Chinese
。何故发心。四谛四弘十种发心皆列四教下文属渐。破亦同前。文既相违依何立行。又云。此之两观初心修观大难分别。须自入观方乃得知。喻曰。如破遍初初入无生。咸须依教。况大章生解以导行。初既云分别大难。信是解心冥。昧解既冥昧入观无。由彼解未明便推入观。何异闇证增上。鼠即鸟空而宣入证之言。令他生于圣想。忽令领纳说实坠于过。人实得说尚招愆违想。故当重衅。又若实得为何位次。若假名与他何异。若五品位便同大师。子实不裁证者自了。愿不欺圣无违自心。又云。依顶法师。十二部经观心之文。修观必得。喻曰。夫三观者义唯三种。一者从行。唯于万境观一心。万境虽殊妙观理等。如观阴等即其意也。二约法相。如约四谛五行之文。入一念心以为圆观。三托事相。如王舍耆阇名从事立。借事为观以导执情。即如方等普贤。其例可识。故十二部观寄事立名。虽有三观之名。十境十乘不列。一部名下唯施一句。岂此一句能申观门。若此一句足得修行。十境十乘便成烦芿。故知偏指文中。一句两句。以为顿顿。义同顽境体心踏心。十卷之文便成无用。兼出大师虚构之愆。问渐圆观但中中。是实相不。答非即实相体是但中。喻曰。实相与但中体同名异。实即俱实权即俱权。若约教释文但中在别。修观 次第仍居后心。四教中圆一切诸文。并皆初心圆修三观。彼将此观属顿顿人。别为圆人立但中观。遍寻诸部都无此文。唯烦恼境中斥失玄云。不住调伏不住不调伏。初心修中成双非失。如何拾失以判法华。苦哉苦哉。不可救济。问初心修中既非实相。是涅槃不。答是涅槃。喻曰。涅槃实相大小名通。初心修中既非实相。若非实相亦非涅槃。若是涅槃亦是实相。若是实相即是从初常观涅槃。如何乃云非是实相云是涅槃。若从初心是小涅槃。此通别二种菩萨偏是一往。通涂而说。若别论者。通教菩萨至第七地。恐堕涅槃。如三恶道。别教初心但名真谛。仍不得立涅槃之名。故知初观唯在于顿。言非实相是涅槃者。无教可凭。问岂有但中名为初心观涅槃也。答有也。喻曰。不知求教但任己言。须无即无须有即有。一家教相不见少判。但中涅槃。问如其必有二种顿者。大师何不分明显说。答如大意在一顿等。即其文也。又顶法师涅槃疏释不次第五行中云。十信断或即是渐顿不断。或者即是顿顿。喻曰。大意一顿已如前破。彼引涅槃疏亲共对捡。全无此文。应是续后谬。思便将想心证义。文所不载。故使再捡无文。又大师诸文文所不载。何须更引章安之文。况复再捡全无。何劳苦据。况复不次第行正是四教中圆。又数数常云有八 教故。故有二顿。喻曰。八教中意具如前破。又云。二顿初心非一向异。虽异而同虽同而异。喻曰。无将此异质窍。他人不许渐圆即是顿顿。理穷无据。同异混和。问一色一香无非中道。是何观相。答是渐顿非顿顿。喻曰。此师已执初心修观。但闻中道。便谓渐圆而不晓于言偏理圆。故大意云。勿守语害圆诬罔圣意。故经论名数或具或偏。言下之旨理必周备。大师以备具释偏言。故大意中云。空即不空等自语相违。亦如前破。问初心起观。若舍二边但观中道。何异通教但有中名。如何初心见此但理便默不。答喻曰。言若有旨言胜不言。言既无归不言胜说。凡修观者须立解心。解心未成辄立此观。言究理极以至无言。又云。据文须分两种顿异。初心修观实难分别。喻曰。前云。教唯有一观则有二。此中复云。文虽分两两观难分。据兹又成文二观一。前后违反不可复论。故知学宗不得辄尔。此时犹可旷累多生。仍使未来不逢善友。问别教地前为登地双亡双照方便。其义如何。答地前双亡登地双照。至第二地又亡又照。喻曰。非但观门失绪。亦乃文义参差。既云地前以为初地亡照方便。当知正亡正照合在初地。如何乃云登地双照地前双亡。具如止观第三卷中。此是读文未周。不须别破。问何名四三昧是通修。念佛是别修。答 教故（因为教义的缘故）。故有二顿（所以有二种顿悟）。喻曰（比喻说）：八教中意具如前破（八教中的含义已经在前面破斥过了）。又云（又说）：二顿初心非一向异（二种顿悟的初心并非完全不同），虽异而同虽同而异（虽然不同但也有相同之处，虽然相同也有不同之处）。喻曰（比喻说）：无将此异质窍（不要把这种本质上的差异当作诀窍），他人不许渐圆即是顿顿（别人不认可逐渐圆满就是顿悟），理穷无据（道理穷尽也没有依据），同异混和（把相同和不同混淆）。问（问）：一色一香无非中道（一切色和香无不是中道），是何观相（这是什么观想的相）？答（答）：是渐顿非顿顿（是渐悟的顿，不是顿悟的顿）。喻曰（比喻说）：此师已执初心修观（这位法师已经执着于初心修观），但闻中道（只听说中道），便谓渐圆而不晓于言偏理圆（就认为渐悟圆满，而不明白言语是片面的，道理是圆满的）。故大意云（所以《大意》中说）：勿守语害圆诬罔圣意（不要拘泥于言语而损害圆满，诬蔑圣人的意思）。故经论名数或具或偏（所以经论中的名相或者完备或者片面），言下之旨理必周备（言语之下的旨意道理必定周全完备）。大师以备具释偏言（大师用完备的道理来解释片面的言语）。故大意中云（所以《大意》中说）：空即不空等自语相违（空即是不空等等，是自相矛盾的说法），亦如前破（也像前面一样破斥）。问（问）：初心起观（初心开始修观），若舍二边但观中道（如果舍弃二边只观中道），何异通教但有中名（和通教只有中道的名义有什么不同）？如何初心见此但理便默不（为什么初心见到这个道理就沉默不语）？答喻曰（答比喻说）：言若有旨言胜不言（言语如果有旨意，胜过不说话），言既无归不言胜说（言语既然没有归宿，不说话胜过说话）。凡修观者须立解心（凡是修观的人必须先建立理解的心），解心未成辄立此观（理解的心没有成就就冒然建立这个观），言究理极以至无言（言语穷究道理到了极致就无言了）。又云（又说）：据文须分两种顿异（根据文字必须区分两种顿悟的差异），初心修观实难分别（初心修观实在难以分别）。喻曰（比喻说）：前云（前面说）：教唯有一观则有二（教义只有一个，观想却有两种）。此中复云（这里又说）：文虽分两两观难分（文字虽然分为两种，两种观想难以区分）。据兹又成文二观一（根据这个又变成文字有两种，观想只有一种）。前后违反不可复论（前后违反不可再论）。故知学宗不得辄尔（所以知道学习宗派不能随便）。此时犹可旷累多生（此时还可以旷废累积多生），仍使未来不逢善友（仍然使得未来不能遇到善友）。问（问）：别教地前为登地双亡双照方便（别教在登地之前是登地时双亡双照的方便），其义如何（这个意义是什么）？答（答）：地前双亡登地双照（登地之前双亡，登地时双照），至第二地又亡又照（到第二地又亡又照）。喻曰（比喻说）：非但观门失绪（不仅观想的门径失去了头绪），亦乃文义参差（而且文字和意义也参差不齐）。既云地前以为初地亡照方便（既然说登地之前是作为初地亡照的方便），当知正亡正照合在初地（应当知道真正的亡和照应该在初地）。如何乃云登地双照地前双亡（怎么又说登地时双照，登地前双亡）？具如止观第三卷中（具体在《止观》第三卷中）。此是读文未周（这是因为读书没有读完），不须别破（不需要另外破斥）。问（问）：何名四三昧是通修（什么叫做四三昧是通修），念佛是别修（念佛是别修）？答（答）： 现代汉语译本
English
Teaching reasons. Therefore, there are two types of sudden enlightenment. For example: The meaning of the Eight Teachings has been refuted as before. It is also said: The initial minds of the two sudden enlightenments are not entirely different; although different, they are also the same; although the same, they are also different. For example: Do not take this difference in essence as a trick. Others do not accept gradual completion as sudden enlightenment, as there is no basis for this reasoning. The same and different are mixed together. Question: 'One color, one fragrance, is nothing but the Middle Way.' What is the appearance of this contemplation? Answer: It is gradual suddenness, not sudden suddenness. For example: This teacher is already attached to cultivating contemplation with the initial mind, only hearing of the Middle Way, and then thinking that gradual completion is enlightenment, without understanding that words are partial and principles are complete. Therefore, the general meaning says: 'Do not adhere to words and harm completeness, falsely accusing the meaning of the sages.' Therefore, the names and numbers in the scriptures and treatises are either complete or partial, but the meaning beneath the words must be comprehensive. The Great Master explains partial words with completeness. Therefore, the general meaning says: 'Emptiness is not emptiness,' etc., which contradicts itself, and is refuted as before. Question: If, when the initial mind arises in contemplation, one abandons the two extremes and only contemplates the Middle Way, how is it different from the Common Teaching, which only has the name of the Middle Way? How can the initial mind see this principle and then remain silent? Answer: For example: If words have a purpose, speaking is better than not speaking; if words have no destination, not speaking is better than speaking. All those who cultivate contemplation must establish a mind of understanding. If the mind of understanding is not established, then this contemplation is rashly established. Words exhaust the principles to the extreme, until there are no words. It is also said: According to the text, two kinds of sudden differences must be distinguished, but it is really difficult to distinguish when cultivating contemplation with the initial mind. For example: It was said before: 'There is only one teaching, but there are two contemplations.' Here it is said again: 'Although the text divides into two, the two contemplations are difficult to distinguish.' According to this, it becomes two texts and one contemplation again. The front and back contradict each other and cannot be discussed again. Therefore, it is known that learning a sect cannot be done casually. At this time, it is still possible to waste many lifetimes, still causing one to not encounter good friends in the future. Question: Is the Separate Teaching before the ground a skillful means for the simultaneous cessation and illumination of the ground of enlightenment? What is its meaning? Answer: Before the ground, there is simultaneous cessation; on the ground of enlightenment, there is simultaneous illumination; and in the second ground, there is both cessation and illumination again. For example: Not only is the path of contemplation lost, but also the text and meaning are inconsistent. Since it is said that before the ground is a skillful means for the cessation and illumination of the first ground, it should be known that true cessation and true illumination should be in the first ground. How can it be said that on the ground of enlightenment there is simultaneous illumination, and before the ground there is simultaneous cessation? It is all in the third volume of *止观* (Zhǐ Guān, Ceasing and Contemplating). This is because the text has not been read completely, so there is no need to refute it separately. Question: What are the four *三昧* (sānmèi, Samadhi) called common cultivation, and *念佛* (niànfó, Buddha Recitation) called separate cultivation? Answer: English version --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
顶法师误。应云四三昧是别修念佛是通修。喻曰。此师自误。推失与他。今言。通修者。以四三昧摄一切行。故曰通反以为别。念佛通收诸行不遍。乃是通中之一。故名为别。反名为通深不可也。又云。三贤十圣住果报者。此兼两教。圆教三贤别教十圣。喻曰。言果报者。是实报土既生果报即是圆教四位之人。此师但见是贤圣之名。便分以为别圆两教贤圣之称。乃借别名圆俱生实报。即是正明圆位。若言别教贤圣位。不合生彼而判十地。属别者圆四十位俱破无明。因何乃分十地属别人。又约证道地即是住。何须分别。纵存教道。则十地以含两教。亦无分义。问彼问人曰。声问经渐名渐圆者。八界发心不从渐来。从此应判以为何教。答顿顿人也。喻曰。难已如前。何不从于八界尘数为判顿顿而名渐圆。自此已前略明观失教失不论。归命诸贤圣。愿舍是非心。为树涅槃因。非欲贬量失。 止观义例卷下 现代汉语译本： 顶法师的理解是错误的。应该说四种三昧（Samadhi，指四种不同的禅定状态）是别修，而念佛是通修。这就像一个比喻：这位法师自己犯了错误，却推卸责任给别人。现在我说，通修是指用四种三昧来涵盖一切修行方法，所以称为通修，反而说它是别修。念佛虽然也包含许多修行方法，但并不全面，只是通修中的一种，所以称为别修。把别修说成通修，这是非常不恰当的。还有，说三贤（指圆教中的三贤位菩萨）和十圣（指别教中的十地菩萨）住在果报土，这是兼顾了两个教派的说法。圆教的三贤和别教的十圣。这就像一个比喻：说果报土，指的是实报庄严土，既然已经生在果报土，那就是圆教四位菩萨。这位法师只看到贤圣的名号，就将他们分为别教和圆教的贤圣。其实，借用别教的名号，圆教也同样能生在实报土，这正是说明圆教的地位。如果说是别教的贤圣位，就不应该生在那里，而判为十地，属于别教。圆教四十位菩萨都破除了无明，为什么还要将十地分给别人呢？而且，按照证道的地位来说，就是安住，何必还要分别呢？即使从教义上来说，十地也包含了两个教派，也没有什么可分的意义。有人问别人说：声闻乘的经典，逐渐被称为渐圆，那么，八界（指地狱、饿鬼、畜生、阿修罗、人、天、声闻、缘觉）众生发菩提心不是从渐修而来，从这里应该判断它属于什么教派？回答说是顿悟顿修的人。这就像一个比喻：这个诘难已经像前面一样解释过了。为什么不从八界众生的数量来判断是顿悟顿修，而说是渐悟渐修呢？从这里以前，只是略微说明了观行的错误和教义的错误，暂且不论。归命于诸位贤圣，愿舍弃是非之心，作为种植涅槃之因。并非想要贬低衡量他人的过失。 止观义例卷下
English
English version: The Dharma Master Ding's understanding is mistaken. It should be said that the Four Samadhis (referring to four different states of meditative absorption) are 'separate cultivation' (biexiu), while Buddha-Recitation is 'universal cultivation' (tongxiu). It's like a metaphor: this master makes a mistake himself but shifts the blame onto others. Now I say, 'universal cultivation' means using the Four Samadhis to encompass all practices, therefore it's called 'universal cultivation,' and to say it's 'separate cultivation' is incorrect. Although Buddha-Recitation also includes many practices, it's not comprehensive; it's just one of the 'universal cultivations,' so it's called 'separate cultivation.' To call 'separate cultivation' as 'universal cultivation' is deeply inappropriate. Furthermore, to say that the Three Sages (referring to the Three Worthies in the Perfect Teaching) and the Ten Saints (referring to the Ten Grounds Bodhisattvas in the Distinct Teaching) reside in the Land of Retribution is a statement that combines two teachings. The Three Sages of the Perfect Teaching and the Ten Saints of the Distinct Teaching. It's like a metaphor: saying 'Land of Retribution' refers to the Land of Actual Reward; since one is born in the Land of Actual Reward, that means they are the Bodhisattvas of the Four Positions in the Perfect Teaching. This master only sees the names of sages and saints and divides them into the sages and saints of the Distinct Teaching and the Perfect Teaching. In reality, by borrowing the names of the Distinct Teaching, the Perfect Teaching can also be born in the Land of Actual Reward, which precisely explains the position of the Perfect Teaching. If it's said that it's the position of the sages and saints of the Distinct Teaching, then they shouldn't be born there, and to judge them as the Ten Grounds belonging to the Distinct Teaching is incorrect. The forty positions of the Perfect Teaching all eradicate ignorance, so why divide the Ten Grounds to others? Moreover, according to the position of realizing the Path, it means abiding, so why is there a need to differentiate? Even from the perspective of doctrine, the Ten Grounds also contain two teachings, and there's no meaning in dividing them. Someone asks another: The sutras of the Hearers, gradually called 'gradual-perfect,' then, the aspiration for Bodhi of beings in the Eight Realms (referring to hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, devas, Hearers, Solitary Buddhas) doesn't come from gradual cultivation, so from this, what teaching should it be judged to belong to? The answer is people of sudden enlightenment and sudden cultivation. It's like a metaphor: this difficulty has already been explained as before. Why not judge it as sudden enlightenment and sudden cultivation from the number of beings in the Eight Realms, and instead call it gradual enlightenment and gradual cultivation? From here before, it only briefly explains the errors in contemplation and the errors in doctrine, and will not discuss them for now. Taking refuge in all the sages and saints, may I abandon the heart of right and wrong, and use it as planting the cause of Nirvana. It's not intended to belittle and measure the faults of others. Shikan Girei, Volume 2 (last) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------