English
English version: The practice of contemplation inherently possesses two methods: the Contemplation of Consciousness-only (唯识观, Weishi Guan) and the Contemplation of Reality (实相观, Shixiang Guan). Why is it that as soon as 'mind' is mentioned, it is immediately equated with 'principle' (理, li)? Furthermore, although the Contemplation of Reality observes the completeness of 'principle,' it is not a pure 'principle,' but rather the 'principle' that is inherent in phenomena, as it manifests based on the aggregates (阴, yin) and other elements. Question: If that's the case, and both contemplations rely on phenomena, how can we distinguish between what is correct and what is incorrect? Answer: The Contemplation of Reality involves realizing the inherent stillness of the mind of consciousness, where the three thousand worlds are clearly present, embodying the three truths of emptiness (空, kong), provisional existence (假, jia), and the middle way (中, zhong). The Contemplation of Consciousness-only involves illuminating the ten realms (十界, shijie) transformed by the arising of thoughts, which also embody the three truths of emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way. Therefore, the *Yi Li* (义例, Explanation of Principles) states, 'The method of contemplating the mind involves both principle and phenomena. Entering through principle, one can only attain the Dharma-nature (法性, faxing), with no other path. Entering through phenomena, one focuses solely on illuminating the four unobtainable natures of arising thoughts, also known as the mutual reflection of root and branch, the non-duality of phenomena and principle.' It should also be understood that just as these two contemplations apply to the inner mind, they also apply to the external environment. These are all meanings from the texts of *Zhi Guan* (止观, Cessation and Contemplation) and *Fu Xing* (辅行, Commentary on Cessation and Contemplation), not something I fabricated. Some say that the true mind possesses three thousand dharmas, but that refers to the *tathata* (真如, the thusness or suchness of reality), called the inconceivable realm, not the aggregates, entrances, and realms. The *Jin Pi* (金錍, Golden Scalpel) says, 'Indirectly pointing aims to reveal pure *tathata*,' so how can one cling to a partial understanding? Furthermore, it is said, 'Does the 'mind' of 'only mind' refer only to the *tathata* mind? One must know that the mind of afflictions is also pervasive.' The *First Record* states that exclusively focusing on principle to break through the nine realms is the doctrine of the Distinct Teaching (别教, biejiao). How can every sentence refer only to the true mind? Moreover, here, 'one thought' is labeled and explained as the one-nature *tathata*, while later passages often use a moment to clarify the completeness of three thousand, should that also be explained as *tathata*? Question: Since the *Yongjia Ji* (永嘉集, Collection of Yongjia) uses the current Tiantai (天台) contemplation method, and its *samatha* (奢摩他, calming meditation) states, 'One thought is the self-nature of spiritual knowing,' and others' views align with this, why do you say it's incorrect? Answer: That text first realizes the inherent stillness of the roots and dusts, continuously applying effort, knowing to abandon attachment to objects, and only then does the one thought of spiritual knowing manifest. Therefore, it is known that their 'one thought' is entirely revealed by the wonderful cessation. Otherwise, why would one thought appear only after the five thoughts have ceased? How do the five thoughts cease in the first place? How can their corresponding 'one thought' be compared to the momentary thought we are discussing now? Moreover, *samatha* specifically uses wonderful cessation to pacify the mind, while *vipassana* (毗钵舍那, insight meditation) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 别用妙观安心，优毕叉方乃总用止观，故出观体中一念，正是今之阴识一念也。何者？彼文序中先会定慧同宗，法尔中乃云故即心为道，可谓寻流得源矣。故出观体云，只知一念即空不空、非空非不空。言只知者，乃即体(止也)了(观也)理，今刹那是三谛理，不须专亡根境显其灵知，亦不须深推缘生求其空寂，故云只知，此乃即心为道也。若奢摩他观成，显出自性一念，何用更修三观？” 问：“彼云，若于相应一念起五阴者，仍以二空破之，那云不更修观？” 答：“于真知起阴、以观破之，不起阴者何用观之？彼二空观乃是观阴，非观真知。故知解一千从、迷一万惑。若欲广引教文验其相违，不可令尽，书倦且止。” 二、违义者。 问：“据上所引众教，虽见相违，且如立此十门，欲通妙理亡于名相，若一念属事，岂但通事，将不违作者意乎？” 答：“立门近要则妙理可通，若夐指真如，初心如何造趣？依何起观邪？今立根尘一刹那心，本具三千即空假中，称此观之，即能成就十种妙法，岂但解知而已！如此方称作者之意。若也偏指清净真如、偏唯真心，则杜初心入路，但滋名相之境。故第一记云，本虽久远，圆顿虽实，第一义虽理，望观属事。他谓圆谈法性便是观心， { "translations": [ "现代汉语译本：\n别用妙观安心，优毕叉方（Upayakauśalya，方便善巧）乃是总用止观，所以从观的本体中生起的一念，正是现在所说的阴识一念。为什么这么说呢？因为那篇文章的序言中先是会合定慧同宗，在‘法尔’中又说‘故即心为道’，可以说是寻流得源了。所以从观的本体中说，‘只知一念即空不空、非空非不空’。说‘只知’，就是即体（止也）了（观也）理，现在刹那便是三谛理，不需要专门亡根境来显现其灵知，也不需要深入推究缘生来求其空寂，所以说‘只知’，这便是即心为道了。如果奢摩他（Śamatha，止）观成就，显出自性一念，哪里还需要再修三观呢？”\n\n“问：他那里说，‘如果于相应一念生起五阴，仍然用二空破除它’，那怎么说不需要再修观呢？”\n\n“答：对于从真知生起的五阴，用观来破除它，没有生起五阴的，哪里需要用观呢？那二空观乃是观五阴，不是观真知。所以说理解一千条道理，反而会迷惑一万种事物。如果想要广泛引用经文来验证其是否相违背，那是说不完的，就此停笔吧。”\n\n“二、违背义理的地方。”\n\n“问：根据上面所引用的众多教义，虽然看起来互相违背，但比如设立这十门，是想要通达妙理而忘却名相，如果一念属于事相，岂止是通达事相，恐怕会违背作者的本意吧？”\n\n“答：设立门径，接近要点，那么妙理就可以通达，如果远远地指向真如，初学者如何造诣趋向？依靠什么来起观呢？现在设立根尘一刹那心，本来就具备三千即空假中，依照这个来观照它，就能成就十种妙法，岂止是理解知道而已！这样才符合作者的本意。如果偏执于清净真如、偏执于唯有真心，那么就堵塞了初学者入门的道路，只会滋长名相的境界。所以第一记中说，根本虽然久远，圆顿虽然真实，第一义虽然是理，但从观的角度来说，是属于事相的。他们认为圆谈法性便是观心，", "English version:\nDon't use妙观 (Miàoguān, Wondrous Contemplation) to settle the mind. Upayakauśalya (方便善巧, skillful means) is the general use of Śamatha-Vipassanā (止观, cessation and contemplation). Therefore, the single thought arising from the essence of contemplation is precisely the single thought of the Ālaya-consciousness (阴识, consciousness of the base). Why is this so? Because the preface of that text first unites Samādhi (定, concentration) and Prajñā (慧, wisdom) as being of the same origin, and in '法尔' (Fǎ'ěr, Suchness) it says 'therefore, taking the mind as the path,' which can be said to be finding the source by tracing the stream. Therefore, from the essence of contemplation, it says, 'Only knowing that a single thought is both empty and not empty, neither empty nor not empty.' Saying 'only knowing' means immediately embodying (cessation) and understanding (contemplation) the principle. Now, a kṣaṇa (刹那, instant) is the principle of the Three Truths (三谛, three aspects of truth), so there is no need to specifically eliminate the sense bases and objects to reveal its spiritual awareness, nor is there a need to deeply investigate dependent origination to seek its emptiness and stillness. Therefore, it says 'only knowing,' which is taking the mind as the path. If Śamatha (奢摩他, calming the mind) contemplation is accomplished, revealing a single thought of self-nature, why would one need to further cultivate the Three Contemplations (三观, three kinds of contemplation)?”\n\n“Question: It says there, 'If the five skandhas (五阴, five aggregates) arise from a corresponding single thought, then still use the Two Emptinesses (二空, emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena) to break them.' Then how can you say that there is no need to further cultivate contemplation?”\n\n“Answer: For the five skandhas arising from true knowledge, use contemplation to break them. For those that do not arise, what is the use of contemplation? That Two Emptinesses contemplation is contemplating the five skandhas, not contemplating true knowledge. Therefore, understanding a thousand principles can lead to confusion about ten thousand things. If you want to widely cite scriptures to verify their contradictions, it is impossible to exhaust them. Let us stop writing for now.”\n\n“Two, places where the meaning is violated.”\n\n“Question: According to the many teachings cited above, although they appear contradictory, such as establishing these ten gates, it is to penetrate the wondrous principle and forget about names and forms. If a single thought belongs to phenomena, wouldn't it not only penetrate phenomena but also violate the author's intention?”\n\n“Answer: Establishing gates close to the essentials allows the wondrous principle to be penetrated. If you point far away to the Tathatā (真如, suchness), how can beginners achieve and approach it? What can they rely on to start contemplation? Now, establishing the mind of a single kṣaṇa (刹那, instant) of the sense bases and objects inherently possesses the Three Thousand Worlds in a Single Thought (三千, three thousand realms) which is emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way. Contemplating it accordingly can accomplish ten kinds of wondrous dharmas, not just understanding and knowing! Only in this way does it align with the author's intention. If you are biased towards pure Tathatā (真如, suchness), biased towards only the true mind, then you block the path for beginners to enter, only increasing the realm of names and forms. Therefore, the first record says that although the root is ancient, the perfect and sudden teaching is real, and the first principle is the truth, from the perspective of contemplation, it belongs to phenomena. They think that talking about the Dharma-nature (法性, nature of phenomena) is contemplating the mind," "" ] } --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
为害非少。今问：一念真知为已显悟？为现在迷？若已显悟，不须修观，十乘观法将何用邪？若现在迷，全体是阴。故《金錍》云，诸佛悟理，众生在事。既其在事，何名真净？然谁不知全体是清，其奈浊成本有！应知观心大似澄水，若水已清何须更澄，若水未清须澄浊水。故《辅行》释以识心为妙境云，今文妙观观之令成妙境，境方称理。又解安于世谛云，以止观安故，世谛方成不思议境。故知心虽本妙，观未成时且名阴、入，为成妙故用观体之。若拨弃阴心，自观真性，正当偏指清净真如之责，复招缘理断九之讥。且如今欲观心，为今刹那便具三千，为须真如体显方具三千；若即刹那，何不便名阴心为于妙境，而须立真心邪？又大师亲令观于阴等诸境，及观一念无明之心，何违教邪？应是宗师立名诠法未的，故自别立邪！又若谓此中一念不同止观所观阴等诸心者，此之十门因何重述？观法大体、观行可识，斯言谩设也。又中谛一实别判属心，与总真心如何拣邪？心性二字不异而异，既言不变随缘名心，即理之事也，随缘不变名性，即事之理也，今欲于事显理，故双举之，例此合云不变随缘名佛，随缘不变名性，生性亦然。应知三法俱事俱理，不同他解心则约理为通、生佛约事为别，此乃他家解心佛众生之义。不深 本教，滥用他宗，妨害既多，旨趣安在？” 一性等者，性虽是一而无定一之性，故使三千色心相相宛尔，此则从无住本立一切法，应知若理若事皆有此义。故第七记释此文云，理则性德缘了，事则修德三因，迷则三道流转，悟则果中胜用，如此四重，并由迷中实相而立。今释曰，迷中实相即无住本，乃今文一性无性也，上之四重即立一切法，乃今文三千宛然也。第一重既以性德缘了为一切法，须以正因为无住本，余之三重既将逆顺二修为一切法，必以性德三因为无住本，此即理事两重总别也。 问：“既以迷中实相为一性，对三千为别，正当以理为总，何苦破他？” 答：“以三千法同一性故，随缘为万法时，趣举一法总摄一切也。众生无始全体在迷，若唯论真性为总，何能事事具摄诸法？而专举一念者，别从近要立观慧之境也。若示一念总摄诸法，则显诸法同一真性。故《释签》云，俗即百界千如，真则同居一念。须知同一性故，方能同居一念，故以同居一念用显同一真性，非谓便将一念名为真谛，岂同居一尘非真谛邪？今文以一性为总，前后文以一念为总，盖理事相显也。此之二句，正出摄别入总之所以也，由一性无性立理事三千故，故两重三千同居一念也，岂同他释直以一念名真性邪？” 现代汉语译本： 问：‘你们的教义，滥用其他宗派的理论，造成很多妨碍，其根本宗旨究竟是什么？’ 答：‘所谓‘一性等’，是指‘性’虽然是唯一的，但并没有固定不变的‘一’的性质。因此，才能使三千种色法和心法相互宛然存在。这便是从‘无住本’建立一切法。应该知道，无论是理还是事，都包含这个道理。’所以，《第七记》解释这段经文说：‘从理上说，是性德缘了；从事上说，是修德三因；迷惑时，是三道流转；觉悟时，是果中的殊胜作用。’这四重境界，都是由迷惑中的实相而建立的。现在解释说，迷惑中的实相就是‘无住本’，也就是现在经文所说的‘一性无性’。上面的四重境界就是‘立一切法’，也就是现在经文所说的‘三千宛然’。第一重境界既然以性德缘了为一切法，就必须以正因为‘无住本’；其余的三重境界既然将逆修和顺修为一切法，就必须以性德三因为‘无住本’。这就是理事两重境界的总别关系。 问：‘既然以迷惑中的实相为‘一性’，对应三千法为差别，正应当以理为总，为什么还要破斥其他宗派的观点呢？’ 答：‘因为三千法同一‘性’，所以随顺因缘而成为万法时，只要举出一个法，就能总摄一切法。众生从无始以来，全体都处于迷惑之中，如果只谈真性为总，怎么能事事都包含诸法呢？而专门举出一个念头，是从接近且重要的角度建立观慧的境界。如果显示一个念头总摄诸法，就能显现诸法同一真性。’所以，《释签》说：‘从俗谛来说，就是百界千如；从真谛来说，就是同居一念。’要知道，因为同一‘性’，才能同居一念，所以用同居一念来显示同一真性，而不是说就把一个念头称为真谛。难道同居一尘就不是真谛了吗？现在经文以‘一性’为总，前后文以‘一念’为总，这是理事相互显现。这两句话，正是说明摄别入总的原因。由于‘一性无性’建立了理事三千，所以两重三千同居一念，难道像其他解释那样直接把一个念头称为真性吗？’