English
English version: All in the world is nothing but emptiness facing emptiness. The Buddha's intention is to use things like tiles and stones as the counterparts to emptiness. Therefore, it is said 'facing emptiness.' In this way, all is nothing but the Tathagata (如来, Thus Come One) and the three (Tathagata, Nirvana, and permanence, bliss, self, purity). Kashyapa (迦叶) also takes the four great elements (四大, earth, water, fire, and wind) as being parallel, making emptiness become existence. Therefore, Kashyapa says: 'The world is also nothing but the four great elements facing the four great elements.' Since emptiness has no counterpart, why not call it 'existence'? Kashyapa's intention is that emptiness has no counterpart, so the scope of 'existence' is large. After this, the Buddha abandons the metaphor and extensively explains from the Dharma (法, law, teaching) that Nirvana (涅槃, extinction of suffering) is different from emptiness. If Nirvana is different, then the Tathagata and permanence, bliss, self, purity are also different from emptiness. Therefore, it is known that the sutra uses the correct cause to refute the challenge. What in all the world is not encompassed? Would it be separated from afflictions and the Two Vehicles (二乘, Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna)? What does the word emptiness not include? Would it abandon walls, tiles, stones, and other things? Later, the Buddha also said that although emptiness and Nirvana are not included in the world, Nirvana and the Tathagata have realization and insight, while emptiness is constant and unchanging, so the situation is different. Is this not the difference between the correct cause and the conditioned cause? Next, the Buddha generally shows that emptiness is not real existence. Therefore, fearing that people would mistakenly take emptiness as a metaphor for Buddha-nature, he further uses a series of ten refutations to stop this error. Initially, it is said: 'People say that emptiness is called without form, without counterpart, and invisible.' The Buddha said: 'This is precisely what is encompassed by mental functions (心所, mental factors) and the three times (三世, past, present, and future).' The language seems like mental functions, so the Buddha refutes it. People say it is within the body, what is the difference from mental functions? Secondly, heretics say: 'Emptiness is light.' The Buddha said: 'This is also form (色法, material phenomena).' People say it is within the body, what is the difference from form? Some say it is a dwelling place. People say it is within the body, is it not a dwelling place? Some say it is sequence. People say it is within the body, it must follow the body's momentary movement. Some say it is inseparable from three dharmas: one is emptiness, two is reality, and three is emptiness and reality. The Buddha said: 'If it is said to be emptiness, then there is no existence where there is being; if it is said to be reality, then there is no existence where there is emptiness; if it is said to be both emptiness and reality, then there is no existence in either place.' People say it is within the body, still lacking the two situations of externally measuring emptiness and both emptiness and reality. Some say it is action, such as leaving a house, etc. People say that the disappearance of the body corresponds to the truth, which is the same as action. Some say it is an unobstructed place. The Buddha said there is a part, there is completeness, and there is no existence in other places. People say it is within the body, and there is no existence in other places. Some say it is with... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
有并合。佛言合有三种。一如鸟投树。二如羊相触。三如二指已合。世言身内。如二指合。有云。如器中空。世言身内。何异器中。有云。所指之处。佛言。则有方面。世言身中。岂非方面。佛总结云。从因缘生皆是无常。故此一十邪计虚空非佛性喻。是无常故。三世摄故。虚空异彼遍一切处。此违迦叶问。复宗符空。以喻正因。 世人何以弃佛正教。朋于邪空。云何乃以智断果上缘了佛性。以难正因。如来是智果。涅槃是断果。故智断果上。有缘了性。所以迦叶难云。如来佛性涅槃是有。世人多引涅槃为难。故广引之以杜余论。子应不见涅槃之文。空敩世人瓦石之妨。缘了难正殊不相应。此即子不知佛性之进否也。况复以空譬正缘了犹局。如迦叶所引三皆有者。此乃涅槃带权门说。故佛顺迦叶三皆是有。若顿教实说本有三种。三理元遍。达性成修。修三亦遍。欲示众生本有正性。且云正遍犹如虚空。欲赴末代以顺迦叶。岂非迦叶知机设疑。故佛覆实述权缘了。此子不知教之权实。故涅槃中佛性之言。不唯一种。如迦叶品下文云。言佛性者。所谓十力无畏不共大悲三念三十二相八十种好。子何不引此文。令一切众生亦无。何独瓦石。若云此是果德。众生有此果性者。果性身土何不沾于瓦石等耶。又若许因有果性 现代汉语译本 有（有见）和并（并见）。佛说，合有三种：一是像鸟飞入树林；二是像羊互相碰撞；三是像两根手指合在一起。世俗所说的‘身内’，就像两根手指合在一起。有人说，像器皿中的空间。世俗所说的‘身内’，和器皿中的空间有什么不同？有人说，所指的地方（不同）。佛说，那么就有方向性了。世俗所说的‘身中’，难道没有方向性吗？佛总结说，从因缘而生的都是无常的，所以这十种邪见都以虚空来比喻佛性，这是因为无常的缘故，被过去、现在、未来三世所包含的缘故。虚空和它们不同，因为它遍一切处。这违背了迦叶（Mahākāśyapa）的提问，又宗奉符合于空，用它来比喻正因。 世人为什么舍弃佛的正教，而倾向于邪空呢？为什么用智慧来判断果地上的缘了佛性，来为难正因呢？如来（Tathāgata）是智慧之果，涅槃（Nirvana）是断德之果，所以在智果和断果之上，有缘了之性。所以迦叶（Mahākāśyapa）反驳说，如来（Tathāgata）的佛性和涅槃（Nirvana）是实有的。世人大多引用《涅槃经》来发难，所以广泛地引用它来杜绝其他议论。您应该没有看到《涅槃经》的经文，空学世人以瓦石来妨碍佛性。用缘了来为难正因，实在是不相应。这就是您不知道佛性有进退的原因。况且用空来比喻正缘了，还是有所局限。就像迦叶（Mahākāśyapa）所引用的三种都有，这只是《涅槃经》中带权巧方便的说法。所以佛顺应迦叶（Mahākāśyapa）说三种都是有。如果从顿教的真实义来说，本有三种，三理原本就周遍，达到自性而成就修德，修三也周遍。想要显示众生本有的正性，暂且说正遍犹如虚空。想要适应末法时代，顺应迦叶（Mahākāśyapa）。难道不是迦叶（Mahākāśyapa）知道时机而设置疑问吗？所以佛覆述真实义，讲述权巧方便的缘了。您不知道教法的权实，所以在《涅槃经》中关于佛性的说法，不只一种。如《迦叶品》下文说：‘所说的佛性，就是十力（daśabala）、四无畏（catuḥvaiśāradya）、十八不共法（āvenikadharma）、大悲（mahākaruṇā）、三念住（smṛtyupasthāna）、三十二相（dvātriṃśadvaralakṣaṇa）、八十种好（aśītyanuvyañjana）。’您为什么不引用这段经文，让一切众生也没有佛性，为什么单单瓦石没有佛性？如果说这是果德，众生有这种果性，那么果性、身土为什么不沾染到瓦石等事物上呢？又如果允许因地有果性。
English
English version There are 'having' (having views) and 'combining' (combining views). The Buddha said there are three kinds of combining: first, like birds flying into a forest; second, like sheep bumping into each other; third, like two fingers joined together. What the world calls 'within the body' is like two fingers joined together. Some say it's like the space inside a vessel. What difference is there between what the world calls 'within the body' and the space inside a vessel? Some say it's the place being pointed to (that is different). The Buddha said, then it has direction. Does what the world calls 'within the body' not have direction? The Buddha concluded, all that arises from conditions is impermanent, therefore these ten kinds of wrong views all use emptiness as a metaphor for Buddha-nature, because it is impermanent, because it is encompassed by the three times (past, present, future). Emptiness is different from them because it pervades all places. This contradicts Kāśyapa's (Mahākāśyapa) question and also adheres to emptiness, using it as a metaphor for the right cause. Why do people abandon the Buddha's right teaching and lean towards wrong emptiness? Why use wisdom to judge the conditioned understanding of Buddha-nature on the fruit stage to challenge the right cause? The Tathāgata is the fruit of wisdom, and Nirvana is the fruit of cessation, so on the fruit of wisdom and the fruit of cessation, there is the nature of conditioned understanding. Therefore, Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) refuted, saying that the Tathāgata's (Tathāgata) Buddha-nature and Nirvana (Nirvana) are real. Most people cite the Nirvana Sutra to raise difficulties, so it is widely cited to prevent other arguments. You should not have seen the text of the Nirvana Sutra, learning from the world to use tiles and stones to obstruct Buddha-nature. Using conditioned understanding to challenge the right cause is really inappropriate. This is because you do not know that Buddha-nature has progress and regress. Moreover, using emptiness to compare to right conditioned understanding is still limited. Just like the three things that Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) cited as all existing, this is just a provisional teaching in the Nirvana Sutra. Therefore, the Buddha complied with Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) saying that all three exist. If speaking from the true meaning of the sudden teaching, there are originally three, the three principles are originally pervasive, attaining self-nature and accomplishing cultivation, the three cultivations are also pervasive. Wanting to show sentient beings the original right nature, temporarily say that right pervasiveness is like emptiness. Wanting to adapt to the degenerate age, complying with Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa). Isn't it that Kāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa) knows the opportunity and sets up questions? Therefore, the Buddha restates the true meaning, explaining the provisional conditioned understanding. You do not know the provisional and real of the teachings, so in the Nirvana Sutra, the statements about Buddha-nature are not just one kind. As the text below the Kāśyapa Chapter says: 'What is called Buddha-nature is the ten powers (daśabala), the four fearlessnesses (catuḥvaiśāradya), the eighteen unshared dharmas (āvenikadharma), great compassion (mahākaruṇā), the three mindfulnesses (smṛtyupasthāna), the thirty-two marks (dvātriṃśadvaralakṣaṇa), and the eighty minor marks (aśītyanuvyañjana).' Why don't you cite this text, so that all sentient beings also have no Buddha-nature, why only tiles and stones have no Buddha-nature? If you say that this is the fruit virtue, and sentient beings have this fruit nature, then why don't the fruit nature, body, and land adhere to tiles and stones, etc.? Also, if you allow that there is fruit nature in the cause ground. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
者。世何但云十方诸佛同一法身力无畏等。而不云生佛亦同法身力无畏等。使一尘一心无非三身三德之性种也。若言但有果地法身性者。何故经云。十力无畏乃至相好。又复经中。阐提等人四句辩性。子云众生有性。为何众生有何等性。瓦石为复无四句耶。又第六第九及三十二。皆以杂血五味。用对凡夫三乘及佛。何故佛性在人差降不同。又二十七云。若修八正即见佛性。婆沙俱舍悉有八正。乃至诸经咸有道品。为修何八正见何佛性。故子不知佛性进否。 客曰。何故权教不说缘了二因遍耶。余曰。众生无始计我我所。从所计示未应说遍。涅槃经中带权说实。故得以空譬正。未譬缘了。若教一向权则三因俱局。如别初心闻正亦局。藏性理性一切俱然。所以博地闻无情无。依迷示迷云能造是。附权立性云所造非。又复一代已多显顿。如华严中依正不二。普贤普眼三无差别。大集染净一切融通。净名不思议毛孔含纳。思益网明无非法界。般若诸法混同无二。法华本末实相皆如。涅槃唯防像末谬执。分正缘了别指方隅。若执实迷权尚失于实。执权迷实则权实俱迷。验子尚昧小乘由心。故暗大教心外无境。 客曰。涅槃岂唯兼带说耶。余曰。约部通云一切兼带。部中品内或实或权。如申迦叶难。别为末代一机而已 现代汉语译本：有人问：‘世人为何只说十方诸佛具有相同的法身、力量和无畏等等，而不说众生和佛也具有相同的法身、力量和无畏等等，从而使一尘一心中都充满三身（法身、报身、应身）和三德（法身德、般若德、解脱德）的佛性种子呢？如果说只有果地佛才具有法身佛性，那么为何经典中说佛具有十力、无畏乃至种种相好？又在经典中，关于阐提（断善根的人）等人，用四句来辩论佛性。你（提问者）说众生具有佛性，那么众生具有什么样的佛性？瓦片石头难道就没有这四句的辩论吗？’又如《涅槃经》第六品、第九品和第三十二品，都用杂血和五味来比喻凡夫、三乘和佛，为何佛性在不同的人身上会有差别和降低呢？又如第二十七品说，如果修习八正道就能见到佛性。《婆沙论》、《俱舍论》都有八正道，乃至各种经典都有道品，那么修习什么样的八正道才能见到什么样的佛性呢？所以我不明白佛性是进步还是退步的。 客人说：‘为什么权教（方便教法）不说缘因和了因周遍一切呢？’我回答说：‘众生从无始以来就执着于‘我’和‘我的’，所以只能从他们所执着的事物来开示，不应该一开始就说周遍一切。而《涅槃经》是带着权巧方便来说真实的，所以可以用空性来比喻正因，但没有比喻缘因和了因。如果教法完全是权巧方便，那么三因（正因、缘因、了因）都会被局限。就像别教的初学者听到正因也会感到局限一样，藏性（如来藏性）、理性（法性）一切都是如此。所以对于没有智慧的人来说，听到无情没有佛性，就会更加迷惑。依据迷惑来显示迷惑，说无情能够造作；附和权巧方便来建立佛性，说无情所造作的不是佛性。’而且，一代时教中已经有很多显现顿教的例子，比如《华严经》中依报和正报是不二的，普贤菩萨和普眼菩萨的三种智慧没有差别，大乘经典中染污和清净一切都融通无碍，《维摩诘经》中不可思议的毛孔能够容纳一切，思益梵天所问经和网明菩萨所问经都说没有一法不是法界，般若经典说诸法混同没有二相，《法华经》说从本到末的实相都是如如不动的。《涅槃经》只是为了防止末法时代的谬误执着，所以才分别指出正因、缘因和了因，分别指明方向。如果执着于真实而迷惑于权巧方便，就会失去真实；如果执着于权巧方便而迷惑于真实，那么权巧方便和真实都会失去。我看你还不明白小乘的‘万法由心’，所以才会不明白大乘的‘心外无境’。 客人说：‘难道《涅槃经》仅仅是兼带权巧方便来说法吗？’我回答说：‘从整部经的总体来说，一切都是兼带权巧方便的。但在经中的具体品目中，有些是真实的，有些是权巧方便的。比如申迦叶菩萨的提问，只是为了末法时代的一种根机而已。’