X55n0904_大乘止觀法門宗圓記

卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 大乘止觀法門宗圓記

No. 904-A 大乘止觀法門宗圓記條個卷第一大乘止體觀用般若解脫二德體用法門南嶽思大師三性不生滅三性論止觀之體別圓性凈之異隨名辨無明之體克實辨無明之體問法性無體乎無明法性無體之異無明無所依體別圓之異一心真如同異耶約惑諦性有五種體用三智之始本二覺修性俱用心體平等二義平等差別二性之義事性之差別性具之差別差別性之異解枝本二種不覺因中緣中之癡子時果時無明住地無明無明名住地二義無明名住地亦稱無住界內見思當分名住地種子之說且附權而說從真起妄之三義滅妄歸真之三義枝本二惑同斷之二義枝本惑同異斷解與位之差融迷事迷理之惑得名覺于凈心凈心自覺似塵識(並)識識無塵之二義無塵金剛二智同異習氣之二義用證真如體證真如雖然性具不覺之異解法身名義法字三義身字二義性論染凈之諸義勿染凈非染凈之義唯染凈之義眾生法身或名染性或名凈心包含具也具性具相之異說篤論理具之至當能生能藏二義之異釋法界釋法性卷第二凈心法性體用之意止觀所觀有所離所顯成三千編體三千之趣無不極三千唯在俗諦第一義諦所依當體二諦真如心圓融之二義自覺聖智情量思議凈心之體約佛智思議不思議言語道斷心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》條個卷第一大乘止體觀用般若解脫二德體用法門南嶽思大師三性不生滅三性論止觀之體別圓性凈之異隨名辨無明（avidya，無知）之體克實辨無明（avidya，無知）之體問法性無體乎？無明（avidya，無知）法性無體之異無明（avidya，無知）無所依體別圓之異一心真如同異耶？約惑諦性有五種體用三智之始本二覺修性俱用心體平等二義平等差別二性之義事性之差別性具之差別差別性之異解枝本二種不覺因中緣中之癡子時果時無明（avidya，無知）住地無明（avidya，無知）無明（avidya，無知）名住地二義無明（avidya，無知）名住地亦稱無住界內見思當分名住地種子之說且附權而說從真起妄之三義滅妄歸真之三義枝本二惑同斷之二義枝本惑同異斷解與位之差融迷事迷理之惑得名覺于凈心凈心自覺似塵識(並) 識識無塵之二義無塵金剛二智同異習氣之二義用證真如體證真如雖然性具不覺之異解法身名義法字三義身字二義性論染凈之諸義勿染凈非染凈之義唯染凈之義眾生法身或名染性或名凈心包含具也具性具相之異說篤論理具之至當能生能藏二義之異釋法界釋法性卷第二凈心法性體用之意止觀所觀有所離所顯成三千編體三千之趣無不極三千唯在俗諦第一義諦所依當體二諦真如心圓融之二義自覺聖智情量思議凈心之體約佛智思議不思議言語道斷心

【English Translation】 English version No. 904-A A Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Śamatha-Vipassanā Dharma-Gate, Scroll 1 The Dharma-Gate of the Essence and Function of the Two Virtues of Great Vehicle Śamatha-Vipassanā, Prajñā and Liberation Nanyue Si-dashi's Theory of the Three Natures of Non-Production and Non-Extinction The Difference Between the Essence of Śamatha-Vipassanā, the Distinctive, the Complete, and the Pure Nature Distinguishing the Essence of Ignorance (avidya) According to Names Precisely Distinguishing the Essence of Ignorance (avidya) Question: Is Dharma-nature Without Essence? The Difference Between the Dharma-nature of Ignorance (avidya) and Dharma-nature Without Essence The Difference Between the Essence of Ignorance (avidya) Without a Basis, the Distinctive, and the Complete Are the One Mind, True Thusness, the Same or Different? Regarding the Nature of the Affliction Truth, There are Five Kinds of Essence and Function The Beginning and Root of the Three Wisdoms, the Two Awakenings of Cultivation and Nature, Both Using the Equality of the Mind-Essence The Meaning of Equality and Difference in the Two Natures The Difference in the Nature of Things The Difference in the Nature of Inherent Qualities The Difference in the Nature of Distinctions Explaining the Two Kinds of Non-Awakening, Branch and Root, the Delusion in the Cause and the Condition The Ignorance (avidya) of the Child's Time and the Fruit's Time, the Abiding Ground of Ignorance (avidya) The Two Meanings of Ignorance (avidya) Being Named Abiding Ground Ignorance (avidya) Being Named Abiding Ground is Also Called Non-Abiding, the Portion of Views and Thoughts Within the Realm is Named Abiding Ground The Theory of Seeds is Just Provisionally Attached to Expedient Teachings The Three Meanings of Arising Delusion from Truth The Three Meanings of Extinguishing Delusion and Returning to Truth The Two Meanings of the Simultaneous Cutting Off of the Two Afflictions, Branch and Root The Difference Between the Simultaneous and Different Cutting Off of the Afflictions, Branch and Root, Explanation and Position Melting the Delusion of Things and the Delusion of Principle Obtaining the Name Awakening in the Pure Mind, the Pure Mind's Self-Awakening Resembles Dust Consciousness (Together) The Two Meanings of Consciousness Without Dust The Similarity and Difference Between the Two Wisdoms of Dustless Vajra The Two Meanings of Habitual Energy Using to Certify True Thusness, Embodiment to Certify True Thusness Although the Nature is Inherent, the Difference in Non-Awakening is Explained The Meaning of the Name Dharma-Body The Three Meanings of the Word 'Dharma' The Two Meanings of the Word 'Body' The Various Meanings of the Nature Theory of Defilement and Purity The Meaning of Not Defiled and Not Pure, Not Defiled and Not Pure The Meaning of Only Defiled and Pure The Dharma-Body of Sentient Beings is Sometimes Called Defiled Nature or Pure Mind, Containing and Possessing The Difference Between Possessing Nature and Possessing Characteristics Speaking of the Utmost Appropriateness of the Theory of Inherent Principle The Difference Between the Two Meanings of Being Able to Produce and Being Able to Store Explanation of the Dharma-Realm Explanation of Dharma-Nature Scroll 2 The Meaning of the Essence and Function of Pure Mind and Dharma-Nature What Śamatha-Vipassanā Observes, What is Abandoned and What is Manifested Becoming Three Thousand Compiled Essences and Three Thousand Interests Nothing Does Not Exhaust the Three Thousand, Only Existing in the Conventional Truth The Two Meanings of the Ultimate Truth's Basis, the Two Truths of the Essence, True Thusness, and the Complete Harmony of the Mind The Essence of the Pure Mind of Self-Aware Sacred Wisdom, Emotional Measurement, and Thoughtful Consideration Relying on the Buddha's Wisdom, Thinking About the Unthinkable, Words and Speech are Cut Off, the Mind

行所滅止觀三境約文相辨生起修門通不立章本意三境皆通修反相離相滅相理性所離相不思議名亦非凈心諸法情生理生之異無明非有之二義性相二空離言說妄相文字二趣心知不言說口說不心思不思議則約粗心口反轉合譬即離約事理得名更互修德性德意識分能所理三不可分別約修性之二義解即是觀解而非觀解三與觀約位而分諸性凈名為破著沒染名沒脩名立性名為起修故說性不空則亡空計故性用能起之事法無相之相之二義性即是相之三義約有空立雙非名二義薰成有二所謂各共也各薰有互別之二意無明之體有隨名克實二義妄念未間斷約一人通體之二義無明薰成無明之最初性染事染說則前後旨則一時佛則有未悟之日生則無未迷之時根本無明與業識不異三義同不一之二義成論三因四緣大論六因四緣相應因共因之異因緣之義為要性具之法差別之二義謂空不空皆是執聞融謂融亦爲著斗影事用之相漸現頓現耶厭沙作油五隱實法為生眾生假名為作以生顯具二義性義通本有不改本有清凈故轉凡凈性約不改義論轉凡義染凈並有約事約理二義染凈改轉約事用不改約性體性染凈無成壞染凈二性通常無常約生佛而真如為內外用修性染凈相除之眾義染違凈順故凈除染修染凈違順性染凈二義修染性染體同義異性染名義之二義性染不斷二義修染可斷二義修性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於行所滅止觀的三種境界，從文句表面的意義來辨析，生起修行的法門是普遍適用的，不特別設立章節，其根本用意是三種境界都貫通修行。反相、離相、滅相，是理性所要遠離的相。不可思議的名稱，也不是清凈心。諸法的情理和生理的差異，在於無明並非真實存在的兩種意義。性空和相空，是超越言語描述的。虛妄的相和文字，是兩種不同的趨向。心知道卻不能用言語表達，口說卻不能用心思去理解。不思議是針對粗淺的心和口而言的，反過來結合，譬如離開事物本身來談論道理。從事相和道理的角度來命名，可以互相修習性德。意識區分能和所，理是不可分割的。從修習和本性的兩種意義來解釋，就是觀解，但又不是觀解。三觀是根據不同階段來劃分的。諸性的清凈，是爲了破除執著。沒入染污，稱為沒。修行，稱為立性。發起修行，所以說本性不空，才能消除空無的執念。所以說本性和作用能夠發起事法，這是無相之相的兩種意義。本性就是相的三種意義。從有和空的角度來建立雙重否定，稱為二義，熏習成就了有二，即各和共。各自熏習有互相區別的兩種含義。無明的本體有隨名和克實兩種意義。妄念沒有間斷，是從一人貫通整體的兩種意義。無明熏習成就無明，最初是本性染和事染，說是前後，旨意則是一時。佛也有未覺悟的時候，眾生也沒有未迷惑的時候。根本無明和業識沒有差異，三種意義相同，但不完全相同。成論講三因四緣，大論講六因四緣，相應因和共因的差異，因緣的意義在於本性具足的法，這是差別的兩種意義。說空和不空都是執著，聽到融合就認為融合也是執著。斗影是事用之相，有漸現和頓現的區別。厭惡沙子卻想榨出油，這是隱藏真實法。爲了生出眾生，假名為作，用生來顯示具足的兩種意義。本性的意義貫通本有，不改變本有的清凈，所以說轉凡成凈，是從不改變的意義來討論轉凡。染和凈並存，是從事和理兩個方面來說的。染和凈的改變和轉化是從事用上來說的，不改變的是本性本體。本性染和凈沒有成就和破壞，染和凈兩種本性通常是無常和常，是從生佛的角度來說的，而真如是內外作用。修習本性，染和凈相互消除的各種意義。染是違背，凈是順應，所以凈能消除染，修習染和凈是違背和順應的。本性染和凈是本體相同，意義不同。本性染是名義的兩種意義。本性染不斷是兩種意義。修習染可以斷是兩種意義。修習本性。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the three realms of 'Xing Suo Mie Zhi Guan' (行所滅止觀, contemplation on the cessation of actions), analyzing from the surface meaning of the text, the method of arising and cultivating is universally applicable, without specifically establishing chapters. The fundamental intention is that all three realms are interconnected in cultivation. 'Fan Xiang' (反相, opposite aspect), 'Li Xiang' (離相, detached aspect), and 'Mie Xiang' (滅相, extinguished aspect) are the aspects that reason seeks to distance itself from. The name 'inconceivable' is also not the pure mind. The differences between the emotional and physiological principles of all dharmas lie in the two meanings of 'Wu Ming' (無明, ignorance) not being truly existent. 'Xing Kong' (性空, emptiness of nature) and 'Xiang Kong' (相空, emptiness of form) transcend verbal descriptions. False forms and words are two different tendencies. The mind knows but cannot express it in words, and the mouth speaks but cannot comprehend it with the mind. 'Inconceivable' is directed at the superficial mind and mouth; conversely, combining them is like discussing principles apart from things themselves. Naming from the perspective of phenomena and principles allows for mutual cultivation of virtuous nature. Consciousness distinguishes between the able and the object, and principle is indivisible. Explaining from the two meanings of cultivation and inherent nature is 'Guan Jie' (觀解, contemplative understanding), but it is not 'Guan Jie'. The three contemplations are divided according to different stages. The purity of all natures is to eliminate attachments. Immersing in defilement is called 'Mie' (沒, immersion). Cultivation is called 'Li Xing' (立性, establishing nature). Initiating cultivation, therefore it is said that inherent nature is not empty, so that the attachment to emptiness can be eliminated. Therefore, it is said that inherent nature and function can initiate phenomena, which are the two meanings of the aspect of no-aspect. Inherent nature is the three meanings of aspect. Establishing double negation from the perspective of existence and emptiness is called 'Er Yi' (二義, two meanings), and cultivation achieves two, namely 'Ge' (各, individual) and 'Gong' (共, common). Individual cultivation has two meanings of mutual distinction. The substance of ignorance has two meanings of following the name and being realistic. False thoughts are uninterrupted, which are the two meanings of one person connecting the whole. Ignorance cultivates ignorance, initially being inherent nature defilement and phenomenal defilement. Saying before and after, the intention is at the same time. Buddhas also have times of non-awakening, and sentient beings also have times of non-delusion. Fundamental ignorance and karma consciousness are not different, three meanings are the same, but not completely the same. The 'Cheng Lun' (成論, Completion of Truth Treatise) speaks of three causes and four conditions, the 'Da Lun' (大論, Great Treatise) speaks of six causes and four conditions, the difference between corresponding cause and common cause, the meaning of cause and condition lies in the dharma that is fully possessed by inherent nature, which are the two meanings of difference. Saying emptiness and non-emptiness are both attachments, hearing fusion and thinking fusion is also attachment. 'Dou Ying' (斗影, shadow of a dipper) is the aspect of phenomenal function, with gradual and sudden manifestations. Disliking sand but wanting to squeeze oil, this is hiding the true dharma. In order to generate sentient beings, a false name is made, using generation to show the two meanings of full possession. The meaning of inherent nature connects the inherent, not changing the inherent purity, so saying turning the ordinary into purity is discussing turning the ordinary from the meaning of not changing. Defilement and purity coexist, from the two aspects of phenomena and principle. The change and transformation of defilement and purity are from the perspective of phenomenal function, what does not change is the inherent substance. Inherent nature defilement and purity have no achievement or destruction, the two inherent natures of defilement and purity are usually impermanent and permanent, from the perspective of Buddhas and sentient beings, while 'Zhen Ru' (真如, Suchness) is internal and external function. Cultivating inherent nature, the various meanings of defilement and purity eliminating each other. Defilement is against, purity is in accordance, so purity can eliminate defilement, cultivating defilement and purity is against and in accordance. Inherent nature defilement and purity are the same in substance, different in meaning. Inherent nature defilement is the two meanings of name and meaning. Inherent nature defilement is uninterrupted is two meanings. Cultivating defilement can be interrupted is two meanings. Cultivating inherent nature.

染凈名相有無約同異約法體論權實以施為開南嶽證圓融無量義引華嚴不引法華二義南嶽十如讀文平等一性單理獨事不成三千南嶽以如為句所以天臺假諦轉意成三千理具事造三千三千三諦南嶽讀文天臺三轉同異空中二體二無說三千有趣極舉用之說三諦分體用論中邊亡照無明故有三諦佛性我性法同人別藏性理之三種同異如來藏為有門之義染凈無始本有從能具性故闡提佛性不斷善斷各具互具四承籤文理體無差二句各具分對不二門三千互理四句各具互具理同事異二義皆具三千圓中棟濫具三千事異能具各互具不一向染凈約十界有通別法身涅槃之同異十如之法有性有事談三千之所以法界全體事眾生頓受十界以迷顯悟卷第三塵成泥團喻之立處圓中事理相攝二意圓教相攝事理不虧約性相攝約事相攝臺岳所談互具迭有祥略事十界法融攝之故三法無差異解正義無差融妙之異名妙與無差其義不同不定差別事理三千各通差無差中空偏空鏡火明凈一性在佛在生未暫別大鑒之磨明本明之異鏡喻顯三諦鏡喻之六義三義理性十界之名義業果性薰感隨各不知二義鏡喻所用不同一性圓融之異解問三與一何者實體邪一效能具三諦具德性想相名為一一性之異解一性為體三諦為用一家明三諦有的從隨點二意一性亡照故三諦亡照約事辨性之名義一性分二法身二義理差

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本染凈名相的有無，從相同和相異的角度，以及從法體上討論權巧方便和真實究竟，以施設和作為來開顯。南嶽慧思（Nanyue Huisi，中國佛教天臺宗實際創始人）證悟了圓融無礙的無量義，引用《華嚴經》，而不引用《法華經》，這是兩種不同的意義。南嶽慧思解讀十如是（Shi Rushis，十種如是）的經文，認為平等一性（Pingdeng Yixing，平等一性）只是單一的理，不能獨立成就三千（Sanqian，三千）。南嶽慧思以『如』字為句子的關鍵，所以天臺宗將假諦（Jia諦，假諦）的含義轉變為成就三千。理具三千（Liju Sanqian，理具三千），事造三千（Shizao Sanqian，事造三千），三千即是三諦（Sandi，三諦）。南嶽慧思解讀經文，與天臺宗的三轉（Sanzhuan，三轉）有相同也有不同。從空性（Kongxing，空性）的角度來看，有二體（Erti，二體），二無（Ewu，二無），說的是三千，這是一種非常有趣的極端的運用之說。三諦從體和用的角度來討論，中邊（Zhongbian，中邊）亡照（Wangzhao，亡照），因為無明（Wuming，無明）的緣故，所以有三諦。佛性（Foxing，佛性）、我性（Woxing，我性）、法（Fa，法）相同，只是人不同。藏性（Zangxing，藏性）的理的三種相同和不同，如來藏（Rulaizang，如來藏）是有門（Youmen，有門）的意義。染凈（Ranjing，染凈）無始本有（Wushibenyou，無始本有），從能具性（Nengjuxing，能具性）的緣故。闡提（Chanti，斷善根者）的佛性不斷，善斷（Shanduan，善斷）各自具有，互相具有。四承籤文（Sicheng Qianwen，四承籤文）的理體（Liti，理體）沒有差別，兩句話各自具有，分別對應不二門（Buer Men，不二門），三千互相具有理。四句各自具有，互相具有，理相同而事相異，兩種意義都具有三千。圓中棟（Yuanzhong Dong，圓中棟）容易氾濫，具有三千，事相異，能具有各自互相具有，不完全一樣。染凈從十界（Shijie，十界）的角度來看，有共通和特別。法身（Fashen，法身）、涅槃（Niebpan，涅槃）的相同和不同。十如是的法有性有事，談論三千的原因。法界（Fajie，法界）全體的事相，眾生頓然接受十界，以迷惑來顯現覺悟。卷第三，塵土變成泥團的比喻的建立之處。圓融中事和理互相攝入的兩種意義。圓教（Yuanjiao，圓教）互相攝入，事和理沒有虧損。從性相攝入的角度，從事相攝入的角度。天臺宗和南嶽慧思所談論的互相具有，交替出現，有詳細有簡略，因為事十界法融攝的緣故。三法（Sanfa，三法）沒有差異的解釋，正義（Zhengyi，正義）沒有差別，融妙（Rongmiao，融妙）是不同的名稱。妙和無差（Wucha，無差）的意義不同，不定（Buding，不定）差別（Chabie，差別），事理三千各自貫通差和無差。中空（Zhongkong，中空）偏空（Piankong，偏空），鏡子和火焰的明凈一性（Mingjing Yixing，明凈一性），在佛和在眾生沒有暫時的分別。大鑒（Dajian，大鑒）的磨明（Moming，磨明）和本明（Benming，本明）的不同。鏡子的比喻顯現三諦，鏡子的比喻的六種意義，三種意義的理性（Lixing，理性），十界的名義，業果（Yeguo，業果）性薰（Xun，薰）感隨（Gan Sui，感隨），各自不知道兩種意義。鏡子的比喻所用的不同，一性圓融（Yixing Yuanrong，一性圓融）的不同解釋。問：三和一哪個是實體？一效能具有三諦，具有德性（Dexing，德性），想相（Xiangxiang，想相）名為一，一性的不同解釋。一性為體，三諦為用。一家（Yijia，一家）闡明三諦，有的從隨點（Suidian，隨點）兩種意義。一性亡照，所以三諦亡照。從事相來辨別性（Xing，性）的名義。一性分為二，法身二義理有差別。

【English Translation】 English version The existence or non-existence of defiled and pure phenomena is discussed from the perspectives of sameness and difference, as well as from the perspective of the Dharma body, discussing expedient means and ultimate truth, revealed through application and action. Nanyue Huisi (the de facto founder of the Tiantai school of Chinese Buddhism) realized the perfect and unobstructed meaning of immeasurable meanings, quoting the Avatamsaka Sutra but not the Lotus Sutra, which are two different meanings. Nanyue Huisi interprets the text of the Ten Suchnesses (Shi Rushis), believing that the equality of one nature (Pingdeng Yixing) is only a single principle and cannot independently accomplish the Three Thousand (Sanqian). Nanyue Huisi takes the word 'such' as the key to the sentence, so the Tiantai school transforms the meaning of provisional truth (Jia諦) into accomplishing the Three Thousand. The Three Thousand inherent in principle (Liju Sanqian), the Three Thousand created by phenomena (Shizao Sanqian), the Three Thousand are the Three Truths (Sandi). Nanyue Huisi's interpretation of the scriptures has similarities and differences with the Tiantai school's Three Transformations (Sanzhuan). From the perspective of emptiness (Kongxing), there are two bodies (Erti), two non-existences (Ewu), which speak of the Three Thousand, which is a very interesting extreme application. The Three Truths are discussed from the perspective of substance and function, the middle and edge (Zhongbian) are without illumination (Wangzhao), because of ignorance (Wuming), so there are the Three Truths. Buddha-nature (Foxing), self-nature (Woxing), and Dharma (Fa) are the same, only people are different. The three similarities and differences of the nature of the storehouse (Zangxing), the Tathagatagarbha (Rulaizang) is the meaning of the gate of existence (Youmen). Defilement and purity (Ranjing) are primordially existent without beginning (Wushibenyou), because of the nature of being able to possess (Nengjuxing). The Buddha-nature of the icchantika (Chanti, those who have severed their roots of goodness) is not cut off, the severance of goodness (Shanduan) each possesses, mutually possessing. The principle of the Four Inheritances (Sicheng Qianwen) is without difference, each of the two sentences possesses, corresponding to the gate of non-duality (Buer Men), the Three Thousand mutually possess principle. The four sentences each possess, mutually possessing, principle is the same but phenomena are different, both meanings possess the Three Thousand. The central pillar of perfection (Yuanzhong Dong) is easy to flood, possessing the Three Thousand, phenomena are different, the ability to possess each mutually possesses, not completely the same. Defilement and purity from the perspective of the Ten Realms (Shijie), there are common and special. The sameness and difference of the Dharmakaya (Fashen) and Nirvana (Niebpan). The Dharma of the Ten Suchnesses has nature and phenomena, discussing the reason for the Three Thousand. The entire phenomena of the Dharmadhatu (Fajie), sentient beings suddenly receive the Ten Realms, using delusion to reveal enlightenment. Volume Three, the place where the metaphor of dust turning into a mud ball is established. The two meanings of phenomena and principle mutually embracing in perfection. The perfect teaching (Yuanjiao) mutually embraces, phenomena and principle are not lacking. From the perspective of nature mutually embracing, from the perspective of phenomena mutually embracing. What the Tiantai school and Nanyue Huisi discussed mutually possess, alternately appearing, with detailed and concise, because of the phenomena of the Ten Realms mutually embracing. The explanation that the Three Dharmas (Sanfa) have no difference, the correct meaning (Zhengyi) has no difference, perfect fusion (Rongmiao) is a different name. The meaning of perfection and non-difference (Wucha) is different, indeterminate (Buding) difference (Chabie), phenomena and principle Three Thousand each penetrate difference and non-difference. The emptiness in the middle (Zhongkong) is biased emptiness (Piankong), the clarity of the mirror and flame, the one nature of clarity (Mingjing Yixing), in the Buddha and in sentient beings there is no temporary separation. The difference between the polishing clarity (Moming) and original clarity (Benming) of Dajian. The metaphor of the mirror reveals the Three Truths, the six meanings of the metaphor of the mirror, the rationality (Lixing) of the three meanings, the names and meanings of the Ten Realms, karmic result (Yeguo) nature influence (Xun) feeling follows (Gan Sui), each does not know the two meanings. The different uses of the metaphor of the mirror, the different explanations of the perfect fusion of one nature (Yixing Yuanrong). Question: Which is the substance, three or one? One nature can possess the Three Truths, possessing virtue (Dexing), thought and appearance (Xiangxiang) are called one, different explanations of one nature. One nature is the substance, the Three Truths are the function. One school (Yijia) clarifies the Three Truths, some from following the point (Suidian) two meanings. One nature is without illumination, so the Three Truths are without illumination. Discriminating the name and meaning of nature (Xing) from phenomena. One nature is divided into two, the two meanings of Dharmakaya have differences in principle.

別事無差生無可度佛無可成以現顯具約性事論具現二配具現約性事偏互性得現名從事故事得具名從性故頓現同具漸具同現問三千現耶具耶約事理論造能所不一約事理論具能所不一依用四明四明分能所為造亡之為具所以染凈二性唯一法身體用現義不顯圓一性二修圓別不同二義別教緣了得性名二義問染凈二性可廢耶于性中染凈亡不亡即順情性百界千如為不思議故不可思議之異解正義佛能知不可思議言說屬言無名假立一心平等法身之名真諦有名有實無諦有名無實真性妄性三諦之性名習性性分之二性不改實性之名通事理評具性家非具相之說破或計理不思議定相具事常義由即性理具於事事具理泛有六義事理互為能具所具約就法功歸之二義存有為具頓足為具佛性具生眾生具佛即離之二義即與具體同義異理具事故事具理不可事具故云理具事眾生本具染凈以名召體亦說佛性之意生佛不虧染凈二性語性為凈為佛之意一家談修性都有七種之義三明在障出障之理之下辨事法體有隨名克實之二義性染凈隨名之體歸於性隨名克實二種辨體之依文在障法有五種約五法能所三義染性或能障或所障出障法有五能所有四染性亦為所顯凈用亦是所破染性名性障障性二義平等之差別圓融之能障所障在障出障之名通染凈四明事用相攝之相之下少分二位事法之至攝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『別事無差生無可度佛無可成』：如果從現象（事）上看沒有差別，那麼眾生就無法被度化，佛也無法成就。這是因為從現象（事）的角度來看，一切都是相對的，相互依存的。『以現顯具約性事論具現二配』：通過現象來顯現本體（性），從本體和現象的關係來討論『具現』。『具現』指的是本體和現象相互配合，相互依存。『具現約性事偏互性得現名從事故事得具名從性故頓現同具漸具同現』：『具現』是本體和現象相互作用的結果。現象之所以能顯現，是因為本體的作用；而本體之所以能被認識，是因為現象的顯現。因此，現象和本體是同時顯現，相互依存的。『頓現』和『漸具』也是同樣的道理，都是現象和本體相互作用的結果。『問三千現耶具耶約事理論造能所不一約事理論具能所不一依用四明』：有人問：『三千世界是現象還是本體？』如果從現象的角度來看，能造和所造是不一樣的；如果從本體的角度來看，能造和所造是一樣的。這是因為本體是唯一的，而現象是多樣的。『四明分能所為造亡之為具所以染凈二性唯一法身體用現義不顯圓一性二修圓別不同二義別教緣了得性名二義』：第四點說明，區分能和所，『造』和『亡』都是『具』。因此，染和凈兩種性質，實際上是同一個法身的體現。本體的作用是顯現，但本體本身是圓滿唯一的。修行有圓修和別修兩種，這兩種修行的意義是不同的。別教認為，通過因緣和了悟才能獲得本體的性質。『問染凈二性可廢耶于性中染凈亡不亡即順情性百界千如為不思議故不可思議之異解正義佛能知不可思議言說屬言無名假立一心平等法身之名真諦有名有實無諦有名無實真性妄性三諦之性名習性性分之二性不改實性之名通事理評具性家非具相之說破或計理不思議定相具事常義由即性理具於事事具理泛有六義事理互為能具所具約就法功歸之二義存有為具頓足為具佛性具生眾生具佛即離之二義即與具體同義異理具事故事具理不可事具故云理具事眾生本具染凈以名召體亦說佛性之意生佛不虧染凈二性語性為凈為佛之意一家談修性都有七種之義』：有人問：『染和凈兩種性質可以廢除嗎？』從本體的角度來看，染和凈是無法廢除的。因為順應眾生的根性，才會有百界千如的現象，這是不可思議的。佛能夠知道這種不可思議的境界，但語言是無法表達的，只能用『一心平等法身』這樣的名稱來假立。真諦是真實存在的，有名有實；俗諦是虛幻的，有名無實。真性、妄性和三諦的性質，都屬於習性。習性分為兩種，但都無法改變實性。從本體和現象的角度來看，本體是普遍存在的。『具性家』的觀點並非認為本體具有固定的相狀。有人認為本體是不可思議的，因此現象是常有的。這是因為本體存在於現象之中，現象也存在於本體之中。本體和現象相互依存，相互作用。從法的角度來看，一切功德都歸於本體。『有為具』指的是通過修行來獲得本體，『頓足為具』指的是本體是圓滿具足的。佛性存在於眾生之中，眾生也具有佛性。佛和眾生既是分離的，又是統一的。『即』和『具』的意義是相同的，但理體是不同的。本體存在於現象之中，現象也存在於本體之中。因為現象是無法完全體現本體的，所以說『理具事』。眾生本來就具有染和凈兩種性質，用名稱來指代本體，這也是佛性的意思。眾生和佛都不缺少染和凈兩種性質。從語言的角度來看，本體是清凈的，是佛的境界。一家之言認為，修行本體有七種意義。『三明在障出障之理之下辨事法體有隨名克實之二義性染凈隨名之體歸於性隨名克實二種辨體之依文在障法有五種約五法能所三義染性或能障或所障出障法有五能所有四染性亦為所顯凈用亦是所破染性名性障障性二義平等之差別圓融之能障所障在障出障之名通染凈』：第三點說明，在障礙和出離障礙的道理之下，辨別現象的本體。現象的本體有兩種意義：隨名和克實。染和凈的本體，都歸於隨名。隨名和克實這兩種意義，是辨別本體的依據。在障礙中的法有五種，從五法的能和所三個方面來看，染性既能成為障礙，也能被障礙。出離障礙的法有五種，能和所各有四種。染性也可以被顯現，凈用也可以被破除。染性被稱為性障和障性，這兩種意義既是平等，又是差別的。圓融的能障和所障，在障礙和出離障礙的名稱中，貫通染和凈。『四明事用相攝之相之下少分二位事法之至攝』：第四點說明，現象的作用是相互攝取的。在少分和二位這兩個階段，現象的法是相互攝取的。

【English Translation】 English version 'If there is no difference in phenomena, beings cannot be saved, and Buddhas cannot be achieved': If there is no difference from the perspective of phenomena (events), then beings cannot be liberated, and Buddhas cannot be realized. This is because, from the perspective of phenomena (events), everything is relative and interdependent. 'Using manifestation to reveal inherent potential, discussing inherent potential through the relationship between nature and phenomena, the two aspects of inherent potential': Using phenomena to reveal the essence (nature), discussing 'inherent potential' from the relationship between essence and phenomena. 'Inherent potential' refers to the mutual cooperation and interdependence of essence and phenomena. 'Inherent potential is based on the mutual interaction of nature and phenomena, manifestation is named from events, and inherent potential is named from nature, so sudden manifestation is the same as inherent potential, and gradual inherent potential is the same as manifestation': 'Inherent potential' is the result of the interaction between essence and phenomena. Phenomena can manifest because of the function of essence; and essence can be recognized because of the manifestation of phenomena. Therefore, phenomena and essence manifest simultaneously and are interdependent. 'Sudden manifestation' and 'gradual inherent potential' are the same principle, both are the result of the interaction between phenomena and essence. 'Question: Are the three thousand worlds manifestation or inherent potential? From the perspective of phenomena, the creator and the created are different; from the perspective of essence, the creator and the created are the same. This is because essence is unique, while phenomena are diverse.' 'The fourth point explains that distinguishing between the able and the object, 'creation' and 'cessation' are both 'inherent potential'. Therefore, the two natures of defilement and purity are actually the embodiment of the same Dharmakaya. The function of essence is manifestation, but essence itself is complete and unique. There are two types of practice: complete practice and separate practice. The meanings of these two practices are different. The separate teaching believes that the nature of essence can only be obtained through conditions and enlightenment.' 'Question: Can the two natures of defilement and purity be abolished? From the perspective of nature, defilement and purity cannot be abolished. Because in accordance with the nature of beings, there will be phenomena of a hundred realms and a thousand suchnesses, which is inconceivable. The Buddha can know this inconceivable state, but language cannot express it, and only names such as 'one mind, equal Dharmakaya' can be used to provisionally establish it. Truth is real, with name and substance; conventional truth is illusory, with name but no substance. The natures of true nature, deluded nature, and the three truths all belong to habitual nature. Habitual nature is divided into two types, but neither can change the real nature. From the perspective of essence and phenomena, essence is universally present. The view of the 'inherent potential school' does not believe that essence has a fixed form. Some people believe that essence is inconceivable, so phenomena are constant. This is because essence exists in phenomena, and phenomena also exist in essence. Essence and phenomena are interdependent and interact with each other. From the perspective of Dharma, all merits belong to essence. 'Having potential through effort' refers to obtaining essence through practice, and 'complete potential at once' refers to essence being completely sufficient. Buddha-nature exists in beings, and beings also have Buddha-nature. Buddhas and beings are both separate and unified. The meanings of 'is' and 'has' are the same, but the principle is different. Essence exists in phenomena, and phenomena also exist in essence. Because phenomena cannot fully embody essence, it is said that 'principle has events'. Beings inherently have the two natures of defilement and purity, using names to refer to essence, which is also the meaning of Buddha-nature. Beings and Buddhas do not lack the two natures of defilement and purity. One school believes that there are seven meanings to practicing essence.' 'The third point explains that under the principle of being in obstruction and leaving obstruction, distinguish the substance of phenomena. There are two meanings to the substance of phenomena: following the name and corresponding to reality. The substance of defilement and purity both belong to following the name. These two meanings of following the name and corresponding to reality are the basis for distinguishing the substance. There are five types of Dharma in obstruction. From the three aspects of the able and the object of the five Dharmas, defilement can both become an obstruction and be obstructed. There are five types of Dharma for leaving obstruction, with four each for the able and the object. Defilement can also be manifested, and pure function can also be eliminated. Defilement is called nature-obstruction and obstruction-nature. These two meanings are both equal and different. The able and the object of perfect integration, in the names of being in obstruction and leaving obstruction, connect defilement and purity.' 'The fourth point explains that the functions of phenomena are mutually inclusive. In the two stages of small part and two positions, the Dharmas of phenomena are mutually inclusive.'

不融攝事法之融礙非融礙事相所得之由事法之二根本眾生不知二根本事相之當是妨礙事法之當體所依之體波所依當體之體波之當體之異事體非礙請謂成礙之異解他解今義更示義詰前異解定差無差之差迷謂內外悟唯一心眾生但理諸佛得事眾生色心皆具諸佛眾生之具但是理性文義修性十界各相論具今文弘決生具佛性事不同之故不對法心體既融破事體自融之義攝色歸心方具之異義就法功歸論具隨說不同就法論具以易通難之文相攝相等相即事法聖人能融凡夫不融理無相之異解事相定相不定相定不定相論存亡二義一家三諦融妙復說三千所以事事互融由全體是理問現見色相豈即蘭香耶理事相即事事自融示相不同外道計我通四種外計我遍與佛法理通二不同大小二相互容受不增減凈名不思議之用異解他人芥子須彌相入與今不同或解芥須相入寄事顯理今師之難事中大小相容圓聖應云無謀者從性言之云隨情等從用言之凡夫就事妄執為實二義五明治惑受報之下但除病不除法一家師資名二義能執情一所執法二能執所執事情與理對辨病法能執所執約當體所依成病法約事以能所執分情法三義一能起心情所起心法二能執心為情所執事為法三能不知心為情所不知境為法但除病不除法之文二義一情除法自除之義二情離法即之義論情與法有三種一情法俱離二

情法俱即三情離法即圓之情法俱離與別斷九異相體俱即之義約即論離之義約即論離之異解今詰難四明以情為所顯之法而破而顯唯破唯顯非破非顯法離情即之義破顯之道成佛要門凡說理性皆歸空中凡說理性皆歸俗事破亡情為空之義破性自有空之義今師破顯二義論諦理辨破顯立義根本諸家之異約非破非顯而論破顯二義一自行顯體二義一事理法體破顯二情智同異破顯二化他顯用二義一約情智二約法體化他顯用中情智同異破顯亡照破顯以三千會合破顯卷第四因具次第積集之義眾生諸佛頓諸相能不之由遍人實由性現諸報菩薩起用示現有二根本一憑故業二依理具二本諸教通否不妨眾生眾多身有無之義法爾法界法爾名言之所從別心一心為體之計破異大經佛性共有各有之文自成佛他不成以自成資他修六明共不共相識之下阿梨耶唯妄或通真妄梨耶名和合識二義性體事相分總別二意性具業薰之相由或解業薰本識種子或解業薰性國土由生由佛人生余土此土常存故自下本文下卷二明依止之下破凈覺所立總別一性妄念為總義異三諦為總為別一性寂用相對體用二義無相五義體用五義自他止觀體用二義佛現生死法非染非相三明以何依止初明止依正之知不知五蘊之知不知行證不離解二義行證亦名解修性對論方便解行對論方便約位論方便薰習四法爾時之二

時意識通二惑之二義心意識之別智證證智本覺始覺始本不之三覺一異無明亦名覺三覺之覺字意天臺之去取自在本識阿梨耶識無沒識和合識種子識果報識起信今文三大不同水流波相由生滅有二種生死之本二種會諸經異由談性具水本無波等二明觀六度分世出二意和光不同塵初心未堪涉事二釋破小人執之下小乘不依真行二義直果三釋破大人執之下大乘初心憑意識聞教起觀性德修德滅自心境界二義無明緣起法性緣起凈心不知境名義二義凈心知境之義無塵智與體具智性為同爲異性智發時何有無明耶能薰所薰智一法而論心證三句料簡智斷二德一法二義自證他證證他之大旨真證之人初料簡心自證功用無功用修性對辨約修云無作由即性凈心自知本寂凈心可見之義如來可見不見四義意識能知之智還是識七識屬現行二簡由他證習氣有三不同由他證之正義三簡由證他見思根本見先除小乘先破見思之本種他證證他之異無明名義約權實之情智約妄真之情智證道不斷之義生起識名字粗覺博地夢中夢意識法塵之六通徐根塵識名之生由識緣境對而不見見而不念之異心境俱闇釋大文第二明止觀境界之下今文明境通真妄三性分真妄摩訶止觀明境通真妄真妄所離所顯分別依他二性之異分別性分別識同異釋真實性之下染凈相即故不妨染凈修德非增智性本明生佛更

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本時意識通二惑之二義：時間（時）的意識（意識）貫通見思惑（二惑之一，指知見上的迷惑）和塵沙惑（二惑之一，指如塵沙般眾多的迷惑）這兩種迷惑的兩種含義。心意識之別：心（Citta）、意識（Manas）、識（Vijnana）的區別。智證證智：智慧（智）的證悟（證）和證悟的智慧（智）。本覺始覺始本不之三覺一異：本覺（本來的覺悟）、始覺（開始的覺悟）、始本不覺（開始和根本都不覺悟）這三種覺悟的同一與差異。無明亦名覺：無明（Avidya，無知）也稱為覺悟（覺）。三覺之覺字意：三種覺悟（三覺）中『覺』字的含義。天臺之去取自在：天臺宗關於捨棄和取用的自在。本識阿梨耶識無沒識和合識種子識果報識：本識（根本識）、阿梨耶識（Alaya-vijnana，藏識）、無沒識（沒有消失的識）、和合識（和合的識）、種子識（儲存種子的識）、果報識（產生果報的識）。起信今文三大不同：在《大乘起信論》的現代文字中，有三大不同之處。水流波相由生滅有二種生死之本：水流和波浪的現象，由生滅而產生，是兩種生死（輪迴）的根本。二種會諸經異：兩種方法來解釋各部經典的不同之處。由談性具水本無波等：由於談論自性本具，就像水本來沒有波浪一樣。二明觀六度分世出二意：兩種方法來闡明觀修六度（六種波羅蜜）的世間和出世間的兩種含義。和光不同塵：『和光同塵』與『不同塵』的區別。初心未堪涉事：初學者還不能夠處理事務。二釋破小人執之下小乘不依真行：兩種解釋來破除小乘修行者執著于不依據真實修行的觀點。二義直果：兩種含義直接指向結果（佛果）。三釋破大人執之下大乘初心憑意識聞教起觀性德修德滅自心境界：三種解釋來破除大乘修行者執著于大乘初學者憑藉意識聽聞教法而生起觀修，以及自性功德和修習功德，從而滅除自心境界的觀點。二義無明緣起法性緣起：兩種含義，即無明緣起和法性緣起。凈心不知境名義：清凈的心不知道境界的名稱和含義。二義凈心知境之義：兩種含義，即清凈的心知道境界的含義。無塵智與體具智性為同爲異：無塵智（沒有塵埃的智慧）與體具智（本具的智慧）的自性是相同還是不同？性智發時何有無明耶：自性智慧生髮的時候，怎麼會有無明呢？能薰所薰智一法而論：能薰（能熏習的）和所薰（所熏習的）的智慧，從一法的角度來論述。心證三句料簡：用心來證悟，用三個句子來簡別。智斷二德一法二義：智慧和斷除煩惱這兩種功德，從一法和兩種含義來解釋。自證他證證他之大旨：自己證悟（自證）、他人證悟（他證）、證悟他人的大意。真證之人初料簡心自證功用無功用：真正證悟的人，首先簡別心的自證功用和無功用。修性對辨約修云無作由即性凈心自知本寂：從修行的角度來辨別，修行可以說是無作，因為它是直接從自性清凈心中自知本來寂靜。凈心可見本寂凈心可見之義：清凈心可以見到，本來寂靜的清凈心可以被見到的含義。如來可見不見四義：如來可以被見到和不能被見到的四種含義。意識能知之智還是識：意識能夠知曉的智慧，還是識？七識屬現行：第七識屬於現行。二簡由他證習氣有三不同：兩種簡別，由於他人證悟，習氣有三種不同。由他證之正義：由他人證悟的正確含義。三簡由證他見思根本見先除：三種簡別，由於證悟他人，見思惑的根本見解首先被去除。小乘先破見思之本種：小乘修行者首先破除見思惑的根本種子。他證證他之異：他人證悟和證悟他人的不同。無明名義約權實之情智：無明的名稱和含義，從權巧方便和真實的角度來理解情智。約妄真之情智：從虛妄和真實的角度來理解情智。證道不斷之義：證悟道路上不斷進步的含義。生起識名字粗覺博地夢中夢：生起識的名稱，粗略的覺知，凡夫的夢中夢。意識法塵之六通：意識、法塵（Dharma-dhatu）的六種神通。徐根塵識名之生：徐根塵識名稱的產生。由識緣境對而不見見而不念之異：由於識緣取境界，面對面卻看不見，看見了卻不憶念的差異。心境俱闇：心和境都處於黑暗之中。釋大文第二明止觀境界之下今文明境通真妄三性分真妄：解釋大文的第二部分，闡明止觀的境界，現在闡明境界貫通真妄，三性（遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）區分真妄。摩訶止觀明境通真妄真妄所離所顯：《摩訶止觀》闡明境界貫通真妄，真妄所分離和所顯現。分別依他二性之異：分別性和依他起性這兩種自性的不同。分別性分別識同異：分別性和分別識的相同與不同。釋真實性之下染凈相即故不妨染凈修德非增智性本明生佛更：解釋真實性，染污和清凈相互即是，所以不妨礙染污和清凈，修習功德並非增加，智慧的自性本來光明，眾生和佛陀之間更是如此。

【English Translation】 English version Shi Yi Shi Tong Er Huo Zhi Er Yi: The two meanings of how time (Shi) consciousness (Yi Shi) penetrates the two delusions (Er Huo): the delusion of views and thoughts (Jian Si Huo, one of the two delusions, referring to confusion in views) and the delusion of dust and sand (Chen Sha Huo, one of the two delusions, referring to delusions as numerous as dust and sand). Xin Yi Shi Zhi Bie: The differences between Citta (Xin), Manas (Yi), and Vijnana (Shi). Zhi Zheng Zheng Zhi: The wisdom (Zhi) of enlightenment (Zheng) and the enlightened wisdom (Zhi). Ben Jue Shi Jue Shi Ben Bu Zhi Zhi San Jue Yi Yi: The similarities and differences between the three enlightenments (San Jue): original enlightenment (Ben Jue), initial enlightenment (Shi Jue), and non-enlightenment from the beginning (Shi Ben Bu Jue). Wu Ming Yi Ming Jue: Ignorance (Avidya, Wu Ming) is also called enlightenment (Jue). San Jue Zhi Jue Zi Yi: The meaning of the word 'enlightenment' (Jue) in the three enlightenments (San Jue). Tian Tai Zhi Qu Qu Zi Zai: The Tiantai school's freedom in abandoning and adopting. Ben Shi A Li Ye Shi Wu Mei Shi He He Shi Zhong Zi Shi Guo Bao Shi: Fundamental consciousness (Ben Shi), Alaya-vijnana (A Li Ye Shi, storehouse consciousness), consciousness without disappearance (Wu Mei Shi), combined consciousness (He He Shi), seed consciousness (Zhong Zi Shi, consciousness storing seeds), and retribution consciousness (Guo Bao Shi). Qi Xin Jin Wen San Da Bu Tong: In the modern text of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (Da Cheng Qi Xin Lun), there are three major differences. Shui Liu Bo Xiang You Sheng Mie You Er Zhong Sheng Si Zhi Ben: The phenomena of water flow and waves, arising from arising and ceasing, are the roots of two kinds of birth and death (reincarnation). Er Zhong Hui Zhu Jing Yi: Two methods to explain the differences in various scriptures. You Tan Xing Ju Shui Ben Wu Bo Deng: Because of discussing inherent nature, it is like water originally having no waves. Er Ming Guan Liu Du Fen Shi Chu Er Yi: Two methods to clarify the two meanings of worldly and transcendental cultivation of the six perfections (Liu Du, six paramitas). He Guang Bu Tong Chen: The difference between 'harmonizing with the light and assimilating to the dust' (He Guang Tong Chen) and 'not assimilating to the dust' (Bu Tong Chen). Chu Xin Wei Kan She Shi: Beginners are not yet capable of handling affairs. Er Shi Po Xiao Ren Zhi Zhi Xia Xiao Cheng Bu Yi Zhen Xing: Two explanations to refute the view of Hinayana practitioners who cling to not relying on true practice. Er Yi Zhi Guo: Two meanings directly pointing to the result (Buddhahood). San Shi Po Da Ren Zhi Zhi Xia Da Cheng Chu Xin Ping Yi Shi Wen Jiao Qi Guan Xing De Xiu De Mie Zi Xin Jing Jie: Three explanations to refute the view of Mahayana practitioners who cling to the idea that Mahayana beginners rely on consciousness to listen to teachings and arise contemplation, as well as inherent virtue and cultivated virtue, thereby eliminating the realm of their own minds. Er Yi Wu Ming Yuan Qi Fa Xing Yuan Qi: Two meanings, namely ignorance-dependent origination and Dharma-nature-dependent origination. Jing Xin Bu Zhi Jing Ming Yi: The pure mind does not know the names and meanings of realms. Er Yi Jing Xin Zhi Jing Zhi Yi: Two meanings, namely the meaning of the pure mind knowing the realm. Wu Chen Zhi Yu Ti Ju Zhi Xing Wei Tong Wei Yi: Is the nature of dust-free wisdom (Wu Chen Zhi) the same as or different from the nature of inherent wisdom (Ti Ju Zhi)? Xing Zhi Fa Shi He You Wu Ming Ye: When the wisdom of nature arises, how can there be ignorance? Neng Xun Suo Xun Zhi Yi Fa Er Lun: The wisdom of the able to perfume (Neng Xun) and the perfumed (Suo Xun) is discussed from the perspective of one Dharma. Xin Zheng San Ju Liao Jian: Use the mind to realize, and use three sentences to distinguish. Zhi Duan Er De Yi Fa Er Yi: The two virtues of wisdom and cutting off afflictions are explained from one Dharma and two meanings. Zi Zheng Ta Zheng Zheng Ta Zhi Da Zhi: The main idea of self-realization (Zi Zheng), other-realization (Ta Zheng), and realizing others. Zhen Zheng Zhi Ren Chu Liao Jian Xin Zi Zheng Gong Yong Wu Gong Yong: A truly enlightened person first distinguishes the self-realization function and non-function of the mind. Xiu Xing Dui Bian Yue Xiu Yun Wu Zuo You Ji Xing Jing Xin Zi Zhi Ben Ji: From the perspective of cultivation, cultivation can be said to be non-action, because it is directly from the self-knowing original stillness of the self-nature pure mind. Jing Xin Ke Jian Ben Ji Jing Xin Ke Jian Zhi Yi: The pure mind can be seen, the meaning of the originally still pure mind can be seen. Ru Lai Ke Jian Bu Jian Si Yi: The four meanings of whether the Tathagata can be seen or cannot be seen. Yi Shi Neng Zhi Zhi Zhi Hai Shi Shi: Is the wisdom that consciousness can know still consciousness? Qi Shi Shu Xian Xing: The seventh consciousness belongs to present activity. Er Jian You Ta Zheng Xi Qi You San Bu Tong: Two distinctions, due to other-realization, there are three differences in habits. You Ta Zheng Zhi Zheng Yi: The correct meaning of other-realization. San Jian You Zheng Ta Jian Si Gen Ben Jian Xian Chu: Three distinctions, due to realizing others, the fundamental views of the delusions of views and thoughts are first removed. Xiao Cheng Xian Po Jian Si Zhi Ben Zhong: Hinayana practitioners first break the fundamental seeds of the delusions of views and thoughts. Ta Zheng Zheng Ta Zhi Yi: The difference between other-realization and realizing others. Wu Ming Ming Yi Yue Quan Shi Zhi Qing Zhi: The name and meaning of ignorance, understood from the perspective of expedient and true emotions and wisdom. Yue Wang Zhen Zhi Qing Zhi: Understanding emotions and wisdom from the perspective of delusion and truth. Zheng Dao Bu Duan Zhi Yi: The meaning of continuous progress on the path of enlightenment. Sheng Qi Shi Ming Zi Cu Jue Bo Di Meng Zhong Meng: The name of arising consciousness, rough awareness, the dream within a dream of ordinary people. Yi Shi Fa Chen Zhi Liu Tong: The six supernatural powers of consciousness and Dharma-dhatu (Fa Chen). Xu Gen Chen Shi Ming Zhi Sheng: The arising of the name of Xu Gen Chen Shi. You Shi Yuan Jing Dui Er Bu Jian Jian Er Bu Nian Zhi Yi: Due to consciousness grasping the realm, the difference between facing each other but not seeing, and seeing but not remembering. Xin Jing Ju An: Both the mind and the realm are in darkness. Shi Da Wen Di Er Ming Zhi Guan Jing Jie Zhi Xia Jin Wen Ming Jing Tong Zhen Wang San Xing Fen Zhen Wang: Explaining the second part of the great text, clarifying the realm of cessation and contemplation, now clarifying that the realm penetrates truth and falsehood, and the three natures (Parikalpita-svabhava, Paratantra-svabhava, and Parinispanna-svabhava) distinguish truth and falsehood. Mo He Zhi Guan Ming Jing Tong Zhen Wang Zhen Wang Suo Li Suo Xian: The Great Cessation and Contemplation (Mo He Zhi Guan) clarifies that the realm penetrates truth and falsehood, and what is separated and manifested by truth and falsehood. Fen Bie Yi Ta Er Xing Zhi Yi: The difference between the discriminated nature and the dependent nature. Fen Bie Xing Fen Bie Shi Tong Yi: The similarities and differences between the discriminated nature and the discriminated consciousness. Shi Zhen Shi Xing Zhi Xia Ran Jing Xiang Ji Gu Bu Fang Ran Jing Xiu De Fei Zeng Zhi Xing Ben Ming Sheng Fo Geng: Explaining the true nature, defilement and purity are mutually identical, so it does not hinder defilement and purity, cultivating virtue does not increase, the nature of wisdom is originally bright, and even more so between sentient beings and Buddhas.

互不妨明暗釋依他性下一性三名真實依他二性之異依他之義有二不同三身四土自利利他二義果上染用起不起二義果上示有三毒為性為事生佛染事之同異佛示染事亦名染果上用為解脫亦為縛染分依他能薰所現二法佛同體力常護眾生二義佛果大力不㧞重垢眾生依薰成法或假功成法或不功成法等異說佛舍眾生眾生舍佛釋分別性之下一切種智之異義分別依他更互相生分別依他異體同體見思迷事無明迷理若望中道智還成障大小宗計五識不同小乘計五識起三心大乘不別立五識分別大乘五識意識之異小乘五識五意識第六意識之異大小計五識五識意第六識二異輔行五識五意未屬煩惱等文五識五意識第六識體全同止觀揀境不簡諸識大文第三明止觀體狀之地獄內外之事三惑三諦能所迷三性分對三諦二義依他分別二性止觀真實性止觀臺岳用與名異義同三諦者天然性德解行一途一生說三諦名一性說空中名一性說中道名心佛眾生內外依正內外卷第五初約分別性止觀從假入空分對止觀觀見思假是假觀空假二觀不分前後空假二觀分於前后入空前假觀是出假方便南嶽天臺止觀異相流轉生死之因由以虛相為理大小之異小乘無明虛相為空圓教虛相為空圓談之幻一性之言亦通余教唯圓教之一性導達迷圓理之學者性相二空釋約依他性止觀界外塵沙無明之異妄業二

義釋約真實性止觀今三性止觀與中道破遍會同真實性二無為體二義空中二體二無二也空中還成虛假無無性無真性心外無法之兩向止觀二門意歸雙行三無性過德之三義分別無相性依他無生性真實無性性二義妄立非妄立諦大乘止觀屬圓頓以依他名分別二義除實性有二意除情不除法異解正義釋二約喻明體狀之下修性空中體同義異二明清凈三性止觀之下如是二字為實十法為權三諦為權一諦為實三諦一諦二而不二三一而分不分不分而分三一相即之二義釋明分別止觀之下表彰佛現虛相生執為實自心所作之二義釋依他性觀之下三身四土對自他釋真實性止觀之下佛現情事非凡迷眾生得用失體料簡差無差無障礙別性諸佛離情何名異事之異解情之所起全由性具破具性之說生佛體同何佛成生不成不知生佛同無由成佛料簡有非有應化之異智諦身能顯所顯所成唯識今家識轉成智等之異法身為塵相法身有色無色法身有相無相異解正義法身得名凡有名字用義順逆二修一法身為修為性法身之稱得由之異性性無名非受啞法乎于體假名非強名俗有三名不思議俗三義三祇通大小別教無隨緣圓取波水即別取波水本幻術與神通不同

大乘止觀法門宗圓記條個(終)

No. 904

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第一併序

東掖白蓮釋　瞭然　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『義釋約真實性止觀』、『今三性止觀』與『中道破遍』，會同真實性。二無為體，二義空中，二體二無，二也空中還成虛假。無無性，無真性，心外無法之兩向止觀二門，意歸雙行。三無性過德之三義：分別無相性、依他無生性、真實無性性。二義妄立非妄立諦，大乘止觀屬圓頓，以依他名分別二義。除實性有二意：除情不除法。異解正義釋二約喻明體狀之下修性空中，體同義異。二明清凈三性止觀之下，如是二字為實，十法為權，三諦為權，一諦為實。三諦一諦，二而不二，三一而分，不分不分而分，三一相即之二義釋明分別止觀之下，表彰佛現虛相生執為實自心所作之二義釋依他性觀之下，三身（Trikaya，佛的三種身）四土對自他釋真實性止觀之下，佛現情事非凡迷，眾生得用失體料簡差無差，無障礙別性諸佛離情何名異事之異解，情之所起全由性具，破具性之說，生佛體同何佛成生不成，不知生佛同無由成佛料簡有非有應化之異，智諦身能顯所顯所成唯識今家識轉成智等之異法身為塵相，法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法身）有色無色，法身有相無相異解正義法身得名凡有名字用義順逆二修一法身為修為性法身之稱得由之異性性無名非受啞法乎于體假名非強名俗有三名不思議俗三義三祇通大小別教無隨緣圓取波水即別取波水本幻術與神通不同『大乘止觀法門宗圓記條個』(終) No. 904 『大乘止觀法門宗圓記』卷第一併序東掖白蓮釋瞭然

【English Translation】 English version 'The Meaning-Based Explanation of True Nature Contemplation', 'The Three Natures Contemplation of Today', and 'The Middle Way's Thorough Refutation' converge on true nature. Two non-conditioned bodies, two meanings in emptiness, two bodies and two non-existences, the two also become false in emptiness. There is no non-nature, no true nature, the two aspects of contemplation, where there is no dharma outside the mind, return to dual practice. The three meanings of the three non-nature superior virtues: the nature of discrimination without characteristics, the dependent nature of non-origination, and the true nature of non-nature. The two meanings are falsely established as non-false truths. The Mahayana (Great Vehicle) contemplation belongs to the perfect and sudden teaching, using the dependent nature to distinguish the two meanings. Removing the substantial nature has two intentions: removing emotions but not removing the dharma. The different interpretations and correct meanings explain that under the analogy of clarifying the form of the body, cultivating nature in emptiness, the body is the same but the meaning is different. Under the second clarification of the pure three natures contemplation, the two words 'such as' are real, the ten dharmas are provisional, the three truths are provisional, and one truth is real. The three truths and one truth are two but not two, the three and one are divided, undivided and divided, the two meanings of the three and one being identical explain that under the discrimination contemplation, it proclaims that the Buddha manifests a false appearance, giving rise to attachment to the real, the two meanings of what is made by one's own mind explain that under the dependent nature contemplation, the three bodies (Trikaya, the three bodies of the Buddha) and four lands explain the true nature contemplation in relation to self and others, the Buddha manifests emotional matters that are not ordinary delusions, sentient beings gain use and lose the body, examining the differences between difference and no difference, the unobstructed distinct nature, what are the Buddhas who are free from emotions called different matters, the different interpretations, the arising of emotions is entirely due to the inherent nature, refuting the theory of inherent nature, the bodies of sentient beings and Buddhas are the same, what Buddha becomes a sentient being and does not become, not knowing that sentient beings and Buddhas are the same, there is no way to become a Buddha, examining the differences between existence and non-existence, responsive transformation, the body of wisdom and truth can manifest what is manifested and what is accomplished, the Consciousness-Only school of today transforms consciousness into wisdom, etc., the different dharmas, the Dharma body (Dharmakaya, the Dharma body of the Buddha) is like dust, the Dharma body has color and no color, the Dharma body has form and no form, the different interpretations and correct meanings, the Dharma body obtains its name, all names use meaning in accordance with or against the two cultivations, one Dharma body is cultivated as the nature Dharma body, the name is obtained from the different natures, nature has no name, is it not receiving the mute dharma in the body, the provisional name is not a strong name, the mundane has three names, inconceivable mundane three meanings, the three kalpas (aeons) connect the great and small, the separate teaching has no following conditions, the perfect takes the waves and water as separate, taking the waves and water as originally illusory arts is different from supernatural powers. 'The Mahayana Contemplation Method's Complete Record of the Sect' (End) No. 904 'The Mahayana Contemplation Method's Complete Record', Volume 1, with Preface Explained by the Eastern Pavilion White Lotus Monk Liaoran

述

思議匪及者謂之性。形數可辨者謂之情。性則覺之真源。情則迷之妄本。以覺覺迷故至於非覺非不覺。以迷迷覺故致於有迷有不迷。將使返其情而寂于性者謂之止。則非覺非不覺。有迷有不迷。皆不得而名。及夫據其性而照于情者謂之觀。則有迷有不迷。非覺非不覺。悉可以而狀。寂焉照焉。體焉用焉。止焉觀焉。本焉末焉。皆不可而思議焉。吾佛釋迦持此道而莊嚴之。謂之定慧。依此道而開示之。謂之知見。吾祖南嶽括此道而驚其所悟。謂之分別．依他．真實之三性。吾祖天臺據此道而要其所入。謂之真空．俗有．中道之三諦。或二也或三也。或總也或別也。無非一性。常異常同。天然之妙法也。所以息則纖塵絕朕。動則萬象揄揚。來不知其自誰。去不究其何適。取則便散。舍則便昏。其欲即達。涼池高安秘藏是真心要。是曰大乘。無過南嶽所示法門者矣。是以假設賓主內外。別其正邪。精示靜明廣略。因其利鈍。名雖通衍。旨必在圓。今有因緣。惟宗圓旨直記義理云爾。時大宋宣和三年歲次辛丑十二月初一日敘。

問。序中雲。今有因緣直記義理者。未審有何因緣。答。凡有十意。一欲會天臺所說止觀與師不殊故。二欲知天然妙體惟一性故。三欲使解了本覺之法尚屬用故。四欲令曉性德善惡體屬

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：述：思議所不能及的叫做『性』（本質）。可以用形態和數量來辨別的叫做『情』（情感）。『性』是覺悟的真正源頭，『情』是迷惑的虛妄根本。用覺悟來覺悟迷惑，最終達到非覺非不覺的境界。用迷惑來迷惑覺悟，導致有迷惑有不迷惑的狀態。想要使情感迴歸于本性而達到寂靜的，叫做『止』（禪定）。那麼，非覺非不覺，有迷惑有不迷惑，都無法用言語來描述。等到依據本性來觀照情感的，叫做『觀』（智慧）。那麼，有迷惑有不迷惑，非覺非不覺，都可以用言語來形容。寂靜啊，觀照啊，體悟啊，運用啊，止啊，觀啊，根本啊，末端啊，都是不可思議的。我的佛陀釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni）秉持這個道理來莊嚴自身，稱之為『定慧』（Samadhi-prajna）。依據這個道理來開示眾生，稱之為『知見』（Jnana-darsana）。我的祖師南嶽（Nanyue）概括這個道理而驚歎他所領悟的，稱之為『分別』（Parikalpita）、『依他』（Paratantra）、『真實』（Parinispanna）之三性。我的祖師天臺（Tiantai）依據這個道理來把握他所要進入的境界，稱之為『真空』（Sunyata）、『俗有』（Samvriti）、『中道』（Madhyama）之三諦。或者說是二，或者說是三，或者說是總括，或者說是分別，無非都是一個『性』（本質），常恒不變，天然的妙法啊。所以，止息時，細微的塵埃都消失了軌跡；動起來，萬象都舒展開來。來不知道從哪裡來，去不知道到哪裡去。執取它就消散，捨棄它就昏昧。想要達到它，涼池高安（Liangchi Gaoan）秘藏的就是真心要，這就是大乘（Mahayana）。沒有超過南嶽（Nanyue）所開示的法門的了。因此假設賓主內外，區分正邪，精細地開示靜明廣略，根據眾生的根器利鈍。名稱雖然是通用的，宗旨必定在於圓滿。現在有因緣，只記錄圓滿的宗旨和義理而已。時大宋宣和三年歲次辛丑十二月初一日敘。

問：序文中說，『現在有因緣只記錄義理』，不知道有什麼因緣？答：凡有十個意思：一是想要會合天臺（Tiantai）所說的止觀（Samatha-vipassana）與師傳沒有差別；二是想要知道天然妙體只有一個『性』（本質）；三是想要使人理解本覺（Svabuddhi）之法仍然屬於作用；四是想要使人明白性德（Svabhava-guna）善惡的本體屬於...

【English Translation】 English version: Statement: That which is beyond comprehension is called '性' (xìng) [nature, essence]. That which can be distinguished by form and number is called '情' (qíng) [emotion, feeling]. '性' (xìng) is the true source of awakening, while '情' (qíng) is the illusory root of delusion. Using awakening to awaken delusion leads to a state of neither awakening nor non-awakening. Using delusion to delude awakening leads to a state of having delusion and not having delusion. To cause the emotions to return to the nature and become tranquil is called '止' (zhǐ) [cessation, stopping]. Then, neither awakening nor non-awakening, having delusion and not having delusion, cannot be named. When one relies on the nature to illuminate the emotions, it is called '觀' (guān) [contemplation, insight]. Then, having delusion and not having delusion, neither awakening nor non-awakening, can all be described. Tranquil and illuminating, embodying and utilizing, stopping and contemplating, root and branch, all are beyond comprehension. Our Buddha Sakyamuni (釋迦牟尼) [Śākyamuni] held this path and adorned it, calling it '定慧' (dìng huì) [samādhi-prajñā, concentration and wisdom]. According to this path, he revealed it, calling it '知見' (zhī jiàn) [jñāna-darśana, knowledge and vision]. Our ancestor Nanyue (南嶽) [Nányuè] summarized this path and was amazed by what he realized, calling it the three natures of '分別' (fēn bié) [parikalpita, discrimination], '依他' (yī tā) [paratantra, dependence], and '真實' (zhēn shí) [pariniṣpanna, perfection]. Our ancestor Tiantai (天臺) [Tiāntái] based on this path to grasp what he wanted to enter, calling it the three truths of '真空' (zhēn kōng) [śūnyatā, emptiness], '俗有' (sú yǒu) [saṃvṛti, conventional existence], and '中道' (zhōng dào) [madhyama, the Middle Way]. Whether it is two or three, whether it is general or specific, it is all one '性' (xìng) [nature, essence], constantly unchanging, the natural and wondrous Dharma. Therefore, when ceasing, even the slightest trace of dust disappears; when moving, all phenomena unfold. Coming, one does not know from whom it comes; going, one does not investigate where it goes. Grasping it, it scatters; abandoning it, it becomes dim. Wanting to reach it, Liangchi Gaoan (涼池高安)'s secret treasure is the essence of true mind. This is called Mahayana (大乘) [Mahāyāna]. There is nothing that surpasses the Dharma gate shown by Nanyue (南嶽). Therefore, assuming guest and host, inside and outside, distinguishing right and wrong, precisely showing stillness, brightness, breadth, and brevity, according to the sharpness and dullness of beings. Although the names are common, the purpose must be in completeness. Now there is a cause and condition, only recording the complete purpose and meaning. Written on the first day of the twelfth month of the Xin Chou year, the third year of Xuanhe of the Great Song Dynasty.

Question: The preface says, 'Now there is a cause and condition to only record the meaning,' what are the causes and conditions? Answer: There are ten meanings in all: First, to unite the cessation and contemplation (止觀) [śamatha-vipassanā] spoken of by Tiantai (天臺) with the master's transmission without difference; second, to know that the natural and wondrous essence is only one '性' (xìng) [nature, essence]; third, to make people understand that the Dharma of original awakening (本覺) [svabuddhi] still belongs to function; fourth, to make people understand that the substance of the virtuous and evil qualities of the nature (性德) [svabhāva-guṇa] belongs to...

修故。五爲了知修惡當體法是情故。六為明佛所起惡用不異修故。七為證今立理由事差權因實妙。顯非師心有承稟故。八為自備忽忘易尋討故。九為呈露所解恐有迷錯。求刪削故。十為利同學直入觀道故。

其題稱大乘止觀法門者。大是無外之名。乘以運載為義。大有待絕。乘有修性。相待說大。始自世間終藏．通．別皆名為小。惟圓為大。若絕待者即彼偏小全是圓大。此二乃是法界法爾。常待常絕不可思議。非大非小目之為大。亦得云大名不可思議。即法界全體也。全此之大起而為修。運載行人證體證用。此修即性。此性即修。法界法爾常修常性不可思議。非運非載目之為乘。又大即是人。乘即是法。如十二門論云。諸佛最大。是乘能至。故名大乘。觀音．得大勢．文殊．彌勒菩薩等大士所乘故名大乘。又大乘者。由一性之法天然具三。謂體．相．用。此三即性。故名為大。以此三大而為所乘故名大乘。如起信中約此三大釋大乘義。此之三大即南嶽所用分別．依他．真實三性。故下文云。真心是體。本識是相。六七等識是用。此三即天臺理隨得三。且體大者乘其止以自利。用大者乘其觀以利人。相大者該乘自他或惟在自。故此大乘即止觀也。

所云止體觀用者。如下文云。心體平等。離一切相。即是寂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：修習的原因有十個：一是爲了知道修習的體性，二是爲了知道修習的因緣，三是爲了知道修習的境界，四是爲了知道修習的位次，五是爲了知道修惡的當體法是情，六是爲了闡明佛所起的惡用與修習沒有差異，七是爲了證明現在所立的理由，在事相上有所差異，權巧的因由是真實的奧妙，顯示並非出於自己的臆想，而是有所傳承，八是爲了自己準備，防止忽然忘記，容易尋找探討，九是爲了呈現所理解的，恐怕有迷惑錯誤，請求刪改，十是爲了利益同學，直接進入觀道的修行。

題目標名為『大乘止觀法門』的原因是：『大』是沒有內外之分的名詞，『乘』是運載的意思。『大』有對待和絕待兩種含義，『乘』有修習和體性兩種含義。相對而言，才說『大』。從世間開始，直到藏教、通教、別教，都稱為『小』，只有圓教才稱為『大』。如果從絕待的角度來說，那麼那些偏頗的『小』，全部都是圓滿的『大』。這兩種情況都是法界本來的樣子，恒常對待，恒常絕待，不可思議。非大非小，稱之為『大』。也可以說，『大』這個名稱是不可思議的，就是法界的全體。完全以此『大』而發起修習，運載修行人證得體性，證得作用。這個修習就是體性，這個體性就是修習。法界本來的樣子，恒常修習，恒常體性，不可思議。非運非載，稱之為『乘』。另外，『大』就是人，『乘』就是法。如《十二門論》所說：諸佛最大，是乘能夠到達。所以名為大乘。觀音（Avalokiteśvara，觀世音菩薩）、得大勢（Mahāsthāmaprāpta，大勢至菩薩）、文殊（Mañjuśrī，文殊菩薩）、彌勒（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩）菩薩等大士所乘坐的，所以名為大乘。又，大乘，由一性之法天然具備三種，即體、相、用。這三種就是體性，所以名為『大』。以此三大而作為所乘，所以名為大乘。如《起信論》中，就這三大來解釋大乘的含義。這三大就是南嶽慧思大師所用的分別性、依他性、真實性三種體性。所以下文說：真心是體，本識是相，六識七識等是用。這三種就是天臺宗的理隨緣、隨得、隨性三性。而且體大，是乘坐止來使自己得利益；用大，是乘坐觀來利益他人；相大，是包含乘坐自利利他，或者只是在自利。所以這個大乘就是止觀。

所說的止是體，觀是用，如下文所說：心體平等，遠離一切相，這就是寂（śānta，寂靜）。

【English Translation】 English version: There are ten reasons for cultivation: First, to know the substance of cultivation; second, to know the causes and conditions of cultivation; third, to know the realm of cultivation; fourth, to know the stages of cultivation; fifth, to know that the very nature of cultivating evil is emotional; sixth, to clarify that the evil actions arising from the Buddha are no different from cultivation; seventh, to prove that the reasons now established have differences in phenomena, and the skillful cause is truly wonderful, showing that it is not from one's own imagination but has been inherited; eighth, to prepare oneself, prevent sudden forgetting, and make it easy to find and discuss; ninth, to present what is understood, fearing that there may be confusion and errors, and requesting deletion and modification; tenth, to benefit fellow practitioners and directly enter the practice of contemplation.

The reason why the title is called 'Mahāyāna Śamatha-Vipassanā Dharma Gate' is: 'Mahā' (great) is a noun without inside or outside, and 'yāna' (vehicle) means carrying. 'Mahā' has two meanings: relative and absolute, and 'yāna' has two meanings: cultivation and nature. It is only in relation that 'Mahā' is spoken of. From the world onwards, until the Tripiṭaka teaching, the Common teaching, and the Separate teaching, are all called 'small', only the Perfect teaching is called 'Mahā'. If viewed from an absolute perspective, then those biased 'small' are all complete 'Mahā'. Both of these situations are the original appearance of the Dharma Realm, constantly relative, constantly absolute, and inconceivable. Neither great nor small, it is called 'Mahā'. It can also be said that the name 'Mahā' is inconceivable, which is the entirety of the Dharma Realm. Completely using this 'Mahā' to initiate cultivation, carrying practitioners to realize the substance and realize the function. This cultivation is the substance, and this substance is the cultivation. The original appearance of the Dharma Realm, constantly cultivating, constantly substantial, inconceivable. Neither carrying nor transporting, it is called 'yāna'. In addition, 'Mahā' is the person, and 'yāna' is the Dharma. As the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra (Twelve Gate Treatise) says: All Buddhas are the greatest, and the vehicle can reach. Therefore, it is called Mahāyāna. What great beings such as Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin, the Bodhisattva of Compassion), Mahāsthāmaprāpta (Dashizhi, the Bodhisattva of Great Power), Mañjuśrī (Wenshu, the Bodhisattva of Wisdom), and Maitreya (Mile, the Future Buddha) ride on is called Mahāyāna. Also, Mahāyāna, the Dharma of one nature naturally possesses three aspects, namely substance, form, and function. These three are the substance, so it is called 'Mahā'. Using these three great aspects as what is ridden is called Mahāyāna. As the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna explains the meaning of Mahāyāna based on these three great aspects. These three great aspects are the three natures of discrimination, dependence, and reality used by Nanyue Huisi. Therefore, the following text says: True mind is the substance, fundamental consciousness is the form, and the six and seven consciousnesses are the function. These three are the three natures of principle, following conditions, and following attainment of the Tiantai school. Moreover, the greatness of substance is riding on Śamatha to benefit oneself; the greatness of function is riding on Vipassanā to benefit others; the greatness of form encompasses riding on benefiting oneself and others, or only benefiting oneself. Therefore, this Mahāyāna is Śamatha-Vipassanā.

What is said about Śamatha being the substance and Vipassanā being the function, as the following text says: The substance of the mind is equal, free from all forms, this is Śānta (peace).

義。體具違順二用。即是用義。是故修習止行即能除滅虛妄紛動。令此心體寂靜離相。即為自利。修智觀行令此心用顯現繁興。即為利他。

問。止對解脫。義屬化他。觀對般若。理當自行。今何不同。答。解脫有三。若取方便乃是于用。今取真性。般若亦三。若取實相乃是于體。今取文字。又般若照事則為用。般若照性則為體。今取照事。解脫據性則為體。解脫於事則為用。今取據性。由一性是理體。十界是事用。般若解脫是理體中所具之德。此德從性則為體。從事則為用。今取解脫之德解縛得脫。寂然從性則為體。般若之德照暗得明。觀達於事則為用。如輔行雲。止體寂故即是法身。觀體用故即是般若。即此止觀功能可以入道。故稱法門。法者或訓軌則。今訓功能。據下文釋法身云法者功能也。

以止觀功能即門者。門有多義。一者能通。非但通入亦乃通出。入則見王。出則為民。故入止出觀。又門者能禁。非但禁內亦乃禁外。禁外是觀。故文云不入涅槃。禁內是止。故文云不住生死。又能通是開門。能禁是閉門。開門是觀。閉門是止。或閉門是觀。開門是止。上皆從德。若過德對論止觀家門者出入。乃以入止觀為門。出則屬於昏散。內外開閉例出入說。

南嶽者。衡山荊州也。思大禪師者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『義』，指的是體性具備違背和順從兩種作用。『用』也指的是作用。因此，修習止行就能去除虛妄的紛亂動搖，使這顆心體寂靜而遠離表相，這就是自利。修習智觀行，使這顆心的作用顯現而繁榮興盛，這就是利他。

問：止對應解脫，『義』屬於化他；觀對應般若，道理上應當是自行。為什麼現在不同呢？答：解脫有三種。如果取其方便，那就是作用。現在取其真性。般若也有三種。如果取其實相，那就是體性。現在取其文字。而且，般若照見事物就是作用，般若照見自性就是體性。現在取其照見事物。解脫依據自性就是體性，解脫對於事物就是作用。現在取其依據自性。因為一性是理體，十界是事物的作用。般若和解脫是理體中所具備的德行。這種德行從自性來說就是體性，從事物來說就是作用。現在取解脫的德行，解開束縛得到解脫，寂然從自性來說就是體性。般若的德行照亮黑暗得到光明，觀察通達事物就是作用。如《輔行》所說：『止的體性寂靜，就是法身。觀的體性是作用，就是般若。』就是說這止觀的功能可以進入佛道，所以稱為法門。法，或者解釋為軌則，現在解釋為功能。根據下文解釋法身說，法就是功能。

以止觀的功能作為門，門有很多含義。一是能通，不只是通入，也能通出。入則見王，出則為民。所以入是止，出是觀。二是門能禁，不只是禁內，也能禁外。禁外是觀，所以文中說『不入涅槃』。禁內是止，所以文中說『不住生死』。能通是開門，能禁是閉門。開門是觀，閉門是止。或者閉門是觀，開門是止。以上都是從德行來說。如果從過失和德行相對來說，止觀家以出入作為門，就是以入止觀為門，出則屬於昏沉散亂。內外開閉，可以按照出入來說。

南嶽，指的是衡山，在荊州。思大禪師，指的是...

【English Translation】 English version: 'Yi' (meaning) refers to the essence possessing two functions: opposition and compliance. 'Yong' (application) also refers to function. Therefore, practicing 'zhi' (cessation) can eliminate false and chaotic movements, allowing this mind-essence to be tranquil and detached from appearances, which is self-benefit. Practicing 'guan' (contemplation) allows the function of this mind to manifest and flourish, which is benefiting others.

Question: 'Zhi' corresponds to 'vimoksha' (liberation), and 'yi' belongs to transforming others; 'guan' corresponds to 'prajna' (wisdom), and in principle, it should be self-cultivation. Why are they different now? Answer: 'Vimoksha' has three aspects. If we take its expedient means, it is function. Now we take its true nature. 'Prajna' also has three aspects. If we take its real appearance, it is essence. Now we take its words. Moreover, 'prajna' illuminating things is function, and 'prajna' illuminating nature is essence. Now we take its illuminating things. 'Vimoksha' based on nature is essence, and 'vimoksha' regarding things is function. Now we take its being based on nature. Because the one nature is the principle-essence, and the ten realms are the function of things. 'Prajna' and 'vimoksha' are virtues inherent in the principle-essence. This virtue, from the perspective of nature, is essence; from the perspective of things, it is function. Now we take the virtue of 'vimoksha', untie the bonds and attain liberation, being tranquil from nature is essence. The virtue of 'prajna' illuminates darkness and attains light, observing and understanding things is function. As the 'Fu Xing' (Commentary on the Practice of Samatha-vipassana) says: 'The essence of 'zhi' is tranquil, so it is the 'dharmakaya' (dharma body). The essence of 'guan' is function, so it is 'prajna'.' That is to say, the function of this 'zhi-guan' can enter the path, so it is called 'dharma-door'. 'Dharma' can be explained as rules, but now it is explained as function. According to the following explanation of 'dharmakaya', 'dharma' is function.

Taking the function of 'zhi-guan' as the door, the door has many meanings. First, it can pass through, not only entering but also exiting. Entering sees the king, exiting serves the people. So entering is 'zhi', and exiting is 'guan'. Second, the door can prohibit, not only prohibiting the inside but also prohibiting the outside. Prohibiting the outside is 'guan', so the text says 'not entering Nirvana'. Prohibiting the inside is 'zhi', so the text says 'not dwelling in samsara'. Being able to pass through is opening the door, and being able to prohibit is closing the door. Opening the door is 'guan', and closing the door is 'zhi'. Or closing the door is 'guan', and opening the door is 'zhi'. The above are all from the perspective of virtue. If we discuss 'zhi-guan' from the perspective of faults and virtues, the 'zhi-guan' school takes entering and exiting as the door, that is, taking entering 'zhi-guan' as the door, and exiting belongs to dullness and distraction. Opening and closing inside and outside can be explained according to entering and exiting.

Nanyue (Southern Mountain) refers to Hengshan (Mount Heng), which is in Jingzhou. Si Da Chanshi (Great Master Si) refers to...

諱慧思。姓李氏。項城武津人。因讀妙勝定經嘆禪功德。便爾發心。遂依文師稟受禪法。初化嵩陽學徒日盛。知齊祚將滅。空聲告云。可往武當南嶽入道。遂至光州。值梁孝元傾覆。權止大緣蘇。數年後徑往南嶽。即陳廢帝光大二年歲次戍子六月二十二日也。棲隱南嶽凡十年。至宣帝大建九年歲次丁酉六月二十二日終於南嶽。德行備如本傳。

曲授者。委悉逗於前機也。心要者。一念總于眾德也。南嶽著述止觀法門。不宰筆削之功。故不出名。以後人傳習恐失無由。故存此目。

注辭凡有三節。初示修處。乃指下文第三大章止觀體狀也。雖依止中兩處亦有體狀之語。非今所指。次示開解。即通指一部。例如摩訶止觀皆云信行圓乘。第三令人尊文重教。釋正文中準釋經論皆分三分。今以初問至為汝說之為序分。從所言止者至止觀作用訖文為正宗。從凡禮佛至終卷為流通。若自就正宗義分三分者。以略示止觀為序分。從止觀依止至斷得為正宗。由止觀依止至體狀是自行之因。斷得乃自行之果。故皆屬正宗。止觀作用乃是利他。故屬流通。又略示至止觀境界皆是序分。由開解故。止觀體狀與斷得乃屬正宗。由正立行故。今依初序分。對於諸文但有別序由起而無通序。於今別序由起中自有通別。初通。由起有問有

答問二。初敘意。有法有喻。

稟性斯質者。言其所賦。托修異焉者。言其所習。匠有殊雕者。喻托修之異。器成不一者。喻稟性斯質。性隨習變。猶器遂工成。荊溪云。匠者成物也。器之工師也。二。吾聞下。正問。先敘所稟大德洞理。敘解鑒宗。敘行究竟。元廓者。乃頓極幽通之理行也。故以䇿修者。問于元廓之宗。冀聞正法者。問于究竟之理。答中雲幼染緇風者。南嶽為兒童時因夢梵僧勸令入道。又數夢僧訓以齊戒。逐出家焉。少餐道味者。時見朋類誦法華經。情深樂重因而習誦。併發於心求稟禪法。但下愚等。乃示謙德。既以行理為謙。則知前問宗即是行。莫知何說者。以問意猶通。未聞指的大乘行法故也。

成別由序。的欲聞修大乘行法。故成別也。于中為四。初。再請。奉持不遺者。下迷承于上覺曰奉。妄念秉于真修曰持。是此奉持不敢遺忘。須約名等五即辨之。究竟即中亦奉持者。如御車達到猶名為車。此之五即乃是外人未聞修前。天然性體本自奉持。非適今也。但日用不知。故有斯請。二。沙門許說二。初述贊。發心樂聞尚過二乘者。以二乘人于菩薩法全無一念好樂之心。況行為耶。然此大心實為難發。以諸眾生莫不皆因為于自己。起貪嗔癡背大道心。縱脫六趣而沉空寂。今發此心是故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：答問二。首先敘述意圖，有法和比喻。

『稟性斯質者』，是說他所稟賦的；『托修異焉者』，是說他所學習的。『匠有殊雕者』，比喻託付修行而有差異；『器成不一者』，比喻稟性資質不同。性情隨著習染而改變，就像器物隨著工匠而完成。荊溪說：『匠人是成就器物的人，是器物的工師。』

第二，『吾聞下』，正式提問。先敘述所稟賦的大德通達真理，敘述理解鑑別宗旨，敘述修行達到究竟。『元廓者』（指本性空寂廣大），是頓悟窮極幽深通達的理行。所以用『䇿修者』，是詢問關於元廓的宗旨；希望聽聞正法，是詢問關於究竟的道理。回答中說『幼染緇風者』（從小就出家），指南嶽（慧思禪師）小時候夢見梵僧勸他入道，又多次夢見僧人教導他齋戒，於是就出家了。『少餐道味者』（從小就品嚐佛法的滋味），是說他當時看見同伴誦讀《法華經》，情意深厚，樂於誦讀，因此學習誦讀，並且發心求稟禪法。『但下愚等』，是表示謙虛的美德。既然用修行和道理作為謙辭，那麼就知道前面所問的宗旨就是修行。『莫知何說者』，因為提問者的意思雖然通達，但還沒有聽聞指向大乘修行的方法。

成就差別在於順序。確實想要聽聞修習大乘修行的方法，所以成就了差別。其中分為四個部分。第一，再次請求。『奉持不遺者』，下位者迷戀承受上位者的覺悟叫做『奉』，妄念秉持于真正的修行叫做『持』。這是此奉持不敢遺忘。必須按照名等五即來辨別它。『究竟即中亦奉持者』，如同駕車到達目的地仍然稱為車一樣。這五即是外人沒有聽聞修習之前，天然的性體本來就奉持著，不是現在才開始的。只是日常使用而不知道，所以才有這樣的請求。

第二，沙門（出家人）答應解說。首先是述說讚歎。『發心樂聞尚過二乘者』，因為二乘人對於菩薩法完全沒有一念喜愛之心，更何況是行為呢？然而這種大心確實難以發起，因為眾生無不都是爲了自己，生起貪嗔癡而背離大道之心，即使脫離六道輪迴也沉溺於空寂之中。現在發起這種心，所以...

【English Translation】 English version: Answer and Question 2. First, narrating the intention, there are Dharma and metaphors.

'Those who are endowed with inherent qualities' refers to what they are born with; 'those who entrust themselves to different practices' refers to what they learn. 'Craftsmen have different carvings' is a metaphor for entrusting oneself to different practices. 'The resulting vessels are not uniform' is a metaphor for inherent qualities. Nature changes with habits, just as vessels are completed by craftsmen. Jingxi said: 'Craftsmen are those who complete objects, they are the masters of vessels.'

Second, 'I heard below' is the formal question. First, narrating the great virtue of inherent endowment that penetrates the truth, narrating the understanding and discerning of the doctrine, narrating the ultimate attainment of practice. 'Yuan Kuo' (referring to the emptiness and vastness of inherent nature) is the principle and practice of sudden enlightenment that reaches the ultimate depth and understanding. Therefore, using 'those who cultivate with strategies' is asking about the doctrine of Yuan Kuo; hoping to hear the right Dharma is asking about the ultimate principle. In the answer, 'those who were young and dyed in the black wind' (those who became monks from a young age) refers to Nanyue (Zen Master Huisi) dreaming of a Brahma monk advising him to enter the path when he was a child, and repeatedly dreaming of monks teaching him to observe precepts, so he became a monk. 'Those who tasted the flavor of the Tao from a young age' (those who tasted the flavor of the Buddha's teachings from a young age) refers to him seeing his companions reciting the Lotus Sutra at that time, with deep affection and joy, so he learned to recite it, and developed the intention to seek Zen Dharma. 'But the inferior and foolish, etc.' is to show the virtue of humility. Since practice and principle are used as humble words, then it is known that the doctrine asked before is practice. 'Those who do not know what to say' is because the questioner's meaning is clear, but he has not heard the method of practice pointing to the Mahayana.

The achievement of difference lies in the order. Indeed, wanting to hear the method of cultivating Mahayana practice, so the difference is achieved. It is divided into four parts. First, request again. 'Those who uphold and do not forget' means that the lower one is fascinated and accepts the enlightenment of the higher one is called 'upholding', and false thoughts hold on to true practice is called 'holding'. This is this upholding and dare not forget. It must be distinguished according to the five identities such as name. 'Those who ultimately uphold in the middle' is like calling a car even after reaching the destination by driving. These five identities are that before outsiders have heard of cultivation, the natural nature inherently upholds, not just starting now. It's just that they don't know it in daily use, so there is such a request.

Second, the Shramana (monk) agrees to explain. First is to narrate praise. 'Those who have the heart to enjoy hearing are even better than the two vehicles' because people of the two vehicles have no thought of liking the Bodhisattva Dharma at all, let alone behavior? However, this great heart is indeed difficult to develop, because all beings are for themselves, giving rise to greed, anger, and ignorance, and turning away from the heart of the Great Dao, even if they escape the six realms of reincarnation, they are still immersed in emptiness. Now, to develop this heart, so...

超勝。又復須知。稱性發心方異偏教諸菩薩爾。二許說。行法為三。先示其行有威德之功。故云雖發勝心要藉行成。其德成即是證。發心是解。依解立行。由行證德。解行證三闕一不可。今欲談行故示成德。二但行法下。通指行門。大率言之乃有萬行。故云非一。三今且下。別示止觀。由經論中多明止觀二法。為子略說者。一行有萬差。今略惟談止觀二法。二止觀二門經論廣備。今乃略說。依此修習不離當念。于即生中可以成德。三外人下。受旨。目利兼人得法報恩。正是菩提之心行也。四沙門下。誡聽。諦聽善攝者。思念不亂。持此一心入語義中。如此之人故可為說。

二正宗中。初略說二。初止。謂知一切諸法者。即染凈緣起諸法也。從本以來至不生不滅者。即真實性。但以虛妄至非有而有者。即分別性。然彼有法至體無分別者。即依他性。又不生不滅等是總示三性。從但以虛妄至而有。是分別性。從然彼有法有即非有。是依他性。惟是一心體無分別。是真實性。然此二曏者。初義由依他性中所論止者正是有即非有。非有之法即是一心不生不滅乃名為止。故下文中依他性止乃云惟是一心所現有即非有本自無生今即無滅。如是緣心遣相。知相本無。與今惟是一心體無分別。其意大同。次義由下文于真實性中論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本超勝。還需進一步瞭解，依本性發心才與偏教的諸位菩薩不同。二、允許宣說。修行方法分為三點。首先，展示修行的威德之功，所以說即使發了殊勝的心，也要依靠修行才能成就。成就德行就是證悟。發心是理解。依據理解建立修行，通過修行證得德行。理解、修行、證悟三者缺一不可。現在想要談論修行，所以先展示成就德行。二、『但行法』以下，總括地指修行法門。大致來說，有萬種修行方法，所以說『非一』。三、『今且』以下，分別展示止觀。因為經論中大多闡明止觀這兩種方法，作為子（對初學者的謙稱）簡略地說：一是修行有萬種差別，現在簡略地只談止觀兩種方法。二是止觀這兩個法門在經論中廣泛具備，現在只是簡略地說。依照這些修習，不離當下的一念，在今生就可以成就德行。三、『外人』以下，領受旨意。目光銳利且能幫助他人獲得佛法，報答恩情，這正是菩提心的行為。四、『沙門』以下，告誡聽眾。『諦聽善攝』是指思念不亂。保持這種一心進入語義之中。對於這樣的人才可以為他們宣說。

二、正宗中。首先簡略地說兩點。首先是止。所謂『知一切諸法』，就是指染污和清凈的緣起諸法。『從本以來至不生不滅』，就是指真實性（Tathata）。『但以虛妄至非有而有』，就是指分別性（Parikalpita）。『然彼有法至體無分別』，就是指依他性（Paratantra）。『又不生不滅』等是總括地展示三性。『從但以虛妄至而有』，是分別性。『從然彼有法有即非有』，是依他性。『惟是一心體無分別』，是真實性。『然此二向』，第一個含義是由依他性中所論述的止，正是『有即非有』。『非有』的法就是一心不生不滅，才稱為止。所以下文中依他性的止才說『惟是一心所現有即非有本自無生今即無滅』。像這樣用緣心遣除外相，知道外相本來沒有。與現在『惟是一心體無分別』，意思大致相同。第二個含義是由下文在真實性中論述

【English Translation】 English version Surpassing. Furthermore, it must be understood that generating the mind in accordance with one's nature is different from the Bodhisattvas of the biased teachings. Second, permission to speak. The practice method is divided into three points. First, show the meritorious power of practice, so it is said that even if a supreme mind is generated, it must rely on practice to achieve. Achieving virtue is enlightenment. Generating the mind is understanding. Establishing practice based on understanding, and attaining virtue through practice. Understanding, practice, and attainment are indispensable. Now wanting to talk about practice, so first show the achievement of virtue. Second, 'But the practice method' below, generally refers to the practice methods. Generally speaking, there are ten thousand kinds of practice methods, so it is said 'not one'. Third, 'Now and' below, separately show cessation and contemplation (止觀, Zhiguan). Because most of the scriptures and treatises explain these two methods of cessation and contemplation, as a son (a humble term for beginners) briefly say: One is that there are ten thousand differences in practice, now briefly only talk about the two methods of cessation and contemplation. Two, these two methods of cessation and contemplation are widely available in scriptures and treatises, now only briefly say. According to these practices, without leaving the present moment, one can achieve virtue in this life. Three, 'Outsiders' below, receive the decree. Sharp eyes and helping others to obtain the Dharma, repaying kindness, this is the behavior of the Bodhi mind. Four, 'Shramana' below, admonish the audience. 'Listen carefully and gather well' means that thoughts are not chaotic. Keep this one mind into the meaning of the words. For such people can be said to them.

Second, in the main teaching. First briefly say two points. The first is cessation. The so-called 'knowing all dharmas', refers to the defiled and pure conditioned dharmas. 'From the beginning to non-birth and non-death', refers to the Suchness (真實性, Tathata). 'But with delusion to non-existence and existence', refers to the discriminated nature (分別性, Parikalpita). 'But that existing dharma to the body without distinction', refers to the dependent nature (依他性, Paratantra). 'And non-birth and non-death' etc. are a general display of the three natures. 'From but with delusion to existence', is the discriminated nature. 'From but that existing dharma existing is non-existing', is the dependent nature. 'Only one mind without distinction', is the Suchness. 'But these two directions', the first meaning is that the cessation discussed in the dependent nature is precisely 'existing is non-existing'. The 'non-existing' dharma is the one mind without birth and without death, which is called cessation. Therefore, the cessation of the dependent nature in the following text says 'Only one mind manifests existing is non-existing originally without birth now without extinction'. In this way, using the conditioned mind to dispel external appearances, knowing that external appearances are originally non-existent. And now 'Only one mind without distinction', the meaning is roughly the same. The second meaning is discussed in the following text in Suchness

止。乃云凈心之體常無分別。又云知彼一心之體不可分別。即與今云體無分別其義亦同。問。如何以不生不滅為總。答。三性通說皆有此理。如清涼云。求偏計相不可得故不生。能顯無相性故不滅。推緣起故不生。能顯無生性故不滅。圓成性非妄心境故不生。聖智所證故不滅。廣如彼文。又將三性對論不生不滅等。作是觀者。今文說止而云觀(平聲)。者當知觀(法聲)義有通有別。今取止觀通皆名觀。如奢摩他觀．毗缽舍那觀。能令妄念不流者。分別性中執實妄念。依他性中虛相妄念。真實性中執無妄念。此三妄念各以不流。故名為止。由今略示。則總下文三性義理。

次明觀中知本不生今不滅者。即真實性。從而以心性至世用者。即依他性。猶如幻夢非有而有。即分別性。亦可猶如幻夢等乃喻依他性。其分別性攝在依他有之一字。若以此有為虛有。即依他性。若執此有為實有。即分別性。故略說觀中亦該三性。應知三性論觀。分別以實有為體。依他以幻有為體。真實以無前二性為體。三性論止。分別息實有為體。依他息幻有為體。真實息無性為體。大位若此。委如下文。

二外人下。廣說二。初請解。由識發解昧必因識微。故聞要略不能開悟。再求方便委曲開示。

沙門下。再許廣說二。初標

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：停止（止）。於是說，清凈心性的本體本來就沒有分別。又說，瞭解那唯一心性的本體是不可分別的。這與現在所說的本體沒有分別，意思也是相同的。問：如何以不生不滅作為總括？答：三性（三自性：遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）通盤來說，都有這個道理。如清涼（清涼國師澄觀）所說：『尋求遍計所執相，不可得，所以說不生；能夠顯現無相的自性，所以說不滅。』推究緣起，所以說不生；能夠顯現無生的自性，所以說不滅。圓成實性不是虛妄心識的境界，所以說不生；是聖人的智慧所證悟的，所以說不滅。詳細的解釋就像那篇文章所說。又將三性對照來論述不生不滅等。作這樣觀想的人，要知道現在文中所說的『止』而說是『觀』，這個『觀』字，要知道觀的意義有共通之處，也有不同之處。現在取止觀共通之處都叫做觀，如奢摩他觀（止觀）、毗缽舍那觀（觀），能夠使虛妄的念頭不流動的，分別性（遍計所執性）中執著真實的虛妄念頭，依他性（依他起性）中虛幻表象的虛妄念頭，真實性（圓成實性）中執著沒有自性的虛妄念頭。這三種虛妄念頭各自停止流動，所以叫做止。由於現在只是簡略地說明，所以總括了下文三性的義理。其次說明觀中知道本來不生現在不滅的，就是真實性（圓成實性）。從而以心性達到世間作用的，就是依他性（依他起性），猶如幻夢，不是真實存在卻又好像存在。這就是分別性（遍計所執性）。也可以說，猶如幻夢等是比喻依他性（依他起性），那分別性（遍計所執性）包含在依他性（依他起性）的『有』字之中。如果把這個『有』看作是虛幻的有，那就是依他性（依他起性）；如果執著這個『有』是真實的有，那就是分別性（遍計所執性）。所以簡略地說，觀中也包含了三性（三自性：遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）。應當知道三性（三自性：遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）論觀，分別性（遍計所執性）以執著實有為本體，依他性（依他起性）以幻有為本體，真實性（圓成實性）以沒有前兩種自性為本體。三性（三自性：遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）論止，分別性（遍計所執性）以止息實有為本體，依他性（依他起性）以止息幻有為本體，真實性（圓成實性）以止息無自性為本體。大概的情況就是這樣，詳細的解釋在下文。第二部分，從『外人下』開始，廣泛地說明二個方面。首先是請求解釋。由於通過意識來理解，如果理解得不透徹，必定是因為意識不夠細微。所以聽了簡要的概括，不能開悟，再次請求方便，詳細地開示。從『沙門下』開始，再次允許廣泛地說明二個方面。首先是標明。

【English Translation】 English version: Stop (止, Zhi). It is then said that the essence of a pure mind is inherently without distinctions. It is also said that understanding the essence of that one mind is indivisible. This is the same meaning as saying that the essence is without distinctions. Question: How can 'neither arising nor ceasing' be taken as a generalization? Answer: All three natures (三性, Sān xìng: Parikalpita-svabhāva, the nature of conceptual imputation; Paratantra-svabhāva, the nature of dependence; and Parinispanna-svabhāva, the nature of perfect reality) have this principle in common. As Qingliang (清涼,Qīngliáng, National Teacher Cheng-guan) said: 'Seeking the imputed characteristics is unattainable, hence it is said to be non-arising; being able to reveal the nature of no-characteristics, hence it is said to be non-ceasing.' Investigating dependent origination, hence it is said to be non-arising; being able to reveal the nature of non-arising, hence it is said to be non-ceasing. The perfect reality is not the realm of deluded consciousness, hence it is said to be non-arising; it is what is realized by the wisdom of the sages, hence it is said to be non-ceasing. The detailed explanation is as in that text. Furthermore, the three natures are compared and discussed in terms of non-arising and non-ceasing, etc. Those who contemplate in this way should know that the 'stopping' mentioned in the text is referred to as 'contemplation.' The word 'contemplation' should be understood to have both common and distinct meanings. Here, we take the common aspect of both stopping and contemplation to be called contemplation, such as Samatha (奢摩他, Shē mó tā) contemplation and Vipassanā (毗缽舍那, Pí bō shě nà) contemplation. That which can prevent deluded thoughts from flowing is the clinging to real deluded thoughts in the imputed nature (遍計所執性, Biàn jì suǒ zhí xìng), the illusory appearance of deluded thoughts in the dependent nature (依他起性, Yī tā qǐ xìng), and the clinging to no-nature deluded thoughts in the perfect reality (圓成實性, Yuán chéng shí xìng). These three types of deluded thoughts each cease to flow, hence it is called stopping. Since it is only briefly explained now, it summarizes the meaning and principles of the three natures in the following text. Next, explaining that knowing the originally non-arising and presently non-ceasing in contemplation is the perfect reality (圓成實性, Yuán chéng shí xìng). Furthermore, reaching worldly functions through the nature of mind is the dependent nature (依他起性, Yī tā qǐ xìng), like illusions and dreams, which are not real but seem to exist. This is the imputed nature (遍計所執性, Biàn jì suǒ zhí xìng). It can also be said that illusions and dreams are metaphors for the dependent nature (依他起性, Yī tā qǐ xìng), and the imputed nature (遍計所執性, Biàn jì suǒ zhí xìng) is included in the word 'existence' of the dependent nature (依他起性, Yī tā qǐ xìng). If this 'existence' is regarded as illusory existence, it is the dependent nature (依他起性, Yī tā qǐ xìng); if one clings to this 'existence' as real existence, it is the imputed nature (遍計所執性, Biàn jì suǒ zhí xìng). Therefore, briefly speaking, contemplation also encompasses the three natures (三性, Sān xìng: Parikalpita-svabhāva, Paratantra-svabhāva, and Parinispanna-svabhāva). It should be known that in the discussion of contemplation in terms of the three natures (三性, Sān xìng: Parikalpita-svabhāva, Paratantra-svabhāva, and Parinispanna-svabhāva), the imputed nature (遍計所執性, Biàn jì suǒ zhí xìng) takes clinging to real existence as its essence, the dependent nature (依他起性, Yī tā qǐ xìng) takes illusory existence as its essence, and the perfect reality (圓成實性, Yuán chéng shí xìng) takes the absence of the previous two natures as its essence. In the discussion of stopping in terms of the three natures (三性, Sān xìng: Parikalpita-svabhāva, Paratantra-svabhāva, and Parinispanna-svabhāva), the imputed nature (遍計所執性, Biàn jì suǒ zhí xìng) takes ceasing real existence as its essence, the dependent nature (依他起性, Yī tā qǐ xìng) takes ceasing illusory existence as its essence, and the perfect reality (圓成實性, Yuán chéng shí xìng) takes ceasing no-nature as its essence. The general situation is like this; the detailed explanation is in the following text. The second part, starting from '外人下, Wài rén xià', extensively explains two aspects. The first is requesting an explanation. Because understanding comes through consciousness, if the understanding is not thorough, it must be because the consciousness is not subtle enough. Therefore, after hearing a brief summary, one cannot attain enlightenment and requests again for convenience and detailed explanation. Starting from '沙門下, Shā mén xià', permission is again granted to extensively explain two aspects. The first is to indicate.

章。作五番建立者。不無生起。先明依止者。即指平等一性為一切法之所依止。以諸眾生迷此一性而起妄想。故有分別依他境界。對此迷妄而示真性。故有真實境界。境界既興。指為所觀。就此所觀。當辯能觀止觀體狀。既修止觀。因圓果成。故有斷德。既然證果。合當利物。故有作用。若以此五會同摩訶止觀十章者。作用同起教。斷德同果報。體狀同止觀。境界．依止同前六章。

二就第一下解釋。文自為五。初止觀依止三。初標列。復作三門者。初乃定體。體謂一性。二乃論功。由此一性是諸法本。況復能具寂用二德。故須依止。三乃辨修。欲修止觀還以何法。依止一性而修習之。如下文云以意識依止此心修行止觀。意識者乃發觀之始心也。又何所依止者。正示所觀不思議境也。何故依止者。顯能觀觀即境為觀。故依止此心也。何者。以此凈心是諸法本。心外無法。即境為觀。不同近物有能所也。以何依止者。起觀之心即第六識。境觀雖融粗或尚在。故指意識為能依止。圓詮識是無分別智。斯亦可云能觀觀智即無明是。

二初明下正釋。文自為三。初何所依止二。初標。二謂依下釋有總有別。總中雲。謂依止一心者。即平等一性也。然此一性即三千性。此三千性不可遠求。乃是行者現前一念。指此一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此章節講述了建立五種次第。沒有無緣無故的生起，首先闡明『依止』，即指平等一性是所有法的依止之處。因為眾生迷惑于這一性而產生妄想，所以有了分別的依他境界。針對這種迷惑妄想而揭示真性，所以有了真實境界。境界產生后，就指為所觀的對象。針對這個所觀的對象，應當辨明能觀的止觀的體狀。修習止觀后，因圓滿果成就，所以有了斷德。既然已經證得果位，就應當利益眾生，所以有了作用。如果將這五種次第會同《摩訶止觀》的十章，那麼作用等同於起教，斷德等同於果報，體狀等同於止觀，境界和依止等同於前六章。

第二部分解釋第一部分的內容。文章分為五個部分。首先是止觀的依止，分為三個小部分。首先是標列。『復作三門』，首先是確定體性，體性指的是一性。其次是論述功用，因為這一性是諸法的根本，更何況它還具備寂靜和作用兩種德性，所以需要依止。第三是辨別修習，想要修習止觀應該依靠什麼法？依止一性而修習它。如下文所說，用意識依止此心來修行止觀。意識是發起觀的初始之心。又依止什麼呢？正是揭示所觀的不可思議境界。為什麼要依止呢？顯示能觀的觀就是境界，所以依止此心。為什麼呢？因為這顆清凈的心是諸法的根本，心外沒有法，即境界就是觀，不同於近處的事物有能觀和所觀的區別。用什麼來依止呢？發起觀的心就是第六識（第六意識）。境界和觀雖然融合，但粗糙的部分可能還存在，所以指意識為能依止。圓滿地詮釋識就是無分別智（沒有分別的智慧）。也可以說能觀的觀智就是無明（佛教用語，指對事物真相的迷惑）。

第二部分，『初明下正釋』，文章分為三個部分。首先是『何所依止』，分為兩個小部分。首先是標明。其次是『謂依下釋』，有總體的解釋和分別的解釋。總體的解釋中說，『謂依止一心者』，就是平等一性。然而這一性就是三千性。這三千性不可遠求，就是修行者當下的一念。指的就是這一念

【English Translation】 English version: This chapter discusses the establishment of five stages. There is no arising without a cause; first, it clarifies 'reliance,' which refers to the equal and singular nature (平等一性) as the basis of all dharmas (法). Because sentient beings are deluded by this singular nature and give rise to妄想 (false thoughts), there are dependent realms of differentiation. In response to this delusion, the true nature is revealed, hence the realm of reality. Once the realm arises, it is designated as the object of contemplation. Regarding this object of contemplation, the nature of the contemplating cessation and contemplation should be distinguished. After practicing cessation and contemplation, the cause is perfected and the fruit is achieved, hence there is the virtue of severance (斷德). Since one has attained the fruit, one should benefit sentient beings, hence there is function (作用). If these five stages are combined with the ten chapters of Mohe Zhiguan (摩訶止觀), then function is equivalent to initiating teachings, the virtue of severance is equivalent to the fruit of retribution, the nature is equivalent to cessation and contemplation, and the realm and reliance are equivalent to the first six chapters.

The second part explains the content of the first part. The text is divided into five parts. First is the reliance of cessation and contemplation, divided into three sub-parts. First is the labeling. '復作三門' (Again, making three gates), first is to determine the essence, the essence refers to the singular nature. Second is to discuss the function, because this singular nature is the root of all dharmas, moreover, it possesses both the virtues of tranquility and function, so it needs to be relied upon. Third is to distinguish practice, what dharma should be relied upon to practice cessation and contemplation? Rely on the singular nature to practice it. As the following text says, use consciousness (意識) to rely on this mind to practice cessation and contemplation. Consciousness is the initial mind that initiates contemplation. And what to rely on? It is precisely revealing the inconceivable realm of contemplation. Why rely on it? It shows that the contemplation of the contemplator is the realm, so rely on this mind. Why? Because this pure mind is the root of all dharmas, there is no dharma outside the mind, the realm is contemplation, unlike nearby things that have the distinction between the contemplator and the contemplated. What to rely on? The mind that initiates contemplation is the sixth consciousness (第六識). Although the realm and contemplation are fused, the coarse parts may still exist, so consciousness is designated as the reliance. Fully explaining that consciousness is non-discriminating wisdom (無分別智). It can also be said that the contemplating wisdom of the contemplator is ignorance (無明).

In the second part, '初明下正釋' (First clarifying, then explaining), the text is divided into three parts. First is '何所依止' (What to rely on), divided into two sub-parts. First is the labeling. Second is '謂依下釋' (Explaining based on reliance), there are general explanations and separate explanations. In the general explanation, it says, '謂依止一心者' (Relying on one mind), which is the equal and singular nature. However, this singular nature is three thousand natures. These three thousand natures cannot be sought far away, it is the practitioner's present moment of thought. It refers to this one thought.

念即是一性。故為依止而修止觀。次別釋二。初標科。一出衆名等者。由此一性具含體德。故使經論有諸異名。依名釋義約義辨體遂有三章。二初出下正釋。文自為三。初出衆名二。次辯下釋名義三。初釋二。初標二。問下正釋。文自為七。

初釋自性清凈心二。初問。自性非無明。他性清凈殊無明染濁心異無明不覺。當知此心本來無名。因有無明故此名起。二答二。初釋二。初釋凈又二。初總示此心至故名為凈者。染法覆性。其性常凈。問。或謂別教性體常凈。不即染故。圓教性體以即染故。不云常凈。應顯今文是別非圓耶。答。須知圓中有即有離。約無明以言心性。不得不離。約心性以言無明。不得不即。但以圓教約即論離。異別定離始終常凈。二何以下釋其所以。謂以無明體是無法者。所言體者。有隨名辨體。克實論體。若隨名辨體者。既有無明之名。名下必有無明當體。乃以虛妄而為其體。若克實論體者。無明但有所依性體。自無實體。惟有名相曰無明爾。何者。由無明全以法性為體。故無自體。如流以水為體。但有其相謂之流耳。故下文云。二種無明本自無體。惟以凈心為體。輔行雲。故昏散之名。名無實體。還以寂照而為其性。問。云法性無體可乎。答。義不一途。若以平等性體。非法性。非無明

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『念』即是『一性』（Eka-svabhāva，單一自性）。因此，爲了依止而修習止觀（Śamatha-Vipaśyanā，奢摩他-毗缽舍那）。接下來分別解釋二者。首先標出科判。一、『出衆名等』，由於這一『一性』具含體德，所以使得經論中有各種不同的名稱。依據名稱解釋意義，依據意義辨別本體，於是有三個章節。二、『初出下正釋』，本文自身分為三部分。首先是『出衆名』，其次是『辯下釋名義』，第三是『初釋』。『初釋』又分為二。首先標出二。『問下正釋』，本文自身分為七部分。首先解釋『自性清凈心』（Prakṛti-pariśuddha-citta，自性清凈心）。首先是提問。『自性』不是『無明』（Avidyā，無明）。『他性清凈』與『無明染濁心』不同，『無明不覺』。應當知道此心本來沒有名稱，因為有了『無明』，所以這個名稱才產生。其次是回答，分為二。首先解釋，又分為二。首先解釋『凈』，又分為二。首先總的指示，『此心至故名為凈者』，染法覆蓋了自性，其自性常常是清凈的。提問：或者有人說別教的性體常常是清凈的，不即是染污的緣故。圓教的性體因為即是染污的緣故，不說是常常清凈的。應該顯示本文是別教而不是圓教嗎？回答：須知圓教中有即有離。從『無明』來說心性，不得不離。從心性來說『無明』，不得不即。但是圓教從即來論述離，不同於別教的定離，始終是常凈的。其次是『何以下釋其所以』，說的是因為『無明』的體是無法，所說的『體』，有隨名稱辨別體，有克實論體。如果隨名稱辨別體，既然有『無明』的名稱，名稱下必定有『無明』的當體，於是以虛妄作為它的體。如果克實論體，『無明』只有所依的性體，自身沒有實體，只有名稱相狀叫做『無明』罷了。為什麼呢？因為『無明』完全以法性為體，所以沒有自體。如同水流以水為體，只有它的相貌叫做水流罷了。所以下文說：『二種無明本自無體，惟以凈心為體。』輔行中說：『所以昏散的名稱，名稱沒有實體，還是以寂照作為它的性。』提問：說法性沒有體可以嗎？回答：意義不是隻有一條路。如果以平等性體來說，非法性，非無明。

【English Translation】 English version 'Mindfulness' is the same as 'Eka-svabhāva' (one nature). Therefore, one cultivates Śamatha-Vipaśyanā (calm abiding and insight meditation) in order to rely on it. Next, we will separately explain the two. First, we mark the divisions. 1. 'Presenting various names, etc.' Because this 'one nature' contains the virtue of the essence, the sutras and treatises have various different names for it. Based on the names, we explain the meaning; based on the meaning, we distinguish the substance; thus, there are three chapters. 2. 'The initial presentation below is the correct explanation.' The text itself is divided into three parts. First, 'presenting various names'; second, 'discussing and explaining the meaning of the names below'; and third, 'the initial explanation.' 'The initial explanation' is further divided into two. First, we mark the two. 'The question below is the correct explanation.' The text itself is divided into seven parts. First, we explain 'Prakṛti-pariśuddha-citta' (the naturally pure mind). First, there is a question. 'The self-nature' is not 'Avidyā' (ignorance). 'The purity of other-nature' is different from 'the mind defiled and turbid by ignorance,' and 'the non-awareness of ignorance.' It should be known that this mind originally has no name; because there is 'ignorance,' this name arises. Second, there is an answer, divided into two. First, we explain, which is further divided into two. First, we explain 'purity,' which is further divided into two. First, we give a general indication, 'This mind, therefore, is called pure,' the defiling dharma covers the self-nature, and its self-nature is always pure. Question: Or someone says that the nature of the Separate Teaching is always pure, because it is not identical with defilement. The nature of the Perfect Teaching is said to be identical with defilement, so it is not said to be always pure. Should it be shown that this text is Separate rather than Perfect? Answer: It should be known that in the Perfect Teaching there is both identity and difference. Speaking of mind-nature from the perspective of 'ignorance,' one must speak of difference. Speaking of 'ignorance' from the perspective of mind-nature, one must speak of identity. However, the Perfect Teaching discusses difference from the perspective of identity, which is different from the fixed difference of the Separate Teaching, and is always pure from beginning to end. Second, 'What follows explains the reason why,' which says that because the substance of 'ignorance' is non-existence, the 'substance' that is spoken of, there is distinguishing the substance according to the name, and there is discussing the substance in reality. If one distinguishes the substance according to the name, since there is the name of 'ignorance,' there must be the substance of 'ignorance' under the name, and thus take falsity as its substance. If one discusses the substance in reality, 'ignorance' only has the nature of what it relies on, and has no substance of its own; only the name and appearance are called 'ignorance.' Why? Because 'ignorance' entirely takes Dharma-nature as its substance, so it has no self-substance. It is like a stream taking water as its substance, and only has its appearance called a stream. Therefore, the text below says: 'The two kinds of ignorance are originally without substance, and only take the pure mind as their substance.' The Auxiliary Conduct says: 'Therefore, the name of confusion and scattering has no substance, and still takes stillness and illumination as its nature.' Question: Is it permissible to say that Dharma-nature has no substance? Answer: The meaning is not just one path. If one speaks of the nature of equality, it is neither Dharma-nature nor ignorance.

。故無明法性但有二名。二俱無體。如輔行雲。二法無體但有假名。良由無明法性本無名字。為對緣故假立二名。實無自體。若以平等一性為真。全真而為妄體。故無明無體。此如今文。若以理無所存全是於事者。故法性無體。如輔行雲。見依無明。無明依法性。法性無所依。何者。法性無體。全是無明。然復須曉。若以究竟克實論之。法性無體者非無當體。但法性外無所依爾。故下文云。非謂空無心體。無明無體者。非無所依。但以虛妄無當體爾。或曰。無明無所依者。別以惑窮。圓約性即。

二釋真如二。初問。二答三。初正釋二。初約離義各明二字。初真次如。真中有二。一者對偽名真。由一切法而無自體。乃以凈心而為其體。既無自體。皆悉虛偽。以此顯心即名為真。二又復下。自就凈心克體名真。由此凈心。既非生滅乃無增減。故名為真。又云。諸法以虛妄因緣而有生滅之相者。故知無明只有其相而實無體。二三世諸佛下。約離釋如。由離凡聖差別異相。無異稱如。如即同也。體一故同。非併爲同。無相稱如。如即空也。元妙故空。非斷為空。二又真下。約即義合示真如二字為二。初顯是。指一切法當處真如惟是一心。次若心下揀非。乃揀偏邪。以心外故異而不同。以有法故相而不空。由失真實遂生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所以，無明（avidyā，無知）和法性（dharmatā，事物本性）只是兩種名稱，兩者都沒有實體。正如《輔行記》所說：『兩種法都沒有實體，只是假立的名稱。』這是因為無明和法性本來就沒有名字，爲了應對因緣的緣故，才假立這兩種名稱，實際上並沒有自體。如果以平等一性為真，那麼就是完全以真來作為妄的體，所以無明沒有實體。這就像現在文中所說。如果認為理無所存，全是事，那麼法性就沒有實體。正如《輔行記》所說：『見依于無明，無明依法性，法性無所依。』為什麼呢？因為法性沒有實體，全是無明。然而，又必須明白，如果以究竟確實的觀點來論述，法性沒有實體，並非沒有當體，只是法性之外沒有所依而已。所以下文說：『不是說空無心體。』無明沒有實體，並非沒有所依，只是虛妄沒有當體而已。或者說，無明沒有所依，是分別以惑來窮盡，圓滿地以性來即是。

二、解釋真如（tathātā，如實）分為兩部分。首先是提問，然後是回答，分為三部分。首先是正式解釋，分為兩部分。首先是根據離義來分別說明『真』和『如』兩個字。先說『真』，再說『如』。『真』中有兩種含義。第一種是針對虛偽而稱為真。由於一切法都沒有自體，所以以清凈心作為它的體。既然沒有自體，就都是虛偽的。用這個來顯現心，就稱為真。第二種是，從清凈心來確定體性而稱為真。由於這個清凈心，既不是生滅的，也沒有增減，所以稱為真。又說，諸法以虛妄的因緣而有生滅的相，所以知道無明只有相，而實際上沒有體。

二、三世諸佛下。根據離義來解釋『如』。由於遠離凡夫和聖人的差別異相，沒有差異，所以稱為『如』。『如』就是相同的意思。體性是一樣的，所以相同，不是合併爲相同。沒有相，所以稱為『如』。『如』就是空的意思。因為元妙，所以空，不是斷滅為空。二、又真下。根據即義來合併顯示『真如』兩個字，分為兩部分。首先是顯是，指出一切法當處就是真如，唯一是心。其次是若心下揀非，這是揀別偏頗邪謬的觀點。因為在心外，所以不同。因為有法，所以不空。由於失去真實，於是產生。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, avidya (ignorance) and dharmatā (the nature of things) are merely two names, neither of which has substance. As the 『Auxiliary Commentary』 says: 『The two dharmas have no substance, but are merely provisional names.』 This is because avidya and dharmatā originally had no names; they were provisionally established to respond to conditions, but in reality, they have no self-nature. If one takes equality and oneness as truth, then one is completely using truth as the substance of delusion, so avidya has no substance. This is like what the current text says. If one thinks that principle has no existence, and everything is phenomena, then dharmatā has no substance. As the 『Auxiliary Commentary』 says: 『Seeing relies on avidya, avidya relies on dharmatā, dharmatā has nothing to rely on.』 Why? Because dharmatā has no substance; it is entirely avidya. However, one must also understand that if one discusses it from the perspective of ultimate and definitive truth, dharmatā having no substance does not mean it has no inherent nature, but only that there is nothing to rely on outside of dharmatā. Therefore, the following text says: 『It does not mean empty without a mind-essence.』 Avidya having no substance does not mean it has nothing to rely on, but only that it is illusory and has no inherent nature. Or, it is said that avidya has nothing to rely on, which is to exhaustively analyze delusion separately, and to completely and inclusively identify with the nature.

Explaining tathātā (suchness) is divided into two parts. First is the question, then the answer, divided into three parts. First is the formal explanation, divided into two parts. First, explain the two words 『true』 and 『such』 separately according to their separative meanings. First 『true』, then 『such』. There are two meanings in 『true』. The first is called true in contrast to falsehood. Since all dharmas have no self-nature, they take the pure mind as their substance. Since there is no self-nature, they are all false. Using this to reveal the mind is called true. The second is, from the pure mind, to determine the essence and call it true. Because this pure mind is neither arising nor ceasing, nor increasing nor decreasing, it is called true. It is also said that all dharmas have the appearance of arising and ceasing due to false causes and conditions, so it is known that avidya only has appearance but no substance.
The Buddhas of the three times below. Explain 『such』 according to its separative meaning. Because it is far from the different appearances of ordinary people and sages, there is no difference, so it is called 『such』. 『Such』 means the same. The nature is the same, so it is the same, not merged into the same. There is no appearance, so it is called 『such』. 『Such』 means emptiness. Because it is subtle and wonderful, it is empty, not annihilated into emptiness. 2. Also, true below. Combine and show the two words 『tathātā』 according to their inclusive meaning, divided into two parts. First is to show that it is, pointing out that all dharmas are right there tathātā, only the mind. Second is if the mind below selects non-, which is to select biased and heretical views. Because it is outside the mind, it is different. Because there is dharma, it is not empty. Because of losing the truth, it arises.

異相。故非真如。

二是故下引證。別證離義。故離言說。名字心緣。若證即義。應引論云。此真如體。無有可遣。以一切法悉皆真故。亦無可立。以一切法皆同如故。亦可今文通證即義。由一切法即是一心。心外無法。故不可以言．字．心三之所思議言說。心緣別對心口。名字乃通或心思名字。或口說名字。又言說是實法名字。屬假名故。智者云。離言說妄想者。不可思議也。離文字者。雖假名也。畢竟平等。至不可破壞者。藏師以此三句展轉相釋。惟是一心者。結歸法體。今且畢竟平等者空也。無有變異者假也。不可破壞者中也。此三即一。故云惟是一心。名真如也。亦可以此四句對於四德。問。一心與真如為同爲異。若云同者。起信約一心分二門。於二門中乃有真如並於生滅。一心是總。真如是別。若云異者。今文何云惟是一心故名真如。答。體同義異。真如只一故云體同。而有差別真如。平等真如。故言義異。且平等真如即同一心。差別真如既對生滅。故一心是總。真如是別。何者。天然一性非真非妄。不得而名。此則平等也。以眾生迷故。見有生滅。因對生滅即指一性而謂真如。此則差別也。差別真如既指一性為名。故此平等亦名真如。斯乃名從差別而得。體自平等而彰。以差別而名平等。故平等亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『異相』，所以不是真如（Tathata，如如）。

二是『故』字以下是引證。別證『離』的含義，所以是『離言說』，『名字』，『心緣』。如果證明就是這個含義，應該引用《論》中的話說：『此真如體，無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故。』也沒有什麼可以建立的，因為一切法都相同。也可以用現在的文字來證明就是這個含義，因為一切法就是一心，心外無法，所以不可以用言語、文字、心三種方式來思議。『言說』、『心緣』分別針對心和口，『名字』可以通指心思名字，或者口說名字。而且『言說』是實法，『名字』屬於假名。智者說：『離開言說的妄想，是不可思議的。』離開文字，雖然是假名，畢竟是平等的。』至於『不可破壞』，藏師用這三句話輾轉解釋，歸結為『惟是一心』，是法體。現在且說『畢竟平等』是空，『無有變異』是假，『不可破壞』是中。這三者即是一，所以說『惟是一心』，名為真如。也可以用這四句話對應四德。問：一心與真如是相同還是不同？如果說是相同的，那麼《起信論》大約將一心分為二門，在二門中既有真如也有生滅。一心是總，真如是別。如果說是不同的，那麼現在的文字為什麼說『惟是一心故名真如』？答：體同義異。真如只有一個，所以說體同，而有差別真如、平等真如，所以說義異。而且平等真如就是同一心，差別真如針對生滅，所以一心是總，真如是別。為什麼呢？天然一性非真非妄，不可名狀，這就是平等。因為眾生迷惑，所以看到有生滅。因為針對生滅，就指一性而稱為真如，這就是差別。差別真如既然指一性為名，所以這個平等也名為真如。這是名從差別而得，體自平等而彰顯。以差別而名平等，所以平等也

【English Translation】 English version: 'Different appearances,' therefore, are not Suchness (Tathata).

The second 'therefore' below is a citation. It separately proves the meaning of 'separation,' so it is 'separation from speech,' 'names,' and 'mental conditions.' If the proof is precisely this meaning, it should quote the Treatise, saying: 'This Suchness-essence has nothing that can be discarded, because all dharmas are entirely true. 'Nor is there anything to be established, because all dharmas are the same.' It can also use the current text to prove that it is precisely this meaning, because all dharmas are precisely one mind, and there is no dharma outside the mind, so it cannot be conceived of by speech, words, or the three aspects of the mind. 'Speech' and 'mental conditions' are respectively directed at the mind and mouth, and 'names' can generally refer to names thought of in the mind or spoken by the mouth. Moreover, 'speech' is a real dharma, and 'names' belong to provisional names. The wise say: 'Separation from the delusions of speech is inconceivable.' Separation from words, although they are provisional names, is ultimately equal.' As for 'indestructible,' the Tibetan teachers explain these three sentences in turn, concluding that 'only one mind' is the essence of the Dharma. Now, let's say that 'ultimately equal' is emptiness, 'without change' is provisionality, and 'indestructible' is the middle way. These three are one, so it is said 'only one mind' is called Suchness. These four sentences can also correspond to the four virtues. Question: Are the one mind and Suchness the same or different? If they are said to be the same, then the Awakening of Faith roughly divides the one mind into two aspects, and in the two aspects there is both Suchness and arising and ceasing. The one mind is the whole, and Suchness is the part. If they are said to be different, then why does the current text say 'only one mind is called Suchness'? Answer: The essence is the same, but the meaning is different. There is only one Suchness, so it is said that the essence is the same, but there are differentiated Suchness and equal Suchness, so it is said that the meaning is different. Moreover, equal Suchness is precisely the same mind, and differentiated Suchness is directed at arising and ceasing, so the one mind is the whole, and Suchness is the part. Why? The natural one nature is neither true nor false, and cannot be named, this is equality. Because sentient beings are deluded, they see arising and ceasing. Because it is directed at arising and ceasing, it refers to the one nature and calls it Suchness, this is differentiation. Since differentiated Suchness refers to the one nature as its name, this equality is also called Suchness. This is the name obtained from differentiation, and the essence is manifested from equality. Equality is named by differentiation, so equality is also

名真如。故使今文以一心為真如也。以平等而即差別。故差別亦名總一。故使起信釋二門中真如門云。心真如者即是一法界大總相法門體也。然起信辨真如。正在別相二門中明。今文辨真如。正就止觀依止平等總相中說。此是義異也。由體一故。今文引起信之別而證依止之總。

三釋佛性。初問。次答二。初正釋二。初約體釋。次約用釋。然體用之義凡五。一者過德三惑為用。三諦為體。二者自就三諦各有體用。則三諦俱體。三諦俱用。三約事理。則俗諦為用。空中為體。四約中邊。則空假為用。中道為體。五約亡照。則三諦為用。一性為體。智者云只約一眼而有五用。一眼豈非一圓常平等性體耶。五用豈非三諦俱照為用耶。今文該二。一者中邊。以法身佛性為體。以緣了佛性為用。二者亡照。以平等一性為體。以三種佛性為用。故下文云。若就心體法界用義以明覺者。此心體具三種大智。況三種智性即三佛性。又云。本覺之義是用。故顯前體。惟是總相一平等性。

約體釋中三。初總答。以由心體非覺不覺。欲辨佛義。故因不覺遂名為覺。二研究二。初究性非不覺二。初問。次答二。初約凈不同染釋。凈若同染。滅染之時凈亦須滅。既染滅凈存。故知其凈不同於染。以顯凈心非是不覺。今文云。既是無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：名為真如（Tathata）。因此，現在的文字以『一心』作為真如。以平等作為差別的基礎，所以差別也稱為『總一』。因此，《起信論》（Awakening of Faith）解釋二門中的真如門時說：『心真如就是一法界大總相法門之體。』然而，《起信論》辨別真如，主要在別相二門中闡明。現在的文字辨別真如，正是依據止觀所依止的平等總相來說明。這是意義上的不同。由於體性是一，所以現在的文字引用《起信論》的別相來證明依止的總相。

三、解釋佛性（Buddha-nature）。分為初問和次答兩個部分。首先是正式的解釋，分為從體性解釋和從作用解釋。然而，體性和作用的意義有五種：一是過失、德行、三惑為作用，三諦（Three Truths）為體性；二是就三諦本身而言，各有體性和作用，那麼三諦都是體性，三諦也都是作用；三是從事和理的角度來說，俗諦（Conventional Truth）為作用，空性（Emptiness）為體性；四是從中和邊的角度來說，空和假為作用，中道（Middle Way）為體性；五是從亡和照的角度來說，三諦為作用，一性為體性。智者（Zhiyi）說，只是從一隻眼睛的角度就有五種作用。一隻眼睛難道不是一圓常平等性體嗎？五種作用難道不是三諦都照耀的作用嗎？現在的文字包含兩種：一是中和邊，以法身（Dharmakaya）佛性為體性，以緣了佛性為作用；二是亡和照，以平等一性為體性，以三種佛性為作用。所以下文說：『如果就心體法界的作用意義來闡明覺悟，那麼這個心體具備三種大智。』何況三種智性就是三種佛性。又說：『本覺（Original Enlightenment）的意義是作用。』所以彰顯前面的體性，只是總相一平等性。

從體性解釋中分為三部分。首先是總的回答，因為心體既非覺也非不覺，想要辨別佛的意義，所以因為不覺就稱為覺。二是研究，首先研究自性並非不覺。分為初問和次答兩個部分。首先是從清凈不同於染污來解釋。如果清凈和染污相同，那麼在滅除染污的時候，清凈也必須滅除。既然染污滅除而清凈存在，所以知道它的清凈不同於染污。以此來彰顯清凈心並非是不覺。現在的文字說：『既然是無』

【English Translation】 English version: It is named True Thusness (Tathata). Therefore, the current text uses 'one mind' as True Thusness. Taking equality as the basis of difference, difference is also called 'total one'. Therefore, the Awakening of Faith (起信論) explains in the True Thusness gate of the two gates, saying: 'The mind of True Thusness is the body of the Dharma-gate of the great total aspect of the one Dharma-realm.' However, the Awakening of Faith distinguishes True Thusness, mainly clarifying it in the two gates of separate aspects. The current text distinguishes True Thusness, precisely based on the equality of the total aspect that Zhi Guan (止觀) relies on. This is a difference in meaning. Because the nature of the body is one, the current text cites the separate aspects of the Awakening of Faith to prove the total aspect of reliance.

Third, explain Buddha-nature (佛性). It is divided into an initial question and a subsequent answer. The first is the formal explanation, divided into explaining from the perspective of the body and explaining from the perspective of function. However, there are five meanings of body and function: first, faults, virtues, and the three confusions are functions, and the Three Truths (三諦) are the body; second, in terms of the Three Truths themselves, each has body and function, then the Three Truths are all body, and the Three Truths are all function; third, from the perspective of phenomena and principle, Conventional Truth (俗諦) is function, and Emptiness (空中) is body; fourth, from the perspective of the middle and the edge, emptiness and provisionality are function, and the Middle Way (中道) is body; fifth, from the perspective of extinction and illumination, the Three Truths are function, and one nature is body. Zhiyi (智者) said that there are five functions from the perspective of just one eye. Is one eye not the body of one round, constant, and equal nature? Are the five functions not the function of the Three Truths all illuminating? The current text includes two: one is the middle and the edge, with the Dharmakaya (法身) Buddha-nature as the body, and the conditioned Buddha-nature as the function; the other is extinction and illumination, with the equality of one nature as the body, and the three Buddha-natures as the function. Therefore, the following text says: 'If we explain enlightenment from the meaning of the function of the mind-body Dharma-realm, then this mind-body possesses three great wisdoms.' Moreover, the three wisdom natures are the three Buddha-natures. It also says: 'The meaning of Original Enlightenment (本覺) is function.' Therefore, it manifests the preceding body, which is just the total aspect of one equal nature.

The explanation from the perspective of the body is divided into three parts. The first is the general answer, because the mind-body is neither enlightenment nor non-enlightenment, and wanting to distinguish the meaning of Buddha, it is therefore called enlightenment because of non-enlightenment. The second is research, first researching that nature is not non-enlightenment. It is divided into an initial question and a subsequent answer. The first is to explain from the perspective of purity being different from defilement. If purity is the same as defilement, then when eliminating defilement, purity must also be eliminated. Since defilement is eliminated and purity exists, it is known that its purity is different from defilement. This is to manifest that the pure mind is not non-enlightenment. The current text says: 'Since it is without'

明自滅凈心自存者。且智者云。無明破則無無明。對誰復論法性。若爾。無明滅合無凈心。今文何故無明自滅凈心自存耶。答。智者一向約即。今文即不妨離。凈心雖即無明。不妨無明自滅凈心自存。二又復下約染不同凈釋。染若同凈。在染之時已證凈心。今就染滅方證凈心。故知其染不同於凈。乃見凈心非是不覺。二究得名所從二。初問意者。何以不就凈心自體名之為覺。卻對不覺名為覺耶。答二。初正答。平等性體本不可名。由對不覺強號為覺。名從對得。體自性彰。以體從名體亦名覺。以名從體名亦何名。二是故下引證。即楞伽經也。一切無涅槃者。單約法示。無有涅槃佛者。乃無因法而有覺也。無有佛涅槃者。乃無因覺而有法也。既無于覺則無不覺。何者。由謂覺者覺于不覺。今既無覺故無不覺。故即結云遠離覺所覺。所覺者即不覺也。若有若無有者。若有是有覺。若無有是無有覺。即屬不覺。是二悉俱離。則覺與不覺悉皆非故。又遠離覺所覺者。即能覺人。所覺法。人法有無皆不可得。所覺法者亦名不覺。但不同初釋以無明為不覺。

二此即下約用釋二。初結前生后。二此心下正釋二。初約了因般若佛性四。初總示。此心體具三種大智者。華嚴經云。無一眾生而不具有如來智慧。但以妄執著而不得證

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『明自滅，凈心自存』。且智者（天臺宗的代表人物）說：『無明（佛教術語，指根本的迷惑）破除則無無明，對誰再談論法性（事物本來的性質）？』如果這樣，無明滅則應合併于凈心（清凈的心性），為何經文中說無明自滅而凈心自存呢？回答：智者（天臺宗的代表人物）一向從『即』的角度來說，而經文是從『離』的角度來說。凈心雖然『即』是無明，不妨礙無明自滅而凈心自存。第二，『又復下』是從染（污染）不同於凈（清凈）的角度來解釋。如果染和凈相同，那麼在染的時候就已經證得凈心，現在是等到染滅的時候才證得凈心，所以知道染不同於凈，從而看出凈心並非是不覺（沒有覺悟）。第二，探究『覺』這個名稱的由來。首先提問：為什麼不直接就凈心自體稱之為覺，卻要針對不覺而稱之為覺呢？回答：平等性體（平等不二的本體）本來不可名狀，因為針對不覺才勉強稱之為覺，名稱從對待而得，本體的自性因此彰顯。因為本體隨從名稱，本體也可以稱為覺；因為名稱隨從本體，名稱又該如何稱呼呢？第二，『是故下』引用經文來證明，即《楞伽經》。『一切無涅槃』，單單從法的角度來顯示。『無有涅槃佛』，是沒有因法而有覺。『無有佛涅槃』，是沒有因覺而有法。既然沒有覺，那麼就沒有不覺。為什麼呢？因為所謂的覺，是覺悟不覺。現在既然沒有覺，所以就沒有不覺。因此總結說『遠離覺所覺』，所覺就是不覺。『若有若無有』，若有是有覺，若無有是無有覺，都屬於不覺。這兩種都遠離，那麼覺與不覺都非有。又『遠離覺所覺』，就是能覺的人和所覺的法，人和法有無都不可得。所覺的法也叫做不覺，但不同於最初解釋的以無明為不覺。第二，『此即下』是從作用的角度來解釋。首先總結前文，引出後文。第二，『此心下』正式解釋。首先從了因般若（通過了解事物而產生的智慧）佛性（成佛的可能性或內在本質）四個方面來說。首先總的指示：此心體具足三種大智。《華嚴經》說：『沒有一個眾生不具有如來智慧，只是因為妄想執著而不能證得。』

【English Translation】 English version: 'When ignorance vanishes, pure mind remains.' Moreover, the wise one (referring to a representative figure of the Tiantai school) said: 'If ignorance (a Buddhist term referring to fundamental delusion) is destroyed, then there is no ignorance. Who then is there to discuss the Dharma-nature (the inherent nature of things)?' If that is the case, the extinction of ignorance should merge with the pure mind. Why does the text say that ignorance vanishes by itself while the pure mind remains? The answer is: The wise one (referring to a representative figure of the Tiantai school) always speaks from the perspective of 'identity,' while the text speaks from the perspective of 'separation.' Although the pure mind is 'identical' to ignorance, it does not prevent ignorance from vanishing by itself while the pure mind remains. Second, '又復下' explains from the perspective that defilement (contamination) is different from purity (cleanness). If defilement and purity were the same, then one would have already realized the pure mind at the time of defilement. Now, it is only when defilement is extinguished that one realizes the pure mind. Therefore, we know that defilement is different from purity, and thus we see that the pure mind is not non-awareness (lack of enlightenment). Second, exploring the origin of the name 'awareness.' First, the question is raised: Why not directly call the pure mind itself 'awareness,' but instead call it 'awareness' in relation to non-awareness? The answer is: The nature of equality (the non-dualistic essence) is originally indescribable. It is only because of non-awareness that we reluctantly call it 'awareness.' The name is obtained from opposition, and the self-nature of the essence is thus revealed. Because the essence follows the name, the essence can also be called awareness; because the name follows the essence, what should the name be called? Second, '是故下' cites scriptures to prove it, namely the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. 'All is without Nirvāṇa,' simply showing it from the perspective of Dharma. 'There is no Buddha in Nirvāṇa,' there is awareness without causal Dharma. 'There is no Buddha's Nirvāṇa,' there is Dharma without causal awareness. Since there is no awareness, then there is no non-awareness. Why? Because so-called awareness is the awareness of non-awareness. Now that there is no awareness, there is no non-awareness. Therefore, it concludes by saying 'far from awareness and what is aware of,' what is aware of is non-awareness. 'If there is or is not,' if there is, there is awareness; if there is not, there is no awareness, both belong to non-awareness. If both of these are far away, then both awareness and non-awareness are not. Also, 'far from awareness and what is aware of,' is the person who can be aware and the Dharma that is aware of, both the person and the Dharma, whether they exist or not, are unattainable. The Dharma that is aware of is also called non-awareness, but it is different from the initial explanation of taking ignorance as non-awareness. Second, '此即下' explains from the perspective of function. First, summarize the previous text and introduce the following text. Second, '此心下' formally explains. First, it speaks from four aspects: the causal cause prajñā (wisdom arising from understanding things) and Buddha-nature (the potentiality or inherent essence of becoming a Buddha). First, a general instruction: This mind inherently possesses three great wisdoms. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'There is not a single sentient being who does not possess the wisdom of the Tathāgata, but they cannot realize it because of delusional attachments.'

。若離妄想。一切智．無師智．自然智．無礙智即得現前。經文云一切智者。乃是總示。其無師等即是三智。由心體即一性。以一性為能具。三種大智為所具。此三大智若次第敵對。無師智即一切智。自然智即道種智。無礙智即一切種智。若準法華文句。既以自然智為一切智。今無師智同佛之智慧是一切智。無礙智同如來智慧是道種智。中道一性自天而然。佛果既極即以無師。亦是畢竟空寂何有可師。由無礙故。故如可來。雖有三智不出自他道種化他餘二自行。本謂一性具足自他。斯之謂也。故以此心為覺性者。有體有用。以覺之一性為體。以三種之覺為用。此之三覺亦名三諦。亦名三性。由此三審實故稱諦。此三照明故稱覺。此三不改故稱性。乃一法異名也。

二是故下對前平等一性以辨同異二。初標。次云何下辨二。初辨同。謂心體平等等者。三智一性。體一義異。今取體一故云同爾。何者。蓋此一性非迷非悟。如如無名。亦可強名號之為覺。眾生迷故而有三惑。對惑說覺。故此一覺而成三智。從義異故。一性是體。三智是用。由對惑說覺。故智成用。從體一故。此之三智即是一性而成其三。故言同也。二復云何下辨異。本覺者即一切種智。故云在凡名佛性也。出障名智慧佛者。即始覺也。乃該道種並一切

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果遠離虛妄的念頭，一切智（sarvajna，通曉一切事物的智慧）、無師智（svayambhu-jnana，不需依賴老師而自然獲得的智慧）、自然智（prakrti-jnana，本性具有的智慧）、無礙智（asanga-jnana，沒有任何阻礙的智慧）就能立刻顯現。《經》中說的一切智，是總體的指示。而無師智等則是三種智慧。因為心體就是一性（ekatva，統一性），以一性作為能具有者，三種大智作為所具有者。這三大智如果按次第對應，無師智就是一切智，自然智就是道種智（marga-akarajnana，通曉修行道路的智慧），無礙智就是一切種智（sarva-akarajnana，通曉一切事物各個方面的智慧）。如果按照《法華文句》的說法，既然以自然智為一切智，那麼無師智與佛的智慧相同，就是一切智。無礙智與如來的智慧相同，就是道種智。中道一性自然而然，佛果已經達到極致，所以是無師的，也是畢竟空寂的，哪裡有什麼可以作為老師的呢？因為沒有阻礙，所以如來可以顯現。雖然有三種智慧，但不出自利利他，道種智化度他人，其餘兩種智慧是自行。根本上說一性具足自利利他，說的就是這個意思。所以用這個心作為覺性，有體有用。以覺的一性為體，以三種覺為用。這三種覺也叫三諦（tri-satya，空、假、中三諦），也叫三性（tri-svabhava，遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）。因為這三種審慎真實，所以稱為諦。這三種照明，所以稱為覺。這三種不改變，所以稱為性。這只是一種法不同的名稱而已。

二是故下對前平等一性以辨同異二。初標。次云何下辨二。初辨同。謂心體平等等者。三智一性。體一義異。今取體一故云同爾。何者。蓋此一性非迷非悟。如如無名。亦可強名號之為覺。眾生迷故而有三惑。對惑說覺。故此一覺而成三智。從義異故。一性是體。三智是用。由對惑說覺。故智成用。從體一故。此之三智即是一性而成其三。故言同也。二復云何下辨異。本覺者即一切種智。故云在凡名佛性也。出障名智慧佛者。即始覺也。乃該道種並一切二是故下，是針對前面平等一性來辨別相同和不同之處。首先是標示。其次『云何下』辨別二者。首先辨別相同之處。所謂心體平等，是指三智和一性。體性是一個，意義不同。現在取其體性是一個，所以說相同。為什麼呢？因為這一性不是迷惑也不是覺悟，如如不動，沒有名稱，也可以勉強稱之為覺。眾生因為迷惑，所以有三種迷惑。針對迷惑說覺，所以這一個覺就成了三種智慧。從意義上來說，一性是體，三智是用。由於針對迷惑說覺，所以智慧成為用。從體性上來說，這三種智慧就是一性而成就的三個方面，所以說是相同的。其次『復云何下』辨別不同之處。本覺就是一切種智，所以在凡夫時稱為佛性。脫離障礙而顯現的智慧佛，就是始覺。包含了道種智和一切

【English Translation】 English version: If one departs from delusional thoughts, sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom), svayambhu-jnana (self-originated wisdom), prakrti-jnana (natural wisdom), and asanga-jnana (unobstructed wisdom) will immediately manifest. The sutra says that sarvajna is a general indication. Svayambhu-jnana and the others are the three wisdoms. Because the essence of the mind is oneness (ekatva), taking oneness as the possessor, and the three great wisdoms as what is possessed. If these three great wisdoms are sequentially corresponding, svayambhu-jnana is sarvajna, prakrti-jnana is marga-akarajnana (wisdom of the path), and asanga-jnana is sarva-akarajnana (wisdom of all aspects). According to the commentary of the Lotus Sutra, since prakrti-jnana is sarvajna, then svayambhu-jnana is the same as the Buddha's wisdom, which is sarvajna. Asanga-jnana is the same as the Tathagata's wisdom, which is marga-akarajnana. The oneness of the Middle Way is natural. The fruit of Buddhahood has reached its extreme, so it is self-originated and ultimately empty and still. What can be taken as a teacher? Because there is no obstruction, the Tathagata can appear. Although there are three wisdoms, they do not go beyond self-benefit and benefiting others. Marga-akarajnana transforms others, and the other two wisdoms are for self-cultivation. Fundamentally, oneness is complete with self-benefit and benefiting others. This is what it means. Therefore, using this mind as the awakened nature has substance and function. Taking the oneness of awakening as the substance, and the three kinds of awakening as the function. These three awakenings are also called the three truths (tri-satya: emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle Way), and also called the three natures (tri-svabhava: parikalpita-svabhava, paratantra-svabhava, and parinispanna-svabhava). Because these three are carefully examined and real, they are called truths. These three illuminate, so they are called awakening. These three do not change, so they are called nature. It is just one dharma with different names.

The second part, '二是故下', distinguishes the similarities and differences based on the preceding equal oneness. First, it indicates. Second, '云何下' distinguishes the two. First, it distinguishes the similarities. The so-called equality of the mind's essence refers to the three wisdoms and oneness. The essence is one, but the meanings are different. Now, we take the essence as one, so it is said to be the same. Why? Because this oneness is neither delusion nor enlightenment, like suchness, without a name. It can also be勉強 be called awakening. Because sentient beings are deluded, there are three delusions. Awakening is spoken of in response to delusion, so this one awakening becomes three wisdoms. From the perspective of meaning, oneness is the substance, and the three wisdoms are the function. Because awakening is spoken of in response to delusion, wisdom becomes the function. From the perspective of essence, these three wisdoms are the three aspects accomplished by oneness, so they are said to be the same. Second, '復云何下' distinguishes the differences. Original awakening is sarva-akarajnana, so it is called Buddha-nature in ordinary beings. The Buddha of wisdom who emerges from obstacles is the initial awakening. It encompasses marga-akarajnana and all

智。又本覺者。性德三智也。故云亦名三種智。性出障名智慧佛者。始覺三智也。本即性德。始即修德。雖修性不同。故皆在用。此則愈見三法俱用一性為體。又云心體平等者。一者三法即一故平等。二者修性德一故平等。

三廣釋。先須了知平等差別二性之義。然後通達南嶽始終所說之意。一者定體。言差別者體是情事。言平等者體是理性。二者相即。以事即性事亦平等。以性即事性亦差別。故有平等性差別性。平等事差別事。初約體用論差別性者。復有事性之性為差別性。如火熱水冷嗔惡喜善等事法性也。故大師引地持云。事法性者性差別故。空中理性即屬平等。此以空中體一為性。若以事即性。向來差別亦乃平等。如諸眾生在差別故。入火必燒入水必溺。佛見差別當處即性。故火不能燒水不能溺。乃至嗔喜常見一性。故令此事亦名平等。若以性即事。當知此性亦名差別。乃是火性水性嗔性喜性。此性不同前來事性。故性德之中有俗諦性者。亦名差別性也。或以差別性。性字為所具。今曰。差別是所具。性是能具。以所即能。故云差別性也。或以性具差別之法。云此法非情。今曰。差別之名本曰情事。從能具故。故云性德差別。非謂性德有差別法無差別情。上乃體用論二中邊。論者以緣了是差別性。以正因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：智。又本覺（原本就具有的覺悟）者，是性德（本性所具有的功德）三智（三種智慧）也。所以說也名為三種智。性出障（從本性中生出，能破除障礙）名為智慧佛（具有智慧的佛）者，是始覺（開始覺悟）三智也。本（根本）即是性德，始（開始）即是修德（通過修行獲得的功德）。雖然修行和本性不同，但都在作用上體現。這更加說明三法（三種法）都以同一本性為體。又說心體平等者，一是三法即一，所以平等；二是修德和性德同一，所以平等。三、廣釋。首先要知道平等和差別二性的含義，然後才能通達南嶽（地名，指天臺宗）始終所說的意思。一是定體（固定的本體）。說差別，是指本體是情事（有情眾生的事物）；說平等，是指本體是理性（真如理性）。二是相即（相互融合）。以事即性（事物就是本性），事也是平等的；以性即事（本性就是事物），性也是差別的。所以有平等性（平等的本性）和差別性（差別的本性），平等事（平等的事物）和差別事（差別的事物）。最初從體用（本體和作用）上來說差別性，又有事性之性（事物本性的本性）為差別性。如火熱、水冷、嗔惡、喜善等事法（事物法則）的本性。所以大師引用《地持經》說，事法性（事物法則的本性）是性差別（本性的差別）的緣故。空中理性（空性的理性）就屬於平等。這是以空中體一（空性的本體是統一的）為本性。如果以事即性，那麼之前的差別也就都是平等的。如眾生在差別中，入火必燒，入水必溺。佛見差別，當處即性（當下就是本性），所以火不能燒，水不能溺。乃至嗔喜常見一性（嗔怒和喜悅都看作同一本性），所以這件事也稱為平等。如果以性即事，應當知道此性也名為差別。乃是火性、水性、嗔性、喜性。此性不同於之前的事性。所以性德之中有俗諦性（世俗諦的本性），也名為差別性。或者以差別性，性字為所具（所包含）。現在說，差別是所具，性是能具（能包含）。以所即能（所包含的就是能包含的），所以說差別性。或者說性具差別之法（本性具有差別之法），說此法非情（不是有情眾生的事物）。現在說，差別之名本來就是情事。從能具的緣故，所以說性德差別（本性所具有的差別），不是說性德有差別法（差別之法），沒有差別情（差別的情）。上面是從體用上論述二中邊（兩種中道觀點）。論者認為以緣了（因緣和了因）是差別性，以正因（正因）

【English Translation】 English version: 'Wisdom'. Moreover, 'original enlightenment' (the enlightenment that is originally possessed) refers to the three wisdoms (three types of wisdom) of 'intrinsic virtue' (virtues inherent in one's nature). Therefore, it is said to be also named the three wisdoms. 'Wisdom Buddha' (a Buddha possessing wisdom), which 'emerges from the obstacles of nature' (arises from one's nature and can break through obstacles), refers to the three wisdoms of 'initial enlightenment' (the beginning of enlightenment). 'Original' (fundamental) is intrinsic virtue, and 'initial' (beginning) is 'cultivated virtue' (virtues acquired through practice). Although cultivation and nature are different, they are both manifested in their function. This further illustrates that the three dharmas (three laws) all take the same nature as their substance. Furthermore, it is said that the 'essence of mind is equal' because firstly, the three dharmas are one, hence equal; secondly, cultivated virtue and intrinsic virtue are the same, hence equal. Three, extensive explanation. First, one must understand the meaning of the two natures of equality and difference, and then one can comprehend the meaning of what Nanyue (a place name, referring to the Tiantai school) has said from beginning to end. First is the fixed substance. When speaking of difference, it means that the substance is sentient affairs (the affairs of sentient beings); when speaking of equality, it means that the substance is rationality (the true suchness rationality). Second is mutual inclusion. Because affairs are identical to nature (phenomena are identical to essence), affairs are also equal; because nature is identical to affairs (essence is identical to phenomena), nature is also different. Therefore, there are equal nature (equal essence) and different nature (different essence), equal affairs (equal phenomena) and different affairs (different phenomena). Initially, discussing difference in terms of substance and function, there is also the nature of the nature of affairs (the essence of the essence of phenomena) as difference. For example, the nature of the dharmas of affairs (the laws of phenomena) such as fire being hot, water being cold, anger being evil, and joy being good. Therefore, the master quotes the Bodhisattva-bhumi Sutra, saying that the nature of the dharmas of affairs (the essence of the laws of phenomena) is due to the difference of nature (the difference of essence). The rationality of emptiness (the rationality of emptiness) belongs to equality. This takes the oneness of the substance of emptiness (the substance of emptiness being unified) as its nature. If affairs are identical to nature, then the previous differences are also all equal. For example, sentient beings are in difference, entering fire will surely burn, and entering water will surely drown. When the Buddha sees difference, that very place is nature (that very moment is essence), so fire cannot burn, and water cannot drown. Even anger and joy are commonly seen as one nature (anger and joy are both seen as the same essence), so this affair is also called equality. If nature is identical to affairs, one should know that this nature is also called difference. It is the nature of fire, the nature of water, the nature of anger, and the nature of joy. This nature is different from the previous nature of affairs. Therefore, among intrinsic virtues, there is the nature of conventional truth (the essence of conventional truth), which is also called difference. Or, with difference, the word 'nature' is what is possessed (contained). Now it is said that difference is what is possessed, and nature is what can possess (can contain). Because what is possessed is identical to what can possess, it is said to be difference. Or it is said that nature possesses the dharma of difference (essence possesses the law of difference), saying that this dharma is not sentient (not the affairs of sentient beings). Now it is said that the name of difference is originally sentient affairs. From the reason of what can possess, it is said to be the difference of intrinsic virtue (the difference of inherent nature), not that intrinsic virtue has the dharma of difference (the law of difference) and no sentient difference (no sentient difference). The above is a discussion of the two middle views (two middle way viewpoints) from the perspective of substance and function. The debater believes that conditions and understanding are difference, and the direct cause

為平等性。三者緣了正三皆為差別。此中正因得差別名者。出對緣了說于正因。故使正因與緣了異。三法不同乃名差別。若以正因而即緣了。故此緣了與正因同。正因之體為是平等一性無差。是故三法一體無殊悉皆平等。問。何故偏云若以正因而即緣了。還可通云緣了而即正因不。答。克從法體。正因屬理。乃即之體也。緣了屬事。乃離之體也。以正因即故。故緣了亦即。緣了離故。故正因亦離。如荊溪云。正本不離。今加不即。本不離者由正因體。本屬即故則顯緣了。體本不即。今加不離。或謂不然。今復更引常與無常類而顯之。凈名疏云。問。種以能生為義。義符無常。性以不改為義。義符于常。此二義別。何得言符。答。緣了符種。不足致疑。但正因符種。義似有乖。此文正是克從法體上來。乃就理事對論差別平等。況此平等尚猶差別。應了事理。若即不即悉皆平等。不可分別。又復且就平等差別而為句法。若雙亦雙非。非此盡具。

就文為二。初問智慧佛等者。智慧之法若對不覺而有覺者。此則屬修。然此之修既指平等心體為修。故又屬性。是以約修為問乃云能覺凈心。約性為問乃云凈心自覺。即下答文通此二問。是故修性皆得名覺。答三。初標示。雖言二義體無別者。覺于凈心者觀智也。凈心自覺者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本爲了平等性，正因、緣因、了因三者相互關聯，但從根本上說，三者都存在差別。這裡正因之所以被稱為『差別』，是因為它與緣因和了因相對而言。正因與緣因、了因不同，所以才說它們有差別。如果認為正因就是緣因和了因，那麼緣因和了因就與正因相同。正因的本體是平等一性的，沒有差別，所以三法一體，沒有區別，完全平等。問：為什麼只說『如果認為正因就是緣因和了因』，而不能反過來說『緣因和了因就是正因』呢？答：這是從法體的角度來說的。正因屬於理，是本體；緣因和了因屬於事，是現象。因為正因是『即』，所以緣因和了因也是『即』；因為緣因和了因是『離』，所以正因也是『離』。正如荊溪所說：『正本不離，現在加上不即』。『本不離』是因為正因的本體本來就是『即』，所以才顯現出緣因和了因。『體本不即，現在加上不離』。或者有人不這樣認為，現在再用常與無常的例子來闡明。《凈名疏》中說：問：『種』以能生為意義，符合無常的特性；『性』以不變為意義，符合常的特性。這兩個意義不同，怎麼能說符合呢？答：緣因和了因符合『種』，這沒有什麼疑問，但正因符合『種』，意義上似乎有些矛盾。這段文字正是從法體的角度來說的，是從理和事相對論述差別和平等。況且這種平等還包含著差別，應該瞭解事和理。如果說『即』或『不即』都是平等的，那就不可分別了。而且只是就平等和差別而造句，如果說『雙亦雙非』，那就無法窮盡了。就文分為兩部分。第一部分是提問智慧佛等，智慧之法如果相對於不覺而有覺，這屬於修。然而，這裡的修既然是指平等心體為修，所以又屬於性。因此，從修的角度提問，就說『能覺凈心』；從性的角度提問，就說『凈心自覺』。下面的回答涵蓋了這兩個問題。所以，修和性都可以稱為覺。回答分為三部分。第一部分是標示。雖然說二義體無別，覺于凈心是指觀智，凈心自覺是指本覺。

【English Translation】 English version For the sake of equality, the three causes – Hetu-pratyaya (正因, direct cause), Adhipati-pratyaya (緣因, conditioning cause), and Samanantara-pratyaya (了因, immediate cause) – are interconnected, but fundamentally, all three have differences. Here, the Hetu-pratyaya is called 'difference' because it is relative to the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya. The Hetu-pratyaya is different from the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya, so it is said that they have differences. If it is thought that the Hetu-pratyaya is the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya, then the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya are the same as the Hetu-pratyaya. The essence of the Hetu-pratyaya is equal and of one nature, without difference, so the three dharmas are one body, without distinction, and completely equal. Question: Why only say 'If it is thought that the Hetu-pratyaya is the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya,' and not vice versa, 'The Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya are the Hetu-pratyaya'? Answer: This is from the perspective of the dharma-body. The Hetu-pratyaya belongs to principle (理, li), which is the essence; the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya belong to phenomena (事, shi), which are appearances. Because the Hetu-pratyaya is 'is' (即, ji), so the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya are also 'is'; because the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya are 'separate' (離, li), so the Hetu-pratyaya is also 'separate'. As Jingxi (荊溪) said: 'The original root is not separate, now add not-is.' 'Not separate' is because the essence of the Hetu-pratyaya is originally 'is', so the Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya are revealed. 'The body is originally not-is, now add not-separate.' Or some may not think so, now use the example of permanence (常, chang) and impermanence (無常, wu chang) to clarify. The Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary (凈名疏) says: Question: 'Seed' (種, zhong) is defined by the ability to produce, which corresponds to the characteristic of impermanence; 'nature' (性, xing) is defined by immutability, which corresponds to the characteristic of permanence. These two meanings are different, how can they be said to correspond? Answer: The Adhipati-pratyaya and Samanantara-pratyaya correspond to 'seed', there is no doubt, but the Hetu-pratyaya corresponds to 'seed', the meaning seems contradictory. This passage is precisely from the perspective of the dharma-body, discussing the difference and equality relative to principle and phenomena. Moreover, this equality still contains difference, one should understand phenomena and principle. If 'is' or 'not-is' are all equal, then they cannot be distinguished. And it is only making sentences based on equality and difference, if saying 'both is and both not-is' (雙亦雙非), then it cannot be exhausted. The text is divided into two parts. The first part is the question about the wisdom Buddha (智慧佛) and others. If the dharma of wisdom has awareness relative to non-awareness, this belongs to cultivation (修, xiu). However, since the cultivation here refers to the equal mind-essence as cultivation, it also belongs to nature (性, xing). Therefore, asking from the perspective of cultivation, it is said 'able to awaken the pure mind' (能覺凈心); asking from the perspective of nature, it is said 'the pure mind awakens itself' (凈心自覺). The following answer covers these two questions. Therefore, both cultivation and nature can be called awakening. The answer is divided into three parts. The first part is the indication. Although it is said that the two meanings have no difference in essence, 'awakening to the pure mind' refers to contemplative wisdom (觀智), and 'the pure mind awakens itself' refers to original awakening (本覺).

諦理也。諦觀義別。其體乃同。二此義下正釋二。初迷真起妄二。初正示二。初約根本。即界外三細也。心依熏變者。九識真心無明熏變。不覺自動者。若起信中一業二轉三現。今文一無明二妄想三境界。由取義進不開合。不同起信取動以動為業。今取不覺是無明也。動是妄想。即同起信業也。顯現者。即起信中能見相之轉也。虛狀者。即起信中現也。此二合為今文境界。然起信下文亦合轉現俱為境界。故云一切染因名為無明。妄心名為業識。妄境界所謂六塵。

二虛狀下約枝末三。初承前起后。由境界緣起。后界內然虛狀境界。若次第分別即是界外因。根本不覺所起境界。依此境界起于枝末。不覺即有界內無明境界。此則二種境界不同。若克實為言祇一境界。從虛實辨。故分枝本。若以此境是虛。即屬界外。才執此境為實。即是界內。境界既然。無明妄想亦復如是。祇一無明。以不了真實性故則曰根本。以不了依他性故則曰枝末。祇一妄想。以于真實性而起妄想。執有虛相名曰根本。以依依他性而起妄想。執有實相名曰枝末。然此枝本一體而異。復有二義。一者就事自辨。祇可云至本無末。不可云在末無本。如粗惑落後至細惑時是則亡。粗惑在時不可離細。以由粗惑迷心別無體故。二者以理融事。由此枝本同

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這是關於真理的探討。『諦觀』和『義別』雖然意義不同，但其本體是相同的。接下來解釋『二此義』，首先闡述『迷真起妄』的兩個方面。第一，直接揭示兩個方面：首先，從根本上說，指的是界外的三種細微妄念。『心依熏變者』，指的是第九識真心受到無明的薰染而產生變化。『不覺自動者』，類似於《起信論》中的一業、二轉、三現。本文中的『一無明』、『二妄想』、『三境界』，是因為取義的角度不同而導致開合不同。《起信論》以動為業，而本文以『不覺』為無明。『動』是妄想，與《起信論》中的『業』相同。『顯現者』，相當於《起信論》中能見之相的『轉』。『虛狀者』，相當於《起信論》中的『現』。『顯現』和『虛狀』合起來就是本文中的『境界』。然而，《起信論》下文也將『轉』和『現』合稱為『境界』，所以說一切染污的根源稱為無明，虛妄的心稱為業識，虛妄的境界就是六塵。

第二，從『虛狀』開始，闡述枝末三個方面。首先，承接上文，引出下文。由於境界的緣起，產生了界內的虛狀境界。如果按次第來分別，這就是界外因，是根本不覺所產生的境界。依據這個境界，產生了枝末。不覺就有了界內的無明境界。這兩種境界是不同的。如果嚴格來說，其實只有一個境界。從虛實來辨別，所以分為枝本。如果認為這個境界是虛幻的，就屬於界外；如果執著這個境界是真實的，就屬於界內。境界如此，無明和妄想也是如此。只有一個無明，因為不瞭解真實性，所以稱為根本；因為不瞭解依他性，所以稱為枝末。只有一個妄想，因為對真實性產生妄想，執著于虛幻的相，所以稱為根本；因為依靠依他性而產生妄想，執著于真實的相，所以稱為枝末。然而，這個枝本一體而異，又有兩種含義：第一，就事論事，只能說到了根本就沒有枝末，不能說在枝末就沒有根本。比如粗惑在落後，到了細惑的時候就消失了。粗惑存在的時候，不能離開細惑，因為粗惑迷惑了心，沒有其他的本體。第二，以理融事，因為這個枝本相同。

【English Translation】 English version: This is a discussion about truth. Although 'Dìguān' (contemplation of truth) and 'Yìbié' (difference in meaning) have different meanings, their essence is the same. Next, the 'two aspects of this meaning' are explained, first elaborating on the two aspects of 'deluded from truth and arising falsehood'. First, directly reveal the two aspects: first, fundamentally speaking, it refers to the three subtle illusions outside the realm. 'Xīn yī xūn biàn zhě' (the mind relies on the influence and changes), refers to the ninth consciousness, the true mind, being influenced by ignorance and undergoing changes. 'Bù jué zì dòng zhě' (unconsciously moving), is similar to the one karma, two transformations, and three manifestations in the Awakening of Faith. The 'one ignorance', 'two false thoughts', and 'three realms' in this text are due to different perspectives of meaning, resulting in different openings and closings. The Awakening of Faith takes movement as karma, while this text takes 'non-awareness' as ignorance. 'Movement' is false thought, which is the same as 'karma' in the Awakening of Faith. 'Xiǎnxiàn zhě' (manifestation), is equivalent to the 'transformation' of the visible aspect in the Awakening of Faith. 'Xū zhuàng zhě' (illusory state), is equivalent to the 'manifestation' in the Awakening of Faith. 'Manifestation' and 'illusory state' together are the 'realm' in this text. However, the Awakening of Faith also combines 'transformation' and 'manifestation' as 'realm' in the following text, so it is said that the root of all defilement is called ignorance, the false mind is called karma consciousness, and the false realm is the six dusts (Liù chén).

Second, starting from 'Xū zhuàng' (illusory state), elaborate on the three aspects of the branches and ends. First, continuing from the previous text, it leads to the following text. Due to the arising of the realm, the illusory state realm within the realm arises. If distinguished in order, this is the cause outside the realm, the realm produced by fundamental non-awareness. Based on this realm, the branches and ends arise. Non-awareness then has the ignorance realm within the realm. These two realms are different. Strictly speaking, there is actually only one realm. Distinguishing from reality and illusion, it is divided into branches and roots. If it is considered that this realm is illusory, it belongs to outside the realm; if one is attached to this realm as real, it belongs to within the realm. As the realm is, so are ignorance and false thoughts. There is only one ignorance, because one does not understand the true nature, so it is called the root; because one does not understand dependent nature, so it is called the branch and end. There is only one false thought, because false thoughts arise about the true nature, clinging to the illusory aspect, so it is called the root; because false thoughts arise relying on dependent nature, clinging to the real aspect, so it is called the branch and end. However, this branch and root are one and different, and there are two meanings: first, judging the matter as it is, it can only be said that there are no branches and ends when the root is reached, and it cannot be said that there is no root in the branches and ends. For example, when coarse delusion falls behind, it disappears when subtle delusion arrives. When coarse delusion exists, it cannot be separated from subtle delusion, because coarse delusion deludes the mind and has no other essence. Second, integrating the matter with reason, because this branch and root are the same.

一凈心而為其體。故粗細因果徹至妙覺方為究盡。由五住二死不相離故。問。理融可然。前事自論。末不離本。為獨末惑。為通末果。答。亦通於果。如前所謂祇一境界從虛實辨。若以境界為虛則屬界外。豈非末不離本亦通於果。問。應了六道果報虛處即是界外。若爾。卻使界外有六道虛報耶。答。體同事別。界外無六道之事。今取六道體虛義同界外虛果。二似識下示義二。初示三相。一無明。二妄想。三妄境。問。若以似識似色似塵之三。會此之三。如何分對。答。似識者該於無明．妄想之二。以似識不了為無明。以似識妄執為妄想。其似色似塵合為境界。問。色塵何殊。答。今文以正報為色。依報為塵。若以起信六粗會之。似識成無明。即智相至計名字相四粗也。由此四粗是惑染故。非業非報。無明成妄想。即第五粗起業相也。妄想成妄境。即第六粗業系苦相也。彼開為六。今合為三。然起信中亦復自有存沒開合。先示九相。即三細六粗。次辯五意。即沒六粗中四但存三細智相相續。后辨六染於六粗中即沒五六合其三四。初由似識起無明。文云似識即六七識者。問。似識似塵之名。界內外耶。若云界內則屬實有。豈名為似。若云界外應指八識。何云六識。答。若從當分。妄執界內乃是實有。若從克實。而論諸境悉

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本以清凈的心性作為它的本體。因此，從粗淺到精微，從因到果，徹底達到妙覺的境界，才算是究竟完滿。因為五住煩惱和二種生死是不可分離的。問：從理上融合來看，這是可以理解的。之前的事情可以自己討論，但末端不離根本，是指只有末端的迷惑，還是貫通到末端的果報？答：也貫通到果報。就像之前所說的，只是一個境界，從虛和實來辨別。如果認為境界是虛幻的，那麼就屬於界外。這難道不是末端不離根本，也貫通到果報嗎？問：應該瞭解六道輪迴的果報，其虛幻之處就是界外。如果這樣，豈不是說界外也有六道輪迴的虛幻果報？答：本體相同，事相不同。界外沒有六道輪迴的事實。現在取六道輪迴本體虛幻的意義，與界外虛幻的果報相同。二、類似識之下，闡釋意義。二、首先闡釋三種現象。一、無明（avidyā，無知）。二、妄想（false thought）。三、妄境（illusory realm）。問：如果用類似識、類似色、類似塵這三種，來會合這三種現象，應該如何對應？答：類似識涵蓋了無明和妄想這兩種。因為類似識不了達實相，所以是無明；因為類似識虛妄執著，所以是妄想。而類似色和類似塵合起來就是境界。問：色（rūpa，物質）和塵（dust）有什麼區別？答：本文中，將正報（direct result）視為色，依報（indirect result）視為塵。如果用《起信論》（Awakening of Faith）中的六粗（six coarse aspects）來會合，類似識成為無明，就是智相（aspect of wisdom）到計名字相（aspect of calculating names）這四種粗相。因為這四種粗相是迷惑染污的，所以既不是業，也不是報。無明成為妄想，就是第五粗相，起業相（aspect of arising karma）。妄想成為妄境，就是第六粗相，業系苦相（aspect of karma-bound suffering）。《起信論》中展開為六種，現在合為三種。然而，《起信論》中也存在著存沒開合。先闡釋九相，即三細（three subtle aspects）六粗。其次辨別五意，即沒六粗中的四種，只存在三細智相相續。后辨別六染，在六粗中即沒五六，合其三四。最初由類似識生起無明，文中說類似識就是第六識和第七識。問：類似識和類似塵的名稱，是屬於界內還是界外？如果說是界內，那麼就屬於實有，怎麼能稱為類似？如果說是界外，應該指的是第八識（ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識），為什麼說是第六識？答：如果從當下的分別來看，虛妄執著界內的事物是實有的。如果從究竟真實的層面來說，所有的境界都是虛幻的。

【English Translation】 English version Taking a pure mind as its substance. Therefore, only by thoroughly reaching the realm of wonderful enlightenment from the coarse to the subtle, from cause to effect, can it be considered ultimately complete. This is because the five dwelling defilements and the two kinds of death are inseparable. Question: From the perspective of rational integration, this is understandable. Previous matters can be discussed on their own, but the end not being separate from the root, does it refer only to the delusion at the end, or does it extend to the retribution at the end? Answer: It also extends to the retribution. Just as mentioned before, it is just one realm, distinguished from the perspective of emptiness and reality. If the realm is considered illusory, then it belongs to beyond the realm. Isn't this the end not being separate from the root, also extending to the retribution? Question: It should be understood that the retribution of the six realms of reincarnation, its illusory aspect is beyond the realm. If so, wouldn't that mean that there are illusory retributions of the six realms beyond the realm? Answer: The essence is the same, but the phenomena are different. There are no facts of the six realms of reincarnation beyond the realm. Now, we take the meaning of the illusory nature of the essence of the six realms of reincarnation, which is the same as the illusory retribution beyond the realm. Two, below 'resemblance consciousness', explain the meaning. Two, first explain the three aspects. One, ignorance (avidyā). Two, false thought. Three, illusory realm. Question: If we use the three of 'resemblance consciousness', 'resemblance form', and 'resemblance dust' to reconcile these three aspects, how should they be matched? Answer: 'Resemblance consciousness' encompasses both ignorance and false thought. Because 'resemblance consciousness' does not understand reality, it is ignorance; because 'resemblance consciousness' falsely clings, it is false thought. And 'resemblance form' and 'resemblance dust' together are the realm. Question: What is the difference between form and dust? Answer: In this text, the direct result is regarded as form, and the indirect result is regarded as dust. If we use the six coarse aspects in the Awakening of Faith to reconcile them, 'resemblance consciousness' becomes ignorance, which is the four coarse aspects from the aspect of wisdom to the aspect of calculating names. Because these four coarse aspects are deluded and defiled, they are neither karma nor retribution. Ignorance becomes false thought, which is the fifth coarse aspect, the aspect of arising karma. False thought becomes the illusory realm, which is the sixth coarse aspect, the aspect of karma-bound suffering. The Awakening of Faith expands it into six, now it is combined into three. However, in the Awakening of Faith, there are also existence, disappearance, opening, and closing. First, explain the nine aspects, which are the three subtle aspects and the six coarse aspects. Secondly, distinguish the five meanings, which is the disappearance of four of the six coarse aspects, only the continuous succession of the three subtle aspects of the aspect of wisdom remains. Later, distinguish the six defilements, in the six coarse aspects, the fifth and sixth disappear, combining the third and fourth. Initially, ignorance arises from 'resemblance consciousness', the text says that 'resemblance consciousness' is the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. Question: Do the names 'resemblance consciousness' and 'resemblance dust' belong to within the realm or beyond the realm? If it is said to be within the realm, then it belongs to the real existence, how can it be called resemblance? If it is said to be beyond the realm, it should refer to the eighth consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna), why is it said to be the sixth consciousness? Answer: If viewed from the current distinction, falsely clinging to things within the realm is real existence. If viewed from the ultimate and true level, all realms are illusory.

是虛相。今從克實以言。故召六七為似。文云不了知等者。今文正取能不了邊為無明也。二以不了下。由無明成妄想。正取能執為妄想也。三以為下由妄想成妄境。以為實事者。即所執之妄境也。

二妄執下示熏心。所熏平等。能熏自殊。此所熏心與前根本凈心不異。

次然似下約名相釋義。前但示義。惟云不了妄執實事。今指不了名曰無明。妄執名曰妄想。實事名曰境界。約此名相而申釋之。為二。初釋三相。初無明云迷境者。即迷事也。對於迷理而得此名。云緣中癡者。對因中癡而得此名。以述本覺無明為因而生三細。即因中癡也。以迷境界為緣而生六粗。即緣中癡也。由於虛境妄執為實。即是不了。成緣中癡。妄想妄境在文可見。二以果下種熏心。熏之為義。起信論云。如世間衣服實無于香。若人以香而熏習故則有香氣。然其論文且附事辨。本若實無。熏何得有。論明四種熏習。乃與今文至有詳略。不復對會。尋者可了。今則直就當文以釋為二。初各熏。凡有四法。一無明。二妄想。三妄境。四似識。問。向但有三。今何卻四。答。向從合說。乃以似識合在無明並妄想中。故云似識。不了之義即是果時無明。似識妄執之義即是妄想。今從開說。是故別明。又虛狀之果有二不同。一者正報。二者依報

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本是虛假的表象。現在從真實的角度來說，所以說六識和七識是『相似』的。文中說『不了知』等等，本文正是取其『不能了知』的方面作為無明（Avidyā，無知）。二、『以不了下』，由於無明產生妄想，正是取其『能執著』的方面作為妄想（Vikalpa，分別）。三、『以為下』，由於妄想產生妄境，『以為實事者』，就是所執著的虛妄境界（Māyā，幻象）。

二、『妄執下』，顯示熏習於心。所熏的心是平等的，能熏的法卻各有不同。這裡所熏的心與前面的根本凈心（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）沒有區別。

其次，『然似下』，從名相上解釋意義。前面只是顯示意義，只說了『不了』、『妄執』、『實事』。現在指出『不了』叫做無明，『妄執』叫做妄想，『實事』叫做境界。根據這些名相來詳細解釋，分為兩部分。首先解釋三相。首先，無明說『迷境者』，就是迷惑於事相。這是相對於迷惑于理體而言的。說『緣中癡者』，是相對於因中癡而言的。因為敘述本覺（Prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta，自性清凈心）的無明作為因而產生三細相，就是因中癡。因為迷惑于境界作為緣而產生六粗相，就是緣中癡。由於對虛假的境界妄加執著認為是真實的，這就是『不了』，成為緣中癡。妄想和妄境在文中可以見到。二、『以果下』，說明種子熏習於心。熏習的意義，《起信論》說：『比如世間的衣服本來沒有香味，如果人用香來熏習它，就會有香氣。』然而那篇論文只是附帶地從現象上辨析，如果本體本來沒有，熏習又怎麼能產生呢？《起信論》闡明四種熏習，與本文的詳略不同，不再一一對應。讀者可以自己理解。現在就直接根據本文來解釋，分為兩部分。首先是各自熏習。總共有四法：一、無明；二、妄想；三、妄境；四、似識。問：前面只有三法，現在為什麼有四法？答：前面是從合起來說的，把似識合併在無明和妄想中，所以說是『似識』。『不了』的意義就是果時的無明，『似識妄執』的意義就是妄想。現在是從分開來說的，所以分別說明。而且虛假狀態的果報有兩種不同：一是正報，二是依報。

【English Translation】 English version They are false appearances. Now, speaking from the perspective of reality, the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are referred to as 'similar'. The text says 'not understanding,' etc.; this passage specifically takes the aspect of 'not being able to understand' as Avidyā (ignorance). Secondly, 'From not understanding,' due to ignorance, delusion arises, specifically taking the aspect of 'being able to grasp' as Vikalpa (discrimination). Thirdly, 'Taking it as,' due to delusion, illusory realms arise, 'taking it as reality' refers to the falsely grasped illusory realms (Māyā, illusion).

Secondly, 'False grasping below' shows the perfuming of the mind. What is perfumed is equal, but what does the perfuming is different. The mind that is perfumed here is no different from the fundamental pure mind (Ālaya-vijñāna, storehouse consciousness) mentioned earlier.

Next, 'However, similar below' explains the meaning from the perspective of terms and characteristics. Previously, only the meaning was shown, only speaking of 'not understanding,' 'false grasping,' and 'real things.' Now, 'not understanding' is called ignorance, 'false grasping' is called delusion, and 'real things' are called realms. Based on these terms and characteristics, a detailed explanation is given, divided into two parts. First, explain the three aspects. First, ignorance says 'those deluded by realms' refers to being deluded by phenomena. This is in contrast to being deluded by the principle. Saying 'delusion in conditions' is in contrast to delusion in causes. Because describing the ignorance of original enlightenment (Prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta, naturally pure mind) as the cause gives rise to the three subtle aspects, which is delusion in causes. Because being deluded by realms as conditions gives rise to the six coarse aspects, which is delusion in conditions. Because falsely grasping illusory realms as real, this is 'not understanding,' becoming delusion in conditions. Delusion and illusory realms can be seen in the text. Secondly, 'From the result below' explains the seeds perfuming the mind. The meaning of perfuming, the Awakening of Faith says: 'For example, worldly clothes originally have no fragrance, but if people perfume them with fragrance, they will have fragrance.' However, that essay only analyzes from the perspective of phenomena, if the substance originally does not have it, how can perfuming produce it? The Awakening of Faith clarifies the four types of perfuming, which differ in detail from this text, and will not be corresponded one by one. Readers can understand it themselves. Now, directly based on this text to explain, divided into two parts. First, each perfuming. There are a total of four dharmas: 1. Ignorance; 2. Delusion; 3. Illusory realms; 4. Similar consciousness. Question: Previously there were only three dharmas, why are there four dharmas now? Answer: Previously it was said together, combining similar consciousness into ignorance and delusion, so it is called 'similar consciousness.' The meaning of 'not understanding' is the ignorance of the result, the meaning of 'similar consciousness falsely grasping' is delusion. Now it is said separately, so it is explained separately. Moreover, the results of the false state are two different types: one is the direct retribution, and the other is the circumstantial retribution.

。合而言之俱屬妄境。開而言之。依為境界。正為似識。文為三。初無明。云果時子時者。果子無明。本末而論。有各有對。若各論者。根本枝末各有獨顯為子。相應為果。並各以無明妄想之因為子。境界為果。若對論者。根本為子為始。迷未現境故。枝末為果。由從境界起妄執故。今取對論以分子果。以果等者。若依小乘義立熏種。但熏六識覆成枝末。今從圓旨。熏于真心即成根本。此以枝果而生。本子亦名住地無明者。住地之言惟指根本。正從喻立。凈名疏云。此之四住非根本惑。如枝葉依樹而不依地。故界內身見有種種不同。不名一處亦非住地。又引勝鬘。無明住地其力最大。佛菩提智之所能斷。由以見思喻于枝葉。依無明干但住于樹。而不住地。乃指無明而為住地。復有二義。一約界外四住。以見為能住。如樹。無明為所住。如他。總而名之曰住地也。如荊溪云。見為能住。無明是地。二以無明如樹。法性如地。故云住地。然得地名實從法性。例如無住雖通真妄。究實無住俱是于真。但以圓詮。真法即是妄源。源既匪殊妄亦無住。故荊溪云。法性即無住。無住即無明。無明亦無住。豈非的指無住乃是法性。由即無明。所以云亦。問。住地之名既取本感。六番窮原。前之四住何亦名之。答。此有二意。一者別教

。界內非名。界外可目。二者圓教。六番窮原。從前推究雖次第由起。約后總答即當處同原。是以四住皆得地名。問。若以根本無明為住地。何稱無住。答。約即論離。與法性殊。故名住地。約離論即。與法性一。故名無住。此從法性為地。若就無明為地者。無明之地無住。為他所住。故名住地。問。界內見思不從圓旨。亦得稱為住地可乎。答。義亦通之。摩訶止觀云。愛即四住地也。亦能障智。然是異心之感。解感不俱。此文恐約當分。通住迷地。以名二妄想。小乘熏成事識。今成業識三妄境似識。小乘熏心依得得住。今成種子依八識住。文無似識者。合名似塵也。

二然此下共熏二。初總示。前四法各熏者。言自分之功。今四法共熏者。論同藉之義。二何以下別示二。初枝末自論共。似識是報陰。無明是不了。妄想是能執。妄境是所執。此四和合熏于凈心。現虛狀果。二又復下根本論共二。初示義二。初因共成果。由前根本中雲心依熏變不覺自動顯現虛狀。文中但語無明與業二法之因。兼似各熏。現虛狀果。今於二法復加種子。三法為因共熏凈心。現虛狀果。文為三。初示種子與無明共。乃有二義。一者種子依無明住故。二者種子若無。無明不能獨現果故。二若無下。無明與業識共。三若無業識下。種子與

業識共。亦有二義。一者種子不能獨現果故。二者種子依業識住故。故云亦即自體不立。問。向枝末共熏。何有似識妄境而無種子。今根本共熏。何有種子而無似識妄境。答。此由附於枝本不同以辨義理。由種子無明始迷之時。依凈心起。不依似識。根本業識雖能現境。而不妄執虛境為實。是故根本不論此二為能熏也。枝末能熏不詮種子。是故不論。問。四法共熏既是枝末。何故成果稱虛狀耶。答。能熏附小。辨義成果。克實為言。二是故下。果中具因。文云似識似塵。虛妄者果中具因之種子也。無明者果中具因之無明也。妄執者果中具因之業識也。以還具二字通冠下文。由向以無明業識種子三因共成於果。故今果中還具三因。此則一向從根本說。亦可此文同上。承前起后。以境界緣起于界內似識至妄執等。

二由此下對前結意。云略說者。一者略說不覺動故二法為因。而不詳說種子為因。二者略說顯現虛狀。而不詳說和合方現。三者略說由因成果。而不詳說果還具因。問。前何默略種子。答。且約初迷。未論種子。然種子之說且附權談。究實而言悉從性現。故經云。眾苦行業不可思議。

二如是下結。如是果子相生者。一約枝本對論子果。初文承前界外虛狀。起后界內無明。即子生於果也。次釋枝末熏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本業識共，也有兩種含義。一是種子不能單獨顯現果，二是種子依附於業識而存在。所以說『亦即自體不立』。問：前面說枝末共同熏習，為什麼有類似識的虛妄境界而沒有種子？現在說根本共同熏習，為什麼有種子而沒有類似識的虛妄境界？答：這是由於附著于枝末和根本的不同來辨別義理。由於種子無明開始迷惑的時候，依附於清凈心而生起，不依附於類似識。根本業識雖然能夠顯現境界，但不虛妄執著虛幻的境界為真實。因此，根本不討論這二者作為能熏。枝末能熏不詮釋種子，所以不討論。問：四法共同熏習既然是枝末，為什麼成果稱為虛狀呢？答：能熏附著于小處，辨別義理成果，以求實為說。『二是故下』，果中具有因。文中所說『似識似塵』，虛妄的是果中具有因的種子。無明是果中具有因的無明。妄執是果中具有因的業識。用『以還具』二字貫穿下文。由於先前以無明、業識、種子三因共同成就果，所以現在果中還具有三因。這完全是從根本上說的。也可以說這段文字和上面一樣，承前啓後，以境界緣起于界內的類似識，乃至妄執等。二由此下，總結前面的意思。說『略說』，一是略說不覺動故二法為因，而不詳細說種子為因。二是略說顯現虛狀，而不詳細說和合才顯現。三是略說由因成果，而不詳細說果還具有因。問：前面為什麼默然省略種子？答：且就最初迷惑來說，沒有論述種子。然而種子的說法且附帶權宜之談，就究竟實在而言，都從自性顯現。所以經中說：『眾苦行業不可思議』。二如是下，總結。『如是果子相生者』，一是約枝本對論子果。初文承接前面界外的虛狀，引出後面界內的無明，就是子生於果。其次解釋枝末熏習。

【English Translation】 English version The collective karma-consciousness also has two meanings: first, the seeds cannot manifest the result alone; second, the seeds rely on the karma-consciousness to exist. Therefore, it is said that 'it does not establish itself as a separate entity'. Question: Earlier, it was said that the branches and ends collectively熏 (xūn, influence), so why is there a false realm resembling consciousness without seeds? Now it is said that the root collectively熏, so why are there seeds without a false realm resembling consciousness? Answer: This is because the meaning and principle are distinguished by attaching to the branches and roots differently. Because when the ignorance of the seeds begins to be deluded, it arises relying on the pure mind, not relying on the likeness of consciousness. Although the root karma-consciousness can manifest realms, it does not falsely cling to the illusory realm as real. Therefore, the root does not discuss these two as the able-熏. The branches and ends that can熏 do not explain the seeds, so they are not discussed. Question: Since the four dharmas collectively熏 are the branches and ends, why is the result called a 'false state'? Answer: The able-熏 is attached to the small, distinguishing the meaning and principle of the result, speaking truthfully. 'The second is below', the result contains the cause. The text says 'resembling consciousness and resembling dust', the false is that the result contains the seeds of the cause. Ignorance is the ignorance of the cause in the result. Clinging is the karma-consciousness of the cause in the result. The words 'still possesses' encompass the following text. Because the three causes of ignorance, karma-consciousness, and seeds together accomplish the result, the result still possesses the three causes. This is entirely from the root. It can also be said that this text is the same as above, connecting the past and the future, with the realm arising from the likeness of consciousness within the realm, to clinging, etc. The second, from here on, concludes the previous meaning. Saying 'briefly speaking' means: first, briefly speaking, the two dharmas are the cause because of the movement of non-awareness, without explaining the seeds as the cause in detail; second, briefly speaking, the false state is manifested, without explaining in detail that it only appears when combined; third, briefly speaking, the result is produced from the cause, without explaining in detail that the result still possesses the cause. Question: Why was the seed silently omitted earlier? Answer: It is only about the initial delusion, without discussing the seeds. However, the saying of seeds is only attached to expedient talk, and in terms of ultimate reality, it all manifests from the nature. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The suffering and karma are inconceivable'. The second, from here on, concludes. 'Such is the mutual arising of fruit and seed', one is about the branches and roots discussing the fruit and seed. The initial text continues the false state outside the realm, leading to the ignorance within the realm, which is the seed arising from the fruit. Next, explain the熏 of the branches and ends.

心中雲。以果特無明熏心。故令心不覺等。即果生於子也。釋根本中雲。是故虛狀中還具似識等。即復子生於果也。二約枝末各以因果而論子果。根本中果即虛狀之果。子即無明業識種子三法之因。由因成果。果還具因。即子能生果。果能生子也。枝末既以四法和合為因現虛狀果。即子生果也。若例根本。復於此果而具枝末四法之因。即果生於子。故通結云果子相生。

二后遇下滅妄歸真二。初滅界內妄惑。二滅界外妄惑。釋成二覺。問。何故滅界外惑中方釋二覺。答。由從真起妄。義凡有三。一者雖有真妄二名。謂從真起妄。當處乃無能起所起。由真妄名殊其體一故。二者從法性真起無明妄。于所起之妄。不論枝本界外內異。由見思無明乃同體故。三者從中道實性性真起界外無明之妄。成依他性。復從無明之妄執虛為實。起界內見思之妄。成分別性。故滅妄歸真義亦有三。若依初義。無妄可滅無真可歸。若依次義。滅界內惑即滅界外。若依第三義。約圓豎入。初滅界內。位在住前未見實性。至滅界外方辨二覺。初滅界內妄惑二。初單就界內以論滅妄四。初遇友開解皆一等者。圓滅果惑。義殊前教。由知妄原。流自息滅。是故得云皆一心作。二聞此下依聞修觀。下分別性修觀中雲。但能知境是虛。三若此下解成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心中說，因為以果上的無明薰染心，所以使心不能覺悟等等，這就是果生於子。解釋根本中說，因此虛妄的狀態中還具備相似的識等等，這就是又子生於果。第二，約枝末各以因果來論子果。根本中的果就是虛妄狀態的果，子就是無明、業識、種子這三法的因。由因成果，果還具備因，就是子能生果，果能生子。枝末既然以四法和合作為因，顯現虛妄狀態的果，這就是子生果。如果比照根本，又於此果中具備枝末四法的因，這就是果生於子。所以總的結論是果子互相產生。

第二，后遇下文講述滅妄歸真二方面。首先是滅除界內的虛妄迷惑，然後是滅除界外的虛妄迷惑，解釋成就二覺。問：為什麼在滅除界外迷惑中才解釋二覺？答：因為從真起妄，義理上有三種。第一種，雖然有真妄二個名稱，說是從真起妄，但實際上沒有能起和所起，因為真妄名稱不同但本體是一樣的。第二種，從法性真起無明妄，對於所起的虛妄，不論枝本、界外、界內，因為見思和無明是同體的。第三種，從中道實性性真起界外無明的虛妄，成就依他性；又從無明的虛妄執著虛妄為真實，起界內見思的虛妄，成就分別性。所以滅妄歸真的義理也有三種。如果依照第一種義理，沒有虛妄可以滅除，沒有真實可以迴歸。如果依照第二種義理，滅除界內迷惑就等於滅除界外迷惑。如果依照第三種義理，約圓豎入，先滅除界內迷惑，位置在住位之前，尚未見到實性，到滅除界外迷惑時才能分辨二覺。首先是滅除界內虛妄迷惑，分為兩部分。首先是遇到善友開解，都一樣，圓滿滅除果上的迷惑，義理不同於之前的教法。因為知道虛妄的根源，流動自然止息滅除，所以才能說都是一心所作。第二，聽聞此下文，依據聽聞修習觀行。下文分別性修觀中說，只要能夠知道境界是虛妄的。第三，若此下文，解釋成就。

【English Translation】 English version: It is said in the mind that because the mind is熏 (xūn, imbued/influenced) by the 無明 (wúmíng, ignorance) of the fruit, it causes the mind to be unable to覺 (jué, perceive/awaken), etc. This is the fruit born from the seed. The explanation in the root says, 'Therefore, in the empty state, there are still similar 識 (shí, consciousness), etc.' This is again the seed born from the fruit. Secondly, regarding the branches and ends, each discusses the seed and fruit in terms of cause and effect. The fruit in the root is the fruit of the empty state, and the seed is the cause of the three dharmas of 無明 (wúmíng, ignorance), 業識 (yèshí, karma consciousness), and seed. From cause comes fruit, and the fruit still possesses cause, which means the seed can produce the fruit, and the fruit can produce the seed. Since the branches and ends combine the four dharmas as the cause to manifest the fruit of the empty state, this is the seed giving rise to the fruit. If compared to the root, this fruit also possesses the cause of the four dharmas of the branches and ends, which is the fruit giving rise to the seed. Therefore, the general conclusion is that fruit and seed arise from each other.

Secondly, the following text discusses the two aspects of滅妄歸真 (miè wàng guī zhēn, extinguishing delusion and returning to truth). First, extinguishing the delusions and confusions within the 界 (jiè, realm), and then extinguishing the delusions and confusions outside the 界 (jiè, realm), explaining the accomplishment of the two awakenings. Question: Why is the 二覺 (èr jué, two awakenings) explained only in the extinguishing of delusions outside the 界 (jiè, realm)? Answer: Because from truth arises delusion, there are three meanings. The first is that although there are two names, truth and delusion, saying that delusion arises from truth, there is actually no arising or arising from, because the names of truth and delusion are different but the essence is the same. The second is that from 法性真 (fǎxìng zhēn, the true nature of dharma) arises 無明妄 (wúmíng wàng, the delusion of ignorance), and for the delusion that arises, regardless of branches, roots, inside or outside the 界 (jiè, realm), because 見思 (jiàn sī, views and thoughts) and 無明 (wúmíng, ignorance) are of the same essence. The third is that from 中道實性性真 (zhōngdào shíxìng xìng zhēn, the true nature of the Middle Way reality) arises the delusion of 無明 (wúmíng, ignorance) outside the 界 (jiè, realm), accomplishing 依他性 (yī tā xìng, dependent nature); and from the delusion of 無明 (wúmíng, ignorance), clinging to delusion as reality, arises the delusion of 見思 (jiàn sī, views and thoughts) within the 界 (jiè, realm), accomplishing 分別性 (fēnbié xìng, discriminating nature). Therefore, there are also three meanings of extinguishing delusion and returning to truth. If according to the first meaning, there is no delusion to extinguish and no truth to return to. If according to the second meaning, extinguishing delusions within the 界 (jiè, realm) is equivalent to extinguishing delusions outside the 界 (jiè, realm). If according to the third meaning, according to the 圓豎入 (yuán shù rù, perfect vertical entry), first extinguish delusions within the 界 (jiè, realm), the position is before the 住 (zhù, dwelling) position, not yet seeing the true nature, and only when extinguishing delusions outside the 界 (jiè, realm) can the two awakenings be distinguished. First, extinguishing delusions within the 界 (jiè, realm), divided into two parts. First, encountering a good friend's explanation, all the same, perfectly extinguishing the delusions on the fruit, the meaning is different from the previous teachings. Because knowing the source of delusion, the flow naturally ceases and is extinguished, so it can be said that it is all done by one mind. Second, listening to the following text, according to listening and practicing contemplation. The following text in 分別性 (fēnbié xìng, discriminating nature) cultivation of contemplation says, 'As long as one can know that the realm is illusory.' Third, the following text explains the accomplishment.

除障。無明惑也。妄想業也。妄境苦也。似解既成。除此三障。下分別性中止門除障云。實執止故即是能除。果時迷事無明並妄想等四。爾時下約智得益。下分別性得益中雲。無塵智用隨心行故。即是得益。

二雖然下對界外辨二惑同滅。一者以理融惑。二惑一體。若滅枝末。根本亦除。二者圓除末時必由先了本從性起。本相體虛。末妄為實。今亡執實云枝末除。除實執者由知本虛。即此之知是滅根本。故滅末時根本亦除。文為二。初直辨同滅二。初正示三。初無明。二妄想。三境界。於此三義各先論同。次則復疏。無明中初論同者。意顯枝末妄惑滅時根本亦除。何者。由迷虛相從一性起。有即非有。名存無明。今除末時乃能先了虛相即性。豈非亦除根本無明。文云雖然知境虛故說果時無明滅者。枝末除也。猶見虛相之有者。根本在也。有即非有至唯是一心者。若依此知能了無明。即是法性無明除也。以不知此理故亦名子時無明等者。今以不知而顯于知。若不知者是無明存。且今初心滅枝末。既知此理。豈非滅果亦除于子。次但細下復疏。若云同滅。何故向云果無明滅。故復疏云。但細於前迷事無明。故說果時無明滅耳。當知約解橫言二惑同滅。約位豎論先滅枝末。然雖解知無明有即非有。其如未證非有。尚見

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本除障：這裡的『無明』（Avidya，指對事物真相的迷惑和無知）是惑亂的根源，『妄想』（Vikalpa，指虛妄不實的想法）是造業的動因，『妄境』（Bhrāntadarśana，指虛幻不實的境界）是痛苦的來源。如果能正確理解並修行，就能去除這三種障礙。在《分別性中止門》中，關於除障是這樣說的：『停止對實有的執著，就能去除障礙。』在果位時，迷惑事相的無明以及妄想等四種煩惱都會被消除。接下來是關於通過智慧獲得利益的論述。在《分別性得益》中說：『因為沒有塵垢的智慧可以隨心而行，這就是獲得的利益。』接下來，雖然要對界外的兩種迷惑進行辨析，但實際上這兩種迷惑是同時被消除的。第一種方法是用理來融化迷惑，因為兩種迷惑實際上是一體的。如果消除了枝末，根本也會被消除。第二種方法是圓滿地消除枝末時，必須先了解根本是從自性中產生的，根本的相是空虛的，而枝末卻妄認為實有。現在消除了對實有的執著，就說是消除了枝末。而消除對實有的執著，是因為知道了根本是虛幻的。這種知見就是消滅根本。所以，在消滅枝末的時候，根本也被消除了。這段文字分為兩部分。首先直接辨析同時消除，分為兩點。第一點是正面闡述三種障礙，第一是無明，第二是妄想，第三是境界。對於這三種含義，先討論它們的相同之處，然後再進行疏解。在無明中，首先討論相同之處，是爲了表明在消除枝末的虛妄迷惑時，根本也會被消除。為什麼呢？因為迷惑虛幻的相是從一性中產生的，說有即非有，只是名義上存在無明。現在消除枝末時，就能先了解虛幻的相就是自性。這難道不是也消除了根本的無明嗎？文中說：『雖然知道境界是虛幻的，所以說在果位時無明被消滅，這是消除了枝末。』『仍然看到虛幻的相的存在，這是根本還在。』『說有即非有，直到唯是一心，』如果依據這種知見，就能瞭解無明，這就是法性無明被消除。『因為不瞭解這個道理，所以也稱為子時無明等等，』現在用不了解來顯明瞭解。如果不瞭解，就是無明存在。而且現在初心消滅枝末，既然瞭解了這個道理，難道不是消滅果位也消除了子位嗎？接下來，『但細』以下是進一步的疏解。如果說同時消除，為什麼之前說果位無明被消滅呢？所以進一步疏解說：『只是比之前的迷惑事相的無明更細微，所以說果位時無明被消滅罷了。』應當知道，從理解的角度橫向來說，兩種迷惑是同時被消除的。從位次的角度縱向來說，先消滅枝末。然而即使理解知道無明說有即非有，但是如果沒有證得非有，仍然會看到。

【English Translation】 English version Eliminating Obstacles: 『Avidya』 (ignorance, referring to delusion and ignorance of the true nature of things) is the root of confusion, 『Vikalpa』 (false thoughts, referring to unreal ideas) is the motivation for creating karma, and 『Bhrāntadarśana』 (illusory realms, referring to unreal states) is the source of suffering. If one can correctly understand and practice, one can remove these three obstacles. In the 『Differentiation of the Cessation Door,』 it is said about eliminating obstacles: 『Stopping the attachment to reality can remove obstacles.』 In the fruition stage, the ignorance that confuses phenomena and the four afflictions such as Vikalpa will be eliminated. Next is the discussion about gaining benefits through wisdom. In 『Differentiation of Gaining Benefits,』 it says: 『Because wisdom without defilement can follow the mind, this is the benefit gained.』 Next, although the two confusions beyond the realm are to be distinguished, in reality, these two confusions are eliminated simultaneously. The first method is to dissolve confusion with reason, because the two confusions are actually one. If the branches are eliminated, the root will also be eliminated. The second method is that when completely eliminating the branches, one must first understand that the root arises from self-nature, the appearance of the root is empty, while the branches are falsely considered real. Now that the attachment to reality is eliminated, it is said that the branches are eliminated. And the elimination of the attachment to reality is because one knows that the root is illusory. This knowledge is the elimination of the root. Therefore, when the branches are eliminated, the root is also eliminated. This text is divided into two parts. First, directly distinguish simultaneous elimination, divided into two points. The first point is to positively explain the three obstacles, the first is Avidya, the second is Vikalpa, and the third is Bhrāntadarśana. For these three meanings, first discuss their similarities, and then elaborate. In Avidya, first discuss the similarities, in order to show that when eliminating the false confusion of the branches, the root will also be eliminated. Why? Because the confusion of the illusory appearance arises from one nature, saying that existence is non-existence, only the name of Avidya exists. Now when eliminating the branches, one can first understand that the illusory appearance is self-nature. Isn't this also eliminating the root Avidya? The text says: 『Although it is known that the realm is illusory, so it is said that Avidya is eliminated in the fruition stage, this is eliminating the branches.』『Still seeing the existence of the illusory appearance, this is the root still remaining.』『Saying that existence is non-existence, until only one mind,』 if based on this knowledge, one can understand Avidya, this is the Dharma-nature Avidya being eliminated. 『Because one does not understand this principle, so it is also called child-time Avidya, etc.,』 now use not understanding to reveal understanding. If one does not understand, it is that Avidya exists. And now the initial mind eliminates the branches, since one understands this principle, isn't it that eliminating the fruition also eliminates the child-time? Next, 『but subtle』 below is a further elaboration. If it is said to be eliminated simultaneously, why did it say before that fruition-stage Avidya was eliminated? So it is further elaborated: 『It is just more subtle than the previous Avidya that confuses phenomena, so it is said that Avidya is eliminated in the fruition stage.』 It should be known that from the perspective of understanding, horizontally speaking, the two confusions are eliminated simultaneously. From the perspective of position, vertically speaking, the branches are eliminated first. However, even if one understands that Avidya says existence is non-existence, but if one has not attained non-existence, one will still see.

于有。問。解與位殊耶。答。解則如法圓融。位則隨情厚薄。若解隨情辨則解亦差殊。若位約法明則位亦頓等。今且奇情辨位就法論解。故對明之。云迷事無明者。對於迷理。然于惑法得事理名。其義非一。若以枝本各論。枝末中見為理惑。思為事惑。由見則邪計妄法之理。障于真理。思則貪癡散塵之事。障于定事。根本既名別見別思。則事理義例同枝末。若枝本對論。則知今文以見思為事。無明為理。且見思為事者。由迷無明虛狀而起。虛狀是事。故稱迷事。惑稱迷境。以由小乘雲。此見思迷於真諦。大乘詮云。真俗二邊體是無明。故稱迷事。則顯根本迷於中實理性而起。故稱迷理。已上乃約二惑以辨。若通取三惑對論之義。則塵沙為事。二惑為理。凈名記云。以塵沙惑不障于理。四住障真。無明鄣中。又無明為理。二惑為事。凈名疏云。理惑者迷於中道。事惑者迷於二諦。法界惑也。又若三惑各論。皆通事理。且如見思不知當體是生死俗。故稱迷事。不了真諦故稱迷理無明。若迷空假。當體非智是障則名迷事。若迷中道故稱迷理。如大師云。二俱是迷。理為智障。又云。俱是迷事為智障塵沙。若迷神通化道即名迷事。若迷俗諦三昧故名迷理。又若從教以說。則藏別教惑為事。通圓教惑為理。由界內外即離不同。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：于有（存在）提問：『解』（理解）與『位』（修行階位）的差別是什麼？回答：『解』如同佛法般圓融無礙，而『位』則隨著眾生情感的深淺而不同。如果『解』隨著情感來分辨，那麼『解』也會有差別。如果『位』依照佛法來闡明，那麼『位』也會立即平等。現在暫且依奇特的情感來分辨『位』，就佛法來討論『解』，所以相對地闡明它們。所說的『迷事無明』，是相對於『迷理』而言的。然而，對於迷惑佛法而得到事理之名，其意義並非單一。如果以枝末根本各自來論，在枝末中見到的是理惑，思惑是事惑。因為由見惑則會邪計妄法之理，障礙真理；思惑則會貪婪、愚癡、散亂塵埃之事，障礙禪定之事。根本既然名稱不同，有見惑和思惑的分別，那麼事理的意義也和枝末相同。如果枝末根本相對來論，那麼要知道現在文中的見思惑是事惑，無明是理惑。而且見思惑之所以是事惑，是因為迷惑于無明的虛假狀態而生起，虛假狀態是事，所以稱為『迷事』。迷惑稱為『迷境』。因為小乘說，這見思惑迷惑于真諦；大乘詮釋說，真俗二邊的本體是無明，所以稱為『迷事』。這就顯示了根本是迷惑于中實理性而生起，所以稱為『迷理』。以上是約二惑來分辨。如果通盤取三惑相對來論的意義，那麼塵沙惑是事惑，見思二惑是理惑。《凈名記》說：『因為塵沙惑不障礙理，四住惑障礙真，無明惑障礙中。』又，無明是理惑，見思二惑是事惑。《凈名疏》說：『理惑是迷惑于中道，事惑是迷惑於二諦，是法界惑。』又如果三惑各自來論，都貫通事理。例如見思惑，不知道當體就是生死俗諦，所以稱為『迷事』；不瞭解真諦，所以無明。如果迷惑于空假，當體不是智慧而是障礙，就稱為『迷事』；如果迷惑于中道，就稱為『迷理』。如大師所說：『二者都是迷惑，理是智慧的障礙。』又說：『都是迷惑之事，是智慧的障礙塵沙。』如果迷惑于神通化道，就稱為『迷事』；如果迷惑于俗諦三昧，就稱為『迷理』。又如果從教義來說，那麼藏教和別教的惑是事惑，通教和圓教的惑是理惑。因為界內和界外，即空和離，是不同的。

【English Translation】 English version: Someone asks: 'What is the difference between 'understanding' (解, understanding) and 'position' (位, stage of practice)?' The answer is: 'Understanding' is like the Dharma, perfectly integrated and unobstructed, while 'position' varies according to the depth of sentient beings' emotions. If 'understanding' is distinguished according to emotions, then 'understanding' will also have differences. If 'position' is explained according to the Dharma, then 'position' will also be immediately equal. Now, let's temporarily distinguish 'position' based on peculiar emotions and discuss 'understanding' based on the Dharma, so we explain them relatively. The so-called 'delusion of phenomena and ignorance' (迷事無明) is in contrast to 'delusion of principle' (迷理). However, obtaining the names of phenomena and principle from being deluded about the Dharma has multiple meanings. If we discuss the branches and root separately, seeing in the branches is the delusion of principle, and thought is the delusion of phenomena. Because from the delusion of seeing, one will falsely calculate the principle of erroneous Dharma, obstructing the true principle; thought will be greedy, ignorant, and scattered dust, obstructing the matter of samadhi. Since the root has different names, with the distinction between the delusion of seeing and the delusion of thought, the meaning of phenomena and principle is the same as the branches. If we discuss the branches and root relatively, then know that the seeing and thought delusions in the current text are the delusion of phenomena, and ignorance is the delusion of principle. Moreover, the reason why the seeing and thought delusions are the delusion of phenomena is because they arise from being deluded about the false state of ignorance; the false state is a phenomenon, so it is called 'delusion of phenomena'. Delusion is called 'delusion of realm'. Because the Hinayana says that these seeing and thought delusions are deluded about the truth; the Mahayana explains that the essence of the two extremes of truth and convention is ignorance, so it is called 'delusion of phenomena'. This shows that the root is deluded about the middle and real principle, so it is called 'delusion of principle'. The above is distinguishing based on the two delusions. If we take the meaning of discussing the three delusions relatively, then the delusion of countless dusts (塵沙惑) is the delusion of phenomena, and the two delusions of seeing and thought are the delusion of principle. The Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary says: 'Because the delusion of countless dusts does not obstruct principle, the four abodes of delusion (四住惑) obstruct truth, and ignorance obstructs the middle.' Also, ignorance is the delusion of principle, and the two delusions of seeing and thought are the delusion of phenomena. The Vimalakirti Sutra Subcommentary says: 'The delusion of principle is being deluded about the middle way, and the delusion of phenomena is being deluded about the two truths; it is the delusion of the Dharma realm.' Also, if we discuss the three delusions separately, they all penetrate phenomena and principle. For example, the seeing and thought delusions do not know that the present moment is the mundane truth of birth and death, so it is called 'delusion of phenomena'; not understanding the true truth is ignorance. If one is deluded about emptiness and provisionality, the present moment is not wisdom but an obstacle, so it is called 'delusion of phenomena'; if one is deluded about the middle way, it is called 'delusion of principle'. As the Great Master said: 'Both are delusions, principle is the obstacle to wisdom.' Also, he said: 'All are delusions of phenomena, which are the dust of obstacles to wisdom.' If one is deluded about supernatural powers and transformation, it is called 'delusion of phenomena'; if one is deluded about the samadhi of conventional truth, it is called 'delusion of principle'. Also, if we speak from the teachings, then the delusions of the Tripitaka teaching (藏教) and the Distinct teaching (別教) are the delusion of phenomena, and the delusions of the Shared teaching (通教) and the Perfect teaching (圓教) are the delusion of principle. Because within and without the realm, that is, emptiness and detachment, are different.

二又不下妄想。初論同。又不執虛狀為實故說妄想滅者。乃滅枝末事識妄想也。猶見有虛相謂有異心者。業識能執。謂此虛相與凈心異也。此執亦是妄想者。對於枝末故云亦是。亦名虛相者。枝末執實為相。今是虛相。對於不獨名為妄想。故云亦名。若依此義。猶有虛相妄執異心。則根本業識妄想不除。但今滅末妄想時。能解本識妄想虛相。皆是一性不異凈心。故二惑同除也。次復疏者。亦約位豎論。如向文意。

三又此下境界。初論同。不知境即凈心。故使根相不一。斯則根本妄境不除。今除枝末妄境之時。亦同解了根本妄境咸即凈心。既然相相即性。是以萬境皆一。豈非根本妄境同除。今云似與心異。與向謂有異心者。向約能執。今從所執。次復疏如文。

二以此下結意二。初結論同以此等者則顯向文必有子果二惑同除。若向無文。何云以此論之亦少分除耶。若不分分漸除者。約解橫辯。以子顯果也。二但相下結復疏。但相微等者。約位豎論。粗垢先落也。

二今且下。約由果惑滅后子惑得滅。以顯初心二惑同滅。何者。由向雖示斷枝末時。約其解心二惑同滅。為相難見。故今復就約位義辨。由枝惑滅后根本得滅。顯于約解二惑同滅。文為二。初標示。二此義下釋二。初釋果惑滅后子惑

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

二、又，不停止妄想。這與之前的討論相同。又，如果不執著于虛假的表象，認為它是真實的，而說妄想已經滅除，那麼這只是滅除了枝末的、事識上的妄想。就像仍然看到有虛假的表象，就認為有不同的心一樣。業識能夠執著，認為這虛假的表象與清凈心是不同的。這種執著也是妄想，因為它是相對於枝末而言的，所以說『也是』。也可以稱為虛假的表象，因為枝末執著于真實的表象，而現在是虛假的表象。相對於不只是被稱為妄想，所以說『也名』。如果按照這個意義，仍然有虛假的表象，妄執不同的心，那麼根本的業識妄想就沒有去除。但是現在滅除末端妄想的時候，能夠理解本識妄想的虛假表象，都是同一自性，與清凈心沒有分別，所以兩種迷惑同時去除。接下來再次疏解，也是按照位次豎立來討論，就像前面的文意一樣。三、又，這以下所說的境界，與之前的討論相同。不知道境界就是清凈心，所以使得根和相不統一。這樣，根本的妄境就沒有去除。現在去除枝末妄境的時候，也同樣理解了根本妄境都即是清凈心。既然相和相即是自性，因此萬境都是一體。難道不是根本妄境也同時去除了嗎？現在說『好像與心不同』，與之前說的『認為有不同的心』，之前是從能執著的一方來說，現在是從所執著的一方來說。接下來再次疏解，就像文中所說的那樣。二、以這些以下總結意義，分為兩點。第一點，總結之前的討論相同，以這些等等，就顯示了前面的文字必定有子惑和果惑兩種迷惑同時去除。如果前面沒有這樣的文字，怎麼能說用這些來討論也只是少部分去除呢？如果不一部分一部分地逐漸去除，就是從理解的角度橫向辯論，用子惑來顯示果惑。第二點，但是相以下總結再次疏解，但是相微細等等，是從位次豎立來討論，粗糙的污垢先脫落。二、現在暫且以下，從由果惑滅除后子惑才能滅除的角度，來顯示初心兩種迷惑同時滅除。為什麼呢？因為前面雖然顯示斷除枝末的時候，是從理解心的角度來說兩種迷惑同時滅除，因為相難以見到，所以現在再次就位次義來辨析，由枝惑滅除后根本才能滅除，顯示從理解的角度兩種迷惑同時滅除。文分為兩部分。第一部分，標示。第二部分，此義以下解釋，分為兩部分。第一部分，解釋果惑滅除后子惑。

【English Translation】 English version

Furthermore, not ceasing delusional thoughts. This is the same as the previous discussion. Moreover, if one does not cling to illusory appearances as real and says that delusional thoughts have been extinguished, then this only extinguishes the branch-end, consciousness-based delusional thoughts. It is like still seeing illusory appearances and thinking there is a different mind. The karma consciousness (karma-vijñāna) is able to cling, thinking that this illusory appearance is different from the pure mind. This clinging is also a delusional thought, because it is in relation to the branch-ends, so it is said 'also'. It can also be called an illusory appearance, because the branch-ends cling to real appearances, but now it is an illusory appearance. In relation to not just being called a delusional thought, so it is said 'also called'. If according to this meaning, there are still illusory appearances, delusionally clinging to a different mind, then the fundamental karma consciousness delusional thoughts have not been removed. But now, when extinguishing the end delusional thoughts, one can understand the illusory appearance of the fundamental consciousness delusional thoughts, all being the same nature, not different from the pure mind, so the two kinds of delusion are simultaneously removed. Next, further commentary is also discussed according to the vertical establishment of positions, just like the meaning of the previous text.
Furthermore, the realm described below is the same as the previous discussion. Not knowing that the realm is the pure mind, thus causing the roots and appearances to be inconsistent. In this way, the fundamental delusional realm has not been removed. Now, when removing the branch-end delusional realm, one also understands that the fundamental delusional realm is all identical to the pure mind. Since appearances and appearances are identical to nature, therefore all realms are one. Is it not that the fundamental delusional realm is also simultaneously removed? Now saying 'seemingly different from the mind', is related to the previous saying 'thinking there is a different mind', the previous was from the side of the one who clings, now it is from the side of what is clung to. Next, further commentary is like the text.
Using these below to conclude the meaning, divided into two points. The first point, concluding the previous discussion is the same, using these etc., then it shows that the previous text must have both child delusion (子惑) and fruit delusion (果惑) simultaneously removed. If there was no such text before, how could it be said that using these to discuss it is only a small part removed? If not gradually removing part by part, it is horizontally debating from the perspective of understanding, using the child delusion to show the fruit delusion. The second point, but appearance below concludes further commentary, but appearance subtle etc., is discussed from the vertical establishment of positions, the coarse dirt falls off first.
Now, for the time being below, from the perspective of the child delusion being extinguished after the fruit delusion is extinguished, to show that the initial mind has both delusions simultaneously extinguished. Why? Because although it was previously shown that when cutting off the branch-ends, it was from the perspective of understanding the mind that both delusions were simultaneously extinguished, because the appearance is difficult to see, so now again, based on the meaning of position, analyze that the fundamental can only be extinguished after the branch delusion is extinguished, showing that from the perspective of understanding, both delusions are simultaneously extinguished. The text is divided into two parts. The first part, indication. The second part, this meaning below explains, divided into two parts. The first part, explains the child delusion after the fruit delusion is extinguished.

得滅三。初標立。二二義下正釋二。初約能除智同畢竟空智。而為能除。異偏空故。故除末智亦能除根。二二者下。約由粗惑亡故細惑微薄。亡粗惑后子時無明雖即唸唸熏于凈心。復起住地。既照亡粗。故所起惑亦乃輕微。曰無粗惑為能熏故。當知此意約入初住自然斷惑。故云輕微。若非粗惑先亡。如何得有自然斷滅。三以此下結。二如迷下顯二惑同滅二。初舉顯。舉后位之豎。顯初解之橫。二以其下釋同滅義。由子無明既分分滅。則無塵智亦轉轉增。遂使果時無明滅矣。以子解滅。成果證滅。二自迷下滅界外妄惑。釋成二覺為三。初法二。初約分證。明覺于凈心。二約究竟。明凈心自覺。然覺于凈心者從修為功。凈心自覺者從性為功。故分證位齊至等覺。文中祇云無塵之智。即能知彼虛狀。體性惟是一心。等是故義屬覺于凈心。及辨究竟先示等覺分證智成。故云此智即是金剛乃至云此智成已等。然後用此之智即復熏心成妙覺果。故云習氣亦即隨壞乃至虛狀永泯等。既成究竟極證凈心。所以此位乃亡修入。故以凈心而為自覺。荊溪云。除真如外凡有修入悉屬於權。以果位真如究滿為清涼池。同此意矣。初又二。初約住上。二約等覺。初又二。初示所滅妄由業惑薄故。內識利故。外色細故。故實執不起。所云俱者內外共

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本得滅三：首先是標立（確立宗旨）。其次，在『二二義下』開始正式解釋這二二之義。首先，從能去除的角度來說，與畢竟空智相同的智慧，才能作為能去除者。因為它不同於偏空之見。因此，去除末智也能去除根本之智。其次，在『二二者下』，從粗惑消亡導致細惑微弱的角度來說，在粗惑消亡后，子時無明（根本無明）雖然唸唸熏習清凈心，再次生起住地（煩惱的住處），但因為已經照破了粗惑，所以生起的惑也變得輕微。所以說『無粗惑為能熏故』。應當知道，這裡的含義是指進入初住位時，自然斷惑。所以說是輕微。如果不是粗惑先消亡，怎麼會有自然斷滅呢？第三，『以此下』總結。其次，如迷下，顯示二惑一同滅除。首先是舉顯，舉出后位的豎立，顯示初解的橫向。其次，『以其下』解釋一同滅除的意義。由於子無明已經分分滅除，所以無塵智也逐漸增長，最終使得果時的無明滅除。以子位的理解滅除，成就果位的證悟滅除。其次，自迷下，滅除界外妄惑，解釋成就二覺分為三個方面。首先是法，分為兩個方面。首先，從分證的角度，闡明覺悟清凈心。其次，從究竟的角度，闡明清凈心自覺。然而，覺悟清凈心是從修行的功夫而來，清凈心自覺是從本性而來。所以分證位齊至等覺。文中只說『無塵之智』，就能知曉彼虛妄之狀，體性唯一是『一心』。『等』是故，意義屬於覺悟清凈心。以及辨別究竟，首先展示等覺分證智的成就。所以說『此智即是金剛』，乃至說『此智成已』等等。然後用此智慧再次熏習心，成就妙覺果。所以說『習氣亦即隨壞』，乃至『虛狀永泯』等等。既然成就了究竟極證清凈心，所以此位乃是亡修入。所以用清凈心作為自覺。荊溪說，『除了真如之外，凡是有修入都屬於權巧方便。』以果位真如究竟圓滿作為清涼池，與此意相同。首先又分為兩個方面。首先是約住上（十住以上），其次是約等覺。首先又分為兩個方面。首先是顯示所滅的妄想，由於業惑輕薄，內識銳利，外色細微，所以實執不起。所說的『俱』，是指內外共同。

【English Translation】 English version The Three Aspects of Attainment and Extinction: First, there is the establishment of the principle (setting the purpose). Second, starting from 'The Meaning of Two and Two,' the meaning of these two and two is formally explained. First, from the perspective of what can eliminate, the wisdom that is the same as the wisdom of ultimate emptiness can be the eliminator. This is because it is different from the view of biased emptiness. Therefore, eliminating the wisdom of the end can also eliminate the wisdom of the root. Second, in 'The Meaning of Two and Two,' from the perspective of the extinction of coarse delusions leading to the weakening of subtle delusions, after the coarse delusions have been extinguished, although the fundamental ignorance (Avidya) at the moment of the child (the initial stage of ignorance) constantly熏習 (xunxi - influence by repeated exposure) the pure mind, and the住地 (zhudi - dwelling place) of afflictions arises again, because the coarse delusions have already been illuminated and extinguished, the delusions that arise are also slight. Therefore, it is said that 'the absence of coarse delusions is the reason for being able to熏 (xun - influence).' It should be known that the meaning here refers to the natural cutting off of delusions when entering the 初住 (chuzhu - first stage of dwelling). That is why it is said to be slight. If the coarse delusions were not extinguished first, how could there be natural extinction? Third, '以此下 (yici xia - with this below)' concludes. Second, as in 'Like Confusion Below,' it shows that the two delusions are extinguished together. First, there is the raising and showing, raising the vertical establishment of the later position, showing the horizontal direction of the initial understanding. Second, '以其下 (yiqi xia - with its below)' explains the meaning of extinguishing together. Because the fundamental ignorance has been extinguished part by part, the wisdom without dust also gradually increases, eventually causing the fundamental ignorance at the time of fruition to be extinguished. The understanding and extinction in the position of the child accomplishes the enlightenment and extinction in the position of fruition. Second, from 'Self-Confusion Below,' extinguishing the delusions outside the boundary, explaining the accomplishment of the two enlightenments is divided into three aspects. First, there is the Dharma, divided into two aspects. First, from the perspective of partial realization, clarifying the enlightenment of the pure mind. Second, from the perspective of ultimate, clarifying the self-awareness of the pure mind. However, the enlightenment of the pure mind comes from the effort of cultivation, and the self-awareness of the pure mind comes from the nature. Therefore, the position of partial realization is equal to the 等覺 (dengjue - near-perfect enlightenment). The text only says 'wisdom without dust,' which can know the appearance of that illusion, and the essence is only 'one mind.' '等 (deng - equal)' is the reason, the meaning belongs to the enlightenment of the pure mind. And distinguishing the ultimate, first showing the accomplishment of the wisdom of 等覺 (dengjue - near-perfect enlightenment) and partial realization. Therefore, it is said 'This wisdom is the Vajra,' and even says 'This wisdom has been accomplished,' and so on. Then use this wisdom to熏 (xun - influence) the mind again, accomplishing the fruit of wonderful enlightenment. Therefore, it is said 'Habitual energy is also destroyed accordingly,' and even 'The illusory appearance is forever extinguished,' and so on. Since the ultimate and extreme realization of the pure mind has been accomplished, this position is the extinction of cultivation and entry. Therefore, the pure mind is used as self-awareness. Jingxi said, 'Apart from 真如 (zhenru - suchness), all that has cultivation and entry belongs to skillful means.' Taking the ultimate and complete 真如 (zhenru - suchness) in the position of fruition as the cool pond, is the same meaning. First, it is divided into two aspects. First, it is about the 住上 (zhushang - above the ten dwellings), and second, it is about 等覺 (dengjue - near-perfect enlightenment). First, it is divided into two aspects. First, it shows that the delusions to be extinguished are due to the lightness of karma and delusions, the sharpness of inner consciousness, and the subtlety of external colors, so the actual attachment does not arise. The '俱 (ju - together)' mentioned refers to the inner and outer together.

說。似色似識者。今屬當分。名似非同。前文指於六七。四念處並輔行引唯識云。唯是一識。復分二種。一者分別。二無分別。分別識者名為識識。無分別者名似塵識。一切世間為似塵識之所成。三無性等當知。云識識者。即迷妄之上覆論迷妄。乃同下文分別性也。無分別識者即第八識。名似塵識也。正同今文。前以六七為似識者。乃從克實。不從當分。若無此義。二文難通。二無塵下示能滅智。即能覺凈心之智也。還復熏心者。以智熏心也。二如是下等覺無明住地。幽盡者。幽盡也。即能等者。用無塵智慧覺凈心心外法虛境。復性惟是一心。

二此智下約究竟明凈心自覺又二。初示果證。此智等者。乃指等覺後心無塵為金剛智。無塵之義有二。一無實塵。顯塵惟識。二無像塵。顯塵惟真。今從后義也。無塵約法。從離過立。金剛約喻。從智體名。又無塵智通。通真似故。金剛智局。局等覺故。亦可俱通。此智成已者。等覺智成也。即復熏心者。用此之智復熏究竟凈心也。一念無明習氣者。一者即指正使名為習氣。以最後一念無明微細名習氣故。二者一念無明並於家習。以其最後無明盡故習氣隨壞。成妙覺果。若以此文證知。凈名云。習氣者乃是最後一品無明。並於家習同名習氣則為使矣。何者。若云最後一品

無明正使已盡。惟有無明之家習者。且最凈無明既盡。則習氣合當隨壞。如何正盡復存家習。種子習氣壞者。變易之因究盡也。虛狀永泯者。變易之果極亡也。

二虛狀下凈心自覺三。初示。心體寂照者。心即凈心。照即是覺。以由凈心寂體自覺。故云寂照。體證真如者。由覺于凈心。名用證真如。以用證體故。今凈心自覺。名體證真如。由即體自證故。二何以下釋二。初約能所不二釋。二何以下約智外無真釋。若智外有真。可云覺于凈心。既能覺智外別無于真。乃即真為智。故凈心自覺。三此即下結。約體用不二結於前義。體是凈心。用是覺智。體用若二。可云以用覺體。是覺于凈心。今既用即是體。故自性自覺自體自證。即凈心自覺。智者亦云。內性自照。不從他知。

二如似下喻。水靜是潤。內照是照。潤體照用。體用義殊。故云照潤義殊。而常湛一者。由照潤皆水。故照潤是覺于凈心。潤照是凈心自覺。

三心亦下合。潤體照用即寂照義分。而常湛一即體融無二。照潤潤照即照寂寂照故。照即潤故。即照寂順體。潤即照故。即寂照順用。照于潤即照自體。名為覺于凈心。潤自照即體自照。名為凈心自覺。

三故言下結。故言二義一體者。由前答文初標示云。雖言二義體無別也。以無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無明（avidyā，指對實相的無知）的正使已經斷盡，只剩下無明之家的習氣。然而，最清凈的無明既然已經斷盡，那麼這些習氣理應隨之消滅。為什麼正使斷盡后，反而還存在這些殘餘的習氣呢？種子習氣如果壞滅，那麼變易生死（saṃsāra-pariṇāma，指由業力導致的生死流轉）的因也就徹底斷絕了。虛妄的相狀如果永遠泯滅，那麼變易生死的果也就徹底消失了。在『二虛狀下凈心自覺三』中，首先是開示。『心體寂照』，心就是凈心，照就是覺。因為由凈心的寂靜本體自然覺悟，所以說『寂照』。『體證真如』，因為覺悟于凈心，所以稱為用以證得真如。因為用以證得本體，所以現在說凈心自覺，就是本體自證真如。因為即體而自證的緣故。在『二何以下釋二』中，首先是從能所不二的角度解釋。如果智外有真，就可以說覺悟于凈心。既然能覺的智慧之外沒有別的真實存在，那麼就是以真為智，所以說凈心自覺。在『三此即下結』中，是從體用不二的角度總結前面的意義。體是凈心，用是覺智。如果體用是二，就可以說用以覺悟體，就是覺悟于凈心。現在既然用就是體，所以自性自覺，自體自證，就是凈心自覺。智者也說，內性自照，不從他知。在『二如似下喻』中，用水的例子來比喻。水靜是潤，內照是照。潤是本體，照是用。本體和用的意義不同，所以說照和潤的意義不同。『而常湛一』，因為照和潤都是水，所以照和潤是覺悟于凈心，潤和照是凈心自覺。在『三心亦下合』中，將水的比喻與心性結合。潤是本體，照是用，這就是寂和照的意義區分。『而常湛一』就是本體融合而無二。照和潤，潤和照，就是照寂和寂照。照就是潤，就是照寂順應本體。潤就是照，就是寂照順應用。照于潤就是照自體，名為覺悟于凈心。潤自照就是體自照，名為凈心自覺。在『三故言下結』中，總結。所以說二義一體，因為前面回答的文句中，一開始就標明說，雖然說了二義，但本體沒有差別。因為沒有。

【English Translation】 English version: The fundamental ignorance (avidyā, referring to the lack of knowledge of reality) has been completely eradicated, leaving only the habitual tendencies of the 'family' of ignorance. However, since the purest ignorance has been exhausted, these habitual tendencies should naturally disappear along with it. Why do these residual habits persist even after the fundamental ignorance has been eliminated? If the seed habits are destroyed, then the cause of the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra-pariṇāma, referring to the cycle of birth and death caused by karma) is completely cut off. If the illusory appearances are forever extinguished, then the result of the cycle of birth and death is completely eliminated. In 'Two, illusory appearances, below, pure mind self-awareness, three', first is the indication. 'The essence of mind is stillness and illumination', mind is pure mind, illumination is awareness. Because the still essence of pure mind is naturally aware, it is called 'stillness and illumination'. 'Embodying the Suchness', because of awareness of the pure mind, it is called using to embody the Suchness. Because using to embody the essence, now saying pure mind self-awareness, is the essence self-embodying the Suchness. Because it is self-embodying from the essence. In 'Two, why below, explaining two', first is explaining from the perspective of the non-duality of subject and object. If there is truth outside of wisdom, it can be said to be awareness of the pure mind. Since there is no other truth outside of the wisdom that can be aware, then it is taking truth as wisdom, so it is said pure mind self-awareness. In 'Three, this immediately below, concluding', it is concluding the previous meaning from the perspective of the non-duality of essence and function. Essence is pure mind, function is awareness-wisdom. If essence and function are two, it can be said to use to be aware of the essence, which is awareness of the pure mind. Now since function is essence, therefore self-nature is self-aware, self-body is self-embodying, which is pure mind self-awareness. The wise also say, inner nature self-illuminates, not knowing from others. In 'Two, like similar below, metaphor', using the example of water as a metaphor. Water stillness is moisture, inner illumination is illumination. Moisture is the essence, illumination is the function. The meaning of essence and function are different, so it is said the meaning of illumination and moisture are different. 'And always still one', because illumination and moisture are both water, so illumination and moisture are awareness of the pure mind, moisture and illumination are pure mind self-awareness. In 'Three, mind also below, combining', combining the metaphor of water with mind-nature. Moisture is the essence, illumination is the function, this is the meaning distinction of stillness and illumination. 'And always still one' is the essence merging and non-dual. Illumination and moisture, moisture and illumination, are illumination-stillness and stillness-illumination. Illumination is moisture, which is illumination-stillness according with the essence. Moisture is illumination, which is stillness-illumination according with the function. Illumination of moisture is illumination of self-essence, called awareness of the pure mind. Moisture self-illuminates is essence self-illuminates, called pure mind self-awareness. In 'Three, therefore saying below, concluding', concluding. Therefore saying the two meanings are one essence, because in the previous answer, it was initially indicated that although two meanings were spoken of, the essence is without difference. Because there is not.

分別智為覺者。結覺于凈心也。凈心具智性者。結凈心自覺也。

四此就下總結大科般若佛性也。

二又此下約緣因解脫佛性。又此凈心至巧用之性者。此指能具福巧之性也。為凈業至報應二佛者。全能具福之性而為報佛。乃藏塵相好之報也。全能具巧之性而為應佛。乃隨物示現之應也。此二全解脫性為解脫事也。故以此心為佛性者。乃以平等清凈之心為報應二佛之性也。

二又復下重釋。初釋體二。初約修德對治不覺顯體為覺四。初約修對治。又復不覺滅故說心為覺者。滅無明也。動義息故說心不動者。滅妄想也。虛相泯故言心無相者。滅境界也。因無明妄想境界故。此心體為覺為息為無相也。二然此下克體自論。然此心體非覺乃至非無相。若爾則不可以心體為覺。如何卻稱為佛性耶。故第三雖然下釋出所以。正用對名以召平等。雖然者。領上生下。縱奪之辭也。其體雖然非不覺與覺。若對不覺滅。說此心體為覺亦無所妨。四此就下結其得名。此就對治出障心體以論于覺者。正是非覺非不覺名為覺。不同智用而覺。覺覺為覺。二又復下。性德本無不覺顯心為覺二。初正釋四。初約本無不覺。不約修德對治不覺。真約性德本無不覺說心為覺。本寂乃不動之異名。平等是無相之別稱。業動寂然轉現平

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：分別智是覺悟者（Buddha）的體現。覺悟與清凈心相連結。清凈心具備智慧的本性，因此清凈心能自覺。

這是對前面般若（Prajna，智慧）佛性（Buddha-nature）這一大科的總結。

又，下面是關於緣因（causal condition）解脫佛性的解釋。這裡的清凈心，指的是具備福德和巧妙作用的本性。具備福德的本性就成為報佛（reward body of Buddha），也就是蘊藏著塵世間美好相貌的報身。具備巧妙作用的本性就成為應佛（manifestation body of Buddha），也就是隨順事物而示現的應身。這兩種本性完全是解脫的體現。所以，以清凈心為佛性，就是以平等清凈的心作為報身佛和應身佛的本性。

又，下面再次解釋。首先解釋體性，分為兩部分。第一部分，通過修德對治不覺來顯現覺悟的體性，分為四個方面。首先，從修持對治的角度來說，因為不覺滅除了，所以說心是覺悟的。因為動的意義止息了，所以說心是不動的。因為虛假的現象消失了，所以說心是沒有相的。因為有無明（ignorance）、妄想（delusion）、境界（realm），所以這個心體才表現爲覺悟、止息、無相。

然而，下面從體性本身來論述。然而，這個心體並非覺悟，乃至並非無相。如果這樣，那麼就不可以用心體作為覺悟，為什麼卻稱之為佛性呢？所以，第三部分，雖然，解釋了其中的原因。正是用對治之名來召示平等。雖然，是承上啟下，縱奪之辭。它的體性雖然不是不覺與覺悟，但如果針對不覺的滅除，說這個心體是覺悟也沒有妨礙。

這是就對治去除障礙的心體來論述覺悟，正是非覺非不覺才名為覺悟，不同於智慧的作用而覺悟，覺悟覺悟才成為覺悟。第二部分，又，下面，性德（intrinsic virtue）本來沒有不覺，顯現心為覺悟，分為兩部分。首先是正式解釋，分為四個方面。首先，從本來沒有不覺的角度來說，不從修德對治不覺的角度，而是真正從性德本來沒有不覺的角度來說心是覺悟。本寂（original stillness）是不動的另一種說法，平等（equality）是無相的另一種稱謂，業動寂然轉現平等。

【English Translation】 English version: Discriminative wisdom is the embodiment of the Awakened One (Buddha). Awakening is connected to the pure mind. The pure mind possesses the nature of wisdom, therefore the pure mind is self-aware.

This is a summary of the major category of Prajna (wisdom) and Buddha-nature.

Furthermore, the following explains the Buddha-nature of causal condition liberation. Here, the pure mind refers to the nature of possessing merit and skillful function. The nature of possessing merit becomes the Reward Body of Buddha (Sambhogakaya), which is the reward body containing the beautiful appearances of the world. The nature of possessing skillful function becomes the Manifestation Body of Buddha (Nirmanakaya), which is the manifestation that accords with things. These two natures are entirely the embodiment of liberation. Therefore, taking the pure mind as Buddha-nature means taking the equal and pure mind as the nature of the Reward Body Buddha and the Manifestation Body Buddha.

Furthermore, the following re-explains. First, explain the essence, divided into two parts. The first part, through cultivating virtue to counteract non-awakening, reveals the essence of awakening, divided into four aspects. First, from the perspective of cultivating to counteract. Because non-awakening is extinguished, it is said that the mind is awakened. Because the meaning of movement ceases, it is said that the mind is unmoving. Because false phenomena disappear, it is said that the mind is without form. Because of ignorance (Avidya), delusion (Maya), and realm (Vishaya), this mind-essence manifests as awakening, cessation, and formlessness.

However, the following discusses the essence itself. However, this mind-essence is not awakening, and even not without form. If so, then the mind-essence cannot be taken as awakening, so why is it called Buddha-nature? Therefore, the third part, 'although,' explains the reason. It is precisely using the name of counteraction to summon equality. 'Although' is a transitional phrase, both accepting the above and introducing the below. Although its essence is neither non-awakening nor awakening, if it is said that this mind-essence is awakening in response to the extinction of non-awakening, there is no harm.

This is discussing awakening from the perspective of the mind-essence that counteracts and removes obstacles. It is precisely that which is neither awakening nor non-awakening that is called awakening, different from awakening through the function of wisdom, awakening awakening becomes awakening. The second part, 'furthermore,' below, the intrinsic virtue originally has no non-awakening, revealing the mind as awakening, divided into two parts. First is the formal explanation, divided into four aspects. First, from the perspective of originally having no non-awakening, not from the perspective of cultivating virtue to counteract non-awakening, but truly from the perspective of the intrinsic virtue originally having no non-awakening, it is said that the mind is awakening. Original stillness (Adi-shanti) is another name for unmoving, equality (Samata) is another term for formlessness, karmic movement is still and silently transforms and manifests equality.

等亦同不覺。其性本亡豈因修滅。二然其下。克體自論則性德無名也。三雖然下釋出所以。亦以對名而召平等。以本無不覺說心為覺也。問。與向對名以召平等何殊。答。意一義異。意一者。由性德之體凡有名字。皆從對立以召平等。言義異者。向約性德對滅修中不覺以召心體為覺。今約性德本無修中不覺以召心體為覺。故滅修與本無為義異也。四此就下結其得名。凡聖不二心體者。乃取平等法身佛性。不取差別緣了佛性。問。本無不覺者。且不覺即無明。應本無無明耶。若本無無明。如何本具九界。答。不可一向本有今有。亦可得云本無今有。如智者解嘆然火起乃云。本無今有。本無此苦。無明故有。又凈名疏云。眾生本性清凈無有癡愛。即同今文字無不覺。楞嚴阿難問佛六道云。世尊。此道為複本求自有。為是眾生妄習生起。佛答云。妄想發生。非本來有。以此諸文而求其旨。由順悉檀。就於本今。談此有無非一向爾。或云。本有性德。不覺而無。修中不覺。今曰。性德本具。具法不周。以修不覺。非本有故。或曰。本有不覺之法體。但無不覺之妄情。今曰。亦顯性德本具不周。以不覺之情非本具故。今立義者。一性之體為能具。萬法之用為所具。論所具之用則本有不覺。明能具之體則本無不覺。今論性體。故曰

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『等亦同不覺』，同樣也是不覺悟的狀態。其自性本來就空寂，怎麼會因為修行才消滅呢？『二然其下』，從本體上來說，自性之德本來就沒有名字。『三雖然下釋出所以』，解釋了這樣說的原因。也是因為相對立的名相才顯現出平等。因為本來就沒有不覺悟，所以說心是覺悟的。問：這和前面所說的，通過相對立的名相來顯現平等有什麼不同？答：意思相同，但含義不同。意思相同是指，從自性之德的本體來說，凡是有名字的事物，都是通過相對立來顯現平等。含義不同是指，前面是從自性之德，相對於滅修中的不覺悟，來顯現心體是覺悟。現在是從自性之德，本來就沒有修行中的不覺悟，來顯現心體是覺悟。所以，滅修和本無，在含義上是不同的。『四此就下結其得名』，總結了這樣命名的原因。凡夫和聖人不二的心體，是取其平等法身佛性，而不是取其差別緣了佛性。問：『本無不覺』，那麼不覺就是無明，應該本來就沒有無明才對。如果本來就沒有無明，怎麼會本來就具有九界？答：不能一概而論地說本來就有或者現在才有，也可以說本來沒有現在才有。比如智者大師解釋『然火起』時說，本來沒有現在才有，本來沒有這種苦，因為無明才產生。又《凈名疏》說，眾生的本性清凈，沒有癡愛，和現在的文字『本無不覺』相同。《楞嚴經》中，阿難問佛六道輪迴，『世尊，這些道是本來就有的，還是眾生虛妄的習氣產生的？』佛回答說，『是虛妄的妄想產生的，不是本來就有的。』根據這些經文來探求其中的旨意，因為順應世俗的說法，就從本來和現在來談論這種有無，不是一概而論的。或者說，本來具有性德，沒有不覺悟；修行中才有不覺悟。現在說，性德本來就具有，但具足得不周遍，因為修行中的不覺悟，不是本來就有的。或者說，本來具有不覺悟的法體，但沒有不覺悟的虛妄情識。現在說，也顯示了性德本來具足得不周遍，因為不覺悟的情識不是本來就具有的。現在立義是，一性的本體是能具，萬法的用是所具。論所具的用，則本來有不覺悟；明能具的體，則本來沒有不覺悟。現在論的是性體，所以說

【English Translation】 English version 'Deng yi tong bu jue' (等亦同不覺), equally, it is also a state of non-awakening. Its nature is originally empty and still, how could it be extinguished by cultivation? 'Er ran qi xia' (二然其下), from the perspective of the essence, the virtue of self-nature originally has no name. 'San sui ran xia shi chu suo yi' (三雖然下釋出所以), explains the reason for saying this. It is also because of the opposing names that equality is revealed. Because there is originally no non-awakening, it is said that the mind is awakening. Question: What is the difference between this and what was said earlier, using opposing names to reveal equality? Answer: The meaning is the same, but the connotation is different. The meaning is the same in that, from the perspective of the essence of the virtue of self-nature, all things that have names are revealed through opposition to show equality. The connotation is different in that, earlier, it was from the virtue of self-nature, relative to the non-awakening in extinction and cultivation, to reveal that the mind-essence is awakening. Now it is from the virtue of self-nature, originally without the non-awakening in cultivation, to reveal that the mind-essence is awakening. Therefore, extinction-cultivation and original non-existence are different in connotation. 'Si ci jiu xia jie qi de ming' (四此就下結其得名), summarizes the reason for this naming. The mind-essence that is non-dual between ordinary beings and sages takes its equality from Dharmakaya (法身) Buddha-nature (佛性), rather than taking its differentiated conditioned Buddha-nature. Question: 'Ben wu bu jue' (本無不覺), then non-awakening is ignorance (無明), it should be that there is originally no ignorance. If there is originally no ignorance, how can it originally possess the Nine Realms? Answer: It cannot be generalized to say that it originally exists or exists now, it can also be said that it originally did not exist but now exists. For example, when Master Zhiyi (智者大師) explained 'ran huo qi' (然火起), he said, originally there was none but now there is, originally there was no such suffering, it is produced because of ignorance. Also, the 『Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary』 says that the original nature of sentient beings is pure, without delusion and love, which is the same as the current text 'ben wu bu jue' (本無不覺). In the 『Surangama Sutra』, Ananda (阿難) asked the Buddha about the Six Paths of Rebirth, 'World Honored One, are these paths originally existing, or are they produced by the false habits of sentient beings?' The Buddha replied, 'They are produced by false thoughts, they are not originally existing.' According to these sutras to explore the meaning, because it conforms to the conventional way of speaking, it discusses this existence and non-existence from the original and the present, it is not generalized. Or it is said that it originally possesses the virtue of self-nature, without non-awakening; non-awakening only exists in cultivation. Now it is said that the virtue of self-nature is originally possessed, but it is not fully possessed, because the non-awakening in cultivation is not originally existing. Or it is said that it originally possesses the essence of non-awakening, but there is no false consciousness of non-awakening. Now it is said that it also shows that the virtue of self-nature is originally possessed but not fully possessed, because the consciousness of non-awakening is not originally possessed. Now the established meaning is that the essence of one nature is the able-to-possess, and the function of all dharmas is the possessed. Discussing the possessed function, there is originally non-awakening; clarifying the essence of the able-to-possess, there is originally no non-awakening. Now discussing the essence of nature, therefore it is said

本無。若論性用。法法本具。豈外修情。復了體用一如。本今有無皆非思議。

二料揀凡夫即佛二。初問。二答三。初偏據性體平等云擬對說為覺者。然此之名雖從對得。今取名下所召之體。體是平等。故無修不修。二又復下以體融事。心佛眾生有三屬事故高下差別。今以理融故無差別。既然無差則何用修為。三然復下正約常同常異為答。以常同故不用修。以常異故故須修。常同是體。常異是用。體則平等。用則殊分。問。差別緣起是無常。何云法爾不壞。答。以不壞此無常故。若壞此無常。則法界法門祇有于常而無無常。況法界全。具所以常常．常無常也。故云不壞。莫謂非是無常云不壞也。

二料揀本無不覺二。初問。二答二。初正答。即同前文二義。何者。若心體至應更不覺者。乃凈不同染也。故證者無有不覺。凡夫至應為覺者。乃染不同凈也。故未證者不名為覺。二再難二。初問。二答三。初體無用有。心性緣起者。即是用有。或以心性緣起修惡。法體為不除者。今文既云心性緣起。復云有滅。豈非亦除。二又復下實無虛有。不覺體虛乃非實有。以實言之非但本無。況今示無。然非不有者。以虛相言之則有不覺。亦是即無離有。以無明即法性故。有即非有。若從離說然非不有。三但證下順無違有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：本性本無（本無：指萬法的本性空無）。如果從體性和作用來說，一切法本來就具備（法法本具：指一切法都具備本性和作用），哪裡還需要向外去修飾情識呢？進一步理解體和用是一如的，本來和現在、有和無，都不是思議可以理解的（皆非思議：指超出思維和語言的範圍）。

二、辨析凡夫和佛的差別，分為兩部分：第一部分是提問，第二部分是回答，回答又分為三部分。第一部分，偏重於從體性平等的角度來說，如果有所擬對和言說，那就是覺悟者了。然而，『覺者』這個名稱雖然是從對待而得來的，現在取的是這個名稱所指代的本體。本體是平等的，所以沒有修與不修的分別。第二部分，『又復下』，從本體融合事相的角度來說，心、佛、眾生有三種不同的屬性，所以有高下差別。現在用理來融合，所以沒有差別。既然沒有差別，那又何必修行呢？第三部分，『然復下』，正式從常同和常異的角度來回答。因為常同，所以不用修；因為常異，所以需要修。常同是體，常異是用。體是平等的，用是不同的。問：差別緣起是無常的，為什麼說是『法爾不壞』（法爾不壞：指事物本性如此，不會毀壞）呢？答：因為不壞這個無常的緣故。如果壞了這個無常，那麼法界法門就只有常而沒有無常了。況且法界是全部具備的，所以既有常，也有無常。所以說『不壞』，不要認為不是無常就說它不壞。

二、辨析本來沒有不覺悟的狀態，分為兩部分：第一部分是提問，第二部分是回答，回答分為兩部分。第一部分是正面回答，和前面的文義相同，哪兩種呢？如果心體達到了，本應不再有不覺悟的狀態，這是因為清凈不同於染污。所以證悟者沒有不覺悟的。凡夫達到了，本應成為覺悟者，這是因為染污不同於清凈。所以沒有證悟的人不稱為覺悟者。第二部分是再次提問，分為兩部分：第一部分是提問，第二部分是回答，回答分為三部分。第一部分是體無用有，心性緣起，這就是用有。或者說心性緣起而修惡，法體難道不能去除嗎？現在經文中既然說心性緣起，又說有滅，難道不是也去除了嗎？第二部分，『又復下』，實際上沒有而虛幻地有，不覺的本體是虛幻的，所以不是實有。從實在的角度來說，非但本來沒有，何況現在顯示沒有。然而並非沒有，從虛幻的相來說，則有不覺，這也是即無離有。因為無明就是法性，所以有即非有。如果從離的角度來說，然而並非沒有。第三部分，『但證下』，順應無而違背有。

【English Translation】 English version: Originally, there is nothing (本無: refers to the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas). If we discuss nature and function, all dharmas are inherently complete (法法本具: refers to all dharmas possessing both nature and function), so why would we need to externally cultivate emotions? Further understanding that the substance and function are one and the same, the original and the present, existence and non-existence, are all beyond comprehension (皆非思議: refers to being beyond the scope of thought and language).

Two, distinguishing between ordinary beings and Buddhas, divided into two parts: the first part is the question, and the second part is the answer, which is further divided into three parts. The first part emphasizes that from the perspective of the equality of substance, if there is any comparison or speech, then that is an enlightened one (覺者). However, although the name 'enlightened one' is derived from duality, what is taken now is the substance that the name refers to. The substance is equal, so there is no distinction between cultivation and non-cultivation. The second part, '又復下', is from the perspective of the substance merging with phenomena. Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings have three different attributes, so there are differences in high and low. Now, using principle to merge, there is no difference. Since there is no difference, then why cultivate? The third part, '然復下', formally answers from the perspective of constant sameness and constant difference. Because of constant sameness, there is no need to cultivate; because of constant difference, there is a need to cultivate. Constant sameness is the substance, and constant difference is the function. The substance is equal, and the function is different. Question: The arising of differences is impermanent, so why is it said to be 'naturally indestructible' (法爾不壞: refers to the inherent nature of things, which will not be destroyed)? Answer: Because this impermanence is not destroyed. If this impermanence were destroyed, then the Dharma realm would only have permanence and no impermanence. Moreover, the Dharma realm is fully equipped, so there is both permanence and impermanence. Therefore, it is said to be 'indestructible'; do not think that it is not impermanent and therefore said to be indestructible.

Two, distinguishing the original state of non-awakening, divided into two parts: the first part is the question, and the second part is the answer, which is divided into two parts. The first part is the direct answer, which is the same as the previous text, which two? If the mind-essence is attained, there should no longer be a state of non-awakening, because purity is different from defilement. Therefore, those who are enlightened have no non-awakening. If ordinary beings attain it, they should become enlightened ones, because defilement is different from purity. Therefore, those who are not enlightened are not called enlightened ones. The second part is the re-question, divided into two parts: the first part is the question, and the second part is the answer, which is divided into three parts. The first part is that the substance is without function, but the function exists. The arising of mind-nature is the existence of function. Or, if mind-nature arises and evil is cultivated, can the substance of the Dharma not be removed? Now that the sutra says that mind-nature arises, and also says that there is extinction, is it not also removed? The second part, '又復下', is that in reality there is nothing, but there is illusory existence. The substance of non-awakening is illusory, so it is not real existence. From the perspective of reality, not only is there originally nothing, but it is also shown to be nothing now. However, it is not that there is nothing, from the perspective of illusory appearance, there is non-awakening, which is also the same as being without separation from existence. Because ignorance is the Dharma-nature, existence is non-existence. If speaking from the perspective of separation, then it is not that there is nothing. The third part, '但證下', accords with non-existence and opposes existence.

。順則凈用如體。故無不覺。違則逆體為染。故有不覺。

二問下釋用二。初正釋佛性二。初問。二答。乃示別有因緣。何者。然其心性理恒平等。遇熏緣異遂成悟迷。今從凈熏乃得成智。故指福智二種凈業。對所熏性為因緣也。智體是性。雖有照能。若無凈業。所熏此用不能顯現。然能熏凈業非心外有。亦全性為。問。既云能熏亦全性為。如何復云別有因緣。答。克從法體有染有凈。體是緣生非染非凈。體是理性祇由性體能具緣生。是故緣生非生即名性具。從當體故。能熏凈業名曰緣生。以即性故。故此凈業非心外有。從當體故。性非緣生。以隨修故。故云即能顯彼二性令成事用。若得此旨。在情在智或根或塵。法法緣生。法法性具。分別融會理無不通。

二例示無明性二。初問。二答。引楞伽。雲實性者。驗知性惡性善之二性者祇一性也。

四釋法身二。初問。二答二。初總示名義。法以功能為義者。或云軌則為義。若一往分之。軌則言其體。如方圓長短皆與模範不違。故言法也。功能言其用。由有軌則之功能。故使合其模範。身以依止為義者。或云以聚為義。一往分之。聚義者乃從當體。如聚五陰必成身。依止義者乃以此身為彼所依。如所依事皆依于身。又聚五陰以成身。依五陰以成身。不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：順應（佛性）則能清凈地運用它，如同它本來的體性一樣。所以沒有不能覺察的。違背（佛性）則會逆反其體性而變為染污，所以會有不能覺察的。

二問以下解釋『用』分為兩部分。首先，正式解釋佛性，分為兩部分：先提問，后回答，從而揭示別有因緣。什麼是別有因緣呢？這是因為心性的理體恒常平等，遇到不同的熏習因緣就會形成覺悟或迷惑。現在從清凈的熏習才能成就智慧，所以指出福德和智慧兩種清凈的行業，對於所熏習的自性來說就是因緣。智慧的本體就是自性，雖然有照了的功能，如果沒有清凈的行業，所熏習的這種作用就不能顯現。然而，能熏習的清凈行業並非心外之物，也是完全由自性所為。問：既然說能熏習也是完全由自性所為，為什麼又說別有因緣呢？答：嚴格來說，從法體上講有染污有清凈，體是因緣所生，非染非凈。體是理性，只因爲自性本體能夠具備因緣生法，所以說因緣生法並非生滅，就叫做自性本具。從當體來說，能熏習的清凈行業叫做因緣所生，因為它就是自性。所以這種清凈行業並非心外之物，從當體來說，自性並非因緣所生，因為它隨順修行而顯現，所以說它能夠顯現那兩種自性，使之成就事用。如果領會了這個宗旨，無論是在情識還是在智慧，無論是在根還是在塵，法法都是因緣所生，法法都是自性本具，分別融會貫通，道理就沒有不通達的。

第二，舉例說明無明（avidyā）的自性，分為兩部分：先提問，后回答。引用《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra），說『實性』，驗證可知自性惡和自性善這兩種自性，其實只是一種自性。

四，解釋法身（Dharmakāya），分為兩部分：先提問，后回答，分為兩部分：首先，總的說明名稱和含義。法以功能為意義，或者說以軌則為意義。如果簡單地劃分，軌則說的是它的體性，比如方、圓、長、短都與模範不違背，所以叫做『法』。功能說的是它的作用，因為有軌則的功能，所以能夠符合模範。身以依止為意義，或者說以聚集為意義。簡單地劃分，聚集的意義是從當體來說，比如聚集五陰（pañca-skandha）必定形成身。依止的意義是指用這個身體作為其他事物的所依，比如所依的事情都依于身體。又，聚集五陰以形成身，依靠五陰以形成身，不

【English Translation】 English version: To accord with (Buddha-nature) is to use it purely, just like its original nature. Therefore, there is nothing that cannot be perceived. To go against (Buddha-nature) is to rebel against its nature and become defiled, so there will be things that cannot be perceived.

The following two questions explain 'use' in two parts. First, formally explain Buddha-nature, in two parts: first ask, then answer, thereby revealing that there are separate causes and conditions. What are these separate causes and conditions? This is because the principle of mind-nature is always equal, but encountering different熏習(xūnxí, perfuming/influencing) causes and conditions will form enlightenment or delusion. Now, only from pure 熏習(xūnxí) can wisdom be achieved, so point out the two kinds of pure karma of merit and wisdom, which are the causes and conditions for the nature being 熏習(xūnxí). The substance of wisdom is nature. Although it has the ability to illuminate, if there is no pure karma, the use of what is 熏習(xūnxí) cannot manifest. However, the pure karma that can 熏習(xūnxí) is not external to the mind, but is also entirely done by the nature. Question: Since it is said that the ability to 熏習(xūnxí) is also entirely done by the nature, why is it said that there are separate causes and conditions? Answer: Strictly speaking, from the perspective of the Dharma-body, there is defilement and purity. The body is produced by causes and conditions, neither defiled nor pure. The body is principle, only because the nature-body can possess the arising of conditions, so it is said that the arising of conditions is not arising and ceasing, and is called the inherent nature. From the perspective of the entity, the pure karma that can 熏習(xūnxí) is called the arising of conditions, because it is identical to the nature. Therefore, this pure karma is not external to the mind. From the perspective of the entity, the nature is not produced by conditions, because it manifests according to cultivation, so it is said that it can manifest those two natures, making them achieve function and use. If you understand this principle, whether it is in emotions or in wisdom, whether it is in the roots or in the dust, every dharma is produced by conditions, and every dharma is inherent in the nature. If you distinguish and integrate them, there is no principle that is not understood.

Second, illustrate the nature of ignorance (avidyā), in two parts: first ask, then answer. Quoting the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, saying 'true nature', verifying that the two natures of self-nature evil and self-nature good are actually only one nature.

Four, explain the Dharmakāya, in two parts: first ask, then answer, in two parts: First, generally explain the name and meaning. Dharma is defined by function, or by rules. If we simply divide it, rules refer to its substance, such as square, round, long, and short, all of which do not violate the model, so it is called 'Dharma'. Function refers to its use, because it has the function of rules, so it can conform to the model. Body is defined by reliance, or by aggregation. Simply dividing it, the meaning of aggregation is from the perspective of the entity, such as the aggregation of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha) will inevitably form a body. The meaning of reliance refers to using this body as the basis for other things, such as the things that are relied upon all rely on the body. Also, the aggregation of the five skandhas forms the body, relying on the five skandhas to form the body, not

離五陰當體為依。當體為聚故。法身者。聚理法為身。依理法為身。聚與依止皆從理性當體而名。今此法身離而言之。乃依中道一性之法為身。即而言之。乃依萬法為身。

二以此下解釋二。初約隨染二。初明隨染二。初釋二。初約功能釋法二。初通示。以此心體等者。即平等一效能隨於染。祇由有此隨染功能。故為一切染法熏習。性若無能。縱諸法熏則不能攝持並不能顯現。從總說者有隨染之功能。從別說者有攝持之功能。有顯現之功能。今從總說故乃通示隨染功能。二即以下別釋二。初有攝持功能。即以此心隨染者。應以此句冠下。顯現正是一性。由有能隨修染之功。故能攝持熏習之氣。一性為能攝持。修染之氣為所攝持。由此一性有攝持之功能。故名為法。二復能下。有顯現功能。以一性為能現。染法為所現。由此一性有能現之功能故名為法。二即此下。約依止釋身。即此心性等者。以此平等一性乃為能持能現差別之性。並所持所現因果染事。為此能所共所依止故名為身。與心不一不異者。能持能現差別之性。與此一性體同義異。以義異故不一。體同故不異。所持所現因果染事。與此一性有即有離。離故不一。即故不異。二故名下結。

二此能下成藏識三。初示。二識二。初示二。初能持與所持和

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本離五陰（色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素）當體就是所依之處。當體即是聚合之故。法身（佛的真身）是指聚集真理法則作為身，依靠真理法則作為身。聚集與依靠都從理性本體而得名。現在這個法身，分開來說，是依靠中道一性的法則作為身；合起來說，是依靠萬法作為身。

二、以下解釋二。首先是隨染，分為二。首先闡明隨染，分為二。首先解釋，分為二。首先從功能上解釋法，分為二。首先總的指示：『以此心體等』，即平等一性的心體能夠隨順於染污。正因為有這種隨染的功能，所以能夠被一切染法所熏習。如果自性沒有這種能力，即使被諸法熏習也不能夠攝持，並且不能夠顯現。從總體上說，具有隨染的功能；從分別上說，具有攝持的功能，具有顯現的功能。現在從總體上說，所以總的指示隨染的功能。二、『即以下』分別解釋，分為二。首先是有攝持的功能：『即以此心隨染者』，應該用這句話來概括下面所說的。顯現正是一性，由於具有能夠隨順修習染污的功能，所以能夠攝持熏習之氣。一性是能攝持者，修習染污之氣是所攝持者。由此一性具有攝持的功能，所以名為法。二、『復能下』，有顯現的功能。以一性為能現，染法為所現。由此一性具有能顯現的功能，所以名為法。二、『即此下』，從依止的角度解釋身。『即此心性等』，以此平等一性是能持能現差別的自性，以及所持所現的因果染事，為此能所共同依止之處，所以名為身。『與心不一不異者』，能持能現差別的自性，與此一性本體相同而意義不同。因為意義不同所以不一，本體相同所以不異。所持所現的因果染事，與此一性有即有離。分離所以不一，相即所以不異。二、『故名下』總結。

二、『此能下』成就藏識，分為三。首先是揭示。二、識，分為二。首先是揭示，分為二。首先是能持與所持的和合。

【English Translation】 English version The very substance of being apart from the Five Skandhas (five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) is the basis of reliance. The substance itself is a gathering, hence the Dharmakaya (Buddha's Dharma body) is the gathering of the principles of Dharma as the body, relying on the principles of Dharma as the body. Gathering and reliance are both named from the inherent nature of reason. Now, this Dharmakaya, speaking of it separately, relies on the Dharma of the one nature of the Middle Way as the body; speaking of it together, relies on the myriad Dharmas as the body.

The following explains the two aspects. First, it is about following defilement, divided into two. First, clarifying following defilement, divided into two. First, explaining, divided into two. First, explaining Dharma from the perspective of function, divided into two. First, a general indication: 'This mind-essence, etc.,' means that the essence of equal one-nature can follow defilement. Precisely because it has this function of following defilement, it can be influenced by all defiled Dharmas. If the nature has no ability, even if influenced by various Dharmas, it cannot hold them and cannot manifest them. From a general perspective, it has the function of following defilement; from a specific perspective, it has the function of holding, and the function of manifesting. Now, from a general perspective, it generally indicates the function of following defilement.
'Immediately below' explains separately, divided into two. First, there is the function of holding: 'Immediately this mind follows defilement,' this sentence should be used to summarize what is said below. Manifestation is precisely one-nature, because it has the ability to follow and cultivate defilement, it can hold the energy of influence. One-nature is the holder, and the energy of cultivating defilement is what is held. Therefore, this one-nature has the function of holding, so it is called Dharma.
'Again below,' there is the function of manifestation. One-nature is the manifester, and defiled Dharma is what is manifested. Therefore, this one-nature has the function of manifesting, so it is called Dharma.
'Immediately below,' explains the body from the perspective of reliance. 'Immediately this mind-essence, etc.,' this equal one-nature is the nature that can hold and manifest differences, and the causes and effects of defilement that are held and manifested, are the common basis of reliance for this ability and what is relied upon, so it is called body. 'Not one and not different from the mind,' the nature that can hold and manifest differences, and this one-nature are the same in essence but different in meaning. Because the meaning is different, they are not one; because the essence is the same, they are not different. The causes and effects of defilement that are held and manifested, are sometimes together and sometimes separate from this one-nature. Separate, so not one; together, so not different.
'Therefore named below' concludes.
'This ability below' accomplishes the Alaya-consciousness (storehouse consciousness), divided into three. First, it is revealed. 2. Consciousness, divided into two. First, it is revealed, divided into two. First, the combination of the holder and what is held.

合成子識八識。三細業即因也。轉現果也。故上文以不覺自動是因。顯現虛狀是果。今能持之性與所持之業和合為因。故云子時。二依熏下。能現之性與所現轉現和合為果。故云果時。二此二下。辨同異。云體一用異者。以第八識祇一真妄和合為體。但從妄三細。因果不同遂為二識。二然此下。明染凈二分二。初示二分。二以其下示性一。乃釋伏疑也。由示中染分一向惟從事染以說。故云即是業與果報之相。乃指向來子時業識與果時轉現為染分也。凈分乃以事理共論。故云心性及能熏凈法。若據其義。于染分中亦可云一者染分。即是心性及能薰染法。于凈分中亦可云二者凈分。即是業與果報之相。蓋凈分中有凈業之因並凈報之果。今于染分一向從事。卻開能熏之業與所現之果。于凈分一向語能熏之因。不言所現之果。復開心性之理。既于染分不言心性。恐人疑雲何故染中而無心性。為釋此疑。故云以其染性即是凈性更無別法。遂祇于凈示心性也。問。若依此義。諸文祗合惟云凈性。何故有文又云染性。答。性論染凈。義不一向。或非染凈。或而染凈。或惟染凈。而染凈者。約事辨性以情約體也。由事染凈既依性現。故約此事以辨于性。知性本具染性凈性。如下文云。以此真心能現凈德。即知真心本具凈性。復以真心能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『合成子識八識』。『三細業』即是因。『轉現』是果。所以上文用『不覺自動』作為因，『顯現虛狀』作為果。現在能持之『性』與所持之『業』和合為因，所以說是『子時』。『二依熏下』，能現之『性』與所現『轉現』和合為果，所以說是『果時』。『二此二下』，辨別同異。說『體一用異』，是因為第八識（Alaya-識，阿賴耶識，藏識）只有一個真妄和合的本體，但從妄的『三細』來說，因果不同就成為二識。『二然此下』，說明染凈二分。首先展示二分。『二以其下』展示性一，這是爲了解釋潛在的疑問。因為展示中染分一向只從事染來說，所以說『即是業與果報之相』，是指向來『子時』的業識與『果時』的轉現作為染分。凈分則以事理共同討論，所以說『心性及能熏凈法』。如果按照這個意義，在染分中也可以說『一者染分，即是心性及能薰染法』。在凈分中也可以說『二者凈分，即是業與果報之相』。因為凈分中有凈業的因和凈報的果。現在在染分一向從事，卻分開能熏之業與所現之果。在凈分一向說能熏之因，不說所現之果，又分開心性的理。既然在染分不說心性，恐怕有人懷疑為什麼染中沒有心性。爲了解釋這個疑問，所以說『以其染性即是凈性更無別法』，於是只在凈分展示心性。問：如果按照這個意義，所有文章只應該說凈性，為什麼有的文章又說染性？答：性論染凈，意義不完全一樣。或者非染非凈，或者即染即凈，或者唯染唯凈。即染即凈，是從事辨性，以情約體。因為事染凈既然依據性顯現，所以依據此事來辨別于性，知道性本來具有染性凈性。如下文說：『以此真心能現凈德』，就知道真心本來具有凈性，又以真心能

【English Translation】 English version 『The combination constitutes the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana, 阿賴耶識, the storehouse consciousness).』『The three subtle aspects of karma』 are the cause. 『Transformation and manifestation』 are the effect. Therefore, the preceding text uses 『unconscious movement』 as the cause, and 『manifestation of illusory states』 as the effect. Now, the 『nature』 that can uphold and the 『karma』 that is upheld combine as the cause, so it is called 『Zi time (子時)』. 『Secondly, based on the influence,』 the 『nature』 that can manifest and the manifested 『transformation and manifestation』 combine as the effect, so it is called 『Guo time (果時)』. 『Secondly, these two below,』 distinguish similarities and differences. Saying 『the substance is one, but the function is different』 is because the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana, 阿賴耶識, the storehouse consciousness) has only one true and false combined substance, but from the false 『three subtle aspects,』 the cause and effect are different, so they become two consciousnesses. 『Secondly, this below,』 explains the two divisions of defilement and purity. First, it shows the two divisions. 『Secondly, based on that below,』 it shows the oneness of nature, which is to explain potential doubts. Because the defiled division in the presentation always speaks only from the perspective of defilement, it says 『it is the aspect of karma and karmic retribution,』 referring to the karma consciousness of 『Zi time (子時)』 and the transformation and manifestation of 『Guo time (果時)』 as the defiled division. The pure division discusses both phenomena and principle together, so it says 『the nature of mind and the pure dharma that can influence.』 According to this meaning, in the defiled division, one could also say 『first, the defiled division, which is the nature of mind and the defiled dharma that can influence.』 In the pure division, one could also say 『second, the pure division, which is the aspect of karma and karmic retribution.』 Because the pure division has the cause of pure karma and the effect of pure retribution. Now, in the defiled division, it always speaks from the perspective of phenomena, separating the karma that can influence and the effect that is manifested. In the pure division, it always speaks of the cause that can influence, not mentioning the effect that is manifested, and also separating the principle of the nature of mind. Since the nature of mind is not mentioned in the defiled division, fearing that people might doubt why there is no nature of mind in defilement, to explain this doubt, it says 『because its defiled nature is the pure nature, there is no other dharma,』 so it only shows the nature of mind in the pure division. Question: According to this meaning, all texts should only say pure nature, why do some texts also say defiled nature? Answer: The discussion of defilement and purity in the nature is not always the same. It may be neither defiled nor pure, or both defiled and pure, or only defiled and pure. Both defiled and pure are to distinguish the nature from phenomena, and to summarize the substance with emotions. Because the defilement and purity of phenomena manifest according to the nature, so based on this phenomenon to distinguish the nature, knowing that the nature inherently possesses defiled nature and pure nature. As the following text says: 『With this true mind, one can manifest pure virtues,』 then one knows that the true mind inherently possesses pure nature, and also with the true mind can

現染事。即知真心本具染性。非染凈者。克從性體也。以染凈性體本非染凈。得名染凈者。由此性德能具染凈。故下文云。若癡二性之能以論心體者。即非染非凈。惟染凈者乃約差別以示圓融也。以差別故有染有凈。以圓融故染即是凈。故惟凈。凈即是染故惟染。如下文云。據違性而說。無一凈性而非染。就凈性而論。無一染性而非凈。且今文者。正約差別以示圓融。染即是凈。故惟凈也。亦可得云名偏體圓。以名偏故祇云凈性。以體圓故外無染性。三由此下。結歸隨染以釋法身。

二又此下約隨凈二。初釋二。初約功能釋法二。初通示。二此等下別示二。初有攝持功能。二復能下有顯現功能。二即此下約依止釋身。二故名下結。

釋如來藏為二。初問。二答二。初列。二所言下釋文自為三。初能藏三。初釋藏。如來語修乃是果德。所顯凈心名為法身。眾生語性乃是性德。在迷法身號為凈心。法身凈心即平等一性。若依下文。以諸佛法身為凈性。以眾生法身為染性者。約以事召性。今據性體本一。故眾生法身亦名凈心。並能包含染凈二性及染凈二事者。包含者具也。由此心體具其二性及以二事。故名為藏。應知染凈二性同鏡明性十。染凈二事同像生修十。若據今文。論具則性十修十。約能約所皆得具名。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本現在所染之事，立即知道真心本來就具有染污的性質。如果說真心不是染污或清凈的，那才是從真性的本體來說的。因為染污和清凈的本體本來就不是染污或清凈，之所以有染污和清凈的名稱，是因為這個真性的功德能夠包含染污和清凈。所以下文說：『如果用愚癡的兩種性質來討論心體，那麼心體就既非染污也非清凈。』只有染污和清凈是就差別而言，以此來顯示圓融。因為有差別，所以有染污有清凈；因為圓融，所以染污就是清凈，所以只有清凈；清凈就是染污，所以只有染污。如下文所說：『如果根據違背自性的角度來說，沒有一個清凈的性質不是染污；如果就清凈的自性來說，沒有一個染污的性質不是清凈。』而現在的這段經文，正是就差別來顯示圓融，染污就是清凈，所以只有清凈。也可以說這是『名偏體圓』，因為名稱是片面的，所以只說清凈的自性；因為本體是圓滿的，所以外面沒有染污的自性。第三，從『由此下』開始，總結歸於隨順染污來解釋法身（Dharmakāya）。

第二，從『二又此下』開始，是關於隨順清凈的兩種解釋。首先解釋這兩種解釋。首先從功能上解釋法身，分為兩部分。首先是總體的指示，其次從『此等下』開始是分別的指示，分為兩部分。首先具有攝持的功能，其次從『復能下』開始具有顯現的功能。第二，從『即此下』開始，是關於依靠的解釋。第二，從『故名下』開始是總結。

解釋如來藏（Tathāgatagarbha，如來藏）分為兩部分。首先是提問，其次是回答，分為兩部分。首先是列舉，其次從『所言下』開始解釋經文，分為三部分。首先是能藏的三種含義。首先解釋『藏』的含義。如來說的修行是果地的功德，所顯現的清凈心稱為法身。眾生說的自性是性地的功德，在迷惑中的法身稱為凈心。法身和凈心是平等一如的自性。如果根據下文，以諸佛的法身為清凈的自性，以眾生的法身為染污的自性，這是就事來召感自性。現在根據自性的本體本來就是一，所以眾生的法身也稱為凈心，並且能夠包含染污和清凈兩種自性以及染污和清凈兩種事物。『包含』就是具有。因為這個心體具有這兩種自性以及這兩種事物，所以稱為『藏』。應該知道染污和清凈兩種自性如同鏡子的明性，染污和清凈兩種事物如同影像的生起和修行。如果根據現在的經文，討論具有，那麼自性具有十種，修行具有十種。無論是就能還是就所，都可以稱為具有。

【English Translation】 English version The matter of present defilement, immediately know that the true mind inherently possesses the nature of defilement. If it is said that the true mind is neither defiled nor pure, that is speaking from the essence of true nature. Because the essence of defilement and purity is originally neither defiled nor pure, the names of defilement and purity arise because this virtue of nature can encompass both defilement and purity. Therefore, the following text says: 'If one discusses the mind-essence with the two natures of ignorance, then the mind-essence is neither defiled nor pure.' Only defilement and purity are spoken of in terms of difference, to show perfect fusion. Because of difference, there is defilement and purity; because of perfect fusion, defilement is purity, so there is only purity; purity is defilement, so there is only defilement. As the following text says: 'If speaking from the perspective of opposing nature, there is no pure nature that is not defiled; if speaking from the perspective of pure nature, there is no defiled nature that is not pure.' And the present text precisely uses difference to show perfect fusion, defilement is purity, so there is only purity. It can also be said that this is 'name partial, body complete,' because the name is partial, so it only speaks of pure nature; because the body is complete, there is no defiled nature outside. Third, starting from '由此下 (You ci xia),' it concludes by returning to following defilement to explain the Dharmakāya (法身, Dharma Body).

Second, starting from '二又此下 (Er you ci xia),' it is about the two explanations of following purity. First, explain these two explanations. First, explain the Dharmakāya from the perspective of function, divided into two parts. First is the general instruction, and second, starting from '此等下 (Ci deng xia),' is the separate instruction, divided into two parts. First, it has the function of gathering and holding; second, starting from '復能下 (Fu neng xia),' it has the function of manifestation. Second, starting from '即此下 (Ji ci xia),' it is about the explanation of reliance. Second, starting from '故名下 (Gu ming xia),' is the conclusion.

Explaining the Tathāgatagarbha (如來藏, Buddha-nature) is divided into two parts. First is the question, and second is the answer, divided into two parts. First is the enumeration, and second, starting from '所言下 (Suo yan xia),' it explains the text, divided into three parts. First are the three meanings of the 'can store'. First, explain the meaning of 'store'. The practice spoken of by the Tathāgata (如來, Thus Come One) is the merit of the fruition ground, and the pure mind manifested is called the Dharmakāya. The nature spoken of by sentient beings is the merit of the nature ground, and the Dharmakāya in delusion is called the pure mind. The Dharmakāya and the pure mind are equally one nature. If according to the following text, the Dharmakāya of the Buddhas is the pure nature, and the Dharmakāya of sentient beings is the defiled nature, this is using phenomena to summon nature. Now, according to the essence of nature being originally one, the Dharmakāya of sentient beings is also called the pure mind, and it can encompass both defiled and pure natures and defiled and pure phenomena. 'Encompass' means to possess. Because this mind-essence possesses these two natures and these two phenomena, it is called 'store'. It should be known that the two natures of defilement and purity are like the clarity of a mirror, and the two phenomena of defilement and purity are like the arising and practice of images. If according to the present text, discussing possession, then nature possesses ten, and practice possesses ten. Whether it is in terms of the able or the possessed, it can be called possession.

但人師所見不同遂有異說。或云具性者。其奈今文染凈二事。或云具相者。其奈今文染凈二性。或云性相俱具者。性既無相如。何得名此性為染為凈。所以諸說似未盡理。今曰。先定法體。則一性為能具。染凈之事為所具。二約事辯性。則能具之性亦名染凈。故此平等一性具有能具染凈之性並所具染凈之事。故云心體包含染凈二性及染凈二事也。然此能所一性。分之乃有二重。一者平等一性為能具染凈二性與染凈二事為所具。二者就所具中自分能所染凈二性為能具。染凈二事為所具。及究論其旨則歸一性為能具。染凈二事為所具。何者。且染凈二性得為能具者由是性故。復為所具者由染凈故。故染凈二字型屬修事。二性性字型屬一性。所以約事辨能具之性故云染凈二性。或曰具性。不了染凈體于屬事。或曰具相。不了染凈雖然有相。才云染性凈性。正談能具之性。未可論相。又若以染為相。須同修中所離之情相。如何卻云別是性具所顯之法相。然二家所見莫不皆以性具之法為所顯故。故顯性家而不具相。故顯相家而曰離情。如此談具。相出性外。情出性外。乃令一性具法不周。今所說者。而此一性無所不具。若生若滅。若破若顯。若常若無常。悉皆頓足。故相與情不出性外。以皆具故。從相須破則性亦泯寂。從性須顯

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "但因為人師的見解不同，所以產生了不同的說法。有人說具有自性（zixing，intrinsic nature），那麼如何解釋經文中所說的染（ran，defilement）和凈（jing，purity）兩種事相呢？有人說具有事相（shixiang，phenomena），那麼如何解釋經文中所說的染性和凈性呢？有人說自性和事相都具有，既然自性沒有事相，又怎麼能稱這種自性為染或凈呢？所以各種說法似乎都沒有完全窮盡真理。現在我說，首先要確定法體（fati，dharma nature），那麼一性（yixing，oneness of nature）就是能具（nengju，that which possesses），染凈之事就是所具（suoju，that which is possessed）。其次，從事相的角度來辨析自性，那麼能具的自性也可以稱為染凈。因此，這種平等的一性具有能具染凈的自性以及所具染凈的事相。所以說心體（xinti，essence of mind）包含染凈二性以及染凈二事。", "然而，這種能所一性，如果加以區分，就會有兩重含義。第一重含義是，平等的一性是能具，染凈二性和染凈二事是所具。第二重含義是，在所具之中，又可以區分能所，染凈二性是能具，染凈二事是所具。如果深入探討其宗旨，最終還是歸結為一性是能具，染凈二事是所具。為什麼呢？因為染凈二性之所以能成為能具，是因為它們是自性；之所以又成為所具，是因為它們是染凈。所以染凈二事的本體屬於修事（xiushi，practice），染凈二性的本體屬於一性。因此，從事相的角度來辨析能具的自性，所以說染凈二性。有人說具有自性，卻沒有理解染凈的本體屬於事相。有人說具有事相，卻沒有理解染凈雖然有事相，但才說到染性凈性，正是談論能具的自性，還不能論事相。而且，如果把染看作事相，必須和修行中所要去除的情相（qingxiang，emotional appearances）相同。又怎麼能說那是另外一種自性所具有而顯現的法相（faxiang，dharma appearances）呢？", "然而，這兩家的見解，都認為自性所具有的法是所顯（suoxian，that which is manifested）。所以顯自性的人不談事相，顯事相的人說要遠離情相。這樣談論具有，事相就出離了自性之外，情相也出離了自性之外，導致一性所具有的法不圓滿。現在我所說的是，這種一性無所不具。無論是生還是滅，無論是破還是顯，無論是常還是無常，都完全具備。所以事相和情相都不能出離自性之外，因為它們都是自性所具有的。從事相的角度需要破除，那麼自性也會泯滅寂靜；從自性的角度需要顯現。", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "However, due to the different views of human teachers, different interpretations arise. Some say it possesses 'zixing' (自性, intrinsic nature), but how then to explain the two aspects of 'ran' (染, defilement) and 'jing' (凈, purity) mentioned in the scriptures? Others say it possesses 'shixiang' (事相, phenomena), but how then to explain the 'ranxing' (染性, nature of defilement) and 'jingxing' (淨性, nature of purity) mentioned in the scriptures? Some say it possesses both 'zixing' and 'shixiang', but since 'zixing' has no 'shixiang', how can this 'zixing' be called defiled or pure? Therefore, all these explanations seem not to have fully exhausted the truth. Now I say, first, we must determine the 'fati' (法體, dharma nature), then the 'yixing' (一性, oneness of nature) is the 'nengju' (能具, that which possesses), and the matters of defilement and purity are the 'suoju' (所具, that which is possessed). Second, from the perspective of phenomena, we analyze the nature, then the nature that possesses can also be called defiled or pure. Therefore, this equal oneness of nature possesses the nature of possessing defilement and purity, as well as the phenomena of defilement and purity that are possessed. Therefore, it is said that the 'xinti' (心體, essence of mind) contains the two natures of defilement and purity, as well as the two matters of defilement and purity.", "However, this oneness of possessor and possessed, if distinguished, has two layers of meaning. The first layer of meaning is that the equal oneness of nature is the possessor, and the two natures of defilement and purity and the two matters of defilement and purity are the possessed. The second layer of meaning is that within the possessed, we can also distinguish possessor and possessed, the two natures of defilement and purity are the possessor, and the two matters of defilement and purity are the possessed. If we deeply explore its essence, it ultimately comes down to the oneness of nature being the possessor, and the two matters of defilement and purity being the possessed. Why? Because the reason why the two natures of defilement and purity can become the possessor is because they are nature; the reason why they become the possessed is because they are defilement and purity. Therefore, the substance of the two matters of defilement and purity belongs to 'xiushi' (修事, practice), and the substance of the two natures of defilement and purity belongs to the oneness of nature. Therefore, from the perspective of phenomena, we analyze the nature that possesses, so we say the two natures of defilement and purity. Some say it possesses nature, but they do not understand that the substance of defilement and purity belongs to phenomena. Some say it possesses phenomena, but they do not understand that although defilement and purity have phenomena, when we just talk about the nature of defilement and the nature of purity, we are precisely talking about the nature that possesses, and we cannot discuss phenomena yet. Moreover, if we regard defilement as phenomena, it must be the same as the 'qingxiang' (情相, emotional appearances) that are to be removed in practice. How can we say that it is another 'faxiang' (法相, dharma appearances) manifested by the nature that possesses?", "However, the views of these two schools both believe that the dharma possessed by nature is the 'suoxian' (所顯, that which is manifested). Therefore, those who manifest nature do not talk about phenomena, and those who manifest phenomena say that they must be separated from emotional appearances. Talking about possession in this way, phenomena are separated from nature, and emotional appearances are also separated from nature, causing the dharma possessed by the oneness of nature to be incomplete. What I am saying now is that this oneness of nature possesses everything without exception. Whether it is birth or death, whether it is destruction or manifestation, whether it is permanence or impermanence, all are fully possessed. Therefore, phenomena and emotional appearances cannot be separated from nature, because they are all possessed by nature. If we need to destroy from the perspective of phenomena, then nature will also be extinguished and silent; if we need to manifest from the perspective of nature." ] } ]

則情相宛然。此破此顯皆為性具。亦不分于能具所具。強而為言名之曰具。如此了者依稀識具。問。所具之相為本來有。為現方有。若本來有。下文何云。若本無解等之性者設。復熏之德用。終不顯現。豈非本但有性現方有相。若本來無。今文何云並能包含染凈二性及染凈二事。答。一性是能具。諸相是所具。若無緣熏時。其相乃未現。非謂本不具。又雖云具相。其未熏現時。非謂心性中已有于相㒵。故今所立義與昔二家殊。問。且未現時豈非具性。答。未現之時云具性者。乃是能具之性。非是所具。其所具者還是于相。故與具性家殊。問。既云未現非謂不具。是則性中有具相耶。答。雖然具相。其如未現。故不可云性已有相。故與具相家異。問。篤論其旨至當如何。答。以非思議。不可定有不可定無。今引祖文而證此旨。摩訶止觀喻惑心具法雲。若言先有那忽待緣(此取未現為無。不可於心先自有惑。若先自有。何故持緣其惑方成)。若言本無對緣即應(此取本具為有。不可云心本不具惑。若本不具惑。對緣之時惑從何來)。不有不無(始欲云有惑且未現。始欲云無心且本上。故不可有復不可無)。定有即邪(認未現時謂心有惑)定無即妄(認本具時謂心無惑)。當知有而不有(上有定約具故有。下有字約未現故不

有)不有而有(上有字約未現為不有。下有字約具故而有)。惑心尚爾。況不思議一心耶(止觀以惑心喻不思議心。今若例于具相。但于向喻文各以心字例為性字。各以惑字例為相字。學者詳之)。輔行釋云。定有謂已具。定無謂永闕。若謂已有如倉中盛物。若謂永無如沙中無油。然此等文。二家所見各有消釋。皆謂此文符合己義。如具性家以已有為相。以永無為性。具相家以已有謂破計。以永無為具相。今曰。二家之見消文似偏。乃以二句各有法體。且具性家以破有是破相。破無是破性。乃以相性成此二句。具相之家以破有是破計有思議之相。以破無是破計無不思議相。乃以所計情相法相成此二句。今謂二釋恐非文體。然此文體祇約一法以論二句。且如三毒之喻祇一惑法。若謂此心已有三毒。如倉中盛物。若謂此心永無三毒。如沙中無油。豈可得云。有約三毒相。無約三毒性。有約三毒情。無約三毒法。作此釋者似有穿鑿。但究文中已永二字。故知祇約一種法體為二句爾。復有具相之家乃以二句祇一法體。此釋甚善。但就破計其釋乃偏。何者。若云已有是破計。計破則不妨有相。且永無亦破計。計破應須不妨無相。若云無計破則有相。應須有計破則無相。何故。有無計破皆不妨是有相耶。今所釋者。祇為此相本不思

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有)不有而有(『有』字上面省略了，未顯現為『不有』。下面『有』字省略了，表示具足故而有)。迷惑之心尚且如此，何況不可思議的一心呢？(《止觀》用迷惑之心比喻不可思議之心。現在如果按照具相宗的觀點，只需將前面比喻文中的『心』字改為『性』字，將『惑』字改為『相』字。學者可以詳細研究)。《輔行記》解釋說：『定有』是指已經具備，『定無』是指永遠缺失。如果說已經有了，就像倉庫中盛放物品；如果說永遠沒有，就像沙子中沒有油。然而這些文字，兩家的見解各有解釋，都認為這些文字元合自己的義理。比如具性宗認為『已有』是相，『永無』是性；具相宗認為『已有』是破除計度，『永無』是具足相。現在說，兩家的見解解釋經文似乎有偏差，應該認為這兩句話各有法體。比如用三毒來比喻，只是一種迷惑之法。如果說此心已經有了三毒，就像倉庫中盛放物品；如果說此心永遠沒有三毒，就像沙子中沒有油。怎麼能說，『有』是就三毒的相而言，『無』是就三毒的性而言？『有』是就三毒的情而言，『無』是就三毒的法而言？這樣解釋似乎是牽強附會。只是研究文中『已』、『永』二字，就知道只是就一種法體來論述這兩句話罷了。還有具相宗的人認為這兩句話只是一種法體，這種解釋很好。但就破除計度而言，他們的解釋有偏差。為什麼呢？如果說『已有』是破除計度，計度破除了不妨礙有相。而且『永無』也是破除計度，計度破除了應該不妨礙無相。如果說沒有計度破除則有相，應該說有計度破除則無相。為什麼有無計度破除都不妨礙是有相呢？現在所解釋的是，只是因為此相本來不可思議。

【English Translation】 English version 『Existing) Non-existing yet existing』 (The word 『existing』 above is abbreviated, not appearing as 『non-existing』. The word 『existing』 below is abbreviated, indicating existence due to completeness). If the deluded mind is like this, what about the inconceivable one mind? (The 『Zhi Guan』 uses the deluded mind as a metaphor for the inconceivable mind. Now, if following the perspective of the Gu Xiang school, simply change the word 『mind』 in the previous metaphor to 『nature』, and change the word 『delusion』 to 『appearance』. Scholars can study this in detail). The 『Fu Xing Ji』 explains: 『Definitely existing』 means already possessing; 『definitely non-existing』 means eternally lacking. Saying it already exists is like storing items in a warehouse; saying it never exists is like finding no oil in sand. However, these words have different interpretations from the two schools, each claiming they align with their own doctrines. For example, the Ju Xing school considers 『already existing』 as appearance, and 『eternally non-existing』 as nature. The Ju Xiang school considers 『already existing』 as refuting calculation, and 『eternally non-existing』 as possessing appearance. Now, it is said that the interpretations of the two schools seem biased. It should be considered that these two phrases each have a dharma body. For example, using the three poisons as a metaphor, it is only one deluded dharma. If saying this mind already has the three poisons, it is like storing items in a warehouse; if saying this mind never has the three poisons, it is like finding no oil in sand. How can it be said that 『existing』 refers to the appearance of the three poisons, and 『non-existing』 refers to the nature of the three poisons? 『Existing』 refers to the emotions of the three poisons, and 『non-existing』 refers to the dharma of the three poisons? Such an interpretation seems forced. Only by studying the words 『already』 and 『eternally』 in the text can it be known that these two phrases are discussed based on only one dharma body. Furthermore, some in the Ju Xiang school believe that these two phrases are only one dharma body, which is a very good interpretation. However, in terms of refuting calculation, their interpretation is biased. Why? If saying 『already existing』 is refuting calculation, refuting calculation does not hinder having appearance. Moreover, 『eternally non-existing』 is also refuting calculation, refuting calculation should not hinder having no appearance. If saying there is no calculation to refute, then there is appearance; it should be said that if there is calculation to refute, then there is no appearance. Why does refuting calculation, whether existing or non-existing, not hinder having appearance? What is now explained is simply because this appearance is originally inconceivable.

議。不可定有不可定無。若定有者如倉盛物。若定無者如沙無油。非但文相白直。亦乃心地圓融。然止觀文。約大經意以成其說。若欲博知。尋經自曉。問。未現之相為性本具相。但由眾生情隔不見謂之未現。而其本性實常具相耶。為由未現故。故其本性則不具相耶。答。不可思議。亦不得云常自具相。亦不得云性不具相。四句咸亡群情頓遣。若隨順悉檀亦可得云性有性無。須善法理方能通達。且相之當體。體本是事。事則無常遇緣方有。但得名現則不曰具。以相離性。故未現時于性但有能具之性而無有相。斯亦可云性不具相作無句說。此如下文但云本具行果之性。涅槃經云。是故我說一切眾生悉有佛性。真實未有三十二相八十種好。性之當體體本是理。理則常住天然本有。故乃名具。則不曰現。以性即相。故本具時諸相頓足。斯亦可云性常具相。作有句說如下文云。果德之法。雖有相別而體是一。心心體具此德也。涅槃經云。大慈大悲十力四無所畏三十二相。眾生悉有。兼存則雙亦。互舉則雙非。欲於四句以通不四。不可專以有無為定問。性不曰現者。如何得云顯現佛性等。相曰具者。既然由性而名。性曰現者必乃由相而得。祇由情相迷於佛性。對迷說語。故曰顯現。

二藏體下釋如來。如即平等性體。來即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：討論：不可執著于『一定存在』，也不可執著于『一定不存在』。如果執著于『一定存在』，就像倉庫里堆滿了東西；如果執著于『一定不存在』，就像沙子里不可能榨出油來。這不僅是文字表面上的直白道理，也是心地圓融的體現。然而，《止觀》一文是根據《大般涅槃經》的意旨來闡述其觀點的。如果想要更廣泛地瞭解，自己去研讀經典就能明白。問：未顯現的相，是自性本來就具有的相，只是因為眾生的情執阻隔而看不見，所以才說是『未顯現』，而其本性實際上是常時具有相的呢？還是因為未顯現的緣故，所以其本性就不具有相呢？答：這其中的道理不可思議。既不能說它常時自己具有相，也不能說它的自性不具有相。如果能超越這四種判斷，就能消除各種情執。如果順應世俗的說法，也可以說自性有或無。必須精通佛法義理才能通達。而且，相的當下本體，本體本來就是事。事是無常的，遇到因緣才會產生。只要被稱作『顯現』，就不能說是『具』。因為相是與性相離的，所以在未顯現時，對於自性來說，只有能產生相的性質，而沒有實際的相。這樣也可以說自性不具有相，作為『無』的說法。下面的經文只說『本具行果之性』。《涅槃經》說：『是故我說一切眾生悉有佛性（Buddha-nature）。真實未有三十二相（thirty-two marks of the Buddha）八十種好（eighty minor marks of the Buddha）。』性的當下本體，本體本來就是理。理是常住不變的，天然就存在的，所以才叫做『具』，就不能說是『現』。因為性就是相，所以在本具時，各種相就都具備了。這樣也可以說自性常時具有相，作為『有』的說法。下面的經文說：『果德之法，雖有相別而體是一，心心體具此德也。』《涅槃經》說：『大慈大悲（great compassion and great pity），十力（ten powers of a Buddha），四無所畏（four fearlessnesses），三十二相（thirty-two marks of the Buddha），眾生悉有。』兼顧兩者則兩者都成立，互相排斥則兩者都不成立。想要通過這四種判斷來通達不執著於四種判斷的道理，就不能只用『有』或『無』來作為定論。問：如果說性不能被稱作『現』，那又如何能說『顯現佛性』等等呢？如果說相被稱作『具』，既然是由性而得名，那麼性被稱作『現』，必定是由相而得。只是因為情執和相迷惑了佛性（Buddha-nature），所以才針對這種迷惑而說『顯現』。

【English Translation】 English version: Discussion: One should not be attached to 'definitely exists,' nor should one be attached to 'definitely does not exist.' If one is attached to 'definitely exists,' it is like a warehouse filled with things; if one is attached to 'definitely does not exist,' it is like trying to extract oil from sand, which is impossible. This is not only a straightforward principle on the surface of the text but also a manifestation of the mind's perfect harmony. However, the text 'Mohe Zhiguan' (Great Calming and Contemplation) bases its arguments on the meaning of the 'Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra' (Great Nirvana Sutra). If you want to know more broadly, you can understand it by studying the scriptures yourself. Question: Is the unmanifested form a form that is inherently possessed by the nature, but is unseen due to the obstructions of sentient beings' emotions, so it is said to be 'unmanifested,' while its nature is actually always possessing form? Or is it because it is unmanifested, so its nature does not possess form? Answer: The reasoning behind this is inconceivable. One cannot say that it always possesses form by itself, nor can one say that its nature does not possess form. If one can transcend these four judgments, one can eliminate various emotional attachments. If one follows the conventional way of speaking, one can also say that nature exists or does not exist. One must be proficient in the principles of Dharma to be able to understand. Moreover, the immediate substance of form, the substance is originally a matter. Matters are impermanent and only arise when conditions are met. As long as it is called 'manifestation,' it cannot be said to be 'possessed.' Because form is separate from nature, in the unmanifested state, for nature, there is only the nature that can produce form, but there is no actual form. Thus, one can also say that nature does not possess form, as a statement of 'non-existence.' The following text only says 'inherently possesses the nature of practice and result.' The 'Nirvana Sutra' says: 'Therefore, I say that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). In reality, they do not yet have the thirty-two marks of the Buddha (thirty-two marks of the Buddha) and the eighty minor marks (eighty minor marks of the Buddha).' The immediate substance of nature, the substance is originally principle. Principle is constant and naturally existing, so it is called 'possessed,' and it cannot be said to be 'manifested.' Because nature is form, in the inherently possessed state, all forms are complete. Thus, one can also say that nature always possesses form, as a statement of 'existence.' The following text says: 'The Dharma of the fruit virtue, although there are differences in form, the substance is one, and each mind inherently possesses this virtue.' The 'Nirvana Sutra' says: 'Great compassion and great pity (great compassion and great pity), the ten powers of a Buddha (ten powers of a Buddha), the four fearlessnesses (four fearlessnesses), the thirty-two marks of the Buddha (thirty-two marks of the Buddha), all sentient beings possess them.' If both are taken into account, then both are established; if they are mutually exclusive, then neither is established. If you want to understand the principle of not being attached to the four judgments through these four judgments, you cannot use 'existence' or 'non-existence' as a definitive conclusion. Question: If it is said that nature cannot be called 'manifestation,' then how can one say 'manifesting Buddha-nature' and so on? If it is said that form is called 'possessed,' since it is named after nature, then nature being called 'manifestation' must be derived from form. It is only because emotional attachments and forms obscure Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) that 'manifestation' is spoken of in response to this obscuration.

差別事用。如名不異故屬平等。來必有跡遂屬差別。下之二釋意悉如此。

三此即下總結。

二釋所藏者。若對能藏而揀判者。似前能藏為今所藏。若極求其旨。蓋盡法界祇為一藏。此藏之外別更無法。前釋能藏。於此藏中舉其平等性為能藏。染凈二事而為所藏。如佛性論第二如來藏下云。一切眾生悉在如來智內故名為藏。以如如智稱如如境。故一切眾生決定無有出如如境者。併爲如來之所攝持。故名所藏。眾生為如來藏。故前能藏非無所藏。今約所藏者。於此藏中舉其迷染無明之法而為能藏。卻將一性而為所藏。亦如論云。一切眾生為如來藏。能藏如來不得顯現。故今所藏非無能藏。但為取於心性為藏。故能藏所藏皆從真理而得其名。問。今所藏中有染凈二用名之為來。何云所藏亦取真理。答。文雖該用。意則在體。故文明云。即此真心而為無明㲉藏所覆藏故。真心之言豈非以理為所藏乎。亦可從文。前釋能藏乃真藏真妄。由凈心包含染凈二性並染凈二事。性非真乎。事非妄乎。亦可染妄凈真。今釋所藏乃妄藏真妄。由無明所覆藏體藏用。體非真乎。用非妄乎。亦可性用為真。事用為妄。亦可染用屬妄。凈用為真。文亦有三。一釋藏。二藏體下釋如來。三故言下總結。皆如文。

三能生名藏。問

【現代漢語翻譯】差別事用：如果名稱沒有不同，就屬於平等；來必有跡象，就屬於差別。下面的兩種解釋意思都是這樣。

三、這是下面的總結。

二、解釋『所藏』：如果針對『能藏』而進行揀擇判斷，似乎之前的『能藏』就是現在的『所藏』。如果極力探求其宗旨，大概整個法界都只為一個『藏』。這個『藏』之外，別無其他法。前面的解釋『能藏』，在這個『藏』中舉出它的平等性作為『能藏』，染和凈兩種事作為『所藏』。如《佛性論》第二〈如來藏〉下說：『一切眾生都在如來的智慧之內，所以名為藏。』因為以如如智稱量如如境，所以一切眾生決定沒有超出如如境的，都被如來所攝持，所以名為『所藏』。眾生為如來藏，所以之前的『能藏』並非沒有『所藏』。現在解釋『所藏』，在這個『藏』中舉出它的迷惑染污無明的法作為『能藏』，卻將一性作為『所藏』。也如《論》所說：『一切眾生為如來藏，能藏如來不得顯現。』所以現在的『所藏』並非沒有『能藏』。只是因為取心性作為『藏』，所以『能藏』和『所藏』都從真理而得其名。問：現在的『所藏』中有染凈二用，名為『來』，為什麼說『所藏』也取真理？答：文句雖然包含作用，意思卻在於本體。所以文中明明說：『即此真心而為無明蘊藏所覆藏故。』真心之言難道不是以理為『所藏』嗎？也可以從文句來看，前面的解釋『能藏』乃是真藏真妄，由凈心包含染凈二性以及染凈二事。性不是真嗎？事不是妄嗎？也可以說染是妄，凈是真。現在解釋『所藏』乃是妄藏真妄，由無明所覆藏體藏用。體不是真嗎？用不是妄嗎？也可以說性用為真，事用為妄。也可以說染用屬於妄，凈用為真。文句也有三部分：一、解釋『藏』；二、『藏體』下解釋如來（Tathagata）；三、『故言』下總結。都如文句所示。

三、能生名為『藏』。問：

【English Translation】 The functions of difference: If the names are not different, then they belong to equality; coming must have traces, then they belong to difference. The following two explanations have the same meaning.

Three, this is the summary below.

Two, explaining 'that which is stored (所藏)': If we choose and judge against 'that which can store (能藏)', it seems that the previous 'that which can store' is now 'that which is stored'. If we try to find its purpose, probably the entire Dharma Realm is only one 'store (藏)'. Outside this 'store', there is no other Dharma. The previous explanation of 'that which can store', in this 'store', cites its equality as 'that which can store', and the two matters of defilement and purity as 'that which is stored'. As the second section of the Treatise on Buddha-Nature (佛性論), Tathāgatagarbha (如來藏), says: 'All sentient beings are within the wisdom of the Tathagata (如來), so it is called a store.' Because the Suchness-Wisdom (如如智) measures the Suchness-Realm (如如境), all sentient beings are definitely not beyond the Suchness-Realm, and are all held by the Tathagata, so it is called 'that which is stored'. Sentient beings are the Tathāgatagarbha, so the previous 'that which can store' is not without 'that which is stored'. Now explaining 'that which is stored', in this 'store', it cites the Dharma of delusion, defilement, and ignorance as 'that which can store', but takes the one nature as 'that which is stored'. As the Treatise also says: 'All sentient beings are the Tathāgatagarbha, that which can store the Tathagata cannot appear.' So the current 'that which is stored' is not without 'that which can store'. It is only because taking the nature of mind as the 'store', so both 'that which can store' and 'that which is stored' get their names from the truth. Question: The current 'that which is stored' has two functions of defilement and purity, called 'coming', why do you say that 'that which is stored' also takes the truth? Answer: Although the sentence includes function, the meaning lies in the substance. So the text clearly says: 'That is, this true mind is covered and hidden by the ignorance store.' Isn't the saying of true mind taking principle as 'that which is stored'? It can also be seen from the sentence, the previous explanation of 'that which can store' is the true store of true and false, the pure mind contains the two natures of defilement and purity and the two matters of defilement and purity. Isn't nature true? Isn't matter false? It can also be said that defilement is false and purity is true. Now explaining 'that which is stored' is the false store of true and false, the ignorance covers the substance and function of the store. Isn't substance true? Isn't function false? It can also be said that nature and function are true, and matter and function are false. It can also be said that defilement function belongs to false, and purity function is true. The sentence also has three parts: One, explaining 'store'; Two, below 'store substance' explaining Tathagata (如來); Three, below 'therefore saying' summarizing. All are as the sentence shows.

Three, that which can produce is called 'store'. Question:

。與前能藏何異。答。能藏言體。以用從體故曰能藏。能生言用。以體從用故曰能生。又能藏名藏者。能藏則別。別在一性為能藏故。所藏則通。通以二性二事為所藏故。能生名藏者。能生則通。通以心體並染凈二性為能生故。所生則別。別以染凈二事為所生故。文云體具染凈二性之用。依染凈二熏能生世間出世間法。豈非心體並二性而為能生。世與出世染凈二事而為所生。初釋藏為四。初標。二喻女生子者。且子之身質。即母之血氣所以得生。故取用之。亦見同體。若準方等如來藏經並尼揵經。各有十喻明如來藏。于中乃有如貧女人而懷貴子。文通圓別。若從圓旨。即具為生。與今喻同。三此心下合。四是故下證。初引楞伽通證能生染凈。次引華嚴別證生染。后引觀經別證生凈。次釋如來與結。悉如文。

六釋法界二。初問。二答以法爾釋法。性別釋界。同輔行中以諸法釋法。三諦釋界。法字屬事。界字屬理。然法爾之言即天然之謂也。體合屬理。今云事者。由此之理天然具事。乃以能具從於所具。故今法爾屬諸法事。故下即云。法爾具足一切諸法。界云性別者。別之為言體合屬事。今云理者。由此之事召效能具。性則差別。乃以所具從於能具。故今界別屬性德理。又可今文不同輔行。以今所釋法界二字皆約

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：『能藏』（能包含一切事物的心識）與『能生』（能產生一切事物的心識）有什麼不同？答：『能藏』側重於『體』（本體），因為『用』（作用）是從『體』產生的，所以稱為『能藏』。『能生』側重於『用』，因為『體』是從『用』顯現的，所以稱為『能生』。另外，以『藏』命名『能藏』時，『能藏』是『別』（差別），因為『別』在於單一的自性，所以是『能藏』；『所藏』是『通』（共通），因為『通』在於二種自性和二種事相，所以是『所藏』。以『藏』命名『能生』時，『能生』是『通』，因為『通』在於心體以及染凈二種自性，所以是『能生』；『所生』是『別』，因為『別』在於染凈二種事相，所以是『所生』。經文說，心體具有染凈二種自性的作用，依靠染凈二種熏習，能產生世間和出世間的法。這難道不是心體連同二種自性作為『能生』，世間和出世間染凈二種事相作為『所生』嗎？最初解釋『藏』為四部分：第一是標示，第二是比喻母親生孩子。而且孩子的身體，就是母親的血氣所生，所以取用這個比喻，也可見同體。如果按照《方等如來藏經》和《尼揵經》，各有十個比喻說明如來藏，其中有如貧窮女人懷貴子的比喻。經文既有圓融之意，也有差別之意。如果從圓融的宗旨來看，就具備了『生』的作用，與現在的比喻相同。第三部分是『此心下合』，第四部分是『是故下證』。首先引用《楞伽經》普遍證明能生染凈，其次引用《華嚴經》分別證明生染，最後引用《觀經》分別證明生凈。接下來解釋『如來』與『結』，都如經文所說。六、解釋法界為二部分：第一是提問，第二是用『法爾』（事物本來的樣子）解釋『法』，用『性別』（性質的差別）解釋『界』。如同《輔行》中用諸法解釋『法』，用三諦解釋『界』。『法』字屬於事相，『界』字屬於理體。然而『法爾』的意思就是天然如此。體合屬於理體，現在說是事相，是因為這個理體天然具備事相，乃是用能具備的來從屬於所具備的，所以現在『法爾』屬於諸法的事相。所以下面就說，『法爾具足一切諸法』。『界』說是『性別』，『別』的意思是體合屬於事相，現在說是理體，是因為這個事相召感效能具備，效能是差別，乃是用所具備的來從屬於能具備的，所以現在『界別』屬於性德的理體。又可以認為現在的經文不同於《輔行》，因為現在所解釋的『法界』二字都是約

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is the difference between 'Nengcang' (the mind that can contain all things) and 'Nengsheng' (the mind that can produce all things)? Answer: 'Nengcang' emphasizes 'Ti' (substance), because 'Yong' (function) arises from 'Ti', so it is called 'Nengcang'. 'Nengsheng' emphasizes 'Yong', because 'Ti' manifests from 'Yong', so it is called 'Nengsheng'. Furthermore, when naming 'Nengcang' with 'Cang', 'Nengcang' is 'Bie' (differentiation), because 'Bie' lies in a single self-nature, so it is 'Nengcang'; 'Suocang' is 'Tong' (common), because 'Tong' lies in two kinds of self-nature and two kinds of phenomena, so it is 'Suocang'. When naming 'Nengsheng' with 'Cang', 'Nengsheng' is 'Tong', because 'Tong' lies in the mind-substance and the two kinds of self-nature, namely purity and defilement, so it is 'Nengsheng'; 'Suosheng' is 'Bie', because 'Bie' lies in the two kinds of phenomena, namely purity and defilement, so it is 'Suosheng'. The scripture says that the mind-substance has the function of two kinds of self-nature, namely purity and defilement, and relying on the two kinds of熏習 (熏習, influence), it can produce worldly and transcendental dharmas. Isn't this the mind-substance together with the two kinds of self-nature acting as 'Nengsheng', and the worldly and transcendental phenomena of purity and defilement acting as 'Suosheng'? The initial explanation of 'Cang' is in four parts: first is the indication, second is the metaphor of a mother giving birth to a child. Moreover, the child's body is born from the mother's blood and qi, so this metaphor is used, and the sameness of substance can also be seen. If according to the Fangdeng Rulaizang Jing (方等如來藏經, Sutra of the Tathagatagarbha) and the Nigan Jing (尼揵經, Nigantha Sutra), each has ten metaphors explaining the Tathagatagarbha, among which there is the metaphor of a poor woman conceiving a noble child. The scripture has both the meaning of completeness and the meaning of differentiation. If viewed from the complete principle, it possesses the function of 'birth', which is the same as the current metaphor. The third part is 'Cixin Xiahe' (此心下合, this mind unites below), and the fourth part is 'Shigu Xiazheng' (是故下證, therefore, the following proves). First, the Lankavatara Sutra (楞伽經, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra) is cited to universally prove the ability to produce purity and defilement, second, the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經, Avataṃsaka Sūtra) is cited to separately prove the production of defilement, and finally, the Contemplation Sutra (觀經, Visualization Sutra) is cited to separately prove the production of purity. Next, the explanation of 'Tathagata' (如來, Thus Come One) and 'knot' (結, bond) is as stated in the scripture. 6. Explaining 法界 (Dharmadhatu) in two parts: first is the question, second is explaining '法' (Dharma) with '法爾' (Dharmata, the way things are), and explaining '界' (Dhatu, realm) with '性別' (Xingbie, difference in nature). It is like in Fu Xing (輔行, Commentary on the Great Calming and Contemplation), explaining '法' with all dharmas, and explaining '界' with the three truths. The character '法' belongs to phenomena, and the character '界' belongs to principle. However, the meaning of '法爾' is that it is naturally so. 體合 (Tihe, substance and combination) belongs to principle, and now it is said to be phenomena because this principle naturally possesses phenomena, and it uses what can possess to belong to what is possessed, so now '法爾' belongs to the phenomena of all dharmas. Therefore, it is said below, '法爾具足一切諸法' (法爾具足一切諸法, Dharmata fully possesses all dharmas). '界' is said to be '性別', and the meaning of '別' (Bie, difference) is that 體合 (Tihe, substance and combination) belongs to phenomena, and now it is said to be principle because this phenomenon summons the ability to possess, and the ability is differentiation, and it uses what is possessed to belong to what can possess, so now '界別' (Jiebie, realm difference) belongs to the principle of the nature of virtue. It can also be considered that the current scripture is different from Fu Xing, because the two characters '法界' (Dharmadhatu) that are currently being explained are both about

性故。法即性體故云法爾。界即性用故云性別。遂即釋云以此心體法爾具足(以性體釋法字為法爾)一切諸法(以諸法釋界字為性別)。輔行以諸法釋法者乃緣生事為諸法也。今以諸法釋界者乃性具用為諸法也。是故不同。問。輔行雲。十法差別名之為界。是故十法各有界分。又云界者界分。相不同故。與今界者性別。同異如何。答。文有同異。若十法各有界分則別在俗。今通三諦。若界者界分。相不同故。則彼此是同。皆約三諦以釋界故。問。既指三諦而為界分。界則差別合當屬事。何故輔行會同實字。而文乃云亦可界法性。法即是實相。且持倒法界為界法者。意以界字為實。法字同相。且實即是理。應屬無差。豈同界字為差別耶。答。事理之義亦如前明。體用之說須約過德諸義而分。輔行此文應通過德．亡照二義。若約過德。三諦為理。緣生諸法為事。若約亡照。亡三為理。照三為事。前約過德故云法即諸法。界謂界分相不同故。一切諸法皆以三諦而為界分。后結其意乃約亡照。故云三諦無形俱不可見。然即假法可奇事辨。問。雖云約德。奈三是差如何同實。答。以對緣生法是定差故。此三諦即屬無差。雖云差別不妨同實。問。此三既是無差之差。如何俱照卻名為事。答。對於定差雖云屬理。若望俱亡三還屬事。

今引輔行略簽釋之。文云。三諦無形俱不可見(以性亡故)。然即假法可奇事辨(以假立故上二句標也○次釋此亡照先釋亡云)。即此假法即空即中(乃假亡也)。空中二體二無二也(空中亡也已上釋三諦無形俱不可見一句○次釋照云)。心性不動假立中名(照中)。亡泯三千假立空稱(照空)。雖亡而存假立假號(照假已上釋然即假法可奇事辨一句)。然輔行前約過德后約亡照者。意辨德中三諦俱得為理。功由一性之亡也。問。照既是假。正屬於事。何云奇辨。答。天然妙性非亡非照非事非理。今欲辨假故奇事論。有人或云理中三諦難見故奇事以辨之。今問理空假中雲難見者還有名不。若云有名。何須奇事而辨其名。何云假立中名。假立空稱。假立假號耶。若云理中三諦本來無名。以無名故所以難見。故奇事辯名者。今問既本無名。如何卻云是空假中。以此而知。云空假中便成奇事。但請細究此旨必見心源。況覆文云。三諦無形俱不可見者。由無三體故云無形。然即假法可奇事辨者。由附事說故有三名。體既是一。故一性是理附事名三。故三名是事。然亡照之義名亦通漫。恐濫其說復更委陳。若克從法體有二。一假單照空。單亡中道。雙亡雙照。二平等性俱亡。亡前之三。平等性俱照。照前之三。此乃是今立亡照義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：現在我引用《輔行略簽》來解釋它。文中說：『三諦（sātya，真諦、俗諦、中諦）沒有形狀，都不可見（因為自性空寂的緣故）。』然而，即是假法可以奇特的事來分辨（因為假立的緣故）。上面兩句是標示。接下來解釋這個『亡』（空寂）和『照』（觀照），先解釋『亡』說：『即此假法，即是空，即是中（這是假法的空寂）。空中二體，二無二也（空和中也是空寂的）。』以上解釋了『三諦無形俱不可見』一句。接下來解釋『照』說：『心性不動，假立中名（觀照中諦）。亡泯三千，假立空稱（觀照空諦）。雖亡而存，假立假號（觀照假諦）。』以上解釋了『然即假法可奇事辨』一句。然而，《輔行》前面約過德，後面約亡照，意思是辨明德中的三諦都可作為理體而得到，功用在於一性的空寂。問：『照』既然是假立的，正屬於事相，為什麼說可以用奇特的事來分辨？答：天然妙性，非空寂非觀照，非事相非理體。現在想要分辨假立，所以用奇特的事來論述。有人或許說理體中的三諦難以見到，所以用奇特的事來分辨它。現在問，理體中的空、假、中，如果說難以見到，還有名稱嗎？如果說有名稱，何須用奇特的事來分辨它的名稱？為什麼說假立中名，假立空稱，假立假號呢？如果說理體中的三諦本來沒有名稱，因為沒有名稱所以難以見到，所以用奇特的事來分辨名稱。現在問，既然本來沒有名稱，如何卻說是空、假、中呢？由此可知，說空、假、中便成了奇特的事。但請仔細研究這個宗旨，必定能見到心源。況且文中說：『三諦無形俱不可見』，因為沒有三個實體，所以說沒有形狀。『然即假法可奇事辨』，因為依附事相來說，所以有三個名稱。體性既然是一個，所以一性是理體，依附事相而名三，所以三個名稱是事相。然而，空寂和觀照的意義，名稱也容易混淆。恐怕濫用這種說法，所以再詳細陳述。如果嚴格從法體來說，有二種：一是假單照空，單亡中道，雙亡雙照。二是平等性俱亡，空寂前面的三諦。平等性俱照，觀照前面的三諦。這才是現在所立的空寂和觀照的意義。

【English Translation】 English version: Now I will explain it by quoting the 'Auxiliary Conduct, Brief Commentary'. The text says: 'The Three Truths (sātya, including the Truth of Suffering, the Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering, and the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering) are formless and invisible (because of the emptiness of inherent nature).' However, the provisional dharmas can be distinguished by wondrous events (because of provisional establishment). The above two sentences are indications. Next, to explain this 'cessation' (emptiness) and 'illumination' (contemplation), first explain 'cessation' by saying: 'These provisional dharmas are emptiness, are the middle way (this is the cessation of provisional dharmas). The two entities of emptiness and the middle way are not two, not not-two (emptiness and the middle way are also cessation).' The above explains the sentence 'The Three Truths are formless and invisible.' Next, explain 'illumination' by saying: 'The nature of mind is unmoving, provisionally establishing the name of the middle (contemplating the middle truth). Cessation obliterates the three thousand, provisionally establishing the name of emptiness (contemplating the truth of emptiness). Although cessation exists, provisionally establishing the provisional name (contemplating the provisional truth).' The above explains the sentence 'However, the provisional dharmas can be distinguished by wondrous events.' However, the 'Auxiliary Conduct' earlier discusses past virtues, and later discusses cessation and illumination, meaning to distinguish that the Three Truths in virtue can all be obtained as principle, and the function lies in the cessation of one nature. Question: Since 'illumination' is provisional, it belongs to phenomena, why say it can be distinguished by wondrous events? Answer: The natural wondrous nature is neither cessation nor illumination, neither phenomena nor principle. Now wanting to distinguish the provisional, so using wondrous events to discuss. Someone might say that the Three Truths in principle are difficult to see, so using wondrous events to distinguish them. Now asking, if the emptiness, provisionality, and middle way in principle are said to be difficult to see, do they still have names? If saying they have names, why use wondrous events to distinguish their names? Why say provisionally establishing the name of the middle, provisionally establishing the name of emptiness, provisionally establishing the provisional name? If saying the Three Truths in principle originally have no names, because they have no names they are difficult to see, so using wondrous events to distinguish names. Now asking, since they originally have no names, how can they be said to be emptiness, provisionality, and the middle way? From this it can be known that saying emptiness, provisionality, and the middle way becomes a wondrous event. But please carefully study this purpose, and you will surely see the source of mind. Moreover, the text says: 'The Three Truths are formless and invisible,' because there are no three entities, so it is said to be formless. 'However, the provisional dharmas can be distinguished by wondrous events,' because relying on phenomena to speak, so there are three names. Since the essence is one, so one nature is principle, relying on phenomena to name three, so the three names are phenomena. However, the meaning of cessation and illumination, the names are also easily confused. Fearing to misuse this saying, so explaining in detail again. If strictly speaking from the dharma body, there are two kinds: one is provisional single illumination of emptiness, single cessation of the middle way, double cessation and double illumination. Two is the equality nature both cease, cessation of the three truths before. The equality nature both illuminate, illumination of the three truths before. This is the meaning of cessation and illumination now established.

。若隨義召法。假雖單照。以此之假即是平等一性之假。故三俱照。空雖單亡。以此之空即是平等一性之空。故三俱亡。中雖雙亡雙照。以此之中即是平等一性之中。故亡與照俱是法界。此乃以假召三故俱照。以空召三故俱亡。以中召三故俱是。法界若立句分別。空之亡乃當亡之一句。假之照乃當照之一句。中之亡者乃非亡(非空之亡)非照(非假之照)謂之雙亡。而亡(照空)而照(照假)謂之雙照。又若以空為蕩。以中為絕。故合空中乃為亡句。假為照句。其平等性謂之亡者。乃亡前空之單亡。中之雙亡。並空中之亡。又亡假之單照。中之雙照。亡此亡照謂之亡也。故三諦俱亡之言其旨深絕。亡既如是。照亦復然。以此義故。一者以空召法亦云三諦俱亡。二者平等性體亦云三諦俱亡。其以空召法雲三諦俱亡者。復有功歸．就法二義。若就法言之。以就空名便故。故空能亡三。若功歸言之。由此之空是平等一性為空。是故此空方能亡三。又三諦俱亡之言有能有所。若以三諦空於三惑。此三諦俱亡。為能亡也。今以平等一性為能亡。則三諦為所亡矣。若論意旨。平等妙性既非思議。實不可名。但為緣故。或名為中。或名為一。或名非三非一。今退不取中名謂之俱亡者。乃為中名對空假故進。不取非三非一謂之俱亡者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果隨順真如的意義來召感諸法，即使只是假名安立的單方面照了，但這個假名安立就是平等一性的假名安立。所以空、假、中三者同時照了。即使只是空性的單方面泯除，但這個空性就是平等一性的空性。所以空、假、中三者同時泯除。中道雖然是雙重泯除和雙重照了，但這個中道就是平等一性的中道。所以泯除和照了都同是法界。這是因為用假名安立來召感空、假、中三者，所以三者同時照了；用空性來召感空、假、中三者，所以三者同時泯除；用中道來召感空、假、中三者，所以三者同時是中道。如果用法界的角度來建立語句分別，那麼空性的泯除就相當於泯除的一句，假名安立的照了就相當於照了的一句，中道的泯除就是非泯除（不是空性的泯除）非照了（不是假名安立的照了），這叫做雙重泯除。而泯除（照了空性）而照了（照了假名安立），這叫做雙重照了。又如果用空性來盪滌，用中道來斷絕，所以合起來空和中就是泯除的一句，假名安立就是照了的一句。其平等性叫做泯除，就是泯除前面的空性的單方面泯除，中道的雙重泯除，以及空和中的泯除。又泯除假名安立的單方面照了，中道的雙重照了，泯除這個泯除和照了，就叫做泯除。所以『三諦俱亡』這句話的旨意深奧絕妙。泯除既然是這樣，照了也是這樣。因為這個緣故，一者用空性來召感諸法也說『三諦俱亡』，二者平等性體也說『三諦俱亡』。其中用空性來召感諸法說『三諦俱亡』，又有功歸、就法兩種意義。如果就法來說，因為依憑空性的名稱方便，所以空效能夠泯除三諦。如果從功歸來說，因為這個空性是平等一性的空性，所以這個空性才能夠泯除三諦。又『三諦俱亡』這句話有能有所。如果用三諦來空掉三種迷惑，那麼這個『三諦俱亡』，就是能泯除的。現在用平等一性作為能泯除的，那麼三諦就是所泯除的了。如果論及意旨，平等妙性既然不是思議所能及的，實在無法命名。但爲了因緣的緣故，或者叫做中道，或者叫做一，或者叫做非三非一。現在退一步不取中道這個名稱而說『俱亡』，是因為中道這個名稱是針對空和假而說的。進一步不取非三非一這個名稱而說『俱亡』。

【English Translation】 English version: If, according to the meaning, we summon the dharmas, even if the provisional is simply illuminating, this provisional is the provisional of equal and singular nature. Therefore, the three—emptiness (空, kong), provisionality (假, jia), and the Middle Way (中, zhong)—are all illuminated. Even if emptiness is simply extinguished, this emptiness is the emptiness of equal and singular nature. Therefore, the three are all extinguished. Although the Middle Way is both extinguished and illuminated, this Middle Way is the Middle Way of equal and singular nature. Therefore, both extinction and illumination are the Dharma Realm. This is because summoning the three with the provisional, all three are illuminated; summoning the three with emptiness, all three are extinguished; summoning the three with the Middle Way, all three are. If we establish sentences and distinctions from the perspective of the Dharma Realm, then the extinction of emptiness corresponds to the sentence of extinction, the illumination of the provisional corresponds to the sentence of illumination, and the extinction of the Middle Way is neither extinction (not the extinction of emptiness) nor illumination (not the illumination of the provisional), which is called double extinction. And extinguishing (illuminating emptiness) and illuminating (illuminating the provisional) is called double illumination. Furthermore, if we take emptiness as cleansing and the Middle Way as absolute, then combining emptiness and the Middle Way forms the sentence of extinction, and the provisional forms the sentence of illumination. Its equality is called extinction, which is the extinction of the single extinction of emptiness, the double extinction of the Middle Way, and the extinction of emptiness and the Middle Way. Also, extinguishing the single illumination of the provisional and the double illumination of the Middle Way, extinguishing this extinction and illumination is called extinction. Therefore, the meaning of the statement 'the three truths are all extinguished' is profoundly absolute. Since extinction is like this, so is illumination. Because of this meaning, firstly, summoning the dharmas with emptiness is also called 'the three truths are all extinguished'; secondly, the substance of equal nature is also called 'the three truths are all extinguished'. Among them, summoning the dharmas with emptiness and saying 'the three truths are all extinguished' has two meanings: merit attribution and according to the Dharma. If speaking according to the Dharma, because of relying on the name of emptiness for convenience, emptiness can extinguish the three truths. If speaking from the perspective of merit attribution, because this emptiness is the emptiness of equal and singular nature, this emptiness can extinguish the three. Furthermore, the statement 'the three truths are all extinguished' has the capable and the object. If we use the three truths to empty the three delusions, then this 'three truths are all extinguished' is the capable of extinguishing. Now, if we take equal and singular nature as the capable of extinguishing, then the three truths are what is extinguished. If discussing the meaning, since the wonderful nature of equality is beyond thought, it is truly unnameable. But for the sake of conditions, it is sometimes called the Middle Way, sometimes called one, or sometimes called neither three nor one. Now, retreating and not taking the name of the Middle Way and calling it 'all extinguished' is because the name of the Middle Way is spoken in relation to emptiness and the provisional. Further, not taking the name of neither three nor one and calling it 'all extinguished'.

以非三非一別無體故。由是處中而取。故以一名為俱亡也。如大師云。雖有三名而無三體(即亡義也)。雖是一體而三名(即然義也)。不二門云。惟一實性無空假中。復了此一乃是圓融不可思議。實非是一強名為一。貴在得意不可執名。若達此一非一。是故性名亦無。此下記文凡云一性者。應以今意實達諸說。又復須了亡處則二諦宛然。照處則一法不立。此亡此照皆非思議。故大師云。是三即一相。其實無有異。釋法性二。初問。二答。初約即義以辨性用。法乃事法。事則差別。指此差別即性而具。性亦體別。故云以此凈心有差別之性故能與諸法作體。二又性下直辨性體。約即論離。離於事相故云性者。體實不改。以一切法皆以此心為體者。約體論即也。諸法之法自有生滅者。約即論離也。

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第一卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 大乘止觀法門宗圓記

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第二

東掖白蓮釋　瞭然　述

二辨體狀二。初分科示意。約離相明凈心不一不異論法性。二藏辨真如者。然凈心．法性．真如實一體而異名。今以此三分對三章者。從名別故。凈之為名離染義便。故約離相明凈心也。故前文釋凈心云。無明染法本來與心相離。法性之名。乃于諸法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為既不是三，也不是一，沒有其他的本體，所以採取中道的立場。因此用一個名稱來表示『俱亡』（既不是三也不是一）的含義。正如智者大師所說：『雖有三個名稱（空、假、中），卻沒有三個本體（即是『亡』的含義）。雖是一個本體，卻有三個名稱（即是『然』的含義）。』《不二門》中說：『只有唯一的真實自性，沒有空、假、中。』進一步瞭解這『一』，乃是圓融不可思議的。實際上並非是『一』，只是勉強稱之為『一』，貴在領會其意，不可執著于名稱。如果通達這『一』並非是『一』，那麼自性之名也就沒有了。』以下記錄的文字凡是說到『一性』的，都應該用現在的理解來貫通各種說法。而且必須明白『亡』的地方，那麼二諦（俗諦和真諦）就宛然存在；照的地方，那麼一法也不成立。這『亡』這『照』都不是思議所能及的。所以智者大師說：『是三即一相，其實無有異。』解釋法性分為兩部分。首先是提問，然後是回答。首先從『即』的意義來辨別自性和作用。法指的是事法，事法則有差別。指出這些差別就是自性所具有的。自性也是本體的差別。所以說用這清凈心具有差別的自性，因此能夠作為諸法的本體。其次在『又性』之下直接辨別自性本體。從『即』的角度來論『離』，遠離事相，所以說自性，其本體實際上是不改變的。以一切法都以這顆心為本體，是從本體的角度來論『即』。諸法之法自有生滅，是從『即』的角度來論『離』。《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》卷第一卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》卷第二東掖白蓮釋瞭然述二、辨別體狀分為兩部分。首先是分科示意。從遠離相的角度來闡明清凈心不一不異，論述法性。二、藏辨真如（Tathata）是指，實際上清凈心、法性（Dharmata）、真如（Tathata）是一個本體而名稱不同。現在用這三部分來對應三章，是因為從名稱上來區分的緣故。『凈』這個名稱，有遠離染污的含義，所以從遠離相的角度來闡明清凈心。所以前面的文章解釋清凈心說：『無明（Avidya）染法本來就與心相分離。』法性（Dharmata）這個名稱，乃是對於諸法（Dharma）而言。

【English Translation】 English version: Because it is neither three nor one, and there is no other substance, it adopts the middle way. Therefore, one name is used to express the meaning of 'both are gone' (neither three nor one). As Great Master Zhiyi said: 'Although there are three names (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way), there are not three substances (which is the meaning of 'gone'). Although it is one substance, it has three names (which is the meaning of 'is').' The Non-Dual Gate says: 'Only the one real nature exists, without emptiness, provisional existence, or the middle way.' Further understanding this 'one' is perfect harmony and inconceivable. In reality, it is not 'one,' but is only勉強 called 'one.' The value lies in understanding its meaning, not in clinging to the name. If you understand that this 'one' is not 'one,' then the name of self-nature also ceases to exist.' The following recorded texts, whenever they mention 'one nature,' should be understood in light of the present understanding to connect all the various teachings. Moreover, it is necessary to understand the place of 'gone,' then the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) are clearly present; the place of illumination, then not a single dharma (phenomenon) is established. This 'gone' and this 'illumination' are both beyond the reach of thought. Therefore, Great Master Zhiyi said: 'These three are the aspect of one, in reality, there is no difference.' The explanation of Dharmata (法性, the nature of reality) is divided into two parts. First, a question is posed, then an answer is given. First, from the meaning of 'is,' the nature and function are distinguished. Dharma (法) refers to phenomenal dharmas (事法), which have differences. Pointing out these differences is what the self-nature possesses. Self-nature is also the difference in substance. Therefore, it is said that with this pure mind, which has the nature of difference, it is able to serve as the substance of all dharmas. Second, under '又性 (also nature),' the substance of self-nature is directly distinguished. From the perspective of 'is,' 'separation' is discussed, being separate from phenomenal appearances, so it is said that self-nature, its substance, in reality, does not change. That all dharmas take this mind as their substance is discussing 'is' from the perspective of substance. That the dharmas of all dharmas have their own arising and ceasing is discussing 'separation' from the perspective of 'is'. The Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Cessation and Contemplation Dharma Gate, Volume 1 卍 New Continued Canon, Volume 55, No. 0904, The Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Cessation and Contemplation Dharma Gate The Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Cessation and Contemplation Dharma Gate, Volume 2 Explained by Liaoran (瞭然), Shramana of White Lotus of the Eastern Pavilion 2. Discriminating the substance and characteristics is divided into two parts. First, dividing the sections to indicate the meaning. Discussing Dharmata (法性, the nature of reality) from the perspective of separating from appearances, clarifying that the pure mind is neither one nor different. Second, the 藏辨真如 (Hidden Discernment of Suchness) refers to, in reality, the pure mind, Dharmata (法性, the nature of reality), and Tathata (真如, suchness) are one substance with different names. Now, using these three parts to correspond to the three chapters is because they are distinguished by name. The name 'pure' has the meaning of being separate from defilement, so the pure mind is clarified from the perspective of separating from appearances. Therefore, the previous text explains the pure mind by saying: 'Avidya (無明, ignorance) and defiled dharmas are originally separate from the mind.' The name Dharmata (法性, the nature of reality) is in relation to all dharmas (Dharma).

而辨其性。如向釋法性中有即有離。即故不異。離故不一。故不一不異法性也。真如辯二藏者。依起信乃約真如明二藏故。又二藏既云如來。故順如字辯真如也。須知三章不出體用。凈心是體。法性是用。然凈心中應乃有用。文云。自性圓融體備大用。然法性中應乃有體。文云凈心之體常無生滅。今但從文正途以說凈心為離一切法。故獨明其體。法性約即一切法。故意明其用。如文云。上來雖明凈心離一切分別心及境界之相。然此諸相復不異凈心。何以故。以此心體雖復平等。而即本具染凈二用。乃至云此等虛相無體惟是凈心。故言不異。又復離相凈心中雖云有用。乃是性染性凈之用。故皆屬體不異。法性中既辨事染事凈之用。遂偏屬用。故此二章不出體用。其第三二藏者。釋成前義也。空藏釋離相凈心。不空釋不異法性。雖此三文不出體用。意則惟在辨于體狀。斯亦可云文三義二意則惟一。所論用者。約用者辯體。何者。由不異之意意。論此體不異用故。乃見此用是即體之用。故於用中亦云辨體。若以今文會摩訶止觀者。今文同體相中眼智所知見之境界也。彼以三諦為境界。今以三諦為體狀。文雖在於開解。義必貫于正修。摩訶止觀正明觀法中先示十境。輔行乃云。又此十境即是前文所顯之體。前約所顯能攝故立體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本而辨別它的體性。例如在解釋法性（Dharmata，一切諸法的真實體性）時，有『即』和『離』兩種說法。『即』，所以不異；『離』，所以不一。因此說，法性是不一不異的。關於真如（Tathata，如實不虛妄的真理）辨別二藏（兩種包含一切法之處所）的問題，依據《起信論》（《大乘起信論》），是就真如來闡明二藏的緣故。並且二藏既然說是如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號之一），所以順著『如』字來辨別真如。須知這三章內容沒有超出體和用。凈心（Citta-prakrti-parisuddha，清凈的心性）是體，法性是用。然而在凈心中，『應』就是用。經文中說：『自性圓融，體備大用。』然而在法性中，『應』就是體。經文中說：『凈心的體常無生滅。』現在只是從經文的正常途徑來說，凈心是遠離一切法的，所以只說明它的體。法性是關於『即一切法』的，所以著重說明它的用。如經文說：『上面雖然說明凈心遠離一切分別心以及境界的相，然而這些相又不異於凈心。』為什麼呢？因為這個心體雖然平等，而本來就具有染凈二用。乃至說『這些虛相沒有自體，只是凈心。』所以說『不異』。又在遠離相的凈心中，雖然說有『用』，乃是性染性凈之用，所以都屬於體，不異。法性中既然辨別事染事凈之用，就偏重於用。所以這兩章沒有超出體和用。第三章的二藏，是解釋成就前面的意義。空藏解釋離相凈心，不空藏解釋不異法性。雖然這三段文字沒有超出體和用，意思只是在于辨別體狀。這也可以說是文字有三，意義有二，意旨只有一個。所論的『用』，是就『用』來辨別『體』。為什麼呢？由於『不異』的意義，論述這個體不異於用，才能看出這個用是即體的用。所以在『用』中也說是辨別『體』。如果用現在的經文來會合《摩訶止觀》（天臺宗的重要著作）的內容，現在的經文等同於體相中眼智所知見之境界。它以三諦（空、假、中）為境界，現在以三諦為體狀。經文雖然在於開解，意義必定貫穿于正修。《摩訶止觀》正明觀法中先顯示十境。輔行（《摩訶止觀》的註釋）中說：『又這十境就是前面經文所顯示的體。』前面是就所顯能攝故立體的角度來說的。

【English Translation】 English version And discern its nature. For example, in explaining Dharmata (the true nature of all dharmas), there are 'identity' and 'difference' aspects. 'Identity' means not different; 'difference' means not one. Therefore, Dharmata is neither one nor different. Regarding the discussion of the Two Treasuries (two repositories containing all dharmas) in relation to Tathata (the truth that is as it is), according to the Awakening of Faith (Mahayana-sraddhotpada-sastra), it is based on explaining the Two Treasuries in terms of Tathata. Moreover, since the Two Treasuries are referred to as Tathagata (one of the titles of the Buddha), it follows the word 'Tathata' to discern Tathata. It should be understood that these three chapters do not go beyond essence and function. Pure Mind (Citta-prakrti-parisuddha) is the essence, and Dharmata is the function. However, in Pure Mind, 'response' is the function. The text says: 'The self-nature is perfectly integrated, and the essence is equipped with great function.' However, in Dharmata, 'response' is the essence. The text says: 'The essence of Pure Mind is always without arising or ceasing.' Now, only from the normal path of the text, Pure Mind is said to be apart from all dharmas, so it only explains its essence. Dharmata is about 'identical to all dharmas,' so it emphasizes explaining its function. As the text says: 'Although the above explains that Pure Mind is apart from all discriminating minds and the appearances of realms, these appearances are not different from Pure Mind.' Why? Because this mind-essence, although equal, inherently possesses both defiled and pure functions. Even saying, 'These illusory appearances have no substance, they are only Pure Mind.' Therefore, it is said 'not different.' Furthermore, in Pure Mind that is apart from appearances, although it is said to have 'function,' it is the function of inherently defiled and inherently pure, so they all belong to the essence, not different. Since Dharmata discerns the function of defiled and pure phenomena, it emphasizes function. Therefore, these two chapters do not go beyond essence and function. The Two Treasuries in the third chapter explain and complete the preceding meaning. The Empty Treasury explains Pure Mind that is apart from appearances, and the Non-empty Treasury explains Dharmata that is not different. Although these three passages do not go beyond essence and function, the meaning is only in discerning the nature. This can also be said that the text has three aspects, the meaning has two, and the intention is only one. The 'function' discussed is to discern the 'essence' in terms of 'function.' Why? Because of the meaning of 'not different,' discussing that this essence is not different from function, it can be seen that this function is the function that is identical to the essence. Therefore, in 'function,' it is also said to discern the 'essence.' If the current text is combined with the content of the Great Calming and Contemplation (Mohe Zhiguan, an important work of the Tiantai school), the current text is equivalent to the realm known and seen by the eye-wisdom in the essence-appearance. It takes the Three Truths (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way) as the realm, and now takes the Three Truths as the nature. Although the text is in explanation, the meaning must permeate the correct practice. The Great Calming and Contemplation clearly shows the Ten Realms in the method of contemplation. The Auxiliary Conduct (a commentary on the Great Calming and Contemplation) says: 'Also, these Ten Realms are the essence revealed in the previous text.' The previous is from the perspective of what is revealed being able to encompass, therefore establishing the essence.

名。今對能觀所發故立境名。又前從理說故體惟一。今從事邊故境有十。事即理故。故一一境皆不思議。理即事故。故一一境相別不同。然此文意。以止觀所觀有所離所顯。陰等十境乃所離也。不思議境乃所顯也。前來體相正是所顯。點今所離即是所顯。故云即是前文所顯之體。且前文所顯之體即是下文正觀不思議境。故云一一境皆不思議。以此而知。開解中體相即是正觀不思議境類。今開解明體狀者。豈非預示正觀所觀不思議境。下文止觀體狀。乃依此境明於能入止觀體狀。能不離所。即是今文所依體狀。如此了者方可與云能所不二。又今文中該於三境。何者。且離相明凈心即性德修德二境不異。辨法性即化他境。南嶽以體用分自他。如雲為自利利他。故止為自以觀為他。心體平等為止。具違順二用為觀。輔行亦以三境分自他。乃云以三諦法不出修性自他故也。既以修性二境為自。化他為他。今凈心是體屬自。法性是用屬他。故此二章義該修性二境者。可進退取之。一者直示心體是性德境。離於四句是修德境。下文有問答。云得入者。前離四句為修德體。后問答者約能入之人辨意識解入也。二者以問答之前為性境。正以問答為修境。且前為性者。初直示性德之體。次以四句顯性德體。本來離計故皆屬性。境若會同三

【現代漢語翻譯】名。現在針對能觀所引發的現象，所以建立『境』（境：所觀察的對象）這個名稱。而且前面是從理上來說，所以本體只有一個。現在從事相上來說，所以境有十種。事相就是理，所以每一個境都是不可思議的。理就是事相，所以每一個境的相狀都各不相同。然而這段文字的意思是，用止觀所觀察的，有所舍離，有所顯現。陰等十境是所舍離的。不可思議境是所顯現的。前面所說的體相正是所顯現的。現在所舍離的，就是所顯現的。所以說『就是前文所顯的體』。而且前文所顯的體，就是下文正觀不可思議境。所以說『每一個境都是不可思議的』。由此可知，開解中的體相，就是正觀不可思議境的同類。現在開解說明體狀，難道不是預先顯示正觀所觀察的不可思議境嗎？下文止觀的體狀，就是依據這個境，來說明能入止觀的體狀。能不離所，就是現在文中所依據的體狀。如此瞭解的人，才可以談論能所不二。而且現在文中的內容涵蓋了三種境。哪三種呢？舍離相狀，明白清凈心，就是性德境（性德境：本性所具有的功德）和修德境（修德境：通過修行獲得的功德）二境沒有差異。辨別法性，就是化他境（化他境：教化他人的境界）。南嶽慧思禪師用體和用來區分自利和利他，比如他說，止是爲了自利，觀是爲了利他。心體平等是止，具備違和順兩種作用是觀。《輔行記》也用三諦法來區分自利和利他，說三諦法不出修性自他。既然用修性和二境作為自利，用化他作為利他。現在清凈心是體，屬於自利。法性是用，屬於利他。所以這兩章的意義涵蓋了修性和二境，可以靈活地理解。一種理解是，直接指示心體是性德境，離開四句（四句：佛教邏輯中的四種可能性，即『是』、『非』、『亦是亦非』、『非是亦非』）是修德境。下文有問答，說『得入者』，前面離開四句是修德的體，後面的問答是就能夠進入的人，來辨別意識的理解。另一種理解是，以問答之前為性境，正式的問答為修境。而且前面為性境，最初直接指示性德的體，其次用四句來顯示性德的體，本來就離開了計較，所以都屬於性境。境如果會同三諦

【English Translation】 name. Now, in response to what is observed and arises, the name 'realm' (境, jing: object of observation) is established. Moreover, previously it was discussed from the perspective of principle, so the essence was only one. Now it is discussed from the perspective of phenomena, so there are ten realms. Phenomena are principle, so each realm is inconceivable. Principle is phenomena, so the characteristics of each realm are different. However, the meaning of this passage is that what is observed through zhi guan (止觀, calming and contemplation) involves both detachment and manifestation. The ten realms such as the skandhas (陰, yin: aggregates) are what is detached from. The inconceivable realm is what is manifested. The essence and characteristics mentioned earlier are precisely what is manifested. What is now detached from is what is manifested. Therefore, it is said, 'It is the essence manifested in the previous text.' Moreover, the essence manifested in the previous text is the inconceivable realm of correct contemplation in the following text. Therefore, it is said, 'Each realm is inconceivable.' From this, it can be known that the essence and characteristics in the explanation are similar to the inconceivable realm of correct contemplation. Now, the explanation clarifying the essence and form, isn't it foreshadowing the inconceivable realm observed by correct contemplation? The essence and form of zhi guan in the following text are based on this realm to clarify the essence and form of entering zhi guan. The ability not to be separated from the object is the essence and form relied upon in the current text. Only those who understand this can discuss the non-duality of the ability and the object. Moreover, the content in the current text encompasses three realms. Which three? Detaching from characteristics and understanding the pure mind is the non-difference between the xing de jing (性德境: realm of inherent virtue) and the xiu de jing (修德境: realm of cultivated virtue). Discriminating fa xing (法性: the nature of reality) is the hua ta jing (化他境: realm of transforming others). Nanyue Huisi Chan Master used essence and function to distinguish between self-benefit and benefiting others, such as saying that zhi (止: calming) is for self-benefit and guan (觀: contemplation) is for benefiting others. The equality of the mind's essence is zhi, and possessing both opposing and conforming functions is guan. Fu Xing Ji (輔行記: Commentary on the Great Calming and Contemplation) also uses the three truths to distinguish between self-benefit and benefiting others, saying that the three truths do not go beyond cultivation, inherent nature, self, and others. Since the realms of cultivation and inherent nature are used as self-benefit, and transforming others is used as benefiting others. Now, the pure mind is the essence, belonging to self-benefit. Fa xing is the function, belonging to benefiting others. Therefore, the meaning of these two chapters encompasses the realms of cultivation and inherent nature, which can be understood flexibly. One understanding is that directly indicating the mind's essence is the xing de jing, and leaving the four phrases (四句: the four logical possibilities in Buddhism: affirmation, negation, both, and neither) is the xiu de jing. There is a question and answer in the following text, saying 'those who attain entry,' the previous leaving of the four phrases is the essence of cultivation, and the later question and answer is about distinguishing the understanding of consciousness for those who are able to enter. Another understanding is that the time before the question and answer is the xing jing (性境: realm of inherent nature), and the formal question and answer is the xiu jing (修境: realm of cultivation). Moreover, the previous is the xing jing, initially directly indicating the essence of the xing de, and then using the four phrases to reveal the essence of the xing de, which originally left calculation, so they all belong to the xing jing. If the realm coincides with the three truths

千者。今立四句顯發祖文。一該攝無不遍。乃成三千之通體也。二歸趣無不極。乃法法三千也。三所成無不俗。則三千惟在俗諦也。四能詮無不圓。由前三教法屬三千而不能詮。且成三千者。以凈心是體。法性是用。以體融用遂成三千。故三境具足方是三千。所以該攝而無不遍也。趣無不極者。乃在體為體三千。在用為用三千也。所成無不俗者。則在體非三千。在用是三千也。今先示摩訶止觀中三義。輔行雲。以三諦法不出修性自他故也。且三千即三諦。中性空自俗他。是故三境具成三千。此同攝無不遍也。又于性德為理具三千。于修為修具三千。于化化為化用三千。此乃趣無不極也。智者云。第一義一法不可得況三千法。輔行雲。結前自行乃性德修德。非三千也。又云世諦尚具無量法況三千法。輔行雲。生后化他乃化他境則有三千。此乃所成無不俗也。若今文中。據下釋不空如來藏乃云。若遍就分別妄執之事。即一向不融。若據心性緣起依持之用。即可得相攝。此是以理融事攝無不遍也。又凈心中有體備大用。此乃趣無不極也。又凈心惟未明三千法性之用。方論三千。此乃成無不俗也。問。南嶽不云三千。何以會同。答。祇此體狀章中藏體一異以釋實有。而明圓融無礙法界法門並事用相用相攝。豈有三千義理顯過於

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本千者（指天臺宗所說的『一念三千』）。現在立四句來顯發祖師的文義：一、該攝無不遍，乃成就三千的通體。二、歸趣無不極，乃法法皆是三千。三、所成無不俗，則三千唯在俗諦。四、能詮無不圓，由於前三教的法都屬於三千而不能完全詮釋。而且成就三千，以凈心為體，法性為用，以體融攝用，於是成就三千。所以三境（五陰、煩惱、生死）具足才是三千，因此說該攝而無不遍。趣無不極，乃是在體為體三千，在用為用三千。所成無不俗，則在體非三千，在用是三千。現在先展示《摩訶止觀》中的三義。《輔行記》說：『因為三諦法不出修性自他。』而且三千即是三諦，中、性、空、自、俗、他。因此三境具足成就三千，這等同於攝無不遍。又于性德為理具三千，于修為修具三千，于化化為化用三千，這乃是趣無不極。智者大師說：『第一義一法不可得，何況三千法？』《輔行記》說：『總結前面的自行乃是性德修德，不是三千。』又說：『世諦尚且具足無量法，何況三千法？』《輔行記》說：『產生後面的化他乃是化他境，則有三千。』這乃是所成無不俗。如果現在文中的，根據下面解釋不空如來藏，乃說：『如果普遍就分別妄執之事，就是一向不融。如果根據心性緣起依持之用，就可以相攝。』這是以理融事，攝無不遍。又凈心中有體備大用，這乃是趣無不極。又凈心唯獨未明三千法性的用，才論三千，這乃是成無不俗。問：南嶽慧思禪師不講三千，如何會通？答：僅僅此體狀章中藏體一異來解釋實有，而闡明圓融無礙的法界法門以及事用相用相攝，難道還有三千義理比這更顯明嗎？

【English Translation】 English version The 'thousand' refers to the 'one thought three thousand' (ichinen sanzen) in Tendai Buddhism. Now, I establish four phrases to reveal the meaning of the ancestral texts: 1. 'Comprehensively encompassing without exception' achieves the complete essence of the three thousand. 2. 'Reaching the ultimate without exception' means that every dharma is the three thousand. 3. 'What is accomplished is without exception mundane' means that the three thousand exists only in the mundane truth (samvriti-satya). 4. 'What can express is without exception complete' is because the dharmas of the previous three teachings all belong to the three thousand but cannot fully express it. Moreover, the accomplishment of the three thousand takes pure mind as its substance (essence) and the nature of dharma as its function (application). By the substance merging with the function, the three thousand is accomplished. Therefore, the three thousand is complete only when the three realms (skandhas, kleshas, and samsara) are complete, hence the saying 'comprehensively encompassing without exception.' 'Reaching the ultimate without exception' means that in substance, it is the three thousand as substance; in function, it is the three thousand as function. 'What is accomplished is without exception mundane' means that in substance, it is not the three thousand; in function, it is the three thousand. Now, I will first show the three meanings in the Mahayana Samatha-Vipassana (Mohe Zhiguan). The Auxiliary Conduct Record (Fuxingji) says: 'Because the three truths do not go beyond cultivation, nature, self, and other.' Moreover, the three thousand is the three truths: middle, nature, emptiness, self, mundane, and other. Therefore, the three realms being complete accomplishes the three thousand, which is equivalent to 'encompassing without exception.' Furthermore, in the inherent nature, it is the three thousand as principle; in cultivation, it is the three thousand as cultivation; in transformation, it is the three thousand as transformation. This is 'reaching the ultimate without exception.' Master Zhiyi (智者大師) said: 'The first principle is that one dharma is unattainable, let alone three thousand dharmas?' The Auxiliary Conduct Record says: 'Concluding the previous self-practice is inherent virtue and cultivated virtue, not the three thousand.' It also says: 'The mundane truth already possesses limitless dharmas, let alone three thousand dharmas?' The Auxiliary Conduct Record says: 'Generating subsequent transformation of others is the realm of transforming others, then there is the three thousand.' This is 'what is accomplished is without exception mundane.' If in the current text, according to the following explanation of the non-empty Tathagatagarbha (如來藏), it says: 'If universally based on the matters of discrimination and deluded attachment, then it is always non-harmonious. If based on the function of the arising and sustaining of mind-nature, then it can be mutually inclusive.' This is using principle to harmonize with phenomena, encompassing without exception. Moreover, in the pure mind, there is substance prepared with great function, this is 'reaching the ultimate without exception.' Furthermore, the pure mind only has not yet clarified the function of the three thousand dharma-nature, then it discusses the three thousand, this is 'what is accomplished is without exception mundane.' Question: Nanyue Huisi (南嶽慧思禪師) does not speak of the three thousand, how to reconcile this? Answer: Merely this chapter on the nature of the body, using the difference between the hidden body to explain the real existence, and elucidating the perfectly harmonious and unobstructed dharma realm and the mutual inclusion of phenomena and function, is there any meaning of the three thousand more evident than this?

此。何必名同方云義等。俟至下文當略點之。二解釋為三。初舉離相以明體狀三。初標。二此心下釋二。初法體三。初直示心體不可思議四。初云此心即是第一義諦真如心者。示此心體也。自性圓融體備大用者。示心體之具德也。但是自覺聖智所知。非情量之能測者。示心體不可思議也。文云第一義諦者。揀俗非勝故稱第一。深極所以故稱為義。審實不虛故稱曰諦。然真俗二諦其名則通。其義別四教三接共有七種。今所云者即是圓教平等理性中實真諦也。古人釋諦。或以于境。或以智教。今以理釋收攝不遺。如章安云。今用理釋諦。理當即境正。境正即智教皆正。故荊溪云諦即是理。又諦之為名。有從當體審實不虛。如審實是空是假是中。有從所依實審一體。如空假中皆即一性所以稱諦。諦乃非三。三名非諦。以三即性故曰三諦。此約所依不從當體(云云)。言真如心者。揀偽異念稱真如心。雖非偽異不離當念。即真如也。圓融者。圓滿融通。融而不圓通教也。圓而不融別教也。能圓能融圓教也。又圓謂圓妙。妙即融通。故此圓融不通通別。以此心體當體包含無有障礙。故云自性圓融。而此之體以圓融故。不隔諸法能備大用。又自性者法身。圓融者般若。大用者解脫三德。一體即是凈心之體狀也。但是自覺聖智所知者

。自覺聖之言出自楞伽。即一切種智也。由此心體真空冥寂。若非此智無由能知。非情量之能測者。揀非四眼二智之能知也。故圓心體非前三教心口思議。問。非情量能測者。不可思耶不可議耶。答。情即是思。量即是議。如雲量謂詮量。詮即議也。故情量之言對於思議。又不別分對。如涅槃云。不可稱量不可思議。問。今云心體是自覺聖智所知。章安釋大經云。涅槃非名非相。云何而言可得見聞。不可見故無相。不可聞故無名。佛以佛眼佛耳尚不見聞。況復下地及與凡夫而能見聞。與今相違。其義如何。答。克從法體。不可見聞故非思議。約教詮辨。偏邪不詮。故此法體非彼見聞。圓教詮之。故此法體惟佛能知。言能知者。乃知其不可思議也。涅槃從體。今文從教。又涅槃中以圓為能絕。偏為所絕。不獨所絕之偏不得見聞。能絕之圓亦絕故非見聞。今以圓為能絕。偏為所絕。但取非所絕之偏而得思議。故能絕之圓不妨能知。同章安云。當知絕名與無名為異。又云。論無。無一切方便(情量同非)。論絕。絕能終所。又云。別教已下四門為所絕。圓教為能絕。今既絕能故圓亦絕。乃同佛眼佛耳尚不見聞。二故云下引證。言語道斷故不可以名名。心行處滅故不可以相相。言語心行者。言是一實(亦通二假。今對語字且屬

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", '。\'自覺聖之言\'出自《楞伽經》。即一切種智（sarvākārajñatā，指佛陀所證悟的對一切事物和現象的全面、徹底的智慧）也。由此心體真空冥寂，若非此智無由能知。非情量之能測者，揀非四眼（肉眼、天眼、慧眼、法眼）二智（根本智、后得智）之能知也。故圓心體非前三教（藏教、通教、別教）心口思議。', '問：非情量能測者，不可思耶？不可議耶？', '答：情即是思，量即是議。如雲『量』謂詮量，詮即議也。故情量之言對於思議。又不別分對。如《涅槃經》云：『不可稱量，不可思議。』', '問：今云心體是自覺聖智所知，章安（隋代天臺宗僧人，智顗弟子）釋《大般涅槃經》云：『涅槃非名非相，云何而言可得見聞？不可見故無相，不可聞故無名。佛以佛眼佛耳尚不見聞，況復下地及與凡夫而能見聞？』與今相違，其義如何？', '答：克從法體，不可見聞故非思議。約教詮辨，偏邪不詮，故此法體非彼見聞。圓教詮之，故此法體惟佛能知。言能知者，乃知其不可思議也。《涅槃經》從體，今文從教。又《涅槃經》中以圓（圓教）為能絕，偏（偏教）為所絕。不獨所絕之偏不得見聞，能絕之圓亦絕故非見聞。今以圓為能絕，偏為所絕。但取非所絕之偏而得思議。故能絕之圓不妨能知。同章安云：『當知絕名與無名為異。』又云：『論無，無一切方便（情量同非）；論絕，絕能終所。』又云：『別教已下四門（有門、無門、亦有亦無門、非有非無門）為所絕，圓教為能絕。今既絕能故圓亦絕。乃同佛眼佛耳尚不見聞。』二故云下引證。言語道斷故不可以名名，心行處滅故不可以相相。言語心行者，言是一實（亦通二假，今對語字且屬' ], "english_translations": [ "English version", 'The \'words of self-aware sage\' originate from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. It refers to the all-knowing wisdom (sarvākārajñatā, the comprehensive and thorough wisdom of the Buddha regarding all things and phenomena). Therefore, the essence of mind is empty and still. Without this wisdom, there is no way to know it. It cannot be measured by emotional reasoning, distinguishing it from what can be known by the four eyes (flesh eye, heavenly eye, wisdom eye, dharma eye) and two wisdoms (fundamental wisdom, subsequent wisdom). Thus, the complete essence of mind is beyond the mental and verbal contemplation of the previous three teachings (Tripiṭaka teaching, shared teaching, distinct teaching).', 'Question: If it cannot be measured by emotional reasoning, is it unthinkable? Is it unspeakable?', 'Answer: Emotion is thought, and measurement is deliberation. As it is said, \'measurement\' means explanation, and explanation is deliberation. Therefore, the term \'emotional reasoning\' corresponds to thought and deliberation. They are not separately opposed. As the Nirvana Sutra says, \'It cannot be measured, it cannot be conceived.\'', 'Question: Now it is said that the essence of mind is known by self-aware sage wisdom. Zhang』an (a Tiantai monk during the Sui Dynasty, disciple of Zhiyi) explains in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: \'Nirvana is neither name nor form. How can it be said that it can be seen and heard? It is formless because it cannot be seen, and it is nameless because it cannot be heard. Even the Buddha with his Buddha-eye and Buddha-ear cannot see or hear it. How much more so for those in lower realms and ordinary beings?\』 This contradicts what is said now. What is the meaning of this?', 'Answer: Strictly speaking from the perspective of the Dharma body, it cannot be seen or heard, therefore it is beyond thought and deliberation. Judging from the explanation of the teachings, biased and incorrect teachings do not explain it. Therefore, this Dharma body is not what they see and hear. The complete teaching explains it, so this Dharma body can only be known by the Buddha. To say that it can be known means knowing that it is inconceivable. The Nirvana Sutra speaks from the perspective of the essence, while this text speaks from the perspective of the teachings. Furthermore, in the Nirvana Sutra, the complete (complete teaching) is the one that cuts off, and the biased (biased teaching) is what is cut off. Not only can the biased, which is cut off, not be seen or heard, but the complete, which cuts off, is also cut off, so it cannot be seen or heard. Now, the complete is taken as the one that cuts off, and the biased is taken as what is cut off. Only the biased that is not cut off can be thought and deliberated. Therefore, the complete that cuts off does not hinder the ability to know. Similar to what Zhang』an said: \'It should be known that the cutting off of name is different from no name.\' He also said: \'Discussing non-existence, there is no expedient means (emotion and measurement are both not); discussing cutting off, it cuts off the ability to end what is cut off.\' He also said: \'The four gates (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) below the distinct teaching are what is cut off, and the complete teaching is the one that cuts off. Now that the ability to cut off is cut off, the complete is also cut off. It is the same as the Buddha-eye and Buddha-ear not being able to see or hear.\' The following quotes are used as evidence. The path of language is cut off, so it cannot be named with a name. The place where the mind acts is extinguished, so it cannot be formed with a form. Language and mental activity, language is one reality (also encompassing two provisionalities, but now the word \'language\' belongs to' ] }

一實)。語屬三假。心是心王。行是心所。道斷所滅者。道謂道路而能通故。今路既斷言說何通。所謂處所為所依故。今處既滅心行無依。心行無依乃非心所相。言說不通乃非言所名。非心所相是不可思。非言所名是不可議。祇因所無。致其能泯。故不可思議之言該能思能議。所思所議皆不可也。若以心行行字作平聲讀者。亦無害前釋。三何以下釋成。心體離名相者。德王云。涅槃非名非相。起信云。離言說相。離名字相。離心緣相。與今相字通局不同。起信以言說名字心緣皆號為相。此相則通涅槃。以見者為相。聞者為名。故章安以佛眼佛耳釋于見聞。此相乃別今文相者。別取心緣法塵為相。屬不可思。體既離名心既絕相者。文之互顯。亦可心既離名體既絕相。四是以下結意。此法既然不可思議。如何可論其體狀耶。故云實亦難哉。

二惟可下約離相以顯不可思議。上則直示心體乃屬性德。若據性德之體。不論顯與不顯。無得而狀。天然妙絕契悟之求。是不可為。但約眾生日用不知。今欲示知令契此體。才云示知令契。此乃便屬修門。是故約于所離四句以過顯德令契悟之。故此離相顯不思議。正同修德不思議境。問。性德一境不通修耶。答。法理圓轉義不一途。然彼止觀。若從文相以辯生起。則性德一境體非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『一實』（Eka-satya，唯一真實）屬於『三假』（tri-mithya，三種虛假）。『心』（citta，心）是『心王』（citta-raja，心之主）。『行』（samskara，行）是『心所』（caitta，心之伴隨）。『道斷所滅』（marga-nirodha-nirvana，道滅所證之涅槃）的意思是，『道』（marga，道路）被稱為道路，因為它能夠通達。現在道路既然斷絕，言說如何能夠通達？所謂『處所』（sthana，處所）是心行所依賴的地方。現在處所既然滅盡，心行便沒有了依靠。心行沒有依靠，就不是心所之相。言說不能通達，就不是言說所能命名。不是心所之相，是不可思的。不是言說所能命名，是不可議的。僅僅因為所依之處的消失，才導致心行的泯滅。所以『不可思議』（acintya，不可思議）的言語涵蓋了能思能議，所思所議都是不可能的。如果將『心行』（citta-samskara，心行）中的『行』字讀作平聲，也無礙於之前的解釋。『三何以下釋成』（san he yi xia shi cheng，以下三點解釋成立）。『心體離名相』（citta-kaya nama-rupa-vivikta，心體遠離名相）的意思是，德王（Dharmaraja）說：『涅槃（nirvana，涅槃）非名非相』。起信論（Mahayana-sraddhotpada-sastra）說：『離言說相，離名字相，離心緣相』。與現在『相』（laksana，相）字的通局不同。起信論將言說、名字、心緣都稱為『相』。這個『相』則通於涅槃。以見者為『相』，聞者為『名』。所以章安（Zhang-an）用佛眼佛耳來解釋見聞。這個『相』乃是區別於今文的『相』，特別取心緣法塵為『相』，屬於不可思。心體既然遠離名，心既然斷絕相，這是文句的互相顯發。也可以理解為心既然遠離名，體既然斷絕相。『四是以下結意』（si shi yi xia jie yi，以下四點總結意義）。此法既然不可思議，如何可以論述它的體狀呢？所以說，真實情況確實難以言說。二惟可下約離相以顯不可思議。上則直示心體乃屬性德。若據性德之體。不論顯與不顯。無得而狀。天然妙絕契悟之求。是不可為。但約眾生日用不知。今欲示知令契此體。才云示知令契。此乃便屬修門。是故約于所離四句以過顯德令契悟之。故此離相顯不思議。正同修德不思議境。問。性德一境不通修耶。答。法理圓轉義不一途。然彼止觀。若從文相以辯生起。則性德一境體非

【English Translation】 English version: 『Eka-satya』 (一實, the one reality) belongs to the 『tri-mithya』 (三假, three falsities). 『Citta』 (心, mind) is 『citta-raja』 (心王, the king of mind). 『Samskara』 (行, formations) is 『caitta』 (心所, mental concomitants). 『Marga-nirodha-nirvana』 (道斷所滅, Nirvana attained through the cessation of the path) means that 『marga』 (道, path) is called a path because it can lead to attainment. Now that the path is cut off, how can speech communicate? The so-called 『sthana』 (處所, place) is where the mind and its activities rely. Now that the place is extinguished, the mind and its activities have no reliance. The absence of reliance of mind and its activities is not the characteristic of mental concomitants. The inability of speech to communicate is not what speech can name. Not being the characteristic of mental concomitants is inconceivable. Not being what speech can name is inexpressible. It is only because of the disappearance of what is relied upon that the mind and its activities are extinguished. Therefore, the words 『acintya』 (不可思議, inconceivable) encompass both the ability to think and the ability to express, but what is thought and what is expressed are both impossible. If the 『samskara』 (行) in 『citta-samskara』 (心行, mind and its activities) is read with a level tone, it does not harm the previous explanation. 『San he yi xia shi cheng』 (三何以下釋成, the following three points explain the establishment). 『Citta-kaya nama-rupa-vivikta』 (心體離名相, the essence of mind is apart from name and form) means that Dharmaraja (德王) said: 『Nirvana (涅槃) is neither name nor form.』 The Mahayana-sraddhotpada-sastra (起信論) says: 『Apart from the characteristic of speech, apart from the characteristic of name, apart from the characteristic of mental conditions.』 The scope of the word 『laksana』 (相, characteristic) is different from now. The Mahayana-sraddhotpada-sastra calls speech, name, and mental conditions all 『laksana』. This 『laksana』 encompasses Nirvana. What is seen is 『laksana』, what is heard is 『nama』 (名, name). Therefore, Zhang-an (章安) uses the Buddha's eye and Buddha's ear to explain seeing and hearing. This 『laksana』 is different from the 『laksana』 in the current text, specifically taking mental conditions and dharma-dust as 『laksana』, which belongs to the inconceivable. Since the essence of mind is apart from name, and the mind is cut off from characteristics, this is the mutual manifestation of the sentences. It can also be understood as since the mind is apart from name, and the essence is cut off from characteristics. 『Si shi yi xia jie yi』 (四是以下結意, the following four points summarize the meaning). Since this dharma is inconceivable, how can its essence be discussed? Therefore, it is said that the true situation is indeed difficult to express. The second part, 『er wei ke xia yue li xiang yi xian bu ke si yi』 (二惟可下約離相以顯不可思議, the following part uses separation from characteristics to reveal the inconceivable). The above directly shows that the essence of mind belongs to the nature of virtue. According to the essence of the nature of virtue, regardless of whether it is manifest or not, there is no way to describe it. The natural wonder is beyond the pursuit of enlightenment. It is impossible. But it is about the ignorance of sentient beings in daily life. Now I want to show knowledge to make them agree with this body. Only Yun shows knowledge to make them agree. This belongs to the door of cultivation. Therefore, it is about the four sentences of separation to excessively show virtue to make them agree. Therefore, this separation from characteristics shows the inconceivable. It is the same as the inconceivable realm of cultivating virtue. ask. Is the realm of sexual virtue not open to cultivation? Answer. The principles of law are round and the meaning is not the same. However, if they stop and observe. If you argue from the text, then the nature of virtue is not a realm.

迷悟而為迷悟。而以迷故故非順修。以而悟故了之為修。才了為修即名修境。修既離執。為他四說即名化他。此從記約文相生起立名而說。惟是修德論修者也。若約立章本意為言。第七大竟正明觀法。是故初來無非通修。復從文相生起而有進不。修性二境不通單修。由以修照性全性為修。是故二境共方為修。化他一境不通初心。約觀為修。由離執竟為他四說。是故初心不通觀修。離執後心以說為修(初後心義或約名觀。或約真似。今取有執無執而分切后)。上乃以性境為三諦。修德為三觀。化他為三語。又此三境各通修相。性德境者約破前後縱橫而為修相。修德境者約破自他共離而為修相。化他境者約于初心觀達四說而為修相。故荊溪云。前文雖以八相為喻。別為破於心法前後。故知性境約破縱橫而為修也。又云。雖有夢譬。別為破於四句計性。故知修境約破自他而為修也。又云。然雖破計說必隨宜。從云何但說爾。觀亦隨宜。此文意含自他二義。今且證他。故知他境乃通說修並於觀修。此約隨文各別修相。若約總旨。於此初乘荊溪科之凡有其至第七收攝諸法以入觀境。故大師云。說時如上次第。及論修時皆居一心。由此三境不出三諦。三觀三智三語是諸三法。即是行人一念心體。妙具三千即空假中。能如是脩名曰正

觀。今文進不。亦復如之。問。行者措心依何為的。答。解則遍達無殊。行則隨宜不一。

文為二。初標示。惟可說所離之相至自契焉者。標也。所謂此心至平等寂滅者。示也。標中雲所離者。其離一切四句相也。反相者。由四句之相既離。反顯此體非相也。滅相者。祇由此體非相。是故諸相皆滅也。須了離相而無所舍。反相而無所背。滅相而無所寂。方是圓中離反滅相。示中雲平等寂滅者。祇由從本離一切相。是故此心平等寂滅。何者。良以今日相興在情。情既分別故相高下。以高下故不能平等。既不平等何由寂滅。又此標文令同法華。乃以三相轉釋一相。由彼經文先舉一相。以一相圓妙故以三相而轉釋之。然其三相即就平等中道一相立此三名。約其所離以顯一相。全同今文。今約大師釋彼義以申解之。反相者。反生死相。離相者。無涅槃相。滅相者。無相亦無相。又反分段變易一切葉縛。故名反相。能遠離迷惑無所著故。名為離相。滅於一切虛狀因果。名為滅相。示文中雲。離一切相者。即同離相。平等者。同反相。寂滅者。同滅相。反二邊著。故云平等。

二非有下正示離相。以向標示離一切相平等寂滅。不知所離為何等相。今正示之為二。初別示。相無相約色心。去來今約時世。上中下約根性。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：觀察。現在的經文是否深入？也是如此。問：修行者安放內心，依據什麼作為目標？答：理解則普遍通達沒有差別，修行則隨著適宜而不同。

經文分為兩部分。首先是標示：『只有可以說所離之相』到『自然契合』，這是標。『所謂此心』到『平等寂滅』，這是示。標中說『所離』，是說遠離一切四句之相。『反相』，是因為四句之相既然遠離，反過來顯現此體不是相。『滅相』，只是因為此體不是相，所以諸相都滅了。必須明白遠離相而無所捨棄，反顯相而無所違背，滅除相而無所寂滅，才是圓滿中道的離、反、滅相。示中說『平等寂滅』，只是因為從根本上遠離一切相，所以此心平等寂滅。為什麼呢？因為如今諸相的興起在於情，情既然有分別，所以相有高下。因為有高下，所以不能平等。既然不平等，怎麼能寂滅？而且這個標文與《法華經》相同，乃是用三相來轉釋一相。因為那部經文先舉出一個相，因為一個相圓滿微妙，所以用三相來轉釋它。然而這三相就是就平等中道一相而立的這三個名稱，約其所離來顯現一相，完全與現在的經文相同。現在依據大師解釋那部經文的意義來申述解釋它。『反相』，是反生死之相。『離相』，是沒有涅槃（Nirvana）之相。『滅相』，是沒有相也沒有無相。又反分段生死、變易生死一切繫縛，所以名叫『反相』。能夠遠離迷惑而沒有執著，所以名叫『離相』。滅除一切虛妄的現象和因果，名叫『滅相』。示文中說：『離一切相』，就是同『離相』。『平等』，同『反相』。『寂滅』，同『滅相』。反駁二邊執著，所以說『平等』。

第二部分，『二非有下』，正式顯示離相。因為前面標示了遠離一切相、平等寂滅，不知道所離的是什麼相。現在正式顯示它，分為兩部分。首先是分別顯示：相和無相是關於色和心，過去、現在、未來是關於時世，上、中、下是關於根性。

【English Translation】 English version: Observation. Is the current text profound? It is also like that. Question: What does the practitioner rely on as a goal when placing their mind? Answer: Understanding is universally thorough without difference, while practice varies according to suitability.

The text is divided into two parts. First is the indication: 'Only the aspect of what can be said to be separated' to 'naturally coincides,' this is the indication. 'What is called this mind' to 'equality and tranquility,' this is the demonstration. In the indication, 'what is separated' refers to being apart from all four phrases' aspects. 'Reversed aspect' is because since the aspects of the four phrases are separated, it conversely reveals that this essence is not an aspect. 'Extinguished aspect' is simply because this essence is not an aspect, therefore all aspects are extinguished. One must understand separating from aspects without abandoning anything, reversing aspects without turning away from anything, and extinguishing aspects without becoming tranquil in nothingness, only then is it the separation, reversal, and extinction of aspects in the round and middle way. In the demonstration, 'equality and tranquility' is simply because from the root, all aspects are separated, therefore this mind is equal and tranquil. Why? Because now the arising of aspects lies in emotion, and since emotion has discrimination, therefore aspects have high and low. Because there is high and low, it cannot be equal. Since it is not equal, how can it be tranquil? Moreover, this indicative text is the same as the Lotus Sutra, which uses three aspects to interpret one aspect. Because that sutra first presents one aspect, and because one aspect is complete and subtle, it uses three aspects to interpret it. However, these three aspects are the three names established based on the one aspect of equality and the middle way, using what is separated to reveal one aspect, completely the same as the current text. Now, based on the meaning of the master's interpretation of that sutra, we elaborate and explain it. 'Reversed aspect' is reversing the aspect of birth and death. 'Separated aspect' is having no aspect of Nirvana (涅槃). 'Extinguished aspect' is having neither aspect nor non-aspect. Furthermore, reversing the bondage of sectional transmigration and variable transmigration, hence it is called 'reversed aspect.' Being able to stay away from delusion without attachment, hence it is called 'separated aspect.' Extinguishing all false phenomena and cause and effect is called 'extinguished aspect.' The demonstration text says: 'Separating from all aspects' is the same as 'separated aspect.' 'Equality' is the same as 'reversed aspect.' 'Tranquility' is the same as 'extinguished aspect.' Refuting the attachment to the two extremes, hence it is called 'equality'.

The second part, 'Two non-existences below,' formally shows separation from aspects. Because the previous indication was separation from all aspects, equality and tranquility, it is not known what aspects are being separated from. Now it is formally shown, divided into two parts. First is separate demonstration: aspect and non-aspect are about form and mind, past, present, and future are about time and world, upper, middle, and lower are about faculties.

彼此約方所。或約己他。靜亂深凈明暗約過德。靜亂是結業解脫。明暗是煩惱菩提。深凈是生死涅槃。斷常一異約執見。今此心體。乃非色心時世根性方所過德並執見等一切相也。又可附前三相釋之。是故諸句悉皆不出空有二邊。以雙亦為第四句者。別句次第全同起信。彼云非有相。非無相。非非有相非非無相。非有無俱相。所云非有無俱相者。即同今文非亦有亦無也。有相者即生死相也。今非有相。乃非生死。即前反相也。無相者即涅槃相也。今非無相非亦無相。乃非涅槃。即前離相也。非非有相非非無相者。非即無也。既非此非。乃無相亦無。即前滅相也。乃至非一非異例于有無。一無異有。明無暗有。斷無常有。凈無染有。靜無亂有。此無彼有。皆作四句。如雲非彼非此。非非彼非非此。非亦彼非亦此。或約彼此各成四句。如以彼字成四句者。應云非有彼。非無彼。非非彼非非無彼。非亦有彼非亦無彼。此字亦然。其一異等例彼此作。故云一切四句法也。若於三世三根立四句者。義應有三。一者三字共論。約有無立。如雲非有去來今。非無去來今等。二者三字對論。就去來今而為句法。如雲。非去。非來。非非去非非來。非亦去非亦來。或以來今對成四句。如雲。非來非今等。或以去今對成四句。或以去來為一

句。以今為一句。或以去為一句。以來今為一句。三者三字各論。還約有無而為句法。如於去字為四句者。應云。非有去非無去等。三世既然。三根亦爾。

二總說下總示。對前別示乃有二義論于總別。一前別約相與三世靜亂一異諸名目故。今于其名而不別出。但云非一切可說可念。故名為總。二者前來但離可說可念故名為別。今乃亦離不可說念故名為總。文為二。初示所離。二何以下釋二。初正釋不可思議。亦非凈心不可說念不思議。今既非之。故不思議亦為所離。文云。非自體法者。以凈心自體無得名狀。寂絕平等乃非偏圓。以非偏故故非思議。以非圓故非不可思議。以不思議名從對得。是故須離。體自性彰。是故須顯。其所離者。執名對偏失意故離。非離法體。

二是故下。揲示說念但屬虛相二。初揲。二但是下示二。初虛相二。初示。然此虛相。若約當體從情想生。若約所依從凈心現。由情迷於凈心。是故發現虛相。二然此下釋。無明之體。其體本空但有于相。相既無體。此相之有即是非有。故非實相乃是虛相。文云。有即非有者。非有之言有過有德。非無明。是有法性。非有無明。即性有即非有。此約所顯為非有也。若取無明。當體既空無無明體。故曰非有。此約所離為非有也。

二非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：句。以『今』字為一句。或者以『去』字為一句。以『來今』為一句。這三者，每個字都可以單獨討論，還可以根據『有』和『無』來構成句法。例如，對於『去』字，可以有四句，應該說：『非有去』、『非無去』等等。既然三世如此，三根也是一樣。

二、總說部分，下面是總的指示。相對於前面的分別指示，這裡從總別兩個方面進行論述。一、前面分別指示是根據現象以及三世的靜亂、一異等各種名目。現在對於這些名目不再分別列出，只是說『非一切可說可念』，所以稱為總。二、前面只是離開可說可念，所以稱為別，現在也離開不可說念，所以稱為總。文分為兩部分。首先指示所要離開的，然後是『何以』以下解釋第二部分。首先正式解釋不可思議。『亦非凈心不可說念不思議』，現在既然否定了它，所以不可思議也是要離開的。文說：『非自體法者』，因為凈心的自體無法用言語描述，寂靜平等，既非偏頗也非圓滿。因為非偏頗，所以不是思議的對象；因為非圓滿，所以不是不可思議的對象。『不可思議』這個名稱是從對待中產生的，所以需要離開。本體自性彰顯，所以需要顯現。所要離開的是，執著于名相，對待偏頗，失去本意，所以要離開，但不是離開法體。

二是故下。揲示說念但屬虛相二。初揲。二但是下示二。初虛相二。初示。然此虛相。若約當體從情想生。若約所依從凈心現。由情迷於凈心。是故發現虛相。二然此下釋。無明之體。其體本空但有于相。相既無體。此相之有即是非有。故非實相乃是虛相。文云。有即非有者。非有之言有過有德。非無明。是有法性。非有無明。即性有即非有。此約所顯為非有也。若取無明。當體既空無無明體。故曰非有。此約所離為非有也。

二非

【English Translation】 English version: Sentence. Take the word 『now』 (今, jīn) as a sentence. Or take the word 『past』 (去, qù) as a sentence. Take 『future-now』 (來今, lái jīn) as a sentence. Each of these three can be discussed individually, and sentence structure can also be formed based on 『existence』 and 『non-existence』. For example, regarding the word 『past』 (去, qù), there can be four sentences, which should be: 『not existent past』 (非有去, fēi yǒu qù), 『not non-existent past』 (非無去, fēi wú qù), and so on. Since the three times are like this, the three roots are also the same.

General explanation below shows the general. Compared to the previous separate indications, there are two meanings discussed in general and separate. 1. The previous separate indications are based on phenomena and the stillness, chaos, sameness, difference, and other names of the three times. Now, for these names, they are not listed separately, but it is simply said 『not everything can be spoken or thought』 (非一切可說可念, fēi yīqiè kě shuō kě niàn), so it is called general. 2. Previously, it was only leaving what can be spoken and thought, so it was called separate. Now, it also leaves what cannot be spoken or thought, so it is called general. The text is divided into two parts. First, it indicates what is to be left, and then 『why』 (何以, hé yǐ) below explains the second part. First, formally explain inconceivable. 『Also not pure mind, unspeakable thought, inconceivable』 (亦非凈心不可說念不思議, yì fēi jìng xīn bùkě shuō niàn bùsīyì), now that it is negated, so inconceivable is also to be left. The text says: 『Not self-nature dharma』 (非自體法者, fēi zìtǐ fǎ zhě), because the self-nature of the pure mind cannot be described in words, it is silent and equal, neither biased nor complete. Because it is not biased, it is not an object of thought; because it is not complete, it is not an object of inconceivable. The name 『inconceivable』 (不可思議, bùkě sīyì) is produced from opposition, so it needs to be left. The essence of the body manifests, so it needs to be revealed. What needs to be left is, clinging to names, treating biasedly, losing the original meaning, so it needs to be left, but not leaving the dharma body.

二是故下。揲示說念但屬虛相二。初揲。二但是下示二。初虛相二。初示。然此虛相。若約當體從情想生。若約所依從凈心現。由情迷於凈心。是故發現虛相。二然此下釋。無明之體。其體本空但有于相。相既無體。此相之有即是非有。故非實相乃是虛相。文云。有即非有者。非有之言有過有德。非無明。是有法性。非有無明。即性有即非有。此約所顯為非有也。若取無明。當體既空無無明體。故曰非有。此約所離為非有也。

二非

有下。示非有二。初示。非有之相亦無可取者。聞謂無明乃是非有。即于非有單止其心。今亦遣之故云亦無。非有之義既有二向。今無可取亦通此二。一者不取法性真空。二者不取無明體空。分別雖二意趣乃一。體空之處即是法性不分且作此說。二何以下釋。無明之有本是不有。本既不有今則無滅。既然無滅何有非有。言非有者祇因其有。以非其有故云非有。若了本來不有。更將何有可非。既然無有可非任運則無非有。有亡即性空。非有亡即相空(云云)。

三是故下結釋心體不可思議。由前顯示心體離相非思議法。今結釋之二。初法二。初結。二何以下釋二。初約即義釋不可思議。由此凈心即是諸法。諸法之外無別凈心。豈有能緣能說此心者耶。故此凈心屬不思議。今以此文為即義者。據下文結真實性中四番止觀第二番云。即復念言心外無法。結云次一顯即偽是真。息異執以辨寂。既云即偽是真。知屬即義明矣。二是以下約離義釋不可思議。凈心是實離於虛妄。思議之法從虛妄生。凈心既離。是以體屬不可思議。文為三。初單約能緣能說。能緣之心。能說之言。是妄有。考實無體。二能緣下以能例所。恐其但謂能緣能說心口非實。若其所緣法體必真。今亦非之。且其能緣既乃不實。以能愿所何是真。良由所緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

有和非有，這裡展示了非有這兩種狀態。首先展示，即使是『非有』的狀態，也沒有什麼可以執取的。有人說，『無明』就是『是』和『非有』的狀態。因此，他們只是專注于『非有』的狀態，但現在也要捨棄這種觀念，所以說『亦無』。『非有』的意義有兩個方面，現在說『無可取』，也適用於這兩個方面。一是不要執取法性真空，二是不要執取無明體空。雖然區分成兩個方面，但意思是一致的。體空之處就是法性，暫且這樣說。二，『何以下釋』，是什麼意思呢？無明的『有』，本來就不是真正的『有』。本來就不是『有』，現在也就沒有『滅』。既然沒有『滅』，又怎麼會有『非有』呢？說『非有』，只是因為有『有』的存在。因為不是真正的『有』，所以才說是『非有』。如果明白了本來就沒有『有』，又有什麼『有』可以否定呢？既然沒有什麼『有』可以否定，自然就沒有『非有』了。『有』消失了，就是性空；『非有』消失了，就是相空（等等）。

三，『是故下結釋心體不可思議』，因此總結解釋心體是不可思議的。因為前面已經顯示了心體離相，不是可以用思議來理解的。現在總結解釋，分為兩個部分。初法二，首先是總結。二，『何以下釋二』，是什麼意思呢？分為兩個部分。首先，從『即』的角度解釋不可思議。因為這個清凈心就是諸法，諸法之外沒有其他的清凈心。哪裡有能夠緣取、能夠說出這個心的人呢？所以這個清凈心屬於不可思議。現在用這段文字來解釋『即』的意義，根據下文總結真實性中的四番止觀的第二番說：『即復念言心外無法』，總結說：『次一顯即偽是真，息異執以辨寂』。既然說『即偽是真』，就知道屬於『即』的意義。

二是，『以下約離義釋不可思議』，從『離』的角度解釋不可思議。清凈心是真實的，遠離虛妄。思議的方法是從虛妄產生的。清凈心既然遠離虛妄，所以它的本體屬於不可思議。這段文字分為三個部分。首先，單獨從能緣、能說的角度來說，能緣的心，能說的言語，是虛妄的，考證起來沒有實體。二，『能緣下以能例所』，用能緣來類比所緣，恐怕有人只認為能緣的心和口不是真實的，如果所緣的法體一定是真實的。現在也否定它。而且能緣既然不是真實的，用能緣來願望所緣，又怎麼會是真實的呢？因為所緣的 English version:

There are 'being' and 'non-being'. Here, it shows these two states of 'non-being'. First, it shows that even the state of 'non-being' has nothing to grasp. Someone says that 'ignorance' (Avidya) is the state of 'being' and 'non-being'. Therefore, they only focus on the state of 'non-being', but now this concept must also be abandoned, so it is said 'also none'. The meaning of 'non-being' has two aspects, and now saying 'nothing to grasp' also applies to these two aspects. One is not to grasp the true emptiness of Dharma-nature (Dharmata), and the other is not to grasp the emptiness of the substance of ignorance. Although distinguished into two aspects, the meaning is the same. The place of substantial emptiness is Dharma-nature, let's say it this way for now. Two, what does 'what follows explains' mean? The 'being' of ignorance is originally not true 'being'. Since it was originally not 'being', there is now no 'cessation'. Since there is no 'cessation', how can there be 'non-being'? Saying 'non-being' is only because there is the existence of 'being'. Because it is not true 'being', it is called 'non-being'. If you understand that there was originally no 'being', what 'being' can be negated? Since there is nothing 'being' to negate, naturally there is no 'non-being'. When 'being' disappears, it is emptiness of nature; when 'non-being' disappears, it is emptiness of characteristics (etc.).

Three, 'therefore, the following concludes and explains that the nature of mind is inconceivable', therefore, it concludes and explains that the nature of mind is inconceivable. Because it has been shown earlier that the nature of mind is separate from characteristics and cannot be understood by thinking. Now the summary explanation is divided into two parts. The first Dharma two, the first is the summary. Two, what does 'what follows explains two' mean? Divided into two parts. First, explain the inconceivable from the perspective of 'is'. Because this pure mind is all Dharmas, and there is no other pure mind outside of all Dharmas. Where is the person who can grasp and speak of this mind? Therefore, this pure mind belongs to the inconceivable. Now use this passage to explain the meaning of 'is', according to the second of the four contemplations in the summary of truthfulness in the following text: 'Immediately think that there is no Dharma outside the mind', and conclude: 'Next, one shows that is false is true, and stops different attachments to distinguish silence'. Since it says 'is false is true', it is known to belong to the meaning of 'is'.

Two, 'the following explains the inconceivable from the perspective of separation', explains the inconceivable from the perspective of 'separation'. The pure mind is true and far from delusion. The method of thinking arises from delusion. Since the pure mind is far from delusion, its substance belongs to the inconceivable. This passage is divided into three parts. First, from the perspective of the able to grasp and the able to speak alone, the mind that is able to grasp and the words that are able to speak are false, and there is no substance when examined. Two, 'the able to grasp uses the able to exemplify the grasped', uses the able to grasp to analogize the grasped, fearing that someone only thinks that the mind and mouth that are able to grasp are not true, if the substance of the Dharma that is grasped must be true. Now also deny it. Moreover, since the able to grasp is not true, how can the grasped be true when using the able to grasp to desire the grasped? Because the grasped

【English Translation】 English version:

There are 'being' and 'non-being'. Here, it shows these two states of 'non-being'. First, it shows that even the state of 'non-being' has nothing to grasp. Someone says that 'ignorance' (Avidya) is the state of 'being' and 'non-being'. Therefore, they only focus on the state of 'non-being', but now this concept must also be abandoned, so it is said 'also none'. The meaning of 'non-being' has two aspects, and now saying 'nothing to grasp' also applies to these two aspects. One is not to grasp the true emptiness of Dharma-nature (Dharmata), and the other is not to grasp the emptiness of the substance of ignorance. Although distinguished into two aspects, the meaning is the same. The place of substantial emptiness is Dharma-nature, let's say it this way for now. Two, what does 'what follows explains' mean? The 'being' of ignorance is originally not true 'being'. Since it was originally not 'being', there is now no 'cessation'. Since there is no 'cessation', how can there be 'non-being'? Saying 'non-being' is only because there is the existence of 'being'. Because it is not true 'being', it is called 'non-being'. If you understand that there was originally no 'being', what 'being' can be negated? Since there is nothing 'being' to negate, naturally there is no 'non-being'. When 'being' disappears, it is emptiness of nature; when 'non-being' disappears, it is emptiness of characteristics (etc.).

Three, 'therefore, the following concludes and explains that the nature of mind is inconceivable', therefore, it concludes and explains that the nature of mind is inconceivable. Because it has been shown earlier that the nature of mind is separate from characteristics and cannot be understood by thinking. Now the summary explanation is divided into two parts. The first Dharma two, the first is the summary. Two, what does 'what follows explains two' mean? Divided into two parts. First, explain the inconceivable from the perspective of 'is'. Because this pure mind is all Dharmas, and there is no other pure mind outside of all Dharmas. Where is the person who can grasp and speak of this mind? Therefore, this pure mind belongs to the inconceivable. Now use this passage to explain the meaning of 'is', according to the second of the four contemplations in the summary of truthfulness in the following text: 'Immediately think that there is no Dharma outside the mind', and conclude: 'Next, one shows that is false is true, and stops different attachments to distinguish silence'. Since it says 'is false is true', it is known to belong to the meaning of 'is'.

Two, 'the following explains the inconceivable from the perspective of separation', explains the inconceivable from the perspective of 'separation'. The pure mind is true and far from delusion. The method of thinking arises from delusion. Since the pure mind is far from delusion, its substance belongs to the inconceivable. This passage is divided into three parts. First, from the perspective of the able to grasp and the able to speak alone, the mind that is able to grasp and the words that are able to speak are false, and there is no substance when examined. Two, 'the able to grasp uses the able to exemplify the grasped', uses the able to grasp to analogize the grasped, fearing that someone only thinks that the mind and mouth that are able to grasp are not true, if the substance of the Dharma that is grasped must be true. Now also deny it. Moreover, since the able to grasp is not true, how can the grasped be true when using the able to grasp to desire the grasped? Because the grasped

因能緣生。若無能緣何有所緣。問能緣是虛所緣自實可乎。若云不可。荊溪何云。心粗境妙。如有相心持法華經。故但開其心耶。答。所緣中實克從法體是妙非粗但如開其心由能累所。故所緣雖妙。同名不實。如心境俱開。今取由能累所。故所緣亦虛。三能緣下結能緣所緣皆悉虛妄即思議也。凈心既離虛妄。故不思議法。然今文中不獨離其能緣能說亦離所緣所說者。正同摩訶止觀引楞伽云。無增無減。離言說妄想文字二趣。智者釋云。離言說妄想者不可思議也。離文字者離假名也。離二趣者離說所說．想所想．名所名也。記云。離言說者不可議也。離妄相者不可思也。離文字者離假名文字也。凡能詮教無非假名。約自證法有何文字。言二趣者。復疏釋前言說假名。恐情妄計但離能說能名能思。即以所說所思所名謂之真體。故復疏云二趣俱離。何者。于自證中不見能所名離二趣。問。文既結釋不可思議。何故祇云不以緣慮所知。答。向文既存。今但略爾。言由心發。若亡於心其言亦無。是故略云非緣慮所知。若以有言必有心。但亡于言其心亦泯。亦可但云非言說所及。又不思議惟可心知。但非言說。故大師云。此不思議。非青黃赤白方圓長短。無名無相究竟寂滅。惟當心知。口不能說。今問既不可思云何心知。答以無妙

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因能緣而生（萬法）。如果沒有能緣之心，又怎麼會有所緣之境呢？有人問：『能緣』是虛幻的，『所緣』本身是真實的，可以這樣認為嗎？如果說不可以，那麼荊溪（指唐代天臺宗僧人湛然）為什麼說『心粗境妙』呢？比如有執著于相的心來持誦《法華經》，所以只是開啟他的心嗎？回答：『所緣』之中，真實地遵循法的本體，是『妙』而不是『粗』。但就像開啟他的心，因為能緣的心牽累了所緣的境，所以所緣雖然是『妙』，也同樣被稱為不真實。如果心和境都開啟了，現在取『由能累所』的觀點，所以所緣也是虛幻的。『三能緣下』總結說，能緣和所緣都是虛妄的，也就是思議的範疇。清凈的心已經遠離了虛妄，所以是不思議法。然而，現在文中的意思不僅是遠離能緣能說，也遠離所緣所說。這正如同《摩訶止觀》引用《楞伽經》所說：『無增無減，離言說妄想文字二趣。』智者（指智顗）解釋說：『離言說妄想』是不可思議，『離文字』是離假名，『離二趣』是離說和所說、想和所想、名和所名。』《記》中說：『離言說』是不可議，『離妄相』是不可思，『離文字』是離假名文字。』凡是能詮釋教義的，沒有不是假名的。從自證法的角度來說，哪裡有什麼文字呢？所說的『二趣』，是再次疏解前面的『言說假名』，恐怕有人妄自認為只是遠離能說、能名、能思，就認為所說、所思、所名是真體。所以再次疏解說『二趣俱離』。為什麼呢？在自證之中，不見能所，就叫做離二趣。有人問：經文既然總結解釋為不可思議，為什麼只說『不以緣慮所知』呢？回答：因為前面的經文已經存在，現在只是簡略地說。言語由心而發，如果失去了心，言語也就沒有了。所以簡略地說『非緣慮所知』。如果有了言語，必定有心。但如果失去了言語，心也就泯滅了。也可以只說『非言說所及』。而且，不思議只能用心去體會，但不能用言語表達。所以大師（指智顗）說：『這不思議，不是青黃赤白方圓長短，無名無相，究竟寂滅，只能用心去體會，口不能說。』現在有人問：既然不可思議，怎麼用心去體會呢？回答：用無妙（體會）。

【English Translation】 English version Due to the condition of the 'able to cognize' (因能緣生, hetupratyaya), things arise. If there is no 'able to cognize', how can there be an 'object to be cognized' (所緣, alambana)? Someone asks: 'Is it acceptable to say that the 'able to cognize' is illusory, while the 'object to be cognized' is inherently real?' If you say it is not acceptable, then why did Jingxi (荊溪, refers to Zhanran 湛然, a Tiantai monk of the Tang Dynasty) say, 'The mind is coarse, the realm is subtle' (心粗境妙)? For example, if someone with a mind attached to appearances recites the Lotus Sutra (法華經, Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra), is it simply to open their mind? Answer: Within the 'object to be cognized', truly following the essence of the Dharma is 'subtle' (妙) and not 'coarse' (粗). However, just like opening their mind, because the 'able to cognize' mind burdens the 'object to be cognized' realm, even though the 'object to be cognized' is 'subtle', it is still called unreal. If both the mind and the realm are opened, we now take the view of 'the able burdens the object' (由能累所), so the 'object to be cognized' is also illusory. 'Below the three able to cognize' (三能緣下) it is concluded that both the 'able to cognize' and the 'object to be cognized' are illusory, which is the realm of conceptual thought (思議). The pure mind has already departed from illusion, so it is the inconceivable Dharma (不思議法, acintya-dharma). However, the meaning of the text now is not only to depart from the 'able to cognize' and the 'able to speak', but also to depart from the 'object to be cognized' and the 'object to be spoken'. This is exactly like the Mahāzhiguan (摩訶止觀, Great Calming and Contemplation) quoting the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽經, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra) saying: 'Without increase or decrease, apart from the two realms of speech, delusion, and letters' (無增無減，離言說妄想文字二趣). The wise one (智者, refers to Zhiyi 智顗, founder of the Tiantai school) explains: 'Departing from speech and delusion' is inconceivable, 'departing from letters' is departing from provisional names (假名, prajñapti), 'departing from the two realms' is departing from the speaker and the spoken, the thinker and the thought, the name and the named.' The Record (記) says: 'Departing from speech' is unutterable, 'departing from deluded appearances' is unthinkable, 'departing from letters' is departing from provisional names and letters.' All that can explain the teachings is nothing but provisional names. From the perspective of self-realized Dharma, where are there any letters? The so-called 'two realms' (二趣) is a further explanation of the preceding 'speech and provisional names', fearing that someone might falsely believe that merely departing from the 'able to speak', the 'able to name', and the 'able to think' means that the 'spoken', the 'thought', and the 'named' are the true essence. Therefore, it is further explained that 'both realms are departed from' (二趣俱離). Why? In self-realization, not seeing the 'able' and the 'object' is called departing from the two realms. Someone asks: Since the text concludes and explains it as inconceivable, why does it only say 'not known by conditioned thought' (不以緣慮所知)? Answer: Because the preceding text already exists, it is now simply stated briefly. Speech arises from the mind; if the mind is lost, speech is also gone. Therefore, it is briefly said 'not known by conditioned thought'. If there is speech, there must be a mind. But if speech is lost, the mind also vanishes. It can also be simply said 'not reached by speech' (非言說所及). Moreover, the inconceivable can only be experienced by the mind, but cannot be expressed in words. Therefore, the master (大師, refers to Zhiyi 智顗) says: 'This inconceivable is not blue, yellow, red, white, square, round, long, or short; it is without name or form, ultimately quiescent and extinguished; it can only be experienced by the mind, and cannot be spoken by the mouth.' Now someone asks: Since it is inconceivable, how can it be experienced by the mind? Answer: By using 'no-wonder' (無妙, no-wonder).

心作不思知。亦可例云。以無妙辯作不言說。惟當口說不可心知。

二譬如下喻二。初喻即二。初出喻。若據眼不自見可喻凈心而無分別。今約自眼之外有他人眼能見自眼。乃有自他二眼不同。故不可喻凈心一如。二心不下反合。反前眼喻由眼有二。心祇是一。故心不如是。二又復下喻離三。初約法承前起后。又復凈心至取此心耶者。承前即義。如外無法也。而諸凡惑分別凈心者。起后離義。而於心外建立諸法也。即乃屬理悟之法體。離乃屬事迷之法體。由離無別離乃離於理。故理亦名離。即無別即乃即於事。故事亦名即。二即如下喻合。文而略。今預約法以合釋之。即如癡人大張己眼者。癡人即迷中眾生也。己眼即迷中眾生亦有凈心也。大張者。若知己有己眼。則不大張求覓。為不知己眼故。乃大張更覓己眼。由不知凈心故。以凈心更求凈心。才用凈心求心。此之凈心因不覺故即動為業也。還覓己眼者。雖然終日有于凈心。乃不識之而卻遍求。故云還覓。復謂種種相㒵為己家眼者。因不識于本有凈心向外求之。求之不已。得偏邪理認為凈心。如以種種相㒵為己家眼。種種相㒵即轉現也。竟不知自家眼處者。中實之心即是第九真常凈識。既認八識染相為凈。是故不知己家眼處。三是故下合。是故應知有能緣所緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『心作不思知』，也可以這樣說，就像『以無妙辯作不言說』。只有口說可以，心裡卻無法理解。

二、譬如以下的比喻二。初喻即二。初出喻。如果說眼睛不能自己看見自己，可以比喻凈心而沒有分別。現在說自己的眼睛之外有他人的眼睛能看見自己的眼睛，就有了自己和他人的兩種眼睛不同。所以不能比喻凈心的一如。二心不下反合。反駁前面的眼睛的比喻，因為眼睛有二，心卻只有一個。所以心不像眼睛這樣。二、又如下面的比喻，離開三。初約法承前起后。『又復凈心』到『取此心耶者』，承接前面的即義，就像心外無法一樣。而那些迷惑顛倒，分別凈心的人，是開啟後面的離義，因為他們在心外建立諸法。即是屬於從理上領悟的法體，離是屬於從事上迷惑的法體。因為離沒有分別，離是背離了理，所以理也叫做離。即沒有分別，即是從事上來說的，所以事也叫做即。二、即如下面的比喻合。文辭簡略。現在用約定法來合起來解釋它。『即如癡人大張己眼者』，癡人就是迷惑中的眾生。『己眼』就是迷惑中的眾生也有的凈心。『大張』，如果知道自己有自己的眼睛，就不會大張旗鼓地去尋找。因為不知道自己有眼睛，所以才大張旗鼓地去尋找自己的眼睛。因為不知道有凈心，所以用凈心去求凈心。才用凈心去求心，這個凈心因為不覺悟就動起來成為業。『還覓己眼者』，雖然終日擁有凈心，卻不認識它，反而到處尋找，所以說『還覓』。『復謂種種相㒵為己家眼者』，因為不認識本來就有的凈心，所以向外尋求。尋求不止，得到一些偏邪的道理，就認為是凈心。就像把各種各樣的相㒵當作自己的眼睛一樣。『種種相㒵』就是轉現。『竟不知自家眼處者』，中實之心就是第九識，真常凈識。既然把八識的染相認為是凈，所以不知道自己眼睛在哪裡。三、是故下合。因此應該知道有能緣和所緣。

【English Translation】 English version 『The mind acts without thinking and knowing.』 This can also be said as, 『Using wonderful eloquence as not speaking.』 Only speaking with the mouth is possible, but the mind cannot understand.

Two, the following two metaphors. The first metaphor is two. The first presents the metaphor. If it is said that the eye cannot see itself, it can be compared to a pure mind without discrimination. Now, it is said that outside of one's own eye, there is another person's eye that can see one's own eye, then there are two different eyes, oneself and others. Therefore, it cannot be compared to the oneness of the pure mind. Two, the mind does not go down but combines. Refuting the previous metaphor of the eye, because there are two eyes, but only one mind. Therefore, the mind is not like the eye. Two, again, the following metaphor, departing from three. First, according to the Dharma, it connects the preceding and initiates the following. 『Again, the pure mind』 to 『Take this mind?』 continues the previous meaning, just as there is no Dharma outside the mind. And those who are deluded and discriminate the pure mind are initiating the following meaning of separation, because they establish all Dharmas outside the mind. 『Immediate』 belongs to the Dharma body of understanding from the principle, and 『separation』 belongs to the Dharma body of delusion from the matter. Because separation has no distinction, separation is departing from the principle, so the principle is also called separation. 『Immediate』 has no distinction, 『immediate』 is from the matter, so the matter is also called 『immediate.』 Two, 『immediate』 is like the following metaphor combined. The text is brief. Now, use the agreed-upon Dharma to combine and explain it. 『Immediate is like a foolish person opening his eyes wide,』 the foolish person is the sentient being in delusion. 『One's own eyes』 is the pure mind that sentient beings in delusion also have. 『Opening wide,』 if one knows that one has one's own eyes, one will not search for them with great fanfare. Because one does not know that one has one's own eyes, one searches for one's own eyes with great fanfare. Because one does not know that there is a pure mind, one uses the pure mind to seek the pure mind. Only when one uses the pure mind to seek the mind, this pure mind moves and becomes karma because of non-awakening. 『Still seeking one's own eyes,』 although one has the pure mind all day long, one does not recognize it but seeks it everywhere, so it is said 『still seeking.』『Again, saying that various appearances are one's own family's eyes,』 because one does not recognize the pure mind that one originally has, one seeks it externally. Seeking without end, one obtains some biased and deviant principles and considers them to be the pure mind. It is like taking various appearances as one's own family's eyes. 『Various appearances』 are transformations. 『Ultimately not knowing where one's own family's eyes are,』 the mind of true substance is the ninth consciousness, the true, constant, and pure consciousness. Since one recognizes the defiled appearances of the eight consciousnesses as pure, one does not know where one's own eyes are. Three, 『therefore』 combines below. Therefore, one should know that there are the able to perceive (能緣) and the perceived (所緣).

者。合大張己眼為能緣。還覓己眼種種相㒵為所緣也。但是己家凈心為無始妄想所薰。故不能自知己性者。合癡人不知己眼故大張己眼覓也。即妄生分別至凈心之相者。合所見種種相貌也。還以妄相者。合復謂也。取之以為凈心者。合迷所見種種相㒵能見己家眼也。考實至非凈心也者。合竟不知自家眼處也。

二問下解入。上來委示凈心法體有性有修。皆是所知所行所證法。今論解入者。乃是能知能行能證之心。即同下文依于意識修止觀也。然此法理義有三種。一者性德。二者修德。三者意識。若就此三分能所者。一者性德修德乃是能治。意識一種乃是所治。二者意識乃是能知能行能證。性德修德乃是所知所行所證。三者修為能觀。性為所觀。故此能所望于意識俱得為能。俱得為所。今取意識為能解入。然此問答。借起信文以明今義。就文為二。初問。乃有三義。即解行證。初問凈心之體既不可分別者。即不思議也。一者性德不可分別乃約即義。由一切法即是此心。心外無法將誰分別。二者修德不可分別乃約離義。由離一切緣念故不可以緣念分別。今問者初。問此二義既不可分別。云何能知解耶。既不可知解。第二即問云何能隨順而修耶。既不可修。第三即問云何能證入耶。應以如諸眾生貫通上下。貫上既不可

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：那就像愚昧的人睜大自己的眼睛，卻以為能看見東西。還在尋找自己眼睛的各種形狀和顏色，當作所見之物。只是因為自己本有的清凈心被無始以來的虛妄念想所薰染，所以不能自己認識自己的本性。這就像愚昧的人不認識自己的眼睛，所以才睜大眼睛去尋找。『即妄生分別至凈心之相者』，就像所見到的各種形狀和顏色。『還以妄相者』，就像又說。『取之以為凈心者』，就像迷惑地認為所見到的各種形狀和顏色就是自己本有的眼睛。『考實至非凈心也者』，就像最終還是不知道自己的眼睛在哪裡。

二問以下解釋如何入門。上面詳細地闡述了清凈心法體的體性、修行，都是所知、所行、所證的法。現在討論如何入門，就是能知、能行、能證的心。這和下文『依于意識修止觀』相同。然而，這個法理有三種含義：一是體性功德（性德），二是修習功德（修德），三是意識。如果就這三方面來區分能與所，一是體性功德和修習功德是能治，意識是所治。二是意識是能知、能行、能證，體性功德和修習功德是所知、所行、所證。三是修行是能觀，體性是所觀。所以，這個能與所，對於意識來說，既可以作為能，也可以作為所。現在取意識作為能解入門。然而，這個問答，借用《起信論》的文句來闡明現在的意義。就文句來說，分為兩部分。第一問，有三重含義，即理解、修行、證悟。第一問，清凈心的本體既然不可分別，就是不可思議。一是體性功德不可分別，是從『即』的角度來說，因為一切法就是這個心，心外無法，還能分別什麼？二是修習功德不可分別，是從『離』的角度來說，因為遠離一切緣念，所以不能用緣念來分別。現在問的是第一點，既然這兩種含義都不可分別，那麼如何能夠知解呢？既然不可知解，第二點就問如何能夠隨順而修習呢？既然不可修習，第三點就問如何能夠證入呢？應該用『如諸眾生』來貫通上下。貫通上面既然不可 English version: That's like a foolish person opening their eyes wide, yet thinking they can see. They are still searching for the various shapes and colors of their own eyes, taking them as what is seen. It's just because one's own pure mind is熏 (xūn, imbued/influenced) by beginningless deluded thoughts, so one cannot recognize one's own nature. This is like a foolish person not recognizing their own eyes, so they open their eyes wide to search. 『即妄生分別至凈心之相者 (jí wàng shēng fēnbié zhì jìngxīn zhī xiàng zhě)』 [『That is, falsely generating discriminations to the appearance of the pure mind』], is like the various shapes and colors that are seen. 『還以妄相者 (hái yǐ wàng xiàng zhě)』 [『Still taking the false appearances』], is like saying again. 『取之以為凈心者 (qǔ zhī yǐwéi jìngxīn zhě)』 [『Taking them as the pure mind』], is like mistakenly thinking that the various shapes and colors that are seen are one's own eyes. 『考實至非凈心也者 (kǎo shí zhì fēi jìngxīn yě zhě)』 [『Examining the reality, it is not the pure mind』], is like ultimately not knowing where one's own eyes are.

Second question below explains how to enter. Above, it was explained in detail that the essence and practice of the pure mind's dharma body are all dharmas that are known, practiced, and realized. Now, discussing how to enter is about the mind that can know, can practice, and can realize. This is the same as 『依于意識修止觀 (yī yú yìshí xiū zhǐ guān)』 [『relying on consciousness to cultivate śamatha-vipassanā』] below. However, this dharma principle has three meanings: first, inherent virtue (性德, xìng dé), second, cultivated virtue (修德, xiū dé), and third, consciousness (意識, yìshí). If we distinguish between the able and the object based on these three aspects, first, inherent virtue and cultivated virtue are the able to cure, and consciousness is the object to be cured. Second, consciousness is the able to know, able to practice, and able to realize, while inherent virtue and cultivated virtue are the object to be known, object to be practiced, and object to be realized. Third, cultivation is the able to contemplate, and inherent nature is the object to be contemplated. Therefore, this able and object, in relation to consciousness, can both be the able and both be the object. Now, we take consciousness as the able to understand and enter. However, this question and answer borrows the sentences from the Awakening of Faith to clarify the present meaning. In terms of the sentences, it is divided into two parts. The first question has three meanings, namely understanding, practice, and realization. The first question, since the essence of the pure mind is indistinguishable, it is inconceivable. First, inherent virtue is indistinguishable, from the perspective of 『即 (jí, is)』, because all dharmas are this mind, and there is no dharma outside the mind, so what else can be distinguished? Second, cultivated virtue is indistinguishable, from the perspective of 『離 (lí, separation)』, because it is far from all conditioned thoughts, so it cannot be distinguished by conditioned thoughts. Now the question is the first point, since these two meanings are indistinguishable, how can one understand? Since it cannot be understood, the second point asks how can one follow and practice? Since it cannot be practiced, the third point asks how can one enter into realization? One should use 『如諸眾生 (rú zhū zhòngshēng)』 [『like all sentient beings』] to connect above and below. Connecting above, since it is not

【English Translation】 That's like a foolish person opening their eyes wide, yet thinking they can see. They are still searching for the various shapes and colors of their own eyes, taking them as what is seen. It's just because one's own pure mind is imbued by beginningless deluded thoughts, so one cannot recognize one's own nature. This is like a foolish person not recognizing their own eyes, so they open their eyes wide to search. '即妄生分別至凈心之相者 (jí wàng shēng fēnbié zhì jìngxīn zhī xiàng zhě)' ['That is, falsely generating discriminations to the appearance of the pure mind'], is like the various shapes and colors that are seen. '還以妄相者 (hái yǐ wàng xiàng zhě)' ['Still taking the false appearances'], is like saying again. '取之以為凈心者 (qǔ zhī yǐwéi jìngxīn zhě)' ['Taking them as the pure mind'], is like mistakenly thinking that the various shapes and colors that are seen are one's own eyes. '考實至非凈心也者 (kǎo shí zhì fēi jìngxīn yě zhě)' ['Examining the reality, it is not the pure mind'], is like ultimately not knowing where one's own eyes are. Second question below explains how to enter. Above, it was explained in detail that the essence and practice of the pure mind's dharma body are all dharmas that are known, practiced, and realized. Now, discussing how to enter is about the mind that can know, can practice, and can realize. This is the same as '依于意識修止觀 (yī yú yìshí xiū zhǐ guān)' ['relying on consciousness to cultivate śamatha-vipassanā'] below. However, this dharma principle has three meanings: first, inherent virtue (性德, xìng dé), second, cultivated virtue (修德, xiū dé), and third, consciousness (意識, yìshí). If we distinguish between the able and the object based on these three aspects, first, inherent virtue and cultivated virtue are the able to cure, and consciousness is the object to be cured. Second, consciousness is the able to know, able to practice, and able to realize, while inherent virtue and cultivated virtue are the object to be known, object to be practiced, and object to be realized. Third, cultivation is the able to contemplate, and inherent nature is the object to be contemplated. Therefore, this able and object, in relation to consciousness, can both be the able and both be the object. Now, we take consciousness as the able to understand and enter. However, this question and answer borrows the sentences from the Awakening of Faith to clarify the present meaning. In terms of the sentences, it is divided into two parts. The first question has three meanings, namely understanding, practice, and realization. The first question, since the essence of the pure mind is indistinguishable, it is inconceivable. First, inherent virtue is indistinguishable, from the perspective of '即 (jí, is)', because all dharmas are this mind, and there is no dharma outside the mind, so what else can be distinguished? Second, cultivated virtue is indistinguishable, from the perspective of '離 (lí, separation)', because it is far from all conditioned thoughts, so it cannot be distinguished by conditioned thoughts. Now the question is the first point, since these two meanings are indistinguishable, how can one understand? Since it cannot be understood, the second point asks how can one follow and practice? Since it cannot be practiced, the third point asks how can one enter into realization? One should use '如諸眾生 (rú zhū zhòngshēng)' ['like all sentient beings'] to connect above and below. Connecting above, since it is not

分別。貫下云何隨順而能得入。二答者。問既三義。答亦有三。初答知解。上問不可分別。乃含二種不可分別。今答若知分別體是凈心者。即此分別是無分別。此答約即義。了知上法體中性德法體而無分別也。但以分別不息說為背理者。乃由分別異無分別。是故分別背凈心理。此答約離義。了知上法體中修德法體離於一切四句分別也。若知二字通冠下文。若知一切妄念分別體是凈心者。知性境也。若知但以分別不息說為背理者。知修境也。作此知已一句。結上生下。則總答上文既不可分別也。上文雖無知解之言。以答顯之。故知上問不可分別問知解也。二答隨順。當觀一切諸法至故名隨順者。上問隨順。正問于修。今答依解起行。即是隨順而修。故云當觀。久久修習一句。結上生下。結上隨順。生下得入。因修習故是以得入。三答得入。若離分別名得入者。離分別者斷無明也。約即論斷是故云離。即是離相體證真如者。結得入為證也。若以問答為修境者。上文有從本之言離於四句即性德也。今文問答有若知之言。離於分別即修德也。問。知之一字屬修觀耶。答。或知即是觀。如荊溪云。知者照也。今文知字且在解知。由下文云。作此知已方云當觀。若以今文意求于起信。則彼文似略。問。藏師以知一切法是名隨順為方

便觀。今何以知與觀為殊。答。今釋論文不同彼疏。不可執彼而難今也。然復須瞭解即是觀。但約位次分解行爾。問。今云隨順乃在行修。還可隨順屬解知不。答。或可隨順即是解知。如下文云。作此解者名為隨順真如。故隨順之名通解通修。亦可通證。良由解順修順證順故也。　三此明下結。

二明不一不異以辨體狀三。初標。二上來下釋二。初釋不異二。初揲示。上來至之相者。揲前文也。然此諸相復不異凈心者。示不異也。二何以下正釋二。初性用。欲明事用與心不異。是故先出性具染凈。令知事用即本而為。既即本為故其事用與體不異。二復以下正約事用以辨不異。復以無始無明妄想薰習力故者。明能重也。心體染用依熏顯現者。明其所薰現為事用也。由所薰性本具于染。故薰可現。此等虛相無體者。無明無體也。惟是凈心者。既依凈心作無明。故無明以凈心為體也。既以凈心為體。故一切虛相與凈心不異。問。向來據下文用為化他義。是故指今文同于化他境。下文是凈用斯可屬化他。今文是染用正乃屬迷生。豈同於離執然後起四說。答。一者約能所。迷染是所化。凈用是能化。今以所顯能。故乃義無別。二者約法體。由染用當體。自行雖曰離。化他復取用。且如四句法。意識攀緣生。雖自行已離。為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本便觀。現在如何得知『與』和『觀』是不同的呢？回答：現在解釋論文與之前的疏解不同，不能執著於之前的疏解來質疑現在的說法。然而，還需要了解『即是觀』，只是根據位次來分解修行而已。問：現在說『隨順』是在修行中，是否可以認為『隨順』屬於理解認知呢？答：或許『隨順』就是理解認知。如下文所說：『作此解者名為隨順真如』。所以，『隨順』這個名稱貫通理解、修行和證悟。這是因為理解隨順、修行隨順、證悟隨順的緣故。三，這在下面會總結。

二，闡明『不一不異』以辨別本體狀態，分為三部分。首先是標示。二，上面是引述，下面是解釋，分為兩部分。首先解釋『不異』，分為兩部分。首先是揭示。『上來至之相者』，是引述前文。『然此諸相復不異凈心者』，是揭示『不異』。二，『何以下正釋二』，下面正式解釋，分為兩部分。首先是『性用』。想要闡明事用與心不異，所以先提出性具染凈，讓人知道事用是依本體而產生的。既然是依本體而產生，所以事用與本體不異。二，『復以下正約事用以辨不異』。『復以無始無明妄想薰習力故者』，闡明能重。『心體染用依熏顯現者』，闡明所薰現為事用。由於所薰的性質本來就具有染污，所以薰習可以顯現。『此等虛相無體者』，無明沒有本體。『惟是凈心者』，既然依凈心而產生無明，所以無明以凈心為本體。既然以凈心為本體，所以一切虛相與凈心不異。問：之前根據下文，認為『用』是化他的意義，所以指出現在的文與化他的境界相同。下文是凈用，可以歸屬於化他。現在的文是染用，正是屬於迷惑產生，怎麼能等同於離開執著然後產生的四種說法呢？答：一，從能所的角度來說，迷惑染污是所化，清凈的用是能化。現在用所顯的來顯示能，所以意義沒有區別。二，從法體的角度來說，由於染用就是本體，即使自行說是離開，化他仍然取用。比如四句法，意識攀緣產生，即使自行已經離開，爲了

【English Translation】 English version Then contemplate. How do we know that 『with』 and 『contemplation』 are different? Answer: The interpretation of this treatise is different from the previous commentaries. One cannot cling to the previous commentaries to question the current explanation. However, it is also necessary to understand that 『it is contemplation,』 but only to decompose the practice according to the stages. Question: Now it is said that 『following』 is in practice, can it be considered that 『following』 belongs to understanding and knowing? Answer: Perhaps 『following』 is understanding and knowing. As the following text says: 『Those who make this understanding are called following Suchness.』 Therefore, the name 『following』 connects understanding, practice, and realization. This is because understanding follows, practice follows, and realization follows. Three, this will be summarized below.

Two, clarify 『neither one nor different』 to distinguish the nature of the substance, divided into three parts. First is the indication. Two, the above is a citation, and the following is an explanation, divided into two parts. First, explain 『not different,』 divided into two parts. First is the revelation. 『The aspects mentioned above』 are citations from the previous text. 『However, these aspects are not different from the pure mind』 is the revelation of 『not different.』 Two, 『What follows is the correct explanation,』 the following is the formal explanation, divided into two parts. First is 『nature and function.』 Wanting to clarify that function is not different from the mind, so first put forward the pure and impure nature, so that people know that function arises from the original substance. Since it arises from the original substance, the function is not different from the substance. Two, 『What follows is the correct explanation of function to distinguish non-difference.』『Moreover, due to the power of beginningless ignorance and deluded thoughts,』 clarifies the ability to repeat. 『The mind's substance and defiled function manifest according to the influence,』 clarifies that what is influenced manifests as function. Because the nature of what is influenced originally has defilement, the influence can manifest. 『These illusory appearances have no substance,』 ignorance has no substance. 『Only the pure mind,』 since ignorance arises from the pure mind, ignorance takes the pure mind as its substance. Since it takes the pure mind as its substance, all illusory appearances are not different from the pure mind. Question: According to the following text, 『function』 is the meaning of transforming others, so it is pointed out that the current text is the same as the realm of transforming others. The following text is pure function, which can be attributed to transforming others. The current text is defiled function, which belongs to delusion, how can it be the same as the four statements that arise after leaving attachment? Answer: One, from the perspective of ability and object, delusion and defilement are what is transformed, and pure function is the ability to transform. Now use what is revealed to show the ability, so the meaning is no different. Two, from the perspective of the substance of the Dharma, since defiled function is the substance, even if one says to leave in self-practice, transforming others still takes function. For example, the four-sentence Dharma, consciousness arises from clinging, even if self-practice has left,

他故復說。自他雖有殊。法體乃無異。問。向論于性用。雙具于染凈。及論現事用。何故祇說染。答。一由今文中為辯不異義。若其凈用起。即順於心性。不異義易知。恐謂染用起與性乃不一。是故將辯之。二以事染凈二用俱染攝。因染有凈故。所以俱名染。又以佛望生。依無明染心為修凈之本。故乃併名染。如文句事權。起凈不凈業。記中獨指為立一切染法。

二又復下釋不一二。初標示。二何以下正釋二。初性用。然性用之說。或說平等。或說差別。向文性用意示差別。故先舉平等后云二用。今文性用意示平等。故先舉二用后云平等。意示差別者。欲成與事不異義故。意示平等者。欲成與事不一義故。　三此明下結。第三明二種如來藏者。起信云。一者如實空義。以能究竟顯實故。二如實不空義。以有自體具足無漏性功德故。南嶽依此二文而說今旨。然此二藏自昔說者。皆約情法以分二義。所謂情空法不空也。但于情法所見不同。其說有二。一家云。情是事相。法是理性。空如來藏一相不存。不空藏者具足性德。據起信云。凈法滿足則名不空亦無有相。一家云。夫言相者有情有法。其所空者乃空情相。其不空者不空法相。起信云。無有相者無情相也。今評初家不空性德。況南嶽云。藏體平等實無差別。即是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他又進一步解釋說：雖然自性和他性有所不同，但法的本體並沒有差異。有人問：之前討論自性和作用時，說染和凈兩種性質都具備。現在討論顯現的事用時，為什麼只說染呢？回答：一是由於現在的文段是爲了辨明不異的意義。如果清凈的作用生起，就順應心性，不異的意義容易理解。二是恐怕有人認為染污的作用生起與自性不一致，所以要辨明它。二是由於事上的染凈兩種作用都包含在染中，因為有染才有凈，所以都稱為染。又因為佛看待眾生，認為依靠無明染心作為修習清凈的根本，所以都稱為染。如《文句》所說，事權，生起清凈和不清凈的業。《記》中特別指出這是建立一切染法。

二、『又復下』解釋不一和二。首先是標示，其次是『何以下』正式解釋二。首先是自性作用。然而，關於自性作用的說法，有的說是平等，有的說是差別。之前的文段中，自性作用的意義在於顯示差別，所以先舉平等，后說二用。現在的文段中，自性作用的意義在於顯示平等，所以先舉二用，后說平等。意義在於顯示差別，是爲了成就與事不異的意義。意義在於顯示平等，是爲了成就與事不一的意義。三、『此明下』總結。第三，說明兩種如來藏。《起信論》說：一是如實空義，因為能夠究竟顯現實相；二是如實不空義，因為有自體具足無漏性功德。南嶽依據這兩段文字來說明現在的宗旨。然而，這兩種藏，自古以來解說的人，都是從情和法來區分兩種意義，所謂情空法不空。但對於情和法的理解不同，其說法有兩種。一家說：情是事相，法是理性。空如來藏一相不存，不空藏具足性德。根據《起信論》說：凈法滿足則名不空，也沒有相。一家說：所謂相，有情相和法相。所空的是空情相，不空的是不空法相。《起信論》說：沒有相，是沒有情相。現在評論第一家不空性德。況且南嶽說：藏體平等，實在沒有差別，就是。

【English Translation】 English version: He further explained: Although self and other differ, the essence of Dharma is not different. Someone asked: When discussing nature and function, it was said that both defilement and purity are present. Now, when discussing manifested functions, why only mention defilement? The answer is: First, because the current passage is to clarify the meaning of non-duality. If pure function arises, it accords with the nature of mind, and the meaning of non-duality is easily understood. Second, it is feared that people might think that the arising of defiled function is not consistent with the nature, so it needs to be clarified. Second, because both defiled and pure functions in phenomena are included in defilement, because there is purity due to defilement, so they are both called defilement. Furthermore, because Buddhas view sentient beings as relying on the defiled mind of ignorance as the root of cultivating purity, so they are both called defilement. As the 'Wen Ju' says, expedient means give rise to pure and impure karma. The 'Record' specifically points out that this establishes all defiled dharmas.

'You Fu Xia' explains non-duality and duality. First is the indication, and second is 'He Yi Xia' which formally explains duality. First is nature and function. However, regarding the statement of nature and function, some say it is equality, and some say it is difference. In the previous passage, the meaning of nature and function lies in showing difference, so first equality is mentioned, and then the two functions are mentioned. In the current passage, the meaning of nature and function lies in showing equality, so first the two functions are mentioned, and then equality is mentioned. The meaning lies in showing difference, in order to achieve the meaning of non-difference with phenomena. The meaning lies in showing equality, in order to achieve the meaning of non-identity with phenomena. 3. 'Ci Ming Xia' concludes. Third, explaining the two kinds of Tathagatagarbha (如來藏, the womb of the Tathagata). The 'Awakening of Faith' says: First is the meaning of Suchness as Emptiness, because it can ultimately reveal the real aspect; second is the meaning of Suchness as Non-Emptiness, because it has its own essence and is complete with flawless qualities and virtues. Nanyue (南嶽, a Buddhist monk) relies on these two passages to explain the current purpose. However, these two Garbhas, since ancient times, those who have explained them have distinguished the two meanings from emotion and Dharma, the so-called emptiness of emotion and non-emptiness of Dharma. However, the understanding of emotion and Dharma is different, and there are two kinds of statements. One school says: Emotion is the phenomenal aspect, and Dharma is the principle. The Empty Tathagatagarbha does not retain a single aspect, and the Non-Empty Garbha is complete with inherent virtues. According to the 'Awakening of Faith', if pure Dharma is complete, it is called Non-Empty, and there is no aspect. One school says: The so-called aspect has emotional aspects and Dharma aspects. What is emptied is the emotional aspect, and what is not emptied is the Dharma aspect. The 'Awakening of Faith' says: There is no aspect, which means there is no emotional aspect. Now, commenting on the first school's non-empty inherent virtues. Moreover, Nanyue says: The essence of the Garbha is equal, and there is really no difference, which is.

如來空如來藏。此文豈非性德染凈泯處為空。然何以知。由物不空可顯此義故。不空藏云。然體復有不可思議用故。具足一切法性。有其差別。即是不空如來藏。此蓋無差別之差別也。以此而知。存性德為不空。亡性德為空明矣。今評次家空于情相。況南嶽云。二眾生始終乃具染凈二事。何以故。以一眾生受地獄身時無餘趣報。受天報時亦無餘趣報。此文豈非情相不空。然何以知。由約彼談法相顯之。彼謂法體世間相常。於一念中頓足十界。今相生滅豈非情乎。南嶽既指始終方具名為不空。故知不空藏者亦不空于情相明矣。今所立者。應知心體非空不空。論空不空乃約染凈二用以說。若以心體立此染凈。故召心體名之為空。若亡于染凈。亡之與立。故此心體非空不空。故今文辨空如來藏云。心體平等。以泯染凈二用。心性既寂。是故心體空凈。以是因緣名此心體為空如來藏。非謂空無心體。此文意謂心體非空。以空染凈故召心體而名為空。辨不空藏云。心體具此德故名為不空。不就有心體義明不空。此文意謂。心體非不空。以具染凈故召心體而為不空。然後結云。以心體平等非空非不空。今謂既知此已方可示于約染凈用辯空不空。染凈二用有性有事。若辨二藏義應有三。一者能執情空。所執二用。法體不空(義同次家

)。二者性用不空。事用乃空(義同初家)。三者情之與法。性用事用。有則俱有名為不空。亡則俱亡號之為空(此加今義)。問。今文與起信殊耶。答。隨順悉檀義雖有異。篤論法體意實無別。以起信中為對治故空過存德。如論明云。聞修多羅說世間諸法畢竟體空。涅槃真如之法亦畢竟空。以不知此語為破著故。即謂真如涅槃之性惟是其空。云何對治。明真如法身自體不空。具足無漏性功德故。又云。聞修多羅說一切世間生死染法依如來藏而有。以不解故。謂如來藏自體具有一切世間生死等法。云何對治。以如來藏從本以來惟有過恒沙等功德。以過恒沙等煩惱染法未曾與如來藏相應。今出其意。一者性德本具染凈。為對治故。不立染名惟彰凈號。此由眾生聞性有染。即謂性體實是于染。畏不羨故。二者性德本具修凈。為對治故。不立脩名惟彰性號。此由眾生未曾起修。示彼所有特立性名。意使全性而為修故。三者性體亦非凈。為對治故不云本凈空。此由眾生聞性本空。不知此語乃謂性體。執此說空于性用。是故惟明性德不空。破彼著故。論因對治故此偏名。今約本然遂成全說。良以法界全體全用。空則凡有名字皆亡。立則凡有情貌悉備。即亡即立即立即亡。不可思議。此則隨順悉檀所說有異。若篤論法體意實無別者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二者的體性和作用都不是空。事相上的作用才是空（意義與最初的觀點相同）。三者是情與法，體性作用和事相作用。存在則都存在，名為不空。消失則都消失，稱之為空（這是加入現在的意義）。問：現在的文義與《起信論》（《大乘起信論》）不同嗎？答：隨順世俗諦的意義上雖有不同，但從究竟的法體來說，意思實際上沒有差別。因為《起信論》中是爲了對治的緣故，所以側重空性而保留功德。如論中明白地說：『聽聞修多羅（Sutra，佛經）說世間諸法畢竟體空，涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）真如（Tathata，如如）之法也畢竟空。』因為不瞭解這句話是爲了破除執著，就認為真如涅槃的體性只是空。如何對治這種錯誤呢？所以要說明真如法身（Dharmakaya，法身）自體不空，具足無漏的體性功德。又說：『聽聞修多羅說一切世間生死染法依如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來藏）而有。』因為不理解，就認為如來藏自體具有一切世間生死等法。如何對治這種錯誤呢？所以要說明如來藏從本來以來只有過恒河沙數（Ganges sands，極多的數量）的功德，而過恒河沙數的煩惱染法從未與如來藏相應。現在闡明其中的意義：一是體性功德本來就具足染與凈，爲了對治的緣故，不立染名，只彰顯凈的名稱。這是因為眾生聽聞體性有染，就認為體性實際上就是染，因為畏懼而不羨慕。二是體性功德本來就具足修習的清凈，爲了對治的緣故，不立脩名，只彰顯體性的名稱。這是因為眾生未曾起修，所以特別設立體性的名稱，意思是使全體體性都成為修習。三是體性也不是清凈，爲了對治的緣故，不說本來清凈空。這是因為眾生聽聞體性本空，不知道這句話指的是體性，執著這種空的說法于體性作用。所以只說明體性功德不空，破除他們的執著。論中因為是對治的緣故，所以這樣偏頗地命名。現在是依據本然的狀態，所以成為全面的說法。因為法界（Dharmadhatu，宇宙萬有）全體和全用，空的時候，凡是名字都消失。立的時候，凡是有情的樣子都具備。即消失即存在，即存在即消失，不可思議。這就是隨順世俗諦所說的有所不同。如果從究竟的法體來說，意思實際上沒有差別。

【English Translation】 English version: The essence and function of both are not empty. Only the function of phenomena is empty (the meaning is the same as the initial view). The three are emotion and law (dharma), essential function and phenomenal function. If they exist, they all exist, called 'not empty'. If they disappear, they all disappear, called 'empty' (this adds the current meaning). Question: Is the current text different from the Treatise on Awakening of Faith (Mahayana Sraddhotpada Sastra)? Answer: Although there are differences in meaning according to conventional truth (Samvriti-satya), in terms of the ultimate Dharma-body (Dharmakaya), the meaning is actually no different. Because in the Treatise on Awakening of Faith, it is for the sake of counteracting, so it emphasizes emptiness and retains merit. As the treatise clearly states: 'Hearing the Sutras (Sutra) say that all phenomena in the world are ultimately empty in essence, the Dharma of Nirvana (Nirvana) and Suchness (Tathata) is also ultimately empty.' Because they do not understand that this statement is to break attachments, they think that the nature of Nirvana and Suchness is only emptiness. How to counteract this error? Therefore, it is necessary to explain that the Dharma-body of Suchness is not empty in itself, and is full of unconditioned essential merits. It also says: 'Hearing the Sutras say that all worldly phenomena of birth, death, and defilement depend on the Tathagatagarbha (Tathagatagarbha) for their existence.' Because they do not understand, they think that the Tathagatagarbha itself has all worldly phenomena such as birth and death. How to counteract this error? Therefore, it is necessary to explain that the Tathagatagarbha has only merits as numerous as the Ganges sands (Ganges sands) from the beginning, and defiled dharmas as numerous as the Ganges sands have never corresponded to the Tathagatagarbha. Now, let's clarify the meaning: First, the essential virtue inherently possesses both defilement and purity. For the sake of counteracting, the name of defilement is not established, only the name of purity is highlighted. This is because sentient beings hear that the essence has defilement, and think that the essence is actually defilement, and because they are afraid, they do not admire it. Second, the essential virtue inherently possesses the purity of cultivation. For the sake of counteracting, the name of cultivation is not established, only the name of essence is highlighted. This is because sentient beings have never started cultivation, so the name of essence is specially established, meaning that the entire essence becomes cultivation. Third, the essence is also not pure. For the sake of counteracting, it is not said that it is originally pure and empty. This is because sentient beings hear that the essence is originally empty, and do not know that this statement refers to the essence, and are attached to this statement of emptiness in the function of the essence. Therefore, only the essential virtue is explained as not empty, breaking their attachments. Because the treatise is for the sake of counteracting, it is named in this biased way. Now, it is based on the natural state, so it becomes a comprehensive statement. Because the entire Dharmadhatu (Dharmadhatu) and its entire function, when empty, all names disappear. When established, all the appearances of sentient beings are complete. That is, disappearing is existing, and existing is disappearing, which is inconceivable. This is what is said differently according to conventional truth. If we talk about the ultimate Dharma-body, the meaning is actually no different.

。論亦有不空染法之說。故因重習鏡云謂如實不空。一切世間境界悉于中現。亦有空于性德之義。故論問云。上說真如其體平等離一切相。云何復說體有如是種種功德。答曰。雖實有此諸功德義而無差別之相。等同一味惟一真如。此義云何。以無分別離分別相。是故無二。復以何義得說差別。以依業識生滅相示諸。究此文。性功德者因無明有。若無無明何云性德。茍謂不然。如何解會性本無名。應知才云具足眾名即是性用。對眾生有。故知性體。德名亦泯。或曰但泯差別。何泯性德。答。既泯差別。如何召云是常是樂是我是凈。荊溪云。佛性是一而有常等四德差別。今謂若泯差別。四德之名其亦何有。

釋文為二。初標。二釋二。初空如來藏三。初標。二何故下釋二。初心體妙絕無相空即性用空也。由性染凈。約用即存。從體即泯。故此心體非染非凈。既非染凈性用乃空。文云。建立生死涅槃違順等法者。能起是性用。所起是事用。今文意者在能起空。故云而復心體平等妙絕染凈之相。心體者。一平等性也。絕染凈相者。無能起性用之相也。問。起者即全體而起。今無能起。應空無心體耶。答。心體才起即屬於用。今文乃就能起邊論。由能起用故名能起為性用也。今所空者。空其起用。非空心體。問。恐今文云

空染凈相者。是空修相。非空性用。答。若以今文空于修相。又與下文所起染凈等法性自非有空義何殊。下文既云所起。驗知上文乃語能起。問。性是無相。云何謂相。答。斯則正是無相之相。何者。起信論中以性功德謂之相大。豈非指于性用為相。然無相之相乃有二義。一者全無相為可見之相。二者祇指無相為相。起信云則有過恒沙等諸凈功德相義示現者。指無相為相也。今文云染凈相者。相之一字正是性用。由空性用故云妙絕染凈之相。亦可用之法體。體本是相。故指性用亦名為相。

二非直下正示緣起非有。空即事用空也。文為四。初法。非直心體自性平等者。良以體既空。能起染凈用相。故云平等。若論能起染凈二用。即是平等之高下。今既空用。高下遂平。此結上也。所起染凈等法亦復性自非有者。正示所起事用空義。若據事用應云相亦非有。今云性者性即是相。然性即是相。義應有三。一者理性即是事相。二者理性是無相之相。三者習性望于理性故習性即相。今是習性故云性自非有。亦可非有法體。體本是性。若非理性何得非有。故指事用空處云性自非有。

二如以下喻二。初喻。二心亦下合。心亦如是。總合也。但以染凈二業者。舉法也。幻力者。帶喻也。所熏者。乃染凈業熏合幻之力也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於空染凈相，這是空修相，而非空性之用。問：如果按照現在的文義，空于修相，又與下文所說的生起的染凈等法，其自性並非有空的意義有什麼區別？答：下文既然說是『所起』，可以驗證上文是說『能起』。問：自性是無相的，為什麼說是相？答：這正是無相之相。為什麼呢？《起信論》中將自性的功德稱為相大，難道不是指自性的作用為相嗎？然而無相之相有兩種含義：一是完全沒有相，作為可見之相；二是僅僅指無相為相。《起信論》說：『則有過恒沙等諸凈功德相義示現者』，就是指無相為相。現在文中所說的『染凈相』，『相』字正是指自性的作用。因為空自性的作用，所以說妙絕染凈之相，也可以用作法體。體本來就是相，所以指自性的作用也稱為相。

二、並非直接開示緣起非有，而是空即事用空。文分為四部分。第一部分是法：『非直心體自性平等者』，因為體既然是空的，就能生起染凈的作用和相，所以說是平等。如果說能生起染凈二用，就是平等中的高下。現在既然空了作用，高下就平了。這是總結上文。『所起染凈等法亦復性自非有者』，正是開示所生起的事用是空的意義。如果按照事用，應該說『相亦非有』。現在說是『性』，『性』就是『相』。然而『性』就是『相』，意義應該有三種：一是理性就是事相；二是理性是無相之相；三是習性相對於理性而言，所以習性就是相。現在是習性，所以說『性自非有』，也可以說非有法體。體本來就是性。如果不是理性，怎麼能說非有呢？所以指事用空的地方說『性自非有』。

第二部分，如下面用比喻來說明。第三部分，『二心亦下合』，心也是這樣，是總的合說。『但以染凈二業者』，是舉例說明法。『幻力者』，是帶入比喻。『所熏者』，是染凈業熏習結合幻的力量。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the aspect of emptiness, defilement, and purity, this refers to the emptiness of the aspect of cultivation, not the function of emptiness itself. Question: If, according to the current text, it is empty of the aspect of cultivation, then what is the difference between this and the meaning of the self-nature of the arising defilement and purity and other dharmas mentioned below not being empty? Answer: Since the text below says 'arising,' it can be verified that the text above is saying 'capable of arising.' Question: Self-nature is without characteristics, so why is it called a characteristic? Answer: This is precisely the characteristic of no-characteristic. Why? In the Awakening of Faith treatise, the merits of self-nature are called the great characteristic of aspects. Doesn't this refer to the function of self-nature as a characteristic? However, the characteristic of no-characteristic has two meanings: one is the complete absence of characteristics as a visible characteristic; the other is simply referring to no-characteristic as a characteristic. The Awakening of Faith says: 'Then there are manifestations of the meaning of pure merits and characteristics like sands of the Ganges,' which refers to no-characteristic as a characteristic. The 'aspects of defilement and purity' mentioned in the current text, the word 'aspect' precisely refers to the function of self-nature. Because of the function of empty self-nature, it is said to be wonderfully free from the aspects of defilement and purity, and it can also be used as the substance of dharma. The substance is originally a characteristic, so referring to the function of self-nature is also called a characteristic.

Second, it does not directly reveal that dependent origination is non-existent, but rather that emptiness is the emptiness of affairs and functions. The text is divided into four parts. The first part is the dharma: 'Not directly the nature of the mind-essence being equal,' because since the essence is empty, it can give rise to the functions and aspects of defilement and purity, so it is said to be equal. If it is said that it can give rise to the two functions of defilement and purity, then there are high and low levels within equality. Now that the function is empty, the high and low levels are leveled. This is a summary of the above. 'The arising defilement and purity and other dharmas are also self-natured as non-existent,' which precisely reveals the meaning that the arising affairs and functions are empty. If according to affairs and functions, it should be said 'aspects are also non-existent.' Now it is said 'nature,' and 'nature' is 'aspect.' However, 'nature' is 'aspect,' and the meaning should have three aspects: one is that rational nature is the aspect of affairs; two is that rational nature is the aspect of no-aspect; three is that habitual nature is relative to rational nature, so habitual nature is aspect. Now it is habitual nature, so it is said 'nature is self-natured as non-existent,' and it can also be said that the substance of dharma is non-existent. The substance is originally nature. If it is not rational nature, how can it be said to be non-existent? Therefore, referring to the place where affairs and functions are empty, it is said 'nature is self-natured as non-existent.'

The second part, as explained by the metaphor below. The third part, 'The two minds also combine below,' the mind is also like this, which is a general combination. 'But with the two karmas of defilement and purity,' is an example of explaining the dharma. 'Illusory power,' is bringing in a metaphor. 'What is influenced,' is the power of the illusory combination of the defilement and purity karmas.

。似染似凈二法現者。合免現也。若以心望至法即非有者。合所現之免。以巾望之有即非有也。

三是故下引證三。初引三經。生死染也。涅槃凈也。二俱不可得。乃證染凈二用俱空。覺即凈也。所覺染也。二此等下釋經旨。三以是下結。恐人謂空空無心體。且真如體既叵名狀。如何可有。如何可空。問。既云非謂空無心體。豈非心體是不空耶。答。雙非之言須了二義。一者非空是有。非不空是空。二者非空不是有。非不空不是空。今此心體非空不空。正當次義。故今文云。非謂空無心體者。即心體非空也。下文云不就有心體義明不空者。即心體非不空也。篤論其藏。謂空不空者。乃從心體具用說爾。

四問下料揀。乃料揀事用也。文為二。初料揀有即非有三。初重問答。約諸佛與眾生釋有即非有疑。初問。諸佛等者。諸佛證體。體乃平等。空于染凈。故染凈用其用常寂。眾生未證。但在於事。事既不空如何非有。二答。真智等者。以佛顯生也。今問。真智真照合當常寂。何云尚有耶。眾生迷闇合見六道是有。何云何得耶。若據其義。應云眾生妄見合當是有。尚乃有即非有。況諸佛真智真照。何得不用而常寂。斯為便耳。答。若取隨心所知有無。則凡夫謂有不可非有。諸佛知無故可常寂。此則正同今文。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『似染似凈二法現者』（似乎是染污，又似乎是清凈的兩種法顯現），合起來免除了顯現（『合免現也』）。如果用心去觀察至法，就認為它不是實有（『若以心望至法即非有者』），這符合所顯現的免除（『合所現之免』）。就像用布去看，認為它有，但實際上又不是實有（『以巾望之有即非有也』）。

三、『是故下』引用了三個例子來證明。首先引用三部經，生死是染污，涅槃是清凈，但兩者都不可得，以此證明染和凈兩種作用都是空性的。覺悟就是清凈，所覺悟的就是染污。二、『此等下』解釋了經文的旨意。三、『以是下』作總結。恐怕有人認為空就是空無，沒有心體，但真如的本體既然無法用語言文字來描述，又怎麼能說它是有，又怎麼能說它是空呢？問：既然說『非謂空無心體』（不是說空就是沒有心體），難道不是說心體是不空的嗎？答：『雙非』（既不是這樣，也不是那樣）的說法需要理解兩種含義：一是『非空』是有，『非不空』是空；二是『非空』不是有，『非不空』不是空。現在這個心體既不是空，也不是不空，正符合第二種含義。所以現在文中所說『非謂空無心體者』，就是說心體不是空。下文說『不就有心體義明不空者』，就是說心體不是不空。深入討論它的藏，說空不空，是從心體所具有的作用來說的。

四、『問下』進行辨析，這是辨析事和作用。文分為兩部分。首先辨析『有即非有』（存在即非存在）的三種情況。首先是重複問答，通過諸佛和眾生的例子來解釋『有即非有』的疑問。首先是提問：『諸佛等者』，諸佛已經證得了本體，本體是平等的，空于染和凈，所以染和凈的作用，其作用常常是寂靜的。眾生沒有證得，只是停留在事相上，事相既然不是空，怎麼能說不是有呢？二、回答：『真智等者』，用佛來顯現眾生。現在問：真智真照應該常常是寂靜的，為什麼還說有呢？眾生迷惑昏暗，應該看到六道是實有的，為什麼又說沒有呢？如果按照這個道理，應該說眾生妄見，應該認為是有，尚且認為『有即非有』，更何況諸佛的真智真照，怎麼能不用而常常寂靜呢？這樣說才合適。回答：如果按照隨心所知而認為有或無，那麼凡夫認為有，就不能說不是有；諸佛知道沒有，所以可以常常寂靜。這正好和現在的文意相同。

【English Translation】 English version 『似染似凈二法現者』 (The two dharmas that appear to be defiled and pure), together they eliminate appearance (『合免現也』). If you observe the ultimate dharma with your mind, you will think that it is not real (『若以心望至法即非有者』), which corresponds to the elimination of what appears (『合所現之免』). Just like looking at it with a cloth, thinking it exists, but in reality it does not exist (『以巾望之有即非有也』)

『是故下』 (Therefore, below) cites three examples to prove it. First, cite three sutras. Samsara (生死) is defilement, Nirvana (涅槃) is purity, but both are unattainable, thus proving that the two functions of defilement and purity are both empty. Awakening is purity, what is awakened is defilement. 2. 『此等下』 (This below) explains the meaning of the sutra. 3. 『以是下』 (Therefore, below) concludes. Afraid that people think that emptiness is emptiness, without the body of mind, but since the essence of Suchness (真如) cannot be described in words, how can it be said to exist, and how can it be said to be empty? Question: Since it is said 『非謂空無心體』 (not that emptiness means there is no body of mind), doesn't it mean that the body of mind is not empty? Answer: The statement of 『double negation』 (雙非) needs to understand two meanings: one is that 『non-emptiness』 is existence, and 『non-non-emptiness』 is emptiness; the other is that 『non-emptiness』 is not existence, and 『non-non-emptiness』 is not emptiness. Now this body of mind is neither empty nor non-empty, which corresponds to the second meaning. So now the text says 『非謂空無心體者』 (not that emptiness means there is no body of mind), which means that the body of mind is not empty. The following text says 『不就有心體義明不空者』 (not based on the meaning of the body of mind to explain non-emptiness), which means that the body of mind is not non-empty. In-depth discussion of its treasury, saying emptiness and non-emptiness, is from the function of the body of mind.
『問下』 (Question below) makes a distinction, which is to distinguish between things and functions. The text is divided into two parts. First, distinguish the three situations of 『有即非有』 (existence is non-existence). The first is repeated questions and answers, using the examples of Buddhas and sentient beings to explain the doubts of 『有即非有』 (existence is non-existence). First is the question: 『諸佛等者』 (Buddhas, etc.), the Buddhas have attained the essence, the essence is equal, empty of defilement and purity, so the function of defilement and purity, its function is often silent. Sentient beings have not attained it, but only stay in phenomena, since phenomena are not empty, how can they be said to be non-existent? 2. Answer: 『真智等者』 (True wisdom, etc.), use the Buddha to manifest sentient beings. Now ask: True wisdom and true illumination should always be silent, why do you still say there is? Sentient beings are confused and dark, they should see that the six realms (六道) are real, why do you say there is not? According to this principle, it should be said that sentient beings have false views, and should think that there is, and still think that 『有即非有』 (existence is non-existence), let alone the true wisdom and true illumination of the Buddhas, how can they not be used and always be silent? It is appropriate to say so. Answer: If according to what is known by the mind to think there is or is not, then ordinary people think there is, and cannot say that there is not; Buddhas know that there is not, so they can always be silent. This is exactly the same as the current text.

問意今取隨人所見明暗。諸佛見尚乃非有。眾生暗見豈不非有。又佛真智體是常住。此智照用合當常住。而用不住尚乃當寂。豈況眾生皆昏闇妄見。體見無常。所見之用合當非有。故云何得不有。有即非有。第二問答。約有迷妄釋有即非有疑。初問。既言其有者。其字恐誤。應云既言非有。由向妄見有即非有。既是非有。何故得有此迷妄耶。問其意者。有即非有是所見法。其迷妄者是能見情。所見之法若是于有。可得有于能見之迷。所見之法既然非有。如何得有能見之迷。亦可有之一字即是有其非有。二答二。初正答。乃以所見例答能迷。既得非有而妄見有者。此是所見。何為不得無迷而橫起迷者。乃是能迷。二空華下指喻。眼翳喻能迷妄心。空華喻所見妄有。所見之有即是非有。華即無也。能迷之妄亦即無妄。翳即無也。眼之與空皆喻凈心。翳病喻依凈心非迷而迷也。華相喻依凈心非有而有也。華相既得非有而有。而翳病何為不得非迷而迷。云宜陳者。直作此陳也。第三問答。約余染法與無明染因釋有即非有疑二。初問。諸餘染法與染因者。起信六染別以根本無明為因。故云一切染因名為無明。今文通以杖本無明皆為染因。故中中雲子果無明。意問染法因無明起何云非有。無明是因何得非有。二答二。初正答前問三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：按照您的意思，對『有』的理解取決於每個人的見解，有明有暗。諸佛的見解尚且認為『有』並非真實存在，那麼眾生昏暗的見解豈不是更不真實存在嗎？而且，佛的真智本體是常住不變的，這種智慧的照用理應也是常住的。然而，即使是佛智的照用，不住于相，最終也會歸於寂滅。更何況眾生都處於昏暗的虛妄見解之中，本體見解都是無常的，那麼他們所見的照用理應更是不真實的。所以，怎麼能說『有』不是『非有』呢？『有』即是『非有』。第二段問答：通過對迷妄的闡釋，來解釋『有即非有』的疑惑。首先提出疑問：既然說『有』，這個『其』字恐怕是錯的，應該說『既然說非有』。因為之前虛妄的見解認為『有即非有』，既然是非有，為什麼還會產生這種迷妄呢？問話的意思是，『有即非有』是所見的法，而迷妄是能見的情。如果所見的法是真實存在的，那麼能見的迷妄才有可能存在。如果所見的法本來就不是真實存在的，那麼怎麼會有能見的迷妄呢？也可以理解為，『有』字本身就包含了『有其非有』的意思。第二段回答分為兩部分。首先是正面回答，用所見的例子來類比能迷。既然本來是非有，卻虛妄地認為是有，這是所見。為什麼不能本來沒有迷，卻橫生出迷呢？這是能迷。第二部分用空中華的比喻來說明。眼翳比喻能迷的妄心，空中華比喻所見的虛妄之有。所見的『有』即是『非有』，華本來就是沒有的。能迷的妄也即是無妄，眼翳本來也是沒有的。眼睛和天空都比喻清凈的心，眼翳的病比喻依附於清凈心，本來沒有迷卻產生了迷。華相，比喻依附於清凈心，本來沒有有卻產生了有。華相既然可以本來非有而顯現有，那麼眼翳的病為什麼不能本來非迷而顯現迷呢？說『云宜陳者』，就是直接這樣陳述的意思。第三段問答：通過其餘染法和無明染因，來解釋『有即非有』的疑惑。分為兩部分。首先提出疑問：各種其餘的染法和染因，按照《起信論》六染的說法，根本無明是其原因。所以說一切染因都叫做無明。現在本文將杖本無明都作為染因。所以《中中》說子果無明。意思是問，染法因為無明而生起，為什麼說『非有』呢？無明是原因，為什麼能說『非有』呢？第二部分分為兩點回答。首先正面回答前面的問題。

【English Translation】 English version Question: According to your meaning, the understanding of 'existence' (有, yǒu) depends on each person's perspective, with varying degrees of clarity and obscurity. Even the Buddhas' (諸佛, Zhū Fó) perceptions consider 'existence' to be not truly existent, so wouldn't the obscure perceptions of sentient beings (眾生, Zhòngshēng) be even more unreal? Moreover, the true wisdom (真智, Zhēnzhì) essence of the Buddha is constant and unchanging (常住, chángzhù). The illuminating function (照用, zhàoyòng) of this wisdom should also be constant. However, even the illuminating function of the Buddha's wisdom, not dwelling on appearances, will ultimately return to stillness (寂, jì). How much more so for sentient beings who are all in a state of obscure and deluded perceptions, with their essential perceptions being impermanent (無常, wúcháng). Then, shouldn't their perceived functions be even more unreal? So, how can it be said that 'existence' is not 'non-existence'? 'Existence' is 'non-existence'. Second section of questions and answers: Through the explanation of delusion (迷妄, míwàng), to resolve the doubt of 'existence is non-existence'. First, a question is raised: Since it is said 'existence' (其有, qí yǒu), the word '其' (qí) is probably wrong, it should be said 'since it is said non-existence'. Because the previous deluded view considered 'existence is non-existence', since it is non-existence, why does this delusion still arise? The meaning of the question is that 'existence is non-existence' is the perceived dharma (法, fǎ), while delusion is the perceiving emotion (情, qíng). If the perceived dharma is truly existent, then the perceiving delusion may possibly exist. If the perceived dharma is originally not truly existent, then how can there be a perceiving delusion? It can also be understood that the word 'existence' itself contains the meaning of 'having its non-existence'. The second section of the answer is divided into two parts. First is the direct answer, using the example of what is seen to analogize what can delude. Since it is originally non-existent, but falsely considered to be existent, this is what is seen. Why can't it be originally without delusion, but delusion arises horizontally? This is what can delude. The second part uses the analogy of flowers in the sky (空華, kōng huā) to illustrate. Eye disease (眼翳, yǎnyì) is a metaphor for the deluded mind that can delude, and flowers in the sky are a metaphor for the falsely existent that is seen. The 'existence' that is seen is 'non-existence', the flower is originally non-existent. The delusion that can delude is also non-delusion, eye disease is originally non-existent. The eye and the sky are both metaphors for the pure mind (凈心, jìngxīn), the disease of the eye is a metaphor for relying on the pure mind, originally without delusion but delusion arises. The appearance of the flower is a metaphor for relying on the pure mind, originally without existence but existence arises. Since the appearance of the flower can originally be non-existent but appear to exist, then why can't the disease of the eye originally be non-deluded but appear to be deluded? Saying '云宜陳者' (yún yí chén zhě), means to directly state it this way. Third section of questions and answers: Through the remaining defilements (染法, rǎnfǎ) and the cause of defilement of ignorance (無明, wúmíng), to resolve the doubt of 'existence is non-existence'. Divided into two parts. First, a question is raised: The various remaining defilements and causes of defilement, according to the six defilements in the Awakening of Faith (起信論, Qǐxìn Lùn), fundamental ignorance is the cause. Therefore, it is said that all causes of defilement are called ignorance. Now this text takes both the staff-root ignorance (杖本無明, zhàngběn wúmíng) as the cause of defilement. Therefore, the Middle Treatise (中中, Zhōng Zhōng) says son-fruit ignorance (子果無明, zǐ guǒ wúmíng). The meaning is to ask, defilements arise because of ignorance, why is it said 'non-existence'? Ignorance is the cause, why can it be said 'non-existence'? The second part is divided into two points to answer. First, directly answer the previous question.

。初法。子果至以凈心為體者。此約二惑同體以說。但由熏習因緣故有迷用者。熏有各共各熏又二。一者子果互熏覆成子果無明迷用。二者子果別熏。以子熏子以果熏果。皆以前念熏起后念。若共熏者即以似識無明妄想妄境和合共熏。或成妄想或成境界或成無明。前釋佛性中約成妄境。今成迷用。二如似下喻。粟麥本無自體者。喻無明本無自體也。惟以微塵為體者。微塵喻凈心。但以種子因緣者。喻熏習也。有粟麥之用者。喻故有迷用也。以塵往收者。喻以心往攝也。用即非有者。喻無明迷用非有也。惟是微塵者。喻惟是一心也。三無明下合。但總合耳。二問下再難凈心二。初問。此問意者。由上答云無明本無自體惟以凈心為體。又云但由熏習因緣故有迷用。且無明既因熏習而起。應指熏習之法作無明體。何得前云凈心為體。當知隨名辨體。后念無明以前念能熏無明為體。克實論體。故無明無體。全以凈心而為其體。今以隨名而難克實。答文四。初法。然前念雖滅后念已生。如是生滅未曾間斷。此未間斷有二不同。一約一人。二約通體。約一人者。在迷則生滅不斷。在悟則終有斷時。約通體者。生滅法體於法界中。常生常滅無有斷絕。以無斷絕故。故常有眾生。問。若以無明熏起無明。最初念起有無明。約何為熏而起

不覺。答。例同佛界初無師教。乃初真如內熏而起。今約性染內熏而起。問。若依此義。則先有性染。後有事染。二染殊耶。答。約染未現號為性染。及性現時即為事染。說雖前後旨在一時。又復須知。乍可云悟。佛有未悟之時。不可云迷。生有未迷之日。二如似下喻。三過去下合二。初正合。過去無明至明如是者。總合也。但能熏起后念無明者。合麥子生果也。不得自體不滅者。合體自爛壞也。即作后念無明者。合豈得春麥為秋果也。若得爾至非唸唸滅。合劫初麥今仍應在也。二既非下借喻恬合。乃借燈喻帖合麥喻。既非常故。再舉前義也。即如燈焰前後相因而起。合前麥子為後果麥。前子爛故無常也。後果得起即相因也。喻如燈焰隨炷起滅。體惟凈心者。結合歸法。四是故下指歸。

二料揀無明與妄識一異二。初問。無明即染因。妄想即染法。染法雖通今。以惑業法理相類。故別問之為一為異。

二答二。初總答二。何以下別答二。初正答二。初子時無明與業識論一異二。初答二。初答不異。文有三義。一者由起故不異。乃一向而論。但取業識由無明。不取無明由業識。此由不覺而有動也。二者有無故不異。乃更互而論。若有無明則有業識。若無無明則無業識。若有業識則有無明。若無業識則無無明

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不覺。（答：）例子如同佛的境界最初沒有老師教導，乃是最初的真如自發地從內部熏習而生起。現在就本性的染污從內部熏習而生起來說。（問：）如果依照這個意義，那麼先有本性的染污，後有事相的染污，這兩種染污有區別嗎？（答：）約在染污未顯現時稱為本性的染污，等到本性顯現時就成為事相的染污。說法雖然有先後，但旨意在於一時。又要知道，只能說覺悟，佛有未覺悟的時候；不能說迷惑，眾生有未迷惑的日子。二如似下喻。三過去下合二。初正合。過去無明至明如是者，總合也。但能熏起后念無明者，合麥子生果也。不得自體不滅者，合體自爛壞也。即作后念無明者，合豈得春麥為秋果也。若得爾至非唸唸滅。合劫初麥今仍應在也。二既非下借喻恬合。乃借燈喻帖合麥喻。既非常故。再舉前義也。即如燈焰前後相因而起。合前麥子為後果麥。前子爛故無常也。後果得起即相因也。喻如燈焰隨炷起滅。體惟凈心者。結合歸法。四是故下指歸。

二料揀無明與妄識一異二。初問。無明即染因，妄想即染法。染法雖通今，以惑業法理相類。故別問之為一為異。

二答二。初總答二。何以下別答二。初正答二。初子時無明與業識論一異二。初答二。初答不異。文有三義。一者由起故不異。乃一向而論。但取業識由無明。不取無明由業識。此由不覺而有動也。二者有無故不異。乃更互而論。若有無明則有業識。若無無明則無業識。若有業識則有無明。若無業識則無無明。

【English Translation】 English version Unawareness. (Answer:) The example is like in the realm of Buddha, there was initially no teacher, but the original True Thusness (Tathata) arose from internal熏習 (xunxi, perfuming, influence). Now, speaking of the defilement of nature, it arises from internal熏習 (xunxi, perfuming, influence). (Question:) If according to this meaning, then there is first the defilement of nature, and then the defilement of phenomena. Are these two defilements different? (Answer:) When the defilement is not yet manifest, it is called the defilement of nature; when the nature manifests, it becomes the defilement of phenomena. Although the statements are sequential, the meaning is simultaneous. Furthermore, one must know that it can only be said that the Buddha has a time of non-awakening, but it cannot be said that sentient beings have a day of non-delusion. 2. The following is a metaphor. 3. The following combines two. First, the direct combination. 'The past ignorance to the present is like this' is a general combination. 'But able to熏 (xun, perfume, influence) and arise the subsequent thought of ignorance' combines wheat producing fruit. 'Unable to have the self-nature not perish' combines the body rotting. 'That is, making the subsequent thought of ignorance' combines how can spring wheat become autumn fruit. 'If it were so, then it would not be extinguished thought by thought' combines the wheat from the beginning of the kalpa should still be here now. 2. The following is a metaphor to fit. It borrows the lamp metaphor to closely fit the wheat metaphor. Since it is impermanent, the previous meaning is repeated. That is, like the flame of a lamp arising in succession, combining the previous wheat as the subsequent fruit wheat. The previous seed rots, hence it is impermanent. The subsequent fruit can arise, which is interdependent. The metaphor is like the flame of a lamp arising and ceasing with the wick. 'The substance is only pure mind' combines returning to the Dharma. 4. Therefore, the following points to the return.

Distinguishing between ignorance (Avidya) and discriminating consciousness (Vijnana) as the same or different. First question: Ignorance (Avidya) is the cause of defilement, and discriminating thought is the phenomenon of defilement. Although the phenomenon of defilement is comprehensive, it is similar in terms of delusion, karma, Dharma, and principle. Therefore, it is asked separately whether they are the same or different.
Two answers. First, a general answer. The following is a separate answer. First, a direct answer. First, discussing the sameness or difference between ignorance (Avidya) and karma consciousness (Karma-vijnana) at the time of the first thought. First answer: First, answering that they are not different. There are three meanings in the text. 1. They are not different because of arising. This is a one-sided argument. It only takes karma consciousness as arising from ignorance (Avidya), and does not take ignorance (Avidya) as arising from karma consciousness. This is because of movement arising from non-awareness. 2. They are not different because of existence or non-existence. This is a mutual argument. If there is ignorance (Avidya), then there is karma consciousness. If there is no ignorance (Avidya), then there is no karma consciousness. If there is karma consciousness, then there is ignorance (Avidya). If there is no karma consciousness, then there is no ignorance (Avidya).

。前約獨頭。今約相應。三者同時故不異。以業與無明同時而起。問。何不以由起與有無共作一義。答。據文有又復之言。故知義別。次又不下辯不一。文有二義。一者相異。無明是迷相。業是變相。故云不覺自是迷闇。動者自是變異。二因異。無明自因無明而起。妄想自因識想而起。故云以彼果時無明為因。以彼妄想為因即自種因也。然此同異義亦難見。今以一喻明之。如蠟燭光焰。若論同者。由蠟燭故有光𦦨。若無燭即無光𦦨。又復光焰與蠟燭和合俱起。此喻不異也。蠟燭色黃。光𦦨色紅。燭因蠟成。𦦨因火起。此喻不一也。二此是下結。

二果時下。果時無明與妄想論一異。例上子時可解。然有無論同中前云更互者。正據今文。若無無明即無妄想。若無妄想亦無無明。

二以是下結判。初約體用。無明是體識想是用者。一由識想依無明起故。二由識想是動義故。

二二種下約因果二。初正示因果。但約能所分因果也。如子無明生果。無明即以子為因以果為果。若果生子。即以果為因以子為果。妄想業識例無明說。二若子下就因法辨二緣。初因緣。二增上緣。然因緣之義經論異出。今略明之。成論三因四緣。三因者。一生因。若法生時能為其因。如業為報因。二習因。如習貪慾貪慾增長為因。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前面是單獨對獨頭無明的解釋，現在是對相應無明的解釋。三者（業、無明、妄想）同時產生，所以沒有差別。因為業和無明是同時生起的。問：為什麼不把『由起』（無明生起）和『有無共作』（業和無明共同作用）合併爲一個意思？答：根據經文中有『又復』的說法，就知道意思不同。其次，『又不』以下辯論不一。文中有兩個意思：一是相異，無明是迷惑之相，業是變異之相。所以說『不覺』就是迷惑昏暗，『動』就是變異。二是因不同，無明自身的原因是無明而生起，妄想自身的原因是識想而生起。所以說『以彼果時無明為因』，『以彼妄想為因』，就是各自的種子因。然而這種同異之義也難以理解。現在用一個比喻來說明：比如蠟燭的光焰。如果說相同，是因為有蠟燭才有光焰，如果沒有蠟燭就沒有光焰。而且光焰與蠟燭和合一起生起，這比喻不異。蠟燭顏色是黃色的，光焰顏色是紅色的，燭因蠟而成，焰因火而起，這比喻不一。第二，『此是』以下是總結。

『二果時』以下，果時的無明與妄想討論一異，可以參照上面的子時（因時）來理解。然而有無論相同，前面說『更互』，正是根據現在的經文。如果沒有無明就沒有妄想，如果沒有妄想也沒有無明。

『二以是』以下是總結判斷。首先從體用上說，無明是體，識想是用。一是因為識想依無明而生起，二是因為識想是動的含義。

『二二種』以下從因果二方面說。首先是正示因果，只是從能所（能生、所生）來區分因果。比如子無明生果，無明就是以子為因，以果為果。如果果生子，就是以果為因，以子為果。妄想業識可以參照無明來說明。第二，『若子』以下就因法辨別二緣，首先是因緣，其次是增上緣。然而因緣的含義在經論中有不同的說法，現在簡要說明。成論有三因四緣。三因是：一生因，如果法生起時能作為它的因，比如業是報的因。二是習因，比如習貪慾，貪慾增長作為因。

【English Translation】 English version: Previously, the explanation was solely about independent ignorance (獨頭無明, du tou wu ming). Now, it's about corresponding ignorance (相應無明, xiang ying wu ming). The three (karma, ignorance, and conceptual thought) arise simultaneously, so there's no difference. This is because karma and ignorance arise at the same time. Question: Why not combine 'arising from' (無明生起, wu ming sheng qi, the arising of ignorance) and 'co-acting with existence and non-existence' (有無共作, you wu gong zuo, karma and ignorance acting together) into one meaning? Answer: According to the text, there's the phrase '又復' (you fu, moreover), which indicates different meanings. Next, '又不' (you bu, also not) below argues for non-identity. There are two meanings in the text: First, they are different. Ignorance is the aspect of delusion, and karma is the aspect of transformation. Therefore, 'not being aware' is being deluded and obscured, and 'moving' is being transformed. Second, the causes are different. The cause of ignorance itself is the arising of ignorance, and the cause of conceptual thought itself is the arising of consciousness. Therefore, 'taking ignorance at the time of the result as the cause' and 'taking conceptual thought as the cause' are each their own seed causes. However, these meanings of sameness and difference are difficult to see. Now, let's use an analogy to illustrate: like the flame of a candle. If we talk about sameness, it's because there's a candle that there's a flame; if there's no candle, there's no flame. Moreover, the flame arises together in harmony with the candle. This analogy illustrates non-difference. The color of the candle is yellow, and the color of the flame is red. The candle is formed from wax, and the flame arises from fire. This analogy illustrates non-identity. Second, '此是' (ci shi, this is) below is the conclusion.

'二果時' (er guo shi, second, at the time of the result) below, the discussion of sameness and difference between ignorance and conceptual thought at the time of the result can be understood by referring to the above time of the seed (因時, yin shi, time of cause). However, whether there is sameness or not, the previous statement '更互' (geng hu, mutually) is based precisely on the current text. If there's no ignorance, there's no conceptual thought; if there's no conceptual thought, there's no ignorance.

'二以是' (er yi shi, second, therefore) below is the concluding judgment. First, in terms of essence and function, ignorance is the essence, and conceptual thought is the function. One is because conceptual thought arises dependent on ignorance, and two is because conceptual thought has the meaning of movement.

'二二種' (er er zhong, second, two kinds) below speaks from the two aspects of cause and effect. First, it directly shows cause and effect, only distinguishing cause and effect from the perspective of the able and the caused (能生, neng sheng, that which can produce; 所生, suo sheng, that which is produced). For example, if seed ignorance produces a result, ignorance takes the seed as the cause and the result as the result. If the result produces a seed, it takes the result as the cause and the seed as the result. Conceptual thought and karma consciousness can be explained by referring to ignorance. Second, '若子' (ruo zi, if seed) below distinguishes the two conditions based on the causal dharma. First is the causal condition (因緣, yin yuan), and second is the supporting condition (增上緣, zeng shang yuan). However, the meaning of causal condition has different explanations in the sutras and treatises. Now, let's briefly explain. The Cheng Lun (成論, Cheng Lun) has three causes and four conditions. The three causes are: First, the cause of arising. If a dharma can be its cause when it arises, such as karma being the cause of retribution. Second, the habitual cause. For example, practicing greed, the increase of greed becomes the cause.

三依因。如心．心數法依色．香等為因。四緣者。因緣．次第緣．緣緣．增上緣。大論六因四緣。一所作因。不礙於他名所作因。由之是能作。彼是所作。若礙於他則無所作。于所作成因曰所作因。二相應因。心．心數法同相同緣必共相應。故名相應因。如親友知識和合成事。三共因。一切有為各共生因。以共生故各相佐助。如兄弟同生互相成濟。前相應者是能造心。以心心所相應為因。今因者于所造法各共為因。如以斧鑿共成於柱。四自種因。過去善法與現在善為因。現在善法與未來為因。惡．無記法亦復如是。以由各各有自種故。五遍因。若集諦下十一遍使名為遍因。由苦諦下五見及疑並一無明共七種使。集下有四謂邪見見取無明及疑共為十一。此十一使遍為一切染法作因(於十使中不語貪瞋慢者。由取七使是親迷惑。貪等三使是重迷惑)。六報因。行於善惡得善惡報。俱舍六因頌曰。能作(同所作)及俱有(同共)。同類(同自種)與相應(同相應)。遍行(同遍)並異熟(報同)。許因惟六種。大論四緣者。一因緣。於六因中除相應因為次第緣。其餘五因名因緣。今文以惑業各自更互為因名因緣者。於五因中取自種因為因緣也。成論謂具三因為因緣。二次第緣。亦名無間緣。以心．心數法次第無間相續而起。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三依因：例如，心（citta，意念）、心數法（citta-saṃkhāra，與心相關的心理現象）依賴於色（rūpa，形態）、香（gandha，氣味）等作為因（hetu，原因）。四緣（pratyaya，條件）：即因緣（hetu-pratyaya，根本原因）、次第緣（samanantara-pratyaya，緊隨條件）、緣緣（ālambana-pratyaya，所緣條件）、增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，增上條件）。《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā，佛教論書）中提到六因四緣：一、所作因（kāraṇa-hetu，能作因）：不障礙其他事物，稱為所作因。由此事物能夠作為能作者，彼事物則為所作者。如果障礙其他事物，則不能作為所作者。對於所作成的事物，其因稱為所作因。二、相應因（sahabhū-hetu，俱有因）：心和心數法具有相同的性質和相同的所緣，必然共同相應，因此稱為相應因。如同親友知識和合而成事。三、共因（sabhāga-hetu，同類因）：一切有為法（saṃskṛta，有條件的事物）各自共同的生起之因。因為共同生起，所以互相佐助。如同兄弟一同出生，互相成就幫助。前面的相應因是能造之心，以心和心所相應為因。現在的共因是對所造之法各自共同作為因，如同用斧頭和鑿子共同造成柱子。四、自種因（svabhāga-hetu，自種因）：過去的善法與現在的善法作為因，現在的善法與未來的善法作為因。惡法和無記法（avyākṛta，非善非惡）也是如此。因為各自有自己的種子。五、遍因（sarvatraga-hetu，遍行因）：若集諦（samudaya-satya，苦的根源）下的十一遍使（sarvatraga-anuśaya，隨眠）稱為遍因。由苦諦（duḥkha-satya，苦諦）下的五見（pañca-dṛṣṭi，五種錯誤的見解）及疑（vicikicchā，懷疑）並一個無明（avidyā，無知）共七種隨眠。集諦下有四種，即邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）、見取（dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa，執取錯誤的見解）、無明及疑，共為十一。這十一使普遍地為一切染法（saṃkliṣṭa-dharma，染污的法）作為因（在十使（daśa-anuśaya，十種隨眠）中不提貪（rāga，貪慾）、嗔（dveṣa，嗔恨）、慢（māna，傲慢），因為取七使是親近迷惑，貪等三使是嚴重的迷惑）。六、報因（vipāka-hetu，異熟因）：行善或作惡，得到善報或惡報。《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa，佛教論書）的六因頌說：能作（同所作）、及俱有（同共）、同類（同自種）、與相應（同相應）、遍行（同遍）、並異熟（報同），許因唯六種。《大毗婆沙論》的四緣：一、因緣：在六因中，除了相應因作為次第緣，其餘五因稱為因緣。今文以惑（kleśa，煩惱）和業（karma，行為）各自更互作為因，稱為因緣。在五因中取自種因作為因緣。《成實論》（Satyasiddhi-śāstra，佛教論書）認為具足三因作為因緣。二、次第緣：也稱為無間緣（anantara-pratyaya，無間條件）。以心和心數法次第無間地相續而生起。

【English Translation】 English version Three Dependent Causes (Tri Hetu): For example, mind (citta) and mental factors (citta-saṃkhāra) rely on form (rūpa), smell (gandha), etc., as causes (hetu). Four Conditions (Catvāri Pratyayāḥ): Namely, causal condition (hetu-pratyaya), immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya), object-condition (ālambana-pratyaya), and dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya). The Mahāvibhāṣā (a Buddhist treatise) mentions six causes and four conditions: 1. Efficient Cause (Kāraṇa-hetu): That which does not obstruct others is called the efficient cause. By this, a thing is able to act as the agent, and that thing is the object acted upon. If it obstructs others, it cannot act as the agent. The cause for the thing that is acted upon is called the efficient cause. 2. Co-existent Cause (Sahabhū-hetu): Mind and mental factors have the same nature and the same object, and they necessarily co-exist, hence they are called co-existent causes. It is like friends and acquaintances uniting to accomplish something. 3. Similar Cause (Sabhāga-hetu): All conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta) each have a common cause of arising. Because they arise together, they assist each other. It is like brothers born together, mutually achieving and helping each other. The preceding co-existent cause is the mind that is able to create, with mind and mental factors as the cause. The current similar cause is that each of the created phenomena commonly serves as a cause, like using an axe and chisel together to create a pillar. 4. Cause of the Same Kind (Svabhāga-hetu): Past wholesome actions serve as the cause for present wholesome actions, and present wholesome actions serve as the cause for future wholesome actions. Evil and neutral (avyākṛta) actions are also the same. Because each has its own seed. 5. Pervasive Cause (Sarvatraga-hetu): The eleven pervasive latent tendencies (sarvatraga-anuśaya) under the truth of the origin of suffering (samudaya-satya) are called pervasive causes. From the five views (pañca-dṛṣṭi) and doubt (vicikicchā) under the truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya), along with one ignorance (avidyā), there are seven latent tendencies in total. Under the truth of origin, there are four, namely, wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi), attachment to views (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), ignorance, and doubt, totaling eleven. These eleven tendencies universally act as causes for all defiled phenomena (saṃkliṣṭa-dharma) (among the ten latent tendencies (daśa-anuśaya), greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), and pride (māna) are not mentioned because taking the seven tendencies is a close delusion, while the three tendencies of greed, etc., are severe delusions). 6. Retributive Cause (Vipāka-hetu): Performing good or evil actions results in good or evil retributions. The Abhidharmakośa's verse on the six causes says: 'Efficient (same as efficient), and co-existent (same as co-existent), similar (same as similar), and associated (same as co-existent), pervasive (same as pervasive), and resultant (same as retributive), causes are only allowed to be six types.' The four conditions in the Mahāvibhāṣā: 1. Causal Condition: Among the six causes, except for the co-existent cause as the immediate condition, the remaining five causes are called causal conditions. The current text uses afflictions (kleśa) and actions (karma) each mutually as causes, called causal conditions. Among the five causes, the cause of the same kind is taken as the causal condition. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (a Buddhist treatise) considers having three causes as the causal condition. 2. Immediate Condition: Also called the contiguous condition (anantara-pratyaya). Mind and mental factors arise successively without interruption.

以因言之即相應因也。成論同此。三者緣緣。心．心數法托緣生故名為緣緣。由心．心數已是于緣。復托緣生。故名緣緣。成論云。識生眼識為緣緣。四增上緣。諸法生時不生障礙。成論云。離前三緣所生諸法名增上緣。今文以無明起識想為增上緣者。正同除三緣外所生諸法名增上緣。亦是大論諸法生時不生障礙以無明不礙業識故。無明令業識得起。是以無明乃為業識增上緣也。輔行雲。夫因緣之義佛法根本。背邪向正之始。入道修觀之原。習佛說者不可全迷。

二次明下不空如來藏二。初標章。二初明下。解釋。文自為二。初明具染凈二法明不空二。初釋。二初凈法二。初分科。以具性功德與出障凈德辨不空者。則知辨空空性功德與出障凈德也。

二第一下正釋文。自為二。初具性功德法三。初標。二即此下釋三。初示。平等一味體無差別者。舉性體也。而復具有過恒沙數無漏功德法者。舉性用也。由性體非凈故無差。性用而凈故差別。性用差別乃有二義。一者對他。以凈對染故凈成差。二者自法。凈法不一故凈成差。今文乃是自法差別故云沙數。以沙比數言甚多也。若非差別如何有數。或云此是無數之數。今問無數之數為是數耶。是無數耶。若云是數。豈非差別。若云無數。何不祇云無數。又何須云

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以因來說，就是相應的因。成實論也是同樣的觀點。第三種是緣緣，心和心數法依託于緣而生，因此稱為緣緣。因為心和心數法已經是緣，又依託于緣而生，所以稱為緣緣。成實論說，識生眼識就是緣緣。第四種是增上緣，諸法在生起時，不產生障礙。成實論說，除了前三種緣所生的諸法之外，其餘的都稱為增上緣。現在文中使用無明（avidya，無知）生起識想作為增上緣，這與排除三種緣之外所生的諸法稱為增上緣的觀點相同。也與大乘論典中諸法生起時不產生障礙的觀點一致，因為無明不妨礙業識（karma-vijñana，業識）。無明使業識得以生起，因此無明是業識的增上緣。輔行記中說，因緣的意義是佛法的根本，是背離邪惡、走向正道的開始，是入道修觀的源頭。學習佛法的人不可完全迷惑。其次說明下文的不空如來藏（Atathata-tathagatagarbha，真實如來藏）分為兩部分。首先是標示章節，其次是解釋。文分為兩部分。首先說明具備染凈二法，闡明不空的含義。首先是解釋，其次是凈法，分為兩部分。以具備自性功德和出障凈德來辨別不空，那麼就知道辨別空性功德和出障凈德了。其次，第一部分是正式解釋經文。分為兩部分。首先是具備自性功德法，分為三部分。首先是標示，其次是解釋，分為三部分。首先是揭示，平等一味，體無差別，這是指自性本體。而又具有超過恒河沙數（ganga-nadibaluka，極多的數量）的無漏功德法，這是指自性作用。因為自性本體不是清凈的，所以沒有差別。自性作用是清凈的，所以有差別。自性作用的差別有兩種含義。一種是針對他者，以清凈對治染污，所以清凈成為差別。另一種是自法，清凈法不單一，所以清凈成為差別。現在文中所說的是自法差別，所以說是沙數，用數量來表示非常多。如果不是差別，怎麼會有數量呢？或者說這是無數之數。現在問，無數之數是數還是無數呢？如果說是數，豈不是差別？如果說是無數，為什麼不直接說無數，又何必說沙數呢？

【English Translation】 English version: 'By 'hetu' (cause), it means the corresponding cause. The Satyasiddhi Shastra (Treatise on the Accomplishment of Truth) holds the same view. The third is 'adhipati-pratyaya' (dominant condition), where mind and mental functions arise relying on conditions, hence called 'adhipati-pratyaya'. Because mind and mental functions are already conditions, and they arise relying on conditions again, they are called 'adhipati-pratyaya'. The Satyasiddhi Shastra says that the consciousness arising from eye-consciousness is 'adhipati-pratyaya'. The fourth is 'adhipati-hetu' (augmenting condition), where dharmas (phenomena) do not create obstacles when arising. The Satyasiddhi Shastra says that dharmas arising apart from the previous three conditions are called 'adhipati-hetu'. The current text uses ignorance (avidya) to generate consciousness-thought as an augmenting condition, which is the same as calling dharmas arising apart from the three conditions 'adhipati-hetu'. It also aligns with the Mahayana treatises' view that dharmas do not create obstacles when arising, because ignorance does not hinder karma-consciousness (karma-vijñana). Ignorance allows karma-consciousness to arise, therefore ignorance is an augmenting condition for karma-consciousness. The Commentary on the Lotus Sutra says that the meaning of conditions is the foundation of Buddhism, the beginning of turning away from evil and towards righteousness, and the source of entering the path and cultivating contemplation. Those who study the Buddha's teachings should not be completely confused.' 'Next, explaining the Atathata-tathagatagarbha (non-empty Tathagatagarbha) below is divided into two parts. First is the chapter heading, and second is the explanation. The text is divided into two parts. First, explaining the possession of defiled and pure dharmas clarifies the meaning of non-emptiness. First is the explanation, and second is the pure dharmas, divided into two parts. Using the possession of inherent meritorious qualities and the pure virtues of overcoming obstacles to distinguish non-emptiness, then we know that we are distinguishing the meritorious qualities of emptiness and the pure virtues of overcoming obstacles.' 'Next, the first part is the formal explanation of the text. Divided into two parts. First is the possession of inherent meritorious qualities, divided into three parts. First is the heading, and second is the explanation, divided into three parts. First is the revelation, equal in one flavor, the essence without difference, this refers to the essence of self-nature. And also possessing more than the sands of the Ganges River (ganga-nadibaluka) in number of non-outflow meritorious qualities, this refers to the function of self-nature. Because the essence of self-nature is not pure, there is no difference. The function of self-nature is pure, so there is difference. The difference in the function of self-nature has two meanings. One is in relation to others, using purity to treat defilement, so purity becomes difference. The other is self-dharma, pure dharmas are not singular, so purity becomes difference. The current text speaks of the difference in self-dharma, so it says sands of the Ganges River, using quantity to express a very large number. If it were not difference, how could there be quantity? Or it could be said that this is a number of countless. Now I ask, is the number of countless a number or countless? If it is said to be a number, is it not difference? If it is said to be countless, why not just say countless, and why say sands of the Ganges River?'

之數。應知今文與上空藏文相有旨。何者。上空藏中為空性用。先舉差別后舉無差。文云雖復緣起建立生死涅槃違順等法。此則先舉性用差別。然復空之。故后舉無差。乃云而復心體平等妙絕染凈之相。今文先舉無差后舉差別。意在立之而成不空。以此而知約亡性凈為空。立性凈為不空明矣。二所謂下釋。由上示云性具功德不知性具為何德耶。是故釋云。所謂自性者。舉性體也。有大智光明等者。舉性用也。當知此德對過而得。故起信云。乃至具有過恒沙等妄染之義。對此義故。心性無動則有過恒沙等諸凈功德相義示現。既然對過而得。故乃可立可空。有過則德生。無過則德泯。德泯之處故凈心之體乃是非凈。問云。有過則德泯。無過則德生可乎。答。可。此正約對眾生而言。乃用中之語也。向云無過則德泯者。乃順體而言也。皆方便爾。問。如來無過應泯此德。答。自雖無過。為他在迷。若不語德。何能轉凡。以法界中常亡常照。莫聞泯寂便謂斷無。問。既非斷無。信知常在。答。莫聞常在便謂不空。一性本圓何容定執。問。但亡情執。德何可亡。答。德不亡者即其執也。問。德若亡者乃非執耶。答。但云德亡亦其執也。問。何者非執。答。亡即不亡不亡即亡。不可言思。圓融微妙。若聞此說即謂圓融者。亦是斗影

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所說的『之數』，應該知道現在的文字和上面的《空藏文》在意義上是相通的。為什麼這麼說呢？上面的《空藏文》中，『空』是體性，『用』是作用。先提出差別，后提出無差別。經文說『雖復緣起建立生死涅槃違順等法』，這是先提出體性和作用的差別。然而又使之空寂。所以後面提出無差別，說『而復心體平等妙絕染凈之相』。現在的文字是先提出無差別，后提出差別，意在說明建立起來的並非是空無。由此可知，捨棄體性清凈就是空，建立體性清凈就是不空，這很明顯。第二段是所謂的『下釋』。因為上面說『性具功德』，但不知道『性具』的是什麼功德。所以解釋說：『所謂自性者』，是說體性。『有大智光明等者』，是說體性的作用。應當知道這些功德是針對過失而說的。所以《起信論》說：『乃至具有過恒沙等妄染之義』。針對這個意義，心性不動，就會有超過恒河沙數那麼多的清凈功德相顯現。既然是針對過失而說的，所以才可以建立，也可以空寂。有過失，功德就產生；沒有過失，功德就消失。功德消失的地方，清凈心的本體就不是清凈的。有人問：『有過失，功德就消失；沒有過失，功德就產生，可以這樣說嗎？』回答：『可以。』這正是針對眾生而言，是作用中的話語。前面說的『沒有過失，功德就消失』，是順著體性而言的。這些都是方便說法。有人問：『如來沒有過失，應該使這些功德消失。』回答：『自身雖然沒有過失，但爲了其他還在迷惑的眾生，如果不說功德，怎麼能轉變凡夫？』因為在法界中，常常有捨棄和照見，不要因為聽到『泯寂』就認為是斷滅空無。有人問：『既然不是斷滅空無，相信功德是常在的。』回答：『不要因為聽到『常在』就認為是不空的。』一個體性本來是圓滿的，怎麼能固定執著呢？有人問：『只是捨棄情執，功德怎麼會消失呢？』回答：『功德不消失，那就是執著。』有人問：『功德如果消失，那就不是執著了嗎？』回答：『只說功德消失，也是一種執著。』有人問：『什麼不是執著呢？』回答：『捨棄就是不捨棄，不捨棄就是捨棄，不可用言語思量，圓融微妙。』如果聽到這種說法就認為是圓融，這也是斗影（比喻虛幻不實）。

【English Translation】 English version The so-called 'number' should be understood that the current text and the above 'Akasagarbha Sutra' (Akasagarbha: a Bodhisattva) are connected in meaning. Why is that? In the above 'Akasagarbha Sutra', 'emptiness' is the essence, and 'function' is the action. First, the difference is put forward, and then the non-difference is put forward. The scripture says, 'Although the arising, establishment, birth, death, Nirvana (Nirvana: the ultimate goal of Buddhism), and contrary and compliant dharmas (dharmas: laws of nature or doctrines) are established', this is to put forward the difference between essence and function first. However, it also makes it empty. Therefore, the non-difference is put forward later, saying, 'And the mind-essence is equal, wonderfully free from the appearance of defilement and purity'. The current text first puts forward non-difference, and then puts forward difference, intending to explain that what is established is not empty. From this, it can be known that abandoning the purity of essence is emptiness, and establishing the purity of essence is non-emptiness, which is very obvious. The second paragraph is the so-called 'lower explanation'. Because the above says 'the nature possesses merits', but does not know what merits 'the nature possesses'. Therefore, it is explained: 'The so-called self-nature' refers to the essence. 'Having great wisdom and light, etc.' refers to the function of the essence. It should be known that these merits are spoken of in response to faults. Therefore, the 'Awakening of Faith' says: 'Even having the meaning of delusion and defilement equal to countless sands'. In response to this meaning, if the mind-essence does not move, there will be the appearance of pure merits equal to more than the sands of the Ganges. Since it is spoken of in response to faults, it can be established and also emptied. If there are faults, merits will arise; if there are no faults, merits will disappear. Where merits disappear, the essence of the pure mind is not pure. Someone asked: 'If there are faults, merits will disappear; if there are no faults, merits will arise, can it be said like this?' The answer is: 'Yes.' This is exactly in response to sentient beings, it is a word in action. The previous saying 'If there are no faults, merits will disappear' is in accordance with the essence. These are all expedient sayings. Someone asked: 'The Tathagata (Tathagata: 'one who has thus gone', an epithet of the Buddha) has no faults, should these merits be made to disappear.' The answer is: 'Although oneself has no faults, but for other sentient beings who are still confused, if merits are not spoken of, how can ordinary people be transformed?' Because in the Dharma Realm (Dharma Realm: the realm of truth or reality), there is often abandonment and illumination, do not think that it is annihilation and emptiness because you hear 'extinction'. Someone asked: 'Since it is not annihilation and emptiness, I believe that merits are always present.' The answer is: 'Do not think that it is not empty because you hear 'always present'.' One essence is originally perfect, how can it be fixedly attached? Someone asked: 'Only abandoning emotional attachments, how can merits disappear?' The answer is: 'If merits do not disappear, that is attachment.' Someone asked: 'If merits disappear, then is it not attachment?' The answer is: 'Just saying that merits disappear is also an attachment.' Someone asked: 'What is not attachment?' The answer is: 'Abandoning is not abandoning, not abandoning is abandoning, it cannot be thought of in words, it is perfectly harmonious and subtle.' If you hear this saying and think it is perfectly harmonious, this is also a fighting shadow (a metaphor for illusion and unreality).

。大師敘南嶽偈云。狗見影便鬥。斗之不肯罷。遂至渴而死。況起信云。複次究竟離妄執者。當知染法凈法皆悉相待。無有自相可說。是故一切法從本已來非色非心。非智非識。非有非無。畢竟不可說相。以此而知心體妙絕。不可說云染性凈性。才作此說便是妄生分別。皆屬差別法門。若能竅究心源。真謂不可思議。或曰。豈非不解論意。同於他宗惟談淳凈一真如耶。答。既云不可言說。豈容擬議一多及非一多。然如此論者。乃論心體及論其用。故此之體無所不有。非但是一亦乃為多。非但有相亦乃具情。又復無所不空。可謂卷之線毫不存。舒之充滿法界。皆即心體來去叵思。指論並結如文。

二第二下明具足出障凈法二。初標。二即此下釋二。初正釋二。初約義解釋二。初示義。若非凈心本有能具凈德之性。則不能攝修中凈業熏習之力。復何能依熏力現德。二此義下釋相二。初般若凈德以因地修習般若熏起具智之性。故使智相發現。成自報如來果德三智。二復以下。解脫凈德以因地修習五度熏起具福之性。故使福相發現。即成報應果德相好。二然此下。約名結釋二。初結心體非有。由具德相乃名為有。故云不就心體明不空也。二何以下。釋心體非空不空。

二問下料揀二。初問者。由前示于出障凈德凡

【現代漢語翻譯】大師敘南嶽偈云：『狗見影便鬥，斗之不肯罷，遂至渴而死。』（大師敘述南嶽的偈語說：『狗看見自己的影子就爭鬥，爭鬥起來不肯罷休，最終渴死了。』）況且《起信論》（《大乘起信論》）云：『複次究竟離妄執者，當知染法凈法皆悉相待，無有自相可說。是故一切法從本已來非色非心，非智非識，非有非無，畢竟不可說相。』（況且《大乘起信論》中說：『進一步說，究竟遠離虛妄執著的人，應當知道染法和凈法都是相互依存的，沒有獨立的自性可以言說。所以一切法從根本上來說，既不是色也不是心，既不是智慧也不是意識，既不是有也不是無，畢竟是不可言說的。』）因此可知心體玄妙絕倫，不可用染性或凈性來形容。一旦這樣說，便是虛妄分別，都屬於差別法門。如果能夠徹底探究心源，那真是不可思議。或者有人會說：『這難道不是不理解《起信論》的意旨，和某些宗派一樣只談純凈的真如嗎？』（或者有人會問：『難道你是不理解《起信論》的含義，和其它宗派一樣只談論純凈唯一的真如嗎？』）回答是：既然說不可言說，怎麼能用一多或非一多來揣測呢？（回答是：既然已經說了不可言說，又怎麼能用『一』或『多』，『非一』或『非多』來揣測呢？）然而這樣論述，乃是論述心體及其作用。所以這個體性無所不有，不僅僅是『一』，也是『多』；不僅僅有相，也具備情。而且又無所不空，可以說是捲起來細如髮絲都不存在，舒展開來則充滿法界。這些都是心體的來去變化，難以思議。指論和結論都如原文所示。

二、第二部分下面闡明具足出障凈法（具足脫離障礙的清凈之法）分為兩部分。首先是標示，其次是解釋。首先是正式解釋，分為兩部分。首先是按照意義解釋，分為兩部分。首先是揭示意義：如果不是清凈心本來就具有能夠具足清凈功德的自性，就不能夠攝取修行中的清凈業的熏習之力，又怎麼能夠依靠熏習之力顯現功德呢？其次是解釋相狀，分為兩部分。首先是般若凈德（般若的清凈功德），因為在因地修習般若而熏習生起具足智慧的自性，所以使得智慧之相得以顯現，成就自報如來果德的三智（三種智慧）。其次是解脫凈德（解脫的清凈功德），因為在因地修習五度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定）而熏習生起具足福報的自性，所以使得福報之相得以顯現，就成就報應果德的相好（殊勝的形相和德行）。其次是按照名稱總結解釋，分為兩部分。首先是總結心體並非實有，因為具備功德之相才稱之為『有』，所以說不就心體來闡明不空。其次是解釋心體非空非不空。

二、提問部分分為兩部分。首先是提問者，因為前面揭示了脫離障礙的清凈功德的普遍性。

【English Translation】 Master Xu Nan Yue's verse says: 'Dogs see shadows and fight, fighting without stopping, until they die of thirst.' Moreover, the Awakening of Faith says: 'Furthermore, those who ultimately abandon false attachments should know that defiled and pure dharmas are mutually dependent, without any self-nature that can be spoken of. Therefore, all dharmas from the beginning are neither form nor mind, neither wisdom nor consciousness, neither existence nor non-existence, ultimately an inexpressible state.' Thus, it can be known that the essence of mind is wonderfully profound and cannot be described as defiled or pure. As soon as one says this, it is a false distinction, all belonging to the differential dharma gate. If one can thoroughly investigate the source of mind, it is truly inconceivable. Or someone might say: 'Isn't this not understanding the meaning of the treatise, like other schools only talking about pure true Suchness?' The answer is: Since it is said to be inexpressible, how can it be speculated about as one or many, or neither one nor many? However, such a discussion is about the essence of mind and its function. Therefore, this essence has everything, not only one but also many; not only has form but also has emotion. And it is also empty of everything, it can be said that when rolled up, not even a hair remains, and when unfolded, it fills the Dharma Realm. All these are the inconceivable comings and goings of the essence of mind. The pointing out and conclusion are as in the text.

The second part below clarifies the complete pure dharmas of emerging from obstacles, divided into two parts. First, the indication; second, the explanation. First, the formal explanation, divided into two parts. First, explaining according to meaning, divided into two parts. First, showing the meaning: If the pure mind did not originally have the nature of being able to fully possess pure virtues, then it would not be able to gather the power of the pure karma of cultivation, and how could it manifest virtues based on the power of cultivation? Second, explaining the characteristics, divided into two parts. First, Prajna pure virtue (Prajna's pure merit), because in the causal ground, cultivating Prajna and cultivating the nature of possessing wisdom, so that the wisdom aspect can be revealed, achieving the three wisdoms (three kinds of wisdom) of the self-reward Tathagata fruit virtue. Second, Liberation pure virtue (Liberation's pure merit), because in the causal ground, cultivating the five perfections (generosity, morality, patience, diligence, meditation) and cultivating the nature of possessing blessings, so that the blessing aspect can be revealed, which achieves the characteristics of the reward and response fruit virtue (auspicious forms and virtues). Second, summarizing and explaining according to name, divided into two parts. First, concluding that the essence of mind is not existent, because possessing the characteristics of virtue is called 'existence', so it is said that the emptiness is not clarified by the essence of mind. Second, explaining that the essence of mind is neither empty nor not empty.
The question part is divided into two parts. First, the questioner, because the universality of the pure merits of getting rid of obstacles was revealed earlier.

有三義。一者凈性是所熏。二者凈業是能熏。三者凈德是所現。其所現者從凈性現。若爾。凈德可是從性而起。且能熏凈業還從何起。二答二。初正答。能熏皆是一心三。初標示。由一切法皆從性起。良由性德本具故起。二此義下釋相。約于教解行果四法以釋其義。教之一種是能化之人說教。解行果三是所票之人修證。若能若所皆是能熏凈業之法。而此之法不離一性天然本具。生佛雖殊性恒平等。故師所說教亦我自心之所發現。解行果三從自心起。在文可見。三以此下結。

二以是下。示所熏本來能具因果凈德之性三。初法三。初本具無虧。云本具解行果德之性者。以所召能故云解行果德之性。其所具者。即是修中解行果法為性所具。以此所具召能具性。故能具一性從所具。故云是解性行性果性。其所具解行果三相既未現。故從能具之性為名。是以乃云本具解行果德之性。二但未下。未熏不現。三若本下。約無返示。欲示本有乃約于無。返顯示之。二如似下喻三。初喻本具無虧。器樸喻解。成器喻果。行始為因行終為果。設此二喻又行別在因。惟喻器樸。二但未下。喻未熏不現。問所現之相為次第現。為復頓現。答。從情則漸。從性則頓。又總約生佛以辨十界故一時俱現。別約一人以辨十界故次第漸現。三若金

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有三種含義。第一，清凈的自性是所薰染的。第二，清凈的行業是能薰染的。第三，清凈的功德是所顯現的。所顯現的從清凈自性中顯現。如果這樣，清凈的功德可以是從自性而生起的。那麼，能薰染的清凈行業又是從哪裡生起的呢？回答分為兩部分。首先是正面回答，能薰染的都出自一心三藏。首先標明，一切法都從自性生起，因為自性功德本來就具備。其次，在『此義下』解釋其相狀，通過教、解、行、果四法來解釋其含義。教，指的是能教化之人所說的教法；解、行、果，指的是被教化之人所修證的。無論是能教化的還是被教化的，都是能薰染清凈行業的法。而這些法不離一心，天然本具。眾生和佛雖然不同，但自性恒常平等。所以老師所說的教法也是我自心所發現的，解、行、果三者從自心生起，這在經文中可以見到。最後，在『以此下』總結。其次，在『以是下』，說明所薰染的本來就具有因果清凈功德的自性。分為三個方面。首先，本來就具備而沒有虧缺。說本來就具備解、行、果功德的自性，是因為所召感的是能召感的，所以說是解、行、果功德的自性。所具備的，就是修行中的解、行、果法為自性所具備。用這種所具備的來召感能具備的自性，所以能具備的自性是從所具備的而來。因此說是解性、行性、果性。所具備的解、行、果三相既然還沒有顯現，所以從能具備的自性來命名，因此才說是本來就具備解、行、果功德的自性。其次，在『但未下』，說明沒有薰染就不會顯現。第三，在『若本下』，通過沒有來顯示有，想要顯示本來具有，就通過沒有來反過來顯示。其次，在『如似下』用比喻說明三個方面。首先，比喻本來就具備而沒有虧缺。器樸比喻解（understanding），成器比喻果（fruition）。開始行動是因，最終行動是果。假設這兩個比喻，行動又分別在於因。只比喻器樸。其次，在『但未下』，比喻沒有薰染就不會顯現。問：所顯現的相是次第顯現，還是頓然顯現？答：從情識來說是漸次顯現，從自性來說是頓然顯現。又總的來說，從眾生和佛來辨別十法界，所以一時都顯現。分別來說，從一個人來辨別十法界，所以次第漸次顯現。第三，在『若金』

【English Translation】 English version There are three meanings. First, the pure nature is what is perfumed (所熏). Second, pure karma is what can perfume (能熏). Third, pure virtue is what is manifested (所現). What is manifested arises from the pure nature. If so, pure virtue can arise from the nature. Then, from where does the pure karma that can perfume arise? The answer is in two parts. First, the direct answer is that what can perfume all comes from the One Mind and the Three Treasures. First, it is indicated that all dharmas arise from the nature because the virtue of the nature is inherently complete. Second, '此義下' explains the characteristics, using the four dharmas of teaching, understanding, practice, and fruition to explain its meaning. Teaching refers to the teachings spoken by those who can teach. Understanding, practice, and fruition refer to what those who are taught cultivate and realize. Whether it is what can teach or what is taught, it is the dharma that can perfume pure karma. And these dharmas are inseparable from the One Mind, naturally inherent. Although sentient beings and Buddhas are different, their natures are always equal. Therefore, the teachings spoken by the teacher are also discovered by my own mind, and understanding, practice, and fruition arise from my own mind, as can be seen in the text. Finally, it concludes with '以此下'. Second, '以是下' shows that what is perfumed originally possesses the nature of cause, effect, and pure virtue. It is divided into three aspects. First, it is originally complete and without deficiency. Saying that it originally possesses the nature of understanding, practice, and fruition virtue is because what is summoned is what can summon, so it is said to be the nature of understanding, practice, and fruition virtue. What is possessed is the understanding, practice, and fruition dharmas in cultivation as possessed by the nature. Using this what is possessed to summon the nature that can possess, so the nature that can possess comes from what is possessed. Therefore, it is said to be the nature of understanding, the nature of practice, and the nature of fruition. Since the three characteristics of understanding, practice, and fruition that are possessed have not yet manifested, they are named from the nature that can possess, so it is said that it originally possesses the nature of understanding, practice, and fruition virtue. Second, '但未下' explains that without perfuming, it will not manifest. Third, '若本下' shows existence through non-existence, wanting to show that it is originally possessed, it shows it in reverse through non-existence. Second, '如似下' uses metaphors to explain three aspects. First, it is a metaphor for being originally complete and without deficiency. A raw vessel is a metaphor for understanding (解), a finished vessel is a metaphor for fruition (果). Starting action is the cause, and ending action is the effect. Assuming these two metaphors, action is also separate in the cause. It only uses the raw vessel as a metaphor. Second, '但未下' is a metaphor for not manifesting without perfuming. Question: Do the manifested characteristics appear sequentially or suddenly? Answer: From the perspective of emotions, they appear gradually; from the perspective of nature, they appear suddenly. Generally speaking, distinguishing the Ten Realms from sentient beings and Buddhas, they all appear at once. Specifically speaking, distinguishing the Ten Realms from one person, they appear gradually in sequence. Third, '若金'

下喻約無反示二。初喻二。初正約喻。二如似下。復引他喻例顯實無。然在喻從物則各各有殊。約法從性則物物無別。亦可壓沙作油鉆水覓火。蓋由性融。是以物等。二是故下引證。今問。法華以前二乘修道不得成佛。應無佛性。答。若其本具佛性。可如來難。既然本具具十性。以具二乘因果性故。故法華前熏發而證。以具佛界因果性故。故法華中熏發而證。問。二乘在昔全性為修耶。答。實全性起。但彼不知謂從外證。問。由具二乘性方成二乘果。彼修說知性而不妨證果。由具佛界性方成佛界果。亦通不知性而成佛界不。答。二乘不名佛性。是不學體。以順性不覺。是以不知性。故得成二乘。佛既名為覺性。是覺知體。以順性覺故。是以須了性方得成佛道。三以是下結。初正結所熏。二依此下結得名不空。

二次明下染法二。初分科二。初明下解釋。文自為二。初具染性三。初標。二此心下釋三。初正釋。云能生能作者。生是自然。作是稱造。故以五陰實法為生。眾生假名為作。由實法稟于報。果不可改。故假名出自前人義當造作。自然者不改。稱造者可更。皆謂生死者。如阿含是老死誰老死。問。若據生法二境假名者。生空境也。今何以生謂之實法。答。今取所詮實法為生。不同能詮之名為生。又生可同造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：下文通過比喻來約定『無反示二』的道理。首先是比喻二重含義。第一重是直接約定比喻。第二重如『如似下』，進一步引用其他比喻來顯明實無的道理。然而，在比喻中，從事物角度來看，各個事物各有不同；但從法性角度來看，萬物之間沒有差別。也可以像壓沙取油、鉆水求火一樣，這都是因為法性是融合的，所以事物是平等的。第二是『是故下』，引用證據。現在提問：在《法華經》之前，二乘修行者無法成佛，是否因為他們沒有佛性？回答：如果他們本來就具備佛性，那麼如來就難以度化他們了。既然他們本來就具備十法性，因為具備二乘的因果性，所以在《法華經》之前被熏發而證悟；因為具備佛界的因果性，所以在《法華經》中被熏發而證悟。提問：二乘修行者在過去是完全依靠自性來修行嗎？回答：實際上是完全依靠自性而起修，但他們不知道，認為是從外在證得的。提問：因為具備二乘的自性才能成就二乘的果位，他們修行時即使不知道自性，也不妨礙證得果位。那麼，因為具備佛界的自性才能成就佛界的果位，是否也可以在不知道自性的情況下成就佛界的果位呢？回答：二乘不被稱為佛性，是不學習體性。因為順應自性而不覺悟，所以不知道自性，因此可以成就二乘。佛被稱為覺性，是覺知體性。因為順應自性而覺悟，所以必須瞭解自性才能成就佛道。第三是『以是下』，總結。首先是總結所熏習的內容，第二是『依此下』，總結所得之名並非虛空。

其次闡明染法二重含義。首先是分科二重含義。首先是『明下』解釋。文義自然分為二重含義。首先是具備染性三重含義。首先是標示。第二是『此心下』解釋三重含義。首先是正式解釋。『云能生能作者』，『生』是自然而然，『作』是稱量創造。因此，以五陰的實法為『生』，以眾生的假名為『作』。因為實法稟賦于報應，果報不可改變，所以假名出自前人的意義相當於造作。自然而然的不可改變，稱量創造的可以更改。都稱為生死者，如《阿含經》所說『是老死誰老死』。提問：如果根據生法二境的假名來說，是生空之境。那麼現在為什麼說『生』是實法呢？回答：現在取所詮釋的實法為『生』，不同於能詮釋的名詞為『生』。而且『生』可以等同於『造』。

【English Translation】 English version: The following uses metaphors to illustrate the principle of 'no reverse indication'. First, the metaphor has two meanings. The first is the direct agreement of the metaphor. The second is 'as if below', further citing other metaphors to show the truth of non-existence. However, in the metaphor, from the perspective of things, each thing is different; but from the perspective of Dharma-nature, there is no difference between all things. It can also be like pressing sand to get oil and drilling water to find fire, which is because Dharma-nature is integrated, so things are equal. The second is 'therefore below', citing evidence. Now ask: Before the Lotus Sutra, the Two Vehicles practitioners could not become Buddhas. Is it because they did not have Buddha-nature? Answer: If they had Buddha-nature originally, then it would be difficult for the Tathagata (如來) [Thus Come One] to save them. Since they originally possess the ten Dharma-natures, because they possess the causal nature of the Two Vehicles, they are inspired and enlightened before the Lotus Sutra; because they possess the causal nature of the Buddha realm, they are inspired and enlightened in the Lotus Sutra. Question: Did the Two Vehicles practitioners in the past rely entirely on their own nature to practice? Answer: In fact, they rely entirely on their own nature to practice, but they do not know that they are enlightened from the outside. Question: Because they possess the nature of the Two Vehicles, they can achieve the fruit of the Two Vehicles. Even if they do not know their own nature when they practice, it does not prevent them from attaining the fruit. Then, because they possess the nature of the Buddha realm, they can achieve the fruit of the Buddha realm. Can they also achieve the fruit of the Buddha realm without knowing their own nature? Answer: The Two Vehicles are not called Buddha-nature, which is not learning the essence. Because they follow their nature without awakening, they do not know their own nature, so they can achieve the Two Vehicles. The Buddha is called awakening nature, which is the essence of awareness. Because they follow their nature and awaken, they must understand their own nature in order to achieve the Buddha Way. The third is 'with this below', summarizing. The first is to summarize what has been learned, and the second is 'according to this below', summarizing that the name obtained is not empty.

Secondly, it clarifies the two meanings of defiled Dharma. The first is the two meanings of dividing the subject. The first is 'clarify below' explanation. The meaning of the text is naturally divided into two meanings. The first is to have the three meanings of defiled nature. The first is the mark. The second is 'this mind below' explains the three meanings. The first is the formal explanation. 'Cloud can produce can be made', 'birth' is natural, 'make' is measured creation. Therefore, take the real Dharma of the Five Skandhas (五陰) [Five Aggregates] as 'birth', and the false name of sentient beings as 'make'. Because the real Dharma is endowed with retribution, the fruit cannot be changed, so the false name comes from the meaning of the predecessors equivalent to creation. The natural cannot be changed, and the measured creation can be changed. All are called those who are born and die, such as the Agama Sutra (阿含經) [collection of early Buddhist texts] says 'who is old and dies who is old and dies'. Question: If according to the false name of the two realms of birth Dharma, it is the realm of emptiness of birth. Then why is 'birth' now said to be real Dharma? Answer: Now take the real Dharma explained as 'birth', which is different from the noun explained as 'birth'. And 'birth' can be equated with 'make'.

。今取不同。二是故下引證。果報是實法。眾生是假名。知生作對此二義。然此文意本談性具一切染法。釋義引證皆云能生。斯乃正是以生顯具。性若不具其何有生。然以生顯具。先賢所見釋亦有殊。今所伸者不出二義。一顯所具。乃以心生即是性具足。故得云以生顯具。斯非此顯乃是即顯。二顯能具復有二義。一以能生以顯能具。斯亦即顯而非此顯。二以所生以顯能具。如何得知效能具十。乃以所生顯效能具。斯乃此顯而非即顯。若了修是性。亦成即顯。今文正當乃以能生而顯能具。

三問答凡八重。初重二。初問。然性之為義。通本有不改。觀其問意乃問本有。本有染者。染即是凡。既然本有如何轉凡。以下答求知。約本有義為問也。二答。心體等者。意謂本有若惟有染。故無凈可成。是故不可論于轉凡。且其本有既有二性。不單有染亦乃有凈。由有凈故是以得論轉凡成聖。問。若約性是不改之義可論轉凡不。若云可者則與義違。縱使復有凈性。但可各各不改。答。性雖不改其染可轉。祇由染體本屬於修。約染即性故染不改。以性從染性亦須轉。良由本具可轉之性。是故得有以聖轉凡。若謂不然。此轉凡義性不具耶。祇此妙旨自昔牢窮。

第二重問答二。初問者以事中一人別造。問于性中通具。二答

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：現在採取不同的觀點。因此，下面引用證據。果報是實在的法，眾生是虛假的名稱。瞭解產生作用的這兩個含義。然而，這段文字的本意是談論自性具備一切染污法。解釋和引用的證據都說能夠產生。這正是用產生來顯示具備。自性如果不具備，又怎麼會有產生呢？然而，用產生來顯示具備，先賢的見解也有不同。現在所闡述的不超出兩種含義。一是顯示所具備的，就是用心產生就是自性具足。所以可以說用產生來顯示具備。這不是『此顯』，而是『即顯』。二是顯示能具備，又有兩種含義。一是用能生來顯示能具備。這也是『即顯』，而不是『此顯』。二是用所生來顯示能具備。如何得知自效能具備十界？就是用所生來顯示自效能具備。這是『此顯』，而不是『即顯』。如果瞭解修行就是自性，也就成了『即顯』。現在的文字正當是用能生來顯示能具備。

第三重問答共有八重。第一重有兩部分。首先是提問：『然而，自性的含義，貫通於本來具有而不改變。』觀察其提問的意圖，是問本來具有。如果本來具有染污，那麼染污就是凡夫。既然本來具有，如何轉變為凡夫？以下回答尋求瞭解。這是就本來具有的含義來提問的。第二是回答：『心體等』，意思是說，如果本來具有的只有染污，就沒有清凈可以成就。因此，不可以討論轉變為凡夫。而且，其本來具有的既有二性，不單單有染污，也有清凈。由於有清凈，所以可以討論轉凡成聖。提問：如果按照自性是不改變的含義，可以討論轉變為凡夫嗎？如果說可以，就與含義相違背。縱使還有清凈的自性，但也只能各自不改變。回答：自性雖然不改變，但其染污可以轉變。只因爲染污的本體本來屬於修習。就染污即是自性而言，所以染污不改變。因為自性順從染污，自性也必須轉變。正是因為本來具有可以轉變的自性，所以才會有以聖轉凡。如果說不是這樣，那麼這轉變凡夫的含義，自性不具備嗎？只有這個微妙的宗旨，自古以來就被牢固地探究。

第二重問答有兩部分。首先提問的人，以事相中一人單獨造作，來提問自性中普遍具備。第二是回答。

【English Translation】 English version: Now we take a different perspective. Therefore, the following quotes evidence. Karma and retribution are real dharmas, sentient beings are false names. Understand the two meanings of arising and acting. However, the original intention of this text is to discuss the inherent nature possessing all defiled dharmas. Explanations and quoted evidence all say 'able to produce'. This is precisely using 'arising' to reveal 'inherent possession'. If the nature does not possess, how can there be arising? However, using arising to reveal inherent possession, the views of past sages also differ. What is now being elaborated does not exceed two meanings. First, to reveal what is possessed, that is, the arising of the mind is the complete possession of the nature. Therefore, it can be said that arising reveals possession. This is not 'this revealing', but 'immediate revealing'. Second, to reveal the ability to possess, there are also two meanings. One is to use the ability to produce to reveal the ability to possess. This is also 'immediate revealing' and not 'this revealing'. The other is to use what is produced to reveal the ability to possess. How do we know that the nature can possess the ten realms? It is by using what is produced to reveal that the nature can possess. This is 'this revealing' and not 'immediate revealing'. If it is understood that cultivation is the nature, it also becomes 'immediate revealing'. The current text is precisely using the ability to produce to reveal the ability to possess.

The third set of questions and answers has eight layers. The first layer has two parts. First, the question: 'However, the meaning of nature pervades the original possession without change.' Observing the intention of the question, it asks about original possession. If there is originally possessed defilement, then defilement is a common person. Since it is originally possessed, how to transform into a common person? The following answer seeks understanding. This is asking about the meaning of original possession. Second, the answer: 'The essence of the mind, etc.', meaning that if the originally possessed only has defilement, then there is no purity to be achieved. Therefore, it is not possible to discuss transforming into a common person. Moreover, its originally possessed has two natures, not only defilement, but also purity. Because there is purity, it is possible to discuss transforming from common to sage. Question: If according to the meaning of nature being unchangeable, can we discuss transforming into a common person? If we say yes, it contradicts the meaning. Even if there is still pure nature, it can only remain unchanged. Answer: Although the nature does not change, its defilement can be transformed. Only because the essence of defilement originally belongs to cultivation. In terms of defilement being the nature, therefore defilement does not change. Because the nature follows defilement, the nature must also transform. Precisely because there is an originally possessed nature that can be transformed, there is the transformation from sage to common. If it is not so, does this meaning of transforming into a common person, does the nature not possess it? Only this subtle principle has been firmly explored since ancient times.

The second set of questions and answers has two parts. First, the person asking, uses the individual creation in phenomena to ask about the universal possession in nature. Second is the answer.

三。初正答。二初示二。初各示。二初示染凈二性。若就事中舉一眾生自無始來修染。修染約于種子。亦可得云染凈並有則體異為。並今取能具之性。性既是一。約體具用以用從體。故乃並具。所謂並者非如二事。祇一體中全體是染全體是凈。染凈名殊其體常一。故云雙有。是以答云一味平等古今不壞。二但以下。示凡聖二用性雖並有熏則差殊。起凡惟凡。起聖惟聖。故有前後。二然此下共示。一者向約惟事各說。今約性事共明。二者向二用中生惟染性佛惟凈性。今欲示于生亦有凈佛亦有染。方見生佛二性共有。今于凡聖各舉一邊。性實並有。因對事用故各舉一。依熏作生死者無修善也。能有凈性者有性善也。依熏作涅槃者無修惡也。能有染性者有性惡也。觀音玄文宗此之說。二結釋二。初結二性並有兩用不俱二。初以是下。二性並有。二但下。兩用不依俱。二是以下釋用有改轉性無成壞。既明二用不俱。是以有其改轉。義當追釋轉凡成聖。用雖改轉性則不壞。義當釋向古今不壞。文為二。初。用有改轉。乃約事用故有改轉。由事法體是無常故。事中染業雖息而性染常在不滅。事中凈業雖起而性凈本有不動。故染凈二事而有改轉。其染凈二性則無成壞。故次科云。然其二性實無成壞。無成者性凈也。無壞者性染也。問

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三。初次正式回答。二。首先展示兩種性質。初。各自展示。二。首先展示染與凈兩種性質。如果就事相上來說，舉一個眾生從無始以來都在修染。修染是就種子而言。也可以說染與凈並存，那麼本體就不同了。現在取其能包含一切的性質。性質既然是一個，就從本體具備的作用來說，因為作用是從本體產生的，所以才是並存的。所謂並存，不是像兩件事物那樣。而是在一個本體中，全體是染，全體是凈。染與凈名稱不同，但本體始終是一個。所以說『雙有』。因此回答說『一味平等，古今不壞』。二。但是下面，展示凡夫與聖人的兩種作用，性質雖然並存，但熏習則有差別。起凡夫的作用就只有凡夫，起聖人的作用就只有聖人。所以有先後之分。二。然後下面共同展示。一者，之前是就事相上各自說的，現在就性質與事相共同說明。二者，之前在兩種作用中，眾生只有染的性質，佛只有凈的性質。現在想要展示眾生也有凈的性質，佛也有染的性質。才能看到眾生與佛的兩種性質是共同具有的。現在在凡夫與聖人各自舉一邊，性質實際上是並存的。因為針對事相的作用，所以各自舉一邊。依靠熏習而造作生死的人，沒有修善。能夠有凈的性質，是因為有性善。依靠熏習而造作涅槃的人，沒有修惡。能夠有染的性質，是因為有性惡。《觀音玄文》的宗旨就是這樣說的。二。總結解釋兩種性質。初。總結兩種性質並存，兩種作用不俱備。二。初。以是下面。兩種性質並存。二。但是下面。兩種作用不依據俱備。二是下面解釋作用有改變轉化，性質沒有成就毀壞。既然說明兩種作用不俱備。所以有改變轉化。意義應當追溯解釋轉凡成聖。作用雖然改變轉化，性質則不會毀壞。意義應當解釋之前的『古今不壞』。文分為二。初。作用有改變轉化。是就事相的作用而言，所以有改變轉化。因為事相的本體是無常的。所以事相中的染業雖然止息，但性質中的染仍然存在，不會滅亡。事相中的凈業雖然生起，但性質中的凈本來就有，不會動搖。所以染與凈兩種事相有改變轉化。而染與凈兩種性質則沒有成就毀壞。所以下一科說：『然而兩種性質實際上沒有成就毀壞。』沒有成就，說的是性凈。沒有毀壞，說的是性染。問

【English Translation】 English version 3. Initial Formal Answer. 2. First, demonstrate the two natures. Initially, demonstrate each. 2. First, demonstrate the two natures of defilement and purity. If we consider the phenomena, taking a sentient being as an example, from beginningless time they have been cultivating defilement (染, ran, defilement). Cultivating defilement refers to the seeds (種子, zhong zi, seeds). It can also be said that defilement and purity coexist, then the substance is different. Now we take the nature that can encompass everything. Since the nature is one, we speak from the perspective of the function inherent in the substance, because the function arises from the substance, so they coexist. The so-called coexistence is not like two separate things. But within one substance, the whole is defilement, and the whole is purity. The names of defilement and purity are different, but the substance is always one. Therefore, it is said that they are 'both present'. Therefore, the answer is 'one flavor of equality, unchanging from ancient times to the present'. 2. But below, demonstrate the two functions of ordinary beings and sages, although the natures coexist, the熏習 (xun xi, perfuming, influence) differs. Arising as an ordinary being is only ordinary, arising as a sage is only sage. Therefore, there is a sequence. 2. Then, below, jointly demonstrate. 1. Previously, it was spoken separately in terms of phenomena, now jointly explain in terms of nature and phenomena. 2. Previously, in the two functions, sentient beings only have the nature of defilement, and Buddhas only have the nature of purity. Now, we want to show that sentient beings also have the nature of purity, and Buddhas also have the nature of defilement. Only then can we see that the two natures of sentient beings and Buddhas are jointly possessed. Now, we cite one side each for ordinary beings and sages, the natures are actually coexistent. Because it is directed at the function of phenomena, so each cites one side. Those who create 生死 (sheng si, birth and death) based on 熏習 (xun xi, perfuming, influence) do not cultivate goodness. Being able to have the nature of purity is because of having 性善 (xing shan, inherent goodness). Those who create 涅槃 (nie pan, nirvana) based on 熏習 (xun xi, perfuming, influence) do not cultivate evil. Being able to have the nature of defilement is because of having 性惡 (xing e, inherent evil). The principle of 《觀音玄文》(Guan Yin Xuan Wen, Profound Text on Avalokitesvara) speaks of this. 2. Concluding explanation of the two natures. Initially, conclude that the two natures coexist, and the two functions are not both possessed. 2. Initially, '以是 (yi shi, therefore)' below. The two natures coexist. 2. '但 (dan, but)' below. The two functions do not rely on being both possessed. '二是 (er shi, this is)' below explains that the function has change and transformation, and the nature has no accomplishment or destruction. Since it is explained that the two functions are not both possessed. Therefore, there is change and transformation. The meaning should trace back to explain transforming from ordinary to sage. Although the function changes and transforms, the nature will not be destroyed. The meaning should explain the previous 'unchanging from ancient times to the present'. The text is divided into two. Initially, the function has change and transformation. It is in terms of the function of phenomena, so there is change and transformation. Because the substance of phenomena is impermanent. Therefore, although the defiled karma in phenomena ceases, the defilement in nature still exists and will not perish. Although the pure karma in phenomena arises, the purity in nature is originally present and will not move. Therefore, the two phenomena of defilement and purity have change and transformation. While the two natures of defilement and purity have no accomplishment or destruction. Therefore, the next section says: 'However, the two natures actually have no accomplishment or destruction.' No accomplishment refers to 性凈 (xing jing, inherent purity). No destruction refers to 性染 (xing ran, inherent defilement). Question

。染凈二性節節皆云而無成壞。何故空藏亦空二性。答。文各有義不可一途。由染凈二性通常無常。例如染凈二事或一時具有。或前後方足。若執一文亦可為難。今文皆云先後不俱。何故下文一時頓具。以此而知各從文義。不可執一以礙通方。問。二事可云約一人論故先後方具。約凡聖總說故一時頓足。未審二性約何義故通常無常。答。染凈從性故性染凈。其乃是常。從染凈染凈二性故亦無常。二是故下結。問。染凈並具。然染凈之性何得雙有凡聖不俱。答。凡聖之用不得並起。三是以下引證二。初證二性。經語凈法煩惱不見增減。今釋之曰即是本具而無生滅。二然依下證二用。經語清凈般若轉勝現前。煩惱妄想盡在於此。今文釋曰即是凈薰染息轉凡成聖。

第三重二。初問。以染業本有凈業為本無者。久迷為本。約事云爾。二答。諸佛真如用義者。真如是諸佛之境。眾生內心本自有之。以能內熏故名為用。又諸佛既證真如。即能起用。乃為外熏。又諸佛師教外用。眾生真如內用。以此內外熏故凈業得起。故云諸佛真如用義。

第四重二。初問。以性難修意難修。二皆從性起。性既是同。修亦無別。如何修凈卻除修染。今應預知修性染凈相除之義亦不一途。一者修中自辨有二。一背真為妄。乃以修染而除

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：染性和凈性，每一節都說有，但沒有真正的成就和毀壞。為什麼空藏也空掉了這兩種性質呢？回答：不同的經文有不同的含義，不能用一種方式來理解。因為染性和凈性通常是無常的。例如，染和凈兩件事可能同時存在，或者先後才完備。如果執著于某一句經文，也可以提出疑問。現在的經文都說先後不俱備，為什麼下文又說一時頓然具備呢？由此可知，應該根據經文的含義來理解，不能執著於一種說法而妨礙通達。問：兩件事可以說是因為針對一個人來說，所以先後才完備；如果是總的來說凡夫和聖人，所以一時就頓然具備。不知道這兩種性質是根據什麼含義來說通常是無常的呢？答：染和凈是從自性出發的，所以自性是染和凈的，這才是常。從染和凈染凈這兩種性質出發，所以也是無常的。因此下面總結說。問：染和凈同時具備，然而染和凈的性質怎麼能同時具有，而凡夫和聖人不能同時具備呢？答：凡夫和聖人的作用不能同時生起。因此下面引用經文來證明。首先證明兩種性質。《經》中說，『凈法和煩惱，不見增減。』現在解釋說，這就是本來具有的，沒有生滅。其次，『然而依靠』下面證明兩種作用。《經》中說，『清凈的般若越來越殊勝地顯現，煩惱和妄想全部在於此。』現在的經文解釋說，這就是用清凈來熏習，染污止息，轉凡成聖。第三重，分為兩部分。首先提問：如果認為染業是本來就有的，凈業是本來沒有的，那麼長久的迷惑是根本。這是從現象上來說的。回答：諸佛的真如具有作用的意義。真如是諸佛的境界，眾生的內心本來就具有。因為能夠向內熏習，所以稱為作用。而且諸佛既然證得了真如，就能生起作用，從而向外熏習。還有諸佛的教導是向外的作用，眾生的真如是向內的作用。因為這種內外熏習，所以凈業才能生起。所以說諸佛的真如具有作用的意義。第四重，分為兩部分。首先提問：因為自性難以修習，意念難以修習，兩者都是從自性產生的。自性既然是相同的，修習也沒有區別。為什麼修習清凈卻能去除修習染污？現在應該預先知道修習自性中染和凈相互去除的意義也不是隻有一種方式。一種是在修習中自然分辨出兩種，一是背離真如而趨向虛妄，從而用修習染污來去除。

【English Translation】 English version: The nature of defilement and purity are spoken of in every section, yet there is no actual accomplishment or destruction. Why does the empty store also empty these two natures? Answer: Different texts have different meanings and cannot be understood in one way. Because the nature of defilement and purity is usually impermanent. For example, the two matters of defilement and purity may exist simultaneously, or they may be complete only sequentially. If one clings to a certain passage, one can also raise questions. The current texts all say that they are not both present sequentially, so why does the following text say that they are fully present at once? From this, it can be known that one should understand according to the meaning of the text and not cling to one statement to hinder thorough understanding. Question: The two matters can be said to be complete sequentially because they are discussed in relation to one person; if it is a general discussion of ordinary beings and sages, then they are fully present at once. I do not know according to what meaning these two natures are said to be usually impermanent? Answer: Defilement and purity arise from nature, so nature is defilement and purity, and this is constant. From the nature of defilement and purity, defilement and purity, it is also impermanent. Therefore, the following concludes. Question: Defilement and purity are both present, but how can the nature of defilement and purity both be present, while ordinary beings and sages cannot both be present? Answer: The functions of ordinary beings and sages cannot arise simultaneously. Therefore, the following quotes scriptures to prove. First, prove the two natures. The scripture says, 'Pure dharma and afflictions are not seen to increase or decrease.' Now it is explained that this is originally present and has no arising or ceasing. Second, 'However, relying on' below proves the two functions. The scripture says, 'Pure prajna becomes increasingly superior and manifests, and afflictions and delusions are all in this.' The current text explains that this is using purity to熏習 (xunxi - to influence by long exposure to virtuous examples), defilement ceases, and transforming from ordinary to sage. The third level is divided into two parts. First, ask: If it is thought that defiled karma is originally present and pure karma is originally absent, then long-term delusion is the root. This is from the perspective of phenomena. Answer: The Tathagatagarbha (Tathagatagarbha - the womb of the Buddhas) of all Buddhas has the meaning of function. The Tathagatagarbha is the realm of all Buddhas, and the minds of sentient beings originally possess it. Because it can inwardly熏習 (xunxi - to influence by long exposure to virtuous examples), it is called function. Moreover, since all Buddhas have realized the Tathagatagarbha, they can generate function, thereby outwardly熏習 (xunxi - to influence by long exposure to virtuous examples). Also, the teachings of the Buddhas are outward function, and the Tathagatagarbha of sentient beings is inward function. Because of this inward and outward熏習 (xunxi - to influence by long exposure to virtuous examples), pure karma can arise. Therefore, it is said that the Tathagatagarbha of all Buddhas has the meaning of function. The fourth level is divided into two parts. First, ask: Because nature is difficult to cultivate and intention is difficult to cultivate, both arise from nature. Since nature is the same, there is no difference in cultivation. Why does cultivating purity remove cultivating defilement? Now, one should know in advance that the meaning of removing defilement and purity in cultivating nature is not only one way. One is that in cultivation, two are naturally distinguished. One is turning away from the true and towards the false, thereby using cultivating defilement to remove.

修凈。此取不起凈行之處名之為除。如雲闡提斷修善盡。二反妄歸真。乃以修凈而除修染。雖皆是修。染逆凈順。正如今文違有滅離順有相資。二者修性對辨。修中染凈皆除。性德染凈不泯。修雖曰凈對染而為。病去藥亡故二修俱泯。三者就性自辨性中染凈亦除。染凈二名本從修得。體非思議。名亦何存。故云若廢二性之能。惟論心體是非染非凈。四者修性相顯。性之染凈名從修得。既亦可除。修之染凈體即性為。故亦不泯。即同今文。以事染凈號藏不空。若非如實豈有存理。得上四義。諸文破顯亦粗可明。二答三。初定體。染之法體是違。凈之法體是順。二違有下。約義正答。心性之理是常是即。染法之體與此性違。違則背性成迷。迷不知性。使常住之理斷滅。背不向性。使常即之理遠離。義不合理故為凈除。又違染當體。無常故滅。不即故離。體若常即如何可除。性之當體是常是即。修凈順效能以常即除彼滅離。三法界下。結法理違順相除。非修者作天然妙體。具如此事。不足為疑。

第五重二。初問。問文甚廣。今先辨違順之義。然後出其問意。今文專以修之染凈為能違能順。染凈二性為所違所順。然此違順有約生起論。有約法體辨。若約生起者。修染能順染性而起。既乃不從凈性而起。故與凈性為違。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本修凈（通過修行來達到清凈）。這裡所說的『除』，是指去除那些導致不清凈行為的地方。例如，就像闡提（斷善根者）斷絕了一切修善的可能一樣。二、反妄歸真，就是通過修行清凈來去除修行的染污。雖然都屬於修行，但染是逆，凈是順。正如文中所說，違背『有』（存在）就會導致滅離，順應『有』（存在）則會相互資助。二者是修行與本性的對比辨析。修行中的染與凈都可以去除，而本性中的染與凈則不會消失。修行之所以被稱為『凈』，是相對於染而言的，一旦病除藥也就不需要了，所以兩種修行都會消失。三、就本性自身來辨析，本性中的染與凈也可以去除。染與凈這兩個名稱本來就是從修行中得來的，其本體是不可思議的，又怎麼會有名稱存在呢？所以說，如果廢除了兩種本性的作用，只討論心體，那麼就既不是染也不是凈。四、修行與本性相互顯現，本性的染與凈之名是從修行中得來的，所以也可以去除。修行的染與凈，其本體就是本性，所以也不會消失。這與文中的意思相同，用事相上的染與凈來稱呼藏識（ālaya-vijñāna）是不空的。如果不是如實（yathābhūta），又怎麼會有存理呢？以上四種意義，通過各種經文的破斥與顯明，大致可以明白。二、回答三個問題。首先確定本體，染的法體是違背，凈的法體是順應。二、違有（與存在相違背）以下，從義理上正面回答。心性的道理是常是即（永恒不變且當下即是）。染法的本體與這種本性相違背。違背就會背離本性而成為迷惑，迷惑就不知道本性。使常住的道理斷滅，背離而不趨向本性，使常即的道理遠離。義理上不合道理，所以要被清凈去除。而且違背染的當體，因為無常所以會滅，因為不即所以會離。如果本體是常是即，又怎麼可以去除呢？本性的當體是常是即，修行清凈順應本性，可以用常即來去除那些滅離。三、法界（dharma-dhātu）以下，總結法理的違順相除。不是修行者所為，而是天然妙體，具備這樣的事理，不值得懷疑。第五重二。首先提問。問題的內容非常廣泛。現在先辨析違順的含義，然後說明提問的意圖。文中所說的，專指修行的染與凈作為能違能順，染凈二性作為所違所順。然而這種違順，有的從生起上來說，有的從法體上辨析。如果從生起上來說，修行的染能順應染性而生起，既然不是從凈性而生起，所以就與凈性相違背。

【English Translation】 English version 'Śuddhi of Practice'. Here, 'removal' refers to eliminating the places where impure actions arise. For example, just as an icchantika (one who has severed their roots of goodness) cuts off all possibility of cultivating goodness. Second, returning from delusion to truth means using the śuddhi (purity) of practice to remove the defilement of practice. Although both belong to practice, defilement is contrary, and purity is compliant. Just as the text says, opposing 'existence' leads to annihilation and separation, while complying with 'existence' mutually supports each other. These two are a comparison and analysis of practice and nature. The defilement and purity in practice can both be removed, while the defilement and purity in nature do not disappear. Practice is called 'purity' in relation to defilement; once the illness is cured, the medicine is no longer needed, so both practices disappear. Third, analyzing nature itself, the defilement and purity in nature can also be removed. The names 'defilement' and 'purity' originally come from practice; their essence is inconceivable, so how can names exist? Therefore, it is said that if the functions of the two natures are abolished, and only the essence of mind is discussed, then it is neither defiled nor pure. Fourth, practice and nature manifest each other; the names of defilement and purity of nature come from practice, so they can also be removed. The essence of defilement and purity of practice is nature, so it does not disappear. This is the same as the meaning in the text, using the defilement and purity of phenomena to call the ālaya-vijñāna (store consciousness) not empty. If it were not yathābhūta (as it is), how could there be any remaining principle? With the above four meanings, the refutations and manifestations of various texts can be roughly understood. Second, answering three questions. First, determining the essence, the dharma-essence of defilement is opposition, and the dharma-essence of purity is compliance. Second, 'opposing existence' below, answering directly from the perspective of meaning. The principle of mind-nature is constant and immediate (eternal and present). The essence of defiled dharmas opposes this nature. Opposition leads to turning away from nature and becoming delusion, and delusion does not know nature. It causes the principle of permanence to be annihilated, and turning away from and not tending towards nature causes the principle of immediacy to be separated. The meaning does not accord with reason, so it must be purified and removed. Moreover, opposing the very essence of defilement, because it is impermanent, it will be annihilated; because it is not immediate, it will be separated. If the essence were constant and immediate, how could it be removed? The very essence of nature is constant and immediate; the purity of practice complies with nature, and can use constancy and immediacy to remove those annihilations and separations. Third, 'dharma-dhātu' below, summarizing the mutual removal of compliance and opposition in dharma-principle. It is not done by practitioners, but is the natural wonderful essence, possessing such phenomena and principles, which is not worth doubting. The fifth layer, two parts. First, asking a question. The content of the question is very broad. Now, first analyze the meaning of compliance and opposition, and then explain the intention of the question. What the text says refers specifically to the defilement and purity of practice as the able to oppose and comply, and the two natures of defilement and purity as the opposed and complied with. However, this compliance and opposition, some are discussed from the perspective of arising, and some are analyzed from the perspective of dharma-essence. If from the perspective of arising, the defilement of practice can arise in accordance with the nature of defilement; since it does not arise from the nature of purity, it is therefore opposed to the nature of purity.

乃與染性為順。修凈例說。若約法體者。修染之體是違。雖從染性而起。而常違于染性。不獨違于染性。亦乃違于凈性。修凈例說。今問意者乃約生起以難法體。文為二。初約違順定義三。初通示染凈二業相順。二乃可下。約染業違凈性。正約生起為違。三染業下。明染業順染性。正約生起為順。二若相下。約違正難五。初難云若相順者即不可滅者。問家不解法體違順。祇就生起違順而解。蓋殊不知生起雖相順。奈法體是違。今可滅者乃取體違。二若染下。揲釋難。恐作此釋難故乃揲之。為例難之本。三亦應下。例難。四若二下。再揲釋難。恐再釋云。染之與凈各有違義。由凈違于染。染違于凈。既各有違。是故各有滅離之義。良由違即滅離故也。雖然各有違滅之義而不妨存凈除染者。然既各有滅離。如何存凈除染。作此釋難似無其理。今恐欲盡通方例釋。乃令義盡意窮。使乎再難不可通故。故有此說爾。五亦應下。再例難。既二皆滅離。得存凈除染。例須二皆相資得存染廢凈。或云既二相資如何存染廢凈。復可例難。既二滅離如何存凈除染二。答二。初總行不解法體違順也。二我言下。示今正義三。初示二本。由違順二法以二性為本。二若偏下。示心體由染凈二性。性體祇一。三但順下。示違順。正約法體而辨違順

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『乃與染性為順』，這是說與染污的本性相順應。『修凈例說』，這是用修習清凈的例子來說明。如果從法體的角度來說，修習染污的法體是相違背的。雖然是從染污的本性而生起，但常常違背染污的本性。不僅違背染污的本性，也違背清凈的本性。『修凈例說』，這是用修習清凈的例子來說明。現在問的意思是，從生起的角度來質疑法體。這段文字分為兩部分。第一部分，從違順的角度定義了三種情況。首先，普遍地說明了染污和清凈兩種業的相互順應。第二部分，『乃可下』，從染業違背清凈本性的角度來說，正是從生起的角度來說是相違背的。第三部分，『染業下』，說明染業順應染污的本性，正是從生起的角度來說是相順應的。第二部分，『若相下』，從違背和正面的角度提出了五個疑問。首先，疑問是，如果相互順應，就不可滅除。提問者不理解法體的違背和順應，只從生起的違背和順應來理解。實際上，他們不知道生起雖然相互順應，但法體是違背的。現在可以滅除的是取法體的違背。第二，『若染下』，詳細地解釋了疑問。恐怕會這樣解釋疑問，所以詳細地解釋它，作為疑問的根本。第三，『亦應下』，用類比的方式提出疑問。第四，『若二下』，再次詳細地解釋疑問。恐怕再次解釋說，染污和清凈各有違背的含義，因為清凈違背染污，染污違背清凈。既然各有違背，所以各有滅除的含義。這是因為違背就是滅除。雖然各有違背和滅除的含義，但並不妨礙儲存清凈而去除染污。然而，既然各有滅除，如何儲存清凈而去除染污？這樣解釋疑問似乎沒有道理。現在恐怕想要用普遍的方法來解釋，使意義窮盡，使再次提問無法通用，所以有這種說法。第五，『亦應下』，再次用類比的方式提出疑問。既然兩者都可以滅除，可以儲存清凈而去除染污，那麼類比來說，就應該兩者相互資助，可以儲存染污而廢除清凈。或者說，既然兩者相互資助，如何儲存染污而廢除清凈？可以再次用類比的方式提出疑問，既然兩者都可以滅除，如何儲存清凈而去除染污？第二部分，回答兩個問題。首先，總的來說是不理解法體的違背和順應。第二，『我言下』，說明現在的正確含義。第三部分，首先，說明兩個根本，違背和順應兩種法以兩種本性為根本。第二，『若偏下』，說明心體由染污和清凈兩種本性構成，本性只有一個。第三，『但順下』，說明違背和順應，正是從法體的角度來辨別違背和順應。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Nai yu ran xing wei shun' (乃與染性為順), this means to accord with the nature of defilement. 'Xiu jing li shuo' (修淨例說), this is to illustrate by the example of cultivating purity. If we speak from the perspective of the Dharma-body, the Dharma-body of cultivating defilement is contradictory. Although it arises from the nature of defilement, it constantly contradicts the nature of defilement. It not only contradicts the nature of defilement but also contradicts the nature of purity. 'Xiu jing li shuo' (修淨例說), this is to illustrate by the example of cultivating purity. The intention of the question now is to question the Dharma-body from the perspective of arising. This passage is divided into two parts. The first part defines three situations from the perspective of accordance and contradiction. First, it universally illustrates the mutual accordance of the two karmas of defilement and purity. The second part, 'Nai ke xia' (乃可下), from the perspective of the defiled karma contradicting the pure nature, it is precisely from the perspective of arising that it is contradictory. The third part, 'Ran ye xia' (染業下), explains that the defiled karma accords with the nature of defilement, and it is precisely from the perspective of arising that it is in accordance. The second part, 'Ruo xiang xia' (若相下), raises five questions from the perspective of contradiction and affirmation. First, the question is, if they are in mutual accordance, they cannot be eliminated. The questioner does not understand the contradiction and accordance of the Dharma-body, but only understands it from the arising of contradiction and accordance. In fact, they do not know that although arising is in mutual accordance, the Dharma-body is contradictory. What can be eliminated now is taking the contradiction of the Dharma-body. Second, 'Ruo ran xia' (若染下), explains the question in detail. Fearing that this question would be explained in this way, it is explained in detail as the root of the question. Third, 'Yi ying xia' (亦應下), raises questions by analogy. Fourth, 'Ruo er xia' (若二下), explains the question in detail again. Fearing that it would be explained again that defilement and purity each have contradictory meanings, because purity contradicts defilement, and defilement contradicts purity. Since each has contradictions, each has the meaning of elimination. This is because contradiction is elimination. Although each has the meaning of contradiction and elimination, it does not prevent preserving purity and removing defilement. However, since each can be eliminated, how can purity be preserved and defilement be removed? It seems unreasonable to explain the question in this way. Now, I am afraid that I want to explain it in a universal way, so that the meaning is exhausted, and the re-questioning cannot be universal, so there is this statement. Fifth, 'Yi ying xia' (亦應下), raises questions again by analogy. Since both can be eliminated, and purity can be preserved and defilement can be removed, then by analogy, the two should help each other, and defilement can be preserved and purity can be abolished. Or, since the two help each other, how can defilement be preserved and purity be abolished? You can raise questions again by analogy, since both can be eliminated, how can purity be preserved and defilement be removed? The second part answers two questions. First, in general, it is not understanding the contradiction and accordance of the Dharma-body. Second, 'Wo yan xia' (我言下), explains the correct meaning now. The third part, first, explains the two roots, the two dharmas of contradiction and accordance take the two natures as the root. Second, 'Ruo pian xia' (若偏下), explains that the mind-body is composed of two natures, defilement and purity, and there is only one nature. Third, 'Dan shun xia' (但順下), explains contradiction and accordance, and it is precisely from the perspective of the Dharma-body that contradiction and accordance are distinguished.

以答前難。

第六重問答為二。初問者以末難本也。染事既可除。染性何不除。染性若不除。則本末不同。二答者約染即性也。由性祗是一凈性。既不除染。性豈應滅。是故云理用故與順一味。問。畢竟事染與性染何殊。答。體同義異。以體同故祗一染事。以義異故修染已現乃是定有。從於當體屬可思議。其性染者不可定有不可定無。從於所依屬不思議。故與修染其義則異。遂名性染。謂之法門。以義異故修染可斷性染不斷。欲明此說復須曉了性染之義不出二種。一者以所具染召能具性名為性染。二者以能具性召所具染亦名性染。云不斷者亦通此二。一者性雖具染。染事未現。是故惟論能具之性。以由此效能具于染故名性染。指此性染是不可斷。此約不可定有故不可斷。二者雖云未現。染事實具。蓋由此性即是事。是故事為性所具。事既即性。性所具染乃不可斷。此約不可定無故不可斷。修染異此。是故可斷。初義異者以由修染是已現事事故可斷。次義異者以由修染不即性故是故可斷。若取體同。性染亦斷修染不斷。問。前空藏中空性染凈為約與事體同故空。義異故空。若云義異。今既不斷彼合不空。若云體同。空性染凈即是空事。何故再說事染凈空。答。由體同故。故性染凈。是以可空。但體同之義應細分別

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：爲了回答之前的難題。

第六重問答分為兩部分。首先，提問者以最後的問題為根本：既然染污的事可以去除，為什麼染污的本性不能去除？如果染污的本性不能去除，那麼本和末就不同了。回答者則認為染污即是本性。因為本性只是一種清凈的本性，既然不去除染污，本性怎麼會消滅呢？所以說，從理和用的角度來看，本性和染污是同一的。問：究竟來說，事上的染污和本性上的染污有什麼區別？答：本體相同，意義不同。因為本體相同，所以只有一種染污的事；因為意義不同，所以修習染污已經顯現，是確定存在的，從當下的本體來說，屬於可以思議的範圍。而本性上的染污，不可確定存在，也不可確定不存在，從所依賴的本體來說，屬於不可思議的範圍。所以和修習的染污在意義上是不同的，因此稱為本性上的染污，也稱為法門。因為意義不同，所以修習的染污可以斷除，而本性上的染污不能斷除。想要明白這個說法，還需要了解本性染污的意義，不出兩種：一是將所具有的染污稱為能具有的本性，名為本性染污；二是將能具有的本性稱為所具有的染污，也名為本性染污。說不能斷除，也包括這兩種情況。一是本性雖然具有染污，但染污的事實沒有顯現，所以只討論能具有的本性。因為由此本效能具有染污，所以名為本性染污。指的是這種本性染污是不可斷除的。這是從不可確定存在的角度來說的，所以不可斷除。二是雖然說沒有顯現，但染污的事實已經具備。因為由此本性就是事，所以事為本性所具有。事既然就是本性，本性所具有的染污就不可斷除。這是從不可確定不存在的角度來說的，所以不可斷除。修習的染污與此不同，所以可以斷除。初義的不同在於，修習的染污是已經顯現的事實，所以可以斷除。次義的不同在於，修習的染污不就是本性，所以可以斷除。如果從本體相同的角度來說，本性染污也可以斷除，修習染污就不能斷除。問：之前在空藏中，空性的染污和清凈，是因為本體相同所以空，還是因為意義不同所以空？如果說是意義不同，那麼現在既然不斷除本性染污，那麼空性就不應該空。如果說是本體相同，那麼空性的染污和清凈就是空的事實，為什麼還要再說事上的染污和清凈是空的？答：因為本體相同，所以本性上的染污和清凈，因此可以空。但本體相同的意義應該仔細分別。

【English Translation】 English version: To answer the previous difficulties.

The sixth set of questions and answers is divided into two parts. First, the questioner uses the last question as the root: Since defiled matters can be removed, why can't the defiled nature be removed? If the defiled nature cannot be removed, then the root and the branch are different. The answerer believes that defilement is the nature. Because the nature is only a pure nature, since defilement is not removed, how can the nature be extinguished? Therefore, it is said that from the perspective of principle and function, nature and defilement are the same. Question: Ultimately, what is the difference between defilement in phenomena and defilement in nature? Answer: The substance is the same, but the meaning is different. Because the substance is the same, there is only one defiled phenomenon; because the meaning is different, the practice of defilement has already manifested, and it is definitely existent. From the perspective of the present substance, it belongs to the realm of what can be conceived. As for defilement in nature, it cannot be determined to exist, nor can it be determined not to exist. From the perspective of what it relies on, it belongs to the realm of the inconceivable. Therefore, it is different from the defilement in practice in meaning, and thus it is called defilement in nature, also called Dharma-door. Because the meaning is different, the defilement in practice can be cut off, but the defilement in nature cannot be cut off. To understand this statement, one needs to understand the meaning of defilement in nature, which is no more than two kinds: one is to call the defilement that is possessed the nature that can possess it, called defilement in nature; the other is to call the nature that can possess it the defilement that is possessed, also called defilement in nature. Saying that it cannot be cut off also includes these two situations. One is that although the nature possesses defilement, the fact of defilement has not manifested, so only the nature that can possess it is discussed. Because this nature can possess defilement, it is called defilement in nature. It refers to this defilement in nature that cannot be cut off. This is from the perspective of not being able to determine existence, so it cannot be cut off. The second is that although it is said that it has not manifested, the fact of defilement is already present. Because this nature is the phenomenon, the phenomenon is possessed by the nature. Since the phenomenon is the nature, the defilement possessed by the nature cannot be cut off. This is from the perspective of not being able to determine non-existence, so it cannot be cut off. The defilement in practice is different from this, so it can be cut off. The difference in the first meaning is that the defilement in practice is a fact that has already manifested, so it can be cut off. The difference in the second meaning is that the defilement in practice is not the nature, so it can be cut off. If viewed from the perspective of the same substance, the defilement in nature can also be cut off, and the defilement in practice cannot be cut off. Question: Previously, in the 'Womb of Emptiness' (Kongzang), the defilement and purity of the empty nature, is it because the substance is the same that it is empty, or is it because the meaning is different that it is empty? If it is said that the meaning is different, then since the defilement in nature is not cut off now, then the empty nature should not be empty. If it is said that the substance is the same, then the defilement and purity of the empty nature are empty phenomena, why is it said again that the defilement and purity in phenomena are empty? Answer: Because the substance is the same, the defilement and purity in nature can therefore be empty. But the meaning of the same substance should be carefully distinguished.

。由染凈之義有能詮之名目。有所詮之相質。能詮名者即染凈二名也。所詮相者即六道四聖之相也。能起性用但有染凈二名。所起事用非但有名亦乃有于染凈二相。空性用者亡其名也。空事用者非但亡名亦乃泯相。能詮之名雖同於事。以所詮之相未論空故。是故空性用后再空事用。

第七重二。初問。猶執生起違順之義。故成仍不解也。意謂染用既順染性而起。如何謂之違心。二答。復約知不知義以論違順而曉答之。不知名違。知即名順。文為三。初法二。初示染法。一不知修從性而起。不知自己者。不知自己。修染也。及諸境界者。不知生佛染凈諸法也。二不知性。性體是一。故云亦不知凈心等。二智慧下。示凈心反染可見。問。法體違順與知不知違順何別。答。體同義異。不知者即無明。染之體也。知即智明。凈之體也。但由知不知者約能迷能知之心。其法體者直約染凈法體以辨。故成義異。何者。法體違順直指染法體是于違。凈法體是于順。若以法體從於能迷能知。在不知心染凈皆名為違。在於知心染凈皆名為順。故與法體義殊。然此義理深遠幽隱。若不精別則于文有礙。予掌辨于開權顯實。有約法體。有約同異。義類於此。何者。約法體者。權之法體是異是粗。實之法體是同是妙。權體異者。一約當體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由於染凈的含義，才有了能詮釋的名詞，以及所詮釋的現象本質。能詮釋的名詞就是染和凈這兩個名稱。所詮釋的現象本質就是六道和四聖的現象。能夠生起體性的作用，只有染和凈這兩個名稱。所生起的事物作用，不僅有名，而且還有染和凈兩種現象。空掉體性的作用，就是消亡名稱。空掉事物的作用，不僅消亡名稱，而且泯滅現象。能詮釋的名稱雖然與事物相同，但因為所詮釋的現象還沒有論及空，所以先空掉體性的作用，然後再空掉事物的作用。

第七重分為二部分。首先是提問，仍然執著于生起違背和順從的含義，所以仍然不理解。意思是說，染的作用既然順著染的體性而生起，為什麼說它是違背本心的？其次是回答，再次用知道和不知道的含義來討論違背和順從，從而明白地回答這個問題。不知道就叫做違背，知道就叫做順從。文分為三部分。首先是法，法又分為兩部分。首先是揭示染法。一是不知道修行是從體性而生起的。『不知道自己』，就是不知道自己，這是修染。『以及各種境界』，就是不知道生佛、染凈等各種法。二是不知道體性。體性是唯一的，所以說『也不知道凈心等』。其次是『智慧下』，揭示凈心與染相反，是可以看見的。提問：法體的違背和順從與知道和不知道的違背和順從有什麼區別？回答：體相同而含義不同。不知道就是無明，是染的體。知道就是智明，是凈的體。只是因為知道和不知道是從能夠迷惑和能夠知道的心來說的，而法體是直接從染凈法體來辨別的，所以含義不同。為什麼呢？法體的違背和順從直接指出染法體是違背，凈法體是順從。如果用法體順從能夠迷惑和能夠知道的心，那麼在不知道的心中，染和凈都叫做違背；在知道的心中，染和凈都叫做順從。所以與法體的含義不同。然而，這個義理深遠幽隱，如果不精細辨別，就會對理解經文產生障礙。我掌管辨別開權顯實，有從法體來說的，有從同異來說的，義理與此類似。什麼是從法體來說的呢？權宜之法的法體是差異是粗糙，真實的法體是相同是精妙。權宜之體是差異，一是就當體而言

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the meaning of defilement (染, rǎn) and purity (凈, jìng), there are names that can explain (能詮, néng quán), and the essence of the phenomena that are explained (所詮, suǒ quán). The names that can explain are the names 'defilement' and 'purity'. The essence of the phenomena that are explained are the phenomena of the six realms (六道, liù dào) and the four noble ones (四聖, sì shèng). What can give rise to the function of the nature (性用, xìng yòng) are only the two names 'defilement' and 'purity'. What arises as the function of things (事用, shì yòng) not only has names, but also has the two phenomena of defilement and purity. Emptying the function of the nature is to eliminate the name. Emptying the function of things is not only to eliminate the name, but also to obliterate the phenomenon. Although the name that can explain is the same as the thing, because the phenomenon that is explained has not yet discussed emptiness, therefore, first empty the function of the nature, and then empty the function of things.

The seventh level is divided into two parts. First is the question, still clinging to the meaning of arising opposition and compliance, so still not understanding. The meaning is, since the function of defilement arises in accordance with the nature of defilement, why is it said to be contrary to the mind? Second is the answer, again using the meaning of knowing and not knowing to discuss opposition and compliance, thereby clearly answering the question. Not knowing is called opposition, knowing is called compliance. The text is divided into three parts. First is the Dharma, which is further divided into two parts. First is revealing the defiled Dharma. One is not knowing that practice arises from the nature. 'Not knowing oneself' is not knowing oneself, this is practicing defilement. 'And all realms' is not knowing all Dharmas such as sentient beings, Buddhas, defilement, and purity. Two is not knowing the nature. The nature is one, so it says 'also not knowing the pure mind, etc.' Second is 'below wisdom', revealing that the pure mind is the opposite of defilement, and can be seen. Question: What is the difference between the opposition and compliance of the Dharma body and the opposition and compliance of knowing and not knowing? Answer: The body is the same but the meaning is different. Not knowing is ignorance (無明, wú míng), which is the body of defilement. Knowing is wisdom (智明, zhì míng), which is the body of purity. It is only because knowing and not knowing are spoken from the mind that can delude and can know, while the Dharma body is directly distinguished from the defiled and pure Dharma bodies, so the meaning is different. Why? The opposition and compliance of the Dharma body directly point out that the defiled Dharma body is opposition, and the pure Dharma body is compliance. If the Dharma body complies with the mind that can delude and can know, then in the mind that does not know, both defilement and purity are called opposition; in the mind that knows, both defilement and purity are called compliance. Therefore, it is different from the meaning of the Dharma body. However, this meaning is profound and subtle, and if it is not carefully distinguished, it will hinder the understanding of the scriptures. I am in charge of distinguishing the provisional (權, quán) and the real (實, shí), there are those who speak from the Dharma body, and there are those who speak from sameness and difference, the meaning is similar to this. What is speaking from the Dharma body? The Dharma body of the provisional is difference and coarseness, and the Dharma body of the real is sameness and subtlety. The provisional body is difference, one is in terms of the entity itself.

是差別故。二約所依不即實故。實體同者。一約當體是無差故。二約所依能即權故。若直從法體則開權顯實。若以法體從能迷能知之心。權實法體在於迷心皆名為異。故有異體。權實在於知心皆名為同。故有同體。權實若取體同。不知之心體即是權。了知之心體即是實。但以義異故。有法體。論開乃曰開權顯實。有同異。論開乃曰開異體權實顯同體權實。此之二開皆是開粗。無非約即法體論粗則權粗實妙。同異論粗則異體權實為粗同體權實為妙。法體論即。即異是同。問。開同體髫與實相明珠。於二開中為屬何耶。答。乃通二開。由廣開中先敘權者。乃重敘所施。科雖謂之開權。此則以施為開。非同開權是實之開權也。開權是實之開權者。皆在顯實一科中明其解髻示珠。荊溪指云顯實即此意也。所云通二開者。祇一點權即實便該二義。從權實說乃是約於法體論開。以由開權即是實故。從即是說。乃當約于同異論開。權既即實。任運開于權。不即實故解髫示珠。文通二義。同體之言。即同異義也。權實二字即法體義也。可以意求。乃至蓮華之喻亦復如是。蓮華二字。法體義也。華即是蓮。即是故。同異義也。蓮華俱妙者。同異義也。華粗蓮妙者。法體義也。故大師云。昔權隱實如華含蓮。開權顯實如華開蓮現。離此華已

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本是差別的原因。二是因為所依之物並非真實不變。實體相同的原因：一是就本體而言，沒有差別；二是因為所依之物能夠體現權宜之法。如果直接從法體來看，就是開權顯實（開啟權宜之法，彰顯真實之法）。如果以法體從迷惑、不能認知的心來看，權實法體在迷惑的心中都被稱為『異』，所以有異體。權實在於了知的心中，都被稱為『同』，所以有同體。如果權實取其本體相同，那麼不知之心體就是權，了知之心體就是實，只是因為意義不同，所以有法體。論述『開』的時候，就說『開權顯實』。論述『同異』的時候，就說『開異體權實，顯同體權實』。這兩種『開』都是開啟粗顯之法，無非是就法體而言，論粗顯，則權宜之法粗顯，真實之法微妙。論同異，則異體權實為粗顯，同體權實為微妙。法體論『即』，『即異』就是『同』。問：開同體髻珠與實相明珠，在兩種『開』中屬於哪一種？答：乃是貫通兩種『開』。因為在廣開中先敘述權宜之法，乃是再次敘述所施之法。科文雖然稱之為『開權』，但這是以施設為『開』，不同於『開權是實』的『開權』。『開權是實』的『開權』，都在『顯實』一科中說明其解開頭髮，展示寶珠。荊溪大師指出，『顯實』就是這個意思。所說的貫通兩種『開』，是指一點權宜之法即是真實之法，便涵蓋兩種意義。從權實來說，是就法體而言論『開』，因為開啟權宜之法即是真實之法。從『即是』來說，應當就同異而言論『開』，權宜之法既然即是真實之法，自然可以開啟權宜之法。不即是真實之法，所以解開頭髮，展示寶珠。文句貫通兩種意義。『同體』的說法，就是同異的意義。『權實』二字就是法體的意義。可以用意去領會。乃至蓮花的比喻也是如此。『蓮花』二字，是法體的意義。花即是蓮，因為『即是』，所以是同異的意義。『蓮花俱妙』，是同異的意義。『花粗蓮妙』，是法體的意義。所以天臺大師說：『過去權宜之法隱藏真實之法，如同花苞包含蓮子；開啟權宜之法，彰顯真實之法，如同花開蓮子顯現。離開這花以後』

【English Translation】 English version It is because of the difference. Secondly, it is because the reliance is not truly real. The reason for the sameness of entities: firstly, in terms of the substance itself, there is no difference; secondly, in terms of the reliance, it can embody expedient means (upaya). If viewed directly from the Dharma body (法體), it is 'opening the provisional and revealing the real' (開權顯實) (opening the expedient means and revealing the true Dharma). If the Dharma body is viewed from the perspective of a deluded, unknowing mind, the provisional and real Dharma bodies are both called 'different' in the deluded mind, so there are different entities. The provisional and real are both called 'same' in the knowing mind, so there are same entities. If the provisional and real are taken as having the same substance, then the mind that does not know is the provisional, and the mind that knows is the real, but because the meanings are different, there is the Dharma body. When discussing 'opening', it is said 'opening the provisional and revealing the real'. When discussing 'sameness and difference', it is said 'opening the provisional and real of different entities, revealing the provisional and real of the same entity'. These two 'openings' are both opening the coarse Dharma, and are nothing more than discussing the Dharma body. In terms of coarseness, the provisional Dharma is coarse and the real is subtle. In terms of sameness and difference, the provisional and real of different entities are coarse, and the provisional and real of the same entity are subtle. The Dharma body discusses 'identity', 'different identity' is 'same'. Question: To which of the two 'openings' does the opening of the same-entity hair-knot pearl and the real-aspect pearl belong? Answer: It pervades both 'openings'. Because the provisional Dharma is first described in the broad opening, it is a re-description of what is being applied. Although the subject is called 'opening the provisional', this is taking the application as 'opening', which is different from 'opening the provisional is real'. 'Opening the provisional is real' is all about explaining the untying of the hair and showing the pearl in the section on 'revealing the real'. Jingxi (荊溪) Master pointed out that 'revealing the real' is what this means. The so-called pervading of the two 'openings' means that a single point of provisionality is reality, which encompasses two meanings. From the perspective of the provisional and real, it is discussing 'opening' in terms of the Dharma body, because opening the provisional is the real. From the perspective of 'is', it should be discussing 'opening' in terms of sameness and difference. Since the provisional is the real, it is natural to open the provisional. Because it is not the real, the hair is untied and the pearl is shown. The sentence pervades two meanings. The saying 'same entity' is the meaning of sameness and difference. The two words 'provisional and real' are the meaning of the Dharma body. It can be understood with intention. Even the analogy of the lotus flower is the same. The two words 'lotus flower' are the meaning of the Dharma body. The flower is the lotus, because it 'is', so it is the meaning of sameness and difference. 'Both the lotus and the flower are wonderful' is the meaning of sameness and difference. 'The flower is coarse and the lotus is wonderful' is the meaning of the Dharma body. Therefore, Tiantai (天臺) Master said: 'In the past, the provisional Dharma hid the real Dharma, like a flower bud containing a lotus seed; opening the provisional Dharma and revealing the real Dharma is like a flower blooming and the lotus seed appearing. After leaving this flower'

無別更蓮。離此粗。已無別更妙。故又云為十妙。故開出十粗。如為蓮故華。又華開蓮現。譬開十粗以顯十妙。若無法體一義。以蓮華為粗。其文何通。問。立此二開何據。答。文句化城喻文(云云)。然此大義就今叵窮。偏因與類略談綱骨。讀者無誚孤起開涉。二如似下。父生喻。從心而起文。意喻二性一味。三眾生下合。

第八重二。初問。熏習之義必須性同。既然相違如何熏起。二答二。初法。今宗圓旨即具論熏。是故無明無別有體。全是凈心。由全是故故得相熏。由恐相違之義未明。是故約喻再辨。二如木下喻二。初正喻。二后復下遮難。恐謂火不燒爐。故遮此難云耳。　三此明下結。

二次明下。明具足染事二。初標。二即彼下釋二。初正示染事。然此文意。染法染情俱名染事。是生此實造為性所具。二然此下。明亦得為如來藏。恐人謂此情染事是生死法。如何得稱為不空藏。遂乃釋之。由此染事悉依真如性體發現。是故亦得名不空藏。文為四。初示染事無體心性為體。是以性體全為染事。既有染事故名此性為不空藏。二譬如下。喻。三是以下。引證。論明四鏡分別。第二因熏習鏡。然論復云。又一切染法所不能染。智體不動。具足無漏熏眾生故。今不引者。以因熏習鏡中辨不空有二。一者染

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沒有其他的更美的蓮花。離開了這些粗糙的，就沒有其他更美妙的了。所以又說為十妙。所以開出十粗，如同爲了蓮花而有花。又如花開蓮現，譬如開啟十粗以顯現十妙。如果無法體一義，以蓮花為粗，那這些文字如何解釋得通呢？問：建立這二開的依據是什麼？答：文句化城喻文（云云）。然而這個大義現在難以窮盡，只能憑藉因緣和類別略談綱要。讀者不要責怪我孤立地開啟和涉及。二如似下，是父親出生的比喻，從心而起的文字，意在比喻二性一味。三眾生下合。第八重分為二。首先是提問：熏習的意義必須是性質相同。既然性質相反，如何能夠熏習生起？二是回答，分為兩部分。首先是法理上的回答：我們宗派的圓滿宗旨就是全面地討論熏習。因此，無明（avidyā）並沒有單獨的實體，完全是清凈的心。因為完全是清凈的心，所以才能相互熏習。因為恐怕性質相反的意義還不明確，所以用比喻再次辨析。二是如木下，是比喻。首先是正面的比喻，二是后復下，是遮止疑問。恐怕有人認為火不能燃燒爐子，所以遮止這個疑問。三此明下，是結論。二次明下，說明具足染事二。首先是標示，二是即彼下解釋，分為兩部分。首先是正面地揭示染事。然而這段文字的意思是，染法和染情都叫做染事。是眾生生起，真實造作，為自性所具有。二然此下，說明也可以作為如來藏（Tathāgatagarbha）。恐怕有人認為這些情染事是生死之法，如何能夠稱為不空藏（Asūnyagarbha）？於是就解釋說，這些染事都依據真如（Tathātā）的性體而顯現。因此也可以稱為不空藏。這段文字分為四部分。首先是揭示染事沒有實體，以心性為實體。因此，性體完全是染事。既然有染事，所以稱這種性為不空藏。二譬如下，是比喻。三是以下，是引證。《論》中說明四鏡分別，第二是因熏習鏡。然而《論》又說：『又一切染法所不能染，智體不動，具足無漏熏眾生故。』現在不引用，是因為因熏習鏡中辨別不空有二。一是染。

【English Translation】 English version: There is no other lotus more beautiful. Apart from these coarse ones, there is nothing more wonderful. Therefore, it is also called the Ten Wonders. Therefore, the Ten Coarse are revealed, just as flowers exist for the sake of the lotus. And just as the lotus appears when the flower blooms, it is like revealing the Ten Coarse to manifest the Ten Wonders. If there is no single meaning of the Dharma body, and the lotus flower is considered coarse, how can these words be explained? Question: What is the basis for establishing these two openings? Answer: The analogy of the transformed city in the text (etc.). However, this great meaning is difficult to exhaust now, and only the outline can be briefly discussed based on conditions and categories. Readers should not blame me for starting and involving things in isolation. Two, 'like' below, is a metaphor for the birth of a father, words arising from the mind, meaning to metaphorize the oneness of two natures. Three, 'sentient beings' below, combine. The eighth level is divided into two parts. First is the question: The meaning of熏習 (xūn xí, habitual influence) must be that the natures are the same. Since the natures are contradictory, how can they be influenced to arise? Second is the answer, divided into two parts. First is the answer in terms of Dharma (law, principle): Our sect's complete doctrine is to fully discuss 熏習 (xūn xí). Therefore, ignorance (avidyā) does not have a separate entity, it is entirely pure mind. Because it is entirely pure mind, it can influence each other. Because there is concern that the meaning of contradictory natures is not clear, the analogy is used again for analysis. Two, 'like wood' below, is a metaphor. First is the positive metaphor, and second is 'later again' below, which is to prevent questions. Fearing that someone would think that fire cannot burn the stove, this difficulty is prevented. Three, 'this explains' below, is the conclusion. Second, 'next explains' below, explains the complete染事 (rǎn shì, defiled matters) in two parts. First is the indication, and second is 'that is' below, which explains in two parts. First is the positive revelation of染事 (rǎn shì). However, the meaning of this passage is that both染法 (rǎn fǎ, defiled dharmas) and染情 (rǎn qíng, defiled emotions) are called染事 (rǎn shì). It is the arising of sentient beings, the real creation, possessed by their nature. Two, 'however' below, explains that it can also be considered the Tathāgatagarbha (如來藏, womb of the Buddha). Fearing that someone would think that these情染事 (qíng rǎn shì, emotional defiled matters) are the Dharma (law, principle) of birth and death, how can they be called Asūnyagarbha (不空藏, non-empty womb)? Therefore, it is explained that these染事 (rǎn shì) all appear based on the nature of Tathātā (真如, suchness). Therefore, it can also be called Asūnyagarbha (不空藏). This passage is divided into four parts. First, it reveals that染事 (rǎn shì) has no entity, and takes mind-nature as its entity. Therefore, the nature is entirely染事 (rǎn shì). Since there are染事 (rǎn shì), this nature is called Asūnyagarbha (不空藏). Two, 'like' below, is a metaphor. Three, 'is' below, is a citation. The論 (lùn, treatise) explains the distinction of the four mirrors, and the second is the mirror of causal熏習 (xūn xí). However, the論 (lùn) also says: 'Moreover, all defiled dharmas cannot defile it, the wisdom body is unmoving, and it fully possesses the flawless熏 (xūn, influence) of sentient beings.' The reason for not quoting it now is that there are two distinctions between non-emptiness in the mirror of causal熏習 (xūn xí). One is defilement.

事不空。二者凈德不空。先說染事。次明凈德。故云又也。今祇欲證染事不空。故不引之。四以此下。結。以此驗之等者。今明不空。不遮于染事。恐謂起信惟指凈德。故特引之。釋出其義。乃有驗之。並亦是之言也。問。論中正明二藏。于不空藏惟云具足無漏功德。與下四鏡文何不同。答。前約對治正明凈德。后約通體具取染凈。二明藏體一異以釋實有者。約不空藏開出此科。所謂實有者即不空也。由此不空既有性用事用。故今辨釋與其義體為一為異。文為三。初分科有六者。初圓融無礙法界法門。通辯事理。下之五科復明初義。由初科中明法身。有本有諸佛之別。在障出障之殊故。第二第三複辯此義。有初科中以理融事故。事用中亦得無差。復明此義。故有第四。又初科中明本頓具一切法性。若隨事熏以凈除染與後方具。為復明此義。故有第五。又初科中明一切凡聖同是一藏。為復明此義。既同一藏何有相見及不見者。遂有第六。二三別辨性用。第四別辯事用。五六性事雙辨。亦可別辨事用。由報與見皆在事故。

二第一下。解釋。文自為六。初謂圓融無礙法界法門者。即一念三千之異名。智者依於法華十如因果以明十界互融互攝。良由稟受南嶽深旨。遂開廣之。乃以四義消釋經文。及正立行加三世間。委

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：事不空。二者凈德不空。先說染事，次明凈德，故云『又也』。今只欲證明染事不空，故不引用之。四以此下，總結。『以此驗之』等語，今明不空，不遮蓋染事，恐怕認為《起信論》只指凈德，故特意引用之，解釋出其意義，乃有驗證之意，『並亦是』之言也。問：論中主要闡明二藏（指如來藏和不空如來藏），于不空藏只說具足無漏功德，與下文四鏡文有何不同？答：前面是從對治的角度主要闡明凈德，後面是從通體的角度具足地選取染凈。二，闡明藏體一異以解釋實有者，是從不空藏開出此科。所謂『實有』者，即是不空也。由此不空既有性用事用，故今辨釋與其義體為一為異。文分為三。初，分科有六者，初，圓融無礙法界法門，通辯事理。下之五科復明初義。由初科中明法身，有本有諸佛之別，在障出障之殊故。第二第三複辯此義。有初科中以理融事故，事用中亦得無差。復明此義，故有第四。又初科中明本頓具一切法性，若隨事熏以凈除染與後方具，為復明此義，故有第五。又初科中明一切凡聖同是一藏，為復明此義，既同一藏何有相見及不見者，遂有第六。二三別辨性用，第四別辯事用，五六性事雙辨。亦可別辨事用，由報與見皆在事故。二第一下，解釋。文自為六。初謂圓融無礙法界法門者，即一念三千之異名。智者（指天臺智者大師）依于《法華經》十如因果以明十界互融互攝。良由稟受南嶽（指慧思禪師）深旨，遂開廣之，乃以四義消釋經文，及正立行加三世間，委

【English Translation】 English version: The 'matter' is not empty. Secondly, the pure virtues are not empty. First, the defiled matters are discussed, then the pure virtues are explained, hence the saying 'also'. Now, only the non-emptiness of defiled matters is to be proven, so it is not quoted. Fourth, below this, is the conclusion. 'By this, examine it,' etc., now clarifying non-emptiness does not negate defiled matters, fearing that it might be thought that the Awakening of Faith only refers to pure virtues, so it is specifically quoted to explain its meaning, thus there is the meaning of verification, 'and also is' is also said. Question: The treatise mainly elucidates the Two Treasures (Tathagatagarbha and Anatmakatagarbha), and regarding the Anatmakatagarbha, it only says that it is complete with faultless merits. How is it different from the Four Mirrors mentioned below? Answer: The former mainly elucidates pure virtues from the perspective of counteracting defilements, while the latter comprehensively selects both defilements and purity from the perspective of the overall essence. Second, explaining the oneness and difference of the essence of the treasure to explain what is real is to open up this section from the Anatmakatagarbha. What is called 'real' is non-emptiness. Because this non-emptiness has both essential function and functional application, therefore, now we distinguish whether its meaning and essence are one or different. The text is divided into three. First, the division into six sections, the first being the Dharma-gate of perfect fusion and unobstructed Dharma-realm, which generally discusses principle and phenomena. The following five sections further clarify the initial meaning. Because the first section clarifies the Dharmakaya, there is a distinction between the original and the Buddhas, and a difference between being in and out of obstacles. The second and third sections further discuss this meaning. Because the first section fuses principle, there is also no difference in functional application. Further clarifying this meaning, hence there is the fourth. Also, the first section clarifies that the original is complete with all Dharma-nature, if it is purified of defilements by being influenced by matters, then it is complete later. To further clarify this meaning, hence there is the fifth. Also, the first section clarifies that all ordinary beings and sages are the same treasure. To further clarify this meaning, since it is the same treasure, how can there be those who see and those who do not see? Thus, there is the sixth. The second and third sections separately distinguish essential function, the fourth separately distinguishes functional application, and the fifth and sixth sections distinguish both essential function and functional application. Functional application can also be separately distinguished, because retribution and seeing are both in matters. Second, below the first, is the explanation. The text is divided into six. The first, called the Dharma-gate of perfect fusion and unobstructed Dharma-realm, is another name for 'a single thought is three thousand'. The wise one (referring to Zhiyi, the Great Master of Tiantai) relies on the ten suchnesses of cause and effect in the Lotus Sutra to clarify the mutual fusion and interpenetration of the ten realms. Because he received the profound meaning of Nanyue (referring to Huisi Chan Master), he expanded it, and used four meanings to interpret the sutra text, and correctly established practice and added the three realms, in detail.

示一念即具三千。南嶽今文引于華嚴。譬如明凈鏡。隨對面像現。又云。心性是一。云何能生種種果報。而此文意即同法華十如是也。故摩訶止觀引華嚴云。譬如大地一。能生種種等。復引法華云。一切種相體性。皆是一種相體性。記云。次引法華結華嚴意。云何種種。謂相性等。正用十如以為觀境。以此求之。故知南嶽引華嚴文證今科中圓融無礙者。豈異法華十如是也。其所不引法華十如者。斯有二意。一者天臺之前雖有消釋法華妙典。而未明法華超勝華嚴。是故盛以華嚴大教而為圓融根本之經。斯恐南嶽隨時悉檀獨引華嚴以證融攝。二者十如是文融攝之旨意顯文隱。故前代消經但以十如分于凡聖。直對權實十界融攝。殊不涉言權。華嚴之文以一為多多即是一。融攝之義文相顯然。斯恐南嶽從顯而引。然文雖引于雜華。意實出於妙法。良由全用法華十如深極妙旨說此圓融無礙法門。何者。以由南嶽讀十如文。乃不以文而容其旨。是故讀云。相是如。性是如。乃至本末是如也。作此讀文以見圓融無礙之旨。何者。所謂如者即非染非凈非聖非凡非一非異圓融平等。不得而名。但以絕高下故稱為平等。無異相故稱之為一。以不改故稱之為性。故此如者即平等一性也。相性本末十法不同。即是十界各各因果。因果當體。體是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：闡釋一念之中即具足三千。南嶽慧思的《今文》引用了《華嚴經》的觀點，譬如明亮的鏡子，隨著對面景象而顯現。又說：『心性和一』，為何能產生種種果報？』而此文的意義與《法華經》的十如是相同。所以《摩訶止觀》引用《華嚴經》說：『譬如大地是一，能生種種。』又引用《法華經》說：『一切種相體性，皆是一種相體性。』湛然的《止觀輔行記》中說：『接著引用《法華經》來總結《華嚴經》的意義。』為什麼說是種種呢？指的是相、性等等。正是用十如是作為觀想的境界。由此來探求，可知南嶽慧思引用《華嚴經》的文句來證明今科中所說的圓融無礙，與《法華經》的十如是並沒有什麼不同。他沒有引用《法華經》的十如是，這裡有兩個原因。一是天臺宗之前雖然有解釋《法華經》這部妙典，但沒有明確指出《法華經》超越《華嚴經》。因此，盛讚《華嚴經》這部大教作為圓融的根本經典。這可能是南嶽慧思爲了適應當時的根機，只引用《華嚴經》來證明圓融攝受。二是十如是的文字，圓融攝受的旨意隱藏在文字中，所以前代的解釋經典只是將十如是分屬於凡聖，直接針對權實十界的融攝，很少涉及權巧方便。而《華嚴經》的文字以一為多，多即是一，圓融攝受的意義在文字上很明顯。這可能是南嶽慧思從顯而易見的角度引用。然而，文字雖然引用自《雜華經》（即《華嚴經》），意義實際上出自《妙法蓮華經》。這是因為完全運用了《法華經》十如是深奧精妙的旨意來說明這個圓融無礙的法門。為什麼這麼說呢？因為南嶽慧思讀十如是的文字，不是按照文字的表面意思來理解，而是領會其中的旨意。所以他讀作：『相是如，性是如，乃至本末是如。』這樣讀是爲了顯現圓融無礙的旨意。什麼是『如』呢？所謂『如』，就是非染非凈、非聖非凡、非一非異，圓融平等，無法用語言來描述。只是因為沒有高下之分，所以稱為平等；沒有差異的相狀，所以稱之為一；因為不改變，所以稱之為性。所以這個『如』就是平等一性。相、性、本末十法不同，就是十界各自的因果。因果當下就是體。

【English Translation】 English version: It elucidates that a single thought embodies the Three Thousand Realms. Nanyue's (慧思 Huisi) 'Present Text' quotes from the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing) (Flower Garland Sutra), likening it to a bright and clear mirror that reflects the images it faces. It also states: 'The nature of the mind is one; how can it produce various karmic retributions?' The meaning of this passage is the same as the Ten Suchnesses (十如是 Shi Ru Shi) in the Lotus Sutra (Fahua Jing). Therefore, the Mahayana Samatha-Vipassana (Mohe Zhiguan) quotes the Avatamsaka Sutra, saying: 'Like the earth being one, it can produce various things.' It also quotes the Lotus Sutra, saying: 'All aspects of characteristics and essence are a single aspect of characteristics and essence.' Zhanran's (湛然) Annotations on Samatha-Vipassana states: 'Next, it quotes the Lotus Sutra to conclude the meaning of the Avatamsaka Sutra.' Why are they various? It refers to characteristics, essence, and so on. It precisely uses the Ten Suchnesses as the object of contemplation. By seeking this, it can be known that Nanyue Huisi's quotation of the Avatamsaka Sutra to prove the perfect fusion and non-obstruction in the current section is no different from the Ten Suchnesses of the Lotus Sutra. The reason he did not quote the Ten Suchnesses of the Lotus Sutra is twofold. First, although there were interpretations of the wonderful scripture of the Lotus Sutra before the Tiantai (天臺) school, it was not clearly pointed out that the Lotus Sutra surpasses the Avatamsaka Sutra. Therefore, the great teaching of the Avatamsaka Sutra was praised as the fundamental scripture of perfect fusion. This may be because Nanyue Huisi, in order to adapt to the capacity of the time, only quoted the Avatamsaka Sutra to prove perfect fusion and reception. Second, in the text of the Ten Suchnesses, the meaning of perfect fusion and reception is hidden within the words, so previous interpretations of the scriptures only divided the Ten Suchnesses into the mundane and the saintly, directly targeting the perfect fusion of the provisional and the real Ten Realms, rarely involving skillful means. The text of the Avatamsaka Sutra, however, takes one as many, and many as one, and the meaning of perfect fusion is clearly evident in the text. This may be because Nanyue Huisi quoted from the obvious perspective. However, although the text is quoted from the Avatamsaka Sutra, the meaning actually comes from the Wonderful Dharma Lotus Flower Sutra (Miaofa Lianhua Jing). This is because the profound and subtle meaning of the Ten Suchnesses of the Lotus Sutra is fully used to explain this Dharma gate of perfect fusion and non-obstruction. Why is this so? Because when Nanyue Huisi read the text of the Ten Suchnesses, he did not understand it according to the surface meaning of the words, but rather grasped the meaning within it. Therefore, he read it as: 'Appearance is Suchness, Nature is Suchness, and even the Root and Branch are Suchness.' This reading is to reveal the meaning of perfect fusion and non-obstruction. What is 'Suchness'? So-called 'Suchness' is neither defiled nor pure, neither saintly nor mundane, neither one nor different, perfectly fused and equal, and cannot be described in words. It is only called equality because there is no high or low; it is called one because there is no different appearance; it is called nature because it does not change. Therefore, this 'Suchness' is equal oneness. The ten dharmas of Appearance, Nature, Root, and Branch are different, which are the respective causes and effects of the Ten Realms. The cause and effect are the body itself.

於事。事即差別。以差別故。地獄相者表其苦楚。佛界相者表其莊嚴。地獄報者銅柱鐵床。佛果報者涅槃上定。常情見者善惡殊形苦樂異勢。今反常情以合於性。即指地獄全是佛界。即指佛界全是地獄。乃至十界互融互攝圓無障礙。無其所從。自何而得。良由地獄相性本末全體。是如佛界相性本末亦全體。是如一如無二如故。地獄界若因若果即是佛果若因若果。故佛果若因若果即是地獄若因若果。界界互具十十無窮。如此圓融功歸如也。此如之體無名無相寂絕平等不可思議。以相性等。一切諸法即此如故。是故法法皆不思議。南嶽禪師得此妙旨。於是讀云。相是如乃至本末是如也。又若非此如。本末如何云究竟等。予嘗謂三千者。單理不是。獨事不成。事理融攝方曰三千。而於前意亦可見之。如即理也。相性本末即是事也。以理融事遂成三千。茍謂事權自得名曰事三千者。必眾相性不用如理自能融攝。若其爾者。何必讀云相是如耶。問。若祇讀云如是相者。非三千耶。答。若共經旨。直以如是為指法之辭者。此相何得是三千耶。由此南嶽恐人但作指法而解。故特以如而為句末。依此讀文方見經旨。若依天臺三轉讀文。一轉依經讀云如是相者。應以如是為相方是三千相。若離於如是。終不能于互融。故今文云。若就妄執

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於事。事即是差別。因為有差別，所以地獄的景象表現的是苦楚，佛界的景象表現的是莊嚴。地獄的果報是銅柱鐵床，佛的果報是涅槃和上定。普通人看到的是善惡不同的形態，苦樂不同的境地。現在反過來，用常情來符合本性，就是說地獄完全是佛界，佛界完全是地獄。乃至十界互相融合，互相包含，圓滿而沒有障礙。它沒有從哪裡來，又從哪裡得到呢？這是因為地獄的相、性、本、末全體都是如，佛界的相、性、本、末也全體都是如。因為一如沒有二如的緣故，地獄界的因和果就是佛果的因和果，所以佛果的因和果就是地獄的因和果。界與界之間互相具備十界，十界無窮無盡。這樣的圓融都歸功於如。這個如的本體，沒有名字，沒有形象，寂靜而平等，不可思議。因為相和性等等，一切諸法都是這個如，所以法法都不可思議。南嶽禪師領悟了這個妙旨，於是讀到：『相是如，乃至本末是如也。』又如果不是這個如，本末怎麼能說是究竟等等呢？我曾經說過，三千，單單是理不行，單單是事也不成，事和理融合才能說是三千。而從前面的意思也可以看到這一點。如就是理，相、性、本、末就是事。用理來融合事，就成就了三千。如果說事權是自己得到的，叫做事三千，那麼一定是眾相性不用如理也能自己融合。如果真是那樣，何必讀『相是如』呢？問：如果只讀『如是相』，不是三千嗎？答：如果按照經文的旨意，直接把『如是』作為指法的詞語，那麼這個相怎麼能是三千呢？因此南嶽禪師是擔心人們只把它當作指法來解釋，所以特意用『如』作為句末。按照這樣來讀文章，才能看到經文的旨意。如果按照天臺宗的三轉讀法，第一轉按照經文讀『如是相』，應該把『如是』作為相，才是三千相。如果離開了如是，終究不能互相融合。所以現在經文說：『如果就妄執』

【English Translation】 English version Regarding 'things'. 'Things' are differentiations. Because of differentiations, the appearance of hell represents suffering, while the appearance of the Buddha realm represents solemnity. The retribution of hell is copper pillars and iron beds, while the fruition of Buddhahood is Nirvana and higher samadhi. Ordinary people see different forms of good and evil, and different states of suffering and joy. Now, reversing the ordinary view to align with the nature, it means that hell is entirely the Buddha realm, and the Buddha realm is entirely hell. Furthermore, the ten realms interpenetrate and contain each other, being perfectly unobstructed. It has no origin, nor does it come from anywhere. This is because the appearance, nature, origin, and end of hell are entirely 'suchness' (如, tathata), and the appearance, nature, origin, and end of the Buddha realm are also entirely 'suchness'. Because 'suchness' is one and not two, the cause and effect of the hell realm are the cause and effect of the Buddha realm, and therefore the cause and effect of the Buddha realm are the cause and effect of hell. Realm after realm mutually possesses the ten realms, endlessly. Such perfect fusion is attributed to 'suchness'. This essence of 'suchness' has no name, no form, is tranquil and equal, and is inconceivable. Because of appearance, nature, and so on, all dharmas are this 'suchness', therefore every dharma is inconceivable. Chan Master Nanyue attained this profound meaning, and thus read: 'Appearance is suchness, even the origin and end are suchness.' Furthermore, if it were not for this 'suchness', how could the origin and end be said to be ultimate, and so on? I once said that the three thousand (三千, sanzen) cannot be achieved by principle alone, nor by phenomena alone; only the fusion of phenomena and principle can be called the three thousand. This can also be seen from the preceding meaning. 'Suchness' is principle, while appearance, nature, origin, and end are phenomena. Using principle to fuse phenomena achieves the three thousand. If it is said that the power of phenomena is self-obtained, called the 'three thousand in phenomena', then it must be that the various appearances and natures can fuse themselves without relying on principle. If that were the case, why would one read 'Appearance is suchness'? Question: If one only reads 'Suchness is appearance', is it not the three thousand? Answer: If according to the meaning of the sutra, one directly takes 'suchness' as a term for pointing to the dharma, then how can this appearance be the three thousand? Therefore, Chan Master Nanyue was concerned that people would only interpret it as pointing to the dharma, so he specifically used 'suchness' as the end of the sentence. Only by reading the text in this way can one see the meaning of the sutra. If according to the Tiantai (天臺) school's three-fold reading, the first reading according to the sutra is 'Suchness is appearance', one should take 'suchness' as the appearance, which is the three thousand appearances. If one departs from 'suchness', one will ultimately not be able to mutually fuse. Therefore, the current text says: 'If one clings to false views'

之事即一向不融。若據心性緣起依持之用。即可得相攝。問。單理獨事若非三千。如何得有理具三千．事造三千。答。此約歸趣無不極義。以三千趣理故曰理具三千。以三千趣事故曰事造三千。若其成三千之體者。必事理圓具方成三千也。山家諸文有云三千為緣生。有云三千為非道。有云三千性是中理。亦云三千皆空泯亡。悉是事理融攝成三千。后隨義舉用趣極之說。若趣于空則三千皆無。若趣于中則三千皆妙。若趣于假則三千皆有。荊溪云。凡權四句之法皆權諸法已和合性。今亦例云。凡言三千惟俗惟理。皆約三千已成后說。問。若雲南岳讀十如雲是相如．是性如可乎。答。若以是字而為句初。于理亦得。義但不同天臺三轉。良由天臺以是為中。以如為空。如南嶽之讀。是之一字指法之辭。如之一字乃平等性。故與天臺三轉不等。問。若不等者。何雲天臺稟承南嶽。答。就字辨義不同意旨。所歸無別。若一向同天臺。何必作三轉耶。其意無別者。悉是以理融事圓妙無礙。心．佛．生三互融互攝。問。南嶽天臺所談事理意同之旨。若為見之。答。皆是三諦故云意同。然事理之義有在。今就三諦且約體用．中邊．亡照三義以明其意。南嶽指具足染凈因果為不空藏。不空是有無非相性等十屬其假也。以空此有稱為空藏。其

【現代漢語翻譯】之事即一向不融（如果只談論事相，就無法與理相融合）。若據心性緣起依持之用（如果從心性、緣起和相互依存的角度來看），即可得相攝（就可以相互包含）。問（問）：單理獨事若非三千（如果單獨的理或事不是三千），如何得有理具三千．事造三千（怎麼會有理具三千和事造三千的說法呢）？答（答）：此約歸趣無不極義（這是從歸宿和極致的意義上說的）。以三千趣理故曰理具三千（因為三千趨向于理，所以說理具三千）。以三千趣事故曰事造三千（因為三千趨向於事，所以說事造三千）。若其成三千之體者（如果成就三千的本體），必事理圓具方成三千也（必須事和理都圓滿具備才能成就三千）。山家諸文有云三千為緣生（山家的文章有說三千是緣起而生的），有云三千為非道（有說三千是非道的），有云三千性是中理（有說三千的自性是中道之理），亦云三千皆空泯亡（也有說三千都是空性，最終泯滅）。悉是事理融攝成三千（這些都是事和理相互融合而成就三千），后隨義舉用趣極之說（然後根據不同的意義，從不同的角度來闡述其極致）。若趣于空則三千皆無（如果趨向于空，那麼三千皆無）。若趣于中則三千皆妙（如果趨向于中道，那麼三千皆妙）。若趣于假則三千皆有（如果趨向于假，那麼三千皆有）。荊溪云（荊溪大師說）：『凡權四句之法皆權諸法已和合性（凡是權巧設立的四句法門，都是爲了權衡諸法已經和合的自性）』。今亦例云（現在也可以這樣說）：『凡言三千惟俗惟理（凡是說三千隻是俗諦或只是真諦），皆約三千已成后說（都是在三千已經成就之後說的）』。問（問）：若雲南岳讀十如雲是相如．是性如可乎（如果說南嶽大師解讀十如是『是相如』、『是性如』，可以嗎）？答（答）：若以是字而為句初（如果以『是』字作為句子的開頭），于理亦得（在道理上也是可以的）。義但不同天臺三轉（但意義不同於天臺宗的三轉）。良由天臺以是為中（因為天臺宗以『是』為中道），以如為空（以『如』為空性）。如南嶽之讀（像南嶽大師的解讀），是之一字指法之辭（『是』字是指示法的詞語），如之一字乃平等性（『如』字是平等性）。故與天臺三轉不等（所以與天臺宗的三轉不同）。問（問）：若不等者（如果不同），何雲天臺稟承南嶽（為什麼說天臺宗稟承南嶽大師）？答（答）：就字辨義不同意旨（從字面上辨析，意義不同，但意旨）。所歸無別（最終歸宿沒有差別）。若一向同天臺（如果完全和天臺宗相同），何必作三轉耶（何必再作三轉呢）？其意無別者（意旨沒有差別在於），悉是以理融事圓妙無礙（都是以理融攝事，達到圓滿微妙無礙的境界）。心．佛．生三互融互攝（心、佛、眾生三者相互融合，相互包含）。問（問）：南嶽天臺所談事理意同之旨（南嶽大師和天臺宗所談的事理意旨相同），若為見之（如何理解）？答（答）：皆是三諦故云意同（都是三諦的緣故，所以說意旨相同）。然事理之義有在（然而事理的意義有所不同）。今就三諦且約體用．中邊．亡照三義以明其意（現在就三諦，從體用、中邊、亡照三個方面來闡明其意）。南嶽指具足染凈因果為不空藏（南嶽大師認為具足染凈因果是不空藏），不空是有無非相性等十屬其假也（不空是指有、無、非相、性等，這十個方面都屬於假諦）。以空此有稱為空藏（以空掉這個『有』，稱為空藏）。其（其）

【English Translation】 That which pertains to 'things' is inherently incompatible. If based on the function of mind-nature, dependent origination, and reliance, then mutual inclusion can be attained. Question: If singular principle or isolated phenomena are not the 'three thousand', how can there be 'principle possessing three thousand' and 'phenomena creating three thousand'? Answer: This refers to the meaning of ultimate attainment in terms of destination. Because the three thousand tend towards principle, it is said 'principle possesses three thousand'. Because the three thousand tend towards phenomena, it is said 'phenomena create three thousand'. If one is to realize the substance of the three thousand, it is necessary that both principle and phenomena are fully present to constitute the three thousand. Various texts of the 'Mountain School' state that the three thousand are 'born of conditions', some say the three thousand are 'non-path', some say the nature of the three thousand is 'the middle principle', and some also say the three thousand are all 'empty and annihilated'. All of these are the phenomena and principle merging to form the three thousand, and later, according to the meaning, examples are given to illustrate the ultimate point. If one tends towards emptiness, then the three thousand are all non-existent. If one tends towards the middle way, then the three thousand are all wondrous. If one tends towards provisionality, then the three thousand are all existent. Jingxi said: 'All expedient methods of the four phrases are expediently applied to the already harmonized nature of all dharmas.' Now, similarly, it can be said: 'All statements about the three thousand being solely mundane or solely principle are spoken after the three thousand have already been established.' Question: If it is said that Nanyue reads the 'ten suchnesses' as 'is appearance such', 'is nature such', is that acceptable? Answer: If the word 'is' is used at the beginning of the sentence, it is acceptable in principle. However, the meaning is different from the 'three turnings' of Tiantai. This is because Tiantai takes 'is' as the middle way and 'such' as emptiness. As in Nanyue's reading, the word 'is' is a term that points to the dharma, and the word 'such' is the nature of equality. Therefore, it is different from the 'three turnings' of Tiantai. Question: If they are different, why is it said that Tiantai inherited from Nanyue? Answer: The meaning of the words is different, but the intended purpose is not different. If it were exactly the same as Tiantai, why would there be three turnings? The intention is not different in that all are using principle to merge with phenomena, achieving perfect, wondrous, and unobstructed understanding. The three – mind, Buddha, and sentient beings – mutually merge and include each other. Question: How can we see that Nanyue and Tiantai's discussions on phenomena and principle share the same intention? Answer: They are all the 'three truths', hence the intention is said to be the same. However, there are differences in the meaning of phenomena and principle. Now, based on the three truths, we will explain the intention in terms of substance and function, center and periphery, and cessation and illumination. Nanyue points to the complete possession of defiled and pure causes and effects as the 'non-empty treasury'. The 'non-empty' refers to existence, non-existence, non-form, nature, etc., these ten belong to the provisional truth. Emptiness of this existence is called the 'empty treasury'. The (The)

能空者豈非指于平等一如為能空耶。故此之如即屬空也。篤論其如非空非有。故云心體非空不空。豈非指于平等一如體為中耶。斯則乃見如之一字讀于空中。所謂空中二體二無二者由皆如故。其相性等十乃是事用(此約體用)。又既論心體非空不空。同對不空說心為空。故此之空名從對得。還屬於事。是故惟指非空不空中道之理名之為如(此約中邊)。又此非空不空由對於空及與不空而乃名為非空不空。況此之名亦從對得。然其如體亦于中是。故此如無以可目而強目為平等一性(此約亡照)。問。中道如何得名為事。答。篤論其事。事乃是有。體屬相性染凈因果。由對此有說為空．中。空．中二名因從有生。亡名為理者名為事。是故空中皆在事收。故荊溪云。假立空稱。假立中名。假非事乎。又云。圓教即用不思議空。即此正是亡於三諦。常亡常照。論亡論照。如是名為事理合行。豈非亡三為理照三為事。又大師云。無明故有者。點出事觀也。若其空而復空那得此事。既有事即有空。既有空即有非事非理。此之三種悉由無明故有。以諦例觀諦豈不然。天臺既以如是二字而為空中。相性為假。三諦之法既同事理之義。去就無別。但南嶽以此之一字型屬空．中。天臺以如為空。以是為中。祇此字義少不同耳。

釋又

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能空，難道不是指平等一如的狀態作為能空嗎？因此，這個『如』字就屬於空。但深入討論這個『如』，它既非空也非有。所以說心體非空非不空，難道不是指平等一如的本體為中道嗎？這樣看來，『如』這個字是在空中來理解的。所謂空、中二體，二無，二者都是因為『如』的緣故。其相性等十法界是事用（這是從體用角度來說的）。又，既然討論心體非空非不空，同樣針對不空來說心是空，因此這個『空』的名字是從對待而得來的，仍然屬於事。所以，只是指非空非不空的中道之理，才稱之為『如』（這是從中邊角度來說的）。而且，這個非空非不空，也是因為對於空和不空而才被稱為非空非不空。況且這個名字也是從對待而得來的。然而，這個『如』的本體也在中道之中。所以這個『如』無法用眼睛來描述，只能勉強稱之為平等一性（這是從亡照角度來說的）。問：中道如何能被稱為事呢？答：深入討論這個事，事就是有。體屬於相性、染凈、因果。因為針對這個有，才說為空、中。空、中這兩個名字是因為有而產生的。泯滅名字而稱為理，保留名字而稱為事。所以，空和中都在事中包含。因此荊溪大師說：『假立空稱，假立中名，假不是事嗎？』又說：『圓教就是用不可思議的空，這正是泯滅於三諦。常泯常照，論泯論照。』這樣就叫做事理合行。難道不是泯滅三諦為理，照了三諦為事嗎？又，智者大師說：『因為無明所以有』，點明了事觀。如果空而又空，怎麼會有這個事呢？既然有事，就有空。既然有空，就有非事非理。這三種都是因為無明而產生的。用諦來類比觀諦，難道不是這樣嗎？天臺宗既然用『如是』這兩個字來表示空和中，用相性來表示假，三諦之法既然同時具有事理的意義，取捨沒有差別。只是南嶽慧思禪師用『如』這個字來表示空和中，天臺宗用『如』來表示空，用『是』來表示中。只是這個字的意義稍有不同罷了。釋又

【English Translation】 English version: Does '能空' (néng kōng, capable of emptiness) not refer to the state of equality and oneness as being capable of emptiness? Therefore, this '如' (rú, suchness) belongs to emptiness. But deeply discussing this '如', it is neither empty nor existent. Therefore, it is said that the mind-essence is neither empty nor non-empty. Does this not refer to the essence of equality and oneness as the Middle Way? Thus, it seems that the word '如' is understood within emptiness. The so-called two essences of emptiness and the Middle Way, two non-existences, both exist because of '如'. Its characteristics, nature, and the ten dharma realms are functions of phenomena (this is from the perspective of essence and function). Furthermore, since it is discussed that the mind-essence is neither empty nor non-empty, similarly, in relation to non-emptiness, the mind is said to be empty. Therefore, the name 'emptiness' is derived from opposition and still belongs to phenomena. Therefore, only the principle of the Middle Way, which is neither empty nor non-empty, is called '如' (this is from the perspective of the Middle and the extremes). Moreover, this neither empty nor non-empty is called neither empty nor non-empty because of its relation to emptiness and non-emptiness. Moreover, this name is also derived from opposition. However, the essence of this '如' is also in the Middle Way. Therefore, this '如' cannot be described with the eyes, but can only be勉強 (miǎnqiǎng, reluctantly) be called equal and one nature (this is from the perspective of the cessation of illumination). Question: How can the Middle Way be called phenomena? Answer: Deeply discussing this phenomena, phenomena is existence. The essence belongs to characteristics, nature, defilement, purity, cause, and effect. Because of this existence, it is said to be emptiness and the Middle Way. The two names of emptiness and the Middle Way are produced because of existence. Eliminating names is called principle, retaining names is called phenomena. Therefore, emptiness and the Middle Way are both included in phenomena. Therefore, Master Jingxi said: 'Falsely establishing the name of emptiness, falsely establishing the name of the Middle Way, is falsity not phenomena?' He also said: 'The perfect teaching is using inconceivable emptiness, which is precisely the cessation in the three truths. Constant cessation, constant illumination, discussing cessation, discussing illumination.' This is called the combined practice of phenomena and principle. Is it not that the cessation of the three truths is principle, and the illumination of the three truths is phenomena? Furthermore, Great Master Zhiyi said: 'Because of ignorance, there is existence', pointing out the contemplation of phenomena. If it is empty and then empty again, how can there be this phenomena? Since there is phenomena, there is emptiness. Since there is emptiness, there is neither phenomena nor principle. These three are all produced because of ignorance. Using truth to analogize the contemplation of truth, is it not so? Since the Tiantai school uses the two words '如是' (rú shì, thusness) to represent emptiness and the Middle Way, and uses characteristics and nature to represent provisionality, the three truths simultaneously have the meaning of phenomena and principle, and there is no difference in taking or leaving. It is just that Master Nanyue Huisi uses the word '如' to represent emptiness and the Middle Way, while the Tiantai school uses '如' to represent emptiness and '是' to represent the Middle Way. It is just that the meaning of this word is slightly different. 釋又 (Explanation again)

為三。初標。二問下示二。初藏體惟一。有問有答。然如來藏法同人別。以法同故。祇共一藏。以人別故。亦可各各具如來藏。是以下文乃有因果法身之異。法同人別。如涅槃疏問。隱名如來藏。我是佛性者。一切眾生有我性耶。答一切眾生悉有性未即是佛。是故有我未是我德。何者。人別法通。通故有性。有我人別故非佛非德。以人別故因中法身未有莊嚴。以法同故。雖未莊嚴與佛性等。此乃獨約藏體為言。若約藏用。別十界事皆德論於法同人別。二問下。示具法漸頓二。初問。二答二。初示法體有性有事。涅槃疏云。問藏性理三。云何同異。答。祇是一義。若欲分別理惑。合論名之為藏。全不論惑稱之為理。不可改變稱之為性。今文正以染事是惑。理具此惑。理惑合辨為如來藏。又諸文中辨四門義。以如來藏為有門者。正取此藏具足諸法。故荊溪云。具即是假。二如上下。指上二。若據下。正示具法有漸有頓二。初標性染凈。無始俱有者。正取染凈能具性。性既常住則無始本有。性既頓足則一時俱具。章安云。佛性中道不同善根。何者。一闡名信。提名不具。佛性非信亦復非具。云何可斷。佛性非善非惡。闡提但能斷善。云何斷性。以此類之。乃以染凈從能具性。故云無始俱時具有。二此義下釋二。初釋約性惟頓

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：分為三部分。第一部分是標題。第二部分是問答形式，分為兩個小部分來闡述。第一小部分說明了如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來之胎藏，蘊藏一切如來功德）的本體是唯一的。雖然有問有答，但如來藏的法性是相同的，只是眾生各不相同。因為法性相同，所以共同擁有一個如來藏。因為眾生各不相同，所以每個人都可以各自具有如來藏。因此，下文才會有因果法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）的差異。法性相同，眾生各異，就像《涅槃經疏》中提出的問題：隱藏地稱為如來藏，而我說的是佛性，那麼一切眾生都具有我性嗎？回答是：一切眾生都具有佛性，但尚未成佛。因此，說有『我』，但還不是佛的功德。為什麼呢？因為眾生各異，而法性相通。因為相通，所以具有佛性。因為眾生各異，所以還不是佛，也沒有佛的功德。因為眾生各異，所以在因地（修行階段）的法身還沒有莊嚴。因為法性相同，所以即使沒有莊嚴，也與佛性相等。這只是單獨就如來藏的本體而言。如果就如來藏的作用而言，十法界（Ten realms，佛教宇宙觀中的十種生命存在狀態）的一切事物都可以從法性相同、眾生各異的角度來討論功德。第二小部分是問答形式，闡述了具有法性的漸修和頓悟兩種方式。首先是提問，然後是兩個回答。第一個回答說明瞭法體具有體性和事相。如《涅槃經疏》所說：問：藏性、理性、三者有什麼相同和不同？答：只是一種意義。如果要分別理和惑，合起來討論就稱為藏。完全不討論惑就稱為理。不可改變就稱為性。本文正是以染污的事相為惑，理性具備這種惑，理和惑合起來辨析就是如來藏。另外，在各種經文中辨析四門義（Fourfold negation，佛教邏輯中的四種否定形式）時，以如來藏為有門，正是因為如來藏具足一切法。所以荊溪（Jingxi，唐代天臺宗僧人）說：『具足就是假』。第二個回答如上下所說，指上面的兩個回答。如果根據下面的內容，正是說明了具足法性有漸修和頓悟兩種方式。首先標明體性、染污和清凈，無始以來就同時具有。這是指染污和清凈都具有能具之性。體性既然是常住的，那麼就是無始本有。體性既然是頓悟的，那麼就是一時俱足。章安（Zhang'an，隋代天臺宗僧人）說：佛性中道（Middle way，不偏不倚的真理）不同於善根。為什麼呢？一闡提（Icchantika，斷滅善根的人）名為信，提名為不具足。佛性不是信，也不是不具足。怎麼可以斷滅呢？佛性非善非惡，一闡提只能斷滅善，怎麼能斷滅佛性呢？以此類推，就是以染污和清凈從能具之性而來，所以說無始以來就同時具有。第二部分對此義進行解釋，分為兩個小部分。第一小部分解釋了就體性而言只有頓悟。

【English Translation】 English version: Divided into three parts. The first part is the title. The second part is in the form of questions and answers, divided into two subsections for elaboration. The first subsection explains that the essence of the Tathagatagarbha (the womb of the Tathagata, containing all the merits of the Tathagata) is unique. Although there are questions and answers, the Dharma-nature of the Tathagatagarbha is the same, only sentient beings are different. Because the Dharma-nature is the same, they share one Tathagatagarbha. Because sentient beings are different, each person can individually possess the Tathagatagarbha. Therefore, the following text will have differences in the causal Dharmakaya (the Dharma-nature body of the Buddha). The Dharma-nature is the same, and sentient beings are different, just like the question raised in the 'Nirvana Sutra Commentary': It is hiddenly called the Tathagatagarbha, and I am talking about Buddha-nature, so do all sentient beings have my nature? The answer is: All sentient beings have Buddha-nature, but they have not yet become Buddhas. Therefore, it is said that there is 'self', but it is not yet the merit of the Buddha. Why? Because sentient beings are different, and the Dharma-nature is interconnected. Because of the interconnection, they have Buddha-nature. Because sentient beings are different, they are not yet Buddhas, nor do they have the merits of the Buddha. Because sentient beings are different, the Dharmakaya in the causal stage (the stage of practice) is not yet adorned. Because the Dharma-nature is the same, even if it is not adorned, it is equal to Buddha-nature. This is only in terms of the essence of the Tathagatagarbha alone. If it is in terms of the function of the Tathagatagarbha, all things in the Ten Realms (the ten states of existence in the Buddhist cosmology) can be discussed in terms of merit from the perspective of the same Dharma-nature and different sentient beings. The second subsection is in the form of questions and answers, elaborating on the two methods of gradual cultivation and sudden enlightenment that possess Dharma-nature. First, there is a question, followed by two answers. The first answer explains that the Dharma-body has both essence and phenomena. As the 'Nirvana Sutra Commentary' says: Question: What are the similarities and differences between the essence of the Garbha, the principle, and the three? Answer: It is only one meaning. If you want to distinguish between principle and delusion, discussing them together is called the Garbha. Not discussing delusion at all is called principle. Immutable is called nature. This text is precisely taking defiled phenomena as delusion, and reason possesses this delusion. Analyzing reason and delusion together is the Tathagatagarbha. In addition, when analyzing the meaning of the Fourfold Negation (the four forms of negation in Buddhist logic) in various scriptures, taking the Tathagatagarbha as the 'existence' gate is precisely because the Tathagatagarbha fully possesses all Dharmas. Therefore, Jingxi (a Tiantai monk in the Tang Dynasty) said: 'Completeness is falsity'. The second answer is as mentioned above and below, referring to the two answers above. If based on the following content, it precisely explains that possessing Dharma-nature has two methods: gradual cultivation and sudden enlightenment. First, it indicates essence, defilement, and purity, which have been present simultaneously since the beginningless past. This refers to the fact that both defilement and purity possess the nature of being able to possess. Since the essence is permanent, it is originally present since the beginningless past. Since the essence is of sudden enlightenment, it is fully present at once. Zhang'an (a Tiantai monk in the Sui Dynasty) said: The Middle Way (the truth of non-duality) of Buddha-nature is different from good roots. Why? An Icchantika (a person who has severed their good roots) is named 'faith', and the name indicates incompleteness. Buddha-nature is neither faith nor incompleteness. How can it be severed? Buddha-nature is neither good nor evil, and an Icchantika can only sever good, how can they sever Buddha-nature? By analogy, it is from the nature of being able to possess that defilement and purity come, so it is said that they have been present simultaneously since the beginningless past. The second part explains this meaning, divided into two subsections. The first subsection explains that in terms of essence, there is only sudden enlightenment.

二。初示相二。初約十界通示。以一性為能具。十界為所具。一性是無差。十界是差別。故云無差別之差別。此則未論一界復具十界。乃且總示一性具十。文云。一切眾生者。通指十界皆名眾生。二然此下。界界各明。先須曉了各具互具。義凡有四。一者一界具當界因果為各。具十界因果為互。如大師云。問當界有十。性相可然。云何互動相有。二者一界具十界為各。具百界為互。如大師又云。一法界復有十法。所謂如是相性究竟等。十界即有百法。十界相互則有千法。三者一界具自己百界為各。具他百界為互。輔行雲。一一界界。各各具十。不相混濫。又復學者縱知內心具三千法。不知我心遍彼三千。彼彼三千互遍亦爾。四者以具己百界他百界並具從能具人別為各。從所具法同爲互。如金錍云。眾生有迷中事理。諸佛有悟中事理。迷悟雖殊(從人則各)。事理體一(從法則互)。問。釋簽云。理體無差。差約事用。如何分對各互二具。答。理體無差為互具。差約事用為各具。問。金錍以事理體一為互具。何不獨以理為互具。答。簽云。理體無差者乃是能融也。三法高下者乃是所融也。由以理體融故。故三法無差。三法既然無差。則所具事理任運體一乃成互具也。斯同金錍事理體一。亦同大意理同。故即以此事理從迷

【現代漢語翻譯】二。初示相二。初約十界通示。以一性為能具。十界為所具。一性是無差。十界是差別。故云無差別之差別。此則未論一界復具十界。乃且總示一性具十。文云。『一切眾生』者。通指十界皆名眾生。二然此下。界界各明。先須曉了各具互具。義凡有四。一者一界具當界因果為各。具十界因果為互。如大師云。『問當界有十。性相可然。云何互動相有。』二者一界具十界為各。具百界為互。如大師又云。『一法界復有十法。所謂如是相性究竟等。十界即有百法。十界相互則有千法。』三者一界具自己百界為各。具他百界為互。輔行雲。『一一界界。各各具十。不相混濫。又復學者縱知內心具三千法。不知我心遍彼三千。彼彼三千互遍亦爾。』四者以具己百界他百界並具從能具人別為各。從所具法同爲互。如金錍云。『眾生有迷中事理。諸佛有悟中事理。迷悟雖殊(從人則各)。事理體一(從法則互)。』問。釋簽云。『理體無差。差約事用。如何分對各互二具。』答。理體無差為互具。差約事用為各具。問。金錍以事理體一為互具。何不獨以理為互具。答。簽云。『理體無差者乃是能融也。三法高下者乃是所融也。由以理體融故。故三法無差。三法既然無差。則所具事理任運體一乃成互具也。』斯同金錍事理體一。亦同大意理同。故即以此事理從迷

【English Translation】現代漢語譯本 II. Initial demonstration of characteristics, in two parts. The first is a general demonstration encompassing the Ten Realms, using the One Nature as the possessor and the Ten Realms as the possessed. The One Nature is without difference, while the Ten Realms are differentiated. Hence, it is said to be 'difference without difference.' This does not discuss one realm possessing the ten realms, but rather generally demonstrates the One Nature possessing ten. The text says, 'All sentient beings' refers generally to all beings in the Ten Realms. Secondly, below this, each realm is clarified individually. First, one must understand 'each possessing' and 'mutually possessing.' There are four meanings in total. First, one realm possesses the causes and effects of its own realm as 'each,' and possesses the causes and effects of the Ten Realms as 'mutual.' As the Great Teacher says, 'If asked, the ten aspects of the current realm, such as nature and characteristics, are understandable. How do they interact and possess each other?' Second, one realm possesses the Ten Realms as 'each,' and possesses the Hundred Realms as 'mutual.' As the Great Teacher also says, 'One Dharma Realm further possesses ten dharmas, namely suchness, appearance, nature, ultimate reality, etc. The Ten Realms then have a hundred dharmas. The Ten Realms interacting have a thousand dharmas.' Third, one realm possesses its own Hundred Realms as 'each,' and possesses the Hundred Realms of others as 'mutual.' Fu Xing says, 'Each and every realm possesses ten, without confusion. Furthermore, even if a student knows that the mind possesses three thousand dharmas, they do not know that my mind pervades those three thousand, and those three thousand mutually pervade as well.' Fourth, possessing one's own Hundred Realms and the Hundred Realms of others, distinguishing from the possessor as 'each,' and from the possessed dharma being the same as 'mutual.' As the Jin Pi says, 'Sentient beings have delusion regarding affairs and principles. Buddhas have enlightenment regarding affairs and principles. Although delusion and enlightenment are different (from the person, they are each), the substance of affairs and principles is one (from the dharma, they are mutual).' Question: Shi Qian says, 'The substance of principle is without difference; difference is based on affairs and function. How are 'each possessing' and 'mutual possessing' distinguished?' Answer: The substance of principle being without difference is 'mutual possessing.' Difference based on affairs and function is 'each possessing.' Question: The Jin Pi takes the substance of affairs and principles being one as 'mutual possessing.' Why not take only principle as 'mutual possessing?' Answer: Qian says, 'The substance of principle being without difference is that which can merge. The height and lowness of the three dharmas are that which is merged. Because the substance of principle merges, the three dharmas are without difference. Since the three dharmas are without difference, the possessed affairs and principles naturally become one, thus forming mutual possession.' This is the same as the Jin Pi's substance of affairs and principles being one, and also the same as the general meaning of principle being the same. Therefore, these affairs and principles are from delusion. English version II. First Showing of Characteristics, in two parts. The first is a general showing encompassing the Ten Realms, using the One Nature (Eka-svabhāva) as the possessor and the Ten Realms as the possessed. The One Nature is without difference (nirviśeṣa), while the Ten Realms are differentiated (viśeṣa). Hence, it is said to be 'difference without difference.' This does not discuss one realm possessing the ten realms, but rather generally demonstrates the One Nature possessing ten. The text says, 'All sentient beings (sarva sattva)' refers generally to all beings in the Ten Realms. Secondly, below this, each realm is clarified individually. First, one must understand 'each possessing' (eka-paryāya) and 'mutually possessing' (anyonya-paryāya). There are four meanings in total. First, one realm possesses the causes and effects of its own realm as 'each,' and possesses the causes and effects of the Ten Realms as 'mutual.' As the Great Teacher (Mahācārya) says, 'If asked, the ten aspects of the current realm, such as nature (prakṛti) and characteristics (lakṣaṇa), are understandable. How do they interact and possess each other?' Second, one realm possesses the Ten Realms as 'each,' and possesses the Hundred Realms as 'mutual.' As the Great Teacher also says, 'One Dharma Realm (Dharma-dhātu) further possesses ten dharmas, namely suchness (tathatā), appearance (ākāra), nature (prakṛti), ultimate reality (paramārtha), etc. The Ten Realms then have a hundred dharmas. The Ten Realms interacting have a thousand dharmas.' Third, one realm possesses its own Hundred Realms as 'each,' and possesses the Hundred Realms of others as 'mutual.' Fu Xing says, 'Each and every realm possesses ten, without confusion. Furthermore, even if a student knows that the mind possesses three thousand dharmas, they do not know that my mind pervades those three thousand, and those three thousand mutually pervade as well.' Fourth, possessing one's own Hundred Realms and the Hundred Realms of others, distinguishing from the possessor as 'each,' and from the possessed dharma being the same as 'mutual.' As the Jin Pi says, 'Sentient beings have delusion regarding affairs and principles. Buddhas have enlightenment regarding affairs and principles. Although delusion and enlightenment are different (from the person, they are each), the substance of affairs and principles is one (from the dharma, they are mutual).' Question: Shi Qian says, 'The substance of principle is without difference; difference is based on affairs and function. How are 'each possessing' and 'mutual possessing' distinguished?' Answer: The substance of principle being without difference is 'mutual possessing.' Difference based on affairs and function is 'each possessing.' Question: The Jin Pi takes the substance of affairs and principles being one as 'mutual possessing.' Why not take only principle as 'mutual possessing?' Answer: Qian says, 'The substance of principle being without difference is that which can merge. The height and lowness of the three dharmas are that which is merged. Because the substance of principle merges, the three dharmas are without difference. Since the three dharmas are without difference, the possessed affairs and principles naturally become one, thus forming mutual possession.' This is the same as the Jin Pi's substance of affairs and principles being one, and also the same as the general meaning of principle being the same. Therefore, these affairs and principles are from delusion.

悟高下乃成各具。故釋簽云。差約事用。斯同金錍迷悟雖殊。復同大意事異故六。今以三千事理若從各具皆在事異。若從互具俱在理同。不二門云。三千在理同名無明。三千果成咸稱常樂。豈非三千俱在事異成各具耶。三千無改。無明即明。三千並常。俱體俱用。豈非三千俱在理同成互具耶。由無明當體體屬於生。智明當體體屬於佛。今點生同佛。故云無明即明。斯乃生亦具佛也。由理體體屬於佛。事用當體體屬於生。今點佛同生。故云俱體俱用。斯乃佛亦具生也。祇由理同是故互具。問。理同事異各是三千耶。答。此問不然。向約理同事異為能具說。乃以所具三千從於能具。事理不同故有各具互具之別。若欲就於理同事異辨三千法體者。應知單理不成獨事不是。須以理同融於事異。是故事異理同法體圓具方為三千。及趣無不極則趣事為事趣理為理。問。事異揀濫。云何三千。答。偏教揀濫而無理融。故非三千。圓中事異約即論六。圓中理同約六論即。既得云無高下之高下。豈不得云非揀濫之揀濫。故圓揀濫定是三千。若謂不然。豈可得云圓人之位。然此且約能詮無不圓說。況復若取三千攝無不遍。則偏教揀濫亦是三千。問。既指一性為能具。今何復云事異為能具。答。由此一性遍一切處。是故法法皆為能具。功歸言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本領悟高下之別，乃成就各自具備的特性。所以《釋簽》中說：『差別在於事用。』這如同金錍（一種醫療工具，比喻智慧）雖有迷悟之別，卻都指向相同的大意，事相不同所以有六道之分。現在以三千事理來說，如果從各自具備的角度來看，都在事相的差異上；如果從相互具備的角度來看，都在理體的相同上。《不二門》中說：『三千在理上，都名為無明；三千果報成就，都稱為常樂。』難道不是三千都在事相的差異上，成就各自具備的特性嗎？三千沒有改變，無明即是明，三千都是常，俱備本體和作用，難道不是三千都在理體的相同上，成就相互具備的特性嗎？由於無明當下的本體屬於生，智明當下的本體屬於佛，現在點明生與佛相同，所以說無明即是明，這就是說生也具備佛性。由於理體屬於佛，事用當下的本體屬於生，現在點明佛與生相同，所以說俱備本體和作用，這就是說佛也具備生。只因爲理體相同，所以才能相互具備。問：理體相同，事相差異，各自都是三千嗎？答：這樣的提問不對。之前是就理體相同、事相差異作為能具備者來說的，那麼所具備的三千就依從於能具備者。事理不同，所以才有各自具備和相互具備的區別。如果要就理體相同、事相差異來辨析三千法體，應該知道單單理體不能成就，單獨事相也不成立。必須以理體的相同來融攝事相的差異，這樣事相差異、理體相同，法體才能圓滿具備，方才成為三千。以及趨向沒有不窮盡的，趨向事相為事，趨向理體為理。問：事相差異是爲了揀擇避免混濫，如何能說是三千？答：偏教的揀擇避免混濫而沒有理體的融合，所以不是三千。圓教中事相差異，就『即』來說就是六道；圓教中理體相同，就六道來說就是『即』。既然可以說沒有高下的高下，難道不能說不是揀擇避免混濫的揀擇避免混濫嗎？所以圓教的揀擇避免混濫必定是三千。如果說不是這樣，又怎麼能說圓人的地位呢？然而這只是就所詮釋的沒有不圓滿來說的，更何況如果取三千來攝，沒有不周遍的，那麼偏教的揀擇避免混濫也是三千。問：既然指一性作為能具備者，現在為什麼又說事相差異作為能具備者？答：由此一性遍一切處，所以法法都是能具備者，功勞歸於言說。

【English Translation】 English version Realizing the distinction between high and low leads to the accomplishment of each possessing its own unique characteristics. Therefore, the 『Shi Qian』 says: 『Differences lie in the application of affairs.』 This is similar to the golden 『bhiṣa』 (a medical tool, metaphor for wisdom), where although there are differences in delusion and enlightenment, they both point to the same general meaning; the differences in phenomena lead to the six realms. Now, speaking in terms of the three thousand aspects of phenomena and principle, if viewed from the perspective of each possessing its own characteristics, they all lie in the differences of phenomena; if viewed from the perspective of mutual possession, they all lie in the sameness of principle. The 『Non-Dual Gate』 says: 『The three thousand in principle are all named ignorance; the three thousand fruits of accomplishment are all called permanence and bliss.』 Isn』t it that the three thousand are all in the differences of phenomena, accomplishing each possessing its own characteristics? The three thousand are not changed, ignorance is precisely wisdom, the three thousand are all permanent, possessing both essence and function; isn』t it that the three thousand are all in the sameness of principle, accomplishing mutual possession? Because the very essence of ignorance belongs to birth, and the very essence of wisdom belongs to Buddha, now pointing out that birth is the same as Buddha, therefore it is said that ignorance is precisely wisdom, which means that birth also possesses Buddhahood. Because the principle belongs to Buddha, and the very essence of phenomena belongs to birth, now pointing out that Buddha is the same as birth, therefore it is said to possess both essence and function, which means that Buddha also possesses birth. Only because the principle is the same, therefore there is mutual possession. Question: Are the sameness of principle and the differences of phenomena each the three thousand? Answer: This question is not correct. Previously, the sameness of principle and the differences of phenomena were spoken of as the possessor, then the possessed three thousand follow the possessor. The differences in phenomena and principle lead to the distinction between each possessing its own characteristics and mutual possession. If you want to analyze the essence of the three thousand dharmas based on the sameness of principle and the differences of phenomena, you should know that principle alone cannot accomplish, and phenomena alone cannot establish. It is necessary to integrate the differences of phenomena with the sameness of principle, so that the differences of phenomena and the sameness of principle, the essence of the dharma can be fully possessed, and then it becomes the three thousand. And the direction of approach is without exception, approaching phenomena as phenomena, approaching principle as principle. Question: The differences of phenomena are to distinguish and avoid confusion, how can it be said to be the three thousand? Answer: The distinction and avoidance of confusion in the partial teachings lack the integration of principle, therefore it is not the three thousand. In the perfect teaching, the differences of phenomena, in terms of 『is,』 are the six realms; in the perfect teaching, the sameness of principle, in terms of the six realms, is 『is.』 Since it can be said that there is no high or low of high and low, can it not be said that it is not the distinction and avoidance of confusion of distinction and avoidance of confusion? Therefore, the distinction and avoidance of confusion in the perfect teaching must be the three thousand. If it is said that it is not so, how can the position of the perfect person be spoken of? However, this is only in terms of what is explained without being incomplete, moreover, if the three thousand are taken to encompass, there is nothing that is not pervasive, then the distinction and avoidance of confusion in the partial teachings is also the three thousand. Question: Since the one nature is pointed to as the possessor, why is it now said that the differences of phenomena are the possessor? Answer: Because this one nature pervades all places, therefore every dharma is the possessor, the merit belongs to speech.

之性曰能具。就法言之事亦能具。問。事為能具。一向屬於各具義耶。答。不可一向。若以所具從於能具。事既差別故為各具。若不以所具從於能具。故事中所具有各有互。具自己者名之為各。具他人者名之為互。以理能具為互具者。亦乃以所從能而說。若不從能。故理中所具有各有互。今文中雲。然此一一眾生性中至具無量無邊之性者。其有二意。一者一界復具十界。十界成百。自百至千。自千至萬。乃至無量無邊不可算數之性。此則界界各能具自己無量無邊之性。復能具他人無量無邊之性。故各能各具各能互具。斯乃謂之界界各明也。此則約於十界而辨。二者於一界中自他不同。且如人界以十界言之祇云人界。若界界各明者。此之人界復有苦者樂者愚者智者種種不同。亦有無量無邊之性。斯乃亦是界界各明。由其文意通此二向。天臺談一界具十十界具百者。意出南嶽。即今文是也。

二所謂下示二。初六道。云苦樂好醜等者。若約初義應以六界迭論苦樂好醜並愚智等。若約次義則一界中自有苦樂好醜愚智。二及三下。四聖三乘因果等者。若約初義則三乘豎論。約次義則三乘橫辨。文語三乘不言佛者。應以菩薩之果即是佛也。故該四聖與前六道共是十界。　三如是下結。

二以是下結二。初約頓具結。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『之性曰能具』，就法而言，事也能具足。問：事作為能具足，是否一概屬於各具的意義呢？答：不可一概而論。如果以所具足的從屬於能具足的，事既然有差別，所以是各具。如果不以所具足的從屬於能具足的，那麼事中所具有的各有互具。具足自己的稱為各，具足他人的稱為互。以理能具足為互具的，也是以所從屬的能而說。如果不從能，那麼理中所具有的各有互。現在文中說：『然此一一眾生性中至具無量無邊之性者』，這裡有兩種意思。一是，一界又具足十界，十界構成百界，從百界到千界，從千界到萬界，乃至無量無邊不可算數之性。這則是界界各自能具足自己無量無邊的性，又能具足他人無量無邊的性。所以各能各具，各能互具。這就是所謂的界界各明。這是就十界而辨別的。二是，在一界中，自他不同。比如人界，以十界來說，只說是人界。如果界界各明，那麼這人界又有苦者、樂者、愚者、智者種種不同，也有無量無邊的性。這也是界界各明。因為文意貫通這兩種方向。天臺宗談論一界具足十界，十界具足百界，意出於南嶽，就是現在的文句。

二、所謂下文，顯示兩種含義。首先是六道，說『苦樂好醜等』，如果按照第一種意義，應該以六界交替論述苦樂好醜以及愚智等。如果按照第二種意義，則一界中自有苦樂好醜愚智。二及三下文，四聖三乘因果等，如果按照第一種意義，則三乘豎向論述。按照第二種意義，則三乘橫向辨別。文中說三乘而不說佛，應該是以菩薩的果位就是佛。所以包含四聖與前面的六道，共同構成十界。三、如是下文總結。

二、以是下文總結兩種含義。首先是約頓具總結。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The nature of 'zhi xing' (性) is called 'neng ju' (能具, complete potential)'. Regarding the Dharma, events also possess complete potential. Question: As 'neng ju' (能具), do events invariably belong to the meaning of 'ge ju' (各具, individual possession)? Answer: Not invariably. If what is possessed follows the possessor, since events are different, they are 'ge ju' (各具). If what is possessed does not follow the possessor, then what is possessed in events has mutual possession. Possessing oneself is called 'ge' (各, individual), possessing others is called 'hu' (互, mutual). Considering 'li neng ju' (理能具, principle of complete potential) as 'hu ju' (互具, mutual possession) is also based on saying what is followed by the potential. If not based on the potential, then what is possessed in principle has mutual possession. Now, the text says: 'However, in the nature of each and every sentient being, there exists the nature of immeasurable and boundless possession'. This has two meanings. First, one realm also possesses the ten realms, and the ten realms constitute a hundred realms, from a hundred realms to a thousand realms, from a thousand realms to ten thousand realms, and even immeasurable and boundless uncountable natures. This means that each realm can possess its own immeasurable and boundless nature, and also possess the immeasurable and boundless nature of others. Therefore, each can individually possess, and each can mutually possess. This is what is called each realm being distinct. This is distinguished based on the ten realms. Second, within one realm, self and others are different. For example, the human realm, in terms of the ten realms, is only called the human realm. If each realm is distinct, then this human realm also has those who suffer, those who are happy, those who are foolish, those who are wise, and various differences, and also has immeasurable and boundless natures. This is also each realm being distinct. Because the meaning of the text connects these two directions. The Tiantai (天臺) school discusses one realm possessing the ten realms, and the ten realms possessing a hundred realms, which originates from Nan Yue (南嶽), which is the current text.

Second, the following text shows two meanings. First, the six realms, saying 'suffering, happiness, beauty, ugliness, etc.', if according to the first meaning, the six realms should be discussed alternately in terms of suffering, happiness, beauty, ugliness, as well as foolishness and wisdom. If according to the second meaning, then within one realm there is suffering, happiness, beauty, ugliness, foolishness, and wisdom. The second and third following texts, the four noble ones, the three vehicles, cause and effect, etc., if according to the first meaning, the three vehicles are discussed vertically. According to the second meaning, the three vehicles are distinguished horizontally. The text mentions the three vehicles but not the Buddha, it should be that the fruit of the Bodhisattva is the Buddha. Therefore, including the four noble ones and the preceding six realms, together they constitute the ten realms. Third, the following text concludes.

Second, the following text concludes two meanings. First, it concludes based on sudden and complete possession.

故云以是義故俱時具有。二以具下。約二名結二。初在障法身即染性。二出障法身即凈性。上來染凈既約六凡四聖以分。今在障出障亦應無別。以由染凈有通有別。別則六凡四聖。通則十通染凈。今取別義。問。文云出障法身亦名性凈涅槃。涅槃豈法身耶。答。今云涅槃即法身也。如章安云。四依品明三德者。一法身。二解脫。三般若。四相品中不爾。一者涅槃。二者解脫。三者般若。即取涅槃以代法身。今此性德俱時具有無量無邊差別之性。不出十界相性本末因果十法為差別也。然此十法有性有事。若云性者乃具相性．性性．體性．力性乃至本末十法之性。若云事者則具相事．性事．體事．力事乃至本末十法之事。今語具性下言具事。然其相性因果等十體祇是一。以隨義異名性名事。以約體同故云事理共成三千。或有覽者宜究其意。祇是一性云三千性。

二然諸下釋。約事有二為二。初一時俱具又二。初辨熏用。性則無始皆全。事則在人不等。人不等者。業為能熏。種子用別。二種子下辨俱具三。初標。言一時者。即二剎那時俱有十界。此乃總約一切凡聖而成頓具性。云受報者。以向造業即是其因。今偏從果言者。由因易曉。二所謂下釋二。初約十界通辨。文缺修羅。有開合故。文無菩薩。以能成佛者。二復

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此說，由於這個道理，染凈二法是同時具有的。二、『以具下』，是根據兩個名稱來總結染凈二法。首先，『在障法身』指的是被遮障的法身，也就是染性。其次，『出障法身』指的是脫離遮障的法身，也就是凈性。上面所說的染凈，是按照六凡四聖來區分的。現在所說的『在障』和『出障』，也應該沒有區別。這是因為染凈有共通之處，也有區別之處。區別在於六凡四聖，共通之處在於十界都通染凈。現在取的是區別的意義。問：經文中說『出障法身也叫做性凈涅槃』，涅槃難道就是法身嗎？答：現在說涅槃就是法身。如章安所說：『四依法品中闡明三德，一是法身，二是解脫，三是般若。四相品中則不然，一是涅槃，二是解脫，三是般若。』這裡是用涅槃來代替法身。現在這個性德同時具有無量無邊差別的自性，不出十界（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅（非天）、人、天、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩（覺有情）、佛（覺者））的相、性、本、末、因、果這十法作為差別。然而這十法有性有事。如果說是『性』，就具備相性、性性、體性、力性乃至本末十法之性。如果說是『事』，就具備相事、性事、體事、力事乃至本末十法之事。現在說『具性』之後又說『具事』。然而其相、性、因、果等十體只是一體，因為隨著意義不同而有名為『性』、名為『事』。因為就本體而言是相同的，所以說事理共同成就三千。或許有閱讀者應該探究其中的含義，只是一性，卻說是三千性。

二、『然諸下』是解釋。根據事有二，分為二。首先，『一時俱具』又分為二。首先，辨別熏習的作用。性則是無始以來都是完整的，事則是在人身上各有不同。人各有不同，是因為業作為能熏，種子作用各不相同。二、『種子下』辨別俱具三。首先，標明。所說『一時』，就是二剎那（極短的時間）時同時具有十界。這乃是總括一切凡聖而成就的頓具性。說『受報』，是因為先前造業就是其因，現在偏重從果來說，是因為因容易理解。二、『所謂下』解釋二。首先，根據十界普遍辨別。文中缺少阿修羅（非天）。因為有開合的緣故。文中沒有菩薩（覺有情），因為能成就佛（覺者）的緣故。二、復

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is said that due to this principle, both defilement and purity are simultaneously possessed. Second, '以具下 (Yi Ju Xia)' summarizes the two aspects of defilement and purity based on two names. First, '在障法身 (Zai Zhang Fashen)' refers to the Dharmakaya obscured by obstacles, which is the nature of defilement. Second, '出障法身 (Chu Zhang Fashen)' refers to the Dharmakaya free from obstacles, which is the nature of purity. The aforementioned defilement and purity are distinguished according to the Six Realms of Desire and the Four Noble Realms. The 'obscured' and 'unobscured' should also be no different. This is because defilement and purity have both commonalities and differences. The differences lie in the Six Realms of Desire and the Four Noble Realms, while the commonalities lie in the fact that all Ten Realms encompass both defilement and purity. Here, we take the meaning of difference. Question: The scripture says, 'The unobscured Dharmakaya is also called the pure Nirvana of nature.' Is Nirvana the Dharmakaya? Answer: Now we say that Nirvana is the Dharmakaya. As Zhang'an said, 'The Four Reliances chapter clarifies the Three Virtues: first, Dharmakaya; second, liberation; third, Prajna (wisdom). The Four Aspects chapter is different: first, Nirvana; second, liberation; third, Prajna.' Here, Nirvana is used to replace Dharmakaya. Now, this nature-virtue simultaneously possesses limitless and boundless different self-natures, which are none other than the ten dharmas of the Ten Realms (hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, Asuras (demi-gods), humans, gods, Sravakas (hearers), Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers), Bodhisattvas (enlightening beings), and Buddhas (enlightened ones)): appearance, nature, essence, function, cause, and effect. However, these ten dharmas have both nature and phenomena. If we speak of 'nature,' it possesses the nature of appearance, the nature of nature, the nature of essence, the nature of power, and even the nature of cause and effect of the ten dharmas. If we speak of 'phenomena,' it possesses the phenomena of appearance, the phenomena of nature, the phenomena of essence, the phenomena of power, and even the phenomena of cause and effect of the ten dharmas. Now, after saying 'possessing nature,' we also say 'possessing phenomena.' However, the ten entities such as appearance, nature, cause, and effect are only one entity. Because the meaning differs, they are named 'nature' and 'phenomena.' Because the essence is the same, it is said that principle and phenomena together accomplish three thousand. Perhaps readers should investigate its meaning; it is only one nature, yet it is said to be three thousand natures.

Second, '然諸下 (Ran Zhu Xia)' is an explanation. Based on the fact that there are two aspects of phenomena, it is divided into two. First, 'simultaneous possession at one time' is further divided into two. First, distinguish the function of熏習 (xunxi, influence). Nature is complete from the beginning, while phenomena differ from person to person. People differ because karma acts as the influencer, and the functions of the seeds are different. Second, '種子下 (Zhongzi Xia)' distinguishes the three aspects of simultaneous possession. First, state. The 'one time' refers to the simultaneous possession of the Ten Realms in two剎那 (chana, extremely short time). This encompasses all ordinary beings and sages, accomplishing the sudden possession of nature. 'Receiving retribution' is because the previous karma was the cause, but now we focus on the effect because the cause is easier to understand. Second, '所謂下 (Suowei Xia)' explains two. First, universally distinguish based on the Ten Realms. The text lacks Asuras (demi-gods). This is because of opening and closing. The text does not mention Bodhisattvas (enlightening beings) because they can achieve Buddhahood (enlightened one). Second, further

于下。界界各辯。即一一界中復有無量差別不同。此則惟可各於一界自辯不同。如前性中第二義也。不可復於一界又具十界。謂之無量差別不同。何者。且如人界如何一時自有九界之事報耶。云頓具者。乃約多人從事而說。

三以此下結二。初約藏體。二如一下。約時節。

二然此下。始終方漸具。乃約一人從事而說故始終方具三。初結前示后二。初結前。前則具約十界。於一時中受報各別。二但因下示后。此後乃約一人歷從迷悟故具十界。前是多人一時。今是一人多時。文為三。初六道世間。二后遇下三乘出世。三以此下結示始終。

二何以下。正辨始終具相二。初自就六道。二又受下。世出世對辨。天然理性因果頓足。從事造業或有或無或強或弱或熟或生。從業受報必不兩果。今從事報故無餘身。

三以是下結三。初約一人結。二一切下例結。三是故下總結。問。染凈二事雖有頓具。但是十界而非百界。並於漸具報果前後。此之二義為是三千為非三千。若非三千如何卻是如來藏中所具之事。若是三千且非百界十界一時頓足。答。予嘗謂談三千者欲令行者於一塵一念見法界之全體也。故成道時稱此全體遍應無方。且法界之全體者有粗有妙有漸有頓有情有法有破有顯。一塵一念圓具無虧。茍

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：下面（的內容）。各個界限各自區分。即每一個界中又有無量差別不同。這隻能在每一個界中各自區分不同，如前面所說的自性中的第二義。不能在一個界中又具備十界，稱之為無量差別不同。為什麼呢？比如人界如何能同時具有九界的事和果報呢？說『頓具』，是就多人從事（造業）而說的。

三、以下總結第二點。首先從藏體方面說，其次從時節方面說。

二、然而，下面（的內容）。從始至終才逐漸具備，是就一個人從事（修行）而說的，所以從始至終才具備。分為三點。首先總結前面，揭示後面。首先總結前面，前面是就十界來說的，在同一時間各自接受不同的果報。二、但是因為下面揭示後面，這後面是就一個人經歷從迷惑到覺悟的過程，所以具備十界。前面是多人一時，現在是一個人多時。文分為三點。首先是六道世間，二、後來遇到三乘出世，三、用這些總結揭示始終。

二、為什麼下面（的內容）。正式辨析始終具備的相狀，分為兩點。首先就六道來說，二、又接受下面（的內容）。世間和出世間相對辨析。天然的理性、因果完全具備，從事造業或者有或者沒有，或者強或者弱，或者成熟或者未成熟。從業接受果報必定不會有兩個結果。現在從事（造）報，所以沒有其餘的身體。

三、用這些總結三點。首先就一個人總結，二、一切下面舉例總結，三、因此下面總結。問：染（污）和凈（潔）兩種事雖然有頓具，但是是十界而不是百界，並且在逐漸具備果報的前後。這兩種意義是三千還是不是三千？如果不是三千，如何又是如來藏中所具備的事？如果是三千，那麼就不是百界十界一時頓足。答：我曾經說過，談論三千是爲了讓修行人在一塵一念中見到法界的全體。所以成道時稱這個全體遍應無方。而且法界的全體有粗有妙，有漸有頓，有情有法，有破有顯，一塵一念圓滿具備沒有缺失。如果……

【English Translation】 English version: Below (content). Each realm is distinguished separately. That is, within each realm, there are countless differences. This can only be distinguished differently within each realm, as in the second meaning of self-nature mentioned earlier. It is not possible to have ten realms within one realm, which is called countless differences. Why? For example, how can the realm of humans simultaneously have the affairs and retribution of the nine realms? Saying 'suddenly complete' refers to many people engaging (in karma).

The following summarizes the second point. First, from the perspective of the TATHAGATA-GARBHA (如來藏, the womb of the Buddha), and second, from the perspective of time.
However, below (content). It gradually becomes complete from beginning to end, which refers to one person engaging (in practice), so it is complete from beginning to end. Divided into three points. First, summarize the previous and reveal the following. First, summarize the previous, which refers to the ten realms, each receiving different retribution at the same time. 2. But because the following reveals the following, this following refers to one person experiencing the process from delusion to enlightenment, so it has ten realms. The former is many people at one time, and the latter is one person at many times. The text is divided into three points. The first is the six realms of SAMSARA (輪迴, cycle of rebirth), the second is the emergence of the three vehicles (三乘, Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) , and the third is to summarize and reveal the beginning and end with these.
Why below (content). Officially distinguish the appearance of being complete from beginning to end, divided into two points. First, in terms of the six realms, second, receiving below (content). The world and the transcendence of the world are distinguished relatively. Natural rationality, cause and effect are fully equipped, engaging in karma either exists or does not exist, either strong or weak, either mature or immature. Receiving retribution from karma will definitely not have two results. Now engaging (in creating) retribution, so there is no other body.
Use these to summarize three points. First, summarize in terms of one person, second, summarize by example below, third, therefore summarize. Question: Although there is sudden completeness in the two things of defilement and purity, it is ten realms instead of a hundred realms, and before and after the gradual completion of retribution. Are these two meanings three thousand or not three thousand? If it is not three thousand, how is it the things contained in the TATHAGATA-GARBHA (如來藏, the womb of the Buddha)? If it is three thousand, then it is not a hundred realms and ten realms complete at once. Answer: I once said that talking about three thousand is to let practitioners see the entirety of the DHARMADHĀTU (法界, the realm of dharma) in one dust and one thought. Therefore, when attaining enlightenment, it is said that this entirety responds everywhere without limit. Moreover, the entirety of the DHARMADHĀTU (法界, the realm of dharma) has coarse and subtle, gradual and sudden, sentient and dharma, broken and manifest, one dust and one thought is fully equipped without lack. If...

缺纖毫即非全體。故荊溪云。於一念心。不約十界收事不遍。不約三諦攝理不周。且約十界收事遍者。若但祇收一界一時受報之事。而乃不收十界前後受報之事。斯乃正是收事不遍。荊溪又云。但明四聖何法不攝。何必須明六道法耶。文有五意。四者為知不可思議境所攝法故。良由攝於思議成不思議。若棄思議求不思議。其道則遠。予辨三千立義有四。一攝無不遍。以此一義通達自心。無有一法出於當念。今文內受報前後情事差殊。皆是如來藏中所具。若非三千所收。又是何處法門。問。若爾。單事亦可曰三千耶。答。言三千有。必攝其事。言單事者。不成三千。問。若云三千有粗有妙。如何得云指的妙境出自法華。答。三千攝法有粗有妙。是此粗妙皆即一如。故云妙境出自法華。說雖前後旨不異時。問。受報前後或多人一時其理灼然。如何事中自己一時頓受十界百界諸報果耶。答。從事當體其理實難。由以理融故非思議。若欲見之。今以諸佛而顯眾生。且佛得理故能一時任運頓現十界百界一切報果不可思議。故知眾生亦復如是。但在當體未證理故。故云實造受報前後本其事體不曾離理。故此實造常於一時頓具十界百界一切果報不可思議。故知非但以生顯具。而亦得云以悟顯迷。

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：缺少一絲一毫就不能算是全體。所以荊溪大師說：『在一念心中，如果不包含十法界，就不能說是周遍地收攝了萬事萬物；如果不包含空、假、中三諦，就不能說是周全地攝盡了所有理體。』如果說包含十法界就是周遍地收攝了萬事萬物，那麼如果只收攝一法界一時所受的果報之事，而不收攝十法界前後所受的果報之事，這就是沒有周遍地收攝萬事萬物。荊溪大師又說：『只要明白了四聖法界，還有什麼法不能攝入其中呢？為什麼一定要明白六道法界呢？』這段話有五層含義，其中第四層含義是爲了知道不可思議境界所攝的法。這是因為攝取了思議之法才能成就不可思議之法。如果捨棄思議之法而去追求不可思議之法，那就離真理太遠了。我辨析三千，建立義理有四點：一是收攝無所不遍。用這一個義理通達自心，沒有一法超出當下這一念。現在文中所說的受報前後情事差別，都是如來藏中所具有的。如果不是三千所收攝的，又是哪個法門的道理呢？問：如果這樣，單單一個事相也可以說是三千嗎？答：說有三千，必定包含其事相。說單單一個事相，就不能構成三千。問：如果說三千有粗有妙，如何能說指的就是出自《法華經》的妙境呢？答：三千所攝的法有粗有妙，這些粗妙都即是一如的。所以說妙境出自《法華經》。說法雖然有先後，但旨意並沒有不同。問：受報有前後，或者多人一時受報，這個道理很明顯。但是在事相上，自己一時頓然承受十法界、百法界的各種果報，這個道理是怎樣的呢？答：從事相的本體來說，這個道理確實難以理解。因為是用理來融合，所以不是思議所能及的。如果想見到這種境界，現在用諸佛來顯現眾生。諸佛因為證得了理，所以能一時任運頓然顯現十法界、百法界的一切果報，這是不可思議的。由此可知眾生也是這樣。只是因為在本體上還沒有證得理，所以說實際上造作了受報的前後，其事體從來沒有離開過理。所以這實際的造作常常在一時頓然具備十法界、百法界的一切果報，這是不可思議的。由此可知，不僅僅是以生來顯現本具，也可以說是以悟來顯現迷惑。《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》卷第二

【English Translation】 English version: Lacking even a hair's breadth means it is not the whole. Therefore, Jingxi said, 'In a single thought-moment, if it does not encompass the ten realms, it cannot be said to comprehensively gather all matters; if it does not encompass the three truths (kong 空 emptiness, jia 假 provisional existence, zhong 中 the middle way), it cannot be said to thoroughly encompass all principles.' If encompassing the ten realms is said to comprehensively gather all matters, then if it only gathers the matters of one realm at one time of retribution, and does not gather the matters of the ten realms at different times of retribution, then this is precisely not comprehensively gathering all matters. Jingxi also said, 'As long as the Four Noble Realms are understood, what Dharma is not included? Why must the Six Paths be understood?' This passage has five meanings, the fourth of which is to know the Dharmas included in the inconceivable realm. This is because by including the conceivable, the inconceivable is achieved. If one abandons the conceivable to seek the inconceivable, the path will be far away. I analyze the Three Thousand, establishing four points of meaning: first, encompassing without omission. Using this one meaning to understand one's own mind, there is no Dharma that goes beyond the present moment. Now, the differences in the circumstances of retribution before and after in the text are all contained within the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏 the Womb of the Tathagata). If it is not included in the Three Thousand, then what Dharma gate is it? Question: If so, can a single event also be called the Three Thousand? Answer: To say there are Three Thousand, it must include the event. To say a single event, it does not constitute the Three Thousand. Question: If it is said that the Three Thousand have coarse and subtle aspects, how can it be said that the subtle realm pointed to comes from the Lotus Sutra (法華經 Fahua Jing)? Answer: The Dharmas included in the Three Thousand have coarse and subtle aspects. These coarse and subtle aspects are all identical to the One Thusness. Therefore, it is said that the subtle realm comes from the Lotus Sutra. Although the teachings are given at different times, the meaning is not different. Question: Retribution has a before and after, or many people receive retribution at the same time, this principle is clear. But in terms of phenomena, how can oneself instantly receive all the retributions of the ten realms and the hundred realms at one time? Answer: From the perspective of the substance of phenomena, this principle is indeed difficult to understand. Because it is fused with principle, it is beyond thought. If you want to see it, now use the Buddhas to reveal sentient beings. Because the Buddhas have attained the principle, they can instantly and effortlessly manifest all the retributions of the ten realms and the hundred realms, which is inconceivable. From this, we know that sentient beings are also like this. It is only because they have not yet attained the principle in their own substance that it is said that the actual creation of retribution before and after, its substance has never been separated from the principle. Therefore, this actual creation always instantly possesses all the inconceivable retributions of the ten realms and the hundred realms at one time. From this, we know that it is not only using birth to reveal inherent potential, but it can also be said to be using enlightenment to reveal delusion. The Second Volume of the Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Samatha-Vipassana (止觀 Zhiguan) Dharma Gate

卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 大乘止觀法門宗圓記

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第三

東掖白蓮釋　瞭然　述

三問下示差無差二。初問。意者若無差別何稱無量。若有差別何稱為性。由此問云爲有差別為無差別。答四。初示藏體具斯二義。畢竟空藏體是無差。此藏具用用則而差。然此性用即體而為。故云蓋是無差之差。

二此義下釋二。初約藏體全一釋二。初喻二。初標。二何以下釋。塵成泥團。喻出楞伽。彼經云。大惠。譬如泥團．微塵。非異非不異。金莊嚴具亦復如是。大慧。若泥團微塵異者。非彼所成而實彼成。是故不異。若不異者。則泥團微塵應無分別。如是大慧。轉識藏識真相若異者。藏識非因。若不異者。轉識滅藏識亦應滅。而自真如實不滅。經文取喻真識妄識不一不異。今以此喻不可喻于如來藏者。由取用有異。經文通辨真妄。今文一向喻真。又經文但取塵與泥團對論為喻。離塵無團故不異。塵與團分故不一。如離金無像離水無波故不異。金與像分波與水分故不一。今就塵中橫辨為喻。若以水為彼。以金為像。此可一體無差而為差別。故差別處皆全一體。若以眾塵為團故。不可喻一體無差為差別也。由眾微塵有異體故。不同眾波眾像祇一水金。

二如來

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 大乘止觀法門宗圓記

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第三

東掖白蓮釋瞭然述

三問下示差無差二。初問。意者若無差別何稱無量。若有差別何稱為性。由此問云爲有差別為無差別。答四。初示藏體具斯二義。畢竟空藏體是無差。此藏具用用則而差。然此性用即體而為。故云蓋是無差之差。

二此義下釋二。初約藏體全一釋二。初喻二。初標。二何以下釋。塵成泥團。喻出楞伽（《楞伽經》）。彼經云。大惠（菩薩名）。譬如泥團．微塵。非異非不異。金莊嚴具亦復如是。大慧。若泥團微塵異者。非彼所成而實彼成。是故不異。若不異者。則泥團微塵應無分別。如是大慧。轉識藏識真相若異者。藏識非因。若不異者。轉識滅藏識亦應滅。而自真如實不滅。經文取喻真識妄識不一不異。今以此喻不可喻于如來藏者。由取用有異。經文通辨真妄。今文一向喻真。又經文但取塵與泥團對論為喻。離塵無團故不異。塵與團分故不一。如離金無像離水無波故不異。金與像分波與水分故不一。今就塵中橫辨為喻。若以水為彼。以金為像。此可一體無差而為差別。故差別處皆全一體。若以眾塵為團故。不可喻一體無差為差別也。由眾微塵有異體故。不同眾波眾像祇一水金。

【English Translation】 English version

Wanjian Continued Tripitaka Volume 55 No. 0904 The Great Vehicle Samatha-vipassanā Dharma-door's Complete Record

The Great Vehicle Samatha-vipassanā Dharma-door's Complete Record, Volume 3

Explained by Sh釋 Liaoran of White Lotus in the East Pavilion

The third question below shows the difference and non-difference in two aspects. The first question means: if there is no difference, why is it called immeasurable? If there is a difference, why is it called nature? Therefore, the question asks whether there is difference or no difference. The answer is fourfold. First, it shows that the treasury body possesses these two meanings. The ultimately empty treasury body is non-different. This treasury possesses function, and the function is different. However, this nature and function are manifested from the body. Therefore, it is said to be 'difference within non-difference'.

Secondly, the following explains the two aspects. First, it explains the two aspects based on the complete oneness of the treasury body. First, there is a metaphor in two parts. First, the heading. Second, the following explains 'why'. Dust forms a mud ball. The metaphor comes from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (《楞伽經》). That sūtra says: 'Mahamati (菩薩名, name of a Bodhisattva), for example, a lump of mud and particles of dust are neither different nor not different. Gold ornaments are also like this. Mahamati, if the lump of mud and particles of dust are different, they would not be formed from it, but in reality, they are formed from it. Therefore, they are not different. If they are not different, then the lump of mud and particles of dust should have no distinction. Similarly, Mahamati, if the transforming consciousness and the storehouse consciousness are different, the storehouse consciousness would not be the cause. If they are not different, when the transforming consciousness ceases, the storehouse consciousness should also cease. But the true self-nature does not cease.' The sūtra uses the metaphor of true consciousness and false consciousness being neither one nor different. Now, this metaphor cannot be used to describe the Tathāgatagarbha (如來藏, the Womb of the Tathagata) because the usage is different. The sūtra generally distinguishes between true and false, while this text consistently uses it to represent the true. Also, the sūtra only takes dust and a lump of mud as a comparative metaphor. Without dust, there is no lump, so they are not different. Dust and lump are distinct, so they are not one. Just as without gold, there is no image; without water, there is no wave, so they are not different. Gold and image are distinct; wave and water are distinct, so they are not one. Now, we use a horizontal distinction within the dust as a metaphor. If we take water as that and gold as the image, this can be a single entity without difference manifesting as difference. Therefore, all differences are entirely one entity. If we take many dust particles as a lump, it cannot be used as a metaphor for one entity without difference manifesting as difference because many dust particles have different entities, unlike many waves and images which are only one water and gold.

下約法正示二。初示非同喻。由假實不同故。微塵差別是實泥團之一是假。今如來藏藏體之一是實。其名差別是權。故云如來之藏即不如是。二何以下釋三。初直示藏體。是真實法者。實即圓融。權乃隔歷。圓融故無差。隔歷故差別。體既真實故圓融無二也。二是故下。曆法顯示為三。乃從狹至廣。初約一毛孔性。終約一切毛孔性。又初約毛孔性。終約一切法性。又初約一眾生法性。終約一切生佛法性。總而言之。三千世間一切法性皆是如來藏之全體。故先取于身。身物最細無逾毛竅。此藏全體為一毛竅。復乃全體為一切毛竅。法法雖殊此體全一。故此一性即三千性。圓融無二。無差之差不可思議。故總結云是如來藏全體也。二是故下明性事相攝釋。然性既無二更何所攝。良點事即性故論相攝。從性為言是法是攝。非謂攝他從事。為言性為能攝事為所攝。故攝之一字于能所中了無能所。性事不虧名為相攝。問。若性事不虧為相攝者。何故文中先就性明次就事辨。是則單性單事皆可相攝。何云不虧為相攝耶。答。事相攝者而不虧性。是故下文謂。由事以性為體故。故事得相攝。又云。心體既融。相亦無礙。以事顯性。性相攝者而不虧事。若非事差如何得有諸法之性。性豈諸乎。初示性相攝者。即以所具從能具性而論相攝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本以下闡述『約法正示』的第二部分。首先，說明它與比喻不同，因為假設和真實不同。微塵的差別是真實的，而泥團的統一是假設的。現在，如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來法身的藏身之處）藏體（本質）的統一是真實的，而名稱的差別是權宜之計。所以說，『如來之藏』並非如此簡單。其次，用什麼來解釋這三點？首先，直接揭示藏體（本質）。是真實法（Satya-dharma）的意思是，真實即是圓融（和諧統一），權宜之計則是隔閡分離。圓融所以沒有差別，隔閡分離所以有差別。本體既然是真實的，所以圓融而無二。『是故』之後，通過歷法來顯示，分為三點，從狹窄到廣闊。首先，從一個毛孔的性質開始，最終到一切毛孔的性質。又，首先從毛孔的性質開始，最終到一切法的性質。又，首先從一個眾生的法性開始，最終到一切眾生和佛的法性。總而言之，三千世界一切法的性質都是如來藏的全體。所以先從身體入手，身體最細微的莫過於毛孔。這個藏的全體就是一個毛孔，然後又是全體為一切毛孔。法法雖然不同，但這個本體完全一樣。所以這一性就是三千性，圓融無二。無差別的差別是不可思議的，所以總結說，這是如來藏的全體。『是故』之後，闡明性事相攝（本質與現象相互包含）的解釋。然而，本質既然沒有二元性，又如何相互包含呢？關鍵在於現象即是本質，所以討論相互包含。從本質上來說，法就是包含。並非說包含其他事物，而是從現象上來說，本質是能包含的，現象是被包含的。所以『包含』這個詞，在能包含和被包含之間，了無能所。本質和現象沒有缺失，就叫做相互包含。問：如果本質和現象沒有缺失就是相互包含，為什麼文中先闡明本質，再辨別現象？那麼，單獨的本質和單獨的現象都可以相互包含，為什麼說沒有缺失才是相互包含呢？答：現象相互包含而不缺失本質。所以下文說，因為現象以本質為本體，所以現象可以相互包含。又說，心體（Citta-dhatu，心的本質）既然融合，現象也沒有障礙。用現象來顯現本質，本質相互包含而不缺失現象。如果不是現象的差異，怎麼會有諸法的性質呢？本質難道會缺失嗎？最初闡明本質相互包含，就是從所具有的，從能具有的本質來論述相互包含。

【English Translation】 English version The following explains the second part of 'Establishing the Law Correctly'. First, it shows that it is different from metaphors because assumptions and reality are different. The difference of dust particles is real, while the unity of a mud ball is assumed. Now, the unity of the Tathagatagarbha (the Womb of the Thus-Come One, the repository of the Buddha-dhatu) essence is real, while the difference in names is expedient. Therefore, it is said that 'the Womb of the Thus-Come One' is not so simple. Secondly, what is used to explain these three points? First, directly reveal the essence of the Womb. 'Being the True Dharma (Satya-dharma)' means that truth is harmonious unity, while expediency is separation. Harmonious unity, therefore, has no difference, and separation, therefore, has differences. Since the essence is real, it is harmonious and non-dual. After 'Therefore', it is displayed through the calendar method, divided into three points, from narrow to broad. First, starting from the nature of one pore, ending with the nature of all pores. Also, first starting from the nature of the pores, ending with the nature of all dharmas. Also, first starting from the Dharma-nature of one sentient being, ending with the Dharma-nature of all sentient beings and Buddhas. In summary, the nature of all dharmas in the three thousand worlds is the entirety of the Tathagatagarbha. Therefore, start with the body, the most subtle part of the body being the pores. The entirety of this Womb is one pore, and then the entirety is all pores. Although the dharmas are different, this essence is completely the same. Therefore, this one nature is the three thousand natures, harmonious and non-dual. The difference without difference is inconceivable, so it is concluded that this is the entirety of the Tathagatagarbha. After 'Therefore', the explanation of the mutual inclusion of essence and phenomena (nature and phenomena). However, since essence has no duality, how can they mutually include each other? The key is that phenomena are essence, so mutual inclusion is discussed. From the perspective of essence, Dharma is inclusion. It is not to say that it includes other things, but from the perspective of phenomena, essence is the includer, and phenomena are the included. Therefore, the word 'inclusion', between the includer and the included, has no includer or included. Essence and phenomena are not lacking, which is called mutual inclusion. Question: If the absence of essence and phenomena is mutual inclusion, why does the text first clarify essence and then distinguish phenomena? Then, can a single essence and a single phenomenon be mutually inclusive? Why is it said that mutual inclusion is only achieved when there is no deficiency? Answer: Phenomena mutually include without lacking essence. Therefore, the following text says that because phenomena take essence as their substance, phenomena can be mutually included. It also says that since the mind-essence (Citta-dhatu, the essence of mind) is fused, phenomena are also unobstructed. Using phenomena to manifest essence, essence mutually includes without lacking phenomena. If it were not for the difference in phenomena, how could there be the nature of all dharmas? Would essence be lacking? The initial explanation of the mutual inclusion of essence is to discuss mutual inclusion from what is possessed, from the essence that can be possessed.

。如理具三千也。二示事相攝者。即以能具從所具事而論相攝。如事造三千也。理豈虧事。事豈無理。但以趣極。受名別爾。

釋文為二。初示性相攝二。初舉一人一毛孔效能攝十界諸法之性。乃是一界具十界也。初即攝一切世間法性。具六道也。二及攝下。即攝一切諸佛出世法性。具四聖也。二如舉下。例一切法性。一一法性各攝一切法性。乃是十界各各具十成百界也。初以毛孔性例余世間法性亦能即攝。乃示六道各各即攝十界也。二如舉世下。以世間法性例出世法性亦能即攝。乃示四聖能攝十界也。良由藏體無二。所以法法互攝。問。何不以九一對論世與出世。答。前染凈義既約四六。今世出世豈應有別。問。文云一切諸佛所有出世間法性。既云諸佛。豈非對前成九一耶。答。既云諸佛所有。佛所有者權實法也。三權一實是佛所有。故該四聖。然今文中十界互具。與天臺所談互有詳略。今文世間總略而舉。而不詳云具三世間。天臺十如總略而舉。而不詳云以一眾生一如是相即具十界十如。但總略云自具當界十如。復具九界十如。二又復下。示事相攝二。初示二。初舉一毛孔事能攝世出世間一切事。二如舉下。以毛孔事例余世出世間事亦即能攝。此二相攝例性可見。二何以下。約事用相攝歸性融以釋義旨。事

【現代漢語翻譯】如理具足三千法界。二、顯示事相的相攝關係，就是以能具足的理，從所具足的事的角度來論述相攝。例如，一件事就能造就三千法界。理怎麼會虧缺事呢？事又怎麼會沒有理呢？只是因為所趨向的極致不同，所以名稱才有所區別。

解釋經文分為兩部分。首先，顯示性相的相攝關係。第一，舉一個人的一個毛孔的效能，就能攝盡十法界諸法的本性，這就是一法界具足十法界。首先，這就能攝盡一切世間法的本性，具足六道。第二，『及攝下』，就是攝盡一切諸佛出世法的本性，具足四聖。第二，『如舉下』，舉例說明一切法的本性，每一個法的本性各自攝盡一切法的本性，這就是十法界各自具足十法界，成就百法界。首先，以毛孔的本性為例，其餘世間法的本性也能立即攝盡，這顯示了六道各自立即攝盡十法界。第二，『如舉世下』，以世間法的本性為例，出世間法的本性也能立即攝盡，這顯示了四聖能夠攝盡十法界。這是因為藏體的本體沒有差別，所以法法之間互相攝入。問：為什麼不用九一對來論述世間和出世間呢？答：前面染凈的意義已經約略地說了四和六，現在世間和出世間怎麼應該有區別呢？問：經文中說『一切諸佛所有出世間法性』，既然說是諸佛，難道不是和前面相對，成為九和一了嗎？答：既然說是諸佛所有，佛所擁有的就是權實之法。三權一實是佛所擁有的，所以包含四聖。然而，現在經文中十法界互相具足，和天臺宗所談論的互具，在詳略上有所不同。現在經文中，世間總體上簡略地舉出，而沒有詳細地說具足三世間。天臺宗的十如是總體上簡略地舉出，而沒有詳細地說以一個眾生的一如是相，就具足十法界十如是。只是總體上簡略地說，自己具足當法界的十如是，又具足九法界的十如是。二、『又復下』，顯示事相的相攝關係。首先，顯示二者。首先，舉一個毛孔的事，就能攝盡世間和出世間的一切事。第二，『如舉下』，以毛孔的事為例，其餘世間和出世間的事也就能立即攝盡。這兩種相攝關係，從本性上來看是顯而易見的。第二，『何以下』，從事用的相攝關係歸結到本性的融合，來解釋義理的宗旨。事

【English Translation】 It fully embodies the Three Thousand Realms in principle. Second, to illustrate the mutual inclusion of phenomena, it discusses inclusion from the perspective of the principle that can embody, based on the phenomena it embodies. For example, one event can create the Three Thousand Realms. How can principle lack phenomena? How can phenomena lack principle? It's just that the ultimate goals are different, so the names are different.

The explanation of the text is divided into two parts. First, it shows the mutual inclusion of nature and phenomena. First, it cites the ability of a person's pore to encompass the nature of all dharmas in the Ten Realms, which is one realm embodying the ten realms. First, this encompasses the nature of all worldly dharmas, embodying the Six Paths. Second, 'and encompasses below' refers to encompassing the nature of all Buddhas' transcendental dharmas, embodying the Four Noble Realms. Second, 'as cited below' exemplifies the nature of all dharmas, each dharma's nature encompassing all dharmas' natures, which is the Ten Realms each embodying the Ten Realms, achieving the Hundred Realms. First, taking the nature of a pore as an example, the nature of other worldly dharmas can also immediately encompass, which shows that the Six Paths each immediately encompass the Ten Realms. Second, 'as cited the world below' exemplifies the nature of worldly dharmas, the nature of transcendental dharmas can also immediately encompass, which shows that the Four Noble Realms can encompass the Ten Realms. This is because the essence of the treasury is undifferentiated, so dharmas mutually include each other. Question: Why not use nine pairs to discuss the worldly and transcendental? Answer: The meaning of defilement and purity has already been roughly discussed in terms of four and six, so how should there be a distinction between the worldly and transcendental now? Question: The text says 'the nature of all Buddhas' transcendental dharmas', since it says Buddhas, isn't it in contrast to the previous, becoming nine and one? Answer: Since it says all Buddhas possess, what the Buddhas possess is the provisional and real dharma. The three provisional and one real are what the Buddhas possess, so it includes the Four Noble Realms. However, in the current text, the Ten Realms mutually embody, and the mutual embodiment discussed by the Tiantai school differs in detail. In the current text, the worldly is generally mentioned briefly, without detailing the embodiment of the Three Worlds. The Tiantai school's Ten Suchnesses are generally mentioned briefly, without detailing that with one being's one suchness aspect, it embodies the Ten Realms and Ten Suchnesses. It simply generally says that oneself embodies the Ten Suchnesses of the current realm, and also embodies the Ten Suchnesses of the nine realms. Second, 'and again below' shows the mutual inclusion of phenomena. First, it shows the two. First, it cites the event of a pore, which can encompass all events of the worldly and transcendental. Second, 'as cited below' takes the event of a pore as an example, and other events of the worldly and transcendental can also immediately encompass. These two kinds of mutual inclusion are obvious from the perspective of nature. Second, 'what below' concludes from the mutual inclusion of phenomena and function to the fusion of nature, to explain the essence of the doctrine. Event

相差別性體圓融。若不推功歸於性融。事相差別無由相攝。故云以一切世間出世間事。即以彼世間出世間性為體故。問。為由性十融通故事十無礙。為由一性融通故事十無礙。答。從義異說功由性十。從體同說功由一性。

三是故下。證三無差別者。昔人或謂惟理無差。其如今文證向事理皆悉融攝。或謂緣起之事當體無差。其如今文由得性融方曰無礙。以今觀之義恐未盡。今曰功歸在理就法在事。是故事理或差無差。心境瞭然。問。就法在事者。豈非以理無所存。遍在於事。篤論還是理曰無差。答。理在事者。非物在倉。良由事即是理。故事當體便曰無差。問。事即是理必名為理。如何得云事體無差。答。名離體即可如來難。名體俱即則無所妨。然復有人卻許事曰無差。良由即理權名為妙。不因即實。今且問之。十雙權實。理事一雙而為根本。其事權當體惟差無差。若是無差如何復云事體是差。由即理故名曰無差。若謂因即理故事權無差。如何不許事權非妙。由即理實權名為妙。若云妙與無差義不同者。且權體既然自妙。妙即圓融無礙。如何權體自不無差。無差者即融妙之異名。豈應權體自得為妙而不自得為無差耶。或曰權體自得名為無差。今日大師何云立一切法差降不同。無以此文謂立凈法。凈法尚乃名為差

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本事相的差別性與本體的圓融性。如果不是將功勞歸於本體的圓融，事相的差別性就無法相互包容。所以說，以一切世間和出世間的事，就是以那世間和出世間的本體作為體性。問：是因為本體的十重融通，所以事相的十重無礙？還是因為一個本體的融通，所以事相的十重無礙？答：從意義不同的角度來說，功勞在於本體的十重；從本體相同的角度來說，功勞在於一個本體。

三是故下。證明三種無差別。過去的人或許認為只有理是無差別的，但如今的文證明了事和理都完全融合包容。或者認為緣起的事物當體就是無差別的，但如今的文說，由於得到本體的融通，才說是無礙。以現在的觀點來看，恐怕意義還沒有完全表達。現在說，功勞在於理，就法來說在於事。所以事和理或者有差別，或者沒有差別，心和境清清楚楚。問：就法來說在於事，難道不是因為理無所不在，普遍存在於事中嗎？歸根結底還是說理是無差別的。答：理在事中，不是像東西在倉庫里一樣。正是因為事就是理，所以事當體就是無差別。問：事就是理，必定名為理，怎麼能說事體無差別呢？答：名如果離開體，就如同如來難以言說；名和體如果一致，就沒有什麼妨礙。然而又有人卻允許事是無差別的，是因為即理而權且名為妙，而不是因為即實。現在且問他，十雙權實，理事一雙是根本，那事權當體是隻有差別還是沒有差別？如果沒有差別，為什麼又說事體是差別？因為即理，所以名為無差別。如果說因為即理，所以事權無差別，為什麼不允許事權非妙？因為即理實權，所以名為妙。如果說妙和無差別的意義不同，那麼權體既然自然是妙，妙就是圓融無礙，為什麼權體自身不是無差別呢？無差別就是融妙的異名，難道權體自身可以成為妙，而不能成為無差別嗎？或者說權體自身可以名為無差別，那麼今天的大師為什麼說建立一切法差別降不同？不要用這個文來說建立凈法，凈法尚且名為差別。

【English Translation】 English version The distinctiveness of phenomena and the perfect integration of the essence. If the merit is not attributed to the integration of the essence, the distinctiveness of phenomena cannot be mutually inclusive. Therefore, it is said that all mundane and supramundane affairs take that mundane and supramundane essence as their substance. Question: Is it because of the ten integrations of the essence that the ten aspects of phenomena are unobstructed? Or is it because of the integration of one essence that the ten aspects of phenomena are unobstructed? Answer: From the perspective of different meanings, the merit lies in the ten aspects of the essence. From the perspective of the sameness of the essence, the merit lies in one essence.

Three, 'Therefore' below, proves the three non-differences. People in the past may have thought that only principle (理, lǐ) is non-different, but the current text proves that both phenomena and principle are completely integrated and inclusive. Or they may have thought that the arising of phenomena is inherently non-different, but the current text says that it is because of obtaining the integration of the essence that it is said to be unobstructed. From the current point of view, I am afraid that the meaning has not been fully expressed. Now it is said that the merit lies in principle, and in terms of dharma, it lies in phenomena. Therefore, phenomena and principle are either different or non-different, and the mind and environment are clear. Question: In terms of dharma, it lies in phenomena, is it not because principle is omnipresent and universally present in phenomena? Ultimately, it is still said that principle is non-different. Answer: Principle is in phenomena, not like things in a warehouse. It is precisely because phenomena are principle that phenomena are inherently non-different. Question: Phenomena are principle, and must be named principle, how can it be said that the substance of phenomena is non-different? Answer: If the name is separated from the substance, it is as difficult to speak of the Tathagata (如來, Rúlái); if the name and substance are consistent, there is no obstacle. However, some people allow phenomena to be non-different, because they are provisionally named 'wonderful' (妙, miào) because of being identical to principle, not because of being identical to reality. Now let me ask him, the ten pairs of provisional and real, the pair of principle and phenomena is the root, is that provisional phenomena inherently only different or non-different? If it is non-different, why is it said that the substance of phenomena is different? Because it is identical to principle, it is named non-different. If it is said that because it is identical to principle, provisional phenomena are non-different, why not allow provisional phenomena to be non-wonderful? Because it is identical to the real provisional, it is named wonderful. If it is said that the meaning of wonderful and non-different is different, then since the provisional substance is naturally wonderful, wonderful is perfect integration and unobstructed, why is the provisional substance itself not non-different? Non-different is a different name for integration and wonderfulness, how can the provisional substance itself be wonderful but not non-different? Or it is said that the provisional substance itself can be named non-different, then why does the master today say that the establishment of all dharmas is different and descending differently? Do not use this text to say that the establishment of pure dharmas, pure dharmas are still named different.

別。豈況事權立諸染乎。或曰妙與無差義實不同。由定差者名之為粗。不定差者名之為妙。事權卻名為差。但由此差是不定差。故差且名妙。今復問曰。得名妙者為從差別。為從無差。若云差別亦得名妙者。荊溪何云。三無差別方名為妙。若從無差方得名妙者。故知權差不可名妙。或曰無以定差難不定差。今曰此義幽隱當委辨之。所云不定差者。不定之體體屬無差。若云差別體是不定者。既然差別如何不定。所謂不定者。指生即佛。指佛即生。方名不定。若也差別如何相即。故知即之功妙之功無差之功皆由理也。才云此差是不定者。便是於事點理。于粗點妙。於差別中點無差別。此旨深隱人穿知之。或曰得妙名者卻從無差。但圓中事理望偏定差但名無差。是故圓權亦名為妙。就圓自論不妨事權是差理實無差。今曰然此對當本于義門。而今觀之義門似礙。何者。既然望偏。故圓教中差與無差但名無差。得稱為妙。就圓自論不妨有差與于無差。如何不于。就圓自論以差為粗無差為妙。以由自昔祇許圓教。事之與理。即之與離。權之與實。差與無差。偏圓對論俱名為理。為即為實為無差。就圓自辨亦得有事有離有權有實有差無差。若於粗妙一義但有偏圓對論。乃無就圓自辨。是故不許圓教事權權體是粗。由失法體故礙義門。

不獨義之有妨亦恐未通祖教。何者。良由荊溪明許就圓自論粗妙。故云若約不思議中亦得論妙與不妙。如三德中若前三悉檀說。義當於粗。謂三德為世界．解脫．生善。般若破惡是故為粗。若見法身方始名妙。三德既爾餘九亦然。今例此云。十種三法既爾。一切法門亦然。故圓事權當體是粗。即實是妙。權得妙名。類前功歸。就法二義可以意了。然曾有先達聞余立於不揀同異。其權當體體乃是粗。即實故妙。始則確然不許圓權當體是粗。遂與余釋。其義似屈而轉計云。此乃就圓自辨妙中之粗。不可同於偏教之粗。余曰。因遭今難不覺許于圓權是粗。然祇一三。教豈可偏。粗．圓粗二粗體別(云云)。或曰由情執故粗。今曰若由情執。何但權粗。實亦應粗(云云)。問。今文引於三無差別通證事理。則事理三千皆無差耶。答。今文雖然。不可守一妨于眾義。以三千法無所不攝。或差無差非差非無差惟差惟無差。一塵一念無不具足。故三千法通攝眾義。若趣極于理從理辨義。故三千法名曰無差。趣極於事從事辨義。故三千法名為差別。以此事理皆以藏體之無差。融俗用之差別。若理若事皆得名為無差之差。差之無差。從此辨義則事理三千各通於差。辨以無差。或於事理各從藏體之無差。故事理三千皆名無差。各從俗用之而

【現代漢語翻譯】不只是對『義』的理解有妨礙，也恐怕未能通達祖師的教義。為什麼這樣說呢？這是因為荊溪大師（指湛然，唐代天臺宗僧人）明確允許在圓教（天臺宗的最高教義）中討論粗妙（粗淺與精妙）。所以他說，如果從不可思議的境界來看，也可以討論妙與不妙。例如，在三德（法身德、般若德、解脫德）中，如果用前三悉檀（世界悉檀、為人悉檀、對治悉檀）來解釋，其意義就屬於粗淺。認為三德是世界、解脫、生善，用般若（智慧）來破除惡業，所以是粗淺的。如果見到法身（佛的真身），才開始稱為妙。三德既然如此，其餘九界（六道加聲聞、緣覺、菩薩三乘）也是這樣。現在以此為例來說，十種三法（十界各具三法：陰、界、入）既然如此，一切法門也是這樣。所以，圓教的事相（事）權巧（方便）當體就是粗淺的，即真實（實）就是精妙的。權巧得到精妙的名稱，類似於之前的功勞歸於（實）。就法（佛法）的兩種意義，可以用意會了解。然而，曾經有先輩聽到我立論于不區分同異，認為權巧當體，其體就是粗淺的，即真實所以精妙。開始時，他們確實不承認圓教的權巧當體是粗淺的。於是與我辯論，他們的意思似乎理屈，而轉而認為，這只是在圓教中辨別精妙中的粗淺，不能等同於偏教（小乘教）的粗淺。我說，因為遇到現在的詰難，不覺中承認了圓教的權巧是粗淺的。然而，只有一種三法，教義怎麼可以有偏頗呢？粗淺和圓教的粗淺，二者的本體是不同的（云云）。或者有人說，由於情執的緣故才是粗淺的。現在我說，如果由於情執，為什麼只有權巧是粗淺的，真實也應該粗淺（云云）。問：現在經文引用三無差別（體無差別、相無差別、用無差別）來普遍證明事理。那麼，事理三千（一念三千）都是沒有差別的嗎？答：經文雖然這樣說，但不可固守一種說法而妨礙多種意義。因為三千法無所不包含。或者有差別，或者沒有差別，或者非差別非無差別，或者只有差別，或者只有無差別，一塵一念無不具備。所以，三千法普遍包含多種意義。如果趨向于理，從理來辨別意義，所以三千法被稱為沒有差別。如果趨向於事，從事來辨別意義，所以三千法被稱為有差別。以此事理都以藏體（如來藏）的無差別，融合俗用（世俗應用）的差別。無論是理還是事，都可以稱為無差別的差別，差別的無差別。從此辨別意義，那麼事理三千各自通於差別，辨別以無差別。或者於事理各自從藏體的無差別，所以事理三千都稱為無差別，各自從俗用的差別而來。

【English Translation】 It is not only that the understanding of 'meaning' is hindered, but also that the ancestral teachings are feared to be not fully understood. Why is this? It is because Jingxi (referring to Zhanran, a Tiantai monk of the Tang Dynasty) explicitly allowed the discussion of coarseness and subtlety within the perfect teaching (the highest doctrine of the Tiantai school). Therefore, he said, 'If viewed from the realm of the inconceivable, one can also discuss subtlety and non-subtlety.' For example, in the Three Virtues (Dharmakaya Virtue, Prajna Virtue, Liberation Virtue), if explained using the first three Siddhanthas (Worldly Siddhantha, Individual Siddhantha, Antidotal Siddhantha), its meaning belongs to the coarse. Considering the Three Virtues as the world, liberation, and generating goodness, and using Prajna (wisdom) to destroy evil karma, it is therefore coarse. Only when one sees the Dharmakaya (the true body of the Buddha) does it begin to be called subtle. Since the Three Virtues are like this, the remaining Nine Realms (the Six Paths plus the Three Vehicles of Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas) are also like this. Now, using this as an example, since the Ten Kinds of Three Dharmas (the Three Dharmas in each of the Ten Realms: Skandhas, Dhatus, and Ayatanas) are like this, all Dharma Gates are also like this. Therefore, the phenomenal aspects (affairs) and expedient means (skillful means) of the perfect teaching are inherently coarse, while the real (truth) is subtle. The expedient means obtain the name of subtlety, similar to the previous merit attributed to (the real). Regarding the two meanings of Dharma (Buddha's teachings), one can understand through intention. However, there was once a predecessor who heard me arguing for non-discrimination of sameness and difference, believing that the expedient means are inherent, and their essence is coarse, while the real is subtle. Initially, they firmly did not admit that the expedient means of the perfect teaching are inherently coarse. Thus, they debated with me, their meaning seeming to be unreasonable, and instead argued that this is only distinguishing the coarseness within the subtlety of the perfect teaching, and cannot be equated with the coarseness of the partial teaching (Hinayana). I said, 'Because of encountering the current difficulty, I unconsciously admitted that the expedient means of the perfect teaching are coarse. However, there is only one Three Dharmas, how can the teachings be biased? The coarseness and the coarseness of the perfect teaching, the essence of the two are different (etc.).' Or someone says, 'It is coarse due to emotional attachment.' Now I say, 'If it is due to emotional attachment, why is only the expedient means coarse, the real should also be coarse (etc.).' Question: Now the sutra quotes the Three Non-Differences (Non-Difference of Essence, Non-Difference of Characteristics, Non-Difference of Function) to universally prove phenomena and principle. Then, are the Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought (Ichinen Sanzen) all without difference? Answer: Although the sutra says so, one should not adhere to one statement and hinder multiple meanings. Because the Three Thousand Realms encompass everything. There is either difference, or no difference, or neither difference nor no difference, or only difference, or only no difference, every dust and every thought is fully equipped. Therefore, the Three Thousand Realms universally encompass multiple meanings. If one tends towards principle, distinguishing meaning from principle, therefore the Three Thousand Realms are called without difference. If one tends towards phenomena, distinguishing meaning from phenomena, therefore the Three Thousand Realms are called with difference. With this, both phenomena and principle use the non-difference of the storehouse-consciousness (Alaya-vijnana), integrating the difference of conventional usage (worldly application). Whether it is principle or phenomena, both can be called the difference of non-difference, the non-difference of difference. Distinguishing meaning from this, then the Three Thousand Realms of phenomena and principle each communicate with difference, distinguishing with non-difference. Or, in phenomena and principle, each comes from the non-difference of the storehouse-consciousness, so the Three Thousand Realms of phenomena and principle are all called non-difference, each coming from the difference of conventional usage.

差。故事理三千皆名為差。又此事理在眾生心名之為迷。在諸佛心名之為悟。故事理三千從於迷悟俱在事異皆名為差。若指迷即悟指悟即迷。故事理三千俱在理同皆名無差。祇由一念圓融。是故義無不可。

四譬如下舉喻二。初正約喻二。初正喻法。文既分三。今喻亦爾。初喻示藏體具差無差。前法惟性。今喻通二。初像性二。初正喻。鏡體者。即空藏也。具一切像性者。即不空藏也。鏡體即像性。空藏即不空。無差別差別。二若此下。釋喻二。初無性不現者。如良由理具方有事用。下約像知性者。如其實無別。以生顯具二。如彼下。帖喻無性不現。雖復明凈者。中空如鏡明凈。偏空如火明凈。同號明凈。如同名為空。照物現像鏡火有殊。如中偏不等。三既現下。約像知性喻。

二以是下像相二。初依具發現。二而復下。凈穢無礙。十界之相相不同。同在一心而無相礙。無相礙者即是無差。雖然無差。生佛用別即是而差。此差與無差不離藏體。如鏡眾像可喻斯法。

二雖然下。喻釋中藏體全一。泥團之喻不類藏體。藏體全一惟鏡可比。文為三。初總示。雖有像性像相之別。至是一鏡者。若以喻求義似有妨。何者。像性無形可云惟是一鏡圓融不異。若其像相雖依于鏡而不同鏡。由鏡惟明像有異色。鏡

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『差』。事和理的三千種方面都被稱為『差』（差別）。同樣的事理，在眾生的心中被稱為『迷』（迷惑），在諸佛的心中被稱為『悟』（覺悟）。因此，事理的三千種方面，由於迷惑和覺悟的不同，在事相上的差異都被稱為『差』。如果執著于迷惑，那就是覺悟；如果執著于覺悟，那就是迷惑。因此，事理的三千種方面，在理體上是相同的，都被稱為『無差』（無差別）。僅僅由於一念的圓融，所以從義理上來說，沒有什麼是不可以的。

四、譬如以下，舉出比喻兩種。首先，正式地用比喻說明。首先，正式地比喻佛法。文章既然分為三部分，那麼比喻也如此。首先，比喻顯示藏體的具足差別和無差別。前面的佛法只涉及自性，現在的比喻貫通自性和事相。首先是像和性兩種。首先是正式的比喻。『鏡體』，就是空藏（Tathāgatagarbha，如來藏）的意思。『具一切像性』，就是不空藏（不空的如來藏）的意思。鏡體就是像性，空藏就是不空。無差別就是差別。

二、如果以下，解釋比喻兩種。首先，無性不顯現，比如良由理體具足，才會有事相的作用。以下，通過像來了解自性，比如實際上沒有差別，通過生來顯示具足兩種。比如以下，貼合比喻無性不顯現。『雖復明凈』，中空就像鏡子一樣明凈，偏空就像火焰一樣明凈，都叫做明凈，如同都叫做空一樣。照物顯現影像，鏡子和火焰有區別，如同中和偏不一樣。

三、既然顯現以下，通過像來了解自性的比喻。

二、以是以下，像和相兩種。首先，依靠具足而發現。二、而又以下，清凈和污穢沒有障礙。十法界的相貌各不相同，都存在於一心之中而沒有互相妨礙。沒有互相妨礙，就是無差別。雖然無差別，但眾生和佛的作用不同，這就是差別。這種差別和無差別不離開藏體。如同鏡子中的各種影像可以比喻這種佛法。

二、雖然以下，比喻解釋藏體完全是一。泥團的比喻不像藏體，藏體完全是一，只有鏡子可以相比。文章分為三部分。首先，總的顯示。雖然有像性、像相的區別，到『是一鏡』。如果用比喻來求義理，似乎有妨礙。為什麼呢？像性沒有形狀，可以說是一面鏡子的圓融沒有差異。如果說像相，雖然依靠鏡子，但和鏡子不同，因為鏡子只有光明，而影像有不同的顏色，鏡子...

【English Translation】 English version: 『Difference』. The three thousand aspects of phenomena and principles are all called 『difference』. The same phenomena and principles are called 『delusion』 in the minds of sentient beings and 『enlightenment』 in the minds of all Buddhas. Therefore, the three thousand aspects of phenomena and principles, due to the difference between delusion and enlightenment, are all called 『difference』 in the differences of phenomena. If you are attached to delusion, that is enlightenment; if you are attached to enlightenment, that is delusion. Therefore, the three thousand aspects of phenomena and principles are the same in principle and are all called 『non-difference』 (no difference). Just because of a single thought of perfect fusion, there is nothing that is impossible in terms of meaning.

For example, below, two metaphors are given. First, the metaphor is formally used to explain. First, the metaphor is formally used to explain the Dharma. Since the article is divided into three parts, so is the metaphor. First, the metaphor shows that the storehouse body is fully equipped with difference and non-difference. The previous Dharma only involves self-nature, and the current metaphor connects both self-nature and phenomena. The first is the two types of image and nature. The first is the formal metaphor. 『Mirror body』 means the Empty Treasury (Tathāgatagarbha, the Womb of the Thus Come One). 『Fully equipped with all image-nature』 means the Non-Empty Treasury (the non-empty Tathāgatagarbha). The mirror body is the image-nature, and the Empty Treasury is the Non-Empty. Non-difference is difference.
If below, explain the two metaphors. First, non-nature does not appear, such as Liang Youli's body is fully equipped, and then there will be the function of phenomena. Below, understand self-nature through images, such as there is actually no difference, and show the two types of completeness through life. For example, below, the metaphor of non-nature is not revealed. 『Although it is bright and clean』, the middle is empty like a mirror, and the partial is empty like a flame. They are both called bright and clean, just like they are both called empty. When illuminating objects, the mirror and the flame are different, just like the middle and the partial are different.
Since it appears below, the metaphor of understanding self-nature through images.
From this below, the two types of image and appearance. First, rely on completeness to discover. Second, and again below, purity and impurity are unobstructed. The appearances of the ten Dharma realms are different, and they all exist in one mind without hindering each other. There is no hindrance to each other, which is non-difference. Although there is no difference, the functions of sentient beings and Buddhas are different, which is difference. This difference and non-difference do not leave the storehouse body. Just like the various images in the mirror can be compared to this Dharma.
Although below, the metaphor explains that the storehouse body is completely one. The metaphor of the mud ball is not like the storehouse body. The storehouse body is completely one, and only the mirror can be compared. The article is divided into three parts. First, the general display. Although there are differences in image-nature and image-appearance, to 『is a mirror』. If you use a metaphor to seek meaning, it seems to be an obstacle. Why? Image-nature has no shape, and it can be said that the perfect fusion of a mirror is no different. If you talk about image-appearance, although it depends on the mirror, it is different from the mirror, because the mirror only has light, and the image has different colors, the mirror...

或惟圓像有長短。如何可云圓融不異。應知在相論離。在性惟即。相無別離乃離於性。故以像對明。遂使鏡圓像色性無別。即乃即于相。故指明是像。遂使像圓鏡同。今正約性論即。乃云像相亦圓融不異。惟是一鏡。二何以下正喻。文有三。初喻一切眾生毛孔性。二如毛下。喻例一切法性。三一凈下。喻例一切生佛法性。凈穢二性者。約世出世以分凈穢。故知前性別在四六。莫云凈穢不同染凈。

二是故下。喻釋中性事相攝二。初喻性二。初喻一毛孔效能攝一切法性。二如舉下。喻例一切法性各攝一切法性。前法文中各開為二有世出世。今文總云即攝其餘一切像性。並云舉其餘一一像性。其餘者即總該凈穢二像世出世性。二又若下喻事二。初喻示相二。初喻。舉一毛孔事能攝一切事。二如舉下。喻以一毛孔事例餘事。且為能攝。今喻亦總不同法中開世出世。二何以下喻釋義。文云。以一切像相即以彼像性為體等者。意明像相相攝功由於性。若不推性無有攝理。有人直云相自相即者。豈有此理。或云朱紫之色不即蘭蕙之香。但得像性相攝之義。則違像相相攝之文。若云此相是性故相攝者。今難曰。相既是性。相何不攝。相若不攝。相非性耶。故知此見但有即名全失即義。

二以是下。約法結生之與佛同一凈

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：或者說，圓形的影像有長短之分，怎麼能說圓融而沒有差異呢？應該知道，在『相』的層面討論的是分離，在『性』的層面討論的才是融合爲一。『相』沒有分離，那是因為它離開了『性』。所以用影像來對比說明，才使得鏡子的圓和影像的色彩在『性』上沒有差別，這才是『即』于『相』。所以指明這是影像，才使得影像的圓和鏡子相同。現在正是從『性』的角度來討論『即』，才說影像的『相』也是圓融而沒有差異的，唯一是一面鏡子。下面用比喻來進一步說明。文分三部分。首先，比喻一切眾生的毛孔之『性』；其次，『如毛下』，比喻一切法的『性』；第三，『一凈下』，比喻一切眾生和佛的法的『性』。『凈』和『穢』兩種『性』，是按照世間和出世間來區分的。所以知道前面的『性』的差別在於四和六。不要說『凈』和『穢』不同於『染』和『凈』。二是故下，比喻解釋『性』和『事』互相包含。首先比喻『性』，分為兩部分。首先，比喻一個毛孔的『性』能夠包含一切法的『性』；其次，『如舉下』，比喻一切法的『性』各自包含一切法的『性』。前面的法文中，各自分為世間和出世間兩種，現在文中總的說來是包含其餘一切影像的『性』，並且說舉出其餘每一個影像的『性』。『其餘』就是總括『凈』和『穢』兩種影像的世間和出世間的『性』。其次，『又若下』比喻『事』，分為兩部分。首先比喻顯示『相』，分為兩部分。首先比喻舉出一個毛孔的『事』能夠包含一切『事』；其次，『如舉下』，用一個毛孔的『事』來比喻其餘的『事』，並且是能夠包含的。現在的比喻也總的來說不同於法中區分世間和出世間。下面用比喻來解釋意義。文中說：『以一切像相即以彼像性為體等者』，意思是說明影像的『相』互相包含的功用在於『性』。如果不推究『性』，就沒有包含的道理。有人直接說『相』自己包含自己，哪有這個道理？或者說朱紫的顏色不包含蘭蕙的香味，只得到影像的『性』互相包含的意義，那就違背了影像的『相』互相包含的文句。如果說這個『相』就是『性』，所以互相包含，現在反駁說：『相』既然是『性』，『相』為什麼不包含？『相』如果不包含，『相』就不是『性』嗎？所以知道這種見解只有『即』的名義，完全失去了『即』的意義。二以是下，從法的角度總結眾生和佛具有同一清凈的『性』。

【English Translation】 English version: Or, if the round images have lengths and sizes, how can it be said that they are perfectly fused and without difference? It should be known that in the realm of 'form' (相, lakshana, characteristic, appearance), we discuss separation, while in the realm of 'nature' (性, svabhāva, intrinsic nature, essence), we discuss oneness. 'Form' has no separation because it is apart from 'nature'. Therefore, using images for comparison clarifies that the roundness of the mirror and the colors of the images have no difference in 'nature'; this is 'being identical' (即, tadatmya) to 'form'. Therefore, pointing out that this is an image makes the roundness of the image the same as the mirror. Now, we are discussing 'being identical' precisely from the perspective of 'nature', so it is said that the 'form' of the images is also perfectly fused and without difference, being only one mirror. The following uses metaphors to further explain. The text is divided into three parts. First, it uses the pores of all sentient beings as a metaphor for 'nature'; second, 'as below the pore' (如毛下), it uses the 'nature' of all dharmas as a metaphor; third, 'one pure below' (一凈下), it uses the 'nature' of all sentient beings and Buddhas' dharmas as a metaphor. The two 'natures' of 'purity' (凈, śuddha) and 'impurity' (穢, aśuddha) are distinguished according to the mundane and supramundane. Therefore, it is known that the difference in the previous 'nature' lies in four and six. Do not say that 'purity' and 'impurity' are different from 'defilement' (染, rāga) and 'purity'. Secondly, 'therefore' (二是故下), the metaphor explains the mutual inclusion of 'nature' and 'phenomena' (事, artha). First, the metaphor for 'nature' is divided into two parts. First, the metaphor is that the 'nature' of one pore can contain the 'nature' of all dharmas; second, 'as exemplified below' (如舉下), the metaphor is that the 'nature' of all dharmas each contains the 'nature' of all dharmas. In the previous Dharma text, each was divided into mundane and supramundane. Now, the text generally says that it includes the 'nature' of all remaining images, and it says to bring up the 'nature' of each of the remaining images. 'Remaining' is the general term for the mundane and supramundane 'nature' of the two images of 'purity' and 'impurity'. Secondly, 'moreover, if below' (又若下) is a metaphor for 'phenomena', divided into two parts. First, the metaphor shows 'form' (相, lakshana), divided into two parts. First, the metaphor is that bringing up the 'phenomenon' of one pore can contain all 'phenomena'; second, 'as exemplified below' (如舉下), the 'phenomenon' of one pore is used as a metaphor for the remaining 'phenomena', and it is capable of containing them. The current metaphor also differs from the division of mundane and supramundane in the Dharma. The following uses metaphors to explain the meaning. The text says: 'Because all images are identical, they take that image's nature as their substance, etc.' (以一切像相即以彼像性為體等者), meaning that the function of the mutual inclusion of the 'forms' of images lies in 'nature'. If 'nature' is not investigated, there is no reason for inclusion. Some people directly say that 'form' includes itself, but how can this be? Or, the color of scarlet and purple does not include the fragrance of orchids and sweet herbs, only obtaining the meaning of the mutual inclusion of the 'nature' of images, which violates the text of the mutual inclusion of the 'forms' of images. If it is said that this 'form' is 'nature', so they include each other, now it is refuted: Since 'form' is 'nature', why doesn't 'form' include? If 'form' does not include, is 'form' not 'nature'? Therefore, it is known that this view only has the name of 'being identical' and completely loses the meaning of 'being identical'. Secondly, 'therefore' (二以是下), from the perspective of Dharma, it concludes that sentient beings and Buddhas have the same pure 'nature'.

心圓融無礙。觀喻可信。然復須知。一大寶鑑在生在佛未曾暫別。若云在生為塵所昏。在佛磨而能照。非今喻意。今喻意者。此鑒唯一無礙常明。凈穢之像同在其中而無障礙。凈穢之像雖殊。猶生佛迷悟有異。明凈之鏡祇一。若如來藏體無雙。故此鑑明乃天然性德之明。非塵昏磨明之明。然磨之明與本之明。其明雖同。其所以明者殊爾。磨明。覺始也。本明。本覺也。才言此鑒為本明者。已失其明體矣。所以本覺亦在用收。

二是故下。引經證喻二。初正引經證喻二。初引經。即華嚴經也。章安解般若一德具三。以明凈之鏡為喻。乃云。此鏡一照一切照。照中故是鏡。照真故是凈。照俗故是明。明故則像亮假顯。凈故瑕盡真顯。鏡故體圓中顯三智一心中得。故言明凈鏡攝一切法。二此義下釋義。喻有六義。一者鏡。二者凈。三者明。四者隨對。五者面。六者像。若以克體言之。其實有三。一鏡。二面。三像。謂凈．明．隨對者而無自體。凈．明者即鏡也。隨對者即攬前三法為此隨對也。鏡是能隨。面像是所隨。面是能對。鏡是所對。因此隨對其像即現。以喻喻法其旨最明。鏡者喻凈心體也。隨對者喻凈心體具諸法之性也。面者喻染凈二業也。像者喻染凈二報也。若克實而喻惟有其三。一者凈心。二者業。三者報

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心性圓融無礙，用觀鏡的比喻來說明是可以相信的。然而，還須要知道，這面大寶鑑在眾生和佛的身上，從未曾須臾分離。如果說在眾生身上時，寶鑑被塵埃所矇蔽，而在佛的身上，則經過磨礪而能照亮，那就不是現在這個比喻的意義了。現在這個比喻的意義是，這面寶鑑是唯一無礙、常明不滅的，清凈和污穢的影像都同時在其中顯現而沒有障礙。清凈和污穢的影像雖然不同，就像眾生和佛的迷惑和覺悟有所差異一樣，但明凈的鏡子只有一面，就像如來藏的本體是獨一無二的。因此，這面寶鑑的明亮是天然的自性功德之明，而不是被塵埃矇蔽后經過磨礪而產生的明亮。然而，磨礪而產生的明亮和原本就有的明亮，它們的明亮程度雖然相同，但它們之所以明亮的原因卻不同。磨礪而產生的明亮，是覺悟的開始；原本就有的明亮，是本來的覺悟。如果才說這面寶鑑是本來的明亮，就已經失去了它的明亮本體了。所以，本來的覺悟也包含在作用之中。二是故下，引用經文來證明這個比喻。首先是正式引用經文來證明這個比喻。首先引用經文，就是《華嚴經》。章安解釋《般若》的一德具備三德，用明凈的鏡子來比喻，於是說：『這面鏡子一照就照一切，在照之中，所以是鏡；照真諦，所以是凈；照俗諦，所以是明。明亮，所以影像清晰地顯現；清凈，所以瑕疵消失，真諦顯現；鏡子，所以本體圓滿，中道顯現，三種智慧在一心中獲得。』所以說，明凈的鏡子攝取一切法。二此義下解釋意義。這個比喻有六種意義：一是鏡，二是凈，三是明，四是隨對，五是面，六是像。如果從本體上來說，其實只有三種：一是鏡，二是面，三是像。所謂凈、明、隨對，都沒有自體。凈、明就是鏡。隨對，就是把前面的三種法綜合起來成為隨對。鏡是能隨，面和像是所隨。面是能對，鏡是所對。因此，隨著相對，它的影像就顯現。用比喻來比喻佛法，它的旨意最明顯。鏡子比喻清凈的心體。隨對比喻清凈的心體具備諸法的自性。面比喻染凈二業。像比喻染凈二報。如果從實際情況來比喻，只有三種：一是清凈心，二是業，三是報。

【English Translation】 English version: The nature of mind is perfectly complete and unobstructed. The analogy of observing a mirror is believable. However, it must also be known that this great precious mirror has never been separated from sentient beings and Buddhas, not even for a moment. If it is said that in sentient beings, the mirror is obscured by dust, while in Buddhas, it can shine after being polished, then that is not the meaning of this analogy. The meaning of this analogy is that this mirror is uniquely unobstructed, constantly bright and never extinguished, and pure and impure images appear simultaneously within it without obstruction. Although pure and impure images are different, just as the delusion and enlightenment of sentient beings and Buddhas differ, there is only one bright and clear mirror, just as the essence of the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏) [Tathagata's Womb] is unique. Therefore, the brightness of this mirror is the brightness of natural, inherent virtue, not the brightness produced by polishing after being obscured by dust. However, although the brightness produced by polishing and the original brightness are the same in degree, the reasons for their brightness are different. The brightness produced by polishing is the beginning of awakening; the original brightness is the original awakening. If one says that this mirror is the original brightness, one has already lost its bright essence. Therefore, the original awakening is also included in its function. 『Two is therefore below,』 quoting scriptures to prove the analogy. First, formally quoting scriptures to prove the analogy. First, quoting scriptures, which is the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經) [Flower Garland Sutra]. Zhang'an explains that one virtue of Prajna (般若) [Wisdom] possesses three virtues, using the bright and clear mirror as an analogy, and says: 『This mirror illuminates everything with one illumination; within the illumination, therefore it is a mirror; illuminating the truth, therefore it is pure; illuminating the mundane, therefore it is bright. Brightness, therefore images appear clearly; purity, therefore flaws disappear and the truth appears; mirror, therefore the essence is complete, the middle way appears, and the three wisdoms are obtained in one mind.』 Therefore, it is said that the bright and clear mirror encompasses all dharmas. 『Two, this meaning below,』 explains the meaning. This analogy has six meanings: one is mirror, two is purity, three is brightness, four is responding to conditions (隨對), five is face, and six is image. If speaking from the perspective of the essence, there are actually only three: one is mirror, two is face, and three is image. The so-called purity, brightness, and responding to conditions do not have their own essence. Purity and brightness are the mirror. Responding to conditions is the combination of the previous three dharmas to become responding to conditions. The mirror is the one that responds, and the face and image are what are responded to. The face is what responds, and the mirror is what is responded to. Therefore, as they respond to each other, their images appear. Using analogy to illustrate the Dharma, its meaning is most clear. The mirror is an analogy for the pure mind essence. Responding to conditions is an analogy for the pure mind essence possessing the nature of all dharmas. The face is an analogy for the two karmas of purity and impurity. The image is an analogy for the two retributions of purity and impurity. If speaking from the actual situation, there are only three: one is the pure mind, two is karma, and three is retribution.

。所謂諸法之性者。諸法如能對所隨之業報也。性者如能隨所對之凈心也。因此凈心業報之三。故云諸法之性也。性之一字型歸凈心。諸法二字型歸業報。故知云性十者而無別體。十體是事。性體是理。由此理不但故具十。遂云理性十界。今以凈心之體能具諸法。故云即。喻凈心體具一切法性。問。今以隨對喻具諸法之性。若依章安。應以其明喻具法性。義何不同。答。能隨所對即是鏡明。名雖有殊義實無別。文云。各各不相知。即喻凈心等者。不相知言不思議也。故經結云。一切皆無性。法眼不思議。今曰業與果報皆法界故。性本無生。業熏凈心。業自不得而知。如何而熏凈心。隨熏凈心亦不自得而知。如何而隨。因此感報亦自不得而知。如何而感。故云各不相知也。若作思議釋者。事理不同因果有異。故云各不相知。業者下。釋經合文也。但合面鏡而不合像者。既有業有性則報在其間。故不別說。況復經文正為談于業性故也。然鏡明面像之喻。有喻如來權造。如十不二門。有喻十界實造。如於今文。其妙經文句釋無生境智。約鏡喻中亦喻實造。與今文同。記云。鏡十界因。同今鏡喻法性親生於諸法也。形十界緣。同今面喻染凈二業也。像十界果。同今像喻染凈二報也。又復記云。鏡明性十界。像生修十界。故形像

修性皆具十界。並不出於法性理。鏡見明形像修性本。如鏡內外一同。今上文雖然有此像性像相之別而復圓融不異。惟是一鏡也。又復記云。一切並泯故皆云無。不復分別若性若修。同今下文。若廢二性之能以論心體者。即非染非凈圓融平等。不可名目也。

二又復下。復引諸文以證藏體。文為二。據其所引。雖欲皆明藏體惟一。然其用義文意少殊。初則意明世出世法皆依一體而得成立。次則意明世出世法雖然不同。其所依體其體惟一。初又二。初引經別明世法依心體生。此據法性體融說為一者。出其問者不了此旨作專一之一而解。然問者是文殊。豈不解耶。但以俯為迷生故作此問。起於後答顯示的旨。如經所謂仁今問此義為曉悟群蒙。所以問云。云何能生種種果報。今從的旨以示。故云法性體融說為一也。若了此一體融即不應疑種種果報。或曰。今此體融之一祇可作于總相明一以說義義。何者。由此之性百界千如無不具足。以圓融故總名為一。故號一性。故知此一即是三諦圓融。遂說為一。此義然乎。若謂不然。其如義何。若謂然者。前何亡照以三為事以一為理。則顯一性而非三耶。答。此旨甚難。今祇問云。究竟而論三之與一何者有實體耶。若云俱無實體者。祖師何云非謂空無心體耶。若云三一皆有實體者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本修性皆具十界（十種不同的生命狀態）。並不出於法性理（宇宙萬物的本性）。鏡見明形像修性本（鏡子能清晰地反映物體的形象，這就像修性一樣）。如鏡內外一同（就像鏡子的內外是統一的）。今上文雖然有此像性像相之別而復圓融不異（現在上面的文字雖然有『像性』和『像相』的區別，但它們是圓融無礙，沒有差異的）。惟是一鏡也（它們就像一面鏡子）。又復記云（又記載說）。一切並泯故皆云無（一切都歸於寂滅，所以都說是『無』）。不復分別若性若修（不再分別『性』和『修』）。同今下文（和下面的文字一樣）。若廢二性之能以論心體者（如果拋棄『性』和『修』的功能來討論心體），即非染非凈圓融平等（那麼心體就既不是染污的，也不是清凈的，而是圓融和平等的）。不可名目也（無法用語言來描述）。

二又復下（第二，又在下面）。復引諸文以證藏體（再次引用各種經典來證明藏體）。文為二（文字分為兩部分）。據其所引（根據所引用的內容）。雖欲皆明藏體惟一（雖然都想說明藏體是唯一的）。然其用義文意少殊（然而它們使用的意義和文字的含義略有不同）。初則意明世出世法皆依一體而得成立（第一部分的意思是說明世間法和出世間法都依賴於同一個本體才能成立）。次則意明世出世法雖然不同（第二部分的意思是說明世間法和出世間法雖然不同）。其所依體其體惟一（它們所依賴的本體是唯一的）。初又二（第一部分又分為兩部分）。初引經別明世法依心體生（第一部分引用經典來分別說明世間法依賴於心體而產生）。此據法性體融說為一者（這是根據法性體融來說明『一』）。出其問者不了此旨作專一之一而解（指出提問者不瞭解這個宗旨，把『一』理解為單一的『一』）。然問者是文殊（然而提問者是Manjusri (文殊菩薩)）。豈不解耶（難道不理解嗎？）。但以俯為迷生故作此問（只是爲了遷就迷惑的眾生才提出這個問題）。起於後答顯示的旨（爲了引出後面的回答所顯示的宗旨）。如經所謂仁今問此義為曉悟群蒙（就像經典所說，現在提問這個問題是爲了啓發和開悟大眾）。所以問云（所以提問說）。云何能生種種果報（如何能產生種種果報？）。今從的旨以示（現在從明確的宗旨來揭示）。故云法性體融說為一也（所以說法性體融，所以說是『一』）。若了此一體融即不應疑種種果報（如果瞭解了這個一體融，就不應該懷疑種種果報）。或曰（或者有人說）。今此體融之一祇可作于總相明一以說義義（現在這個體融的『一』只能作為總相來理解，用來說明『一』的含義）。何者（為什麼呢？）。由此之性百界千如無不具足（因為這個『性』具足百界千如）。以圓融故總名為一（因為圓融，所以總稱為『一』）。故號一性（所以稱為『一性』）。故知此一即是三諦圓融（所以知道這個『一』就是三諦圓融）。遂說為一（於是就說為『一』）。此義然乎（這個意思對嗎？）。若謂不然（如果說不對）。其如義何（那麼正確的含義是什麼？）。若謂然者（如果說是對的）。前何亡照以三為事以一為理（那麼前面為什麼說『亡照』以『三』為事，以『一』為理？）。則顯一性而非三耶（那麼是顯示『一性』而不是『三』嗎？）。答（回答）。此旨甚難（這個宗旨很難理解）。今祇問云（現在只問）。究竟而論三之與一何者有實體耶（究竟來說，『三』和『一』哪個有實體？）。若云俱無實體者（如果說都沒有實體）。祖師何云非謂空無心體耶（那麼祖師為什麼說不是空無心體？）。若云三一皆有實體者（如果說『三』和『一』都有實體）

【English Translation】 English version 'Cultivating nature encompasses all Ten Realms (ten different states of life). It does not originate from the principle of Dharma-nature (the fundamental nature of all things in the universe). A mirror reflects clear images, which is the essence of cultivating nature. It's like the inside and outside of a mirror being the same. Although the preceding text distinguishes between 'image-nature' and 'image-appearance,' they are perfectly integrated and not different. They are like a single mirror. Furthermore, it is recorded that everything merges and vanishes, hence it is all called 'void.' There is no further distinction between 'nature' and 'cultivation,' similar to the text below. If one abandons the functions of the two natures to discuss the essence of the mind, then it is neither defiled nor pure, but perfectly integrated and equal. It cannot be named or described.'

'Secondly, 'and again below.' Again, various texts are cited to prove the Store-consciousness (藏體). The text is divided into two parts. According to what is cited, although all aim to clarify that the Store-consciousness is unique, their meanings and textual intentions differ slightly. The first part intends to clarify that worldly and transcendental dharmas (世出世法) are established based on one entity. The second part intends to clarify that although worldly and transcendental dharmas are different, the entity they rely on is unique. The first part is further divided into two. The first part cites scriptures to separately clarify that worldly dharmas arise from the mind-essence. This is based on the Dharma-nature (法性) being integrated and spoken of as 'one.' It points out that the questioner did not understand this principle and interpreted 'one' as a singular 'one.' However, the questioner is Manjusri (文殊菩薩). Doesn't he understand? It is only out of compassion for confused beings that he asks this question, to elicit the meaning revealed in the subsequent answer. As the scripture says, 'Now I ask this meaning to enlighten the masses.' Therefore, he asks, 'How can it produce various karmic retributions?' Now, from the clear principle, it is revealed, hence it is said that the Dharma-nature is integrated and spoken of as 'one.' If one understands this integration of 'one,' then one should not doubt various karmic retributions. Or someone might say, 'This integration of 'one' can only be understood as a general characteristic to explain the meaning of 'one.' Why? Because this nature fully possesses the Hundred Realms and Thousand Suchnesses (百界千如). Because of its perfect integration, it is generally called 'one.' Therefore, it is called 'One-nature.' Therefore, it is known that this 'one' is the perfect integration of the Three Truths (三諦). Thus, it is spoken of as 'one.' Is this meaning correct?' If it is said to be incorrect, what is the correct meaning? If it is said to be correct, then why did the previous 'forgetting illumination' take 'three' as the function and 'one' as the principle? Does it then reveal 'One-nature' and not 'Three?' The answer is, 'This principle is very difficult. Now, I only ask, ultimately speaking, which of the 'three' and 'one' has substance? If it is said that both have no substance, then why did the Patriarch say that it is not an empty mind-essence? If it is said that both 'three' and 'one' have substance'

。應有四體。若圓融時如塵成團耶。若云其實是三。但此之三圓融無礙故名為一者。若爾一是虛名。三是實體。祖師何云雖有三名而是一體耶。若如向說必須遍云。雖有一名而是三體。又復若圓融時如聚三塵為一泥團耶。若云不思議體不定三一。三體即一體一體即三體者。祖師何云雖有三名而無三體。雖是一體而立三名。三祇曰名一乃曰體耶。請以此義經懷。自如今說為正。祇由此性而不當一。無以名之強號為一。而此之一不可思議。具一切德。是故此一具空假中。既能具德故知此一是圓融性。說之為一乃非定一。問。還許一性乃是總相名為一不。答。正是總相名之為一。故今立總別乃以一性而為總也。又復今立一性。一性者一即三三即一。非三非一而三而一。是此之一名為一性。豈非總乎。問。與彼何殊。答。彼此皆云以圓融故總名為一。其言雖同其意不等。何者。彼以三諦圓融總名為一。今以性體圓融強名總一。彼以由三諦圓融故即三是一即一是三。今以由性體圓融故即三是一即一是三。問。今云性體圓融。且性體者即三諦也。豈非同彼三諦圓融耶。答。深極論體用者。三者用也。性體者體也。由體圓融故用絕妙。若分而言之。性體圓融。三屬差別。所云三是用者。如涅槃疏云。言一則失用。言三則傷體。所云性

體圓融三屬差別者。亦如疏云。三諦即一諦。一諦即三諦。差別無差別。無差別差別。非差別非不差別。而差別而不差別。諸佛境界具足如是不可思議。問。文中既有雙非雙亦。今何惟取前之二句證差無差。答。一家明三諦者。不出的從法體與隨處點示。且的從法體者即全。一性具足其三。故一性無差。其三而差即一而三。如伊如目故名三諦不可思議。且隨處點示者。於一切處法法三諦。祇如就於即一而三。復點三諦者。一即空也。三即假也。非三一者即中。雙遮也。而三一者即中。雙照也。的從法體與隨處點示義雖不同。莫不須指一為無差三為差別。故今引證從法體。今問一性是亡云何能具。答由此一效能亡能照。以能亡故三諦皆亡。以能照故三諦皆具。然此一性本非亡照。論亡論照不可思議。

二今即下。通明世出世法依心體生二。初示義。二是故下引論證。

二又復下。證世出世法同依一心體二。初引文。二此即下釋義二。初依文釋義顯諸佛同體。二以一下。約義伸明顯生佛同體二。初示義。二何以下證。但云五道與佛不言三乘者。以三乘望五道亦名返流。但不同盡源。望圓極佛尚在流轉。但不同五道。通此二向是以不言。

二明因果法身名別之義三。初標章。二解釋。三結釋又二。初問。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於體圓融的三種屬性的差別，就像疏文中說的：『三諦（空、假、中）即是一諦（真諦），一諦即是三諦。差別即無差別，無差別即差別。非差別也非不差別，而差別也而不差別。』諸佛的境界完全具備這樣不可思議的特性。問：文中既有雙非（既不是）也有雙亦（既是），為何現在只取前面兩句來證明差別和無差別？答：一家闡明三諦，不外乎從法體和隨處點示兩個方面。從法體來說，即是全一性具足其三諦，所以一性無差別，其三諦的差別即是一而三，如伊如目，所以名為三諦不可思議。從隨處點示來說，於一切處法法皆是三諦，就如就於即一而三，復點三諦，一即是空，三即是假，非三非一即是中，是雙遮，而三而一即是中，是雙照。從法體和隨處點示，意義雖不同，但都必須指一為無差別，三為差別。所以現在引用從法體。現在問一性是空無，如何能具足三諦？答：由此一效能空能照。以能空故，三諦皆空。以能照故，三諦皆具足。然而此一性本來非空非照，論空論照都是不可思議的。第二，現在接著（經文）往下，總的說明世間法和出世間法都依心體而生。分為兩部分：第一是揭示意義，第二是『是故』以下，引用論證。第二，又接著（經文）往下，證明世間法和出世間法同樣依一心體。分為兩部分：第一是引經文，第二是『此即』以下，解釋意義。分為兩部分：第一是依經文解釋意義，彰顯諸佛同體。第二是『以一』以下，約義闡明，彰顯眾生和佛同體。分為兩部分：第一是揭示意義，第二是『何以』以下，進行論證。但只說五道和佛，而不說三乘，是因為三乘相對於五道也稱為返流，只是不同於完全迴歸本源。相對於圓滿究竟的佛，（三乘）尚在流轉之中，只是不同於五道。總括這兩個方面，所以不說三乘。第二，闡明因果法身名稱不同的意義。分為三部分：第一是標明章節，第二是解釋，第三是總結解釋。又分為兩部分：第一是提問。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the differences in the three attributes of the perfectly integrated substance, it is as the commentary says: 'The three truths (emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle Way) are identical to the one truth (the ultimate truth), and the one truth is identical to the three truths. Difference is non-difference, and non-difference is difference. It is neither difference nor non-difference, and it is both difference and non-difference.' The realms of all Buddhas fully possess such inconceivable characteristics. Question: Since the text contains both double negation (neither/nor) and double affirmation (both/and), why do we only take the first two phrases to prove difference and non-difference? Answer: One school explains the three truths by pointing them out from either the substance of the Dharma or from wherever they are found. Speaking from the substance of the Dharma, the complete one nature fully possesses the three truths. Therefore, the one nature is without difference, and the difference of the three truths is one and three, like '伊' and '目', hence it is called the inconceivable three truths. Speaking from wherever they are found, in all places, all dharmas are the three truths, just like '即一而三', and pointing out the three truths again, one is emptiness, three is provisional existence, neither three nor one is the Middle Way, which is double negation, and three and one is the Middle Way, which is double illumination. Although the meanings are different when pointing out from the substance of the Dharma and from wherever they are found, both must point to one as non-difference and three as difference. Therefore, the current citation is from the substance of the Dharma. Now, the question is, if the one nature is empty, how can it possess the three truths? Answer: This one nature can both negate and illuminate. Because it can negate, all three truths are negated. Because it can illuminate, all three truths are possessed. However, this one nature is originally neither negation nor illumination, and discussing negation or illumination is inconceivable. Secondly, now continuing from below (in the scripture), generally explaining that both mundane and supramundane dharmas arise from the mind-essence. Divided into two parts: first, revealing the meaning; second, 'therefore' and below, citing arguments. Secondly, continuing again from below (in the scripture), proving that mundane and supramundane dharmas equally rely on the one mind-essence. Divided into two parts: first, citing the scripture; second, 'this is' and below, explaining the meaning. Divided into two parts: first, explaining the meaning according to the scripture, revealing that all Buddhas share the same essence. Second, 'with one' and below, elaborating on the meaning, revealing that sentient beings and Buddhas share the same essence. Divided into two parts: first, revealing the meaning; second, 'why' and below, providing proof. But only mentioning the five paths (五道) and Buddhas, and not mentioning the three vehicles (三乘), is because the three vehicles, relative to the five paths, are also called returning streams, but they are not the same as completely returning to the source. Relative to the perfect and ultimate Buddha, (the three vehicles) are still in the cycle of rebirth, but they are not the same as the five paths. Comprehensively considering these two aspects, the three vehicles are not mentioned. Secondly, explaining the meaning of the different names of the Dharma body (法身) in terms of cause and effect. Divided into three parts: first, stating the chapter; second, explaining; third, concluding the explanation. Again divided into two parts: first, a question.

上言等者。指初圓融法門中曾云以具染性故能現一切眾生等染事。故以此藏為在障。本住法身復具凈性。故能現一切諸佛等凈德。故以此藏為出障。法身若據上文有在障出障之語。今不指者為在第三科中方明。故今但辨眾生諸佛二種法身。然眾生非不在障。諸佛非不出障。今正約能辨所。第三約所辨能。故今文中未明障義。

二答二。初標。有二義者。初義約修染凈召一法身。遂有生佛二法身異。故云以事約體說此二名。次義約性染凈召一法身。遂有生佛二法身異。故云以性約體說此二名。而復云約事辨性者。由已現之事染凈灼然。能具之性冥而無相。故以所現而顯性具。遂乃復云約事辨性。然其初義克從法體。由染凈體體是修故。法性之體體惟一故。全此之一現而為修。即似其修召此之一。遂有染凈二種法身。次之一義隨具詮辨。既然性體能具染凈。故此染凈即名為性。乃約二性以辨一體。遂有生佛二種法身。

二所言下釋二。初以事約體三。初標。二然法下示四。初法二。初因事體殊。二若復下。由體事一。正所謂理之差別因事而殊。事之無差由理而一。文相坦然不復消釋。二譬下喻二。初譬。因事體殊。二若復下喻。由體事一。今此喻文既喻克從法體之義。故不復論鏡有人像體性馬像體性。是故但

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前面所說的『等』字，指的是在最初的圓融法門中曾經說過，因為具有染污的性質，所以能夠顯現一切眾生等染污的事情。因此，把這個藏（Alaya識藏）看作是在障礙之中。本來安住的法身又具有清凈的性質，所以能夠顯現一切諸佛等清凈的功德。因此，把這個藏看作是脫離了障礙。如果說法身按照上文的說法，有在障礙和脫離障礙的說法，現在不指明這一點，是因為要在第三科中才明確說明。所以現在只辨別眾生和諸佛兩種法身。然而眾生並非不在障礙之中，諸佛並非不脫離障礙。現在主要是從能辨別的角度來說，第三科是從所辨別的角度來說能辨別。所以現在的文中沒有明確說明障礙的含義。

二、回答二個問題。首先是標明。有兩種含義：第一種含義是從修染凈的角度來概括一個法身，於是就有了眾生和佛兩種法身的不同。所以說，『以事約體』來說這兩種名稱。第二種含義是從性染凈的角度來概括一個法身，於是就有了眾生和佛兩種法身的不同。所以說，『以性約體』來說這兩種名稱。又說『約事辨性』，是因為已經顯現的事情，染污和清凈非常明顯，而能具有這些性質的本體，卻幽深而沒有形象。所以用所顯現的事物來顯示本體所具有的性質，於是又說『約事辨性』。然而第一種含義是從法體的角度來說的，因為染凈的本體，其本體就是修，法性的本體，其本體只有一個。完全用這一個本體來顯現為修，就好像用修來概括這一個本體，於是就有了染凈兩種法身。第二種含義是隨順所具有的性質來解釋辨別。既然性體能夠具有染污和清凈，那麼這染污和清凈就叫做性。於是用兩種性質來辨別一個本體，於是就有了眾生和佛兩種法身。

二、在『所言下』解釋這兩種含義。首先是從『以事約體』的角度來說，分為三個部分。首先是標明。其次是『然法下』，顯示四點。第一點是法，分為兩部分。第一部分是因事體不同。第二部分是『若復下』，因為體和事是一體的。這正是所謂的理的差別是因為事而不同，事的沒有差別是因為理而相同。文句的含義很明顯，不再進行解釋。第二點是譬喻，分為兩部分。第一部分是譬喻，因事體不同。第二部分是『若復下』，譬喻由於體和事是一體的。現在這個譬喻的文句，既然是譬喻從法體的角度來說的含義，所以不再討論鏡子有人像的體性，馬像的體性。因此只是……

【English Translation】 English version: The 'etc.' mentioned above refers to what was said in the initial perfect and harmonious Dharma gate, that because it possesses defiled nature, it can manifest all sentient beings and other defiled matters. Therefore, this store (Alaya consciousness) is regarded as being in obstruction. The originally abiding Dharmakaya also possesses pure nature, so it can manifest all Buddhas and other pure virtues. Therefore, this store is regarded as being free from obstruction. If the Dharmakaya, according to the above text, has the terms 'in obstruction' and 'free from obstruction,' the reason for not specifying it now is that it will be clearly explained in the third section. Therefore, now only the two types of Dharmakaya, sentient beings and Buddhas, are distinguished. However, sentient beings are not not in obstruction, and Buddhas are not not free from obstruction. Now, it is mainly from the perspective of what can be distinguished, and the third section is from the perspective of what is distinguished to distinguish what can be distinguished. Therefore, the meaning of obstruction is not clearly explained in the current text.

Second, answering two questions. First, the heading. There are two meanings: The first meaning is to summarize one Dharmakaya from the perspective of cultivating defilement and purity, and thus there are differences between the two Dharmakayas of sentient beings and Buddhas. Therefore, it is said that 'using phenomena to define the essence' to describe these two names. The second meaning is to summarize one Dharmakaya from the perspective of the nature of defilement and purity, and thus there are differences between the two Dharmakayas of sentient beings and Buddhas. Therefore, it is said that 'using nature to define the essence' to describe these two names. It is also said 'using phenomena to discern nature' because the manifested phenomena, defilement and purity, are very clear, while the essence that possesses these qualities is profound and without form. Therefore, the manifested phenomena are used to reveal the nature that possesses them, and thus it is said 'using phenomena to discern nature'. However, the first meaning is from the perspective of the Dharma essence, because the essence of defilement and purity is cultivation, and the essence of Dharma nature is only one. Completely using this one essence to manifest as cultivation is like using cultivation to summarize this one essence, and thus there are two types of Dharmakaya, defilement and purity. The second meaning is to explain and distinguish according to the possessed qualities. Since the nature essence can possess defilement and purity, then this defilement and purity is called nature. Thus, two natures are used to discern one essence, and thus there are two types of Dharmakaya, sentient beings and Buddhas.

Second, 'Below what is said' explains these two meanings. First, from the perspective of 'using phenomena to define the essence', it is divided into three parts. First, the heading. Second, 'However, the Dharma below' shows four points. The first point is the Dharma, divided into two parts. The first part is because the essence of phenomena is different. The second part is 'If again below', because the essence and phenomena are one. This is exactly what is called the difference in principle is due to the difference in phenomena, and the absence of difference in phenomena is due to the sameness of principle. The meaning of the sentences is very clear and will not be explained further. The second point is the analogy, divided into two parts. The first part is the analogy, because the essence of phenomena is different. The second part is 'If again below', the analogy is because the essence and phenomena are one. Now, since this analogy sentence is an analogy from the perspective of the Dharma essence, it no longer discusses the essence of the image of a person in the mirror, or the essence of the image of a horse. Therefore, it only...

云人像體鏡馬像體鏡。三凈心下合。四以是下辨意二。初正辨。二以常下引證。文云常別者。正指修事不同。下文性別之別。法體雖同從義異故。文云不度生者。佛既無生可度。而其佛者亦自無佛可成。于度生中無生可度。非謂不度。成佛亦然。三此明下結。

二所言下。約事辨性。以性約體說二法身四。初標。二所謂下示三。初示約事辨性。有染有凈以現顯具者。性若不具即不能現。是故約現以顯性具。然具現之義。性事論之亦不一途。若約真無俗有。性不名具。事則曰具。第一義中一法叵得。世諦之中具足諸法。具即是假亦此意也。若約性頓事變。性則曰具。事則曰現。故今文中論二性時皆受具名。語二事時悉從現目。若約具無別具全具于現。是故事現亦名為具。現無別現全現於具。是故性具亦名為現。然去就之義雖爾。究竟之意如何。應了具之名者體本從性。體若非性如何萬法一時頓足。現之名者。體本從事。體若非事。如何萬法次第漸現。良由此事為性所具。以能召所。故事亦名具。良由此效能現於事。以所召能。故性亦名現。正如今文以此真心能現凈事。乃以真性名之為現。然此真性體非是現。以所現事召能現性。故性亦名現。問。何謂真性體非是現。答。以喻曉之。如鏡現像。是像現耶。是鏡現耶

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云人像體鏡（云，人像，體，鏡，馬，像，體，鏡）。三種清凈心相應。四，以下辨別意義二。首先是正面辨別。其次是以『常』字開頭引證。文中的『常別』，正是指修行方式不同。下文是性別的差別。法體雖然相同，但從意義上有所不同，所以說『常別』。文中的『不度生者』，佛既然沒有生死可度，那麼成佛這件事本身也就沒有佛可成。在度化眾生之中，沒有生死可度，並非說不度化。成佛也是如此。三，『此明下結』，總結上文。

二，『所言下』，從現象上辨別自性。以自性來概括本體，說明二法身。四，首先是標明。二，『所謂下』，展示三。首先展示從現象上辨別自性，有染有凈，以顯現來顯示具備。自性如果不具備，就不能顯現。所以通過顯現來顯示自性具備。然而具備和顯現的意義，從自性和現象的角度來說也不盡相同。如果從真無俗有的角度來說，自性不能稱為具備，現象則可以說是具備。在第一義中，一法都不可得。在世俗諦中，具足一切法。『具』就是假，也是這個意思。如果從自性頓悟，現象漸變的角度來說，自性則可以說是具備，現象則可以說是顯現。所以現在文中所說的兩種自性，都接受『具』這個名稱。說到兩種現象時，都從『現』字著眼。如果從具備無別，具備完全顯現於現象的角度來說，所以現象顯現也可以稱為具備。現象無別，現象完全顯現於具備，所以自性具備也可以稱為顯現。然而取捨的意義雖然如此，究竟的意義是什麼呢？應該明白『具』這個名稱，本體本來是從自性而來。本體如果不是自性，如何能使萬法一時頓足？『現』這個名稱，本體本來是從現象而來。本體如果不是現象，如何能使萬法次第漸現？正是因為這種現象為自性所具備，以能召所，所以現象也稱為具備。正是因為這種自效能顯現於現象，以所召能，所以自性也稱為顯現。正像現在文中所說，以這個真心能顯現清凈的事物，就以真性稱之為顯現。然而這個真性本體並非是顯現，以所顯現的事物來召感能顯現的自性，所以自性也稱為顯現。問：什麼叫做真性本體並非是顯現？答：用比喻來說明。如鏡子顯現影像，是影像顯現呢？還是鏡子顯現呢？

【English Translation】 English version: 『Yun ren xiang ti jing ma xiang ti jing』 (Clouds, human image, body, mirror, horse, image, body, mirror). Three pure minds are in accordance. Four, the following distinguishes meaning two. First, the correct distinction. Second, starting with 『Chang』 to cite evidence. The 『Chang bie』 (constant difference) in the text refers precisely to the different ways of cultivation. The following text refers to the difference in gender. Although the Dharma body is the same, it differs in meaning, hence 『Chang bie』. The 『Bu du sheng zhe』 (those who do not liberate beings) in the text means that since the Buddha has no birth and death to liberate, then the attainment of Buddhahood itself has no Buddha to attain. In the liberation of beings, there is no birth and death to liberate, which does not mean not liberating. The same applies to attaining Buddhahood. Three, 『Ci ming xia jie』 (this clarifies the conclusion below), summarizing the above.

Two, 『Suo yan xia』 (what is said below), distinguishes nature from phenomena. Using nature to summarize the essence, explaining the two Dharmakayas. Four, first is the indication. Two, 『Suo wei xia』 (the so-called below), shows three. First, it shows distinguishing nature from phenomena, with defilement and purity, using manifestation to show completeness. If nature is not complete, it cannot manifest. Therefore, completeness of nature is shown through manifestation. However, the meaning of completeness and manifestation is not the same from the perspective of nature and phenomena. If from the perspective of true emptiness and conventional existence, nature cannot be called complete, but phenomena can be said to be complete. In the first meaning, one Dharma is unattainable. In the mundane truth, all Dharmas are complete. 『Complete』 is false, which is also the meaning here. If from the perspective of sudden enlightenment of nature and gradual change of phenomena, nature can be said to be complete, and phenomena can be said to be manifestation. Therefore, the two natures mentioned in the text now all accept the name 『complete』. When speaking of the two phenomena, they all focus on the word 『manifestation』. If from the perspective of completeness without difference, completeness fully manifesting in phenomena, then the manifestation of phenomena can also be called completeness. Phenomena without difference, phenomena fully manifesting in completeness, so the completeness of nature can also be called manifestation. However, although the meaning of acceptance and rejection is like this, what is the ultimate meaning? It should be understood that the name 『complete』 comes from nature. If the essence is not nature, how can all Dharmas be fully present at once? The name 『manifestation』 comes from phenomena. If the essence is not phenomena, how can all Dharmas gradually manifest in sequence? It is precisely because this phenomenon is complete in nature, using the able to summon the summoned, so the phenomenon is also called complete. It is precisely because this nature can manifest in phenomena, using the summoned to summon the able, so nature is also called manifestation. Just as the text now says, using this true mind to manifest pure things, the true nature is called manifestation. However, this true nature is not manifestation, using the manifested things to summon the manifesting nature, so nature is also called manifestation. Question: What is meant by the true nature not being manifestation? Answer: Explain with a metaphor. Like a mirror reflecting an image, is it the image that manifests? Or is it the mirror that manifests?

。若謂鏡現者。有像之時亦是一明。無像之時亦是一明。何謂鏡現。故知現之當體體是于像。但以鏡明能現此像。故云鏡現。然事得名具。義實難曉。請以現義反而顯之。若得此義。性事對名具現者。各從自分之功。性事通名具現者。乃約相從為目。問。向云萬法次第漸現。豈無頓現。答。才云頓現。此現同具。良由頓故。例如於具。才云漸具。此具同現。良由漸故。問。云三千者。為從具說。為從現說。答。若各取自分之功。理則為具。事則為現。具無別具乃具于現。現無別現乃現於具。是以具現不虧方成三千。故才云三千者必蕰具現。此則攝無不遍也。若約相從之義。以現從具故俱名具。則成理具三千也。以具從現故俱名現。則成事現三千也。是以具現各是三千。此則趣無不極也。問。以性為能現。事為所現。現既同造。應性是能造。事是所造。何故。曾云事是能造。理是所造。答。造之為義且不一途。就事自論。心是能造。法是所造。事理對論乃有二向。從理立事則理能事所。造是遷變則事能理所。例如談具。理頓諸法則理能事所。體為相隱則事能理所。問。四明以分能所者為造。泯能所者為具。其說如何。答。其說甚善。得法體故。以具體是性。性則融一。造體是事。事則殊分。問。義若甚善。今何頻言能具

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果說鏡子顯現萬物，有影像的時候，鏡子是明亮的，沒有影像的時候，鏡子也是明亮的，那又何謂鏡子顯現呢？所以要知道，顯現的當下，其本體就是影像。只是因為鏡子的明亮能夠顯現這些影像，所以才說是鏡子顯現。然而，事物得到名稱是具備條件的，但其意義實際上難以理解。請用顯現的意義反過來闡釋它。如果理解了這個意義，那麼從各自本分的功能來說，『性』（指本體）和『事』（指現象）相對而言，都具備顯現的功能；而『性』和『事』通稱都具備顯現的功能，則是從相互依存的角度來命名的。問：之前說萬法次第漸次顯現，難道沒有頓然顯現的情況嗎？答：一旦說是頓然顯現，這種顯現就同時具備一切。正因為是頓然，所以類似於具備一切。一旦說是漸次具備，這種具備就同時顯現一切。正因為是漸次，所以類似於顯現一切。問：所說的『三千』，是從具備的角度來說，還是從顯現的角度來說？答：如果各自取其本分的功能，從道理上來說就是具備，從現象上來說就是顯現。具備沒有離開顯現而單獨具備，而是具備于顯現之中；顯現沒有離開具備而單獨顯現，而是顯現於具備之中。因此，具備和顯現都不虧缺，才能成就三千。所以，一旦說『三千』，必然蘊含著具備和顯現，這就涵蓋了無所不遍。如果從相互依存的意義來說，因為顯現依從於具備，所以都稱為具備，那就成就了理具三千。因為具備依從於顯現，所以都稱為顯現，那就成就了事現三千。因此，具備和顯現各自都是三千，這就達到了無所不至。問：以『性』作為能顯現者，『事』作為所顯現者，顯現既然是共同創造的，那麼『性』應該是能創造者，『事』應該是所創造者。為什麼之前又說『事』是能創造者，『理』是所創造者？答：『造』這個詞的意義並非只有一種。就『事』自身而言，心是能創造者，法是所創造者。如果從『事』和『理』相對而言，則有兩種方向：從『理』確立『事』，那麼『理』是能創造者，『事』是所創造者；如果『造』是遷變的意思，那麼『事』是能創造者，『理』是所創造者。例如談論『具』，從『理』頓現諸法來說，『理』是能創造者，『事』是所創造者；從本體被現象所遮蔽來說，『事』是能創造者，『理』是所創造者。問：四明智者（指四明知禮）以區分能所作為『造』，泯滅能所作為『具』，這種說法如何？答：這種說法非常好，因為它抓住了法的本體。因為『具』的本體是『性』，『性』則是融合爲一的；『造』的本體是『事』，『事』則是千差萬別的。問：如果這個意義非常好，那為什麼現在又頻繁地說『能具』呢？

【English Translation】 English version If it is said that a mirror manifests things, when there is an image, the mirror is bright, and when there is no image, the mirror is also bright. Then what is meant by the mirror's manifestation? Therefore, it should be known that the very essence of manifestation is the image itself. It is only because the brightness of the mirror can manifest these images that it is said to be a mirror's manifestation. However, the naming of things is conditional, but their meaning is actually difficult to understand. Please use the meaning of manifestation to explain it in reverse. If this meaning is understood, then in terms of their respective functions, '性' (xìng) (nature, essence) and '事' (shì) (phenomena, events) are both capable of manifestation; and the common name of '性' and '事' both having the function of manifestation is named from the perspective of mutual dependence. Question: Earlier it was said that all dharmas manifest gradually in sequence. Is there no sudden manifestation? Answer: Once it is said to be a sudden manifestation, this manifestation simultaneously possesses everything. Precisely because it is sudden, it is similar to possessing everything. Once it is said to be gradual possession, this possession simultaneously manifests everything. Precisely because it is gradual, it is similar to manifesting everything. Question: The 'three thousand' that is spoken of, is it from the perspective of possession or from the perspective of manifestation? Answer: If each takes its own function, then in terms of principle, it is possession; in terms of phenomena, it is manifestation. Possession does not possess separately from manifestation, but possesses within manifestation; manifestation does not manifest separately from possession, but manifests within possession. Therefore, possession and manifestation are not lacking, and only then can the three thousand be accomplished. Therefore, once 'three thousand' is spoken of, it necessarily contains possession and manifestation, which covers everything without exception. If from the meaning of mutual dependence, because manifestation depends on possession, they are both called possession, then the 理具三千 (lǐ jù sānqiān) (three thousand realms inherent in principle) is accomplished. Because possession depends on manifestation, they are both called manifestation, then the 事現三千 (shì xiàn sānqiān) (three thousand realms manifested in phenomena) is accomplished. Therefore, possession and manifestation are each three thousand, which reaches everything without limit. Question: Taking '性' as the one who can manifest and '事' as the one who is manifested, since manifestation is jointly created, then '性' should be the creator and '事' should be the created. Why was it said earlier that '事' is the creator and '理' is the created? Answer: The meaning of '造' (zào) (create, make) is not just one. In terms of '事' itself, the mind is the creator and the dharma is the created. If '事' and '理' are discussed in relation to each other, then there are two directions: from '理' establishing '事', then '理' is the creator and '事' is the created; if '造' means change, then '事' is the creator and '理' is the created. For example, when discussing '具' (jù) (possession), from '理' suddenly manifesting all dharmas, '理' is the creator and '事' is the created; from the essence being obscured by phenomena, '事' is the creator and '理' is the created. Question: Siming Zhili (四明知禮) (referring to the Buddhist monk Zhili of Siming) takes distinguishing between the able and the object as '造' and obliterating the able and the object as '具'. What about this statement? Answer: This statement is very good because it grasps the essence of the dharma. Because the essence of '具' is '性', and '性' is fused into one; the essence of '造' is '事', and '事' is diverse. Question: If this meaning is very good, then why is '能具' (néng jù) (able to possess) frequently mentioned now?

所具。答。以具旨難明。固先以能所之義照其說。使見其旨。若見其旨。能所之義任運不分。

二以本下示。以性約體有二法身。應知性本惟一。以此一性具修染故名為染性。以此染性約於一性是故名為眾生法身。以此一性具修凈故名為凈性。以此凈性約於一性是故為諸佛法身。問。染凈二性。性之一字與法身何殊。答。體同義異。以體同故。皆是一性。以義異故。法身是體。二性是用。問。若云性本惟一由具修中染凈故云二性者。若爾。祇須談現何須說具。答。若但說現。惟見染凈本無今有。不見一性圓頓之功。問。前以事約體但語其現。非圓頓耶。答。文意實圓。以由文云彼事亦即平等一味。又云常同常別法界法門。此二科意例如圓教修性離合。若合性三俱名正因。全此正因起為修二。如以事約體但語法身能現凡聖。若離性緣了。全此緣了起為二修。如約事辨性乃語二效能現染凈。問。前云初科是克從法體。若約三因言之。例且應云祇是一性二修。此義與別何殊。答。一者別教不即正因為二修故。二者別教一性不能具緣了故。今雖克從法體名曰一性。而此法體是具德之法體。即緣了之正因。故與別殊。問。別談性三義復如何。答。一者修德。種子無始有故。對於今有且名為性。二者緣了。依性而住且名為性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：'所具'（所包含的）是什麼意思？答：因為'具'（包含）的旨意難以明白，所以先用能和所的意義來闡明它的說法，使人明白它的旨意。如果明白了它的旨意，能和所的意義自然而然地就不分開了。

二、用'本'（根本）來顯示。從'性'（自性）的角度來說，'體'（本體）有二法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法身）。應該知道，自性本來只有一個。因為這一自性包含修習染污，所以叫做染性（不清凈的自性）。因為這染性依於一性，所以叫做眾生法身（一切眾生的法身）。因為這一自性包含修習清凈，所以叫做凈性（清凈的自性）。因為這凈性依於一性，所以叫做諸佛法身（諸佛的法身）。問：染凈二性，'性'（自性）這個字與法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法身）有什麼區別？答：本體相同，意義不同。因為本體相同，所以都是一性。因為意義不同，法身是體（本體），二性是用（作用）。問：如果說自性本來只有一個，因為包含修習中的染凈，所以說是二性，那麼，只需要談論'現'（顯現），何必說'具'（包含）？答：如果只說'現'（顯現），只能看到染凈是本來沒有現在才有的，看不到一性圓頓的功用。問：前面用'事'（現象）來比喻'體'（本體），只是說它的顯現，不是圓頓嗎？答：文意實際上是圓融的。因為文中說彼事也就是平等一味，又說常同常別法界法門。這兩科的意義，例如圓教修性離合。如果合性三者都叫做正因（根本原因），完全以此正因生起為修二（兩種修行）。如果用'事'（現象）來比喻'體'（本體），只是說法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法身）能顯現凡聖。如果離性緣了，完全以此緣了生起為二修（兩種修行）。如果從'事'（現象）來辨別'性'（自性），就說二效能顯現染凈。問：前面說初科是從法體（法的本體）來說的，如果從三因（三種原因）來說，那麼，也應該說只是一性二修（兩種修行），這個意義與別教（與其他宗派的教義）有什麼區別？答：一、別教不以正因為二修（兩種修行）。二、別教一性不能包含緣了（條件和理解）。現在雖然是從法體（法的本體）來說，叫做一性，而這個法體是具德的法體，即緣了的正因（根本原因），所以與別教不同。問：別教談論性三義又如何？答：一、修德（修行的功德），種子無始就有，對於今有且叫做性（自性）。二、緣了（條件和理解），依性（自性）而住且叫做性（自性）。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What does '所具' (suǒ jù, what is contained) mean? Answer: Because the meaning of '具' (jù, contain) is difficult to understand, I will first use the meaning of '能' (néng, capable) and '所' (suǒ, that which is capable of) to clarify its explanation, so that people can understand its meaning. If you understand its meaning, the meaning of '能' (néng, capable) and '所' (suǒ, that which is capable of) will naturally be inseparable.

Second, it is shown by '本' (běn, root). From the perspective of '性' (xìng, nature), '體' (tǐ, substance) has two Dharmakayas (法身, Dharma body of the Buddha). It should be known that nature is originally only one. Because this one nature contains the cultivation of defilement, it is called '染性' (rǎn xìng, defiled nature). Because this defiled nature depends on one nature, it is called the Dharmakaya of sentient beings (眾生法身, the Dharmakaya of all sentient beings). Because this one nature contains the cultivation of purity, it is called '凈性' (jìng xìng, pure nature). Because this pure nature depends on one nature, it is called the Dharmakaya of all Buddhas (諸佛法身, the Dharmakaya of all Buddhas). Question: What is the difference between the word '性' (xìng, nature) in the two natures of defilement and purity and the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body of the Buddha)? Answer: The substance is the same, but the meaning is different. Because the substance is the same, they are all one nature. Because the meaning is different, the Dharmakaya is the substance, and the two natures are the function. Question: If it is said that nature is originally only one, and because it contains defilement and purity in cultivation, it is said to be two natures, then, it is only necessary to talk about '現' (xiàn, manifestation), why say '具' (jù, contain)? Answer: If only '現' (xiàn, manifestation) is said, only the defilement and purity that were originally non-existent but now exist can be seen, and the perfect and sudden function of one nature cannot be seen. Question: Is it not perfect and sudden that the '事' (shì, phenomena) is used to compare the '體' (tǐ, substance) in front, but only its manifestation is mentioned? Answer: The meaning of the text is actually harmonious. Because the text says that the matter is also equal and of one taste, and it also says that the Dharmadhatu (法界, Dharma Realm) and Dharma doors are always the same and always different. The meaning of these two subjects is like the separation and combination of cultivation and nature in the perfect teaching. If the three are combined, they are all called the '正因' (zhèng yīn, direct cause), and the entire direct cause arises as two cultivations. If '事' (shì, phenomena) is used to compare '體' (tǐ, substance), only the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body of the Buddha) can manifest the ordinary and the holy. If the nature is separated from the conditions and understanding, the entire condition and understanding arise as two cultivations. If '事' (shì, phenomena) is used to distinguish '性' (xìng, nature), it is said that the two natures can manifest defilement and purity. Question: It was said earlier that the first subject is from the perspective of the Dharma body (法的本體), if it is said from the perspective of the three causes (三種原因), then, it should also be said that there is only one nature and two cultivations (兩種修行), what is the difference between this meaning and the other teachings (別教, other schools of thought)? Answer: First, the other teachings do not take the direct cause as the two cultivations. Second, the one nature of the other teachings cannot contain the conditions and understanding. Now, although it is said from the perspective of the Dharma body (法的本體), it is called one nature, and this Dharma body is a Dharma body with virtues, that is, the direct cause of the conditions and understanding, so it is different from the other teachings. Question: How about the other teachings talking about the meaning of the three natures? Answer: First, the merit of cultivation (修行的功德), the seeds have existed since the beginning, and for the present existence, it is called nature. Second, the conditions and understanding, residing in nature, are also called nature.

。由非即具故與圓殊。問。克從法體性德緣了體是于修者。若論合時。性之緣了歸修緣了耶。答。離合之義且非一途。若約法體論離合者。實如所問。若約具德論離合者。性德緣了歸性正因。由此方彰是性具德。

三若廢下。示直從心體惟一法身。若廢二性之能者。能之一字指於二性。以此二效能現二事。今廢能現即是廢于染凈一性。若云但廢二事者。文須應廢二性之所。或曰且置於二效能現之義。故云廢一性之能。其實二性不廢。今曰二性若不廢者。何云心體非染凈非凈。又染凈二性正是性用。若不廢者何云以論心體。又上文若不廢者。下文何云依此平等法身有染凈性。問。性可廢耶。答。克從法體。性不可廢。染凈可廢。性可廢者由染凈故。故云廢二性之能染凈。不可廢者功由性故。故云佛有性惡。生有性善。若得此旨諸文了然。文云圓融平等不可名目者。然作此說名目已彰。此乃如來究極之處。而南嶽．智者修證之本。然於此性豈得以染凈諸法決不可亡乎。亦豈得謂染凈諸法而決可亡乎。由其可亡者情也。染凈諸法即情矣。其不可亡者性也。染凈諸法復可即性矣。所謂染凈諸法即情者。由情可思議矣。若其不得而思。豈得謂之染凈耶。而諸文指百界千如為不可思議者。由百界千如即此故。故得名為不可思

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為不是完全具備，所以與圓教不同。問：如果從法體、性德、緣了來理解體性，那麼在修行時，性德的緣和了是否歸於修行的緣和了呢？答：離合的意義並非只有一種。如果從法體的角度討論離合，確實如你所問。如果從具備德行的角度討論離合，性德的緣和了歸於性正因。由此才能彰顯這是性具德。\ 三、如果廢除下文，就表明直接從心體出發，只有一個法身。如果廢除二性的作用，『能』字指的是二性。因為這二效能顯現兩種事物。現在廢除能現，就是廢除染凈的其中一種性質。如果說只是廢除兩種事物，那麼文句應該說廢除二性『的』所。或者說，暫且擱置二效能現的意義，所以說廢除一種性質的作用。實際上二性並沒有被廢除。現在說二性如果沒有被廢除，為什麼說心體不是染凈也不是清凈呢？而且染凈二性正是性用。如果不廢除，為什麼要討論心體呢？而且上文如果不廢除，下文為什麼說依據這種平等法身有染凈性呢？問：性質可以廢除嗎？答：從法體的角度來說，性質不可廢除。染凈可以廢除。性質可以廢除是因為染凈的緣故。所以說廢除二性中染凈的作用。不可廢除是因為功德源於性質。所以說佛有性惡，眾生有性善。如果理解了這個宗旨，所有文句就都清楚了。文句說圓融平等不可名狀，然而這樣說就已經表達出來了。這是如來探究的終極之處，也是南嶽、智者修證的根本。然而對於這種性質，難道可以用染凈諸法來決定它一定不會消失嗎？難道可以認為染凈諸法一定可以消失嗎？因為可以消失的是情，染凈諸法就是情。不可消失的是性，染凈諸法又可以即是性。所謂染凈諸法即是情，是因為情可以思議。如果不能思議，怎麼能說是染凈呢？而諸文指出百界千如是不可思議的，因為百界千如就是這個，所以才能被稱為不可思議。

【English Translation】 English version: Because it is not fully equipped, it is different from the perfect teaching (圓教). Question: If we understand the nature of the substance from the Dharma body (法體), inherent virtue (性德), and conditioning and understanding (緣了), then when practicing, do the conditioning and understanding of the inherent virtue return to the conditioning and understanding of practice? Answer: The meaning of separation and combination is not just one way. If we discuss separation and combination from the perspective of the Dharma body, it is indeed as you asked. If we discuss separation and combination from the perspective of possessing virtues, the conditioning and understanding of inherent virtue return to the inherent primary cause (性正因). Only in this way can it be shown that this is the virtue inherent in nature (性具德). Third, if the following is discarded, it indicates that directly from the mind-essence (心體), there is only one Dharma body (法身). If the function of the two natures (二性) is discarded, the word 'function' refers to the two natures. Because these two natures can manifest two things. Now, discarding the ability to manifest is discarding one of the natures of defilement and purity (染凈). If it is said that only two things are discarded, then the sentence should say that the 'of' of the two natures is discarded. Or, let's put aside the meaning of the two natures being able to manifest, so it is said that the function of one nature is discarded. In fact, the two natures are not discarded. Now, if the two natures are not discarded, why is it said that the mind-essence is neither defiled nor pure? Moreover, the two natures of defilement and purity are precisely the function of nature (性用). If they are not discarded, why discuss the mind-essence? Moreover, if the above is not discarded, why does the following say that based on this equal Dharma body, there is the nature of defilement and purity? Question: Can nature be discarded? Answer: From the perspective of the Dharma body, nature cannot be discarded. Defilement and purity can be discarded. Nature can be discarded because of defilement and purity. Therefore, it is said that the function of defilement and purity in the two natures is discarded. What cannot be discarded is because merit comes from nature. Therefore, it is said that Buddhas have inherent evil (性惡), and sentient beings have inherent good (性善). If you understand this principle, all the sentences will be clear. The sentence says that perfect fusion and equality cannot be named, but saying this has already expressed it. This is the ultimate place explored by the Tathagata (如來), and the foundation of practice and realization of Nan Yue (南嶽) and Zhi Zhe (智者). However, for this nature, can we use the defiled and pure dharmas to determine that it will definitely not disappear? Can we think that the defiled and pure dharmas can definitely disappear? Because what can disappear is emotion (情), and the defiled and pure dharmas are emotion. What cannot disappear is nature (性), and the defiled and pure dharmas can also be identical to nature. The so-called defiled and pure dharmas are emotion because emotion can be conceived. If it cannot be conceived, how can it be said to be defiled and pure? And the texts point out that the one hundred realms and one thousand suchnesses (百界千如) are inconceivable because the one hundred realms and one thousand suchnesses are this, so they can be called inconceivable.

議矣。或曰不可思議者以偏言之。但非三教之可思議。豈復非圓。以因言之。但非等覺之可思議。豈復非佛。今謂不然。所以名圓名佛者。由於此性不得而思議故。故不思議之言佛亦不能思議爾。故凈名疏云。諸佛菩薩亦不思議。下地及一切眾生因緣三道。此即絕待不思議也。問。前何故云不可思議者惟佛能知。答。佛能知者。由知此法是不可思議故。問。能知粗耶。答。能即是所。知乃非知。何粗之有。宜以旨了。問。向云由百界千如。即此故故得名不可思議者。豈非意欲顯不思議體體是一性。由此性體圓融無礙。遂使諸法即是此性。以即是此性故所以諸法法法圓融名不思議。作此建意還有何據。答。凈名玄文彼云。問何等是不思議。答曰不思議法性猶如虛空。無念無思湛然常寂。入一切諸法悉通達顯現。即是不思議也。入之一字是今建義。明者詳之。復了此入全體是入。非謂入他方為的當。據此一性既不可思議。何故複名為一為性為平等為法身耶。由為眾生作此建名。此名非實。故云凡有言說悉屬於權。但為眾生附世假立。以世間無異相故稱之為一。今亦復然。乃無性相一異之異相故。以世間色心心為諸法之實。故名為心。今亦復然。乃是一切緣生諸心諸法之實。故以世間能為物所依止。故名為平等名為法身。今

【現代漢語翻譯】議論結束。有人說『不可思議』（指無法用思維理解的境界）是片面的說法。難道僅僅是三教（儒教、道教、佛教）所無法思議的嗎？難道不是圓滿的境界嗎？從因的角度來說，難道僅僅是等覺菩薩（接近佛果的菩薩）所無法思議的嗎？難道不是佛的境界嗎？現在我認為不是這樣。之所以稱之為『圓』、稱之為『佛』，是因為這種自性是無法用思維去理解的。所以，『不可思議』這句話，連佛也無法思議。因此，《維摩經疏》中說：『諸佛菩薩也無法思議下地眾生以及一切眾生的因緣和三道（見道、修道、無學道）。』這才是絕對的、不可思議的境界。問題：之前為什麼說『不可思議的境界只有佛才能知曉』？回答：佛之所以能知曉，是因為他知道這種法是不可思議的。問題：能知曉的是粗略的嗎？回答：能知曉的即是所知曉的，知曉本身就是非知曉，哪裡還有粗略可言？應該用心領會。問題：之前說因為『百界千如』（指宇宙萬法的種種差別和不變的真如），所以才被稱為『不可思議』，難道不是想要顯明不可思議的本體就是一性嗎？因為這種自性本體圓融無礙，所以使得諸法即是此性。因為即是此性，所以諸法法法圓融，名為不可思議。這樣建立意義，還有什麼依據嗎？回答：《維摩經玄文》中說：『問：什麼是不思議？答：不思議法性猶如虛空，無念無思，湛然常寂，進入一切諸法，都能通達顯現，這就是不思議。』『入』這個字是現在建立意義的關鍵，明白的人會詳細考察。並且要了解這個『入』是全體的進入，不是說進入其他地方才是正確的。根據這種自性既然不可思議，為什麼又稱之為『一』、『性』、『平等』、『法身』呢？因為是為眾生建立這些名稱。這些名稱並非真實，所以說『凡是有言說，都屬於權巧方便』。只是爲了眾生，依附世間而假立。因為世間沒有異相，所以稱之為『一』。現在也是這樣，乃是沒有性相、一異的異相。因為世間以色心（物質和精神）為諸法的真實，所以稱之為『心』。現在也是這樣，乃是一切緣生諸心諸法的真實。因為世間能夠作為萬物所依止，所以稱之為『平等』、稱之為『法身』。現在也是這樣。 English version: The discussion ends. Someone says that 'inconceivable' (referring to a state beyond the grasp of thought) is a one-sided statement. Is it merely that which the three teachings (Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism) cannot conceive? Is it not the state of perfection? From the perspective of cause, is it merely that which the Bodhisattva of Equal Enlightenment (a Bodhisattva close to Buddhahood) cannot conceive? Is it not the state of the Buddha? Now I think it is not so. The reason why it is called 'perfect' and called 'Buddha' is because this nature cannot be understood by thought. Therefore, the statement 'inconceivable' cannot be conceived even by the Buddha. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary says: 'The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas also cannot conceive of the lower realms of sentient beings and the causes and conditions and the three paths (path of seeing, path of cultivation, path of no more learning) of all sentient beings.' This is the absolute, inconceivable state. Question: Why did you say before that 'only the Buddha can know the inconceivable state'? Answer: The reason why the Buddha can know is because he knows that this Dharma is inconceivable. Question: Is what can be known coarse? Answer: What can be known is what is known, and knowing itself is non-knowing, where is there any coarseness? You should understand it with your heart. Question: Before you said that because of 'the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses' (referring to the various differences and unchanging true nature of all phenomena in the universe), it is called 'inconceivable', is it not intended to show that the essence of the inconceivable is one nature? Because this nature is perfectly harmonious and unobstructed, it makes all dharmas identical to this nature. Because it is identical to this nature, all dharmas are perfectly harmonious, and it is called inconceivable. Is there any basis for establishing this meaning? Answer: The Vimalakirti Sutra Profound Meaning says: 'Question: What is inconceivable? Answer: The inconceivable Dharma-nature is like empty space, without thought or contemplation, serene and always still, entering all dharmas, it can penetrate and manifest, this is inconceivable.' The word 'entering' is the key to establishing meaning now, those who understand will examine it in detail. And you should understand that this 'entering' is the entering of the whole, it is not correct to say that entering other places is correct. According to this nature being inconceivable, why is it also called 'one', 'nature', 'equality', 'Dharmakaya' (Dharma body)? Because these names are established for sentient beings. These names are not real, so it is said that 'all that is spoken belongs to skillful means'. It is only for the sake of sentient beings that it is provisionally established based on the world. Because there is no different appearance in the world, it is called 'one'. It is the same now, it is the different appearance of no nature, no characteristics, no sameness, no difference. Because the world takes form and mind (matter and spirit) as the reality of all dharmas, it is called 'mind'. It is the same now, it is the reality of all minds and all dharmas arising from conditions. Because the world can be relied upon by all things, it is called 'equality' and called 'Dharmakaya'. It is the same now.

【English Translation】 The discussion ends. Someone says that 'inconceivable' (referring to a state beyond the grasp of thought) is a one-sided statement. Is it merely that which the three teachings (Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism) cannot conceive? Is it not the state of perfection? From the perspective of cause, is it merely that which the Bodhisattva of Equal Enlightenment (a Bodhisattva close to Buddhahood) cannot conceive? Is it not the state of the Buddha? Now I think it is not so. The reason why it is called 'perfect' and called 'Buddha' is because this nature cannot be understood by thought. Therefore, the statement 'inconceivable' cannot be conceived even by the Buddha. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary says: 'The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas also cannot conceive of the lower realms of sentient beings and the causes and conditions and the three paths (path of seeing, path of cultivation, path of no more learning) of all sentient beings.' This is the absolute, inconceivable state. Question: Why did you say before that 'only the Buddha can know the inconceivable state'? Answer: The reason why the Buddha can know is because he knows that this Dharma is inconceivable. Question: Is what can be known coarse? Answer: What can be known is what is known, and knowing itself is non-knowing, where is there any coarseness? You should understand it with your heart. Question: Before you said that because of 'the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses' (referring to the various differences and unchanging true nature of all phenomena in the universe), it is called 'inconceivable', is it not intended to show that the essence of the inconceivable is one nature? Because this nature is perfectly harmonious and unobstructed, it makes all dharmas identical to this nature. Because it is identical to this nature, all dharmas are perfectly harmonious, and it is called inconceivable. Is there any basis for establishing this meaning? Answer: The Vimalakirti Sutra Profound Meaning says: 'Question: What is inconceivable? Answer: The inconceivable Dharma-nature is like empty space, without thought or contemplation, serene and always still, entering all dharmas, it can penetrate and manifest, this is inconceivable.' The word 'entering' is the key to establishing meaning now, those who understand will examine it in detail. And you should understand that this 'entering' is the entering of the whole, it is not correct to say that entering other places is correct. According to this nature being inconceivable, why is it also called 'one', 'nature', 'equality', 'Dharmakaya' (Dharma body)? Because these names are established for sentient beings. These names are not real, so it is said that 'all that is spoken belongs to skillful means'. It is only for the sake of sentient beings that it is provisionally established based on the world. Because there is no different appearance in the world, it is called 'one'. It is the same now, it is the different appearance of no nature, no characteristics, no sameness, no difference. Because the world takes form and mind (matter and spirit) as the reality of all dharmas, it is called 'mind'. It is the same now, it is the reality of all minds and all dharmas arising from conditions. Because the world can be relied upon by all things, it is called 'equality' and called 'Dharmakaya'. It is the same now.

復然能為百界千如所依止故。祇由附世假立是故名目生焉。篤論性體心原。其實不可擬議。若了此名即性。性體既實而真。翻見世間名所召實。實卻成虛。召性之名假卻有實。故曰真諦有名有實。世諦有名無實。然此有無亦為眾生作此說爾。文云。依此平等法身有染凈性等者。即法身一性為染凈二性。以此二性故有凡聖法身之異。

三是故下辨意。

四科簡凡有三重。初問。二答。習成為妄性。不改為真性。然性之為義。或不動。或不改。或實性。或性分。或習成。若以事理而區分者。實性。中性也。不改不動。空性也。性分。俗性也。又不別不對。故其四名皆通三諦。雖有通別。然此四名莫不皆屬理性者也。惟習成屬事。由習成。從緣生。當體性分。約緣生所依。若性分之性亦從當體。故與習成。同皆屬事。又習已成亦云不改。亦云實性。故此諸名通皆屬事。今文且約天然不改故為理性。今以此義評昔具性而非具相之說。可問彼云。具染性者。既即是理性。理是染耶。夫言染者即垢穢之名。理豈垢穢。若云是垢穢性者。今問性之一字性是垢穢耶。猶恐未能曉此問意。今復以四大之性而問之。夫事性者如火熱水濕風動地堅。各各性分相同故。理性者非差別故。今問性具水火。彼必謂之但具水火之性也。今

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：而且（復然）能夠成為百界千如（指諸佛所證悟的百種境界和千種如如不動的真如本性）所依止的基礎。只因爲依附於世俗的假象而建立，所以才有了這些名稱。深入探討其性體的本源，實際上是不可思議的。如果明白了這些名稱就是性，那麼性體就是真實而永恒的。反過來看，世間的名稱所指代的實體，實際上是虛假的。而指代真如本性的名稱，雖然是假立的，卻具有真實的意義。所以說，在真諦的層面，名稱和實體是統一的；在世諦的層面，名稱和實體是分離的。然而，這種有和無的說法，也是爲了適應眾生的理解而作出的權宜之計。經文中說：『依此平等法身（Dharmakaya，諸佛所證的清凈法性之身）有染凈性等』，就是說法身（Dharmakaya）的單一本性，具有染污和清凈兩種屬性。由於這兩種屬性的存在，才有了凡夫和聖人法身（Dharmakaya）的差別。

第三部分，『是故下辨意』，是用來辨別意義的。

第四部分，用四科來簡別凡夫，有三重含義。首先是提問，然後是回答。通過習氣形成的，是虛妄的本性；不改變的，是真實的本性。然而，『性』的含義，有不動、不改、實性、性分、習成等多種。如果從事相和理體的角度來區分，實性是中性的；不改不動是空性；性分是俗性。又因為不分別、不對立，所以這四個名稱都貫通三諦（空諦、假諦、中諦）。雖然有共通和特別之處，但這四個名稱都屬於理性。只有習成屬於事相，因為習成是從因緣而生的，當體性分是依附於因緣而生的。如果性分的『性』也是從當體而來，那麼它就和習成一樣，都屬於事相。而且，已經形成的習氣也可以說是不改變的，也可以說是實性，所以這些名稱都屬於事相。現在經文暫且從天然不改變的角度，將其歸為理性。現在用這個道理來評論過去所說的『具有染性而非具相』的說法。可以反問他們說：『具有染性，既然是理性，那麼理性就是染污的嗎？』所謂染污，就是垢穢的名稱，理性怎麼會是垢穢的呢？如果說是垢穢的本性，那麼現在要問，『性』這個字，『性』是垢穢嗎？恐怕他們還不能理解這個問題的含義。現在再用四大（地、水、火、風）的本性來提問。事相的本性，比如火的熱性、水的濕性、風的動性、地的堅性，各自的性分是相同的。而理性是非差別的。現在問，『性』具有水火，他們一定會說，只是具有水火的本性而已。

【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, it (Furan) can be the basis upon which the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses (referring to the hundred states of enlightenment and the thousand unchanging true suchness natures realized by the Buddhas) rely. It is only because of attachment to worldly illusions that these names are established. Delving deeply into the origin of its nature, it is actually inconceivable. If one understands that these names are the nature, then the nature is real and eternal. Conversely, the entities referred to by worldly names are actually false. However, the names that refer to the true suchness nature, although nominally established, have real meaning. Therefore, it is said that in the realm of the true reality (Paramārtha-satya), names and entities are unified; in the realm of conventional reality (Saṃvṛti-satya), names and entities are separate. However, this statement of existence and non-existence is also a provisional means made to accommodate the understanding of sentient beings. The scripture says: 'Relying on this equal Dharmakaya (the pure Dharma-nature body realized by the Buddhas) there are defiled and pure natures, etc.,' which means that the single nature of the Dharmakaya has both defiled and pure attributes. Due to the existence of these two attributes, there are differences between the Dharmakaya of ordinary beings and the Dharmakaya of sages.

The third part, '是故下辨意', is used to distinguish the meaning.

The fourth part uses the four categories to distinguish ordinary beings, with three levels of meaning. First is the question, then the answer. What is formed through habitual tendencies is the false nature; what does not change is the true nature. However, the meaning of 'nature' has various aspects such as immobility, unchangeability, real nature, nature division, and habitual formation. If we distinguish from the perspective of phenomena and principle, real nature is neutral; unchangeable and immobile is emptiness nature; nature division is conventional nature. Moreover, because it does not differentiate or oppose, these four names all penetrate the three truths (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way). Although there are common and special aspects, these four names all belong to reason. Only habitual formation belongs to phenomena, because habitual formation arises from conditions, and the nature division of the entity depends on the arising of conditions. If the 'nature' of nature division also comes from the entity, then it is the same as habitual formation, both belonging to phenomena. Moreover, habits that have already formed can also be said to be unchanging, and can also be said to be real nature, so these names all belong to phenomena. Now the text temporarily classifies it as reason from the perspective of natural unchangeability. Now use this principle to comment on the past saying of 'having defiled nature but not having characteristics'. You can ask them in return: 'Having defiled nature, since it is reason, then is reason defiled?' The so-called defilement is the name of impurity, how can reason be impure? If it is said to be the nature of impurity, then now ask, the word 'nature', is 'nature' impurity? I am afraid they still cannot understand the meaning of this question. Now ask again using the nature of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind). The nature of phenomena, such as the heat of fire, the wetness of water, the movement of wind, and the solidity of earth, each has the same nature division. And reason is non-differential. Now ask, 'nature' has water and fire, they will definitely say that it only has the nature of water and fire.

復問之。為具水火性分之性。理性之性耶。若云具性分之性者。是則談具非具理性矣。若云具理性之性者。且夫所謂火者必熱水者必濕。理性非熱非濕如何得謂火性水性。未審水火之名為從理性而得。為從事體而彰。若云從事則具事矣。不應云具事之性也。若云從理。理非熱濕何得二名。名必因實。理非熱濕豈得謂之火水者耶。此旨幽隱。自昔牢窮無同彼宗。且以其性而為所具。或曰理性之道不可思議。豈應如此以情卜度。今日每見學者為令窮究三一名體圓具性相義不可通。即便說云不可思議。然此推託自昔有之。如涅槃玄敘他人解芥納須彌云。不知入與不入既是不可思議。那可定判入與不入。章安破云。此亦不可。佛果上地皆是不可思議。盡應不可解。餘者盡言可解。至此一義獨言不知耶。今亦例云。遭人問云如何性具而不具相。即便辨云性具頓常相是變造。且性頓常者亦是不可思議何可辨之。及遭今問理性如何謂熱謂濕。此乃且是不可思議。如何至此云不可辯。若一向以不思議故故不可辯。如何乃云性不具相。如何復難彼云相是變造。性中如何得有此相。彼人通云。既是不可思議之相如何以情卜度。即便笑從。義窮理失乃以不可思議推之。及遭今問性何濕熱。還以不可思議推之。豈非亦是義窮理失。故此推託余患

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：再次提問：所說的『具』，是具備水火的性質（性分）之『性』，還是理性之『性』呢？如果說是具備性質（性分）之『性』，那麼就等於說具備的只是性質，而非理性了。如果說是具備理性之『性』，那麼，所謂火必然是熱的，水必然是濕的。理性既非熱也非濕，又怎麼能說是火性、水性呢？不知道水火的名稱是從理性而來的，還是從事物本身而顯現的？如果說是從事物本身而來，那麼就是具備了事物本身。不應該說是具備事物的『性』。如果說是從理性而來，理性既非熱也非濕，又怎麼會有這兩個名稱呢？名稱必定是根據實際而來的，理性既非熱非濕，怎麼能稱之為火、水呢？這個道理深奧隱晦，自古以來深入研究也沒有與他們宗派相同的結論。姑且以『性』作為『所具』。或者有人說，理性的道理不可思議，怎麼能這樣用情識來揣測呢？現在經常看到學者爲了徹底研究三一（體、名、用）、體圓具（本體、作用、全體）和性相義（體性、現象）無法貫通，就說『不可思議』。然而這種推託自古就有。如同《涅槃經玄義》中，他人解釋芥子納須彌山時說，不知道進入還是沒有進入，既然是不可思議，怎麼能斷定進入還是沒有進入呢？章安大師駁斥說：『這也是不可以的。佛果上地的境界都是不可思議的，難道都應該不可理解嗎？其餘的都說是可以理解的，唯獨這個道理說不知道嗎？』現在也可以這樣說，遇到有人問『為什麼說性具而不具相』，就辯解說『性具是頓常的，相是變造的』。那麼，性頓常也是不可思議的，又怎麼能分辨呢？等到現在問理性怎麼能說是熱的、濕的，這又只是不可思議，怎麼到這裡就說不可分辨了呢？如果一概以『不可思議』的緣故就不可分辨，那麼又怎麼能說『性不具相』呢？又怎麼反駁對方說『相是變造的』，『性中怎麼會有這些相』呢？對方解釋說：『既然是不可思議之相，怎麼能用情識來揣測呢？』於是就笑著順從了。義理窮盡、道理喪失，就用『不可思議』來推脫。等到現在問『性為什麼是濕熱的』，還是用『不可思議』來推脫，豈不是也是義理窮盡、道理喪失嗎？所以這種推脫是後患無窮的。

【English Translation】 English version: Question him again: Is the 『inherence』 (具) referring to the 『nature』 (性) that possesses the characteristics (性分) of water and fire, or the 『nature』 of principle (理性)? If you say it possesses the 『nature』 of characteristics, then you are only talking about possessing characteristics and not principle. If you say it possesses the 『nature』 of principle, then, what is called fire must be hot, and what is called water must be wet. Since principle is neither hot nor wet, how can it be called the nature of fire or the nature of water? I don't know whether the names of water and fire come from principle or are manifested from the things themselves. If you say they come from the things themselves, then it is possessing the things themselves. You should not say it is possessing the 『nature』 of things. If you say it comes from principle, since principle is neither hot nor wet, how can there be these two names? Names must be based on reality. Since principle is neither hot nor wet, how can it be called fire or water? This doctrine is profound and obscure. Since ancient times, in-depth research has not yielded the same conclusions as their sect. Let's take 『nature』 as the 『inherent』. Or someone might say that the principle of reason is inconceivable, how can you speculate with emotions like this? Now, I often see scholars who, in order to thoroughly investigate the three ones (體, 名, 用 - substance, name, function), the complete embodiment (本體, 作用, 全體 - essence, function, totality), and the meaning of nature and phenomena (體性, 現象 - substance and characteristics), cannot connect them, and then say 『inconceivable』. However, this kind of excuse has existed since ancient times. Like in the 『Profound Commentary on the Nirvana Sutra』, when others explain how a mustard seed contains Mount Sumeru, they say that they don't know whether it enters or does not enter. Since it is inconceivable, how can you definitively judge whether it enters or does not enter? Master Zhang'an refuted: 『This is also not acceptable. The realms of the Buddha's fruition are all inconceivable, should they all be incomprehensible? Everything else is said to be understandable, only this doctrine is said to be unknown?』 Now you can also say this: when someone asks 『Why do you say that nature is inherent but does not possess characteristics?』, they argue that 『nature is sudden and constant, and characteristics are fabricated』. Then, the sudden and constant nature is also inconceivable, how can you distinguish it? When asked now how principle can be said to be hot or wet, this is just inconceivable, how can you say it is indistinguishable here? If you always say it is indistinguishable because it is 『inconceivable』, then how can you say that 『nature does not possess characteristics』? How can you refute the other person by saying 『characteristics are fabricated』 and 『how can there be these characteristics in nature』? The other person explains: 『Since it is an inconceivable characteristic, how can you speculate with emotions?』 Then they laugh and comply. When the meaning is exhausted and the principle is lost, they use 『inconceivable』 to excuse themselves. When asked now 『Why is nature wet and hot?』, they still use 『inconceivable』 to excuse themselves. Isn't this also exhausting the meaning and losing the principle? Therefore, this kind of excuse has endless troubles.

學者談具不明。隨心信乎不覺觀縷。其談三一圓融者亦復如是。遭今問云既然是三如何即一。既然是一如何即三。即便答云不可思議。然若還直作此會不可思議者。心境不明趣但仰信。今曰不可思議者直須的的明白絲毫不迷徹究根源。方可粗云不可思議。二故云下引證。三佛性下例釋。經以佛性而非造作。今例染性亦非習成。且從迷覺以分。其實染性是佛。或直以事造三千謂之常住不可破壞者。且夫變造之名如何謂常。荊溪豈不謂常應不變無常非性耶。或曰不可執名。然若不正名。荊溪何不以理為造以事為常。故知事常必由即性。或直以事為無常者。事既即常事豈非常。世間相常如何消解。若相不常必應改云世間性常。

第二重二。初問。二答。然此文云佛性之中有眾生者。是明法效能具諸法。眾生身中有佛性者。此明佛性之體乃為眾生事相所隱。佛性理也。眾生事也。斯乃理具於事。事具于理。若泛而論之應有六句。一者理具事。二者事具理。此二如當文。三理具理。文云真體具足染凈二性。四事具事。文云十方世界內纖塵而不迮。三世時劫入促念而能融。五理具理事。如不空藏具染凈二性辨染凈二事。六事具事理。以理具事理顯之。何者。且事具事者功由理具事故。今理既能具事理。故事亦具事理。如下文

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：學者們談論『具』（指本具之理）時並不明白。他們隨心所欲地相信，卻不覺察細微的觀察。那些談論『三一圓融』的人也是這樣。現在有人問：『既然是三，如何又是一？既然是一，如何又是三？』他們便回答說：『不可思議。』然而，如果只是這樣理解『不可思議』，那就是心境不明，只是盲目地相信。現在說『不可思議』，就必須真正地明白，絲毫不迷惑，徹底地探究根源，才可以勉強說『不可思議』。因此下面引用經文來證明，再用『三佛性』來舉例解釋。經文中說佛性不是造作而成的，現在舉例說明染性也不是後天習成的。且從迷惑和覺悟來區分，其實染性就是佛性。或者直接以事物造作三千世界，說它是常住不變、不可破壞的，那麼，『變造』這個名稱怎麼能說是『常』呢？荊溪大師難道不是說過『常應不變，無常非性』嗎？或者有人說不要執著于名相。然而，如果不正名，荊溪大師為什麼不用『理』來表示造作，用『事』來表示常住呢？所以知道事物常住必定是因為它即是佛性。或者直接認為事物是無常的，既然事物即是常住的，事物怎麼會不是常住的呢？『世間相常』又該如何解釋呢？如果相不是常住的，就應該改為『世間性常』。

第二重分為兩部分。第一部分是提問，第二部分是回答。然而，這段文字說『佛性之中有眾生』，是說明法效能夠具足一切諸法。『眾生身中有佛性』，是說明佛性的本體被眾生的事相所遮蔽。佛性是理，眾生是事。這就是理具於事，事具于理。如果泛泛而論，應該有六句。一是理具事，二是事具理，這兩種情況如本文所說。三是理具理，文中說『真體具足染凈二性』。四是事具事，文中說『十方世界內纖塵而不擁擠，三世時劫入短暫一念而能融合』。五是理具理事，如不空藏具足染凈二性，辨別染凈二事。六是事具事理，用理具事理來顯明它。為什麼呢？因為事具事，是由於理具事的原因。現在理既然能夠具足事理，所以事也具足事理，如下文所說。 English version: Scholars talk about 'Guna' (the inherent principle) without understanding it. They believe according to their whims, without noticing subtle observations. Those who talk about 'Three-in-One Harmony' are also like this. Now someone asks: 'Since it is three, how is it one? Since it is one, how is it three?' They then answer: 'Inconceivable.' However, if one merely understands 'inconceivable' in this way, it is because the mind and state are unclear, and one is just blindly believing. Now, when we say 'inconceivable,' we must truly understand it, without the slightest confusion, thoroughly investigating the root source, then we can barely say 'inconceivable.' Therefore, the following quotes scriptures to prove it, and then uses 'Three Buddha-natures' to exemplify and explain. The scriptures say that Buddha-nature is not created, and now we exemplify that defiled nature is also not acquired. Moreover, distinguishing from delusion and enlightenment, in fact, defiled nature is Buddha-nature. Or directly using things to create the three thousand worlds, saying that it is permanent and indestructible, then how can the name 'created' be called 'permanent'? Didn't Master Jingxi say, 'Permanence should be unchanging, impermanence is not nature'? Or someone says not to be attached to names. However, if names are not rectified, why doesn't Master Jingxi use 'principle' to represent creation and 'things' to represent permanence? Therefore, knowing that the permanence of things must be because it is identical to Buddha-nature. Or directly thinking that things are impermanent, since things are identical to permanence, how can things not be permanent? How should 'the permanence of worldly phenomena' be explained? If phenomena are not permanent, it should be changed to 'the nature of the world is permanent.'

The second section is divided into two parts. The first part is the question, and the second part is the answer. However, this text says 'Within Buddha-nature, there are sentient beings,' which explains that Dharma-nature can fully possess all Dharmas. 'Within the bodies of sentient beings, there is Buddha-nature,' which explains that the essence of Buddha-nature is obscured by the phenomena of sentient beings. Buddha-nature is principle, and sentient beings are phenomena. This is principle inherent in phenomena, and phenomena inherent in principle. If we discuss it generally, there should be six sentences. First, principle inherent in phenomena; second, phenomena inherent in principle, these two situations are as mentioned in this text. Third, principle inherent in principle, the text says 'The true essence fully possesses defiled and pure natures.' Fourth, phenomena inherent in phenomena, the text says 'Within the ten directions of the world, even the finest dust is not crowded, and the kalpas of the three times can merge into a fleeting thought.' Fifth, principle inherent in principle and phenomena, such as the Inexhaustible Treasury possessing both defiled and pure natures, distinguishing between defiled and pure matters. Sixth, phenomena inherent in phenomena and principle, using principle inherent in principle and phenomena to illuminate it. Why? Because phenomena inherent in phenomena is due to the reason of principle inherent in phenomena. Now that principle can fully possess principle and phenomena, therefore phenomena also possess principle and phenomena, as mentioned in the following text.

【English Translation】 English version: Scholars talk about 'Guna' (the inherent principle) without understanding it. They believe according to their whims, without noticing subtle observations. Those who talk about 'Three-in-One Harmony' are also like this. Now someone asks: 'Since it is three, how is it one? Since it is one, how is it three?' They then answer: 'Inconceivable.' However, if one merely understands 'inconceivable' in this way, it is because the mind and state are unclear, and one is just blindly believing. Now, when we say 'inconceivable,' we must truly understand it, without the slightest confusion, thoroughly investigating the root source, then we can barely say 'inconceivable.' Therefore, the following quotes scriptures to prove it, and then uses 'Three Buddha-natures' to exemplify and explain. The scriptures say that Buddha-nature is not created, and now we exemplify that defiled nature is also not acquired. Moreover, distinguishing from delusion and enlightenment, in fact, defiled nature is Buddha-nature. Or directly using things to create the three thousand worlds, saying that it is permanent and indestructible, then how can the name 'created' be called 'permanent'? Didn't Master Jingxi say, 'Permanence should be unchanging, impermanence is not nature'? Or someone says not to be attached to names. However, if names are not rectified, why doesn't Master Jingxi use 'principle' to represent creation and 'things' to represent permanence? Therefore, knowing that the permanence of things must be because it is identical to Buddha-nature. Or directly thinking that things are impermanent, since things are identical to permanence, how can things not be permanent? How should 'the permanence of worldly phenomena' be explained? If phenomena are not permanent, it should be changed to 'the nature of the world is permanent.' The second section is divided into two parts. The first part is the question, and the second part is the answer. However, this text says 'Within Buddha-nature (Fo Xing), there are sentient beings,' which explains that Dharma-nature (Fa Xing) can fully possess all Dharmas. 'Within the bodies of sentient beings, there is Buddha-nature (Fo Xing),' which explains that the essence of Buddha-nature (Fo Xing) is obscured by the phenomena of sentient beings. Buddha-nature (Fo Xing) is principle, and sentient beings are phenomena. This is principle inherent in phenomena, and phenomena inherent in principle. If we discuss it generally, there should be six sentences. First, principle inherent in phenomena; second, phenomena inherent in principle, these two situations are as mentioned in this text. Third, principle inherent in principle, the text says 'The true essence fully possesses defiled and pure natures.' Fourth, phenomena inherent in phenomena, the text says 'Within the ten directions of the world, even the finest dust is not crowded, and the kalpas of the three times can merge into a fleeting thought.' Fifth, principle inherent in principle and phenomena, such as the Inexhaustible Treasury possessing both defiled and pure natures, distinguishing between defiled and pure matters. Sixth, phenomena inherent in phenomena and principle, using principle inherent in principle and phenomena to illuminate it. Why? Because phenomena inherent in phenomena is due to the reason of principle inherent in phenomena. Now that principle can fully possess principle and phenomena, therefore phenomena also possess principle and phenomena, as mentioned in the following text.

云。若真諦攝世諦中一切事相得盡。即世諦中一一事相且攝世諦中一切事相皆盡。然此六義克從法體。惟理具事就法辯義有六不同。何者。且理復具理者。由理因事別故有染凈二性。所以理復具理。且事復具事者。由事即理故此之事復能具事。須約功歸就法二義。事為能具者功歸在理。由就事即理故事能具。若從功歸理為能具。若從就法事為能具。理為所具例此說之。若從功歸事為所具。若從就法理為所具。答文為三。初正答。即理具事事具理二句也。文云法效能生諸法。並云體為相隱者。須當分別。良以具之為言。或指存有為具。或指頓足為具。且存有為具乃同圓中離義。頓足為具乃同圓中即義。今文通二。若以佛性具眾生。但云此明法效能生諸法義。乃同存有曰具。由法性生諸法故。諸法是法性所有。眾生具佛性但云體為相隱。由諸法能隱於法性。既隱法性。故諸法中而有佛性皆從離義。若從即義者。以法性即諸法故。故法性當處頓足諸法。以諸法即法性故。故眾生當處頓具佛性。問。所云頓足之具。是約即者即義必應同具義耶。答。或因即而具。或因具而即。或即即是具。或具即是即。有此不同者。不出體之與義。從體乃即即是具。具即是即。平等妙效能即能具。此之即具不出一性。豈有體殊。但由此性當處便

【現代漢語翻譯】問：如果真諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）能夠包含世諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）中的一切事相，那麼世諦中的每一個事相是否也能包含世諦中的一切事相，以至於全部都包含殆盡？然而，這六種意義是從法體（Dharma-dhātu，法界）的角度來確立的。只有在理體（principle）上具備事相，才能就法（Dharma）來辨明這六種不同的意義。哪六種呢？首先，理體又具備理體，這是因為理體因事相的差別而具有染（defilement）和凈（purity）兩種性質。所以說理體又具備理體。其次，事相又具備事相，這是因為事相即是理體，所以這個事相又能具備其他事相。必須從功歸（attributing merit）和就法（according to Dharma）這兩個角度來理解。事相作為能具備者，其功勞歸於理體。因為就事相即是理體而言，事相能夠具備理體。如果從功歸的角度來說，理體是能具備者；如果從就法的角度來說，事相是能具備者，理體是被具備者。可以依此類推。如果從功歸的角度來說，事相是被具備者；如果從就法的角度來說，理體是被具備者。回答分為三個部分。首先是正面回答，即『理具事，事具理』這兩句話。經文中說『法效能生諸法』，又說『體為相隱』，需要加以區分。因為『具』這個詞，有時指『存有』為具，有時指『頓足』為具。『存有』為具，類似於圓融中的『離』義；『頓足』為具，類似於圓融中的『即』義。現在的經文兼顧了這兩種含義。如果說佛性（Buddha-nature）具備眾生（sentient beings），只是說『此明法效能生諸法義』，這類似於『存有』曰具。因為法性生出諸法，所以諸法是法性所擁有的。眾生具備佛性，只是說『體為相隱』，因為諸法能夠隱藏法性。既然隱藏了法性，所以在諸法中而有佛性，這都屬於『離』義。如果從『即』義來說，因為法性即是諸法，所以法性當下就頓足了諸法。因為諸法即是法性，所以眾生當下就頓具了佛性。問：所說的『頓足』之具，是就『即』而言，那麼『即』的意義是否必然與『具』的意義相同呢？答：或者因為『即』而『具』，或者因為『具』而『即』，或者『即』即是『具』，或者『具』即是『即』。之所以有這些不同，不出于體（essence）和義（meaning）的差別。從體性上來說，『即』即是『具』，『具』即是『即』。平等妙效能『即』能『具』，這種『即』和『具』不離一性（one nature）。豈會有體性的差別呢？只是因為這種體性當下便...

【English Translation】 Q: If the Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth) can encompass all phenomena in the Saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth), then can each individual phenomenon in the Saṃvṛti-satya also encompass all phenomena in the Saṃvṛti-satya, to the point of encompassing everything completely? However, these six meanings are established from the perspective of the Dharma-dhātu (Dharma realm). Only when the principle inherently possesses phenomena can we discuss these six different meanings based on the Dharma. What are these six? First, the principle inherently possesses the principle, because the principle has two natures, defilement and purity, due to the difference in phenomena. Therefore, it is said that the principle inherently possesses the principle. Second, phenomena inherently possess phenomena, because phenomena are identical to the principle, so this phenomenon can inherently possess other phenomena. It is necessary to understand this from the perspectives of attributing merit (功歸) and according to Dharma (就法). When phenomena are the possessor, the merit is attributed to the principle. Because phenomena are identical to the principle, phenomena can possess the principle. If we consider it from the perspective of attributing merit, the principle is the possessor; if we consider it from the perspective of according to Dharma, phenomena are the possessor, and the principle is the possessed. This can be inferred analogously. If we consider it from the perspective of attributing merit, phenomena are the possessed; if we consider it from the perspective of according to Dharma, the principle is the possessed. The answer is divided into three parts. First is the direct answer, which is the two sentences 'principle possesses phenomena, phenomena possesses principle'. The text says 'Dharma-nature can generate all dharmas', and also says 'the substance is hidden by the form', which needs to be distinguished. Because the word 'possess' sometimes refers to 'existence' as possession, and sometimes refers to 'completeness' as possession. 'Existence' as possession is similar to the 'separate' meaning in perfect harmony; 'completeness' as possession is similar to the 'identical' meaning in perfect harmony. The current text takes both meanings into account. If we say that Buddha-nature possesses sentient beings, it only means 'this clarifies the meaning that Dharma-nature can generate all dharmas', which is similar to 'existence' being called possession. Because Dharma-nature generates all dharmas, therefore all dharmas are owned by Dharma-nature. Sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, it only means 'the substance is hidden by the form', because all dharmas can hide Buddha-nature. Since Buddha-nature is hidden, therefore Buddha-nature exists within all dharmas, and this all belongs to the 'separate' meaning. If we consider it from the 'identical' meaning, because Dharma-nature is identical to all dharmas, therefore Dharma-nature immediately and completely possesses all dharmas. Because all dharmas are identical to Dharma-nature, therefore sentient beings immediately and completely possess Buddha-nature. Q: The 'completeness' of 'complete possession' that is mentioned, is it based on 'identity'? Then, is the meaning of 'identity' necessarily the same as the meaning of 'possession'? A: Either 'possession' is because of 'identity', or 'identity' is because of 'possession', or 'identity' is 'possession', or 'possession' is 'identity'. The reason for these differences lies in the difference between essence (體) and meaning (義). From the perspective of essence, 'identity' is 'possession', and 'possession' is 'identity'. The equal and wonderful nature can 'identify' and can 'possess'. This 'identity' and 'possession' are inseparable from one nature. How can there be a difference in essence? It is only because this nature immediately...

是諸法故名為即。當處頓足諸法故名為具。因即是故頓足。因頓足故即是。故可云若不談具即義不成。亦可云若不談即具義不成。此二名之別者乃由義殊。二如說下引喻。然此喻文可證今義。今立義者惟理具事。由理具事故故事具理。祇可色從空起色乃具空。終不可云空由色起空乃具色。如水成波。終不可云如波成水。問。空無別空即色是空。水無別水即波為水。豈不得云空由色起水因波成耶。答。此旨亦難今當精究。若據天然妙性不得而思議者。亦不論諸法法性二名。如不說空之與色水之與波也。因眾生不了迷此妙性而見諸法。則曰法性生於諸法。如空為色如水為波。此之諸法既從法性而生。故於諸法而有法性。如色有空如波有水。此約諸法對法性說。故云生云有也。若約法性望諸法說。故法性即諸法如。即諸水空而為色波。諸法即法性如。即色波而成空水。雖有此二。莫不先由法性為諸法空水為色波。故方可云諸法是法性色波是空水。終不可云先由諸法是法性色波是空水。然後法性是諸法空水是色波。此則正從迷悟相對立教以說。若以天然妙性之體體本不二而收法性諸法者。則法性與諸法無前無後不即不離。如空色水波不可前後亦不異同。但以上義會之。自見諸說有歸。三以是下結。

第三重二。初問。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『是諸法故名為即』，因為一切法都是相互關聯的，所以稱為『即』。『當處頓足諸法故名為具』，在任何一處都圓滿具備一切法，所以稱為『具』。因為『即』，所以才能在任何一處圓滿具備；因為圓滿具備，所以才是『即』。因此可以說，如果不談『具』，『即』的意義就不能成立；也可以說，如果不談『即』，『具』的意義也不能成立。這兩個名稱的區別在於意義不同。下面用比喻來說明，這個比喻可以用來證明現在的意義。現在我們所立的意義是理具事，因為理體圓滿具備一切事，所以事相也圓滿具備理體。只能說色相從空性中生起，色相才具備空性；終究不能說空性由色相生起，空性才具備色相。就像水變成波浪，終究不能說波浪變成水。問：空性沒有離開色相的空性，『即』色相就是空性；水沒有離開波浪的水，『即』波浪就是水。難道不能說空性由色相生起，水因波浪而成嗎？答：這個宗旨也很難理解，現在應當仔細研究。如果按照天然的妙性，不可思議的角度來說，就不討論諸法和法性這兩個名稱，就像不說空和色，水和波一樣。因為眾生不明白，迷惑于這種妙性，而看到諸法，就說『法性生於諸法』，如空爲了色，如水爲了波。這些諸法既然是從法性而生，所以在諸法中才有法性，如色中有空，如波中有水。這是從諸法對法性來說，所以說『生』，說『有』。如果從法性來看諸法，所以法性『即』是諸法，如『即』諸水空而為色波，諸法『即』是法性，如『即』色波而成空水。雖然有這兩種說法，但無不是先由法性成為諸法，空水成為色波，所以才可以云諸法是法性，色波是空水。終究不能說先由諸法是法性，色波是空水，然後法性是諸法，空水是色波。這正是從迷悟相對立的角度來立教說明。如果以天然妙性的本體，體性本來不二，而收攝法性諸法，那麼法性與諸法無前無後，不即不離，如空色水波不可分前後，也不可說異同。但以上述意義來理解，自然會明白各種說法的歸宿。下面總結。第三重分兩部分。首先是提問。

【English Translation】 English version 'It is called 'is' because all dharmas (phenomena, things) are interconnected.' 'It is called 'complete' because all dharmas are fully present in every place.' Because of 'is', it is possible to be fully present in every place; because of being fully present, it 'is'. Therefore, it can be said that if 'completeness' is not discussed, the meaning of 'is' cannot be established; it can also be said that if 'is' is not discussed, the meaning of 'completeness' cannot be established. The difference between these two names lies in the different meanings. The following uses a metaphor to illustrate, and this metaphor can be used to prove the current meaning. The meaning we now establish is that principle (理, li) is complete with phenomena (事, shi), because the principle fully possesses all phenomena, so the phenomena also fully possess the principle. It can only be said that form (色, se) arises from emptiness (空, kong), and form then possesses emptiness; it can never be said that emptiness arises from form, and emptiness then possesses form. Just as water becomes waves, it can never be said that waves become water. Question: Emptiness does not depart from the emptiness of form, 'is' form is emptiness; water does not depart from the water of waves, 'is' waves is water. Can it not be said that emptiness arises from form, and water is formed by waves? Answer: This principle is also difficult to understand, and now it should be carefully studied. If according to the natural wonderful nature, from the perspective of inconceivable, then the two names of dharmas and dharma-nature (法性, faxing) are not discussed, just as emptiness and form, water and waves are not discussed. Because sentient beings do not understand and are confused by this wonderful nature, and see all dharmas, they say 'dharma-nature arises from all dharmas', such as emptiness for form, such as water for waves. Since these dharmas arise from dharma-nature, there is dharma-nature in dharmas, such as emptiness in form, such as water in waves. This is from the perspective of dharmas towards dharma-nature, so it is said 'arises', it is said 'has'. If from the perspective of dharma-nature looking at dharmas, so dharma-nature 'is' dharmas, such as 'is' all water and emptiness to be form and waves, dharmas 'is' dharma-nature, such as 'is' form and waves to become emptiness and water. Although there are these two statements, without exception, dharma-nature first becomes dharmas, and emptiness and water become form and waves, so it can be said that dharmas are dharma-nature, and form and waves are emptiness and water. It can never be said that first dharmas are dharma-nature, and form and waves are emptiness and water, and then dharma-nature is dharmas, and emptiness and water are form and waves. This is precisely from the perspective of the relative establishment of teaching from delusion and enlightenment. If the essence of the natural wonderful nature, the essence is originally non-dual, and collects dharma-nature and dharmas, then dharma-nature and dharmas have no before and after, neither identical nor different, such as emptiness, form, water, and waves cannot be separated before and after, nor can they be said to be different or the same. But understand with the above meaning, and you will naturally see the destination of various statements. The following is a summary. The third section is divided into two parts. The first is the question.

問因向云眾生身中有佛性而起。真如之體雖一。迷悟得名必殊。且上文以諸佛之悟召此真如亦名性凈涅槃。今何不以眾生之迷召此真如名為性染生死。如何卻召為佛性耶。答二。初正答。以本具染性故能生生死。而此染性即是凈性。故復能具于凈性涅槃。既然復具凈性。必有出障之能。今取眾生由染性故。已曾建立生死染法。故不復云有于性染生死。是以但指有于性凈涅槃。意令眾生修出障凈德。故云而有佛性也。文云在纏之實者。實即真如。亦可作其實之實釋之。二若據下辯二。初通立二性。在生在佛二性無[虛*予]。二但名下。偏名佛性二。初示二。初恐濫事染。二又復下。為起凈行。經論語性偏名為凈為佛者。意為起于凈行故也。文為二。初興廢熱惱過也。清涼德也。今論二性特言二事者。意顯事從性成。去過就德必在於凈。二若孤下欣厭。文云愚惑者性本無名具足眾名。雖具眾名名無實體。體全是性。性既圓妙豈定染凈並非染凈。豁然無奇。能了此者依稀識性。不能了此乃聞性染便謂實染遂不羨之。聞有性凈而謂實凈便乃欣之。此畏此欣非惑非愚其謂何耶。問。聞染為惑故不可以染名。若聞凈為愚則何復以凈目。答。名是方便。遂有入實之功。愚是初心。乃有見性之幕。故偏言凈性而誘進之。因幕而求求必

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：因為有人說眾生身中具有佛性而產生的疑問。真如的本體雖然只有一個，但因為迷悟的差別，名稱必然不同。而且上文用諸佛的覺悟來稱呼這個真如，也叫做性凈涅槃（自性清凈的涅槃）。為什麼不可以用眾生的迷惑來稱呼這個真如，叫做性染生死（自性染污的生死）呢？為什麼反而稱作佛性呢？答：分為兩部分。第一部分是正面回答。因為本來就具有染性，所以能夠產生生死。而這個染性也就是凈性。所以又具有凈性涅槃。既然又具有凈性，必定有脫離障礙的能力。現在取眾生因為染性的緣故，已經建立了生死染法，所以不再說具有性染生死。因此只說具有性凈涅槃。意思是讓眾生修習脫離障礙的清凈功德，所以說具有佛性。文中說的『在纏之實』，『實』就是真如。也可以解釋為『其實之實』。第二部分是根據下文來辯論。首先，普遍確立兩種性質：在眾生和在佛的兩種性質沒有差別。其次，在『但名下』，偏稱佛性。首先，是擔心混淆染污的事情。其次，『又復下』，是爲了發起清凈的行為。經典和論典中說『性』偏稱為清凈或佛，是爲了發起清凈的行為的緣故。文分為兩部分。首先，是興盛和廢除熱惱的過失。清涼是功德。現在討論兩種性質特別提到兩件事，意思是顯示事情是從性質成就的，去除過失成就功德必定在於清凈。其次，『若孤下』是欣喜和厭惡。文中說：『愚惑者，性本無名，具足眾名。雖具眾名，名無實體，體全是性。性既圓妙，豈定染凈，並非染凈，豁然無奇。』能夠了解這些的人，依稀認識了自性。不能瞭解這些的人，聽到性染就認為是真實的染污，於是就不羨慕它。聽到有性凈就認為是真實的清凈，於是就欣喜它。這種畏懼和這種欣喜，不是迷惑就是愚蠢，那又是什麼呢？問：聽到染污是迷惑，所以不可以用染污來命名。如果聽到清凈是愚蠢，那又為什麼用清凈來稱呼呢？答：名稱是方便，於是有進入真實之功。愚蠢是初心，於是有見到自性的開端。所以偏說清凈的性質來誘導人們前進。因為有開端而尋求，尋求必定...

【English Translation】 English version Question: This arises from the statement that sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. Although the essence of Suchness (真如, Tathata) is one, the names must differ due to delusion and enlightenment. Moreover, the preceding text uses the enlightenment of all Buddhas to call this Suchness also 'Self-Nature Purity Nirvana' (性凈涅槃, Svabhavavisuddha-nirvana). Why not use the delusion of sentient beings to call this Suchness 'Self-Nature Defilement Samsara' (性染生死, Svabhavasanklista-samsara)? Why is it instead called Buddha-nature? Answer: In two parts. First, the direct answer: Because it inherently possesses defiled nature, it can generate samsara. And this defiled nature is precisely the pure nature. Therefore, it also possesses pure nature Nirvana. Since it also possesses pure nature, it must have the ability to escape obstacles. Now, considering that sentient beings, due to their defiled nature, have already established the defiled dharmas of samsara, it is no longer said that they possess Self-Nature Defilement Samsara. Therefore, it is only pointed out that they possess Self-Nature Purity Nirvana. The intention is to encourage sentient beings to cultivate the pure virtues of escaping obstacles, hence the statement that they possess Buddha-nature. The text 'the reality in entanglement' refers to Suchness, which can also be interpreted as 'the reality of reality'. Second, based on the following text to argue: First, universally establish two natures: the two natures in sentient beings and in Buddhas are without difference. Second, under 'but name', preferentially name Buddha-nature. First, fearing confusion with defiled matters. Second, 'and again below', to initiate pure conduct. The scriptures and treatises say that 'nature' is preferentially called pure or Buddha, for the sake of initiating pure conduct. The text is divided into two parts. First, the fault of flourishing and abolishing the heat of affliction. Coolness is virtue. Now, discussing the two natures and specifically mentioning two matters, the intention is to show that matters are accomplished from nature, and that removing faults and achieving virtues must lie in purity. Second, 'if isolated below' is joy and aversion. The text says: 'The deluded are those whose nature originally has no name but possesses all names. Although possessing all names, the names have no substance; the substance is entirely nature. Since nature is perfect and wondrous, how can it be fixed as defiled or pure, or neither defiled nor pure, but is open and without peculiarity?' Those who can understand this vaguely recognize their nature. Those who cannot understand this, upon hearing of Self-Nature Defilement, immediately think it is real defilement and thus do not envy it. Upon hearing of Self-Nature Purity, they immediately think it is real purity and thus rejoice in it. This fear and this joy, if not delusion, then what is it? Question: Hearing of defilement is delusion, so it cannot be named defilement. If hearing of purity is foolishness, then why call it purity? Answer: Names are expedient means, and thus have the merit of entering reality. Foolishness is the initial mind, and thus has the beginning of seeing nature. Therefore, we preferentially speak of pure nature to induce people to advance. Because there is a beginning, one seeks, and seeking will surely...

從師。師必授以性非但凈。性且具染即染是凈。見非染凈方為究極。

三是故下結。諸經論中於佛于生談本性者皆云佛性凈性。然于師祖教門隨順悉檀舉不同名者乃非其一。一者以性對修約無示有。諸佛無修惡有性惡。眾生無修善有性善。如觀音玄文也。二以性對修約有示有。諸佛有凈。眾生有染。如今立難之文也。三以修對性。修則存沒性則常住。修則偏一性則雙存。修偏一者。約一人終始方具染凈二事。性雙存者。如今文云。莫問在障出障得稱為性凈涅槃。併合名性染生死。四以修對性。據法界全體修亦染凈性亦染凈。如下文云。若總據一切凡聖以論出障在障之義。即真如法身於一時中並具在鄣出障二用。修既全具性故可知。五以修對性慾令愚者欣習故。修存染凈性則惟凈。如今結文。六以修對性慾令行者了修即性。見性全具方極圓行。故性談染凈。如荊溪云。忽都未聞性惡之名(點迷則三道流轉也)。安能信有性德之行(點事則修德三因也)。七以修對性克從法體。修則有染有凈。性則非染非凈。如雲廢二性之能惟論心體即非染凈。

三明真體在障出障之理三。初標章。二解釋二。初問。前科問意約能辨所。法身既一何故有因染法身果凈法身。今科問意約所辯能。法身既一何故得有在障出障。由法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

從師學習。老師必定傳授『性』不僅僅是清凈的。『性』也具備染污，即染污就是清凈。認識到非染非凈，才算是達到了究竟的境界。第三是總結。各種經論中，對於佛和眾生談論本性時，都說佛性是清凈的。然而在師父和祖師的教門中，爲了隨順各種根器，使用了不同的名稱，不止一種。第一種是以『性』相對『修』，約略地顯示有。諸佛沒有修惡，但有性惡；眾生沒有修善，但有性善。如《觀音玄文》所說。第二種是以『性』相對『修』，約略地顯示有。諸佛有清凈，眾生有染污。就像現在立論辯難的文句。第三種是以『修』相對『性』。『修』則有存有和消失，『性』則是常住不變。『修』則偏於一方，『性』則是兩者都具備。『修』偏於一方，是說一個人從始至終才具備染凈兩種狀態。『性』兩者都具備，就像現在文中所說：『不要問在障礙中還是脫離障礙，都可以稱為性凈涅槃』，也可以合稱為性染生死。第四種是以『修』相對『性』。從法界整體來看，『修』也有染凈，『性』也有染凈。如下文所說：『如果總的根據一切凡夫和聖人來論述在障礙中和脫離障礙的意義，那麼真如法身在同一時間中，同時具備在障礙中和脫離障礙兩種作用。』『修』既然完全具備，『性』的情況就可以知道了。第五種是以『修』相對，爲了讓愚昧的人喜歡學習，所以『修』存在染凈，而『性』則只有清凈。就像現在總結的文句。第六種是以『修』相對，爲了讓修行者明白『修』就是『性』，認識到『性』完全具備，才達到最圓滿的修行。所以『性』談論染凈。如荊溪所說：『忽然沒有聽過性惡的名稱（點迷就是三道流轉），怎麼能相信有性德的修行（點事就是修德三因）？』第七種是以『修』相對『性』，嚴格地從法體來說，『修』則有染有凈，『性』則非染非凈。如所說廢除二性的作用，只論心體，就是非染非凈。第三部分說明真體在障礙中和脫離障礙的道理，分為三點。第一點是標明章節。第二點是解釋，分為兩點。第一點是提問。前面一科提問的意思是根據能辨別的事物來提問，法身既然是唯一的，為什麼會有作為染法身的原因和作為凈法身的結果？現在這一科提問的意思是根據所辨別的事物來提問，法身既然是唯一的，為什麼會有在障礙中和脫離障礙？由於法...

【English Translation】 English version:

Learn from a teacher. The teacher must impart that 'nature' is not only pure. 'Nature' also possesses defilement, meaning defilement is purity. Recognizing non-defilement and non-purity is considered reaching the ultimate state. The third is the conclusion. In various sutras and treatises, when discussing the inherent nature of Buddhas and sentient beings, it is said that Buddha-nature is pure nature. However, in the teachings of masters and patriarchs, to accord with various capacities, different names are used, not just one. The first is to relate 'nature' to 'cultivation', vaguely indicating existence. Buddhas do not cultivate evil, but have inherent evil; sentient beings do not cultivate good, but have inherent good, as stated in the 'Profound Meaning of Avalokitesvara'. The second is to relate 'nature' to 'cultivation', vaguely indicating existence. Buddhas have purity, sentient beings have defilement, like the sentences now establishing arguments and debates. The third is to relate 'cultivation' to 'nature'. 'Cultivation' has existence and disappearance, while 'nature' is constant and unchanging. 'Cultivation' is biased towards one side, while 'nature' possesses both. 'Cultivation' is biased towards one side, meaning that a person from beginning to end possesses both defilement and purity. 'Nature' possesses both, like the text now saying: 'Do not ask whether in obstruction or out of obstruction, both can be called pure Nirvana of nature', and can also be collectively called defiled birth and death of nature. The fourth is to relate 'cultivation' to 'nature'. From the perspective of the entire Dharma Realm, 'cultivation' also has defilement and purity, and 'nature' also has defilement and purity. As the following text says: 'If generally discussing the meaning of being in obstruction and out of obstruction based on all ordinary beings and sages, then the True Thusness Dharmakaya simultaneously possesses both functions of being in obstruction and out of obstruction.' Since 'cultivation' fully possesses, the situation of 'nature' can be known. The fifth is to relate 'cultivation' to , to make ignorant people like to learn, so 'cultivation' has defilement and purity, while 'nature' only has purity, like the concluding sentences now. The sixth is to relate 'cultivation' to , to make practitioners understand that 'cultivation' is 'nature', and reaching the most perfect cultivation only by recognizing that 'nature' fully possesses. Therefore, 'nature' discusses defilement and purity. As Jingxi said: 'Suddenly not hearing the name of evil nature (pointing to delusion is the cycle of the three paths), how can one believe in the practice of virtuous nature (pointing to affairs is the three causes of cultivating virtue)?' The seventh is to relate 'cultivation' to 'nature', strictly speaking from the Dharma body, 'cultivation' has defilement and purity, while 'nature' is neither defiled nor pure. As said, abolishing the functions of the two natures, only discussing the mind-body, is neither defiled nor pure. The third part explains the principle of the true entity being in obstruction and out of obstruction, divided into three points. The first point is to mark the chapter. The second point is the explanation, divided into two points. The first point is the question. The meaning of the previous section's question is based on the ability to distinguish things, since the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya: the body of the Dharma) is unique, why is there a cause for the defiled Dharmakaya and a result for the pure Dharmakaya? The meaning of this section's question is based on the things being distinguished, since the Dharmakaya is unique, why is there being in obstruction and out of obstruction? Because of the Dharma...

身是所障所出。染凈是能障能出。二答二。初正答前難三。初定名。障與出障有事有性。今惟從事故云心體平等無障不障。並若就二性亦復體融。文云但就染性者。染字恐誤。應云二性方應釋義。所云有障垢之名者。意謂有其障與出障垢與不垢之名。文體從略乃云障垢。恐人見下障垢之言因而改二為染。問。何故今文論障出。惟就事辨不從性耶。答。性之染凈與事染凈體同義異。今從義異不就性辨。何者。由性之染凈既是性故。故體融一味。雖有二名其實一體。不同事中炮然二體。問。曾云事法無體但有其名。今何復云事有二體。答。前豈不云夫言體者有隨名辯體有克實論體。若隨名辯體。事染以生死為體。事凈以涅槃為體。故二體不同。若克實論體。其生死涅槃但是名相。克實而論體是一性。故事法無體。問。既有隨名辨體。且性染性凈二名豈無隨名之體。何故但云事中有體。答。性之染凈名。隨名辨體者。染凈二名名從事得。隨名辨體體還是事。但約義異。以性染凈義異於事故性染凈二名。名下之體體是于性。既是于性性則真實故非二體。所以得云體融一味。如此還成克實論體。問。隨名辨體。克實論體。有所自乎。答。理義既正何必求文。恐不信者。今為證之。荊溪云。立名之法各主所詮。故云對體(此同隨名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本身是所障、所出（指解脫），染凈是能障、能出。這是對之前兩個問題的回答。首先正面回答之前的疑問，分為三點。第一點是確定名稱：『障』與『出障』，有事相上的區分，也有本體上的區分。現在只從事相上來說，心體是平等的，沒有『障』與『不障』的分別。如果從本體上來說，二者也是融合的。文中所說的『但就染性者』，這個『染』字恐怕是錯的，應該說『二性』，這樣才能解釋得通。所說的『有障垢之名』，意思是說有『障』與『出障』、『垢』與『不垢』的名稱。原文爲了簡潔，所以說『障垢』。恐怕有人看到下面的『障垢』二字，就將『二性』改為『染性』。問：為什麼現在討論『障』與『出』，只從事相上辨析，不從本體上辨析呢？答：本體上的染凈與事相上的染凈，本體相同但意義不同。現在是從意義不同來辨析，不從本體上辨析。為什麼呢？因為本體上的染凈既然是本體，所以融合爲一體，雖然有兩個名稱，但實際上是一個整體，不同於事相中截然不同的兩個個體。問：曾經說過事法沒有本體，只有名稱，現在為什麼又說事相有二體呢？答：之前不是說過，所謂『體』，有隨名稱辨析的『體』，也有從真實角度論述的『體』。如果隨名稱辨析，事相上的染以生死為體，事相上的凈以涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫后的境界）為體，所以是兩個不同的體。如果從真實角度論述，生死涅槃都只是名稱，從真實角度來說，本體是一個。所以說事法沒有本體。問：既然有隨名稱辨析的『體』，那麼本體上的染、本體上的凈這兩個名稱，難道沒有隨名稱而來的『體』嗎？為什麼只說事相中有『體』呢？答：本體上的染凈這兩個名稱，隨名稱辨析的『體』，是從事相上得來的。隨名稱辨析的『體』，最終還是事相。只是從意義上來說，本體上的染凈與事相不同，所以本體上的染凈這兩個名稱，名稱之下的『體』是本體。既然是本體，本體就是真實的，所以不是兩個『體』。因此才能說融合爲一體。這樣就變成了從真實角度論述的『體』。問：隨名稱辨析的『體』，從真實角度論述的『體』，有什麼依據嗎？答：道理已經很明確，何必尋找依據？恐怕有人不相信，現在就為之證明。荊溪（指湛然法師，Tang Dynasty Buddhist monk）說：『設立名稱的方法，各自側重於所要表達的內容。』所以說『對體』（這與隨名稱辨析的『體』相同）。

【English Translation】 English version The body is what is obstructed and what emerges (referring to liberation). Defilement and purity are what can obstruct and what can bring forth. This is the answer to the previous two questions. First, a direct answer to the previous doubts, divided into three points. The first point is to define the terms: 'Obstruction' and 'Emergence from Obstruction' have distinctions in terms of phenomena and also in terms of essence. Now, only from the perspective of phenomena, the essence of the mind is equal, without the distinction of 'obstruction' and 'non-obstruction'. If viewed from the perspective of essence, the two are also fused. The text says 'but only in terms of the nature of defilement', the word 'defilement' is probably a mistake, it should be 'two natures', so that it can be explained. What is said 'there is the name of obstructed impurity', means that there are the names of 'obstruction' and 'emergence from obstruction', 'impurity' and 'non-impurity'. The original text is concise, so it says 'obstructed impurity'. It is feared that someone seeing the words 'obstructed impurity' below, will change 'two natures' to 'nature of defilement'. Question: Why is it that now discussing 'obstruction' and 'emergence', only distinguishing from the perspective of phenomena, not from the perspective of essence? Answer: The defilement and purity in essence and the defilement and purity in phenomena, the essence is the same but the meaning is different. Now it is from the difference in meaning that we distinguish, not from the essence. Why? Because the defilement and purity in essence, since it is essence, is fused into one, although there are two names, but in reality it is one whole, unlike the two completely different individuals in phenomena. Question: It was once said that phenomena have no essence, only names, why is it now said that phenomena have two entities? Answer: Didn't you say before that the so-called 'essence' has an 'essence' that is analyzed according to the name, and an 'essence' that is discussed from a realistic perspective. If analyzed according to the name, the defilement in phenomena takes birth and death as its essence, and the purity in phenomena takes Nirvana (Buddhist term, referring to the state after liberation) as its essence, so they are two different essences. If discussed from a realistic perspective, birth and death and Nirvana are just names, from a realistic perspective, the essence is one. So it is said that phenomena have no essence. Question: Since there is an 'essence' that is analyzed according to the name, then the two names of defilement in essence and purity in essence, do they not have an 'essence' that comes with the name? Why only say that there is an 'essence' in phenomena? Answer: The two names of defilement and purity in essence, the 'essence' that is analyzed according to the name, is derived from phenomena. The 'essence' that is analyzed according to the name, is ultimately phenomena. It is only from the meaning that the defilement and purity in essence is different from phenomena, so the 'essence' under the two names of defilement and purity in essence is essence. Since it is essence, essence is real, so it is not two 'essences'. Therefore, it can be said that it is fused into one. This becomes an 'essence' that is discussed from a realistic perspective. Question: Is there any basis for the 'essence' that is analyzed according to the name, and the 'essence' that is discussed from a realistic perspective? Answer: The principle is already clear, why look for a basis? Fearing that someone will not believe it, I will now prove it. Jingxi (referring to Venerable Zhanran, Tang Dynasty Buddhist monk) said: 'The method of establishing names, each focuses on what it wants to express.' So it is said 'to the essence' (this is the same as the 'essence' that is analyzed according to the name).

)。今開顯竟。名無別趣體無別理(此同克實)。然復今文。與前因果用義不同。前有二科。一以二事辨法身。以法身起二事。若依此義。今文應云法身起障出障。今文乃云真心違性起事染。真心順性起事凈。乃與前文所起雖同能起有異。二約二性辨法身。約二性起二事與今文能起所起雖同。其取染凈有異。由前不取所起。乃取能起辨二法身。今文不取能起。乃取所起辨障出障。問有此同異者何。答。前約染凈辨二法身。故通取性事染凈以辯法身。今約法身明障出障。故別取事染事凈以論在障出障。良以性染性凈體融一味不可斷故。豈得論于在障出障修惡可用修凈斷之。故就事辯障與出障以體。約體中不取所起者。由以事約體。已曾辯故。能起有異。以事約體者。由染凈二性同法身故。

二此義下釋相二。初正釋在障出障二。初在障。此文法有五種。能所三重。五法者。一染業。二染用。三真如。四染性。五凈性。前二是事後三是理。事體雖一。由約因果或約過現故分業用。理體雖一。由約體德故分如性。其能所者。一染業為能熏。真如染性為所熏。二真如染性為能起。染用為所起。三染用為能違能障。真如凈性為所違所障。由此凈性與真如一體故。故以所障稱為法身。但以此義消釋。文相坦然自明。問。凈性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：現在開始詳細闡述。名稱上沒有其他含義，本體上也沒有其他道理（這與克實相同）。然而，現在的經文與之前的因果在意義上有所不同。之前有兩科，一是通過兩種事物來辨別法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身），以法身生起兩種事物。如果按照這個意義，現在的經文應該說『法身生起障礙，脫離障礙』。但現在的經文卻說『真心違背自性生起染污之事，真心順應自性生起清凈之事』，雖然與前文所生起的事物相同，但能生起者卻不同。二是根據兩種自性來辨別法身，根據兩種自性生起兩種事物，與現在的經文在能生起和所生起的事物上雖然相同，但對於染污和清凈的取捨卻不同。因為之前不取所生起的事物，而是取能生起者來辨別兩種法身。現在的經文不取能生起者，而是取所生起的事物來辨別障礙和脫離障礙。有人問，為什麼會有這些相同和不同呢？回答說，之前是通過染污和清凈來辨別兩種法身，所以普遍取自性和事物的染污和清凈來辨別法身。現在是根據法身來說明障礙和脫離障礙，所以分別取事物的染污和事物的清凈來論述在障礙中和脫離障礙。這是因為自性的染污和自性的清凈本體融合爲一體，不可分割。怎麼能論述在障礙中和脫離障礙呢？修惡可以用修凈來斷除。所以就事物來辨別障礙和脫離障礙以體現本體。在本體中不取所生起的事物，是因為以事物來比擬本體，已經辨別過了。能生起者有所不同，以事物來比擬本體，是因為染污和清凈兩種自性與法身相同。

二、此義下解釋相狀的第二部分。首先正式解釋在障礙和脫離障礙兩種狀態。首先是在障礙中。這段經文有五種法，能所三重。五法是：一、染業（karma，染污的業力），二、染用（function，染污的作用），三、真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性），四、染性（nature，染污的自性），五、凈性（pure nature，清凈的自性）。前兩種是事物，后三種是理體。事物和本體雖然是一，但由於根據因果或者根據過去和現在，所以分為業和用。理體雖然是一，但由於根據本體和功德，所以分為如和性。其中的能所關係是：一、染業是能熏，真如和染性是所熏。二、真如和染性是能起，染用是所起。三、染用是能違背和能障礙，真如和凈性是所違背和所障礙。因此，凈性與真如一體，所以將所障礙的稱為法身。但用這個意義來解釋，經文的相狀自然就明白了。有人問，凈性

【English Translation】 English version: Now we begin the detailed exposition. There is no other meaning in the name, and no other principle in the substance (this is the same as 'Keshishi'). However, the current text differs from the previous cause and effect in meaning. Previously, there were two sections: one used two things to distinguish the Dharmakaya (the Dharma-nature body of the Buddha), with the Dharmakaya giving rise to two things. If according to this meaning, the current text should say 'the Dharmakaya gives rise to obstacles and escapes obstacles'. But the current text says 'the true mind violates its nature and gives rise to defiled matters, the true mind accords with its nature and gives rise to pure matters', although it is the same as the things that arose in the previous text, the one who can arise is different. Second, distinguish the Dharmakaya based on two natures, and give rise to two things based on two natures. Although it is the same as the current text in what can arise and what arises, the acceptance and rejection of defilement and purity are different. Because previously, it did not take what arose, but took what could arise to distinguish the two Dharmakayas. The current text does not take what can arise, but takes what arises to distinguish obstacles and escape from obstacles. Someone asks, why are there these similarities and differences? The answer is that previously, the two Dharmakayas were distinguished by defilement and purity, so the defilement and purity of nature and things were universally taken to distinguish the Dharmakaya. Now, obstacles and escape from obstacles are explained based on the Dharmakaya, so the defilement of things and the purity of things are separately taken to discuss being in obstacles and escaping from obstacles. This is because the defilement of nature and the purity of nature are integrated into one taste and cannot be separated. How can one discuss being in obstacles and escaping from obstacles? Cultivating evil can be cut off by cultivating purity. Therefore, one distinguishes obstacles and escape from obstacles based on things to embody the substance. Not taking what arises in the substance is because it has already been distinguished by comparing things to the substance. What can arise is different, and comparing things to the substance is because the two natures of defilement and purity are the same as the Dharmakaya.

Second, the following part of this meaning explains the second part of the appearance. First, formally explain the two states of being in obstacles and escaping from obstacles. First, being in obstacles. This text has five dharmas, with three levels of 'able' and 'what'. The five dharmas are: one, defiled karma (karma, defiled karmic force), two, defiled function (function, defiled function), three, Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of things), four, defiled nature (nature, defiled nature), five, pure nature (pure nature, pure nature). The first two are things, and the last three are the substance of principle. Although things and substance are one, they are divided into karma and function because they are based on cause and effect or based on the past and present. Although the substance of principle is one, it is divided into 'such' and 'nature' because it is based on substance and merit. The relationship between 'able' and 'what' is: one, defiled karma is what can perfume, and Suchness and defiled nature are what is perfumed. Two, Suchness and defiled nature are what can arise, and defiled function is what arises. Three, defiled function is what can violate and obstruct, and Suchness and pure nature are what is violated and obstructed. Therefore, pure nature is one with Suchness, so what is obstructed is called the Dharmakaya. But using this meaning to explain, the appearance of the text will naturally become clear. Someone asks, pure nature

為所障。染用為能障。且染性者是所障耶。是能隋耶。答。若以性從染。染體同事。即屬能障。若以染從性。性體同理。即是所障。今祇云染性為能起。而不云爲所障能障者。由取名異義異故。由性染不同性凈故。但說順用照性為所障。此取性染性凈二名異故。由染性不同染事故。但說染用為能障。此取性染事染二義異故。若非以體同義異而辨者。于上下文消釋之際恐難的當。二若以下出障。法亦有五。能所有四。法五者。一凈業。二染用。三凈用。四真如。五凈性。能所四者。一凈業為能熏。真如凈性為所熏。二真如凈性為能起。凈用為所起。三凈用為能除。染用為所除。四凈用為能顯。真如凈性為所顯。若與在障對辨者。在障中無凈用。今無染性在障中。無能除所除。故能所祇三。有此不同者。由在障時未有事凈之用故。由出障中染性非顯故。由事凈之用非所破故。應知皆是隨時辯義用與不同。且染性者何非所顯。若非所顯豈得謂之佛有性惡。且凈用者何非所破。若非所破豈得謂之闡提斷善。今不以染性為所顯者。且順凈照之名欣羨便故。今不以凈用為所破者。且順正論破顯必就反妄歸真辨故。文云。圓覺大智並波羅蜜者。即智斷二德但名凈用。文二照字性事不同。尋者可了。二以是下辯頓具漸具。初頓。次漸。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本為所障。染用為能障。且染性者是所障耶。是能隨耶。答。若以性從染。染體同事。即屬能障。若以染從性。性體同理。即是所障。今只云染性為能起。而不云爲所障能障者。由取名異義異故。由性染不同性凈故。但說順用照性為所障。此取性染性凈二名異故。由染性不同染事故。但說染用為能障。此取性染事染二義異故。若非以體同義異而辨者。于上下文消釋之際恐難的當。二若以下出障。法亦有五。能所有四。法五者。一凈業（凈化行為）。二染用（污染行為）。三凈用（純凈行為）。四真如（事物本來的真實面貌）。五凈性（純凈的本性）。能所四者。一凈業為能熏。真如凈性為所熏。二真如凈性為能起。凈用為所起。三凈用為能除。染用為所除。四凈用為能顯。真如凈性為所顯。若與在障對辨者。在障中無凈用。今無染性在障中。無能除所除。故能所只三。有此不同者。由在障時未有事凈之用故。由出障中染性非顯故。由事凈之用非所破故。應知皆是隨時辯義用與不同。且染性者何非所顯。若非所顯豈得謂之佛有性惡。且凈用者何非所破。若非所破豈得謂之闡提（斷善根的人）斷善。今不以染性為所顯者。且順凈照之名欣羨便故。今不以凈用為所破者。且順正論破顯必就反妄歸真辨故。文云。圓覺大智並波羅蜜（到達彼岸的方法）者。即智斷二德但名凈用。文二照字性事不同。尋者可了。二以是下辯頓具漸具。初頓。次漸。

【English Translation】 English version It is obstructed by what. Defiled function is the obstructor. Is the defiled nature the obstructed, or is it the follower? Answer: If nature follows defilement, and the substance of defilement is the same as the event, then it belongs to the obstructor. If defilement follows nature, and the substance of nature is the same as the principle, then it is the obstructed. Now, it is only said that defiled nature is the cause, but it is not said to be the obstructed or the obstructor, because the names are different and the meanings are different. Because defiled nature is different from pure nature, it is only said that compliant function illuminating nature is the obstructed. This is because the two names of defiled nature and pure nature are different. Because defiled nature is different from defiled events, it is only said that defiled function is the obstructor. This is because the two meanings of nature-defilement and event-defilement are different. If one does not distinguish by the sameness of substance and the difference of meaning, it may be difficult to be accurate when interpreting the context. Secondly, the following discusses the removal of obstructions. There are also five dharmas, and four capabilities. The five dharmas are: 1. Pure karma (purifying actions), 2. Defiled function (defiling actions), 3. Pure function (pure actions), 4. Tathata (the true aspect of things as they are), 5. Pure nature (pure inherent nature). The four capabilities are: 1. Pure karma is the influencer, and Tathata and pure nature are the influenced. 2. Tathata and pure nature are the causers, and pure function is the caused. 3. Pure function is the remover, and defiled function is the removed. 4. Pure function is the manifester, and Tathata and pure nature are the manifested. If compared with being in obstruction, there is no pure function in obstruction. Now, there is no defiled nature in obstruction, and there is no remover or removed. Therefore, there are only three capabilities. The reason for this difference is that there was no function of event-purification when in obstruction. Because defiled nature is not manifested when emerging from obstruction. Because the function of event-purification is not what is destroyed. It should be known that all are distinguishing meaning and function differently according to the time. Furthermore, why is defiled nature not what is manifested? If it is not manifested, how can it be said that the Buddha has inherent evil? Furthermore, why is pure function not what is destroyed? If it is not destroyed, how can it be said that an icchantika (one who has severed their roots of good) severs goodness? The reason why defiled nature is not what is manifested is that the name of compliant purification and illumination is pleasing and desirable. The reason why pure function is not what is destroyed is that compliant correct discourse on destruction and manifestation must be based on reversing delusion and returning to truth. The text says, 'Perfect Enlightenment, Great Wisdom, and Paramita (the way to reach the other shore),' which are the two virtues of wisdom and severance, but are named pure function. The two 'illumination' characters in the text have different meanings in terms of nature and event. Those who seek can understand. Secondly, the following discusses sudden completeness and gradual completeness. First, sudden. Then, gradual.

三然此下結示。

二料揀余義。有二重問答。初問者向論垢障名偏約事。今問違性亦可名為障垢者。不若可名障。障即破矣。何故。前云染性與凈體融一味不相妨礙。文云應說為礙染者。染即垢矣。變文體耳。若據性名為染。前數言之。今意問障礙染。其云染垢者相帶來耳。二答。俱是等者。因上問意性應名障。故今答之。性得名障乃是障性亦名性障。云俱是者顯不獨事。又顯不獨名違。亦乃俱得名障名垢障。性性障二名翻倒者。但稱呼異爾。又對事障顯今性障。障即是性。性即是障。故有二名。云平等之差別者。差別之言。一者以過對德。或名無礙。或名為障。二者就過自說。或名為染。或名為垢。三者乃從稱呼。或名障性。或名性障。雖諸不同體實平等。云圓融之能所者。障是能障。性是所障。今即性名障。性既圓融能所豈別。又今論性。障乃是能障。既以性為能障。乃是圓融之能障也。文言所者相帶而來。結答但云勿謂相礙不融者。故知正以障礙為難。

第二問答二。初問亦應有自體在障出障者。在障即染性。出障即凈性。上文雖有能障所障。但通以真如之性為染所障名為染性。圓融能所而未顯說染性即是凈性。今問意者既云平等差別圓融能所。且染性是在障。凈性是出障。亦應染性自體是在障出

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：三、然後，以下是總結和闡釋。

二、辨析剩餘的意義。這裡有兩重問答。最初的提問是關於『垢障』（kouchang，污垢和障礙）的名稱，偏重於從現象層面來討論。現在提問，違背自性的東西也可以被稱為『障垢』嗎？如果可以稱為『障』（zhang，障礙），那麼『障』就被破除了。為什麼呢？因為前面說『染性』（ranxing，被污染的自性）與『凈體』（jingti，清凈的本體）融合爲一體，互不妨礙。經文說應該說成是『礙染』（airan，障礙性的污染），『染』就是『垢』（gou，污垢）了，只是改變了文體的說法而已。如果根據自性來稱之為『染』，前面已經多次說過。現在的意思是問障礙性的『染』，其所說的『染垢』是相互關聯而來的。第二個回答，『俱是等』（jushi deng，都是一樣的）是因為上面的提問認為自性應該被稱為『障』，所以現在回答說，自性可以被稱為『障』，也就是『障性』（zhangxing，障礙的自性）也可以被稱為『性障』（xingzhang，自性的障礙）。說『俱是』，是爲了表明不僅僅是現象層面，也表明不僅僅是名稱上的違背，而是都可以被稱為『障』，被稱為『垢障』。『性性障』（xing xingzhang，自性，自性的障礙）這兩個名稱顛倒，只是稱呼不同而已。而且，這是針對現象層面的『障』來顯明現在的『性障』，『障』就是『性』，『性』就是『障』，所以有兩個名稱。說『平等之差別』（pingdeng zhi chabie，平等中的差別），『差別』的說法，一是將過失與功德相對比，或者稱為『無礙』（wuai，沒有障礙），或者稱為『障』。二是就過失本身來說，或者稱為『染』，或者稱為『垢』。三是從稱呼上來說，或者稱為『障性』，或者稱為『性障』。雖然種種不同，但本體實際上是平等的。說『圓融之能所』（yuanrong zhi nengsuo，圓融的能和所），『障』是能障（nengzhang，能障礙的），『性』是所障（suozhang，所障礙的）。現在既然以『性』來稱呼『障』，『性』既然是圓融的，那麼能和所怎麼會有區別呢？而且現在討論的是『性』，『障』是能障礙的，既然以『性』作為能障礙的，那就是圓融的能障。經文說『所』是相互關聯而來的。總結回答只是說『勿謂相礙不融』（wuwei xiangai burong，不要認為相互障礙而不融合），所以知道主要是以障礙為難點。

第二重問答有兩個部分。最初的提問是『亦應有自體在障出障者』（yi ying you ziti zai zhang chu zhang zhe，也應該有自體在障礙中和出障礙中的），『在障』（zai zhang，在障礙中）就是『染性』，『出障』（chu zhang，出障礙中）就是『凈性』。上面的經文雖然有能障和所障，但都是以真如的自性作為被污染的所障，稱為『染性』，圓融了能和所，但沒有明顯地說『染性』就是『凈性』。現在的提問意思是，既然說平等差別，圓融能所，那麼染性是在障礙中，凈性是出障礙中，也應該染性自體是在障礙中和出障礙中。

【English Translation】 English version: Three, the following is a conclusion and explanation.

Two, analyzing the remaining meanings. There are two sets of questions and answers here. The initial question concerns the name 'Kouchang' (垢障, defilements and obstacles), focusing on discussing it from the perspective of phenomena. Now the question is, can something that goes against inherent nature also be called 'Zhanggou'? If it can be called 'Zhang' (障, obstacle), then the 'Zhang' is eliminated. Why? Because it was previously said that 'Ranxing' (染性, defiled nature) merges with 'Jingti' (凈體, pure essence) as one, without hindering each other. The scripture says it should be called 'Airan' (礙染, obstructive defilement), and 'Ran' is 'Gou' (垢, defilement), it's just a change in the style of expression. If we call it 'Ran' based on inherent nature, it has been said many times before. The current meaning is to ask about obstructive 'Ran', and the 'Rangou' mentioned is derived from mutual association. The second answer, 'Jushi Deng' (俱是等, all are the same) is because the above question believes that inherent nature should be called 'Zhang', so the current answer is that inherent nature can be called 'Zhang', that is, 'Zhangxing' (障性, obstructive nature) can also be called 'Xingzhang' (性障, nature's obstacle). Saying 'Jushi' is to show that it is not only at the level of phenomena, but also shows that it is not only a violation in name, but that both can be called 'Zhang', and called 'Kouchang'. The two names 'Xing Xingzhang' (性性障, nature, nature's obstacle) are reversed, it's just a different way of calling it. Moreover, this is to clarify the current 'Xingzhang' in response to the 'Zhang' at the level of phenomena, 'Zhang' is 'Xing', and 'Xing' is 'Zhang', so there are two names. Saying 'Pingdeng zhi Chabie' (平等之差別, difference in equality), the statement of 'Chabie' (差別, difference), one is to compare faults with merits, or call it 'Wuai' (無礙, without obstacles), or call it 'Zhang'. The second is to talk about the fault itself, or call it 'Ran', or call it 'Gou'. The third is from the name, or call it 'Zhangxing', or call it 'Xingzhang'. Although there are various differences, the essence is actually equal. Saying 'Yuanrong zhi Nengsuo' (圓融之能所, the perfect fusion of the able and the object), 'Zhang' is Nengzhang (能障, the able to obstruct), and 'Xing' is Suozhang (所障, the obstructed). Now that we call 'Zhang' with 'Xing', since 'Xing' is perfectly integrated, how can there be a difference between the able and the object? Moreover, what is being discussed now is 'Xing', and 'Zhang' is the able to obstruct, since 'Xing' is used as the able to obstruct, it is the perfect fusion of the able to obstruct. The scripture says that 'Suo' is derived from mutual association. The concluding answer only says 'Wuwei Xiangai Burong' (勿謂相礙不融, do not think that they hinder each other and do not merge), so we know that the main difficulty is the obstacle.

The second set of questions and answers has two parts. The initial question is 'Yi Ying You Ziti Zai Zhang Chu Zhang Zhe' (亦應有自體在障出障者, there should also be a self-essence in the obstacle and out of the obstacle), 'Zai Zhang' (在障, in the obstacle) is 'Ranxing', 'Chu Zhang' (出障, out of the obstacle) is 'Jingxing' (凈性, pure nature). Although the above scriptures have the able to obstruct and the obstructed, they all use the self-essence of Tathagata as the defiled obstructed, called 'Ranxing', which perfectly integrates the able and the obstructed, but it does not clearly say that 'Ranxing' is 'Jingxing'. The current question means that since it is said that there is equality and difference, and the able and the obstructed are perfectly integrated, then Ranxing is in the obstacle, and Jingxing is out of the obstacle, and the self-essence of Ranxing should also be in the obstacle and out of the obstacle.

障耶。據此問意為明染性。下答文中既答染性圓融同凈。故乃復出凈性圓融同染。答二。初正答。初示染性圓融。文云據違性而說無一凈性而非染者。染性之外無別凈性也。即是自體為能障者染性也。自體為所障者凈性也。染性之外既無別凈性。故云自體為所障也。自體者即染性當體也。二凈性中雲無一染性而非凈者。凈外無染也。自體為能除者凈性也。自體為所除者染性也。凈性之外既無別染性。故云自體為所除也。自體者即凈性當體也。染性中見圓融故者。由自體是所障。故所障者即出障之凈性也。染既即凈是以圓融。凈性中見圓融者。由自體是所除故。所除者即在障之染性也。凈既即染是以圓融。又覆在障出障之言皆通染凈。但能所不同。且如以真為能在於障。以妄為所在之障。今取所在故為染也。若取能在自屬於凈。且真為能出於障。妄為所出之障。今取能出故為凈也。若取所出自屬於染。然以染性為所除者。恐人疑之性惡不斷何云所除。今復問之。此文云自體為所除者。為修為性。若云修者。今文自云無一染性而非凈。既然是性。故知染性為所除也。更且問之。文云自體為能障者是性染不。且性染既得為能障。豈不得為所除耶。故知性之染凈而無別體。體是于修。故得乃有能障所除之名。今了一效能具染凈

。故此之性名能障性。名所除性。雖有二名實無二體。故能障非障。所除非除。但有名耳無非一性。如此了者方見性無不具具無不性。不可思議天然妙體。二辨。意者由染凈二名而無二體。既無二體故染凈相即。既然相即故一味平等。雖一味平等而不礙二名。故識常同常異之法門。平等差別之道理。以此辯意究之。故知第二問答者是辨性染性凈者也。

四事用相攝之相三。初標。二問下釋二。初問。體性至可解少分者。由向所明染凈自體在障出障。染外無凈凈外無染故云圓融。義理已明故云可解。初心乍聞故云少分。又但解理而未解事故云少分。但上言事法至其相云何者。上明圓融無礙法界法門中雲。故世間出世間事亦即圓融相攝無礙。世間即染出世即凈。今指上文故云事法染凈亦得無礙相攝。然上已辨事之相攝。功由即理。其旨已明。今云其相云何者。一者雖聞因理故事融。今疑何者其事有不融者。二者雖聞因理事融。而於事融之相未曾廣示。故作此問生后委釋。

二答三。初正答前難二。初總立。若偏就分別等者。須知分而言之法理有三。一者能執妄情。二者所執事相。三者所依真理。以所執之事從能執之情。其事一向不融。以所執之事從所依之理。其事可得相攝。云就分別妄執之事者。正以事相從

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，這種『性』被稱為能障性（能夠障礙的性質），也被稱為名所除性（通過名稱可以去除的性質）。雖然有兩個名稱，但實際上沒有兩個本體。所以能障即非障，所除即非除，只是名稱不同，實際上只有一個『性』。如此理解，才能見到『性』無所不具，具無不『性』，這是不可思議的天然妙體。這是第二重辨析。意思是說，由於染和凈這兩個名稱，實際上沒有兩個本體。既然沒有兩個本體，所以染和凈相互即是。既然相互即是，所以是一味平等。雖然一味平等，但不妨礙染和凈這兩個名稱的存在。因此，要認識常同常異的法門，平等差別的道理。用這個來辨析『意』。所以知道第二個問答是辨析『性』的染和『性』的凈。四、事用相攝之相，分為三個部分。首先是標示。然後是『二問下釋二』，分為兩個部分。首先是提問：『體性至可解少分者』。因為前面所說的染凈自體，在障和出障之中，染之外沒有凈，凈之外沒有染，所以說是圓融。義理已經明白，所以說是可以理解。因為初學者乍一聽聞，所以說是少分。又因為只理解了理，而沒有理解事，所以說是少分。但是上面說『事法至其相云何者』。上面說明圓融無礙法界法門中說：『所以世間和出世間的事，也是圓融相攝無礙的。』世間就是染，出世間就是凈。現在指上面的文字，所以說『事法染凈也能夠無礙相攝』。然而上面已經辨析了事的相攝，功勞在於即理。其旨意已經明白。現在說『其相云何者』。一是雖然聽聞因為理的緣故事才圓融，現在懷疑什麼事是不圓融的。二是雖然聽聞因為理的緣故事才圓融，但是對於事圓融的相貌沒有廣泛地闡釋，所以提出這個問題，引出後面的詳細解釋。二是回答，分為三個部分。首先是正面回答前面的疑問，分為兩個部分。首先是總的立論：『若偏就分別等者』。要知道，分開來說，法理有三種。一是能執的妄情，二是所執的事相，三是所依的真理。因為所執的事相跟隨能執的妄情，所以事相一向是不圓融的。因為所執的事相跟隨所依的真理，所以事相可以相攝。說『就分別妄執之事』，正是因為事相跟隨能執的妄情。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, this 'nature' is called the 'obstructing nature' (that which can obstruct) and also the 'name-removable nature' (that which can be removed through names). Although there are two names, in reality there are not two entities. Therefore, the obstructing is non-obstructing, and the removable is non-removable. There are only different names, but in reality there is only one 'nature'. Only by understanding this can one see that 'nature' is all-encompassing, and the all-encompassing is all 'nature'. This is the inconceivable, natural, and wondrous essence. This is the second discernment. It means that due to the two names of defilement and purity, there are actually not two entities. Since there are not two entities, defilement and purity are mutually inclusive. Since they are mutually inclusive, they are of one taste and equal. Although they are of one taste and equal, it does not hinder the existence of the two names of defilement and purity. Therefore, one must understand the Dharma gate of constant sameness and constant difference, and the principle of equality and difference. Use this to discern the 'intention'. Therefore, know that the second question and answer is to discern the defilement of 'nature' and the purity of 'nature'. Four, the aspect of mutual inclusion of affairs and function is divided into three parts. First is the indication. Then is 'the second question below explains two', divided into two parts. First is the question: 'The essence to the understandable part'. Because the previously explained self-nature of defilement and purity, in obstruction and exiting obstruction, there is no purity outside of defilement, and no defilement outside of purity, so it is said to be complete and harmonious (yuanrong). The meaning and principle are already clear, so it is said to be understandable. Because beginners hear it for the first time, it is said to be a small part. Also, because only the principle is understood, and not the affairs, it is said to be a small part. But above it says 'Affairs to its aspect, what is it?'. Above it explains in the Dharma gate of complete and unobstructed Dharma realm: 'Therefore, worldly and other-worldly affairs are also completely and harmoniously inclusive and unobstructed.' Worldly is defilement, and other-worldly is purity. Now referring to the above text, it says 'Affairs, defilement, and purity can also be mutually inclusive without obstruction.' However, the mutual inclusion of affairs has already been discerned above, and the merit lies in being identical to principle. Its meaning is already clear. Now it says 'Its aspect, what is it?'. One is that although it is heard that affairs are harmonious because of principle, now there is doubt as to which affairs are not harmonious. Two is that although it is heard that affairs are harmonious because of principle, the aspect of the harmony of affairs has not been widely explained, so this question is raised, leading to the detailed explanation below. Two is the answer, divided into three parts. First is the direct answer to the previous question, divided into two parts. First is the general establishment: 'If biased towards discrimination, etc.'. It should be known that speaking separately, there are three kinds of Dharma principles. One is the deluded emotions that can grasp, two is the aspects of affairs that are grasped, and three is the truth that is relied upon. Because the aspects of affairs that are grasped follow the deluded emotions that can grasp, the aspects of affairs are always not harmonious. Because the aspects of affairs that are grasped follow the truth that is relied upon, the aspects of affairs can be mutually inclusive. Saying 'regarding the affairs of discrimination and deluded grasping', it is precisely because the aspects of affairs follow the deluded emotions that can grasp.

情。云據心性緣起依持之用者。正以事相從理。故其事相通融不融。問。若依此說。理融情礙。事非融礙而亦融礙。何故曾云事是融礙。答。若了事即平等體性非事非理。故此之事非融非礙。若事從當體故乃是礙。若事從所依故乃是融。共而言之事亦融礙。曾云事體是礙者。正從當體也。今文云妄執之事不融者。正是事之當體故乃不融。心性緣起之用相攝者。正是事。由所依故乃相攝。問。上來何不直從事當體以說。而復云事從情為礙。答。以事相所得之由乃有二義。若從當體則依妄情而有。因不覺故則境界生。若從所依則依真性而有。由即不變而為隨緣。故此事相有二根本。當體從情。所依從性。如楞嚴云。一切眾生不知二種根本。一者無始生死根本。則汝今者與諸眾生用攀緣心為自性者。二者無始菩提涅槃為清凈體。即汝今者識精無明能生諸緣之所遣者。由此義故。故云事相從情為礙。從性為融。問。但可云體相從情為礙。何故云事相當體是礙耶。答。由事相之體有所依體。有當體體。性為所依。情為當體。此義難見。今以波而喻之。波之所由有二根本。一由於水。二由於風。若論波體者。以動為當體。以水為所依。曰波之動者。動必由風。故知即風為波當體。即水為波所依。以喻觀法其理可知。既然當體同情。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：情，是根據心性緣起、相互依存的功用而產生的。這正是從事相上符合理性的表現。因此，事相有時通融，有時不通融。問：如果按照這種說法，理性是通融的，情感是有障礙的，事相既非完全通融也非完全有障礙，那麼為什麼之前說事相是有障礙的呢？答：如果瞭解事相就是平等的體性，既非事相也非理性，那麼這個事相就既非通融也非障礙。如果事相從其自身本體出發，那就是障礙。如果事相從其所依賴的基礎出發，那就是通融。總的來說，事相既是通融的也是有障礙的。之前說事相的本體是有障礙的，正是從其自身本體出發而言的。現在經文中說妄執的事相不通融，正是因為事相的自身本體是不通融的。心性緣起的功用相互攝持，這正是事相由於其所依賴的基礎而相互攝持。問：為什麼之前不直接從事相的自身本體來說明，而要說事相從情感出發就是障礙呢？答：因為事相所得的由來有兩種含義。如果從自身本體出發，那就是依賴於妄情而產生的，因為不覺悟所以境界產生。如果從所依賴的基礎出發，那就是依賴於真性而產生的，因為真性是不變的，卻能隨緣而變化。因此，這個事相有兩個根本：自身本體是從情感出發的，所依賴的基礎是從真性出發的。如《楞嚴經》所說：『一切眾生不知道兩種根本。一是無始生死根本，就是你們現在和眾生一樣，用攀緣心作為自己的自性。二是無始菩提涅槃的清凈體，就是你們現在能生出各種因緣的識精無明所遺棄的。』由於這個道理，所以說事相從情感出發就是障礙，從真性出發就是通融。問：只能說體相從情感出發就是障礙，為什麼說事相的自身本體就是障礙呢？答：因為事相的體有其所依賴的體，也有其自身本體的體。真性是所依賴的體，情感是自身本體的體。這個道理難以理解，現在用波浪來比喻。波浪的產生有兩個根本原因：一是由於水，二是由於風。如果討論波浪的本體，以動作為自身本體，以水為所依賴的基礎。說波浪的動，動必定是由於風，所以知道風是波浪的自身本體，水是波浪的所依賴的基礎。用這個比喻來觀察佛法，其中的道理就可以明白了。既然自身本體等同於情感。

【English Translation】 English version: Emotion arises from the function of mind-nature's dependent origination and mutual support. This is precisely the manifestation of phenomena conforming to principle. Therefore, phenomena are sometimes harmonious and sometimes not. Question: If according to this explanation, principle is harmonious and emotion is obstructive, and phenomena are neither completely harmonious nor completely obstructive, then why was it previously said that phenomena are obstructive? Answer: If one understands that phenomena are the equal nature, neither phenomena nor principle, then these phenomena are neither harmonious nor obstructive. If phenomena originate from their own inherent essence, then they are obstructive. If phenomena originate from their basis of dependence, then they are harmonious. Generally speaking, phenomena are both harmonious and obstructive. Previously, saying that the essence of phenomena is obstructive is precisely from the perspective of their own inherent essence. Now, the scripture says that the falsely grasped phenomena are not harmonious, precisely because the inherent essence of phenomena is not harmonious. The functions of mind-nature's dependent origination mutually embrace, which is precisely that phenomena mutually embrace due to their basis of dependence. Question: Why not directly explain from the inherent essence of phenomena, but instead say that phenomena are obstructive from the perspective of emotion? Answer: Because the origin of phenomena has two meanings. If from the inherent essence, it arises dependent on deluded emotion, because of non-awakening, thus realms arise. If from the basis of dependence, it arises dependent on true nature, because true nature is unchanging, yet it adapts to conditions. Therefore, these phenomena have two fundamental roots: the inherent essence originates from emotion, and the basis of dependence originates from nature. As the Surangama Sutra says: 'All sentient beings do not know the two fundamental roots. The first is the root of beginningless birth and death, which is that you now, like all sentient beings, use the clinging mind as your own nature. The second is the pure essence of beginningless Bodhi Nirvana, which is what your discriminating consciousness and ignorance, which can generate all conditions, abandon.' Because of this principle, it is said that phenomena are obstructive from the perspective of emotion and harmonious from the perspective of nature. Question: One can only say that the essence and characteristics are obstructive from the perspective of emotion, why say that the inherent essence of phenomena is obstructive? Answer: Because the essence of phenomena has its dependent essence and its inherent essence. Nature is the dependent essence, and emotion is the inherent essence. This principle is difficult to see, now use waves as an analogy. The generation of waves has two fundamental causes: one is due to water, and the other is due to wind. If discussing the essence of waves, movement is the inherent essence, and water is the basis of dependence. Saying that the movement of waves, the movement must be due to wind, so know that wind is the inherent essence of waves, and water is the basis of dependence. Using this analogy to observe the Dharma, the principle can be understood. Since the inherent essence is equivalent to emotion.

故知當體是礙。問。可云即水為波當體不。答。亦有此義。問。與動為當體何殊。答。若隨名辯體。故波以動而為當體。若克實論體。故波動無體但是相爾。克實而論以水為體。問。祇可以水為所依體。何云以水為波當體。答其實以水為波所依。當體之名從初而得。初以動為當體。今以克實奪之。此之當體全即是水。意顯別無當體全是所依為當體耳。若依此義斯亦可云。下之當體即融即妙。或曰如前之說其理不然。夫事相當體常即常融實非隔異。但由情執為離為礙。礙之在情實不在事。卻取波水之喻而明其理。波如事也。水如性也。波常即水。性常即性。波未有離水之日。事未有不即性之時。但由癡人謂波非水。如事非性。癡如情礙非於事隔。故不可云事體是礙。今曰事當體者虛妄也。性當體者真實也。從妄而知者為迷為情。從實而知者為悟為智。迷其實而從妄乃妄謂事之不融。故事不融者是迷。實而從妄。迷性而為事。此皆妄也。悟其妄而從實。乃實知事之能融。故能融者是了妄而從實。指事而即性。此皆實也。妄謂不融。事體是妄。故事不融。實知能融。實體是性。故效能融。融之功者在性。礙之功者在事。故事體是礙也。所云波常即水者。由全水為波。故波常即水。此水之功也。波不即水者。水體靜。波體動。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由此可知，事物的當體（dāng tǐ，本體）本身就是一種障礙。有人問：可以說『即水為波』，水就是波的當體嗎？回答：也有這種說法。有人問：這與『動為當體』有什麼區別？回答：如果按照名稱來辨別本體，那麼波以動作為其當體。如果切實地討論本體，那麼波動本身沒有本體，只是一種現象。切實地說，波的本體是水。有人問：只能說以水為所依之體，為什麼說以水為波的當體？回答：實際上是以水作為波所依賴的基礎。『當體』這個名稱是從最初開始使用的，最初以動作為當體，現在用切實的本體來取代它。這個『當體』完全就是水，意思是說，沒有別的當體，完全是以所依之體作為當體。如果按照這個意義，也可以說，下文的當體就是融合和精妙。或者有人說，像前面所說的道理不對。事相的當體本來就是常即常融，實際上並非隔絕差異，只是由於情執才認為是分離和障礙。障礙存在於情執中，實際上不在事物本身。卻用波和水的比喻來說明這個道理。波就像事相，水就像自性。波常常就是水，自性常常就是自性。波沒有離開水的時候，事相沒有不即自性的時候。只是由於愚癡的人認為波不是水，就像事相不是自性。愚癡就像情執，障礙不在於事相的隔絕。所以不能說事體是障礙。現在說事物的當體是虛妄的，自性的當體是真實的。從虛妄而知的是迷惑和情執，從真實而知的是覺悟和智慧。迷惑于真實而追隨虛妄，就虛妄地認為事相不能融合。所以認為事相不能融合是迷惑，捨棄真實而追隨虛妄，迷惑于自性而執著於事相，這些都是虛妄的。覺悟其虛妄而追隨真實，就真實地知道事相能夠融合。所以能夠融合是瞭解虛妄而追隨真實，指事相而即自性，這些都是真實的。虛妄地認為不能融合，事體是虛妄的，所以事相不能融合。真實地知道能夠融合，實體是自性，所以自效能夠融合。融合的功用在於自性，障礙的功用在於事相，所以事體是障礙。所說的波常常就是水，是因為整個水都變成了波，所以波常常就是水，這是水的功用。波不就是水，是因為水的體性是靜止的，波的體性是運動的。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is known that the 'dang ti' (當體, the entity itself) is inherently an obstacle. Question: Can it be said that 'water becomes waves,' and water is the 'dang ti' of waves? Answer: There is also this meaning. Question: What is the difference between this and 'movement as the dang ti'? Answer: If we distinguish the entity according to its name, then the wave takes movement as its 'dang ti.' If we discuss the entity in a realistic way, then the wave itself has no entity, it is just a phenomenon. In reality, the entity of the wave is water. Question: We can only say that water is the underlying entity, why say that water is the 'dang ti' of the wave? Answer: In reality, water is the basis upon which the wave depends. The name 'dang ti' has been used from the beginning. Initially, movement was taken as the 'dang ti,' but now we replace it with the real entity. This 'dang ti' is entirely water, meaning that there is no other 'dang ti,' it is entirely the underlying entity that is the 'dang ti.' If according to this meaning, it can also be said that the 'dang ti' below is fusion and wonderful. Or someone says that the reasoning as mentioned before is not correct. The 'dang ti' of phenomena is inherently constant and fused, and in reality, there is no separation or difference, but due to emotional attachments, it is considered separate and an obstacle. The obstacle exists in emotional attachments, but in reality, it is not in the phenomena themselves. However, the analogy of waves and water is used to illustrate this principle. Waves are like phenomena, and water is like self-nature. Waves are always water, and self-nature is always self-nature. Waves never leave water, and phenomena never fail to be self-nature. It is just that foolish people think that waves are not water, just as phenomena are not self-nature. Foolishness is like emotional attachment, and the obstacle is not in the separation of phenomena. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entity of phenomena is an obstacle. Now it is said that the 'dang ti' of phenomena is illusory, and the 'dang ti' of self-nature is real. Knowing from illusion is delusion and emotional attachment, and knowing from reality is enlightenment and wisdom. Being deluded by reality and following illusion, one falsely believes that phenomena cannot be fused. Therefore, thinking that phenomena cannot be fused is delusion, abandoning reality and following illusion, being deluded by self-nature and clinging to phenomena, these are all illusions. Awakening to its illusion and following reality, one truly knows that phenomena can be fused. Therefore, being able to fuse is understanding illusion and following reality, pointing to phenomena and being identical to self-nature, these are all real. Falsely believing that it cannot be fused, the entity of phenomena is illusory, so phenomena cannot be fused. Truly knowing that it can be fused, the entity is self-nature, so self-nature can be fused. The function of fusion lies in self-nature, and the function of obstacle lies in phenomena, so the entity of phenomena is an obstacle. What is said that waves are always water is because the entire water has become waves, so waves are always water, this is the function of water. Waves are not water because the nature of water is static, and the nature of waves is dynamic.

動隱於靜而但見其動不見其靜。此波之功也。實而言之。本既是水。何曾不即。此取知者為言。妄而言之但見其動不見其靜。謂波非水。此取迷者為言。迷者正從今日但見動處為言。故波是不即。知者正從元本見水為言。故波乃即。不即者妄也。常即者實也。妄從事得。實從性得。故事礙性融其理照然。今為昧者復更言之。法界法體不出事理。事是情迷虛妄之體。理是智悟真實之體。智實乃融。迷妄為礙。所以融之功者在理在智。礙之功者在事在情。若言礙之功者在情不在事。必須融之功者在智不在理。若云由智稱理故能融。必須由情順事故能礙。或謂礙之功者在情。融之功者在事。必須差之功者在情。無差之功者在事。若爾。事體不得為差別矣。若云事是無差之差。不同情之定差者。此乃迷名而不求義也。由以情迷故。從事之當體而失於理故曰定差。以智了故。從事之所依而得於理故曰無差之差。其實二差體同。但由於理得失致有二名。豈可情差而非事差。然情智者能迷能悟也。事理者所迷所悟。迷雖事理俱迷。但迷之體者在事。故云迷謂內外。悟雖事理俱悟。但悟之體者在理。故云悟惟一心。眾生但理者。正從事上論功。諸佛得事者。正從理上說義。此旨幽隱人而牢明。若也不達其如之何。

二所謂下釋相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：動存在於靜止之中，但（人們）只看到它的動，而看不到它的靜。這是波的作用。從實在的層面來說，（波的）根本就是水，又何曾不是水呢？這是從覺悟者的角度來說的。從虛妄的層面來說，（人們）只看到它的動，而看不到它的靜，認為波不是水。這是從迷惑者的角度來說的。迷惑者正是從今天只看到動的地方來說，所以說波是不即（水）；覺悟者正是從根本上看到水來說，所以說波就是（水）。不即是虛妄的，常即是真實的。虛妄從事務中產生，真實從本性中獲得。所以說，事務阻礙本性，本性融合，其中的道理顯而易見。現在為迷惑的人再進一步說明，法界（Dharmadhatu，一切法的總稱）和法體（Dharmakaya，佛的法性身）都離不開事和理。事是情感迷惑的虛妄之體，理是智慧覺悟的真實之體。智慧的真實在於融合，迷惑的虛妄在於阻礙。如果說阻礙的作用在於情感而不在於事務，那麼必須說融合的作用在於智慧而不在於道理。如果說因為智慧符合道理所以能夠融合，那麼必須說因為情感順應事務所以能夠阻礙。或者說阻礙的作用在於情感，融合的作用在於事務，那麼必須說差別的作用在於情感，沒有差別的作用在於事務。如果這樣，事務的本體就不能成為差別了。如果說事務是無差別的差別，不同於情感的固定差別，這只是迷惑于名稱而不尋求意義。因為情感迷惑的緣故，從事物的當體而失去了道理，所以說是固定差別。因為智慧明瞭的緣故，從事物所依賴的根本而得到了道理，所以說是無差別的差別。其實兩種差別的本體是相同的，只是因為對道理的得失導致了兩種名稱。難道情感的差別就不是事務的差別嗎？然而情感和智慧是能夠迷惑和覺悟的，事務和道理是所迷惑和所覺悟的。迷惑雖然事務和道理都迷惑，但迷惑的本體在於事務，所以說迷惑在於內外。覺悟雖然事務和道理都覺悟，但覺悟的本體在於道理，所以說覺悟在於一心。眾生只看到道理，正是從事物上論功；諸佛得到事務，正是從道理上說意義。這個宗旨幽深隱秘卻又非常明瞭，如果不能通達，那又該怎麼辦呢？二、下面解釋（事和理的）相狀

【English Translation】 English version: Movement is hidden within stillness, yet (people) only see its movement and not its stillness. This is the function of the wave. Speaking from a real perspective, the root (of the wave) is water, so how could it not be water? This is speaking from the perspective of the enlightened. Speaking from a deluded perspective, (people) only see its movement and not its stillness, thinking that the wave is not water. This is speaking from the perspective of the deluded. The deluded are speaking only from the place where they see movement today, so they say the wave is not identical (to water); the enlightened are speaking from the original root of seeing water, so they say the wave is identical (to water). Non-identity is delusion, constant identity is reality. Delusion arises from affairs, reality is obtained from nature. Therefore, affairs obstruct nature, nature merges, and the principle within is clearly illuminated. Now, for the sake of the confused, let me explain further: the Dharmadhatu (Dharmadhatu, the totality of all dharmas) and the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, the Dharma body of the Buddha) cannot be separated from affairs and principle. Affairs are the deluded substance of emotional confusion, principle is the real substance of wisdom and enlightenment. The reality of wisdom lies in merging, the delusion of confusion lies in obstruction. If it is said that the function of obstruction lies in emotion and not in affairs, then it must be said that the function of merging lies in wisdom and not in principle. If it is said that because wisdom conforms to principle it can merge, then it must be said that because emotion conforms to affairs it can obstruct. Or, if it is said that the function of obstruction lies in emotion and the function of merging lies in affairs, then it must be said that the function of difference lies in emotion and the function of non-difference lies in affairs. If so, the substance of affairs cannot be a difference. If it is said that affairs are a non-differential difference, different from the fixed difference of emotion, this is merely being deluded by names and not seeking meaning. Because of emotional delusion, one loses sight of principle from the very substance of affairs, so it is called fixed difference. Because of wise understanding, one obtains principle from the basis upon which affairs rely, so it is called non-differential difference. In reality, the substance of the two differences is the same, but the gain or loss of principle leads to two names. How can emotional difference not be a difference in affairs? However, emotion and wisdom are capable of delusion and enlightenment, affairs and principle are what are deluded and what are enlightened. Although delusion deludes both affairs and principle, the substance of delusion lies in affairs, so it is said that delusion lies within and without. Although enlightenment enlightens both affairs and principle, the substance of enlightenment lies in principle, so it is said that enlightenment lies in one mind. Sentient beings only see principle, and are precisely discussing merit from the perspective of affairs; Buddhas obtain affairs, and are precisely speaking of meaning from the perspective of principle. This purpose is profound and hidden, yet very clear. If you cannot understand it, what can be done? Two, the following explains the characteristics (of affairs and principle).

三。初正釋二。初凡聖多小相攝。輔行引佛藏云。佛見一切眾生心中皆有如來結跏趺坐。今云毛孔者。故知若色若心皆具諸佛。輔行復指眾生雖具但是理性者。由十一界從未發現故名性十。從已發現故名修十。若性若修雖有二名。篤論其體無非一性。全體為十。故修性十界各相論具。以性佛界具性眾生。以性眾生具性佛界。以修眾生具修佛界。以修佛界具修眾生。輔行乃從性之眾生具性佛界。從性辨具故云但是理性。今文由明事之相攝。故以修中眾生具修佛果。又輔行中正明各具。故迷眾生自具十界。所具佛界既未熏習未曾發現。所以但有理性而已。今論互具。故迷中眾生而具十方現成正覺一切諸佛。故具修事。又輔行中以悟對迷而論與奪。由佛既悟。悟無別悟悟事即理。理既能融故事亦具。是以說佛而能事具。故云佛果已滿。從事而說眾生既迷。迷無別迷迷事非理。事既非理事不能融。故事非具。乃奪其事而與其理。故云但是理性。所以致有果隔之言。又云乃至凡夫但是理具。今文不論其奪。乃從法理皆與之。故就事論具。二若十下長短大小相收。三世促念即長短。十方纖塵為大小。二是故下引證。文相惟證大小長短。又于長中自論相攝。三其餘下例顯辯意。初例顯。今論事相相攝不出十界正之與依。于正報中大而

括之無出生佛。于依報中大而舍之無出十方。今于依正中碎舉諸法略而例顯無不相收以辨其意。故云其餘凈穢乃至云及不對法悉得相攝。云不對法者不定對故名為不對。非無有對。且如舉筆而對於硯。不必對硯亦可對墨亦可對紙。故此之筆名不對法。不同凈必對穢有必對無等。

二蓋下辨意。云相無自實者。實猶體也。由相無自體體是真心。故云起必依心。心體既融心必有體。體即真實由實故融。亦可云起必依心者。即妄心也。心體融者。此妄心體體是真性。性即融矣。若此說者。則雖次第。由顯由相從妄念而起。妄念從真性而起。真性既融故妄念融。妄念既融故事相融。就法論融乃妄念事相也。功歸論融由真性爾。或報事之當體自融。但由情故不融者。請以今文而就思之。若事當體自融者。何必須說心體既融相亦無礙耶。復了說雖次第由顯。旨實同在一時。雖然同在一時。不可混迷法理。問。與昔人云攝色歸心方具何別。答。一者言同意別。二者言意俱別。且言同意別者。若取妄之色心俱名為色。真之色心俱名為心。亦得謂之攝色歸心其色方具。若言意俱別者。須知天然一性不名為色。不名為心。附世假立曰色曰心。若以天然一性名心。則攝妄色妄心歸心。其色心方具。是故不獨攝色歸心亦乃攝心歸心。若以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沒有出生佛這樣的說法。如果從依報（環境）的角度來說，大到捨棄十方（各個方向）。現在從依報和正報（自身）的角度，簡要地列舉各種法，用例子來顯明，沒有不能包含的，以此來辨別其意義。所以說，其餘的凈與穢，乃至說到不對法，都能夠相互包含。所謂『不對法』，是因為不一定相對，所以叫做『不對』。並非沒有相對。比如拿起筆來，可以對著硯臺，不一定非要對著硯臺，也可以對著墨，也可以對著紙。所以這支筆就叫做不對法。不同於凈必定對穢，有必定對無等等。

第二段，下面辨別其意義。『相無自實』的意思是，『實』就是『體』。因為相沒有自體，體就是真心。所以說『起必依心』。心體既然融合，心必定有體。體就是真實，因為真實所以融合。也可以說『起必依心』，指的是妄心。心體融合，指的是這個妄心的體就是真性。真性就是融合的。如果這樣說，那麼雖然有次第，但顯現和相都是從妄念而起。妄念從真性而起。真性既然融合，所以妄念也融合。妄念既然融合，所以事相也融合。就法來說，融合是妄念和事相的事情。功勞歸於融合，是因為真性。或者說報事（果報之事）的當體自然融合。只是因為情執的緣故才不融合。請用現在的文字來思考這個問題。如果事情的當體自然融合，為什麼必須說心體既然融合，相也沒有障礙呢？又說了雖然有次第，但旨意實際上是在同一時間。雖然在同一時間，但不可混淆法理。問：這和以前的人說的『攝色歸心方具』有什麼區別？答：一是言語相同，意義不同。二是言語和意義都不同。言語相同，意義不同是指，如果把妄的色和心都叫做色，把真的色和心都叫做心，也可以說攝色歸心，其色方具。如果言語和意義都不同，要知道天然一性不叫做色，不叫做心。依附世俗假立才叫做色，叫做心。如果把天然一性叫做心，那麼攝妄色妄心歸心，其色心方具。所以不只是攝色歸心，也是攝心歸心。如果以...

【English Translation】 English version: There is no such thing as a 'born Buddha'. From the perspective of the '依報' (environment), it is so vast as to encompass abandoning the ten directions. Now, from the perspective of both '依報' (environment) and '正報' (oneself), I will briefly list various 'dharmas' (laws/teachings), using examples to illustrate that nothing is excluded, in order to discern their meaning. Therefore, it is said that the remaining pure and impure, even the so-called '不對法' (non-corresponding dharmas), can all be mutually inclusive. The term '不對法' (non-corresponding dharmas) is used because they are not necessarily relative, hence the term 'non-corresponding'. It does not mean that there is no relativity at all. For example, when you pick up a brush, you can face the inkstone. You don't necessarily have to face the inkstone; you can also face the ink or the paper. Therefore, this brush is called '不對法' (non-corresponding dharma). This is different from how purity must correspond to impurity, existence must correspond to non-existence, and so on.

Second paragraph, below, discerning the meaning. '相無自實' (phenomena have no inherent reality) means that '實' (reality) is '體' (essence). Because phenomena have no inherent self-essence, the essence is the true mind. Therefore, it is said that '起必依心' (arising must depend on the mind). Since the mind-essence is fused, the mind must have an essence. The essence is reality, and because of reality, it is fused. It can also be said that '起必依心' (arising must depend on the mind) refers to the deluded mind. The mind-essence being fused refers to the essence of this deluded mind being the true nature. The true nature is fused. If we say it this way, then although there is a sequence, the manifestation and phenomena arise from deluded thoughts. Deluded thoughts arise from the true nature. Since the true nature is fused, deluded thoughts are also fused. Since deluded thoughts are fused, phenomena are also fused. In terms of the 'dharma' (law/teaching), fusion is a matter of deluded thoughts and phenomena. The merit of fusion is due to the true nature. Or, the very essence of the retribution event is naturally fused. It is only because of emotional attachments that it is not fused. Please contemplate this question using the current text. If the very essence of the event is naturally fused, why is it necessary to say that since the mind-essence is fused, phenomena are also unobstructed? It is also said that although there is a sequence, the meaning is actually at the same time. Although it is at the same time, the principles of the 'dharma' (law/teaching) should not be confused. Question: What is the difference between this and what the ancients said, '攝色歸心方具' (only when phenomena are gathered back to the mind are they complete)? Answer: First, the words are the same, but the meaning is different. Second, both the words and the meaning are different. The words being the same but the meaning being different means that if both the deluded form and mind are called form, and both the true form and mind are called mind, it can also be said that gathering form back to the mind, the form is complete. If both the words and the meaning are different, one must know that the natural one-nature is not called form, and is not called mind. It is only attached to worldly conventions that it is called form and called mind. If the natural one-nature is called mind, then gathering deluded form and deluded mind back to the mind, the form and mind are complete. Therefore, it is not only gathering form back to the mind, but also gathering mind back to the mind. If...

天然一性名色則攝妄色妄心歸色。其色心方具。是故不獨攝色歸色亦乃攝心歸色。此約攝事歸理其事方具。功歸在理。就法在事。若直從就法而辨。則妄心亦具妄色亦具。不必云攝色心歸心。攝色心歸色。此之二義隨說不同旨在一時。隨說不同者。如大師因料揀一念心具十二因緣。恐人不得其所以具。遂云不同。世人取著一異定相。一念乃是非一非異而論一爾。此則從於功歸以說。大師又云芥爾有心即具三千。並云惟香惟味觸等。此則直從就法而說。又若直從就法以易通難。必云色何以具。色即心故。

二料揀余義六。初重示二。初問。問從不解攝字而生。今先以答文而辯其意。一者相攝。二者相等。三者相即。若善了者攝等即三。名雖有異趣實無別。為不了故隨名解義遂成不同。謂相攝者。大乃入小。小乃入大。謂相等者。大雖不入于小。大乃等同於小。小雖不入于大。小乃等同於大。謂相即者。不獨大同于小。亦乃大即是小。不獨小同於大。亦乃小即是大。因此義故遂有淺深。由即是故所以相等。由相等故所以相攝。故今問意既能相攝必須相等耶。下答云。非但相等亦乃相即。答二。初正答。云何以下辨意。常同常異者。此文之來明事相攝。故此常同常異乃約事用為言。

第二重問答者以凡難聖。答

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本天然一性（萬物本性同一）中，名色（nama-rupa，精神和物質）的顯現是將虛妄的色（rupa，物質）和虛妄的心歸於色。只有這樣，色和心才能同時具備。因此，不僅僅是將色歸於色，也是將心歸於色。這是從攝事歸理的角度來說，事物才能完備，功用歸於理體。就法而言，則在於事相。如果直接從就法（現象）的角度來辨析，那麼虛妄的心和虛妄的色都同時具備，不必說攝色心歸心，攝色心歸色。這兩種說法隨著不同的角度而有所不同，旨意在於一時。隨說不同在於，例如大師（指天臺智者大師）因為要辨析一念心中具足十二因緣，恐怕人們不理解它為什麼能具足，於是說它們是『不同』的。世人執著於一異的固定相狀，而一念實際上是非一非異的，只是從『一』的角度來論述罷了。這是從功用歸於理體的角度來說的。大師又說，微小的芥子心中就具足三千世界，並且說只有香、味、觸等。這是直接從就法（現象）的角度來說的。如果直接從就法（現象）的角度來解釋，以便於理解，那麼一定會問：色為什麼能具足一切？因為色即是心。二、料揀余義六。首先是重示二，分為初問和答。初問是從不理解『攝』字的含義而產生的。現在先用答文來辨析它的意思。一是相攝，二是相等，三是相即。如果能夠很好地理解，那麼攝、等、即三者，名稱雖然不同，但本質上沒有區別。因為不理解，所以隨著名稱來解釋意義，就造成了不同的理解。所謂相攝，就是大的可以進入小的，小的可以進入大的。所謂相等，就是大的雖然不能進入小的，但大的等同於小的；小的雖然不能進入大的，但小的等同於大的。所謂相即，不僅僅是大的等同於小的，而且大的就是小的；不僅僅是小的等同於大的，而且小的就是大的。因為這個意義，所以有了淺深的區別。因為『即是』，所以『相等』。因為『相等』，所以『相攝』。所以現在提問的意思是：既然能夠相攝，就必須相等嗎？下面的回答是：不僅僅是相等，而且是相即。答二。首先是正答。『云何』以下是辨析意義。『常同常異』，這段文字的出現是爲了說明事相的相攝。所以這裡的『常同常異』是從事用的角度來說的。第二重問答是以凡夫來比擬聖人。

【English Translation】 English version In the natural oneness (innate nature of all things being the same), the manifestation of nama-rupa (mind and matter) is the returning of illusory rupa (form/matter) and illusory mind to rupa. Only then can both rupa and mind be fully present. Therefore, it is not only returning rupa to rupa, but also returning mind to rupa. This is from the perspective of 'collecting phenomena and returning to principle', so that things can be complete, and the function returns to the principle. In terms of dharma, it lies in phenomena. If we directly analyze from the perspective of phenomena, then both the illusory mind and the illusory rupa are fully present, and there is no need to say 'collecting mind and returning to mind', or 'collecting mind and returning to rupa'. These two statements differ depending on the perspective, but the intention is the same at one time. The difference in perspective lies in, for example, when the Great Master (referring to Zhiyi, the Great Master of Tiantai) was analyzing how a single thought contains the twelve links of dependent origination, he was afraid that people would not understand why it could contain them, so he said they were 'different'. People are attached to the fixed characteristics of sameness and difference, but a single thought is actually neither the same nor different, but is discussed from the perspective of 'one'. This is from the perspective of the function returning to the principle. The Great Master also said that a tiny mustard seed contains three thousand worlds, and also said that there are only smells, tastes, touch, etc. This is directly from the perspective of phenomena. If we directly explain from the perspective of phenomena to make it easier to understand, then we must ask: Why can rupa contain everything? Because rupa is mind. 2. Examining Remaining Meanings in Six Parts. First, Re-showing in Two Parts: Initial Question and Answer. The initial question arises from not understanding the meaning of the word 'collecting'. Now, let's first use the answer to analyze its meaning. First, mutual inclusion; second, equality; third, mutual identity. If one can understand well, then collecting, equality, and identity are three, and although the names are different, there is no difference in essence. Because of not understanding, interpreting the meaning according to the name leads to different understandings. Mutual inclusion means that the large can enter the small, and the small can enter the large. Equality means that although the large cannot enter the small, the large is equal to the small; although the small cannot enter the large, the small is equal to the large. Mutual identity means that not only is the large equal to the small, but the large is the small; not only is the small equal to the large, but the small is the large. Because of this meaning, there are differences in depth. Because of 'is', there is 'equality'. Because of 'equality', there is 'mutual inclusion'. So the meaning of the question now is: Since there can be mutual inclusion, must there be equality? The answer below is: Not only is there equality, but there is also mutual identity. Answer Two. First is the direct answer. 'How' below is to analyze the meaning. 'Constant sameness and constant difference', the appearance of this passage is to explain the mutual inclusion of phenomena. So the 'constant sameness and constant difference' here is from the perspective of the function of phenomena. The second repeated question and answer uses ordinary people to compare with sages.

云聖人稱理施作所以皆成者。故知事融功由於理。由聖證理所以能融。凡夫迷理但見於事。事體同情故云情執乖旨。是故不得。或曰聖人稱理施作者。由對偏情故。若事若理俱名為理。然其圓融體非不事。今曰對於偏情故圓事理俱名為理者。為取了事即理而得理名。為取事之當體自得理名。請有智者細究此意。必然自許今說為正。問。可云理之一字乃是道理而非理性。由不思議事道理本融。聖人稱此道理故事而融。答。次文問云聖人得理便應不見別相。豈非因今文云聖人稱理故有此問。以此顯之理非道理。故凈名疏云。真性乃與眾生共有。以諸佛菩薩能得此理故有大用。豈非大師稟南嶽說乎。又復縱作道理之理。亦無害於今所立義。何者。且事是相。別有何道理而得相攝。

第三重問答問之意者。克從法體。理體無差無相。事用差別有相。今之學者多雲理無相者。乃無定一之相。非謂全無有相。請究今文。聖人得理不見別相者。為定一相。為不定相。若云不見定一相者。何云以彼小事而納大法。故知若從理體。不定之相亦乃可亡。良以相體祇是一種差別法門。不得理故故成定相。以得理故成不定相。其論亡者不出二意。一約法體定不定相。亡則俱亡存則俱存。由此二相體祇一故。二約同異亡于定相存不定相。由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云，聖人依據真理而行事，所以一切都能成就。因此可知，事物的圓融是由於真理，憑藉聖人證悟真理，所以能夠圓融。凡夫迷惑于真理，只看到事物。事物本體的情感相同，所以說情感執著違背宗旨，因此不能成就。或者說，聖人依據真理而行事，是因為針對片面的情感。無論是事還是理，都可稱為理。然而，其圓融的本體並非不涉及事物。現在說，因為針對片面的情感，所以圓滿的事和理都可稱為理，是爲了取了知事物即是真理而得到真理之名，還是爲了取事物當體自身就得到真理之名？請有智慧的人仔細研究此意，必然會贊同我現在的說法是正確的。問：可以說『理』這個字是道理而不是理性嗎？因為不可思議的事物和道理本來就是圓融的，聖人依據這個道理而行事，所以能夠圓融。答：後面的問題說，聖人得理就應該不見差別之相，難道不是因為現在這段文字說聖人依據真理才有此問嗎？以此顯示，理不是道理。所以《凈名疏》說，真性乃是與眾生共有的，因為諸佛菩薩能夠得到這個真理，所以有大用。難道不是大師稟承南嶽的說法嗎？又或者，即使當作道理的『理』，也無害於現在所立的義理。為什麼呢？而且事物是相，另外有什麼道理能夠攝受它呢？第三重問答的用意是，完全從法體來說，理體沒有差別，沒有相。事用有差別，有相。現在的學者大多說理無相，是沒有固定唯一的相，不是說完全沒有相。請研究現在的這段文字，聖人得理不見差別之相，是固定唯一的相，還是不固定的相？如果說不見固定唯一的相，為什麼說用那小事來容納大法？所以知道，如果從理體來說，不固定的相也可以消亡。因為相的本體只是一種差別法門，不得理所以成為固定的相，因為得理所以成為不固定的相。關於消亡的論述，不出兩種意思：一是依據法體，固定和不固定的相，消亡則一起消亡，存在則一起存在。由此，這兩種相的本體只是一種。二是依據同異，消亡固定的相，存在不固定的相。

【English Translation】 English version: It is said that a sage acts in accordance with principle (li, 理), and therefore everything is accomplished. Thus, it is known that the fusion of affairs (shi, 事) is due to principle. Because a sage realizes principle, they are able to achieve fusion. Ordinary people are deluded by principle and only see affairs. The emotional nature of affairs is the same, so it is said that emotional attachments go against the purpose, and therefore cannot be accomplished. Or it is said that a sage acts in accordance with principle because it is directed at biased emotions. Whether it is affair or principle, both can be called principle. However, its complete and fused essence is not without affairs. Now it is said that because it is directed at biased emotions, complete affairs and principle are both called principle. Is it to take knowing affairs as principle to obtain the name of principle, or is it to take the affairs themselves as inherently obtaining the name of principle? Please, wise ones, carefully examine this meaning, and you will surely agree that my current explanation is correct. Question: Can it be said that the word 'principle' (li, 理) is reason (daoli, 道理) and not rationality (lixing, 理性)? Because the inconceivable affairs and reason are inherently fused, the sage acts according to this reason, and therefore is able to achieve fusion. Answer: The following question says that if a sage attains principle, they should not see separate characteristics. Is it not because the current text says that the sage acts according to principle that this question arises? This shows that principle is not reason. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary says that true nature is shared with all sentient beings, because all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are able to attain this principle, and therefore have great function. Is this not the master inheriting the teachings of Nanyue? Furthermore, even if it is taken as the 'principle' of reason, it does not harm the meaning established now. Why? Moreover, affairs are characteristics (xiang, 相). What other reason is there to be able to encompass it? The intention of the third layer of questions and answers is to completely speak from the essence of the Dharma (fa, 法). The essence of principle has no difference and no characteristics. The function of affairs has differences and characteristics. Most scholars today say that principle has no characteristics, which means that it has no fixed and unique characteristics, not that it has no characteristics at all. Please examine this text. When a sage attains principle, they do not see separate characteristics. Is it fixed and unique characteristics, or unfixed characteristics? If it is said that they do not see fixed and unique characteristics, why is it said that small affairs are used to accommodate the great Dharma? Therefore, it is known that if speaking from the essence of principle, unfixed characteristics can also be eliminated. Because the essence of characteristics is only a kind of differentiated Dharma gate, not attaining principle therefore becomes fixed characteristics, because attaining principle therefore becomes unfixed characteristics. The discussion about elimination does not go beyond two meanings: First, based on the essence of the Dharma, fixed and unfixed characteristics, if eliminated, are eliminated together, if they exist, they exist together. Therefore, the essence of these two characteristics is only one kind. Second, based on similarity and difference, eliminate fixed characteristics and retain unfixed characteristics.

即不即故答之。意者如來不獨證亦乃得用。故相無者皆悉證得。

第四重二。初問。約體用分途為問。平等之體本既亡相。約誰論于攝與不攝。事用之體既然差別。雖云如來不壞此用。如何大小而能相收。二答。約體用相即而答。

第五重二。初問。由向答中但云即體是用。體理用事祇有事理無礙。如何見其事事無礙。故有此問。或謂三諦既已圓妙。大師何須復說三千。今曰三諦顯言惟有事理相即。蓋由不云一假一切假。無假而不假。是以三千有事事相即。從言雖爾意則無殊。二答。不出功歸在理就法在事。所云就法在事者。一則事能即理。二則事能即事。但了理融故無法不即。蓋由一切諸法全體是理。所以諸法更互相即。尚乃凡身即是金軀。豈況丈六不即藏塵。問。所云凡身即金軀者。何故輔行雲一一界果各各具十不相混濫。答。正各具故作此說。下文復云。彼彼三千互遍亦爾。豈非凡身即是金軀。又復于各具中且如佛具十界。豈可不得指佛界地獄界即是佛界之佛界耶。問。此理難信。且如現見色相。豈可即是蘭香。答。學凡則難信。學佛則易明。問。前云從事當體乃有差別。若爾。事之體者即同眾塵。今文從事何以非之。答。今取克實論體。所謂事者但名相爾。問。事即事者功由於理。還成事理相即

。未見事事自融。答。功雖在理示相不同。由事理相即者乃體用對論。事事相即者乃就用自辨。若指此用在果而全即眾生因理者。未極佛旨。

第六重二。初問。外計我遍亦不一途。或計我大物小物在我中。或計我小物大我在物中。或計我與物異。或計我與物同。今通途敘計。問。與真心遍。物何別。答二。初出外執見二。初我與物異。微妙廣大者。正是所計我大物小。二設使下。計我與物同。彼此不融者。我體無相。以我對物即與物即。物體既實。以物對物彼此不融。正隨世間所見而執。何者。世間眾物物皆即虛空而成。故執神我如空與物相即。及就眾物。物物各殊。不可此物即于彼物。故執事實彼此不融。

二示內顯非二。初標。二知一下釋二。初示內。二非謂下顯非不出。二意不同外道。事相本虛。迷者謂實。佛法知虛。一不同也。故云非謂心外有其實事也。即猶是也。事相全體即是真心。外雖謂即。乃是神我與物相合。即義不成。二不同也。故云非謂心遍在中名為至也。

三此事下方便重示三。初內師問起。二外人欣受。三沙門下方便顯示二。初約想物大小二。初令想物大小。二沙門曰毛孔下。核究心事五。初核事異。二沙門下。究是心體。三沙門曰汝下。核心無大小。四沙門曰汝想下。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沒有見到事事物物自然融合的道理。回答：功夫雖然在於理，但所顯示的現象不同。由事和理相互融合，是就本體和作用相對而言。事事物物相互融合，是就作用本身來分辨。如果說這種作用在果位上完全等同於眾生因地的理，那就沒有窮盡佛的旨意。

第六重二。首先提問：外道的計度，認為『我』（ātman）是普遍存在的，也不是隻有一種途徑。或者認為『我』是大的，萬物是小的，萬物在『我』之中；或者認為『我』是小的，萬物是大的，『我』在萬物之中；或者認為『我』和萬物是不同的；或者認為『我』和萬物是相同的。現在總括地敘述這些計度。提問：與真心（true mind）的普遍存在，有什麼區別？回答分為兩部分。首先揭示外道的執見，分為兩點。第一點，『我』和萬物是不同的，微妙而廣大，這正是他們所計度的『我』大物小。第二點，假設認為『我』和萬物是相同的，但彼此不能融合，因為『我』的本體沒有形象。如果以『我』對萬物，就認為『我』與萬物相同；萬物的本體是實在的，以萬物對萬物，彼此就不能融合。這正是隨順世間所見而執著。為什麼呢？世間萬物都是由虛空而成，所以他們執著神我（divine self）如同虛空與萬物相互融合。至於就萬物本身而言，萬物各有不同，不能說這個物體等同於那個物體，所以他們執著事實彼此不能融合。

其次，揭示內在的道理，顯示外道的錯誤，分為兩部分。首先標明。其次，『知道』以下解釋，分為兩部分。首先揭示內在的道理。其次，『不是說』以下顯示外道的錯誤，沒有超出內在的道理。兩種意義與外道不同。事物的現象本來是虛幻的，迷惑的人認為是實在的，佛法知道它是虛幻的，這是第一點不同。所以說『不是說心外有實在的事物』。『即』就是『是』的意思。事物的現象全體就是真心。外道雖然也說『即』，但那是神我與萬物相合，『即』的意義不能成立，這是第二點不同。所以說『不是說心普遍存在於其中就叫做至』。

第三，『這件事』以下，方便地再次揭示，分為三部分。首先是內在的老師提問。其次是外道欣然接受。第三是沙門（śrāmaṇa）以下，方便地顯示，分為兩部分。首先是就想像的物體大小而言，分為兩點。首先是讓人想像物體的大小。其次是沙門說『毛孔』以下，覈實追究心的事情，分為五點。首先是覈實事物的差異。其次是沙門以下，追究什麼是心體。第三是沙門說『你』以下，覈實心沒有大小。第四是沙門說『你想』以下。

【English Translation】 English version: There is no seeing the principle of things and things naturally merging. Answer: Although the effort lies in principle, the phenomena displayed are different. The mutual fusion of things and principle is discussed in relation to substance and function. The mutual fusion of things and things is distinguished based on the function itself. If it is said that this function is completely identical to the principle of sentient beings in the causal ground at the fruition stage, then it has not exhausted the Buddha's intention.

Sixth layer, part two. First question: Externalists' calculations, considering the 'self' (ātman) to be universally present, do not follow only one path. Some consider the 'self' to be large and all things small, with all things within the 'self'; others consider the 'self' to be small and all things large, with the 'self' within all things; others consider the 'self' and things to be different; others consider the 'self' and things to be the same. Now, these calculations are described comprehensively. Question: What is the difference between this and the universal presence of the true mind (true mind)? The answer is divided into two parts. First, reveal the externalists' attachments, divided into two points. First, the 'self' and things are different, subtle and vast, which is precisely their calculation of the 'self' being large and things being small. Second, supposing that the 'self' and things are the same, but they cannot merge with each other, because the substance of the 'self' has no form. If the 'self' is compared to things, it is considered that the 'self' is the same as things; since the substance of things is real, when things are compared to things, they cannot merge with each other. This is precisely following the world's perceptions and attachments. Why? Because all things in the world are formed from emptiness, so they are attached to the divine self (divine self) as if emptiness and things merge with each other. As for things themselves, each thing is different, and it cannot be said that this thing is the same as that thing, so they are attached to the fact that they cannot merge with each other.

Secondly, reveal the inner principle and show the errors of externalists, divided into two parts. First, state clearly. Second, 'knowing' below explains, divided into two parts. First, reveal the inner principle. Second, 'it is not said' below shows the errors of externalists, not exceeding the inner principle. The two meanings are different from externalists. The phenomena of things are originally illusory, those who are deluded consider them to be real, and the Buddha-dharma knows that they are illusory, which is the first difference. Therefore, it is said 'it is not said that there are real things outside the mind'. 'Is' means 'is'. The entire phenomenon of things is the true mind. Although externalists also say 'is', it is the divine self merging with things, and the meaning of 'is' cannot be established, which is the second difference. Therefore, it is said 'it is not said that the mind is universally present in it and is called ultimate'.

Thirdly, 'this matter' below, conveniently reveals again, divided into three parts. First, the inner teacher asks. Second, the externalists gladly accept. Third, the śrāmaṇa (śrāmaṇa) below, conveniently shows, divided into two parts. First, in terms of the size of imagined objects, divided into two points. First, let people imagine the size of objects. Second, the śrāmaṇa says 'pores' below, verifying and investigating the matter of the mind, divided into five points. First, verify the differences of things. Second, the śrāmaṇa below, investigate what is the substance of the mind. Third, the śrāmaṇa says 'you' below, verifying that the mind has no size. Fourth, the śrāmaṇa says 'you think' below.

究心無增減。五沙門曰汝想作大下。究非共他心。

三沙門曰然則下。揲示義旨二。初揲示二。初示心體惟一。從心體言故無大小。從心用說大小宛然。今從心體。故云心既是一無大小故。二毛孔下。示心為物體。指此一心而為物體。故於大小二物融同。

二以是下。義旨二。初緣起相攝二。初示相收二。初大小相攝。文云以是義故者。由嚮明心體惟一。能為物體。以此體一義故。舉小物之相收大物之相。無大物之相而非小物之相也。舉大攝小亦然。功由大小體一。故大小二相相融。二無小下。大小之相宛然二。初示無小相而非大相。大相入小相而大相不減。無大相而非小相。故小相容大相而小相不增。功由二體惟一而無大小。是故就法二相相收大小宛然。二是以下引證。大小相入二相宛然文出凈名。然此經文談不思議。吾宗人師各見不同。或曰不可思議用者乃事用當體自不思議。故能相入。或曰不思議用者乃是性德大小。故能相入乃非事用。今曰克從法體。不思議者性體也。用者事相也。即性為事。了事即性。故號不思議。用事不能融。功由得性而融(初家失此)。性非大小。功由因事大小(次家失此)。且得性而融者。南嶽云。毛孔與城但全用一心為體。當知毛孔與城體融平等。以是故舉小收大。文

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『究』之心體並無增減變化。五位沙門說：『你認為（心）可以變大變小。』『究』回答說：『（心）並非與他物之心相通。』三位沙門說：『既然如此，那麼（請解釋）。』以下分兩部分闡釋義理：第一部分，闡釋義理二則。首先，闡釋心體唯一。從心體而言，故無大小之分；從心用而言，大小之別顯而易見。現在從心體角度出發，所以說心既然是唯一的，就沒有大小之分。第二部分，『毛孔』以下，闡釋心可以作為物體。指的就是這唯一的真心可以作為物體，因此在大小兩種物體之間可以融合相同。第二部分，『以是』以下，闡釋義理二則。首先，緣起相攝二則。首先，闡釋相收二則。首先，大小相攝。文中說『以是義故』，是因為前面已經闡明心體是唯一的，可以作為物體。憑藉這心體唯一的緣故，舉小物之相可以收攝大物之相，沒有哪種大物之相不是小物之相。舉大攝小也是如此。這功效源於大小之體是唯一的，所以大小二相可以相互融合。第二部分，『無小』以下，大小之相顯而易見二則。首先，闡釋沒有小相不是大相，大相進入小相而大相不會減少；沒有大相不是小相，所以小相容納大相而小相不會增加。這功效源於二體是唯一的，沒有大小之分。因此，就法而言，二相相互收攝，大小之別顯而易見。『二是』以下，引用經文來證明。大小相入，二相顯而易見，這段經文出自《維摩詰經》。然而，這部經文談論的是不可思議的境界，我們宗門的師父們各有不同的見解。有人說，不可思議的『用』，乃是事用當體自身就不可思議，所以能夠相互容入。有人說，不可思議的『用』，乃是性德的大小，所以能夠相互容入，並非事用。現在我認為應該從法體的角度來理解。不可思議的是性體，『用』是事相。即性為事，了事即性，所以稱之為不可思議。用事不能融合，這功效源於得性而融合（第一種觀點缺失了這一點）。性沒有大小之分，這功效源於因事而有大小（第二種觀點缺失了這一點）。而且，得性而融合，南嶽（指慧思禪師）說：『毛孔與城，但全用一心為體。』應當知道毛孔與城體融平等。因此，舉小收大。文

【English Translation】 English version: The 'Jiu' mind-essence has neither increase nor decrease. Five Shramanas (ascetics) said, 'You think (the mind) can become large or small.' 'Jiu' replied, '(The mind) is not connected to the minds of others.' Three Shramanas said, 'If that's the case, then (please explain).' The following explains the meaning in two parts: First part, explaining two principles. First, explaining the uniqueness of the mind-essence. From the perspective of the mind-essence, there is no distinction between large and small; from the perspective of the mind's function, the difference between large and small is obvious. Now, from the perspective of the mind-essence, it is said that since the mind is unique, there is no distinction between large and small. Second part, 'Hair pore' below, explaining that the mind can be regarded as an object. It refers to this unique true mind that can be regarded as an object, so that it can be integrated and identical between large and small objects. Second part, 'Because of this' below, explaining two principles. First, the arising and interpenetration of conditions, two principles. First, explaining the mutual inclusion of characteristics, two principles. First, the mutual inclusion of large and small characteristics. The text says 'Because of this meaning' because it has been clarified earlier that the mind-essence is unique and can be regarded as an object. By virtue of this uniqueness of the mind-essence, citing the characteristic of small objects can encompass the characteristic of large objects, and there is no characteristic of large objects that is not a characteristic of small objects. Citing the large to encompass the small is also the same. This effect stems from the fact that the essence of large and small is unique, so the two characteristics of large and small can be mutually integrated. Second part, 'No small' below, the characteristics of large and small are obvious, two principles. First, explaining that there is no small characteristic that is not a large characteristic, the large characteristic enters the small characteristic and the large characteristic does not decrease; there is no large characteristic that is not a small characteristic, so the small characteristic accommodates the large characteristic and the small characteristic does not increase. This effect stems from the fact that the two essences are unique and there is no distinction between large and small. Therefore, in terms of the Dharma, the two characteristics mutually encompass each other, and the difference between large and small is obvious. 'The second is' below, citing scriptures to prove it. Large and small enter each other, and the two characteristics are obvious. This passage comes from the Vimalakirti Sutra. However, this scripture discusses the inconceivable realm, and the masters of our school have different opinions. Some say that the inconceivable 'function' is the function of the event itself, which is inconceivable, so it can be mutually integrated. Some say that the inconceivable 'function' is the size of the inherent nature, so it can be mutually integrated, not the function of the event. Now I think it should be understood from the perspective of the Dharma body. What is inconceivable is the nature-essence, and 'function' is the appearance of the event. That is, nature is the event, and understanding the event is nature, so it is called inconceivable. Using events cannot be integrated, this effect stems from obtaining the nature and integrating (the first view misses this point). Nature has no size, this effect stems from the size due to events (the second view misses this point). Moreover, obtaining the nature and integrating, Nanyue (referring to Chan Master Huisi) said: 'Hair pores and cities, but all use one mind as the body.' It should be known that the hair pores and the city body are integrated and equal. Therefore, citing the small to encompass the large. Text.

雖托于妄心。意欲曉于真性。大師云。若得芥子真性之小。能容須彌之大。得須彌真性之大。不礙芥子之小。荊溪云。問真性自與實慧和合。何關外境而云大小相入。由契于理。答然此真性遍於法界。迷謂內外。悟惟一心。且大小由事者。南嶽云若據心體平等之義望彼。即大小之相本來非有。不生不滅惟一真心。止觀云。今解無心無念無能行無能到不思議理。理則勝事(理既無念無到無大無小明矣)。荊溪云。迷謂內外悟惟一心(迷謂既外亦乃謂大謂小。內心具性故非大小)。問。昔人亦云譬如芥子能容須彌。良由真性。若離真性。無于容理。與今何別。答。與今不同。他以大小體是理性故乃相容。大小之事事終不融。是故生身尊特事炳然。問。或云性德具大小性。而此二性當處一體不可思議。故大能容小小能容大。但以性德宜寂難可了知。故乃寄於事中大小相容之相。以顯性德大小相容。篤論相容是性非事。故荊溪云。若以理奇事。如華嚴經。譬如一塵中。有大千經卷。一念如微塵。諸法如經卷。芥子須彌取譬亦爾。此說如何。答。與而言之。得於義異失於體同。奪而言之。二義俱失。由失法體。義異不成。今以體同而難其說。且大師以三解脫釋經。所住解脫是真性。能住之智是實慧。所起之用是方便。若如他立者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本雖然寄託于虛妄的心，卻想要了解真實的自性（Zhenxing，真實不變的本性）。大師說：『如果得到芥子（Jiezi，一種很小的種子）般大小的真性，就能容納須彌山（Xumi，一座巨大的山）般的大；得到須彌山般大小的真性，也不妨礙芥子般的小。』荊溪（Jingxi，人名）說：『如果真性自然與真實的智慧和合，那與外在的境界有什麼關係呢？為什麼要說大小互相容納？』因為契合于真理。回答說：『是的，這真性遍佈於法界（Fajie，宇宙萬物），迷惑時認為是內外，覺悟時只是一心。而且大小是由事物體現的。』南嶽（Nanyue，山名）說：『如果根據心體平等（Pingdeng，無差別）的意義來看待它，那麼大小的相狀本來就沒有，不生不滅，只有一個真心。』《止觀》（Zhiguan，佛教著作）中說：『現在解釋無心、無念、無能行、無能到這些不可思議的道理。道理勝過事物（道理既然沒有念頭，沒有到達，沒有大沒有小，就很明顯了）。』荊溪說：『迷惑時認為是內外，覺悟時只是一心（迷惑時既認為是外在，也認為是大的小的。內心具有自性，所以不是大小）。』問：以前的人也說，譬如芥子能容納須彌山，是因為真性的緣故。如果離開真性，就沒有容納的道理。這與現在有什麼區別？答：與現在不同。他們認為大小的本體是理性，所以能互相容納。大小的事物最終不能融合。所以生身尊特的事實非常明顯。問：或者有人說，自性本身就具有大小的性質，而這兩種性質在同一個地方，不可思議。所以大能容小，小能容大。只是因為自性的功德宜於寂靜，難以瞭解，所以才寄託於事物中大小互相容納的相狀，來顯示自性功德的大小互相容納。篤實地認為互相容納是自性的作用，而不是事物的作用。所以荊溪說：『如果用理來解釋奇特的事物，就像《華嚴經》（Huayan Jing，佛教經典）中說的，譬如一粒微塵中，有大千世界的經卷；一個念頭像微塵一樣小，諸法像經卷一樣多。用芥子和須彌山來比喻也是這樣。』這種說法怎麼樣？答：順著他的意思說，得到了意義，卻失去了本體；反駁他的意思說，兩種意義都失去了。因為失去了法的本體，意義也無法成立。現在用本體相同來反駁他的說法。而且大師用三種解脫來解釋經典，所住的解脫是真性，能住的智慧是真實的智慧，所起的作用是方便。如果像他所建立的那樣。

【English Translation】 English version Although relying on the deluded mind, one intends to understand the true nature (Zhenxing, true and unchanging essence). The master said, 'If one obtains the smallness of true nature like a mustard seed (Jiezi, a tiny seed), it can contain the greatness of Mount Sumeru (Xumi, a huge mountain); if one obtains the greatness of true nature like Mount Sumeru, it does not hinder the smallness of a mustard seed.' Jingxi (Jingxi, a person's name) said, 'If true nature naturally harmonizes with true wisdom, what does it have to do with external realms? Why say that large and small interpenetrate?' It is because it accords with the principle. The answer is, 'Yes, this true nature pervades the Dharma Realm (Fajie, the universe and all things); when deluded, it is considered inside and outside; when enlightened, it is only one mind. Moreover, size is manifested by things.' Nanyue (Nanyue, a mountain's name) said, 'If one regards it according to the meaning of the equality (Pingdeng, non-duality) of the mind-essence, then the appearances of large and small are originally non-existent, neither arising nor ceasing, only one true mind.' The Zhiguan (Zhiguan, a Buddhist text) says, 'Now we explain the inconceivable principles of no-mind, no-thought, no-ability to act, and no-ability to reach. Principle surpasses phenomena (since principle has no thought, no reaching, no large and no small, it is obvious).' Jingxi said, 'When deluded, it is considered inside and outside; when enlightened, it is only one mind (when deluded, it is considered external, and also considered large and small. The inner mind possesses nature, so it is not large or small).' Question: People of the past also said, for example, a mustard seed can contain Mount Sumeru, because of true nature. If one departs from true nature, there is no reason for containment. What is the difference between this and now? Answer: It is different from now. They believe that the substance of large and small is principle, so they can interpenetrate. The phenomena of large and small ultimately cannot merge. Therefore, the fact that the embodied being is uniquely honored is very clear. Question: Or someone says that the nature itself possesses the nature of large and small, and these two natures are in the same place, inconceivable. Therefore, the large can contain the small, and the small can contain the large. It is just because the merit of the nature is suitable for stillness and difficult to understand, so it is entrusted to the appearance of large and small interpenetrating in things, to show the interpenetration of the merit of the nature of large and small. It is firmly believed that interpenetration is the function of nature, not the function of things. Therefore, Jingxi said, 'If one uses principle to explain strange things, it is like what the Huayan Sutra (Huayan Jing, a Buddhist scripture) says, for example, in a single dust mote, there are the scriptures of a great thousand worlds; a single thought is as small as a dust mote, and the dharmas are as numerous as the scriptures. The analogy of the mustard seed and Mount Sumeru is also like this.' What about this statement? Answer: Speaking in accordance with his meaning, one obtains the meaning but loses the substance; refuting his meaning, both meanings are lost. Because one loses the substance of the Dharma, the meaning cannot be established. Now we refute his statement with the sameness of substance. Moreover, the master explains the scriptures with the three liberations, the liberation in which one dwells is true nature, the wisdom that can dwell is true wisdom, and the function that arises is expedient means. If it is established as he establishes it.

。事中大小相入。由於性中大小相容。性中大小相容者。正是性德方便解脫。何故。荊溪問云。真性自與實慧和合。何關外境。而云大小相入由契于理。答。然此真性遍於法界。迷謂內外悟惟一心。且事中大小相容者自由三解脫中真性解脫。若如他說。應由性中方便解脫。又復不應問云何關外境。以此而知大小之體體本是事。由得真性故大小相容。無謂大小是理性也。問。雖然此文大小非性。柰何文云以理寄事。若云事融何云奇事。答。應知一念諸法微塵經卷。若望真性悉皆是事。但由彼指塵經為喻。故一念諸法乃當於法。然一妄念能具諸法者。由得真性所以能具。是故念法望于塵經乃名為理。故寄喻事以辨法理。況約即論奇方極圓旨也。問。若不許于大小相容是理性者。止觀何云理則勝事。荊溪何云制心從理無非心性。答。此由古師但約事相釋不思議。今家乃約由證理故起此事用為不思議。欲異古人惟事。故今特以理言。非謂無事。云約證理。又從理起用。故云理則勝事。所言制心從理無非心性者。事相大小無非真性。以無非故。故大小相容。眾生迷之。但見內外大小相殊。今既悟之。見此大小內外皆是一心。約對迷說故云心性。其實心性即是內外。若不即是何云無非。又復若如他說無非心性之言。須誘三種解脫方

見性德有大小相容。且此文者乃別指真性解脫為無非心性。故知方便體是內外。二此即下。結成緣起。二若以下。心體無相。

二我今下。夢覺長短二。初論夢覺時節長短。二沙門曰奇哉下。牒示義旨二。初牒示。二以是下義旨二。初正約凡夫夢覺辨喻義旨三。初長短非實。二若覺下。情理有殊三。初一向據惟不融。二若覺下。約心融事融。三若以下。一向據心無相。

三正以下。正約心體示旨二。初功歸一心為體故相攝二。初正釋。二若此下返顯。二又雖下。功歸心無增減故相攝。

二是故下。通約凡聖辨法義旨二。初諸佛證悟二。初長短相攝。二又復下。演短令長。然長短相攝與演短令長二義不同者。由相攝之義雙存長短然後相攝。相演之義或祇有短演之令長。或祇有長促之令短。又相攝者是相體俱即。演短令長者乃相離體即。七日為劫等。文出凈名。今文云緣起之法惟虛無實。乃至云一劫之相隨心即成。七日之相隨心即謝。有謂緣起法體是常住者。今何以云隨心即謝。或曰如凈名云眾生謂之一劫。今約眾生謂之為謝。法體豈然。今曰若謂約眾生為謝者。今文云聖人善知緣起之法。惟虛無實悉是心作隨心即謝。豈非隨於聖人心謝。然聖人無心。以眾生為心。而此之心既然在用。故有成謝。或不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：見性之德具有大小相容的特性。而且這段文字特別指出，真正的自性解脫無非是心性的作用。因此可知，方便之體是內外兼具的。『二此即下』，這句總結了緣起。『二若以下』，說明心體是無相的。

『二我今下』，討論夢覺的長短兩個方面。首先討論夢覺的時間長短。『二沙門曰奇哉下』，引用並闡釋義旨，分為兩個部分。首先是引用，其次是『二以是下』，闡釋義旨，分為三個部分。首先，長短並非實有。其次，『二若覺下』，情理各有不同，分為三個部分。首先，始終堅持唯一而不融合。其次，『二若覺下』，從心融事融的角度來說明。再次，『若以下』，始終堅持心無相。

『三正以下』，從心體的角度來闡釋宗旨，分為兩個部分。首先，功德歸於一心，因為心是本體，所以相互包容，分為兩個部分。首先是正面解釋，其次是『二若此下』，反過來顯示。其次，『二又雖下』，功德歸於心，沒有增減，所以相互包容。

『二是故下』，從凡聖的角度來辨析法義的宗旨，分為兩個部分。首先是諸佛的證悟，分為兩個部分。首先是長短相互包容，其次是『二又復下』，將短的時間演變為長的時間。然而，長短相互包容和將短的時間演變為長的時間，這兩種含義是不同的。因為相互包容的含義是長短同時存在，然後相互包容。而相互演變的含義，或者只有將短的時間演變為長的時間，或者只有將長的時間縮短為短的時間。而且，相互包容是本體相互即是，而將短的時間演變為長的時間，則是相分離而本體即是。七日變為一劫等，出自《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）。現在這段文字說，緣起的法，只有虛無而沒有實體，乃至說一劫的相隨心而生，七日的相隨心而滅。有人說緣起法的本體是常住的，現在為什麼說隨心而滅呢？或者說，如《維摩詰經》所說，眾生認為是一劫，現在從眾生的角度認為是滅。法的本體難道是這樣嗎？現在說，如果認為是從眾生的角度認為是滅，那麼這段文字說聖人善於瞭解緣起的法，只有虛無而沒有實體，都是心所造，隨心而滅。難道不是隨著聖人的心而滅嗎？然而聖人沒有心，以眾生為心，而這個心既然在起作用，所以有成有滅。或者不是這樣。

【English Translation】 English version: The virtue of seeing one's nature has the characteristic of accommodating both large and small. Moreover, this passage specifically points out that true liberation of self-nature is none other than the function of mind-nature. Therefore, it can be known that the substance of expedient means is both internal and external. 'Two this immediately below' summarizes dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda). 'Two if below' explains that the substance of mind is without characteristics (Anitya).

'Two I now below' discusses the two aspects of the length of dreams and awakenings. First, it discusses the length of time of dreams and awakenings. 'Two Śramaṇa (Buddhist monk) says wonderful below' quotes and elucidates the meaning, divided into two parts. The first is the quotation, and the second is 'Two with this below', elucidating the meaning, divided into three parts. First, length is not real. Second, 'Two if aware below', emotions and reasons are different, divided into three parts. First, always insist on the unique without integration. Second, 'Two if aware below', explaining from the perspective of mind integrating with things. Again, 'If below', always insist that the mind has no characteristics.

'Three correct below', elucidates the purpose from the perspective of the substance of mind, divided into two parts. First, merit is attributed to one mind, because the mind is the substance, so they are mutually inclusive, divided into two parts. The first is a positive explanation, and the second is 'Two if this below', showing it in reverse. Second, 'Two again although below', merit is attributed to the mind, there is no increase or decrease, so they are mutually inclusive.

'Two is why below', distinguishes the purpose of Dharma (law) from the perspective of ordinary people and sages, divided into two parts. The first is the enlightenment of all Buddhas, divided into two parts. The first is that length is mutually inclusive, and the second is 'Two again repeat below', transforming short time into long time. However, the two meanings of length being mutually inclusive and transforming short time into long time are different. Because the meaning of mutual inclusion is that long and short exist at the same time, and then they are mutually inclusive. The meaning of mutual evolution, or only transforming short time into long time, or only shortening long time into short time. Moreover, mutual inclusion is that the substance is mutually identical, while transforming short time into long time is that the appearances are separate but the substance is identical. Seven days becoming a kalpa (aeon) etc., comes from the Vimalakirti Sutra. Now this passage says that the Dharma of dependent origination only has emptiness and no substance, and even says that the appearance of one kalpa arises with the mind, and the appearance of seven days disappears with the mind. Some people say that the substance of the Dharma of dependent origination is permanent, so why does it now say that it disappears with the mind? Or, as the Vimalakirti Sutra says, sentient beings think it is a kalpa, and now from the perspective of sentient beings, it is considered to be extinguished. Is the substance of the Dharma like this? Now it is said that if it is considered to be extinguished from the perspective of sentient beings, then this passage says that sages are good at understanding the Dharma of dependent origination, only emptiness and no substance, all are made by the mind, and disappear with the mind. Isn't it extinguished with the mind of the sage? However, the sage has no mind, and takes sentient beings as the mind, and since this mind is functioning, there is formation and extinction. Or not.

然者。今問緣起之法惟是真實惟是虛妄。若云真實何云惟虛。何云依想以現虛相。問。圓聖起用不謀而應。何云相耶。答。用之法體本屬乎事。體之法體本屬乎性。以即性而為用。從性而言故曰不謀。故曰無緣。故曰不動。從用而言故曰隨情。故曰為物。故曰分別。今云相者成者謝者。以聖人從用而言也。凈名云。眾生謂之一劫。眾生謂之七日者。以聖人從性而言也。二若凡下。凡夫在迷。緣起法上妄執為實者。須通二義。一者見思惑性執像虛為形實故不融。二者無明惑情執明虛為像實故不融。若無後義。則使等覺已還無染礙之情可斷。

五明治惑受報不同之義三。初標章。二問下辨釋。三此明下結辨釋二。初治惑與受報各辯三。初辯治惑二重問答。初問者以性難事。次問者以事難性。初答者直從事答。以法界法爾。事染之法為事凈之法所滅。次答為四。初總答。二如上下指上。三是故下正答二。初所治。二若修下能治二。文各二。初據性雙有。二但下依熏用遍。二文用字正從所起事用之用。故此之用一有一無。若其能起之性在修未修悉皆並具。四是故下引證。即凈名經也。文二。初引經。二法者下釋義。今文申釋乃約破事顯理。故以病為事以法為性。及下捲雲病在執情非在大用。乃是破情顯事。故以病為情以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本那麼，現在要問關於緣起之法（pratītyasamutpāda，事物相互依存產生的法則）是真實還是虛妄？如果說是真實的，為何又說是虛妄的？為何又說是依隨想像而顯現的虛假表象？問：圓滿的聖人（圓聖）起用（行事）不需思慮就能應驗，為何又說有表象（相，lakṣaṇa）呢？答：用（作用）的法體（dharma-kāya，佛法的本質）本來就屬於事（現象），體（本體）的法體本來就屬於性（自性，svabhāva）。因為是即性而起用，所以從性而言，就說是不需思慮，所以說是無緣，所以說是不動。從用而言，就說是隨順情（情感），所以說是為物（為眾生），所以說是分別（區分）。現在說有表象，有成就，有消逝，是因為聖人是從用而言的。《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra）說，眾生認為是一劫（kalpa，極長的時間單位），眾生認為只有七日，是因為聖人是從性而言的。二、如果說凡夫在迷惑之中，在緣起法上錯誤地執著為真實，那麼需要通達兩種含義。一是見思惑（dṛṣṭi-heya-kleśa，知見和思惟上的煩惱）的自性，執著于虛幻的影像為真實的形體，所以不能融合。二是無明惑（avidyā-kleśa，對事物真相的無知）的情感，執著于光明的虛幻為真實的表象，所以不能融合。如果沒有後面的含義，那麼就會使得等覺（samata-jñāna，平等性智）位之前的染污和障礙的情感無法斷除。五、闡明治理迷惑和承受果報不同的含義，分為三部分。首先是標明章節。其次是『問下』，辨別解釋。再次是『此明下』，總結辨別解釋。首先，治理迷惑和承受果報各自辨別三種含義。首先辨別治理迷惑，分為兩重問答。首先提問的人以性（自性）來質疑事（現象）。其次提問的人以事來質疑性。首先回答的人直接從事（現象）來回答，因為法界（dharma-dhātu，宇宙萬法）的法爾（dharma，自然規律）如此，事染（被污染的現象）之法被事凈（清凈的現象）之法所滅。其次的回答分為四個部分。首先是總體的回答。其次是『如上下』，指向上文。再次是『是故下』，正式回答兩個方面。首先是所要治理的。其次是『若修下』，能治理的兩個方面。文中各有兩點。首先是根據性（自性）來說，兩者都存在。其次是『但下』，依據熏習的作用而普遍存在。文中『用』字，正是從所起的事用（現象的作用）的『用』字而來。所以這裡的『用』，一個存在，一個不存在。如果說能起作用的性（自性），無論在修行還是未修行時，都完全具備。四、『是故下』，引用證據，即《維摩詰經》。文分為兩部分。首先是引用經文。其次是『法者下』，解釋含義。現在的文申明解釋，是約破事（現象）來顯理（真理）。所以用病（疾病）來比喻事（現象），用法（佛法）來比喻性（自性）。以及下卷所說『病在執情，非在大用』，乃是破除情感來顯明事（現象）。所以用病（疾病）來比喻情感。

【English Translation】 English version Then, let me ask, is the law of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda, the law of interdependent arising of things) real or illusory? If it is said to be real, why is it also said to be illusory? Why is it said to be a false appearance manifested according to imagination? Question: The perfect sage (yuan sheng) acts without deliberation and responds accordingly. Why is it said to have characteristics (lakṣaṇa)? Answer: The dharma-kāya (essence of the Dharma) of action (yong) inherently belongs to phenomena (shi), and the dharma-kāya of essence (ti) inherently belongs to nature (xing, svabhāva). Because action arises from nature, from the perspective of nature, it is said to be without deliberation, without cause, and without movement. From the perspective of action, it is said to follow emotions (qing), to be for the sake of beings (wei wu), and to be discriminating (fenbie). Now, saying there are characteristics, accomplishments, and dissolutions is because the sage speaks from the perspective of action. The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra says that sentient beings consider it a kalpa (an extremely long unit of time), while sentient beings consider it only seven days, because the sage speaks from the perspective of nature. 2. If ordinary people are deluded and mistakenly cling to the law of dependent origination as real, then it is necessary to understand two meanings. First, the nature of the afflictions of views and thoughts (dṛṣṭi-heya-kleśa) clings to illusory images as real forms, so they cannot be integrated. Second, the emotions of the affliction of ignorance (avidyā-kleśa) cling to the illusion of light as real appearances, so they cannot be integrated. If there is no latter meaning, then it would make it impossible to cut off the defilements and obstructing emotions before the stage of near-perfect enlightenment (samata-jñāna). 5. Clarifying the different meanings of governing delusion and receiving retribution is divided into three parts. First, marking the chapter. Second, 'Question below,' distinguishing and explaining. Third, 'This clarification below,' summarizing and distinguishing the explanation. First, governing delusion and receiving retribution each distinguish three meanings. First, distinguishing governing delusion is divided into two layers of questions and answers. The first questioner uses nature (svabhāva) to question phenomena (shi). The second questioner uses phenomena to question nature. The first answerer directly answers from phenomena, because the dharma-dhātu (universe of all dharmas) is naturally so, and the dharma of defiled phenomena is destroyed by the dharma of pure phenomena. The second answer is divided into four parts. First, the overall answer. Second, 'As above and below,' referring to the above text. Third, 'Therefore below,' formally answering two aspects. First, what needs to be governed. Second, 'If cultivate below,' the two aspects that can govern. Each text has two points. First, according to nature, both exist. Second, 'But below,' depending on the effect of habituation, it is universally present. The word 'use' in the text comes from the word 'use' of the phenomena's use (shi yong) that arises. Therefore, this 'use,' one exists and one does not exist. If the nature that can arise, whether in cultivation or not, is fully possessed. 4. 'Therefore below,' citing evidence, which is the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra. The text is divided into two parts. First, citing the sutra. Second, 'The Dharma below,' explaining the meaning. The current text clarifies and explains, using breaking phenomena to reveal truth. Therefore, using illness to compare phenomena, and using the Dharma to compare nature. And the lower volume says, 'The illness is in clinging to emotions, not in great use,' which is breaking emotions to reveal phenomena. Therefore, using illness to compare emotions.

法為用。不獨南嶽通此二向。祗如大師．荊溪亦有二說。如下當明。然其病法有此不同者。須善其意。由能執之情雖一。所執之法有二。一者事法。二者理法。事法之體是粗。理法之體是妙。故荊溪言有心粗境粗心粗境妙。從法體言。事權之境為粗。理實之境為妙。且所執之事既粗。能執之心亦粗。既彼此是粗。故知事法因情而得與情同體。故俱名病。遂指妙理號之為法。此則法與能執情雖能所有異而妄體是同。不可一存一亡。從當體故俱名為病。俱為所破。即所依故俱名為法。俱為所顯故義例。問。安心中雲體其實不起滅妄謂起滅。為當祇除妄謂。猶存起滅為體。妄謂令無起滅。答。此亦無別(云無別者。能執之情與所執事法皆是妄體。存則俱存無則俱無。故云無別。此文事中情法不分。人牢知之)。須善其意。若單論理非起非性(平等一性非事非理)。若約果德則性不妨起(理不妨事)。若約眾生惟起迷性(在事迷理)。若聖鑒凡即起祇是性(事即是理)。今從反迷歸悟以說。令離起歸性(離事歸理正同今文除病不除法。以理法不除。事法除也)。見非起性(若見於理理之名者。名從對得。理之體者體自性彰。而此理性是平等性。故非性非起非事非理)。上文乃于所執事法與能執之情不分。俱名為起。正同今文俱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：法的運用。不僅僅是南嶽才通達這兩種方向。就像天臺智者大師（智顗，中國佛教天臺宗的實際創始人）和荊溪湛然（湛然，唐代天臺宗僧人，被認為是天臺宗第九祖）也有這兩種說法，如下文將要闡明。然而，他們認為的『病法』有這些不同之處，必須好好理解其中的含義。因為能執著的情感雖然是同一個，但所執著的法卻有兩種：一是事法，二是理法。事法的本體是粗糙的，理法的本體是精妙的。所以荊溪湛然說有『心粗境粗，心細境細』的說法。從法的本體來說，事權之境是粗糙的，理實之境是精妙的。而且所執著的事既然是粗糙的，能執著的心也是粗糙的。既然彼此都是粗糙的，所以知道事法因為情感而得到，與情感同體，所以都叫做『病』。於是就指精妙的理叫做『法』。這樣，法與能執著的情感雖然在所有上不同，但妄體的本質是相同的，不可一存一亡，從當體來說，都叫做『病』，都為所破；即所依，所以都叫做『法』，都為所顯。問：在安心中說，『體其實不起滅，妄謂起滅』，是隻除去妄謂，仍然存在起滅作為本體呢？還是妄謂令起滅消失呢？答：這也沒有區別（說沒有區別，是因為能執著的情感與所執著的事法都是妄體，存在則都存在，消失則都消失，所以說沒有區別。這段文字中，事中的情感和法不分，要牢牢記住）。必須好好理解其中的含義。如果只談理，就非起非性（平等一性，非事非理）。如果從果德來說，那麼性不妨礙起（理不妨礙事）。如果從眾生來說，只有起迷性（在事迷理）。如果聖人鑑照凡夫，那麼起就是性（事即是理）。現在從反迷歸悟來說，使離開起而歸於性（離開事而歸於理，正如同本文除去病而不除去法，因為理法不除去，事法除去）。見到非起性（如果見到理，理的名稱，是從對待而得的。理的本體，是本體自然彰顯。而此理性是平等性，所以非性非起非事非理）。上文是在所執著的事法與能執著的情感不分的情況下，都叫做起，正如同本文都……

【English Translation】 English version: The application of Dharma. It's not only Nanyue (Hui Si, a Chan Buddhist monk) who understands these two directions. Just like Great Master Zhiyi (Zhiyi, the de facto founder of the Tiantai school of Chinese Buddhism) and Jingxi Zhanran (Zhanran, a Tang Dynasty Tiantai monk, considered the ninth patriarch of the Tiantai school) also have these two explanations, as will be clarified below. However, their views on 'sick Dharma' have these differences, and one must understand their meaning well. Because although the emotion of clinging is the same, the Dharma that is clung to has two types: one is phenomenal Dharma (事法), and the other is principle Dharma (理法). The substance of phenomenal Dharma is coarse, and the substance of principle Dharma is subtle. Therefore, Jingxi Zhanran said that there is 'mind coarse, realm coarse; mind subtle, realm subtle'. From the perspective of the substance of Dharma, the realm of phenomenal authority is coarse, and the realm of principle reality is subtle. Moreover, since the clung-to phenomena are coarse, the clinging mind is also coarse. Since both are coarse, it is known that phenomenal Dharma is obtained through emotion and is of the same substance as emotion, so both are called 'sickness'. Then, the subtle principle is referred to as 'Dharma'. In this way, although Dharma and the clinging emotion are different in what they possess, the essence of delusion is the same, and neither can be preserved or eliminated alone. From the perspective of the entity itself, both are called 'sickness' and are both to be broken; because they are what is relied upon, both are called 'Dharma' and are both to be revealed. Question: In the 'Settling the Mind', it says, 'The substance actually does not arise or cease, but delusionally thinks it arises and ceases.' Is it that only delusional thinking is removed, and arising and ceasing still exist as the substance? Or does delusional thinking cause arising and ceasing to disappear? Answer: There is no difference in this either (saying there is no difference is because the clinging emotion and the clung-to phenomenal Dharma are both delusional substances; if they exist, they both exist; if they disappear, they both disappear, so it is said there is no difference. In this passage, the emotion and Dharma within phenomena are not distinguished; one must firmly remember this). One must understand the meaning well. If only principle is discussed, it is neither arising nor nature (equal one nature, neither phenomena nor principle). If speaking from the perspective of the virtue of fruition, then nature does not hinder arising (principle does not hinder phenomena). If speaking from the perspective of sentient beings, there is only arising deluded nature (deluded about principle in phenomena). If a sage illuminates ordinary people, then arising is simply nature (phenomena are principle). Now, speaking from turning away from delusion and returning to enlightenment, it causes one to leave arising and return to nature (leaving phenomena and returning to principle, which is exactly the same as removing sickness but not removing Dharma in this text, because principle Dharma is not removed, but phenomenal Dharma is removed). Seeing non-arising nature (if one sees principle, the name of principle is obtained from opposition. The substance of principle is the substance that naturally manifests. And this principle nature is equal nature, so it is neither nature nor arising nor phenomena nor principle). The above text is in the case where the clung-to phenomenal Dharma and the clinging emotion are not distinguished, and both are called arising, which is exactly the same as both in this text...

名為病。二者以所執事法與能孰情分途而說。有三不同。一者能起之心為情所。起貪瞋並其果報為法。二者謬執之心為情。所執之事為法。如貪瞋之法本是過患。謬執為德。又如事法本是于權。謬執為實。三者以能不知之心為情。以所不知之境為法。如事本即理。以不知即故名為情。以所執事境為法。然能起謬執。不知三情之名名實互通。但欲分別令相顯故。各取一名以示其義。然此三義以情為病以事為法。但除其病不除其法者。所不除法有二不同。一者非謂事法不除。由祗除情事法必泯。如治病目空華自亡。此則不用除法其法自離。二者就情說離就法說即。故祇除情不除其法。如荊溪云。所言但除其病者。病謂執權為實。法謂一切權法。執權之病若除。即此權法是實。是故除病不除法也。同今下文病在執情不在大用。智者云。譬如火是燒。若觸燒痛。謹慎不觸。即是除病不可除火。並荊溪云。但破執病法何所除。三道之法本三德。故已上諸文悉是情離法即。若惟論即情亦不離。如荊溪云若聖鑒凡即起祇是性。

問。據上所論事之情法。有情法俱離。情法俱即。情離法即。且情法既一何有此三。答。隨順悉檀各有義理。情法俱離者為對治破計也。由今不起九界之情。乃離九界因果事法。故云離起歸性。並云約對

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：名為病。二者以所執之事法與能執之情分途而說，有三種不同。第一種，能生起之心為情，所生起的貪瞋及其果報為法。第二種，錯誤的執著之心為情，所執著的事物為法。例如，貪瞋之法本是過患，卻錯誤地執著為美德；又如，事法本是權宜之計，卻錯誤地執著為真實。第三種，以能認知卻不認知之心為情，以所認知卻不認知的境界為法。例如，事物本身就是真理，因為不認知真理的緣故，所以名為情，以所執著的事物境界為法。然而，能生起謬誤執著，不認知的三種情，其名稱和實質是互相貫通的，只是爲了分別清楚，使它們相互顯現，所以各自取一個名稱來顯示其意義。然而，這三種意義都以情為病，以事為法，但只去除其病而不去除其法的原因是，所不去除的法有兩種不同。第一種，並非說事法不去除，而是因為只要去除情，事法必然消泯。如同治療眼病，空花自然消失。這就不需要去除法，其法自然脫離。第二種，就情來說是脫離，就法來說是即。所以只去除情，不去除其法。如同荊溪大師所說：『所說只是去除其病，病指的是執著權宜之計為真實，法指的是一切權宜之法。執著權宜之計的病如果去除，那麼這權宜之法就是真實。』所以去除病，不去除法。如同下文所說，病在於執著情，不在於大用。智者大師說：『譬如火是燃燒的，如果接觸就會燒痛，謹慎不接觸，就是去除病，但不可去除火。』荊溪大師也說：『只是破除執著的病，法有什麼可以去除的呢？三道之法本來就是三德。』所以以上這些文章都說明了情離法即。如果只論即，情也不離。如同荊溪大師所說：『如果聖人鑑照凡夫，所生起的只是性。』

問：根據上面所論述的事之情法，有情法俱離，情法俱即，情離法即。既然情法是一體的，為什麼會有這三種情況？答：隨順悉檀各有義理。情法俱離，是爲了對治破除計較。因為現在不生起九界之情，就脫離了九界的因果事法。所以說脫離生起，迴歸本性。並且說，大約是對

【English Translation】 English version: It is called 'disease'. These two, the object of attachment (Dharma) and the subject who attaches (Emotions), are discussed separately, with three differences. First, the mind that arises is 'Emotions', while the greed, hatred, and their karmic consequences that arise are 'Dharma'. Second, the mind that mistakenly clings is 'Emotions', while the things clung to are 'Dharma'. For example, the Dharma of greed and hatred is inherently a fault, but is mistakenly clung to as a virtue. Also, the Dharma of expedient means (Upaya) is inherently provisional, but is mistakenly clung to as real. Third, the mind that is ignorant is 'Emotions', while the realm that is not known is 'Dharma'. For example, things are inherently principle (Li), but because of not knowing this principle, it is called 'Emotions', and the realm of things clung to is 'Dharma'. However, the names and realities of the three 'Emotions' that can give rise to mistaken clinging and ignorance are interconnected. It is only for the sake of clear distinction and mutual manifestation that each is given a name to show its meaning. However, in these three meanings, 'Emotions' are the disease, and 'Dharma' is the thing. The reason for only removing the disease and not removing the thing is that there are two different kinds of Dharma that are not removed. First, it is not that the Dharma of things is not removed, but because as long as 'Emotions' are removed, the Dharma of things will necessarily disappear. Just like curing an eye disease, the empty flowers in the sky will naturally vanish. In this case, there is no need to remove the Dharma, and the Dharma will naturally separate. Second, in terms of 'Emotions', it is separation; in terms of 'Dharma', it is identity. Therefore, only 'Emotions' are removed, and not the Dharma. As Jingxi said: 'What is said is only to remove the disease. The disease refers to clinging to the provisional as real, and the Dharma refers to all provisional Dharmas. If the disease of clinging to the provisional is removed, then this provisional Dharma is real.' Therefore, remove the disease, not the Dharma. As the following text says, the disease lies in clinging to 'Emotions', not in the great function. Zhiyi said: 'It is like fire is burning. If you touch it, it will burn and hurt. Be careful not to touch it, which is to remove the disease, but you cannot remove the fire.' Jingxi also said: 'Only break the disease of clinging, what Dharma is there to remove? The Dharma of the Three Paths is originally the Three Virtues.' Therefore, all the above texts explain that 'Emotions' are separate, and 'Dharma' is identical. If only identity is discussed, 'Emotions' are also not separate. As Jingxi said: 'If a sage sees a common person, what arises is only nature.'

Question: According to the above discussion of the 'Emotions' and 'Dharma' of things, there are cases where 'Emotions' and 'Dharma' are both separate, both identical, and 'Emotions' are separate while 'Dharma' is identical. Since 'Emotions' and 'Dharma' are one, why are there these three situations? Answer: Following the four siddhantas (four kinds of explanations), each has its own meaning. 'Emotions' and 'Dharma' are both separate in order to counteract and break through calculations. Because now we do not arise the 'Emotions' of the Nine Realms, we are separated from the cause and effect of the Nine Realms. Therefore, it is said to be separated from arising and returning to nature. And it is said to be about

治說破昔計。情法俱即者約稱理實見也。且一佛成道法界無非此佛之依正。祇如地獄因果情執造業。全是如來所證境界。良以稱理。實見此情此法無不即性。故云即起祇是性。並云若見法性即見法性淳是諸法。茍非此意如何得云證道不斷。情離法即者從近要轉迷也。當知一切由心分別。今但離情事法自即。故云但開其心境無不轉。

問。情法俱離必破九界。與別何殊。答。約即論離而非定離。故與別殊。但約即論離之義。義實難揀。今祗以冰水顯之。如指冰是水不須融冰。此是即義。乃相體俱即也。指冰是水而融于冰。此是約即論離之義。故冰相須離水體則即。乃相離體即也。

問。或謂約即論離義不如是。如冰是水。有不知者謂冰非水。今指冰是水。此約即也。不知心亡。此論離也。故知法體才即偏情自離。此說如何。今問不知之情成定離耶。若非定離者且以喻明。但冰即是水而為約即。不知之心既然自離。豈非定離。若云定離者。今問不知之情既是所離須。指圓智乃為能離。且圓中論離豈有定離。應知圓中心無定離。如凈名疏云。善斷者名不斷斷。不善斷者名為定斷。又復問之事法即者由全性起是故法即。且如其情。為全性起。性外起耶。若性外起。則性體不遍性具不周。若全性起。何故法即情定離

耶。或云雖全性起由彼不知。今問祇此不知還是性不。宜諍求之。又問性既是粗。若定離而不即者。則不應云粗即妙也。若云粗之法體即者。法體屬妙。此則返成妙即妙也。如此談即卻可思議。何者。由俱但見於指白是白。而實未見指黑是白。凈名疏云。如蜂作蜜雖采眾華。不以便利蜜終不成。故知便利皆是蜜種。而此喻文同今黑白。智者詳之。然謂情須離者。乃宗於四明學者之說也。今復以四明自敘平生所得而曉之。四明曰。不蕩情慮。妙復性本。惟智者之圓唱也。吾日夕任用為機為杖。日夕舉揚為襟為規。四十餘年其志一矣。豈非四明以情亦即為所得乎。故今說者天然妙性。或非破非顯。或而破而顯。或惟破惟顯。其而破而顯者以事之情法俱即性故故而顯。以事之情法從當體故故而破。以此破外更無于性故惟破。以此顯外更無于情故惟顯。如此而破而顯惟破惟顯皆不決定者。功由悉是平等一性本來非破非顯。祇此非破非顯亦乃名從對得。若體自性彰者。破之與顯惟破惟顯非破非顯皆不得而思議也。

問。向辨約即論離。義理雖明。柰何以喻有所不順。且冰可即水。其不知心合當須離。如何見此不知之心而亦即耶。答。冰即水者。冰與水體體同故即。其不知冰即水之心與今知冰即水之心。心體既同故不知心而

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本耶。或者有人說，雖然全體的本性生起，但由於他們不瞭解。現在問，僅僅這個不瞭解還是本性嗎？應該爭論探求它。又問，本性既然是粗糙的，如果確定是分離而不相即的，那麼就不應該說粗糙即是妙。如果說粗糙的法體就是妙，法體屬於妙，這就反而成了妙即是妙。這樣談論相即，卻可以思考。為什麼呢？因為都只是看到指著白色說是白色，而實際上沒有看到指著黑色說是白色。《凈名疏》說，如同蜜蜂釀蜜，雖然採集各種花，不經過便利的途徑，蜜最終不能成功。所以知道便利都是蜜的種子。而這個比喻的文句與現在的黑白相同。智者詳細地思考它。然而說情必須離開，是宗於四明學者的說法。現在又用四明自己敘述平生所得來曉喻他們。四明說：『不盪滌情慮，妙就恢復本性，只有智者才能圓滿地唱出這個道理。』我日夜任用它作為工具和枴杖，日夜舉揚它作為衣襟和規範。四十多年來，我的志向始終如一。難道不是四明認為情也是相即的嗎？所以現在說的人認為天然的妙性，或者非破非顯，或者而破而顯，或者唯破唯顯。其中而破而顯，是因為事的情法都相即于本性，所以而顯。因為事的情法都從當體出發，所以而破。用這個破除外在，更沒有關於本性的東西，所以唯破。用這個顯現外在，更沒有關於情的東西，所以唯顯。這樣而破而顯、唯破唯顯都不決定的原因，是因為功用全部是平等一性的本來非破非顯。僅僅這個非破非顯，也是名稱從對待中得到的。如果本體自性彰顯，那麼破與顯、唯破唯顯、非破非顯都不得而思議。

問：先前辨析約即論離，義理雖然明白，但是為什麼用比喻來說，有些不順暢呢？而且冰可以即水，那個不知的心應當須要離開。如何見到這個不知的心，而也說是相即的呢？答：冰即是水，是因為冰與水的本體相同，所以相即。那個不知冰即是水的心，與現在知道冰即是水的心，心體既然相同，所以不知心也相即。

【English Translation】 English version Ye. Some say that although the entire nature arises, it is because they do not understand. Now I ask, is this very lack of understanding still the nature? It should be debated and sought after. Also, I ask, since the nature is coarse, if it is definitely separate and not identical, then it should not be said that coarse is identical to wonderful. If it is said that the dharma-body of coarse is identical to wonderful, and the dharma-body belongs to wonderful, then this turns into wonderful being identical to wonderful. Talking about identity in this way can be contemplated. Why? Because they only see pointing at white and saying it is white, but in reality, they have not seen pointing at black and saying it is white. The Vimalakirti Sutra Commentary says, 'Like a bee making honey, although it gathers various flowers, without convenient means, the honey will ultimately not be made.' Therefore, know that convenient means are all seeds of honey. And this metaphorical sentence is the same as the current black and white. The wise should contemplate it in detail. However, saying that emotions must be abandoned is based on the teachings of the Siming scholars. Now, I will use Siming's own narration of his lifelong achievements to enlighten them. Siming said, 'Not washing away emotional thoughts, the wonderful restores the original nature, only the wise can fully sing this truth.' I use it day and night as a tool and a staff, I raise it day and night as a collar and a standard. For more than forty years, my ambition has been consistent. Isn't it that Siming considers emotions to be identical as well? Therefore, those who speak now consider the natural wonderful nature to be either non-destructive and non-manifesting, or destructive and manifesting, or only destructive and only manifesting. Among them, destructive and manifesting is because the emotions and dharmas of things are all identical to the nature, so it manifests. Because the emotions and dharmas of things all originate from the entity itself, so it destroys. Using this to destroy the external, there is nothing more about the nature, so it only destroys. Using this to manifest the external, there is nothing more about the emotions, so it only manifests. The reason why such destruction and manifestation, only destruction and only manifestation are not determined is because the function is entirely the equal one nature, originally non-destructive and non-manifesting. This very non-destructive and non-manifesting is also a name obtained from opposition. If the essence of the self-nature is manifested, then destruction and manifestation, only destruction and only manifestation, non-destructive and non-manifesting cannot be conceived.

Question: Previously, analyzing identity and discussing separation, although the meaning is clear, why is it that using metaphors is somewhat inconsistent? Moreover, ice can be identical to water, that mind of not knowing should necessarily be separated. How can we see this mind of not knowing and also say it is identical? Answer: Ice is identical to water because the substance of ice and water is the same, so they are identical. That mind of not knowing that ice is identical to water, and the current mind of knowing that ice is identical to water, since the substance of the mind is the same, so the mind of not knowing is also identical.

即。知心是以亦即。從所知邊乃冰即水。從能知邊不知即知。此喻最須人自牢窮。問。上有三義而無法離情即者何。答。亦有此義。由點能執之情即性。其所執之法自亡。然破顯之道是成佛之要門。自南嶽授智者而來。至荊溪後人師所見不同者。由會諦理有殊故也。今略評之。一家雖談三諦。以性德之俗絕無形相。今評之曰。凡說理性皆歸空中。何者。若言有俗。柰無于相。無形相處豈非空乎。故知雖有俗名而無俗體。一家雖談三諦。以性德有相相不可亡。今評之曰。凡說理性皆歸俗事。何者。若言有空中者。如何性得相不可亡。相不亡處豈非俗乎。故知雖有空名而無空體。若以亡情為空者。祇如俗諦亦乃亡情。返顯性德祇有于空卻成無俗。若云就性自論。性亦有空者。且就性自論性亦有空。為空何法耶。若空性俗。是則俗相可空。若不可空。是則但有空名而無空體。然此一見卻使法界法體畢竟無空。祇由二家會理不同。致說破顯亦乃有異。初家破相歸空即是破事顯理。次家破情歸法即是破情顯相。從名說時謂事理俱顯。篤論所歸。既以法體事相不空。乃成破情顯事。然此二家豈不知山家談諦理者即一而三即三而一。及持此道建立義門。多從於三而為根本。論破顯者豈不知法界體性非破非顯而破而顯。及持此道建立義

【現代漢語翻譯】即：知心就是以『亦即』來理解。從所知的角度來看，就像冰就是水；從能知的角度來看，不知就是知。這個比喻最需要人自己深入探究。問：上面有三種意義，但沒有哪一種能脫離情執而直接契合真如自性，這是為什麼？答：也有這種意義。因為通過對能執著的情感的破除，就能顯現自性，而所執著的法自然消亡。然而，破除和顯現的道路是成就佛果的關鍵法門，自南嶽慧思傳授給智者大師以來，直到荊溪湛然之後，後人對此的理解有所不同，這是因為他們對諦理的理解存在差異。現在簡要地評論一下。一家（指天臺宗）雖然談論三諦（空諦、假諦、中諦），但認為性德（本具的佛性功德）之俗諦（世俗諦）絕無形相。現在評論說：凡是談論理性，最終都歸於空。為什麼呢？如果說有俗諦，卻沒有形相，沒有形相的地方難道不是空嗎？所以知道雖然有俗諦之名，卻沒有俗諦之體。一家（指山家派）雖然談論三諦，但認為性德有相，相不可磨滅。現在評論說：凡是談論理性，最終都歸於俗事。為什麼呢？如果說有空性，為什麼性德之相不可磨滅？相不磨滅的地方難道不是俗嗎？所以知道雖然有空名，卻沒有空體。如果認為磨滅情執就是空，那麼就像俗諦也是磨滅情執，反而顯現性德只有空，卻成了沒有俗諦。如果說就自性本身而言，自性也有空，那麼就自性本身而言，自性也有空，空的是什麼法呢？如果空的是性俗，那麼俗相就可以空。如果不可空，那麼就只有空名而沒有空體。然而，這種見解卻使得法界法體畢竟沒有空。只是由於兩家對諦理的理解不同，導致所說的破除和顯現也有差異。初家（天臺宗）破相歸空，就是破事顯理；次家（山家派）破情歸法，就是破情顯相。從名義上說，是事理俱顯；但從最終歸宿來看，既然法體事相不空，就成了破情顯事。然而，這兩家難道不知道山家派談論諦理時，強調『即一而三，即三而一』，並且以此為根本建立義門，多從三諦入手。論述破除和顯現時，難道不知道法界體性非破非顯，而破而顯，並且以此為根本建立義門嗎？

【English Translation】 That is: Knowing the mind is understood through 'is also'. From the perspective of what is known, it's like ice is water; from the perspective of what can know, not knowing is knowing. This metaphor most requires people to explore deeply themselves. Question: Above there are three meanings, but none of them can directly accord with Suchness (true nature) without detaching from emotional attachments. Why is that? Answer: There is also this meaning. Because by eliminating the emotions that can be attached to, the self-nature can be revealed, and the dharma that is attached to naturally disappears. However, the path of elimination and manifestation is the key Dharma door to achieving Buddhahood, transmitted from Nanyue Huisi to Zhiyi (智者大師) onwards, until Jingxi Zhanran (荊溪湛然) later generations have different understandings of this, because there are differences in their understanding of the truth. Now briefly comment on it. One school (referring to the Tiantai school) although talks about the Three Truths (emptiness, provisional existence, the middle way), but believes that the mundane truth (俗諦, conventional truth) of the inherent virtue (性德, inherent Buddha-nature virtue) has absolutely no form. Now comment: All discussions of rationality ultimately return to emptiness. Why? If it is said that there is mundane truth, but there is no form, isn't the place without form empty? So know that although there is the name of mundane truth, there is no substance of mundane truth. One school (referring to the Shan-jia school) although talks about the Three Truths, but believes that the inherent virtue has form, and the form cannot be extinguished. Now comment: All discussions of rationality ultimately return to mundane matters. Why? If it is said that there is emptiness, why can't the form of inherent virtue be extinguished? Isn't the place where the form is not extinguished mundane? So know that although there is an empty name, there is no empty substance. If it is believed that extinguishing emotional attachments is emptiness, then it is like the mundane truth is also extinguishing emotional attachments, but instead reveals that the self-nature only has emptiness, but becomes without mundane truth. If it is said that in terms of self-nature itself, self-nature also has emptiness, then in terms of self-nature itself, self-nature also has emptiness, what Dharma is empty? If what is empty is the nature of the mundane, then the mundane aspect can be empty. If it cannot be empty, then there is only an empty name but no empty substance. However, this view makes the Dharma realm and Dharma substance ultimately not empty. It is only because the two schools have different understandings of the truth that the elimination and manifestation they speak of are also different. The first school (Tiantai school) eliminates form and returns to emptiness, which is eliminating phenomena and revealing principle; the second school (Shan-jia school) eliminates emotion and returns to Dharma, which is eliminating emotion and revealing phenomena. In terms of name, phenomena and principle are both revealed; but in terms of the final destination, since the Dharma substance and phenomena are not empty, it becomes eliminating emotion and revealing phenomena. However, do these two schools not know that when the Shan-jia school talks about the truth, it emphasizes 'is one and three, is three and one', and establishes the meaning door based on this, mostly starting from the Three Truths. When discussing elimination and manifestation, do they not know that the nature of the Dharma realm is neither eliminated nor manifested, but eliminated and manifested, and establish the meaning door based on this?

門。多從而破而顯以為根本。彼二家者自得之道非余所知。余所知者天臺所談三一圓融功由在一。忝為訓徒。凡立義門皆從此一而為根本。然此之一非事非理。而事而理。惟事惟理。以此一而空中故法界無相。以此一而俗事故法界有相。以此一而惟事故法界惟有相。以此一而唯空中故法界惟無相。是以非有相非無相。為自相為無相。為惟有相為惟無相。皆不可得而思議也。論破顯者以非破非顯而為根本。故有非破非顯而破而顯惟破惟顯。以此非破非顯而為破顯者不出二義。一者自行顯體。二者化他顯用。且自行中以此非破非顯從能迷能悟則曰同異情智論破顯。從所迷所悟則曰事理法體論破顯。且法體破顯者二。或二死事法是所破。空中二理是所顯。然此破顯約即論離。約即則不破。論離則為破。如指非道即是佛道。若論即時則非道之事不破。若論離時則非道之事乃破。既以一性非破非顯全體為此之事。故破處即非破。既以一性非破非顯全體為此之理。故顯處即非顯。於是還歸非破非顯。故使而破而顯皆得名為不可思議以論破顯。且同異破顯者。異情是所破。同智是所顯。此之破顯亦約即論離。約即則不破。論離則為破。如不知事即是理之迷情。與能知事即是理之悟智。若論即。是情即是智。則迷情不破。若論離時則迷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：門（指修行之門）。大多是從破除和彰顯入手，以此為根本。那兩家（指其他宗派）所領悟的道，我不得而知。我所知道的是天臺宗所談的三一圓融，功夫在於一心。我忝為教導學生的老師，凡是設立義理之門，都從此一心作為根本。然而，這一心既非事也非理，而是事也是理，唯是事唯是理。以此一心而空，所以法界無相。以此一心而俗，所以法界有相。以此一心而唯是，所以法界唯有相。以此一心而唯空，所以法界唯無相。因此，非有相非無相，為自相為無相，為唯有相為唯無相，都是不可思議的。論述破和顯，以非破非顯作為根本。所以有非破非顯而破而顯，唯破唯顯。以此非破非顯而為破顯，不出二義：一是自行顯體，二是化他顯用。且說自行中，以此非破非顯，從能迷能悟來說，就叫做同異情智論破顯。從所迷所悟來說，就叫做事理法體論破顯。且說法體破顯有二：或者二死事法是所破，空中二理是所顯。然而，此破顯是約即論離。約即則不破，論離則為破。如指非道即是佛道。若論即時，則非道之事不破。若論離時，則非道之事乃破。既然以一性非破非顯全體為此之事，所以破處即非破。既然以一性非破非顯全體為此之理，所以顯處即非顯。於是還歸非破非顯。所以使得破和顯都得名為不可思議以論破顯。且說同異破顯，異情是所破，同智是所顯。此之破顯也約即論離。約即則不破，論離則為破。如不知事即是理的迷情，與能知事即是理的悟智。若論即，是情即是智，則迷情不破。若論離時，則迷情

【English Translation】 English version: The gate ( referring to the gate of practice ). Mostly, it starts from breaking through and revealing, taking this as the foundation. I do not know the Tao ( the Way, the Truth ) that those two schools ( referring to other sects ) have realized. What I know is the Three-in-One perfect harmony talked about by the Tiantai school, and the effort lies in one mind. I am a teacher who teaches students, and all the gates of establishing righteousness take this one mind as the foundation. However, this one mind is neither event nor principle, but is both event and principle, only event and only principle. Because this one mind is empty, the Dharmadhatu ( the realm of all phenomena ) is without characteristics. Because this one mind is mundane, the Dharmadhatu has characteristics. Because this one mind is only this, the Dharmadhatu only has characteristics. Because this one mind is only empty, the Dharmadhatu is only without characteristics. Therefore, it is neither with characteristics nor without characteristics, it is self-characteristic and without characteristics, it is only with characteristics and only without characteristics, all of which are inconceivable. Discussing breaking and revealing, taking non-breaking and non-revealing as the foundation. Therefore, there is non-breaking and non-revealing, breaking and revealing, only breaking and only revealing. This non-breaking and non-revealing as breaking and revealing does not go beyond two meanings: one is self-cultivation to reveal the substance, and the other is transforming others to reveal the function. Moreover, in self-cultivation, this non-breaking and non-revealing, from the perspective of being able to be deluded and being able to be enlightened, is called the theory of breaking and revealing based on the emotions and wisdom of sameness and difference. From the perspective of what is deluded and what is enlightened, it is called the theory of breaking and revealing based on the substance of events, principles, and Dharma. Moreover, there are two types of breaking and revealing of the Dharma substance: either the event-Dharma of the two deaths is what is broken, or the two principles in emptiness are what is revealed. However, this breaking and revealing is about discussing separation in immediacy. If it is about immediacy, then there is no breaking; if it is about separation, then there is breaking. For example, pointing to the non-Tao is the Buddha-Tao. If it is about immediacy, then the matter of non-Tao is not broken. If it is about separation, then the matter of non-Tao is broken. Since the one nature of non-breaking and non-revealing is entirely the matter of this, the place of breaking is not breaking. Since the one nature of non-breaking and non-revealing is entirely the principle of this, the place of revealing is not revealing. Therefore, it returns to non-breaking and non-revealing. Therefore, it makes breaking and revealing both be called inconceivable in discussing breaking and revealing. Moreover, speaking of breaking and revealing of sameness and difference, different emotions are what is broken, and the same wisdom is what is revealed. This breaking and revealing is also about discussing separation in immediacy. If it is about immediacy, then there is no breaking; if it is about separation, then there is breaking. For example, the delusion of not knowing that event is principle, and the enlightenment of being able to know that event is principle. If it is about immediacy, that emotion is wisdom, then delusion is not broken. If it is about separation, then delusion

情乃破。既以一性非破非顯全體為此之迷情。故破處即非破。以一性非破非顯全體為此之悟智。故顯處即非顯。於是還歸非破非顯。故使而破而顯皆得名為不可思議以論破顯。二者化他顯用亦二。一約情智。以著空不能知病識藥之迷心而為所破。以不著空能知病識藥之悟智而為所顯。二約法體。以所執空寂之法為所破。以界內外俗事為所顯。而此破顯亦約即論離。即乃不破。離乃論破。並非破非顯等例前可解。然為易曉故先說自行顯體。次說化他顯用。其實體用破顯一心中具。如是解者斯人難得。如此破顯方得名為圓中破顯。而今始解即事是理即情是智。直至妙覺即方究竟。以即究竟離乃盡原。此即此離本惟一性。是故終歸不即不離。然此非破非顯直於而破而顯中會。故使而破而顯惟破惟顯皆不思議。例如一性直於空假中三會此之一。故此三諦皆悉圓妙。復顯此一乃非定一此一方圓。

問。法體情智兩番為破顯耶。答。祇點法體事即是理。不知之心任運即知。問。化他顯用情智何無同異。答。且示一端可以此顯。故前自行但語不知之情。不說能起謬執。今此化他但說能起謬執。不說不知。若例作者。不知空即俗之情為所破。知空即俗之智為所顯。事理上能起謬執之情為所破。事理上能起解了之智為所顯。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：情是需要破除的。既然以一性（Eka-svabhāva，萬法同一體性）非破非顯的全體作為迷惑之情的根源，那麼破除之處即非真正的破除。以一性非破非顯的全體作為覺悟之智的根源，那麼顯現之處即非真正的顯現。於是迴歸到非破非顯的狀態。因此，使得破與顯都可稱為不可思議。就破與顯而言，二者在化他（Parārtha，利他）顯用上也有兩種情況：一是就情智而言，執著于空而不能瞭解病、識、藥的迷惑之心是被破除的對象，不執著于空而能瞭解病、識、藥的覺悟之智是被顯現的對象；二是就法體（Dharma-kāya，法身）而言，所執著的空寂之法是被破除的對象，界內外（Dhatu，界；Avakāśa，空間）的俗事是被顯現的對象。而這種破與顯也是就即與離而言的，即則不破，離則論破。並非破非顯等同於前文可以理解的。然而爲了容易理解，所以先說自行（Svārtha，自利）顯體，再說化他顯用。其實體、用、破、顯都在一心之中具備。這樣理解的人很難得。如此破顯才能稱為圓中破顯。而現在才理解即事是理，即情是智，直至妙覺（Subhūti，善現）即是究竟。以即是究竟，離乃盡原。此即此離本惟一性。是故終歸不即不離。然而此非破非顯直接在於而破而顯中會合。故使而破而顯惟破惟顯皆不可思議。例如一性直接在於空假中三諦（Śūnyatā，空；Prajñapti，假；Madhyama，中）中會合此之一。故此三諦都圓滿微妙。又顯此一並非定一，此一方圓。問：法體、情智兩方面都作為破顯的對象嗎？答：只點明法體之事即是理，不知之心任運即知。問：化他顯用中，情智為何沒有同異之處？答：姑且展示一個方面，可以由此顯明。所以前面自行只說不知之情，不說能起謬執。現在此化他只說能起謬執，不說不知。如果舉例來說，不知空即俗之情為所破，知空即俗之智為所顯。事理上能起謬執之情為所破，事理上能起解了之智為所顯。

【English Translation】 English version: Sentiment is what needs to be broken. Since the one nature (Eka-svabhāva, the single essence of all dharmas) that is neither broken nor revealed in its entirety is the source of deluded sentiment, then the place of breaking is not truly breaking. Since the one nature that is neither broken nor revealed in its entirety is the source of enlightened wisdom, then the place of revealing is not truly revealing. Thus, we return to the state of neither breaking nor revealing. Therefore, both breaking and revealing can be called inconceivable. Regarding breaking and revealing, the two also have two aspects in the manifestation of other-benefit (Parārtha, altruism): one is in terms of sentiment and wisdom, where the deluded mind that clings to emptiness and cannot understand illness, consciousness, and medicine is the object to be broken, and the enlightened wisdom that does not cling to emptiness and can understand illness, consciousness, and medicine is the object to be revealed; the other is in terms of the Dharma-body (Dharma-kāya, the body of the Dharma), where the clung-to empty and silent Dharma is the object to be broken, and the mundane affairs within and without the realms (Dhatu, realm; Avakāśa, space) are the object to be revealed. And this breaking and revealing are also in terms of being identical and being separate, where being identical means not breaking, and being separate means discussing breaking. It is not the case that neither breaking nor revealing is the same as what can be understood in the previous text. However, for the sake of easy understanding, we first talk about self-benefit (Svārtha, self-interest) manifesting the essence, and then talk about other-benefit manifesting the function. In fact, essence, function, breaking, and revealing are all contained within one mind. Such a person who understands this is rare. Only such breaking and revealing can be called complete breaking and revealing. And now we understand that being identical to phenomena is being identical to principle, being identical to sentiment is being identical to wisdom, and reaching wonderful enlightenment (Subhūti, good show) is reaching ultimate completion. Because being identical is ultimate completion, being separate exhausts the origin. This being identical and being separate are originally only one nature. Therefore, in the end, it is neither identical nor separate. However, this neither breaking nor revealing directly converges in the midst of breaking and revealing. Therefore, both breaking and revealing, whether only breaking or only revealing, are all inconceivable. For example, the one nature directly converges in the midst of the three truths (Śūnyatā, emptiness; Prajñapti, provisionality; Madhyama, the middle way) of emptiness, provisionality, and the middle way. Therefore, these three truths are all complete and wonderful. Furthermore, it reveals that this one is not a fixed one, and this one is both square and round. Question: Are both the Dharma-body and sentiment-wisdom the objects of breaking and revealing? Answer: Only point out that the matter of the Dharma-body is principle, and the mind that does not know spontaneously knows. Question: In the manifestation of other-benefit, why is there no similarity or difference between sentiment and wisdom? Answer: Let me show one aspect, which can be used to illuminate this. Therefore, in the previous self-benefit, only the sentiment of not knowing is mentioned, and the ability to generate erroneous attachments is not mentioned. Now, in this other-benefit, only the ability to generate erroneous attachments is mentioned, and not knowing is not mentioned. If we give an example, the sentiment of not knowing emptiness, which is the mundane, is what is broken, and the wisdom of knowing emptiness, which is the mundane, is what is revealed. In terms of phenomena and principle, the sentiment that can generate erroneous attachments is what is broken, and the wisdom that can understand and comprehend is what is revealed.

問。前論破顯惟有破三惑顯三諦而無亡照破顯者何。答。既云終歸非破非顯。豈非而破而顯悉為所亡。且而顯亡者。即亡空假中之三也。良由三惑無明三諦法性本無名字。是故三惑破即非破。三諦顯即非顯。所以非破非顯者。祇由惑諦其名本無。故荊溪云。猶如濕性本無二名。假立二名以示迷者。且無名之處不獨三惑之名亡也。故三諦之名亦亡。亡非破乎。故今所立義。凡圓頓中雲亡者破者。即體達也。無聞亡破驚凝斷滅。斯正所謂惟一實性無空假中。

問。若以三千會此破顯。其義如何。答。攝無不遍。故而破而顯非破非顯惟破惟顯皆三千也。如雲若非三千攝則不遍趣無不極。故趣于智理之三諦。則三千為所顯。如雲三千果成咸稱常樂。趣于情事之三惑。則三千為所破。如雲三千在理同名無為。成無不俗乃通二向。一自行證體則為所破。如雲亡凈穢故以空以中。二化他證用則為所顯。如雲化他三千赴物約一性全體為此三千。故破處非破顯處非顯。是故三千終歸是非破非顯之妙法也。如指的妙境出自法華。

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第三卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 大乘止觀法門宗圓記

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第四

東掖白蓮釋　瞭然　述

二辨受報。有二重問答

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：之前的論述只破除三惑（煩惱障、業障、報障）而顯現三諦（真諦、俗諦、中諦），卻沒有提到『亡照破顯』，這是為什麼？

答：既然說最終歸於『非破非顯』，那麼難道不是破和顯都被揚棄了嗎？而且，所顯現和所揚棄的，就是空、假、中這三諦。這是因為三惑（無明）和三諦（法性）本來就沒有名字。因此，破除三惑即非破除，顯現三諦即非顯現。之所以說『非破非顯』，是因為惑和諦這些名稱本來就沒有。所以荊溪（湛然）說：『猶如濕性本來沒有兩個名字，只是爲了迷惑的人而假立兩個名字。』而且，沒有名字的地方，不僅僅是三惑的名字被揚棄，三諦的名字也被揚棄。揚棄不就是破除嗎？所以現在所立的義理是，凡是在圓頓教義中說『亡』或『破』，就是體達（體悟通達）。沒有聽聞、揚棄、破除、驚疑、凝滯、斷滅，這正是所說的唯一真實的自性，沒有空、假、中。

問：如果用三千（一念三千）來會合這個破顯的道理，它的意義是什麼？

答：攝受沒有不周遍的，所以破和顯、非破非顯、惟破惟顯，都是三千。比如所說『如果不是三千所攝，就不周遍，趣向就沒有窮盡』。所以趣向于智慧道理的三諦，那麼三千就是所顯現的。比如所說『三千果報成就，都稱為常樂』。趣向于情識事相的三惑，那麼三千就是所破除的。比如所說『三千在理上同名為無為』。成就沒有不俗的，乃是通向兩個方面。一是自行證悟本體，那麼就是所破除的。比如所說『揚棄凈和穢，所以用空和中』。二是化他證悟作用，那麼就是所顯現的。比如所說『化他三千，應合事物，約一性全體作為這個三千』。所以破除之處不是破除，顯現之處不是顯現。因此，三千最終歸於非破非顯的妙法。就像指的妙境出自《法華經》。

《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》卷第三卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》

《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》卷第四

東掖白蓮釋瞭然述

二、辨別受報。有兩重問答。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: The previous discussion only refuted the three confusions (煩惱障 [fán nǎo zhàng] - affliction obstacle, 業障 [yè zhàng] - karma obstacle, 報障 [bào zhàng] - retribution obstacle) and revealed the three truths (真諦 [zhēn dì] - truth of emptiness, 俗諦 [sú dì] - conventional truth, 中諦 [zhōng dì] - middle truth), but did not mention 'abandoning illumination, refuting and revealing'. Why is that?

Answer: Since it is said that ultimately it returns to 'neither refuting nor revealing', isn't it that both refuting and revealing are abandoned? Moreover, what is revealed and abandoned are the three truths of emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way. This is because the three confusions (ignorance) and the three truths (Dharmata) originally have no names. Therefore, refuting the three confusions is not refuting, and revealing the three truths is not revealing. The reason for saying 'neither refuting nor revealing' is simply because the names of confusion and truth originally do not exist. Therefore, Jingxi (湛然 [Zhàn rán]) said: 'It is like the nature of wetness originally having no two names, but two names are provisionally established to show those who are confused.' Moreover, in the place where there is no name, not only are the names of the three confusions abandoned, but also the names of the three truths are abandoned. Isn't abandoning refuting? Therefore, the meaning now established is that whenever 'abandoning' or 'refuting' is mentioned in the perfect and sudden teaching, it means complete understanding. Without hearing, abandoning, refuting, surprise, stagnation, cutting off and annihilation, this is precisely what is meant by the one true nature without emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way.

Question: If we use the Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought (一念三千 [yī niàn sān qiān]) to unite this principle of refuting and revealing, what is its meaning?

Answer: Embracing without being incomplete, therefore refuting and revealing, neither refuting nor revealing, only refuting and only revealing are all the Three Thousand Realms. For example, it is said, 'If it is not embraced by the Three Thousand Realms, it is not complete, and the pursuit has no limit.' Therefore, directing towards the three truths of wisdom and reason, then the Three Thousand Realms are what is revealed. For example, it is said, 'The fruition of the Three Thousand Realms is achieved, and all are called constant joy.' Directing towards the three confusions of emotional affairs, then the Three Thousand Realms are what is refuted. For example, it is said, 'The Three Thousand Realms in principle are all called unconditioned.' Achieving without being mundane, it connects to two aspects. First, self-cultivation and realization of the essence is what is refuted. For example, it is said, 'Abandoning purity and impurity, therefore using emptiness and the middle way.' Second, transforming others and realizing the function is what is revealed. For example, it is said, 'Transforming others with the Three Thousand Realms, responding to things, taking the entire nature of one essence as these Three Thousand Realms.' Therefore, the place of refuting is not refuting, and the place of revealing is not revealing. Therefore, the Three Thousand Realms ultimately return to the wonderful Dharma of neither refuting nor revealing. It is like the wonderful realm pointed out comes from the Lotus Sutra.

The Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Cessation and Contemplation Dharma Gate, Volume 3 卍 New Continued Collection, Volume 55, No. 0904, The Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Cessation and Contemplation Dharma Gate

The Record of the Essentials of the Great Vehicle Cessation and Contemplation Dharma Gate, Volume 4

Explained by Sh釋瞭然 [Shì Liǎo Rán] of Bai Lian (White Lotus) in Dongye

Discriminating Receiving Retribution. There are two layers of questions and answers.

。初問意者既事與性六道之因一心中有。何不此因同於一時俱感報耶。答二。初凡夫不得三。初總答不得。二何以下釋意。三但可下正答。但可因具不可果並。然因果之義其實不差。今曰因具者從事為言。次第積集故云具爾。若論造因實亦前後。以前後故故報不俱。若以性融故可頓具。眾生但理從事則親。所以受報不能頓現。諸佛得事從理則親。所以一時色身普現。問。偏教菩薩能一時中亦現六道。應理親耶。答。實由得於理性少分。但彼不知。云神通爾。例荊溪云。外道之法。聽死骨聲能達遠事者。良由色中本具諸法。故使外道得其少分。冥依其本日用不知。

二復若下。菩薩可然用彼等者。應知起用有二根本。一事。二性。事則未得道前在生死中受無量身有無量業。今既得果從悲願力。乃憑昔業為化用本。大師引南嶽云。待破煩惱入無生忍。於法身地還入生死以償眾生。斯則正是以悲願力。用彼故業性。則本具性惡普現色身。淺不該深偏故起用。但知悲願扶成先業。深能該淺圓實依性。不妨憑業亦了此業無非是性。次問意者。約一人別報難十界總報。亦應一切凡聖次第先後受報者。且如一人先受人身次受佛身。何不亦令一切眾生皆同先受人身次受佛身。何故同時有受人身者有受佛身者。故云不應一時之中有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：最初的問題是，既然事和性，以及六道輪迴的原因，都在一心之中，為什麼這些原因不能同時一起感受到果報呢？回答分為兩點。第一點，凡夫不能做到。分為三點：首先是總體的回答，不能做到。第二點，『何以下釋意』，解釋原因。第三點，『但可下正答』，正面回答。只能說原因具備，但果報不能同時顯現。然而，因和果的意義實際上並沒有差別。現在說原因具備，是從事相上來說的，次第積累，所以說是具備而已。如果從造因上來說，實際上也有先後。因為有先後，所以果報不能同時顯現。如果從性體融合的角度來說，就可以頓然具備。眾生只是從理上親近事相，所以接受果報不能立刻顯現。諸佛是從事相上親近理體，所以能一時普遍顯現色身。問：偏教的菩薩也能在同一時間顯現六道，這應該算是理體親近嗎？答：實際上是因為他們得到了理性的一小部分，但他們自己並不知道，只認為是神通而已。例如荊溪所說，外道之法，聽死人骨頭的聲音就能知道遙遠的事情，這是因為色法中本來就具備諸法，所以使得外道得到其中的少分，暗中依靠其根本而運用，自己卻不知道。第二點，『復若下』，菩薩可以這樣運用，應該知道起用有兩個根本：一是事，二是性。從事相上來說，未得道前在生死輪迴中接受了無數的身體，造作了無數的業。現在既然已經證得果位，憑藉悲願的力量，就以過去的業作為化用的根本。大師引用南嶽慧思的話說，等待破除煩惱，進入無生法忍，在法身之地還要進入生死輪迴，以償還眾生。這正是以悲願力來運用過去的業。從性體上來說，本來就具備性惡，可以普遍顯現色身。淺顯的不能涵蓋深奧的，偏頗的所以起用。只知道悲願扶持成就先前的業。深奧的能夠涵蓋淺顯的，圓滿真實的依靠性體，不妨礙憑藉業力，也明白這業力無非是性體。接下來問，如果按照一人分別受報來說，很難理解十法界總體的果報。也應該是所有的凡夫和聖人次第先後地接受果報。比如一個人先接受人身，然後接受佛身，為什麼不能讓所有的眾生都先接受人身，然後接受佛身呢？為什麼同時有接受人身的人，也有接受佛身的人呢？所以說不應該在同一時間有。

【English Translation】 English version: The initial question is, since 'shi' (deeds) and 'xing' (nature), as well as the causes of the six realms of samsara, are all within one mind, why can't these causes be felt simultaneously as retribution? The answer is in two points. First, ordinary beings cannot achieve this. This is divided into three points: first, the overall answer is that it cannot be done. Second, 'He yi xia shi yi' (何以下釋意), explaining the reason. Third, 'Dan ke xia zheng da' (但可下正答), a direct answer. It can only be said that the causes are complete, but the retributions cannot manifest simultaneously. However, the meaning of cause and effect is actually not different. Now, saying that the causes are complete is from the perspective of 'shi' (deeds), accumulating in sequence, so it is said to be complete. If discussing the creation of causes, there is actually a sequence. Because there is a sequence, the retributions cannot be simultaneous. If from the perspective of the fusion of 'xing' (nature), it can be complete instantly. Sentient beings are only close to 'shi' (deeds) from the perspective of 'li' (principle), so receiving retribution cannot manifest immediately. Buddhas are close to 'li' (principle) from the perspective of 'shi' (deeds), so they can universally manifest the physical body at once. Question: Can Bodhisattvas of the partial teachings also manifest the six realms at the same time, should this be considered closeness to 'li' (principle)? Answer: Actually, it is because they have obtained a small part of 'li' (principle), but they themselves do not know it, and only consider it as supernatural powers. For example, as Jingxi said, the methods of externalists, listening to the sound of dead people's bones can know distant things, this is because 'se' (form) inherently possesses all 'fa' (dharmas), so that externalists obtain a small part of it, secretly relying on its root and using it, but they do not know it themselves. Second, 'Fu ruo xia' (復若下), Bodhisattvas can use this, it should be known that there are two fundamental roots for arising use: one is 'shi' (deeds), and the other is 'xing' (nature). From the perspective of 'shi' (deeds), before attaining the Way, in the cycle of birth and death, they received countless bodies and created countless karmas. Now that they have attained the fruit, relying on the power of compassion and vows, they use the past karma as the foundation for transformation. The Great Master quoted Nanyue Huisi saying, waiting to break through afflictions and enter the Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti (無生法忍), in the Dharmakaya (法身) ground, they still enter the cycle of birth and death to repay sentient beings. This is precisely using the power of compassion and vows to use the past karma. From the perspective of 'xing' (nature), it inherently possesses the evil nature, and can universally manifest the physical body. The shallow cannot encompass the profound, the partial is why it arises use. Only knowing that compassion and vows support and accomplish the previous karma. The profound can encompass the shallow, the complete and true relies on 'xing' (nature), it does not hinder relying on karma, and also understands that this karma is none other than 'xing' (nature). Next question, if according to one person receiving retribution separately, it is difficult to understand the overall retribution of the Ten Dharma Realms. It should also be that all ordinary beings and sages receive retribution in sequence. For example, a person first receives a human body, and then receives a Buddha body, why can't all sentient beings first receive a human body, and then receive a Buddha body? Why are there people receiving human bodies at the same time, and also people receiving Buddha bodies? So it is said that there should not be at the same time.

眾多凡聖。又何不令一人先受凡聖報已。次令一人受凡聖報。如是一切凡聖次第受報。故云不應一時之中有眾多凡聖。

答三。初破計。問者正計。由一心為體故不得受眾多身。今先破云不由一心。復恐轉計。由一心為體故得受眾多身。故亦破云不由一心。文若不作破計而申妨。下文云世間出世間事得成立者皆由心性。有此道理。今報由心。即自性計一。若破計已。何妨而云由此一心為體故有受報不同。又從性體故云不由。良以平等性體非多非一非聖非凡。所有凡聖受報不同皆非心體。從性用故。故云皆由以此性體具足諸法乃有一多受報不同。皆由性用有此道理。二但法下示以法爾。但法界法爾。有多人之總。有一人之別。以有總故雖同一心為體不妨一時有眾多身。以有別故雖亦一心為體不妨一時無眾多身。云法爾者。爾。此也。謂不構造其法自如此。猶云自然也。若復執於法界法爾。即自然計。屬無因性。須同前破。又今從性用故云法界法爾。總而言之。從性體故法界法爾。不由一心為體有一多受報不同。從性用故法界法爾有總有別。故得一多受報不同。若由不由皆法界法爾。三若如下。顯性圓具。以先後受報之法正屬生滅。情相亦是性具。

三再辨治惑二。初問者執由一心為體。故乃染凈相除。生佛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本眾多凡夫和聖人，為什麼不讓一個人先承受凡夫和聖人的果報完畢，然後讓另一個人承受凡夫和聖人的果報呢？像這樣，一切凡夫和聖人依次承受果報。所以說不應該在同一時間有眾多的凡夫和聖人。

回答有三點。第一，破除計較。提問者正是計較，因為以一心為本體，所以不能承受眾多的身體。現在先破除說不由一心。又恐怕轉而計較，因為以一心為本體，所以能夠承受眾多的身體，所以也破除說不由一心。如果文章不作破除計較而申述妨礙，下文說世間和出世間的事情能夠成立，都是由於心性。有這個道理。現在果報由心，就是自性計較唯一。如果破除計較完畢，為什麼妨礙而說由於這個一心為本體，所以有承受果報的不同。又從性體來說，所以說不由。因為平等性體非多非一，非聖非凡。所有凡夫和聖人承受果報不同，都不是心體。從性用來說，所以說都是由於這個性體具足諸法，才有一多承受果報的不同。都是由於性用有這個道理。第二，『但法下』，顯示以法爾如是。只是法界法爾如是，有多人的總相，有一人的別相。因為有總相，所以即使同一心為本體，不妨礙一時有眾多身體。因為有別相，所以即使也是一心為本體，不妨礙一時沒有眾多身體。說『法爾』，『爾』，就是『此』，意思是說不構造，其法自然如此，就像說是自然一樣。如果又執著於法界法爾，就是自然計較，屬於無因性，需要如同前面一樣破除。又現在從性用來說，所以說法界法爾。總而言之，從性體來說，法界法爾，不由一心為本體，有一多承受果報的不同。從性用來說，法界法爾，有總有別，所以能夠一多承受果報的不同。無論由還是不由，都是法界法爾。第三，『若如下』，顯示性體圓滿具足。因為先後承受果報之法，正是屬於生滅。情相也是性體所具足的。

第三，再次辨明治理迷惑，分為兩點。第一，提問者執著于由一心為本體，所以染污和清凈互相消除，生和佛

【English Translation】 English version Why don't you let one ordinary being and sage first receive the retribution of ordinary beings and sages, and then let another person receive the retribution of ordinary beings and sages? In this way, all ordinary beings and sages receive retribution in order. Therefore, it is said that there should not be many ordinary beings and sages at the same time.

The answer has three points. First, refute the attachment. The questioner is precisely attached, because taking one mind as the substance, one cannot receive many bodies. Now, first refute by saying it is not due to one mind. Fearing a change in attachment, that because taking one mind as the substance, one can receive many bodies, therefore, also refute by saying it is not due to one mind. If the text does not refute the attachment but states the obstacle, the following text says that worldly and other-worldly matters can be established because of the nature of the mind. There is this principle. Now, retribution is due to the mind, which is the attachment to the self-nature as one. If the attachment has been refuted, why hinder and say that because this one mind is the substance, there are different retributions. Also, from the perspective of the nature of the substance, it is said that it is not due to it. Because the equal nature of the substance is neither many nor one, neither sage nor ordinary. All the different retributions received by ordinary beings and sages are not the substance of the mind. From the perspective of the function of the nature, it is said that it is all due to this nature of the substance being fully equipped with all dharmas, then there are differences in receiving retribution as one or many. It is all due to the function of the nature having this principle. Second, 'But the Dharma below' shows that it is naturally so. It is just that the Dharma Realm is naturally so, there is the generality of many people, and there is the particularity of one person. Because there is generality, even if it is the same mind as the substance, it does not hinder having many bodies at the same time. Because there is particularity, even if it is also the same mind as the substance, it does not hinder not having many bodies at the same time. Saying 'naturally', 'naturally' means 'this', meaning that it is not constructed, the Dharma is naturally so, just like saying it is natural. If one is attached to the Dharma Realm being naturally so, it is a natural attachment, belonging to causelessness, and needs to be refuted as before. Also, now from the perspective of the function of the nature, it is said that the Dharma Realm is naturally so. In summary, from the perspective of the nature of the substance, the Dharma Realm is naturally so, not due to one mind as the substance, there are differences in receiving retribution as one or many. From the perspective of the function of the nature, the Dharma Realm is naturally so, there is generality and particularity, therefore, one can receive retribution as one or many differently. Whether it is due to or not due to, it is all the Dharma Realm being naturally so. Third, 'If below' shows that the nature is complete and fully equipped. Because the Dharma of receiving retribution sooner or later belongs to arising and ceasing. Emotional appearances are also equipped by the nature of the substance.

Third, further clarify and govern delusion, divided into two points. First, the questioner is attached to taking one mind as the substance, therefore, defilement and purity eliminate each other, birth and Buddha

既同一心。佛凈必除生染。是則生不用修。理合自然得道耶。答三。初破計。計由一心為體染凈相除。破云不由。復恐轉計。由一心為體。眾生之染諸佛之凈二不相除。亦破不由。又恐轉計。既然不由一心。必由生佛各心故不相除。今亦破云不由別心。然計由別心為體者。能計所計皆是虛妄。計由一心為體者。執情為妄。但破執計。非謂破于凡聖心體。二但法下。示以法爾。乃約染凈法同己他人別以示法爾。所謂染凈法同者。在己修道以凈除染。在他修道亦凈除染。是故己他染凈二法法體是同。皆染凈故。皆相除故。但以己他人別。是故不可以己之凈除他染。三如來下。顯性圓具。有人才說性具便是所顯。故說三千唯顯無破。豈知此性無所不具。具顯具破。故如來藏有相除法不相除法。或以事三千為所破。唯云屬思議具非是性具。豈知此文。以不知此文故。事唯定破不通所顯。若知所破即是性具。或破或顯皆吾心體。悉不思議。

二通辨有二重問答。初重二。初問二。初總疑。二如我下別問三。初立宗。二何以下說義二。初受報。二又復下治惑。三何為下結難。其謂各各心性為體而性不可一者。涅槃師子吼問佛言。世尊。眾生佛性為悉共有。為各各有。若共有者。一人得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時。一切眾生亦應同

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『既同一心』。如果佛的清凈能夠消除眾生的染污，那麼眾生就不用修行，按照道理應該自然得道嗎？回答有三重含義。第一重是破除計較。有人認為以『一心』為本體，染污和清凈可以相互消除。破斥說並非如此。又恐怕他們轉而認為，以『一心』為本體，眾生的染污和諸佛的清凈二者不能相互消除。也破斥說並非如此。又恐怕他們轉而認為，既然不是因為『一心』，必定是因為眾生和佛各有其心，所以不能相互消除。現在也破斥說並非因為各自的心。然而，認為以各自的心為本體的人，能計較的和所計較的都是虛妄的。認為以『一心』為本體的人，是執著于情識而產生虛妄。只是破除執著和計較，並不是要破除凡夫和聖人的心體。第二重，『但法下』，揭示法爾如是。這是從染污和清凈的法則相同，自己和他人有所區別的角度來揭示法爾如是。所謂染凈法則相同，是指自己在修行時用清凈來消除染污，他人在修行時也是用清凈來消除染污。因此，自己和他人的染污和清凈這兩種法則，其法體是相同的，都是染污和清凈，都可以相互消除。只是因為自己和他人有所區別，所以不能用自己的清凈來消除他人的染污。第三重，『如來下』，彰顯自性的圓滿具足。有人剛說到自性具足，就認為是所顯現的，所以說『三千』只是顯現而沒有破除。豈知這個自性無所不具，既具足顯現也具足破除。所以如來藏既有相除的法則，也有不相除的法則。或者認為事相上的『三千』是所破除的，只說是屬於思議的具足，而不是自性具足。豈知這段經文，因為不瞭解這段經文的緣故，事相就只能被確定為破除的對象，而不能通達所顯現的。如果知道所破除的就是自性具足，那麼或者破除或者顯現，都是吾人的心體，都是不可思議的。第二部分，總的辨析有兩重問答。第一重有兩部分。第一部分是提問，分為兩點。第一點是總的疑問。第二點，『如我下』，是分別提問，分為三點。第一點是立宗。第二點，『何以下』，是解釋意義，分為兩點。第一點是受報。第二點，『又復下』，是匡正迷惑。第三點，『何為下』，是總結並提出疑問。他們認為各自的心性為本體，而心性不可統一。如《涅槃經》的《師子吼品》中，阿難問佛說：『世尊，眾生的佛性是全部共有，還是各自獨有？如果共有的話，那麼一人證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）時，一切眾生也應該同時證得。』

【English Translation】 English version 『Since the mind is the same.』 If the purity of the Buddha can eliminate the defilements of sentient beings, then sentient beings do not need to cultivate, and according to reason, they should naturally attain the Dao? The answer has three meanings. The first is to refute attachment. Some people think that taking the 『one mind』 as the substance, defilement and purity can eliminate each other. Refute that it is not so. And fearing that they would turn to think that taking the 『one mind』 as the substance, the defilements of sentient beings and the purity of the Buddhas cannot eliminate each other. Also refute that it is not so. And fearing that they would turn to think that since it is not because of the 『one mind』, it must be because sentient beings and Buddhas each have their own minds, so they cannot eliminate each other. Now also refute that it is not because of each mind. However, those who think that taking each mind as the substance, both what can be attached to and what is attached to are illusory. Those who think that taking the 『one mind』 as the substance are attached to emotions and produce illusion. It is only to refute attachment and calculation, not to refute the mind-substance of ordinary people and saints. The second, 『But the Dharma below,』 reveals the suchness of Dharma. This is to reveal the suchness of Dharma from the perspective that the laws of defilement and purity are the same, and oneself and others are different. The so-called same laws of defilement and purity refer to using purity to eliminate defilement when oneself is cultivating, and using purity to eliminate defilement when others are cultivating. Therefore, the two laws of defilement and purity of oneself and others, their Dharma-substance is the same, both are defilement and purity, and both can eliminate each other. It is only because oneself and others are different, so one cannot use one's own purity to eliminate the defilement of others. The third, 『Tathagata below,』 highlights the complete perfection of self-nature. Some people just say that self-nature is complete, and think that it is what is revealed, so it is said that 『three thousand』 is only revealed and not refuted. How can one know that this self-nature is complete in everything, both complete in revelation and complete in refutation. Therefore, the Tathagatagarbha (Tathāgatagarbha, the womb of the Buddhas) has both the law of elimination and the law of non-elimination. Or think that the 『three thousand』 in phenomena are what is to be refuted, only saying that it belongs to the completeness of thought, not the completeness of self-nature. How can one know this passage, because one does not understand this passage, phenomena can only be determined as the object of refutation, and cannot penetrate what is revealed. If one knows that what is refuted is the completeness of self-nature, then whether refuting or revealing, it is all our mind-substance, all are inconceivable. The second part, the general analysis has two layers of questions and answers. The first layer has two parts. The first part is the question, divided into two points. The first point is the general doubt. The second point, 『As I below,』 is to ask separately, divided into three points. The first point is to establish the doctrine. The second point, 『What below,』 is to explain the meaning, divided into two points. The first point is to receive retribution. The second point, 『Again below,』 is to correct confusion. The third point, 『What for below,』 is to summarize and raise questions. They think that each mind-nature is the substance, and the mind-nature cannot be unified. As in the 『Lion's Roar』 chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, Ananda asked the Buddha: 『World Honored One, is the Buddha-nature of sentient beings all shared, or is it each unique? If it is shared, then when one person attains Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment), all sentient beings should also attain it at the same time.』

得。世尊。如二十人同有一怨。若一人能除。餘十九人皆亦同除。佛性若爾。一人得時余亦應得。若各各有則是無常。何以故。可算數故。然佛所說。眾生佛性不一不二。若各各有。不應說言諸佛平等。亦不應說佛性如空。佛言。善男子。眾生佛性不一不二。諸佛平等猶如虛空。一切眾生同共有之。若有能修八聖道者。當知是人則得明見。章安釋云。言不一不二者。不一故非共。不二故非各。雖爾終是一切眾生同共有之。地人云。一切眾生同阿梨耶識法界體性。若爾一人得時應多人得。論師云。眾生各有佛性。但成佛時權智齊等同一法身。力無畏等亦復如是。若爾佛性可數即是無常。正當此難。然佛性平等非一非二非共非各。如今之持戒修行之人。不可一不可異。人人各修。豈得是一。我解彼解。彼解我解。是故不異。乃至云佛性是一。隨多人修。各各得之。不相妨礙。今曰法界法體有同有異。以有同故。同必在理。故乃性等。以有異故。異必在事。故乃修殊。事無別殊乃殊于理。以理從事。故此修道見性成佛彼不見曰在迷。理無別同乃同於事。以事從理。故此見性所修凈法亦資于彼。名曰隨喜。前文答云而不相滅者。且從己他事異而論。今此問中各一心體者。全共法界有同之義。答三。初總行立宗。二汝言下別答惑

【現代漢語翻譯】得（Dé，好的，可以）。世尊（Shìzūn，對佛的尊稱），比如二十個人共同憎恨一個仇人。如果其中一人能夠除掉這個仇人，其餘十九個人也都相當於除掉了仇人。如果佛性是這樣，那麼一人證得佛性，其餘的人也應該同時證得。如果每個人各有各的佛性，那就是無常的。為什麼呢？因為可以被計數。然而佛所說，眾生的佛性不是單一的也不是二元的。如果每個人各有各的佛性，就不應該說諸佛是平等的，也不應該說佛性如同虛空。佛說：『善男子（Shàn nánzǐ，對男子的尊稱）！眾生的佛性不是單一的也不是二元的。諸佛的平等就像虛空一樣，一切眾生共同擁有它。如果有人能夠修習八聖道（Bā shèngdào，佛教的修行方法），應當知道這個人就能明見佛性。』章安（Zhāng'ān，人名）解釋說：『說不一不二，是因為不一所以不是共同的，不二所以不是各自獨立的。雖然如此，終究是一切眾生共同擁有的。』地人（Dìrén，人名）說：『一切眾生共同擁有阿梨耶識（Ālíyēshí，佛教術語，第八識）的法界體性。』如果這樣，那麼一人證得佛性時，應該很多人同時證得。論師（Lùnshī，佛學理論家）說：『眾生各自有佛性，但是成佛時，權智（quánzhì，方便智慧）是齊等的，同一法身（fǎshēn，佛的真身）。力（lì，力量）、無畏（wúwèi，無所畏懼）等等也是如此。』如果這樣，佛性可以計數，那就是無常的。這正是這個問題的難點。然而佛性是平等的，非一非二，非共同非各自獨立的。就像現在持戒修行的人，不可說是一，也不可說是異。人人各自修行，怎麼能說是一呢？我理解，你也理解，你理解，我也理解，所以不是異。乃至說佛性是一，隨多少人修行，各自證得，互不妨礙。現在說，法界（fǎjiè，宇宙萬法）的法體有同有異。因為有相同的地方，相同之處必定在於理（lǐ，真理），所以說是性等。因為有不同的地方，不同之處必定在於事（shì，現象），所以說是修行不同。事沒有分別，是因為理的緣故。以理來從事，所以此人修道見性成佛，彼人不見性就在迷惑之中。理沒有分別，是因為事的緣故。以事來從理，所以此人見性所修的清凈之法，也能資助於彼人，這叫做隨喜（suíxǐ，隨順他人的功德而生歡喜心）。前面回答說不相滅，是從自己和他人的事相不同來論述的。現在這個問題中，各自一心體，完全共同擁有法界的相同之義。』回答分為三點：第一，總的修行立宗；第二，你所說的下面分別回答疑惑。

【English Translation】『Excellent, World-Honored One (Shìzūn, a respectful title for the Buddha). It is like twenty people who share a common enemy. If one person can eliminate that enemy, the remaining nineteen people also effectively eliminate the enemy. If Buddha-nature is like this, then when one person attains it, the others should also attain it simultaneously. If each person has their own individual Buddha-nature, then it is impermanent. Why? Because it can be counted. However, the Buddha said that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is neither one nor two. If each person has their own individual Buddha-nature, then it should not be said that all Buddhas are equal, nor should it be said that Buddha-nature is like space. The Buddha said: 'Good man (Shàn nánzǐ, a respectful title for men)! The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is neither one nor two. The equality of all Buddhas is like empty space, which all sentient beings share. If someone can cultivate the Eightfold Noble Path (Bā shèngdào, the Buddhist path to enlightenment), know that this person will then clearly see Buddha-nature.' Zhang'an (Zhāng'ān, a person's name) explains: 'Saying neither one nor two is because it is not one, therefore it is not shared; it is not two, therefore it is not individually separate. Even so, it is ultimately shared by all sentient beings.' Diren (Dìrén, a person's name) says: 'All sentient beings share the Dharma-realm (fǎjiè, the universe and all its phenomena) nature of the Alaya-consciousness (Ālíyēshí, the eighth consciousness in Buddhism).' If so, then when one person attains Buddha-nature, many people should attain it simultaneously. The Treatise Master (Lùnshī, a Buddhist theorist) says: 'Sentient beings each have Buddha-nature, but when they become Buddhas, their expedient wisdom (quánzhì, skillful means) is equal, and they share the same Dharma-body (fǎshēn, the true body of the Buddha). Powers (lì, strength), fearlessness (wúwèi, absence of fear), and so on are also the same.' If so, Buddha-nature can be counted, which means it is impermanent. This is precisely the difficulty of this question. However, Buddha-nature is equal, neither one nor two, neither shared nor individually separate. It is like people who uphold precepts and cultivate now, it cannot be said to be one, nor can it be said to be different. Each person cultivates individually, how can it be said to be one? I understand, and you understand; you understand, and I understand, therefore it is not different. Even to say that Buddha-nature is one, no matter how many people cultivate, each attains it, without hindering each other. Now it is said that the Dharma-body of the Dharma-realm (fǎjiè, the universe and all its phenomena) has similarities and differences. Because there are similarities, the similarities must lie in principle (lǐ, truth), therefore it is said to be equal in nature. Because there are differences, the differences must lie in phenomena (shì, phenomena), therefore it is said that cultivation is different. Phenomena are not different because of principle. Using principle to engage in phenomena, therefore this person cultivates the path, sees the nature, and becomes a Buddha, while that person does not see the nature and is in delusion. Principle is not different because of phenomena. Using phenomena to follow principle, therefore this person's pure Dharma cultivated upon seeing the nature can also assist that person, which is called rejoicing (suíxǐ, taking joy in the merits of others). The previous answer that they do not extinguish each other is discussed from the difference in phenomena between oneself and others. In this question now, each person's single mind-essence completely shares the same meaning of the Dharma-realm.' The answer is divided into three points: first, the general practice establishes the doctrine; second, the doubts you mentioned are answered separately below.

報。三以是下總結別答又二。初答受報二。初牒計。二如法下正難五。初約佛分身難。二約生返源難。三善賊遍身難。四夢中見眾難。五菩薩受身難。二又復下答治惑三。初牒計。二一人下正難。三何為下結斥正難又二。初邪計三。初約惑染盡滅難一心不容二法。二若此下。約染凈雙有難一人須有二心。三若使下。約一心而有染凈結難一心不容二法。二是故下示正義。

第二重。初問一時有多等者。若據上文以答此竟。今再問者發下答文。通途指示無出法爾。又上文以一難多令多同一。故云亦應一切凡聖次第先後受報。今文以多難一令一同多。故云何為一眾生不俱受六道報耶。答二。初通示法爾凡有六重。初是上文示凡聖皆同一心為體。故一心中有一切凡聖。次是上文別據一眾生不得一時受六道報。三是上文不得以他之凈滅己之染。一切凡聖雖同一心為體而不相滅。四是上文別據一眾生雖亦一心為體。即染凈二事相除。五是上文問有何道理得以智斷惑。並計一一心中不容染凈二法故能斷惑。六是上文問一心中俱有解惑種子。外人意云由別有心。今則破云不由別有。二是故下別示功能三。初有理可成。故知諸法皆由心性。有此理故方得成就。心性者即法界法爾也。二若無下。無理不成。三法界下。結示法爾。成與

【現代漢語翻譯】報。以下總結了三個不同的回答，又分為兩部分。第一部分回答接受果報，分為兩部分。首先是簡要概括計算，然後是『如法下』正式提出五個難題。第一個難題是關於佛陀分身，第二個難題是關於生命返本溯源，第三個難題是善賊遍身，第四個難題是夢中見到眾人，第五個難題是菩薩受身。第二部分是『又復下』回答如何治理迷惑，分為三部分。首先是簡要概括計算，然後是『一人下』正式提出難題，然後是『何為下』總結並駁斥難題，又分為兩部分。第一部分是邪見，分為三部分。第一部分是關於迷惑染污完全滅盡的難題，認為一心不能容納兩種不同的狀態。第二部分是『若此下』，關於染污和清凈同時存在的難題，認為一個人必須有兩顆心。第三部分是『若使下』，關於一顆心同時具有染污和清凈的結論性難題，認為一心不能容納兩種不同的狀態。第二部分是『是故下』，展示正確的道理。第二重。首先提問為什麼一時會有多種情況等問題。如果根據上文來回答，這個問題已經結束了。現在再次提問是爲了引發下面的回答。普遍地指示，沒有超出事物本來的規律。而且上文用『一』來為難『多』，使『多』歸於『一』。所以說也應該一切凡夫聖人依次先後接受果報。現在用『多』來為難『一』，使『一』歸於『多』。所以說為什麼一個眾生不能同時接受六道輪迴的果報呢？回答分為兩部分。第一部分是普遍地揭示事物本來的規律，總共有六重含義。第一重是上文所說的凡夫和聖人都是同一顆心作為本體。所以一顆心中有一切凡夫和聖人。第二重是上文特別指出一個眾生不能同時接受六道輪迴的果報。第三重是上文所說的不能用他人的清凈來滅除自己的染污。一切凡夫聖人雖然同一顆心作為本體，但不會互相滅除。第四重是上文特別指出一個眾生雖然也是同一顆心作為本體，但染污和清凈兩種狀態會互相消除。第五重是上文提問有什麼道理可以用智慧來斷除迷惑，並且認為每一顆心中不能容納染污和清凈兩種狀態，所以能夠斷除迷惑。第六重是上文提問一顆心中同時具有解脫迷惑的種子。外人的意思是說由於有另外的心。現在則駁斥說不是由於另外的心。第二部分是『是故下』，分別展示功能，分為三部分。第一部分是有道理可以成就。所以知道諸法都是由心性而來。有了這個道理才能成就。心性就是法界本來的規律。第二部分是『若無下』，沒有道理就不能成就。第三部分是『法界下』，總結並揭示事物本來的規律，成就與否。

【English Translation】 Report. The following summarizes three different answers, further divided into two parts. The first part answers the acceptance of retribution, divided into two parts. First, a brief summary calculation, then 'Ru Fa Xia' (如法下) formally raises five difficulties. The first difficulty is about the Buddha's (佛) manifestations (分身, fēnshēn), the second is about the return of life to its source (生返源, shēng fǎnyuán), the third is the good thief pervading the body (善賊遍身, shàn zéi biànshēn), the fourth is seeing the masses in a dream (夢中見眾, mèng zhōng jiàn zhòng), and the fifth is the Bodhisattva (菩薩, Púsà) receiving a body (受身, shòushēn). The second part is 'You Fu Xia' (又復下) answering how to govern delusion, divided into three parts. First, a brief summary calculation, then 'Yi Ren Xia' (一人下) formally raises difficulties, then 'He Wei Xia' (何為下) summarizes and refutes the difficulties, further divided into two parts. The first part is wrong views, divided into three parts. The first part is about the difficulty of the complete extinction of delusion and defilement, believing that one mind cannot accommodate two different states. The second part is 'Ruo Ci Xia' (若此下), about the difficulty of defilement and purity coexisting, believing that a person must have two minds. The third part is 'Ruo Shi Xia' (若使下), about the conclusive difficulty of one mind having both defilement and purity, believing that one mind cannot accommodate two different states. The second part is 'Shi Gu Xia' (是故下), showing the correct principle. The second layer. First, ask why there are multiple situations at one time, etc. If answering according to the above text, this question is already finished. Now asking again is to elicit the following answer. Universally indicating, there is nothing beyond the inherent law of things. Moreover, the above text uses 'one' to challenge 'many', making 'many' return to 'one'. Therefore, it is said that all ordinary beings and sages should also receive retribution in sequence. Now using 'many' to challenge 'one', making 'one' return to 'many'. Therefore, why can't one sentient being receive the retribution of the six realms (六道, liùdào) simultaneously? The answer is divided into two parts. The first part is to universally reveal the inherent law of things, with a total of six meanings. The first meaning is that ordinary beings and sages are the same mind as the essence, as mentioned above. Therefore, there are all ordinary beings and sages in one mind. The second meaning is that one sentient being cannot receive the retribution of the six realms simultaneously, as specifically pointed out above. The third meaning is that one cannot use the purity of others to extinguish one's own defilement, as mentioned above. Although all ordinary beings and sages have the same mind as the essence, they will not extinguish each other. The fourth meaning is that although one sentient being also has the same mind as the essence, the two states of defilement and purity will eliminate each other, as specifically pointed out above. The fifth meaning is asking what reason can be used to cut off delusion with wisdom, and believing that one mind cannot accommodate the two states of defilement and purity, so it can cut off delusion, as asked above. The sixth meaning is asking that one mind simultaneously has the seeds of liberation from delusion, as asked above. Outsiders mean that it is due to another mind. Now it is refuted that it is not due to another mind. The second part is 'Shi Gu Xia' (是故下), separately showing functions, divided into three parts. The first part is that there is a reason to achieve it. Therefore, know that all dharmas (諸法, zhūfǎ) come from mind-nature (心性, xīnxìng). Only with this reason can it be achieved. Mind-nature is the inherent law of the Dharma Realm (法界, fǎjiè). The second part is 'Ruo Wu Xia' (若無下), without reason, it cannot be achieved. The third part is 'Fa Jie Xia' (法界下), summarizing and revealing the inherent law of things, whether it is achieved or not.

不成皆法爾也。不成者逆性成迷。成者順性為行。此逆此順無非性具。悉是法爾。文雖在於邪見。正義必該於偏圓。

六明共相不共相識三。初標章。二問下解釋二。初問。二答下釋二。初通示體相。正報相見依報受用各有共不共者。就相而辨。然此形相起必有體。今欲明相故順辨體。是以先示體之與相。體是平等真如。相是虛妄形質阿梨耶識。或唯在妄或通真妄。今取唯妄故名為相。若了此相必不離體。復通真妄。文云共相法身者。共相之言不同下文共相識也。今是無相真相之相。下是有相妄相之相。今是平等總共之共。下是於今總共之中論共不共。

二就此下。就相別示二。初凈分染分二。初示。二分。和合識者。一由此識具含染凈名和合識。今云清凈和合者。以今凈分有下染分。下云染濁和合者。以下染分有今凈分。二由此識具含事理名和合識。以染凈二分乃是逆順二事之相。相必依理。波必有水。是故凈分亦與理和。故名清凈和合。染分亦與理和。故云染濁和合。如清濁波各與水合。如下文云。阿梨耶識有二分。一者覺。二者不覺。覺即凈心。不覺即無明。此二和合說為本識。此二和合者文通二義。若以覺分為始覺。即同今文染凈和合。若以覺分為本覺。即同今文事理和合。卻以不覺攝今染凈。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不成，都是法爾如是（Dharmata，事物本來的樣子）。不成，是逆著自性而成就迷惑；成，是順著自性而作為。這逆和這順，無一不是自性所具備的，全部都是法爾如是。文字雖然在於邪見，但正義必然包含偏和圓。六、闡明共相和不共相的阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna，含藏一切種子識）有三種含義。首先標出章節，其次提問並解釋這三種含義。先是提問，然後回答並解釋這三種含義。首先總的揭示體和相。正報（Karma-vipāka，由業力所感的果報）的相見和依報（Āśraya-vipāka，所依止的果報）的受用，各有共相和不共相，這是就現象來辨別的。然而，這些形相的生起必定有其本體。現在想要闡明相，所以順便辨別體。因此，先揭示體和相。體是平等的真如（Tathātā，如實不虛的真理），相是虛妄的形質，即阿賴耶識。或者只存在於虛妄中，或者貫通真和妄。現在取只存在於虛妄中的部分，所以稱為相。如果瞭解了這個相，必定不離本體，又貫通真和妄。經文中說『共相法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身）』，這裡的共相一詞不同於下文的共相識。現在是無相真相之相，下文是有相妄相之相。現在是平等總共之共，下文是在現在總共之中討論共不共。二、就此以下。就相分別揭示兩種含義：一是凈分，二是染分。首先揭示，然後區分。『和合識』，一是由於此識具含染和凈，所以名為和合識。現在說『清凈和合』，是因為現在的凈分有下面的染分。下文說『染濁和合』，是因為下面的染分有現在的凈分。二是由於此識具含事和理，所以名為和合識。因為染凈二分是逆和順二事的相。相必定依理，波浪必定有水。因此，凈分也與理和合，所以名為清凈和合。染分也與理和合，所以說染濁和合。如同清澈的波浪和渾濁的波浪各自與水結合。如下文所說：『阿賴耶識有二分，一是覺，二是不覺。覺就是凈心，不覺就是無明（Avidyā，對事物真相的無知）。這二者和合，稱為本識。』這二者和合，經文貫通兩種含義。如果以覺分作為始覺，就等同於現在經文的染凈和合。如果以覺分作為本覺，就等同於現在經文的事理和合。卻以不覺涵蓋現在的染凈。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-becoming' is also Dharmata (the way things are). 'Non-becoming' means going against one's nature and becoming deluded. 'Becoming' means following one's nature and acting accordingly. This going against and this following are both inherent in one's nature; all are Dharmata. Although the text may be about wrong views, the correct meaning necessarily encompasses both the partial and the complete. 6. Explaining the three aspects of the shared and unshared characteristics of Ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness, the consciousness that contains all seeds). First, the chapter is introduced. Second, a question is asked, followed by an explanation of the two aspects. First, the question is asked. Then, the answer is given, followed by an explanation of the two aspects. First, the essence and characteristics are generally revealed. The perception of the retribution body (Karma-vipāka, the result of karmic actions) and the enjoyment of the support body (Āśraya-vipāka, the dependent result) each have shared and unshared characteristics, which are distinguished based on phenomena. However, the arising of these forms necessarily has a substance. Now, we want to clarify the characteristics, so we incidentally distinguish the substance. Therefore, we first reveal the substance and the characteristics. The substance is the equal Suchness (Tathātā, the truth that is neither false nor untrue), and the characteristics are the illusory forms and qualities, which are the Ālaya-vijñāna. It either exists only in illusion or pervades both truth and illusion. Now, we take the part that exists only in illusion, so it is called characteristics. If one understands these characteristics, one will necessarily not be separated from the substance, and it also pervades both truth and illusion. The text says 'shared characteristic Dharmakāya (Dharmakāya, the body of the Dharma, the ultimate reality)'. The term 'shared characteristic' here is different from the 'shared characteristic consciousness' mentioned below. Here, it is the characteristic of the formless true aspect, and below it is the characteristic of the formed illusory aspect. Here, it is the sharing of equality and totality, and below it is the discussion of shared and unshared within the present totality. 2. Regarding 'based on this' below. The two aspects are separately revealed based on the characteristics: first, the pure aspect, and second, the defiled aspect. First, it is revealed, then distinguished. 'Combined consciousness' means: first, because this consciousness contains both defilement and purity, it is called combined consciousness. Now, it is said 'pure combination' because the present pure aspect has the defiled aspect below. The text below says 'defiled and turbid combination' because the defiled aspect below has the present pure aspect. Second, because this consciousness contains both phenomena and principle, it is called combined consciousness. Because the defiled and pure aspects are the aspects of the two phenomena of going against and following. The aspect necessarily relies on the principle, and the wave necessarily has water. Therefore, the pure aspect also combines with the principle, so it is called pure combination. The defiled aspect also combines with the principle, so it is said to be a defiled and turbid combination. Just as clear waves and turbid waves each combine with water. As the text below says: 'The Ālaya-vijñāna has two aspects, one is awareness, and the other is non-awareness. Awareness is pure mind, and non-awareness is ignorance (Avidyā, ignorance of the true nature of things). These two combined are called the original consciousness.' These two combined, the text encompasses two meanings. If the awareness aspect is taken as initial awakening, it is the same as the defiled and pure combination in the present text. If the awareness aspect is taken as original awakening, it is the same as the phenomena and principle combination in the present text. However, non-awareness encompasses the present defilement and purity.

皆名不覺。凈分雖是覺體。今取返迷之心無明為本。皆染攝故。文云體者染凈二事。即是當體。相不離性。即是所依。二此二下示體一。體融一味者。前後之文多說性用。今是事用。

二以此下。示共相不共二。初標。立平等真體是總。染凈二相是別。由於真體分染凈故。染凈二相是總。共不共相是別。由於染凈二相各有共不共故。若窮原究本當知染凈共與不共。一切諸法皆依真體。故真體唯總。諸法唯別。前從義門且作此對。

二何故下。釋義二。初二相所從良由性具方可業薰。若非業薰性無由現。若非性現則依正共別來有所從去有所過。今科云。相所從者。非從而從從而非從。皆不思議。名為二相從性而具。共相不共相識者。識即八識。或指八識本有共不共種子。為今業薰。故本有識而現。今曰共不共相。作此說者。所薰唯識而不薰性。或云以業薰性。性隨薰緣故有。今曰共不共相。作此說者所薰雖性。不薰性具。唯我南嶽談性本具。所具者何。共不共相。相即是性是義方圓。全具為相即義方是。

二何者下。正示二相二。初對辨二。初共相二。初總示。乃指依報名為共相。二如一下辨釋三。初約眾成土二。初指事二。初約凈土。然土由生業。或由佛應。若共若非執成性過。今已執說且從生感

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本都叫做『不覺』（avidyā，無明）。雖然『凈分』（śuddha-bhāga，清凈分）是覺悟的本體，但現在取返迷之心，以無明為根本，都是被染污所攝持的緣故。經文中說『體』，指的是染凈二事，就是當下的本體。『相不離性』，指的是所依之處。二，從『此二』以下，顯示體性是一。『體融一味』，前面的經文多說的是體性和作用，現在說的是事和作用。二，從『以此』以下，顯示共相和不共相二者。首先是標示，建立平等的真如本體是總相，染凈二相是別相。由於從真如本體分出染凈，所以染凈二相是總相，共相和不共相是別相。由於染凈二相各有共相和不共相的緣故。如果窮究本源，應當知道染凈的共相和不共相，一切諸法都依于真如本體，所以真如本體唯是總相，諸法唯是別相。前面是從義理的角度暫且這樣對待。二，『何故』以下，解釋義理，分為二部分。首先是二相所從來的原因，實在是因為自性本具，才可以被業力所熏習。如果不是業力熏習，自性就沒有由頭顯現。如果不是自性顯現，那麼依報和正報的共相和不共相，從哪裡來，到哪裡去呢？現在科判說：『相所從者，非從而從，從而非從』，都是不可思議的。名為二相從自性而具足。共相和不共相的『識』，識就是八識（aṣṭa vijñāna，八種意識）。或者指八識本有的共相和不共相的種子，作為現在業力所熏習的對象，所以本有的識才顯現。現在說共相和不共相，這樣說的人認為，所熏習的只是識，而不是自性。或者說用業力熏習自性，自性隨著熏習的因緣而有，現在說共相和不共相，這樣說的人認為，所熏習的雖然是自性，但不是熏習自性本具的。只有我南嶽一系談論自性本具。所具足的是什麼呢？就是共相和不共相。相就是性，這個義理才是圓滿的。全部具足為相，這個義理才是方正的。二，『何者』以下，正式顯示二相，分為二部分。首先是對辨二相，分為二部分。首先是共相，分為二部分。首先是總示，乃是指依報（āśraya，所依託之物）和正報（adhipati-phala，增上果）名為共相。二，『如一』以下辨別解釋，分為三部分。首先是約眾產生土，分為二部分。首先是指事，分為二部分。首先是約凈土（buddhakṣetra，佛土）。然而凈土由眾生業力所生，或者由佛的應化所生。如果執著共相或者非共相，就會造成自性的過失。現在已經執著而說，暫且從眾生業力感應的角度來說。

【English Translation】 English version All are called 'non-awakening' (avidyā). Although 'pure aspect' (śuddha-bhāga) is the essence of awakening, we now take the mind that turns away from delusion, with ignorance as its root, all being encompassed by defilement. The text says 'essence' refers to the two matters of defilement and purity, which is the essence itself. 'Form is not separate from nature' refers to that which is relied upon. Two, from 'these two' below, it shows that the essence is one. 'Essence merges into one flavor,' the preceding texts mostly speak of essence and function, now it speaks of matter and function. Two, from 'with this' below, it shows the common and uncommon aspects. First is the indication, establishing the equal true essence as the general aspect, the two aspects of defilement and purity are the specific aspects. Because defilement and purity are divided from the true essence, the two aspects of defilement and purity are the general aspects, the common and uncommon aspects are the specific aspects. Because the two aspects of defilement and purity each have common and uncommon aspects. If one thoroughly investigates the origin, one should know that the common and uncommon aspects of defilement and purity, all dharmas rely on the true essence, therefore the true essence is only the general aspect, and all dharmas are only the specific aspects. The preceding was from the perspective of meaning, and for the time being, this comparison is made. Two, from 'why' below, it explains the meaning in two parts. First, the origin of the two aspects, truly because the nature is inherently possessed, then it can be熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma). If it were not for the 熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma) of karma, the nature would have no way to manifest. If it were not for the manifestation of nature, then where would the common and uncommon aspects of the dependent and principal retributions come from, and where would they go? Now the section heading says: 'That from which the aspects come, not coming from coming, coming from not coming,' all are inconceivable. It is called the two aspects being fully possessed from the nature. The 'consciousness' of the common and uncommon aspects, consciousness is the eight consciousnesses (aṣṭa vijñāna). Or it refers to the inherent common and uncommon seeds of the eight consciousnesses, as the object of present karma 熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma). Therefore, the inherent consciousness manifests. Now it says common and uncommon aspects. Those who make this statement believe that what is 熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma) is only consciousness, and not nature. Or it is said that karma 熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma) nature, and nature exists according to the conditions of 熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma). Now it says common and uncommon aspects. Those who make this statement believe that although what is 熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma) is nature, it does not 熏習(xūnxí, influenced by karma) the inherent nature. Only my Nanyue school discusses the inherent nature. What is inherently possessed? It is the common and uncommon aspects. Aspect is nature, this meaning is complete. Fully possessing as aspect, this meaning is upright. Two, from 'what' below, it formally shows the two aspects in two parts. First is the contrasting and distinguishing of the two aspects, in two parts. First is the common aspect, in two parts. First is the general indication, which refers to the dependent retribution (āśraya) and principal retribution (adhipati-phala) as the common aspect. Two, from 'like one' below, it distinguishes and explains in three parts. First is about sentient beings forming the land, in two parts. First is pointing to the matter, in two parts. First is about the pure land (buddhakṣetra). However, the pure land is born from the karma of sentient beings, or born from the response of the Buddha. If one clings to the common or uncommon aspects, it will cause the fault of the nature. Now that it has been clung to and said, for the time being, it is said from the perspective of the response of sentient beings' karma.

。二如凈下例余土。二然此下釋名。云同用之土唯是心相者。故知不獨唯心凈土亦乃本性穢那。或聞唯心之說。即謂在此非他。才論本性之言。便曰唯顯不破。豈吾心體之全具乎。

二又此下。獨己亦感二。初立義。能感之人或共不共。所感之土單非共也。故今能感或可一身。須分人法。方揀能感有共不共。若約法體。能感之業無非共也。如生凈土必憑凈業。縱千萬人殊。其法門一等。以人從法。能感之業無非是共。若約人者。或約同會不同會。或約同時不同時。或約同見不同見。遂有共不共別。今從人說。故有凡聖共業。並一身獨感亦可云諸聖共業者。通示所起之有由。一身獨感者別。未能致之無礙。二是故下指事。若使一切眾生皆同時而感生。亦同時而致死者。土既由人。人無土廢。故使此土不存有闕。且如此土有無量人而生安養。不妨此土常存不闕。所以常存者。蓋由眾生或獨或共前後而感。人既相續不闕。故乃其土常存。

三又雖下。土相唯一二。初立義。不以人殊而使土別。二是故下指事二。初指事。二唯除下釋伏疑。疑者云所言舊土之相更無改增者。且如無量壽土。觀音成佛時其土變凈復倍於前。豈非有轉。故今釋曰除同業轉。

二不共相二。初總示。乃指正報為不共相。二以一下辨

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二、如同清凈的下品，其餘的國土也是如此。二、接下來解釋名稱。說共同使用的土地唯是心之顯現，因此可知不僅唯心是凈土，本性也是穢土。或者聽到唯心之說，就說在此處而非他處。剛一談論本性之言，就說只是顯現而不破除。難道我的心體是完全具備的嗎？二、又接下來，獨自感受也是如此。分為兩部分：一是確立定義，能感受的人或者共同或者不共同，所感受的土地單獨而非共同。所以現在能感受的或者可以是一個人，需要區分人與法，才能區分能感受的是共同還是不共同。如果從法體來說，能感受的業沒有不是共同的。例如往生凈土必定憑藉凈業，即使千萬人不同，其法門也是一樣的。因為人遵循法，能感受的業沒有不是共同的。如果從人來說，或者從同會不同會，或者從同時不同時，或者從同見不同見，於是有共同和不共同的區別。現在從人來說，所以有凡聖共業，並且一身獨自感受也可以說是諸聖的共業，這是普遍顯示所產生的事物的原因。一身獨自感受是特別的，未能達到無礙的境界。二是接下來指明事實。如果使一切眾生都同時感受而生，也同時而死，土地既然由人而生，人沒有土地就廢棄了。所以使這片土地不存在缺失。況且這片土地有無量的人往生 An'yang (安養，極樂世界)，不妨礙這片土地常存不缺失。所以常存的原因，是因為眾生或者獨自或者共同前後感受，人既然相續不斷，所以這片土地常存。三、又即使是，土地的相狀是唯一的。分為兩部分：一是確立定義，不因為人的不同而使土地不同。二是接下來指明事實。分為兩部分：一是指明事實。二是唯獨除去以下，解釋隱藏的疑問。疑問是所說的舊土地的相狀不再改變增加嗎？例如 Amitabha (阿彌陀佛) 的國土， Avalokitesvara (觀音) 成佛時，其國土變得清凈，比之前增加了一倍，難道不是有轉變嗎？所以現在解釋說，除去同業的轉變。二、不共同的相狀。分為兩部分：一是總的指示，是指正報作為不共同的相狀。二是以下辨別。

【English Translation】 English version: 2. Just as the lowest grade of purity, so are the other lands. 2. Next, explaining the name. Saying that the land used in common is only a manifestation of the mind, therefore it is known that not only is 'mind-only' pure land, but also that inherent nature is impure. Or, upon hearing the doctrine of 'mind-only', they say it is here and not elsewhere. As soon as the words 'inherent nature' are discussed, they say it only reveals and does not negate. Is my mind-essence fully complete? 2. Furthermore, 'also this below', solitary feeling is also like this. Divided into two parts: first, establishing the definition, those who can feel are either common or uncommon, the land felt is singular and not common. Therefore, now those who can feel can be a single person, it is necessary to distinguish between person and dharma, in order to differentiate whether the feeling is common or uncommon. If speaking from the perspective of the dharma-body, the karma that can be felt is invariably common. For example, being born in the Pure Land necessarily relies on pure karma, even if ten thousand people are different, their dharma-gate is the same. Because people follow the dharma, the karma that can be felt is invariably common. If speaking from the perspective of people, either from the perspective of same assembly or different assembly, or from the perspective of same time or different time, or from the perspective of same view or different view, thus there are distinctions of common and uncommon. Now speaking from the perspective of people, therefore there is common karma of ordinary and sage, and solitary feeling of one's own body can also be said to be the common karma of all sages, this is a general indication of the cause of arising things. Solitary feeling of one's own body is special, failing to achieve unimpededness. Second, 'is why below' indicates the matter. If all sentient beings simultaneously feel and are born, and also simultaneously die, since the land arises from people, people without land are abandoned. Therefore, this land does not exist with deficiencies. Moreover, this land has countless people who are born in An'yang (安養, Sukhavati), it does not hinder this land from constantly existing without deficiencies. The reason for constant existence is because sentient beings feel either solitarily or commonly, successively, since people continue without ceasing, therefore the land constantly exists. 3. Furthermore, 'even though below', the appearance of the land is unique. Divided into two parts: first, establishing the definition, not because people are different does the land become different. Second, 'is why below' indicates the matter. Divided into two parts: first, indicating the matter. Second, 'only except below', explaining the hidden doubt. The doubt is, does the appearance of the old land, as spoken of, no longer change or increase? For example, in the land of Amitabha (阿彌陀佛), when Avalokitesvara (觀音) becomes a Buddha, the land becomes pure and doubles compared to before, is this not a transformation? Therefore, now explaining, except for the transformation of common karma. 2. Uncommon appearance. Divided into two parts: first, general indication, referring to the proper reward as the uncommon appearance. Second, distinguishing below.

釋二。初釋義。二然此下釋名。初文云自他兩別者。要而言之天覆地載即是共也。我爾相殊即不共也。二就共下各辨二。初共中不共二。初標。二謂如下釋二。初指事二。初約異類。二復據下約同類。二若如下例顯。二就不共下不共中共。須了正報克從法體。己他相望一向不共。今約時處見語知解聞識而論于共。既得論其復須於此以論不共。此共不共若從法體。己他皆是不共。以此顯上共中不共。亦有克從法體一向是共。如水共為人鬼依報。由約業異所見不同名為不共。既人與鬼所見不同名為不共。復須於此以論人與人見彼此是水名之為共。此共不共若從法體皆是于共。然謂其法體是水者。且從人見為言。若以鬼見為言。亦可云法體是火人見謂水。而此一物不可思議平等妙性。隨人隨鬼業相發現為水為火亦何定謂本是水耶本是火耶。一切諸法皆無定本。

文為二。初標。二謂眷下釋二。初約己他二。初己他皆共二。初指事。二皆由下釋義。二或有下共不共。二又如下約一身。三以有下結答二。初正結答。二是故下指事警䇿。性無不具事由薰發。事既即性。故染凈之土生佛之身而無定體。性既隨薰。故於金軀有見灰色。或於丘墟而見華剎。今文唯舉于勝見芬者。將使知迷而令改業。

第二何故下依止三。初

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本釋二。初釋義。二然此下釋名。初文云『自他兩別』者，總而言之，天覆地載就是共相。『我』和『你』相互不同就是不共相。二就共相下，分別辨析二者。初共相中的不共相。初標出。二『謂』如下解釋二者。初指明事相二。初從不同種類來說。二『復據』下，從相同種類來說。二『若』如下舉例說明。二就不共相下，不共相中的共相。必須瞭解正報是依據法體而來的。自己和他人相互比較，一向是不共的。現在從時間、地點、見解、語言、知解、聽聞、認識等方面來討論共相。既然可以討論共相，就必須在此基礎上討論不共相。這種共相和不共相，如果從法體來說，自己和他人都是不共的。用這個來顯示上面所說的共相中的不共相。也有依據法體來說，一向是共相的。例如水，共同作為人和鬼的依報。由於業力的不同，所見到的也不同，所以稱為不共相。既然人和鬼所見到的不同，稱為不共相，就必須在此基礎上討論人和人之間看到彼此都是水，稱之為共相。這種共相和不共相，如果從法體來說，都是共相。然而說它的法體是水，只是從人的角度來說。如果從鬼的角度來說，也可以說法體是火。人認為是水，而這一事物具有不可思議的平等妙性，隨著人和鬼的業相顯現為水或火，又怎麼能確定它原本是水還是原本是火呢？一切諸法都沒有固定的本體。

文分為二。初標出。二『謂眷』下解釋二者。初從自己和他人來說二。初自己和他人都是共相二。初指明事相。二『皆由』下解釋含義。二『或有』下，共相和不共相。二『又如』下，從自身來說。三『以有』下，總結回答二。初正式總結回答。二是故下，指明事相，警示策勵。自性無所不具，事相由熏習而生髮。事相既然就是自性，所以染凈的國土、生佛的身體都沒有固定的本體。自性既然隨著熏習而改變，所以在金色的身體上能看到灰色，或者在荒涼的廢墟上能看到華麗的剎土。現在文中只舉出殊勝的見解和芬芳，是爲了讓人們知道迷惑而改變業力。

第二『何故』下，依據三。

【English Translation】 English version Explanation Two: First, explaining the meaning. Second, explaining the name below. The first text says, 'Self and other are distinct,' generally speaking, heaven covering and earth bearing is the common aspect. 'I' and 'you' being different from each other is the uncommon aspect. Second, under the common aspect, distinguish and analyze the two. First, the uncommon aspect within the common aspect. First, label it. Second, 'Said' explains the two below. First, pointing out the phenomena. First, speaking from different categories. Second, 'Furthermore' below, speaking from the same category. Second, 'If' below, give an example to illustrate. Second, under the uncommon aspect, the common aspect within the uncommon aspect. It is necessary to understand that the proper reward (Zhengbao) comes from the Dharma body (Fati). Comparing oneself with others is always uncommon. Now, let's discuss the common aspect from the perspectives of time, place, views, language, knowledge, hearing, and awareness. Since the common aspect can be discussed, it is necessary to discuss the uncommon aspect on this basis. This common and uncommon aspect, if speaking from the Dharma body, self and others are all uncommon. Use this to show the uncommon aspect within the common aspect mentioned above. There are also those that are always common based on the Dharma body. For example, water, commonly as the dependent reward (Yibao) for humans and ghosts. Due to the difference in karma, what is seen is also different, so it is called the uncommon aspect. Since what humans and ghosts see is different, called the uncommon aspect, it is necessary to discuss on this basis that people see each other as water, which is called the common aspect. This common and uncommon aspect, if speaking from the Dharma body, are all common. However, saying that its Dharma body is water is only from the human perspective. If speaking from the ghost's perspective, it can also be said that the Dharma body is fire. Humans think it is water, but this thing has an inconceivable equal and wonderful nature, manifesting as water or fire with the karma of humans and ghosts. How can it be determined whether it was originally water or originally fire? All dharmas do not have a fixed original nature.

The text is divided into two. First, label it. Second, 'Said family' explains the two below. First, speaking from oneself and others. First, oneself and others are both common aspects. First, point out the phenomena. Second, 'All by' below, explain the meaning. Second, 'Or there are' below, common and uncommon aspects. Second, 'Also like' below, speaking from oneself. Third, 'With have' below, conclude the answer in two. First, formally conclude the answer. Second, 'Therefore' below, point out the phenomena, warn and encourage. The self-nature is complete with everything, and phenomena arise from cultivation. Since phenomena are self-nature, the defiled and pure lands, the bodies of Buddhas and sentient beings, do not have a fixed entity. Since self-nature changes with cultivation, one can see gray on a golden body, or see magnificent pure lands in desolate ruins. Now the text only mentions the superior views and fragrances, in order to let people know the confusion and change their karma.

Second, 'Why' below, according to three.

標章。二問下解釋。三此明下結釋又二。初問。二答釋二。初正答。文有三。一根本。二又若下成法。三又此下具德。應知此三蘊空假中須約二義文意方顯。一約法體克論三諦。以三文中皆云此心者即平等一性也。由此一性是一切法之根本故。由若不依此之一性修行止觀不得成故。由此一性具足三諦寂用義故。故具德中所具之德乃是三諦。二隨處點示通論三諦。心體具德三諦俱假。成法即空。根本即中。文云本性具足寂用二義者。具寂是具體。具用是具相。若祇以中道之體為能具。染凈二性為所具。恐違此文。何者。今文指寂為體。既云本性具足寂用二義。故本性是能具。中體亦所具。同荊溪云本謂一性具足自他。故自行之體亦為所具。彼宗因以中道為能具。故指空中為理總。俗諦為事別。豈知荊溪云。總謂涅槃。別謂三德。並云。攝別入總。無非心性(平等一性)。一性(中)無性(空)。三千宛然(假)。此文以心性是總。即平等一性。同下文云。本謂一性。一性無性。三千宛然者。同下文云。具足自他前從就法。故總在妄念。復從功歸。故總是心性。故今所立就法論總。則法法是總。功歸論總。平等一性為總。三諦乃是一性所具。而此三諦亦得為總。亦得為別。三即一故為總。一即三故為別。今文乃以心體一性

總具寂用。然此所具得名不同。若以平等一性為非體非用。則其所具是體是用。如今文云寂用二義。寂即體也。若以平等一性非體非用名之為體。則所具而體而用俱名為用。如今文云顯何所用謂自利他。故此自他皆名為用。為欲薰彼二義令顯現者。止行薰心令此心體所具寂義離相顯現。觀行薰心令此心體所具用義相㒵顯現。故下文云熾然六道並相好圓備。此之用相若非所具現從何得。

二料揀有二。初重二。初問。二答。離一切相是寂義者。平等性體非相非無相。以對用故故名無相。然無相之言對於有相。無相屬理。有相屬事。須約五義而分別之。使諸文不濫。若約過德。三諦乃無三道之相。若約修性。性德三諦乃無修德三諦之相。若約體用。空中乃無俗用之相。若約中邊。中道乃無二邊之相。若約亡照。一性乃無三諦之相。今文離一切相正約體用。以空中體離事用相。若約亡照。故此空中還成有相亦為所離。體具違順二用即是用義者。體用亦五。今體是空中。用是俗事。若約亡照。故其空中還在用攝。修習止行至即為自行。修習觀行至即為化他者。義有各對。一約自他。今從對論體自用他。若各論者。此之體用在己修證無非自行。以此體用令他悟入無非利他。故下文云王身攝化普門示現。故真體應用皆屬利他

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：總的來說，（心體）具備寂靜和作用兩種屬性。然而，這裡所說的『具備』，其名稱有所不同。如果認為平等一性既不是體也不是用，那麼它所具備的就是體和用。就像現在文中所說的寂靜和作用兩種含義，寂靜就是體。如果認為平等一性既不是體也不是用，而稱之為體，那麼所具備的體和用都叫做用。就像現在文中所說的『顯現什麼作用』，指的是自利利他。所以這裡的自利利他都叫做用。爲了熏習這兩種含義使之顯現，止行熏習心，使這心體所具備的寂靜之義，遠離一切相而顯現。觀行熏習心，使這心體所具備的作用之義，種種相貌顯現。所以下文說『熾盛的六道以及圓滿具備的種種相好』。這作用的相貌如果不是本來就具備的，又從哪裡得到呢？

第二部分是辨析，分為兩部分。第一部分又分為兩部分。首先是提問，然後是回答。『離一切相』是寂靜之義，平等性體既不是有相也不是無相，因為是相對於作用而言，所以叫做無相。然而，無相的說法是相對於有相而言的。無相屬於理，有相屬於事。必須根據五種含義來分別，才能使各種說法不混淆。如果從果德來說，三諦就沒有三道的相。如果從修性來說，性德的三諦就沒有修德的三諦的相。如果從體用來說，空中就沒有俗用的相。如果從中邊來說，中道就沒有二邊的相。如果從亡照來說，一性就沒有三諦的相。現在文中所說的『離一切相』，正是從體用來說的，因為空中的體遠離了事用的相。如果從亡照來說，所以這空中還成為有相，也是所要遠離的。體具備違順兩種作用，就是作用的含義。體用也有五種。現在的體是空中，用是俗事。如果從亡照來說，所以這空中還在用所包含的範圍內。修習止行以至於就是自行，修習觀行以至於就是化他，含義各有對應。一是關於自利利他，現在是從相對的角度來說，體是自利，用是利他。如果分別來說，這體用在自己修證中，沒有不是自行的。用這體用使他人悟入，沒有不是利他的。所以下文說『王身攝化，普門示現』，所以真體應用都屬於利他。

【English Translation】 English version: In general, (the mind-essence) possesses both quiescence and function. However, the 'possession' spoken of here has different names. If one considers the equality and oneness as neither essence nor function, then what it possesses is essence and function. Just as the text now says, the two meanings of quiescence and function, quiescence is essence. If one considers the equality and oneness as neither essence nor function, and calls it essence, then the possessed essence and function are both called function. Just as the text now says, 'What function is manifested?' referring to self-benefit and benefiting others. Therefore, self-benefit and benefiting others are both called function. In order to influence these two meanings to make them manifest, the practice of cessation influences the mind, causing the quiescence meaning possessed by this mind-essence to manifest, free from all characteristics (lakshana). The practice of contemplation influences the mind, causing the function meaning possessed by this mind-essence to manifest with various appearances. Therefore, the following text says, 'The flourishing six realms and the perfectly complete auspicious marks.' If these functional appearances were not originally possessed, where would they come from?

The second part is analysis, divided into two parts. The first part is further divided into two parts. First is the question, then the answer. 'Separation from all characteristics' is the meaning of quiescence. The essence of equality is neither characterized nor uncharacterized, because it is in relation to function, so it is called uncharacterized. However, the term 'uncharacterized' is relative to 'characterized'. Uncharacterized belongs to principle (理, li), characterized belongs to phenomena (事, shi). It is necessary to distinguish according to five meanings in order to prevent confusion among the various statements. If from the perspective of the fruit of virtue, the three truths (三諦, San諦) are without the characteristics of the three paths. If from the perspective of cultivation of nature, the three truths of inherent virtue are without the characteristics of the three truths of cultivated virtue. If from the perspective of essence and function, emptiness (空中, Kong zhong) is without the characteristics of mundane function. If from the perspective of the middle and the extremes, the middle way (中道, Zhong dao) is without the characteristics of the two extremes. If from the perspective of extinction and illumination, oneness (一性, Yi xing) is without the characteristics of the three truths. The 'separation from all characteristics' mentioned in the text now is precisely from the perspective of essence and function, because the essence of emptiness is separated from the characteristics of phenomenal function. If from the perspective of extinction and illumination, therefore this emptiness still becomes characterized, and is also what is to be separated from. The essence possesses both compliant and contrary functions, which is the meaning of function. Essence and function also have five aspects. The current essence is emptiness, and the function is mundane affairs. If from the perspective of extinction and illumination, therefore this emptiness is still within the scope of function. Cultivating the practice of cessation until it becomes self-practice, cultivating the practice of contemplation until it becomes transforming others, the meanings have their respective correspondences. One is regarding self-benefit and benefiting others. Now, from a relative perspective, essence is self-benefit, and function is benefiting others. If considered separately, this essence and function in one's own cultivation and realization are all self-practice. Using this essence and function to enable others to awaken and enter is all benefiting others. Therefore, the following text says, 'The king's body gathers and transforms, universally manifesting', so the true essence and application all belong to benefiting others.

。二約止觀。今從對論體止用觀。若各論者。體用二法各有止觀。

第二重二。初問。修止觀為除生死者。今正問觀。所云止者相從而來。轉增流浪者。乃約法體而難隨具。凡所有相體是生死。祇如實報藏塵若離業識則無所見。今約法體故有此疑。若隨具詮辨者。此相既是佛之所有。佛所有者無不即性。染體即凈。相體即己。以凈為染。終日染而非染。以亡即相。終日相而非相。故此之相是佛大用。何以法體生死為疑。故下答文意不出此。答中雲。但除其病而不除法等者。同智者云。火能燒人。得法術者出入無礙。不須除火。故八萬四千煩惱。凡夫為之疲勞。諸佛菩薩以為佛事。

三明以何依止三。初標章。二初明下解釋。文自為三。初明以何依止體狀二。初標。二釋二。初問。二答二。初總答。二此義下正釋二。初止三。初釋四。初聞教。以意識能知名義者。總語意識有起觀之功也。一圓覺性具知不知。即此為業復薰覺性。全性不知現為依報。全性之知現為正報。此知不知徹復性源無非覺也。但從事故。依報不知。正報為知。于正報中。一蘊之色。四蘊之心。心則有知。色則無知。於四蘊心。迷為不知。悟則為知。此知不知對於塵色。單非知也。由是知故。知隨無明知見立知稱之為迷。知隨師教非知之

【現代漢語翻譯】二、約止觀。現在從對論體止用觀的角度來探討。如果分別論述，體和用兩種法各有止和觀。

第二重分為二部分。首先是提問：修習止觀是爲了去除生死。現在主要提問關於觀的問題。所說的『止』是相因而來的，反而會增加流浪生死的情況。這是從法體的角度來質疑，認為它會帶來生死。凡是所有相，其體性都是生死。比如實報莊嚴土的微塵，如果離開了業識，就無法被看見。現在是從法體的角度來提問，所以有這樣的疑問。如果從隨具詮辨的角度來說，這個相既然是佛所擁有的，那麼佛所擁有的就無不與自性相符。染的體性就是凈，相的體性就是自己。以凈為染，終日染卻並非真的染；以亡為相，終日有相卻並非真的有相。所以這個相是佛的大用。為什麼還要懷疑法體是生死呢？所以下面的回答沒有超出這個範圍。回答中說：『只是去除其病，而不是去除法』等等，如同智者所說：『火能燒人，但懂得法術的人出入無礙，不需要去除火。』所以八萬四千煩惱，凡夫因此疲勞，諸佛菩薩卻以此作為佛事。

三、說明以什麼作為依止，分為三部分。首先是標明章節。其次是解釋。文分為三部分。首先說明以什麼作為依止，體和狀態。首先是標明。其次是解釋，分為兩部分。首先是提問。其次是回答，分為兩部分。首先是總的回答。其次是詳細解釋，分為三部分。首先是解釋，分為四部分。首先是聽聞教法。以意識能夠知曉名義，總的來說意識具有生起觀的作用。一、圓覺自性具有知與不知。以此為業，又熏習覺性。全性不知，顯現為依報（對正報起輔助作用的環境）。全性之知，顯現為正報（眾生自身）。這個知與不知，徹復性源，無非是覺。只是從事情上來說，依報不知，正報為知。在正報中，一蘊（色蘊）是色，四蘊（受、想、行、識）是心。心則有知，色則無知。在四蘊心中，迷惑則為不知，覺悟則為知。這個知與不知，對於塵色來說，單獨來說並非知。由於這個知，知隨著無明，知見立知，稱之為迷。知隨著師教，並非知之

【English Translation】 2. About Zhi-Guan (止觀, calming and insight meditation). Now, we will discuss Zhi (止, calming) and Guan (觀, insight) from the perspective of their relationship to the body and their functions. If discussed separately, both the body and function of the two Dharmas (法, teachings) have their own Zhi and Guan.

The second section is divided into two parts. First, a question is posed: 'Is the practice of Zhi-Guan to eliminate Samsara (生死, cycle of birth and death)?' Now, the main question concerns Guan. The 'Zhi' mentioned, which arises sequentially, actually increases wandering in Samsara. This questions the Dharma-body (法體, essential nature of Dharma), suggesting it inherently leads to Samsara. All forms (相, characteristics) have Samsara as their essence. For example, the dust in the Pure Land of Actual Reward (實報莊嚴土, realm of enlightened beings), if separated from karmic consciousness (業識, consciousness influenced by karma), cannot be seen. This question arises from the perspective of the Dharma-body. If explained from the perspective of complete and detailed exposition, since this form is possessed by the Buddha, everything possessed by the Buddha is identical to the nature (性, essence). The nature of defilement is purity; the nature of form is oneself. Taking purity as defilement, one is defiled all day long, yet not truly defiled. Taking annihilation as form, one has form all day long, yet not truly has form. Therefore, this form is the great function of the Buddha. Why doubt that the Dharma-body is Samsara? Thus, the answer below does not deviate from this point. The answer states: 'Only eliminate the illness, not the Dharma,' etc., similar to what the wise one said: 'Fire can burn people, but those who know magic can enter and exit without hindrance, so there is no need to eliminate fire.' Therefore, the eighty-four thousand afflictions (煩惱, mental defilements) cause suffering for ordinary people, but are used as Buddha-work by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

Explaining what to rely on, in three parts. First, the chapter is marked. Second, the explanation begins. The text is divided into three parts. First, explaining what to rely on, the body and state, in two parts. First, marking. Second, explaining, in two parts. First, questioning. Second, answering, in two parts. First, a general answer. Second, a detailed explanation, in three parts. First, explaining, in four parts. First, hearing the teachings. Using consciousness to know names and meanings generally indicates that consciousness has the function of arising insight. 1. The perfect enlightenment nature (圓覺性, nature of perfect enlightenment) has both knowing and not knowing. Taking this as karma, it further perfumes the enlightenment nature. The entire nature not knowing manifests as the dependent retribution (依報, environment that supports the main retribution). The entire nature knowing manifests as the main retribution (正報, the being itself). This knowing and not knowing thoroughly restores the source of nature, and is all enlightenment. Only from the perspective of events, the dependent retribution does not know, and the main retribution knows. In the main retribution, one Skandha (蘊, aggregate) is form (色, rupa), and four Skandhas are mind (受、想、行、識, vedana, samjna, samskara, vijnana). The mind has knowing, and form has no knowing. In the four Skandhas of mind, delusion is not knowing, and enlightenment is knowing. This knowing and not knowing, in relation to dust and form, is not knowing alone. Because of this knowing, knowing follows ignorance, and knowing establishes knowing, which is called delusion. Knowing follows the teacher's teachings, and is not knowing of

知稱之為悟。功由意識蘊此之知。可隨師教問修證入。意識聞教起無塵解。名字位也。

二聞此下修習。對前聞解。修習是行。然此之行。行不離解。至於極證亦此解爾。約位分別。亦可得云。行家之解。證家之解。約體無殊。故初心解與果地解無二無別。今修習云增益解性。后證得云解性圓明。故知行證亦名為解。言方便者。修性對論。凡有修入皆名方便。解行對論具緣識境名為方便。然此方便義通諸行。若五悔夢王別為法華方等方便。真似對論居內外凡位曰方便。今文通諸別在修性並於約位。薰于本識者。薰習之法義該四種。一意識。二無塵智。三本識。四真心。事理分之。真心是理。餘三是事。真妄分之。意識本識是妄。餘二是真。能所分之。意識與智是能。餘二是所。總攝言之。祗云意識薰于本識。意識能知。知之為義攝無塵智。藏識為本。本之為義攝於真心。克體言之是無塵智薰于真心。問。何不直云無塵之智薰于真心。答。創心發智必依六識。真無所存遍在八識。問。大乘詮之六識八識。而何不云依其本識。真無所存遍在一切。而何不云薰其六識。答。意識附小。說現行故。八識附大。是含藏故。

三久久下證得。久久薰心者。始從觀行至於相似。解性圓明自照己體者。全性起智。了智是性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：知，可以稱之為悟。功夫是由意識蘊含的這種知而產生的。可以通過跟隨老師的教導，提問和修行來證入。意識聽聞教法后產生沒有塵埃的理解，這處於名字位（指修行位階的最初階段）。二、聞此以下是修習。與前面的聽聞和理解相對。修習就是行動。然而這種行動，是行動不離開理解的。直到最終的證悟也是這種理解。如果按照位階來分別，也可以說，行家的理解，證悟者的理解。按照本體來說沒有區別。所以初學者的理解和果地（指佛果）的理解沒有兩樣。現在說修習是增益解性，後面說證得是解性圓明。所以知道行動和證悟也可以稱為理解。說到方便，從修性相對來說，凡是有修入都叫做方便。從理解和行動相對來說，具備因緣，認識境界叫做方便。然而這種方便的意義貫通各種行動。如果五悔和夢王分別作為法華和方等方便。從真和似相對來說，處於內外凡位叫做方便。現在文中的方便貫通各種情況，特別在於修性以及按照位階來說。熏于本識（Alaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）是指，熏習的方法意義包含四種。一、意識（Mano-vijñāna）。二、無塵智。三、本識。四、真心。從事理來區分，真心是理，其餘三種是事。從真妄來區分，意識和本識是妄，其餘兩種是真。從能所來區分，意識和智慧是能，其餘兩種是所。總括來說，只說意識熏于本識。意識能夠知，知的意義包含無塵智。藏識是根本，根本的意義包含真心。嚴格來說是無塵智熏于真心。問：為什麼不直接說無塵的智慧熏于真心？答：初發心生起智慧必須依靠六識（六種感官意識）。真無所不在，遍在八識（八種意識）。問：大乘佛教詮釋六識和八識，為什麼不說依靠本識？真無所不在，遍在一切，為什麼不說熏其六識？答：意識依附於小，說的是現行。八識依附於大，是含藏。三、久久以下是證得。久久熏心是指，開始從觀行直到相似位。解性圓明，自己照亮自己的本體是指，全性起智，明白智慧就是本性。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Knowing' can be called 'Enlightenment'. The effort (功) arises from this 'knowing' contained within consciousness (意識). It can be entered through following the teacher's instruction, questioning, and cultivation. When consciousness hears the teachings, it gives rise to undefiled understanding. This is the 'name position' (名字位, referring to the initial stage of practice). Second, 'hearing this' below refers to practice (修習). It is in contrast to the previous 'hearing' and 'understanding'. 'Practice' is action (行). However, this action is inseparable from understanding. Even the ultimate realization is this understanding. If distinguished by stages, one can also say, 'the understanding of a practitioner', 'the understanding of an enlightened one'. In terms of essence, there is no difference. Therefore, the understanding of a beginner and the understanding of the fruition stage (果地, referring to Buddhahood) are not two different things. Now, 'practice' is said to increase the nature of understanding (解性). Later, 'realization' is said to be the complete and bright nature of understanding. Therefore, know that action and realization can also be called understanding. Speaking of 'expedient means' (方便), in relation to cultivating the nature (修性), all entries through cultivation are called 'expedient means'. In relation to understanding and action, having conditions and recognizing the realm is called 'expedient means'. However, the meaning of this 'expedient means' pervades all actions. If the Five Repentances (五悔) and the Dream King (夢王) are separately considered as expedient means for the Lotus Sutra (法華) and the Vaipulya Sutras (方等). In relation to 'true' and 'similar', being in the position of ordinary beings, both internal and external, is called 'expedient means'. The 'expedient means' in this text pervades all situations, especially in cultivating the nature and according to the stages. 'Perfuming the Alaya-vijñāna (本識, 阿賴耶識)' refers to the method of perfuming, which includes four types: 1. Mano-vijñāna (意識, consciousness). 2. Undefiled Wisdom (無塵智). 3. Alaya-vijñāna (本識). 4. True Mind (真心). Distinguishing from the perspective of phenomena and principle, True Mind is principle, and the other three are phenomena. Distinguishing from the perspective of true and false, consciousness and Alaya-vijñāna are false, and the other two are true. Distinguishing from the perspective of subject and object, consciousness and wisdom are the subject, and the other two are the object. In summary, it is only said that consciousness perfumes the Alaya-vijñāna. Consciousness is capable of knowing, and the meaning of 'knowing' includes undefiled wisdom. The storehouse consciousness (藏識) is the root, and the meaning of 'root' includes True Mind. Strictly speaking, it is undefiled wisdom perfuming True Mind. Question: Why not directly say that undefiled wisdom perfumes True Mind? Answer: The initial arising of mind and the generation of wisdom must rely on the six consciousnesses (六識, six sense consciousnesses). The True is omnipresent, pervading the eight consciousnesses (八識, eight consciousnesses). Question: The Mahayana (大乘) explains the six consciousnesses and the eight consciousnesses, so why not say relying on the Alaya-vijñāna? The True is omnipresent, pervading everything, so why not say perfuming the six consciousnesses? Answer: Consciousness is attached to the small, referring to the present activity. The eight consciousnesses are attached to the large, referring to the containing. Third, 'for a long time' below refers to realization. 'Perfuming the mind for a long time' refers to starting from contemplation and practice (觀行) until the stage of similarity. 'The complete and bright nature of understanding illuminates its own essence' refers to the entire nature giving rise to wisdom, understanding that wisdom is the nature.

。智既能明即性自照。意識即息者。四住亡也。若取塵沙亦通二惑。爾時本識轉成無分別智者。然明明也。始在初住極至妙覺。圓位破惑義通橫豎。據今爾時之言。必蘊斯二。若前事之末後事之始為爾時者。即豎義也。若即於此時為爾時者。即橫義也。問。意識如何通於二惑。答。意識之義有通有別。故通義復二。一通無明塵沙二惑。起信論云。此意復有五種名。即以二粗並於三細共為五意。二通塵沙見思二惑。以意識緣外必依內根。緣外即六。依內即七。如藏師云。意識緣外境時必依內末那染污根方得生起。二別義亦二。一者意名別在第七。如攝論云。八識名心。七識名意。六識名識。二別在六。如起信云。隨事攀緣。分別六塵名為意識。今文當六義亦該七。故下相用及以六七共名為用。又應四句。意非識。識非意(依止曰意。分別曰識。故五名意。第六名識)。意即識。識即意(五意亦名五識。識亦名為意)。皆約大乘三識豎判。若依小乘于第六識橫辨三名。此不具記。亦名證智者。證真之智名為證智。又對以智證於真如名為智證。故以真如自證於智名為證智。此二證智皆得名為無分別智。

四以是下結示。下文修止既約三性。今文總說故亦該之。聞教中雲虛妄因緣者。聞分別性止。然虛妄法有。即非有惟

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：智慧如果能夠明瞭，那麼自性本身就會照亮一切。當意識止息的時候，就是斷除了四住地煩惱（根本煩惱）。如果執取塵沙惑（菩薩的煩惱），也通於兩種迷惑。這個時候，本識轉變成無分別智，是明明白白的。這個過程開始於初住位，最終達到妙覺位。圓教的位次破除迷惑，意義貫通橫向和縱向。根據現在『爾時』的說法，必定包含這兩種含義。如果前一件事的結束和后一件事的開始稱為『爾時』，那就是縱向的意義。如果就在這個時候稱為『爾時』，那就是橫向的意義。問：意識如何通於兩種迷惑？答：意識的含義有共通之處，也有區別之處。共通之處又有兩種：一是通於無明惑和塵沙惑。《起信論》中說，這個意有五種名稱，就是把兩種粗的（煩惱）和三種細的（煩惱）合起來作為五意。二是通於塵沙惑和見思惑（二乘的煩惱）。因為意識緣于外境必定依賴於內在的根。緣于外境就是六識，依賴於內在就是七識。如藏師所說，意識緣于外境時，必定依賴於內在的末那識（第七識）的染污根才能生起。區別的含義也有兩種：一是意的名稱區別于第七識。如《攝論》中說，八識名為心，七識名為意，六識名為識。二是區別在於六識。如《起信論》中說，隨順事物攀緣，分別六塵名為意識。現在文中的『六』的含義也包括『七』。所以下面所說的相用以及六識和七識共同稱為用。又應該有四句：意不是識，識不是意（依止叫做意，分別叫做識，所以前五識名為意，第六識名為識）。意就是識，識就是意（五意也叫做五識，識也叫做意）。這些都是根據大乘的三識豎向判定的。如果根據小乘，就在第六識橫向辨別三種名稱，這裡不詳細記載。也叫做證智，證悟真如的智慧叫做證智。又或者，用智慧證悟真如叫做智證。所以用真如自己證悟智慧叫做證智。這兩種證智都可以叫做無分別智。四、以是下結示。下文修止既約三性。今文總說故亦該之。聞教中雲虛妄因緣者。聞分別性止。然虛妄法有。即非有惟

【English Translation】 English version: If wisdom is able to illuminate, then the self-nature itself will illuminate everything. When consciousness ceases, it is the eradication of the four abodes of affliction (fundamental afflictions). If one clings to the 'dust of sand' afflictions (Bodhisattva's afflictions), it also connects to the two types of delusion. At this time, the fundamental consciousness transforms into non-discriminating wisdom, which is perfectly clear. This process begins at the initial stage of abiding (初住, Chuzhu) and ultimately reaches the stage of wondrous enlightenment (妙覺, Miaojue). The positions of the perfect teaching (圓位, Yuanwei) eradicate delusion, and the meaning penetrates both horizontally and vertically. According to the current statement of 'at that time' (爾時, Ershi), it must contain both of these meanings. If the end of the previous event and the beginning of the next event are called 'at that time', then that is the vertical meaning. If it is called 'at that time' at this very moment, then that is the horizontal meaning. Question: How does consciousness connect to the two types of delusion? Answer: The meaning of consciousness has both commonalities and differences. The commonalities are twofold: first, it connects to ignorance (無明, Wuming) and the 'dust of sand' afflictions. The Awakening of Faith treatise states, 'This mind also has five names, which are the combination of the two coarse (afflictions) and the three subtle (afflictions) as the five minds.' Second, it connects to the 'dust of sand' afflictions and the afflictions of views and thoughts (見思惑, Jiansihuo) (afflictions of the two vehicles). Because consciousness relies on the inner root when it is conditioned by external objects. Being conditioned by external objects is the six consciousnesses, and relying on the inner is the seventh consciousness. As the Tibetan teacher said, when consciousness is conditioned by external objects, it must rely on the defiled root of the inner Manas consciousness (末那識, Monashi) (seventh consciousness) to arise. The meanings of the differences are also twofold: first, the name of 'mind' is different in the seventh consciousness. As the Compendium of Abhidharma states, the eight consciousnesses are called 'mind' (心, Xin), the seven consciousnesses are called 'intention' (意, Yi), and the six consciousnesses are called 'consciousness' (識, Shi). Second, the difference lies in the six consciousnesses. As the Awakening of Faith states, following things and clinging, discriminating the six sense objects is called consciousness. The meaning of 'six' in the current text also includes 'seven'. Therefore, the characteristics and functions mentioned below, as well as the six and seven consciousnesses, are collectively called 'function'. Furthermore, there should be four statements: 'Intention is not consciousness, consciousness is not intention' (relying is called intention, discriminating is called consciousness, so the first five consciousnesses are called intention, and the sixth consciousness is called consciousness). 'Intention is consciousness, consciousness is intention' (the five intentions are also called the five consciousnesses, and consciousness is also called intention). These are all based on the vertical judgment of the three consciousnesses of Mahayana. If based on the Hinayana, then the three names are distinguished horizontally in the sixth consciousness, which are not recorded in detail here. It is also called 'wisdom of realization' (證智, Zhengzhi), the wisdom that realizes Suchness (真如, Zhenru) is called 'wisdom of realization'. Or, using wisdom to realize Suchness is called 'realization of wisdom' (智證, Zhizheng). Therefore, using Suchness to self-realize wisdom is called 'wisdom of realization'. Both of these 'wisdoms of realization' can be called non-discriminating wisdom. 4. '以是下結示' (Yishi xia jieshi) below concludes and indicates. The following text on cultivating cessation is based on the three natures. The current text is a general explanation, so it also includes them. In the teaching of hearing, 'illusory causes and conditions' refers to the cessation of the discriminated nature. However, illusory dharmas exist, which are not only

一真如者。聞依他性止。亦無別真相可取者。聞真實性止。既聞三止。依聞修證。豈應別途。意識即息證分別性止。本識轉智證依他性止。亦名證智。證真實性止亦可聞教中略分別性止。修證中略真實性止。

二是故下引證。其有二意。一證意識有能知名義之功。若會同三性者。本覺即凈心真實性。不覺即本識依他性。妄心即意識分別性。二證自照己體亦名證智。由無塵智即始覺。真心即本覺。始本既然不異。故無塵智即是真心自照己體。斯得名為真自證智。文云能知名義為說本覺者。意證有能知之功。師教為說一切諸法自性寂靜。即是為說本覺。聞此之說能知此覺即名始覺。子昔嘗謂。祇一圓覺約本不始遂有三覺。由性迷之名為不覺。今日示之名為始覺。天然有之名為本覺。何但始覺與本覺不殊。亦乃不覺與本始全一。此乃以三從覺覺祇唯一。此一非一覺名亦無。若以覺從三覺乃有異。不覺覺字即屬無明。無明亦得名為覺者。于彼當分知見立知。知非覺乎。但以此覺望于真知遂成不覺。始覺覺字即屬修智。以此之智慧覺本覺故名始覺。本覺覺字方是天然性覺之覺。問。論以根本妄心能知名義。今云六識者何。答。論從極論故指根本。今從創習必在見思。本末體同異而不異。

三料揀。然天臺之道。得佛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一、關於真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）。當聽到依他性（Paratantra-svabhava，事物由其他條件決定的性質）時止息，也就沒有其他的真相可以執取了。當聽到真實性（Parinispanna-svabhava，事物圓滿的、絕對的性質）時止息。既然聽聞了這三重止息，並依此聽聞進行修行和證悟，又怎麼會有其他的途徑呢？意識（Vijnana，識別和區分事物的心理功能）止息，就證得了分別性（Parikalpita-svabhava，事物被錯誤地概念化的性質）。本識（Alaya-vijnana，儲存所有經驗的根本意識）轉為智慧，就證得了依他性，這也可以稱為證智（證悟的智慧）。證得真實性，也可以在聽聞教法中略去分別性，在修行證悟中略去真實性。二、因此下面引用經文來證明，其中有兩個含義。一是證明意識具有能夠知曉名義的功能。如果能夠融會貫通三性，那麼本覺（本來就具有的覺悟）就是清凈心，也就是真實性；不覺（與覺悟相反的狀態）就是本識，也就是依他性；妄心（虛妄的心）就是意識，也就是分別性。二是證明自照己體也可以稱為證智。由於沒有塵智（被污染的智慧），就是始覺（開始覺悟的狀態）。真心（真實的、未被污染的心）就是本覺。始覺和本覺本來就沒有差異，所以無塵智就是真心自照己體。這才能被稱為真自證智（真實的自我證悟的智慧）。經文中說『能夠知曉名義，是爲了說明本覺』，意思是證明意識具有能夠知曉的功能。老師教導說一切諸法的自性寂靜，這就是爲了說明本覺。聽聞這種說法，能夠知曉這種覺悟，就稱為始覺。過去我曾經說過，只有一個圓覺（圓滿的覺悟），從本來就沒有開始，於是就有了三種覺悟。由於本性迷惑，就稱為不覺。今天開示，就稱為始覺。天然具有，就稱為本覺。不僅僅是始覺和本覺沒有差別，而且不覺和始覺、本覺完全相同。這是以三從覺，覺悟只有一個。這一個不是一個，覺悟的名字也沒有。如果以覺悟從三覺，那就有了差異。不覺的『覺』字就屬於無明（無知）。無明也可以稱為覺悟，在那個當下，知見上建立知見，知見不是覺悟嗎？只是用這種覺悟來看待真知，就成了不覺。始覺的『覺』字就屬於修智（通過修行獲得的智慧）。用這種智慧能夠覺悟本覺，所以稱為始覺。本覺的『覺』字才是天然的自性覺悟的『覺』。問：經論中說根本妄心能夠知曉名義，現在說六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）是什麼意思？答：經論是從極端的角度來說，所以指根本。現在是從最初的習氣來說，一定是在見思（見惑和思惑）上。本末體性相同，既有區別又沒有區別。三、辨別揀擇。然而天臺宗的道理，得到了佛陀的...

【English Translation】 English version: 1. Regarding True Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of things). When hearing about the dependent nature (Paratantra-svabhava, the nature of things being determined by other conditions), cease, and there is no other true appearance to grasp. When hearing about the perfected nature (Parinispanna-svabhava, the perfect, absolute nature of things), cease. Since hearing these three cessations, and based on this hearing, practicing and realizing, how could there be another path? When consciousness (Vijnana, the mental function of identifying and distinguishing things) ceases, one realizes the imputed nature (Parikalpita-svabhava, the nature of things being wrongly conceptualized). When the fundamental consciousness (Alaya-vijnana, the fundamental consciousness storing all experiences) transforms into wisdom, one realizes the dependent nature, which can also be called realized wisdom (wisdom of enlightenment). Realizing the perfected nature, one can also omit the imputed nature in hearing the teachings, and omit the perfected nature in practice and realization. 2. Therefore, the following quotes from scriptures to prove, which has two meanings. One is to prove that consciousness has the function of being able to know names and meanings. If one can integrate the three natures, then original enlightenment (the enlightenment that is originally present) is pure mind, which is the perfected nature; non-enlightenment (the state opposite to enlightenment) is the fundamental consciousness, which is the dependent nature; deluded mind (the illusory mind) is consciousness, which is the imputed nature. The second is to prove that self-illumination of one's own essence can also be called realized wisdom. Because there is no defiled wisdom (wisdom that is contaminated), it is initial enlightenment (the state of beginning to awaken). True mind (the true, uncontaminated mind) is original enlightenment. Initial enlightenment and original enlightenment are originally not different, so undefiled wisdom is the true mind illuminating its own essence. This can be called true self-realized wisdom. The scripture says 'Being able to know names and meanings is to explain original enlightenment', meaning to prove that consciousness has the function of being able to know. The teacher teaches that the self-nature of all dharmas is quiescent, which is to explain original enlightenment. Hearing this teaching, being able to know this enlightenment is called initial enlightenment. In the past, I once said that there is only one perfect enlightenment (perfect enlightenment), from the beginning there is no beginning, so there are three enlightenments. Because the nature is confused, it is called non-enlightenment. Today's instruction is called initial enlightenment. Naturally possessing it is called original enlightenment. Not only are initial enlightenment and original enlightenment not different, but non-enlightenment and initial enlightenment and original enlightenment are completely the same. This is to take the three from enlightenment, and enlightenment is only one. This one is not one, and the name of enlightenment is also non-existent. If enlightenment is taken from the three enlightenments, then there is a difference. The 'enlightenment' in non-enlightenment belongs to ignorance (ignorance). Ignorance can also be called enlightenment. At that moment, establishing knowledge on knowledge, is knowledge not enlightenment? It is just that using this enlightenment to look at true knowledge becomes non-enlightenment. The 'enlightenment' in initial enlightenment belongs to cultivated wisdom (wisdom gained through practice). Using this wisdom to be able to enlighten original enlightenment is called initial enlightenment. The 'enlightenment' in original enlightenment is the 'enlightenment' of natural self-nature enlightenment. Question: The scriptures say that the fundamental deluded mind can know names and meanings, what does it mean by the six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness)? Answer: The scriptures are speaking from an extreme point of view, so they refer to the fundamental. Now it is from the initial habits, which must be in views and thoughts (delusions of views and delusions of thought). The essence of the root and the branch are the same, both different and not different. 3. Distinguishing and selecting. However, the principles of the Tiantai school, have obtained the Buddha's...

本原枝流自在。破則性相俱非。行之以自他二計。取則性相俱是。收之以隨機四說。此之去取出有師承。故今文中。或說真心或談本識。且本識者。豈唯薰妄亦薰真如。良以平等一性功歸無別。真心本識就法有殊。就法如水與波。功歸必在濕性。性相諍論若得此意自然息滅。

文有二重問答。前云薰于真心。今云薰于本識。由此為問。先問二名。次問二薰。初重二。初問。二答二。初出本識異名。云本識者。下文云以與生死作本故。顯識論云。阿賴耶識亦名本識。一切有為法種子所依故。阿梨耶識者或云阿賴耶。梵音楚夏爾。真諦三藏就名翻為無沒識。以無始來不共沒故。奘師就義翻為藏識。所攝名藏。為諸眾生取為內我。我見所攝故名為藏。又能藏自體于諸法中。又能藏諸法于自體內。攝論云。能藏所藏我愛執藏。依此義故名為藏識。和合識者。真妄不相離故。種子識者。攝持能生故。攝論云。有能生彼功能差別。名一切種子識。果報識者。有似塵似識故等者。或名所知無覆無記無垢並宅識等。二正答二。初指上。由上文云。一者真如平等心。此是體也。二者阿梨耶識。即是相也。相不離體故為同體。乃非相故為異。祇語體相。同異已明。二今更下重說四。初法體相用者。名出起信。于生滅門明此三大。今辨

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本本原枝流自在。如果破除，則性和相都不是實在的。如果執著于自他和二元對立，則性和相都認為是實在的。如果用隨順機緣的四種說法來歸納，那麼這種對『去』和『取』的運用是有師承的。所以本文中，有時說真心，有時談本識。而且本識，豈止是薰染虛妄，也薰染真如。這是因為平等一性的功用歸於沒有差別，真心和本識就法理上來說有區別。就法理來說，就像水和波浪，功用最終歸於濕性。關於性和相的爭論，如果能理解這個道理，自然就會平息。

文中包含兩重問答。前面說薰染真心，現在說薰染本識。由此產生疑問。先問兩個名稱，再問兩種薰染。第一重包含兩個部分。首先是提問，然後是回答。首先解釋本識的別名。『本識』，下文說『因為它與生死作為根本』。顯識論說：『阿賴耶識也叫本識，是一切有為法種子的所依之處。』阿梨耶識，或者說阿賴耶，是梵語的不同音譯。真諦三藏根據名稱翻譯為『無沒識』，因為從無始以來不共同消沒。玄奘法師根據意義翻譯為『藏識』，所攝持的名為藏，被各種眾生執取為內在的『我』，被我見所攝持，所以名為藏。又能將自體藏於諸法中，又能將諸法藏於自體內。攝論說：『能藏、所藏、我愛執藏』。根據這個意義，所以名為藏識。『和合識』，因為真妄不相分離。『種子識』，因為攝持能生之物。攝論說：『有能生彼的功能差別，名為一切種子識。』『果報識』，因為有類似塵埃和類似意識的現象。等等，或者稱為所知、無覆無記、無垢以及宅識等等。

其次是正式回答。首先指向上文。因為上文說：『一者，真如平等心，這是體。二者，阿梨耶識，這是相。』相不離體，所以是同體。因為不是相，所以是異。僅僅就體和相來說，同和異已經很清楚了。現在進一步詳細說明四點。首先是法、體、相、用，這個名稱出自《起信論》，在生滅門中闡明這三大方面。現在辨析。

【English Translation】 English version The original source and branches flow freely. If broken, both nature (性, xìng) and form (相, xiàng) are not real. If one adheres to the duality of self and other, both nature and form are considered real. If summarized with the four expedient teachings, this application of 'removing' and 'taking' has a lineage. Therefore, in this text, sometimes it speaks of the true mind (真心, zhēnxīn), sometimes it discusses the fundamental consciousness (本識, běnshì). Moreover, the fundamental consciousness not only taints delusion but also taints Suchness (真如, zhēnrú). This is because the function of the equal one-nature returns to no difference; the true mind and fundamental consciousness have distinctions in terms of the Dharma (法, fǎ). In terms of the Dharma, it is like water and waves; the function ultimately returns to the wet nature. The debate about nature and form will naturally cease if this principle is understood.

The text contains two layers of questions and answers. Earlier, it said to taint the true mind; now, it says to taint the fundamental consciousness. This gives rise to questions. First, ask about the two names; then, ask about the two taintings. The first layer contains two parts: first, the question; then, the answer. First, explain the different names of the fundamental consciousness. 'Fundamental consciousness,' the text below says, 'because it serves as the root of birth and death.' The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi Śāstra (顯識論) says: 'The Ālaya-consciousness (阿賴耶識, Ālāyéshì) is also called the fundamental consciousness, the basis of all conditioned dharmas.' Ālaya-consciousness, or Ālaya, are different transliterations of the Sanskrit term. Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha translated it as 'Non-disappearing Consciousness' (無沒識, wúmòshì) because it does not jointly disappear from beginningless time. Master Xuanzang translated it as 'Storehouse Consciousness' (藏識, zàngshì) according to its meaning; what is contained is called storehouse, taken by various sentient beings as the inner 'self,' held by the view of self, so it is called storehouse. It can also store the self within all dharmas and store all dharmas within the self. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝論) says: 'The able to store, the stored, and the clinging to self-love.' According to this meaning, it is called the Storehouse Consciousness. 'Combined Consciousness' (和合識, héhéshì) because truth and falsehood are not separate. 'Seed Consciousness' (種子識, zhǒngzishì) because it holds the ability to produce. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'There are functional differences that can produce them, called the All-Seed Consciousness.' 'Result Consciousness' (果報識, guǒbàoshì) because there are phenomena similar to dust and similar to consciousness. And so on, or called the Known, Unobstructed-Unrecorded, Immaculate, and Abode Consciousness, etc.

Next is the formal answer. First, point to the text above. Because the text above says: 'First, the True Suchness Equal Mind, this is the substance. Second, the Ālaya-consciousness, this is the form.' Form is inseparable from substance, so they are of the same substance. Because it is not form, so it is different. Merely speaking of substance and form, sameness and difference are already clear. Now, further explain four points in detail. First, Dharma, substance, form, and function, this name comes from the Awakening of Faith (起信論), which clarifies these three major aspects in the realm of birth and death. Now analyze.

本識故說此三。但彼相大在凈在性。用大非惡在善。故立義中雲。一者體大。謂一切真如平等不增減故。二者相大。謂如來藏具足性功德故。三者用大。謂能生一切世間出世間善因果故。今文不局。相通性事染凈。用通善惡果因。其不同意如辨不空藏中已明。二如似下喻。義應有三。一者相由。由水為流。由流為波。如由真心為八識。由八識為六七。二者究原。即水為流。即水為波。如六七八識皆即真心。三者成體。以水與波共成於流。如六七與九共成八識。三是故下引證三。初證法體生滅之言。義有二種。一者相應生滅。即六識也。境界為緣。執似為實。成生滅相。二者不相應生滅。即八識也。獨頭不覺。起於三細。生滅流注。今文生滅通則該二。別不相應。二以與下證得名。以與生死作本者。就法以無明為本。功歸以法性為本。祇由此識含此二義。故名本識。若合上喻者。波以何為本。就法以流為本。功歸以水為本。文云種子者。就無明當體即是修事。推功所歸乃是理性。故種子之言亦該其二。三又復下再證法體二。初引經。二此明下釋。應知今宗能深究經論起異諸說者。由談性具。且經明云自性清凈。而但復云心為惱染。今指此性由具染性故為惱染。且論祇云具性功德。今指此性不獨是凈是性。亦乃是染是相。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本本識（Ālayavijñāna，根本識）故說此三（體大、相大、用大）。但彼相大在於清凈在於本性。用大在於善良而非邪惡。故在立義中說：一者體大，謂一切真如（Tathātā，事物的真實如是的狀態）平等不增減的緣故。二者相大，謂如來藏（Tathāgatagarbha，一切眾生皆有成佛的可能性）具足本性功德的緣故。三者用大，謂能生一切世間和出世間的善良因果的緣故。今文不侷限於此，相大貫通本性和現象、染污和清凈。用大貫通善良和邪惡、結果和原因。其不同之處如辨不空藏中已闡明。二、如下面的比喻所示。義理上應該有三種：一者相由，由水產生水流，由水流產生波浪。如同由真心（本覺之心）產生八識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識、末那識、阿賴耶識），由八識產生六識和七識（末那識和意識）。二者究原，水流即是水，波浪即是水。如同六識、七識、八識都即是真心。三者成體，水和波浪共同構成水流。如同六識、七識與第九識（阿摩羅識，Amala-vijñāna，清凈識）共同構成八識。三、是故下面引用三點來證明。首先證明法體（Dharma-kāya，佛的法身）生滅的說法。義理上有兩種：一者相應生滅，即六識。以境界為緣，執著相似為真實，形成生滅的相狀。二者不相應生滅，即八識。獨頭不覺，產生三細（無明業相、能見相、境界相），生滅流注。今文所說的生滅，通而言之包含以上兩種，特指則是不相應生滅。二、以『與』字下面證明其得名。以與生死作根本來說，就法而言以無明（Avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）為根本，功德歸於法性（Dharmatā，諸法的本性）。正因為此識包含這兩種含義，所以名為本識。如果結合上面的比喻，波浪以什麼為根本？就現象而言以水流為根本，功德歸於水。文中說種子（Bīja，潛在的可能性），就無明而言，當體即是修行的事務，推究功德的歸屬則是理性。所以種子之說也包含這兩種含義。三、又在下面再次證明法體二重性。首先引用經文。其次用『此明』來解釋。應該知道今宗（唯識宗）能夠深入研究經論，從而對各種不同的說法提出異議，是因為談論本性具足。而且經文明白地說自性清凈，而只是說心被煩惱染污。現在指出此自性由於具有染污的本性，所以被煩惱染污。而且論典只說具足本性功德，現在指出此自性不只是清凈的本性，也是染污的相狀。

【English Translation】 English version The Ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness, the fundamental consciousness) is the reason for speaking of these three (greatness of essence, greatness of attributes, and greatness of function). However, the greatness of attributes lies in purity and in inherent nature. The greatness of function lies in goodness and not in evil. Therefore, in establishing the meaning, it is said: First, the greatness of essence, meaning that the Tathātā (suchness, the true nature of things) of all things is equal and does not increase or decrease. Second, the greatness of attributes, meaning that the Tathāgatagarbha (the womb of the Tathāgata, the potential for Buddhahood in all beings) is complete with inherent virtues. Third, the greatness of function, meaning that it can generate all good causes and effects in both the mundane and supramundane realms. The current text is not limited to this; the greatness of attributes encompasses both inherent nature and phenomena, defilement and purity. The greatness of function encompasses both good and evil, results and causes. The differences are clarified in the Discrimination of the Non-Empty Treasury. Second, as illustrated by the following metaphor. In terms of meaning, there should be three aspects: First, the dependence of attributes, where water gives rise to streams, and streams give rise to waves. Similarly, the true mind (original enlightened mind) gives rise to the eight consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness, Manas consciousness, Ālaya consciousness), and the eight consciousnesses give rise to the sixth and seventh consciousnesses (Manas consciousness and mind consciousness). Second, the investigation of origin, where streams are water, and waves are water. Similarly, the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses are all the true mind. Third, the formation of essence, where water and waves together form a stream. Similarly, the sixth, seventh, and ninth consciousnesses (Amala-vijñāna, pure consciousness) together form the eight consciousnesses. Third, therefore, three points are cited below to prove this. First, to prove the statement of the Dharma-kāya (the body of the Dharma, the essence of the Buddha's teachings) arising and ceasing. There are two kinds of meaning: First, the corresponding arising and ceasing, which is the six consciousnesses. Taking the realm as a condition, clinging to the similar as real, forming the appearance of arising and ceasing. Second, the non-corresponding arising and ceasing, which is the eighth consciousness. Unenlightened on its own, giving rise to the three subtle aspects (ignorance karma aspect, perceiving aspect, realm aspect), the flow of arising and ceasing. The arising and ceasing mentioned in the current text generally includes both of the above, specifically referring to non-corresponding arising and ceasing. Second, the word 'with' below proves its name. In terms of taking it as the root of birth and death, in terms of Dharma, it takes Avidyā (ignorance, delusion about the true nature of things) as the root, and the merit is attributed to Dharmatā (the nature of Dharma, the inherent nature of all things). Precisely because this consciousness contains these two meanings, it is called the fundamental consciousness. If combined with the above metaphor, what is the root of the wave? In terms of phenomena, it takes the stream as the root, and the merit is attributed to water. The text says Bīja (seed, potentiality), in terms of ignorance, the entity itself is the matter of practice, and the attribution of merit is rationality. Therefore, the saying of seed also includes these two meanings. Third, again below, the duality of the Dharma-kāya is proven again. First, quoting the scriptures. Second, explaining with 'this explains'. It should be known that the current school (Yogācāra) can deeply study the scriptures and treatises, thereby raising objections to various different statements, because it discusses the inherent completeness of nature. Moreover, the scriptures clearly state that the self-nature is pure, but only say that the mind is defiled by afflictions. Now it is pointed out that this self-nature is defiled by afflictions because it has the nature of defilement. Moreover, the treatises only say that it is complete with inherent virtues, now it is pointed out that this self-nature is not only pure nature, but also the aspect of defilement.

是故上文具足染事。四以是下結。今就事相說者。本識雖該真性。但是妄不離真。故本之為名。就法在事。

第二問答二。初問。若於前答同異已明。不復此問。為其不能類通。雖知本識與真心同異。而未知薰本識時即薰真心以不。答三。初示義。上文既云薰于本識。增蓋解性。故知薰本識時即薰真心。二是故下引證。三覺即下釋。相在本識中明於凈心。如在流中以辨於水。故水不離流流不離水。若不就流辨水者。故說水時未必是流。而此凈心非阿梨耶。如金錍云。祗可雲水本無波。必不得云波中無水。又復須知。若云波者未必有水。若雲水者必須有波。斯亦可云。祇可云波不是水。必不得雲水本無波。語于性體不語性用。故云水本無波。若語于用則不可雲水本無波。故云是則無有無波之水。從悟實說用即是體。故云不可波中無水。若從迷妄而亦可云波中無水。故云若唯從迷說則波無水。今亦例爾。若從迷說則流無水。

二觀為三。初問起。二答釋三。初聞教。性依薰起顯現世間出世間法者。須知修止觀者。罄盡法界全體無有一法出此止此觀。此聞此修斯是南嶽開示佛智。若有絲毫法而不全正者即成偏邪。是以止寂觀照。照若不盡寂亦有虧。且夫寂者真常性體。而此之體豈可虧殘。故今語觀。即是依體發

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，上面的文字完整地包含了染污之事。『四以是下結』是總結。現在就事相來說，本識雖然涵蓋真性，但畢竟是妄不離真，所以稱為『本』。就法來說，它存在於事相之中。

第二段是問答，分為兩部分。首先是提問。如果對於前面的回答，相同和不同之處已經明確，就不再提出這個問題。之所以提出，是因為他們不能類推貫通，雖然知道本識與真心相同和不同，但不知道熏習本識的時候是否也熏習真心。回答分為三部分。首先是揭示意義。上面的文字已經說『熏于本識，增蓋解性』，所以知道熏習本識的時候也就熏習真心。其次是『二是故下引證』，引用證據。第三是『覺即下釋』，解釋。相在本識中，在凈心中顯現，就像在水流中辨別水一樣。所以水不離水流，水流不離水。如果不就水流來辨別水，那麼說水的時候未必是指水流。而這個凈心不是阿梨耶（Ālaya，藏識）。就像《金錍論》所說：『只可說水本來沒有波浪，一定不能說波浪中沒有水。』又要知道，如果說波浪，未必有水；如果說水，必須有波浪。也可以這樣說：『只可說波浪不是水，一定不能說水本來沒有波浪。』這是就性體來說，不是就性用來說，所以說『水本來沒有波浪』。如果就性用來說，就不能說『水本來沒有波浪』，所以說『那麼就沒有沒有波浪的水』。從覺悟實相來說，用就是體，所以說『不能說波浪中沒有水』。如果從迷惑顛倒來說，也可以說波浪中沒有水，所以說『如果只從迷惑來說，那麼波浪中沒有水』。現在也是這樣，如果從迷惑來說，那麼水流中沒有水。

第二觀分為三部分。首先是提問，其次是回答解釋，分為三部分。首先是聽聞教法。性依熏習而生起，顯現世間和出世間法。要知道修止觀的人，窮盡法界全體，沒有一法超出止和觀。聽聞和修習這些，就是南嶽（指慧思禪師）開示的佛智。如果有一絲一毫的法不完全正，就會成為偏邪。因此，止是寂靜，觀是照耀。如果照耀不窮盡，寂靜也會有虧損。而且寂靜是真常的性體，這個體怎麼可以虧損殘缺呢？所以現在說觀，就是依體而發。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the preceding text fully encompasses the matters of defilement. '四以是下結' is a conclusion. Now, speaking from the perspective of phenomena, although the 本識 (Ālayavijñāna, store consciousness) encompasses true nature, it is ultimately delusion inseparable from truth. Hence, it is called '本' (root). In terms of dharma, it exists within phenomena.

The second section is a question and answer, divided into two parts. First is the question. If the similarities and differences in the previous answer are already clear, this question would not be asked again. The reason it is asked is because they cannot extrapolate and connect; although they know the 本識 (Ālayavijñāna, store consciousness) is both the same as and different from true mind, they do not know whether, when the 本識 (Ālayavijñāna, store consciousness) is perfumed, the true mind is also perfumed. The answer is divided into three parts. First is to reveal the meaning. The preceding text has already said, 'perfuming the 本識 (Ālayavijñāna, store consciousness), increasing the covering of the liberated nature,' so it is known that when the 本識 (Ālayavijñāna, store consciousness) is perfumed, the true mind is also perfumed. Second is '二是故下引證', citing evidence. Third is '覺即下釋', explaining. The appearance is in the 本識 (Ālayavijñāna, store consciousness), manifesting in the pure mind, just as distinguishing water in a stream. Therefore, water is inseparable from the stream, and the stream is inseparable from water. If one does not distinguish water by means of the stream, then speaking of water does not necessarily mean the stream. And this pure mind is not 阿梨耶 (Ālaya, store consciousness). It is like what the Jin Pi Lun says: 'One can only say that water originally has no waves; one must not say that there is no water in the waves.' Furthermore, one must know that if one speaks of waves, there may not be water; if one speaks of water, there must be waves. It can also be said: 'One can only say that waves are not water; one must not say that water originally has no waves.' This is speaking of the nature-essence, not speaking of the nature-function, so it is said 'water originally has no waves.' If speaking of the function, then one cannot say 'water originally has no waves,' so it is said 'then there is no water without waves.' From the perspective of realizing reality, function is essence, so it is said 'one cannot say that there is no water in the waves.' If from the perspective of delusion, one can also say that there is no water in the waves, so it is said 'if one only speaks from delusion, then there is no water in the waves.' It is the same now. If speaking from delusion, then there is no water in the stream.

The second contemplation is divided into three parts. First is the question, second is the answer and explanation, divided into three parts. First is hearing the teachings. The nature arises based on perfuming, manifesting worldly and supramundane dharmas. One must know that those who cultivate 止 (śamatha, cessation) and 觀 (vipaśyanā, insight) exhaust the entire 法界 (dharmadhātu, realm of reality); there is not a single dharma that exceeds this 止 (śamatha, cessation) and 觀 (vipaśyanā, insight). Hearing and practicing these is the Buddha-wisdom revealed by 南嶽 (Nányuè, refers to Huisi Chan Master). If there is even a trace of dharma that is not completely correct, it will become biased and deviant. Therefore, 止 (śamatha, cessation) is stillness, and 觀 (vipaśyanā, insight) is illumination. If the illumination is not exhaustive, the stillness will also be deficient. Moreover, stillness is the true and constant nature-essence; how can this essence be deficient or incomplete? Therefore, now speaking of 觀 (vipaśyanā, insight), it is arising based on the essence.

現世出世間一切諸法。然此諸法皆吾心體中所有者。此有雖即非有。非有不妨而有。從此達之是名真觀。由此止觀。是以果證法界全體若事若理若自若他無不具足。故章安云。若事若理智斷自他于初證中具足無闕。如此之證不與小共。不可思議。聞則驚怪。盡涅槃海此一妙證。釋二人疑。二以聞下修習二。初悲誓境。二是故下起行。問。聞教既聞世出世法。今修觀中何以但云六度等行。答。若就六度分別。前五世間。后一出世。由得后一。六皆出世。故以六蔽而為世間。既云四攝。其同事者必該六蔽諸染法也。問。今修觀者若修同事。行六蔽耶。答。和光而不同塵。以和光故亦行六蔽。不同塵故彼實我權。雖法理當然。但以初心易實難權。唯內照之未堪涉事。證法性已行則無礙。三以久下證得。近在初住遠至妙覺。究竟之言但對聞修。或的指妙覺。　三以是下結。

二明破小乘人執二。初標章。二問下解釋二。初問。何故要須依止凈心者。據理小乘亦非不依凈心為行。由宗必有體。今云何須依止凈心者。一則由彼肯空無覺無知。義非佛性。以大奪之不名凈心。因以大奪故就執云不須依止。二則學小乘者宗計不同。或計修習但依意識何須依真。

答釋二。初意識無體。二又復下。意識生滅無轉勝義二。初正

答前問二。初示義。二何以下釋相三。初略釋。攝論云。若言前念薰於後念成薰習者。此義不然。以其二念不俱有故。二如前下引類二。初引聞法。二引學字。皆先引次類。聞法約二人同世。學字約二人異世。三若以下正示三。初示。二若不下。況直果者無歸著之㒵也。三以是下結。

二料揀余義二重問答。初問。二答。以凡畜況二乘者。凡夫之言或以位次深淺相況。居賢位者為凡夫。入果證者為二乘。或以修人天乘者況修聲聞緣覺乘者。第二重。初問。以染難凈。二答。凈心之言有總有別。總該染凈二性。別唯凈性。今文從別。故云不聞教者卻有凈心。但以無修凈業故不得有用。然復須了依止之義。有約性平等。有從修異途。若約性平等。不論逆修順修。凡有修習莫不皆依平等凈心而得成就。但以從修異途。其逆修者是九界法。合當逆性。故所修習不以平等凈心為依。其順修者是佛界法。合當順性。故所修習乃以平等凈心為依。

三明破大乘人執二。初標章。二解釋二。初正釋二。初問。二答。此由問者不了大乘。縱使境觀圓融不二。其如粗惑尚未先除。是故創心修大乘者必憑意識。聞教起修豈應問云但用凈心。

二料揀有四。初問者以性難修。然止觀法體雖一。隨義詮之必殊。以天然本具未曾

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本答前問二。初示義。二何以下釋相三。初略釋。《攝論》（《攝大乘論》的簡稱）云：『若言前念薰於後念成薰習者，此義不然。以其二念不俱有故。』二如前下引類二。初引聞法。二引學字。皆先引次類。聞法約二人同世。學字約二人異世。三若以下正示三。初示。二若不下。況直果者無歸著之㒵也。三以是下結。

二料揀余義二重問答。初問。二答。以凡畜況二乘者。凡夫之言或以位次深淺相況。居賢位者為凡夫。入果證者為二乘。或以修人天乘者況修聲聞緣覺乘者。第二重。初問。以染難凈。二答。凈心之言有總有別。總該染凈二性。別唯凈性。今文從別。故云不聞教者卻有凈心。但以無修凈業故不得有用。然復須了依止之義。有約性平等。有從修異途。若約性平等。不論逆修順修。凡有修習莫不皆依平等凈心而得成就。但以從修異途。其逆修者是九界法。合當逆性。故所修習不以平等凈心為依。其順修者是佛界法。合當順性。故所修習乃以平等凈心為依。

三明破大乘人執二。初標章。二解釋二。初正釋二。初問。二答。此由問者不了大乘。縱使境觀圓融不二。其如粗惑尚未先除。是故創心修大乘者必憑意識。聞教起修豈應問云但用凈心。

二料揀有四。初問者以性難修。然止觀法體雖一。隨義詮之必殊。以天然本具未曾

【English Translation】 English version Answering the second question of the previous inquiry. First, it shows the meaning. Second, what follows explains the characteristics in three parts. First, a brief explanation. The She Lun (short for She Da Cheng Lun, Compendium of Mahayana) says: 'If it is said that the previous thought熏 (xun, influence) the subsequent thought to form 薰習 (xun xi, habituation), this meaning is not correct, because the two thoughts do not exist simultaneously.' Second, as before, it cites two categories. First, citing hearing the Dharma. Second, citing learning characters. Both first cite and then categorize. Hearing the Dharma refers to two people in the same era. Learning characters refers to two people in different eras. Third, what follows correctly shows three aspects. First, showing. Second, what follows further illustrates that those who directly attain the fruit have no place to歸著 (gui zhuo, attachment). Third, the following concludes.

Second, examining the remaining meanings through two rounds of questions and answers. First question. Second answer. Comparing ordinary beings to the 二乘 (er cheng, Two Vehicles, referring to Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas), the words of ordinary beings may be compared in terms of the depth of their positions. Those who reside in the position of a sage are ordinary beings. Those who enter the fruit of證 (zheng, realization) are 二乘 (er cheng, Two Vehicles). Or comparing those who cultivate the path of humans and gods to those who cultivate the path of 聲聞 (sheng wen, Sravakas) and 緣覺 (yuan jue, Pratyekabuddhas). Second round. First question. Using defilement to challenge purity. Second answer. The term 'pure mind' has both general and specific meanings. The general meaning encompasses both defiled and pure natures. The specific meaning refers only to the pure nature. The current text follows the specific meaning. Therefore, it is said that those who do not hear the teachings still have a pure mind, but because they do not cultivate pure karma, it cannot be used. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand the meaning of reliance. There is equality in terms of nature, and there are different paths in terms of cultivation. If equality in terms of nature is considered, regardless of逆修 (ni xiu, reverse cultivation) or 順修 (shun xiu, favorable cultivation), all cultivation is accomplished by relying on the equal pure mind. However, considering the different paths in terms of cultivation, 逆修 (ni xiu, reverse cultivation) belongs to the Dharma of the nine realms, which corresponds to the reverse nature. Therefore, the cultivation does not rely on the equal pure mind. 順修 (shun xiu, favorable cultivation) belongs to the Dharma of the Buddha realm, which corresponds to the favorable nature. Therefore, the cultivation relies on the equal pure mind.

Third, clarifying the attachment of Mahayana practitioners in two parts. First, stating the chapter. Second, explaining in two parts. First, the correct explanation in two parts. First question. Second answer. This is because the questioner does not understand Mahayana. Even if the境 (jing, object) and 觀 (guan, contemplation) are perfectly融 (rong, integrated) and non-dual, the coarse afflictions have not yet been removed. Therefore, those who initially cultivate Mahayana must rely on consciousness. Hearing the teachings and starting cultivation, how could one ask whether to only use the pure mind?

Second, there are four distinctions. The questioner uses nature to challenge cultivation. However, although the substance of 止觀 (zhi guan, Samatha-vipassana) is one, its interpretation varies according to the meaning. Because it is naturally inherent and has never been

發現者是曰性德。以今日意識聞教起智薰發而現者是曰修德。問者直據性德。不許由智。是以難云何論意識等也。云滅自心境界者。自心之言乃指意識。以境界所起既由意識。今復以意識而滅境界。故云滅自心境界。又自心者。自性清凈心也。依此自心而現似境。今以意識尋知名義滅此自性所現境界。二答。先示性德本然。次示眾生迷動。三示必假方便。文云。不覺自動者。自之一字若指無明性體常住不變。無明自發搖動。若指法性。無明迷故凈心自性隨緣而動。文云方便者。方便之義有三種。一者師教為說。二者意識能知。三者起無塵智。前一屬具緣。后二屬修入。因此方便始可得證性德靜明。

第二重。問者雖許由知。知非意識即是凈心自知本寂。然據所論必具止觀。今問與答但云本寂者。且從止示。既然知寂寂必而照。答約二義顯于凈心不可自知。一約能所。夫言知者必有能知所知。若無所知何得云知。凈心體一如何凈心復知凈心。故云凈心無二。二約修性。凈心性德雖具能知本寂之性。柰何在迷。若不假於今日智薰無由念息。又凈心無二者。乃答問中自知二字。復為無明下。乃答問中念息二字。問。初云凈心無二不可自知。次何復許凈心自知。而但云無明覆故不得自知。答。從凈心體不可自知。從凈心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：發現者所說的是性德（本性所具有的功德）。以今日的意識聽聞佛法，生起智慧，通過熏習而顯現的，這叫做修德（通過修行而獲得的功德）。提問者直接依據性德，不允許通過智慧來理解，所以才會有『如何談論意識』這樣的疑問。『滅自心境界』中的『自心』指的是意識。因為境界的產生是由於意識的作用，現在又用意識來滅除境界，所以說是『滅自心境界』。另外，『自心』也可以指自性清凈心。依靠這個自性清凈心而顯現出好像是外在的境界。現在用意識去尋找、認識這些名相，實際上是滅除了自性所顯現的境界。這是第二個回答。首先揭示了性德的本來面目，其次揭示了眾生的迷惑和妄動，第三揭示了必須藉助方便法門。文中說『不覺自動』，這裡的『自』字，如果指的是無明（對事物真相的迷惑）的體性，那麼它就是常住不變的，無明會自己發動搖動。如果指的是法性（事物本來的性質），那麼因為無明的迷惑，清凈心的自性會隨著因緣而動。文中說的『方便』，有三種含義：一是老師的教導和解說，二是意識能夠認知，三是生起無塵智（沒有煩惱污染的智慧）。前一種屬於具備因緣，后兩種屬於通過修行而進入。通過這些方便，才有可能證得性德的清凈光明。第二重。提問者雖然允許通過『知』來理解，但這個『知』不是意識，而是清凈心本自具有的知覺和寂靜。然而，根據所討論的內容，必須具備止（停止妄念）和觀（觀察實相）。現在提問和回答只是說『本寂』，這只是從『止』的角度來揭示。既然知道寂靜，那麼必然會有照（覺照）。回答從兩個方面來闡明清凈心不能自己認知自己。一是從能知和所知的關係來說。所謂『知』，必然有能知的主體和所知的對象。如果沒有所知的對象，怎麼能說是『知』呢？清凈心的本體是唯一的，如何能讓清凈心再去認知清凈心呢？所以說『清凈心無二』。二是從修和性的關係來說。清凈心的性德雖然具備能知和本寂的性質，但是眾生處在迷惑之中。如果不借助今天的智慧熏習，就沒有辦法停止妄念。另外，『清凈心無二』，是回答提問中的『自知』二字。『復為無明下』，是回答提問中的『念息』二字。問：開始說清凈心無二，不能自己認知自己，後來為什麼又允許清凈心自己認知自己，而只是說因為無明覆蓋所以不能自己認知自己呢？答：從清凈心的本體來說，是不能自己認知的；從清凈心

【English Translation】 English version: The discoverer speaks of inherent virtue (性德, xìng dé, virtue inherent in one's nature). That which is manifested through hearing the teachings with today's consciousness, generating wisdom, and cultivating through practice is called acquired virtue (修德, xiū dé, virtue acquired through practice). The questioner directly relies on inherent virtue, not allowing understanding through wisdom, hence the question 'How can we discuss consciousness?' 'Extinguishing the realm of one's own mind' refers to consciousness when it mentions 'one's own mind'. Because the arising of realms is due to the function of consciousness, and now consciousness is used to extinguish the realm, it is said to be 'extinguishing the realm of one's own mind'. Furthermore, 'one's own mind' can also refer to the self-nature pure mind. Relying on this self-nature pure mind, illusory realms appear. Now, using consciousness to seek and recognize these names and forms is actually extinguishing the realms manifested by the self-nature. This is the second answer. First, it reveals the original nature of inherent virtue; second, it reveals the delusion and agitation of sentient beings; third, it reveals the necessity of relying on expedient means. The text says 'unconsciously moving on its own'. The word 'self' here, if referring to the nature of ignorance (無明, wú míng, delusion about the true nature of reality), is constant and unchanging. Ignorance itself initiates movement and agitation. If referring to Dharma-nature (法性, fǎ xìng, the true nature of reality), then due to the delusion of ignorance, the self-nature of the pure mind moves according to conditions. The 'expedient means' mentioned in the text have three meanings: first, the teacher's instruction and explanation; second, the ability of consciousness to recognize; and third, the arising of uncontaminated wisdom (無塵智, wú chén zhì, wisdom free from defilements). The first belongs to having the necessary conditions, and the latter two belong to entering through practice. Through these expedient means, it becomes possible to realize the inherent virtue of stillness and clarity. Second level. Although the questioner allows understanding through 'knowing', this 'knowing' is not consciousness but the pure mind's inherent awareness and stillness. However, according to what is being discussed, it is necessary to have both cessation (止, zhǐ, stopping of wandering thoughts) and contemplation (觀, guān, observing reality). Now, the question and answer only mention 'inherent stillness', which is only revealing from the perspective of 'cessation'. Since one knows stillness, there must be illumination (照, zhào, awareness). The answer clarifies from two aspects that the pure mind cannot know itself. First, from the relationship between the knower and the known. What is called 'knowing' must have a knowing subject and a known object. If there is no known object, how can it be called 'knowing'? The essence of the pure mind is one, so how can the pure mind know the pure mind again? Therefore, it is said that 'the pure mind is not two'. Second, from the relationship between practice and nature. Although the inherent virtue of the pure mind possesses the nature of knowing and inherent stillness, sentient beings are in delusion. If one does not rely on the cultivation of wisdom today, there is no way to stop wandering thoughts. Furthermore, 'the pure mind is not two' is answering the words 'self-knowing' in the question. 'Again, because of ignorance below' is answering the words 'cessation of thoughts' in the question. Question: At the beginning, it was said that the pure mind is not two and cannot know itself. Later, why is it allowed that the pure mind knows itself, but it is only said that it cannot know itself because it is covered by ignorance? Answer: From the perspective of the essence of the pure mind, it cannot know itself; from the perspective of the pure mind

用既具能知故可凈心有自知義。問。若云從用有知。何故前云若就心體而論實自知如此如此者。心體有靜有照。照非知乎。知若是用。何云心體。答。心體能具于用。故云心體而論。其所論者即性用耳。第三重。問者念由無明。無明若存念何由息。息念既由無明亡。無明亡必由無塵智。以不了此。故問何故要須智薰。答中之意。滅無明者須無塵智。今問此無塵智與性體照明為同爲異。若云異者。無塵之智不同性體本具照明耶。若云同者。此無塵智慧破無明而使念息。豈非性體自照自知本寂者耶。答體同義異。以體同故性具照明即無塵智。以義異故未現者號性。照明已現者曰無塵智。問。已現者即現性德。性德不現由無明覆。性德既現何故有無塵智時復有無明。既有無明如何複稱是現性德。答。行有淺深。現有分極。等覺已還皆是分現故雜無明。問。無塵之智乃是能薰。性之照明乃是所薰。能所不同。如何能薰即是所現。答。前為能薰。后為所現。后所現者復為能薰。故一法體前後論之為能為所。無以能所不同乃謂能薰而非性現。

第四重。問者前三問意莫不存智與滅境界。但不許以意識與無塵智慧知能滅。祇可凈心自知自滅。今之問意不論境界滅與不滅。並能滅心知與不知。證字亦可為澄。答二。初標定三義。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：用具有能知的功能，因此可以清凈心，具有自知的意義。問：如果說從功能上來說具有知覺，為什麼前面說如果就心體而論，實際上是自知如此如此呢？心體有靜止和照亮兩種狀態，照亮不是知覺嗎？知覺如果是功能，為什麼說是心體呢？答：心體能夠具備各種功能，所以說是就心體而論，所論述的就是性用。第三重。提問者認爲念頭是由無明產生的，如果無明存在，念頭怎麼會停止呢？念頭的停止既然是因為無明的消失，無明的消失必定是因為無塵智。因為不瞭解這一點，所以問為什麼要用智慧來熏習。回答中的意思是，滅除無明需要無塵智。現在問這個無塵智與性體（本性本體，指一切眾生本具的佛性）的照明是相同還是不同？如果說是不同的，那麼無塵的智慧不同於性體本來就具有的照明嗎？如果說是相同的，那麼這個無塵智慧夠破除無明而使念頭停止，難道不是性體自照自知本來寂靜嗎？答：本體相同，意義不同。因為本體相同，所以性具的照明就是無塵智。因為意義不同，所以未顯現的叫做性，照明已經顯現的叫做無塵智。問：已經顯現的就是顯現性德（本性所具有的功德）。性德不顯現是因為無明覆蓋。性德既然已經顯現，為什麼有無塵智的時候還會有無明？既然有無明，又怎麼能說是顯現性德呢？答：修行有深淺，顯現有程度。等覺（菩薩果位名，僅次於佛）以下的都只是部分顯現，所以夾雜著無明。問：無塵的智慧是能熏，性的照明是所熏。能熏和所熏不同，怎麼能說能熏就是所顯現的呢？答：前面是能熏，後面是所顯現。後面所顯現的又成為能熏。所以一個法體（佛法，真理）前後論述就成為能和所。不要因為能熏和所熏不同就說能熏不是性現。第四重。提問者前三個問題的意思，無非是存在智慧和滅除境界。但不允許用意識和無塵智來能知能滅。只認可清凈心自知自滅。現在的提問意思是不論境界滅與不滅，以及能滅的心知與不知。證字也可以理解為澄（澄清）。回答分為兩部分。首先標定三種意義。

【English Translation】 English version: Because 'use' possesses the function of knowing, it can purify the mind and has the meaning of self-knowing. Question: If it is said that knowledge comes from 'use', why was it previously stated that if one considers the 'essence of mind', it is actually self-knowing in such and such a way? The 'essence of mind' has both stillness and illumination. Is illumination not knowledge? If knowledge is a function, why is it called the 'essence of mind'? Answer: The 'essence of mind' is capable of possessing all functions, so it is said to be considered in terms of the 'essence of mind', and what is discussed is the nature and function. Third layer. The questioner believes that thoughts arise from Avidyā (ignorance). If Avidyā exists, how can thoughts cease? Since the cessation of thoughts is due to the disappearance of Avidyā, the disappearance of Avidyā must be due to Anāsrava-jñāna (wisdom without outflows). Because this is not understood, the question is why wisdom is needed to purify. The meaning in the answer is that the elimination of Avidyā requires Anāsrava-jñāna. Now the question is whether this Anāsrava-jñāna is the same as or different from the illumination of Svabhāva (own-being, intrinsic nature). If it is said to be different, then is the wisdom of Anāsrava different from the illumination that the Svabhāva inherently possesses? If it is said to be the same, then this Anāsrava-jñāna can break through Avidyā and cause thoughts to cease. Is it not the Svabhāva that is self-illuminating, self-knowing, and originally tranquil? Answer: The substance is the same, but the meaning is different. Because the substance is the same, the illumination inherent in the Svabhāva is Anāsrava-jñāna. Because the meaning is different, what has not yet manifested is called Svabhāva, and what has already manifested is called Anāsrava-jñāna. Question: What has already manifested is the manifestation of Svabhāva-guṇa (qualities of intrinsic nature). The Svabhāva-guṇa does not manifest because it is covered by Avidyā. Since the Svabhāva-guṇa has already manifested, why is there still Avidyā when there is Anāsrava-jñāna? Since there is Avidyā, how can it still be said to be the manifestation of Svabhāva-guṇa? Answer: Practice has depth, and manifestation has degrees. Those below the level of Samyak-saṃbodhi (perfect enlightenment) are only partial manifestations, so they are mixed with Avidyā. Question: Anāsrava-jñāna is the purifier, and the illumination of nature is what is purified. The purifier and what is purified are different, so how can it be said that the purifier is what is manifested? Answer: The former is the purifier, and the latter is what is manifested. What is manifested later becomes the purifier again. Therefore, when discussing a Dharma-dhātu (element of reality, principle of truth) from beginning to end, it becomes the purifier and what is purified. Do not say that the purifier is not the manifestation of nature simply because the purifier and what is purified are different. Fourth layer. The meaning of the questioner's first three questions is nothing more than the existence of wisdom and the elimination of realms. But it is not permissible to use consciousness and Anāsrava-jñāna to know and eliminate. Only the pure mind is recognized as self-knowing and self-eliminating. The meaning of the current question is regardless of whether the realm is eliminated or not, and whether the mind that can eliminate knows or does not know. The word 'zheng' can also be understood as 'cheng' (clarify). The answer is divided into two parts. First, three meanings are identified.

然此三義正途辨之。須約體德方能[迄-乙+品]分。體稱自證。德有智斷。今文智斷一無塵智而得二名。以此之智去惑照理名為智德。以此之智用理斷惑名為斷德。從於智德稱為他證。從於斷德稱為證他。此義難見以喻顯之。鏡體自明如稱自證。因去塵故方乃有明。如由他證以此之明去彼之塵。如由證他他之一字一向是塵。故惟屬過。證之一字一向是明。故惟屬德。去塵得明以明去塵。必有其人人如智也。此人去塵得明。非不去塵。且從得明。故稱此人為得明人。如無塵智號為智德。名曰他證。此人以明去塵非不有明。且從去塵。故稱此人為去塵人。如無塵智號為斷德。名曰證他。然法本離執。非由自證。非由他證。非由證他。如是證者名為真證。若亡執已為緣各說。從其本性而得三昧。名為自證。從其智了而得三昧。名曰他證。從由去惑而得三昧。名曰證他。得三昧者於此之三一體圓妙。以體與智斷非縱非橫不併不別。雖一而三雖三而一。非三非一而三而一。不可思議。但以問者不了斯旨。觸途成礙。其不了者功由不了須無塵智。文云爲由他證於他者。此他證言不同智德。乃約斷德。令他得證。故名他證。既令他得證。即是證於他也。亦恐誤多由他二字。

二若心下隨義各難三。初難心自證四。初約自然難

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：那麼這三重含義的正確辨析，必須依據本體和功德才能區分清楚。本體稱為自證，功德包括智慧和斷惑。現在文中的『無塵智』（無垢的智慧）一詞，因其作用而有了兩個名稱。用這種智慧去除迷惑、照亮真理，稱為智德（智慧的功德）；用這種智慧運用真理、斷除迷惑，稱為斷德（斷除煩惱的功德）。從智德的角度來說，稱為他證（通過智慧來證明）；從斷德的角度來說，稱為證他（通過斷惑來證明）。這個道理難以理解，用比喻來顯明它。鏡子的本體自然光明，如同本體稱為自證。因為去除了灰塵，才顯現出光明，如同通過他證。用這種光明去除他人的灰塵，如同通過證他。『他』這個字始終代表灰塵，所以只屬於過失。『證』這個字始終代表光明，所以只屬於功德。去除灰塵得到光明，用光明去除灰塵，必定有這個人，如同智慧。這個人去除灰塵得到光明，並非不去除灰塵，而是側重於得到光明，所以稱這個人是『得明人』。如同無塵智被稱為智德，名為他證。這個人用光明去除灰塵，並非沒有光明，而是側重於去除灰塵，所以稱這個人是『去塵人』。如同無塵智被稱為斷德，名為證他。然而，佛法原本是離執著的，不是由於自證，不是由於他證，也不是由於證他。像這樣證悟的，稱為真證。如果消除了執著，就可以根據因緣各自解說。從其本性而得到的禪定，名為自證；從其智慧明瞭而得到的禪定，名為他證；從由於去除迷惑而得到的禪定，名為證他。得到禪定的人，對於這三者，一體圓滿微妙。因為本體與智慧、斷惑，不是縱向的，不是橫向的，不是不併存的，不是不分離的。雖然是一，卻是三；雖然是三，卻是一。非三非一，而三而一，不可思議。只是因為提問的人不明白這個宗旨，處處都成為障礙。那些不明白的人，其功用在於不明白，需要無塵智。文中說『由於他證對於他人』，這個他證的說法不同於智德，而是依據斷德，使他人得到證悟，所以名為他證。既然使他人得到證悟，就是證悟他人。也恐怕誤解了『由於他』二字。第二，如果從心識的角度，可以根據不同的含義提出三種疑問。首先，從心識的自證提出四種疑問。第一，從自然的角度提出疑問。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the correct discernment of these three meanings must be based on the substance (體) and virtue (德) to be clearly distinguished. The substance is called 'self-attestation' (自證, zì zhèng), and the virtue includes wisdom (智, zhì) and severance (斷, duàn). Now, the term 'dust-free wisdom' (無塵智, wú chén zhì) in the text has two names because of its function. Using this wisdom to remove delusion and illuminate truth is called 'wisdom-virtue' (智德, zhì dé); using this wisdom to apply truth and sever delusion is called 'severance-virtue' (斷德, duàn dé). From the perspective of wisdom-virtue, it is called 'other-attestation' (他證, tā zhèng); from the perspective of severance-virtue, it is called 'attesting-other' (證他, zhèng tā). This principle is difficult to understand, so let's use a metaphor to illustrate it. The substance of a mirror is naturally bright, just as the substance is called self-attestation. Because dust is removed, brightness appears, just as through other-attestation. Using this brightness to remove the dust of others is like attesting-other. The word 'other' (他, tā) always represents dust, so it only belongs to fault. The word 'attestation' (證, zhèng) always represents brightness, so it only belongs to virtue. Removing dust to obtain brightness, using brightness to remove dust, there must be this person, like wisdom. This person removes dust to obtain brightness, not without removing dust, but focusing on obtaining brightness, so this person is called 'brightness-obtaining person'. Just as dust-free wisdom is called wisdom-virtue, named other-attestation. This person uses brightness to remove dust, not without brightness, but focusing on removing dust, so this person is called 'dust-removing person'. Just as dust-free wisdom is called severance-virtue, named attesting-other. However, the Dharma is originally free from attachment, not due to self-attestation, not due to other-attestation, and not due to attesting-other. Such attestation is called true attestation. If attachment is eliminated, it can be explained individually according to conditions. The samadhi (三昧, sānmèi) obtained from its inherent nature is called self-attestation; the samadhi obtained from its wise understanding is called other-attestation; the samadhi obtained from removing delusion is called attesting-other. The person who obtains samadhi, for these three, the unity is complete and subtle. Because the substance and wisdom, severance, are not vertical, not horizontal, not non-existent, not non-separate. Although it is one, it is three; although it is three, it is one. Neither three nor one, but three and one, inconceivable. It is only because the questioner does not understand this purpose that everything becomes an obstacle. Those who do not understand, their function lies in not understanding, needing dust-free wisdom. The text says 'due to other-attestation for others', this statement of other-attestation is different from wisdom-virtue, but based on severance-virtue, enabling others to obtain attestation, so it is called other-attestation. Since it enables others to obtain attestation, it is attesting others. Also, I am afraid of misunderstanding the words 'due to other'. Secondly, if from the perspective of consciousness, three questions can be raised according to different meanings. First, from the self-attestation of consciousness, four questions are raised. First, from the perspective of nature, a question is raised.

心自證二。初立不由功用而得寂靜者。非無此理。如下文云。不作功用自然成辨。起用尚然何況證體。故知從性論功不作功用。從修辨義須論功用。修曰無作良由即性。今語返迷且從修說。二若爾下。難既不由功。是從性體。眾生有性應自然成。二若言下。約作意難心自證二。初立轉計作意。二作意下。難真如體性。性不名作。故知作意即是意識。意識即能證。性即所證。斯由他證。何名自證。三若非下。約心自心難心自證二。初立轉計非由意識起智而證。亦非真如自心作意。但真如自心故名證。二若不下難二。初約不作意難今問。或彼執云。何必須其能所。要有能使心證但心。自心即名為證。答。若云不須能使心證。必自然證。例前難云。一切眾生皆有此心。何不自心。二若當下約作意難。文以意識為他證者。然意識者但能起智。他證之功必須別在無塵智慧。四若言下。約知心本證難心自證二。初立。若據立宗。有能知言似合正途。今復破者。雖云能知而不許立無塵之智。既無此智。故此能知還是妄識。縱立無塵為能知者。若計此智而為能知尚亦須破。豈況直云能知者耶。二為是下難二。初標定二義。祇由不立無塵之智故為今破。所以標定無無塵名。二若是下。隨義各難二。初難凈心自知二。初牒計凈心自知亦有其

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心自證二：第一，確立不由功用而獲得寂靜的觀點。並非沒有這個道理，如下文所說：『不作功用自然成辨』。起用尚且如此，何況是證體？因此可知，從本性上來說，不作功用；從修行的角度來說，必須講究功用。修行之所以說『無作』，正是因為其本性如此。現在是爲了糾正迷惑，所以從修行的角度來說。第二，『若爾下』：如果不是通過功用，而是從本性出發，那麼眾生都有佛性，應該自然成就才對。『二若言下』：從作意的角度來質疑心自證。第一，確立轉變的計較作意。第二，『作意下』：質疑真如的體性。體性不能被稱作『作』。因此可知，作意就是意識，意識就是能證，體性就是所證。這是通過他者來證明，怎麼能叫自證呢？『三若非下』：從心自心的角度來質疑心自證。第一，確立轉變的計較，不是通過意識生起智慧來證明，也不是真如自心作意，只是真如自心，所以叫做『證』。第二，『若不下』：質疑。第一，從不作意的角度質疑。現在提問，或者他們認為，為什麼必須要有能證和所證？只要有能使心證的心就可以了，自心就叫做『證』。回答：如果說不需要能使心證的心，必然是自然證，那麼就和前面的問題一樣：一切眾生都有這個心，為什麼不能自證？『二若當下』：從作意的角度質疑。文中說意識是他證，是因為意識只能生起智慧，他證的功用必須在於無塵智慧。『四若言下』：從知心本證的角度質疑心自證。第一，確立。如果根據立宗的說法，有能知的說法似乎符合正道。現在再次破斥，即使說能知，也不允許建立無塵之智。既然沒有這種智慧，那麼這個能知還是妄識。即使建立無塵之智作為能知，如果計較這種智慧作為能知，尚且需要破斥，更何況直接說能知呢？『二為是下』：質疑。第一，標定兩種含義。正是因為不建立無塵之智，所以現在才要破斥。因此標定沒有無塵之名。第二，『若是下』：根據含義分別質疑。第一，質疑凈心自知。第一，重複計較凈心自知也有其問題。

【English Translation】 English version: Self-attestation of Mind, Part 2: First, establishing the view that tranquility is attained without effort. It is not without reason, as the following text says: 'Without effort, accomplishment naturally arises.' If this is so for function, how much more so for the essence? Therefore, it can be known that from the perspective of nature, no effort is made; from the perspective of practice, effort must be emphasized. The reason why practice is called 'non-action' is precisely because of its nature. Now, to correct confusion, we speak from the perspective of practice. Second, 'If so, below': If it is not through effort, but from the nature, then all beings have Buddha-nature and should naturally achieve enlightenment. 'If one says, below': Questioning self-attestation of mind from the perspective of intention. First, establishing the transformed intention. Second, 'Intention, below': Questioning the nature of Suchness (Tathata). Nature cannot be called 'action'. Therefore, it can be known that intention is consciousness, consciousness is the able-to-attest, and nature is the attested. This is attested through others, how can it be called self-attestation? 'If not, below': Questioning self-attestation of mind from the perspective of mind itself. First, establishing the transformed calculation, not through consciousness arising wisdom to attest, nor is it Suchness self-mind intention, only Suchness self-mind, so it is called 'attestation'. Second, 'If not, below': Questioning. First, questioning from the perspective of non-intention. Now asking, or they think, why must there be the able-to-attest and the attested? As long as there is the mind that enables the mind to attest, the self-mind is called 'attestation'. Answer: If you say that you don't need the mind that enables the mind to attest, it must be natural attestation, then it is the same as the previous question: all beings have this mind, why can't they self-attest? 'If, below': Questioning from the perspective of intention. The text says that consciousness is attestation by others, because consciousness can only generate wisdom, and the function of attestation by others must be in dust-free wisdom. 'If one says, below': Questioning self-attestation of mind from the perspective of the original attestation of the knowing mind. First, establishing. If according to the establishment of the doctrine, the saying of the able-to-know seems to conform to the right path. Now refuting again, even if it is said that it is able-to-know, it is not allowed to establish dust-free wisdom. Since there is no such wisdom, then this able-to-know is still deluded consciousness. Even if dust-free wisdom is established as the able-to-know, if this wisdom is calculated as the able-to-know, it still needs to be refuted, let alone directly saying the able-to-know? 'Two are, below': Questioning. First, marking two meanings. It is precisely because dust-free wisdom is not established that it must be refuted now. Therefore, it is marked that there is no name of dust-free. Second, 'If it is, below': Questioning according to the meaning. First, questioning the self-knowing of the pure mind. First, repeating the calculation that the self-knowing of the pure mind also has its problems.

理。了無塵智即是本性。豈非凈心自知本寂。但由計者尚乃不許立無塵智。豈能曉了了智即即性。二一切下正難。

二若言下難意識能知二。初立。二意識下難二。初正難三。初標定二義。二若言下隨義各難二。初難不見凈心。不見佛心。應知佛證者顯見佛心方知佛證。見佛心者須約六位。今從修入。乃以五即難彼全迷。二若見下。難見凈心。凈心可見非無其理。下文引經。是人行邪道不能見如來。釋云。所言如來者即是真如凈心。依薰緣起故名如來。彼謂心外而來故不能見。以此而知即心而來故可得見。若云叵見。是但見來不見如耶。荊溪亦云。見性修心豈非如性亦可見耶。可與不可須善其意。一者可以智見。不可以識見。今難識見。二者可以不見相而見。不可以見相而見。今難見相。三者可以無能見所見而見。不可以能見所見而見。今難能所。四者可行非心外而見。不可以心外而見。今難心外。三以見下結示義旨。設使心體本證者。由問者云能知凈心本證。今乃許彼而有心體本證之義。故云設使。但不合廢無塵之智。故云妄心不可息也。

二若言下轉計二。初轉計依經二。初立。向立意識能知。因遭約見難破能知。今乃轉計非約見知。由聞教知。問。聞教能知。能知之智成正途耶。答。雖名為智。智

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：理。沒有一絲塵埃的智慧就是本性。難道不是清凈的心自然知道其本來的寂靜嗎？只是因為執著的人仍然不肯承認有無塵的智慧，又怎麼能明白徹悟的智慧就是本性呢？這是第二個一切下正難。

第二，如果說下難意識能知二。首先是立論。其次是意識下難二。首先是正面駁難三。首先標明兩種定義。其次是如果說下隨義各難二。首先駁難不見凈心。不見佛心。應該知道佛的證悟者是顯見佛心才能知道佛的證悟。見到佛心的人必須依據六個階段。現在從修行入手，用五即來駁難對方完全迷惑。其次是如果見下。駁難見凈心。凈心是可以見的，並非沒有道理。下文引用經文：『是人行邪道，不能見如來。』解釋說：『所說的如來，就是真如凈心，依隨薰習的因緣而生起，所以名為如來。』對方認為是從心外而來，所以不能見。由此可知，即心而來，所以可以得見。如果說不能見，是隻見到『來』而沒見到『如』嗎？荊溪也說：『見性修心，難道不是如性也可以見嗎？』可以和不可以，必須好好理解其中的含義。一是可以用智慧來見，不可以用意識來見。現在駁難的是用意識來見。二是可以不見相而見，不可以見相而見。現在駁難的是見相。三是可以無能見所見而見，不可以能見所見而見。現在駁難的是能所。四是可以行非心外而見，不可以心外而見。現在駁難的是心外。第三是以見下總結並揭示義旨。假設心體本來就是證悟的，因為提問者說能知凈心本證，現在是認可對方有心體本證的說法。所以說『假設』。只是不應該廢棄無塵的智慧，所以說『妄心不可息也』。

第二，如果說下轉計二。首先是轉而依據經典二。首先是立論。先前立論意識能夠知曉，因為遭到約見的駁難而無法知曉。現在轉而認為不是通過見來知曉，而是通過聽聞教法來知曉。問：聽聞教法能夠知曉，那麼能夠知曉的智慧是正確的途徑嗎？答：雖然名為智慧，但智慧

【English Translation】 English version: Principle. The wisdom without any dust is the original nature. Isn't it that the pure mind naturally knows its original stillness? It's just that those who are attached still refuse to acknowledge the existence of dust-free wisdom. How can they understand that the thoroughly enlightened wisdom is the very nature? This is the second 'everything below is a direct challenge'.

Secondly, 'if you say below' challenges the consciousness's ability to know in two parts. First, there is the establishment of the argument. Second, 'consciousness below' challenges in two parts. First, there is the direct refutation in three parts. First, it marks out the two definitions. Second, 'if you say below' challenges each meaning in two parts. First, it challenges the non-seeing of the pure mind. Not seeing the Buddha-mind. It should be known that the one who realizes Buddhahood can only know the Buddha's realization by clearly seeing the Buddha-mind. One who sees the Buddha-mind must rely on the six stages. Now, starting from practice, the 'five identities' are used to challenge the opponent's complete delusion. Second, 'if seeing below' challenges seeing the pure mind. The pure mind can be seen, it is not without reason. The following quotes the scripture: 'These people walk the wrong path and cannot see the Tathagata (Tathagata: Thus Come One)'. It explains: 'The so-called Tathagata is the pure mind of Suchness (true thusness), arising from the conditions of habitual influence, hence the name Tathagata.' The opponent believes it comes from outside the mind, so it cannot be seen. From this, it can be known that it comes from within the mind, so it can be seen. If you say it cannot be seen, is it only seeing 'coming' and not seeing 'Thusness'? Jingxi also said: 'Seeing the nature and cultivating the mind, isn't the nature of Thusness also visible?' 'Can' and 'cannot' must be well understood in their meaning. First, it can be seen with wisdom, not with consciousness. Now, the challenge is seeing with consciousness. Second, it can be seen without seeing the form, not by seeing the form. Now, the challenge is seeing the form. Third, it can be seen without the seer and the seen, not by seeing with the seer and the seen. Now, the challenge is the seer and the seen. Fourth, it can be seen by acting without the mind being external, not by seeing with the mind being external. Now, the challenge is the mind being external. Third, 'using seeing below' concludes and reveals the main point. Assuming that the mind-essence is originally enlightened, because the questioner said that they can know the original enlightenment of the pure mind, now they are acknowledging the opponent's statement that the mind-essence is originally enlightened. Therefore, it says 'assuming'. It's just that one should not abandon the dust-free wisdom, so it says 'the deluded mind cannot be stopped'.

Secondly, 'if you say below' changes the argument in two parts. First, it changes to relying on the scriptures in two parts. First, there is the establishment of the argument. Previously, it was argued that consciousness can know, but because it was challenged by 'seeing', it could not know. Now, it changes to believing that it is not known through seeing, but through hearing the teachings. Question: Hearing the teachings can know, then is the wisdom that can know the correct path? Answer: Although it is called wisdom, but wisdom

無別體。由計不立無塵智故。故智之體還是意識。但由意識聞教能知。召此能知稱之為智。非別有智。故殊正途。及復雖云能知之智薰于凈心。及論知證乃非此智。還指凈心自知本證。此由計于不通他證。二汝依下難二。初標定二義。寂相者。寂即是相。二若作下。隨義各難二。初難作相。一由作故。作即作意乃成妄相。二由相故。既有寂相還成妄相。二若不下。難不作相三。初難。二若言下轉計。三即有下再難。即有所緣者。疑住之處即所緣也。

二若言下。轉計七識二。初牒計。以此文顯上計六識。問。何不計八。答。約現行故。問。七識如何屬於現行。答。以由七識不一向故。或類六識義同現行。如攝論云。于定不定善等位中皆不相違。恒現行故。二是亦下難二。初難二。初七識非知。七識是我執識者。以似為實執為內我。亦如論云。能執受一切眼等有色。諸根妄危共同盡壽隨轉。是故說名阿陀那識。又云。若色等根未已生起。若無色界自體生起。名為相續攝受。彼故名正結生。而有執受一期自體謂善心時。亦執我故。二又復下所緣非實。二以是下結示。

二若言下。難由他證三。初牒斥。二何以下正難二。初約義總難前云正途通三義也。故今文云。心體自寂靜故通自證也。又云。乃可證他通證他

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沒有其他的本體。因為執著于不成立的無塵智慧。所以智慧的本體還是意識。但因為意識聽聞教法能夠知曉，所以稱呼這種能知為智慧。並非另外存在一個智慧。所以與正確的途徑不同。以及即使說能夠知曉的智慧熏習清凈心，以及討論知曉證悟，也不是指這種智慧。還是指清凈心自己知曉根本的證悟。這是因為執著于不能通過其他途徑來證明。第二，你根據下面來辯駁第二點。首先標明兩種含義。寂相，寂就是相。第二，如果按照下面所說。根據含義分別辯駁兩種觀點。首先辯駁作為相的觀點。第一，因為是『作』。『作』就是作意，於是成為虛妄的相。第二，因為是相。既然有寂靜的相，還是成為虛妄的相。第二，如果不是下面所說。辯駁不作為相的三種觀點。首先是責難。第二，如果說下面轉而計較。第三，即有下面再次責難。即有所緣，懷疑停留之處就是所緣。第二，如果說下面。轉而計較七識兩種觀點。首先是引用計較。用這段文字來顯示上面計較六識。問：為什麼不計較八識？答：因為是根據現行來計較。問：七識如何屬於現行？答：因為七識不是一成不變的。或者類似於六識，意義上等同於現行。例如《攝論》說：『在定、不定、善等狀態中都不相違背，因為恒常現行。』第二，是亦下面責難兩種觀點。首先責難兩種觀點。第一，七識不是知。七識是『我』執著的識，因為把相似的當作真實的，執著于內在的『我』。也如論中所說：『能夠執受一切眼等有色的諸根，虛妄地共同盡壽命地隨之運轉。』所以叫做阿陀那識（A陀那識，執持識）。又說：『如果色等根還沒有生起，如果沒有**自體生起，就叫做相續攝受。因為這個緣故叫做正結生。』而有執受一期自體，即使是善心的時候，也執著于『我』。第二，又復下面所緣不是真實的。第二，因為是下面總結說明。第二，如果說下面。責難通過其他途徑來證明的三種觀點。首先是引用駁斥。第二，何以以下正式責難兩種觀點。首先根據意義總體責難前面所說的正途包含三種意義。所以現在文中說：『心體自己寂靜，所以能夠通過自證。』又說：『才可以證明他，通過證明他。』

【English Translation】 English version: There is no separate entity. Because of clinging to the non-established, dust-free wisdom. Therefore, the substance of wisdom is still consciousness. But because consciousness can know by hearing the teachings, this ability to know is called wisdom. There is no separate wisdom. Therefore, it is different from the correct path. And even if it is said that the wisdom that can know熏習 (xun xi, influence by repeated contact) the pure mind, and discussing knowing and realization, it does not refer to this wisdom. It still refers to the pure mind knowing its own fundamental realization. This is because of clinging to the inability to prove through other means. Second, you refute the second point based on the following. First, state the two meanings. 寂相 (ji xiang, the aspect of stillness), stillness is the aspect. Second, if according to what is said below. Refute the two viewpoints according to their meanings. First, refute the viewpoint of 'as aspect'. First, because it is '作 (zuo, making)'. '作 (zuo, making)' is 作意 (zuo yi, volition), thus becoming a false aspect. Second, because it is an aspect. Since there is an aspect of stillness, it still becomes a false aspect. Second, if it is not as said below. Refute the three viewpoints of 'not as aspect'. First is blame. Second, if it is said below, then change the calculation. Third, 即有 (ji you, immediately have) below refutes again. 即有所緣 (ji you suo yuan, immediately have what is conditioned), the place where doubt dwells is what is conditioned. Second, if it is said below. Change to calculating the two viewpoints of the seventh consciousness. First is quoting the calculation. Use this text to show the above calculation of the six consciousnesses. Question: Why not calculate the eighth consciousness? Answer: Because it is calculated according to the present activity. Question: How does the seventh consciousness belong to the present activity? Answer: Because the seventh consciousness is not constant. Or similar to the six consciousnesses, the meaning is equivalent to the present activity. For example, the She Lun (She Lun, Compendium on the Mahayana) says: 'In the states of fixed, unfixed, good, etc., they do not contradict each other, because they are constantly present.' Second, 是亦 (shi yi, this also) below refutes the two viewpoints. First refute the two viewpoints. First, the seventh consciousness is not knowing. The seventh consciousness is the consciousness of clinging to 'I', because it takes the similar as real, clinging to the inner 'I'. It is also as said in the treatise: 'It can cling to all the colored roots such as the eyes, falsely together exhausting life following its rotation.' Therefore, it is called 阿陀那識 (A陀那識, Atana-vijnana, clinging consciousness). It also says: 'If the roots of color etc. have not yet arisen, if there is no **self arising, it is called continuous reception. Because of this reason it is called 正結生 (zheng jie sheng, proper rebirth).' And there is clinging to a period of self, even in the time of good mind, it also clings to 'I'. Second, 又復 (you fu, again) below what is conditioned is not real. Second, because it is below, summarize and explain. Second, if it is said below. Refute the three viewpoints of proving through other means. First is quoting and refuting. Second, 何以 (he yi, why) below formally refutes the two viewpoints. First, according to the meaning, generally refute the previous saying that the correct path contains three meanings. Therefore, the text now says: 'The substance of the mind is itself still, so it can be through self-realization.' It also says: 'Then it can prove him, through proving him.'

也。又至下。難證他中雲。若欲成就出世之道。必藉無塵之智。通他證也。文云。但以有六七識等名之為他者。他之一字前云從過。正出此文。文云。由有此他故說他心不證。是故乃可證他者。既指妄識名之為他。正屬昏散不證明靜。故云不證。今以明靜斷彼昏散。令他得證。名為證他。二若言下。隨計別難四。初牒計。妄念習氣者。習氣之言有家有即。須知即習有三不同。一者權說。即別正使為通家習。若實說者。指權家習即別正使。具足應云正使即習。習即正使。二者不因權實正習相即。但以經論立名不同。乃指正使亦名習氣。斯就通別各可得云習氣即正使。正使即習氣。良由正使亦是染習成其氣味。今南嶽所指似從立名不同為言。但不可云余殘氣分。三者約最極正使。無明微細同名習氣。文云。是故心體亦不證寂故須他證者。意云由除習氣之他而能證寂。故名他證。二何等下難。何等方便等者。若立無塵智為方便能除習氣。豈非亦通由他而證。三若言下轉計。由不立智。是以但云不起新念。四彼未下再難。文云有何所以。並云若無別法者。皆約無塵智為此難。　三以是下結。

三若言下難由證他三。初難直約凈心二。初牒計。計者意謂不由他除而證凈心。故云不須用他證心。應約凈心而除於他。令他得證

。故云但證於他。即是凈心能證於他。他因凈心既而得證。故習氣自滅。二是亦下難二。初約妄惑。文雲根本。又云先除者。一者無始見思種子為能起本。今曰妄心為所起念。今修止觀要須先以無塵之智達於今日所起之念。皆是無始妄惑種子以為根本。隨念發現。了其種子有即非有。作此了達名為先除。故所起念任運自滅。其惑又無無塵之智。直以凈心除於今日所起妄念令念證寂者無有是處。以其不能先除本種。后若遇緣念還發現。是則妄念何由永息。正如蘺草若不絕根遇春還茂。故上文云。若無無塵智薰。心裡無明終不可滅。無明不滅念即叵息。問。小乘之人既不先知八識含藏能起本種。如何亦能息所起念。答。其實小乘先除能起見思種子。方可除于所起妄念。由彼除惑實是薰除。以空寂智薰于藏識。遂使種子因薰而已。方得所起妄念斷滅。但彼不知是以不說先去本種。二者斷末見思分別性時。以無塵智先了根本無明依他有即非有。分別妄念是以方除。云習氣恨本者依他性也。妄念者分別性也。釋佛性中滅妄歸真曾明此旨。二又復下約凈心。前他證者就法言之。由妄惑滅而能證寂。功歸言之惑何自滅而證於寂。須無塵智令此惑滅而得證寂。今證他者就法言之。由於真心滅彼之惑而為證他。功歸言之真何自能滅彼之惑

。須無塵智用於真心滅彼之惑。祇由問者不立此智。既無功歸。就法不成。是以凈心不能滅惑。

二若言下難轉計妄念二。初牒計。由約惑斷謂之證他故得轉計。但從妄念自相抑止。二為前下難二。初標定二義。二若言下隨義各難二。初正難。文分為二。初難前念止后念。二若言下。難后念止前念。

二若前下轉計二。初前念自嫌二。初牒計。二心不下難。由其計者計一念起。起即自嫌。是故今難一念起心心無並慮。如何一一念自見自嫌。又一念起心心體是妄。妄心義一如何自見。復何自嫌。能嫌心者必無塵智。此義如次。二若後下。后念嫌前二。初牒計。因遭向破心慮不併。是故轉計后念嫌前。二能嫌下難二。初標定二義。二若知下。隨義各難二。初難知空二。初知即是智。妄念是逆。背空成迷。不但迷不知空。亦乃自迷非妄。才知是妄。妄必知空。故知妄知即無塵智。二又若下。知即不嫌。順妄而知。其妄可嫌。順空而知。妄體既空復何有妄。妄既非有知復嫌誰。

二若不下難不知二。初覈定二。初無明。無者不也。明者知也。不知念空即無明耳。二又復下妄想。今問能嫌之心為情為智。若是情者應屬所嫌。若是智者何名妄想。答。情智之義不可一途。今以權實例曉其說。聲聞于權而為情者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本。如果認為必須用無塵智（Wuchen Wisdom，一種清凈無染的智慧）才能用真心來滅除迷惑，那是因為提問者沒有設立這種智慧。既然沒有功勞可以歸於它，那麼就無法成就任何法。因此，僅憑清凈心是無法滅除迷惑的。

二、如果認為可以通過轉變妄念來解決問題，那麼可以從以下兩個方面進行分析。首先，重複之前的觀點：因為認為斷除迷惑可以證明其他，所以才會有轉變妄念的想法。但實際上，這只是用一個妄念來抑制另一個妄念。

其次，針對之前的觀點提出質疑，分為兩個方面：首先，標明兩種不同的含義。其次，根據不同的含義分別進行質疑。首先，質疑前一個念頭如何阻止后一個念頭。其次，質疑后一個念頭如何阻止前一個念頭。

二、如果認為前一個念頭可以轉變，那麼可以從以下兩個方面進行分析。首先，前一個念頭自我嫌棄。首先，重複之前的觀點。其次，提出質疑：因為認為一個念頭生起，生起的同時就自我嫌棄。所以現在質疑，一個念頭生起時，心中沒有並行的念頭，如何能一一念頭都自我察覺並自我嫌棄？而且，一個念頭生起時，心體是虛妄的，虛妄心的意義是唯一的，如何能自我察覺？又有什麼可以自我嫌棄的？能夠嫌棄的心必然是無塵智。這個道理依次類推。其次，后一個念頭嫌棄前一個念頭。首先，重複之前的觀點：因為之前遭到駁斥，認為心念不能並行，所以轉變觀點，認為后一個念頭可以嫌棄前一個念頭。其次，提出質疑：首先，標明兩種不同的含義。其次，根據不同的含義分別進行質疑。首先，質疑知空（knowing emptiness）的觀點。首先，知（knowing）就是智（wisdom），妄念（delusion）是逆，背離空性（emptiness）就會形成迷惑。不僅迷惑而不知空，而且還會迷惑于自身並非虛妄。只有知道是虛妄，虛妄必然知道空。所以知道虛妄的知就是無塵智。

二、又如果認為知（knowing）就是不嫌棄，順應虛妄而知，那麼虛妄是可以被嫌棄的；順應空性而知，虛妄的本體既然是空，又有什麼虛妄存在呢？虛妄既然不存在，知又嫌棄誰呢？

二、如果認為不知（not knowing）就難以理解，那麼可以從以下兩個方面進行分析。首先，無明（ignorance）。無（wu）是不，明（ming）是知，不知念空就是無明。其次，妄想（delusion）。現在問，能夠嫌棄的心是情（emotion）還是智（wisdom）？如果是情，應該屬於被嫌棄的對象；如果是智，為什麼又叫妄想？回答：情和智的意義不能一概而論。現在用權巧方便的例子來說明。聲聞（Sravaka，小乘修行者）對於權法（expedient teachings）來說是情。

【English Translation】 English version. If it is thought that Wuchen Wisdom (Wuchen Wisdom, a pure and undefiled wisdom) must be used to extinguish delusions with true mind, it is because the questioner has not established this wisdom. Since there is no merit to be attributed to it, no Dharma can be accomplished. Therefore, a pure mind alone cannot extinguish delusions.

If it is thought that the problem can be solved by transforming deluded thoughts, it can be analyzed from the following two aspects. First, repeat the previous point: because it is thought that cutting off delusions can prove others, there is the idea of transforming deluded thoughts. But in reality, this is just using one deluded thought to suppress another.

Secondly, question the previous point, divided into two aspects: First, indicate two different meanings. Secondly, question according to different meanings respectively. First, question how the previous thought prevents the subsequent thought. Secondly, question how the subsequent thought prevents the previous thought.

If it is thought that the previous thought can be transformed, it can be analyzed from the following two aspects. First, the previous thought is self-disgusted. First, repeat the previous point. Secondly, raise a question: because it is thought that a thought arises, and at the same time it arises, it is self-disgusted. So now question, when a thought arises, there are no parallel thoughts in the mind, how can each and every thought be self-aware and self-disgusted? Moreover, when a thought arises, the mind-body is illusory, and the meaning of the illusory mind is unique, how can it be self-aware? And what can be self-disgusted? The mind that can be disgusted must be Wuchen Wisdom. This principle follows in order. Secondly, the subsequent thought dislikes the previous thought. First, repeat the previous point: because it was previously refuted that thoughts cannot run in parallel, so change the point of view and think that the subsequent thought can dislike the previous thought. Secondly, raise a question: First, indicate two different meanings. Secondly, question according to different meanings respectively. First, question the view of 'knowing emptiness'. First, 'knowing' is wisdom, delusion is reverse, and deviating from emptiness will form confusion. Not only is it confused and does not know emptiness, but it is also confused that it is not illusory. Only when you know it is illusory, the illusory must know emptiness. So knowing the illusory knowledge is Wuchen Wisdom.
Also, if it is thought that 'knowing' is not disliking, and knowing in accordance with delusion, then delusion can be disliked; knowing in accordance with emptiness, since the body of delusion is empty, what delusion exists? Since delusion does not exist, who does knowledge dislike?
If it is thought that 'not knowing' is difficult to understand, it can be analyzed from the following two aspects. First, ignorance. Wu is not, and ming is knowing, not knowing the emptiness of thought is ignorance. Secondly, delusion. Now ask, is the mind that can be disgusted emotion or wisdom? If it is emotion, it should belong to the object of being disgusted; if it is wisdom, why is it called delusion? Answer: The meaning of emotion and wisdom cannot be generalized. Now use an expedient example to illustrate. Sravaka (Sravaka, Hinayana practitioner) is emotion for expedient teachings.

一不知權。情執為實。二不知即。情執為異。然此二情若自相望。以後為智。以初為情。后之智者若望不即。故還是情。何者。聲聞在昔非但不知權即是實。亦乃不知權本是權。以不知權故執為實。來至今經佛敘為權。故云種種隨宜說法。聞此之說執實情亡。知權智現。雖知是權。未知即實。若外此權而求實者。知權之智智還是情。佛至顯實指權即實。故云是法皆為一乘。聞此之說外權情亡。即權智現。如此之智方為究極。今以此義例曉今文。一者不知妄是于妄名之為情。二者不知妄即是空亦是于情。若此二情自相比望。以初為情。以後為智。由知妄故故妄可嫌。故能嫌心乃屬智也。但此之智而乃尚迷妄體即空無妄可嫌。謂為有妄。故知妄智智還屬情。是故今文判為妄想。以此一義貫達諸說。凡云有情可亡。猶未脫于情見。證道不斷。理現於斯。非破非顯。旨在於此。伏冀諸同臺衡學者。以般若心深研極究。開佛知見不負稟承。問。證道不斷。其義如何。答。一者教道有惑。證道無惑。惑既已斷更無可斷。故云不斷。二者教道約離。證道約即。以約即故情惑全是而無可斷。故云不斷。今從后義。二此能下約法喻正難無明能起于妄想。是故論云。不覺即動妄想。能成於生死。是故今云。生起之識於是云興。名字分真。若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一、不知權（方便法門，為引導眾生而設的權宜之說）。執情為實（將虛幻的情感執著視為真實）。二、不知即（不明白權宜之說即是真實）。執情為異（認為情感執著與真實是不同的）。然而這兩種情感如果互相比較，以後者為智（智慧），以前者為情（情感）。後者的智慧如果認為權宜之說不是真實，那麼還是情感。為什麼呢？聲聞（小乘佛教的修行者）在過去不僅不知道權宜之說就是真實，也不知道權宜之說本身就是權宜之說。因為不知道權宜之說，所以執著于虛幻的情感，將其視為真實。到了《法華經》中，佛陀敘述說這是權宜之說，所以說種種隨宜說法（佛陀根據不同的情況，用不同的方式說法）。聽到這種說法，執著于真實的情感消失，了知權宜之說的智慧顯現。雖然知道是權宜之說，但還不知道它就是真實。如果在這權宜之說之外去尋求真實，那麼，了知權宜之說的智慧，其智慧還是情感。佛陀直接顯現真實，指出權宜之說就是真實，所以說『是法皆為一乘』（一切法都是爲了引導眾生達到唯一的佛果）。聽到這種說法，外在的權宜之說的情感消失，權宜之說即是真實的智慧顯現。這樣的智慧才是究竟的。現在用這個道理來解釋現在的經文。一者，不知道虛妄就是虛妄，這叫做情（情感）。二者，不知道虛妄即是空，這也是情（情感）。如果這兩種情感互相比較，以前者為情，以後者為智。因為知道是虛妄，所以虛妄令人厭惡，因此能夠產生厭惡之心，這屬於智慧。但是這種智慧仍然迷惑于虛妄的本體即是空，沒有虛妄可以厭惡，卻認為有虛妄。所以，了知虛妄的智慧，其智慧還是屬於情感。因此，現在的經文判斷為妄想。用這一個道理貫穿所有的說法，凡是說有情感可以消除，仍然沒有脫離情感的見解。證悟的道路沒有中斷，道理就在這裡顯現。既不是破除，也不是顯現，旨意就在於此。希望各位同仁學者，用般若（智慧）之心深入研究，徹底探究，開啟佛的知見，不辜負所稟承的。問：證道不斷，是什麼意思？答：一者，教道（教義）有迷惑，證道（證悟的道路）沒有迷惑。迷惑既然已經斷除，就沒有什麼可以再斷除的，所以說不斷。二者，教道是約離（從分離的角度來說），證道是約即（從融合的角度來說）。因為是約即，所以情感迷惑全部存在，沒有什麼可以斷除的，所以說不斷。現在採用后一種解釋。二、此能下，從法喻的角度，正式闡述了無明（無知）能夠產生妄想。所以《楞伽經》說：『不覺即動妄想』（因為不覺悟，所以產生妄想）。妄想能夠形成生死輪迴。所以現在說：『生起之識於是云興』（生起的意識就像云一樣涌現）。名字分真（名相分別真實）。

【English Translation】 English version 1. Unknowing of expedient means (upaya, skillful means, provisional teachings designed to guide beings). Clinging to emotions as real (perceiving illusory emotions as reality). 2. Unknowing of identity (not understanding that expedient means are identical to reality). Clinging to emotions as different (believing that emotional attachments are distinct from reality). However, if these two emotions are compared, the latter is considered wisdom, and the former is considered emotion. If the latter's wisdom considers expedient means not to be reality, then it is still emotion. Why? The Sravakas (Disciples of the Hinayana tradition) in the past not only did not know that expedient means are reality, but also did not know that expedient means are inherently expedient. Because they did not know expedient means, they clung to illusory emotions, regarding them as real. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha narrates that these are expedient means, hence the saying 'various teachings are given according to circumstances.' Hearing this, the clinging to real emotions disappears, and the wisdom of knowing expedient means appears. Although knowing they are expedient means, they do not yet know that they are reality. If one seeks reality outside of these expedient means, then the wisdom of knowing expedient means is still emotion. The Buddha directly reveals reality, pointing out that expedient means are reality, hence the saying 'all these teachings are for the One Vehicle' (all teachings are to guide beings to the single Buddha-vehicle). Hearing this, the emotion of external expedient means disappears, and the wisdom of expedient means being reality appears. Such wisdom is ultimate. Now, let's use this principle to explain the current text. First, not knowing that delusion is delusion is called emotion. Second, not knowing that delusion is emptiness is also emotion. If these two emotions are compared, the former is emotion, and the latter is wisdom. Because one knows it is delusion, delusion is detestable, so the ability to generate a detesting mind belongs to wisdom. However, this wisdom is still deluded about the essence of delusion being emptiness, with no delusion to detest, yet it believes there is delusion. Therefore, the wisdom of knowing delusion still belongs to emotion. Hence, the current text judges it as delusion. Using this one principle to penetrate all teachings, whenever it is said that emotions can be eliminated, one has not yet escaped emotional views. The path to enlightenment is not interrupted; the principle is revealed here. It is neither destruction nor revelation; the meaning lies in this. I hope that all fellow scholars will deeply study and thoroughly investigate with the heart of Prajna (wisdom), open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and not fail to live up to what they have inherited. Question: What does 'the path to enlightenment is not interrupted' mean? Answer: First, doctrinal teachings have delusion, while the path to enlightenment has no delusion. Since delusion has already been eliminated, there is nothing more to eliminate, hence the saying 'not interrupted.' Second, doctrinal teachings are about separation, while the path to enlightenment is about integration. Because it is about integration, emotional delusions are all present, and there is nothing to eliminate, hence the saying 'not interrupted.' We now adopt the latter explanation. Second, 'This ability below' explains from the perspective of Dharma and metaphor that ignorance (avidya) can give rise to delusion. Therefore, the Lankavatara Sutra says, 'Unawareness is the movement of delusion' (because of non-awakening, delusion arises). Delusion can form the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, it is now said, 'The arising consciousness then rises like clouds.' Names distinguish truth.

望究竟尚猶在迷。博地凡夫望于名等覆在迷中。是故喻雲夢中之夢。名字粗覺。是故喻云彷彿不睡。

三又復下。難不作心念故妄念不起而為證他二。初牒計。前自證中亦云。不觀境界不念名義。與今不同。前云不念自證真如。今云不念妄念斷滅。二為凈下難二。初標定二義。二若是下。隨義各難二。初難凈心不作心念。凈心本有應須自昔不作心念。如何昔作今方不作。二若是下。難意識不作心念二。初直約心體難。祇由意識是念之體。二若言下。約根對塵難二。初再牒計。二為對下正難二。初標定四義為對。見法等者。今云意識即不分於五根意識。並於第六。是故通總。祇云意識法塵之言通於六塵。見對之言亦通六根。類如禪門。問曰。如經中說六觸因緣生受。何得覺觸但屬於身耶。答。此對通說。若通時見中亦說聞。余義類爾。今就別義論覺支者。正對身也。文云爲不對見法塵而不念。又云為全不對塵名為不念。前約意識現行以說。雖然現行而不對塵。后約意識不行以說。如寂睡時意識不行為不對塵。

二若不下。隨義各難三。初難第四第二不對法塵。識名之生由識塵故。若不識塵何名為識。二若對下難第三。對而不見。頑故非識。瞽故非見。三若見下。難第一。見而不念。由向三句皆非識義。不足

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：希望達到究竟的境界仍然處於迷惑之中。普通凡夫希望在名相等方面有所成就，也同樣處於迷惑之中。因此，用『夢中之夢』來比喻。名字只是粗略地覺察到，因此，用『彷彿沒有睡著』來比喻。

第三，進一步提出疑問。難道不作心念就能使妄念不起，從而證得其他二者嗎？首先，重申之前的觀點。之前在自證中也說過，『不觀境界，不念名義』，與現在不同。之前說的是不念自證真如（Tathata，如是），現在說的是不念妄念斷滅。其次，從『二為凈下』開始，提出兩個疑問。首先，標明兩種含義。其次，從『若是下』開始，根據不同的含義分別提出疑問。首先，質疑凈心不作心念。凈心本來就存在，應該一直都不作心念。為什麼過去作心念，現在才不作心念呢？其次，從『若是下』開始，質疑意識不作心念。首先，直接從心體上質疑。僅僅因為意識是念的本體。其次，從『若言下』開始，從根對塵的角度質疑。首先，再次重申之前的觀點。其次，從『為對下』開始，正式提出疑問。首先，標明四種含義為『對』。『見法等者』，現在說意識不分於五根意識，包括第六意識。因此，總的來說，只說意識法塵，指的是六塵。『見對』也包括六根。類似於禪門。有人問：『如經中所說，六觸因緣生受，為什麼覺觸只屬於身呢？』回答：『這是通俗的說法。如果通俗地說，見中也包括聞，其他的含義也類似。』現在就特殊的含義來討論覺支，正是針對身而言的。文中說『為不對見法塵而不念』，又說『為全不對塵名為不念』。前者是從意識現行的角度來說的，雖然現行，但是不對塵。後者是從意識不行的角度來說的，比如寂靜睡眠時，意識不行，所以不對塵。

第二，從『二若不下』開始，根據不同的含義分別提出三個疑問。首先，質疑第四和第二不對法塵。識名的產生是因為識塵的緣故。如果不識塵，怎麼能稱為識呢？第二，從『若對下』開始，質疑第三，對而不見。因為頑固所以不是識，因為眼盲所以不是見。第三，從『若見下』開始，質疑第一，見而不念。因為以上三句都不是識的含義，不足以...

【English Translation】 English version: Hoping to reach ultimate enlightenment is still being in delusion. Ordinary people hoping for achievements in names and forms are also in delusion. Therefore, it is likened to 'a dream within a dream.' Names are only roughly perceived, hence, it is likened to 'as if not fully asleep.'

Third, further questions are raised. Is it possible to cease deluded thoughts and attain the other two by not engaging in mental activity? First, reiterate the previous point. Earlier in self-attestation, it was also said, 'not observing objects, not contemplating names and meanings,' which differs from the present. Previously, it referred to not contemplating self-attesting Suchness (Tathata), now it refers to not contemplating the cessation of deluded thoughts. Second, starting from '二為凈下', two questions are raised. First, specify the two meanings. Second, starting from '若是下', questions are raised based on different meanings. First, question the pure mind not engaging in mental activity. The pure mind is inherently present and should always be without mental activity. Why was there mental activity in the past, and only now is there no mental activity? Second, starting from '若是下', question consciousness not engaging in mental activity. First, directly question from the perspective of the mind's essence. Simply because consciousness is the essence of thought. Second, starting from '若言下', question from the perspective of the roots confronting the dust. First, reiterate the previous point. Second, starting from '為對下', formally raise questions. First, specify the four meanings as 'confrontation.' '見法等者', now it is said that consciousness is not divided into the five sense consciousnesses, including the sixth consciousness. Therefore, generally speaking, only mentioning consciousness and dharma-dust refers to the six dusts. 'Seeing and confronting' also includes the six roots. Similar to the Chan school. Someone asks: 'As it is said in the sutras, the six contacts give rise to sensation, why does tactile sensation only belong to the body?' The answer is: 'This is a general statement. If speaking generally, seeing also includes hearing, and other meanings are similar.' Now, discussing the limb of awakening from a specific meaning, it is precisely directed towards the body. The text says 'not confronting seeing dharma-dust and not thinking,' and also says 'completely not confronting dust is called not thinking.' The former is from the perspective of consciousness being active, although active, it does not confront dust. The latter is from the perspective of consciousness being inactive, such as in deep sleep, consciousness is inactive, so it does not confront dust.

Second, starting from '二若不下', three questions are raised based on different meanings. First, question the fourth and second not confronting dharma-dust. The arising of name-consciousness is due to the dust of consciousness. If one does not recognize the dust, how can it be called consciousness? Second, starting from '若對下', question the third, confronting but not seeing. Because of stubbornness, it is not consciousness, because of blindness, it is not seeing. Third, starting from '若見下', question the first, seeing but not thinking. Because the above three sentences are not the meaning of consciousness, it is insufficient to...

廣破。今此一句既能見塵正是識義。而云不念者。未知此見何由不念。於是廣破。文為二。初直難不念三。初總難。二為知下標定二義。三若知下隨義各難二。初難知空。文云對而不見者。雖對於塵。了此之塵非有而有有即非有。不見塵相。此對不見非頑瞽法。問。對而不見與見而不念何殊。答。見約五識。念約意識。二若謂下難謂有三初法三。初不能無念。不能無其後唸唸前謂有。二又復下謂有即念。三又復下有即妄想。文云而復不念者。即是無明妄想。何謂而復不念。亦可此句生下喻文。二譬如下喻。

三此亦下合。心境俱暗者。不作不念。但有妄念念於前塵。今于妄念而生嫌心。乃不念念前來。以唸唸境祇有境中一重無明。今以不念唸唸。乃於心上又加一重無明之暗。故云心境俱暗。問。云不念者不念前塵。如何稱為不念于念。答。念前塵者乃有于念。今不念塵。即是亡向念前塵念。從亡所念。不念前塵。從亡能念。不念于念。但以此亡非無塵智還屬忘念。雖云不念。乃是不念之念。故為今破。又念前塵時惟有能迷前境之心。心上一重無明之暗。今復不念前塵。增加境上一重無明。故云心境俱暗。

二又復下。約作意以難不念二。初難二。初難不作意。二若作下難作意。二但以下出他迷三。初出始

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本廣破。現在這一句既然能夠見到塵，正是識的作用。而說『不念』，不知道這見是如何做到不念的。於是廣泛地破斥。文分為二。首先直接質疑不念三種情況。第一是總的質疑。第二是『為知』下標定兩種意義。第三是『若知』下，根據意義分別質疑兩種情況。首先質疑知空。文中說『對而不見』，雖然面對塵，瞭解這塵非有而有，有即非有，不見塵相。這『對而不見』不是頑固無知的狀態。問：『對而不見』與『見而不念』有什麼區別？答：『見』指的是五識，『念』指的是意識。第二，如果說下，質疑『謂有』三種情況，首先是法三種情況。第一是不能無念，不能沒有其後唸唸前，稱之為『有』。第二，『又復』下，『謂有』即是『念』。第三，『又復』下，『有』即是妄想。文中說『而復不念』，就是無明妄想。什麼叫『而復不念』？也可以說這句話是下面比喻文的引子。第二，譬如下，比喻。第三，『此亦』下，合。心境都昏暗，就是不作不念。只有妄念唸唸於前塵。現在對於妄念產生厭惡之心，就是不念唸唸前來。因爲念念境只是境中一重無明。現在用不念唸唸，就是在心上又加一重無明的昏暗。所以說心境都昏暗。問：說『不念』是不念前塵，如何稱為不念于念？答：念前塵是有念。現在不念塵，就是忘記了向念前塵的念。從忘記所念，不念前塵。從忘記能念，不念于念。但是這種忘記並非沒有塵智，仍然屬於忘念。雖然說不念，實際上是不念之念。所以現在要破斥。又念前塵時只有能迷惑前境的心，心上一重無明的昏暗。現在又不念前塵，增加境上一重無明。所以說心境都昏暗。第二，『又復』下，從作意的角度來質疑不念兩種情況。首先是質疑兩種情況。首先質疑不作意。第二，『若作』下，質疑作意。第二，『但以』下，指出他人的迷惑三種情況。首先指出開始。

【English Translation】 English version Guang Po. Now this sentence can see the dust, which is the meaning of consciousness. But saying 'no thought', I don't know how this seeing can be without thought. So, it is widely refuted. The text is divided into two. First, directly question the three cases of no thought. The first is the general question. The second is 'for knowing' to mark the two meanings. The third is 'if knowing' below, according to the meaning, question the two cases separately. First, question knowing emptiness. The text says 'facing but not seeing', although facing the dust, understanding that this dust is non-existent but exists, and existence is non-existence, not seeing the appearance of dust. This 'facing but not seeing' is not a state of stubborn ignorance. Question: What is the difference between 'facing but not seeing' and 'seeing but not thinking'? Answer: 'Seeing' refers to the five consciousnesses, and 'thinking' refers to the mind consciousness. Second, if saying below, question the three cases of 'saying existence', first the three cases of Dharma. The first is that there cannot be no thought, there cannot be no subsequent thought after thought, which is called 'existence'. Second, 'again' below, 'saying existence' is 'thought'. Third, 'again' below, 'existence' is delusion. The text says 'but again no thought', which is ignorance and delusion. What is 'but again no thought'? It can also be said that this sentence is the introduction to the metaphor below. Second, like the following, a metaphor. Third, 'this also' below, combines. When the mind and environment are both dark, there is no action and no thought. There are only deluded thoughts thinking about the past dust. Now, having a dislike for deluded thoughts is not thinking about the past. Because the object of thought is only one layer of ignorance in the environment. Now using no thought after thought, another layer of ignorance is added to the mind. Therefore, it is said that the mind and environment are both dark. Question: Saying 'no thought' is not thinking about the past dust, how is it called not thinking about thought? Answer: Thinking about the past dust is having thought. Now not thinking about the dust is forgetting the thought of thinking about the past dust. From forgetting what is thought, not thinking about the past dust. From forgetting the ability to think, not thinking about thought. But this forgetting is not without dust wisdom, it still belongs to forgetting thought. Although it is said to be no thought, it is actually the thought of no thought. Therefore, it is now to be refuted. Also, when thinking about the past dust, there is only the mind that can delude the past environment, one layer of ignorance on the mind. Now not thinking about the past dust again adds another layer of ignorance to the environment. Therefore, it is said that the mind and environment are both dark. Second, 'again' below, questioning no thought from the perspective of intention in two cases. The first is questioning in two cases. The first is questioning no intention. Second, 'if acting' below, questioning intention. Second, 'but with' below, pointing out the delusions of others in three cases. First, point out the beginning.

習自珍二。初因系得止。二是故下。由迷妄寶。二是以下。斥習熟謂證二。初習熟謂證。二但不下。約義斥迷三。初迷流動。二復不下。迷在惑。三又不下。迷居位。三雖然下。許為方便。

大章第二明止觀境界者。無名數中假名數說。或廣或略皆是隨機。以經論中多明三法。此三性者攝一切法罄無不盡。故三無性論云。一切諸法不出三性。今乃約此示其止觀所觀境界。此所觀境不出二義。一者所觀所離妄境。二者所觀所顯真境。分別性者亦名遍計。即屬見思。是為妄境。真實性者亦名圓成。即屬空中。是為真境。依他性者即屬無明。亦妄境也。是故論云。分別性者。謂名言所顯諸法自性。即似塵識。依他性者。依因依緣顯法自體。即亂識分。因內根緣內塵起故。真實性者。謂法如如。又依他性既屬八識。含藏染凈故通真妄。然真妄境望后體狀既當正修。故此境界義同開解。即可示同摩訶止觀眼智所知之境界也。問。彼是真境今何通妄。答。彼三諦者。實于緣生三道妄境說示三諦。意與今同。亦可今科與下體狀。同與摩訶止觀正修義意為類。以彼正修先明所觀同今境界。次明能觀同今體狀。問。彼文所觀何通真妄。答。彼引華嚴心造之文通造十界。豈不得以佛真九妄。若離妄是真。是故真妄俱屬思議。皆為所離

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本習自珍二：首先是因為執著而停止（止）。其次是因為輕視（下）。由於迷惑于虛妄的珍寶。其次以下，是斥責習以為常的錯誤認知。首先是習以為常的錯誤認知。其次是不輕視（不下）。根據意義斥責迷惑的三種情況。首先是迷惑于流動變化。其次是不輕視（不下），迷惑在於迷惑本身。再次是不輕視（不下），迷惑在於所處的位置。第三，雖然輕視（下），但允許作為方便法門。

大章第二，闡明止觀的境界：在沒有名稱和數量的情況下，用假名和數量來說明。或者詳細或者簡略，都是隨機應變的。因為經論中大多闡明三法。這三種自性涵蓋一切法，沒有遺漏。所以《三無性論》說：『一切諸法不出三性。』現在就根據這個來揭示止觀所觀察的境界。這個所觀察的境界不出兩種意義：一是所觀察所要遠離的虛妄境界，二是所觀察所要顯現的真實境界。分別性（Parikalpita-lakṣaṇa）也叫遍計所執性，屬於見惑和思惑，是虛妄境界。真實性（Pariniṣpanna-lakṣaṇa）也叫圓成實性，屬於空性，是真實境界。依他性（Paratantra-lakṣaṇa）屬於無明，也是虛妄境界。所以論中說：『分別性，是指名言所顯示的諸法自性，就像似塵識。依他性，是依靠因緣顯現的法自體，就像亂識分。因為內根緣于內塵而生起。真實性，是指法的如如。』另外，依他性既然屬於八識，包含染污和清凈，所以貫通真妄。然而，真妄境界相對於後面的體狀，既然是正修的內容，所以這個境界的意義與開解相同，可以與《摩訶止觀》的眼智所知的境界相同。問：彼是真境，現在為什麼貫通虛妄？答：彼三諦，實際上是對於緣生三道虛妄境界，說示三諦，意義與現在相同。也可以說，現在的科目與**狀相同，與《摩訶止觀》正修的意義意圖類似。因為彼正修先闡明所觀察的境界，與現在相同；其次闡明能觀察的，與現在的體狀相同。問：彼文所觀察的，為什麼貫通真妄？答：彼引用《華嚴經》心造之文，貫通造十界，難道不能用佛的真和九界的妄？如果離開妄就是真，所以真妄都屬於思議，都是要遠離的。

【English Translation】 English version Practicing from cherishing the second. First, it is due to attachment that one stops (止, zhǐ, cessation). Second, it is due to looking down upon (下, xià, belittling). Because of being deluded by illusory treasures. The second part below criticizes the habitual mistaken cognitions. First, it is the habitual mistaken cognitions. Second, it is not looking down upon (不下, bù xià, not belittling). Criticizing the three situations of delusion according to their meanings. First, it is being deluded by fluidity and change. Second, it is not looking down upon (不下, bù xià, not belittling); the delusion lies in the delusion itself. Again, it is not looking down upon (不下, bù xià, not belittling); the delusion lies in the position one occupies. Third, although looking down upon (下, xià, belittling), it is permitted as a skillful means.

The second chapter of the Great Chapter clarifies the realm of cessation and contemplation: In the absence of names and numbers, it is explained using provisional names and numbers. Whether detailed or brief, it is all adapted to the circumstances. Because the sutras and treatises mostly elucidate the three natures (三法, sān fǎ). These three natures encompass all dharmas without omission. Therefore, the Treatise on the Three Natures says: 'All dharmas do not go beyond the three natures.' Now, based on this, the realm observed by cessation and contemplation is revealed. This observed realm does not go beyond two meanings: first, the illusory realm to be observed and abandoned; second, the true realm to be observed and manifested. The discriminated nature (Parikalpita-lakṣaṇa) is also called the completely conceptualized nature, which belongs to the afflictions of views and thoughts, and is the illusory realm. The real nature (Pariniṣpanna-lakṣaṇa) is also called the perfectly accomplished nature, which belongs to emptiness, and is the true realm. The dependent nature (Paratantra-lakṣaṇa) belongs to ignorance and is also the illusory realm. Therefore, the treatise says: 'The discriminated nature refers to the self-nature of dharmas manifested by names and words, like the semblance of dust consciousness. The dependent nature is the self-nature of dharmas manifested by relying on causes and conditions, like the division of confused consciousness, because the inner roots arise from the inner dust. The real nature refers to the suchness of dharmas.' Furthermore, since the dependent nature belongs to the eight consciousnesses, containing defilement and purity, it penetrates both truth and illusion. However, since the realms of truth and illusion are related to the subsequent form and are the content of correct practice, the meaning of this realm is the same as the explanation and can be the same as the realm known by the eye and wisdom of Mahā-śamatha-vipassanā. Question: That is the true realm, why does it now penetrate illusion? Answer: Those three truths are actually for the illusory realm of the three paths arising from conditions, explaining and revealing the three truths, the meaning is the same as now. It can also be said that the current subject is the same as the form, similar to the meaning and intention of the correct practice of Mahā-śamatha-vipassanā. Because that correct practice first clarifies the observed realm, which is the same as now; second, it clarifies the observer, which is the same as the current form. Question: Why does the observed in that text penetrate truth and illusion? Answer: That quotes the text from the Avataṃsaka Sūtra about the mind creating, penetrating the creation of the ten realms, can't it use the truth of the Buddha and the illusion of the nine realms? If leaving illusion is truth, therefore truth and illusion both belong to thought and are both to be abandoned.

。若即妄是真。是故真妄俱不思議。皆為所顯。然分別依他二性之名。文相非一不易條流。今先約情法有體無體以辨二性。分別性者是能執情而無自體。依他性者是所執法有妄染體。如論云。依他性有體異於分別性無體。又云。依他性性體即是煩惱。及業分別效能熏起執。上約六八對論辨性。若各論者各約因果以辨二性。六識之中枝末惑業能薰染因為分別性。約于所熏六道境界為依他性。由此境界依能熏起。故以分別卻為所依。如下染濁依他中明。例應八識不覺即動。能薰染因屬分別性。轉現境界為依他性。故四念處云。梨耶依業生故云依他。上來但約妄識以說。若通約于真妄相望。義應有三。一者約果豎說為依他性。約因橫說為分別性。故六道境依於八識名依他性。轉現境界依于真體名依他性。各取能熏無明染因為能執情名分別性。二者不分因果但約妄染名分別性。同依真體名依他性。如下文云。一者凈分。謂在染之真。即名真實性。二者不凈分。謂染法習氣種子及虛相果報。即是分別性。二性和合無二即是依他性。三者依他之名不獨在妄而亦通真。分別之名卻惟從果。如下文云。心體平等名真實性。心體為染凈所繫依隨染凈二法名依他性。所現虛相果名分別性。又依染凈或唯八識得依他名。以本識無體依他而有。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若執迷於虛妄，便會誤認為真實。因此，真實與虛妄都不可思議，皆為所顯現之物。然而，對於『分別』（Parikalpita，能執著的虛妄分別）和『依他』（Paratantra，依他起性）二性的命名，經文中的說法並非完全一致，難以逐條梳理。現在先從情法（情感和法）的有體無體來辨別這二性。『分別性』是指能執著的情識，它本身沒有自性（Svalaksana）。『依他性』是指所執著的法，它具有虛妄染污的體性。如《唯識三十論》所說：『依他性有體，異於分別性無體。』又說：『依他性的體性即是煩惱和業，分別效能熏習生起執著。』以上是從六識和八識相對的角度來辨別二性。如果分別討論，則各自從因果的角度來辨別二性。六識中的枝末惑業，是能薰染的因，屬於『分別性』；所薰染的六道境界，屬於『依他性』。由於此境界依能熏而生起，所以將『分別』視為所依。如下文在『染濁依他』中會進一步闡明。同樣，八識的不覺而動，是能薰染的因，屬於『分別性』；轉現的境界，屬於『依他性』。所以《四念處》說：『阿賴耶識（Alaya-vijnana）依業而生，故稱為依他。』以上只是從虛妄識的角度來說。如果從真妄相對的角度來說，義理上應該有三種：一是約果豎說為『依他性』，約因橫說為『分別性』。所以六道境界依於八識，名為『依他性』；轉現的境界依于真如本體，名為『依他性』。各自取能熏的無明染污之因為能執著的情識，名為『分別性』。二是無論因果，但約虛妄染污，名為『分別性』；同依真如本體，名為『依他性』。如下文所說：『一者凈分，謂在染之真，即名真實性（Bhutatathata）。二者不凈分，謂染法習氣種子及虛相果報，即是分別性。二性和合無二即是依他性。』三是『依他』之名不只用於虛妄，也通於真如；『分別』之名卻只從果上說。如下文所說：『心體平等名真實性。心體為染凈所繫，依隨染凈二法，名依他性。所現虛相果，名分別性。』又依染凈來說，或許只有八識才能得到『依他』之名，因為本識無體，依他而有。

【English Translation】 English version If one clings to delusion, one will mistake it for reality. Therefore, both reality and delusion are inconceivable, and both are what is manifested. However, the names 'Parikalpita' (discrimination, the false discrimination that clings) and 'Paratantra' (dependent origination) are not entirely consistent in the scriptures, making it difficult to sort them out one by one. Now, let's first distinguish these two natures from the perspective of whether emotions and dharmas have substance or not. 'Parikalpita' refers to the emotional consciousness that can cling, and it has no self-nature (Svalaksana). 'Paratantra' refers to the dharma that is clung to, and it has the nature of false defilement. As the Treatise on the Thirty Verses says: 'Paratantra has substance, different from Parikalpita which has no substance.' It also says: 'The nature of Paratantra is afflictions and karma, and Parikalpita can熏習arise clinging.' The above is to distinguish the two natures from the relative perspective of the six consciousnesses and the eighth consciousness. If discussed separately, then each distinguishes the two natures from the perspective of cause and effect. The branch-end afflictions and karma in the six consciousnesses are the cause that can熏習defile, belonging to 'Parikalpita'; the realms of the six paths that are熏習defiled belong to 'Paratantra'. Because this realm arises depending on what can熏習, 'Parikalpita' is regarded as what is depended on. This will be further clarified in 'defiled Paratantra' below. Similarly, the eighth consciousness's non-awareness and movement is the cause that can熏習defile, belonging to 'Parikalpita'; the manifested realm is 'Paratantra'. Therefore, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness says: 'Alaya-vijnana arises depending on karma, hence it is called Paratantra.' The above is only from the perspective of false consciousness. If viewed from the perspective of the relative truth and falsehood, there should be three meanings: First, viewed vertically from the perspective of the result, it is 'Paratantra'; viewed horizontally from the perspective of the cause, it is 'Parikalpita'. Therefore, the realms of the six paths depend on the eighth consciousness, and are called 'Paratantra'; the manifested realm depends on the true nature, and is called 'Paratantra'. Each takes the cause of ignorance and defilement that can熏習as the emotional consciousness that can cling, and is called 'Parikalpita'. Second, regardless of cause and effect, but only in terms of false defilement, it is called 'Parikalpita'; depending on the true nature, it is called 'Paratantra'. As the following text says: 'First, the pure part, which is the truth in defilement, is called Bhutatathata (Suchness). Second, the impure part, which is the seeds of defiled dharma habits and the fruits of false appearances, is Parikalpita. The combination of the two natures without duality is Paratantra.' Third, the name 'Paratantra' is not only used for falsehood, but also applies to truth; the name 'Parikalpita' is only spoken from the perspective of the result. As the following text says: 'The equality of the mind's essence is called Bhutatathata. The mind's essence is bound by defilement and purity, depending on the two dharmas of defilement and purity, it is called Paratantra. The manifested fruits of false appearances are called Parikalpita.' Also, depending on defilement and purity, perhaps only the eighth consciousness can obtain the name 'Paratantra', because the original consciousness has no substance and exists depending on others.

如四念處云。依染如土。依凈如金。故言依他。又以此望彼名曰依他。若以彼望此名曰他依。即同三性論云。能為分別真實二性依止。然上所辨分別依他乃約染法。若凈法者具如下釋。

釋文為三。初標。科文云三自性者。或名三無性。或云三有性。或祇云三性。云自性者即自分性從安立諦以得此名。亦名有性。略名三性。云無性者。己自分性。此名從非安立諦說。四念處云。三無性名非安立諦。論云三無性即是非安立諦。若是三性並是安立。前兩性是安立世諦。體實是無。安立為有。故真實性即是安立真諦。對遣二有安立二無名為真實。還尋此性離有離無故非安立。三無性皆非安立也。

二所言下解釋。文自為二。初總明三性為三。初標。二謂出下示。文云六識七識者。以七合六共名分別。如大師指經起以遊行以求衣食為世間往惑分別之識名阿陀那。據分別識應是第六毗婆加識。而卻名為第七識者。全同今文以六七識共為分別。問。分別識與分別性何殊。答。有分別性即分別識。六識是也。有分別性非分別識。八識是也。三此是下結。義既不一。向之說者且約大位。

二所言下別明三性二。初標。二初辨下釋。文自為三。初真實性二。初示義三。初標。二所言下隨釋。文自為二。初有垢凈心三。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如《四念處》所說：『依染污法，視之如泥土；依清凈法，視之如黃金。』所以稱為『依他』（Paratantra，緣起性）。又從此角度看彼，名為『依他』；若從彼角度看此，則名為『他依』。這與《三性論》所說相同：『能夠作為分別真實二性的依止。』然而，以上所辨析的分別依他，是就染污法而言。如果是清凈法，則具備如下的解釋。

解釋分為三部分。首先是標示。科判說『三自性』，或者稱為『三無性』，或者稱為『三有性』，或者僅僅稱為『三性』。稱為『自性』，即是自分性，從安立諦的角度得到這個名稱，也稱為『有性』，簡稱為『三性』。稱為『無性』，是己自分性，這個名稱是從非安立諦的角度來說的。《四念處》說：『三無性』名為非安立諦。《論》中說：『三無性』即是非安立諦。如果是『三性』，則都是安立。前兩種自性是安立世俗諦，體性實際上是無，安立為有。所以真實性就是安立真諦，爲了對治兩種『有』，安立兩種『無』，名為真實。還要尋覓此自性，遠離『有』和『無』，所以不是安立。『三無性』都不是安立。

第二部分，在『所言下』解釋。文分為兩部分。首先總明三性為三。首先是標示。其次，『謂出下』顯示。文中說『六識七識』，是用第七識與第六識合起來，共同稱為『分別』。例如大師指經，以爲了求衣食而產生的世間迷惑分別之識，名為阿陀那（Ādāna，執持識）。根據分別識，應該是第六毗婆加識（Vipāka-vijñāna，異熟識），卻稱為第七識，完全與本文相同，用六七識共同作為分別。問：分別識與分別性有什麼不同？答：有分別性即是分別識，指六識。有分別性但不是分別識，指八識。第三，『此是下』總結。意義既然不一致，之前的說法且就大概而言。

第二部分，在『所言下』分別說明三性，分為兩部分。首先是標示。其次，『初辨下』解釋。文分為三部分。首先是真實性，分為兩部分。首先是顯示意義，分為三部分。首先是標示。其次，『所言下』隨文解釋。文分為兩部分。首先是有垢凈心三。

【English Translation】 English version: As the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Catuḥ-smṛtyupasthāna) says: 'Relying on defilement is like soil; relying on purity is like gold.' Therefore, it is called 'Dependent Arising' (Paratantra). Furthermore, viewing 'that' from 'this' is called 'Dependent Arising'; if viewing 'this' from 'that', it is called 'Other-Dependent'. This is the same as what the Treatise on the Three Natures says: 'Capable of being the basis for distinguishing the two natures of reality.' However, the Dependent Arising that has been analyzed above refers to defiled dharmas. If it is a pure dharma, then it possesses the following explanation.

The explanation is divided into three parts. First is the heading. The section heading says 'Three Self-Natures', or it is called 'Three Non-Self-Natures', or it is called 'Three Having-Self-Natures', or simply called 'Three Natures'. Called 'Self-Nature', that is, its own self-nature, from the perspective of the Established Truth (samvṛti-satya), it obtains this name, also called 'Having-Self-Nature', abbreviated as 'Three Natures'. Called 'Non-Self-Nature', it is its own self-nature, this name is spoken from the perspective of the Non-Established Truth. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness says: 'Three Non-Self-Natures' is called Non-Established Truth. The Treatise says: 'Three Non-Self-Natures' is the Non-Established Truth. If it is the 'Three Natures', then they are all Established. The first two natures are the Established Conventional Truth, its essence is actually non-existent, established as existent. Therefore, the Reality Nature is the Established Ultimate Truth (paramārtha-satya), in order to counteract the two 'existences', establishing the two 'non-existences' is called Reality. Still seeking this nature, being apart from 'existence' and 'non-existence', therefore it is not Established. The 'Three Non-Self-Natures' are all not Established.

The second part, explains at 'What is said below'. The text is divided into two parts. First, generally clarifying the Three Natures as three. First is the heading. Second, 'Indicating below' shows. The text says 'Six Consciousnesses and Seven Consciousnesses', it uses the seventh consciousness combined with the sixth consciousness, jointly called 'Discrimination'. For example, the Great Master points to the sutra, the worldly deluded discriminating consciousness that arises in order to seek food and clothing, is called Ādāna (Ādāna-vijñāna, clinging consciousness). According to the discriminating consciousness, it should be the sixth Vipāka-vijñāna (Vipāka-vijñāna, resultant consciousness), but it is called the seventh consciousness, completely the same as this text, using the six and seven consciousnesses jointly as discrimination. Question: What is the difference between discriminating consciousness and discriminating nature? Answer: Having discriminating nature is the discriminating consciousness, referring to the six consciousnesses. Having discriminating nature but not discriminating consciousness, referring to the eighth consciousness. Third, 'This is below' concludes. Since the meanings are not consistent, the previous statement is just about the general position.

The second part, explains the Three Natures separately at 'What is said below', divided into two parts. First is the heading. Second, 'Explaining below' explains. The text is divided into three parts. First is the Reality Nature, divided into two parts. First is showing the meaning, divided into three parts. First is the heading. Second, 'What is said below' explains according to the text. The text is divided into two parts. First is the defiled and pure mind three.

初標。二即是下釋。云凈心者。名從對得。體自性彰。名對得者。對染名凈。體性彰者。凈心之體即平等性。非染非凈而能染凈。由以此之非染凈一性之體名染凈性。是故染凈二性相即。以凈即染故此本性具足違用。以染即凈故復體包凈用。無染眾生雖有能熏之垢。而此凈性熏垢本空。眾生雖有所現染相。而此凈性染相當寂。若依凈性即是染性。既現染事不得名凈。由此染性即是凈性。乃與染事事不相應。複稱為凈。三故言下結。

二所言下。無垢凈心亦標釋結。釋中雲。染熏息者。修惡情已也。事染泯者。修惡法破也。智者總云斷修惡盡凈熏滿者。修善智足也。凈德顯者。修善法圓也。雖從熏顯性凈之用非增者。智顯之法。顯無別顯全顯性故。豈是修增。假遣昏云照體之功本具者。顯法之智性本天然。實非昏去方謂智明。故云假遣。如此推窮莫非性德。故複稱凈。前文復字對於事染。今文復字對於修凈。

三然依下總結。故有有垢無垢之殊者。依熏約用有事染凈。本無無染有染之異者。平等性體本非染凈。二問下料揀。初問。二答。然眾生於無明中不妨即有諸佛法性之明性。故諸佛于性明中不妨即有眾生無明之暗性。但以對治轉迷。故言諸佛無無明爾。

二依他性二。初標列。二清凈下隨釋二。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：初標。『二即是下釋』。說『凈心』（清凈的心）者，名稱是從相對而得來的，本體的自性是彰顯的。說『名對得者』，是相對於染污而稱為清凈。說『體性彰者』，凈心的本體就是平等性，非染非凈而能染能凈。由於這非染非凈的單一本體被稱為染凈性。因此染凈二性相互即是。因為清凈即是染污，所以這本性具足違背的作用。因為染污即是清凈，所以又本體包含清凈的作用。沒有染污的眾生雖然有能夠薰染的塵垢，而這清凈的本性薰染塵垢本來就是空。眾生雖然有所顯現的染污之相，而這清凈的本性在染污之相中是寂靜的。如果依據清凈的本性，那就是染污的本性，既然顯現染污之事就不能稱為清凈。由此染污的本性就是清凈的本性，乃至於與染污之事毫不相應，又稱為清凈。三故言下結。

『二所言下』。無垢凈心也標明、解釋、總結。解釋中說：『染熏息者』，是修習惡的情感已經止息。『事染泯者』，是修習惡的法已經破除。智者總的說『斷修惡盡凈熏滿者』，是修習善的智慧充足。『凈德顯者』，是修習善的法圓滿。雖然是從薰染顯現性凈的作用，並非是增加，智顯的法，顯現沒有別的顯現，完全顯現本性，哪裡是修習增加的呢？假設遣除昏暗，照亮本體的功用本來就具備，顯現法的智慧本性本來就是天然的，實在不是昏暗去除才說智慧明亮，所以說是假設遣除。如此推究窮盡沒有不是本性所具有的功德。所以又稱為清凈。前文的『復』字是相對於事染，今文的『復』字是相對於修凈。

『三然依下』總結。所以有有垢無垢的區別，是依據薰染，就作用來說有事染凈。本來沒有無染有染的差異，平等性的本體本來就不是染凈。『二問下』簡擇。初問。二答。然而眾生在無明之中不妨礙即有諸佛法性的明性。所以諸佛在性明之中不妨礙即有眾生無明的暗性。但是用對治來轉變迷惑，所以說諸佛沒有無明罷了。

『二依他性二』。初標列。『二清凈下』隨文解釋二。

【English Translation】 English version: First, the initial statement. 'Two means the following explanation.' To say 'pure mind' (凈心, the pure mind) is a name derived from opposition, and the self-nature of the substance is manifest. To say 'name derived from opposition' means it is called pure in contrast to defilement. To say 'substance-nature manifest' means the substance of the pure mind is precisely equality-nature (平等性), neither defiled nor pure, yet capable of defiling and purifying. Because this single substance that is neither defiled nor pure is called defilement-and-purity-nature. Therefore, the two natures of defilement and purity are mutually inclusive. Because purity is precisely defilement, this original nature fully possesses contrary functions. Because defilement is precisely purity, the substance encompasses pure functions. Although sentient beings without defilement possess the dust capable of influencing, the pure nature influencing the dust is originally empty. Although sentient beings have manifested defiled appearances, this pure nature is tranquil within the defiled appearances. If relying on the pure nature, it is precisely the defiled nature; since defiled matters appear, it cannot be called pure. Therefore, the defiled nature is precisely the pure nature, even to the point of not corresponding with defiled matters, and is again called pure. Three, therefore, the following concludes.

'Two, what is said below.' The stainless pure mind is also marked, explained, and concluded. In the explanation, it says: 'The cessation of defiled influence' means the cultivation of evil emotions has ceased. 'The disappearance of defiled matters' means the cultivation of evil dharmas has been broken. The wise generally say 'the exhaustion of cutting off evil cultivation and the fullness of pure influence' means the cultivation of good wisdom is sufficient. 'The manifestation of pure virtue' means the cultivation of good dharmas is complete. Although the function of the nature of purity is manifested from influence, it is not an increase; the dharma of wisdom manifestation, manifesting without another manifestation, fully manifests the original nature, so how could it be an increase? Supposing the dispelling of darkness, the function of illuminating the substance is originally possessed; the wisdom-nature of manifesting dharma is originally natural, it is not truly that wisdom is said to be bright only when darkness is removed, so it is said to be supposing dispelling. Exhaustively investigating in this way, there is nothing that is not a virtue inherent in the nature. Therefore, it is again called pure. The word 'again' in the previous text is in relation to defiled matters; the word 'again' in this text is in relation to cultivating purity.

'Three, however, relying below' concludes. Therefore, there is a distinction between having defilement and not having defilement, which is based on influence, and in terms of function, there are defiled and pure matters. Originally, there is no difference between not having defilement and having defilement; the substance of equality-nature is originally neither defiled nor pure. 'Two, below asking' selects. First, the question. Second, the answer. However, sentient beings in ignorance do not hinder the existence of the bright nature of the dharma-nature of all Buddhas. Therefore, all Buddhas in the bright nature do not hinder the existence of the dark nature of the ignorance of sentient beings. However, using antidotes to transform delusion, therefore it is said that Buddhas simply do not have ignorance.

'Two, dependent nature two.' First, the marking and listing. 'Two, below pure' follows the explanation in two parts.

初凈分依他性三。初標。二即彼下解釋。應知一性其名有三。一曰非染凈性。二曰染性凈性。三曰出障真如．在障真如。若通論者。從其當體皆名實性。從為虛相之所依故皆屬依他。若別論者。有二不同。一者獨取雙非為真實性。染凈二性屬依他性。正如今文染凈二分依他性也。二者出障真如為真實性。在障真如為依他性。問。今文凈分依他分別。與於前文及佛凈德為同爲異。答。體同義異。前約生佛對論三性。佛所有法皆真實性。眾生所有名餘二性。今則生佛各論三性。生佛所依皆有實性。逆順二修各有餘二。文云即復依彼凈業所熏至故名依他者。依他之義有二不同。一者身土依性而現。是故順指凈性為依。二者身土依于凈業能熏而現。是故順指凈業為他。文云三身至自利利他等者。對論法報寂光自土即自利也。他報應化他受用土方便同居即利他也。通而為論。三身四土己所證得皆自利也。即此益物皆利他也。

三料揀有四。初問者因向文云事染功盡。答有二意。一約自他。自行不起。化他亦起。故云為可化機亦得顯現。二約權實。實造不起。權造亦起。故云示有三毒權受苦報。問。示有三毒為性為事。答。就佛自論亦得為事。對眾生說故受性名。問。大師祇云性惡不斷。豈非權造是性非事。答。智者所論諸

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本初凈分依他性有三種。第一是標示。第二是『即彼下』的解釋。應當瞭解，一種自性有三種名稱：一是『非染凈性』（既非染污也非清凈的自性），二是『染性凈性』（染污的自性和清凈的自性），三是『出障真如』（脫離了障礙的真如）和『在障真如』（處於障礙中的真如）。如果從普遍意義上來說，從其本體而言，都可以稱為『實性』（真實自性），因為是虛妄現象所依賴的基礎，所以都屬於『依他性』（依他起性）。如果從分別意義上來說，有兩種不同：一是隻取『雙非』（既非染污也非清凈）作為『真實性』，染污和清凈兩種自性屬於『依他性』，正如現在文中所說的染污和清凈兩部分是依他性。二是將『出障真如』作為『真實性』，『在障真如』作為『依他性』。問：現在文中所說的清凈部分的依他性分別，與前文以及佛的清凈功德是相同還是不同？答：本體相同，意義不同。前文是就眾生和佛相對而言的三性，佛所擁有的法都是真實性，眾生所擁有的稱為其餘二性。現在則是眾生和佛各自論述三性，眾生和佛所依賴的都有實性，順修和逆修各有其餘二性。文中說『即復依彼凈業所熏至故名依他者』，依他性的意義有兩種不同：一是身和國土依賴自性而顯現，所以順著指清凈自性為依。二是身和國土依賴於清凈業力的熏習而顯現，所以順著指清凈業力為他。文中說『三身至自利利他等者』，相對而言，法身、報身和寂光土（Buddha's pure land）是自利。他受用報身、應化身、他受用土（Buddha's land for others' enjoyment）和方便同居土（land of expedient dwelling）是利他。總而言之，三身和四土（four lands）自己所證得的都是自利，用這些利益眾生就是利他。第三部分是辨析，有四個問題。第一個問題是，因為前面文中說『事染功盡』（染污的事情已經完結）。回答有兩種意思：一是就自利和他利而言，自己不造作，教化他人也會造作，所以說爲了可以教化的眾生也會顯現。二是就權巧和真實而言，真實造作不會發生，權巧造作也會發生，所以說示現具有三毒（three poisons）權巧地承受苦報。問：示現具有三毒是自性還是事情？答：就佛自身而言也可以說是事情，對眾生來說就接受了自性的名稱。問：大師只說性惡不斷，難道不是權巧造作是自性而不是事情嗎？答：智者所論述的諸法……

【English Translation】 English version The pure aspect of the dependent nature has three aspects. First, it is a label. Second, it is explained in '即彼下'. It should be understood that one nature has three names: first, 'non-defiled and non-pure nature' (neither defiled nor pure nature); second, 'defiled nature and pure nature' (defiled nature and pure nature); and third, '出障真如' (Chuzhang Zhenru - True Thusness free from obstacles) and '在障真如' (Zaizhang Zhenru - True Thusness in obstacles). If speaking generally, from its substance, it can be called 'real nature' (true nature), because it is the basis upon which illusory phenomena depend, so it belongs to '依他性' (Yitaxing - dependent nature). If speaking specifically, there are two differences: one is to take only '雙非' (Shuangfei - neither defiled nor pure) as 'real nature', and the defiled and pure natures belong to '依他性', just as the text now says that the defiled and pure parts are dependent nature. The second is to take '出障真如' as 'real nature' and '在障真如' as '依他性'. Question: Is the distinction of the dependent nature of the pure part in this text the same as or different from the previous text and the pure merits of the Buddha? Answer: The substance is the same, but the meaning is different. The previous text discusses the three natures in relation to sentient beings and Buddhas. All the dharmas possessed by the Buddha are real nature, and what sentient beings possess is called the other two natures. Now, sentient beings and Buddhas each discuss the three natures. What sentient beings and Buddhas rely on all have real nature, and there are two other natures for both reverse and forward cultivation. The text says, '即復依彼凈業所熏至故名依他者' (Jifu yi bi jingye suo xun zhi gu ming yita zhe - Because it depends on the pure karma that is熏至, it is called dependent), the meaning of dependent nature has two differences: one is that the body and land appear depending on the nature, so it points to the pure nature as the basis. The second is that the body and land appear depending on the熏至 of pure karma, so it points to pure karma as the other. The text says, '三身至自利利他等者' (Sanshen zhi zili lita deng zhe - The three bodies to self-benefit and other-benefit, etc.), relatively speaking, the Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and 寂光土 (Jiguangtu - Land of Tranquil Light) are self-benefit. The 他受用報身 (Tashengyong Baoshen - Other-Enjoyment Body), 應化身 (Yinghuashen - Manifestation Body), 他受用土 (Tashengyongtu - Land for Others' Enjoyment), and 方便同居土 (Fangbiantongjutu - Land of Expedient Dwelling) are other-benefit. Generally speaking, the three bodies and four lands that one has attained are all self-benefit, and benefiting others with these is all other-benefit. The third part is analysis, with four questions. The first question is because the previous text said '事染功盡' (Shi ran gong jin - The work of defilement is exhausted). There are two meanings to the answer: one is in terms of self-benefit and other-benefit, if oneself does not create, teaching others will also create, so it is said that it will also appear for sentient beings who can be taught. The second is in terms of expedient and real, real creation will not happen, expedient creation will happen, so it is said to show having 三毒 (sandu - three poisons) and expediently receiving suffering. Question: Is showing having three poisons nature or matter? Answer: In terms of the Buddha himself, it can also be said to be matter, but for sentient beings, it accepts the name of nature. Question: The master only said that the evil of nature is not cut off, isn't expedient creation nature rather than matter? Answer: The dharmas discussed by the wise...

佛起用。是全性惡起為修惡。為對闡提佛雖起修。此修即性不為惡染。故受住名。故智者云。終日用之終日不染。又云今明闡提不斷性德之善。遇緣善發。佛亦不斷性惡。機緣所潡。善力所熏。入阿鼻同一切惡事化眾生。請觀事字並以闡提對說之義。又云。闡提亦爾。性善不斷還生善根。如來性惡不斷還能起惡。雖起于惡而是解心無染。通達惡際即是實際。乃至云闡提不達以此為異。請觀起字並云雖起及云達惡。以此而知但由佛能了修即性故異闡提。非謂不起修惡事染。問。佛起修惡與生何殊。答。體同義異。以體同故皆謂事也。以義異故即不即殊。故輔行雲。闡提若能達修惡則與如來無差別。第二問答中意不出隨人詮辨故言清凈。克從法體實名為染。例如起用屬解脫德亦名為縛。故荊溪云。若現六界為縛。現二乘界為脫。佛菩薩界為變。照縛脫自非證得法華三昧不思議身自在之業。安能現此三十三身。非縛非脫而現縛脫。其謂現者現非事乎。故知克體亦現縛事。但以此事即性而為俱名性脫。第三問者以由向云即是清凈分別性法。答中乃約當體所依以分二性。第四問者無垢清凈二名相類。真實依他二義似同。故有此問。由依他者必有所依。若指真性似同實性。答中約于體相用者。于依他中置所依真但取能依。故名為相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本佛起用，是全性惡起為修惡。爲了對治斷善根者（闡提，icchantika，指斷絕了一切善根的人），佛雖然示現修行，但這種修行當下就是自性，不會被惡所污染。所以被稱為『受住名』。所以智者說：『終日運用它，終日不會被污染。』又說現在說明斷善根者（闡提）沒有斷絕自性本具的善，遇到因緣就會顯發善根。佛也沒有斷絕自性本具的惡，在機緣成熟時，被善的力量所熏習，進入阿鼻地獄，做一切惡事來化度眾生。請觀察『事』字，並結合用斷善根者（闡提）來對比說明的含義。又說：『斷善根者（闡提）也是這樣，自性本具的善沒有斷絕，還會產生善根。如來自性本具的惡沒有斷絕，還能生起惡。』雖然生起惡，但是是解脫的心，沒有被污染，通達惡的邊際就是實際。乃至說斷善根者（闡提）不能通達這一點，所以和佛不同。請觀察『起』字，以及『雖然生起』和『通達惡』。由此可知，只是因為佛能夠明瞭修行就是自性，所以和斷善根者（闡提）不同，不是說佛不會生起修惡之事而被污染。問：佛生起修惡和眾生有什麼區別？答：本體相同，意義不同。因為本體相同，所以都說是事相。因為意義不同，所以有即和不即的區別。所以輔行說：『斷善根者（闡提）如果能夠通達修惡，就和如來沒有差別。』第二個問答中的意思，沒有超出隨順人的理解而進行解釋，所以說是清凈。如果嚴格按照法體來說，實際上是被染污的。例如生起作用屬於解脫的功德，也可以說是束縛。所以荊溪說：『如果顯現六道輪迴的境界，就是束縛；顯現聲聞緣覺的境界，就是解脫；顯現佛菩薩的境界，就是變化。』照了束縛和解脫，如果不是證得《法華經》三昧不可思議身自在的業力，怎麼能夠顯現這三十三種應化身？不是束縛，不是解脫，卻能顯現束縛和解脫，所說的顯現難道不是事相嗎？所以知道嚴格按照法體來說，也是顯現束縛之事。但是因為這件事相就是自性，所以都稱為性解脫。第三個提問者，因為之前說『就是清凈』，分別了自性和法性。回答中是就當體所依來區分二性。第四個提問者，『無垢』和『清凈』兩個名稱相似，『真實』和『依他』兩個意義也類似，所以有這個提問。因為依他起性必定有所依，如果指向真如自性，就和實性相同。回答中是就體、相、用來說明，在依他起性中，安置所依的真如自性，但只取能依的依他起性，所以稱為相。

【English Translation】 English version The Buddha's arising of function is the arising of evil based on the entirety of inherent nature to cultivate evil. In order to counter the icchantika (those who have severed all roots of goodness), although the Buddha manifests cultivation, this cultivation is immediately the inherent nature and is not defiled by evil. Therefore, it is called 'receiving and abiding in name.' Therefore, the wise say: 'Using it all day long, one is not defiled all day long.' It is also said that now it is explained that the icchantika has not severed the inherent goodness of their nature, and when encountering conditions, good roots will manifest. The Buddha has also not severed the inherent evil of their nature, and when the opportunity arises, influenced by the power of goodness, they enter Avici Hell, doing all kinds of evil deeds to transform sentient beings. Please observe the word 'deed' and combine it with the meaning of contrasting it with the icchantika. It is also said: 'The icchantika is also like this, the inherent goodness of their nature is not severed, and good roots will still arise. The inherent evil of the Tathagata's nature is not severed, and evil can still arise.' Although evil arises, it is with a mind of liberation, not defiled, and understanding the boundary of evil is the actual reality. Even to say that the icchantika cannot understand this, so they are different from the Buddha. Please observe the word 'arising,' as well as 'although arising' and 'understanding evil.' From this, it can be known that it is only because the Buddha can understand that cultivation is inherent nature that they are different from the icchantika, not that the Buddha will not give rise to cultivating evil deeds and be defiled. Question: What is the difference between the Buddha's arising of cultivating evil and that of sentient beings? Answer: The substance is the same, but the meaning is different. Because the substance is the same, they are both called phenomena. Because the meaning is different, there is a difference between being identical and not being identical. Therefore, the Fu Xing says: 'If the icchantika can understand cultivating evil, then there is no difference between them and the Tathagata.' The meaning in the second question and answer does not go beyond explaining according to people's understanding, so it is said to be pure. Strictly speaking according to the Dharma body, it is actually defiled. For example, the arising of function belongs to the merit of liberation, but it can also be said to be bondage. Therefore, Jingxi says: 'If the realm of the six realms of reincarnation is manifested, it is bondage; if the realm of the Hearers and Conditioned-Enlightened Ones is manifested, it is liberation; if the realm of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is manifested, it is transformation.' Illuminating bondage and liberation, if one has not attained the inconceivable body and unhindered karma of the Samadhi of the Lotus Sutra, how can one manifest these thirty-three manifested bodies? Not bondage, not liberation, yet able to manifest bondage and liberation, is what is said to be manifested not a phenomenon? Therefore, it is known that strictly speaking according to the Dharma body, the phenomenon of bondage is also manifested. However, because this phenomenon is inherent nature, they are both called liberation of nature. The third questioner, because it was previously said 'is pure,' distinguished between inherent nature and Dharma nature. The answer is based on the inherent nature on which it relies to distinguish the two natures. The fourth questioner, the two names 'stainless' and 'pure' are similar, and the two meanings 'real' and 'dependent' are also similar, so there is this question. Because the dependent nature must have something to rely on, if it points to the true inherent nature, it is the same as the real nature. The answer is based on the substance, characteristics, and function to explain, in the dependent nature, placing the true inherent nature on which it relies, but only taking the dependent nature that can rely, so it is called characteristic.

。又此依他亦該能所。凈業所依。身土能依。若能若所皆是修相。用光對緣稱分別性。前云三身四土皆通自他。即此意也。

二染分依他性三。初標。二即彼下釋。三料揀。釋中雲但為分別性中所有無明染法所熏者。依他性者即所現境。能熏之法有二不同。一者始初。獨頭不覺以為能熏。有轉現境。二者今日。六識無明以為能熏。有虛狀境。然二熏境若從異說轉現界外虛狀界內。又界內境若從迷執即自謂實。今從大教詮此界內是虛狀也。所現境界既二不同。是故能熏有本末異。今從末說。故六道境依于見思。此依他性故屬六識。界外依他方屬八識。若不異者。能熏無明本末體同。所現境界皆是八識。三料揀有四。初問者眾生既具凈性之用。未熏現時豈全無能。答意者自雖未熏為佛所護。因護漸修豈非有用。若無凈性佛何護焉。云同體者。一由生佛性凈體同。佛若以智慧護凈性究絕染惑。是則亦護眾生凈性。二由諸佛同體權智常護眾生。有力不蒙者。佛力常有。以機罪重而不蒙拔。問。輕者蒙拔。重者不蒙。豈顯于佛而有大力。佛果力大何不拔乎。答。佛力實大去就殊爾。非謂力微不能舉重。如世之科可舉萬斤。以萬斤物而不就科。若也就之何謂不舉。眾生罪重不就佛力。若也就之何不能拔。第三問答中乃以自熏

【現代漢語翻譯】此外，『依他起性』（Paratantra-svabhava，緣起性）也包括能和所。『凈業』（śuddha-karma，清凈之業）所依，身和土是能依。無論是能還是所，都是修行的相狀。用光明對治因緣，稱之為『分別自性』（Parikalpita-svabhava，遍計所執性）。前面說三身四土都通於自他，就是這個意思。

二、染分『依他起性』有三部分：首先是標示，其次是『即彼下』的解釋，最後是簡擇。解釋中說，只是被『分別自性』中所有的無明染法所薰染的，『依他起性』就是所顯現的境界。能薰染的法有兩種不同：一是最初，獨頭不覺以為能熏，有轉變顯現境界；二是現在，六識無明以為能熏，有虛妄的境界。然而，這兩種薰染的境界，如果從不同的角度來說，轉變顯現的境界在界外，虛妄的境界在界內。而且，界內的境界如果從迷惑執著的角度來看，就會自認為是真實的。現在從大乘佛教的教義來解釋，這個界內是虛妄的。所顯現的境界既然有兩種不同，所以能薰染的也有根本和末端之分。現在從末端來說，所以六道境界依于見惑和思惑。這個『依他起性』因此屬於六識。界外的『依他起性』才屬於八識。如果不這樣區分，能薰染的無明，其根本和末端本體相同，所顯現的境界都是八識。

三、簡擇有四個部分：首先提問，既然眾生具有清凈自性的作用，在沒有被薰染顯現的時候，難道完全沒有作用嗎？回答的意思是，雖然自己沒有薰染，但被佛所護佑，因為佛的護佑而逐漸修行，難道不是一種作用嗎？如果沒有清凈自性，佛為什麼要護佑呢？說『同體』，一是由於佛和眾生的自性清凈本體相同，佛如果用智慧護佑清凈自性，徹底斷絕染污迷惑，那麼也就是護佑眾生的清凈自性。二是由於諸佛同體，用權巧智慧常常護佑眾生。有力量卻不蒙受護佑的，是佛的力量常在，因為眾生的業障深重而不蒙受拔除。問：業障輕的蒙受拔除，業障重的不能蒙受，難道顯示佛的力量有大小嗎？佛的果地力量很大，為什麼不拔除呢？答：佛的力量確實很大，只是眾生是否接受而已。不是說力量微弱不能舉起重物，就像世間的槓桿可以舉起萬斤重物，如果萬斤重物不放在槓桿上，怎麼能說不能舉起呢？眾生罪業深重不依靠佛力，如果依靠佛力，怎麼不能拔除呢？第三個問答中，乃是以自身薰染。

【English Translation】 Furthermore, Paratantra-svabhava (dependent nature) also encompasses the 'able' and the 'object'. The basis of 'pure karma' (śuddha-karma), the body and land are the 'able' basis. Whether 'able' or 'object', both are aspects of practice. Using light to counter conditions is called Parikalpita-svabhava (imputed nature). The previous statement that the three bodies and four lands all connect to self and other refers to this meaning.

Secondly, the impure aspect of Paratantra-svabhava has three parts: first, the indication; second, the explanation starting with '即彼下'; and third, the selection. The explanation states that only those who are tainted by the ignorance and defilements within Parikalpita-svabhava, Paratantra-svabhava is the manifested realm. There are two different types of defiling dharmas: first, the initial, singular ignorance that acts as the defiler, resulting in the transformation and manifestation of realms; second, the present, six consciousnesses and ignorance that act as the defiler, resulting in illusory realms. However, these two types of defiled realms, from different perspectives, the transformed and manifested realm is outside the realm, while the illusory realm is within the realm. Moreover, if the realm within is viewed from the perspective of delusion and attachment, it will be considered real. Now, interpreting from the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism, this realm within is illusory. Since the manifested realms are of two different types, the defilers also have fundamental and secondary aspects. Now, speaking from the secondary aspect, the realms of the six paths rely on the afflictions of views and thoughts. This Paratantra-svabhava therefore belongs to the six consciousnesses. The Paratantra-svabhava outside the realm belongs to the eighth consciousness. If they are not differentiated, the fundamental and secondary aspects of the defiling ignorance would be the same, and the manifested realms would all be the eighth consciousness.

Thirdly, the selection has four parts: first, the question, since sentient beings possess the function of pure nature, when it is not yet defiled and manifested, is it completely without function? The answer means that although one has not defiled oneself, one is protected by the Buddha, and because of the Buddha's protection, one gradually cultivates, is this not a function? If there were no pure nature, why would the Buddha protect it? Saying 'same essence' is firstly because the pure essence of the Buddha and sentient beings is the same. If the Buddha uses wisdom to protect the pure essence, completely severing defilements and delusions, then it is also protecting the pure essence of sentient beings. Secondly, it is because all Buddhas, being of the same essence, constantly protect sentient beings with skillful wisdom. Those who have the power but do not receive protection, it is because the Buddha's power is always present, but sentient beings' karmic obstacles are too heavy to be removed. Question: Those with light karmic obstacles are removed, while those with heavy karmic obstacles are not removed, does this imply that the Buddha's power has limitations? The Buddha's power in the fruition is great, why not remove them? Answer: The Buddha's power is indeed great, it is just a matter of whether sentient beings accept it or not. It is not that the power is weak and cannot lift heavy objects, just like a lever in the world can lift ten thousand catties of weight. If the ten thousand catties of weight are not placed on the lever, how can it be said that it cannot be lifted? Sentient beings' sins are heavy and they do not rely on the Buddha's power. If they rely on the Buddha's power, how can they not be removed? In the third question and answer, it is about self-defilement.

為答。是故且云更不有能若耶佛護。為言此凈亦有力用。故涅槃中佛于重罪眾生偏加愍念。斯由眾生本有性凈。第四問答。答中意者法不自現必假熏成。若眾生在染全無熏凈之能。諸佛在凈而有薰染之德。言薰染者即是悲願。現入六道示有三毒。即此悲願薰染性也。問。用假熏起。何須復云不斷性惡。答。若無性惡熏乃不成。問。若依熏起。何云不假功用如鑒現像。答。法界法爾。或從事辨理必假悲願熏性方現。或從理辨事不藉外緣皆從性起。或事理不二。或事理雙亡。隨緣異說悉非思量。文云故大聖舍之以表知機者。乃知機之未可發也。就法論舍雖曰佛舍于機。功歸論捨實是機舍于佛。例如事理即離之名。

三明分別性四。初標列。二所言下隨釋。文自為二。初清凈分別性二。初標。二即彼下釋二。初出法體自證之體。平等真常名相泯然。不可分別為他起用。若說自證平等性體。說即分別。何況示為六道四生。一切名相豈非分別。文云一切種智慧知世諦至六道四生者。此以世間法為用也。依于內證至示于未聞者。此以出世法為用也。一切種智者。若以道種與一切即故屬中道。今文別在一切俗事種種差別。又三智俱用名一切種。亦可據體即中道智。如雲佛眼觀六道生。二此義下釋名義二。初難起。二謂雖下正釋

【現代漢語翻譯】回答說：『因此才說沒有誰能像耶佛（如來佛的護法）。』這是說這種清凈也具有力量和作用。所以在《涅槃經》中，佛陀對於罪孽深重的眾生格外憐憫。這是因為眾生本性具有清凈的緣故。這是第四個問答。回答中的意思是，法不能自己顯現，必須藉助熏習才能成就。如果眾生處於染污之中，完全沒有熏習清凈的能力，而諸佛處於清凈之中，卻具有熏習染污的德行。所說的薰染，就是悲願。諸佛示現進入六道，表現出貪嗔癡三毒，這就是悲願薰染本性的體現。問：既然要藉助熏習才能生起，為什麼還要說不斷絕本性中的惡？答：如果沒有本性中的惡，熏習就不能成就。問：如果依靠熏習才能生起，為什麼又說不需要功用，就像鏡子顯現影像一樣？答：這是法界的自然規律。或者從事上辨別道理，必須藉助悲願熏習本性才能顯現；或者從理上辨別事情，不需要外在的因緣，一切都從本性生起。或者事和理不是二元對立的，或者事和理都超越了概念。隨著因緣的不同，說法也不同，這些都不是思慮可以理解的。經文中說：『所以大聖捨棄了它，是爲了表明知道時機的人。』由此可知時機是不可輕易發動的。就法而言，雖然說是佛捨棄了時機，但功勞歸於論舍，實際上是時機捨棄了佛。例如，事和理即是相離的名稱。

三、辨明分別性，分為四個部分。首先是標明列出，其次是『所言下』隨文解釋。經文字身份為兩部分。首先是清凈分別性，分為兩個部分。首先是標明，其次是『即彼下』解釋，分為兩個部分。首先是闡述法體，即自證的本體，平等真常，名相泯滅，不可分別，是爲了發起利他的作用。如果說自證的平等性體，說本身就是一種分別，更何況示現為六道四生，一切名相難道不是分別嗎？經文中說：『一切種智慧知世諦至六道四生者』，這是以世間法為作用。『依于內證至示于未聞者』，這是以出世法為作用。一切種智，如果以道種與一切相即，就屬於中道。現在經文特別強調一切俗事種種差別。又三種智慧同時運用，稱為一切種智。也可以根據本體就是中道智，如經云：『佛眼觀六道生』。其次是『此義下』解釋名義，分為兩個部分。首先是提出疑問，其次是『謂雖下』正式解釋。

【English Translation】 The answer is: 'Therefore, it is said that no one can be like Yefo (a protector of the Tathagata).' This means that this purity also has power and function. Therefore, in the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha shows extra compassion to sentient beings with heavy sins. This is because sentient beings inherently possess purity. This is the fourth question and answer. The meaning in the answer is that the Dharma cannot manifest itself; it must be accomplished through cultivation. If sentient beings are in defilement, they have no ability to cultivate purity at all, while Buddhas are in purity but have the virtue of cultivating defilement. What is called cultivation is compassion and vows. The Buddhas manifest entering the six realms, showing the three poisons of greed, anger, and ignorance, which is the embodiment of compassion and vows cultivating the nature. Question: Since it needs to be aroused by cultivation, why do you still say that the evil in nature is not cut off? Answer: If there is no evil in nature, cultivation cannot be accomplished. Question: If it relies on cultivation to arise, why is it said that it does not require effort, just like a mirror showing images? Answer: This is the natural law of the Dharma realm. Or, distinguishing the principle from the matter, it must rely on compassion and vows to cultivate the nature before it can manifest; or, distinguishing the matter from the principle, it does not need external causes, and everything arises from the nature. Or, matter and principle are not dualistic, or matter and principle both transcend concepts. Depending on the different conditions, the statements are also different, and these are not understandable by thinking. The scripture says: 'Therefore, the Great Sage abandons it to show those who know the opportunity.' From this, it can be known that the opportunity cannot be easily initiated. In terms of the Dharma, although it is said that the Buddha abandons the opportunity, the credit goes to the discussion of abandonment; in reality, it is the opportunity that abandons the Buddha. For example, matter and principle are names that are separate.

Third, distinguishing the nature of discrimination, divided into four parts. First, the listing is marked, and second, the 'Suoyanxia' follows the interpretation. The scripture itself is divided into two parts. The first is the pure discrimination nature, divided into two parts. The first is the mark, and the second is the 'Jibixia' explanation, divided into two parts. The first is to elaborate the Dharma body, that is, the body of self-realization, equality, true constancy, the annihilation of names and forms, and the inability to distinguish, in order to initiate altruistic functions. If you say the equal nature of self-realization, saying itself is a distinction, let alone showing the six realms and four births, aren't all names and forms distinctions? The scripture says: 'Everything that knows the world to the six realms and four births', this is the function of the worldly law. 'According to the inner certificate to show the unheard', this is the function of the world law. All kinds of wisdom, if the seed of the Tao is the same as everything, it belongs to the middle way. Now the scripture emphasizes all kinds of differences in all kinds of things. Also, the simultaneous use of three kinds of wisdom is called all kinds of wisdom. It can also be based on the body is the middle way wisdom, such as the cloud: 'The Buddha's eyes see the six realms'. The second is 'Ciyixia' to explain the name, divided into two parts. The first is to raise questions, and the second is 'Weisuixia' formal explanation.

二。初就應。不為世染不作功用者。悉從性德故名清凈。即此清凈平等覺性。隨於事境起分別用。故此勝用從實相立。二又復下就機。令他清凈者。令于眾生亦得此性。為他分別者。為字平聲。以佛德用為生分別。二染濁分別性三。初標。二即彼下釋。所執虛相為依他性。執虛為實為分別性。文云互相生者。以由執實分別性生虛狀依他性。須由虛狀依他性生執實分別性。如今凡夫于根塵上起執實情。作極惡業熏于本識。命終之後現地獄境。所現地獄其體無實。即是虛相。此由實情生虛相也。雖是虛相。以妄情故見此地獄而為實事。此復由虛生實情也。三問下料揀。答中雲雖無異體相生而虛實有殊者。無異之言。一者以妄對真。分別依他同是妄法。故無異體。自就妄說。六識分別。八識依他。豈無異體。二者自就二性克實論體。分別無體執虛為實故無異體。若隨名辨體。分別乃以事實為體。依他乃以虛相為體。豈無異體。三者見思能執屬分別性。六道虛相為依他性。此之虛實同是界內六識妄法。故無異體。無明執實屬分別性。二土虛相為依他性。此之虛實同是界外八識因果。故無異體。若取能執所執不同。豈無異體。問。但可六識執於八識虛相為實。如何界內界外各云虛實。答。義有對各。無以對論而難各辨。問。且分

別者執虛為實。如何分其界內外別。答。今以鑑明形像喻之。若執明虛而為像實。此如界外。若執像虛而為形實。此如界內。良由界內迷於八識之像。是虛執為形實。界外迷於中道。明虛執為像實。故枝末者但迷於像屬迷事惑。其根本者由迷於明屬迷理惑。枝末惑破但亡執實坐在像虛。于彼當分曰知真空。若望中道空還成障。根本惑破能亡像實遂見明虛。於此破惑始窮源極。非此區揀法理不明。其實圓宗三性一體。

三更有下。再約二義以示三性。初義者。真實性義不異於前。但依他性與前不同。前以染凈二種虛相。依于染凈二種能熏。即事依事。或以虛相依染凈性。即事依理。今以性體依于染凈二種能熏。即理依事。文云所現虛相果報名分別性者。亦不同前。前分別者執虛為實。今分別者直從虛相。即前依他為今分別。由今以理為依他故。事惟分別。第二義者。文云就依他中分別為三性者。由真實性有通有別。通則該於性體性用障出障真。別取性體並出障真。今由上文別取出障真為實性。故在障真屬依他性。因而得云更有一義。即取在障真為實性。分別性者亦不同前。前以染凈能熏之因為依他中之所依。故是以染凈能熏之因俱屬依他。但以染凈所熏果報為分別性。今文若以染凈言之。今別在染。向即是通。若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有人執著于虛幻的事物，認為它們是真實的。如何區分這種執著的界內和界外呢？回答：現在用鏡子照出影像來比喻。如果執著于鏡子的明亮是虛幻的，卻認為影像才是真實的，這就好比界外。如果執著于影像的虛幻，卻認為形體才是真實的，這就好比界內。實在是因為界內的人迷惑於八識所顯現的影像，把虛幻的影像執著為真實的形體。界外的人迷惑于中道，把明亮的虛幻執著為真實的影像。所以，執著于枝末的人只是迷惑于影像，屬於迷惑於事相。執著于根本的人是由於迷惑于明亮，屬於迷惑于理體。破除枝末的迷惑，只是消除執著真實，安住在影像的虛幻上。對於他們所理解的範圍來說，就稱爲了解了真空。如果從（究竟的）中道來看，這種空反而成了障礙。破除根本的迷惑，就能消除對影像真實的執著，從而見到明亮的虛幻。在這裡破除迷惑，才算窮盡了根源。如果不是這樣區分，法理就不能明白。實際上，圓宗的三性是一體的。更進一步說明。再用兩種意義來闡釋三性。第一種意義是：真實性的意義與前面相同。只是依他性與前面不同。前面是用染污和清凈兩種虛幻的相，依存於染污和清凈兩種能熏習的力量，這是事依於事。或者用虛幻的相，依存於染污和清凈的自性，這是事依于理。現在是用自性本體依存於染污和清凈兩種能熏習的力量，這是理依於事。文中說『所顯現的虛幻之相，果報之名，分別性』，也與前面不同。前面所說的『分別』是指執著虛幻為真實。現在所說的『分別』是直接從虛幻的相來說的，也就是把前面的依他性作為現在的分別性。因為現在是用理作為依他性，所以事就只是分別。第二種意義是，文中說『就依他性中分別出三性』，是因為真實性有共通和不共通之處。共通之處包括自性本體、自性作用、出離障礙的（真如）、未出離障礙的（真如）。不共通之處是選取自性本體和出離障礙的（真如）。現在由於上文特別選取了出離障礙的（真如）作為實性，所以在障礙中的（真如）就屬於依他性。因此才說『還有一種意義』，就是選取在障礙中的（真如）作為實性。分別性也與前面不同。前面是用染污和清凈的能熏習的因作為依他性中的所依，所以染污和清凈的能熏習的因都屬於依他性，只是用染污和清凈所熏習的果報作為分別性。現在文中如果用染污和清凈來說，現在特別指染污，之前的說法就是共通的。如果

【English Translation】 English version: Some people cling to the illusory as real. How can we distinguish between the internal and external boundaries of this clinging? The answer is: Let's use the analogy of a mirror reflecting an image. If one clings to the brightness of the mirror as illusory, yet considers the image as real, this is like being outside the boundary. If one clings to the illusion of the image, yet considers the form as real, this is like being within the boundary. It is truly because those within the boundary are deluded by the images manifested by the eight consciousnesses, clinging to the illusory images as real forms. Those outside the boundary are deluded by the Middle Way, clinging to the bright illusion as a real image. Therefore, those who cling to the branches and leaves are only deluded by the image, belonging to delusion about phenomena. Those who cling to the root are deluded by the brightness, belonging to delusion about principle. Breaking through the delusion of the branches and leaves only eliminates the clinging to reality, settling in the illusion of the image. Within their understanding, this is called understanding emptiness (Śūnyatā). However, from the perspective of the (ultimate) Middle Way, this emptiness becomes an obstacle. Breaking through the delusion of the root eliminates the clinging to the reality of the image, thereby seeing the bright illusion. Breaking through delusion here is considered to have exhausted the source. If it were not distinguished in this way, the principles of Dharma would not be clear. In reality, the three natures of the Perfect Teaching (Yuanzong) are one. To explain further. Let's use two more meanings to elucidate the three natures. The first meaning is: The meaning of the Perfect Nature (Pariniṣpanna) is the same as before. Only the Dependent Nature (Paratantra) is different from before. Previously, the two illusory aspects of defilement and purity were dependent on the two powers of conditioning of defilement and purity, which is phenomenon depending on phenomenon. Or the illusory aspect depends on the nature of defilement and purity, which is phenomenon depending on principle. Now, the nature of the essence depends on the two powers of conditioning of defilement and purity, which is principle depending on phenomenon. The text says, 'The manifested illusory aspect, the name of the result, the Imaginary Nature (Parikalpita)', is also different from before. The 'imaginary' mentioned earlier refers to clinging to the illusory as real. The 'imaginary' mentioned now refers directly to the illusory aspect, which is taking the previous Dependent Nature as the current Imaginary Nature. Because the principle is now used as the Dependent Nature, the phenomenon is only imaginary. The second meaning is, the text says, 'Within the Dependent Nature, the three natures are distinguished', because the Perfect Nature has common and uncommon aspects. The common aspects include the nature of the essence, the function of the nature, the (Tathātā) that has emerged from obstacles, and the (Tathātā) that has not emerged from obstacles. The uncommon aspects are selecting the nature of the essence and the (Tathātā) that has emerged from obstacles. Now, because the text above specifically selects the (Tathātā) that has emerged from obstacles as the Perfect Nature, the (Tathātā) within the obstacles belongs to the Dependent Nature. Therefore, it is said, 'There is another meaning', which is selecting the (Tathātā) within the obstacles as the Perfect Nature. The Imaginary Nature is also different from before. Previously, the cause of the conditioning of defilement and purity was used as the dependent within the Dependent Nature, so the cause of the conditioning of defilement and purity all belong to the Dependent Nature, only the result conditioned by defilement and purity is used as the Imaginary Nature. Now, if the text uses defilement and purity, it specifically refers to defilement, and the previous statement is common. If

以能熏所熏言之。今通因果皆為分別。向卻成別。二性和合無二即是依他性者。以事依理。事是依他。以理依事。理是依他。是故今文一依他言該此事理。不同前文或別在事或別在理。

四料揀有二。初約意識與五識辨。此則未辨五根意識並六意識。次則方辨。是故料揀乃有二重。初問答者。良由大小宗計不同。以小乘中有許五識亦起三心。故知五識各各自能分別一塵生受想行。大乘不爾。故五識者但能得塵未起分別。才起分別即屬意識。今問識是識別。若不分別何名五識。答。祇由大乘五識與意起非前後。是故五識分別之處即是意識。問。雖無前後必須五識與于意識有不同相。方可得云五識得塵不生分別。答。若辨異者亦可得云始眼得色。與余塵別。識別義通。各得塵處亦是識別。但不同於自就色塵分別物像。乃至青黃長短好惡。故異意識。次問答者。亦由小乘有計意識五六殊分。今且約于眼根見煙以示其義。何者。由勝義根引生眼識見於前塵。分別是煙。屬現量境。既見於煙。比知有火。即眼意識識比量境。煙境雖謝緣念即存。斯乃屬於第六意識緣法塵中落謝色塵。故此宗計乃有二義與大乘殊。一者眼識分別是煙。亦能引起受等三心。異於大乘眼識但能得於前塵。才起分別此是于煙即屬意識。此如初重答文

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：從能熏和所熏的角度來說，現在貫通因和果都是分別。朝向和背離造成差別。兩種性質和合無二，就是依他性（事物依賴其他條件而存在的性質）。從事相依賴理體來說，事相是依他。從理體依賴事相來說，理體是依他。因此，現在的經文用一個『依他』就概括了事相和理體，不同於前面的經文或者分別在於事相，或者分別在於理體。

四料揀有兩重含義。第一重是關於意識和五識的辨析。這裡還沒有辨析五根、意識以及六意識。第二重才開始辨析。因此，料揀有兩重含義。第一重問答是由於小乘和大乘的觀點不同。小乘中有人認為五識也能產生三心（受、想、行）。因此認為五識各自能夠分別一塵，產生受、想、行。大乘不這樣認為。大乘認為五識只能得到塵境，不會產生分別。一旦產生分別，就屬於意識。現在問：識是識別，如果不分別，為什麼叫五識？回答：正因為大乘認為五識和意識的生起並非有先後順序，所以五識分別之處就是意識。問：即使沒有先後順序，也必須五識和意識有不同的相狀，才能說五識得到塵境而不產生分別。回答：如果要辨別差異，也可以說最初眼根得到色塵，與其他塵境不同。識別的含義是相通的，各自得到塵境也是識別。但不同於自己就色塵分別物像，乃至青黃長短好惡，所以不同於意識。第二重問答也是因為小乘有人認為意識分為五六種。現在暫且用眼根看到煙來闡釋這個道理。為什麼呢？因為勝義根（最真實的根）引生眼識，看到前面的塵境，分別那是煙，屬於現量境（直接經驗的境界）。既然看到了煙，推比得知有火，這就是眼意識識別比量境（通過推理得到的境界）。煙的境界雖然已經過去，但緣念仍然存在，這屬於第六意識緣法塵中落謝的色塵。所以小乘的觀點有兩種與大乘不同。一是眼識分別那是煙，也能引起受等三心，不同於大乘眼識只能得到前面的塵境，一旦產生分別，『這是煙』就屬於意識。這就像第一重回答中的內容。

【English Translation】 English version: Speaking from the perspective of the 'able to perfume' (能熏) and the 'perfumed' (所熏), now both cause and effect are considered differentiations. Orientation and deviation create differences. The union of two natures without duality is 'paratantra nature' (依他性) (the nature of things existing dependent on other conditions). From the perspective of phenomena relying on principle, phenomena are paratantra. From the perspective of principle relying on phenomena, principle is paratantra. Therefore, the current text uses one 'paratantra' to encompass both phenomena and principle, unlike the previous text which either distinguishes between phenomena or distinguishes between principle.

There are two levels of 'four examinations' (四料揀). The first is about distinguishing between consciousness (意識) and the five senses (五識). Here, there is no distinction between the five roots (五根), consciousness, and the sixth consciousness (六意識). The second level begins to distinguish. Therefore, the 'four examinations' have two levels. The first question and answer is due to the different views of the Small Vehicle (小乘) and the Great Vehicle (大乘). Some in the Small Vehicle believe that the five senses can also generate the three mental activities (受、想、行) (feeling, thought, and volition). Therefore, they believe that each of the five senses can individually distinguish a single dust, generating feeling, thought, and volition. The Great Vehicle does not believe this. The Great Vehicle believes that the five senses can only obtain the dust realm and do not generate differentiation. Once differentiation arises, it belongs to consciousness. Now the question is: 'Consciousness is recognition. If there is no differentiation, why is it called the five senses?' The answer is: 'Precisely because the Great Vehicle believes that the arising of the five senses and consciousness is not sequential, the place where the five senses differentiate is consciousness.' The question is: 'Even if there is no sequence, there must be different characteristics between the five senses and consciousness in order to say that the five senses obtain the dust realm without generating differentiation.' The answer is: 'If you want to distinguish the differences, you can also say that the eye root initially obtains the color dust, which is different from other dust realms. The meaning of recognition is interconnected, and obtaining the dust realm is also recognition. However, it is different from oneself differentiating objects from the color dust, even to the point of blue, yellow, long, short, good, and bad, so it is different from consciousness.' The second question and answer is also because some in the Small Vehicle believe that consciousness is divided into five or six types. Now, let's use the example of the eye root seeing smoke to explain this principle. Why? Because the 'supreme root' (勝義根) (the most real root) gives rise to eye consciousness, seeing the dust realm in front, differentiating that it is smoke, which belongs to the 'present quantity realm' (現量境) (the realm of direct experience). Since smoke is seen, it is inferred that there is fire, which is the eye consciousness recognizing the 'inferential realm' (比量境) (the realm obtained through inference). Although the realm of smoke has passed, the memory still exists, which belongs to the color dust that has fallen away in the sixth consciousness's connection with the 'dharma dust' (法塵). Therefore, the Small Vehicle's view has two differences from the Great Vehicle. First, the eye consciousness differentiates that it is smoke and can also cause the three mental activities such as feeling, which is different from the Great Vehicle's view that the eye consciousness can only obtain the dust realm in front, and once differentiation arises, 'this is smoke' belongs to consciousness. This is like the content in the first answer.

已明。二者小宗計五意識識比量境。第六意識緣落謝塵。是故分於二意識異。不同大乘緣現五塵及落謝塵總名意識。不分五六。此如今答。問。輔行何故不約大乘卻分五六。而文乃云五識五意識未屬煩惱在無記故。答。若從體說祇一意識。以體從根故分五六。得此義旨大小無妨。所以荊溪通明大小。是故亦云。若依經部大乘法相。同時意識緣現五塵及落謝塵。又復須知不獨五意體同第六。祇如五識體亦全同。揀境及心惟觀識念。從體通取即是觀於五識五意並第六識。是故諸識皆非所揀。故輔行雲。今初且觀諸識為境從根別取。故惟第六在初得觀。其餘五識歷緣方明。人多昧彼因便云耳。　三上來下結。

大章第三止觀體狀者。前來示解。今正立行。體即體質。狀即狀㒵。乃明止觀當體狀㒵即無塵智。約於三性而示其相。然三性名義性相二宗通皆取用。各有建立即離殊分。今附山家先陳大旨。法界究極不得而名。但為眾生無以曉於法界之極。故強目為平等一性。故荊溪云。本謂一性。然此一性尚非數辨豈可形求。圓妙難思無法不具。以具迷故。從性雖一從迷且殊。迷性無相而為虛相。斯由無明即是八識名依他性。迷性虛相而為實相。斯由見思即是六識名分別性。八識因果依他性者界外事也。六識因果分別性者界內

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：已明。二者小乘宗認為五意識的識比量境（指五種感官意識通過比較和推理來認識對像）不同。第六意識緣于落謝塵（指過去已消失的塵境）。因此，將第六意識與前五意識區分開來。這與大乘佛教不同，大乘認為同時緣于顯現的五塵（指色、聲、香、味、觸五種感官對像）和落謝塵的，總稱為意識，不區分五六。這是如今的回答。問：輔行（《止觀輔行傳弘決》）為什麼不按照大乘的觀點，卻要區分五六識？而且文中說五識和五意識未屬於煩惱，屬於無記（指非善非惡的狀態）？答：如果從本體上說，只有一個意識。因為本體隨根而生，所以分為五六識。理解了這個意義，大小乘都沒有妨礙。所以荊溪（湛然）通達地說明大小乘。因此也說，如果依照經部（說一切有部）和大乘法相宗的觀點，同時意識緣于顯現的五塵和落謝塵。又要知道，不僅僅是五意的本體與第六識相同，就像前五識的本體也完全相同。選擇所緣境和心時，只觀察識念。從本體上普遍理解，就是觀察五識、五意和第六識。因此，所有的識都不是被排除的對象。所以輔行說：『現在開始先觀察諸識作為所緣境，從根上分別選取。』因此只有第六識在最初可以被觀察，其餘五識需要經歷緣境才能明白。人們大多不明白這個原因，就隨便說了。三、總結上文。大章第三，止觀的體狀：前面已經展示了解釋，現在正式建立修行。體就是體質，狀就是形狀。就是說明止觀的當體狀貌就是無塵智（指沒有煩惱污染的智慧）。通過三性（指遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）來展示它的相狀。然而三性的名稱和意義，性相二宗（法相宗和三論宗）都採用，各有建立，即有細微的差別。現在依附山家（天臺宗），先陳述大意。法界的究竟無法用語言來命名，只是爲了眾生無法了解法界的究竟，所以勉強稱之為平等一性。所以荊溪說：『本來稱為一性。』然而這一性尚且不是數量可以分辨的，怎麼可以用形狀來尋求呢？圓滿微妙難以思議，沒有哪種法不具備。因為具備卻迷惑，所以從性來說雖然是一，從迷惑來說卻有差別。迷惑性而沒有相，卻顯現為虛相，這是由於無明，也就是八識，名為依他性（指依賴其他條件而生起的性質）。迷惑性中的虛相而執著為實相，這是由於見思惑（指錯誤的見解和思想），也就是六識，名為分別性（指通過分別來認識對象的性質）。八識的因果屬於依他性，是界外之事。六識的因果屬於分別性，是界內之事。

【English Translation】 English version: Understood. The Lesser Vehicle (Hinayana) considers the object of cognition (境, jing) of the five sense consciousnesses to be different based on the 'cognition-by-comparison' (識比量, shi bi liang) principle. The sixth consciousness is conditioned by 'fallen and withered dust' (落謝塵, luo xie chen) [referring to past, vanished sense objects]. Therefore, the sixth consciousness is distinguished from the preceding five. This differs from the Mahayana view, which considers the simultaneous conditioning by both the 'manifested five dusts' (現五塵, xian wu chen) [the five sense objects: form, sound, smell, taste, and touch] and 'fallen and withered dust' as simply 'consciousness' (意識, yishi), without differentiating between the five and the sixth. This is the current answer. Question: Why does 'Fu Xing' (輔行) [referring to 'Annotations on the Great Concentration and Insight'] not follow the Mahayana perspective and instead distinguish between the five and sixth consciousnesses? Furthermore, the text states that the five consciousnesses and the five sense consciousnesses do not belong to afflictions (煩惱, fannao) and are categorized as 'non-specified' (無記, wuji) [neither good nor evil]? Answer: If speaking from the perspective of the essence (體, ti), there is only one consciousness. Because the essence arises from the roots (根, gen) [the sense organs], it is divided into the five and sixth consciousnesses. Understanding this meaning, there is no conflict between the Lesser and Greater Vehicles. Therefore, Jingxi (荊溪) [Zhanran (湛然)] comprehensively explains both. Thus, it is also said that according to the Sutra School (經部, jing bu) [Sarvastivada] and the Mahayana Yogacara (法相宗, faxiang zong), the consciousness simultaneously conditions the manifested five dusts and the fallen and withered dust. Moreover, it should be known that not only is the essence of the five 'intentions' (意, yi) [manas] the same as the sixth consciousness, but the essence of the preceding five consciousnesses is also completely the same. When selecting the object of cognition and the mind, only observe the consciousness-thought (識念, shinian). Comprehending universally from the essence means observing the five consciousnesses, the five 'intentions,' and the sixth consciousness. Therefore, all consciousnesses are not objects to be excluded. Thus, 'Fu Xing' says: 'Now, let us begin by observing the consciousnesses as objects of cognition, selecting them separately from the roots.' Therefore, only the sixth consciousness can be observed initially; the remaining five consciousnesses require experiencing objects to become clear. Most people do not understand this reason and speak carelessly. Three, summarizing the above. Great Chapter Three: The Substance and Appearance of 'Stopping and Seeing' (止觀, zhiguan): The explanation has been presented previously; now, the practice is formally established. 'Substance' (體, ti) is the essence, and 'Appearance' (狀, zhuang) is the form. This explains that the very substance and appearance of 'Stopping and Seeing' is 'dust-free wisdom' (無塵智, wuchen zhi) [wisdom free from the defilements of afflictions]. Its characteristics are shown through the 'three natures' (三性, sanxing) [the three natures: the completely imputed nature (遍計所執性, bianji suozhi xing), the dependently arisen nature (依他起性, yita qi xing), and the perfectly established nature (圓成實性, yuancheng shi xing)]. However, both the 'Nature' (性宗, xing zong) [Sanlun School] and 'Appearance' (相宗, xiang zong) [Yogacara School] schools adopt the names and meanings of the three natures, each with its own establishment, resulting in subtle differences. Now, relying on the 'Mountain School' (山家, shanjia) [Tiantai School], the main idea is presented first. The ultimate of the Dharma Realm (法界, fajie) cannot be named, but because sentient beings cannot understand the ultimate of the Dharma Realm, it is forcibly called the 'nature of equality and oneness' (平等一性, pingdeng yixing). Therefore, Jingxi says: 'Originally called the one nature.' However, this one nature cannot even be distinguished by numbers; how can it be sought through form? Perfect and subtle, difficult to conceive, there is no Dharma that it does not possess. Because it possesses but is deluded, although it is one from the perspective of nature, it is different from the perspective of delusion. Deluding the nature, which has no form, manifests as illusory form; this is due to ignorance (無明, wuming), which is the eighth consciousness, called the 'dependently arisen nature' (依他性, yita xing) [the nature that arises depending on other conditions]. Grasping the illusory form in the nature as real form is due to the afflictions of views and thoughts (見思惑, jiansi huo) [incorrect views and thoughts], which is the sixth consciousness, called the 'discriminating nature' (分別性, fenbie xing) [the nature that recognizes objects through discrimination]. The cause and effect of the eighth consciousness belong to the dependently arisen nature, which is a matter beyond the realm [of desire, form, and formlessness]. The cause and effect of the sixth consciousness belong to the discriminating nature, which is a matter within the realm.

事也。復迷其事不能知曉名塵沙惑。以識言之實該六八。一期對惑在七識也。於一迷念惑既有三。其所迷也豈可云一。類荊溪云。性指三障是故具三。見思之惑迷虛為實失於真空。由是故以所迷一性名曰真空。以迷塵沙失俗能諦。由是故以所迷一性名曰俗諦。無明迷性而為虛相失其實相。由是故以所迷一性名曰中道。性體非三體。三對迷說三。其能迷者三惑妄境即屬分別依他二性。其所迷者三諦真境即真實性。若指三惑即是三諦。斯亦可云性指三惑是故具三。又能迷二性體是俗事。所迷真實體是空中。又前之二性既是無明故屬空假。后之真實即當中道。既以三惑迷三諦性。達迷見性當修止觀無分別智。此智即性。而雖一一性既因迷而有三。此智亦因性而不一。類荊溪云。修從性成。成三法爾。以此之智止於分別妄執之實而見真空。故此之智乃無實塵。即空觀也。以此之智照了妄實識彼妄執。故此之智即屬界內之假觀也。以此之智照了依他非有而有。識彼虛相故。此之智即屬界外之假觀也。以此之智止於依他虛相之相。有即非有而見中實。故此之智乃能無于無明塵相。即中觀也。以此三觀觀二性三惑。達真實三諦。故為分別依他二性修止觀也。其真實性修止觀者。以俱亡智見於當念天然性體。三諦即一諦名之為止。以俱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這就是『事』。再次迷惑于這些『事』而不能理解，就叫做『塵沙惑』（對世間萬法的迷惑）。從認識論的角度來說，它實際上涵蓋了第六識和第八識。如果針對迷惑來說，它存在於第七識中。在一個迷惑的念頭中，就已經包含了三種迷惑。那麼，它所迷惑的對象怎麼能說只有一個呢？類似於荊溪大師所說：『性』指的是三種障礙，所以具備三種。見思惑（對現象和概念的迷惑）迷惑于虛幻，將其視為真實，從而失去了真空（事物本性的空性）。因此，將所迷惑的『一性』稱為『真空』。迷惑于塵沙惑，失去了對世俗的正確認識。因此，將所迷惑的『一性』稱為『俗諦』（世俗的真理）。無明（根本的迷惑）迷惑于自性，產生了虛幻的現象，失去了真實相。因此，將所迷惑的『一性』稱為『中道』（不偏不倚的真理）。自性的本體不是三個獨立的本體，而是針對迷惑而說的三種。能迷惑的是三種迷惑和虛妄的境界，屬於分別性和依他性。所迷惑的是三種真理的境界，即真實性。如果指的是三種迷惑，那就是三種真理。也可以說『性』指的是三種迷惑，所以具備三種。能迷惑的二性（分別性和依他性）的本體是世俗之事，所迷惑的真實本體是空性。前面的二性既然是無明，所以屬於空和假。後面的真實性就屬於中道。既然用三種迷惑來迷惑三種真理的自性，那麼要達到對迷惑的認識，就應當修習止觀（禪定和智慧），獲得無分別智（沒有分別的智慧）。這種智慧就是自性。雖然每一種自性都因為迷惑而有三種，但這種智慧也因為自性而不單一。類似於荊溪大師所說：『修習從自性而成，成就三種是自然而然的。』用這種智慧止息對分別妄執的執著，從而見到真空。所以這種智慧沒有真實的塵埃，這就是空觀（對空性的觀察）。用這種智慧照亮虛妄的真實，認識到那些虛妄的執著，所以這種智慧屬於界內的假觀（對現象的暫時存在的觀察）。用這種智慧照亮依他性，認識到它非有而有，認識到那些虛幻的現象，所以這種智慧屬於界外的假觀。用這種智慧止息對依他性虛幻現象的執著，認識到有即非有，從而見到中道的真實。所以這種智慧能夠消除無明的塵埃相，這就是中觀（對中道的觀察）。用這三種觀照來觀照二性和三種迷惑，達到真實的三種真理。所以要對分別性和依他性修習止觀。對真實性修習止觀，就是要同時消除智慧和見解，從而在當下念頭中見到天然的自性本體。三諦（三種真理）即是一諦，稱之為『止』。同時

【English Translation】 English version: This is 'the matter'. Again, being deluded by these 'matters' and unable to understand them is called 'afflictions like dust and sand' (delusions about all phenomena in the world). From an epistemological perspective, it actually encompasses the sixth and eighth consciousnesses. If speaking in terms of delusion, it exists in the seventh consciousness. Within a single deluded thought, there are already three types of delusion. So, how can it be said that there is only one object being deluded? Similar to what Master Jingxi said: 'Nature' refers to the three obstacles, therefore possessing three. The afflictions of views and emotions (delusions about phenomena and concepts) are deluded by illusion, taking it as reality, thereby losing the emptiness of true nature (the emptiness of the inherent nature of things). Therefore, the 'one nature' that is being deluded is called 'emptiness'. Being deluded by afflictions like dust and sand, one loses the correct understanding of the mundane. Therefore, the 'one nature' that is being deluded is called 'conventional truth' (the truth of the mundane world). Ignorance (fundamental delusion) is deluded by self-nature, giving rise to illusory phenomena, and losing the true form. Therefore, the 'one nature' that is being deluded is called 'the Middle Way' (the truth of non-duality). The essence of self-nature is not three independent entities, but three spoken in response to delusion. What can delude are the three afflictions and illusory realms, belonging to the discriminated nature and the dependent nature. What is being deluded are the realms of the three truths, which is true nature. If referring to the three afflictions, then that is the three truths. It can also be said that 'nature' refers to the three afflictions, therefore possessing three. The essence of the two natures (discriminated nature and dependent nature) that can delude is mundane matters, and the true essence that is being deluded is emptiness. Since the preceding two natures are ignorance, they belong to emptiness and illusion. The subsequent true nature belongs to the Middle Way. Since the self-nature of the three truths is deluded by the three afflictions, then to achieve understanding of delusion, one should cultivate cessation and contemplation (samatha-vipassana), and attain non-discriminating wisdom (wisdom without discrimination). This wisdom is self-nature. Although each self-nature has three because of delusion, this wisdom is also not singular because of self-nature. Similar to what Master Jingxi said: 'Cultivation arises from self-nature, and the accomplishment of the three is natural.' Using this wisdom to cease attachment to discrimination and false clinging, thereby seeing emptiness. So this wisdom has no real dust, which is the contemplation of emptiness (observing emptiness). Using this wisdom to illuminate illusory reality, recognizing those false attachments, so this wisdom belongs to the provisional contemplation within the realm (observing the temporary existence of phenomena). Using this wisdom to illuminate the dependent nature, recognizing that it exists without inherent existence, recognizing those illusory phenomena, so this wisdom belongs to the provisional contemplation outside the realm. Using this wisdom to cease attachment to the illusory phenomena of the dependent nature, recognizing that existence is non-existence, thereby seeing the reality of the Middle Way. So this wisdom can eliminate the dust-like appearance of ignorance, which is the contemplation of the Middle Way. Using these three contemplations to contemplate the two natures and the three afflictions, attaining the true three truths. Therefore, one should cultivate cessation and contemplation on the discriminated nature and the dependent nature. To cultivate cessation and contemplation on true nature is to simultaneously eliminate wisdom and views, thereby seeing the natural essence of self-nature in the present moment. The three truths are one truth, called 'cessation'.

照智達于當念天然性用。一諦即三諦。名之為觀。類智者云。自行三諦即一諦。名之為實。化他一諦即三諦。名之為權。良由入實為止。出權為觀。取用法門名目雖異。所用之道實無有殊。為此意故故今記焉。問。三諦既是天然性德。何云因於三惑有三。答。智者云。理實無名。對無明稱法性。中論云。但為引導眾生。故以假名說。離有無二邊。故名為中道。祇由天然本性具此。因惑有三並具引生。立三假名。是故得云夫三諦者天然之性德。問。實性止觀方辨三諦三一相即。應前二性非即一耶。答。說雖次第。意無前後。問。若欲修習如何指心。答。既於前章已開聞解。今修止觀豈可殊途。是以解惑同源皆全藏體。真妄不二無非凈心。能所一如三性齊致。能觀之觀尚即惑焉。豈于所觀諦理殊隔。是故一塵一念無不三一。當處難思。即一而三即三而一。不前不後非縱非橫。此之圓解。迷生理是。名字知是。觀行行是。乃至妙覺究竟究是。但以隨冥修習有別。若依前二進成第三。故分別性惟修空假。其依他性惟修假中。至真實性空假中三三一圓備。故前二性似修勝別。其真實性全同一心。若唸唸中三番並學。祇如分別觀即是假。止即是空。當處不二即是于中。三雖不同祇是一念。即一而三名之為觀。即三而一名之為止。分

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本照智通達于當下念頭的天然自性作用。一諦（ekatva-satya，真諦）即是三諦（tri-satya，空諦、假諦、中諦）。這稱之為『觀』。類似於智者所說：自行修習三諦即是一諦，這稱之為『實』。化導他人時，以一諦來闡釋三諦，這稱之為『權』。之所以這樣說，是因為入于『實』是爲了止息煩惱，而出於『權』是爲了方便觀照。雖然取用和修行的方法名稱不同，但所用的道理實際上並沒有差別。爲了這個緣故，所以現在記錄下來。問：三諦既然是天然具有的自性功德，為什麼說因為三種迷惑（三惑）而有三種諦理呢？答：智者說，真理實際上沒有名稱，只是爲了對應無明（avidya）才稱之為法性（dharmata）。《中論》說：『只是爲了引導眾生，所以用假名來說明。』遠離有和無這兩種極端，所以稱為中道（madhyamarga）。只是因為天然的本性具備這些，才因為迷惑而有三種諦理，並且具備引發和產生的功用，從而建立三種假名。因此可以說，三諦是天然具有的自性功德。問：只有在實性止觀（samatha-vipassana）中才辨析三諦三一相即，那麼之前的二性（分別性和依他性）不是即一的嗎？答：雖然說法有次第，但其意理並沒有先後。問：如果想要修習，應該如何指點心性呢？答：既然在前一章已經開啟了聞解（sravana），現在修習止觀怎麼可以走不同的道路呢？因此，理解迷惑和本源都是完全包含在藏識（alaya-vijnana）的本體之中。真和妄不是對立的，沒有哪個不是清凈的心。能觀的主體和所觀的對象是一如的，三性（自性、依他性、圓成實性）同時達到。能觀的觀照本身就是迷惑，難道和所觀的諦理有什麼差別嗎？因此，一微塵、一念頭，沒有哪個不是三一相即的，當下之處難以思議，即一而三，即三而一，不前不後，非縱非橫。這種圓滿的理解，在迷惑時就是生理，在名字上就是知，在觀行上就是行，乃至妙覺（samyak-sambodhi）就是究竟。只是因為隨著昏昧而修習有所區別。如果依靠前二性（分別性和依他性）進而成第三性（真實性），所以分別性只是修習空和假，依他性只是修習假和中，到了真實性，空、假、中三者三一圓滿具備。所以前二性看起來是修習勝義和差別，而真實性完全是同一顆心。如果唸唸之中三種都一起學習，比如分別觀就是假，止就是空，當下不二就是中。三者雖然不同，但只是一念。即一而三，稱之為觀；即三而一，稱之為止。分開

【English Translation】 English version Illumination and wisdom reach the natural functioning of the present moment's thought. The One Truth (ekatva-satya, the Truth of Reality) is identical to the Three Truths (tri-satya, the Truths of Emptiness, Provisional Existence, and the Middle Way). This is called 'Vipassana' (insight meditation). Similar to what the wise say: self-cultivating the Three Truths is identical to the One Truth, which is called 'Reality'. When transforming others, explaining the Three Truths through the One Truth is called 'Expedient Means'. The reason for this is that entering 'Reality' is to cease afflictions, while emerging from 'Expedient Means' is for the convenience of contemplation. Although the names of the methods of adoption and practice are different, the principles used are actually not different. For this reason, it is now recorded. Question: Since the Three Truths are natural virtues of inherent nature, why is it said that there are three truths because of the three confusions (three delusions)? Answer: The wise say that truth actually has no name, but it is called Dharmata (nature of reality) in response to ignorance (avidya). The Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'It is only to guide sentient beings that provisional names are used to explain.' Being away from the two extremes of existence and non-existence, it is called the Middle Way (madhyamarga). It is only because the natural inherent nature possesses these that there are three truths because of confusion, and it has the function of inducing and generating, thereby establishing three provisional names. Therefore, it can be said that the Three Truths are natural virtues of inherent nature. Question: Only in the Samatha-vipassana (tranquility and insight) of Reality is the identity of the Three Truths and the One Truth distinguished. Then, are the previous two natures (discriminatory nature and dependent nature) not identical to one? Answer: Although the statements have an order, the meanings do not have a sequence. Question: If one wants to practice, how should one point to the nature of the mind? Answer: Since the understanding through hearing (sravana) has already been opened in the previous chapter, how can the practice of Samatha-vipassana take a different path now? Therefore, understanding confusion and the origin are all completely contained within the body of the Alaya-vijnana (store consciousness). Truth and falsehood are not opposed, and none is not a pure mind. The subject of observation and the object of observation are identical, and the three natures (inherent nature, dependent nature, and perfectly accomplished nature) are achieved simultaneously. The contemplation of the observer itself is confusion, so is there any difference from the truth of the observed object? Therefore, one dust and one thought, none is not the identity of the three and the one, the present place is difficult to conceive, that is, one and three, that is, three and one, not before and not after, not vertical and not horizontal. This complete understanding, when confused, is physiology, in name it is knowledge, in practice it is action, and even Samyak-sambodhi (perfect enlightenment) is ultimate. It is only because practice varies with obscurity. If one relies on the previous two natures (discriminatory nature and dependent nature) to advance to the third nature (true nature), then the discriminatory nature only cultivates emptiness and provisionality, the dependent nature only cultivates provisionality and the middle, and when it comes to the true nature, emptiness, provisionality, and the middle are fully equipped with the three and the one. Therefore, the previous two natures seem to cultivate the supreme meaning and difference, while the true nature is completely the same mind. If one learns all three together in every thought, for example, discriminatory observation is provisionality, cessation is emptiness, and non-duality in the present is the middle. Although the three are different, they are only one thought. That is, one and three is called Vipassana; that is, three and one is called Samatha. Separate

別既然。依他亦爾。亦見三性一中具三三全是一。非三非一而三而一。不可思議。若不爾者何殊地．攝。不得圓宗從權而執。問。前以真實性為三諦。又為空中。又為中道者何。答。諦祇是理。理尚無一云何有三。但以對緣說為三爾。故智者云。實是一諦方便說三。說為三者進退不同。故有三向。一者此之一性為眾生迷。迷即是有。有名為俗。有無別有全性為有。故以一性名為俗諦。若以眾生但見其有。不知此有全性而為。祇可名俗不得稱諦。今詮此俗即是性故。故稱俗諦。復對迷有說其一性性體本空。故名真諦。復對空有說此一性。性體空有當處不二。故名中諦。然茲三諦即一性上立此三名。故祖師云。雖是一體而立三名。以體會名以名即體。是故得云是三即一相。其實無有異。今宗此旨。故稱實性為三諦也。二者前以迷有從所依性稱為俗諦。若從迷有當體而論。復有二義。一者此實是俗名為俗諦。二者于俗知俗法門名為俗諦。是故一性惟名空中。俗既是事屬前二性。空中是理屬真實性。三者前以一性名為空者即畢竟空。亦從於空所依而說。若從當體故此之空而非一性。體即是于無明虛相。還屬於前依他性收。是故一性惟名為中。是以實性屬於中道。

釋文為三。初標科。二初就下釋。三第下結。釋自為二。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本別既然（不要這樣）。依據他性（Paratantra-svabhava，依他起性）也是如此。也能見到三種自性（trisvabhāva，三自性）在一個之中具備三個，三個完全是一個。非三非一，而是三而一。不可思議。如果不是這樣，那和地論宗、攝論宗有什麼區別？就不能得到圓滿的宗旨，而是執著于權宜之說。問：之前以真實性（Parinispanna-svabhava，圓成實性）作為三諦（trisatya，三諦），又作為空性（sunyata，空性），又作為中道（madhyama，中道），這是為什麼？答：諦只是道理。道理尚且沒有一個，怎麼會有三個？只是針對不同的因緣說是三個罷了。所以智者大師說：『實際上是一個諦，爲了方便才說成三個。』說成三個，是因為進退不同，所以有三個方向。一是這一個自性被眾生迷惑，迷惑就是有，有名為俗。有和無的區別在於，完全的自性是有，所以用一個自性名為俗諦（samvrti-satya，世俗諦）。如果眾生只看到有，不知道這個有是完全的自性，只能稱為俗，不能稱為諦。現在解釋這個俗就是自性，所以稱為俗諦。再針對迷惑的有，說這一個自性的性體本空，所以名真諦（paramartha-satya，勝義諦）。再針對空和有，說這一個自性的性體空有，當下不二，所以名中諦（madhyama-satya，中道諦）。然而這三諦是在一個自性上建立這三個名稱。所以祖師說：『雖然是一個體，卻立了三個名。以體會名，以名即體。』所以才能說是三即一相，其實沒有差異。現在本宗秉持這個宗旨，所以稱實性為三諦。二是之前以迷惑的有從所依性（paratantra-svabhava，依他起性）稱為俗諦。如果從迷惑的有當體而論，又有兩種含義。一是這確實是俗，名為俗諦。二是對俗知道俗的法門，名為俗諦。所以一個自性只名為空中，俗既然是事，屬於前兩種自性。空中是理，屬於真實性。三是之前以一個自性名為空性，即畢竟空（atyanta-sunyata，畢竟空），也是從空性所依而說。如果從當體來說，這個空並非一個自性，體就是無明虛相，還屬於前面的依他性收。所以一個自性只名為中。因此實性屬於中道。

解釋經文分為三部分。首先是標出科判。其次是先從下文解釋。最後是總結。解釋自身分為兩部分。

【English Translation】 English version Do not be like that. It is also the same according to the dependent nature (Paratantra-svabhava). It can also be seen that the three natures (trisvabhāva) are fully present in one, and the three are completely one. It is neither three nor one, but three and one. It is inconceivable. If it is not so, what is the difference between the Dilun and Shelun schools? One cannot obtain the complete doctrine but clings to expedient teachings. Question: Previously, the true nature (Parinispanna-svabhava) was taken as the three truths (trisatya), and also as emptiness (sunyata), and also as the Middle Way (madhyama). Why is this? Answer: Truth is just principle. If there is not even one principle, how can there be three? It is only said to be three in response to different conditions. Therefore, the wise master said: 'In reality, it is one truth, but for convenience, it is said to be three.' Saying it is three is because the advance and retreat are different, so there are three directions. First, this one nature is deluded by sentient beings. Delusion is existence, and existence is called mundane. The difference between existence and non-existence is that the complete nature is existence, so the one nature is called the conventional truth (samvrti-satya). If sentient beings only see existence and do not know that this existence is the complete nature, it can only be called mundane and cannot be called truth. Now, explaining that this mundane is the nature, it is called the conventional truth. Furthermore, in response to the deluded existence, it is said that the nature of this one nature is originally empty, so it is called the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya). Furthermore, in response to emptiness and existence, it is said that the nature of this one nature is empty and existent, and the two are non-dual at the moment, so it is called the middle truth (madhyama-satya). However, these three truths are established on one nature with these three names. Therefore, the patriarch said: 'Although it is one entity, three names are established. Understanding the entity names it, and the name is the entity.' Therefore, it can be said that the three are one, but in reality, there is no difference. Now, this school upholds this doctrine, so it calls the real nature the three truths. Second, previously, the deluded existence was called the conventional truth from the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhava). If discussing from the deluded existence itself, there are two meanings. First, this is indeed mundane, called the conventional truth. Second, knowing the Dharma gate of the mundane is called the conventional truth. Therefore, one nature is only called emptiness. Since the mundane is a matter, it belongs to the first two natures. Emptiness is principle, belonging to the real nature. Third, previously, one nature was called emptiness, which is ultimate emptiness (atyanta-sunyata), also spoken from what emptiness relies on. If speaking from the entity itself, this emptiness is not one nature, the entity is the illusory appearance of ignorance, still belonging to the previous dependent nature. Therefore, one nature is only called the middle. Therefore, the real nature belongs to the Middle Way.

The explanation of the scripture is divided into three parts. First, mark the divisions. Second, first explain from below. Finally, conclude. The explanation itself is divided into two parts.

初就染濁。二就清凈。前明境界順於迷真。起妄為次。故實性居先。今明修觀順於返妄。歸真為敘。故實性居后。又此三性該染凈境。今通約之以為所觀。由凡所觀境不出三法。染濁三性即眾生法並於心法。清凈三性即是佛法。此三法者不出內外。生佛屬外。心法屬內。又自己依正二種之色。若望生佛亦屬於內。若以自己依報望正故依外正內。就自正報。色外心內。然今觀境通諸內外。

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第四卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 大乘止觀法門宗圓記

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第五

東掖白蓮釋　瞭然　述

初就染濁三性以明止觀體狀二。初分科。二對分下隨釋三。初法四。初正明三。初依分別性以明止觀體狀二。初標。二先從下釋三。初從觀入止三。初總標。二所言下隨釋二。初觀三。初標。二當觀下示二。初示觀境。文云五陰六塵者。即該己佗色心諸心法。智者示境有修有發。各別示之。今則通示。又四三昧雖有觀及明。正修別依常坐。揀境及心。於前四乘唯觀識陰。覆成別示。今仍屬通。以由不揀四陰等也。示境雖通。修觀必別。但此之別不同智者揀四觀識。隨其根塵別取一法而為觀境。故云隨二法。

二悉作下示用觀三。初總觀謂實。二但是下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本首先就染濁三性進行討論。其次就清凈三性進行討論。之前闡明境界是順應迷失真如的，產生妄念是其次的。所以實性（真實不變的體性）放在前面。現在闡明修觀是順應迴歸真如，捨棄妄念的，所以實性放在後面。而且這三種自性涵蓋了染凈的境界。現在將它們概括起來作為所觀的對象。因為凡所觀的境界都離不開這三種法。染濁的三性就是眾生法和心法。清凈的三性就是佛法。這三種法不出內外。眾生和佛屬於外，心法屬於內。另外，自己的依報和正報兩種色法，如果相對於眾生和佛來說，也屬於內。如果以自己的依報來看正報，那麼依報是外，正報是內。就自身正報而言，色法是外，心法是內。然而，現在所觀的境界貫通內外。

《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》卷第四卍新續藏第 55 冊 No. 0904 《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》

《大乘止觀法門宗圓記》卷第五

東掖白蓮釋瞭然述

首先就染濁三性來闡明止觀的體狀，分為兩部分。第一部分是分科，第二部分是隨文解釋。在第二部分中，又分為三個部分。第一部分是法，分為四個小部分。第一部分是正式闡明三種自性，分為三個小部分。第一部分是依據分別性來闡明止觀的體狀，分為兩個小部分。第一部分是標示，第二部分是從下文開始解釋，分為三個小部分。第一部分是從觀進入止，分為三個小部分。第一部分是總標，第二部分是隨文解釋，分為兩個小部分。第一部分是觀，分為三個小部分。第一部分是標示，第二部分是展示，分為兩個小部分。第一部分是展示觀境。文中說的『五陰（色、受、想、行、識，構成人身的五種要素）六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法，六種外在事物）』，就涵蓋了自己和他人的色法和心法。智者（指天臺智者大師）展示境界，有修證和啓發的作用，分別展示它們。現在則是通盤展示。另外，四種三昧（常坐三昧、常行三昧、半行半坐三昧、非行非坐三昧）雖然有觀和明，但正式修習是特別依據常坐三昧，選擇境界和心念。在之前的四乘觀法中，只觀察識陰（五陰之一），又成為特別的展示。現在仍然屬於通盤展示，因為不選擇四陰等。展示境界雖然是通盤的，但修觀必定是特別的。但這種特別不同於智者選擇四陰觀識，而是隨著根塵（六根和六塵）分別選取一種法作為觀境。所以說隨著兩種法。

第二部分是展示觀的作用，分為三個小部分。第一部分是總觀，稱為實觀。第二部分是

【English Translation】 English version First, we discuss the three natures of defilement and turbidity. Second, we discuss the three natures of purity. Previously, clarifying the realm was in accordance with being lost in true reality, and generating delusion was secondary. Therefore, the real nature (the true and unchanging essence) was placed first. Now, clarifying cultivation and contemplation is in accordance with returning to true reality and abandoning delusion, so the real nature is placed last. Moreover, these three natures encompass the realms of defilement and purity. Now, we generalize them as objects of contemplation. Because all objects of contemplation cannot be separated from these three dharmas. The three natures of defilement and turbidity are the dharma of sentient beings and the dharma of mind. The three natures of purity are the dharma of the Buddha. These three dharmas do not go beyond internal and external. Sentient beings and Buddhas belong to the external, and the dharma of mind belongs to the internal. In addition, one's own dependent reward (environment) and proper reward (body and mind), if viewed in relation to sentient beings and Buddhas, also belong to the internal. If one views the proper reward in relation to one's own dependent reward, then the dependent reward is external and the proper reward is internal. In terms of one's own proper reward, form is external and mind is internal. However, the object of contemplation now penetrates both internal and external.

The Great Treatise on Cessation and Contemplation of the Mahayana Dharma School, Volume 4 Supplement to the Buddhist Canon, Series 2, Volume 55, No. 0904, The Great Treatise on Cessation and Contemplation of the Mahayana Dharma School

The Great Treatise on Cessation and Contemplation of the Mahayana Dharma School, Volume 5

Explained by Sh釋 Liaoran of Bailian in Dongye

First, we use the three natures of defilement and turbidity to explain the substance and form of cessation and contemplation, divided into two parts. The first part is classification, and the second part is explanation following the text. In the second part, there are three sub-parts. The first part is the dharma, divided into four sub-parts. The first part is the formal explanation of the three natures, divided into three sub-parts. The first part is to explain the substance and form of cessation and contemplation based on the nature of discrimination, divided into two sub-parts. The first part is the indication, and the second part is the explanation starting from the following text, divided into three sub-parts. The first part is entering cessation from contemplation, divided into three sub-parts. The first part is the general indication, and the second part is the explanation following the text, divided into two sub-parts. The first part is contemplation, divided into three sub-parts. The first part is the indication, and the second part is the demonstration, divided into two sub-parts. The first part is the demonstration of the object of contemplation. The 'five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness, the five elements that constitute a person) and six dusts (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma, the six external objects)' mentioned in the text cover one's own and others' form and mind. The wise one (referring to Zhiyi, the Great Master of Tiantai) demonstrates the realm, which has the function of cultivation and enlightenment, and demonstrates them separately. Now it is a general demonstration. In addition, although the four samadhis (constant sitting samadhi, constant walking samadhi, half-walking and half-sitting samadhi, non-walking and non-sitting samadhi) have contemplation and illumination, the formal practice is especially based on constant sitting samadhi, selecting the realm and mind. In the previous four vehicles of contemplation, only the consciousness skandha (one of the five skandhas) was observed, which became a special demonstration. Now it still belongs to the general demonstration, because it does not select the four skandhas, etc. Although the demonstration of the realm is general, the cultivation of contemplation must be special. But this specialty is different from Zhiyi's selection of the four skandhas to contemplate consciousness, but rather selects one dharma as the object of contemplation according to the roots and dusts (the six roots and six dusts) respectively. Therefore, it is said to follow the two dharmas.

The second part is to demonstrate the function of contemplation, divided into three sub-parts. The first part is the general contemplation, called real contemplation. The second part is

別觀三法三。初觀無明。二以不下觀妄想。妄想即業。三是故下觀境界即報。

三複當下觀因果。總觀前三不獨今日。自無始來由此三故。復起惑業感報不出。問。前謂修觀為假觀者。今觀正是觀于見思惑業與報。義當空觀如何謂假。答。以諦真者必須諦俗。然若以今文從假入空。從假為觀。入空為止。觀皆空觀收。干何不可。但為今文與于山家諸文用義有不同故。以諸文中從假入空。若不名觀即乃名止。而不可分觀為從假止為入空。今文既分故知義別。觀見思假必屬假觀非空觀也。故下以立三性緣起名為世諦又補為用。問。修假觀者豎論必在空觀之後。今何先假而後修空。又假觀者乃是菩薩歷學法門。今何觀之。答。今文從圓。不可分于空假前後。或分前後者。不出克從法體隨義詮辨。若克法體。今觀見思執虛為實。照於三假即與假觀法體無別。若隨義辨。由在空前故名此假為生死假。若在空后故召此假為建立假。隨義前後雖然不同。其如法體更無少別。若隨義言。今先從觀。修假觀者是修出假方便觀也。由先修故正出假時觀智易發。故智者云。入空之前遍觀見思。總知病相為出假方便。後用一門斷惑入空。若出假時。分別見思照了則易。薄修止觀法眼則明。以由智者則立入假。故指空前而為方便。今文不別

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：別觀三法三：首先觀察無明（avidyā，對事物真相的無知）。其次，以下文『不下觀妄想』觀察妄想（vikalpa，虛妄分別）。妄想即是業（karma，行為）。第三，以下文『是故下觀境界即報』觀察境界，即是果報（vipāka，結果）。

再次，當下觀察因果。總的來說，觀察前面這三者，不僅僅是今天。自從無始以來，由於這三者的作用，不斷產生迷惑、造作惡業，並感受果報，始終無法脫離。

問：前面說修觀是假觀，現在所觀的正是見思惑、業和果報，從意義上來說應當是空觀，為什麼說是假觀呢？

答：因為要真實地認識真諦，必須真實地認識俗諦。然而，如果按照本文從假入空的思路，以假為觀，入空為止，那麼所有的觀都可以歸為空觀，這也沒有什麼不可以。但是，本文與天臺宗（山家）其他文獻在用義上有所不同。在其他文獻中，從假入空，如果不稱為『觀』，就稱為『止』，而不能將觀分為從假，止分為入空。本文既然區分了觀和止，就知道意義不同。觀察見思的虛假，必定屬於假觀，而不是空觀。所以下文以建立三性緣起（trisvabhāva-niḥsvabhāva，三種自性）稱為世諦，又補充說明其作用。

問：修習假觀，按照豎向的次第來說，必定在空觀之後。現在為什麼先假而後修空？而且假觀是菩薩歷練學習的法門，現在為什麼要觀呢？

答：本文是從圓融的角度來說的，不能將空觀和假觀截然分為先後。如果一定要區分先後，那也是爲了根據法體的不同，隨順意義進行詮釋辨析。如果嚴格按照法體來說，現在觀察見思，執著虛妄為真實，照見三假，就與假觀的法體沒有區別。如果隨順意義進行辨析，由於在空觀之前，所以稱這種假為生死假；如果在空觀之後，就稱這種假為建立假。隨順意義的前後雖然不同，但就法體而言，沒有任何差別。如果隨順意義來說，現在先從觀入手，修習假觀，是修習出假的方便觀。由於先修習，所以在真正出假的時候，觀智容易生髮。所以智者大師說，在入空之前，普遍觀察見思，全面瞭解病相，是爲了出假做準備。之後用一種方法斷除迷惑，進入空性。如果在出假的時候，分別見思，照見明瞭，那麼修習止觀，法眼就會明亮。因為智者大師建立了入假，所以指明空觀之前是方便。本文沒有特別區分。

【English Translation】 English version: Separate contemplation of the three dharmas in three aspects: First, contemplate avidya (ignorance, the lack of knowledge of the true nature of things). Second, as stated in the following text 'do not contemplate vikalpa (conceptual proliferation, false discrimination),' vikalpa is karma (action). Third, as stated in the following text 'therefore, contemplate the realm as vipāka (result).'

Again, contemplate cause and effect in the present moment. Generally speaking, contemplate these preceding three not only today. Since beginningless time, due to these three, delusion arises, evil karma is created, and results are experienced, without ever escaping.

Question: Earlier, it was said that cultivating contemplation is provisional contemplation. Now, what is being contemplated is precisely the afflictions of views and emotions, karma, and its results. In terms of meaning, it should be emptiness contemplation. Why is it called provisional?

Answer: Because to truly know the ultimate truth, one must truly know the conventional truth. However, if we follow the idea of entering emptiness from the provisional as presented in this text, taking the provisional as contemplation and stopping at entering emptiness, then all contemplations can be categorized as emptiness contemplation, which is not impossible. However, this text differs in its usage from other texts of the Tiantai school (Shanjia). In other texts, entering emptiness from the provisional, if not called 'contemplation,' is called 'cessation,' and contemplation cannot be divided into being from the provisional, and cessation into entering emptiness. Since this text distinguishes between contemplation and cessation, we know that the meaning is different. Contemplating the provisional nature of afflictions of views and emotions necessarily belongs to provisional contemplation, not emptiness contemplation. Therefore, the following text establishes the three-nature theory (trisvabhāva-niḥsvabhāva) as conventional truth and supplements its function.

Question: When cultivating provisional contemplation, according to the vertical sequence, it must be after emptiness contemplation. Why is the provisional first and then emptiness cultivated now? Moreover, provisional contemplation is a dharma gate for bodhisattvas to practice and learn. Why contemplate it now?

Answer: This text speaks from a perspective of perfect integration, and emptiness contemplation and provisional contemplation cannot be strictly separated into before and after. If one must distinguish between before and after, it is to interpret and analyze according to the difference in the nature of the dharma, following the meaning. If strictly according to the nature of the dharma, now contemplating afflictions of views and emotions, clinging to the false as real, illuminating the three provisionals, there is no difference from the nature of provisional contemplation. If analyzing according to the meaning, because it is before emptiness contemplation, this provisional is called the provisional of samsara (birth and death); if it is after emptiness contemplation, this provisional is called the provisional of establishment. Although the order of following the meaning is different, in terms of the nature of the dharma, there is no difference. If speaking according to the meaning, now starting from contemplation, cultivating provisional contemplation is cultivating the expedient contemplation of emerging from the provisional. Because of prior cultivation, when truly emerging from the provisional, wisdom contemplation easily arises. Therefore, Great Master Zhiyi said that before entering emptiness, universally contemplating afflictions of views and emotions, fully understanding the symptoms of illness, is to prepare for emerging from the provisional. Afterward, using one method to cut off afflictions and enter emptiness. If, when emerging from the provisional, one distinguishes afflictions of views and emotions and illuminates them clearly, then cultivating cessation and contemplation, the Dharma eye will be bright. Because Great Master Zhiyi established entering the provisional, he pointed out that before emptiness contemplation is the expedient. This text does not particularly distinguish.

立入假觀。即三性中修觀是假。亦可從觀入止。修假觀者假方便也。從止起觀。修假觀者正修假也。三修假觀觀是學法者。學法不出知病識藥授藥方法。今文正是知病一義。藥與授法即是自行所修之止。持以化人故名授藥。問。智者止觀通空假中。南嶽何故以觀為假。空中為止。答。法理一同。結名別爾。如依真空修止觀者。必由先知六道體虛妄執為實。實執亡處即見真空。智者惟就實執亡處結名止觀。故曰止觀。故曰止息。故曰貫(穿破實執)。故曰體真。故曰空觀。南嶽通約二處結名。約其知于妄執為實故名為觀。約能于實執亡處故名為止。修中亦然。又南嶽止觀體用對各。智者止觀體用各說。所以智者辨真中中若止若觀。皆在南嶽三性之中止義所收。辨俗假中若止若觀。皆在南嶽三性之中觀義所收。況復智者亦曾以止對法身體。而將於觀屬般若用。又復今文觀中有止。以知執為實故也。知虛即止。止中有觀。以由知實是虛故也。知實即觀下去例爾。　三作此下結。

二作此下修止二。初止所觀三。初法二。初追念前觀。流轉生死者。因謂實故。起惑造業故致流轉。二今復下。正修止法二。初止息亦名貫穿。云癡妄者。癡即無明妄想。違之之言即止息。二強觀下。停止亦名觀達。虛相無實者。亡真實境。前

乃違息妄實之心。今乃停止虛相之理。此理不當止與不止。故今修止該三止也。又此三止皆名體真。亦名實觀。以虛相為理者。若從小乘不知八識無明虛想實執亡處。正認無明虛相為空。今從圓旨。由全一性為無明相。是故相虛。相虛云空即畢竟空。不知此空。此空奚亡實執。是故上文破枝時根本分滅。二猶如下喻。愛即無明。謂即妄想。實人即境。然此喻文正就大乘以喻幻假。又大乘語通。今則從圓。幻由一性。問。一性之語亦通此記。前後何以一性惟為圓耶。答。此記前後之一性者。乃是三千即一之性。所以惟圓。為患學山家者凡談圓性惟執三諦三千。而不本于師祖之意。故以一性而導達之。後人其或惟執一性。必須后以三諦三千而導達之。然三千一性殊名而同體。無惟執名以失圓旨。三我今下合。迷即愛心。妄即能謂。實人意亦無明。確亦妄想。由妄想故靳固為實。

二復當下止能觀三。初正示。以由意識能知名義用無塵。今所止者通於二義。一止能用。此智之心前為性空今為相空。良由空于能觀心相亦名相空。二者直指能觀之觀觀亦非實名為相空。二如是下進行。即以後念而為能觀。復破前念能觀非實。如是次第以修止。念寂之處止方頓極。三作此下觀成。　三即名下結。

二復有下從止起觀。

意乃為顯真俗不二寂照同時。或從觀入止。或從止起觀。行大乘者於此體用不併不別圓妙難思。下去例爾。三若從下從止入觀。前約一性自分。從分別止起分別觀。今約二性相望。從分別止入依佗觀。又前止寂觀照二法不同。今於此為止於彼為觀一法二名。

二次明下。約依佗性以顯止觀體狀。此中止觀觀達根本。無明停止。中道真性。文為二。初標。二亦先下釋三。初從觀入止三。初標。二所言下釋。三即名下結釋又三。初觀悟入之後。觀無明假立。同破于界外塵沙。問。既云觀于無明。復何言破塵沙。答。依佗性者祇一法體。乃是界外生死因果虛相之事。於此之事不了名曰塵沙。不了此事即中名曰無明。今修觀者了達虛相名為假觀破塵沙惑。今修止者止息虛相即是一心。名為中觀破無明惑。文謂因前分別性中止行等者。然而雖云以分別性為依佗觀。法理是同。細究其意非不殊別。一者在分別性修止之時。雖破實執了心虛相。有其止息停止二義。若望依佗。故前分別且破實執未究虛相。由解虛相者必究一性相方是虛。以前分別雖有此解。解未深明。是故望今且為破實。二者前推迷妄但推枝末執實之迷。未推虛相所起之迷。故前修止推止執實枝末癡妄。今修觀者能知虛相乃因根本癡妄而成。

二作此下止

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：意思是說，爲了彰顯真諦和俗諦並非二元對立，寂靜和照了同時存在。或者從觀入手進入止的境界，或者從止的境界生起觀。修行大乘佛法的人，對於止觀的本體和作用，認為它們既不是完全相同，也不是完全相異，而是圓融微妙，難以思議。下面的內容也依此類推。第三，如果從下位法門、從止入門而進入觀，前面是就一性（ekatva）的自性（svabhāva）而言，從分別止生起分別觀。現在是就二性（dvitva）相互對待而言，從分別止進入依他觀（paratantra-svabhāva）。而且，前面的止是寂靜，觀是照了，二法不同。現在這裡，在此處是止，在彼處是觀，實際上是一個法，兩個名稱。

第二次說明下文。是就依他性（paratantra-svabhāva）來顯明止觀的本體和狀態。這裡的止觀，觀照通達根本，無明（avidyā）停止，中道真性（madhyamā-satya）顯現。文分為兩部分。第一部分是標示。第二部分是『亦先下釋三』，解釋說明。第一部分，從觀進入止，分為三部分。第一部分是標示。第二部分是『所言下釋』，解釋說明。第三部分是『即名下結釋又三』，總結解釋，又分為三部分。第一部分，觀悟入之後，觀無明是虛假安立的，一同破除界外的塵沙（rajas）。問：既然說是觀于無明，又為何說破除塵沙？答：依他性（paratantra-svabhāva）只有一個法體，乃是界外生死因果的虛假現象。對於這個現象不瞭解，就叫做塵沙；不瞭解這件事，執著于中，就叫做無明。現在修觀的人，了達虛假現象，名為假觀，破除塵沙惑。現在修止的人，止息虛假現象，即是一心，名為中觀，破除無明惑。文中所說的因為前面的分別性（vikalpa-svabhāva）中止行等等，然而雖然說以分別性（vikalpa-svabhāva）為依他觀（paratantra-svabhāva），法理是相同的。仔細研究它的意思，並非沒有差別。一者，在分別性（vikalpa-svabhāva）修止的時候，雖然破除實執，了知心是虛假現象，有止息和停止兩種含義。如果與依他性（paratantra-svabhāva）相比，前面的分別只是破除實執，沒有窮究虛假現象。因爲了解虛假現象的人，必定會窮究一性（ekatva）的真相，才是虛假。以前的分別雖然有這種理解，但理解得不夠深刻明白。因此，與現在相比，暫且只是破除實執。二者，前面推究迷惑，只是推究枝末的執實之迷，沒有推究虛假現象所產生的迷惑。所以前面修止，推止執實的枝末癡妄。現在修觀的人，能夠知道虛假現象乃是因根本癡妄而形成。

第二，『作此下止』。

【English Translation】 English version: This means to reveal that true reality (paramārtha-satya) and conventional reality (saṃvṛti-satya) are not dualistic, and that quiescence (śamatha) and illumination (vipaśyanā) exist simultaneously. One may enter quiescence from contemplation, or generate contemplation from quiescence. Those who practice Mahayana Buddhism consider the substance and function of quiescence and contemplation to be neither completely identical nor completely different, but rather perfectly integrated and difficult to comprehend. The following content is similar.

Third, if one enters contemplation from a lower-level practice, from quiescence, the previous discussion was based on the self-nature (svabhāva) of one nature (ekatva), generating discriminative contemplation from discriminative quiescence. Now, it is based on the mutual relationship of two natures (dvitva), entering dependent contemplation (paratantra-svabhāva) from discriminative quiescence. Moreover, the previous quiescence was stillness, and contemplation was illumination, two different dharmas. Now, here it is quiescence, and there it is contemplation, but in reality, it is one dharma with two names.

The second explanation below clarifies the nature and characteristics of quiescence and contemplation based on dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva). The quiescence and contemplation here penetrate to the root, stopping ignorance (avidyā), and revealing the true nature of the Middle Way (madhyamā-satya). The text is divided into two parts. The first part is the introduction. The second part is '亦先下釋三', which explains in three sections. The first part, entering quiescence from contemplation, is divided into three sections. The first section is the introduction. The second section is '所言下釋', which explains. The third section is '即名下結釋又三', which concludes the explanation, and is further divided into three sections. The first section, after realizing through contemplation, contemplates that ignorance (avidyā) is falsely established, and together eliminates the dust and sand (rajas) beyond the realms. Question: Since it is said to contemplate ignorance (avidyā), why is it also said to eliminate dust and sand (rajas)? Answer: Dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva) has only one dharma-body, which is the illusory appearance of the causes and effects of birth and death beyond the realms. Not understanding this phenomenon is called dust and sand (rajas); not understanding this matter and clinging to the middle is called ignorance (avidyā). Now, those who practice contemplation understand the illusory appearance, which is called provisional contemplation, eliminating the delusion of dust and sand (rajas). Now, those who practice quiescence stop the illusory appearance, which is the one mind, called the contemplation of the Middle Way, eliminating the delusion of ignorance (avidyā). The text says that because of the practice of quiescence in the previous discriminative nature (vikalpa-svabhāva), although it is said that dependent contemplation (paratantra-svabhāva) is based on discriminative nature (vikalpa-svabhāva), the principles of the Dharma are the same. Examining its meaning carefully, it is not without differences. First, when practicing quiescence in discriminative nature (vikalpa-svabhāva), although one eliminates the clinging to reality and understands that the mind is an illusory appearance, there are two meanings: cessation and stopping. Compared to dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), the previous discrimination only eliminates the clinging to reality and does not fully investigate the illusory appearance. Because those who understand the illusory appearance must investigate the truth of one nature (ekatva) to be illusory. Although the previous discrimination has this understanding, the understanding is not deep and clear. Therefore, compared to now, it is only temporarily eliminating the clinging to reality. Second, the previous investigation of delusion only investigates the clinging to reality at the branches and ends, and does not investigate the delusion arising from the illusory appearance. Therefore, the previous practice of quiescence investigates and stops the clinging to reality, the deluded and confused branches and ends. Now, those who practice contemplation can know that the illusory appearance is formed due to fundamental delusion.

Second, '作此下止'.

二。初追念前觀。云妄業者。或妄想即業。或因妄成業。皆行蘊收。無明妄想與前分別仗柰乃殊。前不知虛執實。今不知性執相。故上文云見有虛相謂有異心。又云妄想所執似與心異相相不一不即是妄境。良由不知相即是性謂有虛相。若知即性故推一心即無妄境。二猶如下。正修止法三。初喻二。初喻止息。前分別性映象喻取執像為實。今空華喻無執華實。但論華相有即非有。病喻無明。病乃病眼。眼喻妄想。空喻一性。華喻虛相。有即非有喻虛相息。二不生下喻停止。華本不生今亦無滅。喻停中道不生滅理。既達此理此理不當止與不止。如此三止故皆名息。二偏分別亦名中觀。二我今下合二。初總合。二惟一下別合二。初止息。二本自下停止。三如是下結觀成。

二既知下。從止起觀並從止入觀。例前可了。

三次明下對真實性以示止觀體狀。問。依佗性中既假中觀而破無明。今明實性為破何惑。答。亦破無明。良由破無明者。真證性體不可思議豈得執滯。中道者即中尚不存豈況空假。是故三諦三即非三亦即非一。此等執除。如是方為真證性體。是以上文云。談其心體非有非無。覺與不覺皆不可名。今依佗性雖修中實止甚虛相。相執雖亡而存中道法愛不亡。是故移觀于中道法而修止觀。令中亦止。三諦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二、初步追念之前的觀行。所說的『妄業』，或者說妄想本身就是業，或者說因為妄想而形成業，這些都屬於行蘊所包含的。這裡的無明妄想與之前的分別（指對虛妄之境的分別）有所不同，之前的分別是不明白虛幻而執著為真實，現在的分別是不明白自性而執著于現象。所以上文說，『見到有虛幻的現象，就認為是與心不同的東西』。又說，『妄想所執著的，好像與心不同，現象與心不一也不即，這就是虛妄的境界』。這都是因為不明白現象就是自性，而認為有虛幻的現象。如果明白現象就是自性，那麼推究一心，就沒有虛妄的境界。第二點如下文所述。正式修習止法有三點：第一點用比喻來說明，分為兩部分。第一部分比喻止息。之前的分別，用性映象的比喻，是取執映象為真實。現在用空中華的比喻，是沒有執著花是真實的。只是說花相，說有即非有。用病來比喻無明。病是病眼，眼比喻妄想，空比喻一性，華比喻虛相，有即非有比喻虛相止息。第二部分，『不生下』，比喻停止。花本來沒有生，現在也沒有滅。比喻停止於中道不生滅的道理。既然通達了這個道理，這個道理就不應當止與不止。像這樣三種止，所以都叫做息。第二點，偏分別也叫做中觀。二、我今下，合二。初總合。二惟一下，別合二。初止息。二本自下，停止。三如是下，結觀成。二、既知下。從止起觀，並從止入觀。例前可了。三、次明下，對真實性以示止觀體狀。問：依佗性中，既假中觀而破無明，今明實性為破何惑？答：亦破無明。良由破無明者，真證性體不可思議，豈得執滯？中道者，即中尚不存，豈況空假？是故三諦（sātya，真諦、俗諦、勝義諦）三即非三，亦即非一。此等執除，如是方為真證性體。是以上文云：談其心體，非有非無，覺與不覺，皆不可名。今依佗性，雖修中實止甚虛相，相執雖亡，而存中道法愛不亡。是故移觀于中道法而修止觀，令中亦止。三諦（sātya，真諦、俗諦、勝義諦）

【English Translation】 English version 2. Initially, recollect the previous contemplation. The so-called 'deluded karma' (wangye), either delusion itself is karma, or karma is formed because of delusion, all of which are contained within the aggregate of formations (saṃskāra-skandha). The ignorance (avidyā) and delusion here are different from the previous discriminations (referring to discriminations of illusory realms). The previous discriminations did not understand illusion and clung to it as reality, while the current discriminations do not understand the self-nature (svabhāva) and cling to phenomena (lakṣaṇa). Therefore, the previous text said, 'Seeing illusory phenomena, one thinks it is something different from the mind.' It also said, 'What is clung to by delusion seems different from the mind; phenomena and mind are neither one nor different, which is the deluded realm.' This is all because one does not understand that phenomena are self-nature, and thinks there are illusory phenomena. If one understands that phenomena are self-nature, then investigating the one mind, there is no deluded realm. The second point is as described below. Formally practicing cessation (śamatha) has three points: the first point uses a metaphor to explain, divided into two parts. The first part uses the metaphor of cessation. The previous discriminations, using the metaphor of the nature-mirror image, clung to the image as real. Now, using the metaphor of flowers in the sky, there is no clinging to the reality of the flowers. It only discusses the appearance of the flowers, saying 'existence is non-existence.' Using illness to symbolize ignorance (avidyā). Illness is a diseased eye, the eye symbolizes delusion, emptiness symbolizes one self-nature (svabhāva), flowers symbolize illusory phenomena, and 'existence is non-existence' symbolizes the cessation of illusory phenomena. The second part, 'not born below,' uses a metaphor for stopping. Flowers were originally not born, and now they are not extinguished. It symbolizes stopping at the middle way (madhyamā-pratipad) of the principle of non-birth and non-extinction. Since one has penetrated this principle, this principle should not be stopped or not stopped. Like these three kinds of cessation, they are all called 'cessation.' The second point, biased discrimination is also called middle view (madhyamaka). 2. 'Now I below,' combines the two. First, a general combination. Second, 'Only one below,' a separate combination of two. First, cessation. Second, 'Originally from below,' stopping. Third, 'Thus below,' concluding the completion of contemplation (vipaśyanā). 2. Having known below. Contemplation arises from cessation, and enters contemplation from cessation. The previous examples can be understood. 3. Next, clarifying below, contrasting with true nature to show the substance of cessation and contemplation. Question: Relying on other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), since the provisional middle view (madhyamaka) is used to break ignorance (avidyā), what delusion is being broken by clarifying the real nature now? Answer: It also breaks ignorance (avidyā). Because those who break ignorance (avidyā), the true realized nature is inconceivable, how can one cling to it? The middle way (madhyamā-pratipad), even the middle does not exist, how much more so emptiness and provisionality? Therefore, the three truths (sātya, satya, conventional truth; paramārtha-satya, ultimate truth; and ubhaya-satya, both truths) are three yet not three, and also not one. When these attachments are removed, then one truly realizes the nature. Therefore, the previous text said: Discussing its mind-essence, it is neither existent nor non-existent, neither awakened nor unawakened can be named. Now, relying on other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), although practicing the true and substantial cessation of extremely illusory phenomena, although the attachment to phenomena is gone, the love of the Dharma of the middle way (madhyamā-pratipad) is not gone. Therefore, shift contemplation to the Dharma of the middle way (madhyamā-pratipad) and practice cessation and contemplation, so that the middle also ceases. The three truths (sātya, satya, conventional truth; paramārtha-satya, ultimate truth; and ubhaya-satya, both truths)

即亡。證平等性。所以復于真實性中以修止觀。此義大同智者說于中道破偏。約以三法以修中觀。一觀無明。義同今文觀依佗性。彼觀無明未真證者。由聞無明即是法性。便決定計無明即是。故須移觀就法性中。故有第二觀於法性。義同今文觀真實性。三觀真緣。亦可會於今觀真實。性中有二。一無無性。二無真性者同觀真緣。良由起執不入故依佗后復觀真實。故下位次以十回向為依佗性。以別格圓。迴向同信。故知依佗未及真證。又依佗中非不真證。由約初住直至等覺。望于妙覺尚在於因。推佛果位法愛盡已一性究顯。故位次中。復以依佗判屬地上。真實為果。又除鄣中。以依佗性除迷理惑及以虛相。又復但云無明住地漸已頓薄。實性方云念動息滅。穿云能滅無明住地及妄想習氣。不云虛相者。由三細中轉理乃在依佗中除。業與無明在真實除。故依佗中除無明者但除相應。真實性中能除始迷獨頭不覺。然雖皆是破于無明。不無淺深。此諸義別。

文為二。初標。二亦先下釋五。初從觀入止二。初標。二所言下釋二。初觀二。初觀因前止雖云前止。為今之觀非無殊別。前知有即非有。而以破有為宗。而未窮非有。今知有即非有。而以非有為旨。故云此中知一切法本來唯心外無法。二復作下。復觀心相二。初牒境

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本即滅亡。證得平等之性（Sameness nature）。因此又在真實性（Reality nature）中修習止觀（Śamatha-vipassanā）。這個意義與智者（Zhizhe）所說的以中道破除偏頗非常相似，即用三種方法修習中觀（Madhyamaka）。第一，觀無明（avidyā），其意義與本文中觀依他性（paratantra-svabhāva）相同。他們觀無明，但尚未真正證悟的人，因為聽到無明即是法性（dharmatā），便斷定無明就是法性。所以需要轉移視線，在法性中觀照。因此有第二種觀法，即觀法性，其意義與本文中觀真實性相同。第三，觀真緣（true condition），也可以與現在觀真實性中的兩種情況相對應：一，無無性（non-non-nature）；二，無真性（non-true-nature），這與觀真緣相同。正是由於產生執著而無法進入，所以在依他性之後又觀真實性。因此，在地位次第上，以十回向（ten parināmanas）作為依他性，以別格圓（separate and complete）迴向等同於信位（stage of faith）。由此可知，依他性尚未達到真正的證悟。然而，在依他性中並非沒有真正的證悟，因為從初住（first bhūmi）直至等覺（samantabhadra），相對於妙覺（supreme enlightenment）而言，仍然處於因位（causality）。推究佛果位（Buddha-fruit position），法愛（love of dharma）已經完全消除，一性（one nature）究竟顯現。因此，在地位次第中，又將依他性判屬地上（bhūmi），真實性為果。此外，在去除障礙方面，以依他性去除迷理之惑以及虛妄之相。而且只是說無明住地（abode of ignorance）逐漸減弱，實性（real nature）才說是念動息滅。穿云（piercing the clouds）能夠滅除無明住地以及妄想習氣（habitual energies of delusion），而不說虛妄之相，是因為三細（three subtle aspects of consciousness）中轉理（turning the principle）是在依他性中去除，業（karma）與無明是在真實性中去除。因此，在依他性中去除無明，只是去除相應的無明，而在真實性中能夠去除最初的迷惑，即獨頭不覺（single instance of non-awareness）。然而，雖然都是破除無明，但並非沒有深淺之分。這些意義各有不同。

本文分為兩部分。首先是標示，其次是解釋五種內容。首先從觀進入止，分為兩部分。首先是標示，其次是『所言下』解釋兩部分。首先是觀，分為兩部分。首先是觀因，之前的止雖然說是之前的止，但對於現在的觀來說並非沒有區別。之前知道有即非有，而以破有為宗旨，但沒有窮盡非有。現在知道有即非有，而以非有為旨歸。所以說，這裡知道一切法本來唯心，外在沒有法。其次是『復作下』。再次觀心相，分為兩部分。首先是牒境（repeating the object）。

【English Translation】 English version It ceases. One realizes the Sameness nature. Therefore, one cultivates Śamatha-vipassanā in Reality nature. This meaning is very similar to what Zhizhe said about using the Middle Way to break through biases, that is, using three methods to cultivate Madhyamaka. First, contemplate ignorance (avidyā), which has the same meaning as contemplating the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva) in this text. Those who contemplate ignorance but have not yet truly realized it, because they hear that ignorance is the nature of reality (dharmatā), they determine that ignorance is the nature of reality. Therefore, it is necessary to shift the perspective and contemplate within the nature of reality. Therefore, there is a second contemplation, which is contemplating the nature of reality, which has the same meaning as contemplating Reality nature in this text. Third, contemplating true conditions, can also correspond to the two situations in the current contemplation of Reality nature: one, non-non-nature; two, non-true-nature, which is the same as contemplating true conditions. It is precisely because of generating attachments that one cannot enter, so after the dependent nature, one contemplates Reality nature again. Therefore, in the order of stages, the ten parināmanas are regarded as the dependent nature, and the separate and complete parināmanas are equivalent to the stage of faith. From this, it can be known that the dependent nature has not yet reached true realization. However, there is true realization in the dependent nature, because from the first bhūmi to samantabhadra, relative to supreme enlightenment, it is still in the causal stage. Investigating the Buddha-fruit position, the love of dharma has been completely eliminated, and the one nature is ultimately revealed. Therefore, in the order of stages, the dependent nature is assigned to the bhūmi, and Reality nature is the fruit. In addition, in removing obstacles, the dependent nature is used to remove the delusion of principle and the false appearances. Moreover, it is only said that the abode of ignorance gradually weakens, and the real nature is said to be the cessation of thought. Piercing the clouds can eliminate the abode of ignorance and the habitual energies of delusion, but it does not mention false appearances, because the turning of the principle in the three subtle aspects of consciousness is removed in the dependent nature, and karma and ignorance are removed in Reality nature. Therefore, removing ignorance in the dependent nature only removes the corresponding ignorance, while in Reality nature, it can remove the initial delusion, that is, the single instance of non-awareness. However, although both are breaking through ignorance, there is a difference in depth. These meanings are different.

The text is divided into two parts. The first is the indication, and the second is the explanation of the five contents. First, from contemplation to cessation, divided into two parts. The first is the indication, and the second is 'what is said below' explaining the two parts. First is contemplation, divided into two parts. First is contemplating the cause, although the previous cessation is said to be the previous cessation, it is not without difference for the current contemplation. Previously, it was known that existence is non-existence, and the purpose was to break existence, but non-existence was not exhausted. Now it is known that existence is non-existence, and the purpose is non-existence. Therefore, it is said that here it is known that all dharmas are originally only mind, and there is no dharma outside. The second is 'again below'. Contemplate the mind aspect again, divided into two parts. The first is repeating the object.

。牒真性為所觀境。二為無下用觀。為無前二性者。若從次第可云無一。由依佗性約分別中無性為體。今真實性祇可約于依佗性中無性為體。今云二者。一以深該淺兼前總說。二克從圓旨約法橫論。由分別中無。就法雖在分別。功德歸乃由實性。若非此性其云何無。是以實性二無為體。若指此二無為真實性。故真實性即是空中。乃因修有。若異此二無為真實性。故真實性即是一性。不從修得。作此推窮名為觀也。

二即復下止。下示實性四番止觀。今當初番。示妄空非實。除妄空以明止。文為二。初示修。二作此下結成。初文又二。初約對有顯妄無論止。無是無法對有而成生者。由名從對得。其若執名不達體性。此名須亡。何者。天然一性體本非名。具足眾名。是以對彼分別實有。故以此性假立空名。無彼依佗流動塵相。故以此性假立中名。若取此名體從性彰。故空中體二無二也。既然無二所以順體即一性矣。今取于名從對而得。故此空中還成虛相假。是以可亡。故云何有無法。即是下文無性性也。上之性字即二性也。今真實性是無二性之性之性名無性性。二又復下。約四句顯妄無論止。上明心體非有非無乃至不可說不可念者。即此性體也。今至於實性修止。即是顯於前之心體。非空假中離名言念。是以指為窮

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本將真如自性作為所觀的境界。第二種是『無下用觀』。對於不具備前兩種自性的人來說，如果按照次第來說，可以說沒有第一種自性。因為依他起性是依據分別識而以無自性為體性的。現在，真實自性只能依存於依他起性中，以無自性為體性。現在說『二』，一是深廣地涵蓋淺顯的，兼顧前面所說的總的來說；二是嚴格地從圓滿的宗旨出發，就法理橫向地論述。因為在分別識中是『無』，就法理而言，雖然存在於分別識中，但功德最終歸屬於真實自性。如果不是這種自性，又怎麼能說是『無』呢？因此，真實自性以兩種『無』為體性。如果將這兩種『無』指為真實自性，那麼真實自性就是空性，是由於修習而產生的。如果將不同於這兩種『無』的東西作為真實自性，那麼真實自性就是單一的自性，不是通過修習而獲得的。像這樣推究窮盡，就叫做『觀』。

第二部分是『即復下止』。下面展示真實自性的四種止觀。現在是最初的一種，顯示虛妄的空不是真實的，去除虛妄的空來闡明『止』。這一部分分為兩部分。首先是展示修習，然後是『作此下結成』，總結完成。第一部分又分為兩部分。首先是通過與『有』相對比來顯示虛妄，從而論述『止』。『無』是無法，是與『有』相對而產生的。因為名稱是從對比中獲得的。如果執著于名稱而不理解其體性，那麼這個名稱就必須消失。為什麼呢？因為天然的單一自性，其本體本來就不是名稱，而是具足了所有的名稱。因此，相對於那些分別識所認為的實有，所以用這種自性來假立『空』這個名稱；沒有那些依他起性的流動塵相，所以用這種自性來假立『中』這個名稱。如果取這個名稱，其體性是從自性彰顯出來的，所以空性的體性和兩種『無』是無二無別的。既然無二無別，所以順應體性就是單一的自性了。現在取這個名稱是從對比中獲得的，所以這個空性反而成了虛假的表象。因此是可以去除的。所以說『怎麼會有無法』，就是下文所說的『無性性』。上面的『性』字就是指兩種自性。現在真實自性是無二自性的自性之性，名稱是無性性。第二部分是『又復下』，通過四句來顯示虛妄，從而論述『止』。上面闡明心體非有非無，乃至不可說不可念，就是指這種自性本體。現在對於真實自性修習『止』，就是爲了顯現前面所說的心體，並非脫離了名言概念的空、假、中，所以才指出來窮盡。

【English Translation】 English version Taking true nature (真性, Zhēnxìng) as the object of contemplation. The second is 'No Lower Function Contemplation' (無下用觀, Wú xià yòng guān). For those who do not possess the previous two natures, if following the order, it can be said that there is no first nature. Because dependent nature (依佗性, Yī tuó xìng) relies on discrimination (分別, Fēnbié) and takes no-nature (無性, Wú xìng) as its essence. Now, true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng) can only rely on dependent nature (依佗性, Yī tuó xìng) and take no-nature (無性, Wú xìng) as its essence. Now saying 'two' (二, èr), one is to broadly encompass the shallow, and generally speaking, include the previous ones; the second is to strictly follow the perfect principle and discuss the Dharma horizontally. Because it is 'no' (無, wú) in discrimination (分別, Fēnbié), in terms of Dharma, although it exists in discrimination (分別, Fēnbié), the merit ultimately belongs to true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng). If it were not for this nature, how could it be said to be 'no' (無, wú)? Therefore, true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng) takes the two 'no' (無, wú) as its essence. If these two 'no' (無, wú) are referred to as true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng), then true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng) is emptiness (空中, Kōngzhōng), which is produced through cultivation. If something different from these two 'no' (無, wú) is taken as true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng), then true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng) is a single nature, not obtained through cultivation. Such exhaustive investigation is called 'contemplation' (觀, guān).

The second part is 'Immediately Below Cessation' (即復下止, Jí fù xià zhǐ). Below shows the four kinds of cessation and contemplation of true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng). Now is the first kind, showing that false emptiness is not real, removing false emptiness to clarify 'cessation' (止, zhǐ). This part is divided into two parts. The first is to show cultivation, and then 'Below Conclusion' (下結成, xià jié chéng), summarizing and completing. The first part is further divided into two parts. The first is to show falsehood by comparing it with 'existence' (有, yǒu), thereby discussing 'cessation' (止, zhǐ). 'No' (無, wú) is no-Dharma, which is produced in contrast to 'existence' (有, yǒu). Because the name is obtained from comparison. If one clings to the name without understanding its essence, then this name must disappear. Why? Because the natural single nature, its essence is originally not a name, but fully possesses all names. Therefore, relative to what discrimination (分別, Fēnbié) considers to be real existence, this nature is used to provisionally establish the name 'emptiness' (空, kōng); without the flowing dust of dependent nature (依佗性, Yī tuó xìng), this nature is used to provisionally establish the name 'middle' (中, zhōng). If this name is taken, its essence is manifested from the nature, so the essence of emptiness (空中, Kōngzhōng) and the two 'no' (無, wú) are non-dual. Since they are non-dual, conforming to the essence is the single nature. Now taking this name is obtained from comparison, so this emptiness (空中, Kōngzhōng) instead becomes a false appearance. Therefore, it can be removed. So it is said 'How can there be no-Dharma' (無法, Wúfǎ), which is the 'no-nature nature' (無性性, Wú xìng xìng) mentioned below. The 'nature' (性, xìng) above refers to the two natures. Now true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng) is the nature of the no-two natures, named no-nature nature (無性性, Wú xìng xìng). The second part is 'Again Below' (又復下, Yòu fù xià), showing falsehood through the four phrases, thereby discussing 'cessation' (止, zhǐ). Above, clarifying that the mind-essence is neither existent nor non-existent, and even unspeakable and unthinkable, refers to this nature-essence. Now cultivating 'cessation' (止, zhǐ) for true nature (真實性, Zhēnshí xìng) is to manifest the mind-essence mentioned earlier, which is not emptiness (空, kōng), provisionality (假, jiǎ), or the middle (中, zhōng) that is separated from names and concepts, so it is pointed out to exhaust it.

深之處而修止也。同荊溪云。至果乃由契本一理(約止證體也)。非權非實而權而實(約觀證用也)。

二又從下。從止入觀。前番約離。以性止修。故以照修為觀。今番約即。以同止異。故以照異為觀。文為二。初標。二作如下釋二。初觀二性異執。凈心既異二性之無。更有何法為凈心即。二又復下觀見念。又復此無空中之性。為可見念不可見念。

三即復下。復從觀入止。正當次番顯即偽。是真息異執以辨寂。即是下文無真性也。由離二性與見念。外別無真性。故名無真。文為四。初法。二喻。三合。此之三科各有三意。初心體本寂。文云心外無法者。此之一句義含二向。一者此一性外無空中法。即此空中全是一性。是故止於二性無外別無凈心。斯亦名為即偽是真息異執以辨寂。二者以心外無法故何有能見能念。良由性體本來寂滅。此性既遍。無有一法而非性者。性既本寂故云何有能見能念。二若便下偽執成異。若異二性緣念凈心。緣念即偽能所即異。由此偏異故不得名為真如也。三又復下。即偽息異二。初即偽息異以辨止。覓心之心是偽。既覓心之心體是凈心。故即偽是真。云何有異法者。既無異法故息入寂也。但以妄想是偽也。自生分別是異也。二又復下。從止起觀以辨止。又復設使起觀分別能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在深邃之處修習止（Samatha，止觀的止）。如同荊溪所說，證得果位乃是由於契合了本一之理（這是從止的角度來證悟本體）。非權宜之計，也非真實存在，而是權宜之計也是真實存在（這是從觀的角度來證悟其作用）。

其次，從下文開始，是從止入觀。前一次是關於離，以性止來修習，所以用照修為觀。這一次是關於即，以同止異，所以用照異為觀。文分為兩部分。第一部分是標示，第二部分是如下的解釋。第一部分是觀察二性的差異執著。既然凈心不同於二性的空無，那麼還有什麼法可以作為凈心呢？第二部分是觀察見念。又，這空性之中，是可見念還是不可見念？

再次，從下文開始，是從觀入止。正當此時顯現即偽，是用真息來辨別寂靜。即是下文所說的沒有真性。由於遠離二性和見念，外面沒有別的真性，所以稱為無真。文分為四部分。第一部分是法，第二部分是比喻，第三部分是合。這三科各有三層含義。第一層含義是心體本自寂靜。文中說『心外無法』，這句話包含兩層意思。一是這一個性之外沒有空中的法，即這空中全是這一個性。因此，止於二性之外沒有別的凈心。這也叫做即偽是真，用息來辨別寂靜。二是由於心外無法，哪裡有能見能念呢？因為性體本來寂滅。這性既然普遍，沒有一法不是性。性既然本自寂靜，怎麼會有能見能念呢？第二層含義是如果執著于異，就會形成差異。如果異於二性，緣念凈心，緣念即是虛偽，能所即是差異。由於這種偏頗的差異，所以不能稱為真如。第三層含義是即偽息異。首先，即偽息異來辨別止。尋找心的心是虛偽的。既然尋找心的心體是凈心，所以即偽是真。怎麼會有異法呢？既然沒有異法，所以息入寂靜。只是因為妄想是虛偽的。自生分別是差異。其次，是從止起觀來辨別止。又，假設起觀分別能

【English Translation】 English version: Practicing cessation (Samatha) in a profound place. As Jingxi (name of a monk) said, attaining the fruit is due to aligning with the fundamental principle of oneness (this is about realizing the essence from the perspective of cessation). It is neither expedient nor truly existent, but both expedient and truly existent (this is about realizing its function from the perspective of contemplation).

Secondly, starting from below, it is entering contemplation from cessation. The previous time was about separation, cultivating with the cessation of nature, so using illumination and cultivation as contemplation. This time is about identity, using the sameness of cessation and difference, so using illuminating difference as contemplation. The text is divided into two parts. The first part is the indication, and the second part is the explanation below. The first part is observing the different attachments of the two natures. Since the pure mind is different from the emptiness of the two natures, then what other dharma can be regarded as the pure mind? The second part is observing seeing and thought. Also, within this emptiness of nature, is it visible thought or invisible thought?

Again, starting from below, it is entering cessation from contemplation. It is precisely at this time that the falsity of identity is revealed, using true cessation to distinguish stillness. Identity is what the following text says about having no true nature. Because of being away from the two natures and seeing and thought, there is no other true nature outside, so it is called no truth. The text is divided into four parts. The first part is the Dharma, the second part is the metaphor, and the third part is the combination. These three sections each have three meanings. The first meaning is that the mind-essence is originally still. The text says 'Outside the mind there is no Dharma,' this sentence contains two meanings. One is that outside this one nature there is no Dharma in emptiness, that is, this emptiness is entirely this one nature. Therefore, stopping at the two natures, there is no other pure mind outside. This is also called identifying falsity as truth, using cessation to distinguish stillness. The second is that since there is no Dharma outside the mind, where is there seeing and thinking? Because the nature-essence is originally extinguished. Since this nature is universal, there is no Dharma that is not nature. Since nature is originally still, how can there be seeing and thinking? The second meaning is that if one clings to difference, difference will be formed. If it is different from the two natures, clinging to the pure mind, clinging is false, and the able and the object are different. Because of this biased difference, it cannot be called Suchness (Tathata). The third meaning is identifying falsity and ceasing difference. First, identifying falsity and ceasing difference to distinguish cessation. The mind that seeks the mind is false. Since the mind that seeks the mind is the pure mind, identifying falsity is truth. How can there be different dharmas? Since there are no different dharmas, cessation enters stillness. It is only because delusion is false. Self-generated discrimination is difference. Secondly, it is arising contemplation from cessation to distinguish cessation. Also, suppose arising contemplation distinguishes the able

緣所緣。故此分別亦即寂矣。良由寂為分別故。故荊溪云。雖曰能所。念本無二。喻亦三。初喻心體寂。眼即心體。眼本無華。心體本寂。二反更下。喻偽執成異。性如己眼性外無法。如己眼外別更無眼。由不知故。以緣念心而求真性。如不知己眼而覓于眼。然能覓之眼即是己眼。能緣之心即所緣性。今從不知偽執成異。三若能下。喻即偽息異法。文別有從止起觀以辨止。今喻則總。三行者下合二。初合心體本寂。二但以下合偽執成異。三是故下。合即偽息異二。初合即偽息異以辯止。能觀者。偏異也。即是凈心者。偽即異息也。二設使下合從止起觀以辨寂。四作此下結二。初結修。所云解者。此解即修。修即于隨中亦得名為止門者。不同初止。故名亦得。二結證。念動即寂如息波入水。

四復以下。從止起觀。即第三重根本三昧。文云真如用義者。用即神用。由三昧力。然此起遍起一切。分別依佗皆為所起。深該淺故。全具現故。此神用即是一性具足三千咸空假中。眾生理是。諸佛顯是。

五又復下。止觀雙行。即第四重雙現前也。說雖或有次第。意歸止觀雙行。是故一性三諦不前不後。寂照同修體用俱證。

二上來下。結示二。初通結三性。以立三性為緣起有門。即三諦俱照。以滅三性為止寂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『能緣』和『所緣』（指認識的主體和客體）。因此，這種分別念也就寂滅了。正是因為寂滅是分別唸的本性。所以荊溪大師說：『雖然有能緣和所緣的說法，但唸的本性是無二的。』下面用比喻來說明，分為三個部分。第一，用比喻說明心體的寂靜。眼睛就是心體，眼睛本來沒有眼花，心體本來就是寂靜的。第二，反過來進一步說明，因為虛假的執著而產生了差異。自性的作用就像自己的眼睛一樣，自性之外沒有其他法，就像自己的眼睛之外沒有其他的眼睛一樣。因為不明白這個道理，所以用緣唸的心去尋求真性，就像不認識自己的眼睛卻向外尋找眼睛一樣。然而，能尋找的眼睛就是自己的眼睛，能緣的心就是所緣的自性。現在因為不明白而虛假執著，產生了差異。第三，如果能夠明白，虛假的執著就會止息，差異的法也就消失了。經文另外有從止生觀來辨別止的說法，而這裡的比喻則是總體的說明。修行人下面將兩者結合起來。首先，結合心體本來寂靜的道理。其次，但是下面結合因為虛假執著而產生差異的道理。第三，是故下面結合虛假的執著止息，差異消失的道理。首先，結合虛假的執著止息，差異消失的道理來辨別止。能觀的人，是偏頗的差異。就是清凈心的人，虛假和差異就止息了。其次，假設下面結合從止生觀來辨別寂滅。第四，作此下面總結以上兩點。首先，總結修行。所說的『解』，就是指修行。修行就是在隨順之中也可以稱為止門，不同於最初的止，所以稱為『亦得』。其次，總結證悟。念頭動就是寂滅，就像波浪消失在水中一樣。

第四，復以下，是從止生觀。就是第三重根本三昧（Samadhi，一種精神上的高度集中狀態）。經文中說『真如用義』，『用』就是神用。由三昧的力量。然而這種生起是普遍的生起一切。分別、依他都是所生起的。因為深刻地包含著淺顯的，所以完全具備顯現。這種神用就是一性具足三千，全部都是空、假、中。眾生的理性是這樣，諸佛的顯現也是這樣。

第五，又復以下，是止觀雙行。就是第四重雙現前。說法雖然或許有次第，但意思歸於止觀雙行。因此，一性三諦（Three Truths，佛教哲學中的三個真理層面）不分先後。寂照同時修習，體用一起證得。

第二，上來下，總結指示兩點。首先，總括總結三性（Three Natures，佛教唯識宗中的三種自性），以建立三性為緣起有門。就是三諦一起照見。以滅除三性為止寂。

【English Translation】 English version 'Grasper' and 'grasped' (referring to the subject and object of cognition). Therefore, this discrimination also ceases. It is precisely because cessation is the nature of discrimination. Therefore, Master Jingxi said: 'Although there is talk of grasper and grasped, the nature of thought is non-dual.' The following uses metaphors to illustrate, divided into three parts. First, use a metaphor to illustrate the stillness of the mind-essence. The eye is the mind-essence; the eye originally has no blurring, and the mind-essence is originally still. Second, conversely, further illustrate that differences arise due to false attachments. The function of self-nature is like one's own eye; outside of self-nature there is no other dharma, just as outside of one's own eye there is no other eye. Because one does not understand this principle, one uses the mind of dependent origination to seek true nature, just as one does not recognize one's own eye but seeks an eye externally. However, the eye that can seek is one's own eye, and the mind that can grasp is the nature that is grasped. Now, because one does not understand and falsely clings, differences arise. Third, if one can understand, false attachments will cease, and the differing dharmas will also disappear. The scripture also has a separate saying of arising contemplation from cessation to distinguish cessation, while the metaphor here is a general explanation. The practitioner below combines the two. First, combine the principle that the mind-essence is originally still. Second, but below combine the principle that differences arise due to false attachments. Third, therefore below combine the principle that false attachments cease and differences disappear. First, combine the principle that false attachments cease and differences disappear to distinguish cessation. The one who can contemplate is a biased difference. The one who is a pure mind, falsehood and difference cease. Second, suppose below combine arising contemplation from cessation to distinguish stillness. Fourth, make this below summarize the above two points. First, summarize practice. What is said to be 'understanding' refers to practice. Practice is also called the gate of cessation in accordance with following, which is different from the initial cessation, so it is called 'also obtains'. Second, summarize enlightenment. The movement of thought is cessation, just as waves disappear into water.

Fourth, from 'Furthermore' onwards, it is arising contemplation from cessation. It is the third level of fundamental Samadhi (a state of mental concentration). The scripture says 'the meaning of Suchness's function'; 'function' is divine function. By the power of Samadhi. However, this arising is the universal arising of everything. Discrimination and dependence are all that arise. Because it deeply contains the shallow, it fully possesses manifestation. This divine function is the one nature fully possessing three thousand, all of which are emptiness, provisionality, and the middle way. The rationality of sentient beings is like this, and the manifestation of all Buddhas is also like this.

Fifth, from 'Furthermore' onwards, it is the dual practice of cessation and contemplation. It is the fourth level of dual manifestation. Although the teaching may have a sequence, the meaning returns to the dual practice of cessation and contemplation. Therefore, the Three Truths (Three Truths, three levels of truth in Buddhist philosophy) of one nature are not before or after. Stillness and illumination are cultivated simultaneously, and essence and function are attained together.

Second, from 'Above' onwards, summarize and indicate two points. First, generally summarize the Three Natures (Three Natures, three self-natures in Buddhist Yogācāra), to establish the Three Natures as the gate of conditioned existence. It is the simultaneous illumination of the Three Truths. To eliminate the Three Natures is to cease and be still.

空門。即三諦俱亡。文云入三無性者。性之一字通過通德。若以性為執性之性。此性屬過。即是所無。故分別者以相為性。其依佗者以性為性。然真實者以性為性無此等性。故云無性。若以性若以性為理性之性屬能。即是能無。由分別止是真空性。此性無相名無相性。由依佗止是中道性。此性無生性。由真實止是平等性。此性無于空二性(此性字卻屬執)名無性性。文云除分別性者此性是過。入無相性此性是德。下二亦然。若以性為執性之性。此三無性實一無性具二無性。一無性性。二無相性。今但總云無性而已。文以無相無性對二性者。若準前文。分別為用依佗為相。由約起信三大為名。今依無性論作此名。故論文云。約分別者。由相無性說名無性。何以故。如所顯現是相實無。是故分別性以無相為性。約依佗者。由生無性說名無性。何以故。此生由緣力成不由自成。緣力即是分別。性體既無。以無緣力故生不得立。是故依佗性以無生為性。然上論文約二互說。由分別性別無執實。乃執依佗虛相為實。亡執實相名無相性。由依佗性自不得生。乃依分別迷妄所生。亡此所生名無生性。真實性為無性性者。二不同。一者取前二無之性為真實性名無性性。即不得云無性已如。論云。此一性真實是無。真實是有。真實無。此

分別依佗二有(無相有無生有)。真實有。此分別依佗二無(有無相有無生)。上之論文雖說無。其體不出即前兩性為真實生。故論復云。此真實性更無別法。還即前兩性之無是真實性。真實是無相無性故。意云此是無相性無生性之性。故名無性性。二者無前二無之性為真實性。故云無性性。亦得云無無性也。初釋無字乃是無相無生之無。即無見思．無無明之無也。次釋無字乃是無無相無無生之無。即同無空無中之無也。今屬次義。由真實性當體即以無相無生而為其性。今既除之。即是無無相性無無生性也。論文之中亦有此義。故論說妄立非妄立諦。乃云對遣二有妄立二無名為真實(正同上文真實是有真實是無)。還尋此性離有離無故非妄立。三無性皆非妄立也。既云離有離無即是離遣二有。離立二無。正同次義無無相性無無生性。故今文云除真實性入無性性。然論云還尋此性者。還之一字甚有其由旨。名從對得云遣二有立二無。屬妄立諦。即世諦也。體自性彰乃非空。屬非妄立諦。即第一義諦也。不離此性有其亡照。故云還尋。若讀智者四念處中妄立非妄立諦。須知今說。

二就真下別結真實。文云窮深之處微妙難知者。真俗立處三諦即亡。故立與亡皆非思議。文云是故無性性或名無無性或云無真性者。祇一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本分別依據『佗二有』（無相有、無生有）、『真實有』。這種分別依據『佗二無』（有無相、有無生）。上面的論文雖然說『無』，但它的本體不超出前面兩種性質而成為真實生。所以論文又說：『這個真實性沒有其他不同的法，還是前面兩種性質的無，就是真實性。』真實是無相無性，所以意思是說這是無相性、無生性的『性』，所以叫做『無性性』。二者，沒有前面兩種『無』的『性』作為真實性，所以說『無性性』，也可以說『無無性』。最初解釋『無』字，是無相、無生的『無』，也就是沒有見思、沒有無明的『無』。第二次解釋『無』字，是沒有無相、沒有無生的『無』，也就是等同於無空、無中的『無』。現在屬於第二次解釋的意義。因為真實性當體就是以無相無生作為它的性質，現在既然除去了它，就是沒有無相性、沒有無生性。論文之中也有這個意義，所以論文說妄立非妄立諦，就說對遣除兩種『有』，妄立兩種『無』，名為真實（正如同上文所說真實是有，真實是無）。還尋找這個『性』，離開『有』離開『無』，所以不是妄立。三種無性都不是妄立。既然說離開『有』離開『無』，就是離開遣除兩種『有』，離開建立兩種『無』，正如同第二次解釋的意義，沒有無相性、沒有無生性。所以現在本文說除去真實性，進入無性性。然而論文說還尋找這個『性』，『還』這一個字很有它的意義。名從對立而得，說遣除兩種『有』，建立兩種『無』，屬於妄立諦，也就是世諦。本體自性彰顯，不是空，屬於非妄立諦，也就是第一義諦。不離開這個『性』，有它的亡照，所以說還尋找。如果讀智者四念處中妄立非妄立諦，要知道現在所說的。

第二，就『真』下分別總結真實。文章說：『窮深之處微妙難知』，真俗建立之處，三諦就消失了，所以建立與消失都不是思議可以理解的。文章說：『是故無性性，或者叫做無無性，或者叫做無真性』，只是一種說法。

【English Translation】 English version Based respectively on 『Ta Er You』 (Wu Xiang You [Formless Existence], Wu Sheng You [Unborn Existence]), 『Zhen Shi You』 [True Existence]. This distinction relies on 『Ta Er Wu』 (You Wu Xiang [Existence of Formlessness], You Wu Sheng [Existence of Non-Birth]). Although the above treatise speaks of 『Wu』 [Non-Existence], its essence does not go beyond the preceding two natures to become true birth. Therefore, the treatise further states: 『This true nature has no other different dharma; it is still the non-existence of the preceding two natures that is true nature.』 Truth is formless and without inherent nature, so it means that this is the 『nature』 of formlessness and unbornness, hence it is called 『Wu Xing Xing』 [Nature of No-Nature]. Secondly, the 『nature』 without the preceding two 『Wu』 [Non-Existences] serves as true nature, so it is said 『Wu Xing Xing』 [Nature of No-Nature], which can also be said to be 『Wu Wu Xing』 [No Non-Nature]. The initial explanation of the word 『Wu』 [Non-Existence] is the 『Wu』 [Non-Existence] of formlessness and unbornness, which is the 『Wu』 [Non-Existence] without views and thoughts, without ignorance. The second explanation of the word 『Wu』 [Non-Existence] is the 『Wu』 [Non-Existence] without formlessness and without unbornness, which is equivalent to the 『Wu』 [Non-Existence] of emptiness and the middle way. Now it belongs to the meaning of the second explanation. Because true nature inherently takes formlessness and unbornness as its nature, now that it is removed, it is without the nature of formlessness and without the nature of unbornness. There is also this meaning in the treatise, so the treatise speaks of falsely established and non-falsely established truths, saying that in response to eliminating the two 『You』 [Existences], falsely establishing the two 『Wu』 [Non-Existences] is called truth (just as the above text says that truth is existence, truth is non-existence). Still seeking this 『nature』, being apart from 『You』 [Existence] and apart from 『Wu』 [Non-Existence], it is therefore not falsely established. The three non-natures are not falsely established. Since it is said to be apart from 『You』 [Existence] and apart from 『Wu』 [Non-Existence], it is to be apart from eliminating the two 『You』 [Existences] and apart from establishing the two 『Wu』 [Non-Existences], just as the meaning of the second explanation, without the nature of formlessness and without the nature of unbornness. Therefore, the present text says to remove true nature and enter the nature of no-nature. However, the treatise says to still seek this 『nature』; the word 『still』 has great significance. Names are obtained from opposition, saying to eliminate the two 『You』 [Existences] and establish the two 『Wu』 [Non-Existences], belonging to falsely established truths, which is the mundane truth. The essence of inherent nature manifests, not being emptiness, belonging to non-falsely established truths, which is the first principle truth. Not being apart from this 『nature』, there is its forgetting illumination, so it is said to still seek. If reading the falsely established and non-falsely established truths in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness of the wise, one should know what is being said now.

Secondly, based on 『Zhen』 [Truth], separately conclude the truth. The text says: 『The place of ultimate depth is subtle and difficult to know,』 where true and mundane are established, the three truths disappear, so establishment and disappearance are both beyond comprehension. The text says: 『Therefore, the nature of no-nature, or called no non-nature, or called no true nature,』 is just one way of saying it.

法體因遣情殊遂有三名。故皆言或。遣無性云無無性。復由遣執于無性云無真性。此二名者祇是論中一無性性之法體也。

三又復下約根三。初約中根。次若不能下。下根。三又復雖是初行下。上根。若以三根約此三文對三止觀。義何不可。細究文意乃是圓頓自分。此三良由約證豎論于修。是故分別成在七信。依佗十信真實初住。或依佗性。初住已去真實妙覺。故云不得越前二性經修第三。若也約解橫辨于修。故諸位中皆是三番一時而修。是故初心約此並學皆成豎論第三番耳。雖有橫豎。莫不皆是圓頓法門。故下結位乃有橫豎二義之別。人若問云。今此南嶽大乘止觀。於三種中屬於何種。故應答云正屬圓頓。問。若由約位豎論之故不可越二。何以越一。答。雖云越于分別一性。以依佗中有分別故還成不越。是故無有不歷七信便至后位之疑妨也。問。既然不越。何以文云不從第一。答。依說次第故云不從。依義實具足是故不越。問。既是約位豎論次第。法理合然。何故分根有能不能。答。其分根者自約位說。次與不次非由位得。問。三番並學為上根者。其義云何。答。此通二義。一者不可定為上根。但可於前分二根性有利鈍。若利若鈍。約證豎論三番不併。約解橫辨何不併學。二者亦可以前二根如於修別故屬中下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：法體因為遣除情執的殊異，所以有三種名稱。因此都說『或』。遣除『無性』的執著，就說『無無性』。又因為執著于『無性』，就說『無真性』。這兩個名稱只是論中『一無性性』的法體。

第三段又從下面開始，是根據三種根器來劃分。首先是針對中等根器。其次是『若不能下』，針對下等根器。第三是『又復雖是初行下』，針對上等根器。如果用這三種根器來對應這三段文字，對應三種止觀，在義理上有什麼不可行的呢？仔細研究文意，這正是圓頓止觀的本分。這三種情況都是因為根據證悟的位次，縱向地論述修行，所以分別成就於七信位。依靠他力，十信位就能達到真實的初住位。或者依靠自性，初住位之後就能達到真實的妙覺位。所以說不能超越前兩種自性，直接修習第三種。如果根據理解，橫向地辨析修行，那麼在各個位次中，都是三種同時修習。所以初學者根據這個道理，同時學習三種，都成為縱向論述的第三種情況。雖然有縱向和橫向的區別，但無一不是圓頓法門。所以下面的結論，在位次上就有橫向和縱向兩種含義的區別。如果有人問，現在南嶽大乘止觀，在三種止觀中屬於哪一種？應該回答說，正是屬於圓頓止觀。問：如果因為根據位次縱向論述的緣故，不能超越兩種自性，為什麼可以超越一種自性？答：雖然說超越了分別的一種自性，但因為依靠他力，其中有分別，所以還是沒有超越。因此沒有不經歷七信位就達到後面位次的疑慮。問：既然沒有超越，為什麼經文中說不從第一種開始？答：根據敘述的次第，所以說不從第一種開始。根據義理，實際上是具足的，所以沒有超越。問：既然是根據位次縱向論述次第，法理應該如此，為什麼劃分根器有能和不能的區別？答：劃分根器是根據位次來說的。次第和不次第，不是由位次決定的。問：三種同時學習是上等根器，這個道理是什麼？答：這包含兩種含義。一是不能確定一定是上等根器，但可以在前面兩種根器中區分有利根和鈍根。無論是利根還是鈍根，根據證悟的位次縱向論述，三種不能同時進行。根據理解橫向辨析，為什麼不能同時學習？二是也可以認為前兩種根器在修行上有所區別，所以屬於中下等根器。

【English Translation】 English version: Because the Dharma body eliminates the differences in emotional attachments, it has three names. Therefore, all say 'or'. To eliminate the attachment to 'no-nature' (anutpāda), it is said 'no-no-nature'. Furthermore, because of attachment to 'no-nature', it is said 'no-true-nature'. These two names are merely the Dharma body of 'one-no-nature-nature' in the treatise.

The third section, starting from below, is divided according to the three types of faculties (indriya). First, it is for the medium faculty. Second, 'if unable below' is for the lower faculty. Third, 'again, although it is the initial practice below' is for the superior faculty. If these three faculties are used to correspond to these three passages, corresponding to the three types of cessation and contemplation (śamatha-vipassanā), what is impossible in terms of meaning? Upon careful study of the text, this is precisely the inherent nature of the perfect and sudden (yuan dun) cessation and contemplation. These three situations are all because they discuss cultivation vertically based on the stages of realization, so they are respectively accomplished in the seven faiths (saptavidha-śraddhā). Relying on other-power (para-śakti), the ten faiths can reach the true initial dwelling (prathama-bhūmi). Or relying on self-nature (svabhāva), after the initial dwelling, one can reach the true wonderful enlightenment (adbhuta-bodhi). Therefore, it is said that one cannot transcend the first two self-natures and directly cultivate the third. If, based on understanding, one analyzes cultivation horizontally, then in each stage, all three are cultivated simultaneously. Therefore, beginners, based on this principle, learn all three simultaneously, all becoming the third case of vertical discussion. Although there are vertical and horizontal distinctions, none are not perfect and sudden Dharma gates. Therefore, the conclusion below has the distinction of horizontal and vertical meanings in terms of stages. If someone asks, to which of the three types does the current Nanyue Great Vehicle Cessation and Contemplation belong? The answer should be that it precisely belongs to the perfect and sudden cessation and contemplation. Question: If, because of the vertical discussion based on stages, one cannot transcend two self-natures, why can one transcend one self-nature? Answer: Although it is said that one transcends one self-nature of discrimination, because relying on other-power, there is discrimination within it, so it is still not transcended. Therefore, there is no doubt that one can reach the later stages without going through the seven faiths. Question: Since there is no transcendence, why does the text say not to start from the first? Answer: According to the order of narration, it is said not to start from the first. According to the meaning, it is actually complete, so there is no transcendence. Question: Since it is a vertical discussion of the order based on stages, the Dharma principle should be so, why is there a distinction between ability and inability in dividing faculties? Answer: The division of faculties is based on the stages. Order and non-order are not determined by the stages. Question: What is the principle that learning all three simultaneously is for the superior faculty? Answer: This contains two meanings. First, it cannot be determined that it is definitely the superior faculty, but one can distinguish between sharp and dull faculties in the first two faculties. Whether sharp or dull, based on the vertical discussion of the stages of realization, the three cannot be done simultaneously. Based on the horizontal analysis of understanding, why can't one learn simultaneously? Second, it can also be considered that the first two faculties are different in cultivation, so they belong to the middle and lower faculties.

。以後根性即修一心故屬最上。文云以依佗性亦得名分別性者。一者由執依佗為分別故。二者不以二性分對二惑。是故二惑名以當體。名為分別各取所依合為佗依。問。前依佗性亦具三性。今何具二。答。今從豎論。並非上根如修別。故依佗外更須修實。故略不說。問。應顯前文是橫不別耶。答。不可一向。前但示于依佗一性具三性義。若以此三一心而觀故成橫成一。若以此三次第而觀故成豎成別。

四料揀。有此問者由上文云除真實性。答文意者但是除執非謂除性。不出就法功歸二義。就法論除云除實性。由就實性而起執故。功歸論除乃除無明。功由無明執實性故。問。人據荊溪云。世緣起法亦本無生。但由情計謂之為生。理性亦爾。故謂事理法體不除但除情執。且今三性。前之二性正屬緣起。亦但除情耶。答。昔說誤矣。今問緣起是生無生。若云無生何云緣起。若云是生生必須除。若謂不然。何云情計謂之為生。良由不知理體不除者自心功也。事理不除者由即理也。是故今文於前二性而無此難。

二復更下喻二。初約巾兔喻四。初總示。二譬如下正示二。初喻三性觀門二。初示。二此喻下結初三。初喻真實性二。初喻。二真實下合。文云唯一凈心自性離相者。若約止門總離二相。一者名相。二者形相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以後，如果修行者能夠專注於一心，那便是最上乘的根性。經文中說，『因為依賴他性（Paratantra-svabhava，依他起性）也能被稱為分別性（Parikalpita-svabhava，遍計所執性）』，原因有二：一是由於執著于依他性，將其視為分別；二是不以二性來區分兩種迷惑。因此，兩種迷惑以其自身本體而得名，稱為分別，各自取其所依賴的，合為依他。問：之前的依他性也具備三種性質，現在為何只具備兩種？答：現在是從豎向來論述。並非上等根性的人能夠像修行別法那樣修行，因此在依他之外，還需要修行真實性（Parinispanna-svabhava，圓成實性），所以略而不說。問：應該說明前文是橫向而不分別嗎？答：不能一概而論。前文只是展示了依他一性具備三性的含義。如果以這三性一心而觀，就成為橫向，成為一體；如果以這三性次第而觀，就成為豎向，成為分別。四、料揀。有人提出這樣的問題，是因為上文說『除了真實性』。回答的含義是，只是去除執著，並非去除性質。不出就法和功歸二義。就法而言，說去除，是說去除實性。因為執著于實性而生起。從功歸而言，去除的是無明。功用在於無明執著于實性。問：有人根據荊溪的說法，世俗的緣起法本來也是無生的，只是由於情見的計度，才認為它是生。理性也是如此。所以說事理法體不去除，只是去除情執。那麼現在這三性，之前的二性正是屬於緣起，也只是去除情執嗎？答：之前的說法是錯誤的。現在問，緣起是生還是無生？如果說是無生，為何又說是緣起？如果說是生，生就必須去除。如果說不是這樣，為何又說情見計度認為是生？這是因為不知道理體不去除，是自心的功用。事理不去除，是因為它就是理。所以，現在的經文對於前二性沒有這樣的疑問。二、復更下喻二。首先用巾和兔來比喻四點。首先是總的指示。其次是譬如以下的正式指示，分為兩點。首先是比喻三性觀門，分為兩點。首先是展示。其次是『此喻下』，總結最初的三點。首先是比喻真實性，分為兩點。首先是比喻。其次是『真實下』，合起來說。經文中說『唯一凈心自性離相』，如果是從止門來說，就是總的離開二相。一是名相，二是形相。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, if a practitioner can focus on one mind, that is the highest root nature. The text says, 'Because relying on Paratantra-svabhava (依他起性, the nature of dependence on others) can also be called Parikalpita-svabhava (遍計所執性, the nature of conceptual construction),' there are two reasons: first, because of clinging to Paratantra-svabhava, regarding it as conceptual construction; second, not using the two natures to distinguish between the two delusions. Therefore, the two delusions are named by their own essence, called conceptual construction, each taking what it relies on, combining them into dependence on others. Question: The previous Paratantra-svabhava also possesses three natures, why does it now only possess two? Answer: Now it is discussed from a vertical perspective. Not everyone with superior root nature can practice like practicing separate dharmas, so in addition to dependence on others, it is also necessary to practice Parinispanna-svabhava (圓成實性, the nature of perfect reality), so it is omitted. Question: Should it be explained that the previous text is horizontal and not separate? Answer: It cannot be generalized. The previous text only showed the meaning of one nature of dependence on others possessing three natures. If these three natures are viewed with one mind, it becomes horizontal, becoming one; if these three natures are viewed in sequence, it becomes vertical, becoming separate. Four, Analysis and Discrimination. Someone raises this question because the previous text said 'except for the nature of reality'. The meaning of the answer is that it only removes attachment, not removing the nature itself. It does not go beyond the two meanings of discussing the Dharma and attributing merit. In terms of discussing the Dharma, saying to remove means to remove the nature of reality. Because attachment arises from clinging to the nature of reality. In terms of attributing merit, what is removed is ignorance. The function lies in ignorance clinging to the nature of reality. Question: Someone, based on Jingxi's (荊溪) words, says that worldly conditioned dharmas are also originally unborn, but it is only due to emotional calculation that they are considered to be born. The same is true of rational nature. Therefore, it is said that the essence of phenomena and principle is not removed, only emotional attachment is removed. So now these three natures, the previous two natures precisely belong to conditioned arising, are they also just removing emotional attachment? Answer: The previous statement was wrong. Now I ask, is conditioned arising born or unborn? If it is said to be unborn, why is it said to be conditioned arising? If it is said to be born, birth must be removed. If it is said that it is not like this, why is it said that emotional calculation considers it to be born? This is because one does not know that the essence of principle is not removed, it is the function of one's own mind. Phenomena and principle are not removed because it is identical to principle. Therefore, the current text does not have such questions regarding the previous two natures. Two, Further Metaphors Below. First, use the scarf and rabbit to metaphorize four points. First is the general instruction. Second is the formal instruction below, divided into two points. First is the metaphor of the three natures' contemplation gate, divided into two points. First is the demonstration. Second is 'This metaphor below', summarizing the initial three points. First is the metaphor of the nature of reality, divided into two points. First is the metaphor. Second is 'Reality below', combining them. The text says 'The only pure mind's self-nature is free from characteristics', if it is from the perspective of cessation, it is the total separation from two characteristics. One is name and form, and the other is shape and form.

。形相又二。一者虛相。二者實相。離名相者即離性相。離虛相者即離生相。離實相者即離相相。故三無性亦名三無相也。且名相者由性本無名。因對分別名之為空。因對依佗名之為中。二名本無故離名相。如巾本不名無兔。巾因對兔故號無兔。巾無兔。巾名其名亦亡無兔。如空中巾則如性無。無兔巾如為空中性。其實但亡無兔之名而不亡巾。如實但亡空中之名而不亡性。今文且在實性觀中未離名相。故離相言。且離虛相併離實相。凈心自性既離二相。正屬空中。餘二各有喻合。在文可了。

二若了下。喻三無性止門二。初示。二即此下。結示中各有喻合。問。無性性智中雲能知凈心本性自有。不以二性之無為真實性。據此之說。其義但離修入空中。有性空中為真實性。若其然者。性得謂之真實性止。亡于于中歸一性耶。答。修性空中體同義異。若從義。亡修空中存性空中。教門有之。但今文意。真實性中窮深修止。止體寂也而非其用。以約體同故性空中還是于用。而非性體。今修止者既證性體。故亡空中。問。文中何云本性自有。若性體本有。不因無相無生方有實性。

三是故下結法喻二。初結法。文有三節。初二約離。后一約即。離中初明宜亦。故云若欲。次明修習。故云若不。二以是下結喻。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本形相又有兩種：一是虛相，二是實相。離開名相，就是離開性相。離開虛相，就是離開生相。離開實相，就是離開相相。所以三無性也叫做三無相。而且名相，是因為自性本來沒有名字，因為對待分別才稱它為空。因為對待依他才稱它為中。這兩個名字本來就沒有，所以要離開名相。比如巾本來不叫做無兔，巾因為對待兔才叫做無兔。巾是無兔，巾的名字也隨著無兔而消失。如同空中之巾，就像自性本無。無兔之巾就像空中之性。其實只是消失了無兔的名字，而沒有消失巾。如同只是消失了空中這個名字，而沒有消失自性。現在本文且在實性觀中，還沒有離開名相，所以說離開相。而且離開虛相，並離開實相。清凈心自性既然離開了這兩種相，正屬於空中。其餘兩種各有比喻和合，在文中可以明白。

如果瞭解下面，比喻三無性止門二。開始是揭示，然後『即此下』是總結揭示，其中各有比喻和合。問：無性性智中說，能夠知道清凈心本性自有，不以二性的無作為真實性。根據這種說法，它的意義只是離開修入空中，有性空中作為真實性。如果真是這樣，性可以稱作真實性止，在空中消失而歸於一性嗎？答：修性空中，體相同而意義不同。如果從意義上說，消失修空中，存在性空中，教門中有這種說法。但現在本文的意思是，真實性中窮盡深入修止，止的本體是寂靜的，而不是它的作用。因為約體相同，所以性空中還是在於用，而不是性體。現在修止的人既然證悟了性體，所以消失了空中。問：文中為什麼說本性自有？如果性體本有，不是因為無相無生才有實性嗎？

因此下面總結法和比喻二。先總結法，文中有三節。前兩節是關於離開，后一節是關於即。離開中先說明適宜，所以說『若欲』。其次說明修習，所以說『若不』。其次『以是下』總結比喻。

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, forms have two aspects: one is the illusory form (虛相), and the other is the real form (實相). To be apart from names and forms is to be apart from nature and form. To be apart from the illusory form is to be apart from the arising form. To be apart from the real form is to be apart from the form of forms. Therefore, the three non-natures are also called the three non-forms. Moreover, names and forms arise because the self-nature originally has no name; it is called 'emptiness' (空) because of contrasting differentiations. It is called 'middle' (中) because of contrasting dependence on others. These two names originally do not exist, so one must be apart from names and forms. For example, a cloth is not originally called 'no rabbit' (無兔); the cloth is called 'no rabbit' because it is contrasted with a rabbit. The cloth is 'no rabbit,' and the name of the cloth also disappears along with 'no rabbit.' Like a cloth in the sky, it is like the self-nature being originally without. The cloth of 'no rabbit' is like the nature in the sky. In reality, only the name of 'no rabbit' disappears, but the cloth does not disappear. Similarly, only the name of 'sky' disappears, but the self-nature does not disappear. Now, this text is still in the contemplation of real nature and has not yet departed from names and forms, so it speaks of departing from forms. Moreover, it departs from the illusory form and also departs from the real form. The pure mind's self-nature, having departed from these two forms, truly belongs to emptiness. The remaining two each have metaphors and combinations, which can be understood in the text.

If one understands the following, it is a metaphor for the two gates of cessation in the three non-natures. First, there is the revelation; then, '即此下' (jí cǐ xià - 'immediately below this') is the concluding revelation, each with metaphors and combinations. Question: The wisdom of non-nature states that one can know that the pure mind's self-nature is inherently existent, and the non-existence of the two natures is not taken as the true nature. According to this statement, its meaning is only to depart from cultivating and entering emptiness, with the emptiness of nature being taken as the true nature. If this is the case, can nature be called the cessation of true nature, disappearing in emptiness and returning to one nature? Answer: The emptiness of cultivation and the emptiness of nature are the same in essence but different in meaning. If from the perspective of meaning, the emptiness of cultivation disappears, and the emptiness of nature remains. There is such a saying in the teachings. However, the meaning of this text is that in the true nature, one exhausts and deeply cultivates cessation. The essence of cessation is stillness, not its function. Because they are the same in essence, the emptiness of nature is still in function, not the essence of nature. Now, those who cultivate cessation, having realized the essence of nature, therefore the emptiness disappears. Question: Why does the text say that the self-nature is inherently existent? If the essence of nature is inherently existent, is it not because of non-form and non-arising that there is real nature?

Therefore, the following concludes the Dharma and the metaphor in two parts. First, it concludes the Dharma, and the text has three sections. The first two sections are about departing, and the last section is about being identical. In departing, first, it clarifies what is suitable, so it says '若欲' (ruò yù - 'if one desires'). Second, it clarifies cultivation, so it says '若不' (ruò bù - 'if not'). Next, '以是下' (yǐ shì xià - 'therefore below') concludes the metaphor.

四如幻下。例顯三。初喻通辨三性。文云依實起虛執為實。此之實字亦可是同。由依佗性或指分別為所依故。今文則異依實之實。乃是實之實。據次科云。但虛體是實。即喻真實性。是以不同執虛之實。二若但直下喻。別就依佗辨三性。三是故下結。

二又更下。約夢事喻喻三。初標。二譬如下示。三是以下結。示中又二。初喻依佗。二彼夢下。喻分別。各有喻合。

二是以下證。三此即下結。云三性者。喻中既有作夢之心。心即實性。

二然此下喻止門二。初喻。二此即下結喻三無性各有喻合。依佗中雲有即非有惟是本識者。流即是水故屬非有。真實性中為論覺心夢心。故以本識真心說即是息異。以辨寂也。

二就清凈三性以明止觀體狀者。然此三性法理。進不與染獨中稍有不同。染中依佗體是無明。虛相惟在俗諦。凈中依佗云虛相者。體是三身四土。義通三諦。染中真實。體是空中凈真實。體是一性。其不同者深有其旨。由虛相者乃是世諦。其無相者方為真諦。此世俗諦在生佛進不不同。如法華十如。相性等十。如是二字乃屬理實。玄辨六道相性體三。即指苦報色心為體。表苦為相。生惡為性。然既此等義屬事權。如是理實故當空中。其佛畎釋正因為體。事因為性。緣因為相。並約

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

四、如幻喻之後，用例子來闡釋三種自性。首先，用比喻來普遍辨析三種自性。經文中說：『依據真實而生起虛妄的執著，認為它是真實的。』這裡的『實』字也可以是相同的，因為它是依據他性，或者是指分別自性作為所依據的。但現在的經文不同於『依實』的『實』，而是『真實』的『實』。根據下一科的說法：『只有虛幻的體性才是真實的』，這比喻的是真實性。因此，它不同於執著虛妄為真實的『實』。第二，如果只是直接用比喻，那就分別就他性來辨析三種自性。第三，『是故』以下是總結。二、『又更』以下，用夢境來比喻三種自性。首先是標示。第二，『譬如』以下是展示。第三，『是』以下是總結。在展示中又分為兩部分。首先是比喻他性。第二，『彼夢』以下是比喻分別自性。各有比喻和合。『二是』以下是證明。『三、此即』以下是總結。說三種自性，比喻中既有作夢的心，這心就是真實性。二、『然此』以下，用比喻來止息二門。首先是比喻。第二，『此即』以下是總結，比喻三種無自性，各有比喻和合。在他性中說『有即非有，唯是本識』，流動的就是水，所以屬於非有。在真實性中，討論的是覺悟的心和夢中的心，所以用本識真心來說，就是止息差異，用來辨別寂靜。二、就清凈的三種自性來闡明止觀的體狀：然而這三種自性的法理，在進修時與染污時的不同之處在於，染污時依他性是無明，虛妄的相只存在於俗諦中；清凈時依他性說虛妄的相，體性是三身四土，義理貫通三諦。染污時的真實性，體性是空性；清凈時的真實性，體性是一性。它們的不同之處，蘊含著深刻的旨意。因為虛妄的相是世俗諦，而無相才是真諦。這世俗諦在眾生和佛的進修中是不同的。如《法華經》的十如是，相、性等十，『如是』二字屬於理實。玄辨六道的相、性、體三者，是指苦報的色心為體，表苦為相，生惡為性。然而既然這些義理屬於事權，如是理實就應當是空性。佛的開釋，正因為體，事因為性，緣因為相，都是大約...

【English Translation】 English version

Four, following the analogy of illusion, examples are used to illustrate the three natures. First, the three natures are universally distinguished through analogy. The text states: 'Based on the real, false attachments arise, considering them to be real.' The word 'real' here can also be the same, because it is based on other-power nature (paratantra-svabhava) or refers to the discriminated nature (parikalpita-svabhava) as the basis. However, the current text differs from the 'real' of 'based on the real'; it is the 'real' of 'reality'. According to the next section, 'Only the illusory nature is real,' which is an analogy for the perfected nature (parinispanna-svabhava). Therefore, it is different from the 'real' that clings to the illusory as real. Second, if only direct analogies are used, then the three natures are distinguished separately based on other-power nature. Third, 'Therefore' below is the conclusion. Two, 'Furthermore' below, the three natures are analogized using dream events. First is the indication. Second, 'For example' below is the demonstration. Third, 'Is' below is the conclusion. Within the demonstration, there are two parts. First is the analogy for other-power nature. Second, 'That dream' below is the analogy for discriminated nature. Each has analogy and synthesis. 'Two is' below is the proof. 'Three, this is' below is the conclusion. Saying the three natures, the analogy already has the mind that dreams, this mind is the perfected nature. Two, 'However this' below, uses analogy to cease the two gates. First is the analogy. Second, 'This is' below is the conclusion, analogy for the three no-natures, each has analogy and synthesis. In other-power nature, it says 'Being is non-being, only the fundamental consciousness', the flowing is water, so it belongs to non-being. In the perfected nature, it discusses the awakened mind and the mind in the dream, so it uses fundamental consciousness true mind to say, that is ceasing differences, used to distinguish stillness. Two, using the pure three natures to clarify the substance of cessation and contemplation: However, the Dharma principles of these three natures, in cultivation, are slightly different from those in defilement. In defilement, other-power nature is ignorance, and the illusory appearance only exists in the conventional truth; in purity, other-power nature says the illusory appearance, the substance is the three bodies and four lands, the meaning penetrates the three truths. The perfected nature in defilement, the substance is emptiness; the perfected nature in purity, the substance is one nature. Their differences contain profound meanings. Because the illusory appearance is the conventional truth, and the no-appearance is the ultimate truth. This conventional truth is different in the cultivation of sentient beings and Buddhas. Like the ten suchnesses in the Lotus Sutra, appearance, nature, etc., the two words 'suchness' belong to the truth of principle. The profound distinction of the appearance, nature, and substance of the six realms refers to the color and mind of suffering retribution as the substance, expressing suffering as the appearance, and generating evil as the nature. However, since these meanings belong to expedient means, the truth of principle should be emptiness. The Buddha's explanation, precisely because of the substance, the causal condition as the nature, and the enabling condition as the appearance, are all approximately...

位釋以相性體指為三德。三因三德。荊溪指因即是三諦。既以三諦為之事權。故如是理實須當一性盡。由至佛境中究極歸深。空假中三還是諸法。茍無此義。大師何云一諦為實三諦為實三諦為權。今亦復然。因此義故即見南嶽所說有旨。何者。前明染中實性修止。乃以滅於二無為止。今明凈中實性修止。但以佛心生心無二為止。其不云滅二無為止者。祇由二無體是空中。凈中空中屬依佗故。問。若以三諦屬依佗性。其一性者屬真實性。是則一性出三諦外。三諦覆在一性之傍。豈是圓頓法門者耶。答。此問非也。其云一者即三之一。故一即是三。其云三者即一之三。故三即是一。豈惟三一不二。況復三性元同。不分而分作前說耳。問。若而分時。三出一外一在三傍耶。答。三是即一之三。且從三說。如波是即水之波。且名為波。一是即三之一。且從一名。如水是即波之水。且名為水。波水相別。故云不分而分。波水體一。是故分而不分。問。曾問人云。即三是一即一是三者。乃就三中趣舉於一。一相即爾。答。此一說者但得就法圓融而失本源法體。故智者云。如摩醯首羅面上三目。雖是三目而是一面。觀境亦如是。觀三即一發一即三。不可思議。

釋文為三。初標科。二第一下隨釋。三此約下結隨釋三。初隨章別

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有人解釋說，相性體（laksana-svabhava-kaya，指諸法的體性）可以指代三德（tri-guna，法身、般若、解脫）。三因（tri-hetu，正因、了因、緣因）即是三德。荊溪（Jingxi，唐代天臺宗僧人湛然）指出，因就是三諦（tri-satya，空、假、中）。既然以三諦作為行事的主導，那麼這個道理實際上必須完全歸於一性（eka-svabhava，統一的體性），直至佛的境界達到最深遠的歸宿。空、假、中三諦仍然是諸法的本性。如果沒有這個道理，大師（指智顗）為何說『一諦為實，三諦為權，三諦為實』？現在也是這樣。因為這個道理，就能明白南嶽（Nanyue，慧思）所說的話是有深意的。什麼深意呢？前面說在染污中修止，以滅除二無（dvi-abhava，斷滅和虛無）為目標。現在說在清凈中修止，只以佛心（buddha-citta，覺悟之心）和眾生心（sattva-citta，未覺悟之心）無二為目標。之所以不說滅除二無為目標，是因為二無的體性是空。清凈中的空屬於依他性（paratantra-svabhava，依賴於其他條件而存在的性質）。問：如果三諦屬於依他性，那麼一性屬於真實性（paramartha-svabhava，絕對真實的性質）。這樣，一性就超出三諦之外，三諦又在一性旁邊。這難道是圓頓法門（圓滿頓悟的法門）嗎？答：這個提問不對。所說的一，是三中的一，所以一就是三。所說的三，是一中的三，所以三就是一。豈止三一不二，況且三性（tri-svabhava，遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）原本相同，只是不加區分地分為前面所說的那些而已。問：如果加以區分，是三性超出了一性之外，還是一性在三性旁邊呢？答：三是即一之三，且從三來說，就像波浪是即水之波，且名為波浪。一是即三之一，且從一來說，就像水是即波之水，且名為水。波浪和水相區別，所以說不分而分。波浪和水的體性是一，所以說分而不分。問：曾經問人說，『即三是一，即一是三』，這是就三中選取一個來說，一相就是這樣嗎？答：這種說法只是得到了就法圓融（dharma-samata，諸法平等融合）的表面意思，而失去了本源法體（dharma-kaya，法的本體）。所以智者（zhizhe，指智顗）說，就像摩醯首羅（Mahesvara，濕婆神）面上的三隻眼睛，雖然是三隻眼睛，卻是一張面孔。觀境也是這樣，觀三即一，發一即三，不可思議。解釋這段文字分為三部分。首先是標科（biaoke，標明科判），其次是『二第一下』開始的解釋，再次是『此約下』開始的總結解釋。首先是按照章節來區分。

【English Translation】 English version: Someone explains that the laksana-svabhava-kaya (the nature of all dharmas) can refer to the tri-guna (three virtues: Dharmakaya, Prajna, and Liberation). The tri-hetu (three causes: direct cause, understanding cause, and conditional cause) are the tri-satya (three truths: emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way). Jingxi (Zhanran, a Tiantai Buddhist monk of the Tang Dynasty) pointed out that the cause is the tri-satya. Since the tri-satya are taken as the guide for action, then this principle must actually completely return to eka-svabhava (the unified nature), until the realm of the Buddha reaches its deepest destination. The three truths of emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way are still the nature of all dharmas. If there is not this principle, why did the Master (referring to Zhiyi) say 'One truth is real, three truths are provisional, and three truths are real'? It is the same now. Because of this principle, one can understand that what Nanyue (Huisi) said has profound meaning. What profound meaning? Earlier, it was said that in defilement, practicing cessation aims to eliminate the dvi-abhava (two non-existences: annihilation and nihilism). Now, it is said that in purity, practicing cessation only aims to make the Buddha-citta (mind of enlightenment) and the sattva-citta (mind of sentient beings) non-dual. The reason for not saying that eliminating the two non-existences is the goal is that the nature of the two non-existences is emptiness. The emptiness in purity belongs to paratantra-svabhava (the nature of dependent origination). Question: If the tri-satya belong to paratantra-svabhava, then does eka-svabhava belong to paramartha-svabhava (the absolutely real nature)? In this way, eka-svabhava exceeds the tri-satya, and the tri-satya are beside eka-svabhava. Is this the perfect and sudden Dharma gate (the Dharma gate of perfect and sudden enlightenment)? Answer: This question is not correct. The one that is spoken of is one of the three, so one is three. The three that are spoken of are three of the one, so three is one. Not only are the three and one non-dual, but also the tri-svabhava (three natures: parikalpita-svabhava, paratantra-svabhava, and parinispanna-svabhava) are originally the same, only divided into those mentioned earlier without distinction. Question: If they are distinguished, do the three natures exceed the one nature, or is the one nature beside the three natures? Answer: The three are the three of the one, and are spoken of from the perspective of the three, just as the waves are the waves of the water, and are called waves. The one is the one of the three, and is spoken of from the perspective of the one, just as the water is the water of the waves, and is called water. Waves and water are distinguished from each other, so it is said that they are divided without being divided. The nature of waves and water is one, so it is said that they are divided and not divided. Question: Someone once asked, 'The three are one, and the one is three.' Is this just selecting one from the three to speak of, and is the one aspect like this? Answer: This statement only obtains the superficial meaning of dharma-samata (the equality and fusion of all dharmas) and loses the original dharma-kaya (the body of the Dharma). Therefore, Zhizhe (referring to Zhiyi) said that just like the three eyes on the face of Mahesvara (Shiva), although they are three eyes, they are one face. Observing the realm is also like this, observing the three as one, and emitting one as three, which is inconceivable. The explanation of this text is divided into three parts. First is the biaoke (marking the divisions), second is the explanation starting from '二第一下', and third is the summary explanation starting from '此約下'. First is to distinguish according to the chapters.

釋三。初明分別性中止觀體狀三。初所觀境三。初法體。謂知一切諸佛至大悲大愿者。斯示在世凈用化物正執三輪。悲願即意。依報眾具者。此通在世並於滅后。及以染凈殊形六道變化施設者。此語染用。點三乘者攝凈用中。滅后中雲表彰處所者。即指舍利塑泥刻木與圖畫像表彰。是佛化用之處。亦可塔廟為表彰也。文云經教。即經藏。威儀住持即律藏。不語論藏故云等法。二當知下。示虛相。惟是真性緣起之能者。能即用也。既真效能。相即非相。任運無實。三但諸下明妄執。佛現虛相。生執為實。正約見思為曲見也。二行者下能觀觀。

二以知下止二。初追念前觀。二強作下。正修止法二。初示修二。初止息。二唯是下停止。自心所作者。一者妄心。佛相本虛。眾生自心妄執為實。二者真心。是佛自性清凈心作。亦即眾生自性心作。由生佛心本不二故。斯從文旨可作此說。二如是下結成。雲實執止息者。既然息實必住真空。若例染中。今文略于起觀。二明依佗性中止觀體狀三。初標章。二謂因前止下釋二。初觀二。初示。二作此下結初文二。初因止成今觀。二以不下正示觀門。以止文顯今此觀中必有自佗二種虛相。酬因即自。對緣即佗。既因前止為今文觀。今此觀中既有自佗二種虛相。顯前分別必該自佗。

前不語者乃文略爾。又雖因前止為今之觀。不無少殊。前分別性非但無。化他亦殊。前唯界內設化。今通內外利佗。二依此下止二。初示自利利他之德者。即是所止。平等一性而為能。止故云有即非有。何者。由下料揀自利利他是三身四土。且法身寂光與諦理體同名別。荊溪得指自行空中。化他俗諦。豈非三諦俱屬依他同爲所止。二如止下結。三此下結示。前後行之亦得者。隨根不同雖云前後。實是圓乘例如勝別。

三次明下。明真實性中止識體狀三。初標。二謂因下釋。三此名下結。釋又二。初觀惟是一心者。知惟一法名為觀門。二復知下止三。初出法體。正示一心真實法體。乃是能止之體性也。由此體性非迷非悟平等一如。二以無下示相二。初止息。以迷悟無別為能止。有迷有悟為所止。故云分別自滅。前染實性。次番論止。止於能所但約自己心體而論。今止迷悟。乃約生佛相望而說。二妄心下停止。妄心既息者。結前也。本來一如者。停止非迷非悟之理。三故名下結名。

二上來下。約義通結三。初結自行入修。窮深至極平等一如。若以我心佛心皆有體用。亦得名為平等一如。今但在體為一如爾。然須了知既見體如任運用等。二復以下結化他出修。既云無事不作。豈不權作于情事。既云無相不為。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：之前不解釋的是因為文字簡略。而且即使因為之前停止而作為現在的觀察，也不是完全沒有區別。之前的分別性不僅沒有，教化他人也不同。之前只在界內設立教化，現在貫通內外利益他人。二，依據此下停止二。首先展示自利利他的功德，這就是所要停止的。平等一性作為能止，所以說『有即非有』。為什麼呢？因為下面選擇自利利他是三身四土。而且法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法身）寂光（Tranquil Light，寂靜之光）與諦理（Truth principle，真理）本體相同，只是名稱不同。荊溪（Jingxi，人名）得到指示，自行空中，教化他人俗諦（Mundane truth，世俗諦），難道不是三諦（Three Truths，三諦）都屬於依他（Dependent origination，依他起性）而共同作為所止嗎？二，如止下總結。三，此下總結顯示。前後行之也可以，隨著根器不同，雖然說是前後，實際上是圓乘（Perfect Vehicle，圓滿乘），例如勝別（Superior difference，殊勝差別）。三次明下。說明真實性中止識體狀三。首先標明。二，所謂因下解釋。三，此名下總結。解釋又分為二。首先，觀察唯一是心，知道唯一法名為觀門。二，又知道下停止三。首先，顯出法體。正式顯示一心真實法體，是能止的體性。由此體性非迷非悟，平等一如。二，以無下顯示相二。首先，止息。以迷悟無別作為能止，有迷有悟作為所止。所以說『分別自滅』，之前是染污的實性。其次，再論停止。停止於能所，只是就自己的心體而論。現在停止迷悟，是就生佛（Sentient beings and Buddhas，眾生與佛）相對而說。二，妄心下停止。妄心既然止息，是總結前面所說。本來一如，是停止非迷非悟的道理。三，故名下總結名稱。二，上來下。從意義上貫通總結三。首先，總結自行進入修行。窮究深奧達到極致，平等一如。如果認為我的心和佛的心都有體和用，也可以稱為平等一如。現在只是在本體上為一如罷了。然而必須瞭解，既然見到本體如如不動，就任其運用等等。二，又以下總結教化他人出離修行。既然說『無事不作』，難道不權巧地作用於情事嗎？既然說『無相不為』。

【English Translation】 English version: What was not explained before was due to the brevity of the text. Moreover, even though the previous cessation is taken as the present observation, it is not without some differences. The previous discriminating nature not only did not exist, but the way of transforming others is also different. Previously, only within the realm was teaching established; now, it benefits others both within and without. Second, based on this, the following stops at two. First, showing the virtues of self-benefit and benefiting others, which is what is to be stopped. The equality of one nature serves as the ability to stop, hence it is said, 'Existence is non-existence.' Why? Because the following selection of self-benefit and benefiting others involves the Three Bodies (Trikaya, 三身) and Four Lands (Four Pure Lands, 四土). Moreover, the Dharmakaya (法身, Buddha's Body of Essence) and Tranquil Light (寂光, the light of stillness) share the same essence as the principle of truth (諦理, truth), only differing in name. Jingxi (荊溪, a person's name) received instruction, practicing in emptiness for oneself, and teaching others the mundane truth (俗諦, conventional truth). Are not the Three Truths (三諦, Three Levels of Truth) all dependent origination (依他, dependent arising) and together serve as what is to be stopped? Thirdly, the following concludes. Thirdly, this concludes and shows. Acting before and after is also possible; although it is said to be before and after depending on different capacities, in reality, it is the Perfect Vehicle (圓乘, the complete teaching), like the superior difference (勝別, superior distinction). The third explanation below clarifies the three aspects of the nature of reality, the cessation, and the state of consciousness. First, it marks. Second, the so-called cause below explains. Third, this name below concludes. The explanation is further divided into two. First, observing that the only thing is the mind, knowing that the only dharma is called the gate of observation. Second, knowing again below stops at three. First, revealing the body of the dharma. Formally revealing the true body of the one mind, which is the nature of the ability to stop. Because of this nature, it is neither delusion nor enlightenment, equal and one. Second, showing the appearance with non-duality. First, cessation. Taking the non-difference between delusion and enlightenment as the ability to stop, and having delusion and enlightenment as what is to be stopped. Therefore, it is said, 'Discrimination ceases by itself,' previously it was the defiled true nature. Second, discussing cessation again. Stopping at the ability and what is stopped is only discussed in terms of one's own mind. Now, stopping delusion and enlightenment is discussed in terms of sentient beings (生, sentient beings) and Buddhas (佛, Buddhas) in relation to each other. Second, the stopping below the deluded mind. Since the deluded mind has ceased, it is a summary of what was said before. Originally one, it is stopping the principle of neither delusion nor enlightenment. Third, concluding the name below the name. Second, from above below. Concluding the three from the meaning. First, concluding self-practice entering cultivation. Exhausting the profound to the extreme, equal and one. If it is thought that both my mind and the Buddha's mind have essence and function, it can also be called equal and one. Now, it is only one in essence. However, it must be understood that since the essence is seen as such, let it be used, etc. Second, concluding the transformation of others leaving cultivation below. Since it is said 'nothing is not done,' is it not expediently acting on emotional matters? Since it is said 'no form is not done.'

豈不權為于染相。問。情屬凡迷。若言佛起情事之用。必再迷再凡耶。答。實非凡迷。為眾生故權現凡迷。故章安云。方便道中如來不定。法身本地定。不定為凡。故荊溪云。若當分者。尚非教主所知。問。起于染用此論有文。未審智者有其言乎。答。光明疏云。起凈不凈用。三用時下。結止觀雙顯二。初結染位。二乃至下例凡夫祇一體用更無異法。佛亦此法己亦此法。但無始來雖居其體不得其體。故於體用得用失體。以失體故此用無益。又雖曰得用。但得少分不得其全。但得其礙不得其融。皆由失體故有斯過。若得體者。非但于用有亦乃任運得全得融。但以此意求之。實無別有諸佛之法。又眾生得一而不得二。所以卻二。體用異故。佛二其所以卻一。體用如故。故為佛法。

三料揀釋疑二。初四重料揀差無差四。初重。問者由前實性修止而生。答文者乃約克從法體為答。理體同也。事體異也。知同者智。執異者情。前從知同之智而修止。故云我心佛心本來一如。今從執異之情而為答。故乃云佛生二名之異。文云心體有無障礙別性者。即能具情之性也。既云名無礙。複稱別者。無礙從性。別則從情。此無礙效能具于情。故云無障礙別性。

第二重。初問。二答。文三。初示義。余始聞道常疑於此。何者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：難道（佛）不是權宜地顯現出與染污相應的狀態嗎？問：情執屬於凡夫的迷惑。如果說佛產生了情執之事的作用，豈不是又要再次迷惑，再次成為凡夫了嗎？答：實際上並非真正的凡夫迷惑，而是爲了度化眾生而權宜地顯現出凡夫的迷惑。所以章安（大師）說：『在方便道中，如來是不定的，法身本體是定的。不定是為適應凡夫。』所以荊溪（大師）說：『如果應當分別，那麼甚至不是教主所能知曉的。』問：產生與染污相應的作用，這種論述有經典依據嗎？不知道智者（大師）是否有這樣的說法？答：《光明疏》說：『產生清凈與不清凈的作用。』在『三用』之時，總結止觀雙修的道理。首先總結染污的地位。『二乃至下』，舉例說明凡夫的祇（qí，僅、只）一體用，更沒有其他不同的法則。佛也是這個法則，自己也是這個法則。只是從無始以來，雖然處於這個本體之中，卻不能證得這個本體，所以在體和用上，證得了用卻失去了體。因為失去了體，所以這種作用沒有益處。又，即使說證得了用，也只是證得了少部分，沒有證得全部；只是證得了阻礙，沒有證得圓融。這些都是因為失去了本體而造成的過失。如果證得了本體，不僅在用上有所得，而且能夠任運地證得全部和圓融。只要用這個道理去尋求，實際上並沒有其他諸佛的法則。而且眾生證得了一，卻不能證得二，所以捨棄了二，因為體和用是不同的。佛證得了二，卻捨棄了一，因為體和用是如一的。所以這是佛法。三重料揀釋疑，分為兩部分。第一部分是四重料揀差無差，分為四重。第一重。提問者由於之前從實性修止而產生疑問。回答者是根據法體來回答。理體是相同的，事體是不同的。知道相同的是智慧，執著不同的是情執。之前是從知同的智慧來修止，所以說『我心佛心本來一如』。現在是從執著不同的情執來回答，所以說佛產生了二名（能、所）的差異。經文說『心體有無障礙別性』，就是能具足情執的自性。既然說名是無礙的，又說是不同的，無礙是從自性來說的，不同是從情執來說的。這種無礙的自效能具足情執，所以說『無障礙別性』。第二重。首先是提問，然後是回答。經文分為三部分。首先是揭示意義。我從一開始聽到這個道理就常常對此感到疑惑。為什麼呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Isn't it that (the Buddha) expediently manifests a state corresponding to defilement? Question: Affection belongs to the delusion of ordinary beings. If it is said that the Buddha produces the function of affection, wouldn't he become deluded again and become an ordinary being again? Answer: In reality, it is not a true delusion of an ordinary being, but an expedient manifestation of the delusion of an ordinary being for the sake of saving sentient beings. Therefore, Zhang'an (Master) said: 'In the expedient path, the Tathagata is not fixed, the Dharmakaya (法身) [Dharma body] essence is fixed. The unfixed is to adapt to ordinary beings.' Therefore, Jingxi (Master) said: 'If there should be distinctions, then even the teaching master cannot know them.' Question: Producing a function corresponding to defilement, is there scriptural basis for this statement? I wonder if Zhi Zhe (智者) [Wisdom Master] has such a saying? Answer: The 'Guangming Shu' says: 'Producing pure and impure functions.' At the time of the 'three functions,' summarize the principle of dual cultivation of cessation and contemplation. First, summarize the position of defilement. 'Two and below,' exemplify that the ordinary being's Qi (祇) [only, just] one substance and function, there is no other different law. The Buddha is also this law, and oneself is also this law. It is just that from beginningless time, although residing in this substance, one cannot attain this substance, so in substance and function, one attains function but loses substance. Because one loses substance, this function is of no benefit. Moreover, even if one says one attains function, one only attains a small part, not the whole; one only attains obstruction, not complete fusion. These are all faults caused by losing the substance. If one attains the substance, not only will one gain in function, but one will also be able to effortlessly attain the whole and complete fusion. As long as one seeks with this principle, in reality, there are no other laws of the Buddhas. Moreover, sentient beings attain one but cannot attain two, so they abandon two, because substance and function are different. The Buddha attains two but abandons one, because substance and function are as one. Therefore, this is the Buddha Dharma. The third is to analyze and resolve doubts, divided into two parts. The first part is the fourfold analysis of difference and non-difference, divided into four levels. The first level. The questioner arises from the previous cultivation of cessation from the perspective of reality. The answerer responds from the perspective of the Dharma body. The principle body is the same, the phenomenal body is different. Knowing the same is wisdom, clinging to the different is affection. Previously, one cultivated cessation from the wisdom of knowing the same, so it is said 'My mind and the Buddha's mind are originally one.' Now, one answers from the affection of clinging to the different, so it is said that the Buddha produces the difference of two names (subject and object). The sutra says 'The mind body has unobstructed distinct nature,' which is the nature that can fully possess affection. Since it is said that the name is unobstructed, and it is also said to be distinct, unobstructed is from the perspective of nature, and distinct is from the perspective of affection. This unobstructed nature can fully possess affection, so it is said 'unobstructed distinct nature.' The second level. First is the question, then is the answer. The text is divided into three parts. First is to reveal the meaning. From the beginning, I have often doubted this when I heard this principle. Why?

一切事相各別不同者莫非是情。佛既離情合無差別。如何經教說佛起用種種事用歷然不同。其同學輩或謂余云。佛之事用不同眾生。非由情致。自是如來不思議事。或答余云。佛無事用。從眾生邊之事用爾。其實佛用全是性德。故事相者非佛所證。余乃研究此二說者。非余所知者。克從法體事相是情。隨具詮辨佛亦有之。良由佛亦具眾生。故從佛性體即云其用乃是性德。從用當體。故其事用須由執情。余雖知之求諸無所。一日得今南嶽之文。其言既顯足為良證。有求餘者方最說授。文云若離我執即無十方三世之異。豈非事異由情。文云但本在因未離執時各別發願。豈非果證情盡。差別元從在因執存。不因可致。問。前文起用云但除其情。今文起用云未離我執者何。答。用從所依。如鑒現像不曰假形。故云但除其情。用從當體。如形現像不曰鑒。故云未難我執。其實鑑明形像一致而圓。二是故下引證二。初引。二此即下釋。一切是別一道是同。三以是下結答二。初法。推情所起良由性具。性不具情情無由起。情若不起事無由生。事若不生豈有差別。相從雖爾。其實情事差別性本頓具全具發現。故文總云具差別性。若云此性不具情者。情無由即。情若不即。大師何云問七識是執見之心。何得言是實慧解脫。答若離迷執何處

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一切事相各不相同，莫不是因為情執。佛既然已經脫離情執，應該沒有差別才對。為什麼經教中說佛的起用有種種事用，而且歷歷分明各不相同呢？我的同輩有人對我說，佛的事用和眾生不同，不是因為情致，而是如來不可思議的作為。也有人回答我說，佛沒有事用，是從眾生那一邊的事用來看的。其實佛的用全是性德，所以事相不是佛所證得的。我研究這兩種說法，卻不知道哪種是對的。如果從法體事相是情執來說，那麼佛也應該有情執，因為佛也具有眾生之性。所以從佛性本體來說，它的用就是性德；從用本身來說，它的事用必須由執情而來。我雖然知道這些，但卻無處求證。有一天，我得到了南嶽的文，其中的話語非常明顯，足以作為可靠的證據。有人向我求教，我才把這些說出來。文中說，如果離開了『我執』（認為有一個真實的『我』的執念），就沒有十方三世的差異了。這難道不是因為事相的差異是由情執造成的嗎？文中說，只是因為在因地時沒有離開執著，所以各自發愿。這難道不是說，果證時情執已經斷盡，差別原本是從因地執著存在時產生的，不因執著就不能產生差別嗎？問：前面說起用是『但除其情』，現在說起用是『未離我執』，這是為什麼呢？答：用是從所依而來的，就像鏡子顯現影像，不能說是鏡子變成了影像的形狀，所以說是『但除其情』。用是從本體而來的，就像形狀顯現影像，不能說是鏡子。其實鏡子的光明和形狀影像是一致而圓融的。下面引用兩個例子來證明。首先引用第一個例子，然後解釋。一切差別都是一道同源。下面總結回答兩個問題。首先是法理。推究情執的產生，是因為自性本具。自性如果不具足情執，情執就沒有產生的根源。情執如果不產生，事相就沒有產生的根源。事相如果不產生，怎麼會有差別呢？雖然從現象上來看是這樣，但其實情執、事相、差別，自性本來就頓然具足，完全具足，全部顯現出來。所以文中總的說『具差別性』。如果說自性不具足情執，那麼情執就沒有產生的根源。情執如果沒有產生的根源，大師為什麼說問第七識是執見之心，怎麼能說是實慧解脫呢？答：如果離開了迷惑和執著，哪裡還有迷惑和執著呢？

【English Translation】 English version All phenomena being distinct and different are invariably due to emotions. Since the Buddha has transcended emotions, there should be no differences. How is it that the scriptures say the Buddha's functions manifest in various ways, with each function clearly distinct? Some of my peers tell me that the Buddha's functions are different from those of sentient beings, not due to emotional inclinations, but rather the inconceivable actions of the Tathagata (another name for the Buddha). Others answer me that the Buddha has no functions; it is from the perspective of sentient beings' functions that we perceive them. In reality, the Buddha's functions are entirely virtuous qualities inherent in the nature. Therefore, phenomena are not what the Buddha has realized. I have been studying these two views, but I do not know which is correct. If we say that phenomena are emotions arising from the essence of the Dharma, then the Buddha should also have emotions, because the Buddha also possesses the nature of sentient beings. Therefore, from the perspective of the Buddha-nature's essence, its function is virtuous qualities inherent in the nature; from the perspective of the function itself, its actions must arise from attachment and emotions. Although I know this, I have nowhere to seek confirmation. One day, I obtained the text of Nanyue (a Buddhist monk), whose words are very clear and sufficient to serve as reliable evidence. Only when someone asks me for instruction do I explain these things. The text says, 'If one is free from 'I-attachment' (the clinging to a real 'self'), there would be no differences between the ten directions and the three times.' Is this not because the differences in phenomena are caused by emotions? The text says, 'It is only because one did not abandon attachment when in the causal stage that each made individual vows.' Does this not mean that when one attains the fruit of enlightenment, emotions are completely extinguished, and differences originally arise from the existence of attachment in the causal stage; without attachment, differences cannot arise? Question: Earlier, it was said that the function arises from 'merely eliminating emotions,' but now it is said that the function arises from 'not being free from I-attachment.' Why is this? Answer: The function arises from what it relies on, just as a mirror reflects an image, one cannot say that the mirror takes the shape of the image, therefore it is said 'merely eliminating emotions.' The function arises from the essence itself, just as a shape reflects an image, one cannot say it is the mirror. In reality, the mirror's clarity and the shape's image are consistent and perfectly integrated. The following quotes two examples to prove this. First, quote the first example, then explain it. All differences are one and the same source. The following summarizes the answers to two questions. First, the principle of Dharma. Investigating the arising of emotions, it is because the self-nature inherently possesses them. If the self-nature does not possess emotions, emotions would have no source of arising. If emotions do not arise, phenomena would have no source of arising. If phenomena do not arise, how could there be differences? Although it appears this way from the phenomenal perspective, in reality, emotions, phenomena, and differences are all inherently, completely, and fully manifested in the self-nature. Therefore, the text generally says 'possesses the nature of differences.' If it is said that the self-nature does not possess emotions, then emotions would have no source of arising. If emotions have no source of arising, why did the Great Master ask if the seventh consciousness is the mind of attachment and views, how can it be said to be true wisdom and liberation? Answer: If one is free from delusion and attachment, where would delusion and attachment be?

別有實慧之解。二若解下喻。云具像性者。或曰現具者。但具情之性而不具于情。今問曰具情之性者。此性名情不性。若得名情何云不具情。若云具情性。其性不名情。亦須具權性。其性不名權。故知此說者祇因失能所。

第三重問答者。此義前後凡三辨之。文相生起雖各有由。而其意旨。或答意大同而問意少別。或問意大同而答意少別。疑文可見。文為二。初問。二答二。初違問。答雖舉異意在惟同。故云他修我得道。今答違之。若從體一。是故不論修與不修。成與不成。復何得云他修我得。此約性體雙非義拒。云平等耳。二雖然下順問答二。初示義。二是故下引證。若解此體同之義。亦有益己者。惟從性體己他平等。非修不修但從於用。己他既殊修不修別。今以即體論用。他既即體而修。其體既同於己。是示己同他修。故云他修亦有益己。

第四重。初問。二答二。初同異各論二。初同二。初了他即己同。全性為修。以性同故了他即己。二又亦下。自他無相同。亦釋伏疑。疑雲既然了佗即己藉佗得道。今何佛自成道我卻在迷。是以釋云。了他即己己佗性同。故無佗身己身之別。如何尚存佛我之二。疑佛成道我何在迷。二真如下異。二復知下。同異對論二。初不可全同。雖知佗修即己。亦須自進其修。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

別有實慧的理解。第二種，如果解釋『下喻』，說『具有形象的性質』，或者說『現在具有』，只是具有情感的性質而不具有情感本身。現在問：『具有情感的性質』，這個性質叫做情感還是不叫做情感？如果叫做情感，為什麼說不具有情感？如果說具有情感的性質，那麼這個性質不叫做情感，也必須具有權變的性質，這個性質不叫做權變。所以知道這種說法的人只是因為失去了能和所的對應關係。

第三重問答。這個意義前後共有三次辨析。文句的相互生髮雖然各有原因，但其意旨，或者回答的意義大體相同而提問的意義略有不同，或者提問的意義大體相同而回答的意義略有不同。疑問之處可以見到。分為兩部分。首先是提問，然後是回答，分為兩部分。首先是違背提問，回答雖然舉出不同的意思，但意在說明相同。所以說『他修我得道』。現在回答違背了這種說法。如果從本體是一的角度來說，因此不論修行與不修行，成就與不成就，又怎麼能說『他修我得』呢？這是從性體雙重否定的意義來拒絕，說的是平等罷了。其次，雖然以下是順著提問回答，分為兩部分。首先是揭示意義，其次是『是故』以下引用證據。如果理解這個本體相同的意義，也有益於自己。只是從性體上自己和他人是平等的，不是修行與不修行的問題，只是從作用上來說。自己和他人既然不同，修行與不修行也就有區別。現在用即本體論作用的方法，他人既然即本體而修行，他的本體既然和自己相同，這是表明自己和他人修行相同，所以說『他修也有益於自己』。

第四重。首先是提問，然後是回答，分為兩部分。首先是相同和不同各自論述，分為兩部分。首先是他了悟即是自己相同，全部的性質都用來修行，因為性質相同所以他了悟就是自己。其次，『又亦』以下。自己和他人沒有相同之處，也是爲了解釋潛在的疑問。疑問是既然了悟他人就是自己，憑藉他人得道，現在為什麼佛已經成道而我卻還在迷惑？因此解釋說，了悟他人就是自己，自己和他人性質相同，所以沒有他人之身和自己之身的區別，怎麼還存在佛和我這二者的區分呢？疑問是佛已經成道，我還在迷惑。其次，『真如』以下是不同。其次，『復知』以下。相同和不同相對論述，分為兩部分。首先是不可完全相同。雖然知道他人修行就是自己修行，也必須自己努力修行。

【English Translation】 English version:

Another understanding with real wisdom. Secondly, if explaining the 'lower metaphor', saying 'possessing the nature of image', or saying 'currently possessing', it only possesses the nature of emotion without possessing the emotion itself. Now I ask: 'Possessing the nature of emotion', is this nature called emotion or not called emotion? If it is called emotion, why say it does not possess emotion? If it is said to possess the nature of emotion, then this nature is not called emotion, and it must also possess the nature of expediency (quan 性), and this nature is not called expediency. Therefore, knowing that those who say this are only because they have lost the correspondence between the capable (neng) and the object (suo).

The third layer of questions and answers. This meaning has been analyzed three times before and after. Although the mutual generation of sentences has its own reasons, its meaning, or the meaning of the answer is largely the same but the meaning of the question is slightly different, or the meaning of the question is largely the same but the meaning of the answer is slightly different. The doubtful points can be seen. Divided into two parts. First is the question, then the answer, divided into two parts. First is contradicting the question, although the answer raises different meanings, it intends to explain the same. Therefore, it is said 'He cultivates, I attain the Dao'. Now the answer contradicts this statement. If from the perspective of the oneness of the substance (ti 一), therefore, regardless of whether one cultivates or does not cultivate, succeeds or does not succeed, how can one say 'He cultivates, I attain'? This is to reject from the meaning of the dual negation of the nature-substance (xing ti), saying it is just equality. Secondly, although the following is answering according to the question, divided into two parts. First is revealing the meaning, secondly is 'Therefore' below citing evidence. If one understands the meaning of this sameness of substance, it is also beneficial to oneself. It is only from the perspective of the nature-substance that self and others are equal, not a matter of cultivating or not cultivating, but only from the perspective of function (yong). Since self and others are different, cultivating and not cultivating are also different. Now using the method of discussing function from the perspective of the substance itself, since he cultivates from the perspective of the substance itself, and his substance is the same as oneself, this is to show that oneself is the same as his cultivation, therefore it is said 'His cultivation is also beneficial to oneself'.

The fourth layer. First is the question, then the answer, divided into two parts. First is discussing the similarities and differences separately, divided into two parts. First is that his enlightenment is the same as oneself, all the nature is used for cultivation, because the nature is the same, therefore his enlightenment is oneself. Secondly, 'Also' below. There is no sameness between self and others, which is also to explain the potential doubts. The doubt is that since realizing that others are oneself, attaining the Dao by relying on others, why is the Buddha already enlightened while I am still confused? Therefore, it is explained that realizing that others are oneself, the nature of self and others is the same, so there is no distinction between the body of others and the body of oneself, how can there still be the distinction between the Buddha and me? The doubt is that the Buddha is already enlightened, and I am still confused. Secondly, 'Suchness (zhen ru)' below is the difference. Secondly, 'Again knowing' below. Discussing similarities and differences relatively, divided into two parts. First is that it cannot be completely the same. Although knowing that others' cultivation is one's own cultivation, one must also strive to cultivate oneself.

二又復下。不可全異。雖然自進其修。復須了佗益己。文為三。初釋。二即如下引證。不知性同但在事異。三是故下結示。藉因托緣者。同異二義互為因緣。然若不知同無由成佛。同之功者是實性故。在異者不能知同。知同者必須得異。

第二。三重料揀有非有。初之一重覈定法體。餘二正辨有非有義。初重。若文自利之中雲凈土者。身既證於法報。土必是于寂光。與無上報利佗順化。不云佗報者在勝應。攝摩菟摩者。此云化身。始終為應。歘有為化。云凈土與雜染者。即三土也。凈染之言於三土中該於橫豎。

第二重。初問。法報二身圓覺大智顯理而成者。一心三智慧顯能成。一境三諦而為所顯。一體三身乃為所成。不別而別。今別自行圓覺大智。即空中智以為能顯。真中二理以為所顯。法報二身以為所成。故云顯理而成。又圓覺大智即報身。屬能顯也。顯理而成即法身。屬所顯也。若約唯識。轉於八識以成四智。又束四智以成三身者。則轉第八為大圓境智。轉第七為平等性智。轉第六為妙觀察智。轉五識為成所作智。大圓鏡智成法身。平等性智成報身。成所作智成化身。妙觀察智遍於三身。既然不約真常凈識。乃是教道一途屬對。不與今同。何者。今以圓覺大智顯平等一性。此之一性有法身性。故成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：再說，又不能完全不同。即使自己精進修行，也必須明白利他才能利益自己。這段文字分為三部分。首先是解釋，其次是如下引用論證，說明不知曉自性相同，只看到事物表面的不同。第三部分是『是故下』的總結。憑藉因和緣，相同和不同的兩種意義互為因緣。然而，如果不知道相同，就無法成佛。相同的作用在於它是真實的自性。執著于不同的人無法認識到相同，而認識到相同的人必須瞭解不同。第二，三重辨析有和非有。第一重覈定法體，其餘兩重辨析有和非有的意義。第一重，如果文中『自利之中雲凈土者』，自身既然證得法身和報身，那麼所處的國土必然是寂光凈土。與無上報身一起利益他人，順應教化。不說是『他報』，是因為勝應身。『攝摩菟摩者』，這裡指的是化身，始終是應化之身，忽然顯現有為化身。說『凈土與雜染者』，指的是三種國土。凈和染的說法在三種國土中涵蓋了橫向和縱向。第二重，首先提問。法身和報身是圓覺大智顯現真理而成就的，一心三智慧夠顯現和成就，一境三諦作為所顯現的內容，一體三身乃是所成就的。不別而別。現在單獨說自行圓覺大智，就是用空中智作為能顯現的，用真中二理作為所顯現的，用法身和報身作為所成就的，所以說『顯理而成』。而且圓覺大智就是報身，屬於能顯現的。『顯理而成』就是法身，屬於所顯現的。如果按照唯識宗的觀點，轉變八識成為四智，又將四智歸結為三身，那麼就是轉變第八識為大圓鏡智，轉變第七識為平等性智，轉變第六識為妙觀察智，轉變前五識為成所作智。大圓鏡智成就法身，平等性智成就報身，成所作智成就化身，妙觀察智遍及三身。既然不依據真常凈識，而是教道的一種對應關係，與現在所說的不同。為什麼呢？現在用圓覺大智顯現平等一性，這一自性具有法身性，所以成就。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, it cannot be entirely different. Even if one diligently cultivates oneself, one must also understand benefiting others in order to benefit oneself. This passage is divided into three parts. First is the explanation, second is the citation and proof below, explaining that one who does not know the sameness of self-nature only sees the differences in things. The third part is the conclusion '是故下' (therefore below). Relying on cause and condition, the two meanings of sameness and difference are mutually causal. However, if one does not know sameness, one cannot become a Buddha. The function of sameness lies in its being the true self-nature. One who clings to difference cannot recognize sameness, while one who recognizes sameness must understand difference. Second, there are three levels of discerning existence and non-existence. The first level verifies the essence of the Dharma, and the remaining two levels discern the meaning of existence and non-existence. The first level, if the text says '自利之中雲凈土者' (in self-benefit, it speaks of Pure Land), since the body has attained the Dharmakaya (法身) and Sambhogakaya (報身), then the land must be the Pure Land of Eternal Tranquility (寂光凈土). Together with the unsurpassed Sambhogakaya, one benefits others and accords with teachings. It is not said to be '他報' (other reward) because it is the superior Nirmanakaya (勝應身). '攝摩菟摩者' (Shemotuomo), this refers to the Nirmanakaya (化身), which is always a responsive body, suddenly manifesting as a created body. Saying '凈土與雜染者' (Pure Land and defiled land) refers to the three lands. The terms pure and defiled encompass horizontal and vertical aspects within the three lands. The second level, first asks. The Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya are manifested and accomplished by Perfect Enlightenment Great Wisdom (圓覺大智), the One Mind Three Wisdoms (一心三智) can manifest and accomplish, the One Realm Three Truths (一境三諦) serve as what is manifested, and the One Body Three Bodies (一體三身) are what is accomplished. Not separate yet separate. Now, speaking separately of self-cultivation Perfect Enlightenment Great Wisdom, it is using the wisdom of emptiness (空中智) as what can manifest, using the two principles of truth and middle (真中二理) as what is manifested, and using the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya as what is accomplished, therefore it is said '顯理而成' (manifesting principle and accomplishing). Moreover, Perfect Enlightenment Great Wisdom is the Sambhogakaya, belonging to what can manifest. '顯理而成' (manifesting principle and accomplishing) is the Dharmakaya, belonging to what is manifested. If according to the Yogacara (唯識宗) view, transforming the eight consciousnesses to become the four wisdoms, and further condensing the four wisdoms to become the three bodies, then it is transforming the eighth consciousness into the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom (大圓鏡智), transforming the seventh consciousness into the Wisdom of Equality (平等性智), transforming the sixth consciousness into the Wonderful Observing Wisdom (妙觀察智), and transforming the five consciousnesses into the Wisdom of Accomplishing Actions (成所作智). The Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom accomplishes the Dharmakaya, the Wisdom of Equality accomplishes the Sambhogakaya, the Wisdom of Accomplishing Actions accomplishes the Nirmanakaya, and the Wonderful Observing Wisdom pervades the three bodies. Since it does not rely on True Constant Pure Consciousness (真常凈識), but is a correspondence of the teaching path, it is different from what is being said now. Why? Now, we use Perfect Enlightenment Great Wisdom to manifest the One Nature of Equality (平等一性), this nature has the nature of the Dharmakaya, therefore it accomplishes.

於法身。有報身性故成於法報。皆即性而成能顯之智。亦全性具。豈惟法報即性而成。祇如應身亦即性具足。故三身一念因心無不具足。融妙難思。至佛果顯又指法身為塵相者。佛本無身順世立身。故法身者亦世相收。但此之相而非報應身色之相。以詮實理假名為相。既有名相故為所非。問。法身無色相耶。答。克法體無色相。隨處辨即是有色相。問。昔人亦云。若論相即。俱相俱無相。與今何殊。答。即名雖同。良由昔人用祖文故即義有殊。以假立宗。應身即法相不存。故智者明於三智稱曰本無。說於四土曰非垢染。示其開顯號非權實。或談之於初。或結之於后。意從此立。意從此歸。予因得之。三身者即平等一身。四土者即平等一土。是故今文法身寂光俱為虛相。二答三。初示體用二。初用即體。二復正下體即用。由法身之名從世間得。名下之理從性體彰。即用而體既是一心所以不遷。即體而用既是虛相所以可非。問。若云今文指修法身謂之虛相。以性法身而亡此修可乎。答。今文之意不擇修性。凡有名字皆屬用義。是以前文乃指本覺亦屬用收。又復須知性本無名。以生迷性既有苦身。欲以假名引彼入理。遂以此性強名法身。故法身名乃從對得。生既迷此。乃云此是逆修所迷法身。勉令反迷以智照此。乃云此是順

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）。因為具有報身（Sambhogakaya，佛的報償之身）的性質，所以成就了法報二身。這兩者都是依自性而成就，能夠顯現智慧，也完全具備自性的功德。豈止是法身和報身依自性而成就，就連應身（Nirmanakaya，佛的化身）也完全具備自性。所以，三身（Trikaya，佛的三身）在一念因心中無不具足，融合玄妙難以思議。到了佛果顯現時，又說法身是塵相，這是因為佛本來沒有固定的身形，只是順應世間而示現身形。所以，法身也被歸入世間相。但這種相不是報身和應身所具有的色相，而是爲了詮釋真實的道理而假借的名相。既然有名相，就會被否定。問：法身沒有色相嗎？答：從法體的角度來說，法身沒有色相；但隨處顯現時，就具有色相。問：過去的人也說過：『如果從相的角度來說，就是俱相俱無相。』這和現在說的有什麼不同？答：雖然名稱相同，但因為過去的人引用祖師的文字，所以含義有所不同。他們以假立宗，認為應身就是法相，法相不存。所以，智者明白三智（Trividya，三種智慧）的本無，說四土（Four Lands，佛的四種國土）的非垢染，顯示開顯的非權實。或者在開始時談論，或者在最後總結，意圖由此而立，意圖由此而歸。我因此而領悟到，三身就是平等的一身，四土就是平等的一土。所以，本文認為法身和寂光（Tranquil Light，常寂光土的簡稱，佛所居的清凈土）都是虛幻的相。以上是二答三，首先闡述體和用兩個方面。首先是用即是體，其次是復正**即用。由於法身之名是從世間得來的，名下的道理是從自性本體彰顯出來的。即用而體既然是一心，所以不會改變。即體而用既然是虛幻的相，所以可以被否定。問：如果說本文所指的是修法身，並認為它是虛幻的相，那麼以性法身而否定這種修法身可以嗎？答：本文的意思是不區分修和性，凡是有名字的都屬於用。所以，前文所指的本覺也屬於用。而且要知道，自性本來沒有名字。因為眾生迷惑自性，所以有了苦身。爲了用假名引導他們進入真理，就勉強用『法身』這個名字來稱呼自性。所以，法身之名是從對待中產生的。眾生既然迷惑於此，就說這是逆修所迷惑的法身。勉勵他們反轉迷惑，用智慧來照亮它，就說這是順修。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the Dharmakaya (the body of the Dharma, the ultimate nature of the Buddha). Because it possesses the nature of the Sambhogakaya (the body of enjoyment, the rewarded body of the Buddha), it accomplishes both the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya. Both of these are accomplished based on inherent nature, capable of manifesting wisdom, and fully possessing the merits of inherent nature. It's not just the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya that are accomplished based on inherent nature; even the Nirmanakaya (the body of transformation, the manifested body of the Buddha) fully possesses inherent nature. Therefore, the Trikaya (the three bodies of the Buddha) are all complete within a single thought-moment of the causal mind, fused together in a subtle and inconceivable way. When Buddhahood manifests, it is also said that the Dharmakaya is like dust, because the Buddha originally has no fixed form, but manifests forms in accordance with the world. Therefore, the Dharmakaya is also included in worldly appearances. However, this appearance is not the same as the form of the Sambhogakaya or Nirmanakaya, but rather a borrowed name to explain the true principle. Since there is a name and form, it can be negated. Question: Does the Dharmakaya have no form? Answer: From the perspective of the Dharma body itself, the Dharmakaya has no form; but when it manifests everywhere, it has form. Question: In the past, people also said: 'If we talk about form, it is both form and no-form.' How is this different from what is being said now? Answer: Although the names are the same, the meaning is different because the people of the past quoted the words of the patriarchs. They established the doctrine based on the provisional, believing that the Nirmanakaya is the Dharma form, and the Dharma form does not exist. Therefore, the wise ones understand the original non-existence of the Trividya (three wisdoms), say that the Four Lands (Buddha's four lands) are free from defilement, and show that the opening and revealing are not provisional or real. They either discuss it at the beginning or summarize it at the end, intending to establish it from this and return to it from this. I have therefore realized that the three bodies are the same equal body, and the four lands are the same equal land. Therefore, this text considers both the Dharmakaya and the Tranquil Light (short for Tranquil Light Land, the pure land where the Buddha resides) to be illusory forms. The above is the second answer to the third question, first explaining the two aspects of essence and function. First, function is essence; second, re-emphasizing **function is essence. Because the name Dharmakaya is derived from the world, the principle under the name is manifested from the essence of inherent nature. Since function is essence and is one mind, it will not change. Since essence is function and is an illusory form, it can be negated. Question: If it is said that this text refers to the cultivation of the Dharmakaya and considers it an illusory form, is it permissible to negate this cultivation of the Dharmakaya with the inherent nature Dharmakaya? Answer: The meaning of this text does not distinguish between cultivation and nature; anything with a name belongs to function. Therefore, the original enlightenment mentioned earlier also belongs to function. Moreover, it should be known that inherent nature originally has no name. Because sentient beings are deluded about inherent nature, they have a suffering body. In order to guide them into the truth with a false name, they forcibly use the name 'Dharmakaya' to refer to inherent nature. Therefore, the name Dharmakaya is produced from opposition. Since sentient beings are deluded about this, they say that this is the Dharmakaya deluded by reverse cultivation. Encouraging them to reverse the delusion and illuminate it with wisdom, they say that this is forward cultivation.

修所顯法身。以體自性彰故云乃是本來性德法身。故知祇一法身名脩名性。問。學今宗者執人不知祇一法身。在性為性在修為修。答。雖皆知之同焉。其所以知者殊爾。何者。由彼乃謂性體本來名為法身。今謂性體本來不名法身。由對眾生故有此名。以此對得之名召本妙性之體故。體自體彰亦名法身。篤論性體本無此號。若云性本名法身者。何云佛本無身。何云性本無名。若云但無修中之名而不妨有性德非不思議。何者。既然有名豈不可思議。或曰如此辨不識即是習啞法。答曰。若謂習啞法即以啞法識。縱使不習法思惑者。若達此于啞法妙訓。問。前云強名。梁公何云非強名耶。答。了名即性何強之有。問。名既非強。前後何云。答。前從離說。當知若從即說何獨此名非強。亦乃言滿法界未曾擬識絲毫。雖然即離分途。究竟同歸一轍。　二然用下示融妙。三寂即下示止觀四。初法本一體。二但為下隨機先後。三非謂下正答前難。即亡即照照即是常。四又復下引事例顯二。初引事。二世法下例顯。世法尚爾者。色即是空。通別圓三悉有是說。今云世法者。以世虛空與真空殊。今色即空屬世間耳。若望真空。故世間空還是色攝。

第三重。初問者以佛難生。意云若眾生之有亦常住者。且如身之是有何得死滅。答二。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本修所顯法身（通過修行所證悟的法身）。因為其本體自性彰顯，所以說乃是本來就具有的性德法身。因此可知，只有一個法身，有時稱為修，有時稱為性。問：學習今宗的人認為別人不知道只有一個法身，認為在自性中是自性，在修行中是修行。答：雖然大家都知道這一點，但知道的方式不同。為什麼呢？因為他們認為自性本體本來就叫做法身。我們認為自性本體本來不叫做法身，因為是針對眾生才有了這個名稱。用這個相對的概念來稱呼本妙自性的本體。本體自體彰顯也可以稱為法身。嚴格來說，自性本體本來沒有這個名稱。如果說自性本來就叫法身，為什麼又說佛本來沒有身？為什麼又說自性本來沒有名稱？如果說只是沒有修行中的名稱，不妨礙有自性本具的功德，難道不是不可思議嗎？既然有名，怎麼會不可思議呢？或者有人說，這樣辨析是不認識啞法。答：如果說認識啞法就是用啞法來認識。即使不學習法，思考疑惑的人，如果通達了啞法的妙訓。問：前面說『強名』，梁公為什麼說不是強名呢？答：瞭解了名就是自性，哪裡還有強加的意味呢？問：名既然不是強加的，前後為什麼這麼說呢？答：前面是從離的角度說的。應當知道，如果從即的角度說，又何止這個名稱不是強加的呢？也正是說，充滿法界，未曾試圖認識絲毫。雖然即和離是不同的途徑，但最終歸於同一個目標。二、『然用下示融妙』，顯示了融合的奧妙。三、『寂即下示止觀』，顯示了止和觀。四、初、法本一體。二、『但為下隨機先後』，是隨機應化，有先後順序。三、『非謂下正答前難』，正是回答前面的疑問。即是亡，即是照，照即是常。四、『又復下引事例顯二』，又引用事例來顯示二諦。初、引事。二、『世法下例顯』，用世間法來舉例說明。『世法尚爾者』，色即是空。通教、別教、圓教三種教義都有這種說法。現在說『世法』，是因為世間的虛空與真空不同。現在說的色即是空，屬於世間法。如果從真空的角度來看，世間的空還是被色所包含。第三重。初、問者以佛難生，意思是說，如果眾生之有也是常住的，那麼像身體的存在，為什麼會死亡消滅呢？答二。

【English Translation】 English version The Dharmakaya (Dharma body) manifested through cultivation. Because its essence of self-nature is revealed, it is said to be the Dharmakaya of inherent virtue. Therefore, it can be known that there is only one Dharmakaya, sometimes called 'cultivation' and sometimes called 'nature'. Question: Those who study the current school believe that others do not know that there is only one Dharmakaya, considering it as nature in nature and cultivation in cultivation. Answer: Although everyone knows this, the way they know it is different. Why? Because they believe that the essence of self-nature is originally called Dharmakaya. We believe that the essence of self-nature is not originally called Dharmakaya, because this name only exists in relation to sentient beings. Using this relative concept to refer to the essence of the original wonderful self-nature. The essence of the body manifesting itself can also be called Dharmakaya. Strictly speaking, the essence of self-nature does not originally have this name. If it is said that self-nature is originally called Dharmakaya, why is it said that the Buddha originally had no body? Why is it said that self-nature originally had no name? If it is said that there is only no name in cultivation, it does not prevent the inherent virtues of self-nature, is it not inconceivable? Since there is a name, how can it be inconceivable? Or someone might say that such analysis is not recognizing 'silent Dharma'. Answer: If recognizing 'silent Dharma' means using 'silent Dharma' to recognize. Even if one does not study the Dharma, those who contemplate and doubt, if they understand the wonderful teachings of 'silent Dharma'. Question: Earlier it was said 'imposed name', why did Liang Gong say it was not an imposed name? Answer: Understanding the name is understanding self-nature, where is there any imposition? Question: Since the name is not imposed, why was it said so before and after? Answer: The previous statement was from the perspective of separation. It should be known that if it is said from the perspective of unity, why is only this name not imposed? It is also said that it fills the Dharma realm, never attempting to recognize even a bit. Although unity and separation are different paths, they ultimately lead to the same goal. Second, 'Then, using the following to show the fusion of the wonderful', shows the fusion of the profound. Third, 'Silence then shows cessation and contemplation', shows cessation and contemplation. Fourth, first, the Dharma is originally one. Second, 'But for the following, according to circumstances, there is a sequence', is adapting to circumstances, with a sequence. Third, 'Not saying the following is the correct answer to the previous difficulty', is precisely answering the previous question. 'That which is cessation is that which is illumination, illumination is permanence.' Fourth, 'Again, the following uses examples to show the two truths', again uses examples to show the two truths. First, citing the event. Second, 'Worldly Dharma exemplifies the following', uses worldly Dharma to illustrate. 'Worldly Dharma is still like this', form is emptiness. The three teachings of the shared teaching, the distinct teaching, and the perfect teaching all have this saying. Now saying 'worldly Dharma' is because worldly space is different from true emptiness. Now saying form is emptiness belongs to worldly Dharma. If viewed from the perspective of true emptiness, worldly emptiness is still contained by form. Third level. First, the questioner finds it difficult for the Buddha to be born, meaning that if the existence of sentient beings is also permanent, then why does the existence of the body die and perish? Answer two.

初立義。二常住下相理體是無常。即理為用。故用亦常。在佛在生據其法體皆是有。即有非有非有而有。但佛順理所以常住。眾生迷理所以生滅。

第四止觀除障得益者。止觀體狀即自行因。除障得益屬自行果。前非無果今非不因。文相生起相對說爾。文為三。初標分。二初明下隨釋。三斯辨下總結。隨釋又二。初別明二。初釋義。文自為三。初約分別性以明除障得益二。初標。二謂能下釋二。初觀行三。初法二。初除障二。初爾所除障。二何謂下釋所除障二。初釋迷妄見思。迷虛妄執為實(初一重也)。復迷見思。是于迷妄妄執非迷(第二重也)。故云迷妄之上迷妄。文云何謂至迷妄。標也。謂不知至即是迷也。釋迷字也。以此迷故至妄想。釋妄字也。此一重迷妄至迷妄也。結釋也。二是故下釋除障者。正除見思屬於止中。是故今觀但除見思迷上之迷。問。前云觀門是修假觀破于塵沙。今除見思迷上之迷是塵沙耶。答。正是此惑。見思迷真。塵沙迷俗。見思之體體是俗事。今于見思而起迷者是迷俗事。既知是過乃解俗事。迷則為惑解則為諦。是以得云除塵沙惑而悟俗諦。問。俗諦是所顯。見思是所破。何指見思為俗諦耶。答。見思望真屬於生死故為所破。若望不知是見思者。今既識知義當建立故是所顯。荊溪

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本初立義：二常住（永遠存在的兩種狀態）下，相（現象）理（真理）體（本體）是無常的。即理為用，所以用也是常。在佛在生，根據其法體（佛法的本質）都是有。即有非有，非有而有。但佛順應真理，所以常住（永恒存在）。眾生迷惑真理，所以生滅（經歷生死輪迴）。

第四，止觀（佛教的兩種修行方法，止息妄念和觀察實相）除障得益者。止觀的體狀（本質和狀態）即是自行因（自我修行的原因）。除障得益屬於自行果（自我修行的結果）。之前並非沒有果，現在並非沒有因。文相生起，相對來說是這樣。文分為三部分：初標分，二初明下隨釋，三斯辨下總結。隨釋又分為二：初別明，二。初釋義。文自身分為三部分：初約分別性（從區分的角度）來闡明除障得益，二。初標，二謂能下釋二。初觀行，三。初法，二。初除障，二。初爾所除障，二何謂下釋所除障，二。初釋迷妄見思（迷惑、虛妄的見解和思緒）。迷惑虛妄，執著為真實（第一重）。又迷惑見思，是在迷惑虛妄之上，妄執非迷惑（第二重）。所以說在迷惑虛妄之上又迷惑。文說『何謂至迷妄』，是標示。『謂不知至即是迷也』，是解釋『迷』字。『以此迷故至妄想』，是解釋『妄』字。這第一重迷惑虛妄至迷惑。是總結解釋。二是故下釋除障者。正除見思屬於止中。所以現在觀，只是去除見思迷惑之上的迷惑。問：前面說觀門是修假觀（通過觀察現象來修行）破除塵沙（比喻眾多的煩惱）。現在去除見思迷惑之上的迷惑，是塵沙嗎？答：正是這種迷惑。見思迷惑真理，塵沙迷惑世俗。見思的本體是世俗之事。現在對於見思而產生的迷惑，是迷惑世俗之事。既然知道是過錯，就理解世俗之事。迷惑就是惑，理解就是諦（真理）。所以才說去除塵沙惑而領悟俗諦（世俗的真理）。問：俗諦是所顯（所要顯現的），見思是所破（所要破除的）。為什麼指見思為俗諦呢？答：見思相對於真理來說，屬於生死輪迴，所以是要破除的。如果相對於不知道是見思的人來說，現在既然認識知道了，就應當建立，所以是所要顯現的。荊溪（地名）

【English Translation】 English version Initially establishing the meaning: Under the two eternal states (two kinds of eternally existing states), the characteristics (phenomena), the principle (truth), and the substance (essence) are impermanent. Taking the principle as the function, therefore the function is also eternal. Whether in the Buddha or in sentient beings, according to their Dharma-nature (the essence of the Dharma), they all exist. It is existence that is not existence, and non-existence that is existence. However, the Buddha accords with the truth, therefore eternally abides (exists eternally). Sentient beings are deluded by the truth, therefore are subject to birth and death (experience the cycle of birth and death).

Fourth, those who eliminate obstacles and gain benefits through Śamatha-Vipassanā (calm abiding and insight meditation, two Buddhist practices). The nature and state of Śamatha-Vipassanā are the cause of self-cultivation. Eliminating obstacles and gaining benefits belong to the result of self-cultivation. The past was not without results, and the present is not without causes. The arising of the text is relative in this way. The text is divided into three parts: first, marking the divisions; second, explaining in detail below; third, summarizing at the end. The detailed explanation is further divided into two: first, explaining separately; second. First, explaining the meaning. The text itself is divided into three parts: first, explaining the elimination of obstacles and gaining benefits from the perspective of differentiation; second. First, marking; second, explaining below. First, contemplative practice; third. First, the Dharma; second. First, eliminating obstacles; second. First, the obstacles to be eliminated; second, explaining the obstacles to be eliminated below; second. First, explaining the delusions of views and thoughts (delusions, false views, and thoughts). Deluded by falsehood, clinging to it as reality (the first layer). Again, deluded by views and thoughts, which is clinging to non-delusion on top of delusion (the second layer). Therefore, it is said to be delusion on top of delusion. The text says 'What is meant by reaching delusion?', which is marking. 'Saying that not knowing is delusion' is explaining the word 'delusion'. 'Because of this delusion, reaching false thoughts' is explaining the word 'falsehood'. This first layer of delusion reaches delusion. This is the concluding explanation. Second, explaining the eliminators of obstacles below. Correctly eliminating views and thoughts belongs to Śamatha. Therefore, now, Vipassanā only eliminates the delusion on top of the delusion of views and thoughts. Question: Previously, it was said that the gate of contemplation is cultivating provisional contemplation (cultivating through observing phenomena) to break through dust and sand (a metaphor for numerous afflictions). Now, eliminating the delusion on top of the delusion of views and thoughts, is this dust and sand? Answer: It is precisely this delusion. Views and thoughts delude the truth, dust and sand delude the mundane. The substance of views and thoughts is mundane matters. Now, the delusion that arises regarding views and thoughts is deluding mundane matters. Since knowing it is a fault, one understands mundane matters. Delusion is affliction, understanding is truth. Therefore, it is said to eliminate the affliction of dust and sand and awaken to the mundane truth. Question: The mundane truth is what is to be revealed, and views and thoughts are what are to be broken through. Why refer to views and thoughts as the mundane truth? Answer: Relative to the truth, views and thoughts belong to the cycle of birth and death, therefore they are to be broken through. If relative to someone who does not know that they are views and thoughts, now that they are recognized and known, they should be established, therefore they are to be revealed. Jingxi (place name).

曾云。界內外俗俱所破者。斯由望于真中為言。若破塵沙證俗諦者。斯由望于不知之心建立為言教。故章安云。俗亦非諦。若望解了則得名諦。應知俗諦其體祇。一乃界內界外因果色心。其名有三。一者對於空中名生死俗。二者望于能不知心名建立俗。亦是自行入道名生死俗。化他起用名建立俗。三者即是一性。名不思議俗。然不思議俗復有三義。一約所具。由其一性具彼俗故。故俗即性稱不思議。此如向說。二約能具。由能一效能具于俗。故能具性名為俗性或稱俗諦。三約附世假立為俗。如佛附世假立五陰。云常住陰．平等陰．法性陰等。故荊溪云五陰即是俗諦。陰既至心。當知俗諦亦通至佛。又如中道實相之理。附世假立名為妙有。有即是俗。故大師云。又此實相諸佛得法故稱妙有。例應空中稱不思議。亦通此三。二以除下得益。三性除障皆從自分。望後進行稱為得益。

二又此下喻三。初總標。二如人下正喻二。初喻所除障二。初喻迷妄。執東為西執虛為實。二此人下喻過失。二若此下。喻能除觀二。初喻除障。未醒悟者。未破見思也。信知自是迷者。知即是于照假之智。二此人喻得益。三雖未下合二。初合能除障二。初合除障。二堪能下合得益。二若都下合所除障二。初合迷妄。二即當下合過失。　三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：曾有人說，如果有人能夠破除界內和界外的世俗之見，那是因為他們站在真諦的角度來談論世俗。如果有人通過破除塵沙惑來證得俗諦，那是因為他們站在不瞭解真相的心識的角度，建立起言語教法。因此，章安大師說：『俗諦並非真諦，但如果從理解的角度來看，就可以稱之為諦。』應該知道，俗諦的本體實際上就是界內界外的因果、色法和心法。它的名稱有三種：第一種，相對於空性而言，稱為生死俗；第二種，相對於不能瞭解真相的心識而言，稱為建立俗，也可以說是自行入道時稱為生死俗，化度他人時稱為建立俗；第三種，就是一性，稱為不可思議俗。然而，不可思議俗又有三重含義：第一，從所具有的角度來說，由於一性具有世俗的屬性，所以世俗即是自性，稱為不可思議，就像前面所說的那樣。第二，從能具有的角度來說，由於能具有一效能夠具有世俗的屬性，所以能具有的自性稱為俗性，或者稱為俗諦。第三，從附隨世間假立的角度來說，稱為世俗，例如佛陀附隨世間假立五陰，說常住陰、平等陰、法性陰等等。所以荊溪大師說，五陰就是俗諦。五陰既然能夠達到心識的層面，那麼應當知道，俗諦也能夠通達佛的境界。又如中道實相的道理，附隨世間假立，稱為妙有。有即是俗。所以天臺大師說：『又此實相，諸佛得法，故稱妙有。』按照這個例子，空中也應該稱為不可思議，也通達這三重含義。二，通過去除下劣之性而獲得利益。三性去除障礙，都是從自身開始，相對於後面的修行過程，稱為獲得利益。

二，又用下面的比喻來說明這三種情況。首先是總體的標示。其次，『如人下』是正式的比喻，分為兩部分。第一部分，比喻所去除的障礙，又分為兩部分。第一部分，比喻迷惑顛倒，把東邊執著為西邊，把虛幻執著為真實。第二部分，『此人下』，比喻過失。第二，『若此下』，比喻能夠去除障礙的觀照，分為兩部分。第一部分，比喻去除障礙，就像沒有醒悟的人，沒有破除見惑和思惑。『信知自是迷者』，『知』就是指照破虛假的智慧。第二部分，『此人喻得益』，比喻獲得利益。第三，『雖未下合』，分為兩部分。第一部分，合喻能夠去除障礙，又分為兩部分。第一部分，合喻去除障礙。第二部分，『堪能下合得益』，合喻獲得利益。第二，『若都下合所除障』，合喻所去除的障礙，分為兩部分。第一部分，合喻迷惑顛倒。第二部分，『即當下合過失』，合喻過失。三。

【English Translation】 English version: It has been said that if someone can break through the worldly views within and beyond the realms, it is because they speak of the mundane from the perspective of the truth. If someone attains the mundane truth by breaking through the dust and sand delusions (kleshas), it is because they establish verbal teachings from the perspective of a mind that does not understand the truth. Therefore, Master Zhang』an said: 『The mundane is not the ultimate truth, but if viewed from the perspective of understanding, it can be called truth.』 It should be known that the essence of the mundane truth is actually the causes and effects, form and mind, within and beyond the realms. It has three names: first, relative to emptiness (sunyata), it is called the mundane of birth and death (samsara); second, relative to a mind that cannot understand the truth, it is called the established mundane, which can also be said to be the mundane of birth and death when entering the path through self-cultivation, and the established mundane when transforming others; third, it is the one nature (ekalakshana), called the inconceivable mundane. However, the inconceivable mundane has three meanings: first, in terms of what it possesses, because the one nature possesses the attributes of the mundane, the mundane is the nature, called inconceivable, as mentioned earlier. Second, in terms of what can possess, because the one nature can possess the attributes of the mundane, the possessing nature is called mundane nature or mundane truth. Third, in terms of attaching to the world and falsely establishing it as mundane, such as the Buddha attaching to the world and falsely establishing the five aggregates (skandhas), saying the permanent aggregate, the equal aggregate, the dharma-nature aggregate, etc. Therefore, Master Jingxi said that the five aggregates are the mundane truth. Since the five aggregates can reach the level of mind, it should be known that the mundane truth can also reach the realm of the Buddha. Furthermore, like the principle of the Middle Way (madhyamaka) and the reality of suchness (tathata), attaching to the world and falsely establishing it is called wondrous existence (adbhuta-bhava). Existence is the mundane. Therefore, Master Tiantai said: 『Moreover, this reality of suchness, the Buddhas attain the Dharma, hence it is called wondrous existence.』 Following this example, emptiness should also be called inconceivable, also encompassing these three meanings. Second, gaining benefit by removing the inferior nature. Removing obstacles from the three natures all starts from oneself, and relative to the subsequent practice, it is called gaining benefit.

Second, the following analogy illustrates these three situations. First is the overall indication. Second, 『As a person below』 is the formal analogy, divided into two parts. The first part, the analogy of the obstacles to be removed, is further divided into two parts. The first part, the analogy of delusion and confusion, clinging to east as west, clinging to the illusory as real. The second part, 『This person below,』 is the analogy of faults. Second, 『If this below,』 is the analogy of the contemplation that can remove obstacles, divided into two parts. The first part, the analogy of removing obstacles, like a person who has not awakened, has not broken through the delusions of views (drsti) and thoughts (bhava). 『Believing that one is deluded,』『knowing』 refers to the wisdom that illuminates the false. The second part, 『This person is an analogy of gaining benefit,』 is an analogy of gaining benefit. Third, 『Although not below,』 is a combination of two parts. The first part, combining the analogy of being able to remove obstacles, is further divided into two parts. The first part, combining the analogy of removing obstacles. The second part, 『Capable below combining gaining benefit,』 is a combination of the analogy of gaining benefit. Second, 『If all below combining the obstacles to be removed,』 is a combination of the analogy of the obstacles to be removed, divided into two parts. The first part, combining the analogy of delusion and confusion. The second part, 『Immediately below combining faults,』 is a combination of the analogy of faults. Three.

此明下結。

二所言下止行三。初標。二謂依下釋。三此明下結釋為二。初除障。文云作方便者。若初望止從假入空。是故假觀乃為入空之方便也。若觀自辨既是于假。乃為出假之方便也。以大乘中入空方便即是出假方便故爾。文云除果時迷事無明及妄相者。正除見思。復于貪嗔漸已微薄者。於三毒中自論難易無明癡也。以迷虛相起妄執實。今既知虛不復執實。是故迷妄二皆易除。其有貪嗔而難除故。雖不迷境執實愛惡之心尚存。是故但云漸已微薄。雖曰微薄終須斷。又無明妄相屬見。貪嗔屬思。亦可橫論除見思時根本貪嗔漸已微薄。雖有罪垢不為業系者。祇一昔債理設受苦痛。解苦無苦者。子縛雖已果縛猶在。苦受苦痛皆即空也。問。既是大乘何云抵債。答。今順入空法理如此。苦就出假何抵之有。亦可既云在苦無苦。亦顯在業非業。是以得云不為業系。二復依下得益。二次明下依他性除障得益。二初明下釋二。初觀三。初標。二此觀下釋。三此是下結釋又二。初除障二。初標同異。二此云下正釋二。初約法體辨同。二但彼下約破立辨異。二以是下得益二。初結前生后。二別者下釋得益二。初堪入止。二又復下成三昧。文云幻化等者。幻事喻法。或雲夢像辨水目等。於一切相能亡實執。即得如是一切三昧。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此明下總結。

二、所言下止行三：首先是標示，其次是『謂依下』的解釋，第三是『此明下』的總結。解釋分為兩部分：首先是消除障礙。文中說『作方便者』，如果最初希望通過止從假入空，那麼假觀就是進入空的方便。如果觀自身辨別，既然在於假，就是出離假的方便。因為在大乘中，入空的方便就是出離假的方便。文中說『除果時迷事無明及妄相者』，正是去除見思惑。『復于貪嗔漸已微薄者』，在三毒中，討論難易的是無明（癡）。因為迷惑于虛幻之相而妄執為實，現在既然知道是虛幻，就不再執著于實，所以迷惑和妄想都容易去除。那些貪嗔難以去除的，雖然不迷惑于境界，但執著于實在的愛憎之心仍然存在，所以只說『漸已微薄』。雖然說微薄，最終還是要斷除。而且，無明和妄想屬於見惑，貪嗔屬於思惑。也可以橫向來說，去除見思惑時，根本的貪嗔逐漸微薄。『雖有罪垢不為業系者』，只是一筆過去的債，按道理應該承受痛苦。『解苦無苦者』，子縛雖然已經解開，果縛仍然存在。苦受和苦痛都是空性的。問：既然是大乘，為什麼說是抵債？答：現在順應入空的法理就是這樣。苦就出假來說，有什麼抵債的說法呢？也可以說，既然說在苦無苦，也顯示在業非業，因此才能說不被業所束縛。

二、復依下得益：其次說明依靠他性消除障礙而獲得利益。分為兩部分：首先是說明，其次是解釋。說明又分為三部分：首先是標示，其次是『此觀下』的解釋，第三是『此是下』的總結。總結又分為兩部分：首先是標示相同和不同，其次是『此云下』的正式解釋。正式解釋分為兩部分：首先是根據法體辨別相同，其次是『但彼下』根據破立辨別不同。二、『以是下』獲得利益，分為兩部分：首先是總結前面，引出後面，其次是『別者下』解釋獲得利益，分為兩部分：首先是堪能進入止，其次是『又復下』成就三昧。文中說『幻化等者』，幻事比喻法，或者說夢像辨別水目等，對於一切相能夠消除實在的執著，就能得到這樣的一切三昧（Samadhi）。

【English Translation】 English version This concludes the explanation below.

Regarding what was said below, there are three aspects to the practice of cessation (止行): first, the indication; second, the explanation starting with '謂依下'; and third, the conclusion starting with '此明下'. The explanation is divided into two parts: first, the removal of obstacles. The text says, 'Those who make skillful means (作方便者),' if initially hoping to enter emptiness (空) from the provisional (假) through cessation, then provisional contemplation (假觀) is the skillful means for entering emptiness. If contemplating and discerning oneself, since it is in the provisional, it is the skillful means for exiting the provisional. This is because in Mahayana, the skillful means for entering emptiness is the skillful means for exiting the provisional. The text says, 'Removing ignorance (無明) and false appearances (妄相) that obscure the result (果),' this precisely removes the delusions of views and thoughts (見思惑). 'Furthermore, greed (貪) and anger (嗔) are gradually becoming weaker (漸已微薄者),' among the three poisons (三毒), what is being discussed in terms of difficulty is ignorance (癡). Because of being deluded by illusory appearances and falsely clinging to them as real, now that it is known to be illusory, one no longer clings to the real. Therefore, delusion and false appearances are both easily removed. Those whose greed and anger are difficult to remove, although not deluded by the realm, still have clinging to real love and hate. Therefore, it is only said that they are 'gradually becoming weaker.' Although it is said to be weaker, it must eventually be severed. Moreover, ignorance and false appearances belong to the delusions of views, while greed and anger belong to the delusions of thoughts. It can also be discussed horizontally that when removing the delusions of views and thoughts, the root greed and anger gradually become weaker. 'Although there are sinful defilements, one is not bound by karma (業系者),' this is only a past debt, and in principle, one should endure suffering. 'Understanding suffering as no suffering (解苦無苦者),' although the bondage of the child (子縛) has been untied, the bondage of the fruit (果縛) still remains. Suffering and pain are all emptiness.

Question: Since it is Mahayana, why is it said to be repaying debts? Answer: Now, following the Dharma principle of entering emptiness, it is like this. In terms of exiting the provisional, what is there to repay? It can also be said that since it is said that in suffering there is no suffering, it also shows that in karma there is no karma. Therefore, it can be said that one is not bound by karma.

復依下得益: Secondly, explaining the benefits of relying on other-nature (依他性) to remove obstacles. It is divided into two parts: first, the explanation; second, the interpretation. The explanation is further divided into three parts: first, the indication; second, the explanation starting with '此觀下'; and third, the conclusion starting with '此是下'. The conclusion is further divided into two parts: first, indicating the similarities and differences; second, the formal explanation starting with '此云下'. The formal explanation is divided into two parts: first, distinguishing the similarities based on the Dharma body (法體); second, distinguishing the differences based on negation and establishment starting with '但彼下'. 2. '以是下' obtaining benefits, divided into two parts: first, summarizing the previous and introducing the following; second, '別者下' explaining the benefits, divided into two parts: first, being capable of entering cessation; second, '又復下' accomplishing Samadhi (三昧). The text says, 'Illusions and transformations (幻化等者),' illusory events are metaphors for the Dharma, or dreams and images distinguishing water and eyes, etc. Being able to eliminate the clinging to reality in all appearances, one can attain all such Samadhis.

二所言下止四。初標。二謂依下釋相二。初除障。果時迷理者。對論獨頭子時迷理。及虛相者。對前見思迷事實相。又復無明住地漸薄者。前破見思則根本相應貪嗔漸薄。今破根本則獨頭微細無明漸薄。由依佗性即是初住至於等覺所破相應之無明也。若其獨頭破在妙覺屬真實性。今文住地但指獨頭。不同前文通指根本。二又得下得益。依佗止觀辨得益者。不獨望修進行。亦獨約自成三昧。三料揀。初問。次答。云觀中分得等者。位在相似非真出假故云分得。位在住上屬真建立故云成就。又復等者。觀未證中但知于假。今證中理而知于假。四此明下結三。初真實性除障得益二。初標。二初明下釋二。初觀四。初標。二此觀釋二。初除二。初標同異。二此云下釋相二。初約法體辨同。二然彼下約破立辨異。二是故下得益二。初結前生后。二別義下釋得益。三料揀。今問唯心與唯是一心。為事為理。答。事則俱事理則俱理。何者。就法言之。以一切法即唯妄心。妄心屬事所以唯事。功歸言之。如何諸法皆唯心是理。問其。如不別何分二義。答。但約起入故成義殊。又復須知。若立言云當知一一切法唯是一心作。必應指于唯是一心為起相證。若云能知諸法皆唯心體。應指唯心為入實證。然今文明有起入二證。故知證用是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二、所言下止四：首先是標示。其次是解釋『依』的含義，分為兩部分。第一部分是去除障礙：『果時迷理者』，對應于對論中『獨頭子時迷理』，以及『虛相者』，對應於前面見思惑對事實真相的迷惑。此外，『無明住地漸薄者』，前面破除見思惑，則根本相應的貪嗔癡逐漸減弱。現在破除根本無明，則獨頭微細的無明逐漸減弱。依靠他性，即是初住到等覺所破除的相應無明。如果獨頭無明在妙覺位被破除，則屬於真實性。本文中的『住地』僅指獨頭無明，不同於前文通指根本無明。第二部分是獲得利益：依靠他性止觀辨別獲得利益，不僅期望通過修行進步，也獨自成就三昧。三、料揀：首先是提問，然後是回答。『云觀中分得等者』，因為位在相似位，不是真正出假觀，所以說是『分得』。位在住位以上，屬於真實建立，所以說是『成就』。此外，『等者』，觀行未證悟時，只知道假觀。現在證悟中道之理，而知道假觀。四、此明下結三：首先是真實性去除障礙，獲得利益。分為兩部分。第一部分是標示。第二部分是解釋，分為兩部分。第一部分是觀四：首先是標示。其次是解釋，分為兩部分。第一部分是標示相同和不同。第二部分是解釋相狀，分為兩部分。第一部分是根據法體辨別相同。第二部分是根據破立辨別不同。第二部分是獲得利益，分為兩部分。第一部分是總結前文，引出後文。第二部分是解釋獲得利益的特殊含義。三、料揀：現在提問，『唯心』與『唯是一心』，是事相還是理體？回答：事相則都是事相，理體則都是理體。為什麼呢？就法而言，一切法都是妄心，妄心屬於事相，所以是唯事。從功用而言，如何諸法都是唯心，這是理體。提問：如果不區分，為什麼要分為兩種含義？回答：只是根據起入不同，所以形成含義的差別。此外，要知道，如果說『當知一切法唯是一心作』，必定是指唯是一心為起相的證明。如果說『能知諸法皆唯心體』，應該指唯心為入實證。現在本文明顯有起入兩種證明，所以知道證用是。

【English Translation】 English version 2. What is said below stops at four points: First, the indication. Second, the explanation of the meaning of 'reliance' (依), divided into two parts. The first part is the removal of obstacles: 'Those who are deluded about principle at the time of fruition' (果時迷理者) corresponds to 'being deluded about principle at the time of the independent head' (獨頭子時迷理) in the opposing argument, and 'those with illusory appearances' (虛相者) corresponds to the delusion about the true nature of facts due to the afflictions of views and thoughts (見思惑) mentioned earlier. Furthermore, 'the dwelling place of ignorance gradually thins' (無明住地漸薄者): previously, breaking through the afflictions of views and thoughts gradually weakens the corresponding fundamental greed, anger, and delusion. Now, breaking through the fundamental ignorance gradually weakens the subtle ignorance of the independent head. Relying on otherness (佗性) is the corresponding ignorance that is broken from the initial dwelling (初住) to equal enlightenment (等覺). If the independent head ignorance is broken at the stage of wonderful enlightenment (妙覺), it belongs to true nature (真實性). The 'dwelling place' (住地) in this text only refers to the independent head ignorance, unlike the previous text which refers to fundamental ignorance in general. The second part is the attainment of benefits: relying on otherness to stop and contemplate distinguishes the attainment of benefits, not only expecting progress through practice, but also independently achieving samadhi. 3. Selection and examination: First, the question, then the answer. 'Those who obtain partially in contemplation' (云觀中分得等者) are said to 'obtain partially' because they are in the stage of similarity (相似位), not truly emerging from the provisional (出假觀). Being above the dwelling stage (住位) belongs to true establishment, so it is said to be 'accomplished' (成就). Furthermore, 'those who are equal' (等者): when contemplation has not yet been realized, one only knows the provisional. Now, realizing the principle of the Middle Way, one knows the provisional. 4. This clarifies the following three conclusions: First, true nature removes obstacles and obtains benefits, divided into two parts. The first part is the indication. The second part is the explanation, divided into two parts. The first part is the four contemplations: first, the indication. Second, the explanation, divided into two parts. The first part is the indication of similarities and differences. The second part is the explanation of characteristics, divided into two parts. The first part is distinguishing similarities based on the nature of the Dharma. The second part is distinguishing differences based on breaking and establishing. The second part is obtaining benefits, divided into two parts. The first part is summarizing the previous text and introducing the following text. The second part is explaining the special meaning of obtaining benefits. 3. Selection and examination: Now the question, is 'only mind' (唯心) and 'only one mind' (唯是一心) a matter of phenomena or principle? The answer: phenomena are all phenomena, and principle is all principle. Why? In terms of Dharma, all dharmas are only deluded mind, and deluded mind belongs to phenomena, so it is only phenomena. In terms of function, how are all dharmas only mind? This is principle. Question: If there is no distinction, why divide into two meanings? Answer: It is only based on the difference between arising and entering that the difference in meaning is formed. Furthermore, it should be known that if it is said 'it should be known that all dharmas are made by only one mind', it must refer to only one mind as proof of the arising aspect. If it is said 'one can know that all dharmas are only the mind-essence', it should refer to only mind as proof of entering reality. Now this text clearly has two proofs of arising and entering, so it is known that the proof of use is.

證相。證體是證性。是以如來性相俱證從名曰俱。法體無二。波水之喻於此宜陳。問。起相滅相可以情法分二相不。答。二相不別。祇一非有而有有即非有。兩處非有既同。二處有字豈別。必不可云非有而有乃是法有。有即非有乃是情有。能了圓宗破顯難思。必於今文心境無礙。何者。為順入體故云滅相。相實不滅。為順起用故云起相。相實不起。若謂圓宗情滅已不復有者。豈得為妙。二所言下止三。初標。二謂依下釋。三此明下結釋又二。初除障。知彼一心之體不可分別者。一不可以空中分別。是一性故。二不可能所分別。凈心之外別無法故。

三不可以迷悟分別。眾生諸佛同心體故。於後二義亦須不可以一分別。由非一故。真或不然。何云寂靜。若離分別有不分別。亦非寂靜。念動息滅者。念即子時獨頭無明。動即子時根本之業。不言虛相者。由在依他性止中已滅。能滅無明住地者。結上念。滅及妄想者。結上動。滅習氣者。結通惑業家習。

二大覺下得益。大覺等者。三覺圓明故稱大覺。法法是覺故稱現前。十力究成故具足佛力。

二料揀有三。初重二。初問。二答。意在解用漸漸薰除。今問。若謂此論旨在圓者。於今除惑其疑可三。一但論除不說不除。二但論離不說于即。三但論漸不說于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：證相。證體是證性。因此，如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）的性（svabhāva，自性）和相（lakṣaṇa，表相）同時被證悟，所以稱之為『俱』。法體（dharmakāya，法身）沒有二元性。波浪和水的比喻在這裡很適合闡述。問：起相（utpāda-lakṣaṇa，生起之相）和滅相（bhaṅga-lakṣaṇa，滅壞之相）可以用情（情感）和法（佛法）分為兩種不同的相嗎？答：兩種相沒有區別。僅僅是一個非有而有，有即非有。兩處『非有』既然相同，兩處『有』字又有什麼區別呢？絕對不能說『非有而有』乃是法有，『有即非有』乃是情有。能夠了解圓滿的宗旨，就能打破顯教難以思議的觀點。一定能在現在的經文中達到心境無礙。為什麼呢？爲了順應入體（進入本體），所以說『滅相』，相實際上並沒有滅。爲了順應起用（生起作用），所以說『起相』，相實際上並沒有生起。如果說圓宗的情滅了就不再存在，那怎麼能說是妙呢？

二、所言下止三。初標。二謂依下釋。三此明下結釋又二。初除障。知道彼一心（eka-citta，唯一心）的本體不可分別，一是不可以用空（śūnyatā，空性）來分別，因為是一性（eka-svabhāva，單一自性）的緣故。二是不可能被分別，因為在清凈心（viśuddha-citta，清凈之心）之外沒有其他法（dharma，佛法）的緣故。

三是不可以用迷（moha，迷惑）和悟（bodhi，覺悟）來分別，因為眾生（sattva，有情）和諸佛（buddha，佛）具有相同的心體（citta-dhātu，心性）的緣故。對於後面的兩種意義，也必須不可以『一』來分別，因為不是單一的緣故。真實或許不是這樣，怎麼能說是寂靜（śānta，寂靜）呢？如果離開分別（vikalpa，分別）而有不分別，也不是寂靜。念動息滅，念就是子時（午夜）的獨頭無明（ekamukha-avidyā，單獨生起的無明）。動就是子時的根本之業（mūla-karma，根本業力）。不說是虛相（mithyā-lakṣaṇa，虛妄之相），是因為在依他性（paratantra-svabhāva，依他起性）中已經滅除了。能夠滅除無明住地（avidyā-sthiti，無明煩惱的處所），是總結上面的『念』。滅除妄想（vikalpa，妄想），是總結上面的『動』。滅除習氣（vāsanā，習氣），是總結通惑業家習（普遍的迷惑和業力的習氣）。

二、大覺下得益。大覺等，三覺（三種覺悟）圓滿明亮，所以稱為大覺（mahābodhi，偉大的覺悟）。法法（一切事物）都是覺悟，所以稱之為現前（abhimukha，現前）。十力（十種力量）究竟成就，所以具足佛力（buddha-bala，佛陀的力量）。

二、料揀有三。初重二。初問。二答。意在解釋作用，漸漸熏除。現在問：如果說此論的宗旨在於圓融，那麼對於現在去除迷惑，其疑問可能有三個。一、只論述去除，不說不去除。二、只論述離開，不說在於即。三、只論述漸進，不說在於頓悟。

【English Translation】 English version: Verifying the characteristics. Verifying the substance is verifying the nature. Therefore, the Tathagata's (Tathagata, title of the Buddha) nature (svabhāva, self-nature) and characteristics (lakṣaṇa, appearances) are verified simultaneously, hence the term 'together'. The Dharmakaya (dharmakāya, body of the Dharma) has no duality. The analogy of waves and water is suitable to present here. Question: Can the characteristics of arising (utpāda-lakṣaṇa, characteristics of arising) and ceasing (bhaṅga-lakṣaṇa, characteristics of cessation) be divided into two different characteristics based on emotion (emotion) and Dharma (Buddha's teachings)? Answer: The two characteristics are not different. It is merely one that is non-existent yet exists, and existence is non-existence. Since 'non-existence' is the same in both places, what difference is there in the word 'existence' in both places? It absolutely cannot be said that 'non-existent yet exists' is Dharma-existence, and 'existence is non-existence' is emotional-existence. Being able to understand the complete doctrine can break the inconceivable views of the exoteric teachings. One must be able to achieve unobstructedness of mind and environment in the current text. Why? In order to accord with entering the substance (entering the essence), it is said 'characteristics of cessation', but the characteristics do not actually cease. In order to accord with arising function (arising function), it is said 'characteristics of arising', but the characteristics do not actually arise.

If it is said that the emotions of the complete doctrine cease and no longer exist, how can it be said to be wonderful?

Second, the words below stop at three. First, the heading. Second, the explanation based on the meaning below. Third, this explanation concludes and explains again in two parts. First, removing obstacles. Knowing that the substance of that one mind (eka-citta, one mind) cannot be distinguished, one cannot distinguish it with emptiness (śūnyatā, emptiness), because it is one nature (eka-svabhāva, single nature). Second, it is impossible to be distinguished, because there is no other Dharma (dharma, Buddha's teachings) outside of the pure mind (viśuddha-citta, pure mind).

Third, one cannot distinguish it with delusion (moha, delusion) and enlightenment (bodhi, enlightenment), because sentient beings (sattva, sentient beings) and Buddhas (buddha, Buddhas) have the same mind-essence (citta-dhātu, mind-essence). For the latter two meanings, one must also not distinguish it with 'one', because it is not singular. The truth may not be so, how can it be said to be tranquil (śānta, tranquil)? If there is non-distinction apart from distinction (vikalpa, distinction), it is also not tranquil. The thought moves and ceases, the thought is the solitary ignorance (ekamukha-avidyā, single-headed ignorance) at midnight. The movement is the fundamental karma (mūla-karma, fundamental karma) at midnight. It is not said to be illusory characteristics (mithyā-lakṣaṇa, illusory characteristics) because it has already been extinguished in the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva, dependent nature). Being able to extinguish the abode of ignorance (avidyā-sthiti, the place of afflictions of ignorance) is summarizing the above 'thought'. Extinguishing delusion (vikalpa, delusion) is summarizing the above 'movement'. Extinguishing habits (vāsanā, habits) is summarizing the habits of universal delusion and karma.

Second, gaining benefit from the Great Enlightenment. Great Enlightenment, etc., the three enlightenments (three kinds of enlightenment) are complete and bright, hence the term Great Enlightenment (mahābodhi, great enlightenment). Every Dharma (everything) is enlightenment, hence the term present (abhimukha, present). The ten powers (ten powers) are ultimately accomplished, hence possessing the Buddha's power (buddha-bala, Buddha's power).

Second, there are three discriminations. First, repeating two. First, the question. Second, the answer. The intention is to explain the function and gradually eliminate it. Now ask: If it is said that the purpose of this treatise lies in reconciliation, then regarding the current removal of delusion, there may be three doubts. First, it only discusses removal, not non-removal. Second, it only discusses separation, not being in immediacy. Third, it only discusses gradual progress, not being in sudden enlightenment.

頓。答。須知圓除無非約即。但就性惑說義不同。即惑是性從性說義故云不除。如荊溪云。本觀理是。不觀染除。染體自虛本虛名滅。故妙體滅不立除名。然此文意非謂離染直觀心性。亦乃非謂不除于染。良由了染即性。從性說義故云理是不立除名。或了惑即性。從惑說義正如今文論于薰除。然今文意非謂離性而除于惑。祇由了惑即性從惑說義故但云除惑。了惑即性復從惑從性而說義者。則云約即論除融冰是水。約即從性論除從惑。其謂漸頓義亦斯類。理性常頓。情惑常漸。了惑即性從性為言故云頓除。了惑即性從惑為言故云漸除。然情惑即性。漸除之處即頓除性。隨情事頓除之處不妨漸除。據其性非頓非漸亦乃非除。不如此了者方是圓宗。法界全體一色一念無不具足此全體也。今於一念如是除惑。若除惑若除不除。若即若離若頓若漸。義無不可。問。何知理頓情漸。答。佛頂經云。理即頓悟乘悟並銷。事非頓除同次第。𦘕。

答文為二。初總答。二所以下示相四。初示不得敵對相除。由歒對者先須二法並存然後除一存一。余既解時無惑惑時無解。豈名敵對。二如是下釋伏疑。由聞二法前後不俱不名敵對。故潛疑雲未必二法共在一時名為敵對。但以解起惑除名為敵對。今釋此凝。解起惑除故當然也。但不得云解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本頓。答：須知圓除無非約即。但就性惑說義不同。即惑是性從性說義故云不除。如荊溪云：『本觀理是，不觀染除。染體自虛本虛名滅。故妙體滅不立除名。』然此文意非謂離染直觀心性，亦乃非謂不除于染。良由了染即性，從性說義故云理是不立除名。或了惑即性，從惑說義正如今文論于薰除。然今文意非謂離性而除于惑。祇由了惑即性從惑說義故但云除惑。了惑即性復從惑從性而說義者，則云約即論除融冰是水。約即從性論除從惑。其謂漸頓義亦斯類。理性常頓，情惑常漸。了惑即性從性為言故云頓除。了惑即性從惑為言故云漸除。然情惑即性，漸除之處即頓除性。隨情事頓除之處不妨漸除。據其性非頓非漸亦乃非除。不如此了者方是圓宗。法界全體一色一念無不具足此全體也。今於一念如是除惑。若除惑若除不除。若即若離若頓若漸。義無不可。問：何知理頓情漸？答：佛頂經云：『理即頓悟乘悟並銷，事非頓除同次第。』𦘕。答文為二。初總答。二所以下示相四。初示不得敵對相除。由歒對者先須二法並存然後除一存一。余既解時無惑惑時無解。豈名敵對。二如是下釋伏疑。由聞二法前後不俱不名敵對。故潛疑雲未必二法共在一時名為敵對。但以解起惑除名為敵對。今釋此凝。解起惑除故當然也。但不得云解

【English Translation】 English version Question: [omitted]. Answer: It must be understood that 'perfect elimination' is none other than 'approximation'. However, the meaning differs depending on whether it is discussed from the perspective of 'nature' (性) or 'delusion' (惑). 'Delusion is nature' means that from the perspective of nature, it is said that there is no elimination. As Jingxi (荊溪) says: 'Fundamentally, one observes the principle; one does not observe the elimination of defilement. The substance of defilement is inherently empty; inherent emptiness is called extinction. Therefore, the wondrous substance's extinction does not establish the name of elimination.' However, the meaning of this passage is not to directly observe the nature of mind apart from defilement, nor does it mean that defilement is not eliminated. Because understanding defilement is identical to nature, from the perspective of nature, it is said that the principle does not establish the name of elimination. Or, understanding delusion is identical to nature; from the perspective of delusion, it is discussed in this text regarding 'gradual elimination' (薰除). However, the meaning of this text is not to eliminate delusion apart from nature. Only because understanding delusion is identical to nature, from the perspective of delusion, it only speaks of eliminating delusion. Understanding delusion is identical to nature, and speaking from both the perspective of delusion and nature, it is said that 'approximating' discusses elimination, like melting ice is water. 'Approximating' from the perspective of nature discusses eliminating from delusion. The meaning of 'gradual' (漸) and 'sudden' (頓) is similar. The principle of nature is always sudden; emotional delusion is always gradual. Understanding delusion is identical to nature, speaking from the perspective of nature, it is said to be 'sudden elimination'. Understanding delusion is identical to nature, speaking from the perspective of delusion, it is said to be 'gradual elimination'. However, emotional delusion is identical to nature; the place of gradual elimination is the place of sudden elimination of nature. Following emotional matters, the place of sudden elimination does not hinder gradual elimination. According to its nature, it is neither sudden nor gradual, nor is it elimination. Only those who understand in this way are of the perfect school. The entire Dharmadhatu (法界) is one color, and every thought is fully complete with this entirety. Now, in one thought, delusion is eliminated in this way. Whether eliminating delusion, whether eliminating or not eliminating, whether identical or separate, whether sudden or gradual, the meaning is all acceptable. Question: How do we know that principle is sudden and emotion is gradual? Answer: The Shurangama Sutra (佛頂經) says: 'Principle is sudden enlightenment, and the vehicle of enlightenment is extinguished along with it; matters are not suddenly eliminated, but follow a sequence.' [omitted] The answer is in two parts. First, a general answer. Second, the following shows four aspects. First, it shows that adversarial elimination is not possible. Because for adversarial elimination, two dharmas (法) must exist together, and then one is eliminated and one remains. Since there is no delusion when there is understanding, and no understanding when there is delusion, how can it be called adversarial? Second, 'Thus' below explains the hidden doubt. Because hearing that the two dharmas do not occur simultaneously, it is not called adversarial. Therefore, there is a hidden doubt that it is not necessary for the two dharmas to be together at the same time to be called adversarial. But the arising of understanding and the elimination of delusion is called adversarial. Now, this doubt is explained. The arising of understanding and the elimination of delusion is certainly so. But it must not be said that understanding

起惑除名為敵對。夫敵對者必解起后更無于惑方成敵對。若解起後有惑者何名解起敵對解惑。今既解起。惑種未滅。故知乃非敵對。非敵對相除。文云如是雖由至惑用不起者。斯是顯可疑者之辭。然其本識至還起用者。正釋其疑。三如是下正示薰除三。初法。文云解用漸漸薰心者。稱理之解常頓。從行之解自殊。若克諦法體。理性則頓情事則漸。其解從行漸者。祇由行從情漸。行若從理則曰頓行。問。今以解除情。何云以解從情名而漸耶。答。解若稱理其解即頓。但由情隔故解淺深。指此名為以解從情。二如似下喻。三惑種下合。四非如下辨異權小。祇由小乘不談本識故無熏除。豈同不知便非其理。有本云亦迷熏除迷應為還。

第二重。初問。為見凈心者。見即解也。答三。初法。意云別無所由。由解凈心為熏。凈心則為解。由惑凈心為熏。凈心則為惑。故云解惑之用皆依一心。並云即自熏心更無所由。此則凈心之外無別有法。雖悟假師教。即心迷由外緣。外緣即心。即是自熏自悟。自熏自迷。二如何下喻。此喻不全。波動因風不但是水。若取因風則別有由。今若以喻順法。應須了風即水。由波動處即是風故。波既不離於水。故風亦不離水也。清風如師教之緣動于凈波。毒風如無明之緣動于濁波。三解惑下合。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『起惑』（產生迷惑）和『除名』（去除名稱）被認為是『敵對』（相互對立）。如果說是『敵對』，那麼必然是解除了『起』（生起）之後，不再有迷惑，才能構成『敵對』。如果解除了『起』之後，還有迷惑，那又怎麼能稱為解除了『起』的『敵對』，解除了迷惑呢？現在既然已經解除了『起』，迷惑的種子卻沒有滅除，所以可知這並非是『敵對』，也不是用『敵對』來去除。經文中說『如是雖由至惑用不起者』，這顯然是可疑的說法。然而，『其本識至還起用者』，正是解釋了這個疑問。『三如是下』，正式闡述了熏習去除的三方面。首先是『法』（佛法）。經文中說『解用漸漸薰心者』，符合真理的理解是常時頓悟的，而從修行而來的理解則各有不同。如果能夠證悟真諦的法體，從理性上來說是頓悟，從情事上來說是漸悟。這種從修行而來的漸悟，只是因為修行是從情慾上漸進的。如果修行是從理性上進行的，那就稱為頓悟。問：現在用解除情慾的方法，為什麼說用理解從情慾而名為漸悟呢？答：理解如果符合真理，那麼這種理解就是頓悟。但由於情慾的阻隔，所以理解有深淺之分，指的是這種情況稱為用理解從情慾。『二如似下』是比喻。『三惑種下』是總結。『四非如下』是辨別與權教小乘的不同。只是因為小乘不談論本識，所以沒有熏習去除的說法。難道能因為不知道，就說它不符合道理嗎？有的版本說『亦迷熏除迷』，『迷』應該改為『還』。

第二重。首先提問：『為見凈心者』，這裡的『見』就是理解。回答分為三部分。首先是『法』（佛法）。意思是說沒有其他的途徑，通過理解凈心來進行熏習，凈心就是理解。通過迷惑凈心來進行熏習，凈心就變成迷惑。所以說理解和迷惑的作用都依賴於一心。並且說『即自熏心更無所由』，這就是說在凈心之外沒有其他的法。即使領悟了假名導師的教誨，心也會因為外緣而迷惑，外緣就是心，這就是自熏自悟，自熏自迷。『二如何下』是比喻。這個比喻並不完全。波動的起因是風，但不僅僅是水。如果取因於風，那就另有原因。現在如果用比喻來順應佛法，就應該明白風就是水，因為波動的地方就是風。波既然不離開水，所以風也不離開水。清風就像導師教誨的緣分，攪動了清凈的波浪；毒風就像無明的緣分，攪動了渾濁的波浪。『三解惑下』是總結。

【English Translation】 English version 'Arising of delusion' (起惑) and 'removal of name' (除名) are considered 'antagonistic' (敵對, mutually opposed). If it is 'antagonistic,' then it must be that after resolving the 'arising' (起, origination), there is no more delusion, only then can it constitute 'antagonistic.' If after resolving the 'arising,' there is still delusion, then how can it be called resolving the 'arising' of 'antagonistic,' resolving delusion? Now that the 'arising' has been resolved, the seed of delusion has not been extinguished, so it can be known that this is not 'antagonistic,' nor is it using 'antagonistic' to remove. The text says, 'Thus, although due to extreme delusion, the function does not arise' (如是雖由至惑用不起者), this is clearly a questionable statement. However, 'its fundamental consciousness reaches and still arises to function' (其本識至還起用者), this is precisely explaining the doubt. 'Three thus below' (三如是下), formally elaborates on the three aspects of cultivation and removal. First is 'Dharma' (法, Buddhist teachings). The text says, 'The function of understanding gradually cultivates the mind' (解用漸漸薰心者), understanding that accords with truth is constant and sudden, while understanding that comes from practice is different. If one can realize the essence of the true Dharma, from the perspective of reason, it is sudden enlightenment, from the perspective of emotions, it is gradual enlightenment. This gradual enlightenment from practice is only because practice is gradual from emotions. If practice is from reason, then it is called sudden practice. Question: Now using the method of resolving emotions, why is it said that using understanding from emotions is called gradual? Answer: If understanding accords with truth, then this understanding is sudden enlightenment. But due to the obstruction of emotions, understanding has different depths, referring to this situation is called using understanding from emotions. 'Two like below' (二如似下) is a metaphor. 'Three delusion seed below' (三惑種下) is a summary. 'Four non-below' (四非如下) is to distinguish the difference from the expedient teachings of the Small Vehicle. It is only because the Small Vehicle does not discuss fundamental consciousness, so there is no saying of cultivation and removal. Can it be said that it does not accord with reason just because one does not know it? Some versions say 'also confused cultivation removal confused' (亦迷熏除迷), 'confused' (迷) should be changed to 'still' (還).

Second section. First question: 'For those who see the pure mind' (為見凈心者), 'see' here is understanding. The answer is divided into three parts. First is 'Dharma' (法, Buddhist teachings). The meaning is that there is no other way, using understanding of the pure mind to cultivate, the pure mind is understanding. Using delusion of the pure mind to cultivate, the pure mind becomes delusion. So it is said that the function of understanding and delusion both rely on one mind. And it says 'immediately self-cultivating the mind without any other way' (即自熏心更無所由), this means that there is no other Dharma outside of the pure mind. Even if one understands the teachings of a nominal teacher, the mind will be deluded by external conditions, external conditions are the mind, this is self-cultivation and self-enlightenment, self-cultivation and self-delusion. 'Two how below' (二如何下) is a metaphor. This metaphor is not complete. The cause of the wave is the wind, but it is not just water. If taking the cause from the wind, then there is another reason. Now if using the metaphor to accord with the Dharma, one should understand that the wind is water, because the place of the wave is the wind. Since the wave does not leave the water, so the wind also does not leave the water. The clear wind is like the affinity of the teacher's teachings, stirring the pure waves; the poisonous wind is like the affinity of ignorance, stirring the turbid waves. 'Three resolve delusion below' (三解惑下) is a summary.

法理易曉但總合爾。

第三重。問者由佛隨機。或談有位或說無位。故得今約有無為問。及下答文乃從有位。須善其旨。何者。談無位者可非有位。說有位者不離無位。如世坐位必依于地。地無彼此位自先後。從地為言可云無位。從位為言不可無地。若得此旨。一位一切位。一切位一位。一位非一非一切。而一而一切。理無不通。又應四句分別位地。一地非位。二位非地。此二句者地是平等一理。復是漸次修證。修依理立。修不分而分。地位殊爾。三地即是位。如十地也。四理即是地。如法位也。荊溪乃云。位可一如。應知此位即經一地二。答云不定者。一有無不定。今就有位一相而言。二橫豎不定。今且就豎一相而言。由下論位凡有四番。前二約豎后二約橫。於前豎義初豎者。分別中止既言十解屬別住行。依他中止未入中道。但在似證屬別迴向。此之二位即是圓信真實性止說。既云佛滿。其未滿者即別地上同圓住上終至等覺。第二豎義者。依他修止已入中實故屬地上同圓住上。是故分別即屬地前同圓住前。由圓住前豎屬空假。此空假者或以七信為空。八至十為假。或通以十信為空。或通以十信為假。不談空空。不談假融。皆通十還成豎義。復望登住為中故亦豎。大師云。界內習氣至八九十信盡者。斯乃通以十

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "法理雖然容易理解，但要總合起來卻不容易。", "", "第三重含義。提問者根據佛陀隨機應機的說法，有時談論有位（指果位，修行所證的境界），有時談論無位（指無所得的境界）。所以現在就以有和無來提問。接下來的回答也是從有位的角度出發。必須好好理解其中的旨意。為什麼呢？談論無位的人可以否定有位，但談論有位的人不能脫離無位。就像世間的座位必定依賴於地面。地面沒有彼此之分，而座位有先後之別。從地來說，可以說沒有位；從位來說，不能沒有地。如果理解了這個旨意，就能明白一位即一切位，一切位即一位，一位非一非一切，而一而一切，道理上就沒有不通達的。又應該用四句來分別位和地：一、地非位；二、位非地。這兩句是說，地是平等唯一的真理，又是漸次修證的過程。修證依理而立，修證不分而分，所以地位有差別。三、地即是位，如十地（菩薩修行所證的十個階位）就是。四、理即是地，如法位（證得法性之位）就是。荊溪湛然大師說，位可以一如（與真如合一）。應該知道這個位就是經文中的一地二。回答說『不定』，一是有無不定，現在就從有位的一相來說。二是橫豎不定，現在且就豎的一相來說。從下文論述位，總共有四種情況。前兩種是約豎（指修行的次第），后兩種是約橫（指修行的廣度）。在前兩種豎義中，第一種豎義，分別中止，既然說十解屬於別住（別教的住位）和別行（別教的行位），依他中止，還沒有進入中道，只是相似的證悟，屬於別迴向（別教的迴向位）。這兩種位就是圓信（圓教的信位）的真實性止。既然說『佛滿』，那麼未滿的就是別地上，同圓住上，最終達到等覺（等覺菩薩）。第二種豎義，依他修止，已經進入中實，所以屬於地上，同圓住上。因此，分別就屬於地前，同圓住前。由於圓住前在豎向上屬於空假。這個空假，或者以七信為空，八到十信為假；或者全部以十信為空，或者全部以十信為假。不談空空，不談假融，都貫通十信，仍然構成豎義。再從登住（登地菩薩）的角度來看，也是豎義。大師說，界內習氣到八九十信盡的，這是貫通十信的說法。", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "",

信為空。其實性既破子時無明妄想。故惟妙覺。后二橫論者。初約十信似證為橫。次約名觀解行論橫。此二橫義文談五即。若非理性。三止一時五無由橫。是故六位位具三。

二又復下總明。離凡夫等者。約人為言。凡夫聲聞俱為所離。菩薩能離。況菩薩人通於四教。今文在圓。

大章第五止觀作用。從前生起離在果后。約文求意實被初心。又作用之言。止寂觀照亦可俱通名為作用。今文意別。正取化他為作用也。釋文為三。初標章。二謂止下隨釋。三此明下結釋又二。初長行三。初別示二。初止體證凈心者。就佛自辨。與諸眾生者。約生對說。理融無二之性者。若從性用染凈不同。今從體故云無二。圓同一相之身者。以一為相故名一相。一非算數。相非色心。即法身也。況法身處二身常在。是故三身一相而圓。今文在體同名法身。三身一相。離佛果顯生因。故佛果身與生理等。雖非色心即色心。即色心是三寶。無三者。體證凈心既融無二。故三寶無二寶。由證凈心見一體故。二諦不二者。與諸眾生既圓同一相故。二諦不二故。指生死即涅槃故。怕兮者。總嘆無二一相之德。凝湛者。如理融無二。淵渟者。若一相圓同。恬然者。總無三不二之德。澄明者。如混爾無三。內寂者。如莽然不二。澄靜之處自然

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：信為空，指的是在證悟空性之後，當最初的無明妄想被破除時，才能達到惟妙覺的境界（指圓滿覺悟）。後面的兩種『橫論』，第一種是說十信位的修行者，其證悟類似於橫向的證悟；第二種是說從名字觀、觀行、解行這幾個階段來論述橫向的證悟。這兩種『橫』的含義，在天臺宗的『五即』中有所闡述。如果不是基於理性，那麼『三止』（體真止、方便隨緣止、息二邊分別止）就無法同時橫向地實現。因此，六個位次（指六即佛：理即佛、名字即佛、觀行即佛、相似即佛、分證即佛、究竟即佛）都具備這三種止觀。

『二又復下』總括地說明。『離凡夫等』，是從人的角度來說的。凡夫和聲聞都被排除在外，菩薩能夠超越這些境界。而且，菩薩的概念貫通四教（藏教、通教、別教、圓教）。這裡的經文是站在圓教的立場上說的。

大章第五講的是止觀的作用。這種作用是從之前的修行中產生的，並且體現在證果之後。從文字上理解其意義，實際上是針對初學者的。『作用』這個詞，止寂和觀照都可以被統稱為作用。但是，這裡的經文含義有所不同，主要是指教化他人為作用。對這段經文的解釋分為三部分。首先是標明章節，其次是『謂止下』進行解釋，最後是『此明下』進行總結。又分為兩部分，首先是長行文的三段，第一段是分別展示兩種情況，首先是『止體證凈心者』，這是就佛自身來辨析的；『與諸眾生者』，是從眾生的角度來對比說明的。『理融無二之性者』，如果從體和用、染和凈的不同來看，會有所區別，但現在是從本體的角度來說，所以說是『無二』。『圓同一相之身者』，因為以『一』為相，所以稱為『一相』。這個『一』不是算術上的數字，這個『相』也不是色法和心法，而是指法身。而且，法身所在之處，應化身和報身也常在。因此，三身（法身、報身、應化身）是一體的，是圓融的。這裡的經文是從本體的角度來說，都稱為法身。三身一體，從佛果來顯現眾生之因。所以，佛果之身與眾生的本性是平等的。雖然不是色法和心法，但又即是色法和心法。即色心就是三寶。『無三者』，體證凈心已經融為一體，所以三寶沒有區別。因為證得了清凈心，所以見到了本體。『二諦不二者』，因為與眾生圓融為一體，所以二諦（真諦和俗諦）沒有區別。所以說生死就是涅槃。『怕兮者』，總的讚歎無二一體的功德。『凝湛者』，如理性融為一體。『淵渟者』，如一體圓融。『恬然者』，總的來說沒有三，沒有不二的功德。『澄明者』，如混然一體，沒有三。『內寂者』，如茫然不二。澄靜之處自然如此。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Faith is emptiness' refers to the state where, after realizing emptiness, the initial ignorance and delusion are dispelled, and one attains the state of 'Wonderful Enlightenment' (referring to perfect enlightenment). The following two 'horizontal arguments,' the first is that the practice of the Ten Faiths is similar to horizontal enlightenment; the second is to discuss horizontal enlightenment from the stages of Name Contemplation, Practice Contemplation, and Understanding Practice. The meaning of these two 'horizontal' aspects is elaborated in the Tiantai school's 'Five Identities.' If it is not based on rationality, then the 'Three Cessations' (Cessation of True Nature, Cessation of Expedient Conditions, Cessation of Two Extremes) cannot be realized horizontally at the same time. Therefore, the six positions (referring to the Six Identities of Buddhahood: Identity in Principle, Identity in Name, Identity in Practice, Identity in Resemblance, Identity in Partial Realization, Identity in Ultimate Realization) all possess these three aspects of cessation and contemplation.

'Two again below' summarizes the explanation. 'Leaving ordinary people, etc.' is from the perspective of people. Ordinary people and Śrāvakas are excluded, and Bodhisattvas can transcend these realms. Moreover, the concept of Bodhisattva runs through the Four Teachings (Tripitaka Teaching, Common Teaching, Distinct Teaching, Perfect Teaching). The scripture here is from the standpoint of the Perfect Teaching.

The fifth chapter mainly talks about the function of cessation and contemplation. This function arises from previous practice and is reflected after attaining the fruit. Understanding its meaning from the text is actually aimed at beginners. The word 'function,' cessation and contemplation can all be collectively referred to as function. However, the meaning of the scripture here is different, mainly referring to teaching others as function. The explanation of this scripture is divided into three parts. The first is to mark the chapter, the second is to explain 'meaning cessation below,' and the last is to summarize 'this meaning below.' It is divided into two parts, the first is the three paragraphs of the long line, the first paragraph is to show two situations separately, the first is 'cessation of body and proof of pure mind,' which is to distinguish from the Buddha himself; 'with all sentient beings,' is to compare and explain from the perspective of sentient beings. 'Those who are in harmony with the nature of non-duality,' if there are differences from the differences in body and use, defilement and purity, but now it is from the perspective of the body, so it is said to be 'non-dual.' 'Those who are in the same body,' because 'one' is the phase, it is called 'one phase.' This 'one' is not a number in arithmetic, and this 'phase' is not form and mind, but refers to Dharmakāya (Dharma Body). Moreover, where Dharmakāya is located, Nirmāṇakāya (Transformation Body) and Sambhogakāya (Reward Body) are also always present. Therefore, the three bodies (Dharmakāya, Sambhogakāya, Nirmāṇakāya) are one body and are perfect. The scripture here is from the perspective of the body, all called Dharmakāya. The three bodies are one, from the Buddha fruit to show the cause of sentient beings. Therefore, the body of the Buddha fruit is equal to the nature of sentient beings. Although it is not form and mind, it is form and mind. That is, form and mind are the Three Jewels. 'No three,' the body and proof of pure mind have been integrated into one, so the Three Jewels are no different. Because of proving the pure mind, the body is seen. 'The two truths are not two,' because they are integrated with sentient beings, so the two truths (ultimate truth and conventional truth) are no different. So it is said that birth and death is Nirvana. 'Fear,' generally praises the merits of non-duality. 'Concentration,' such as the rational integration into one. 'Abyss,' such as the integration of one. 'Tranquility,' in general, there are no three, no merits of non-duality. 'Clarity,' such as the mixed one, no three. 'Inner silence,' such as the vast non-duality. The place of tranquility is naturally so.

發明。文意在澄。內明之處自然恬寂。文意在寂。用無用相者。染凈三皆是性用。動無動相者。眾生俗事即是真常。本來平等者。示其本來一性法體。心性法爾者。示其法體不可思議。此則甚深法性之體者。以德嘆體。當知體德不獨甚深亦乃無量。以由一性豎窮橫遍。當處絕侍。二謂觀下觀。敘述經論示起用相。由證性故得難思用。今所記者直記義理。凡前後經論並事相等不復委引。

二又止下通辨。文有三對各成四句。初約生死涅槃住與不住不入與不互成四句。次約寂用即離以成四句。三約生死涅槃單復以成四句。又初二句約即。第三句約己。第四句約照。

三料揀。初問。二答二。初總答。別在依佗者。以依他性非有而有。有即是假。又分別性既然證空。證空之後即當假也。即橫論豎故作此對。以余性助者。二性皆有觀行故也。二此義下別釋二。初依依佗。由依他性體是虛相。非有而有。故能成立緣起化用。二然復下。以余性助二。初明余性助。具說三性者。能助所助共而辨也。又以三性止觀皆在化用者。于化用中明甚止寂故俱屬用。今文應以分別為空。依佗為假。真實為中。圭峰亦以中論三觀對此三性。問。前真實性乃以自他體同爲止。今何為觀。答。此義幽隱難以會通。苦得前此義易了。前體同

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本發明。文意在於澄明。內心明澈之處自然恬靜寂寞。文意在於寂靜。運用無用之相，是因為染與凈三者皆是自性的作用。動而無動之相，是因為眾生的世俗之事即是真常。本來平等，是爲了揭示其本來同一的自性法體。心性本然如此，是爲了揭示其法體不可思議。這則是甚深法性的本體，以德來讚歎本體。應當知道本體的功德不僅甚深，而且無量，因為由同一自性豎窮橫遍，任何地方都無需等待。二是觀下觀，敘述經論，揭示起用的相狀。因為證悟自性，所以得到難以思議的作用。現在所記錄的只是義理，凡是前後的經論以及事相等等，不再詳細引用。

二又從『止』字下開始，通盤辨析。文中有三對，每對構成四句。最初是圍繞生死涅槃，住與不住，入與不入，相互構成四句。其次是圍繞寂與用，即與離，構成四句。再次是圍繞生死涅槃的單與復，構成四句。而且，最初的兩句是圍繞『即』，第三句是圍繞『己』，第四句是圍繞『照』。

三是料揀。首先是提問，然後是兩個回答。首先是總的回答：差別在於依他性，因為依他性非有而有，有即是假。而且分別性既然已經證空，證空之後就應當是假。這是橫向論述豎向，所以作此對比。用其餘的自性來輔助，是因為兩種自性都有觀行。

二是『此義』下，分別解釋兩種自性。首先是依據依他性，因為依他性的本體是虛幻的相，非有而有，所以能夠成立緣起化用。其次是『然復』下，用其餘的自性來輔助。首先是闡明其餘自性的輔助作用。完整地闡述三種自性，是爲了能助和所助共同辨析。而且用三種自觀都存在於化用中，在化用中闡明甚深的止寂，所以都屬於用。現在的文應當以分別為空，依他為假，真實為中。圭峰也用中論的三觀來對應這三種自性。提問：前面真實性乃是以自他體同爲止，現在為何是觀？回答：這個義理幽深隱晦，難以會通，如果能夠理解前面的義理就容易明白了，前面是體同。

【English Translation】 English version Invention. The meaning of the text lies in clarification. The place of inner clarity is naturally tranquil and solitary. The meaning of the text lies in solitude. Using the aspect of uselessness is because defilement, purity, and the three are all functions of self-nature. Moving without the aspect of movement is because the mundane affairs of sentient beings are true constancy. Originally equal, it is to reveal its originally identical self-nature dharma body. The nature of mind is naturally so, it is to reveal its dharma body is inconceivable. This is the essence of the profound dharma-nature, praising the essence with virtue. It should be known that the merits of the essence are not only profound but also immeasurable, because from one nature it extends vertically to the end and horizontally everywhere, and there is no need to wait anywhere. Second is observing the lower observation, narrating the sutras and treatises, revealing the aspects of arising function. Because of realizing self-nature, one obtains inconceivable function. What is recorded now is only the meaning and principle, and all the previous and subsequent sutras and treatises, as well as phenomena, etc., are no longer cited in detail.

Second, starting from the word 'cessation', a comprehensive analysis is made. There are three pairs in the text, each pair forming four sentences. Initially, it revolves around birth and death, nirvana, dwelling and non-dwelling, entering and not entering, mutually forming four sentences. Secondly, it revolves around tranquility and function, identity and separation, forming four sentences. Thirdly, it revolves around the single and compound of birth and death, nirvana, forming four sentences. Moreover, the first two sentences revolve around 'identity', the third sentence revolves around 'self', and the fourth sentence revolves around 'illumination'.

Third is selection. First is the question, then two answers. First is the general answer: the difference lies in dependent nature (Paratantra-svabhava), because dependent nature is non-existent yet existent, and existence is false. Moreover, since the discriminated nature (Parikalpita-svabhava) has already been proven empty, after proving emptiness, it should be false. This is a horizontal discussion of the vertical, so this comparison is made. Using the remaining self-natures to assist, because both self-natures have contemplative practice.

Second, under 'this meaning', the two self-natures are explained separately. First is based on dependent nature, because the essence of dependent nature is a illusory appearance, non-existent yet existent, so it can establish the arising of conditions and transformation. Second, under 'however', using the remaining self-natures to assist. First, clarify the assisting function of the remaining self-natures. Fully explaining the three self-natures is for the assisting and the assisted to be jointly analyzed. Moreover, using the three self-natures, contemplation is all in transformation, clarifying the profound cessation and solitude in transformation, so they all belong to function. The current text should take discrimination as emptiness, dependence as falsity, and reality as the middle. Guifeng also uses the three contemplations of the Middle Treatise to correspond to these three self-natures. Question: Previously, the true nature was to stop with the identity of self and other, why is it now contemplation? Answer: This meaning is profound and obscure, difficult to understand, if you can understand the previous meaning, it will be easy to understand, the previous is the identity of essence.

者即是一性故名為止。今體同者乃是中道故獨屬觀。何者。由前凈中依佗性觀以該中道寂光法身。依佗修止乃止中道寂光法身。故至實觀惟觀一性。及修止時乃止自他一性之殊令了體同。今依他觀乃是于假。故依佗止止虛相假乃見中道。故至實觀乃了自他中道體同。修止自佗。中道亦泯。見平等性。故云本來常住大般涅槃。

二又若下發愿助三。初始行二。初標示。二何故下釋相。應知南嶽所明止觀不出十乘。今文云先鬚髮愿者。豈非發菩提心。得修止觀者。豈非巧安止觀。除障得益者。豈非破法遍。亦有位次者。豈非知次位。知流轉即生死不轉是涅槃者。豈非識通塞。兼以余性助成者。豈非對治助開。既助化他自行。比除真性上橫執之真者。豈非離法愛。舍世諦者。豈非能安忍。既有其外內術可知。用無塵智者。豈非調道品。既有其慧戒定必存。但此窮染之處微妙難知者。豈非不思議境。文雖前後意實貫通。名雖不窮趣實無別。義雖不等自實可同。又復今且取一二句顯者。示知無其源流應遍一部。覽入當念方名大車。但以智者分別廣說。故於正修別示其相名義顯著。然其道理亦遍十章。又復智者通示十乘雖皆正觀。若別說者。故前七乘而為行。此如記辨。又復須知。自就前七依于妙境發菩提心。依菩提心修于

止觀。惟此三乘是行正相。況破遍者即是止觀所破昏散。修止觀時豈存昏散。破遍既爾。通塞等義自可比知。是故今文惟明願行必依境故具三乘。此且一期生起而說。若論入道必須遍達一部文義即心而明。然後于境于愿乃至離愛隨一處入皆具十乘。是故不須大車之譬。自利利人法不出此。今先修止後起觀者。自行成己然後化物。前文先觀后修止者從事入理。是以前觀亦可但為起用方便。隨念即通者。有即非有不為礙。所以即通。隨念即成者。非有即有不為非滯。所以即成。即通即成者。皆妙性之功也。二若久下久行。前始行者位在名觀。今久行者位在相似。故云發意欲作隨念即成欲作。次言比前名觀。須前入止然後起觀方隨念成。今相似位欲作即成故深於前。比后真證任運而成。既云欲作未逃作意故淺於後。又所成相淺深不同。相似成者以一妙音滿三千界。名字觀行所成豈然。三諸佛下真證四。初法。對前作意初住已上皆在佛收。住前但得名為菩薩。又復若以分極而分作不作意。則等覺已還皆名作意。惟佛非作。今文亦可通作此說。二譬如下喻。三如來下合。即體為用。從體論功。故云不作。四此蓋下結。三僧祇者。通大通小。無執三祇一向在小。云淳熟者。永絕無明相雜故淳。常與妙理相應故熟。更無異法者。燻熟

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本止觀。只有這三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）才是修行的正確途徑。更何況要破除普遍存在的昏沉和散亂，而這正是止觀所要破除的。在修習止觀的時候，怎麼能容忍昏沉和散亂的存在呢？既然破除普遍存在是這樣，那麼通達與阻塞等等的道理自然可以類比得知。因此，本文只說明愿和行必須依據境界，所以才具備三乘。這只是就一個階段的生起而說的。如果從入道的角度來說，必須普遍通達整部經文的意義，以心來明白。然後在境界、愿，乃至遠離愛慾等任何一個地方入手，都具備十乘觀法。所以不需要用大車的比喻。自利利人的方法不出於此。現在先修止後起觀，是爲了先成就自己，然後教化他人。前面的經文先觀后修止，是從事入理。所以之前的觀也可以只作為起用的方便。『隨念即通』，因為『有』即『非有』，所以不會成為障礙，因此能夠通達。『隨念即成』，因為『非有』即『有』，所以不會停滯不前，因此能夠成就。『即通即成』，都是妙性的功用。二、如果長期修行。前面所說的始行者，位在名字觀的階段。現在所說的久行者，位在相似觀的階段。所以說『發意欲作，隨念即成』。想要做什麼，念頭一動就成功了。其次說，比前面的名字觀，必須先入止然後起觀才能隨念成就。現在相似位的修行者，想要做什麼立刻就能成就，所以比前面的名字觀更深。比後面的真證位任運而成，因為還說到『欲作』，沒有脫離作意，所以比後面的真證位淺。而且所成就的相也有深淺不同。相似位成就的相，可以用一個微妙的聲音充滿三千大千世界。名字觀行所成就的相怎麼能做到這樣呢？三、諸佛以下是真證位。初法，對於前面的作意，初住以上的菩薩都在佛的攝受範圍之內。初住之前的菩薩只能稱為菩薩。如果以分極的方式來區分作意和不作意，那麼等覺菩薩都還屬於作意，只有佛才是不作意。本文也可以這樣理解。二、譬如下面是比喻。三、如來以下是合。即體為用。從體上論功用。所以說不作。四、此蓋以下是總結。三僧祇（三大阿僧祇劫），通大小乘。沒有執著的人認為三大阿僧祇劫一向只屬於小乘。說『淳熟』，是因為永遠斷絕了無明相雜，所以純粹。經常與妙理相應，所以成熟。『更無異法』，是說燻熟。

【English Translation】 English version 'Śamatha-vipassanā (止觀, calming and insight meditation). Only these Three Vehicles (三乘, Triyāna) – Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘, Vehicle of Hearers), Pratyekabuddhayāna (緣覺乘, Vehicle of Solitary Buddhas), and Bodhisattvayāna (菩薩乘, Bodhisattva Vehicle) – represent the correct aspect of practice. Moreover, dispelling pervasive dullness and distraction is precisely what Śamatha-vipassanā aims to eliminate. How can one tolerate dullness and distraction while practicing Śamatha-vipassanā? Since dispelling pervasiveness is like this, the principles of unobstructedness and obstruction, etc., can be understood by analogy. Therefore, this text only clarifies that vows and practices must rely on a realm, thus encompassing the Three Vehicles. This is spoken from the perspective of a single phase of arising. If discussing entering the Path, one must universally understand the meaning of the entire text, clarifying it with the mind. Then, entering from any point – realm, vow, or even detachment from desire – one possesses all Ten Vehicles. Therefore, there is no need for the analogy of the great cart. The methods of benefiting oneself and others do not go beyond this. Now, practicing Śamatha first and then Vipassanā is for perfecting oneself before transforming others. The previous text, practicing Vipassanā first and then Śamatha, is entering principle through phenomena. Therefore, the previous Vipassanā can also be merely a means of initiating function. 『Immediately penetrating upon recollection』 is because 『existence』 is 『non-existence,』 so it does not become an obstacle, thus enabling penetration. 『Immediately accomplishing upon recollection』 is because 『non-existence』 is 『existence,』 so it does not stagnate, thus enabling accomplishment. 『Immediately penetrating and immediately accomplishing』 are both functions of the wondrous nature. 2. If practicing for a long time. The previously mentioned beginner is at the stage of nominal contemplation (名觀, nāma-vipassanā). The now mentioned long-time practitioner is at the stage of approximate contemplation (相似觀, sādṛśya-vipassanā). Therefore, it is said, 『Having the intention to act, one immediately accomplishes upon recollection.』 Whatever one wants to do, the thought arises and it is accomplished. Next, it is said that compared to the previous nominal contemplation, one must first enter Śamatha and then arise Vipassanā to accomplish upon recollection. Now, the practitioner at the approximate stage immediately accomplishes whatever they want to do, so it is deeper than the previous nominal contemplation. Compared to the subsequent true realization (真證, satya-pratyakṣa), which is accomplished effortlessly, because it still mentions 『wanting to act,』 not escaping intentionality, it is shallower than the subsequent true realization. Moreover, the accomplished appearances also differ in depth. The appearance accomplished by the approximate stage can fill three thousand great thousand worlds with a single subtle sound. How could the appearance accomplished by nominal contemplation do that? 3. 『The Buddhas』 below refers to the stage of true realization. The initial Dharma (初法), regarding the previous intentionality, Bodhisattvas from the initial Abode (初住, prathama-bhūmi) and above are all within the Buddha's embrace. Bodhisattvas before the initial Abode can only be called Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, if distinguishing intentionality and non-intentionality by extreme division, then Bodhisattvas at the Equal Enlightenment (等覺, samyak-saṃbodhi) stage still belong to intentionality, only the Buddha is non-intentional. This text can also be understood in this way. 2. 『The analogy』 below is a metaphor. 3. 『The Tathāgata』 below is a synthesis. Taking the substance as function. Discussing the function from the substance. Therefore, it is said to be non-intentional. 4. 『This covers』 below is a conclusion. Three asaṃkhyeyas (三僧祇, three incalculable eons) encompass both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Those without attachment believe that the three asaṃkhyeyas always belong only to Hīnayāna. Saying 『pure and ripe』 is because the intermingling of ignorance is forever severed, so it is pure. Constantly corresponding with the wondrous principle, so it is ripe. 『No other Dharma』 means it is thoroughly ripened.

故爾。此外無法。又複意顯初心之解與果地解無二無別。初心本熟。用為事礙為生為凡。若淳熟者即是此解而名為佛。

二偈頌總有十一行一句大分為二。初三行明心體。二八行一句明心用。初心體中雖云作二辨。具種種。皆能具性望于熏起。故咸屬體。文又二。初二行單約法示。二一行帶喻示法。初文者。初半行總示。次半行明人即心體。第三半行明法即心體。最後半行通結入法皆無二相。然此文意該三無差。由約一心對於生佛人之與法。故於人法各以二結。二無二相即是心故三無差。帶喻示法中雲具種種者。既具生佛即該十界界十如及三世間。是故一心具三千性。對后熏起。故此三千俱體。斯亦可云不解天臺如何消偈。二心用中示如藏及違順性。意在明於所起之用。文為四。初三行一句約法。次二行約喻。三一行總合。四二行結勸。初法又二。初二行一句明染。次一行明凈。二喻亦二。初一行喻染。次一行喻凈。然今文中以金隨匠成蛇佛像。蛇形金匠如無明緣。佛像金匠如師教緣。此則真如隨染凈緣成產生佛。然此喻文意惟在圓不可通別。由別教中不該即故。故別望圓無隨緣理。就別自說義亦有之。圓隨緣者乃同體隨。全金為像像不離金。更無異物為其像相。故其像相相全是金。此金隨緣乃名同體。別教道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此就是這樣。除此之外沒有其他方法。而且，（這個道理）也顯明瞭最初發心的理解與證得佛果的理解沒有絲毫差別。最初發心本來就是成熟的，（只是）因為被事物所障礙，才產生了生死輪迴，成爲了凡夫。如果（這個發心）是純粹成熟的，那就是這種理解，因此被稱為佛。

這兩句偈頌總共有十一行，一句可以大致分為兩個部分。最初的三行說明心體，後面的八行一句說明心的作用。在最初發心的體性中，雖然說有『作二辨』（兩種辨別），具備種種（功德），都能夠具備體性，是相對於熏習生起而言的。所以都屬於體。文字上又分為兩個部分。最初的兩行是單獨就法來開示，後面的一行是帶著比喻來開示法。最初的部分，前半行是總的開示，後半行說明人就是心體。第三行的前半行說明法就是心體，最後半行總結說進入法都是沒有兩種差別的。然而這段文字的意思包含了三無差別（體無差別、相無差別、用無差別）。因為是就一心來對應眾生和佛，人和法。所以在人和法上各自用兩種方式來總結。兩種沒有差別，就是因為（它們）都是心，所以是三無差別。帶著比喻開示法的部分中說『具種種』，既然具備眾生和佛，就包含了十法界、十如是以及三世間。因此一心具備三千性。相對於後面的熏習生起，所以這三千（法）都是體性。這也可以說是不理解天臺宗就無法理解這句偈頌。在心的作用中，開示瞭如藏（如來藏）以及違順性，意在說明所生起的作用。文字分為四個部分。最初的三行一句是就法來說明，後面的兩行是就比喻來說明，第三行是總的合起來說明，第四行是總結勸勉。最初的法又分為兩個部分。最初的兩行一句說明染污，後面的一行說明清凈。第二個比喻也分為兩個部分。最初的一行比喻染污，後面的一行比喻清凈。然而現在的文字中，用金隨著工匠做成蛇和佛像來比喻。蛇形的金匠就像無明緣，佛像的金匠就像師教緣。這就是真如隨著染污和清凈的因緣，成就眾生和成就佛。然而這個比喻的意思只在于圓融，不可以通於別教。因為別教中不包含即（空、假、中）。所以別教相對於圓教沒有隨緣的道理。就別教自身來說，也有它的意義。圓教的隨緣是同體的隨緣。全部的金做成佛像，佛像不離開金。更沒有其他的物質作為它的形象。所以它的形象全部都是金。這種金隨著因緣就叫做同體。別教的道理（並非如此）。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is so. There is no other way besides this. Moreover, it also clearly shows that the understanding of the initial aspiration and the understanding of attaining Buddhahood are not different at all. The initial aspiration is originally mature, but because it is obstructed by things, it generates birth and death, and becomes an ordinary being. If (this aspiration) is purely mature, then that is this understanding, and therefore it is called Buddha.

These two verses have a total of eleven lines, and each sentence can be roughly divided into two parts. The first three lines explain the essence of the mind (心體, xinti), and the following eight lines explain the function of the mind. In the essence of the initial aspiration, although it is said that there are 'two distinctions' (作二辨, zuo er bian), possessing various (merits), all are able to possess the essence, in relation to the arising of conditioning. Therefore, they all belong to the essence. The text is further divided into two parts. The first two lines are a separate explanation of the Dharma, and the following line is an explanation of the Dharma with a metaphor. In the first part, the first half line is a general explanation, and the second half line explains that people are the essence of the mind. The first half line of the third line explains that the Dharma is the essence of the mind, and the last half line concludes that entering the Dharma has no two differences. However, the meaning of this passage contains the three non-differences (體無差別, ti wu chabie - non-difference in essence; 相無差別, xiang wu chabie - non-difference in characteristics; 用無差別, yong wu chabie - non-difference in function). Because it is based on one mind to correspond to sentient beings and Buddhas, people and Dharma. Therefore, in people and Dharma, each is summarized in two ways. The two are not different, because (they) are all the mind, so it is the three non-differences. In the part of explaining the Dharma with a metaphor, it says 'possessing various', since it possesses sentient beings and Buddhas, it includes the ten Dharma realms, the ten suchnesses, and the three worlds. Therefore, one mind possesses three thousand natures. In relation to the subsequent arising of conditioning, therefore these three thousand (dharmas) are all essence. It can also be said that without understanding Tiantai (天臺, Tiantai) (school), one cannot understand this verse. In the function of the mind, it explains the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏, Rulaizang) and the conforming and opposing natures, intending to explain the function that arises. The text is divided into four parts. The first three lines are an explanation of the Dharma, the following two lines are an explanation of the metaphor, the third line is a general explanation, and the fourth line is a concluding exhortation. The first Dharma is further divided into two parts. The first two lines explain defilement, and the following line explains purity. The second metaphor is also divided into two parts. The first line is a metaphor for defilement, and the following line is a metaphor for purity. However, in the current text, the metaphor is that gold is made into snakes and Buddha images by craftsmen. The snake-shaped goldsmith is like ignorance as a condition, and the Buddha-image goldsmith is like the teacher's teaching as a condition. This is how true thusness (真如, Zhenru) becomes sentient beings and becomes Buddhas depending on the conditions of defilement and purity. However, the meaning of this metaphor lies only in the roundness, and cannot be applied to the separate teaching (別教, biejiao). Because the separate teaching does not include the 'is' (emptiness, provisionality, and the middle way). Therefore, the separate teaching has no reason to follow conditions in relation to the round teaching. In terms of the separate teaching itself, it also has its meaning. The following of conditions in the round teaching is the following of conditions of the same essence. All the gold is made into a Buddha image, and the Buddha image does not leave the gold. There is no other substance as its image. Therefore, its image is all gold. This gold following conditions is called the same essence. The principle of the separate teaching (is not like this).

乃無此義。故非隨緣。若自金𦘕像丹青九金無所依處入無丹青像無有相入隨就別。以義說者。如匠依金。外用丹青。就於匠𥁞成其像。此亦名為真如隨緣。但此隨緣是異體隨。故不可即。以不即故。故荊溪云。變義惟二。即具惟圓。所謂變者。金體或為丹青所變。金體或為形相所變。故通於二。所謂即者形相即。丹青非金故即惟圓。復云具者。良由於金能具像性。故可即金作于像形。別教不知金具像性。謂金不可即作于像。但可依之丹青為像。由不知具所以不即。問。別教隨緣既非即義。藏師有起信論疏。其云不變即隨緣者。以今收會為屬何教。答。進不成圓。退不成別。以不談具而即。故不具非圓。即故非別。問。或云別教亦有即義。但是體即其相不即。圓教則乃相體俱即。故彼即義正是體即。與今別同。答。義例之中宮路土喻。妙示之中冰水之喻。豈非乃是相離體即。何云圓惟相體俱即。或云別教相離體即不同冰水。正如丹青相離金體乃即。然作此說者。但金即金。豈是隨緣即不變耶。或曰取能隨邊云隨緣即。然作此說者乃非彼宗之所立之義。彼宗疏云。自性清凈心。動作生滅不相舍離。故云和合。非謂別有生滅與真和合。彼疏又云。生滅之心。心之生滅無二相故。而無二體不相舍離。既云而無二體。豈是金上丹

青之相為相離耶。故知彼宗會相歸心正如息波是水。而無波相為相離體即。但不談具故非今圓。若以彼宗因不談具以今奪之。雖有即名而無即義故屬別教。有何不可。而但不可直將即義全同今別。問。別教隨緣若是異體。池水清濁其喻如何。答。若取波水本是即義。惟可喻圓。若喻別者。不取即義但取水為清濁之本。故荊溪云。別人乃為迷解之本。圓人即知心是法界。圓取即義。別取本義。于文明矣。例如幻夢八喻本是幻空屬摩訶衍。或時亦取證於三藏。但取鋪滅空義。不取當體幻有。問。前後皆云平等一性。若隨緣者應是此性。與彼何殊。答。今談一者乃是三千三諦即一之一。故此之一即是具足染凈之一。非不具一。故與彼殊。結勸中雲。莫輕御自身者。御訓使也。當使自身而成佛道。自得作用也。亦勿賊於他者。化他作用也。此二作用由止觀故。

第二流通分者。廣說文立大章為五。故此禮佛不顯其教意屬流通。然流通即日用中流通大乘止觀法門。后了今文不獨流通。謂隨日用一部大體。四三昧中似隨自意。但由南嶽別名一卷曰隨自意。既有彼別故今成通。例如十乘通四三昧。問。彼隨自意。山家諸文亦曾指用。今此止觀殊不涉言者。何者。冥用義旨但無顯言。問。既無顯言恐非真有。答。南嶽曾說無諍行

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：青色的相狀是相互分離的嗎？由此可知，他們的宗派認為會合諸相歸於一心，就像平靜的波浪就是水一樣。如果沒有波浪的相狀，那麼相就是相互分離的，本體就是統一的。只是因為他們不談論具足圓滿的道理，所以不是天臺宗的圓教。如果用他們的宗派不談論具足圓滿的道理來反駁他們，即使有『即』這個名稱，也沒有『即』的意義，所以屬於別教。這有什麼不可以的呢？只是不可以把『即』的意義完全等同於天臺宗的別教。問：別教隨順因緣，如果是異體，那麼池水的清澈和渾濁，用什麼來比喻呢？答：如果取波浪和水本來就是『即』的意義，那麼只能用圓教來比喻。如果用別教來比喻，就不取『即』的意義，只取水作為清澈和渾濁的根本。所以荊溪湛然大師說：『別教的人是迷惑和錯誤的根本，圓教的人就知道心就是法界。』圓教取『即』的意義，別教取『本』的意義，這在文字上是很明顯的。例如幻夢等八種比喻，本來是虛幻不實的，屬於摩訶衍（Mahayana，大乘佛教）。有時也取證於三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經、律、論三藏），但只取鋪張和消滅空性的意義，不取當體就是幻有的意義。問：前後都說平等一性，如果隨順因緣，應該是這個一性，和他們的一性有什麼不同呢？答：現在所說的一，是三千世界、三諦圓融的『即一』的一，所以這個一是具足染污和清凈的一，不是不具足的一，所以和他們的一不同。最後的勸誡中說：『不要輕視使用自身。』『御』是使用的意思，應當使用自身來成就佛道，自己獲得作用。『也不要偷盜他人』，是教化他人的作用。這兩種作用都是由於止觀的緣故。第二流通分，廣泛地說明，建立大的章節分為五部分。因此，這裡的禮佛沒有明顯地說明其教義，屬於流通。然而，流通就是在日常使用中流通大乘止觀法門。後面的『了今文』不只是流通，而是說隨著日常使用，一部的大體。四種三昧（Samadhi，禪定）中，好像是隨自意三昧。但是因為南嶽慧思大師的別名，一卷叫做隨自意三昧，既然有那個別名，所以現在成為通途。例如十乘觀法通於四種三昧。問：那個隨自意三昧，山家派的各種文章也曾經引用，現在這個止觀卻完全沒有涉及，是什麼原因呢？答：是暗中運用了它的意義和宗旨，只是沒有明顯地說出來。問：既然沒有明顯地說出來，恐怕不是真的有吧？答：南嶽慧思大師曾經說過無諍行（Aranā-vihāra，無諍的修行）。

【English Translation】 English version: Are the appearances of blue separate from each other? From this, we know that their school believes that the assembly of appearances returns to one mind, just as calm waves are water. If there is no appearance of waves, then the appearances are separate from each other, and the substance is unified. It is just that they do not discuss the complete and perfect principle, so it is not the perfect teaching of the Tiantai school. If we refute them with their school's failure to discuss the complete and perfect principle, even if there is the name of 'is,' there is no meaning of 'is,' so it belongs to the separate teaching. What is wrong with that? It is just that we cannot equate the meaning of 'is' completely with the separate teaching of the Tiantai school. Question: If the separate teaching follows conditions and is of different substances, then what can be used to compare the clarity and turbidity of pond water? Answer: If we take the meaning of 'is' as the original meaning of waves and water, then we can only use the perfect teaching as a metaphor. If we use the separate teaching as a metaphor, we do not take the meaning of 'is,' but only take water as the root of clarity and turbidity. Therefore, Great Master Zhanran of Jingxi said: 'People of the separate teaching are the root of delusion and error, and people of the perfect teaching know that the mind is the Dharma Realm.' The perfect teaching takes the meaning of 'is,' and the separate teaching takes the meaning of 'root,' which is clear in the text. For example, the eight metaphors of illusion and dream are originally illusory and unreal, belonging to Mahayana (Mahayana, Great Vehicle Buddhism). Sometimes, they are also taken as evidence from the Tripitaka (Tripitaka, the three baskets of Buddhist scriptures, Vinaya, and Abhidhamma), but only the meaning of spreading and extinguishing emptiness is taken, not the meaning of the illusion of existence in the present moment. Question: Both before and after, it is said that there is equality and one nature. If it follows conditions, it should be this one nature. What is the difference between this one nature and their one nature? Answer: The one that is now being discussed is the 'is-one' of the three thousand worlds and the three truths in perfect harmony, so this one is the one that is complete with defilement and purity, not the one that is incomplete, so it is different from their one. The final exhortation says: 'Do not despise using yourself.' 'Use' means to employ. One should use oneself to achieve Buddhahood and obtain one's own function. 'Do not steal from others' is the function of teaching others. These two functions are due to cessation and contemplation. The second section, the circulation section, explains extensively and establishes large chapters divided into five parts. Therefore, the Buddha worship here does not clearly explain its teachings and belongs to the circulation. However, circulation is the circulation of the Mahayana cessation and contemplation Dharma gate in daily use. The later 'understanding of the present text' is not just circulation, but rather it refers to the general outline of a part as it is used daily. Among the four Samadhis (Samadhi, meditation), it seems to be the Samadhi of following one's own intention. However, because of the other name of Great Master Huisi of Nanyue, one volume is called the Samadhi of following one's own intention. Since there is that other name, it is now becoming a common path. For example, the ten vehicles of contemplation are common to the four Samadhis. Question: That Samadhi of following one's own intention, various articles of the Shanjia school have also cited it. Why is it that this cessation and contemplation does not mention it at all? Answer: It is the secret use of its meaning and purpose, but there is no explicit statement. Question: Since there is no explicit statement, I am afraid it is not really there? Answer: Great Master Huisi of Nanyue once said the practice of non-contention (Aranā-vihāra, the practice of non-contention).

門亦為二卷並禪要等。山家諸文殊不涉言。既不涉言亦非真有耶。問。南嶽僧傳何不載之。答。智者說法成頗多。南嶽僧傳豈𦘕載耶。復恐今即無諍行門(云云)。

釋文為三。初禮佛。二飲食。三便利。為善之最無出恭佛。資己之要無出飲食。穢物之極無出便利。而於此三示止觀者。是日用故。無有一法非止觀故。皆治惡故。皆得道故。

禮佛為三。初凡禮下標。二所言下釋二。初止觀各論二。初觀二。初標。二當知下釋。三此觀下結釋又三。初生佛同異二。初體同。二但以下用異二。初身。二然一下心。由佛與生理體雖同事用有異。生不證體但為業用不得自在。一身不能現無量身。一心不能遍知一切。佛證體故稱體為用。其自在身為無量身滿十方三世。必一切種智遍知無量法。

二是故下行者修供。若以體同何彼何此。祇由用異有沈升。沈故遂修供養。文為二。初事。二理。以約事故能供所供未辨全性。以約理故皆全性現。然此二義今皆在圓。初心莫不了知。生佛能所一切諸法皆即自心全具發現。但以理無種種行有殊涂。或就事而修。或從理而習。故有雖知佛身心普遍而未觀即心而為融知。或修供五塵而未現無非性起故名為事。若也觀佛觀供皆即心性故名為理。此之事理亦同荊溪引用占察明於

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『門亦為二卷並禪要等。』山家（指天臺宗）的諸文殊菩薩法門不涉及言語。既然不涉及言語，難道就不是真實存在嗎？問：為什麼《南嶽僧傳》沒有記載這些？答：智者大師（智顗）所說的法門非常多，《南嶽僧傳》怎麼可能全部記載呢？而且恐怕現在已經沒有無諍行門（不再爭論的修行法門）了（等等）。

解釋這段文字分為三部分：一是禮佛，二是飲食，三是便利。在所有善行中，沒有比恭敬佛陀更重要的；在滋養自身方面，沒有比飲食更重要的；在污穢之物中，沒有比便利更極端的。而在這三件事上展示止觀，是因為它們是日常所用，沒有哪一法不是止觀，都是爲了對治惡行，都是爲了證得道果。

禮佛分為三部分：一是凡是禮佛都標明出處，二是從『所言下』開始解釋第二點。首先，止觀各自論述兩點。首先是觀，分為兩點：一是標明，二是從『當知下』開始解釋。三是從『此觀下』總結解釋，又分為三點：一是眾生與佛的同異，分為兩點：一是本體相同，二是從『但以下』開始說明作用不同，分為兩點：一是身，二是從『然一下』開始說明心。由於佛與眾生的理體雖然相同，但作用不同。眾生沒有證得本體，只是爲了業用，不能得到自在。一個身體不能顯現無量身體，一顆心不能普遍知曉一切。佛證得了本體，所以稱本體為作用。他的自在身是無量身，充滿十方三世。必定以一切種智普遍知曉無量法。

二是『是故下』，修行者修習供養。如果本體相同，那麼彼與此有什麼區別呢？只是因為作用不同，才有沉淪和上升。因為沉淪，所以才要修習供養。這段文字分為兩部分：一是事，二是理。從事情上來說，能供養者和所供養者還沒有完全顯現本性。從理上來說，一切都是本性的顯現。然而這兩種含義現在都在圓融之中。初學者不要不明白，眾生與佛的能與所，一切諸法，都是自心完全具備和顯現的。只是因為理上沒有種種差別，而行上有不同的途徑。或者從事上修習，或者從理上學習。所以有的人雖然知道佛的身心普遍存在，但還沒有觀照到即心而為融知。或者修習供養五塵，但還沒有顯現出無非是自性生起，所以稱為事。如果觀佛觀供養都是即心自性，就稱為理。這件事理也如同荊溪（湛然）引用《占察經》所闡明的那樣。

【English Translation】 English version: 『The gate is also in two volumes, along with Chan essentials, etc.』 The Manjushri (Bodhisattva of wisdom) methods of the Tiantai school do not involve language. Since they do not involve language, are they not truly existent? Question: Why are these not recorded in the Biographies of the Monks of Mount Nan Yue? Answer: The Dharma doors spoken by Zhi Zhe (Zhiyi, founder of Tiantai school) are very numerous; how could the Biographies of the Monks of Mount Nan Yue record them all? Moreover, it is feared that there is no longer a practice of non-contention (a practice of no longer arguing) (etc.).

The explanation of this passage is in three parts: first, prostration to the Buddha; second, eating and drinking; third, elimination. Among all good deeds, there is none more important than revering the Buddha; in nourishing oneself, there is nothing more important than eating and drinking; among all impure things, there is nothing more extreme than elimination. And to demonstrate cessation-contemplation (止觀, Zhi Guan) in these three matters is because they are used daily; there is no single Dharma that is not cessation-contemplation, all are for treating evil, all are for attaining the fruit of the path.

Prostration to the Buddha is divided into three parts: first, all prostrations are marked with a source; second, the explanation of the second point begins from 『what is said below.』 First, cessation-contemplation is discussed separately in two points. First is contemplation, divided into two points: first is marking, second is explaining from 『knowing below.』 Third, the summary explanation begins from 『this contemplation below,』 further divided into three points: first is the similarity and difference between sentient beings and the Buddha, divided into two points: first is the same essence, second is explaining the different functions from 『but below,』 divided into two points: first is the body, second is explaining the mind from 『however below.』 Because the principle essence of the Buddha and sentient beings is the same, but the functions are different. Sentient beings have not realized the essence, but are only for karmic function, unable to obtain freedom. One body cannot manifest countless bodies, one mind cannot universally know everything. The Buddha has realized the essence, so the essence is called function. His free body is countless bodies, filling the ten directions and three times. He will certainly universally know countless Dharmas with all-knowing wisdom.

Second is 『therefore below,』 practitioners cultivate offerings. If the essence is the same, then what is the difference between that and this? It is only because the functions are different that there is sinking and rising. Because of sinking, one must cultivate offerings. This passage is divided into two parts: first is phenomena (事, shi), second is principle (理, li). From the perspective of phenomena, the one who makes offerings and the one who receives offerings have not yet fully manifested their nature. From the perspective of principle, everything is a manifestation of nature. However, these two meanings are now in perfect harmony. Beginners should not fail to understand that the ability and object of sentient beings and Buddhas, all Dharmas, are fully possessed and manifested by one's own mind. It is only because there are no differences in principle, but there are different paths in practice. Either cultivate from phenomena, or learn from principle. Therefore, some people know that the body and mind of the Buddha are universal, but have not yet contemplated that the mind is the basis for harmonious knowledge. Or cultivate offerings of the five desires, but have not yet manifested that everything arises from one's own nature, so it is called phenomena. If contemplating the Buddha and contemplating offerings are all the nature of one's own mind, it is called principle. This phenomena and principle are also as Jingxi (Zhanran) explained by quoting the 占察經 (Zhan Cha Jing) [Sutra of Divination of the Good and Evil Results of Actions].

今家事理二觀。約事專照起心未現。此心即是心性。從理惟達法性。於一切境皆觀即如(云云)。初事又四。初法。猶如下喻。三行者下合。四如是下結德。初法中若供法當作是念下。示修事觀。然供法中若供養時一句之文。乃用依報五塵之法。若禮拜下即是正報三業修法。依正雖殊莫非皆是因緣生法。生法而為供養。今文別以五塵名供養。禮拜等為修法。結德云勸見佛心者。如有慈悲受我供養禮。

二又若下理觀二。初想心作佛二。初示義。又若能想作一佛等者。今問。所想作者為作自己佛。為是作他佛。若是佗佛者。其如己心作。若是己佛者。其如供他佛。答。須曉各互具。則己佗自明。若論各具者。心即作自佛。若論互具者。心乃作佗佛。雖己他佛殊。莫不皆心作。良由己心具故乃作可成。今文是互具。觀想於己心即乃作他佛。亦見於己佛即是于佗佛。既然了他佛不離於己心。亦是于佗佛即是於己佛。問。今文修觀義想心作佛時。於三性之中為屬何性攝。答。即就依他性具有三性義。故下文修止云。有即非有。良由想此心而能作諸佛。心屬實中觀心。作佛虛想屬依他空觀。從虛當體屬分別假。亦可於虛相。若也見為實屬分別假觀。又心屬空中。虛相即假觀。心是真實性。虛相該於二。問。前分別為空以依

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本現在來解釋家事理二觀。就事觀而言，專注于照見起心動念但尚未顯現的狀態。這個『心』就是心性。從理觀來說，只是通達法性。在一切境界中都進行觀照，即是『如』（如此等等）。最初的事觀又分為四部分。第一是法，類似於下面的比喻。第二『三行者下合』是結合。第四『如是下結德』是總結功德。在最初的法中，如果供養佛法，應當這樣想：以下是展示修事觀。然而，在供養佛法中，『若供養時』一句的文字，是使用依報五塵之法。『若禮拜下』則是正報三業修法。依報和正報雖然不同，但無一不是因緣生法。生法而作為供養。現在經文特別以五塵命名為供養，禮拜等為修法。總結功德時說『勸見佛心者』，如同有慈悲心接受我的供養禮拜。

第二，『又若下理觀二』是理觀的第二部分。第一『初想心作佛二』是最初的想心作佛。第一是闡釋意義。『又若能想作一佛等者』，現在提問：所想作的佛，是作自己的佛，還是作他人的佛？如果是他人的佛，那麼如何用自己的心來作？如果是自己的佛，那麼如何供養他人的佛？回答：必須明白各自具有，那麼自己和他人自然明白。如果說各自具有，心就是作自己的佛。如果說相互具有，心就是作他人的佛。雖然自己和他人的佛不同，但無一不是心所作。正是因為自己的心具有，才能作成。現在經文是相互具有。觀想自己的心，就是作他人的佛。也見到自己的佛，就是見到他人的佛。既然明白了他人的佛不離於自己的心，也就是他人的佛就是自己的佛。提問：現在經文修觀，義想心作佛時，在三性之中屬於哪種性質？回答：就在依他性中具有三性的意義。所以下文修止說：『有即非有』。正是因為想這個心而能作諸佛，心屬於實中觀心。作佛的虛想屬於依他空觀。從虛當體屬於分別假。也可以在虛相上，如果認為實有，就屬於分別假觀。又心屬於空中，虛相就是假觀。心是真實性，虛相包含於二。提問：前面分別為空，因為依...

【English Translation】 English version Now, let's explain the two contemplations of 'Jia Shi Li' (家事理, roughly translated as 'phenomena and principle'). Regarding the contemplation on phenomena, it focuses on illuminating the state of arising thoughts before they manifest. This 'mind' is the very nature of mind. Regarding the contemplation on principle, it simply penetrates the Dharma-nature (法性, the nature of reality). Contemplating in all realms is 'suchness' (如, thusness, suchness, etc.). The initial contemplation on phenomena is further divided into four parts. The first is the Dharma, similar to the analogy below. The second, 'San Xing Zhe Xia He' (三行者下合, roughly translated as 'the three practices below combine'), is the combination. The fourth, 'Ru Shi Xia Jie De' (如是下結德, roughly translated as 'thus below concludes merit'), is the conclusion of merit. In the initial Dharma, if offering the Dharma, one should think like this: the following demonstrates the practice of contemplating phenomena. However, in offering the Dharma, the phrase 'if offering at the time' uses the Dharma of dependent retribution (依報, dependent realm) and the five dusts (五塵, the five sense objects). 'If bowing down below' is the practice of the three karmas (三業, body, speech, and mind) of the proper retribution (正報, proper realm). Although dependent and proper retribution are different, none are not phenomena arising from conditions. Phenomena arising are used as offerings. Now, the text specifically names the five dusts as offerings, and bowing down etc. as practices. Concluding merit, it says 'those who encourage seeing the Buddha-mind', like having compassion to receive my offerings and bows.

Second, 'You Ruo Xia Li Guan Er' (又若下理觀二, roughly translated as 'again if below contemplation on principle two') is the second part of the contemplation on principle. The first, 'Chu Xiang Xin Zuo Fo Er' (初想心作佛二, roughly translated as 'initial thought-mind makes Buddha two') is the initial thought-mind making Buddha. The first is to explain the meaning. 'You Ruo Neng Xiang Zuo Yi Fo Deng Zhe' (又若能想作一佛等者, roughly translated as 'again if able to think and make one Buddha etc.'), now a question is asked: the Buddha that is thought and made, is it making one's own Buddha, or making another's Buddha? If it is another's Buddha, then how to make it with one's own mind? If it is one's own Buddha, then how to offer to another's Buddha? Answer: one must understand that each mutually possesses, then self and other will naturally be clear. If saying that each possesses, the mind is making one's own Buddha. If saying that they mutually possess, the mind is making another's Buddha. Although one's own and another's Buddha are different, none are not made by the mind. It is precisely because one's own mind possesses that it can be made. Now the text is mutually possessing. Contemplating one's own mind is making another's Buddha. Also seeing one's own Buddha is seeing another's Buddha. Since it is understood that another's Buddha is not apart from one's own mind, that is, another's Buddha is one's own Buddha. Question: Now the text cultivates contemplation, when the meaning-thought-mind makes Buddha, which nature does it belong to among the three natures (三性, three natures: parikalpita, paratantra, parinispanna)? Answer: It possesses the meaning of the three natures in the dependent nature (依他性, paratantra-svabhava). Therefore, the following text on cultivating cessation says: 'Existence is non-existence'. It is precisely because thinking of this mind that one can make all Buddhas, the mind belongs to the contemplation of mind within reality. The illusory thought of making Buddha belongs to the dependent empty contemplation. From illusion, the substance belongs to the discriminating false. One can also, on the illusory appearance, if seeing it as real, it belongs to the discriminating false contemplation. Also, the mind belongs to emptiness, the illusory appearance is the false contemplation. The mind is the true nature, the illusory appearance encompasses the two. Question: The previous discrimination is empty, because it depends on...

他為假。與今初對者其義何不同。答。前取分別性。己實則為空。故依他為假。今取分別性。照實則為假。是故依他性虛相則為空。文云亦是現前供養者。雖云供養。由未顯說。從心想作。乃下方云從心出生。所以料在想心作佛。文云是心作佛是心是佛者。引經證今想心作佛。作即緣起。是即本具。心若不是作則不成。問。想心作佛。為觀心耶為觀佛耶。答。從迷定境則曰觀佛。從悟為觀則曰觀心。祇一觀境受此二名。例荊溪云。迷謂內外。悟惟一心。又復須知。此且從於唯心以說。若唯色唯香唯味唯觸。則曰從悟觀色觀香味等。問。若觀心者當如何云。答。從迷定境則曰觀心。從悟為觀亦曰觀心。問。二心何殊。答。前之心者乃是生佛。若依若正等於自己五根五塵。離比當念之名心也。后之心者即是生佛。若依若正自己根塵。不離當念之名心也。若於此義能曉了者。不可但云若觀佛者。必須照心。亦應須云若觀心者必須照佛。若離佛觀。心豈是圓觀。故祖師以三千一念而為圓觀。問。既佛照心亦名觀心。必觀心照佛亦名觀佛。若爾則大師止觀常坐觀心是觀佛耶。答。今意不爾。今曰從悟觀心者。乃約若心若佛一如之處如名為心。是以或觀佛或觀心皆曰觀心。若約一如之處如名為佛。是亦可云從悟觀佛。但為順今凡下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：『他為假』（依他起性是虛假的）與前面最初所說的『對者其義』（所對之境的意義）有什麼不同？答：前面所說的『對者』，是取其分別性，認為實有的東西最終是空無的，所以說依他起性是虛假的。現在所說的『他為假』，是取其分別性，照見實相則是虛假的。因此，依他起性的虛幻之相本身就是空無的。文中說『亦是現前供養者』，雖然說是供養，但因為沒有明確說明，是從心中想像而作的。所以下文說『從心出生』，因此可以推斷是在想心中作佛。文中說『是心作佛，是心是佛』，是引用經文來證明現在想心中作佛。『作』就是緣起，『是』就是本具。心如果不『作』，就不會成就。問：想心中作佛，是觀心呢？還是觀佛呢？答：從迷惑的角度，以定境為目標，就叫做觀佛；從覺悟的角度，以觀為觀，就叫做觀心。只是一個觀境，接受這兩個名稱。例如荊溪大師說：『迷惑時，認為有內外之別；覺悟時，只有一心。』還應該知道，這只是從唯心的角度來說。如果唯色、唯香、唯味、唯觸，就說是從覺悟的角度觀色、觀香、觀味等。問：如果觀心，應當如何說呢？答：從迷惑的角度，以定境為目標，就叫做觀心；從覺悟的角度，以觀為觀，也叫做觀心。問：這兩種『心』有什麼不同？答：前面的『心』，是眾生和佛。無論是所依之境還是正報之身，都等同於自己的五根五塵，是離開當下念頭的名相之心。後面的『心』，也是眾生和佛。無論是所依之境還是正報之身，都等同於自己的根塵，是不離開當下念頭的名相之心。如果對於這個道理能夠明白，就不能只說『如果觀佛，必須照心』，也應該說『如果觀心，必須照佛』。如果離開佛來觀心，心又怎麼能是圓滿的觀呢？所以祖師以三千一念作為圓滿的觀。問：既然佛照心也叫做觀心，那麼觀心照佛也一定叫做觀佛。如果是這樣，那麼天臺大師的《止觀》和常坐觀心，是觀佛嗎？答：我的意思不是這樣。現在說從覺悟的角度觀心，是就若心若佛一如之處，以『如』為名而稱為心。因此，或者觀佛或者觀心，都叫做觀心。如果就一如之處，以『如』為名而稱為佛，也可以說從覺悟的角度觀佛。但這只是爲了順應現在凡夫的根性。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: How does 'He is false' (the dependent nature is false) differ from the initial 'meaning of the object' (the meaning of the object being confronted)? Answer: The former 'object' takes its discriminating nature, considering that what is real is ultimately empty, hence the dependent nature is said to be false. The current 'He is false' takes its discriminating nature, illuminating that the true nature is false. Therefore, the illusory appearance of the dependent nature is itself empty. The text says 'Also, those who are currently offering', although it speaks of offering, because it is not explicitly stated, it is made from mental imagination. Therefore, the following text says 'born from the mind', hence it can be inferred that it is making a Buddha in the mind. The text says 'It is the mind that makes the Buddha, it is the mind that is the Buddha', quoting the scripture to prove that the mind is now making a Buddha. 'Making' is dependent origination, 'is' is inherent. If the mind does not 'make', it will not be accomplished. Question: Making a Buddha in the mind, is it contemplating the mind or contemplating the Buddha? Answer: From the perspective of delusion, with the state of samadhi as the goal, it is called contemplating the Buddha; from the perspective of enlightenment, with contemplation as contemplation, it is called contemplating the mind. It is just one object of contemplation that receives these two names. For example, Master Jingxi said: 'In delusion, it is considered that there is a distinction between inside and outside; in enlightenment, there is only one mind.' It should also be known that this is only from the perspective of mind-only. If it is only form, only smell, only taste, only touch, it is said to be contemplating form, contemplating smell, contemplating taste, etc., from the perspective of enlightenment. Question: If contemplating the mind, how should it be said? Answer: From the perspective of delusion, with the state of samadhi as the goal, it is called contemplating the mind; from the perspective of enlightenment, with contemplation as contemplation, it is also called contemplating the mind. Question: What is the difference between these two 'minds'? Answer: The former 'mind' is sentient beings and Buddhas. Whether it is the dependent realm or the retribution body, it is equal to one's own five roots and five dusts, it is the mind of name and form that is apart from the present thought. The latter 'mind' is also sentient beings and Buddhas. Whether it is the dependent realm or the retribution body, it is equal to one's own roots and dusts, it is the mind of name and form that is not apart from the present thought. If one can understand this principle, one cannot only say 'If contemplating the Buddha, one must illuminate the mind', one should also say 'If contemplating the mind, one must illuminate the Buddha'. If one contemplates the mind apart from the Buddha, how can the mind be a perfect contemplation? Therefore, the patriarch takes three thousand thoughts in one moment as perfect contemplation. Question: Since the Buddha illuminating the mind is also called contemplating the mind, then contemplating the mind illuminating the Buddha must also be called contemplating the Buddha. If this is the case, then Master Tiantai's 'Śamatha-Vipassanā' (止觀) and constant sitting contemplation of the mind, is it contemplating the Buddha? Answer: That is not my meaning. Now, saying that contemplating the mind from the perspective of enlightenment is to take 'suchness' (如) as the name and call it mind in the place where the mind and the Buddha are one suchness. Therefore, whether contemplating the Buddha or contemplating the mind, it is called contemplating the mind. If, in the place of one suchness, 'suchness' is taken as the name and called Buddha, it can also be said that contemplating the Buddha from the perspective of enlightenment. But this is only to conform to the nature of ordinary people now.

。于妄心中以示唯心。若示唯佛有何不可。復了心佛皆假名自生疑惑(云云)。

二料揀有二。初重。問意是前非后。意謂不合于無實中起假想故。然得旨者皆當。失旨者是非。今誠辨之。天然性體不當。事理宛然。故不妨他佛非我。我非他佛。佛能知我。我不知佛。故修供養。如有獻施於大眾中。非理宛然。故不妨無佛無己無供無事無想無念。以理即事。故不妨即己心是佛。即己心想若因想故佛現前。問者昧此故有是非。問。心想作佛。的從正意為真為妄。若為真者。經曰心有想即癡。若為妄者。今遭惟耶。答。一者約于所想之法以分真妄。義有多途。若以世間善惡而分。心想惡事為妄。心想善境為真。若以世出世而分。心想世間為妄。心想出世為真。若自於出世。以巧掘而論。心想實有為妄。心想幻有為真。若以偏空對中而論。心想偏空為妄。心想中道為真。若以次第對圓融論。心想次第三諦為妄。心想圓融三諦為真。若自就圓融中邊而論。心想二邊為妄。心想中道為真。體用已照例此說之。經云心有想即癡者。正約體用中邊。亦談亡照而說。乃以中道奪于假觀。從假當體乃斥云癡。若即妙性想假何疑。談亡照者。如荊溪云。不食于有。不著于空。不求于中。無三想故。二者約于能想之心。情想則妄想則真

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在虛妄的心中顯示唯心，如果顯示唯有佛，有什麼不可以的呢？又理解到心和佛都是假名，卻又自己產生疑惑（如此等等）。

二、辨析：有兩種辨析。首先是重申提問的意圖，是肯定前者否定後者。意圖是認為不應該在無實的基礎上產生虛假的想像。然而，領悟旨意的人都認為是對的，不領悟旨意的人則認為是錯的。現在誠懇地辨析：天然的自性本體不應該這樣，事和理本來就分明。所以不妨礙他佛不是我，我不是他佛。佛能知道我，我不能知道佛，所以要修行供養。如同在大眾中進行獻舍，事理本來就分明，所以不妨礙無佛、無己、無供養、無事、無想像、無念頭。因為理就是事，所以不妨礙即己心是佛，即己心的想法。如果因為想法的緣故佛就顯現，提問的人不明白這個道理，所以才會有是非。問：心中想像作佛，到底是從正意來說是真還是妄？如果是真的，經書上說『心中有想就是癡』；如果是妄的，現在又遭遇了『惟耶』（譯者註：此處原文疑為『違耶』之誤）。答：一、從所想像的法來區分真妄，義理有很多方面。如果用世間的善惡來區分，心中想像惡事是妄，心中想像善境是真。如果用世間和出世間來區分，心中想像世間是妄，心中想像出世間是真。如果從出世間來說，用巧妙的挖掘來論述，心中想像實有是妄，心中想像幻有是真。如果用偏空來對比中道，心中想像偏空是妄，心中想像中道是真。如果用次第來對比圓融，心中想像次第三諦是妄，心中想像圓融三諦是真。如果從圓融的中邊來說，心中想像二邊是妄，心中想像中道是真。體和用的關係已經闡明，可以照此來說。經書上說『心中有想就是癡』，正是從體用中邊來說，也是談論亡照而說的，是用中道來否定假觀，從假觀的當體就斥責為癡。如果依妙性來想像假象，有什麼可懷疑的呢？談論亡照，就像荊溪所說：『不執著于有，不執著于空，不追求于中，因為沒有三種想法。』二、從能想像的心來說，有情想就是妄，有想法就是真。

【English Translation】 English version: To demonstrate the 'only mind' (唯心) within the deluded mind (妄心), if demonstrating only the Buddha (佛) is acceptable, what is not? Furthermore, understanding that both mind (心) and Buddha (佛) are provisional names (假名), yet generating doubts oneself (etc.).

Two, Analysis: There are two types of analysis. First, reiterating the intention of the question, which is to affirm the former and negate the latter. The intention is that it is inappropriate to generate false imaginations based on unreality. However, those who grasp the essence consider it correct, while those who do not grasp the essence consider it wrong. Now, let's sincerely analyze: The natural essence of the self-nature (天然性體) should not be like this; matters and principles are originally distinct. Therefore, it does not hinder that the other Buddha (他佛) is not me, and I am not the other Buddha. The Buddha can know me, but I cannot know the Buddha, so we must practice offerings (供養). Just like making offerings in the assembly, the matter and principle are originally distinct, so it does not hinder no Buddha, no self, no offering, no matter, no imagination, no thought. Because principle is matter, it does not hinder that one's own mind is the Buddha, that one's own mind thinks. If the Buddha appears because of thought, the questioner does not understand this principle, so there will be right and wrong. Question: Imagining the Buddha in the mind, is it truly from the correct intention, or is it false? If it is true, the scriptures say, 'If there is thought in the mind, it is delusion (癡)'; if it is false, now we encounter '惟耶' (translator's note: the original text is suspected to be a mistake for '違耶'). Answer: One, distinguishing truth and falsehood from the imagined dharma (法) has many aspects. If we distinguish using worldly good and evil, imagining evil deeds in the mind is false, and imagining good realms in the mind is true. If we distinguish using worldly and transcendental, imagining the worldly in the mind is false, and imagining the transcendental in the mind is true. If we discuss from the transcendental, using skillful excavation, imagining substantial existence in the mind is false, and imagining illusory existence in the mind is true. If we compare emptiness with the middle way (中道), imagining emptiness in the mind is false, and imagining the middle way in the mind is true. If we compare sequential with perfect integration, imagining the sequential three truths (三諦) in the mind is false, and imagining the perfect integration of the three truths in the mind is true. If we discuss from the middle and edges of perfect integration, imagining the two edges in the mind is false, and imagining the middle way in the mind is true. The relationship between substance and function has been clarified, and we can say it accordingly. The scriptures say, 'If there is thought in the mind, it is delusion,' which is precisely from the middle and edges of substance and function, and it is also talking about the extinction of illumination (亡照). It is using the middle way to negate the provisional contemplation (假觀), and from the very essence of the provisional contemplation, it is denounced as delusion. If we imagine the false appearance according to the wonderful nature (妙性), what is there to doubt? Talking about the extinction of illumination is like what Jingxi (荊溪) said: 'Not attached to existence, not attached to emptiness, not seeking the middle, because there are no three thoughts.' Two, from the mind that can imagine, having emotional thought is false, and having thought is true.

。然觀之為言亦復不同。以理觀照此觀方真。以情觀照此觀還妄。今且對情以觀為真。問。文何不云觀作一佛身等。而云想取。答。初心習觀且立想名。觀行未深仍順想故。況復此想順理而為。故非妄想實是真觀。又順理起想豈局初心。是教文菩薩為別。荊溪亦云。等覺尚通名想。應知進不義不一端。從極為言。唯佛一人三千相應方不想。若爾想還是妄。然想體雖妄。既順理起。妄即是真。答三。初約佛世凡夫為例。二又復下。超勝二乘曲見為德二。初出非曲見乃劣不曲見勝。然此勝劣義非一途。若惟從事人天之相為劣。佛三十二相為勝。復以三十二相為芬。八萬四千為勝。八萬四千為劣。藏塵相好為勝。是以就出世論。故藏惟劣通含勝劣。別圓是勝。藏惟曲見。別圓非曲。通則兩兼。若對即理為事而言。故但從事辨。三品之相皆名為劣。以即理故。三品之相方名為勝。故云來至今經從劣辨勝即三而一。良由即前三教之劣為圓一勝。故藏通別皆名為劣。盡號曲見。唯圓非曲方乃名勝。今文曲見雖語二乘。以意求之必談三教。由此三教不談心性即具緣起。然此四教南嶽深知。為讓化緣在天臺故。遂隱其名不廣顯示。二我今下顯德。不壞真寂者。真實性也。不壞緣起者。分別性也。此之緣起既依真寂依他性也。故此三觀皆

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本然而，從不同角度觀察，其說法也各不相同。以理性的角度觀照，這種觀才是真正的觀；以情感的角度觀照，這種觀反而會產生虛妄。現在暫且針對情感，認為觀才是真實的。問：為什麼經文中不說『觀作一佛身』等等，而說『想取』呢？答：因為初學者練習觀想，所以暫且立名為『想』。觀行的程度還不深，仍然順應于『想』的緣故。更何況這種『想』是順應道理而產生的，所以不是虛妄的妄想，而是真實的觀。而且，順應道理而產生的『想』，難道只侷限於初學者嗎？這是教導經文中的菩薩的另一種說法。荊溪也說：『等覺菩薩尚且可以通稱為想。』應該知道，進階的意義並非只有一種。從最高的角度來說，只有佛一人三千相好相應，才能達到無『想』的境界。如果這樣說，『想』還是虛妄的嗎？然而，『想』的本體雖然是虛妄的，但既然是順應道理而產生的，那麼虛妄也就是真實了。回答完畢。以上分三個部分回答。第一部分是針對佛在世時凡夫的情況舉例說明。第二部分『又復下』，是爲了超越二乘的片面見解而彰顯其功德。第二部分又分為兩個方面。首先，指出非片面見解，而是低劣的不片面見解，從而彰顯其殊勝。然而，這種殊勝和低劣的意義並非只有一種。如果僅僅從事相上來看，人天之相是低劣的，佛的三十二相是殊勝的。再以三十二相為低劣，八萬四千相好為殊勝。以八萬四千相好為低劣，藏塵相好為殊勝。因此，就出世法而言，藏教只是低劣，通教包含殊勝和低劣，別教和圓教是殊勝的。藏教只是片面見解，別教和圓教不是片面見解，通教則兩者兼有。如果針對即理為事而言，那麼僅僅從事相上辨別，三品的相都稱為低劣。因為即理的緣故，三品的相才稱為殊勝。所以說，『來至今經從劣辨勝即三而一』。正是因為將前三教的低劣轉變為圓教的殊勝，所以藏教、通教、別教都稱為低劣，都稱為片面見解，只有圓教不是片面見解，才稱為殊勝。現在經文中的片面見解雖然是針對二乘說的，但如果深入探究其含義，必然會涉及到三教。由此可見，三教不談心性，只是具備緣起。然而，南嶽慧思對這四教非常瞭解，爲了將弘法的機緣讓給天臺智顗，所以隱瞞了自己的名聲，沒有廣泛地宣揚。第二，『我今下』，彰顯功德。『不壞真寂』，指的是真實性。『不壞緣起』，指的是分別性。這種緣起是依于真寂的，是依他性。因此，這三種觀都是...

【English Translation】 English version However, when viewed from different perspectives, the statements also differ. Observing with reason, this observation is the true observation; observing with emotion, this observation instead produces delusion. Now, for the time being, focusing on emotion, it is considered that observation is true. Question: Why does the text not say 'observe and create a Buddha body' etc., but say 'imagine and take'? Answer: Because beginners practice contemplation, so for the time being, it is named 'imagination'. The practice of contemplation is not yet deep, and still follows the 'imagination'. Moreover, this 'imagination' arises in accordance with reason, so it is not a false delusion, but a true observation. Furthermore, does 'imagination' arising in accordance with reason only apply to beginners? This is another way of teaching the Bodhisattvas in the scriptures. Jingxi also said: 'Even Equal Enlightenment Bodhisattvas can still be generally called imagination.' It should be known that the meaning of advancement is not just one. From the highest perspective, only when the Buddha alone has three thousand corresponding features can he reach the state of no 'imagination'. If that is the case, is 'imagination' still a delusion? However, although the substance of 'imagination' is delusional, since it arises in accordance with reason, then delusion is truth. The answer is complete. The above is answered in three parts. The first part is an example of the situation of ordinary people when the Buddha was in the world. The second part, '又復下', is to highlight the merits by surpassing the one-sided views of the two vehicles. The second part is divided into two aspects. First, it points out that it is not a one-sided view, but an inferior non-one-sided view, thereby highlighting its superiority. However, the meaning of this superiority and inferiority is not just one. If only looking at the phenomena, the phenomena of humans and gods are inferior, and the thirty-two marks of the Buddha are superior. Furthermore, taking the thirty-two marks as inferior, the eighty-four thousand good qualities are superior. Taking the eighty-four thousand good qualities as inferior, the hidden dust good qualities are superior. Therefore, in terms of transcendence, the Tripitaka teaching is only inferior, the Shared teaching contains both superior and inferior, and the Distinct and Perfect teachings are superior. The Tripitaka teaching is only a one-sided view, the Distinct and Perfect teachings are not one-sided views, and the Shared teaching has both. If it is said in terms of taking principle as phenomena, then only distinguishing from the phenomena, the phenomena of the three grades are all called inferior. Because of being identical to the principle, the phenomena of the three grades are called superior. Therefore, it is said, 'From now until this sutra, distinguishing superiority from inferiority is three into one'. It is precisely because the inferiority of the previous three teachings is transformed into the superiority of the Perfect teaching, so the Tripitaka, Shared, and Distinct teachings are all called inferior, and all are called one-sided views, only the Perfect teaching is not a one-sided view, and is called superior. Although the one-sided view in the current scripture is addressed to the two vehicles, if you delve into its meaning, it will inevitably involve the three teachings. From this, it can be seen that the three teachings do not talk about the nature of the mind, but only possess dependent origination. However, Nanyue Huisi deeply understood these four teachings. In order to give the opportunity to propagate the Dharma to Tiantai Zhiyi, he concealed his name and did not widely promote it. Second, '我今下', highlights the merits. 'Not destroying true stillness' refers to true nature. 'Not destroying dependent origination' refers to the nature of differentiation. This dependent origination is based on true stillness, and is the nature of dependence on others. Therefore, these three contemplations are all...

在。依具修此三三。又若下引華嚴。併爲類二。初類見佛。然華嚴談別。今取證同。若存教道但約異體。相依緣起亦得名為不定外來。二又復下類凈業。我今想心作佛之時。即此想心是名凈業。能熏真心因想成佛。即是真心從熏緣起。豈惟真心觀佛義同。亦乃凈業熏心相類。

第二重。初問。意者既以己心想作佛。無佗實佛耶。二答三。初總示。由一心體中雖然非自他。他自不相礙。自他復相即。二何以下釋相二。初約一切生佛無不體同。二是故下。偏據一人以論心體二。初心體同一切。生佛既一心體。是以趣舉一生為言。即是生作生生作佛。趣舉一佛為言。即是佛作佛佛作生。此則但由趣舉不同。其實生作生即是佛作生。佛作佛即是生作佛。故云由此義故一切諸佛惟是我心所作。如華嚴云。應知自心念念常有佛成正覺。二但由下。明熏異。心體雖同。以由熏異必假想佛而為熏業方得見佛。文為三。初總示。二以是下別示二。初因熏得見。二若無下。示不熏不見。三是故下總結前義為二。初結諸佛。前雖但眾生因熏故得見佛。今乃示佛亦自熏力故得見生。大論云若諸佛現在前。諸佛可爾。今乃不見。云何可請。答佛雖必說而不待請。請者得福。何得不請。猶如大王雖多美膳。若有請者必得恩福。又眾生雖不面見

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在。依據修習這三重（三三），又如果下面引用《華嚴經》，並分為兩類。第一類是見佛。然而《華嚴經》談論的是差別，現在取證相同之處。如果存在教義，但只涉及異體，相互依存的緣起也可以被稱為不定的外來。第二類是凈業。我現在用想念的心作佛的時候，這個想念的心就叫做凈業。能夠熏習真心，因為想念而成就佛，這就是真心從熏習而緣起。豈止真心觀佛的意義相同，而且凈業熏心的道理也相似。

第二重。首先是提問：意思是既然用自己的心想作佛，難道沒有其他的真實的佛嗎？其次是回答，分為三點。首先是總的說明：由於一心體中雖然沒有自他，但他和自並不互相妨礙，自和他又互相即是。其次是解釋，分為兩點。首先是說一切眾生和佛沒有不是一體的。其次是根據一個人來論述心體。首先，心體和一切眾生、佛是一體的，因此舉出一個眾生來說，就是眾生作眾生，眾生作佛；舉出一個佛來說，就是佛作佛，佛作眾生。這只是由於舉例不同，其實眾生作眾生就是佛作眾生，佛作佛就是眾生作佛。所以說，由於這個道理，一切諸佛都是我的心所作。如《華嚴經》所說：『應當知道自己的心念念常有佛成正覺。』其次，說明熏習的差異。心體雖然相同，但由於熏習的差異，必須憑藉想佛來作為熏習的行業，才能得見佛。文分為三點。首先是總的說明。其次是分別說明，分為兩點。首先是因熏習而得見。其次是說明不熏習就不能得見。總結前面的意義，分為兩點。首先是總結諸佛。前面雖然只是眾生因為熏習的緣故才得見佛，現在是說佛也因為自己的熏習力而得見眾生。《大智度論》說：『如果諸佛現在眼前，諸佛才可以這樣。現在看不見，怎麼可以請呢？』回答說：『佛雖然一定會說，但不等待請求。請求的人得到福報，怎麼可以不請求呢？』猶如大王雖然有很多美食，如果有請求的人，一定得到恩惠和福報。又眾生雖然不面見。

【English Translation】 English version: It exists. According to the practice of these three (three-three), and if the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra) is cited below, it is also divided into two categories. The first category is seeing the Buddha. However, the Avatamsaka Sutra discusses differences, but now we take the similarities as evidence. If the teachings exist, but only involve different entities, interdependent origination can also be called uncertain external origins. The second category is pure karma (凈業 - Jingye). When I now use the mind of thought to become a Buddha, this mind of thought is called pure karma. It can熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit) the true mind, and because of thought, Buddhahood is achieved. This means that the true mind arises from熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit). Not only is the meaning of the true mind contemplating the Buddha the same, but also the principle of pure karma熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit) the mind is similar.

The second level. First, the question: Does it mean that since one uses one's own mind to imagine becoming a Buddha, there are no other real Buddhas? Second, the answer is in three points. First, a general explanation: Because within the one mind-essence, although there is no self or other, the other and self do not hinder each other, and the self and other are mutually identical. Second, the explanation is divided into two points. First, it is said that all sentient beings and Buddhas are not of one essence. Second, it is based on one person to discuss the mind-essence. First, the mind-essence is one with all sentient beings and Buddhas. Therefore, to take one sentient being as an example is sentient beings making sentient beings, sentient beings making Buddhas; to take one Buddha as an example is Buddhas making Buddhas, Buddhas making sentient beings. This is only due to different examples. In fact, sentient beings making sentient beings is Buddhas making sentient beings, and Buddhas making Buddhas is sentient beings making Buddhas. Therefore, it is said that due to this principle, all Buddhas are made by my mind. As the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'You should know that your own mind constantly has Buddhas attaining perfect enlightenment.' Second, explain the difference in熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit). Although the mind-essence is the same, due to the difference in熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit), one must rely on imagining the Buddha as the karma of熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit) in order to see the Buddha. The text is divided into three points. First, a general explanation. Second, a separate explanation, divided into two points. First, seeing through熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit). Second, it is said that without熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit), one cannot see. Summarize the previous meaning, divided into two points. First, summarize the Buddhas. Although it was previously only sentient beings who saw the Buddha because of熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit), now it is said that the Buddha also sees sentient beings because of his own power of熏習 (xunxi - influence by habit). The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says: 'If the Buddhas are present before your eyes, the Buddhas can be like this. Now you cannot see them, how can you ask?' The answer is: 'Although the Buddha will definitely speak, he does not wait for requests. Those who ask receive blessings, how can they not ask?' Just as the great king has many delicacies, if there are those who ask, they will definitely receive grace and blessings. Also, although sentient beings do not see face to face.

諸佛。諸佛何嘗不見其心。聞其所請。假令諸佛不見不聞。請亦得福。何況聞見而無益耶。是故諸佛常見眾生。二若偏據下結眾生。三若不下斥結。以圓斥偏皆不識佛。

二又復下。想心作供二。初示。二想身心出現五陰二。初標。亦從定心出生者。初心必詫十大善地定之心數。即見本性首楞嚴定。故能出生一切諸法。二以是下示。

二或復下想身十方親侍禮足身數等諸佛者。佛若無量身。我身亦無量。猶如大梵王者想所變身如此瑞妙。又諸佛興世皆有梵王請轉法故。　二知身下。結不生妄想執。謂心外有者。以即性故則事妄想。

三複知下。己他互益二。初以他益己。二以己下以己益。

二止門下修止三。初標。二當知下釋。三如是下釋。

三如是下結釋。中雲有即非有者。若指實有非有即分別中止。若指虛有非有即依他中止。唯是一心者。在依他屬止。于實性屬觀。亦不得取一心之相者。真實中止。荊溪云。能禮所禮性空寂者。若以能禮所禮為實有。實有性空同分別止。若以能禮所禮為虛有。虛有性空同依佗止。故空寂言即是空中屬真實觀。感應者。若以實有為感應同分別觀。若以虛有為感應緣同依佗觀。故感應言即是假觀。云道交。由此感應即是三千妙假道交。眾生理具。諸佛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：諸佛怎麼會看不到眾生的心，聽不到眾生的祈請呢？即使諸佛沒有看到、沒有聽到，祈請也會得到福報，更何況諸佛已經聽見、看見，又怎麼會沒有利益呢？所以，諸佛常常看見眾生。如果有人偏執于下乘的結論來束縛眾生，或者不從下乘入手而直接用圓融的教義來駁斥偏執，這些都是不認識佛的。

又進一步說，以下是關於以想像的心來作供養的兩種情況。首先是展示，然後是想像身心出現五陰兩種情況。首先是標示。『亦從定心出生者』，最初的心必然驚異於十大善地定（Dasanabhumi-samadhi）的心數，從而見到本性的首楞嚴定（Surangama Samadhi），因此能夠出生一切諸法。其次是用『以是下示』來展示。

或者進一步說，想像自身化為無數身，在十方親近侍奉、禮拜諸佛。如果佛有無量身，那麼我的身也應該有無量。就像大梵天王（Mahabrahma）所變化的身那樣瑞妙。而且諸佛出世，都有梵天王請轉法輪的緣故。『二知身下』，總結不應生起妄想執著，認為在心外有佛。因為佛性即是自性，所以執著於心外之佛是虛妄的妄想。

進一步瞭解，以下是自他互相利益的兩種情況。首先是以他來利益自己，然後是以自己來利益他人。

關於止門（Samatha）的修習，分為三個部分。首先是標示，然後是用『當知下』來解釋，最後是用『如是下』來總結。

『三如是下結釋』，總結解釋。其中說到『有即非有者』，如果指的是實有，那麼『非有』就屬於分別中止（Vikalpa-samatha）。如果指的是虛有，那麼『非有』就屬於依他中止（Paratantra-samatha）。『唯是一心者』，在依他中屬於止，在實性中屬於觀。『亦不得取一心之相者』，屬於真實中止（Tathata-samatha）。荊溪（Jingxi，人名）說，『能禮所禮性空寂者』，如果認為能禮者和所禮者是實有，那麼實有性空就等同於分別止。如果認為能禮者和所禮者是虛有，那麼虛有性空就等同於依他止。所以『空寂』這個詞就是空中，屬於真實觀（Tathata-vipassana）。『感應者』，如果認為實有感應，就等同於分別觀（Vikalpa-vipassana）。如果認為虛有感應緣，就等同於依他觀（Paratantra-vipassana）。所以『感應』這個詞就是假觀（Prajna-vipassana）。說『道交』，由此感應就是三千妙假道交，眾生本自具足，諸佛亦然。

【English Translation】 English version: How could the Buddhas not see the minds of sentient beings or hear their requests? Even if the Buddhas did not see or hear, making requests would still bring blessings. How much more so when the Buddhas have already heard and seen, how could it be without benefit? Therefore, the Buddhas constantly see sentient beings. If one is fixated on lower vehicle conclusions to bind sentient beings, or if one does not start from the lower vehicle and directly refutes attachment with perfect teachings, these are all not recognizing the Buddha.

Furthermore, the following concerns making offerings with an imagined mind in two situations. First is the demonstration, then imagining the body and mind manifesting the five skandhas in two situations. First is the indication. 'Also born from the mind of samadhi', the initial mind will surely be amazed by the mind-numbers of the Ten Great Good Grounds Samadhi (Dasanabhumi-samadhi), thereby seeing the Surangama Samadhi (Surangama Samadhi) of the original nature, thus being able to give birth to all dharmas. Secondly, it is demonstrated with '以是下示'.

Or furthermore, imagine oneself transforming into countless bodies, closely attending and prostrating to the Buddhas in the ten directions. If the Buddha has limitless bodies, then my body should also have limitless bodies. Just like the transformed body of the Great Brahma King (Mahabrahma) is so auspicious and wonderful. Moreover, when the Buddhas appear in the world, there is always the Brahma King requesting the turning of the Dharma wheel. '二知身下', concludes that one should not give rise to delusional attachments, thinking that there is a Buddha outside the mind. Because Buddha-nature is self-nature, therefore clinging to a Buddha outside the mind is a false delusion.

Further understanding, the following are two situations of mutual benefit between oneself and others. First is benefiting oneself through others, then benefiting others through oneself.

Regarding the practice of Samatha (止門), it is divided into three parts. First is the indication, then it is explained with '當知下', and finally it is concluded with '如是下'.

'三如是下結釋', concludes the explanation. Among them, it is said '有即非有者', if it refers to real existence, then '非有' belongs to Vikalpa-samatha (分別中止). If it refers to illusory existence, then '非有' belongs to Paratantra-samatha (依他中止). '唯是一心者', in Paratantra it belongs to Samatha, in Tathata it belongs to Vipassana. '亦不得取一心之相者', belongs to Tathata-samatha (真實中止). Jingxi (荊溪, a person's name) said, '能禮所禮性空寂者', if one thinks that the one who prostrates and the one who is prostrated to are real, then the emptiness of real existence is the same as Vikalpa-samatha. If one thinks that the one who prostrates and the one who is prostrated to are illusory, then the emptiness of illusory existence is the same as Paratantra-samatha. Therefore, the word '空寂' is emptiness in the middle, belonging to Tathata-vipassana (真實觀). '感應者', if one thinks that real existence has response, it is the same as Vikalpa-vipassana (分別觀). If one thinks that illusory existence has the condition of response, it is the same as Paratantra-vipassana (依他觀). Therefore, the word '感應' is Prajna-vipassana (假觀). Saying '道交', from this response is the wonderful interaction of the three thousand, sentient beings are inherently complete, and so are the Buddhas.

果滿。因果雖殊三千道合。惟思議者。或別語感應屬前二性。或道結兩處屬真實止。故空假中當處即一。亦不得取一心之相。故雖思議。或真以空寂為空。感應為假。惟思為中。對今三性止觀禮佛者。前曾三性經對三觀。約彼會之義無不合。

二復不下。止觀雙行三。初標。二所謂下釋。三此是下結釋又二。初示。二是故下證。供養下是觀。諸佛下是止。說雖前後行在一時。

二飯食二。初總標。二所言下隨釋二。初觀三。初標二。初得下釋三。初反劣為勝三。初示義。二是故下引證。三問下料揀。初又二。初先修供養。二作此下供已可食。初又二。初總示。由佗是勝田故標章居首。二即當下別示三。初能供二。初心體能變。二作是下所變器食。二作此下所供。三當念下結能所。二又復下變一為多二。初先修供養。二初能供。二作此下所供。二作此下供已可食。南嶽別有隨自意云。凡所得食。應云此食色香味。上供十方佛。中奉諸賢聖。下及六道品。等施無差別。隨感皆飽滿。令諸施主得無量波羅蜜。又云。念食色香如旃檀風。一時普熏十方世界。凡聖有感名得上味。六道聞香發菩提心。于食能生六波羅蜜及三昧。智者亦云。譬如熏藥。藥隨火熱入人身中。患除方復並觀食亦復如是。以食施時。食為法界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本果滿（結果圓滿）。因和果雖然不同，但三千道卻相互融合。只有思議者，或者用不同的語言來感受感應，這屬於前兩種性質（空和假）；或者說道理結合在兩處，這屬於真實止（中）。所以，空、假、中三者當下就是一體的。也不應該執著於一心之相。因此，即使是思議，或者以真諦的空寂作為空，感應作為假，思議作為中。對於現在修習三性止觀禮佛的人來說，之前的三性經文對應三種觀法，按照那個經文來理解，其意義沒有不符合的。

二、不再往下（解釋）。止觀同時進行有三種。首先是標示，其次是『所謂下』的解釋，再次是『此是下』的總結解釋。總結解釋又分為兩種，首先是展示，其次是『是故下』的證明。『供養下』是觀，『諸佛下』是止。雖然說是前後，但實際上是在同一時間進行。

二、飯食（飲食）有兩種。首先是總的標示，其次是『所言下』的隨文解釋，分為兩種。首先是觀，分為三種。首先是標示，其次是『初得下』的解釋，分為三種。首先是將劣勢轉化為優勢，分為三種。首先是展示意義，其次是『是故下』的引用證明，再次是『問下』的辨析。辨析又分為兩種，首先是先修供養，其次是『作此下』供養完畢后可以食用。首先又分為兩種，首先是總的展示，因為他是殊勝的福田，所以標示章節放在首位。其次是『即當下』的分別展示，分為三種。首先是能供養者，首先是心體能夠變化，其次是『作是下』所變化的器皿和食物，再次是『作此下』所供養的物品，最後是『當念下』總結能供養者和所供養的物品。其次是『又復下』將一變為多，分為兩種。首先是先修供養，首先是能供養者，其次是『作此下』所供養的物品，再次是『作此下』供養完畢后可以食用。南嶽（慧思禪師）另外有隨自意云：凡是得到的食物，應該說『此食色香味，上供十方佛，中奉諸賢聖，下及六道品，等施無差別，隨感皆飽滿，令諸施主得無量波羅蜜』。又說：『念食的色香如同旃檀風，一時普遍薰染十方世界，凡聖有感應的，就叫做得上味，六道眾生聞到香味，發起菩提心。』對於食物能夠生起六波羅蜜以及三昧。智者（智顗大師）也說：『譬如熏藥，藥隨著火的熱力進入人的身體中，疾病消除后才恢復，觀食也是這樣。以食物佈施的時候，食物就是法界』。

【English Translation】 English version Guo Man (Fruition is complete). Although cause and effect are different, the three thousand paths merge together. Only those who contemplate, either use different languages to sense the response, which belongs to the first two natures (emptiness and provisionality); or the principle is combined in two places, which belongs to the true cessation (middle). Therefore, emptiness, provisionality, and the middle are one in the present moment. One should also not be attached to the appearance of one mind. Therefore, even if it is contemplation, either take the emptiness and stillness of truth as emptiness, the response as provisionality, and contemplation as the middle. For those who are now practicing the Three Natures Cessation-Contemplation and paying homage to the Buddha, the previous Three Natures Sutra corresponds to the three types of contemplation. Understanding it according to that sutra, there is no meaning that does not conform.

Second, not going further down (in explanation). Cessation and contemplation are practiced simultaneously in three ways. First is the indication, second is the explanation of 'Suo Wei Xia', and third is the summary explanation of 'Ci Shi Xia'. The summary explanation is further divided into two types: first is the demonstration, and second is the proof of 'Shi Gu Xia'. 'Offering Xia' is contemplation, and 'Zhu Fo Xia' is cessation. Although it is said to be before and after, it is actually carried out at the same time.

Second, food and drink are of two types. First is the general indication, and second is the explanation following the text of 'Suo Yan Xia', divided into two types. First is contemplation, divided into three types. First is the indication, and second is the explanation of 'Chu De Xia', divided into three types. First is transforming inferiority into superiority, divided into three types. First is demonstrating the meaning, second is the citation proof of 'Shi Gu Xia', and third is the analysis of 'Wen Xia'. The analysis is further divided into two types: first is cultivating offerings first, and second is 'Zuo Ci Xia', after the offering is completed, it can be eaten. First, it is further divided into two types: first is the general demonstration, because it is a supreme field of merit, so the indication chapter is placed at the beginning. Second is the separate demonstration of 'Ji Dang Xia', divided into three types. First is the one who can make offerings, first is the mind-essence that can transform, second is the utensils and food that are transformed by 'Zuo Shi Xia', and third is the items offered by 'Zuo Ci Xia', and finally 'Dang Nian Xia' summarizes the one who can make offerings and the items offered. Second is 'You Fu Xia' transforming one into many, divided into two types. First is cultivating offerings first, first is the one who can make offerings, and second is the items offered by 'Zuo Ci Xia', and again 'Zuo Ci Xia' after the offering is completed, it can be eaten. Nanyue (Hui Si Chan Shi) also has a separate saying according to his own intention: 'Whenever food is obtained, one should say, 'This food, color, fragrance, and taste, I offer to the Buddhas of the ten directions, I present to the sages and saints, and I give to the beings of the six realms, equally without discrimination, may all be satisfied according to their needs, and may all donors obtain immeasurable Paramitas.' It is also said: 'Thinking of the color and fragrance of food is like the sandalwood wind, which universally perfumes the ten directions at once. Those who are sentient, whether ordinary or holy, call it the supreme taste, and the beings of the six realms hear the fragrance and arouse the Bodhi mind.' One can generate the Six Paramitas and Samadhi from food. Zhi Zhe (Zhi Yi Da Shi) also said: 'It is like fumigating medicine, the medicine enters the body with the heat of the fire, and it is restored only after the disease is eliminated. Contemplating food is also like this. When food is given as alms, the food is the Dharmadhatu.'

具一切法。凡諸事者法隨食入。乃至冥益或近或遠終破無明。應知豈惟施於前人有此之德。己身戶蟲何不然耶。三若為下。變勝為劣二。初示相。二何故下釋義。二止門。有標釋結三。皆在文易見。惟恐不行。然此止觀理深事諸。晨已現前。若能明記不忘乃獲無量功德。

三利使便三。初標。二隨釋。三料揀。重問答。瓔珞云。神名天心。通名慧性。天心者天然之心也。慧性者通達無礙也。毗曇立云。障通無知。若去即發慧性。地持力品云。神謂難測知。通謂無壅礙。若以神通與幻術辨。如釋論云。幻術事是虛法。法于草木。誑惑人眼物實不變。神通不爾。實得變法使物實變。今于神通約圓菩薩對二乘辨。故二乘人依背舍勝處一切處等修十四變化。通從外來不全性用。若圓菩薩了中道真真。

大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第五(終)

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：具足一切法。所有的事情都遵循著法的規律，隨著食物進入體內。乃至在冥冥之中產生利益，或近或遠，最終都能破除無明（avidyā，指對事物真相的迷惑和無知）。應當知道，難道只有施捨給他人才能有這樣的功德嗎？自己家中的蟲子為什麼不能這樣呢？

三、若為下。變勝為劣二。初示相。二何故下釋義。二止門。有標釋結三。都在文中容易見到。只是擔心不能實行。然而這止觀（śamatha-vipaśyanā，指止息妄念和觀照實相的修行方法）的道理深刻，事情繁多。早晨已經顯現於眼前。如果能夠清楚地記住而不忘記，就能獲得無量的功德。

三、利使便三。初標。二隨釋。三料揀。重問答。《瓔珞經》（Yingluo Jing）中說：『神』名為天心，通名為慧性。天心，是天然之心。慧性，是通達無礙的。』《毗曇》（Abhidharma，指佛教的論藏）立論說：『障礙通達的是無知。如果去除無知，就能啓發慧性。』《地持經·力品》（Dichijing Lipin）中說：『神，是指難以測知。通，是指沒有壅塞阻礙。』如果用神通和幻術來區分，如《釋論》（Shilun）中所說：『幻術的事情是虛假的法，施法于草木，誑惑人的眼睛，物體的實質並沒有改變。神通不是這樣，確實能夠改變法，使物體的實質發生改變。』現在用神通來對照圓教菩薩和二乘（śrāvaka-pratyekabuddha，指聲聞和緣覺）之人來辨別。所以二乘之人依靠背舍、勝處、一切處等修習十四種變化，通從外來，不完全是自性的作用。如果圓教菩薩了達中道真諦。大乘止觀法門宗圓記卷第五（終）

【English Translation】 English version: Possessing all dharmas. All matters follow the law of dharma, entering the body along with food. Even in the unseen, benefits arise, whether near or far, ultimately breaking through ignorance (avidyā, referring to delusion and ignorance of the true nature of things). It should be known, is it only by giving to others that one can have such merit? Why can't the insects in one's own house be the same?

If it is below. Changing the superior to the inferior, two. First, show the appearance. Second, why explain the meaning below. Second, the gate of cessation. There are three of marking, explaining, and concluding. All are easily seen in the text. Only fearing that it cannot be practiced. However, the principles of this śamatha-vipaśyanā (referring to the practice of calming the mind and contemplating reality) are profound, and the matters are numerous. It has already appeared before us in the morning. If one can clearly remember and not forget, one will obtain immeasurable merit.
Benefit makes it convenient three. First mark. Second follow the explanation. Third material selection. Repeat question and answer. The Yingluo Jing says: 'Shen' is named Tianxin, and Tong is named Huixing. Tianxin is the natural heart. Huixing is unobstructed.' The Abhidharma establishes the theory: 'What hinders understanding is ignorance. If ignorance is removed, wisdom will be enlightened.' The Dichijing Lipin says: 'Shen refers to the difficult to know. Tong refers to no obstruction.' If distinguishing between supernatural powers and illusions, as the Shilun says: 'The matter of illusion is a false dharma, applying dharma to plants and trees, deceiving people's eyes, the essence of the object does not change. Supernatural powers are not like this, they can indeed change the dharma, causing the essence of the object to change.' Now use supernatural powers to compare the perfect teaching Bodhisattva with the two vehicles (śrāvaka-pratyekabuddha, referring to the hearers and those enlightened by themselves). Therefore, people of the two vehicles rely on the back-offering, superior places, all places, etc. to practice fourteen kinds of changes, and the understanding comes from the outside, not entirely the function of self-nature. If the perfect teaching Bodhisattva understands the true truth of the Middle Way. The End of the Fifth Volume of the Zongyuan Record of the Mahayana Śamatha-Vipaśyanā Dharma Gate