---
title: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論 · 壇中十問十荅"
description: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論是明末高僧智旭的著作。明末佛教面臨內部僵化與外部挑戰，智旭大師立足天台宗，主張禪教律淨融合，回應時代弊病。該書匯集其書信、註疏與開示，系統闡述性相融通、淨土為歸的佛學思想，強調解行並進與實踐修行。作為中國佛教史上承先啟後的巨著，它深刻影響了後世漢傳佛教的發展，尤其對淨土宗的推廣貢獻卓著，被尊為淨土宗第九祖的智旭，其思想透過此論成為明清佛教的重要指南。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgn46dbd0n5hk104imhsfnwt"
---

### 壇中十問十荅有引

病臥深山，力疾商《梵網》、《佛頂》乘戒源頭，性修旨趣，圓通本根，常住妙理，和盤托出矣。然根節所聚，窾會所關，無有發一言啟予者，豈未知所以問邪？論畢，予結壇課咒，同志亦仍于此結後安居，每布薩，輒一晤言，因設問端十條，同志各荅，長短俱露。大約平日依文解義處多，入理觀心處少，故不能遊刃於節閒也。于是更作十荅。嗟乎！語言即道，道非語言，此之問荅，大似嚼飯喂嬰，他年好惡知端的時，當發嘔耳。然臭腐神奇，善用茹退者，不又為新穀作增上緣乎。

> Ill in body while dwelling deep in the mountains, I labored through discussions of the \*Brahma Net Sutra\* and the \*Śūraṅgama Sūtra\*, laying out the origins of precepts and practice, the core principles of nature and cultivation, the fundamental gateway to perfect penetration, and the sublime truth of permanence—all presented in full. Yet in those pivotal joints and critical junctures, no one spoke a single word to enlighten me. Was it truly that you did not know what to ask? When the discussions concluded, I established a ritual platform and began reciting mantras. Like-minded companions also remained here to observe the summer retreat. Whenever we gathered for the uposatha ceremony, we would have a dialogue. I therefore posed ten questions, and each companion answered. The responses varied in length, revealing their shortcomings. For the most part, they relied on interpreting the written words, with little contemplation of principle and inner observation of mind. Thus they could not wield insight with ease, like a blade finding space between joints. So I wrote ten replies of my own. Alas! Language itself is the Way, yet the Way is not language. These questions and answers are like chewing food to feed an infant. Someday, when you truly know good from bad, you may find them nauseating. Yet even what is foul and rotten can become wondrous. If one knows how to transform refuse into nourishment, can it not also become a favorable condition for the new grain to grow?

問：戒乘緩急，四句料揀，本出經論，畢竟以何為戒？以何為乘？如《大論》十戒，則戒即乘。《梵網》暫離菩提，心犯輕垢，則乘即戒。又四教各有戒有乘，須一一知其歸著，然後商其緩急何如？

> Question: The classification of the "Four Categories on the Priority of Precepts and Vehicles" originates from the sutras and treatises. Ultimately, what is meant by "precepts," and what is meant by "vehicles"? For example, in the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra\*, the ten precepts are themselves the vehicles. In the \*Brahmā’s Net Sutra\*, even a momentary departure from bodhi mind is considered a minor defilement, showing that the vehicles are themselves the precepts. Additionally, the four teachings (Tripitaka, Shared, Distinct, and Perfect) each have their own precepts and vehicles. We must thoroughly understand how each teaching defines and emphasizes them before we can discuss their relative priority.

荅：乘戒同依一性，元非異體。故緣了二修亦常相即，如《梵網》、《大論》所明是也。但眾生積迷既久，事理二障各有輕重，致令修時亦分緩急。此則性遮諸業為戒，念處觀慧為乘。而藏通二教，戒指七眾律儀，乘指生滅無生二種念觀。別圓二教，戒指《梵網》重輕并七眾律儀，乘指無量無作二種念觀。各就當教，自有事障重理障輕者，堪修觀慧，易犯性遮，名乘急戒緩。自有理障重事障輕者，堪能護戒，不達理觀，名戒急乘緩。若二障俱輕，則戒乘俱急。二障並重，必戒乘俱緩。此歸著大略也。今既聞皆有佛性，又知戒即全性所起緣因，乘即全性所起了因，仍復全修在性，則急戒即急乘，急乘即急戒，豈肯再歷三塗，方得悟道？又豈肯久滯人天，不歸真際哉？

> Answer: Precepts and practice both arise from the same nature—they are not separate in essence. Therefore, the two types of cultivation─conditions and causes─always exist together, as explained in the \*Brahma Net Sutra\* and \*Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra\*. However, sentient beings have been deluded for so long that their obstacles of phenomena and principle vary in weight, so their cultivation may differ in urgency. Here, precepts refer to refraining from the various deeds and offenses of nature and form, while practice refers to the contemplative wisdom found in mindfulness and insight. Within the two Teachings of the Store and Common, precepts refer to the monastic codes for the seven groups, while practice refers to the contemplations of existence conditioned by arising-and-ceasing or by non-arising. Within the two Teachings of the Distinct and Perfect, precepts refer to the heavy and light rules of the \*Brahma Net Sutra\* along with the monastic codes, while practice refers to the contemplations of the unconditioned and the non-contrived. In each teaching, there are some whose obstacle of phenomena is heavy and obstacle of principle light; they can cultivate contemplative wisdom but easily violate precepts of nature and form. This is called “urgent in practice, slow in precepts.” Others have a heavy obstacle of principle but a light one of phenomena; they can uphold precepts but not realize contemplative insight. This is called “urgent in precepts, slow in practice.” If both obstacles are light, both precepts and practice are urgent. If both are heavy, both will be slow. This is the general picture. Now that you have heard that all beings possess the Buddha-nature, and have realized that precepts are the conditional cause arising from that nature, while practice is the direct cause arising from that same nature—and furthermore, that all cultivation is still inherent in that nature—then to be urgent in precepts is to be urgent in practice, and to be urgent in practice is to be urgent in precepts. How then would you be willing to pass again through the three lower realms before attaining awakening? How could you remain long stuck in the realms of humans and devas, unwilling to return to the ultimate reality?

問：《梵網》明不受佛戒，為畜生木石。又犯戒人，畜木無異。夫不受戒，虛生浪死，故名畜生，覺悟無期，故如木石也。受戒即入佛位，而犯者仍與畜生木頭無異，則受戒之益毫無邪？

> Question: The \*Brahma Net Sutra\* states that someone who does not accept the Buddha's precepts is like an animal or a piece of wood or stone. It also says that someone who breaks the precepts is no different from an animal, wood, or stone. Now, if someone doesn't receive the precepts, they waste their life and die in vain—hence they are called an animal. And since they have no prospect of awakening, they are compared to wood or stone. But receiving the precepts means entering the state of Buddhahood. Yet if someone who breaks the precepts is still no different from an animal, wood, or stone, does this mean that receiving the precepts has no benefit at all?

荅：永居門外，永棄佛海，厥苦是均。然不受戒，未必盡墮地獄，破戒決墮地獄。一則常處暗暝，固為可憫。一則捨明入暗，尤為可悲。但不受戒，無成佛期。破戒墮落，猶為成佛緣種，此受戒之勝益也。至於未受而發心秉受，誤犯而殷重悔除，木石皆非木石矣。

> Answer: Those who perpetually remain outside the gate and eternally abandon the ocean of Buddha share the same suffering. However, those who have not taken the precepts do not necessarily fall into hell, while those who have broken them definitely will. One group constantly dwells in darkness, which is indeed pitiable; the other abandons light to enter darkness, which is even more sorrowful. Yet, those who never take the precepts have no hope of attaining Buddhahood, whereas those who break the precepts and fall have still planted the seed for future Buddhahood—this is the great benefit of taking the precepts. As for those who, though not yet initiated, aspire to receive them, or those who err and sincerely repent and reform, even wood and stone are no longer mere wood and stone.

問：人謂不受戒，雖失大益，而無破戒罪。然則地獄中，更無不受戒人邪？又謂受而不學，則不知不坐罪，戒壇挂名，便可看教參禪。且如暗中踏茄，誤謂蝦蟆，命終墮獄。若據律。誤踏蝦蟆，尚不結罪，況復踏茄，則學律者坐罪乎？不學者坐罪乎？若謂彼惟妄計破戒故墮，若無疑畏便不墮，則寶蓮香尼、善星比丘，皆無疑畏，何以均墮邪？若謂性罪不可作，遮罪不學無妨，何以醫羅龍王，損樹葉招劇苦，難提比丘，破根本獲果證邪？

> Question: People say that if one has not received the precepts, although they miss out on great benefits, they also incur no sin for breaking them. If so, are there no beings in hell who never received the precepts? They also say that if one receives the precepts but does not study them, they bear no guilt for ignorance, and having one's name registered at the precept platform is sufficient to allow study of the teachings and practice of Chan meditation. For instance, if someone steps on an eggplant in the dark and mistakes it for a toad, they may fall into hell after death. According to the Vinaya, stepping on a real toad by accident does not incur guilt, let alone stepping on an eggplant. So in that case, would the person who studied the Vinaya be guilty, or the one who did not? If they argue that such a person falls to hell only because of the mistaken fear of having broken the precepts, and that without such fear they would not fall, then why did Bhikshuni Baolianxiang and Bhikshu Shanjian—both of whom had no such fear—still fall into hell? If they argue that only actions inherently evil (nature offenses) are forbidden, and that it does no harm to remain ignorant of the lesser rules (prohibitory offenses), then why did the Naga King Yiluo suffer severe retribution merely for damaging a tree leaf, and why did Bhikshu Nanti attain the fruit of enlightenment after breaking a fundamental precept?

荅：不受戒者，設造重惡，亦墮三塗。毀淨戒者，雖具性遮二罪，設勤懺悔，罪亦可滅。是故必須受戒也。學律者，洞明開遮持犯，未犯知護，已犯能除。不學者，既不知避罪，又不知出罪，過必日積。是故受已必須學也。夫菩薩於小罪中，恆生大畏，惟不造三惡因，故無惡道怖耳。若硬作主宰，大膽欺心，妄言無罪，寶蓮、醫羅，真殷鑒矣。

> \*\*Answer:\*\* Those who have not received the precepts may still fall into the three lower realms if they commit serious evil deeds. But those who have received the pure precepts and then violate them—even though they incur both the offense of the act itself and the offense of breaking the precept—if they diligently repent, their offenses can be purified. Therefore, it is essential to receive the precepts. For those who study the monastic code, they clearly understand what is allowed, what is forbidden, what is an offense, and what is not. Before committing an offense, they know how to protect themselves; after committing one, they know how to remove it. Those who do not study the code neither know how to avoid wrongdoing nor how to eliminate it when it occurs, so their faults steadily increase. Therefore, after receiving the precepts, studying them is essential. Bodhisattvas always feel great fear even toward minor offenses, precisely because they do not create the causes for the three evil paths—thus they have no fear of those destinies. If someone stubbornly insists they are in control, boldly deceives their own mind, and falsely claims that offenses do not exist—then the examples of Baolian and Yiluo are truly a stark warning.

問：儒云「君子尊德性而道問學，致廣大而盡精微，極高明而道中庸，溫故而知新，敦厚以崇禮」，與佛法同邪？別邪？亦同亦別邪？非同非別邪？象山重尊德性，紫陽重道問學，互相矛盾，致成大諍，為一是一非邪？俱是俱非邪？且如何超出是非，究竟無獘邪？

> Question: Confucianism states, "The noble person honors virtue and follows the path of inquiry and learning. He strives for expansiveness while attending to the finest details, reaches for supreme brightness while following the Middle Way, reviews the past to know what is new, and cultivates sincerity to uphold propriety." Is this the same as the Buddhist path or different? Both the same and different? Neither same nor different? Lu Jiuyuan emphasized honoring virtue, while Zhu Xi emphasized the path of inquiry and learning—they contradicted each other, leading to a major debate. Are they both right? Both wrong? And how can one transcend right and wrong to reach a state without defect?

荅：儒佛有名同義異者，如德性廣大精微等，一世閒道理，一出世道理也。有名義俱同，而歸宗異者，如問學致盡等，下手無別，到家實分世出世也。然為實施權，儒亦五乘中之人乘，開權顯實，則世閒道理亦順實相。故同別四句，執之皆謗善，用之即四悉檀。象山雖重尊德性，非棄問學；紫陽雖重道問學，非遺德性。得其旨，似頓悟漸修兩門；失其意，則為狂罔愚劣二病。可謂是則俱是，非則俱非。然廣大精微等，皆德性本具之義。致盡等，皆道問學以尊之之事。原非兩法相濟，孰能偏重偏輕。此則超出是非兩關，永無流獘者也。

> Answer: Confucianism and Buddhism sometimes share terms with different meanings. For example, terms like "vast virtue" and "refined subtlety" belong, in one case, to worldly principles, and in the other, to transcendent principles. There are also cases where both the term and its surface meaning are the same, but the ultimate goal differs—such as "inquiry and learning" or "exhaustion and fulfillment." The practical starting point is no different, but the final destination truly distinguishes the worldly from the transcendent. Yet, employing skillful means for the sake of the ultimate truth, Confucianism can be seen as the "human vehicle" among the five vehicles. When the skillful means are opened to reveal the ultimate truth, even worldly principles accord with ultimate reality. Therefore, regarding the four propositions of "same and different," clinging to any of them leads to slander of goodness, while skillfully using them becomes the four methods of spiritual guidance. Although Master Lu Xiangshan emphasized "honoring the virtuous nature," he did not abandon "inquiry and learning." Master Zhu Xi, though he stressed "following the path of inquiry and learning," did not neglect "the virtuous nature." Understanding their intent properly reveals two paths—sudden enlightenment and gradual cultivation; misunderstanding them leads to two faults—reckless arrogance and foolish dullness. It can be said that when correct, both are correct; when mistaken, both are mistaken. However, attributes like "vastness" and "refined subtlety" are all inherent qualities of the virtuous nature. Actions like "exhaustion" and "fulfillment" are all methods of honoring it through the path of inquiry and learning. Since they are not two separate elements that need to complement each other, who can favor one and neglect the other? This understanding transcends the dualistic trap of right and wrong, forever eliminating errors.

問：《佛頂》明歇即菩提，何藉修證？為盡漏紆疑悔者言也。又明非歷劫辛勤，不能免難，為開悟未除漏者言也。一所知障重，一煩惱障重，故如來因病發藥如此。我輩二障俱重，又未開悟，又未除漏，為先除漏邪，先開悟邪，為二功並進邪？漏云何除，悟云何開，並進云何下手？

> Question: The \*Buddha-Top Sutra\* explicitly states that when the mind ceases, that is enlightenment itself—what need is there for practice or realization? This teaching is meant for those who have completely eliminated their outflows but still harbor doubt and regret. It also states that without eons of diligent effort, one cannot escape hardship—this teaching is for those who have attained insight but have not yet eliminated their outflows. The first case concerns those weighed down by the obstacle of intellectual knowledge, while the second concerns those burdened by the obstacle of afflictions. Thus, the Tathagata prescribes medicine according to the illness. For us, however, both obstacles are heavy: we have neither attained insight nor eliminated outflows. Should we first eliminate outflows, or first attain insight? Or should we advance on both fronts simultaneously? By what means can outflows be eliminated? How can insight be attained? And if we pursue both at once, where should we begin?

荅：二障雖重，非有實體。只徹究圓宗，即以圓解。淨除業習，下手之方，不出十乘觀法。上根惟一，中二之七，下具用十。精勤修之，何障不破。

> Answer: Although the two kinds of hindrances are serious, they have no true substance. If you thoroughly investigate the Complete Teaching, you will immediately gain its perfect understanding. The way to purify karmic habits is found in the Ten Contemplations. For those of highest capacity, only the first is needed. For those of medium capacity, the first two and the seventh. For those of lesser capacity, all ten should be used. Practice them with diligence — what hindrance could possibly remain unbroken?

問：耳門最勝，根勝邪，性勝邪？若根勝，則兼耳與勞，同是菩提瞪發勞相，豈可依此生滅為本修因？若性勝，則耳之性，應非即是餘五根性，云何說性中相知，及六解一亡？

> Question: Is the ear faculty the most excellent? Does it surpass the other faculties in its root-nature, or in its essential nature? If it surpasses in its root-nature, then both the ear and its functioning are equally manifestations of enlightenment’s strained activity—how can we rely on something subject to arising and ceasing as the fundamental cause for cultivation? If it surpasses in essential nature, then the nature of the ear would have to be different from the nature of the other five faculties. How then can we speak of the natures knowing each other, or of the six being untied and the one vanishing?

荅：耳門易顯，性故勝。非性有優劣，亦非竟用耳根，但借耳境，以觀真性。性即不生不滅，亦復非一非六。故得一返六皆脫，六解一亦亡也。

> Answer: The ear faculty is easy to illuminate, and its nature is supreme. It is not that natures differ in quality, nor is it that the ear faculty alone is ultimately used — but rather, it is by relying on the ear's realm that one contemplates the true nature. This nature is neither born nor extinguished, and it is also neither one nor six. Therefore, once you return to the One, the six are all liberated, and when the six are untied, the One also vanishes.

問：耳門具三真實義，為根是圓通常邪，性是圓通常邪？若根是，不應云「黏湛發聽，聽精映聲，卷聲成根。」又不應云「離動離靜，元無聽質。」若性是，則耳之性為即五根之性，為非五根之性？若非，還如前難。若即，則既觀其性，應兼得其相。若不兼，則性外有相。若果兼，則應於耳中，見色、聞香、嘗味、覺觸。若不能見色等，不名圓通之性。若云能者，畢竟如何以耳見、聞、嘗、覺邪？若謂六根互用須待證入，則因果仍不相應。若謂雖未有用，其理確然，如何指點知其不謬？

> Question: The ear faculty is said to possess the three true characteristics of perfectness, universality, and constancy. Is it the faculty itself that is perfect, universal, and constant, or is it its nature? If it is the faculty itself, then it should not be said that "it solidifies the enlightened awareness to produce hearing, the hearing essence reflects sound, and it rolls up sound to form the faculty." Nor should it be said that "apart from motion and stillness, there is originally no substance for hearing." If it is the nature, then is the nature of the ear identical to the nature of the five faculties, or is it different? If it is different, then we face the same difficulty as before. If it is identical, then since we are examining its nature, we should also be able to observe its corresponding form. If we cannot observe the form, that means the nature exists separately from the form. If we can observe the form, then we should be able to see colors, smell scents, taste flavors, and feel touch through the ear. But if we cannot see colors and so on through the ear, it does not deserve to be called a nature that is perfect and universal. If someone says we can, then how can the ear actually see, smell, taste, and feel? If someone argues that the mutual interchangeability of the six faculties only happens upon realization, then this cause-effect relationship still does not match. If someone says that although we have not yet put this ability to use, its principle is indeed certain, how can we point to it and know that this is not mistaken?

荅：元以一精明，分作六和合，則六和合之本性，皆圓通常，亦非有二性也。特就迷情揀取，此方耳門易顯真實名利，餘門難顯名鈍，非竟以耳根為圓通常也。初下手時，正欲棄生滅而守真常，所謂入流亡所，尚不許用此耳根外循動靜二相，柰何責以見色聞香等事。如清水未現，便責以一切變現。設能變現，增其渾濁矣。若不能見色聞香，便疑因果不相應，如濁水未有變現，遂謂中無清水，可乎？至於現前指點，則耳自聽法，口問身承，即性中相知義。不能以耳見色等，正用中相背義。將此相知相背二種迷情妄見，一總放下，方許入耳門三昧。

> Answer: Originally, one pure essence is divided into six sense faculties, and the fundamental nature of these six faculties is inherently perfect, pervasive, and constant—they are not separate in nature. However, depending on deluded inclinations, among them the ear faculty is most accessible for awakening, thus called sharp, while the other faculties are harder to access, thus called dull—this does not mean that the ear root alone is intrinsically perfect, pervasive, and constant. When beginners first start practicing, they aim to let go of arising-and-ceasing and abide in true constancy. This is what is meant by "entering the stream and wiping out conditions"; at that point, one is not even allowed to use the ear faculty to outwardly follow the two characteristics of sound and silence. How then can one be required to perceive forms, smell scents, and so on? This would be like demanding clear water to immediately show all transformations. If it could show them, it would only increase its turbidity. If one cannot yet see forms or smell scents, and thus doubts that causes and results are mismatched, it is like assuming that because murky water has not yet shown transformations, there is no clear water within it. As for direct instruction in daily life: with the ear one hears the Dharma, with the mouth one asks questions, with the body one sits upright—this is the principle of mutual knowing within one’s nature. The inability to see forms with the ear is precisely the principle of mutual obstructing within and between different functions. Only by setting aside these two deluded, attachment-laden views—the idea of mutual knowing and the idea of mutual obstructing—is one permitted to enter the samadhi of the ear faculty.

問：天台言「善惡皆性具。」此義不然。謂性非善惡，不礙善惡可耳。若性實具善，便不容惡；性實具惡，便不容善。如《佛頂經》，滿慈以水火不相陵滅為難，如來亦但釋云「虛空體非群相，不拒諸相發揮。妙覺明心，先非水火，何不相容？」細玩體非群相，先非水火二語，性非善惡明矣。夫七大一往皆無記法，尚須棄相，方得會性，況善惡有記之法，可云同具邪？

> Question: The Tiantai school says, "Both good and evil are inherent in our true nature." This view is incorrect. It would be acceptable to say that true nature is neither good nor evil, yet does not obstruct good and evil. But if our nature truly inherently possesses good, then it cannot accommodate evil; if it truly inherently possesses evil, then it cannot accommodate good. As stated in the \*Śūraṅgama Sūtra\*, when Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra questioned why water and fire do not eliminate each other, the Tathāgata explained: "The nature of space itself is not composed of the various phenomena, yet it does not hinder the manifestation of those phenomena. The wondrous enlightened mind is fundamentally not water or fire—so how could they fail to coexist?" Carefully examine the two phrases: "The nature of space itself is not the various phenomena" and "fundamentally not water or fire." It becomes clear that true nature is neither good nor evil. The seven elements are all morally neutral phenomena; even they require that we let go of their appearances to realize their essential nature. How much more so for good and evil, which are morally charged phenomena—can we say they are inherently present together?

荅：若謂性非善惡，不礙善惡，則善惡從何處來，混擾於性。既顯性後，善惡復歸何處。且正現善惡時，非善惡之性，避至何處，為復斷滅？善惡去時，非善惡之性，又從何來，為復更生邪？若謂善惡無性，隨妄緣有，既無其性，誰隨緣者？既隨緣，必有能隨所隨，所隨即迷悟染淨，能隨豈非性善性惡？又即彼所隨迷悟染淨之緣，為在性外，在性內？若在性外，性不遍常。若不離性，那云非具？詎知無性之性，正善惡實性。設性中不具善惡，縱遇迷悟染淨等緣，決不能現修中善惡。如沙無油性，縱遇壓緣，終不出油。請即就喻以申明之。使空非即群相，相豈從空外來？空現時，相豈出空外去？且正現相時，空避至何方，為復斷滅？相去後，空又從何來，為復更生邪？當知虛空無去無來，無滅無生，則知群相之中，空性不動。可例知現善現惡之時，藏性不變。既知正隨緣而即不變，又可例知正不變而即隨緣矣。故達不變隨緣之義，則未起修善修惡時，非無善惡之性。如水火諸相未現，非無水火之性，以性空真水、性空真火故。達隨緣不變之義，則熾然造善惡時，亦無善惡實法。如水火正現，非異虛空之性，以性水真空、性火真空故。迷於相，全性即相，妄見傾奪，故云「觀相元妄」，謂但觀性家之相，相妄性亦妄也。悟其性，全相即性，隨拈一相，皆俱即俱非、離即離非、是即非即，故云「觀性元真」，謂能觀相家之性，性真相亦真也。然則虛空非群相，群相亦非群相矣。空不礙諸相發揮，群相亦不礙諸相發揮矣。所以得有俱現之義。又心先非水火，水火亦先非水火矣。先非先後之先，只是元本之義。故不惟未現水火時，水性即火性，火性即水性，決定不相陵滅。雖正現水火時，水元非水，火元非火，亦決不相陵滅。所以有入水不濡、入火不焚，身上出水、身下出火，入地如空、處空如地等事也。彼妄見生剋傾奪，但隨心應量、循業發現而已。故知相外無性，棄相即棄性；性外無相，會性則會相。若棄相方得會性，此大不然。夫棄色相，是空相，棄空相，是色相；棄有情心相，是無情色空相，棄無情相，是有情相；棄無分別之根塵相，是有分別識相，棄分別相，是無分別相；棄根塵識妄相，是覺明真相，棄真相，是妄相。畢竟何相可棄，何性可會邪？經云「棄生滅，守真常」者，直棄其於真常中妄見生滅之情，守其即生滅處了悟真常之智耳。試玩七大文中，先以空融地水火風，次以覺融空等五大，次以精融根塵六大，次以知融識等七大，則色空不二，依正不二，見相自證不二，真妄不二明矣。是以不變之性，正由全具善惡，故能舉體隨緣；而善惡二修，正由全攬真性，故復舉體不變。不變舉體隨緣，故稱理具三千；隨緣舉體不變，故稱事造三千。又理具只是具於事造，事造只是造於理具，故雖稱兩重，亦非六千，雖云兩重，即重重無盡也。

> Answer: If you claim that the nature is neither good nor evil and does not obstruct good or evil, then where do good and evil come from to disturb the nature? Once the nature is revealed, where do good and evil go? When good and evil are actively manifesting, does the nature that is beyond good and evil flee somewhere, or does it cease to exist? When good and evil fade away, does that nature come from somewhere else, or is it reborn? If you say good and evil have no fixed nature and arise only due to deluded conditions, then if they have no nature, what is it that follows those conditions? If something follows conditions, there must be a follower and what is followed. What is followed consists of confusion, enlightenment, purity, and defilement—so could the follower be anything other than a nature capable of good and evil? Furthermore, do those conditions of confusion, enlightenment, purity, and defilement lie within the nature or outside it? If they lie outside, the nature would not be all-pervasive and eternal. If they do not leave the nature, how can it be said that the nature does not inherently possess them? Do you not realize that the nature which has no fixed character is precisely the true essence of good and evil? If the nature did not inherently contain good and evil, then even when encountering conditions of confusion, enlightenment, purity, or defilement, it could never manifest good or evil in practice—just as sand, lacking the essence of oil, can never produce oil even under pressure. Let me clarify this with an analogy: If space were not identical to all phenomena, how could phenomena arise from outside space? When phenomena appear, do they go outside space? When phenomena are manifesting, where does space escape to? Does it cease to exist? After phenomena vanish, where does space come from? Is it reborn? You should know that space has no coming or going, no cessation or birth. Thus, within all phenomena, the nature of space remains unmoving. From this, you can infer that when good and evil appear, the hidden essence remains unchanged. Knowing that the unchanging nature simultaneously follows conditions, you can also infer that the nature which follows conditions is simultaneously unchanging. Therefore, understanding “unchanging yet following conditions,” you realize that even before cultivating good or evil, there is still a potential for good and evil in the nature—just as before water or fire manifest, there is still the potential for their qualities, because the empty nature is true water and true fire. Understanding “following conditions yet unchanging,” when you are intensely engaged in good or evil deeds, there is actually no fixed reality of good or evil—just as when water or fire manifest, they are not separate from the nature of space, because the nature of water is actual emptiness, and the nature of fire is actual emptiness. Those who are deluded by appearances see the entire nature as only appearances, and mistakenly see conflict and competition, so it is said: “When observing appearances, recognize they are ultimately false.” This means that when you merely observe the appearances of the nature, both appearances and that perceived nature are false. Those who awaken to the nature see that all appearances are the nature. Whatever appearance they pick up, it includes both “is” and “is not,” transcends both “is” and “is not,” and is identical with “is” and identical with “is not.” Thus it is said: “When observing the nature, recognize it is ultimately true.” This means that when you can observe the nature within appearances, both the nature and the appearances are true. Hence, not only are space and phenomena not identical, but phenomena themselves are not separate from each other. Space does not hinder the manifestation of various phenomena, and one phenomenon does not hinder another. This is why all things can appear simultaneously. Similarly, the mind is originally not water or fire, and water and fire are originally not themselves. “Originally” here does not mean a prior point in time, but the fundamental essence. Therefore, not only when water and fire have not yet appeared does the nature of water equal the nature of fire—they certainly do not destroy each other—but even when water and fire are actively manifesting, water is originally not water, and fire is originally not fire, so they still do not destroy each other. This explains phenomena such as entering water without getting wet, entering fire without burning, having water flow from the body and fire burst forth beneath, walking through earth as if it were space, and dwelling in space as if it were solid ground. Those who ignorantly see conflict, destruction, and competition are merely experiencing the results of their own minds and karmic patterns. Thus, you should know there is no nature outside appearances—abandoning appearances means abandoning the nature. There is no appearance outside the nature—realizing the nature means realizing appearances. To say that one must abandon appearances to realize the nature is a grave mistake. For if you abandon the appearance of form, you cling to the appearance of emptiness; abandon the appearance of emptiness, you cling to the appearance of form. Abandon the appearances of sentient minds, you cling to insentient forms and space; abandon insentient appearances, you cling to sentient ones. Abandon the appearances of non-discriminating sense organs and objects, you cling to discriminating consciousness; abandon discriminating appearances, you cling to non-discriminating ones. Abandon false appearances of sense organs, objects, and consciousness, you cling to the true appearance of enlightened brightness; abandon the true appearance, you cling to false appearances. In the end, what appearance can you abandon, and what nature can you realize? The sutra says to “abandon birth and death, and uphold the true and constant.” This means simply abandoning the deluded perception of birth and death within the true and constant, and upholding the wisdom that understands the true and constant right within birth and death. Examine carefully the discourse on the seven elements: first, space is integrated with earth, water, fire, and wind; then awareness is integrated with space and the other elements; then subtle essence is integrated with sense organs and objects; then fundamental knowledge is integrated with consciousness. This clearly shows the non-duality of form and emptiness, of self and environment, of seeing and the self-verified, and of truth and falsehood. Therefore, the unchanging nature is precisely because it fully contains good and evil that it can entirely follow conditions. And the cultivation of good and evil is precisely because they fully draw on the true nature that they can entirely remain unchanging. Because the unchanging wholly follows conditions, it is said that principle contains the three thousand realms. Because the unconditioned wholly abides in nature, it is said that phenomenal activity manifests the three thousand realms. Furthermore, principle contains only what is in phenomenal activity, and phenomenal activity only manifests what is in principle. Thus, although we speak of two aspects, it is not six thousand realms. Though we call them two, they are actually layers upon layers without end.

問：《涅槃》明常住佛性，說乳酪子樹二喻。使乳本有酪性，乃至熟酥本有醍醐性者，何藉善巧鑽搖等緣？尼拘陀樹子，本有五丈性者，何藉水土等緣？藉緣之法，即是無常，安得名常？又謂乳有酪性故，鑽乳不鑽水；子有樹性故，種子不種沙。此是當有，非現有，亦不名常。又今見酪中雜水，則不出酥，樹子經火，則不生芽，適為三無二有家作證。彼謂所知障重者，不能克證大菩提故。

> Question: The \*Nirvāṇa Sūtra\* teaches the eternal Buddha-nature, using the two analogies of milk and a tree seed. If milk already has the nature of becoming curds, up to butter having the nature of becoming ghee, then why is skillful churning and stirring necessary? If a \*nyagrodha\* tree seed already has the nature of growing to fifty feet, then why are water and soil necessary? Things that depend on conditions are impermanent—how can they be called eternal? Furthermore, it is said that since milk has the nature of curds, one churns milk and not water; and since a seed has the nature of a tree, one plants seeds in soil, not sand. But this refers to potential existence, not actual existence, so it still cannot be called eternal. Moreover, we see that if curds are mixed with water, no butter is produced; and if a tree seed is burned by fire, no sprout grows. This actually supports the view of those who say there are three kinds of beings lacking Buddha-nature and two kinds who possess it. They argue that those with heavy obstacles of knowledge cannot realize great enlightenment.

荅：常非死定之常，性乃不改為義。《涅槃》既明常住佛性，恐迷者執性廢修，即成天然外道，故明須藉緣了二因。以緣了二因，雖屬於修，在因之時，同名性德；正因理發，雖全是性，在果之時，同名修德。然則無性之性，即是實性，緣生之法，當體無生。二鳥雙遊，喻常無常，厥義若此。若當有不名常，必執凝然不變死定為常，何異常見外道。又乳酪樹子，水火能障，佛性不爾，闡提斷善，終必復生，二乘證空，亦終迴大。故復有佛性雄猛，不可沮壞，猶如金剛之喻。而三無二有，終為不了義說，豈可執片喻難全法哉？

> Answer: Permanence does not mean rigid, unchanging permanence. "Nature" refers to the inherent quality of not altering. The "Nirvana Sutra" clearly explains the everlasting Buddha-nature, but fearing that those who are confused might cling to this nature and neglect cultivation—thus falling into the view of a naturalist, an outsider—it clarifies the need for the two causes: the conditioning cause and the completing cause. Although these two causes belong to cultivation, at the stage of causation they are also referred to as "nature"; the principle manifested by the primary cause is entirely nature, yet at the stage of result, it is also called "cultivation." Therefore, the nature that transcends nature is true nature, and the conditioned phenomena are fundamentally arising without a self. The metaphor of two birds flying together illustrates the coexistence of permanence and impermanence; this is its meaning. If one insists that existence must be labeled as permanent, and stubbornly holds to a fixed, rigid immortality, how is this different from the view of permanence held by outsiders? Furthermore, consider the examples of milk turning into curds, or tree seeds being hindered by fire and water: the Buddha-nature is not like that. Even an icchantika who cuts off all roots of goodness will ultimately revive them; the arhats who realize emptiness will eventually turn back to the Great Vehicle. Hence, there is also the metaphor of the indomitable, indestructible Buddha-nature, like a diamond. And notions such as "three non-existent, two existing" remain provisional teachings—how could one cling to a partial metaphor to refute the full truth?

問：天台明理具事造，兩重三千，同於介爾心中具足，此亦不然。夫理具，渾然頓足，猶之可也；事造，則一念起時，必落一界。既落一界，餘九皆伏。縱一界還具十界，亦只一界之十界，非十界之十界也。幽谿云：「一界現時，九界冥伏。」既云冥伏，則事造三千，不居一念明矣。今《梵網玄義》云「一界既現，九界齊彰。」試觀調達，地獄相現，則佛界滅，下品金蓮相現，則獄界滅，何得齊彰邪？

> Question: Tiantai teaches the principle of "inherent inclusion" (li ju) and "actual arising" (shi zao), stating that both sets of three thousand realms are fully contained within a single moment of thought. But this cannot be the case. When it comes to "inherent inclusion," it is acceptable to say that everything is complete in an instantaneous, undifferentiated way. However, with "actual arising," the moment a thought arises, it necessarily falls into one particular realm. Once it falls into one realm, the other nine are suppressed. Even if a single realm itself contains ten realms, these are only the ten realms of that one realm, not the ten realms of all ten realms. Master Youxi said: "When one realm manifests, the other nine are latent." Since it says "latent," it is clear that the three thousand realms of actual arising are not present within a single moment of thought. Yet the \*Fanwang Jing Xuanyi\* states: "Once one realm manifests, the other nine simultaneously appear." Observe Devadatta: when the hell realm appears, the Buddha realm vanishes. When the lower-grade golden lotus appears, the hell realm vanishes. How could they all appear simultaneously?

荅：心無形質、無分劑，不可割裂。落一界之一念，即全體之心，非心少分。既舉心之全體成此一念，亦必舉心之全用歸此一念，亦必即此一念頓具心之全體大用。如孔子為乘田，即以聖人之全體而牧牛羊，亦即舉出將入相之全用，而歸諸牧牛羊人。亦即於牧牛羊時，問以文事武備，無不能知。安得牧時非孔子全體，無將相全能邪？冥伏或是隨具之義，儻以現對冥，以起對伏，則事造信非一念頓具，那成圓理？今既知一界還具十界，則界界互具，無盡重重，鏡光珠影，更何分劑？謂之三千性相，亦略舉耳。即觀調達墮獄，正在佛前。又舉身下陷，合掌南無，成無根信，便得授記。而下品往生者，即地獄火，化為清風華佛。可見獄界佛界，舉體相即，互遍互融，不可思議。此天台性具之旨，觀心之要，所以真能傳佛心印，遠勝他宗也。

> Answer: The mind has no physical form, no fixed dimensions, and cannot be divided. A single thought that falls into one realm is the entire mind, not a small part of it. Since the whole essence of mind forms this single thought, it must also bring the whole function of mind to bear within this thought. In other words, this single thought instantly and fully contains the essence and function of the entire mind. This is like when Confucius worked as a livestock manager: with his entire sage-body, he herded cows and sheep. The full capacity that would later lead him to become a general or a minister was entirely poured into the act of herding. Yet, at that time, if you had asked him about civil governance or military strategy, he would have known everything. How could you say that when herding, he was not the complete Confucius, or that he lacked the all-around ability of a general or a minister? The concepts of "hidden state" (冥伏) or "intrinsic potential" (隨具) refer to this. If we mistakenly treat "manifest" as opposed to "hidden," and "active" as opposed to dormant, then the arising of phenomena through conditions would not truly be the instant, complete endowment of a single thought. This would destroy the perfect principle of reality. Now that we understand that even one realm fully contains all ten realms, and that each realm mutually includes all others in an endless, interpenetrating web—like the reflections of mirrors and the shimmer of pearls—how could there be any fixed boundaries? When we speak of the "three thousand aspects of reality," it is merely a simplified expression. Consider the case of Devadatta falling into hell: he was still in front of the Buddha. As his body sank down, he joined his palms and said "Namo," generating a faith without roots, and thus received a prophecy of future enlightenment. For those reborn in the lowest grade of the Pure Land, the fires of hell transform into a cool breeze and flowers bloom to greet the Buddha. This shows that the hell realm and the buddha realm are inherently one substance, interpenetrating, mutually inclusive, and utterly inconceivable. This is the essence of the Tiantai teaching on "inherent potential of all dharmas" and the essential method of contemplating the mind. This is why it truly transmits the Buddha-mind seal and far surpasses other schools.