English
English version: Question: Since the four teachings are all complete, why does the *Jin Pi* (name of a book) say, 'The meaning of 'transformation' is only two, while the meaning of 'creation' encompasses all four'? Answer: How many teachings are contained within the section. Even so, we are now explaining based on the different scopes of the meanings of the words. Why? Generally speaking, 'transformation' mostly refers to gaining a name by changing and transforming the substance itself, so the meaning of 'transformation' is limited. If we talk about 'creation', there is both the 'creation' of transformation and the 'creation' of construction and assembly, so the meaning of 'creation' is broad. The Separate Teaching (of the four teachings: Tripitaka Teaching, Shared Teaching, Separate Teaching, and Perfect Teaching) and the Perfect Teaching (of the four teachings: Tripitaka Teaching, Shared Teaching, Separate Teaching, and Perfect Teaching) both have the nature of substantial reality (referring to the true and non-illusory nature), therefore these two teachings consider 'transformation' to be 'creation'. Since the Tripitaka Teaching (of the four teachings: Tripitaka Teaching, Shared Teaching, Separate Teaching, and Perfect Teaching) and the Shared Teaching (of the four teachings: Tripitaka Teaching, Shared Teaching, Separate Teaching, and Perfect Teaching) do not have a substantial reality, they only explain how karma and delusion construct all dharmas, so they do not speak of 'transformation'. Mahayana (Mahayana) is mind-only, Hinayana (Hinayana) is from the mind, so it is said that 'transformation' is only two, while 'creation' encompasses all four. Question: Others say that 'creation' refers to the same substance, and they have modified more than twenty characters in this passage, claiming that they have collected the old version, and also saying that many places are in agreement after collation. Why do you now say that it does not match the old version? Answer: Are there absolutely no errors in the texts of the old version? Is it supposed to be a version personally written by Jingxi (place name)? Also, it is said that multiple versions are the same, but just like the Tiantai (Tiantai) teaching in the ten collections of Hangzhou, I once briefly read it and there were quite a few typos. Isn't it that initially one version was copied down, and even if one version had ten errors, they would all be corrupted. Also, it is said that the Separate Practice of the Ten Gates transmitted from Japan is titled as recorded by Guoqing Zhiguan Heshang (Guoqing Zhiguan Heshang), and it is also said that the substance is the same, etc. I don't know who this Zhiguan Heshang (Zhiguan Heshang) is? Does this person have a deep understanding of the Tiantai (Tiantai) teachings? Is the initially recorded version completely without errors? Just because someone who died earlier is followed as an ancient person, can everything they established be relied upon? For example, the different meanings in Sui Heshang's (Sui Heshang) *Zhi Guan* (Zhi Guan) recorded by Gan Shu, actually take the Three Realms (Trailokya) as the three within the totality of the Unconditioned (Anasrava), can they all be followed? Moreover, these different meanings especially violate the *Fu Xing* (Fu Xing), establishing their own views, so they all say that the text in the *Ji* (Ji) is easy to understand. Heshang (Heshang) says, this teacher also claims to be the Seventh Patriarch, so it is known that Zhiguan Heshang (Zhiguan Heshang) is mostly this teacher, if that is the case, then it is completely unreliable, since he does not understand the profound meaning of Jingxi (Jingxi), there must be alterations and deletions. Moreover, there are also many omissions and errors in the teachings transmitted from Japan, only the Separate Practice of the Ten Non-Dual Gates is completely the same as the version he determined, since he once attached the *Shi Zhu Zhi* (Shi Zhu Zhi), going to that country must... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
是依之勘写尔。设是旧本，须将义勘莫可专文。” 问：“文纵难定，义复相违。何者？此文摄别入总，合云变造体同。若云从体起用，还是开总出别。既失不二之义，便无开会之功也。” 答：“若得前之总别意者，则自不执旧讹文也。岂理体唯总，事用唯别？如常坐中修实相观，既云唯观理具，文中广辨三千，还有总别不？若无者，那云一心具三千邪？随自意中修唯识观，观于起心即约变造事用而说，还有总别不？若无，那云一切法趣檀等？那云观一念善恶心起十界邪？岂随自意三昧非不二开会观邪？应知立兹体用，欲于理体及以事用皆明三谛事用。苦即空假中，还成不二圆妙不？既于理事两重总别皆显绝妙，那将摄别入总而为难邪？又夫开显乃示法法皆妙，若知即具而变用，岂不妙邪？” 问：“他云，之犹往也，即全真心往趣色心则全理作事。此义如何？” 答：“非唯销文不婉，抑亦立理全乖。何者？心不往时遂不具色心邪？又与心变义同，正招从心生法之过。况直云心是真理者，朗乖《金錍》释心，既云不变随缘名心，何得直云真理？又造谓体用，方顺文势。如何以同释造？” 问：“若真心往作色心，有从心生法之过者，文云即心名变，亦有此过邪？” 答：“ 现代汉语译本：‘是依照之前的勘校进行誊写。如果是旧的版本，必须将义理勘校清楚，不能只看文字。’ 问：‘文字内容已经难以确定，义理又互相违背。是什么情况呢？这段文字将个别摄入总体，合起来说是变造体同。如果说是从体起用，还是开总出别。既然失去了不二的义理，就没有开显融合的功用了。’ 答：‘如果懂得前面所说的总别之意，自然就不会执着于旧的讹误文字了。难道理体只有总体，事用只有个别吗？比如在常坐中修习实相观，既然说是只观理具，文中又广泛辨析三千，还有总别之分吗？如果没有，那怎么能说一心具足三千呢？随自己的意愿修习唯识观，观想起心动念，就约变造的事用而说，还有总别之分吗？如果没有，那怎么能说一切法都趋向檀那等等呢？怎么能说观一念善恶心生起十界呢？难道随自己意愿的三昧不是不二开会观吗？应该知道建立这个体用，是为了在理体以及事用上都明白三谛的事用。苦即是空假中，还能成为不二圆妙吗？既然在理事两重总别上都显现了绝妙，怎么能用摄别入总来作为诘难呢？而且开显是显示法法皆妙，如果知道即具而变用，难道不是妙吗？’ 问：‘他人说，‘之’就是‘往’的意思，就是全真心前往趣向色心，就是全理作事。这个义理如何？’ 答：‘这不仅是解释文字不够委婉，而且是立论完全错误。为什么呢？心不前往时，难道就不具足色心了吗？又与心变的意义相同，正好招致从心生法的过失。况且直接说心是真理，完全违背了《金錍》（Jin Pi，书名）解释心的方式，既然说不变随缘名为心，怎么能直接说是真理呢？而且说‘造’是体用，才顺应文势。怎么能用‘同’来解释‘造’呢？’ 问：‘如果真心前往作色心，有从心生法的过失，那么文中说‘即心名变’，也有这个过失吗？’ 答：
English
English version: 'It should be transcribed according to the previous collation. If it is an old version, the meaning must be carefully examined, and one should not rely solely on the text.' Question: 'The text is already difficult to determine, and the meanings contradict each other. What is the situation? This passage incorporates the particular into the general, and together it says 'transformation and substance are the same'. If it is said that 'use arises from substance', it is still 'opening the general to bring out the particular'. Since it loses the meaning of non-duality, it has no function of opening and merging.' Answer: 'If you understand the meaning of general and particular mentioned earlier, you will naturally not cling to the old erroneous text. Is it that the principle only has the general, and the function only has the particular? For example, in constant sitting, practicing the contemplation of true reality, since it is said to only contemplate the principle, the text extensively analyzes the three thousand realms. Is there still a distinction between general and particular? If not, how can it be said that one mind possesses three thousand realms? According to one's own intention, practicing the contemplation of consciousness-only, contemplating the arising of thoughts, it is said in terms of the transformative function. Is there still a distinction between general and particular? If not, how can it be said that all dharmas tend towards generosity (Dana) etc.? How can it be said that contemplating one thought of good and evil gives rise to the ten realms? Is the samadhi according to one's own intention not a non-dual opening and merging contemplation? It should be known that establishing this substance and function is to clarify the function of the three truths in both principle and function. Suffering is emptiness, provisionality, and the middle way, can it still become non-dual and perfectly wonderful? Since the absolute wonder is revealed in both the general and particular aspects of principle and phenomena, how can you use incorporating the particular into the general as a difficulty?' Moreover, opening and revealing is to show that every dharma is wonderful. If you know that it is fully possessed and transformed, is it not wonderful?' Question: 'Others say that 'zhi' (之) means 'going', that is, the whole true mind goes towards form and mind, that is, the whole principle acts. What about this meaning?' Answer: 'This is not only an inadequate explanation of the text, but also a completely wrong argument. Why? If the mind does not go, does it not possess form and mind? Moreover, it has the same meaning as the transformation of the mind, which leads to the fault of dharmas arising from the mind. Furthermore, directly saying that the mind is the true principle completely contradicts the way the *Jin Pi* (金錍, a book title) explains the mind. Since it says that the unchanging following of conditions is called mind, how can it be directly called the true principle? Moreover, saying that 'making' (造) is substance and function is in accordance with the text. How can 'same' be used to explain 'making'?' Question: 'If the true mind goes to make form and mind, and there is the fault of dharmas arising from the mind, then does the passage 'the mind is called transformation' also have this fault?' Answer: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
不明刹那具德，唯执真心变作，灼然须招斯过。今先明心具色心，方论随缘变造，乃是全性起修，作而无作何过之有？” 问：“即心名变，此心为理事邪？若理者，上约随缘名心；若事者，乃成事作于事。那言全理起事？” 答：“《止观》指阴入心能造一切，而云全理成事者，盖由此心本具三千方能变造。既云心之色心，已显此心本具三千，今即此心变造，乃是约具名变。既非但理变造，自异别教也。” 二、是则下，结成三谛者，上之事理三千，皆以刹那心法为总，心空故理事诸法皆空，即非色非心也；心假故理事诸法皆假，即而色而心也；心中故理事诸法皆中，即唯色唯心也。故《辅行》云：“并由理具方有事用，今欲修观但观理具，俱破俱立俱是法界，任运摄得权实所现。”言良由于此者，即由心之色心故(理也)、即心名变故(事也)、全体起用故(理事合也)，方能一空一切空，一假一切假，一中一切中也。他解此文，分擘对当大义全失，仍不许对三谛，而云此中未论修观故。设未修观，立谛何妨？况此色心本是谛境。更有人互对三谛云得圆意，盖不足言也。 二、故知下，会生佛居一念。己生佛者，心法三千，他生佛者，佛法、众生法并名为他，各具三千，三千不出生佛也 现代汉语译本：如果不明白刹那具德的道理，只执着于真心变现万物，必然会招致过失。现在先阐明心本身就具备色心（色法和心法），再来讨论随缘变造的道理，这才是全性起修，在作为的同时又没有作为，哪里会有什么过失呢？ 问：‘即心名变’，这个‘心’是指理体还是事相呢？如果是理体，那么上面所说的随缘就只是个名义上的心；如果是事相，那就成了从事相上造作。怎么能说是全理起事呢？ 答：《止观》中说阴入心能造一切，并且说全理成事，是因为这个心本身就具备三千法界，才能变造万物。既然说了心的色心，就已经显示出这个心本身具备三千法界，现在用这个心来变造万物，就是从具备的角度来说变。这并非只是理体的变造，自然不同于别教的观点。 二、‘是则下’，总结成就三谛的道理：上面的事理三千，都以刹那心法为总纲，心空，所以理事诸法都空，就是非色非心；心假，所以理事诸法都假，就是即色即心；心中，所以理事诸法都中，就是唯色唯心。所以《辅行》中说：‘都是因为理体具备，才有事相的作用，现在想要修观，只要观理体具备，俱破俱立都是法界，自然而然地摄取权实所显现的境界。’说‘言良由于此者’，就是因为心的色心（理体）、即心名变（事相）、全体起用（理事合一），才能一空一切空，一假一切假，一中一切中。其他人的解释，把这些道理分开来对应，完全失去了大义，仍然不允许对应三谛，还说这里没有讨论修观。即使没有修观，建立三谛又有什么妨碍呢？况且这个色心本来就是谛境。还有人互相对应三谛，说得到了圆教的意旨，实在不值得一提。 二、‘故知下’，会合生佛同在一念。‘己生佛者’，指心法三千，‘他生佛者’，指佛法、众生法，并称为‘他’，各自具备三千法界，这三千法界不超出众生和佛。