English
English version: Regarding 'non-being': it exists in the state of 'being,' yet it is not truly 'being,' so it is said not to exist within 'being.' Therefore, it can neither exceed the scope of 'being and non-being' nor exist within 'being and non-being.' Thus, the Dharma has no appearance of 'being and non-being,' and the sage has no knowledge of 'being and non-being.' If the sage has no knowledge of 'being and non-being,' then there is no attachment within; if the Dharma has no appearance of 'being and non-being,' then there is no discrimination without. Without discrimination without, without attachment within, both become tranquil and extinguished, the self and things merge into one, vaguely without any trace, and this is called Nirvana (Nirvana, a Buddhist term referring to liberation). If Nirvana is like this, then any speculation is cut off. How can it be measured within the scope of 'being and non-being,' and how can it be sought outside of 'being and non-being'? Difficulty in Differentiation, Chapter 8 Someone asks: Since Nirvana transcends the realm of speculation, then it is beyond the six realms (referring to the six sense objects: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma), neither exceeding nor existing anywhere, only the profound Dao exists alone. This is the ultimate path of thoroughly investigating truth and completely understanding one's nature, subtle and unique, without difference. The principle is indeed so. However, the Fang Guang Jing (Fang Guang Jing, a Buddhist scripture) says: 'The paths of the Three Vehicles (referring to the Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle) all have differences because of non-action (referring to non-fabrication, non-attachment).' The Buddha said: 'In the past, when I was a Bodhisattva, my name was Ru Tong (Ru Tong). At Dipamkara Buddha's (Dipamkara Buddha) place, I had already entered Nirvana.' The Ru Tong Bodhisattva initially attained the non-origination forbearance (referring to the realization that all dharmas are neither born nor extinguished) at the seventh stage (referring to a stage in the Bodhisattva's practice) and further cultivated three stages. If Nirvana is one, then there should not be three vehicles; if there are indeed three vehicles, then it is not ultimate. The ultimate path has differences in levels. Many scriptures have different sayings, how should we choose? Distinguishing Differences, Chapter 9 The nameless one replies: Indeed, the ultimate path, in principle, has no difference. The Lotus Sutra (Lotus Sutra) says: 'The first great path has no two correct paths, I, for the sake of convenience, for those who are lazy, separately spoke of the Three Vehicles within the One Vehicle (referring to the only path to Buddhahood).' Using three carts to lure children out of the burning house (a metaphor from the Lotus Sutra, referring to using different methods to guide sentient beings out of the sea of suffering) is the meaning of this. Because they all escape from birth and death, they are all called non-action; because the vehicles they ride are different, they have the names of the Three Vehicles. In summary, they all ultimately return to the One Vehicle. And what you said, 'The paths of the Three Vehicles all have differences because of non-action,' this is because people have three different capacities, which manifest differences in non-action, not that non-action itself has three differences. Therefore, the Fang Guang Jing says: 'Does Nirvana have differences?' The answer is: 'No difference.' It is only that the Tathagata's (Tathagata, an epithet of the Buddha) habitual tendencies are completely exhausted, while the Sravaka's (Sravaka, referring to disciples who practice by listening to the Buddha's teachings) habitual tendencies are not yet exhausted. Please allow me to use a nearby analogy to compare to the profound principle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
如人斩木，去尺无尺，去寸无寸。修短在于尺寸，不在无也。夫以群生万端，识根不一，智鉴有浅深，德行有厚薄，所以俱之彼岸，而升降不同。彼岸岂异？异自我耳。然则众经殊辩，其致不乖。 责异第十 有名曰：俱出火宅，则无患一也。同出生死，则无为一也。而云“彼岸无异，异自我耳。”彼岸，则无为岸也；我，则体无为者也。请问我与无为，为一？为异？若我即无为，无为亦即我。不得言无为无异，异自我也。若我异无为，我则非无为。无为自无为，我自常有为。冥会之致，又滞而不通。然则我与无为，一亦无三，异亦无三。三乘之名，何由而生也？ 会异第十一 无名曰：夫止此而此、适彼而彼，所以同于得者，得亦得之；同于失者，失亦失之。我适无为，我即无为。无为虽一，何乖不一耶！譬犹三鸟出网，同适无患之域。无患虽同，而鸟鸟各异。不可以鸟鸟各异，谓无患亦异。又不可以无患既一，而一于众鸟也。然则鸟即无患，无患即鸟。无患岂异？异自鸟耳。如是三乘众生，俱越妄想之樊，同适无为之境。无为虽同，而乘乘各异。不可以乘乘各异，谓无为亦异。又不可以无为既一，而一于三乘也。然则我即无为，无为即我。无为岂异？异自我耳。所以无患虽同，而升虚有 现代汉语译本： 如同人砍伐木头，每次去掉一尺，不能说没有去掉；每次去掉一寸，也不能说没有去掉。长短的区别在于尺寸的积累，而不是说没有减少。众生万象，认知根源各不相同，智慧见解有深有浅，德行修养有厚有薄，所以都能到达彼岸（涅槃的境界），但提升和下降的程度却不同。彼岸（涅槃）本身难道有什么不同吗？不同之处在于我们自身罢了。既然如此，各种经典的论述虽然不同，但最终的归宿却是一致的。 第十品 责难 有人提出疑问：既然都脱离了火宅（充满烦恼的世间），那就没有忧患的差别了。既然都脱离了生死轮回，那就达到了无为（涅槃）的同一境界了。但你却说‘彼岸（涅槃）没有不同，不同之处在于我们自身’。彼岸（涅槃），就是无为的境界；我，就是体验无为的主体。请问，‘我’与‘无为’，是一体的？还是不同的？如果‘我’就是‘无为’，‘无为’也就是‘我’。那就不能说‘无为’没有不同，不同之处在于我们自身了。如果‘我’与‘无为’是不同的，那么‘我’就不是‘无为’。‘无为’自在‘无为’，‘我’则常常处于有为的状态。这样勉强地解释，反而更加滞涩不通。既然如此，‘我’与‘无为’，说一体也没有三种，说不同也没有三种。那么三乘（声闻乘、缘觉乘、菩萨乘）的说法，又是从何而来的呢？ 第十一品 会通 无名回答说：停留在‘此’而就是‘此’，适应‘彼’而就是‘彼’，所以与获得相同的人，就获得了；与失去相同的人，就失去了。我适应无为，我就是无为。无为虽然是同一的，为什么不能统一呢？譬如三只鸟从网中飞出，一同到达没有忧患的境地。没有忧患虽然是相同的，但鸟与鸟之间各有不同。不能因为鸟与鸟之间各有不同，就说没有忧患的境地也不同。也不能因为没有忧患的境地是同一的，就说它与所有的鸟都是同一的。既然如此，鸟就是没有忧患的境地，没有忧患的境地就是鸟。没有忧患的境地难道有什么不同吗？不同之处在于鸟自身罢了。就像这样，三乘（声闻乘、缘觉乘、菩萨乘）的众生，都超越了妄想的束缚，一同到达无为的境界。无为的境界虽然是相同的，但乘与乘之间各有不同。不能因为乘与乘之间各有不同，就说无为的境界也不同。也不能因为无为的境界是同一的，就说它与三乘都是同一的。既然如此，我就是无为，无为就是我。无为难道有什么不同吗？不同之处在于我自身罢了。所以没有忧患的境地虽然是相同的，但升入虚空却有
English
English version: It is like a person cutting wood; removing a foot, it cannot be said that nothing has been removed; removing an inch, it cannot be said that nothing has been removed. The difference in length lies in the accumulation of feet and inches, not in saying that there is no reduction. Living beings are myriad, the roots of their understanding are not the same, their wisdom and insight are shallow or deep, their virtuous conduct is thick or thin, so they all reach the other shore (Nirvana), but their ascent and descent are different. Is the other shore (Nirvana) itself different? The difference lies in ourselves. Therefore, the various scriptures have different arguments, but their ultimate destination is the same. Chapter Ten: Questioning Differences Someone asks: Since all have escaped the burning house (the world full of afflictions), then there is no difference in suffering. Since all have escaped the cycle of birth and death, then the same state of non-action (Nirvana) has been reached. But you say, 'The other shore (Nirvana) is not different, the difference lies in ourselves.' The other shore (Nirvana) is the state of non-action; 'I' is the subject that experiences non-action. Please tell me, are 'I' and 'non-action' one? Or are they different? If 'I' is non-action, and non-action is 'I', then it cannot be said that 'non-action' is not different, and that the difference lies in ourselves. If 'I' and 'non-action' are different, then 'I' is not 'non-action'. 'Non-action' is naturally 'non-action', and 'I' am always in a state of action. Such a forced explanation only becomes more stagnant and incomprehensible. Therefore, 'I' and 'non-action', saying they are one does not have three, saying they are different does not have three. Then from where do the names of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) arise? Chapter Eleven: Harmonizing Differences Anonymously replies: Staying at 'this' and it is 'this', adapting to 'that' and it is 'that', so those who are the same in gaining, gain; those who are the same in losing, lose. I adapt to non-action, I am non-action. Although non-action is the same, why can't it be unified? For example, three birds fly out of a net, together reaching a place without suffering. Although the absence of suffering is the same, the birds are different from each other. One cannot say that because the birds are different from each other, the place without suffering is also different. Nor can one say that because the place without suffering is the same, it is the same as all the birds. Therefore, the bird is the place without suffering, and the place without suffering is the bird. Is the place without suffering different? The difference lies in the bird itself. Just like this, sentient beings of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) all transcend the bonds of delusion and together reach the state of non-action. Although the state of non-action is the same, the vehicles are different from each other. One cannot say that because the vehicles are different from each other, the state of non-action is also different. Nor can one say that because the state of non-action is the same, it is the same as the Three Vehicles. Therefore, I am non-action, and non-action is I. Is non-action different? The difference lies in myself. Therefore, although the state without suffering is the same, ascending into emptiness has --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
远近；无为虽一，而幽鉴有浅深。无为即乘也，乘即无为也。此非我异无为，以未尽无为故有三耳。 诘渐第十二 有名曰：万累滋彰，本于妄想；妄想既祛，则万累都息。二乘得尽智、菩萨得无生智，是时妄想都尽，结缚永除；结缚既除，则心无为；心既无为，理无余翳。经曰：“是诸圣智，不相违背。不出不在，其实俱空。”又曰：“无为大道，平等不二。”既曰无二，则不容心异。不体则已，体应穷微。而曰“体而未尽”，是所未悟也。 明渐第十三 无名曰：无为无二，则已然矣。结是重惑，可谓顿尽，亦所未喻。经曰：“三箭中的，三兽渡河。”中渡无异，而有浅深之殊者，为力不同故也。三乘众生，俱济缘起之津，同鉴四谛之的，绝伪即真，同升无为。然则所乘不一者，亦以智力不同故也。夫群有虽众，然其量有涯。正使智犹身子、辩若满愿，穷才极虑，莫窥其畔。况乎虚无之数、重玄之域，其道无涯，欲之顿尽耶？书不云乎：“为学者日益，为道者日损。”为道者，为于无为者也。为于无为而曰日损，此岂顿得之谓？要损之又损之，以至于无损耳。经喻萤日，智用可知矣！ 讥动第十四 有名曰：经称“法身已上，入无为境。心不可以智知，形不可以象测。体绝 阴入，心智寂灭。”而复云“进修三位，积德弥广。”夫进修本于好尚，积德生于涉求。好尚则取舍情现，涉求则损益交陈。既以取舍为心、损益为体，而曰体绝阴入，心智寂灭。此文乖致殊，而会之一人，无异指南为北，以晓迷夫。 动寂第十五 无名曰：经称“圣人无为而无所不为。”无为，故虽动而常寂；无所不为，故虽寂而常动。虽寂而常动，故物莫能一；虽动而常寂，故物莫能二。物莫能二，故逾动逾寂；物莫能一，故逾寂逾动。所以为即无为、无为即为，动寂虽殊而莫之可异也。《道行》曰：“心亦不有亦不无。”不有者，不若有心之有；不无者，不若无心之无。何者？有心，则众庶是也；无心，则太虚是也。众庶止于妄想，太虚绝于灵照；岂可止于妄想、绝于灵照，标其神道而语圣心者乎？是以圣心不有，不可谓之无；圣心不无，不可谓之有。不有，故心想都灭；不无；故理无不契。理无不契，故万德斯弘；心想都灭，故功成非我。所以应化无方，未尝有为；寂然不动，未尝不为。经曰：“心无所行，无所不行。”信矣。儒僮曰：“昔我于无数劫，国财身命施人无数；以妄想心施，非为施也。今以无生心，五华施佛，始名施耳。”又空行菩萨入空解脱门，方言“今是行时，非为证时。”然 则心弥虚，行弥广；终日行，不乖于无行者也。是以《贤劫》称无舍之檀，《成具》美不为之为，禅典唱无缘之慈，《思益》演不知之知。圣旨虚玄，殊文同辩；岂可以有为便有为、无为便无为哉？菩萨住尽不尽平等法门，不尽有为、不住无为。即其事也。而以南北为喻，殊非领会之唱。 穷源第十六 有名曰：非众生无以御三乘，非三乘无以成涅槃。然必先有众生，后有涅槃。是则涅槃有始，有始必有终。而经云：“涅槃无始无终，湛若虚空。”则涅槃先有，非复学而后成者也。 通古第十七 无名曰：夫至人空洞无象，而万物无非我造。会万物以成已者，其唯圣人乎！何则？非理不圣，非圣不理；理而为圣者，圣不异理也。故天帝曰：“般若当于何求？”善吉曰：“般若不可于色中求，亦不离色中求。”又曰：“见缘起为见法，见法为见佛。”斯则物我不异之效也。所以至人戢玄机于未兆，藏冥运于即化，总六合以镜心，一去来以成体。古今通，始终同，穷本极末，莫之与二，浩然大均，乃曰涅槃。经曰：“不离诸法而得涅槃。”又曰：“诸法无边，故菩提无边。”以知涅槃之道，存乎妙契；妙契之致，本乎冥一。然则物不异我、我不异物，物我玄会，归乎无极。进之弗先，退之弗后， 现代汉语译本：心中越是空明，行为就越是广阔；整天都在行动，却不违背那无为的境界。因此，《贤劫经》（指《贤劫经》，佛教经典）赞扬不求回报的布施，《成具经》（指《成具光明定经》，佛教经典）赞美不刻意而为的行为，禅宗经典歌颂无缘大慈（指不附加任何条件的慈悲），《思益经》（指《思益梵天所问经》，佛教经典）阐述不知之知（指超越知识的智慧）。圣人的教诲虚无玄妙，不同的文字表达相同的道理；难道可以因为有为就执着于有为，因为无为就执着于无为吗？菩萨安住于尽与不尽的平等法门，不舍弃有为，也不执着于无为。这就是事情的真相。而用南北来比喻，实在是不理解佛法的说法。 穷源第十六 有名者问：如果没有众生，就无法引导他们进入声闻乘、缘觉乘和菩萨乘（三乘，佛教中三种不同的修行道路）；如果没有三乘，就无法成就涅槃（Nirvana，佛教中解脱生死轮回的境界）。这样看来，一定是先有众生，后有涅槃。那么涅槃就有开始，有开始就必定有终结。可是佛经上说：‘涅槃无始无终，清澈如虚空。’那么涅槃是本来就有的，不是通过学习才能成就的。 通古第十七 无名者答：达到最高境界的人，内心空明，没有固定的形象，而万物没有不是我所创造的。能够融合万物来成就自己的人，大概只有圣人吧！为什么呢？没有真理就没有圣人，没有圣人就没有真理；真理成就了圣人，圣人与真理没有分别。所以天帝释（Devanam Indra，佛教护法神）问：‘般若（Prajna，佛教智慧）应当在哪里求？’善吉菩萨回答：‘般若不可在色（Rupa，物质现象）中求，也不可离开色中求。’又说：‘见到缘起（Pratityasamutpada，佛教关于事物相互依存的理论）就是见到法（Dharma，佛教真理），见到法就是见到佛（Buddha，觉悟者）。’这就是物我不二的体现。所以达到最高境界的人，将玄妙的机能隐藏在未显现之时，将冥冥中的运行藏于变化之中，用整个宇宙来映照内心，将过去和未来融合成一体。古代和现在相通，开始和终结相同，穷尽根本和末端，没有两样，浩瀚广大而均平，就叫做涅槃。佛经上说：‘不离开一切诸法（Dharmas，一切事物和现象）而得到涅槃。’又说：‘诸法没有边际，所以菩提（Bodhi，觉悟）也没有边际。’由此可知，通往涅槃的道路，在于微妙的契合；微妙契合的关键，在于与道的冥合为一。既然如此，万物与我没有分别，我与万物没有分别，万物与我玄妙地融合，回归到无极的境界。前进没有在前，后退没有在后，