Chinese
：“据义合有，但是文略。何者？若不先了唯色唯香，如何观外依正等邪？但为外观摄机须故、为对内故显不二故，故且并列。今之文意正明内观，以十门妙理唯指心法，故诸部中皆云观心。” 二、是则下，明内外融泯二： 初、互融。三法体性各具三千本来相摄，前虽解了心摄一切，今观称性包摄灼然，故是则下，先明内心融于外法。既云互摄，生佛亦然，故十方下，次明若生若佛各自遍融。又此性体非谓一性，盖三千性也。以佛具三千方摄心生，生具三千方融心佛。心具三千，岂隔生佛？若心无佛性，岂能摄佛？佛无生性，何能摄生？故性体无殊之语有谁不知，一切咸遍之言须思深致。他解唯论融外归内名不二者，一何局哉！一切咸遍，如何销之？况余九门皆归一边，全伤大体。 二、谁云下，俱泯。既各融即，不可定分，故称理观。谁云有二？然内外等三双但泛举相对，今皆融泯。亦可云内色心为己，外色心为他，更用己他拣其内外。 三、此即下，结门所从。十门理一莫不相由，今从依境修观，内外二境皆色心故。此二妙故，内外不二也。 十不二门指要钞卷上 大正藏第 46 册 No. 1928 十不二门指要钞 十不二门指要钞卷下 宋四明沙门 现代汉语译本： ‘据义合有，但是文略。’意思是说，从义理上来说是应该有的，但是文字上省略了。为什么呢？如果不能首先了解‘唯色’（一切事物都只是物质现象）和‘唯香’（一切事物都只是精神现象），又如何观察外在的依报（众生所依赖的生存环境）和正报（众生的身心）等邪见呢？只是为了外观能够摄受众生的根机，为了对治内心的迷惑，为了彰显不二的真理，所以才并列出来。现在的文意正是要阐明内观，用十门微妙的道理只是指向心法，所以各个经典中都说要观心。 二、‘是则下’，说明内外融泯二： 首先，是互融。三法（色、心、空）的体性各自具有三千本来相摄的特性，前面虽然解释了心能摄一切，现在观察称性（符合本性）的包摄是明确的，所以‘是则下’，先说明内心融于外法。既然说是互相摄入，那么众生和佛也是这样，所以‘十方下’，其次说明无论是众生还是佛，各自都普遍融合。而且这个性体不是说只有一个性，而是说有三千性。因为佛具有三千性才能摄受众生的心，众生具有三千性才能融合佛的心。心具有三千性，怎么会隔绝众生和佛呢？如果心没有佛性，怎么能摄受佛呢？佛没有众生性，又怎么能摄受众生呢？所以‘性体无殊’（性体没有差别）这句话有谁不知道呢？‘一切咸遍’（一切都普遍存在）这句话需要深入思考。其他的解释只说融合外在归于内在叫做不二，这多么局限啊！‘一切咸遍’，又如何消除呢？况且其余九门都归于一边，完全损害了大体。 其次，‘谁云下’，是俱泯。既然各自融合，就不可固定区分，所以称为理观。谁说有内外二者呢？然而内外等三双只是泛泛地举出相对的概念，现在都融合泯灭了。也可以说内色心为自己，外色心为他人，再用自己和他人来区分内外。 第三，‘此即下’，是总结此门所从来的依据。十门道理是一致的，没有不互相联系的，现在是从依境修观，内外二境都是色心。因为这二者都很微妙，所以内外是不二的。 《十不二门指要钞卷上》 《大正藏》第 46 册 No. 1928 《十不二门指要钞》 《十不二门指要钞卷下》 宋 四明沙门
English
English version: 'According to the meaning, it should exist, but the text is abbreviated.' This means that according to the principle, it should be there, but it is omitted in the text. Why? If one cannot first understand 'only form' (that all things are merely material phenomena) and 'only fragrance' (that all things are merely mental phenomena), how can one observe external dependent retributions (the environment beings rely on for survival) and proper retributions (beings' body and mind) as being heretical? It is only for the sake of the external appearance being able to gather in the faculties of beings, to counteract internal confusion, and to manifest the truth of non-duality, that they are listed together. The current meaning of the text is precisely to elucidate internal contemplation, using the ten subtle principles to point only to the mind-dharma, so all the scriptures say to contemplate the mind. Two, 'Shi Ze Xia', explains the merging and annihilation of inner and outer two: First, mutual merging. The substance of the three dharmas (form, mind, emptiness) each possesses three thousand originally interpenetrating characteristics. Although it was previously explained that the mind encompasses everything, now observing the all-encompassing nature that accords with the essence is clear. Therefore, 'Shi Ze Xia', first explains that the inner mind merges into outer dharmas. Since it is said that they mutually encompass, beings and Buddhas are also like this. Therefore, 'Shi Fang Xia', secondly explains that whether it is beings or Buddhas, each universally merges. Moreover, this nature is not said to be a single nature, but rather three thousand natures. Because the Buddha possesses three thousand natures, he can encompass the minds of beings; beings possess three thousand natures, they can merge with the mind of the Buddha. The mind possesses three thousand natures, how can it be separated from beings and Buddhas? If the mind does not have Buddha-nature, how can it encompass the Buddha? If the Buddha does not have the nature of beings, how can he encompass beings? Therefore, who does not know the phrase 'the nature is not different'? The statement 'everything is universally present' requires deep thought. Other interpretations only discuss merging the external into the internal as non-duality, how limited is that! 'Everything is universally present', how can it be eliminated? Moreover, the remaining nine doors all return to one side, completely damaging the overall structure. Second, 'Shui Yun Xia', is mutual annihilation. Since they each merge, they cannot be fixedly distinguished, so it is called principle contemplation. Who says there are two, inner and outer? However, the three pairs of inner and outer are only general examples of relative concepts, now they are all merged and annihilated. It can also be said that inner form and mind are oneself, outer form and mind are others, and then use oneself and others to distinguish inner and outer. Third, 'Ci Ji Xia', is the conclusion of the origin of this door. The principles of the ten doors are consistent, and none are unrelated. Now it is from relying on the environment to cultivate contemplation, and both the inner and outer environments are form and mind. Because these two are subtle, inner and outer are non-dual. 《Ten Non-Dual Gates Essential Notes Volume 1》 《Taisho Tripitaka》 Volume 46 No. 1928 《Ten Non-Dual Gates Essential Notes》 《Ten Non-Dual Gates Essential Notes Volume 2》 Shramana of Siming, Song Dynasty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 知礼述 三、修性不二门三：
Chinese
初、标。修谓修治造作，即变造三千，性谓本有不改，即理具三千，今示全性起修则诸行无作，全修在性则一念圆成，是则修外无性、性外无修，互泯互融故称不二，而就心法妙为门。 二、性德下，释二： 初、修性双立三： 初、修性对论二： 初、直明性德。言德者即本具三千，皆常乐我净故。界如一念，即前内境具德刹那心也。界如既即空假中，任运成于三德三轨等，即空是般若清净义故，即假是解脱自在义故，即中是法身究竟义故，诸三例之。然诸法皆可论于修性，亦为成观唯指一念。应知前二门直明依境立观，此门及因果不二乃委示前二，令成圆行始终也。何者？性德岂出色心不二，修德莫非一心三观。今示修性互成成妙智行，以此智行从因至果，则位位无作，方名如梦勤加等，即自行始终皆妙也。 二、性虽下，以修对辨二： 初、相成者，性虽具足全体在迷，必藉妙智解了发起圆修，故云性虽本尔藉智起修，由此智行方能彻照性德。而此智行复由性德全体而发，若非性发不能照性，若非彻照性无由显，故云由修照性、由性发修，此二句正辨相成之相。 二、在性下，明互具者，相成之义虽显，恐谓修从显发方 现代汉语译本 知礼述 三、修性不二门三： 初、标。‘修’指的是修治造作，也就是变造三千（指一念三千），‘性’指的是本有不改，也就是理具三千（指一切诸法）。现在说明全性起修，那么一切行为都无作（无造作），全修在性，那么一念就能圆满成就。这样就是修外无性、性外无修，互相泯灭互相融合，所以称为不二，而就心法来说，这是很微妙的门径。 二、性德下，释二： 初、修性双立三： 初、修性对论二： 初、直明性德。说‘德’就是本具的三千，都是常乐我净的缘故。‘界如一念’，就是前面所说的内境具德的刹那心。‘界如’既然就是空假中，自然成就三德三轨等，即空是般若清净的意义，即假是解脱自在的意义，即中是法身究竟的意义，各种三的道理依此类推。然而各种法都可以讨论修性，也为了成就观想，只指一念。应该知道前面两个门径直接说明依据境界建立观想，这个门径以及因果不二，是详细地开示前面两个门径，使之成为圆满的修行始终。为什么呢？性德难道不是色心不二？修德没有不是一心三观的。现在说明修性互相成就，成就妙智行，用这个智行从因到果，那么位位都是无作，才叫做如梦勤加等，就是自行始终都是妙。 二、性虽下，以修对辨二： 初、相成者，性虽然具足，全体都在迷惑中，必须凭借妙智了解发起圆修，所以说‘性虽本尔藉智起修’，由此智行才能彻底照见性德。而这个智行又由性德全体而发，如果不是性发就不能照性，如果不是彻底照见性就没有办法显现，所以说‘由修照性、由性发修’，这两句正是辨别相成的相状。 二、在性下，明互具者，相成的意义虽然明显，恐怕认为修从显发才
English
English version Zhilishu III. The Three Gates of Non-Duality of Cultivation and Nature: First, the heading. 'Cultivation' (修) refers to cultivating and creating, that is, transforming the three thousand (referring to a single thought containing the three thousand realms); 'Nature' (性) refers to the inherent and unchanging, that is, the principle of the three thousand (referring to all dharmas). Now, it is shown that when the entire nature arises in cultivation, then all actions are without creation (no fabrication); when the entire cultivation is in nature, then a single thought can be perfectly accomplished. Thus, there is no nature outside of cultivation, and no cultivation outside of nature. They mutually annihilate and fuse, hence called non-dual, and in terms of the mind-dharma, it is a subtle gateway. Second, 'Nature Virtue' below, explanation in two parts: First, the dual establishment of cultivation and nature in three parts: First, the discussion of cultivation and nature in contrast in two parts: First, directly clarifying the virtue of nature. Saying 'virtue' (德) is the inherent three thousand, all being characterized by permanence, bliss, self, and purity. 'The realm is like a single thought' is the mind of a kshana (instant) with the virtue of the inner realm mentioned earlier. Since 'the realm is like' is emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, it naturally accomplishes the three virtues and three models, etc. That is, emptiness is the meaning of prajna (wisdom) and purity; provisionality is the meaning of liberation and freedom; the middle is the meaning of the ultimate dharmakaya (dharma body). The principles of the various threes are analogous to this. However, all dharmas can be discussed in terms of cultivation and nature, and also for the sake of accomplishing contemplation, it only refers to a single thought. It should be known that the previous two gates directly clarify establishing contemplation based on the realm, this gate and the non-duality of cause and effect are detailed explanations of the previous two, making them a complete and perfect practice from beginning to end. Why? Is the virtue of nature not the non-duality of form and mind? Is the virtue of cultivation not the three contemplations in one mind? Now it is shown that cultivation and nature mutually accomplish each other, accomplishing the wonderful wisdom practice. Using this wisdom practice from cause to effect, then every position is without creation, and it is called 'diligently applying oneself as in a dream', that is, the entire self-practice from beginning to end is wonderful. Second, 'Although nature' below, using cultivation to distinguish in two parts: First, those that complement each other: Although nature is complete, the whole is in delusion, it must rely on wonderful wisdom to understand and initiate perfect cultivation, therefore it is said 'although nature is inherently so, it relies on wisdom to initiate cultivation'. By this wisdom practice, one can thoroughly illuminate the virtue of nature. And this wisdom practice is developed entirely from the virtue of nature. If it is not nature that develops it, one cannot illuminate nature; if one does not thoroughly illuminate nature, there is no way to manifest it, therefore it is said 'by cultivation, one illuminates nature; by nature, cultivation develops'. These two sentences precisely distinguish the aspect of complementing each other. Second, 'In nature' below, clarifying mutual possession: Although the meaning of complementing each other is clear, there is concern that cultivation only --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
有、性德稍异修成，故今全指修成本来已具。如《止观》广辨三千之相，虽是逆顺二修，全为显于性具，则全修成性也。又一一行业因果自他，虽假修成，全是性德三千显现，故云全性成修也。又虽全性起修，而未尝少亏性德，以常不改故，故云性无所移。虽全修成性，而未始暂阙修德，以常变造故，故云修常宛尔。然若知修性各论三千，则诸义皆显，故荆溪云，诸家不明修性，盖不如此明也。 问：“他云，旧本作藉知曰修，而以本性灵知用释知字。若云藉智起修者，盖写者书曰逼知，后人认作智字，既不成句，又见下句有起修之言，遂辄加起字尔。此复云何？” 答：“既许写曰逼知，遂成智之一字，何妨往人写日远知，误成知曰二字。必是因脱起字，复由二字相悬，致使有本作藉知曰修也。故知写字添脱，远近难可定之，鱼鲁之讹岂今独有，须将义定方见是非。何者？他既暗于三法妙义，尚将一念因心阴识，直作真知解之，况今有此讹文知字可执，岂不作灵知解邪？且灵知之名圭峰专用，既非即阴而示，又无修发之相，正是偏指清净真如，唯于真心及缘理断九之义也。他云，因真教缘示善恶知，即是真知，乃知诸法唯心，故云藉知曰修。今问：此之知字，为解为行？若随阙者则不名修。若单立知字 现代汉语译本： 有，性德（本性具有的功德）稍有不同于修成，所以现在完全指的是修成本来就具有的。例如《止观》广泛地辨析三千种相，虽然是逆修和顺修两种，完全是为了显现本性具有的，那么就是完全修成即是本性。又，每一个行业、因果、自身和他者，虽然假借修成，全部是性德三千的显现，所以说全性成修。又，虽然全性起修，而未曾稍微亏损性德，因为本性常住不变的缘故，所以说性无所移。虽然全修成性，而未曾暂时缺少修德，因为修德常变造作的缘故，所以说修常宛然。然而如果知道修和性各自论述三千，那么各种意义都显现了，所以荆溪大师说，各家不明白修和性，大概就是不如此明白的缘故。 问：‘他们说，旧本写作“藉知曰修”，而用本性灵知来解释“知”字。如果说是凭借智慧起修，大概是抄写的人写成“逼知”，后人误认为“智”字，既不成句，又看到下句有“起修”的说法，于是就擅自加上“起”字罢了。这又该怎么说呢？’ 答：‘既然允许写成“逼知”，就成了“智”这一个字，为什么不能是往人写成“远知”，误成“知曰”二字呢？必定是因为脱落了“起”字，又因为两个字相隔较远，导致有的版本写作“藉知曰修”啊。所以知道抄写文字的增添和脱落，远近难以确定，鱼鲁的错误难道只有今天才有吗？必须用义理来确定才能辨别是非。为什么呢？他们既然不明白三法（法身、报身、应身）的妙义，还把一念因心阴识，直接当作真知来理解，何况现在有这个讹误的“知”字可以执着，岂不是要当作灵知来解释吗？况且灵知这个名称是圭峰禅师专门使用的，既不是即阴而示，又没有修发的相状，正是偏指清净真如，只在真心以及缘理断九的意义上使用。’他们说，‘因真教缘示善恶知，就是真知，乃是了知诸法唯心，所以说凭借知而修。’现在问：这个‘知’字，是解还是行？如果缺少随顺，就不叫做修。如果单单立一个‘知’字