[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) › [翻譯名義集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131) › 6.12 # 翻譯名義集 6.12 翻譯名義集 6.12 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.12) 初本文者，《大經》云：「一切諸法本性自空。」亦用菩薩修習空故，見諸法空。《起信論》云：「以知法性體無慳貪，隨順修行檀波羅蜜。」天台《別行玄》云：「原此因果根本，即是性德緣了也。此之性德本自有之，非適今也。」又云：「以此二種方便修習，漸漸增長，起於毫末，得成修德合抱大樹。」荊溪《不二門》云：「性德祇是界如一念。此內界如，三法具足；性雖本爾，藉智起修。」此皆修性之明文。《大經》云：「解脫之法，亦非涅槃；如來之身，亦非涅槃；摩訶般若，亦非涅槃。」章安《涅槃玄》釋：「文云法身亦非，那可單作三身釋大？文云解脫亦非，那可單作三脫釋滅？文云般若亦非，那可單作三智釋度？故知單釋非今經意。三德中各各求，皆不可得；三法合求，亦不可得。」智者《妙玄》云：「此之妙行，與前境智，一而論三，三而論一。」荊溪云：「又了順修對性，有離有合。離謂修性各三，合謂修二性一。永嘉云：『偏中三，應須簡。』一、有般若，無解脫法身；二、有解脫，無法身般若；三、有法身，無解脫般若。有一無二故不圓，不圓故非性。又，偏中三，應須揀。一、有般若解脫，無法身；二、有解脫法身，無般若；三、有法身般若，無解脫。有二無一故不圓，不圓故非性。圓中三，應須具。一、法身不癡即般若；般若無著即解脫；解脫寂滅即法身（二三例爾）。」此皆離合之本文。二、消名者，修謂立行進趣，起正助之二因；性謂本自體性，即界如之一念。凡夫迷故，從真起妄，猶鏡塵翳。緣了之明性自存，故具理性之德。行人悟故，背塵合覺，似鑑揩磨，妍醜之影像遂現，故有修成之德。三、釋義者，離合之法，南屏法師嘗立三義，以伸明之：一、離是各也，離謂修性各三；合是共也，合謂修二性一。二、離乃開也，約性恒開；合乃對也，對修方合。三、離即與義，與而言之，一性本具於二修，二修常即乎一性；合即奪義，理即雖具緣了，奪而言之，由不發心，未曾加行，彼性緣了，祇名正因。二修雖具法身，因智照故，但名了因。由起行故，合名緣因。四、定體者，欲示離合教相，須核修性法體，良以若性若修，皆以三千總相以為其體。故《起信》云：「心真如者，即是一法界大總相法門體，所謂心性不生不滅。」心雖本真，不覺起妄。經云：「心如工畫師。造種種五陰，一切世間中，無不從心造。」由此無明為緣，成眾生法。《維摩詰》言：「譬如幻師見所幻人，菩薩觀眾生為若此。」由悟斯理，故有佛法。《法華》云：「唯佛與佛，乃能究盡諸法實相。」而此三法，既互具於三千，亦各攝乎百界。體其本寂，乃名理具；照於起心，則名事造；修性雖二，三千體一。故妙樂云：「祇緣理一，是故修性相對離合。」五、示相，孤山《顯性錄》示離相曰：一家修性正義，即約玄文前三妙也。境即性三，智即智三，行即行三。行之所階，即有諸位。若至初住，名隨分果，則分證三法也；若就合說，即合性為一，合修為二。合理性三為一正因，法身德也；合智三為一了因，般若德也；合行三為一緣因，解脫德也。故開雖具九，九只是三，三九雖殊，其理常一。今詳此說，文會義便，以釋離義。文會《釋籤》「境即理性三德，智即三德之解，行即三德之觀。」洎明合義，文會《釋籤》「一謂涅槃，三謂三德。」言義便者，離合既是迷悟，與奪當在住前。若至初住，修性一合，無復分張，奚論與奪之別歟！二四明《指要鈔》云：「如《光明玄》十種三法，采取經論修性法相，故具離合兩說。」如三德三寶，雖是修德之極，義必該性；三身三智，文雖約悟，理必通迷；三識三道，既指事即理，必全性起修。此六豈非修性各三？三因，既以一性對智行二修；三菩提、三大乘、三涅槃，並以一性對證理起用二修。此四豈非修二性一？今謂修性一門，本依智行二妙。對境妙在迷之理，相對與奪，而論離合，十種三法乃顯。果人所證三德，並屬于悟，棄親本文，遠取他部，此迷文矣。又，山家離合，大有二義：一、約修性相成，在性則全修成性，性自有三。起修則全性成修，修自具三。二、約修性相對，離謂修性各三，合謂修二性一。今用修性各三，而解修六性三，此混相成相對之門，復亂六法九法之數，斯背義焉！三、淨覺《雜編》云：「予嘗有文心解，具引《玄籤》注之，大意與孤山不異（說離同也）。但取境智行三，圓對三德（此說合異）。」故《雜編》云：「如三身中，法身可解，報即般若，應即解脫。三般若中，實相即法身，觀照即般若，文字即解脫。三解脫中，性淨即法身，圓淨即般若，方便淨即解脫。」此似合掌合矣，亦如川字合焉。若以性、德、緣了，歸修報應。修中法身，合性正因，此失與奪之義，又違《金錍》，故性、緣了，同名正因。四、南屏斷於離合，大有四種：一者三一。《釋籤》云：「一謂涅槃，三謂三德。」二者三六，《金錍》本有三種，三理元遍，達性成修，修三亦遍，離雖有六，合則但三。三者三九，離謂修性各三（此成九法），合謂修二性一（此成三法）。四者性九修十八，如《光明》夢見金鼓之文。今謂三一三九，是離合之正義。修三性三，屬全性以起修，非對辨於離合。五、先稟清辨老師，嘗分二義：一、修性各論離合，二、修性對論離合。且各論者，如《金錍》云：「本有三種，三理元遍，此乃在性，則全修成性。性自離九，自合成三，達性成修，修三亦遍，此乃起修，則全性成修。修亦離九，亦合成三。斯約橫論兩重離合。」若對論者，如《釋籤》云：「離謂修性各三，性無所移，修常宛爾，故有九法。合謂修二性一，此約功力，與奪，相對論合。性中緣了無功，斥為一性，修德法身受熏，奪名二修。」茲約竪論一番離合。六、究意者，今宗示此離合之法，為顯法體不思議故。何哉？雖論合三為一，一不定一，一自常三；雖示離一為三，三不定三，三自常一。故章安曰：「橫之彌高，竪之彌廣，會之常分，派之常合。」七、判教者，如《金錍》云：「論生兩教，似等明具，別教不詮種具等義，非此可述。故別佛性，滅九方見。圓人則達九界三道，即見圓伊三德體遍。別教不談乎種具，遂說修性之縱橫。圓宗由示於體遍，故演修性之離合。」此顯共而不雜，復彰離亦不分。八、定位者，教既唯圓，位須簡濫。初局住前，二通初後，三示極果。初、局住前者。《不二門》云：「如鏡本來具三，依理生解，故名為智。智解導行，行解契理。」初住既三法相符，與奪離合，局住前也。二、通初後者。《顯性錄》云：「一家緣了之位，深淺與奪，非止一途。若《法華．壽量》疏文，則住前通是緣因，初住真正顯了，乃是了因。以約聲聞聞經得記，即入初住。此約真似分緣了。若〈藥草喻〉疏，至于究竟，名為智三，中間四即，悉為行三。以順經文，究竟至於一切智故。此以分極分緣了。若〈法師品〉疏，道前真如即是正因；道中真如即為緣因，亦名了因；道終真如即是圓果。記云：此以修德，對彼正因。正中緣了，同成正因；修中正因，同成緣了。又云：此以博地為道前，發心已後為道中，位分之為二。住前為緣，登住已去為了。此之三因，該通一教。」三、示極果者。《涅槃玄》釋大滅度：「文云法身亦非，那可單作三身釋大？文云解脫亦非，那可單作三脫釋滅？文云般若亦非，那可單作三智釋度？」先達乃謂大滅度三，既各開九，乃成離為二十七法。今謂章安《玄》云：「雖一而三，雖三而一；雖復三一，而非三一；雖非三一，而三而一，不可思議，攝一切法。」祖師為顯三德圓融，異乎縱橫並別，後裔分析為二十七法，去道遠矣。九、決疑者，或人問曰：「性中三法，若起二修，乃顯祇有一法。安言合三為一耶？」南屏釋云：「祇一三德，說有開合。若從迷論，則合三為一；若就悟言，則起修為二。如身與臂，縛則合為一身，解則開成三處。」先師解曰：「終日隨緣雖起二修，何妨性中終日不變。所謂性無所移，修常宛爾。」十、指訛者，《光明．懺悔品》「夢中見聞有二：一夢見金鼓，二夢擊鼓聲。見鼓又三：一、正見鼓（鼓體覩法身），二、見鼓光（光智覩報身），三、見光中佛（佛即應身）。二、夢見擊鼓。文為三：一、見擊鼓，二、出大音聲，三、聲所詮辨（鼓是法身，桴鼓合是報身，擊出是應身）。」舊謂夢見金鼓，三身各三，是性中九法。夢見擊鼓，是修中九法，遂說三九二十七法。新記斥曰：「前文見鼓，是法身之三，即境三也。鼓光之三，即智三也。見佛之三，即用三也。今文但明能擊之人，用智擊鼓，何曾論於修性二十七法耶？」又如四明《記》曰：「上鼓表三光三佛，三祇是一三。今對信相機智所觀，合三為一，但名法身，此乃修性融即之明鑑。」學斯宗者，當了世伊三點，天主三目。異別教之縱橫，建圓宗之離合。顯修性之一致，會生佛以同原。絕思議之門，非數量之法。故淨名詞喪於毘耶，釋迦言罄於摩竭，故名不思議之法矣。 > First, citing the original texts: The Great Scripture (Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra) states, "All phenomena are inherently empty in their original nature." It is also because the bodhisattva cultivates emptiness that they perceive all phenomena to be empty. The Awakening of Faith states, "Knowing that the essence of dharmatā is devoid of stinginess and greed, one accords with it to practice the perfection of giving (dāna-pāramitā)." Tiantai's Biexing xuan states, "Tracing the root of this cause and effect, it is just the auxiliary and revealing \[causes\] of inherent virtue. This inherent virtue is inherently possessed from the beginning, not something newly acquired today." It also states, "Practicing by means of these two kinds of skillful means, it gradually increases and grows; starting from a tiny tip, it is able to become a great tree of cultivated virtue that takes both arms to embrace." Jingxi's Fuji men states, "Inherent virtue is simply the single thought of realms and thusness. Within this single thought of realms and thusness, the three dharmas are fully complete; although their nature is inherently so from the beginning, one relies on wisdom to give rise to cultivation." These are all clear passages on inherent nature and cultivation. > > The Great Scripture states, "The dharma of liberation is also not nirvāṇa; the body of the Tathāgata is also not nirvāṇa; mahāprajñā is also not nirvāṇa." Zhang'an's Niepan xuan explains: "The text says that the dharmakāya is also not \[nirvāṇa\]—how could one singly explain 'great' as the three bodies? The text says that liberation is also not \[nirvāṇa\]—how could one singly explain 'extinction' as the three liberations? The text says that prajñā is also not \[nirvāṇa\]—how could one singly explain 'crossing over' as the three wisdoms? Therefore, we know that singly explaining them is not the intent of the present sūtra. To seek each of them individually among the three virtues cannot be attained; to seek them combined as three dharmas also cannot be attained." Zhiyi's Miaoxuan states, "This wonderful practice, together with the preceding object and wisdom, discuss three while being one, and discuss one while being three." Jingxi states, "Furthermore, in understanding according practice in contrast to nature, there is separation and integration. Separation means inherent nature and cultivation each have three; integration means two of cultivation and one of inherent nature. Yongjia said: 'Among the biased three, one must distinguish: First, having prajñā without liberation and dharmakāya; second, having liberation without dharmakāya and prajñā; third, having dharmakāya without liberation and prajñā. Having one without the two is therefore not complete; not being complete, it is therefore not inherent nature. Furthermore, among the biased three, one must select: First, having prajñā and liberation without dharmakāya; second, having liberation and dharmakāya without prajñā; third, having dharmakāya and prajñā without liberation. Having two without the one is therefore not complete; not being complete, it is therefore not inherent nature. The three within the complete must be fully possessed: First, the dharmakāya not being deluded is prajñā; prajñā being free from attachment is liberation; liberation being quiescent and extinct is dharmakāya (the second and third follow this pattern).'" These are all the original texts on separation and integration. > > Second, analyzing the terms: "Cultivation" means establishing practice and progressing forward, giving rise to the two causes of direct and auxiliary. "Inherent nature" means the original, intrinsic essence itself, which is the single thought of realms and thusness. Because ordinary beings are deluded, they give rise to falsehood from the true, like dust obscuring a mirror. The luminous nature of the auxiliary and revealing \[causes\] exists inherently of itself, and thus possesses the virtue of the rational nature. Because practitioners awaken, they turn away from dust and unite with enlightenment, like a mirror being polished, whereupon the reflections of beauty and ugliness immediately appear; thus there is the virtue achieved through cultivation. > > Third, explaining the meaning: Concerning the dharma of separation and integration, Dharma Master Nanping once established three meanings to elucidate it: First, separation is distinctness; separation means inherent nature and cultivation each have three. Integration is communality; integration means two of cultivation and one of inherent nature. Second, separation is opening; regarding nature, it is constantly opened. Integration is contrast; only in contrast with cultivation is it integrated. Third, separation is the sense of granting: speaking in terms of granting, the single nature inherently possesses the two cultivations, and the two cultivations are constantly identical with the single nature. Integration is the sense of depriving: speaking in terms of depriving, although the identity in principle inherently possesses the auxiliary and revealing \[causes\], because one has not aroused the aspiration and has not yet applied effort, the auxiliary and revealing \[causes\] of that nature are merely called the direct cause. Although the two cultivations inherently possess the dharmakāya, because of wisdom's illumination, they are merely called the revealing cause. Because practice is aroused, they are jointly called the auxiliary cause. > > Fourth, determining the substance: If one wishes to show the doctrinal characteristics of separation and integration, one must examine the dharma-substance of cultivation and nature. This is because both nature and cultivation take the general characteristic of the three thousand as their substance. Thus the Awakening of Faith says, "The mind as true thusness is the substance of the great general characteristic dharma-gate of the single dharma-realm, namely the mind-nature that is neither born nor destroyed." Although the mind is originally true, through unawareness it gives rise to delusion. The sūtra states, "The mind is like a master painter. It creates the various five skandhas; in all the worlds, there is nothing that is not created from the mind." Due to this, with ignorance as a condition, the dharmas of sentient beings are formed. The Vimalakīrti states, "Just as an illusionist sees the persons conjured by illusion, so does a bodhisattva view sentient beings." Because of awakening to this principle, there are the dharmas of the Buddha. The Lotus Sūtra states, "Only a Buddha and a Buddha can exhaustively fathom the true reality of all phenomena." And these three dharmas, since they mutually possess the three thousand, also each subsume the hundred realms. To realize its fundamental quiescence is called being inherently possessed in principle; to illuminate the arising of thought is called being produced in phenomena. Although cultivation and nature are two, the substance of the three thousand is one. Therefore, Miaole says, "Only because the principle is one are cultivation and nature opposed to each other in separation and integration." > > Fifth, displaying the characteristics: The Xianneng lu of Gushan, displaying the characteristics of separation, says: "The correct doctrine of cultivation and nature in our school is framed according to the first three wonders of the Xuanwen: the object is the three of nature, wisdom is the three of wisdom, and practice is the three of practice. The stages of practice then have various ranks. If one reaches the initial dwelling, it is called the partial fruit, meaning one partially realizes the three dharmas. If spoken of in terms of integration, it integrates nature into one and integrates cultivation into two: integrating the rational nature's three into one direct cause is the virtue of the dharmakāya; integrating wisdom's three into one revealing cause is the virtue of prajñā; integrating practice's three into one auxiliary cause is the virtue of liberation. Therefore, although the opening possesses nine, nine are just three; although three and nine differ, their principle is constantly one." Examining this explanation now, the text matches and the meaning is fitting to explain the meaning of separation. The text matches Shiqian: "The object is the three virtues of rational nature, wisdom is the understanding of the three virtues, and practice is the contemplation of the three virtues." Coming to the explanation of the meaning of integration, the text matches Shiqian: "One refers to nirvāṇa, three refers to the three virtues." As for the meaning being fitting, since separation and integration are delusion and awakening, granting and depriving should occur before the dwellings. If one reaches the initial dwelling, cultivation and nature unite as one and are no longer divided; how could one speak of the distinction between granting and depriving? Second, Siming's Zhiyao chao states: "Like the ten kinds of three dharmas in the Guangming xuan, which draw from the dharma characteristics of cultivation and nature in the sūtras and treatises, they therefore possess both explanations of separation and integration." For instance, although the three virtues and the Three Jewels are the culmination of cultivated virtue, their meaning must encompass nature; although the text of the three bodies and three wisdoms is framed according to awakening, the principle must permeate delusion; since the three consciousnesses and the three paths point to phenomena as identical with principle, they must entirely arise from nature to establish cultivation. Are these six not three each of cultivation and nature? Since the three causes contrast the single nature with the two cultivations of wisdom and practice; and the three bodhis, three Mahāyānas, and three nirvāṇas all contrast the single nature with the two cultivations of realizing principle and giving rise to function—are these four not two of cultivation and one of nature? We now say: the single gate of cultivation and nature is fundamentally based on the two wonders of wisdom and practice. Contrasted with the wonder of the object as the principle in delusion, discussing separation and integration through mutual contrast, granting, and depriving, the ten kinds of three dharmas then become evident. The three virtues realized by persons of the fruit all belong to awakening; to abandon the immediate original text and remotely take from other works is to be confused about the text. Furthermore, separation and integration in our school have broadly two meanings: First, based on cultivation and nature completing each other: in nature, the entirety of cultivation becomes nature, and nature of itself has three; when giving rise to cultivation, the entirety of nature becomes cultivation, and cultivation of itself possesses three. Second, based on the mutual contrast of cultivation and nature: separation means cultivation and nature each have three, and integration means two of cultivation and one of nature. Now, using three each of cultivation and nature to explain six of cultivation and three of nature confuses the gates of mutual completion and mutual contrast, and further scrambles the count of the six dharmas and nine dharmas; this goes against the meaning! Third, Jingjue's Zabian states: "I once had an interpretation in my heart, fully citing the annotations of the Xuanqian, whose general idea did not differ from Gushan's (the explanation of separation being identical). It merely took the three of object, wisdom, and practice, and completely matched them with the three virtues (this explanation of integration being different)." Thus the Zabian says: "For instance, among the three bodies, the dharmakāya can be understood; the saṃbhogakāya is prajñā, and the nirmāṇakāya is liberation. Among the three prajñās, the real mark is the dharmakāya, contemplative illumination is prajñā, and words and letters are liberation. Among the three liberations, inherent purity is the dharmakāya, complete purity is prajñā, and purity of skillful means is liberation." This is like joining the palms together, and also like the strokes of the character chuan (川) coming together. If one relegates the auxiliary and revealing \[causes\] of inherent nature to the cultivated saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, and integrates the dharmakāya within cultivation into the direct cause of nature, this loses the meaning of granting and depriving and also contradicts the Jinbi, which states that the auxiliary and revealing \[causes\] of nature are equally named the direct cause. Fourth, Nanping's determination of separation and integration broadly has four types: The first is three and one. Shiqian says: "One refers to nirvāṇa, three refers to the three virtues." The second is three and six. The Jinbi states that originally there are three kinds, the three principles are fundamentally omnipresent, and when realizing nature to achieve cultivation, the cultivated three are also omnipresent; although in separation there are six, in integration there are merely three. The third is three and nine: separation means cultivation and nature each have three (this forms nine dharmas); integration means two of cultivation and one of nature (this forms three dharmas). The fourth is nine of nature and eighteen of cultivation, like the passage on dreaming of the golden drum in the Guangming \[sūtra\]. We now say: three-and-one and three-and-nine are the correct meanings of separation and integration. Cultivation having three and nature having three belongs to arousing cultivation from the entirety of nature, not distinguishing separation and integration by contrast. Fifth, formerly received from the late teacher Qingbian, who once divided it into two meanings: First, discussing separation and integration separately within cultivation and nature; second, discussing separation and integration by contrasting cultivation with nature. As for discussing them separately: as the Jinbi says, "Originally there are three kinds, and the three principles are fundamentally omnipresent"—this means that in nature, the entirety of cultivation becomes nature; nature of itself separates into nine and of itself integrates into three. "Realizing nature to achieve cultivation, the cultivated three are also omnipresent"—this means that in giving rise to cultivation, the entirety of nature becomes cultivation; cultivation also separates into nine and also integrates into three. This is discussing two tiers of separation and integration horizontally. As for discussing them in contrast: as Shiqian says, "Separation means cultivation and nature each have three; nature has nothing removed, and cultivation is constantly distinct, hence there are nine dharmas. Integration means two of cultivation and one of nature; this is discussing integration comparatively based on efficacy, granting, and depriving. The auxiliary and revealing \[causes\] in nature lack efficacy and are dismissed as the single nature; the dharmakāya of cultivated virtue receives perfuming and is deprived of its name to be called the two cultivations." This is discussing one round of separation and integration vertically. > > Sixth, investigating the intent: The presentation of this dharma of separation and integration by our school is to make evident that the dharma-substance is inconceivable. Why is this? Although discussing integrating three into one, the one is not definitively one, for the one of itself is constantly three; although showing separating one into three, the three are not definitively three, for the three of themselves are constantly one. Therefore Zhang'an said: "Horizontally, it is ever higher; vertically, it is ever broader; when gathered, it is constantly divided; when branched out, it is constantly united." > > Seventh, judging the teachings: As the Jinbi says, "Discussing the birth of the two teachings, they seem equally to explain possession; the separate teaching does not expound the meaning of seeds possessing \[dharmas\] and the like, so it cannot be set forth here. Therefore, the Buddha-nature of the separate teaching is seen only after extinguishing the nine \[realms\]. The person of the complete teaching penetrates the three paths of the nine realms and immediately sees that the substance of the complete letter 'i' and the three virtues is omnipresent. Because the separate teaching does not speak of possession in seeds, it speaks of the horizontal and vertical aspects of cultivation and nature. Because the complete school demonstrates omnipresence of substance, it expounds the separation and integration of cultivation and nature." This shows that they are shared without confusion, and further manifests that even in separation they are not divided. > > Eighth, determining the stages: Since the teaching is exclusively complete, the stages must be distinguished from confusion: first, restricted to before the dwellings; second, penetrating from the beginning to the end; third, demonstrating the ultimate fruit. First, restricted to before the dwellings: The Fuji men states, "Just as a mirror originally possesses three, understanding arises based on principle, and thus it is named wisdom. Understanding of wisdom guides practice, and understanding of practice accords with principle." Since at the initial dwelling the three dharmas correspond with each other, granting, depriving, separation, and integration are restricted to before the dwellings. Second, penetrating from beginning to end: The Xianneng lu states, "The ranks of the auxiliary and revealing \[causes\] in our school, in their depth, granting, and depriving, are not confined to a single path. In the commentary on the 'Life Span' chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, before the dwellings is throughout the auxiliary cause, and the true, clear manifestation at the initial dwelling is the revealing cause. This is based on the voice-hearers hearing the sūtra and receiving prediction, immediately entering the initial dwelling. This distinguishes auxiliary and revealing by true and resemblance \[stages\]. In the commentary on the 'Parable of the Medicinal Herbs', reaching the ultimate is named the three of wisdom, while the intermediate four identities are all the three of practice, in order to accord with the sūtra text's 'ultimately reaching all-knowledge.' This distinguishes auxiliary and revealing by partial and ultimate. In the commentary on the 'Dharma Teacher' chapter, the true thusness before the path is the direct cause; the true thusness during the path is the auxiliary cause and also called the revealing cause; the true thusness at the end of the path is the complete fruit. The Record states: This uses cultivated virtue to contrast with that direct cause. The auxiliary and revealing within the direct together become the direct cause; the direct cause within cultivation together becomes the auxiliary and revealing. It also states: This takes the stage of ordinary beings as before the path, and after arousing the aspiration as during the path, dividing the stages into two: before the dwellings is auxiliary, and ascending to the dwellings onwards is revealing. These three causes encompass the entire teaching." Third, demonstrating the ultimate fruit: The Niepan xuan, in explaining the great extinction and crossing over, states: "The text says that the dharmakāya is also not \[nirvāṇa\]—how could one singly explain 'great' as the three bodies? The text says that liberation is also not \[nirvāṇa\]—how could one singly explain 'extinction' as the three liberations? The text says that prajñā is also not \[nirvāṇa\]—how could one singly explain 'crossing over' as the three wisdoms?" Predecessors therefore said that since the three of the great extinction and crossing over each open into nine, they separate into twenty-seven dharmas. We now say: Zhang'an's Xuan states, "Although one, yet three; although three, yet one. Although both three and one, yet neither three nor one. Although neither three nor one, yet three and one—inconceivable, subsuming all dharmas." The ancestral master did this to demonstrate the perfect interpenetration of the three virtues, distinct from vertical and horizontal separation; when later descendants analyze them into twenty-seven dharmas, they are far from the Way. > > Ninth, resolving doubts: Someone asked, "If the three dharmas in nature give rise to the two cultivations, it demonstrates that there is only one dharma. How can you speak of integrating three into one?" Nanping explained, "There is only the single three virtues, spoken of as having opening and integrating. Discussed from the perspective of delusion, they integrate three into one; spoken of in terms of awakening, they arouse cultivation into two. Like a body and its arms, when bound they integrate into a single body, and when unbound they open into three places." The late master explained, "Although giving rise to the two cultivations while according with conditions all day long, what prevents the nature from remaining unchanging all day long? This is what is meant by 'nature has nothing removed, and cultivation is constantly distinct.'" > > Tenth, pointing out errors: The 'Chapter on Repentance' of the Guangming states, 'In a dream, seeing and hearing are of two kinds: first, dreaming of seeing a golden drum; second, dreaming of the sound of striking the drum. Seeing the drum again has three: first, directly seeing the drum (the drum's substance beholds the dharmakāya); second, seeing the drum's light (the light of wisdom beholds the saṃbhogakāya); third, seeing the Buddha within the light (the Buddha is the nirmāṇakāya). Second, dreaming of striking the drum; the text has three: first, seeing the striking of the drum; second, producing a great sound; third, the explanation expounded by the sound (the drum is the dharmakāya, the drumstick and drum together are the saṃbhogakāya, the sound struck forth is the nirmāṇakāya).' The old interpretation said that dreaming of seeing the golden drum, with the three bodies having three each, constitutes nine dharmas in nature; dreaming of striking the drum constitutes nine dharmas in cultivation, thereby speaking of three nines making twenty-seven dharmas. The New Record refutes this, saying: 'The preceding text on seeing the drum is the three of the dharmakāya, which is the three of the object. The three of the drum's light is the three of wisdom. The three of seeing the Buddha is the three of function. The present text merely clarifies the person capable of striking using wisdom to strike the drum; how did it ever discuss twenty-seven dharmas of cultivation and nature?' Furthermore, as Siming's Record states: 'The upper drum signifies the three lights and three Buddhas, and the three are merely a single three. Now, contrasted with the capacity and wisdom contemplated by Xinxiang, integrating three into one is simply called the dharmakāya; this is a clear mirror of the mutual identity and integration of cultivation and nature.' Students of this school should understand the three dots of the worldly letter 'i' and the three eyes of the lord of heaven (Indra). Differing from the horizontal and vertical of the separate teaching, establish the separation and integration of the complete school. Reveal the oneness of cultivation and nature, and unite sentient beings and Buddhas in the same source. Cut off the gate of thought and deliberation, for this is not a dharma of numbers and quantities. Thus Vimalakīrti's words ceased at Vaiśālī, and Śākyamuni's speech was exhausted at Magadha; therefore it is called an inconceivable dharma. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.11) - [Next: 6.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.13) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131~en-mt.6.12) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [注維摩詰經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1775.6.60) — Classical Chinese - [觀音玄義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1726.1.35) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.12) · Pramāṇa