English
English version This is also the correct answer, with the established principle above and the specific answer below. Thirdly, because 'not one' implies 'not different,' a single tiny dust particle encompasses the boundless true nature. Fourthly, because 'not different' implies 'not one,' a single dust particle encompasses the boundless principle, yet the dust particle does not become larger. The principle and reason are the same as above. 'Not one' and 'not different' are the reasons. The conclusion is that the dust particle fully encompasses the principle without becoming larger. The initial question and answer are complete. The second section uses an analogy to form a question and answer: Question: When the boundless rational nature (Lixing) fully pervades a single dust particle, do the things outside that dust particle possess rational nature or not? The above opens two gates, and the following statement presses the difficulty. If there is rational nature outside the dust particle, then it is not the entirety pervading the single dust particle; if there is no rational nature outside the dust particle, then it is not the entirety pervading all things, which is a great contradiction. One can also read this question by interpreting 'rational nature' as 'great ocean' and 'things' as 'waves'. Answer: Because the single rational nature is all-encompassing, the following four statements are made regarding principle. Because many things are without obstruction, the following four statements are made regarding things. These are all reasons. Therefore, it can be entirely within and entirely without, without obstruction or hindrance. This is the conclusion. Each has four statements. First, regarding the four statements on principle: Firstly, when the entirety of rational nature is within all things, it does not hinder the entirety from being in a single dust particle. Therefore, being outside is the same as being inside. The previous question asked whether the things outside the dust particle possess rational nature or not. The current answer says they do. The previous question said that if it exists, it is not the entirety. The current answer says it is the entirety. This means that the principle is not different from the many dust particles, so the entirety of rational nature pervades the many dust particles. It is also not different from a single dust particle, so it does not hinder it from also pervading this single dust particle. Moreover, speaking in terms of names, it is like one father to ten sons; each son fully possesses the father. Secondly, when the entirety is in a single dust particle, it does not hinder the entirety from being in other things. The previous question asked whether it exists or not. The current answer says it exists. The father-son relationship is reversed from above. Therefore, being inside is the same as being outside. Thirdly, because the nature of non-duality is fully present in everything, it is therefore both inside and outside. Because principle is not different from inside and outside, it can simultaneously pervade both inside and outside. Fourthly, because the nature of non-duality is not everything, it is therefore neither inside nor outside. Principle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 性虽能遍内外。理性恒非是内外。
Chinese
前三句明与一切法非异此之一句明与一切法非一良为非一非异故内外无碍 前难外事有理则不全遍于一尘。若全遍一尘。则不全遍于外事。今以非一非异。故内外皆全而无碍也。 次就事四句 即前总标多事无碍故也。此就事者。前问所无。海波喻有。今影出之。若问者应云。一尘全遍理时。一切事亦全遍否。若遍则有重重之失。若不遍则多事不如理也。 一一尘全匝于理时不碍一切事法亦全匝是故在内即在外 一遍不碍多遍也。谓一尘与理非异。故云云。 二一切法各匝理性时不碍一尘亦全匝是故在外即在内 多遍不碍一遍也。父子反上。 三以诸法同时各匝故是故全内亦全外无有障碍 诸法同时遍也。谓内外与理非异故。内外同时匝理性也。 四以诸事法各不坏故彼此相望非内非外 一多之相。历然不坏。则性非一多。故居然非内外也。 思之 问前理望事。以理在一为内。在多为外。今此以何为内外。答亦以一多为内外。但前先举理此先举事。故分二门尔故但一重问也。以一多皆即理。故全遍。非有多理。令事各遍。故第四句云。非内外也。 三依理成事门 谓事无别体要因真理而得成立 上宗下因。 以诸 现代汉语译本： ‘性’（自性，本性）虽然能够周遍于内外，但‘理性’（理体，本体）恒常不是内外。 前三句说明‘性’与一切法并非相异，后一句说明‘性’与一切法并非同一，正是因为非一非异，所以内外没有阻碍。前面是假设外在事物有理，就不能完全周遍于一微尘；如果完全周遍于一微尘，就不能完全周遍于外在事物。现在用非一非异的观点，所以内外都完全周遍而没有阻碍。 接下来就事相说明四句，即前面总标的多种事相没有阻碍。这里就事相来说，是前面所没有的，用海浪来比喻有。现在显现出来。如果提问者应该说：一微尘完全周遍于理的时候，一切事相也完全周遍吗？如果周遍，就会有重重叠叠的过失；如果不周遍，那么多种事相就不如理了。 一、一微尘完全周匝于‘理性’（理体，本体）时，不妨碍一切事法也完全周匝，所以在内即在外——一遍不妨碍多遍。说一微尘与‘理’（真如理）并非相异，所以这样说。 二、一切法各自周匝‘理性’（理体，本体）时，不妨碍一微尘也完全周匝，所以在外即在内——多遍不妨碍一遍。与前面父子关系相反。 三、因为诸法同时各自周匝，所以完全在内也完全在外，没有障碍——诸法同时周遍。说内外与‘理’（真如理）并非相异，所以内外同时周匝‘理性’（理体，本体）。 四、因为诸事法各自不坏，彼此相望，非内非外——一多之相，历历分明而不坏灭，那么‘性’（自性，本性）就不是一多，所以显然不是内外。 思考：前面从‘理’（真如理）的角度看事相，以‘理’（真如理）在一为内，在多为外。现在这里以什么为内外？回答说，也以一多为内外。但前面先举‘理’（真如理），这里先举事相，所以分为两门。因此只有一重提问。因为一多都即是‘理’（真如理），所以完全周遍。没有多个‘理’（真如理），让事相各自周遍，所以第四句说，非内外。 三、依‘理’（真如理）成事门 说事相没有别的自体，一定要依靠真理才能成立——上面是宗，下面是因。 因为诸...
English
English version: Although ‘性’ (xìng, nature, essence) can pervade both internally and externally, ‘理性’ (lǐxìng, principle, the absolute) is eternally neither internal nor external. The first three lines explain that ‘性’ (xìng) is not different from all dharmas, while the last line explains that ‘性’ (xìng) is not the same as all dharmas. It is precisely because of being neither one nor different that there is no obstruction between internal and external. The previous assumption was that if external matters possess principle, they cannot fully pervade a single dust mote; if they fully pervade a single dust mote, they cannot fully pervade external matters. Now, with the view of neither one nor different, both internal and external are fully pervasive without obstruction. Next, the four lines explain the matter in terms of phenomena, which is the general statement of the unobstructedness of multiple phenomena mentioned earlier. This discussion of phenomena addresses what was not present earlier, using ocean waves as a metaphor for existence. Now it is revealed. If the questioner were to ask: When a single dust mote fully pervades principle, do all phenomena also fully pervade? If they do, there would be the fault of endless repetition; if they do not, then multiple phenomena would not be in accordance with principle. 1. When a single dust mote fully encompasses ‘理性’ (lǐxìng, principle, the absolute), it does not obstruct all phenomena from also fully encompassing it, therefore what is internal is also external—one pervasion does not obstruct multiple pervasions. It is said that a single dust mote is not different from ‘理’ (lǐ, principle, the absolute), hence this statement. 2. When all dharmas each fully encompass ‘理性’ (lǐxìng, principle, the absolute), it does not obstruct a single dust mote from also fully encompassing it, therefore what is external is also internal—multiple pervasions do not obstruct one pervasion. This is the reverse of the father-son relationship mentioned earlier. 3. Because all dharmas simultaneously each fully encompass, therefore what is fully internal is also fully external, without obstruction—all dharmas pervade simultaneously. It is said that internal and external are not different from ‘理’ (lǐ, principle, the absolute), therefore internal and external simultaneously encompass ‘理性’ (lǐxìng, principle, the absolute). 4. Because all phenomena each remain intact, looking at each other, they are neither internal nor external—the appearance of one and many is clearly distinct and does not perish, then ‘性’ (xìng, nature, essence) is neither one nor many, so it is obviously neither internal nor external. Consider this: Previously, from the perspective of ‘理’ (lǐ, principle, the absolute) looking at phenomena, ‘理’ (lǐ) being in one is internal, and being in many is external. Now, what is considered internal and external here? The answer is, it is also based on one and many. However, previously ‘理’ (lǐ) was mentioned first, while here phenomena are mentioned first, so they are divided into two approaches. Therefore, there is only one layer of questioning. Because one and many are both identical to ‘理’ (lǐ), they are fully pervasive. There are not multiple ‘理’ (lǐ) allowing phenomena to each pervade, so the fourth line says, neither internal nor external. 3. The Gate of Accomplishing Phenomena Based on ‘理’ (lǐ, principle, the absolute) It is said that phenomena have no separate self-nature; they must rely on true principle to be established—the above is the thesis, the below is the reason. Because all... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 缘起 此有二因。 皆无自性故 一也。
Chinese
由无性理事方成故 二也。真如随缘故中论云。以有空义故。一切法得成。大品云。若诸法不空。即无道无果。 如波要因于水能成立故。依如来藏得有诸法当知亦尔思之 胜鬘云。依如来藏故有生死。依如来藏故有涅槃。楞伽亦说。如来藏造业受报。起信论云。依如来藏故有生灭心等。问明品云。法性本无生。示现而有生等。 四事能显理门 如影像表镜明。识智表本性。起信云。因无明能知名义。为说真觉等。 谓由事揽理故则事虚而理实以事虚故全事中之理挺然露现。犹如波相虚令水体露现当知此中道理亦尔思之 须弥偈云。了知一切法。自性无所有。如是解法性。即见卢舍那。 五以理夺事门 由前门理显故此夺也。 谓事既揽理遂令事相皆尽唯一真理平等显现 上宗。下因。 以离真理外无片事可得故如水夺波波无不尽此则水存以坏波令尽 出现品云。设一切众生于念念中悉成正觉。与不成正觉。亦无有异。如化人化心。化成正觉也。 六事能隐理门 由第三成事故即隐理也。 谓真理随缘成诸事法然此事法既违(亦云匝)于理遂令事显理不显也如水成波动显静隐经云法身流转五道名曰众生故令众 现代汉语译本 缘起：此有二个原因。 一、一切法皆无自性，故为空。（“自性”指事物自身存在的固定不变的性质） 二、因为没有自性，事和理才能成立。正如《中论》所说：‘因为有空性的意义，一切法才能成立。’《大品般若经》说：‘如果诸法不空，就没有道，也没有果。’ 如同波浪的成立依赖于水一样，依如来藏（Tathagatagarbha，如来所藏的功德）才能有诸法，应当这样理解。《胜鬘经》说：‘依如来藏故有生死，依如来藏故有涅槃。’《楞伽经》也说：‘如来藏造业受报。’《起信论》说：‘依如来藏故有生灭心等。’《问明品》说：‘法性本来没有生，只是示现而有生等现象。’ 四事能显理门：如同影像显示镜子的光明，识智显示本性。《起信论》说：‘因为无明（Avidya，对事物真相的迷惑）才能知名义，所以才说真觉（真实觉悟）等。’ 意思是说，由于事相包含着理体，所以事相是虚幻的，而理体是真实的。因为事相是虚幻的，所以整个事相中的理体才能显露出来。犹如波浪的相状是虚幻的，才能显露出水的本体。应当这样理解其中的道理。《须弥偈》说：‘了知一切法，自性无所有，如是解法性，即见卢舍那（Locana，光明遍照）。’ 五、以理夺事门：由于前面的门径已经显现了理体，所以这里要用理来夺取事相。 意思是说，事相既然包含着理体，就使得事相全部消失，只有唯一的真理平等地显现。这是上面的宗，下面的因。 因为离开真理之外，没有片点的事相可以得到。如同用水来夺取波浪，波浪无不消失，这就像水存在而使波浪消失一样。《出现品》说：‘假设一切众生在念念之中都成就正觉，与不成正觉也没有什么不同，如同化人变化出心，变化成就正觉一样。’ 六、事能隐理门：由于第三种情况的成就，就隐蔽了理体。 意思是说，真理随着因缘而成就诸事法，然而这些事法既然违背（也称为‘匝’）理体，就使得事相显现而理体不显现。如同水形成波浪，波动显现而静止隐蔽。《经》中说：‘法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）流转五道，名称叫做众生’，所以使得众