English
English version: Question: 'Your teachings, misusing the theories of other schools and causing much obstruction, what is its fundamental purpose?' Answer: 'The so-called 'one nature equality' (一性等) means that although 'nature' (性) is one, it does not have a fixed 'one' nature. Therefore, it can cause the three thousand forms of matter (色法) and mind (心法) to exist distinctly. This is establishing all dharmas from the 'non-abiding root' (无住本). It should be known that whether it is principle (理) or phenomena (事), both contain this truth.' Therefore, the 'Seventh Record' explains this passage by saying: 'In terms of principle, it is the inherent virtue of conditioned understanding (性德缘了); in terms of phenomena, it is the three causes of cultivated virtue (修德三因); when deluded, it is the cycle of the three paths (三道流转); when enlightened, it is the supreme function in the fruit (果).’ These four levels are all established from the reality (实相) in delusion. Now, it is explained that the reality in delusion is the 'non-abiding root,' which is the 'one nature non-nature' (一性无性) mentioned in the current text. The above four levels are 'establishing all dharmas,' which is the 'three thousand distinctly' (三千宛然) mentioned in the current text. Since the first level takes the inherent virtue of conditioned understanding as all dharmas, it must take the right cause (正因) as the 'non-abiding root'; since the remaining three levels take reverse and forward cultivation (逆顺二修) as all dharmas, they must take the three causes of inherent virtue as the 'non-abiding root.' This is the total and separate relationship of the two levels of principle and phenomena. Question: 'Since the reality in delusion is taken as 'one nature,' corresponding to the three thousand dharmas as difference, it should be principle as the totality. Why criticize the views of other schools?' Answer: 'Because the three thousand dharmas are of the same 'nature,' when following conditions to become myriad dharmas, just by citing one dharma, all dharmas can be totally included. Sentient beings have been entirely in delusion since beginningless time. If only true nature is discussed as the totality, how can all dharmas be included in every matter? And specifically citing one thought (一念) is to establish the realm of wisdom (观慧) from a close and important perspective. If it is shown that one thought totally includes all dharmas, then it will reveal that all dharmas are of the same true nature.' Therefore, the 'Explanation Sign' (释签) says: 'From the perspective of conventional truth (俗谛), it is the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses (百界千如); from the perspective of ultimate truth (真谛), it is dwelling in one thought (同居一念).' It should be known that because of the same 'nature,' one can dwell in one thought. Therefore, dwelling in one thought is used to reveal the same true nature, not to say that one thought is called ultimate truth. Is it not that dwelling in one dust is not ultimate truth? The current text takes 'one nature' as the totality, and the preceding and following texts take 'one thought' as the totality. This is the mutual manifestation of principle and phenomena. These two sentences precisely explain the reason for including the separate into the totality. Because 'one nature non-nature' establishes the principle and phenomena of three thousand, the two levels of three thousand dwell in one thought. Is it like other explanations that directly call one thought true nature?' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 二、当知下，就理事明谛境二： 初、约理事明三谛二：
Chinese
初、明理事心之色心者，即事明理具也。初言心者，趣举刹那也。之者，语助也。色心者，性德三千也。圆家明性既非但理，乃具三千之性也，此性圆融遍入同居刹那心中，此心之色心乃只心是三千色心，如物之八相更无前后，即同《止观》心具之义，亦向心性之义。三千色心一不可改，故名为性，此一句约理明总别，本具三千为别，刹那一念为总，以三千同一性故，故总在一念也。即心名变等者，即上具三千之心，随染净缘不变而变、非造而造，能成修中三千事相，变虽兼别、造虽通四，今即具心名变、此变名造，则唯属圆不通三教。此二句则事中总别，变造三千为别，刹那一念为总，亦以三千同一性故，故咸趣一念也。造谓体用者，指上变造即全体起用，故因前心具色心随缘变造，修中色心乃以性中三千为体，修起三千为用，则全理体起于事用，方是圆教随缘之义。故《辅行》云，心造有二种：一者约理，造即是具；二者约事，乃明三世凡圣变造。即结云，皆由理具方有事用。此文还合彼不？ 问：“变名本出《楞伽》，彼云‘不思议熏不思议变故’。造名本出《华严》，彼云‘造种种五阴’。故《华严》唯有二教，《楞伽》 二、当知下，就理事明谛境二： 接下来，应当了解，从理和事两个方面来阐明真谛之境： 初、约理事明三谛二： 首先，从理和事两个方面来说明三谛： 初、明理事心之色心者，即事明理具也。初言心者，趣举刹那（ksana）也。之者，语助也。色心者，性德三千也。圆家明性既非但理，乃具三千之性也，此性圆融遍入同居刹那心中，此心之色心乃只心是三千色心，如物之八相更无前后，即同《止观》心具之义，亦向心性之义。三千色心一不可改，故名为性，此一句约理明总别，本具三千为别，刹那一念为总，以三千同一性故，故总在一念也。即心名变等者，即上具三千之心，随染净缘不变而变、非造而造，能成修中三千事相，变虽兼别、造虽通四，今即具心名变、此变名造，则唯属圆不通三教。此二句则事中总别，变造三千为别，刹那一念为总，亦以三千同一性故，故咸趣一念也。造谓体用者，指上变造即全体起用，故因前心具色心随缘变造，修中色心乃以性中三千为体，修起三千为用，则全理体起于事用，方是圆教随缘之义。故《辅行》云，心造有二种：一者约理，造即是具；二者约事，乃明三世凡圣变造。即结云，皆由理具方有事用。此文还合彼不？ 首先，阐明理事之心中的色心，即是从事上说明理具。最初说‘心’，是为了提起刹那（ksana）。‘之’是语气助词。‘色心’指的是性德三千。圆教认为，性不仅仅是理，而是具备三千之性。这种性圆融无碍，遍入同居的刹那心中。这个心中的色心，就是心本身是三千色心，如同事物的八相没有前后之分，这与《止观》中‘心具’的含义相同，也符合心性的意义。三千色心一个都不能改变，所以称为‘性’。这句话从理上说明了总和别的关系，本来具有三千是别，刹那一念是总，因为三千具有同一的性质，所以总在一念之中。‘即心名变等’，就是说，上面所说的具有三千之心，随着染净的因缘，不变而变，非造而造，能够成就修行中的三千事相。‘变’虽然兼顾别，‘造’虽然通于四教，但现在说‘具心名变’，‘此变名造’，那么就只属于圆教，不通于三教。这两句话是从事上说明总和别的关系，变造三千是别，刹那一念是总，也是因为三千具有同一的性质，所以都趋向于一念。‘造谓体用者’，指的是上面的变造就是全体起用，所以因为前面的心具有色心，随着因缘变造，修行中的色心是以性中的三千为体，修行所起的三千为用，那么就是全体的理体起于事用，这才是圆教随缘的意义。所以《辅行》说，心造有两种：一种是从理上说，造就是具；一种是从事上说，就是阐明三世凡圣的变造。总结说，都是由于理具，才会有事用。这段文字与前面的内容相符吗？ 问：“变名本出《楞伽》（Lankavatara Sutra），彼云‘不思议熏不思议变故’。造名本出《华严》（Avatamsaka Sutra），彼云‘造种种五阴’。故《华严》唯有二教，《楞伽》 问：‘变’这个名称出自《楞伽经》（Lankavatara Sutra），其中说‘不思议熏不思议变故’。‘造’这个名称出自《华严经》（Avatamsaka Sutra），其中说‘造种种五阴’。所以《华严经》只有二教，《楞伽经》