[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [觀音玄義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727) › 2.41 # 觀音玄義記 2.41 觀音玄義記 2.41 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.41) 答：約能造心攝法易解，故順經論以心攝法而為觀境，故云色由等也。大師既云「唯是一色而分二種，謂有分別色、無分別色。」意指識心為分別色，此色造心有何數量？那云一向色不造心？既云「唯是一色」，那云不云全體是色？又至果時，依中現正、正中現依，剎說塵說因果理同，依正何別？理性名字已有依正不二之相，何緣堅執一邊具邪？無情佛乘約心具說元是一體，從易而觀，勿引此文證色不具。大師此說令知皆具，而今據此唯局在心，是得意邪？為失意邪？欲人生解邪？為符我見邪？ > Answer: Subsuming dharmas in terms of the creating mind is easy to understand, so in accord with sūtras and treatises, dharmas are subsumed by mind as the object of contemplation; thus it says "form is created by..." and so forth. Since the Great Master said: "There is only a single form, which is divided into two kinds: form with discrimination and form without discrimination," the intention points to the conscious mind as form with discrimination. What limit could there be to this form creating mind? How can you say that form unequivocally does not create mind? Since it says "there is only a single form," how can it not be said to be wholly form? Furthermore, when arriving at the fruit, direct retribution is manifested within circumstantial retribution, and circumstantial retribution is manifested within direct retribution; lands preaching and dust preaching are identical in the principle of cause and effect—what difference is there between circumstantial and direct? In the stage of principle and name, the mark of non-duality of circumstantial and direct already exists; on what grounds do you cling rigidly to one side having inclusion? The Buddha vehicle of insentient things is fundamentally one substance when explained in terms of mind-inclusion; contemplating from the easy, do not cite this text to prove that form lacks inclusion. The Great Master gave this explanation to make people know that all have inclusion; now to rely on this to restrict it exclusively to the mind—is that grasping the intention, or missing the intention? Is it to cause people to give rise to understanding, or to accord with one's own views? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.40) - [Next: 2.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.42) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727~en-mt.2.41) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.41) · Pramāṇa