T46n1935_法智遺編觀心二百問

大正藏第 46 冊 No. 1935 法智遺編觀心二百問

No. 1935

法智遺編觀心二百問

法孫繼忠集

景德四年六月十五日。四明沙門比丘知禮。謹用為法之心。問義于浙陽講主昭上人(左右)五月二十六日。本州國寧寺傳到上人。答十義書一軸云云。答釋未善讀文。縱事改張終當乖理。始末全書于妄語。披尋備見於諂心毀人。且容壞法寧忍欲敷后難恐混前文。故且於十科立二百問。蓋恐上人仍前隱覆不陳已墮之愆。更肆奸諛重改難酬之問。故先標問目后布難詞。必冀上人依數標章覽文為答。母使一條漏失。欲令正理分明希不延時庶塞颙望。

問辨訛云。觀有二種。一曰理觀。二曰事觀。今文不須附事而觀。蓋十法純談理觀。故且二種觀法各能觀境顯理。既不附事相而觀。乃是直於陰入觀理。此則正是約行理觀。今那云是事法理觀耶。

問夫名事法為理觀者。須託事附法入陰心用觀。顯理方名理觀。今文既不附事托陰而觀于理。何顯而名理觀耶。

問附事顯理乃是一種觀法。何得標列云觀有二種。一曰理觀。二曰事觀。豈以所附事自為一事。所顯理更立為一理觀耶。

問約教明三法對觀心。三法但名為事。今文既非約觀三法。那名為所顯三

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大正藏第 46 冊 No. 1935 法智遺編觀心二百問

No. 1935

法智遺編觀心二百問

法孫繼忠集

景德四年六月十五日。四明沙門比丘知禮。謹用為法之心。問義于浙陽講主昭上人(左右)五月二十六日。本州國寧寺傳到上人。答十義書一軸云云。答釋未善讀文。縱事改張終當乖理。始末全書于妄語。披尋備見於諂心毀人。且容壞法寧忍欲敷后難恐混前文。故且於十科立二百問。蓋恐上人仍前隱覆不陳已墮之愆。更肆奸諛重改難酬之問。故先標問目后布難詞。必冀上人依數標章覽文為答。母使一條漏失。欲令正理分明希不延時庶塞颙望。

問辨訛云。觀有二種。一曰理觀。二曰事觀。今文不須附事而觀。蓋十法純談理觀。故且二種觀法各能觀境顯理。既不附事相而觀。乃是直於陰入觀理。此則正是約行理觀。今那云是事法理觀耶。

問夫名事法為理觀者。須託事附法入陰心用觀。顯理方名理觀。今文既不附事托陰而觀于理。何顯而名理觀耶。

問附事顯理乃是一種觀法。何得標列云觀有二種。一曰理觀。二曰事觀。豈以所附事自為一事。所顯理更立為一理觀耶。

問約教明三法對觀心。三法但名為事。今文既非約觀三法。那名為所顯三

【English Translation】 English version T46, No. 1935, The Two Hundred Questions on Contemplating the Mind, Omitted Writings of Dharma Wisdom

No. 1935

The Two Hundred Questions on Contemplating the Mind, Omitted Writings of Dharma Wisdom

Compiled by Dharma Grandson Jizhong

On June 15th of the fourth year of Jingde, Zhili, a Shramana Bhikshu (monk) of Siming, respectfully used the mind for Dharma to question the meaning from the lecturer Zhaoshang (昭上人) of Zheyang on May 26th. The abbot (上人) of Guoning Temple in this prefecture transmitted a scroll of ten righteous writings, etc. The reply explained that he had not read the text well. Even if he were to change things, he would ultimately deviate from the truth. The entire book from beginning to end is full of false speech. Upon examination, it is filled with flattery and the destruction of others. Rather allow the destruction of the Dharma than to bear to elaborate on later difficulties, fearing confusion with the previous text. Therefore, two hundred questions are established in ten categories. This is because I fear that the abbot (上人) will continue to conceal and not confess his past transgressions, and will further engage in treacherous flattery, repeatedly altering questions that are difficult to answer. Therefore, the question topics are first marked, and then the difficult words are presented. I sincerely hope that the abbot (上人) will answer according to the number of chapters and examine the text. Do not allow a single article to be missed. I wish to make the correct principles clear, hoping not to delay the time, so as to stop the eager anticipation.

Question on Distinguishing Errors: 'Contemplation has two types: one is principle contemplation (理觀), and the other is phenomenal contemplation (事觀).' The current text does not need to be contemplated by attaching to phenomena. Because the ten dharmas purely discuss principle contemplation. Therefore, each of the two types of contemplation can contemplate the realm and reveal the principle. Since it does not contemplate by attaching to phenomena, it is directly entering the skandhas (陰) to contemplate the principle. This is precisely contemplating the principle based on practice. Why is it now called phenomenal dharma principle contemplation?

Question: 'To name phenomenal dharma as principle contemplation, one must rely on phenomena and attach to dharma to enter the skandha mind and use contemplation. Revealing the principle is then called principle contemplation.' Since the current text does not attach to phenomena or rely on the skandhas to contemplate the principle, how can it be revealed and called principle contemplation?

Question: 'Attaching to phenomena to reveal the principle is a single type of contemplation. How can it be marked and listed as, 'Contemplation has two types: one is principle contemplation, and the other is phenomenal contemplation?' Could it be that the attached phenomena are considered a single phenomenon, and the revealed principle is further established as a single principle contemplation?'

Question: 'Explaining the three dharmas in relation to contemplating the mind according to the teachings, the three dharmas are only named as phenomena. Since the current text is not about contemplating the three dharmas, why is it called the revealed three'

---

諦耶。

問辨訛云。今文理觀事事全成於法界。心心成顯于金光。既不附事相法相。則是直體陰入事事成不思議境。則十乘心心顯于金光既爾。得不是約行理觀耶。

問十法若非約行理觀。那得便是普賢端坐念實相耶。

問答疑書。既云普賢觀法證前圓談。理觀示可修義。何故釋難書轉云唸唸相續。及念實相令依止觀修證耶。

問若非約行理觀焉。得唸唸相續焉。得入理證果耶。

問答疑書云。此玄直顯心性義同理觀。若少帶事法且非直顯心性。唯約行理觀直觀陰心顯性。此玄既直觀心顯性。那非行約理觀耶。

問今文既是約行理觀。那無揀陰及十乘耶。

問本立十法是約行理觀。故廢后附法觀心。約行觀既不成。後文觀心如何廢那。

問此玄十種三法。乃是正談果法。何得是直顯心性耶。

問所引五章但稱涅槃。只是佛性乃是正談果法。該於因人佛性。豈是直顯眾生佛性耶。

問如雲游心法界如虛空。則知諸佛之境界。乃是直顯心性該得佛法。豈名直顯佛法耶。

問誥難書特問此玄正談佛法。那名直顯心性因。何不答何得二三處。改云予不許直顯法性耶。

問今既牽率而答。何得言心性處。不言直顯。言直顯處不言心性。豈非四字全書

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 諦耶（Dìyē）：

問：辨訛云（Biàn é yún）中說，『今文理觀事事全成於法界（fǎjiè），心心成顯于金光（jīnguāng）。既不附事相法相（shìxiàng fǎxiàng），則是直體陰入事事成不思議境（bùsīyì jìng）。則十乘（shí shèng）心心顯于金光既爾。』 那麼，這難道不是約行理觀（yuē xíng lǐ guān）嗎？

問：如果十法（shí fǎ）不是約行理觀，那怎麼會是普賢（Pǔxián）端坐念實相（niàn shíxiàng）呢？

問：答疑書（Dá yí shū）中說，『既然說普賢觀法證前圓談（yuán tán），理觀示可修義。』 為什麼釋難書（Shì nán shū）反而說『唸唸相續（niànniàn xiāngxù），及念實相令依止觀（zhǐ guān）修證』呢？

問：如果不是約行理觀，怎麼能唸唸相續，怎麼能入理證果（rù lǐ zhèng guǒ）呢？

問：答疑書云，『此玄直顯心性（zhí xiǎn xīnxìng）義同理觀。若少帶事法（shì fǎ）且非直顯心性。唯約行理觀直觀陰心顯性（yīnxīn xiǎn xìng）。』 此玄既然直觀心顯性，那怎麼不是行約理觀呢？

問：既然今文是約行理觀，那為什麼沒有揀陰（jiǎn yīn）和十乘呢？

問：本立十法是約行理觀，所以廢除後來的附法觀心（fù fǎ guān xīn）。如果約行觀（yuē xíng guān）不成立，那麼後文的觀心如何廢除呢？

問：此玄十種三法（shí zhǒng sān fǎ），乃是正談果法（zhèng tán guǒ fǎ），怎麼會是直顯心性呢？

問：所引用的五章只是稱涅槃（nièpán），只是佛性（fóxìng）乃是正談果法，包含因人佛性（yīnrén fóxìng），怎麼會是直顯眾生佛性（zhí xiǎn zhòngshēng fóxìng）呢？

問：如果說『游心法界如虛空（yóu xīn fǎjiè rú xūkōng）』，就知道諸佛的境界，乃是直顯心性包含佛法，怎麼能稱為直顯佛法呢？

問：誥難書（Gào nán shū）特別問此玄正談佛法，為什麼稱為直顯心性因（zhí xiǎn xīnxìng yīn）？為什麼不回答，而有兩三處改為『予不許直顯法性（zhí xiǎn fǎxìng）』呢？

問：現在既然牽強附會地回答，為什麼在心性處不說是直顯，在說直顯處不說心性？難道不是四個字全書嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: Dìyē:

Question: In 'Biàn é yún', it says, 'The present text's principle of contemplation (lǐ guān) makes all things completely manifest in the Dharmadhatu (fǎjiè), and each thought manifests in golden light (jīnguāng). Since it does not adhere to phenomenal appearances (shìxiàng) or dharma characteristics (fǎxiàng), it directly embodies the entry into the aggregates (yīn) and makes all things become inconceivable realms (bùsīyì jìng). Thus, the ten vehicles (shí shèng) manifest in golden light with each thought.' Then, isn't this about practicing contemplation based on principle (yuē xíng lǐ guān)?

Question: If the ten dharmas (shí fǎ) are not about practicing contemplation based on principle, how can it be Samantabhadra (Pǔxián) sitting upright contemplating reality (niàn shíxiàng)?

Question: 'Dá yí shū' says, 'Since it is said that Samantabhadra's contemplation of the Dharma verifies the previous complete teaching (yuán tán), the principle of contemplation shows the meaning of what can be cultivated.' Why does 'Shì nán shū' instead say 'Thoughts follow one another continuously (niànniàn xiāngxù), and contemplating reality makes one rely on cessation and contemplation (zhǐ guān) for cultivation and verification'?

Question: If it is not about practicing contemplation based on principle, how can thoughts follow one another continuously, and how can one enter the principle and realize the fruit (rù lǐ zhèng guǒ)?

Question: 'Dá yí shū' says, 'This profound text directly reveals the nature of mind (zhí xiǎn xīnxìng), which is the same as the principle of contemplation. If it slightly involves phenomenal dharmas (shì fǎ), it is not directly revealing the nature of mind. Only by practicing contemplation based on principle can one directly contemplate the aggregates of mind and reveal the nature (yīnxīn xiǎn xìng).' Since this profound text directly contemplates the mind and reveals the nature, how can it not be practicing contemplation based on principle?

Question: Since the present text is about practicing contemplation based on principle, why are there no discriminations of the aggregates (jiǎn yīn) and the ten vehicles?

Question: Establishing the ten dharmas is about practicing contemplation based on principle, so it abolishes the later attachment to dharma for contemplating the mind (fù fǎ guān xīn). If practicing contemplation (yuē xíng guān) is not established, then how can the later contemplation of the mind be abolished?

Question: These ten kinds of three dharmas (shí zhǒng sān fǎ) in this profound text are precisely discussing the fruit dharma (zhèng tán guǒ fǎ), how can they be directly revealing the nature of mind?

Question: The five chapters cited only mention Nirvana (nièpán), and only Buddha-nature (fóxìng) is precisely discussing the fruit dharma, encompassing the Buddha-nature of those in the causal stage (yīnrén fóxìng), how can it be directly revealing the Buddha-nature of sentient beings (zhí xiǎn zhòngshēng fóxìng)?

Question: If it is said 'Wandering the mind in the Dharmadhatu like empty space (yóu xīn fǎjiè rú xūkōng),' then one knows the realm of all Buddhas, which is directly revealing the nature of mind encompassing the Buddha-dharma, how can it be called directly revealing the Buddha-dharma?

Question: 'Gào nán shū' specifically asks whether this profound text is precisely discussing the Buddha-dharma, why is it called directly revealing the cause of the nature of mind (zhí xiǎn xīnxìng yīn)? Why is there no answer, and why are there two or three places changed to 'I do not allow directly revealing the nature of dharma (zhí xiǎn fǎxìng)'?

Question: Now that the answer is forced and far-fetched, why is it that in the place of the nature of mind, it is not said to be directly revealing, and in the place of directly revealing, the nature of mind is not mentioned? Isn't it the entire four characters in the book?

---

恐義乖返耶。

問答疑書云。此玄文直顯心性。今何改云學者備覽妙玄。已知心性遍生遍佛。故觀此果法知是心性。此豈非妙玄自顯心性。此玄不顯心性。何得云此直顯心性耶。

問予云。良師取意講授義合諸文。仁尚不伏。仁立學者先解妙玄。方尋此部出何文耶。

問既此玄直顯心性。故十法皆以理融。妙玄不直顯心性。故十法不以理融學者解彼心性尚能融於他部何不自融當部。而更觀心融之耶。

問此玄十法文顯標云爲未有智眼。約信解分別。那云純被妙玄深達心性人耶。

問只為此玄附於如來所游十法。廣示心觀故至經文不論觀解。何得據被廢此觀心耶。

問此玄大師被在日。當機故須即示修法。涅槃玄是滅后私制既。非當眾策觀。故且缺如以托講者仿諸部授人。那云學者自知耶。

問妙經文疏雖敘偏小。本被習圓之人。故附文作觀多分在圓。令一一文不違所習。據何文證知是久習止觀之人。豈大師講妙經時。預為玉泉寺修止觀人示觀心耶。

問所據觀心銷開等。欲成觀心銷文是要。且開等具於四釋最後旁用觀心銷之。觀銷若要何不居初。又何文云觀心銷是要耶。

問大師說玄疏時。尚未說圓頓止觀。何得純為久習圓頓止觀人。示事法觀耶。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：恐怕我的理解有偏差吧？

有人在《問答疑書》中提出疑問：這部《玄義》明明直接揭示心性，為何現在卻改為說『學者們廣泛閱讀《妙玄》，已經知道心性遍及眾生和佛，所以通過觀察這果法，就知道是心性』？這難道不是《妙玄》自己揭示心性嗎？如果這部《玄義》不揭示心性，又怎麼能說它直接揭示心性呢？

有人問我：『良師益友提取要義進行講解，其義理與各部經文相合，您尚且不信服。您主張學者應該先理解《妙玄》，再去尋找這部經文出自何處，依據是什麼呢？』

既然這部《玄義》直接揭示心性，所以十法都以理來融合。如果《妙玄》不直接揭示心性，那麼十法就不能以理來融合。學者理解了其他經典的心性，尚且能夠融會貫通到其他經典中，為何不能自己融會貫通這部經典，而更要觀察心來融會貫通呢？

這部《玄義》的十法，在文字上明確標明是為『未有智眼』的人，通過信解來分別。怎麼能說是完全爲了《妙玄》中那些深刻理解心性的人而說的呢？

僅僅因為這部《玄義》依附於如來所游的十法，廣泛地展示心觀，所以到了經文部分就不再論述觀解。怎麼能根據這一點就廢棄這部觀心呢？

這部《玄義》是大師在世時所講，針對當時的機緣，所以需要立即指示修法。《涅槃玄》是圓寂后私下撰寫，不是當衆提倡觀法，所以暫時缺略，而委託講解者仿照其他經典來傳授。怎麼能說是學者自己知道呢？

《妙經》的文疏雖然敘述了偏頗和小乘的內容，但原本是為學習圓教的人而說的，所以依附經文來作觀，大部分都在圓教的範疇內，使得每一段經文都不違背所學。根據哪段經文可以證明是久習止觀的人呢？難道大師在講解《妙經》時，預先為玉泉寺修習止觀的人指示觀心嗎？

所依據的觀心、銷開等，想要成就觀心，銷文是必要的。而且開等具備於四釋的最後，旁邊用觀心來銷釋它。如果觀銷是重要的，為什麼不放在最初呢？又有什麼經文說觀心銷是重要的呢？

大師在講解《玄義》和疏時，尚未講說圓頓止觀，怎麼能完全是爲了久習圓頓止觀的人，來指示事法觀呢？

【English Translation】 English version: I fear my understanding is deviating?

The 'Questions and Answers on Doubts' states: 'This profound text directly reveals the nature of mind. Why is it now changed to say, 'Scholars who extensively study the 'Profound Meaning' already know that the nature of mind pervades sentient beings and Buddhas. Therefore, by observing this fruit-dharma, they know it is the nature of mind'?' Isn't this the 'Profound Meaning' itself revealing the nature of mind? If this 'Profound Meaning' does not reveal the nature of mind, how can it be said that it directly reveals the nature of mind?'

Someone asked me: 'A good teacher extracts the essence for explanation, and its meaning aligns with various scriptures, yet you are still not convinced. You insist that scholars should first understand the 'Profound Meaning' before seeking the source of this scripture. What is the basis for this?'

Since this 'Profound Meaning' directly reveals the nature of mind, all ten dharmas are integrated through reason. If the 'Profound Meaning' does not directly reveal the nature of mind, then the ten dharmas cannot be integrated through reason. Scholars who understand the nature of mind in other scriptures can integrate it into other scriptures. Why can't they integrate it into this scripture itself, and instead need to observe the mind to integrate it?

The ten dharmas in this 'Profound Meaning' clearly state in the text that they are for those 'without the eye of wisdom,' using faith and understanding for differentiation. How can it be said that it is entirely for those who deeply understand the nature of mind in the 'Profound Meaning'?

Simply because this 'Profound Meaning' relies on the ten dharmas traversed by the Tathagata, extensively showing the contemplation of mind, so when it comes to the scripture text, it no longer discusses contemplation and understanding. How can one abandon this contemplation of mind based on this?

This 'Profound Meaning' was taught by the master when he was alive, addressing the circumstances of the time, so it was necessary to immediately instruct on the practice. The 'Nirvana Profound Meaning' was privately written after his passing, not publicly advocating contemplation, so it was temporarily omitted, entrusting the lecturers to teach it by imitating other scriptures. How can it be said that scholars know it themselves?

Although the commentary on the 'Wonderful Scripture' describes biased and Hinayana content, it was originally intended for those studying the perfect teaching. Therefore, the contemplation based on the scripture text is mostly within the scope of the perfect teaching, ensuring that each passage does not contradict what has been learned. Based on which scripture can it be proven that it is for those who have long practiced cessation and contemplation? Did the master, when explaining the 'Wonderful Scripture,' preemptively instruct on the contemplation of mind for those practicing cessation and contemplation at Yuquan Temple?

The relied-upon contemplation of mind, dissolving and opening, etc., aim to accomplish the contemplation of mind, and dissolving the text is essential. Moreover, opening, etc., are present at the end of the four explanations, using contemplation of mind to dissolve it alongside. If dissolving through contemplation is important, why isn't it placed at the beginning? And which scripture says that dissolving through contemplation is important?

When the master was explaining the 'Profound Meaning' and commentary, he had not yet spoken of the perfect and sudden cessation and contemplation. How can it be entirely for those who have long practiced perfect and sudden cessation and contemplation, instructing on the contemplation of phenomena?

---

問妙玄觀心。令即聞即修不待觀境。那云指示行人。須依止觀中修耶。

問若廢此文觀心。何以稱久修者。本習耶。

問本習既是揀境修觀。今文亦揀恰稱本習。豈以太稱而以為非耶。

問若廢此文觀心將何以指示。令于止觀中修耶。

問止觀既揀境修觀。今文預揀示之。有何乖違耶。

問發揮本據十法有六即義。故不觀心。妙玄十法一一細示六即。何故卻云彼文須有觀心。觀於十法耶。

問此玄十法以一法性貫之。故不須觀心。妙玄十法豈不以一理貫之。何故須有觀心耶。

問仁以此三法欲類凈名疏。法無眾生具觀心義。彼約研心修觀辨三法。此談果證三法。那具觀心義耶。

問仁立十法。只是三諦異名故具觀心義。既類法無眾生。彼約所觀所顯。能觀能顯能破。能破助道正道自行利物。論三法此既一向是所顯諦。理安類彼文具觀心義耶。

問又云此三法具修性義。故具觀心義釋毗耶離城。具論修性三德。何故更示觀心耶。

問此十法從三德至三道。而辨妙玄十法。從眾生心性三道辨至極果。一一皆具六即。何故卻須用觀心觀之。此文何故不用觀之耶。

問攝事入陰用觀顯理。方名攝事成理。故妙玄五義正觀心文俱明觀陰。仁何但云攝事歸理

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：如果直接用妙玄（妙法玄義）的觀點來觀心，讓人一聽聞就立刻修行，不等待觀想外境，那麼為什麼又說要指示修行人，必須依照止觀（天臺止觀）中的方法來修行呢？

問：如果廢棄了這段文字的觀心方法，又憑什麼稱那些修行很久的人為『久修者』呢？難道是憑藉他們原先的習氣嗎？

問：原先的習氣既然是選擇外境來修觀，那麼現在這段文字也是選擇外境，恰好符合原先的習氣。難道僅僅因為太符合就認為它不對嗎？

問：如果廢棄了這段文字的觀心方法，那麼將用什麼來指示修行人，讓他們在止觀中修行呢？

問：止觀既然是選擇外境來修觀，那麼這段文字預先就指出了這一點，有什麼不符合的地方嗎？

問：你發揮的根本依據是十法（十種修行的法門）具有六即（六種階位）的含義，所以不需要觀心。而《妙玄》（妙法玄義）對十法一一詳細地闡述了六即，為什麼反而說那段文字必須要有觀心，觀想這十法呢？

問：你說的這十法是用一法性貫穿起來的，所以不需要觀心。《妙玄》（妙法玄義）的十法難道不是用一個理貫穿起來的嗎？為什麼需要觀心呢？

問：你用這三法（法、無、眾生）想比類《凈名疏》（維摩詰經疏），認為『法無眾生』具備觀心的含義。但《凈名疏》是圍繞研習心來修觀，從而辨析這三法，而你談的是果證的三法，哪裡具備觀心的含義呢？

問：你建立的十法，只是三諦（空諦、假諦、中諦）的異名，所以具備觀心的含義。既然要比類『法無眾生』，那麼《凈名疏》是圍繞所觀、所顯，能觀、能顯、能破、能破，以及助道、正道、自行、利物來論述三法，而你這裡完全是所顯的諦理，怎麼能比類《凈名疏》，認為它具備觀心的含義呢？

問：你又說這三法具備修性（修德、性德）的含義，所以具備觀心的含義。但解釋毗耶離城（Vaisali）時，已經詳細論述了修性三德（法身德、般若德、解脫德），為什麼還要再指示觀心呢？

問：你從三德到三道（煩惱道、業道、苦道）來辨析《妙玄》（妙法玄義）的十法，而《妙玄》是從眾生、心性、三道來辨析，直到極果，每一個都具備六即，為什麼反而需要用觀心來觀想它們呢？這段文字為什麼不需要用觀心呢？

問：把事相攝入五陰（色、受、想、行、識），用觀想來顯現理體，才叫做攝事成理。所以《妙玄》（妙法玄義）的五義和正觀心文都明確說明要觀五陰，你為什麼只說攝事歸理呢？

【English Translation】 English version Question: If we directly use the perspective of Miaoxuan (Profound Meaning of the Wonderful Dharma) to contemplate the mind, enabling people to practice immediately upon hearing, without waiting to contemplate external objects, then why is it said that practitioners must be instructed to cultivate according to the methods in Zhiguan (Tiantai Zhihguan)?

Question: If we abandon the method of contemplating the mind in this passage, then on what basis can those who have practiced for a long time be called 'long-term practitioners'? Is it based on their original habits?

Question: Since the original habits involve selecting external objects for contemplation, and this passage also selects external objects, perfectly matching the original habits, why is it considered incorrect simply because it matches too well?

Question: If we abandon the method of contemplating the mind in this passage, then what will be used to instruct practitioners to cultivate in Zhiguan?

Question: Since Zhiguan involves selecting external objects for contemplation, and this passage foretells this selection, is there any contradiction?

Question: Your fundamental basis for elaboration is that the Ten Dharmas (ten practices) possess the meaning of the Six Identities (six stages), so there is no need to contemplate the mind. However, Miaoxuan (Profound Meaning of the Wonderful Dharma) elaborates on the Six Identities in detail for each of the Ten Dharmas. Why do you say that that passage must have contemplation of the mind, contemplating these Ten Dharmas?

Question: The Ten Dharmas you mentioned are connected by One Dharma-nature, so there is no need to contemplate the mind. Aren't the Ten Dharmas of Miaoxuan (Profound Meaning of the Wonderful Dharma) also connected by One Principle? Why is contemplation of the mind necessary?

Question: You want to compare these Three Dharmas (Dharma, No-Self, Sentient Beings) to the Commentary on the Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary), believing that 'Dharma, No-Self, Sentient Beings' possess the meaning of contemplating the mind. However, the Commentary on the Vimalakirti Sutra focuses on studying the mind to cultivate contemplation, thereby analyzing these Three Dharmas, while you are talking about the Three Dharmas of Fruition and Realization. Where is the meaning of contemplating the mind?

Question: The Ten Dharmas you established are merely different names for the Three Truths (Truth of Emptiness, Truth of Provisional Existence, Truth of the Middle Way), so they possess the meaning of contemplating the mind. Since you want to compare it to 'Dharma, No-Self, Sentient Beings', the Commentary on the Vimalakirti Sutra discusses the Three Dharmas based on what is contemplated, what is revealed, what can contemplate, what can reveal, what can break, what can be broken, as well as aiding the path, the correct path, self-cultivation, and benefiting others. But here you are entirely talking about the revealed Truths. How can you compare it to the Commentary on the Vimalakirti Sutra, believing that it possesses the meaning of contemplating the mind?

Question: You also say that these Three Dharmas possess the meaning of cultivation and nature (cultivated virtue, inherent virtue), so they possess the meaning of contemplating the mind. But when explaining the city of Vaisali, the Three Virtues of Cultivation and Nature (Dharma-body Virtue, Prajna Virtue, Liberation Virtue) have already been discussed in detail. Why is it necessary to further instruct contemplation of the mind?

Question: You analyze the Ten Dharmas of Miaoxuan (Profound Meaning of the Wonderful Dharma) from the Three Virtues to the Three Paths (Path of Afflictions, Path of Karma, Path of Suffering), while Miaoxuan analyzes from Sentient Beings, Mind-Nature, and the Three Paths, up to the Ultimate Fruition, each possessing the Six Identities. Why is it necessary to use contemplation of the mind to contemplate them? Why doesn't this passage need to use contemplation of the mind?

Question: Incorporating phenomena into the Five Skandhas (Form, Feeling, Perception, Volition, Consciousness) and using contemplation to reveal the principle is called incorporating phenomena to realize the principle. Therefore, the Five Meanings of Miaoxuan (Profound Meaning of the Wonderful Dharma) and the text on Correct Contemplation of the Mind both clearly state that one should contemplate the Five Skandhas. Why do you only say incorporating phenomena to return to the principle?

---

。不云入陰觀理耶。

問今十法文既不攝入陰心。又無觀法顯理。那名事法理觀耶。

問辨顯立十法。純是理觀。修證之法同普賢觀。何故改云只有理觀義耶。

問常坐雖觀三道事境。既非起心末事。又非借事立觀。乃是直顯心性。那名事觀耶。

問觀於一念及三道。皆是直附事境觀。只是一種理觀那名事理二觀耶。

問常行觀相好是立事境。三觀依之顯理方成一種觀法。那名事理二觀耶。

問隨自意推于末事四運叵得。只是一種事觀。那名事理二觀耶。

問今約四三昧。論事理二觀辨訛。既云不須附事而觀。即是不附三道相好。幡壇白象起心等事。乃是一念法界觀空之理觀既爾。十法那無一念。等十乘耶。

問辨訛既立十法純談理觀。遂問何無理觀揀陰十乘。仁既不立純是事觀。那責不問事觀。揀境並十乘耶。

問大意與正修。事儀與理觀。互有廣略。舉四行必帶正修觀法。予將常坐為難。已攝正修何得枉。云常坐唯在大意耶。

問予云。若依五略修行證果能利他者。一是聞師取意教授。二是宜略即能修證。那得枉。云五略自具十乘耶。

問若諸經與妙經觀體全同。何故妙樂云此示觀解異於他經。他經豈無圓觀耶。

問前時圓教欲修觀

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：難道不是說進入陰界觀察真理嗎？ 問：現在這十法既然不包含在五陰和心識中，又沒有觀想方法來顯現真理，那怎麼能稱為事法理觀呢？ 問：辨析顯現建立十法，完全是理觀。修證的方法與《普賢觀經》相同，為什麼改為只有理觀的意義呢？ 問：常坐禪雖然觀察三惡道的事境，既然不是起心動念的末端之事，又不是借事來建立觀想，而是直接顯現心性，那怎麼能稱為事觀呢？ 問：觀想一念和三惡道，都是直接依附於事境的觀想，只是一種理觀，那怎麼能稱為事理二觀呢？ 問：常行觀想佛的相好是建立事境，三觀依此來顯現真理才能成就一種觀想方法，那怎麼能稱為事理二觀呢？ 問：隨自己的意願推究末端之事，四運不可得，只是一種事觀，那怎麼能稱為事理二觀呢？ 問：現在根據四種三昧來討論事理二觀的辨析，既然說不需要依附於事來觀想，就是不依附於三惡道的相好、幡壇、白象、起心動念等事，而是一種一念法界觀空的理觀。既然如此，十法為什麼沒有一念等十乘呢？ 問：辨析錯誤既然建立十法純粹談論理觀，於是問為什麼沒有理觀來揀擇五陰的十乘。您既然不建立純粹的事觀，那為什麼責問不問事觀來揀擇境界以及十乘呢？ 問：大意與正修，事儀與理觀，互相之間有廣有略。舉出四行必定帶有正修的觀想方法。我用常坐禪來發難，已經包含了正修，怎麼能枉說常坐禪只在大意之中呢？ 問：我說，如果依據五略修行證果能夠利益他人，一是聽從老師的教導領會其意，二是適宜簡略就能修證，怎麼能枉說五略自身就具備十乘呢？ 問：如果諸經與《妙法蓮華經》的觀想體性完全相同，為什麼妙樂大師說這顯示觀解不同於其他經典，其他經典難道沒有圓觀嗎？ 問：之前圓教想要修觀

【English Translation】 English version: Isn't it said to enter the realm of Yin (陰, the negative or dark principle) to observe the truth? Question: Now that these Ten Dharmas (十法) are neither included in the Five Skandhas (陰, five aggregates of existence) and consciousness, nor have methods of contemplation to manifest the truth, how can they be called Phenomenal and Noumenal Contemplation (事法理觀)? Question: Discriminating, manifesting, and establishing the Ten Dharmas are entirely noumenal contemplation. The methods of cultivation and realization are the same as the Universal Worthy Contemplation (普賢觀). Why is it changed to only the meaning of noumenal contemplation? Question: Although constant sitting meditation (常坐禪) observes the realms of the Three Evil Paths (三惡道), since it is neither the end of arising thoughts nor establishing contemplation by means of things, but directly manifests the nature of mind, how can it be called phenomenal contemplation? Question: Contemplating a single thought and the Three Evil Paths are all contemplations directly attached to the realms of phenomena. It is only a kind of noumenal contemplation, so how can it be called phenomenal and noumenal contemplation? Question: Constant walking contemplation (常行) of the marks and characteristics of the Buddha (相好) is establishing the realm of phenomena. The Three Contemplations (三觀) rely on this to manifest the truth, and then a kind of contemplation method is accomplished. How can it be called phenomenal and noumenal contemplation? Question: Following one's own intention to investigate the end of things, the Four Movements (四運) cannot be obtained. It is only a kind of phenomenal contemplation, so how can it be called phenomenal and noumenal contemplation? Question: Now, based on the Four Samadhis (四三昧), discussing the discrimination of phenomenal and noumenal contemplation, since it is said that there is no need to contemplate by attaching to things, that is, not attaching to the marks and characteristics of the Three Evil Paths, banners, altars, white elephants, arising thoughts, and other things, but a noumenal contemplation of the emptiness of the Dharma Realm in a single thought (一念法界觀空). Since this is the case, why do the Ten Dharmas not have the Ten Vehicles (十乘) such as a single thought? Question: Since discriminating errors establishes the Ten Dharmas as purely discussing noumenal contemplation, then ask why there is no noumenal contemplation to select the Ten Vehicles of the Skandhas. Since you do not establish purely phenomenal contemplation, why do you blame not asking phenomenal contemplation to select the realms and the Ten Vehicles? Question: The general meaning and correct cultivation, the ritual of things and noumenal contemplation, have mutual breadth and brevity. Mentioning the Four Practices (四行) must include the contemplation method of correct cultivation. I use constant sitting meditation to make it difficult, which already includes correct cultivation. How can it be wrongly said that constant sitting meditation is only in the general meaning? Question: I said, if one cultivates and realizes the fruit according to the Five Brief Practices (五略) and can benefit others, one is to listen to the teacher's teachings and understand their meaning, and two is that it is appropriate to be brief and then be able to cultivate and realize. How can it be wrongly said that the Five Brief Practices themselves possess the Ten Vehicles? Question: If the contemplation essence of all sutras and the 'Wonderful Dharma Lotus Sutra' (妙法蓮華經) are completely the same, why does Miaole (妙樂) say that this shows that the contemplation understanding is different from other sutras? Do other sutras not have perfect contemplation? Question: Previously, the perfect teaching (圓教) wanted to cultivate contemplation

---

人。既未聞開于聲聞。那能自用開顯之理為觀體耶。

問若二經圓理是同。妙玄十法。那無理融耶。

問妙玄一心成觀。那類方等懺儀未成之觀耶。

問若執王數相扶觀。王必觀數何故約識心修觀。后更歷四陰觀耶。觀時既然悟時那不然耶。

問王城耆山房宿。萬二千數皆觀陰入。那云事法觀。不立陰入為陰境耶。

問既云又諸觀境不出五陰。今此山等約陰便故山等。約陰既便故立陰名。則顯諸境雖無陰名。而體皆是陰故云不出五陰。那據此句判諸觀境非陰耶。

問所云以諸文中。直云境智者。蓋以諸文既對陰不便。故輟陰名而但以一念心。及因緣生心等為境。以三觀為智。即是直云境智也。若不爾者有何觀解。但立境智兩字耶。

問諸文觀一念心。及因緣生心。若非陰心謂是何物。如仁之意豈不謂是清凈真如耶。

問大意妙境云觀心性。諸文事法多觀心性。止觀既是陰識之性。諸文那不是耶。

問山城觀中妙樂。令於此辨方便正修。講人還須於此辨否。若不辨者則違尊教。若具辨之學者還可修否。

問妙樂於山城觀中。令於此揀境及心。若非揀陰為揀何境。若不揀思議取不思議。為揀何心耶。

問阿難觀中妙樂。令具述觀相。若不述揀境十乘

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：既然他沒有聽聞過為聲聞乘開示的教義，又怎麼能自己運用開顯的道理作為觀行的本體呢？ 問：如果《法華經》和《維摩經》的圓融道理是相同的，為什麼《妙玄》中的十法界沒有理體上的融合呢？ 問：《妙玄》以一心成就觀行，那它類似於方等懺儀中尚未成就的觀行嗎？ 問：如果執著于以王數互相扶助的觀行，那麼王必定能觀數，為什麼還要依識心修觀，之後還要經歷四陰的觀行呢？觀行的時候既然能夠領悟，那麼領悟的時候為什麼不能這樣呢？ 問：王城（Rājagṛha，古印度城市名）耆山（Gṛdhrakūṭa，靈鷲山）房宿（Nakṣatra，星宿），一萬二千人都在觀五陰、十二入（Āyatana，處），為什麼說是事法觀，而不把五陰、十二入作為陰境呢？ 問：既然說『又各種觀境都不超出五陰』，現在這座山等是依五陰而方便設立的，既然依五陰而方便設立，所以才立了陰的名字，這就顯示出各種境雖然沒有陰的名字，但它們的體性都是五陰，所以說不超出五陰。為什麼根據這句話就判斷各種觀境不是五陰呢？ 問：所說『在各種經文中，直接說境智』，是因為各種經文既然對於五陰不方便，所以就捨棄了陰的名字，而只用一念心，以及因緣生心等作為境，用三觀（Tri-vidha-śūnyatā，空、無相、無作）作為智，這就是直接說境智。如果不是這樣，還有什麼觀解，隻立境智這兩個字呢？ 問：各種經文中觀一念心，以及因緣生心，如果不是陰心，那是什麼？如仁的意思，難道不是認為是清凈真如（Tathātā，真如）嗎？ 問：《大意妙境》說觀心性，各種經文的事法觀大多觀心性，止觀既然是陰識的自性，各種經文為什麼不是這樣呢？ 問：山城觀中，《妙樂》令人在此辨別方便正修，講經的人還需要在此辨別嗎？如果不辨別，就違背了您的教誨。如果完全辨別，學者還可以修習嗎？ 問：《妙樂》在山城觀中，令人在此揀擇境和心，如果不是揀擇五陰，那是揀擇什麼境？如果不揀擇思議，而取不思議，那是揀擇什麼心呢？ 問：阿難（Ānanda，阿難）觀中，《妙樂》令人詳細敘述觀相，如果不敘述，怎麼揀擇境和十乘觀法（Daśa-vidha-yāna，十乘觀法）呢？ English version: Since he has not heard the teachings expounded for the Śrāvaka vehicle (Śrāvakayāna), how can he use the principle of self-enlightenment as the substance of contemplation? Question: If the perfect and harmonious principles of the Lotus Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra are the same, why is there no fusion of principles in the ten realms of the Mohe Zhiguan? Question: The Mohe Zhiguan achieves contemplation with a single mind. Is it similar to the contemplation in the Fangdeng repentance rituals (Fangdeng chan yi) that has not yet been achieved? Question: If one clings to the contemplation of mutual assistance between the king and the numbers, then the king must be able to contemplate the numbers. Why then cultivate contemplation based on the mind of consciousness (Vijñāna), and then go through the contemplation of the four Skandhas (aggregates)? Since one can realize during contemplation, why can't it be the same during enlightenment? Question: In Rājagṛha (王城, ancient Indian city), Gṛdhrakūṭa (耆山, Vulture Peak Mountain), and Nakṣatra (房宿, constellations), twelve thousand people are all contemplating the five Skandhas (五陰), and the twelve Āyatanas (十二入, sense bases). Why is it said to be contemplation of phenomena, and not establish the five Skandhas and twelve Āyatanas as the realm of the Skandhas? Question: Since it is said, 'Moreover, all realms of contemplation do not go beyond the five Skandhas,' now this mountain, etc., are conveniently established based on the five Skandhas. Since they are conveniently established based on the five Skandhas, the name of Skandha is established. This shows that although the various realms do not have the name of Skandha, their essence is all five Skandhas, so it is said that they do not go beyond the five Skandhas. Why, based on this sentence, judge that the various realms of contemplation are not Skandhas? Question: What is meant by 'In various texts, it is directly said realm and wisdom' is that since the various texts are inconvenient for the Skandhas, they abandon the name of Skandha and only use a single thought, and the mind arising from conditions, etc., as the realm, and use the three contemplations (Tri-vidha-śūnyatā, 三觀) as wisdom. This is directly saying realm and wisdom. If not, what kind of contemplation and understanding is there that only establishes the two words realm and wisdom? Question: In various texts, contemplating a single thought and the mind arising from conditions, if it is not the mind of the Skandhas, what is it? Does your intention not consider it to be pure Tathātā (真如, Suchness)? Question: The Dayi Miaojing says to contemplate the nature of the mind. The contemplation of phenomena in various texts mostly contemplates the nature of the mind. Since Zhiguan is the nature of the Skandha consciousness, why are the various texts not like this? Question: In the mountain city contemplation, Miaole instructs people to distinguish between expedient and correct cultivation here. Does the lecturer still need to distinguish here? If one does not distinguish, then one violates your teachings. If one fully distinguishes, can scholars still cultivate? Question: In the mountain city contemplation, Miaole instructs people to choose between realm and mind here. If it is not choosing the five Skandhas, what realm is being chosen? If one does not choose thinking and takes non-thinking, what mind is being chosen? Question: In Ānanda's (阿難) contemplation, Miaole instructs people to describe the aspects of contemplation in detail. If one does not describe, how can one choose the realm and the ten vehicles of contemplation (Daśa-vidha-yāna, 十乘觀法)?

【English Translation】 Since he has not heard the teachings expounded for the Śrāvaka vehicle (Śrāvakayāna), how can he use the principle of self-enlightenment as the substance of contemplation? Question: If the perfect and harmonious principles of the Lotus Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra are the same, why is there no fusion of principles in the ten realms of the Mohe Zhiguan? Question: The Mohe Zhiguan achieves contemplation with a single mind. Is it similar to the contemplation in the Fangdeng repentance rituals (Fangdeng chan yi) that has not yet been achieved? Question: If one clings to the contemplation of mutual assistance between the king and the numbers, then the king must be able to contemplate the numbers. Why then cultivate contemplation based on the mind of consciousness (Vijñāna), and then go through the contemplation of the four Skandhas (aggregates)? Since one can realize during contemplation, why can't it be the same during enlightenment? Question: In Rājagṛha (王城, ancient Indian city), Gṛdhrakūṭa (耆山, Vulture Peak Mountain), and Nakṣatra (房宿, constellations), twelve thousand people are all contemplating the five Skandhas (五陰), and the twelve Āyatanas (十二入, sense bases). Why is it said to be contemplation of phenomena, and not establish the five Skandhas and twelve Āyatanas as the realm of the Skandhas? Question: Since it is said, 'Moreover, all realms of contemplation do not go beyond the five Skandhas,' now this mountain, etc., are conveniently established based on the five Skandhas. Since they are conveniently established based on the five Skandhas, the name of Skandha is established. This shows that although the various realms do not have the name of Skandha, their essence is all five Skandhas, so it is said that they do not go beyond the five Skandhas. Why, based on this sentence, judge that the various realms of contemplation are not Skandhas? Question: What is meant by 'In various texts, it is directly said realm and wisdom' is that since the various texts are inconvenient for the Skandhas, they abandon the name of Skandha and only use a single thought, and the mind arising from conditions, etc., as the realm, and use the three contemplations (Tri-vidha-śūnyatā, 三觀) as wisdom. This is directly saying realm and wisdom. If not, what kind of contemplation and understanding is there that only establishes the two words realm and wisdom? Question: In various texts, contemplating a single thought and the mind arising from conditions, if it is not the mind of the Skandhas, what is it? Does your intention not consider it to be pure Tathātā (真如, Suchness)? Question: The Dayi Miaojing says to contemplate the nature of the mind. The contemplation of phenomena in various texts mostly contemplates the nature of the mind. Since Zhiguan is the nature of the Skandha consciousness, why are the various texts not like this? Question: In the mountain city contemplation, Miaole instructs people to distinguish between expedient and correct cultivation here. Does the lecturer still need to distinguish here? If one does not distinguish, then one violates your teachings. If one fully distinguishes, can scholars still cultivate? Question: In the mountain city contemplation, Miaole instructs people to choose between realm and mind here. If it is not choosing the five Skandhas, what realm is being chosen? If one does not choose thinking and takes non-thinking, what mind is being chosen? Question: In Ānanda's (阿難) contemplation, Miaole instructs people to describe the aspects of contemplation in detail. If one does not describe, how can one choose the realm and the ten vehicles of contemplation (Daśa-vidha-yāna, 十乘觀法)?

---

。何名具述。豈獨此中具述驗知凡指止觀。皆令具述那違教耶。

問婆多觀中妙樂。令廣引般舟三昧。仁于講時還曾引否。

問山城之外只合直云境智。今文既立陰境以驗。是訛者山城之外房宿。亦立陰境。不異山城。萬二千人立十二入為境。豈亦後人添耶。

問諸文觀一念心與此棄三觀一何異。縱諸數相扶。豈不的以心王為主耶。

問今文因云棄三觀一。驗是訛者。據何教云附法觀心。不得揀陰耶。

問十二入各具千如。則已結成妙境。諸文但云陰等。未結妙境乃於此。境示乎三觀。三觀若立境自成妙。故云但寄能觀觀耳。今文棄三觀一方當示陰。未結妙境故於此境示乎三觀。顯金光明豈非寄能觀耶。那將示陰便為妙境。那云不是寄能觀觀耶。

問義例二種觀法雖不云陰。而云入一念心。心之與陰雖能造能覆少殊其體。豈異託事則山城觀。陰既令揀境。那執二種不立陰耶。

問答疑書云。此玄文十境不足既無修發九境。驗知只有陰境。既是十境中辨須是揀陰之境。且今十法何文是揀陰境耶。

問妙玄心如幻焰等。既在觀心科中。須作境觀而說。故釋簽云。今銷一一文俱入觀門。仍須細釋令成妙觀。何得謗云是通途法相耶。

問指要本立先解諸法皆妙。然欲

立行須論起觀之處。乃立不變隨緣陰識為境。觀之顯理。仁曾破之今那枉予解。則唯妄觀方了真耶。

問予據金錍大意立不變隨緣。名心為所觀境。豈是獨頭之妄。那斥同外道耶。

問予據止觀念處懺儀。立陰識妄心一念無明為境。此諸教文既單就妄立未云即真。豈是外道說耶。

問所觀之心。是無明染緣所成。佛界心是十乘凈緣所成。詰難書定所觀心。那責不說凈緣佛界心耶。

問金錍立不變隨緣。名心本示妄染色心有果佛性。若是隨凈緣佛界心者。豈是佛界色心有佛性耶。

問輔行引心造如來。本證妄染陰識能造一切因何拗作非染非凈心耶。

問若云妄心即真故。立非染非凈心者。豈大師不知即真。那但云陰識。應不及仁之所說耶。

問大意本示止觀陰識是隨緣心。輔行乃指隨緣所成陰識能造如來。那作四句分之云大意。是隨緣染凈心。止觀是非染凈心耶。

問若轉計云妄心即理故。云非染非凈者。何獨止觀。論即大意不即耶。若皆即者何故約句定分之耶。

問若約染凈兩緣所成十界心。論所觀境者十境之中。那無佛心耶。

問示珠云一念常靈寂體。一念真知等顯。是以真性釋一念耶。

問示珠若知一念是妄。何不仰順妙玄釋簽。以迷因法

釋心。那云心非因果。約理能造事以釋心是因耶。

問大意雖將陰境在修觀文中。揀繁取要與大部不殊。豈見文在一處便不分陰境。理境所破所顯耶。

問大意云異故分于染凈緣。緣體本空空不空此論所顯。能破三諦三觀。那得引此而難所破心境耶。

問仁既自云濁成本有之語此示本迷。今了迷心當體即理。染凈不二等。且所觀陰心為約本迷說。為約今了說二義。若混則將賊不分。那名觀法耶。

問雖云三無差別乃是陰心攝他生佛。豈可攝佛便令能攝。之心屬果耶。若便屬果何故。釋簽云生佛在心亦定屬因耶。

問仁立鉆火之喻。意執於火唯是所鉆所出。而不知出已燒木。復是能燒觀陰顯理。本欲滅陰理顯。陰滅理非能滅耶。

問輔行既用器械權謀。及以將身喻止觀及以諦理。此三俱運方破三賊。因何身力獨非能破耶。

問仁執了陰是理所以觀之。不知此是妙解。若欲立行須且立陰觀陰顯理。豈云觀理顯理鉆火出火耶。

問辨訛云。三千是妄法今云是所顯之理因誰解耶。

問初棄于陰明具三千。后依妙境起誓安心等。豈非妙境對。陰為能對九為所耶。

問仁執心具三千色無三千。且心與色皆是真如隨緣而造。豈一片具德真如造心。一片不具德真如造色

。不爾何故心具色無耶。

問若色不具三千。何故妙經疏十二入各具千如耶。

問若執入義帶心。妙樂那云界亦各具耶。

問既許不情體遍無情體。既遍已具那不遍。豈有一分不具德體遍於無情。不爾那執色無三千耶。

問金錍本立無情有佛性。豈獨有不具三千之性。若爾不名有果人之性也莫違宗否。

問能造之心既由全理而起。故能具三千。色是全理之心而起。那不具三千能生樹根。既具四微所生枝條。豈不具四微耶。

問他約能造論于唯識。故無唯色之義。今既約具論于唯識。故有唯色之義。既許唯色那無三千耶。

問豈以色不造心等。故便不得云色具三千。便不名法界中道。及不名唯色耶。豈以波結為冰暫不流動。便謂不具波性耶。

問心具於色色是妙色。既是妙色那無三千耶。

問觀陰為妙境。攝彼無情同爲佛乘蓋顯法法皆具三千。若無情不具那為佛乘耶。

問四念處內外二觀之後結歸心者。蓋舍旁從正。舍難從易。外觀破于內著。豈全不觀外耶。

問荊溪云。四教中圓。奚嘗不云三處具法。邪師執此立頓頓觀。卻抑四教中圓。唯論心具二處不具。仁立心具三千色無三千。是不及彼師所見。以彼元知隨觀即具。但不合立為頓頓耳。仁全

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果不是這樣，為什麼說心具有色法，而色法不具有心呢？

問：如果色法不具備三千，為什麼《妙法蓮華經》疏中說十二入（十二入：六根和六塵）各自具備千如呢？

問：如果認為『入』的含義包含心，那麼妙樂（妙樂：指湛然，天臺宗的重要人物）為什麼說『界』（界：十八界，即六根、六塵、六識）也各自具備千如呢？

問：既然承認有情之體遍於無情之體，既然已經周遍，為什麼說不周遍呢？難道有一部分不具備德體，而周遍于無情？如果不是這樣，為什麼執著於色法不具備三千呢？

問：金錍（金錍：比喻佛性）本來就立論無情也有佛性，難道僅僅是有情不具備三千之性嗎？如果是這樣，就不名為有果之人的本性了，難道不是違背宗義嗎？

問：能造之心既然是由全體的理而生起，所以能夠具備三千。色法是由全體的理之心而生起，為什麼不具備三千呢？能生樹根，既然具備四微（四微：地、水、火、風）所生的枝條，難道不具備四微嗎？

問：他人是就『能造』來論述唯識，所以沒有唯有色法的含義。現在既然就『具備』來論述唯識，所以有唯有色法的含義。既然承認唯有色法，為什麼說沒有三千呢？

問：難道因為色法不能造作心等，就不能說色法具備三千，就不能稱為法界中道，以及不稱為唯色嗎？難道因為水波結成冰暫時不流動，就認為它不具備水的本性嗎？

問：心所具備的是妙色，既然是妙色，為什麼說沒有三千呢？

問：觀陰（觀陰：觀察五陰）為妙境，攝取那無情之物，一同作為佛乘，這難道不是彰顯一切法都具備三千嗎？如果無情不具備三千，怎麼能成為佛乘呢？

問：四念處（四念處：觀身不凈、觀受是苦、觀心無常、觀法無我）內外兩種觀法之後，結論歸於心，這是捨棄旁門而歸於正道，捨棄困難而選擇容易。外觀是爲了破除對內在的執著，難道完全不觀察外在嗎？

問：荊溪（荊溪：指湛然，因其居住在荊溪）說，四教（四教：藏、通、別、圓四教）中的圓教，何嘗不說三處（三處：指陰、入、界）都具備法性。邪師執著於此，立頓頓觀（頓頓觀：一種錯誤的修行方法），卻壓抑四教中的圓教，只論心具備，而陰、界二處不具備。您立論心具備三千，而色法不具備三千，這是不如那位邪師的見解。因為那位邪師原本就知道隨觀即具備，只是不應該立為頓頓觀罷了。您完全...

【English Translation】 English version: If it is not so, why is it said that the mind possesses form, while form does not possess mind?

Question: If form does not possess the three thousand realms, why does the commentary on the Lotus Sutra say that each of the twelve entrances (twelve entrances: the six sense organs and the six sense objects) possesses a thousand suchnesses?

Question: If one holds that the meaning of 'entrance' includes the mind, then why does Miaole (Miaole: refers to Zhanran, an important figure in the Tiantai school) say that each of the 'realms' (realms: the eighteen realms, namely the six sense organs, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses) also possesses a thousand suchnesses?

Question: Since it is admitted that the substance of sentient beings pervades the substance of insentient beings, and since it is already pervasive, why is it said to be non-pervasive? Is it that a part does not possess the substance of virtue, yet pervades insentient beings? If it is not so, why cling to the idea that form does not possess the three thousand realms?

Question: The Jinpi (Jinpi: a metaphor for Buddha-nature) originally established that insentient beings also have Buddha-nature. Is it only sentient beings that do not possess the nature of the three thousand realms? If so, it would not be called the nature of a person who has attained fruition. Is this not contrary to the doctrine?

Question: Since the mind that creates arises from the entirety of principle, it is able to possess the three thousand realms. Form arises from the mind of the entirety of principle, so why does it not possess the three thousand realms? It can produce the roots of trees, and since it possesses the branches produced by the four subtle elements (four subtle elements: earth, water, fire, and wind), does it not possess the four subtle elements?

Question: Others discuss consciousness-only (唯識, Vijnapti-matrata) in terms of 'that which can create', so there is no meaning of only form. Now, since we are discussing consciousness-only in terms of 'possession', there is a meaning of only form. Since you admit only form, why do you say there are no three thousand realms?

Question: Is it because form cannot create mind and so on, that one cannot say that form possesses the three thousand realms, and that it cannot be called the Middle Way of the Dharma Realm, and that it cannot be called only form? Is it because a wave solidifies into ice and temporarily does not flow, that one considers it not to possess the nature of water?

Question: What the mind possesses is wondrous form. Since it is wondrous form, why do you say there are no three thousand realms?

Question: Contemplating the skandhas (觀陰, skandha: aggregates) as a wondrous realm, and including insentient things as the Buddha-vehicle, does this not reveal that all dharmas possess the three thousand realms? If insentient beings do not possess the three thousand realms, how can they be the Buddha-vehicle?

Question: After the two contemplations of the four foundations of mindfulness (四念處, smrti-upasthana: mindfulness of body, sensation, mind, and dharma), both internal and external, the conclusion returns to the mind. This is abandoning the side path and returning to the right path, abandoning the difficult and choosing the easy. External contemplation is to break attachment to the internal. Is it that one does not contemplate the external at all?

Question: Jingxi (荊溪: refers to Zhanran, because he lived in Jingxi) said that the perfect teaching within the four teachings (四教: the four teachings of the Tiantai school) never fails to say that the three places (三處: the skandhas, entrances, and realms) all possess Dharma-nature. Heretical teachers cling to this and establish gradual contemplation, but suppress the perfect teaching within the four teachings, only arguing that the mind possesses it, while the skandhas and realms do not. Your argument that the mind possesses the three thousand realms, while form does not, is inferior to the view of that heretical teacher. Because that heretical teacher originally knew that it is possessed immediately upon contemplation, but it should not be established as gradual contemplation. You completely...

---

不知此義。望彼邪師千里萬里。更何分疏耶。

問予據破于著內著外之文。遂立恐心外向。復遵唯識唯色之教。乃云心具色具。何得以樏隔見。誣獨頭為謗耶。

問內心遍攝觀成。更論歷外者。猶居因位故也。雖約理融寧無事境。唯遍遊歷而任運見理。既云任運那以巡檢覆察釋于歷耶。

問內外不二門標列牒釋。二種境觀文義顯然。何得但對義例凈心外歷。及止觀例余陰入國土方等。歷幡壇等耶。

問若色心門明內觀畢。何故次門方標列二境。逐一牒釋耶。

問若先了等文為結前生後者。既云先了外色心一念無念。則結前已泯合畢。因何內體三千即空假中。生后之文又對泯合是何道理。

問示珠以外觀豁同真凈是六根凈位。則成結前外觀至六根已。方乃生后令修內觀。豈名字全無內觀耶。

問內外門立二境觀。乃加功研習之義。那對任運泯合之文耶。

問色心門無修觀相。那對內心正觀。內外門二種觀境分明。因何卻對傍歷外觀耶。

問仁執色心門明內觀對實相觀。內外門明外觀對唯識觀。且義例實相唯識二觀。既且約內心修之。則二觀俱在色心門。豈非內外門全不明觀法耶。

問四念處令著外者。修唯識觀。著內者。修唯色觀。豈得特違教文將唯識

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：我不明白這個道理。希望那些邪師離我越遠越好。還用得著和他們辯解什麼呢？

有人問：你根據破斥執著于內、執著于外的文章，就斷定我心向外馳求，又遵循唯識唯色的教義，說『心具色具』。為什麼用『樏隔見』來阻礙見解，誣衊『獨頭』為謗法呢？

有人問：內心遍攝觀成就后，再談論歷緣對境，是因為還處在因位的緣故。即使從理上來說可以圓融，難道就沒有事相上的境界嗎？只是普遍地遊歷而任運地見到真理。既然說是任運，為什麼還要用巡視檢查來解釋『歷』呢？

有人問：內外不二門已經標明並詳細解釋了，兩種境觀的文義也很明顯。為什麼只針對義例，說凈心向外經歷，以及止觀中其餘陰入、國土方等，經歷幡壇等呢？

有人問：如果色心門已經明確了內觀，為什麼下一個門才標明兩種境界，逐一詳細解釋呢？

有人問：如果『先了』等文是總結前文，引出後文的，既然說『先了外色心一念無念』，那麼總結前文就已經完全泯合了。為什麼內體三千即空假中，引出後文的文字又要針對泯合，這是什麼道理？

有人問：用珠子來顯示外觀，豁然開朗如同真凈，這是六根清凈的地位。那麼就成了總結前文，外觀達到六根清凈后，才引出後文，讓人修習內觀。難道名字上就完全沒有內觀嗎？

有人問：內外門設立兩種境觀，是增加功夫研習的意思。怎麼能針對任運泯合的文字呢？

有人問：色心門沒有修觀的相狀，怎麼能針對內心正觀呢？內外門兩種觀境分明，為什麼反而針對傍歷外觀呢？

有人問：你認為色心門闡明內觀，針對實相觀；內外門闡明外觀，針對唯識觀。而且義例實相唯識二觀，既然只是在內心修習，那麼兩種觀都在色心門。難道不是內外門完全沒有闡明觀法嗎？

有人問：四念處讓人執著于外，修習唯識觀；執著于內，修習唯色觀。怎麼能特別違背教文，將唯識...

【English Translation】 English version: I do not understand this meaning. I hope those heretical teachers stay as far away from me as possible. What need is there to argue with them?

Someone asks: Based on your refutation of attachment to the internal and external, you conclude that my mind seeks outward, and that I follow the teachings of 'mind-only' and 'mind-and-matter,' saying 'mind possesses matter, and matter possesses mind.' Why do you use 'obstructed views' to hinder understanding, and falsely accuse 'solitary head' as slander?

Someone asks: After the inner mind's all-encompassing contemplation is accomplished, further discussion of experiencing external conditions is because one is still in the stage of cause. Even if it can be perfectly integrated in principle, are there no actual realms of phenomena? It is simply to universally travel and spontaneously see the truth. Since it is said to be spontaneous, why use inspection and examination to explain 'experiencing'?

Someone asks: The 'Non-Duality of Internal and External' gate has clearly stated and explained, and the meaning of the two types of objects and contemplations is obvious. Why only address the meaning and example, saying that the pure mind experiences externally, and in the cessation and contemplation, the remaining aggregates, entrances, lands, directions, etc., experience banners, altars, etc.?

Someone asks: If the 'Matter and Mind' gate has clarified inner contemplation, why does the next gate then state the two realms, explaining them one by one?

Someone asks: If the text 'first understanding' etc. is to summarize the previous and lead to the following, since it says 'first understanding that external matter and mind are one thought of no-thought,' then the summary of the previous has already been completely merged. Why does the inner essence of three thousand realms being emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, and the text leading to the following, again address merging? What is the reason for this?

Someone asks: Using the pearl to show the external appearance, being open and clear like true purity, is the state of the six senses being purified. Then it becomes summarizing the previous, the external appearance reaching the six senses, and then leading to the following, causing one to cultivate inner contemplation. Is there completely no inner contemplation in name?

Someone asks: The 'Internal and External' gate establishes two types of objects and contemplations, which is the meaning of increasing effort and studying. How can it address the text of spontaneous merging?

Someone asks: The 'Matter and Mind' gate has no appearance of cultivating contemplation, how can it address the correct contemplation of the inner mind? The 'Internal and External' gate has two types of objects of contemplation clearly distinguished, why instead address the side-experiencing external appearance?

Someone asks: You believe that the 'Matter and Mind' gate clarifies inner contemplation, addressing the contemplation of reality; the 'Internal and External' gate clarifies external appearance, addressing the contemplation of consciousness-only. Moreover, the meaning and example of the two contemplations of reality and consciousness-only, since they are only cultivated in the inner mind, then both contemplations are in the 'Matter and Mind' gate. Isn't it that the 'Internal and External' gate completely does not clarify the method of contemplation?

Someone asks: The Four Foundations of Mindfulness cause one to be attached to the external, cultivating the contemplation of consciousness-only; attached to the internal, cultivating the contemplation of matter-only. How can one especially violate the teachings and take consciousness-only...

---

為外觀耶。

問仁今議論特扶先師之義。示珠既判色心門未論觀法。內外門方對境明觀。今何違彼自立色心門。明內心正觀。內外門但示外境旁歷之觀耶。

問示珠判外觀豁。同真凈名六根觀成位。則外已泯合。仁何違彼自立。次文內觀方是泯合耶。

問示殊自於外境。明觀成相於義無虧。仁何乖義苦破師耶。

問若示珠釋不二門。有乖發揮廢觀心自敗。何故拌入地獄強諍非義耶。

問心佛眾生既是事用故分高下廣狹。初心修觀遂有難易去取。若三種三千本來融攝。因何內觀但觀已之三千未攝。生佛三千外觀但觀彼彼三千。未與己心三千泯合。至第二再觀內境。方得彼此泯合此之邪曲之見還與一家觀法合否。

問若心佛眾生事相。既別三處理性。又殊則人人各住法法不融。約何義說三無差別。獨頭樏隔推與誰耶。

問大意約三無差別染凈明其假觀。此假空中明三諦觀。仁何違彼內觀不觀生佛三千。違文違義何可言耶。

問事境暫隔。故扶宗云。初觀內心未涉外境。仁何破云理境本融生佛同趣。內觀如何作意去取耶。

問今執內觀未觀生佛三千。何故辨訛更令內觀托彼色心依正。豈非其時全不識內外二境耶。

問仁於前書。數將止觀例余界入國土。及方

【現代漢語翻譯】 為外觀耶？

問：仁者現在議論特別扶持先師的義理，而《示珠》（指《天臺止觀示珠記》）既然已經判明了色心之門，卻未曾論及觀法。內外門正是針對外境來闡明觀法。現在您為何違背《示珠》而自立色心門，闡明內心正觀？難道內外門僅僅是闡明外境，順帶提及觀法嗎？

問：《示珠》判明外觀豁然開朗，與真凈名（指《維摩經》）所說的六根觀成位相同，那麼外境已經泯滅融合了。仁者為何違背《示珠》而自立內觀，認為只有內觀才是泯滅融合呢？

問：《示珠》自在地于外境中闡明觀成相，在義理上並沒有缺失。仁者為何違背義理，苦苦地破斥先師呢？

問：如果說《示珠》解釋不二門，有違背發揮，廢棄觀心，自取敗亡的過失，為何還要強行爭辯非義，甘願墮入地獄呢？

問：心、佛、眾生既然是事用，所以才分高下廣狹。初心修觀，自然有難易取捨。如果三種三千本來就融攝，為何內觀只觀自己的三千，而未攝取生佛三千？外觀只觀他人的三千，而未與自己的三千泯合？要到第二次再觀內境，才能彼此泯合。這種邪曲的見解，還與天臺一家的觀法相合嗎？

問：如果心、佛、眾生的事相既然有差別，三處的理性又各不相同，那麼人人各自安住，法法不能融合。根據什麼義理來說三無差別呢？這種獨斷的見解，要推給誰呢？

問：大意是根據三無差別，染凈來闡明假觀。這假空中闡明三諦觀。仁者為何違背《示珠》，內觀不觀生佛三千？違背經文和義理，怎麼能說得過去呢？

問：事境暫時隔離，所以扶持宗義說，初觀內心，未涉及外境。仁者為何破斥說，理境本來就融合，生佛同歸一處？內觀如何作意取捨呢？

問：現在執著于內觀未觀生佛三千，為何還要辨別訛誤，更讓內觀依託於色心依正？難道不是當時完全不認識內外二境嗎？

問：仁者在前面的書中，多次將止觀比作余界進入國土，以及方

【English Translation】 Is it for external observation?

Question: Now, your arguments particularly uphold the meaning of the late teacher, while the 'Shizhu' (《天臺止觀示珠記》 Commentary on the Essentials of Samatha-vipassana) has already clarified the gate of form and mind (色心), but has not discussed the methods of contemplation. The inner and outer gates (內外門) precisely clarify contemplation in relation to external objects. Why do you now contradict the 'Shizhu' and establish the gate of form and mind yourself, clarifying the correct contemplation of the inner mind? Is it that the inner and outer gates merely clarify external objects and incidentally mention contemplation?

Question: The 'Shizhu' judges that external observation is open and clear, the same as the stage of accomplishment of the six sense faculties as described by Vimalakirti (維摩經). In that case, the external has already been extinguished and merged. Why do you contradict the 'Shizhu' and establish inner contemplation yourself, claiming that only inner contemplation is extinction and merging?

Question: The 'Shizhu' freely clarifies the accomplishment of contemplation of characteristics in external objects, and there is no deficiency in meaning. Why do you violate the meaning and painstakingly refute the teacher?

Question: If the 'Shizhu's' explanation of the non-dual gate (不二門) violates the development, abandons contemplation of the mind, and leads to self-destruction, why insist on arguing against righteousness and willingly fall into hell?

Question: Since mind (心), Buddha (佛), and sentient beings (眾生) are functions of phenomena, they are divided into high and low, broad and narrow. Initial cultivation of contemplation naturally involves ease and difficulty, acceptance and rejection. If the three kinds of three thousand (三種三千) are originally integrated, why does inner contemplation only contemplate one's own three thousand, without encompassing the three thousand of Buddhas and sentient beings? External observation only observes the three thousand of others, without merging with one's own three thousand? Only by contemplating the inner realm again for the second time can they merge with each other. Does this distorted view accord with the contemplation method of the Tiantai school?

Question: If the phenomena of mind, Buddha, and sentient beings are different, and the nature of the three places is also different, then everyone dwells separately, and the dharmas cannot merge. According to what meaning can it be said that the three are without difference? To whom should this isolated view be attributed?

Question: The general idea is to clarify the provisional contemplation (假觀) based on the non-difference of the three, purity and impurity. This provisional emptiness clarifies the three truths contemplation (三諦觀). Why do you contradict the 'Shizhu', with inner contemplation not contemplating the three thousand of Buddhas and sentient beings? How can it be justified to violate the text and meaning?

Question: The realm of phenomena is temporarily separated, so the school is supported by saying that the initial contemplation is of the inner mind, not involving external objects. Why do you refute it by saying that the realm of principle is originally integrated, and Buddhas and sentient beings go to the same place? How can inner contemplation intentionally accept and reject?

Question: Now you are attached to the idea that inner contemplation does not contemplate the three thousand of Buddhas and sentient beings. Why do you still distinguish errors and further rely on form, mind, support, and reward for inner contemplation? Isn't it that you completely did not recognize the two realms of inner and outer at that time?

Question: In your previous writings, you have repeatedly compared Samatha-vipassana (止觀) to other realms entering the land, and the direction

---

等幡壇以為外觀。豈此外境非己依正。尚違自語寧會圓宗耶。

問義例本論色心不二之觀。先觀內心約心融色明不二觀。次歷色等任運各融。本既不論三法之觀。何以初觀己心次歷生佛。豈非不解看讀耶。

問仁於前書。堅執內外二觀並修。方名事理不二。今那改云內心理觀。自說事理不二。豈非竊予之義為己見耶。

問實相唯識。用觀雖殊妙解無別。那云觀唯識者。未能即了一切唯心。但隨自意四運推檢。若爾與通教觀心何異耶。

問辨訛既將揀境中。心造諸法便為妙境中一念三千。又以托外依正色心便為內觀之境。還是不分事理二造內外二境耶。

問既遭問疑書難。便改轉云所造諸法者。理具名造實非事造。又云所言三千者。即是所具三千名造。實非外境事造。此是欺心轉計否。

問辨訛難於恐心外向之義。云何不恐心外向。但云托彼心即空即中。彼心既是生佛之心。豈托彼心便非外向耶。此時還知二境否。

問辨訛云。色心之境俱觀。此時還知揀境之意耶。

問仁今轉云。觀理攝事者乃是甘伏。予云。但觀理具自然攝於事造。不可遍將事造諸法為觀所託境。前那頻難未涉二修事造耶。

問仁今復云遍攬諸法。專觀能造之心。意以遍攬之言。欲成色心之

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以裝飾華麗的幡旗和壇場作為外觀，難道除了這些外在環境，就沒有自己所依止的正報和依報了嗎？這不僅違背了自己所說的話，又怎麼能領會圓頓宗的宗旨呢？ 義例中原本討論的是色（rūpa，物質）心（citta，精神）不二的觀法，先觀察內心，通過心來融合色，從而闡明不二的觀法。然後歷經色等，任其自然地各自融合。原本既然沒有討論三法（tridharma，三種法）的觀法，為什麼一開始觀察自己的心，然後歷經眾生和佛呢？這難道不是不理解經文的閱讀方法嗎？ 仁者您在之前的著作中，堅決主張內外二觀（dvaya-darśana，兩種觀察）並修，才稱得上是事理不二（advaita，非二元性）。現在怎麼改變說法，說內心理觀（antar-citta-darśana，內在心理觀察）本身就是事理不二呢？這難道不是竊取我的義理作為自己的見解嗎？ 實相（tathatā，真如實相）和唯識（vijñānamātra，唯識）的觀法，雖然使用的觀行方法不同，但精妙的理解並沒有差別。為什麼說觀唯識的人，不能立即了達一切唯心（sarva-citta-mātra，一切唯心所現），只是隨著自己的想法進行四運推檢呢？如果這樣，那和通教（通教）的觀心有什麼區別呢？ 辨訛既然將揀境中（jñāna-viṣaya，選擇境界）的心造諸法（citta-kṛta-dharma，心所造的諸法）視為妙境中（adbhuta-viṣaya，奇妙境界）的一念三千（ekacitta-kṣaṇa-tri-sāhasra，一念包含三千世界），又將依託外在的依報和正報的色心（rūpa-citta，色法和心法）視為內觀的境界，這還是沒有區分事理二造（dvaya-kṛta，二種造作）和內外二境（dvaya-viṣaya，二種境界）嗎？ 既然遭到問疑，書寫困難，就改變說法，說所造諸法（kṛta-dharma，所造的諸法）是理具名造（lakṣaṇa-samanvita-nāma-kṛta，具足理體的名相造作），實際上不是事造（vastu-kṛta，事物造作）。又說所說的三千（tri-sāhasra，三千世界），就是所具足的三千，名為造作，實際上不是外在境界的事物造作。這難道不是欺騙自己，轉移計謀嗎？ 辨訛難以理解恐心外向（bahirmukha-citta，心向外馳求）的含義，為什麼不害怕心外向呢？只是說依託那個心即空即中（śūnyatā-madhyama，空性和中道）。那個心既然是眾生和佛的心，難道依託那個心就不是外向嗎？此時還知道二境（dvaya-viṣaya，二種境界）嗎？ 辨訛說，色心（rūpa-citta，色法和心法）的境界都觀察，此時還知道揀境（jñāna-viṣaya，選擇境界）的意義嗎？ 仁者您現在改變說法，說觀理攝事（dharma-saṃgraha-artha，觀察理體統攝事相）是甘心順服。我說，只要觀察理體具足，自然就能統攝事造（vastu-kṛta，事物造作），不可普遍地將事物造作的諸法作為觀行所依託的境界。之前為什麼頻繁地責難沒有涉及二修事造（dvaya-sādhana-vastu-kṛta，二種修理事物造作）呢？ 仁者您現在又說普遍地攝取諸法，專門觀察能造的心。意思是想用普遍攝取這句話，來成就色心（rūpa-citta，色法和心法）的...

【English Translation】 English version: Taking ornate banners and altars as the external appearance, are there no proper rewards and retributions that one relies on besides these external environments? This not only contradicts one's own words, but how can one comprehend the tenets of the perfect and sudden school? The original discussion in the 'Exemplifications' concerned the contemplation of the non-duality of rūpa (form, matter) and citta (mind, consciousness). It first observes the inner mind, using the mind to merge with form, thereby elucidating the contemplation of non-duality. Then, it naturally merges through rūpa and other elements. Since the original text did not discuss the contemplation of the three dharmas (tridharma, three laws), why does it begin by observing one's own mind and then proceed through sentient beings and Buddhas? Isn't this a misunderstanding of how to read the scriptures? In your previous writings, you firmly insisted that the dual cultivation of both internal and external contemplations (dvaya-darśana, two kinds of observation) is necessary to be called the non-duality of phenomena and principle (advaita, non-duality). How can you now change your statement and say that internal mental contemplation (antar-citta-darśana, inner mind observation) itself is the non-duality of phenomena and principle? Isn't this stealing my meaning and claiming it as your own view? Although the methods of contemplation for tathatā (suchness, true reality) and vijñānamātra (consciousness-only) are different, the subtle understanding is not different. Why do you say that those who contemplate vijñānamātra cannot immediately realize that everything is citta-mātra (mind-only), but only examine and investigate through their own ideas? If so, what is the difference between this and the contemplation of mind in the Common Teaching? Since 'Distinguishing Errors' regards the mind-created dharmas (citta-kṛta-dharma, mind-made dharmas) in the 'Selecting Realms' (jñāna-viṣaya, selecting realms) as the 'three thousand in a single thought' (ekacitta-kṣaṇa-tri-sāhasra, three thousand worlds in one thought) within the 'Wonderful Realm' (adbhuta-viṣaya, wonderful realm), and also regards the rūpa and citta (rūpa-citta, form and mind) of the dependent rewards and proper rewards that rely on external things as the realm of internal contemplation, isn't this still failing to distinguish between the two creations of phenomena and principle (dvaya-kṛta, two creations) and the two realms of internal and external (dvaya-viṣaya, two realms)? Since you encountered questions and difficulties in writing, you changed your statement, saying that the created dharmas (kṛta-dharma, created dharmas) are 'nominally created based on principle' (lakṣaṇa-samanvita-nāma-kṛta, nominally created based on principle), but are not actually created by phenomena (vastu-kṛta, created by phenomena). You also said that the 'three thousand' (tri-sāhasra, three thousand worlds) that are spoken of are the three thousand that are possessed, called 'creation,' but are not actually the creation of external phenomena. Isn't this deceiving yourself and shifting your strategy? Distinguishing Errors' finds it difficult to understand the meaning of 'fearing the mind turning outward' (bahirmukha-citta, mind turning outward), why are you not afraid of the mind turning outward? You only say that relying on that mind is emptiness and the middle way (śūnyatā-madhyama, emptiness and the middle way). Since that mind is the mind of sentient beings and Buddhas, isn't relying on that mind turning outward? Do you still know the two realms (dvaya-viṣaya, two realms) at this time? Distinguishing Errors' says that the realms of rūpa and citta (rūpa-citta, form and mind) are both observed. Do you still know the meaning of 'selecting realms' (jñāna-viṣaya, selecting realms) at this time? You are now changing your statement, saying that 'observing principle encompasses phenomena' (dharma-saṃgraha-artha, observing principle encompasses phenomena) is willingly submitting. I say that as long as you observe the completeness of principle, it will naturally encompass the creation of phenomena (vastu-kṛta, creation of phenomena). You cannot universally take the dharmas created by phenomena as the realm relied upon by contemplation. Why did you frequently criticize not involving the two cultivations of the creation of phenomena (dvaya-sādhana-vastu-kṛta, two cultivations of the creation of phenomena) before? You are now saying again that you universally grasp all dharmas and exclusively observe the mind that is capable of creating. The intention is to use the phrase 'universally grasp' to accomplish the rūpa and citta (rūpa-citta, form and mind) of...

---

境俱觀之義。且遍攬諸法乃是妙解。總攝諸法歸心。若論修觀須的揀陰境。而觀用觀遍攬。豈免俱觀之失耶。

問義例先了萬法唯心方可觀心。仁前定云先了屬解。觀心是行今之遍攬那非解耶。

問仁今復云。若了一心即見諸法。意成色心內外俱為觀境。既云若了一心。顯是初唯觀心未涉他境。即見諸法者。乃是了悟一心具攝諸法。豈是所託事境耶。

問若觀內心理具攝一切法。便為色心之境。俱觀內外之法皆托者。或修內觀不入。更將何法為境觀之顯理耶。

問若言觀內心理具。雖攝外境事造。不妨修外觀時。的就外境事造。觀之顯理。若爾者正合予之所立非初作觀。便觀依正諸法。及未涉二修事相。何頻妄破耶。

問若不暫分內外二境。但以理攝便云俱觀者。或用正觀歷眾緣時。何異未歷時耶。

問仁立外觀只是觀色歸心。仁立內觀亦是攬外歸內。二觀如何分耶。

問義例本為邪解之師。錯謂止觀釋名已下。皆是漸圓乃將十二部經觀心之文。立頓頓觀修道即得。既謂九章帶漸。終不取彼方便正修。十境十乘度入。事法觀中修習。此師又云頻將二頓問人人無答者。終不肯咨稟良師口訣。只據見文一句為頓頓觀修道即得。遂斥之為壞驢車也。若稟師氏取彼止觀方便。十境

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：同時觀察一切境界的含義。如果普遍地攝取一切法，這是一種精妙的理解。將一切法總攝歸於一心。如果討論修習觀法，必須明確區分陰境。如果觀法的使用是普遍攝取的，那麼怎麼能避免同時觀察一切的失誤呢？ 問：按照義例，先了解萬法唯心的道理，才可以觀心。您之前確定說，先了解屬於解門。觀心是行門，現在這種普遍攝取難道不是解門嗎？ 問：您現在又說，如果瞭解一心，就能見到一切法。意思是色心內外都成為觀的對象。既然說如果瞭解一心，顯然最初只是觀心，沒有涉及其他境界。『即見諸法』，是了悟一心具足攝取一切法，難道是所依託的事境嗎？ 問：如果觀內心理具足攝取一切法，就成為色心的境界。內外之法都同時觀察，都依託于外境。或者修習內觀無法深入，還要用什麼法作為境界來觀照，從而顯現真理呢？ 問：如果說觀內心理具足，雖然攝取外境的事物，不妨礙修習外觀時，直接就外境的事物進行觀照，從而顯現真理。如果是這樣，就正好符合我所主張的，不是一開始修觀，就觀照依報和正報的一切法，以及沒有涉及兩種修習的事相。為什麼您要屢次錯誤地駁斥呢？ 問：如果不暫時區分內外兩種境界，只是用理來攝取，就說是同時觀察一切，那麼在使用正觀經歷眾多因緣時，和沒有經歷時有什麼區別呢？ 問：您所立的外觀只是觀色歸於心，您所立的內觀也是攝取外境歸於內。這兩種觀法如何區分呢？ 問：義例本來是針對邪解之師。他們錯誤地認為《止觀》的釋名以下，都是漸修圓教，於是將十二部經中觀心的文字，立為頓頓觀，認為修道立即可以成就。既然說九章帶有漸修，始終不採用其中的方便正修，以及十境十乘的度入，在事法觀中修習。這位老師又說，屢次用二頓之說詢問他人，沒有人能夠回答。始終不肯請教良師的口訣，只是根據所見文字的一句話，就認為是頓頓觀，認為修道立即可以成就。於是斥責這種說法是壞驢車。如果不請教老師，學習《止觀》的方便，十境

【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of observing all realms simultaneously. Furthermore, to universally encompass all dharmas is a subtle understanding. To gather all dharmas and return them to the mind. If discussing the practice of contemplation, one must clearly distinguish the skandha-realms (陰境, yin jing). If the application of contemplation is universal encompassing, how can one avoid the error of observing all simultaneously? Question: According to the example of meaning, one must first understand the principle of 'all dharmas are mind only' (萬法唯心, wan fa wei xin) before one can contemplate the mind. You previously stated that 'first understanding' belongs to the gate of understanding. Contemplating the mind is the gate of practice. Is this universal encompassing not the gate of understanding? Question: You now also say, 'If one understands one mind, one sees all dharmas.' The meaning is that both form and mind, internal and external, become objects of contemplation. Since it says 'If one understands one mind,' it is clear that initially one only contemplates the mind, without involving other realms. 'One sees all dharmas' means realizing that one mind fully encompasses all dharmas. Is it not the objective realm that one relies on? Question: If contemplating the inner mind fully encompasses all dharmas, it becomes the realm of form and mind. Both internal and external dharmas are observed simultaneously, relying on external realms. Or, if practicing internal contemplation cannot penetrate deeply, what dharma should be used as an object of contemplation to reveal the truth? Question: If it is said that contemplating the inner mind is complete, although it encompasses external objects and events, it does not hinder one from directly contemplating external objects and events when practicing external contemplation, thereby revealing the truth. If this is the case, it perfectly aligns with what I advocate, which is not to contemplate the dependent and principal rewards (依正, yi zheng) of all dharmas from the beginning of contemplation, nor to involve the characteristics of the two practices. Why do you repeatedly and wrongly refute it? Question: If one does not temporarily distinguish between internal and external realms, but simply uses principle to encompass them, saying that one is observing all simultaneously, then when using right contemplation to experience numerous conditions, how is it different from not experiencing them? Question: The external contemplation you establish is simply observing form and returning it to the mind. The internal contemplation you establish is also encompassing external realms and returning them internally. How are these two contemplations distinguished? Question: The example of meaning was originally directed at teachers with wrong understandings. They mistakenly believed that everything after the explanation of names in the 止觀 (zhi guan, cessation and contemplation) was gradual and perfect teaching. Therefore, they took the texts on contemplating the mind from the twelve divisions of scriptures and established them as sudden and sudden contemplation, believing that practicing the path would immediately lead to accomplishment. Since it is said that the nine chapters contain gradual practice, they never adopted the expedient right practice within them, nor the entry through the ten realms and ten vehicles, practicing within the contemplation of phenomena. This teacher also said that he repeatedly asked others about the two sudden teachings, but no one could answer. He never consulted the oral instructions of a good teacher, but only relied on a single sentence he saw in the text, believing that it was sudden and sudden contemplation, and that practicing the path would immediately lead to accomplishment. Therefore, he denounced this view as a broken donkey cart. If one does not consult a teacher and learn the expedient methods of 止觀 (zhi guan, cessation and contemplation), the ten realms

---

十乘細釋成乎妙觀。豈是驢車余文。或有此斥皆潛防此計。乃言止觀一部為妙行者。皆為防于不取大部。銷通便以一句為足者也。那例破事法觀心不得修習。儻得知識決通。豈亦成壞驢車耶。

問仁執金錍須善一家宗途。方可委究行門始末之語。謂須讀止觀者。且妙境最邃尚于言下開通。儻再請余乘。豈聞說不解。而執須讀止觀部帙耶。

問懺儀既云。不入三昧但誦持故。南嶽云。散心誦法華。不入禪三昧。亦見普賢身。那云于誦持時修十乘耶。請細看廣難一一答之。

問荊溪自云。面授口訣非後代所堪。今懸敘私記。決事法觀道有何失耶。

問妙玄觀心一釋令即聞即修。何得以聲聞悟入稍難而便不許委銷事法勸人修觀耶。

問大師說禪門六妙門。小止觀既各有人修。說諸文事法觀門。何獨無人修耶。

問大師在日聞事法觀既能修行。滅后聞之豈不能即修耶。

問若據陳都機緣減少。豈獨今日無機。抑亦玉泉虛唱傳法本令誘物。而卻約時退人還善為師否。

問輔行雲。若依五略修行證果。能利他者自是一途。此指不須廣聞為自是一途。何得類同頑境。踏心之一途耶。

問若執方便純解無行者。或習方便時欲蓋數起。還須用圓觀呵棄否。或因慈悟理還入位否況

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 十乘觀法詳細解釋成就了妙觀。難道是像驢車上多餘的文字嗎？或許有人這樣指責，都是爲了暗中防備這種想法。所以說《止觀》一部對於修妙行的人來說，都是爲了防止他們不取大部，認為只要通達一句就足夠了。那怎麼能用破事法觀心（指只破斥事相，不觀照自心）的例子，來說明不能修習呢？如果能得到善知識的決斷開通，難道也會像驢車一樣壞掉嗎？

問：如果執著于仁，需要拿著金錍（一種醫療器械，這裡比喻辨別是非的智慧）精通一家宗派的途徑，才可以詳細探究修行法門的始終嗎？如果說必須讀《止觀》，那麼妙境最深邃的地方，尚且可以在言語之下開悟通達。如果再請教其他乘的教法，難道會因為聽了不理解，就執著于必須讀《止觀》的全部內容嗎？

問：懺儀既然說，不入三昧，只是誦持，南嶽慧思禪師也說，散亂心誦《法華經》，不入禪三昧，也能見到普賢菩薩的身相。那為什麼說在誦持的時候不能修十乘觀法呢？請詳細看看廣難（指《摩訶止觀》中的廣破），一一回答這些問題。

問：荊溪湛然大師自己說，面授口訣不是後代人所能承受的。現在懸敘私記（指根據自己的理解來解釋），決斷事法觀的道理，有什麼過失呢？

問：《妙玄》（指《法華玄義》）用觀心來解釋，使人能夠立即聽聞立即修習。為什麼因為聲聞乘的悟入稍微困難，就不允許詳細解釋事法，勸人修習觀行呢？

問：智者大師說了禪門的六妙門，《小止觀》也各有各的人修習。說了各種文字事法觀的法門，為什麼唯獨沒有人修習呢？

問：智者大師在世的時候，聽聞事法觀就能修行。滅度之後，聽聞事法觀難道就不能立即修行了嗎？

問：如果按照陳朝首都的機緣減少來說，難道只有今天沒有機緣嗎？還是說玉泉寺虛假地宣揚傳法，本來是爲了引導眾生，卻反而因為時機不對而使人退卻，這算是善於做老師嗎？

問：《輔行記》說，如果依據五略（指《止觀》中的五略釋）修行證果，能夠利益他人，這自然是一條途徑。這裡指的是不需要廣泛聽聞，作為一條途徑。怎麼能把它和頑固不化的境界，只知道踏心（指只注重內心觀照）的途徑相提並論呢？

問：如果執著于方便法門只是純粹的理解，沒有實際的修行，或者在學習方便法門的時候，想要掩蓋自己的過失，還需不需要用圓頓止觀來呵斥拋棄呢？或者因為慈悲而悟入真理，還能進入相應的位次嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: The detailed explanation of the Ten Vehicles perfects the Wonderful Contemplation. Is it like superfluous writing on a donkey cart? Perhaps some criticize it, but this is all to secretly guard against such thoughts. Therefore, it is said that the entire 'Mohe Zhiguan' (Great Calming and Contemplation) is for those who practice wonderful conduct, to prevent them from not taking the larger text, thinking that understanding just one phrase is sufficient. How can we use the example of rejecting phenomena and not contemplating the mind (referring to only criticizing phenomena without contemplating one's own mind) to argue that one cannot practice? If one can obtain the decisive understanding of a good teacher, would it also break down like a donkey cart?

Question: If one is attached to benevolence, does one need to hold the golden scalpel (a medical instrument, used here as a metaphor for the wisdom to discern right and wrong) and be proficient in the path of one particular school, in order to thoroughly investigate the beginning and end of the practice method? If it is said that one must read the 'Zhiguan', then even the deepest aspects of the wonderful realm can be understood upon hearing the words. If one were to ask about the teachings of other vehicles, would one cling to needing to read the entire 'Zhiguan' simply because one doesn't understand what is being said?

Question: Since the repentance ritual says that one does not enter samadhi but merely recites, and Zen Master Huisi of Nanyue also said that reciting the 'Lotus Sutra' with a scattered mind, without entering samadhi, can also see the body of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, then why is it said that one cannot practice the Ten Vehicles of Contemplation while reciting? Please examine the extensive refutations (referring to the extensive refutations in the 'Mohe Zhiguan') in detail and answer these questions one by one.

Question: Master Zhanran of Jingxi himself said that oral instructions are not something that later generations can handle. Now, explaining based on personal notes (referring to explaining based on one's own understanding), what fault is there in deciding the principles of phenomena and contemplation?

Question: The 'Miaoxuan' (referring to the 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') uses contemplation of the mind to explain, enabling people to immediately hear and immediately practice. Why, because the enlightenment of the Sravaka Vehicle is slightly difficult, is one not allowed to explain phenomena in detail and encourage people to practice contemplation?

Question: Master Zhiyi spoke of the Six Subtle Gates of Zen, and the 'Lesser Calming and Contemplation' is practiced by various people. Having spoken of various textual and phenomenal contemplation methods, why is it that no one practices them?

Question: When Master Zhiyi was alive, hearing about phenomenal contemplation enabled practice. After his passing, is it not possible to immediately practice upon hearing about phenomenal contemplation?

Question: If we say that opportunities have decreased since the capital of the Chen Dynasty, is it only today that there are no opportunities? Or is it that Yuquan Temple is falsely proclaiming the transmission of the Dharma, originally intending to guide beings, but instead causing people to retreat due to the wrong timing, and is this considered being a good teacher?

Question: The 'Fuxingji' (Commentary on Mohe Zhiguan) says that if one practices and attains enlightenment based on the Five Summaries (referring to the Five Summaries in the 'Zhiguan'), and is able to benefit others, this is naturally one path. This refers to not needing to hear extensively, as one path. How can it be compared to the stubborn state of mind, only knowing the path of stepping on the mind (referring to only focusing on inner contemplation)?

Question: If one clings to the expedient teachings as purely intellectual understanding without actual practice, or if one wants to cover up one's faults while learning the expedient teachings, is it still necessary to use the perfect and sudden contemplation to scold and discard them? Or, if one awakens to the truth through compassion, can one still enter the corresponding position?

---

云初心即可修習仍結六即耶。

問夫論法門需求其意。不可以名相多少。為論釋名等四章三觀名相雖多。意謂生於止觀之解釋。法無眾生名相雖少。意成中道生空之觀。得意之師依章善消。豈不成乎解行耶。

問仁用違文背義各十段文難。子不尋止觀即修附法。若得良師取意決通何須尋讀止觀。既蒙勸進可不即修此義。既成更問何耶。

問始從發揮至答疑書。皆以談于妙性真理便為觀心。因何改云觀六識妄心。成三諦真心。此義因誰解耶。

問始從扶宗觀。於一念識心及諸義狀。皆立因心為境。那枉抑予不許觀于妄心。仁於何時說觀妄心予不許耶。

問示珠既云心非因果。還是偏指清凈真如否。

問若轉計云色由心造。但示心即妙理者。自己報色且由心造。生佛各有能造之心。何不皆即妙理。何故定作因果事釋耶。

問予立三法各具二造。何文謂生佛約色論造。豈非三各二造。示珠全無此義。仁欲翻為己見說之。遂先加誙色造之失。作偷義之計。便自約心各論二造此之賊心。仁當自省謂無報耶。

問示珠何文。曾言生佛約心論能造耶。

問三法各論二造。互具互攝方名無差。示珠於六義中心之事造尚不全。以約心論能造故。余之五義本非擬議還甘伏否。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 云初心（剛開始修習的人）即可修習，仍然會受到六即（六個階段的修行）的束縛嗎？

問：關於討論佛法，應該尋求其意，不可以名相的多少來衡量。例如，論釋名等四章，三觀的名相雖然很多，但其意義在於解釋止觀。法無眾生，名相雖然很少，但其意義在於成就中道生空的觀。如果能遇到理解佛法真意的老師，依靠這些章節就能很好地理解，難道不能成就解行嗎？

問：仁者（指提問者所稱呼的對象）用違背經文和意義的各十段文字來為難我。你不去尋找止觀的真意，就依附於表面的法則。如果能遇到好的老師，領會其意，融會貫通，又何必去尋找和閱讀止觀呢？既然蒙受勸進，難道不應該立即修習這個道理嗎？既然已經成就，又何必再問呢？

問：從開始的發揮到答疑書，都以談論妙性真理作為觀心。為什麼現在又改為觀六識妄心，成就三諦真心呢？這個道理是誰解釋的呢？

問：從開始扶宗觀，在一念識心以及各種義理狀態中，都立足於因心為境。為什麼冤枉地說我不允許觀妄心呢？你（仁者）在什麼時候說過觀妄心，而我不允許呢？

問：示珠（指《摩訶止觀》）既然說心非因果，還是偏指清凈真如（指佛性）嗎？

問：如果轉而認為色（指物質現象）由心所造，但只是指示心就是妙理，那麼，自己的報色（指由業力感召的色身）且由心所造，眾生和佛各有能造的心，為什麼不能都立即是妙理呢？為什麼一定要用因果關係來解釋呢？

問：我立足於三法（指色法、心法、非色非心法）各自具有二造（指能造和所造），哪段經文說生佛是就色法來論造作的？難道不是三法各自具有二造嗎？示珠完全沒有這個意思。你想要翻轉成自己的見解來說，於是先加上『誙色造』的過失，作為偷換概念的計策，然後自己就心法各自論二造。這種賊心，你應當自我反省，說沒有報應嗎？

問：示珠哪段經文曾經說過生佛是就心法來論能造的呢？

問：三法各自論二造，互相具備，互相包含，才叫做沒有差別。示珠在六義（指《摩訶止觀》中的六個綱領）中心的事情造作尚且不完整，因為是就心法來論能造的緣故。其餘的五義本來就不是用來擬議的，還甘心認輸嗎？

【English Translation】 English version Can a beginner (one who has just started practicing) immediately cultivate and still be bound by the Six Identities (six stages of practice)?

Question: When discussing the Dharma, one should seek its meaning and not measure it by the number of terms. For example, although the terms in the four chapters on explanation of names, etc., and the Three Contemplations are numerous, their meaning lies in explaining cessation and contemplation (止觀). Although the term 'Dharma without sentient beings' is few, its meaning lies in achieving the contemplation of the Middle Way and emptiness of inherent existence. If one can encounter a teacher who understands the true meaning of the Dharma, relying on these chapters can lead to good understanding. Wouldn't that lead to the accomplishment of understanding and practice?

Question: You (referring to the person being questioned) use ten passages that contradict the scriptures and their meaning to make things difficult for me. You don't seek the true meaning of cessation and contemplation but cling to the superficial rules. If one can encounter a good teacher, grasp the meaning, and achieve thorough understanding, why bother searching for and reading cessation and contemplation? Since I have been encouraged to advance, shouldn't I immediately cultivate this principle? Since it has already been accomplished, why ask again?

Question: From the initial exposition to the question-and-answer book, discussing the wondrous nature and true principle has been regarded as contemplating the mind. Why has it now been changed to contemplating the deluded mind of the six consciousnesses and achieving the true mind of the Three Truths? Who explained this principle?

Question: From the beginning of supporting the doctrinal view, in the single thought of consciousness and various states of meaning, the causal mind is established as the object. Why do you wrongly accuse me of not allowing the contemplation of the deluded mind? When did you (the questioner) say to contemplate the deluded mind, and I didn't allow it?

Question: Since the 'Showing the Pearl' (referring to Mahāyāna Samatha-vipassanā) says that the mind is neither cause nor effect, does it still refer specifically to pure true suchness (referring to Buddha-nature)?

Question: If one turns to the view that form (referring to material phenomena) is created by the mind, but only indicates that the mind is the wondrous principle, then one's own retribution body (referring to the physical body caused by karma) is also created by the mind. Since sentient beings and Buddhas each have a mind that can create, why can't they all immediately be the wondrous principle? Why must it be explained in terms of cause and effect?

Question: I establish that the Three Dharmas (referring to form, mind, and neither form nor mind) each possess two creations (referring to the ability to create and what is created). Which passage says that sentient beings and Buddhas discuss creation in terms of form? Isn't it that the Three Dharmas each possess two creations? The 'Showing the Pearl' completely lacks this meaning. You want to reverse it into your own view, so you first add the fault of 'creating form,' as a trick to steal the concept, and then you discuss the two creations of each mind. Shouldn't you reflect on this thieving mind and say there is no retribution?

Question: Which passage in the 'Showing the Pearl' ever said that sentient beings and Buddhas discuss the ability to create in terms of the mind?

Question: The Three Dharmas each discuss two creations, mutually possessing and mutually including each other, which is called without difference. In the 'Showing the Pearl,' the creation of the mind in the Six Meanings (referring to the six guiding principles in Mahāyāna Samatha-vipassanā) is not complete because it discusses the ability to create in terms of the mind. The remaining five meanings were not originally intended for discussion, are you willing to admit defeat?

---

問示珠設問本定經中三無差語。為就三人論。為約一人說答中約心迷悟論生佛畢。即明判云示本末因果不二。故云三無差別豈非定判。經中三法在於一人。那得抵諱翻轉作了己知他救之耶。

問既不約因心。論乎二造則不善了已。若例他亦以真心造事則不善知他。如此了知有何益耶。

問妙玄三法皆判屬事。示珠何故作一理二事判耶。

問止觀二境觀法。全在名字中。示因何答疑書五番言修二觀。皆在觀行五品位中。偶一回云五品初心便自歸觀行。那於今來改轉。將五品初心卻為名字。既朗自結歸觀行。如何翻改為名字耶。

問止觀八種觀成顯云初品。因何答疑書五番。言觀成皆在相似。況五番說五品方修二觀。卻言初品觀成。誰不知之得非彰灼欺誑耶。

問不二門結境智行。三法相符設位簡濫。豈非六即之位揀三法之濫。況證果起用不離三法。仁何抑之但在凡位耶。

問若境智行局在初住前位。因何妙樂通果說耶。

問若智局在名字不通后位。豈可行時全無于目。若二凡無智。則名字無境。豈非五即皆無佛性耶。

問若位位中以正行為智。將助行為行明智妙。既至極果行妙。因何更明正行。又妙樂智三既在妙覺。豈等覺來唯修助行耶。

問仁執正釋三

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：《示珠設問本定經》中『三無差語』，是就三個人來討論，還是就一個人來說？答：其中是就心迷悟來討論眾生和佛的差別。即明確判斷說，顯示本末因果是不二的，所以說『三無差別』，這難道不是明確的判斷嗎？經中的三法在於一人，怎麼能抵賴翻轉，當作自己知道而求他人救助呢？ 問：既然不就因心來討論二造，那麼就不能很好地瞭解自己。如果效仿他人也用真心造事，就不能很好地瞭解他人。這樣瞭解有什麼益處呢？ 問：《妙玄》中三法都判屬事相，為什麼《示珠》要作一理二事的判別呢？ 問：《止觀》中二境觀法，全都在名字中。為什麼《示因何答疑書》五次說修二觀，都在觀行五品位中。偶爾一次說五品初心便自然歸於觀行，為什麼現在又來改變，將五品初心卻作為名字？既然朗然自結歸於觀行，如何翻轉改為名字呢？ 問：《止觀》八種觀成顯示說在初品，為什麼《答疑書》五次說觀成都在相似位？況且五次說五品才修二觀，卻說初品觀成，誰不知道這不是明顯地欺騙嗎？ 問：《不二門》總結境智行，三法相符，設立位次來區分，難道不是用六即的位次來區分三法的錯亂嗎？況且證果起用不離三法，您為什麼壓制它只在凡位呢？ 問：如果境智行侷限在初住前位，為什麼《妙樂》通果來說呢？ 問：如果智侷限在名字不通后位，難道修行時完全沒有目標嗎？如果二凡沒有智，那麼名字就沒有境，難道五即都沒有佛性嗎？ 問：如果位位中以正行為智，將助行為行，說明智的微妙。既然到了極果行妙，為什麼還要說明正行？又《妙樂》智三既然在妙覺位，難道等覺位來唯修助行嗎？ 問：您執著正釋三

【English Translation】 English version Question: In the 『Three Non-Differential Words』 of the 『Showing the Pearl Sutra』 (Shi Zhu She Wen Ben Ding Jing), are they discussed in relation to three individuals, or are they spoken about one person? Answer: They are discussed in terms of the delusion and enlightenment of the mind, concerning sentient beings and Buddhas. It is clearly judged that showing the origin, end, cause, and effect are non-dual, hence the saying 『Three Non-Differential.』 Isn't this a definitive judgment? The three dharmas in the sutra reside in one person. How can one deny and reverse this, treating it as if one knows it oneself and seeks help from others? Question: Since you don't discuss the two creations based on the causal mind, then you cannot understand yourself well. If you imitate others and also create things with a true mind, then you cannot understand others well. What benefit is there in understanding in this way? Question: In 『Profound Meaning』 (Miao Xuan), all three dharmas are judged to belong to phenomena. Why does 『Showing the Pearl』 (Shi Zhu) make a distinction between one principle and two phenomena? Question: In 『Cessation and Contemplation』 (Zhi Guan), the two realms and contemplation methods are entirely within the realm of names. Why does 『Showing the Cause and Answering Doubts』 (Shi Yin He Da Yi Shu) say five times that cultivating the two contemplations is within the five stages of practice? Occasionally, it says that the initial mind of the five stages naturally returns to contemplation and practice. Why change this now, taking the initial mind of the five stages as names? Since it clearly concludes that it belongs to contemplation and practice, how can it be reversed and changed to names? Question: 『Cessation and Contemplation』 (Zhi Guan) shows that the accomplishment of the eight contemplations is in the initial stage. Why does 『Answering Doubts』 (Da Yi Shu) say five times that the accomplishment of contemplation is all in the stage of resemblance? Moreover, it says five times that the five stages are when the two contemplations are cultivated, yet it says that the accomplishment of contemplation is in the initial stage. Who doesn't know that this is blatant deception? Question: 『The Non-Dual Gate』 (Bu Er Men) summarizes the realm, wisdom, and practice. The three dharmas are consistent, and positions are established to distinguish them. Isn't this using the positions of the Six Identities (Liu Ji) to distinguish the confusion of the three dharmas? Moreover, the arising of function from the realization of the fruit is inseparable from the three dharmas. Why do you suppress it and say it only exists in the position of ordinary beings? Question: If the realm, wisdom, and practice are limited to the position before the initial dwelling (Chu Zhu), why does 『Wonderful Joy』 (Miao Le) speak of it as pervading the fruit? Question: If wisdom is limited to names and does not pervade later positions, then is there no goal at all during practice? If the two ordinary beings have no wisdom, then names have no realm. Isn't it that the Five Identities (Wu Ji) all have no Buddha-nature? Question: If in each position, right practice is taken as wisdom, and auxiliary practice is taken as practice, clarifying the subtlety of wisdom. Since the ultimate fruit of practice is subtle, why is it necessary to clarify right practice further? Moreover, since the three of 『Wonderful Joy』 (Miao Le) and wisdom are in the 『Wonderful Enlightenment』 (Miao Jue) position, is it that only auxiliary practice is cultivated from the 『Equal Enlightenment』 (Deng Jue) position onwards? Question: You adhere to the correct interpretation of the three

---

法全無修二性一。今那自許八種三法是修二性一耶。

問不二門本論一切三法離合。仁堅執只約三因說離合。今那八種有離合耶。

問今觀心前。先約離明觀識。次約合示曆法。豈須就前離論於後合。如正釋三智約離。次釋三因約合。豈云離則三智。合則緣了。豈智唯空行惟假耶。

問若合三智之解爲了。三脫之行為緣。顯發性三為正。如此約開論合有何等過。那得枉云開則三觀合則空假耶。

問妙玄雲。生佛高廣難觀觀心則易。此玄十種果法正當太高。那云談此便不用觀心耶。

問諸文事法之後所明觀心。豈非舍難取易。仁廢觀心自以果法為理觀。豈非舍易取難耶。

問十義書引凈名玄。約教明三身三脫為事解。后更約觀心明三身三脫。仁但謂彼之事解。與今三涅槃惑畢竟不生等不齊。何不具說不齊之義耶。

問仁今又云。凈名玄三身與法無眾生義齊否。未知欲與彼事釋觀釋何義論齊不齊何不顯說耶。

問此玄十法約乎果證。該及迷因其間。具示自行化他。若智若行何得名為于諸佛法邊。直談理性耶。

問妙玄起五心中乃先出觀心。一解之意觀心解中既皆約陰論觀。何得以不待陰境銷。于起五心中不待觀境之文。

問釋簽不待觀境方名修觀。乃是預

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：一切法門最終都歸於無修、二性、一實相。現在你為何自詡八種三法（指天臺宗的八種三法，如三觀、三諦等）是修、二性、一實相呢？

問：《不二門論》原本討論一切三法的離合（分離與結合）。你卻堅持只就三因佛性（正因佛性、了因佛性、緣因佛性）來談離合。現在這八種三法，哪一種有離合呢？

問：現在觀心之前，先用分離的方式來闡明觀識（觀照認識），再用結合的方式來展示曆法（經歷各種修行方法）。難道需要在前面的分離討論之後，再討論後面的結合嗎？比如，正確地解釋三智（一切智、道種智、一切種智）時用分離的方式，接著解釋三因時用結合的方式。難道能說分離時是三智，結合時是緣了（緣因佛性和了因佛性）嗎？難道智慧只是空，修行只是假嗎？

問：如果將結合三智的理解作爲了因佛性，將三脫（空解脫門、無相解脫門、無作解脫門）的行為作為緣因佛性，將顯發性三（法身、般若、解脫）作為正因佛性，這樣用開合的方式來討論，有什麼過錯呢？為何要枉自說成，分開時是三觀，結合時是空假（空觀和假觀）呢？

問：《妙法蓮華經玄義》說，生佛（眾生和佛）的高深廣大難以觀察，觀心則容易。這部《玄義》的十種果法（指佛果的十種功德）正當太高深。為何說談論這些就不用觀心了呢？

問：各種經文在闡述事相和法則之後，都闡明觀心，這難道不是捨棄困難而選取容易的嗎？你廢棄觀心，自己用果法作為理觀，難道不是捨棄容易而選取困難的嗎？

問：《十義書》引用《凈名玄》（《維摩經玄疏》），用教相來闡明三身（法身、報身、應身）和三脫，作為事相上的解釋。之後又用觀心來闡明三身和三脫。你只說那部《玄疏》的事相解釋，與現在所說的三涅槃（性凈涅槃、圓凈涅槃、方便凈涅槃）和惑畢竟不生等不一致。為何不具體說明不一致的含義呢？

問：你現在又說，《凈名玄》的三身與法無眾生義是否一致。不知道你是想用彼書的事相解釋還是觀心解釋，用什麼意義來討論一致與不一致？為何不明確說明呢？

問：這部《玄義》的十法（指十種修行方法）是關於果證的，也包括迷因（迷惑的原因），其中詳細地展示了自行化他（自己修行和教化他人）。無論是智慧還是修行，怎麼能說它只是在諸佛法方面，直接談論理性呢？

問：《妙玄》發起五心（發菩提心等五種心）時，首先提出觀心。一種解釋認為，觀心的解釋中都用五陰（色、受、想、行、識）來討論觀照。為何能以不等待五陰之境消融，在發起五心中不等待觀境的經文為理由呢？

問：《釋簽》（《妙法蓮華經玄義釋簽》）說，不等待觀境才名為修觀，這是一種預先的準備。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: All Dharma gates ultimately lead to non-cultivation, two natures, and one reality. Why do you now claim that the eight kinds of three dharmas (referring to the eight kinds of three dharmas in Tiantai Buddhism, such as the three contemplations, three truths, etc.) are cultivation, two natures, and one reality?

Question: The original 'Non-Dual Gate Treatise' discusses the separation and combination of all three dharmas. You insist on only discussing the separation and combination in terms of the three causal Buddha-natures (the Buddha-nature of the direct cause, the Buddha-nature of the enlightening cause, and the Buddha-nature of the conditional cause). Now, which of these eight kinds of three dharmas has separation and combination?

Question: Before contemplating the mind now, first use separation to clarify the contemplation of consciousness, and then use combination to show the progression through the Dharma. Is it necessary to discuss the subsequent combination after the previous separation discussion? For example, when correctly explaining the three wisdoms (all-knowing wisdom, wisdom of the path, and wisdom of all kinds), use separation, and then when explaining the three causes, use combination. Can it be said that separation is the three wisdoms, and combination is the conditional and enlightening causes? Is wisdom only emptiness, and practice only illusion?

Question: If the understanding of combining the three wisdoms is taken as the enlightening cause, the practice of the three liberations (emptiness liberation gate, signlessness liberation gate, and wishlessness liberation gate) as the conditional cause, and the manifestation of the three natures (Dharmakaya, Prajna, and Liberation) as the direct cause, what is wrong with discussing it in terms of opening and closing? Why wrongly say that separation is the three contemplations, and combination is emptiness and illusion?

Question: The 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra' says that the height and breadth of sentient beings and Buddhas are difficult to observe, but contemplating the mind is easy. The ten kinds of fruit dharmas (referring to the ten merits of Buddhahood) in this 'Profound Meaning' are indeed too profound. Why say that discussing these means there is no need to contemplate the mind?

Question: After explaining phenomena and principles, various scriptures all clarify the contemplation of the mind. Isn't this abandoning the difficult and choosing the easy? You abandon the contemplation of the mind and use the fruit dharmas as theoretical contemplation. Isn't this abandoning the easy and choosing the difficult?

Question: The 'Ten Meanings Treatise' quotes the 'Profound Meaning of Vimalakirti Sutra', using the doctrinal aspect to clarify the three bodies (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya) and the three liberations as explanations on the phenomenal level. Later, it uses the contemplation of the mind to clarify the three bodies and the three liberations. You only say that the phenomenal explanation of that 'Profound Meaning' is inconsistent with the three Nirvanas (self-nature purity Nirvana, complete purity Nirvana, and expedient Nirvana) and the non-arising of delusion. Why not specifically explain the meaning of the inconsistency?

Question: You now say, are the three bodies in the 'Profound Meaning of Vimalakirti Sutra' consistent with the meaning of Dharma without sentient beings? I don't know whether you want to use the phenomenal explanation or the contemplation explanation of that book, and what meaning to use to discuss consistency and inconsistency? Why not clearly explain it?

Question: The ten dharmas (referring to the ten kinds of practice) in this 'Profound Meaning' are about the fruit of realization, and also include the causes of delusion, in which the self-cultivation and the teaching of others are shown in detail. Whether it is wisdom or practice, how can it be said that it is only directly discussing rationality in the aspect of the Buddhas' Dharma?

Question: When the 'Profound Meaning' initiates the five minds (such as the mind of Bodhi), it first puts forward the contemplation of the mind. One explanation is that the explanation of the contemplation of the mind uses the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) to discuss contemplation. Why can you use the reason that it does not wait for the realm of the five skandhas to dissolve, and that in initiating the five minds, it does not wait for the text of the realm of contemplation?

Question: The 'Explanation of the Commentary' says that not waiting for the realm of contemplation to be named cultivation is a preliminary preparation.

---

出觀解之意。實未正明觀解。何得輒謂是觀心之式樣耶。

問若轉計云自道不待揀云陰境。不道不待通示陰境且釋簽。今消示陰之文皆入觀門。若不揀陰那得入于觀門耶。

問彼觀心文云。三界無別法皆是一心作。止觀大意皆以此示揀陰。妙玄觀心何獨非耶。又既在觀心文中。豈以愿境及生解銷之耶。

問仁轉計云。自是久修止觀行人。攝法入於三千三諦。心中不待玄文揀示陰境。此說甚違釋簽自令講者銷入觀門。乃是宗師取意揀示故不待止觀教文故云即聞即修。那云學者自能。

問仁又報云。未習止觀。即聞事法乃知。須依止觀修之。此則固違妙玄即聞即修之說。既須待止觀揀境示妙教文。豈非又違釋簽。不待觀境之語耶。

問若不攝事法入乎陰。心修觀顯發。何名攝事成理耶。

問若云不待觀境之文。是觀心式樣者。縱云不待陰境。豈不待精進而修耶。

問諸事法觀未明。揀境尚須精進修之。此玄觀心既揀那不可修耶。

問既許不二門。撮乎十妙為止觀大體。那不許諸得意。師將十門妙意入事法中為觀體耶。

問大師說此十法開解之。后即合策眾觀心故有觀法。章安制大經玄義。既非對眾時節。又艱但宣教義托后師氏。比望餘部示人。學者因茲諳練。豈

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

關於出觀解的意義。實際上並沒有正確地闡明觀解，怎麼能隨便說這是觀心的模式呢？ 問：如果轉而認為，自己所說的並不需要揀擇五陰境界（yun yin jing jie，構成生命的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識），不說不需要通過開示來了解五陰境界，且看《釋簽》（shi qian，天臺宗的註釋書）。現在解釋開示五陰的文字都進入了觀門。如果不揀擇五陰，又怎麼能進入觀門呢？ 問：那篇觀心文說：『三界沒有別的法，都是一心所造。』《止觀》（zhi guan，天臺宗的重要著作，意為止息妄念，觀察真理）的大意都是用這個來開示揀擇五陰。為什麼《妙玄》（miao xuan，《法華玄義》的簡稱）的觀心就不是這樣呢？而且既然在觀心文中，難道可以用愿境和生解來消除它嗎？ 問：仁者轉而認為，自己是長期修習止觀的修行人，能夠將一切法攝入三千和三諦（san di，空諦、假諦、中諦）之中，心中不需要《玄文》（xuan wen，《法華玄義》的文字）來開示揀擇五陰境界。這種說法非常違背《釋簽》中讓講者將五陰境界消歸入觀門的意思。這實際上是宗師取其意來揀擇開示，所以不需要止觀的教文，因此說『即聞即修』。怎麼能說是學者自己能夠做到的呢？ 問：仁者又說：『沒有學習止觀，即使聽到事法，也知道必須依照止觀來修習。』這顯然違背了《妙玄》中『即聞即修』的說法。既然需要等待止觀來揀擇境界，開示微妙的教文，難道不是又違背了《釋簽》中不需要觀境的說法嗎？ 問：如果不將事法攝入五陰，心中修觀就不能顯發，那又怎麼能稱為攝事成理呢？ 問：如果說不需要觀境的文字，是觀心的模式，那麼即使說不需要五陰境界，難道不需要精進而修習嗎？ 問：各種事法的觀行還沒有明白，揀擇境界尚且需要精進修習。這《玄觀》（xuan guan，《法華玄義》中的觀法）既然已經揀擇了，那為什麼不可以修習呢？ 問：既然允許不二門概括十妙作為止觀的大體，為什麼不允許那些有所得意的老師將十門妙意融入事法中作為觀體呢？ 問：大師用這十法來開解，之後就集合大家一起觀心，所以有觀法。章安製作《大經玄義》（da jing xuan yi，《涅槃經玄義》的簡稱），既不是面對大眾的時節，又困難，只是宣講教義，託付給後來的師氏，比照其他部分來開示他人。學者因此而熟悉練習，難道

【English Translation】 English version:

Regarding the meaning of 'emerging from contemplation and understanding'. In reality, the meaning of contemplation and understanding has not been correctly clarified. How can it be casually said that this is a model for contemplating the mind? Question: If one were to argue that one's own words do not require discerning the five skandhas (yun yin jing jie, the five aggregates that constitute a person: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), and that one does not need to understand the realm of the five skandhas through explanation, then consider the 'Annotations to the Words' (shi qian, a commentary in the Tiantai school). Now, the texts explaining and revealing the skandhas all enter the gate of contemplation. If the skandhas are not discerned, how can one enter the gate of contemplation? Question: That text on contemplating the mind says: 'The three realms have no separate dharmas; all are created by the one mind.' The main idea of 'Cessation and Contemplation' (zhi guan, an important text in the Tiantai school, meaning to stop illusions and observe truth) is to use this to reveal the discernment of the skandhas. Why is the contemplation of the mind in 'Profound Meaning' (miao xuan, abbreviation for 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') not like this? Moreover, since it is in the text on contemplating the mind, can it be eliminated with aspirational states and arising understanding? Question: The benevolent one argues that they are a practitioner who has long cultivated cessation and contemplation, capable of incorporating all dharmas into the three thousand realms and the three truths (san di, the truths of emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way). In their mind, they do not need the 'Profound Text' (xuan wen, the text of 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') to reveal the discernment of the skandhas. This statement greatly contradicts the meaning in 'Annotations to the Words' of having the speaker assimilate the realm of the skandhas into the gate of contemplation. This is actually the master taking its meaning to discern and reveal, so it does not need the teachings of cessation and contemplation. Therefore, it is said 'hearing and practicing immediately'. How can it be said that the student is capable of doing it themselves? Question: The benevolent one also says: 'Without studying cessation and contemplation, even if one hears about phenomena, one knows that one must practice according to cessation and contemplation.' This clearly contradicts the statement in 'Profound Meaning' of 'hearing and practicing immediately'. Since one needs to wait for cessation and contemplation to discern the realm and reveal the subtle teachings, does this not contradict the statement in 'Annotations to the Words' of not needing the realm of contemplation? Question: If one does not incorporate phenomena into the skandhas, and contemplation in the mind cannot manifest, then how can it be called incorporating phenomena into principle? Question: If it is said that the text of not needing the realm of contemplation is a model for contemplating the mind, then even if it is said that one does not need the realm of the skandhas, does one not need to diligently cultivate? Question: The contemplation of various phenomena is not yet clear, and discerning the realm still requires diligent cultivation. Since this 'Profound Contemplation' (xuan guan, the contemplation method in 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') has already discerned, then why can it not be cultivated? Question: Since it is permitted that the non-dual gate encompasses the ten subtleties as the main body of cessation and contemplation, why is it not permitted that those teachers who have gained insight incorporate the subtle meaning of the ten gates into phenomena as the body of contemplation? Question: The Great Master used these ten dharmas to explain and reveal, and then gathered everyone together to contemplate the mind, so there is a method of contemplation. Zhang'an created the 'Profound Meaning of the Great Sutra' (da jing xuan yi, abbreviation for 'Profound Meaning of the Nirvana Sutra'), which was neither a time for facing the public, nor easy, but only expounded the teachings and entrusted them to later teachers, comparing them to other parts to reveal them to others. Students therefore become familiar with practice, could it be that

---

是自尋諸部耶。

問初習玄疏事法之觀人師取其止觀通釋。如引眾經說乎止觀修入者。豈名眾經修入耶。

問若先習止觀未悟。今歷事法觀門得悟。如將無生觀法度入生門。豈名無生門悟耶。

問予引義例唯達法性不云達陰。既是端坐十乘。豈不達陰為法性。用例攝事成理雖不云入陰。后觀解中既立陰境。驗須攝事入陰觀理。方名攝事成理。仁那枉云意謂法性不關三千耶。

問仁答疑書中引此文。正圓談法性義同理觀。理觀既不達陰驗。仁當時不知約行須觀陰心。若不爾者。何故。引此證無陰理觀耶。

問妙玄以三軌通十法。此玄以無量甚深法性貫十法。因何此中獨得云以法性融法耶。

問若妙玄尚不以法性融圓果十法。何能融余因果。又何能開二乘耶。

問答疑書明說彼玄不以法性融故。故用觀心觀前十法。今那轉云觀三教三軌。及援引文相耶。

問妙玄三教三軌。既云從一開三。又一一皆以如來藏攝。何得卻用觀心融之。此玄三教十法。未云從實開出未成藏理融攝。何以卻不用觀心融耶。

問義例自云託事導情。何得自撰附法觀情耶。

問若託事一向導情全無修相。何故耆山觀中。令於此明方便正修耶。

問縱云附汝遣執教忘行之情者。妙

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是自己從各個經典中尋找的嗎？

問：初學者學習玄疏（Xuanshu，對《妙法蓮華經玄義》的註釋）的事法之觀，應該向什麼樣的老師學習，才能通達止觀（zhiguan，止和觀，佛教的兩種修行方法）的通釋？如果引用眾多經典來說明止觀的修習入門，難道就叫做從眾多經典修習入門嗎？

問：如果先前學習止觀沒有領悟，現在通過歷事法觀的門徑而領悟，如同將無生觀（wusheng guan，不生不滅的觀法）的方法匯入生門（sheng men，有生有滅的法門），難道就叫做從無生門領悟嗎？

問：我所引用的義例只闡述了法性（faxing，諸法實相），沒有闡述陰（yin，五陰，構成人身的五種要素）。既然是端坐十乘觀法，難道不是以通達五陰為法性嗎？用義例來統攝事相，從而成就道理，即使沒有說進入五陰，但後來的觀解中既然設立了陰境，驗證必須統攝事相進入五陰的觀理，才能稱作統攝事相成就道理。仁那（Renna，人名）枉自說意謂法性不關涉三千（sanqian，三千世界）嗎？

問：仁那在答疑書中引用此文，正是爲了圓滿地談論法性的意義，等同於理觀（liguan，觀理）。理觀既然沒有通達五陰的驗證，仁那當時不知道依修行必須觀五陰之心。如果不是這樣，為什麼引用此文來證明沒有五陰的理觀呢？

問：《妙玄》（Miaoxuan，《妙法蓮華經玄義》的簡稱）用三軌（sangui，三種教化方式）貫通十法（shifa，十種修行方法），此玄（cixuan，指另一部玄義）用無量甚深的法性貫通十法，為什麼只有此玄才能說用以法性來融合諸法呢？

問：如果《妙玄》尚且不能用以法性來融合圓果（yuanguo，圓滿的果報）的十法，又怎麼能融合其餘的因果呢？又怎麼能開顯二乘（ercheng，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）呢？

問：答疑書中明明說彼玄（bixuan，指另一部玄義）不用法性來融合，所以用觀心（guanxin，觀心的方法）來觀前十法。現在為什麼反而說觀三教（sanjiao，三種教法）的三軌，並且援引經文呢？

問：《妙玄》的三教三軌，既然說從一（yi，一實相）開出三（san，三教），又一一都用如來藏（rulaizang，如來藏性）來統攝，怎麼反而用觀心來融合它們呢？此玄的三教十法，沒有說從實（shi，真實）開出，沒有成就藏理（zangli，如來藏的道理）的融合統攝，為什麼反而不用觀心來融合呢？

問：義例（yili，義理的例子）自己說依託事相來引導情意，怎麼反而自己撰寫附法觀情（faguanqing，附會佛法來觀察情意）呢？

問：如果依託事相一味地引導情意，完全沒有修行的相狀，為什麼耆山（qishan，地名）的觀法中，要讓人們在此處明白方便正修（fangbian zhengxiu，方便的正確修行方法）呢？

問：縱然說是爲了遣除你執著教義而忘記修行的情意，《妙》

【English Translation】 English version: Is it something you are searching for yourself from various scriptures?

Question: For a beginner learning the 'Shi Fa Zhi Guan' (事法之觀, Contemplation on Affairs and Dharmas) from Xuanshu (玄疏, Commentary on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra), what kind of teacher should one seek to understand the comprehensive explanation of 'Zhi Guan' (止觀, Calm Abiding and Insight)? If numerous scriptures are cited to explain the entry into the practice of 'Zhi Guan', is it then called entering the practice from numerous scriptures?

Question: If one has previously practiced 'Zhi Guan' without enlightenment, and now attains enlightenment through the gateway of 'Li Shi Fa Guan' (歷事法觀, Contemplation through Experiencing Affairs and Dharmas), like guiding the method of 'Wu Sheng Guan' (無生觀, Contemplation of Non-Origination) into the 'Sheng Men' (生門, Gate of Origination), is it then called enlightenment from the 'Wu Sheng Men'?

Question: The 'Yi Li' (義例, Examples of Meaning) I cited only expounds on 'Fa Xing' (法性, Dharma-nature), without expounding on 'Yin' (陰, Skandhas, the five aggregates that constitute a person). Since it is the 'Duan Zuo Shi Cheng' (端坐十乘, Ten Vehicles of Seated Meditation), isn't it that understanding the five skandhas is understanding Dharma-nature? Using examples of meaning to encompass phenomena, thereby achieving the principle, even if it doesn't say entering the skandhas, since the realm of skandhas is established in the subsequent contemplation and understanding, it verifies that one must encompass phenomena to enter the contemplation of the skandhas in order to be called encompassing phenomena to achieve the principle. Is Renna (仁那, a name) wrongly saying that Dharma-nature is not related to the 'San Qian' (三千, Three Thousand Worlds)?

Question: Renna cited this passage in the 'Da Yi Shu' (答疑書, Book of Answering Doubts), precisely to fully discuss the meaning of Dharma-nature, equivalent to 'Li Guan' (理觀, Contemplation of Principle). Since 'Li Guan' does not have the verification of understanding the skandhas, Renna at that time did not know that one must contemplate the mind of the skandhas according to practice. If not, why cite this passage to prove that there is no 'Li Guan' of the skandhas?

Question: 'Miao Xuan' (妙玄, Abbreviation for Profound Meaning of the Wonderful Dharma Lotus Sutra) uses the 'San Gui' (三軌, Three Models of Teaching) to connect the 'Shi Fa' (十法, Ten Dharmas), while this 'Xuan' (玄, another profound meaning commentary) uses the immeasurable and profound Dharma-nature to connect the 'Shi Fa'. Why is it only in this 'Xuan' that it can be said to use Dharma-nature to merge the dharmas?

Question: If 'Miao Xuan' cannot even use Dharma-nature to merge the 'Yuan Guo' (圓果, Perfect Fruition) of the 'Shi Fa', how can it merge the remaining causes and effects? And how can it reveal the 'Er Cheng' (二乘, Two Vehicles of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas)?

Question: The 'Da Yi Shu' clearly states that the other 'Xuan' does not use Dharma-nature to merge, so it uses 'Guan Xin' (觀心, Contemplation of Mind) to contemplate the previous 'Shi Fa'. Why now say that it contemplates the 'San Jiao' (三教, Three Teachings) and the 'San Gui', and cite scriptural passages?

Question: The 'San Jiao San Gui' of 'Miao Xuan', since it says that it opens the three from one, and each one is encompassed by the 'Ru Lai Zang' (如來藏, Tathagatagarbha), how can it instead use 'Guan Xin' to merge them? The 'San Jiao Shi Fa' of this 'Xuan' has not said that it opens from reality, and has not achieved the merging and encompassing of the 'Zang Li' (藏理, Principle of the Tathagatagarbha), why not use 'Guan Xin' to merge them?

Question: The 'Yi Li' itself says that it relies on phenomena to guide emotions, how can it instead compose 'Fu Fa Guan Qing' (附法觀情, Attaching to Dharma to Contemplate Emotions)?

Question: If relying on phenomena solely to guide emotions has no aspect of practice at all, why in the contemplation of Qishan (耆山, a place name) should people be made to understand the 'Fang Bian Zheng Xiu' (方便正修, Expedient Correct Practice) here?

Question: Even if it is said to dispel your emotions of clinging to doctrine and forgetting practice, 'Miao'

---

玄十法皆以一念。用六即辨至極果。何故更用觀心示行。此玄但約信解說四教法相。何能自遣忘行之情。那無觀心示行耶。

問妙玄十法附妙法題那非理融。此玄十法附世金喻。卻得是理融耶。

問止觀結題說為結文相。事法觀心處處言為行立。令即聞即修安輒類之耶。

問發心中觀心約自己心數。眾生明乎與拔之觀。那自撰為結其文相及示行耶。

問仁元執云。此玄所談十法。純是理觀直顯心性超過妙玄。故廢附法觀心。今何全同法界次第。列諸法數卻是學三觀者。自用觀法融之則成。此玄全不談理觀全不顯心性。乃自發揮至今義狀所說一時傾敗。此文觀心自成真說。

此之義目並是自來廢立觀心之意。儻於此問不能酬答。及答不盡理則顯妄破觀心正文。仍以上人心行多奸言詞無準。已墮之義隱覆不言縱答之文。復多輒改使鑒覽。稍分于得失討論未息于往來。故今列數於前。冀答無缺略演義於後知。問有因由請上人。只將所列問詞實書前項。用所陳答語即寫次文。休將己義前書如不善消文之類。莫謂后科兼答如直顯心性之流。庶邪正之甄分俾勝負之明白。須臻極理必見所歸。唯愿上人正直修心流通勖念。莫顧一期之虛譽。仰扶千載之真宗。使教觀之不空見說行之並運。損益即大罪福

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

玄義十法都以一念為基礎，用六即來辨別達到極致的果位。為什麼還要用觀心來指示修行呢？這部《玄義》只是根據信解來解說四教的法相，怎麼能夠消除忘記修行的想法呢？難道沒有觀心來指示修行嗎？ 問：妙玄的十法附屬於妙法之題，那不是理融嗎？這部《玄義》的十法附屬於世間的金喻，卻能得到理融嗎？ 問：《止觀》的結題說是爲了總結文相，而事法觀心處處都說是爲了建立修行。難道可以隨便把聞即修安歸為一類嗎？ 問：發心中的觀心是根據自己的心數，眾生明白給予和拔除的觀法。難道可以自己撰寫來總結文相和指示修行嗎？ 問：仁元認為，這部《玄義》所談的十法，純粹是理觀，直接顯現心性，超過了《妙玄》，所以廢除了附法觀心。現在為什麼完全等同於《法界次第》，列出各種法數，卻是學習三觀的人自己用觀法來融合它才能成功呢？這部《玄義》完全不談理觀，完全不顯現心性，乃至於自己發揮至今的義狀所說的一時傾敗。這段文字的觀心自然成為真實的說法。 這些義目都是自古以來廢除和建立觀心的意思。如果對這些問題不能回答，或者回答得不透徹，就會顯露出虛妄，破壞觀心的正文。仍然以上人心行多奸詐，言辭沒有準則，已經墮落的義理隱瞞不談，即使回答的文字，也多次擅自更改，使得鑒覽的人稍微區分得失，討論沒有停止往來。所以現在把這些問題列在前面，希望回答沒有缺失，在後面闡述義理，知道提問是有原因的。請上人只把所列的問詞如實地寫在前面，用所陳述的答語寫在後面的文字。不要把自己的意思寫在前面，比如不善於理解文章之類。不要說後面的科文兼顧回答，比如直接顯現心性之流。希望邪正能夠區分清楚，使得勝負能夠明白。必須達到極致的道理，必定會見到歸宿。只希望上人正直地修心，流通勉勵，不要顧及一時的虛名，仰仗扶持千載的真宗，使得教觀不落空，見解和修行並用。損益就是大的罪過和福報。

【English Translation】 English version:

The ten Xuan (profound) dharmas are all based on a single thought, and the six identities are used to distinguish the ultimate fruit. Why is it necessary to use contemplation of the mind (guanxin) to indicate practice? This 'Xuanyi' (Profound Meaning) only explains the dharma characteristics of the four teachings based on faith and understanding. How can it eliminate the thought of forgetting practice? Is there no contemplation of the mind to indicate practice? Question: The ten dharmas of Miaoxuan (Wonderful Profound) are attached to the topic of Miaofa (Wonderful Dharma), isn't that the fusion of principle? The ten dharmas of this 'Xuanyi' are attached to the worldly metaphor of gold, but can it achieve the fusion of principle? Question: The conclusion of 'Zhiguān' (Cessation and Contemplation) is said to summarize the textual aspects, while the contemplation of phenomena and mind (shifa guanxin) is said everywhere to establish practice. Can the immediate hearing and immediate practice be casually categorized? Question: The contemplation of the mind in the arising of the mind (faxin) is based on one's own mental states. Sentient beings understand the contemplation of giving and removing. Can one write one's own summary of the textual aspects and indicate practice? Question: Renyuan holds that the ten dharmas discussed in this 'Xuanyi' are purely theoretical contemplation, directly revealing the nature of the mind, surpassing 'Miaoxuan', so the contemplation of attached dharmas is abolished. Now, why is it completely the same as 'Fajie Cidi' (Order of the Dharmadhatu), listing various dharma numbers, but it is only successful when those who study the three contemplations use contemplation methods to integrate it? This 'Xuanyi' does not talk about theoretical contemplation at all, does not reveal the nature of the mind at all, and even the meaning it has developed to this day is completely defeated. The contemplation of the mind in this passage naturally becomes the true saying. These meanings are all the intentions of abolishing and establishing contemplation of the mind since ancient times. If these questions cannot be answered, or if the answers are not thorough, it will reveal falsehood and destroy the correct text of contemplation of the mind. Still, the minds and actions of the people above are treacherous, and the words have no standard. The meaning of falling into it is concealed and not mentioned, and even the text of the answer is repeatedly changed without authorization, so that those who review it can slightly distinguish the gains and losses, and the discussion has not stopped coming and going. Therefore, these questions are now listed in front, hoping that the answer will be complete, and the meaning will be elaborated later, knowing that there is a reason for asking questions. Please, Superior One, only write the listed questions truthfully in the front, and use the answers you have stated to write in the following text. Do not write your own meaning in the front, such as not being good at understanding the text. Do not say that the following sections also answer, such as directly revealing the nature of the mind. I hope that right and wrong can be clearly distinguished, so that victory and defeat can be clear. You must reach the ultimate truth, and you will surely see the destination. I only hope that the Superior One will cultivate the mind honestly, circulate encouragement, do not care about temporary false reputation, and rely on supporting the true sect of thousands of years, so that the teaching and contemplation will not be empty, and the views and practices will be used together. Loss and gain are great sins and blessings.

---

不輕。須取證於神明豈強行於咒詛。若心無諛諂任咒之無徴。或意有誑欺必言之速驗請揣。尋昔見比對今。言儻用實解以廢教文罪應少薄。或縱欺心而毀方等禍必不遲切。宜審思莫侮聖法。悟與未悟酬與不酬。速望迴音即有徴索(或作徴索)也。

法智遺編觀心二百問

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：此事不可輕率。必須從神明那裡取得證據，豈能強行使用咒詛？如果內心沒有阿諛奉承和虛假，那麼任何咒語都不會應驗。如果心懷欺騙，那麼謊言會很快被驗證，請仔細衡量。考察過去所見，對比現在的情況。如果言語確實是爲了解釋佛法，即使廢棄了一些經文，罪過也應該稍微輕微。如果放縱欺騙之心而誹謗方等經典（Mahāvaipulya Sūtras，大乘經典），災禍必定很快降臨。應該仔細思考，不要輕侮神聖的佛法。領悟與未領悟，報答與不報答，希望儘快回覆，這都是有徵兆的（或者說是徵求）。

出自《法智遺編觀心二百問》

【English Translation】 English version: This matter should not be taken lightly. Evidence must be obtained from the deities; how can curses be forcibly used? If the mind is free from flattery and falsehood, then no curse will be effective. If there is deceit in the heart, then the lie will be quickly verified; please consider carefully. Examine what was seen in the past and compare it with the present situation. If the words are indeed for explaining the Dharma, even if some scriptures are abandoned, the sin should be slightly less. If one indulges in a deceitful heart and slanders the Mahāvaipulya Sūtras (方等經典, Great Vaipulya Sutras), disaster will surely come quickly. One should think carefully and not disrespect the sacred Dharma. Whether one understands or does not understand, whether one repays or does not repay, I hope for a quick reply, as there are signs (or requests).

From the Two Hundred Questions on Contemplating the Mind in the 'Lost Writings of Fazhi'.

---