duality. For the two conditions, the teaching is established. For realization, the teaching is accomplished. Question: If for the two conditions it is the existence and non-existence of the two relative truths, and from the perspective of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas it is the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions, this existence and non-existence of causes and conditions, this cause and condition is the Hetupratyaya-viṣaya (因緣境, the realm of causes and conditions), how can it be said to be teaching? Answer: The existence and non-existence of causes and conditions has never had a state of existence or non-existence, so although it is existence and non-existence, it is neither existence nor non-existence.

如此有無。能開不二。即是教義。問。佛若不說恒有因緣有無。因緣有無豈是教耶。答。非但取說義為教。經中明六塵皆是教。問。若爾境教何異。答。此因緣有無。可兩望論之。發智即境。能開不有不無不二理。即是教也。此據佛不說自有境教也。就說義明境教者。佛照有無。有無名境。佛說有無。有無是教。問。他亦云照有無有無是境。說有無有無亦是教。與今何異。答。他但得二于定性有無。此有無不得開不有不無。故非教也。又因緣有無是境耳。定性有無非境也。何者。有不自有。由無故有。無不自無。由有故無。由有故無。無是有無。由無故有。有是無有。了此因緣有無。能生二慧。識有是無有。生實方便慧。了無是有無。生方便實慧。既是定性有無。則生斷常二見。故不得名境也。

六說不說門明得失

他但明世諦說。真諦不說。世諦是三假。三假故可說。真諦是四忘。四忘不可說。眾師同此一解。更無異判。今問。世諦唯可說。不可令不可說。真諦不可說。不可令說。豈非定性義耶。彼云。世諦雖可說。即是真不可說。真不可說即俗可說。故非是定性。問。俗即是真故不可說。此為是俗不可說。為是真不可說。答。還是真不可說耳。問。若爾。俗終二無不可說義。豈非定性耶。對失明得者

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如此『有』與『無』（有無的含義）。能夠開啟『不二』之門（不二的含義）。這就是教義的體現。問：如果佛陀不說恒常存在的『因緣有無』（因緣有無的含義），那麼『因緣有無』難道就不是教義了嗎？答：不能僅僅把佛陀所說的義理當作教義。經書中明明說六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）都是教義。問：如果這樣，『境』（所觀照的對象）和『教』（教義）有什麼區別？答：這『因緣有無』，可以從兩個方面來討論。啓發智慧的就是『境』，能夠開啟『不有不無』的『不二』之理，就是『教』。這是根據佛陀不說『自有』的『境教』來說的。如果就佛陀所說的義理來區分『境教』，那麼佛陀觀照『有無』，『有無』就叫做『境』；佛陀宣說『有無』，『有無』就是『教』。問：其他人也說觀照『有無』，『有無』是『境』；宣說『有無』，『有無』也是『教』。這和您說的有什麼不同？答：他們只是執著于『定性』的『有無』。而這裡的『有無』，不能開啟『不有不無』的境界，所以不是『教』。而且，『因緣有無』是『境』，『定性有無』不是『境』。為什麼呢？因為『有』不是自己產生的，而是因為『無』才產生『有』；『無』也不是自己消失的，而是因為『有』才消失『無』。因為『有』才消失『無』，所以『無』就是『有無』；因為『無』才產生『有』，所以『有』就是『無有』。瞭解這『因緣有無』，能夠產生兩種智慧：認識到『有』就是『無有』，產生『實方便慧』；認識到『無』就是『有無』，產生『方便實慧』。如果是『定性有無』，就會產生『斷見』和『常見』兩種錯誤的見解，所以不能稱為『境』。

六、說不說門明得失

他們只是說明『世諦』（世俗諦，指世俗的真理）是可以說的，『真諦』（真諦，指究竟的真理）是不可以說的。『世諦』是『三假』（體假、用假、教假），因為是『三假』所以可以說；『真諦』是『四忘』（忘言、忘事、忘心、忘本），因為是『四忘』所以不可以說。所有的法師都這樣解釋，沒有其他的判決。現在我問：『世諦』只能說，不能讓它不可說；『真諦』不可說，不能讓它說。這難道不是『定性』的含義嗎？他們說：『世諦』雖然可以說，但它就是『真不可說』；『真不可說』也就是『俗可說』，所以不是『定性』。問：『俗』就是『真』，所以不可說。這是『俗不可說』，還是『真不可說』？答：還是『真不可說』。問：如果這樣，『俗』最終也沒有不可說的含義，難道不是『定性』嗎？通過對錯誤的辨析來闡明正確的理解：

【English Translation】 English version So is 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 (the meaning of existence and non-existence). Being able to open the gate of 『non-duality』 (the meaning of non-duality). This is the embodiment of the doctrine. Question: If the Buddha does not speak of the constantly existing 『causal existence and non-existence』 (the meaning of causal existence and non-existence), then is 『causal existence and non-existence』 not the doctrine? Answer: One cannot merely take the meaning of what the Buddha says as the doctrine. The sutras clearly state that the six sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma) are all the doctrine. Question: If so, what is the difference between 『object』 (the object of contemplation) and 『doctrine』 (teaching)? Answer: This 『causal existence and non-existence』 can be discussed from two perspectives. That which inspires wisdom is the 『object』; that which can open the 『non-dual』 principle of 『neither existence nor non-existence』 is the 『doctrine』. This is based on the Buddha not speaking of the 『self-existent』 『object-doctrine』. If we distinguish 『object-doctrine』 based on the meaning of what the Buddha says, then when the Buddha contemplates 『existence and non-existence』, 『existence and non-existence』 is called 『object』; when the Buddha proclaims 『existence and non-existence』, 『existence and non-existence』 is called 『doctrine』. Question: Others also say that contemplating 『existence and non-existence』, 『existence and non-existence』 is the 『object』; proclaiming 『existence and non-existence』, 『existence and non-existence』 is also the 『doctrine』. What is the difference between what you say and what they say? Answer: They are merely attached to the 『fixed nature』 of 『existence and non-existence』. But the 『existence and non-existence』 here cannot open the realm of 『neither existence nor non-existence』, so it is not 『doctrine』. Moreover, 『causal existence and non-existence』 is the 『object』, 『fixed nature existence and non-existence』 is not the 『object』. Why? Because 『existence』 does not arise on its own, but arises because of 『non-existence』; 『non-existence』 does not disappear on its own, but disappears because of 『existence』. Because 『existence』 causes 『non-existence』 to disappear, 『non-existence』 is 『existence and non-existence』; because 『non-existence』 causes 『existence』 to arise, 『existence』 is 『non-existence and existence』. Understanding this 『causal existence and non-existence』 can generate two kinds of wisdom: recognizing that 『existence』 is 『non-existence and existence』 generates 『real expedient wisdom』; recognizing that 『non-existence』 is 『existence and non-existence』 generates 『expedient real wisdom』. If it is 『fixed nature existence and non-existence』, it will generate the two wrong views of 『annihilationism』 and 『eternalism』, so it cannot be called 『object』.

  1. The Chapter on Speaking and Not Speaking Clarifies Gain and Loss

They only explain that 『conventional truth』 (saṃvṛti-satya, referring to the truth of the mundane world) can be spoken, and 『ultimate truth』 (paramārtha-satya, referring to the ultimate truth) cannot be spoken. 『Conventional truth』 is 『three falsities』 (falsity of substance, falsity of function, falsity of teaching), because it is 『three falsities』 it can be spoken; 『ultimate truth』 is 『four forgettings』 (forgetting words, forgetting affairs, forgetting mind, forgetting origin), because it is 『four forgettings』 it cannot be spoken. All Dharma masters interpret it this way, with no other judgments. Now I ask: 『Conventional truth』 can only be spoken, it cannot be made unspeakable; 『ultimate truth』 cannot be spoken, it cannot be made speakable. Is this not the meaning of 『fixed nature』? They say: Although 『conventional truth』 can be spoken, it is 『ultimately unspeakable』; 『ultimately unspeakable』 is also 『conventionally speakable』, so it is not 『fixed nature』. Question: 『Conventional』 is 『ultimate』, so it is unspeakable. Is this 『conventional unspeakable』 or 『ultimate unspeakable』? Answer: It is still 『ultimate unspeakable』. Question: If so, 『conventional』 ultimately has no meaning of being unspeakable, is this not 『fixed nature』? Clarifying correct understanding through the analysis of errors:

。令總觀真俗。具有四句。一世諦說真不說。二真說世不說。三但說。四但不說。此四句有多門。今具敘之。一者世諦說生滅。真諦不說生滅。故云世諦說真諦不說也。二者真諦說不生滅。世諦不說不生滅。故真諦說世諦不說也。三者世諦說生滅。真諦說不生滅。故二諦但說也。四者世諦不說無生滅。真諦不說生滅。故云二諦但不說也。問。此四句出何處。答。釋論初捲雲。人等。世諦故有。第一義故有。世諦故無。即是斯義也。二者明生滅此是世諦說。不生滅是世諦不說。不生不滅是真諦說。非不生非不滅是真諦不說。此是二諦但說。但不說也。三者世諦說真諦不說。明說生滅說不生滅。皆是世諦故說。真諦不說生滅。亦不說不生不滅。故云世諦說真諦不說也。四者真諦說世諦不說者。世諦雖說生滅不生不滅。實無所說。真諦雖無所說。而無所不說。問。世諦雖說而無所說。無所說即入真諦。真諦雖無所說。而無所不說。還是世諦。何處有世諦不說真諦說耶。答。有所得定性義如此耳。世諦自是說。若無所說。則屬真諦。真諦自無所說。若有說還屬世諦。如此真俗。皆是障礙法門。今明諸佛菩薩無所得空有因緣無礙故。空是有空。有是空有。是空是有空。雖空而有。有是空有。雖有而空。說是不說說。是說不說。說

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 令總的觀察真諦和俗諦，包含四種情況：一、世俗諦（Satya，指常人認識的層面）說，真諦（Paramārtha-satya，指究竟真理的層面）不說；二、真諦說，世俗諦不說；三、兩者都說；四、兩者都不說。這四種情況有很多種解釋，現在一一敘述。一、世俗諦說生滅，真諦不說生滅，所以說『世俗諦說，真諦不說』。二、真諦說不生滅，世俗諦不說不生滅，所以說『真諦說，世俗諦不說』。三、世俗諦說生滅，真諦說不生滅，所以是二諦都說。四、世俗諦不說無生滅，真諦不說生滅，所以說二諦都不說。 問：這四句出自何處？答：《釋論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa，即《大智度論》）初卷說：『人等，世俗諦故有，第一義（Paramārtha，指最高的真理）故有，世俗諦故無。』就是這個意思。二、說明生滅，這是世俗諦說；不生滅，是世俗諦不說；不生不滅，是真諦說；非不生非不滅，是真諦不說。這是二諦既說又不說的情形。三、世俗諦說，真諦不說，說明說生滅、說不生滅，都是世俗諦的說法。真諦不說生滅，也不說不生不滅，所以說『世俗諦說，真諦不說』。 四、真諦說，世俗諦不說，世俗諦雖然說生滅、不生不滅，實際上什麼也沒說。真諦雖然沒有什麼可說，但又無所不說。問：世俗諦雖然說但實際上什麼也沒說，那麼『無所說』就進入了真諦的範疇。真諦雖然沒有什麼可說，但又無所不說，那還是世俗諦的範疇。那麼哪裡有世俗諦不說而真諦說的情況呢？答：執著于有所得的定性就是這樣。世俗諦自然是說，如果什麼也沒說，那就屬於真諦。真諦自然是無所說，如果說了什麼，那就還屬於世俗諦。這樣理解真諦和俗諦，都是障礙解脫的法門。現在說明諸佛菩薩因為無所得，空和有是因緣和合而無礙的。所以空就是有空，有就是空有。是空是有空，雖然是空，但也是有。有是空有，雖然是有，但也是空。說是不說，不說就是說，說。

【English Translation】 English version To have a complete view of Satya (conventional truth) and Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth), there are four possibilities: 1. Satya speaks, Paramārtha-satya does not speak; 2. Paramārtha-satya speaks, Satya does not speak; 3. Both speak; 4. Neither speaks. There are many interpretations of these four possibilities. Now, they will be described one by one. 1. Satya speaks of arising and ceasing, Paramārtha-satya does not speak of arising and ceasing, hence it is said 'Satya speaks, Paramārtha-satya does not speak.' 2. Paramārtha-satya speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing, Satya does not speak of non-arising and non-ceasing, hence it is said 'Paramārtha-satya speaks, Satya does not speak.' 3. Satya speaks of arising and ceasing, Paramārtha-satya speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing, hence both truths speak. 4. Satya does not speak of non-arising and non-ceasing, Paramārtha-satya does not speak of arising and ceasing, hence it is said that neither truth speaks. Question: Where do these four possibilities come from? Answer: The first chapter of the Śāstra (Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa, Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says: 'People, etc., exist because of Satya, exist because of Paramārtha (ultimate truth), do not exist because of Satya.' This is the meaning. 2. Explaining arising and ceasing, this is what Satya speaks; non-arising and non-ceasing, this is what Satya does not speak; non-arising and non-ceasing, this is what Paramārtha-satya speaks; neither non-arising nor non-ceasing, this is what Paramārtha-satya does not speak. This is the situation where both truths speak and do not speak. 3. Satya speaks, Paramārtha-satya does not speak, explaining that speaking of arising and ceasing, speaking of non-arising and non-ceasing, are all the speech of Satya. Paramārtha-satya does not speak of arising and ceasing, nor does it speak of non-arising and non-ceasing, hence it is said 'Satya speaks, Paramārtha-satya does not speak.' 4. Paramārtha-satya speaks, Satya does not speak, although Satya speaks of arising and ceasing, non-arising and non-ceasing, in reality it speaks nothing. Although Paramārtha-satya has nothing to say, it speaks of everything. Question: Although Satya speaks, it actually speaks nothing, then 'speaking nothing' enters the realm of Paramārtha-satya. Although Paramārtha-satya has nothing to say, it speaks of everything, then it is still in the realm of Satya. So where is the situation where Satya does not speak but Paramārtha-satya speaks? Answer: Attachment to the fixed nature of something obtained is like this. Satya naturally speaks, if it speaks nothing, then it belongs to Paramārtha-satya. Paramārtha-satya naturally speaks nothing, if it speaks something, then it still belongs to Satya. Understanding Satya and Paramārtha-satya in this way are all Dharma-gates that obstruct liberation. Now, it is explained that because Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have nothing to obtain, emptiness and existence are unhindered due to the conditions of causation. Therefore, emptiness is existent emptiness, and existence is empty existence. Emptiness is existent emptiness, although it is empty, it is also existent. Existence is empty existence, although it exists, it is also empty. Speaking is not speaking, not speaking is speaking, speaking.

是不說說故。雖說而不說。不說是說不說故。雖不說而常說。故得世諦不說而真諦說也。

次明二諦但說但不說者。以空有為世諦。有空為真諦。世諦說有。真說諦則說空。故二諦但說。以空有為世諦。空有即是假有。假有不可說有。假有不可說無。假有不可說亦有亦無。假有不可說非有非無。故世諦假有絕四句故。世諦不可說。真諦假無亦絕四句故。真諦不可說。不可說而說。世諦名假有。真諦名假無。故二諦但說。一說一不說有。世諦假有。假有故有說。真諦是假無。假無則無說。故世諦說真諦不說。假有雖有而無。假無雖無而有。故俗不說而真說。次二諦但說但不說者。二諦俱無生。故但不說。問。但無生何有二諦。答。世諦無實生。故但不生。真諦無假生。故云不生。問。此猶是舊義耳。世諦中無性實生。真諦無有假生也。如世諦中無實我。真諦中無假我。答。今言世諦無實者。有所得一切假實皆是性實故。因緣世諦。絕此實也。無所得方是假。乃為真諦所絕也。二諦但不絕。即二諦但說世諦不絕假生滅。真諦不絕假不生滅。故二諦但不絕。即但說世諦絕真諦不絕者。還如上世諦雖不絕。不絕而恒絕。真諦雖絕而不絕次就單復。論絕不絕義。一注空有為世諦。有空為真諦。則世諦不絕真諦絕。次空有皆

【現代漢語翻譯】 這不是說與不說的緣故。即使說了也等於沒說。因為不說才是說的原因，即使不說也一直在說。所以才能在世俗諦（Satyasamvriti，相對真理）上不說，而在勝義諦（Paramarthasatya，絕對真理）上說。

接下來闡明二諦只是說與不說的原因。以空和有作為世俗諦，有和空作為勝義諦。世俗諦說有，勝義諦則說空。所以二諦只是說。以空和有作為世俗諦，空和有即是假有。假有不可說是有，假有不可說是無，假有不可說是亦有亦無，假有不可說非有非無。所以世俗諦的假有斷絕了四句的分別。世俗諦是不可說的。真諦的假無也斷絕了四句的分別。真諦也是不可說的。不可說卻又說，世俗諦名為假有，真諦名為假無。所以二諦只是說。一說一不說有。世俗諦是假有，因為是假有所以可以說。真諦是假無，假無則無可說。所以世俗諦說而真諦不說。假有雖然有卻等於無，假無雖然無卻等於有。所以在世俗上不說，而在真諦上說。接下來二諦只是說與不說的原因。二諦都沒有生，所以只是不說。問：只是沒有生，怎麼會有二諦？答：世俗諦沒有真實的生，所以只是不生。真諦沒有虛假的生，所以說不生。問：這仍然是舊的說法。世俗諦中沒有自性真實的生，真諦中沒有虛假的生。就像世俗諦中沒有真實的我，真諦中沒有虛假的我。答：現在說世俗諦沒有真實，是因為有所得的一切虛假和真實都是自性真實。因緣的世俗諦，斷絕了這種真實。無所得才是虛假，才會被真諦所斷絕。二諦只是不絕，就是二諦只是說世俗諦不絕假生滅，真諦不絕假不生滅。所以二諦只是不絕，就是隻是說世俗諦斷絕而真諦不絕。還像上面說的世俗諦雖然不絕，不絕卻恒常斷絕。真諦雖然斷絕卻不斷絕。接下來就單和復，討論斷絕和不斷絕的意義。一注空有作為世俗諦，有空作為真諦。那麼世俗諦不斷絕，真諦斷絕。其次空有都...

【English Translation】 This is not the reason for speaking and not speaking. Even if it is spoken, it is as if it is not spoken. Because not speaking is the reason for speaking, even if it is not spoken, it is always speaking. Therefore, one can not speak in the conventional truth (Satyasamvriti, relative truth), but speak in the ultimate truth (Paramarthasatya, absolute truth).

Next, it explains the reason why the two truths are only spoken and not spoken. Taking emptiness and existence as the conventional truth, and existence and emptiness as the ultimate truth. The conventional truth speaks of existence, and the ultimate truth speaks of emptiness. Therefore, the two truths are only spoken. Taking emptiness and existence as the conventional truth, emptiness and existence are false existence. False existence cannot be said to exist, false existence cannot be said to be non-existent, false existence cannot be said to be both existent and non-existent, false existence cannot be said to be neither existent nor non-existent. Therefore, the false existence of the conventional truth cuts off the distinction of the four sentences. The conventional truth is unspeakable. The false non-existence of the ultimate truth also cuts off the distinction of the four sentences. The ultimate truth is also unspeakable. Unspeakable but speaking, the conventional truth is called false existence, and the ultimate truth is called false non-existence. Therefore, the two truths are only spoken. One speaks and one does not speak of existence. The conventional truth is false existence, because it is false existence, so it can be spoken. The ultimate truth is false non-existence, and false non-existence is unspeakable. Therefore, the conventional truth speaks and the ultimate truth does not speak. Although false existence exists, it is equal to non-existence, and although false non-existence does not exist, it is equal to existence. Therefore, one does not speak in the conventional, but speaks in the ultimate truth. Next, the reason why the two truths are only spoken and not spoken. Both truths have no birth, so they are only not spoken. Question: If there is only no birth, how can there be two truths? Answer: The conventional truth has no real birth, so it is only not born. The ultimate truth has no false birth, so it is said to be not born. Question: This is still the old saying. There is no self-nature real birth in the conventional truth, and there is no false birth in the ultimate truth. Just like there is no real self in the conventional truth, and there is no false self in the ultimate truth. Answer: Now saying that the conventional truth has no reality is because all the false and real that are obtained are self-nature reality. The conventional truth of conditions cuts off this reality. Non-attainment is false, and it will be cut off by the ultimate truth. The two truths are only not cut off, that is, the two truths only say that the conventional truth does not cut off false birth and death, and the ultimate truth does not cut off false non-birth and death. Therefore, the two truths are only not cut off, that is, only saying that the conventional truth is cut off and the ultimate truth is not cut off. It is still like the conventional truth mentioned above, although it is not cut off, it is constantly cut off. Although the ultimate truth is cut off, it is not cut off. Next, discuss the meaning of cutting off and not cutting off in terms of single and double. One note takes emptiness and existence as the conventional truth, and existence and emptiness as the ultimate truth. Then the conventional truth is not cut off, and the ultimate truth is cut off. Secondly, emptiness and existence are both...

是世諦。非空有為真諦。即絕不絕皆世諦。非絕不絕方是真諦。次空有二。非空有不二。二不二皆俗。非二不二為真。則絕不絕為二。非絕不絕為不二。二不二皆不絕。非二非不二方是絕。又此三重皆是二諦。二諦皆是教。皆是不絕。則以不二為理。理名為絕。問。何故明此四重絕不絕義。答。欲簡異舊絕。舊絕但有初重絕。無後三絕。故明之也。問絕與如不如何異。答。此有多門。若世諦絕實生滅名為世諦不如。真諦絕假生滅為如。不絕假不生滅為不如。問。云何絕實生滅為如耶。答。此取空義為如。以世諦無實生滅故。實生滅所空以為如。真諦亦爾。二者就前說不說。明如不如。世諦說生滅為不生不滅為諦世不說名世諦不說。此明假生滅。是有故名不如。不生不滅此是絕假生滅亦是空義。所以為如。前如則淺。后如則深。前如空性。后如空假。真諦亦具此二如二不如也。

次如前明世諦假有絕四句即是如。真諦假空絕四句亦是如。此明二諦同絕實四句。假有為世諦絕實有四句。假空為真諦絕實空四句。以名之為如。如假有無。即是不絕。故名不如也。問二諦絕。絕二諦。云何異。答。二諦絕者。如前所明也。絕二諦者。明真俗俗真。真非真。俗非俗。故名絕二諦也。又雖絕而常二諦。故云絕二諦。雖二諦而

常絕。故云二諦絕也。問。釋論明如不如。與今明。如何異。答。釋論明三如。地堅等為下如。地無常生滅為中如。地不生不滅為上如。前二如即是今世諦如。上如即真諦如也。又此三如。皆是世諦如。何以知之。前云生滅是世諦不如。不生不滅為世諦如。故上如是世諦如也。若非不生非不滅。為真諦如。問。釋論既明三如。何者為三不如。答。異此三如。即三不如也。又釋論就得失深淺。明如不如。地堅為如。不知地堅。謂地不堅。名為不如。上中亦爾。又深淺明者。不生滅為上如。生滅為不如。無常生滅為中如。事中地堅為不如。地堅為如。若外道及世間。不識地堅。謂為常有。名為不如。問。前云生滅是世諦說。不生滅是世諦說。不生滅是世諦不諦。不生滅是真說。非不生滅是真諦不說者。世諦不諦說何異。答。若漸舍二而論。則不異也。若世諦說假生滅。不說實生滅。與真諦不生滅則異。世諦不實生滅。真諦不假生滅。故異也。問。既有三重二諦。亦有三重如不如不。答。得以空有皆世諦非空有為真諦。則如不如。皆不如非不如。名為如也。

七淺深門明得失

他但以空為真。有為俗。更無異說也。今有三轉。一以空有為俗。以有空為真。二以空有皆俗。非空有為真。三以空有為二。不空有為不

二。二不二並俗。非二非不二為真。如此三轉二諦。皆是教門耳。至道竟不曾三。故云是法不可示。立此三重。凡有五義。法華玄中已說。

七說不說門考宗。問。子乃欲抑舊拔新。終不能超乎城外。請問。三轉之教名為可說。不二之理不可說以不。答。一往如此。問。他重明世諦可說真諦不可說。則世諦攝前三門。真諦即是一理。即理教猶是二諦義耳。答。子不領前意也。今明三轉者。所三假之俗為有。四絕之理為無。以此有無。為初節意也。第二第三非子意所知。假令真諦一切絕。世辨絕是三段。今明如是三假即是有。一切絕即是無。如斯有無。為初節義也。又師作三節意者。為欲拔由來有無二諦之心。必能改之。則不住非二非不二。則二諦之見不生。正觀之懷便發。問。他意本立真諦一切皆絕。與今非二非不二。復何異耶。答。他言真諦一切皆絕。而世諦一切皆絕。而世諦終一切皆有。還是有無不免二見。又無所往。終是真內可得定出真外耶。今則不爾。非真非不真。非二非不二。問。他明真諦亦非真非不真。非二非不二。答。子及明真諦之理。非真非不真。而非真非不真。終歸真諦。今明諸法非不真。不云真諦非真非不真。一不同也。又非真非不真。子乃終歸非真非不真。不能歸真諦。二不同也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二。二、不二並俗。非二非不二為真。如此三轉二諦，皆是教門而已。至道終究不曾有『三』，所以說『是法不可示』。立此三重，凡有五種意義，在《法華玄》中已經說過。

七、說不說門考宗。問：您想要壓制舊的，提拔新的，最終也不能超出城外。請問，三轉之教名為可說，不二之理不可說，對嗎？答：一般情況下是這樣。問：他人重新闡明世俗諦是可說的，真諦是不可說的，那麼世俗諦就涵蓋了前面的三門，真諦就是一理，這樣說來，理教仍然是二諦的意義啊。答：您沒有領會我前面的意思。現在我說明三轉，所說的『三』，是假立的世俗為『有』，四絕之理為『無』。以這個『有』和『無』，作為第一節的意義。第二節和第三節不是您所能理解的。假設真諦一切都是『絕』，世俗諦辨別『絕』是三個階段。現在說明像這樣『三假』就是『有』，一切『絕』就是『無』。像這樣的『有』和『無』，作為第一節的意義。另外，師父設立三節的意義，是爲了拔除由來已久的『有』和『無』的二諦之心，必定能夠改變它，那麼就不會執著于『非二』和『非不二』，那麼二諦的見解就不會產生，正觀的胸懷就會萌發。問：他人的意思是本來就立足於真諦一切都是『絕』，與現在說的『非二非不二』，又有什麼不同呢？答：他說真諦一切都是『絕』，而世俗諦一切都是『有』，還是沒有免除『有』和『無』的二見。又無處可去，終究還是在真內可以確定，可以超出真外嗎？現在則不是這樣，『非真非不真』，『非二非不二』。問：他人說明真諦也是『非真非不真』，『非二非不二』。答：您所說明的真諦之理，『非真非不真』，而『非真非不真』，最終歸於真諦。現在我說明諸法『非不真』，不說是真諦『非真非不真』，這是第一點不同。又『非真非不真』，您最終歸於『非真非不真』，不能歸於真諦，這是第二點不同。

【English Translation】 English version II. Two and Non-Two Together with Conventional Truth. Non-Two and Non-Non-Two is Truth. Thus, the Three Turnings of the Two Truths are all just teachings. The ultimate Dao never had a 'three,' hence it is said, 'This Dharma cannot be shown.' Establishing these three levels has five meanings, as already discussed in the Fa Hua Xuan.

VII. Examining the Doctrine through the Gate of Speaking and Not Speaking. Question: You intend to suppress the old and promote the new, but ultimately you cannot transcend the city walls. Please tell me, is the teaching of the Three Turnings called speakable, and the principle of Non-Duality unspeakable? Answer: Generally, that is so. Question: Others re-clarify that conventional truth is speakable and ultimate truth is unspeakable. Then conventional truth encompasses the previous three gates, and ultimate truth is the One Principle. In that case, principle and teaching are still the meaning of the Two Truths. Answer: You do not understand my previous intention. Now I explain the Three Turnings. The 'three' that is spoken of is the provisional conventional truth as 'existence,' and the principle of the Four Absolutes as 'non-existence.' This 'existence' and 'non-existence' is the meaning of the first section. The second and third sections are not something you can understand. Suppose ultimate truth is all 'absolute,' and conventional truth distinguishes 'absolute' as three stages. Now I explain that these 'three provisionals' are 'existence,' and all 'absolute' is 'non-existence.' Such 'existence' and 'non-existence' is the meaning of the first section. Furthermore, the master's intention in establishing three sections is to eradicate the long-held mind of the Two Truths of 'existence' and 'non-existence,' and surely be able to change it. Then one will not cling to 'non-two' and 'non-non-two,' and the view of the Two Truths will not arise, and the aspiration for correct contemplation will sprout. Question: His intention is originally based on the ultimate truth being all 'absolute,' what is the difference from the current 'non-two and non-non-two'? Answer: He says that ultimate truth is all 'absolute,' while conventional truth is all 'existence,' and still cannot avoid the two views of 'existence' and 'non-existence.' And there is nowhere to go, ultimately can it be determined within the truth, can it transcend outside the truth? Now it is not so, 'non-true and non-non-true,' 'non-two and non-non-two.' Question: Others explain that ultimate truth is also 'non-true and non-non-true,' 'non-two and non-non-two.' Answer: The principle of ultimate truth that you explain, 'non-true and non-non-true,' and 'non-true and non-non-true,' ultimately returns to ultimate truth. Now I explain that all dharmas are 'non-non-true,' not saying that ultimate truth is 'non-true and non-non-true,' this is the first difference. Also, 'non-true and non-non-true,' you ultimately return to 'non-true and non-non-true,' unable to return to ultimate truth, this is the second difference.

八理內外門明得失

興皇大師云。今自有二轍義。一者理外義。二理內義。若心行理外。故云理外。心行理內。復云理內。理內具真俗等一切法。理外亦具真俗等一切法。

考宗。問。同具一切法。云何有由外異。答。理內一切法。皆是因緣義。理外一切法。非假名義。是故為異。問。若理內外具一切法者。理內既有因緣假名。理外亦應有因緣假名。何得將因緣假名簡理內外耶。答。如所問也。理外亦有假。但假是假故段。有假可得。名有所得假。理內假不自假。名為不假假。而假無所假故。無假可得。名理內假。問。理內外既具一切法。亦應理內外自有無所得。何以故將得無得分內外。答。亦如所問。理外無所得者。如真諦洞遣。四句不及。百非皆忘。此是無所得故無所有。屯無所得故。故是有所得之無所得。理內六不得無所得。故名無所得。問。理外既具一切法。亦應有不得無所得。答。理外不能以得為無得。無得不得。說為無說。無說為說故有定隔礙。今總判欲斷此問。更來者明理外具一切法者。具理外一切法耳。不見理內一切法。理內亦爾。但具理內一切法耳。不具理外一切法也。又理外雖具生死涅槃一切法。若生死若涅槃。皆是生死。若得無得。皆是有得也。問。若爾。理外真俗皆俗耶。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 八理內外門明得失

興皇大師說，現在有兩種不同的意義。一是理外之義，二是理內之義。如果心行在理之外，就說是理外；心行在理之內，就說是理內。理內包含真俗等一切法，理外也包含真俗等一切法。

考宗問：同樣包含一切法，為什麼會有內外之分？答：理內的一切法，都是因緣之義；理外的一切法，不是假名之義，所以有區別。問：如果理內外都包含一切法，理內既然有因緣假名，理外也應該有因緣假名，為什麼用因緣假名來區分理內外呢？答：正如你所問的，理外也有假，但這個假是實在的假，可以得到，稱為有所得假。理內的假不是自身為假，稱為不假假，而假沒有所假的對象，所以沒有假可以得到，稱為理內假。問：理內外既然都包含一切法，也應該理內外自身都有無所得，為什麼要把得無得分為內外呢？答：也正如你所問的，理外的無所得，就像真諦徹底遣除，四句都不能及，百非都忘卻，這是因為無所得所以一無所有，因為無所得的緣故，所以是有所得的無所得。理內六不得的無所得，所以稱為無所得。問：理外既然包含一切法，也應該有不得無所得。答：理外不能以得作為無得，無得又不得，說是無說，無說又說是說，所以有固定的隔閡障礙。現在總的判斷是要斷絕這個問題，再來說明理外包含一切法，只是包含理外的一切法罷了，不能見到理內的一切法；理內也是這樣，只是包含理內的一切法罷了，不包含理外的一切法。而且理外雖然包含生死涅槃一切法，無論是生死還是涅槃，都是生死；無論是得還是無得，都是有得。問：如果這樣，理外的真俗都是俗嗎？

【English Translation】 English version Eightfold Clarification of Gain and Loss Within and Without Principle

Venerable Xinghuang said: 'Now there are two distinct meanings. One is the meaning 'outside principle' (li wai yi), and the other is the meaning 'within principle' (li nei yi). If the mind acts outside principle, it is called 'outside principle'; if the mind acts within principle, it is called 'within principle'. 'Within principle' encompasses all dharmas such as truth and convention. 'Outside principle' also encompasses all dharmas such as truth and convention.'

Kaozong asked: 'If both encompass all dharmas, how can there be a difference between inside and outside?' He replied: 'All dharmas within principle are based on the meaning of dependent origination (yin yuan yi). All dharmas outside principle are not based on the meaning of provisional designation (jia ming yi). Therefore, there is a difference.' He asked: 'If both inside and outside principle encompass all dharmas, and within principle there is dependent origination and provisional designation, then outside principle should also have dependent origination and provisional designation. How can you use dependent origination and provisional designation to distinguish between inside and outside principle?' He replied: 'As you have asked, outside principle also has the provisional, but the provisional is a real provisional, which can be obtained, and is called 'provisional that can be obtained'. The provisional within principle is not provisional by itself, and is called 'non-provisional provisional', and because the provisional has nothing to be provisional upon, no provisional can be obtained, and is called 'provisional within principle'.' He asked: 'Since both inside and outside principle encompass all dharmas, both inside and outside principle should also have non-attainment (wu suo de). Why do you divide inside and outside based on attainment and non-attainment?' He replied: 'As you have asked, the non-attainment outside principle is like the ultimate truth (zhen di) completely dispelling, the four propositions (si ju) cannot reach it, and all the hundred negations (bai fei) are forgotten. This is because there is no attainment, so there is nothing. Because there is no non-attainment, it is the non-attainment of that which can be attained. The non-attainment of the six impossibilities (liu bu de) within principle is called non-attainment.' He asked: 'Since outside principle encompasses all dharmas, it should also have non-attainment of non-attainment.' He replied: 'Outside principle cannot take attainment as non-attainment. Non-attainment is not attained, and is said to be non-speaking. Non-speaking is said to be speaking, so there is a fixed separation and obstruction. Now, the overall judgment is to cut off this question. To further explain that outside principle encompasses all dharmas, it only encompasses all dharmas outside principle, and does not see all dharmas within principle. The same is true for within principle, it only encompasses all dharmas within principle, and does not encompass all dharmas outside principle. Furthermore, although outside principle encompasses all dharmas of samsara (sheng si) and nirvana (nie pan), whether it is samsara or nirvana, it is all samsara; whether it is attainment or non-attainment, it is all attainment.' He asked: 'If that is the case, are both truth and convention outside principle conventional?'

答。亦得如屯故。理外真俗皆是凡情。所謂世俗法耳。理內因緣二諦是聖人境界。故二皆名真諦。問。經論中。何處云理內外二具一切法耶。答。中論云。外人具。二立一切法。論主明因緣故有一切法。即其事也。問。開二轍義。欲何所明耶。答。欲顯得失。明由來立義。墮理外義中。屬今理外二諦所攝。

九約有無定性門明得失

涅槃經云。一切諸法。無有定相。若有定相。是生死相。是魔王相。非佛法相。以無定相。故名為得。有定相。所以為夫。問。云何無定相耶。答。如一色未曾是性。亦非是假。于性緣成性。于假緣成假。若必定性義。為非假義。為是還成假見假執耳。理內外得亦爾。色何曾是得是無得耶。又如一色未曾真俗。于凡為俗。于聖為真耳。又即就俗中。亦無定性。貪人見色凈。不凈觀人。見色不凈。無適漠人非凈。又不凈之物。於人為不凈。畜見為凈。凈物於人為凈。于余為不凈。如蠅謂香為不凈。故不耐聞之。又一色亦不定。于無神通人則質礙。于得神通人則非質礙。於人見為白色而為水。于鬼赤色為火。又溺水不蒙毛而蒙鐵。如金對破餘一切物為羊角所壞。故知一切法。無定性也。

十約相待門明得失

本對性故明無空性耳。若不作定性解。復執無定性。舍理外而

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 答：也就像屯積貨物一樣。從理外來看，無論是真諦還是俗諦，都屬於凡夫的情感，也就是所謂的世俗法。從理內來看，因緣和二諦是聖人的境界，所以兩者都稱為真諦。問：經論中，哪裡說理內理外二者包含一切法呢？答：《中論》說：『外人』執著二諦，從而建立一切法。論主闡明因緣，所以說有一切法，說的就是這個道理。問：開立兩種不同的途徑，想要說明什麼呢？答：想要顯示得失。說明由來已久的立義，墮入了理外之義中，屬於現在理外二諦所包含的。 九、約有無定性門明得失 《涅槃經》說：『一切諸法，沒有固定的相狀。如果有固定的相狀，那就是生死之相，是魔王之相，不是佛法之相。因為沒有固定的相狀，所以稱為得。』有固定的相狀，所以成為障礙。問：怎麼理解沒有固定的相狀呢？答：比如一個色法，本來不是自性，也不是假有。在自性的因緣下成為自性，在假有的因緣下成為假有。如果一定要執著于固定的自性，認為不是假有，那麼反而會成為虛假的見解和執著。理內理外的得也是如此。色法怎麼會本來就是得或者無得呢？又比如一個色法，本來不是真諦也不是俗諦，在凡夫看來是俗諦，在聖人看來是真諦。而且即使在俗諦中，也沒有固定的自性。貪慾的人看到色是清凈的，修不凈觀的人看到色是不清凈的。沒有感覺的人既不覺得清凈，也不覺得不清凈。而且不清凈的東西，在人看來是不清凈的，在畜生看來是清凈的。清凈的東西，在人看來是清凈的，在其他眾生看來是不清凈的。比如蒼蠅認為香味是不清凈的，所以不能忍受。而且一個色法也不是固定的，在沒有神通的人看來是質礙，在得到神通的人看來就不是質礙。在人看來是白色的水，在鬼看來是紅色的火。而且溺水的時候，不會被毛髮阻擋，卻會被鐵阻擋。比如金子可以破壞其他一切東西，卻會被羊角損壞。所以知道一切法，沒有固定的自性。 十、約相待門明得失 本來是爲了對治自性，所以才說沒有空性。如果不作固定的自性來理解，反而執著于沒有固定的自性，捨棄理外而

【English Translation】 English version: Answer: It's like hoarding goods. From the perspective of 'reason-outside' (理外), both 'true reality' (真諦, Satya) and 'conventional reality' (俗諦, Saṃvṛti) belong to the emotions of ordinary beings, which are called 'worldly dharmas' (世俗法). From the perspective of 'reason-inside' (理內), 'causation' (因緣, Hetupratyaya) and the 'two truths' (二諦, Dve Satya) are the realm of sages, so both are called 'true reality' (真諦). Question: Where in the scriptures and treatises does it say that 'reason-inside' and 'reason-outside' encompass all dharmas? Answer: The Madhyamaka-karika (中論) says: 'Outsiders' cling to the two truths, thereby establishing all dharmas. The author of the treatise clarifies causation, so he says there are all dharmas, which is the point. Question: What is the purpose of establishing two different paths? Answer: To show the gains and losses. It explains that the long-standing establishment of meaning has fallen into the meaning of 'reason-outside', which belongs to the 'two truths of reason-outside' (理外二諦) that are now included. 9. Explaining Gains and Losses by the Door of Determining Nature with Existence and Non-existence The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) says: 'All dharmas have no fixed characteristics. If they have fixed characteristics, they are the characteristics of birth and death, the characteristics of the demon king, and not the characteristics of the Buddha-dharma. Because they have no fixed characteristics, they are called gains.' Having fixed characteristics becomes an obstacle. Question: How to understand that there are no fixed characteristics? Answer: For example, a single form (色, Rūpa) is originally neither self-nature (性, Svabhava) nor false existence (假, Kalpana). It becomes self-nature under the conditions of self-nature, and it becomes false existence under the conditions of false existence. If one must cling to a fixed self-nature, thinking it is not false existence, then it will instead become false views and attachments. The gains of 'reason-inside' and 'reason-outside' are also like this. How can a form originally be gain or no-gain? Also, for example, a single form is originally neither true reality nor conventional reality. It is conventional reality in the eyes of ordinary beings, and it is true reality in the eyes of sages. Moreover, even within conventional reality, there is no fixed self-nature. A greedy person sees form as pure, while a person practicing the contemplation of impurity sees form as impure. A person without sensation feels neither pure nor impure. Moreover, impure things are seen as impure by humans, but as pure by animals. Pure things are seen as pure by humans, but as impure by other beings. For example, flies consider fragrance to be impure, so they cannot tolerate it. Moreover, a single form is not fixed. It is an obstacle to those without supernatural powers, but not an obstacle to those who have attained supernatural powers. What humans see as white water, ghosts see as red fire. Moreover, when drowning, one is not blocked by hair, but is blocked by iron. For example, gold can destroy everything else, but it can be damaged by a ram's horn. Therefore, know that all dharmas have no fixed self-nature. 10. Explaining Gains and Losses by the Door of Relativity Originally, it was to counter self-nature that it was said there is no emptiness (空性, Shunyata). If one does not understand it as a fixed self-nature, but instead clings to the absence of a fixed self-nature, abandoning 'reason-outside' and

存理內義者。皆是取捨行心故。併名為失。既知不性亦復不假故。論云無性法亦無。一切法空故。知非假非性。畢竟清凈。始名為得。問。此對何所為耶。答。凡有二義。一為學攝大乘及唯識論人。不取三性為三無性理。三無性理。即是阿摩羅識。亦是二無我理。三性。謂依他性。分別性。真實性。分別性者。即是六塵以為識所分別。名分別性。依他性者。心識依六塵及梨耶本識為起依他性。真實性者。即是涅槃。故為名三性三無性。得失必言進舍。上來若得若失皆不可得。迥悟[宋-木+到][穴/但]絕句之門為得。去此大逕𨓍。不近人情。今明從初以來一切得失。即皆是道。即是正觀。如肇公云。道遠乎哉。解事而真。聖遠乎哉。體之即神。如有無分別二諦。亦有無分二智。如二諦有本無本二智二。次中觀為本。如二諦違不二。二智歸中觀。如三節明二諦。即三節明二智。如二諦但說但不說。二智亦爾。但能說但不能說。但照空但照有。但動但動俱斷或如理內外二諦。則二智亦爾。身色無定性明二智。是心上無定性。乃至第十二愚即是智。何處分色智耶。屯十二門。遍通諸診。總貫眾經。語乃不文。而義家有本。問。何故不重散說之。而開屯階級。答。有二種人。一者學無所得觀意乃虛玄方言不足。二者但分別

【現代漢語翻譯】 存理內義者，皆是取捨行心故，併名為失。既知不性亦復不假故，《論》云：『無性法亦無，一切法空故。』知非假非性，畢竟清凈，始名為得。問：此對何所為耶？答：凡有二義。一為學《攝大乘論》及《唯識論》人，不取三性為三無性理。三無性理，即是阿摩羅識（Amala-vijnana，清凈識），亦是二無我理。三性，謂依他性（paratantra-svabhava，緣起性）、分別性（parikalpita-svabhava，遍計所執性）、真實性（parinispanna-svabhava，圓成實性）。分別性者，即是六塵以為識所分別，名分別性。依他性者，心識依六塵及阿賴耶（Alaya）本識為起，依他性。真實性者，即是涅槃（Nirvana），故為名三性三無性。得失必言進舍，上來若得若失皆不可得，迥悟[宋-木+到][穴/但]絕句之門為得。去此大逕𨓍，不近人情。今明從初以來一切得失，即皆是道，即是正觀。如肇公云：『道遠乎哉？解事而真。聖遠乎哉？體之即神。』如有無分別二諦（satya-dvaya，二種真理），亦有無分二智。如二諦有本無本二智二。次中觀為本。如二諦違不二，二智歸中觀。如三節明二諦，即三節明二智。如二諦但說但不說，二智亦爾，但能說但不能說，但照空但照有，但動但動俱斷或如理內外二諦，則二智亦爾。身色無定性明二智，是心上無定性，乃至第十二愚即是智，何處分色智耶？屯十二門，遍通諸診，總貫眾經，語乃不文，而義家有本。問：何故不重散說之，而開屯階級？答：有二種人。一者學無所得觀，意乃虛玄，方言不足。二者但分別 凡是執著于理的內在含義，都是因為有取捨之心，所以都叫做『失』。既然知道事物既不是自性有，也不是因緣假有，所以《論》中說：『無自性的法也是不存在的，因為一切法都是空性的。』明白事物既不是假有也不是實性有，達到畢竟清凈的狀態，才叫做『得』。問：這是針對什麼人說的呢？答：主要有兩個目的。一是針對學習《攝大乘論》和《唯識論》的人，他們不理解三性就是三無性理。三無性理，就是阿摩羅識（清凈識），也是二無我理。三性，指的是依他性（緣起性）、分別性（遍計所執性）和真實性（圓成實性）。分別性，就是指六塵被意識所分別，所以叫做分別性。依他性，是指心識依賴六塵和阿賴耶識（根本識）而生起，所以叫做依他性。真實性，就是指涅槃（寂滅），所以叫做三性三無性。得失一定要涉及進取和捨棄，如果認為有所得有所失，那都是不可取的，只有徹底領悟到言語道斷的境界才是真正的『得』。如果遠離這條大道，就會變得不近人情。現在說明，從一開始，一切得失都是道，都是正觀。正如僧肇所說：『道難道遙遠嗎？理解了事物的真相就是真道。聖人難道遙遠嗎？體會到道的本質就是神妙。』就像有分別和無分別的二諦（兩種真理），也有有分別和無分別的二智。就像二諦有根本和無根本，二智也有兩種。其次，以中觀為根本。就像二諦看似矛盾但不二，二智最終歸於中觀。就像用三個環節來闡明二諦，也就是用三個環節來闡明二智。就像二諦既可以說又不能說，二智也是如此，既能說又不能說，既能照見空性又能照見有，既能動又能不動，或者動與不動都斷絕，或者像如理的內外二諦，那麼二智也是如此。身色沒有固定不變的自性，這說明二智在心上也沒有固定不變的自性，甚至第十二種愚癡就是智慧，哪裡需要區分色和智呢？十二個法門，遍通各種診斷，總括貫穿所有經典，語言雖然樸實，但義理卻有根本。問：為什麼不重新分散地講解，而是要開設這種階梯式的講解呢？答：有兩種人。一種是學習無所得觀的人，他們的思想虛玄，語言難以表達。另一種人只是分別 現代漢語譯本

【English Translation】 Those who dwell on the internal meaning of principles are all attached to actions of acceptance and rejection, and are therefore called 'loss'. Since it is known that things are neither self-existent nor merely dependent, the Treatise says: 'Non-self-existent dharmas are also non-existent, because all dharmas are empty.' Knowing that things are neither false nor real, and attaining ultimate purity, is called 'gain'. Question: What is this addressed to? Answer: There are two main purposes. One is for those who study the Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Great Vehicle) and the Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), who do not understand the three natures as the three non-natures. The three non-natures are the Amala-vijnana (pure consciousness), which is also the principle of two kinds of non-self. The three natures are the paratantra-svabhava (dependent nature), the parikalpita-svabhava (imagined nature), and the parinispanna-svabhava (perfected nature). The parikalpita-svabhava is the six sense objects as discriminated by consciousness, hence it is called the discriminated nature. The paratantra-svabhava is the arising of consciousness dependent on the six sense objects and the Alaya (storehouse) consciousness, hence it is called the dependent nature. The parinispanna-svabhava is Nirvana (liberation), hence it is called the three natures and three non-natures. Gain and loss necessarily involve advancement and abandonment. If one thinks there is gain or loss, that is unacceptable. Only by thoroughly realizing the state beyond words is true 'gain'. If one deviates from this great path, one becomes detached from human feelings. Now it is explained that from the beginning, all gain and loss are the path, are right view. As Zhao Gong (僧肇) said: 'Is the Dao far away? Understanding the truth of things is the true Dao. Are the sages far away? Embodying the essence of the Dao is miraculous.' Just as there are the two truths (satya-dvaya, two kinds of truth) of distinction and non-distinction, there are also the two wisdoms of distinction and non-distinction. Just as the two truths have a root and no root, so do the two wisdoms. Secondly, the Middle Way is the root. Just as the two truths seem contradictory but are non-dual, the two wisdoms ultimately return to the Middle Way. Just as the two truths are explained in three sections, so are the two wisdoms explained in three sections. Just as the two truths can be spoken of and cannot be spoken of, so it is with the two wisdoms, they can be spoken of and cannot be spoken of, they can illuminate emptiness and can illuminate existence, they can move and not move, or both movement and non-movement are cut off, or like the internal and external two truths that accord with principle, so it is with the two wisdoms. The body and form have no fixed nature, which shows that the two wisdoms also have no fixed nature in the mind, even the twelfth ignorance is wisdom, where is there a need to distinguish between form and wisdom? The twelve gates, universally connect all diagnoses, comprehensively penetrate all scriptures, the language is simple, but the meaning has a foundation. Question: Why not re-explain them separately, but instead open up this step-by-step explanation? Answer: There are two kinds of people. One is those who study the view of non-attainment, their thoughts are ethereal, and language is insufficient. The other is only discriminating English version

法相失顯道正宗。今欲令文義兩明玄事。但得故關屯階級也。

凈名玄論卷第六(宗旨下) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

凈名玄論卷第七(會處上)

第三論會處

凡有二門。一釋會處。二明凈土。

論云。欲遍通眾教。宜具三門。一知名題。二鑒旨歸。三識分齊。上已敘其二。今次論第三。

第一釋會處

江南舊釋。以室內外。分經為三。初有四品。在室外說。名為序分。中間六品。室內說之。名為正經。后之四品。還歸室外。名為流通。所以然者。凈名託病方丈。念待激揚。前之四品。但敘如來說法述德命人。為問疾由致。故稱為序。中間六品。在於室內。始談妙法。目之為正說。后之四品。利物已周。還來佛所。印定成經。故稱流通。

北土相承云。此經凡有三會。始自佛國。終菩薩品。謂庵園會也。問疾以去。至乎香積。方丈會也。菩薩行品竟乎一經。庵園重會。

今以一文。總徴二釋。

說方便品。在何處耶。若在室外。即事違文。若室內說者。復乖上釋。若謂此品集經者意。非凈名自談。既無時事。何所集耶。又方便親序現疾。說法何得非凈名之言。又室內說法。凡有二時。方便一品是其初集。略說法門。問

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

『法相』的失落，彰顯了『道』的正統真髓。現在想要讓文字和義理都明白闡述這玄妙之事，必須先掌握過去關隘的屯兵駐紮和階級等級。 《凈名玄論》卷第六（宗旨之下） 《凈名玄論》卷第七（會處之上） 第三，討論會聚之處 總共有兩個方面。一是解釋會聚之處，二是闡明凈土。 論中說：『想要普遍通達各種教義，應該具備三個方面：一是知曉名題，二是明鑑宗旨歸宿，三是認識範圍界限。』前面已經敘述了兩個方面，現在接著討論第三個方面。 第一，解釋會聚之處 江南舊有的解釋，按照室內和室外，將這部經分為三個部分。最初的四品，在室外宣說，稱為序分。中間的六品，在室內宣說，稱為正經。最後的四品，又回到室外，稱為流通。之所以這樣劃分，是因為維摩詰（Vimalakirti）假託生病住在方丈室內，想要藉此激揚佛法。前面的四品，只是敘述如來（Tathagata）說法、陳述功德、命令他人，作為問疾的緣由，所以稱為序分。中間的六品，在室內，開始談論妙法，稱之為正說。後面的四品，利益眾生已經周遍，又回到佛陀（Buddha）處所，印證確定成為經典，所以稱為流通。 北方地區相傳認為，這部經總共有三次集會。開始於佛國品，結束于菩薩品，指的是庵園的集會。從問疾品開始，到香積品，是方丈室的集會。菩薩行品結束了整部經，是庵園的再次集會。 現在用一段文字，總括地評論這兩種解釋。 《說方便品》在什麼地方宣說呢？如果說在室外，就與經文不符。如果說在室內宣說，又與上面的解釋相悖。如果說這一品是集經者的意思，不是維摩詰（Vimalakirti）自己談論的，既然沒有當時的事情，又從何處收集呢？而且《方便品》親自敘述了示現疾病，說法怎麼能不是維摩詰（Vimalakirti）的言論呢？又在室內說法，總共有兩次，方便品是第一次集會，簡略地宣說法門。

【English Translation】 English version:

The loss of 『Dharma characteristics』 reveals the true essence of the 『Path』s』 orthodoxy. Now, to make both the text and its meaning clearly explain this profound matter, one must first grasp the past garrisons and hierarchical levels of the passes. Vimalakirti's Profound Discourse, Volume Six (Under the Topic of Purpose) Vimalakirti's Profound Discourse, Volume Seven (On the Place of Assembly, Part One) Third, Discussing the Place of Assembly There are two aspects in general. First, to explain the place of assembly; second, to elucidate the Pure Land. The treatise says: 『To universally understand all teachings, one should possess three aspects: first, to know the title; second, to discern the ultimate aim; third, to recognize the boundaries.』 The first two aspects have already been described; now we proceed to discuss the third aspect. First, Explaining the Place of Assembly The old interpretation in Jiangnan divides this sutra into three parts based on indoor and outdoor settings. The first four chapters, spoken outdoors, are called the Introductory Section. The middle six chapters, spoken indoors, are called the Main Section. The last four chapters return to the outdoors and are called the Circulation Section. The reason for this division is that Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) feigned illness and resided in a square chamber, intending to use this as a means to promote the Dharma. The first four chapters merely describe the Tathagata (Tathagata) preaching, stating merits, and instructing others, serving as the reason for inquiring about his illness, hence they are called the Introductory Section. The middle six chapters, being indoors, begin to discuss the wonderful Dharma, and are called the Main Section. The last four chapters, having benefited beings completely, return to the Buddha's (Buddha) place, confirming and establishing the sutra, hence they are called the Circulation Section. According to the tradition in the Northern regions, this sutra has three assemblies in total. Starting from the Buddha Land chapter and ending with the Bodhisattva chapter, this refers to the assembly in the Ambapali garden. From the Inquiry of Illness chapter to the Fragrant Accumulation chapter, this is the assembly in the square chamber. The Bodhisattva Practice chapter concludes the entire sutra, which is the re-assembly in the Ambapali garden. Now, using one passage, we will comprehensively comment on these two interpretations. Where was the 『Expedient Means Chapter』 spoken? If it was spoken outdoors, it would contradict the text. If it was spoken indoors, it would contradict the above interpretation. If it is said that this chapter is the intention of the sutra compiler, and not spoken by Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) himself, then since there were no events at that time, from where was it compiled? Moreover, the 『Expedient Means Chapter』 personally narrates the manifestation of illness, how could the Dharma teaching not be the words of Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti)? Furthermore, there are two times when the Dharma was spoken indoors; the Expedient Means chapter is the first assembly, briefly expounding the Dharma.

疾以後。方丈重會。廣宣妙法。何得以前說為序。后談為正。

若謂此經但有三會。是亦不然。既重集庵園。為二會者。亦再聚方丈。寧非兩集。若初集方丈。以略非會者。庵園但有一品。寧復廣耶。又庵園說凈土因果為一集者。方丈明法身因果。寧非會耶。今所釋者。華嚴七處八會。斯經二處四集。言二處者一庵園處。二方丈處。庵園為佛處。方丈為菩薩處。庵園為出家處。方丈為在家處。庵園他業所起處。方丈自業所起處。他業所起處者。庵羅女園。為佛起精舍。明未曾有室是居士凈業所起也。庵園在城外。方丈在城內。顯公傳云。相去三里。所言四會者。一庵園會。二方丈會。三重集庵園。四再會方丈。以此分經。實為允當也。

問。華嚴不起寂滅道場。現身七處。此經四會。可得然乎。答。華嚴明不起。此經明起。起與不起。皆不思議。故華嚴稱不思議解脫。此經亦稱不思議解脫也。問。華嚴不起道場現身七處。可不思議。此經既四處往反。何名莫測。答。此經四會。雖有去來。實無往反。故文殊去而不往。凈名來而不至。來而不至。故無所從來。去而不往。實無所去。故善來文殊不來相來。來既不來相來。去亦不去相去。故來去宛然。而實無往反。故名不思議也。問。此經既有二處四會。為有

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 疾病痊癒后，維摩詰（Vimalakirti）又在方丈室重新聚會，廣泛宣講微妙佛法。為什麼要把之前的說法當作序言，而把後來的談論當作正文呢？ 如果說這部經只有三次集會，那也是不對的。既然重新聚集在庵羅園（Amra garden），作為第二次集會，也再次聚集在方丈室，難道不是兩次集會嗎？如果第一次集會在方丈室，因為內容簡略就不是集會，那麼庵羅園只有一品經文，難道內容就廣泛了嗎？而且庵羅園宣說凈土的因果，作為一次集會，方丈室闡明法身（Dharmakaya）的因果，難道不是一次集會嗎？現在所解釋的，華嚴經有七處八會，這部經有兩處四集。所說的兩處，一是庵羅園，二是方丈室。庵羅園是佛陀（Buddha）所在之處，方丈室是菩薩（Bodhisattva）所在之處。庵羅園是出家眾所在之處，方丈室是在家眾所在之處。庵羅園是他人業力所生之處，方丈室是自身業力所生之處。他人業力所生之處，指的是庵羅女的花園，為佛陀建造精舍。表明未曾有室是居士清凈業力所生。庵羅園在城外，方丈室在城內。顯公的傳記中說，兩地相距三里。所說的四次集會，一是庵羅園集會，二是方丈室集會，三是重新聚集在庵羅園，四是再次聚集在方丈室。這樣劃分這部經，確實是恰當的。 問：華嚴經不在寂滅道場（Bodhimanda）發起，卻在七個地方顯現身形，這部經有四次集會，可以這樣認為嗎？答：華嚴經闡明不起，這部經闡明起。起與不起，都是不可思議的。所以華嚴經稱為不可思議解脫（Acintya-vimoksha），這部經也稱為不可思議解脫。問：華嚴經不在道場發起，卻在七個地方顯現身形，可以說是不可思議。這部經既然在四個地方往返，為什麼說是莫測高深呢？答：這部經的四次集會，雖然有去有來，實際上沒有往返。所以文殊菩薩（Manjusri）去了卻沒有前往，維摩詰來了卻沒有到達。來了卻沒有到達，所以無所從來。去了卻沒有前往，實際上無所去。所以善來文殊不是以來的相狀而來。來既然不是以來的相狀而來，去也不是以去的相狀而去。所以來去宛然，而實際上沒有往返，所以稱為不可思議。問：這部經既然有兩處四會，那麼有……

【English Translation】 English version: After the illness, Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti, meaning 'stainless fame') reconvened in the square chamber, widely proclaiming the wonderful Dharma. Why should the previous discourse be regarded as the introduction, and the subsequent discussion as the main body? If it is said that this sutra only has three assemblies, that is also incorrect. Since they reassembled in the Amra garden (Amra garden), as the second assembly, and also gathered again in the square chamber, isn't that two assemblies? If the first assembly in the square chamber is not considered an assembly because of its brevity, then the Amra garden only has one chapter, is it extensive? Moreover, the Amra garden expounds the causes and effects of the Pure Land as one assembly, and the square chamber elucidates the causes and effects of the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, meaning 'body of the Dharma'), isn't that an assembly? What is now being explained is that the Avatamsaka Sutra has seven locations and eight assemblies, while this sutra has two locations and four gatherings. The two locations are the Amra garden and the square chamber. The Amra garden is where the Buddha (Buddha) is, and the square chamber is where the Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) are. The Amra garden is where the renunciants are, and the square chamber is where the laypeople are. The Amra garden is where the karma of others arises, and the square chamber is where one's own karma arises. The place where the karma of others arises refers to the garden of the Amra woman, where a monastery was built for the Buddha. It shows that the unprecedented chamber arose from the pure karma of the layman. The Amra garden is outside the city, and the square chamber is inside the city. The biography of Master Xian states that they are three miles apart. The four assemblies are the Amra garden assembly, the square chamber assembly, the reassembly in the Amra garden, and the reassembly in the square chamber. Dividing the sutra in this way is indeed appropriate. Question: The Avatamsaka Sutra does not arise from the Bodhimanda (Bodhimanda, meaning 'place of enlightenment') but manifests in seven locations. Can this sutra, with its four assemblies, be considered similar? Answer: The Avatamsaka Sutra elucidates non-arising, while this sutra elucidates arising. Arising and non-arising are both inconceivable. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra is called Inconceivable Liberation (Acintya-vimoksha), and this sutra is also called Inconceivable Liberation. Question: The Avatamsaka Sutra does not arise from the Bodhimanda but manifests in seven locations, which can be said to be inconceivable. Since this sutra goes back and forth between four locations, why is it said to be unfathomable? Answer: Although there is going and coming in the four assemblies of this sutra, there is actually no going back and forth. Therefore, Manjusri Bodhisattva (Manjusri) goes but does not go, and Vimalakirti comes but does not arrive. Coming but not arriving means there is nowhere from which to come. Going but not going means there is actually nowhere to go. Therefore, 'Welcome, Manjusri' does not come with the appearance of coming. Since coming is not with the appearance of coming, going is also not with the appearance of going. Therefore, coming and going are apparent, but there is actually no going back and forth, so it is called inconceivable. Question: Since this sutra has two locations and four assemblies, does it have...

序正流通以不。答。準例華嚴。具含二意。如是六事。可兩望之。以初攝初。則屬初會。望於一部。屬序分經。流通亦然。從阿閦佛品嘆法美人。以後攝后。屬於後會。若望大段。則屬流通。問。如是六事。蓋是序庵園時應事。但屬初會。云何為序分耶。答。如是六事。雖序庵園時處。而為成一經。復得屬大序。流通亦然。

次別釋會處

要具五事。嘉集方名為會。一有處所。二有時節。三有化主。四有徒眾。五說教門。五事和集。眾生悟道。故名為會。如四百觀論云。真法及說者。聽者難得故。如是則生死。非有邊無邊。論中略明三種。一有真法。二有說者。三有聽人。具此三緣。故有輪不得無際。闕斯一事。則生死非是有邊。今廣明五事。則為五階。化處不同。前已略說。凈土義中。當廣明之。言化時者。此經凡有通別二時者。言通時者。舊云。凈名是佛成道第三十年所說。又云二十六年說也。所言別時者。就此四會。有二種不同。一時事先後。二集法次第。時事先後者。第一方丈初會。第二庵園次會。第三方丈再集。第四庵園重會。問何以知然。答。五百長者與凈名為法城等侶。問道參無時不集。而寶積已至。凈名近而不來者。當知有疾。以其疾故。國內近眾。皆來問之。因以身疾。略為說法。故

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：序分、正宗分、流通分是否完備？回答：依照《華嚴經》的例子，包含了兩種含義。這六件事可以從兩個方面來看。用開始的部分統攝開始的部分，就屬於初會（第一次集會）；如果從整部經來看，就屬於序分。流通分也是這樣。從《阿閦佛品》讚歎法美之人以後，用後面的部分統攝後面的部分，就屬於後會（後面的集會）；如果從大的段落來看，就屬於流通分。問：這六件事，大概是序庵園（Vimalakirti's Garden）時所發生的事情，只屬於初會，怎麼能說是序分呢？答：這六件事，雖然是序庵園時的事情，但爲了成就一部經，又可以屬於大序分。流通分也是這樣。

其次分別解釋集會的地點。

要具備五件事，才能稱為集會。一是地點，二是時間，三是教化之主，四是徒眾，五是所說的教法。這五件事和合在一起，眾生才能悟道，所以稱為集會。如《四百論》所說：『真正的佛法和說法者，聽法者都很難得，這樣生死就沒有邊際。』論中簡略地說明了三種：一是有真正的佛法，二是有說法者，三是有聽法的人。具備這三種因緣，所以輪迴才不會沒有邊際。缺少其中任何一件，那麼生死就是有邊際的。現在廣泛地說明五件事，就是五個階段。教化的地方不同，前面已經簡略地說過了，在《凈土義》中，會詳細說明。說到教化的時間，這部經凡有通時和別時兩種。說到通時，舊的說法是，《維摩詰經》是佛陀成道第三十年所說，又說是第二十六年所說。所說的別時，就這部經的四次集會來說，有兩種不同。一是時事的先後，二是集法的次第。時事的先後是：第一次是方丈室的初會，第二次是庵園的次會，第三次是方丈室的再次集會，第四次是庵園的重會。問：憑什麼知道是這樣的呢？答：五百長者與維摩詰（Vimalakirti）是法城（Dharma City）等的同伴，問道參禪沒有不集會的。而寶積（Ratnakuta）已經到了，維摩詰（Vimalakirti）離得近卻不來，應當知道他有病。因為他有病，國內離得近的人，都來問候他。因此他藉著身體的疾病，簡略地為大家說法，所以。

【English Translation】 English version: Are the introduction, main body, and conclusion complete? Answer: According to the example of the 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (Flower Garland Sutra), it contains two meanings. These six matters can be viewed from two perspectives. Using the beginning to encompass the beginning, it belongs to the first assembly; if viewed from the entire sutra, it belongs to the introduction. The conclusion is also like this. From the 'Akshobhya Buddha' chapter praising the beauty of the Dharma onwards, using the latter part to encompass the latter part, it belongs to the later assembly; if viewed from a large section, it belongs to the conclusion. Question: These six matters probably occurred during the time of Vimalakirti's Garden, belonging only to the first assembly, how can they be considered the introduction? Answer: Although these six matters occurred during the time of Vimalakirti's Garden, in order to complete a sutra, they can also belong to the grand introduction. The conclusion is also like this.

Next, separately explain the locations of the assemblies.

To be called an assembly, five things must be present. First, a location; second, a time; third, a teaching master; fourth, a gathering of disciples; and fifth, the teachings being expounded. When these five things come together, sentient beings can attain enlightenment, so it is called an assembly. As the 'Four Hundred Verses' says: 'True Dharma and a speaker, and a listener are difficult to obtain, thus birth and death are without limit.' The treatise briefly explains three: first, there is true Dharma; second, there is a speaker; third, there are listeners. With these three conditions present, the cycle of rebirth will not be without end. Lacking any one of these, then birth and death are limited. Now, extensively explaining five things represents five stages. The places of teaching differ, as has been briefly mentioned before, and will be explained in detail in the 'Meaning of Pure Land'. Speaking of the time of teaching, this sutra has both general and specific times. Speaking of the general time, the old saying is that the 'Vimalakirti Sutra' was spoken in the thirtieth year after the Buddha's enlightenment, or also said to be the twenty-sixth year. The specific time, regarding the four assemblies in this sutra, there are two differences. First, the sequence of events; second, the order of the Dharma gatherings. The sequence of events is: first, the initial assembly in the square chamber; second, the subsequent assembly in the garden; third, the re-assembly in the square chamber; fourth, the repeated assembly in the garden. Question: How do we know this is the case? Answer: The five hundred elders and Vimalakirti are companions in the Dharma City and other such places, and there is no time when they do not gather to inquire about the Way and practice meditation. But Ratnakuta has already arrived, and Vimalakirti, who is nearby, has not come, so we should know that he is ill. Because of his illness, those nearby in the country all come to inquire after him. Therefore, he uses his physical illness as an opportunity to briefly explain the Dharma to everyone, so...

無數千人。皆發道心。即方便品。故知先有毗耶初會也。但初集之時。人天眾小。利益未多。猶未足暢其神慧稱現疾之懷。但佛與凈名。既同爲化物。故兩心相鑒。居士既託疾毗耶。如來庵園說法。為之集眾。故遣使問疾。聲聞菩薩。皆敘不堪。方有庵園會耳。次命文殊。令往激揚。廣宣妙法。故有方丈再集。但化事既周。還來佛所。如來印贊。使談妙法。故有庵園重集。以時事推之。必如此也。二集法次第者夫欲結整合經。必須先明如是我聞一時佛所住處與大眾俱。若發軫即序凈名時事。便不得成經。勝鬘之例。事亦如是。故先明庵園會也。庵園集既竟。將發遣使問疾之端。故進序方丈初會。嘆凈名之德。生時眾尊仰之誠。敘其有疾發如來慰問由致。故次有方便一品毗耶會也。余之二集。同上釋之。

次釋化主

此經四會。凡五人共說。方丈初集。凈名自說。庵園次會。如來所說。毗耶重集。凡四人說。一凈名說。二文殊說。三天女說。四諸菩薩說。庵園再集。佛與凈名二人共說。問。五百聲聞。八千菩薩。皆述凈名之言。何故不名說耶。答。皆是述凈名昔日之言。非彼自說。若明今昔二說者。二品經明凈名昔說。十二品經敘維摩今說。問。弟子菩薩二品。為屬初會。為屬後會。為是正經。為是序說。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無數千人，都發起了修道的決心，這在《方便品》中有記載。因此可知，先有毗耶離城的初次集會。但初次集會時，人天大眾數量較少，所獲得的利益也不多，還不足以充分展現佛的神奇智慧和迅速應化的心懷。只是佛和維摩詰（Vimalakirti，即凈名居士）既然都是爲了教化眾生，所以兩心相印。居士就假託生病在毗耶離城，如來在庵園說法，為他聚集大眾，所以派遣使者問候病情。聲聞和菩薩都敘述自己不堪勝任，這才有了庵園的集會。之後，佛命令文殊菩薩前去激勵宣揚，廣泛宣說妙法，所以有了方丈室的再次集會。但教化之事既然已經周全，就回到佛的住所，如來印可讚嘆，讓他談論妙法，所以有了庵園的重新集會。以當時的情況來推斷，必定是這樣的。兩次集會說法的次第是，想要結整合經，必須先明確『如是我聞，一時，佛在某處，與大眾在一起』。如果一開始就敘述維摩詰的事情，就不能夠成為經，就像《勝鬘經》的例子一樣。所以先說明庵園的集會。庵園的集會結束后，將要開始派遣使者問候病情，所以接著敘述方丈室的初次集會，讚歎維摩詰的德行，表達當時大眾尊崇仰慕他的真誠，敘述他生病引發如來慰問的緣由，所以接著有《方便品》的毗耶離城集會。其餘的兩次集會，也按照上面的解釋。

其次解釋教化之主

這部經有四次集會，總共有五個人說法。方丈室的初次集會，是維摩詰自己說的。庵園的第二次集會，是如來說的。毗耶離城的重新集會，總共有四個人說，一是維摩詰說，二是文殊菩薩說，三是天女說，四是諸位菩薩說。庵園的再次集會，是佛和維摩詰兩個人一起說的。問：五百聲聞和八千菩薩，都敘述了維摩詰的話，為什麼不稱為他們說呢？答：他們都是敘述維摩詰過去所說的話，不是他們自己說的。如果要明確區分過去和現在的兩種說法，那麼《弟子品》和《菩薩品》說明的是維摩詰過去所說的話，十二品經敘述的是維摩詰現在所說的話。問：《弟子品》和《菩薩品》，是屬於初次集會，還是屬於後來的集會？是屬於正經，還是屬於序說？

【English Translation】 English version: Numerous thousands of people all aroused the aspiration for enlightenment, as recorded in the 『Upaya Chapter』 (Convenient Means). Therefore, it is known that there was a first gathering in Vaisali (Piyali). However, at the time of the first gathering, the assembly of humans and devas was small, and the benefits gained were not many, not yet sufficient to fully manifest the Buddha's divine wisdom and the mind of swift response. Only because the Buddha and Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti, meaning Pure Name Layman) were both for the purpose of transforming beings, their minds resonated with each other. The layman feigned illness in Vaisali, and the Tathagata preached the Dharma in the Ambapali garden, gathering the assembly for him, so he sent messengers to inquire about his illness. Sravakas and Bodhisattvas all recounted their inability to undertake the task, and only then was there the gathering in the Ambapali garden. After that, the Buddha ordered Manjushri Bodhisattva to go and encourage propagation, widely expounding the wonderful Dharma, so there was a second gathering in the square chamber. But since the work of transformation was complete, they returned to the Buddha's abode, and the Tathagata approved and praised him, allowing him to discuss the wonderful Dharma, so there was a renewed gathering in the Ambapali garden. Judging from the events at that time, it must have been like this. The order of the two Dharma gatherings is that if one wants to compile a sutra, one must first clarify 『Thus have I heard, at one time, the Buddha was in such and such a place, together with the great assembly.』 If one starts by narrating the events of Vimalakirti, it cannot become a sutra, just like the example of the 『Srimala Sutra』. Therefore, the gathering in the Ambapali garden is explained first. After the gathering in the Ambapali garden is completed, the beginning of sending messengers to inquire about the illness will begin, so the first gathering in the square chamber is then narrated, praising Vimalakirti's virtue, expressing the sincerity of the assembly's reverence and admiration at that time, and narrating the reason for his illness triggering the Tathagata's consolation, so then there is the Vaisali gathering of the 『Upaya Chapter』. The remaining two gatherings are explained in the same way as above.

Next, explaining the master of transformation

This sutra has four gatherings, with a total of five people speaking. In the first gathering in the square chamber, Vimalakirti spoke himself. In the second gathering in the Ambapali garden, the Tathagata spoke. In the renewed gathering in Vaisali, there were a total of four people speaking, one was Vimalakirti, two was Manjushri Bodhisattva, three was the goddess, and four were the Bodhisattvas. In the renewed gathering in the Ambapali garden, the Buddha and Vimalakirti spoke together. Question: The five hundred Sravakas and eight thousand Bodhisattvas all recounted Vimalakirti's words, why are they not called speakers? Answer: They are all recounting Vimalakirti's words from the past, not speaking themselves. If one wants to clearly distinguish between the two kinds of speech, past and present, then the 『Disciples Chapter』 and the 『Bodhisattvas Chapter』 explain Vimalakirti's words from the past, and the twelve chapters of the sutra narrate Vimalakirti's words from the present. Question: Do the 『Disciples Chapter』 and the 『Bodhisattvas Chapter』 belong to the first gathering or the later gathering? Do they belong to the main sutra or the introductory discourse?

答。宜兩望之。既是庵園述之。則屬前會。為問疾由致。便屬後集。述凈名昔說。故是正經。為發問疾之端。亦得為序。問。佛何故不直遣文殊激揚。而覆命聲聞菩薩。答。略明五義。一顯如來大悲平等。故並命之。二欲嘆凈名之德。令時眾尊人重法。三顯文殊道高。令一切隨從。四顯不思議解脫甚深。聲聞菩薩。不能測度。眾各述凈名昔說。以利今日之緣。五明修行次第。方便品破凡夫。弟子品破聲聞。菩薩品破菩薩。從淺至深以為次第。然後同入無礙法門。共證不思議解脫也。問。凈名彌勒。位同受職。何故彌勒受屈。凈名能呵。答。可具三義。一云。十地菩薩。智無不通。應無不普。豈有夫會人天受屈無垢。唯相與化物。故得失適緣耳。二者雖同是十地。而十地之中。自有三位。謂入住滿。或可彌勒十地大士。凈名金剛心人。三者彌勒位居等覺。當來之尊。凈名為妙覺地。是已成之佛。問。既五人共說。何故獨稱凈名經耶。答。餘人說少。凈名說多。以少從多。稱凈名經也。又如來庵園說法。為之集眾。遣使問疾。廣說法門。則成其說也。又初會合蓋現土按地變凈。略開不思議之端。庵園重會。印定嘆述。方得成經。使後代信受故。初會皆開其宗。後集印其說。始終皆成為凈名經。故獨標維摩說也。問。初會既

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 答：應該從兩個方面來看。如果是庵園（Vimalakirti's garden）的敘述，就屬於前一次集會。因為探望疾病而引起的，就屬於后一次集會。敘述維摩詰（Vimalakirti）過去所說，所以是正經。因為發起探望疾病的開端，也可以作為序言。問：佛陀為什麼不直接派遣文殊（Manjushri）來激勵啓發，而又要命令聲聞（Śrāvaka）和菩薩（Bodhisattva）呢？答：簡略說明五個意義。一是顯示如來（Tathāgata）的大悲平等，所以一併命令他們。二是想要讚歎維摩詰的德行，令當時的聽眾尊重人，重視佛法。三是顯示文殊的道行高深，令一切人隨從。四是顯示不可思議的解脫非常深奧，聲聞和菩薩不能測度。大眾各自敘述維摩詰過去所說，以利益今天的因緣。五是說明修行的次第，方便品（Upāya-kauśalya）破斥凡夫，弟子品（Śrāvaka）破斥聲聞，菩薩品（Bodhisattva）破斥菩薩，從淺到深作為次第，然後一同進入無礙法門，共同證得不可思議的解脫。問：維摩詰和彌勒（Maitreya），地位相同，都受到佛的授記，為什麼彌勒受到委屈，維摩詰能夠呵斥呢？答：可以從三個方面來解釋。一是說，十地菩薩（Daśa-bhūmika）的智慧沒有不通達的，應化沒有不普遍的。難道會有會見人天而受到委屈的無垢之人嗎？只是相互之間教化眾生，所以得失只是適應因緣罷了。二是雖然同是十地菩薩，而十地之中，自有三個位次，叫做入住滿。或許彌勒是十地的大士，維摩詰是金剛心人。三是彌勒的地位居於等覺（Samantabhadra），是未來之尊，維摩詰是妙覺地（Sudharmā），是已經成佛的人。問：既然五個人共同宣說，為什麼唯獨稱作《維摩詰經》呢？答：其他人說得少，維摩詰說得多，以少從多，所以稱作《維摩詰經》。又如來在庵園說法，為此聚集大眾，派遣使者問候疾病，廣泛宣說法門，就成就了他的說法。又初次集會，蓋現國土，按地變凈，略微開啟不可思議的開端。庵園再次集會，印證讚歎敘述，方才得以成為經典，使後代信受。所以初次集會都開啟其宗旨，后一次集會印證其說法，始終都成為《維摩詰經》。所以單獨標明維摩詰所說。問：初次集會既然

【English Translation】 English version Answer: It should be viewed from two perspectives. If it's a narration of the Vimalakirti's garden (Vimalakirti's garden), then it belongs to the previous assembly. Because it was caused by inquiring about illness, it belongs to the later assembly. Narrating what Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) said in the past, therefore, it is a proper sutra. Because it initiates the beginning of inquiring about illness, it can also serve as a preface. Question: Why didn't the Buddha directly send Manjushri (Manjushri) to inspire and enlighten, but instead ordered the Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka) and Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva)? Answer: Briefly explain five meanings. First, it shows the great compassion and equality of the Tathāgata (Tathāgata), so he ordered them together. Second, it is to praise the virtue of Vimalakirti, so that the audience at that time respects people and values the Dharma. Third, it shows that Manjushri's path is high, so that everyone follows. Fourth, it shows that the inconceivable liberation is very profound, and the Śrāvakas and Bodhisattvas cannot fathom it. The masses each narrate what Vimalakirti said in the past, in order to benefit today's conditions. Fifth, it explains the order of practice, the Upāya-kauśalya chapter (Upāya-kauśalya) refutes ordinary people, the Śrāvaka chapter (Śrāvaka) refutes Śrāvakas, and the Bodhisattva chapter (Bodhisattva) refutes Bodhisattvas, from shallow to deep as the order, and then together enter the unobstructed Dharma gate, and jointly attain inconceivable liberation. Question: Vimalakirti and Maitreya (Maitreya), with the same status, both received the Buddha's prediction, why is Maitreya wronged, and Vimalakirti can rebuke? Answer: It can be explained from three aspects. One is to say that the wisdom of the Ten-Ground Bodhisattvas (Daśa-bhūmika) is all-pervasive, and the response is all-encompassing. How can there be a stainless person who is wronged by meeting humans and devas? It's just that they teach sentient beings to each other, so gains and losses are just adapting to conditions. Second, although they are both Ten-Ground Bodhisattvas, there are three positions in the Ten Grounds, called entering, dwelling, and fulfilling. Perhaps Maitreya is a great scholar of the Ten Grounds, and Vimalakirti is a diamond-mind person. Third, Maitreya's position is in Equal Enlightenment (Samantabhadra), the future venerable, and Vimalakirti is in the Wonderful Enlightenment Ground (Sudharmā), a Buddha who has already attained Buddhahood. Question: Since five people jointly proclaimed, why is it only called the 'Vimalakirti Sutra'? Answer: Others said less, Vimalakirti said more, so from less to more, it is called the 'Vimalakirti Sutra'. Also, the Tathāgata preached the Dharma in the Amra garden, gathered the masses for this purpose, sent messengers to inquire about illness, and widely proclaimed the Dharma, which accomplished his preaching. Also, the first assembly, covering the present land, pressing the ground to transform it into purity, slightly opened the beginning of the inconceivable. The Amra garden reassembled, confirming, praising, and narrating, and then it became a classic, so that later generations would believe and accept it. Therefore, the first assembly opened its purpose, and the later assembly confirmed its saying, and from beginning to end it became the 'Vimalakirti Sutra'. Therefore, it is uniquely marked as what Vimalakirti said. Question: Since the first assembly

為開其宗。後集印其說。何故非序及流通耶。答。初以正說開正說故初非序。後集印成而覆命廣說妙。故非流通。又兩望之義。前意已明也。

次釋所化徒眾

方丈初會。但有毗耶近眾。無他方遠眾。但有人眾。無有天眾。但在家眾。無出家眾。但聽法眾。無激揚眾。故略說法門。利益猶少。不暢大士現疾之懷也。庵園初會。具凡聖近遠在家出家幽顯大小一切眾也。方丈重會。庵園再集。眾並同然。故得廣說法門。多有利益。暢現疾之意也。問。此經是菩薩法藏所攝。又辨不可思議解脫法門。絕二乘境界。則應但教菩薩。云何復有聲聞眾耶。又釋論云。佛為大菩薩說不可思議解脫經十萬偈。即是華嚴經。小乘在華嚴坐。不得見聞。以不種聞是大乘因緣故。此經稱亦不可思議解脫。何故聲聞在座。得見聞耶。答。法華玄論已具說之。余未盡者。今當更說。依釋論意。明華嚴為大菩薩說。小乘不聞。凈名等通為大小淺深人說。故二乘得聞。則華嚴明不思議事深。凈名辨不思議事淺。雖同是不思議。而有淺深。故有聞與不聞。例如雖同是般若。有與三乘共說。獨為大菩薩說。九地尚不聞。況復二乘耶。問。論云。一切經中。般若最大。何故三乘得聞般若。不聞華嚴。答。般若雖大。多說方便實慧甚深理法。二乘

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了開啟宗派，後來收集並印證他的說法。為什麼沒有序分和流通分呢？回答：最初以正說開啟正說，所以最初沒有序分。後來收集印證完成，又命令廣泛宣說妙法，所以沒有流通分。又是兩種期望的意義，前面的意思已經很明白了。

其次解釋所教化的徒眾：

方丈室的初次集會，只有毗耶離（Vaisali，古印度城市名）附近的聽眾，沒有其他地方遠方的聽眾；只有人類的聽眾，沒有天上的聽眾；只有在家的聽眾，沒有出家的聽眾；只有聽法的聽眾，沒有辯論激揚的聽眾。所以簡略地說法門，利益也很少，不能暢達維摩詰（Vimalakirti）大士示現疾病的心懷。庵園的初次集會，具備了凡夫、聖人、近處、遠處、在家、出家、隱顯、大小一切的聽眾。方丈室的再次集會，庵園的再次聚集，聽眾都相同。所以能夠廣泛地說法門，有很多利益，暢達了示現疾病的心意。問：這部經是菩薩法藏所攝，又辨明不可思議解脫法門，超越了二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的境界，那麼應該只教導菩薩，為什麼又有聲聞眾呢？又《大智度論》說，佛為大菩薩說不可思議解脫經十萬偈，就是《華嚴經》。小乘人坐在《華嚴經》的法會上，不得見聞，因為沒有種下聽聞大乘的因緣。這部經也稱為不可思議解脫，為什麼聲聞人坐在法會上，能夠見聞呢？回答：《法華玄論》已經詳細地說明了。還有沒有說完的，現在應當再說。依照《大智度論》的意思，說明《華嚴經》是為大菩薩說的，小乘人聽不到。《維摩詰經》等是普遍為大小深淺的人說的，所以二乘人能夠聽到。那麼《華嚴經》說明不可思議的事理很深，《維摩詰經》辨明不可思議的事理很淺。雖然同樣是不可思議，但是有深淺的差別，所以有聽聞和不聽聞的區別。例如雖然同樣是般若，有與三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）共同宣說的，有隻為大菩薩宣說的，九地菩薩尚且聽不到，何況二乘人呢？問：《大智度論》說，一切經中，般若最大，為什麼三乘人能夠聽到般若，卻聽不到《華嚴經》呢？回答：般若雖然大，大多說方便，實慧甚深的理法，二乘

【English Translation】 English version: To initiate his school of thought, his teachings were later collected and verified. Why are there no introductory and concluding sections? Answer: Initially, correct teachings were used to initiate correct teachings, so there was no introductory section. Later, after the collection and verification were completed, it was commanded to widely proclaim the wonderful Dharma, so there was no concluding section. Furthermore, it is a matter of two kinds of expectations, the previous meaning is already very clear.

Next, explaining the disciples who were to be taught:

At the initial gathering in the square chamber, there were only listeners from the vicinity of Vaisali (Vaisali, an ancient Indian city), no listeners from distant places; only human listeners, no heavenly listeners; only lay listeners, no monastic listeners; only listeners who came to hear the Dharma, no listeners who came to debate and argue. Therefore, the Dharma was taught briefly, and the benefits were few, unable to fully express the mind of the great Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) who manifested illness. At the initial gathering in the hermitage garden, there were all kinds of listeners: ordinary people, sages, near, far, lay, monastic, hidden, manifest, small, and large. At the second gathering in the square chamber, and the second gathering in the hermitage garden, the listeners were all the same. Therefore, the Dharma could be taught widely, and there were many benefits, fully expressing the intention of manifesting illness. Question: This sutra is included in the Bodhisattva Dharma treasury, and it also distinguishes the inconceivable liberation Dharma gate, which transcends the realm of the two vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle), so it should only teach Bodhisattvas. Why are there also Sravaka assemblies? Furthermore, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says that the Buddha spoke the inconceivable liberation sutra of ten thousand verses for the great Bodhisattvas, which is the Avatamsaka Sutra. Those of the Small Vehicle, sitting in the Avatamsaka Sutra assembly, could not see or hear it, because they had not planted the causes and conditions for hearing the Great Vehicle. This sutra is also called inconceivable liberation, why can Sravakas in the assembly see and hear it? Answer: The Fa Hua Xuan Lun has already explained it in detail. What has not been fully explained, I will now explain further. According to the meaning of the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra, the Avatamsaka Sutra was spoken for the great Bodhisattvas, and those of the Small Vehicle could not hear it. The Vimalakirti Sutra, etc., were spoken universally for people of all levels, so those of the two vehicles could hear it. Thus, the Avatamsaka Sutra explains the inconceivable principles deeply, while the Vimalakirti Sutra distinguishes the inconceivable principles shallowly. Although both are inconceivable, there are differences in depth, so there is hearing and not hearing. For example, although both are Prajna, there is that which is spoken in common with the three vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle), and that which is spoken only for the great Bodhisattvas, which even the Bodhisattvas of the ninth ground cannot hear, let alone those of the two vehicles? Question: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says that among all sutras, Prajna is the greatest, why can those of the three vehicles hear Prajna, but not the Avatamsaka Sutra? Answer: Although Prajna is great, it mostly speaks of expedient means, and the profound principles of true wisdom, those of the two vehicles

之人。則有小分。故得聞之。華嚴多辨實慧方便。就事辨不思議。則二乘絕分。故不得聞也。又大判聲聞。凡有二種。一者實行。二者權行。實行之中。復有二種。一退大學小。二本學小乘之人。退大學小。約一化始終。凡有四時。一大機未熟。二小根已成。三小執當移大機遠動。四小執正傾大機正熟。一化始終。唯有此四。大機未熟者。佛初成道。為諸菩薩說華嚴經。即欲以大法化之。但小機未堪。是故息化。如法華云。長者居師子座。眷屬圍繞。羅列寶物。即遣傍人追捉窮子。窮子驚懼。父遂放之。則指華嚴時事也。以大機未熟。雖覆在華嚴座。不得見聞。

次小根已成者。道場之日。既未堪大化。鹿園之時。方受小法。故密遣二人。誘乃得之。三小執當移大機遠動者。即以波若凈名諸方等教。正教菩薩。密化二乘。令陶練小心。欣慕大道。以小執當移大機遠動。在般若凈名之座。故得見聞。但未領解。四小執正傾大機正熟者。即法華開方便門。示真實義。以小執既傾方便之門宜開。大機已成真實之義便顯。故在法華座。亦得見聞。覆信解也。問。大機未熟。故華嚴之會。未有小眾。何故第八會中。列五百聲聞。答。前七會多是佛初成道。菩提樹下說之。此時未有小眾。故七會不列。第八會後時說之後。已

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 之人，則只有小的分緣，所以能夠聽聞。《華嚴經》多方面闡述實智和方便，就事相來辨析不可思議的境界，這是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）之人所無法企及的，所以他們無法聽聞。《華嚴經》對聲聞的判別，大致有兩種：一是實行，二是權行。實行之中，又分為兩種：一是退大向小，二是本學小乘之人。退大向小，就一化（佛陀一次教化）的始終而言，大致有四個階段：一是大機（接受大乘教法的根機）未成熟，二是小根（接受小乘教法的根機）已經成就，三是小執（對小乘教法的執著）將要轉移，大機在遠處開始發動，四是小執正在傾覆，大機正在成熟。一化始終，只有這四個階段。大機未成熟，指的是佛陀初成道時，為諸菩薩宣說《華嚴經》，想要用大法來教化他們，但小機還不能堪受，所以停止了教化。如《法華經》所說：『長者坐在獅子座上，眷屬圍繞，羅列著寶物，就派人去追捉窮子，窮子驚恐害怕，父親就放了他。』這指的就是《華嚴經》時的情景。因為大機未成熟，即使身在華嚴法會，也不能見聞。

其次，小根已經成就，指的是在道場之日，既然還不能堪受大乘教化，那麼在鹿野苑之時，才接受小乘佛法，所以秘密派遣二人，誘導才得以度化。三是小執將要轉移，大機在遠處開始發動，指的是用《般若經》、《維摩詰經》等方等教，正面教導菩薩，秘密教化二乘，讓他們陶冶小心，欣慕大道。因為小執將要轉移，大機在遠處開始發動，所以在《般若經》、《維摩詰經》的法座上，能夠見聞，但還不能領會理解。四是小執正在傾覆，大機正在成熟，指的是《法華經》開啟方便之門，顯示真實之義。因為小執已經傾覆，方便之門應該開啟，大機已經成就，真實之義便顯現。所以在《法華經》的法座上，也能見聞，並且信解。問：大機未成熟，所以在《華嚴經》的法會上，沒有小乘聽眾。為什麼在第八會中，列有五百聲聞？答：前七會大多是佛陀初成道，在菩提樹下宣說的，此時還沒有小乘聽眾，所以前七會沒有列出。第八會是後來宣說的，之後已經...

【English Translation】 English version: …of people, then they only have a small share, therefore they are able to hear it. The Avatamsaka Sutra extensively discusses true wisdom and expedient means, and analyzes inconceivable realms based on phenomena, which is beyond the reach of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), so they are unable to hear it. The Avatamsaka Sutra's classification of Śrāvakas (hearers) is roughly of two types: one is practical conduct, and the other is expedient conduct. Among practical conduct, there are again two types: one is retreating from the great to the small, and the other is those who originally studied the Small Vehicle. Retreating from the great to the small, in terms of the beginning and end of one Buddha-activity, there are roughly four stages: one is when the great capacity (the capacity to accept the Mahāyāna teachings) is not yet mature, two is when the small roots (the roots to accept the Śrāvakayāna teachings) have already been established, three is when the small attachments (attachments to the Śrāvakayāna teachings) are about to shift, and the great capacity is beginning to move from afar, and four is when the small attachments are collapsing, and the great capacity is maturing. Throughout one Buddha-activity, there are only these four stages. When the great capacity is not yet mature, it refers to when the Buddha first attained enlightenment and expounded the Avatamsaka Sutra for the Bodhisattvas, wanting to transform them with the great Dharma, but the small capacity was not yet able to bear it, so he stopped the teaching. As the Lotus Sutra says: 'The elder sat on a lion throne, surrounded by his family, displaying treasures, and then sent someone to chase after the poor son, who was frightened, and the father let him go.' This refers to the events of the Avatamsaka Sutra period. Because the great capacity was not yet mature, even if they were present at the Avatamsaka Sutra assembly, they could not see or hear it.

Secondly, when the small roots have already been established, it refers to when, on the day of enlightenment, since they were not yet able to bear the Mahāyāna teachings, then at the Deer Park, they received the Śrāvakayāna Dharma, so he secretly sent two people to guide them and they were able to be converted. Three is when the small attachments are about to shift, and the great capacity is beginning to move from afar, it refers to using the Prajñā, Vimalakīrti, and other Vaipulya teachings to directly teach the Bodhisattvas and secretly transform the Śrāvakas, allowing them to cultivate their small minds and admire the great path. Because the small attachments are about to shift, and the great capacity is beginning to move from afar, so at the seats of the Prajñā and Vimalakīrti, they are able to see and hear, but they are not yet able to understand. Four is when the small attachments are collapsing, and the great capacity is maturing, it refers to the Lotus Sutra opening the door of expedient means and revealing the true meaning. Because the small attachments have already collapsed, the door of expedient means should be opened, and the great capacity has matured, the true meaning is revealed. So at the seat of the Lotus Sutra, they are also able to see and hear, and also believe and understand. Question: The great capacity is not yet mature, so at the Avatamsaka Sutra assembly, there were no Śrāvaka listeners. Why in the eighth assembly, are five hundred Śrāvakas listed? Answer: The first seven assemblies were mostly expounded by the Buddha when he first attained enlightenment, under the Bodhi tree, at this time there were no Śrāvaka listeners, so the first seven assemblies are not listed. The eighth assembly was expounded later, after...

立祇洹精舍。此時得有聲聞。所以列也。講者謂七處八會皆初成道說。則失斯意也。問。華嚴純化菩薩。不教聲聞。又大機未成。何故列之在座。答。華嚴是顯菩薩法與二乘法異。故就祇洹明二緣不同。菩薩則見凈土中說大法。聲聞自見穢處聽受小乘。如人見水餓鬼見火。非是欲化二乘。故列之在席也。又二乘見穢。菩薩睹凈。令菩薩深鄙小乘增進大行。乃是化菩薩耳。問。聲聞何故不得見聞菩薩法耶。答。釋論云。如人有五根故得見聞。若無五根不得若無五根不得見聞。有菩薩五根故。得見聞菩薩境界。二乘無菩薩五根故。不得見聞菩薩境界故也。問。若爾。何故入法界品。明身子與六千眷屬得見文殊耶。答。就事而言。承佛力故見。任力則不見。又前明始迷故不見。后表終悟故得見。如法華窮子。凡有三時。初遙見父。次避父去。后還其父所。初表當悟一乘。次背大取小。后還悟一乘同入法界。問。七處八會。何故就法界品明。二乘始不見聞。終見聞耶。答。據事而言。七會初成道時說。二乘大機未成。故未有聲聞。法界既后時說。則小執漸移。大機遠動。是故在座。復得見聞。又舉二乘出法界。顯菩薩入法界。又欲明法界。非大非小。大小具足。非見聞不見聞。而見聞不見聞具足也。問。般若凈名二經。同是小

執當移大機遠動。顯教菩薩。密化二乘。有何異耶。答。般若。佛自顯教密化。凈名。菩薩顯教密化。教大化小。不出佛菩薩也。又般若令小人說大。顯教菩薩。密化二乘。凈名大人說大。顯教菩薩。密化二乘。是故為異。上來就實行聲聞。作此釋之。

今次就權行聲聞釋者。內秘菩薩。外現聲聞。有二種義。一是讚揚大道。二引諸小行。華嚴本是教菩薩法。而二乘在座。有若盲聾。則具前二意。一欲顯菩薩道高二乘行劣。令菩薩進求大道不退求小乘。二令小乘人深自鄙劣舍小求大。故身子與六千眷屬。承佛神力。得見文殊。咨受大法。即是其事。次至凈名般若之座。親自貶斥小乘。讚揚大道。令菩薩之人不退大求小。小乘之流使舍小求大。爾前與物同迷。至於法華。將機共悟。此皆大士利物之方便也。問。不思議解脫。即是二智。二智猶是般若。何故二乘聞不思議解脫。如盲者之前說眾色像。聞般若而得領悟。答。大品明實慧。則二乘少分知之。方便則便絕分。此經明二智亦然。但大品多明實慧。少現神通。此經多現神通。少明實慧。故開二經。有迷有解。上來明二乘眾竟。

今次辨為菩薩眾

問。華嚴已為菩薩說大法竟。此經復化何人。答。菩薩道根熟有前後。華嚴為其卑成。般若凈名化其次

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：執持大機，使其遠離（小乘）而趨向（大乘），這是顯教菩薩（公開宣揚大乘教義的菩薩）和密化二乘（暗中引導小乘根性的修行者）的區別嗎？答：在《般若經》中，佛陀親自進行顯教和密化；在《維摩詰經》中，菩薩進行顯教和密化。教義是大的（指大乘），所化之人是小的（指小乘），但都離不開佛和菩薩的作用。此外，《般若經》能使小根器的人宣說大法，這是顯教菩薩暗中教化二乘；《維摩詰經》是大根器的人宣說大法，也是顯教菩薩暗中教化二乘。這就是它們的區別。以上是從實際修行的聲聞的角度來解釋的。

現在從權巧方便修行的聲聞的角度來解釋：內心是菩薩，外表顯現為聲聞，有兩種含義。一是讚揚大道（大乘佛法），二是引導小行（小乘修行）。《華嚴經》本來是教導菩薩的法，但二乘也在座，如同盲聾之人，這包含了前兩種含義。一是想要彰顯菩薩道的高妙和二乘修行的淺薄，使菩薩精進追求大道而不退轉去追求小乘；二是使小乘之人深深地感到自己的卑微和不足，從而捨棄小乘而追求大乘。所以，舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）和他的六千眷屬，憑藉佛的神力，得以見到文殊菩薩（Manjusri，象徵智慧的菩薩），請教並接受大法，就是這樣的例子。之後到了《維摩詰經》和《般若經》的法座，親自貶斥小乘，讚揚大道，使菩薩之人不退轉而追求小乘，使小乘之流捨棄小乘而追求大乘。在此之前，大家和他們一樣迷惑，到了《法華經》，大家一起領悟。這些都是大菩薩利益眾生的方便法門。問：不可思議解脫（Acintyavimoksha）就是二智（根本智和后得智），二智仍然是般若（Prajna，智慧），為什麼二乘聽聞不可思議解脫，就像在盲人面前說各種顏色和形象一樣，而聽聞般若卻能領悟？答：《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）主要闡明實慧（根本智），所以二乘能稍微瞭解一些；而方便智（后得智）則完全不瞭解。這部經（《維摩詰經》）闡明二智也是如此。但《大品般若經》多闡明實慧，少顯現神通；這部經多顯現神通，少闡明實慧。所以，開啟這兩部經，有的迷惑，有的領悟。以上說明了二乘眾的情況。

現在辨別為菩薩眾：

問：《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）已經為菩薩說了大法，這部經（《維摩詰經》）又教化什麼人呢？答：菩薩道根成熟有先後。《華嚴經》是為道根卑微的菩薩成就，而《般若經》和《維摩詰經》教化的是道根成熟程度居中的菩薩。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is the act of holding onto the great vehicle, moving it far away from (the Hinayana) and towards (the Mahayana), the difference between a Bodhisattva who teaches openly (manifest teaching Bodhisattva) and one who transforms the Two Vehicles secretly (secretly transforming the Two Vehicles)? Answer: In the Prajna Sutra (Prajna Sutra), the Buddha himself performs manifest teaching and secret transformation; in the Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra), the Bodhisattvas perform manifest teaching and secret transformation. The teaching is great (referring to Mahayana), and those transformed are small (referring to Hinayana), but both are inseparable from the actions of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, the Prajna Sutra enables those of small capacity to expound the great Dharma, which is the manifest teaching Bodhisattvas secretly transforming the Two Vehicles; the Vimalakirti Sutra is where those of great capacity expound the great Dharma, which is also the manifest teaching Bodhisattvas secretly transforming the Two Vehicles. This is the difference between them. The above explanation is from the perspective of Sravakas who practice diligently.

Now, explaining from the perspective of Sravakas who practice expediently: inwardly they are Bodhisattvas, outwardly they appear as Sravakas, which has two meanings. One is to praise the Great Path (Mahayana Dharma), and the other is to guide the small practices (Hinayana practices). The Avatamsaka Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra) is originally a Dharma for teaching Bodhisattvas, but the Two Vehicles are also present, like the blind and deaf, which encompasses the previous two meanings. One is to highlight the sublimity of the Bodhisattva path and the inferiority of the Two Vehicles' practices, so that Bodhisattvas advance in seeking the Great Path and do not regress to seeking the Hinayana; the other is to make those of the Hinayana deeply feel their own insignificance and inadequacy, thereby abandoning the Hinayana and seeking the Mahayana. Therefore, Sariputra (Sariputra, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) and his six thousand followers, relying on the Buddha's divine power, were able to see Manjusri Bodhisattva (Manjusri, the Bodhisattva symbolizing wisdom), inquire and receive the great Dharma, which is such an example. Later, at the seat of the Vimalakirti Sutra and the Prajna Sutra, they personally criticized the Hinayana and praised the Great Path, so that those of the Bodhisattva path would not regress and seek the Hinayana, and those of the Hinayana stream would abandon the Hinayana and seek the Mahayana. Before this, everyone was as confused as they were, but by the time of the Lotus Sutra (Lotus Sutra), everyone awakened together. These are all expedient means of the great Bodhisattvas to benefit sentient beings. Question: Inconceivable Liberation (Acintyavimoksha) is the Two Wisdoms (Fundamental Wisdom and Acquired Wisdom), and the Two Wisdoms are still Prajna (Prajna, wisdom), so why do the Two Vehicles hear of Inconceivable Liberation as if describing various colors and forms to a blind person, while hearing of Prajna they are able to understand? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra) mainly elucidates Real Wisdom (Fundamental Wisdom), so the Two Vehicles can understand a little; but Expedient Wisdom (Acquired Wisdom) they do not understand at all. This Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra) elucidates the Two Wisdoms in the same way. However, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra mostly elucidates Real Wisdom and rarely manifests supernatural powers; this Sutra mostly manifests supernatural powers and rarely elucidates Real Wisdom. Therefore, opening these two Sutras, some are confused, and some understand. The above explains the situation of the Two Vehicles.

Now, distinguishing the Bodhisattva assembly:

Question: The Avatamsaka Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra) has already spoken the great Dharma for the Bodhisattvas, so who does this Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra) transform? Answer: The maturity of the Bodhisattva path has a sequence. The Avatamsaka Sutra is for the accomplishment of Bodhisattvas with humble roots, while the Prajna Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra transform Bodhisattvas whose maturity is in the middle.

熟。又釋論云。華嚴有智菩薩說。則知般若凈名通化小大。又華嚴之座。雖已得解。于般若凈名。更復進悟。

次就菩薩聲聞。開二種四句。一顯教菩薩。非密化二乘。即華嚴教是也。初成道時。大機已熟。故顯教之會無二乘眾。又大機未成。故不密化二乘。顯教二乘。不密化菩薩。即三乘教。小機已成。故顯教之。菩薩大器不須小化。三顯教菩薩。密化二乘。即般若凈名等經。菩薩大機已成。故顯教之。二乘小執當移大機遠動。是故密化。命說付財即其事也。四顯教菩薩。顯教二乘。即法華教。菩薩聞是法。疑網皆已除。謂顯教菩薩。千二百羅漢。悉已當作佛。即顯教二乘也。

次約開覆四句。一正顯真實。傍開方便。即華嚴為諸菩薩說大法門。謂正顯真實。亦令菩薩傍識小教。故傍開方便。故賢首品云。或示聲聞小乘門。或現緣覺中乘門。或說無上大乘門。性起品。又廣明先化菩薩次及二乘。譬如日出前照高山後及平地。及平地皆是傍開小方便也。二者正隱真實。正閉方便。即鹿苑教門。說三乘教。故隱一乘真實二不二云是方便。故閉方便門。三正顯真實。傍閉方便。即般若凈名教也。說菩薩行故。正顯真實。未明三乘是方便。故傍閉方便。開覆四句者。可見第四句。問既未開方便門。云何已得顯真

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

熟。又《釋論》說，《華嚴經》有智菩薩所說，由此可知《般若經》、《維摩經》普遍教化小乘和大乘。又《華嚴經》的聽眾，雖然已經有所理解，對於《般若經》、《維摩經》，更能進一步領悟。

其次就菩薩和聲聞，開出兩種四句。一是顯教菩薩，不秘密教化二乘，這就是《華嚴經》的教義。最初成道時，大乘根機已經成熟，所以顯教的法會沒有二乘聽眾。又因為大乘根機尚未成熟，所以不秘密教化二乘。顯教的二乘，不秘密教化菩薩，這就是三乘教，小乘根機已經成熟，所以顯教的菩薩大器不需要小乘的教化。三是顯教菩薩，秘密教化二乘，這就是《般若經》、《維摩經》等經典。菩薩的大乘根機已經成熟，所以公開教化，二乘的小乘執著應當轉移，大乘根機需要長遠的引導，所以秘密教化，例如《維摩詰經》中維摩詰命舍利弗說法，付囑財產就是這樣的例子。四是顯教菩薩，顯教二乘，這就是《法華經》的教義。菩薩聽聞此法，疑慮都已經消除，指的是顯教的菩薩。一千二百羅漢，全部都將成佛，指的是顯教的二乘。

其次根據開顯和覆蓋，分為四句。一是正面開顯真實，側面開顯方便，這就是《華嚴經》為諸位菩薩宣說大法門，是正面開顯真實，也讓菩薩們順便了解小乘教義，所以側面開顯方便。所以《賢首品》說，『或者示現聲聞小乘之門，或者示現緣覺中乘之門，或者宣說無上大乘之門』。《性起品》又廣泛說明先教化菩薩，然後才教化二乘，譬如太陽出來先照耀高山，然後才照耀平地，照耀平地都是側面開顯小乘方便。二是正面隱藏真實，正面關閉方便，這就是鹿苑的教門，宣說三乘教義，所以隱藏一乘真實，認為不二是不方便，所以關閉方便之門。三是正面開顯真實，側面關閉方便，這就是《般若經》、《維摩經》的教義。宣說菩薩的修行，所以正面開顯真實，沒有說明三乘是方便，所以側面關閉方便。關於開顯和覆蓋的四句，可以參考第四句。問：既然沒有開顯方便之門，為什麼已經能夠開顯真實？ 熟。又釋論云。華嚴有智菩薩說。則知般若淨名通化小大。又華嚴之座。雖已得解。於般若淨名。更復進悟。

次就菩薩聲聞。開二種四句。一顯教菩薩。非密化二乘。即華嚴教是也。初成道時。大機已熟。故顯教之會無二乘眾。又大機未成。故不密化二乘。顯教二乘。不密化菩薩。即三乘教。小機已成。故顯教之。菩薩大器不須小化。三顯教菩薩。密化二乘。即般若淨名等經。菩薩大機已成。故顯教之。二乘小執當移大機遠動。是故密化。命說付財即其事也。四顯教菩薩。顯教二乘。即法華教。菩薩聞是法。疑網皆已除。謂顯教菩薩。千二百羅漢。悉已當作佛。即顯教二乘也。

次約開覆四句。一正顯真實。傍開方便。即華嚴為諸菩薩說大法門。謂正顯真實。亦令菩薩傍識小教。故傍開方便。故賢首品云。或示聲聞小乘門。或現緣覺中乘門。或說無上大乘門。性起品。又廣明先化菩薩次及二乘。譬如日出前照高山後及平地。及平地皆是傍開小方便也。二者正隱真實。正閉方便。即鹿苑教門。說三乘教。故隱一乘真實二不二云是方便。故閉方便門。三正顯真實。傍閉方便。即般若淨名教也。說菩薩行故。正顯真實。未明三乘是方便。故傍閉方便。開覆四句者。可見第四句。問既未開方便門。云何已得顯真

【English Translation】 English version:

Furthermore, the commentary states that the wisdom Bodhisattva of the Avatamsaka Sutra speaks, thus it is known that the Prajna Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra universally transform both the Lesser Vehicle (Hinayana) and the Great Vehicle (Mahayana). Moreover, those present at the Avatamsaka Sutra assembly, although having already attained understanding, can further advance their enlightenment through the Prajna Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra.

Next, concerning Bodhisattvas and Sravakas (voice-hearers, disciples of the Buddha), two types of fourfold statements are made. First, the explicit teaching (顯教) of Bodhisattvas does not secretly transform the Two Vehicles (二乘), which is the teaching of the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經). At the time of initial enlightenment, the capacity for the Great Vehicle is already mature, therefore the assembly of the explicit teaching does not include the Two Vehicle followers. Moreover, because the capacity for the Great Vehicle is not yet fully developed, the Two Vehicles are not secretly transformed. The Two Vehicle followers of the explicit teaching do not secretly transform Bodhisattvas, which is the Three Vehicle teaching (三乘教). The capacity for the Lesser Vehicle is already mature, therefore the Bodhisattvas of the explicit teaching, being great vessels, do not need the Lesser Vehicle transformation. Third, the explicit teaching of Bodhisattvas secretly transforms the Two Vehicles, which is the Prajna Sutra (般若經), Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩經), and other sutras. The capacity for the Great Vehicle of Bodhisattvas is already mature, therefore the explicit teaching transforms them. The small attachments of the Two Vehicles should be shifted, and the capacity for the Great Vehicle should be moved from afar, therefore they are secretly transformed. The example of Vimalakirti commanding Sariputra to speak the Dharma and entrusting him with wealth illustrates this point. Fourth, the explicit teaching of Bodhisattvas and the explicit teaching of the Two Vehicles is the teaching of the Lotus Sutra (法華經). Bodhisattvas who hear this Dharma have their doubts and confusions completely removed, referring to the Bodhisattvas of the explicit teaching. The one thousand two hundred Arhats (羅漢), all of whom will become Buddhas, refer to the Two Vehicle followers of the explicit teaching.

Next, based on opening and covering, there are four statements. First, directly revealing the truth and indirectly opening up expedient means, which is the Avatamsaka Sutra speaking the great Dharma gate for all Bodhisattvas, directly revealing the truth and also allowing Bodhisattvas to incidentally understand the Lesser Vehicle teachings, therefore indirectly opening up expedient means. Therefore, the Virtuous Leader Chapter (賢首品) says, 'Sometimes showing the Sravaka's Lesser Vehicle gate, sometimes manifesting the Pratyekabuddha's Middle Vehicle gate, sometimes speaking the unsurpassed Great Vehicle gate.' The Nature Origination Chapter (性起品) also extensively explains first transforming Bodhisattvas and then transforming the Two Vehicles, like the sun rising and first illuminating the high mountains and then illuminating the plains, and illuminating the plains is all indirectly opening up small expedient means. Second, directly concealing the truth and directly closing expedient means, which is the Deer Park (鹿苑) teaching, speaking the Three Vehicle teaching, therefore concealing the One Vehicle truth and considering non-duality as an expedient means, therefore closing the gate of expedient means. Third, directly revealing the truth and indirectly closing expedient means, which is the teaching of the Prajna Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra. Speaking of the practice of Bodhisattvas, therefore directly revealing the truth, without clarifying that the Three Vehicles are expedient means, therefore indirectly closing expedient means. Regarding the four statements of opening and covering, the fourth statement is visible. Question: Since the gate of expedient means has not been opened, how can the truth have already been revealed?

實耶。答。顯真實。有二種。一者對開三乘方便門。顯一乘為真實。二者。以大小相對。顯于真實。大開乘是究竟真實。小乘為小分真實。對小分真實。明究竟真實。問。何文證般若未開方便。已顯真實。答。法華信解品云。一切諸佛所有秘藏。但為菩薩演其實事。而不為我說斯真要。即指大品時事也。問。若爾三藏中亦對中下二乘。嘆佛最上。何故不名顯真實耶。答。三藏教中。廣明二乘法。小明菩薩法以從多故。不名顯真實義。又三藏中。雖明佛乘。猶是隱覆說。王宮實生。從凡得佛。般若已去。正說大法。傍及小乘。又明佛乘。皆已具足。故是正顯真實。傍閉方便。問。大品中辨真實。法華一乘真實何異。答。舊云大乘則劣。一乘則勝。今謂不然。大品對小明大。法華除小顯大。大無二也。如長者付財及委屬家業。二時乃異。而火宅七珍。猶是一耳。大品中。菩薩作佛。二乘未作佛。法華之中。菩薩二乘並皆成佛。而佛乘不二也。問。若爾何得攝大乘論云。乘有三種。一者小乘。二者大乘。三者一乘。一乘最勝。答。法華正明能乘之人。一切作佛。以此為勝。不言所乘之法有優劣也。

次釋第五教門

上來已略明教。但為顯成緣義故。今更須辨之。南北判經。四宗五時之說。法華玄論其以詳之。今

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：這是真實的嗎？答：是的，顯明真實。有兩種情況：一是針對開啟三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的方便之門，彰顯一乘（佛乘）才是真實；二是將大乘和小乘相對比，彰顯真實。大乘是究竟真實，小乘是小部分的真實。通過對比小部分的真實，來闡明究竟真實。 問：有什麼經文可以證明《般若經》在未開啟方便之門時，就已經顯明真實了呢？答：《法華經·信解品》中說：『一切諸佛所有秘藏，但為菩薩演其實事，而不為我說斯真要。』這裡指的就是《大品般若經》時的事情。 問：如果這樣說，三藏經典中也針對中乘和下乘，讚歎佛乘是最上的，為什麼不稱為顯明真實呢？答：三藏經典中，廣泛闡明二乘法，少量闡明菩薩法，因為以多數為主，所以不稱為顯明真實之義。而且三藏經典中，雖然闡明佛乘，但仍然是隱晦地說，例如佛在王宮出生，從凡夫而成佛。《般若經》之後，正式宣說大法，順帶提及小乘。又闡明佛乘，都已經具足，所以是正式顯明真實，順帶關閉方便之門。 問：《大品般若經》中辨明的真實，與《法華經》的一乘真實有什麼不同？答：過去有人認為大乘較差，一乘較勝，現在我認為不是這樣。《大品般若經》是針對小乘來顯明大乘，《法華經》是去除小乘來彰顯大乘，大乘的體性沒有二致。就像長者交付財產和委託家業，兩次的時機不同，但火宅中的七寶，仍然是一樣的。《大品般若經》中，菩薩可以成佛，二乘還不能成佛。《法華經》中，菩薩和二乘都可以成佛，而佛乘沒有差別。 問：如果這樣，為什麼《攝大乘論》中說，乘有三種：一是小乘，二是大乘，三是一乘，一乘最為殊勝？答：《法華經》正式闡明能夠乘坐此乘的人，一切都可以成佛，以此為殊勝，而不是說所乘坐的法有優劣之分。 接下來解釋第五個教門。 上面已經簡略地闡明了教義，但爲了顯明成就緣起的意義，現在更需要辨別它。《南北判經》和四宗五時的說法，《法華玄論》中已經詳細地闡述了，現在不再贅述。

【English Translation】 English version Q: Is this real? A: Yes, it reveals the truth. There are two situations: first, in response to opening the expedient doors of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna), it reveals that the One Vehicle (Buddhayāna) is the true reality; second, by comparing the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, it reveals the truth. The Mahāyāna is the ultimate truth, and the Hīnayāna is a small part of the truth. By comparing the small part of the truth, the ultimate truth is clarified. Q: What scriptures can prove that the Prajñā Sūtra had already revealed the truth before opening the expedient doors? A: The Lotus Sūtra, chapter 'Faith and Understanding', says: 'All the secret treasures possessed by all the Buddhas are only expounded to the Bodhisattvas as the actual facts, but they are not spoken to me about this true essence.' This refers to the events of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Q: If this is the case, the Tripiṭaka also praises the Buddha Vehicle as the supreme one in response to the Middle and Lower Vehicles. Why is it not called revealing the truth? A: In the Tripiṭaka, the teachings of the Two Vehicles are widely explained, and the teachings of the Bodhisattva Vehicle are explained in a small amount. Because it focuses on the majority, it is not called the meaning of revealing the truth. Moreover, although the Buddha Vehicle is explained in the Tripiṭaka, it is still spoken of implicitly, such as the Buddha being born in the royal palace and becoming a Buddha from an ordinary person. After the Prajñā Sūtra, the Great Dharma is formally proclaimed, and the Hīnayāna is mentioned incidentally. Moreover, the Buddha Vehicle is explained, and all are complete, so it is the formal revelation of the truth, and the expedient doors are closed incidentally. Q: What is the difference between the truth explained in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the One Vehicle truth in the Lotus Sūtra? A: In the past, some people thought that the Mahāyāna was inferior and the One Vehicle was superior, but now I don't think so. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra clarifies the Mahāyāna in response to the Hīnayāna, and the Lotus Sūtra removes the Hīnayāna to highlight the Mahāyāna. The nature of the Mahāyāna is no different. It's like the elder handing over property and entrusting the family business. The two occasions are different, but the seven treasures in the burning house are still the same. In the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Bodhisattvas can become Buddhas, but the Two Vehicles cannot become Buddhas. In the Lotus Sūtra, both Bodhisattvas and the Two Vehicles can become Buddhas, and the Buddha Vehicle is no different. Q: If this is the case, why does the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say that there are three vehicles: the Hīnayāna, the Mahāyāna, and the One Vehicle, and the One Vehicle is the most superior? A: The Lotus Sūtra formally clarifies that all those who can ride this vehicle can become Buddhas, and this is considered superior, rather than saying that the Dharma that is ridden is superior or inferior. Next, explain the fifth teaching gate. The teachings have been briefly explained above, but in order to clarify the meaning of accomplishing dependent origination, it is now necessary to distinguish it further. The North-South Judgment of Sutras and the theories of the Four Schools and Five Periods have been explained in detail in the Profound Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra, and will not be repeated here.

依此經法供養品。以明二藏義云。菩薩法藏所攝陀羅尼印之。則知小乘為聲聞藏攝。今先通明二藏教。次別明四會所說二藏義。

有三雙一聲聞藏。二菩薩藏。此從人立名。二大乘藏小乘藏。從法為稱。三半字滿字。就義為目。此三猶一義耳。不得云半滿但是涅槃前二通於終始。故大經云。我為聲聞說是半字。猶是聲聞藏也。問。說何法門。名聲聞藏。答。說二乘法。皆名聲聞藏。問。既說二乘法。應名二乘藏。云何名聲聞藏。答。以立二藏意但取大小相對。以小義為聲聞藏。以大義為菩薩藏。緣覺亦是小乘。故云聲聞藏。又從多為論。聲聞因果二時皆稟聲聞教。緣覺因人藉教。果人自然悟道。是以但名聲聞藏。不名緣覺藏也。故地持云。說聲聞緣覺法。名聲聞藏。問。聲聞藏。非但說二乘法。亦說菩薩法。何屬聲聞藏。答。小乘法說于菩薩屬聲聞藏。若以大乘說菩薩法。則屬菩薩藏。小乘法中。明菩薩從凡得聖。教則未圓。理不具足。故名聲聞藏。大乘法中。明菩薩教圓理滿。名菩薩藏也。又小乘法中。多明二乘法。小說菩薩法。如釋論云。三藏中廣為聲聞說種種法。不說菩薩行。唯聞中阿含本末經為彌勒授記。亦不說菩薩行。故知明菩薩法少。以少從多。名聲聞藏。不名菩薩藏。問。為小乘人但應說二乘法

。何須說菩薩法。答。佛為二乘開三乘教。如法華云。一乘化二人不得故。於一佛乘分別說三。故於小乘中。明有三乘也。問。既為二乘人說三乘法者。何故不說菩薩行耶。答。二乘不欲行菩薩道故。不須說行。但知道理有三究竟。故略明佛乘耳。問。既不說菩薩因。何須授彌勒記明得佛果。答。聲聞必憑師悟道。須明有三世佛。故授彌勒記也。問。聲聞緣覺。有幾人耶。答。始終凡有六人。一本乘聲聞。始則發聲聞心。終證聲聞果。二非本乘聲聞。開為二人。本是緣覺。發緣覺心。行緣覺行。中間值佛。因教得道。轉名聲聞。即迦葉是也。三本是菩薩。退取聲聞。即身子之流也。緣覺亦三。一本乘緣覺。因則稟教。果則自然。二非本乘緣覺。有二人。一者本是聲聞。值無佛世。故成緣覺。二本是菩薩。無值佛世。退取小乘。亦名緣覺。故釋論云。菩薩證於四諦。成辟支佛也。明菩薩藏亦有三人。一直往菩薩。發菩提心。行菩薩行。二回小入大。凡有二人。一本是聲聞。改小成大。故名菩薩。二本緣覺。其義亦然。但此二人。復有二種。一本是二乘。改小求大。如前所釋。二本是菩薩。退大作小。今還舍小求大。如身子等。聲聞中亦有此人。本是小乘。舍小求大。后還退大取小也。問。有本是小乘舍小求大。復退大取

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：為什麼不需要講說菩薩法呢？答：佛陀為聲聞乘和緣覺乘（二乘）的人開設了三乘的教法。如《法華經》所說：『用一佛乘來化度二人是做不到的，所以在一種佛乘中分別解說三種教法。』因此在小乘中，闡明有三乘的教義。問：既然是為二乘人說三乘法，為什麼不說菩薩行呢？答：因為二乘人不想要修行菩薩道，所以不需要說菩薩行。只需要知道道理有三種究竟的歸宿，所以簡略地闡明佛乘。問：既然不說菩薩的因，為什麼還要給彌勒（未來佛）授記，說明他將來能夠成佛呢？答：因為聲聞乘的人必定要依靠老師才能悟道，需要說明有過去、現在、未來三世佛，所以才給彌勒授記。問：聲聞乘和緣覺乘，各有幾類人呢？答：總共有六類人。一是本乘聲聞，開始時發聲聞心，最終證得聲聞果。二是非本乘聲聞，可以分為兩種人。本來是緣覺乘，發緣覺心，行緣覺行，中間遇到佛，因為佛的教導而得道，轉而稱為聲聞乘，就像迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）尊者那樣。三是本來是菩薩，退而取聲聞乘，就像舍利弗（Śāriputra）等。緣覺乘也有三類。一是本乘緣覺，因地時稟受教法，果地時自然證悟。二是非本乘緣覺，有兩種人。一種是本來是聲聞乘，遇到沒有佛的時代，所以成就為緣覺乘。另一種是本來是菩薩，沒有遇到佛的時代，退而取小乘，也稱為緣覺乘。所以《大智度論》說：『菩薩證悟四諦，成就辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha）。』說明菩薩藏中也有三種人。一是直往菩薩，發菩提心，行菩薩行。二是回小向大，有兩種人。一種是本來是聲聞乘，改變小乘而成就大乘，所以名為菩薩。另一種是本來是緣覺乘，道理也是一樣。但這兩種人，又各有兩種情況。一種是本來是二乘，改變小乘而求大乘，如前面所解釋的。另一種是本來是菩薩，退大作小，現在又舍小求大，如舍利弗等。聲聞乘中也有這樣的人，本來是小乘，舍小求大，後來又退大取小。問：有本來是小乘，舍小求大，又退大取

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why is it unnecessary to speak about the Bodhisattva Dharma? Answer: The Buddha opened the three vehicles of teachings for those of the Śrāvaka-yāna (Voice-hearer Vehicle) and Pratyekabuddha-yāna (Solitary Buddha Vehicle) (the Two Vehicles). As the Lotus Sutra says: 'It is impossible to convert two kinds of people with the One Buddha Vehicle, therefore, the three teachings are explained separately within the One Buddha Vehicle.' Thus, within the Lesser Vehicle, it is clarified that there are three vehicles. Question: Since the Three Vehicle Dharma is spoken for the people of the Two Vehicles, why is the Bodhisattva practice not spoken of? Answer: Because the people of the Two Vehicles do not want to practice the Bodhisattva path, it is unnecessary to speak of the practice. It is only necessary to know that there are three ultimate destinations of the principles, so the Buddha Vehicle is briefly explained. Question: Since the cause of the Bodhisattva is not spoken of, why is a prediction given to Maitreya (Future Buddha), clarifying that he will attain Buddhahood in the future? Answer: Because the Śrāvakas must rely on a teacher to awaken to the Way, it is necessary to clarify that there are Buddhas of the past, present, and future, so a prediction is given to Maitreya. Question: How many types of people are there in the Śrāvaka-yāna and Pratyekabuddha-yāna? Answer: There are a total of six types of people. First, there are the Śrāvakayāna of the original vehicle, who initially generate the Śrāvaka mind and ultimately attain the Śrāvaka fruit. Second, there are the Śrāvakayāna who are not of the original vehicle, which can be divided into two types of people. Originally, they were of the Pratyekabuddha-yāna, generating the Pratyekabuddha mind and practicing the Pratyekabuddha practice. In the middle, they encountered the Buddha and attained the Way through the Buddha's teachings, and were then called Śrāvakas, like the Venerable Mahākāśyapa. Third, there are those who were originally Bodhisattvas but retreated to take the Śrāvaka-yāna, like Śāriputra and others. There are also three types of Pratyekabuddhas. First, there are the Pratyekabuddhas of the original vehicle, who receive teachings as the cause and naturally attain enlightenment as the result. Second, there are the Pratyekabuddhas who are not of the original vehicle, of which there are two types. One is those who were originally Śrāvakas but encountered a world without a Buddha, so they became Pratyekabuddhas. The other is those who were originally Bodhisattvas but, not encountering a Buddha, retreated to take the Lesser Vehicle and are also called Pratyekabuddhas. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says: 'Bodhisattvas who realize the Four Noble Truths become Pratyekabuddhas.' This clarifies that there are also three types of people in the Bodhisattva-piṭaka. First, there are the Bodhisattvas who go straight ahead, generating the Bodhi mind and practicing the Bodhisattva practice. Second, there are those who turn from the small to the great, of which there are two types. One is those who were originally Śrāvakas but changed from the small to the great, so they are called Bodhisattvas. The other is those who were originally Pratyekabuddhas, and the principle is the same. But these two types of people each have two situations. One is those who were originally of the Two Vehicles, changing from the small to seek the great, as explained earlier. The other is those who were originally Bodhisattvas, retreating from the great to make it small, and now abandoning the small to seek the great, like Śāriputra and others. There are also such people in the Śrāvaka-yāna, who were originally of the Lesser Vehicle, abandoning the small to seek the great, and later retreating from the great to take the small. Question: There are those who were originally of the Lesser Vehicle, abandoning the small to seek the great, and then retreating from the great to take

小。后還舍小求大。有如此人不。答。身子即其人也。雖云本是小乘。已得暖頂。次舍小求大。六十劫行菩薩道。后值乞眼。故還舍大取小。今聞法華。還舍小求大。聲聞法中。亦應有之。問。何故不立佛藏。答。凡有二義。一者立菩薩藏。大小相對。菩薩藏中。其有佛法。即是佛藏。二者示菩薩稟教。故遍立菩薩藏。聲聞藏中。亦有緣覺。示聲聞稟教。故遍名聲聞藏也。問。若爾菩薩進趣可得立乘。佛已息求。何故立佛乘耶。答。據稟教立名。故遍據二人。亦辨三品優劣。故立三乘。問。通是聲聞藏。有深淺不。菩薩亦然。答。以理言之。應有深淺。如大品云。為新發意菩薩。說生滅如化不生滅不如化。為久學人。說一切如化。則知有深淺也。聲聞藏亦然。但說生空則淺。具說二空則深。問。若爾二藏具有深淺。皆有了不了義。何故昔小乘不了。大乘了耶。答。大小相對。以小為不了。大乘爲了。問。為新學說生滅如化。是不了。則一經之內。明菩薩法有不了。何得言皆了。答。於一經內。具分別了不了。即是了義經也。問。大經云。有所得者名二乘。無所得者名菩薩。若菩薩若菩薩若爾有所得大乘亦屬聲聞藏。答。亦得。如此有所得若大若小皆名大乘藏。有所得無所得。據稟教有得失。今立二藏。正敘佛說無所得

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 小乘行者後來還會捨棄小乘而追求大乘嗎？回答：Śarīra（身子）就是這樣的人。雖然說他原本是小乘根器，已經證得暖位和頂位，之後捨棄小乘而追求大乘，經歷了六十劫的菩薩道。後來因為有人乞求他的眼睛，所以又捨棄大乘而選擇了小乘。現在聽聞《法華經》，又捨棄小乘而追求大乘。在聲聞法中，也應該有這樣的人。問：為什麼不設立佛藏呢？回答：一般有兩種含義。一是設立菩薩藏，大小相對而言，菩薩藏中包含有佛法，那就是佛藏。二是顯示菩薩稟承佛的教誨，所以普遍設立菩薩藏。聲聞藏中也有緣覺，顯示聲聞稟承佛的教誨，所以普遍稱為聲聞藏。問：如果這樣，菩薩的進取可以設立為乘，佛已經停止了求證，為什麼還要設立佛乘呢？回答：根據稟承的教誨來立名，所以普遍根據聲聞和菩薩二人。也辨別三種品級的優劣，所以設立三乘。問：同樣是聲聞藏，有深淺之分嗎？菩薩藏也是這樣嗎？回答：從道理上來說，應該有深淺之分。如《大品般若經》所說，為新發意的菩薩，說生滅如幻化，不生滅不如幻化；為久學之人，說一切法如幻化，就知道有深淺了。聲聞藏也是這樣，只說人空則淺，具說人法二空則深。問：如果這樣，兩個藏都有深淺，都有了義和不了義，為什麼過去說小乘是不了義，大乘是了義呢？回答：大小相對而言，以小乘為不了義，大乘爲了義。問：為新學者說生滅如幻化，是不了義，那麼在一經之內，說明菩薩法有不了義，怎麼能說都是了義呢？回答：在一經之內，具足分別了義和不了義，就是了義經。問：《大般涅槃經》說，有所得者名為二乘，無所得者名為菩薩。如果菩薩有所得，那麼有所得的大乘也屬於聲聞藏。回答：也可以這樣說。如此有所得，無論大乘還是小乘，都名為大乘藏。有所得和無所得，根據稟承教誨的得失而定。現在設立兩個藏，正是敘述佛所說的無所得。

【English Translation】 English version Question: Will a Śrāvakayāna (小乘) practitioner later abandon the Śrāvakayāna and seek the Mahāyāna (大乘)? Answer: Śarīra (身子) is such a person. Although it is said that he was originally of the Śrāvakayāna, he had already attained the stages of warmth and summit, and then abandoned the Śrāvakayāna to seek the Mahāyāna, experiencing sixty kalpas (劫) of the Bodhisattva path. Later, because someone begged for his eyes, he abandoned the Mahāyāna and chose the Śrāvakayāna. Now, hearing the Lotus Sūtra, he is again abandoning the Śrāvakayāna to seek the Mahāyāna. In the Śrāvakayāna Dharma, there should also be such people. Question: Why is there no establishment of a Buddha-piṭaka (佛藏)? Answer: Generally, there are two meanings. First, the establishment of the Bodhisattva-piṭaka, in contrast to the Śrāvakayāna-piṭaka, contains the Buddha-dharma within the Bodhisattva-piṭaka, which is the Buddha-piṭaka. Second, it shows that Bodhisattvas receive the Buddha's teachings, so the Bodhisattva-piṭaka is universally established. In the Śrāvakayāna-piṭaka, there are also Pratyekabuddhas (緣覺), showing that Śrāvakas receive the Buddha's teachings, so it is universally called the Śrāvakayāna-piṭaka. Question: If this is the case, the progress of Bodhisattvas can be established as a vehicle, but the Buddha has already ceased seeking, so why establish a Buddha-vehicle? Answer: According to the name established based on the teachings received, it is universally based on the two, Śrāvakas and Bodhisattvas. It also distinguishes the superiority and inferiority of the three grades, so the Three Vehicles are established. Question: Is there a depth or shallowness in the Śrāvakayāna-piṭaka? Is the Bodhisattva-piṭaka also like this? Answer: From the perspective of principle, there should be depth and shallowness. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, for newly aspiring Bodhisattvas, it is said that arising and ceasing are like illusions, and non-arising and non-ceasing are not like illusions; for long-time learners, it is said that all dharmas are like illusions, so it is known that there is depth and shallowness. The Śrāvakayāna-piṭaka is also like this; only speaking of the emptiness of self is shallow, while fully speaking of the emptiness of both self and dharmas is deep. Question: If this is the case, both piṭakas have depth and shallowness, and both have definitive and provisional meanings, why was it said in the past that the Śrāvakayāna was provisional and the Mahāyāna was definitive? Answer: Relative to each other, the Śrāvakayāna is considered provisional, and the Mahāyāna is considered definitive. Question: Saying that arising and ceasing are like illusions for new learners is provisional, so within one sūtra, it is explained that the Bodhisattva Dharma has provisional meanings, so how can it be said that all are definitive? Answer: Within one sūtra, fully distinguishing between definitive and provisional meanings is a sūtra with definitive meaning. Question: The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says that those who have attainment are called the Two Vehicles, and those who have no attainment are called Bodhisattvas. If Bodhisattvas have attainment, then the Mahāyāna with attainment also belongs to the Śrāvakayāna-piṭaka. Answer: It can also be said like this. Thus, whether Mahāyāna or Śrāvakayāna, with attainment, is called the Mahāyāna-piṭaka. Having attainment or not having attainment depends on the gains and losses of receiving teachings. Now, establishing two piṭakas is precisely narrating the non-attainment spoken by the Buddha.

教為大乘說。有所教為小乘說也。問。大小二藏。明義已周。何故復立雜藏耶。答。經論不同。或以小乘為三藏。大乘為雜藏。小乘明三行三部不同。故名三藏。大乘不別開三行為三部。則名為雜藏。如雜阿含序云。方等大乘為雜藏也。或明五藏。三藏雜藏菩薩藏。釋論云。出摩訶衍三藏外更有經。則是雜藏也。若爾別明三行為三藏。雜明三行為雜藏。雜藏猶小乘義耳。有人言。亦有大乘雜藏。以大乘亦有三行為三藏。如攝大乘論初說。則知雜明三行為大乘雜藏。如釋論集法藏中具說之。

次別明四會法門

問。此經雖是菩薩藏攝。菩薩法藏。有無量法門。今四會正明何法。答。今先示法門之相。后辨四會所明。大判法門。凡有三種。一能表之教。二所表之理。三藉教悟理因果行成。此三攝三行藏。義無不盡。非唯大乘經辨此三。大乘論亦明三。如中觀論三字即是三義。睿法師序云。其實既宣。其言既明。于菩薩之行道場之照。無不朗然繇解矣。其實既宣。謂中實。謂中實之理也。其言既明。謂教門顯明即是論也。菩薩之行。道場之照。謂因果行成。即觀義也。攝大乘論勝相理十。亦但明於三。謂無等境。無等行。無等果。此三但是二門所攝。明此二門。即是辨教亦具二。是故知菩薩法藏。唯辨三法。今

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有的教義是爲了大乘（Mahayana）而說，有的教義是爲了小乘（Hinayana）而說。問：大小乘二藏（Tripitaka），所闡明的意義已經很完備周詳了，為什麼還要設立雜藏呢？答：經和論的說法不同。或者認為小乘為三藏，大乘為雜藏。小乘經典明確區分三行（three conducts）和三部（three divisions），所以稱為三藏。大乘經典不分別開立三行作為三部，因此稱為雜藏。例如《雜阿含經序》中說：『方等大乘（Vaipulya Mahayana）即為雜藏。』或者說明五藏，即三藏、雜藏、菩薩藏。釋論中說：『在摩訶衍三藏（Mahayana Tripitaka）之外，還有其他的經，這些就是雜藏。』如果這樣說，那麼分別闡明三行的就是三藏，綜合闡明三行的就是雜藏。雜藏實際上就是小乘的意義。有人說，也有大乘雜藏，因為大乘也有三行，可以分為三藏，如《攝大乘論》一開始所說。由此可知，綜合闡明三行的就是大乘雜藏，如《釋論集法藏》中詳細說明了這一點。

其次，分別闡明四會法門（four assemblies of Dharma teaching）。

問：這部經雖然屬於菩薩藏（Bodhisattva Pitaka）所攝，而菩薩法藏有無量的法門，現在四會法門主要闡明的是什麼法呢？答：現在先展示法門的相狀，然後辨明四會所闡明的法。總的來說，法門有三種：一是能表達的教義（teaching），二是所表達的真理（truth），三是憑藉教義領悟真理，從而成就因果修行。這三種包含了三行藏（three conducts），意義無所不包。不僅大乘經闡明這三種，大乘論也闡明這三種。例如，《中觀論》中的『三』字就是這三種意義。睿法師的序中說：『其實既然宣揚，其言既然明瞭，對於菩薩的修行和道場的照耀，沒有不清楚明白的。』『其實既然宣揚』，指的是中實，指的是中實的真理。『其言既然明瞭』，指的是教門顯明，也就是論。『菩薩的修行，道場的照耀』，指的是因果修行成就，也就是觀的意義。《攝大乘論》的勝相理十，也只是闡明這三種，即無等境（unequalled object）、無等行（unequalled practice）、無等果（unequalled result）。這三種只是被二門所包含。闡明這二門，也就是辨別教義，也具備了二者。因此可知，菩薩法藏只是闡明這三種法。現在

【English Translation】 English version: Some teachings are taught for the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), and some are taught for the Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle). Question: The meanings of the two Tripitakas (three baskets) of the Great and Lesser Vehicles are already complete and comprehensive. Why establish a Miscellaneous Collection (雜藏) in addition? Answer: The sutras and treatises differ in their explanations. Some consider the Hinayana as the three Tripitakas and the Mahayana as the Miscellaneous Collection. The Hinayana scriptures clearly distinguish the three conducts (三行) and three divisions (三部), hence the name 'three Tripitakas'. The Mahayana scriptures do not separately establish the three conducts as three divisions, so they are called the 'Miscellaneous Collection'. For example, the preface to the Miscellaneous Agama Sutra says: 'The Vaipulya Mahayana (方等大乘) is the Miscellaneous Collection.' Or, it explains five collections: the three Tripitakas, the Miscellaneous Collection, and the Bodhisattva Collection. The commentary says: 'Outside the Mahayana Tripitaka (摩訶衍三藏), there are other sutras, which are the Miscellaneous Collection.' If so, then separately explaining the three conducts is the three Tripitakas, and comprehensively explaining the three conducts is the Miscellaneous Collection. The Miscellaneous Collection is actually the meaning of the Hinayana. Some say that there is also a Mahayana Miscellaneous Collection, because the Mahayana also has three conducts that can be divided into three Tripitakas, as stated at the beginning of the Compendium on the Mahayana. From this, it can be known that comprehensively explaining the three conducts is the Mahayana Miscellaneous Collection, as explained in detail in the Commentary on the Collection of Dharma.

Next, separately explain the four assemblies of Dharma teaching (四會法門).

Question: Although this sutra is included in the Bodhisattva Pitaka (菩薩藏), and the Bodhisattva Dharma Collection has countless Dharma teachings, what Dharma does the four assemblies mainly explain? Answer: Now, first show the characteristics of the Dharma teachings, and then distinguish what the four assemblies explain. Generally speaking, there are three types of Dharma teachings: first, the teaching (教) that can express; second, the truth (理) that is expressed; and third, the realization of truth through teaching, thereby achieving the cause and effect of practice. These three encompass the three conducts, and their meaning is all-encompassing. Not only do the Mahayana sutras explain these three, but the Mahayana treatises also explain these three. For example, the word 'three' in the Madhyamaka-karika (中觀論) represents these three meanings. Dharma Master Rui's preface says: 'Since the reality has been proclaimed and the words have been clarified, there is nothing that is not clear and understood regarding the Bodhisattva's practice and the illumination of the Bodhimanda.' 'Since the reality has been proclaimed' refers to the middle reality, the truth of the middle reality. 'Since the words have been clarified' refers to the clear teaching, which is the treatise. 'The Bodhisattva's practice, the illumination of the Bodhimanda' refers to the achievement of cause and effect of practice, which is the meaning of contemplation. The ten superior aspects of the Compendium on the Mahayana also only explain these three, namely the unequalled object (無等境), the unequalled practice (無等行), and the unequalled result (無等果). These three are only encompassed by the two doors. Explaining these two doors is also distinguishing the teaching, and it also possesses both. Therefore, it can be known that the Bodhisattva Dharma Collection only explains these three Dharmas. Now

四會所明。亦辨三法。如不思議境。不思議智。不思議教也。總雖有三。但就別而言。隨義說十。先從一門。次第釋之。會雖有四。同明一不可思議解脫法門。此一法門。攝一切法。如華嚴諸善知識各說一門。而實攝一切門。凈名即一善知識說不思議解脫法門也。問。四會同明不可思議。有何異耶。肇公云。其文雖殊。不思議一。但寄跡不同。故門戶各異。若就人為言。初會佛明不思議。次兩會凈名辨不思議。后庵園會。佛與凈名。共辨不思議。佛初略開其宗。次凈名廣辨其致。后則如來印成重複令說。次就法不同者。初會示二不思議。一合蓋現土蓋不廣而彌八極。土不狹而現蓋中。其猶小鏡照現天下。次則案地變凈。應土則粗妙適緣。報土隨業所感。皆不思議。此二明不思議跡。其中凈土願行不思議本也。次會亦明二不思議。一通明一切方便。現一切形。說一切教。二乘下位莫能測度。謂神通不思議。次別明現疾方便。說生死過患。嘆法身功德。以別示一身。別說一教。謂別不思議也。第三會亦明二不思議。一明權實二智六度四等不二法門。謂本不思議。借座請飯。謂跡不思議。不二法門。以為理本。權實二智六度四等。以為行本。跡中亦明二跡。室容於座。謂大入小。請飯香土以小充大。又借座則默感。請飯則遣

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四會所明，也辨析三種不可思議之法，如不可思議境（不可思議的境界），不可思議智（不可思議的智慧），不可思議教（不可思議的教法）。總的來說雖有三種，但就各個方面而言，隨著意義的不同而說為十種。先從一個方面開始，依次解釋。四會雖然有四次集會，但都闡明一個不可思議解脫法門。這一個法門，涵蓋一切法，如同《華嚴經》中諸位善知識各自說一個法門，而實際上涵蓋了一切法門。《維摩詰經》就是一位善知識宣說不可思議解脫法門。問：四次集會共同闡明不可思議，有什麼不同呢？鳩摩羅什的弟子僧肇說：『其文辭雖然不同，但不可思議的道理是一樣的，只是所依據的跡象不同，所以門戶各有差異。』如果就人來說，第一次集會是佛陀闡明不可思議，第二次和第三次集會是維摩詰辨析不可思議，最後在庵園的集會，佛陀與維摩詰共同辨析不可思議。佛陀最初略微開示其宗旨，接著維摩詰廣泛辨析其精妙之處，最後如來印證並重復宣說。其次就法來說，第一次集會顯示兩種不可思議。一是合蓋現土，傘蓋不大卻能覆蓋八方極遠之處，土地不小卻顯現在傘蓋之中，就像小鏡子能照見天下。二是按地變凈，隨著所應化的國土而粗妙適宜，報土隨著業力所感而顯現，都是不可思議。這兩種是闡明不可思議的跡象，其中凈土的願行是不可思議的根本。第二次集會也闡明兩種不可思議。一是總的闡明一切方便，示現一切形相，宣說一切教法，二乘（聲聞和緣覺）的低位修行者不能測度，這稱為神通不可思議。二是分別闡明示現疾病的方便，宣說生死輪迴的過患，讚歎法身的功德，用分別示現一個身體，分別宣說一種教法，這稱為個別不可思議。第三次集會也闡明兩種不可思議。一是闡明權智（方便的智慧）和實智（真實的智慧）、六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）和四等（慈、悲、喜、舍）不二法門，這稱為根本不可思議。借座位和請飯，這稱為跡象不可思議。不二法門，是作為理體的根本。權智和實智、六度和四等，是作為行為的根本。跡象中也闡明兩種跡象，房間能容納座位，這是大能進入小。請飯用香積佛土的飯食，以小充大。又借座位是默默地感應，請飯是派遣使者。

【English Translation】 English version The four assemblies illuminated and also distinguished the three inconceivable aspects, such as Inconceivable Realm ( busi yi jing - inconceivable realm), Inconceivable Wisdom (busi yi zhi - inconceivable wisdom), and Inconceivable Teaching (busi yi jiao - inconceivable teaching). Although there are three in general, they are discussed separately, with ten aspects explained according to their meanings. We will begin with one aspect and explain them in order. Although there are four assemblies, they all illuminate the one inconceivable liberation Dharma-door. This one Dharma-door encompasses all Dharmas, just as the virtuous advisors in the Avatamsaka Sutra each speak of one Dharma-door, but in reality, they encompass all Dharma-doors. Vimalakirti (jing ming) is one such virtuous advisor who speaks of the inconceivable liberation Dharma-door. Question: The four assemblies all illuminate the inconceivable, but what are the differences? The Venerable Zhao (zhao gong) said: 'Although the texts are different, the principle of inconceivability is the same. They only rely on different manifestations, so the approaches are different.' If we speak in terms of the people involved, the first assembly is where the Buddha illuminates the inconceivable, the second and third assemblies are where Vimalakirti distinguishes the inconceivable, and the last assembly in the Ambara Garden (an yuan) is where the Buddha and Vimalakirti jointly distinguish the inconceivable. The Buddha initially briefly reveals the essence, then Vimalakirti extensively distinguishes its subtleties, and finally, the Tathagata confirms and repeats the teaching. Next, in terms of the differences in the Dharma, the first assembly shows two inconceivabilities. One is the combined canopy revealing the land, where the canopy is not large but covers the eight extremes, and the land is not small but appears within the canopy, like a small mirror reflecting the world. The second is transforming the ground into purity, adapting to the coarseness or subtlety of the land as needed, and the reward land arises according to karmic influences, all of which are inconceivable. These two illuminate the traces of the inconceivable, while the vows and practices of the Pure Land are the root of the inconceivable. The second assembly also illuminates two inconceivabilities. One is the general illumination of all expedient means, manifesting all forms, and speaking all teachings, which the lower-level practitioners of the Two Vehicles ( er cheng - Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) cannot fathom, which is called inconceivable supernatural powers. The second is the specific illumination of the expedient means of manifesting illness, speaking of the faults of birth and death, and praising the merits of the Dharma-body, using the specific manifestation of one body and the specific speaking of one teaching, which is called specific inconceivability. The third assembly also illuminates two inconceivabilities. One is the illumination of the non-dual Dharma-door of provisional and real wisdom, the Six Paramitas ( liu du - generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom), and the Four Immeasurables ( si deng - loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity), which is called the fundamental inconceivability. Borrowing a seat and requesting food are called traces of inconceivability. The non-dual Dharma-door is the root of the principle. Provisional and real wisdom, the Six Paramitas, and the Four Immeasurables are the root of practice. Within the traces, two traces are also illuminated: the room can accommodate the seat, which is the great entering the small. Requesting food uses the food from the Fragrant Land of Buddha, using the small to fill the large. Furthermore, borrowing a seat is a silent response, and requesting food is sending a messenger.

化。皆不思議。掌驚大眾。手接妙喜。謂不思議跡。其中辨菩薩行本跡二身不思議本。合前有三句。借座則大入小。請飯則小充大。手移妙喜。來入娑婆。以大入大。以小入小。不足明之。故闕斯一句。

次明四會同辨一現疾法。亦攝一切法門

疾有二種。一者眾生以癡愛為疾本。二菩薩以大悲為病原。此則總攝能化所化。事無不盡問。方丈二會。可明現病。庵園兩集。云何亦明疾耶。答。初會發其宗。後集成其說。皆是現病法門攝之。又四會雖殊。同是大悲所興。共拔癡愛之病。故皆為此門所攝。問。凈名何故現病耶。答。此有多門。取方便品意者。凡欲令物悟無常者。當因三衰。老病死也。老須年至不可卒來。死則意滅無以悟人。病可卒加而意不滅。故於三中現此身疾。因廣說法門。又凈名將還妙喜。故託疾毗耶。因廣說法門。則是最後利物。又癡愛是生死之根。大悲為群聖之本。今欲辨根本法門。故現疾也。又凈名位居菩薩。猶不離病。凡夫二乘。寧得免疾。欲離大患。宜求佛身。以欲說斯法。是故現病。

次四會同明二智法門

明凡夫二乘大患之質有累之心。嘆諸佛菩薩無為法身無礙智慧。不動而應十方。無心而照法界。形雖累表。終日域中。智雖事外。未始無事。是以四會同辨此

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這些都是不可思議的。掌聲震驚大眾，手接來自妙喜世界（Abhirati，東方妙喜世界，阿彌陀佛的凈土之一）的菩薩，被稱為不可思議的示現。其中辨析菩薩行持的根本和示現之身這兩種不可思議的根本。連同前面的，共有三句。借用座位，體現了以大入小；請求齋飯，體現了以小充大；用手移動妙喜世界，使其來到娑婆世界（Saha World，我們所居住的這個世界）。以大入大，以小入小，不足以說明這些，所以省略了這一句。

接下來闡明四次集會共同辨析示現疾病的法門，也總攝了一切法門。

疾病有兩種：一是眾生以愚癡和貪愛為疾病的根本；二是菩薩以大悲心為生病的根源。這總括了能教化者和所教化者，事情沒有不窮盡的。問：方丈室的兩次集會，可以明白地闡述示現疾病。庵園的兩次集會，又如何闡述疾病呢？答：第一次集會闡發其宗旨，後面的集會整合其說法，都是示現疾病的法門所包含的。而且四次集會雖然不同，但都是由大悲心所興起，共同拔除愚癡和貪愛的疾病，所以都為此法門所攝。問：維摩詰（Vimalakirti）為什麼示現疾病呢？答：這有很多方面的原因。如果從《方便品》的意義來看，凡是想要讓眾生覺悟無常的，應當藉助三種衰敗：衰老、疾病、死亡。衰老需要年齡，不能突然到來；死亡則意識消滅，無法使人覺悟；疾病可以突然降臨，而意識不滅。所以在三種衰敗中示現這種身體的疾病，從而廣泛地宣說法門。而且維摩詰將要返回妙喜世界，所以假託在毗耶離城（Vaishali）生病，從而廣泛地宣說法門，這是最後一次利益眾生。而且愚癡和貪愛是生死的根本，大悲心是眾聖的根本。現在想要辨析根本的法門，所以示現疾病。而且維摩詰位居菩薩，尚且不能脫離疾病，凡夫和二乘人，又怎麼能夠免除疾病呢？想要脫離大的憂患，應該尋求佛身。爲了宣說這種法，所以示現疾病。

接下來四次集會共同闡明二智的法門。

闡明凡夫和二乘人有大憂患的本質，有牽累的心。讚歎諸佛菩薩無為的法身，無礙的智慧，不動而應化十方，無心而照耀法界。形體雖然有牽累的表象，終日都在世俗之中；智慧雖然在世俗之外，卻未曾沒有事情。因此四次集會共同辨析這些。

【English Translation】 English version: These are all inconceivable. The applause startled the crowd, and the hand received the Bodhisattva from the Abhirati (Eastern Pure Land of Akshobhya Buddha). This is called an inconceivable manifestation. Among them, it distinguishes the inconceivable roots of the Bodhisattva's practice and the manifested body. Together with the previous ones, there are three sentences. Borrowing a seat demonstrates taking the large into the small; requesting food demonstrates filling the large with the small; moving the Abhirati with the hand, bringing it to the Saha World (the world we live in). Taking the large into the large, and the small into the small, is not sufficient to explain these, so this sentence is omitted.

Next, it clarifies that the four assemblies together discern the Dharma gate of manifesting illness, which also encompasses all Dharma gates.

There are two types of illnesses: first, sentient beings take ignorance and craving as the root of illness; second, Bodhisattvas take great compassion as the origin of illness. This encompasses both the one who can transform and the one who is transformed, and there is nothing that is not exhausted. Question: The two assemblies in the square room can clearly explain the manifestation of illness. How do the two gatherings in the garden also explain illness? Answer: The first assembly expounds its purpose, and the subsequent assemblies integrate its teachings, all of which are included in the Dharma gate of manifesting illness. Moreover, although the four assemblies are different, they all arise from great compassion and jointly eradicate the illness of ignorance and craving, so they are all encompassed by this Dharma gate. Question: Why did Vimalakirti manifest illness? Answer: There are many reasons for this. If we look at the meaning of the 'Upaya' chapter, whenever one wants to make sentient beings aware of impermanence, one should rely on the three declines: old age, illness, and death. Old age requires age and cannot come suddenly; death extinguishes consciousness and cannot enlighten people; illness can come suddenly, and consciousness does not disappear. Therefore, among the three declines, he manifests this physical illness, thereby widely expounding the Dharma gate. Moreover, Vimalakirti is about to return to the Abhirati, so he feigns illness in Vaishali, thereby widely expounding the Dharma gate, which is the last time to benefit sentient beings. Moreover, ignorance and craving are the root of birth and death, and great compassion is the root of all sages. Now, wanting to discern the fundamental Dharma gate, he manifests illness. Moreover, Vimalakirti, who is a Bodhisattva, cannot escape illness, so how can ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles escape illness? Wanting to escape great suffering, one should seek the Buddha's body. In order to expound this Dharma, he manifests illness.

Next, the four assemblies together clarify the Dharma gate of the Two Wisdoms.

It clarifies that ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles have the essence of great suffering and a burdened mind. It praises the unconditioned Dharmakaya and unobstructed wisdom of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, responding to the ten directions without moving, and illuminating the Dharma realm without intention. Although the form has the appearance of being burdened, it is always in the mundane world; although wisdom is outside the mundane world, it is never without affairs. Therefore, the four assemblies together discern these.

法。

次辨四會同明因果法

華嚴七處。不離因果。此經四會。義亦同然。但因果有二。一依報因果。謂凈穢國土。二正報因果。即本跡兩身。一部始終。明斯二法。庵園初會。明凈土因果。六度四等。為凈土之因。報應二國。為凈土之果。方丈初會。明法身因果。佛身者謂法身也。明法身之果。從無量功德生。即法身之因。此之二會法門。義來次第。要先有國土。然後方有佛身。又先明凈土因果。勸舍穢取凈。次辨法身因果。即厭患生死。欣求佛身。義之要極。莫過此二。次集重明三種因果。始從弟子。訖不二法門。破大小二迷。明菩薩妙行。即法身之因。行法身因。即得如來之果。香積以去。示眾香土。明凈土之果。循行八法。為凈土之因。庵園重會。合明二種因果。菩薩之行。無行不攝。即凈土法身之因。阿閦佛品明法身體絕百非。形備萬德。謂法身果現於妙喜。即凈土果。是以四會同辨因果法門問。四會同明凈土因果。有何異耶。答。初化主不同者。初會佛說凈土。次維摩辨凈土。後會佛菩薩共明凈土。良由受悟不同。化主為異。二就三眾。初為初會之眾。乃至后說為後集之緣。一聞則三眾不同。重聽則三根為異。次約義差別者。凡有七門。一者庵園明釋迦佛土。方丈辨香積佛土。後會明無動佛

【現代漢語翻譯】 法。

次辨四會同明因果法

《華嚴經》七處說法，不離因果。此經四會，意義也相同。但因果有二種：一是依報因果，指清凈和污穢的國土；二是正報因果，即本尊和應化身。一部經始終，闡明這兩種法。庵園初會，闡明凈土因果。六度（paramita，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）四等（四無量心，慈、悲、喜、舍）為凈土之因，報應二國為凈土之果。方丈初會，闡明法身因果。佛身就是法身，闡明法身之果，從無量功德產生，即法身之因。這兩會的法門，意義次第分明，要先有國土，然後才有佛身。又先闡明凈土因果，勸人捨棄污穢，求取清凈；其次辨明法身因果，即厭惡生死，欣求佛身。意義的關鍵，沒有超過這二者的。

其次集會重申三種因果，從弟子開始，到不二法門結束，破除大小乘的兩種迷惑，闡明菩薩的妙行，即法身之因。修行法身之因，就能得到如來之果。從香積菩薩開始，展示眾香國土，闡明凈土之果。遵循八法，作為凈土之因。庵園重會，合併闡明兩種因果。菩薩的修行，沒有哪種行為不包含在內，即凈土法身之因。《阿閦佛品》闡明法身體絕百非，形備萬德，指法身果現在妙喜世界，即凈土果。因此四會共同辨明因果法門。

問：四會共同闡明凈土因果，有什麼不同呢？

答：一是教化主不同：初會是佛說凈土，其次是維摩詰（Vimalakirti）辨凈土，後會是佛和菩薩共同闡明凈土。這是因為接受領悟不同，教化主才不同。二是就聽法的三眾而言：初會是為初會之眾說法，乃至後會是為後集之緣說法。一次聽聞，三眾不同；再次聽聞，三根（上、中、下三種根器）有異。三是約義理差別而言，凡有七個方面：一是庵園闡明釋迦佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）土，方丈辨明香積佛土，後會闡明無動佛（Akshobhya Buddha）土。

【English Translation】 Dharma.

Next, distinguishing the Four Assemblies and jointly clarifying the Law of Cause and Effect

The seven locations of the Avatamsaka Sutra are inseparable from cause and effect. The meaning of the four assemblies in this sutra is also the same. However, there are two types of cause and effect: first, the dependent retribution cause and effect, referring to pure and impure lands; second, the principal retribution cause and effect, namely the original and manifested bodies. From beginning to end, the entire sutra elucidates these two laws. The initial assembly in the Ambara Garden clarifies the cause and effect of the Pure Land. The Six Perfections (paramita, generosity, discipline, patience, diligence, meditation, wisdom) and the Four Immeasurables (loving-kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity) are the causes of the Pure Land, while the two lands of retribution and response are the effects of the Pure Land. The initial assembly in the Vimalakirti's Chamber clarifies the cause and effect of the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body). The Buddha's body is the Dharmakaya, clarifying the effect of the Dharmakaya, which arises from immeasurable merits, which is the cause of the Dharmakaya. The teachings of these two assemblies are in a clear sequential order: first, there must be a land, and then there can be a Buddha body. Furthermore, first clarifying the cause and effect of the Pure Land encourages abandoning impurity and seeking purity; second, distinguishing the cause and effect of the Dharmakaya means detesting birth and death and yearning for the Buddha body. The essence of the meaning does not surpass these two.

Next, the assembly reiterates the three types of cause and effect, starting from the disciples and ending with the non-dual Dharma gate, breaking through the two confusions of the Small and Great Vehicles, and clarifying the wonderful practices of the Bodhisattvas, which are the cause of the Dharmakaya. Practicing the cause of the Dharmakaya leads to attaining the fruit of the Tathagata (Thus Come One). Starting with the Fragrant Accumulation Bodhisattva, the sutra displays the Land of All Fragrances, clarifying the effect of the Pure Land. Following the Eight Laws serves as the cause of the Pure Land. The re-assembly in the Ambara Garden combines and clarifies the two types of cause and effect. The practices of the Bodhisattvas encompass all actions, which are the cause of the Pure Land Dharmakaya. The Akshobhya Buddha chapter clarifies that the Dharmakaya is free from all faults and possesses all virtues, referring to the manifestation of the Dharmakaya fruit in the Land of Wonderful Joy, which is the effect of the Pure Land. Therefore, the four assemblies jointly distinguish the Dharma gate of cause and effect.

Question: What is the difference between the four assemblies jointly clarifying the cause and effect of the Pure Land?

Answer: First, the teaching masters are different: in the initial assembly, the Buddha spoke of the Pure Land; second, Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) distinguished the Pure Land; and in the later assembly, the Buddha and Bodhisattvas jointly clarified the Pure Land. This is because the acceptance and understanding are different, so the teaching masters are different. Second, in terms of the three assemblies of listeners: the initial assembly was for the audience of the initial assembly, and so on, the later assembly was for the audience of the later gathering. Hearing it once, the three assemblies are different; hearing it again, the three capacities (superior, medium, and inferior) are different. Third, in terms of the differences in meaning, there are seven aspects: first, the Ambara Garden clarifies the land of Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha), Vimalakirti's Chamber distinguishes the land of the Fragrant Accumulation Buddha, and the later assembly clarifies the land of Akshobhya Buddha (Akshobhya Buddha).

土。二者初明下方佛土。次辨上方佛土。彼辨余方佛土。佛土雖多。舉三略攝。三者初后明音聲佛土。香積辨無言世界。舉此二門。亦無國不收。四者初會明一質異見。譬如諸天共寶器食。隨其福德。飯色有異。次明異質異見。香積娑婆凈穢二質。以此二眾所見不同。后明移凈入穢。凈穢同處。異質一處。土義雖多。此三略攝。五者初會明通別凈土。初則通明一切凈土之因。一切凈土之果。謂通明土也。身子生疑。如來變凈。別明釋迦佛土。次兩會但明香積無動。謂別土也。凈土雖多。不離通別。六者初會明報應二土。應以何國。起菩薩根。入佛智慧。謂應土也。修直心之因。感凈土之果。謂報土也。后之兩會。通含報應。七者初會具明凈土體用。報應因果。即是土體。按地變凈。現土利物。為土用也。后二會。唯明土用不辨體。欲談凈土。委具七門。

問。三會明土果不同辨因何異。答。初廣明因。次略辨八法。后總勸修無動佛行。從廣至略。又初會明能化之因。故云菩薩成佛時而得凈土。后二明所化之因。欲生凈土。當修八法也。凈土因不出廣略及能化所化。問。三會明法身因果有何異耶。答。化主不同。三根之眾。並如上釋。但約義。凡有三略。一者。方丈初會。對生死過患因果。以嘆法身因果。方丈重

會。多破大小二迷。辨菩薩妙行。即法身之因。成上果德也。而亦有明果之義。如經云。佛身無漏。諸漏已盡。佛身無為。不墮諸數。無漏則五住因傾。無為已免二死。此本身之果。現處五濁。謂跡身之果。庵園重會。明法身體絕百非形備萬德。欲識法身。必具三義。一者因果。二者本跡。三者本身體絕百非眾德圓備。是故三會。明此三門。二者。三會所為不同。明義各異。初對凡夫。辨於法身。何以知之。如方便品辨。國王長者無數千人。皆來問疾。故說生死過患。嘆法身眾德。次弟子品。對二乘。二乘謂佛雖復外具相好。內有種智。而生滅之道。與聲聞無異。故辨佛身無漏無為非二乘所測。前明異凡。次辨超聖。此皆是為凡夫二乘故。開此二也。時眾聞上所明。皆生異執。故命凈名。令泯斯兩見。觀身實相。觀佛亦然。故心佛及眾生。是三無差別。道遠乎哉。觸事而真。聖遠乎哉。體之即神。是故不應生二見也。三者初之二會。正辨法身。後集則明佛性。何以知之。觀身實相。觀佛亦然。法身既即是身中實相。故知實相佛性也。問。實相乃是法性。云何是佛性耶。答。若實相即是法性。則應云觀法亦然。云何言觀佛亦然。又應明法性絕百非。真諦含萬德。何得辨法身耶。故知前之二會。辨於法身。后之一集。乃明

佛性。具此三門。義乃圓足。是以一經之內。隱顯說之。問。三會但明二身。亦得具於三佛。答。亦有三佛。初會明佛身相好。寶積嘆八相成道。謂化佛也。次會明從無量功德生。即是報佛。后辨百非皆絕萬德斯圓。即法佛也。問從無量功德生。云何是報佛耶。答。金剛般若經云。如來從此經生。從此經出。論云。法身本有為出。報佛修習所得為生。問。三佛是北方所辨。何得由之。蓋是管見之疑。非通方論也。一佛二佛三身十身。經論盛說。豈得聞二信受聽三驚疑。問。生肇融睿。並注凈名。何故不作此釋。答。其人非無斯意。但於時經論未備。故義不分明。問。云何未備。答。涅槃華嚴勝鬘大集等經。地論金剛般若攝大乘法華唯識實性之流。皆晚傳此土。如睿公喻疑論云。什師不見六卷泥洹。其人若見此經當如白日朗其胸襟甘露流其四體也。

次四會明二種法門

方丈二會。明現疾法門。庵園二集。示不疾方便現疾即權智。不疾謂實智。然此經明疾不疾。即權實二智為宗。所以二會明疾。二會辨不疾者。夫物感故現生。機謝故應息。凈名將還妙喜。隱化娑婆。將終利益。是故二會明現疾也。佛在庵園。集眾說法。為問疾之由。故初會不明現疾也。方丈利物既周。掌擎大眾。來至庵園。手接妙喜。入應

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：佛性具備這三個方面，意義才算圓滿充足。因此，在一整部經書中，有時隱晦地，有時明顯地說到它。有人問：三次集會只是闡明了應化身和報身，也能具備法身佛嗎？回答是：也有法身佛。第一次集會闡明佛的身相和功德，寶積菩薩讚歎釋迦牟尼佛八相成道，這指的是應化身佛。第二次集會闡明從無量功德產生，這就是報身佛。後面辨析百種錯誤全部斷絕，萬種功德圓滿具足，這就是法身佛。有人問：從無量功德產生，為什麼是報身佛呢？回答是：《金剛般若經》說，『如來從此經而生，從此經而出。』《大乘起信論》說，法身佛是本來就有的，稱為『出』；報身佛是修習功德而得到的，稱為『生』。有人問：三身佛是北方學者的辨析，怎麼能聽從他們的說法呢？這大概是管窺之見的疑惑，不是通達各方之人的論點。一佛、二佛、三身、十身，經典和論著中廣泛論述，怎麼能聽到兩種就相信接受，聽到三種就驚恐懷疑呢？有人問：生公（竺道生），僧肇，融法師，慧睿法師，都註釋《維摩詰經》，為什麼不作這樣的解釋呢？回答是：他們並非沒有這種想法，只是當時經論還不完備，所以意義不分明。有人問：怎麼說不完備呢？回答是：《涅槃經》、《華嚴經》、《勝鬘經》、《大集經》等經典，《地論》、《金剛般若經》、《攝大乘論》、《法華經》、《唯識實性論》等論著，都是後來才傳入中國的。就像慧睿法師在《喻疑論》中說，鳩摩羅什法師沒有見到六卷本的《涅槃經》，如果他見到這部經，就會像白日照亮胸懷，甘露流遍全身一樣豁然開朗。 接下來第四次集會闡明兩種法門： 方丈室的兩次集會，闡明示現疾病的法門。庵園的兩次集會，展示不示現疾病的方便法門。示現疾病就是權巧的智慧，不示現疾病就是真實的智慧。然而這部經闡明疾病與不疾病，就是以權智和實智為宗旨。所以兩次集會闡明疾病，兩次集會辨析不疾病。事物因為感應才顯現出生，機緣完結就應該止息。維摩詰將要回到妙喜世界，隱去化身於娑婆世界，將終結時利益眾生，所以兩次集會闡明示現疾病。佛在庵園，聚集大眾說法，是爲了探問疾病的緣由，所以第一次集會不闡明示現疾病。維摩詰在方丈室利益眾生已經周遍，手掌托起大眾，來到庵園，親手迎接來自妙喜世界的使者，進入應有的境界。

【English Translation】 English version: Buddhahood. Possessing these three aspects, its meaning is complete and sufficient. Therefore, within a single scripture, it is sometimes spoken of implicitly and sometimes explicitly. Someone asks: The three assemblies only clarify the Nirmāṇakāya (應化身) [transformation body] and the Sambhogakāya (報身) [reward body], can they also encompass the Dharmakāya (法身) [dharma body]? The answer is: There is also the Dharmakāya. The first assembly clarifies the Buddha's physical characteristics and virtues. Bodhisattva Ratnakuta (寶積) praises the Buddha's attainment of enlightenment through the eight aspects, which refers to the Nirmāṇakāya. The second assembly clarifies that it arises from immeasurable merits, which is the Sambhogakāya. Later, it distinguishes that the hundred errors are completely eliminated, and the ten thousand virtues are fully perfected, which is the Dharmakāya. Someone asks: How can arising from immeasurable merits be the Sambhogakāya? The answer is: The Diamond Sutra (金剛般若經) says, 'The Tathagata (如來) [thus-come one] is born from this sutra, and emerges from this sutra.' The Treatise on Awakening of Faith (大乘起信論) says, the Dharmakāya is originally existent, which is called 'emerging'; the Sambhogakāya is obtained through cultivation, which is called 'birth.' Someone asks: The three bodies are the distinctions made by scholars from the north, how can we follow their views? This is probably a narrow-minded doubt, not the argument of those who are well-versed in all directions. One Buddha, two Buddhas, three bodies, ten bodies, are widely discussed in scriptures and treatises. How can one believe and accept upon hearing two, and be alarmed and doubtful upon hearing three? Someone asks: Sengzhao (僧肇), Daosheng (竺道生), Farong (融法師), and Huirui (慧睿法師) all commented on the Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩詰經), why didn't they make such explanations? The answer is: It's not that they didn't have this idea, but the scriptures and treatises were not complete at that time, so the meaning was not clear. Someone asks: How do you mean not complete? The answer is: The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經), Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經), Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經), Mahasamnipata Sutra (大集經) and other scriptures, the Dasabhumika-sastra (地論), Diamond Sutra (金剛般若經), Mahayana-samgraha (攝大乘論), Lotus Sutra (法華經), and the Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-only (唯識實性論) and other treatises, were all transmitted to this land later. Just as Huirui said in the 'Treatise on Doubtful Analogies,' Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什) did not see the six-fascicle Nirvana Sutra. If he had seen this sutra, it would have been like the bright sun illuminating his heart, and nectar flowing through his body. Next, the fourth assembly clarifies two kinds of Dharma gates: The two assemblies in the square chamber clarify the Dharma gate of manifesting illness. The two assemblies in the Ambapali garden demonstrate the expedient Dharma gate of not manifesting illness. Manifesting illness is expedient wisdom, not manifesting illness is true wisdom. However, this sutra clarifies illness and non-illness, which takes expedient wisdom and true wisdom as its principle. Therefore, two assemblies clarify illness, and two assemblies distinguish non-illness. Things manifest and arise because of interaction, and should cease when the opportunity ends. Vimalakirti is about to return to the Land of Wonderful Joy (妙喜世界), concealing his transformation body in the Saha world (娑婆世界), and benefiting sentient beings at the end, so two assemblies clarify manifesting illness. The Buddha is in the Ambapali garden, gathering the assembly to preach the Dharma, for the reason of inquiring about the illness, so the first assembly does not clarify manifesting illness. Vimalakirti has completely benefited sentient beings in the square chamber, holding up the assembly in his palm, coming to the Ambapali garden, personally receiving the envoy from the Land of Wonderful Joy, and entering the appropriate realm.

忍界。如其臥疾。則此事不成。是後會明不病也。

次明四會明三法門

大品云。諸佛住三事示現說十二部經。一他心輪。二神通輪。三說法輪。他心輪。靜鑒根藥。即是實智。說法現通應病授藥。明其動用。即權智也。初會合蓋現土。按地變凈。即是神通。明凈土因果。名為說法。他心通貫斯二。次會不疾現疾。即是神通。明法身因果。名為說法。第三空室待賓。借座請飯。名為神通。自爾之外。皆是說法。後會掌擎大眾。手移妙喜。名為神通。自爾之外。皆是說法。是故斯經。唯釋三輪。

次明雖有四會而文有三。從初品至佛道品。明二法門。次不二法門品。明不二法門。三香積竟經。還明二行。初明凈土及法身因果。為欲開非因非果。故收因果。歸乎不二。次從不二。還起二用。如此二不二。不二二。並是因緣義。由不二故二。由二故不二。此是二不二。名為不二二。由二不二故非不二。不二二故非二。故非二非不二。軌跡莫尋。故名不思議。佛菩薩住此不思議故。非二非不二。而能二能不二。雖能二能不二。未曾二不二。故二不二無礙。名為解脫也。就因果明收入出用既爾。疾不疾權實思議不思議亦然。明思議不思議者。為欲顯非思議非不思議不二義耳。至道既非思議。豈是不思議耶。故

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 忍界（指娑婆世界）。如果他臥病不起，這件事就無法成就。這是指後來的集會，維摩詰沒有生病。

接下來闡明四次集會所體現的三種法門：

《大品般若經》說，諸佛安住於三種事相，示現宣說十二部經。一是他心輪，二是神通輪，三是說法輪。他心輪，是靜默地觀察眾生的根器和所需要的藥物，這就是實智。說法和示現神通，是根據眾生的病情給予相應的藥物，闡明其作用，這就是權智。第一次集會，覆蓋大地，顯現凈土，按壓地面使其變為清凈，這就是神通。闡明凈土的因果，就叫做說法。他心通貫穿于這兩者之中。第二次集會，沒有疾病卻示現疾病，這就是神通。闡明法身的因果，就叫做說法。第三次集會，在空室中等待賓客，借用座位，請求齋飯，這叫做神通。除此之外，都是說法。後來的集會，用手掌托起大眾，用手移動妙喜世界，這叫做神通。除此之外，都是說法。因此，這部經，只是解釋這三種輪。

接下來闡明雖然有四次集會，但文義上有三種。從初品到佛道品，闡明二法門。接下來《不二法門品》，闡明不二法門。第三《香積佛品》結束后，又闡明二行。開始闡明凈土和法身的因果，爲了開顯非因非果的道理，所以收攝因果，歸於不二。接下來從不二，又生起二用。像這樣二與不二，不二與二，都是因緣的意義。因為不二的緣故才有二，因為二的緣故才不二。這二與不二，叫做不二與二。因為二與不二的緣故，所以不是不二；不二與二的緣故，所以不是二。所以既不是二，也不是不二，軌跡無法尋覓，所以叫做不可思議。佛菩薩安住于這種不可思議的境界，所以非二非不二，而能夠二能夠不二。雖然能夠二能夠不二，卻未曾執著於二與不二，所以二與不二沒有障礙，叫做解脫。就因果來說，闡明收入和出用是這樣，疾病與不疾病，權智與實智，思議與不思議也是這樣。闡明思議與不思議，是爲了顯現非思議非不思議的不二之義。至道既然不是思議，怎麼會是不思議呢？所以。 English version: The realm of endurance (referring to the Saha world). If he were bedridden, this matter could not be accomplished. This refers to the later assembly where Vimalakirti was not ill.

Next, explaining the three Dharma doors manifested in the four assemblies:

The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that the Buddhas abide in three aspects, manifesting and expounding the twelve divisions of scriptures. First, the wheel of others' minds; second, the wheel of spiritual powers; and third, the wheel of Dharma. The wheel of others' minds is the silent observation of beings' faculties and the medicine they need, which is true wisdom. Expounding the Dharma and manifesting spiritual powers is giving the appropriate medicine according to the beings' condition, clarifying its function, which is expedient wisdom. In the first assembly, covering the earth and manifesting the pure land, pressing the ground to make it pure, this is spiritual power. Clarifying the cause and effect of the pure land is called expounding the Dharma. The power of knowing others' minds permeates both of these. In the second assembly, not being ill but manifesting illness, this is spiritual power. Clarifying the cause and effect of the Dharma body is called expounding the Dharma. In the third assembly, waiting for guests in an empty room, borrowing seats, and requesting food, this is called spiritual power. Apart from these, all are expounding the Dharma. In the later assembly, holding up the multitude with the palm of the hand, moving the World of Wonderful Joy with the hand, this is called spiritual power. Apart from these, all are expounding the Dharma. Therefore, this sutra only explains these three wheels.

Next, explaining that although there are four assemblies, there are three meanings in the text. From the first chapter to the chapter on the Buddha Path, the two Dharma doors are explained. Next, the Chapter on the Dharma Door of Non-duality explains the Dharma door of non-duality. After the third Fragrant Accumulation Buddha Chapter, the two practices are again explained. Initially, the cause and effect of the pure land and the Dharma body are explained. In order to reveal the principle of neither cause nor effect, the cause and effect are gathered and returned to non-duality. Next, from non-duality, the two functions arise again. Like this, two and non-duality, non-duality and two, are all the meaning of conditions. Because of non-duality, there is two; because of two, there is non-duality. This two and non-duality is called non-duality and two. Because of two and non-duality, it is not non-duality; because of non-duality and two, it is not two. Therefore, it is neither two nor non-duality, and the traces cannot be found, so it is called inconceivable. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas abide in this inconceivable realm, so they are neither two nor non-duality, but they can be two and can be non-duality. Although they can be two and can be non-duality, they have never been attached to two and non-duality, so two and non-duality are unobstructed, which is called liberation. Regarding cause and effect, explaining the gathering in and the going out is like this; illness and non-illness, expedient wisdom and true wisdom, conceivable and inconceivable are also like this. Explaining conceivable and inconceivable is to reveal the meaning of non-duality of neither conceivable nor inconceivable. Since the ultimate path is not conceivable, how could it be inconceivable?

【English Translation】 The realm of endurance (Saha world). If he were bedridden, this matter could not be accomplished. This refers to the later assembly where Vimalakirti was not ill.

Next, explaining the three Dharma doors manifested in the four assemblies:

The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that the Buddhas abide in three aspects, manifesting and expounding the twelve divisions of scriptures. First, the wheel of others' minds; second, the wheel of spiritual powers; and third, the wheel of Dharma. The wheel of others' minds is the silent observation of beings' faculties and the medicine they need, which is true wisdom. Expounding the Dharma and manifesting spiritual powers is giving the appropriate medicine according to the beings' condition, clarifying its function, which is expedient wisdom. In the first assembly, covering the earth and manifesting the pure land, pressing the ground to make it pure, this is spiritual power. Clarifying the cause and effect of the pure land is called expounding the Dharma. The power of knowing others' minds permeates both of these. In the second assembly, not being ill but manifesting illness, this is spiritual power. Clarifying the cause and effect of the Dharma body is called expounding the Dharma. In the third assembly, waiting for guests in an empty room, borrowing seats, and requesting food, this is called spiritual power. Apart from these, all are expounding the Dharma. In the later assembly, holding up the multitude with the palm of the hand, moving the World of Wonderful Joy with the hand, this is called spiritual power. Apart from these, all are expounding the Dharma. Therefore, this sutra only explains these three wheels.

Next, explaining that although there are four assemblies, there are three meanings in the text. From the first chapter to the chapter on the Buddha Path, the two Dharma doors are explained. Next, the Chapter on the Dharma Door of Non-duality explains the Dharma door of non-duality. After the third Fragrant Accumulation Buddha Chapter, the two practices are again explained. Initially, the cause and effect of the pure land and the Dharma body are explained. In order to reveal the principle of neither cause nor effect, the cause and effect are gathered and returned to non-duality. Next, from non-duality, the two functions arise again. Like this, two and non-duality, non-duality and two, are all the meaning of conditions. Because of non-duality, there is two; because of two, there is non-duality. This two and non-duality is called non-duality and two. Because of two and non-duality, it is not non-duality; because of non-duality and two, it is not two. Therefore, it is neither two nor non-duality, and the traces cannot be found, so it is called inconceivable. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas abide in this inconceivable realm, so they are neither two nor non-duality, but they can be two and can be non-duality. Although they can be two and can be non-duality, they have never been attached to two and non-duality, so two and non-duality are unobstructed, which is called liberation. Regarding cause and effect, explaining the gathering in and the going out is like this; illness and non-illness, expedient wisdom and true wisdom, conceivable and inconceivable are also like this. Explaining conceivable and inconceivable is to reveal the meaning of non-duality of neither conceivable nor inconceivable. Since the ultimate path is not conceivable, how could it be inconceivable?

華嚴云。勇猛勤精進正念思發於思亦不思思法寂滅故。以非思議非不思議。能思議能不思議故。明出用義也。

次明雖有四會但有三時。從經初至不二法門。明食前說法利物。次香積品初食時益物。三從食香積飯竟經。食后益物。次明會雖有四合為三門。從初會至菩薩品。破三種病門。二從問疾竟香積。示修行門。三從庵園重會。辨行成德立門。此三門即次第三病。妨菩薩道。故須先破。三病既息。始得修菩薩行。故有第二修行門。三病既息。二慧又成。則菩薩因圓。法身果滿。故有第三門。此三門無教不收。無病不破。無行不立。無果不圓。就此三門。又各開三。初門三者。第一佛國及方便二品。破凡夫病。次弟子品。破二乘病。第三菩薩品。破菩薩病。三人具三病。亦得一人始終具有三病也。第二修行門有三者。初從問疾至佛道品。明二慧門。方便實慧則離凡夫行。實慧方便則離二乘行。第二不二法門。明此二慧由不二而成。即辨二慧之本。第三從香積品既了不二之本。便有不二觀而二明二慧之用。後門三者。菩薩行品。明十方佛土無礙。即無礙行。二從不盡不住。明善巧行。三見阿閦佛品。明本跡二身果。初破凡夫病。二會不同。初會說凈土因果。令凡夫舍于穢因修凈土之業。次會說法身因果。令凡夫舍

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《華嚴經》中說：『以勇猛精進的意志，以正念來思維，發起于思維，卻又不執著于思維，因為法的寂滅本性是超越思維的。』這是用非思議和非不思議的方式，來達到能思議和能不思議的境界，從而闡明了出世利他的作用。

接下來闡明，雖然有四次集會，但實際上只有三個時段。從經文開始到『不二法門』，說明了在用餐前說法，利益眾生。然後是《香積菩薩品》開始，說明了在用餐時利益眾生。第三是從用完香積菩薩的飯後，說明了用餐后利益眾生。

再接下來闡明，雖然有四次集會，但可以歸納為三個方面。從第一次集會到《菩薩品》，是破除三種障礙的方面。第二是從《問疾品》結束到《香積菩薩品》，是展示修行方法的方面。第三是從庵園的再次集會，是辨明修行成就和功德建立的方面。這三個方面依次對應三種障礙，這些障礙會妨礙菩薩道，所以必須先破除。三種障礙消除后，才能開始修菩薩行，所以有第二個修行方法方面。三種障礙消除后，兩種智慧也得以成就，菩薩的因行圓滿，法身果位也得以圓滿，所以有第三個方面。這三個方面涵蓋了所有的教義，破除了所有的障礙，建立了所有的修行，圓滿了所有的果位。在這三個方面中，又各自展開為三個部分。第一個方面有三個部分：第一是《佛國品》和《方便品》，破除凡夫的障礙。第二是《弟子品》，破除二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的障礙。第三是《菩薩品》，破除菩薩的障礙。這三類人各自具有三種障礙，也可以說一個人從始至終都具有這三種障礙。

第二個修行方法方面有三個部分：首先是從《問疾品》到《佛道品》，闡明兩種智慧的法門。方便智慧和真實智慧可以使人脫離凡夫的行為，真實智慧和方便智慧可以使人脫離二乘的行為。第二是《不二法門》，闡明這兩種智慧是通過不二的道理而成就的，也就是辨明兩種智慧的根本。第三是從《香積菩薩品》開始，既然明白了不二的根本，就有了不二的觀照，從而彰顯了兩種智慧的作用。第三個方面有三個部分：《菩薩行品》，闡明十方佛土沒有障礙，也就是無礙的修行。第二是從『不盡不住』，闡明善巧的修行。第三是《見阿閦佛品》，闡明本跡二身的果位。最初是破除凡夫的障礙，兩次集會的內容不同。第一次集會講述凈土的因果，使凡夫捨棄污穢的因，修習凈土的善業。第二次集會講述法身的因果，使凡夫捨棄……

【English Translation】 English version: The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'With courageous and diligent effort, with right mindfulness to contemplate, arising from thought, yet not clinging to thought, because the nature of Dharma's quiescence is beyond thought.' This is using non-thinking and non-non-thinking to achieve the state of being able to think and not think, thereby clarifying the meaning of benefiting others by emerging into the world.

Next, it clarifies that although there are four assemblies, there are actually only three periods. From the beginning of the sutra to the 'Non-Dual Dharma Gate', it explains that preaching before meals benefits sentient beings. Then, from the beginning of the 'Fragrant Accumulation Bodhisattva Chapter', it explains benefiting sentient beings during meals. Third, from after eating the Fragrant Accumulation Bodhisattva's meal, it explains benefiting sentient beings after meals.

Furthermore, it clarifies that although there are four assemblies, they can be summarized into three aspects. From the first assembly to the 'Bodhisattva Chapter', it is the aspect of breaking through the three kinds of obstacles. Second, from the end of the 'Inquiry of Illness Chapter' to the 'Fragrant Accumulation Bodhisattva Chapter', it is the aspect of demonstrating the methods of practice. Third, from the reassembly in the Ambapali Garden, it is the aspect of distinguishing the accomplishment of practice and the establishment of merit. These three aspects correspond to the three obstacles in order, which hinder the Bodhisattva path, so they must be broken through first. After the three obstacles are eliminated, one can begin to cultivate the Bodhisattva path, so there is the second aspect of practice methods. After the three obstacles are eliminated, the two wisdoms are also accomplished, the Bodhisattva's causal practice is perfected, and the Dharmakaya fruition is also perfected, so there is the third aspect. These three aspects encompass all the teachings, break through all the obstacles, establish all the practices, and perfect all the fruits. Within these three aspects, each is further divided into three parts. The first aspect has three parts: first, the 'Buddha Land Chapter' and the 'Expedient Means Chapter', breaking through the obstacles of ordinary beings. Second, the 'Disciples Chapter', breaking through the obstacles of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). Third, the 'Bodhisattva Chapter', breaking through the obstacles of Bodhisattvas. These three types of people each have three obstacles, or it can be said that one person has these three obstacles from beginning to end.

The second aspect of practice methods has three parts: first, from the 'Inquiry of Illness Chapter' to the 'Buddha Path Chapter', it clarifies the Dharma gate of the two wisdoms. Expedient wisdom and true wisdom can enable one to break away from the actions of ordinary beings, and true wisdom and expedient wisdom can enable one to break away from the actions of the Two Vehicles. Second, the 'Non-Dual Dharma Gate', clarifies that these two wisdoms are accomplished through the principle of non-duality, which is to distinguish the root of the two wisdoms. Third, from the 'Fragrant Accumulation Bodhisattva Chapter', since one understands the root of non-duality, one has the non-dual contemplation, thereby manifesting the function of the two wisdoms. The third aspect has three parts: the 'Bodhisattva Conduct Chapter', clarifies that there are no obstacles in the Buddha lands of the ten directions, which is unobstructed practice. Second, from 'inexhaustible and non-abiding', it clarifies skillful practice. Third, the 'Seeing Akshobhya Buddha Chapter', clarifies the fruition of the original and manifested bodies. Initially, it is breaking through the obstacles of ordinary beings, and the content of the two assemblies is different. The first assembly speaks of the cause and effect of the Pure Land, causing ordinary beings to abandon defiled causes and cultivate the good deeds of the Pure Land. The second assembly speaks of the cause and effect of the Dharmakaya, causing ordinary beings to abandon...

生死之因修法身之因故。二會破凡夫依正兩因。令求如來依正兩果。問。此二會並化二乘菩薩。云何獨為凡夫。答。通而為論。具為三人。望三品次第。后既破聲聞及菩薩。故前破凡夫也。問。經但有四會。無三章之文。何故橫生穿鑿。答。華嚴七處八會。不依會處科文。而別束會處。自為章段。今亦然矣。義有條例。幸勿疑之。問。華嚴從地昇天。表五十二位階級不同。可得分淺深為異。今無此事。何故例同。答。華嚴從地昇天。從天還地。既得約處以表法門。今從庵園以至方丈。方丈還至庵園。何故不得辨其階級。問。華嚴前地處會。明依正二果。次昇天。明三十心十地因行。從天還地。重明果門。今可得爾不。答。亦有此意。初二會明佛依正二果。弟子品去始明修因。后還庵園。還須明果。又問。華嚴辨性起。正明收前因果歸正法。從正法更起因果。此經亦有不。答。亦有此義。如不二法門。收前二歸不二。從不二更起二用。問。華嚴明二乘不見聞。此經亦有不。答。亦爾。聞是不可思議。如盲人見色。亦有此意。問。華嚴辨因。有三十心十地果有法身凈土。此經具不。答。華嚴別論階級故。諸位不同。此經但明二慧。不判淺深。若就文辨之。亦總相明位。如破凡夫二乘。令入十信。破菩薩。令從內凡以登初地

。初地進行。乃至進佛果。問。何故二經相似。答。二經同名不可思議解脫。又同佛菩薩說之。如肇公云。命文殊于異方。召維摩於他土。爰集毗耶。共弘斯道。即遠加之義。故大格相似。舊經師既無此釋。希熟思之。勿驚疑也。初七科正釋所說法門。后總束四會科為三章。經意多含。一塗不盡。希鉆味之徒。勿咎其煩而不要耶。

凈名玄論卷第七(會處上) 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 凈名玄論

凈名玄論卷第八(會處下)

第二凈土門

此經始末盛談凈土。二處四會。義勢相關。法華玄論雖已委釋。余未盡者。今當略陳。依梵本初。猶是序品。譯經之人。改為佛國。為佛國中。有三章經。初云。眾生之類。是菩薩佛土。次章云。直心是菩薩佛土。此之二章。雖是一品之文。乃大明凈土之洪輅也。眾師多別構玄。不以文為意故。喜失經旨也。

今敘此二章來意有七。一者為答寶積因果二問。初章答凈土果問。次章答凈土因問。凈土義往酬日廣因果二門。則理無不攝。所言凈土果者。謂報應二土。報則隨業精粗。應則適緣所現。初章廣明此法。謂凈土果也。凈土因者。始自直心。終乎意凈。總該萬行化他及自行。次章廣明斯法。謂凈土凈因也。問。應先明土因。后履

【現代漢語翻譯】 初地進行，乃至進佛果（達到佛的果位）。 問：為何兩部經如此相似？ 答：兩部經都名為『不可思議解脫』，又都由佛和菩薩宣說。如肇公（僧肇）所說：『命文殊（文殊菩薩）于異方，召維摩（維摩詰）於他土，爰集毗耶（毗耶離城），共弘斯道。』即是遠處加持之義，故大體相似。舊經師既然沒有這種解釋，希望仔細思考，不要驚疑。 最初七科（七個部分）正式解釋所說之法門，後面總括四會（四個集會）科為三章。經意包含很多，一次無法完全闡述。希望鉆研此經的人，不要因為其繁瑣而認為不重要。

《凈名玄論》卷第七（會處上） 大正藏第 38 冊 No. 1780 《凈名玄論》

《凈名玄論》卷第八（會處下）

第二 凈土門

此經從始至終都在盛大地談論凈土。兩處四會，義理和氣勢相互關聯。《法華玄論》雖然已經詳細解釋過，但還有未盡之處，現在應當略作陳述。依據梵文字的最初，仍然是序品。翻譯經典的人，將其改為《佛國品》。《佛國品》中有三章經文。最初說：『眾生之類，是菩薩佛土。』第二章說：『直心是菩薩佛土。』這兩章，雖然是一品經文，卻是大大闡明凈土的宏偉途徑。眾多法師大多另外構建玄義，不以經文為依據，所以常常失去經文的旨意。

現在敘述這兩章的來意有七個方面：一是為回答寶積（寶積菩薩）的因果二問。初章回答凈土果報之問，次章回答凈土因地之問。凈土之義往來酬答，涵蓋因果二門，那麼道理就沒有不包括的。所說的凈土果報，是指報土和應土。報土隨著業力的精細和粗糙而不同，應土則適應因緣而顯現。初章廣泛闡明此法，是為凈土果報。凈土之因，始於直心，終於意凈，總括萬行，包括化他和自修。次章廣泛闡明此法，是為凈土之凈因。問：應該先闡明土因，后履行（土果）嗎？

【English Translation】 Proceeding from the first ground, and even advancing to the fruit of Buddhahood (reaching the fruit of the Buddha). Question: Why are the two sutras so similar? Answer: Both sutras are named 'Inconceivable Liberation,' and both are spoken by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. As Master Zhao (Sengzhao) said: 'Commanding Manjushri (Manjushri Bodhisattva) from another direction, summoning Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) from another land, gathering in Vaisali (Vaisali city), together propagating this path.' This is the meaning of distant blessing, so they are generally similar. Since the old sutra masters did not have this explanation, I hope you will think carefully and not be surprised. The first seven sections formally explain the Dharma gate that is spoken, and later summarize the four assemblies into three chapters. The meaning of the sutra contains much, and cannot be fully explained at once. I hope those who delve into this sutra will not blame it for being tedious and unimportant.

Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary, Volume 7 (Upper) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 38, No. 1780, Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary

Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary, Volume 8 (Lower)

Second, the Pure Land Gate

This sutra speaks extensively about the Pure Land from beginning to end. The two locations and four assemblies, their meanings and momentum are related. Although the 'Fa Hua Xuan Lun' (Lotus Sutra Commentary) has already explained it in detail, there are still things that have not been exhausted, and now I should briefly state them. According to the original Sanskrit text, it is still the prologue. The person who translated the sutra changed it to 'Buddha Land Chapter'. In the 'Buddha Land Chapter', there are three sections of scripture. The first says: 'The beings of sentient beings are the Buddha Land of Bodhisattvas.' The second chapter says: 'Direct mind is the Buddha Land of Bodhisattvas.' These two chapters, although they are one chapter of scripture, greatly clarify the grand path of the Pure Land. Many masters mostly construct profound meanings separately, not based on the text, so they often lose the meaning of the sutra.

Now, there are seven aspects to narrate the intention of these two chapters: One is to answer the two questions of cause and effect from Ratnakara (Ratnakara Bodhisattva). The first chapter answers the question of the fruit of the Pure Land, and the second chapter answers the question of the cause of the Pure Land. The meaning of the Pure Land comes and goes in response, covering the two gates of cause and effect, then there is no principle that is not included. The so-called fruit of the Pure Land refers to the reward land and the manifested land. The reward land varies with the fineness and coarseness of karma, and the manifested land appears according to conditions. The first chapter extensively clarifies this Dharma, which is the fruit of the Pure Land. The cause of the Pure Land begins with direct mind and ends with pure intention, encompassing all practices, including transforming others and self-cultivation. The second chapter extensively clarifies this Dharma, which is the pure cause of the Pure Land. Question: Should the cause of the land be clarified first, and then the (fruit of the land) be practiced?

得果。何故先果后因。答。此據答問次第。即辨履說門。若就修行。則先因後果也。又二章不同者。初明修凈土意。次正明修于凈土。修凈土意者。凡夫但為安自身。求生好國。二乘本期威患。意在無餘。于遊戲神通凈佛國土。不生喜樂。故並不修凈土。菩薩普化眾生故。取于佛土。故云眾生之類是菩薩佛土。隨所化眾生。而取佛土。以普欲化物故。不同凡夫。而取佛土。簡非小行。故一言之中。簡異聖凡。明菩薩修凈土意也。又法身無像。安用國土為。而今修凈土者。意在為物。是故。初章明修凈土意。次章正修凈土。如上釋之。又二章不同者。初章直明為物取土。次章釋成為物之義。菩薩修土因時。因凈其心。亦令眾生心凈。即修土因時。利物因中。既雙修自行化他。菩薩成佛。得凈土果。所化眾生。隨來受生。得教化之。故是果時為物。以因果二時並皆利物。故知為物取土。即釋前章也。又二章不同者。初章正明菩薩起。□々為眾生取于佛土。是以文云。能取佛土。非於空也。次章明行。始自直心。終履意凈。以能行相成。故要須二章經也。又初章明為物取土。即是發菩提心。心即凈土根本。所以然者。既欲取佛土。宜發佛心。故菩提心為凈土本。次章明凈土因。即修菩薩行。修菩薩行。方得佛土趣佛之門。唯

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 得果。為何先說果后說因？答：這是按照問答的順序。即辨別實踐的法門。如果就修行來說，則是先有因後有果。另外，這兩章不同之處在於：第一章闡明修習凈土的意圖，第二章正式闡明修習凈土的方法。修習凈土的意圖是：凡夫只是爲了安頓自身，求生美好的國土；二乘（聲聞和緣覺）原本期望脫離苦難，意在進入無餘涅槃，對於遊戲神通、清凈佛國，不生歡喜和樂趣，所以並不修習凈土。菩薩爲了普遍教化眾生，所以取用佛土。因此說『眾生之類是菩薩佛土』，隨著所教化的眾生，而取用佛土。因為普遍想要教化眾生，所以不同於凡夫，而取用佛土，也不同於小乘的修行。所以一句話之中，區分了聖人和凡夫的差異，闡明了菩薩修習凈土的意圖。另外，法身沒有形象，哪裡需要國土呢？而現在修習凈土的人，意圖在於爲了眾生。因此，第一章闡明修習凈土的意圖，第二章正式修習凈土，如上面所解釋的。另外，這兩章不同之處在於：第一章直接闡明爲了眾生而取用佛土，第二章解釋了成為眾生的意義。菩薩修習佛土的因地時，因為清凈自己的心，也令眾生的心清凈。即修習佛土的因地時，利益眾生的因中。既然同時修習自利和利他，菩薩成佛，得到清凈的佛土果報，所教化的眾生，隨之而來受生，得到教化。所以是果地時爲了眾生。因為因果兩個階段都利益眾生，所以知道爲了眾生而取用佛土，就是解釋前一章的內容。另外，這兩章不同之處在於：第一章正式闡明菩薩發起廣大誓願，爲了眾生而取用佛土。因此經文說：『能取佛土，不是在虛空中。』第二章闡明修行，開始於正直的心，最終達到意念清凈。因為能行和所行相互成就，所以必須要有這兩章經文。另外，第一章闡明爲了眾生而取用佛土，這就是發菩提心。心就是凈土的根本。之所以這樣說，是因為既然想要取用佛土，就應該發起佛心。所以菩提心是凈土的根本。第二章闡明凈土的因，即修習菩薩行。修習菩薩行，才能得到佛土，進入成佛的門徑，只有……

【English Translation】 English version Attainment of the fruit. Why is the fruit mentioned before the cause? Answer: This is according to the order of questions and answers, which distinguishes the practice of the Dharma. If we consider cultivation, then there is first the cause and then the fruit. Furthermore, the two chapters are different in that the first clarifies the intention of cultivating Pure Land, and the second formally clarifies the practice of cultivating Pure Land. The intention of cultivating Pure Land is that ordinary beings only seek to secure themselves and seek rebirth in a good land; the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas) originally hope to escape suffering and aim for Nirvāṇa without remainder, and do not generate joy or delight in playing with supernatural powers and purifying Buddha-lands, so they do not cultivate Pure Land. Bodhisattvas, in order to universally transform sentient beings, therefore take Buddha-lands. Therefore, it is said, 'The kinds of sentient beings are the Buddha-lands of the Bodhisattvas,' taking Buddha-lands according to the sentient beings they transform. Because they universally desire to transform beings, they differ from ordinary beings in taking Buddha-lands, and they also differ from the practices of the Small Vehicle. Therefore, in one sentence, the difference between saints and ordinary beings is distinguished, clarifying the intention of Bodhisattvas cultivating Pure Land. Furthermore, the Dharmakāya (法身) has no form, so what use is a land? But those who now cultivate Pure Land intend to do so for the sake of beings. Therefore, the first chapter clarifies the intention of cultivating Pure Land, and the second chapter formally cultivates Pure Land, as explained above. Furthermore, the two chapters are different in that the first chapter directly clarifies taking a land for the sake of beings, and the second chapter explains the meaning of becoming beings. When Bodhisattvas cultivate the cause of a Buddha-land, they purify their own minds and also purify the minds of sentient beings. That is, when cultivating the cause of a Buddha-land, they benefit beings in the cause. Since they simultaneously cultivate self-benefit and benefiting others, Bodhisattvas attain Buddhahood and obtain the pure fruit of a Buddha-land, and the sentient beings they transform come to be reborn and receive teachings. Therefore, it is for the sake of beings at the time of the fruit. Because both the cause and the fruit benefit beings, it is known that taking a land for the sake of beings explains the previous chapter. Furthermore, the two chapters are different in that the first chapter formally clarifies that Bodhisattvas arise with great vows to take Buddha-lands for the sake of sentient beings. Therefore, the text says, 'Able to take Buddha-lands, not in emptiness.' The second chapter clarifies practice, beginning with an upright mind and ultimately reaching purity of thought. Because the able and the performed mutually accomplish each other, these two chapters of scripture are necessary. Furthermore, the first chapter clarifies taking a land for the sake of beings, which is arousing Bodhicitta (菩提心). The mind is the root of Pure Land. The reason for this is that since one desires to take a Buddha-land, one should arouse the mind of a Buddha. Therefore, Bodhicitta is the root of Pure Land. The second chapter clarifies the cause of Pure Land, which is cultivating the Bodhisattva path. Cultivating the Bodhisattva path is the only way to obtain a Buddha-land and enter the gate of attaining Buddhahood, only...

此二意。是故華嚴善財童子。遍游法界。諸善知識。皆云先已發菩提心。但未知云何修菩薩行。今此二章。還明兩法也。又二章不同者。前明為物取土。則大慈內充。以見物受苦。起大悲心。欲拔其苦。故取佛土。后明為物起凈土門。夫欲為菩薩。要先有大悲。后廣興眾行。此二是化物要門。佛土之根本。故二章明之也。又二章不同者。凈土有因有緣。緣有二種。一者外有眾生。二者菩薩內有悲佛。初章明眾生之類是菩薩佛土。即緣中之二。次章明修凈土因。亦有二種。一自修眾行。二令眾生亦修眾行。要緣中具二因門有多佛土方成。此之七意。文具含之。不可闕也。

次論二是

問。前云眾生之類是菩薩佛土。后云直心是菩薩佛土。未詳二是之言。意何所在。請為釋之。答。華嚴經云。佛子有世界微塵數等因緣所成。今明此經要略但明取土。有其二義。一者取土之緣。二取土之因。前明取土之緣。由有眾生故菩薩取土。以緣中說果故。云眾生之類是菩薩佛土。后明取土因。雖由眾生。而菩薩起須取土之因。以因中說果故。云直心是菩薩佛土。故兩是有因緣不同。

別論初章

問。初章經文凡有四句。一云隨所化眾生而取佛土。次云隨所調伏眾生而取佛土。次云隨以何國起菩薩根而取佛土。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這兩種意義。因此《華嚴經》中的善財童子，遍游法界，所有善知識都說他早已發了菩提心，只是不知道如何修菩薩行。現在這兩章，還是闡明這兩種法。另外，這兩章不同之處在於，前一章闡明爲了眾生而取凈土，則大慈之心充滿內心，因為見到眾生受苦，而生起大悲心，想要拔除他們的痛苦，所以取佛土。后一章闡明爲了眾生而興起凈土之門。想要成為菩薩，首先要有大悲心，然後廣泛地興起各種修行。這兩種是教化眾生的重要途徑，是佛土的根本，所以這兩章闡明了這些。另外，這兩章不同之處在於，凈土有因有緣。緣有兩種，一是外在有眾生，二是菩薩內在有悲心。前一章闡明眾生之類是菩薩的佛土，即是緣中的第二種。后一章闡明修凈土的因，也有兩種，一是自己修各種修行，二是令眾生也修各種修行。要緣中具備兩種，因門有多，佛土才能成就。這七種意義，經文都包含在內，不可缺少。 其次討論『二是』 問：前面說『眾生之類是菩薩佛土』，後面說『直心是菩薩佛土』，不明白『二是』的說法，意義在哪裡？請解釋一下。答：《華嚴經》說，佛子有世界微塵數那麼多的因緣所成。現在說明這部經的要點，只是闡明取土，有兩種意義。一是取土的緣，二是取土的因。前面闡明取土的緣，因為有眾生，所以菩薩取土。因為在緣中說果，所以說『眾生之類是菩薩佛土』。後面闡明取土的因，雖然因為眾生，而菩薩生起必須取土的因。因為在因中說果，所以說『直心是菩薩佛土』。所以兩者是有因緣的不同。 分別討論第一章 問：第一章經文總共有四句。一句說『隨所化眾生而取佛土』，一句說『隨所調伏眾生而取佛土』，一句說『隨以何國起菩薩根而取佛土』。

【English Translation】 English version: These are the two meanings. Therefore, Sudhana (Shancai Tongzi) in the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing), travels throughout the Dharma Realm (Fa Jie), and all the good advisors (shan zhishi) say that he has already generated the Bodhi mind (puti xin), but does not know how to practice the Bodhisattva path (pusa xing). Now these two chapters still clarify these two Dharmas. Furthermore, the difference between these two chapters is that the former clarifies that taking a Buddha-land (Fo Tu) for the sake of beings fills the mind with great compassion (da ci), because seeing beings suffer gives rise to great pity (da bei), wanting to remove their suffering, therefore taking a Buddha-land. The latter clarifies the arising of the Pure Land (jing tu) gate for the sake of beings. If one wants to become a Bodhisattva (pusa), one must first have great compassion, and then widely cultivate various practices. These two are important ways to transform beings, and are the foundation of the Buddha-land, so these two chapters clarify these. Furthermore, the difference between these two chapters is that the Pure Land has cause (yin) and condition (yuan). There are two kinds of conditions: one is that there are external beings, and the other is that the Bodhisattva internally has compassion. The first chapter clarifies that the types of beings are the Bodhisattva's Buddha-land, which is the second of the conditions. The second chapter clarifies the cause of cultivating the Pure Land, which also has two kinds: one is to cultivate various practices oneself, and the other is to cause beings to also cultivate various practices. If both are present in the conditions, and there are many doors of causes, then the Buddha-land can be accomplished. These seven meanings are all contained within the text, and cannot be omitted. Next, discuss the 'two are' Question: Earlier it was said that 'the types of beings are the Bodhisattva's Buddha-land', and later it was said that 'the straightforward mind (zhi xin) is the Bodhisattva's Buddha-land'. I do not understand the meaning of the statement 'two are'. Please explain it. Answer: The Avatamsaka Sutra says that a Buddha's child (Fo zi) is formed by as many causes and conditions as there are dust motes in the world. Now, to explain the essentials of this sutra, it only clarifies the taking of a Buddha-land, which has two meanings. One is the condition for taking a Buddha-land, and the other is the cause for taking a Buddha-land. The former clarifies the condition for taking a Buddha-land, because there are beings, therefore the Bodhisattva takes a Buddha-land. Because the result is spoken of in the condition, it is said that 'the types of beings are the Bodhisattva's Buddha-land'. The latter clarifies the cause for taking a Buddha-land, although it is because of beings, the Bodhisattva gives rise to the cause of having to take a Buddha-land. Because the result is spoken of in the cause, it is said that 'the straightforward mind is the Bodhisattva's Buddha-land'. Therefore, the two are different in cause and condition. Separate discussion of the first chapter Question: The first chapter of the sutra has a total of four sentences. One sentence says 'according to the beings to be transformed, one takes a Buddha-land', one sentence says 'according to the beings to be tamed, one takes a Buddha-land', and one sentence says 'according to what country one arises the Bodhisattva roots, one takes a Buddha-land'.

次隨以何國而入佛智慧而取佛土。四文何異。請為論之。答。此四句文。並明取土之意。但前二句。總明為物取土。后二句。別明為物取土。何以知之。初直云隨所化眾生隨所調伏。故知是總。後文別明起菩薩根入佛智慧。故知是別為物也。問云何總別。答總為物者。通為五乘眾生令其生善滅惡。隨所化眾生而取佛土。謂化令生善。隨所調伏眾生而取佛土。調令滅惡。所以諸佛凈土中。徒眾不同。或具五乘眾。或但人天眾。或唯有聲聞眾。或但求緣覺眾。或但菩薩眾。具如經說。

后明別為物

起菩薩根入佛智慧。根義不定。若對人天及二乘。明菩薩根者。即十信是也。何以知之。菩薩根本。以信等五法為根。如釋論履之。十信既明菩薩信。故知菩薩根也。又欲回前四乘令入菩薩道。故取佛土。則前四乘。始入十信。故明十信為菩薩根也。入佛智慧者。即是佛果。十信是所為之始。佛慧是所為之終。該始括終。則所為事盡。又前始自四乘。令入十信。乃至佛慧。網羅所為始終。無一眾生而不化之。問。何故先明為四乘取佛土。后別為菩薩。答。已如前說。次第法爾。先與小益。后與大利也。又諸佛之法。先雖說三。后要歸一。此經雖未彰意略已成密化。又此二章經文來者。初章為淺行之人取于佛土。故謂

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果菩薩跟隨不同的國度而進入佛的智慧，從而取得佛土，這四種說法有什麼不同？請解釋一下。 回答：這四句話都闡明了取得佛土的意義。但前兩句總括地說明了為眾生取得佛土，后兩句分別說明了為眾生取得佛土。為什麼這麼說呢？ 首先，直接說『隨所化眾生，隨所調伏』，因此可知是總括性的說法。後面的經文分別說明了『起菩薩根，入佛智慧』，因此可知是分別地為眾生而為之。 問：什麼是總括，什麼是分別？ 答：總括地為眾生，是指普遍地為五乘（人、天、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩）眾生，使他們生善滅惡，隨著所教化的眾生而取得佛土，即教化他們生善；隨著所調伏的眾生而取得佛土，即調伏他們滅惡。因此，諸佛的凈土中，徒眾各不相同，有的具有五乘眾生，有的只有人天眾生，有的只有聲聞眾生，有的只求緣覺，有的只有菩薩，具體情況如經典所說。 後文說明分別地為眾生： 『起菩薩根，入佛智慧』。『根』的含義不確定。如果針對人天及二乘（聲聞、緣覺）來說，菩薩根指的是十信位（菩薩修行之初的十種信心）。為什麼這麼說呢？菩薩的根本，以信等五法為根，如《釋論》所說。十信既然闡明了菩薩的信心，因此可知是菩薩根。此外，想要使之前的四乘（人、天、聲聞、緣覺）進入菩薩道，所以取得佛土，那麼之前的四乘，開始進入十信位，因此說明十信是菩薩根。『入佛智慧』，指的是佛果。十信是所作所為的開始，佛慧是所作所為的終結。涵蓋開始和終結，那麼所作所為的事情就完備了。此外，從之前的四乘，使他們進入十信，乃至佛慧，網羅了所作所為的始終，沒有一個眾生不被教化。 問：為什麼先說明為四乘取得佛土，後分別說明為菩薩？ 答：已經如前面所說，次第自然如此。先給予小的利益，后給予大的利益。此外，諸佛的法則，開始雖然說三乘（聲聞、緣覺、菩薩），最終要歸於一乘（佛乘）。這部經雖然沒有彰顯這個意思，但已經略微地完成了秘密的教化。此外，這兩章經文的來意是，第一章是為淺行之人取得佛土，所以說...

【English Translation】 English version: If a Bodhisattva follows different countries to enter the wisdom of the Buddha and thus obtain a Buddha-land, what are the differences among these four statements? Please explain. Answer: These four sentences all clarify the meaning of obtaining a Buddha-land. However, the first two sentences generally explain obtaining a Buddha-land for the sake of sentient beings, while the latter two sentences specifically explain obtaining a Buddha-land for the sake of sentient beings. Why is this so? First, it directly says 'according to the sentient beings to be transformed, according to those to be tamed,' therefore it is known to be a general statement. The subsequent text specifically explains 'arising from the roots of a Bodhisattva, entering the wisdom of the Buddha,' therefore it is known to be specifically for the sake of sentient beings. Question: What is general, and what is specific? Answer: Generally for sentient beings means universally for the five vehicles (humans, devas, Shravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas), enabling them to generate good and eliminate evil, obtaining a Buddha-land according to the sentient beings to be transformed, that is, transforming them to generate good; obtaining a Buddha-land according to the sentient beings to be tamed, that is, taming them to eliminate evil. Therefore, in the pure lands of the Buddhas, the followers are different, some having sentient beings of the five vehicles, some having only humans and devas, some having only Shravakas, some only seeking Pratyekabuddhas, and some only having Bodhisattvas, as described in the scriptures. The following explains specifically for sentient beings: 'Arising from the roots of a Bodhisattva, entering the wisdom of the Buddha.' The meaning of 'root' is uncertain. If referring to humans, devas, and the two vehicles (Shravakas, Pratyekabuddhas), the roots of a Bodhisattva refer to the ten faiths (the initial ten kinds of faith in a Bodhisattva's practice). Why is this so? The foundation of a Bodhisattva takes the five dharmas such as faith as its root, as explained in the Shastra. Since the ten faiths clarify the faith of a Bodhisattva, it is known to be the roots of a Bodhisattva. Furthermore, wanting to cause the previous four vehicles (humans, devas, Shravakas, Pratyekabuddhas) to enter the Bodhisattva path, therefore obtaining a Buddha-land, then the previous four vehicles begin to enter the ten faiths, therefore it is explained that the ten faiths are the roots of a Bodhisattva. 'Entering the wisdom of the Buddha' refers to the fruit of Buddhahood. The ten faiths are the beginning of what is to be done, and the wisdom of the Buddha is the end of what is to be done. Covering the beginning and the end, then the things to be done are complete. Furthermore, from the previous four vehicles, causing them to enter the ten faiths, and even the wisdom of the Buddha, encompassing the beginning and the end of what is to be done, there is not a single sentient being that is not transformed. Question: Why explain obtaining a Buddha-land for the four vehicles first, and then separately explain for Bodhisattvas? Answer: As explained before, the order is naturally so. First giving small benefits, then giving great benefits. Furthermore, the Dharma of the Buddhas, although initially speaking of the three vehicles (Shravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas), ultimately returns to the one vehicle (Buddha vehicle). Although this sutra does not explicitly reveal this meaning, it has already subtly completed the secret transformation. Furthermore, the intention of these two chapters of scripture is that the first chapter is for those with shallow practice to obtain a Buddha-land, therefore it says...

地前四十心令其生善滅惡。發菩提心。修菩薩行。后章偏為登地以上名菩薩根。登地既始得無生。道根初立。次明佛慧從七地入佛眼地。至於佛果。皆名佛慧。所為雖廣。不出五十二位。亦統始括終。故有第二文也。

又來意者。初二句。明為物取報土。次兩句。明為物取應土。問。何以知然。答。后二句云隨諸眾生應以何國。此明適緣示凈土不同。華嚴百萬阿僧祇品。凈土隨根淺深。故示土優劣。故知是應。又隨以何凈穢雜等五種之土。則知是應土也。前文但明教化調伏而取佛土。不云隨機示土。故知明報土也。為物雖多。不出報應。問。前後二義。將不相違耶。答。初義攝緣明所為緣普。后義攝土明土義曠。文含二旨。故兩義相成。問。前云五種土。請示其相。答。一凈土。二穢土。三雜土。四本不凈后變而成凈。如彌勒來也。五本凈后變成不凈。如彌勒去後土還不凈。此五土攝一切土。又報應各五。故成十土也。

論報應

問。云何報土。云何應土。答。若以寶玉之凈沙礫之穢。以此二土。為佛土者。皆是應土。非是報土。何以知然。夫凈穢諸土。不出三界內外。而佛既無三界內外惑業。故無復土。今有土者。皆是應物。名為應土。故仁王云。三賢十聖住果報。唯佛一人居凈土。此明三賢十

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 地前四十心，是爲了使其生善滅惡，發起菩提心，修習菩薩行。後面的章節則側重於登地以上的菩薩，稱為『菩薩根』。登地才開始獲得無生法忍，道根初步建立。接下來闡明佛慧，從七地進入佛眼地，直至成就佛果，都稱為佛慧。所作所為雖然廣泛，但不超出五十二個階位。這也統攝了開始和終結，所以有第二段經文。 又，這段經文的來意是：開頭的兩句，說明爲了眾生而取得報土（Karmic Reward Land）。接下來的兩句，說明爲了眾生而取得應土（Manifestation Land）。問：憑什麼知道是這樣呢？答：後面的兩句說『隨諸眾生應以何國』，這說明適應不同的因緣而示現不同的凈土。正如《華嚴經》百萬阿僧祇品所說，凈土隨著根器的深淺，而示現不同的優劣，所以知道這是應土。又，隨著眾生應該以清凈、污穢、雜染等五種不同的國土來度化，就知道這是應土。前面的經文只是說明教化調伏眾生而取得佛土，沒有說隨機示現國土，所以知道那是報土。爲了眾生所做的事情雖然很多，但不超出報土和應土。問：前後兩種說法，難道不會互相矛盾嗎？答：前面的說法側重於因緣，說明所為的因緣普遍；後面的說法側重於國土，說明國土的意義廣闊。經文包含兩種旨意，所以兩種說法互相成就。問：前面說的五種國土，請您開示它們的相狀。答：一是凈土（Pure Land），二是穢土（Impure Land），三是雜土（Mixed Land），四是本來不凈後來變成清凈的國土，如彌勒（Maitreya）菩薩降生時的情況。五是本來清凈後來變成不凈的國土，如彌勒菩薩離開后，國土又恢復到不凈的狀態。這五種國土涵蓋了一切國土。而且報土和應土各有五種，所以總共有十種國土。 論報應 問：什麼是報土？什麼是應土？答：如果以寶玉的清凈或沙礫的污穢，來作為佛土，這些都是應土，不是報土。為什麼知道是這樣呢？因為清凈或污穢的各種國土，都不超出三界（Three Realms）內外。而佛已經沒有三界內外的惑業，所以沒有固定的國土。現在所顯現的國土，都是爲了應化眾生，所以稱為應土。所以《仁王經》（Renwang Sutra）說：『三賢十聖住果報，唯佛一人居凈土。』這說明三賢十聖

【English Translation】 English version: The forty minds before the Bhumi (Stages of the Bodhisattva Path) are to enable the generation of goodness and the elimination of evil, to arouse the Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment), and to cultivate the practices of a Bodhisattva. The later chapters focus on Bodhisattvas who have attained the Bhumis, calling them 'Bodhisattva Roots'. Attaining the Bhumis is the beginning of obtaining non-origination, and the root of the path is initially established. Next, it explains the Buddha's wisdom, from the seventh Bhumi entering the Buddha-eye Bhumi, until the attainment of Buddhahood, all are called Buddha's wisdom. Although the actions are extensive, they do not exceed the fifty-two stages. This also encompasses the beginning and the end, so there is the second passage. Furthermore, the intention of this passage is: the first two sentences explain obtaining the Karmic Reward Land for beings. The next two sentences explain obtaining the Manifestation Land for beings. Question: How do we know this? Answer: The last two sentences say 'according to what country should be used for all sentient beings', which explains that different Pure Lands are shown according to different conditions. As the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra) says in the chapter on millions of Asamkhyas (incalculable numbers), the Pure Land is shown with different degrees of excellence according to the depth of the roots, so we know this is the Manifestation Land. Also, according to whether beings should be transformed with pure, impure, mixed, or other five kinds of lands, we know this is the Manifestation Land. The previous passage only explained obtaining the Buddha Land through teaching and taming beings, without mentioning showing the land according to the occasion, so we know that is the Karmic Reward Land. Although there are many things done for beings, they do not exceed the Karmic Reward Land and the Manifestation Land. Question: Aren't the two statements contradictory? Answer: The first statement focuses on conditions, explaining that the conditions for action are universal; the second statement focuses on the land, explaining that the meaning of the land is vast. The passage contains two intentions, so the two statements complement each other. Question: You mentioned five kinds of lands earlier, please explain their characteristics. Answer: First is the Pure Land, second is the Impure Land, third is the Mixed Land, fourth is the land that was originally impure but later became pure, such as the situation when Maitreya (the future Buddha) descends. Fifth is the land that was originally pure but later became impure, such as the land returning to impurity after Maitreya leaves. These five lands encompass all lands. Moreover, the Karmic Reward Land and the Manifestation Land each have five kinds, so there are a total of ten kinds of lands. On Karmic Reward and Manifestation Question: What is the Karmic Reward Land? What is the Manifestation Land? Answer: If we take the purity of jewels or the impurity of gravel as the Buddha Land, these are all Manifestation Lands, not Karmic Reward Lands. Why do we know this? Because the various pure or impure lands do not exceed the inside and outside of the Three Realms. And the Buddha has no delusions or karma inside or outside the Three Realms, so there is no fixed land. The land that is now manifested is all for the sake of responding to and transforming beings, so it is called the Manifestation Land. Therefore, the Renwang Sutra (Sutra of Humane Kings) says: 'The Three Sages and Ten Saints dwell in karmic rewards, only the Buddha dwells in the Pure Land.' This explains that the Three Sages and Ten Saints

聖有三界內外報土佛則無也。問。即此應土。亦是報不。答。亦得是報。凡有二義。一者據佛。二餘眾生。據佛者。如來昔日起于佛行。以土應物。今成佛果。遂能以土應物。當知此土即是報土。二餘眾生者。佛雖應物示土。眾生無業感之。尚不得見。何由得生凈土。以眾生修行凈因。感斯應土。即此應土。復得名報。如華嚴云。非一因緣凈土得起也。

次明報土者。為據因位三賢十聖實行為論。即是報土。以未免三界內外果報。必有棲宅。棲宅之處。是菩薩實報。故名報土。即菩薩報土。而復化物。與菩薩同生其中。據眾生感。菩薩土亦名報土。即此報土。眾生宜見之者。菩薩為之示現。故報土亦名為應也。據菩薩為報。約眾生為應。問。若然即報應何異。答。正可具前諸義。不可迢然歷別。家師常云。報應土。應報土。眾生佛土。佛眾生土。佛菩薩土。菩薩佛土。下士聞之則便致笑。今恐不逮者多。故不陳此說。斯言正會經旨也。問。今頗有報應異義以不。答。一往欲示異相者。應土則暫有。報土則長久。如此經按地所現小時便息。報土據眾生果報共招久期受用。以此為異也。又如穢土。是眾生惡業所感。故名為報。非是佛示現。所以非應。但佛入穢土化物。托居眾生報土之中。故名此報以為佛土。問。即

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：聖人有三界內外果報的國土，但佛沒有。問：那麼這個應化土（應土，為應化眾生而示現的國土），也是報土（報土，由修行功德感得的國土）嗎？答：也可以說是報土，這裡面包含兩種含義。一是針對佛而言，二是針對其他眾生而言。針對佛而言，如來過去發起佛行，以國土來應化眾生，如今成就佛果，就能以國土來應化眾生。應當知道這個國土就是報土。二是針對其他眾生而言，佛雖然應化眾生示現國土，但眾生如果沒有相應的業力感應，尚且不能得見，又怎麼能往生凈土呢？因為眾生修行清凈的因，感得這個應化土，所以這個應化土又可以稱為報土。如《華嚴經》所說，不是單一的因緣才能使凈土生起。

接下來闡明報土，是根據因位上三賢（十住、十行、十回向）和十聖（十地菩薩）的真實修行來論述的，這就是報土。因為還沒有脫離三界內外的果報，必定有棲身之處。棲身之處，是菩薩的實報莊嚴土，所以稱為報土。這個菩薩的報土，又可以用來教化眾生，與菩薩一同生在其中。根據眾生的感應，菩薩的國土也可以稱為報土。這個報土，眾生中適宜見到的，菩薩會為他們示現。所以報土也可以稱為應土。從菩薩的角度來說是報土，從眾生的角度來說是應土。問：如果這樣，那麼報土和應土有什麼區別呢？答：完全可以用前面所說的各種含義來解釋，不必截然分開。家師常說：報應土、應報土、眾生佛土、佛眾生土、佛菩薩土、菩薩佛土。下等根器的人聽了就會嘲笑，現在恐怕理解不了的人很多，所以不陳述這種說法。這些話正符合經文的旨意。問：現在有沒有報土和應土不同的含義呢？答：如果想要勉強顯示出不同之處，應土是暫時存在的，報土是長久存在的。比如這部經中按地所出現的景象，很短時間就消失了。報土是根據眾生的果報共同招感而來的，長期受用。可以以此作為區別。又比如穢土，是眾生惡業所感，所以稱為報土，不是佛示現的，所以不是應土。但是佛進入穢土教化眾生，寄居在眾生的報土之中，所以稱這個報土為佛土。問：那麼

【English Translation】 English version: Saints have reward lands (報土) within and outside the Three Realms, but Buddhas do not. Question: Is this manifested land (應土, yingtu, land manifested to respond to sentient beings) also a reward land? Answer: It can also be considered a reward land, containing two meanings. First, with regard to the Buddha; second, with regard to other sentient beings. Regarding the Buddha, the Tathagata initiated Buddha practices in the past, using land to respond to beings. Now, having attained Buddhahood, he can use land to respond to beings. Know that this land is a reward land. Second, regarding other sentient beings, although the Buddha manifests land to respond to beings, if beings lack the karmic affinity to perceive it, they cannot even see it, how can they be born in a pure land? Because beings cultivate pure causes, they experience this manifested land, so this manifested land can also be called a reward land. As the Avatamsaka Sutra says, a pure land arises not from a single cause and condition.

Next, explaining the reward land, it is discussed based on the actual practices of the Three Sages (the Ten Dwellings, Ten Practices, and Ten Dedications) and the Ten Saints (the Ten Bhumis of Bodhisattvas) in the causal stage. This is the reward land. Because they have not yet escaped the karmic rewards within and outside the Three Realms, they must have a dwelling place. The dwelling place is the Bodhisattva's true reward land, hence it is called reward land. This Bodhisattva's reward land can also be used to transform beings, who are born there together with the Bodhisattva. According to the perception of sentient beings, the Bodhisattva's land can also be called a reward land. This reward land, those beings who are suitable to see it, the Bodhisattva will manifest it for them. Therefore, the reward land can also be called a manifested land. From the Bodhisattva's perspective, it is a reward land; from the sentient beings' perspective, it is a manifested land. Question: If so, what is the difference between reward and manifestation? Answer: You can fully use the various meanings mentioned earlier to explain it; there is no need to separate them completely. My teacher often said: reward-manifestation land, manifestation-reward land, sentient beings'-Buddha land, Buddha's-sentient beings' land, Buddha's-Bodhisattva's land, Bodhisattva's-Buddha land. Those of inferior capacity will laugh upon hearing this, and now I fear that there are many who cannot understand, so I will not present this explanation. These words precisely accord with the meaning of the sutra. Question: Are there any different meanings between reward and manifestation now? Answer: If one wants to force a difference, the manifested land is temporary, while the reward land is long-lasting. For example, the scene that appeared from the ground in this sutra disappeared quickly. The reward land is jointly summoned by the karmic rewards of sentient beings and is enjoyed for a long time. This can be used as a difference. Also, for example, the impure land is perceived by the evil karma of sentient beings, so it is called a reward land. It is not manifested by the Buddha, so it is not a manifested land. However, the Buddha enters the impure land to transform sentient beings, residing within the reward land of sentient beings, so this reward land is called the Buddha's land. Question: Then

眾生惡業穢土。是佛應土不。答。佛應居其內。故稱佛土。亦得名為佛應土也。故下文云。為欲度斯下劣人故。示是眾穢惡不凈土耳。考斯言旨。本是身子之流。不依佛慧。故曰見不凈。此是惡業感土。如餓鬼惡業故感鐵丸。非是佛應。但佛應。但佛應居其中。故說為示現耳。

論土有無

有人言。佛一向無土。土皆是三界內外果報。佛斷惑因已盡。不感土報。是故無土。有人言。佛具足法土。以法界法門無不圓滿。豈無土耶。今明有無各有其義。若如四住為緣有漏業為因。感三界內報凈穢法土。無明為緣無漏業為因。感三界外。當知佛則斷因已竟。無復此報。故言無土。所以經云。普賢色身命猶如虛空。依于如如。不依佛國。何有土矣。而昔行菩薩道。大悲能行。能為眾生。起三界內外法土以益物。今遂能應物起土。即此身果。酬于昔因。佛則有土。二匠不達會通。故各偏執耳。問。仁王云。唯佛一人居凈土。是何土耶。答。此中道第一義諦。名之為土。菩薩爾時登第一義山頂。與無明父母永別。故獨居凈土。下位之流。未棲其中。此中道種種義說。對下三賢十聖果報之土。故名中道以為凈土。為法身所棲。形二邊名為中道。望世諦為第一。隨義說之。不應生疑。瓔珞法華。皆有此說。問。中道土亦是

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 眾生因惡業而感得污穢的國土。這是否是佛陀所應化的國土呢？回答是：佛陀應化居住在其中，所以稱之為佛土，也可以稱作佛應土。因此下文說：『爲了度化這些下劣之人，才示現這充滿污穢不凈的國土。』考察這段話的旨意，本是像舍利弗（Sariputra）這樣的人，不依從佛的智慧，所以說他們『見不凈』。這實際上是惡業所感得的國土，就像餓鬼因惡業而感得鐵丸一樣，並非是佛陀所應化的。只是佛陀應化居住在其中，所以說是示現罷了。

論述佛土的有無

有人說：佛陀一向沒有國土，所有的國土都是三界（Trailokya）內外果報。佛陀斷除惑業的因已經窮盡，不會再感得國土的果報，所以沒有國土。有人說：佛陀具足法土，因為法界（Dharmadhatu）法門沒有不圓滿的，怎麼會沒有國土呢？現在說明有和無各有其意義。如果像四住地（catuhsthiti）煩惱為緣，有漏業為因，感得三界內的報得的清凈或污穢的法土；以無明為緣，無漏業為因，感得三界外的法土。應當知道佛陀斷除惑業的因已經窮盡，不會再有這樣的果報，所以說沒有國土。所以經中說：普賢菩薩（Samantabhadra）的色身和壽命猶如虛空，依于如如（Tathata），不依于佛國，哪裡會有國土呢？而過去行菩薩道時，大悲心能夠行持，能夠爲了眾生，生起三界內外的法土來利益眾生，現在就能應眾生的根機而生起國土，這就是自身所證的果，酬報於過去的因。所以說佛陀是有國土的。這兩種見解的人不通達會通，所以各自偏執一端。問：仁王經（Renwangjing）說：『唯有佛陀一人居住在凈土』，這是什麼土呢？答：這是中道第一義諦（Paramartha-satya），稱之為土。菩薩（Bodhisattva）此時登上第一義山頂，與無明父母永遠告別，所以獨自居住在凈土。下位的人，還不能安住其中。這中道種種義理的說法，是針對下位的三賢十聖果報之土而言的，所以稱中道為凈土，為法身（Dharmakaya）所棲息。遠離二邊名為中道，從世俗諦（Samvriti-satya）的角度來說是第一。隨著義理來解說，不應該產生疑惑。瓔珞經（Yingluojing）、法華經（Saddharma Pundarika Sutra）等，都有這樣的說法。問：中道土也是

【English Translation】 English version: Sentient beings, due to their evil karma, perceive a defiled land. Is this the land where the Buddha should manifest? The answer is: The Buddha dwells within it, hence it is called a Buddha-land, and can also be called a Buddha's manifested land. Therefore, the following text says: 'In order to liberate these inferior beings, the Buddha manifests this impure and defiled land.' Examining the meaning of this statement, it originates from those like Sariputra (Sariputra), who do not rely on the Buddha's wisdom, thus they 'see impurity.' This is actually a land perceived due to evil karma, just as hungry ghosts perceive iron pellets due to their evil karma. It is not the land where the Buddha should manifest. However, the Buddha dwells within it, so it is said to be a manifestation.

Discussion on the Existence or Non-Existence of Buddha-lands

Some say: The Buddha inherently has no land. All lands are the karmic retributions within and beyond the Three Realms (Trailokya). The Buddha has exhausted the causes of delusion and will not experience the retribution of lands, therefore, there is no land. Some say: The Buddha possesses the Dharma-land completely, because the Dharma-realm (Dharmadhatu) and Dharma-gates are all perfectly fulfilled, how could there be no land? Now, it is explained that both existence and non-existence have their meanings. If the Four Abodes (catuhsthiti) are the condition, and defiled karma is the cause, one experiences the retribution of pure or impure Dharma-lands within the Three Realms. If ignorance is the condition, and undefiled karma is the cause, one experiences the Dharma-lands beyond the Three Realms. It should be known that the Buddha has exhausted the causes of delusion and will no longer have such retribution, therefore, it is said that there is no land. Therefore, the sutra says: The body and life of Samantabhadra (Samantabhadra) are like empty space, relying on Suchness (Tathata), not relying on Buddha-lands, so how could there be land? However, in the past, while practicing the Bodhisattva path, great compassion enabled the practice, and for the sake of sentient beings, the Buddha generated Dharma-lands within and beyond the Three Realms to benefit beings. Now, the Buddha can generate lands in response to beings' needs. This is the fruit of one's own body, repaying past causes. Therefore, it is said that the Buddha has land. These two types of people do not understand the synthesis, so they each cling to one extreme. Question: The Renwangjing (Renwangjing) says: 'Only the Buddha dwells in the Pure Land,' what land is this? Answer: This is the Middle Way First Principle (Paramartha-satya), which is called the land. The Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) at this time ascends to the summit of the First Principle Mountain, forever parting with the parents of ignorance, so he dwells alone in the Pure Land. Those of lower rank cannot yet dwell within it. This explanation of the various meanings of the Middle Way is in contrast to the lands of retribution of the Three Sages and Ten Saints of lower rank, therefore, the Middle Way is called the Pure Land, where the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya) dwells. Being apart from the two extremes is called the Middle Way, and from the perspective of conventional truth (Samvriti-satya), it is the first. Explain it according to the meaning, and there should be no doubt. The Yingluojing (Yingluojing) and the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra (Saddharma Pundarika Sutra) all have such explanations. Question: Is the Middle Way land also

報不。答。酬因亦是報也。但中道實相。非因所生。故不作報名耳。

論二行

問成就眾生與凈佛國土。常有此文。未見其異。請為分之。又如前云。為物取土。乃見凈佛國土。即是成就眾生。云何有二行異。答。二行相成。不可𨔴然使異。今欲分其相者。釋論云。成就眾生。履其利物之行。凈佛國土。明為物興所行。所行不同。故分二也。又無量壽佛為因之時。廣發四十餘愿。愿令土凈。故后得凈土。大品夢行品末。明菩薩見眾生飢寒凍餓起諸大行。行得凈土。又即此經云行取佛土。故知是行。問。若爾何故復修凈土因耶。答。前興大愿。后廣起眾行。行行具足。及得凈土。但起凈土。凡有二門。一者。下見眾生種種苦惱。故興大行。行取凈土。二者。上見諸佛國土安樂清凈。菩薩發心求之。欲以給物。行亦二門。例此可見。問。行自感土。何用愿為。答。行如車執行。為御者以愿。標心有在。故御行趣之。又心為初門。行為後起。如先發大愿。後方起行。又心一時頓發。行則次第修之。問。釋論何因緣故言。菩薩得悟無生忍已。復唯明就眾生凈佛國耶。答。得無生法忍。即是自行已立。今所應作。唯欲化他。化他之中。不出大行。大行故遍明此二也。問。此大行。大行應通自行化他。何故遍言化他。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：報（bào，果報）。答：酬因（chóu yīn，酬償因緣）也是報。但中道實相（zhōng dào shí xiàng，不落兩邊的真實狀態），非因所生，故不作為報的名字罷了。

論二行

問：成就眾生（chéng jiù zhòng shēng，使眾生獲得成就）與凈佛國土（jìng fó guó tǔ，清凈佛的國土），常有此文，未見其異，請為分之。又如前云，為物取土（wèi wù qǔ tǔ，爲了眾生而取得佛土），乃見凈佛國土，即是成就眾生，云何有二行異？答：二行相成，不可截然使異。今欲分其相者，《釋論》（shì lùn，《大智度論》的簡稱）云：成就眾生，履其利物之行（lǚ qí lì wù zhī xíng，履行利益眾生的行為）；凈佛國土，明為物興所行（míng wèi wù xīng suǒ xíng，表明爲了眾生而興起所作的行為）。所行不同，故分二也。又無量壽佛（wú liàng shòu fó，阿彌陀佛）為因之時，廣發四十餘愿，愿令土凈，故后得凈土。《大品》（dà pǐn，《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》的簡稱）夢行品末，明菩薩見眾生飢寒凍餓起諸大行，行得凈土。又即此經云行取佛土，故知是行。問：若爾何故復修凈土因耶？答：前興大愿，后廣起眾行，行行具足，及得凈土。但起凈土，凡有二門：一者，下見眾生種種苦惱，故興大行，行取凈土；二者，上見諸佛國土安樂清凈，菩薩發心求之，欲以給物。行亦二門，例此可見。問：行自感土（xíng zì gǎn tǔ，行為自然感得佛土），何用愿為？答：行如車執行，愿為御者，以愿標心有在，故御行趣之。又心為初門，行為後起，如先發大愿，後方起行。又心一時頓發，行則次第修之。問：《釋論》何因緣故言，菩薩得悟無生忍（wú shēng rěn，對事物不生不滅的真理的證悟）已，復唯明就眾生凈佛國耶？答：得無生法忍，即是自行已立，今所應作，唯欲化他（huà tā，教化他人）。化他之中，不出大行，大行故遍明此二也。問：此大行，大行應通自行化他，何故遍言化他？

【English Translation】 English version: Question: 'Report' (bào, retribution). Answer: 'Requiting cause' (chóu yīn, repaying causal conditions) is also retribution. However, the Middle Way Reality (zhōng dào shí xiàng, the true state of not falling into extremes) is not produced by causes, so it is not named 'retribution'.

On Two Practices

Question: 'Accomplishing sentient beings' (chéng jiù zhòng shēng, enabling sentient beings to achieve enlightenment) and 'purifying Buddha lands' (jìng fó guó tǔ, purifying the Buddha's realm) are frequently mentioned together, but their difference is not clear. Please explain. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, 'obtaining land for beings' (wèi wù qǔ tǔ, acquiring Buddha-land for the sake of beings) is seen as purifying the Buddha land, which is the same as accomplishing sentient beings. How can these be two different practices? Answer: The two practices complement each other and cannot be completely separated. If we want to distinguish their aspects, the Shastra (shì lùn, abbreviation of Mahaprajnaparamita-shastra) says: 'Accomplishing sentient beings' means 'engaging in the practice of benefiting beings' (lǚ qí lì wù zhī xíng, performing actions that benefit sentient beings); 'purifying Buddha lands' means 'clearly establishing the actions undertaken for the sake of beings' (míng wèi wù xīng suǒ xíng, clarifying the actions undertaken for the sake of beings). Because the actions are different, they are divided into two. Furthermore, when Amitabha Buddha (wú liàng shòu fó, Amitabha Buddha) was a cause, he made forty-eight great vows, wishing to purify the land, so he later obtained the Pure Land. At the end of the Dream Walking chapter of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (dà pǐn, abbreviation of Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra), it is stated that Bodhisattvas, seeing sentient beings suffering from hunger, cold, and starvation, initiate great practices and obtain Pure Lands through these practices. Moreover, this very sutra says 'obtaining Buddha lands through practice', so we know it is practice. Question: If so, why cultivate the causes for Pure Land again? Answer: First, great vows are made, and then extensive practices are undertaken. When all practices are complete, the Pure Land is obtained. There are two approaches to establishing a Pure Land: first, seeing the various sufferings of sentient beings below, one initiates great practices and obtains a Pure Land through these practices; second, seeing the peaceful and pure Buddha lands of the Buddhas above, Bodhisattvas aspire to seek them in order to give them to beings. There are also two approaches to practice, as can be seen by analogy. Question: If practice naturally brings about the land (xíng zì gǎn tǔ, actions naturally result in the Buddha-land), what is the use of vows? Answer: Practice is like a cart moving, and vows are like the driver. The vows mark where the mind is directed, so the driver guides the cart towards it. Furthermore, the mind is the initial door, and practice is the subsequent action, like first making great vows and then initiating practice. Moreover, the mind arises all at once, while practice is cultivated gradually. Question: Why does the Shastra say that after Bodhisattvas attain the non-origination forbearance (wú shēng rěn, realization of the truth of non-arising and non-ceasing of phenomena), they only focus on accomplishing sentient beings and purifying Buddha lands? Answer: Attaining the non-origination forbearance means that one's own practice is established. What should be done now is only to transform others (huà tā, to teach others). Within transforming others, there is nothing beyond great practice, so these two are extensively explained. Question: This great practice should encompass both self-practice and transforming others. Why is it said to extensively refer to transforming others?

答。至人空洞無緣。何用土為。今既取土。必是為物。故此行行皆是化他。問。文云。欲得凈土當凈其心。隨其心凈。則佛土凈。豈非自行。答。若為令土凈故凈其心。亦是為物故自凈其心耳。若直言菩薩自凈其心不期土凈者。此之凈心。容通自行也。又菩薩若自行若化他。皆是化他。所以然者。為欲化他。故修自行。自行不成。不能化物。今欲化物。要須自行。故一切行皆為化他況凈土行耶。

又明凈佛土與成就眾生二義者。凈佛土。多據果門。成就眾生。多據因門。所以然者。必成佛之時。方得佛土。如經云。菩薩成佛時。不諂眾生。來生其國。故知因中起凈土之行。據果時益物。成就眾生多據因門者。菩薩成就眾生故。眾生已生凈土耳。問。何以知然。答。經論自標二行各異。云凈佛土行。此行標果立行。若成就眾生。但約利他。不標于果。故知據因。又二行異者。凈佛土行。是上求之行。成就眾生隨所利益故。是下化之行。菩薩要行。不出斯二。又凈佛土行是別行。成就眾生此是通行。何以知之。但云凈佛土。不明穢土。故是別行。成就眾生。隨有凈穢之處。皆明利物。故是通行也。問。前就行行門分二。今何故並云行耶。答。論主明此是二種要行故。當知皆是行也。據位明二行。從初發意乃至等覺。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 答：至人（指達到極高境界的人）心境空明，不執著于外物，原本不需要用泥土來做什麼。現在既然取用泥土，必定是爲了某種事物。因此，他所做的每一件事都是爲了教化他人。問：經文說，『想要得到清凈的佛土，應當清凈自己的心；隨著心清凈，那麼佛土也就清凈了。』這難道不是自身的修行嗎？答：如果爲了使佛土清凈而清凈自己的心，這也是爲了某種事物而清凈自己的心。如果直接說菩薩清凈自己的心，不期望佛土清凈，那麼這種清凈心，可以算是自身的修行。而且，菩薩無論是自身修行還是教化他人，實際上都是爲了教化他人。為什麼這麼說呢？因為爲了教化他人，所以才進行自身修行。自身修行沒有成就，就不能教化他人。現在想要教化他人，就必須自身修行。所以，一切行為都是爲了教化他人，更何況是清凈佛土的行為呢？ 又說明清凈佛土與成就眾生這兩種意義：清凈佛土，多從結果的角度來說；成就眾生，多從原因的角度來說。為什麼這麼說呢？必定是成佛的時候，才能得到佛土。如經文所說：『菩薩成佛時，不諂媚眾生，（這些眾生）來生於他的佛國。』因此，知道在因地發起清凈佛土的行為，在果地利益眾生。成就眾生多從原因的角度來說，是因為菩薩成就眾生，眾生才能往生凈土。問：憑什麼知道是這樣呢？答：經論自己標明這兩種行為各有不同，說『清凈佛土行』，這種行為標明結果而立行。如果說成就眾生，只是爲了利益他人，不標明結果，所以知道是從原因的角度來說。而且，這兩種行為不同在於，清凈佛土行是向上追求的行為，成就眾生是隨著所利益的對象而變化，是向下教化的行為。菩薩要修行的，不出這兩種。而且，清凈佛土行是特別的行為，成就眾生是普遍的行為。憑什麼知道呢？只說清凈佛土，不說不清凈的佛土，所以是特別的行為。成就眾生，無論在清凈還是不清凈的地方，都說明要利益眾生，所以是普遍的行為。問：前面就行為的各個方面來區分這兩種行為，現在為什麼都說成是『行』呢？答：論主說明這兩種是重要的行為，應當知道都是『行』。從菩薩初發心到等覺菩薩的果位，都可以用這兩種行為來區分。

【English Translation】 English version: Answer: A perfect being (one who has reached the highest state) has an empty and unobstructed mind, not attached to external objects, and originally has no need to use earth for anything. Now that earth is being taken, it must be for some purpose. Therefore, every action he takes is to transform others. Question: The scripture says, 'If you want to obtain a pure land, you should purify your mind; as your mind becomes pure, then the Buddha land will also become pure.' Isn't this self-cultivation? Answer: If one purifies one's mind in order to purify the Buddha land, this is also purifying one's mind for the sake of something. If it is directly said that a Bodhisattva purifies his own mind without expecting the Buddha land to be pure, then this kind of pure mind can be considered self-cultivation. Moreover, whether a Bodhisattva cultivates himself or transforms others, it is actually to transform others. Why is this so? Because in order to transform others, one cultivates oneself. If self-cultivation is not accomplished, one cannot transform others. Now, if one wants to transform others, one must cultivate oneself. Therefore, all actions are for the sake of transforming others, let alone the action of purifying the Buddha land? Furthermore, clarifying the two meanings of purifying the Buddha land and accomplishing sentient beings: purifying the Buddha land is mostly based on the result; accomplishing sentient beings is mostly based on the cause. Why is this so? It is only at the time of becoming a Buddha that one can obtain a Buddha land. As the scripture says, 'When a Bodhisattva becomes a Buddha, he does not flatter sentient beings, (and these sentient beings) are born in his Buddha land.' Therefore, it is known that initiating the action of purifying the Buddha land in the causal stage benefits sentient beings in the resultant stage. Accomplishing sentient beings is mostly based on the causal stage because the Bodhisattva accomplishes sentient beings, and sentient beings can be reborn in the pure land. Question: How do we know this is the case? Answer: The scriptures and treatises themselves indicate that these two actions are different, saying 'the action of purifying the Buddha land.' This action marks the result and establishes the action. If it is said that accomplishing sentient beings is only for the sake of benefiting others, without marking the result, then it is known that it is based on the cause. Moreover, the difference between these two actions lies in the fact that the action of purifying the Buddha land is an upward-seeking action, while accomplishing sentient beings changes according to the object being benefited and is a downward-transforming action. The actions that a Bodhisattva must cultivate do not go beyond these two. Moreover, the action of purifying the Buddha land is a special action, while accomplishing sentient beings is a universal action. How do we know this? It only speaks of purifying the Buddha land, without speaking of impure lands, so it is a special action. Accomplishing sentient beings, whether in pure or impure places, all indicate the need to benefit sentient beings, so it is a universal action. Question: Earlier, these two actions were distinguished based on various aspects of the action, why are they now both referred to as 'action'? Answer: The author of the treatise clarifies that these two are important actions, and it should be known that they are all 'actions'. These two actions can be used to distinguish the stages from the initial aspiration of a Bodhisattva to the stage of Equal Enlightenment (等覺, Dengjue).

皆具修二行。約十地經。八地正明凈佛土。九地四無礙履成就眾生也。

論二慧

問。前文云。譬如空地造室。隨意無礙。若於虛空。終不能成。此文欲明何義。答。欲明取于凈土。要具二慧。但有所行為物取于凈土。則有方便。無實慧。墮凡夫地。以凡夫人天求亦凈妙處故。若但有修空觀。則不得為物取土。墮二乘地。今具實慧方便取土義故。以實慧方便。為物取土。方便實慧土亦本空眾生。非有凡夫故無所染著。無所染著。不同凡夫。為物取土。異二乘行。故須二慧。所以云世界非一因緣所能得起。宮室者佛土也。空者實慧也。地者眾生也。故以菩薩空心。依眾生地。然後起凈土因。得凈土果。故名造室也。

論一質異見

法華玄論已略陳之。但此義人喜迷人。宜須決了。問。定以何物為一質而云異見。答。今既明一質異見。宜就土辨之。土雖無量。不出三種。一法身本土。二跡中明報應二土。法身本土。即中道實相。此土非垢非凈。不生不滅。超百非。絕四句。不知何之目之。強嘆美云凈土。言一質者。即中道實相一凈質也。異見者。于佛如來常見中道實相。眾生恒見斷常生滅。生滅之土自燒。無生之土不毀。故名一質異見。二者。就跡中報應二土。明一質二見者。以應土為一質。若

【現代漢語翻譯】 皆具修二行。約十地經。八地正明凈佛土。九地四無礙履成就眾生也。

論二慧

問。前文云。『譬如空地造室。隨意無礙。若於虛空。終不能成。』此文欲明何義。答。欲明取于凈土。要具二慧。但有所行為物取于凈土。則有方便。無實慧。墮凡夫地。以凡夫人天求亦凈妙處故。若但有修空觀。則不得為物取土。墮二乘地。今具實慧方便取土義故。以實慧方便。為物取土。方便實慧土亦本空眾生。非有凡夫故無所染著。無所染著。不同凡夫。為物取土。異二乘行。故須二慧。所以云『世界非一因緣所能得起』。宮室者佛土也。空者實慧也。地者眾生也。故以菩薩空心。依眾生地。然後起凈土因。得凈土果。故名造室也。

論一質異見

法華玄論已略陳之。但此義人喜迷人。宜須決了。問。定以何物為一質而云異見。答。今既明一質異見。宜就土辨之。土雖無量。不出三種。一法身本土（Dharmakāya's original land）。二跡中明報應二土。法身本土（Dharmakāya's original land）。即中道實相。此土非垢非凈。不生不滅。超百非。絕四句。不知何之目之。強嘆美云凈土。言一質者。即中道實相一凈質也。異見者。于佛如來常見中道實相。眾生恒見斷常生滅。生滅之土自燒。無生之土不毀。故名一質異見。二者。就跡中報應二土。明一質二見者。以應土為一質。若

【English Translation】 All possess and cultivate the two practices. According to the Ten Stages Sutra (Dashabhumika Sutra), the eighth stage clearly illuminates the pure Buddha-land. The ninth stage achieves the unhindered fulfillment of benefiting sentient beings.

Discussion on the Two Wisdoms

Question: The previous text says, 'It is like building a room on empty ground, where one can do as one pleases without obstruction. But in empty space, it can never be accomplished.' What meaning does this passage intend to clarify? Answer: It intends to clarify that to attain a Pure Land, one must possess both wisdoms. If one only performs actions to acquire a Pure Land, one has skillful means but lacks true wisdom, and falls into the realm of ordinary beings. This is because ordinary humans and gods also seek pure and wonderful places. If one only cultivates emptiness contemplation, one cannot acquire land for the sake of beings and falls into the realm of the two vehicles (Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas). Now, we possess the meaning of acquiring land with both true wisdom and skillful means. With true wisdom and skillful means, we acquire land for the sake of beings. The land of skillful means and true wisdom is originally empty, and beings are non-existent. Therefore, it is not like ordinary beings and has no attachments. Being without attachments is different from ordinary beings acquiring land. It is also different from the practice of the two vehicles. Therefore, both wisdoms are necessary. That is why it is said, 'A world cannot arise from a single cause and condition.' The palace is the Buddha-land. Emptiness is true wisdom. The ground is sentient beings. Therefore, with the empty mind of a Bodhisattva, relying on the ground of sentient beings, one then initiates the cause of the Pure Land and attains the fruit of the Pure Land. Therefore, it is called building a room.

Discussion on One Substance, Different Views

The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra has already briefly explained this. However, people are easily confused by this meaning, so it needs to be clarified. Question: What exactly is the 'one substance' that you refer to when you speak of 'different views'? Answer: Since we are now clarifying 'one substance, different views,' it is appropriate to discuss it in terms of land. Although lands are countless, they can be categorized into three types: first, the Dharmakāya's original land (Dharmakāya's original land); second, the two lands of reward and response manifested in the traces. The Dharmakāya's original land (Dharmakāya's original land) is the Middle Way Reality. This land is neither defiled nor pure, neither arising nor ceasing. It transcends the hundred negations and goes beyond the four statements. We do not know what to call it, so we forcefully praise it as the Pure Land. The 'one substance' refers to the one pure substance of the Middle Way Reality. The 'different views' refer to the fact that Buddhas and Tathagatas constantly see the Middle Way Reality, while sentient beings constantly see impermanence, permanence, arising, and ceasing. The land of arising and ceasing burns itself, while the land of non-arising is not destroyed. Therefore, it is called 'one substance, different views.' Second, regarding the two lands of reward and response in the traces, to clarify 'one substance, two views,' we take the response land as one substance. If

應凈土即一凈質。穢土亦然。但二緣所見。各自不同。心依佛慧。則還是凈質。若不依佛慧。則放一凈質。遂見其穢。故名一質異見。問。穢緣自見穢土。何須應以凈耶。答。有二義。一顯菩薩之德。令增進願行。二彰小乘之失。令欣慕大道。譬如欲誡初生諸天福之厚薄。故共寶器食也。

次明報土一質異見

如諸菩薩報得凈土。惡業眾生。于凈見穢。問。菩薩凈報。自見凈土。眾生不凈業。自見眾生不凈土。云何于菩薩報。見不凈耶。答。若論二報不同。眾生不見者。今不論之。但據眾生見。菩薩凈土而成穢土。如經云。我此土凈。而汝不見譬如於人報水餓鬼則見火。問。鬼惡業故。於水見火不見水。人則見水不見火。可得云諸佛菩薩見凈土不見穢。凡夫二乘見穢土不見凈以不。答。以理言之。則應爾也。但勝能兼劣。故佛菩薩見凈。隨眾生復見穢。如華嚴法界品云。天得見人。復得見天。人但見人。不得見天。菩薩自見境界不可思議。復見二乘所行顛倒。問。若爾。鬼但見鬼家之火。不見人水。人應見人水。復見鬼火耶。答。見水成火。此是辨惡業。於水橫見火。人無此業。故不見之。問。若爾。二乘惡業故。于菩薩境界橫見不凈。菩薩應不見其不凈。答。諸佛菩薩有隨顛倒智天眼他心故。能知能見

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：應化凈土和實報凈土本質上都是清凈的。之所以顯現不同，是因為眾生的因緣和視角不同。如果心依循佛的智慧，那麼所見仍然是清凈的本質。如果不依循佛的智慧，即使是清凈的本質，也會被視為污穢。所以說，本質是相同的，只是見解不同。問：污穢的因緣自然會看到污穢的國土，為什麼還需要清凈的凈土來對應呢？答：有兩個原因。一是彰顯菩薩的功德，使他們更加精進地發願和修行。二是揭示小乘的缺失，使他們欣慕追求大道。這就好比爲了告誡新生的諸天，他們的福報有厚有薄，所以大家一起用寶器來吃飯。

接下來闡明報土本質相同，但見解不同。

例如，諸位菩薩因果報而得到清凈的凈土，而作惡業的眾生，在清凈的凈土中卻看到污穢。問：菩薩因清凈的果報，自然看到清凈的凈土；眾生因不清凈的業力，自然看到眾生不清凈的國土。為什麼會在菩薩的果報中，看到不清凈的景象呢？答：如果從兩種果報不同的角度來說，眾生是看不到菩薩的凈土的，但這裡我們不討論這種情況。我們只說眾生看到菩薩的凈土，卻將其視為污穢的國土。正如經中所說：『我的這個國土是清凈的，而你們卻看不到。』比如，對於人來說是水，對於餓鬼來說卻看到的是火。問：餓鬼因為惡業的緣故，將水看成火，看不到水；人則看到水，看不到火。那麼，是否可以說諸佛菩薩看到的是凈土，看不到污穢的國土；凡夫和二乘看到的是污穢的國土，看不到清凈的國土呢？答：從道理上來說，應該是這樣的。但是殊勝的能夠兼顧低劣的，所以佛菩薩看到的是清凈的，但隨著眾生也能看到污穢。正如《華嚴經·法界品》所說：天人能看到人，也能看到天人；人只能看到人，不能看到天人。菩薩自己所見的境界不可思議，也能看到二乘所修行的顛倒之處。問：如果這樣，餓鬼只能看到餓鬼家的火，看不到人的水；人應該能看到人的水，也能看到餓鬼的火嗎？答：將水看成火，這是因為辨別惡業，在水中橫生出火的幻象。人沒有這種惡業，所以看不到。問：如果這樣，二乘因為惡業的緣故，在菩薩的境界中橫生出不清凈的幻象，菩薩應該看不到他們的不清凈才對。答：諸佛菩薩具有隨順顛倒的智慧、天眼和他心通，所以能夠知道，能夠看到。

【English Translation】 English version: The Pure Land of Response and Transformation and the Pure Land of True Reward are essentially pure. The difference in appearance is due to the different conditions and perspectives of sentient beings. If the mind follows the wisdom of the Buddha, what is seen is still the pure essence. If it does not follow the wisdom of the Buddha, even the pure essence will be seen as defiled. Therefore, it is said that the essence is the same, but the views are different. Question: Defiled conditions naturally lead to seeing a defiled land. Why is it necessary to have a pure land to correspond to it? Answer: There are two reasons. First, to manifest the virtues of the Bodhisattvas, so that they will be more diligent in making vows and practicing. Second, to reveal the shortcomings of the Small Vehicle (Hinayana), so that they will admire and pursue the Great Vehicle (Mahayana). It is like warning the newly born devas (gods) that their blessings are thick and thin, so everyone eats with precious vessels.

Next, it explains that the Land of Retribution is the same in essence, but the views are different.

For example, the Bodhisattvas obtain the pure land as a result of their karma, while sentient beings who commit evil karma see defilement in the pure land. Question: Bodhisattvas naturally see the pure land because of their pure retribution; sentient beings naturally see the impure land of sentient beings because of their impure karma. Why do they see impure scenes in the retribution of the Bodhisattvas? Answer: If we talk about the difference between the two retributions, sentient beings cannot see the pure land of the Bodhisattvas, but we are not discussing this situation here. We are only saying that sentient beings see the pure land of the Bodhisattvas, but regard it as a defiled land. As the sutra says: 'This land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.' For example, what is water for humans is seen as fire for hungry ghosts. Question: Because of the evil karma of the hungry ghosts, they see water as fire and do not see water; humans see water and do not see fire. Then, can it be said that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas see the pure land and do not see the defiled land; ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) see the defiled land and do not see the pure land? Answer: In principle, it should be like this. However, the superior can encompass the inferior, so the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas see the pure, but also see the defiled along with sentient beings. As the 'Dharmadhatu Chapter' of the Avatamsaka Sutra says: Devas can see humans, and can also see devas; humans can only see humans, and cannot see devas. The realm seen by the Bodhisattvas themselves is inconceivable, and they can also see the inverted practices of the Two Vehicles. Question: If so, hungry ghosts can only see the fire of the hungry ghosts' realm, and cannot see the water of humans; humans should be able to see the water of humans, and also see the fire of hungry ghosts? Answer: Seeing water as fire is because of distinguishing evil karma, and the illusion of fire arises horizontally in the water. Humans do not have this evil karma, so they do not see it. Question: If so, because of the evil karma of the Two Vehicles, they horizontally produce the illusion of impurity in the realm of the Bodhisattvas, and the Bodhisattvas should not see their impurity. Answer: The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have the wisdom to follow inversion, the divine eye (divyacaksu), and the ability to know the minds of others (paracittajnana), so they can know and see.

。故華嚴云。隨順眾生故。普入諸世間。智慧常寂然。不同世所見。人無此事故。但見人水。不見鬼於水上作火。上來皆是寄事明之耳。

論同實異

習成實論者云。土是世諦非無一質。但即真空。故無質耳。晚習唯識攝大乘論者云。如虛空。天見之為寶宮。鬼見之為猛火。鳥見之為好路。人見之為虛空。並無四質。悉是心變異故見此四耳。犢子部云。人成結成事成。事成者。即六塵等事。此明實有一質。薩婆多雲。人不成結成事成。亦有一質。譬喻部云。人不成事不成。但有結成耳。如一色。貪人見之為凈。不凈觀人謂不凈。餘人見之為非凈不凈。故無有定質。但有結使之心。尋譬喻之計。似唯識之宗。今先問唯識宗。若無境有心者。夫論因必有果。有果必酬因。心是方化之因。故云三界皆一心造。既計能造之心因。豈無所造之境果。若無境有心。則是無果有因。問。心變異故。見有外境。但外境猶是心。心外無有境。故有因亦有果。答。如外種子為因生外物之果。而有因有果者。今以心為因。變異生三界五道。何故言無別果耶。若言心橫謂故見萬物。實無萬物。如眼病見空華。實無空華。若爾實無萬物。亦無妄謂之心。而於妄謂之者。有妄謂之心。亦于妄謂之人。有妄謂之境。若言心境俱是妄謂。終

【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，《華嚴經》說：『隨順眾生，普遍進入各個世間。智慧永遠寂靜，不同於世俗所見。』人們沒有這種能力，所以只能看到人（看到）水，看不到鬼在水上製造火焰。以上這些都是借用事例來說明道理。

關於『同實異』的爭論

學習《成實論》的人說：『地是世俗諦，並非沒有實體，只是它本身就是真空，所以沒有實體。』後來學習《唯識攝大乘論》的人說：『比如虛空，天人看到它是寶宮，鬼看到它是猛火，鳥看到它是好路，人看到它是虛空。實際上並沒有這四種實體，都是心的變異，所以才看到這四種景象。』犢子部說：『人成就，結成就，事成就。』所謂『事成就』，就是指六塵等事物。這說明確實存在一種實體。薩婆多部說：『人不成，結成就，事成就。』也存在一種實體。譬喻部說：『人不成，事不成，只有結成就。』比如一種顏色，貪婪的人看到它是乾淨的，修不凈觀的人認為它是不乾淨的，其他人看到它既非乾淨也非不乾淨。所以沒有固定的實體，只有結使之心。』考察譬喻部的觀點，類似於唯識宗的觀點。現在先問唯識宗：如果沒有外境而只有心，那麼按照因果關係，有因必有果，有果必酬因。心是變化的原因，所以說『三界都是一心所造』。既然承認能造的心因，難道沒有所造的境果嗎？如果沒有外境而只有心，那就是無果有因。 問：心變異的緣故，所以看到有外境，但外境仍然是心，心外沒有外境，所以有因也有果。 答：如同外在的種子作為因，產生外在事物的果，所以說有因有果。現在以心為因，變異產生三界五道，為什麼說沒有別的果呢？如果說心虛妄地認為所以看到萬物，實際上沒有萬物，如同眼病的人看到空中的花朵，實際上沒有空中的花朵。如果這樣，實際上沒有萬物，也沒有虛妄認為的心。而對於虛妄認為的人來說，有虛妄認為的心，對於虛妄認為的人來說，也有虛妄認為的境。如果說心和境都是虛妄認為的，最終

【English Translation】 Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Complying with sentient beings, universally entering all realms. Wisdom is eternally tranquil, different from what the world sees.' People do not have this ability, so they can only see people (seeing) water, and cannot see ghosts creating fire on the water. All of the above are using examples to illustrate the principle.

On the Debate of 'Same in Reality, Different in Appearance'

Those who study the Satyasiddhi Shastra say: 'Earth is conventional truth, not without substance, but it is itself emptiness, so it has no substance.' Later, those who study the Yogacarabhumi-sastra say: 'For example, space, Devas see it as a treasure palace, ghosts see it as raging fire, birds see it as a good road, and people see it as empty space. In reality, there are no these four substances, all are transformations of the mind, so they see these four appearances.' The Vatsiputriya school says: 'Person is established, defilement is established, thing is established.' 'Thing is established' refers to the six sense objects. This clarifies that there is indeed one substance. The Sarvastivada school says: 'Person is not established, defilement is established, thing is established.' There is also one substance. The Dristantavada school says: 'Person is not established, thing is not established, only defilement is established.' For example, one color, a greedy person sees it as pure, a person practicing impurity contemplation considers it impure, and others see it as neither pure nor impure. Therefore, there is no fixed substance, only the mind of defilements.' Examining the view of the Dristantavada school, it is similar to the view of the Yogacara school. Now, first ask the Yogacara school: If there is no external realm but only mind, then according to the law of cause and effect, there must be a result for every cause, and every result must repay a cause. The mind is the cause of transformation, so it is said that 'the three realms are all created by one mind.' Since you acknowledge the mind as the cause of creation, how can there be no realm as the result of creation? If there is no external realm but only mind, then it is a case of no result but only cause. Question: Because of the mind's transformation, one sees external realms, but the external realms are still the mind, and there is no external realm outside the mind, so there is both cause and effect. Answer: Just as external seeds are the cause of producing the fruit of external things, so there is cause and effect. Now, using the mind as the cause, it transforms and produces the three realms and five paths, why do you say there is no other fruit? If you say that the mind falsely believes, so it sees all things, but in reality there are no all things, like a person with eye disease seeing flowers in the sky, but in reality there are no flowers in the sky. If that is the case, in reality there are no all things, and there is no falsely believing mind. But for the person who falsely believes, there is a falsely believing mind, and for the person who falsely believes, there is also a falsely believing realm. If you say that both mind and realm are falsely believed, ultimately

因心故有境者。此乃是妄謂之心為本。妄謂之境為末。不得言本有而末無。又眾生心變異故。見眾生土。諸佛菩薩應土。誰所作耶。若言亦是眾生心變異故見應土者。佛則無應土。若爾但有法寶兩身。應無化佛。又但有他心。無天眼耳。問。佛有權實二智。實智則見真如。不見識不識塵不塵。權智則知世諦等境。就世諦智中。復有權實二智。唯有心。此是實智。若知有色。此是權智。故佛以權智。隨順眾生。亦有化身應土。答。佛隨順眾生故者。為見眾生色故順。為不見故隨。如其不見何得隨。若其見者。既其無色。何所見耶。又佛若見色。則是倒見。次問有定質義。答。若有定質者。如一水兩見。鬼見成火。則有色觸。人見為水。便是三塵。定是何質。色。于不得通者為礙。于得通者不礙。寧言色定是質礙。于有見人為有。于觀空人為空。色豈定是空有耶。以此推之。不得定言有一質。亦不得定言無一質。問。何故經論之中。說有一質。說無一質耶。答。天親論主。為眾生於五塵中起煩惱業。招生死報。是故論雲實無外境。皆是心之所作。本有外境。可起貪瞋。既無外境。於何處起煩惱耶。外境既無。則心亦不有。則不心不境。便悟入實相。是故說無境有心。此是對治悉檀。非第一義。學人不體其旨。便謂無境有心

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為心的緣故才有境界，這乃是錯誤地認為心是根本，錯誤地認為境界是末端。不能說根本存在而末端不存在。而且眾生的心變異的緣故，見到眾生所處的國土，諸佛菩薩的應化國土，是誰創造的呢？如果說也是眾生的心變異的緣故見到應化國土，那麼佛就沒有應化國土。如果這樣，就只有法身和報身兩種身，應該沒有化身佛。而且只有他心通，沒有天眼天耳通。問：佛有權智和實智兩種智慧，實智就見到真如（宇宙的本源），不見識（意識）、不識（非意識）、塵（感官對像）、非塵（非感官對像）。權智就知道世俗諦（世俗真理）等境界。在世俗諦的智慧中，又有權智和實智兩種。只有心，這是實智。如果知有色（物質），這是權智。所以佛用權智，隨順眾生，也有化身和應化國土。答：佛隨順眾生的緣故，是爲了見到眾生的色（物質）而隨順，還是因為沒見到而隨順？如果沒見到，怎麼能隨順？如果見到了，既然沒有色（物質），見到什麼呢？而且佛如果見到色（物質），那就是顛倒的見解。接著問：色（物質）有固定的體性嗎？答：如果色（物質）有固定的體性，就像同一杯水，鬼看到的是火，就有了色（顏色）和觸（觸感），人看到的是水，就是三種塵（色、香、味）。那麼，固定的體性是什麼呢？色（物質），對於不能通過的就成為阻礙，對於能通過的就不阻礙。怎麼能說色（物質）一定是阻礙呢？對於有見的人來說是存在，對於觀空的人來說是空，色（物質）難道一定是空或者存在嗎？由此推斷，不能肯定地說有一種固定的體性，也不能肯定地說沒有一種固定的體性。問：為什麼經論之中，說有一種體性，又說沒有一種體性呢？答：天親（Vasubandhu）論師，因為眾生在五塵（色、聲、香、味、觸）中產生煩惱業，招來生死果報，所以論中說實際上沒有外在的境界，都是心所造作的。本來有外在的境界，可以產生貪婪和嗔恨。既然沒有外在的境界，在什麼地方產生煩惱呢？外在的境界既然沒有，那麼心也不存在，那麼不心不境，就領悟進入實相（事物的真實面貌）。所以說沒有境界而有心，這是對治悉檀（一種教導方法），不是第一義諦（終極真理）。學人不理解其中的旨意，就認為沒有境界而有心。

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the mind, there are realms. This is falsely taking the mind as the root and the realms as the branch. It cannot be said that the root exists while the branch does not. Moreover, because the minds of sentient beings vary, they see the lands of sentient beings and the responsive lands of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Who creates these? If it is said that the responsive lands are also seen because of the variations in the minds of sentient beings, then the Buddha would have no responsive lands. If that were the case, there would only be the Dharmakaya (body of the Law) and Sambhogakaya (body of bliss), and there would be no Nirmanakaya (body of transformation) Buddha. Furthermore, there would only be telepathy, and no divine eyes or ears. Question: The Buddha has two kinds of wisdom, expedient wisdom and true wisdom. True wisdom sees Suchness (the ultimate reality), and does not see consciousness, non-consciousness, dust (sense objects), or non-dust (non-sense objects). Expedient wisdom knows the mundane truths (conventional reality) and other realms. Within mundane wisdom, there are also two kinds of wisdom, expedient wisdom and true wisdom. Only the mind exists; this is true wisdom. If one knows that form (matter) exists, this is expedient wisdom. Therefore, the Buddha uses expedient wisdom to accord with sentient beings, and also has transformation bodies and responsive lands. Answer: The Buddha accords with sentient beings, is it to accord because he sees the form (matter) of sentient beings, or because he does not see it? If he does not see it, how can he accord? If he sees it, since there is no form (matter), what does he see? Moreover, if the Buddha sees form (matter), that is a distorted view. Next question: Does form (matter) have a fixed nature? Answer: If form (matter) had a fixed nature, like one water seen in two ways, ghosts see it as fire, and there would be color and touch. Humans see it as water, and there would be three dusts (form, smell, taste). So, what is the fixed nature? Form (matter), for those who cannot pass through it, becomes an obstacle; for those who can pass through it, it is not an obstacle. How can it be said that form (matter) is definitely an obstacle? For those who have sight, it exists; for those who contemplate emptiness, it is empty. Is form (matter) definitely empty or existent? From this, it cannot be definitely said that there is a fixed nature, nor can it be definitely said that there is no fixed nature. Question: Why do the sutras and treatises say that there is a nature, and also say that there is no nature? Answer: Vasubandhu (Tianqin) the treatise master, because sentient beings generate afflictions and karma from the five dusts (form, sound, smell, taste, touch), which lead to the retribution of birth and death, therefore the treatise says that in reality there are no external realms, all are created by the mind. Originally, there were external realms, and greed and hatred could arise. Since there are no external realms, where do afflictions arise? Since external realms do not exist, then the mind also does not exist, so neither mind nor realm exists, and one awakens to the reality (true nature of things). Therefore, it is said that there are no realms but there is a mind; this is a remedial teaching (a method of teaching), not the ultimate truth (the highest truth). Students do not understand the meaning of this, and then think that there are no realms but there is a mind.

。問。何故復明有心有境。答。于顛倒眾生。既有倒心。即是倒境。但要因倒心。故有倒境。倒心為本。倒境為末。是故經中說有心境。諸部不知隨順眾生說有此事。便謂心境二俱實有。問。若有心境。何故於空中見火。復於水見火。答。經云五不思議中。眾生業行不思議。自有空中無火以惡業故見空成火。自有於人中報水變而成火。問。若爾即是無境。云何言非。答。于眾生有心。即見有境。云何言無。問。若爾即成有境。云何言非。答。于鬼見火。人實不見。云何言有也。

正法

凈名玄論卷第八(終)

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：為什麼還要說明有心有境呢？答：對於顛倒的眾生來說，既然有了顛倒的心，那就是顛倒的境。只是因為有顛倒的心，所以才有顛倒的境。顛倒的心是根本，顛倒的境是末端。因此，經書中才說有心境。各部派不瞭解這是隨順眾生而說的，就認為心和境都是真實存在的。問：如果真有心境，為什麼在空中能看到火，又在水中能看到火呢？答：經中說，在五種不可思議之中，眾生的業行是不可思議的。自然有空中本沒有火，因為惡業的緣故，看到空變成了火。自然有人間的水因為報應而變成火。問：如果這樣，那就是沒有境了，為什麼說不是呢？答：對於眾生來說，有了心，就看到有境，怎麼能說沒有呢？問：如果這樣，那就成了有境了，為什麼說不是呢？答：鬼看到火，人實際上看不到，怎麼能說有呢？ 正法 《凈名玄論》卷第八（終）

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why is it further explained that there is mind and object? Answer: For inverted sentient beings, since there is an inverted mind, that is an inverted object. It is only because of the inverted mind that there is an inverted object. The inverted mind is the root, and the inverted object is the end. Therefore, the sutras say that there is mind and object. The various schools, not understanding that this is said in accordance with sentient beings, then claim that both mind and object are truly existent. Question: If there truly are mind and object, why is fire seen in the sky, and fire seen in water? Answer: The sutra says that among the five inconceivables, the karmic actions of sentient beings are inconceivable. Naturally, there is no fire in the sky, but because of evil karma, one sees the sky transforming into fire. Naturally, the water in the human realm transforms into fire due to retribution. Question: If that is so, then there is no object; why do you say it is not? Answer: For sentient beings, if there is mind, then one sees that there is object; how can you say there is not? Question: If that is so, then it becomes that there is object; why do you say it is not? Answer: Ghosts see fire, but humans do not actually see it; how can you say there is? Righteous Dharma Vimalakirti's Profound Discourses, Volume 8 (End)