T46n1932_金剛錍
大正藏第 46 冊 No. 1932 金剛錍
No. 1932
科金剛錍序
宋云間沙門凈岳撰
科分大經章段。起自關內憑小山瑤。前代未聞也。吾祖章安作疏益詳。至荊溪將迦葉品。分正緣了別指方隅。則權實進否曉然而明。可謂善乎派深。良哉析重也。余復以佛性周遍三千具攝而分。今文分而又分賓主問答。引文釋義略無混亂。雖短脛亦可以厲法流。孺子敢當荷負矣。或曰猶牧女之添水。將非澆漓于乳味乎。不然乳益乳也。茍能鉆搖醍醐可獲。豈仍乳而已耶。
金剛錍(圓伊金錍。以抉四眼無明之膜。令一切處悉見遮那佛性之指。偏權疑碎加之以剛。假夢寄客立以賓主。觀者恕之)
唐天臺沙門湛然述
自濫沾釋典。積有歲年。未嘗不以佛性義經懷。恐不了之徒為苦行。大教斯立功在於茲。萬派之通途。眾流之歸趣。諸法之大旨。造行之所期。若是而思之。依而觀之。則凡聖一如色香泯凈。阿鼻依正全處極聖之自心。毗盧身土不逾下凡之一念。曾於靜夜久而思之思之未已。恍焉如睡。不覺寱云無情有性。仍于睡夢忽見一人云。仆野客也。容儀粗獷進退不恒。逼前平立。謂余曰。向來忽聞無情有性。仁所述耶。余曰然。
客曰。仆忝尋釋教薄究根
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
大正藏第 46 冊 No. 1932 金剛錍
No. 1932
科金剛錍序
宋 云間沙門凈岳 撰
科分大經章段，起自關內憑小山瑤。前代未聞也。吾祖章安作疏益詳。至荊溪將迦葉品，分正緣了別指方隅，則權實進否曉然而明。可謂善乎派深，良哉析重也。余復以佛性周遍三千具攝而分。今文分而又分賓主問答，引文釋義略無混亂。雖短脛亦可以厲法流，孺子敢當荷負矣。或曰猶牧女之添水，將非澆漓于乳味乎。不然乳益乳也。茍能鉆搖醍醐可獲，豈仍乳而已耶。
金剛錍(圓伊金錍，以抉四眼無明之膜，令一切處悉見遮那佛性之指。偏權疑碎加之以剛，假夢寄客立以賓主。觀者恕之)
唐 天臺沙門湛然 述
自濫沾釋典，積有歲年，未嘗不以佛性義經懷。恐不了之徒為苦行，大教斯立功在於茲。萬派之通途，眾流之歸趣，諸法之大旨，造行之所期。若是而思之，依而觀之，則凡聖一如色香泯凈。阿鼻依正全處極聖之自心，毗盧身土不逾下凡之一念。曾於靜夜久而思之思之未已，恍焉如睡。不覺寱云無情有性。仍于睡夢忽見一人云：『仆野客也。容儀粗獷進退不恒，逼前平立。謂余曰：向來忽聞無情有性，仁所述耶？』余曰：『然。』
客曰：『仆忝尋釋教薄究根』
【English Translation】 English version
Tripitaka Volume 46 No. 1932 Vajra Pili (Diamond Awl)
No. 1932
Preface to the Classified Vajra Pili
Composed by Shramana Jingyue of Yun Jian during the Song Dynasty
The classification of chapters and sections of the great sutra originated from Xiao Shan Yao within the Guanzhong area. This was unheard of in previous generations. My ancestor, Zhang'an, made more detailed commentaries. When Jingxi addressed the Kashyapa chapter, he distinguished between the primary cause, the secondary conditions, and the specific directions, thereby clearly illuminating the distinction between provisional and real teachings, and the advancement or rejection thereof. It can be said that his school was profound and his analysis thorough. I further divided it based on the Buddha-nature pervading the three thousand realms. The current text divides and subdivides, presenting questions and answers between guest and host, citing texts and explaining meanings without any confusion. Even with short legs, one can still vigorously promote the Dharma. This humble one dares to take on the responsibility. Someone might say it's like a shepherdess adding water, diluting the flavor of the milk. But no, milk enhances milk. If one can drill and churn, one can obtain ghee (clarified butter). How can it merely remain milk?
Vajra Pili (Diamond Awl) (The perfect Vajra Pili, used to pierce the membrane of ignorance in the four eyes, allowing one to see the indication of Vairocana's (遮那) Buddha-nature everywhere. The provisional and expedient are forcefully crushed with diamond-like strength. The guest and host are established through a borrowed dream. May the readers forgive this.)
Narrated by Shramana Zhanran of Tiantai during the Tang Dynasty
Since I began to study the Buddhist scriptures, many years have passed. I have always cherished the meaning of Buddha-nature in my heart. Fearing that those who do not understand might engage in fruitless ascetic practices, the great teaching is established with merit in this. It is the common path of all schools, the returning point of all streams, the great principle of all dharmas, and the aim of all practices. If one thinks about it in this way, relies on it and contemplates it, then the mundane and the sacred are one, and form and fragrance disappear into purity. Avici (阿鼻) hell and the Pure Land are entirely within the self-mind of the supremely sacred. The body and land of Vairocana (毗盧) do not exceed a single thought of the lowest mortal. I once pondered this deeply during quiet nights, and as I pondered endlessly, I vaguely felt as if I were asleep. Unknowingly, I muttered, 'Inanimate objects have Buddha-nature.' Then, in a dream, I suddenly saw a person who said, 'I am a rustic traveler. My appearance is rough, and my movements are inconsistent. I stand before you and ask: I recently heard that inanimate objects have Buddha-nature. Is that what you stated?' I replied, 'Yes.'
The guest said, 'I have presumptuously sought the Buddhist teachings and superficially investigated the roots.'
源。盛演斯宗豈過雙林最後極唱究竟之談。而云佛性非謂無情。仁何獨言無情有耶。余曰。古人尚云一闡提無。云無情無。未足可怪。然以教分大小其言碩乖。若云無情即不應云有性。若云有性即不合云無情。
客曰。涅槃部大。云何並列。余曰。以子不閑佛性進否教部權實。故使同於常人疑之。今且為子委引經文。使後代好引此文證佛性非無情者。善得經旨不昧理性。知余所立善符經宗。今立眾生正因體遍。經文亦以虛空譬之。故三十一迦葉品云。眾生佛性猶如虛空。非內非外。若內外者。云何得名一切處有。請觀有之一字。虛空何所不收。故知經文不許唯內專外。故云非內外等及云如空。既云眾生佛性。豈非理性正因。次迦葉問云。何名為猶如虛空。佛乃以果地無礙而答迦葉。豈非正因因果不二。由佛果答。迦葉乃以權智斷果果上緣了悉皆是有。難佛空喻法喻不齊。故迦葉云。如來佛性涅槃是有。虛空應當亦是有耶。佛先順問答。次覆宗明空。
先順問云。為非涅槃說為涅槃。非涅槃者。謂有為煩惱。為非如來說為如來。非如來者謂闡提二乘。為非佛性說為佛性。非佛性者。謂墻壁瓦礫。今問若瓦石永非。二乘煩惱亦永非耶。故知。經文寄方便教說三對治。暫說三有。以斥三非。故此文后便即結云一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：源頭在於盛大地演說這個宗派，難道能超過雙林樹下（指佛陀涅槃之地）最後宣唱究竟之談嗎？如果說佛性不是指無情之物，那麼仁愛又為何獨獨說無情之物有佛性呢？我說，古人尚且說一闡提（斷善根的人）沒有佛性，說無情之物沒有佛性，這並不奇怪。然而，如果從教義的大小來區分，他們的說法就大相逕庭了。如果說無情之物沒有佛性，就不應該說它有佛性；如果說它有佛性，就不應該說它是無情之物。
客人問：涅槃部的教義博大精深，為何要將這些說法並列在一起呢？我說，因為您不熟悉佛性是進步還是退步，也不瞭解教義是權宜之計還是真實究竟，所以才會像普通人一樣對此感到疑惑。現在我將為您詳細引用經文，以便後人能夠引用這些經文來證明佛性並非無情之物，從而能夠很好地理解經文的旨意，不迷惑于理性。這樣，他們就會知道我所立的觀點完全符合經文的宗旨。現在我確立眾生的正因體性是普遍存在的，經文也用虛空來比喻它。所以，《三十一迦葉品》中說：『眾生的佛性猶如虛空，非內非外。如果說有內外之分，又怎麼能稱之為一切處都有呢？』請看『有』這個字，虛空有什麼不能包含呢？所以，要知道經文不允許只偏重於內部或外部。因此說『非內外等』以及『如空』。既然說是眾生的佛性，難道不是理性的正因嗎？其次，迦葉問：『什麼叫做猶如虛空？』佛陀就用果地的無礙來回答迦葉，難道不是正因和因果不二嗎？由於佛陀用果地來回答，迦葉就用權智來判斷果地上的緣和了知都是存在的，從而反駁佛陀用虛空來比喻，認為法和比喻並不一致。所以迦葉說：『如來的佛性在涅槃中是存在的，那麼虛空也應當是存在的嗎？』佛陀先順著迦葉的提問來回答，然後又闡明虛空的宗義。
先順著提問回答說：『對於不是涅槃的，說是涅槃；對於不是如來的，說是如來；對於不是佛性的，說是佛性。』不是涅槃的，指的是有為煩惱；不是如來的，指的是一闡提和二乘；不是佛性的，指的是墻壁瓦礫。現在問，如果瓦石永遠不是佛性，那麼二乘和煩惱也永遠不是佛性嗎？所以要知道，經文是借用方便教義來說明三種對治，暫時說三種『有』，來駁斥三種『非』。所以這段經文之後就總結說：
【English Translation】 English version: The origin lies in the grand exposition of this school, can it surpass the final utterance of the ultimate teaching under the twin Sala trees (referring to the place of Buddha's Nirvana)? If it is said that Buddha-nature does not refer to insentient things, then why does benevolence uniquely say that insentient things possess Buddha-nature? I say, the ancients even said that an Icchantika (one who has severed their roots of goodness) does not have Buddha-nature, and that insentient things do not have Buddha-nature, which is not surprising. However, if we distinguish based on the magnitude of the teachings, their statements are vastly different. If it is said that insentient things do not have Buddha-nature, then it should not be said that they have Buddha-nature; if it is said that they have Buddha-nature, then it should not be said that they are insentient.
The guest asked: The teachings of the Nirvana Sutra are profound, why are these statements juxtaposed? I say, because you are not familiar with whether Buddha-nature progresses or regresses, nor do you understand whether the teachings are expedient or ultimately real, which is why you doubt this like an ordinary person. Now I will quote the scriptures in detail for you, so that later generations can cite these scriptures to prove that Buddha-nature is not insentient, thereby being able to understand the essence of the scriptures well, and not be confused by rationality. In this way, they will know that the views I have established are completely in line with the purpose of the scriptures. Now I establish that the inherent nature of the true cause of sentient beings is universally present, and the scriptures also use emptiness as a metaphor for it. Therefore, it is said in the 'Thirty-one Kashyapa Chapter': 'The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is like emptiness, neither internal nor external. If there is a distinction between internal and external, how can it be called all-pervading?' Please look at the word 'is', what cannot emptiness contain? Therefore, know that the scriptures do not allow focusing only on the internal or external. Therefore, it says 'neither internal nor external, etc.' and 'like emptiness'. Since it is said to be the Buddha-nature of sentient beings, is it not the true cause of rationality? Secondly, Kashyapa asked: 'What is meant by being like emptiness?' The Buddha then answered Kashyapa with the unobstructedness of the fruition ground, is it not that the true cause and the cause and effect are non-dual? Because the Buddha answered with the fruition ground, Kashyapa used expedient wisdom to judge that the conditions and understanding on the fruition ground all exist, thereby refuting the Buddha's metaphor of emptiness, believing that the Dharma and the metaphor are not consistent. Therefore, Kashyapa said: 'The Tathagata's Buddha-nature exists in Nirvana, then should emptiness also exist?' The Buddha first answered in accordance with Kashyapa's question, and then clarified the meaning of emptiness.
First, answering in accordance with the question, saying: 'For what is not Nirvana, it is said to be Nirvana; for what is not Tathagata, it is said to be Tathagata; for what is not Buddha-nature, it is said to be Buddha-nature.' What is not Nirvana refers to conditioned afflictions; what is not Tathagata refers to Icchantikas and those of the Two Vehicles; what is not Buddha-nature refers to walls, bricks, and tiles. Now I ask, if tiles and stones are never Buddha-nature, then are those of the Two Vehicles and afflictions also never Buddha-nature? Therefore, know that the scriptures use expedient teachings to explain the three antidotes, temporarily speaking of the three 'existences' to refute the three 'non-existences'. Therefore, this passage concludes by saying:
切世間。無非虛空對於虛空。佛意以瓦石等三。以為所對。故云對於虛空。是則一切無非如來等三。迦葉復以四大為並。令空成有。故迦葉云。世間亦無非四大對四大。是有虛空無對何不名有。迦葉意以空無對。故有之大也。佛於此后舍喻從法。廣明涅槃不同虛空。若涅槃不同。餘二亦異。故知。經以正因結難。一切世間何所不攝。豈隔煩惱及二乘乎。虛空之言何所不該。安棄墻壁瓦石等耶。
佛后復云空與涅槃。雖俱非世攝。涅槃如來有證有見。虛空常故是故不然。豈非正與緣了不同。
次佛覆宗顯空非有。故恐世人以邪計空為佛性喻。更以一十複次。而遮其非。
初云。世人言虛空者。名為無色無對不可見。佛言此即心所三世所攝。語似心所。故佛破之。世言身內。何殊心所。複次外道言。虛空者即是光明。佛言亦是色法。世言身內。何殊色法。有云住處。世言身內。豈非住處。有云次第。世言身內。必須隨身剎那時運。有云。不離三法。一空二實三者空實。佛言若言空者。有處無故。若言實者空處無故。若言空實二處無故。世言身內猶闕外計空及二俱。有云。作法。如去舍等。
世言身沒與真相應。即同作法。有云。無礙處。佛言有分。有具余處無故。世言身內。余處則無。有云。與
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：世間的一切，無非是虛空與虛空相對。佛陀的意思是用瓦石等三種事物，作為虛空的對應。所以說『對於虛空』。這樣說來，一切無非是如來等三種。迦葉又以四大（地、水、火、風）為並列，使空變成有。所以迦葉說：『世間也無非是四大與四大相對。』既然虛空沒有對應，為什麼不稱之為『有』呢？迦葉的意思是虛空沒有對應，所以『有』的範圍就大了。佛陀在此之後捨棄比喻，從法理上廣泛闡明涅槃（寂滅）不同於虛空。如果涅槃不同於虛空，那麼如來和常樂我凈也不同於虛空。所以知道，經文用正因來駁斥詰難。一切世間有什麼不能涵蓋的？難道會隔開煩惱和二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）嗎？虛空這個詞有什麼不能包括的？難道會拋棄墻壁瓦石等事物嗎？ 佛陀後來又說，虛空與涅槃，雖然都不屬於世間所攝，但涅槃和如來有證悟和見解，虛空是恒常不變的，所以情況不同。這難道不是正因和緣了的不同嗎？ 接下來，佛陀又總的顯示虛空並非實有。所以恐怕世人以邪見來把虛空當作佛性的比喻，更用一十複次來遮止這種錯誤。 最初說：『世人說虛空，名為無色、無對、不可見。』佛陀說：『這正是心所（心的作用）和三世（過去、現在、未來）所攝。』言語好像是心所，所以佛陀破斥它。世人說在身內，和心所有什麼不同？其次，外道說：『虛空就是光明。』佛陀說：『這也是色法（物質現象）。』世人說在身內，和色法有什麼不同？有人說是住處。世人說在身內，難道不是住處嗎？有人說是次第。世人說在身內，必須隨著身體剎那時的執行。有人說，不離三種法：一是空，二是實，三是空實。佛陀說：『如果說是空，那麼有處就沒有；如果說是實，那麼空處就沒有；如果說是空實，那麼兩處都沒有。』世人說在身內，仍然缺少向外計度空和空實的兩種情況。有人說是作法，如離開房屋等。 世人說身體消失與真理相應，就等同於作法。有人說是無礙處。佛陀說有部分，有具備，其餘地方沒有。世人說在身內，其餘地方就沒有。有人說與...
【English Translation】 English version: All in the world is nothing but emptiness facing emptiness. The Buddha's intention is to use things like tiles and stones as the counterparts to emptiness. Therefore, it is said 'facing emptiness.' In this way, all is nothing but the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) and the three (Tathagata, Nirvana, and permanence, bliss, self, purity). Kashyapa (迦葉) also takes the four great elements (四大, earth, water, fire, and wind) as being parallel, making emptiness become existence. Therefore, Kashyapa says: 'The world is also nothing but the four great elements facing the four great elements.' Since emptiness has no counterpart, why not call it 'existence'? Kashyapa's intention is that emptiness has no counterpart, so the scope of 'existence' is large. After this, the Buddha abandons the metaphor and extensively explains from the Dharma (法, law, teaching) that Nirvana (涅槃, extinction of suffering) is different from emptiness. If Nirvana is different, then the Tathagata and permanence, bliss, self, purity are also different from emptiness. Therefore, it is known that the sutra uses the correct cause to refute the challenge. What in all the world is not encompassed? Would it be separated from afflictions and the Two Vehicles (二乘, Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna)? What does the word emptiness not include? Would it abandon walls, tiles, stones, and other things? Later, the Buddha also said that although emptiness and Nirvana are not included in the world, Nirvana and the Tathagata have realization and insight, while emptiness is constant and unchanging, so the situation is different. Is this not the difference between the correct cause and the conditioned cause? Next, the Buddha generally shows that emptiness is not real existence. Therefore, fearing that people would mistakenly take emptiness as a metaphor for Buddha-nature, he further uses a series of ten refutations to stop this error. Initially, it is said: 'People say that emptiness is called without form, without counterpart, and invisible.' The Buddha said: 'This is precisely what is encompassed by mental functions (心所, mental factors) and the three times (三世, past, present, and future).' The language seems like mental functions, so the Buddha refutes it. People say it is within the body, what is the difference from mental functions? Secondly, heretics say: 'Emptiness is light.' The Buddha said: 'This is also form (色法, material phenomena).' People say it is within the body, what is the difference from form? Some say it is a dwelling place. People say it is within the body, is it not a dwelling place? Some say it is sequence. People say it is within the body, it must follow the body's momentary movement. Some say it is inseparable from three dharmas: one is emptiness, two is reality, and three is emptiness and reality. The Buddha said: 'If it is said to be emptiness, then there is no existence where there is being; if it is said to be reality, then there is no existence where there is emptiness; if it is said to be both emptiness and reality, then there is no existence in either place.' People say it is within the body, still lacking the two situations of externally measuring emptiness and both emptiness and reality. Some say it is action, such as leaving a house, etc. People say that the disappearance of the body corresponds to the truth, which is the same as action. Some say it is an unobstructed place. The Buddha said there is a part, there is completeness, and there is no existence in other places. People say it is within the body, and there is no existence in other places. Some say it is with...
有併合。佛言合有三種。一如鳥投樹。二如羊相觸。三如二指已合。世言身內。如二指合。有云。如器中空。世言身內。何異器中。有云。所指之處。佛言。則有方面。世言身中。豈非方面。佛總結云。從因緣生皆是無常。故此一十邪計虛空非佛性喻。是無常故。三世攝故。虛空異彼遍一切處。此違迦葉問。覆宗符空。以喻正因。
世人何以棄佛正教。朋于邪空。云何乃以智斷果上緣了佛性。以難正因。如來是智果。涅槃是斷果。故智斷果上。有緣了性。所以迦葉難云。如來佛性涅槃是有。世人多引涅槃為難。故廣引之以杜餘論。子應不見涅槃之文。空敩世人瓦石之妨。緣了難正殊不相應。此即子不知佛性之進否也。況復以空譬正緣了猶局。如迦葉所引三皆有者。此乃涅槃帶權門說。故佛順迦葉三皆是有。若頓教實說本有三種。三理元遍。達性成修。修三亦遍。欲示眾生本有正性。且云正遍猶如虛空。欲赴末代以順迦葉。豈非迦葉知機設疑。故佛覆實述權緣了。此子不知教之權實。故涅槃中佛性之言。不唯一種。如迦葉品下文云。言佛性者。所謂十力無畏不共大悲三念三十二相八十種好。子何不引此文。令一切眾生亦無。何獨瓦石。若云此是果德。眾生有此果性者。果性身土何不沾于瓦石等耶。又若許因有果性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有（有見）和並（並見）。佛說，合有三種：一是像鳥飛入樹林；二是像羊互相碰撞；三是像兩根手指合在一起。世俗所說的『身內』，就像兩根手指合在一起。有人說，像器皿中的空間。世俗所說的『身內』，和器皿中的空間有什麼不同？有人說，所指的地方（不同）。佛說，那麼就有方向性了。世俗所說的『身中』，難道沒有方向性嗎？佛總結說，從因緣而生的都是無常的，所以這十種邪見都以虛空來比喻佛性，這是因為無常的緣故，被過去、現在、未來三世所包含的緣故。虛空和它們不同，因為它遍一切處。這違背了迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）的提問，又宗奉符合于空，用它來比喻正因。
世人為什麼捨棄佛的正教，而傾向於邪空呢？為什麼用智慧來判斷果地上的緣了佛性，來為難正因呢？如來（Tathāgata）是智慧之果，涅槃（Nirvana）是斷德之果，所以在智果和斷果之上，有緣了之性。所以迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）反駁說，如來（Tathāgata）的佛性和涅槃（Nirvana）是實有的。世人大多引用《涅槃經》來發難，所以廣泛地引用它來杜絕其他議論。您應該沒有看到《涅槃經》的經文，空學世人以瓦石來妨礙佛性。用緣了來為難正因，實在是不相應。這就是您不知道佛性有進退的原因。況且用空來比喻正緣了，還是有所侷限。就像迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）所引用的三種都有，這只是《涅槃經》中帶權巧方便的說法。所以佛順應迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）說三種都是有。如果從頓教的真實義來說，本有三種，三理原本就周遍，達到自性而成就修德，修三也周遍。想要顯示眾生本有的正性，暫且說正遍猶如虛空。想要適應末法時代，順應迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）。難道不是迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）知道時機而設定疑問嗎？所以佛覆述真實義，講述權巧方便的緣了。您不知道教法的權實，所以在《涅槃經》中關於佛性的說法，不只一種。如《迦葉品》下文說：『所說的佛性，就是十力（daśabala）、四無畏（catuḥvaiśāradya）、十八不共法（āvenikadharma）、大悲（mahākaruṇā）、三念住（smṛtyupasthāna）、三十二相（dvātriṃśadvaralakṣaṇa）、八十種好（aśītyanuvyañjana）。』您為什麼不引用這段經文，讓一切眾生也沒有佛性，為什麼單單瓦石沒有佛性？如果說這是果德，眾生有這種果性，那麼果性、身土為什麼不沾染到瓦石等事物上呢？又如果允許因地有果性。
【English Translation】 English version There are 'having' (having views) and 'combining' (combining views). The Buddha said there are three kinds of combining: first, like birds flying into a forest; second, like sheep bumping into each other; third, like two fingers joined together. What the world calls 'within the body' is like two fingers joined together. Some say it's like the space inside a vessel. What difference is there between what the world calls 'within the body' and the space inside a vessel? Some say it's the place being pointed to (that is different). The Buddha said, then it has direction. Does what the world calls 'within the body' not have direction? The Buddha concluded, all that arises from conditions is impermanent, therefore these ten kinds of wrong views all use emptiness as a metaphor for Buddha-nature, because it is impermanent, because it is encompassed by the three times (past, present, future). Emptiness is different from them because it pervades all places. This contradicts Kāśyapa's (Mahākāśyapa) question and also adheres to emptiness, using it as a metaphor for the right cause.
Why do people abandon the Buddha's right teaching and lean towards wrong emptiness? Why use wisdom to judge the conditioned understanding of Buddha-nature on the fruit stage to challenge the right cause? The Tathāgata is the fruit of wisdom, and Nirvana is the fruit of cessation, so on the fruit of wisdom and the fruit of cessation, there is the nature of conditioned understanding. Therefore, Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) refuted, saying that the Tathāgata's (Tathāgata) Buddha-nature and Nirvana (Nirvana) are real. Most people cite the Nirvana Sutra to raise difficulties, so it is widely cited to prevent other arguments. You should not have seen the text of the Nirvana Sutra, learning from the world to use tiles and stones to obstruct Buddha-nature. Using conditioned understanding to challenge the right cause is really inappropriate. This is because you do not know that Buddha-nature has progress and regress. Moreover, using emptiness to compare to right conditioned understanding is still limited. Just like the three things that Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) cited as all existing, this is just a provisional teaching in the Nirvana Sutra. Therefore, the Buddha complied with Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) saying that all three exist. If speaking from the true meaning of the sudden teaching, there are originally three, the three principles are originally pervasive, attaining self-nature and accomplishing cultivation, the three cultivations are also pervasive. Wanting to show sentient beings the original right nature, temporarily say that right pervasiveness is like emptiness. Wanting to adapt to the degenerate age, complying with Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa). Isn't it that Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) knows the opportunity and sets up questions? Therefore, the Buddha restates the true meaning, explaining the provisional conditioned understanding. You do not know the provisional and real of the teachings, so in the Nirvana Sutra, the statements about Buddha-nature are not just one kind. As the text below the Kāśyapa Chapter says: 'What is called Buddha-nature is the ten powers (daśabala), the four fearlessnesses (catuḥvaiśāradya), the eighteen unshared dharmas (āvenikadharma), great compassion (mahākaruṇā), the three mindfulnesses (smṛtyupasthāna), the thirty-two marks (dvātriṃśadvaralakṣaṇa), and the eighty minor marks (aśītyanuvyañjana).' Why don't you cite this text, so that all sentient beings also have no Buddha-nature, why only tiles and stones have no Buddha-nature? If you say that this is the fruit virtue, and sentient beings have this fruit nature, then why don't the fruit nature, body, and land adhere to tiles and stones, etc.? Also, if you allow that there is fruit nature in the cause ground.
者。世何但云十方諸佛同一法身力無畏等。而不云生佛亦同法身力無畏等。使一塵一心無非三身三德之性種也。若言但有果地法身性者。何故經云。十力無畏乃至相好。又復經中。闡提等人四句辯性。子云眾生有性。為何眾生有何等性。瓦石為復無四句耶。又第六第九及三十二。皆以雜血五味。用對凡夫三乘及佛。何故佛性在人差降不同。又二十七云。若修八正即見佛性。婆沙俱舍悉有八正。乃至諸經咸有道品。為修何八正見何佛性。故子不知佛性進否。
客曰。何故權教不說緣了二因遍耶。余曰。眾生無始計我我所。從所計示未應說遍。涅槃經中帶權說實。故得以空譬正。未譬緣了。若教一向權則三因俱局。如別初心聞正亦局。藏性理性一切俱然。所以博地聞無情無。依迷示迷云能造是。附權立性云所造非。又復一代已多顯頓。如華嚴中依正不二。普賢普眼三無差別。大集染凈一切融通。凈名不思議毛孔含納。思益網明無非法界。般若諸法混同無二。法華本末實相皆如。涅槃唯防像末謬執。分正緣了別指方隅。若執實迷權尚失於實。執權迷實則權實俱迷。驗子尚昧小乘由心。故暗大教心外無境。
客曰。涅槃豈唯兼帶說耶。余曰。約部通云一切兼帶。部中品內或實或權。如申迦葉難。別為末代一機而已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人問：『世人為何只說十方諸佛具有相同的法身、力量和無畏等等，而不說眾生和佛也具有相同的法身、力量和無畏等等，從而使一塵一心中都充滿三身（法身、報身、應身）和三德（法身德、般若德、解脫德）的佛性種子呢？如果說只有果地佛才具有法身佛性，那麼為何經典中說佛具有十力、無畏乃至種種相好？又在經典中，關於闡提（斷善根的人）等人，用四句來辯論佛性。你（提問者）說眾生具有佛性，那麼眾生具有什麼樣的佛性？瓦片石頭難道就沒有這四句的辯論嗎？』又如《涅槃經》第六品、第九品和第三十二品，都用雜血和五味來比喻凡夫、三乘和佛，為何佛性在不同的人身上會有差別和降低呢？又如第二十七品說，如果修習八正道就能見到佛性。《婆沙論》、《俱舍論》都有八正道，乃至各種經典都有道品，那麼修習什麼樣的八正道才能見到什麼樣的佛性呢？所以我不明白佛性是進步還是退步的。 客人說：『為什麼權教（方便教法）不說緣因和了因周遍一切呢？』我回答說：『眾生從無始以來就執著于『我』和『我的』，所以只能從他們所執著的事物來開示，不應該一開始就說周遍一切。而《涅槃經》是帶著權巧方便來說真實的，所以可以用空性來比喻正因，但沒有比喻緣因和了因。如果教法完全是權巧方便，那麼三因（正因、緣因、了因）都會被侷限。就像別教的初學者聽到正因也會感到侷限一樣，藏性（如來藏性）、理性（法性）一切都是如此。所以對於沒有智慧的人來說，聽到無情沒有佛性，就會更加迷惑。依據迷惑來顯示迷惑，說無情能夠造作；附和權巧方便來建立佛性，說無情所造作的不是佛性。』而且，一代時教中已經有很多顯現頓教的例子，比如《華嚴經》中依報和正報是不二的，普賢菩薩和普眼菩薩的三種智慧沒有差別，大乘經典中染污和清凈一切都融通無礙，《維摩詰經》中不可思議的毛孔能夠容納一切，思益梵天所問經和網明菩薩所問經都說沒有一法不是法界，般若經典說諸法混同沒有二相，《法華經》說從本到末的實相都是如如不動的。《涅槃經》只是爲了防止末法時代的謬誤執著，所以才分別指出正因、緣因和了因，分別指明方向。如果執著于真實而迷惑于權巧方便，就會失去真實；如果執著于權巧方便而迷惑于真實，那麼權巧方便和真實都會失去。我看你還不明白小乘的『萬法由心』，所以才會不明白大乘的『心外無境』。 客人說：『難道《涅槃經》僅僅是兼帶權巧方便來說法嗎？』我回答說：『從整部經的總體來說，一切都是兼帶權巧方便的。但在經中的具體品目中，有些是真實的，有些是權巧方便的。比如申迦葉菩薩的提問，只是爲了末法時代的一種根機而已。』
【English Translation】 English version: Someone asked: 'Why do people only say that all Buddhas of the ten directions have the same Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body), powers, fearlessness, etc., but not say that sentient beings and Buddhas also have the same Dharmakaya, powers, fearlessness, etc., so that every dust and every mind is full of the seeds of the nature of the three bodies (法身, Dharmakaya; 報身, Sambhogakaya; 應身, Nirmanakaya) and the three virtues (法身德, virtue of Dharmakaya; 般若德, virtue of Prajna; 解脫德, virtue of liberation)? If it is said that only the Buddhas in the fruition stage have the Dharmakaya nature, then why do the scriptures say that the Buddhas have the ten powers, fearlessness, and even various marks and characteristics? Moreover, in the scriptures, regarding icchantikas (闡提, those who have severed their roots of goodness), the nature of Buddha is debated using four phrases. You (the questioner) say that sentient beings have Buddha-nature, then what kind of Buddha-nature do sentient beings have? Do tiles and stones not have these four phrases of debate?' Also, like the sixth, ninth, and thirty-second chapters of the Nirvana Sutra, they all use mixed blood and five flavors to compare ordinary people, the three vehicles, and the Buddhas. Why does the Buddha-nature differ and diminish in different people? Also, the twenty-seventh chapter says that if one cultivates the Eightfold Path, one will see the Buddha-nature. The Abhidharma-kosa and the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra both have the Eightfold Path, and even various scriptures have the Bodhipaksa-dharmas (道品, factors of enlightenment). Then, what kind of Eightfold Path should one cultivate to see what kind of Buddha-nature? Therefore, I do not know whether the Buddha-nature progresses or regresses. The guest said: 'Why do the provisional teachings (權教, expedient teachings) not say that the causal conditions of auxiliary cause (緣因, condition cause) and direct cause (了因, enabling cause) are pervasive?' I replied: 'Sentient beings have been attached to 'I' and 'mine' since beginningless time, so we can only instruct them from the things they are attached to, and we should not say that everything is pervasive from the beginning. The Nirvana Sutra speaks of the real with expedient means, so it can use emptiness to compare the direct cause, but it does not compare the auxiliary cause and the enabling cause. If the teachings are entirely expedient, then the three causes (正因, direct cause; 緣因, condition cause; 了因, enabling cause) will all be limited. Just like a beginner in the separate teaching (別教, distinct teaching) will feel limited when hearing about the direct cause, the Tathagatagarbha-nature (藏性, Tathagatagarbha nature), and the Dharma-nature (理性, Dharma nature) are all like this. Therefore, for those without wisdom, hearing that inanimate objects do not have Buddha-nature will make them even more confused. Relying on delusion to show delusion, saying that inanimate objects can create; adhering to expedient means to establish the nature, saying that what inanimate objects create is not the Buddha-nature.' Moreover, there have already been many examples of manifesting the sudden teaching (頓教, sudden teaching) in the teachings of a lifetime, such as the non-duality of the environment and the reward in the Avatamsaka Sutra, the non-difference of the three wisdoms of Samantabhadra and Samantanakacaksu, the complete interpenetration of defilement and purity in the Mahasamnipata Sutra, the inconceivable pores of Vimalakirti containing everything, the Surangama Samadhi Sutra and the Net of Brahma Sutra saying that there is no Dharma that is not the Dharma-realm, the Prajna Sutras saying that all Dharmas are mixed and non-dual, and the Lotus Sutra saying that the reality from beginning to end is suchness. The Nirvana Sutra only prevents erroneous attachments in the Dharma-ending age, so it separately points out the direct cause, auxiliary cause, and enabling cause, and separately indicates the directions. If one is attached to the real and confused about the expedient, one will lose the real; if one is attached to the expedient and confused about the real, then both the expedient and the real will be lost. I see that you still do not understand the 'mind-only' of the Hinayana, so you do not understand the 'no realm outside the mind' of the Mahayana. The guest said: 'Is the Nirvana Sutra merely speaking with expedient means?' I replied: 'Generally speaking, the entire sutra is speaking with expedient means. But in the specific chapters of the sutra, some are real and some are expedient. For example, the questions of Kashyapa Bodhisattva are only for a certain capacity in the Dharma-ending age.'
。則權實並明。若一向權。如恒河中七種眾生。若一向實。如三點二鳥三慈十德等。他皆準知不可具述。如雲色常。色言豈不收於一切依正。何故制空令侷限耶。此世人不知教之權實。如二乘人處處聞大。尚至法華方信己性。悔來至此財非己有。此豈非子不知父性耶。聞開權已。方云口生化生有分。故涅槃中猶恐未來一分有情不信己身有如來性及謂闡提未來永斷。示令知有及以不斷。豈部內諸文全無頓耶。今搜求現未建立圓融。不弊性無。但困理壅故於性中點示體遍。傍遮。偏指清凈真如。尚失小真佛性安在。他不見之空論無情性之有無。不曉一家立義大旨。故達唯心了體具者焉有異同。若不立唯心一切大教全為無用。若不許心具圓頓之理乃成徒施。信唯心具。復疑有無。則疑己心之有無也。故知一塵一心即一切生佛之心性。何獨自心之有無耶。以共造故。以共變故。同化境故。同化事故。故世不知教之權實。以子不思佛性之名從何教立。無情之稱局在何文。已如前說。余患世迷恒思點示。是故寱言無情有性。何謂點示。一者示迷元從性變。二者示性令其改迷。是故且云無情有性。若分大小。則隨緣不變之說出自大教。木石無心之語。生於小宗。子欲執小道而抗大逵者其猶螳螂乎。何殊井蛙乎。故子應知。萬法是真如
。由不變故。真如是萬法。由隨緣故。子信無情無佛性者。豈非萬法無真如耶。故萬法之稱寧隔于纖塵。真如之體何專于彼我。是則無有無波之水。未有不濕之波。在濕詎間于混澄。為波自分于清濁。雖有清有濁。而一性無殊。縱造正造依。依理終無異轍。若許隨緣不變。復云無情有無。豈非自語相違耶。故知。果地依正融通。並依眾生理本故也。此乃事理相對以說。若唯從理。只可雲水本無波。必不得云波中無水。如迷東為西。只可云東處無西。終不得云西處無東。若唯從迷說則波無水名。西失東稱。情性合譬思之可知。無情有無例之可見。
於是野客恭退吳跪而咨曰。波水之譬其理實然。仆曾聞人引大智度論。云真如在無情中但名法性。在有情內方名佛性。仁何故立佛性之名。余曰。親曾委讀細撿論文都無此說。或恐謬引章疏之言世共傳之。泛為通之。此乃迷名而不知義。法名不覺。佛名為覺。眾生雖本有不覺之理。而未曾有覺不覺智。故且分之令覺不覺。豈覺不覺不覺猶不覺耶。反謂所覺離能覺耶。
客曰。若爾至佛方會。凡離何乖。余曰。子為學佛。為學凡耶。理本無殊。凡謂之離。故示眾生令覺不覺。故覺不覺自會一如。故知。覺無不覺不名佛性。不覺無覺法性不成。覺無不覺佛性寧立。是則
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由於不變的緣故，真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）就是萬法（一切事物和現象）。由於隨緣的緣故，如果有人相信無情之物沒有佛性，那豈不是說萬法都沒有真如了嗎？所以，萬法的稱謂不會被微小的塵埃所隔斷，真如的本體又何必專屬於彼此呢？這樣說來，就沒有沒有波浪的水，也沒有不濕潤的波浪。在濕潤的狀態下，哪裡能區分渾濁和清澈？因為有了波浪才有了清澈和渾濁的區分。即使有清澈有渾濁，但水的本性沒有差別。縱然造作了正報和依報，依據真理來說，最終也沒有不同的軌跡。如果允許隨緣而不變，又說無情之物有或無佛性，這豈不是自相矛盾嗎？所以要知道，果地的依報和正報是融通的，都是依據眾生的理本來存在的。這只是從事理相對的角度來說。如果只從理的角度來說，只能說水本來沒有波浪，一定不能說波浪中沒有水。如同迷失了東方而認為是西方，只能說東方沒有西方，最終不能說西方沒有東方。如果只從迷惑的角度來說，那麼波浪就沒有水的名稱，西方失去了東方的稱謂。情與性的比喻，思考一下就可以知道；無情之物有或無佛性的例子，類比一下就可以明白。 於是野客恭敬地退下，吳跪著請教說：『波浪和水的比喻，這個道理確實如此。我曾經聽人引用《大智度論》，說真如在無情之物中只稱為法性，在有情之物中才稱為佛性。您為什麼還要立佛性的名稱呢？』我回答說：『我曾仔細閱讀並檢查過原文，都沒有這種說法。或許是錯誤地引用了章疏的言論，世人共同傳揚，泛泛地把它當成通用的說法。這只是迷惑于名稱而不知道它的含義。法名為不覺，佛名為覺。眾生雖然本來具有不覺的理，但從未有過覺或不覺的智慧，所以暫且區分它們，使之有覺與不覺。難道覺與不覺，不覺仍然是不覺嗎？反而認為所覺的離開了能覺的嗎？』 客人說：『如果這樣，要到成佛才能領會，凡夫和佛有什麼差別呢？』我回答說：『你是爲了學佛，還是爲了學凡夫呢？理的本性沒有差別，凡夫認為有差別，所以才向眾生展示，讓他們覺悟不覺。所以覺與不覺自然會合為一體。所以要知道，覺悟沒有不覺，就不能稱為佛性；不覺沒有覺悟，法性就不能成立；覺悟沒有不覺，佛性怎麼能成立呢？這樣說來，』
【English Translation】 English version: Because of immutability, True Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of things) is the myriad dharmas (all things and phenomena). Because of conditioned arising, if someone believes that inanimate objects have no Buddha-nature, wouldn't that mean that the myriad dharmas have no True Suchness? Therefore, the names of the myriad dharmas are not separated by tiny dust particles, and why should the substance of True Suchness belong exclusively to self and other? In this way, there is no water without waves, and no wave that is not wet. In the state of wetness, where can one distinguish between turbidity and clarity? It is because of the waves that there is a distinction between clarity and turbidity. Even if there is clarity and turbidity, the nature of water is no different. Even if one creates the primary and secondary retributions, according to the truth, there are ultimately no different paths. If one allows conditioned arising without change, and then says that inanimate objects have or do not have Buddha-nature, isn't this self-contradictory? Therefore, one should know that the dependent and direct retributions of the fruition ground are interconnected, and they all exist according to the fundamental principle of sentient beings. This is only speaking from the perspective of the relativity of phenomena and principle. If one only speaks from the perspective of principle, one can only say that water originally has no waves, and one must not say that there is no water in the waves. Just as one is lost in the east and thinks it is the west, one can only say that there is no west in the east, and one must not say that there is no east in the west. If one only speaks from the perspective of delusion, then the wave has no name of water, and the west loses the name of east. The analogy of emotion and nature can be understood by thinking about it; the example of whether inanimate objects have Buddha-nature or not can be understood by analogy. Then, the rustic guest respectfully withdrew, and Wu knelt down and asked: 'The analogy of waves and water, this principle is indeed so. I once heard someone quote the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom), saying that True Suchness in inanimate objects is only called Dharma-nature, and only in sentient beings is it called Buddha-nature. Why do you still establish the name of Buddha-nature?' I replied: 'I have carefully read and checked the original text, and there is no such statement. Perhaps it is a mistaken quotation from the words of commentaries, which the world commonly spreads and vaguely regards as a common saying. This is just being confused by the name and not knowing its meaning. Dharma is called non-awakening, and Buddha is called awakening. Although sentient beings originally have the principle of non-awakening, they have never had the wisdom of awakening or non-awakening, so they are temporarily distinguished to make them have awakening and non-awakening. Is it that awakening and non-awakening, non-awakening is still non-awakening? On the contrary, do you think that what is awakened is separated from what can be awakened?' The guest said: 'If so, one must reach Buddhahood to understand, what is the difference between ordinary people and Buddhas?' I replied: 'Are you learning to be a Buddha, or are you learning to be an ordinary person? The nature of principle is no different, ordinary people think there is a difference, so it is shown to sentient beings to make them awaken to non-awakening. Therefore, awakening and non-awakening will naturally merge into one. Therefore, one should know that awakening without non-awakening cannot be called Buddha-nature; non-awakening without awakening cannot establish Dharma-nature; how can Buddha-nature be established without awakening and non-awakening? In this way,'
無佛性之法性。容在小宗。即法性之佛性。方曰大教。故今問子。諸經論中。法界實際實相真性等。為同法性在無情中。為同真如分為兩派。若同真如。諸教不見無情法界及實際等。若在無情。但名法性非佛性者。何故華嚴須彌山頂偈贊品云。了知一切法。自性無所有。若能如是解。則見盧舍那。豈非諸法本有舍那之性耶。又云。法性本空寂。無取亦無見。性空即是佛。不可得思量。又精進慧云。法性本清凈。如空無有相。此亦無所修。能見大牟尼。豈于無性又云無修能見牟尼。又真實慧云。一切法無相。是則真佛體。既真佛體在一切法。請子思之。當免迷教。及迷佛性之進否也。故真如隨緣即佛性隨緣。佛之一字即法佛也。故法佛與真如體一名異。故佛性論第一云。佛性者。即人法二空所顯真如。當知真如即佛性異名。華嚴又云。眾生非眾生。二俱無真實。如是諸法性。實義俱非有。言眾生非眾生。豈非情與無情。二俱隨緣並皆不變。故俱非有。所以法界實際一切皆然。故知法性之名不專無情中之真如也。以由世人共迷法相名異體一故也。然雖體同不無小別。凡有性名者多在凡在理。如雲佛性理性真性藏性實性等。無性名者多通凡聖因果事理。如雲法界及實相等。如三昧陀羅尼波羅蜜等。則唯在於果。所以因名佛性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不含佛性的法性，只能容納于小乘教義。唯有具備法性的佛性，才可稱為大乘教義。因此現在我問你，在各種經論中，法界（Dharmadhatu，宇宙萬有）、實際（Reality，真實存在）、實相（True Appearance，事物本來的面目）、真性（True Nature，真實的本性）等，是與無情眾生中的法性相同，還是與真如（Tathata，如如不動的真理）一樣分為兩派？如果與真如相同，那麼各種經典中就不會出現無情眾生的法界以及實際等概念。如果存在於無情眾生中，只能稱為法性而非佛性，那麼為何《華嚴經·須彌山頂偈贊品》中說：『了知一切法，自性無所有，若能如是解，則見盧舍那（Locana，光明遍照）。』這難道不是說一切法本身就具有盧舍那佛的佛性嗎？又說：『法性本空寂，無取亦無見，性空即是佛，不可得思量。』又《精進慧經》說：『法性本清凈，如空無有相，此亦無所修，能見大牟尼（Mahamuni，偉大的聖人）。』難道在無性的狀態下，又說無需修行就能見到牟尼佛嗎？又《真實慧經》說：『一切法無相，是則真佛體。』既然真佛體存在於一切法中，請你仔細思考，應當避免迷惑于教義，以及對佛性的理解產生偏差。所以真如隨緣即是佛性隨緣，『佛』這個字本身就代表法佛（Dharma Buddha，體現真理的佛）。因此，法佛與真如在本體上是同名異稱。所以《佛性論》第一卷說：『佛性，即是人法二空所顯現的真如。』應當明白真如就是佛性的另一個名稱。《華嚴經》又說：『眾生非眾生，二俱無真實，如是諸法性，實義俱非有。』說『眾生非眾生』，難道不是指有情眾生和無情眾生，二者都隨緣而變，卻又都不改變其本性，所以說二者都不是真實存在的嗎？因此，法界、實際等一切概念都是如此。由此可知，法性這個名稱並非只專指無情眾生中的真如。這是因為世人普遍迷惑於法相，認為名稱不同，本體也不同。然而，雖然本體相同，但並非沒有細微的差別。凡是帶有『性』字的名詞，大多指凡夫或理體，例如佛性、理性、真性、藏性、實性等。不帶『性』字的名詞，大多貫通凡聖、因果、事理，例如法界以及實相等。而像三昧（Samadhi，禪定）、陀羅尼（Dharani，總持）、波羅蜜（Paramita，到彼岸）等，則只存在於果位。所以，在因位時稱為佛性。
【English Translation】 English version: A Dharma-nature without Buddha-nature can only be accommodated in Hinayana (Small Vehicle) teachings. Only a Buddha-nature that possesses Dharma-nature can be called Mahayana (Great Vehicle) teachings. Therefore, I now ask you, in various sutras and treatises, are Dharmadhatu (the realm of all phenomena), Reality (true existence), True Appearance (the true nature of things), and True Nature (the real essence) the same as Dharma-nature in insentient beings, or are they divided into two schools like Tathata (Suchness, the unchanging truth)? If they are the same as Tathata, then the Dharma-realm and Reality, etc., of insentient beings would not appear in various teachings. If they exist in insentient beings and can only be called Dharma-nature and not Buddha-nature, then why does the 『Verses in Praise』 chapter on the summit of Mount Sumeru in the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra) say: 『Understanding that all dharmas are without self-nature, if one can understand in this way, then one sees Locana (the Illuminator).』 Does this not mean that all dharmas inherently possess the Buddha-nature of Locana? It also says: 『Dharma-nature is originally empty and still, without grasping or seeing; emptiness of nature is Buddha, beyond thought.』 Furthermore, the Sutra of Diligent Wisdom says: 『Dharma-nature is originally pure, like space without form; there is nothing to cultivate, and one can see the Great Muni (Sage).』 Is it not said that in a state of no-nature, one can see the Muni without cultivation? Also, the Sutra of True Wisdom says: 『All dharmas are without form; this is the true Buddha-body.』 Since the true Buddha-body exists in all dharmas, please consider this carefully, and you should avoid being confused by the teachings and having deviations in your understanding of Buddha-nature. Therefore, Tathata following conditions is the same as Buddha-nature following conditions; the word 『Buddha』 itself represents Dharma Buddha (the Buddha who embodies truth). Thus, Dharma Buddha and Tathata are different names for the same essence. Therefore, the first chapter of the Treatise on Buddha-Nature says: 『Buddha-nature is the Tathata manifested by the emptiness of both person and dharma.』 It should be understood that Tathata is another name for Buddha-nature. The Avatamsaka Sutra also says: 『Sentient beings are not sentient beings; both are without reality; such is the nature of all dharmas; the true meaning is that neither exists.』 Saying 『sentient beings are not sentient beings,』 does this not refer to both sentient and insentient beings, both changing with conditions and yet not changing their inherent nature, so it is said that neither is truly existent? Therefore, the Dharmadhatu, Reality, and all concepts are like this. From this, it can be known that the name Dharma-nature does not exclusively refer to the Tathata in insentient beings. This is because people are generally confused by the characteristics of dharmas, thinking that different names mean different essences. However, although the essence is the same, there are subtle differences. Generally, nouns with the word 『-nature』 mostly refer to ordinary beings or the principle, such as Buddha-nature, rational-nature, true-nature, store-nature, and real-nature. Nouns without the word 『-nature』 mostly encompass the ordinary and the holy, cause and effect, phenomena and principle, such as Dharmadhatu and Reality. And like Samadhi (meditative absorption), Dharani (mantra), and Paramita (perfection), they only exist in the fruition stage. Therefore, in the causal stage, it is called Buddha-nature.
等者。眾生實未成佛得理證真開藏。以煩惱生死是佛等性。示令修習名佛等性。而諸教之中諸名互立。涅槃經中多雲佛性者。佛是果人。言一切眾生皆有果人之性。故偏言之。世人迷故而不從果。云眾生有故失體遍。又云遍者。以由煩惱心性體遍。云佛性遍。故知。不識佛性遍者。良由不知煩惱性遍故。唯心之言豈唯真心。子尚不知煩惱心遍。安能了知生死色遍。色何以遍。色即心故。何者。依報共造正報別造。豈信共遍不信別遍耶。能造所造既是唯心。心體不可局方所故。所以十方佛土皆有眾生理性心種。以性喻空。具如涅槃一十複次。故知。不曉大小教門名體同異。此是學釋教者之大患也。故身子云。我等同入法性。及亦得解脫等。子初不達余之義旨。故聞之驚駭。為子申已理合釋然。故知。世人局我遮那唯陰質內。而直云諸法是無情者。則有二種不如外道。外道尚云我大色小我遍虛空。又外道猶計眾塵所成。亦不直云無情而已。又有二種不如小乘。小乘尚云猶業力造造遍三界。又小乘猶知諸法無常。亦不直云無情而已。又有二種不如共乘。共乘尚知造心幻化幻遍三界。又知諸法體性即真。若次第乘故非所擬。子聞是已。亦合薄知教法權實佛性進否。
客曰。仁善分別實壞重疑。信一切法皆正因性。而云正
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『等』的含義是：眾生實際上尚未成佛，需要通過證悟真理來開啟內在的寶藏。因為煩惱和生死與佛的本性是相同的，所以通過修行來顯現這種佛的本性。各種教派對此有不同的名稱。在《涅槃經》中，經常提到『佛性』（Buddha-nature）。佛是已經證得果位的人，說一切眾生都具有成佛的潛能，因此側重於從果的角度來說。世人因為迷惑而不能從果的角度理解。說眾生具有佛性，是因為佛性遍佈一切。又說『遍』，是因為煩惱的本性與心性是相通的，所以說佛性遍佈一切。因此，不認識佛性遍佈一切的人，是因為不瞭解煩惱的本性遍佈一切。『唯心』（Mind-only）的說法難道僅僅指真心嗎？你尚且不瞭解煩惱心遍佈一切，又怎麼能瞭解生死和色法的遍佈？色法為什麼遍佈一切？因為色法即是心。為什麼這樣說呢？因為依報是共同創造的，正報是各自創造的。難道相信共同創造的遍佈，而不相信各自創造的遍佈嗎？能創造的和所創造的都是唯心所現，而心的本體是無法侷限於某個方位的。所以十方佛土都具有眾生的理性心種。以『性』來比喻空性，詳細內容見《涅槃經》第一十卷。因此，不瞭解大小乘教義的名相、體性、相同和差異，這是學習佛教的人的一大弊病。所以舍利弗（Sariputra）說：『我們都進入了法性』，以及『也得到了解脫』等等。你最初不理解這些話的含義，所以聽了之後感到驚駭。為你解釋之後，理應釋然。因此，世人將我和毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana）侷限於陰質之內，而直接說諸法是無情的，這就有兩種不如外道的地方。外道尚且說我的本體大，色法小，我的本體遍佈虛空。而且外道還認為世界是由眾多微塵組成的，也不直接說一切都是無情的。又有兩種不如小乘的地方。小乘尚且說世界是由業力創造的，遍佈三界。而且小乘還知道諸法是無常的，也不直接說一切都是無情的。又有兩種不如共乘的地方。共乘尚且知道世界是由心所幻化的，幻化遍佈三界。而且知道諸法的體性就是真如。如果是次第乘，那就更無法相比了。你聽了這些之後，也應該稍微瞭解教法的權巧和真實，以及佛性的進步與否。
客人說：您善於分辨，確實消除了我心中的疑惑。我相信一切法都具有正因的性質。但是，您說正
【English Translation】 English version 『Equivalence』 means that sentient beings have not actually attained Buddhahood and need to realize the truth to open their inner treasure. Because afflictions and birth-and-death are the same as the Buddha-nature, it is shown to be cultivated, which is called Buddha-nature. Among the various teachings, different names are established for this. In the Nirvana Sutra, it is often said 『Buddha-nature』 (Buddha-nature). Buddha is the person who has attained the fruit. It is said that all sentient beings have the potential to become Buddhas, so it focuses on the perspective of the fruit. People are confused and cannot understand from the perspective of the fruit. It is said that sentient beings have Buddha-nature because it pervades everything. It is also said 『pervades』 because the nature of afflictions is connected to the nature of mind, so it is said that Buddha-nature pervades everything. Therefore, those who do not recognize that Buddha-nature pervades everything do not understand that the nature of afflictions pervades everything. Does the saying 『Mind-only』 (Mind-only) only refer to the true mind? You do not even understand that the afflicted mind pervades everything, how can you understand the pervasiveness of birth-and-death and form? Why does form pervade everything? Because form is mind. Why is this said? Because the circumstantial rewards are created together, and the direct rewards are created separately. Do you believe that what is created together pervades, but not what is created separately? What is created and what is created are both manifestations of Mind-only, and the substance of mind cannot be limited to a certain direction. Therefore, all Buddha-lands in the ten directions have the rational mind-seeds of sentient beings. 『Nature』 is used to describe emptiness, as detailed in the tenth volume of the Nirvana Sutra. Therefore, not understanding the names, essence, similarities, and differences of the teachings of the Great and Small Vehicles is a major problem for those who study Buddhism. Therefore, Sariputra (Sariputra) said: 『We have all entered the Dharma-nature,』 and 『have also attained liberation,』 and so on. You initially did not understand the meaning of these words, so you were shocked after hearing them. After explaining it to you, you should be relieved. Therefore, people confine me and Vairocana Buddha (Vairocana) within the yin substance, and directly say that all dharmas are inanimate, which is inferior to externalists in two ways. Externalists still say that my body is large, form is small, and my body pervades space. Moreover, externalists still believe that the world is made up of many dust particles, and do not directly say that everything is inanimate. There are two ways in which it is inferior to the Small Vehicle. The Small Vehicle still says that the world is created by karmic force and pervades the three realms. Moreover, the Small Vehicle still knows that all dharmas are impermanent, and does not directly say that everything is inanimate. There are two ways in which it is inferior to the Common Vehicle. The Common Vehicle still knows that the world is transformed by the mind and pervades the three realms. Moreover, it knows that the essence of all dharmas is true thusness. If it is a gradual vehicle, then it is even more incomparable. After hearing this, you should also have a slight understanding of the expedient and true teachings, and the progress or lack thereof of Buddha-nature.
The guest said: Your skillful distinctions have indeed dispelled the doubts in my mind. I believe that all dharmas have the nature of a positive cause. However, you say that the positive
中三因種遍修遍果遍。又云一塵一心即一切生佛之心性。情猶未決。余曰。良由自昔不善遍攬因果自他依正。觀於己心心佛眾生。亦由不閱諸教大旨。不曉佛說果德之意。不達佛現互融之由。余欲開導子之情懷。更以四十六問而問于子。子若能曉余之一問。則眾滯自消。法界融通。釋然大觀洞見法界生佛依正。一念具足一塵不虧。
問佛性之名從因從果。從因非佛。果不名性。問佛性之名常無常耶。無常非性。常不應變。問佛性之名共耶別耶。別不名性。共不可分。問佛性之名大小教耶。小無性名。大無無情。問佛性之名有權實耶。對體辯異其相何耶。
問無情之名大小教耶。大教大部有權實耶。問無情無者無情為色為非色耶。為二俱耶。問無情色等佛見爾耶。為生見耶。為共見耶。問無情敗壞故無性者。陰亦敗壞性亦然耶。問無情是色。法界處色為亦無耶。為復有耶。
問唯心之言子曾聞耶。唯只是心。異不名唯。問唯心之言凡聖心耶。若聖若凡二俱有過。問唯心名心造無心耶。唯造心耶。二俱有過。問唯心唯心亦唯色耶。若不唯色。色非心耶。問唯心所造唯依與正。依正能所同耶異耶。
問眾生量異性隨異耶。不爾非內爾不名性。問眾生惑心。性遍不遍神我四句。為同異耶。問眾生有性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 中三因（三種成佛的根本原因：正因、了因、緣因）的種子普遍存在，修行能普遍結果，果報也普遍存在。又說，一微塵包含一心，即一切眾生和佛的心性。但我對此仍然疑惑不解。我回答說：『這是因為你過去不善於全面瞭解因果、自他、依報和正報，以及觀察自己的心、佛和眾生。也是因為你沒有閱讀各種佛教經典的大旨，不明白佛所說的果德的含義，不瞭解佛顯現相互融合的原因。』我想要開導你的心懷，再用四十六個問題來問你。你如果能明白我的一個問題，那麼所有的疑惑自然消除，法界融通無礙，釋然開朗，洞見法界中眾生、佛、依報和正報，一念之間具足一切，一微塵也不缺少。 問：佛性的名稱是從因上說還是從果上說？從因上說就不是佛，從果上說就不能稱為性。問：佛性的名稱是常還是無常？無常就不是性，常就不應該變化。問：佛性的名稱是共同的還是個別的？個別就不能稱為性，共同就不可分割。問：佛性的名稱是小乘教義還是大乘教義？小乘教義沒有性名，大乘教義沒有無情。問：佛性的名稱是有權巧方便還是真實究竟？如果對體性進行辨別，它們的相狀有什麼不同？ 問：無情的名稱是小乘教義還是大乘教義？大乘教義的各個部分是有權巧方便還是真實究竟？問：所謂的『無情』，是指無情之物是色法還是非色法？還是兩者都是？問：無情之物等同於佛所見的嗎？是眾生所見的嗎？還是共同所見的？問：如果說無情之物會敗壞所以沒有佛性，那麼五陰也會敗壞，佛性也是這樣嗎？問：如果說無情之物是色法，那麼法界之中，色法之處是有還是沒有佛性？ 問：『唯心』的說法你聽說過嗎？如果只是心，與其他的不同，就不能稱為『唯』。問：『唯心』是指凡夫的心還是聖人的心？如果是聖人的心或凡夫的心，兩者都有過失。問：『唯心』是指心造無心，還是唯獨造心？兩者都有過失。問：『唯心』，那麼『唯心』也只是色法嗎？如果不『唯』，那麼色法就不是心嗎？問：『唯心』所造的，只是依報和正報嗎？依報和正報的能造和所造是相同還是不同？ 問：眾生的數量不同，佛性也隨之不同嗎？如果不是這樣，就不是內在的，這樣就不能稱為佛性。問：眾生的迷惑之心，佛性是普遍還是不普遍？神我和四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）是相同還是不同？問：眾生有佛性嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: The seeds of the three causes (the three fundamental causes of becoming a Buddha: the direct cause, the assisting cause, and the conditional cause) are universally present; cultivation leads to universal fruition, and the resulting karmic rewards are also universal. It is also said that one dust particle contains one mind, which is the mind-nature of all sentient beings and Buddhas. However, I still have doubts about this. I replied, 'This is because you have not been good at comprehensively understanding cause and effect, self and others, the dependent environment and the principal reward, and observing your own mind, Buddhas, and sentient beings. It is also because you have not read the main points of various Buddhist scriptures, do not understand the meaning of the Buddha's fruit virtues, and do not understand the reason why Buddhas manifest mutual integration.' I want to enlighten your mind, so I will ask you forty-six more questions. If you can understand one of my questions, then all doubts will naturally disappear, the Dharma realm will be unobstructed, you will be enlightened and clearly see the sentient beings, Buddhas, dependent environment, and principal reward in the Dharma realm, complete in one thought, and lacking nothing in one dust particle. Question: Is the name of Buddha-nature spoken of from the perspective of cause or from the perspective of effect? If it is spoken of from the perspective of cause, then it is not a Buddha; if it is spoken of from the perspective of effect, then it cannot be called 'nature'. Question: Is the name of Buddha-nature permanent or impermanent? If it is impermanent, then it is not 'nature'; if it is permanent, then it should not change. Question: Is the name of Buddha-nature common or individual? If it is individual, then it cannot be called 'nature'; if it is common, then it cannot be divided. Question: Is the name of Buddha-nature a teaching of the Small Vehicle (Hinayana) or the Great Vehicle (Mahayana)? The Small Vehicle has no name for 'nature'; the Great Vehicle has no insentient beings. Question: Is the name of Buddha-nature expedient or ultimate? If the essence is distinguished, what are the differences in their characteristics? Question: Is the name of insentient beings a teaching of the Small Vehicle or the Great Vehicle? In the various parts of the Great Vehicle, is it expedient or ultimate? Question: The so-called 'insentient beings', does it refer to insentient things as form or non-form? Or both? Question: Are insentient things the same as what the Buddhas see? Is it what sentient beings see? Or is it what is seen in common? Question: If it is said that insentient things decay and therefore have no Buddha-nature, then the five aggregates also decay, is Buddha-nature also like that? Question: If it is said that insentient things are form, then in the Dharma realm, in the places of form, is there or is there not Buddha-nature? Question: Have you heard of the saying 'Only Mind'? If it is only mind, and different from others, then it cannot be called 'Only'. Question: Does 'Only Mind' refer to the mind of ordinary beings or the mind of sages? If it is the mind of sages or the mind of ordinary beings, both have faults. Question: Does 'Only Mind' refer to the mind creating no-mind, or only creating mind? Both have faults. Question: 'Only Mind', then is 'Only Mind' also only form? If it is not 'Only', then is form not mind? Question: What is created by 'Only Mind', is it only the dependent environment and the principal reward? Are the creator and the created of the dependent environment and the principal reward the same or different? Question: Are the Buddha-natures different as the number of sentient beings is different? If it is not like this, then it is not internal, and it cannot be called Buddha-nature. Question: The deluded mind of sentient beings, is Buddha-nature universal or not universal? Are the self and the four phrases (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) the same or different? Question: Do sentient beings have Buddha-nature?
唯應身性亦法性耶。亦報性耶。問眾生本迷迷佛悟耶。佛既悟已。悟生迷耶。問眾生一身幾佛性耶。一佛身中幾生性耶。
問佛國土身為始本耶。始本同耶。為復異耶。問佛土佛身為一異耶。一無能所。異則同凡。問佛土界分生亦居耶。為各所居佛無土耶。問佛土所攝為遠近耶。何土與生一異共別。問佛佛土體為同異耶。娑婆之處為共別耶。
問佛成道時土亦成耶。成廣狹耶。不成有過。問佛成見性與生見處為同異耶。離二不可。問佛成土成。與彼彼成。彼彼不成為一異耶。問佛成三身。與彼彼果及彼彼生為一異耶。問佛成身土成何眼智。見自他境初后如何。
問真如所造互相攝耶。不相攝耶二俱如何。問真如之體通於修性。修性身土等不等耶。問真如隨緣變為無情。為永無耶。何當有耶。問真如隨緣隨已與真為同異耶。為永隨耶。問真如本有為本無耶。與惑共住同異如何。
問波水同異。前後得失。真妄同異。法譬如何。問病眼見華華處空處。同異存沒法譬如何。問映象明體本始同異。前後存沒法譬如何。問帝網之譬唯譬果耶。亦譬因耶。果無因耶。問如意珠身身有土耶。唯在果耶。通因如何。
問行者觀心心即境耶。能所得名同異如何。問行者觀心一耶多耶。一多心境同異如何。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：應身（Nirmanakaya，佛的化身）的性質是法性（Dharmata，宇宙的真實本質）嗎？還是報性（Sambhogakaya，佛的報身）？問：眾生本來是迷惑的，還是佛本來是覺悟的？佛既然已經覺悟，那麼覺悟會產生迷惑嗎？問：眾生一個身體中有幾個佛性（Buddha-nature）？一個佛身中有幾個生性？ 問：佛的國土和佛的身是同時開始的嗎？開始和根本是相同的嗎？還是不同的？問：佛的國土和佛的身是一體的還是不同的？如果說是一體，那就無能無所；如果說是不同，那就和凡人一樣。問：佛的國土有界限，眾生也居住在其中嗎？還是各自居住，佛沒有國土？問：佛的國土所攝受的是遠處的眾生還是近處的眾生？哪個國土與眾生是一體、不同、共同還是分別的？問：佛與佛的國土的本體是相同還是不同？娑婆世界（Sahā world，我們所居住的這個世界）是共同的還是分別的？ 問：佛成道（Buddhahood，證悟成佛）的時候，國土也同時成就嗎？成就的國土是廣大還是狹小？如果不成就，會有什麼過失？問：佛成就的見性（seeing nature）與眾生所見的處所是相同還是不同？離開這二者就無法說明。問：佛成就，國土成就，與彼彼成就，彼彼不成就，是一樣的還是不同的？問：佛成就三身（Trikaya，佛的三種身：法身、報身、應身），與彼彼的果報以及彼彼的眾生是一樣的還是不同的？問：佛成就身和國土，用什麼眼和智慧來見自他之境？最初和最後的情況如何？ 問：真如（Tathata，事物的真實如是的狀態）所造的萬物互相攝受嗎？還是不互相攝受？這兩種情況都是如何的？問：真如的本體貫通於修行之性，修行之性、身、國土等等是相等還是不相等？問：真如隨緣變化為無情之物，是永遠沒有情嗎？什麼時候才會有情？問：真如隨緣，隨順已有的事物與真如本身是相同還是不同？是永遠隨順嗎？問：真如是本來就有的還是本來就沒有的？與迷惑共同存在的情況是相同還是不同？ 問：波浪和水是相同還是不同？前後有什麼得失？真實和虛妄是相同還是不同？用什麼法來比喻？問：有眼病的人看到虛幻的花，花存在的地方和空無的地方，是相同還是不同？存在還是消失？用什麼法來比喻？問：鏡子和明體的本始是相同還是不同？前後存在還是消失？用什麼法來比喻？問：帝網（Indra's net，因陀羅網，比喻宇宙萬物相互關聯）的比喻只是比喻果報嗎？也比喻原因嗎？果報沒有原因嗎？問：如意珠（Cintamani，能實現願望的寶珠）的身，身中有國土嗎？只是在果報中才有嗎？貫通到原因的情況如何？ 問：修行者觀心，心就是境嗎？能觀的心和所觀的境，它們的名稱、相同和不同之處如何？問：修行者觀心，是一還是多？一和多，心和境，它們的相同和不同之處如何？
【English Translation】 English version Q: Is the nature of Nirmanakaya (the emanation body of the Buddha) Dharmata (the true essence of the universe)? Or is it Sambhogakaya (the enjoyment body of the Buddha)? Q: Are sentient beings originally deluded, or is the Buddha originally enlightened? Since the Buddha is already enlightened, does enlightenment produce delusion? Q: How many Buddha-natures are there in one body of a sentient being? How many sentient natures are there in one Buddha's body? Q: Did the Buddha's land and the Buddha's body begin at the same time? Are the beginning and the root the same? Or are they different? Q: Are the Buddha's land and the Buddha's body one or different? If they are one, then there is no ability or place; if they are different, then they are the same as ordinary people. Q: Does the Buddha's land have boundaries, and do sentient beings also reside within it? Or do they each reside separately, and the Buddha has no land? Q: Does the Buddha's land encompass sentient beings far away or near? Which land is one, different, common, or separate with sentient beings? Q: Is the substance of the Buddha and the Buddha's land the same or different? Is the Saha world (the world we live in) common or separate? Q: When the Buddha attains Buddhahood, does the land also become accomplished at the same time? Is the accomplished land vast or narrow? If it is not accomplished, what faults will there be? Q: Is the seeing nature (seeing nature) that the Buddha achieves the same as or different from the place seen by sentient beings? It is impossible to explain without leaving these two. Q: The Buddha's accomplishment, the land's accomplishment, and the accomplishment of those others, and the non-accomplishment of those others, are they the same or different? Q: The Buddha's accomplishment of the Trikaya (the three bodies of the Buddha: Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya), and the retribution of those others and the sentient beings of those others, are they the same or different? Q: When the Buddha accomplishes the body and the land, with what eyes and wisdom does he see the realms of self and others? What is the initial and final situation? Q: Do all things created by Tathata (the true suchness of things) mutually embrace each other? Or do they not mutually embrace each other? How are these two situations? Q: Does the substance of Tathata pervade the nature of cultivation? Are the nature of cultivation, body, land, etc., equal or unequal? Q: Does Tathata, changing according to conditions into inanimate objects, remain inanimate forever? When will it become animate? Q: Is Tathata, following conditions, following existing things, the same as or different from Tathata itself? Does it follow forever? Q: Is Tathata originally existent or originally non-existent? How is the situation of coexisting with delusion the same or different? Q: Are waves and water the same or different? What are the gains and losses before and after? Are truth and falsehood the same or different? What Dharma can be used as a metaphor? Q: A person with diseased eyes sees illusory flowers. Are the place where the flowers exist and the place of emptiness the same or different? Do they exist or disappear? What Dharma can be used as a metaphor? Q: Are the origin of the mirror and the luminous substance the same or different? Do they exist or disappear before and after? What Dharma can be used as a metaphor? Q: Does the metaphor of Indra's net (Indra's net, a metaphor for the interconnectedness of all things in the universe) only refer to retribution? Does it also refer to cause? Is there retribution without cause? Q: Does the body of the Cintamani (a jewel that fulfills wishes) have a land within it? Is it only in retribution? How does it pervade the situation of cause? Q: When a practitioner observes the mind, is the mind the realm? How are the names, similarities, and differences between the observing mind and the observed realm? Q: When a practitioner observes the mind, is it one or many? How are the similarities and differences between one and many, mind and realm?
問行者觀心為唯觀心亦觀身耶。亦觀土耶。問行者觀心在惑業苦。內耶外耶同耶異耶。問行者觀心心內佛性為本凈耶。為始凈耶。問行者觀心心佛眾生因果身土法相融攝一切同耶。
如是設問不可窮盡。為斷子疑且至爾許。
客曰。何以不多不少。唯四十六。余曰。攻惑。攻疑。攻行。攻理。通教通義。通自通他。一問亦足。為對鈍根故四十六。及對六即分證離為四十一位。兼前及后故四十六。應知一問亦皆能攻餘四十五。餘一一位仍須皆具四十六。問乃至無量亦復如是。
客曰。仁所立義灼然異仆于昔所聞。仆初聞之。乃謂一草一木一礫一塵。各一佛性各一因果具足緣了。若其然者仆實不忍。何者草木有生有滅。塵礫隨劫有無。豈唯不能修因得果。亦乃佛性有滅有生。世皆謂此以為無情。故曰無情不應有性。仆乃誤以世所傳習難仁至理失之甚矣過莫大矣。余曰。子何因猶存無情之名。
客曰。乃仆重述初迷之見。今亦粗知仁所立理。只是一一有情心遍性遍。心具性具猶如虛空。彼彼無礙彼彼各遍。身土因果無所增減。故法華云世間相常住。世間之言凡聖因果依正攝盡。余曰觀子所見。似知大旨。何不試答向之一問。
客曰。仁向自云若思一問眾滯自消。仆若答者即以一答遍答眾問。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：修行人觀心，是隻觀心，還是也觀身呢？也觀國土嗎？ 問：修行人觀心，是在迷惑、業障、痛苦的內部，還是外部？是相同，還是不同？ 問：修行人觀心，心中佛性是本來清凈的，還是開始清凈的？ 問：修行人觀心，心、佛、眾生、因果、身、土、法相，融攝一切，是相同嗎？
像這樣提出的問題，是無法窮盡的。爲了斷除您的疑惑，暫且到此為止。
客人說：為什麼不多不少，只有四十六個問題？ 我回答說：爲了攻破迷惑，攻破疑惑，攻破修行上的問題，攻破理上的問題；爲了通達教義，通達義理；爲了通達自身，通達他人。一個問題也足夠了，爲了應對遲鈍的根器，所以有四十六個問題。以及爲了對應六即（liù jí）[六個階段的修行境界]分證離為四十一個位次。兼顧前面和後面，所以是四十六個問題。應該知道一個問題也都能攻破其餘四十五個問題，其餘每一個問題仍然需要具備全部四十六個問題的內涵。提問乃至無量個問題，也是如此。
客人說：您所建立的義理，確實不同於我過去所聽聞的。我最初聽到這種說法，就認為一草一木、一礫一塵，各自具有佛性，各自具有因果，具足緣和了。如果真是這樣，我實在不能接受。為什麼呢？因為草木有生有滅，塵礫隨著劫數有無。豈止是不能修因得果，而且佛性也有滅有生。世人都認為這些是無情之物，所以說無情之物不應該有佛性。我竟然錯誤地用世俗所傳習的觀點來質疑您精深的道理，過失太大了！ 我回答說：您為什麼還存留著『無情』這個概念呢？
客人說：我只是重述最初迷惑時的看法。現在也大致瞭解您所建立的道理，只是每一個有情眾生的心遍及一切，性遍及一切，心具足一切，性具足一切，猶如虛空。彼此之間沒有障礙，彼此之間各自周遍。身、土、因果沒有增減。所以《法華經》（Fǎ Huá Jīng）[the Lotus Sutra]說『世間相常住』。『世間』這個詞，凡夫、聖人、因果、依報、正報都包含在內了。 我回答說：看您所見解，似乎明白了大概的意思。為什麼不試著回答剛才的一個問題呢？
客人說：您剛才自己說，如果思考一個問題，所有的疑惑自然消除。如果我回答一個問題，就用這一個答案來普遍回答所有的問題。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: When a practitioner contemplates the mind, does he only contemplate the mind, or does he also contemplate the body? Does he also contemplate the land? Question: When a practitioner contemplates the mind, is it within the delusions, karma, and suffering, or outside? Is it the same, or different? Question: When a practitioner contemplates the mind, is the Buddha-nature within the mind originally pure, or newly pure? Question: When a practitioner contemplates the mind, are the mind, Buddha, sentient beings, cause and effect, body, land, and Dharma characteristics, which encompass everything, the same?
Such questions are inexhaustible. To dispel your doubts, let's stop here for now.
The guest said: Why are there neither more nor less, but only forty-six questions? I replied: To attack delusions, to attack doubts, to attack problems in practice, to attack problems in principle; to understand the teachings, to understand the meaning; to understand oneself, to understand others. One question is enough, but for the sake of those with dull faculties, there are forty-six questions. And to correspond to the forty-one stages of the Six Identities (liù jí) [six stages of practice and realization]. Considering both the beginning and the end, hence forty-six questions. It should be known that one question can also attack the remaining forty-five questions, and each of the remaining questions still needs to encompass all forty-six questions. Asking even countless questions is the same.
The guest said: The principles you establish are indeed different from what I have heard in the past. When I first heard this, I thought that each blade of grass, each tree, each pebble, each speck of dust, each has its own Buddha-nature, each has its own cause and effect, complete with conditions and understanding. If that were the case, I really couldn't accept it. Why? Because grass and trees have birth and death, and dust and pebbles exist or cease to exist with the kalpas. Not only can they not cultivate causes to attain results, but also Buddha-nature would have birth and death. The world all considers these to be inanimate objects, so it is said that inanimate objects should not have Buddha-nature. I mistakenly used the views transmitted by the world to question your profound principles, and the fault is too great! I replied: Why do you still retain the concept of 'inanimate' objects?
The guest said: I am merely restating my initial confused view. Now I roughly understand the principles you have established, that is, the mind of each sentient being pervades everything, and the nature pervades everything, the mind possesses everything, and the nature possesses everything, like empty space. There is no obstruction between them, and each pervades each other. The body, land, cause and effect are neither increased nor decreased. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra (Fǎ Huá Jīng) [the Lotus Sutra] says, 'The characteristics of the world constantly abide.' The word 'world' encompasses all ordinary beings, sages, cause and effect, dependent rewards, and proper rewards. I replied: From what you see, it seems you understand the general meaning. Why not try to answer one of the previous questions?
The guest said: You yourself said earlier that if one thinks about one question, all doubts will naturally disappear. If I answer one question, I will use this one answer to universally answer all the questions.
何一問之有耶。余曰。請述其旨。
客曰。仆還攬向諸問意。若消眾滯即名為答。何假曲申一一問耶。何者眾問豈不由仆不受無情有性之說。仆今受之此即是答。余曰。大略雖爾未曉子情。
客曰。仁所立義關諸大教難可具陳。仆略論之冀垂聽覽。豈非曉最後問三無差別。即知我心彼彼眾生一一剎那。無不與彼遮那果德身心依正。自他互融互入齊等。我及眾生皆有此性故名佛性。其性遍造遍變遍攝。世人不了大教之體。唯云無情不云有性。是故須云無情有性。了性遍已則識佛果具自他之因性。我心具諸佛之果德。果上以佛眼佛智觀之。則唯佛無生。因中若實慧實眼冥符。亦全生是佛無別果佛。故．生外無佛。眾生以我執取之。即無佛唯生。初心能信教仰理亦無生唯佛。亡之則無生無佛。照之則因果昭然。應知眾生但理諸佛得事。眾生但事諸佛證理。是則眾生唯有迷中之事理。諸佛具有悟中之事理。迷悟雖殊事理體一。故一佛成道法界無非此佛之依正。一佛既爾諸佛咸然。眾生自於佛依正中。而生殊見苦藥升沉。一一皆計為己身土。凈穢宛然成壞斯在。仁所問意豈不略爾。余曰。善哉善哉。快領斯旨。實可總知諸問綱格。此即已答百千萬問。何獨四十六耶。
客曰。幾不遇仁此生空喪。必依此見獲勝
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：還剩下什麼疑問呢？我（余）說：請您闡述其中的要旨。 客人（客）說：我還是總括先前所有的提問之意，如果消除了大家的疑惑，就可以算作是回答了，何必非要詳細地逐一回答每個問題呢？那些問題難道不是因為我不接受『無情無性』的說法而產生的嗎？我現在接受這種說法，這就是回答。我（余）說：大體上是這樣，但我還不明白您的真實想法。 客人（客）說：您（仁）所建立的義理關係到各大教派，難以全部陳述。我簡略地論述一下，希望您能聽取並理解。難道不是理解了最後提問的『三無差別』，就能知道我的心、彼彼眾生、每一個剎那，無不與彼遮那（Vairocana，毗盧遮那佛，意為光明遍照）果德的身心依正（身指佛身，心指佛心，依指依報，正指正報）自他互相融合、互相進入，完全平等嗎？我和眾生都具有這種佛性，所以稱為佛性。這種佛性普遍創造、普遍變化、普遍攝受。世人不瞭解大教的本體，只說無情，不說有性。所以必須說無情有性。瞭解了佛性普遍存在之後，就能認識到佛果具備自他之因性。我的心具備諸佛的果德。在果位上用佛眼佛智觀察，就只有佛，沒有眾生。在因地中，如果真實的智慧和真實的眼光暗中契合，那麼完全的眾生就是佛，沒有別的佛果。所以，眾生之外沒有佛。眾生因為執著于『我』，就沒有佛，只有眾生。初學者如果能相信教義，仰慕真理，也就沒有眾生，只有佛。喪失了這種信念，就沒有眾生，也沒有佛。照見這種真理，那麼因果關係就昭然若揭。應該知道，眾生只是在理上是諸佛，才能在事上得到諸佛的幫助；眾生只是在事上侍奉諸佛，才能在理上證悟真理。這樣說來，眾生只有迷途中的事理，諸佛具有覺悟中的事理。迷悟雖然不同，但事理的本體是一樣的。所以，一佛成道，法界的一切無不是此佛的依正。一佛既然如此，諸佛都是這樣。眾生在佛的依正之中，產生不同的見解，感受苦藥的升沉。一一都認為是自己的身土，凈穢分明，成敗都在其中。您（仁）所提問的意思，難道不就是這樣嗎？我（余）說：說得好啊！說得好啊！我很快就領會了其中的要旨。確實可以總括地瞭解所有問題的綱領。這實際上已經回答了百千萬個問題，何止四十六個問題呢？ 客人（客）說：如果不是遇到您（仁），我這一生就白白浪費了。必定依靠這種見解才能獲得殊勝的成就。
【English Translation】 English version: What further questions remain? I (Yu) said: Please elaborate on its essence. The guest (Ke) said: I will still summarize the meaning of all the previous questions. If the doubts of everyone are dispelled, it can be considered an answer. Why must each question be answered in detail one by one? Aren't those questions arising because I didn't accept the saying of 'insentient without nature'? Now I accept this saying, and that is the answer. I (Yu) said: That's generally true, but I still don't understand your true intention. The guest (Ke) said: The righteousness you (Ren) have established relates to all the major teachings and is difficult to fully explain. I will briefly discuss it, hoping you will listen and understand. Isn't it that understanding the 'three non-differences' of the last question allows one to know that my mind, all sentient beings, and every moment are all mutually integrated and equally the same with the body, mind, and environment (身心依正, shen xin yi zheng - body refers to the Buddha's body, mind refers to the Buddha's mind, environment refers to the support environment, and proper refers to the proper reward) of the Vairocana (遮那, Vairocana, meaning 'light shining everywhere') Buddha's fruition? I and all sentient beings have this Buddha-nature, so it is called Buddha-nature. This nature universally creates, universally transforms, and universally embraces. People in the world do not understand the essence of the great teachings, only speaking of insentient and not speaking of having nature. Therefore, it must be said that insentient has nature. After understanding the universality of nature, one can recognize that the Buddha-fruit possesses the causal nature of self and others. My mind possesses the fruition virtues of all Buddhas. Observing from the perspective of the fruition with the Buddha's eye and Buddha's wisdom, there is only Buddha, no sentient beings. In the causal ground, if true wisdom and true vision secretly correspond, then the complete sentient being is Buddha, and there is no other Buddha-fruit. Therefore, there is no Buddha outside of sentient beings. Sentient beings, because of attachment to 'self', have no Buddha, only sentient beings. If a beginner can believe in the teachings and admire the truth, then there are no sentient beings, only Buddha. Losing this belief, there are no sentient beings and no Buddha. Illuminating this truth, the relationship between cause and effect becomes clear. It should be known that sentient beings are only Buddhas in principle, so they can receive the help of Buddhas in practice; sentient beings only serve Buddhas in practice, so they can realize the truth in principle. In this way, sentient beings only have the principles and practices in delusion, while Buddhas have the principles and practices in enlightenment. Although delusion and enlightenment are different, the essence of principles and practices is the same. Therefore, when one Buddha attains enlightenment, everything in the Dharma realm is nothing but the environment and proper reward of this Buddha. Since one Buddha is like this, all Buddhas are the same. Sentient beings, within the Buddha's environment and proper reward, generate different views and experience the ups and downs of bitter medicine. They all consider it to be their own body and land, with purity and impurity clearly defined, and success and failure residing within it. Isn't that the meaning of your (Ren) question? I (Yu) said: Well said! Well said! I quickly grasped the essence of it. It can indeed comprehensively understand the outline of all questions. This has actually answered hundreds of thousands of questions, not just forty-six? The guest (Ke) said: If I hadn't met you (Ren), my life would have been wasted in vain. One must rely on this view to obtain supreme achievement.
果耶。余曰。必欲修習教法未周。若不善餘一家宗途。未可委究行門始末。安能遍括教行事理惑智因果依正心法。用為凡夫初心觀首。然子所領似虛其情。計子觀道猶為罔象。
客曰。觀道者何。仁師誰耶。法依何耶。余曰。子豈不聞。天臺大師靈山親承。大蘇妙悟。是余師也。摩訶止觀所承法也。以二十五法為前方便。十法成乘觀於十境。十境互發觀時進否。此觀道之大略也。諸問且令識十乘初妙境而已。余乘諸境不暇論之。客曰。善哉。仆當慕之。以為永劫之仗托也。
客曰。屢聞講說。大乘諸師猶以無情佛性。為一別見何耶。余曰。此有由也。斯等曾睹小乘無情之名。又見大乘佛性之語。亡其所弘融通之譚。而棄涅槃虛空之喻。不達修性三因離合。不思生佛無差之旨。謬敩傳習無情之言。反難己宗唯心之教。專引涅槃瓦石之說。不測時部出沒之意。如福德子而無壽命。弱喪徒歸○猶迷本族。如受貴位不識祖宗。亦如死人而著瓔珞。用是福為用瓔珞為。法相徒施全迷其本。忽遇斯等應以如上諸意問之所弘之典大小乘耶。尚失小乘已如前說。
客曰。斯失者眾。聞仁所宗四教釋義可得聞耶。余曰。此之四釋關涉五時牢籠八教。十方三世大小乘法咸攝其中。豈可率爾譚其始末。
客曰。若爾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 我問：『你一定要修習教法，但還沒有完全瞭解。如果不熟悉我這一家的宗途，就無法徹底瞭解修行的始末。又怎能全面概括教、行、事、理、惑、智、因、果、依、正、心法，用作凡夫初學者的入門觀行？我看你所理解的似乎很空虛，我認為你的觀道還很模糊。』 客人問：『什麼是觀道？您的老師是誰？您所依據的法是什麼？』我回答：『你難道沒聽說過天臺大師在靈山親身承受佛法，大蘇軾妙悟佛理嗎？他們是我的老師。我所承襲的法是《摩訶止觀》。以二十五種方便法作為前行準備，用十種方法成就乘，觀照十種境界。十種境界互相引發，觀察修行時是進步還是退步。這是觀道的大概內容。現在只讓你瞭解十乘觀法最初的微妙境界。其餘乘的各種境界，沒有時間討論。』客人說：『太好了！我應當仰慕它，把它作為永恒的依靠。』 客人問：『我多次聽到講說，大乘的各位法師仍然把『無情佛性』作為一種特別的見解，這是為什麼呢？』我回答：『這其中是有原因的。這些人曾經見過小乘中『無情』的說法，又見到大乘中『佛性』的說法，卻忘記了他們所弘揚的融通之說，拋棄了《涅槃經》中用虛空來比喻佛性的說法，不明白修性、實性、了因三因的離合關係，不思考眾生與佛沒有差別的道理，錯誤地效仿傳習『無情』的說法，反而責難自己宗派的唯心之教，專門引用《涅槃經》中瓦石沒有佛性的說法，不瞭解佛經在不同時期出現和隱沒的意義。就像福德之子卻沒有壽命，衰弱而迷失，仍然迷失於本族；又像接受了高貴地位卻不認識祖宗，也像死人卻佩戴著珍貴的瓔珞。用福德就像用瓔珞一樣，法相徒有其表，完全迷惑了根本。如果遇到這些人，應該用以上這些道理來問他：他所弘揚的經典是大乘還是小乘？如果他已經像前面所說的那樣不瞭解小乘，那就更不用說了。』 客人問：『犯這種錯誤的人很多。我可以聽您講講您所宗奉的天臺四教的釋義嗎？』我回答：『這四種教義的解釋，關係到佛陀的五時說法，涵蓋了八教，十方三世的大小乘佛法都包含在其中。怎麼可以隨便談論它的始末呢？』 客人問：『如果這樣的話……』
【English Translation】 English version: I asked: 'You must practice the teachings, but you have not fully understood them yet. If you are not familiar with the tenets of my school, you cannot thoroughly understand the beginning and end of practice. How can you comprehensively encompass the teachings, practice, actions, principles, delusions, wisdom, causes, effects, support, correctness, and mind-dharmas, and use them as an entry point for ordinary beginners? It seems to me that what you understand is quite superficial, and I think your understanding of the path of contemplation is still very vague.' The guest asked: 'What is the path of contemplation? Who is your teacher? What is the Dharma you rely on?' I replied: 'Have you not heard that the Tiantai Master personally received the Dharma at Vulture Peak, and Su Shi (Da Su) had a profound enlightenment? They are my teachers. The Dharma I inherit is the 'Mahayana Samatha-Vipassana' (Mohe Zhiguan). It uses the twenty-five preparatory practices as preliminary preparation, uses ten methods to accomplish the vehicle, and contemplates the ten objects. The ten objects mutually trigger each other, and one observes whether progress or regress is made during practice. This is a general outline of the path of contemplation. Now I will only let you understand the initial subtle realm of the ten vehicles of contemplation. There is no time to discuss the various realms of the other vehicles.' The guest said: 'Excellent! I should admire it and take it as an eternal reliance.' The guest asked: 'I have heard many lectures, and the Mahayana masters still regard 'insentient Buddha-nature' as a special view. Why is that?' I replied: 'There is a reason for this. These people have seen the term 'insentient' in the Hinayana teachings, and they have also seen the term 'Buddha-nature' in the Mahayana teachings, but they have forgotten the syncretic teachings they promote, and abandoned the analogy of emptiness in the 'Nirvana Sutra'. They do not understand the separation and combination of the three causes of cultivation-nature, real-nature, and causal-cause, and they do not think about the principle that sentient beings and Buddhas are not different. They mistakenly imitate and transmit the saying of 'insentient', and instead criticize the Mind-Only teachings of their own school, and specifically cite the saying of tiles and stones in the 'Nirvana Sutra', and do not understand the meaning of the appearance and disappearance of the sutras in different periods. It is like a son of merit without longevity, weak and lost, still lost in his own clan; it is also like receiving a noble position but not knowing his ancestors, or like a dead person wearing precious jewelry. Using merit is like using jewelry, the Dharma-characteristics are only superficial, and the root is completely confused. If you encounter these people, you should use the above principles to ask him: Is the scripture he promotes Mahayana or Hinayana? If he already does not understand Hinayana as mentioned before, then it goes without saying.' The guest asked: 'There are many people who make this mistake. Can I hear you talk about the interpretation of the four teachings of Tiantai that you uphold?' I replied: 'The explanation of these four teachings is related to the Buddha's five periods of teaching, and encompasses the eight teachings. The Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhadharma of the ten directions and three times are all contained within it. How can I casually talk about its beginning and end?' The guest asked: 'If that's the case...'
可能以四教。略判佛性無情有無心造心變具不具耶。余曰。略示方隅斯亦可矣。何者自法華前藏通三乘俱未稟性。二乘憚教。菩薩不行。別人初心教權理實。以教權故所稟未周。故此七人可云無情不云有性。圓人始末知理不二。心外無境誰情無情。法華會中一切不隔。草木與地四微何殊。舉足修途皆趣寶渚。彈指合掌咸成佛因。與一許三無乖先志。豈至今日云無情無言心造心變咸出大宗。小乘有言而無其理。然諸乘中其名雖同義亦少別。有共造依報各造正報。有共造正報各造依報。眾生迷故或謂自然梵天等造。造已或謂情與無情。故造名猶通。應云心變。心變復通。應云體具。以無始來心體本遍。故佛體遍由生性遍。遍有二種。一寬廣遍。二即狹遍所以造通於四。變義唯二。即具唯圓。及別後位。故藏通造六。別圓造十。此六及十括大小乘教法罄盡。由觀解異故十與六各分二別。藏見六實。通見無生。別見前後生滅。圓見事理一念具足。論生兩教似等。明具別教不詮。種具等義非此可述。故別佛性滅九方見。圓人即達九界三道。即見圓伊三德體遍。
客曰。如何能攝依正因果。余曰一家所立不思議境於一念中理具三千。故曰念中具有因果凡聖大小依正自他。故所變處無非三千。而此三千性是中理。不當有無有無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 客人問：『佛性是否可以通過天臺四教來略作判別？比如，無情之物是否有佛性？心造還是心變？具足還是不具足？』 我回答說：『略微指示方向是可以的。』為什麼這麼說呢？因為在《法華經》之前，藏教、通教、三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）都沒有稟受佛性。二乘人畏懼教法，菩薩不實行。別教的初心，教是權巧，理是真實。因為教是權巧，所以所稟受的並不周全。因此，這七種人可以說沒有情識，不能說具有佛性。圓教的人從始至終都知道理體不二，心外沒有境界，哪裡有什麼有情無情？在《法華經》的法會上，一切都沒有隔閡，草木和土地，四大微塵有什麼區別？舉足行走都是通往寶渚的道路，彈指合掌都能成就成佛的因緣。與一佛乘和允許三乘並行不違背先前的意願。難道到了今天還要說無情，無言，心造，心變嗎？這些都出自大乘宗義。小乘有言說而沒有其中的道理。然而在各乘教法中，名稱雖然相同，意義卻略有差別。有共同創造依報，各自創造正報；有共同創造正報，各自創造依報。眾生迷惑，所以或者認為是自然或梵天等創造的。創造之後，或者認為是情與無情。所以『造』這個名稱仍然是通用的，應該說是『心變』。『心變』也仍然是通用的，應該說是『體具』。因為從無始以來，心體本來就是周遍的。所以佛的體性周遍，是因為眾生的性也周遍。周遍有兩種，一是寬廣的周遍，二是即狹小的周遍。所以『造』通於四教，『變』的意義只有二教，『即具』只有圓教以及別教的后位。所以藏教和通教說『造』六道，別教和圓教說『造』十法界。這六道和十法界包括了大小乘的教法，全部窮盡。由於觀解不同，所以十法界和六道各自又分為兩種差別。藏教見六道是真實的，通教見無生，別教見前後生滅，圓教見事理在一念中具足。從生滅的角度來說，兩教相似，但從具足的角度來說，別教沒有詮釋，種性具足等的意義不是這裡可以敘述的。所以別教的佛性滅九界才能見到，圓教的人當下就能通達九界三道，當下就能見到圓滿的伊字三德體性周遍。 客人問：『如何能夠總攝依報、正報、因、果呢？』 我回答說：『天臺一家所建立的不可思議境界，在一念之中，理體具足三千法。』所以說，『一念之中具有因果、凡聖、大小、依報、正報、自他。』所以所變現之處，無非是三千法。而這三千法的體性是中道之理，不應當執著于有或無，有無。
【English Translation】 English version: Guest: 'Can the Buddhahood be roughly distinguished by the Four Teachings of Tiantai? For example, do inanimate objects have Buddhahood? Is it created by the mind or transformed by the mind? Is it fully endowed or not?' I replied: 'Giving a brief indication of the direction is possible.' Why do I say this? Because before the Lotus Sutra, the Tripitaka Teaching, the Shared Teaching, and the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna) had not received the nature. The Two Vehicles feared the teachings, and Bodhisattvas did not practice them. In the initial intention of the Distinct Teaching, the teaching is provisional, and the principle is real. Because the teaching is provisional, what is received is not complete. Therefore, these seven types of people can be said to be without sentience and cannot be said to have Buddhahood. People of the Perfect Teaching know from beginning to end that principle and reality are not two. There is no realm outside the mind, so where is there sentient or insentient? In the assembly of the Lotus Sutra, everything is without separation. What is the difference between grass, trees, land, and the four subtle elements? Lifting the foot and walking are all paths to the treasure shore. Snapping the fingers and joining the palms all become causes for attaining Buddhahood. Accordance with the One Vehicle and permission for the Three Vehicles to coexist do not contradict the previous intentions. How can we say today that there is no sentience, no speech, creation by the mind, or transformation by the mind? These all come from the Great Vehicle doctrines. The Small Vehicle has speech but does not have the principle within it. However, in the various Vehicle teachings, although the names are the same, the meanings are slightly different. There are those who jointly create the circumstantial rewards and each create the direct rewards; there are those who jointly create the direct rewards and each create the circumstantial rewards. Beings are deluded, so they either think that it is created by nature or Brahmā, etc. After creation, they either think that it is sentient or insentient. Therefore, the name 'creation' is still common. It should be said 'transformation by the mind.' 'Transformation by the mind' is also still common. It should be said 'fully endowed by the substance.' Because from beginningless time, the substance of the mind is originally pervasive. Therefore, the Buddha's substance is pervasive because the nature of beings is also pervasive. There are two types of pervasiveness: one is broad pervasiveness, and the other is immediate narrow pervasiveness. Therefore, 'creation' is common to the Four Teachings, the meaning of 'transformation' is only in Two Teachings, and 'immediate endowment' is only in the Perfect Teaching and the later stages of the Distinct Teaching. Therefore, the Tripitaka Teaching and the Shared Teaching say 'creation' of the six realms, and the Distinct Teaching and the Perfect Teaching say 'creation' of the ten Dharma realms. These six realms and ten Dharma realms include the teachings of the Small and Great Vehicles, completely exhausting them. Because of different views and understandings, the ten Dharma realms and six realms are each divided into two differences. The Tripitaka Teaching sees the six realms as real, the Shared Teaching sees no birth, the Distinct Teaching sees before and after arising and ceasing, and the Perfect Teaching sees that principle and reality are fully endowed in one thought. From the perspective of arising and ceasing, the two teachings are similar, but from the perspective of full endowment, the Distinct Teaching does not explain it, and the meaning of seed endowment, etc., cannot be described here. Therefore, the Buddhahood of the Distinct Teaching can only be seen by extinguishing the nine realms, and people of the Perfect Teaching can immediately understand the three paths of the nine realms, and immediately see the pervasive substance of the perfect three virtues of the Ī character. Guest: 'How can one comprehensively include the circumstantial rewards, the direct rewards, cause, and effect?' I replied: 'The inconceivable realm established by the Tiantai school, in one thought, the principle fully possesses three thousand dharmas.' Therefore, it is said, 'In one thought, there are cause and effect, ordinary and sage, small and large, circumstantial rewards, direct rewards, self and other.' Therefore, the place that is transformed is none other than the three thousand dharmas. And the nature of these three thousand dharmas is the principle of the Middle Way, and one should not be attached to existence or non-existence, existence and non-existence.
自爾。何以故。俱實相故。實相法爾具足諸法。諸法法爾性本無生。故雖三千有而不有。共而不雜。離亦不分。雖一一遍亦無所在。
客曰。其理必然。仆深仰之。此為憑教為通依諸部。為專在一經。余曰。斯問甚善。能使其理永永不朽。雖則通依一切大部。指的妙境出自法華。故方便品初。佛嘆十方三世諸佛所得微妙難解之法。所謂諸法實相如是相等。當知如是相等即是轉釋諸法實相。以諸法故故有相等。以實相故相等皆是。實相無相相等皆如。
客曰。云何三千。余曰。實相必諸法。諸法必十如。十如必十界。十界必身土。又依大經及以大論。立三世界故有三千。具如止觀及廣記中。故知。因果凡聖恒具三千。是故嘆云。唯佛與佛乃能究盡。十方世界稻麻二乘如恒河沙。不退菩薩並不能知斯義少分。即指前之七種人也。是故身子三請慇勤。十方三世諸佛開顯。釋迦仰同無復異趣。大車譬此。宿世示此。壽量久本唯證於此。根敗適復獲記由此。菩薩疑除損生增道。始初發心終訖補處。豈有餘途並托於此。由前四時兼但對帶部非究竟。故推功法華。涅槃兼權意如前說。當知一乘十觀即法華三昧之正體也。普現色身之所依也。正因佛性由之果用。緣了行性由之能顯。性德緣了所開發也。涅槃真伊之所喻也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 自爾（就是這樣）。何以故（為什麼）？俱實相故（因為一切都基於實相）。實相法爾（實相本然如此）具足諸法（具備一切法）。諸法法爾（諸法本然如此）性本無生（其自性本無生滅）。故雖三千有而不有（所以即使有三千世界，也並非真實存在）。共而不雜（共同存在卻不混雜），離亦不分（分離也不分割）。雖一一遍亦無所在（雖然每一個都普遍存在，卻又無處可尋）。
客曰（客人說）：其理必然（這個道理是必然的）。仆深仰之（我深深地敬佩）。此為憑教為通依諸部（這是依據教義，還是普遍依據各部經典）？為專在一經（還是專門依據一部經典）？余曰（我回答說）：斯問甚善（這個問題很好），能使其理永永不朽（能夠使這個道理永遠不朽）。雖則通依一切大部（雖然普遍依據一切大部經典），指的妙境出自法華（但所指的微妙境界出自《法華經》）。故方便品初（所以在《方便品》的開頭），佛嘆十方三世諸佛所得微妙難解之法（佛讚歎十方三世諸佛所得到的微妙難解之法），所謂諸法實相如是相等（就是所謂的諸法實相，如是相、如是性等等）。當知如是相等即是轉釋諸法實相（應當知道，如是相等等，就是用來解釋諸法實相的）。以諸法故故有相等（因為有諸法，所以才有如是相等等），以實相故相等皆是（因為有實相，所以如是相等等都是真實的）。實相無相相等皆如（實相沒有相狀，如是相等等都如實不虛）。
客曰（客人說）：云何三千（什麼是三千）？余曰（我回答說）：實相必諸法（實相必然包含諸法），諸法必十如（諸法必然包含十如），十如必十界（十如必然包含十界），十界必身土（十界必然包含身土）。又依大經及以大論（又依據大經和大論），立三世界故有三千（建立三世界，所以有三千世界）。具如止觀及廣記中（詳細內容見於《止觀》和《廣記》中）。故知（所以知道），因果凡聖恒具三千（因果、凡夫、聖人，都恒常具備三千世界）。是故嘆云（所以讚歎說），唯佛與佛乃能究盡（只有佛與佛才能究竟明白）。十方世界稻麻二乘如恒河沙（十方世界中，聲聞、緣覺二乘像稻麻一樣多，像恒河沙一樣多），不退菩薩並不能知斯義少分（不退轉的菩薩也不能知道這個道理的少許部分）。即指前之七種人也（就是指前面的七種人）。是故身子三請慇勤（所以舍利弗三次懇請），十方三世諸佛開顯（十方三世諸佛才開示顯明）。釋迦仰同無復異趣（釋迦牟尼佛也同樣如此，沒有其他不同的旨趣）。大車譬此（用大車的比喻來說明這個道理），宿世示此（過去世也顯示這個道理）。壽量久本唯證於此（《壽量品》所說的久遠本源，只是爲了證明這個道理）。根敗適復獲記由此（根機敗壞的人，適逢其會得到授記，也是由此而來）。菩薩疑除損生增道（菩薩消除疑惑，減少生死，增長道業）。始初發心終訖補處（從最初發心到最終成為補處菩薩），豈有餘途並托於此（難道還有其他的途徑，都依託於此）。由前四時兼但對帶部非究竟（因為之前的四時教，兼說、但說、對說、帶說，都不是究竟的），故推功法華（所以推崇《法華經》）。涅槃兼權意如前說（《涅槃經》兼帶權宜之說，意思如前面所說）。當知一乘十觀即法華三昧之正體也（應當知道，一乘十觀就是《法華三昧》的正體）。普現色身之所依也（是普現色身所依據的）。正因佛性由之果用（正因佛性由此產生果報作用），緣了行性由之能顯（緣因、了因、行性由此能夠顯現）。性德緣了所開發也（性德是緣因和了因所開發的）。涅槃真伊之所喻也（《涅槃經》用真我來比喻）。
【English Translation】 English version: Thus it is. Why is it so? Because all are based on the true aspect of reality (俱實相故). The true aspect of reality (實相) inherently possesses all dharmas (諸法). All dharmas (諸法) are inherently without origination (性本無生). Therefore, although there are three thousand worlds, they are not truly existent (雖三千有而不有). They are together but not mixed (共而不雜), separate but not divided (離亦不分). Although each pervades everywhere, they are nowhere to be found (雖一一遍亦無所在).
The guest said: 'This principle is certainly true. I deeply admire it. Is this based on teachings, or generally based on various scriptures (諸部)? Or is it specifically based on one scripture (一經)?' I replied: 'This question is excellent, capable of making this principle eternally imperishable. Although it generally relies on all great scriptures, the pointedly subtle realm originates from the Lotus Sutra (法華). Therefore, at the beginning of the 'Expedient Means' chapter (方便品), the Buddha praised the subtle and difficult-to-understand dharma attained by the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times, namely, the true aspect of all dharmas, such as their appearance and nature (諸法實相如是相等). It should be known that 'such appearance and nature' is a re-explanation of the true aspect of all dharmas. Because of all dharmas, there is 'such appearance and nature.' Because of the true aspect of reality, all 'such appearance and nature' are real. The true aspect of reality is without appearance, and all 'such appearance and nature' are as they are (如).'
The guest said: 'What are the three thousand (三千)?' I replied: 'The true aspect of reality necessarily includes all dharmas (諸法), all dharmas necessarily include the ten suchnesses (十如), the ten suchnesses necessarily include the ten realms (十界), and the ten realms necessarily include body and land (身土). Furthermore, according to the great sutras and great treatises, the three worlds are established, hence there are three thousand worlds. Details are found in the 'Mohe Zhiguan' (止觀) and 'Guangji' (廣記). Therefore, it is known that cause and effect, ordinary beings and sages, constantly possess the three thousand worlds. Therefore, it is praised that only Buddhas can fully understand them. The two vehicles (聲聞、緣覺) in the ten directions are as numerous as rice, hemp, and the sands of the Ganges River, and even non-regressing Bodhisattvas cannot know even a small portion of this meaning. This refers to the previous seven types of people. Therefore, Shariputra (身子) earnestly requested three times, and the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times revealed it. Shakyamuni (釋迦) similarly follows without any different purpose. The great cart is an analogy for this. Past lives have shown this. The long-lasting original nature in the 'Lifespan' chapter (壽量品) only proves this. Those with ruined roots happen to receive predictions because of this. Bodhisattvas eliminate doubts, reduce birth and death, and increase the path. From the initial arising of the mind to the final attainment of the position of a successor Buddha, is there any other path that does not rely on this? Because the previous four periods of teaching, which were combined, exclusive, contrasting, and inclusive, were not ultimate, the merit is attributed to the Lotus Sutra (法華). The provisional meaning of the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃) is as previously explained. It should be known that the One Vehicle and the Ten Contemplations are the very essence of the Lotus Samadhi (法華三昧). It is what the universally appearing body relies on. The causal Buddha-nature (佛性) produces its fruition from it, and the conditions and actions are manifested by it. The inherent virtue is developed by the conditions and actions. The Nirvana Sutra uses the True Self (真伊) as an analogy for it.'
法華大車之所至也。諸大乘意準例可知。子得聞之。可謂久種勤而習之無使焦敗。愿未來世諸佛會中與子相遇。
於是野客悲喜交集曰。投身莫報粉骨寧酬。唯以此義隨方轉說。以報所聞如何。余曰。佛有誠誡自可為規。經云。若但贊佛乘眾生沒在苦。我寧不說法疾入于涅槃。尋思方便先小后大。此乃以偏助圓方可為說。又云。當來世惡人破法墮惡道。志求佛道者廣贊一乘道。此即簡人方可為說。然末代施化復未知根。亦可如安樂行中但以大答。亦可如不輕喜根而強毒之。故首楞嚴中聞生謗者后終獲益。如人倒地還從地起。應運大悲無惱他說。子應從容觀時進否。將獲彼意順佛本懷。若有眾生未稟教者。來至汝所先當語云。汝無始來唯有煩惱業苦而已。即此全是理性三因由未發心未曾加行。故性緣了同名正因。故云眾生皆有正性。既信己心有此性已。次示此性非內外遍虛空。同諸佛等法界。既信遍已次示遍具。既同諸佛等於法界。故此遍性具諸佛之身。一身一切身。如諸佛之感土。一土一切土。身土相即身說土說。大小一多亦復如是。有彼性故故名有性。若世人云。眾生唯有清凈之性。加修萬行為功用體。故至果時方有大用。此乃佛有眾生之性。不名眾生有佛性也。三無差別斯言有徴。寄言說者勿負斯教。若言
眾生有正因性與法身等。不與報化等者。還成眾生與眾生等。何者若除報化猶是眾生。若言等於有報化之法身。其如法身非報化外。以是言之故須悉等。今此示有是示種性。示遍是示體量。示具是示體德。既示三已。次令緣於一體三寶發四弘誓。進受菩薩清凈律儀。一一緣向理性三因。修行填誓。如向所聞種必相續。世世生處以人天身。佛會再聞而得解脫。若已稟方便教者。若聞若行若伏若斷。隨其所得點示體具。故經云。汝等所行是菩薩道。故法華中五章開權。一一但云是法皆為一佛乘。故眾生聞已皆得種智。散心講授者。隨宜設化。一種觀心者。從心示之。若憚教生諍競者。應當語云聞已成種不敢輕汝。汝等行道皆當作佛。故大師判教末云。佛法不思議。唯教相難解。二乘及菩薩。尚所不能測。何況諸凡夫。而欲判此事。譬如生盲人。分別日輪相。欲判虛空界。一切諸色像。而言了達者。畢竟無是事。是故有智者。各生慚愧心。自責無明暗。舍戲論諍競。大師親證判已尚自謙喻後輩。余今準此一家宗途。獎導于子。非師己見。子亦順教如是流行。
野客於是歡喜頂受。自爾永劫唯奉持之。所在宣弘不違尊命。斂容再拜安庠而出。忽然夢覺。問者答者。所問所答都無所得。
金剛錍(竟)
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 眾生具有正因佛性，與法身相等，但不與報身和化身相等。如果不與報身和化身相等，那麼眾生就仍然只是與眾生相等。為什麼呢？如果去除報身和化身，仍然是眾生。如果說（正因佛性）等於具有報身和化身的法身，那麼法身並非在報身和化身之外。因此說，必須全部相等。現在這裡所示的『有』，是顯示種性；顯示『遍』，是顯示體量；顯示『具』，是顯示體德。既然已經顯示了這三點，接下來就引導（眾生）緣於一體三寶，發起四弘誓願，進而受持菩薩清凈律儀，一一緣向理性三因，修行並填滿誓願。如先前所聽聞，（成佛的）種子必定相續，世世代代出生之處都以人天之身，在佛的集會上再次聽聞佛法而得到解脫。如果已經接受了方便教法的人，無論是聽聞、修行、降伏煩惱還是斷除煩惱，都根據他們所得到的（程度）點示其體性的具足。所以經中說：『你們所行的是菩薩道。』因此《法華經》中前五章開顯權巧方便，一一都說『這是法，都是爲了一個佛乘』。所以眾生聽聞后都能得到種智。以散亂心講授佛法的人，隨順（眾生）的根機而施設教化；一心觀心的人，從心性上開示（佛法）。如果害怕教法引起爭論，應當告訴他們說：『聽聞佛法后已經種下成佛的種子，不敢輕視你們。你們所行之道，都應當作佛。』所以天臺智者大師在判教的最後說：『佛法不可思議，只有教相難以理解。二乘和菩薩尚且不能測度，何況是凡夫，想要判斷這件事呢？』譬如天生的盲人，分辨太陽的形狀；想要判斷虛空，以及虛空中一切諸色的形象，卻說自己完全瞭解，終究沒有這樣的事。因此有智慧的人，各自生起慚愧心，責備自己無明的黑暗，捨棄戲論和爭論。智者大師親自證悟后判教，尚且謙虛地比喻後輩，我現在也依照天臺宗的宗旨，獎掖引導你們，這不是我自己的見解。你們也要順從教導，這樣流傳下去。 野客於是歡喜地接受並頂戴奉行。從此永劫都奉持這個教義，在任何地方宣揚弘揚，不違背您的命令。他整理衣容，再次拜謝，安詳地走了出去。忽然從夢中醒來，問的人和答的人，所問的和所答的，都沒有得到任何東西。 《金剛錍》終
【English Translation】 English version Sentient beings possess the correct cause Buddha-nature, which is equal to the Dharmakaya (法身, Body of Dharma), but not equal to the Nirmanakaya (報身, Reward Body) and Sambhogakaya (化身, Manifestation Body). If it is not equal to the Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya, then sentient beings are still only equal to sentient beings. Why? If the Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya are removed, it is still a sentient being. If it is said that (the correct cause Buddha-nature) is equal to the Dharmakaya that possesses the Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya, then the Dharmakaya is not outside of the Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya. Therefore, it must all be equal. Now, the 'existence' shown here indicates the seed nature; showing 'pervasiveness' indicates the measure of the substance; showing 'completeness' indicates the virtue of the substance. Since these three points have been shown, next, guide (sentient beings) to rely on the One Body Three Jewels (一體三寶), generate the Four Great Vows, and then receive and uphold the pure precepts of the Bodhisattva, each relying on the three causes of rationality, cultivating and fulfilling the vows. As previously heard, the seed (of becoming a Buddha) will surely continue, and in every lifetime, one will be born in the human or heavenly realms, and hear the Dharma again at the Buddha's assembly and attain liberation. If those who have already received the expedient teachings, whether they hear, practice, subdue afflictions, or cut off afflictions, all point out the completeness of their nature according to what they have attained. Therefore, the sutra says: 'What you are practicing is the Bodhisattva path.' Therefore, in the first five chapters of the Lotus Sutra, the expedient means are revealed, and each says, 'This is the Dharma, all for the sake of the One Buddha Vehicle.' Therefore, sentient beings can all attain the seed wisdom after hearing it. Those who teach the Dharma with a scattered mind, set up teachings according to the capacity of (sentient beings); those who contemplate the mind with one mind, enlighten (the Dharma) from the nature of the mind. If you are afraid that the teachings will cause disputes, you should tell them: 'After hearing the Dharma, you have already planted the seed of becoming a Buddha, and I dare not despise you. All of you who practice the path should become Buddhas.' Therefore, the Great Master Zhiyi (智者大師) said at the end of the classification of teachings: 'The Buddha-dharma is inconceivable, only the characteristics of the teachings are difficult to understand. Even the Two Vehicles and Bodhisattvas cannot fathom it, let alone ordinary people, who want to judge this matter?' It is like a person born blind, distinguishing the shape of the sun; wanting to judge the void, and all the images of various colors in the void, but saying that he fully understands, there is ultimately no such thing. Therefore, wise people should each generate a sense of shame, blame themselves for the darkness of ignorance, and abandon frivolous discussions and disputes. The Great Master personally realized and judged the teachings, and still humbly compared himself to later generations. I am now following the tenets of the Tiantai school (天臺宗), encouraging and guiding you, this is not my own view. You should also follow the teachings and spread them in this way. The rustic guest then joyfully accepted and reverently upheld it. From then on, for endless kalpas, he upheld this doctrine, proclaiming and propagating it everywhere, without disobeying your command. He composed himself, bowed again, and left peacefully. Suddenly he woke up from the dream, and neither the questioner nor the answerer, neither the question nor the answer, had gained anything. The End of 'The Diamond Awl' (金剛錍)