English
English version Generally speaking, 'elucidating the causes of two lifetimes' means elucidating the causes of the six pāramitās (perfections) practiced in past lives, as well as the act of leaving the city to study the Way and the six years of ascetic practice in this present life. This fully elucidates the cause-and-effect relationship of two lifetimes, and therefore it is 'elucidating the cause and distinguishing the effect.' Attaining perfect enlightenment under the Bodhi tree is distinguishing the effect. Therefore, it is said that Śākyamuni's (the capable and silent sage) teachings fully elucidate cause and effect. Vairocana's (the light shining everywhere) teachings only elucidate the effect but not the cause, because Vairocana's teachings do not elucidate the causes practiced by Vairocana's teachings. Why is the cause practiced in past lives not elucidated? Why is the cause practiced in this present life not elucidated? Instead, it directly elucidates the two kinds of retributions, the principal and the circumstantial, that Vairocana initially achieved in the seed of enlightenment. The circumstantial retribution is the ten directions of lands, and the principal retribution is the ocean of the names of the ten Buddhas. Therefore, it is said that Vairocana's teachings only elucidate the effect but not the cause. Vairocana's teachings elucidate cause and effect, referring to the fact that Vairocana's teachings cultivate the causes of the ten faiths, the ten grounds, etc., and obtain the inconceivable great and small ocean of characteristics as the effect; cultivating the cause of being apart from the world, one obtains the Dharma Realm as the effect. Therefore, it is said that Vairocana's teachings fully elucidate the cultivation of causes and the attainment of effects. Śākyamuni's teachings only elucidate the cultivation of causes but do not distinguish the attainment of effects, so the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: 'Bodhisattvas dwell in prajñā (wisdom) without dwelling in any dharma, and fully accomplish all practices.' This only elucidates the causes of cultivating prajñā, etc., but does not elucidate the attainment of the effect of Sarvajña (all-knowing). Therefore, Śākyamuni's teachings only elucidate the cause but not the effect. However, these four sentences have been passed down from the teacher in the mountains, and this saying has already existed. This is an old doctrine of one school, extremely profound and difficult to understand. Even if later people can recite these words, they do not actually understand their meaning. Now, let's ask a few questions. Since it is said that Vairocana's teachings cultivate the causes of the ten faiths, the ten grounds, etc., and obtain the inconceivable great and small ocean of characteristics as the effect; cultivating the cause of being apart from the world, one obtains the Dharma Realm as the effect. Then, how do we know these things? How do we know that the ten abodes, the ten grounds, etc., are the causes taught by Vairocana, and the great and small ocean of characteristics is the effect taught by Vairocana? The cause and effect of the later week are also questioned in this way. In which part of the seven locations and eight assemblies of this sutra does it say that the ten faiths and the ten grounds are the causes taught by Vairocana, and the great and small ocean of characteristics is the effect taught by Vairocana? The cause and effect of the later week are also questioned in this way. In which part of the seven locations and eight assemblies of this sutra does it say that being apart from the world is the cause taught, and the Dharma Realm is the effect taught? Also, how do we know that the ten faiths and the ten abodes are not the causes of Vairocana's transformation, and the great and small ocean of characteristics is not the effect of Vairocana's transformation? How do we know that being apart from the world is not the cause of Vairocana's transformation? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
界非是能化果耶。又一句责。若言十信十地等是舍那所化因。大小相海是舍那所化果者。舍那所化为当现得大小相海果以不。若使言舍那所化不得大小相海果。乃是舍那为诸菩萨说今诸菩萨修因取果者。此与释迦所化更复何殊。释迦亦为诸菩萨说涅槃萨婆若等果。今诸菩萨明因取此果。若尔两佛所化无异。何得判释迦所化但因不果。舍那所化具因果耶。若使言舍那所化已得大小相海果者则诸菩萨皆悉是佛。何以故。大小相海果是如来大小相海果。诸菩萨既得此果则诸菩萨即既成佛。那复更行离世间因得法界。纷纭作义此两句责不可解。所以不可解者。由来师作此语故难解。不具他事。然二佛因果义相是极自难见。前云。释迦能具因果所但因不果。舍那能但果不因所。其因果何意明此因果不同耶。明此作义大师奋云。所以明此四句因果者。欲辨二佛能所相兼义者。释迦能化具明因果。舍那所化具明因果。此则能所相对。非能无成所非所无成能。能是所能。所是能所。此之能所皆具因果。虽皆具因果只一因一果义。故释迦能具明因果。舍那所具明因果。第二句相兼者。舍那能化但果不因。释迦所化但因不果者。此亦是能所义。非能无以明所非所无以明能。以所能果兼能所因。能所因兼所能因。此之能所亦是一因一果义。故 现代汉语译本 ‘界’（指佛的境界）难道不是能化生结果的吗？这是又一句责问。如果说十信、十地等是卢舍那佛（Vairocana，报身佛）所化生的因，大小相海（指佛的庄严身相）是卢舍那佛所化生的果，那么卢舍那佛所化生的，是应当已经获得大小相海的果，还是没有获得？如果说卢舍那佛所化生没有获得大小相海的果，而是卢舍那佛为诸菩萨说法，现在诸菩萨修因证果，这与释迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni，应化身佛）所化生的又有什么区别呢？释迦牟尼佛也为诸菩萨说涅槃（Nirvana，寂灭）和萨婆若（Sarvajna，一切智）等果。现在诸菩萨明白因，证得这些果。如果这样，两位佛所化生的没有区别，怎么能判释迦牟尼佛所化生的只有因没有果，而卢舍那佛所化生的具足因果呢？如果说卢舍那佛所化生的已经获得大小相海的果，那么诸菩萨就都是佛了。为什么呢？因为大小相海的果是如来（Tathagata，佛的称号）的大小相海果。诸菩萨既然得到这个果，那么诸菩萨就已经成佛了，又何必再修行离世间的因，证得法界（Dharmadhatu，诸法总相）呢？纷纭地解释这些义理，这两句责问是不可理解的。之所以不可理解，是因为历来的法师这样说，所以难以理解，不具备其他的事理。然而，二佛的因果义相是极其难以看清的。前面说，释迦牟尼佛能具足因果，所化生的只有因没有果；卢舍那佛能只有果没有因，所化生的。这其中的因果是什么意思？说明这因果的不同呢？说明这义理的大师奋说，之所以说明这四句因果，是为了辨别二佛能所相兼的义理：释迦牟尼佛能化生的具明因果，卢舍那佛所化生的具明因果。这是能所相对，非能无以成所，非所无以成能。能是所能，所是能所。这能所都具足因果。虽然都具足因果，只是一因一果的义理。所以释迦牟尼佛能具明因果，卢舍那佛所具明因果。第二句相兼，卢舍那佛能化生的只有果没有因，释迦牟尼佛所化生的只有因没有果，这也是能所的义理。非能无以明所，非所无以明能。以所能的果兼能所的因，能所的因兼所能的因。这能所也是一因一果的义理。所以
English
English version Is ‘realm’ (referring to the Buddha's realm) not capable of transforming into results? This is another question of reproach. If it is said that the Ten Faiths, Ten Grounds (Bhumi, stages of a Bodhisattva's path), etc., are the causes transformed by Vairocana (the Reward Body Buddha), and the ocean of great and small marks (referring to the Buddha's majestic physical characteristics) is the result transformed by Vairocana, then, concerning what is transformed by Vairocana, should it have already obtained the result of the ocean of great and small marks, or not? If it is said that what is transformed by Vairocana has not obtained the result of the ocean of great and small marks, but rather Vairocana speaks the Dharma for the Bodhisattvas, and now the Bodhisattvas cultivate causes to attain results, then what difference is there between this and what is transformed by Sakyamuni (the Manifestation Body Buddha)? Sakyamuni Buddha also speaks of the results of Nirvana (extinction) and Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom) etc., for the Bodhisattvas. Now the Bodhisattvas understand the causes and attain these results. If this is the case, there is no difference between what is transformed by the two Buddhas. How can it be judged that what is transformed by Sakyamuni Buddha only has causes but no results, while what is transformed by Vairocana Buddha is complete with both causes and results? If it is said that what is transformed by Vairocana has already obtained the result of the ocean of great and small marks, then all Bodhisattvas are Buddhas. Why? Because the result of the ocean of great and small marks is the Tathagata's (Buddha's title) ocean of great and small marks. Since the Bodhisattvas have obtained this result, then the Bodhisattvas have already become Buddhas. Why then would they need to further cultivate the causes of transcending the world to attain the Dharmadhatu (the totality of all phenomena)? To interpret these meanings in a confused manner, these two questions of reproach are incomprehensible. The reason they are incomprehensible is that the Dharma masters of the past have spoken in this way, making it difficult to understand, lacking other principles. However, the meaning of the causes and results of the two Buddhas is extremely difficult to see clearly. Earlier it was said that Sakyamuni Buddha is capable of fully possessing causes and results, but what is transformed only has causes and no results; Vairocana Buddha is capable of only having results and no causes, in what is transformed. What is the meaning of these causes and results? What explains the difference between these causes and results? The master Fen, who explains this meaning, says that the reason for explaining these four sentences of causes and results is to distinguish the meaning of the mutual inclusion of the abilities and what is accomplished by the two Buddhas: Sakyamuni Buddha's ability to transform fully clarifies causes and results, and what is transformed by Vairocana Buddha fully clarifies causes and results. This is the relative nature of ability and what is accomplished; ability cannot be accomplished without what is accomplished, and what is accomplished cannot accomplish without ability. Ability is what ability can do, and what is accomplished is what ability can accomplish. This ability and what is accomplished both fully possess causes and results. Although they both fully possess causes and results, it is only the meaning of one cause and one result. Therefore, Sakyamuni Buddha's ability fully clarifies causes and results, and what is accomplished by Vairocana Buddha fully clarifies causes and results. The second sentence of mutual inclusion is that Vairocana Buddha's ability to transform only has results and no causes, and what is transformed by Sakyamuni Buddha only has causes and no results. This is also the meaning of ability and what is accomplished. Ability cannot clarify what is accomplished without what is accomplished, and what is accomplished cannot clarify ability without ability. The result of what ability can do includes the cause of ability and what is accomplished, and the cause of ability and what is accomplished includes the cause of what ability can do. This ability and what is accomplished is also the meaning of one cause and one result. Therefore, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
舍那能但果不因。释迦所但因不果也。第三句相兼者。释迦能对舍那能。释迦能一二义。舍那能二一义。此二是一二。此一是二一。此本是迹本。此迹是本迹。以本迹故一二。以迹本故二一。一二兼二一。二一兼一二。以本迹兼迹本。迹本兼本迹故。释迦能具明因果。舍那能但因不果也。大师只作此语。 今更问。何意明此四句因果相兼耶。解云。有二义。一者明二佛能所互通。释迦能化既具明因果显舍那能化亦尔。舍那能化但果不因显释迦能化亦尔。二佛是二句但各显一义。故一二不同也。能化既然所化亦尔。斯义易知也。二者欲泯能所因果本迹义。释迦本迹一二。舍那迹本二一。本迹非迹。迹本非本。一二非二。二一非一。能所非所。所能非能。斯则非一非二非本非迹毕竟清净。此则名大方广义也。 更释前一句义。何者云前舍那能化但果不因。所化具因果者。明此经发初但说舍那依正二果。十佛国土即依果。十佛世界海即正果。而不明舍那能化之因。若是舍那所化前明十信十地等五位是所化因。大小相海是所化果。此是一周明所化因果义也。次复一周明所化因果。谓离世间因法界果。此二周因果中间。性起品结前生后。结前者前明五位因。次明大小相海果。性起品即收此因果。还归不因不果一正性 现代汉语译本 舍那佛（Vairocana Buddha）能示现果但不示现因。释迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）所示现的只是因而不是果。第三句是说两者相兼，即释迦牟尼佛能对应舍那佛的能，释迦牟尼佛的能是一二之义，舍那佛的能是二一之义。此二者是一二，此一者是二一。这是本是迹本，这是迹是本迹。因为是本迹所以是一二，因为是迹本所以是二一。一二兼二一，二一兼一二。因为本迹兼迹本，迹本兼本迹的缘故。释迦牟尼佛能完全阐明因果，舍那佛能只阐明因而不阐明果。大师只是这样说。 现在再问，为何要阐明这四句因果相兼的道理呢？解释说，有两个含义。一是阐明二佛的能与所可以互相沟通。释迦牟尼佛的能化既已完全阐明因果，就显示舍那佛的能化也是如此。舍那佛的能化只阐明果而不阐明因，就显示释迦牟尼佛的能化也是如此。二佛是两句话，但各自只阐明一个含义，所以一二不同。能化既然如此，所化也是如此，这个道理很容易理解。二是想要泯除能所、因果、本迹的含义。释迦牟尼佛的本迹是一二，舍那佛的迹本是二一。本迹不是迹，迹本不是本。一二不是二，二一不是一。能所不是所，所能不是能。这样就既非一也非二，既非本也非迹，毕竟清净。这就叫做大方广义。 再解释前一句的含义。为什么说前面舍那佛的能化只阐明果而不阐明因，而所化则具足因果呢？这是说明此经开始时只说了舍那佛的依报和正报二果。十佛国土就是依报果，十佛世界海就是正报果。而没有阐明舍那佛能化的因。如果是舍那佛所化，前面阐明十信、十地等五位是所化的因，大小相海是所化的果。这是一周阐明所化因果的含义。接下来又一周阐明所化因果，即离世间因，法界果。这两周因果中间，《性起品》承前启后，承前是指前面阐明五位因，接下来阐明大小相海果。《性起品》就收摄了这些因果，还归于不因不果的一正性。