English
English version: In terms of principle, therefore, it is necessary to go through a period of transforming the deluded illuminating nature into cultivation. Saying 'a period' is similar to saying 'for the time being,' it does not mean a final end. This means that although from the perspective of the stillness of principle, cultivation will eventually be extinguished, it is necessary to go through a period of transforming delusion into awakening. Once the awakened mind arises, it will inevitably illuminate the inherent nature and accomplish cultivation. If one clearly sees the inherent nature, cultivating the mind will naturally cause both minds to be extinguished. This principle is as clear as pointing to the palm of one's hand, so why are people still confused? Isn't it that reverse cultivation is like illness, and forward cultivation is like medicine? Although it is known that both medicine and illness must eventually be eliminated, one must temporarily take medicine to treat the illness. If the medicine is effective, the body will surely recover. If the body is healthy, both medicine and illness will disappear. This is the analogy, and the wise should contemplate it. Question: 'They say that the old version writes '此其' (cǐ qí), and explains it as, 'How can one rely on this unchanging nature of birth, death, Nirvana, and constant difference to accomplish awakening and cultivation?' Therefore, the next sentence says, 'Therefore, it is necessary to go through a period of transforming the deluded illuminating nature into cultivation.' How should this be explained?' Answer: 'Although they cling to the old version, they contradict the current text. Why? The text says, 'One can, because things do not change, have the mind deluded, thereby enabling cultivation to be accomplished.' The meaning of the text only blames clinging to delusion to accomplish awakening. How could it simultaneously blame delusion and awakening to accomplish awakening? Isn't this a clear contradiction of the text! Therefore, it is known that both delusion and awakening are extinguished, and the merit lies in awakening and cultivation. Why? Because delusion deviates from the inherent nature, awakening and cultivation are established to reverse it, thereby making things different within a period. Awakening accords with principle, and principle has no deviation or accordance, so the two minds naturally extinguish themselves. From this, it can be known that using the term 'a period' not only does not contradict the text but also accords with principle. If the term '此其' (cǐ qí) is used, there are slightly more contradictions, and it cannot widely refute fallacies.' Three, further, under the word '了' (liǎo, awakening), clarify the fundamental sameness of separation and union: First, clarify the differences in separation and union from the perspective of Dharma. Again, set aside reverse cultivation and only discuss the separation and union of the characteristics of forward cultivation. Because this cultivation of nature is not easily categorized in various sutras and treatises, if one understands the meaning of this separation and union, one will not be confused about the amount of cultivation of nature. For example, the ten types of three dharmas in the *Golden Light Sutra Profound Meaning* are taken from the characteristics of cultivation of nature in sutras and treatises, so they have both separation and union explanations. For example, the three virtues (sāmaṇaguṇa, three merits), the three jewels (triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), although they are the ultimate of cultivating virtue, their meaning must include the inherent nature; the three bodies (trikāya, Dharmakāya, Sambhogakāya, Nirmāṇakāya), the three wisdoms (trijñāna, three wisdoms), although the text is about enlightenment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
，理必通迷；三识三道，既指事即理，必全性起修。此六岂非修性各三。三因既以一性对智行二修，三菩提、三大乘、三涅槃，并以一性对证理起用二修，此四岂非修二性一。若各三者唯属于圆，以各相主对全性起修，故修二性一则兼于别。直以修二显于性一，则教道所诠，若知合九为三，复是圆义。此文多用各三，如云性指三障，是故具三，修从性成，成三法尔。又云，一念心因既具三轨，此因成果名三涅槃。若后结文三法相符，虽似修二性一，乃合九为三也。修二各三等者，就合各开。如三般若等，是了因之三；如三菩提等，是缘因之三；共发三道等，正因之三。既发性三俱云修九者，虽兼性三，咸为所发，故皆属修。又凡论修者必须兼性。九只是三者，如三般若只是了因，如三解脱只是缘因，如三道等只是正因。为对等者，释前合意。性既唯立正因，为对性以成三，故修但缘了也。诸合三义，例皆如是。 问：“十种三法俱通修性，各可对三德三因。何故三般若等唯对了因，三菩提等独对缘因？” 答：“如此对之方为圆说。单云了因不少，以具三故，了三自具三因三德等，故缘正亦然。应知一德不少、三九不多，至于不可说法门，岂逾于一邪？” 二、二与下，约谕明修性体同者。虽明修 理若不通达，必然会陷入迷惑；三识（三种意识）、三道（三种道），既然是指事即理，必然是全体本性发起修行。这六者难道不是修行与本性各有三种？三因（三种因）既然用一个本性来对应智慧和行为两种修行，三菩提（三种菩提）、三大乘（三种大乘）、三涅槃（三种涅槃），都是用一个本性来对应证悟真理和起用两种修行，这四者难道不是修行两种本性为一？如果各自有三种，就只属于圆融之说，因为各自为主对应全体本性发起修行，所以修行两种本性为一就兼顾了差别。直接用修行两种来彰显本性为一，那么教义所诠释的，如果知道将九合为三，又是圆融之义。这段文字多用各自三种，比如说到本性指代三种障碍，所以具备三种，修行从本性成就，成就三种是自然而然的。又说，一念心因既然具备三种法则，此因成果名为三种涅槃。如果后面的结论是三种法则相互符合，虽然像是修行两种本性为一，实际上是将九合为三。修行两种各自三种等，是就合而言各自展开。比如三般若（三种般若）等，是了因（证了之因）的三种；比如三菩提等，是缘因（助缘之因）的三种；共同发起三种道等，是正因（正本之因）的三种。既然发起本性的三种都说是修行九种，虽然兼顾本性的三种，都作为所发起的，所以都属于修行。而且凡是论述修行，必须兼顾本性。九种只是三种，比如三般若只是了因，比如三解脱只是缘因，比如三种道等只是正因。为了对应等同，解释前面合的意思。本性既然只立正因，为了对应本性以成就三种，所以修行只缘了因。各种合为三种的意义，都可以此类推。 问：‘十种三法都贯通修行与本性，各自可以对应三德（三种功德）、三因。为什么三般若等只对了因，三菩提等单独对应缘因？’ 答：‘如此对应才是圆融的说法。单说为了因不少，因为具备三种，了因的三种自然具备三因三种功德等，所以缘因正因也是这样。应该知道一种功德不少、三种九种不多，至于不可说的法门，难道会超过一个邪见吗？’ 二、二与下，用比喻来说明修行与本性本体相同。虽然说明修行
English
Modern Chinese version If the principle is not understood, one will surely fall into confusion; the three consciousnesses (三识), the three paths (三道), since they refer to phenomena that are identical to principle, must be the entire nature initiating cultivation. Are these six not three each for cultivation and nature? Since the three causes (三因) use one nature to correspond to the two cultivations of wisdom and action, the three Bodhis (三菩提), the three Great Vehicles (三大乘), the three Nirvanas (三涅槃), all use one nature to correspond to the two cultivations of realizing principle and initiating function. Are these four not cultivating two natures as one? If each has three, it only belongs to the doctrine of perfect fusion, because each is the master corresponding to the entire nature initiating cultivation, so cultivating two natures as one also takes into account the differences. Directly using the cultivation of two to manifest the oneness of nature, then what the teachings explain, if one knows to combine nine into three, is again the meaning of perfect fusion. This passage often uses each three, such as saying that nature refers to the three obstacles, so it possesses three, cultivation is accomplished from nature, and accomplishing three is natural. It also says that since the cause of a single thought possesses three rules, the result of this cause is named the three Nirvanas. If the later conclusion is that the three laws correspond to each other, although it seems like cultivating two natures as one, it is actually combining nine into three. Cultivating two each with three, etc., is unfolding each from the combination. For example, the three Prajnas (三般若), etc., are the three of the condition of understanding (了因); for example, the three Bodhis, etc., are the three of the condition of relationship (缘因); jointly initiating the three paths, etc., are the three of the direct cause (正因). Since initiating the three of nature all say cultivating nine, although taking into account the three of nature, they are all as what is initiated, so they all belong to cultivation. Moreover, whenever discussing cultivation, one must take into account nature. Nine is only three, such as the three Prajnas are only the condition of understanding, such as the three liberations are only the condition of relationship, such as the three paths, etc., are only the direct cause. In order to correspond equally, explaining the meaning of the previous combination. Since nature only establishes the direct cause, in order to correspond to nature to accomplish three, so cultivation only relates to the condition of understanding. All meanings of combining into three can be inferred in this way. Question: 'The ten kinds of three laws all penetrate cultivation and nature, and each can correspond to the three virtues (三德) and the three causes. Why do the three Prajnas, etc., only correspond to the condition of understanding, and the three Bodhis, etc., correspond solely to the condition of relationship?' Answer: 'Such correspondence is the perfect and harmonious explanation. Simply saying the condition of understanding is not little, because it possesses three, the three of the condition of understanding naturally possess the three causes and the three virtues, etc., so the condition of relationship and the direct cause are also like this. One should know that one virtue is not little, three nines are not many, as for the indescribable Dharma gate, how could it exceed one wrong view?' Two, two and below, use metaphors to illustrate that the substance of cultivation and nature are the same. Although explaining cultivation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
性及智行等别，皆不二而二，故约波水横竖谕之，仍约合中三法而说，开岂不然？初明修二如波、性一如水，二而不二波水可知。修性既然，修中二法，亦二而不二，同乎波水。 问：“修二性一已同波水，修尚即性，岂修中二法更须约谕融之耶？” 答：“如身两臂虽与身连，臂自未合，为防此计，故云亦如波水。有本云，亦无波水者，既不成谕，此定讹也。” 二、应知下，修性俱亡正示不二。性指三障等者，既全理成事，乃即障名理，是故立性为三。性既非三立三，修性从成亦非三立三，岂唯各定无三，抑亦修性体即，如是了达即不动而运，游于四方直至道场，名一妙乘也。 问：“性三本具，那言对障名三？” 答：“本具妙理若定是三，不能作一及无量故，故知立则一多宛然，亡则修性寂矣。今就亡说，岂得将立以难之！” 三、结门。从前可解。 四、因果不二门三： 初、标。因果名通，今就开显唯约圆论。因从博地至等觉还，果唯妙觉，虽通传立，约极义强。三千实相未显名因，显则名果，隐显虽殊始终常即，故名不二。门义如前。 二、众生下，释三： 初、就圆理明因果暂存三： 初、明始终理一。众生一往通于因果，佛 现代汉语译本 性和智行等差别，都是不二而二的，所以用波和水的横向和纵向来比喻它，仍然结合合中三法来说明，展开难道不是这样吗？首先说明修是二，就像波，性是一，就像水，二而不二，波和水是可以理解的。修和性既然如此，修中的二法，也是二而不二，和波水相同。 问：‘修二性一已经和波水相同，修尚且就是性，难道修中的二法更需要用比喻来融合它吗？’ 答：‘就像身体的两臂虽然和身体相连，手臂自身还没有合一，为了防止这种想法，所以说也像波和水。有的版本说，也没有波和水，既然不能成为比喻，这一定是讹误。’ 二、应知下，修和性都消亡，正是显示不二。性指三障等，既然完全依理成事，就是依着障碍而名为理，所以立性为三。性既然不是三而立为三，修和性从成就来说也不是三而立为三，岂止是各自确定没有三，而且修和性的本体就是一，像这样了达就是不动而动，游于四方直至道场，名为一妙乘。 问：‘性三本来就具备，为什么说针对障碍而名为三？’ 答：‘本来具备的妙理如果确定是三，就不能作为一以及无量，所以知道立则一和多宛然存在，消亡则修和性寂然不动。现在就消亡来说，怎么能用立来诘难呢！’ 三、总结部分。从前面可以理解。 四、因果不二门三： 初、标明。因和果名称通用，现在就开显来说，只针对圆教来论述。因从凡夫地到等觉位，果只有妙觉，虽然普遍地传立，但就极义来说是强调果。三千实相没有显现时名为因，显现时名为果，隐和显虽然不同，但始终常即，所以名不二。门的含义和前面一样。 二、众生下，解释三： 初、就圆理说明因果暂时存在三： 初、说明始终的理是一。众生一般贯通因和果，佛（Buddha)