Chinese
生久劫但着诸法不信法性。破昔计故约对治说。令于诸法纯见法性。若见法性。即见法性。纯是诸法。是诸法性本无名字。约破立说名性名法。十问诸文皆云色心不二。若欲观察如何立观。答心色一体无前无后。皆是法界。修观次第必先内心。内心若净。以此净心历一切法。任运㳷合。又亦先了万法唯心。方可观心。能了诸法则见诸法唯心唯色。当知一切由心分别诸法。何曾自谓同异。故占察经云。观有二种。一者唯识。二者实相。实相观理唯识历事。事理不二观道稍开。能了此者可与论道。十一问安心中云。体其实不起灭。妄谓起灭。为当只除妄。谓犹存起灭为体。妄谓令无起灭。答此亦无别须善其意。若单论理非起非性。若约果德则性不妨起。若约众生唯起迷性。若圣鉴凡即起只是性。今从反迷归悟以说。令离起归性见非起性。仍恐迷者离起。求性。故令体起其实不起。起既不起。灭亦无灭。十二问。既云。一心止观。何得更立六十四番。答六十四番者。约根约行回转相资。总遍而论有六十四行者。何必尽具诸数。又论其体性。只是约于法性寂照。自在堪用故尔许尔。十三问。即此文中。或云。诸法即是法性。或云四运四性推检。何者为要。答夫观心法有事有理。从理唯达法性更不余涂。从事则专照起心四性叵得 现代汉语译本 众生在漫长的轮回中执着于各种现象，却不相信法性的存在。为了破除他们以往的执着，所以才针对性地宣说对治之法，使他们能够完全地认识到诸法的法性。如果能够认识到法性，那就是真正地认识到法性，因为法性就是诸法本身。诸法的法性原本就没有名字，只是为了破除执着和建立正见，才称之为‘性’或‘法’。 在之前的十个问题中，都说色（物质）和心（精神）是不二的。如果要进行观察，应该如何建立正确的观察方法？回答是：心和色是一体的，没有先后之分，都是法界的一部分。修习观行的次第，必须先从内心开始。如果内心清净，那么用这清净的心去体验一切法，自然就能融合贯通。此外，也要先明白万法唯心所现，然后才能观照内心。能够明白诸法的人，就能看到诸法唯心唯色。应当知道，一切都是由心来分别诸法，诸法本身又何曾自认为有同有异呢？所以《占察经》中说：‘观有两种，一是唯识观，二是实相观。’实相观是观察理体，唯识观是历练事相。事和理是不二的，观行的道路就会逐渐开阔。能够明白这些道理的人，才可以和他讨论佛法。 第十一个问题，《安心中》说：‘体的本性是不生不灭的，只是妄念认为它有生灭。’那么，是应该只去除妄念，而让生灭仍然作为体的本性存在呢？还是说，去除妄念，使生灭不再存在？回答是：这些说法并没有本质的区别，关键在于理解其中的含义。如果只从理上来说，体既没有生，也没有灭。如果从果德上来说，体的本性不妨碍生起作用。如果从众生的角度来说，只是因为迷惑而产生了生灭的幻觉。如果圣人观察凡夫，那么生起就只是本性的显现。现在是从破除迷惑，回归觉悟的角度来说，使人离开生起，回归本性，看到没有生起，也就没有本性。仍然担心迷惑的人会离开生起去寻求本性，所以才说‘体的生起其实是不生’。生起既然不生，灭也就无灭。 第十二个问题，既然说‘一心止观’，为什么还要建立六十四番观行？回答是：这六十四番观行，是根据不同的根器和修行阶段，相互辅助，循环往复而设立的。总的来说，有六十四种观行方法，但不必全部具备。而且，从体性上来说，只是为了说明法性的寂照和自在，可以灵活运用，所以才设立了这么多种方法。 第十三个问题，在这段文字中，有时说‘诸法即是法性’，有时又说‘四运四性推检’，哪个才是最重要的？回答是：观心之法有事和理两个方面。从理上来说，只要通达法性，就没有其他的途径。从事上来说，就要专注于观照起心动念的四性，使其无所遁形。
English
English version Beings, for countless kalpas (aeons), cling to various dharmas (phenomena) but do not believe in dharmata (the true nature of reality). To break their past attachments, teachings are given to counteract these attachments, enabling them to purely see the dharmata in all dharmas. If one sees dharmata, one truly sees dharmata, which is purely all dharmas. The nature of these dharmas originally has no name. Names like 'nature' or 'dharma' are given to break attachments and establish correct views. In the previous ten questions, it was said that rupa (matter) and citta (mind) are non-dual. If one wishes to observe, how should one establish the correct method of observation? The answer is: mind and rupa are one entity, without before or after, both being part of the Dharmadhatu (the realm of reality). The order of cultivating contemplation must begin with the inner mind. If the inner mind is pure, then using this pure mind to experience all dharmas, one will naturally integrate and understand them. Furthermore, one must first understand that all dharmas are manifestations of the mind, and then one can contemplate the mind. One who understands all dharmas will see that all dharmas are only mind and only rupa. It should be known that everything is distinguished by the mind, but dharmas themselves never claim to be the same or different. Therefore, the *占察经 (Zhan Cha Jing)* (The Sutra of Divination of the Rise and Fall of Good and Evil Deeds) says: 'There are two kinds of contemplation: one is Vijnanavada (consciousness-only), and the other is the contemplation of reality.' The contemplation of reality observes the principle, while Vijnanavada experiences phenomena. Phenomena and principle are non-dual, and the path of contemplation will gradually open. One who understands these principles can discuss the Dharma. The eleventh question, in *安心中 (An Xin Zhong)* (Treatise on Pacifying the Mind), it says: 'The nature of the substance is neither arising nor ceasing, but delusionally thinks it arises and ceases.' Then, should one only remove the delusion, allowing arising and ceasing to still exist as the nature of the substance? Or should one remove the delusion, so that arising and ceasing no longer exist? The answer is: these statements have no essential difference; the key is to understand their meaning. If only speaking from the principle, the substance neither arises nor ceases. If speaking from the merit of the result, the nature of the substance does not hinder the arising of function. If speaking from the perspective of sentient beings, it is only because of delusion that the illusion of arising and ceasing is produced. If a sage observes a common person, then arising is only the manifestation of the nature. Now, it is from the perspective of breaking delusion and returning to enlightenment that it is said, enabling people to leave arising and return to nature, seeing that there is no arising, and therefore no nature. Still fearing that those who are deluded will leave arising to seek nature, it is said that 'the arising of the substance is actually not arising.' Since arising does not arise, cessation also has no cessation. The twelfth question, since it is said 'one mind cessation-contemplation', why establish sixty-four kinds of contemplation? The answer is: these sixty-four kinds of contemplation are established according to different capacities and stages of practice, mutually assisting and circulating repeatedly. In general, there are sixty-four kinds of contemplation methods, but it is not necessary to have all of them. Moreover, from the perspective of the nature of the substance, it is only to illustrate the stillness and illumination of dharmata, which can be used flexibly, so so many methods are established. The thirteenth question, in this passage, sometimes it says 'all dharmas are dharmata', and sometimes it says 'examining the four movements and four natures', which is the most important? The answer is: the method of contemplating the mind has two aspects: phenomena and principle. From the principle, as long as one understands dharmata, there is no other path. From the phenomena, one must focus on observing the four natures of the arising of thoughts, making them nowhere to hide. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。亦名本末。本末相映事理不二。十四问。法华玄文境能照智。虽引诚证理亦难明。答顺方便教理不可会。若从极说于理易融。以心为境心亦能照能所俱心。心体俱遍心心相照于理甚明。故不可思议境初云。不可思议境即是观。以是得为四句分别。境照于境。境照于智。智照于境。智照于智。照者方照非说可穷照者应说非照可了。说者方说非照可穷。说者应照非说可了。是故不同。世谓顽境以为所照。又亦不同偏小妄心以为所照。又亦不同假立真如以为所照。所照既尔能照亦然。不可率尔。十五问。破法遍中云。须先用无生为首者。门后料简。云何复云。无生是智无灭是断。智则是观。断则是止。应无生门唯观无止。答破遍门意从事偏说。故文中云。有定之慧而尽净之。具如记中广分别说。十六问。禅境初十二因缘观不思议境。初云。不同世人取着一念能具三千。为唯此中诸境皆。然答一切皆尔十七问。若尔应当取着心中不具三千。答此准用观观境而说。取着之心本是诸法。照此着心缘生虚假。假中三千自体性空。即是心性不可思议圆妙三谛。譬如空华。华与空体无一无别。此空不当华之与空。对华说空。空无名字。以此细推诸法皆尔。十八问。十二因缘妙境文中束为三道。以对三德。苦身质阂那对法身。答此约理说 现代汉语译本 亦名本末（根本与枝末）。本末相互辉映，事与理不二致。第十四问：法华玄文（《法华玄义》）中说境能照智，虽然引用诚实的证据，但道理仍然难以明白。回答：顺着方便教的道理，不可强行会通。如果从极端的角度来说，道理就容易融会贯通。以心为境，心也能照，能照和所照都是心。心体周遍，心与心相互照耀，道理就非常明白。所以不可思议境（《摩诃止观》中关于不可思议境界的论述）一开始就说：‘不可思议境就是观。’因此可以分为四句来分别：境照于境，境照于智，智照于境，智照于智。照者所照的境界是无法用言语穷尽的，照者应该说的是照，而不是用语言可以了解的。说者所说的内容是无法用照来穷尽的，说者应该用照来理解，而不是用语言可以了解的。所以两者不同。世人认为顽固的境界是被照耀的对象。又与偏颇狭小的妄心作为被照耀的对象不同。又与假立的真如作为被照耀的对象不同。被照耀的对象既然如此，能照耀的主体也是如此，不可草率对待。 第十五问：破法遍（《摩诃止观》中破法遍的观法）中说：‘必须先用无生为首。’门后（《摩诃止观》的门后释义）料简说：‘为什么又说无生是智，无灭是断？智就是观，断就是止。那么无生门只有观而没有止。’回答：破遍门的意思是从从事相的角度偏颇地来说。所以文中说：‘有定的智慧而尽净之。’具体内容如记中（《止观辅行传弘决》）广为分别解说。 第十六问：禅境初（《摩诃止观》中禅境的最初阶段）的十二因缘观（观察十二因缘的观法）和不可思议境（观察不可思议境界的观法）一开始都说：‘不同于世人执着于一念就能具足三千。’是否只有此中（指不可思议境）的诸境是这样？回答：一切都是这样。 第十七问：如果这样，那么应当执着于心中不具足三千。回答：这是根据观照观境而说的。执着的心本来就是诸法。照见这个执着的心，是因缘生起的虚假之相。虚假之相中的三千自体性空，就是心性不可思议的圆妙三谛。譬如空华（虚空中的花朵），花与空体无一无别。这个空不是相对于花朵的空。对着花朵说空，空没有名字。用这个道理仔细推究，诸法都是如此。 第十八问：十二因缘妙境（观察十二因缘的微妙境界）的文中将之归纳为三道，用来对应三德（法身德、般若德、解脱德）。苦身质阂（苦道、集道的身心阻碍）那对应法身德？回答：这是约理而说。
English
English version Also named the root and the branch. The root and the branch reflect each other, principle and phenomena are not two. Fourteenth question: In the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (Fa Hua Xuan Wen), it is said that the realm can illuminate wisdom, but even with sincere evidence, the principle is still difficult to understand. Answer: Following the expedient teachings, the principles cannot be forcibly reconciled. If speaking from the ultimate perspective, the principles are easier to integrate. Taking the mind as the realm, the mind can also illuminate, both the illuminator and the illuminated are the mind. The mind-essence is all-pervasive, minds illuminating each other, the principle is very clear. Therefore, the beginning of the inconceivable realm (the discussion of the inconceivable realm in *Mohe Zhiguan*) says: 'The inconceivable realm is contemplation.' Therefore, it can be divided into four sentences to distinguish: the realm illuminates the realm, the realm illuminates wisdom, wisdom illuminates the realm, wisdom illuminates wisdom. The realm illuminated by the illuminator cannot be exhausted by words, the illuminator should speak of illumination, not something that can be understood by language. The content spoken by the speaker cannot be exhausted by illumination, the speaker should understand with illumination, not something that can be understood by language. Therefore, they are different. The world considers the stubborn realm as the object of illumination. It is also different from taking the biased and narrow deluded mind as the object of illumination. It is also different from taking the falsely established True Thusness as the object of illumination. Since the object of illumination is like this, the subject of illumination is also like this, and should not be treated carelessly. Fifteenth question: In Breaking the Dharma Universally (the contemplation of breaking the Dharma universally in *Mohe Zhiguan*), it is said: 'One must first use non-origination as the head.' The commentary after the gate (the explanation after the gate in *Mohe Zhiguan*) examines and says: 'Why is it also said that non-origination is wisdom, and non-cessation is severance? Wisdom is contemplation, and severance is cessation. Then the gate of non-origination only has contemplation and no cessation.' Answer: The meaning of the gate of breaking universally is to speak partially from the perspective of engaging in phenomena. Therefore, the text says: 'Having the wisdom of samadhi and completely purifying it.' The specific content is explained in detail in the commentary (Zhi Guan Fu Xing Chuan Hong Jue). Sixteenth question: The twelve links of dependent origination contemplation (observing the twelve links of dependent origination) in the initial stage of the Chan realm (the initial stage of the Chan realm in *Mohe Zhiguan*) and the inconceivable realm (observing the inconceivable realm) both say at the beginning: 'Different from worldly people who cling to one thought and can possess three thousand.' Is it only the realms in this (referring to the inconceivable realm) that are like this? Answer: Everything is like this. Seventeenth question: If so, then one should cling to the mind not possessing three thousand. Answer: This is based on contemplating the realm of contemplation. The clinging mind is originally all dharmas. Seeing this clinging mind, it is the false appearance arising from conditions. The three thousand self-natures in the false appearance are empty, which is the inconceivable, perfect, and wonderful three truths of the mind-essence. For example, the empty flower (flowers in empty space), the flower and the empty body are neither one nor different. This emptiness is not the emptiness relative to the flower. Speaking of emptiness in relation to the flower, emptiness has no name. Examining this principle carefully, all dharmas are like this. Eighteenth question: The text on the wonderful realm of the twelve links of dependent origination (observing the subtle realm of the twelve links of dependent origination) summarizes them into three paths to correspond to the three virtues (the virtue of Dharmakaya, the virtue of Prajna, and the virtue of Liberation). Do the suffering body and the obstruction of qualities (the suffering path and the accumulation path's physical and mental obstacles) correspond to the virtue of Dharmakaya? Answer: This is speaking in terms of principle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------