T46n1936_四明十義書
大正藏第 46 冊 No. 1936 四明十義書
No. 1936
重刻四明十義書序
圓宗觀道曠遠深絕。必須稟宗匠之開決。更自精揀方善得通達焉。設或不然。名衲老宿尚失正路。況初學後進不入邪徑殆希矣。昔者慈光恩師。兼講華嚴。不深本教。濫用他宗。輒定一念為真。從是今宗境觀大壞亂矣。遂使圓談法性錯為直顯心性而廢光明玄之廣本也。於是四明尊者惜乎正教慜于來蒙勉與梵天昭師問答往復各及五回。今之十義書者撮彼五回之文而集大成者也。一披此書非惟往復始終灼然可觀。亦夫定境修觀託事附法妙解妙行唯色唯心凡觀道之晦於時者燦然明矣。嗚呼因山外之邪說觀心正義翻顯昭代其猶豬揩金山風益求羅耳。幸此書嘗流至此邦而尚不弘於世人無知其為至珍也。至吾立和尚屢屢講演稱讚四方學人普識照觀道之光明幢也。當今之時茍欲曉天臺荊溪之宗教。必須依憑四明指南。欲解四明之文。先當精練十義指要。兩訓不精於斯今宗觀道明者不也。然現行義書寫誤不鮮子註文字相逼難見讀者病焉。今為訂正重上梨棗更揭忠師科于文上以代學人合寫之勞。後學精讀此書勤勤綣綣則能解釋宗教通達觀道自在無礙。譬如破竹初節既破余節皆去不難也。學者於斯不可忽之也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
大正藏第 46 冊 No. 1936 四明十義書
No. 1936
重刻四明十義書序
圓宗的觀道，曠遠而深邃，必須稟承宗門大師的開示決斷，更要自己精細揀擇，才能通達。如果不是這樣，即使是名衲老宿，尚且會迷失正路，更何況初學後進，不誤入邪徑的，恐怕很少了。從前慈光恩師，兼講《華嚴經》，卻不深入本宗的教義，濫用其他宗派的觀點，竟然斷定『一念』為真。從此以後，天臺宗的境觀就大大地壞亂了。於是導致圓融談論法性的教義，錯誤地被當作直接顯現心性，而廢棄了光明玄妙的廣博根本。因此，四明尊者痛惜正教，憐憫後來的學人，努力與梵天昭師進行問答，往復各有五次。現在的這部《十義書》，就是摘取那五次問答的文字而彙集成的大成之作。一旦披閱此書，不僅往復始終的脈絡清晰可見，而且定境修觀、託事附法、精妙的理解和修行，以及唯色唯心等，凡是觀道在當時被矇蔽的地方，都燦然明瞭。唉！因為山外的邪說，觀心的正義反而顯得更加昭著，這就像用豬去摩擦金山，風只會使求羅的耳朵更加明顯一樣。幸運的是，這本書曾經流傳到這個國家，卻還不被世人弘揚，沒有人知道它是至寶。直到吾立和尚多次講演稱讚，四方學人才普遍認識到照觀道的光明幢。當今之時，如果想要了解天臺荊溪的宗教，必須依靠四明尊者的指南；想要理解四明尊者的文章，首先應當精研《十義指要》。如果對這兩方面的訓示都不精通，那麼對於天臺宗的觀道，就不能算是明白了。然而，現在流行的《義書》，抄寫錯誤很多，子注的文字相互逼近，難以看清，這是讀者感到困擾的地方。現在爲了訂正這些錯誤，重新刻印在梨木棗木的木板上，並且將忠師的科判揭示在文字之上，以代替學人自己合寫科判的辛勞。後來的學者精讀此書，勤勤懇懇，就能解釋天臺宗教，通達觀道，自在無礙。譬如破竹子，只要破開了第一個竹節，其餘的竹節都會迎刃而解。學者對此不可忽視啊。 English version
T46, No. 1936, Si Ming Shi Yi Shu (四明十義書) [The Ten Meanings of Si Ming]
No. 1936
Preface to the Re-engraving of the Si Ming Shi Yi Shu
The contemplation path (觀道) of the perfect school (圓宗) is vast and profound. One must rely on the guidance and decisions of a master of the school (宗匠), and further, carefully select in order to achieve thorough understanding. If not, even famous monks and elders may lose the right path, let alone beginners and those who come later, it is rare for them not to enter a wrong path. In the past, Dharma Master Ciguang (慈光), while lecturing on the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經), did not deeply understand the teachings of this school, and misused the views of other schools, arbitrarily determining 'one thought' (一念) as true. From then on, the realm and contemplation (境觀) of the Tiantai school (天臺宗) were greatly corrupted. This led to the doctrine of the perfect and harmonious discussion of Dharma-nature (法性) being mistakenly regarded as directly revealing mind-nature (心性), and abandoning the vast foundation of the profound meaning of light (光明玄). Therefore, Venerable Si Ming (四明) lamented the correct teaching and pitied later learners, striving to engage in questions and answers with Teacher Fantian Zhao (梵天昭), each with five rounds. The current Ten Meanings Book (十義書) is a compilation of the texts from those five rounds of questions and answers. Once one peruses this book, not only is the entire process of questions and answers clearly visible, but also the meditative state (定境), cultivation of contemplation (修觀), relying on events to attach to the Dharma (託事附法), subtle understanding and practice, and the concepts of 'only matter' (唯色) and 'only mind' (唯心), all that obscured the contemplation path at that time are now brilliantly clear. Alas! Because of the heterodox theories from outside the mountain, the correct meaning of contemplating the mind is revealed even more clearly. This is like using a pig to rub a golden mountain, the wind only makes the ears of Qiu Luo (求羅) more obvious. Fortunately, this book once flowed to this country, but it is not yet promoted to the world, and no one knows that it is a supreme treasure. Until Abbot Wuli (吾立) repeatedly lectured and praised it, scholars from all directions universally recognized the bright banner of illuminating the contemplation path. At this time, if one wants to understand the Tiantai (天臺) and Jingxi (荊溪) schools, one must rely on the guidance of Si Ming (四明); if one wants to understand the writings of Si Ming (四明), one must first diligently study the Ten Meanings Essentials (十義指要). If one is not proficient in these two instructions, then one cannot be considered to understand the contemplation path of the Tiantai school. However, the currently circulating Meaning Book has many copying errors, and the sub-notes are crowded together, making it difficult to read, which troubles readers. Now, in order to correct these errors, it is re-engraved on pear and jujube wood blocks, and the categories of the loyal teacher are revealed above the text, to replace the labor of scholars writing the categories themselves. Later scholars who diligently read this book will be able to explain the Tiantai school, understand the contemplation path, and be free and unhindered. It is like splitting bamboo; once the first node is broken, the remaining nodes will be easily removed. Scholars should not neglect this.
【English Translation】 T46, No. 1936, Si Ming Shi Yi Shu [The Ten Meanings of Si Ming]
No. 1936
Preface to the Re-engraving of the Si Ming Shi Yi Shu
The contemplation path of the perfect school is vast and profound. One must rely on the guidance and decisions of a master of the school, and further, carefully select in order to achieve thorough understanding. If not, even famous monks and elders may lose the right path, let alone beginners and those who come later, it is rare for them not to enter a wrong path. In the past, Dharma Master Ciguang, while lecturing on the Avatamsaka Sutra, did not deeply understand the teachings of this school, and misused the views of other schools, arbitrarily determining 'one thought' as true. From then on, the realm and contemplation of the Tiantai school were greatly corrupted. This led to the doctrine of the perfect and harmonious discussion of Dharma-nature being mistakenly regarded as directly revealing mind-nature, and abandoning the vast foundation of the profound meaning of light. Therefore, Venerable Si Ming lamented the correct teaching and pitied later learners, striving to engage in questions and answers with Teacher Fantian Zhao, each with five rounds. The current Ten Meanings Book is a compilation of the texts from those five rounds of questions and answers. Once one peruses this book, not only is the entire process of questions and answers clearly visible, but also the meditative state, cultivation of contemplation, relying on events to attach to the Dharma, subtle understanding and practice, and the concepts of 'only matter' and 'only mind', all that obscured the contemplation path at that time are now brilliantly clear. Alas! Because of the heterodox theories from outside the mountain, the correct meaning of contemplating the mind is revealed even more clearly. This is like using a pig to rub a golden mountain, the wind only makes the ears of Qiu Luo more obvious. Fortunately, this book once flowed to this country, but it is not yet promoted to the world, and no one knows that it is a supreme treasure. Until Abbot Wuli repeatedly lectured and praised it, scholars from all directions universally recognized the bright banner of illuminating the contemplation path. At this time, if one wants to understand the Tiantai and Jingxi schools, one must rely on the guidance of Si Ming; if one wants to understand the writings of Si Ming, one must first diligently study the Ten Meanings Essentials. If one is not proficient in these two instructions, then one cannot be considered to understand the contemplation path of the Tiantai school. However, the currently circulating Meaning Book has many copying errors, and the sub-notes are crowded together, making it difficult to read, which troubles readers. Now, in order to correct these errors, it is re-engraved on pear and jujube wood blocks, and the categories of the loyal teacher are revealed above the text, to replace the labor of scholars writing the categories themselves. Later scholars who diligently read this book will be able to explain the Tiantai school, understand the contemplation path, and be free and unhindered. It is like splitting bamboo; once the first node is broken, the remaining nodes will be easily removed. Scholars should not neglect this.
旹
元文丙辰七月上浣 唐山比丘(慶)義瑞謹識
十義書序
十義書之所由作者。有宋景德之前光明玄廣略二本並行於世。錢唐慈光恩師制記曰發揮。專解略本。謂廣本有十法觀心乃後人擅添爾天臺重解帝王之文輒評。謂有四失。一曰理乖。二曰義疏。三曰詞鄙。四曰事誤。廣破如續遺記也。有二弟子即錢唐奉先清師嘉禾靈光敏師。共構難詞造二十條。輔成師義共廢廣本。錢唐寶山善信法師。奉書敦請法智評之。法智遜云。夫評是議非則近於諍競。非我志也。矧以二師學解有聞。盡吾宗之先達。奚可率爾而拒之哉。信法師重請曰。法鼓競鳴。何先何后。夫當仁不讓于師。況餘人乎。堅讓不免故。有扶宗釋難之作。專救廣本十種觀心。兼斥不解發軫揀境之非。觀成曆法之失。錢唐梵天昭師。孤山碼瑙圓師。皆奉先之門學也。乃撰辨訛驗釋難之非。救發揮之得。法智存謙光之禮。撰問疑書詰之。昭師不遜有答疑書之復。法智復有詰難書之徴。昭師構五義之答。法智復作問疑書之責。昭師稽留逾年。法智復有覆問書之催答。昭師有今之釋難。翻成不腆之文矣。往復各五綿歷七年。攢結前後十番之文。共成今十義書之作。復有二百重詰。不出前後。五番墮負。四番轉計。初指約教正釋。便屬理觀觀心
【現代漢語翻譯】 時
元文丙辰七月上浣，唐山比丘（慶）義瑞謹識
十義書序
《十義書》的由來是這樣的：在宋景德年間之前，《光明玄廣》和《略》二個版本並行於世。錢塘慈光恩師製作了《記》來發揮，專門解釋《略》本，認為《廣》本中的『十法觀心』是後人擅自新增的。爾後天臺宗重新解讀帝王的文字，並評論說有四個缺失：一是理不合，二是義理疏漏，三是文辭鄙俗，四是事情錯誤。廣泛地駁斥就像續寫遺記一樣。有兩位弟子，即錢塘奉先的清師和嘉禾靈光的敏師，共同構思了詰難的言辭，造了二十條，輔助成師的義理，共同廢棄《廣》本。錢塘寶山的善信法師，奉書懇請法智來評判這件事。法智謙遜地說：『評判是非就接近於爭論，這不是我的志向。況且二位師父的學識見解很有名望，都是我們宗門的前輩，怎麼可以輕易地拒絕呢？』善信法師再次懇請說：『法鼓競相鳴響，哪裡分先後呢？當仁不讓于老師，更何況是我呢？』堅決推讓不被允許，所以才有了扶持宗門、解釋疑難的著作，專門救護《廣》本的十種觀心，兼帶駁斥不理解發軫、揀境的錯誤，以及觀成曆法的缺失。錢塘梵天的昭師、孤山瑪瑙的圓師，都是奉先的門下弟子，於是撰寫了辨別訛誤、驗證釋難的非議，來救護《發揮》的正確。法智保持謙虛恭敬的禮節，撰寫了《問疑書》來詰問他們。昭師不謙遜，有《答疑書》的回覆。法智又有《詰難書》的徵詢。昭師構思了五義的回答。法智又作《問疑書》來責問。昭師稽留超過一年，法智又有《覆問書》來催促回答。昭師有現在的《釋難》，反而成了不謙遜的文章了。往復各有五次，綿延七年，積累前後十番的文章，共同成就了現在的《十義書》的著作。又有二百重詰難，沒有超出前後五番的墮負，四番的轉計。最初指約教正釋，就屬於理觀觀心。
【English Translation】 Time:
The first ten days of the seventh month of the year Bingchen in the Yuan Dynasty. Respectfully noted by the Tangshan Bhikshu (Qing) Yirui.
Preface to the Ten Righteousness Treatise
The origin of the 'Ten Righteousness Treatise' is as follows: Before the Jingde era of the Song Dynasty, the two versions of 'Guangming Xuanguang' (Vast and Profound Light) and 'Lue' (Abridged) circulated in the world. Master Ciguang of Qiantang composed a commentary called 'Elaboration,' specifically explaining the 'Abridged' version, believing that the 'Ten Contemplations of Mind' in the 'Vast' version were added arbitrarily by later people. Later, the Tiantai school reinterpreted the writings of the emperors and commented that there were four flaws: first, the principle was inconsistent; second, the meaning was sparse; third, the words were vulgar; fourth, the events were erroneous. Extensive refutation was like continuing a posthumous record. There were two disciples, namely Master Qing of Fengxian in Qiantang and Master Min of Lingguang in Jiahe, who jointly conceived challenging words, created twenty articles, assisted Master Cheng's righteousness, and jointly abolished the 'Vast' version. The virtuous believer Dharma Master Shanxin of Baoshan in Qiantang respectfully requested Dharma Wisdom to judge this matter. Dharma Wisdom humbly said, 'Judging right and wrong is close to contention, which is not my aspiration. Moreover, the two masters have a renowned understanding of learning and are predecessors of our school. How can I rashly reject them?' Dharma Master Shanxin pleaded again, saying, 'The Dharma drums are sounding in competition; where is the priority? One should not yield to the teacher in matters of righteousness, let alone others.' Firmly refusing was not allowed, so there was a work to support the school and explain difficulties, specifically protecting the ten kinds of mind contemplation in the 'Vast' version, and incidentally refuting the errors of not understanding the initiation and selecting the realm, as well as the flaws in the accomplished calendar method. Master Zhao of Fantian in Qiantang and Master Yuan of Manao in Gushan were both disciples of Fengxian, so they wrote to distinguish errors and verify the non-acceptance of explanations, to protect the correctness of 'Elaboration.' Dharma Wisdom maintained the etiquette of humility and respect, and wrote 'Questions and Doubts' to question them. Master Zhao was not humble and had a reply in 'Answers to Doubts.' Dharma Wisdom then had an inquiry in 'Difficult Questions.' Master Zhao conceived a five-righteousness answer. Dharma Wisdom then wrote 'Questions and Doubts' to question. Master Zhao delayed for more than a year, and Dharma Wisdom then had a 'Follow-up Question' to urge a reply. Master Zhao has the current 'Explanation of Difficulties,' which has turned into an unpretentious article. There were five exchanges each, spanning seven years, accumulating ten articles before and after, jointly accomplishing the current work of the 'Ten Righteousness Treatise.' There are also two hundred repeated questions, which do not go beyond the five defeats before and after, and the four transfers of calculation. Initially, the teaching was briefly pointed out and correctly explained, which belonged to the contemplation of principle and mind.
。法智斥云。以教代觀。不意翻成有觀無教。二轉計云。須知。理觀直觀真心。光明當體。翻謂妄法。法智斥云。觀心在迷。卻謂屬真。當體果法。卻謂屬妄。三轉計救真心之一失。改真心名為法性。意謂。法性通真通妄。以隨緣混之。輔為事理二造。心屬非真非妄。生佛是真是妄。救前真心。亦不專真專妄也。以不專妄故。斥法智之拒也。四轉計云。十乘妙理。為所觀境。法智破云。應三障四魔。為能觀觀耶轉計即墮負矣。並初根本。共成五番也。又法智引重明陰境難之。昭公伏曰。止觀觀陰。有失撿尋。仲尼云。法語之言。能無從乎。改則為貴。今為改之也。法智進獎云。上人粗有性靈。能分科節。何不盡矣。捨短從長。見巧知陋今伏膺觀陰。因誰得知耶。景德四年。孤山圓師。為昭師輪下之席端也。法智遣住東掖山神昭大師本如。在輪下。日馳十義書並二百問。往錢唐詰之。會稽什公。希望輔之翼之。共辨矣。孤山觀二公之論辨。如面敵。必重席也。自謂。義龍安肯伏鹿。遽白錢唐守。答以公據。不為遣也。雖然止重論席。別行玄雖魔燒佛經。且不能燒性德之善也。故常住教卷。焉可絕滅耶。今有宋熙寧。相去八十餘年。此文重興。盛行於世。浙右學敩。講習此文者眾。故得僝工鏤板。代學者傳寫之勞。住永嘉
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法智斥責說：『用教義代替觀行，沒想到反而變成了有觀行而無教義。』二轉計辯解說：『須知，理觀直接觀照真心，光明就在當下。』卻反而說是虛妄之法。法智斥責說：『觀心還在迷惑之中，卻說它屬於真。當下的果法，卻說是虛妄。』三轉計想要挽救真心這一過失，把真心改名為法性（dharma-nature，事物本來的性質）。意思是說，法性貫通真和妄，用隨緣來混淆它。輔助以事和理二種造作，心屬於非真非妄，眾生和佛是真是妄。挽救之前的真心，也不完全是真或完全是妄。因為不完全是妄，所以反駁法智的拒絕。四轉計說：『十乘妙理（ten kinds of wonderful contemplation，天臺宗的十種觀行方法），是所觀的境界。』法智駁斥說：『難道三障（three obstacles，貪嗔癡）四魔（four demons，煩惱魔、五陰魔、死魔、天魔）是能觀的觀行嗎？』轉計立刻就落敗了。連同最初的根本，共成了五番辯論。 法智又引用《重明陰境》來為難他。神昭（Shen Zhao）恭敬地說：『止觀（zhi guan，止是禪定，觀是智慧）觀陰，有所疏漏。』仲尼（仲尼，即孔子）說：『好的建議，難道能不聽從嗎？改正才是可貴的。現在就改正它。』法智進而讚揚說：『上人略有靈性，能夠分清科節。為什麼不完全做到呢？捨棄短處，學習長處，看到巧妙之處，知道自己的粗陋。現在我虛心接受觀陰的說法，是因為誰才知道的呢？』景德四年，孤山圓師（Gu Shan Yuan Shi）是昭師輪下之席的端正者。法智派遣住在東掖山的神昭大師本如（Ben Ru），在輪下，每天送去十篇義理書和二百個問題，前往錢唐（Qiantang，杭州古稱）詰問他。會稽什公（Hui Ji Shi Gong），希望輔助他，共同辯論。孤山觀看二公的論辯，如同面對敵人，必定要重新設席。自認為，義龍怎麼肯屈服於鹿呢？立刻稟告錢唐的太守，回答說以公事為重，不為他遣送。雖然只是重新設論辯的席位，另外流行的玄義即使被魔燒燬佛經，也不能燒燬性德（intrinsic virtue，本有的德性）的善。所以常住的教卷，怎麼可以斷絕滅亡呢？現在有宋熙寧，相距八十多年，這篇文章重新興起，盛行於世。浙右（Zheyou，浙江右邊）學習效仿，講習這篇文章的人很多，所以才能僱人雕刻印刷，代替學者傳抄的辛勞。住在永嘉（Yongjia，溫州的古稱）。
【English Translation】 English version Fa Zhi rebuked, saying, 'Using doctrine to replace contemplation, unexpectedly it turns into having contemplation without doctrine.' The second counter-argument explained, 'It must be known that the contemplation of principle directly illuminates the true mind, and the light is present in the moment.' Yet, it is said to be a false dharma. Fa Zhi rebuked, 'The contemplation of mind is still in delusion, yet it is said to belong to truth. The fruit dharma of the present moment is said to be false.' The third counter-argument sought to salvage the fault of the true mind, changing the name of the true mind to dharma-nature (dharma-nature, the inherent nature of things). The meaning is that dharma-nature pervades both truth and falsehood, using conditioned arising to confuse it. Supplemented by the two creations of phenomena and principle, the mind belongs to neither truth nor falsehood, while sentient beings and Buddhas are true and false. Saving the previous true mind, it is also not entirely true or entirely false. Because it is not entirely false, it refutes Fa Zhi's rejection. The fourth counter-argument said, 'The ten kinds of wonderful contemplation (ten kinds of wonderful contemplation, the ten types of contemplation in the Tiantai school) are the objects to be contemplated.' Fa Zhi refuted, 'Could it be that the three obstacles (three obstacles, greed, hatred, and ignorance) and the four demons (four demons, afflictions, the five aggregates, death, and heavenly demons) are the contemplation that can contemplate?' The counter-argument immediately fell into defeat. Together with the initial foundation, it formed five rounds of debate. Fa Zhi also cited 'Heavy Illumination of the Realm of the Skandhas' to make things difficult for him. Shen Zhao respectfully said, 'Zhi Guan (zhi guan, cessation is meditation, contemplation is wisdom) contemplation of the skandhas has some omissions.' Zhong Ni (Zhong Ni, Confucius) said, 'Good advice, how can one not follow it? Correction is valuable. Now I will correct it.' Fa Zhi further praised, 'The superior person has some spirituality, able to distinguish the sections. Why not do it completely? Abandon the short, learn from the long, see the skillful, know your own crudeness. Now I humbly accept the saying of contemplating the skandhas, because of whom did I know it?' In the fourth year of Jingde, Gu Shan Yuan Shi was the upright person at the seat below Master Zhao. Fa Zhi sent the Great Master Ben Ru of Shen Zhao, who lived in Dongye Mountain, to send ten books of righteousness and two hundred questions every day to Qian Tang (Qiantang, the ancient name of Hangzhou) to question him. Hui Ji Shi Gong hoped to assist him and debate together. Gu Shan watched the debate between the two masters, as if facing an enemy, and had to reset the seat. He thought to himself, how could the righteous dragon submit to the deer? He immediately reported to the prefect of Qian Tang, who replied that he would prioritize official duties and would not send him. Although it was just resetting the seat for debate, the Xuan Yi (profound meaning) that was circulating separately, even if the demons burned the Buddhist scriptures, could not burn the goodness of intrinsic virtue (intrinsic virtue, inherent virtue). Therefore, how can the permanent teaching scrolls be cut off and destroyed? Now there is the Song Xining, more than eighty years apart, this article has re-emerged and is prevalent in the world. Many people in Zheyou (Zheyou, the right side of Zhejiang) study and imitate, lecturing on this article, so they can hire people to carve and print, replacing the hard work of scholars copying it. Living in Yongjia (Yongjia, the ancient name of Wenzhou).
法明院。第一代孫繼忠。指授門人。以寫印二本。對之評之。其義其中。法句欠剩。文字舛謬。昔趨廣智之庭。每蒙以提耳指掌。今約義斷文。輒濫評定。或有臧否。冀同學同見者。更為學者指南耳。熙寧九年。仲冬月既望日序。
四明十義書卷上
景德三祀臘月既望。四明沙門。比丘知禮。謹用為法之心。問義于
浙陽講主。昭上人(坐前)。十月二十三日。來．文．二人入室傳到釋問書一軸。廣構粗言。欲杜來難。既立宗而自墮徒援教以何歸。都為無義之談。儘是誑他之說。若隨文致詰。恐大節難明。故於觀心一科。立難十段。況上人素彰不遜。以辨訛答疑。自矜。鄙僧早蘊多謙用請益諮詢為禮。故問無多少。答必周旋。
又昨蒙五義見徴。既即時取趣。今約十門定難。無託故以寢言。休勞。多部檢文。逾年作計。便請。直誠吐義。隨解速酬。幸甚幸甚(上人前後義狀。皆經二年。若義久明。終不稽遲至此。蓋遍尋教部。旋構見知。數乖自宗。全傷妙道。愿思來報。無縱諂心也)。
辨訛本立。此玄十種三法。純明理觀。不須附事而觀(云云)。
荊溪云。如常坐等。或唯觀理。隨自意從末從事。既云純明理觀。乃是三種三昧。專令于識陰修十乘也。
又答疑書云。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 法明院。第一代孫繼忠，指導門人，以寫本和印本兩種形式。對這些文字進行評價，其意義在於其中。但《法句經》有所欠缺和剩餘，文字也有錯誤。過去我常去廣智的庭院，每次都蒙受提耳面命的教誨。現在我根據義理來判斷文字，冒昧地進行評定。或許會有褒貶，希望同學們和見解相同的人，能為後學者指明方向。熙寧九年仲冬月既望日序。
四明十義書卷上
景德三年臘月既望，四明沙門比丘知禮，謹以求法之心，向浙陽講主昭上人（坐前）請教義理。十月二十三日，來文二人入室傳達釋問書一軸，其中充滿了粗俗的言辭，想要阻止他人提出疑問。既然已經立宗，卻又自相矛盾，徒勞地援引教義，最終將歸向何處？這些都是沒有意義的談論，全是欺騙他人的說法。如果隨文逐字地詰難，恐怕難以闡明大義。因此，在觀心這一科中，設立了十個難點。況且上人向來以不遜的態度著稱，以辨別錯誤和解答疑問自誇。鄙僧一向懷有多謙的態度，以請教諮詢為禮。所以提問不分多少，回答務必周全。
另外，昨天蒙受五義的見解徵詢，已經立即表達了我的看法。現在針對十個方面進行辯難，不會找藉口而沉默不語，也不會勞煩大家花費大量時間去查閱文獻，耗費多年時間來計劃。請允許我直接坦誠地表達我的義理，並迅速地給出解答。非常榮幸，非常榮幸（上人前後的義狀，都經過了兩年時間。如果義理早已明瞭，最終也不會拖延到今天。大概是遍尋教部，臨時構建自己的見解，多次違背自己的宗旨，完全損害了妙道。希望您能考慮我的回覆，不要放縱諂媚之心）。
辨別錯誤，根本在於確立此玄十種三法，完全闡明理觀，不需要附著於事相而進行觀想（云云）。
荊溪說：『如常坐等，或者只觀理，隨自己的意願從末端開始從事。』既然說是完全闡明理觀，那麼這就是三種三昧，專門用來在識陰中修習十乘觀法。
又答疑書中說：
【English Translation】 English version: Fa Ming Monastery. First generation descendant, Ji Zhong, instructed his disciples using both written and printed versions. He evaluated these texts, their meaning lying within. However, the Dhammapada (Fa Ju Jing) had deficiencies and excesses, and the writing contained errors. In the past, I often went to the courtyard of Guang Zhi, and each time I received personal instruction. Now, I judge the text based on its meaning, presumptuously making evaluations. Perhaps there will be praise and criticism, and I hope that fellow students and those with similar views can guide future scholars. Preface written on the sixteenth day of the eleventh lunar month in the ninth year of the Xining era.
Siming Ten Meanings Scroll 1
On the sixteenth day of the twelfth lunar month in the third year of the Jingde era, the shramana (Sha Men), bhiksu (Bi Qiu) Zhili of Siming, with a mind devoted to the Dharma, respectfully inquires about the meaning of the teachings from the lecturer Zhao Shangren (sitting before him) of Zheyang. On the twenty-third day of the tenth month, Lai Wen and another person entered the room and conveyed a scroll of questions and answers, filled with crude language, intending to prevent others from raising questions. Having established a doctrine, they contradict themselves, vainly citing teachings, where will they ultimately turn? These are all meaningless discussions, entirely deceptive statements. If I were to nitpick every word, I fear it would be difficult to clarify the greater meaning. Therefore, in the section on contemplating the mind, I have established ten points of contention. Moreover, Shangren has always been known for his arrogant attitude, boasting of his ability to distinguish errors and answer doubts. This humble monk has always held a humble attitude, treating inquiry and consultation as proper etiquette. Therefore, I ask without regard to quantity, and I will answer comprehensively.
Furthermore, yesterday I received a request for my views on the Five Meanings, and I immediately expressed my opinion. Now, I will debate ten aspects, without making excuses to remain silent, and without troubling everyone to spend a lot of time checking documents, spending years planning. Please allow me to directly and sincerely express my understanding of the meaning, and quickly provide answers. I am very honored, very honored (Shangren's previous statements have all taken two years. If the meaning had been clear long ago, it would not have been delayed until today. It is probably because he searched through the teachings and temporarily constructed his own views, repeatedly violating his own principles, completely damaging the wonderful path. I hope you will consider my reply and not indulge in flattery).
To distinguish errors, the foundation lies in establishing these ten kinds of three dharmas (San Fa), fully clarifying the principle of contemplation, without needing to attach to phenomena for contemplation (etc.).
Jingxi said: 'Such as constant sitting, etc., or only contemplating the principle, following one's own will to engage from the end.' Since it is said to fully clarify the principle of contemplation, then this is the three samadhis (San Mei), specifically used to cultivate the ten vehicles of contemplation in the vijnana-skandha (Shi Yin).
Also, in the reply to the doubts, it says:
此玄文直顯心性。
且三種觀法。皆顯心性。但事法二觀。既託事義觀心。及附法相觀心。且非直顯。唯約行觀直。于陰心顯三千性。方名直顯心性。據此兩書。定判此玄十種三法。已是約行之觀。故可廢今附法觀心也。
既是約行理觀。直顯心性。十種三法文中。何故不揀示識心為境。那無十法成乘。既全無此義。則定非理觀矣。
又文自專談果佛法相。定非直顯心性矣。上人本謂。已是約行觀故。故可廢今觀心一科。既非約行之觀。則後文觀心。豈可輒廢耶(縱慾攀附諸文觀心。亦只成事法觀義。終不是理觀。況復附不及)。
此則觀心一科。已不可廢也。
況上人自立事法二種觀心。唯有二意。一為令已修止觀者。睹事相法相。不忘本習故。示二種觀心也。二為未修止觀者。忘于封滯。令知起行。必依止觀故。示二種觀心也。
且今文棄三觀一。揀陰修觀恰稱久修者本習。又能預示未修止觀者。要知起觀之處。若剛廢此文。則無以稱久修者本習。又無以示未修者止觀行門也。則此玄觀心一科。不可輒廢。約行觀義。既壞。附法觀心之文。又不可廢。帝慧王安可輒除耶。
所議既極。余何可論。但為此宗大節。既被上人異說。誤彼後人。故不獲已。且於觀心。略問十
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這段玄妙的文字直接彰顯心性。
而且三種觀法（事觀、法觀、行觀）都彰顯心性。但事觀和法觀，既然依託事相的意義來觀心，以及依附法相來觀心，就不是直接彰顯。只有依於行觀，直接在五陰（色、受、想、行、識）心中彰顯三千性相，才可稱為直接彰顯心性。根據這兩本書，可以判定這玄義中的十種三法，已經是依於行觀的觀法，所以可以廢除現在這種依附法相的觀心。
既然是依於行觀的理觀，直接彰顯心性，那麼這十種三法的文中，為什麼不揀擇指示識心作為觀境？又為什麼沒有十法成乘的說法？既然完全沒有這個意義，那麼必定不是理觀了。
而且文中的內容專門談論果佛的法相，必定不是直接彰顯心性。上人原本認為，已經是依於行觀的緣故，所以可以廢除現在觀心這一科。既然不是依於行觀的觀法，那麼後面的觀心，怎麼可以隨便廢除呢？（即使想要攀附其他文中的觀心，也只能成為事法觀的意義，終究不是理觀，更何況攀附不上）。
因此，觀心這一科，已經不可以廢除了。
況且上人您自己設立事觀和法觀這兩種觀心，只有兩種用意：一是為使已經修習止觀的人，看到事相法相時，不忘記原有的習慣，所以展示這兩種觀心；二是為使尚未修習止觀的人，避免封閉停滯，讓他們知道起修，必須依靠止觀，所以展示這兩種觀心。
而且現在文中捨棄三種觀法中的一種，揀擇五陰來修觀，恰好適合長期修習者原有的習慣。又能預先指示尚未修習止觀的人，要知道從哪裡開始起觀。如果貿然廢除這段文字，就無法滿足長期修習者原有的習慣，也無法指示尚未修習者止觀的修行門徑。那麼這玄義中的觀心一科，不可以隨便廢除。依於行觀的意義，既然已經破壞，依附法相觀心的文字，又不可以廢除。帝慧王（指《摩訶止觀》的作者智顗）怎麼可以隨便刪除呢？
所議論的已經到了極點，我還能說什麼呢？只是因為這件事關係到宗門的大節，既然被上人的異說所誤導，會誤導後人，所以不得已，才對觀心略微提出十點疑問。
【English Translation】 English version:
This profound text directly reveals the nature of the mind.
Moreover, all three contemplations (contemplation of phenomena, contemplation of Dharma, and contemplation of practice) reveal the nature of the mind. However, since the contemplation of phenomena and the contemplation of Dharma rely on the meaning of phenomena to contemplate the mind, and attach to the characteristics of Dharma to contemplate the mind, they are not direct revelations. Only by relying on the contemplation of practice, directly revealing the three thousand aspects of nature in the mind of the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), can it be called a direct revelation of the nature of the mind. According to these two books, it can be determined that the ten kinds of three dharmas in this profound meaning are already contemplations based on practice, so the current contemplation of attaching to the characteristics of Dharma can be abolished.
Since it is a contemplation of principle based on practice, directly revealing the nature of the mind, why doesn't the text of these ten kinds of three dharmas select and indicate the mind of consciousness as the object of contemplation? And why is there no mention of the ten dharmas accomplishing the vehicle? Since there is no such meaning at all, then it is certainly not a contemplation of principle.
Moreover, the content of the text specifically discusses the characteristics of the Dharma of the Buddha of fruition, which is certainly not a direct revelation of the nature of the mind. The Superior One originally thought that it was already a contemplation based on practice, so the current section on contemplation of the mind could be abolished. Since it is not a contemplation based on practice, how can the subsequent contemplation of the mind be casually abolished? (Even if one wants to cling to the contemplation of the mind in other texts, it can only become the meaning of contemplation of phenomena and Dharma, and it is ultimately not a contemplation of principle, let alone being unable to cling to it).
Therefore, this section on contemplation of the mind cannot be abolished.
Moreover, you, the Superior One, have established these two kinds of contemplation of the mind, contemplation of phenomena and contemplation of Dharma, with only two intentions: one is to enable those who have already cultivated cessation and contemplation to not forget their original habits when they see the characteristics of phenomena and Dharma, so these two kinds of contemplation of the mind are shown; the other is to prevent those who have not yet cultivated cessation and contemplation from being closed and stagnant, so that they know that starting cultivation must rely on cessation and contemplation, so these two kinds of contemplation of the mind are shown.
And now, the text abandons one of the three contemplations, and selects the five skandhas to cultivate contemplation, which is exactly suitable for the original habits of those who have cultivated for a long time. It can also indicate in advance to those who have not yet cultivated cessation and contemplation where to start contemplation. If this text is rashly abolished, it will not be able to satisfy the original habits of those who have cultivated for a long time, nor will it be able to indicate the path of practice of cessation and contemplation to those who have not yet cultivated. Then this section on contemplation of the mind in this profound meaning cannot be casually abolished. Since the meaning of contemplation based on practice has been destroyed, the text on contemplation of attaching to the characteristics of Dharma cannot be abolished either. How can Dì Huì Wáng (智顗, Zhiyi, the author of Mohe Zhiguan) be casually removed?
The discussion has reached its extreme, what else can I say? It is only because this matter concerns the major principles of the school, and since it has been misled by the Superior One's heterodox views, it will mislead future generations, so I have no choice but to raise ten questions about contemplation of the mind.
義。望速垂答示。
一不解能觀之法 二不識所觀之心 三不分內外二境 四不辨事理二造 五不曉觀法之功 六不體心法之難 七不知觀心之位 八不會觀心之意 九不善銷文 十不閑究理
第一不解能觀之法
夫評論佛法者。必須解義決定。發言誠諦。知勝知負。能進能退。儻心無所詣語自相違。已負而更進者。必不可與論道。吾祖之垂誡也。然今為惜乎大教。求止不獲。故略言其始末。俾少知其得失矣。
且發揮記。立廢觀心所以云。此玄十種三法。蓋大師扶順經文。法性圓談。始自性德三道。終至果人三德(正釋與料揀。並從三德訖至三道。故立始終無違見文也)一一三法悉是妙性。一一妙性悉是真源。豈此純談法性之外。更須立觀心耶。
扶宗記釋曰。觀心者。正論觀法。的示行門。須對境明觀俾惑滅果成。豈此圓談法性。便不立觀心耶。如法華玄義。所明法相。廢淺從深。一一皆至無作。復以二妙判開。豈不圓談法性乎。何故更立觀心耶。若剛廢此文。則杜絕眾生入理之門趣果之路。則全迷一家解行之要也。
據此所。釋廣明十種三法之後。須有觀心一科。不可輒廢。發揮之義。于茲已壞矣。
上人因遭此難。既知但教無觀。乖于本宗。乃將教代觀。而曲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 請解釋這些疑問，希望您能儘快給予解答。
一、不理解能觀之法；二、不認識所觀之心；三、不分內外二境；四、不辨事理二造；五、不曉觀法之功；六、不體心法之難；七、不知觀心之位；八、不會觀心之意；九、不善於理解文字；十、不精通探究義理。
第一、不理解能觀之法
評論佛法的人，必須理解義理並作出明確判斷，發言要真誠可信，知道勝在哪裡，知道敗在哪裡，能進也能退。如果心中沒有明確的目標，言語自然會互相矛盾，已經失敗了還要強行前進，這樣的人是不可以一起討論佛法的。這是我們祖師的告誡。然而現在我為佛法感到惋惜，想要阻止這種現象卻無法做到，所以略微談談事情的始末，希望能讓大家稍微瞭解其中的得失。
而且《發揮記》中，關於設立和廢除觀心的說法是這樣的：『這玄妙的十種三法，大概是智者大師爲了順應經文，圓滿地談論法性，從自性本具的三道開始，最終達到果地上所證的三德（對正釋和料揀的解釋，都是從三德結束到三道開始，所以設立始終沒有違背經文）。』每一種三法都是妙性，每一種妙性都是真源。難道在這種純粹談論法性之外，還需要設立觀心嗎？
《扶宗記》解釋說：『觀心，正是論述觀法，明確指示修行的方法。必須針對境界來明瞭觀，使迷惑消滅，果位成就。難道這種圓滿地談論法性，就不需要設立觀心了嗎？』比如《法華玄義》所闡明的法相，廢除淺顯的，遵循深奧的，每一步都達到無作的境界，又用二妙來判別開示，難道不是圓滿地談論法性嗎？為什麼還要設立觀心呢？如果硬要廢除這段文字，那就斷絕了眾生進入真理之門、趣向果位的道路，完全迷惑了一家解行並重的要旨。
根據這段解釋，在廣泛闡明十種三法之後，必須要有觀心這一科，不可以隨便廢除。《發揮記》的意義，在這裡已經被破壞了。
上人因為遇到這種詰難，已經知道只有教義而沒有觀行，是違背本宗的，於是就用教義來代替觀行，而委曲地解釋。
【English Translation】 English version: Please explain these doubts quickly.
- Not understanding the method of contemplation (Neng Guan Zhi Fa); 2. Not recognizing the mind being contemplated (Suo Guan Zhi Xin); 3. Not distinguishing between the inner and outer realms (Nei Wai Er Jing); 4. Not differentiating between the two creations of events and principles (Shi Li Er Zao); 5. Not understanding the merit of the method of contemplation (Guan Fa Zhi Gong); 6. Not appreciating the difficulty of the mind-method (Xin Fa Zhi Nan); 7. Not knowing the position of contemplating the mind (Guan Xin Zhi Wei); 8. Not understanding the meaning of contemplating the mind (Guan Xin Zhi Yi); 9. Not being good at interpreting texts (Xiao Wen); 10. Not being proficient in investigating principles (Jiu Li).
First, not understanding the method of contemplation (Neng Guan Zhi Fa)
Those who comment on the Buddha-dharma must understand the meaning and make definite judgments, speak sincerely and truthfully, know where one is winning and where one is losing, and be able to advance and retreat. If the mind has no clear goal, the words will naturally contradict each other. If one has already lost and still insists on advancing, it is impossible to discuss the Dharma with such a person. This is the admonition of our patriarchs. However, now I feel sorry for the great Dharma, and I cannot stop this phenomenon. Therefore, I will briefly talk about the beginning and the end of the matter, hoping to let everyone know a little about the gains and losses.
Moreover, in the 'Fahui Ji' (Commentary on Elucidation), the statement about establishing and abolishing contemplation of the mind (Guan Xin) is as follows: 'These ten kinds of three dharmas (Shi Zhong San Fa) are probably that Zhiyi (智顗) the Great Master, in order to comply with the sutra text, fully discussed the Dharma-nature (Fa Xing), starting from the three paths inherent in self-nature (Zi Xing De San Dao), and finally reaching the three virtues attained in the fruition (Guo Ren San De) (the explanation of the correct explanation and selection, both end with the three virtues and start with the three paths, so the establishment from beginning to end does not violate the text).' Each of the three dharmas is a wonderful nature (Miao Xing), and each wonderful nature is a true source (Zhen Yuan). Is it necessary to establish contemplation of the mind outside of this purely talking about Dharma-nature?
The 'Fuzong Ji' (Commentary Supporting the Tradition) explains: 'Contemplation of the mind is precisely discussing the method of contemplation, clearly indicating the method of practice. It is necessary to clearly contemplate the realm, so that delusion is eliminated and the fruition is achieved. Is it that this fully talking about Dharma-nature does not need to establish contemplation of the mind?' For example, the Dharma characteristics (Fa Xiang) explained in the 'Fa Hua Xuan Yi' (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra), abolish the shallow and follow the profound, and every step reaches the realm of non-action (Wu Zuo), and then use the two mysteries (Er Miao) to distinguish and reveal, isn't it fully talking about Dharma-nature? Why is it necessary to establish contemplation of the mind? If you insist on abolishing this passage, then you will cut off the path for sentient beings to enter the gate of truth and go to the fruition, and completely confuse the essentials of the family's emphasis on both understanding and practice.
According to this explanation, after widely explaining the ten kinds of three dharmas, there must be a subject of contemplation of the mind, which cannot be abolished casually. The meaning of the 'Fahui Ji' has been destroyed here.
The Superior Man (Shang Ren) because of encountering this difficulty, already knew that only having doctrine without practice of contemplation is contrary to the original tradition, so he used doctrine to replace contemplation, and explained it in a roundabout way.
救之。故撰辨訛曰。觀有二種。一曰理觀二曰事觀。今云不須觀心。乃不須附事而觀也。何則。所談十種三法。始凡終聖。亙果該因。無不以一法性而貫之。無不以六即位而成之。則使諸法等而無差。混而為一。事事全成於法界。心心全顯于金光。如此則豈非純明理觀乎。乃至云唸唸圓解。心心相續。何患不證果入理。及引普賢觀端坐念實相。眾罪如霜露。慧日能消除為證。即結云。豈非理觀乎(上皆辨訛文也)。
既云正釋十法純明理觀。則專是止觀也。
故問疑書難曰。事理二觀。即占察經。唯識及實相觀也。止觀四種三昧。不出二觀。唯識歷事。實相觀理。輔行雲。如常坐等。或唯觀理。隨自意。從末從事。故詰難云。若謂十法即是理觀。應此玄文。已是三種三昧也。以彼止觀。揀示識心。觀三千法。十法成乘策進行人。入內外凡。登于初住。方是理觀也。
上人祇知以教代觀。救于廢觀之失。乃云十法純是理觀。不意卻成有觀無教。
故問疑書難云。若此純明理觀。則有觀無教。何傍正之有乎。
上人被難之後。又知十法非是理觀。故撰答疑書。從容改轉。乃云。以由玄文直顯心性。義同理觀。且辨訛救云純明理觀。何曾云義同理觀。言既無準。義當自壞。
如不識瓜
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 救正這種錯誤觀點。所以撰寫《辨訛》說：『觀』有兩種，一是理觀，二是事觀。現在說『不須觀心』，就是不必執著于具體事物而進行觀想。為什麼呢？因為所談的十種三法，從凡夫到聖人，貫穿果位和因位，無不以一法性貫穿其中，無不以六即位成就。這樣就使得諸法平等而沒有差別，混合而成為一體，事事物物完全成就於法界，心心念唸完全顯現於金光。這樣豈不是純粹的理觀嗎？』乃至說『唸唸圓滿理解，心心相續不斷』，還擔心不能證得果位，契入真理嗎？並且引用《普賢觀經》中『端坐念實相，眾罪如霜露，慧日能消除』作為證明，最後總結說：『這豈不是理觀嗎？』（以上都是《辨訛》中的文字）。 既然說正確解釋十法是純粹的理觀，那麼就專門是止觀了。 所以《問疑書》中質疑說：『事觀和理觀，就是《占察經》、《唯識》以及實相觀。止觀的四種三昧，不出這兩種觀。唯識是經歷事相，實相觀是觀理。』《輔行記》中說：『如常坐等，或者只觀理，隨自己的意願，從末端從事相入手。』所以詰難說：『如果說十法就是理觀，那麼這個玄文，已經是三種三昧了。』因為那個止觀，揀擇顯示識心，觀三千法，十法成就乘，策勵修行人，進入內外凡，登上初住，才是理觀啊。 上人只是用教義代替觀修，救正廢棄觀修的過失，就說十法純粹是理觀，沒想到反而造成了有觀修而沒有教義的情況。 所以《問疑書》中質疑說：『如果這純粹是理觀，那麼就有觀修而沒有教義，哪裡還有傍正之分呢？』 上人在被質疑之後，又知道十法不是理觀，所以撰寫《答疑書》，從容地改變說法，說：『因為玄文直接顯現心性，義同理觀。』當初《辨訛》救正時說『純明理觀』，何曾說過『義同理觀』？言語既然沒有準則，意義自然會崩潰。 比如不認識瓜。
【English Translation】 English version: To correct this erroneous view, the 『Bian E』 (辨訛, Distinguishing Errors) states: 『There are two types of contemplation (觀, guan): one is principle contemplation (理觀, li guan), and the other is phenomenal contemplation (事觀, shi guan). Now, saying 『no need to contemplate the mind』 means there is no need to attach to phenomena for contemplation. Why? Because the ten kinds of three dharmas (十種三法, shi zhong san fa) discussed, from ordinary beings to sages, spanning the fruition and causal stages, are all permeated by one dharma-nature (法性, fa xing), and all are accomplished through the six identities (六即位, liu ji wei). This makes all dharmas equal without difference, blended into one, with all phenomena fully accomplished in the dharma-realm (法界, fa jie), and every thought fully manifesting in the golden light. Isn't this purely principle contemplation?』 Furthermore, it says, 『If every thought is perfectly understood and thoughts continuously follow one another, why worry about not attaining fruition and entering the truth?』 It also cites the 『Universal Worthy Contemplation Sutra』 (普賢觀經, Pu Xian Guan Jing): 『Sitting upright and contemplating reality, all sins are like frost and dew, which the sun of wisdom can eliminate』 as proof, concluding, 『Isn't this principle contemplation?』 (The above are all from the text of 『Bian E』). Since it is said that the correct explanation of the ten dharmas is purely principle contemplation, then it is exclusively 『zhi guan』 (止觀, calming and insight meditation). Therefore, the 『Wen Yi Shu』 (問疑書, Questioning Doubts) questions: 『Phenomenal and principle contemplations are found in the 『Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Dharani Sutra』 (占察經, Zhan Cha Jing), 『Consciousness-Only』 (唯識, Wei Shi), and the contemplation of reality. The four samadhis (四種三昧, si zhong san mei) of 『zhi guan』 do not go beyond these two contemplations. 『Consciousness-Only』 involves experiencing phenomena, while the contemplation of reality contemplates principle.』 The 『Fu Xing Ji』 (輔行記, Commentary on Zhi Guan) states: 『Like constant sitting, etc., or only contemplating principle, according to one's own intention, starting with phenomena from the end.』 Therefore, it questions: 『If it is said that the ten dharmas are principle contemplation, then this profound text is already the three samadhis.』 Because that 『zhi guan』 selects and reveals the mind of consciousness, contemplates the three thousand dharmas, and the ten dharmas accomplish the vehicle, urging practitioners to enter the inner and outer ordinary stages and ascend to the initial dwelling, that is principle contemplation. The Venerable One only uses doctrine to replace contemplation, correcting the fault of abandoning contemplation, and says that the ten dharmas are purely principle contemplation, unexpectedly creating a situation of having contemplation without doctrine. Therefore, the 『Wen Yi Shu』 questions: 『If this is purely principle contemplation, then there is contemplation without doctrine. Where is the distinction between auxiliary and principal?』 After being questioned, the Venerable One then knew that the ten dharmas are not principle contemplation, so he wrote the 『Da Yi Shu』 (答疑書, Answering Doubts), gradually changing his statement, saying: 『Because the profound text directly reveals the nature of mind, its meaning is similar to principle contemplation.』 Initially, 『Bian E』 said 『purely principle contemplation』 to correct errors. When did it ever say 『meaning is similar to principle contemplation』? Since the words have no standard, the meaning will naturally collapse. Like not recognizing a melon.
瓠者。乃錯認瓜定言是瓠。及被識者斥之。其錯言者。乃云相狀同瓠。既以似為真。故不可以此人之言。定其物像也。
況本立直顯心性故。義同理觀。且心性之名。釋簽定判在因。今既自甘十種三法。是果佛所證。則全非直顯心性。既非直顯心性。則自不同理觀。
又且縱上人從容改轉義同理觀。且常坐等。專立陰心為境。修十乘觀縱不全同。亦須略有境觀。十種三法。既蔑聞揀陰。將何義同理觀耶。
故詰難書。用十義驗此玄十法。不是理觀之義。則答疑書所立。又壞義雖數墮心不肯甘。
又撰五義書云。觀心之義。有三種。唯止觀約行觀心。乃立陰等為境。揀示識心。以為所觀。若附法託事二種觀心。但是直附事相法相。觀之攝事成理。皆不立陰入為境。乃至云。請搜撿一家教義。還有託事附法觀。別立陰入為境否。脫或有之必希垂示。
且上人自云。十法純明理觀。不須附事而觀。既云純明理觀。則知專是止觀約行觀心。儻稍兼事相法相。何名純談理觀。若少帶佛法生法。何名直顯心性。詰難書。本徴直顯心性純明理觀。何得將事法之觀答之。
豈非上人義窮計盡。謾指余途遮掩過非。豈不防智者之明鑑。豈不慚諸聖之照燭。
況託事附法之觀。何嘗不依陰入為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
好比有人把瓠（hù，葫蘆的一種）錯認為瓜，並斷言這就是瓜。如果被識貨的人指出來，這個說錯的人會辯解說它們外形相似。既然把相似當成真實，那麼就不能以這個人的說法來確定事物的本來面貌。 更何況，『本立直顯心性』的宗旨，其義理等同於『理觀』。而且，『心性』這個名稱，在《釋簽》的判決中，屬於『因』位。現在既然自願接受『十種三法』，這卻是果佛所證悟的境界，那就完全不是『直顯心性』。既然不是『直顯心性』，那麼自然就不同於『理觀』。 再者，即使上人勉強改變說法，認為『義同理觀』，並且像『常坐』等法門一樣，專門以陰心為境界。修習十乘觀，即使不完全相同，也必須略有境界和觀想。而『十種三法』，既然沒有聽說過要揀擇五陰，又怎麼能說它與『理觀』的義理相同呢？ 所以，《詰難書》用十個方面來驗證這個玄義的十法，如果它不是理觀的義理，那麼《答疑書》所立的觀點，即使屢次被駁倒，內心也不肯承認。 另外，撰寫的《五義書》中說，觀心的義理有三種，只有止觀宗的『約行觀心』，才設立五陰等為境界，揀擇顯示識心，作為所觀的對象。如果依附於法相或事相的兩種觀心，只是直接依附於事相或法相來觀，通過觀事相來成就理體，都不設立五陰、十二入為境界。甚至說，請搜尋一家教義，還有依附事相或法相的觀法，另外設立五陰、十二入為境界的嗎？如果真的有，請一定指教。 而且，上人自己說，十法純粹闡明理觀，不需要依附事相來觀。既然說是純粹闡明理觀，那就知道它專門是止觀宗的『約行觀心』。如果稍微兼顧事相或法相，怎麼能稱為純粹談論理觀？如果稍微帶有佛法或生法，怎麼能稱為直顯心性？《詰難書》本來是徵詢直顯心性、純明理觀的義理，怎麼能用事相法相的觀法來回答呢？ 這難道不是上人義理窮盡、計策用完，就隨意指向其他途徑來掩蓋過失嗎？難道不怕智者的明鑑，難道不慚愧諸聖的照燭嗎？ 更何況，依附事相或法相的觀法，何嘗不是依據五陰、十二入為基礎呢？
【English Translation】 English version:
It's like someone mistaking a gourd (hù, a type of calabash) for a melon and asserting that it is indeed a melon. If someone knowledgeable points out the error, the person who made the mistake might argue that they look similar. Since similarity is taken as truth, one cannot rely on that person's statement to determine the true nature of the object. Moreover, the principle of 'establishing the root and directly revealing the nature of mind' (本立直顯心性), its meaning is equivalent to 'contemplation of principle' (理觀). Furthermore, the term 'nature of mind' (心性), according to the judgment in 'Explanation of the Commentary' (釋簽), belongs to the 'causal' (因) position. Now, since one willingly accepts the 'Ten Kinds of Three Dharmas' (十種三法), which is the realm enlightened by the Buddha of Fruition (果佛), it is completely not 'directly revealing the nature of mind'. Since it is not 'directly revealing the nature of mind', then naturally it is different from 'contemplation of principle'. Furthermore, even if the Venerable One reluctantly changes the statement, considering 'meaning is equivalent to contemplation of principle', and like the 'Constant Sitting' (常坐) and other practices, specifically takes the mind of the skandhas (陰心) as the object. Practicing the Ten Vehicles of Contemplation (十乘觀), even if not completely the same, must have some object and contemplation. And the 'Ten Kinds of Three Dharmas', since there is no mention of selecting the five skandhas (五陰), how can it be said that its meaning is the same as 'contemplation of principle'? Therefore, the 'Inquiry and Challenge Letter' (詰難書) uses ten aspects to verify this profound ten dharmas. If it is not the meaning of contemplation of principle, then the viewpoint established in the 'Reply to Doubts Letter' (答疑書), even if repeatedly refuted, the mind is unwilling to admit it. In addition, the composed 'Five Meanings Letter' (五義書) says that there are three meanings of contemplating the mind. Only the Tiantai school's 'contemplation of mind based on practice' (約行觀心) establishes the five skandhas etc. as the object, selecting and showing the mind of consciousness as the object of contemplation. If relying on the two kinds of contemplation of mind based on dharma characteristics or phenomena, it is only directly relying on phenomena or dharma characteristics to contemplate, achieving the principle through contemplating phenomena, and does not establish the five skandhas, twelve entrances as the object. It even says, please search through the teachings of one school, is there any contemplation relying on phenomena or dharma characteristics that separately establishes the five skandhas, twelve entrances as the object? If there really is, please be sure to instruct. Moreover, the Venerable One himself says that the ten dharmas purely clarify contemplation of principle, and do not need to rely on phenomena to contemplate. Since it is said to purely clarify contemplation of principle, then it is known that it is specifically the Tiantai school's 'contemplation of mind based on practice'. If slightly combining phenomena or dharma characteristics, how can it be called purely discussing contemplation of principle? If slightly carrying Buddha-dharma or sentient being-dharma, how can it be called directly revealing the nature of mind? The 'Inquiry and Challenge Letter' originally inquired about the meaning of directly revealing the nature of mind and purely clarifying contemplation of principle, how can one answer with the contemplation of phenomena and dharma characteristics? Isn't this because the Venerable One's reasoning is exhausted and strategies are used up, so he arbitrarily points to other paths to cover up faults? Is he not afraid of the clear discernment of the wise, is he not ashamed of the illumination of the sages? Moreover, the contemplation relying on phenomena or dharma characteristics, how is it not based on the five skandhas, twelve entrances?
境。故萬二千人。以十二入為境。各具千如。為觀十弟子。以王數為境。一體三寶為觀。王城耆山。皆以五陰為境。以三德為觀。故妙樂云。正當觀陰。具如止觀第五去文。又云。又諸觀境。不出五陰等。若附法相觀。並用妙解。攝法歸心。方修觀行。所觀之心。非陰是何。如此明文。顯示三種觀法。皆以陰入為境。
又上人堅云。若事法觀。以陰為境。即同止觀約行之觀。何名託事附法觀者。
且妙樂云。正當觀陰具如止觀第五去文。豈非荊溪以託事。例同約行。俱觀陰境。
上人此立不同。記主引例令同。是則不同之義。又壞也。故覆問書。具引此文為難。上人不知慚愧。唯知轉計。但得一句少分略存。則便怒張抵拒。
故今來義狀。乃云。五義書自云。諸文事法觀心。不說于陰揀示識心。今文觀心。既云棄三觀一。以驗是訛也。
且五義書只云。若別立陰入為境者。此則全同止觀約行。何名事法觀耶。請搜檢一家教義。還有託事附法觀。別立陰入為境。否。脫或有之。必希垂示。
至予將別立陰入為境教文示之。乃轉執云。我本自問于陰揀境。諸文所無。不問通立陰境。將此欲暫延邪計。且諸文揀示陰入為境。雖不全同止觀。而文義非無。應知。修事法觀者。不妨揀境。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：境界。所以一萬二千人，以十二入（十二入：佛教術語，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根及其所對的色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵）為境界，各自具備千如（千如：指事物所具有的各種性質和狀態），作為觀想十弟子（十弟子：佛陀的十大弟子）的方法。以國王的數量為境界，以一體三寶（一體三寶：指佛、法、僧三寶，視為一體）為觀想。王城（王城：指國王居住的城市）和耆山（耆山：山名，佛陀曾在此說法）都以五陰（五陰：佛教術語，指色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素）為境界，以三德（三德：指法身德、般若德、解脫德）為觀想。所以妙樂（妙樂：指妙樂大師湛然）說：『正當觀想五陰，具體內容如《止觀》第五篇所說。』又說：『各種觀想的境界，都不超出五陰等。』如果依附法相觀想，都用妙解（妙解：指對佛法的精妙理解），攝法歸心，才修觀行。所觀想的心，如果不是五陰，那是什麼？』如此明確的文字，顯示了三種觀法，都以陰入為境界。
又上人堅（上人堅：指一位法師）說：『如果事法觀（事法觀：指通過具體事物來觀想佛法）以五陰為境界，就和《止觀》中約行之觀（約行之觀：指通過修行來觀想佛法）相同了。那還叫什麼託事附法觀（託事附法觀：指依託具體事物，依附佛法來進行觀想）呢？』
而且妙樂說：『正當觀想五陰，具體內容如《止觀》第五篇所說。』難道不是荊溪（荊溪：指湛然，因其居住在荊溪）以託事，和約行相同，都觀想五陰的境界嗎？
上人（上人：指上文提到的法師）這樣立論不同，記主（記主：指記錄和解釋的人）引用例子使之相同，那麼不同的意義，又被破壞了。所以覆問書（覆問書：指用來反駁的書信）詳細引用這段文字來反駁。上人不知慚愧，只知道轉移話題。只要得到一句少部分略微存在的說法，就怒氣衝衝地抵賴抗拒。
所以現在來的義狀（義狀：指辯論的文章）中說：『五義書（五義書：指一本闡述五種意義的書）自己說，各種關於事法觀心的文章，沒有說在五陰中揀選顯示識心（識心：指意識）。現在這篇文章觀心，既然說拋棄三種觀法而只用一種，以此來驗證它是錯誤的。』
而且《五義書》只說：『如果另外設立陰入為境界，這就完全和《止觀》中約行相同了。那還叫什麼事法觀呢？』請搜尋一家教義，還有託事附法觀，另外設立陰入為境界的嗎？或許有，請您指教。
等到我將另外設立陰入為境界的教文展示給他，他卻轉而堅持說：『我本來是問在五陰中揀選境界，各種文章中沒有。不是問普遍設立陰境。』想用這個來暫時延續錯誤的觀點。而且各種文章揀選顯示陰入為境界，雖然不完全和《止觀》相同，但文義並非沒有。應該知道，修習事法觀的人，不妨揀選境界。
【English Translation】 English version: Realm. Therefore, twelve thousand people take the twelve entrances (十二入: Dvadasayatana, referring to the six sense organs and their corresponding six sense objects) as their realm, each possessing a thousand suchnesses (千如: thousand aspects of reality), as a method of contemplating the ten disciples (十弟子: the ten great disciples of the Buddha). They take the number of kings as their realm, and contemplate the unified Three Jewels (一體三寶: the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha as one). The royal city (王城: the capital city) and Mount Ghrdhrakuta (耆山: Vulture Peak Mountain, where the Buddha often taught) both take the five skandhas (五陰: the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) as their realm, and contemplate the three virtues (三德: the three virtues of Dharmakaya, Prajna, and Liberation). Therefore, Miao Le (妙樂: Master Zhanran of the Tiantai school) said, 'It is proper to contemplate the five skandhas, as detailed in the fifth chapter of 'Mohe Zhiguan'.' He also said, 'All realms of contemplation do not go beyond the five skandhas, etc.' If one relies on the Dharma-character contemplation, one should use profound understanding (妙解: profound understanding of the Dharma), gather all Dharmas back to the mind, and then cultivate contemplation. If the mind being contemplated is not the five skandhas, then what is it?' Such clear words show that all three types of contemplation take the skandhas and entrances as their realm.
Furthermore, Upādhyāya Jian (上人堅: a Dharma master) said, 'If the contemplation of phenomena (事法觀: contemplating Dharma through phenomena) takes the five skandhas as its realm, then it is the same as the contemplation based on practice in 'Mohe Zhiguan'. What is the meaning of relying on phenomena and adhering to Dharma for contemplation (託事附法觀: contemplating by relying on phenomena and adhering to Dharma)?'
Moreover, Miao Le said, 'It is proper to contemplate the five skandhas, as detailed in the fifth chapter of 'Mohe Zhiguan'.' Isn't it the case that Jingxi (荊溪: Zhanran, named after his residence in Jingxi) takes relying on phenomena to be the same as relying on practice, both contemplating the realm of the five skandhas?
The Upādhyāya establishes this difference, while the commentator (記主: the one who records and explains) uses examples to make them the same. Then the meaning of difference is also destroyed. Therefore, the letter of inquiry (覆問書: a letter for rebuttal) quotes this passage in detail to refute. The Upādhyāya does not know shame, only knows how to shift the argument. As long as he gets a sentence that is slightly preserved, he angrily resists.
Therefore, the current statement of meaning (義狀: a written argument) says, 'The 'Five Meanings Book' (五義書: a book explaining five meanings) itself says that various texts on contemplating the mind through phenomena do not say to select and show the consciousness-mind (識心: consciousness) from the five skandhas. Now this text on contemplating the mind, since it says to abandon the three contemplations and only use one, is proven to be erroneous.'
Moreover, the 'Five Meanings Book' only says, 'If one separately establishes the skandhas and entrances as the realm, then this is completely the same as relying on practice in 'Mohe Zhiguan'. What is the meaning of contemplating phenomena?' Please search the teachings of one school, is there any contemplation of relying on phenomena and adhering to Dharma that separately establishes the skandhas and entrances as the realm? Perhaps there is, please instruct me.
When I showed him the teaching text that separately establishes the skandhas and entrances as the realm, he turned around and insisted, 'I originally asked about selecting the realm from the five skandhas, which is not in various texts. I did not ask about universally establishing the realm of the skandhas.' He wants to temporarily extend his erroneous view with this. Moreover, various texts select and show the skandhas and entrances as the realm, although not completely the same as 'Mohe Zhiguan', the meaning is not absent. It should be known that those who cultivate the contemplation of phenomena may as well select the realm.
如妙玄五義觀心。云一心成觀轉教余心。豈非心王觀成。歷諸心數。自然清凈耶。
若不揀陰。何得一心之觀。先成然後教余心耶。此則同今觀心文中。心能充益受想行文也。又同若知心無心為光。則知想行非想行為明等也。亦是義例內心。若凈以此凈心。遍歷諸法。任運泯合也。既云一心成觀。豈得不作觀成理顯釋之耶。
又云三界無別法。唯是一心作。此正當去尺就寸。唯取識陰總無明心也。既云唯是一心作。得非揀取無明識陰耶。此云棄三觀一。彼云唯一心作。此云心為光。則想行為明。彼云一心成觀。轉教余心。此則彼此揀示陰境。彼此觀成遍融。何計曲拗令不同耶。又諸文。既許立陰為境。此文的示陰中識心。有何等過。
今卻問上人。請探檢一家教義。還有何文定云。若於陰揀示識心為境。則不成附法觀門。脫或有之。必希垂示。
況妙樂云。正當觀陰。具如止觀第五去文。豈非令講授者。懸取止觀揀境之意。及觀法之義。示其初心。令其于陰揀境。修乎託事之觀。疏句文略。記主尚令講者。揀陰示之。今此觀心。既已於境揀示。正合荊溪之意。驗知初心可用修習也。
又且縱上人轉計。云託事附法觀。不得揀示識心。唯約行觀。即須于陰揀示識心為境。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
正如妙玄五義觀心所說：『一心成就觀行，然後教化其餘心念。』難道不是說心王（指主要的心識）的觀行成就后，歷經各種心數（指各種心理活動），自然就清凈了嗎？ 如果不揀擇五陰（色、受、想、行、識），怎麼能成就一心之觀？怎麼能先成就觀行，然後教化其餘心念呢？這和現在觀心文中的『心能充益受想行』的說法相同。又和『若知心無心為光，則知想行非想行為明』等說法相同。這也是義例內心，如果清凈，用這個清凈心，遍歷諸法，自然泯合。既然說『一心成就觀行』，怎麼能不作觀行成就，理體顯現的解釋呢？ 又說：『三界沒有別的法，唯一是心所造作。』這正是捨棄大的，選取小的，只取識陰（五陰之一，指識別作用）總括無明心。既然說『唯一是心所造作』，難道不是揀取無明識陰嗎？這裡說捨棄三觀歸於一觀，那裡說唯一是心所造作。這裡說心為光，則想行為明，那裡說一心成就觀行，教化其餘心念。這正是彼此揀擇指示五陰境界，彼此觀行成就，普遍融合。為什麼一定要曲解，使它們不同呢？而且各種經文，既然允許建立五陰作為境界，這篇經文明確指示五陰中的識心，有什麼過錯呢？ 現在反問上人，請您探究檢索一家教義，還有什麼經文明確說，如果在五陰中揀擇指示識心作為境界，就不能成就附法觀門？如果確實有這樣的經文，希望您能指教。 況且妙樂說：『正當觀五陰』，詳細內容如止觀第五篇所說。難道不是讓講授者，預先選取止觀中揀擇境界的意義，以及觀法（觀修方法）的意義，指示給初學者，讓他們在五陰中揀擇境界，修習依託事相的觀行嗎？疏句文辭簡略，記主尚且讓講者揀擇五陰指示。現在這篇觀心，既然已經在境界上揀擇指示，正符合荊溪（湛然）的意義。驗證可知，初學者可以使用這種方法修習。 而且就算上人您再三辯解，說依託事相的附法觀，不能揀擇指示識心，只能約行觀（就行為進行觀修），也必須在五陰中揀擇指示識心作為境界。
【English Translation】 English version:
As the Wonderful Profundity of the Five Meanings of Contemplating the Mind states: 'When the one mind accomplishes contemplation, it then teaches the remaining minds.' Is it not the case that when the contemplation of the mind-king (the principal consciousness) is accomplished, passing through all mental activities (citta-samkhya), it naturally becomes pure? If one does not discriminate the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), how can one accomplish the contemplation of the one mind? How can one first accomplish contemplation and then teach the remaining minds? This is the same as the statement in the current text on contemplating the mind: 'The mind can enrich feeling, perception, and mental formations.' It is also the same as statements such as 'If one knows that the mind without mind is light, then one knows that perception and mental formations that are not perception and mental formations are brightness.' This is also the inner meaning of the principle that if it is pure, using this pure mind, traversing all dharmas, they naturally merge. Moreover, it is said: 'The three realms have no separate dharmas; they are solely created by the one mind.' This is precisely abandoning the large and choosing the small, only taking the consciousness skandha (vijnana-skandha, the skandha of consciousness) as encompassing the mind of ignorance. Since it is said that 'they are solely created by the one mind,' is it not discriminating and selecting the consciousness skandha of ignorance? Here it speaks of abandoning the three contemplations and returning to one contemplation; there it speaks of solely being created by the one mind. Here it says that the mind is light, then perception and mental formations are brightness; there it says that the one mind accomplishes contemplation, teaching the remaining minds. This is precisely mutually discriminating and indicating the realms of the skandhas, mutually accomplishing contemplation and universally merging. Why must one distort and make them different? Moreover, since various texts allow establishing the skandhas as realms, what fault is there in this text clearly indicating the consciousness mind within the skandhas? Now, I ask the Venerable One in return: please explore and examine the teachings of our school. Is there any text that definitively states that if one discriminates and indicates the consciousness mind as a realm within the skandhas, then one cannot accomplish the Dharma-adhering contemplation gate? If there is indeed such a text, I hope you will enlighten me. Moreover, Miao Le (Zhanran's commentary) says: 'One should rightly contemplate the skandhas,' with detailed content as stated in the fifth chapter of Zhi Guan (止觀, 'Ceasing and Contemplating'). Is it not to have the lecturer preemptively select the meaning of discriminating realms in Zhi Guan, as well as the meaning of the contemplation method (guanfa), and indicate it to beginners, so that they can discriminate realms within the skandhas and cultivate contemplation that relies on phenomena? The phrases in the commentary are brief, but the author still instructs the lecturer to discriminate and indicate the skandhas. Now, this contemplation of the mind, since it has already discriminated and indicated the realm, precisely accords with the meaning of Jingxi (湛然, Zhanran). Verification shows that beginners can use this method to cultivate. Furthermore, even if you, Venerable One, argue repeatedly that Dharma-adhering contemplation that relies on phenomena cannot discriminate and indicate the consciousness mind, but can only be about the contemplation of actions (xing guan), it is still necessary to discriminate and indicate the consciousness mind as a realm within the skandhas.
且上人堅立。十種三法。純明理觀。若非約行。為是何等觀法。況揀卻附事之外。特立純明理觀。豈非辨訛。專取約行。為理觀耶。
既是約行之觀。因何全不于陰揀境。若無其境。觀依何立。境觀既無。豈得純明理觀耶。
豈知破他全成自破。是誰厥過斯彰。此過既彰。則義宗全壞。將何救于發揮邪說。應知。自發揮至今來義狀。共得四番轉計五回墮負。不知此後如何轉計。更令理觀非約行觀耶(上人今既得知理觀專是約行。故今來救曰。十種三法。正是止觀約行之觀。所顯之理。行人既聞此理。則自能修于理觀。如此救於十法。純談理觀。豈可得耶。若論約行所顯。正是心性三千。若謂十種三法。不離我心。用觀顯發。自是附法之觀。不名理觀也。上人自立觀法。卻令文全不談理觀。又云同於法界次第者。純談理觀。直顯心性。過於妙玄之說何在耶)。
應知。十種三法。唯談果佛所證法相。只是約教開解。況文初自云。約信解分別。故於此後。須有觀心一科。顯于圓行。方合一家教觀傍正之義也。
上人立宗既墮。將何更論。無請執迷。便希解悟。即佇回報。用塞虛心。
第二不識所觀之心
扶宗記釋。此觀心文。初棄三觀一。問答之文。是定所觀。及釋伏疑。未論修
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：而且上人您堅持認為，十種三法（指天臺宗的十種三法），完全是純粹明瞭的理觀。如果不是依據行門（指修行實踐），那又是什麼樣的觀法呢？更何況您捨棄了依附事相之外的觀法，特別強調純粹明瞭的理觀，難道不是爲了辨別謬誤，專門選取依據行門的理觀嗎？ 既然是依據行門的觀法，為什麼完全不在五陰（色、受、想、行、識）中辨別境界呢？如果沒有境界，觀法依據什麼而成立呢？境界和觀法都沒有，怎麼能說是純粹明瞭的理觀呢？ 難道不知道破斥別人，完全變成了自我否定嗎？這是誰的過錯如此明顯？這個過錯既然已經顯現，那麼義宗（指天臺宗的教義根本）就完全崩潰了。用什麼來挽救您所發揮的邪說呢？應該知道，從您發揮邪說到現在，義理的狀態，總共經過四次轉變計較，五次陷入失敗。不知道此後您又如何轉變計較，更要讓理觀不是依據行門的觀法呢？（上人您現在既然已經得知理觀專門是依據行門的，所以現在來挽救說：十種三法，正是止觀（指天臺止觀）依據行門的觀法，所顯現的道理。修行人既然聽聞了這個道理，自然就能修習理觀。如此來挽救十法，完全談論理觀，怎麼可以呢？如果說依據行門所顯現的，正是心性三千（指一念心中具足三千世界）。如果說十種三法，不離我的心，用觀法來顯發，這自然是依附法相的觀法，不能稱為理觀啊。上人您自己創立觀法，卻讓文章完全不談論理觀，又說等同於《法界次第》的內容，完全談論理觀，直接顯現心性，那超過《妙玄》（《摩訶止觀》的別名）的說法又在哪裡呢？） 應該知道，十種三法，只是談論果佛（指已經證得佛果的佛）所證悟的法相，只是依據教義來開解。況且文章開頭自己說，依據信解來分別。所以在此之後，必須要有觀心一科，來顯現圓行（指圓滿的修行），才符合一家教觀（指天臺宗的教相和觀行）傍正的意義啊。 上人您立宗已經墮落，還用什麼來辯論呢？沒有請求就固執己見，希望得到理解和領悟，就等待您的回覆，用來填補您空虛的心。 第二，不認識所觀的心 《扶宗記》解釋說，這篇觀心的文章，首先捨棄了三觀（空觀、假觀、中觀）合一的問答之文，是確定所觀的對象，以及解釋消除疑惑，還沒有論述修習。
【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, you, Superior One, firmly assert that the Ten Types of Three Dharmas (referring to the ten types of three dharmas in the Tiantai school) are entirely pure and clear principle contemplation (理觀). If it is not based on practice (行門, referring to practical cultivation), then what kind of contemplation is it? Furthermore, you abandon contemplation that relies on external phenomena and particularly emphasize pure and clear principle contemplation. Isn't this to distinguish errors and specifically select principle contemplation based on practice? Since it is contemplation based on practice, why do you not at all discern the realms within the five skandhas (五陰, form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness)? If there are no realms, upon what does the contemplation rely to be established? If both realms and contemplation are absent, how can it be called pure and clear principle contemplation? How can you not know that refuting others completely becomes self-negation? Whose fault is so obvious? Since this fault has already manifested, then the fundamental doctrine (義宗, referring to the fundamental doctrines of the Tiantai school) completely collapses. What will you use to salvage the heretical views you have expounded? You should know that from the time you expounded heretical views until now, the state of the doctrine has undergone a total of four shifts in calculation and five falls into defeat. I do not know how you will shift your calculations hereafter, to further make principle contemplation not a contemplation based on practice? (Now that you, Superior One, have already learned that principle contemplation is specifically based on practice, you now come to salvage it by saying: The Ten Types of Three Dharmas are precisely the contemplation based on practice of Zhi-guan (止觀, referring to Tiantai Zhi-guan), which reveals the principle. Since practitioners have heard this principle, they will naturally be able to cultivate principle contemplation. How can you salvage the Ten Dharmas in this way, by completely discussing principle contemplation? If it is said that what is revealed based on practice is precisely the Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought (心性三千, referring to the completeness of three thousand worlds in a single thought). If it is said that the Ten Types of Three Dharmas are inseparable from my mind, and are revealed and developed through contemplation, this is naturally contemplation that relies on phenomena, and cannot be called principle contemplation. You, Superior One, establish your own contemplation method, but the text completely does not discuss principle contemplation, and you also say it is the same as the contents of 'The次第法界' (法界次第). Where is the saying that completely discusses principle contemplation and directly reveals the mind-nature, surpassing the 'Profound Meaning' (妙玄, another name for 'Mohe Zhiguan' 摩訶止觀)? You should know that the Ten Types of Three Dharmas only discuss the Dharma characteristics realized by the Fruit Buddha (果佛, referring to a Buddha who has already attained Buddhahood), and only explain based on the teachings. Moreover, the beginning of the text itself says that it distinguishes based on faith and understanding. Therefore, after this, there must be a section on contemplating the mind, to reveal perfect practice (圓行, referring to perfect cultivation), which is in accordance with the meaning of the auxiliary and primary of the teachings and contemplation (教觀, referring to the doctrines and practices of the Tiantai school) of one family. You, Superior One, have already fallen in establishing your doctrine, what else can you argue about? You stubbornly adhere to your views without asking for clarification, hoping to gain understanding and enlightenment, and await your reply to fill your empty heart. Secondly, not recognizing the mind that is contemplated The 'Fuzong Ji' (扶宗記) explains that this article on contemplating the mind first abandons the question-and-answer text of the unity of the three contemplations (三觀, emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way), which is to determine the object of contemplation, and to explain and eliminate doubts, without yet discussing cultivation.
觀。
辨訛破云。止觀去尺就寸。觀識之文。正明修觀。何得例未修之義。
問疑書徴曰。輔行於陰入境。文分兩段。謂先重明陰境。即指三科內。唯取識心。去尺就寸文也。次明修觀。即十法成乘之文也。既去尺就寸文。是定所觀之境。何曾便是修觀相耶。豈可見在正修章中。便是修觀相耶。只如正明修觀文中。尚須更揀思議。取不思議。方為觀法。何得將定境之文。便謂正明修觀。
此既明文顯示。無計曲救。故答疑書中。自甘伏云。見示去尺就寸之文。輔行指為先重明境者。誠哉是言。蓋予昨來有失檢尋。致茲造次。孔子曰。法語之言。能無從乎。改之為貴。今改之也(上皆答疑書文也)。
若稍後之義。或失尋撿。名相參差。則章鈔共有。且夫定境修觀。乃是止觀一部綱格。進道要宗。豈須撿尋。方能分別。以此驗知。上人於一家境觀。素不掛心。答釋之際。遍檢諸文。旋作計校。是故凡所引文。皆不當理。
且夫大師。垂示觀法。皆為除病。揀定識心。是病之根穴。乃用十乘法藥。委細治之。若將病為藥。是認賊為將。則一部止觀。皆不堪也。
上人議論之前。凡得幾回聽講。幾回溫習。幾回說授。還曾於此境觀。分藥病否。若能分之。何故將所觀。為能觀耶。然雖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 觀。
辨析謬誤，破除迷云。『止觀』中『去尺就寸』的說法，是針對『觀識』的文字。這段文字明確說明了修習『觀』的方法，怎麼能用未修習的道理來類比呢？
『問疑書徴』中說：『輔行』在解釋『陰入境』時，將文字分為兩段。第一段是再次強調『陰境』，也就是指『三科』（五陰、十二處、十八界）之內，只取『識心』，這就是『去尺就寸』的文字。第二段是說明修習『觀』，也就是『十法成乘』的文字。既然『去尺就寸』的文字是確定所觀之境，怎麼能說是修習『觀』的相貌呢？難道因為出現在『正修章』中，就認為是修習『觀』的相貌嗎？即使在明確說明修習『觀』的文字中，尚且需要進一步選擇思議和不思議，選取不思議的，才能作為『觀』的方法。怎麼能將確定境界的文字，就說成是明確說明修習『觀』呢？』
這段文字已經明確顯示，無法用其他方法來辯解。所以在『答疑書』中，自己承認說：『您指出『去尺就寸』的文字，『輔行』認為是再次強調境界，確實是這樣。我之前疏忽檢查，導致了這次錯誤。孔子說：『合乎法度的言語，能不聽從嗎？改正錯誤才是可貴的。』現在我改正它。』（以上都是『答疑書』中的文字）
如果稍微晚一點的道理，或者疏忽檢查，名相出現差異，那麼『章』和『鈔』中都有。而且，確定境界和修習『觀』，是『止觀』一部的綱領和進道的關鍵。難道需要檢查才能分辨嗎？由此可以知道，上人對於『一家』的境界和『觀』，平時並不放在心上。在回答解釋的時候，遍查各種文字，臨時進行計算和比較。因此，凡是引用的文字，都不合道理。
而且，大師垂示『觀』的方法，都是爲了去除疾病。選擇確定『識心』，是疾病的根源。因此用『十乘觀法』的藥物，仔細地治療它。如果把疾病當作藥物，就是認賊作父。那麼整部『止觀』，都不可靠了。
上人在議論之前，總共聽了幾次講？溫習了幾次？講授了幾次？是否曾在此境界和『觀』中，區分藥物和疾病？如果能夠區分，為什麼要把所觀的，當作能觀的呢？雖然這樣……
English version: Contemplation.
Distinguishing errors and dispelling clouds of confusion. The 'reducing feet to inches' ('qu chi jiu cun') statement in 'Zhi Guan' (止觀, Ceasing and Contemplating) refers to the text on 'contemplating consciousness' ('guan shi'). This passage clearly explains the method of cultivating 'contemplation' ('guan'), how can one use the principles of non-cultivation to make analogies?
In 'Wen Yi Shu Zheng' (問疑書徴, Inquiry and Doubtful Evidences), it says: 'Fu Xing' (輔行, Assisting Conduct) divides the text into two sections when explaining 'Yin Ru Jing' (陰入境, Entering the Realm of Skandhas). The first section is to re-emphasize 'Yin Jing' (陰境, the Realm of Skandhas), which refers to taking only 'consciousness-mind' ('shi xin') within the 'Three Categories' ('San Ke', 五陰, 十二處, 十八界, Five Skandhas, Twelve Entrances, Eighteen Realms). This is the text of 'reducing feet to inches'. The second section explains the cultivation of 'contemplation' ('guan'), which is the text of 'Ten Methods of Accomplishing the Vehicle' ('Shi Fa Cheng Cheng'). Since the text of 'reducing feet to inches' is to determine the object of contemplation, how can it be said to be the appearance of cultivating 'contemplation'? Just because it appears in the 'Zheng Xiu Zhang' (正修章, Chapter on Correct Cultivation), does it mean it is the appearance of cultivating 'contemplation'? Even in the text that clearly explains the cultivation of 'contemplation', it is still necessary to further select between thinking and non-thinking, and only by selecting non-thinking can it be used as the method of 'contemplation'. How can the text of determining the realm be said to be clearly explaining the cultivation of 'contemplation'?
This passage is already clearly displayed and cannot be defended by other means. Therefore, in the 'Da Yi Shu' (答疑書, Reply to Doubts), one admits: 'You pointed out that the text of 'reducing feet to inches', 'Fu Xing' considers it to be re-emphasizing the realm, which is indeed the case. I was negligent in checking before, which led to this mistake. Confucius said: 'Words that conform to the law, can one not listen to them? Correcting mistakes is valuable.' Now I correct it.' (The above are all texts from 'Da Yi Shu')
If the principles are slightly later, or there is negligence in checking, and the names and terms are different, then both 'Zhang' (章, Chapter) and 'Chao' (鈔, Commentary) have them. Moreover, determining the realm and cultivating 'contemplation' are the outline of the entire 'Zhi Guan' and the key to advancing on the path. Is it necessary to check before one can distinguish them? From this, it can be known that the person above does not usually pay attention to the realm and 'contemplation' of 'one's own school'. When answering and explaining, they check all kinds of texts and temporarily calculate and compare them. Therefore, all the cited texts are unreasonable.
Moreover, the Great Master's instructions on the method of 'contemplation' are all for removing illnesses. Selecting and determining 'consciousness-mind' ('shi xin') is the root of the illness. Therefore, the medicine of 'Ten Methods of Contemplation' ('Shi Cheng Guan Fa') is used to carefully treat it. If one treats the illness as medicine, it is like recognizing a thief as a father. Then the entire 'Zhi Guan' is unreliable.
Before the person above discusses, how many times have they listened to the lectures? How many times have they reviewed? How many times have they taught? Have they ever distinguished between medicine and illness in this realm and 'contemplation'? If they can distinguish, why do they regard what is contemplated as the one who contemplates? Although this is the case...
【English Translation】 Contemplation.
Distinguishing errors and dispelling clouds of confusion. The 'reducing feet to inches' statement in 'Zhi Guan' refers to the text on 'contemplating consciousness'. This passage clearly explains the method of cultivating 'contemplation', how can one use the principles of non-cultivation to make analogies?
In 'Wen Yi Shu Zheng', it says: 'Fu Xing' divides the text into two sections when explaining 'Yin Ru Jing'. The first section is to re-emphasize 'Yin Jing', which refers to taking only 'consciousness-mind' within the 'Three Categories'. This is the text of 'reducing feet to inches'. The second section explains the cultivation of 'contemplation', which is the text of 'Ten Methods of Accomplishing the Vehicle'. Since the text of 'reducing feet to inches' is to determine the object of contemplation, how can it be said to be the appearance of cultivating 'contemplation'? Just because it appears in the 'Zheng Xiu Zhang', does it mean it is the appearance of cultivating 'contemplation'? Even in the text that clearly explains the cultivation of 'contemplation', it is still necessary to further select between thinking and non-thinking, and only by selecting non-thinking can it be used as the method of 'contemplation'. How can the text of determining the realm be said to be clearly explaining the cultivation of 'contemplation'?
This passage is already clearly displayed and cannot be defended by other means. Therefore, in the 'Da Yi Shu', one admits: 'You pointed out that the text of 'reducing feet to inches', 'Fu Xing' considers it to be re-emphasizing the realm, which is indeed the case. I was negligent in checking before, which led to this mistake. Confucius said: 'Words that conform to the law, can one not listen to them? Correcting mistakes is valuable.' Now I correct it.' (The above are all texts from 'Da Yi Shu')
If the principles are slightly later, or there is negligence in checking, and the names and terms are different, then both 'Zhang' and 'Chao' have them. Moreover, determining the realm and cultivating 'contemplation' are the outline of the entire 'Zhi Guan' and the key to advancing on the path. Is it necessary to check before one can distinguish them? From this, it can be known that the person above does not usually pay attention to the realm and 'contemplation' of 'one's own school'. When answering and explaining, they check all kinds of texts and temporarily calculate and compare them. Therefore, all the cited texts are unreasonable.
Moreover, the Great Master's instructions on the method of 'contemplation' are all for removing illnesses. Selecting and determining 'consciousness-mind' is the root of the illness. Therefore, the medicine of 'Ten Methods of Contemplation' is used to carefully treat it. If one treats the illness as medicine, it is like recognizing a thief as a father. Then the entire 'Zhi Guan' is unreliable.
Before the person above discusses, how many times have they listened to the lectures? How many times have they reviewed? How many times have they taught? Have they ever distinguished between medicine and illness in this realm and 'contemplation'? If they can distinguish, why do they regard what is contemplated as the one who contemplates? Although this is the case...
知改之為貴。奈何錯解既深。其根難拔。只略知分境觀之文。而殊不能分境觀之義。
且據上人心性之義。則彰其失錯解未除也。何者詰難書。引金錍．及大意．不變．隨緣．名心。以證所觀。是隨緣所成一念妄心也。上人乃輒云。緣有染凈。隨染緣作九界心。隨凈緣作佛界心。乃斥予不合將隨緣一向在染。及堅執心性名通真妄。
又云止觀引華嚴心造諸如來。是非染非凈心等者。此則備見上人不識所觀心境。致茲妄立妄破也。
且如心性之名。妙玄及釋簽定判。屬因為初心所觀之境。故云佛法太高。眾生太廣。初心為難。心佛及眾生。是三無差別。觀心則易。是則諸佛亦有心。眾生亦有心。若隨凈緣。作佛界心。則高遠難觀。若隨諸染緣。作一切眾生心。則廣散難觀。故輒取一分染緣熏起。自己即今剎那陰等之心。依之顯性也。是則隨緣不變之性。攝佛攝生。亦高亦廣。不變隨緣之心。非佛非生。不高不廣。近而且要。是故初心最可托之修觀也。
釋籤文云。理本無差。差約事用。豈非心即性故。何所不該。乃無差也。性即心故。心不是佛。佛不是生。乃云。若以佛法觀之。似如不逮。若以心性觀之。似如可見。是知。言心性者。專是凡夫一念陰識之性矣。
況大意釋心性之名。本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 知道改正錯誤是可貴的。無奈錯誤理解已經根深蒂固，難以拔除。只是略微知道分境觀（Fenjing Guan，通過區分境界來觀察）的文字，卻完全不能理解分境觀的含義。
而且根據上人（Shangren，對德高望重僧侶的尊稱）心性的含義，就更加顯露出他錯誤理解沒有消除。為什麼呢？因為詰難書引用金錍（Jinpi，一種眼科手術工具，比喻辨別真偽的智慧）、及大意（Dayi，要旨）、不變（Bubian，不變性）、隨緣（Suiyuan，隨順因緣）、名心（Mingxin，虛妄分別之心）來證明所觀，是隨順因緣所成的一念妄心。上人卻說，因緣有染凈，隨順染緣就產生九界心（Jiujie Xin，地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅、人、天、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩），隨順凈緣就產生佛界心（Fojie Xin，佛的境界）。這是斥責我不應該把隨緣完全看作是染污，以及堅執心性這個名稱既可以指真也可以指妄。
又說止觀（Zhiguan，止和觀，佛教的兩種修行方法）引用華嚴（Huayan，佛教宗派名）『心造諸如來』，是非染非凈心等等。這完全可以看出上人不認識所觀的心境，導致這樣妄立妄破。
例如心性這個名稱，妙玄（Miaoxuan，《法華玄義》的簡稱）和釋簽（Shiqian，《法華玄義釋簽》的簡稱）判定，屬於因為初心（Chuxin，初學者的心）所觀的境界。所以說佛法太高深，眾生太廣闊，初心很難把握。心、佛以及眾生，是三無差別（Sanwu Chabie，三者沒有差別）的。觀心就容易。這就是說，諸佛也有心，眾生也有心。如果隨順凈緣，產生佛界心，就高遠難以觀察。如果隨順各種染緣，產生一切眾生心，就廣散難以觀察。所以就選取一部分染緣薰染而生起，自己當下剎那陰等之心，依靠它來顯現心性。這樣，隨緣不變的心性，既包含佛也包含眾生，既高深也廣闊。不變隨緣的心，非佛非眾生，不高深也不廣闊，近而且重要。因此初心最可以依託它來修觀。
釋籤文中說，理體本來沒有差別，差別在於事用。難道不是因為心就是性，所以無所不包，才是沒有差別嗎？因為性就是心，心不是佛，佛不是眾生，所以說，如果用佛法來觀察，好像有所不及。如果用心性來觀察，好像可以見到。由此可知，說心性，專門是指凡夫一念陰識的自性啊。
況且大意解釋心性的名稱，本來
【English Translation】 English version: Knowing how to correct mistakes is valuable. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding is deeply rooted and difficult to eradicate. One only slightly knows the text of Fenjing Guan (分境觀, Contemplation by Distinguishing Realms), but completely fails to understand the meaning of Fenjing Guan.
Moreover, according to the meaning of Shangren's (上人, a respectful title for a virtuous and highly esteemed monk) understanding of 'mind-nature', it further reveals that his misunderstanding has not been eliminated. Why? Because the 'Critique' quotes Jinpi (金錍, a surgical instrument for eye surgery, metaphor for the wisdom to distinguish truth from falsehood), and Dayi (大意, main idea), Bubian (不變, immutability), Suiyuan (隨緣, following conditions), Mingxin (名心, mind of false discrimination) to prove what is being contemplated is a single thought of delusion arising from following conditions. The Shangren then says that conditions have defilement and purity; following defiled conditions produces the Nine Realms of Mind (九界心, hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, devas, sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas), and following pure conditions produces the Buddha Realm of Mind (佛界心, the realm of the Buddha). This is to rebuke me for not regarding Suiyuan entirely as defiled, and for insisting that the name 'mind-nature' can refer to both truth and falsehood.
Furthermore, he says that Zhiguan (止觀, calming and insight meditation, two methods of Buddhist practice) quotes Huayan (華嚴, a Buddhist school) 'The mind creates all Tathagatas', which is neither defiled nor pure mind, etc. From this, it is fully evident that the Shangren does not recognize the mind-realm being contemplated, leading to this falsely establishing and falsely refuting.
For example, the name 'mind-nature', Miaoxuan (妙玄, short for 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') and Shiqian (釋簽, short for 'Explanation and Commentary on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') determine that it belongs to the realm contemplated by the Chuxin (初心, beginner's mind). Therefore, it is said that the Buddha-dharma is too profound, sentient beings are too vast, and the beginner's mind is difficult to grasp. Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings are Sanwu Chabie (三無差別, three without difference). Contemplating the mind is easy. That is to say, Buddhas also have minds, and sentient beings also have minds. If one follows pure conditions and produces the Buddha Realm of Mind, it is high and far, difficult to observe. If one follows various defiled conditions and produces the minds of all sentient beings, it is vast and scattered, difficult to observe. Therefore, one selects a portion of defiled conditions that are influenced and arise, one's own present moment's aggregates and so on, and relies on them to reveal the mind-nature. In this way, the mind-nature that is immutable while following conditions encompasses both Buddhas and sentient beings, both profound and vast. The mind that follows conditions while being immutable is neither Buddha nor sentient being, neither profound nor vast, near and essential. Therefore, the beginner's mind can most rely on it to cultivate contemplation.
The Shiqian text says, 'The principle is originally without difference, the difference lies in the application of affairs.' Is it not because the mind is the nature, so it encompasses everything, that there is no difference? Because the nature is the mind, the mind is not the Buddha, and the Buddha is not a sentient being, therefore it is said that if one observes with the Buddha-dharma, it seems insufficient. If one observes with the mind-nature, it seems possible to see. From this, it can be known that 'mind-nature' specifically refers to the nature of the one thought of the aggregates of consciousness of ordinary beings.
Moreover, Dayi explains the name 'mind-nature', originally
結觀于陰心之義。
金錍釋心性之名。本顯凡位情與無情。俱是隨緣當體不變。以明俱有佛性也。那忽上人。將佛界心釋之。則成金錍說佛有佛性。何關眾生與無情耶。又成大意以佛界心。為所觀境。不成觀于現前陰心也。
且如止觀十境。攝一切所觀。何曾將佛界心不為境。恐是大師明境。有不了之過故。上人特釋之也。
上人令予微回智燭洞鑑他心。予雖未有通明智燭。且將義學。微照上人懷抱。豈非示珠指輒將一念之心。直作真性釋之。
又答疑書云。此玄文直顯心性。及被詰難書。引金錍大意及諸文。顯說心性在因一念屬妄。無門巧救。遂公然不答直顯心性之難。卻於三兩門。初引之而潛改云。此玄直顯法性。
蓋上人因遭詰難。始悟十種三法。顯是果佛法相。定非直顯心性。其過既大無由免脫。故於此難。略不敢下筆。乃旁隨緣不變之說。約染凈兩緣釋之。意令心性通於佛果。其如妙玄與釋簽。專對佛法生法。揀示心性。既云定屬於因。故不可通果而釋。況大意金錍。專示陰心之性。故從染緣九界心。說實不通於佛界及真心也。
上人雖且就隨緣義釋。而甚知先立直顯心性言。已落非故二三門。初輒改為直顯法性。既自知過如此。何不循理首伏。頓棄邪宗。共揚正義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 觀察陰心之意義。
《金錍論》（Jin Pi Lun）解釋心性的名稱。原本顯明凡夫之位，情與無情，都是隨緣而當體不變，以此來說明都具有佛性。為何上人您將佛界之心來解釋它呢？這樣就成了《金錍論》說佛具有佛性，這與眾生和無情之物有什麼關係呢？又成了以佛界之心作為所觀之境，而不是觀察現前的陰心了。
且如止觀的十種境界，攝盡一切所觀之境，何曾將佛界之心不作為境界呢？恐怕是天臺大師（智者大師）在闡明境界時，有未能完全明瞭的過失，所以上人您才特意解釋它。
上人您讓我稍微轉動智慧之燭，洞察他人之心。我雖然沒有通明的智慧之燭，且用義理之學，稍微照亮上人的胸懷。這豈不是指著珠子卻將一念之心，直接作為真性來解釋嗎？
又在答疑書中說，這《玄文》（妙法蓮華經玄義）直接顯明心性。以及在被詰難書中，引用《金錍論》的大意以及其他經文，明白地說心性在因地，一念屬於虛妄。沒有辦法巧妙地補救，於是公然不回答直接顯明心性的詰難，卻在三兩處地方，最初引用時偷偷地改為『這《玄文》直接顯明法性』。
大概是上人因為遭到詰難，才領悟到十種三法，顯明的是果佛的法相，一定不是直接顯明心性。這個過失既然很大，沒有辦法免除，所以對於這個詰難，略微不敢下筆。於是從隨緣不變的說法，從染凈兩種緣來解釋。意思是讓心性通於佛果。但是《妙玄》（妙法蓮華經玄義）與《釋簽》（妙法蓮華經文句記），專門針對佛法和生法，揀擇指示心性，既然說一定屬於因地，所以不可以通於果地來解釋。況且《大意》（金錍論大意）和《金錍論》，專門指示陰心之性，所以從染緣的九界心來說，實在不通於佛界以及真心。
上人您雖然且就隨緣的意義來解釋，但是很清楚先前立下直接顯明心性的言論，已經落入『非』的過失。所以在二三處地方，最初就改為直接顯明法性。既然自己知道過失如此，為何不遵循道理首先認錯，徹底拋棄邪宗，共同弘揚正義呢？
【English Translation】 English version Examining the meaning of observing the skandha-mind (yin xin).
The Jin Pi Lun (Treatise on the Golden Stylus) explains the names of mind-nature. It originally reveals that in the position of ordinary beings, both sentient and non-sentient beings are subject to conditions and unchanging in their essence, thereby clarifying that all possess Buddha-nature. Why, Venerable One, do you interpret it with the mind of the Buddha-realm? This would make the Jin Pi Lun say that the Buddha possesses Buddha-nature, which has nothing to do with sentient beings and non-sentient things. It also becomes taking the mind of the Buddha-realm as the object of observation, instead of observing the present skandha-mind.
Furthermore, like the ten objects of contemplation in zhi guan (cessation and contemplation), which encompass all that is contemplated, when has the mind of the Buddha-realm not been taken as an object? Perhaps it is because the Great Master (Zhiyi, the Great Master of Tiantai) had a fault of not fully understanding when clarifying the objects, so the Venerable One specially explains it.
The Venerable One asks me to slightly turn the lamp of wisdom to illuminate the minds of others. Although I do not have a fully illuminating lamp of wisdom, I will use the study of doctrines to slightly illuminate the Venerable One's thoughts. Isn't this pointing at a pearl but directly interpreting a single thought as true nature?
Furthermore, in the letter answering doubts, it says, 'This Xuan Wen (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) directly reveals mind-nature.' And in the letter being questioned, it quotes the main idea of the Jin Pi Lun and other texts, clearly stating that mind-nature is in the causal stage, and a single thought belongs to delusion. There is no skillful way to remedy this, so it openly does not answer the difficulty of directly revealing mind-nature, but in two or three places, initially quotes it and secretly changes it to 'This Xuan Wen directly reveals dharma-nature.'
Probably because the Venerable One encountered questioning, he realized that the ten kinds of three dharmas reveal the characteristics of the Buddha in the fruition stage, and are certainly not directly revealing mind-nature. Since this fault is so great, there is no way to avoid it, so he slightly dares not write about this difficulty. Thus, from the saying of unchanging with conditions, he explains it from the two kinds of conditions, defiled and pure. The intention is to make mind-nature connect to the Buddha-fruit. However, the Miao Xuan (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) and the Shi Qian (Commentary on the Words and Sentences of the Lotus Sutra) specifically target the Buddha-dharma and the dharma of sentient beings, selecting and indicating mind-nature. Since it is said that it certainly belongs to the causal stage, it cannot be interpreted as connecting to the fruition stage. Moreover, the Da Yi (Main Idea of the Jin Pi Lun) and the Jin Pi Lun specifically indicate the nature of the skandha-mind, so from the nine realms of mind of defiled conditions, it is said that it really does not connect to the Buddha-realm and true mind.
Although the Venerable One explains it based on the meaning of being subject to conditions, he is very clear that the previous statement of directly revealing mind-nature has already fallen into the fault of 'not being so'. Therefore, in two or three places, he initially changes it to directly revealing dharma-nature. Since he himself knows that the fault is like this, why not follow the principle and first admit the mistake, completely abandon the heretical sect, and jointly promote the correct doctrine?
。那得唯事欺隱。改文轉義。粗言強拒。豈以惡言。能拗圓解。豈以奸計。能遮深過。須防空界有護法諸天。世間有解義高士。或誅或鑒。良堪慚懼。審思審思。
又執心性各通真妄。縱聽上人艱辛巧立。其奈非今所論。且今心性兩字相連而立。豈令心卻是真。性翻成妄。斯乃公違荊溪釋義。
又所觀心境。如何名真若令始行。緣于真心修觀。正當荊溪所揀。緣理斷九。義歸別教也。
又執心造諸如來。是非染非凈心者。此更不可。
且如止觀引彼經偈。本證陰心能造一切。此有二意。一明陰心本。具如來性故(理造)二明煩惱之儔。是如來種(事造)故云心造如來。若夐指真心能造如來。正當金錍旁遮偏指清凈真如為佛性也。又只知類種。全不識敵對種也。又不可偏執。皆由理具。方有事用之文。遂立真心造法。須知陰心即理。是理之用。
若執真理造如來者。止觀不須觀陰顯三千性也。何故不直立真心為境。而立陰等十境耶。何故諸文。多以無明心及妄為境耶。故若不即三道。而顯三德者。乃教道所說也。
又上人數斥扶宗唯立識心為境。以三觀觀之。使性德開發之義。謂不知心具三千。亦由上人素不諳境觀藥病。致見頻有妄破也。
具如止觀去于丈尺。唯取于寸。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：那麼就只能用虛假和隱瞞來掩蓋，篡改經文，歪曲含義，用粗暴的言語強行辯解。難道用惡劣的言語，就能把歪理強行解釋圓通嗎？難道用奸詐的計謀，就能遮掩深重的罪過嗎？必須提防空界有護法諸天，世間有通曉經義的高士，他們或者誅罰，或者明鑑，實在令人慚愧恐懼。仔細思考，仔細思考。
又有人執著認為心性和合貫通真妄。縱然聽從上人費盡心思巧妙地立論，但這些都不是現在所討論的內容。況且現在『心性』二字並列而立，難道要說『心』是真實的，而『性』反而變成虛妄的嗎？這實在是公然違背荊溪大師的解釋。
又有人認為所觀的心境，如何能稱為『真』？如果一開始修行，就以真心為緣來修觀，這正是荊溪大師所批判的，緣于理而斷九，其義歸於別教。
又有人執著認為心能造諸如來，是非染非凈的心，這更是不可取的。
例如《止觀》引用經文偈頌，本來是爲了證明陰心能夠造一切，這裡有兩層含義：一是說明陰心本來就具有如來之性（理造），二是說明煩惱的同類，是如來的種子（事造），所以說心造如來。如果僅僅指真心能夠造如來，那就正是《金錍論》中旁敲側擊地指清凈真如為佛性了。又只知道同類相生，完全不認識敵對相剋的道理。又不可偏執地認為，一切都由理體所具，才會有事相作用的說法，要知道陰心即是理體，是理體的作用。
如果執著認為真理能造如來，那麼《止觀》就不需要觀陰來顯現三千性相了。為什麼不直接立真心為境，而要立陰等十境呢？為什麼很多經文，都以無明心及妄想為境呢？所以，如果不即三道而顯三德，那就是教道所說的道理了。
又上人多次斥責扶宗隻立識心為境，用三觀來觀照它，從而使性德得以開發的說法，認為這是因為不知道心具三千性相。這也是因為上人向來不熟悉境、觀、藥、病的關係，所以才屢次出現錯誤的批判。
就像《止觀》所說，去掉一丈，只取一寸。
【English Translation】 English version: Then one can only resort to falsehood and concealment, altering texts and twisting meanings, forcefully arguing with crude language. Can one really use harsh words to forcibly explain away fallacies? Can one really use cunning schemes to cover up deep transgressions? One must beware of the Dharma-protecting deities in the empty realm, and the learned scholars in the world who understand the meaning of the scriptures. They may punish or discern, which is truly cause for shame and fear. Think carefully, think carefully.
Furthermore, some are attached to the idea that mind and nature are both connected and encompass both truth and falsehood. Even if one listens to the superiors painstakingly and skillfully establishing arguments, these are not what we are discussing now. Moreover, now that the two words 'mind' and 'nature' are placed side by side, does it mean that 'mind' is true, while 'nature' turns out to be false? This is a blatant violation of the interpretations of Venerable Jingxi.
Furthermore, how can the observed state of mind be called 'true'? If one begins practice by taking the true mind as the condition for cultivation, this is exactly what Venerable Jingxi criticizes, severing the nine based on principle, and its meaning belongs to the Separate Teaching (別教, Bie Jiao).
Furthermore, some are attached to the idea that the mind creates all the Tathagatas, a mind that is neither defiled nor pure. This is even more unacceptable.
For example, the Śamatha-vipassanā (止觀, Zhi Guan) quotes verses from scriptures, originally to prove that the skandha mind (陰心, Yin Xin) can create everything. This has two meanings: first, it explains that the skandha mind inherently possesses the nature of the Tathagata (principle-creation); second, it explains that the companions of afflictions are the seeds of the Tathagata (event-creation). Therefore, it is said that the mind creates the Tathagata. If one only refers to the true mind as being able to create the Tathagata, then it is exactly like the Golden Needle (金錍, Jin Pi) obliquely pointing to pure true thusness as the Buddha-nature. Furthermore, one only knows about similar kinds generating each other, and completely does not recognize the principle of opposing kinds overcoming each other. Furthermore, one should not be attached to the idea that everything is possessed by the principle, and then there will be the statement of phenomenal function. One must know that the skandha mind is the principle, and it is the function of the principle.
If one is attached to the idea that true principle can create the Tathagata, then the Śamatha-vipassanā does not need to contemplate the skandhas to reveal the three thousand natures. Why not directly establish the true mind as the object, but establish the ten objects such as the skandhas? Why do many scriptures take ignorance-mind and delusion as the object? Therefore, if one does not immediately reveal the three virtues through the three paths, then that is the doctrine spoken of by the Teaching Path.
Furthermore, the superior repeatedly criticizes the Fuzong (扶宗) for only establishing the consciousness-mind as the object, and using the three contemplations to contemplate it, so that the virtue of nature can be developed, saying that this is because they do not know that the mind possesses three thousand natures. This is also because the superior has never been familiar with the relationship between object, contemplation, medicine, and illness, so there have been frequent erroneous criticisms.
Just as the Śamatha-vipassanā says, remove one zhang (丈, unit of length, approx. 10 feet), and only take one cun (寸, unit of length, approx. 1 inch).
乃是於事造中。去其所造。取能造以為所觀之境。故云伐樹得根。灸病得穴。乃是去其千枝百脈。唯取一根一穴。立所觀境。故云先重明境。故扶宗云。以一念識心為境也。
至明修觀。乃于能造陰識。明具三千。三千是假大意云。此能造心。具足諸法。故輔行雲。心具足假。此之三千。非法性無明。自他共離而造。故約此空假。遮照不偏名中道。豈非不思議境。義含三觀。發心中既全依此理。豈不具三義耶。安心中遂以三止三觀。總別安之。此去三觀之義。節節轉明也。故知。十乘無不以空假中。而為大體也。故云以一念識心為境。以三觀觀之。應知。廣則十乘。略則三觀。故云不思議境。望后九觀。名所觀境。望前陰識。則妙境。並下九乘。同是能觀之三觀也。即輔行次明修觀文也。
良由上人。殊不知陰入境。與不思議境。分于能觀所觀。用藥治病之義故也。
應知。于能造識心。觀具三千。此之三千。是灸病之火。是伐樹之斧。是舍重擔之法。是破三賊之將。是觀識心之三觀。故輔行雲。今文妙觀。觀之令成妙境。境方稱理。又云。若以正觀安之。世諦方成不思議也。故未觀未安。全是迷中陰入。何得未論觀法。便自說具三千。若也定境便說三千。至修觀法。更何所論。
又如輔行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是在從事造作的過程中，去除所造作的事物，選取能造作的主體作為觀照的境界。所以說『伐樹得根，灸病得穴』，就是去除千枝百脈，只取一根一穴，以此建立觀照的境界。因此說要先著重闡明境界。所以扶宗說，以一念識心作為觀照的境界。 至於闡明修習觀行，就是在能造作的陰識中，明白具足三千法門。這三千法門是假有的，大意是說，這個能造作的心，具足一切諸法。所以輔行說，心具足假。這三千法門，不是法性、無明、自、他、共、離所造作的。所以依此空假，遮照不偏，名為中道。這難道不是不可思議的境界嗎？其中義理包含空、假、中三觀。在發心中已經完全依據這個道理，難道不具足這三重意義嗎？在安心中於是用三重止、三重觀，總括地、分別地安立。這之後，三觀的意義，一節一節地轉為明晰。所以要知道，十乘觀法沒有不以空、假、中三觀作為大體的。所以說以一念識心作為境界，用三觀來觀照它。應當知道，廣而言之是十乘觀法，簡而言之就是三觀。所以說是不思議境。相對於後面的九觀來說，是所觀的境界；相對於前面的陰識來說，則是妙境。連同下面的九乘觀法，都是能觀的三觀。這就是輔行中接下來闡明修觀的文句。 這是因為上人，特別不知道陰入境（Yin Entering Realm），與不思議境（Inconceivable Realm）在能觀、所觀上的區分，以及用藥治病的道理的緣故。 應當知道，在能造作的識心中，觀照具足三千法門。這三千法門，是灸病的火，是伐樹的斧，是捨棄重擔的方法，是破除三賊的將領，是觀照識心的三觀。所以輔行說，現在所說的妙觀，觀照它使之成就妙境，這個境界才符合真理。又說，如果用正觀來安立它，世諦才能成就不可思議。所以在未觀照、未安立之前，全是迷途中的陰入。怎麼能在未討論觀法之前，就自己說具足三千法門呢？如果確定了境界就說三千法門，那麼到了修習觀法的時候，還討論什麼呢？ 又如輔行（Fu Xing）所說。
【English Translation】 English version: This is in the process of engaging in creation, removing what is created, and taking the ability to create as the object of contemplation. Therefore, it is said, 'Felling a tree to get to the root, cauterizing a disease to find the acupoint,' which means removing the thousands of branches and hundreds of veins, and only taking one root and one acupoint to establish the object of contemplation. Therefore, it is said to first emphasize clarifying the realm. So Fu Zong (扶宗) says, 'Taking a single thought of consciousness as the realm.' As for clarifying the practice of contemplation, it is to understand that the creating Yin consciousness is fully endowed with three thousand dharmas. These three thousand dharmas are provisional, meaning that this creating mind is fully endowed with all dharmas. Therefore, Fu Xing (輔行) says, 'The mind is fully endowed with the provisional.' These three thousand dharmas are not created by Dharma-nature, ignorance, self, other, together, or separately. Therefore, based on this emptiness and provisionality, impartial illumination is called the Middle Way. Is this not an inconceivable realm? The meaning contains the three contemplations of emptiness, provisionality, and the Middle Way. Since the initial aspiration is entirely based on this principle, does it not fully embody these three meanings? In settling the mind, the three kinds of cessation and the three kinds of contemplation are established both generally and specifically. From this point on, the meaning of the three contemplations becomes clearer and clearer. Therefore, it should be known that the Ten Vehicles of Contemplation invariably take emptiness, provisionality, and the Middle Way as their main body. Therefore, it is said to take a single thought of consciousness as the realm and contemplate it with the three contemplations. It should be known that broadly speaking, it is the Ten Vehicles of Contemplation; concisely speaking, it is the three contemplations. Therefore, it is called the Inconceivable Realm (Bu Si Yi Jing). In relation to the later nine contemplations, it is the object of contemplation; in relation to the preceding Yin consciousness, it is the wonderful realm. Together with the following nine vehicles, they are the three contemplations that are capable of contemplating. This is the passage in Fu Xing (輔行) that further clarifies the practice of contemplation. This is because the Superior Man (Shang Ren) is particularly unaware of the distinction between the Yin Entering Realm (Yin Ru Jing) and the Inconceivable Realm (Bu Si Yi Jing) in terms of what is capable of being contemplated and what is contemplated, as well as the principle of using medicine to cure illness. It should be known that in the creating consciousness, contemplate the full endowment of three thousand dharmas. These three thousand dharmas are the fire for cauterizing disease, the axe for felling trees, the method for discarding heavy burdens, the general for destroying the three thieves, and the three contemplations for contemplating the consciousness. Therefore, Fu Xing (輔行) says, 'The wonderful contemplation now spoken of contemplates it to accomplish the wonderful realm; only then does the realm accord with the principle.' It also says, 'If it is established with correct contemplation, the mundane truth can accomplish the inconceivable.' Therefore, before contemplation and before establishment, it is entirely Yin entering in delusion. How can one claim to be fully endowed with three thousand dharmas before discussing the methods of contemplation? If one determines the realm and then speaks of three thousand dharmas, then what is there to discuss when it comes to practicing contemplation? Moreover, as Fu Xing (輔行) says.
消丈尺寸喻。先將三科中。唯取識陰對之。后復云。若探取不思議境合此喻者。則以一念十界三科為丈等。釋之。既云探取不思議意對喻。故知。不思議境。是次科之意也。定境之時。未合正論三千妙法也。若不爾者。何故名探取不思議耶。又十境不出三障四魔。今之定境。報障陰魔。因何未論破障降魔之法。便自說三千耶。
祇如於識陰修圓三觀者。約何義說假觀耶。豈說緣生假耶。豈說建立之假耶。既修此等之假。仍須即陰說具三千方為妙假。故荊溪云。具即是假。又妙經疏。以十二入為境。各具千如為觀。若非此假。則空中亦淺全非圓觀也。
故扶宗云。以一念識心為境。用三觀觀之。使性德開發。既是圓教三觀。自合約於三千論其空中也。復明開發性德金光明。豈不含三千妙理耶。何得以未詳之文。破已解之語。
上人今立非染非凈之真心為能造。染凈諸法為所造。意以能造所造。俱為所觀之境。便謂深得止觀之意。乃錯認之甚也。
以彼簡卻所造。唯取能造為境。乃是去其千枝百脈。唯取一根一穴。以為所觀。若俱取者。大乖揀境之意也。
又彼特立總無明心一念陰識為境。上人固違彼說。自將非染非凈真心為境。還順宗師之教否。又彼立染緣熏起九界心為境。上人乖宗。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
以消丈尺寸的比喻來說明。先從五陰、十二入、十八界這三科中，只取識陰來對應這個比喻。後面又說，如果探取不可思議之境來契合這個比喻，那麼就用一念十界三科來作為丈等來解釋它。既然說是探取不可思議之意來對應比喻，所以知道，不可思議境，是次科的意義。在定境的時候，還沒有契合正論的三千妙法。如果不是這樣，為什麼叫做探取不可思議呢？而且十境不出三障四魔，現在的定境，報障和陰魔，為什麼沒有討論破障降魔的方法，就自己說三千呢？ 比如對於識陰修圓三觀，是根據什麼意義說假觀呢？難道是說緣生假嗎？難道是說建立之假嗎？既然修習這些假，仍然需要即陰說具足三千，才算是妙假。所以荊溪大師說，『具即是假』。又《妙經疏》中，以十二入為境，各自具足千如為觀。如果不是這種假，那麼空中也淺薄，完全不是圓觀。 所以扶宗說，『以一念識心為境，用三觀觀照它，使性德開發。』既然是圓教三觀，自然契合於三千，論其空中。又說明開發性德的《金光明經》，難道不包含三千妙理嗎？為什麼用沒有詳細解釋的文字，來否定已經理解的話語呢？ 上人現在立非染非凈的真心為能造，染凈諸法為所造，意思是能造和所造，都作為所觀之境，就認為深刻地理解了止觀的意義，這是非常錯誤的理解。 因為他捨棄了所造，只取能造作為境，這是捨棄了千枝百脈，只取一根一穴，作為所觀。如果都取，就大大違背了揀境的意義。 而且他特立總無明心一念陰識為境，上人您本來就違揹他的說法，自己將非染非凈的真心作為境，這還是順從宗師的教導嗎？而且他立染緣熏起九界心為境，上人您違背了他的宗旨。
【English Translation】 English version:
To illustrate with the analogy of measuring length. First, from the three categories of the Five Skandhas (Wuyin 五陰 - form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), the Twelve Entrances (Shi'er Ru 十二入 - the six sense organs and their corresponding objects), and the Eighteen Realms (Shiba Jie 十八界 - the six sense organs, their corresponding objects, and the six consciousnesses), only take the Consciousness Skandha (Shiyin 識陰) to correspond to this analogy. Later, it is said, 'If one explores the inconceivable realm to match this analogy, then use a single thought of the Ten Realms (Shijie 十界 - realms of hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, devas, sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas) and the Three Categories as the measure.' Since it is said to explore the inconceivable meaning to correspond to the analogy, it is known that the inconceivable realm is the meaning of the subsequent category. At the time of meditative concentration, it has not yet conformed to the correct theory of the Three Thousand Subtle Dharmas (Sanqian Miaofa 三千妙法). If it were not so, why would it be called exploring the inconceivable? Moreover, the Ten Realms do not go beyond the Three Obstacles (San Zhang 三障 - karmic, retributive, and defilement obstacles) and the Four Demons (Si Mo 四魔 - the aggregates, defilements, death, and the deva-mara). In the current meditative concentration, the retributive obstacle and the Skandha-demon (Yin Mo 陰魔) are present. Why is there no discussion of methods to break through obstacles and subdue demons, and yet one speaks of the Three Thousand? For example, when cultivating the Perfect Three Contemplations (Yuan San Guan 圓三觀 - contemplating emptiness, provisional existence, and the mean) on the Consciousness Skandha, according to what meaning is the provisional contemplation (Jia Guan 假觀) spoken of? Is it speaking of the provisional existence of dependent origination (Yuan Sheng Jia 緣生假)? Is it speaking of the provisional existence of establishment (Jianli Zhi Jia 建立之假)? Since one cultivates these provisional existences, it is still necessary to say that the Skandha is complete with the Three Thousand to be considered a subtle provisional existence. Therefore, Master Jingxi (荊溪) said, 'Completeness is provisional existence.' Also, in the commentary on the 'Wonderful Sutra' (Miaojing Shu 妙經疏), the Twelve Entrances are taken as the object, and each is complete with a thousand suchnesses (Qian Ru 千如) as the contemplation. If it is not this provisional existence, then emptiness is also shallow and not at all a perfect contemplation. Therefore, Fuzong (扶宗) said, 'Taking a single thought of the mind of consciousness as the object, use the Three Contemplations to contemplate it, so that the inherent virtue (Xingde 性德) is developed.' Since it is the Perfect Teaching's Three Contemplations, it naturally conforms to the Three Thousand, discussing its emptiness. Furthermore, the 'Golden Light Sutra' (Jin Guangming Jing 金光明經), which explains the development of inherent virtue, does it not contain the subtle principles of the Three Thousand? Why use texts that are not explained in detail to refute words that have already been understood? The Superior Man (Shangren 上人) now establishes the true mind that is neither defiled nor pure as the creator (Neng Zao 能造), and the defiled and pure dharmas as the created (Suo Zao 所造), meaning that both the creator and the created are taken as the object of contemplation, and then claims to have deeply understood the meaning of cessation and contemplation (Zhi Guan 止觀). This is a very mistaken understanding. Because he abandons the created and only takes the creator as the object, this is abandoning the thousands of branches and hundreds of veins, and only taking one root and one hole as the object of contemplation. If both are taken, it greatly violates the meaning of selecting the object. Moreover, he specifically establishes the single thought of the Skandha-consciousness of total ignorance-mind (Zong Wuming Xin Yi Nian Yin Shi 總無明心一念陰識) as the object. Superior Man, you originally violated his teaching, and now you take the true mind that is neither defiled nor pure as the object. Is this still following the teacher's instruction? Moreover, he establishes the mind of the Nine Realms (Jiu Jie 九界 - realms of hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, devas, sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas) aroused by defiled conditions as the object. Superior Man, you violate his doctrine.
自立凈緣所成佛界心為境。還順宗師之教否。天臺荊溪負上人何辜。而苦見違返毀滅耶。以此驗知。實不識所觀之心也。
今就上人邪說。用正義示之。幸請尋省。非染非凈真心者。不思議境也。能成凈緣。十乘妙觀也。佛界心者。妙觀之果。常住陰也。能薰染緣。無始無明也。九界心者。無明之果也。生死陰也。生佛雖各由緣。而染緣所成本有。
故荊溪云。清濁雖即由緣。而濁成本有也。
今欲顯于妙理。須破染中因果。故總無明心一念陰識為境。以十乘觀破之。使染中妙理顯現。成於佛界常住之陰。
上人那得將凈緣所成佛界心。及所顯妙理。為所觀心境耶。若以此法為所觀。為將何法為能觀耶。
止觀本立三障四魔為境界。上人卻以十乘妙理為所觀。十乘妙理。若為所觀境界。即須三障四魔。為能觀理智。方知。上人是波旬本身。是落迦種子。若不改悔。陷墮非遙。
上人本立。十種三法。已純談理觀故。廢于附法觀心。十法之中。既不簡示陰識。為所觀境。又不明於十乘。何名純談理觀。既非理觀。後文觀心。安可輒廢耶。能破之宗既壞。觀心之義何傷。若欲改轉速請相聞。
第三不分內外二境
夫性具三千。雖有依正色心已他。而皆融泯。舉一全收。
無始迷故。全理成事。定分內外。彼此角立也。
若依實教修觀行者。必須於事解理。以理攝事。故了萬法唯心。亦了萬法唯色。萬法唯聲。唯香唯味唯觸等。
故修內觀時。先用圓解。攬于萬法。唯我內心。然後專于內心。而觀諸法。若宜修外觀者。亦須先攬萬法唯一色等。然後專於一境。而觀諸法。故觀內心。則一切法趣心。若觀外色。則一切法趣色。是則只一非內非外之三千。隨乎觀慧。趣內趣外不同。
若不爾者。趣色趣聲之教。如何可解。唯色唯心之觀。云何修耶。
上人雖云唯色。色即是心。堅執觀于外色。亦只趣于內心。又定云。心具三千。色不具三千。
若爾。應是外色非性本具。舉色不全收諸法耶。若不全收。何名色為法界耶。
若色不具三千者。妙經文句。何故十二入。各具千如。為萬二千法門耶。且十二入中。唯有一分半屬心。十分半屬色。若如上人所說。只合有一千五百法門。則大師剩說一萬五百也。又金錍云。生佛依正。一念具足。一塵不虧。
又輔行雲。若色心相對。則有色有心。論其體性。則離色無心。離心無色。若色心相。即二則俱二。一則俱一。故圓說者。亦應得云。唯色唯聲唯香唯味唯觸等。何但獨得云唯識耶。若合論者。無不皆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 由於無始以來的迷惑，完全的真理變成了現象，從而確定了內外之分，彼此對立。
如果依據真實的教義修習觀行的人，必須在現象中理解真理，用真理統攝現象。因此，既要了知萬法唯心（一切事物都只是心的顯現），也要了知萬法唯色（一切事物也只是色的顯現），以及萬法唯聲、唯香、唯味、唯觸等。
因此，修習內觀時，先用圓滿的理解，總攬萬法，認為一切都是我的內心。然後專注于內心，來觀察諸法。如果適合修習外觀的人，也必須先總攬萬法為唯一的色等，然後專注於一個境界，來觀察諸法。所以，觀察內心，則一切法都歸向於心；如果觀察外色，則一切法都歸向於色。這就是那非內非外的三千世界，隨著觀慧，而有歸向于內或歸向于外的不同。
如果不是這樣，那麼歸向於色、歸向于聲的教義，又該如何解釋？唯色、唯心的觀行，又該如何修習呢？
上人雖然說唯（此處原文有省略，無法確定指代），（此處原文有省略，無法確定指代）即是心，卻仍然堅持觀于外色，也只是歸向于內心。又斷定說，心具有三千，色不具有三千。
如果這樣，那麼外色就不是性本具的，舉出色就不能完全包含諸法了嗎？如果不完全包含，又怎麼能稱色為法界呢？
如果色不具有三千，那麼《妙經文句》中，為何十二入（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意、色、聲、香、味、觸、法）各自具有千如（事物的千種如是相），成為一萬二千法門呢？而且十二入中，只有一分半屬於心，十分半屬於色。如果像上人所說，就只應該有一千五百法門，那麼天臺大師就多說了一萬零五百法門了。又《金錍》（天臺宗典籍）中說，眾生和佛的依報和正報，在一念中都具足，一塵都不虧缺。
又《輔行》（《法華玄義輔行記》）中說，如果色和心相對而言，則有色有心；如果論及其體性，則是離開色就沒有心，離開心就沒有色。如果色和心相互關聯，那麼二者都是二，一者都是一。所以圓滿的說法，也應該可以說唯色、唯聲、唯香、唯味、唯觸等，為什麼只能單獨說唯識呢？如果合起來說，沒有不都是。
【English Translation】 English version: Due to beginningless delusion, the complete truth becomes phenomena, thus establishing the division between inside and outside, standing opposed to each other.
If one practices contemplation according to the true teachings, one must understand the truth through phenomena and encompass phenomena with truth. Therefore, one should understand that all dharmas are only mind (everything is just a manifestation of mind), and also understand that all dharmas are only form (everything is also just a manifestation of form), as well as all dharmas are only sound, only smell, only taste, only touch, etc.
Therefore, when practicing internal contemplation, first use complete understanding to encompass all dharmas, considering everything to be my own mind. Then, focus on the mind to observe all dharmas. If one is suitable for practicing external contemplation, one must first encompass all dharmas as only form, etc., and then focus on one realm to observe all dharmas. Therefore, observing the mind, all dharmas turn towards the mind; if observing external form, all dharmas turn towards form. This is the three thousand worlds that are neither internal nor external, varying in their inclination towards the internal or external depending on contemplative wisdom.
If it were not so, how could the teachings that incline towards form and sound be explained? How could the contemplation of only form and only mind be practiced?
Although the superior person says that only * (omitted in the original text, the referent cannot be determined), * (omitted in the original text, the referent cannot be determined) is mind, they still insist on contemplating external form, which only turns towards the mind. They also definitively say that the mind possesses three thousand, but form does not possess three thousand.
If that is the case, then external form is not inherently present in nature, and citing form cannot completely encompass all dharmas? If it does not completely encompass, how can form be called the Dharmadhatu (realm of reality)?
If form does not possess three thousand, then in the 'Wonderful Sutra Commentary', why do the twelve entrances (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma) each possess a thousand suchnesses (thousand aspects of things as they are), becoming twelve thousand Dharma gates? Moreover, among the twelve entrances, only one and a half parts belong to the mind, and ten and a half parts belong to form. If it were as the superior person says, there should only be fifteen hundred Dharma gates, then the Great Master would have said ten thousand five hundred too many. Also, the 'Golden Scalpel' (a Tiantai text) says that the environment and reward of sentient beings and Buddhas are fully present in a single thought, lacking nothing in a single dust particle.
Furthermore, the 'Supplementary Conduct' ('Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') says that if form and mind are spoken of relatively, then there is form and there is mind; if their essence is discussed, then there is no mind apart from form, and no form apart from mind. If form and mind are related, then both are two, and one is both one. Therefore, the complete teaching should also be able to say only form, only sound, only smell, only taste, only touch, etc. Why can only 'only consciousness' be said? If discussed together, there is nothing that is not all.
悉具足法界。複次若從末說。一切眾生二種不同。上界多著識。地獄多著色。若約識唯識。攬外向內。令觀內識。皆是一識。識既空。已十界皆空。識若假者。十界皆假。識若中者。十界皆中。專于內心。觀一切法。觀外十界。即見內心。是故當知。若色若識皆是唯色。若識若色皆是唯識。雖說色心。但有二名。論其法體。只是法性(文見輔行)。
今據此教文。若內若外。若心若色。趣觀一境。皆具三千。以互具互收故也。令著外色者。專觀內心。外既歸內。外著則亡。著內心者。令專觀外色。內既趣外。內著方祛。外觀本治內著。若還攝外歸內。則彌增內著。重添他病。良可痛哉。
又上人堅破。若修內觀。恐心外向所修外觀。恐心內向。以為內外相隔。非是圓融。則有彼彼草木。各一佛性之過也。意謂。修內觀時。既具三千。三千便是外境。則外諸事境。一時遍觀。方為圓觀也。皆由上人不諳內外二境不分而分。故妄有破斥也。
須知以性融攝故。則內境外境。有相趣之義。約事分內外故。則觀內不可放心緣外。觀外不可放心緣內。
如修內觀。先用妙解了知外法同趣內心。即但于內心。觀三千性德。
故四念處云。專于內心。觀一切法。若放心緣外。則不名專于內心。修乎三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 悉具足法界（Dharmadhatu，一切法的總稱）。進一步說，如果從末端開始說起，一切眾生有兩種不同：上界的眾生多執著于識（consciousness），地獄的眾生多執著於色（rupa，物質）。如果從唯識（Yogacara，佛教哲學流派，強調萬法唯識所變）的角度來說，就是將外在的現象收攝到內在，使人觀察內在的識，一切都是一識。識如果為空，那麼十法界（Ten Realms，佛教宇宙觀中的十種生命存在狀態）皆空。識如果是假，那麼十法界皆假。識如果是中，那麼十法界皆中。專注于內心，觀察一切法。觀察外在的十法界，就是見到內心。因此應當知道，無論是色還是識，都是唯色；無論是識還是色，都是唯識。雖然說了色和心，但只是兩個名稱，論其法的本體，只是法性（Dharmata，諸法的真實本性）。（文見《輔行記》） 現在根據這段經文，無論是內在還是外在，無論是心還是色，只要專注于觀察一個境界，都具備三千（三千性相，天臺宗的宇宙觀），因為互相具足、互相收攝的緣故。讓執著于外色的人，專注于觀察內心，外在既然歸於內在，對外色的執著就會消失。讓執著于內心的人，讓他專注于觀察外色，內在既然趨向外在，對內心的執著才能去除。外觀本來是爲了治療內心的執著，如果還攝取外在歸於內在，就會更加增加內心的執著，重添其他毛病，真是令人痛心啊。 還有，上人（指辯論者）極力破斥，如果修內觀，恐怕心向外馳；如果修外觀，恐怕心向內馳，認為內外是相互隔絕的，不是圓融的，那麼就會有彼彼草木，各有一佛性（Buddha-nature，所有眾生皆具有成佛的潛能）的過失。他的意思是說，修內觀的時候，既然具備三千，三千就是外境，那麼外在的各種事境，一時普遍觀察，才算是圓觀。這都是因為上人不熟悉內外二境，不應該區分而強行區分，所以才妄加破斥。 須知因為自性互相融攝的緣故，那麼內在的境界和外在的境界，有互相趨向的意義。如果從現象上區分內外，那麼觀內的時候不可以放心去攀緣外境，觀外的時候不可以放心去攀緣內境。 比如修內觀，先用微妙的理解了知外在的法和內心是相通的，就只在內心，觀察三千性德（三千種性德）。 所以《四念處》（Satipatthana，佛教的四種禪修方法）說，專注于內心，觀察一切法。如果放心去攀緣外境，就不叫做專注于內心，修習三...
【English Translation】 English version: Fully possessing the Dharmadhatu (the totality of all phenomena). Furthermore, if we speak from the end, all sentient beings have two different tendencies: beings in the higher realms are more attached to consciousness (vijnana), while beings in the lower realms are more attached to form (rupa, matter). If we speak from the perspective of Yogacara (a school of Buddhist philosophy emphasizing that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness), it means gathering the external phenomena inward, causing one to observe the inner consciousness, all of which is one consciousness. If consciousness is empty, then all Ten Realms (Ten Realms, the ten states of existence in Buddhist cosmology) are empty. If consciousness is provisional, then all Ten Realms are provisional. If consciousness is the Middle Way, then all Ten Realms are the Middle Way. Focus on the inner mind, observe all dharmas. Observing the external Ten Realms is seeing the inner mind. Therefore, it should be known that whether it is form or consciousness, it is all only form; whether it is consciousness or form, it is all only consciousness. Although we speak of form and mind, there are only two names; discussing the substance of the Dharma, it is only Dharmata (the true nature of all phenomena). (Text from 'Fu Xing Ji') Now, according to this teaching, whether it is internal or external, whether it is mind or form, if one focuses on observing one realm, it fully possesses the Three Thousand (Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought, the T'ien-t'ai school's cosmology), because of mutual possession and mutual inclusion. For those attached to external form, focus on observing the inner mind; since the external returns to the internal, attachment to external form will disappear. For those attached to the inner mind, let them focus on observing external form; since the internal tends towards the external, attachment to the inner mind can be removed. External observation is originally to cure internal attachment; if one still gathers the external back to the internal, it will further increase internal attachment, adding other illnesses, which is truly lamentable. Furthermore, the Superior One (referring to the debater) strongly refutes that if one cultivates internal observation, there is fear that the mind will wander outward; if one cultivates external observation, there is fear that the mind will wander inward, considering that the internal and external are mutually isolated and not harmonious, then there will be the fault of each blade of grass and tree possessing a Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature, the potential for all beings to attain Buddhahood). His meaning is that when cultivating internal observation, since it possesses the Three Thousand, the Three Thousand are the external realm, then the various external situations should be universally observed at once, which is considered complete observation. This is all because the Superior One is not familiar with the internal and external realms, and forcibly distinguishes them when they should not be distinguished, so he makes reckless refutations. It should be known that because of the mutual interpenetration of nature, the internal realm and the external realm have the meaning of tending towards each other. If we distinguish the internal and external in terms of phenomena, then when observing the internal, one should not let the mind wander to grasp external situations; when observing the external, one should not let the mind wander to grasp internal situations. For example, when cultivating internal observation, first use subtle understanding to know that the external dharmas and the internal mind are interconnected, then only in the inner mind, observe the Three Thousand inherent virtues (Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought). Therefore, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Satipatthana, the four applications of mindfulness in Buddhism) says, 'Focus on the inner mind, observe all dharmas.' If one lets the mind wander to grasp external situations, it is not called focusing on the inner mind, cultivating the Three...
觀也。又大意云。此能造心。具足諸法。實不遍緣于所造外境修觀。內觀既爾。外觀豈不然乎。
故修外觀。如觀一塵。亦須先用妙解。了知內心及一切法。同趣一塵。但於一塵。觀一切法。
故四念處云。觀外十界。即見內心。是則趣觀外之一塵。既具十界。豈不攝乎內心。故云即見內心何得卻謂此文是攝外歸內耶。須知。此文是內心趣外之義也。
其猶帝網百千萬珠。彼此光影。互具互入。但觀此一珠。則彼彼多珠光影。咸趣於此。觀彼彼珠。亦攝眾珠光影。
如專觀此一珠。雖見眾珠光影。實未遍觀眾珠。以眾珠光影。全在一珠之中。何須放心遍觀耶。如此則專于內心。觀一切法也。
若觀彼一珠。雖見眾珠及此一珠。實未遍觀。以眾珠光影。皆為彼一珠中所具。故此如觀外十界則見內心也。
智者以譬喻得解。故不可定執。外色不具三千。亦不可妄破恐心外向等。
又上人堅據金錍心具三千。談無情佛性者。
蓋由彼文正顯佛性遍義。以佛約有情說故。多明色即於心。故知。若信諸色即心。則成無情有于佛性義也。
亦為成於內觀義故。且約唯心而論。以諸教文。正被地獄眾生故。多明唯識也。
非謂彼文一向。攝歸一邊。如生佛依正。一塵
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 觀想也是如此。另外，大意是說，這個能造之心，具足一切諸法，實際上並不需要普遍地緣于所造的外境來修觀。既然內觀是這樣，外觀難道不是這樣嗎？ 所以修外觀，比如觀想一粒微塵，也必須先用精妙的理解，了知內心及一切法，都趨向于這一粒微塵。僅僅對於這一粒微塵，觀想一切法。 所以四念處說，觀想外面的十法界（地獄界、餓鬼界、畜生界、阿修羅界、人界、天界、聲聞界、緣覺界、菩薩界、佛界），就能見到內心。這就是說，趨向于觀想外面的這一粒微塵，既然具足十法界，難道不能攝取內心嗎？所以說『即見內心』，怎麼能說這段文字是攝外歸內呢？要知道，這段文字是內心趨向于外面的意義啊。 這就像帝釋天的寶網，上面有百千萬顆珠子，彼此的光影，互相具足，互相進入。只要觀想這一顆珠子，那麼其他眾多珠子的光影，都會趨向于這一顆珠子。觀想其他的珠子，也能攝取眾多珠子的光影。 如果專門觀想這一顆珠子，雖然能見到眾多珠子的光影，實際上並沒有普遍地觀想所有的珠子。因為眾多珠子的光影，完全在這一顆珠子之中，何必放開心思普遍地觀想呢？這樣就是專注于內心，觀想一切法了。 如果觀想那一顆珠子，雖然能見到眾多珠子和這一顆珠子，實際上並沒有普遍地觀想。因為眾多珠子的光影，都是在那一顆珠子中所具足的。所以這就像觀想外面的十法界，就能見到內心一樣。 智者通過譬喻就能理解，所以不可以固執地認為，外面的色法不具足三千（三千世界）。也不可以胡亂地破斥，恐怕心向外馳求等等。 另外，上人堅決地依據金錍（一種眼科手術器械，這裡指精闢的見解）認為心具足三千，談論無情之物也有佛性這件事。 大概是因為那段文字正是顯示佛性普遍的意義。因為佛是就著有情眾生來說的，所以大多說明色法就是心。所以要知道，如果相信諸色法就是心，那麼就成就了無情之物也有佛性的意義。 這也是爲了成就內觀的意義，姑且就著唯心而論。因為各種教文，正是爲了地獄眾生而說的，所以大多說明唯識。 並不是說那段文字一概地攝歸一邊，比如眾生的生死和佛的依報正報，一粒微塵。
【English Translation】 English version: Contemplation is also like this. Furthermore, the general idea is that this mind that can create, fully possesses all dharmas, and in reality, it does not need to universally focus on the created external environment to cultivate contemplation. Since internal contemplation is like this, wouldn't external contemplation be the same? Therefore, when cultivating external contemplation, such as contemplating a single mote of dust, one must first use subtle understanding to realize that the inner mind and all dharmas converge on this single mote of dust. Focusing solely on this single mote of dust, contemplate all dharmas. Therefore, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness say that contemplating the external Ten Realms (hell realm, hungry ghost realm, animal realm, asura realm, human realm, heaven realm, sravaka realm, pratyekabuddha realm, bodhisattva realm, buddha realm) is to see the inner mind. This means that turning to contemplate the external single mote of dust, since it fully possesses the Ten Realms, doesn't it encompass the inner mind? Therefore, it says 'immediately see the inner mind,' how can it be said that this passage is about gathering the external into the internal? It should be known that this passage is about the meaning of the inner mind turning towards the external. It is like Indra's net, with hundreds of thousands of jewels, their light and shadows mutually containing and interpenetrating each other. Just by contemplating this one jewel, the light and shadows of the other numerous jewels will all converge on this one jewel. Contemplating the other jewels also encompasses the light and shadows of the many jewels. If one focuses solely on contemplating this one jewel, although one can see the light and shadows of the many jewels, one has not actually universally contemplated all the jewels. Because the light and shadows of the many jewels are entirely within this one jewel, why bother to let the mind go and universally contemplate them? In this way, one is focusing on the inner mind and contemplating all dharmas. If one contemplates that one jewel, although one can see the many jewels and this one jewel, one has not actually universally contemplated them. Because the light and shadows of the many jewels are all contained within that one jewel. Therefore, this is like contemplating the external Ten Realms and then seeing the inner mind. The wise understand through metaphors, so one should not stubbornly insist that external form does not fully possess the Three Thousand (Three Thousand Worlds). Nor should one recklessly refute, fearing that the mind is seeking outwards, and so on. Furthermore, the superior person firmly relies on the golden probe (a surgical instrument for eye surgery, here referring to insightful views), believing that the mind fully possesses the Three Thousand, and discusses the matter of insentient things also having Buddha-nature. This is probably because that passage precisely reveals the meaning of the universality of Buddha-nature. Because the Buddha speaks in terms of sentient beings, it mostly explains that form is identical to mind. Therefore, it should be known that if one believes that all forms are identical to mind, then one accomplishes the meaning of insentient things also having Buddha-nature. This is also to accomplish the meaning of internal contemplation, so let's discuss it in terms of Mind-Only. Because the various teachings are precisely for beings of the lower realms, they mostly explain Consciousness-Only. It is not to say that that passage uniformly gathers everything to one side, such as the birth and death of sentient beings and the environment and rewards of Buddhas, a single mote of dust.
不虧之文。如何作色不具三千釋。如何作一向攝外歸內釋耶。豈可荊溪亦謂。一一草木。各有佛性耶。十二入各具千如。豈亦有草木。各自成佛之過耶。
上人于答疑書中。明明以遍歷諸法。為彼彼三千。今來恐妨示珠指一向攝色歸心之義。故但立內心三千。而言外色不具三千。又復潛轉彼彼三千之言。云彼彼諸佛三千。彼彼眾生三千。
且義例本論。色心不二。既先觀內心三千。攝於外色。為不二已歷外之時。何得不約色具三千。攝內心等諸法。為不二耶。何用改轉自語。令義不圓耶。
況示珠指一向。攝色歸心。頓違輔行中。離色無心。離心無色。二則俱二。一則俱一。及唯色唯心等文。
但十不二門。都為示于觀法大體。以今家觀法。正在內心。旁托外境。以舍旁取正。所以特取內心為總。若對說者。既云唯色。色豈不總諸法耶。
又輔行雲。迷謂內外。悟唯一心等。亦約正修內觀以說。若約外觀。豈不云悟唯一色等耶。唯色之教。豈約迷說。
又示珠指。謂心唯在理。生佛屬事。唯論心法。能具能造。生佛一向。是所具所造。
此則何但色不具三千。生佛亦不具三千。予曾細詳。彼釋三法妙義。理實如此。非相枉抑。須知救于可救之義。捨短從長。人情無益。
上人又云。義例凈心。遍歷須約修觀說者。斯又上人。不體一家內外。境觀修證。多途。及不諳諸部文義。致茲妄破也。
且內外境觀。略以四義論之。
自有推過在心故。先於內心。修觀伏斷五住。則以伏斷凈心。歷彼色等諸法。任運自見一一法。具三千三諦。則不論于外境修觀。此如義例必先內心。內心若凈。以此凈心。遍歷諸法。任運泯合。亦即止觀。識陰觀成。遍歷界入依正。一一皆結三諦也。
自有內外兼修。則如方等懺儀正。修內觀。若對外境。乃用內心正觀之法。旁歷尊容道具。皆成三昧也。
自有正約內心。修觀不入。乃舍內境專修外觀。如破法遍之後。例余陰界入修圓破遍。既例破遍亦例十乘。但文在破遍中示爾。此則外色若凈。將此凈色。歷一切法及以內心。任運泯合也。
自有初心便宜修外觀。如先得色無色定。若發心修圓頓止觀。此人已著內心重故。須以外觀破之。于外色等。觀成理顯。還將凈色。歷一切法及以內心。任運泯合也。此如四念處唯色唯識。二種觀法。被二根機也。
上人只知以義例歷一切法。欲同方等表法中歷事之義。其如文意天殊。
何者。且如義例云修觀次第。必先內心。內心若凈。以此凈心。遍歷諸法。既云若凈。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
上人又說：『按照義例，要用清凈心來遍歷一切法，必須依據修習觀行的次第來說。』這種說法又是這位上人不瞭解天臺宗一家之內，內外境界、觀行修證的多種途徑，以及不熟悉各部經文的含義，才導致這種錯誤的破斥。 而且，內外境界和觀行，略微用四種意義來論述： 第一種，因為認為過失在於內心，所以先在內心修習觀行，伏斷五住煩惱。這樣，就用伏斷煩惱后的清凈心，來遍歷色等諸法，自然而然地見到每一法都具足三千、三諦。這樣就不需要在外境修習觀行了。這就像按照義例，必定先修內心。內心如果清凈，用這種清凈心來遍歷諸法，自然而然地泯合，也就是止觀。識陰的觀行成就，遍歷界、入、依報、正報，一一都結成三諦。 第二種，有內外兼修的。就像《方等懺儀》中，既修內觀，又對外境，用內心正觀的方法，旁及尊像、法器等，都成為三昧。 第三種，有本來是針對內心修觀，但修不進去的，就捨棄內境，專門修外觀。如在破法遍之後，傚法其餘陰、界、入修習圓破遍。既然傚法破遍，也就傚法十乘觀法，只不過經文只在破遍中顯示而已。這樣，外色如果清凈，就將這種清凈色，遍歷一切法以及內心，自然而然地泯合。 第四種，有最初修習時，方便修外觀的。如先得到色界、無色界禪定，如果發心修習圓頓止觀，這種人已經執著于內心，所以必須用外觀來破除它。在外色等觀行成就，真理顯現，就將清凈色，遍歷一切法以及內心，自然而然地泯合。這就像四念處中唯色、唯識兩種觀法，是針對兩種根機的眾生。 這位上人只知道按照義例來遍歷一切法，想要等同於《方等經》表法中遍歷事相的意義，但這兩者的文意相差太遠了。 為什麼呢？比如義例中說修觀的次第，必定先修內心，內心如果清凈，用這種清凈心來遍歷諸法。既然說是『如果清凈』，
【English Translation】 English version:
The Superior Man also said: 'According to the established principles (義例, yìlì), to use a pure mind to traverse all dharmas, it must be based on the order of cultivating contemplation.' This statement again shows that this Superior Man does not understand the various paths of internal and external realms, contemplation and cultivation, and realization within the Tiantai school, nor is he familiar with the meanings of the various scriptures, leading to this false refutation. Moreover, internal and external realms and contemplation can be discussed briefly in four ways: First, because one believes the fault lies within the mind, one first cultivates contemplation within the mind to subdue and sever the five skandhas (五住, wǔzhù). In this way, one uses the pure mind after subduing and severing afflictions to traverse all dharmas such as form (色, sè), naturally seeing that each dharma is complete with three thousand and the three truths (三諦, sāndì). Thus, there is no need to cultivate contemplation on external realms. This is like how, according to the established principles, one must first cultivate the internal mind. If the internal mind is pure, using this pure mind to traverse all dharmas, one naturally merges with them, which is also cessation and contemplation (止觀, zhǐguān). When the contemplation of the consciousness skandha (識陰, shíyīn) is accomplished, traversing the realms (界, jiè), entrances (入, rù), dependent rewards (依正, yīzhèng), each one forms the three truths. Second, there is combined internal and external cultivation. Like in the Fangdeng Repentance Ritual (方等懺儀, Fāngděng chànyí), one cultivates internal contemplation, and also towards external realms, using the method of correct contemplation of the internal mind, extending to the venerable images and ritual implements, all becoming samadhi. Third, there are those who originally focus on cultivating contemplation of the internal mind, but cannot enter into it, so they abandon the internal realm and specialize in cultivating external contemplation. Such as after breaking through the dharma everywhere (破法遍, pòfǎbiàn), one imitates the other skandhas, realms, and entrances to cultivate complete breaking through everywhere (圓破遍, yuánpòbiàn). Since one imitates breaking through everywhere, one also imitates the ten vehicles of contemplation (十乘, shíchéng), but the scripture only shows it in the breaking through everywhere. In this way, if the external form is pure, one will use this pure form to traverse all dharmas and the internal mind, naturally merging with them. Fourth, there are those who, when first cultivating, conveniently cultivate external contemplation. Such as those who first attain the form realm and formless realm samadhis (色無色定, sèwúsèdìng), if they aspire to cultivate perfect and sudden cessation and contemplation (圓頓止觀, yuándùn zhǐguān), these people are already attached to the internal mind, so they must use external contemplation to break through it. When contemplation of external forms and so on is accomplished, and the truth is revealed, one will use the pure form to traverse all dharmas and the internal mind, naturally merging with them. This is like the two types of contemplation in the four foundations of mindfulness (四念處, sìniànchù), only form and only consciousness, which are for two types of beings. This Superior Man only knows to traverse all dharmas according to the established principles, wanting to equate it with the meaning of traversing phenomena in the Fangdeng Sutra's expression of dharma, but the meaning of these two is too different. Why is that? For example, the established principles say that the order of cultivating contemplation must first cultivate the internal mind, and if the internal mind is pure, one uses this pure mind to traverse all dharmas. Since it says 'if it is pure,'
故知。觀未成時。則內心未凈。觀若成則內心凈。故云內心若凈。類彼方等直云。以正觀心。安可得同耶。
又彼方等。歷事作觀。加行進功。故云心心相續觀道無間。方得入不二法門。
義例既云。凈心曆法。任運泯合。何曾加行。以此驗是觀成凈心遍歷也。又文中自出修內觀所以。云當知。一切由心分別。諸法何曾自謂同異。既推過在心。則但于內心修觀。外色諸法既本無同異分別。則不須加功而修觀法。
然內外二觀。皆為破內心分別。若內心觀成分別已亡。則歷外境時。任運入不二法門也。
若內觀未成。分別未亡。歷外境時。心心相續。觀道無間。方入不二之門。
又據引占察實相。唯識二種觀義。既但在內心。則知非於外境修觀也。
實相觀理者。則于陰心唯觀理具三千實相也。唯識歷事專照起心。歷于能造十界之心也。
既從變造而論此。則屬事非謂外境之事也。既推過在心。故唯觀內心。觀心之法。不出二種。二觀若成內心則凈。以凈心歷外法時。自然法法皆凈故。不論外境修觀也。
若以唯識為外觀者。唯色之觀。為在於何。四念處約唯識唯色。分于內外兩觀。非不顯然。上人何得故違宗教。堅令唯識為外觀耶。
隨自意中。唯約內心。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由此可知，在內觀尚未成就時，內心尚未清凈；內觀若成就，則內心清凈。所以說內心如果清凈，類似於《方等經》直接說，以正確的觀察心性。怎麼能說（內觀和方等經的觀法）相同呢？
而且《方等經》是經歷諸事來修觀，需要不斷努力用功，所以說心心相續，觀道沒有間斷，才能進入不二法門。
義例既然說，清凈心經歷諸法，自然而然地泯滅融合，哪裡需要額外用功？由此可以驗證，這是內觀成就后，清凈心自然經歷諸法。而且文中自己說明了修內觀的原因，說應當知道，一切都是由心分別出來的，諸法哪裡自己有所謂的相同或不同？既然把過錯歸於心，那麼就只在內心修觀。外在的色法等諸法，既然本來就沒有相同或不同的分別，那麼就不需要額外用功來修觀法。
然而，內外二觀，都是爲了破除內心的分別。如果內心觀成就，分別已經消亡，那麼經歷外境時，自然而然地進入不二法門。
如果內觀沒有成就，分別沒有消亡，經歷外境時，心心相續，觀道沒有間斷，才能進入不二之門。
而且根據引用《占察善惡業報經》的實相觀（觀察諸法實相的觀法）和唯識觀（觀察唯識的觀法）兩種觀義，既然都只在內心，那麼就知道不是在外境修觀。
實相觀理，就是在陰心（五陰之心）中，只觀察理具三千實相（一切諸法所具有的三千種性相）。唯識歷事，專門照見生起的心，經歷能造十界（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅、人、天、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、佛）的心。
既然是從變造（變化造作）而談論這些，那麼就屬於事，而不是指外境的事。既然把過錯歸於心，所以只觀察內心。觀心的方法，不出兩種。兩種觀法如果成就，內心就清凈。以清凈心經歷外法時，自然法法都清凈，所以不論在外境修觀。
如果認為唯識是外觀，那麼唯色的觀法，又在哪裡呢？《四念處經》根據唯識唯色，分為內外兩種觀法，不是不明顯。上人為什麼故意違背宗教，堅持認為唯識是外觀呢？
隨自意中，只約內心（而論）。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, know that when inner contemplation (內觀) is not yet accomplished, the inner mind is not yet pure; if inner contemplation is accomplished, then the inner mind is pure. Therefore, it is said that if the inner mind is pure, it is similar to what the Vaipulya Sutra (方等經) directly says: using correct observation of the mind. How can it be said that they are the same?
Moreover, the Vaipulya Sutra cultivates contemplation through experiencing various matters, requiring continuous effort and progress. Therefore, it is said that mind after mind continues, the path of contemplation is without interruption, only then can one enter the non-dual dharma gate (不二法門).
Since the meaning and example say that a pure mind experiences dharmas (法), naturally extinguishing and merging, where is there any need for additional effort? This verifies that it is the pure mind naturally experiencing dharmas after inner contemplation is accomplished. Moreover, the text itself explains the reason for cultivating inner contemplation, saying that one should know that everything is distinguished by the mind. How could dharmas themselves claim to be the same or different? Since the fault is attributed to the mind, then one only cultivates contemplation within the inner mind. Since external form and other dharmas originally have no distinctions of sameness or difference, then there is no need to add effort to cultivate contemplation.
However, both inner and outer contemplation are for breaking down the distinctions of the inner mind. If inner contemplation is accomplished and distinctions have already vanished, then when experiencing external realms, one naturally enters the non-dual dharma gate.
If inner contemplation is not accomplished and distinctions have not vanished, then when experiencing external realms, mind after mind continues, the path of contemplation is without interruption, only then can one enter the gate of non-duality.
Moreover, according to the cited Sutra of the Ascertainment of Good and Evil Karma (占察善惡業報經), the two types of contemplation, contemplation of true suchness (實相觀) and contemplation of consciousness-only (唯識觀), are both only within the inner mind, then one knows that contemplation is not cultivated in external realms.
Contemplation of true suchness observes the principle, that is, within the mind of the five aggregates (陰心), one only observes the principle possessing three thousand aspects of reality (三千實相). Consciousness-only contemplation experiences matters, focusing on illuminating the arising mind, experiencing the mind that can create the ten realms (十界) [hell, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, devas, sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas].
Since these are discussed from the perspective of transformation and creation (變造), then they belong to matters, not referring to matters of the external realm. Since the fault is attributed to the mind, therefore one only observes the inner mind. The method of observing the mind does not go beyond two types. If the two contemplations are accomplished, the inner mind is purified. When a pure mind experiences external dharmas, naturally all dharmas are purified, therefore one does not discuss cultivating contemplation in external realms.
If one considers consciousness-only to be outer contemplation, then where is the contemplation of form? The Four Foundations of Mindfulness Sutra (四念處經), based on consciousness-only and form-only, divides into inner and outer contemplations, is it not clear? Why does the venerable one deliberately violate the teachings and insist that consciousness-only is outer contemplation?
According to one's own intention, it is only about the inner mind.
起十界分別。輔行判屬唯識事觀。義例顯云。事觀則專照起心。四性叵得。那得堅謂歷于外境耶。既全不識內外觀法。那得妄生彈剝耶。
又須知。事理不二之語。得意之者。隨修一觀必含二義。如修理觀者。雖云但觀理具。須知。全修在性。則善修實相觀也。修事觀者。雖觀能造十界之心。須知。全性成修。則善修唯識觀也。
豈令九旬常坐之徒。皆須縱任善惡之念。四運推撿耶。豈令公私匆遽之徒。皆須靜室觀理。然後方名事理不二耶。
況上人堅執外境為唯識者。只如常坐。專觀理具。或發初住及內外凡。既未歷外事。豈觀道未開。不可論道耶。
上人將義例遍歷之文。作修觀釋之。對當不二門及止觀結例。與方等表法。其失甚眾。今為備書義狀中文。略示愆失。
如彼文云。心色一體無前無後。皆是法界。修觀次第。必先內心(即先觀識陰也)內心若凈(謂若了一念具三千法。故云若凈。此則止觀理境。亦即色心不二門中。總在一念己心生佛等也)以此凈心歷一切法(謂若了一念三千已故。云若凈。然後遍歷彼彼諸法。不出我之三千。故云歷一切法。即止觀結成三諦。意亦即內外不二門。外謂托彼依正色心。即空假中等。此皆正是修觀。非觀成遍歷也)任運泯合(謂三千無外
。攝外事境。罄無不盡。即止觀結成三諦。文。一一文中。結成不思議境。意亦同內外不二門先。了外色心一念無念。唯內體三千空中而已。皆泯合意也。能如是念念觀者。若了了分明。即觀行成。相似解發。即相似成。若三諦分顯。即分真成。豈是觀成。方遍歷耶。豈入分真方遍歷耶)又亦先了萬法唯心(了即解也。謂三千不出一念等)方可觀心(依解而觀三千法不出一心)能了諸法則見諸法唯心唯色。當知。一切由心分別。諸法何曾自謂同異(當知下正示觀心之意。諸法既由心分別。是故但觀心耳。雖云唯色色即是心)故占察云。觀有二種。一者唯識。二者實相(引經為證)實相觀理(觀三千性即空假中。即前內心凈是也)唯識歷事(即以凈心遍歷諸法也)事理不二(即事而理。攝外歸內。三千三諦。攝無不周。故云不二。不二門云。唯內體三千。即空假中。當知二觀豈得相離。若謂待內觀理顯。方遍歷外事者。即應初心唯修實相觀。觀成之後。乃至分真方修唯識觀耶。違妨至甚未能委陳。又復應知。實相唯識一往雖分利鈍。究竟而論二觀相在也)觀道稍開(謂若能二觀相付。事理不二即觀道。稍開可入觀行等位)能了此者可與論道(當知。謬解偏執之徒。安可與之論道。荊溪明誡可不是乎)。
皆是上人
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 攝取外在事物的境界，全部沒有遺漏。這就是止觀結合而成的三諦之理。在每一個文句中，都結合成了不可思議的境界。這個意思也和內外不二法門所說的，先了解外在的色法和心念，一念不生，唯有內在的三千世界在空中顯現一樣。這些都是泯滅融合的意思。如果能夠這樣唸唸觀照，如果能夠清清楚楚地明白，那麼觀行就成就了，相似的理解就產生了，也就是相似位的成就。如果三諦分明地顯現，那就是分真位的成就。難道是觀行成就之後，才去一一經歷嗎？難道是進入分真位之後，才去一一經歷嗎？ 又，也應該先了解萬法唯心（瞭解就是理解。意思是說三千世界不離一念等等），才可以觀心（依據理解而觀照三千法不離一心）。能夠了解諸法，就能見到諸法唯心唯色。應當知道，一切都由心來分別，諸法何曾自己說自己是相同還是不同（應當知道以下是正式指示觀心的意思。諸法既然由心來分別，所以只要觀心就可以了。雖然說『唯**』，但那就是心）。所以《占察經》說，觀有兩種，一是唯識觀，二是實相觀（引用經文作為證明）。實相觀觀的是理（觀照三千的體性即是空、假、中，就是前面所說的內心清凈），唯識觀經歷的是事（就是用清凈的心去經歷諸法）。事和理是不二的（即在事中見理，攝取外在歸於內在，三千和三諦，攝取沒有不周全的，所以說不二。不二法門說，唯有內在的三千，即是空、假、中。應當知道這兩種觀怎麼可以分離。如果說要等到內觀的理顯現，才去經歷外在的事，那麼就應該一開始只修實相觀，觀成就之後，乃至分真位才修唯識觀嗎？這樣的違背和妨礙太嚴重了，無法詳細陳述。又應該知道，實相和唯識，從一方面來說雖然分有利鈍，但究竟來說，兩種觀是相互依存的）。觀道稍微開啟（是說如果能夠兩種觀相互配合，事和理不二，那麼觀道就稍微開啟，可以進入觀行等位）。能夠了解這些的人，才可以和他談論佛道（應當知道，錯誤理解和偏執的人，怎麼可以和他談論佛道。荊溪大師的明確告誡難道不是這樣嗎）。 這些都是上人（所說）。
【English Translation】 English version: Comprehending external realms, exhausting all without omission. This is the union of zhi (止, cessation) and guan (觀, contemplation), forming the Three Truths (sātya) doctrine. In each and every phrase, an inconceivable realm is formed. The meaning is similar to the non-duality of inner and outer, first understanding that external form (rūpa) and mind (citta) are without a single thought, only the inner Three Thousand Worlds (trisāhasra-mahāsāhasra-lokadhātu) manifest in emptiness. All of these are meanings of merging and uniting. If one can contemplate in this way, moment by moment, and if one can understand clearly and distinctly, then the practice of contemplation is accomplished, and a similar understanding arises, which is the accomplishment of the stage of resemblance. If the Three Truths manifest distinctly, then that is the accomplishment of the stage of partial truth. Is it only after contemplation is accomplished that one experiences everything? Is it only after entering the stage of partial truth that one experiences everything? Furthermore, one should first understand that all phenomena are only mind (citta) (understanding means comprehension, meaning that the Three Thousand Worlds do not go beyond a single thought, etc.), then one can contemplate the mind (relying on understanding to contemplate that the Three Thousand Worlds do not go beyond a single mind). If one can understand all phenomena, then one can see that all phenomena are only mind and only form. One should know that everything is distinguished by the mind. How could phenomena ever say themselves that they are the same or different (one should know that what follows is the formal instruction on the meaning of contemplating the mind. Since all phenomena are distinguished by the mind, therefore one only needs to contemplate the mind. Although it says 'only ', but that is the mind). Therefore, the Account of Karma Retribution Sutra (Zhan Cha Jing) says that there are two kinds of contemplation: one is the Consciousness-only (Vijñānavāda) contemplation, and the other is the Reality-as-it-is (tathatā) contemplation (citing the sutra as proof). Reality-as-it-is contemplation contemplates the principle (contemplating the nature of the Three Thousand Worlds, which is emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way, which is the pure inner mind mentioned earlier), and Consciousness-only contemplation experiences events (that is, using a pure mind to experience all phenomena). Events and principles are non-dual (that is, seeing principle in events, taking the external and returning to the internal, the Three Thousand Worlds and the Three Truths, encompassing everything without omission, therefore it is said to be non-dual. The non-duality gate says that only the inner Three Thousand Worlds are emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way. One should know that these two contemplations cannot be separated. If one says that one must wait until the principle of inner contemplation manifests before experiencing external events, then should one only cultivate Reality-as-it-is contemplation at the beginning, and only cultivate Consciousness-only contemplation after contemplation is accomplished, even until the stage of partial truth? Such contradiction and obstruction are too severe to be described in detail. Furthermore, one should know that although Reality-as-it-is and Consciousness-only are distinguished as being advantageous or disadvantageous in one aspect, ultimately, the two contemplations are interdependent). The path of contemplation slightly opens (that is, if one can coordinate the two contemplations, and events and principles are non-dual, then the path of contemplation slightly opens, and one can enter the stages of practice, etc.). Those who can understand this can be discussed with about the path (one should know that those who misunderstand and are biased, how can they be discussed with about the path. Is not this the clear warning of Master Jingxi?). These are all (words) of the Superior One.
將不二門及止觀對注。又以方等表法中文。對此義例。以彼正觀之心。對必先內心內心若凈。以彼歷眾事一一緣中皆表勝法。對遍歷諸法。以彼心心相續觀道無間。入不二門。對任運泯合。上人如此會釋。略有五過。一不解義例。二不解不二門。三不解止觀結例。四不解方等表法。五自返示珠指。
且義例既推分別之過。在乎內心。此之分別。豈非無明。若未伏斷。何能歷境。任運泯合。方等正觀。約未斷伏說。故歷外事之時。須唸唸相續。進功令觀無間。方得入不二之門。那得齊今任運泯合耶。此則上人不解義例與方等成未成相。致茲謬對也。
又不二門雖門門通入。而內外一門。既對智行二妙。則當專論自行觀法也。
又如上人所解。須是久修止觀之人。方能託事修觀。今何故正觀之心。卻在色心門修習。內外一門。正論觀法。今來翻成旁論觀法。何者以將色心門中正觀。旁歷外境諸法故。內境觀一科。既齊任運泯合之句。乃只是外觀成相也。
若謂不爾。何故將內外兩觀。只對歷一切法。任運泯合一段文耶。
況外觀文中。已明說觀成義畢。故文云。色心體絕唯一實性。及豁同真凈。帝網炳然等。若未泯合如何豁同真凈。如何得見帝網炳然。又將先了外色心等文。為結前生后。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
關於《不二門》和《止觀》的對注，以及用《方等》的表法文，來比對此處的義例。用《方等》中正觀的內心，來對應必須先內心清凈。因為內心如果清凈，那麼在經歷眾多事物時，每一個因緣都表示殊勝的佛法。用《方等》中遍歷諸法，來對應遍歷諸法。用《方等》中心心相續，觀道無間，從而進入不二門，來對應任運泯合。上人如此會釋，略有五個過失：一是不理解義例，二是不理解不二門，三是不理解止觀的結論，四是不理解《方等》的表法，五是自己反過來指示珠指（比喻捨本逐末）。
而且義例既然推究分別的過失在於內心，那麼這種分別，難道不是無明（avidyā）嗎？如果無明沒有被降伏斷除，怎麼能夠經歷外境，任運泯合呢？《方等》的正觀，是就未斷伏無明來說的，所以在經歷外事的時候，必須唸唸相續，精進用功，使觀行沒有間斷，才能進入不二之門。怎麼能現在就任運泯合呢？這是上人不理解義例與《方等》的成與未成之相，導致了這樣的錯誤對應。
而且不二門雖然門門通入，但是內外一門，既然對應智行二妙，就應當專門論述自行觀法。
又如上人所解釋的，必須是久修止觀的人，才能託事修觀。現在為什麼正觀的內心，卻在色心門（rūpa-citta-dvāra）修習？內外一門，本來是論述觀法的，現在反而變成了旁論觀法。為什麼呢？因為將色心門中的正觀，旁及外境諸法。內境觀這一科，既然對應任運泯合的語句，那就只是外觀成相了。
如果說不是這樣，為什麼將內外兩觀，只對應歷一切法，任運泯合這一段文字呢？
況且外觀文中，已經明確說明觀成義完畢，所以文中說：『色心體絕唯一實性，及豁同真凈，帝網（Indra's net）炳然』等。如果未泯合，如何豁同真凈？如何得見帝網炳然？又將先了外色心等文，作為結前生后。
【English Translation】 English version:
Regarding the annotations on the 'Non-Dual Gate' (不二門, Bù'èrmén) and 'Śamatha-Vipassanā' (止觀, Zhǐguān), and using the Dharma-representing texts of the 'Vaipulya Sutra' (方等, Fāngděng) to compare with the meaning here. Using the mind of right contemplation (正觀, zhèngguān) in the 'Vaipulya Sutra' to correspond to the necessity of first having a pure inner mind. Because if the inner mind is pure, then in experiencing numerous things, each condition (緣, yuán) represents the supreme Dharma. Using the 'Vaipulya Sutra's' traversing all dharmas to correspond to traversing all dharmas. Using the 'Vaipulya Sutra's' mind-moment succeeding mind-moment, the path of contemplation without interruption, thereby entering the Non-Dual Gate, to correspond to spontaneous merging. The Venerable One's interpretation like this has roughly five faults: first, not understanding the meaning of the examples; second, not understanding the Non-Dual Gate; third, not understanding the conclusion of Śamatha-Vipassanā; fourth, not understanding the Dharma-representing of the 'Vaipulya Sutra'; fifth, turning back to point at the finger indicating the pearl (a metaphor for abandoning the fundamental and pursuing the superficial).
Moreover, since the meaning of the examples investigates the fault of discrimination within the mind, isn't this discrimination ignorance (avidyā)? If ignorance has not been subdued and severed, how can one experience external realms and spontaneously merge? The right contemplation of the 'Vaipulya Sutra' speaks from the perspective of not yet severing and subduing ignorance, so when experiencing external matters, one must have mind-moment succeeding mind-moment, diligently applying effort, making the contemplation uninterrupted, in order to enter the Non-Dual Gate. How can one now spontaneously merge? This is because the Venerable One does not understand the aspect of accomplishment and non-accomplishment of the meaning of the examples and the 'Vaipulya Sutra', leading to this erroneous correspondence.
Moreover, although the Non-Dual Gate allows entry through every gate, since the one gate of inner and outer corresponds to the two subtleties of wisdom and practice, one should specifically discuss the practice of self-cultivation and contemplation.
Furthermore, as the Venerable One explains, one must be someone who has cultivated Śamatha-Vipassanā for a long time in order to rely on things to cultivate contemplation. Why is the mind of right contemplation now cultivated in the gate of form and mind (rūpa-citta-dvāra)? The one gate of inner and outer originally discusses the method of contemplation, but now it has turned into a side discussion of the method of contemplation. Why? Because the right contemplation in the gate of form and mind is extended to all dharmas of the external realm. Since the section on inner realm contemplation corresponds to the phrase of spontaneous merging, it is merely the appearance of external contemplation being accomplished.
If it is said that it is not so, why are the two contemplations of inner and outer only corresponding to the passage of experiencing all dharmas and spontaneously merging?
Moreover, the text on external contemplation has already clearly stated that the meaning of contemplation being accomplished is complete, so the text says: 'The substance of form and mind is severed, only the one true nature, and it is completely the same as true purity, Indra's net (帝網, Dìwǎng) is brilliantly clear,' etc. If there is no merging, how can it be completely the same as true purity? How can one see Indra's net brilliantly clear? Furthermore, the text that first understands external form and mind, etc., is used as a conclusion to connect the preceding and give rise to the following.
更多妨礙也。何者。若先了等言。是結前觀相。既云先了外色心一念無念。則前外境已泯合畢。那將內觀又對泯合耶。內體已下。若屬生后。必須正明內觀。何故亦只作外觀泯合耶。是則結前外觀。已是歷外泯合。生后內觀亦是歷外泯合。則顯荊溪立言。全無所以。又外境既已豁同真凈帝網炳然則。徒設內觀一科。則成荊溪虛標浪釋。惑亂行人也。內外門。初明標二種境觀。上人剛然縮作一種旁示外觀也。色心門中未論觀法。上人堅謂正修內觀也。
又內外一門。正論兩種境觀。若將上人所立之義。對之。此一門只略沾正觀旁歷助成之義也(以上人數云託附二觀扶成止觀故也)。
若約荊溪所立則內外一門。全不明觀法也。何者以實相唯識二觀。唯約內心而論故。上人既將內外一門。只對歷于外法泯合之文。豈非全不明實相唯識二種觀法耶。
又上人只將內心若凈之句。對止觀理境(全不敢言觀為多所妨也。如此牽率何能評教)乃將此境遍歷外法。則大違止觀。以彼具于識陰。修乎十乘。然後將此十乘。歷于作受。何曾單將理境歷事耶。
又色心門中。己他生佛。同居一念。上人但取己心生佛。為內觀意。將他生他佛用外觀歷之。此則內外皆不圓也。須知。內心約理攝法。豈但己之生佛。他
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 更多的是妨礙。為什麼這麼說呢？如果先理解了『等』這個詞，這是總結前面的觀相。既然已經說了先理解外色心一念無念，那麼前面的外境就已經泯滅融合完畢。哪裡還需要用內觀再去對治泯滅融合呢？『內體已下』，如果是屬於後面產生的，必須明確說明內觀，為什麼也只是當作外觀的泯滅融合呢？這樣的話，總結前面的外觀，已經是經歷外境的泯滅融合。後面產生的內觀也是經歷外境的泯滅融合。這就顯示出荊溪大師的立論，完全沒有道理。而且外境既然已經豁然開朗，如同真凈帝網一樣清晰明瞭，那麼徒勞地設立內觀這一科，就成了荊溪大師虛假標榜，隨意解釋，迷惑修行人。內外門，最初是明確標示兩種境觀，上人卻強行縮減成一種，只是從旁邊顯示外觀。色心門中沒有論述觀法，上人卻堅決認為是正修內觀。 又，內外一門，正是論述兩種境觀。如果用上人所立的義理來對照，這一門只是稍微沾邊正觀，從旁邊經歷輔助成就的義理（以上人數說託附二觀扶助成就止觀的緣故）。 如果按照荊溪大師所立的義理，那麼內外一門，完全沒有說明觀法。為什麼呢？因為實相觀和唯識觀，只是圍繞內心而論述的。上人既然將內外一門，只是用來對應經歷外法泯滅融合的文字，豈不是完全沒有說明實相觀和唯識觀這兩種觀法嗎？ 又，上人只是將『內心若凈』這句話，對應止觀的理境（完全不敢說觀為多所妨礙。如此牽強附會，怎麼能評判教義呢？），乃是將這個理境遍歷外法，就大大違背了止觀。因為止觀具備識陰，修習十乘觀法，然後將這十乘觀法，經歷作受等過程，哪裡有單獨將理境經歷事相的呢？ 又，色心門中，己他生佛（自己、他人、眾生、佛），同處於一念之中。上人只是取自己的心、眾生、佛，作為內觀的意旨，將他人、眾生、他佛用外觀來經歷。這樣內外都不圓融。須知，內心是約理來攝持法的，豈止是自己的眾生、佛。
【English Translation】 English version: It is more of an obstruction. Why is that? If one first understands the word 'etc.', it summarizes the preceding contemplation. Since it has already been said that one first understands the non-arising of a single thought of external form, mind, then the preceding external realm has already been extinguished and merged completely. Where is the need to use internal contemplation to further counteract extinction and merging? 'Inner substance onwards', if it belongs to what arises later, it must clearly explain internal contemplation. Why is it only treated as the extinction and merging of external appearance? In this case, summarizing the preceding external appearance is already experiencing the extinction and merging of external realms. The internal contemplation that arises later is also experiencing the extinction and merging of external realms. This shows that Master Jingxi's (Jingxi, refers to Zhanran 湛然 (711–782), a prominent Tiantai Buddhist monk) argument is completely unreasonable. Moreover, since the external realm has already been enlightened, as clear as the pure Indra's net (Indra's net, a metaphor for interconnectedness), then establishing the category of internal contemplation in vain becomes Master Jingxi's false claim, arbitrary explanation, and confusion of practitioners. The Internal and External Gate initially clearly indicates two kinds of realms and contemplations, but the Superior Person (Superior Person, likely referring to a commentator or another monk) forcibly reduces it to one kind, only showing external appearance from the side. The Form and Mind Gate does not discuss the method of contemplation, but the Superior Person firmly believes that it is the correct practice of internal contemplation. Furthermore, the Internal and External Gate precisely discusses two kinds of realms and contemplations. If we compare it with the meaning established by the Superior Person, this gate only slightly touches upon the meaning of correct contemplation, experiencing and assisting in its accomplishment from the side (the above-mentioned people say that they rely on the two contemplations to support and accomplish cessation and contemplation). If according to the meaning established by Master Jingxi, then the Internal and External Gate completely does not explain the method of contemplation. Why is that? Because the contemplation of Reality and the contemplation of Consciousness-only are only discussed in relation to the inner mind. Since the Superior Person uses the Internal and External Gate only to correspond to the text of experiencing the extinction and merging of external dharmas, isn't it completely not explaining the two kinds of contemplation of Reality and Consciousness-only? Moreover, the Superior Person only uses the sentence 'If the inner mind is pure' to correspond to the realm of principle in cessation and contemplation (completely not daring to say that contemplation is obstructed by many things. How can one judge the teachings with such far-fetched interpretations?), and then uses this realm of principle to traverse external dharmas, which greatly violates cessation and contemplation. Because cessation and contemplation possesses the skandha of consciousness, cultivates the ten vehicles of contemplation, and then uses these ten vehicles to experience the processes of making and receiving, how can one solely use the realm of principle to experience phenomena? Furthermore, in the Form and Mind Gate, self, others, sentient beings, and Buddhas (self, others, sentient beings, Buddhas) are all in one thought. The Superior Person only takes one's own mind, sentient beings, and Buddhas as the intention of internal contemplation, and uses external appearance to experience others, sentient beings, and other Buddhas. In this way, neither internal nor external is complete. One should know that the inner mind uses principle to encompass dharmas, not just one's own sentient beings and Buddhas.
生他佛皆須攝也。歷外事時。豈但他生他佛之境。己心所造皆須歷也。過失何限。豈能備書。如此銷文。還自信得及否。莫負荊溪述作否。
若謂先了等文結前生后。又成修外觀。至相似分真位。後方修內觀。還允協否。應知。內外不二門。雙明兩種境觀。雖多分修觀。先依內心。不妨亦有著內心者。發軫便修外觀。是故荊溪隨標語便。先釋外觀也。此例甚眾不能備引。
于外觀中。自明外色心依正。為所觀境(即外陰入故也)隨於一境用不思議三觀。即照即亡。故觀成時。豁然皆同真凈。一境既遍。收諸法彼彼各各遍攝諸法。故帝網依正。終自炳然(依正若不互具互攝豈可如帝網也)。
次釋內觀。先明妙解。攬外向內。故云先了外色心一念無念(義例云先了萬境唯心也)次明妙觀。專于內心觀一切法故。云唯內體三千即空假中(義例云方可觀心也)先了之言。既不結前外觀成相。豈得妄斥云觀外唯解觀內唯行耶。故知。先了外色心等。正是內觀之解也。此則與義例先了萬法唯心。方可觀心之文。泯齊也。上人非謂破予乃破荊溪也。
然內觀合有三觀亡照及觀成相。外觀合有妙解先了萬法唯色之言。蓋綺文互映故互闕也。況外觀中。全無攝外法歸內心之言。而自云帝網依正。豈外色不具三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所有其他的佛都必須被攝受。經歷外在事物時，難道僅僅是他方世界其他佛的境界嗎？自己內心所造的境界也必須經歷。過失有多少呢？哪裡能夠全部寫下來。這樣解釋經文，還能夠自信嗎？不要辜負荊溪大師的著作啊。
如果說『先了等文』是連線前文，開啟後文，又變成了先修外觀，直到相似位和分真位，之後才修內觀，這樣符合經義嗎？應該知道，內外不二之門，同時闡明兩種境界和觀法。雖然大部分時間是修觀，先依據內心，不妨也有著眼於內心的人。一開始就修外觀。所以荊溪大師隨著經文的語句，先解釋外觀。這樣的例子很多，不能一一列舉。
在外觀中，闡明外在的色、心、依報（指眾生所依止的環境）和正報（指眾生的身心），作為所觀的境界（也就是外在的五陰、十二入、十八界）。隨著對外境的觀察，運用不可思議的三觀（空觀、假觀、中觀），即照即亡。所以觀成的時候，豁然開朗，都與真凈的境界相同。一個境界既然普遍，收攝諸法，彼彼各各普遍攝受諸法。所以帝網（Indra's net，因陀羅網）的依報和正報，最終自然明瞭（如果依報和正報不互相具足、互相攝受，怎麼能像帝網一樣呢）。
接下來解釋內觀。先闡明妙解，從外向內攝取，所以說『先了外色心一念無念』（義例中說『先了萬境唯心』）。其次闡明妙觀，專注于內心觀察一切法，所以說『唯內體三千即空假中』（義例中說『方可觀心』）。『先了』這句話，既然不是總結前面的外觀成就之相，怎麼能妄加指責說觀外唯有解，觀內唯有行呢？所以要知道，『先了外色心等』，正是內觀的解。這與義例中『先了萬法唯心，方可觀心』的文句，完全一致。上人不是在反駁我，而是在反駁荊溪大師啊。
然而內觀包含三觀的亡照以及觀成之相，外觀包含妙解，以及『先了萬法唯色』的說法，大概是綺麗的文采互相輝映，所以互相缺失。況且外觀中，完全沒有攝受外在的法歸於內心的說法，卻自稱帝網的依報和正報，難道外在的色不具備三觀嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: All other Buddhas must be embraced. When experiencing external matters, is it only the realm of other Buddhas in other worlds? The realms created by one's own mind must also be experienced. How many faults are there? How can they all be written down? Explaining the scriptures in this way, can you still be confident? Do not fail the works of Master Jingxi (荊溪, a famous Tiantai Buddhist master).
If you say that 'the text of first understanding' connects the previous text and opens the subsequent text, and it becomes cultivating external contemplation first, until the stages of resemblance and partial realization, and then cultivating internal contemplation, does this accord with the meaning of the scriptures? You should know that the gate of non-duality of internal and external simultaneously elucidates two kinds of realms and contemplations. Although most of the time is spent cultivating contemplation, first relying on the inner mind, it does not prevent some from focusing on the inner mind. From the beginning, one cultivates external contemplation. Therefore, Master Jingxi explains external contemplation first, following the words of the scriptures. There are many such examples, which cannot be listed one by one.
In external contemplation, it elucidates external form (色, rupa), mind (心, citta), circumstantial rewards (依報, the environment beings rely on) and direct rewards (正報, the body and mind of beings), as the objects of contemplation (that is, the external five aggregates (五陰, five skandhas), twelve entrances (十二入, twelve ayatanas), and eighteen realms (十八界, eighteen dhatus)). Following the observation of external objects, use the inconceivable three contemplations (三觀, three insights: emptiness (空觀, sunyata), provisional existence (假觀, prajna), and the middle way (中觀, madhyamika)), illuminating and vanishing simultaneously. Therefore, when contemplation is accomplished, it is suddenly enlightened, and all are the same as the realm of true purity. Since one realm is universal, it embraces all dharmas, and each and every one universally embraces all dharmas. Therefore, the circumstantial and direct rewards of Indra's net (帝網, Indra's net) will eventually become clear (if the circumstantial and direct rewards do not mutually possess and mutually embrace each other, how can they be like Indra's net?).
Next, explain internal contemplation. First, elucidate wonderful understanding, taking from the outside and drawing inward, so it says 'first understand the external form, mind, one thought, and no thought' (the meaning example says 'first understand that all realms are only mind'). Secondly, elucidate wonderful contemplation, focusing on the inner mind to observe all dharmas, so it says 'only the inner essence is three thousand, which is emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way' (the meaning example says 'then one can contemplate the mind'). Since the words 'first understand' do not summarize the previous appearance of external contemplation, how can one rashly accuse that contemplating the external only has understanding, and contemplating the internal only has practice? Therefore, you should know that 'first understanding the external form, mind, etc.' is precisely the understanding of internal contemplation. This is completely consistent with the sentence in the meaning example 'first understand that all dharmas are only mind, then one can contemplate the mind'. The superior person is not refuting me, but refuting Master Jingxi.
However, internal contemplation includes the vanishing illumination of the three contemplations and the appearance of contemplation being accomplished, and external contemplation includes wonderful understanding, as well as the saying 'first understand that all dharmas are only form', probably because the beautiful writings reflect each other, so they are mutually lacking. Moreover, in external contemplation, there is no saying of embracing external dharmas and returning to the inner mind, but it claims the circumstantial and direct rewards of Indra's net, does the external form not possess the three contemplations?
千不具內心耶。
又特返示珠指彼文云。內外門對境明智。方辨觀智。若色心門。不可對三諦三觀。又云各有所屬。不可混濫。故知。示珠指深。不許色心門中。論于觀慧。彼文定判初門未辨諦觀。上人翻為正明內觀。彼文定判次門方明觀智。上人翻作旁示外觀。又示珠指明判色心體絕。為牒示觀成之相。又云此是觀成唯一體性。又解豁同真凈。是六根凈位。若未任運泯合。何名外觀成相。豈六根凈位。猶色心未合耶。
若謂珠指判此兩門。不當則兩卷。何足可依釋不二門耶。儻若有乖破觀心文。理當全謬。然示珠指灼然無一可取。但上人今扶樹彼見。則不合特違也。然學無常師。理長則就。有何不可。乾竺舍邪歸正者何限。但若立義少勝。何讓于師。既所譚更劣何須改作。
又堅執止觀結例依正諸法。皆作三諦之文。為正修外觀。更為不可。
彼文揀示識心。修乎十乘。今方一觀。那得改觀觀于外境。破遍文末例余陰入。尚恐太早。合在識陰十乘之後。但為通塞已去。通約五陰修觀故。從破遍文末。例余陰入也。況彼顯說從初至此。單約識心。從此已去。乃至離愛。具約五陰。方成觀相。荊溪如此顯然指示。從初至此。單約陰心修觀。那得特違宗祖。剛然將此觀成曆法之文。拗作外境修觀
耶。
故知。若作上根得入觀行真似。以凈心曆法。任運泯合。釋之即無諸過。兼合諸文。以荊溪自云。上根一觀。即入初住或內外凡。此之三位。豈不能以凈心。曆法任運泯合耶。
又觀法任運相應。須從初品已上。方有此德。故止觀明初品云。不加功力。任運分明等。應知。此位既於一法三諦。任運分明。于余法豈不分明耶。此位既爾。后位例然。但分觀行真似三等任運也。
然觀成后。猶論歷于外境者。由居因位故也。應知。唯妙覺位。全無內外之相也。
故起信論云。諸佛法身。更無彼此色相迭相見。故既無他佛。即無他生。正報既泯。依報豈存。雖三千宛然。絕內外相也。若餘一品無明。則須微有自他之相。故起信論云。由轉識故見有他佛。既見他佛。豈無他生。正報既存。依報寧泯故。將已成之內觀。歷外事境。任運泯合也。
故凈名云。觀身實相。觀佛亦然。豈非以內例外耶。分真尚爾。相似觀行可知。
上人堅執云。唯觀識性具三千法。則三千之外更無一法。豈得別存一事境在心外。而待識陰理顯。方遍融耶。須知。此說全不得初心修觀之意也。何者。既不許觀外色等法。恐心外向。唯觀內心理具之義。則須若內若外。一時遍觀。方名觀于性具三千。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此可知，如果上根之人能夠通過觀行進入真似即觀行相似的階段，以清凈心來經歷諸法，任運自然地泯滅融合，那麼解釋起來就不會有各種過失，並且能夠與各種經文相符合。正如荊溪大師自己所說，上根之人一旦進入觀行，就能立即進入初住位，或者內凡、外凡之位。這三個位次，難道不能夠以清凈心，經歷諸法，任運自然地泯滅融合嗎？（初住：菩薩修行階位之一；內凡：指菩薩在見道位之前的修行階段；外凡：指凡夫通過修行，開始接近聖位的階段。） 而且，觀法任運相應，必須從初品以上才能具有這種功德。所以《止觀》中說明初品時說：『不加功力，任運分明』等等。應當知道，這個位次既然對於一法的三諦（空、假、中）能夠任運分明，那麼對於其他法難道不分明嗎？這個位次既然如此，後面的位次也是一樣。只不過是觀行有真、似、三等的任運而已。 然而，觀行成就之後，仍然要討論經歷外境，這是因為還處於因位的緣故。應當知道，只有妙覺位（佛果）才完全沒有內外之相。 所以《起信論》說：『諸佛法身，更無彼此色相迭相見。』因此既然沒有他佛，也就沒有他生。正報（眾生的身心）既然泯滅，依報（眾生所居住的環境）怎麼會存在呢？雖然三千世界宛然存在，但已經沒有內外之相了。如果還有一品無明未斷，那麼就必然稍微有自他之相。所以《起信論》說：『由轉識故見有他佛。』既然見到他佛，怎麼會沒有他生？正報既然存在，依報怎麼會泯滅呢？所以要將已經成就的內觀，經歷外在的事境，任運自然地泯滅融合。 所以《維摩詰經》（凈名）說：『觀身實相，觀佛亦然。』難道不是以內例外嗎？分真位（菩薩修行階位）尚且如此，相似觀行就更可以知道了。 上人堅決認為，只有觀識性具足三千法，那麼三千法之外就沒有其他一法。怎麼能夠另外存在一個事境在心外，而等待識陰的道理顯現，才普遍融合呢？須知，這種說法完全不瞭解初心修觀的意義。為什麼呢？既然不允許觀外在的色等法，恐怕心向外馳求，只觀內在心理具足的道理，那麼就必須若內若外，一時普遍觀照，才叫做觀于性具三千。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is known that if someone of superior capacity can enter the stage of 'true semblance' (zhen si) through contemplation and practice, experiencing all dharmas with a pure mind, and naturally merging and integrating them, then there will be no faults in the explanation, and it will be consistent with various scriptures. As Jingxi himself said, a person of superior capacity, once entering contemplation, can immediately enter the stage of 'initial dwelling' (chuzhu), or the positions of 'inner ordinary' (nei fan) and 'outer ordinary' (wai fan). Can these three positions not experience all dharmas with a pure mind, naturally merging and integrating them? (Chuzhu: one of the stages of Bodhisattva practice; Nei fan: the stage of practice before a Bodhisattva attains the stage of seeing the truth; Wai fan: the stage where ordinary people begin to approach the holy position through practice.) Moreover, the contemplation method corresponding naturally requires being above the initial level to possess this virtue. Therefore, the 'Zhi Guan' (止觀) clarifies the initial level by saying: 'Without adding effort, naturally clear,' and so on. It should be known that since this position is naturally clear about the three truths (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way) of one dharma, wouldn't it be clear about other dharmas? Since this position is like this, the subsequent positions are the same. It's just that the contemplation and practice have true, semblance, and three levels of naturalness. However, after contemplation is accomplished, there is still discussion about experiencing external realms, because one is still in the causal position. It should be known that only the position of 'wonderful enlightenment' (miaojue) completely lacks the appearance of inner and outer. Therefore, the 'Awakening of Faith' (起信論) says: 'The Dharmakaya of all Buddhas has no mutual perception of forms and appearances.' Therefore, since there is no other Buddha, there is no other birth. Since the 'direct reward' (zhengbao - the body and mind of sentient beings) is extinguished, how can the 'circumstantial reward' (yibao - the environment in which sentient beings live) exist? Although the three thousand worlds are clearly present, there is no inner or outer appearance. If there is still one level of ignorance not severed, then there must be a slight appearance of self and other. Therefore, the 'Awakening of Faith' says: 'Due to the transforming consciousness, one sees other Buddhas.' Since one sees other Buddhas, how can there be no other births? Since the direct reward exists, how can the circumstantial reward be extinguished? Therefore, one must take the accomplished inner contemplation and experience external matters, naturally merging and integrating them. Therefore, the 'Vimalakirti Sutra' (凈名) says: 'Contemplate the true nature of the body, and contemplate the Buddha in the same way.' Isn't this using the inner to exemplify the outer? Even the 'partial truth' (fenzhen - a stage of Bodhisattva practice) is like this, so the 'semblance contemplation and practice' can be known even more. The superior person firmly insists that only contemplating the nature of consciousness as possessing the three thousand dharmas means that there is no other dharma outside of the three thousand dharmas. How can there be a separate matter existing outside the mind, waiting for the principle of the 'consciousness aggregate' (shiyin) to manifest before universally merging? It should be known that this statement completely misunderstands the meaning of initial contemplation and practice. Why? Since it is not allowed to contemplate external forms and other dharmas, fearing that the mind will seek outward, and only contemplating the principle of the inner mind possessing everything, then one must universally contemplate both inner and outer at the same time, which is called contemplating the inherent three thousand.
若爾豈唯觀成。無外法可歷。理未顯時。若修外觀。亦無一法可為所觀。外色等法。已為內觀。遍觀畢故。此則內外兩觀。皆不成也。不專內故。內觀不成。無外事境故。外觀不成。
若如一家教文。所談修觀。成與未成。皆須遍歷諸法也。若修內觀。先用妙解攝外法。入心但觀內心具諸法性。攝法之義既成。專內之義又成。若修外觀。亦先用妙解。攝諸法及內心。入外色等一法。修唯色等觀。攝法之義既成。唯專一境之義又成。豈非二觀俱有所以也。
若修唯識。觀成理顯。既見內心攝諸法已。則將己證之心。歷外諸法。自然見於諸法皆趣外色皆趣外心。故義例云。先了萬法唯心。方可觀心。能了諸法(此于內心能了諸法。則外色等趣心名不二。名為內心凈也)則見諸法唯色唯心(一切法趣外色名唯色。一切法趣他心名唯心。凈心歷外自然見泯合相也)又如內外不二門結成不二。云是則外法全為心性。心性無外攝無不周(此是觀心顯性也。與內心。諸法不二)十方諸佛法界有情。性體無殊一切咸遍(此是佛法遍攝。及生法遍攝各各遍攝。故云一切咸遍正報既爾。依報遍攝亦然。既云咸遍。豈不與內心泯合耶)。
故帝網一喻。可喻內外四種之義。何也。以修內外觀。時各須隨舉一珠。遍收眾珠。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果僅僅是觀察成就，沒有外在的法可以經歷。在理未顯現的時候，如果修習外觀，也沒有一個法可以作為所觀察的對象。外在的色等法，已經成為內在觀的對象，普遍觀察完畢的緣故。這樣內外兩種觀，都不能成就。不專注于內在的緣故，內觀不能成就；沒有外在的事境的緣故，外觀不能成就。
如果像一家教文所談論的修觀，成就與未成就，都必須遍歷諸法。如果修習內觀，先用妙解攝取外在的法，進入內心，但觀察內心具足諸法性。攝取諸法的意義既然成就，專注于內在的意義也成就。如果修習外觀，也先用妙解，攝取諸法以及內心，進入外在的色等一法，修習唯色等觀。攝取諸法的意義既然成就，唯獨專注於一個境界的意義也成就。難道不是兩種觀都有其道理嗎？
如果修習唯識，觀察成就，理顯現。既然見到內心攝取諸法之後，就將自己證悟的心，經歷外在諸法，自然見到諸法都趨向外在的色，都趨向外在的心。所以義例說，先了解萬法唯心，才可以觀心。能夠了解諸法（這在於內心能夠了解諸法，那麼外在的色等趨向心，名為不二，名為內心清凈）。那麼見到諸法唯色唯心（一切法趨向外在的色，名為唯色；一切法趨向他人的心，名為唯心。清凈心經歷外在，自然見到泯合之相）。又如內外不二門結成不二，說：『那麼外在的法完全是心性，心性沒有外在，攝取沒有不周遍的（這是觀心顯現心性，與內心諸法不二）。十方諸佛、法界有情，性體沒有差別，一切都普遍（這是佛法普遍攝取，以及眾生法普遍攝取，各自普遍攝取，所以說一切都普遍。正報既然如此，依報普遍攝取也是這樣。既然說都普遍，難道不與內心泯合嗎？）』
所以帝網（Indra's net）的比喻，可以比喻內外四種意義。為什麼呢？因為修習內外觀時，各自必須隨手舉起一顆珠子，普遍收攝眾多珠子。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is only observing accomplishment, there are no external dharmas to experience. When the principle is not yet manifest, if one practices external observation, there is not a single dharma that can be the object of observation. External forms and other dharmas have already become objects of internal observation, because universal observation has been completed. Thus, both internal and external observations cannot be accomplished. Because one is not focused internally, internal observation cannot be accomplished; because there are no external objective realms, external observation cannot be accomplished.
If, as discussed in a certain school's teachings on cultivation, whether observation is accomplished or not, one must traverse all dharmas. If one practices internal observation, one first uses wondrous understanding to gather external dharmas into the mind, and only observes that the mind possesses all dharma-natures. Since the meaning of gathering dharmas is accomplished, the meaning of focusing internally is also accomplished. If one practices external observation, one also first uses wondrous understanding to gather all dharmas and the mind into one external dharma such as form, and cultivates the observation of only form and so on. Since the meaning of gathering dharmas is accomplished, the meaning of focusing solely on one realm is also accomplished. Are these not two kinds of observation that both have their reasons?
If one cultivates Consciousness-Only (唯識, Vijnapti-matrata), observation is accomplished, and the principle is revealed. Since one has seen the mind gathering all dharmas, one then takes one's enlightened mind and experiences external dharmas, naturally seeing that all dharmas tend towards external form, and all tend towards the external mind. Therefore, the principle states, 'First understand that all dharmas are only mind, then one can observe the mind.' Being able to understand all dharmas (this means that within the mind, one can understand all dharmas, then external forms and so on tending towards the mind are called non-duality, and are called the purity of the internal mind). Then one sees that all dharmas are only form and only mind (all dharmas tending towards external form are called 'only form'; all dharmas tending towards others' minds are called 'only mind'. A pure mind experiencing the external naturally sees the aspect of merging). Furthermore, like the gate of non-duality between internal and external, it concludes with non-duality, saying: 'Then external dharmas are entirely the nature of the mind, the nature of the mind has no exterior, and its gathering is all-encompassing (this is observing the mind revealing its nature, and is non-dual with the internal mind and all dharmas). The nature of all Buddhas in the ten directions and sentient beings in the Dharma Realm (法界, Dharma-dhatu) is not different, and all are universally present (this is the universal gathering of the Buddhadharma, and the universal gathering of the dharmas of beings, each universally gathering, therefore it is said that all are universally present. Since the direct reward is like this, the circumstantial reward is also universally gathered. Since it is said that all are universally present, does it not merge with the internal mind?)'
Therefore, the metaphor of Indra's net (帝網, Indra's net) can be used to illustrate the four meanings of internal and external. Why? Because when cultivating internal and external observation, one must each pick up one pearl and universally gather all the pearls.
觀成遍歷。豈不隨舉一珠收眾珠耶。
示珠指解心性無外攝無不周句。舉此喻云。如舉一珠眾珠收盡。至解十方諸佛等句。只云生佛一如空無內外也。
且三法各妙。必無優劣。心法既得為一珠遍收眾珠。生佛何不各喻一珠收眾珠耶。況帝網之喻。本顯依正色心內外己他。舉一全收之義。以曲會己見遂令圓喻。偏歸一邊也。
應知。內觀成歷外法者。則任運舉一全收也。若以正觀心。歷事作觀者。亦復隨觀一法。全收諸法也。若修內觀不入轉修外觀者。亦須舉一全收也。
若本著內心發軫便修外觀者。亦須舉一全收也。
如此方稱帝網之喻。方得名為一色一香無非中道(中以不偏為義。若香等當體。不具三千。不收諸法。不為諸法所趣。則是偏義不成中義也)若只內心具於三千。能攝諸法。外色不具三千。不收諸法。那成佛之時。正中現依依中現正。若法性不爾修時不然。至果方爾者。則全成有作非稱性也。又若初心修觀。不專內心便和外色觀者。是則內觀已觀外色。何須更歷外法而觀耶。
須知。但觀內心即空假中已。自然見外一一色心皆空假中也。故輔行雲。攬外向內令觀內識。皆是一識。識既空已。十界皆空。假中亦然。既觀識空已方。云十界皆空等也。則知。修內觀時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
如果觀想成就而周遍，難道不是隨便舉起一顆寶珠就能收攝所有的寶珠嗎？
這是用寶珠來比喻心性無外，攝盡一切的道理。舉起一顆寶珠就能收攝所有的寶珠，這句譬喻是說，諸佛和眾生本來就是一體，空性之中沒有內外之分。
而且，空、假、中三法各自微妙，必定沒有優劣之分。心法既然可以被認為是一顆寶珠，遍收所有的寶珠，那麼眾生和佛為什麼不能各自比喻成一顆寶珠，收攝所有的寶珠呢？更何況，帝網的譬喻，本來就是爲了顯示依報、正報、色法、心法、內外、自己、他人，舉一全收的意義。如果曲解其意，用來附會自己的見解，就會使得圓滿的譬喻，偏向一邊。
應當知道，內觀成就而周曆外觀之法，就能任運地舉一全收。如果用正觀之心，歷事作觀，也能隨著觀想一法，而全收諸法。如果修習內觀，而不轉而修習外觀，也必須舉一全收。
如果本來執著于內心，從內心出發而修習外觀，也必須舉一全收。
這樣才稱得上是帝網的譬喻，才能夠被稱為一色一香無非中道（中，以不偏頗為意義。如果香等當體，不具足三千，不能收攝諸法，不為諸法所歸趣，那就是偏頗的意義，不能成就中道的意義）。如果只是內心具足三千，能夠攝受諸法，而外在的色法不具足三千，不能收攝諸法，那麼成佛的時候，怎麼能正報中顯現依報，依報中顯現正報呢？如果法性不是這樣，修習的時候不是這樣，到了結果才這樣，那就完全是有為造作，不符合稱性的道理。又如果初心修觀，不專注于內心，而和外觀之色一起觀想，那麼內觀已經觀想了外在的色法，又何須再去周曆外觀之法而觀想呢？
須知，只要觀想內心即是空、假、中，自然就能見到外在的每一個色法和心法，也都是空、假、中。所以輔行記中說，『攬外向內，令觀內識，皆是一識，識既空已，十界皆空，假中亦然。』既然觀想識空之後，才說十界皆空等等。由此可知，修習內觀時
【English Translation】 English version:
If contemplation is perfected and becomes all-encompassing, wouldn't it be like picking up a single jewel and collecting all the jewels?
This uses the jewel as a metaphor for the principle that the nature of mind is without exterior and encompasses everything. The phrase 'picking up a single jewel and collecting all the jewels' means that Buddhas and sentient beings are originally one, and in emptiness, there is no distinction between inside and outside.
Moreover, the three dharmas of emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle Way are each subtle and wonderful, and there must be no superiority or inferiority among them. Since the dharma of mind can be considered a single jewel that encompasses all jewels, why can't sentient beings and Buddhas each be likened to a single jewel that collects all jewels? Furthermore, the metaphor of Indra's net is originally intended to show the meaning of dependent and direct retribution, form and mind, inside and outside, self and others, and the all-encompassing nature of picking up one. If its meaning is distorted to cater to one's own views, it will cause the perfect metaphor to lean to one side.
It should be known that when inner contemplation is perfected and encompasses external dharmas, it spontaneously picks up one and collects all. If one uses the mind of correct contemplation to contemplate events, one can also, by contemplating one dharma, collect all dharmas. If one practices inner contemplation without turning to practice outer contemplation, one must also pick up one and collect all.
If one is originally attached to the inner mind and starts practicing outer contemplation from the inner mind, one must also pick up one and collect all.
Only in this way can it be called the metaphor of Indra's net, and only then can it be called 'one color, one fragrance, nothing is not the Middle Way' (the Middle Way means non-biased. If fragrance and other entities do not possess the three thousand realms and cannot collect all dharmas, and are not the destination of all dharmas, then it is a biased meaning and cannot achieve the meaning of the Middle Way). If only the inner mind possesses the three thousand realms and can collect all dharmas, while the external form does not possess the three thousand realms and cannot collect all dharmas, then how can the direct retribution manifest the dependent retribution, and the dependent retribution manifest the direct retribution at the time of becoming a Buddha? If the nature of dharma is not like this, and the practice is not like this, but only the result is like this, then it is entirely contrived and does not conform to the nature. Furthermore, if one does not focus on the inner mind when initially practicing contemplation, but contemplates it together with the external form, then the inner contemplation has already contemplated the external form, so why is it necessary to go through the external dharmas again to contemplate?
It should be known that as long as one contemplates the inner mind as emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle Way, one will naturally see that every external form and mind is also emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle Way. Therefore, the Commentary on the Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra says, 'Gather the external towards the internal, so that one contemplates the inner consciousness, all are one consciousness, and since consciousness is empty, the ten realms are all empty, and so are provisional existence and the Middle Way.' Since one contemplates the emptiness of consciousness, then it is said that the ten realms are all empty, and so on. From this, it can be known that when practicing inner contemplation
。不放心觀外。乃是外法。自然趣內也。凈心歷外。正觀觀外。內法趣外。豈不然耶。
又上人今既堅將內觀為理外觀為事。十法文中。既不簡示陰入內心為境。又無十法成乘。何名純談理觀。若非理觀。安可廢附法觀耶。論宗既破。更欲何言。
第四不辨事理二造
然若解內外境觀之意。不假復論二造之義也。猶恐上人執迷難悟。故不獲已再復言之。
輔行雲。造有二義。一者約理。造即是具。二者約事。乃論過造于現。過現造當現造于現。聖人變化所造(云云)。復結云。皆由理具方有事用。今欲修觀但觀理具。俱破俱立俱是法界。任運攝得權實所現(上皆輔行文也。但於事中取意而說略彼廣文)。
此之二造。各論三千。理則本具三千。性善性惡也。事則變造三千。修善修惡也。
論事造。乃取無明識陰為能造。十界依正為所造。若論理造。造即是具。既能造所造一一即理。乃一一當體皆具性德三千。故十二入各具千如也。
能造所造。內境外境。皆可當處觀于理具。但止觀揀繁從要。舍難取易。去其所造。取于能造。觀具三千。能造所造。若未觀具。且名凡夫世諦隔歷不融。故揀去界入。專取陰識。為所觀境也。即輔行先重明境科意也。
至十乘中。用於
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
不安心於向外觀看，那就是外道之法，自然會趨向內心。用清凈的心體驗外境，以正確的智慧觀察外境，內心之法趨向外境，難道不是這樣嗎？ 而且，上人現在既然堅持以內觀為根本，外觀為表象，那麼在十法文中，既沒有簡要地指出陰、入是內心的境界，又沒有十法成就乘，怎麼能說是純粹談論理觀呢？如果不是理觀，怎麼可以廢棄依附於法的事觀呢？理論宗義既然已經被駁倒，還想說什麼呢？ 第四，不辨別事造和理造 然而，如果理解了內外境觀的含義，就不需要再討論二造的意義了。只是恐怕上人執迷不悟，所以不得不再重複說明。 《輔行記》中說：『造』有兩種含義。一是約理來說，『造』就是『具』，具備的意思；二是約事來說，就是討論過去所造的，顯現在現在；過去和現在所造的，將顯現在未來。聖人的變化所造（等等）。最後總結說：都是因為理上本具，才會有事上的作用。現在想要修觀，只要觀理上本具，全部破除，全部建立，全部都是法界，自然而然地攝取權實所顯現的（以上都是《輔行記》中的文字，只是在事相中提取意義，省略了其中廣博的文字）。 這兩種『造』，各自論述三千。理造是本具三千，指性善和性惡；事造是變造三千，指修善和修惡。 論述事造，就取無明（avidya）和識陰（vijnana-skandha）作為能造，十界（ten realms）依正作為所造。如果論述理造，『造』就是『具』，既然能造和所造一一都是理，那麼一一當體都具備性德三千，所以十二入（twelve entrances）各自具備千如。 能造和所造，內境和外境，都可以隨時隨地觀察理上本具。但是止觀（śamatha-vipassanā）選擇簡要的，捨棄困難的，選取容易的，去除所造，選取能造，觀察本具三千。能造和所造，如果還沒有觀察本具，就只能稱為凡夫，世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）隔閡而不融合，所以捨棄界和入，專門選取陰和識，作為所觀的境界。這就是《輔行記》中首先著重說明境科的用意。 到了十乘觀法中，用於...
【English Translation】 English version:
Not being at ease with outward observation is an external path, naturally leading inward. Experiencing external realms with a pure mind, observing external realms with correct wisdom, the inner path leading outward – isn't it so? Moreover, since you, Superior One, now firmly insist on inner contemplation as the principle and outer observation as the phenomenon, in the ten Dharma texts, there is neither a concise indication that the skandhas (aggregates) and entrances (ayatana) are the realm of the inner mind, nor are there ten Dharmas accomplishing the vehicle. How can it be called purely discussing principle-based contemplation? If it is not principle-based contemplation, how can one abandon the contemplation that relies on the Dharma? Since the theoretical tenets have been refuted, what else is there to say? Fourth, not distinguishing between phenomenal creation and principle-based creation However, if one understands the meaning of contemplating internal and external realms, there is no need to further discuss the meaning of the two creations. It is only because I fear that you, Superior One, are stubbornly deluded and difficult to enlighten that I cannot help but repeat it again. The Fu Xing Ji (Commentary on the Methodology of Practice) says: 'Creation' has two meanings. First, in terms of principle, 'creation' means 'to possess' (具), to be fully equipped. Second, in terms of phenomena, it discusses the past creations manifesting in the present; the past and present creations manifesting in the future. The transformations created by sages (etc.). It concludes by saying: All are due to the inherent possession in principle that there are phenomenal functions. Now, if one wants to cultivate contemplation, one should only contemplate the inherent possession in principle, completely destroying, completely establishing, all are the Dharma realm, naturally encompassing the provisional and the real manifestations (the above are all from the Fu Xing Ji, but the meaning is extracted from the phenomena, omitting the extensive text). These two 'creations' each discuss three thousand. Principle-based creation is the inherent possession of three thousand, referring to the goodness and evil of nature. Phenomenal creation is the transformation of three thousand, referring to cultivating goodness and cultivating evil. Discussing phenomenal creation, it takes ignorance (avidya) and the consciousness aggregate (vijnana-skandha) as the creator, and the ten realms (ten realms) of existence and their environments as the created. If discussing principle-based creation, 'creation' is 'to possess'. Since each creator and created is principle, then each entity inherently possesses the three thousand aspects of the nature of virtue. Therefore, each of the twelve entrances (twelve entrances) possesses a thousand suchnesses. The creator and the created, the inner realm and the outer realm, can all be contemplated as inherently possessing the principle at any place. However, śamatha-vipassanā (止觀) selects the concise, abandons the difficult, and chooses the easy, removing the created and selecting the creator, contemplating the inherent three thousand. If the creator and the created have not yet been contemplated as inherent, then they can only be called ordinary beings, the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) is separated and not integrated. Therefore, it abandons the realms and entrances, and specifically selects the aggregates and consciousness as the object of contemplation. This is the intention of the Fu Xing Ji in first emphasizing the section on the object of contemplation. As for the ten vehicles, used in...
妙觀。觀此能造一念陰心本具三千。既一念即三千。三千即一念。言慮不及。故轉名不思議境也。
若觀之不已。觀成理顯。或伏或斷。名為心凈。故未凈時。名無明識陰。若已凈時。無明轉故。即變為明。能造既明。所造任運自然清凈(若內觀成以理攝事。則外境事造皆趣內心。名內心凈。若歷外境一一事境。皆為諸法所趣。名任運泯合故也)上人不許唯觀理具三千。須執觀於事造。外境歸心名修實相觀。又歷外事。咸歸內心。名修唯識觀。
予實不敢輒信此說。有多乖失故。一違輔行現文故。二兩觀不分故。三錯認唯識為外觀故。四全不識理具三千故。
且輔行雲。皆由理具方有事用。今欲修觀。但觀理具。俱破俱立。俱是法界。任運攝得權實所現。上人不善銷此文故。不識二造也。
既云但觀理具。俱破俱立俱是法界。豈非令行人于能造心。唯觀理具三千俱空假中耶。若便以所造外事為境。何名但觀理具俱破等耶。
良由灸病得穴故。百病自差。伐樹得根故。千枝自枯故云任運攝得權實所現。以皆由理具方有事用故。只觀理具三千俱空假中。故事用所造自然皆空假中。故云任運攝得權實所現。豈須千枝遍斬六分全燒。方名伐樹灸病耶。
輔行明明先分二造。特令行人但觀
理造俱空假中。上人剛使遍觀事造。何抑教順情之甚乎。若內心理觀。便緣外境事造。唯識觀於何法。唯色觀於何法。斯由上人始從聽講。已至為師。全未曾知事理二造及內外二境。遂錯將事造外境。便為內心理具。
且輔行雲。眾生心中。皆有如來。結跏趺坐。豈事造如來耶。又云。下地雖具因果。但是理具。故知。理造未論變作。故修理觀者。既云但觀理具。則知。唯照本理性德俱空假中。任運攝得事造諸法。作觀之際。實不可便緣事造為境。
以上人素不分二造故。致將理事散漫而觀。便為深明止觀妙境三千也。
故辨訛云。彼止觀不思議境初。本欲觀十界依正之法。所以唯觀心者。心為諸法之本故也。伐樹除根灸病得穴。由是即觀一念識心。具造三千之法。何得云非初心作觀便觀諸法。所造三千豈非諸法等耶。又破予揀色觀心。恐心外向之義。乃引內外不二門。托彼依正色心為難。又云。止觀初心遍觀十界依正三千之法。三千之內豈無色耶。況圓解者。塵塵法界處處遮那。又舉色香中道。諸法趣色等文為難。
此豈非素來全不諳理具事造兩境之義。遂將所造諸法。便為性德本具。
又將外境難於內觀。此則與一家境觀。頓爾相違。
何者輔行。令但觀理具俱空假中。上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：理造、俱空、假、中。上人您總是讓人們普遍地觀察事造（通過外在事物所造的現象）。為什麼您要如此壓抑教義，順從自己的想法呢？如果進行內心理觀，就會攀緣外在的事造之境。唯識觀（唯識宗的觀法）觀的是什麼法？唯色觀（只觀色法的觀法）觀的是什麼法？這是因為上人您從聽講開始，直到成為老師，完全不曾瞭解事造和理造（通過內在理性所造的現象）這兩種造，以及內外兩種境。於是錯誤地將事造外境，當作內心理性本具的。\n\n而且《輔行記》中說：『眾生心中，皆有如來，結跏趺坐。』難道這是事造的如來嗎？又說：『下地雖然具有因果，但只是理具。』所以知道，理造還沒有談到變現出來。因此，修習理觀的人，既然說只是觀察理性本具，那麼就知道，只是照見本性的理性，性德俱空、假、中，自然而然地攝取事造的諸法。在作觀的時候，實在不可以攀緣事造為觀境。\n\n因為上人您向來不區分兩種造，導致將理事混雜在一起觀，就認為是深刻地明白了止觀的微妙境界三千法門。\n\n所以《辨訛》中說：『彼止觀不思議境最初，本來想要觀察十法界依正之法，之所以只觀心，是因為心是諸法的根本。』砍樹要除根，灸病要找準穴位。因此，就觀一念識心，具足造作三千諸法。怎麼能說不是初心作觀，就觀諸法呢？所造的三千，難道不是諸法等等嗎？又反駁我選擇色觀心，恐怕心向外馳求的說法，於是引用內外不二之門，依託依正色心來為難。又說：『止觀初心普遍地觀察十法界依正三千之法，三千之內難道沒有色嗎？』何況圓解的人認為，微塵都是法界，處處都是遮那（毗盧遮那佛）。又舉出『色香中道，諸法趣色』等經文來為難。\n\n這難道不是因為向來完全不熟悉理具事造兩種境的含義，於是將所造的諸法，當作性德本具的嗎？\n\n又將外境來為難內觀，這就與天臺一家（天臺宗）的境觀，完全相反了。\n\n為什麼《輔行記》只讓人觀察理具俱空假中呢？上人 English version: The 'li zao' (principle-created) and 'shi zao' (matter-created) are both empty, provisional, and central. You, Superior One, always have people universally observe 'shi zao' (phenomena created through external matters). Why do you suppress the teachings so much and indulge your own feelings? If one engages in internal mental contemplation, then one becomes attached to external 'shi zao' realms. What dharma does the 'Wei Shi Guan' (Yogacara contemplation) contemplate? What dharma does the 'Wei Se Guan' (solely form contemplation) contemplate? This is because you, Superior One, from the time you started listening to lectures until you became a teacher, have never understood the two 'zaos' of 'shi' (matter) and 'li' (principle), as well as the two realms of internal and external. Thus, you mistakenly take the 'shi zao' external realm as being inherently present within the internal mind.\n\nMoreover, the 'Fu Xing Ji' (Commentary on the Great Concentration and Insight) says: 'In the minds of sentient beings, there is a Tathagata sitting in the lotus position.' Is this a 'shi zao' Tathagata? It also says: 'Although the lower realms possess cause and effect, they are only 'li ju' (principle-inherent).' Therefore, it is known that 'li zao' has not yet discussed manifestation. Thus, those who cultivate 'li guan' (principle contemplation), since it is said that they only contemplate the inherent principles, then it is known that they only illuminate the inherent nature, the inherent virtues of emptiness, provisionality, and centrality, naturally encompassing all the 'shi zao' dharmas. During the time of contemplation, it is truly not permissible to cling to 'shi zao' as the object of contemplation.\n\nBecause you, Superior One, have never distinguished between the two 'zaos', you have caused the mixing of 'li' (principle) and 'shi' (matter) in contemplation, and then consider it to be a profound understanding of the wonderful realm of 'zhi guan' (concentration and insight), the three thousand dharmas.\n\nTherefore, the 'Bian E' (Distinguishing Errors) says: 'The initial aim of the inconceivable realm of 'zhi guan' was to observe the 'yi zheng' (dependent and principal) dharmas of the ten realms. The reason for only contemplating the mind is that the mind is the root of all dharmas.' Cutting down a tree requires removing the roots, and treating an illness requires finding the correct acupuncture point. Therefore, one contemplates a single thought of consciousness, which fully creates the three thousand dharmas. How can it be said that one contemplates all dharmas without initially engaging in contemplation? Are not the created three thousand all dharmas, etc.? It also refutes my choice of contemplating form and mind, fearing that the mind will turn outward, and thus cites the gate of non-duality between internal and external, relying on 'yi zheng se xin' (dependent and principal form and mind) to create difficulties. It also says: 'The initial practice of 'zhi guan' universally observes the 'yi zheng' three thousand dharmas of the ten realms. Are there no forms within the three thousand?' Moreover, those with complete understanding believe that every dust particle is a dharma realm, and everywhere is Vairocana (Buddha). It also cites scriptures such as 'the middle way of form and fragrance, all dharmas tending towards form' to create difficulties.\n\nIs this not because you have never been familiar with the meaning of the two realms of 'li ju' (principle-inherent) and 'shi zao' (matter-created), and thus take the created dharmas as being inherently present in the nature? \n\nFurthermore, using external realms to create difficulties for internal contemplation is completely contrary to the 'jing guan' (realm and contemplation) of the Tiantai school (Tiantai sect).\n\nWhy does the 'Fu Xing Ji' only instruct people to contemplate the 'li ju' emptiness, provisionality, and centrality? Superior One
【English Translation】 Principle-created, matter-created, both empty, provisional, and central. You, Superior One, always have people universally observe matter-created (phenomena created through external matters). Why do you suppress the teachings so much and indulge your own feelings? If one engages in internal mental contemplation, then one becomes attached to external matter-created realms. What dharma does the Yogacara contemplation contemplate? What dharma does the solely form contemplation contemplate? This is because you, Superior One, from the time you started listening to lectures until you became a teacher, have never understood the two 'creations' of matter and principle, as well as the two realms of internal and external. Thus, you mistakenly take the matter-created external realm as being inherently present within the internal mind. Moreover, the 'Commentary on the Great Concentration and Insight' says: 'In the minds of sentient beings, there is a Tathagata sitting in the lotus position.' Is this a matter-created Tathagata? It also says: 'Although the lower realms possess cause and effect, they are only principle-inherent.' Therefore, it is known that principle-created has not yet discussed manifestation. Thus, those who cultivate principle contemplation, since it is said that they only contemplate the inherent principles, then it is known that they only illuminate the inherent nature, the inherent virtues of emptiness, provisionality, and centrality, naturally encompassing all the matter-created dharmas. During the time of contemplation, it is truly not permissible to cling to matter-created as the object of contemplation. Because you, Superior One, have never distinguished between the two 'creations', you have caused the mixing of principle and matter in contemplation, and then consider it to be a profound understanding of the wonderful realm of concentration and insight, the three thousand dharmas. Therefore, the 'Distinguishing Errors' says: 'The initial aim of the inconceivable realm of concentration and insight was to observe the dependent and principal dharmas of the ten realms. The reason for only contemplating the mind is that the mind is the root of all dharmas.' Cutting down a tree requires removing the roots, and treating an illness requires finding the correct acupuncture point. Therefore, one contemplates a single thought of consciousness, which fully creates the three thousand dharmas. How can it be said that one contemplates all dharmas without initially engaging in contemplation? Are not the created three thousand all dharmas, etc.? It also refutes my choice of contemplating form and mind, fearing that the mind will turn outward, and thus cites the gate of non-duality between internal and external, relying on dependent and principal form and mind to create difficulties. It also says: 'The initial practice of concentration and insight universally observes the dependent and principal three thousand dharmas of the ten realms. Are there no forms within the three thousand?' Moreover, those with complete understanding believe that every dust particle is a dharma realm, and everywhere is Vairocana (Buddha). It also cites scriptures such as 'the middle way of form and fragrance, all dharmas tending towards form' to create difficulties. Is this not because you have never been familiar with the meaning of the two realms of principle-inherent and matter-created, and thus take the created dharmas as being inherently present in the nature? Furthermore, using external realms to create difficulties for internal contemplation is completely contrary to the realm and contemplation of the Tiantai school. Why does the 'Commentary on the Great Concentration and Insight' only instruct people to contemplate the principle-inherent emptiness, provisionality, and centrality? Superior One
人自觀事造。大意令于能造。觀具界如上人便將所造為三千。止觀令唯觀識心。上人自遍觀外境。況將所造為三千。此則變造方有非任運具。又須從心而生。安與一念非前非后。物之八相之喻。便為徒設。
故知。約識陰所造。為三千妙境者。于止觀遠矣。
蓋由自昔不知理具與事造。不分而分故也。及被問疑書。以二造徴之。上人迷情似改。略知理具與事造約義須分。又偶得造字通於具義。遂于答疑書內。翻文諱罪。乃云。問疑書抑是揚非。枉于辨訛。將心具便是外境。故特注所造三千。云理具名造。實非事造。次文又云。言所造三千者。即是所具三千名造。實非外境事造也(上皆答疑書明文。收掌見在)。
豈非此時因難醒悟。遂欲攀附正義。轉其事造擬。為理具。故云所具三千名造。實非事造外境等。
及被詰難書取辨訛前後明文。驗其自前不知理具三千非外境事造。實不能分內外二境事理二造。故被難曰。若分二境。何故將外依正。難內心觀法。若分二造。何故將內心具色。破事造報色耶(以扶宗云若不觀色。恐心外向乃是未歷事造報色。非不觀內心理具妙色也)。
上人既被詰難書。將前後文。驗之顯是素來。不知二造之義。灼然前書攀附正義。云理具三千實非事造。其過
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 人是根據自己觀察事物而創造的。其主要目的是爲了能夠創造。如果觀察的工具和界限像這位上人一樣，那麼就會將所創造的事物視為三千。止觀的目的是隻觀察識心。這位上人自己卻普遍地觀察外境，更何況將所創造的事物視為三千呢？這說明變化創造的事物才不是任運而具足的，而且必須從心中產生。這與一念非前非后的說法相悖，那麼關於事物八相的比喻，就成了徒勞的設定。 因此可知，如果將識陰所創造的，視為三千妙境，那就與止觀的宗旨相去甚遠了。 這大概是因為從前不知道理具（Liju，principle-inherent）與事造（Shizao，fact-created）的區別，不加區分而強行區分的緣故。等到被《問疑書》（Wenyi Shu，Inquiry and Doubt Book）用二造來質疑時，這位上人似乎改變了迷情，略微知道理具與事造在意義上需要區分。又偶然發現『造』字可以通用於『具』的含義，於是在《答疑書》（Dayi Shu，Reply to Doubts Book）中，反而掩蓋罪過，說《問疑書》是抑制讚揚，枉自辨別訛誤，將心具（Xinju，mind-inherent）等同於外境。所以特意註釋『所造三千』，說理具名為造，實際上不是事造。後面的文字又說，『所造三千』，就是『所具三千』，名為造，實際上不是外境事造（以上都是《答疑書》中的明確文字，可以查閱）。 難道不是因為此時因受到詰難而醒悟，於是想要攀附正義，將他的事造擬改為理具，所以說『所具三千』名為造，實際上不是事造外境等等嗎？ 等到被《詰難書》（Jienan Shu，Challenge Book）用辨別訛誤的前後明文來驗證，證明他之前確實不知道理具三千不是外境事造，實際上不能區分內外二境、事理二造。所以被詰難說：『如果區分二境，為什麼將外在的依正（Yizheng，dependent and principal）來為難內心的觀法？如果區分二造，為什麼將內心具足的色（Se，form），來破斥事造的報色（Baose，retribution form）呢？』（因為扶宗說如果不觀察色，恐怕心會向外，那是因為沒有經歷事造的報色，而不是不觀察內心理具的妙色）。 這位上人既然被《詰難書》用前後文來驗證，顯然是向來不知道二造的含義。顯然之前的書信是攀附正義，說理具三千實際上不是事造，他的過錯就在於此。
【English Translation】 English version: People create based on their observation of things. The main purpose is to be able to create. If the tools and boundaries of observation are like this superior person's, then they will regard what is created as three thousand. The purpose of Zhi-Guan (止觀, cessation and contemplation) is to only observe the mind of consciousness (識心, shixin). This superior person himself universally observes external environments, let alone regarding what is created as three thousand? This illustrates that things created by transformation are not inherently complete, and must arise from the mind. This contradicts the saying that a single thought is neither before nor after, then the analogy of the eight aspects of things becomes a futile setup. Therefore, it is known that if what is created by the Skandha of Consciousness (識陰, shiyin) is regarded as the three thousand wonderful realms, then it is far from the purpose of Zhi-Guan. This is probably because in the past, they did not know the difference between Principle-Inherent (理具, Liju) and Fact-Created (事造, Shizao), and forcibly distinguished them without distinguishing them. When the 'Inquiry and Doubt Book' (問疑書, Wenyi Shu) questioned him with the two creations, this superior person seemed to change his delusion, and slightly knew that Principle-Inherent and Fact-Created needed to be distinguished in meaning. He also accidentally discovered that the word 'creation' could be used interchangeably with the meaning of 'inherent', so in the 'Reply to Doubts Book' (答疑書, Dayi Shu), he instead concealed his guilt, saying that the 'Inquiry and Doubt Book' was suppressing praise and vainly distinguishing errors, equating Mind-Inherent (心具, Xinju) with external environments. Therefore, he specifically annotated 'the three thousand created', saying that Principle-Inherent is called creation, but is not actually Fact-Created. The following text also says, 'The three thousand created' is 'the three thousand inherent', called creation, but is not actually the Fact-Created external environment (the above are all clear words in the 'Reply to Doubts Book', which can be consulted). Was it not because he woke up at this time due to being challenged, and then wanted to cling to the correct meaning, and changed his Fact-Created to resemble Principle-Inherent, so he said 'the three thousand inherent' is called creation, but is not actually the Fact-Created external environment, etc.? When the 'Challenge Book' (詰難書, Jienan Shu) was used to verify the clear words before and after distinguishing errors, it proved that he did not know that the three thousand Principle-Inherent was not the Fact-Created external environment, and could not actually distinguish between the internal and external environments, and the Fact and Principle creations. Therefore, he was challenged and said: 'If you distinguish between the two environments, why do you use the external Dependent and Principal (依正, Yizheng) to make it difficult for the internal contemplation method? If you distinguish between the two creations, why do you use the Form (色, Se) inherent in the mind to refute the Retribution Form (報色, Baose) created by facts?' (Because Fu Zong said that if you do not observe Form, I am afraid that the mind will turn outward, which is because you have not experienced the Retribution Form created by facts, not that you do not observe the wonderful Form inherent in the mind). Since this superior person was verified by the 'Challenge Book' with the previous and subsequent texts, it is obvious that he has never known the meaning of the two creations. Obviously, the previous letter was clinging to the correct meaning, saying that the three thousand Principle-Inherent is not actually Fact-Created, and his mistake lies in this.
既大。又恐若順輔行。分於二造。若順不二門。分於二境。則示珠指及辨訛前後之文。全然不當。故於今來。還拋正義。卻復邪宗。仍將事造。便為理具遂不分二造及以二境。乃令事理內外混沌而觀。此說全無所以特違教文。
若也。事理內外混沌而觀。何故輔行。令但觀理具。何故四念處。專于內心。觀一切法。何故義例約理觀心。唯達法性。更無餘途。事觀則專照起心。四運推撿。義例事觀尚令專照起心。信是未涉外境。唯色之觀。方歷外境。唯識之觀。但歷能造十界心耳。事觀尚專內心。理觀因何便觀外境。若二造不分為正義者。何故答疑書。特云理具名造實非事造。良為心無的解。隨時改轉。斯之邪說。壞亂本宗。迷瞑初學。其過莫大。當須忖量無縱奸諂唯事改轉也。
云何將此無憑之解。欲廢觀心教文。如何將此偽妄之心。欲修止觀耶。事理二造。既其不分。事理二觀。因何而起。堅執須尋止觀。如此尋之有何所益。故知。簡示陰識。觀具三千俱空假中。方名理觀既無此文。安得云純談理觀。既無理觀。附法觀心。如何可廢。無在執迷自損。必須舍暗嚮明。速示報章要知進否。
四明十義書卷上 大正藏第 46 冊 No. 1936 四明十義書
四明十義書卷下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果認為『大』，又擔心如果按照輔行（Fu Xing，書名）的觀點，將『造』（zao，創造、造作）分為事造（shi zao，事相上的創造）和理造（li zao，理體上的創造）兩種，如果順從不二之門（bu er zhi men，不二法門，指超越對立的真理），將『境』（jing，境界、所緣）分為二境（er jing，兩種境界），那麼輔行中關於指示珠子和辨別訛誤前後順序的文字，就完全不恰當了。所以到了現在，還是拋棄了正確的義理，卻又恢復了邪惡的宗派，仍然將事造，就認為是理具（li ju，理體具備），於是就不區分事造和理造以及二境，於是使得事和理、內和外都混沌不清地來觀察。這種說法完全沒有道理，特別違背了教義的經文。 如果也像這樣，事和理、內和外都混沌不清地來觀察，那麼為什麼輔行（Fu Xing）卻讓人只觀察理具（li ju）呢？為什麼四念處（si nian chu，佛教的四種觀修方法）專門針對內心，觀察一切法（yi qie fa，宇宙萬法）呢？為什麼義例（yi li，義理的條例）約定通過理來觀察心，僅僅通達法性（fa xing，諸法的本性），而沒有其他的途徑呢？事觀（shi guan，事相上的觀修）就專門照見起心動念，四運推撿（si yun tui jian，四種運用和推究），義例中的事觀尚且讓人專門照見起心動念，相信是沒有涉及到外境的。只有色（se，物質）的觀修，才經歷外境。唯識（wei shi，唯識宗，佛教宗派）的觀修，只是經歷能造（neng zao，能創造）的十界心（shi jie xin，十法界的心）罷了。事觀尚且專門針對內心，理觀為什麼反而觀察外境呢？如果認為區分事造和理造不是正確的義理，那麼為什麼答疑書（da yi shu，解答疑問的書）特別說理具（li ju）名為造（zao），實際上不是事造（shi zao）呢？實在是由於心中沒有明確的理解，隨時改變和轉移。這種邪惡的說法，破壞擾亂了本宗，迷惑矇蔽了初學者，它的過失太大了。應當仔細衡量，不要放縱奸詐諂媚，只是隨意更改和轉移啊。 怎麼能用這種沒有憑據的理解，想要廢除觀心（guan xin，觀察心念）的教義經文呢？如何能用這種虛偽妄想的心，想要修習止觀（zhi guan，止和觀，佛教的兩種修行方法）呢？事和理二造（shi li er zao），既然不區分，那麼事和理二觀（shi li er guan），又因何而生起呢？堅持一定要尋找止觀（zhi guan），這樣尋找又有什麼益處呢？所以要知道，簡示陰識（jian shi yin shi，簡要地指示陰識），觀具三千（guan ju san qian，觀修所具備的三千種法）都空假中（kong jia zhong，空、假、中，佛教的三種諦理），才名為理觀（li guan）。既然沒有這樣的經文，怎麼能說是純粹談論理觀（li guan）呢？既然沒有理觀（li guan），依附於法的觀心（guan xin），怎麼可以廢除呢？不要執迷不悟，自己損害自己，必須捨棄黑暗，走向光明，趕快呈上報告，要知道是進步還是退步。 《四明十義書卷上》（Si Ming Shi Yi Shu Juan Shang，書名） 《四明十義書卷下》（Si Ming Shi Yi Shu Juan Xia，書名）
【English Translation】 English version: If it is considered 『great,』 and yet there is fear that if following the view of 『Fu Xing』 (輔行, title of a book), 『zao』 (造, creation, fabrication) is divided into 『shi zao』 (事造, creation in terms of phenomena) and 『li zao』 (理造, creation in terms of principle), if one follows the non-dual gate (bu er zhi men, 不二之門, the gate of non-duality, referring to the truth beyond opposition), dividing 『jing』 (境, realm, object of perception) into two realms (er jing, 二境, two realms), then the text in 『Fu Xing』 regarding pointing to the pearl and distinguishing the order of errors before and after would be completely inappropriate. Therefore, now, the correct meaning is still abandoned, and the evil sect is restored, still taking 『shi zao』 as 『li ju』 (理具, principle fully equipped), thus not distinguishing between 『shi zao』 and 『li zao』 as well as the two realms, thereby causing phenomena and principle, inner and outer, to be observed in a state of confusion. This statement is completely unreasonable and particularly violates the teachings of the scriptures. If, like this, phenomena and principle, inner and outer, are observed in a state of confusion, then why does 『Fu Xing』 (輔行) only instruct to observe 『li ju』 (理具)? Why do the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (si nian chu, 四念處, the four contemplations in Buddhism) focus specifically on the inner mind, observing all dharmas (yi qie fa, 一切法, all phenomena in the universe)? Why do the examples of meaning (yi li, 義例) stipulate observing the mind through principle, only penetrating the Dharma-nature (fa xing, 法性, the nature of all dharmas), without any other path? Phenomenal contemplation (shi guan, 事觀) specifically illuminates the arising of thoughts, examining and investigating through the four operations (si yun tui jian, 四運推撿). The phenomenal contemplation in the examples of meaning still instructs to specifically illuminate the arising of thoughts, believing that it does not involve external realms. Only the contemplation of form (se, 色, matter) experiences external realms. The contemplation of Consciousness-only (wei shi, 唯識, the Consciousness-only school, a Buddhist school) only experiences the mind of the ten realms (shi jie xin, 十界心, the mind of the ten Dharma realms) that can create (neng zao, 能造). Phenomenal contemplation still focuses specifically on the inner mind, so why does principle contemplation instead observe external realms? If it is considered that distinguishing between 『shi zao』 and 『li zao』 is not the correct meaning, then why does the 『Reply to Doubts』 (da yi shu, 答疑書, a book answering questions) specifically say that 『li ju』 (理具) is named 『zao』 (造), but is actually not 『shi zao』 (事造)? It is truly because there is no clear understanding in the mind, changing and shifting at any time. This evil statement destroys and disrupts the original sect, confusing and blinding beginners, its fault is too great. One should carefully consider, not indulging in treachery and flattery, but simply changing and shifting at will. How can one use this unfounded understanding to abolish the scriptural teachings of observing the mind (guan xin, 觀心)? How can one use this false and deluded mind to cultivate cessation and contemplation (zhi guan, 止觀, Samatha-vipassana, two methods of practice in Buddhism)? Since the two creations of phenomena and principle (shi li er zao, 事理二造) are not distinguished, then how do the two contemplations of phenomena and principle (shi li er guan, 事理二觀) arise? Insisting on searching for cessation and contemplation (zhi guan, 止觀), what benefit is there in searching like this? Therefore, one should know that briefly indicating the consciousness of the skandhas (jian shi yin shi, 簡示陰識), the three thousand aspects of contemplation (guan ju san qian, 觀具三千) are all emptiness, provisionality, and the middle way (kong jia zhong, 空假中, the three truths in Buddhism), only then is it called principle contemplation (li guan, 理觀). Since there is no such scripture, how can it be said to be purely discussing principle contemplation (li guan)? Since there is no principle contemplation (li guan), how can the contemplation of mind attached to the Dharma (guan xin), be abolished? Do not stubbornly cling to delusion, harming oneself, one must abandon darkness and turn towards light, quickly submit a report, to know whether one is progressing or regressing. 『Si Ming Shi Yi Shu Juan Shang』 (四明十義書卷上, title of a book) 『Si Ming Shi Yi Shu Juan Xia』 (四明十義書卷下, title of a book)
第五不曉觀法之功
約行附法託事三種觀法。皆為行立。俱可造修。若但論教義。不觀己心。則如貧數他寶自無半錢分也。
妙玄雲。觀心釋者。令即聞即修起精進心。故釋簽解曰。隨聞一句。攝事成理。不待觀境。方名修觀。又四諦境云。今明觀心為顯妙行等。
既令即聞即修起精進心。又云不待觀境。故知。不待專為約行立乎觀境。方名修觀。但隨聞託事附法觀心。便須精進而修。既云觀心為顯妙行。若非修法何名妙行耶。
上人昨于辨訛中。首將十種三法。為純談理觀。意云。既已純談理觀。遂不須更有附法觀心。以此為宗。廢於此玄觀心一釋。
因被予問疑書詰難書。徴其理觀合是常坐等三種三昧。何故十法文中。全無境觀修證之相耶。
上人被此難故。自知義墮。故漫說云。三種觀心唯止觀約行觀心。即可依之修證。其託事附法。初心不可依之修證。是故諸文。有闕有略。或具觀心義者。亦闕觀心一科。破予立三種俱是行門俱可修證也(三種觀心下。並上人今來義狀中文)本難約行觀無修證文相。何得以事法觀無修證答之耶。豈非漫指余義遮掩過非耶。
且予于釋難扶宗記中雲。大師於此廣談十種三法。理趣宏深。乃須便示觀心妙道。令即聞而修。豈待尋彼止
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第五，不瞭解觀法的功用
執著於行、附著於法、依託於事這三種觀法，都是爲了修行而設立的，都可以用來修習。如果只談論教義，而不觀照自己的內心，那就如同一個窮人，數著別人的寶物，自己卻沒有半分錢。
《妙玄》中說：『解釋觀心，是爲了讓人一聽到就能立即修行，生起精進之心。』因此，《釋簽》解釋說：『隨著聽到的一句話，就能將事相攝入到理體中，不必等待觀想境界，才叫做修行觀。』又《四諦境》中說：『現在闡明觀心，是爲了彰顯微妙的修行等等。』
既然讓人一聽到就能立即修行，生起精進之心，又說不必等待觀想境界。由此可知，不必專門爲了執著於行而設立觀想境界，才叫做修行觀。只要隨著聽到的話，依託於事相，附著於法，觀照內心，就必須精進而修行。既然說觀心是爲了彰顯微妙的修行，如果不是修法，又怎麼能稱為微妙的修行呢？
上人在昨天的《辨訛》中，首先將十種三法，作為純粹談論理觀。意思是說，既然已經純粹談論理觀，就不需要再有附法觀心。以此為宗旨，廢棄了《玄》中觀心的解釋。
因此，我用疑問書詰難他，質問他理觀應該符合常坐等三種三昧，為什麼在十法文中，完全沒有境觀修證的相狀呢？
上人因為被這個問題難住，自知理虧，所以隨便地說：『三種觀心中，只有止觀中執著於行的觀心，才可以依之修證。至於依託於事、附著於法的觀心，初學者不可以依之修證。』因此，諸多的文章，有的缺失，有的省略，或者具備觀心之義的，也缺少觀心這一科。以此來反駁我所立的三種都是行門，都可以修證的觀點（三種觀心下，並上人現在義狀中的文字）。本來是質疑執著於行的觀沒有修證的文相，怎麼可以用事觀、法觀沒有修證來回答呢？這難道不是隨便指其他的意義來掩蓋過錯嗎？
而且我在《釋難扶宗記》中說：『大師在這裡廣泛地談論十種三法，理趣宏大而深遠，因此必須立即開示觀心的妙道，讓人一聽到就能修行，難道還要尋找其他的止
【English Translation】 English version Fifth, Not Understanding the Merit of Contemplation Methods
The three contemplation methods—depending on practice (行), attaching to Dharma (法), and relying on phenomena (事)—are all established for practice and can all be cultivated. If one only discusses doctrines without contemplating one's own mind, it is like a poor person counting the treasures of others, possessing not even half a coin himself.
The Profound Meaning (妙玄) says: 'Explaining contemplation of the mind is to enable one to immediately practice upon hearing, arousing the mind of diligence.' Therefore, the Commentary on the Meaning (釋簽) explains: 'Following a single sentence heard, one can incorporate phenomena into principle. One need not wait for contemplating a realm to be called cultivating contemplation.' Also, the Realm of the Four Noble Truths (四諦境) says: 'Now, clarifying contemplation of the mind is to reveal wondrous practices, etc.'
Since it enables one to immediately practice upon hearing, arousing the mind of diligence, and also says one need not wait for contemplating a realm, it is known that one need not specifically establish a realm of contemplation for depending on practice to be called cultivating contemplation. As long as one contemplates the mind by following what is heard, relying on phenomena, and attaching to Dharma, one must diligently cultivate. Since it says contemplating the mind is to reveal wondrous practices, if it is not a practice, how can it be called a wondrous practice?
Yesterday, in Distinguishing Errors (辨訛), the Venerable One first presented the ten kinds of threefold Dharma as purely discussing principle-contemplation. The intention was that since it is already purely discussing principle-contemplation, there is no need for further Dharma-attachment mind-contemplation. Taking this as the principle, he abandoned the explanation of mind-contemplation in the Profound Meaning (玄).
Therefore, I questioned him with a letter of inquiry, asking why the principle-contemplation should accord with the three samadhis such as constant sitting (常坐), yet in the text of the ten dharmas, there is no aspect of realm-contemplation, cultivation, or realization at all?
Because the Venerable One was stumped by this question and knew he was in the wrong, he casually said: 'Among the three kinds of mind-contemplation, only the mind-contemplation of cessation-and-contemplation (止觀) that depends on practice can be relied upon for cultivation and realization. As for the mind-contemplation that relies on phenomena and attaches to Dharma, beginners cannot rely on it for cultivation and realization.' Therefore, many texts have omissions or abbreviations, or those that possess the meaning of mind-contemplation also lack the category of mind-contemplation. This is to refute my view that all three are practice methods and can all be cultivated (below the three kinds of mind-contemplation, and in the Venerable One's current statement of meaning). Originally, the question was about the lack of textual aspects of cultivation and realization in practice-dependent contemplation; how can one answer with the lack of cultivation and realization in phenomena-contemplation and Dharma-contemplation? Isn't this casually pointing to other meanings to cover up one's faults?
Moreover, in Notes Supporting the Principle in Explaining Difficulties (釋難扶宗記), I said: 'The Master extensively discusses the ten kinds of threefold Dharma here, the principles are vast and profound, therefore it is necessary to immediately reveal the wondrous path of mind-contemplation, so that one can practice upon hearing. Why wait to seek other cessations
觀方始修觀。上人今約違文背義各十條。破于不尋止觀之失。意云。若不看尋止觀。則不可修於事法觀門也。斯蓋上人不思師資授受說行時節故。費二年撿文。妄加毀斥也。
且扶宗。本立大師談茲十法。便示觀心。令行人即修。此則正論當時行人。旁及滅後學者耳。豈非大師說諸玄疏。多在圓頓止觀之前。所談玄疏正開座下行人圓解。蓋兼有觀行之機欲修觀法故。托於事相法相。立乎觀門。令其即聞即修。得益者何限。豈待玉泉唱。后尋之方修耶。或於事法觀道有壅。則咨稟口決。而通達之。故知。所示口決。還是成其事法之觀。若為事法請乎口決。豈可卻棄事法。而自約行修耶。
故大師在日。或須口決。或不須者。皆用事法觀門。修證。何得云一向不可修耶。
若大師滅后。傳持此教。為人師者。則須一家玄疏三部止觀通達諳練也。或有就學之者。師匠必須先為講其妙經等諸玄疏。開其圓解。聽習之際。其中或有觀行之機。睹于文中託事。附法觀門。樂欲即修。豈可遏之。令莫修習。若觀道尚壅為師之者。必須懸取止觀之意。而開決之。故荊溪數于記中。指乎止觀。乃令講授之人。取彼廣文。決茲略觀。既得決通。乃於事法觀心。便而修習。豈須背今見講。自尋止觀耶。若宗師未為講授。豈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 觀想的修習始於觀方（guan fang，觀察方法）。上人現在大約列舉了十條違背經文和教義的地方，以此來駁斥那些不探究《止觀》（zhi guan，止觀）的過失。他的意思是說，如果不研讀《止觀》，就不能修習事法觀門。這大概是上人沒有考慮到師資傳授和說法修行的時節因緣的緣故，花費兩年時間來挑剔經文，妄加譭謗。
而且，扶宗（fu zong，扶持宗派）本來就主張大師談論這十種方法，便是爲了指示觀心，讓修行人立即修習。這正是針對當時的修行人，也旁及後世的學者。難道不是大師所說的各種玄疏，大多在《圓頓止觀》（yuan dun zhi guan，圓頓止觀）之前嗎？所談的玄疏正是爲了開啟座下修行人的圓滿理解，也兼顧了觀行的機緣，想要修習觀法，所以依託於事相法相，建立觀門，讓他們一聽聞就能修習，得益的人數不勝數。難道要等到玉泉（yu quan，地名）唱導之後，才去尋覓然後修習嗎？或者在事法觀道上有阻礙，就請教口訣，從而通達。所以要知道，所指示的口訣，還是爲了成就他們的事法之觀。如果爲了事法而請教口訣，難道可以反而拋棄事法，而自己約束脩行嗎？
所以大師在世的時候，或者需要口訣，或者不需要口訣，都是用事法觀門來修證。怎麼能說一概不能修習呢？
如果大師滅度后，傳持這個教法，作為人師，就必須對一家玄疏和三部《止觀》通達諳練。或者有來求學的人，師匠必須先為他們講解妙經等各種玄疏，開啟他們的圓滿理解。聽習的時候，其中或許有人有觀行的機緣，看到經文中依託事相、附帶法相的觀門，樂於立即修習，難道可以阻止他們，讓他們不要修習嗎？如果觀道還有阻礙，作為師父的人，必須預先領會《止觀》的意旨，來開導解決。所以荊溪（jing xi，人名）多次在記中，指引《止觀》，乃是讓講授的人，取用那裡的廣博經文，來解決這裡簡略的觀法。既然得到解決通達，就在事法觀心中，方便地修習。難道需要背離現在所講的，自己去尋覓《止觀》嗎？如果宗師還沒有為他們講解，難道 English version: The practice of contemplation begins with observing the methods (guan fang). The Superior Person now lists approximately ten points that contradict the scriptures and their meaning, using these to refute those who do not explore the faults of 'Zhi Guan' (止觀, Concentration and Insight). His meaning is that if one does not study 'Zhi Guan', one cannot practice the gate of contemplation on phenomena and principles. This is probably because the Superior Person did not consider the conditions of teacher-student transmission and the timing of teaching and practice, spending two years picking at the scriptures and making reckless slander.
Moreover, supporting the school (fu zong) originally advocated that the master's discussion of these ten methods was precisely to indicate contemplation of the mind, allowing practitioners to practice immediately. This is directed at practitioners of that time, and also extends to scholars of later generations. Isn't it the case that the various profound commentaries spoken by the master mostly precede the 'Yuan Dun Zhi Guan' (圓頓止觀, Perfect and Sudden Concentration and Insight)? The profound commentaries spoken of are precisely to open up the perfect understanding of the practitioners seated below, also taking into account the opportunity for contemplative practice, wanting to practice the methods of contemplation, so relying on phenomena and principles, establishing the gates of contemplation, allowing them to practice immediately upon hearing, benefiting countless people. Must one wait until Yuquan (玉泉, a place name) chants and guides before seeking it out and then practicing? Or if there is obstruction in the path of contemplation on phenomena and principles, one seeks oral instructions, thereby achieving understanding. Therefore, know that the oral instructions given are still to accomplish their contemplation on phenomena and principles. If one seeks oral instructions for phenomena and principles, how can one then abandon phenomena and principles, and restrict one's own practice?
Therefore, when the master was alive, whether oral instructions were needed or not, all used the gate of contemplation on phenomena and principles for practice and realization. How can it be said that it is absolutely impossible to practice?
If, after the master's passing, one transmits this teaching, as a teacher, one must be thoroughly versed in one school's profound commentaries and the three parts of 'Zhi Guan'. Or if there are those who come to study, the teacher must first explain to them the wonderful scriptures and various profound commentaries, opening up their perfect understanding. During the time of listening and learning, among them there may be those who have the opportunity for contemplative practice, seeing in the scriptures the gates of contemplation that rely on phenomena and are attached to principles, and are happy to practice immediately. Can one stop them, telling them not to practice? If there is still obstruction in the path of contemplation, the teacher must preemptively grasp the meaning of 'Zhi Guan' to enlighten and resolve it. Therefore, Jingxi (荊溪, a person's name) repeatedly points to 'Zhi Guan' in his notes, so that those who lecture take the extensive texts there to resolve the concise contemplation here. Once resolved and understood, one conveniently practices contemplation on phenomena and principles. Is it necessary to turn away from what is being lectured now and seek out 'Zhi Guan' oneself? If the master has not yet lectured to them, is it
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese translation: The practice of contemplation begins with observing the methods (guan fang). The Superior Person now lists approximately ten points that contradict the scriptures and their meaning, using these to refute those who do not explore the faults of 'Zhi Guan' (止觀, Concentration and Insight). His meaning is that if one does not study 'Zhi Guan', one cannot practice the gate of contemplation on phenomena and principles. This is probably because the Superior Person did not consider the conditions of teacher-student transmission and the timing of teaching and practice, spending two years picking at the scriptures and making reckless slander.
Moreover, supporting the school (fu zong) originally advocated that the master's discussion of these ten methods was precisely to indicate contemplation of the mind, allowing practitioners to practice immediately. This is directed at practitioners of that time, and also extends to scholars of later generations. Isn't it the case that the various profound commentaries spoken by the master mostly precede the 'Yuan Dun Zhi Guan' (圓頓止觀, Perfect and Sudden Concentration and Insight)? The profound commentaries spoken of are precisely to open up the perfect understanding of the practitioners seated below, also taking into account the opportunity for contemplative practice, wanting to practice the methods of contemplation, so relying on phenomena and principles, establishing the gates of contemplation, allowing them to practice immediately upon hearing, benefiting countless people. Must one wait until Yuquan (玉泉, a place name) chants and guides before seeking it out and then practicing? Or if there is obstruction in the path of contemplation on phenomena and principles, one seeks oral instructions, thereby achieving understanding. Therefore, know that the oral instructions given are still to accomplish their contemplation on phenomena and principles. If one seeks oral instructions for phenomena and principles, how can one then abandon phenomena and principles, and restrict one's own practice?
Therefore, when the master was alive, whether oral instructions were needed or not, all used the gate of contemplation on phenomena and principles for practice and realization. How can it be said that it is absolutely impossible to practice?
If, after the master's passing, one transmits this teaching, as a teacher, one must be thoroughly versed in one school's profound commentaries and the three parts of 'Zhi Guan'. Or if there are those who come to study, the teacher must first explain to them the wonderful scriptures and various profound commentaries, opening up their perfect understanding. During the time of listening and learning, among them there may be those who have the opportunity for contemplative practice, seeing in the scriptures the gates of contemplation that rely on phenomena and are attached to principles, and are happy to practice immediately. Can one stop them, telling them not to practice? If there is still obstruction in the path of contemplation, the teacher must preemptively grasp the meaning of 'Zhi Guan' to enlighten and resolve it. Therefore, Jingxi (荊溪, a person's name) repeatedly points to 'Zhi Guan' in his notes, so that those who lecture take the extensive texts there to resolve the concise contemplation here. Once resolved and understood, one conveniently practices contemplation on phenomena and principles. Is it necessary to turn away from what is being lectured now and seek out 'Zhi Guan' oneself? If the master has not yet lectured to them, is it
可自尋而能通解便自修證耶。
況玄疏本示事法之觀。行人卻自約行而修。何違文背義之甚乎。此經所謂心輕躁難也。
又蒙決通之後事法觀成。乃名事法觀中悟入。不名約行觀中得悟也。如引眾經成今止觀。若得悟者。豈名諸經悟入耶。此則初心行人不待自尋止觀。亦不待師匠專講止觀。然後聽尋。方修觀行也。又觀道深妙故。須宗匠開決。
若道場事式。但自撿彼止觀。足可施設。
若於師門先聞止觀。久曾研習。今睹玄疏事法觀門。則用本習觀法。度入事法觀門而修。或因茲得悟。乃名事法觀門悟入。非是約行觀中得悟也。
如將無生門觀法。度入生門悟者。乃功在生門。非無生門也。
夫如是修事法二觀之者。有何偏執之過。何用約文約義二十段文。枉抑加誣耶。
又一種根性。只於事法觀門。或略聞約行觀門。修之得悟。亦不待尋彼止觀。故法華三昧只約一念妄心。略論三觀。乃有三品證相。上根直入初住。文云。若依此法修之未悟。則依安樂行修之。既修之未悟。方依安樂行修。故知。略觀中悟者。不須更尋安樂行也。豈非略觀有人修之得悟耶。尚許不入三昧。但誦持故見上妙色。況略有觀法安心。何得全無所證(上人堅執內修十乘。外托誦持方為懺法。及
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：難道可以自己尋找就能通達理解，然後自己修行證悟嗎？
何況《玄疏》原本是開示事法觀的。修行人卻自己依據簡略的修行方法來修習，這和違背經文原意有什麼區別呢？這正如經中所說的『心輕浮躁動難以調伏』啊。
而且，蒙受開示通達之後，事法觀修成，才叫做在事法觀中悟入，不叫做在簡略修行觀中得悟。如同引用眾多經典來成就現在的《止觀》，如果因此得悟，難道能說是從諸經中悟入嗎？這樣說來，初學行人不必自己尋找《止觀》，也不必等待師父專門講解《止觀》，然後才去聽聞尋找，才去修習觀行。而且觀道的深奧微妙，所以需要宗師來開示決斷。
如果是道場的儀軌形式，只要自己查閱《止觀》，就足夠用來安排設定了。
如果曾在師父那裡聽聞過《止觀》，長久研習過，現在看到《玄疏》的事法觀門，就用原本學習的觀法，進入事法觀門來修習。或者因此而得悟，才叫做從事法觀門悟入，不是從簡略修行觀中得悟。
如同將無生門觀法，引入生門而悟道的人，他的功勞在於生門，而不是無生門。
像這樣修習事法二觀的人，有什麼偏頗執著的過失呢？為什麼要用約文約義的二十段文字，枉自壓制誣陷呢？
又有一種根性，只是在事法觀門，或者略微聽聞簡略修行觀門，修習就能得悟。也不必尋找那部《止觀》。所以《法華三昧》只是依據一念妄心，略微論述三觀，就有三品證悟的相狀。上等根器的人直接進入初住的境界。經文說：『如果依照這個方法修習而沒有開悟，就依照安樂行來修習。』既然修習而沒有開悟，才依照安樂行來修習。所以知道，在簡略觀中悟道的人，不需要再去尋找安樂行了。難道不是簡略觀中有人修習而得悟嗎？尚且允許不進入三昧，只是誦持就能見到上妙的色相，何況略微有觀法安心，怎麼會完全沒有證悟呢？（這位上人堅持內在修習十乘觀法，外在依託誦持才算是懺悔的方法，以及）
【English Translation】 English version: Can one find and understand it by oneself, and then cultivate and realize it on one's own?
Moreover, the 'Xuanshu' (玄疏, Commentary on Profound Meaning) originally elucidates the contemplation of phenomena (事法觀, shifa guan). Yet, practitioners rely on simplified methods of practice to cultivate. How is this different from violating the text and its meaning? This is just as the sutra says, 'The mind is light, agitated, and difficult to subdue.'
Furthermore, after receiving instruction and achieving understanding, the contemplation of phenomena is accomplished, and it is then called 'entering enlightenment within the contemplation of phenomena,' not 'attaining enlightenment within the simplified practice contemplation.' It is like using many sutras to complete the current 'Zhigan' (止觀, Śamatha-Vipassanā). If one attains enlightenment through this, can it be said that one has entered enlightenment through the various sutras? Thus, beginners do not need to seek the 'Zhigan' themselves, nor do they need to wait for a master to specifically explain the 'Zhigan,' before listening, seeking, and cultivating contemplation. Moreover, the path of contemplation is profound and subtle, so it requires a master to elucidate and decide.
As for the rituals and forms of the Bodhimanda (道場, daochang), simply consulting the 'Zhigan' itself is sufficient for arranging and setting them up.
If one has heard the 'Zhigan' from a teacher and studied it for a long time, and now sees the contemplation of phenomena section in the 'Xuanshu,' then one should use the originally learned methods of contemplation to enter and cultivate within the contemplation of phenomena. Or, if one attains enlightenment through this, it is called 'entering enlightenment through the contemplation of phenomena,' not 'attaining enlightenment within the simplified practice contemplation.'
It is like leading someone who contemplates the gate of non-birth (無生門, wusheng men) into the gate of birth (生門, sheng men) and attaining enlightenment; the merit lies in the gate of birth, not the gate of non-birth.
Those who cultivate the two contemplations of phenomena and principle in this way, what fault of bias and attachment do they have? Why use twenty sections of text that are about interpreting the text and its meaning, to unjustly suppress and slander them?
Furthermore, there is a type of person who, through the contemplation of phenomena, or by slightly hearing about the simplified practice contemplation, can attain enlightenment through cultivation. They do not need to seek that 'Zhigan.' Therefore, the 'Lotus Samadhi' (法華三昧, Fahua Sanmei) only relies on a single thought of delusion to briefly discuss the three contemplations, and there are three grades of realization. People of superior capacity directly enter the stage of the first abode (初住, chuzhu). The text says, 'If one cultivates according to this method and does not attain enlightenment, then one should cultivate according to the practice of peaceful abiding (安樂行, Anlexing).' Since one cultivates and does not attain enlightenment, one then cultivates according to the practice of peaceful abiding. Therefore, it is known that those who attain enlightenment in the simplified contemplation do not need to seek the practice of peaceful abiding. Is it not that there are people who cultivate and attain enlightenment in the simplified contemplation? It is even permissible that one does not enter samadhi, but merely reciting and upholding it can see the supreme and wonderful colors. How much more so if one has a slight method of contemplation to settle the mind, how can there be no realization at all? (This superior person insists that internal cultivation of the ten vehicles (十乘, shicheng) and external reliance on recitation are the methods of repentance, and)
引荊溪究竟而論二行相資之說為難。斯蓋不知修習久近。故專據久修為難。若久修者。故須相資而運。若始習者。或兼修略觀。或但專誦持。亦名修行也。故文云。若人本不習坐。但欲誦經懺悔。於行坐中。久誦經文。若疲極時可暫斂念。訊息已便即誦經。亦不乖行法。故云不入三昧但誦持故見上妙色。據茲教文。是開許新學菩薩一向誦經懺悔也。尚未習坐。何能有十乘內觀耶。大師元許始行隨依一種修行。上人剛然斷于新學而修證耶)。
又輔行雲。若依五略修行證果。能利他等自是一途。故知。亦許未論十境十乘。不妨有行人修人也。
是知。荊溪數云不得將一二句觀心修行及驢車之責。正斥邪解之師別指一文。立為頓頓義。旁誡初心不稟師氏口決(已於一家解行通達。亦得口決示于學者。故荊溪於左溪室中。咨稟口決也。又輔行雲。若近師氏理須咨疑等云云)專執一句即足之者也。
又六章皆判屬解。就大分說耳。若細論之。不無其行。是知。今文觀心不可輒廢以初心者。或得宗匠決通。不假尋討止觀。即可依之修入故。或有根性不須廣聞。即能修入故。何得云事法觀心。但是指示初心。令于止觀修行耶。
若但指示修行處者。只合教義之後。但云觀心在彼止觀也。何假費詞示其事法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 荊溪大師究竟而論，以二行互相資助的說法來責難（某些觀點）。這大概是不瞭解修習時間的長短。所以專門根據長期修習的情況來責難。如果是長期修習的人，確實需要互相資助而執行。如果是剛開始修習的人，或者兼修略觀，或者只是專心誦持，也叫做修行。所以經文說：『如果有人本來不習慣靜坐，只想誦經懺悔，在行走坐臥中，長時間誦經，如果疲憊到極點，可以暫時收攝心念，休息一下，方便之後就繼續誦經，也不違背行法。』所以說不入三昧，但因為誦持的緣故，見到上妙之色。根據這段經文，是開許新學的菩薩一心誦經懺悔。尚未習坐，怎麼能有十乘內觀呢？大師原本允許初學者隨順依靠一種修行，上人您怎麼能剛硬地斷定新學者不能修證呢？ 又《輔行記》說：『如果依靠五略修行證果，能夠利益他人等等，自然是一條途徑。』由此可知，也允許未論及十境十乘，不妨礙有修行的人和被教導的人。 由此可知，荊溪大師多次說，不能將一兩句觀心修行，以及驢車之責（比喻不恰當的教導），正是斥責邪解之師，另外指出一篇文章，立為頓悟的意義，旁敲側擊地告誡初學者，不要不稟承師父的口訣（已經在一家解行通達，也可以口訣指示給學者。所以荊溪大師在左溪的房間里，諮詢稟承口訣。又《輔行記》說：『如果親近師父，理應諮詢疑問等等』），專門執著一句就認為足夠的人。 又六章都判屬解門，就大的方面來說而已。如果仔細論述，並非沒有行門。由此可知，現在的經文說觀心不可輕易廢止，是因為初學者，或者得到宗師的決斷通達，不需要尋討止觀，就可以依靠它修入。或者有的人根性好，不需要廣泛聽聞，就能修入。怎麼能說事法觀心，只是指示初學者，讓他們在止觀中修行呢？ 如果只是指示修行之處，只應該在教義之後，只說觀心就在止觀中。何必多費口舌指示那些事法呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Master Jingxi, in his ultimate analysis, uses the concept of the two practices mutually supporting each other to challenge (certain viewpoints). This is probably due to a lack of understanding of the length of time spent in practice. Therefore, the criticism is specifically based on long-term practice. If one is a long-term practitioner, it is indeed necessary for the two practices to mutually support and operate. If one is a beginner, either practicing both brief contemplation or focusing solely on recitation, it is also called practice. Therefore, the scripture says: 'If a person is not accustomed to sitting meditation but only wishes to recite scriptures and repent, while walking, sitting, or lying down, they recite scriptures for a long time. If they are extremely tired, they can temporarily collect their thoughts and rest. Once they are comfortable, they can continue reciting scriptures, which does not violate the practice method.' Therefore, it is said that without entering samadhi, one sees sublime colors because of recitation. According to this scriptural passage, it is permissible for newly learning Bodhisattvas to single-mindedly recite scriptures and repent. If one has not yet practiced sitting meditation, how can one have the ten vehicles of inner contemplation? The master originally allowed beginners to rely on one type of practice, so how can you, Venerable One, rigidly assert that new learners cannot attain realization? Furthermore, the 'Auxiliary Commentary' says: 'If one relies on the five brief practices to attain fruition, being able to benefit others, etc., is naturally a path.' From this, it is known that it is permissible to not discuss the ten realms and ten vehicles, and it does not hinder the existence of practitioners and those being taught. From this, it is known that Master Jingxi repeatedly said that one cannot take one or two sentences of mind-contemplation practice, as well as the donkey cart analogy (an inappropriate teaching), to criticize. He is precisely rebuking teachers who misunderstand and separately point to a text, establishing it as the meaning of sudden enlightenment, and indirectly warning beginners not to receive the master's oral instructions (having thoroughly understood the teachings and practice in one school, one can also give oral instructions to students. Therefore, Master Jingxi consulted and received oral instructions in Zuoqi's room. Furthermore, the 'Auxiliary Commentary' says: 'If one is close to the master, one should consult on doubts, etc.'), and those who exclusively cling to one sentence and think it is sufficient. Moreover, all six chapters are classified as belonging to the explanation section, speaking in general terms. If discussed in detail, it is not without practice. From this, it is known that the current text says that mind-contemplation should not be easily abandoned, because beginners, or those who have obtained the master's decisive understanding, do not need to seek out the cessation-contemplation and can rely on it to enter practice. Or some people have good roots and do not need to hear widely to be able to enter practice. How can it be said that the practice of phenomena and mind-contemplation is only to instruct beginners, letting them practice in cessation-contemplation? If it were only to indicate the place of practice, it should only say after the teachings that mind-contemplation is in cessation-contemplation. Why bother to spend so much effort indicating those phenomena?
觀門耶然觀發揮立廢觀心所以。只云妙玄事釋既廣理觀(此中觀字有何所以。只將談理便為理觀)稍疏。故用觀心。今文圓談法性故。不用觀心。
豈非觀心只是以理結事。何曾云指示初學。于止觀中修行。何曾云令久修者。不忘本習。蓋被前後徴詰。故乃巧立二意。遮前過非。又豈知二意。卻是須立觀心一科也。
且二意者。一為久修止觀者。不忘本習故。諸文立事法觀心也。二為未習止觀者。忘于封著。令知起行必依止觀故。諸文中立事法觀心也。
若此二意得成。則今文觀心一科。越不可廢也。何者今文若無觀心一釋。將何以示久修者附法觀門。扶于本習。若無觀心一釋。將何以令始習者忘其封著。指示于止觀中修行。又久修者。本習既揀于陰境修觀。今文既亦揀境修觀。恰稱本習。何得約此謬判。又既令初學。知于止觀修行。彼既揀境明觀。今文預揀示之。令知要切之處。何得約此謬判耶。豈以太稱本習指示太親。而以為謬耶。
又妙經文句山城之觀。但通對陰境修觀。文句既其未揀。故記主令講授者。依止觀揀境示之。故云正當觀陰。具如止觀第五去文。文句未揀。尚令揀之。今文自簡。那卻為非。則知。黨宗惡見其好也。
嗚呼此文觀心。儻違上人二意。且從廢置。既恰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 觀門（guan men，觀察之門）耶然觀發揮了立廢觀心（li fei guan xin，建立和廢除觀心）的原因。只說《妙玄》（Miao Xuan，天臺宗的重要著作）的事釋已經很廣博，而理觀（li guan，義理上的觀想）(這裡面的『觀』字有什麼含義？只用談論義理就當作理觀)稍微疏忽了。所以才用觀心。現在的文章圓滿地談論法性，所以不用觀心。 難道觀心只是用義理來結合事相嗎？哪裡說過要指示初學者在止觀（zhi guan，止和觀，佛教的兩種修行方法）中修行？哪裡說過要讓長期修行的人不忘記原有的習慣？大概是因為被前後質問，所以才巧妙地設立兩種意思，掩蓋之前的過失。又哪裡知道這兩種意思，恰恰是需要設立觀心這一科呢？ 而且這兩種意思，一是為長期修習止觀的人，不忘記原有的習慣，所以在各種文章中設立事法觀心（shi fa guan xin，依事相修習觀心）；二是為沒有修習止觀的人，忘記了固執的見解，讓他們知道開始修行必須依靠止觀，所以在各種文章中設立事法觀心。 如果這兩種意思能夠成立，那麼現在文章中的觀心這一科，就更加不能廢除了。為什麼呢？現在的文章如果沒有觀心這一解釋，用什麼來指示長期修行的人依附法觀之門，扶助原有的習慣？如果沒有觀心這一解釋，用什麼來讓剛開始修習的人忘記他們的固執見解，指示他們在止觀中修行？而且長期修行的人，原有的習慣既然是揀擇陰境（yin jing，五陰的境界）修觀，現在的文章也揀擇境界修觀，恰好符合原有的習慣。怎麼能用這個來錯誤地判斷呢？又既然要讓初學者知道在止觀中修行，他們既然揀擇境界來明白觀想，現在的文章預先揀擇並指示他們，讓他們知道重要的地方，怎麼能用這個來錯誤地判斷呢？難道是因為太符合原有的習慣，指示得太親切，就認為是錯誤的嗎？ 而且《妙經文句》（Miao Jing Wen Ju，《妙法蓮華經文句》）中山城之觀（shan cheng zhi guan，觀想如山城般堅固），只是普遍地針對陰境修觀。文句既然沒有揀擇，所以記主（ji zhu，註釋者）讓講授的人，依照止觀來揀擇境界並指示他們，所以說正應當觀陰，詳細情況如止觀第五卷所說。文句沒有揀擇，尚且要讓他們揀擇，現在的文章自己揀擇，反而認為是錯誤的，那就知道，這是因為偏袒宗派而厭惡別人的優點啊。 唉，這篇文章中的觀心，如果違背了上人的兩種意思，姑且可以廢除。既然恰好符合，
【English Translation】 English version: The Guan Men (gate of contemplation) Ya Ran Guan elaborates on the reasons for establishing and abolishing Guan Xin (contemplation of the mind). It only says that the Shi Shi (explanation of matters) in 'Miao Xuan' (Wonderful Profundity, an important work of the Tiantai school) is already extensive, while Li Guan (contemplation of principles) (what is the meaning of 'Guan' here? Simply discussing principles is taken as Li Guan) is slightly neglected. Therefore, Guan Xin is used. The current text fully discusses Dharma-nature, so Guan Xin is not used. Is Guan Xin merely using principles to connect with phenomena? Where does it say to instruct beginners to practice in Zhi Guan (cessation and contemplation, two methods of Buddhist practice)? Where does it say to prevent long-term practitioners from forgetting their original habits? It is probably because of being questioned before and after that two meanings are cleverly established to cover up previous faults. And how could one know that these two meanings are precisely what require the establishment of the Guan Xin section? Moreover, these two meanings are: one is for long-term practitioners of Zhi Guan, so that they do not forget their original habits, so Shi Fa Guan Xin (contemplation of the mind based on phenomena) is established in various texts; the other is for those who have not practiced Zhi Guan, so that they forget their clinging to fixed views, so that they know that starting practice must rely on Zhi Guan, so Shi Fa Guan Xin is established in various texts. If these two meanings can be established, then the Guan Xin section in the current text is even more indispensable. Why? If the current text does not have this explanation of Guan Xin, what can be used to instruct long-term practitioners to adhere to the gate of Dharma contemplation and support their original habits? If there is no explanation of Guan Xin, what can be used to make beginners forget their clinging to fixed views and instruct them to practice in Zhi Guan? Moreover, long-term practitioners, since their original habit is to select Yin Jing (the realm of the five skandhas) for cultivation, the current text also selects realms for cultivation, which exactly matches the original habit. How can this be used to judge wrongly? And since beginners are to know to practice in Zhi Guan, since they select realms to understand contemplation, the current text pre-selects and instructs them, letting them know the important points, how can this be used to judge wrongly? Is it because it matches the original habit too much and the instruction is too intimate that it is considered wrong? Moreover, the Shan Cheng Zhi Guan (contemplation of a mountain city, contemplating as firm as a mountain city) in 'Miao Jing Wen Ju' (Commentary on the Wonderful Dharma Lotus Sutra) is only universally directed at cultivating contemplation in the Yin Jing. Since the Wen Ju did not select, the Ji Zhu (commentator) instructed the lecturers to select realms and instruct them according to Zhi Guan, so it is said that one should properly contemplate the skandhas, as detailed in the fifth volume of Zhi Guan. Since the Wen Ju did not select, they should still be made to select, but the current text selects itself, but it is considered wrong, then it is known that this is because of partisanship and hatred of others' merits. Alas, the Guan Xin in this text, if it violates the two meanings of the superior person, it may be abolished for the time being. Since it fits exactly,
允上人二意。何以特吐粗言毀茲真觀。
又若謂聞談果法。自能返觀己心故。不須別立觀心者。
此最不可。則諸文教義之後。所有觀心。皆須廢也。以行人因聞教義。自能修觀故。又若自思己行。則聞說事相法相之後。自修約行之觀。何須託事附法示之耶。
又若謂諸文雖談果法。未具觀心之義。故須事法二觀。被于久修始習之機。此玄十種三法。雖是果法。已具觀心之義。遂不須觀心一科者。
且上人定將何等法門。為觀心之義。若以純明理觀。為觀心義者。十法既非三種三昧。既不揀示陰境。既不明十乘觀法。安得輒名純談理觀。豈非全無理觀觀心義耶。
又云。凡云六即即具觀心義者。且文中不將六即判行人修證之位。乃是約之明其果法甚深也。又妙玄十種三法。段段約六即判位。上人又云。彼文合有觀心一釋。此則六即之後。須有觀心。那可輒廢。又云十種三法。直顯心性故具觀心義。且今來義狀。已甘十種談于果法。既非直顯心性故。不具觀心之義明矣。又云十種三法並我一念橫豎照之故具觀心之義。其如文中。全無攝歸一念之文。又乏觀照之語。安得云已具觀心義耶。又云以一理貫之故具觀心義。其如妙玄十法。豈不以一理貫之。既合更立觀心。則一理貫之。又非觀心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 允上人有兩種不同的觀點。為什麼特別要說粗暴的話來詆譭這種真實的觀法？
如果又說，因為聽聞了關於果法的談論，自然能夠反觀自己的內心，所以不需要另外設立觀心的方法。
這種說法最不可取。如果這樣，那麼所有經文教義之後的觀心方法，都應該廢除。因為修行人聽聞教義后，自然能夠修習觀法。如果又自己思考自己的行為，那麼在聽聞了事相法相之後，自然會修習約束行為的觀法，又何必依託事相和法相來指示呢？
如果又說，雖然各種經文談論果法，但沒有具備觀心的意義，所以需要事觀和法觀，來接引長期修行和剛剛開始學習的人。而《玄義》中的十種三法，雖然是果法，但已經具備了觀心的意義，所以不需要觀心這一科。
那麼請問上人，您究竟將哪種法門作為觀心的意義呢？如果以純粹明瞭的理觀作為觀心的意義，那麼十法既然不是三種三昧，既然沒有揀擇指示陰境，既然沒有闡明十乘觀法，怎麼能隨便稱之為純粹談論理觀呢？豈不是完全沒有理觀的觀心意義嗎？
又說：『凡是說到六即就具備觀心的意義。』但是文中並沒有將六即用來判別修行人修證的位次，而是用來闡明果法非常深奧。而且《妙玄》中的十種三法，每一段都用六即來判別位次，上人又說，那篇文章應該有觀心這一解釋，那麼六即之後，就應該有觀心，怎麼可以隨便廢除呢？又說十種三法直接顯現心性，所以具備觀心的意義。但是現在來的義狀，已經承認十種是談論果法，既然不是直接顯現心性，那麼不具備觀心的意義就很明顯了。又說用一個理貫穿十種三法，所以具備觀心的意義。但是《妙玄》中的十法，難道不是用一個理貫穿的嗎？既然應該另外設立觀心，那麼用一個理貫穿，又不是觀心。
【English Translation】 English version: Venerable Yun holds two different views. Why use harsh words to denigrate this true contemplation?
Furthermore, if it is said that upon hearing discussions about the Fruition Dharma (Guo Fa), one can naturally reflect upon one's own mind, thus eliminating the need for a separate method of mind contemplation (Guan Xin).
This is most unacceptable. If that were the case, all mind contemplation methods following scriptural teachings should be abolished. This is because practitioners, upon hearing the teachings, can naturally cultivate contemplation. Moreover, if one reflects on one's own actions, then after hearing about phenomena (Shi Xiang) and Dharma characteristics (Fa Xiang), one will naturally cultivate contemplation that restrains actions. Why then rely on phenomena and Dharma to guide them?
Furthermore, if it is said that although various scriptures discuss the Fruition Dharma, they do not fully encompass the meaning of mind contemplation, hence the need for contemplation on phenomena and Dharma to guide both long-term practitioners and beginners. However, the ten kinds of threefold Dharma in the 'Profound Meaning' (Xuan Yi), although being Fruition Dharma, already contain the meaning of mind contemplation, thus eliminating the need for a separate category of mind contemplation.
Then, may I ask, Venerable, which Dharma method do you consider to be the meaning of mind contemplation? If you take purely understanding the principle of contemplation (Li Guan) as the meaning of mind contemplation, then since the ten Dharmas are not the three Samadhis (San Mei), since they do not discern and indicate the realms of the skandhas (Yin Jing), and since they do not elucidate the ten modes of contemplation (Shi Cheng Guan Fa), how can they be casually called purely discussing principle contemplation? Is it not entirely devoid of the meaning of principle contemplation for mind contemplation?
It is also said: 'Whenever the Six Identities (Liu Ji) are mentioned, they inherently possess the meaning of mind contemplation.' However, the text does not use the Six Identities to distinguish the stages of cultivation and realization of practitioners, but rather to elucidate the profoundness of the Fruition Dharma. Moreover, the ten kinds of threefold Dharma in the 'Profound Meaning' use the Six Identities to distinguish stages in each section. Venerable also says that the text should have an explanation of mind contemplation, then after the Six Identities, there should be mind contemplation. How can it be casually abolished? It is also said that the ten kinds of threefold Dharma directly reveal the nature of mind, thus possessing the meaning of mind contemplation. However, the current state of affairs already acknowledges that the ten kinds discuss the Fruition Dharma. Since it does not directly reveal the nature of mind, it is clear that it does not possess the meaning of mind contemplation. It is also said that the ten kinds of threefold Dharma are penetrated by one principle, thus possessing the meaning of mind contemplation. However, are not the ten Dharmas in the 'Profound Meaning' penetrated by one principle? Since mind contemplation should be established separately, then being penetrated by one principle is not mind contemplation.
義也。又將三法。例彼凈名疏釋法無眾生云。具觀心義。其如彼文。約研心法作觀。明乎三脫故。具觀心義。今文正就果法示之。全未約心法說之。那得具觀心義耶。又云凡論三法。皆闕觀心。此更不可妙玄十種三法之後。因何合有觀心耶。如釋凈無垢稱。約三脫三身。釋后又示觀心。今來又撰一義云。十種三法只是三諦異名。三諦唯心所具。久修者。即以正觀歷之。未修者既知。十種三法是佛所證(直顯心性于茲永破)乃能于彼止觀修行。
嗚呼惟將義同及以異名。影帶明具理觀之義。還是久修者。自作觀心否。始習者。自於止觀修行否。皆非教文示于觀法之式。如此說具觀心義。越彰不具也。
又云三法直該修性則具觀心義。且釋毗耶離城。具約修性明三德后。復約攝歸一念。示乎觀行一科。況今十種三法。雖該修性。乃是果人修極之法。其體甚深。徹乎三道性德。故從三德釋至三道。益彰不是觀法之義。
若妙玄十種三法。云具觀心義者。此則稍可。何者。彼一一文。皆約凡夫一念本具三法。乃約六即。歷內外凡真因極果判之。而上人卻謂彼文未具觀心義。此玄十種三法。曾不約心而論。復不從因至果而辨。卻云已具觀心義。為是戲劇而談。為是正論法義。不可如此容易。切冀深研。
既前後窮逐。此玄十種三法。未具觀心義。才說佛法。便為觀心。此等愆過。皆由自昔不曉心佛眾生。約理雖同。事用仍別。乃將心法。偏從理釋。謂是真心。致於一家法相及觀心之義。全然迷暗。
予特引金錍不變則萬法俱理。隨緣則萬法俱事。及引妙玄心等三法高下之文。並觀境難易之意。本難上人心唯在理。生佛諸法唯事。及難棄於心法取于佛法而為理觀。上人遭此難故。乃自知從慈光奉先。已至辨訛答疑書等。所立廢觀心意並皆破壞。
遂巧作救義。及曲改難意。且巧救者。謂觀六識之妄心。成三諦之真心。及一念即真。教文顯說等。
予聞此救喜躍不勝。蓋予義論有益。能轉人心。改迷從悟也。何以故。以上人洎所稟。元不知觀妄心成真心。及全迷一念是妄當體即真。以致示珠指直以真知釋於一念。
故彼文云。一念靈知性體常寂。又云。一念真知妙體。又云。並我一念清凈靈知等。又答疑書云。法性無外。即我一念。兼以果證之理。謂是直顯心性。辨訛以一理貫之。謂為理觀等。此等豈非直以理性釋於心法。實不曾以妄念即真而釋。實不曾以觀妄成真而解。若元知者。何故示珠指。曲拗妙玄心定在因之句。作心非因果釋耶。
妙玄本顯。心等三法理則俱理。事則俱事。
就理則高下無差。就事則高下差別。故云。佛定在果生通因果。心定在因。此之圓滿之義。被珠指殘缺解之。何者以彼謂生佛屬事。是因是果。心法屬理。乃非因非果。若元知俱事俱理。何不三法俱就事釋。何得曲改聖教。抑就我心。作二事一理解耶。若元知三法皆即事是理即妄而真。何不三法作俱事俱理而釋耶。
理既窮矣。計亦盡矣。乃以涅槃玄無觀心文。例除此文。斯亦不知說授著述時節。故謬例之也。
且此玄觀心。乃是大師講時訓眾策修之語。當時既說。錄者豈敢違之。若大經玄義。是章安於大師滅后私制。既已結集。諸部玄義。各有觀心一科。後代講者。必合例知。故可影略。
又章安述作之際。人事艱危。但得正義顯彰旁論觀法。故且略之。豈比大師在日。法侶颙颙。皆欲隨言修證。此時豈可不附十法立乎觀心耶。
又彼經與此經。俱論果中三法皆真。恐章安例此十法觀心故。特略于彼也。豈得卻例彼略而廢此具耶。
若須例大經。諸部玄義觀心。皆須廢也。審思審思。
況上人只知毀其事法二觀不可修證。不思卻以無境無觀但談果佛法相而為修證法也。
何者。既云十法純談理觀。理觀豈非常坐等約行十乘。何得不是修行趣果法耶。既十法文中。全不揀
示陰境。全不明性德三千。全無十法成乘。豈非以無境無觀之法相為修證法耶。
上人既遭前後窮逐。明知此玄十法全非理觀。乃謾說云。託事附法不立陰境。不須揀示識心。不可修證。
且事法觀。縱不于陰揀境。約行觀為何。不于陰揀境耶。若事法觀。縱不可修證。約行觀為何不可修證耶。
況復辨訛。立於十法純談理觀。時甚說理觀從因至果功能。故云十種三法。始凡終聖。以一法性貫之。以六即位成之。事事全成於法界(豈非陰入成不思議境耶)心心咸顯于金光(此非正觀顯理耶)此豈非純談理觀乎。乃至云。學山家之教者。誰不知觀心。是趣果上理之蹊徑乎(甚許觀心可修證也)又云。若了遍一切處。悉金光明法性之旨已。唸唸圓解心心相續。何患不趣果入理乎。普賢觀云。端坐念實相。眾罪如霜露。慧日能消除。豈非純談理觀乎(從故云下除註文外。皆是辨訛之文也)至後方云。然一家之教。委明觀法。在乎止觀。了此旨已。依彼十乘觀法修之。方為盡善。
予今輒定上人當時之意。豈非云此玄十種三法修之。亦能入理證果。但未如止觀觀法周細。故云依彼修之方為盡善。只云此未盡善非全不可修也。
及被問疑書。徴其端坐念實相。正是十乘三觀。觀不思議理。方得名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：展示陰境，完全不明白性德三千（指天臺宗所說的性具三千諸法），完全沒有十法成乘（指天臺宗的十種觀法）。這難道不是以無境無觀的法相作為修證之法嗎？
上人（指被評論者）既然遭遇前後追問，明明知道這玄妙的十法完全不是理觀，卻欺騙說：『託事附法，不設立陰境，不需要揀擇指示識心，不可修證。』
那麼，事法觀，即使不在陰境中揀擇境界，那約行觀又是爲了什麼？為什麼不在陰境中揀擇境界呢？如果說事法觀不可修證，那約行觀又為什麼不可修證呢？
更何況辨訛（指辨析訛誤），立足於十法，純粹談論理觀，當時非常推崇理觀從因到果的功能。所以說十種三法，從凡夫開始到成就聖人，用一法性貫穿始終，用六即位（指天臺宗的六即位次）成就它。事事完全成就於法界（難道不是陰入成就不可思議境界嗎？），心心都顯現於金光（這難道不是正觀顯現真理嗎？）。這難道不是純粹談論理觀嗎？甚至說：『學習山家之教（指天臺宗）的人，誰不知道觀心是通往果上之理的途徑呢？』（非常認可觀心可以修證）又說：『如果明白了遍一切處都是金光明法性的宗旨，唸唸圓滿理解，心心相續，還擔心不能通往果地，契入真理嗎？』《普賢觀經》說：『端坐念實相，眾罪如霜露，慧日能消除。』難道不是純粹談論理觀嗎？（從『故云』以下，除了註文外，都是辨析訛誤的文字）直到後面才說：『然而一家之教（指天臺宗），詳細闡明觀法，在於止觀。明白了這些宗旨后，依照那十乘觀法修習，才算盡善盡美。』
我現在姑且斷定上人當時的意思，難道不是說修習這玄妙的十種三法，也能契入真理，證得果位。只不過不如止觀的觀法周全細緻，所以說依照止觀修習才算盡善盡美。只是說這十種三法未盡善盡美，並非完全不可修習。
等到被問疑書質疑，徵引他所說的端坐念實相，正是十乘三觀，觀不思議理，才能得名。
【English Translation】 English version: Showing the realm of shadows, completely not understanding the three thousand inherent natures (referring to the Tiantai school's doctrine of the inherent possession of three thousand dharmas), completely lacking the ten methods of accomplishing the vehicle (referring to the ten kinds of contemplation in the Tiantai school). Isn't this taking the dharma characteristics of no realm and no contemplation as the method of cultivation and realization?
Since the Superior One (referring to the person being commented on) has encountered repeated questioning, clearly knowing that these profound ten methods are completely not principle-based contemplation, he deceitfully says: 'Relying on events and attaching to dharmas, not establishing the realm of shadows, not needing to discern and indicate the mind of consciousness, not capable of being cultivated and realized.'
Then, the contemplation of events and dharmas, even if not discerning realms in the realm of shadows, what is the contemplation of practice for? Why not discern realms in the realm of shadows? If the contemplation of events and dharmas is not capable of being cultivated and realized, then why is the contemplation of practice not capable of being cultivated and realized?
Moreover, 'Bian E' (referring to analyzing errors), based on the ten methods, purely discusses principle-based contemplation, at that time greatly praising the function of principle-based contemplation from cause to effect. Therefore, it is said that the ten kinds of three dharmas, from the beginning of ordinary beings to the accomplishment of sages, are penetrated throughout with one dharma nature, and accomplished with the six stages of identity (referring to the six stages of identity in the Tiantai school). Everything is completely accomplished in the dharma realm (isn't this the realm of shadows entering into the accomplishment of inconceivable realms?), every thought manifests in the golden light (isn't this right contemplation manifesting the principle?). Isn't this purely discussing principle-based contemplation? Even saying: 'Those who study the teachings of the Mountain School (referring to the Tiantai school), who does not know that contemplating the mind is the path to the principle of the fruit?' (Greatly acknowledging that contemplating the mind can be cultivated and realized) Also saying: 'If one understands the principle that everywhere is the nature of the Golden Light Sutra, with every thought fully understanding and thoughts continuously succeeding, what worry is there of not reaching the fruit and entering the principle?' The Universal Worthy Contemplation Sutra says: 'Sitting upright contemplating reality, all sins are like frost and dew, the sun of wisdom can eliminate them.' Isn't this purely discussing principle-based contemplation? (From 'Therefore it is said' onwards, except for the annotations, are all texts of analyzing errors) Only later saying: 'However, the teachings of one's own school (referring to the Tiantai school), explain in detail the method of contemplation, which lies in cessation and contemplation. After understanding these principles, cultivating according to those ten vehicles of contemplation, is considered completely perfect.'
I now venture to determine the Superior One's intention at that time, wasn't it saying that cultivating these profound ten kinds of three dharmas can also enter the principle and realize the fruit. It's just that it's not as comprehensive and detailed as the contemplation method of cessation and contemplation, so it is said that cultivating according to cessation and contemplation is considered completely perfect. It only says that these ten kinds of three dharmas are not completely perfect, not that they are completely incapable of being cultivated.
Until being questioned by the letter of doubt, citing what he said about sitting upright contemplating reality, which is precisely the ten vehicles of three contemplations, contemplating the inconceivable principle, in order to obtain the name.
爲念于實相。答疑書釋曰。既圓談之處。具理觀義。故引證之義。復何爽。又云。若了光明法性旨已。唸唸而觀。有何不可。然此之玄文。十境不足(是何不足未知只欠幾境)一觀不辨。故修行之人。焉得不盡識于境觀修發之相乎。據此兩文。益見心心相續及念實相之文。正明圓談法性。可修證也。但未如止觀行法周細。后因撿尋義例。忽得不明十境十乘。是壞驢車之句。遂偏將此句為勢。苦破事法觀門不可修習。並斥予觀心妙道即聞而修之語。及至詰難書以理事二觀。並而徴之。事法之觀。略談境觀。尚是驢車不可修習。十法之文。既略無境觀。何乃卻能證果入理。以此並之。上人計窮乃不避惡報。固欺聖眼。而翻轉前文。乃謂。心心圓解。屬於理觀義。唸唸相續。及念實相。令依止觀修行。且辨訛明明。結于唸唸相續及念實相之句。屬能圓談十法畢。方云。然一家之教。委明觀法。在乎止觀。既云委明。驗知。以彼止觀。為周細觀法。今文理觀。亦可修證。然若無答疑書證之。此語往往被上人轉卻。其奈明文收掌。見在顯說云。證前圓談之處。安可抵踏。上人既被前書證之。還懷慚愧否。
法歲法師云。扇既墮地以何遮羞。
又且縱此文被上人翻轉證彼止觀。又成約行觀法不可修證(以理觀正是約行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了思念實相。答疑書中解釋說：『既然是圓滿談論之處，就具備了理觀的意義，那麼引證的意義又有什麼差錯呢？』又說：『如果明白了光明法性的宗旨，唸唸觀照，有什麼不可以呢？』然而這段玄妙的文字，十境不足（不知道缺少了什麼，只欠缺了幾境），一觀也分辨不清。所以修行的人，怎麼能不完全瞭解境、觀、修、發的相狀呢？根據這兩段文字，更加明顯地看到心心相續以及念實相的文字，正是說明圓滿談論法性是可以修證的。只是不如止觀的行法那樣周全細緻。後來因為檢查尋找義例，忽然得到『不明白十境十乘，是壞驢車』的句子。於是偏執地將這句話作為依據，極力破斥事法觀門不可修習，並且指責我『觀心妙道，一聽聞就修習』的說法。等到詰難書用理事二觀一起質問時，事法的觀，略微談到境觀，尚且是驢車不可修習。十法的文字，既然略微沒有境觀，為什麼卻能證果入理呢？用這個來比較，上人理屈詞窮，竟然不顧惡報，公然欺騙聖眼，反而顛倒前面的文字，說：『心心圓解，屬於理觀的意義；唸唸相續，以及念實相，令人依照止觀修行。』並且辨別訛誤，明明總結于唸唸相續以及念實相的句子，屬於能夠圓滿談論十法完畢。才說：『然而一家之教，詳細說明觀法，在於止觀。』既然說詳細說明，驗證可知，用那止觀，作為周全細緻的觀法。現在文中的理觀，也可以修證。然而如果沒有答疑書來證明，這句話往往被上人顛倒。但明文記載，現在明顯地說：『證明前面的圓滿談論之處，怎麼可以抵賴呢？』上人既然被前面的書證明了，難道還不感到慚愧嗎？ 法歲法師說：『扇子既然掉在地上，用什麼來遮羞呢？』 而且即使這段文字被上人顛倒，用來證明那止觀，又成了約行觀法不可修證（因為理觀正是約行）。
【English Translation】 English version: To contemplate the true nature of reality. The 'Answers to Doubts' explains: 'Since it is a place of complete discussion, it possesses the meaning of principle contemplation, so what fault is there in the meaning of citation?' It also says: 'If one understands the essence of the Dharma-nature of luminosity, what is wrong with contemplating it thought after thought?' However, this profound text lacks the ten realms (it is unknown what is missing, only a few realms are lacking), and one contemplation cannot be distinguished. Therefore, how can practitioners not fully understand the aspects of realm, contemplation, practice, and manifestation? According to these two passages, it is even clearer that the texts on the continuous succession of thoughts and the contemplation of true reality precisely explain that the complete discussion of Dharma-nature can be cultivated and realized. It is just not as comprehensive and detailed as the practice methods of cessation and contemplation. Later, while examining and searching for examples of meaning, I suddenly obtained the sentence 'Not understanding the ten realms and ten vehicles is a broken donkey cart.' Therefore, I stubbornly used this sentence as a basis to vehemently refute that the door of contemplation of phenomena cannot be cultivated and practiced, and I criticized my statement 'The wonderful path of contemplating the mind is practiced as soon as it is heard.' When the 'Challenging Questions' used both principle and phenomenal contemplation to question together, the contemplation of phenomena, which briefly discusses realm and contemplation, is still a donkey cart that cannot be cultivated. The text of the ten dharmas, since it briefly lacks realm and contemplation, why can it realize the fruit and enter into principle? Comparing it with this, the Superior One was at a loss for words and, disregarding evil retribution, openly deceived the sacred eye, and instead reversed the previous text, saying: 'The complete understanding of the mind belongs to the meaning of principle contemplation; the continuous succession of thoughts and the contemplation of true reality cause people to practice according to cessation and contemplation.' And distinguishing errors, clearly concluding in the sentences of continuous succession of thoughts and contemplation of true reality, belonging to the ability to completely discuss the ten dharmas. Only then did he say: 'However, the teachings of one school explain the methods of contemplation in detail, which lies in cessation and contemplation.' Since it is said to explain in detail, it can be verified that cessation and contemplation is used as a comprehensive and detailed method of contemplation. Now the principle contemplation in the text can also be cultivated and realized. However, if there were no 'Answers to Doubts' to prove it, this statement would often be reversed by the Superior One. But the clear text is recorded, and it is now clearly stated: 'Proving the previous place of complete discussion, how can it be denied?' Since the Superior One has been proven by the previous book, does he not still feel ashamed? The Dharma Master Fa Sui said: 'Since the fan has fallen to the ground, what can be used to cover the shame?' Moreover, even if this text is reversed by the Superior One to prove that cessation and contemplation, it again becomes that the practice of contemplation of phenomena cannot be cultivated and realized (because principle contemplation is precisely the practice).
觀故)約行之觀。既不可修證。事法又不可修證。則一切眾生。永沉生死。無出離之門。何以不甘杜斷眾生入理之門趣果之路耶。
惜哉上人。亦稍聰俊。能分科節。尋文作義。何不見巧知陋。捨短從長。那得專守邪師之教。堅扶已墮之宗。輒用未詳之文。剛廢至真之觀。今既得新米草。宜棄故者。更若未愜來意。任彼曲救然雖能轉計。今置汝于不可轉處也。
第六不體心法之難
夫立名詮法。對問論宗。必須如日融冰。似箭中的。儻曲回問意。別構答詞。則彰理路已窮慧門元壅。
予昨于詰難書內。立心佛眾生。依正諸法。隨緣則諸法皆事。不變則諸法皆理。故引金錍云。真如是萬法。由隨緣故。萬法是真如。由不變故。是知。輒不可偏約理釋心。偏以事釋生佛諸法。
立此義者。蓋由上人師祖已降。皆謂心獨是理生佛諸法。唯是於事故。妄認談于真性便是觀心。遂不分心佛高下觀境難易。乃以正談佛法。拗作直顯心性。不識果理該於一切。執為一念攝諸三法。及將信解果德之文。便謂純談約行理觀。
然示珠指。解於三法。只得心法生佛之義。全不得彼彼眾生生佛。彼彼諸佛生佛。所以釋云。佛名真覺。生名不覺。心即生佛之心。非離生佛外別有心為生佛之本。經示本末因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果按照這種方式理解『觀』（Vipassanā，內觀），只著眼於『行』（實踐），那麼既無法進行修習和證悟，事相之法（現象之法）也無法進行修習和證悟。這樣一來，一切眾生將永遠沉溺於生死輪迴之中，沒有解脫的途徑。為什麼您要甘心斷絕眾生進入真理之門、趣向證果之路呢？
可惜啊，上人（指辯論的對方）也算有些聰明才智，能夠進行分科和章節劃分，按照字面意思來解釋經文。為什麼不能認識到自己的淺陋，捨棄短處而學習長處呢？為什麼一定要固守邪師的教導，堅持已經墮落的宗派，隨便引用未經詳細考察的經文，強行廢除至真至實的『觀』呢？現在既然已經得到了新的稻米，就應該拋棄陳舊的糠秕。如果仍然不滿意我的意思，就任憑你曲解救護吧。即使你能夠轉移話題，我現在也要把你置於無法轉移的境地。
第六，不能體會心法（Citta-dharma，心之法）的難處
確立名稱來解釋佛法，通過對問來論證宗義，必須像太陽融化冰雪一樣直接，像箭射中靶心一樣準確。如果曲解對方的提問，另外構造回答的詞語，那就表明對真理的理解已經窮盡，智慧之門已經閉塞。
我昨天在詰難書中闡明，心（Citta，心）、佛（Buddha，覺悟者）、眾生（Sattva，有情），以及依報（環境）和正報（自身）等諸法，隨順因緣則諸法皆為事相，不隨順因緣則諸法皆為理體。因此引用《金錍論》說：『真如（Tathātā，如如）是萬法，由於隨順因緣的緣故；萬法是真如，由於不隨順因緣的緣故。』由此可知，絕對不能片面地用理體來解釋心，片面地用事相來解釋眾生和佛等諸法。
確立這個義理的原因在於，上人及其師祖以來，都認為心僅僅是理體，眾生和佛等諸法僅僅是事相。錯誤地認為談論真性就是觀心。於是分不清心和佛的高下，觀境的難易。竟然把正確地談論佛法，曲解為直接顯現心性。不認識到果地的理體涵蓋一切，執著地認為一念可以攝盡心、佛、眾生三法。並且將信解果德的經文，就認為是純粹談論約行理觀。
然而，用手指指月亮，解釋心、佛、眾生三法，只能得到心法、眾生和佛的含義，完全得不到彼彼眾生的眾生和佛，彼彼諸佛的眾生和佛。所以解釋說：『佛名為真覺（Sammasambuddha，正等覺），眾生名為不覺（Avijjā，無明）。心即是眾生和佛的心，並非脫離眾生和佛之外，另有心作為眾生和佛的根本。』經文顯示了本末因
【English Translation】 English version: If 『Vipassanā』 (觀, Insight Meditation) is understood in this way, focusing only on 『practice』 (行), then neither cultivation nor realization is possible, and the phenomenal dharmas (事法) cannot be cultivated or realized either. In that case, all sentient beings (一切眾生) will be forever trapped in the cycle of birth and death (生死), with no way out. Why would you willingly cut off the path for sentient beings to enter the gate of truth and proceed towards the attainment of fruition?
Alas, Venerable One (上人, referring to the opponent in the debate), you are somewhat intelligent, able to divide into categories and sections, and interpret the scriptures according to the literal meaning. Why can't you recognize your own shallowness, abandon your shortcomings and learn from your strengths? Why must you stubbornly adhere to the teachings of heretical teachers, insist on a fallen sect, casually quote texts that have not been thoroughly examined, and forcibly abolish the most true and real 『contemplation』? Now that you have obtained new rice, you should discard the old chaff. If you are still not satisfied with my meaning, then let you distort and protect it. Even if you can shift the topic, I will now place you in a position where you cannot shift.
Sixth, failing to understand the difficulty of the Mind-dharma (心法)
Establishing names to explain the Dharma, and arguing about doctrines through questions and answers, must be as direct as the sun melting ice, as accurate as an arrow hitting the target. If you distort the meaning of the question and construct a different answer, it shows that your understanding of the truth is exhausted and the gate of wisdom is blocked.
In my letter of refutation yesterday, I clarified that the Mind (Citta, 心), Buddha (覺悟者), sentient beings (Sattva, 有情), and the environment (依報) and the self (正報) and other dharmas, when conditioned by circumstances, all dharmas are phenomena (事相); when unconditioned by circumstances, all dharmas are the principle (理體). Therefore, I quoted the Golden Needle saying: 『Tathātā (真如, Suchness) is all dharmas, because of being conditioned by circumstances; all dharmas are Tathātā, because of being unconditioned by circumstances.』 From this, it can be known that one should absolutely not partially explain the Mind with principle, or partially explain sentient beings and Buddhas and other dharmas with phenomena.
The reason for establishing this meaning is that, since the Venerable One and his ancestors, they have all believed that the Mind is only the principle, and sentient beings and Buddhas and other dharmas are only phenomena. They mistakenly believe that talking about true nature is contemplating the Mind. Thus, they cannot distinguish the superiority of the Mind and Buddha, or the difficulty of the object of contemplation. They actually distort the correct discussion of the Buddha-dharma, twisting it into a direct manifestation of the Mind-nature. They do not recognize that the principle of the fruition encompasses everything, and stubbornly believe that one thought can encompass the three dharmas of Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings. And they consider the scriptures that explain faith, understanding, fruition, and virtue to be purely discussing the contemplation of principle through practice.
However, pointing to the moon with a finger, explaining the three dharmas of Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, only obtains the meaning of Mind-dharma, sentient beings, and Buddha, and completely fails to obtain the sentient beings and Buddhas of those sentient beings, and the sentient beings and Buddhas of those Buddhas. Therefore, it is explained that: 『Buddha is called True Enlightenment (Sammasambuddha, 正等覺), sentient beings are called Non-enlightenment (Avijjā, 無明). The Mind is the Mind of sentient beings and Buddhas, and there is no Mind separate from sentient beings and Buddhas that is the root of sentient beings and Buddhas.』 The scriptures show the root and the branch, the cause and the
果不二。故云三無差別耳(佛名下珠指文)。
豈非謂心是非迷非悟之真心(心唯屬理)此心迷則為生。悟則名佛。此則只得一人心法生佛少分(以唯知事造生佛。不知理具生佛。二造雙明方名全分)殊不識法界有情。十方諸佛。生佛之全分。因嗟珠指。棄于大海。而取一漚。所得者如爪上土。所失者如大地土。
故指要斷云。心造之義尚虧。無差之文永失。以我一念心法。及一切眾生。十方諸佛。各各論於事造。人人說于理具。而皆互具互攝。方名三無差別。若謂己心迷則成一切眾生。己心悟則成十方諸佛者。豈可一人悟則令一切眾生皆成佛耶(不可論理成。今說事成也)若爾者。釋迦觀心久悟。我輩那作凡夫耶。又豈可一人迷則令十方諸佛皆作眾生耶(不可論權作。今說實作耳)以我獨猶迷故。釋迦重作凡夫無有是處。故知。珠指辨心法。尚自不足。生佛各有二造。全然不識也。又復心法。局在於理。殊無事理相即之義。
又若轉執。一念心法。有理有事。以制心從理而說。遂以清凈靈知。釋於一念者。
若作此說。大乖宗教。殊非得旨。
何者。若謂制心從理便一向以理釋名者。則令事理不分。又使理無顯處。若謂制心從理。便不得約事釋名者。止觀豈不制心從理耶。何故以陰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 果不是二元的。所以說三無差別而已（佛名下珠指文）。
難道不是說心是『非迷非悟』的真心（心唯屬理）嗎？此心迷則成為眾生，悟則名為佛。這只是得到一人心法生佛的少分（因為只知道事造生佛，不知道理具生佛，二造雙明才名為全分），殊不知法界有情、十方諸佛、生佛的全分。因此感嘆以手指指月，卻拋棄于大海，而只取一個水泡。所得的如爪上土，所失的如大地土。
所以《指要斷》說：『心造』的意義尚且虧缺，『無差』的文義永遠喪失。因為我一念心法，以及一切眾生、十方諸佛，各自論於事造，人人說于理具，而都互相具足互相攝入，才名為三無差別。如果說自己心迷則成為一切眾生，自己心悟則成為十方諸佛，那麼難道一人悟道就能讓一切眾生都成佛嗎（不可從理上說成，現在說的是事上成）？如果這樣，釋迦牟尼佛觀心很久才悟道，我們怎麼還是凡夫呢？又難道一人迷惑就能讓十方諸佛都變成眾生嗎（不可從權巧上說成，現在說的是實實在在的變成）？因為我獨自還在迷惑，釋迦牟尼佛重新變成凡夫是沒有這樣的道理的。所以知道，用手指指月來辨別心法，尚且不足，生佛各有二造，完全不認識啊。而且心法，侷限在理上，完全沒有事理相即的意義。
又如果轉而執著，一念心法，有理有事，因為制心從理而說，就用清凈靈知，來解釋一念，那麼
如果這樣說，就大大違背了宗教，完全沒有領會宗旨。
為什麼呢？如果說制心從理就一概用理來解釋名相，那麼就會使事理不分，又使理沒有顯現之處。如果說制心從理，就不能用事來解釋名相，那麼《止觀》難道不是制心從理嗎？為什麼用陰
【English Translation】 English version The fruit is not dualistic. Therefore, it is said that the three are without difference (the 'finger pointing at the moon' passage under the Buddha's name).
Isn't it said that the mind is the true mind that is 'neither deluded nor enlightened' (the mind belongs solely to principle)? When this mind is deluded, it becomes sentient beings; when enlightened, it is called Buddha. This only obtains a small portion of the one mind's Dharma regarding the arising and Buddha-nature (because it only knows the 'arising from action' of sentient beings and Buddhas, and does not know the 'inherent principle' of sentient beings and Buddhas; only when both 'arising from action' and 'inherent principle' are clearly understood is it called the whole portion). It fails to recognize the whole portion of sentient beings in the Dharma realm, the Buddhas of the ten directions, and the arising and Buddha-nature. Therefore, it laments pointing at the moon with a finger, yet discarding it into the ocean, and only taking a bubble. What is gained is like the soil on a fingernail, and what is lost is like the soil of the earth.
Therefore, the 'Essential Guidance' says: 'The meaning of 'mind-created' is still deficient, and the meaning of 'no difference' is forever lost.' Because my one thought of mind-Dharma, as well as all sentient beings and the Buddhas of the ten directions, each discusses the 'arising from action,' and everyone speaks of the 'inherent principle,' and they all mutually possess and mutually include each other, only then is it called the three without difference. If it is said that one's own mind, when deluded, becomes all sentient beings, and one's own mind, when enlightened, becomes the Buddhas of the ten directions, then can one person's enlightenment cause all sentient beings to become Buddhas (it cannot be said to be 'becoming' in terms of principle; it is now said to be 'becoming' in terms of action)? If so, since Shakyamuni Buddha contemplated the mind for a long time before attaining enlightenment, why are we still ordinary beings? And can one person's delusion cause all the Buddhas of the ten directions to become sentient beings (it cannot be said to be 'becoming' in terms of expedient means; it is now said to be 'becoming' in terms of actual becoming)? Because I alone am still deluded, there is no such thing as Shakyamuni Buddha becoming an ordinary being again. Therefore, it is known that using a finger to point at the moon to discern the mind-Dharma is still insufficient; the arising and Buddha-nature each have two creations, and are completely unrecognized. Moreover, the mind-Dharma is limited to principle, and there is no meaning of the non-duality of principle and phenomena.
Furthermore, if one turns to clinging to the one thought of mind-Dharma, having both principle and phenomena, because 'controlling the mind follows principle' is said, then using pure and luminous awareness to explain the one thought, then
If this is said, it greatly violates the teachings and completely fails to grasp the essence.
Why? If it is said that 'controlling the mind follows principle' and therefore one uniformly uses principle to explain the names and terms, then it will cause principle and phenomena to be indistinguishable, and also cause principle to have no place to manifest. If it is said that 'controlling the mind follows principle' and therefore one cannot use phenomena to explain the names and terms, then doesn't the Zhi Guan (止觀, Śamatha-vipassanā) control the mind from principle? Why use the yin (陰, Skandha)
入釋心耶。何故以煩惱等釋心耶。何故四念處。節節云一念無明心耶。何故法華三昧。以現前一念妄想釋心耶。此等真教。莫不彰人制心從理否。荊溪立於無情有性。正為顯圓妄染即佛性。旁遮偏指清凈真如。珠指正當金錍所遮。云何將所遮之義。為能釋之文。如以毒刺損眾生之佛眼。殊非金錍決四眼之惑膜。
然恐上人轉計。故且遮之。若論示珠指。實無此解。彼文已定判生佛是所造屬事。心法是能造屬理。故云。生佛是因果心法非因果也。
上人執此偏見。以為圓解。蓋得少為足。執礫為珠遂一向。執攝色歸心觀外成內。使帝網之喻唯一明珠。令唯色之文不收諸法(既一向攝色歸心。故色等但有能趣之義。全無所趣之體。故不收諸法也)。
上人以久習此解。毒氣深入。雖因前後徴詰。得知須觀陰心。及知心佛眾生俱事俱理。而釋諸難意。還扶舊見。皆歸一邊。乃謂須是非染非凈之心。方能造于如來。全不許妄染之心造如來也。此則全乖陰識理具佛性之義。又虧煩惱之儔為如來種之文。又違性指三障之說。又只知類種。全不識敵對種也。煩惱即菩提之言浪施。生死即涅槃之文徒設。
上人今云。觀六識之妄心。成三諦真心。又何得不許觀妄心。造如來耶。又何得遙觀非染非凈之心。造如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 您以什麼來解釋『心』（Citta，指精神、意識）呢？為什麼要用煩惱等來解釋『心』呢？為什麼在四念處（catasso satipatthana，佛教的四種禪修方法）中，每一節都說『一念無明心』呢？為什麼《法華三昧》（Saddharma-pundarika-samadhi，一種禪定狀態）要用現前一念妄想來解釋『心』呢？這些真正的教義，難道不是爲了彰顯人們通過控制自己的心來符合真理嗎？荊溪（指唐代天臺宗僧人湛然）立論于無情之物也有佛性，正是爲了顯明圓教的妄染即是佛性。如果只是片面地指向清凈真如，就像用手指指向珠子，卻被金錍（一種眼科手術器械）所遮擋。怎麼能將所遮擋的意義，作為能夠解釋的文字呢？這就像用毒刺去損害眾生的佛眼，而不是用金錍來決斷四種眼病的迷惑。實在是不恰當的。
然而，恐怕您會改變主意，所以暫且反駁您。如果說指示珠子的手指，實際上並沒有這樣的解釋。那篇文章已經明確地判定了眾生和佛是所造的，屬於事相；心法是能造的，屬於理體。所以說，眾生和佛是因果，而心法不是因果。
您執著于這種片面的見解，以為是圓滿的理解，這就像得到一點點就滿足了，把沙礫當成珍珠，因此一直堅持將攝取色法歸於心，觀外境為內心所顯現，使得帝網（Indra's net，比喻宇宙萬物相互關聯）的比喻只剩下一顆明珠，使得唯有色法的經文不能包含諸法（既然一直堅持攝取色法歸於心，所以色法等只有能趣向心的意義，完全沒有所趣向的本體，因此不能包含諸法）。
您因為長期習慣於這種理解，毒氣深入，即使因為前後的詰問，得知需要觀照陰心，以及知道心、佛、眾生都是事理俱備，但解釋各種疑問時，仍然扶持舊的見解，都歸於一邊，就說必須用非染非凈的心，才能造就如來，完全不允許用妄染的心造就如來。這完全違背了陰識理具佛性的意義，又虧損了煩惱之輩是如來種子的經文，又違背了佛性是指三障的說法，又只知道相似的種子，完全不認識敵對的種子。煩惱即菩提的說法被隨意拋棄，生死即涅槃的經文徒勞地設立。
您現在說，觀照六識的妄心，成就三諦真心，又怎麼能不允許觀照妄心，造就如來呢？又怎麼能遙遠地觀照非染非凈的心，造就如來呢？
【English Translation】 English version: What do you use to explain 『Citta』 (mind, consciousness)? Why do you use afflictions and the like to explain 『Citta』? Why, in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (catasso satipatthana, the four Buddhist meditation practices), does each section say 『one thought of ignorance-mind』? Why does the 『Lotus Samadhi』 (Saddharma-pundarika-samadhi, a state of meditative absorption) use the present moment's deluded thought to explain 『Citta』? These true teachings, are they not to manifest that people conform to the truth by controlling their minds? Jingxi (referring to Zhanran, a Tiantai monk of the Tang Dynasty) established the theory that even inanimate objects have Buddha-nature, precisely to reveal that the defilement of delusion in the perfect teaching is none other than Buddha-nature. If one only one-sidedly points to pure True Thusness, it is like pointing to a pearl with a finger, but being obstructed by a gold needle (a surgical instrument for eye diseases). How can the meaning of what is obstructed be taken as the text that can explain? This is like using a poisonous thorn to harm the Buddha-eye of sentient beings, rather than using a gold needle to resolve the delusion of the four types of eye diseases. It is truly inappropriate.
However, fearing that you might change your mind, I will refute you for now. If we talk about the finger pointing to the pearl, there is actually no such explanation. That text has already clearly judged that sentient beings and Buddhas are what is created, belonging to phenomena; the mind-dharma is what can create, belonging to principle. Therefore, it is said that sentient beings and Buddhas are cause and effect, while the mind-dharma is not cause and effect.
You are attached to this one-sided view, thinking it is a perfect understanding, which is like being satisfied with getting a little bit, taking gravel as pearls, and therefore always insisting on taking the absorption of form into the mind, viewing the external environment as manifested by the inner mind, making the metaphor of Indra's net (Indra's net, a metaphor for the interconnectedness of all things in the universe) only have one pearl left, making the sutra text that only has form unable to contain all dharmas (since you always insist on absorbing form into the mind, form and the like only have the meaning of being able to go towards the mind, completely without the substance of what is gone towards, therefore it cannot contain all dharmas).
Because you have been accustomed to this understanding for a long time, the poison has penetrated deeply, even if because of the previous and subsequent interrogations, you know that you need to contemplate the skandha-mind, and know that mind, Buddha, and sentient beings are all complete in both phenomena and principle, but when explaining various questions, you still support the old view, all returning to one side, saying that you must use a non-defiled and non-pure mind to create the Tathagata, completely not allowing the deluded and defiled mind to create the Tathagata. This completely violates the meaning of the skandha-consciousness possessing the Buddha-nature in principle, and also diminishes the sutra text that the company of afflictions is the seed of the Tathagata, and also violates the saying that Buddha-nature refers to the three obstacles, and only knows similar seeds, completely not recognizing opposing seeds. The saying that afflictions are Bodhi is discarded at will, and the sutra text that birth and death are Nirvana is established in vain.
You now say that contemplating the deluded mind of the six consciousnesses accomplishes the true mind of the three truths, so how can you not allow contemplating the deluded mind to create the Tathagata? How can you remotely contemplate a non-defiled and non-pure mind to create the Tathagata?
來耶。應謂觀六識妄心。轉作非染非凈真心之後。此之真心。更隨凈緣。方能造如來耶。
須知。此說大乖圓義。都是僻談。何者。豈觀妄心。轉成真心。猶未是如來耶。
且觀妄成真。在於何位。真造如來。又在何位。莫謂成真心則初住。造如來則妙覺否。
若謂爾者。宴謂僻解。非是圓談。須知。觀妄心成真心。即是觀妄心成如來也。若觀妄成觀行真。名造觀行如來。若觀妄成相似真。名造相似如來。分證究竟。例之可知(六即如來故云諸也)。
復應須解。成之與造。俱理俱事。約理則成之與造。俱以即具釋之。約事則成之與造。俱從變釋之。若妄心具真心即真心。豈不具如來即如來耶(理造)若妄心轉變作真心。豈不轉變作如來耶(事造)真心就法論。如來約人說。眾生無上者佛是。法無上者涅槃是。豈得妄心成法真心造人耶。
又觀六識妄心。成三諦真心。上人因誰開解。若謂奉先座下得聞。且示珠指。全不約妄釋心。亦無觀妄成真之說。若謂自尋止觀得知。都是妄語。何者。若先知觀心是六識妄心。終不以圓談法性故廢觀心。終不以果理貫六即。便謂純明理觀。終不以正談果理。以為直顯心性也。
上人于辨訛。將果理貫於六即之義。立為純談理觀。故問疑書。約
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：那麼，是否應該說，在觀照六識妄心，使其轉變為非染非凈的真心之後，這個真心，更要隨順清凈的因緣，才能成就如來呢？（來耶：梵語，意為『如是』，表示疑問或反問） 要知道，這種說法大大違背了圓融的教義，完全是偏頗的言論。為什麼呢？難道觀照妄心，使其轉變成真心，還不是如來嗎？ 而且，觀照妄心成就真心，是在哪個位次？真心成就如來，又是在哪個位次？莫非認為成就真心是初住位，成就如來是妙覺位嗎？ 如果這樣認為，那簡直是偏頗的理解，不是圓融的說法。要知道，觀照妄心成就真心，就是觀照妄心成就如來。如果觀照妄心成就觀行位的真，就叫做成就觀行位的如來。如果觀照妄心成就相似位的真，就叫做成就相似位的如來。分證和究竟位，依此類推就可以知道（因為有六即如來，所以說『諸』）。 還應該理解，『成』和『造』，在理上和事上都是一樣的。從理上說，『成』和『造』，都可以用『即具』來解釋。從事上說，『成』和『造』，都可以從『轉變』來解釋。如果妄心本具真心，真心就是如來，難道不是妄心本具如來，如來就是如來嗎？（理造）如果妄心轉變成為真心，難道不是轉變成為如來嗎？（事造）真心就法而言，如來就人而言。眾生中最殊勝的是佛，法中最殊勝的是涅槃。怎麼能說妄心成就法，真心成就人呢？ 還有，觀照六識妄心，成就三諦真心，上人是從誰那裡得到開解的？如果說是從奉先座下聽聞的，且不說示珠指，完全沒有從妄心來解釋真心，也沒有觀照妄心成就真心的說法。如果說是自己從止觀中尋得的，那完全是妄語。為什麼呢？如果先知道觀心是六識妄心，最終不會因為圓談法性而廢棄觀心，最終不會用果位的道理貫穿六即，就認為只是純粹地闡明理觀，最終不會用正面談論果位的道理，就認為是直接顯露心性。 上人在辨別訛誤時，將果位的道理貫穿於六即的意義，立為純粹地闡明理觀，所以才在問疑書中，約略地……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Should it be said that after contemplating the six consciousnesses' deluded mind and transforming it into a true mind that is neither defiled nor pure, this true mind must further follow pure conditions in order to accomplish the Tathagata? (Lai Ye: Sanskrit, meaning 'thus,' indicating a question or rhetorical question) It should be known that this statement greatly contradicts the perfect and complete doctrine, and is entirely a biased view. Why? Is not contemplating the deluded mind and transforming it into a true mind already the Tathagata? Moreover, in what stage is the contemplation of the deluded mind achieving the true mind? And in what stage is the true mind accomplishing the Tathagata? Do you perhaps think that achieving the true mind is the initial dwelling stage, and accomplishing the Tathagata is the stage of wonderful enlightenment? If you think so, then that is simply a biased understanding, not a complete and perfect teaching. It should be known that contemplating the deluded mind and achieving the true mind is the same as contemplating the deluded mind and achieving the Tathagata. If contemplating the deluded mind achieves the true in the stage of practice, it is called accomplishing the Tathagata in the stage of practice. If contemplating the deluded mind achieves the true in the stage of resemblance, it is called accomplishing the Tathagata in the stage of resemblance. The stages of partial realization and ultimate realization can be understood by analogy (because there are Six Identities of Tathagata, hence the use of 'all'). It should also be understood that 'achieving' and 'accomplishing' are the same in both principle and phenomena. In terms of principle, 'achieving' and 'accomplishing' can both be explained by 'inherently possessing.' In terms of phenomena, 'achieving' and 'accomplishing' can both be explained by 'transformation.' If the deluded mind inherently possesses the true mind, and the true mind is the Tathagata, is it not that the deluded mind inherently possesses the Tathagata, and the Tathagata is the Tathagata? (Accomplishment in principle) If the deluded mind transforms into the true mind, does it not transform into the Tathagata? (Accomplishment in phenomena) The true mind is discussed in terms of Dharma, and the Tathagata is discussed in terms of person. Among sentient beings, the most supreme is the Buddha; among Dharmas, the most supreme is Nirvana. How can it be said that the deluded mind achieves Dharma, and the true mind accomplishes a person? Furthermore, from whom did the Superior One receive the explanation of contemplating the six consciousnesses' deluded mind and achieving the true mind of the Three Truths? If it is said that it was heard from the seat of Fengxian, not to mention pointing to the pearl, there was no explanation of the true mind from the deluded mind, nor was there any talk of contemplating the deluded mind and achieving the true mind. If it is said that it was found by oneself through cessation and contemplation, that is entirely false. Why? If one first knows that contemplating the mind is contemplating the six consciousnesses' deluded mind, one would ultimately not abandon contemplating the mind because of completely discussing the Dharma-nature, one would ultimately not use the principle of the fruition stage to penetrate the Six Identities, and then claim to be purely elucidating the contemplation of principle, and one would ultimately not use directly discussing the principle of the fruition stage to think that one is directly revealing the nature of the mind. When distinguishing errors, the Superior One established the meaning of penetrating the Six Identities with the principle of the fruition stage as purely elucidating the contemplation of principle, so in the question and doubt letter, approximately...
心佛高下觀境難易之義難之。故云。教文明簡佛法太高初心難觀。故令觀於心法。何故違教。特棄心法。而取佛法為觀境耶。
上人遭斯難故。乃知錯將果法妄為理觀。便乃于答疑書內。欺心妄轉云。何嘗棄心取佛。若了十法雖殊。一理無二者。還用無二之解(前後皆將解字為觀。今來抵諱謂。唸唸圓解在圓談法性。足見妄語也。何故。此文將解照性也)照無二之性。上與諸佛等。下與眾生齊。豈是棄心取佛耶(何嘗下除注皆答疑書文)。
此豈非素不知觀于妄心。故但云照無二之性。又是但觀非染非凈之真心。等於染凈也。上人雖因前詰難書故。撿看止觀。知觀六識妄心。然只但見其文。而全迷其義。若知義者。終不更執真心造如來也。終不約真心說唯心也。
金錍云。故唯心之言。豈唯真心也。須知。煩惱心遍。此則遮於世人約于真心說唯心義。故云唯心之言豈唯真心。應知。唯字正屬唯心。乃令約煩惱心說唯心。不可約真如心說唯心。
豈非金錍本示無情有于佛性。無情色與煩惱心。二法俱約隨緣義說。于隨緣中。煩惱心為能造。生死色為所造。能造即理故既遍。所造即理故豈不遍耶。
故義例云。諸色心現時。如金銀隱起。心全金故。收一切隱起。色全金故。亦收一切隱起故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
關於心佛高下，觀境難易的意義存在疑問。所以說：『教義的文字淺顯易懂，但佛法太高深，初學者難以觀想。』因此才讓人觀想心法。為什麼違背教義，特別捨棄心法，而選取佛法作為觀想的對象呢？
上人因為遇到這樣的詰難，才知道是錯誤地將果地的法，妄認為理地的觀想。便在答疑書中，違心地虛假辯解說：『我何曾捨棄心法而選取佛法？如果瞭解十法雖然不同，但其一理沒有二致，還是用無二的理解（前後都將『解』字作為『觀』。現在抵賴說，唸唸圓滿理解，在於圓滿談論法性。足見是妄語啊。為什麼？此文是將『解』理解為照見自性），照見無二的自性，上與諸佛平等，下與眾生相同。這難道是捨棄心法而選取佛法嗎？』（『何曾』以下，除了註釋，都是答疑書中的文字）。
這難道不是因為原本就不知道觀想妄心，所以只說照見無二的自性。又是隻觀想非染非凈的真心，等同於染凈。上人雖然因為之前的詰難書，而檢視《止觀》，知道觀想六識妄心。然而只是看到了文字，而完全迷惑于其中的意義。如果懂得其中的意義，最終不會再執著于真心造就如來。最終不會依據真心來說唯心。
《金錍論》說：『所以說唯心，難道僅僅是真心嗎？』須知，煩惱心是普遍存在的。這正是爲了阻止世人依據真心來說唯心之義。所以說『唯心之言豈唯真心』。應當知道，『唯』字正是屬於『唯心』，乃是讓人依據煩惱心來說唯心，不可依據真如心來說唯心。
難道不是《金錍論》原本就揭示了無情之物也有佛性，無明與煩惱心，這兩種法都依據隨緣的意義來說。在隨緣之中，煩惱心是能造作的，生死色是所造作的。能造作的即是理，所以是普遍的。所造作的即是理，難道不也是普遍的嗎？
所以義例說：『各種色心顯現時，如同金銀隱沒顯現。心完全是金，所以包含一切隱沒顯現。色完全是金，所以也包含一切隱沒顯現。』
【English Translation】 English version:
There is doubt regarding the meaning of the superiority of mind and Buddha, and the ease or difficulty of the object of contemplation. Therefore, it is said: 'The teachings are clear and simple, but the Buddha's Dharma is too profound, making it difficult for beginners to contemplate.' That's why people are asked to contemplate the mind-Dharma (xinfa). Why violate the teachings, especially abandoning the mind-Dharma, and choosing the Buddha-Dharma as the object of contemplation?
The Superior One, encountering such a challenge, realized that he had mistakenly taken the Dharma of the fruition stage as the contemplation of the principle stage. Therefore, in the reply letter, he falsely argued against his conscience, saying: 'When have I ever abandoned the mind to take the Buddha? If one understands that although the ten Dharmas are different, their one principle is not twofold, one still uses the understanding of non-duality (both before and after, the word 'understanding' is taken as 'contemplation'. Now he denies it, saying that complete understanding in every thought lies in the complete discussion of Dharma-nature. This shows it is a false statement. Why? This text takes 'understanding' as illuminating the nature), illuminating the non-dual nature, being equal to all Buddhas above and the same as all sentient beings below. Is this abandoning the mind to take the Buddha?' (Everything below 'When have I ever' except for the notes, is from the reply letter).
Isn't this because he originally didn't know how to contemplate the deluded mind, so he only said to illuminate the non-dual nature. And it is only contemplating the true mind that is neither defiled nor pure, equating it with defilement and purity. Although the Superior One, because of the previous challenge letter, checked the 'Mohe Zhiguan', and knew to contemplate the deluded mind of the six consciousnesses. However, he only saw the words, and was completely confused about their meaning. If he understood the meaning, he would never cling to the true mind creating the Tathagata again. He would never base the mind-only doctrine on the true mind.
The 'Jin Pi Lun' says: 'So, when we say mind-only, is it only the true mind?' It should be known that the afflicted mind is pervasive. This is precisely to prevent people from basing the meaning of mind-only on the true mind. Therefore, it is said, 'The words of mind-only, are they only the true mind?' It should be known that the word 'only' precisely belongs to 'mind-only', which is to have people base mind-only on the afflicted mind, and not to base mind-only on the true thusness mind.
Doesn't the 'Jin Pi Lun' originally reveal that inanimate objects also have Buddha-nature, and that ignorance and the afflicted mind, these two Dharmas, are both spoken of based on the meaning of dependent origination. In dependent origination, the afflicted mind is the creator, and the colors of birth and death are what is created. The creator is the principle, so it is pervasive. What is created is the principle, so isn't it also pervasive?
Therefore, the example of meaning says: 'When various colors and minds appear, it is like gold and silver being hidden and revealed. The mind is entirely gold, so it includes all that is hidden and revealed. The color is entirely gold, so it also includes all that is hidden and revealed.'
。若說唯心。亦論唯色。既皆唯皆遍故。皆論有于佛性也。
言有佛性者。乃是有于果人之性。既云有于果人之性。故心之與色。俱須從因從事而說。既云觀妄心成真心。故知。真心須從果說。若論真心。須論真色。已是果法。豈可更別有果性耶。故彼文云。因不名佛。果不名性。今欲示有情有佛性。故須約煩惱心說唯心。欲示無情有佛性。故須約生死色說唯色也。
若就真如心明唯心。真常色明唯色。乃約遮那有佛性寂光有佛性也。何關有情無情耶。如此解于金錍。遠矣哉。
上人又解豈唯真心句意。云不獨約真心說唯心。亦不須約妄心論唯心。蓋約真妄合論。說唯心義。欲救珠指獨約真心說唯心義也。須知。示珠指是必死之病。縱扁鵲亦不能救。況盲醫者乎。
且珠指從始至終。單約真心攝於諸法。何曾一句云于妄心。妙玄心法定判在因。本顯唯在妄心故也。欲順我義。故自改為心非因果。
豈非只知約真心論唯心。略不解妄心攝於諸法也。若略知唯心有約妄心義。終不改張聖教也。
故知。內外二觀。皆是觀妄顯真。
若修內觀。觀六識之妄心。成三諦之真心。
若修外觀。須觀妄色成真色也。
若眾生諸佛為外境。則觀眾生陰入色心。成真凈色心也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果說唯心，也同樣要論述唯色，因為一切都是唯遍的緣故，都論述具有佛性。
說到具有佛性，是指具有果地之人的本性。既然說具有果地之人的本性，那麼心和色，都必須從因地之事來說。既然說觀妄心成就真心，就知道真心必須從果地來說。如果論述真心，必須論述真色，這已經是果地的法，怎麼可以再另外有果地的本性呢？所以那篇文章說，因不名為佛，果不名為性。現在想要顯示有情眾生具有佛性，所以必須以煩惱心來說唯心；想要顯示無情之物具有佛性，所以必須以生死之色來說唯色。
如果就真如心來闡明唯心，以真常色來闡明唯色，那就是以毗盧遮那佛（遮那，Vairocana）具有佛性，常寂光土（寂光，Eternal Tranquility）具有佛性來說明。這與有情眾生和無情之物有什麼關係呢？這樣來理解《金錍論》，就差得太遠了。
上人又解釋『豈唯真心』這句話的意思，說不只是以真心來說唯心，也不需要以妄心來論述唯心，大概是以真妄合起來論述，來說明唯心的意義，想要挽救只以真心來說唯心的說法。要知道，指出珠子（珠指，bead-finger）是必死的病，即使是扁鵲也無法救治，更何況是盲醫呢？
而且珠指從始至終，只是以真心來攝取諸法，何曾有一句話說到妄心？《妙玄》的心法已經判定在因地，本來就只在妄心上顯現。想要順從我的意思，所以自己改為『心非因果』。
這豈不是隻知道以真心來論述唯心，完全不瞭解妄心也能攝取諸法嗎？如果稍微知道唯心有以妄心為依據的意義，最終也不會擅自更改聖教。
所以要知道，內外二觀，都是觀妄心而顯真心。
如果修內觀，觀察六識的妄心，成就三諦的真心。
如果修外觀，必須觀察妄色成就真色。
如果以眾生諸佛為外境，那麼就觀察眾生的五陰、十二入、色心，成就真凈的色心。
【English Translation】 English version: If we speak of 'mind-only' (唯心, Weixin), we must also discuss 'form-only' (唯色, Weise), because all is 'only' and pervasive, and all discuss having Buddha-nature (佛性, Foxing).
To say there is Buddha-nature is to say there is the nature of one who has attained Buddhahood. Since it is said that there is the nature of one who has attained Buddhahood, both mind and form must be discussed from the perspective of cause and effect. Since it is said that observing the deluded mind leads to the realization of the true mind, it is known that the true mind must be discussed from the perspective of the result. If we discuss the true mind, we must discuss true form, which is already the Dharma of the result. How can there be a separate nature of the result? Therefore, that text says, 'Cause is not called Buddha, and result is not called nature.' Now, wanting to show that sentient beings have Buddha-nature, we must speak of 'mind-only' in terms of the afflictions of the mind. Wanting to show that insentient things have Buddha-nature, we must speak of 'form-only' in terms of the form of birth and death.
If we clarify 'mind-only' based on the true suchness mind (真如心, Zhenruxin), and clarify 'form-only' based on true and constant form (真常色, Zhenchangse), then we are speaking of Vairocana Buddha (遮那, Vairocana) having Buddha-nature and the Land of Eternal Tranquility (寂光, Eternal Tranquility) having Buddha-nature. What does this have to do with sentient and insentient beings? To interpret the Jin Pi Lun in this way is far off the mark.
The Superior One further explains the meaning of the phrase 'How could it be only true mind?' (豈唯真心, Qiwei Zhenxin), saying that 'mind-only' is not only discussed in terms of the true mind, nor is it necessary to discuss 'mind-only' in terms of the deluded mind. Rather, it is discussed in terms of the combination of true and deluded, to explain the meaning of 'mind-only,' wanting to salvage the view that 'mind-only' is only discussed in terms of the true mind. Know that pointing to the bead-finger (珠指, bead-finger) is a fatal disease that even Bian Que cannot cure, let alone a blind doctor.
Moreover, from beginning to end, the bead-finger only uses the true mind to encompass all dharmas. Where has there been a single sentence that speaks of the deluded mind? The mind-method of Miao Xuan has already determined that it is in the causal stage, and its original manifestation is only in the deluded mind. Wanting to conform to my meaning, he himself changed it to 'mind is neither cause nor result.'
Is this not simply knowing to discuss 'mind-only' in terms of the true mind, and completely failing to understand that the deluded mind can also encompass all dharmas? If he slightly knew that 'mind-only' has a meaning based on the deluded mind, he would not ultimately alter the holy teachings.
Therefore, know that both internal and external contemplation are observing the deluded mind to reveal the true mind.
If one cultivates internal contemplation, observing the deluded mind of the six consciousnesses, one achieves the true mind of the three truths.
If one cultivates external contemplation, one must observe deluded form to achieve true form.
If sentient beings and Buddhas are taken as external objects, then one observes the skandhas, entrances, form, and mind of sentient beings to achieve true and pure form and mind.
。諸佛雖離陰入。行人所觀。須將應身色心為境。
故輔行雲。聖人變化所造。亦令眾生變心所見。此文雖屬心法變造。今引因證果也。又般舟云。約三十二相為境。修乎三觀。顯乎三諦。故應佛色心。既為行者所觀。乃是感應共造。故約感邊。亦得是外陰入法也。豈非觀妄顯真耶。是故等覺猶見他佛。唯至妙覺。更無彼此色相迭相見故。
應知。隨觀一境。須當處全攝於諸法。當處理具三千。當處轉妄成真。方名圓觀。何得云。心唯屬理。諸法屬事。先須觀法歸心之後。方說唯色唯心等耶。為執此偏見故謬解不二門。及妄破觀心之義。
上人始暫脫我人。略尋法義。為是鄙僧乖理。為是上人違宗。鄙僧為生凈土。故探玄為出生死故講授。實不敢以己之短掩人之長。實不敢將已墮之義抑他必當之宗。唯諸聖可鑑。諒群彥亦知。惟愿上人退思矣。惟愿上人順理矣。
次曲改難意者。予立心與諸法俱事俱理。及舉地獄眾生觀于唯心。本難上人直約真性釋心。又難不論觀妄成真。又難以果佛所證之理而為理觀。上人因此難故。深知義負。遂輒改難意。乃枉予不許唯觀於心。及自立云。一切諸法。皆因妄心分別遍計不同。為依正色心故。但用三觀。制此妄心。即真三德遍一切處。則達色香依正等法無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：諸佛雖然已經脫離了陰入（蘊和處），但修行者所觀照的，必須以應身佛（為度化眾生而示現的佛身）的色身和心識作為觀境。
所以《輔行記》中說：『聖人以神通變化所創造的境界，也是爲了讓眾生以變化的心識去觀見。』這段文字雖然屬於心法變造的範疇，但現在引用它來作為因證果的依據。又如《般舟三昧經》所說，以三十二相作為觀境，修習空、假、中三觀，從而彰顯空、假、中三諦。所以應身佛的色身和心識，既然是修行者所觀照的對象，就是感應共同創造的。因此從感應的層面來說，也可以說是外陰入法。這難道不是觀照虛妄而顯現真實嗎？所以等覺菩薩仍然能見到其他佛，只有到了妙覺佛的境界，才不再有彼此色相互相觀見的現象。
應當知道，隨順觀照一個境界時，必須在當下完全攝取一切諸法，當下圓滿具足三千大千世界，當下轉虛妄為真實，才能稱為圓頓觀。怎麼能說心只是屬於理，諸法只是屬於事呢？必須先觀照諸法歸於心之後，才能說唯色唯心等等。就是因為執著這種片面的見解，所以錯誤地理解不二法門，並且錯誤地破斥觀心的意義。
上人您開始稍微擺脫了我人（我執和法執），略微探尋佛法的義理。不知是鄙僧的見解不合道理，還是上人的觀點違背了宗義。鄙僧爲了往生凈土，所以才探究玄妙的義理；爲了脫離生死，所以才講授佛法。實在不敢用自己的短處掩蓋別人的長處，實在不敢將自己已經墮落的見解強加於他人必定正確的宗義。只有諸位聖人可以明鑑，相信各位賢士也知道。只希望上人您能退一步思考啊！只希望上人您能順應真理啊！
其次是曲解我的提問。我提出心與諸法同時是事也是理，以及以地獄眾生觀照唯心為例，本來是質疑上人您直接用真性來解釋心，又質疑您不談觀妄成真，又質疑您用果佛所證的理作為理觀。上人您因為這些質疑，深深知道自己理虧，於是就擅自改變我的提問，竟然說我不允許只觀心，並且自己立論說，一切諸法，都是因為虛妄心的分別和遍計不同，才有了依報和正報的色心。所以只要用空、假、中三觀，制伏這種虛妄心，那麼真如三德就會遍一切處，就能通達色、香、依報、正報等法，沒有
【English Translation】 English version: Although all Buddhas have transcended the Skandhas (five aggregates) and Entrances (sense bases), the practitioner's contemplation must take the Rupaskandha (form aggregate) and consciousness of the Nirmanakaya Buddha (Buddha's manifestation body) as the object of contemplation.
Therefore, the 'Fu Xing Ji' (Commentary on the Great Concentration and Insight) says: 'The realms created by the transformations of sages are also to allow sentient beings to see with their transformed minds.' Although this passage belongs to the category of mental fabrications, it is now cited as evidence of cause proving effect. Furthermore, the 'Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra' states that taking the thirty-two marks as the object of contemplation, cultivating the three contemplations (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way), thereby revealing the three truths (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way). Therefore, since the Rupaskandha and consciousness of the Nirmanakaya Buddha are objects of contemplation for practitioners, they are jointly created by response and interaction. Thus, from the perspective of response, it can also be said to be external Skandhas and Entrances. Is this not contemplating illusion to reveal truth? Therefore, Bodhisattvas at the Equal Enlightenment stage can still see other Buddhas. Only upon reaching the stage of Wonderful Enlightenment is there no longer mutual seeing of each other's Rupaskandha.
It should be known that when contemplating a single realm, one must fully encompass all Dharmas in that very place, fully possess the three thousand realms in that very place, and transform illusion into truth in that very place, only then can it be called perfect contemplation. How can it be said that the mind only belongs to principle, and all Dharmas only belong to phenomena? One must first contemplate all Dharmas returning to the mind before speaking of only Rupaskandha or only mind. It is because of clinging to this biased view that one misunderstands the non-dual Dharma gate and wrongly refutes the meaning of contemplating the mind.
Superior One, you have initially slightly shed the ego and Dharma attachments, and briefly explored the meaning of the Dharma. I do not know whether it is this humble monk's views that are unreasonable, or whether it is the Superior One's views that violate the tenets of the school. This humble monk explores profound meanings in order to be reborn in the Pure Land; he lectures on the Dharma in order to escape from birth and death. I truly dare not use my own shortcomings to cover up the strengths of others, and I truly dare not impose my own fallen views on the inevitably correct tenets of others. Only the sages can discern, and I believe that all the wise ones also know. I only hope that the Superior One will reconsider! I only hope that the Superior One will conform to the truth!
Secondly, you have distorted my questioning. I proposed that the mind and all Dharmas are simultaneously phenomena and principle, and used the example of sentient beings in the lower realms contemplating the mind-only, originally to question the Superior One's direct explanation of the mind with true nature, and also to question the lack of discussion on contemplating illusion to reveal truth, and also to question the use of the principle realized by the Buddha of fruition as a principle of contemplation. Because of these questions, the Superior One deeply knows that he is at a disadvantage, and thus arbitrarily changed my questioning, actually saying that I do not allow only contemplating the mind, and establishing his own argument that all Dharmas are due to the different discriminations and pervasive calculations of the deluded mind, and thus there are the Rupaskandha and consciousness of the dependent and retributive realms. Therefore, as long as one uses the three contemplations (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way) to subdue this deluded mind, then the true suchness three virtues will pervade everywhere, and one will be able to understand that the Rupaskandha, fragrance, dependent realm, retributive realm, and other Dharmas are without
非是心等。乃至云。心既統攝一切。故云十種三法並我一念。豈非一念妄心即真三德。豈不收於十種三法。是故玄文所談。正是止觀約行。觀心所顯之理。況覆文中所談。備明因果。兼示能觀。誰當聞之不思己行耶。
據茲所說深見上人竊他正義覆己前愆。
且唯觀妄心。因誰得解。是誰不許。只如發揮至前諸義狀。何文云唯觀妄心。況自將圓談法性。便當觀心。自將果證之理。便為理觀。及名直顯心性。自解塵塵法界處處遮那。便能入理證果。尚將外境依正。難於簡色觀心。此等諸說。豈知初心唯觀妄念耶。
予得一家教觀。數數徴難。意欲上人知于觀慧照乎妄心。
如問。疑書云。教文明簡佛法太高初心為難觀心則易。因何特棄心法。專取佛法。為于觀法。如此頻頻曉喻上人。于答疑書內。尚未肯觀于妄心。乃云。若了十法雖殊。一理無二。還用無二之解。照無二之性。上等諸佛。下等眾生。豈是棄心取佛等耶。
此豈非不以心佛眾生為所託境界。但直緣平等之理。無高無下。等佛等生耶。若其然者。乃以直心為境。等佛等生以此驗之。上人何曾。知所觀之心。是下凡妄念。依此而研理性耶。
蓋被予詰難書窮逐。計校既盡。乃只得改轉難意。謂予不許唯觀妄心。此之心行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不是心等等。乃至說，『心』既然統攝一切，所以說十種三法（指十種不同的三法）並我一念，難道不是一念妄心即是真三德（法身德、般若德、解脫德）？難道不能收攝於十種三法？因此，《玄文》所談的，正是止觀（止息妄念，觀察實相）約行，觀心所顯現的道理。更何況文中談到的，完備地闡明了因果，兼且指示了能觀之法，誰聽了之後不反思自己的行為呢？ 根據這些所說，深見上人竊取他人正確的義理，掩蓋自己之前的過錯。 而且僅僅觀察妄心，因誰而得到理解？是誰不允許？就像發揮到之前的各種義理狀態，哪篇文章說僅僅觀察妄心？況且自己用圓融的道理談論法性，就應當觀心；自己將果證的道理，就作為理觀；以及名為直接顯現心性，自己解釋塵塵法界處處都是毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana），就能入理證果。尚且將外境依報正報，難於簡別色法，觀照內心。這些說法，哪裡知道初心僅僅是觀察妄念呢？ 我得到一家教觀，多次徵詢質疑，意在讓上人知道用觀慧照見妄心。 比如我問，疑書中說，教法文字簡明，佛法太高深，初心難以入門，觀心則容易。為何特別捨棄心法，專門選取佛法？爲了觀法，如此頻繁地曉喻上人，在回答疑問的書信中，尚且不肯觀照妄心，竟然說，如果瞭解十法雖然不同，但一理無二，還用無二的理解，照見無二的自性，上等的諸佛，下等的眾生，難道是捨棄心而選取佛等等嗎？ 這難道不是不以心、佛、眾生作為依託的境界，只是直接緣于平等的道理，無高無下，等同於佛，等同於眾生嗎？如果真是這樣，就是以直心為境界，等同於佛，等同於眾生，用這個來驗證，上人何曾知道所觀的心，是下凡的妄念，依此而研究理性呢？ 大概是被我詰難的書信窮追猛打，計較已經到了盡頭，才不得不改變轉圜難意的說法，說我不允許僅僅觀察妄心。這個心行。
【English Translation】 English version: It is not 'mind' and so on. It even says, 'Since the 'mind' encompasses everything, it is said that the ten kinds of three dharmas (referring to ten different sets of three dharmas) along with my one thought, isn't it that one thought of deluded mind is the true three virtues (Dharmakaya virtue, Prajna virtue, and Liberation virtue)? Doesn't it encompass the ten kinds of three dharmas? Therefore, what the 'Profound Text' discusses is precisely the principle manifested by the practice of cessation and contemplation (stopping deluded thoughts and observing reality) focusing on the mind. Moreover, what is discussed in the text completely elucidates cause and effect, and also indicates the method of contemplation. Who, upon hearing this, would not reflect on their own actions? Based on these statements, Superior Shenjian steals others' correct meanings to cover up his previous faults. Moreover, merely observing the deluded mind, through whom does one gain understanding? Who does not allow it? Just like elaborating on the various states of meaning before, which text says to merely observe the deluded mind? Furthermore, using the perfect teaching to discuss Dharma-nature, one should contemplate the mind; taking the principle of fruit-attainment as theoretical contemplation; and calling it directly revealing mind-nature, explaining that in every dust and every Dharma-realm, everywhere is Vairocana (毗盧遮那佛), one can enter the principle and attain the fruit. Even taking the external environment of dependent and direct rewards, it is difficult to distinguish form and contemplate the mind. These statements, how do they know that the initial intention is merely to observe deluded thoughts? I have obtained a family's teachings on doctrine and contemplation, repeatedly questioning and challenging, intending for the Superior to know to use contemplative wisdom to illuminate the deluded mind. For example, I asked, the letter of doubt says, 'The teachings are clear and concise, but the Buddha-dharma is too profound, making it difficult for beginners. Contemplating the mind is easy. Why specifically abandon the mind-dharma and exclusively choose the Buddha-dharma?' For the sake of contemplation, repeatedly explaining this to the Superior, in the letter answering doubts, he is still unwilling to contemplate the deluded mind, even saying, 'If one understands that although the ten dharmas are different, the one principle is non-dual, and still uses the understanding of non-duality to illuminate the non-dual nature, the superior Buddhas and the inferior sentient beings, is it abandoning the mind and choosing the Buddha, etc.?' Isn't this not taking the mind, Buddha, and sentient beings as the realm to rely on, but directly focusing on the principle of equality, without high or low, equal to the Buddha, equal to sentient beings? If that is the case, then it is taking the direct mind as the realm, equal to the Buddha, equal to sentient beings. Using this to verify, has the Superior ever known that the mind being contemplated is the deluded thought of a lower mortal, and based on this to study rationality? Probably being relentlessly pursued by my challenging letters, and the calculations have reached their end, he had no choice but to change the meaning of the difficulty, saying that I do not allow merely observing the deluded mind. This mind-practice.
何。用天眼照之。只將前後語詞勘驗。則欺詐顯然。還略知慚恥否。
況予扶宗記中。以觀妄念為宗。故云。一念識心為境。用三觀觀之。使性德開發。惑滅果成。豈可純談法性。便不論觀心。又云。雖三道本來真凈。諸法當處圓融。其如三惑浩然二死重積。苦不研心作觀。何由親證如上諸法。
乃至詰難書。覈定觀心二字。還是許觀妄心。不許觀耶。如彼文。引金錍不變則萬法俱理。隨緣則萬法俱事。輒不可云諸法是事。心獨是理。但為地獄眾生多著於色故。且多令觀于唯心。非謂心獨是理故知。文中若云攝法歸心。亦且得立所觀之境。況文無一句立心為境。境尚未成。觀非所議。故此十法。觀之與心。二義俱闕。如何堅執具觀心義耶(金錍下皆詰難書文)此之文意。豈是不許觀于妄心耶。
所言非謂心獨是理者。蓋上人承上偏約事解于諸法。獨約理體解於心法。致得談理便作觀心。為破此計故。云非謂心獨是理也。作此說者。欲令上人。悟解心及諸法。皆是即理隨緣之事。佛法生法。不同心法。生佛諸法。既高既廣。初心為難觀。心法近要。易可觀察。故知。此難正欲難不用妄心為境。因何酬答不得。故剛然改作不許唯觀心耶。
又云。地獄眾生。多著外色故。多令觀于唯心。非謂心獨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如何。用天眼觀察它，只將前後的言語詞句仔細查驗，那麼欺騙和虛假就顯而易見。這樣還能稍微知道慚愧嗎？
況且我在《扶宗記》中，以觀察妄念作為宗旨。所以說，『一念識心為境』，用空、假、中三觀來觀照它，使自性本具的功德開發出來，煩惱滅除，果位成就。怎麼可以只談法性，而不論觀心呢？』又說，『雖然三道（見思惑、塵沙惑、無明惑）本來是真凈的，諸法當下就是圓融的，但是三惑（見惑、思惑、無明惑）浩大，二死（分段生死、變易生死）重重積累，如果不深入研究心而作觀，怎麼能夠親自證得如上面所說的諸法呢？』
乃至在《詰難書》中，覈實『觀心』二字，到底是允許觀妄心，還是不允許觀呢？像那篇文章所引用的《金錍論》中說，『不變則萬法都是理，隨緣則萬法都是事。』難道可以說諸法是事，而心獨獨是理嗎？只是因為地獄眾生大多執著于外在的色相，所以才多讓他們觀察唯心，並非說心獨獨是理。』由此可知，文章中如果說『攝法歸心』，也還可以建立所觀的境界。況且文中沒有一句是立心為境的，境界尚未成立，觀也就無從談起。所以這十法，觀和心，兩種意義都欠缺，怎麼能堅持說具有觀心的意義呢？（《金錍論》以下都是《詰難書》中的文字）』這段文字的意思，難道是不允許觀察妄心嗎？
所說的『並非說心獨獨是理』，是因為上人（指被詰難者）承接上文，偏頗地用事相來解釋諸法，單獨用理體來解釋心法，導致一談到理就認為是觀心。爲了破除這種見解，所以說『並非說心獨獨是理』。說這句話，是想讓上人領悟心以及諸法，都是即理隨緣的事。佛法和生法，不同於心法。生佛諸法，既高深又廣博，對於初學者來說難以觀察。心法近而重要，容易觀察。所以知道，這個詰難正是要詰難不用妄心作為境界。為什麼回答不上來，就硬要改成不允許只觀心呢？
又說，『地獄眾生，大多執著于外在的色相，所以才多讓他們觀察唯心，並非說心獨獨是理。
【English Translation】 English version: How is it? Use the heavenly eye to observe it. Only by carefully examining the preceding and following words and phrases will the deception and falsehood become obvious. Can you still have a little shame?
Moreover, in my 'Fuzong Ji' (Record of Supporting the Lineage), I take observing deluded thoughts as the main principle. Therefore, it says, 'One thought recognizing the mind as an object,' use the three contemplations (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way) to contemplate it, so that the inherent virtues of the self-nature are developed, afflictions are extinguished, and the fruition is achieved. How can one purely talk about the Dharma-nature without discussing the contemplation of the mind?' It also says, 'Although the three paths (afflictions of views and thoughts, afflictions like dust and sand, and ignorance) are originally pure, and all dharmas are perfectly integrated in the present moment, the three afflictions (afflictions of views, afflictions of thoughts, and ignorance) are vast, and the two deaths (death by segments, and death by transformation) are heavily accumulated. If one does not deeply study the mind and practice contemplation, how can one personally realize the above-mentioned dharmas?'
Furthermore, in the 'Qienan Shu' (Book of Interrogation), verifying the two words 'contemplation of the mind,' is it permissible to contemplate the deluded mind, or not? Like what is quoted in that article from the 'Jin Pi Lun' (Treatise on the Golden Scalpel), 'Unchanging, all dharmas are principle; following conditions, all dharmas are phenomena.' Can it be said that all dharmas are phenomena, while the mind alone is principle? It is only because sentient beings in the lower realms are mostly attached to external forms that they are mostly instructed to contemplate the mind-only, not because the mind alone is principle.' From this, it can be known that if the article says 'gathering dharmas back to the mind,' it can still establish the object of contemplation. Moreover, there is not a single sentence in the article that establishes the mind as the object. The object has not yet been established, so contemplation cannot be discussed. Therefore, these ten dharmas, contemplation and mind, both meanings are lacking. How can one insist on having the meaning of contemplating the mind? (What follows 'Jin Pi Lun' are all words from the 'Qienan Shu')' Does this passage mean that it is not permissible to contemplate the deluded mind?
The saying 'not because the mind alone is principle' is because the person being questioned, following the previous text, biasedly uses phenomena to explain all dharmas, and solely uses the principle of essence to explain the mind-dharma, leading to the belief that talking about principle is contemplating the mind. To break this view, it is said 'not because the mind alone is principle.' Saying this is to make the person being questioned realize that the mind and all dharmas are both the phenomena of following conditions based on principle. The Buddha-dharma and the dharma of sentient beings are different from the mind-dharma. The dharmas of sentient beings and Buddhas are both profound and vast, making them difficult to contemplate for beginners. The mind-dharma is near and important, making it easy to observe. Therefore, it is known that this interrogation is precisely to interrogate the use of the deluded mind as an object. Why can't it be answered, and why must it be changed to not allowing only contemplating the mind?
It also says, 'Sentient beings in the lower realms are mostly attached to external forms, so they are mostly instructed to contemplate the mind-only, not because the mind alone is principle.'
是理。蓋為彼之師資。因見教文多論心法具造諸法。便將心法。直約理釋。意謂真心隨緣。造于生佛諸法。所以凡見談真說理。便謂已是觀心。為破此計故。引四念處地獄眾生著色之文。令知經論多為破于地獄眾生迷著。故偏多約心論觀。是則為破著色病。故多說觀心。非謂心獨是理故乃多說觀心。
又若轉執心有真心妄心。我約真說何妨者。是義不然。
若謂心有真妄故。得一向約真而說者。色等豈無真色妄色。何不具諸法皆約真說耶。
故知。不變則色心諸法俱真。隨緣則色心諸法俱妄。于俱妄中。心是能造故。多令觀心。心法近要故。多令觀心。為破地獄著色重故。多令觀心實非心獨是理故令觀心。若知此意。即不執說真理便為觀心。
既知心法與佛法。俱約於事有高有下。說于佛法不是觀心。上人素不知此意。故累得說佛說理。便為理觀。今因詰難略知此意。故即便轉計。果佛之理是觀妄心所顯。故云玄文所談。正是止觀。約行觀心。所顯之理。作此說者。意欲救于答疑書內一切三法。若橫若豎並我一念。罔不照知之義。又是欲救十種三法純談理觀。以上人今知理觀的是約行故。作此救也。
不思此說招過極多。何者。若將果佛十種法相。入心修觀。自是附法觀心。何得卻云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是有道理的。因為那些老師和學生，看到佛教經典中很多關於心性的論述，以及完備地闡述諸法的教義，就直接用理來解釋心性。他們認為真心隨著因緣，創造了眾生和佛的各種法。所以，凡是見到談論真如和道理的，就認為已經是觀心了。爲了破除這種錯誤的想法，我引用了四念處中地獄眾生執著於色相的經文，讓他們知道經論大多是爲了破除地獄眾生對色相的迷惑和執著，所以才偏重於從心上來論述觀法。這是爲了破除執著於色相的毛病，所以才多說觀心，並不是因為只有心才是真理，所以才多說觀心。
如果又轉而執著於心有真心和妄心，然後說我只談真心有什麼不可以的，這種說法是不對的。
如果認為因為心有真妄，就可以只談真心，那麼色等諸法難道沒有真色和妄色嗎？為什麼不把所有法都只從真的一面來說呢？
所以要知道，不變的時候，色心等諸法都是真的；隨著因緣變化的時候，色心等諸法都是虛妄的。在這些虛妄的法中，心是能造作的，所以多讓人觀心。心法是最近切和重要的，所以多讓人觀心。爲了破除地獄眾生執著於色相的嚴重習氣，所以多讓人觀心，實際上並不是因為只有心才是真理，所以才讓人觀心。如果明白了這個道理，就不會執著于說真理就是觀心。
既然知道心法和佛法，都是根據事物有高下之分而說的。說佛法不是觀心。上人以前不知道這個道理，所以總是認為說佛說理就是理觀。現在因為受到詰問才稍微明白了這個道理，所以就立刻轉變想法，認為果佛的道理是觀妄心所顯現的，所以說《玄文》所談的，正是止觀，是根據修行來觀心，所顯現的道理。這樣說，是想挽救《答疑書》里的一切三法，無論是橫的還是豎的，都能夠照知我的一念的想法。又是想挽救十種三法純粹談論理觀的說法，因為上人現在知道理觀是根據修行而來的，所以才這樣挽救。
不考慮這種說法會招來很多過失。為什麼呢？如果把果佛的十種法相，放入心中來修觀，這自然是附法觀心，怎麼能反而說...
【English Translation】 English version: This is reasonable. It's because those teachers and students, seeing many discussions about the nature of mind in Buddhist scriptures, as well as doctrines that comprehensively explain all dharmas (phenomena), directly interpret the mind-nature through principle (理, lǐ - principle, reason). They believe that the true mind, following conditions (緣, yuán - conditions, causes), creates all dharmas of sentient beings and Buddhas. Therefore, whenever they see discussions about true thusness (真如, zhēnrú - true thusness, suchness) and principle, they consider it already to be contemplation of the mind (觀心, guānxīn - contemplation of the mind). To dispel this mistaken idea, I cite the passage from the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (四念處, sìniànchù - Four Foundations of Mindfulness) about lower realm beings being attached to form (色, sè - form, matter), to let them know that scriptures and treatises mostly aim to dispel the delusion and attachment of lower realm beings to form, so they emphasize discussing contemplation from the perspective of the mind. This is to dispel the sickness of attachment to form, so they talk more about contemplating the mind, not because the mind alone is principle, so they talk more about contemplating the mind.
Furthermore, if one then clings to the idea that the mind has a true mind and a false mind, and then says, 'What's wrong with me only talking about the true mind?', this view is incorrect.
If one thinks that because the mind has true and false aspects, one can only talk about the true aspect, then don't form and other dharmas have true form and false form? Why not discuss all dharmas only from the true aspect?
Therefore, know that when unchanging, form, mind, and all dharmas are true; when changing with conditions, form, mind, and all dharmas are false. Among these false dharmas, the mind is the creator, so it is often instructed to contemplate the mind. The mind-dharma is the closest and most important, so it is often instructed to contemplate the mind. To dispel the heavy habit of lower realm beings being attached to form, it is often instructed to contemplate the mind, but it is not actually because the mind alone is principle that one is instructed to contemplate the mind. If one understands this meaning, one will not cling to the idea that speaking of true principle is the same as contemplating the mind.
Since it is known that mind-dharma and Buddha-dharma are both spoken according to the high and low distinctions of things. Speaking of Buddha-dharma is not contemplation of the mind. The Venerable One previously did not know this meaning, so he always thought that speaking of the Buddha and speaking of principle was the same as contemplation of principle. Now, because of being questioned, he slightly understands this meaning, so he immediately changes his thinking, believing that the principle of the fruit-Buddha is manifested by contemplating the deluded mind, so he says that what the 'Profound Text' (玄文, xuánwén - a commentary on the Lotus Sutra) discusses is precisely cessation-and-contemplation (止觀, zhǐguān - cessation-and-contemplation, śamatha-vipassanā), which is contemplating the mind based on practice, and the principle that is manifested. Saying this is to salvage all the three dharmas in the 'Answering Doubts' (答疑書, dáyíshū - a written reply to questions), whether horizontal or vertical, that can all know my one thought. It is also to salvage the idea that the ten kinds of three dharmas purely discuss contemplation of principle, because the Venerable One now knows that contemplation of principle comes from practice, so he makes this salvage.
Without considering that this statement invites many faults. Why? If one puts the ten characteristics of the fruit-Buddha into the mind to cultivate contemplation, this is naturally contemplating the mind by relying on the dharma, how can one instead say...
是約行所顯。況復此玄正釋料揀十法。唯有所附之法。全無能附之觀。尚略無附法觀義。那有約行觀義。
上人今來。既省正釋料揀十法之文。殊無附法約行兩觀之義。乃曲巧自立。令久修始習二種行人。自作兩種觀心。乃云。文中所談。備該因果。兼示能觀。誰當讀之不思己行。欲以自思己行。便乃自修兩種觀心也。
且自思己行之說。乃是策勸之語。大凡宗師解義。若遇諸聖行證之法。便須誡勸令見賢思齊。豈得此語便可救得純談理觀之失耶。
若云十法該於因果。及示能觀便是行人自修兩觀。不用別立觀心一科者。
只如四諦五行之文。還該因果。還示能觀否。且世出世因果。豈逾四諦。修證體用。豈過五行。況從偏小。簡至圓實。又以二妙判開已訖。則已彰境觀圓融修證。妙玄此等法相。尚須攝入一念。別示觀心一科。
若此玄從果至因而說。又自是釋迦能觀尚過菩薩修證。豈是初心境觀。何得方談果法即廢附法觀心耶。
妙玄十種三法。一一三法皆從凡心一念。辨至分真極果。上人尚云。須立觀心一科。觀茲十法(答疑書明明說云。觀於十法。不可轉為觀於三教三軌等也)彼之十法。還該因果否。還示能觀否。因何更須觀心一科。此玄十法。因何須廢觀心一科。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是依附於修行所顯現的。更何況這玄妙正釋料揀十法，只有所依附的法，完全沒有能依附的觀。甚至略微沒有依附法的觀想意義，哪裡會有依附修行的觀想意義？ 上人您現在來，既然明白了正釋料揀十法的文義，卻完全沒有依附法和依附修行兩種觀想的意義，於是巧妙地自己創立，讓久修和初學兩種修行人，自己修作兩種觀心。還說，文中所談，完備地包括了因果，兼且顯示了能觀。誰讀了這些文字，會不思考自己的修行呢？想要用思考自己的修行，就自己修作兩種觀心。 而且，『思考自己的修行』這種說法，乃是策勵勸勉的言語。大凡宗師解釋經義，如果遇到諸聖修行證悟的方法，就必須告誡勸勉，令人見賢思齊。怎麼能用這句話，就救得了純粹談論理觀的缺失呢？ 如果說十法包括了因果，並且顯示了能觀，便是修行人自己修作兩種觀想，不用另外設立觀心一科。 那麼，就像四諦（苦、集、滅、道）五行（色、受、想、行、識）的文義，還包括因果嗎？還顯示能觀嗎？世間和出世間的因果，難道超過四諦？修行證悟的體和用，難道超過五行？何況是從偏頗狹小，簡擇到圓滿真實，又用二妙判別開顯完畢。就已經彰顯了境觀圓融修證。《妙玄》此等法相，尚且需要攝入一念，另外顯示觀心一科。 如果這《妙玄》是從果到因而說，而且是釋迦牟尼佛的能觀，尚且超過菩薩的修行證悟，怎麼是初心者的境觀？怎麼能因為談論果法，就廢除依附法的觀心呢？ 《妙玄》十種三法，每一種三法都從凡夫心的一念，辨析到分真極果。上人您還說，必須設立觀心一科。觀這十法（《答疑書》明明說，觀於十法，不可轉為觀於三教三軌等）。那《妙玄》的十法，還包括因果嗎？還顯示能觀嗎？為什麼更需要觀心一科？這《玄》的十法，為什麼需要廢除觀心一科？
【English Translation】 English version: This is manifested by what is attached to practice. Moreover, these ten methods of profound and correct explanation and selection only have the Dharma to which they are attached, and completely lack the contemplation that can be attached. There is not even a slight meaning of contemplating the attached Dharma, so how can there be a meaning of contemplating attached practice? Now that you, venerable one, have come and understood the meaning of the ten methods of correct explanation and selection, but completely lack the meaning of the two contemplations of attached Dharma and attached practice, you cleverly establish them yourself, allowing both long-term practitioners and beginners to cultivate two kinds of mind contemplation themselves. You also say that what is discussed in the text completely includes cause and effect, and also shows the ability to contemplate. Who would read these words without reflecting on their own practice? Wanting to use reflection on their own practice, they then cultivate two kinds of mind contemplation themselves. Moreover, the saying 'reflect on one's own practice' is a word of encouragement and exhortation. Generally, when a master explains the meaning of scriptures, if they encounter the methods of practice and realization of the sages, they must warn and encourage people to emulate the virtuous. How can this saying be used to remedy the deficiency of purely discussing theoretical contemplation? If you say that the ten methods include cause and effect and show the ability to contemplate, then practitioners cultivate two kinds of contemplation themselves, and there is no need to separately establish a section on mind contemplation. Then, like the meaning of the Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path) and the Five Aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), do they also include cause and effect? Do they also show the ability to contemplate? Can the cause and effect of the mundane and supramundane exceed the Four Noble Truths? Can the substance and function of practice and realization exceed the Five Aggregates? Moreover, from the biased and small, selecting to the complete and real, and also using the Twofold Subtlety to distinguish and reveal completely, it has already manifested the perfect integration of realm and contemplation, cultivation and realization. The Dharma characteristics of the Profound Meaning still need to be incorporated into a single thought, and a separate section on mind contemplation is shown. If this Profound Meaning speaks from effect to cause, and it is also Śākyamuni Buddha's ability to contemplate, which even exceeds the practice and realization of Bodhisattvas, how can it be the realm and contemplation of beginners? How can the contemplation of attached Dharma be abolished simply because the Dharma of the effect is discussed? The ten kinds of threefold Dharma in the Profound Meaning, each threefold Dharma is distinguished from a single thought of the ordinary mind to the ultimate fruit of partial realization. You, venerable one, still say that a section on mind contemplation must be established. Contemplate these ten methods (the Answering Doubts clearly says, 'Contemplate the ten methods, and do not transform them into contemplating the Three Teachings and Three Models, etc.'). Do the ten methods of that Profound Meaning also include cause and effect? Do they also show the ability to contemplate? Why is a section on mind contemplation needed even more? Why does the ten methods of this Profound Meaning need to abolish a section on mind contemplation?
況復兩種行人。自攝十種三法。入心橫豎而照。寔是上人妄語。翻轉前言也。
何者答疑書自云。以由玄文直顯心性故。論一切三法入心而照。乃結云。此玄所談。非但法相圓融。亦乃理觀明白。既云玄文直顯。又云此玄所談。何得今來卻是行人自顯行人自觀。況復前書云純談理觀(若兼附法不名純談)次書云非但法相圓融。亦乃理觀明白。豈非翻作正談附法。兼明理觀。則純談理觀自茲永破也。況復自立純談理觀。則正是約行觀心。被難無于陰境十乘。卻云託事附法不以陰入為境。
如此之說。言無準繩。那堪評論教觀。極是不惜人身之者。亦避人嫌笑。未肯作此顛倒言談。況是傳教之人。那得至於斯耶。若欲盡書上人違心負口之過。直恐空費紙墨也。故且止之。幸請省己責躬。舍邪歸正。知過能改。亦稱君子也。不可更延歲月。必須速降回音。
第七不知觀心之位
眾生若於善知識所及諸教法中。聞心具諸法與諸生佛無有差別。能知心及諸法當體即理。互具互攝者。正是名字即也。約理雖即。約事天殊。故求妙門。破惑顯理。乃于名字之位。以妙解攬于萬法唯內識心。專于內心。用於妙觀。觀一切法。或於外境修觀亦然。觀道若開若伏若斷。或入觀行。或似或真。此義顯在止觀及以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：更何況有兩種修行人，自己攝取十種三法（指事、理、智三種法），使之入心，橫向、縱向地觀照。這實在是上人的妄語，是翻來覆去地說之前說過的話啊。
為什麼這樣說呢？答疑書中自己說，因為用玄妙的文字直接顯露心性，所以論述一切三法入心而觀照。最後總結說，這玄妙之談，不僅是法相圓融，也是理觀明白。既然說是玄文直接顯露，又說是這玄妙之談，怎麼現在卻變成了修行人自己顯露、修行人自己觀照了呢？更何況之前的書說純粹談論理觀（如果兼顧附帶法，就不能稱為純粹談論），後來的書說不僅是法相圓融，也是理觀明白。這豈不是翻過來變成了主要談論附帶的法，兼帶說明理觀？那麼純粹談論理觀的說法就從此徹底破滅了。更何況自己樹立純粹談論理觀的說法，這正是依據修行來觀心。被問難關於陰境十乘觀法，卻說依託事物附帶法，不把陰入作為觀境。
如此這般的說法，言語沒有準則，哪裡能評論教觀呢？即使是不珍惜自己身體的人，也會避免被人嫌棄嘲笑，不會說出這種顛倒的話。更何況是傳教的人，怎麼會到這種地步呢？如果想要全部寫出上人違背內心、背棄承諾的過錯，恐怕只是白白浪費紙墨罷了。所以暫且停止。希望您反省自己，責備自己，捨棄邪惡，歸於正道。知道錯誤能夠改正，也稱得上是君子。不可再拖延時間，必須儘快回覆。
第七，不知道觀心的位次
眾生如果在善知識那裡以及各種教法中，聽到心具足諸法，與諸佛和眾生沒有差別，能夠知道心及諸法當體就是理，互相具足互相攝入，這正是名字即（指在名字上了解佛理的階段）。從理上來說雖然是即，但從事上來說卻有天壤之別。所以要尋求妙門，破除迷惑，顯現真理。於是在名字即的位次，用微妙的理解來把握萬法唯是內識心，專注于內心，運用妙觀。觀一切法，或者在外境修觀也是如此。觀道有時開啟，有時潛伏，有時斷絕。或者進入觀行位，或者相似，或者真實。這個意義明顯地體現在《止觀》以及
【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, there are two kinds of practitioners who themselves gather the ten kinds of threefold dharmas (referring to the three kinds of dharmas: phenomena, principle, and wisdom), causing them to enter the mind and illuminate it horizontally and vertically. This is truly the superior person's false speech, turning over previous statements.
Why is this so? The question-and-answer book itself says that because it directly reveals the nature of the mind through profound texts, it discusses all threefold dharmas entering the mind and illuminating it. It concludes by saying that this profound discussion is not only about the perfect fusion of dharma characteristics but also about the clear understanding of principle. Since it is said that the profound texts directly reveal, and also that this is a profound discussion, how can it now become the practitioner revealing and observing themselves? Furthermore, the previous book said it purely discusses the principle of contemplation (if it also includes the dharma, it cannot be called pure discussion), and the later book said it is not only the perfect fusion of dharma characteristics but also the clear understanding of principle. Isn't this turning it around to mainly discuss the attached dharma, while also explaining the principle of contemplation? Then the statement of purely discussing the principle of contemplation is completely destroyed from this point on. Moreover, establishing the statement of purely discussing the principle of contemplation is precisely about observing the mind based on practice. When questioned about the ten vehicles of the skandha realms, it says it relies on things and attaches to the dharma, not taking the skandha entry as the object of contemplation.
Such statements have no standard, how can one comment on doctrine and contemplation? Even those who do not cherish their own bodies would avoid being disliked and ridiculed, and would not make such upside-down statements. Moreover, how could someone who transmits the teachings reach this point? If one wanted to write down all the superior person's faults of going against their heart and breaking their promises, I fear it would only be a waste of paper and ink. Therefore, I will stop here for now. I hope you will reflect on yourself, blame yourself, abandon evil, and return to the right path. Knowing your mistakes and being able to correct them is worthy of being called a gentleman. You must not delay any longer, you must quickly send a reply.
Seventh, not knowing the position of observing the mind
If sentient beings hear from a virtuous teacher and in various teachings that the mind possesses all dharmas and is no different from all Buddhas and sentient beings, and can know that the mind and all dharmas are the principle itself, mutually possessing and mutually including each other, this is precisely the stage of 'name only' (referring to the stage of understanding Buddhist principles in name only). Although it is the same in principle, it is vastly different in practice. Therefore, one must seek the wonderful gate, break through delusion, and reveal the truth. Thus, at the stage of 'name only,' one uses subtle understanding to grasp that all dharmas are only the inner consciousness mind, focusing on the inner mind, and using wonderful contemplation. Contemplating all dharmas, or practicing contemplation on external objects is also the same. The path of contemplation sometimes opens, sometimes lies dormant, and sometimes is cut off. Or one enters the stage of practice, or it is similar, or it is real. This meaning is clearly manifested in the 止觀 (Zhǐ Guān, Concentration and Insight) and in
諸文。
上人素來全迷此義。故乃于答疑書中數云。觀行五品位中。方修內外二觀。觀成入于相似之位。
故詰難書曰。若五品中方於二境修觀者。只如五品因何得入。又若待至五品方修觀者。則名字之人。全無入品之路也。仍為上人開示令知蹊徑。乃說內外二觀俱在名字位中。造修觀成。方入觀行相似分真。具引止觀之文。明示觀成方入隨喜等位。
既將明文顯示。上人因茲方悟。自惜親近邪師暗于位次故。妄指五品方修二觀。
則答疑書中。此過無計曲救。遂於今來義狀。全不敢答酬。而返偷詰難書中所示正義。將為己解。乃數數顯。書五品是觀行成位。以此驗之。知上人覆己之短掩他之長。
只如五品是觀行成位。因誰得解。何不首伏昔迷。改邪向正。何得偷竊他義誑惑後生。若據上人如此用心。實非傳教之士。尚望人道之心。千里不及。何能論于佛法耶。是知。徒說令末代之機修于止觀。既自立至五品位方觀二境。則一切眾生無修觀之分也。輒將此之見識。與人論教觀廢立之意還得也無。
何故不甘杜絕眾生入理之門趣果之路耶。驗此一失則七十紙之明文。都為虛構。前之義狀亦是誑言。所立諸義何須更破。自然瓦解。答疑書明文。見在還可更生抵踏否。
況上
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "諸位。", "", "上人（指天臺宗的某位大師）向來完全不明白這個道理。所以在答疑書中多次說，在觀行五品位（五品弟子位，天臺宗修行次第的五個階段）中，才開始修習內外二觀（兩種禪觀方法）。觀修成就后，才能進入相似位（接近真理的階段）。", "", "所以在詰難書中說：『如果五品位中才在二境（內外二境）修觀，那麼五品位是如何進入的？』又說：『如果等到五品位才修觀，那麼名字位（最初的信仰階段）的人，就完全沒有進入品位的道路了。』因此為上人開示，讓他知道正確的途徑，於是說內外二觀都在名字位中修習，修觀成就后，才能進入觀行相似分真位（觀行相似位，開始真正理解真理的階段）。並且引用《止觀》（《摩訶止觀》，天臺宗的重要著作）的原文，明確指出觀修成就后才能進入隨喜等位（隨喜品等位，觀行五品位的不同階段）。", "", "既然已經將明確的經文顯示出來，上人才因此醒悟。後悔自己親近邪師，對位次不明白，所以錯誤地指認為五品位才修習二觀。", "", "那麼在答疑書中，這個錯誤就無法巧妙地掩蓋。所以在後來的義狀（辯論文章）中，完全不敢回答。反而偷偷地竊取詰難書中指出的正確道理，當作自己的理解。並且多次在書中顯示，五品位是觀行成就的位次。用這些來驗證，就知道上人掩蓋自己的缺點，掩蓋他人的優點。", "", "如果五品位是觀行成就的位次，那是從誰那裡得到的理解？為什麼不首先承認過去的錯誤，改邪歸正？怎麼能偷竊他人的道理來迷惑後來的學人？如果按照上人這樣的用心，實在不是傳教的人，尚且希望他能有人道之心，但恐怕相差千里，又怎麼能談論佛法呢？由此可知，徒勞地說讓末法時代的眾生修習止觀，既然自己立論認為要到五品位才觀二境，那麼一切眾生就沒有修觀的份了。竟然將這樣的見識，與人討論教觀廢立（教相和觀心的廢立）的意義，能行得通嗎？", "", "為什麼不甘心斷絕眾生進入真理之門，趣向果位的道路呢？驗證這一個錯誤，那麼七十紙的明文，都成了虛構。之前的義狀也是謊言。所立的各種義理，何須再破？自然就會瓦解。答疑書中的明文，現在還可以再抵賴嗎？", "", "何況上人...", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", } }
人竊他正義。因為己解。前後不少。只如予將修二性一。銷于知心無心之文。答疑書難云。若正釋十法中。以金為性。光明為修。則容分對。且玄義譬喻附文當體。何嘗論修二性一等。
既被詰難書。舉正釋中修二性一之文顯證。文理朗然。上人若是傳教之心。必須循理悔責毀教之愆。然後共揚正觀。
何者上人本據正釋無修二性一之義。驗觀心文中修二性一之義為非。今既顯見正釋多是修二性一。則知觀心文初問答稱于正釋。安可更加毀破耶。
況上人刀刀明說正釋十法。全無修二性一之義。又云不二門。只約緣了正三因。對論離合。今來何得卻據三德三涅槃是修二性一。云具觀心義耶。豈非因予前後詰難。得知正釋有于離合之義。便竊此義將為己解。而返將此義。立於十種三法為理觀也。
又如觀妄心成真心。皆是因予詰難方知。卻返用為難。枉予不許唯觀妄心。此過亦前文已說。更不重敘也。只據上人此之誑妄之心。不合更論法義。況不知觀心之位。余何所言耶。
第八不會觀心之意
妙玄並釋簽判云。佛法太高。眾生法太廣。初心為難。然心佛及眾生。是三無差別。觀心則易。又云。佛法定在果。眾生法一往通因果。二往局在因。心法定在因。又云。若以佛法觀之。似
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
有人竊取他人的正確見解。因為自己理解不夠透徹。前後說法不一致。就像我將『修二性一』的觀點，消融于『知心無心』的文章中。在《答疑書》中難以解釋，如果正確解釋『十法』，以金為『性』，光明為『修』，那麼或許可以勉強對應。而且《玄義》中的譬喻和附文都是就事物本身而言，何曾討論過『修二性一』等問題。
既然被《詰難書》質疑，就舉出《正釋》中關於『修二性一』的文字來明確證明。文理非常清楚。上人如果是爲了傳教，就必須按照道理懺悔自己譭謗佛法的過錯，然後才能一起弘揚正確的見解。
為什麼說上人原本認為《正釋》中沒有『修二性一』的含義呢？因為他認為《觀心文》中關於『修二性一』的含義是錯誤的。現在既然清楚地看到《正釋》中有很多關於『修二性一』的說法，那麼就知道《觀心文》最初的問答是符合《正釋》的，怎麼可以再加以譭謗呢？
況且上人多次明確地說《正釋》的『十法』完全沒有『修二性一』的含義。又說《不二門》只是圍繞『緣了正』這三種因，來討論離合關係。現在怎麼又根據『三德三涅槃』是『修二性一』，就說它具備《觀心》的含義呢？這難道不是因為我前後多次詰難，才得知《正釋》中有關於離合的含義，就竊取這個含義作為自己的理解，反而將這個含義，立於十種三法之上作為理觀嗎？
又比如將妄心觀成真心，都是因為我詰難之後才知道的。卻反而用來反駁我，枉我一直不允許只觀妄心。這個過錯前面已經說過了，不再重複敘述了。只憑上人這種虛妄的心，不適合再討論佛法義理。況且他不知道觀心的地位，我還能說什麼呢？
第八 不會觀心的意思
《妙玄》（《妙法蓮華經玄義》的簡稱）和《釋簽》（《妙法蓮華經玄義釋簽》的簡稱）都判斷說：佛法太高深，眾生法太廣泛，對於初學者來說很難。然而心、佛以及眾生，這三者是沒有差別的。觀心就容易了。又說：佛法主要在於果，眾生法一般貫通因果，進一步說則侷限於因，心法主要在於因。又說：如果用佛法來觀察，好像
【English Translation】 English version:
Someone steals another's correct understanding. Because their own understanding is not thorough. Their statements are inconsistent. It's like I dissolved the view of 'cultivating two natures as one' into the article 'knowing mind, no mind'. It's difficult to explain in the 'Answering Doubts' letter. If correctly explaining the 'Ten Dharmas', with gold as 'nature' and light as 'cultivation', then perhaps it can barely correspond. Moreover, the metaphors and appended texts in 'Profound Meaning' are all about the things themselves, and have never discussed issues such as 'cultivating two natures as one'.
Since being questioned by the 'Challenging Letter', I cite the text about 'cultivating two natures as one' in 'Correct Explanation' to clearly prove it. The meaning is very clear. If the Superior One (Shangren) is for the sake of propagating the Dharma, he must repent according to reason for his fault of slandering the Dharma, and then together promote the correct view.
Why do I say that the Superior One originally thought that there was no meaning of 'cultivating two natures as one' in 'Correct Explanation'? Because he thought that the meaning of 'cultivating two natures as one' in 'Contemplation of Mind Text' was wrong. Now that it is clear that there are many statements about 'cultivating two natures as one' in 'Correct Explanation', then it is known that the initial question and answer in 'Contemplation of Mind Text' are in accordance with 'Correct Explanation', how can it be further slandered?
Moreover, the Superior One has repeatedly and clearly said that the 'Ten Dharmas' of 'Correct Explanation' completely lack the meaning of 'cultivating two natures as one'. He also said that the 'Non-Dual Gate' only revolves around the three causes of 'condition, understanding, and correctness' to discuss separation and union. Now how can he rely on the 'Three Virtues and Three Nirvanas' being 'cultivating two natures as one' and say that it possesses the meaning of 'Contemplation of Mind'? Isn't it because I have repeatedly challenged him that he learned that there is a meaning of separation and union in 'Correct Explanation', and then stole this meaning as his own understanding, and instead placed this meaning on the ten kinds of three dharmas as a principle of contemplation?
Furthermore, like contemplating the false mind becoming the true mind, it was all because I challenged him that he knew it. But he used it to refute me, wrongly accusing me of not allowing only contemplating the false mind. This fault has been mentioned earlier, and I will not repeat it. Based only on the Superior One's false and deluded mind, it is not suitable to discuss the meaning of the Dharma any further. Moreover, he does not know the position of contemplating the mind, what else can I say?
Eighth: Not Understanding the Meaning of Contemplating the Mind
Both 'Profound Meaning' (short for Miaofa Lianhua Jing Xuanyi, Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) and 'Explanation of the Commentary' (short for Miaofa Lianhua Jing Xuanyi Shiqian, Explanation of the Commentary on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) judge that: the Buddha-dharma is too profound, and the dharma of sentient beings is too broad, which is difficult for beginners. However, mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, these three are without difference. Contemplating the mind is easy. It also says: the Buddha-dharma mainly lies in the fruit, the dharma of sentient beings generally penetrates cause and effect, and further it is limited to the cause, the dharma of the mind mainly lies in the cause. It also says: if observing with the Buddha-dharma, it seems
如不逮。若以心性觀之。似如可見。
故一家之教。依此意故。乃立陰心。為所觀境。所以止觀及以諸文。皆令觀心。以取近要之心。為觀所託。若無所託陰界入境。觀依何修。理依何顯。故離三障四魔。則無所觀境界也。
縱修外觀。托諸佛眾生及以依報為境。亦是外陰入法。
何者佛雖離陰。為眾生故示應色心。故等覺已還。見有他佛。既是六根所對之境。非界入攝耶。
故輔行雲。聖人變化所造。亦令眾生變心所見。故修觀者。即於色心之境。而觀法界。
故觀音疏。以眾生佛為他境。荊溪直以依正色心為外境。
是知。不取佛所得圓常自在之法。但用眾生所對色心。為所觀之境。故觀所託之境。不出三科也。
又般舟三昧。以應身三十二相為境。依之而修三觀。是知。三觀所顯即是圓融三法也。
今家觀法。何處令直緣真理而修。何文令緣佛所證圓融三法而修觀耶。以上人自昔全不知依境修觀之意。但以己解約酌而言。及遭詰難。則望難未到處。臨時轉立。
如將此玄十種三法。謂純談理觀。豈非全不知理觀是常坐等三種三昧。只見發揮云純談真性。便約此立為純談理觀。
及被問疑書引輔行難之。知非理觀。乃轉計云。此玄文直顯心性。義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果不能達到（真如實相），如果用心性來觀察它，似乎是可以見到的。 所以一家之教，依據這個意思，就設立陰心作為所觀的境界。因此止觀以及各種經文，都教人觀心，以求取最切近要妙的心。作為觀修所依託的對象。如果沒有所依託，陰、界、入這些觀修要依據什麼來修？真理又依據什麼來顯現？所以，離開三障（煩惱障、業障、報障）和四魔（煩惱魔、五陰魔、死魔、他化自在天子魔），就沒有所觀的境界了。 即使修外觀，依託諸佛、眾生以及依報（山河大地等）作為境界，也是外陰入法。 為什麼呢？佛雖然已經脫離了五陰，但爲了度化眾生，示現應化之色身和心識。所以等覺菩薩及以下，還能見到其他的佛。既然是六根所對的境界，難道不是屬於界、入所攝嗎？ 所以《輔行記》說：『聖人變化所造的境界，也是讓眾生隨其變心所見。』所以修觀的人，就在色心之境中，而觀法界。 所以《觀音疏》以眾生和佛作為他境，《荊溪疏》直接以依報和正報的色心作為外境。 由此可知，不取佛所證得的圓常自在之法，只用眾生所對的色心，作為所觀的境界。所以觀修所依託的境界，不出五陰、十二處、十八界這三科。 又如《般舟三昧》，以應身佛的三十二相作為境界，依此而修空、假、中三觀。由此可知，三觀所顯現的就是圓融三法。 現在你們家的觀法，哪裡教人直接緣于真理而修？哪部經文教人緣于佛所證的圓融三法而修觀呢？以上這些是由於過去完全不知道依境修觀的意義，只是用自己的理解來衡量，等到遭到詰難，就等到困難臨頭才臨時改變說法。 例如將《玄義》中的十種三法，說成是純粹談理觀，豈不是完全不知道理觀就是常坐等三種三昧？只是看到《發揮》中說純粹談真性，就以此立為純粹談理觀。 等到被《問疑書》引用《輔行記》來駁難，知道不是理觀，就轉而認為，《玄義》直接顯示心性之義。
【English Translation】 English version: If it cannot be attained, if one observes it with the mind-nature, it seems as if it can be seen. Therefore, the teachings of this school, based on this meaning, establish the 'yin mind' (skandha-mind) as the object of contemplation. Thus, both 'Śamatha-Vipassanā' (止觀, calming and insight meditation) and various texts instruct one to contemplate the mind, taking the closest and most essential mind as the basis for contemplation. If there is nothing to rely on, what can one rely on to cultivate the 'skandhas' (陰, aggregates), 'dhātus' (界, realms), and 'āyatanas' (入, sense bases)? How can the truth be revealed? Therefore, without the three obstacles (三障, kleśa-āvaraṇa [煩惱障, obstacle of afflictions], karma-āvaraṇa [業障, obstacle of karma], and vipāka-āvaraṇa [報障, obstacle of retribution]) and the four demons (四魔, māra [魔], namely kleśa-māra [煩惱魔, demon of afflictions], skandha-māra [五陰魔, demon of the aggregates], mṛtyu-māra [死魔, demon of death], and devaputra-māra [他化自在天子魔, demon of the sons of gods who delight in transforming things]), there would be no object of contemplation. Even if one cultivates external contemplation, relying on Buddhas, sentient beings, and the environment (依報, dependent retribution) as objects, it is still the 'outer skandhas' entering the Dharma. Why is this so? Although the Buddha has transcended the 'skandhas' (陰, aggregates), for the sake of sentient beings, he manifests responsive bodies (應色身, responsive form body) and minds. Therefore, those at the stage of 'Equal Enlightenment' (等覺, samāna-buddha) and below can still see other Buddhas. Since these are objects perceived by the six senses, are they not included within the 'dhātus' (界, realms) and 'āyatanas' (入, sense bases)? Therefore, the Fu Xing Ji (輔行記, Commentary on the Great Concentration and Insight) says: 'The realms created by the transformations of sages are also seen by sentient beings according to their transformed minds.' Therefore, those who cultivate contemplation observe the 'Dharma Realm' (法界, Dharmadhātu) within the realms of form and mind. Therefore, the Commentary on the Avalokiteśvara Sutra takes sentient beings and Buddhas as external realms, while the Jingxi Commentary directly takes the 'dependent retribution' (依正, environment) and 'proper retribution' (正報, body and mind) as external realms. It is known that one does not take the 'perfect, constant, and unconditioned Dharma' (圓常自在之法) attained by the Buddha, but only uses the form and mind perceived by sentient beings as the object of contemplation. Therefore, the object of contemplation does not go beyond the three categories of 'skandhas' (陰, aggregates), 'āyatanas' (處, sense bases), and 'dhātus' (界, realms). Furthermore, in the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sutra (般舟三昧, Samadhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present), the thirty-two marks of the 'Nirmāṇakāya Buddha' (應身, transformation body) are taken as the object, and the three contemplations of emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way (三觀, tri-vidha-lakṣaṇa) are cultivated based on this. It is known that what is revealed by the three contemplations is the 'perfectly integrated three dharmas' (圓融三法). Where in your school's contemplation methods does it teach one to directly rely on the true principle (真理, paramārtha-satya) for cultivation? Which text teaches one to rely on the 'perfectly integrated three dharmas' (圓融三法) realized by the Buddha for contemplation? The above is because in the past, you completely did not understand the meaning of cultivating contemplation based on an object, but only measured it with your own understanding. When faced with questioning, you would wait until the difficulty arrived before temporarily changing your position. For example, taking the ten types of three dharmas in the Profound Meaning (玄義, Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) as purely discussing 'principle contemplation' (理觀, contemplation of principle), is it not completely ignorant of the fact that 'principle contemplation' is the three samādhis of constant sitting, etc.? You only saw that the Elaboration (發揮, Elaboration of the Profound Meaning) said it purely discusses true nature, and based on this, you established it as purely discussing 'principle contemplation'. When the Book of Questions and Doubts (問疑書) quoted the Fu Xing Ji to refute it, knowing that it was not 'principle contemplation', you then changed your argument, saying that the Profound Meaning directly reveals the meaning of mind-nature.
同理觀。而不知錯下直顯心性之語。專是約行。端坐十乘。及並我一念。橫豎照之。正是攝諸三法。入一念心。成乎圓觀。乃是附法觀心。
故妙玄四諦。因緣之後。攝諸法相。入一念心。用觀照之。並是彼文為成妙行。特立觀心一科之意。
既被詰難書難云。此玄既全無一念及觀照之語。乃是為成己義。任情曲撰。上人既撿正釋及料揀。全無此義。計窮理極。遂推與行人。自能攝入一念。橫豎照之。
若爾者。何獨此玄。行人自攝自照。妙經等諸玄疏。豈彼行人不能自攝自照。何故法相之後。皆立觀心一科。攝法入心方名觀行。
若謂諸文或有闕略者。亦須立乎體式之後。方可準例略之。如十二因緣曾立觀法。四諦之後。但云觀心可解。既此兩境。合有觀心。故於余境避繁省略則稟教之者。既見諦緣之後有于觀心。則知諸境合皆攝歸己心以觀照之。
今此玄文。單談十種果證法相。略未示于觀心體式。何得行人自攝自照。此乃上人。錯下一念及觀照之語。自見無文。自知無義。只得推與行人。若直顯心性之語者。奈自立云此玄文直顯心性。且推與行人。不得。遂全不敢答酬此問。仍潛改直顯心性。而作直顯法性也。上人若稍轉改有路。終不偷換文字。蓋是路極遂至於此也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：同樣地進行觀照，卻不知道錯誤地使用了直接顯現心性的言語。專門是關於行持的，如端坐十乘觀行，以及將我的一個念頭，橫向、縱向地進行觀照。這正是將諸種三法攝入一個念頭的心中，成就圓滿的觀行。這乃是依附於法而觀心。
所以，《妙玄》在四諦、因緣之後，攝取諸法之相，進入一念心中，用觀照的方法來觀察它。這都是因為彼文爲了成就妙行，特意設立觀心這一科的目的。
既然被詰難，書中辯解說：『此《玄》既然完全沒有一念及觀照的言語，乃是爲了成就自己的義理，隨意曲解撰寫。』上人既然檢查、匡正了釋義及科判，完全沒有這個意思。計窮理盡，於是推給修行人，讓他們自己能夠攝入一念，橫向、縱向地觀照它。
如果這樣說，為什麼唯獨此《玄》需要修行人自己攝取、自己觀照？《妙經》等諸玄疏，難道那些修行人不能自己攝取、自己觀照嗎？為什麼在法相之後，都要設立觀心這一科？攝取法進入心中，才叫做觀行。
如果說諸文或許有缺失省略的地方，也必須在建立體式之後，才可以按照例子省略。比如十二因緣曾經建立觀法，四諦之後，只說『觀心可解』。既然這兩個境，合起來有觀心，所以在其餘的境中，爲了避免繁瑣而省略。那麼稟承教義的人，既然看到諦、緣之後有觀心，就知道諸境都應該攝歸自己的心來觀照它。
現在這部《玄文》，只談十種果證的法相，省略了沒有顯示觀心的體式。怎麼能讓修行人自己攝取、自己觀照呢？這乃是上人錯誤地使用了『一念』及『觀照』的言語，自己看到沒有原文，自己知道沒有意義，只好推給修行人。如果說是直接顯現心性的言語，那麼自己立論說此《玄文》直接顯現心性，卻又推給修行人，這是不行的。於是完全不敢回答這個問題，仍然偷偷地將『直顯心性』改為『直顯法性』。上人如果稍微轉換一下說法，還有出路，最終也不會偷換文字。大概是理屈詞窮，所以才到了這個地步啊。
【English Translation】 English version: Similarly, one contemplates, yet unknowingly uses language that directly reveals the nature of the mind. It is solely about practice, such as the practice of seated meditation with the ten vehicles, and contemplating one's single thought horizontally and vertically. This is precisely incorporating all three dharmas into a single thought of the mind, achieving perfect contemplation. This is relying on the Dharma to contemplate the mind.
Therefore, in the Miao Xuan (Subtle Profundity), after the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination, it incorporates the characteristics of all dharmas into a single thought of the mind, using contemplation to observe them. All of this is because that text, in order to achieve wondrous practice, specifically established the section on contemplating the mind.
Since it was questioned, the book argued: 'Since this Xuan (Profundity) completely lacks the language of a single thought and contemplation, it is arbitrarily distorting and composing in order to achieve its own meaning.' Since the superior person has examined and corrected the interpretation and categorization, there is no such meaning at all. Having exhausted all reason, they then push it to the practitioners, allowing them to incorporate it into a single thought and contemplate it horizontally and vertically themselves.
If that is the case, why is it only this Xuan that requires practitioners to incorporate and contemplate themselves? In the Miao Jing (Wonderful Sutra) and other commentaries, are those practitioners unable to incorporate and contemplate themselves? Why is it that after the characteristics of the Dharma, a section on contemplating the mind is established? Incorporating the Dharma into the mind is called contemplative practice.
If it is said that the texts may have omissions, they must be omitted according to established patterns. For example, the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination once established a method of contemplation, and after the Four Noble Truths, it simply says 'contemplating the mind can be understood'. Since these two realms together have contemplation of the mind, in the remaining realms, it is omitted to avoid complexity. Those who receive the teachings, having seen contemplation of the mind after the Truths and Origination, know that all realms should be incorporated into their own mind to contemplate them.
Now, this Xuan text only discusses the characteristics of the ten kinds of fruit-proof, omitting the demonstration of the structure of contemplating the mind. How can practitioners incorporate and contemplate themselves? This is because the superior person mistakenly used the language of 'a single thought' and 'contemplation', seeing that there was no original text, knowing that there was no meaning, and had to push it to the practitioners. If it is language that directly reveals the nature of the mind, then one's own argument that this Xuan text directly reveals the nature of the mind, but then pushes it to the practitioners, is not acceptable. Therefore, they completely dare not answer this question, and still secretly change 'directly revealing the nature of the mind' to 'directly revealing the nature of the Dharma'. If the superior person had slightly changed the wording, there would still be a way out, and they would not have resorted to changing the text. It is probably because they have exhausted all reason that they have come to this point.
故知。暗心推劃。如盲者自行動皆掛礙。皆由不知觀心之意。故至此也。
又答疑書及今來義狀。堅執凈名疏釋法無眾生。結為三種解脫。無非觀心。不須更作觀心釋之。欲將此十種三法。亦具觀心義。不須更立觀心一科。此更不知彼此文意也。
且凈名疏與此玄文。雖同明三法。須知。立義永殊。彼約研心作觀。觀成稱理。依體起用。而談。故具觀心義。此約佛果己證之理。而說安可得同。
既被詰難書用心佛高下難之。朗然已墮。不肯首伏。遂強據三無差義救之。意云。心佛既其無差。佛法便是心法。作此救義。又彰上人不識三法無差所以也。
且如釋簽云。心法眾生法。在佛心中。則定屬果。佛法心法。若在眾生心中。則通因果。佛法生法。在心法中。則定屬因。豈非互具互在故則無差別。事用既殊。迷悟宛爾。則須論差。豈可才聞佛法該攝心法。便令佛法在因。豈可心法具佛法故。便令心法是果耶。故荊溪云約理無差。差約事用。故修觀之者。須依心法為境而修觀也。觀心即性。性攝無外。等佛等生。故云游心法界如虛空。則知諸佛之境界。既雲遊心法界。知。是觀心入理。理攝生佛。乃知佛境界也。豈可但云無差三法混亂耶。若佛法便是心法。今家觀心之名。因何而立耶。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由此可知，暗地裡用心思推測，就像盲人自己行動，處處都是障礙。這都是因為不明白觀心的意義，所以才會這樣。
另外，答疑書和最近送來的義狀，都堅持《凈名經疏》（Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra Commentary）所解釋的『法無眾生』（dharma is without sentient beings），總結為三種解脫，認為無非是觀心，不需要再作觀心解釋。想要把這十種三法，也賦予觀心的意義，不需要再設立觀心這一科。這更是不知道彼此文意了。
而且，《凈名經疏》與此玄文，雖然都闡明三法，要知道，立義永遠不同。前者是就研習心性來作觀，觀成之後契合真理，依體起用而談，所以具有觀心的意義。後者是就佛果已經證得的真理而說，怎麼可以相同呢？
既然被詰難書用『心佛高下』來為難，（某人）顯然已經落敗，卻不肯認輸，於是強行依據『三無差別』的意義來辯解。意思是說，心和佛既然沒有差別，佛法便是心法。用這種說法來辯解，又更加彰顯了上人不認識三法無差別的真正含義。
例如《釋簽》（釋簽）中說：『心法、眾生法，在佛心中，就一定是果。佛法、心法，如果在眾生心中，就貫通因果。佛法、生法，在心法中，就一定是因。』這難道不是因為互相具有、互相存在，所以才沒有差別嗎？事用既然不同，迷惑和覺悟顯然不同，那就必須論差別。怎麼可以才聽到佛法涵蓋心法，就讓佛法成為因？怎麼可以因為心法具有佛法，就讓心法成為果呢？所以荊溪（Jingxi）說，從理上說沒有差別，差別在於事用。因此修觀的人，必須依心法為境界來修觀。觀心即是本性，本性涵蓋一切，等同於佛，等同於眾生，所以說『游心法界如虛空』。由此可知，諸佛的境界，既然說是『游心法界』，就知道這是觀心入理，真理涵蓋生佛，才知道是佛的境界。怎麼可以只說無差別的三法而混淆呢？如果佛法便是心法，今家觀心的名義，又因何而立呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is known that secretly speculating with the mind is like a blind person moving on their own, where everything is an obstacle. This is all because they do not understand the meaning of contemplating the mind, hence this situation.
Furthermore, the letters of inquiry and the recently submitted statements of meaning both insist on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra Commentary's explanation that 'dharma is without sentient beings,' concluding it as three kinds of liberation, considering it to be nothing other than contemplating the mind, and that there is no need to further explain contemplating the mind. They want to endow these ten kinds of three dharmas with the meaning of contemplating the mind, and that there is no need to establish a separate category for contemplating the mind. This further shows that they do not understand the meaning of each other's texts.
Moreover, although the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra Commentary and this profound text both elucidate the three dharmas, it must be known that the establishment of meaning is eternally different. The former speaks from the perspective of studying the mind to practice contemplation, where upon the completion of contemplation, it aligns with the truth, and based on the essence, functions arise. Therefore, it possesses the meaning of contemplating the mind. The latter speaks from the perspective of the already realized truth of the Buddha-fruit, so how can they be the same?
Since the letter of inquiry used the 'superiority and inferiority of mind and Buddha' to pose a difficulty, (someone) has clearly been defeated, but refuses to admit defeat, and thus forcefully relies on the meaning of 'three without difference' to defend themselves. The meaning is that since the mind and Buddha are without difference, the Buddha-dharma is the mind-dharma. Using this statement to defend themselves further highlights that the superior person does not recognize the true meaning of the three dharmas being without difference.
For example, the Shiqian (Commentary on the Explanation) says: 'Mind-dharma and sentient being-dharma, when in the Buddha's mind, are definitely the fruit. Buddha-dharma and mind-dharma, when in the sentient being's mind, connect both cause and effect. Buddha-dharma and birth-dharma, when in the mind-dharma, are definitely the cause.' Is this not because they mutually possess and mutually exist, hence there is no difference? Since the functions of affairs are different, delusion and enlightenment are clearly different, then it is necessary to discuss difference. How can one, upon hearing that Buddha-dharma encompasses mind-dharma, make Buddha-dharma the cause? How can one, because mind-dharma possesses Buddha-dharma, make mind-dharma the fruit? Therefore, Jingxi (Jingxi) said that there is no difference in principle, and the difference lies in the functions of affairs. Therefore, those who cultivate contemplation must rely on mind-dharma as the object to cultivate contemplation. Contemplating the mind is the very nature, and the nature encompasses everything without exception, equal to the Buddha, equal to sentient beings, hence it is said 'roaming the dharma-realm with the mind like empty space.' From this, it is known that the realm of all Buddhas, since it is said to be 'roaming the dharma-realm with the mind,' it is known that this is contemplating the mind entering into principle, and the truth encompasses sentient beings and Buddhas, and then one knows it is the realm of the Buddha. How can one only say that the three dharmas are without difference and confuse them? If Buddha-dharma is mind-dharma, then why is the name of contemplating the mind established by the present school?
故凈名疏釋法無眾生等諸句。一一皆以生空觀。歷心及余陰入諸法而觀。雖附三脫法相。于陰境理境。用觀破惑。證體起用。一期略足。
乃是用於約行觀門。修于附法之觀也。此同妙樂令將止觀境觀修託事觀也。如是則方具觀心義。
若此玄十種三法。正論果佛所證。尚過菩薩所行。則益之高遠。如何凡夫始行。輒可依此而修觀行耶。兼文中顯示云。約信解分別。因何曲拗作觀行釋耶。
然須知。彼文只據研心論於三法。方具觀心之義。輒不可以三法義同。便謂此玄亦具觀心義。今為具引凈名玄義釋名中。教觀兩文。同名三法。皆是圓實。只據未約心論。名約教釋。若就心辨即名約觀。
故彼文云。后家翻為凈無垢稱。今用此翻。以對三身。即為二意。一就事釋(教詮三法。雖是圓實。望于觀心相應之理。故教屬事)二約觀心。一事者凈義即是法身。自性清凈。皎然無點。即是性凈法身也。二無垢者即是報身。報智圓明。無有垢染。即是圓凈報身。三稱者即是應身。大悲化世。名稱普洽。即是應身。故智論云。水銀和真金(云云)。又引普賢觀經。佛三種身。從方等生等。
二觀心明三身者。凡厥有心。心即法性。法性者即是本凈。本凈者即是法身也。觀心相應。明時無暗。即無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，《凈名疏》解釋『法無眾生』等語句時，都以生空觀（Śūnyatā-dṛṣṭi，認為一切事物沒有自性）來觀察心以及其餘的陰（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素）、入（Āyatana，感覺器官和感覺對像）等諸法。雖然附帶著三脫法相（trayo vimokṣa-mukha，三種解脫之門），但在陰境（Skandha-viṣaya，五蘊的境界）、理境（tattva-viṣaya，真理的境界）上，運用觀來破除迷惑，證得本體，生起作用，大致上就足夠了。
這乃是用於依附於行觀門（caryā-darśana-dvāra，實踐的觀門）來修習依附於法（dharma，佛法）的觀。這和妙樂（Miàolè，天臺宗的一位重要人物）所說的，將止觀（Śamatha-Vipaśyanā，止和觀）的境觀（viṣaya-dṛṣṭi，對境界的觀察）和修（bhāvanā，修行）寄託於事觀（vastu-dṛṣṭi，對事物的觀察）是相同的。像這樣才能完備地具備觀心的意義。
如果這玄義中的十種三法（tri-dharma，三種法）正是論述果佛（phala-buddha，證得佛果的佛）所證悟的境界，甚至超過菩薩（Bodhisattva，追求覺悟的修行者）所修行的境界，那麼利益就過於高遠了。凡夫（pṛthag-jana，指未開悟的普通人）剛開始修行，怎麼可以依此來修觀行呢？而且文中顯示說，是依據信解（śraddhā-mokṣa，信仰和理解）來分別，為何要曲解成觀行的解釋呢？
然而要知道，那篇文章只是根據研心（hṛdaya-parīkṣā，研究心）來論述三法，才完備地具備觀心的意義。不可以因為三法的意義相同，就認為這玄義也具備觀心的意義。現在爲了完整地引用《凈名玄義》解釋名稱中的教觀（śāsana-dṛṣṭi，教義的觀察）兩篇文章。同樣名為三法，都是圓實（paripūrṇa-satya，圓滿真實），只是因為沒有依附於心來論述，所以稱為依附於教義的解釋。如果就心來辨別，就稱為依附於觀。
所以那篇文章說：『後人翻譯為凈無垢稱（Vimalakīrti-nirdesa-sūtra，維摩詰所說經）。現在用這個翻譯，來對應三身（trikāya，佛的三種身），就是兩種意思。一是就事解釋（教義詮釋三法，雖然是圓滿真實，但相對於觀心相應的道理來說，教義屬於事相）。二是依附於觀心。一事，凈的意義就是法身（Dharmakāya，法性身），自性清凈，明亮而沒有污點，就是性凈法身（svabhāva-śuddha-dharmakāya，自性清凈的法身）。二無垢，就是報身（Saṃbhogakāya，報身），報智圓滿光明，沒有垢染，就是圓凈報身（paripūrṇa-śuddha-saṃbhogakāya，圓滿清凈的報身）。三稱，就是應身（Nirmāṇakāya，應化身），大悲心化度世間，名稱普遍洽合，就是應身。』所以《智論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra，大智度論）說：『水銀和真金（云云）。』又引用《普賢觀經》（Samantabhadra-dhyāna-sūtra，觀普賢菩薩行法經），佛的三種身，從方等（Vaipulya，方等部經典）產生等等。
二、觀心來闡明三身：凡是有心，心就是法性（Dharmatā，法的本性）。法性就是本凈（prakṛti-pariśuddha，本來清凈）。本凈就是法身。觀心相應，光明時就沒有黑暗，就是沒有……
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, when the 『Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra』 commentary explains phrases such as 『dharma is without sentient beings,』 it uses the Śūnyatā-dṛṣṭi (the view of emptiness, that all things lack inherent existence) to observe the mind and the remaining Skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute an individual), Āyatanas (sense organs and their objects), and other dharmas (phenomena). Although it is accompanied by the trayo vimokṣa-mukha (three doors of liberation), in the Skandha-viṣaya (the realm of the aggregates) and the tattva-viṣaya (the realm of truth), it uses contemplation to break through delusion, realize the essence, and generate function, which is generally sufficient.
This is used to cultivate contemplation attached to the caryā-darśana-dvāra (practice contemplation gate), which is contemplation attached to the dharma (the teachings). This is the same as what Miàolè (an important figure in the Tiantai school) said, entrusting the viṣaya-dṛṣṭi (observation of realms) and bhāvanā (cultivation) of Śamatha-Vipaśyanā (calm abiding and insight) to vastu-dṛṣṭi (observation of things). Only in this way can the meaning of contemplating the mind be fully possessed.
If these ten types of tri-dharma (three dharmas) in this profound meaning are precisely discussing the realm realized by the phala-buddha (Buddha who has attained the fruit), even surpassing the realm practiced by the Bodhisattva (a practitioner seeking enlightenment), then the benefit is too lofty. How can ordinary people (pṛthag-jana, unenlightened beings) who have just begun to practice rely on this to cultivate contemplation? Moreover, the text shows that it is based on śraddhā-mokṣa (faith and understanding) to distinguish, why distort it into an explanation of contemplation?
However, it should be known that that article only discusses the tri-dharma based on hṛdaya-parīkṣā (examining the mind), and only then does it fully possess the meaning of contemplating the mind. It cannot be assumed that because the meaning of the tri-dharma is the same, this profound meaning also possesses the meaning of contemplating the mind. Now, in order to fully quote the two articles on śāsana-dṛṣṭi (doctrinal observation) in the explanation of names in the 『Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra』 commentary, both named tri-dharma, are paripūrṇa-satya (perfectly true), but because they are not discussed in relation to the mind, they are called explanations attached to the teachings. If it is distinguished in terms of the mind, it is called attachment to contemplation.
Therefore, that article says: 『Later people translated it as Vimalakīrti-nirdesa Sūtra (the Sūtra Spoken by Vimalakīrti). Now we use this translation to correspond to the trikāya (three bodies of the Buddha), which has two meanings. One is to explain in terms of phenomena (the teachings interpret the three dharmas, although they are perfectly true, but in relation to the principle of corresponding to the contemplation of the mind, the teachings belong to phenomena). The second is to rely on contemplation of the mind. One phenomenon, the meaning of purity is the Dharmakāya (the body of dharma), the self-nature is pure, bright and without blemishes, which is the svabhāva-śuddha-dharmakāya (the dharma body of self-nature purity). Two, without impurity, is the Saṃbhogakāya (the enjoyment body), the wisdom of retribution is complete and bright, without defilement, which is the paripūrṇa-śuddha-saṃbhogakāya (the perfectly pure enjoyment body). Three, the name, is the Nirmāṇakāya (the emanation body), great compassion transforms the world, the name is universally harmonious, which is the emanation body.』 Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise) says: 『Quicksilver and pure gold (etc.).』 It also quotes the Samantabhadra-dhyāna-sūtra (Visualization Sutra of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva), the three bodies of the Buddha, arising from Vaipulya (extensive) scriptures, etc.
Two, contemplating the mind to clarify the three bodies: Whenever there is a mind, the mind is Dharmatā (the nature of dharma). Dharmatā is prakṛti-pariśuddha (primordially pure). Primordial purity is the Dharmakāya. When contemplation of the mind corresponds, there is no darkness when there is light, which means there is no...
垢義。無垢義者。即是智斷果報身也。隨所利物。起一切事。皆如幻如化水月映象。和光無染。即是稱緣應身義也。如是三義不縱不橫。為菩提種等。
請上人看此二種三法。有何差別。豈非只約心即法性觀心相應。而辨故。次文三法得名約觀心釋。
故彼疏釋法無眾生。明三脫義。與此玄十種三法。實無有異。
彼文以約生空之觀。歷心及陰入諸法而明故。結云具觀心義。
此中正示果佛之法。顯云約信解分別。如何輒云具觀心義。
又答疑書五義書及今來義狀。堅執此玄十種三法。同於請觀音疏託事觀者。
且大林精舍是依報色入。以理智體之。正同方等普賢歷尊容道具。用法門體達。此則方是託事之觀。此玄為生信解。直示果德十種法相。既不歷于依報色入體之。那名託事之觀。
及至被詰難書以此義徴之。上人既知。此玄十法。全無依報事境可托。則事觀不成。遂轉執譬喻為境。以十種三法為觀。又以能詮教相為境。所詮三法為觀。須知。此之兩說。全無所以。何者夫深法難解假喻易彰。故用譬類。曉喻深法。使稟教者生乎信解。何曾以能譬所譬。為能觀所觀耶。
若謂才將譬顯法便為修觀之義者。只如妙經。豈不以蓮華喻其十妙耶。若已具觀行之義。何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『垢義』（mala-artha）：指有垢染的意義。『無垢義』（nirmala-artha）者，即是智斷果報身（jnana-chedana-vipaka-kaya）也。隨著所要利益的眾生，發起一切事業，都如幻如化，如水中月，如鏡中像，和光同塵而無所染著，這就是稱緣應身（anubandha-hetu-nirmana-kaya）的意義。像這樣三種意義不縱不橫，為菩提（bodhi）之種子等。
請上人看這兩種三法，有何差別？豈不是隻約心即法性（dharmanature）觀心相應，而辨別的緣故。其次的文句中，三法得名是約觀心來解釋。
所以彼疏解釋『法無眾生』，闡明三脫（tri-vimoksha）的意義，與此玄義中的十種三法，實在沒有差異。
彼文以約生空（anutpatti-sunyata）之觀，經歷心及陰入諸法而闡明，所以結論說具備觀心的意義。
此中正是開示果佛（phala-buddha）之法，明顯地說約信解分別，如何隨便說具備觀心的意義？
又答疑書、五義書及今來義狀，都堅決地認為此玄義中的十種三法，等同於請觀音疏中依託事物的觀法。
且大林精舍是依報色入（asraya-rupa-ayatana），以理智來體悟它，正如同方等普賢歷尊容道具，用佛法門來體達。這才是依託事物的觀法。此玄義是爲了生起信解，直接開示果德的十種法相，既然不經歷依報色入來體悟它，怎麼能叫依託事物的觀法呢？
等到被詰難書用這個道理來質問，上人您已經知道，此玄義中的十法，完全沒有依報事境可以依託，那麼事觀就不能成立。於是轉而執著譬喻為境，以十種三法為觀；又以能詮的教相為境，所詮的三法為觀。須知，這兩種說法，完全沒有道理。為什麼呢？因為深奧的佛法難以理解，假借譬喻容易彰顯，所以用譬類，曉喻深奧的佛法，使接受教義的人產生信解。哪裡是用能譬喻的和所譬喻的，作為能觀的和所觀的呢？
如果說才將譬喻顯明佛法，便成為修觀的意義，那麼就像《妙法蓮華經》，豈不是用蓮華來比喻其十妙嗎？如果已經具備觀行的意義，為什麼還要用蓮花來比喻呢？
【English Translation】 English version 'Mala-artha' (垢義): refers to the meaning of defilement. 'Nirmala-artha' (無垢義), or the meaning of non-defilement, is the Jnana-Chedana-Vipaka-Kaya (智斷果報身), the body of wisdom and severance as retribution. According to the beings to be benefited, all activities arise, like illusions, like transformations, like the moon in water, like images in a mirror, harmonizing with the world without being tainted, which is the meaning of Anubandha-Hetu-Nirmana-Kaya (稱緣應身), the responsive body according to conditions. These three meanings, neither vertical nor horizontal, are the seeds of Bodhi (菩提) and so on.
Please, Superior One, look at these two kinds of three dharmas. What are the differences? Isn't it just about the mind being identical to Dharma-nature (法性), observing the mind in accordance with it, and distinguishing them for that reason? In the following text, the naming of the three dharmas is explained in terms of observing the mind.
Therefore, that commentary explains 'Dharma without sentient beings,' clarifying the meaning of the three liberations (三脫), which is actually no different from the ten kinds of three dharmas in this profound meaning.
That text explains by means of the contemplation of emptiness of inherent existence (生空), experiencing the mind and the skandhas entering all dharmas, so it concludes by saying it possesses the meaning of observing the mind.
Here, it is precisely showing the Dharma of the Fruition Buddha (果佛), clearly stating that it is about faith, understanding, and discrimination. How can one casually say it possesses the meaning of observing the mind?
Furthermore, the reply to the letter of doubt, the letter of five meanings, and the current letter of meaning, all firmly insist that the ten kinds of three dharmas in this profound meaning are the same as the contemplation of relying on things in the 'Commentary on Avalokiteshvara'.
Moreover, the Great Forest Monastery is the dependent retribution of form-ayatana (依報色入), which is comprehended with reason and wisdom, just like the dignified appearance and implements of Samantabhadra in the Vaipulya Sutra, which are comprehended with the Dharma-gate. This is the contemplation of relying on things. This profound meaning is for generating faith and understanding, directly showing the ten Dharma-characteristics of the fruition virtue. Since it does not experience the dependent retribution of form-ayatana to comprehend it, how can it be called the contemplation of relying on things?
When questioned by the letter of challenge using this principle, you, Superior One, already know that these ten dharmas in this profound meaning have no dependent retribution of things to rely on at all, then the contemplation of things cannot be established. Therefore, you turn to clinging to metaphors as the object, with the ten kinds of three dharmas as the contemplation; and you also take the teaching characteristics that can express as the object, and the three dharmas that are expressed as the contemplation. It must be known that these two statements are completely unreasonable. Why? Because profound Dharma is difficult to understand, and borrowing metaphors is easy to manifest, so metaphors are used to explain profound Dharma, enabling those who receive the teachings to generate faith and understanding. Where are the metaphors and what is being metaphorized used as the contemplator and what is being contemplated?
If it is said that just by using metaphors to reveal the Dharma, it becomes the meaning of cultivating contemplation, then just like the 'Wonderful Dharma Lotus Sutra', doesn't it use the lotus flower to metaphorize its ten wonderful aspects? If it already possesses the meaning of contemplative practice, why use the lotus flower as a metaphor?
故十妙之中。節節明事法觀門耶。若以法喻為境觀。實無此義。上人事急之後。謾作此說。
然雖作此說。亦自知無義。復就教理。論其境觀。且一切教部。何處不得名教詮於法理。豈可皆是依境明觀。
又且縱偏小之教。文不即理故。非對境明觀。此圓談法性。文理既合得名觀境者。且妙玄豈文理不合耶。何故教理之下。更立觀心一科。
又上人自云。妙玄十種三法之後。合有觀心一科。觀前十法。是知。以教詮理。便謂依境立觀。更是僻解。不足可言。一家教文。都無此說。此亦上人。計窮謾作此說也。
不二門云凡所觀境不出內外。外謂托彼依正色心。實不云托彼教相。內觀一念識心。實不依教相而觀。恐是宗師立境未盡故。上人更立教相為境耶。
況又轉即說無說而為觀境。更無道理。只如妙玄四諦境中。廣明說無說之後。又立觀解。驗知無說義非境觀明矣。
理極之後。又轉執云。諸文雖有即說無說。既無修性因果。故無觀心之義。此文該於修性因果。故具觀心義者。
且彼無作四諦。還全性起修否。還該世出世因果否。況覆上人。本立此玄十種三法。純明理觀直顯心性。理觀者。則是占察經中實相之觀。正當常坐等揀境觀理十乘。若少附法相。稍託事相。不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，在十妙（shí miào，指天臺宗的十種微妙法門）之中，是否每一節都闡明了事法觀門（shì fǎ guān mén，通過事相來觀察真理的法門）呢？如果以法（fǎ，佛法）和譬喻（bìyù，比喻）作為觀境（guān jìng，觀想的對象），實際上並沒有這個道理。這是上人（shàng rén，對僧人的尊稱，此處指《摩訶止觀》的作者智顗）在情急之下，隨意作出的說法。 然而，即使這樣說，他也自知沒有道理。又回到教理（jiào lǐ，佛教的教義和道理）上來，討論其境觀（jìng guān，觀想的境界）。而且一切教部（jiào bù，佛教的各個宗派），哪裡沒有用教義來詮釋法理（fǎ lǐ，佛法的真理）呢？難道都可以說是依據境（jìng，境界）來闡明觀（guān，觀想）嗎？ 而且，即使是偏頗的小乘教法（xiǎo shèng jiào fǎ，小乘佛教的教義），因為文字不能完全表達道理，所以不是對境明觀（duì jìng míng guān，針對境界來闡明觀想）。而圓教（yuán jiào，圓滿的教義）談論法性（fǎ xìng，諸法的本性），文字和道理相合，才能稱為觀境（guān jìng，觀想的境界）。那麼，《妙玄》（miào xuán，《妙法蓮華經玄義》的簡稱）難道文字和道理不相合嗎？為什麼在教理（jiào lǐ，佛教的教義和道理）之下，還要另立觀心（guān xīn，觀想心識）這一科呢？ 而且，上人（shàng rén，對僧人的尊稱，此處指《摩訶止觀》的作者智顗）自己說，《妙玄》（miào xuán，《妙法蓮華經玄義》的簡稱）在十種三法（shí zhǒng sān fǎ，十種三法印）之後，合有觀心（guān xīn，觀想心識）這一科，觀想前面的十法（shí fǎ，十種法門）。由此可知，以教義來詮釋道理，就認為是依據境（jìng，境界）來建立觀（guān，觀想），更是錯誤的理解，不值得一提。一家（yī jiā，指天臺宗）的教文（jiào wén，佛教的經文）中，都沒有這種說法。這也是上人（shàng rén，對僧人的尊稱，此處指《摩訶止觀》的作者智顗）計窮力竭，隨意作出的說法。 《不二門》（bù èr mén，指不二法門）說，凡所觀的境（jìng，境界）不出內外（nèi wài，內部和外部）。外（wài，外部）是指依託彼（bǐ，外部的境界）的依正（yī zhèng，依報和正報）色心（sè xīn，物質和精神），實際上並沒有說依託彼（bǐ，外部的境界）的教相（jiào xiàng，佛教的教相）。內觀（nèi guān，向內觀想）一念識心（yī niàn shí xīn，一念之間的心識），實際上不依據教相（jiào xiàng，佛教的教相）而觀想。恐怕是宗師（zōng shī，指天臺宗的創始人）建立的境（jìng，境界）還不完備，所以上人（shàng rén，對僧人的尊稱，此處指《摩訶止觀》的作者智顗）又建立教相（jiào xiàng，佛教的教相）作為境（jìng，境界）嗎？ 況且又轉而說即說無說（jí shuō wú shuō，既說又無說）作為觀境（guān jìng，觀想的對象），更沒有道理。就像《妙玄》（miào xuán，《妙法蓮華經玄義》的簡稱）四諦境（sì dì jìng，四諦的境界）中，詳細闡明了說無說（shuō wú shuō，說和無說）之後，又建立了觀解（guān jiě，觀想和理解），驗證可知無說義（wú shuō yì，無說的含義）不是境觀（jìng guān，觀想的境界）。 在窮盡了道理之後，又轉而執著地說，諸文（zhū wén，各種經文）雖然有即說無說（jí shuō wú shuō，既說又無說），既然沒有修性因果（xiū xìng yīn guǒ，修習本性和因果），所以沒有觀心（guān xīn，觀想心識）的含義。此文（cǐ wén，此段經文）包含修性因果（xiū xìng yīn guǒ，修習本性和因果），所以具備觀心（guān xīn，觀想心識）的含義。 而且，彼（bǐ，指其他宗派）的無作四諦（wú zuò sì dì，不假造作的四諦），還完全是性起修（xìng qǐ xiū，從本性生起修習）嗎？還包含世出世因果（shì chū shì yīn guǒ，世間和出世間的因果）嗎？況且上人（shàng rén，對僧人的尊稱，此處指《摩訶止觀》的作者智顗）本來建立此《玄》（xuán，《妙法蓮華經玄義》的簡稱）十種三法（shí zhǒng sān fǎ，十種三法印），純粹闡明理觀（lǐ guān，觀想真理），直接顯現心性（xīn xìng，心的本性）。理觀（lǐ guān，觀想真理）就是《占察經》（zhān chá jīng，《占察善惡業報經》的簡稱）中實相之觀（shí xiàng zhī guān，觀想實相），正當常坐（cháng zuò，經常禪坐）等揀境觀理（jiǎn jìng guān lǐ，選擇境界來觀想真理）十乘（shí shèng，十種修行方法）。如果稍微附著法相（fǎ xiàng，諸法的相狀），稍微依託事相（shì xiàng，事物的相狀），不……
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, among the Ten Subtleties (shí miào, referring to the ten subtle Dharma gates of the Tiantai school), does each section clarify the Gate of Observation of Phenomena (shì fǎ guān mén, the Dharma gate of observing truth through phenomena)? If Dharma (fǎ, Buddhist teachings) and metaphors (bìyù, analogies) are taken as the object of contemplation (guān jìng, the object of visualization), there is actually no such meaning. This is a statement made by the Superior Person (shàng rén, a respectful term for monks, here referring to Zhiyi, the author of Mohe Zhiguan) in a moment of urgency. However, even though he made this statement, he himself knew it was meaningless. He returned to the teachings and principles (jiào lǐ, Buddhist doctrines and principles) to discuss its object of contemplation (jìng guān, the realm of contemplation). Moreover, in all the divisions of teachings (jiào bù, various schools of Buddhism), where is it that the teachings do not explain the principles of Dharma (fǎ lǐ, the truth of the Dharma)? Can it all be said to be clarifying contemplation based on the object (jìng, realm)? Moreover, even in the biased teachings of the Small Vehicle (xiǎo shèng jiào fǎ, the teachings of Theravada Buddhism), because the words cannot fully express the principles, it is not clarifying contemplation based on the object (duì jìng míng guān, clarifying contemplation based on the object). But the Perfect Teaching (yuán jiào, the perfect teachings) discusses Dharma-nature (fǎ xìng, the nature of all Dharmas), and the words and principles are in accord, so it can be called contemplating the object (guān jìng, the realm of contemplation). Then, does Miaoxuan (miào xuán, abbreviation for Miaofa Lianhua Jing Xuanyi) not have words and principles in accord? Why, then, is the subject of contemplating the mind (guān xīn, contemplating the mind-consciousness) established separately under the teachings and principles (jiào lǐ, Buddhist doctrines and principles)? Moreover, the Superior Person (shàng rén, a respectful term for monks, here referring to Zhiyi, the author of Mohe Zhiguan) himself said that in Miaoxuan (miào xuán, abbreviation for Miaofa Lianhua Jing Xuanyi), after the Ten Kinds of Three Dharmas (shí zhǒng sān fǎ, ten kinds of three Dharma seals), there is the subject of contemplating the mind (guān xīn, contemplating the mind-consciousness), contemplating the preceding Ten Dharmas (shí fǎ, ten Dharma gates). From this, it can be known that to explain principles with teachings and then consider it establishing contemplation based on the object (jìng, realm) is an even more incorrect understanding, not worth mentioning. In the teachings of one school (yī jiā, referring to the Tiantai school), there is no such statement. This is also a statement made by the Superior Person (shàng rén, a respectful term for monks, here referring to Zhiyi, the author of Mohe Zhiguan) when he was at his wit's end. The Gate of Non-Duality (bù èr mén, referring to the gate of non-dual Dharma) says that all objects of contemplation (jìng, realm) do not go beyond internal and external (nèi wài, internal and external). External (wài, external) refers to relying on the circumstantial and direct (yī zhèng, circumstantial and direct retributions) form and mind (sè xīn, matter and spirit) of that (bǐ, external realm), but it does not actually say relying on the characteristics of the teachings (jiào xiàng, characteristics of Buddhist teachings) of that (bǐ, external realm). Internal contemplation (nèi guān, inward contemplation) contemplates the mind of a single thought (yī niàn shí xīn, the mind of a single thought), but it does not actually contemplate based on the characteristics of the teachings (jiào xiàng, characteristics of Buddhist teachings). Perhaps the master (zōng shī, referring to the founder of the Tiantai school) did not fully establish the object (jìng, realm), so the Superior Person (shàng rén, a respectful term for monks, here referring to Zhiyi, the author of Mohe Zhiguan) established the characteristics of the teachings (jiào xiàng, characteristics of Buddhist teachings) as the object (jìng, realm)? Moreover, to then turn around and say 'both speaking and not speaking' (jí shuō wú shuō, both speaking and not speaking) as the object of contemplation (guān jìng, the object of visualization) is even more unreasonable. Just as in the realm of the Four Noble Truths (sì dì jìng, the realm of the Four Noble Truths) in Miaoxuan (miào xuán, abbreviation for Miaofa Lianhua Jing Xuanyi), after extensively clarifying 'speaking and not speaking' (shuō wú shuō, speaking and not speaking), contemplation and understanding (guān jiě, contemplation and understanding) are established again, verifying that the meaning of 'not speaking' (wú shuō yì, the meaning of not speaking) is clearly not the object of contemplation (jìng guān, the realm of contemplation). After exhausting the principles, to then turn around and insist that although the various texts (zhū wén, various scriptures) have 'both speaking and not speaking' (jí shuō wú shuō, both speaking and not speaking), since there is no cultivation of nature and cause and effect (xiū xìng yīn guǒ, cultivation of nature and cause and effect), there is no meaning of contemplating the mind (guān xīn, contemplating the mind-consciousness). This text (cǐ wén, this passage of scripture) encompasses the cultivation of nature and cause and effect (xiū xìng yīn guǒ, cultivation of nature and cause and effect), so it possesses the meaning of contemplating the mind (guān xīn, contemplating the mind-consciousness). Moreover, are their (bǐ, referring to other schools) Non-Arising Four Noble Truths (wú zuò sì dì, the Four Noble Truths without artificiality) entirely the arising of cultivation from nature (xìng qǐ xiū, the arising of cultivation from inherent nature)? Do they encompass worldly and transcendental cause and effect (shì chū shì yīn guǒ, worldly and transcendental cause and effect)? Furthermore, the Superior Person (shàng rén, a respectful term for monks, here referring to Zhiyi, the author of Mohe Zhiguan) originally established these Ten Kinds of Three Dharmas (shí zhǒng sān fǎ, ten kinds of three Dharma seals) in Xuan (xuán, abbreviation for Miaofa Lianhua Jing Xuanyi), purely clarifying contemplation of principle (lǐ guān, contemplation of principle) and directly revealing the nature of the mind (xīn xìng, the nature of the mind). Contemplation of principle (lǐ guān, contemplation of principle) is the contemplation of true reality (shí xiàng zhī guān, contemplation of true reality) in the Occupying and Observing Sutra (zhān chá jīng, abbreviation for Zhan Cha Shan E Ye Bao Jing), precisely corresponding to the Ten Vehicles (shí shèng, ten kinds of practice methods) of selecting the object and contemplating the principle (jiǎn jìng guān lǐ, selecting the object to contemplate the principle), such as constant sitting (cháng zuò, constant meditation). If it slightly adheres to the characteristics of the Dharma (fǎ xiàng, characteristics of the Dharmas), slightly relies on the characteristics of phenomena (shì xiàng, characteristics of things), not...
名純談理觀。既云純談理觀。若全同凈名疏附法觀者。此則又成純談附法觀也。若同請觀音疏託事觀者。此則又成純談託事觀也。又既云直顯心性。若也稍託事附法。則不名直顯心性。然此玄十種三法任上人多門巧救。終不得同凈名觀音疏事法之觀。若得成於事法之觀。則全不成純談理觀。又全不成直顯心性。
予今徴詰上人廢觀心之義。如破狂寇。純談理觀。直顯心性。是上人兩書端首。立義宗源。此之二義若壞。則寇中主將已戮。其諸殘黨。不攻自亡也。
豈非上人專立此玄已純談理觀。已直顯心性故。可廢后文附法相觀。今既自云全是事法觀。則招伏不是純談理觀。則后之附法觀門那得輒廢。
況今來義狀。一向自令行人攝法歸心修乎觀行。此文顯然。招伏十種三法不是事法之觀。何得堅執全同凈名觀音事法觀耶。以彼二疏文中。顯示二種觀門。且非行人自立觀法。
斯蓋上人。不會觀心之意。妄破觀心真教。罪釁既深。必諸聖誅罰在近。遂令心識昏迷立義自相違返。心行既露。過失又彰。速宜慚悔改舊從新。若更固守邪宗。強廢正教。則舌爛口中。必匪日矣。審思審思速希回報。
第九不善消文
妙玄七科共解。為起五心。而觀心一科。令即聞即修起精進心。釋簽解曰
。隨聞一句。攝事成理。不待觀境。方名修觀。
上人五義書中。謂此是觀心式樣。乃消不待觀境之文不待陰境。意謂。但攝事相法相。歸乎真理。便是觀心。不待托于陰入修觀也。
此由上人不知說法由緒故也。明起五心。乃是先立正釋之意。及至七科正文觀心釋中。何曾不待陰境。五里之觀。全依陰心。故云心如幻炎。一心成觀。轉教余心。一陰屬色。四陰屬心。三界無別法。唯是一心作等。立於陰境。如此分明。那得起五心中作不待陰境消之耶。以此驗之。上人全不解看讀。因何輒欲議論教觀廢立之意耶。
既被覆問書舉其正釋陰境諸文覆難。其義既墮已。當不善消文錯下文句。乃於十六個月。日百計思量。但望略有轉身得處巧作抵拒。故今來義狀轉計。作不待揀示識心消文。
又因予前後徴詰故。深知修觀須依陰心。是故今來巧作久修始習二人。消之云。久修者。既已曾依止觀。的約識陰。觀三千三諦已畢。故今來歷事法成觀。不須更揀識心而觀。故云不待觀境。始習者。既見攝諸事法為觀。乃無滯教著事之愆。遂知依解起行之意。必欲修習。須依止觀等。因此曲救。益見上人不善消文之甚也。
且釋簽本。令不待觀境。起精進心。即聞即修。何故約久修始習。必待境觀。方
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：隨便聽到一句話，將事相攝歸於真理，不必等待觀想外境，才算是修習觀行。
天臺智者大師在《五義書》中，認為這是觀心的模式，因此解釋『不待觀境』的含義為『不待陰境』。意思是說，只要將事相和法相攝歸於真理，便是觀心，不必依賴五陰、十二入、十八界來修習觀行。
這是因為天臺智者大師的弟子湛然法師不瞭解智者大師說法的由來。智者大師在《摩訶止觀》中闡明『起五心』，乃是首先確立正確解釋的用意。等到七科正文的觀心釋中，哪裡有不依賴五陰之境的？五里之觀，完全依據五陰之心。所以說『心如幻炎，一心成觀，轉教余心』，一陰屬於色法，四陰屬於心法，三界沒有別的法，唯是一心所造等等。如此清楚地立於五陰之境，怎麼能在『起五心』中，作出『不待陰境』的解釋呢？以此驗證，湛然法師完全不理解經文的閱讀，為何隨便想要議論教觀的廢立之意呢？
既然被《覆問書》舉出其正確解釋五陰之境的諸多經文反駁，他的義理已經站不住腳了，於是便不善於解釋經文，錯誤地理解文句。於是花了十六個月，每天百般思量，只希望稍微找到可以轉圜的地方，巧妙地進行抵賴。所以現在來的義狀，轉而計較，作出『不待揀示識心』的解釋。
又因為我前後多次詰問的緣故，他深深知道修習觀行必須依據五陰之心。所以現在巧妙地作出『久修』和『始習』兩種人，解釋說：『久修』的人，既然已經曾經依據止觀，明確地依據識陰，觀三千三諦完畢，所以現在經歷事法而成觀，不需要再揀擇識心而觀，所以說『不待觀境』。『始習』的人，既然見到攝諸事法為觀，就沒有滯于教理、執著事相的過失，於是知道依解起行的用意，必須修習止觀等等。因此曲意辯解，更加顯出湛然法師不善於解釋經文的嚴重程度。
而且《止觀輔行傳弘決》的解釋，是令『不待觀境』，生起精進心，即聞即修。為何要約『久修』和『始習』，必須等待外境和觀想，才...
【English Translation】 English version: Upon hearing a single phrase, one should assimilate the phenomena into principle. Without waiting to observe external realms, this is truly called cultivating contemplation.
The Venerable Zhiyi (智者大師) in his 'Fivefold Profound Meaning' (五義書) considers this to be the model for contemplating the mind. Thus, he explains 'not waiting to observe realms' as 'not waiting for the skandha realms' (陰境). This means that as long as phenomena and dharma are assimilated into the truth, it is contemplating the mind. There is no need to rely on the five skandhas (五陰), twelve entrances (十二入), and eighteen realms (十八界) to cultivate contemplation.
This is because Zhanran (湛然法師), a disciple of the Venerable Zhiyi, did not understand the origin of Zhiyi's teachings. Zhiyi, in the 'Great Calming and Contemplation' (摩訶止觀), clarifies 'arising the five minds' (起五心) as first establishing the intention of correct explanation. When it comes to the contemplation of the mind explanation in the seven-fold main text, where is there not reliance on the realms of the five skandhas? The contemplation of the five miles (五里之觀) completely relies on the mind of the five skandhas. Therefore, it is said, 'The mind is like an illusionary flame, one mind becomes contemplation, transforming and teaching other minds.' One skandha belongs to form, four skandhas belong to mind, the three realms have no other dharma, only created by one mind, and so on. So clearly established in the realms of the five skandhas, how can one make the explanation of 'not waiting for the skandha realms' in 'arising the five minds'? Verifying this, Zhanran completely does not understand the reading of the scriptures, why would he casually want to discuss the intention of abolishing or establishing teachings and contemplation?
Since he was refuted by the 'Inquiry Reply' (覆問書) citing many scriptures that correctly explain the realms of the five skandhas, his reasoning has already fallen apart. Thus, he is not good at explaining the scriptures, mistakenly understanding the sentences. So he spent sixteen months, thinking a hundred times a day, only hoping to find a place to turn around slightly, cleverly making a denial. So the current statement turns to calculate, making the explanation of 'not waiting to select and show the consciousness mind' (不待揀示識心).
Also, because of my repeated questioning before and after, he deeply knows that cultivating contemplation must rely on the mind of the five skandhas. So now he cleverly makes two kinds of people, 'long-time cultivators' (久修) and 'beginners' (始習), explaining that: 'Long-time cultivators', since they have already relied on calming and contemplation, clearly relying on the consciousness skandha (識陰), contemplating the three thousand three truths (三千三諦) completely, so now experiencing phenomena and dharma to become contemplation, there is no need to select the consciousness mind to contemplate, so it is said 'not waiting to observe realms'. 'Beginners', since they see assimilating all phenomena as contemplation, there is no fault of being stuck in doctrine and clinging to phenomena, so they know the intention of arising practice based on understanding, they must cultivate calming and contemplation, and so on. Therefore, this far-fetched defense further shows the severity of Zhanran's lack of skill in explaining the scriptures.
Moreover, the explanation of 'Commentary on Calming and Contemplation' (止觀輔行傳弘決) is to make 'not waiting to observe realms' arise diligent mind, hearing and practicing immediately. Why should it be about 'long-time cultivators' and 'beginners', necessarily waiting for external realms and contemplation, then...
名造修耶。此則明違妙玄及釋簽見文也。既云久修者。用止觀揀示陰境。顯三千三諦之心。方能攝今事法修觀。此則須待講止觀觀境之後。方能攝今事法修觀。何名不待觀境耶。
又且縱久修者。既已於止觀境觀諳練。聞此事法之觀。即能用本習之心修之。不待玄文專示境觀也。
且如未習止觀之人。既未有正觀之心。乃於此事法二觀。全不能即聞即修。又云必欲修習須依止觀。是則須待止觀揀示陰境。須待止觀示三千理境方名修觀。則全違不待觀境。即聞即修之語。何得以須待觀境。用消不待觀境。豈非對面違教改張正說。如此則還解看讀否。還是能消文否。
此來立義。頓返宗教。邪說彰露。得非毀談正教天誅鬼罰乎。又是觀心正義。合顯昭代。致令上人特引斯教文。證其不待尋止觀觀境。即聞事法觀門。便可修習。
上人又云。若不看止觀。則無圓解攝於事法。入陰識心。觀三千理境者。
蓋上人平素不聞善知識隨時策觀也。縱聞講說。亦只對科。披讀而已。還與自看。一般便謂須自看止觀。即能將彼正觀之心。修事法觀也。
若以上人止觀之解。還可攝今事法修觀否。既不知理觀是常坐等約行十乘。又以端坐念實相。為圓談法性。又不識所觀陰識。乃謂是非染非凈之真
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名造修耶（不知道是什麼）。這明顯違背了《妙玄》及其釋簽中的觀點。既然說『久修者』，就要用止觀來辨別和顯示陰境，顯現三千三諦之心，才能攝取現在的事法修觀。這樣說來，就必須等待講解止觀觀境之後，才能攝取現在的事法修觀。那又怎麼能說是不待觀境呢？ 而且，就算對於久修者來說，既然已經對止觀的境界和觀法非常熟悉，聽到這件事法的觀法，就能用原本習慣的心來修習，不需要《玄文》專門指示境界和觀法。 比如對於沒有學習過止觀的人來說，既然還沒有正確的觀照之心，那麼對於這件事法二觀，完全不能一聽就修。又說必須想要修習就必須依靠止觀。這樣說來，就必須等待止觀來辨別和顯示陰境，必須等待止觀來顯示三千理境，才能算是修觀。那就完全違背了不待觀境，一聽就修的說法。怎麼能用必須等待觀境，來消除不待觀境的說法呢？這難道不是當面違背教義，改變正確的說法嗎？這樣的話，還能理解和閱讀嗎？還能理解文意嗎？ 這種立論，完全顛覆了宗教的宗旨。邪說暴露無遺。難道不怕誹謗正教，遭受天譴鬼罰嗎？而且現在是觀心正義，應該在昭明的時代顯現出來，以至於上人特別引用這種教義，來證明不需要尋找止觀的觀境，一聽到事法觀門，就可以修習。 上人又說，如果不看止觀，就沒有圓滿的理解來攝取事法，進入陰識心，觀照三千理境。 大概是上人平時沒有聽到善知識隨時引導觀照吧。即使聽到了講解，也只是對著科文，披閱而已。還和自己看一樣，就認為必須自己看止觀，就能用那種正確的觀照之心，來修習事法觀了。 如果以上人的止觀理解，還能攝取現在的事法修觀嗎？既不知道理觀是常坐等約行十乘（十種修行方法），又把端坐念實相，當作圓談法性。又不認識所觀的陰識，竟然說這是非染非凈的真。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Ming Zao Xiu Ye' (unknown meaning). This clearly contradicts the views in 'Miao Xuan' and its commentary. Since it says 'those who have cultivated for a long time,' one must use Zhi Guan (止觀, cessation and contemplation) to discern and reveal the Yin Jing (陰境, realms of the skandha), manifest the mind of the Three Thousand Three Truths, in order to incorporate the current Shi Fa Xiu Guan (事法修觀, contemplation of phenomena and principles). In this way, one must wait until after explaining the Zhi Guan Guan Jing (止觀觀境, the object of contemplation in cessation and contemplation), in order to incorporate the current Shi Fa Xiu Guan. Then how can it be said that it does not require Guan Jing? Moreover, even for those who have cultivated for a long time, since they are already very familiar with the realm and contemplation of Zhi Guan, upon hearing this method of Shi Fa Guan (事法觀, contemplation of phenomena), they can cultivate it with their original habitual mind, without the need for 'Xuan Wen' (玄文, profound text) to specifically indicate the realm and contemplation. For example, for those who have not learned Zhi Guan, since they do not yet have the correct mind of contemplation, then for these two contemplations of Shi Fa (事法, phenomena) , they cannot immediately cultivate upon hearing. It also says that if one wants to cultivate, one must rely on Zhi Guan. In this way, one must wait for Zhi Guan to discern and reveal the Yin Jing, and one must wait for Zhi Guan to reveal the Three Thousand Principles, in order to be considered as cultivating contemplation. Then it completely contradicts the statement of not requiring Guan Jing and cultivating immediately upon hearing. How can one use the statement of having to wait for Guan Jing to eliminate the statement of not requiring Guan Jing? Isn't this directly contradicting the teachings and changing the correct statement? In this case, can one still understand and read? Can one still understand the meaning of the text? This kind of argument completely subverts the purpose of religion. Heretical views are exposed without reservation. Are you not afraid of slandering the orthodox teachings and suffering heavenly punishment and ghostly retribution? Moreover, now is the time for the righteous meaning of Guan Xin (觀心, contemplation of the mind) to be revealed in the enlightened era, so that the Superior Person (上人, a respectful term for a Buddhist monk) specifically quoted this teaching to prove that there is no need to seek the Guan Jing of Zhi Guan, and that upon hearing the Shi Fa Guan Men (事法觀門, the gate of contemplation of phenomena), one can cultivate it. The Superior Person also said that if one does not read Zhi Guan, one will not have a complete understanding to incorporate Shi Fa, enter the Yin Shi Xin (陰識心, the mind of the skandha consciousness), and contemplate the Three Thousand Principles. Probably the Superior Person usually does not hear the Good Knowing Advisor (善知識, a spiritual teacher) guiding contemplation at any time. Even if he hears the explanation, he just reads through the text. It's the same as reading it himself, and he thinks that he must read Zhi Guan himself, in order to use that correct mind of contemplation to cultivate Shi Fa Guan. If the Superior Person's understanding of Zhi Guan can still incorporate the current Shi Fa Xiu Guan? He does not know that Li Guan (理觀, contemplation of principle) is the Chang Zuo (常坐, constant sitting) and other ten vehicles of practice, and he regards sitting upright and contemplating reality as a complete discussion of Dharma nature. He also does not recognize the Yin Shi (陰識, skandha consciousness) being contemplated, and he says that this is the true nature that is neither defiled nor pure.
心。及錯認為隨凈緣所成佛界之心。又不分事理二造。又不辨內外二境。又不會觀心之意。乃謂但談佛法。便是直顯心性。又不曉觀心之位。乃令登於五品。方依二境修觀。若遇良善師匠指授。終不錯謬如此。
上人莫將此見便為正觀之心否。擬將此心歷事法而修觀耶。須知。此等殊非正解。殊非正觀。如此看尋止觀。有何等益。
應知。欲習此宗教觀。須近善知識。一家玄疏博達。三部止觀深明。如講妙玄之時。至事法觀處。即須懸取止觀觀境之意。教授行者。令其即聞即修。能習此者。豈待止觀教文專示妙境。方令行人修之。但隨講事法觀門。皆將止觀之意成之。令彼聽習之者。隨聞一句事法。即能攝歸一念識心。修觀顯理。不待行人自尋止觀之文也。不待專講止觀方始修習。
故妙樂釋事法觀后云云。下引止觀文者。乃是令講授之者。以廣決略也。何得難云。若不看止觀。何得自知三千妙境耶。若皆自看止觀。便能修觀。何故具五緣中。須近教授善知識耶。
應知但值良師。實不假自尋止觀。實不待止觀專明境觀。但隨聞事法觀心一句。即可依之修觀也。若不遇良師。自尋止觀。亦可修習。然亦不妨有宿種強者。一披其文。朗然深證。何啻能修耶。
今只據上人不值良師故。雖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：對於心，以及錯誤地認為心是隨順清凈因緣所成就的佛界之心，又不區分事相和道理這兩種造作，又不辨別內在和外在兩種境界，又不會觀心的意旨，卻說只要談論佛法，便是直接顯明心性。又不明白觀心的次第，卻讓人在五品位上，才依據內外二境修習觀行。如果遇到良善的師長指導傳授，終究不會有如此的錯誤。
上人不要將這種見解當作是正確的觀心之法啊！難道想用這種心來經歷事法而修觀嗎？須知，這些都不是正確的理解，都不是正確的觀行。如此看待尋覓止觀，有什麼益處呢？
應當知道，想要學習這種宗教觀，必須親近善知識。對於一家（天臺宗）的玄義疏釋博通，對於《摩訶止觀》三部深明。比如講《妙法蓮華經玄義》的時候，講到事法觀之處，就應當預先提取《摩訶止觀》中觀境的意旨，教授修行者，讓他們一聽聞就能立刻修習。能夠這樣學習的人，難道要等到《摩訶止觀》的教文專門指示妙境，才讓修行人修習嗎？只要隨著講授事法觀門，都將《摩訶止觀》的意旨融入其中，讓那些聽聞學習的人，隨著聽聞一句事法，就能攝歸於一念識心，修觀顯理，不需要修行人自己去尋找《摩訶止觀》的經文，也不需要專門講授《摩訶止觀》才開始修習。
所以妙樂大師在解釋事法觀之後說云云，下面引用《摩訶止觀》的經文，是爲了讓講授的人，用廣泛的道理來決斷簡略的提綱。怎麼能責難說，如果不看《摩訶止觀》，怎麼能自己知道三千妙境呢？如果都自己看《摩訶止觀》，就能修觀，為什麼在具足五種因緣中，需要親近教授的善知識呢？
應當知道，只要遇到良師，實在不需要自己去尋找《摩訶止觀》，實在不需要等待《摩訶止觀》專門闡明境觀。只要隨著聽聞事法觀心一句，就可以依此修觀了。如果沒有遇到良師，自己尋找《摩訶止觀》，也可以修習。然而也不妨有宿世善根深厚的人，一披閱經文，就朗然深證，又何止是能夠修習呢？
現在只是因為上人沒有遇到良師的緣故，所以...
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the mind, and mistakenly considering the mind to be the Buddha-realm mind arising from pure conditions, without distinguishing between phenomenal (事相, shìxiàng) and principle (道理, dàolǐ) creations, without discerning between internal and external realms, and without understanding the intent of contemplating the mind, yet claiming that merely discussing the Buddha-dharma directly reveals the nature of mind. Furthermore, without understanding the stages of mind contemplation, one instructs practitioners at the level of the Five Grades (五品, wǔpǐn) to cultivate contemplation based on the two realms of internal and external. If one encounters a virtuous teacher who provides guidance, one would not make such mistakes.
Superior One, do not regard this view as the correct way to contemplate the mind! Do you intend to use this mind to experience phenomena and cultivate contemplation? Know that these are not correct understandings, nor are they correct contemplations. What benefit is there in seeking and examining cessation-contemplation (止觀, zhǐguān) in this way?
It should be known that to study this religious contemplation, one must draw near to virtuous teachers. One must be well-versed in the profound commentaries of the Tiantai school (一家, yījiā), and deeply understand the three parts of the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra (三部止觀, sānbù zhǐguān). For example, when lecturing on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (妙玄, miàoxuán), when reaching the contemplation of phenomena, one should extract the meaning of the objects of contemplation from the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra in advance, and teach the practitioners, so that they can immediately cultivate upon hearing it. Those who can learn in this way, do they need to wait for the teachings of the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra to specifically indicate the wonderful realms before allowing practitioners to cultivate? As long as one lectures on the contemplation of phenomena, one should integrate the meaning of the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra into it, so that those who listen and learn can, upon hearing a single phrase about phenomena, gather it into a single thought of consciousness, cultivate contemplation to reveal the principle, without the need for practitioners to seek the texts of the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra themselves, and without the need to specifically lecture on the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra before beginning cultivation.
Therefore, the Great Teacher Miaole (妙樂, miàolè) said after explaining the contemplation of phenomena, and the following quotation from the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra is for the lecturer to use broad principles to resolve concise outlines. How can one object by saying, 'If one does not read the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra, how can one know the three thousand wonderful realms oneself?' If everyone could cultivate contemplation by reading the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra themselves, why is it necessary to draw near to a virtuous teacher who can instruct, among the five conditions?
It should be known that as long as one encounters a good teacher, there is really no need to seek the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra oneself, and there is really no need to wait for the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra to specifically clarify the objects of contemplation. As long as one hears a single phrase about contemplating the mind through phenomena, one can rely on it to cultivate contemplation. If one does not encounter a good teacher, one can also cultivate by seeking the Mahā-Parinirvāṇa Sūtra oneself. However, it does not preclude those with strong roots from past lives who, upon reading the text, will clearly and deeply realize it. How can it be limited to merely being able to cultivate?
Now, it is only because the Superior One has not encountered a good teacher, therefore...
尋止觀。大節全迷。故未可以此僻解而修觀也。況行人聞事法觀門。若更自尋止觀。則自依約行觀法修之。何不只於事相法相之後。示云修觀在止觀中說。何假費詞約事約法。談乎觀門耶。
況復大師說妙玄時。且未談止觀。豈可當時行人。聞說事法觀門。不即時修觀耶。皆須待至玉泉耶。
若咨稟大師口決。亦只為通事法觀中之壅。大師既深證十境十觀。得以口決示人。滅後傳持之人。若明止觀法門。何以不得將己所解。示于新學者耶。
故荊溪云。若卒無師氏。應以此文及禪門。驗善惡相。又云。若近師氏。理須咨疑近師氏者。既示近代行人。豈令親近智者大師耶。及善知識中雲。行解具足。德在於彼。謂益我者。但在於解。故舉能說法轉人心者。又互發中雲。若達三諦。何啻堪為世方等師。故此等說為令行人親近師範。不教自讀其文。以邪為正。
蓋由上人不體此意故。錯將須待看尋止觀觀境。以消不待觀境之文。又只見文中攝事成理。而不知攝事入陰心成乎理觀。亦以素無良師指授故。專守略文。但謂攝事法入理而已。亦謂入理便是觀心。
蓋承上人以真性釋心故。予昨為防此計。故引義例理觀唯達法性之文示之。豈非彼文雖不云達于陰心。理觀既當端坐十乘。豈不達陰識為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 尋找止觀（Śamatha-Vipassanā，奢摩他-毗婆舍那，意為平靜和內觀）。如果對主要綱領完全迷惑，那麼就不能用這種片面的理解來修習觀（Vipassanā，毗婆舍那，內觀）。況且修行人聽聞了事法觀門（關於現象和教義的觀修方法），如果還要自己去尋找止觀，那麼就自己依照大概的行觀方法去修習。為什麼不在事相（現象的特徵）和法相（教義的特徵）之後，直接說修觀在止觀中說明，何必多費口舌，通過事和法來談論觀門呢？ 況且智者大師（Zhìzhě Dàshī）在講解《妙法蓮華經玄義》（Miàofǎ Liánhuā Jīng Xuányì）時，且沒有談到止觀，難道當時的修行人，聽聞了事法觀門，不立刻修觀嗎？難道都要等到玉泉寺（Yùquán Sì）嗎？ 如果請教智者大師的口頭訣竅，也只是爲了疏通事法觀中的阻塞。智者大師既然深刻地證悟了十境十觀（shí jìng shí guān，十種境界和十種觀法），才能用口頭訣竅來指導他人。大師圓寂后，傳持的人，如果明白止觀法門，為什麼不能將自己所理解的，告訴新學者呢？ 所以荊溪大師（Jīngxī Dàshī）說：『如果實在沒有老師，應該用這篇文章和禪門（Chánmén，禪宗）來驗證善惡之相。』又說：『如果靠近老師，理應諮詢疑問。』既然是開示近代的修行人，難道是讓他們親近智者大師嗎？以及善知識（kalyāṇa-mitta，給予精神指導的人）中說：『行解具足，德在於彼。』意思是說，對我有益的，在於理解。所以舉出能夠說法，轉變人心的人。又在互發中說：『如果通達三諦（sātya，真諦，俗諦，勝義諦），何止堪為世間的方等師（Vaipulya，方等，大乘經典）。』所以這些說法，是爲了讓修行人親近師範，而不是教他們自己讀經文，以邪為正。 大概是因為上人不理解這個意思，所以錯誤地認為需要等待看尋找止觀的觀境，來消除不等待觀境的說法。又只看到文中攝事成理（將現象歸納為真理），而不知道攝事入陰心（將現象納入陰識之心）才能成就理觀（關於真理的觀修）。也是因為向來沒有良師指導，所以專門遵守簡略的文字，只說將事法納入真理而已。也認為納入真理就是觀心（觀照自心）。 大概是因為上人以真性（真實不變的本性）來解釋心，所以我昨天爲了防止這種想法，所以引用義例理觀唯達法性（通過義理的例子，理觀只能通達法性）的文字來開示。難道不是彼文雖然沒有說通達陰心，理觀既然應當端坐十乘（通過端坐和十種方法），難道不通達陰識嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: Seeking Śamatha-Vipassanā (calm abiding and insight). If one is completely confused about the main principles, then one cannot use this biased understanding to practice Vipassanā (insight meditation). Moreover, if a practitioner hears about the methods of contemplating phenomena and doctrines, and still seeks Śamatha-Vipassanā on their own, then they are just practicing according to approximate methods of contemplation. Why not simply state after discussing the characteristics of phenomena and doctrines that contemplation is explained in Śamatha-Vipassanā, instead of wasting words discussing the methods of contemplation through phenomena and doctrines? Furthermore, when Great Master Zhìzhě (智者大師) was explaining the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (Miàofǎ Liánhuā Jīng Xuányì), he did not even mention Śamatha-Vipassanā. Does this mean that practitioners at that time, upon hearing about the methods of contemplating phenomena and doctrines, did not immediately practice contemplation? Did they all have to wait until Yuquan Temple (Yùquán Sì)? If one were to consult Great Master Zhìzhě for oral instructions, it would only be to clear up obstructions in the contemplation of phenomena and doctrines. Since Great Master Zhìzhě had deeply realized the ten realms and ten contemplations (shí jìng shí guān), he was able to guide others with oral instructions. After the Great Master's passing, if those who transmit the teachings understand the Śamatha-Vipassanā methods, why can't they share their understanding with new learners? Therefore, Great Master Jīngxī (荊溪大師) said, 'If there is truly no teacher, one should use this text and the Chan (Chánmén, Zen) school to verify the characteristics of good and evil.' He also said, 'If one is near a teacher, one should consult them about doubts.' Since these are instructions for modern practitioners, does it mean they should be close to Great Master Zhìzhě himself? And regarding good spiritual friends (kalyāṇa-mitta), it is said, 'Practice and understanding are complete, virtue lies in that.' This means that what benefits me lies in understanding. Therefore, it mentions those who can expound the Dharma and transform people's minds. Also, in Mutual Arising, it says, 'If one understands the Three Truths (sātya, Satya, Samvrti, Paramartha), how could they not be worthy of being a Vaipulya (方等, Mahayana) teacher in the world?' Therefore, these statements are to encourage practitioners to be close to teachers, not to teach them to read the scriptures themselves and take falsehood for truth. It is probably because the aforementioned person does not understand this meaning, so they mistakenly think that one needs to wait to see the objects of contemplation in seeking Śamatha-Vipassanā in order to eliminate the statement that one does not need to wait for the objects of contemplation. Also, they only see that the text integrates phenomena into principle, but do not know that integrating phenomena into the mind of the Ālaya-vijñāna (將現象納入陰識之心) is what accomplishes the contemplation of principle. It is also because they have never had a good teacher to guide them, so they exclusively adhere to the abbreviated text, only saying that phenomena and doctrines are integrated into principle. They also think that integrating into principle is the same as contemplating the mind (觀照自心). It is probably because the aforementioned person explains the mind with True Nature (真實不變的本性), so yesterday, in order to prevent this idea, I quoted the text that the contemplation of principle only reaches Dharma-nature (通過義理的例子，理觀只能通達法性) to explain it. Isn't it true that although that text does not say it reaches the mind of the Ālaya-vijñāna, since the contemplation of principle should involve sitting upright and the ten vehicles (通過端坐和十種方法), doesn't it reach the consciousness of the Ālaya-vijñāna?
法性耶。
上人謂予引此文。更為可笑。為當欲笑何失。豈可酬答不得。但笑而已。引此為證。非是孤然。
蓋由上人于答疑書中。專引此文證圓談法性。純是理觀。豈非全不達陰識為法性只取法性兩字。便為理觀也。全不曉能達是十乘。所達是陰識。所顯是法性況達在文。尚未解言趣。陰識既略。何由懸解。以此闇昧故。將佛果法相。妄為理觀十乘。不請笑茲引文蓋旅人先笑后必號啕也。何者既抑彼約行觀法不依陰識。則觀無所託理無所顯。乃用茲非義。廢乎觀心。既毀方等真觀。法說非法。當生必招耕舌之苦。現世又多疑法之愁。何得苦中而自作樂頻頻撫掌強笑耶。若據上人前後邪說。皆為不善消文。今且寄此一二略示愆失耳。
如輔行雲但觀理具。上人乃以不但觀理具消之。四念處令專觀內心。即以不專內消之。此玄說果佛法性。便以純談理觀消之。正談佛果法相。乃以直顯心性消之。妙玄絕待三法。乃以隔別事相消之。止觀妄染陰識。乃以非染非凈消之。妙玄心定在因。乃以心非因果消之。此玄當體真法。乃以一念妄心消之。不二門一切三法離合。乃□單將三因消之。然一家教觀。盡以曲解。顛倒消之。至於破立。全無所以也。
上人因引釋簽此文。則令己所立義皆破壞也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 法性嗎？
上人讓我引用這段文字，真是可笑。是想笑什麼過失呢？難道是無法回答，只能一笑置之？我引用這段文字作為證據，並非毫無根據。
這是因為上人在答疑書中，專門引用這段文字來證明圓談法性，純粹是理觀。難道不是完全不明白陰識即是法性，只抓住『法性』二字，就認為是理觀了嗎？完全不明白能達之智是十乘觀法，所達之境是陰識，所顯之體是法性。況且『達』字還在經文里，尚未理解言語的意趣，陰識既然被忽略，又怎麼能憑空理解呢？因為這種闇昧不明，所以將佛果法相，錯誤地認為是理觀十乘。不請自笑，引用這段文字，大概是旅人先笑后必號啕吧。為什麼呢？既然壓制、約束依陰識而行的觀法，那麼觀就無所依託，理就無所顯現，於是用這種不合義理的方式，廢棄了觀心。既然毀壞了方等真觀，法說非法，將來必定會招致耕舌地獄的苦報，現世又多出疑惑佛法的憂愁。怎麼能在苦中作樂，頻頻拍手強笑呢？如果根據上人前後所說的邪說，都是不善於理解經文。現在姑且寄託這一二處，略微指出您的過失罷了。
例如《輔行記》說『但觀理具』，上人卻用『不但觀理具』來消解它。四念處要求專觀內心，就用『不專內』來消解它。這裡玄妙地談論果佛法性，就用純粹談論理觀來消解它。明明是談論佛果法相，卻用直接顯現心性來消解它。《妙玄》的絕待三法，卻用隔別事相來消解它。《止觀》所說的妄染陰識，卻用非染非凈來消解它。《妙玄》的心定在因位，卻用心非因果來消解它。這裡玄妙地談論當體真法，卻用一念妄心來消解它。《不二門》的一切三法離合，卻只用三因來消解它。這樣一來，一家教觀，都被曲解、顛倒地消解了，至於破立，完全沒有道理。
上人因為引用《釋簽》的這段文字，那麼您自己所立的義理就全部被破壞了。
【English Translation】 English version: Dharmatā (法性, Dharma-nature)?
The Superior One's (上人) citation of this passage for my benefit is even more laughable. What fault is it that you intend to laugh at? Is it that you cannot respond, and can only laugh? My citation of this as evidence is not without basis.
This is because in the Superior One's response to questions, you specifically cite this passage to prove the complete discussion of Dharmatā (法性), which is purely a theoretical contemplation (理觀, lī-guan). Is it not that you completely fail to understand that the ālaya-consciousness (陰識, yin-shi) is Dharmatā (法性), and that you only grasp the two words 'Dharmatā (法性),' and then consider it to be theoretical contemplation (理觀)? You completely fail to understand that the ability to realize is the Ten Vehicles (十乘, shí-shèng), what is realized is the ālaya-consciousness (陰識), and what is revealed is Dharmatā (法性). Moreover, the word 'realize' (達, dá) is still in the text, and you have not yet understood the meaning of the words. Since the ālaya-consciousness (陰識) is neglected, how can you understand it without any basis? Because of this obscurity, you mistakenly consider the Dharma characteristics of Buddhahood (佛果法相, fó-guǒ fǎ-xiàng) to be the theoretical contemplation (理觀) of the Ten Vehicles (十乘). You laugh without being asked to, citing this passage, probably like a traveler who laughs first and then wails. Why? Since you suppress and restrict the practice of contemplation (觀, guan) that relies on the ālaya-consciousness (陰識), then the contemplation (觀) has nothing to rely on, and the principle (理, lī) has nothing to reveal. Therefore, you use this unrighteous method to abandon the contemplation of the mind (觀心, guan-xin). Since you destroy the true contemplation (真觀, zhēn-guan) of the Vaipulya Sutras (方等, fāng-děng), and speak of Dharma as non-Dharma, you will inevitably incur the suffering of the plowing-tongue hell (耕舌, gēng-shé) in the future, and in this life, you will have much sorrow from doubting the Dharma. How can you make merry in suffering, frequently clapping your hands and forcing a laugh?
If based on the Superior One's previous and subsequent heretical statements, all of them are unskilled interpretations of the text. Now, I will temporarily entrust these one or two points to briefly indicate your faults.
For example, the Fu Xing Ji (輔行記) says, 'Only contemplate the complete principle (理具, lī-jù),' but the Superior One uses 'not only contemplate the complete principle (理具)' to negate it. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness (四念處, sì-niàn-chù) require one to exclusively contemplate the inner mind, but you use 'not exclusively inner' to negate it. Here, you mysteriously discuss the Dharmatā (法性) of the Buddha of Fruition (果佛, guǒ-fó), but you use purely discussing theoretical contemplation (理觀) to negate it. Clearly, you are discussing the Dharma characteristics of Buddhahood (佛果法相), but you use directly revealing the nature of the mind (心性, xīn-xìng) to negate it. The absolute three dharmas (絕待三法, jué-dài sān-fǎ) of the Miao Xuan (妙玄), you use separate phenomena (隔別事相, gé-bié shì-xiàng) to negate it. The deluded and defiled ālaya-consciousness (陰識) mentioned in Zhi Guan (止觀), you use neither defiled nor pure to negate it. The mind's stability in the causal stage (因, yīn) in Miao Xuan (妙玄), you use the mind is neither cause nor effect to negate it. Here, you mysteriously discuss the true Dharma of the very substance (當體真法, dāng-tǐ zhēn-fǎ), but you use a single deluded thought to negate it. The union and separation of all three dharmas (三法, sān-fǎ) in the Non-Dual Gate (不二門, bù-èr-mén), you only use the three causes (三因, sān-yīn) to negate it. In this way, the entire teachings and contemplations of one school are all distorted and negated, and as for destruction and establishment, there is no reason at all.
Because the Superior One cites this passage from Shi Qian (釋簽), all the meanings that you have established are destroyed.
何者豈非本以不待觀境之文。欲成事法之觀不依陰境。此文既是先出觀心一釋之意。及乎正明觀心中。顯然須依陰境。是則不依陰境之義。自然破壞也。
上人又轉計。不待揀陰為境。且觀心釋中。具含揀陰之意。已如前不識所觀之心。段中委說。今不煩敘也。
上人本計事法二觀。全不揀示陰心。因引此文。卻成二觀有揀陰義也。得非己義自破壞耶。上人本計事法之觀。不可修習。文中既云不待觀陰。又云即聞即修起精進心。不待陰境之義。既其全壞。須是不待止觀專明妙觀之境也。既令不待。又令即修。正當不待止觀。即修事法觀也。
又更縱上人轉計。以不待揀示陰境釋之。
上人本執諸文事法二觀。以不揀境驗不可修。何故此文。不待觀境。便令精進而修。既云是觀心式樣。驗知。諸文事法之觀。雖不揀示陰境。皆須精進而修也。得非己義自破壞耶。又諸文不揀陰境。尚可即修。今此玄棄三觀一。既已揀境。那得卻非修法耶。
又更縱久諳止觀揀境之人。聞此事法觀時。不待玄文揀境。能用本習境觀修之。
只如未習止觀之人。何故特令不待揀境精進而修耶。
況妙玄本為先開妙解。對未習止觀者。說之為強。何得唯對久習者說之耶。
皆由上人不得名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什麼是不依賴於觀照對像（境）的說法呢？如果想要成就事法之觀，就不能不依賴於五陰（陰境）。這段文字既然是先提出觀心的解釋，那麼在真正闡明觀心時，顯然必須依賴於五陰。這樣一來，不依賴於五陰的說法，自然就被破壞了。
上人又轉變說法，認為不必區分五陰作為觀照對象，而且觀心的解釋中，已經包含了區分五陰的含義。這就像之前在『不認識所觀之心』那段中詳細說明的那樣，現在就不再贅述了。
上人原本認為事法二觀完全不區分五陰和心。因為引用這段文字，反而使得事法二觀有了區分五陰的含義。這不是自己破壞了自己的觀點嗎？上人原本認為事法之觀不可修習，而文中既然說『不依賴於觀陰』，又說『立即聽聞立即修習，生起精進心』，那麼不依賴於五陰的說法，就已經完全被破壞了。那麼就必須是不依賴於止觀，專門闡明妙觀的境界了。既然說不依賴，又說立即修習，這正是指不依賴於止觀，立即修習事法觀。
又進一步假設上人轉變說法，用不區分五陰作為觀照對像來解釋。
上人原本執著于各篇經文中的事法二觀，認為因為不區分觀照對像所以不可修習。為什麼這段文字中，不依賴於觀照對象，卻可以立即精進而修習呢？既然說這是觀心的模式，那麼就可以知道，各篇經文中的事法之觀，即使不區分五陰，也都需要精進而修習。這不是自己破壞了自己的觀點嗎？而且各篇經文不區分五陰，尚且可以立即修習，現在這部《妙玄》捨棄三觀合一，既然已經區分了觀照對象，怎麼反而不能修習了呢？
又進一步假設長久熟悉止觀、能夠區分觀照對象的人，聽到這個事法觀時，即使沒有《妙玄》的經文來區分觀照對象，也能用原本學習的觀照方法來修習。
只是對於沒有學習過止觀的人，為什麼特別要讓他們不依賴於區分觀照對象，而精進而修習呢？
況且《妙玄》本來是爲了先開啟妙解，對沒有學習過止觀的人來說，這樣說才顯得有力，怎麼能只對長久學習過止觀的人說呢？
這些都是因為上人沒有理解名相的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version: What is the meaning of 'not relying on the object of contemplation (境, jing)'? If one wishes to accomplish the contemplation of phenomena and dharmas (事法之觀, shifa zhi guan), one cannot but rely on the five skandhas (五陰, wuyin) (陰境, yin jing). Since this passage first presents the explanation of contemplating the mind (觀心, guanxin), it is clear that when truly elucidating the contemplation of the mind, one must rely on the five skandhas. In this case, the meaning of 'not relying on the five skandhas' is naturally undermined.
The Superior One (上人, shangren) then changes his argument, claiming that there is no need to distinguish the five skandhas as the object of contemplation, and that the explanation of contemplating the mind already contains the meaning of distinguishing the five skandhas. This is as explained in detail in the previous section 'not recognizing the mind being contemplated (不識所觀之心, bushi suo guan zhi xin)', so I will not repeat it now.
The Superior One originally believed that the two contemplations of phenomena and dharmas (事法二觀, shifa er guan) do not distinguish between the five skandhas and the mind at all. Because of quoting this passage, it turns out that the two contemplations of phenomena and dharmas have the meaning of distinguishing the five skandhas. Isn't this destroying one's own view? The Superior One originally believed that the contemplation of phenomena and dharmas cannot be practiced, but since the text says 'not relying on contemplating the skandhas (不待觀陰, budai guan yin)', and also says 'immediately upon hearing, immediately practice, and generate diligent mind (即聞即修起精進心, ji wen ji xiu qi jingjin xin)', then the meaning of not relying on the five skandhas has been completely undermined. Then it must be not relying on cessation and contemplation (止觀, zhiguan), but specifically elucidating the realm of wondrous contemplation (妙觀, miaoguan). Since it says not relying, and also says immediately practice, this precisely refers to not relying on cessation and contemplation, and immediately practicing the contemplation of phenomena and dharmas.
Furthermore, let's assume the Superior One changes his argument, using not distinguishing the five skandhas as the object of contemplation to explain it.
The Superior One originally clung to the two contemplations of phenomena and dharmas in various texts, believing that because they do not distinguish the object of contemplation, they cannot be practiced. Why is it that in this passage, without relying on the object of contemplation, one can immediately diligently practice? Since it says this is the model of contemplating the mind, then it can be known that the contemplation of phenomena and dharmas in various texts, even if they do not distinguish the five skandhas, all need to be diligently practiced. Isn't this destroying one's own view? Moreover, the various texts do not distinguish the five skandhas, yet one can immediately practice. Now that this Miaoxuan (妙玄) abandons the unity of the three contemplations (三觀一, san guan yi), and has already distinguished the object of contemplation, how can it not be practiced?
Furthermore, let's assume that someone who is familiar with cessation and contemplation and can distinguish the object of contemplation, when hearing about this contemplation of phenomena and dharmas, even without the text of Miaoxuan distinguishing the object of contemplation, can use the contemplation methods they originally learned to practice it.
But for someone who has not learned cessation and contemplation, why specifically tell them not to rely on distinguishing the object of contemplation, but to diligently practice?
Moreover, Miaoxuan was originally intended to first open up wondrous understanding, and it is powerful to say this to those who have not learned cessation and contemplation. How can it only be said to those who have long studied cessation and contemplation?
All of this is because the Superior One does not understand the names and terms.
師點示。遂不善取意消之。致令引文破他。翻今己義自壞。亦由毀滅正教諸聖不容。雖未口吐熱血。且教眾惡滋彰愿速悔過。勿使噬臍不及也。信與不信速希回報。
然又詰難書。自問純談理觀不依陰心。乃是正詰常坐等約行觀法。何不揀示識心為境。何不明十乘三觀。上人卻用事法不待陰境。答之有何干涉。縱令上人。此義十分全成。何能救于約行無境。況十分全壞耶。
上人本立十種三法。已是約行觀故。不須附法觀心。今以諸義驗之。全非約行之觀。能破觀心之宗既敗。所破之義何傷。應知。十科觀心。是大師親說。是妙行所憑也。
第十不閑究理
法華一經出諸教上者。蓋由稱于自行所證也。
且道場所得。真實絕妙之理。蓋根器未純故不獲已。而兼但對帶說之。洎乎二乘心漸通泰。菩薩疑網可除。則舍諸方便。但談一實圓妙之理矣。
大師深悟經旨。乃以十妙。而詮示之。雖列諸法相。無不皆以二妙圓實之理。節節融之。
且三法一妙。最是自行果德。所證圓極之理也。故云三軌者。即一大乘法。十方諦求。更無餘乘。亦名第一義諦。亦名第一義空。亦名如來藏。此三不定三。三而論一。一不定一。一而論三。不可思議。不併不別。伊字天目。乃將此三一不可
思議絕妙之理。貫通十種三法。而一一三法。皆從凡夫一念心性。約六即辨至極果也。
上人以全不閑究理故。乃于答疑書首示云。以由玄文十種三法。直顯心性。義同理觀。若直爾明十種三法。不以法性融之。則更立觀心一科。觀前十法。此如妙玄但以三軌。類通十法而已。合有觀心一釋。彼文無者略也。今之玄文雖帶十種法相。其如並以法性貫之。法性無外。即我一心。若識一心。則了諸法。何獨於一念中。識十種三法。乃至無量三法。若橫若豎。罔不照之全我一念。豈此之外。而有法相不融。更須附法作觀乎。應知。此玄所談。非但法相圓融。亦乃理觀明白。約此而觀。何謂教觀不分解行雙失(以由下並是答疑書文。不加減一字其文收掌見在)不知上人。約於何義。輒云妙玄十種三法。不以法性融之耶。
荊溪云。使一代教文融通入妙。偏小之法。尚皆融妙。因何十種圓教三法。卻不以法性融之。若妙玄不以法性。融通諸法。則全是有為事相。且待絕二妙。何所堪耶。是則雖談妙法。不明常住。以不約理論妙故也。
如此謗于妙經。其口當破。其舌當裂。因何黨其邪宗。執其邪解。薰心作孽。一至於此。悲哉悲哉。
然妙經與此經。約乎教部帶不帶開未開。而辨融不融相。在其詰難書
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 思議絕妙之理，貫通十種三法（指天臺宗所立的十種三法，即因緣三法、約教三法、本末三法等）。而每一種三法，都從凡夫一念心性出發，約六即（指理即、名字即、觀行即、相似即、分證即、究竟即）來辨析，直至達到最圓滿的果位。
上人（指湛然）因為完全不熟悉窮究事理，所以在答疑書的開頭就說，依據《法華玄義》的十種三法，直接彰顯心性，其義理與理觀相同。如果只是單純地闡明十種三法，而不用法性（指諸法實相）來融攝它，那麼就需要另外設立觀心一科，來觀照前面的十法。這就像《妙玄》（即《法華玄義》）只是用三軌（指真性軌、實相軌、方便軌）來類比貫通十法而已。這樣就應該有觀心一釋，而《妙玄》原文沒有，是省略了。現在《法華玄義》雖然帶有十種法相，但卻都是用法性來貫穿它們。法性無所不在，就是我的這一念心。如果認識了這一念心，就能瞭解一切諸法。何止在一念之中，認識十種三法，乃至無量的三法，無論是橫向還是縱向，無不照見於我這一念心。難道除此之外，還有法相不能融攝，還需要另外附加法來作觀嗎？應該知道，《法華玄義》所談的，不僅僅是法相圓融，也是理觀明白。依據這個來觀照，哪裡會有教觀不分、解行雙失的情況呢？（從『以由下』開始，都是答疑書的原文，沒有增減一字，其文收錄在案）。不知道上人是依據什麼意義，竟然說《妙玄》的十種三法，不以法性來融攝呢？
荊溪（指湛然）說，使一代的教文融通進入妙境，即使是偏小之法，尚且都能融于妙境，為什麼十種圓教的三法，反而不以法性來融攝呢？如果《妙玄》不以法性來融通諸法，那麼就完全是有為的事相，又有什麼可以稱得上絕妙呢？這樣即使談論妙法，也不明白常住的道理，因為沒有依據理論來談論妙法。
如此誹謗《妙經》（指《法華經》），他的口應當破裂，他的舌頭應當斷裂。為什麼偏袒他的邪宗，執著他的邪見，讓邪念薰心作惡，竟然到了這種地步？可悲啊，可悲啊！
然而《妙經》與此經（指《法華玄義》），是依據教部的帶與不帶、開與未開，來辨別融與不融的相狀，這在詰難書中。
【English Translation】 English version: The inconceivable and wonderful principle penetrates the ten kinds of three dharmas (referring to the ten kinds of three dharmas established by the Tiantai school, namely the three dharmas of cause and condition, the three dharmas of teaching, the three dharmas of origin and end, etc.). And each of the three dharmas originates from the one thought of the mind-nature of ordinary beings, and is analyzed according to the six identities (referring to the identity in principle, the identity in name, the identity in practice, the identity in resemblance, the identity in partial realization, and the identity in ultimate realization), until the most perfect fruition is achieved.
The Superior One (referring to Zhanran) because he is completely unfamiliar with investigating principles, therefore, at the beginning of the 'Answers to Doubts' he stated that based on the ten kinds of three dharmas in 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra', the mind-nature is directly revealed, and its meaning is the same as the contemplation of principle. If only the ten kinds of three dharmas are simply explained, without using the dharma-nature (referring to the true nature of all dharmas) to integrate them, then it is necessary to establish another subject of contemplating the mind to contemplate the previous ten dharmas. This is like 'Profound Meaning' (i.e., 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') only uses the three tracks (referring to the track of true nature, the track of true form, and the track of expedient means) to analogize and connect the ten dharmas. In this way, there should be an explanation of contemplating the mind, but the original text of 'Profound Meaning' does not have it, which is an omission. Now, although 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra' carries the ten kinds of dharma characteristics, they are all connected by dharma-nature. Dharma-nature is omnipresent, which is my one thought. If one recognizes this one thought, one can understand all dharmas. Not only in one thought, one recognizes the ten kinds of three dharmas, and even countless three dharmas, whether horizontal or vertical, are all illuminated in my one thought. Could it be that besides this, there are dharma characteristics that cannot be integrated, and it is necessary to add another dharma to contemplate? It should be known that what 'Profound Meaning' discusses is not only the perfect integration of dharma characteristics, but also the clear contemplation of principle. According to this contemplation, how can there be a situation where teaching and contemplation are not separated, and understanding and practice are both lost? (From 'Because of the following' onwards, are all the original texts of 'Answers to Doubts', without adding or subtracting a word, and the text is recorded). I don't know what meaning the Superior One is based on, that he actually said that the ten kinds of three dharmas in 'Profound Meaning' are not integrated by dharma-nature?
Jingxi (referring to Zhanran) said, 'To make the teachings of a generation integrate into the wonderful realm, even the partial and small dharmas can still be integrated into the wonderful realm, why can't the ten kinds of perfect teaching's three dharmas be integrated by dharma-nature? If 'Profound Meaning' does not use dharma-nature to integrate all dharmas, then it is completely conditioned phenomena, and what can be called wonderful?' In this way, even if one talks about the wonderful dharma, one does not understand the principle of permanence, because one does not talk about the wonderful dharma based on theory.
To slander the 'Wonderful Sutra' (referring to the 'Lotus Sutra') in this way, his mouth should be broken, and his tongue should be cut off. Why does he favor his heretical sect, cling to his heretical views, and let heretical thoughts fill his mind and do evil, to such an extent? How sad, how sad!
However, the 'Wonderful Sutra' and this sutra (referring to 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') are based on whether the teachings of the division carry or do not carry, open or not open, to distinguish the appearance of integration or non-integration, which is in the 'Book of Questions'.
中也。上人既被詰難。深知錯下謗法之言。內心雖伏。而外相不甘。遂作數般道理。分疏抵諱。雖即費詞。其奈分疏不開。抵諱不得。何者豈不答疑書意云。妙玄十法。不以理融。故須立觀心融之。此玄十法。既以理融遂不須觀心融之。正意在此。故無所隱也。
今來義狀。卻云由彼歷別科中。從實開權。明三教三軌。及類通中。援引文煩。兼非直對經題解釋。慮讀者忘其觀行。故云合有觀心。
且答疑書。自云不以法性融故。合有觀心觀前十法。何時曾云合立觀心觀於三教三軌。何曾云觀于援引文相。如斯謾說。欲哧三歲孩兒。還肯信否。此乃是公。欺諸方達士。顯誷滿空聖人。還略知慚愧不。又云妙玄略觀心之語者。謂三法直是所觀一理。況具修性之說。義與觀心相應。若以三法貫通。義當易見故略之爾。是則妙玄十法。法性貫之也。因何前說不以法性貫之。豈非前說不以法性貫之。今說乃以法性貫之。前說須立觀心。今說不須立觀心。前說觀于圓教十法。今說觀於三教三軌。及觀援引文相。則前說與今說。顯然相違。灼然墮負。上人若是君子之心。為法之意。必應首伏。捨短從長。終不將無義之語。抵諱分疏也。斯之謗法之過。皆由不閑究理之所致也。然諸所說。皆為不善究理。且寄此中說耳。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是正確的。這位上人（指被詰難者）既然被質問，就深深地知道自己說出了誹謗佛法的話。內心雖然屈服，但表面上卻不甘心，於是編造了許多道理，來辯解抵賴。即使費盡口舌，又怎能辯解得開，抵賴得了呢？為什麼呢？難道不是答疑書中的意思說，『《妙玄》（《摩訶止觀》）中的十法，不能用理來融合，所以需要建立觀心來融合它。』這《妙玄》中的十法，既然可以用理來融合，就不需要用觀心來融合它。真正的意思就在這裡，所以沒有什麼隱瞞的。 現在來的義狀，卻說是因為歷別科中，從實開權，闡明三教三軌（指聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘三種教法和修行途徑），以及類通中，援引的文字繁多，而且不是直接針對經題進行解釋，擔心讀者忘記觀行，所以說應該有觀心。 而且答疑書中，自己說因為不能用法性來融合，所以應該有觀心來觀察前面的十法。什麼時候說過應該建立觀心來觀察三教三軌？什麼時候說過觀察援引的文字表相？像這樣胡說八道，想要欺騙三歲的小孩，還會有人相信嗎？這實在是您（指被詰難者）欺騙各方的賢達之士，公然欺騙滿天空的聖人，難道一點都不知道慚愧嗎？又說『《妙玄》中略去觀心』的意思是，三法（指境、智、行）直接就是所觀的一個理，況且具有具修性（指圓頓止觀）的說法，義理與觀心相應，如果用三法來貫通，義理就容易明白，所以省略了觀心罷了。這樣說來，《妙玄》的十法，是用法性來貫通的啊。為什麼前面說不能用法性來貫通呢？難道不是前面說不能用法性貫通，現在又說用法性貫通嗎？前面說需要建立觀心，現在說不需要建立觀心。前面說觀察圓教的十法，現在說觀察三教三軌，以及觀察援引的文字表相。那麼前面的說法和現在的說法，顯然是互相矛盾的，確實是理屈詞窮了。上人如果是有君子之心，爲了佛法著想，必定應該首先認輸，捨棄短處，學習長處，始終不會用沒有道理的話，來抵賴辯解。這種誹謗佛法的過錯，都是因為不善於深入研究義理所導致的。然而這些所說的話，都是因為不善於研究義理，且寄託在這裡說說罷了。
【English Translation】 English version: That is correct. Since the Venerable One (referring to the one being questioned) has been challenged, he deeply knows that he has uttered words that slander the Dharma. Although he submits inwardly, he is unwilling outwardly, and thus concocts various reasons to explain away and deny. Even if he exhausts his words, how can he explain away or deny it? Why? Isn't the meaning of the reply letter saying, 'The ten dharmas in the 'Wonderful Profundity' ( Miao Xuan, another name for Mohe Zhiguan), cannot be integrated with reason, so it is necessary to establish contemplation of the mind to integrate them.' Since these ten dharmas in the 'Wonderful Profundity' can be integrated with reason, there is no need to integrate them with contemplation of the mind. The true meaning lies here, so there is nothing to hide. Now, the submitted statement says that because in the section on distinguishing categories, it opens up provisional teachings from the real, clarifying the three teachings and three vehicles (san jiao san gui, referring to the three teachings and paths of the Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna), and in the section on general connections, the cited texts are numerous, and it is not a direct explanation of the sutra title, fearing that readers will forget the practice of contemplation, so it is said that there should be contemplation of the mind. Moreover, the reply letter itself says that because it cannot be integrated with the nature of Dharma, there should be contemplation of the mind to observe the preceding ten dharmas. When was it ever said that contemplation of the mind should be established to observe the three teachings and three vehicles? When was it ever said to observe the cited textual appearances? Such nonsense, trying to deceive a three-year-old child, would anyone still believe it? This is truly you (referring to the one being questioned) deceiving the wise scholars of all directions, openly deceiving the saints filling the sky, do you not know even a little shame? Furthermore, saying that 'the 'Wonderful Profundity' omits the words of contemplation of the mind' means that the three dharmas (referring to object, wisdom, and practice) are directly the one principle being contemplated. Moreover, having the saying of complete cultivation of nature (referring to perfect and sudden cessation and contemplation), the meaning corresponds to contemplation of the mind. If the three dharmas are used to connect and penetrate, the meaning will be easily understood, so contemplation of the mind is omitted. In this way, the ten dharmas of the 'Wonderful Profundity' are connected and penetrated by the nature of Dharma. Why did you say earlier that it cannot be connected and penetrated by the nature of Dharma? Isn't it that you said earlier that it cannot be connected and penetrated by the nature of Dharma, and now you say that it is connected and penetrated by the nature of Dharma? Earlier you said that it is necessary to establish contemplation of the mind, now you say that it is not necessary to establish contemplation of the mind. Earlier you said to observe the ten dharmas of the perfect teaching, now you say to observe the three teachings and three vehicles, and to observe the cited textual appearances. Then the previous statement and the current statement are clearly contradictory, and indeed are at a loss for words. If the Venerable One has the heart of a gentleman, and is thinking of the Dharma, he must first admit defeat, abandon shortcomings, and learn from strengths, and will never use meaningless words to deny and explain away. This fault of slandering the Dharma is all due to not being good at deeply studying the principles. However, all that has been said is because of not being good at studying the principles, and is just expressed here.
況彼文三教三軌。既約從實開權。而說皆云。為如來藏所攝。自然不生封著。
何者既知從一開三三無定三。此玄直將三教。對圓而論。未說權從實出。那能免於差別之執。何故彼文卻須觀心融之。此文卻不用觀心融之耶。
又援引文略。此玄對明三教。豈不引阿含大品等諸經論。明三教十種三法耶。圓教十法。豈全是經題自標。非引經論而立耶。若論紙數。此玄更多。何故不用觀心觀之耶。又將直附經題明於十法。故云以法性融之。豈妙玄三法。不附妙法之題耶。
況彼附妙法。是約法立義。此玄附金光明。是約喻立義。因何附世金。卻是法性貫之。附妙法而不得以法性融之耶。此等顛倒。必是惡鬼入心。狂迷而說。實不合與上人議論。既諂心惡行如此。終不肯摧折慢幢。終不肯信順正義。但為惜乎正教被顛倒說混之。又為悔于來蒙遭邪言惑亂。所以略寄數義。陳其梗概耳。
上人又云。十種法相併以法性貫之。法性無外。唯我一心。乃至無量三法。橫豎照之。乃云。應知。此玄所談。非但法相圓融。亦乃理觀明白等。
正釋十種三法。專以道后法性。該於道中道前。乃是的論佛法甚深。而實未談心法。以上人元不知心佛高下為門不同。故輒云法性無外唯我一心。而攝諸法入
心。橫豎而照。便謂此之玄文。非但法性圓融。亦乃理觀明白。
故詰難書曰。一念心法。乃是內觀之境。仍須教文自立。不可妄添。豈可為成我義。便自任情曲撰。且如正釋十科。不見略言一念。何得自融自照成乎邪說。
上人既遭此難。方當少醒。乃知正釋與料揀。不曾攝法歸心。不曾用觀照了。此義顯然又墮。乃於二年。巧作計較。推與久修始習兩種行人。久修者。自能攝法歸心。橫豎照之。始習者。自於止觀。修于理觀。如此釋義。便同兒戲。則此玄文殊無談理觀之文。亦無融法相之說。但是久修止觀者。自將觀智融照。則十法恰同法界次第但釋大小名相而已。
況復法界次第文初。大師有為成三觀之言。學者可以稟教而修。此玄正釋之初。大師只今用信解分別。學者稟何言教而修觀行。
上人本立此玄十種三法。純談理觀直顯心性。超過妙玄十法。今卻全同法界次第凡夫二乘法相也。彼文雖有大乘法相。豈學三觀者。不以凡小法相歷心而修耶。然又推與行人說。灼然是上人妄語。何者答疑書。明說以由玄文直顯心性。故於一念心中。融諸法相。橫豎而照。復自云。應知此玄所談。非但法相圓融。亦乃理觀明白。既云玄文直顯。又云此玄所談。何得今來剛然轉作。行人自攝法相歸心
。自於止觀橫豎而照。又本立此玄純談理觀。何得卻云正明附法。兼明理觀耶。如此將於至教。輕侮戲弄。對於諸聖。妄言綺語。為無來報耶。為無見報耶。若觀答疑書此一段邪說。恐大師四辨。以劫壽陳。其謗法欺心之過。亦不可盡。
切冀上人。就理迴心。修功補過。共扶正教。遐益群生。可否之間。速希酬報。其有經王之答足見欺心。當體之酬益知轉計。兩經觀體自語相違。二諦教文頻頻不答。未能委詰。聊敘如前。幸冀上人。思三報之苦長。念一生之事促。舍於我見。順彼法門。無謂先師久執此解。既不遭現苦。乃相效而再行。自是當時不聞正義。實抱己見。必無諂心。或恐先示邪宗。俾欲后彰正說。上人今逢正道。須改迷宗。儻違自心。定招惡報。勤勤奉勉。屢屢興言。只欲顯煥本宗。恐上人不思來報。更莫空延時節。幸希速示否臧。草草馳誠。不果周悉。四明住。延慶院法門比丘。知禮和南。
四明十義書卷下(終)
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：從止觀的角度進行橫向和縱向的觀察。而且原本設立這個玄純談理觀，怎麼能說它既正面闡明附法，又兼明理觀呢？這樣對待至高的教義，是輕視和戲弄。在諸聖面前，妄語和花言巧語，難道不怕沒有來世的報應嗎？難道不怕現世的報應嗎？如果看觀答疑書中的這段邪說，恐怕大師的四種辯才，會用來減少壽命。他誹謗佛法、欺騙內心的過錯，也是無法窮盡的。
懇切希望上人，能從道理上回心轉意，修功德以彌補過失，共同扶持正法，長遠地利益眾生。對與不對，希望儘快回覆。其中對於經王的回答，足以看出欺騙之心；當下的酬答，更加知道是轉移計策。兩部經的觀法本體，自相矛盾；對於二諦的教義，屢次不回答。未能詳細追問，姑且像前面那樣敘述。希望上人，思考三世報應的漫長痛苦，想到一生時光的短暫。捨棄自己的偏見，順從佛法的教義。不要說先師長期堅持這種見解，既然沒有遭受現世的痛苦，就互相效仿而再次這樣做。這只是當時沒有聽到正確的道理，確實是抱持自己的見解，一定沒有諂媚之心。或許是先師故意示現邪宗，以便後來彰顯正說。上人現在遇到正道，必須改變迷惑的宗派。如果違背自己的良心，必定招致惡報。勤勉地奉勸，屢次地陳述，只是想要顯揚本宗，恐怕上人不考慮來世的報應，更不要白白地拖延時間。希望儘快指示對錯。匆忙地表達誠意，未能周全詳盡。四明（地名，今浙江寧波）延慶院法門比丘知禮（人名）和南（佛教禮儀，合掌致敬）。
四明十義書卷下（終）
【English Translation】 English version: Observing horizontally and vertically from the perspective of Zhi Guan (止觀, Calm Abiding and Insight Meditation). Moreover, this profound and pure discussion of the principle of contemplation was originally established. How can it be said that it both clearly elucidates adherence to the Dharma and also illuminates the contemplation of principle? Treating the supreme teachings in this way is to belittle and mock them. Before all the sages, speaking falsely and with flowery language, are you not afraid of retribution in the future? Are you not afraid of retribution in this life? If one reads this heretical statement in the 'Questions and Answers on Contemplation,' I fear that the master's four kinds of eloquence will be used to shorten his lifespan. His faults of slandering the Dharma and deceiving his own mind are also inexhaustible.
I earnestly hope that the Venerable One can turn his mind back to reason, cultivate merit to make up for his faults, and jointly support the correct Dharma, benefiting sentient beings far and wide. Whether it is right or wrong, I hope for a prompt reply. The answer regarding the Sutra King is sufficient to reveal a deceitful mind; the current response further shows a shifting of tactics. The contemplative essence of the two sutras contradicts itself; the teachings of the Two Truths are repeatedly left unanswered. Unable to inquire in detail, I will provisionally narrate as before. I hope that the Venerable One will contemplate the long suffering of the three retributions and remember the brevity of one's life. Abandon your own prejudices and follow the teachings of the Dharma. Do not say that the former teacher has long adhered to this view, and since he has not suffered present suffering, you imitate each other and do it again. This is only because you did not hear the correct teachings at that time, and you truly hold your own views, certainly without a flattering heart. Perhaps the former teacher deliberately manifested a heretical sect in order to later reveal the correct teachings. The Venerable One now encounters the correct path and must change the deluded sect. If you violate your own conscience, you will surely incur evil retribution. I earnestly advise and repeatedly state, only wanting to manifest the original sect, fearing that the Venerable One does not consider the retribution of the future, and even more so, do not waste time in vain. I hope to quickly indicate right or wrong. Hastily expressing sincerity, unable to be comprehensive and detailed. Zhili (知禮, a person's name), a Dharma-gate Bhiksu (比丘, Buddhist monk) of Yanqing Monastery (延慶院, a monastery's name) in Siming (四明, a place name, now Ningbo, Zhejiang), pays homage (和南, a Buddhist greeting, palms together).
The End of the Lower Scroll of 'Siming's Ten Righteousnesses.'