English
English version: This is about the relationship between the fist and the hand. The fist is the exploration of the hand, just as the wave is the exploration of the water. They are essentially one, not dualistic. Why use the word 'combining' ('兼')? Even if the word 'combining' is used, this 'combining' is not the worldly sense of merging. What harm is there in 'combining'? Mahāsthāmaprāpta Bodhisattva entered the stage of non-origination forbearance (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti) with the mind of Buddha-remembrance (nianfo), which embodies the fusion of Buddhism and Chan (Zen) meditation. Samantabhadra Bodhisattva was reborn in the Land of Bliss (Sukhavati) with inconceivable liberation, which embodies the fusion of Chan meditation and Buddhism. Therefore, Zen Master Yongming Yanshou said, 'Having Chan and Pure Land is like a tiger with horns.' And the Chan masters of the Yuanzhao school, adhering to the single transmission, also used the Pure Land method as a secret practice. These are all examples of being comprehensive without being dualistic, being one and yet often comprehensive. What is there to doubt? Question: In the previous explanation, the six periods of day and night referred to the Land of Bliss having no sun or moon, but only using the lotus flowers opening and the birds singing as daytime, and the lotus flowers closing and the birds roosting as nighttime. Now it is said that harmonious sounds are emitted during the six periods of day and night, so there is no time for the birds to roost. This seems inconsistent with the previous explanation. Answer: In the Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life (Amitabha Sutra), the 'roosting' of birds means stopping. Stopping means not flying, not not singing. In the bamboo forest in front of my window, a flock of sparrows roost in the evening, chirping together on time, without missing the season. This is both roosting and chirping. Moreover, the birds in the Land of Bliss are transformed by the power of the Buddha, emitting sounds to proclaim the Dharma, how can it be conceived with ordinary reasoning? Question: The commentary says that the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Sutra) is perfectly complete, and this Sutra of Immeasurable Life is partially complete. The complete totality includes the partial completeness, and the partial completeness also includes the complete totality. However, completeness has no distinction between whole and part, and if there are parts within the whole, then completeness has segments. If the part is not the whole, then completeness is not pervasive. It's like the moon in the water, a full moon in an inch of water; like the wind in the tree, a full wind in a single leaf. The part and the whole contradict each other, and the meaning of completeness cannot be established. Answer: You only know one, but not the other. Knowing that there is no whole and no part is what can be called completeness. Those who do not know think that there can be a whole and there can be a part, which is precisely the embodiment of completeness. For example, the moon is reflected in a thousand rivers, and the moon is divided into thousands of parts; the wind enters ten thousand holes, and the wind is divided into ten thousand parts. There are parts within the whole. But in reality, there are not thousands or tens of thousands, so why worry that completeness will have segments? For example, the moon in the window lattice is only a crack; the wind in the bellows is only a handful. The part is not the whole. However, the whole is the moon and the whole is the wind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
何虑圆之不遍。真如可分分而证。无明可分分而断。即全而分。即分而全。亦何碍焉。故华严号大不思议。维摩号小不思议。即此全摄彼。彼分摄此之义也。既不思议。故无全无分。而又可全可分也。是乃所以为圆极之教也。胡可以常情测之也。 △复次。孟子曰。孔子圣之时者也。时。即儒之圆也。而子夏子游子张。各有圣人之一体。冉牛闵子颜渊。则具体而微。信如全中有分。圆则有段。未闻孔子之圆。因各得其一体者。而遂割截成段也。信如分中非全。圆则不遍。未闻孔子之圆。因一体非全体者。而遂局隘不遍也。若云圆自属具体者。然具体而微。微对巨得名。巨与微。即全与分之谓也。是故圆全摄此。此分摄圆。圭峰所以楷定圆觉者。万世不易之至论也。比而例之。孔子全摄诸贤。诸贤分摄孔子。亦犹是矣。又何疑焉。 问。能诠体性。其随识门四句。末云非本非影。夫非本非影。顿也。顿则八识俱空。而列之随识门。何也。 答。圭峰本清凉所叙十体。约之为四。予以其简而明。故全用之。清凉疏云。取楞伽等经顿教中义。八识虽空。而说唯识。又云。本影四句。于一圣教。圆融无碍。方为究竟甚深唯识道理。其义深玄。思之可见。 问。大本三辈往生。上辈者曰。舍家离俗。而 现代汉语译本：又何必担忧圆融不能周遍呢？真如（Tathata，事物的真实如是之相）可以分分证悟，无明（Avidya，对事物真相的迷惑）可以分分断除。即是全体而又是部分，即是部分而又是全体，又有什么妨碍呢？所以《华严经》（Avatamsaka Sutra）被称为大不思议，《维摩诘经》（Vimalakirti Sutra）被称为小不思议，这正是此全体包含彼部分，彼部分包含此全体的意义啊。既然是不可思议的，所以无所谓全体也无所谓部分，但又可以说是全体也可以说是部分。这才是圆满至极的教义啊，怎么可以用常人的情理来揣测呢？ 再次说明，孟子说，孔子是圣人中最合时宜的。这个‘时’，就是儒家的圆融。而子夏、子游、子张，各自具有圣人的一部分。冉牛、闵子、颜渊，则是具体而微。确实如同全体中有部分，圆融中有阶段。没听说过孔子的圆融，因为他们各自得到一体，就将孔子割裂成段。确实如同部分中没有全体，圆融就不周遍。没听说过孔子的圆融，因为一体不是全体，就变得局限狭隘。如果说圆融本身就属于具体的人，然而具体而微，‘微’是相对于‘巨’而言的，‘巨’与‘微’，就是全体与部分的说法。因此，圆满的全体包含这部分，这部分也包含圆满的全体。圭峰宗密（Guifeng Zongmi）大师之所以楷定《圆觉经》（Yuanjue Sutra），是万世不易的至理名言啊。相比之下，孔子完全包含各位贤人，各位贤人部分地包含孔子，也是这样的道理啊，又有什么可怀疑的呢？ 问：能诠显体性，其中随识门四句，最后说‘非本非影’。这‘非本非影’，是顿悟的境界。顿悟则八识（Eight Consciousnesses）皆空，为什么还把它列在随识门中呢？ 答：圭峰宗密大师本来是根据清凉澄观（Qingliang Chengguan）所叙述的十体，概括为四体。我因为他简明扼要，所以全部采用。清凉澄观的疏钞中说，这是取自《楞伽经》（Lankavatara Sutra）等顿教经典中的意义，八识虽然是空的，但仍然说唯识（Yogacara）。又说，本影四句，在一个圣教中，圆融无碍，才是究竟甚深的唯识道理。其中的意义深奥玄妙，仔细思考就可以明白。 问：《无量寿经》（Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life）中关于往生净土的三辈，上辈往生者说：‘舍家离俗’，而...
English
English version: Why worry that the perfect and complete (圆之不遍) cannot be all-encompassing? True Thusness (真如, Tathata, the true suchness of things) can be realized part by part, and ignorance (无明, Avidya, delusion about the true nature of things) can be eliminated part by part. It is both whole and part, part and whole, so what is the hindrance? Therefore, the *Avatamsaka Sutra* (华严经) is called the Great Inconceivable, and the *Vimalakirti Sutra* (维摩诘经) is called the Small Inconceivable. This is precisely the meaning of the whole encompassing the part, and the part encompassing the whole. Since it is inconceivable, there is neither whole nor part, yet it can be said to be whole and it can be said to be part. This is why it is the teaching of perfect completeness. How can it be measured by ordinary human reasoning? Furthermore, Mencius said, 'Confucius was the sage who was most timely.' This 'timeliness' is the Confucian completeness. Zixia, Ziyou, and Zizhang each possessed one aspect of the sage. Ran Niu, Minzi, and Yan Yuan were concrete but subtle. It is indeed like the whole containing parts, and completeness having stages. It has never been heard that Confucius's completeness was divided into segments because each of them obtained one aspect. It is indeed like the part not containing the whole, and completeness not being all-encompassing. It has never been heard that Confucius's completeness became limited and narrow because one aspect was not the whole. If it is said that completeness itself belongs to the concrete, then being concrete but subtle, 'subtle' is named in relation to 'great.' 'Great' and 'subtle' are what is meant by whole and part. Therefore, the complete whole encompasses this part, and this part encompasses the complete whole. Guifeng Zongmi's (圭峰宗密) definitive explanation of the *Yuanjue Sutra* (圆觉经) is a supreme and unchanging truth for all ages. By analogy, Confucius completely encompasses all the worthy ones, and the worthy ones partially encompass Confucius. It is just like this, so what is there to doubt? Question: Regarding the ability to express the essence of reality, within the four phrases of the 'following consciousness' (随识门) section, the last phrase says 'neither the original nor the shadow.' This 'neither the original nor the shadow' is the realm of sudden enlightenment. With sudden enlightenment, all eight consciousnesses (八识) are empty, so why is it listed in the 'following consciousness' section? Answer: Master Guifeng Zongmi originally based his explanation on the ten aspects described by Qingliang Chengguan (清凉澄观), summarizing them into four. I use them entirely because they are concise and clear. Qingliang Chengguan's commentary says that this is taken from the meaning of the sudden teachings in sutras such as the *Lankavatara Sutra* (楞伽经). Although the eight consciousnesses are empty, it still speaks of Consciousness-Only (唯识, Yogacara). It also says that the four phrases of 'original and shadow' are perfectly integrated and without obstruction in one sacred teaching, and this is the ultimate and profound principle of Consciousness-Only. Its meaning is deep and mysterious, and it can be understood through careful consideration. Question: In the *Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life* (无量寿经) regarding the three grades of rebirth in the Pure Land, the highest grade of rebirth says: 'Leaving home and renouncing worldly life,' and... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 作沙门。则在家者。将上辈无望欤。
Chinese
答。佛为众生说法。随时随机。固无定法。一法也。有此处立而彼处破者。有此处轻而彼处重者。观经为王后说法。但就所修之胜劣而定其品。大本为一切人说。故普该僧俗。而僧与三宝之列。世间法俗宜逊僧故也。若极论其理。但破除烦恼障碍。即是舍家离俗。固不必问其发之有无。人之缁素矣。 问。共命鸟。钞云。今作人首者非。而山海经鸟之人首者颇众。何以非之。 答。不谓鸟类无人首也。但此共命。若果人首。法华诸经当有明注。而止言二首。不言二人首。焉可杜撰。况山海经曾无共命鸟名。其中鸟之人首者。如人首而一足。名曰蠹𩇯。人首而二足。名曰凫溪。人首而四目。名曰颙颙。则一首耳。非二首也。有三首者。名曰瞿如。则鸟首耳。非人首也。瞿如三首。共命二首。盖仿佛相似也。自应例以瞿如而称鸟首。岂得以画工塑匠为凭准乎。 答问 答虞德园 前与彼辩者。姑置勿论。更辩之。前辩是折伏狂愚。今辩是与贤智者平气商确。乞勿作一例视之。极知居士爱我。必欲此刻为全书耳。我今此辩。亦如居士爱我。惟谅照是幸。 共命鸟 非也。已改作恐非矣。然不可不辩。共命不专极乐。雪山五天竺皆有之 现代汉语译本： 问：如果出家做沙门（Śrāmaṇa，佛教出家修行者），那么在家修行的人，是不是就永远没有希望达到上等的境界了呢？ 答：佛陀为众生说法，是根据不同的时间和根器，并没有固定的方法。同一种法，有时在这里要破除，在别处却要建立；有时在这里看得很轻，在别处却看得很重。《观经》是为王后说法，只是就她所修行的功德的殊胜和低劣来确定她的品位。《大本经》是为一切人说的，所以普遍包括了僧人和俗人。僧人位列于三宝（Triratna，佛、法、僧）之中，从世间法的角度来说，俗人应该逊让于僧人。如果从最根本的道理来说，只要破除烦恼和障碍，就是舍离了家庭和世俗，实在不必问他有没有剃发，是僧人还是俗人了。 问：关于共命鸟（Jīvaṃjīvaka，一种传说中的鸟，拥有共同的生命），钞本上说，现在把它画成人头是不对的。但是《山海经》中人头的鸟有很多，为什么说它不对呢？ 答：我并不是说鸟类中没有长着人头的。只是这种共命鸟，如果真的是人头，那么《法华经》等经典中应该有明确的记载。但是经典中只说是两个头，没有说是两个“人头”，怎么可以随意杜撰呢？况且《山海经》中根本没有共命鸟的名字。其中鸟身人头的，比如人头而一只脚的，名叫蠹𩇯；人头而两只脚的，名叫凫溪；人头而四只眼睛的，名叫颙颙。这些都只有一个头，不是两个头。有三个头的，名叫瞿如。但那是鸟头，不是人头。瞿如三个头，共命鸟两个头，大概是有些相似。应该按照瞿如的例子，称共命鸟为鸟头。怎么可以以画工和塑匠的说法为准呢？ 答问 答虞德园 之前与那些辩论的人，姑且放在一边不谈。现在重新辩论。之前的辩论是为了折服那些狂妄愚蠢的人，现在的辩论是与贤明有智慧的人平等地商讨确定。希望您不要用同样的眼光来看待。非常感谢您对我的爱护，一定要把这次的辩论收入全书。我现在这次的辩论，也像您爱护我一样，希望您能够谅解。 共命鸟 不是这样的。已经改为恐怕不是了。然而不可不辩。共命鸟不只是极乐世界才有，雪山和五天竺（Pañca-vidyāsthānāni，古印度五个地区的总称）都有。