English
English version: Without discussing response, response is the potential of others. Although self and other are distinguished, they exist in the same thought. Therefore, the previous text says that the Buddhas born from others are still the same as one's own mind, let alone the Buddhas born from one's own mind, how could they deviate from this one thought? Buddha-dharma and sentient being-dharma can both be called 'other,' and each has the potential to become a Buddha. If one's own potential to become a Buddha manifests, then it is the same as the Buddhas and potential Buddhas of others, all becoming capable of transformation; only the sentient beings and potential Buddhas of others are transformed. Since they are in the same thought, what difference is there between self and other? Therefore, it is called 'non-duality.' Observing according to this principle can achieve two mysteries, hence it is also called 'gate'. 2. According to potential, explaining two: First, showing that the essence of response is originally the same, divided into two parts: First, showing from the perspective of dharma, divided into three parts: First, explaining self and other from the perspective of one nature. After attaining the fruit, one responds without moving, universally benefiting the potential of all beings. Since it is not intentional, it is all due to the same nature. Verifying it from the cause-and-effect relationship, it is indeed non-dual. 2. As the principle below, explaining response from the perspective of Three Thousand. First, use the Three Truths to illustrate that self and other are originally the same. Since the Three Thousand are emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way, they are also the Three Thousand of the Three Virtues and Three Truths. Self-practice is the extinction of purity and impurity, all existing in emptiness. Benefiting others is like the net of Indra, with the Three Thousand all being provisional existence. Since the Three Truths are three-in-one, self and other are divided but not separated. However, what is being discussed now, both self and other, are in the wonderful provisional existence, because both the transformer and the transformed are the Three Thousand. Wanting to discuss non-duality from the perspective of the Three Truths, therefore, we will analyze it in relation to emptiness. The wonderful provisional existence is still inseparable from emptiness, how could one provisional existence be isolated and different? Question: 'The previous practice of external observation is equivalent to self-practice, only listing emptiness, which is consistent with the current situation, why criticize it?' Answer: 'In the past, those who did not understand the realm of observation arbitrarily deleted based on these texts. Why? This is explaining emptiness from the perspective of the Three Thousand, already possessing inconceivable provisional existence, let alone the practice of benefiting others, how can beginners not practice it? If one does not practice, how can one be called a Mahāsattva (大菩萨, Great Bodhisattva)? It is precisely because the provisional observation must be practiced at the beginning of practice that response can be in the same thought, and the principle of non-duality between self and other is established based on this. How can one casually say that self-practice has no provisional existence? Also, if self-practice only cultivates emptiness, isn't internal observation self-practice? Why then say it is emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way?' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
物机等者，正明自他各具三千，细辨故三千，总论故十界，转现互生即无记化，化化复作化也，依正皆尔，应必对感机岂不然！一念从事寂光约理，二必相即故互举尔。 三、众生下，约俱具明道交。既三无差别则感应相收，众生感心中他佛，诸佛应心中他生，不然，岂能一念皆令解脱邪？ 二、不然下，约谕示二： 初、顺谕。诸佛三千即现像之理，众生三千即生像之性，若不然者，不能即感即应，非任运化也。 二、若一下，反谕。以鉴净形对无不现之理，而反显之。意云若不现者可言鉴理有穷形事不通也，诸佛悟理、众生在事，三千理满，若一机扣之不应，则可云三千互阙，既无此理则前义善成。仍释伏疑。何故？众生多不见佛，故云若与鉴隔则容有是理，即障重机生名与鉴隔，机成名对，若其对者终无不现。然未通字必误，合云不通，纵移于下句，语稍不便，智者详之。 二、若鉴下，明观行之功方显二： 初、带谕彰用匪功成者，故知心鉴本明、三千之像本具。对物未能现者，盖三惑之尘所遮，去尘虽缘、了之功，现像乃全由性具，此中正明观心发用。他云，由机现像。其义天隔。观法大旨者，非唯此中，诸门皆尔，但在此说为便耳。 二、应知下，就法明发 现代汉语译本 ‘物机等者’，正是说明自身与他身各自完备三千世间，细致分辨，所以说是三千世间，总括来说，就是十法界。转变显现，互相产生，就是无记之化，化化又复化，依报和正报都是这样，感应必定对应于根机，难道不是这样吗！一念从现象上说是寂光净土，从理体上说，二者必定相互包含，所以互相举例说明。 三、‘众生下’，从俱备的角度说明道交（佛与众生之间的交流）。既然三法没有差别，那么感应就相互包含。众生感应心中其他的佛，诸佛应于心中其他的众生，如果不是这样，怎么能一念之间都使他们解脱呢？ 二、‘不然下’，用比喻来开示，分为两部分： 首先，顺着比喻来说明。诸佛的三千世间就是显现形象的理，众生的三千世间就是产生形象的性。如果不是这样，就不能立即感应，不是自然而然的化现。 其次，‘若一下’，反过来用比喻说明。用明亮的镜子来比喻无所不现的理，从而反过来显明这个道理。意思是说，如果不显现，就可以说镜子的理有限，不能通达一切事物。诸佛觉悟了理，众生存在于事，三千世间的理完满具备，如果一个根机叩击它而不应，那么就可以说三千世间互相欠缺，既然没有这个道理，那么前面的意义就完全成立。仍然解释先前隐藏的疑问。为什么呢？因为众生大多见不到佛，所以说如果与镜子隔开，或许有这个道理，就是业障深重的根机产生，叫做与镜子隔开，根机成熟叫做相对，如果相对，最终没有不显现的。然而‘未通’二字必定是错的，应该说是‘不通’，即使移到下一句，语句稍有不便，智者详细考虑。 二、‘若鉴下’，说明观行（通过修行来观察）的功用才能显现，分为两部分： 首先，带着比喻来彰显作用不是靠功劳成就的，所以知道心如明镜本来就光明，三千世间的形象本来就具备。对着事物不能显现，是因为三惑（见思惑、尘沙惑、无明惑）的尘垢所遮蔽，去除尘垢虽然依靠了悟的功夫，显现形象完全是由于本性具备，这其中正是说明观心发起作用。其他人说，由根机显现形象，他们的意义相差甚远。观法的要旨，不仅仅在此处，各个法门都是这样，只是在这里说比较方便罢了。 其次，‘应知下’，就法来说明发起。
English
English version 'Things and mechanisms, etc.,' precisely explain that self and others each fully possess three thousand realms. Differentiating minutely, hence the three thousand realms; speaking generally, hence the ten realms. Transformation and manifestation, arising mutually, are thus unconditioned transformations. Transformation after transformation occurs again. Both the dependent and the fundamental are like this. Response must correspond to the capacity of the recipient; how could it be otherwise! A single thought, from the perspective of phenomena, is the Land of Tranquil Light (Śāntiprabha); from the perspective of principle, the two must be mutually inclusive, hence the mutual examples. 3. 'Sentient beings below' explains the interaction of the Way (道交, Dàojiāo) from the perspective of mutual possession. Since the three (principle, wisdom, and practice) are without difference, response and interaction are mutually inclusive. Sentient beings sense other Buddhas in their minds; Buddhas respond to other sentient beings in their minds. If it were not so, how could they all be liberated in a single thought? 2. 'Otherwise below' uses analogy to reveal, in two parts: First, explaining in accordance with the analogy. The three thousand realms of the Buddhas are the principle of manifesting phenomena; the three thousand realms of sentient beings are the nature of producing phenomena. If it were not so, there could be no immediate sensing and responding, no spontaneous transformation. Second, 'If below' uses a reverse analogy. Using a clear mirror to represent the principle of all-pervasiveness, thereby revealing the principle in reverse. The meaning is that if it does not manifest, it could be said that the principle of the mirror is limited, and cannot penetrate all things. Buddhas are enlightened to the principle; sentient beings exist in phenomena. The three thousand realms are fully complete in principle. If a single capacity knocks and does not receive a response, then it could be said that the three thousand realms are mutually deficient. Since there is no such principle, then the previous meaning is well established. This still explains the hidden doubt. Why? Because most sentient beings do not see the Buddha, so it is said that if there is a separation from the mirror, perhaps there is this reason. That is, a capacity with heavy karmic obstacles arises, called separation from the mirror. The maturation of the capacity is called correspondence. If there is correspondence, there will ultimately be no non-manifestation. However, the word 'not penetrate' (未通, wèitōng) must be a mistake; it should be 'does not penetrate' (不通, bùtōng). Even if moved to the next sentence, the wording is slightly inconvenient. The wise should consider this carefully. 2. 'If the mirror below' explains that the merit of contemplation and practice can then be revealed, in two parts: First, using analogy to highlight that the function is not achieved through merit. Therefore, know that the mind-mirror is inherently bright, and the images of the three thousand realms are inherently possessed. The reason why they cannot manifest when facing objects is that they are obscured by the dust of the three delusions (見思惑, jiànsīhuò - delusions of views and thoughts; 塵沙惑, chénshāhuò - delusions like dust and sand; 無明惑, wúmínghuò - delusions of ignorance). Although removing the dust relies on the effort of understanding, the manifestation of images is entirely due to the inherent nature. This precisely explains the arising of function through contemplation of the mind. Others say that images manifest due to the capacity of the recipient; their meaning is vastly different. The main point of the method of contemplation is not only in this passage; all methods are like this, but it is simply more convenient to explain it here. Second, 'Should know below' explains the arising from the perspective of the Dharma. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
由观合。虽由缘、了须拣前三，称性圆修方名一合，功成用显设化无方。 八、三业不二门三： 初、标者，果后逗机示诸三业，四时三教谓有差殊。今经开之，唯圆法体，诸身尚即，三业岂分？故名不二。亦就心法示也。 二、于化下，释二： 初、明所显果用二： 初、约对机显逗会无差二： 初、示三轮不同。三皆秘妙，非下地知，故名为密，能转摧碾复名为轮，转己示他摧他惑业，称机示现毫发不差。 二、在身下，明真应复殊，说三权法皆是应身，若闻圆乘必见法佛，别纵睹报犹是修成，圆见应身皆唯本具，仍约四味权实，未会真应且分。 二、约称理明卷舒自在二： 初、融身说。 问：“此中法身说佛道邪？余文何故不许法身有说？” 答：“盖华严宗独谓我经是遮那说，余经皆是释迦所说。故今家会之，遮那乃是释迦异名，纵胜劣有殊，而说必是应、法定无说。若相即者，法全是应、无说即说，应全是法、说即无说。今云，法身者非离应之法，故经云：‘微妙净法身，具相三十二’等。若论即者，凡说圆教皆即法身，何独《华严》？但彼经隔小故现胜身，乃报身像而即法身。今经开权，故于应身即法身也。” 问：“现 现代汉语译本： 由观合（通过观想达到融合）。即使是因缘和了义，也必须选择前面的三种（指实相、境界、智），只有符合本性的圆满修习才能称为一合，功德成就，作用显现，设立教化才能没有局限。 八、三业不二门三： 初、标明：在果位之后，根据众生的根机来显示诸佛的三业，四时（指春夏秋冬）和三教（指儒释道）认为三业有差别。现在《圆觉经》开启了这个道理，唯有圆满的法体，诸佛之身尚且是即，三业怎么会有分别呢？所以称为不二。这也是就心法来显示的。 二、于化下，解释二： 初、说明所显的果地作用二： 初、约对机显逗会无差二： 初、显示三轮的不同。身轮、口轮、意轮三者都是秘密而微妙的，不是下地位的修行者所能了解的，所以称为‘密’，能够运转、摧伏、碾碎，所以又称为‘轮’，运转自己来开示他人，摧伏他人的迷惑和业障，根据根机来示现，丝毫没有差错。 二、在身下，说明真身和应身的差别，说三种权巧的法门都是应身所为，如果听闻圆顿之教，必定能见到法身佛，即使见到报身佛，仍然是修证而成的，圆满的见地是应身佛本来就具备的，仍然是根据四味（指乳、酪、生酥、熟酥）和权实（权教和实教）来区分，没有融会真身和应身之前，还是有所分别的。 二、约称理明卷舒自在二： 初、融身说。 问：‘这里说法身佛道吗？为什么其他经文中不允许法身说法？’ 答：‘因为华严宗独自认为《华严经》是毗卢遮那佛（Vairochana）所说，其他经典都是释迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni）所说。所以现在我们融合这两种说法，毗卢遮那佛（Vairochana）是释迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni）的异名，即使在殊胜程度上有所不同，但说法的一定是应身佛，法身佛是决定没有说法的。如果从相即的角度来看，法身完全是应身，无说就是说，应身完全是法身，说就是无说。现在说，法身不是离开应身的法身，所以经中说：‘微妙净法身，具相三十二’等等。如果从相即的角度来说，凡是说圆教的都是即法身，为什么只有《华严经》是这样呢？只是因为《华严经》隔历小乘，所以显现殊胜的报身形象而即是法身。现在《圆觉经》开启权巧，所以在应身即是法身。’ 问：‘现在’