十不二門指要鈔 1.81

1.81

答：「若得前之總別意者，則自不執舊訛文也。豈理體唯總，事用唯別？如常坐中修實相觀，既云唯觀理具，文中廣辨三千，還有總別不？若無者，那云一心具三千邪？隨自意中修唯識觀，觀於起心即約變造事用而說，還有總別不？若無，那云一切法趣檀等？那云觀一念善惡心起十界邪？豈隨自意三昧非不二開會觀邪？應知立茲體用，欲於理體及以事用皆明三諦事用。苦即空假中，還成不二圓妙不？既於理事兩重總別皆顯絕妙，那將攝別入總而為難邪？又夫開顯乃示法法皆妙，若知即具而變用，豈不妙邪？」

Answer: "If you grasped the former meaning of general and particular, you would naturally not cling to the old erroneous text. Could it be that the essence of principle is solely general, and phenomenal function is solely particular? For example, when cultivating the contemplation of the true mark in the constant-sitting [samādhi], since it says 'only contemplating inherence in principle,' the text extensively distinguishes the three thousand—is there a general and particular or not? If there were not, why would it say 'the single mind is inherent with the three thousand'? In the contemplation of consciousness-only within the samādhi of following one's own mind, the contemplation of the arising mind is spoken of in terms of the phenomenal function of transformation and creation—is there a general and particular or not? If there were not, why would it say 'all dharmas incline toward dāna,' and so forth? Why would it say 'contemplate a single thought-moment of good or evil mind arising as the ten realms'? Could it be that the samādhi of following one's own mind is not a contemplation of nonduality, opening and merging? One should know that the establishment of this essence and function is intended to clarify the three truths in both the essence of principle and phenomenal function. Phenomenal function, suffering itself being emptiness, provisionality, and the middle—does it still constitute nondual perfect subtlety or not? Since supreme subtlety is revealed in both levels of general and particular across principle and phenomena, why use gathering the particulars into the general to raise an objection? Furthermore, opening and revealing demonstrates that every single dharma is wondrous. If one realizes that functional transformation is identical to inherence, how could it not be wondrous?"