English
English version: The so-called 'that which pervasively encompasses is limited in its extent' refers to the principle that is pervasively encompassed must necessarily be unlimited. This limited thing, in relation to the unlimited principle, is entirely the same, not partially the same; it is called 'pervasive' because of its complete sameness. Why is this so? Because things have no inherent substance and ultimately revert to being like the principle. It is not like floating clouds pervading the sky. Therefore, a single dust mote, without being destroyed, can pervade the entire Dharma Realm (Dharmadhatu). Just as with a single dust mote, all dharmas (phenomena) are the same; contemplate this carefully. The above is a correct explanation of the two gates; below is a conclusion and praise of its profundity. This 'gate of complete pervasion' transcends emotions and views. Since a single dust mote is without boundaries, what dharma could possibly accord with emotions? Therefore, it cannot be known by consciousness. The truth is entirely within the dust mote; how could the five eyes perceive it? Therefore, it cannot be known by wisdom. Some versions say 'difficult to see,' seemingly implying that there might be a part that can be seen, but it is not as thorough as the word 'apart' (from emotions and views). It cannot be compared to worldly analogies. The sutra says: 'All dharmas, whether existent or nonexistent, in the three realms (Trailokya), cannot be used as a metaphor for this.' This is because the conclusion praises and thus excludes later analogies. Nor can it be understood by what is seen through worldly emotions. How can worldly people see the entire ocean in a single wave? The above explanation concludes with praise. Below, metaphors are used to point out three aspects: first, the metaphor of size without obstruction; second, the metaphor of oneness and difference without obstruction; third, the metaphor of all dharmas each being completely pervasive. Here, the sea and wave are only used to represent the positions of principle (Li) and phenomena (Shi), because the partial meaning does not fully conform to the rules of metaphor. It is like the entire ocean being in a single wave, yet the ocean does not become smaller. Because there is only one ocean, and all is salty. It is like a small wave encircling the entire ocean, thus being the same as the ocean. Yet the wave does not become larger, because it does not destroy its original form. This uses a metaphor to explain the mutual pervasion of principle and phenomena. At the same time, it completely pervades all waves, yet the ocean is not different; at the same time, each wave encircles the entire ocean, yet the waves are not singular. As for not being singular or different, the following uses questions and answers to clearly explain. Furthermore, when the entire ocean completely pervades a single wave, it does not hinder its entire essence from completely pervading all waves; when a single wave completely encircles the ocean, each wave also completely encircles it, without obstructing each other; contemplate this carefully. 'Contemplate this carefully' means to combine this metaphor with principle and phenomena. Just read the word 'ocean' as the word 'truth,' and the word 'wave' as the word 'phenomenon,' and you will understand the meaning and boundaries. Therefore, the following text does not combine them. The above explanation concludes the third metaphor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
第四问答细释也。有两重问答。一对喻中初两节所喻为问答。二对后一节所喻为问答。初云。 问理既全遍一尘何故非小 以遍难小。 既不同尘而小何得说为全体遍一尘 以小难遍。上皆约理望事难也。 一尘全匝于理性何故非大 以遍难大。 若不同理而广大何得全遍于理性 以大难遍。上皆约事望理难也。 既成矛盾 矛镩也。即枪戈之类。盾干也。排也。昔人双卖。二事各叹其胜。叹盾云。矛刺不入。叹矛即云。能穿十重之盾。智者语云。我买汝矛还刺汝盾。入与不入。即无辞矣。 义极相违 问以大小。意兼一。异答以一异。兼之大小。 答曰理事相望各非一异故令全收而不坏本位先理望事有其四句 初二句正明遍尘非小之相。 一真理与事非异故 因也。 真理全体在一事中 宗也。上全遍下非小。 二真理与事非一故。真理体性恒无边际 上定义宗。下正答难。 三以非一即非异故 因也。 无边理性。全在一尘 宗也。 四以非异即非一故一尘理性无有分限 宗因例上。以非一非异为因。答理全遍尘而非小之宗矣。 次事望理亦有四句一事法与理非异故全匝于理性。 二事法与理非一故不坏于一尘 现代汉语译本： 第四个问答的详细解释。这里有两重问答。第一重问答是针对比喻中最初两节所比喻的内容而提出的。第二重问答是针对后一节所比喻的内容而提出的。首先说： ‘既然道理已经完全周遍于一粒微尘，为什么说它不是小的呢？’——这是用周遍来质疑微小。 ‘既然它与微尘不同，而且是小的，又怎么能说是全体周遍于一粒微尘呢？’——这是用微小来质疑周遍。以上都是从道理的角度来观察事物而提出的疑问。 ‘一粒微尘完全包含着理性，为什么说它不是大的呢？’——这是用周遍来质疑宏大。 ‘如果它与理性不同，而且是广大的，又怎么能完全周遍于理性呢？’——这是用宏大来质疑周遍。以上都是从事物的角度来观察道理而提出的疑问。 ‘既然已经形成了矛盾’——矛盾，矛是一种镩，就像枪戈之类的武器。盾是一种盾牌，用来抵挡。过去有人同时卖矛和盾，各自夸耀自己的产品。夸耀盾时说：‘任何矛都刺不进去。’夸耀矛时则说：‘能穿透十层盾牌。’智者说：‘我买你的矛来刺你的盾。’这样一来，能不能刺入就无话可说了。 ‘意义极其相反’——提问时用大小的概念，意在兼顾一和异。回答时用一和异的概念，兼顾大小。 回答说：‘从理和事相互观望的角度来看，它们既不是完全相同，也不是完全相异，所以能够全部包容而又不破坏各自的本位。’首先从理的角度来观察事，有四种说法——最初两句正是为了说明周遍于微尘却不是小的状态。 ‘一、真理与事物并非相异，所以’——这是原因。 ‘真理的全体存在于一件事物之中’——这是结论。上面说的是‘全遍’，下面说的是‘非小’。 ‘二、真理与事物并非相同，所以真理的体性永远没有边际’——上面是定义结论，下面是正面回答疑问。 ‘三、因为非同即非异，所以’——这是原因。 ‘无限的理性，完全存在于一粒微尘之中’——这是结论。 ‘四、因为非异即非同，所以一粒微尘的理性没有分界’——结论和原因与上面类似。以非同非异为原因，回答了道理完全周遍于微尘却不是小的结论。 其次，从事物的角度来观察道理，也有四种说法：一、事物法则与道理并非相异，所以完全包含于理性之中。 二、事物法则与道理并非相同，所以不会破坏一粒微尘。
English
English version: The fourth question and answer explained in detail. There are two layers of questions and answers here. The first pair of questions and answers is directed at what is symbolized in the first two sections of the metaphor. The second pair of questions and answers is directed at what is symbolized in the last section. First, it says: 'Since the principle is completely pervasive in a single dust mote, why is it said not to be small?' - This uses pervasiveness to question smallness. 'Since it is different from the dust mote and is small, how can it be said to be entirely pervasive in a single dust mote?' - This uses smallness to question pervasiveness. The above are all questions raised from the perspective of principle looking at things. 'A single dust mote completely encompasses the rational nature, why is it said not to be large?' - This uses pervasiveness to question largeness. 'If it is different from the rational nature and is vast, how can it be completely pervasive in the rational nature?' - This uses largeness to question pervasiveness. The above are all questions raised from the perspective of things looking at principle. 'Since a contradiction has been formed' - Contradiction, the 'spear' (矛, máo) is a type of drill, like a spear or lance. The 'shield' (盾, dùn) is a shield used for defense. In the past, someone sold both spears and shields, each boasting about their product. When boasting about the shield, they said: 'No spear can pierce it.' When boasting about the spear, they said: 'It can pierce through ten layers of shields.' A wise person said: 'I will buy your spear to pierce your shield.' In this case, whether it can pierce or not becomes meaningless. 'The meanings are extremely contradictory' - The question uses the concept of size, intending to encompass both oneness and difference. The answer uses the concept of oneness and difference, encompassing both size. The answer says: 'From the perspective of principle and things observing each other, they are neither completely the same nor completely different, so they can be fully inclusive without destroying their original positions.' First, from the perspective of principle observing things, there are four statements - the first two sentences are precisely to explain the state of being pervasive in a dust mote but not being small. 'One, truth and things are not different, therefore' - This is the cause. 'The entirety of truth exists within a single thing' - This is the conclusion. The above says 'completely pervasive,' the below says 'not small.' 'Two, truth and things are not the same, therefore the nature of truth is eternally without boundaries' - The above defines the conclusion, the below directly answers the question. 'Three, because not the same is not different, therefore' - This is the cause. 'Limitless rational nature, completely exists within a single dust mote' - This is the conclusion. 'Four, because not different is not the same, therefore the rational nature of a single dust mote has no boundaries' - The conclusion and cause are similar to the above. Using not the same and not different as the cause, it answers the conclusion that the principle is completely pervasive in a dust mote but is not small. Secondly, from the perspective of things observing principle, there are also four statements: One, the law of things is not different from principle, so it is completely contained within the rational nature. Two, the law of things is not the same as principle, so it does not destroy a single dust mote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 亦上定宗下正答也。
Chinese
三以非一即非异故一小尘匝于无边真性。 四以非异即非一故一尘匝无边理而尘不大思之 宗因例上也。以非一非异为因。答尘全匝理。而不大之宗矣。初问答竟。二对后一节所喻为问答云。 问无边理性全遍一尘时外诸事处为有理性为无理性 上开两关。下牒之而难。 若尘外有理则非全体遍一尘若尘外无理则非全遍一切事义甚相违 每以理性字为大海字。以事字为波字读之为问亦得。 答以一理性融故 标下约理四句。 多事无碍故 标下约事四句。此皆因也。 故得全在内而全在外。无障无碍 宗也。 各有四句。先就理四句。 一以理性全体在一切事中时不碍全体在一尘处是故在外即在内 前问外诸事处理性有无。今答云有也。前问有则非全。今答云全。谓理与多尘非异。故理性全体遍多尘。亦与一尘非异故。不妨还遍此一尘。且约名字而言。如一父对十子。一一全为其父也。 二全体在一尘中时不碍全体在余事处 前问有无。今答有。父子反上也。 是故在内即在外。 三以无二之性各全在一切中故是故亦在内亦在外 理与内外非异故。同时能遍于内外。 四以无二之性非一切故是故非内非外 理 现代汉语译本 亦上定宗下正答也。 三以非一即非异故，一小尘匝于无边真性。 四以非异即非一故，一尘匝无边理而尘不大思之。宗因例上也。以非一非异为因。答尘全匝理，而不大之宗矣。初问答竟。二对后一节所喻为问答云。 问：无边理性全遍一尘时，外诸事处为有理性为无理性？上开两关，下牒之而难。 若尘外有理，则非全体遍一尘；若尘外无理，则非全遍一切事，义甚相违。每以理性字为大海字，以事字为波字读之为问亦得。 答：以一理性融故，标下约理四句。 多事无碍故，标下约事四句。此皆因也。 故得全在内而全在外，无障无碍，宗也。 各有四句。先就理四句。 一以理性全体在一切事中时，不碍全体在一尘处，是故在外即在内。前问外诸事处理性有无，今答云有也。前问有则非全，今答云全。谓理与多尘非异，故理性全体遍多尘，亦与一尘非异故，不妨还遍此一尘。且约名字而言，如一父对十子，一一全为其父也。 二全体在一尘中时，不碍全体在余事处。前问有无，今答有。父子反上也。 是故在内即在外。 三以无二之性各全在一切中故，是故亦在内亦在外。理与内外非异故，同时能遍于内外。 四以无二之性非一切故，是故非内非外。理