English
English version: Someone asked: 'Why do people only say that all Buddhas of the ten directions have the same Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body), powers, fearlessness, etc., but not say that sentient beings and Buddhas also have the same Dharmakaya, powers, fearlessness, etc., so that every dust and every mind is full of the seeds of the nature of the three bodies (法身, Dharmakaya; 报身, Sambhogakaya; 应身, Nirmanakaya) and the three virtues (法身德, virtue of Dharmakaya; 般若德, virtue of Prajna; 解脱德, virtue of liberation)? If it is said that only the Buddhas in the fruition stage have the Dharmakaya nature, then why do the scriptures say that the Buddhas have the ten powers, fearlessness, and even various marks and characteristics? Moreover, in the scriptures, regarding icchantikas (阐提, those who have severed their roots of goodness), the nature of Buddha is debated using four phrases. You (the questioner) say that sentient beings have Buddha-nature, then what kind of Buddha-nature do sentient beings have? Do tiles and stones not have these four phrases of debate?' Also, like the sixth, ninth, and thirty-second chapters of the Nirvana Sutra, they all use mixed blood and five flavors to compare ordinary people, the three vehicles, and the Buddhas. Why does the Buddha-nature differ and diminish in different people? Also, the twenty-seventh chapter says that if one cultivates the Eightfold Path, one will see the Buddha-nature. The Abhidharma-kosa and the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra both have the Eightfold Path, and even various scriptures have the Bodhipaksa-dharmas (道品, factors of enlightenment). Then, what kind of Eightfold Path should one cultivate to see what kind of Buddha-nature? Therefore, I do not know whether the Buddha-nature progresses or regresses. The guest said: 'Why do the provisional teachings (权教, expedient teachings) not say that the causal conditions of auxiliary cause (缘因, condition cause) and direct cause (了因, enabling cause) are pervasive?' I replied: 'Sentient beings have been attached to 'I' and 'mine' since beginningless time, so we can only instruct them from the things they are attached to, and we should not say that everything is pervasive from the beginning. The Nirvana Sutra speaks of the real with expedient means, so it can use emptiness to compare the direct cause, but it does not compare the auxiliary cause and the enabling cause. If the teachings are entirely expedient, then the three causes (正因, direct cause; 缘因, condition cause; 了因, enabling cause) will all be limited. Just like a beginner in the separate teaching (别教, distinct teaching) will feel limited when hearing about the direct cause, the Tathagatagarbha-nature (藏性, Tathagatagarbha nature), and the Dharma-nature (理性, Dharma nature) are all like this. Therefore, for those without wisdom, hearing that inanimate objects do not have Buddha-nature will make them even more confused. Relying on delusion to show delusion, saying that inanimate objects can create; adhering to expedient means to establish the nature, saying that what inanimate objects create is not the Buddha-nature.' Moreover, there have already been many examples of manifesting the sudden teaching (顿教, sudden teaching) in the teachings of a lifetime, such as the non-duality of the environment and the reward in the Avatamsaka Sutra, the non-difference of the three wisdoms of Samantabhadra and Samantanakacaksu, the complete interpenetration of defilement and purity in the Mahasamnipata Sutra, the inconceivable pores of Vimalakirti containing everything, the Surangama Samadhi Sutra and the Net of Brahma Sutra saying that there is no Dharma that is not the Dharma-realm, the Prajna Sutras saying that all Dharmas are mixed and non-dual, and the Lotus Sutra saying that the reality from beginning to end is suchness. The Nirvana Sutra only prevents erroneous attachments in the Dharma-ending age, so it separately points out the direct cause, auxiliary cause, and enabling cause, and separately indicates the directions. If one is attached to the real and confused about the expedient, one will lose the real; if one is attached to the expedient and confused about the real, then both the expedient and the real will be lost. I see that you still do not understand the 'mind-only' of the Hinayana, so you do not understand the 'no realm outside the mind' of the Mahayana. The guest said: 'Is the Nirvana Sutra merely speaking with expedient means?' I replied: 'Generally speaking, the entire sutra is speaking with expedient means. But in the specific chapters of the sutra, some are real and some are expedient. For example, the questions of Kashyapa Bodhisattva are only for a certain capacity in the Dharma-ending age.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。则权实并明。若一向权。如恒河中七种众生。若一向实。如三点二鸟三慈十德等。他皆准知不可具述。如云色常。色言岂不收于一切依正。何故制空令局限耶。此世人不知教之权实。如二乘人处处闻大。尚至法华方信己性。悔来至此财非己有。此岂非子不知父性耶。闻开权已。方云口生化生有分。故涅槃中犹恐未来一分有情不信己身有如来性及谓阐提未来永断。示令知有及以不断。岂部内诸文全无顿耶。今搜求现未建立圆融。不弊性无。但困理壅故于性中点示体遍。傍遮。偏指清净真如。尚失小真佛性安在。他不见之空论无情性之有无。不晓一家立义大旨。故达唯心了体具者焉有异同。若不立唯心一切大教全为无用。若不许心具圆顿之理乃成徒施。信唯心具。复疑有无。则疑己心之有无也。故知一尘一心即一切生佛之心性。何独自心之有无耶。以共造故。以共变故。同化境故。同化事故。故世不知教之权实。以子不思佛性之名从何教立。无情之称局在何文。已如前说。余患世迷恒思点示。是故寱言无情有性。何谓点示。一者示迷元从性变。二者示性令其改迷。是故且云无情有性。若分大小。则随缘不变之说出自大教。木石无心之语。生于小宗。子欲执小道而抗大逵者其犹螳螂乎。何殊井蛙乎。故子应知。万法是真如 。由不变故。真如是万法。由随缘故。子信无情无佛性者。岂非万法无真如耶。故万法之称宁隔于纤尘。真如之体何专于彼我。是则无有无波之水。未有不湿之波。在湿讵间于混澄。为波自分于清浊。虽有清有浊。而一性无殊。纵造正造依。依理终无异辙。若许随缘不变。复云无情有无。岂非自语相违耶。故知。果地依正融通。并依众生理本故也。此乃事理相对以说。若唯从理。只可云水本无波。必不得云波中无水。如迷东为西。只可云东处无西。终不得云西处无东。若唯从迷说则波无水名。西失东称。情性合譬思之可知。无情有无例之可见。 于是野客恭退吴跪而咨曰。波水之譬其理实然。仆曾闻人引大智度论。云真如在无情中但名法性。在有情内方名佛性。仁何故立佛性之名。余曰。亲曾委读细捡论文都无此说。或恐谬引章疏之言世共传之。泛为通之。此乃迷名而不知义。法名不觉。佛名为觉。众生虽本有不觉之理。而未曾有觉不觉智。故且分之令觉不觉。岂觉不觉不觉犹不觉耶。反谓所觉离能觉耶。 客曰。若尔至佛方会。凡离何乖。余曰。子为学佛。为学凡耶。理本无殊。凡谓之离。故示众生令觉不觉。故觉不觉自会一如。故知。觉无不觉不名佛性。不觉无觉法性不成。觉无不觉佛性宁立。是则 现代汉语译本：由于不变的缘故，真如（Tathata，事物的真实本性）就是万法（一切事物和现象）。由于随缘的缘故，如果有人相信无情之物没有佛性，那岂不是说万法都没有真如了吗？所以，万法的称谓不会被微小的尘埃所隔断，真如的本体又何必专属于彼此呢？这样说来，就没有没有波浪的水，也没有不湿润的波浪。在湿润的状态下，哪里能区分浑浊和清澈？因为有了波浪才有了清澈和浑浊的区分。即使有清澈有浑浊，但水的本性没有差别。纵然造作了正报和依报，依据真理来说，最终也没有不同的轨迹。如果允许随缘而不变，又说无情之物有或无佛性，这岂不是自相矛盾吗？所以要知道，果地的依报和正报是融通的，都是依据众生的理本来存在的。这只是从事理相对的角度来说。如果只从理的角度来说，只能说水本来没有波浪，一定不能说波浪中没有水。如同迷失了东方而认为是西方，只能说东方没有西方，最终不能说西方没有东方。如果只从迷惑的角度来说，那么波浪就没有水的名称，西方失去了东方的称谓。情与性的比喻，思考一下就可以知道；无情之物有或无佛性的例子，类比一下就可以明白。 于是野客恭敬地退下，吴跪着请教说：‘波浪和水的比喻，这个道理确实如此。我曾经听人引用《大智度论》，说真如在无情之物中只称为法性，在有情之物中才称为佛性。您为什么还要立佛性的名称呢？’我回答说：‘我曾仔细阅读并检查过原文，都没有这种说法。或许是错误地引用了章疏的言论，世人共同传扬，泛泛地把它当成通用的说法。这只是迷惑于名称而不知道它的含义。法名为不觉，佛名为觉。众生虽然本来具有不觉的理，但从未有过觉或不觉的智慧，所以暂且区分它们，使之有觉与不觉。难道觉与不觉，不觉仍然是不觉吗？反而认为所觉的离开了能觉的吗？’ 客人说：‘如果这样，要到成佛才能领会，凡夫和佛有什么差别呢？’我回答说：‘你是为了学佛，还是为了学凡夫呢？理的本性没有差别，凡夫认为有差别，所以才向众生展示，让他们觉悟不觉。所以觉与不觉自然会合为一体。所以要知道，觉悟没有不觉，就不能称为佛性；不觉没有觉悟，法性就不能成立；觉悟没有不觉，佛性怎么能成立呢？这样说来，’
English
English version: Because of immutability, True Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of things) is the myriad dharmas (all things and phenomena). Because of conditioned arising, if someone believes that inanimate objects have no Buddha-nature, wouldn't that mean that the myriad dharmas have no True Suchness? Therefore, the names of the myriad dharmas are not separated by tiny dust particles, and why should the substance of True Suchness belong exclusively to self and other? In this way, there is no water without waves, and no wave that is not wet. In the state of wetness, where can one distinguish between turbidity and clarity? It is because of the waves that there is a distinction between clarity and turbidity. Even if there is clarity and turbidity, the nature of water is no different. Even if one creates the primary and secondary retributions, according to the truth, there are ultimately no different paths. If one allows conditioned arising without change, and then says that inanimate objects have or do not have Buddha-nature, isn't this self-contradictory? Therefore, one should know that the dependent and direct retributions of the fruition ground are interconnected, and they all exist according to the fundamental principle of sentient beings. This is only speaking from the perspective of the relativity of phenomena and principle. If one only speaks from the perspective of principle, one can only say that water originally has no waves, and one must not say that there is no water in the waves. Just as one is lost in the east and thinks it is the west, one can only say that there is no west in the east, and one must not say that there is no east in the west. If one only speaks from the perspective of delusion, then the wave has no name of water, and the west loses the name of east. The analogy of emotion and nature can be understood by thinking about it; the example of whether inanimate objects have Buddha-nature or not can be understood by analogy. Then, the rustic guest respectfully withdrew, and Wu knelt down and asked: 'The analogy of waves and water, this principle is indeed so. I once heard someone quote the *Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra* (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom), saying that True Suchness in inanimate objects is only called Dharma-nature, and only in sentient beings is it called Buddha-nature. Why do you still establish the name of Buddha-nature?' I replied: 'I have carefully read and checked the original text, and there is no such statement. Perhaps it is a mistaken quotation from the words of commentaries, which the world commonly spreads and vaguely regards as a common saying. This is just being confused by the name and not knowing its meaning. Dharma is called non-awakening, and Buddha is called awakening. Although sentient beings originally have the principle of non-awakening, they have never had the wisdom of awakening or non-awakening, so they are temporarily distinguished to make them have awakening and non-awakening. Is it that awakening and non-awakening, non-awakening is still non-awakening? On the contrary, do you think that what is awakened is separated from what can be awakened?' The guest said: 'If so, one must reach Buddhahood to understand, what is the difference between ordinary people and Buddhas?' I replied: 'Are you learning to be a Buddha, or are you learning to be an ordinary person? The nature of principle is no different, ordinary people think there is a difference, so it is shown to sentient beings to make them awaken to non-awakening. Therefore, awakening and non-awakening will naturally merge into one. Therefore, one should know that awakening without non-awakening cannot be called Buddha-nature; non-awakening without awakening cannot establish Dharma-nature; how can Buddha-nature be established without awakening and non-awakening? In this way,' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------