English
English version: Previously, it was agreed that all dharmas do not lose their own self-nature, which is from the perspective of 'difference'. Now, it is explained that all dharmas tend towards the kshana (moment), which is from the perspective of 'totality'. Not losing its own self-nature all day long, it also tends towards the kshana all day long. The dharmas inherent in nature, totality and difference encompass each other; the dharmas arising from conditions, totality and difference are also like this. It is not to say that 'difference' is discussed from the perspective of phenomena, and 'totality' is discussed from the perspective of principle. Moreover, it should also be known that whether it is phenomena or principle, it takes one thought in phenomena as 'totality', because sentient beings are attached to phenomena and have not realized the principle, so they must rely on the skandha-mind to manifest the subtle principle. Question: 'They say that one thought is one nature, one thought is spiritual knowing, and the nature-essence is always tranquil. They also say that nature is one thought, believing that the mind-nature is spiritual and tranquil, nature is the Dharmakāya (the Dharma-body of the Buddha), spiritual is Prajñā (wisdom), and tranquil is Moksha (liberation from samsara). They also say, 'one thought is true knowing, a wonderful essence.' They also say, 'including my one thought of pure spiritual knowing.' According to these texts, it directly points to one thought in the text, named true pure spiritual knowing, which is from the perspective of principle. Now it is said to belong to phenomena, which is skandha-āyatana-dhātu (the five aggregates, twelve entrances, and eighteen realms). What is the difference between what they point to?' Answer: 'This teacher only explained this one thought from the perspective of principle, which led to a contradiction with the meaning of the texts of one school (Tiantai). Moreover, the places that violate the meaning of the texts are: First, it violates the Xuan Wen (Profound Text, i.e., *Fa Hua Xuan Yi*). He judged that Citta-dharma (mind-dharma) is fixed in the cause position, Buddha-dharma (Buddha-dharma) is fixed in the effect position, and Sattva-dharma (sentient being-dharma) generally passes through cause and effect, and the second analysis is limited to the cause position. He is attached to the fact that Citta-dharma is true nature, so he established his own theory that the mind is neither cause nor effect. It also hinders the sentence 'fixed in the cause', and he established his own theory that it is judged as the cause from the perspective of being able to create all dharmas, and the Buddha is fixed in the effect position because the study and enlightenment have reached the ultimate as the effect. Now ask: Since the characteristics of dharmas are judged separately by cause and effect, why are cause and effect not relative? If the effect comes from enlightenment, the cause must point to confusion. Why do you establish your own theory that principle can create phenomena as the cause? Since they are not relative, why is it called separation and judgment? It also violates the meaning of the *Avatamsaka Sutra* (Flower Garland Sutra) of mind-made, in which the Bodhisattva Rulai Lin (Tathagata Forest) said in a verse: 'The mind is like a painter, creating all kinds of skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute sentient beings), in all the worlds, there is nothing that it does not create. Like the mind, so is the Buddha, like the Buddha, so are sentient beings, the mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings, these three are not different.' *Fu Xing* (Supplement to the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) explains that there are two kinds of mind-made, one is about principle, creation is completeness, and the other is... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
约事，即三世变。造等心法既有二造，经以心例于佛，复以佛例于生，故云‘如心佛亦尔，如佛众生然’，是则三法各具二造方无差别，故荆溪云，不解今文如何销偈‘心造一切三无差别’？何忽独云心造诸法得名因邪？据他所释，心法是理，唯论能具能造，生佛是事，唯有所具所造，则心造之义尚亏，无差之文永失矣。又若约能造释因，则三法皆定在因，以皆有二造故。此文应今家立义纲格，若迷此者，一家教旨皆翻倒也，焉将此解定教文之欠剩邪！ “二、违《大意》及《金刚錍》。他自引云，随缘不变名性，不变随缘名心。引毕乃云，今言心即真如不变性也。今恐他不许荆溪立义。何者？既云不变随缘名心，显是即理之事，那得直作理释？若云，虽随缘边属事，事即理故，故指心为不变性者。佛法生法岂不即邪？若皆即理，何独指心名不变性？故《金錍》云：‘真如是万法，由随缘故，万法是真如，由不变故。’故知若约万法即理，则生佛、依正俱理，皆不变故，何独心是理邪？若据众生在事，则内外色心俱事，皆随缘故，何独心非事邪？他云，生佛是因果，法心非因果。验他直指心法名理，非指事即理，生佛二事会归心故方云即理，亦非当处即具三千。是知他师虽引唯色之言，亦只曲成唯真心尔。况复 现代汉语译本： 关于约事，指的是三世的变化。既然造等心法具有两种‘造’，经文以心来比拟佛，又以佛来比拟众生，所以说‘如心佛亦尔，如佛众生然’，这样三法各自具备两种‘造’才能没有差别。因此荆溪大师说，不理解这段经文，如何解释偈颂‘心造一切三无差别’？为什么忽然只说心造诸法才能称为因呢？按照他的解释，心法是理体，只论能具能造，而生佛是事相，只有所具所造，那么心造的意义尚且有亏缺，无差别的说法就永远丧失了。而且如果按照能造来解释因，那么三法都必定在因位，因为都具有两种‘造’。这段文字应该作为我们宗派确立义理纲格的依据，如果对此迷惑不解，我们宗派的教义宗旨就会全部颠倒，又怎么能用这种理解来评判经文的欠缺或剩余呢！ 第二，违背了《大意》和《金刚錍》。他自己引用说，随缘不变叫做性，不变随缘叫做心。引用完毕后却说，现在所说的心就是真如不变的性。现在恐怕他不认可荆溪大师的立义。为什么呢？既然说不变随缘叫做心，明显是即理之事，怎么能直接作为理体来解释呢？如果说，虽然随缘的一面属于事相，但事相就是理体，所以指心为不变的性。那么佛法生法难道不也是即理的吗？如果都是即理，为什么只指心名为不变的性？所以《金錍》中说：‘真如是万法，因为随缘的缘故；万法是真如，因为不变的缘故。’所以知道如果按照万法即理，那么生佛、依正都属于理体，都是不变的缘故，为什么只有心是理体呢？如果按照众生在事相，那么内外色心都属于事相，都是随缘的缘故，为什么只有心不是事相呢？他说，生佛是因果，法心不是因果。验证他的说法，是直接指心法名为理体，而不是指事相即理体，生佛二事会归于心才能说是即理，也不是当处就具足三千。由此可知，他的老师虽然引用唯色之说，也只是勉强成就唯真心的说法罢了。更何况...
English
English version: Regarding 'yue shi' (discussing events), it refers to the changes of the three times (past, present, and future). Since the 'zao deng xin fa' (mind-creating dharma) possesses two kinds of 'zao' (creation), the sutra uses the mind to compare to the Buddha, and further uses the Buddha to compare to sentient beings, hence it says, 'As the mind is, so is the Buddha; as the Buddha is, so are sentient beings.' Thus, only when the three dharmas each possess two kinds of 'zao' can there be no difference. Therefore, Master Jingxi said, 'Without understanding this passage, how can one reconcile the verse 'The mind creates all, the three are without difference'?' Why suddenly only say that the mind creates all dharmas to be named as cause? According to his explanation, the mind-dharma is principle (li), only discussing the ability to possess and create, while sentient beings and Buddhas are phenomena (shi), only having what is possessed and created. Then the meaning of 'mind-creating' is still deficient, and the statement of 'no difference' is forever lost. Moreover, if interpreting cause according to the ability to create, then all three dharmas are definitely in the causal position, because they all possess two kinds of 'zao'. This passage should serve as the basis for our school's establishment of the framework of meaning. If one is confused about this, the doctrinal tenets of our school will be completely overturned. How can one use this understanding to judge the sutra's deficiency or surplus! Second, it contradicts the 'Da Yi' (Great Meaning) and the 'Jin Gang Bi' (Diamond Scalpel). He himself quoted, 'Following conditions without changing is called nature; not changing while following conditions is called mind.' After quoting, he then said, 'Now the mind spoken of is the unchanging nature of True Thusness (tathata).' Now, I fear that he does not acknowledge Master Jingxi's establishment of meaning. Why? Since it is said that 'not changing while following conditions is called mind,' it is clearly a phenomenon that is identical to principle. How can it be directly interpreted as principle? If it is said that although the aspect of following conditions belongs to phenomena, phenomena are identical to principle, therefore pointing to the mind as the unchanging nature. Then, are not the Buddha-dharma and the sentient being-dharma also identical to principle? If all are identical to principle, why only point to the mind as the unchanging nature? Therefore, the 'Jin Bi' says, 'True Thusness is all dharmas, because of following conditions; all dharmas are True Thusness, because of not changing.' Thus, knowing that if according to all dharmas being identical to principle, then sentient beings, Buddhas, support, and retribution all belong to principle, all being unchanging. Why is only the mind principle? If according to sentient beings being in phenomena, then internal and external form and mind all belong to phenomena, all following conditions. Why is only the mind not phenomena? He said that sentient beings and Buddhas are cause and effect, while dharma and mind are not cause and effect. Examining his statement, he directly points to mind-dharma as principle, not pointing to phenomena being identical to principle. Only when the two phenomena of sentient beings and Buddhas return to the mind can it be said to be identical to principle, and it is not that it inherently possesses three thousand at that very place. From this, it can be known that although his teacher quoted the statement of 'only form,' it is only勉强 (mian qiang) accomplishing the statement of 'only true mind.' Moreover... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
观心自具二种，即唯识观及实相观，因何才见言心便云是理？又实相观虽观理具，非清净理，乃即事之理也，以依阴等显故。” 问：“若尔，二观皆依事，如何分邪？” 答：“实相观者，即于识心体其本寂，三千宛然即空假中。唯识观者，照于起心变造十界即空假中。故《义例》云，夫观心法有理有事，从理则唯达法性更无余途，从事则专照起心四性叵得，亦名本末相映事理不二。又应知，观于内心二观既尔，观于外境二观亦然，此皆《止观》及《辅行》文意，非从臆说。他云，真心具三千法，乃指真如名不思议境，非指阴入也。《金錍》云‘旁遮偏指清净真如’，那得持偏指邪？又云，夫唯心之心岂唯真如心邪？须知烦恼心遍。第一记云，专缘理性而破九界，是别教义。那得句句唯于真心？又此标一念乃作一性真如释之，后文多就刹那明具三千，亦作真如释邪？” 问：“《永嘉集》既用今家观法，彼奢摩他云，一念即灵知自性，他立正合于彼，何谓不然？” 答：“彼文先于根尘体其本寂，作功不已，知灭对遗，灵知一念方得现前。故知彼之一念，全由妙止所显。不尔，何故五念息已一念现前？只如五念何由得息，那得将彼相应一念类今刹那念邪？况奢摩他别用妙止安心，毗钵舍那 现代汉语译本：观心的修习本身就具备两种方式，即唯识观和实相观。为什么一提到‘心’就说是‘理’呢？而且，实相观虽然观察到‘理’的具足，但并非清净之‘理’，而是即事之‘理’，因为它依赖于五阴等现象而显现。 问：如果这样，两种观法都依赖于现象，如何区分正邪呢？ 答：实相观，即在识心中体悟其本来的寂静，三千世界宛然存在，即是空、假、中三谛。唯识观，则是观照起心动念所变造的十法界，即是空、假、中三谛。《义例》中说，观心之法有理有事，从理入手，就只能通达法性，没有其他途径；从事入手，就专门观照起心动念的四性不可得，也叫做本末相映，事理不二。还应该知道，观内心是这样，观外境也是这样，这都是《止观》和《辅行》的文意，不是我凭空捏造的。有人说，真心具足三千法，那是针对真如（tathata，事物的真实如是之性）而说的，称之为不可思议境，不是指五阴、十二入、十八界。 《金錍》（Jin Pi，天台宗的重要著作）中说，‘旁敲侧击是为了显明清净真如’，怎么能执着于片面的理解呢？又说，所谓的‘唯心’之心，难道仅仅是真如之心吗？要知道烦恼心也是普遍存在的。《第一记》中说，专门缘于理性而破除九法界，这是别教的教义。怎么能句句都只说真心呢？而且这里标明‘一念’，就用一性真如来解释它，后面的文章又多用刹那来阐明具足三千，也要用真如来解释吗？ 问：《永嘉集》（Yongjia Ji，永嘉禅师的著作）既然采用了天台宗的观法，其中的奢摩他（samatha，止）说，‘一念即是灵知自性’，他人的立论正好与此相合，为什么说不对呢？ 答：那篇文章先在六根、六尘上体悟其本来的寂静，不断用功，知道灭除对境的执着，灵知的一念才能显现出来。所以知道他所说的一念，完全是由妙止所显现的。不然的话，为什么五念止息之后，一念才能现前？那么五念又是如何止息的呢？怎么能将他们相应的‘一念’，与现在所说的刹那之念相提并论呢？况且奢摩他特别使用妙止来安心，毗钵舍那（vipassana，观）