Chinese
大正藏第 46 册 No. 1932 金刚錍 No. 1932 科金刚錍序 宋云间沙门净岳撰 科分大经章段。起自关内凭小山瑶。前代未闻也。吾祖章安作疏益详。至荆溪将迦叶品。分正缘了别指方隅。则权实进否晓然而明。可谓善乎派深。良哉析重也。余复以佛性周遍三千具摄而分。今文分而又分宾主问答。引文释义略无混乱。虽短胫亦可以厉法流。孺子敢当荷负矣。或曰犹牧女之添水。将非浇漓于乳味乎。不然乳益乳也。苟能钻摇醍醐可获。岂仍乳而已耶。 金刚錍(圆伊金錍。以抉四眼无明之膜。令一切处悉见遮那佛性之指。偏权疑碎加之以刚。假梦寄客立以宾主。观者恕之) 唐天台沙门湛然述 自滥沾释典。积有岁年。未尝不以佛性义经怀。恐不了之徒为苦行。大教斯立功在于兹。万派之通途。众流之归趣。诸法之大旨。造行之所期。若是而思之。依而观之。则凡圣一如色香泯净。阿鼻依正全处极圣之自心。毗卢身土不逾下凡之一念。曾于静夜久而思之思之未已。恍焉如睡。不觉寱云无情有性。仍于睡梦忽见一人云。仆野客也。容仪粗犷进退不恒。逼前平立。谓余曰。向来忽闻无情有性。仁所述耶。余曰然。 客曰。仆忝寻释教薄究根 现代汉语译本 大正藏第 46 册 No. 1932 金刚錍 No. 1932 科金刚錍序 宋 云间沙门净岳 撰 科分大经章段，起自关内凭小山瑶。前代未闻也。吾祖章安作疏益详。至荆溪将迦叶品，分正缘了别指方隅，则权实进否晓然而明。可谓善乎派深，良哉析重也。余复以佛性周遍三千具摄而分。今文分而又分宾主问答，引文释义略无混乱。虽短胫亦可以厉法流，孺子敢当荷负矣。或曰犹牧女之添水，将非浇漓于乳味乎。不然乳益乳也。苟能钻摇醍醐可获，岂仍乳而已耶。 金刚錍(圆伊金錍，以抉四眼无明之膜，令一切处悉见遮那佛性之指。偏权疑碎加之以刚，假梦寄客立以宾主。观者恕之) 唐 天台沙门湛然 述 自滥沾释典，积有岁年，未尝不以佛性义经怀。恐不了之徒为苦行，大教斯立功在于兹。万派之通途，众流之归趣，诸法之大旨，造行之所期。若是而思之，依而观之，则凡圣一如色香泯净。阿鼻依正全处极圣之自心，毗卢身土不逾下凡之一念。曾于静夜久而思之思之未已，恍焉如睡。不觉寱云无情有性。仍于睡梦忽见一人云：‘仆野客也。容仪粗犷进退不恒，逼前平立。谓余曰：向来忽闻无情有性，仁所述耶？’余曰：‘然。’ 客曰：‘仆忝寻释教薄究根’
English
English version Tripitaka Volume 46 No. 1932 Vajra Pili (Diamond Awl) No. 1932 Preface to the Classified Vajra Pili Composed by Shramana Jingyue of Yun Jian during the Song Dynasty The classification of chapters and sections of the great sutra originated from Xiao Shan Yao within the Guanzhong area. This was unheard of in previous generations. My ancestor, Zhang'an, made more detailed commentaries. When Jingxi addressed the Kashyapa chapter, he distinguished between the primary cause, the secondary conditions, and the specific directions, thereby clearly illuminating the distinction between provisional and real teachings, and the advancement or rejection thereof. It can be said that his school was profound and his analysis thorough. I further divided it based on the Buddha-nature pervading the three thousand realms. The current text divides and subdivides, presenting questions and answers between guest and host, citing texts and explaining meanings without any confusion. Even with short legs, one can still vigorously promote the Dharma. This humble one dares to take on the responsibility. Someone might say it's like a shepherdess adding water, diluting the flavor of the milk. But no, milk enhances milk. If one can drill and churn, one can obtain ghee (clarified butter). How can it merely remain milk? Vajra Pili (Diamond Awl) (The perfect Vajra Pili, used to pierce the membrane of ignorance in the four eyes, allowing one to see the indication of Vairocana's (遮那) Buddha-nature everywhere. The provisional and expedient are forcefully crushed with diamond-like strength. The guest and host are established through a borrowed dream. May the readers forgive this.) Narrated by Shramana Zhanran of Tiantai during the Tang Dynasty Since I began to study the Buddhist scriptures, many years have passed. I have always cherished the meaning of Buddha-nature in my heart. Fearing that those who do not understand might engage in fruitless ascetic practices, the great teaching is established with merit in this. It is the common path of all schools, the returning point of all streams, the great principle of all dharmas, and the aim of all practices. If one thinks about it in this way, relies on it and contemplates it, then the mundane and the sacred are one, and form and fragrance disappear into purity. Avici (阿鼻) hell and the Pure Land are entirely within the self-mind of the supremely sacred. The body and land of Vairocana (毗卢) do not exceed a single thought of the lowest mortal. I once pondered this deeply during quiet nights, and as I pondered endlessly, I vaguely felt as if I were asleep. Unknowingly, I muttered, 'Inanimate objects have Buddha-nature.' Then, in a dream, I suddenly saw a person who said, 'I am a rustic traveler. My appearance is rough, and my movements are inconsistent. I stand before you and ask: I recently heard that inanimate objects have Buddha-nature. Is that what you stated?' I replied, 'Yes.' The guest said, 'I have presumptuously sought the Buddhist teachings and superficially investigated the roots.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
源。盛演斯宗岂过双林最后极唱究竟之谈。而云佛性非谓无情。仁何独言无情有耶。余曰。古人尚云一阐提无。云无情无。未足可怪。然以教分大小其言硕乖。若云无情即不应云有性。若云有性即不合云无情。 客曰。涅槃部大。云何并列。余曰。以子不闲佛性进否教部权实。故使同于常人疑之。今且为子委引经文。使后代好引此文证佛性非无情者。善得经旨不昧理性。知余所立善符经宗。今立众生正因体遍。经文亦以虚空譬之。故三十一迦叶品云。众生佛性犹如虚空。非内非外。若内外者。云何得名一切处有。请观有之一字。虚空何所不收。故知经文不许唯内专外。故云非内外等及云如空。既云众生佛性。岂非理性正因。次迦叶问云。何名为犹如虚空。佛乃以果地无碍而答迦叶。岂非正因因果不二。由佛果答。迦叶乃以权智断果果上缘了悉皆是有。难佛空喻法喻不齐。故迦叶云。如来佛性涅槃是有。虚空应当亦是有耶。佛先顺问答。次复宗明空。 先顺问云。为非涅槃说为涅槃。非涅槃者。谓有为烦恼。为非如来说为如来。非如来者谓阐提二乘。为非佛性说为佛性。非佛性者。谓墙壁瓦砾。今问若瓦石永非。二乘烦恼亦永非耶。故知。经文寄方便教说三对治。暂说三有。以斥三非。故此文后便即结云一 现代汉语译本：源头在于盛大地演说这个宗派，难道能超过双林树下（指佛陀涅槃之地）最后宣唱究竟之谈吗？如果说佛性不是指无情之物，那么仁爱又为何独独说无情之物有佛性呢？我说，古人尚且说一阐提（断善根的人）没有佛性，说无情之物没有佛性，这并不奇怪。然而，如果从教义的大小来区分，他们的说法就大相径庭了。如果说无情之物没有佛性，就不应该说它有佛性；如果说它有佛性，就不应该说它是无情之物。 客人问：涅槃部的教义博大精深，为何要将这些说法并列在一起呢？我说，因为您不熟悉佛性是进步还是退步，也不了解教义是权宜之计还是真实究竟，所以才会像普通人一样对此感到疑惑。现在我将为您详细引用经文，以便后人能够引用这些经文来证明佛性并非无情之物，从而能够很好地理解经文的旨意，不迷惑于理性。这样，他们就会知道我所立的观点完全符合经文的宗旨。现在我确立众生的正因体性是普遍存在的，经文也用虚空来比喻它。所以，《三十一迦叶品》中说：‘众生的佛性犹如虚空，非内非外。如果说有内外之分，又怎么能称之为一切处都有呢？’请看‘有’这个字，虚空有什么不能包含呢？所以，要知道经文不允许只偏重于内部或外部。因此说‘非内外等’以及‘如空’。既然说是众生的佛性，难道不是理性的正因吗？其次，迦叶问：‘什么叫做犹如虚空？’佛陀就用果地的无碍来回答迦叶，难道不是正因和因果不二吗？由于佛陀用果地来回答，迦叶就用权智来判断果地上的缘和了知都是存在的，从而反驳佛陀用虚空来比喻，认为法和比喻并不一致。所以迦叶说：‘如来的佛性在涅槃中是存在的，那么虚空也应当是存在的吗？’佛陀先顺着迦叶的提问来回答，然后又阐明虚空的宗义。 先顺着提问回答说：‘对于不是涅槃的，说是涅槃；对于不是如来的，说是如来；对于不是佛性的，说是佛性。’不是涅槃的，指的是有为烦恼；不是如来的，指的是一阐提和二乘；不是佛性的，指的是墙壁瓦砾。现在问，如果瓦石永远不是佛性，那么二乘和烦恼也永远不是佛性吗？所以要知道，经文是借用方便教义来说明三种对治，暂时说三种‘有’，来驳斥三种‘非’。所以这段经文之后就总结说：
English
English version: The origin lies in the grand exposition of this school, can it surpass the final utterance of the ultimate teaching under the twin Sala trees (referring to the place of Buddha's Nirvana)? If it is said that Buddha-nature does not refer to insentient things, then why does benevolence uniquely say that insentient things possess Buddha-nature? I say, the ancients even said that an Icchantika (one who has severed their roots of goodness) does not have Buddha-nature, and that insentient things do not have Buddha-nature, which is not surprising. However, if we distinguish based on the magnitude of the teachings, their statements are vastly different. If it is said that insentient things do not have Buddha-nature, then it should not be said that they have Buddha-nature; if it is said that they have Buddha-nature, then it should not be said that they are insentient. The guest asked: The teachings of the Nirvana Sutra are profound, why are these statements juxtaposed? I say, because you are not familiar with whether Buddha-nature progresses or regresses, nor do you understand whether the teachings are expedient or ultimately real, which is why you doubt this like an ordinary person. Now I will quote the scriptures in detail for you, so that later generations can cite these scriptures to prove that Buddha-nature is not insentient, thereby being able to understand the essence of the scriptures well, and not be confused by rationality. In this way, they will know that the views I have established are completely in line with the purpose of the scriptures. Now I establish that the inherent nature of the true cause of sentient beings is universally present, and the scriptures also use emptiness as a metaphor for it. Therefore, it is said in the 'Thirty-one Kashyapa Chapter': 'The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is like emptiness, neither internal nor external. If there is a distinction between internal and external, how can it be called all-pervading?' Please look at the word 'is', what cannot emptiness contain? Therefore, know that the scriptures do not allow focusing only on the internal or external. Therefore, it says 'neither internal nor external, etc.' and 'like emptiness'. Since it is said to be the Buddha-nature of sentient beings, is it not the true cause of rationality? Secondly, Kashyapa asked: 'What is meant by being like emptiness?' The Buddha then answered Kashyapa with the unobstructedness of the fruition ground, is it not that the true cause and the cause and effect are non-dual? Because the Buddha answered with the fruition ground, Kashyapa used expedient wisdom to judge that the conditions and understanding on the fruition ground all exist, thereby refuting the Buddha's metaphor of emptiness, believing that the Dharma and the metaphor are not consistent. Therefore, Kashyapa said: 'The Tathagata's Buddha-nature exists in Nirvana, then should emptiness also exist?' The Buddha first answered in accordance with Kashyapa's question, and then clarified the meaning of emptiness. First, answering in accordance with the question, saying: 'For what is not Nirvana, it is said to be Nirvana; for what is not Tathagata, it is said to be Tathagata; for what is not Buddha-nature, it is said to be Buddha-nature.' What is not Nirvana refers to conditioned afflictions; what is not Tathagata refers to Icchantikas and those of the Two Vehicles; what is not Buddha-nature refers to walls, bricks, and tiles. Now I ask, if tiles and stones are never Buddha-nature, then are those of the Two Vehicles and afflictions also never Buddha-nature? Therefore, know that the scriptures use expedient teachings to explain the three antidotes, temporarily speaking of the three 'existences' to refute the three 'non-existences'. Therefore, this passage concludes by saying: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
切世间。无非虚空对于虚空。佛意以瓦石等三。以为所对。故云对于虚空。是则一切无非如来等三。迦叶复以四大为并。令空成有。故迦叶云。世间亦无非四大对四大。是有虚空无对何不名有。迦叶意以空无对。故有之大也。佛于此后舍喻从法。广明涅槃不同虚空。若涅槃不同。余二亦异。故知。经以正因结难。一切世间何所不摄。岂隔烦恼及二乘乎。虚空之言何所不该。安弃墙壁瓦石等耶。 佛后复云空与涅槃。虽俱非世摄。涅槃如来有证有见。虚空常故是故不然。岂非正与缘了不同。 次佛复宗显空非有。故恐世人以邪计空为佛性喻。更以一十复次。而遮其非。 初云。世人言虚空者。名为无色无对不可见。佛言此即心所三世所摄。语似心所。故佛破之。世言身内。何殊心所。复次外道言。虚空者即是光明。佛言亦是色法。世言身内。何殊色法。有云住处。世言身内。岂非住处。有云次第。世言身内。必须随身刹那时运。有云。不离三法。一空二实三者空实。佛言若言空者。有处无故。若言实者空处无故。若言空实二处无故。世言身内犹阙外计空及二俱。有云。作法。如去舍等。 世言身没与真相应。即同作法。有云。无碍处。佛言有分。有具余处无故。世言身内。余处则无。有云。与 现代汉语译本：世间的一切，无非是虚空与虚空相对。佛陀的意思是用瓦石等三种事物，作为虚空的对应。所以说‘对于虚空’。这样说来，一切无非是如来等三种。迦叶又以四大（地、水、火、风）为并列，使空变成有。所以迦叶说：‘世间也无非是四大与四大相对。’既然虚空没有对应，为什么不称之为‘有’呢？迦叶的意思是虚空没有对应，所以‘有’的范围就大了。佛陀在此之后舍弃比喻，从法理上广泛阐明涅槃（寂灭）不同于虚空。如果涅槃不同于虚空，那么如来和常乐我净也不同于虚空。所以知道，经文用正因来驳斥诘难。一切世间有什么不能涵盖的？难道会隔开烦恼和二乘（声闻乘和缘觉乘）吗？虚空这个词有什么不能包括的？难道会抛弃墙壁瓦石等事物吗？ 佛陀后来又说，虚空与涅槃，虽然都不属于世间所摄，但涅槃和如来有证悟和见解，虚空是恒常不变的，所以情况不同。这难道不是正因和缘了的不同吗？ 接下来，佛陀又总的显示虚空并非实有。所以恐怕世人以邪见来把虚空当作佛性的比喻，更用一十复次来遮止这种错误。 最初说：‘世人说虚空，名为无色、无对、不可见。’佛陀说：‘这正是心所（心的作用）和三世（过去、现在、未来）所摄。’言语好像是心所，所以佛陀破斥它。世人说在身内，和心所有什么不同？其次，外道说：‘虚空就是光明。’佛陀说：‘这也是色法（物质现象）。’世人说在身内，和色法有什么不同？有人说是住处。世人说在身内，难道不是住处吗？有人说是次第。世人说在身内，必须随着身体刹那时的运行。有人说，不离三种法：一是空，二是实，三是空实。佛陀说：‘如果说是空，那么有处就没有；如果说是实，那么空处就没有；如果说是空实，那么两处都没有。’世人说在身内，仍然缺少向外计度空和空实的两种情况。有人说是作法，如离开房屋等。 世人说身体消失与真理相应，就等同于作法。有人说是无碍处。佛陀说有部分，有具备，其余地方没有。世人说在身内，其余地方就没有。有人说与...