Original Text: https://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ011/bj11_408.htm

English Translation: Dōgen Zenji's Thought on Buddha-Nature

Shi Hengqing

Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies, Issue 4

Published July 1999

Pages 209-258

Original Text: “道元禪師的佛性思想

釋恒清

佛學研究中心學報第四期

1999 年 7月出版

頁209-258

English Translation: Page 209

Abstract

Zen Master Dōgen is an extremely outstanding thinker and religious figure in the history of Japanese Buddhism. The Shōbōgenzō is the representative work embodying the essence of his thought. This article explores Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature by examining chapters such as 〈Buddha-Nature〉 (Busshō), 〈Talk on Practicing the Way〉 (Bendōwa), 〈Actualizing the Kōan〉 (Genjōkōan), and 〈Being-Time〉 (Uji) within it.

The first part discusses the background formation of Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature. Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature and his view of practice-realization originated from his doubts regarding the Original Awakening thought (hongaku shisō) of Japanese Tendai Buddhism. Regarding these doubts, Dōgen attained a thorough resolution, like "dropping off body and mind" (shinjin datsuraku), from the Chinese Chan Master Rujing. As Original Awakening thought can be traced back to the Tathāgatagarbha/Buddha-nature thought of Indian and Chinese Buddhism, the second part of this article briefly discusses its developmental history.

The third part explores Dōgen's view of Buddha-nature. Firstly, it discusses Dōgen's refutation of misunderstandings of Buddha-nature. Secondly, it discusses how Dōgen interprets the meaning of Buddha-nature based on concepts such as "time-period" (jijie), "possessing Buddha-nature" (u busshō), and "lacking Buddha-nature" (mu busshō), and establishes his thought of "impermanent Buddha-nature" (mujō busshō).

The final part discusses how "Critical Buddhism" interprets and critiques Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature.

Original Text: 頁209

提要

道元禪師是日本佛教史上極為傑出的思想家和宗教家。《正法眼藏》是其思想精華的代表作。本文就其中〈佛性〉、〈辦道話〉、〈現成公案〉、〈有時〉等篇探討道元的佛性思想。

第一部分討論道元佛性思想形成的背景。道元的佛性思想和修證觀源自他對日本天台宗本覺思想的疑惑，對此疑惑，道元在中國禪師如淨處獲得「身心脫落」般徹底的開解。本覺思想可溯源自中印佛教的如來藏／佛性思想，故本文第二部分略論其發展史。

第三部分探討道元的佛性觀。首先討論道元對佛性誤解的駁斥。其次，討論道元如何依「時節」、「有佛性」、「無佛性」等觀念詮 釋佛性義，及建立其「無常佛性」的思想。

最後部分論及「批判佛教」如何解讀和批判道元的佛性思想。

English Translation: Page 210

I. Background to the Formation of Dōgen's Thought on Buddha-Nature

Zen Master Dōgen (1200-1253) is the founder of the Japanese Sōtō school and the most philosophically rich thinker in the history of Japanese Buddhism. However, perhaps due to the barriers of sectarian consciousness, Dōgen's thought has not received the attention it deserves in the history of Japanese thought. It was rather in modern times, due to scholars of the Kyoto School and Watsuji Tetsurō's article "Shamon Dōgen,"[^1] that extensive and in-depth research on Dōgen was ignited among contemporary Sōtō school adherents, as well as Japanese and Western Buddhist scholars.[^2] Especially in recent years, with the debate known as "Critical Buddhism" stirring in Japanese Buddhist academic circles, Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature has become a particular target of critique. The final part of this article will discuss this in detail.

Original Text: 頁210

一、道元佛性思想形成的背景

道元禪師(1200-1253)是日本曹洞宗的始祖，也是日本佛教史上最富哲理的思想家。然而，可能由於宗派意識的隔閡，道元的思想並未在日本思想史中受到應有的重視。倒是近代由於京都學派學者和𠕇哲郎一文〈沙門道元〉， 註1點燃了現代曹洞宗門下，以及日本和西方佛教學者對道元的廣泛和深入的研究， 註2尤其最近幾年日本佛學界掀起所謂「批判佛教（critical Buddhism）」的論戰，道元的佛性思想更是成為批判的對象，本文最後部份將對此詳加討論。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^1]: Watsuji Tetsurō (和辻 哲郎, 1889-1960) was a prominent Japanese philosopher and cultural historian. His essay "Shamon Dōgen" (沙門道元, "The Monk Dōgen") played a significant role in reviving interest in Dōgen's philosophy in modern Japan. [^2]: The text indicates that footnotes 1 and 2 are present in the original document, corresponding to references provided by the author Shi Hengqing. These are represented here as bracketed footnote numbers.

English Translation: The formation of Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature is inextricably linked to his exploration of the Buddhadharma and his religious experiences, as can be seen from the following brief biography of Dōgen. Regarding biographical literature on Dōgen, besides primary sources of an autobiographical nature, such as the Hōkyōki[^3] and the Shōbōgenzō Shisho (Record of Dharma Transmission), there are records by Dōgen's direct disciples, such as the Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki by Dōgen's eminent disciple Koun Ejō.[^4] Furthermore, there are biographies compiled by later generations of the Sōtō school

Original Text: 　　道元佛性思想的形成，與其對佛法的探索和宗教體驗，有著密不可分的關係，從以下道元的生平簡歷即可看出。有關道元的傳記文獻，除了屬自傳性質的第一手資料，如《寶慶記》、 註3《正法眼藏嗣書》之外，有道元的直傳弟子所記載的，如道元高徒懷奘的《正法眼藏隨聞記》。 註4再者，曹洞宗 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^3]: Hōkyōki (寶慶記, "Record of the Hōkyō Era"): A record of Dōgen's questions to his teacher Rujing in China during the Hōkyō (Baoqing) era (1225-1227). [^4]: Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki (正法眼藏隨聞記, "Record of Things Heard from the Shōbōgenzō"): A collection of Dōgen's informal talks recorded by his disciple Koun Ejō (孤雲懐奘, 1198-1280).

English Translation: Page 211

to commemorate Dōgen's virtue and learning, such as the Eihei-ji Sanzogyōgyōki (Record of the Deeds of the Three Ancestors of Eihei-ji), the Kenzeiki, and the Eihei Kaisan Dōgen Washō Gyōroku (Record of the Deeds of Eihei Founder Dōgen Oshō) (all three texts are included in the Sōtōshū Zensho, Complete Works of the Sōtō School). Based on these historical materials, many modern Japanese and Western scholars have conducted precise and detailed textual criticism and research on Dōgen's biography. The most representative works include Ōkubo Dōshū's Dōgen Zenji-den no Kenkyū (Research on the Biography of Zen Master Dōgen), Kagashima Genryū's Dōgen Zenji Monryū (The School of Zen Master Dōgen), and Satō Tatsugen's Dōgen no Shōgai (The Life of Dōgen).[^5] Recently, the Dōgen Shisō Taikei (Compendium of Dōgen's Thought), edited by Kuma Moto Hidetoshi, comprises twenty-two volumes; the first six volumes belong to the "Biography Section" and consist entirely of research papers on Dōgen's biography, covering it in exhaustive detail.

Original Text: 頁211

後代為紀念道元的德學而編撰的傳記，如《永平寺三祖行業記》、《建撕記》、《永平開山道元和尚行錄》等（以上三典籍均收於《曹洞宗全書》）。根據這些史料，許多現代日本和西方學者，對道元的傳記做了精密詳實的考證和研究，最具代表性的有大久保道舟的《道元禪師傳の研究》、鏡島元隆所著《道元禪師門流》、佐藤達玄的《道元の生涯》等。 註5最近由熊本英人主編的《道元思想大系》共二十二冊，前六冊屬「傳記篇」，都是有關道元傳記的研究論文，可謂巨細靡遺。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^5]: These titles represent significant scholarly works on Dōgen's life and are cited in the original text (footnote 5).

English Translation: Although Dōgen instructed the assembly in the "Kichijō-ji Eihei-ji Shuryō Shingi" (Regulations for the Monks' Hall at Kichijō-ji and Eihei-ji), saying: "Just consider the Buddhist saying that the four rivers entering the ocean no longer retain their original names; the four seas [of people] leaving home are all called Śākya,"[^6] in order to understand the entire course of Dōgen's life, it is still necessary to know his family background before he ordained. Dōgen was born in Kyoto in 1200 CE, coinciding with the "Kamakura Buddhism,"[^7] the golden age of Japanese Buddhism, which was also an era of social turmoil due to power struggles within the shogunate government.

Original Text: 　　雖然道元在「吉祥寺永平寺眾寮箴規」中示眾云﹕「但念四河入海，無復本名，四海出家同稱釋氏之佛語」， 註6但是為了暸解道元的整個生命歷程，還是有需要知道他出家前的家庭背景。道元於公元一二○○年在京都出生，正逢日本佛教黃金時代的「鐮倉佛教」， 註7亦是幕府政治權力鬥爭社會動盪不安的時代。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^6]: The quote emphasizes the irrelevance of former identity (like rivers losing their names in the ocean) after ordination into the Buddhist sangha (community), where all are followers of Śākyamuni (釋氏). Cited in the original text (footnote 6). [^7]: The Kamakura period (1185-1333) saw the rise of new Buddhist schools in Japan (Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren) and is considered a pivotal era in Japanese Buddhist history. Cited in the original text (footnote 7).

English Translation: According to the Eihei-ji Sanzogyōgyōki, Dōgen came from a noble family. His mother was Matsudono Ishi (or Fujiwarano Ishi), who married the military commander Kiso Yoshinaka at sixteen. Yoshinaka later committed suicide after a military defeat. Ishi's father, seeking to curry favor with the powerful, remarried her to the Inner Minister (Naidaijin) Kuga Michichika. Although Dōgen's father was descended from emperors and enjoyed high official rank and power, he died suddenly when Dōgen was three years old. Dōgen's elder half-brother, Kuga Michitomo, took responsibility for raising him. Both Kuga Michichika and Michitomo were skilled poets, which deeply influenced the cultivation of Dōgen's literary talent.

Original Text: 　　根據《永平寺三祖行業記》所載，道元出身名門貴族，母親是松殿伊子，十六歲嫁給武將木曾義仲。木曾後來因戰役失利而自殺身亡。伊子父親為了攀附權貴，將伊子再嫁內大臣久我通親。雖然道元的父親貴為天皇後裔，且享有高官權勢，但是在道元三歲時即猝死。道元的異母兄長久我通具即負起養育道元的責任。久我通親和通具父子均擅長詩歌，對道元文才的培育深具影響。

English Translation: When Dōgen was eight years old, his loving mother passed away from illness. This grievous event caused a tremendous shock in Dōgen's young and sensitive mind. The Sanzogyōgyōki records that Dōgen, "experiencing the loss of his loving mother, observed the smoke from the incense fire and secretly awakened to the impermanence of the world, deeply establishing a great vow to seek the Dharma."[^8] According to the fifth section of the Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki, Dōgen also once said of himself:

Original Text: 　　道元八歲時，慈母病逝，悲痛的遭遇，在道元幼小而敏銳的心靈激起極大的震撼。《三祖行業記》記載道元「遇慈母喪，觀香火之煙，潛悟世間無常，深立求法大願。」 註8據《正法眼藏隨聞記》第五所載，道元亦曾自云﹕ 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^8]: Quote from Eihei-ji Sanzogyōgyōki, cited in the original text (footnote 8).

English Translation: Page 212

"My initial true cause was impermanence, which tentatively aroused the mind for the Way."[^9] That all conditioned things are impermanent and all is suffering is a "noble truth" consistently emphasized in Buddhism. Everyone lives daily in a world of ceaseless impermanent arising and ceasing, yet some people are oblivious, some become accustomed to it, while others, due to various life circumstances, suddenly realize the principle of impermanence and consequently embark on the religious path to liberation. The conditions that trigger the "sense of impermanence" (無常感) vary.[^10] For Siddhartha, the process of birth, old age, sickness, and death was the portrait of impermanence; for the eight-year-old Dōgen, the passing of his loving mother was a personal experience of impermanence and also an important factor contributing to his later choice to leave home and seek the Dharma.[^11]

Original Text: 頁212

「我初正因無常，聊發道心。」 註9諸行無常，一切皆苦本是佛教一直強調的「聖諦」。人人每天都生活在無常生滅不已的世間，但是有些人懞然不覺，有些人習以為常，有些人則因種種不同的人生境遇而頓然領悟無常的道理，進而邁向宗教的解脫之路。引發「無常感」的因緣各有不同， 註10對悉達多而言，生老病死的歷程是無常的寫照，對八歲的道元而言，慈母的仙逝是無常的親身經驗，也是促成他日後選擇出家求法的重要因素。 註11 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^9]: Quote from Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki, cited in the original text (footnote 9). [^10]: The original text includes footnote 10 here, likely providing further examples or discussion on the causes of realizing impermanence. [^11]: The original text includes footnote 11 here, possibly elaborating on the impact of his mother's death.

English Translation: After losing his mother, Dōgen, who had deep good roots, began to engage with the Buddhadharma. The Kenzeiki says that at age nine, Dōgen began reading the Abhidharmakośa. At thirteen, Dōgen fled from the Matsudono household, where his maternal uncle had adopted him, to Mount Hiei, seeking refuge with another uncle, Ryōkan Ajari, who had already ordained. The following year (1214), through Ryōkan's introduction, Dōgen received tonsure from the monk Kōen of Senkō-bō. Therefore, Dōgen's initial lineage came from the Tendai school, not Chan (Zen). Japanese Tendai Buddhism, founded by Saichō, differed significantly from Chinese Tiantai. By Dōgen's time, Japanese Tendai had already incorporated teachings from Chan, Vinaya (rules), and Esoteric Buddhism, forming what is called "Tendai Esotericism" (Tendai Mikkyō, 台密). At that time, Mount Hiei, the head temple complex of the Tendai school, was no longer an ideal environment for practice. Severe schisms and struggles had erupted between the Ennin and Enchin factions within the school, leading to the emergence of warrior monks (sōhei). The monastic community emphasized complex esoteric rituals, and formalism replaced genuine practice and study of doctrines. Against this backdrop of study and practice, figures originally from the Mount Hiei Tendai community, such as Hōnen, Shinran, Nichiren, and Eisai, successively left Mount Hiei to establish new emerging schools. Dōgen's later "departure" was also an inevitable reaction to the corrupt and declining Tendai establishment.

Original Text: 　　自喪母之後，善根深厚的道元即開始接觸佛法。《建撕記》說道元九歲時開始閱讀《俱舍論》(Abhidharmakosa)。十三歲時道元從收養他的大舅松殿家逃往比叡山，投靠另一位已出家的舅父良顯法師。蒞年（一二一四年）經良顯的引薦，道元從千光房的公𧪄和尚剃髮得度，因此道元的最初師承是來自天臺宗而非禪宗。日本天臺宗為最澄所創立，與中國的天臺宗有很大差異，到了道元時代，日本天臺宗已融合了禪宗、律宗、密宗等教義，形成所謂「天臺密宗」（臺密）。當時身為天臺宗大本山的比叡山已非很理想的修行環境。宗門中的圓仁和圓珍兩派系發生嚴重的分裂和鬥爭，僧兵應運而生。僧團著重的是繁複的密教儀式，形式主義取代了教理的真修實學。在如此的修學背景下，原本出身於比叡山天臺僧團的法然、親鸞、日蓮、榮西等紛紛脫離比叡山，另創新興宗派，而後來道元的「出走」也是對腐敗沒落的天臺教團的必然反應。

English Translation: Besides Dōgen's dissatisfaction with the general environment on Mount Hiei, importantly, he developed a great doubt regarding the Tendai "Original Awakening thought" (本覺思想). Dōgen's question arose from the statement in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." The Kenzeiki records:

(Dōgen) from age thirteen to eighteen, for six years, read through the entire canon twice. The great matter of the school, the main outline of the Dharma Gate, is "originally the fundamental dharma-nature, the natural self-nature body" (本来本法性，天然自性身). This principle, [yet] neither the exoteric nor esoteric schools provided a settling point [for him]. Greatly doubting and stagnant, he visited Kōin Sōjō of Mii-dera temple [asking]: If [beings] are inherently the fundamental dharma body, the dharma-nature, why do all Buddhas then arouse the aspiration and practice the path of Sambodhi? [^12]

Original Text: 　　道元除了對比叡山大環境的不滿外，重要的是他對天臺「本覺思想」產生極大的疑惑。道元的疑問起自《大般涅槃經》所說的「一切眾生悉有佛性」。《建撕記》記載﹕

（道元）自十三歲至十八歲六個年之間，看閱一切經二遍。宗家之大事，法門之大綱「本來本法性，天然自性身」，此理顯密之兩宗不為落居。大有疑滯，三井寺公胤僧正所參，如自本法身法性者，諸佛為什麼更發心修行三菩提之道？ 註12 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^12]: Quote from Kenzeiki, cited in the original text (footnote 12). The phrase "本来本法性，天然自性身" refers to the concept within Original Awakening thought that beings inherently possess the pure Dharma-nature body, which is natural and uncreated. Sambodhi refers to perfect awakening.

English Translation: Page 213

The exceptionally brilliant Dōgen, after reading through the entire canon twice, developed a query regarding the contradiction between "self-nature suchness" (自性真如) and practice-realization. In other words, if sentient beings originally possess the "dharma-nature self-nature body" (法性自性身) of primordial gnosis Buddha-nature, why is there still a need for arduous practice? Dōgen posed this question to Kōin Sōjō, known as the "brilliant master of exoteric and esoteric [teachings], a dragon-elephant of the Dharma ocean," but because Kōin specialized in Pure Land practice, he could not answer Dōgen's question. He therefore suggested Dōgen visit Eisai Zenji (1141-1215), the founder of the Japanese Rinzai school. Additionally, Kōin also encouraged Dōgen, saying: "This question cannot be answered readily. Although there are school instructions, the essential meaning has not been fully determined. It is heard that in the great Song country, the Buddha Mind Seal is transmitted, there is a true lineage. Go directly to Song to seek it." Dōgen briefly visited Eisai Zenji around 1214.[^13] According to Dōgen's autobiographical record, the Hōkyōki, discovered only in 1930, Dōgen once stated, "Later, I entered the chamber of Zen Master Senkō [Eisai], and first heard the Rinzai school's style." Senkō Zenji was Eisai. However, because Eisai himself was busy propagating Rinzai Zen between Kyoto and Kamakura, and additionally, Eisai passed away the following year, Dōgen probably did not learn much from him. In 1217, Dōgen became a disciple of Eisai's eminent student Myōzen at Kennin-ji temple, studying the profound meanings of exoteric and esoteric Buddhism and the Vinaya precepts. However, after several years of searching, he still could not obtain an answer to resolve his "great doubt." He once described: "My initial true cause was impermanence, which tentatively aroused the mind for the Way. I visited various places for study, eventually leaving the mountain gate [of Hiei], and stayed at Kennin-ji. During that time, I did not encounter enlightened teachers or good friends, and was deeply troubled by confusion and deluded thoughts."[^14]

Original Text: 頁213

絕頂聰慧的道元，經過二次遍閱一切經之後，產生了「自性真如」與修證上矛盾的質疑，換言之，如果眾生本來具足本覺佛性的「法性自性身」，何需再苦苦修行。道元以此問題就教於被稱為「顯密之明匠、法海之龍象」的公胤僧正，但是因為公胤專修淨土，對於道元的疑問無法作答，乃建議道元去參訪日本臨濟宗祖師榮西禪師（1141-1215）。另外，公胤也鼓勵道元說﹕「此問輒不可答。雖有家訓，訣未盡義。傳聞大宋國傳佛心印，有正宗，直入宋求覓。」道元約在一二一四年短暫參訪過榮西禪師。 註13依據一九三○年才被發現的道元自傳體記錄《寶慶記》，道元曾自言「後入千光禪師之室，初聞臨濟之宗風」。千光禪師即榮西，可是由於榮西自己在京都和鎌倉之間忙於弘揚臨濟禪，再加上隔年榮西即入寂，所以道元在榮西處可能所學不多。一二一七年道元在建仁寺拜榮西高徒明全為師，學習顯密之奧義和律藏戒儀。然而經過數年的探求，還是無法獲得答案，以解開他的「大疑」。他曾自述﹕「我初正因無常，聊發道心。諸方參學，終辭（比叡）山門，駐錫建仁寺。其間未遇明師善友，深受迷團妄念所困。」 註14 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^13]: The original text includes footnote 13 here, likely providing references for Dōgen's visit to Eisai. [^14]: Quote attributed to Dōgen, cited in the original text (footnote 14).

English Translation: Ultimately, because his confusion remained unresolved, and additionally encouraged by Kōin to "go to Song to seek the Way," Dōgen, in the second year of the Jōō era (1223), traveled to Song China with his teacher Myōzen and others to seek the Dharma. After arriving at Qingyuan Prefecture in Mingzhou, Myōzen first went to Mount Tiantong to take up temporary residence (掛錫, guàxī), while Dōgen remained on the ship for about three months. According to Kodera Takayuki's speculation, Dōgen could not immediately reside at Mount Tiantong with Myōzen possibly because he had only received the Bodhisattva precepts but had not yet received the full Bhikṣu precepts.[^15]

Original Text: 　　道元終因迷團未解，再加上公胤曾鼓勵他「入宋求道」，於是在貞應二年（一二二三年），與其師明全等一行入宋求法。抵達明州慶元府之後，明全先行至天童山掛錫，道元則滯留在船上約三個月左右。根據小寺隆孝的推測，道元不能馬上與明全一起駐錫天童山，可能是因為他只受過菩薩戒，但未曾受比丘具足戒。 註15 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^15]: The original text includes footnote 15 here, citing Kodera Takayuki's speculation regarding Dōgen's delay in joining Myōzen at Tiantong. 掛錫 (guàxī) literally means "hanging the staff," a term for a monk taking up residence at a monastery.

English Translation: Dōgen took advantage of these three months to visit nearby mountain temples, getting a taste of the style and character of Chinese Buddhist Chan. During this time, there was one experience that not only greatly benefited Dōgen during his Dharma quest in Song China but also profoundly influenced his later view of Buddha-nature and practice as "practice-realization as one" (修證一如, shushō ichinyo). In the Tenzo Kyōkun (Instructions for the Cook), Dōgen described this encounter in detail.[^16] One day, an old Tenzo (典座, head cook) from Ayuwang Monastery came to the ship wanting to buy Japanese-

Original Text: 　　道元正好利用這三個月時間，參訪附近的山寺，淺嘗中國佛教的禪風道格。其間有一次經驗，不但使道元在宋的求法的過程中得到很大受用，也深深影響他日後「修證一如」的佛性觀和修行觀，在《典座教訓》中道元詳細描述了這次因緣。 註16有一天有位來自阿育王寺的老典座來到船上想買日本出 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^16]: Tenzo Kyōkun (典座教訓) is one of Dōgen's writings, emphasizing the importance of the Tenzo role and mundane activities as Buddhist practice. Cited in the original text (footnote 16).

English Translation: Page 214

produced edible fungi, "椹" (椹, perhaps shiitake or similar mushrooms), in order to cook them as offerings for the itinerant monks (雲衲, unnō, lit. "cloud-and-patch-robed ones"). Dōgen invited him to stay "on the ship to talk and establish a good connection," but the old Tenzo said he had to hurry back to the monastery to prepare the morning meal (齋粥, saishuku) for the assembly the next day. Dōgen then said: "Why is there no one else in the monastery to handle the meal? If the Tenzo alone is absent, what difference would it make?" The old Tenzo replied gravely: "I am old and hold this position; it is the practice of the Way (辦道, bandō) for my senility. How can I delegate it to others? Furthermore, when I came, I did not ask for leave to stay overnight." From this, one can see the old Tenzo's dedication to his duty, regarding the daily "handling of the meal" as "practice of the Way." However, Dōgen had not yet grasped this meaning at the time and asked him again: "Venerable Sir, being advanced in years, why not practice zazen (坐禪), practice the Way (辦道), contemplate the kōans of the ancients, instead of troubling yourself being the Tenzo, just managing tasks? What good is there in that?" The old Tenzo laughed loudly and said: "Foreigner, you do not yet understand the practice of the Way (辦道), nor do you yet know what written words (文字) are." Upon hearing this, Dōgen "suddenly felt ashamed and startled" and asked him: "What are written words? What is the practice of the Way?" The old Tenzo said: "If you do not miss the point of the question, how can you not be the person [who understands]?" At that time, Dōgen could not comprehend its meaning. The old Tenzo invited Dōgen to visit Ayuwang Monastery another day to "discuss together the principle of written words." Two months later, when the old Tenzo resigned from his post as Tenzo and was preparing to return home, he learned that Dōgen was residing at Mount Tiantong and came specially to meet him. Dōgen was overjoyed and quickly asked again about the matter of written words and the practice of the Way mentioned on the ship:

The Tenzo said: "One who studies written words is for the sake of knowing written words. One who endeavors in the practice of the Way wants to affirm the practice of the Way."

Dōgen asked: "What are written words?" The Tenzo said: "One, two, three, four, five."

Again he asked: "What is the practice of the Way?" The Tenzo said: "Nothing in the whole universe is concealed (遍界不曾藏, henkai fusō zō)."

Original Text: 214頁

產的食菌類「椹」，以便烹煮供養十方雲納。道元便請他留在「舶裏說話以結好緣」，但是老典座說他必需趕回寺中，以便隔日為大眾準備齋粥。道元便說﹕「寺裏何無同事者理會齊粥乎？典座一人不在，有什麼缺闕？」老典座慎重地回答說﹕「吾老年掌此職，乃耄及之辦道也，何以可讓他乎？又來時未請一夜宿暇。」由此可見老典座的盡守職務，並把每日的「理會齋粥」當作「辦道」。但是此時道元還未意會此意，再問他﹕「坐尊年，何不坐禪辦道，看古人話頭，煩充典座只管作務，有甚好事？」老典座大笑云﹕「外國人未了得辦道，未知得文字在。」道元一聽「忽然發慚驚心」，便問他﹕「如何是文字？如何是辦道？」老典座說﹕「若不磋過問處，豈非其人也」。當時道元未能理會其意，老典座邀約道元他日到阿育王寺去「一番商量文字道理」。兩個月後，老典座辭去典座一職，準備還鄉時，得知道元已在天童山掛錫，乃特來相會。道元雀躍不已，並趕緊再請教前日在船舶裏提及有關文字和辦道的問題﹕

典座云﹕「學文字者為知文字故也，務辦道者要肯辦道也。」

道元問曰﹕「如何是文字？」座云﹕「一二三四五。」

又問﹕「如何是辦道？」座云﹕「𣳈界不曾藏。」

English Translation: Dōgen, having listened to the old Tenzo's instruction, clearly had some realization, because he himself acknowledged, "That I, this mountain monk, dare to know written words and understand the practice of the Way is due to the great kindness of that Tenzo." Later, Dōgen saw that Zen Master Xuedou had a verse: "One character, seven characters, three and five characters; when all phenomena are exhausted, they cannot be relied upon. Late at night, the moon is white, descending into the deep blue sea; searching yields how many dragon pearls?" This corresponded with what the Tenzo had said, making him feel even more that the Tenzo was "a true person of the Way." Dōgen, based on the realization from this experience, instructed his disciples, saying:

"The written words seen in the past are one, two, three, four, five; the written words seen today are also six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Later brothers, look from this end to that end, from that end to this end; applying such effort, you will then understand the single flavor of Zen within written words. If not so, being poisoned by the five flavors of Zen from various places, you will not be able to become skillful in preparing food for the monks."[^17]

Original Text:

道元聽了老典座的開示，顯然有所領悟，因為他自承「山僧敢知文字、了辦道，乃彼典座之大恩」。後來道元看到雪竇禪師有頌云﹕「一字七字三五字，萬像窮來不為據。夜深月白下滄溟，搜得驪珠有多許」，與典座所說相對應，更覺得彼典座是「真道人也」。道元依這次經驗的體悟教誡他的弟子們說﹕

「從來所看之文字是一二三四五也，今日所看之文字亦六七八九十也。後來兄弟從這頭看了那頭，從那頭看了這頭，作恁功夫，便了得文字上一味禪去也。若不如是，被諸方五味禪之毒，排辨僧食未能得好手也。」 註17 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^17]: Quote attributed to Dōgen instructing his disciples, cited in the original text (footnote 17). Xuedou Chanshi (雪竇重顯, 980-1052) was an influential Chan master known for his verses on kōans, compiled in the Blue Cliff Record. The "five flavors of Zen" likely refers to different, perhaps superficial or misguided, approaches to Zen practice prevalent at the time.

English Translation: In summary, Dōgen realized two major principles from the kōan-like exchange, pregnant with Chan meaning, with the old Tenzo. Firstly, although the Chan school has the tradition of "not establishing written words" (不立文字, furitsu monji), and Dōgen himself, in terms of practice method,

Original Text: 　　總括言之，道元在與老典座之間蘊含禪機的公案式回答中，領悟到了二大道理。一者是雖然禪宗有所謂「不立文字」的傳統，而且道元在修行方法

English Translation: Page 215

also repeatedly emphasized "just sitting" (只管打坐, shikantaza), Dōgen never rejected "written words Buddhadharma." In fact, Dōgen was a master who had profoundly attained "written words samādhi" (文字三昧, monji zanmai). Not only did he write great works of philosophical and practical nature like the Shōbōgenzō, Gakudō Yōjinshū, and Fukanzazengi, but he could also creatively interpret (and even deliberately misread) scriptures at will to express his unique insights. Just as he himself said, he could "look from this end to that end, from that end to this end; applying such effort, then understand the single flavor of Zen within written words."

Original Text: 頁215

上，也一再強調「只管打坐」，但是道元從來未曾排斥「文字佛法」。事實上，道元是個深得「文字三昧」的高手，不但寫下《正法眼藏》、《學道用心集》、《普勸坐禪儀》等哲理性和實踐性的大作，並且能隨心所欲地將經文做創造性的解讀（甚至故意誤讀）以表達自己的獨特見解。就如他自己所說的能做到「從這頭看到那頭，從那頭看到這頭，作恁功夫，便了得文字上一味禪也」。

English Translation: Secondly, Dōgen witnessed in the old Tenzo the Chinese Chan school's view of practice that "Nothing in the whole universe is concealed" (遍界不曾藏). This made Dōgen, who originally thought that "practicing zazen, practicing the Way, contemplating the kōans of the ancients" was superior to "troubling oneself being the Tenzo, just managing tasks," understand the Chan spirit that "carrying firewood, fetching water, everywhere is the Way-place" (搬柴運水，處處是道場). This is also why Dōgen, after returning to Japan, wrote the Tenzo Kyōkun, detailing how the mundane task of daily preparing meals, generally considered worldly work, is in fact the "work that nourishes the sacred embryo" (長養聖胎之業). More importantly, this experience was also a contributing factor to Dōgen's view of Buddha-nature and practice as "practice-realization as one" (修證一如). In other words, Dōgen realized that the old Tenzo earnestly treating daily mundane tasks as "practice of the Way" (辦道) and "Buddha work" (佛事) was the best model of the non-duality of practice and realization: "realization within practice, practice within realization" (修中證，證中修).

Original Text: 　　二者道元從老典座身上目睹中國禪宗「𠊠處不曾藏」的辦道觀，使本來以為「坐禪辦道看古人話頭」，優於「煩充典座只管作務」的道元暸解到「搬柴運水，處處是道場」的禪風，這也是為什麼道元回國後寫了《典座教訓》，詳述一般人認為日日調辦齋粥的俗務，事實上卻是「長養聖胎之業」。更重要的，這次經驗也是構成道元「修證一如」的佛性觀和修證觀的因素。換言之，道元體會到老典座認真地把日常俗務當成「辦道」、「佛事」，正是「修中證，證中修」修證不二的最佳典範。

English Translation: Despite Dōgen having the opportunity to meet a good spiritual friend like the old Tenzo shortly after arriving in Great Song, he still had not resolved his great doubt concerning Buddha-nature. Over the next two or three years, Dōgen visited the elders of various mountains such as Mount Tiantong, Ayuwang Monastery, and Jing-shan Wan-shou Monastery. Feeling disappointed and frustrated in his extensive search for a true teacher without success, an old monk told Dōgen that Tiantong Rujing (1163-1228)[^18] had assumed the abbacy of Mount Tiantong and encouraged him to go seek instruction. On the first day of the fifth month of the Baoqing era, year one (1225), Dōgen formally met Rujing. The Hōkyōki records Dōgen recounting his journey of seeking the Dharma and searching for a teacher to Rujing, and earnestly requesting acceptance and guidance.[^19] Rujing, upon seeing Dōgen, immediately recognized him as a vessel of the Dharma, a dragon-elephant, and specially permitted him to come to the abbot's quarters at any time, day or night, to ask questions and seek guidance. Thus, the two established a master-disciple relationship of "mutual resonance responding to the Way" (感應道交, kannō dōkō),[^20] fulfilling Dōgen's aspiration to find a "true teacher" (正師, shōshi).

Original Text: 　　儘管道元抵大宋不久即有機緣遇見老典座這樣的善知識，但還是未能解開他有關佛性方面的大疑。道元在往後二、三年中參訪天童山、阿育王寺、徑山萬壽寺等諸山長老，在遍求正師不可得而感到失望挫折之際，有位老僧人告訴道元天童如淨(1163-1228) 註18接任天童山住持，並鼓勵他前去求法。道元在寶慶元年（一二二五年）五月一日正示拜見如淨。《寶慶記》中記載道元向如淨陳述自己求法覓師的心路歷程，並懇請攝受教誨。 註19如淨一見道元，即知為龍象法器，特別允許他不拘晝夜隨時可到方丈室問道請益，於是二者從此建立「感應道交」 註20的師徒之誼，達成了道元尋求「正師」之心願， 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^18]: Tiantong Rujing (天童如淨, Tendō Nyojō) was a prominent Caodong (Sōtō) Chan master under whom Dōgen attained awakening. Cited in the original text (footnote 18). [^19]: Hōkyōki mentioned again, cited in the original text (footnote 19). [^20]: 感應道交 (kannō dōkō) describes a deep, resonant connection between master and disciple, or between a practitioner and the Way/Buddha. Cited in the original text (footnote 20).

English Translation: Page 216

What kind of true teacher was Dōgen seeking? In the Eihei Shoso Gakudō Yōjinshū (Advice on Studying the Way by the First Ancestor of Eihei), he explained:

"A true teacher is not determined by old age or seniority, but solely by clarifying the True Dharma and having received the seal of verification from a true teacher (正師之印證, shōshi no injō). Written words are not primary, nor is intellectual understanding primary. Possessing character and strength, having the aspiration that transcends stages, not being constrained by personal views, not stagnating in feelings and consciousness, with practice and understanding corresponding (行解相應, gyōge sōō) – this is indeed a true teacher."[^21]

Original Text: 216頁

道元尋求的是什麼樣的正師泥？他在《永平初祖學道用心集》解釋說﹕

「夫正師者，不問年老耆宿，唯明正法兮，得正師之印證也。文字不為先，解會不為先，有格之力量，有過節之志氣，不拘我見，不滯情識，行解相應，是乃正師也」。 註21 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^21]: Quote from Eihei Shoso Gakudō Yōjinshū, cited in the original text (footnote 21). 正師之印證 (shōshi no injō) refers to the recognition or certification of a student's awakening by a qualified teacher. 行解相應 (gyōge sōō) means the integration and correspondence of practice (行) and understanding/realization (解).

English Translation: During the two years Dōgen studied under the true teacher Rujing, he inquired about many difficult points, including doctrinal issues such as the nature of good and evil, cause and effect, definitive sutras (了義經, ryōgi kyō), and practical issues such as the foundation of practicing the Way, methods of zazen, eliminating the six hindrances (六蓋), and even issues of daily life like wearing socks, donning the Dharma robe, and keeping long hair and nails. Among these, the most important were the teachings regarding Chan methods and the answer to Dōgen's "great doubt." Dōgen recorded in the Hōkyōki Rujing's crucial instructions on Chan practice:

Abbot Rujing instructed: "To practice Chan (參禪, sanzen) is dropping off body and mind (身心脫落, shinjin datsuraku).[^22] There is no need for burning incense, bowing, reciting the Buddha's name (念佛, nenbutsu), practicing repentance rituals (修懺, shūsen), or reading sutras (看經, kankin). Just sitting (祇管打坐, shikantaza) is all."

I respectfully asked: "What is dropping off body and mind?"

Abbot Rujing instructed: "Dropping off body and mind is zazen. When just sitting, one is free from the five desires (五欲) and has removed the five hindrances (五蓋)."[^23]

Original Text:

道元在師事正師如淨的二年中，參問了許多疑難，包括教理問題，如善惡性、因果、了義經，和實踐問題，如辦道根本、坐禪方法、除六蓋等，甚至日常生活中著襪、搭法衣，蓄長髮長抓等問題。其中最重要的是有關禪法教示，以及對道元「大疑」的解答。道元在《寶慶記》記載了如淨對禪法的重要開示﹕

堂頭和尚(如淨禪師)示曰﹕「參禪者身心脫落也。 註22不用燒香、禮拜、念佛、修懺、看經，祇管打坐而已。」

拜問﹕「身心脫落者何？」

堂頭和尚示曰﹕「身心脫落者坐禪也。祇管坐禪時，離五欲，除五蓋也。」 註23 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^22]: 身心脫落 (shinjin datsuraku): "Dropping off body and mind," a key phrase for Dōgen signifying liberation from attachment to the psycho-physical self and conceptual thought during zazen. Cited in the original text (footnote 22). [^23]: Quote from Hōkyōki, cited in the original text (footnote 23). The five desires (五欲, goyoku) typically refer to desires associated with the five senses (forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangible objects) or wealth, sex, fame, food, sleep. The five hindrances (五蓋, gogai) are sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt.

English Translation: Rujing's Chan method is, during Chan practice, to exclude other practices like reciting the Buddha's name, performing repentance rituals, or reading sutras, and simply just sit until reaching the state of dropping off body and mind. As for what the state of "dropping off body and mind" is, Rujing's answer was that dropping off body and mind is zazen, and while just sitting, the state of the body and the state of the mind must "drop off" the five desires (wealth, sex, fame, food, sleep) and the five hindrances (sensual desire, ill will, drowsiness/torpor, restlessness/remorse, doubt). Regarding this, Dōgen raised a question: "If freeing oneself from the five desires and removing the five hindrances is the same as what is discussed in the doctrinal schools (教家, kyōke), does this mean practitioners of the [Chan/Zen] school (宗下, shūge) are the same as practitioners of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna?" Both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna schools of Buddhism emphasize that practitioners must be free from the five desires and remove the five hindrances; if so, then

Original Text: 　　如淨的禪法就是在參禪時，排除其他念佛、拜懺、看經等修行方法，祇管打坐到進入身心脫落的境界。至於什麼是「身心脫落」的境界呢？如淨的回答是身心脫落就是坐禪，而在祇管坐禪時，身境和心境必須「脫落」五欲（財、色、名、食、睡）和五蓋（貪欲、瞋恚、惛眠、掉悔、疑）。對此，道元提出疑問﹕「若離五欲、除五蓋者，乃同教家之所談也，即為大小兩乘之行人者乎？」佛教大小乘各宗派均強調修行者須離五欲，除五蓋，如此則

English Translation: Page 217

are practitioners of the "school lineage" (宗下, shūge, i.e., Chan/Zen) not different from practitioners of the other "doctrinal lineage" (教下, kyōke) Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna schools? Rujing replied: "Descendant of the Patriarchs! You must not strongly reject what is spoken by the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. If a student turns their back on the Tathāgata's holy teachings, how can they be called a descendant of the Buddhas and Patriarchs?"[^24] From this, it can be seen that compared to some practitioners of "wild Chan" (狂禪, kyōzen)[^25] at the time who held views like "the three poisons are the Buddhadharma, the five desires are the Patriarchs' Way," Rujing, although not emphasizing traditional formal practices like burning incense, bowing, and repentance rituals, placed great importance on the purification of the mind-nature. This deeply influenced Dōgen's thought of "original realization, wondrous practice" (本證妙修, honshō myōshū). Dōgen himself provided a richer philosophical explanation of the meaning of "dropping off body and mind":

To practice the Buddha Way is to practice the self. To practice the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be verified by the ten thousand dharmas. To be verified by the ten thousand dharmas is to cause one's own body-mind and the body-mind of others to drop off. Traces of awakening cease; let the ceasing traces of awakening go on unceasingly.[^26]

Original Text: 頁217

「宗下」行者豈不與其他「教下」大小乘行者無異？如淨回答說﹕「祖師兒孫！不可強嫌大小兩乘之所說也。學者若背如來之聖教，何稱佛祖之兒孫者歟？」 註24由此可見，與當時有些認為「三毒即佛法，五欲即祖道」 註25的「狂禪」行者相比較，如淨雖不注重傳統的燒香、禮拜、修懺等事相形式的修行方式，卻非常重視心性的淨化，這深深地影響道元「本證妙修」的思想。道元自己對「身心脫落」的意義有更豐富哲理的解釋：

慣習佛道者，慣習自己也。慣習自己者，坐忘自己也。坐忘自己者，見証萬法也。見証萬法者，使自己身心及它已身心脫落也。有悟跡休歇焉，今休歇悟㙉長長去。 註26 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^24]: Dialogue from Hōkyōki, cited in the original text (footnote 24). [^25]: 狂禪 (kyōzen) or "wild Chan" refers to forms of Chan practice perceived as antinomian or deviating from orthodox discipline and understanding. Cited in the original text (footnote 25). [^26]: This famous passage is from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō chapter "Genjōkōan" (現成公案, Actualizing the Kōan). Cited in the original text (footnote 26). 本證妙修 (honshō myōshū) signifies that practice (妙修, wondrous practice) arises from inherent, original realization (本證, original realization/authentication).

English Translation: Besides learning the essence of Rujing's Chan method, Dōgen also resolved his great doubt concerning Buddha-nature through Rujing. According to Dōgen's own record in the Hōkyōki, the following dialogue took place between master and disciple:

(Dōgen) respectfully asked: "Good spiritual friends of ancient and modern times say: 'Like a fish drinking water knows for itself whether it is cold or warm; this self-knowing (自知, jichi) is itself awakening (覺, kaku). It is regarded as the awakening of Bodhi.' Dōgen's difficulty is: 'If self-knowing is perfect awakening (正覺, shōgaku), then all sentient beings possess self-knowing. Based on possessing self-knowing, can all sentient beings become perfectly awakened Tathāgatas?' Some people say: 'It can be so; all sentient beings are Tathāgatas, originally existent since beginningless time.' Other people say: 'All sentient beings are not necessarily Tathāgatas. Why is that? If one knows that the wisdom of the self-awakening nature (自覺性智, jikaku shōchi) is awakening, then one is a Tathāgata; one who does not yet know is not.' Are such sayings the Buddhadharma?"

(Rujing) The Master said: "If one says that all sentient beings are originally Buddhas, that is identical to the non-Buddhist view of naturalism (自然外道, jinen gedō). To compare the self and what belongs to the self (我我所, ga gasyo) with the Buddhas cannot avoid [the error of] claiming attainment when one has not attained, claiming realization when one has not realized."[^27]

Original Text: 　　除了學得如淨禪法的精髓之外，道元還從如淨處解開其有關佛性的大疑。根據《寶慶記》中道元自己的記錄，他們師徒之間的有如下的問答﹕

（道元）拜問﹕「古今善知識曰﹕『如魚飲水冷暖自知，此自知即覺也。以之為菩提之悟。』道元難云﹕『若自知即正覺者，一切眾生皆有自知。一切眾生依有自知，可為正覺之如來耶？』或人云﹕『可然，一切眾生無始本有之如來也。』或人云﹕『一切眾生不必皆是如來。所以者何？若知自覺性智即是覺者，即是如來也，未知者不是也。』如是等說可是佛法乎？」

（如淨）和尚曰﹕「若言一切眾生本是佛者，還同自然外道也。以我我所比諸佛，不可免未得謂得，未證謂證者也。」 註27 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^27]: Dialogue from Hōkyōki, cited in the original text (footnote 27). 自知 (jichi): Self-knowing, direct experiential knowledge. 正覺 (shōgaku): Perfect awakening, enlightenment. 自覺性智 (jikaku shōchi): Wisdom of the self-awakening nature, perhaps referring to the inherent potential for awakening. 自然外道 (jinen gedō): Non-Buddhist (外道, gedō) view of naturalism (自然, jinen), implying things arise spontaneously without causes and conditions, rejected in Buddhism. 我我所 (ga gasyo): "I and mine," the self and what pertains to the self, the basis of ego-clinging.

English Translation: Page 218

One view is that all sentient beings are originally Tathāgatas since beginningless time. Another view is that sentient beings are not necessarily all Tathāgatas; those sentient beings who can self-realize and know the wisdom of the self-awakening nature (Buddha-nature) are Tathāgatas, while those who cannot self-realize and know are not Tathāgatas. Rujing opposed the former view, considering that asserting all sentient beings are originally Buddhas is identical to "non-Buddhist naturalism,"[^28] which regards the realization of awakening and becoming a Buddha as arising without cause, completely contrary to the Buddhist law of dependent origination (因緣法, innen hō). Due to Rujing's clear instruction, Dōgen finally understood that it is only through single-minded, dedicated just sitting, undergoing the refinement of "dropping off body and mind," "dropping off dropping off," that the realization of Buddha-nature can be attained. However, this process is not a linear progression like a "single-track path" but rather a constantly cycling process like a "circular form." This is what Dōgen stated in the Shōbōgenzō, chapter "Bendōwa" (Talk on Practicing the Way): "Since it is realization based on practice, realization is endless; since it is practice based on realization, practice is beginningless" (既修之證，則證無際；證之修，則修無始).[^29]

Original Text: 頁218

一者是一切眾生無始以來本來即是如來，另一種說法是眾生不必皆是如來，那些能自證知自覺性智（佛性）的眾生即是如來，不能自證知者即不是如來。如淨反對前說，他認為主張一切眾生本是佛者，即同「自然外道」， 註28將證悟成佛視為無因而生，完全不合乎佛教的因緣法。由於如淨如此明確的教示，道元終於暸解透過一心一意的祇管打坐，經歷「身心脫落」、「脫落脫落」的洗鍊後，才能達到佛性的體證。但是這個歷程不是「單行道」式的直線進行，而是「圓形式」的不斷循環過程，這就是道元在《正法眼藏‧辦道話》所說的「既修之證，則證無際；證之修，則修無始」。 註29 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^28]: The original text includes footnote 28 here, likely referencing further explanation of "non-Buddhist naturalism." [^29]: Quote from Shōbōgenzō Bendōwa, cited in the original text (footnote 29). This passage highlights Dōgen's concept of the non-dual, simultaneous nature of practice and realization.

English Translation: In the third year of the Baoqing era (1227), Dōgen took leave of Rujing, preparing to depart Song and return to his country. Rujing conferred upon him the document of succession (嗣書, shisho) for the Caodong (Sōtō) school, formally acknowledging him as Rujing's Dharma heir, thus completing what he described as "the great matter of my life's study and practice, now accomplished."[^30] Later, when describing his journey of seeking the Dharma in Song to his disciples, Dōgen said: "This mountain monk has not visited many monasteries; I just happened to meet my late teacher Tiantong [Rujing]. However, I was not deceived by Tiantong, and Tiantong was also deceived by this mountain monk. Recently, I returned home empty-handed (空手還鄉, kūshu genkyō). Therefore, this mountain monk has no Buddhadharma; spontaneously, I just pass the time. Morning after morning, the sun rises in the east; night after night, the moon sets in the west. Clouds withdraw, mountain valleys are quiet; rain passes, the four mountains are low. Every three years must have one leap month; the rooster crows towards the fifth watch."[^31] What is most distinctive is Dōgen returning "empty-handed." Unlike other seekers who traveled to India or China for the Dharma, Dōgen did not bring back any scriptures or Buddha images. Instead, he brought back himself, who had already realized the true meaning of the Buddhadharma, signifying that he himself was the embodiment of the Buddhadharma, fully expressing confidence in himself. Although Dōgen claimed, "This mountain monk has no Buddhadharma," he could live spontaneously and freely, just as naturally as "morning after morning, the sun rises in the east; night after night, the moon sets in the west; every three years must have one leap month; the rooster crows towards the fifth watch."

Original Text: 　　寶慶三年（一二二七年）道元辭別如淨，準備離宋歸國，如淨授於曹洞宗嗣書，正式繼承如淨衣𣘀，完成了其自述的「一生參學大事，曰了畢矣。」 註30後來道元在對他的弟子們描述他在宋的求法心路歷程時說道﹕「山僧是歷叢林不多，只是等閑見先師天童。然而不被天童謾，天童還被山僧謾。近來空手還鄉，所以山僧無佛法，任運且延時。朝朝日東出，夜夜月落西，雲收山谷靜，雨過四山低，三年必一閏，雞向五更啼」。 註31最特殊的是道元「空手還鄉」。與其他到印度、中土求法者不同的是，道元攜回的不是任何經書、佛像，而是已證悟佛法真諦的自己，意味著自己就是佛法的體現，充分表現對自己的信心。雖然道元自稱「山僧無佛法」，卻能任運自在，如同「朝朝日東出，夜夜月落西，三年必一閏，雞向五更啼」一樣地自然。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^30]: Quote attributed to Dōgen, cited in the original text (footnote 30). [^31]: Quote attributed to Dōgen, cited in the original text (footnote 31). Returning "empty-handed" signifies returning with the realization itself, not external objects or knowledge. The subsequent lines express living in harmony with the natural, spontaneous unfolding of reality. The fifth watch (五更) is the period just before dawn.

English Translation: Dōgen returned to Japan at the age of twenty-six and dedicated himself to propagation and writing until his passing in the fifth year of the Kenchō era (1253).[^32] Among his achievements, the most important was the completion of major works such as the Shōbōgenzō (Treasury of the True Dharma Eye), Eihei Kōroku (Dōgen's Extensive Record), Eihei Shingi (Pure Regulations for Eihei-ji), and Fukanzazengi (Universal Recommendation of Zazen). His thought on Buddha-nature is primarily found in the most philosophical works, the Shōbōgenzō and the Eihei Kōroku. Because the concept of Buddha-nature has a long and evolving history, appearing with different meanings in various texts and schools, with numerous points of contention, in order to fully understand the background of Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature, it is necessary first to understand the development of the Buddha-nature concept.

Original Text: 　　道元回日時二十六歲，一直致力於弘化和著述，直到建長五年（一二五三年）入寂為止。 註32其中最重要的是完成了《正法眼藏》、《永平廣錄》、《永平清規》、《普勸坐禪儀》等重要著作，而其佛性思想則是出自最富哲理的《正法眼藏》和《永平廣錄》。由於佛性思想源遠流長，在不同典籍和不同宗派出現不同的義涵，爭議點不少。為了能充分暸解道元的佛性思想背景，有需先暸解佛性思想的發展。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^32]: The original text includes footnote 32 here, likely confirming Dōgen's year of death.

English Translation: Page 219

The Development of Buddha-Nature Thought

For Buddhists, there are three ultimate religious questions: The first question is, what is the nature of the religious goal they pursue—the "Buddha"? The second question is, what is the nature of themselves as ordinary sentient beings? The third question is, how can the two be related, enabling them to reach their ultimate goal of becoming a Buddha? Starting from the Āgamas, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sutras and treatises have continuously discussed these questions. The "inherently pure mind" (自性清淨心, jishō shōjō shin) mentioned in the Āgamas—"This mind is fundamentally luminous and pure, yet it is stained by adventitious defilements" (此心極光淨，而客塵煩惱雜染)—is the origin of the Buddha-nature doctrine. The theory of mind-nature in the Āgamas fundamentally holds that the essential nature of the mind of ordinary beings is pure, identical in essence to the mind-nature of a Buddha, but because ordinary beings "have not heard [the Dharma], have not cultivated the mind, and do not understand reality as it is,"[^33] their pure mind is defiled by afflictions (煩惱, bonnō, kleśa). Afflictions and the pure mind have an adventitious (客塵, kakujin, lit. "guest-dust") relationship; they are not inherent. Therefore, as long as sentient beings dedicate themselves to hearing, thinking, and cultivating, they can remove the afflictions. Although the inherently pure mind in the Āgamas refers to the purity of the "self-nature," demonstrating its subjective quality (in contrast to the objective quality of afflictions), it is still a relatively static and passive existence, unlike the "inherently pure mind" (Tathāgatagarbha) discussed in later Tathāgatagarbha systems, which possesses dynamic and active characteristics. The mind-nature theory of the Āgamas expresses a simple theory of mind-cultivation practice; however, its doctrine that the mind-nature is inherently pure while afflictions are adventitious established the fundamental model for later theories of mind regarding Buddha-nature.

Original Text: 頁219

佛性思想的發展

對佛教徒而言，有三個最終極的宗教問題﹕第一個問題是他們所追求的宗教目標──「佛」的本質是什麼？第二個問題是身為凡夫眾生的他們的本質又是什麼？第三個問題是如何使二者關連起來，而達到他們最終成佛的目標。自《阿含經》開始，大小乘經論即不斷討論這些問題。《阿含經》所說「此心極光淨，而客塵煩惱雜染」的「自性清淨心」即是佛性說的淵源。《阿含經》的心性說基本上認為一般凡夫的心性本質上是清淨，與佛的心性本質是相同的，但是因為凡夫「無聞、無修心，不如實解」， 註33其清淨心為煩惱所染。煩惱和清淨心是客塵關係，非本然的，因此只要眾生致力於聞思修，即可去除煩惱。雖然《阿含經》中的自性清淨心意指「自性」的清淨，表現其主體性（與煩惱的客體性相對），但它還是屬於較靜態(static)和被動的存在，不像後來如來藏系思想中所說的「自性清淨心」（如來藏）含有動態(dynamic)和主動(active)的特性。《阿含經》的心性說表現的是素樸的修心實踐論，不過，其心性本淨客塵煩惱說給予往後佛性的心性論立下了基本的模式。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^33]: Quote likely referencing passages in the Āgamas (Pali Nikāyas) explaining why the inherently pure mind becomes defiled. Cited in the original text (footnote 33). 客塵煩惱 (kakujin bonnō): Adventitious afflictions/defilements, emphasizing they are not intrinsic to the mind's nature.

English Translation: In Sectarian Buddhism (部派佛教, buha bukkyō), the Mahāsāṃghika and Vibhajyavāda schools followed the Āgamas' statements, continuing to propagate the doctrine of the mind's inherent purity, believing that before afflictions are severed, the self-nature (自性, jishō) of sentient beings is pure in nature (性淨, shōjō) but defiled in appearance (相染, sōzen). As the Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra states: "Before the holy path has manifested, because afflictions have not been severed, the mind possesses latent tendencies (隨眠, zuimian, anuśaya). When the holy path manifests, because afflictions are severed, the mind is without latent tendencies. Although this mind differs in time—when it possesses latent tendencies and when it is without them—its nature is one."[^34] However, the doctrine of the mind's inherent purity was not universally accepted by all schools. The Sarvāstivāda school considered it "non-sutra" (非經, hikyō) and "not of definitive meaning" (非了義說, hiryōgi setsu). The Satyasiddhi Śāstra also states: "The mind-nature is not originally pure; due to adventitious dust, it is impure. But the Buddha, because sentient beings think the mind is permanent, said that when defiled by adventitious dust, the mind becomes impure. Furthermore, for lazy sentient beings, if they heard the mind was originally impure, they would think its nature cannot be changed and thus not arouse a pure mind. Therefore, [the Buddha] spoke of original purity."[^35] The thought of the Satyasiddhi Śāstra belongs to the Sautrāntika school, which did not uphold the inherent purity of mind, considering the doctrine of original purity to be a skillful means (方便說, hōben setsu) employed by the Buddha to encourage lazy beings, because it significantly diverges from the fundamental principle of original Buddhism, the theory of "no-self" (無我, muga, anātman).

Original Text: 　　在部派佛教中，大眾部和分別說部延襲了《阿含經》的說法，繼續宏揚心性本淨說，認為未斷煩惱前，眾生的自性是性淨而相染，如《大毘婆沙論》說﹕「聖道未現前，煩惱未斷故，心有隨眠。聖道現前，煩惱斷故，心無隨眠。此心雖（有）隨眠、無隨眠時異，而性是一。」 註34但是，心性自淨說並非普遍地被所有部派所接受，說一切有部即認為它是「非經」、「非了義說」。《成實論》也說﹕「心性非是本淨，客塵故不淨，但佛為眾生謂心常在，故說客塵所染則心不淨。又佛為懈怠眾生，若聞心本不淨，便謂性不可改，則不發淨心，故說本淨」。 註35《成實論》的思想屬於經量部，不主張心性本淨，而認為本淨說乃是佛為鼓勵懈怠眾生的方便說，因為它與原始佛教的根本要義「無我」的理論有相當的差距。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^34]: Quote from the Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra (大毘婆沙論), a major Abhidharma text of the Sarvāstivāda school, although here representing a view it critiques or discusses. Cited in the original text (footnote 34). 隨眠 (anuśaya): Latent tendencies or underlying defilements. [^35]: Quote from the Satyasiddhi Śāstra (成實論), attributed to Harivarman, associated with the Sautrāntika school. Cited in the original text (footnote 35). 了義說 (ryōgi setsu): Teachings of definitive or ultimate meaning, contrasted with不了義說 (furyōgi setsu), teachings of provisional or expedient meaning. 方便說 (hōben setsu): Skillful means, teachings adapted to the capacity of the audience. 無我 (muga): No-self, the doctrine that there is no permanent, independent self or soul.

English Translation: After the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the doctrine of the mind's inherent purity continued to be propagated, with each school interpreting it according to its unique standpoint. For example, the Prajñā school explained the inherently pure mind from the standpoint of its fundamental doctrine of "emptiness" (空, kū, śūnyatā). As the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Small Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: "When a Bodhisattva practices prajñāpāramitā, they should study thus: do not conceive of this as the Bodhisattva-mind.

Original Text: 　　大乘佛教興起後，繼續弘傳心性本淨說，各學派依各自獨特的立場加以詮釋。例如般若學系，就從其基本教義「空」的立場來解說自性清淨心。如《小品般若波羅蜜經》說﹕「菩薩行般若波羅蜜多時，應如是學﹕不念是菩

English Translation: Page 220

Why is that? This mind is non-mind (非心, hishin); the nature of mind is originally pure."[^36] The Prajñāpāramitā sutras interpret the purity of mind-nature as "non-mind." "Non-mind" means that the mind is empty, unattainable, and transcends existence and non-existence. Therefore, in the sutra, when Śāriputra asks whether "non-mind" (i.e., the inherently pure mind) exists, Subhūti replies: "Within the nature of non-mind, since both existence and non-existence are unattainable, how can one ask whether this mind has the nature of mind or non-mind?"[^37] According to the Prajñā meaning of emptiness, "mind" is certainly unattainable, and "non-mind" is also unattainable. Following this reasoning, inherent purity is also unattainable, neither existent nor non-existent. In the Prajñā Dharma Gate, all dharmas are "fundamentally empty in nature" (本性空, honshō kū), and it is on this basis that "fundamental purity" (本性淨, honshō jō) is spoken of. This is what the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise) refers to as "ultimate emptiness is ultimate purity" (畢竟空即是畢竟淨清, hikkyō kū soku ze hikkyō jōshō).[^38] The Prajñā Dharma Gate regards the mind as inherently pure based on its inherent emptiness. This view certainly conforms to Prajñāpāramitā doctrine, but it differs greatly from the later development in the True Constancy (真常, shin'jō) lineage, where the inherently pure mind contains both "empty" and "not-empty" (不空, fukū) aspects. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra states: "Because people fear emptiness, [the Buddha] spoke of purity,"[^39] treating the doctrine of mind's purity as a skillful means, which is also contrary to the fundamental intent of the True Constancy teachings.

Original Text: 頁220

薩心，所以者何？是心非心，心相本淨故。」 註36般若經把心性清淨解釋為「非心」。「非心」意指心空、心不可得、超越有無。因此在經中舍利弗問到「非心」（即自性清淨心）是否存在時，須菩提回答﹕「非心性中，有性無性既不可得，如何可問是心為有心非心性不？」 註37依般若空義，「心」固然不可得，「非心」亦不可得。如此推論，則自性清淨亦不可得、非有非無。般若法門中一切法「本性空」，而就此基礎上言「本性淨」。這也就是《大智度論》所說的「畢竟空即是畢竟淨清」。 註38般若法門之把心視為自性清淨，乃建立於其自性空上。這種說法當然符合般若教理，但與後來的真常系發展出的自性清淨心含「空」與「不空」兩個層面有很大不同。再者，《大智度論》說﹕「以人畏空，故言清淨」， 註39把心清淨說視為方便說，也與真常說的根本意趣相左。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^36]: Quote from the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (小品般若波羅蜜經). Cited in the original text (footnote 36). 非心 (hishin): Non-mind, indicating the mind's lack of inherent existence, its emptiness. [^37]: Dialogue between Śāriputra and Subhūti, likely also from a Prajñāpāramitā sutra. Cited in the original text (footnote 37). [^38]: Quote from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra (大智度論), attributed to Nāgārjuna. Cited in the original text (footnote 38). 畢竟空 (hikkyō kū): Ultimate emptiness. [^39]: Another quote from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra. Cited in the original text (footnote 39). 真常 (shin'jō): True Constancy, a term often associated with the Tathāgatagarbha lineage, emphasizing the eternal, unchanging nature of Buddhahood or the inherently pure mind, seen as possessing positive attributes ("not-empty", 不空).

English Translation: The systematization of the theory of the mind's inherent purity occurred with the rise of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine around the third century CE.[^40] The term "Tathāgatagarbha" (如來藏, nyoraizō) gradually replaced "inherently pure mind." Tathāgatagarbha is a compound word of Tathāgata and garbha. Tathāgata contains two meanings: "thus gone" (如去, nyo ko, tatha-gata) and "thus come" (如來, nyorai, tatha-agata). The former signifies practicing the "thusness" (如, nyo) or reality Dharma and "going" (去, ko) (from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa); the latter signifies riding the "thusness" or reality Dharma and "coming" (來, rai) (from nirvāṇa to saṃsāra). "Garbha" (藏, zō) also has two meanings: womb/embryo (胎(兒)藏, tai(ji)zō) and matrix/storehouse (母胎). Therefore, Tathāgatagarbha can mean the matrix of the Tathāgata (nurturing new life) or the embryonic Tathāgata (the already nurtured new life). The former symbolizes the "causal nature" (因性, inshō) of the Tathāgata, while the latter symbolizes the "resultant nature" (果性, kashō) of the Tathāgata. From these two original meanings of Tathāgatagarbha, later relative concepts such as "intrinsic purity" (自性清淨, jishō shōjō, prakṛti-viśuddhi) and "purity through removal of defilements" (離垢清淨, riku shōjō, vaimalya-viśuddhi), "originally existent" (本有, honnu) and "newly arisen" (始有, shigu), "primordial gnosis" (本覺, hongaku) and "actualized gnosis" (始覺, shikaku) developed. During the development of these concepts, derivative interpretations were added (such as the Original Awakening thought of Japanese Tendai Buddhism), and this was precisely the source of Dōgen's great doubt.

Original Text: 　　將心性本淨的理論體系化的是在三世紀左右興起的如來藏學說。 註40「如來藏」(Tathagatagarbha)一詞漸漸取代了自性清淨心。如來藏是如來與藏的複合字。如來含有「如去」(tatha-gata)和「如來」(tatha-agata)兩個意義。前者意指修「如」實法而「去」（由生死去涅槃），後者意指乘「如」實法而「來」（由涅槃來生死）。「藏」亦有二義﹕胎（兒）藏和母胎。因此，如來藏可以意謂如來的母胎（蘊育新的生命），或胎兒如來（已蘊育出的新生命）。前者象徵如來的「因性」，後者象徵如來的「果性」。從如來藏這二個最原始的字義，發展出後來所謂的「自性清淨」(prakrti-viwuddhi)和「離垢清淨」(vaimalya-viwuddhi)、「本有」和「始有」、「本覺」和「始覺」等相對的概念。在這些概念的發展過程中，被加上了推衍性的詮釋（如日本天台宗的本覺思想），這也就是道元疑團的所在。

 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^40]: The original text includes footnote 40 here, likely providing references for the dating and origins of Tathāgatagarbha thought. The provided translations for 本覺 ("primordial gnosis") and 始覺 ("actualized gnosis") have been used as instructed.

English Translation: There are numerous sutras and treatises concerning Tathāgatagarbha thought, but the mainstream ones include the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta (Sutra of Neither Increase Nor Decrease), the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, and the Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature). The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra is the most important scripture that established the foundational structure of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine. Although its length is minimal, its main theme is quite clear; the sutra uses nine similes to directly point to the central idea of the Tathāgatagarbha lineage: "All sentient beings possess the Tathāgatagarbha." The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta explains the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of non-emptiness, and the meaning of equality of the Tathāgatagarbha through the non-increase and non-decrease of the realm of sentient beings; its text is concise and its meaning refined, close to the style

Original Text: 有關如來藏思想的經論為數不少，但主流者有《如來藏經》、《不增不減經》、《勝鬘夫人經》、《寶性論》等。《如來藏經》是奠定如來藏說基礎架構最重要的經典。雖然其篇幅極小，但主體相當明確，經中以九種譬喻，直指如來藏學系的中心思想「一切眾生皆有如來藏」。《不增不減經》從眾生界的不增不減說明如來藏的空義、不空義、平等義，其文約義精，近於論

English Translation: Page 221 of a treatise, serving as an important basis for the doctrines of Tathāgatagarbha studies. The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra emphasizes the superiority of the "True Dharma" (the One Vehicle, 一乘), explaining the inherently pure mind of the Tathāgatagarbha by elucidating the One Vehicle, and for the first time uses "empty Tathāgatagarbha" (空如來藏) and "not-empty Tathāgatagarbha" (不空如來藏) to explain the Tathāgatagarbha, possessing profound characteristics. The Ratnagotravibhāga is the definitive treatise representing the culmination of Tathāgatagarbha studies. It extensively cites various sutras and treatises, detailing Tathāgatagarbha thought from aspects such as the Buddha Jewel, Dharma Jewel, Sangha Jewel, Buddha-nature, Bodhi, meritorious qualities, and activity (the seven vajra points, 七金剛句). Its characteristic features are particularly highlighted by explaining "All sentient beings possess the Tathāgatagarbha" through three meanings: "the Dharmakāya is pervasive, Suchness is without differentiation, and Buddha-nature truly exists."

Original Text: 頁221 典的體裁，是如來藏學義理的重要依據。《勝鬘夫人經》強調「正法」（一乘）的殊勝，從闡明一乘而說到如來藏自性清淨心，且首度以「空如來藏」、「不空如來藏」說明如來藏，深具特色。《寶性論》是代表如來藏學的集大成論典。它廣引各種經論，從佛寶、法寶、僧寶、佛性、菩提、功德、業（七金剛句）等層面，詳論如來藏思想，尤其以「法身遍滿、真如無差別、實有佛性」三義來解釋「一切眾生皆有如來藏」，更突顯其特色。

English Translation: Besides the three mainstream sutras and one treatise mentioned above, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is also a key text that propagates the Tathāgatagarbha [concept], and its influence on Chinese and Japanese Buddhism was even more profound. In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the term "Buddha-nature" (佛性, Busshō/Fóxìng) replaces Tathāgatagarbha. Although Buddha-nature and Tathāgatagarbha have corresponding meanings, Buddha-nature is not a translation of tathāgatagarbha, buddhatā, or buddhatva. According to some scholars who have compared Sanskrit and Tibetan originals containing the term corresponding to Buddha-nature, it has been found that "Buddha-nature" is a translation of buddhadhātu (佛界, Bukkai/Fójiè).[^41] Buddhadhātu has two meanings: (1) the nature of the Buddha: the nature (dhātu = dhāmatā, 界 = 法性, dharma-nature) of the Buddha, (2) the cause of the Buddha: the cause (dhātu = hetu, 界 = 因) of the Buddha. Regarding the former, Buddha-nature is the essence of all Buddhas and also the innate basis upon which sentient beings can become Buddhas; the latter is the driving force enabling sentient beings to truly become Buddhas. Therefore, addressing the former, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra extensively discusses "the Tathāgata is permanent and unchanging" and "the four virtues of nirvana: permanence, bliss, self, and purity" (常樂我淨). Addressing the latter, it emphasizes "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." As for whether possessing Buddha-nature has a necessary relationship with ultimate attainment of Buddhahood, considerable room for discussion remains. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra's doctrine, which on the one hand advocates the "theory of the Tathāgata's permanence" and the "four virtues of nirvana," implying a sense of "existence" (有), and on the other hand interprets the Middle Way's "emptiness of the ultimate meaning" (第一義空) as the "correct cause Buddha-nature" (正因佛性), is also highly noteworthy.

Original Text: 　　除了以上主流的三經一論之外，《大般涅槃經》也是闡揚如來藏的要典，對中國和日本佛教影響更為深遠。在《大般涅槃經》中，「佛性」一詞取代了如來藏。雖然佛性和如來藏意義相通，但佛性並不是譯自tathagatagarbha、buddhata、或buddhatva。根據一些學者對照有佛性一詞的梵文和藏文原典，發現「佛性」是譯自buddhadhatu（佛界）。 註41 Buddhadhatu含有二義﹕（1）佛之體性﹕the nature (dhatu=dhamata， 界＝法性) of the Buddha，（2）佛之因性﹕the cause (dhatu=hetu，界＝因) of the Buddha。以前者而言，佛性是諸佛的本質，也是眾生之能成佛的先天性依據，而後者是眾生能真正成佛的動力。因此，針對前者，《涅槃經》大談「如來常住無有變異」和「常樂我淨涅槃四德」，而針對後者，則強調「一切眾生悉有佛性」，至於悉有佛性和究竟成佛是否有必然關係，則留下了很大可討論的空間。《涅槃經》一方面主張隱含「有」意味的「如來常住論」、「涅槃四德」，另一方面將中道「第一義空」解釋為「正因佛性」，也是很值得注意的教義。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^41]: The original text includes footnote 41 here, referencing scholarly sources for the buddhadhātu translation theory.

English Translation: While the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is certainly the most important basis for Chinese Buddhist thought on Buddha-nature, the most influential text in the entire history of its development is the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith (Dasheng Qixin Lun / 大乘起信論). The central doctrine of the Awakening of Faith can be summarized as "One Mind, Two Gates, Three Greatnesses, Four Faiths, Five Practices" (一心，二門，三大，四信，五行). "One Mind" (一心) refers to the "mind of sentient beings" (眾生心), which is the inherently pure mind of the Tathāgatagarbha fundamentally possessed by sentient beings. It simultaneously contains two aspects (Two Gates): the pure and fundamental "Mind-Suchness Gate" (心真如門) and the "Mind-Arising-and-Ceasing Gate" (心生滅門), which is defiled by the three subtle and six coarse [aspects of ignorance]. However, regardless of which "Gate" the mind-nature of sentient beings resides in, it fundamentally possesses the meaning of the "Three Greatnesses" (三大). In terms of its "Essence Greatness" (體大), the mind-essence of sentient beings is empty of delusion; the True Mind is eternally unchanging. Manifesting in the "Attribute Greatness" (相大) of the sentient being's mind are the boundless and inexhaustible pure qualities of the Tathāgata it contains. And the "Function Greatness" (用大) of the sentient being's mind lies in its ability to exercise its inexhaustible fundamental nature of merit, becoming inconceivable altruistic activity, producing all worldly and supramundane good causes and effects, ultimately reaching the goal of becoming

Original Text: 　　《涅槃經》固然是中國佛教佛性思想最重要的依據，但是在它整個思想的發展史上，影響最大的是《大乘起信論》。《起信論》的中心教義可綜合為「一心，二門，三大，四信，五行」。「一心」是指「眾生心」，即是眾生本具的如來藏自性清淨心，它同時蘊含著二方面的屬性（二門）﹕清淨本然的「心真如門」和隨三細六麤所染的「心生滅門」。但是無論眾生的心性是處在那一個「門」內，它基本上有「三大」義。以其「體大」而言，眾生心體空無妄，真心常恒不變，表現在眾生心「相大」的是它所含藏的無量無盡的如來功德淨法，而眾生心的「用大」是在於它能發揮其無盡的功德本性，成為不可思議的利他業用，以產生一切世間和出世間的善因果，最後達到成

English Translation: Page 222 a Buddha.

Original Text: 222頁 佛的目標。

English Translation: The fundamental standpoint of the Awakening of Faith is the One Mind theory of the Dharmadhātu, attempting to synthesize and explain how the inherently pure mind of the Suchness Gate and the defiled, illusory mind of the Arising-and-Ceasing Gate are fused within the "One Mind." Within the framework of the Tathāgatagarbha dependent origination theory, the Awakening of Faith used the terms "primordial gnosis" (本覺, hongaku) and "actualized gnosis" (始覺, shikaku). The former refers to the pure mind of the Tathāgatagarbha in the state of 'awakening,' while the latter refers to the defiled mind of 'non-awakening' (不覺, fukaku) subject to contamination. The hongaku doctrine of the Awakening of Faith gradually merged with the Mind-Only Dharma Gate of the Huayan school. Chengguan's "numinous awareness (靈知) undimmed One Mind" and Zongmi's "primordial gnosis True Mind" were both deeply influenced by the hongaku doctrine. After sutras and treatises like the Perfect Awakening Sutra (Yuanjue Jing / 圓覺經) and the Śāstra Explaining Mahāyāna (Shi Moheyan Lun / 釋摩訶衍論) were successively translated, the hongaku thought that sentient beings are "originally Buddhas" (本來是佛) gradually developed, also deeply influencing the hongaku Dharma Gate of Japanese Tendai Buddhism, and it was from this that Dōgen's great doubt arose.

Original Text: 　　《起信論》的基本立場是法界的一心論，試圖會通和闡試真如門自性清心和生滅門染污虛妄心如何融攝於「一心」中。在如來藏緣起說的架構中，《起信論》使用了「本覺」和「始覺」的名詞，前者指處於「覺」狀態的如來藏清淨心，後者指「不覺」隨染的染污心。《起信論》的本覺說漸漸與華嚴宗的唯心法門合流，澄觀的「靈知不昧之一心」，與宗密的「本覺真心」都深受本覺說的影響。《圓覺經》、《釋摩訶衍論》等經論陸續譯出後，漸漸發展出眾生「本來是佛」的本覺思想，亦深深影響了日本天台宗的本覺法門，而道元的疑團也就是由此而起。

English Translation: The key figure in the development of Buddha-nature thought in Chinese Buddhism was Zhu Daosheng (竺道生, 355-434). Before the complete version of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra was transmitted, he was able, with "solitary brilliance, anticipating its arrival," to advocate that because all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, even icchantikas (一闡提) can attain Buddhahood. This inaugurated the flourishing period of various competing theories on Buddha-nature during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. At that time, there were the so-called "eleven schools of correct cause Buddha-nature" mentioned in the Dasheng Xuan Lun (大乘玄論) and the "three initial and three later schools of correct cause Buddha-nature" also from the Dasheng Xuan Lun. All these schools focused heavily on the interpretation of the term Buddha-nature, reflecting the initial understanding of Buddha-nature. By the Sui and Tang dynasties, schools such as Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan developed more profound expositions and creative interpretations of the content of Buddha-nature thought. There were also brilliant debates between the "nature school" (性宗, xìngzōng) and the "characteristics school" (相宗, xiāngzōng) regarding "universal attainment through one nature" (一性皆成) versus "five distinct natures" (五性各別).

Original Text: 　　佛性思想在中國佛教的發展之關鍵人物是竺道生(355-434)。他在大本《涅槃經》未傳入之前，就能「孤明先發」，倡言一切眾生悉有佛性故，一闡提亦可成佛，開啟了南北朝時期各種佛性論說爭鳴的盛況。當時有《大乘玄論》所謂的「正因佛性十一家」和《大乘玄論》的「正因佛性本三家末三家」，諸家都著重在佛性一詞的釋義上，反應了初期對佛性的暸解。到了隋唐時期的天台宗、華嚴宗、禪宗等，對佛性思想的內容，有更深度的闡發和創造性的詮釋，而性宗和相宗對「一性皆成」和「五性各別」也曾有精彩的論辯。

English Translation: The Huayan school's thought on Buddha-nature, based on its theory of "nature-arising" (性起, xìngqǐ), developed the theory of dharmadhātu dependent origination, asserting that all sentient beings without exception are endowed with Tathāgata wisdom, and all dharmas arise in accordance with their nature, which is precisely the embodiment of Buddha-nature. In contrast to the Huayan school's theory of nature-arising, the Tiantai school advocated "nature-inclusion" (性具, xìngjù), meaning that all dharmas include the one dharma, and the one dharma includes all dharmas. On the foundation of the nature-inclusion thought, encompassing "one thought-moment possesses three thousand realms" (一念三千), "mutual inclusion of the ten realms" (十界互具), and "perfect fusion of the three truths" (三諦圓融), the Tiantai school proposed the most creative ideas regarding Buddha-nature: the "theory of nature-evil" (性惡論) and "the enlightenment of plants and trees" (草木成佛). The "theory of nature-evil" extended the exploration of the essence of Buddha-nature to another level: namely, at the resultant stage [of Buddhahood], Buddha-nature inherently possesses limitless pure dharmas (inherent good, 性善), about which there is little disagreement; however, does it simultaneously possess "inherent evil" (性惡)? The "theory of nature-evil" holds that both Buddhas and icchantikas possess both inherent good and inherent evil. The difference is that although icchantikas possess inherent good, they have not severed cultivated evil (修惡), whereas Buddhas, although they do not sever inherent evil, do not generate cultivated evil. Besides demonstrating the Buddha's ability to be "at ease with evil" (于惡自在), the greatest significance of the nature-evil theory lies in establishing that icchantikas, due to their inherent good, can ultimately attain Buddhahood.

Original Text: 　　華嚴宗的佛性思想以其「性起」理論為基礎，發展出法界緣起說，主張一切眾生無不具足如來智慧，一切諸法稱性而起，正是佛性的體現。相對與華嚴宗的性起說，天台宗主張「性具」，即一切法具一法，一法具一切法。在「一念三千」、「十界互具」、「三諦圓融」的性具思想基礎上，天台宗提出最具創造性的「性惡論」和「草木成佛」的佛性思想。「性惡論」將佛性本質的探討推展到另一個層次，即在果位上，佛性本具無量淨法（性善），殆無異議，然而是否也同時存在著「性惡」呢？「性惡論」認為佛與一闡提皆具性善和性惡，不同的是一闡提雖具性善，但未斷修惡，而佛雖不斷性惡，但不起修惡。性惡論除了顯示佛能「于惡自在」之外，最大意義在於證成一闡提因性善終可成佛。

English Translation: The Tiantai master who most forcefully advocated the Buddha-nature of the insentient (無情有性, wúqíng yǒuxìng) and the enlightenment of plants and trees was Zhanran (湛然). In his Jin Gang Pi (金剛錍, The Vajra Scalpel), he used concepts such as the omnipresence of Suchness and the three causes of Buddha-nature, structured upon the theory of nature-inclusion, to argue for the Buddha-nature of the insentient, and even their potential to attain Buddhahood, pushing Chinese Buddha-nature thought to its highest point. Dōgen, in his writings, also advocated the view of the Buddha-nature of the insentient.

Original Text: 　　天台宗師倡導無情有性、草木成佛最有力的是湛然，他在《金剛滛》中以真如遍在、三因佛性等思想，架構在性具理論上去論證無情有性，甚至可成佛，將中土的佛性思想推衍到最高點。道元在他的著作中，亦主張無情有性的說法。

English Translation: The initial propagator of Japanese Buddhist Original Awakening (hongaku) thought was Kūkai (空海, 774-835). In his Jūjūshinron (Treatise on the Ten Stages of Mind),

Original Text: 　　日本佛教本覺思想最初的弘揚者是空海（774-835），他在《十住心論》、

English Translation: Page 223

Hizō Hōyaku (Jeweled Key to the Secret Treasury), and Benkenmitsu Nikyōron (Treatise Distinguishing the Two Teachings, Exoteric and Esoteric), he extensively quoted the hongaku doctrine from the Shi Moheyan Lun (釋摩訶衍論, Śāstra Explaining Mahāyāna),[^42] such as "Pure primordial gnosis, from beginningless time, without observing practice, not obtained by other-power, virtue of nature perfected, original wisdom complete."[^43] In the Kongōchōkyō Kaidai (Commentary on the Vajraśekhara Sūtra), Kūkai further absolutized primordial gnosis, saying: "Self and other are primordial gnosis Buddhas, thus dharma is fundamentally and originally self-awakened (法爾自覺), originally endowed with the three bodies and four virtues, beginninglessly perfect with merits numerous as Ganges sands."[^44] Kūkai's Shingon esoteric Buddhism had a significant influence on later Tendai hongaku thought.

Original Text: 223頁

《秘藏寶鑰》、《弁顯密二教論》中，廣引《釋摩訶衍論》 註42的本覺說，如「清淨本覺從無始來，不觀修行，非得他力，性德圓滿，本智具足。」 註43在《金剛頂經開題》中，空海更把本覺絕對化，他說﹕「自他本覺佛，則法爾自覺，本來具足三身四德，無始圓滿恆沙功德。」 註44空海的真言密教對後來的天台本覺思想有很大影響。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^42]: Shi Moheyan Lun (釋摩訶衍論): A commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, influential in East Asian Buddhism, though its authorship is debated. Cited in the original text (footnote 42). [^43]: Quote attributed to the Shi Moheyan Lun. Cited in the original text (footnote 43). [^44]: Quote from Kūkai's Kongōchōkyō Kaidai. Cited in the original text (footnote 44). 法爾自覺 (hōni jikaku): Combines 法爾 (hōni - dharma is fundamentally and originally so; naturalness) with 自覺 (jikaku - self-awakening).

English Translation: After Saichō (最澄, 767-822) of Mount Hiei introduced hongaku thought from Chinese Tiantai, Japanese Tendai Buddhism continuously promoted the hongaku doctrine.[^45] Saichō's Honri Taikōshū (本理大綱集, Compendium of Fundamental Principles) is an early representative work of Tendai hongaku thought. This book elucidates hongaku thought through four "fundamental principles" (本理): the theory of the Three Bodies (trikāya), the theory of the Five Periods (goji), the theory of the Mutual Inclusion of the Ten Realms (jikkai gogu), and the theory of the Syllable 'A' (aji). Furthermore, in the Tendai Hokkeshū Gozu Hōmon Yōsan (天台法華宗牛頭法門要纂, Essentials of the Ox-Head Dharma Gate of the Tendai Lotus School), Saichō explained hongaku using concepts such as "the Buddha realm does not increase," "afflictions are bodhi" (煩惱即菩提), "attaining Buddhahood in this very body" (即身成佛), and "ignorance is enlightenment" (無明即明). His statements like "My form and mind are originally Buddha; sentient beings are originally enlightened" and "Taking the mind-nature's primordial gnosis as the uncreated true Buddha" all became the basis for later Tendai hongaku thought.[^46] During the period from Heian to early Kamakura, Ryōgen (良源, 912-985) and Genshin (源信, 942-1017) were representative figures. Ryōgen authored the Hongaku San (本覺讚, Hymn to Original Awakening) and the Chū Hongaku San (註本覺讚, Commentary on the Hymn to Original Awakening). His eminent disciple Genshin (942-1017) then authored the Hongaku San Shaku (本覺讚釋, Explanation of the Hymn to Original Awakening), explaining in detail the meanings of actualized gnosis (始覺) and primordial gnosis (本覺). Additionally, in his Shinnyo Kan (真如觀, Contemplation of Suchness), Genshin further elaborated hongaku into "primordial gnosis Suchness" (本覺真如), saying: "All sentient beings originate from the principle of primordial gnosis Suchness," and "Plants, trees, tiles, pebbles, mountains, rivers, the great earth, the great ocean, empty space—all are the Buddha-thing Suchness. Facing empty space, empty space is then Buddha; facing the great earth, the great earth is then Buddha."[^47] Hongaku thought not only implied "this very body is Buddha" (即身即佛) for sentient beings but further extended to the level of the insentient: "plants, trees, and land all attain Buddhahood" (草木國土悉皆成佛).

Original Text: 　　比叡山的最澄(767-822)自中國天台宗引進本覺思想後，日本天台宗即不斷提倡本覺思想。 註45最澄的《本理大綱集》是天台本覺思想初期的代表作，此書從三身論、五時論、十界互具論、阿字論四個「本理」來闡釋本覺思想。再者，在《天台法華宗牛頭法門要纂》中，最澄以「佛界不增」、「煩惱即菩提」、「即身成佛」、「無明即明」等概念解釋本覺。他所說的「我色心本佛，眾生本來成佛」、「以心性本覺，為無作實佛」等，都成為後來天台本覺思想的依據。 註46在平安時期到鎌倉初期之間，良源(912-985)和源信(942-1017)是代表人物。良源撰有《本覺讚》和《註本覺讚》，其高徒源信(942-1017)則撰《本覺讚釋》詳加解釋始覺、本覺的意義。另外，源信於其《真如觀》中，更將本覺推衍成「本覺真如」，他說﹕「一切眾生皆出自本覺真如之理」、「草木、瓦礫、山河、大地、大海、虛空、皆是真如佛物。向虛空，虛空則佛也，向大地，大地則佛也。」 註47本覺思想不但義涵有情眾生的「即身即佛」，更推展到無情「草木國土悉皆成佛」的層次。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^45]: The original text includes footnote 45 here, likely referencing the introduction of hongaku thought by Saichō. [^46]: The original text includes footnote 46 here, citing Saichō's works and statements as foundational for later hongaku thought. [^47]: The original text includes footnote 47 here, citing Genshin's Shinnyo Kan and his expansion of hongaku to include the insentient realm.

English Translation: The late Kamakura period (13th century) was the time when Tendai hongaku thought was systematized. Chūjin (忠尋, 1065-1138) is a representative figure, whose works include Kankō Ruijū (漢光類聚) and Hokke Ryakugi Kenmon (法華略義見聞). Among these, the "Fourfold Rise and Fall" (四重興廢, shijū kōhai) is his characteristic feature. The "fourfold" refers to "Pre-Lotus Sutra [teachings]" (爾前, nizen), "Trace Gate" (迹門, shakumon), "Origin Gate" (本門, honmon), and "Mind Contemplation" (觀心, kanjin). Discussing "afflictions are bodhi" using the "Fourfold Rise and Fall," then: "In the great Pre-Lotus teachings, afflictions are not bodhi; in the great Trace Gate teachings, afflictions are bodhi; in the great Origin Gate teachings, afflictions are afflictions and bodhi is bodhi; in the great Mind Contemplation Gate, [it is] neither affliction

Original Text: 　　鎌倉佛教後期（十三世紀）是天台本覺思想體系化的時期，忠尋(1065-1138)是代表性人物，其著作有《漢光類聚》、《法華略義見聞》，其中，「四重興廢」為其特色。「四重」指「爾前」、「㙉門」、「本門」、「觀心」。以「四重興廢」論煩惱即菩提的話，則「爾前大教煩惱非菩提，㙉門大教煩惱即菩提，本門大教煩惱即煩惱、菩提即菩提，觀門大教非煩惱

English Translation: Page 224 nor bodhi."[^48] In other words, the progressive stages of the fourfold [system] can be understood through principle (理, ri) and phenomena (事, ji): Principle-dualism / Phenomena-dualism (Pre-Lotus); Principle-monism / Phenomena-dualism (Trace Gate); Principle-monism / Phenomena-monism (Origin Gate); Fundamental monism of principle and phenomena (Mind Contemplation).[^49] According to this progressive sequence, the final stage, "Mind Contemplation," is considered supreme, developing the ultimate essentials of "realization in one thought-moment" (一念已證) and "inner realization through mind contemplation" (觀心內證). This easily led to emphasizing the Origin Gate's aspect of "primordial gnosis, non-doing, principle-based completion" (本覺‧無作‧理成) while neglecting the Trace Gate's aspect of "actualized gnosis, doing, phenomena-based completion" (始覺‧有作‧事成). Therefore, Chūjin questioned in the Kankō Ruijū: "If evil in its very substance is [viewed through] cessation-and-contemplation evil, how about the view that evil is non-obstructing evil? If based on this, one says 'all dharmas are originally Buddhadharma,' how then can evil be eliminated?" And also, "Do practitioners of cessation-and-contemplation commit evil acts like killing and stealing without restraint, acting willfully?" The reply given: "If evil karma is committed spontaneously and without contrivance (任運無作), it is not contradictory. Avalokiteśvara manifested as a fisherman killing various fish and insects..."[^50] The development of Japanese Tendai hongaku thought, besides producing the extreme idea of "this very body is Buddha, what need is there for practice?", also led to this morally deviant concept of "non-obstruction by evil" (惡無礙), which does not distinguish between good and evil. These misunderstandings of hongaku had already drawn criticism at the time. Hōchibō Shōshin (寶地房證真) (named after residing at Hōchi-bō) is one example. Shōshin, in his work Hokke Sangyōbu Shiki (法華三大部私記, Private Record on the Three Major Works of the Lotus Sutra), specifically in the Hokke Gengi Shiki (法華玄義私記, Private Record on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra), criticized the idea of the "original self-awakened Buddha" as contradicting the sutras, contradicting the treatises, contradicting the school's tenets, contradicting terminology, and contradicting reason, thus concluding it is not the true meaning of Buddhadharma.[^51] In summary, Dōgen undertook his journey to explore the true meaning of primordial gnosis against this background of numerous controversies surrounding hongaku thought.

Original Text: 224頁 非菩提」， 註48換言之，可以從理、事來暸解四重的進展階段﹕理二元論‧事二元論（爾前）；理一元論‧事二元論（㙉門）；理一元論‧事一元論（本門）；理事根本一元論（觀心）。 註49從這種進展階次而言，最後一重的「觀心」為最勝，發展出「一念已證」、「觀心內證」的究極心要，容易產生偏重「本覺‧無作‧理成」的本門，忽略「始覺‧有作‧事成」的㙉門。因此，忠尋在《漢光類聚》就質疑說﹕「惡當體若止觀惡，惡無礙惡見也如何？若依之爾也云一切法本是佛法也，爭可除惡耶？」，又「止觀行者，不畏殺生偷盜之惡業，恣意作行耶？」答曰﹕「若任運無作行惡業，不相違也。觀音現海人殺諸魚虫…」 註50日本天台本覺思想的發展，除了產生「即身是佛，何須修行」的極端想法之外，就是這種「惡無礙」善惡不分的道德偏差觀念。這些對本覺的誤解，當時就已曾引起批判。寶地房證真（因曾駐錫寶地房而得名）即為一例。證真於其著述《法華三大部私記》中的《法華玄義私記》就批判「本來自覺佛」是違經、違論、違宗、違名、違理，故非佛法真義。 註51總之，道元是在這種本覺思想諸多爭議的背景下，展開他探索本覺真義的歷程。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^48]: Explanation of the Fourfold Rise and Fall applied to "afflictions are bodhi," attributed to Chūjin. Cited in the original text (footnote 48). [^49]: Analysis of the fourfold system in terms of principle (理) and phenomena (事). Cited in the original text (footnote 49). [^50]: Quote from Chūjin's Kankō Ruijū, questioning the implications of non-obstruction by evil. Cited in the original text (footnote 50). 任運無作 (nin'un musa): Spontaneous and unconditioned/non-contrived action. [^51]: Reference to Hōchibō Shōshin's critique of the "original self-awakened Buddha" concept. Cited in the original text (footnote 51).

English Translation: III. Dōgen's View of Buddha-Nature

Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature is scattered throughout various chapters of the Shōbōgenzō, such as 〈Busshō〉 (Buddha-Nature), 〈Bendōwa〉 (Talk on Practicing the Way), 〈Sokushin Ze Butsu〉 (Mind Itself is Buddha), 〈Gyōbutsu Iigi〉 (Dignified Conduct of the Practice-Buddha), among others. Among these, the 〈Busshō〉 chapter is naturally the most important. This was a Dharma talk given by Dōgen to the assembly at Kannon Dōri Kōhōrin-ji temple in Kyoto on the 14th day of the 10th month of the second year of Ninji (1241). Regarding Buddha-nature, there are several key questions: What is the ultimate nature of the Buddha (Buddha-nature)? What is the ultimate nature of sentient beings (possessing Buddha-nature, lacking Buddha-nature, or impermanent Buddha-nature)? What is the relationship between the ultimate nature of Buddhas and sentient beings (are they one, are they two)? How is the nature of sentient beings elevated to the nature of the Buddha (is it original realization, wondrous practice, or the non-duality of practice-realization)? These questions are actually the most fundamental and important questions in all of Buddhadharma, only they are expressed uniquely in different sutras, treatises, and schools. In Dōgen's time, both the exoteric (Tendai school) and esoteric (Shingon school) traditions had already developed the view of Buddha-nature as "originally the fundamental dharma-nature, the natural self-nature body." Consequently, Dōgen's subsequent question naturally was, "If [beings] are inherently the fundamental dharma body, the dharma-nature, why then arouse the aspiration and practice the path of Bodhi

Original Text: 三、道元的佛性觀

道元的佛性思想散見於《正法眼藏》的〈佛性〉、〈辦道話〉、〈即心是佛〉、〈行佛威儀〉等諸篇，其中〈佛性〉篇當然是最重要。這是道元於仁治二年（一二四一）十月十四日，在京都的觀音導利興寶林寺給僧眾的開示。關於佛性，有幾個關鍵性的問題﹕佛的究竟本質（佛性）為何？眾生的究竟本質又是如何（有佛性，無佛性或無常佛性）？佛與眾生之究竟本質的關連又是如何（是一，是二）？眾生的本質如何提昇到佛的本質（是本證，妙修，或修證不二）？這些問題其實就是整個佛法最根本最重要的問題，只是在不同的經論、宗派各有其獨特的說法。在道元的時代，不管是顯（天台宗）密（真言宗）都已發展出「本來本法性，天然自性身」的佛性觀，於是接下來道元的問題自然是「如本自法身法性成者，為何更發心修行菩提

English Translation: Page 225 Way?" Actually, preceding this question, there is another question: if sentient beings are inherently the fundamental dharma body, the dharma-nature, then why is there a difference between Buddhas and sentient beings? It is because there is a difference that one needs to arouse the aspiration and practice. In summary, based on these questions, Dōgen not only established his view of Buddha-nature but, more importantly, established his view of practice-realization, thoroughly resolving the great doubt of his religious life. The content of the Shōbōgenzō chapter 〈Busshō〉 (Buddha-Nature) can be outlined as follows:[^52] (I) Introduction: The meaning of Buddha-nature in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra and Dōgen's interpretation of the meaning of Buddha-nature

1. The meaning of "All sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature"
2. Refuting the Senika non-Buddhist view which regards Buddha-nature as the subject of awareness
3. Refuting the ordinary delusion which regards Buddha-nature as the seeds of grass and trees
4. The doctrine of the time-period and conditions (時節因緣) of Buddha-nature (II) Views of Buddha-nature by various Patriarchs and Masters
5. Aśvaghoṣa's "Buddha-nature ocean"
6. Fourth Patriarch Dàoxìn's "no Buddha-nature"
7. Fifth Patriarch Hóngrěn's "People from Lingnan have no Buddha-nature"
8. Sixth Patriarch Huìnéng's "impermanent Buddha-nature"
9. Nāgārjuna's "full moon aspect"
10. Yánguān Qí'ān's "All sentient beings have Buddha-nature"
11. Guīshān Língyòu's "All sentient beings have no Buddha-nature"
12. Bǎizhàng Huáihǎi's "The five aggregates are the indestructible body, the pure wondrous land"
13. Huángbò and Nánquán's dialogue: "Equal practice of samādhi and prajñā, clearly seeing Buddha-nature"
14. Zhàozhōu Cōngshěn's "Dog's Buddha-nature"
15. Chángshā Jǐngcén's Buddha-nature teaching in the "earthworm cut in two" kōan (III) Conclusion
16. Definition of Buddha-nature: "Whole-existence" (悉有) is "Buddha-nature"

At the beginning of the 〈Busshō〉 chapter, Dōgen immediately quotes the famous line from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, Lion's Roar Chapter: "All sentient beings, wholly possess Buddha-nature (一切眾生，悉有佛性); the Tathāgata is permanent and unchanging." He praises this as Śākyamuni's lion's roar turning the Dharma wheel, and also the crown and eyes of all Buddhas and Patriarchs. Originally, the statement in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra that all sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature has a clear and distinct meaning. The traditional reading implies that all sentient beings inherently possess the potential (性, xìng/shō, nature/seed) to become Buddhas, which is Buddha-nature (or Tathāgatagarbha). Although sentient beings are currently situated in delusion and affliction, due to their latent Buddha-nature, they can ultimately attain realization.

Original Text: 225頁 道？」其實，在這個問題之前，還有一個問題，即眾生如本自法身法性成者，何以佛與眾生有所不同？因有不同，才須發心修行。總之，以這些問題為基礎，道元不但建立了他的佛性觀，更重要的，建立了他的修證觀，徹底解決了他宗教生命的大疑團。 《正法眼藏‧佛性》篇的內容可以科分如下﹕ 註52 （一）序節《涅槃經》的佛性義及道元的佛性義詮釋 1.「一切眾悉有佛性」的意義 2.駁斥以佛性為覺知主體的先尼外道說 3.駁斥以佛性為草本種子的凡夫情量 4.佛性的時節因緣說 （二）諸祖師之佛性觀 1.馬鳴之「佛性海」 2.四祖道信之「無佛性」 3.五祖弘忍之「嶺南人無佛性」 4.六祖慧能之「無常佛性」 5.龍樹之「圓月相」 6.鹽官齊安之「一切眾生有佛性」 7.溈山靈祐之「一切眾生無佛性」 8.百丈懷海之「五陰不壞身淨妙國土」 9.黃檗與南泉之問答「定慧等學，明見佛性」 10.趙州從諗之「狗子佛性」 11.長沙景岑之「蚯蚓斬為兩段」公案的佛性說 （三）結語 1. 佛性的定義：「悉有」即「佛性」 　　道元在〈佛性〉篇，一開始即引《涅槃經‧師子吼品》的名句「一切眾生，悉有佛性；如來常住，無有變異」，並讚嘆此是釋尊轉法輪的獅子吼，亦是一切諸佛祖師之頂𠍇眼睛。本來《涅槃經》所說的一切眾生悉有佛性，語義鮮明清楚，傳統讀法意指所有眾生本具成佛的種性，即佛性（或曰如來藏）。雖然目前眾生於處虛妄煩惱中，但由於他們潛存的佛性，終究可證悟。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^52]: The original text includes footnote 52 here, indicating that this outline of the <Busshō> chapter is the author's (Shi Hengqing's) analysis.

English Translation: Page 226 This interpretation regards Buddha-nature as an objective goal that the subjective sentient being can pursue and realize. Therefore, it implies a dualistic separation between subject and object, present and future, potentiality and possibility, internal and external, etc. Dōgen did not agree with this view of Buddha-nature and proposed his own uniquely creative interpretation, although his new reading clearly violates the rules of Chinese grammar. He said:

"The term 'whole-existence' (悉有, shitsu u) is 'sentient beings' (眾生); it is 'existence' (有). Thus, 'whole-existence' is 'sentient beings'. A part of whole-existence is called sentient beings. Precisely at such a time, inside and outside of sentient beings is the whole-existence of Buddha-nature."[^53]

In Dōgen's new reading, "All sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature" (一切眾生悉有佛性) becomes "All (一切)" is "sentient beings (眾生)"; "whole-existence (悉有)" is "Buddha-nature (佛性)." Conversely, one can also say "Buddha-nature" is "whole-existence" (悉有, all existence), and "a part of whole-existence" is sentient beings. Dōgen immediately combines Buddha-nature with the whole-existence of everything present, transcending opposing dualities. Furthermore, "a part of whole-existence" implies expanding whole-existence to include the realm of all living and non-living things (sentient and insentient, 有情與非情), a "De-anthropocentric" sphere. All existence, including the sentient and insentient, is nothing other than present Buddha-nature; the two are non-dual yet not two [distinct entities]. Therefore, Dōgen specifically explained the meaning of "whole-existence" (悉有):

"One should know that the 'existence' (有) which is now wholly possessed (悉有) by Buddha-nature is not the 'existence' of existence-and-non-existence (有無之有). 'Whole-existence' (悉有) is Buddha-words, Buddha-tongue, the eyes of Buddhas and Ancestors, the nostrils of patch-robed monks. The term 'whole-existence', furthermore, is not newly arisen existence (始有), not originally existent existence (本有), not marvelous existence (妙有), etc., let alone existence from conditions (緣有) or illusory existence (妄有). It is not restricted by mind, environment, nature, or characteristics."[^54]

Original Text: 226頁 這種解讀，將佛性視為主體眾生可追求和實現的客體目標，因此意味著主體與客體、現在與未來、本能與可能、內在與外在等的二元分立。道元並不認同這種佛性見解，而提出他自己獨具創意的解讀，雖然他的新讀法顯然違反了中文語法的規則。他說﹕ 　　「悉有」言者「眾生」也，即「有」也。即「悉有」者「眾生」也。悉有一分云眾生。正當恁麼時，　　　 　　眾生內外即佛性悉有也。 註53 　　在道元的新讀法中，「一切眾生悉有佛性」變成「一切」即「眾生」，「悉有」即「佛性」，反過來亦可以說「佛性」即「悉有」（一切存在），而「悉有之一分」為眾生。道元將佛性當下與悉有的一切存在結合，超越對立的二元，而「悉有之一分」更義涵著將悉有擴展到包含一切有生命和無生命（有情與非情）的「超人類中心主義」（De-anthropocentrism）的領域。包括有情和非情的一切存在不外是當下的佛性，二者二而不二，因此道元特別又解釋「悉有」的意義﹕ 應知今為佛性所悉有（之）有，則非有無（之）有。悉有是佛語也，佛舌也，佛祖眼睛，衲僧鼻孔也。悉有之言，更非始有，非本有，非妙有等，況緣有、妄有乎？不拘心、境、性、相等。 註54 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^53]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>. Cited in the original text (footnote 53). Dōgen reads the phrase「一切眾生悉有佛性」 not as Subject-Verb-Object ("All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature") but breaks it down differently. [^54]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>. Cited in the original text (footnote 54).  

English Translation: Regarding the "existence" (有) of Buddha-nature's whole-existence (悉有), Dōgen first employs negation (遣非, kenpi): that is, "existence" is not the "existence" of "existence and non-existence" (有無之有), otherwise it falls into dualistic dichotomy, contradicting the non-dual Dharma Gate consistently emphasized in Buddhism. Whole-existence Buddha-nature is the whole-existence where before and after are cut off; thus, it is also not newly arisen existence (始有, shiu). Newly arisen existence implies "originally non-existent, now existent." Regarding the meaning that Buddha-nature is not "originally non-existent, now existent," the "originally existent, now non-existent verse" (本有今無偈) in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra can serve as a reference: "The essence of Nirvāṇa is not originally non-existent and now existent. If Nirvāṇa were originally non-existent and now existent, it would not be the unconditioned (無漏, muro), permanent Dharma. Whether Buddhas exist or not, its nature and characteristics are permanently abiding. Because sentient beings are covered by afflictions, they do not see Nirvāṇa and thus consider it non-existent. Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas diligently cultivate their minds with precepts (戒, kai), concentration (定, jō), and wisdom (慧, e); having cut off afflictions, they then see it. Know that Nirvāṇa is a permanently abiding Dharma, not originally non-existent and now existent."[^55]

Original Text: 對佛性悉有之「有」，道元首先遣非，即「有」並非「有、無」之有，否則即落入二元對立的存在，有違佛教一向強調的不二法門。悉有佛性是前後際斷的悉有，故亦非始有。始有意味「本無今有」，對佛性非「本無今有」的意義，《大般涅槃經》中的「本有今無偈」中可供參考﹕ 涅槃之體非本無今有者，若涅槃本無今有者，則非無漏常住之法。有佛無佛，性相常住，以諸眾生煩惱覆故，不見涅槃，便謂為無。菩薩摩訶薩以戒定慧勤修其心，斷煩惱已，便得見之。當知涅槃是常住法，非本無今有。 註55

English Translation: Page 227

If Buddha-nature belonged to newly arisen existence (始有, shiu) (actualized gnosis, 始覺), then it would not be the unconditioned, permanent Dharma. If that were the case, the arising of pure Dharma would lack a necessary innate basis and be purely accidental. In reality, "whether Buddhas exist or not, its nature and characteristics are permanently abiding," it is just that sentient beings, being covered by afflictions, do not see it. However, although it is said that whole-existence Buddha-nature is not newly arisen existence, this does not mean it is originally existent existence (本有, honnu), because Buddha-nature is not a substantial entity; otherwise, it would violate the fundamental Buddhist teaching of no-self (無我). Furthermore, Dōgen holds that "whole-existence is Buddha-nature" is also not wondrous presence (妙有, myōu), because although wondrous presence exists, it is like illusion and empty; it does not exist due to arising from conditions, nor is it the non-Buddhist deluded clinging to the existence of self-view (我見); nor is it restricted by deluded, conditioned (有漏, uro) dharmas such as mind, environment, nature, and characteristics. Because the external material environment world (dependent retribution, 依報) and the internal body-mind subject (direct retribution, 正報) wholly possessed by sentient beings are "not [produced by] the predominant force of karma, not illusory dependent origination (妄緣起), not 'dharma is fundamentally and originally so' (法爾), not [obtained through] supernatural powers or practice/realization (修證)."[^56] [^57]

Original Text: 227頁

佛性如屬本無今有的始有（始覺），則非無漏常住之法，果如是則淨法之產生無必然之先天依據而純屬偶然。其實，不管「有佛無佛，性相常住」，只是眾生被煩惱所覆不得見。但是，雖說悉有佛性非始有，並非表示它是本有，因為佛性並非實體性的存在，否則即有違佛教無我的根本教義，再者，道元認為「悉有即佛性」亦非妙有，因為妙有雖有，如幻即空，非緣生而有，非外道妄執有我見之有，亦不拘於心、境、性、相等迷妄有漏法，因為眾生悉有外在的物質環境世界（依報）和內在的身心主體（正報），都「非業增上力（所感），非妄緣起，非法爾，非神通修證 註56」。 註57

 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^55]: Quote from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. Cited in the original text (footnote 55). 無漏 (muro) means unconditioned, undefiled, free from outflows/āsravas. [^56]: This internal quote seems to be attributed to Dōgen, explaining the nature of the 'whole-existence' of beings' dependent and direct retribution. Cited in the original text (footnote 56). [^57]: The original text includes footnote 57 here, likely providing further context or references for the preceding points. 我見 (gaken) is self-view. 法爾 (hōni) is translated as "dharma is fundamentally and originally so" per instructions.

English Translation: In summary, Dōgen first explains Buddha-nature through negation, just as stated in the 〈Busshō〉 chapter: "The World-Honored One said: 'All sentient beings, wholly possess Buddha-nature.' What is the essential meaning? What sort of thing comes thus (是什麼物恁麼來)? It is the turning of the Dharma wheel."[^58] This allusion "What sort of thing comes thus?" originates from the dialogue during the first meeting between the Sixth Patriarch Huineng (六祖慧能, 683-713) and Nanyue Huairang (南嶽懷讓): (Huineng) The Patriarch asked: "From what place do you come?" (Huairang) [Huairang] said: "I come from Mount Song." The Patriarch asked: "What sort of thing (是什麼物) comes thus (恁麼來)?" Master [Huairang] was speechless. After eight years passed, he suddenly had realization and reported to the Patriarch, saying: "To say it resembles any one thing is not hitting the mark."[^59]

Original Text: 　　總之，道元先以遣非方式解釋佛性，就如〈佛性〉篇所說﹕ 　　　世尊道﹕「一切眾生，悉有佛性」，其宗旨為何？是什麼物恁麼來，道轉法輪也 註58 這個「什麼物恁麼來」的典故，來自六祖慧能(683-713)與岳南懷讓初見時的對話問答﹕ （慧能）祖問﹕「什麼處來？」 （懷讓）祖曰﹕「嵩山來。」 祖問﹕「是什麼物恁麼來？」師無語，遂經八載，忽然有省，乃白祖曰﹕「說似一物即不中。」 註59 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^58]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>. Cited in the original text (footnote 58). [^59]: Dialogue between Huineng and Huairang, famously recorded in Chan literature (e.g., Transmission of the Lamp). Cited in the original text (footnote 59).

English Translation: The question "What sort of thing comes thus?"—which took Huairang eight years to realize—pertains to the ultimate reality of Buddhism. For Dōgen, it pertains to the question of "whole-existence is Buddha-nature." In other words, what is whole-existence or Buddha-nature? ("What am I?" or "Who am I?") And "how does it come thus?" (Whence

Original Text: 　　「是什麼物恁麼來」這個使懷讓花了八年時間才得領悟的問題，涉及了佛教的終極實相，而對道元而言，它涉及「悉有即佛性」的問題。換言之，悉有或佛性「是什麼物?」(What am I? 或 Who am I?)又「恁麼來」(Whence

English Translation: Page 228 do I come?). The "what thing" and "what place" of Buddha-nature are unnamable, unattainable, and cannot be objectified. Therefore, Dōgen used a series of negations to describe it—not the existence of existence/non-existence, not newly arisen existence, not originally existent existence, not illusory existence, etc. This is a view of Buddha-nature that transcends subjectivity. Hence, Dōgen said: "Throughout the entire realm, there is no adventitious dust (客塵); directly beneath, there is no second person."[^60] This means that the entire Dharma realm is originally without a single thing; no dharma can be seen or attained; directly, there is no existence of subject-object dichotomy (no second person). But this does not mean completely negating Buddha-nature, so Dōgen said Buddha-nature "is not existence arisen from illusory conditions (妄緣起有), nothing in the whole universe is concealed."[^61] Buddha-nature does not arise from illusory conditions but is rather like what the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Fo Xing Lun / 佛性論) states: "Buddha-nature is the Suchness (真如) revealed by the twofold emptiness of self and phenomena (人法二空)."[^62] The essence of Suchness pervades everything, hence "nothing in the whole universe is concealed."

Original Text: 228頁 do I come)?佛性的「什麼物」、「什麼處」是不可名，不可得，不可客體化，因此道元用了一連串的否定詞來描述─非有無之有、非始有、非本有、非妄有等。這是種超越主體性的佛性觀，因此道元說﹕「盡界都無客塵，直下更無第二人」， 註60也就是說盡法界本來無一物，無一法可見、可得，直下更無主、客體對立的存在（更無第二人）。但這並非意味要把佛性全然的否定，所以道元說佛性「非妄緣起有，遍界不曾藏故。」 註61佛性非因妄緣而有，而是猶如《佛性論》所說的﹕「佛性者，即人法二空所顯真如。」 註62真如體遍一切，因之「遍界不曾藏。」

Footnotes/Annotations: [^60]: Quote from Dōgen. Cited in the original text (footnote 60). 客塵 (kakujin): Adventitious dust, referring to defilements or phenomena perceived as external/objective. "No second person" implies non-duality. [^61]: Quote from Dōgen. Cited in the original text (footnote 61). 遍界不曾藏 (henkai fusō zō): The entire realm/universe was never concealed. [^62]: Quote from the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Fo Xing Lun), attributed to Vasubandhu. Cited in the original text (footnote 62). 人法二空 (ninpō niku): The twofold emptiness – emptiness of self (人空) and emptiness of phenomena (法空).

English Translation: To avoid the potential misunderstanding of Buddha-nature as a substantial, pervasive entity based on this, Dōgen immediately followed with a warning: "That the entire realm/universe was never concealed does not necessarily mean the entire realm is existence (有). If the entire realm were self (我), that would be the erroneous view of non-Buddhists. [Whole-existence] is not the existence of original existence (本有之有), because it transcends past and present (亙古亙今). It is not existence that newly arises (始起有), because it does not accept a single speck of dust... One should know that sentient beings within whole-existence are swift and unimpeded, hard to encounter (快便難逢). If one grasps that whole-existence is thus, then the substance of whole-existence drops off."[^63] Buddha-nature transcends time, spanning past and present, thus it is neither originally existent nor newly arisen. It also transcends space, pervading all places, but it is not the 'self' (我, ga) of the non-Buddhist [view] "mistaking no-self for self" (無我計我). Whether Buddha-nature constitutes a kind of Atman theory (有我論) has been a point of continuous debate since ancient times, from Mahāmati Bodhisattva raising doubts about the Tathāgatagarbha in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra,[^64] to the critiques of hongaku thought by modern Buddhist scholars in "Critical Buddhism."[^65] All these arise targeting this point of doubt.

Original Text: 　　為了避免因此對佛性產生實體性泛有的誤解，道元緊接著警示說﹕ 遍界不曾藏者，非必遍界是有也。遍界我有，則外道邪見也。（悉有） 非本有之有，䊵古䊵今故。非始起有，不受一塵故，…應知悉有中眾生快便難逢也，會取悉有如是，則悉有其體脫落也。 註63 　　佛性是超越時間，𨧤古𨧤今的，故非本有、非始有，它又是超越空間，遍一切處，但不是外道「無我計我」的我。佛性是否為一種有我論，此問題自古以來即爭議不斷，從《楞伽經》中大慧菩薩提出對如來藏的質疑， 註64到現代佛學學者的「批判佛教」對本覺思想的批判， 註65都是針對此疑點而起。

Footnotes/Annotations: [^63]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>. Cited in the original text (footnote 63). 亙古亙今 (kōko kōkon): Spanning across past and present, timeless. 快便難逢 (kaihen nanpō): Swift, unimpeded, and hard to encounter/rare. [^64]: Reference to Mahāmati's questions in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which probe the relationship between Tathāgatagarbha and the concept of Ātman (self). Cited in the original text (footnote 64). [^65]: Reference to the modern "Critical Buddhism" (批判佛教) movement in Japan, which critiques concepts like Tathāgatagarbha and Hongaku as potentially essentialist or monistic, akin to Atman theories. Cited in the original text (footnote 65).

English Translation: Page 229 Dōgen naturally also paid attention to this issue, thus emphasizing that "Buddha-nature whole-existence" is not an Atman theory (有我論). Dōgen believed that if one could grasp the meaning of whole-existence as being thus, one could then "penetrate the substance and drop off" (透體脫落), becoming completely unhindered. Dōgen called this state "swift and unimpeded, hard to encounter" (快便難逢), using the analogy of a person walking downhill, who proceeds rapidly even without exerting effort.

2. Refutation of Misunderstandings of Buddha-Nature To highlight misunderstandings of Buddha-nature, Dōgen pointed out that some people, like those holding the non-Buddhist Senika's Atman theory, regard Buddha-nature as the subject that perceives and knows (覺知覺了的主體). Senika (先尼) translates to Chinese as "Possessing an Army" (有軍) or "Victorious Army" (勝軍); he was a non-Buddhist contemporary of the Buddha who advocated an Atman theory. Dōgen refuted this, saying: "Hearing the term Buddha-nature, many students think like the non-Buddhist Senika's erroneous view of self... They merely consider the mind-consciousness (心意識) moved by wind and fire to be the cognition and awareness (覺知覺了) of Buddha-nature. Who says Buddha-nature has cognition and awareness? Even if cognizers (覺者) and knowers (知者) are Buddhas, Buddha-nature itself is not cognition and awareness."[^66]

Original Text: 229頁 道元當然亦注意到此問題，因而強調「佛性悉有」非有我論。道元認為若能會取如是的悉有義，則可「透體脫落」無罣無礙，道元稱之為「快便難逢」，比喻如下坡行者，雖不用力，猶可快速急行。 ２、對佛性誤解的駁斥 　　為了突顯對佛性的誤解，道元指出有些人像先尼外道的有我論一樣，將佛性視為覺知覺了的主體。先尼(senika)的中譯是「有軍」或「勝軍」，是佛在世時，主張有我論的外道。道元駁斥說﹕ 聞佛性言，而學者多如先尼外道我邪計也…徒謂風火動著心意識為佛性之覺知覺了。誰道佛性有覺知覺了？覺者知者設使諸佛，而佛性非覺知覺了也。 註66 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^66]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>. Cited in the original text (footnote 66).

English Translation: The non-Buddhist Senika mistakenly considered the functioning of mind-consciousness, which moves with the blowing wind and burning fire, to be the cognitive function of cognition and awareness belonging to Buddha-nature. Furthermore, they believed this numinous awareness (靈知) is permanent and unchanging; though the physical form decays, the numinous awareness does not decay. Dōgen, in the Shōbōgenzō chapter 〈Sokushin Ze Butsu〉 (Mind Itself is Buddha), cited a dialogue between Nanyang Huizhong and a student monk from the Jingde Chuandeng Lu (Record of the Transmission of the Lamp) as an example to refute Senika's theory of awareness. A student monk from the South went to visit Huizhong and informed him of the understanding of Buddha-nature among various masters in the South. They believed that sentient beings possess a nature of seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing (見聞覺知之性), and that this nature "raises eyebrows, blinks eyes, comes and goes, functions." Apart from this, there is no separate Buddha. While the physical body of sentient beings undergoes arising and ceasing, the mind-nature has, since beginningless time, never arisen or ceased; that is, the body is impermanent, its nature is permanent. Regarding such a view, Huizhong refuted it, saying: "If that is so, then there is no difference from the non-Buddhist Senika. He said: 'Within this body of mine, there is a spirit-nature (神性). This nature can know pain and itching. When the body decays, the spirit then departs. Like a house being burnt, the owner departs. The house is impermanent; the owner is permanent.' If [your view] is truly like this, erroneous views cannot be distinguished... If seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing are taken as Buddha-nature, did Vimalakīrti not say the Dharma is separate from seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing? If one practices seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing, this is then [merely] seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing; seeking the Dharma [in this way] is wrong."[^67]

Original Text: 先尼外道誤以為隨風吹火燃而動的心意識作用，就是佛性的覺知覺了之認知作用，而且認為此靈知常住不變，雖身相壞而靈知不壞。道元在《正法眼藏‧即心是佛》篇引用《景德傳燈錄》中南陽慧忠與一學僧的問答，作為駁斥先尼的覺知說的例子。有位來自南方的學僧前往參訪慧忠，並告知南方諸師對佛性的暸解，他們認為眾生具有見聞覺知之性，而此性能「揚眉瞬目，去來運用」，離此之外，更無別佛，而眾生肉身有生滅，但心性無始以來未曾生滅，亦即身是無常，其性常也。對這樣的說法，慧忠駁斥說﹕ 若然者，與彼先尼外道無有差別。彼云﹕「我此身中有一神性，此性能知痛癢，身壞之時，神則出去。如舍被燒，舍主出去，舍則無常，舍主常矣，審如此者邪知莫辨…若以見聞覺知為佛性者，淨名不云法離見聞覺知，若行見聞覺知，是則見聞覺知，求非法也。 註67

Footnotes/Annotations: [^67]: Dialogue between Nanyang Huizhong and a monk, cited from the Jingde Chuandeng Lu (景德傳燈錄). Cited in the original text (footnote 67). 靈知 (língzhī) is translated as "numinous awareness" per instructions. 神性 (shénxìng) means spirit-nature or divine nature. Vimalakīrti (淨名, Jìngmíng) refers to the central figure in the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra.

English Translation: The non-Buddhist Senika believed that within everyone's body there is a "spirit-nature" (神性). This spirit-nature possesses the functions of seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing. When the body decays, this spirit-nature remains clear and unchanging, abiding permanently through kalpas, while the phenomenon of the body's arising and ceasing is merely "like

Original Text: 先尼外道認為人人身中有一「神性」，此神性有見聞覺知的作用，在身體滅壞時，此神性則了了不變，歷劫常住，而身體生滅的現象，只不過「如

English Translation: Page 230 a dragon shedding its bones, like a snake sloughing its skin, like a person moving out of an old house." Such an Atman theory is not the true meaning of Buddha-nature; in other words, Buddha-nature is not a permanent Atman/spirit-self. However, what exactly is Buddha-nature? Here, Dōgen only used a series of negations in his description (not the existence of existence/non-existence, not newly arisen, not originally existent, not existence, not illusory existence, not illusory dependent origination, etc.). Besides emphasizing that Buddha-nature must be whole-existence (悉有), and whole-existence is Buddha-nature, there is no clearer, positive definition.[^68] The definition of Buddha-nature and the critique of non-Buddhist views in the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Fo Xing Lun) might serve as a reference.[^69]

Dōgen refuted another misunderstanding of Buddha-nature, namely, regarding Buddha-nature as the seeds of plants and trees. He said: "There is a type [of person] who says: Buddha-nature is like the seeds of plants and trees. When moistened by the Dharma rain, sprouts and stems grow, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits flourish, and the fruits again contain seeds. Such a view is the delusion of ordinary beings (凡夫情量)."[^70] This kind of argument regards Buddha-nature as adhering to the "theory that the effect exists in the cause" (因中有果論). The Suvarṇasaptati Śāstra (Jin Qishi Lun / 金七十論, Gold Seventy Treatise) points out that the Vaiśeṣika school (衛世師) asserted that the effect definitely exists in the cause, providing five reasons: 1. What is non-existent cannot be produced: If something "lacks [the potential for] creation, it cannot be accomplished, like extracting oil from sand. If something possesses [the potential for] creation, like pressing sesame to extract oil." 2. One must select the cause: To obtain something, one must obtain its cause, e.g., seeking butter or curds must come from milk. If the cause (milk) lacked the nature of the effect (butter/curds), couldn't one obtain butter/curds from water too? 3. Otherwise, anything could arise from anything: If the effect did not exist in the cause, then any thing could produce any other thing, e.g., grass, wood, sand, and stones could produce gold and silver. This is factually not the case, thus we know the effect exists in the cause. 4. The capable agent acts on the appropriate material: For example, a potter prepares the necessary tools and uses clay (not grass or wood) to make pots, etc.; pots and basins are not made from grass or wood. Therefore, the effect's own nature exists within its own cause. 5. The effect corresponds to the cause: For example, wheat sprouts must correspond to wheat seeds. If the effect did not exist in the cause, the effect would necessarily not resemble the cause, then wheat seeds could produce bean sprouts. But this is factually not so, thus we know the effect exists in the cause.[^71]

Original Text: 230頁 龍換骨，似蛇脫皮，人出故宅」。這樣的神我論，不是佛性的真義，換言之，佛性不是常住的神我。然而佛性到底是什麼呢？此處道元只用了一連串否定詞的描述（非有無之有、非始有、非本有、非有、非妄有、非妄緣起等等），除了強調佛性必是悉有，悉有即是佛性之外，沒有較明確正面的定義。 註68《佛性論》中對佛性的定義和對外道的評破或可當為參考。 註69 　　道元駁斥另一個對佛性的誤解，即是將佛性視為草木種子，他說﹕「有一類謂﹕佛性如草木種子，法雨潤時，有芽莖生長，枝葉華果茂，果實更懷於種子，如是見解，則凡夫情量」。 註70這種論調即是將佛性視為「因中有果論」。《金七十論》中指出衛世師(Vaiwesika)主張因中定有果，其理由有五﹕1.無不可作故﹕若物「無造作不得成，如從沙出油，若物有作如壓麻出油」。2.必須取因故﹕求物必須取物因，如求酥酪，必須取自乳，若因（乳）中無果（酥酪）性，豈不取水亦可得酥酪？3.一切不生故﹕若因中無果，則一切物能生一切物，如草木沙石能生金銀等，事實非如此，故知因中有果。4.能作所作故﹕譬如陶師備足用具，將泥土（而不是草木）作成瓶等，不從草木作瓶盆，故自因中有自性。5.隨因有果故﹕譬如麥芽必隨麥種，若因中無果，果必不似因，則麥種可生豆芽，然事實不然，故知因中有果。 註71

Footnotes/Annotations: [^68]: The original text includes footnote 68 here, commenting on Dōgen's lack of a positive definition at this point. [^69]: The original text includes footnote 69 here, suggesting the Buddha-Nature Treatise as a reference for definitions and critiques. [^70]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>. Cited in the original text (footnote 70). 凡夫情量 (bombu jōryō): The deluded understanding or measurement of ordinary beings. [^71]: Summary of arguments for "effect exists in the cause," attributed to the Vaiśeṣika school via the Suvarṇasaptati Śāstra (a Sāṃkhya text, possibly used here to represent similar Indian philosophical arguments). Cited in the original text (footnote 71).

English Translation: Because ordinary people understand that the Buddha's perfect awakening arises from Buddha-nature, they mistakenly equate it with the non-Buddhist theory of "effect exists in the cause." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra states that if someone says the effect definitely exists beforehand in the cause, this person is a "companion of Māra, belongs to Māra's retinue." This is because all dharmas are without self-nature (無自性, mujishō); not only can one not say the effect definitely exists in the cause, but one also cannot say it definitely does not exist in the cause, nor that it definitely both exists and does not exist, nor that it definitely neither exists nor does not exist.[^72]

3. Buddha-Nature and Time-Period (時節) After clarifying that Buddha-nature is not a cognizing Atman/spirit-self, nor is it like the seeds of plants and trees according to the "effect exists in the cause" theory, Dōgen proceeded to comment on the very important relationship between "Buddha-nature" and "time-period" (時節, jisetsu). He said:

Original Text: 　　由於一般人理解佛正覺由佛性而生，因此誤以為與外道的因中有果論一樣，《涅槃經》中就說如果有人說因中先定有果，此人為「魔伴黨，繫屬魔」，因為諸法無自性，不但不可說因中定有果，亦不可說因中定無果、定有無果、定非有非無果。 註72 ３、佛性與時節 　　在澄清佛性非能覺知的神我，亦非像因中有果論的草本種子之後，道元接著註釋了很重要的「佛性」與「時節」的關係。他說﹕

Footnotes/Annotations: [^72]: Paraphrase or reference to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's critique of simplistic causal theories, emphasizing the lack of inherent existence (無自性, mujishō). Cited in the original text (footnote 72).

English Translation: Page 231

"The Buddha said: If you wish to know the meaning of Buddha-nature, you should observe the time-period and conditions (時節因緣, jisetsu innen). When the time-period arrives, Buddha-nature manifests."[^73] This passage originally comes from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. When the Buddha explained to Lion's Roar Bodhisattva the relationship between the "three causes" (生因, generative cause; 緣因, conditioning cause; 了因, understanding cause) of Buddha-nature and "time-period" (時節) (existing in the past, existing in the present, existing in the future), he said: "If you wish to see Buddha-nature, you should observe the time-period and forms/characteristics (時節形色). Therefore, I say all sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature."[^74] Chan Master Baizhang Huaihai once elaborated slightly on this. According to the record in the Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Volume 9, chapter on Dàguī Língyòu (大溈靈佑章), one day Lingyou was attending Baizhang. Baizhang asked who it was. The reply was: "Lingyou." Baizhang said: "Have you poked the embers in the hearth to see if there is fire?" Lingyou poked and said there was no fire. Baizhang got up himself, poked deep, found a small ember, held it up and showed it to him, saying: "Is this not fire?" Lingyou thereupon attained realization, bowed in gratitude, and stated his understanding. Baizhang said this was merely a temporary side-track (岐路, kiro, fork in the road), and furthermore quoted the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, saying: "The sutra says: If you wish to see Buddha-nature, observe the time-period and conditions. When the time-period arrives, it is like the confused suddenly awakening, like the forgetful suddenly remembering; only then realizing it is one's own possession, not obtained from another. Therefore, the Patriarchal Master said: Having awakened is the same as not having awakened; no-mind is also no-dharma. It is just the absence of illusory thoughts of ordinary and holy; the original mind-dharma is inherently complete."[^75]

Original Text: 　 231頁 　　　佛言﹕欲知佛性義，當觀時節因緣，時節若至，佛性現前。 註73 　　此段經文原出自《涅槃經》，佛陀對師子吼菩薩解釋佛性「三因」（生因，緣因，了因）和「時節」（過去有，現在有，未來有）的關係時說﹕「欲見佛性，應當觀察時節形色，是故我說一切眾悉有佛性。」 註74百丈懷海禪師曾稍加引申。根據《景德傳燈錄》卷九〈大溈靈佑章〉所載，一日靈佑隨侍在百丈身旁，百丈問是誰，回曰﹕「靈佑」。百丈云﹕「汝撥鑪中有火否？」靈佑撥云無火。百丈躬起，深撥得少火，舉示之云﹕「此不是火？」靈佑於是發悟，並禮謝陳其所解，百丈說其乃暫時岐路，並且引《涅槃經》曰﹕ 經云﹕欲見佛性，當觀時節因緣，時節既至，如迷忽悟，如妄忽憶方省己物，不從他得。故祖師云﹕悟了同未悟，無心亦無法，只是無虛妄凡聖等心，本來心法元自備足。 註75"

Footnotes/Annotations: [^73]: Quote attributed to the Buddha, likely via Dōgen referencing the Nirvāṇa Sūtra or Chan tradition. Cited in the original text (footnote 73). 時節 (jisetsu) means time, season, or the appropriate time/occasion. 因緣 (innen) means causes and conditions. [^74]: Quote from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, explaining the need to observe time and form/characteristics to see Buddha-nature. Cited in the original text (footnote 74). [^75]: Kōan involving Baizhang Huaihai and Guishan Lingyou, followed by Baizhang quoting the Nirvāṇa Sūtra passage about observing time-period and conditions, cited from the Jingde Chuandeng Lu. Cited in the original text (footnote 75).

My apologies for the error. Let's translate the section you provided again.

English Translation:

It is worth noting that in the quote above ["When the time-period arrives, it is like the confused suddenly awakening..."], the phrase "時節既至" (shíjié jì zhì) uses the character "既" (jì, already). However, the version Dōgen quotes in the 〈Busshō〉 chapter uses "若" (ruò, if/when): "時節若至" (shíjié ruò zhì). Dōgen might have quoted from the chapter on Dàguī Língyòu (大溈靈佑章) in the Liandeng Huiyao (聯燈會要, Compendium of the Joint Lamps). Although this chapter also records [the story of] Dàguī Língyòu, the wording is slightly different from the Jingde Chuandeng Lu:

"If you wish to know the meaning of Buddha-nature, observe the time-period and conditions; when (若, ruò) the time-period arrives, its principle naturally manifests (其理自彰). Then you will know your own possession, not obtained from outside."[^76]

When Dōgen interpreted this quoted sentence, besides changing "its principle naturally manifests" to "Buddha-nature manifests" (佛性現前), he also interpreted the time-period's "if/when arrives" (若至) as the time-period's "already arrived" (既至) used in the Jingde Chuandeng Lu,[^77] in order to express his own unique interpretation of the temporality of Buddha-nature's existence. He first pointed out that ordinary people of past and present often deludedly imagine the way of "when the time-period arrives," thinking that to realize Buddha-nature one must look to the future and await the time-period when Buddha-nature manifests. "Practicing like this

Original Text:

值得注意的是以上引文中的「時節既至」是用「既」字，但道元在〈佛性篇〉所引用的是「時節若至」的「若」字。道元可能引自《聯燈會要》的〈大溈靈佑章〉。雖然此章同樣是記載大溈靈佑，但用語與《景德傳燈錄》略不同﹕

　　　欲識佛性義，當觀時節因緣，時節「若」至，其理自彰。便知己物，不從外得。 註76

道元在詮釋此引句時，除了將「其理自彰」，改為「佛性現前」之外，還將時節「若」至，解釋成《景德傳燈錄》所用的時節「既」至， 註77以表達他自己對佛性存在之時間性的特有詮釋。他首先指出古今凡夫之輩往往妄想「時節若至」之道，認為要證得佛性得向未來期待佛性現前之時節，「如是修行

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^76]: Quote comparing the Liandeng Huiyao version of the Guishan story/quote. Cited in the original text (footnote 76).

[^77]: The original text includes footnote 77 here, likely referencing Dōgen's specific interpretation of 若 as 既.

English Translation:

Page 232

coming to this point, one will naturally encounter the time-period when the Buddha manifests. If the time-period does not arrive, then even if one consults teachers, asks about the Dharma, and puts effort into practicing the Way (辦道功夫), it [Buddha-nature] will not manifest."[^78] Dōgen pointed out that such people, no matter how hard they strive in investigation and practice, can only "suddenly return to the red dust (紅塵, worldly affairs), vainly guarding the cloudy Han (雲漢, Milky Way)." He also called these people followers belonging to the category of non-Buddhist naturalism (天然外道).

Original Text:

232頁

來地，自然逢佛現前之時節。時節不至，則參師問法，辦道功夫焉，不現前也。」 註78道元指出如此之輩無論如何努力參究辦道，只能「突返紅塵，空守雲漢。」他還稱這些人屬天然外道之流類。

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^78]: Quote describing the common misunderstanding of waiting for a future time for realization. Cited in the original text (footnote 78).

English Translation:

Dōgen believed that Buddha-nature does not exist in the future, awaiting the appropriate time-period to manifest. Therefore, he said: "'If/when arrives' (若至) means 'already arrived' (既至). If the time-period 'arrives' [in the future] (時節若至), then Buddha-nature does not arrive." Instead, it should be "The time-period already having arrived (時節既至), Buddha-nature then manifests (則是佛性現前)." This is "its principle naturally manifests" or the so-called "actualizing the kōan" (現成公案, genjō kōan). For Dōgen, each momentary instant ("time," 時) and the myriad dharmas (each thing and event, "existence," 有) are simultaneously actualized (相即現成). Thus, in the 〈Bendōwa〉 (Talk on Practicing the Way), he said:

"When one person sits in zazen at one time, all dharmas correspond implicitly (諸法相冥), all times connect completely (諸時圓通); therefore, throughout the inexhaustible dharma realm—past, present, and future—one performs the constant work of the Buddha's transforming Way (佛化道事). Each and every [moment/dharma] shares equally in the same practice (同修), the same realization (同證)."[^79]

Original Text:

　　道元認為佛性不是存在於未來，等待適當的時節而現前，所以他說﹕「若至即既至之謂。時節若至，則佛性不至也」，而應該是「時節既至，則是佛性現前」，也就是「其理自彰」或所謂「現成公案」。對道元而言，每一剎那瞬間的「時」與萬法（每一事物事相）的「有」是相即現成的，所以他在〈辦道話〉就有如是說﹕

一人一時坐禪，諸法相冥，諸時圓通故，無盡法界中去來現，作常恆佛化道事也。彼彼共一等同修也、同證也。 註79

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^79]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Bendōwa>. Cited in the original text (footnote 79).

English Translation:

Within Dōgen's view of space and time where "all dharmas correspond implicitly" and "all times connect completely," when one person (meaning everyone) practices zazen at one time (meaning any time-period), it is equivalent to constantly performing Buddha-work throughout the past, present, and future within the inexhaustible dharma realm; all equally share in the same practice and realization. Such zazen is zazen of "practice-realization as one" (修證一等), zazen of "original realization, wondrous practice" (本證妙修), zazen of "dropping off body and mind" (身心脫落). Buddha-nature "already arrives and manifests" (既至現前) right now in this completely connected space and time, not waiting for some future time-period 'if/when' (若) it 'arrives' (至) before it can manifest. In other words, the realization of Buddha-nature is an "actualizing kōan" of "existence is time, time is existence" (有即時‧即時有). The simultaneity of Buddha-nature and realization is "constantly" (常恆) experienced and actualized by the practitioner at every present moment.

Original Text:

　　在道元「諸法相冥」、「諸時圓通」的空間和時間觀之中，一人（即人人）一時（即任何時節）坐禪修行時，即是等於在無盡法界中的過去、現在、未來，恆常作佛事，彼此一等同修同證。這樣的坐禪即是「修證一等」的坐禪、「本證妙修」的坐禪、「身心脫落」的坐禪。佛性就是在這種圓通的空間和時間中當下「既至現前」的，而不是等待未來某一時節若「至」才能現前的。換言之，佛性的體證是「有即時‧即時有」的現成公案，佛性與證悟的同時性，在當下的每時每刻由修證者「常恆」地經歷和實現著。

English Translation:

Therefore, for Dōgen, "existence" (有) and "time" (時) are presented simultaneously as one entity. It is not that a duration of "time" exists first, and then within this "time," some kind of "existence" appears. For example, it is not that there is a time called "spring," and then flowers bloom within this time. In fact, the correct understanding should be that the very moment flowers bloom is spring. Furthermore, apart from the constantly changing phenomenal appearances of the world, "time" does not exist.[^80] Therefore, Dōgen said:

"Mountains are time; oceans are time. If there were no 'time,' there could be no mountains or oceans. If [something] cannot be mountains and oceans, then currently there is no 'time.' If time were destroyed, then mountains and rivers would be destroyed. If time is not destroyed, then mountains

Original Text:

　　因此，道元的「有」「時」是一體同時呈現的，而不是先有個「時」間的存在，然後在這個「時」間出現某種「有」，例如，並非有一個名為「春天」的時間，然後花卉於此時間內開放。事實上，正確的暸解應該是花卉開放的當下即是春天。再者，離開變化不斷的世間相，即沒有「時間」的存在。 註80所以道元說﹕

山（者）時也，海（者）時也。（若）不有「時」，不可有山海。（若）不可為山海，而今不「有時」。時若壞，則山河壞，時若不壞，則山

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^80]: The original text includes footnote 80 here, likely referencing further discussion or sources on time's dependence on phenomena.

English Translation:

Page 233

and rivers are not destroyed."[^81]

Apart from the impermanent myriad dharmas, time does not exist; apart from time, the myriad dharmas also do not exist. Therefore, Dōgen emphasized "Time is existence; all existence is time" (即時有也，有悉為時也). Existence and time become one entity. This is the meaning Dōgen intended to express with "The time-period already having arrived, Buddha-nature manifests." Not only is whole-existence Buddha-nature, but all time is Buddha-nature, and all time is practice. Therefore, all practice is Buddha-nature (practice-realization as one, 修證一如). Thus, Dōgen concluded:

"If/when arrives (若至) still means already arrived (既至). If the time-period [only] 'arrives' [in the future] (時節若至), then Buddha-nature does not arrive. However, the time-period already having arrived (時節既至), Buddha-nature then manifests (則佛性現前). Or, its principle naturally manifests (理自彰). Generally, a time-period that does not 'if/when arrive' (不若至 / i.e., is not already present) has never existed; a Buddha-nature that does not manifest (不現前 / i.e., is not present) does not exist."[^82]

Original Text:

233頁

河不壞也。 註81

　

離開無常的萬法，時間即不存在，離開時間，萬法亦不存在，故道元強調「即時有也，有悉為時也」，有與時成為一體，這就是道元要表達的「時節既至，佛性現前」的意義，不但悉有即佛性，一切時間都是佛性，一切時間都是修行，因此，一切修行都是佛性（修證一如），故道元總結說﹕

若至猶言既至，時節若至，則佛性不至也，然則時節既至，則佛性現前也。或理自彰也，大凡時節之不若至（的）時節未有也，佛性之不現前（的）佛性不有也。 註82

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^81]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Uji> (Being-Time). Cited in the original text (footnote 81).

[^82]: Dōgen summarizing his interpretation of "time-period" and Buddha-nature's manifestation. Cited in the original text (footnote 82).

English Translation:

Dōgen regarded the future "if/when arrives" (若至) of time as identical to the present "already arrived" (既至). Every time-period is presently actualized. Therefore, he denied the existence of time that does not "if/when arrive" (is not already present), and denied a Buddha-nature that does not manifest in every time-period.

In Dōgen's view of time, he not only emphasized the uniqueness of time in each time-period but also pointed out its complete interconnection (圓通性, entsūshō). He said:

"Being-time (有时, uji) has the merit of passage (經歷, kyōryaku). It means passing from today to tomorrow, passing from today to yesterday, passing from yesterday to today, passing from today to today, passing from tomorrow to tomorrow. Because 'passage' (經歷) is the merit of 'time' (時). Times of past and present are not layered or accumulated. Thus, Qingyuan['s] (行思禪師) time, Huangbo['s] (希運禪師) time... Since self and other are already time, practice-realization is all 'times' (諸時)."[^83]

Original Text:

道元把時間未來的「若至」視同時間當下的「既至」，每一時節都是當下現成的，因此他否認有不「若至」（既至）的時間，也沒有在每一時節不現前的佛性。

　　道元的時間觀中，不但強調時間在每一時節的獨特性，也指出其圓通性，他說﹕

有時有經歷功德，謂（自）今日經歷明日，今日經歷昨日，昨日經歷今日，今日經歷今日，明日經歷明日，「經歷」其「時」功德故。古今（之）時，非重非積。而青原（行思禪師）時也，黃檗（希運禪師）時也…自它既時故，修證則諸「時」也。 註83

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^83]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Uji> (Being-Time). Cited in the original text (footnote 83). Qingyuan Xingsi (青原行思) and Huangbo Xiyun (黃檗希運) were prominent Chan masters.

English Translation:

According to what Dōgen said, "being-time" (有时, uji) has the function of "passage" (經歷, kyōryaku), but it differs from the common understanding of time as a "unidirectional flow" (單向流逝)[^84] from yesterday to today, and from today to tomorrow. Dōgen's "being-time" can experience time in a completely interconnected and cyclical manner. That is, it not only involves unidirectional passage but also has the function of "bidirectional flow" (雙向流轉), allowing one to experience the present again from the future, experience the past from the present, or experience the future from the future, the past from the past, and so on. Therefore, it can be said that such "being-time" is presently actualized at any time, in any place.

Original Text:

依據道元所說，「有時」有「經歷」的作用，但與一般人所暸解的自昨日至今日、自今日至明日的「單向流逝」 註84之時間觀不同。道元的「有時」可以圓通循環地「經歷」時間，即不但有單向流逝的經歷，而且有「雙向流轉」的作用，可自未來再經歷現在，自現在經歷過去，或自未來經歷未來，過去經歷過去等等，因此可以說這樣的「有時」是在任何時間，任何地方都是當下現成的。

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^84]: The original text includes footnote 84 here, likely defining or discussing the concept of unidirectional time flow.

English Translation:

Buddha-nature under this view of time is not a static, substantial existence, but a dynamic

Original Text:

　　在這種時間觀之下的佛性不是「靜態」(static)的實體性存在，而是「動

English Translation:

Page 234

and repeatedly manifesting process of realization. That is to say, practice and realization (Buddha-nature) constantly and simultaneously reinforce each other. Therefore, Dōgen said practice is endowed with the power actualized throughout the entire realm, and also said: "Since self and other are already time, practice-realization is all 'times'."[^85] In Dōgen's view of completely interconnected time, things do not obstruct each other, and times also do not obstruct each other. Therefore, "There is simultaneous arising of aspiration (同時發心), there is aspiration arising simultaneous with time (同心發時); practice and attaining the Way are also like this."[^86]

Original Text:

234頁

態」(dynamic)且一再現前的證悟歷程，也就是說修行與證悟（佛性）不斷地同時相互強化(reinforce)。所以道元說修行具足遍界現成力量，又說﹕「自他既時故，修證則諸時也。」 註85在道元圓通的時間觀中，物物不相礙，時時亦不相礙，因此，「有同時發心，有同心發時，修行成道亦復如是。」 註86

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^85]: Quote from Dōgen. Cited in the original text (footnote 85).

[^86]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Uji> or a related chapter, emphasizing simultaneity. Cited in the original text (footnote 86).

English Translation:

4. Possessing Buddha-Nature (有佛性)

The relationship between Buddha-nature and sentient beings has always been a very important issue in Buddha-nature theory. Some sutras, treatises, or Patriarchs clearly assert that all sentient beings "possess Buddha-nature" (有佛性, u busshō), while some emphasize "lacking Buddha-nature" (無佛性, mu busshō). Dōgen cited eleven Patriarchs as examples in the 〈Busshō〉 chapter. Below, we will first explore Dōgen's interpretations of other Patriarchs' assertions of "possessing Buddha-nature" and "lacking Buddha-nature," and then discuss in detail Dōgen's own proposed meaning of "impermanent Buddha-nature" (無常佛性).

The "Buddha-nature ocean" of Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa and the "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature" of Yánguān Qí'ān (鹽官齊安) are examples belonging to the view of "possessing Buddha-nature." According to the record in Volume 1 of the Jingde Chuandeng Lu, a non-Buddhist named Kāpilamala (迦毘摩羅), relying on his supernormal powers, came to challenge the Venerable Aśvaghoṣa (馬鳴). Aśvaghoṣa asked him how great his supernormal powers were. Kāpilamala said: "For me to transform a great ocean is an extremely small matter." Aśvaghoṣa asked him again: "Can you transform the nature-ocean (性海, shōkai)?" Kāpilamala did not know what the nature-ocean was. Aśvaghoṣa explained:

"Mountains, rivers, and the great earth are all established based on [the nature-ocean]; samādhi and the six supernormal powers (六通, rokutsū) arise from this."[^87]

Original Text:

４、有佛性

　　佛性與眾生的關係一直是佛性論中非常重要的問題。有些經論或祖師很明確地主張一切眾生「有佛性」，有些則強調「無佛性」，道元在〈佛性篇〉中舉出十一位祖師為例子。以下首先探討道元對其他祖師所主張的「有佛性」、「無佛性」的詮釋，然後再詳論道元自己提出的「無常佛性」義。

　　馬鳴菩薩的「佛性海」和鹽官齊安的「一切眾生有佛性」屬於「有佛性」說的例子。依據《景德傳燈錄》卷一所載，一位名為迦毘摩羅的外道，自恃其神通力，前來挑戰馬鳴尊者。馬鳴問他有多大神力。迦毘摩羅說﹕「我化巨海極為小事」。馬鳴又問他﹕「汝化性海得否？」迦毘摩羅不知何謂性海，馬鳴解釋說﹕

山河大地皆依（性海）建立，三昧六通由茲發現。 註87

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^87]: Story of Aśvaghoṣa and Kāpilamala from the Jingde Chuandeng Lu. Cited in the original text (footnote 87).

English Translation:

Dōgen changed the "nature-ocean" (性海) recorded in the original text to "Buddha-nature ocean" (佛性海). Whether the original meaning implied "Buddha-nature ocean" is debatable. However, Dōgen regarded Buddha-nature and dharma-nature (法性, hosshō) as synonymous terms, thus he extended nature-ocean to mean Buddha-nature ocean. He further explained:

"Thus, these mountains, rivers, and the great earth are all the Buddha-nature ocean. 'All established based on' (皆依建立) means that precisely at the moment of establishment (建立的正當恁麼時), [they] are mountains, rivers, and the great earth. Since it says 'all established based on,' one should know the form of the Buddha-nature ocean is like this. Seeing mountains and rivers is seeing Buddha-nature; seeing Buddha-nature is seeing donkey jaws and horse mouths. One should not further be constrained by internal, external, or intermediate. Thus, whether one grasps it (會取) or does not grasp it, it is all based on 'whole reliance' (全依) and 'reliance on the whole' (依全)."[^88]

Original Text:

道元將原典所載「性海」改成「佛性海」。原義是否有「佛性海」的意思，值得商榷。不過，道元將佛性與法性視為同義語，因此他引申性海為佛性海。他更進一步解釋說﹕

然此山河大地，皆佛性海也。「皆依建立」者，建立（的）正當恁麼時，是山河大地也。既謂皆依建立，當知佛性海形如是。見山河則見佛性，見佛性則見驢腮馬嘴，非更可拘內外中間。恁麼則會取（或不會取），皆依「全依」也、「依全」也。 註88

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^88]: Dōgen's commentary on the Aśvaghoṣa story. Cited in the original text (footnote 88).

English Translation:

Page 235

Dōgen's meaning is that the mountains, rivers, and great earth themselves, at the very moment they are established based on the Buddha-nature ocean, are the actualization of Buddha-nature. Not only are "existence" (有) and "time" (時) non-dual, but nature (性, shō) and characteristics (相, sō) are also non-dual. Therefore, seeing mountains and rivers is seeing Buddha-nature. Conversely, seeing Buddha-nature is seeing mountains and rivers, and even donkey jaws, horse mouths, and all myriad things. This completely breaks through the opposition of dualistic views, achieving the complete identity and interpenetration of time and space, subject and object, nature and characteristics. There is no discriminating thought (分別思量) of mountains, rivers, donkeys, and horses being external, the Buddha-nature ocean being internal, or Buddha-nature being intermediate. It also transcends the relativity of "whole reliance" (全依) and "reliance on the whole" (依全). "Whole reliance" refers to the "basis relied upon" (所依, shoe), the whole existence upon which Buddha-nature relies; here, it can also mean "characteristics" (相). "Reliance on the whole" refers to the "relier" (能依, noe), Buddha-nature which relies on the whole existence. In summary, at the very moment of establishment, there is no discriminating opposition between relier and relied upon.

Regarding the phrase "samādhi and the six supernormal powers arise from this" (三昧六通由茲發現), Dōgen explained:

"'Samādhi and the six supernormal powers arise from this' means one should know that all samādhis, whether manifested (發現) or not yet manifested (未現), all equally rely on Buddha-nature. The entire six supernormal powers (全六通), whether arising from this (由茲) or not arising from this (不由茲), all equally rely on Buddha-nature. The six supernormal powers (六神通) are not merely the six supernormal powers spoken of in the Āgama teachings (阿笈摩教, Agon-gyō). The 'six' refers to the 'former three three, latter three three' (前三三後三三); this is called the six supernormal power pāramitās. Do not investigate [the six supernormal powers] as 'Clearly on the hundred grass tips, clearly the Patriarch's meaning' (明明百草頭，明明祖師意). If one stagnates in the [ordinary] six supernormal powers, one obstructs the paying homage to the source (朝宗, chōshū) of the Buddha-nature ocean."[^89]

Original Text:

235頁

　　道元的意思是依佛性海建立時的山河大地本身，即是佛性的現成，不僅「有」「時」不二，性相亦不二，所以見山河即見佛性。反之，見佛性即見山河，甚至於驢腮馬嘴等萬事萬物，完全突破了二元觀的對立，達到時間和空間、主體和客體、性和相的完全相即相入，而沒有所謂山河驢馬是外，佛性海是內，或佛性是中間的分別思量，亦超越了「全依」、「依全」的相對。「全依」指「所依」，即佛性所依歸的全體存在，此處亦可言「相」。「依全」指「能依」，即依歸全體存在的佛性。總之，在建立正當恁麼時，無能依、所依之分別對立。

　　對「三昧六通由茲發現」一句，道元解釋說﹕

「三昧六通由茲發現」者，應知諸三昧發現、未現，同皆依佛性。全六通（之）由茲、不由茲，俱皆依佛性也。六神通者，非但阿笈摩教（阿含經）云六神通。六者，前三三後三三，謂六神通波羅蜜。勿參究(六神通為)「明明百草頭，明明祖師意」，如滯累六神通則罣礙佛性海朝宗者也。 註89

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^89]: Dōgen's commentary on the phrase about samādhi and supernormal powers. Cited in the original text (footnote 89).

English Translation:

Because Kāpilamala, who challenged Aśvaghoṣa, was attached to supernormal powers, Aśvaghoṣa instructed him that regardless of whether samādhi and the six supernormal powers are discovered or not yet manifest, one must rely on Buddha-nature to directly probe the true meaning, rather than the psychic powers spoken of by non-Buddhists or in the Āgama sutras.[^90] Dōgen pointed out that the true six supernormal powers are the six supernormal power pāramitās.[^91] And "six" refers to "former three three, latter three three" (前三三後三三). This phrase comes from the dialogue between Mañjuśrī and Wuzhuo Wenxi (無著文喜) in Volume 29 of the Liandeng Huiyao, chapter on Wuzhuo Wenxi.[^92] Dōgen also indicated that the six supernormal powers are not the realm of "Clearly on the hundred grass tips, clearly the Patriarch's meaning" (明明百草頭，明明祖師意).[^93]

Original Text:

由於挑戰馬鳴的迦毘摩羅執著神通力，所以馬鳴教示他，不管三昧和六神通，在發現或未現時，都必須依佛性直探真諦，而不是如外道或阿含經中所講的神力。 註90道元指出真正的六神通是六神通波羅蜜， 註91而「六」者，指「前三三後三三」，此句出自《聯燈會要》卷二十九的〈無著文喜章〉中文殊與無著之對話。 註92道元也提示六神通非「明明百草頭，明明祖師意」 註93的境界。

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^90]: The original text includes footnote 90 here, referencing the distinction between true reliance on Buddha-nature and attachment to powers.

[^91]: The original text includes footnote 91 here, likely explaining the six pāramitās (perfections).

[^92]: The original text includes footnote 92 here, citing the source of the phrase "former three three, latter three three." "Three three" (三三) likely refers to groups of three, possibly related to time periods (past, present, future) or aspects of practice/mind.

[^93]: The original text includes footnote 93 here, citing the source or context of the "grass tips" phrase, a well-known Chan expression.

English Translation:

Page 236

"Clearly on the hundred grass tips" symbolizes the individual things of the material world. "Clearly the Patriarch's meaning" refers to the Suchness (真如) realized by the Patriarchs. The two are identical and interpenetrating (相即相入), just like the non-duality of nature and characteristics (性相不二) of mountains, rivers, the great earth, and the Buddha-nature ocean. Such a meaning of Buddha-nature is not comparable to ordinary supernormal powers or samādhi.

The other example Dōgen cited of "wholly possessing Buddha-nature" (悉有佛性) is National Teacher Yánguān Qí'ān (鹽官齊安國師). National Teacher Qí'ān was a venerable master in the lineage of Mǎzǔ Dàoyī (馬祖道一) and once instructed the assembly, saying: "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." Actually, many sutras, treatises, and Patriarchs advocate the theory of "possessing Buddha-nature." Why Dōgen specifically cited Qí'ān as an example is unknown. However, it is evident that he used Qí'ān as an example to once again explain his view on "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." Dōgen specifically explained the meaning of "all sentient beings" (一切眾生):

"Now, what the Buddha Way calls 'all sentient beings' means: Those with mind (有心者) are all sentient beings, because mind is sentient beings. Those without mind (無心者) should also be sentient beings, because sentient beings are mind. Thus, mind is entirely sentient beings; sentient beings entirely possess Buddha-nature. Grass, trees, lands (草木國土) are mind; being mind, they are sentient beings; being sentient beings, they possess Buddha-nature. Sun, moon, stars (日月星辰) are mind; being mind, they are sentient beings; being sentient beings, they possess Buddha-nature. The National Teacher [Qí'ān] spoke of 'possessing Buddha-nature'—it is indeed thus."[^94]

Original Text:

236頁

「明明百草頭」喻指物質世界的個別事物，「明明祖師意」則是指祖師証悟到的真如，兩者相即相入，如同山河大地與佛性海的性相不二一樣，如此的佛性義，不是一般的神通力或三昧可比擬的。

　　道元所舉的「悉有佛性」的另一個例子是鹽官齊安國師，齊安國師為馬祖道一門下的尊宿，曾示眾曰﹕「一切眾生有佛性」。其實，許多經論和祖師都主張「有佛性」論，道元為何特別舉齊安為例，不得而知。不過，顯然的是他借用齊安為例，再次解釋他對「一切眾生有佛性」的看法。道元特別解釋「一切眾生」的意義﹕

今佛道云「一切眾生」者，有心者皆眾生，心是眾生故。無心者應同眾生，眾生是心故。然心皆是眾生也，眾生皆是有佛性也。草木國土是心也，心故眾生也，（既為）眾生故，有佛性也。日月星辰是心也，（既為）心故（即）眾生也，眾生故有佛性也。國師道取「有佛性」，其如是矣。 註94

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^94]: Dōgen quoting Qí'ān and providing his own expansive interpretation of "all sentient beings" and "mind." Cited in the original text (footnote 94).

English Translation:

Traditionally, "sentient beings" (眾生, shujō) refers to living beings or those possessing consciousness ("having feelings," 有情, ujō). Dōgen, however, includes the material world ("non-feeling," 無情, mujō) such as grass, trees, lands, sun, moon, and stars within "all sentient beings." For Dōgen, since all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, the insentient naturally also possess Buddha-nature. As for why the "insentient" are also "sentient beings," Dōgen argued that while it is naturally understood that all beings "with mind" (有心) are sentient beings, those "without mind" (無心) should also be "sentient beings," because "mind is sentient beings, sentient beings are mind." The "mind" Dōgen refers to here is not the individual mind-consciousness function (個體的心識作用) spoken of by ordinary people, non-Buddhists, the three vehicles, or the five vehicles, whose "Way-karma and dependent/direct [retribution] are not one" (道業依正不一). Instead, it is the total manifestation of all existence (悉有). Therefore, Dōgen could say, "Now, the Buddha Way (One Vehicle Way, 一乘道) says all sentient beings (sentient, insentient) possess Buddha-nature." If it were not so, "then it is not the Buddha Way's meaning of possessing Buddha-nature." Dōgen's explanation of "mind" in this way completely fuses "mind," "whole-existence" (悉有), "Buddha-nature" (佛性), and "dharma-nature" (法性) within the natural actualization of dropped-off body and mind. Consequently, when one sentient being arouses aspiration (發心), all sentient beings arouse aspiration; when one sentient being attains the Way (成道), all sentient and insentient beings simultaneously attain the Way. This is also what he stated in the Shōbōgenzō, 〈Sokushin Ze Butsu〉 chapter: "One Mind is all dharmas, all dharmas are One Mind."[^95]

Original Text:

傳統上「眾生」指有生命或有情識的「有情」，而道元把「一切眾生」包括草木國土、日月星辰等物質世界的「無情」。對道元而言，既然一切眾生有佛性，無情自然亦有佛性。至於為何「無情」也是「眾生」，道元認為一切有「心」者都是眾生固然理所當然，但無心者也應是「眾生」，因為「心是眾生，眾生是心」。道元所指的「心」不是一般凡夫、外道、三乘、五乘所說的「道業依正不一」的個體的心識作用，而是一切存在（悉有）的全體顯現，所以道元才能說「今佛道（一乘道）云一切眾生（有情、非情）有佛性」。若非如是，「則非佛道道取有佛性義」。道元對「心」的這樣解釋，把「心」、「悉有」、「佛性」、「法性」全融會在身心脫落的自然現成中，於是一眾生發心時，即全體眾生發心，一眾生成道，全體有情、無情同時成道，這也就是他在《正法眼藏‧即心是佛篇》所說的「一心一切法，一切法一心。」　註95

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^95]: Quote from Shōbōgenzō, <Sokushin Ze Butsu> (Mind Itself is Buddha). Cited in the original text (footnote 95).

English Translation:

Dōgen fused the non-duality of subject (practicing sentient being) and object (the insentient world) with his non-dual view of "being-time" (有时, uji), completely achieving the perfect fusion and non-duality of time and space. He said:

"Even if for one instant (剎那, kṣaṇa) [of time], one arouses the mind and practices, mind itself is Buddha. Even if within one infinitesimal particle (極微, paramāṇu) [of space], one arouses the mind and practices-realizes (修證), mind itself is Buddha. Even if for countless kalpas, one arouses the mind and practices-realizes, mind itself is Buddha. Even if

Original Text:

道元把主體（修行的有情）與客體（無情的世界）的相即不二再與其不二的「有時」觀融合，完全達到了時間和空間的圓融不二，他說﹕

設使一剎那（時間），發心修行，即心是佛。設使一極微（空間），發心修證，即心是佛也。設使無量劫，發心修證，即心是佛也。設使

English Translation:

Page 237

within one thought-moment (一念中), one arouses the mind and practices-realizes, mind itself is Buddha. Even if within half a fist, one arouses the mind and practices-realizes, mind itself is Buddha."[^96]

Dōgen expanded the meaning of sentient beings (including all sentient and insentient) and then combined it with Buddha-nature, thus forming his unique theory of "whole-existence is Buddha-nature" (悉有即佛性). This is what he meant by saying one part of whole-existence (悉有之一悉) is called sentient beings, and "Precisely at such a time (正當恁麼時), inside and outside of sentient beings is the whole-existence of Buddha-nature."[^97]

However, "insentient having nature" (無情有性) and "insentient attaining Buddhahood" (無情成佛) were not Dōgen's original creations but originated in Chinese Buddhism. The development of Chinese Buddha-nature theory, after the transmission of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, began with Daosheng loudly proclaiming the potential for icchantikas to attain Buddhahood, and reached its zenith in the Tang dynasty with Tiantai school's Zhanran (湛然, 711-782) advocating "insentient having nature." Among Chinese schools, the earliest to propose insentient having nature was Jizang (吉藏, 549-623) of the Sanlun school. In his Dasheng Xuan Lun (大乘玄論, Treatise on the Profound Meaning of Mahāyāna), he argued from different levels, such as within principle vs. outside principle (理內理外) and universal gate vs. particular gate (通門別門), regarding the question of whether sentient and insentient beings possess or lack Buddha-nature. Jizang believed that within the principle of Suchness (真如理內), "all dharmas, dependent and direct [retribution] (依正), are non-dual. Because they are non-dual, if sentient beings have Buddha-nature, then grass and trees also have Buddha-nature... If sentient beings attain Buddhahood, all [other] sentient beings also attain Buddhahood."[^98] However, Jizang called this view pertaining to the "universal gate" (通門). Pertaining to the "particular gate" (別門), it is otherwise. He said: "Sentient beings have mind (有心) and are deluded (迷), thus they possess the principle of being able to attain awakening (覺悟). Grass and trees lack mind (無心) and thus are not deluded; how could they possess the meaning of awakening?"[^99] From the perspective of "principle Buddha-nature" (理佛性) based on the principle of Suchness, Jizang naturally saw no problem with the idea of grass and trees attaining Buddhahood. However, from the perspective of "practice Buddha-nature" (行佛性), because grass and trees lack mind, they are not deluded; not being deluded, they cannot awaken, just as one must have sleep and dreams to awaken from a dream; without sleep and dreams, there is no awakening from a dream. It is worth noting that although both Jizang and Dōgen advocated insentient having nature, Jizang's reasoning was based on the equality of all dharmas and the non-duality of dependent and direct retribution within the principle of Suchness, whereas Dōgen's reasoning was "insentients possess mind" (無情有心). Jizang believed that insentients must possess "mind" to have Buddha-nature [meaning, attain Buddhahood]. In other words, he asserted that although insentients lack mind, they still possess Buddha-nature, but because they lack mind, insentients cannot awaken and attain Buddhahood. The meaning of "mind" referred to by Jizang and Dōgen here is clearly different. The "mind" in Jizang's statement "grass and trees lack mind" clearly leans towards ordinary, illusory perceptual consciousness (hence he said "grass and trees lack mind, thus are not deluded"). The "mind" referred to by Dōgen signifies the present actualization of all myriad dharmas, the mind that makes Buddha through dropped-off body and mind, the True Mind that is Buddha. However, in the 〈Busshō〉 chapter, Dōgen did not particularly elaborate on whether insentients can attain Buddhahood.

Original Text:

237頁

一念中，發心修證，即心是佛也。設使半拳裡發心修證，即心是佛也。 註96

　

道元擴展眾生（包括一切有情和無情）的含義，再與佛性相結合，即成為他特有的「悉有即佛性」論，這也就是他說的悉有之一悉即稱作眾生，「正當恁麼時，眾生內外，即為佛性之悉有。」 註97

　　然而，「無情有性」、「無情成佛」並非道元的創見，而是淵源於中國佛教。中國佛性論的發展自大乘《大般涅槃經》傳入後，從道生高唱一闡提成佛開始，及至唐代天台宗湛然(711-782)主張「無情有性」，可謂發展到極點。在中國宗派中，最早提出無情有性的是三論宗的吉藏(549-623)。他在《大乘玄論》中，以理內理外、通門別門等不同層次論證有情和無情的佛性的有無問題。吉藏認為真如理內「一切諸法依正不二，以依正不二故，眾生有佛性，則草木亦有佛性……若眾生成佛時，一切眾生亦得成佛。」 註98不過，吉藏稱這種說法是就「通門」而言，若就「別門」而言，則不然，他說﹕「眾生有心迷故，得有覺悟之理，草木無心故不迷，寧得有覺悟之義？」 註99從真如理的「理佛性」而言，吉藏認為草木成佛說，自然毫問題，但是就「行佛性」而言，因草木無心，故不迷，不迷則無覺，猶如有睡夢才有夢醒，無睡夢則無夢醒也。值得注意的是雖然吉藏和道元都主張無情有性，但吉藏的理由是在真如理中，諸法平等、依正不二，而道元的理由是「無情有心」。吉藏認為無情一定要有「心」才能有佛性。換言之，他主張無情雖無心，但仍有佛性，但是因為無心，無情不能覺悟成佛。吉藏和道元二人在此所指的「心」，意義顯然有所不同。吉藏所指「草木無心」的「心」顯然偏重一般虛妄知覺的心識作用（因此他說「草木無心故不迷」），而道元所指的「心」是指一切萬法當下的現成、身心脫落作佛的心、即心是佛的真心。不過，道元在〈佛性篇〉中，對於無情是否能成佛，沒有特別加以著墨。

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^96]: Dōgen quote continued, likely from <Sokushin Ze Butsu>. Cited in the original text (footnote 96).

[^97]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>. Cited in the original text (footnote 97).

[^98]: Quote from Jizang's Dasheng Xuan Lun on the non-duality of dependent/direct retribution within Suchness principle. Cited in the original text (footnote 98).

[^99]: Quote from Jizang contrasting the "particular gate" view based on mind/delusion. Cited in the original text (footnote 99).

English Translation:

After Jizang, many Patriarchs also advocated insentient having nature. For example, Fazang (法藏) said in the Tanyuan Ji (探玄記, Exploring the Mystery): "According to the teachings of the three vehicles, the nature of Suchness exists in both sentient (情) and insentient (非情), [but] the Buddha-nature that awakens (開覺佛性) is limited only to the sentient (有情)."[^100] Fazang based this on the statement in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: "What is not Buddha-nature? It refers to all insentient things like walls, tiles, stones. Apart from such insentient

Original Text:

　　吉藏之後，許多的祖師也都主張無情有性。例如法藏在《探玄記》說﹕「若三乘教，真如之性，在情非情，開覺佛性，唯局有情」。 註100法藏是根據《涅槃經》中所說的「非佛性者，所謂一切牆壁瓦石無情之物，離如是無情

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^100]: Quote from Fazang's Huayan Jing Tanyuan Ji (華嚴經探玄記), distinguishing the presence of Suchness nature from the awakening potential (Buddha-nature) in sentient vs. insentient. Cited in the original text (footnote 100).

English Translation:

Page 238

things, is called Buddha-nature."[^101] However, according to the perfect teaching (圓教, engyō), Fazang believed "Buddha-nature and nature-arising (性起) both pervade the dependent and direct [realms] (依正)." Therefore, the insentient should possess Buddha-nature. Fazang's view of Buddha-nature did not entirely negate insentient having nature. However, within Fazang's perfect teaching realm of the interpenetration of form and mind (色心互融), although he allowed Buddha-nature to pervade both sentient and insentient beings, regarding the active conditioning cause (緣因, en'in) and understanding cause (了因, ryōin)—the two [causes] of awakening Buddha-nature—he still did not permit "insentient beings attaining Buddhahood."

The one who fully advocated insentient beings attaining Buddhahood and provided philosophical arguments for it was the reviver of the Tiantai school, Jingxi Zhanran (荊溪湛然). In his Jin Gang Pi (金剛錍, Vajra Scalpel), based on the Tiantai school's nature-inclusion (性具) thought of one thought-moment possessing three thousand realms, he pointed out within nature-inclusion the perfect fusion (圓融) meaning of Buddha-nature where the "three causes (正因, direct cause; 緣因, conditioning cause; 了因, understanding cause) pervade the essence (體遍)." As he said, "Originally there are three kinds [of cause]; the three principles originally pervade. Reaching the nature accomplishes the practice; practicing the three also pervades."[^102] This means that the minds of sentient beings originally possess the three causes of Buddha-nature. These three causes can produce the three virtues (性德, nature virtue; 智德, wisdom virtue; 斷德, virtue of cessation) at the resultant stage, hence they are called "seeds" (種). However, since beginningless time, sentient beings exist in ignorance, affliction, karma, and suffering, so the three causes of Buddha-nature can only be said to be the three causes as principle (理性三因), not the three causes as awakening nature (覺性三因). Nevertheless, these three principles of Buddha-nature originally pervade everything. When sentient beings reach the nature and accomplish the practice, the practice of the three also pervades. In other words, within the nature, the entire practice becomes nature; when practice arises, the entire nature becomes practice. Since the nature's three [causes] pervade, the practice's three should also be thus. Because "nature pervades," there is nothing in the three thousand great thousand worlds that is not within the principle, hence it is said the insentient possess nature; because "practice pervades," the three thousand [realms] achieve fruition, hence it can be said the insentient also attain Buddhahood. That is to say, the conditioning cause and understanding cause should also pervade the insentient. Therefore, Zhanran said: "One blade of grass, one tree, one pebble, one speck of dust—each possesses one Buddha-nature, each possesses one cause and effect, fully endowed with conditioning and understanding [causes] (具足緣了)."[^103]

Original Text:

238頁

之物，是名佛性」， 註101但是若依圓教而言，則法藏認為「佛性及性起，皆通依正」，因此，無情應有佛性。法藏的佛性看法，並非全然否定無情有性，不過，法藏的色心互融的圓教境界中，雖然許佛性通於有情及無情，但是若就積極性的緣因，了因二覺佛性而言，還是不許「無情成佛」的。

　　全力提倡無情成佛，並加以哲理性論證的是天台中興祖師荊溪湛然。他在《金剛錍》中，根據天台宗一念三千的性具思想，於性具中點示「三因（正因、緣因、了因）體遍」的圓融佛性義，即他說的「本有三種，三理元遍，達性成修，修三亦遍」， 註102這意思是說眾生心中本具足三因佛性，此三因能生果上的三德（性德 、智德、斷德），故名為「種」，然而無始以來眾生處於無明煩惱業苦中，因此三因佛性只能說是理性三因，而非覺性三因。不過，此三理佛性，元遍一切，當眾生達性成修時，修三亦遍。換言之，在性則全修成性，起修則全性成修，性三既遍，修三亦應如此。由於「性遍」，三千大千世界無不在理，故言無情有性；由於「修遍」，三千果成，故可以說無情亦能成佛，也就是說緣、了二因亦應遍及無情，所以湛然說﹕「一草一本一礫一塵，各一佛性，各一因果，具足緣了」。 註103

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^101]: Quote from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra seemingly excluding insentient things from Buddha-nature. Cited in the original text (footnote 101).

[^102]: Quote from Zhanran. Cited in the original text (footnote 102).

[^103]: Quote from Zhanran's Jin Gang Pi, asserting the full Buddha-nature, including conditioning and understanding causes, in each insentient thing. Cited in the original text (footnote 103).

English Translation:

In summary, Dōgen's assertion that all sentient beings (including sentient and insentient) possess Buddha-nature fundamentally continues the Buddha-nature theory of Chinese Buddhism, though the emphasis in argumentation differs. When Chinese Buddhist masters discussed "all sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature," besides defining "all sentient beings," they focused on the relationship between "all sentient beings" and "Buddha-nature," placing emphasis on the predicate "possess" (有) to explain why all sentient beings "possess" Buddha-nature, thus implicitly dichotomizing sentient beings and Buddha-nature. Dōgen's method of argumentation is different. The premise of his Buddha-nature theory is the fusion of all sentient beings (whole-existence, 悉有) and Buddha-nature. Therefore, for Dōgen, it is not that all sentient beings "possess" (有) Buddha-nature, but that all sentient beings "are" (即) Buddha-nature. Thus he said, "Speaking of all sentient beings possessing Buddha-nature, the 'possessing' (有) of possessing Buddha-nature must drop off."[^104] In other words, one must transcend the dualistic relationship of mutual possession and achieve their complete identity and non-duality to reach the state where whole-existence is Buddha-nature, and Buddha-nature is whole-existence.

Original Text:

　　總之，道元的一切眾生、（包括有情及無情）有佛性的主張，基本上乃延續中國佛教的佛性論，不過在論證上的強調點有所不同。中國佛教祖師們論「一切眾生悉有佛性」時，除了定義「一切眾生」之外，都著重在「一切眾生」與「佛性」的關係，也就是將重點放在述語「有」，以說明為什麼一切眾生「有」佛性，如此則無形中將一切眾生與佛性二分。道元的論證方式則不然，他的佛性論的前題是將一切眾生（悉有）與佛性融合在一起，因此對道元而言，並不是一切眾生「有」佛性，而是一切眾生「即」佛性。所以他說「道一切眾生有佛性，有佛性之有，當脫落。」 註104換言之，必須超越二元的互屬關係，而使之完全相即不二，才能達到悉有即佛性，佛性即悉有。

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^104]: Quote from Dōgen. Cited in the original text (footnote 104).

English Translation:

5. Lacking Buddha-Nature (無佛性)

In contrast to all sentient beings possessing Buddha-nature, some Patriarchs stated that all sentient beings lack Buddha-nature (無佛性, mu busshō). What is the meaning of lacking Buddha-nature? Dōgen presented four examples, adding his own interpretations. The first and second examples involve dialogues concerning Buddha-nature between the Fourth Patriarch

Original Text:

５、無佛性

　　相對於一切眾生有佛性，有些祖師卻稱一切眾生無佛性，而無佛性意義為何呢？道元舉了四個例子，並加上自己的詮釋。第一和第二個例子是四祖

English Translation:

Page 239

Dàoxìn (道信) and the Fifth Patriarch Hóngrěn (弘忍), and between Hóngrěn and the Sixth Patriarch Huìnéng (惠能):

The Patriarch (Dàoxìn) saw the Master (Hóngrěn) and asked him: "What is your family name (姓, xìng)?"

The Master replied: "The name (姓) exists (有), but it is not a permanent name (常姓)."

The Patriarch said: "What name is it?"

The Master replied: "It is the Buddha-name (佛姓)."

The Patriarch said: "You lack Buddha-nature (汝無佛性)."

The Master replied: "Because Buddha-nature is empty (空), therefore I say 'lack' (無)."[^105]

Regarding the Fifth Patriarch Hóngrěn's reply, "The name exists, but it is not a permanent name," Dōgen interpreted it as "Existence is the name (有即姓), it is not a permanent name; the permanent name is not existence (常姓不是即有也)." He creatively reversed "name is existence" (姓即有) to "existence is name" (有即姓) (whole-existence is Buddha-nature). But this "name" (姓/性, nature) is certainly not an ordinary surname like Li, Chen, or Wang. Therefore, Dōgen also reversed Hóngrěn's reply to say: "The permanent name" is not "existence." Regarding Hóngrěn's reply, "It is Buddha-nature," Dōgen explained that not only "is" (是) is "Buddha-nature," but also the time of "is not" (不是) is "Buddha-nature," again emphasizing the transcendence of Buddha-nature over time. As for the meaning of Dàoxìn saying to Hóngrěn, "You lack Buddha-nature," Dōgen commented:

"The Fourth Patriarch said: 'You lack Buddha-nature.' What is said means: expounding that 'you' are not 'who'. Leaving 'you' as you are, yet lacking Buddha-nature. One should know and study: at what time-period now is there no Buddha-nature? At the Buddha's head (佛頭), is there no Buddha-nature? Above the Buddha (佛向上), is there no Buddha-nature? Do not block the seven thoroughfares (七通), do not grope for the eight accesses (八達). Perhaps practicing 'lacking Buddha-nature' is a momentary samādhi. One should inquire: When Buddha-nature attains Buddhahood, is there no Buddha-nature? When Buddha-nature arouses aspiration, is there no Buddha-nature?"[^106]

Original Text:

239頁

道信和五祖弘忍、弘忍和六祖惠能之間有關佛性問答﹕

祖（道信）見師（弘忍），問曰﹕「汝何姓？」

師答曰﹕「姓即有，不是常姓。」

祖 云﹕「是何姓？」

師答曰﹕「是佛姓。」

祖 云﹕「汝無佛性。」

師答曰﹕「佛性空故，所以言無。」 註105

　　對五祖弘忍的回答「姓即有，不是常姓」，道元解讀為「有即姓，非常姓，常姓不是即有也。」他很有創意地將「姓即有」反轉成「有即姓」（悉有即佛性），但是此「姓」（性）當然不是一般所說的李、陳、王等姓氏，所以道元又將弘忍的回答倒轉過來說﹕「常姓」不是「即有」。對弘忍的回答「是佛性」，道元解釋說不但「是」即「佛性」，「不是」之時也是「佛性」，再次強調佛性的超越時間性。至於道信對弘忍說「汝無佛性」的意義如何？道元加以註解說：

四祖云﹕「汝無佛性。」謂道取者，開演汝非誰。一任汝，而無佛性也，應知當學，而今如何時節無佛性也？佛頭無佛性也乎？佛向上無佛性乎？勿逼塞七通，勿摸索八達，或修習無佛性者，一時三昧也。應問取﹕佛性成佛時，無佛性也乎？佛性發心時，無佛性也乎？ 註106

Footnotes/Annotations:

[^105]: Dialogue between Dàoxìn and Hóngrěn, likely from Chan transmission records. Cited in the original text (footnote 105). Note the pun/play on 姓 (xìng, surname) and 性 (xìng, nature), which are homophones and sometimes used interchangeably in this context (佛姓/佛性).

[^106]: Dōgen's commentary on the meaning of "You lack Buddha-nature." Cited in the original text (footnote 106). "Buddha's head" (佛頭) might symbolize the peak of attainment. "Seven thoroughfares and eight accesses" (七通八達) likely refers to complete freedom or understanding.

English Translation:

Dōgen believed the meaning of the Fourth Patriarch saying to Hóngrěn, "You lack Buddha-nature" is: You are not a specific someone; although leaving you as you are, yet you lack Buddha-nature. Regarding such a statement, Dōgen felt practitioners should investigate "At exactly what time-period is there no Buddha-nature?" Is it when reaching the summit of the "Buddha's head" (metaphor for realization)? Or even when transcending the Buddha? The meaning of lacking Buddha-nature is "seven thoroughfares and eight accesses" (completely open/unobstructed); do not block it or grope blindly. One should practice the samādhi that can realize the meaning of lacking Buddha-nature. Furthermore, one should inquire and speak: when attaining Buddhahood, is Buddha-nature absent? When arousing the Bodhi-mind, is Buddha-nature absent? Here, Dōgen again integrates the existence of Buddha-nature with his unique view of time, asking practitioners to investigate the time-period of Buddha-nature.

Original Text:

道元認為四祖對弘忍說「汝無佛性」的意思是﹕汝不是特定的某個誰，雖說任汝為汝，卻無佛性。對這樣的說法，道元認為修學者應參究的是「究竟於什麼時節而無佛性？」是否在登「佛頭」頂時（喻證悟時），無佛性？或是更在超越佛時，無佛性呢？無佛性的含義是「七通八達」的，切勿逼塞或胡亂摸索，應修習能體證無佛性意義的三昧，更應問取、道取佛性是在成佛時無佛性，或是在發菩提心時無佛性？此處道元再度把佛性的存在與他特有的時間觀配合在一起，而要修學者參究佛性的時節。

English Translation: As for the Fifth Patriarch's reply, "Because Buddha-nature is empty (空), therefore I say 'lack' (無)," Dōgen explained that "empty is not non-existence" (空非是無). In other words, the meaning of Buddha-nature's true emptiness (真空) is not the annihilistic "non-existence" (斷滅無) contrasted with "existence" (有), as commonly understood by people.

Original Text: 至於對五祖的回答﹕「佛性空故，所以言無」，道元解釋說「空非是無」，換言之，佛性真空的意義，並非一般人所暸解的與「有」相對的斷滅「無」，

English Translation: Page 240 Therefore, he said true "emptiness" is not the emptiness of "form is emptiness" (色即是空), because that is an emptiness contrasted with form. True emptiness of Buddha-nature is what the Nirvāṇa Sūtra speaks of: "Buddha-nature is precisely the emptiness of the ultimate meaning (第一義空). Emptiness of the ultimate meaning is called wisdom... The Middle Path is called Buddha-nature."[^107] Such emptiness of the ultimate meaning "does not forcefully make form into emptiness, nor does it differentiate emptiness and construe it as form. It should be the emptiness that is emptiness (空是空之空). The so-called emptiness that is emptiness is precisely a piece of stone within emptiness (空裡一片石)."[^108] [^109] Although emptiness is true emptiness, it is ultimately inseparable from form, hence the saying "a piece of stone within emptiness," which refers to the so-called "true emptiness, wondrous presence" (真空妙有). This is what Dōgen meant by "Because it is empty, one does not say 'empty'; because it is non-existent (無), one does not say 'non-existent'."

The second example Dōgen cited mentioning "lacking Buddha-nature" (無佛性) is the dialogue between the Fifth Patriarch Hóngrěn and the Sixth Patriarch Huìnéng: The Sixth Patriarch, Great Master Caoxi Dajian (惠能) Chan Master, formerly went to study at Huangmei Mountain. The Fifth Patriarch asked: "From where do you come?" The Sixth Patriarch said: "A person from Lingnan." The Fifth Patriarch said: "What matter do you come seeking?" The Sixth Patriarch said: "Seeking to become a Buddha (作佛)." The Fifth Patriarch said: "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature (嶺南人無佛性); how can you become a Buddha?"[^110]

Original Text: 240頁 所以他說真正的「空」，不是「色即是空」的空，因為它是與色對立的空。真正的佛性空是《涅槃經》中所說﹕「佛性者，即是第一義空。第一義空名為智慧…中道者名為佛性」。 註107如此的第一義空「非強硬要色為空，非分別空而造作為色，應空是空之空。所謂空是空之空者，乃是空裡一片石也 註108」。 註109空雖是真空而終不離色，故言「空裡一片石」，即所謂的「真空妙有」，也就是道元所說的「空故不云空，無故不云無。」 第二個道元所舉言「無佛性」的例子是五祖弘忍與六祖惠能之間的問答﹕ 第六祖曹溪大鑒（惠能）禪師，昔年參黃梅山。 五祖問﹕「汝自何處來？」 六祖曰﹕「嶺南人。」 五祖云﹕「來求何事？」 六祖曰﹕「求作佛。」 五祖云﹕「嶺南人無佛性，奈何作佛？」 註110 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^107]: Quote from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra identifying Buddha-nature with the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Path. Cited in the original text (footnote 107). 第一義空 (daiichigikū): Emptiness of the ultimate meaning. [^108]: This internal quote "a piece of stone within emptiness" (空裡一片石) is likely a Chan expression signifying the inseparability of emptiness and form/phenomena. Cited in the original text (footnote 108). [^109]: Quote from Dōgen explaining true emptiness. Cited in the original text (footnote 109). 真空妙有 (shinkū myōu): True emptiness, wondrous presence; a key Mahāyāna concept. [^110]: Dialogue between Hóngrěn and Huìnéng, a foundational story in Chan Buddhism, recorded in the Platform Sutra. Cited in the original text (footnote 110). Lingnan refers to the region south of the Nanling Mountains, considered culturally peripheral at the time.

English Translation: Regarding the meaning of "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature," Dōgen again displayed his unique interpretative method. He said this phrase does not mean people from Lingnan do not have Buddha-nature, nor does it mean they do have Buddha-nature. Rather, it means "People from Lingnan" is "lacking Buddha-nature" (「嶺南人」即「無佛性」). And "how can you become a Buddha?" (奈何作佛者) does not mean questioning "how is it possible to become a Buddha," but refers to "what kind of Buddha do you expect to become?" According to standard grammar, the "lack" (無) in "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature" functions as a predicate, but Dōgen combines it with "Buddha-nature" to form a noun phrase. In fact, what Dōgen wanted to express is that people from Lingnan (or anyone) must abandon the dichotomous thinking about whether they ultimately possess Buddha-nature or not, because sentient beings themselves are Buddha-nature. Therefore Dōgen said: "As for Buddha-nature, it is not fully possessed before becoming a Buddha, [nor] fully possessed after becoming a Buddha; Buddha-nature necessarily participates together with becoming Buddha (同參)."[^111] He emphasized that at the initial hearing of the Buddhadharma, sentient beings certainly "lack Buddha-nature," but even after learning from good spiritual friends or from sutras, sentient beings still "lack Buddha-nature." The Sixth Patriarch sought to become a Buddha and requested instruction from the Fifth Patriarch, and the Fifth Patriarch, instead of using other skillful means, used the single phrase "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature" to "make a Buddha of the Sixth Patriarch." Therefore, failing to investigate the true meaning of "lacking Buddha-nature" means one cannot "become a Buddha." Conversely, "Precisely at the time of lacking Buddha-nature (無佛性正當恁麼時),

Original Text: 對「嶺南人無佛性」一語的含義，道元再度展現他獨特的解讀法。他說此語不是意指嶺南人沒有佛性，也不是說嶺南人有佛性，而是說「嶺南人」即「無佛性」，而「奈何作佛者」不是指質疑「怎能作佛」，是指「期望作什麼佛」。根據一般語法，「嶺南人無佛性」的「無」是當述詞用，但道元卻把它與「佛性」合在一起當名詞。其實，道元要表達的是嶺南（或任何人）要擺脫自己究竟有沒有佛性的二分想法，因為眾生本身就是佛性。所以道元說：「佛性也者，非成佛以前具足，（亦非）成佛以後具足，佛性必與成佛同參也」。 註111他強調在見聞佛法之初，眾生固然即「無佛性」，但從善知識或從經卷學習之後，眾生還是「無佛性」。六祖為求作佛而就教於五祖，而六祖不以其他善巧教示，而以「嶺南人無佛性」一句話「作佛於六祖」。因此，不能參究「無佛性」的真正意義，即不得「作佛也」，反過來說，即「無佛性正當恁麼時， 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^111]: Quote from Dōgen on the relationship between Buddha-nature and the process of becoming Buddha. Cited in the original text (footnote 111). 同參 (dōsan) means to investigate together, participate together, or be simultaneous with.

English Translation: Page 241 one then becomes Buddha."[^112] In summary, what Dōgen wanted to teach is: regarding the understanding of "lacking Buddha-nature," do not trap oneself in the "non-existence" (無) of the "existence/non-existence" (有無) dualistic dichotomy. Instead, "temporarily set aside the 'non-existence' of 'existence/non-existence'" (有無之無暫且擱置) and directly grasp the "non-non-existence" (無無), the absolute non-dual "non-existence" (無).

The third example Dōgen cited that speaks of lacking Buddha-nature is Chan Master Guishan Lingyou (溈山靈佑禪師, 771-853). He said: "What Śākyamuni spoke was: All sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature. What Great Guī[shān] spoke was: All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature. The principles spoken of 'possessing' and 'lacking' may differ greatly, but if 'spoken well' (道得), one should not doubt their respective principles. However, [saying] 'All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature' enhances the Buddha Way (長佛道也)." "Yánguān's 'possessing Buddha-nature' path, although seeming to extend one hand along with the ancient Buddhas, is still like 'one pillar carried by two people' (一條柱兩人舁). Now, Great Guī[shān] is not so; it should be 'one staff swallows two people' (一條柱杖吞二人)."[^113]

Original Text: 241頁 則作佛也」。 註112總之，道元要教示的是﹕對於「無佛性」的暸解，不要自陷於「有無」二元對立的「無」中，而是將「有無之無暫且擱置」而直取「無無」之絕對不二的「無」。 　　道元所舉第三個言及無佛性的例子是溈山靈佑禪師(771-853)。他說﹕ 釋尊說道者﹕一切眾生悉有佛性，大溈說道者﹕一切眾生無佛性也。有無言理遙可殊，道得當不可疑。然一切眾生無佛性，長佛道也」。 鹽官有佛道，雖似與古佛出一隻手，猶是應一條柱兩人舁。今大溈不然，應一條柱杖吞二人。註113 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^112]: Quote from Dōgen. Cited in the original text (footnote 112). [^113]: Dōgen quoting/paraphrasing Guishan Lingyou's statement contrasting "possessing" and "lacking" Buddha-nature, and Dōgen's commentary comparing Guishan favorably to Yánguān Qí'ān. Cited in the original text (footnote 113). 道得 (dōtoku): To be able to speak or express [the truth/understanding]. The metaphors contrast cooperative effort (two people carrying one pillar) with a more radical transcendence (one staff swallowing two people).

English Translation: In the quoted passage, Dōgen's meaning is that whether one speaks of possessing or lacking Buddha-nature, although the principles spoken may differ greatly, if "spoken well," one should not doubt their respective principles. However, comparatively speaking, the Patriarchs saying "All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature" shows greater length (i.e., depth or superiority) in the Buddha Way (implicitly suggesting it's better than the Buddha's statement). He used an analogy: National Teacher Yánguān Qí'ān's assertion that beings possess Buddha-nature, although seemingly extending one hand simultaneously with the ancient Buddha (Śākyamuni), still belongs to the level of "one pillar carried by two people" (i.e., the Buddha-nature staff carried by both Buddha and Qí'ān). But Guishan's assertion of lacking Buddha-nature is like "one staff swallowing two people" (i.e., the non-Buddha-nature staff swallows both Buddha and Qí'ān). The superiority and inferiority are thus evident. Dōgen even more severely criticized the view of possessing Buddha-nature: "If one possesses Buddha-nature, then one should be of Māra's cohort, attaching one of Māra's children [to sentient beings] (將來黨子一枚)."[^114]

Dōgen again emphasized that since "Buddha-nature is Buddha-nature, sentient beings are sentient beings," it is not the case that sentient beings originally possess a substantial Buddha-nature, nor is there a substantial Buddha-nature existing externally that sentient beings pursue and later attain. Therefore, Dōgen cited Chan Master Baizhang: "To say sentient beings possess Buddha-nature is also slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. To say sentient beings lack Buddha-nature is also slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha."[^115] However, Dōgen cited Baizhang's statement negating both sides regarding Buddha-nature not to completely deny Buddha-nature. So he added: "Thus, saying 'possess Buddha-nature' and saying 'lack Buddha-nature' both constitute slander. Although constituting slander, it is not that they cannot be taken up for investigation (道取矣)."[^116]

Original Text: 　　引句中道元的意思是無論說有佛性或無佛性，所言之理雖各有殊異，如「道得」的話，當不可疑其各自之理，但比較上而言，祖師所說的一切眾生「無佛性」，在佛道上更見長（暗示比佛陀講得更好）。他舉了一個比喻說﹕鹽官齊安國師所主張的眾生有佛性，雖然與古佛（釋迦）同時分別伸出一隻手，但是還是屬於「一條柱兩人舁」的層次（即佛性柱杖，由佛陀及齊安兩人舁），但溈山主張的無佛性則是「一條柱吞二人」（即無佛性柱杖，吞卻佛陀及齊安兩人），其高下殊劣由此可見。道元甚至於更嚴厲地批判有佛性說﹕「若有佛性，則應是魔黨，將來黨子一枚（將魔子附於眾生上）」。 註114 　　道元又再次強調既然「佛性是佛性，眾生是眾生」，並非眾生本來就具足一個有實體性的佛性，也不是有一個實體性的佛性存在於外，眾生向外馳求而後始得。因此道元引百丈禪師說﹕「說眾生有佛性，亦謗佛法僧。說眾生無佛性，亦謗佛法僧。」 註115然而，道元舉百丈如此雙遣佛性的說法，並不是為了全然否定佛性，所以他又說﹕ 　　　然則云有佛性，云無佛性，俱作謗焉。雖作謗，非不可道取矣。註116 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^114]: Dōgen's critical remark on the view of "possessing Buddha-nature." Cited in the original text (footnote 114). [^115]: Quote attributed to Baizhang Huaihai, negating both positions as slander. Cited in the original text (footnote 115). [^116]: Dōgen's commentary on Baizhang's statement. Cited in the original text (footnote 116). 道取 (dōshu): Lit. "speak-take" or "way-take", often implying investigating, understanding, or realizing through Chan dialogue or practice.

English Translation: Page 242 Although speaking of possessing or lacking Buddha-nature both constitute slander, it is not that they cannot be taken up for investigation and practice. Just as National Teacher Qingliang (清涼國師, i.e., Chengguan) said, "Losing the meaning (失意), the four propositions (四句) become four slanders; grasping the purport (得旨), the four propositions are the four virtues." However, how can one "grasp the purport"? Let us see how Dōgen challenges Guishan: "Furthermore, one should say to Great Guī[shān]: Although you were able to say 'All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature,' yet [you] did not say 'All Buddha-nature lacks sentient beings,' did not say 'All Buddha-nature lacks Buddha-nature,' let alone 'All Buddhas lack Buddha-nature'—you haven't even dreamed of it (夢也未見在也)! Try to bring it forth (試舉看)!"[^117] Besides saying sentient beings lack Buddha-nature, Dōgen questioned Guishan whether there are other ways to interpret the relationship between Buddha-nature and sentient beings, such as saying "All Buddha-nature lacks sentient beings," "All Buddha-nature lacks Buddha-nature," or even "All Buddhas lack Buddha-nature." Although it seems Dōgen is playing a game of rearranging words, his intention is actually to emphasize shattering the dualistic and substantialized view of Buddha-nature and sentient beings. Dōgen negated both possessing and lacking Buddha-nature. So what is his own view of Buddha-nature? It is what he advocated as "impermanent Buddha-nature" (無常佛性).

Original Text: 　 242頁 雖然言有、無佛性都作謗，但並非不可取道參究，正如清涼國師所說的「失意則四句便成四謗，得旨則四句即是四德。」然而，如何才能「得旨」呢？且看道元如何挑戰大溈﹕ 復應向大溈道﹕雖設使道得「一切眾生無佛性」，而（汝）不道「一切佛性無眾生」，不道「一切佛性無佛性」，況「一切諸佛無佛性」，夢也未見在也，試舉看！ 註117 除了可以說眾生無佛性之外，道元提問大溈是否也有別種解讀佛性與眾生的關係的方法，如說「一切佛性無眾生」、「一切佛性無佛性」、甚至於「一切諸佛無佛性」。雖然看似道元在玩文字排列組合的遊戲，其實，他的用意是在強調破除佛性與眾生的二元化、和實體化的佛性觀。道元雙遣有佛性和無佛性，而他自己的佛性觀又是如何呢？就是他主張的「無常佛性」。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^117]: Dōgen challenging Guishan's view. Cited in the original text (footnote 117). Qingliang Chengguan (清涼澄觀) was the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school. The "four propositions" (四句) usually refer to existence, non-existence, both, and neither.

English Translation: 6. Impermanent Buddha-Nature (無常佛性) Dōgen cited the Sixth Patriarch Huineng's instruction to his disciple Chan Master Xingchang Zhiche (行昌志徹禪師): "Impermanence (無常) is precisely Buddha-nature. Permanence (有常) is precisely the discriminating mind (分別心) of all good and evil dharmas."[^118] Zhiche questioned this instruction to the Sixth Patriarch, suspecting it contradicted the sutra teachings (經教), because the sutras say Buddha-nature is permanent (常), while good and evil dharmas are impermanent (無常). The Sixth Patriarch explained: "If Buddha-nature were permanent, what more is there to say about good and evil dharmas? Then, even unto the exhaustion of kalpas, not a single person would arouse the Bodhi-mind (發菩提心者). Therefore, my saying 'impermanent' is precisely the Buddha's teaching of the Way of true permanence (真常之道). Furthermore, if all dharmas were impermanent, then each and every thing would possess self-nature (自性) and be subject to birth and death (容受生死). Then the truly permanent nature (真常性) would have places it did not pervade. Therefore, my saying 'permanent' is precisely the Buddha's teaching of the meaning of true impermanence (真無常義). The Buddha, because ordinary beings and non-Buddhists cling to erroneous permanence (邪常), and practitioners of the two vehicles mistake permanence for impermanence (於常計無常), together forming the eight errors (八倒),[^119] therefore, in the definitive teaching (了義教) of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], refuted their biased views and revealed true permanence (真常), true self (真我), true purity (真淨)."[^120]

Original Text: ６、無常佛性 　　道元引六祖惠能對門人行昌志徹禪師的開示說﹕ 　　　無常者，即佛性也。有常者，即善惡一切諸法分別心也。 註118 志徹對這樣的開示，向六祖質疑有違經教，因為經說佛性是常，善惡諸法是無常。六祖解釋說﹕ 佛性若常，更說什麼善惡諸法，乃至窮劫無有一人發菩提心者，故吾說無常，正是佛說真常之道也。又一切諸法若無常者，即物物皆有自性容受生死。而真常性有不遍之處，故吾說常者，正是佛說真無常義也。佛比為凡夫外道執於邪常，諸二乘人於常計無常共成八倒故， 註119於涅槃了義教中，破彼偏見，而顯說真常、真我、真淨。 註120 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^118]: Dialogue between Huineng and Zhiche, often cited in Chan texts. Cited in the original text (footnote 118). [^119]: The eight errors/inversions (八倒, pattō/bādǎo): Mistaking the impermanent for permanent, suffering for bliss, non-self for self, and the impure for pure (common errors of ordinary beings), and the inverse (mistaking the permanent nature of Nirvana for impermanent, etc. – errors attributed to Hinayana practitioners). Cited in the original text (footnote 119). [^120]: Huineng's explanation continued. Cited in the original text (footnote 120). 了義教 (ryōgikyō): Teachings of definitive or ultimate meaning. 真常、真我、真淨 (shinjō, shinga, shinjō): True permanence, true self, true purity – the positive attributes of Nirvana emphasized in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra to counter nihilistic views.

English Translation: Page 243 From the Sixth Patriarch's own explanation of the meaning of Buddha-nature's impermanence in the quote above, one can see it completely inherits the Buddha-nature doctrine of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.[^121] The Nirvāṇa Sūtra, to counteract the view of ordinary beings and non-Buddhists mistakenly clinging to Buddha-nature as a permanently abiding, unchanging existence (常住不易的有見), emphasized the meaning of Buddha-nature's impermanence. But on the other hand, to refute the annihilistic view (滅見) of practitioners of the two vehicles who mistake permanence for impermanence, it spoke of true permanence. The "permanence" (有常) of the "discriminating mind of all good and evil dharmas" spoken of by the Sixth Patriarch refers to the view of existence (有見) held by ordinary beings and non-Buddhists, while the "impermanence" (無常) of Buddha-nature is "true impermanence" (真無常), which is true permanence (真常).

Dōgen believed the impermanence spoken of by the Sixth Patriarch was indeed beyond the measure of non-Buddhists, practitioners of the two vehicles, and others. He further explained: "Impermanence constantly speaks impermanence (說著無常), practices impermanence (行著無常), realizes impermanence (證著無常); thus, all should be impermanent."[^122] In other words, true impermanence means that whether one speaks, practices, or realizes impermanence, all should be impermanent. Just like "permanent sage is impermanent (常聖是無常), permanent ordinary being is impermanent (常凡是無常)." Otherwise, if ordinary beings were forever ordinary beings (permanent ordinary, 常凡), and sages forever sages (permanent sage, 常聖), then Buddha-nature could not be accomplished (佛性不成). Therefore Dōgen said: "Permanent ordinary beings and sages are then not Buddha-nature (常凡聖者，則不應佛性)." As for the meaning of "permanence" (常), Dōgen said: "Permanence means not yet turned (未轉). Not yet turned means, without change (沒變), the ability to sever (能斷) and that which is severed by transformation (設化所斷), yet not necessarily constrained by traces of past and future (去來蹤跡); therefore, it is permanent."[^123]

Original Text: 243頁 由上面引句六祖自己對佛性無常義的解釋，可以看出完全是承襲《大般涅槃經》的佛性說。 註121《涅槃經》為對治凡夫外道誤執佛性為常住不易的有見，而強調佛性的無常義，但是另一方面為了破二乘人於常計無常的滅見而說真常。六祖所說的「善惡一切諸法分別心」的「有常」，是指一般凡夫外道的有見，而佛性的「無常」是「真無常」，即真常。 　　道元認為六祖所說的無常，確實非外道二乘等人所能測度，他更進一步解釋說﹕「無常常自說著、行著、證著無常，則皆應無常也。」 註122換言之，真正的無常，即是無論是言說、修持、或體證無常，都應是無常，就如「常聖是無常，常凡是無常」，否則若是凡夫永為凡夫（常凡），聖者永為聖者（常聖），則佛性不成。所以道元說：「常凡聖者，則不應佛性」。至於「常」的意義，道元說﹕「常者未轉也。未轉也者，沒變能斷，設化所斷，而不必拘去來蹤跡，所以常也。」 註123 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^121]: The original text includes footnote 121 here, confirming Huineng's view follows the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. [^122]: Quote from Dōgen on the all-encompassing nature of impermanence. Cited in the original text (footnote 122). The suffix 著 (zhe/jaku) indicates an ongoing action or state. [^123]: Quote from Dōgen defining "permanence" (常). Cited in the original text (footnote 123).

English Translation: "The ability to sever" (能斷) refers to prajñā-emptiness wisdom. "That which is severed by transformation" (設化所斷) refers to beginningless afflictions. Permanent means not yet turned. "Not yet turned" means that even the prajñā-emptiness wisdom elevated to the level of realization, or the beginningless afflictions situated in ordinary emotions, are both irrelevant to delusion and awakening, because wisdom permanently abides as wisdom, and afflictions permanently abide as afflictions. This is the "permanently abiding, not yet turned" (常住未轉) understood by ordinary people, but Buddha-nature is not like this. Conversely, Dōgen's statement "Permanence means not yet turned" can be extended to mean "Impermanence means turned (轉也)." That is to say, Buddha-nature must be realized within the dynamic of constant transformation of impermanence, because fundamentally "impermanence itself is Buddha-nature," and simultaneously "Buddha-nature is essentially impermanent,"[^124] (Buddha-nature is impermanence, impermanence is Buddha-nature). Just as Dōgen said: "Thus, because grass, trees, forests are impermanent, they are Buddha-nature. Because persons, things, body, mind are impermanent, this is Buddha-nature. Because lands, mountains, rivers are impermanent, this is Buddha-nature. Thus, anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提) is Buddha-nature, therefore it is impermanent. Mahāparinirvāṇa (大般涅槃) is impermanent, therefore it is Buddha-nature. Practitioners of the two vehicles with lesser views, as well as sutra commentators and Tripiṭaka masters, may be startled, doubt, fear, and dread this Way spoken by the Sixth Patriarch. If startled and doubting, they are cohorts of Māra and non-Buddhists (魔外（道）類)."[^125] Worldly dharmas (世間法), whether grass and trees, lands, mountains and rivers, or persons' bodies and minds, all arise from conditions (從緣而起), hence are impermanent. Precisely because they are impermanent, their fundamental nature can accord with the non-substantial Buddha-nature. Just as the Baimen Yihai (百門義海, Ocean of Meanings of the Hundred Gates) states, "Awareness-dust (覺塵) and all dharmas, being without self-nature (無性) due to arising from conditions, are called Buddha-nature." Hence it is said both sentient (有情) and insentient (無情) possess Buddha-nature. Conversely,

Original Text: 　　「能斷」是指般若空智，「所斷」是指無始煩惱。常則未轉，而未轉是指既使昇化到證悟層次的般若空智，或處於凡情的無始煩惱，都與迷悟無涉，因為智慧常住為智慧，煩惱常住為煩惱，這是一般人所暸解的「常住未轉」，但佛性並非如此。相反的，可以把道元的「常者未轉也」，引申成為「無常者轉也」。也就是說要在無常不斷轉換的動態中去體悟佛性，因為基本上「無常本身就是佛性」，同時「佛性在本質上就是無常」， 註124（佛性即無常、無常即佛性）。就如道元所說的﹕ 然由於草木叢林無常，即佛性也。人物身心無常，是佛性也。國土山河無常，是佛性也。則阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是佛性，故無常也。大般涅槃是無常，故佛性也。諸二乘小見及經論師三藏等，可驚疑怖畏此六祖道。若驚疑者，魔外（道）類也。 註125 世間法無論是草木、國土、山河、人物身心等皆從緣而起，故無常，正因為其無常，其本質上可以與非實體性的佛性相契，就如《百門義海》所說的「覺塵及一切法從緣無性，名為佛性」，故言有情與無情皆有佛性。反過來說， 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^124]: The author Shi Hengqing's interpretation of Dōgen's view. Cited in the original text (footnote 124). [^125]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>, equating impermanence and Buddha-nature. Cited in the original text (footnote 125). Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提) means unsurpassed, perfect awakening. Mahāparinirvāṇa (大般涅槃) means great, perfect nirvana.

English Translation: Page 244 anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi is the realization (證成) of Buddha-nature and also accords with impermanence, because the realization of Buddha-nature (佛性的證悟) is nothing other than the true realization (如實體證) of impermanence. In summary, the "impermanent Buddha-nature" (無常佛性) as understood by Dōgen is the unification of possessing Buddha-nature and lacking Buddha-nature. The following passage where Huayan master Fazang (賢首法藏) explains the "meaning of the identity and difference of the three natures" (三性同異義) can serve as a commentary on Dōgen's meaning of "impermanent Buddha-nature": "When the Sage speaks of Suchness (真如) as fixed and unmoving (凝然), this means that when, following conditions (隨緣), it becomes defiled or pure, it constantly acts as defiled or pure without losing its self-essence (自體). This is precisely the permanence that is not different from impermanence (不異無常之常), called inconceivable permanence (不思議常). It does not mean not producing any dharmas and being fixed and unmoving as conceived by sentiment (情). If it were said to be fixed and unmoving without producing any dharmas, that would be grasped by sentiment, thus losing true permanence, because that true permanence is the permanence not different from impermanence. The permanence not different from impermanence is entirely beyond sentiment, hence called true permanence. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Undefiled yet defiled (不染而染)' clarifies that permanence acts as impermanence. 'Defiled yet undefiled (染而不染)' clarifies that when acting as impermanence, permanence is not lost."[^126] The Suchness as fixed and unmoving explained by Fazang in the quote follows the view of the Nature School (性宗), clearly differing from the assertion of the Characteristics School (相宗). However, his understanding of "permanence," "impermanence," and "true permanence" is clearly similar to Dōgen's. The "impermanent Buddha-nature" advocated by Dōgen is what Fazang calls Suchness following conditions to become defiled without losing its self-essence. But this self-essence is not the "permanence" recognized by ordinary sentiment; rather, "it is precisely the true permanence not different from impermanence." In the unchanging state of being defiled yet undefiled, Buddha-nature (Suchness) does not lose its "permanent nature" (常性) amidst impermanence. In the condition-following state of being undefiled yet defiled, Buddha-nature manifests its "impermanent" nature amidst "permanence." In the fusion and unification of permanence and impermanence, existence and non-existence, "impermanent Buddha-nature" is not a static, substantialized existence, but a dynamic "actualizing kōan" (現成公案). As Abe Masao (阿部正雄) said: "For Dōgen, impermanence itself preaches impermanence, practices impermanence, and realizes impermanence; this is, in fact, preaching Buddha-nature, practicing Buddha-nature, and realizing Buddha-nature."[^127]

Original Text: 244頁 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是佛性的證成，亦與無常相契，因為佛性的證悟，無非就是對無常的如實體證。總而言之，道元所暸解的「無常佛性」是有佛性和無佛性的統一。賢首法藏在解釋「三性同異義」時，所說的下列這段話，可以做為道元「無常佛性」義的註解﹕ 聖說真如為凝然者，此是隨緣成染淨時，恆作染淨而不失自體，是即不異無常之常，名不思議常，非謂不作諸法如情所謂之凝然也。若謂不作諸法而凝然者，是情所得，故即失真常，以彼真常不異無常之常。不異無常之常，皆出於情外，故名真常。是故經曰﹕「不染而染者，明常作無常。染而不染者，明作無常時不失常也。」 註126 引句中法藏解釋的真如凝然是依性宗的說法，顯然與相宗所主張有所不同。不過，他對「常」、「無常」、「真常」的暸解顯然與道元類似。道元所主張的「無常佛性」，是法藏所謂的真如隨緣成染而不失自體，但這個自體不是出於一般凡情所認識的「常」，反而「是即不異無常」的真常。在染而不染的不變情況下，佛性（真如）在無常中不失其「常性」，在不染而染的隨緣情況下，佛性於「常」中顯現其「無常」性。在常與無常，有與無的融通和統一中，「無常佛性」不是靜態的實體化存在，而是動態的「現成公案」，就如阿部正雄所說﹕「對道元而言，無常本身就是教(preaching)無常、修(practicing)無常和證(realizing)無常，其實也就是教佛性，修佛性和證佛性。」 註127 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^126]: Quote from Fazang explaining true permanence in relation to impermanence. Cited in the original text (footnote 126). The Three Natures (三性) typically refer to the conceptualized, dependent, and perfected natures in Yogācāra, but Fazang uses the term in a Huayan context. The final sutra quote likely refers to passages in texts like the Awakening of Faith or related commentaries explaining the relationship between the unchanging essence (Suchness) and its conditioned manifestations. [^127]: Quote from Abe Masao (阿部正雄), a modern philosopher known for his work on Dōgen and Kyoto School philosophy, summarizing Dōgen's view of impermanence as Buddha-nature in action. Cited in the original text (footnote 127).

English Translation: IV. Dōgen's View of Practice-Realization (道元的修證觀) Undoubtedly, Dōgen is the most outstanding philosopher in Japanese Buddhism, but more importantly, Dōgen was also a practitioner of the philosophy he understood. His view of practice-realization (修證觀, shushōkan) is one of "practice-realization as one" (修證一等, shushō ittō) and "original realization, wondrous practice" (本證妙修, honshō myōshū), primarily established upon his view of Buddha-nature. Additionally, central issues in Buddhism, such as whole-existence and Buddha-nature, delusion and awakening, birth and death, existence and non-existence, permanence and impermanence, are all reflected in his view of practice-realization.

The view of practice-realization as one originated from the great doubt Dōgen developed while at Mount Hiei, namely, if sentient beings are "inherently the fundamental dharma body, the dharma-nature" (本自法身法性成者), why do they still need to arouse the aspiration and practice? This question of Dōgen's presupposes a premise: that within the true suchness dharma-nature (or Buddha-nature) possessed by sentient beings, all the content (merits) of Buddhahood has already been "realized and attained."

Original Text: 四、道元的修證觀 　　無疑地道元是日本佛教最傑出的哲學家，但是更重要的，道元也是他自己所暸解的哲理的實踐者。他的修證觀是「修證一等」、「本證妙修」的修證觀，主要是建立在他的佛性觀上。另外，佛教的中心議題，諸如悉有與佛性、迷與悟、生與死、有與無、常與無常等都反應在他的修證觀中。 　　修證一等的修證觀源自道元在比叡山時產生的一大疑團，即眾生如果「本自法身法性成者」，為什麼還須要發心修行呢？道元的這個問題預設了一個前提，即眾生的具真如法性（或曰佛性）中已「實現證得」(realized)

English Translation: Page 245 Therefore, there is no need to undertake the effort of practice. But contradicting this premise is the fact that in the actual world, sentient beings are still deluded and defiled beings, not pure Buddhas. Clearly, sentient beings still need to practice. Conversely, if the practice of sentient beings is absolutely necessary, then Buddha-nature (or dharma-nature) becomes an external, objective goal to pursue. In that case, how can it be said that sentient beings inherently possess Buddha-nature?[^128] Thus, for the young Dōgen, the problem arose of how to integrate practice and realization, practice-realization and Buddha-nature.

To understand Dōgen's view of practice-realization, one must explore it within its historical context. Japanese Tendai Buddhism in Dōgen's era developed a view of practice-realization based on original awakening (本覺), which asserted that because sentient beings possess original awakening, there is no necessity for practice. But this clearly could not resolve Dōgen's doubt, so he traveled far to China in search of an enlightened teacher. According to the Hōkyōki, Dōgen inquired of Rujing, saying: "Dōgen respectfully asked: 'Studying the excellent traces of the Buddhas and Patriarchs of past and present, when the initial aspiration is illuminated, although there seems to be the Way, when gathering the assembly and opening the Dharma, it is as if there is no Buddhadharma. Also, at the time of initial aspiration, although there seems to be no awakening, when opening the Dharma and expounding the Way, there is quite the spirit surpassing the ancients. Thus, is the Way attained using the initial mind (初心), or using the later mind (後心)?'" "Rujing instructed: 'The authentic transmission of Buddhas and Patriarchs says: Not only the initial mind, but also not departing from the initial mind. Why so? If the Way were attained only with the initial mind, then Bodhisattvas upon first aspiration should instantly be Buddhas; this is impossible. If there were no initial mind, how could there be a second or third mind, a second or third dharma? Thus, the later takes the initial as its foundation (本); the initial takes the later as its aim (期).'"[^129]

Original Text: 245頁 了所有成佛的內涵（功德），所以不必再去做修行的功夫。但是與此前提矛盾的是事實上在現實的世間，眾生還是妄染的眾生，而不是清淨的佛，顯然地，眾生還須要修行。反過來說，眾生的修行如果有絕對必要，則佛性（或曰法性）變成一個外在客體性的追求目標，如此又如何可說眾生本具佛性。 註128因此，對年青的道元產生了修與證、修證與佛性如何融通的問題。 　　要暸解道元的修證觀，必須從其歷史背景中探索。道元時代的日本天台宗發展出的是本覺的修證觀，其主張眾生因有本覺，故無有修行的必要。但是這顯然不能解決道元的疑團，於是他遠渡中土尋覓明師。根據《寶慶記》，道元請教如淨說﹕ 道元拜問﹕「參學古今佛祖之勝躅，初心發明之時，雖似有道，集眾開法之時，如無佛法。又初發心時，雖似無所悟，開法演道之時，頗有超古之志氣。然則，為用初心得道，為用後心得道？」 如淨誨云：「佛佛祖祖正傳云：不但初心，不離初心。為甚恁麼？若但初心得道，菩薩初發心，便應是佛，是乃不可也。若無初心，云何得有第二、第三心，第二、第三法。然則，後以初為本，初以後為期。 註129 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^128]: The original text includes footnote 128 here, likely elaborating on the inherent contradiction Dōgen perceived. [^129]: Dialogue between Dōgen and Rujing from the Hōkyōki. Cited in the original text (footnote 129).

English Translation: From the instruction given to Dōgen above, it can be seen that Rujing did not advocate the view found in texts like the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經) that a Bodhisattva attains perfect awakening upon the initial arising of aspiration. Instead, he emphasized the necessity of practice, thereby negating the Tendai Original Awakening Gate's view of practice-realization, which claims practice is unnecessary due to original awakening. He also negated the Shingon school's assertion of "attaining Buddhahood in this very body, becoming Buddha in this body, without needing kalpas of practice."[^130]

Inheriting Rujing's view of practice-realization, coupled with his own experience of complete "dropping off body and mind," Dōgen developed the view of practice-realization as non-dual (修証不二). In the 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, he said: "Regarding this Dharma, although it is abundantly present in each person's share, without practice, it does not manifest; without realization, it is not attained. Letting go, it fills the hands; how could one or many define its limits? Speaking, it fills the mouth; vertically and horizontally, it is inexhaustible."[^131] The wondrous Dharma of Buddha-nature inherently possessed by each person is unlike the natural self-nature deludedly clung to by non-Buddhists; therefore, without practice it does not manifest, without realization it is not attained. However, this does not mean Dōgen considered practice and realization to be sequential dharmas. For Dōgen, "practice" (修) is direct, immediate effort (直下的加工), and "realization" (証) is perfectly fused, spontaneous functioning (圓融的任運). Within inexhaustible effort is the spontaneous, perfect functioning of the Dharma.

Original Text: 從以上對道元的誨示，可見如淨不主張如《華嚴經》所說的菩薩初發心，即成正覺的說法，而強調修行的必要，亦即否定了因本覺故無須修行的天台本覺門的修証觀，也否定了真言宗的「即身即佛，是身作佛，無經時劫修行」 註130的說法。 　　承襲如淨的修証觀，再加上自己整個「身心脫落」的開悟經驗，使道元開展出修証不二的修証觀。他在〈辦道話〉篇說：「是法，雖人人分上豐具，而未修不現，不証無得，放則盈手，一多際乎。語則滿口，縱橫無窮。」 註131人人分上本具的佛性妙法，不像外道所妄執的自性天然，因此未修不現，不証無得。然而，這並不意謂道元認為修証是前後法。對道元而言，「修」是直下的加工，「証」是圓融的任運。在無窮的加工中，是「法」任運圓融。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^130]: The original text includes footnote 130 here, citing the Shingon view of immediate Buddhahood. [^131]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Bendōwa>. Cited in the original text (footnote 131).

English Translation: Page 246 Simultaneously, within the spontaneous, perfectly functioning realization, wondrous practice permeates the body (妙修透體). This is what Dōgen meant by "Realization means practice is never slack (行無懈時)." Conversely, it also means "Practice means realization functions spontaneously (証任運時)." Dōgen explained his view of practice-realization as one even more clearly in the following quote: "To say that practice and realization are not one is the view of non-Buddhists. In Buddhadharma, practice and realization are one and the same (一等). Because it is now practice based on realization (証上修), the initial mind's engagement with the Way (初心辨道) is the entirety of original realization (本証全體). Therefore, in giving guidance for the practice mind, the teaching is not to think of awaiting realization outside of practice; one should point directly to original realization (本証). Since it is realization based on practice (修之証), realization is endless (証無際); since it is practice based on realization (証之修), practice is beginningless (修無始). Thus, Śākyamuni Tathāgata and Venerable Kāśyapa both received and utilized practice based on realization. Great Master Bodhidharma and the Great Ancestor Dajian [Huineng] both transmitted practice based on realization. The upholding of Buddhadharma is all like this. Since there exists practice inseparable from realization (不離証的修), we are fortunate to have singly transmitted a portion of wondrous practice (妙修). Engaging the Way with the initial mind immediately attains a portion of original realization in the unconditioned realm (無為地). To ensure that practice-realization is not separated and defiled, the Buddhas and Patriarchs frequently instructed that practice must not be lax. Let go into wondrous practice, and original realization fills your hands; emerge from original realization, and wondrous practice permeates your whole body (妙修行通身)."[^132]

Original Text: 246頁 同時，在任運圓融的証悟中，妙修透體。這就是道元所謂的「証則行無懈時」，反過來說，亦即是「行則証任運時」。 道元在下列的引句更清楚闡釋他修証一等的修証觀： 夫謂修証非一，即外道見也。佛法修証是一等也。今証上修故，初心辨道，即本証全體也。故授修行用心，教無修外待証思，應直指本証也。既修之証，則証無際，証之修，則修無始也。是以釋迦如來，迦葉尊者，共受用証上修，達磨大師，大鑑高祖，同引轉讓上修，佛法住持皆如是。既有不離証(的)修，我等幸單傳一分妙修。初心辨道，即得一分本証於無為地，可識為令不離修証不染汙，佛祖頻教誨修行不可悠緩。放下妙修，則本証滿手中，出身本証，則妙修行通身。 註132 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^132]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from <Bendōwa>, elaborating on practice-realization non-duality. Cited in the original text (footnote 132). 無為地 (mui ji): The unconditioned realm/ground, referring to the state of realization or nirvana.

English Translation: In the quote, the most important concepts are "practice based on realization" (証上修, shōjōshu) and "[realization based on] practice" (修上証, shujōshō). Because the practice Dōgen considered is not practice opposed to realization, but "practice of realization" (証之修), such wondrous practice, non-dual with original realization, is beginningless and transcends time. Furthermore, Dōgen said this "wondrous practice permeating the whole body" which "emerges from original realization" is the so-called direct effort functioning spontaneously and perfectly; it transcends space. Because practice-realization transcends time and space, Dōgen said, "When one person sits in zazen at one time, all dharmas correspond implicitly, all times connect completely." When anyone practices zazen samādhi at any time, instantly "the entire dharma realm becomes the Buddha-seal, all of empty space is awakening, indeed all dharmas realize perfect awakening together, the myriad things together utilize the Buddha-body."[^133] Such a result is established on the premise emphasized by Dōgen: "Buddha-nature necessarily participates together with becoming Buddha, practices together, realizes together (同修、同証)," "practice-realization as one."

Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one holds the greatest significance in eliminating the contradiction of dualistic dichotomy between practice and realization, between actualized gnosis (始覺) and primordial gnosis (本覺). In the "process" of becoming a Buddha, Buddha-nature is the indispensable "innate basis" (先天依據), while practice is the indispensable "condition" (條件). From the perspective of actualized gnosis theory, practice within the scope of time and space is the "ground" (基石) of the process of becoming a Buddha, while Buddha-nature becomes merely a "sign" (標地) guiding the practice.[^134] In other words, it presupposes a process from practice to realization. Thus, it creates a temporal, sequential duality

Original Text: 引句中，最重要的觀念是「証上修」，「修上証」。因為道元認為的修行不是與証悟對立的修行，而是「証之修」，如此與本証不二的妙修是無始的、超越時間的。再者，道元說「出身本証」的這種「妙修行通身」，即是所謂的加工直下任運圓融，是超越空間的。因為修証超越時間和空間，因此道元說「一人一時坐禪，諸法相冥，諸時圓通。」任何人在任何時間修持坐禪三昧時，當下「遍法界皆為佛印，盡虛空悉為悟，乃至諸法皆証會正覺，萬物共使用佛身。」 註133這樣的結果即是建立在道元所強調的「佛性必與成佛同修、同証」、「修証一等」的前題上。 　　道元「修証一等」的修証觀的最大意義，乃是它消除了修行與証悟，始覺與本覺之間二元對立的矛盾。在成佛的「進程」（process）中，佛性是不可或缺的「先天依據」，而修行是不可或缺的「條件」（condition）。從始覺論的觀點看，在時間和空間範圍內的修行是成佛過程的「基石」(ground)，而佛性變成只是導引修行的「標地」（sign）。 註134換言之，它預設有一個從修行到証悟的過程。如此，則造成修行與証悟在時間上有前後二 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^133]: Quote from Dōgen describing the state of realization in zazen. Cited in the original text (footnote 133). [^134]: The original text includes footnote 134 here, likely referencing critiques or analyses of the actualized gnosis (始覺, shikaku) perspective.

English Translation: Page 247 between practice and realization. Furthermore, if Buddha-nature is merely regarded as a "sign," the question arises: wherein lies the necessity (innate basis) for becoming a Buddha?

Conversely, from the perspective of primordial gnosis theory (本覺論), timeless primordial gnosis (本覺, hongaku) (Buddha-nature) is not only the "ground" (innate basis) for becoming a Buddha but is also the realization itself. Thus, practice as the condition for realization loses its necessity. Clearly, both the actualized gnosis gate and the primordial gnosis gate can be called "views that sever practice and realization" (修證兩橛觀, shushō ryōketsukan).[^135] The former involves practicing while awaiting realization (修而待証), i.e., a view where "realization must come from practice" (証必由修). The latter involves realization awaiting practice (証而待修), i.e., "practice must lead to realization" (修必向証) [Note: the text seems to slightly reverse the phrases here, but the intended contrast is clear]. Whether it is proceeding from practice towards realization, or realization necessarily awaiting practice, or even realization not needing practice, all imply a duality of practice and realization. Therefore, the opposition and contradiction between primordial gnosis and actualized gnosis, realization and practice, arose—this was precisely the problem troubling the young Dōgen.

Original Text: 247頁 元之分別。再者，如果佛性僅被視為「標地」，就會產生成佛之必然性（先天依據）何在的問題。 　　相反地，從本覺論的觀點看，超越時間的本覺（佛性）不但是成佛的「基石」（先天依據），更是証悟的實現，如此作為証悟條件的修行就失去了其必要性。顯然地，始覺門和本覺門都可稱為「修証兩橛觀」， 註135前者是修而待証，亦即「修必向証」的修証觀，後者是証而待修，亦即「証必由修」。無論是由修向証証必待修，甚至於証不須修，都意味著修証之二元，因此產生本覺與始覺，証悟和修行之間的對立和矛盾，此即是困擾年青道元的問題所在。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^135]: The original text includes footnote 135 here, explaining or referencing the term 修證兩橛觀 (shushō ryōketsukan), literally "practice-realization two-stumps view," implying separation or dichotomy.

English Translation: Dōgen's method for breaking this dualistic dichotomy was to break through the temporal cause-and-effect relationship between practice and realization. He shifted the starting point of practice from the causal stage (因位) to the resultant stage (果位). Therefore, he could say that true practice "is not merely practice-realization at the causal stage, but is practice-realization of the resultant stage."[^136] By the same logic, he shifted the endpoint of realization from the resultant stage to the causal stage. Therefore, he could say that true realization is not merely realization of the resultant stage, but also realization of the causal stage. Such mutually causal practice and realization continuously reinforce each other in an unending cycle. Practice and realization are no longer in a linear, sequential relationship, but in the relationship of a beginningless and endless "Way-ring" (道環, dōkan). Therefore, Dōgen said: "The Great Way of the Buddhas and Patriarchs necessarily involves unsurpassed continuous practice (行持, gyōji); it is a Way-ring without interruption. Aspiration (發心), practice (修行), Bodhi (菩提), Nirvāṇa (涅槃)—without the slightest gap, the continuous practice is a Way-ring."[^137] This is also what he meant by "Since it is realization based on practice, realization is endless. Since it is practice based on realization, practice is beginningless." Such a Way-ring view of practice-realization resolved the contradiction and opposition between practice and realization. Therefore, Dōgen could regard his own statement "I constantly strive diligently (我常勤精進)" as equivalent to "I have already attained Bodhi (我已得成菩提)," and because "I have already attained Bodhi," therefore "I constantly strive diligently."[^138]

Original Text: 　　道元打破此二元對立的方法是打通修行和証悟的時間因果關係，他把修行的出發點從因位轉到果位，因此他可以說真正的修行「非但因地修証而已，乃是果位之修証也」， 註136同理，他把証悟的終點從果位轉到因位，因此他可以說真正的証悟，非但是果位之証悟，亦是因位之証悟。如此互為因果的修証，不斷地相互加強循環不斷，修行和証悟不再是直線上前後的關係，而是圓圈無始無終「道環」的關係。因此道元說： 佛祖之大道必有無上之行持，道環而不斷絕。發心、修行、菩提、涅槃，不少間隙，行持道環。 註137 這也就是他所謂的「既修之証，則証無際。証之修，則修無始」。這樣道環的修証觀解決了修行與証悟之間的矛盾和對立，因此道元才能把他自己所謂的「我常勤精進」，當做「我已得成菩提」，「我已得成菩提」之故，「我常勤精進」。 註138 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^136]: Quote from Dōgen emphasizing practice at the resultant stage. Cited in the original text (footnote 136). [^137]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Gyōji> (Continuous Practice), describing the Way-ring. Cited in the original text (footnote 137). [^138]: Dōgen's rephrasing showing the simultaneity of effort and attainment. Cited in the original text (footnote 138).

English Translation: The greatest turning point in Dōgen's non-dual view of practice-realization came from transforming the doubt "Since [we are] already originally awakened, why is practice necessary?" into "Since [we are] already originally awakened, therefore practice is necessary," and "Since practice is already underway, realization must be within it."[^139] Thus

Original Text: 　　道元修証不二的修証觀的最大轉折，來自把「既是本覺，何須修行」的疑團轉化成「既已本覺，故須修行」，和「既已修行，於中必有証」， 註139於 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^139]: The original text includes footnote 139 here, likely referencing the source or significance of this transformation in Dōgen's thought.

English Translation: Page 248 practice and realization were completely fused together. The theoretical foundation for Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one and the Way-ring of practice-realization was established upon his theory of "impermanent Buddha-nature." Because Buddha-nature is impermanent, empty, and non-substantial, it enables the originally irreversible "one-way street" from practice to realization to become a reversible and cyclical "two-way path" of the Way-ring. Just as we can say "impermanence is Buddha-nature, Buddha-nature is impermanence," we can also say "practice is realization, realization is practice."

Any view of practice-realization established upon Buddha-nature theory, whether belonging to the actualized gnosis gate or the primordial gnosis gate, ultimately harbors theoretical contradictions and separation among Buddha-nature, practice, and realization. Many Patriarchs of Chinese Chan Buddhism, to resolve these theoretical difficulties, advocated adopting the primordial gnosis gate in principle (理, li) and the actualized gnosis gate in phenomena (事, shi). Under the premise of the non-duality of principle and phenomena, this view held no contradiction for Chinese Chan masters. But for Dōgen, as long as the duality of "aiming to become Buddha" (圖作佛) through practice towards realization exists, there is contradiction and opposition, because it still presupposes a world of ordinary sentient beings striving through methods of practice ("aiming to become Buddha") to reach the goal of "becoming Buddha." The greatest characteristic of Dōgen's view of practice-realization lies in fundamentally breaking the spatio-temporal boundary between means (方法) and end (目的), enabling a mutually reinforcing interaction between the two. Therefore, for Dōgen, correct practice-realization is not "practicing while awaiting awakening" (修而待悟) or "awakening achieved through practice" (悟由修成), but "awakening within practice" (悟中修 / 修中悟, shūchūgo) and "practice within awakening" (悟中修, gochūshu) occurring simultaneously in a beginningless and endless process. This is why Dōgen emphasized that from the perspective of sentient beings, one need only engage in "just sitting" (只管打坐, shikantaza) (practice) without pursuing realization and liberation, while from the perspective of a Buddha, even within the state of awakening, one still continuously practices the wondrous practice (妙修) of the Way-ring. Thus, not only can the non-differentiation of original realization (本証) and wondrous practice (妙修) be achieved, but this is also the state described in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra where "Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without difference."

Original Text: 248頁 是修和証完全融會在一起，道元這種修証一等和修証道環之修証觀的理論基礎建立在他的「無常佛性」論上，因為佛性的無常、空、非實體性，才能使得原本不可環轉的從修向証的「單行道」，變成有反轉和道環的「雙向道」。就像我們可以說「無常即佛性，佛性即無常」，我們亦可說「修行即証悟，証悟即修行」。 　　只要是建立在佛性論的修証觀，不管是始覺間或本覺門，佛性、修行、証悟三者之間始終存在著理論上的矛盾和分立。中國禪宗許多祖師為解決理論上的困難，主張在理上採取本覺門，而在事上採取始覺門的修証觀。在理事不二的前提下，對於中國禪師而言，這種說法並無所謂矛盾。但對道元而言，只要「圖作佛」的由修向証的二元存在，即有矛盾對立，因為它還是預設有一個凡夫眾生的世界，透過努力「圖作佛」的修行方法，達到「作佛」的目的。而道元修証觀的最大特點即是在根本上打破方法（means）和目的（end）的時空界線，使二者產生相互加強的互動。因此對道元而言，正確的修証不是「修而待悟」或「悟由修成」，而是「修中悟」和「悟中修」同時進行的無始無終的歷程，這也就是為什麼道元強調從眾生觀點，只要「只管打坐（修行）」，不必去追求証悟解脫，而對佛而言，即使在悟境，還是不斷地行持道環地妙修。如此，不但可達到本証與妙修無差別，亦就是《華嚴經》所說的「心、佛、眾生，是三無差別的境界。」

English Translation: Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one not only serves as the best guide for Buddhists regarding the concept and method of practice-realization, but also, from a broader perspective, the concept of practice-realization as one holds great applicability for ordinary people struggling daily between "means and end."[^140] In daily life, people often set a future goal (end) and currently use various means and methods to pursue that future goal. This process of proceeding from present methods towards a future goal, like proceeding from present practice towards future realization (practice awaiting awakening, aiming to become Buddha), perpetually involves dualistic separation. Regarding such a teleological view of life, on the one hand, due to single-mindedly pursuing a future goal, it is easy to neglect the meaning of "present actualization" (當下現成). On the other hand, before the goal is achieved, it easily causes anxiety and affliction.

Original Text: 　　道元修証一等的修証觀，不但成為佛教徒在修証的觀念和方法上最佳的導引，而且，從廣義的層面而言，對天天掙扎於「手段（means）和目的（end）」之間的一般人，修証一如的觀念也很有適用性。 註140一般人在日常生活中往往為將來設定一個目標（end），而現在以各種手段和方法去追求那個未來的目標，這種從現在的方法趣向未來目標的過程，就像由現在的修行趣向未來的証悟（修待悟、圖作佛）一樣，永達存在著二元的分立，對這樣的人生目的論，一方面由於一味地追求未來的目的，容易忽略「當下現成」的意義，另一方面在目的未達成之前，容易引起不安和煩惱。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^140]: The original text includes footnote 140 here, likely referencing further discussion on the broader applicability of Dōgen's view.

English Translation: Page 249

To remedy the affliction caused by such pursuit of goals by ordinary people, one applies Dōgen's concept of practice-realization as one, transforming the dichotomy of means and end (present and future) into a worldview where means and end are one and the same (一等). Thus, every effort made in the present (means or method) is, right now, the "present actualization" (現成) of the future goal. The meaning of the "present" no longer solely exists for achieving a future goal. Based on the theoretical foundation of spatio-temporal impermanence, the present and future (means and end) transcend spatio-temporal limitations, producing the effect of the "Way-ring" (道環) spoken of by Dōgen. In the interaction where method and goal are identical and interpenetrating, each person can have a more vital, creative, and fulfilling life.

The theory discussed above can be further expanded and applied to the relationship between the individual self and the myriad things. For Dōgen, every person and all myriad things exist within constant impermanent arising, ceasing, and changing. Therefore, although "one person sits in zazen at one time," simultaneously "all dharmas correspond implicitly, all times connect completely." In other words, one person's practice-realization (end) can serve as the condition (means) for another's practice-realization, and vice versa. This relationship can even extend to the realms of the sentient (有情) and insentient (無情) (nature). Therefore, Dōgen said: "Performing vast Buddha-work (廣大佛事), profound wondrous Buddha transformation (甚深微妙佛化)—where this transforming Way (化道) reaches, grass, trees, earth together emit great bright light, preaching the profound wondrous Dharma without end. Grass, trees, walls, partitions can proclaim [the Dharma] for ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits (凡聖含靈). Ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits in turn expound (演暢) for grass, trees, walls, partitions."[^141]

Original Text: 249頁 　　對治一般人這種追求目標所引起的煩惱，就是應用道元的修証一等的觀念，把手段和目的（現在和未來）的二分，轉變成手段和目的一等的人生觀。如此，現在所作的每一個努力（手段或方法），當下即是未來目的的「現成」。「現在」的意義不再僅是為達到未來目的而存生。在時空無常的理論基礎上，現在與未來（手段和目的）超越時空限制，產生道元所說的「道環」的作用。在方法和目的相即相入的互動中，每個人可以有一個更具活力、創造性和成就感的生命。 　　上面所說的理論可以更擴大應用在個人自己與萬物的關係上。對道元而言，每個人與萬事萬物都處於不斷的無常生滅變遷之中，因此雖然「一人一時坐禪」，卻可同時「諸法相冥，諸時圓通」，換言之，某個人的修証（目的）可以作為其他人修証的因緣（方法），反之亦然。這種關係甚至可擴及有情與無情（自然）界。所以道元說： 作廣大佛事，甚深微妙佛化，此化道所及草木土地，共放大光明，說深妙法無窮時，草木牆壁，能為凡聖含靈宣揚。凡聖含靈，還為草木牆壁演暢。 註141 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^141]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Kankin> (Sutra Reading) or a related text on the universality of Dharma activity. Cited in the original text (footnote 141). 含靈 (ganrei): Beings possessing spirit/consciousness.

English Translation: Only on the premise that method and goal are one and the same can one achieve what Dōgen described: grass, trees, walls, and partitions preaching the Dharma for each other (method) along with ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits, while simultaneously reaching the state where sentient and insentient beings together realize the Buddha Way (goal). To separate one's own practice-realization from the practice-realization of the myriad things is not true practice-realization. Therefore, Dōgen said: "Advancing oneself (運自己) to practice-realize the myriad dharmas is delusion (迷); the myriad dharmas advancing to practice-realize oneself is awakening (悟)."[^142] In other words, while advancing oneself to practice-realize the myriad dharmas, one must simultaneously allow the myriad dharmas to practice-realize oneself; and while the myriad dharmas practice-realize oneself, one must also simultaneously advance oneself to practice-realize the myriad dharmas. Only thus can one reach the state where practice-realization is one, and oneself and the myriad dharmas are completely non-dual.

Whether applying practice-realization as one to personal religious life, daily life, or the relationship between the individual and the myriad dharmas, as mentioned above, it is all established on the foundation of the thought of impermanence and no-self (無常無我). Therefore, Dōgen emphasized, "To practice the Buddha Way is to practice the self (慣習自己)." "Practicing the self" is the first step in cultivating the Buddha Way or for ordinary people establishing self-discipline in character. But while practicing the self, Dōgen said one must "forget the self through sitting" (坐忘自己). This is entering the realization of emptiness, impermanence, and no-self. While forgetting the self through sitting, one can then "verify the myriad dharmas" (見証萬法). And verifying the myriad dharmas is the state of "causing one's own body-mind, and the body-mind of others, to drop off" (使自己身心，及它己身心脫落). However, this state where self and others both drop off body and mind is not a passive state where "traces of awakening cease" (悟跡休歇). Rather, it is the unceasing, moment-to-moment actualization of practice-realization that "causes the ceased traces of awakening

Original Text: 只有在方法和目的一等的前提下，才能達到道元所說的草木牆壁和凡聖含靈為彼此說法（方法），又同時達到有情和非情同証佛道的境界（目的）。把自己的修証與萬物的修証二分，就不是真正的修証。所以道元說：「運自己修証萬法為迷，萬法進修証自己則悟也。」 註142換言之，在運自己修証萬法時，必須同時萬法修証自己，而在萬法修証自己時，也必須同時運自己修証萬法，如此才能達到修証一等，自己與萬法完全不二的境界。 　　以上所提到無論是將修証一等運用在個人的宗教生活、日常生活，或個人或萬法的關係上，都是建立在無常無我的思想基礎上，因此道元強調說「慣習佛道者，慣習自己也」。「慣習自己」是修習佛道或一般人建立人格自律的第一步驟。但是在慣習自己的同時，道元說要「坐忘自己」，這是進入空、無常、無我的體証。在坐忘自己的同時，即能「見証萬法」，而見証萬法即是「使自己身心，及它己身心脫落」的境界。但是這種自他皆身心脫落的境界，並非是「悟跡休歇」的消極狀態，而是源源不斷，時時刻刻「令休歇悟

Footnotes/Annotations: [^142]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Genjōkōan>. Cited in the original text (footnote 142).

English Translation: Page 250 to emerge unceasingly" (令休歇悟跡長長出).[^143]

Original Text: 250頁 跡長長出」 註143的修証現成。

English Translation: As for the Fifth Patriarch's reply, "Because Buddha-nature is empty (空), therefore I say 'lack' (無)," Dōgen explained that "empty is not non-existence" (空非是無). In other words, the meaning of Buddha-nature's true emptiness (真空) is not the annihilistic "non-existence" (斷滅無) contrasted with "existence" (有), as commonly understood by people.

Original Text: 至於對五祖的回答﹕「佛性空故，所以言無」，道元解釋說「空非是無」，換言之，佛性真空的意義，並非一般人所暸解的與「有」相對的斷滅「無」，

English Translation: Page 240 Therefore, he said true "emptiness" is not the emptiness of "form is emptiness" (色即是空), because that is an emptiness contrasted with form. True emptiness of Buddha-nature is what the Nirvāṇa Sūtra speaks of: "Buddha-nature is precisely the emptiness of the ultimate meaning (第一義空). Emptiness of the ultimate meaning is called wisdom... The Middle Path is called Buddha-nature."[^107] Such emptiness of the ultimate meaning "does not forcefully make form into emptiness, nor does it differentiate emptiness and construe it as form. It should be the emptiness that is emptiness (空是空之空). The so-called emptiness that is emptiness is precisely a piece of stone within emptiness (空裡一片石)."[^108] [^109] Although emptiness is true emptiness, it is ultimately inseparable from form, hence the saying "a piece of stone within emptiness," which refers to the so-called "true emptiness, wondrous presence" (真空妙有). This is what Dōgen meant by "Because it is empty, one does not say 'empty'; because it is non-existent (無), one does not say 'non-existent'."

The second example Dōgen cited mentioning "lacking Buddha-nature" (無佛性) is the dialogue between the Fifth Patriarch Hóngrěn and the Sixth Patriarch Huìnéng: The Sixth Patriarch, Great Master Caoxi Dajian (惠能) Chan Master, formerly went to study at Huangmei Mountain. The Fifth Patriarch asked: "From where do you come?" The Sixth Patriarch said: "A person from Lingnan." The Fifth Patriarch said: "What matter do you come seeking?" The Sixth Patriarch said: "Seeking to become a Buddha (作佛)." The Fifth Patriarch said: "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature (嶺南人無佛性); how can you become a Buddha?"[^110]

Original Text: 240頁 所以他說真正的「空」，不是「色即是空」的空，因為它是與色對立的空。真正的佛性空是《涅槃經》中所說﹕「佛性者，即是第一義空。第一義空名為智慧…中道者名為佛性」。 註107如此的第一義空「非強硬要色為空，非分別空而造作為色，應空是空之空。所謂空是空之空者，乃是空裡一片石也 註108」。 註109空雖是真空而終不離色，故言「空裡一片石」，即所謂的「真空妙有」，也就是道元所說的「空故不云空，無故不云無。」 第二個道元所舉言「無佛性」的例子是五祖弘忍與六祖惠能之間的問答﹕ 第六祖曹溪大鑒（惠能）禪師，昔年參黃梅山。 五祖問﹕「汝自何處來？」 六祖曰﹕「嶺南人。」 五祖云﹕「來求何事？」 六祖曰﹕「求作佛。」 五祖云﹕「嶺南人無佛性，奈何作佛？」 註110 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^107]: Quote from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra identifying Buddha-nature with the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Path. Cited in the original text (footnote 107). 第一義空 (daiichigikū): Emptiness of the ultimate meaning. [^108]: This internal quote "a piece of stone within emptiness" (空裡一片石) is likely a Chan expression signifying the inseparability of emptiness and form/phenomena. Cited in the original text (footnote 108). [^109]: Quote from Dōgen explaining true emptiness. Cited in the original text (footnote 109). 真空妙有 (shinkū myōu): True emptiness, wondrous presence; a key Mahāyāna concept. [^110]: Dialogue between Hóngrěn and Huìnéng, a foundational story in Chan Buddhism, recorded in the Platform Sutra. Cited in the original text (footnote 110). Lingnan refers to the region south of the Nanling Mountains, considered culturally peripheral at the time.

English Translation: Regarding the meaning of "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature," Dōgen again displayed his unique interpretative method. He said this phrase does not mean people from Lingnan do not have Buddha-nature, nor does it mean they do have Buddha-nature. Rather, it means "People from Lingnan" is "lacking Buddha-nature" (「嶺南人」即「無佛性」). And "how can you become a Buddha?" (奈何作佛者) does not mean questioning "how is it possible to become a Buddha," but refers to "what kind of Buddha do you expect to become?" According to standard grammar, the "lack" (無) in "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature" functions as a predicate, but Dōgen combines it with "Buddha-nature" to form a noun phrase. In fact, what Dōgen wanted to express is that people from Lingnan (or anyone) must abandon the dichotomous thinking about whether they ultimately possess Buddha-nature or not, because sentient beings themselves are Buddha-nature. Therefore Dōgen said: "As for Buddha-nature, it is not fully possessed before becoming a Buddha, [nor] fully possessed after becoming a Buddha; Buddha-nature necessarily participates together with becoming Buddha (同參)."[^111] He emphasized that at the initial hearing of the Buddhadharma, sentient beings certainly "lack Buddha-nature," but even after learning from good spiritual friends or from sutras, sentient beings still "lack Buddha-nature." The Sixth Patriarch sought to become a Buddha and requested instruction from the Fifth Patriarch, and the Fifth Patriarch, instead of using other skillful means, used the single phrase "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature" to "make a Buddha of the Sixth Patriarch." Therefore, failing to investigate the true meaning of "lacking Buddha-nature" means one cannot "become a Buddha." Conversely, "Precisely at the time of lacking Buddha-nature (無佛性正當恁麼時),

Original Text: 對「嶺南人無佛性」一語的含義，道元再度展現他獨特的解讀法。他說此語不是意指嶺南人沒有佛性，也不是說嶺南人有佛性，而是說「嶺南人」即「無佛性」，而「奈何作佛者」不是指質疑「怎能作佛」，是指「期望作什麼佛」。根據一般語法，「嶺南人無佛性」的「無」是當述詞用，但道元卻把它與「佛性」合在一起當名詞。其實，道元要表達的是嶺南（或任何人）要擺脫自己究竟有沒有佛性的二分想法，因為眾生本身就是佛性。所以道元說：「佛性也者，非成佛以前具足，（亦非）成佛以後具足，佛性必與成佛同參也」。 註111他強調在見聞佛法之初，眾生固然即「無佛性」，但從善知識或從經卷學習之後，眾生還是「無佛性」。六祖為求作佛而就教於五祖，而六祖不以其他善巧教示，而以「嶺南人無佛性」一句話「作佛於六祖」。因此，不能參究「無佛性」的真正意義，即不得「作佛也」，反過來說，即「無佛性正當恁麼時， 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^111]: Quote from Dōgen on the relationship between Buddha-nature and the process of becoming Buddha. Cited in the original text (footnote 111). 同參 (dōsan) means to investigate together, participate together, or be simultaneous with.

English Translation: Page 241 one then becomes Buddha."[^112] In summary, what Dōgen wanted to teach is: regarding the understanding of "lacking Buddha-nature," do not trap oneself in the "non-existence" (無) of the "existence/non-existence" (有無) dualistic dichotomy. Instead, "temporarily set aside the 'non-existence' of 'existence/non-existence'" (有無之無暫且擱置) and directly grasp the "non-non-existence" (無無), the absolute non-dual "non-existence" (無).

The third example Dōgen cited that speaks of lacking Buddha-nature is Chan Master Guishan Lingyou (溈山靈佑禪師, 771-853). He said: "What Śākyamuni spoke was: All sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature. What Great Guī[shān] spoke was: All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature. The principles spoken of 'possessing' and 'lacking' may differ greatly, but if 'spoken well' (道得), one should not doubt their respective principles. However, [saying] 'All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature' enhances the Buddha Way (長佛道也)." "Yánguān's 'possessing Buddha-nature' path, although seeming to extend one hand along with the ancient Buddhas, is still like 'one pillar carried by two people' (一條柱兩人舁). Now, Great Guī[shān] is not so; it should be 'one staff swallows two people' (一條柱杖吞二人)."[^113]

Original Text: 241頁 則作佛也」。 註112總之，道元要教示的是﹕對於「無佛性」的暸解，不要自陷於「有無」二元對立的「無」中，而是將「有無之無暫且擱置」而直取「無無」之絕對不二的「無」。 　　道元所舉第三個言及無佛性的例子是溈山靈佑禪師(771-853)。他說﹕ 釋尊說道者﹕一切眾生悉有佛性，大溈說道者﹕一切眾生無佛性也。有無言理遙可殊，道得當不可疑。然一切眾生無佛性，長佛道也」。 鹽官有佛道，雖似與古佛出一隻手，猶是應一條柱兩人舁。今大溈不然，應一條柱杖吞二人。註113 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^112]: Quote from Dōgen. Cited in the original text (footnote 112). [^113]: Dōgen quoting/paraphrasing Guishan Lingyou's statement contrasting "possessing" and "lacking" Buddha-nature, and Dōgen's commentary comparing Guishan favorably to Yánguān Qí'ān. Cited in the original text (footnote 113). 道得 (dōtoku): To be able to speak or express [the truth/understanding]. The metaphors contrast cooperative effort (two people carrying one pillar) with a more radical transcendence (one staff swallowing two people).

English Translation: In the quoted passage, Dōgen's meaning is that whether one speaks of possessing or lacking Buddha-nature, although the principles spoken may differ greatly, if "spoken well," one should not doubt their respective principles. However, comparatively speaking, the Patriarchs saying "All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature" shows greater length (i.e., depth or superiority) in the Buddha Way (implicitly suggesting it's better than the Buddha's statement). He used an analogy: National Teacher Yánguān Qí'ān's assertion that beings possess Buddha-nature, although seemingly extending one hand simultaneously with the ancient Buddha (Śākyamuni), still belongs to the level of "one pillar carried by two people" (i.e., the Buddha-nature staff carried by both Buddha and Qí'ān). But Guishan's assertion of lacking Buddha-nature is like "one staff swallowing two people" (i.e., the non-Buddha-nature staff swallows both Buddha and Qí'ān). The superiority and inferiority are thus evident. Dōgen even more severely criticized the view of possessing Buddha-nature: "If one possesses Buddha-nature, then one should be of Māra's cohort, attaching one of Māra's children [to sentient beings] (將來黨子一枚)."[^114]

Dōgen again emphasized that since "Buddha-nature is Buddha-nature, sentient beings are sentient beings," it is not the case that sentient beings originally possess a substantial Buddha-nature, nor is there a substantial Buddha-nature existing externally that sentient beings pursue and later attain. Therefore, Dōgen cited Chan Master Baizhang: "To say sentient beings possess Buddha-nature is also slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. To say sentient beings lack Buddha-nature is also slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha."[^115] However, Dōgen cited Baizhang's statement negating both sides regarding Buddha-nature not to completely deny Buddha-nature. So he added: "Thus, saying 'possess Buddha-nature' and saying 'lack Buddha-nature' both constitute slander. Although constituting slander, it is not that they cannot be taken up for investigation (道取矣)."[^116]

Original Text: 　　引句中道元的意思是無論說有佛性或無佛性，所言之理雖各有殊異，如「道得」的話，當不可疑其各自之理，但比較上而言，祖師所說的一切眾生「無佛性」，在佛道上更見長（暗示比佛陀講得更好）。他舉了一個比喻說﹕鹽官齊安國師所主張的眾生有佛性，雖然與古佛（釋迦）同時分別伸出一隻手，但是還是屬於「一條柱兩人舁」的層次（即佛性柱杖，由佛陀及齊安兩人舁），但溈山主張的無佛性則是「一條柱吞二人」（即無佛性柱杖，吞卻佛陀及齊安兩人），其高下殊劣由此可見。道元甚至於更嚴厲地批判有佛性說﹕「若有佛性，則應是魔黨，將來黨子一枚（將魔子附於眾生上）」。 註114 　　道元又再次強調既然「佛性是佛性，眾生是眾生」，並非眾生本來就具足一個有實體性的佛性，也不是有一個實體性的佛性存在於外，眾生向外馳求而後始得。因此道元引百丈禪師說﹕「說眾生有佛性，亦謗佛法僧。說眾生無佛性，亦謗佛法僧。」 註115然而，道元舉百丈如此雙遣佛性的說法，並不是為了全然否定佛性，所以他又說﹕ 　　　然則云有佛性，云無佛性，俱作謗焉。雖作謗，非不可道取矣。註116 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^114]: Dōgen's critical remark on the view of "possessing Buddha-nature." Cited in the original text (footnote 114). [^115]: Quote attributed to Baizhang Huaihai, negating both positions as slander. Cited in the original text (footnote 115). [^116]: Dōgen's commentary on Baizhang's statement. Cited in the original text (footnote 116). 道取 (dōshu): Lit. "speak-take" or "way-take", often implying investigating, understanding, or realizing through Chan dialogue or practice.

English Translation: Page 242 Although speaking of possessing or lacking Buddha-nature both constitute slander, it is not that they cannot be taken up for investigation and practice. Just as National Teacher Qingliang (清涼國師, i.e., Chengguan) said, "Losing the meaning (失意), the four propositions (四句) become four slanders; grasping the purport (得旨), the four propositions are the four virtues." However, how can one "grasp the purport"? Let us see how Dōgen challenges Guishan: "Furthermore, one should say to Great Guī[shān]: Although you were able to say 'All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature,' yet [you] did not say 'All Buddha-nature lacks sentient beings,' did not say 'All Buddha-nature lacks Buddha-nature,' let alone 'All Buddhas lack Buddha-nature'—you haven't even dreamed of it (夢也未見在也)! Try to bring it forth (試舉看)!"[^117] Besides saying sentient beings lack Buddha-nature, Dōgen questioned Guishan whether there are other ways to interpret the relationship between Buddha-nature and sentient beings, such as saying "All Buddha-nature lacks sentient beings," "All Buddha-nature lacks Buddha-nature," or even "All Buddhas lack Buddha-nature." Although it seems Dōgen is playing a game of rearranging words, his intention is actually to emphasize shattering the dualistic and substantialized view of Buddha-nature and sentient beings. Dōgen negated both possessing and lacking Buddha-nature. So what is his own view of Buddha-nature? It is what he advocated as "impermanent Buddha-nature" (無常佛性).

Original Text: 　 242頁 雖然言有、無佛性都作謗，但並非不可取道參究，正如清涼國師所說的「失意則四句便成四謗，得旨則四句即是四德。」然而，如何才能「得旨」呢？且看道元如何挑戰大溈﹕ 復應向大溈道﹕雖設使道得「一切眾生無佛性」，而（汝）不道「一切佛性無眾生」，不道「一切佛性無佛性」，況「一切諸佛無佛性」，夢也未見在也，試舉看！ 註117 除了可以說眾生無佛性之外，道元提問大溈是否也有別種解讀佛性與眾生的關係的方法，如說「一切佛性無眾生」、「一切佛性無佛性」、甚至於「一切諸佛無佛性」。雖然看似道元在玩文字排列組合的遊戲，其實，他的用意是在強調破除佛性與眾生的二元化、和實體化的佛性觀。道元雙遣有佛性和無佛性，而他自己的佛性觀又是如何呢？就是他主張的「無常佛性」。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^117]: Dōgen challenging Guishan's view. Cited in the original text (footnote 117). Qingliang Chengguan (清涼澄觀) was the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school. The "four propositions" (四句) usually refer to existence, non-existence, both, and neither.

English Translation: 6. Impermanent Buddha-Nature (無常佛性) Dōgen cited the Sixth Patriarch Huineng's instruction to his disciple Chan Master Xingchang Zhiche (行昌志徹禪師): "Impermanence (無常) is precisely Buddha-nature. Permanence (有常) is precisely the discriminating mind (分別心) of all good and evil dharmas."[^118] Zhiche questioned this instruction to the Sixth Patriarch, suspecting it contradicted the sutra teachings (經教), because the sutras say Buddha-nature is permanent (常), while good and evil dharmas are impermanent (無常). The Sixth Patriarch explained: "If Buddha-nature were permanent, what more is there to say about good and evil dharmas? Then, even unto the exhaustion of kalpas, not a single person would arouse the Bodhi-mind (發菩提心者). Therefore, my saying 'impermanent' is precisely the Buddha's teaching of the Way of true permanence (真常之道). Furthermore, if all dharmas were impermanent, then each and every thing would possess self-nature (自性) and be subject to birth and death (容受生死). Then the truly permanent nature (真常性) would have places it did not pervade. Therefore, my saying 'permanent' is precisely the Buddha's teaching of the meaning of true impermanence (真無常義). The Buddha, because ordinary beings and non-Buddhists cling to erroneous permanence (邪常), and practitioners of the two vehicles mistake permanence for impermanence (於常計無常), together forming the eight errors (八倒),[^119] therefore, in the definitive teaching (了義教) of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], refuted their biased views and revealed true permanence (真常), true self (真我), true purity (真淨)."[^120]

Original Text: ６、無常佛性 　　道元引六祖惠能對門人行昌志徹禪師的開示說﹕ 　　　無常者，即佛性也。有常者，即善惡一切諸法分別心也。 註118 志徹對這樣的開示，向六祖質疑有違經教，因為經說佛性是常，善惡諸法是無常。六祖解釋說﹕ 佛性若常，更說什麼善惡諸法，乃至窮劫無有一人發菩提心者，故吾說無常，正是佛說真常之道也。又一切諸法若無常者，即物物皆有自性容受生死。而真常性有不遍之處，故吾說常者，正是佛說真無常義也。佛比為凡夫外道執於邪常，諸二乘人於常計無常共成八倒故， 註119於涅槃了義教中，破彼偏見，而顯說真常、真我、真淨。 註120 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^118]: Dialogue between Huineng and Zhiche, often cited in Chan texts. Cited in the original text (footnote 118). [^119]: The eight errors/inversions (八倒, pattō/bādǎo): Mistaking the impermanent for permanent, suffering for bliss, non-self for self, and the impure for pure (common errors of ordinary beings), and the inverse (mistaking the permanent nature of Nirvana for impermanent, etc. – errors attributed to Hinayana practitioners). Cited in the original text (footnote 119). [^120]: Huineng's explanation continued. Cited in the original text (footnote 120). 了義教 (ryōgikyō): Teachings of definitive or ultimate meaning. 真常、真我、真淨 (shinjō, shinga, shinjō): True permanence, true self, true purity – the positive attributes of Nirvana emphasized in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra to counter nihilistic views.

English Translation: Page 243 From the Sixth Patriarch's own explanation of the meaning of Buddha-nature's impermanence in the quote above, one can see it completely inherits the Buddha-nature doctrine of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.[^121] The Nirvāṇa Sūtra, to counteract the view of ordinary beings and non-Buddhists mistakenly clinging to Buddha-nature as a permanently abiding, unchanging existence (常住不易的有見), emphasized the meaning of Buddha-nature's impermanence. But on the other hand, to refute the annihilistic view (滅見) of practitioners of the two vehicles who mistake permanence for impermanence, it spoke of true permanence. The "permanence" (有常) of the "discriminating mind of all good and evil dharmas" spoken of by the Sixth Patriarch refers to the view of existence (有見) held by ordinary beings and non-Buddhists, while the "impermanence" (無常) of Buddha-nature is "true impermanence" (真無常), which is true permanence (真常).

Dōgen believed the impermanence spoken of by the Sixth Patriarch was indeed beyond the measure of non-Buddhists, practitioners of the two vehicles, and others. He further explained: "Impermanence constantly speaks impermanence (說著無常), practices impermanence (行著無常), realizes impermanence (證著無常); thus, all should be impermanent."[^122] In other words, true impermanence means that whether one speaks, practices, or realizes impermanence, all should be impermanent. Just like "permanent sage is impermanent (常聖是無常), permanent ordinary being is impermanent (常凡是無常)." Otherwise, if ordinary beings were forever ordinary beings (permanent ordinary, 常凡), and sages forever sages (permanent sage, 常聖), then Buddha-nature could not be accomplished (佛性不成). Therefore Dōgen said: "Permanent ordinary beings and sages are then not Buddha-nature (常凡聖者，則不應佛性)." As for the meaning of "permanence" (常), Dōgen said: "Permanence means not yet turned (未轉). Not yet turned means, without change (沒變), the ability to sever (能斷) and that which is severed by transformation (設化所斷), yet not necessarily constrained by traces of past and future (去來蹤跡); therefore, it is permanent."[^123]

Original Text: 243頁 由上面引句六祖自己對佛性無常義的解釋，可以看出完全是承襲《大般涅槃經》的佛性說。 註121《涅槃經》為對治凡夫外道誤執佛性為常住不易的有見，而強調佛性的無常義，但是另一方面為了破二乘人於常計無常的滅見而說真常。六祖所說的「善惡一切諸法分別心」的「有常」，是指一般凡夫外道的有見，而佛性的「無常」是「真無常」，即真常。 　　道元認為六祖所說的無常，確實非外道二乘等人所能測度，他更進一步解釋說﹕「無常常自說著、行著、證著無常，則皆應無常也。」 註122換言之，真正的無常，即是無論是言說、修持、或體證無常，都應是無常，就如「常聖是無常，常凡是無常」，否則若是凡夫永為凡夫（常凡），聖者永為聖者（常聖），則佛性不成。所以道元說：「常凡聖者，則不應佛性」。至於「常」的意義，道元說﹕「常者未轉也。未轉也者，沒變能斷，設化所斷，而不必拘去來蹤跡，所以常也。」 註123 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^121]: The original text includes footnote 121 here, confirming Huineng's view follows the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. [^122]: Quote from Dōgen on the all-encompassing nature of impermanence. Cited in the original text (footnote 122). The suffix 著 (zhe/jaku) indicates an ongoing action or state. [^123]: Quote from Dōgen defining "permanence" (常). Cited in the original text (footnote 123).

English Translation: "The ability to sever" (能斷) refers to prajñā-emptiness wisdom. "That which is severed by transformation" (設化所斷) refers to beginningless afflictions. Permanent means not yet turned. "Not yet turned" means that even the prajñā-emptiness wisdom elevated to the level of realization, or the beginningless afflictions situated in ordinary emotions, are both irrelevant to delusion and awakening, because wisdom permanently abides as wisdom, and afflictions permanently abide as afflictions. This is the "permanently abiding, not yet turned" (常住未轉) understood by ordinary people, but Buddha-nature is not like this. Conversely, Dōgen's statement "Permanence means not yet turned" can be extended to mean "Impermanence means turned (轉也)." That is to say, Buddha-nature must be realized within the dynamic of constant transformation of impermanence, because fundamentally "impermanence itself is Buddha-nature," and simultaneously "Buddha-nature is essentially impermanent,"[^124] (Buddha-nature is impermanence, impermanence is Buddha-nature). Just as Dōgen said: "Thus, because grass, trees, forests are impermanent, they are Buddha-nature. Because persons, things, body, mind are impermanent, this is Buddha-nature. Because lands, mountains, rivers are impermanent, this is Buddha-nature. Thus, anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提) is Buddha-nature, therefore it is impermanent. Mahāparinirvāṇa (大般涅槃) is impermanent, therefore it is Buddha-nature. Practitioners of the two vehicles with lesser views, as well as sutra commentators and Tripiṭaka masters, may be startled, doubt, fear, and dread this Way spoken by the Sixth Patriarch. If startled and doubting, they are cohorts of Māra and non-Buddhists (魔外（道）類)."[^125] Worldly dharmas (世間法), whether grass and trees, lands, mountains and rivers, or persons' bodies and minds, all arise from conditions (從緣而起), hence are impermanent. Precisely because they are impermanent, their fundamental nature can accord with the non-substantial Buddha-nature. Just as the Baimen Yihai (百門義海, Ocean of Meanings of the Hundred Gates) states, "Awareness-dust (覺塵) and all dharmas, being without self-nature (無性) due to arising from conditions, are called Buddha-nature." Hence it is said both sentient (有情) and insentient (無情) possess Buddha-nature. Conversely,

Original Text: 　　「能斷」是指般若空智，「所斷」是指無始煩惱。常則未轉，而未轉是指既使昇化到證悟層次的般若空智，或處於凡情的無始煩惱，都與迷悟無涉，因為智慧常住為智慧，煩惱常住為煩惱，這是一般人所暸解的「常住未轉」，但佛性並非如此。相反的，可以把道元的「常者未轉也」，引申成為「無常者轉也」。也就是說要在無常不斷轉換的動態中去體悟佛性，因為基本上「無常本身就是佛性」，同時「佛性在本質上就是無常」， 註124（佛性即無常、無常即佛性）。就如道元所說的﹕ 然由於草木叢林無常，即佛性也。人物身心無常，是佛性也。國土山河無常，是佛性也。則阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是佛性，故無常也。大般涅槃是無常，故佛性也。諸二乘小見及經論師三藏等，可驚疑怖畏此六祖道。若驚疑者，魔外（道）類也。 註125 世間法無論是草木、國土、山河、人物身心等皆從緣而起，故無常，正因為其無常，其本質上可以與非實體性的佛性相契，就如《百門義海》所說的「覺塵及一切法從緣無性，名為佛性」，故言有情與無情皆有佛性。反過來說， 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^124]: The author Shi Hengqing's interpretation of Dōgen's view. Cited in the original text (footnote 124). [^125]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>, equating impermanence and Buddha-nature. Cited in the original text (footnote 125). Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提) means unsurpassed, perfect awakening. Mahāparinirvāṇa (大般涅槃) means great, perfect nirvana.

English Translation: Page 244 anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi is the realization (證成) of Buddha-nature and also accords with impermanence, because the realization of Buddha-nature (佛性的證悟) is nothing other than the true realization (如實體證) of impermanence. In summary, the "impermanent Buddha-nature" (無常佛性) as understood by Dōgen is the unification of possessing Buddha-nature and lacking Buddha-nature. The following passage where Huayan master Fazang (賢首法藏) explains the "meaning of the identity and difference of the three natures" (三性同異義) can serve as a commentary on Dōgen's meaning of "impermanent Buddha-nature": "When the Sage speaks of Suchness (真如) as fixed and unmoving (凝然), this means that when, following conditions (隨緣), it becomes defiled or pure, it constantly acts as defiled or pure without losing its self-essence (自體). This is precisely the permanence that is not different from impermanence (不異無常之常), called inconceivable permanence (不思議常). It does not mean not producing any dharmas and being fixed and unmoving as conceived by sentiment (情). If it were said to be fixed and unmoving without producing any dharmas, that would be grasped by sentiment, thus losing true permanence, because that true permanence is the permanence not different from impermanence. The permanence not different from impermanence is entirely beyond sentiment, hence called true permanence. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Undefiled yet defiled (不染而染)' clarifies that permanence acts as impermanence. 'Defiled yet undefiled (染而不染)' clarifies that when acting as impermanence, permanence is not lost."[^126] The Suchness as fixed and unmoving explained by Fazang in the quote follows the view of the Nature School (性宗), clearly differing from the assertion of the Characteristics School (相宗). However, his understanding of "permanence," "impermanence," and "true permanence" is clearly similar to Dōgen's. The "impermanent Buddha-nature" advocated by Dōgen is what Fazang calls Suchness following conditions to become defiled without losing its self-essence. But this self-essence is not the "permanence" recognized by ordinary sentiment; rather, "it is precisely the true permanence not different from impermanence." In the unchanging state of being defiled yet undefiled, Buddha-nature (Suchness) does not lose its "permanent nature" (常性) amidst impermanence. In the condition-following state of being undefiled yet defiled, Buddha-nature manifests its "impermanent" nature amidst "permanence." In the fusion and unification of permanence and impermanence, existence and non-existence, "impermanent Buddha-nature" is not a static, substantialized existence, but a dynamic "actualizing kōan" (現成公案). As Abe Masao (阿部正雄) said: "For Dōgen, impermanence itself preaches impermanence, practices impermanence, and realizes impermanence; this is, in fact, preaching Buddha-nature, practicing Buddha-nature, and realizing Buddha-nature."[^127]

Original Text: 244頁 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是佛性的證成，亦與無常相契，因為佛性的證悟，無非就是對無常的如實體證。總而言之，道元所暸解的「無常佛性」是有佛性和無佛性的統一。賢首法藏在解釋「三性同異義」時，所說的下列這段話，可以做為道元「無常佛性」義的註解﹕ 聖說真如為凝然者，此是隨緣成染淨時，恆作染淨而不失自體，是即不異無常之常，名不思議常，非謂不作諸法如情所謂之凝然也。若謂不作諸法而凝然者，是情所得，故即失真常，以彼真常不異無常之常。不異無常之常，皆出於情外，故名真常。是故經曰﹕「不染而染者，明常作無常。染而不染者，明作無常時不失常也。」 註126 引句中法藏解釋的真如凝然是依性宗的說法，顯然與相宗所主張有所不同。不過，他對「常」、「無常」、「真常」的暸解顯然與道元類似。道元所主張的「無常佛性」，是法藏所謂的真如隨緣成染而不失自體，但這個自體不是出於一般凡情所認識的「常」，反而「是即不異無常」的真常。在染而不染的不變情況下，佛性（真如）在無常中不失其「常性」，在不染而染的隨緣情況下，佛性於「常」中顯現其「無常」性。在常與無常，有與無的融通和統一中，「無常佛性」不是靜態的實體化存在，而是動態的「現成公案」，就如阿部正雄所說﹕「對道元而言，無常本身就是教(preaching)無常、修(practicing)無常和證(realizing)無常，其實也就是教佛性，修佛性和證佛性。」 註127 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^126]: Quote from Fazang explaining true permanence in relation to impermanence. Cited in the original text (footnote 126). The Three Natures (三性) typically refer to the conceptualized, dependent, and perfected natures in Yogācāra, but Fazang uses the term in a Huayan context. The final sutra quote likely refers to passages in texts like the Awakening of Faith or related commentaries explaining the relationship between the unchanging essence (Suchness) and its conditioned manifestations. [^127]: Quote from Abe Masao (阿部正雄), a modern philosopher known for his work on Dōgen and Kyoto School philosophy, summarizing Dōgen's view of impermanence as Buddha-nature in action. Cited in the original text (footnote 127).

English Translation: IV. Dōgen's View of Practice-Realization (道元的修證觀) Undoubtedly, Dōgen is the most outstanding philosopher in Japanese Buddhism, but more importantly, Dōgen was also a practitioner of the philosophy he understood. His view of practice-realization (修證觀, shushōkan) is one of "practice-realization as one" (修證一等, shushō ittō) and "original realization, wondrous practice" (本證妙修, honshō myōshū), primarily established upon his view of Buddha-nature. Additionally, central issues in Buddhism, such as whole-existence and Buddha-nature, delusion and awakening, birth and death, existence and non-existence, permanence and impermanence, are all reflected in his view of practice-realization.

The view of practice-realization as one originated from the great doubt Dōgen developed while at Mount Hiei, namely, if sentient beings are "inherently the fundamental dharma body, the dharma-nature" (本自法身法性成者), why do they still need to arouse the aspiration and practice? This question of Dōgen's presupposes a premise: that within the true suchness dharma-nature (or Buddha-nature) possessed by sentient beings, all the content (merits) of Buddhahood has already been "realized and attained."

Original Text: 四、道元的修證觀 　　無疑地道元是日本佛教最傑出的哲學家，但是更重要的，道元也是他自己所暸解的哲理的實踐者。他的修證觀是「修證一等」、「本證妙修」的修證觀，主要是建立在他的佛性觀上。另外，佛教的中心議題，諸如悉有與佛性、迷與悟、生與死、有與無、常與無常等都反應在他的修證觀中。 　　修證一等的修證觀源自道元在比叡山時產生的一大疑團，即眾生如果「本自法身法性成者」，為什麼還須要發心修行呢？道元的這個問題預設了一個前提，即眾生的具真如法性（或曰佛性）中已「實現證得」(realized)

English Translation: Page 245 Therefore, there is no need to undertake the effort of practice. But contradicting this premise is the fact that in the actual world, sentient beings are still deluded and defiled beings, not pure Buddhas. Clearly, sentient beings still need to practice. Conversely, if the practice of sentient beings is absolutely necessary, then Buddha-nature (or dharma-nature) becomes an external, objective goal to pursue. In that case, how can it be said that sentient beings inherently possess Buddha-nature?[^128] Thus, for the young Dōgen, the problem arose of how to integrate practice and realization, practice-realization and Buddha-nature.

To understand Dōgen's view of practice-realization, one must explore it within its historical context. Japanese Tendai Buddhism in Dōgen's era developed a view of practice-realization based on original awakening (本覺), which asserted that because sentient beings possess original awakening, there is no necessity for practice. But this clearly could not resolve Dōgen's doubt, so he traveled far to China in search of an enlightened teacher. According to the Hōkyōki, Dōgen inquired of Rujing, saying: "Dōgen respectfully asked: 'Studying the excellent traces of the Buddhas and Patriarchs of past and present, when the initial aspiration is illuminated, although there seems to be the Way, when gathering the assembly and opening the Dharma, it is as if there is no Buddhadharma. Also, at the time of initial aspiration, although there seems to be no awakening, when opening the Dharma and expounding the Way, there is quite the spirit surpassing the ancients. Thus, is the Way attained using the initial mind (初心), or using the later mind (後心)?'" "Rujing instructed: 'The authentic transmission of Buddhas and Patriarchs says: Not only the initial mind, but also not departing from the initial mind. Why so? If the Way were attained only with the initial mind, then Bodhisattvas upon first aspiration should instantly be Buddhas; this is impossible. If there were no initial mind, how could there be a second or third mind, a second or third dharma? Thus, the later takes the initial as its foundation (本); the initial takes the later as its aim (期).'"[^129]

Original Text: 245頁 了所有成佛的內涵（功德），所以不必再去做修行的功夫。但是與此前提矛盾的是事實上在現實的世間，眾生還是妄染的眾生，而不是清淨的佛，顯然地，眾生還須要修行。反過來說，眾生的修行如果有絕對必要，則佛性（或曰法性）變成一個外在客體性的追求目標，如此又如何可說眾生本具佛性。 註128因此，對年青的道元產生了修與證、修證與佛性如何融通的問題。 　　要暸解道元的修證觀，必須從其歷史背景中探索。道元時代的日本天台宗發展出的是本覺的修證觀，其主張眾生因有本覺，故無有修行的必要。但是這顯然不能解決道元的疑團，於是他遠渡中土尋覓明師。根據《寶慶記》，道元請教如淨說﹕ 道元拜問﹕「參學古今佛祖之勝躅，初心發明之時，雖似有道，集眾開法之時，如無佛法。又初發心時，雖似無所悟，開法演道之時，頗有超古之志氣。然則，為用初心得道，為用後心得道？」 如淨誨云：「佛佛祖祖正傳云：不但初心，不離初心。為甚恁麼？若但初心得道，菩薩初發心，便應是佛，是乃不可也。若無初心，云何得有第二、第三心，第二、第三法。然則，後以初為本，初以後為期。 註129 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^128]: The original text includes footnote 128 here, likely elaborating on the inherent contradiction Dōgen perceived. [^129]: Dialogue between Dōgen and Rujing from the Hōkyōki. Cited in the original text (footnote 129).

English Translation: From the instruction given to Dōgen above, it can be seen that Rujing did not advocate the view found in texts like the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經) that a Bodhisattva attains perfect awakening upon the initial arising of aspiration. Instead, he emphasized the necessity of practice, thereby negating the Tendai Original Awakening Gate's view of practice-realization, which claims practice is unnecessary due to original awakening. He also negated the Shingon school's assertion of "attaining Buddhahood in this very body, becoming Buddha in this body, without needing kalpas of practice."[^130]

Inheriting Rujing's view of practice-realization, coupled with his own experience of complete "dropping off body and mind," Dōgen developed the view of practice-realization as non-dual (修証不二). In the 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, he said: "Regarding this Dharma, although it is abundantly present in each person's share, without practice, it does not manifest; without realization, it is not attained. Letting go, it fills the hands; how could one or many define its limits? Speaking, it fills the mouth; vertically and horizontally, it is inexhaustible."[^131] The wondrous Dharma of Buddha-nature inherently possessed by each person is unlike the natural self-nature deludedly clung to by non-Buddhists; therefore, without practice it does not manifest, without realization it is not attained. However, this does not mean Dōgen considered practice and realization to be sequential dharmas. For Dōgen, "practice" (修) is direct, immediate effort (直下的加工), and "realization" (証) is perfectly fused, spontaneous functioning (圓融的任運). Within inexhaustible effort is the spontaneous, perfect functioning of the Dharma.

Original Text: 從以上對道元的誨示，可見如淨不主張如《華嚴經》所說的菩薩初發心，即成正覺的說法，而強調修行的必要，亦即否定了因本覺故無須修行的天台本覺門的修証觀，也否定了真言宗的「即身即佛，是身作佛，無經時劫修行」 註130的說法。 　　承襲如淨的修証觀，再加上自己整個「身心脫落」的開悟經驗，使道元開展出修証不二的修証觀。他在〈辦道話〉篇說：「是法，雖人人分上豐具，而未修不現，不証無得，放則盈手，一多際乎。語則滿口，縱橫無窮。」 註131人人分上本具的佛性妙法，不像外道所妄執的自性天然，因此未修不現，不証無得。然而，這並不意謂道元認為修証是前後法。對道元而言，「修」是直下的加工，「証」是圓融的任運。在無窮的加工中，是「法」任運圓融。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^130]: The original text includes footnote 130 here, citing the Shingon view of immediate Buddhahood. [^131]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Bendōwa>. Cited in the original text (footnote 131).

English Translation: Page 246 Simultaneously, within the spontaneous, perfectly functioning realization, wondrous practice permeates the body (妙修透體). This is what Dōgen meant by "Realization means practice is never slack (行無懈時)." Conversely, it also means "Practice means realization functions spontaneously (証任運時)." Dōgen explained his view of practice-realization as one even more clearly in the following quote: "To say that practice and realization are not one is the view of non-Buddhists. In Buddhadharma, practice and realization are one and the same (一等). Because it is now practice based on realization (証上修), the initial mind's engagement with the Way (初心辨道) is the entirety of original realization (本証全體). Therefore, in giving guidance for the practice mind, the teaching is not to think of awaiting realization outside of practice; one should point directly to original realization (本証). Since it is realization based on practice (修之証), realization is endless (証無際); since it is practice based on realization (証之修), practice is beginningless (修無始). Thus, Śākyamuni Tathāgata and Venerable Kāśyapa both received and utilized practice based on realization. Great Master Bodhidharma and the Great Ancestor Dajian [Huineng] both transmitted practice based on realization. The upholding of Buddhadharma is all like this. Since there exists practice inseparable from realization (不離証的修), we are fortunate to have singly transmitted a portion of wondrous practice (妙修). Engaging the Way with the initial mind immediately attains a portion of original realization in the unconditioned realm (無為地). To ensure that practice-realization is not separated and defiled, the Buddhas and Patriarchs frequently instructed that practice must not be lax. Let go into wondrous practice, and original realization fills your hands; emerge from original realization, and wondrous practice permeates your whole body (妙修行通身)."[^132]

Original Text: 246頁 同時，在任運圓融的証悟中，妙修透體。這就是道元所謂的「証則行無懈時」，反過來說，亦即是「行則証任運時」。 道元在下列的引句更清楚闡釋他修証一等的修証觀： 夫謂修証非一，即外道見也。佛法修証是一等也。今証上修故，初心辨道，即本証全體也。故授修行用心，教無修外待証思，應直指本証也。既修之証，則証無際，証之修，則修無始也。是以釋迦如來，迦葉尊者，共受用証上修，達磨大師，大鑑高祖，同引轉讓上修，佛法住持皆如是。既有不離証(的)修，我等幸單傳一分妙修。初心辨道，即得一分本証於無為地，可識為令不離修証不染汙，佛祖頻教誨修行不可悠緩。放下妙修，則本証滿手中，出身本証，則妙修行通身。 註132 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^132]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from <Bendōwa>, elaborating on practice-realization non-duality. Cited in the original text (footnote 132). 無為地 (mui ji): The unconditioned realm/ground, referring to the state of realization or nirvana.

English Translation: In the quote, the most important concepts are "practice based on realization" (証上修, shōjōshu) and "[realization based on] practice" (修上証, shujōshō). Because the practice Dōgen considered is not practice opposed to realization, but "practice of realization" (証之修), such wondrous practice, non-dual with original realization, is beginningless and transcends time. Furthermore, Dōgen said this "wondrous practice permeating the whole body" which "emerges from original realization" is the so-called direct effort functioning spontaneously and perfectly; it transcends space. Because practice-realization transcends time and space, Dōgen said, "When one person sits in zazen at one time, all dharmas correspond implicitly, all times connect completely." When anyone practices zazen samādhi at any time, instantly "the entire dharma realm becomes the Buddha-seal, all of empty space is awakening, indeed all dharmas realize perfect awakening together, the myriad things together utilize the Buddha-body."[^133] Such a result is established on the premise emphasized by Dōgen: "Buddha-nature necessarily participates together with becoming Buddha, practices together, realizes together (同修、同証)," "practice-realization as one."

Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one holds the greatest significance in eliminating the contradiction of dualistic dichotomy between practice and realization, between actualized gnosis (始覺) and primordial gnosis (本覺). In the "process" of becoming a Buddha, Buddha-nature is the indispensable "innate basis" (先天依據), while practice is the indispensable "condition" (條件). From the perspective of actualized gnosis theory, practice within the scope of time and space is the "ground" (基石) of the process of becoming a Buddha, while Buddha-nature becomes merely a "sign" (標地) guiding the practice.[^134] In other words, it presupposes a process from practice to realization. Thus, it creates a temporal, sequential duality

Original Text: 引句中，最重要的觀念是「証上修」，「修上証」。因為道元認為的修行不是與証悟對立的修行，而是「証之修」，如此與本証不二的妙修是無始的、超越時間的。再者，道元說「出身本証」的這種「妙修行通身」，即是所謂的加工直下任運圓融，是超越空間的。因為修証超越時間和空間，因此道元說「一人一時坐禪，諸法相冥，諸時圓通。」任何人在任何時間修持坐禪三昧時，當下「遍法界皆為佛印，盡虛空悉為悟，乃至諸法皆証會正覺，萬物共使用佛身。」 註133這樣的結果即是建立在道元所強調的「佛性必與成佛同修、同証」、「修証一等」的前題上。 　　道元「修証一等」的修証觀的最大意義，乃是它消除了修行與証悟，始覺與本覺之間二元對立的矛盾。在成佛的「進程」（process）中，佛性是不可或缺的「先天依據」，而修行是不可或缺的「條件」（condition）。從始覺論的觀點看，在時間和空間範圍內的修行是成佛過程的「基石」(ground)，而佛性變成只是導引修行的「標地」（sign）。 註134換言之，它預設有一個從修行到証悟的過程。如此，則造成修行與証悟在時間上有前後二 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^133]: Quote from Dōgen describing the state of realization in zazen. Cited in the original text (footnote 133). [^134]: The original text includes footnote 134 here, likely referencing critiques or analyses of the actualized gnosis (始覺, shikaku) perspective.

English Translation: Page 247 between practice and realization. Furthermore, if Buddha-nature is merely regarded as a "sign," the question arises: wherein lies the necessity (innate basis) for becoming a Buddha?

Conversely, from the perspective of primordial gnosis theory (本覺論), timeless primordial gnosis (本覺, hongaku) (Buddha-nature) is not only the "ground" (innate basis) for becoming a Buddha but is also the realization itself. Thus, practice as the condition for realization loses its necessity. Clearly, both the actualized gnosis gate and the primordial gnosis gate can be called "views that sever practice and realization" (修證兩橛觀, shushō ryōketsukan).[^135] The former involves practicing while awaiting realization (修而待証), i.e., a view where "realization must come from practice" (証必由修). The latter involves realization awaiting practice (証而待修), i.e., "practice must lead to realization" (修必向証) [Note: the text seems to slightly reverse the phrases here, but the intended contrast is clear]. Whether it is proceeding from practice towards realization, or realization necessarily awaiting practice, or even realization not needing practice, all imply a duality of practice and realization. Therefore, the opposition and contradiction between primordial gnosis and actualized gnosis, realization and practice, arose—this was precisely the problem troubling the young Dōgen.

Original Text: 247頁 元之分別。再者，如果佛性僅被視為「標地」，就會產生成佛之必然性（先天依據）何在的問題。 　　相反地，從本覺論的觀點看，超越時間的本覺（佛性）不但是成佛的「基石」（先天依據），更是証悟的實現，如此作為証悟條件的修行就失去了其必要性。顯然地，始覺門和本覺門都可稱為「修証兩橛觀」， 註135前者是修而待証，亦即「修必向証」的修証觀，後者是証而待修，亦即「証必由修」。無論是由修向証証必待修，甚至於証不須修，都意味著修証之二元，因此產生本覺與始覺，証悟和修行之間的對立和矛盾，此即是困擾年青道元的問題所在。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^135]: The original text includes footnote 135 here, explaining or referencing the term 修證兩橛觀 (shushō ryōketsukan), literally "practice-realization two-stumps view," implying separation or dichotomy.

English Translation: Dōgen's method for breaking this dualistic dichotomy was to break through the temporal cause-and-effect relationship between practice and realization. He shifted the starting point of practice from the causal stage (因位) to the resultant stage (果位). Therefore, he could say that true practice "is not merely practice-realization at the causal stage, but is practice-realization of the resultant stage."[^136] By the same logic, he shifted the endpoint of realization from the resultant stage to the causal stage. Therefore, he could say that true realization is not merely realization of the resultant stage, but also realization of the causal stage. Such mutually causal practice and realization continuously reinforce each other in an unending cycle. Practice and realization are no longer in a linear, sequential relationship, but in the relationship of a beginningless and endless "Way-ring" (道環, dōkan). Therefore, Dōgen said: "The Great Way of the Buddhas and Patriarchs necessarily involves unsurpassed continuous practice (行持, gyōji); it is a Way-ring without interruption. Aspiration (發心), practice (修行), Bodhi (菩提), Nirvāṇa (涅槃)—without the slightest gap, the continuous practice is a Way-ring."[^137] This is also what he meant by "Since it is realization based on practice, realization is endless. Since it is practice based on realization, practice is beginningless." Such a Way-ring view of practice-realization resolved the contradiction and opposition between practice and realization. Therefore, Dōgen could regard his own statement "I constantly strive diligently (我常勤精進)" as equivalent to "I have already attained Bodhi (我已得成菩提)," and because "I have already attained Bodhi," therefore "I constantly strive diligently."[^138]

Original Text: 　　道元打破此二元對立的方法是打通修行和証悟的時間因果關係，他把修行的出發點從因位轉到果位，因此他可以說真正的修行「非但因地修証而已，乃是果位之修証也」， 註136同理，他把証悟的終點從果位轉到因位，因此他可以說真正的証悟，非但是果位之証悟，亦是因位之証悟。如此互為因果的修証，不斷地相互加強循環不斷，修行和証悟不再是直線上前後的關係，而是圓圈無始無終「道環」的關係。因此道元說： 佛祖之大道必有無上之行持，道環而不斷絕。發心、修行、菩提、涅槃，不少間隙，行持道環。 註137 這也就是他所謂的「既修之証，則証無際。証之修，則修無始」。這樣道環的修証觀解決了修行與証悟之間的矛盾和對立，因此道元才能把他自己所謂的「我常勤精進」，當做「我已得成菩提」，「我已得成菩提」之故，「我常勤精進」。 註138 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^136]: Quote from Dōgen emphasizing practice at the resultant stage. Cited in the original text (footnote 136). [^137]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Gyōji> (Continuous Practice), describing the Way-ring. Cited in the original text (footnote 137). [^138]: Dōgen's rephrasing showing the simultaneity of effort and attainment. Cited in the original text (footnote 138).

English Translation: The greatest turning point in Dōgen's non-dual view of practice-realization came from transforming the doubt "Since [we are] already originally awakened, why is practice necessary?" into "Since [we are] already originally awakened, therefore practice is necessary," and "Since practice is already underway, realization must be within it."[^139] Thus

Original Text: 　　道元修証不二的修証觀的最大轉折，來自把「既是本覺，何須修行」的疑團轉化成「既已本覺，故須修行」，和「既已修行，於中必有証」， 註139於 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^139]: The original text includes footnote 139 here, likely referencing the source or significance of this transformation in Dōgen's thought.

English Translation: Page 248 practice and realization were completely fused together. The theoretical foundation for Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one and the Way-ring of practice-realization was established upon his theory of "impermanent Buddha-nature." Because Buddha-nature is impermanent, empty, and non-substantial, it enables the originally irreversible "one-way street" from practice to realization to become a reversible and cyclical "two-way path" of the Way-ring. Just as we can say "impermanence is Buddha-nature, Buddha-nature is impermanence," we can also say "practice is realization, realization is practice."

Any view of practice-realization established upon Buddha-nature theory, whether belonging to the actualized gnosis gate or the primordial gnosis gate, ultimately harbors theoretical contradictions and separation among Buddha-nature, practice, and realization. Many Patriarchs of Chinese Chan Buddhism, to resolve these theoretical difficulties, advocated adopting the primordial gnosis gate in principle (理, li) and the actualized gnosis gate in phenomena (事, shi). Under the premise of the non-duality of principle and phenomena, this view held no contradiction for Chinese Chan masters. But for Dōgen, as long as the duality of "aiming to become Buddha" (圖作佛) through practice towards realization exists, there is contradiction and opposition, because it still presupposes a world of ordinary sentient beings striving through methods of practice ("aiming to become Buddha") to reach the goal of "becoming Buddha." The greatest characteristic of Dōgen's view of practice-realization lies in fundamentally breaking the spatio-temporal boundary between means (方法) and end (目的), enabling a mutually reinforcing interaction between the two. Therefore, for Dōgen, correct practice-realization is not "practicing while awaiting awakening" (修而待悟) or "awakening achieved through practice" (悟由修成), but "awakening within practice" (悟中修 / 修中悟, shūchūgo) and "practice within awakening" (悟中修, gochūshu) occurring simultaneously in a beginningless and endless process. This is why Dōgen emphasized that from the perspective of sentient beings, one need only engage in "just sitting" (只管打坐, shikantaza) (practice) without pursuing realization and liberation, while from the perspective of a Buddha, even within the state of awakening, one still continuously practices the wondrous practice (妙修) of the Way-ring. Thus, not only can the non-differentiation of original realization (本証) and wondrous practice (妙修) be achieved, but this is also the state described in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra where "Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without difference."

Original Text: 248頁 是修和証完全融會在一起，道元這種修証一等和修証道環之修証觀的理論基礎建立在他的「無常佛性」論上，因為佛性的無常、空、非實體性，才能使得原本不可環轉的從修向証的「單行道」，變成有反轉和道環的「雙向道」。就像我們可以說「無常即佛性，佛性即無常」，我們亦可說「修行即証悟，証悟即修行」。 　　只要是建立在佛性論的修証觀，不管是始覺間或本覺門，佛性、修行、証悟三者之間始終存在著理論上的矛盾和分立。中國禪宗許多祖師為解決理論上的困難，主張在理上採取本覺門，而在事上採取始覺門的修証觀。在理事不二的前提下，對於中國禪師而言，這種說法並無所謂矛盾。但對道元而言，只要「圖作佛」的由修向証的二元存在，即有矛盾對立，因為它還是預設有一個凡夫眾生的世界，透過努力「圖作佛」的修行方法，達到「作佛」的目的。而道元修証觀的最大特點即是在根本上打破方法（means）和目的（end）的時空界線，使二者產生相互加強的互動。因此對道元而言，正確的修証不是「修而待悟」或「悟由修成」，而是「修中悟」和「悟中修」同時進行的無始無終的歷程，這也就是為什麼道元強調從眾生觀點，只要「只管打坐（修行）」，不必去追求証悟解脫，而對佛而言，即使在悟境，還是不斷地行持道環地妙修。如此，不但可達到本証與妙修無差別，亦就是《華嚴經》所說的「心、佛、眾生，是三無差別的境界。」

English Translation: Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one not only serves as the best guide for Buddhists regarding the concept and method of practice-realization, but also, from a broader perspective, the concept of practice-realization as one holds great applicability for ordinary people struggling daily between "means and end."[^140] In daily life, people often set a future goal (end) and currently use various means and methods to pursue that future goal. This process of proceeding from present methods towards a future goal, like proceeding from present practice towards future realization (practice awaiting awakening, aiming to become Buddha), perpetually involves dualistic separation. Regarding such a teleological view of life, on the one hand, due to single-mindedly pursuing a future goal, it is easy to neglect the meaning of "present actualization" (當下現成). On the other hand, before the goal is achieved, it easily causes anxiety and affliction.

Original Text: 　　道元修証一等的修証觀，不但成為佛教徒在修証的觀念和方法上最佳的導引，而且，從廣義的層面而言，對天天掙扎於「手段（means）和目的（end）」之間的一般人，修証一如的觀念也很有適用性。 註140一般人在日常生活中往往為將來設定一個目標（end），而現在以各種手段和方法去追求那個未來的目標，這種從現在的方法趣向未來目標的過程，就像由現在的修行趣向未來的証悟（修待悟、圖作佛）一樣，永達存在著二元的分立，對這樣的人生目的論，一方面由於一味地追求未來的目的，容易忽略「當下現成」的意義，另一方面在目的未達成之前，容易引起不安和煩惱。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^140]: The original text includes footnote 140 here, likely referencing further discussion on the broader applicability of Dōgen's view.

English Translation: Page 249

To remedy the affliction caused by such pursuit of goals by ordinary people, one applies Dōgen's concept of practice-realization as one, transforming the dichotomy of means and end (present and future) into a worldview where means and end are one and the same (一等). Thus, every effort made in the present (means or method) is, right now, the "present actualization" (現成) of the future goal. The meaning of the "present" no longer solely exists for achieving a future goal. Based on the theoretical foundation of spatio-temporal impermanence, the present and future (means and end) transcend spatio-temporal limitations, producing the effect of the "Way-ring" (道環) spoken of by Dōgen. In the interaction where method and goal are identical and interpenetrating, each person can have a more vital, creative, and fulfilling life.

The theory discussed above can be further expanded and applied to the relationship between the individual self and the myriad things. For Dōgen, every person and all myriad things exist within constant impermanent arising, ceasing, and changing. Therefore, although "one person sits in zazen at one time," simultaneously "all dharmas correspond implicitly, all times connect completely." In other words, one person's practice-realization (end) can serve as the condition (means) for another's practice-realization, and vice versa. This relationship can even extend to the realms of the sentient (有情) and insentient (無情) (nature). Therefore, Dōgen said: "Performing vast Buddha-work (廣大佛事), profound wondrous Buddha transformation (甚深微妙佛化)—where this transforming Way (化道) reaches, grass, trees, earth together emit great bright light, preaching the profound wondrous Dharma without end. Grass, trees, walls, partitions can proclaim [the Dharma] for ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits (凡聖含靈). Ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits in turn expound (演暢) for grass, trees, walls, partitions."[^141]

Original Text: 249頁 　　對治一般人這種追求目標所引起的煩惱，就是應用道元的修証一等的觀念，把手段和目的（現在和未來）的二分，轉變成手段和目的一等的人生觀。如此，現在所作的每一個努力（手段或方法），當下即是未來目的的「現成」。「現在」的意義不再僅是為達到未來目的而存生。在時空無常的理論基礎上，現在與未來（手段和目的）超越時空限制，產生道元所說的「道環」的作用。在方法和目的相即相入的互動中，每個人可以有一個更具活力、創造性和成就感的生命。 　　上面所說的理論可以更擴大應用在個人自己與萬物的關係上。對道元而言，每個人與萬事萬物都處於不斷的無常生滅變遷之中，因此雖然「一人一時坐禪」，卻可同時「諸法相冥，諸時圓通」，換言之，某個人的修証（目的）可以作為其他人修証的因緣（方法），反之亦然。這種關係甚至可擴及有情與無情（自然）界。所以道元說： 作廣大佛事，甚深微妙佛化，此化道所及草木土地，共放大光明，說深妙法無窮時，草木牆壁，能為凡聖含靈宣揚。凡聖含靈，還為草木牆壁演暢。 註141 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^141]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Kankin> (Sutra Reading) or a related text on the universality of Dharma activity. Cited in the original text (footnote 141). 含靈 (ganrei): Beings possessing spirit/consciousness.

English Translation: Only on the premise that method and goal are one and the same can one achieve what Dōgen described: grass, trees, walls, and partitions preaching the Dharma for each other (method) along with ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits, while simultaneously reaching the state where sentient and insentient beings together realize the Buddha Way (goal). To separate one's own practice-realization from the practice-realization of the myriad things is not true practice-realization. Therefore, Dōgen said: "Advancing oneself (運自己) to practice-realize the myriad dharmas is delusion (迷); the myriad dharmas advancing to practice-realize oneself is awakening (悟)."[^142] In other words, while advancing oneself to practice-realize the myriad dharmas, one must simultaneously allow the myriad dharmas to practice-realize oneself; and while the myriad dharmas practice-realize oneself, one must also simultaneously advance oneself to practice-realize the myriad dharmas. Only thus can one reach the state where practice-realization is one, and oneself and the myriad dharmas are completely non-dual.

Whether applying practice-realization as one to personal religious life, daily life, or the relationship between the individual and the myriad dharmas, as mentioned above, it is all established on the foundation of the thought of impermanence and no-self (無常無我). Therefore, Dōgen emphasized, "To practice the Buddha Way is to practice the self (慣習自己)." "Practicing the self" is the first step in cultivating the Buddha Way or for ordinary people establishing self-discipline in character. But while practicing the self, Dōgen said one must "forget the self through sitting" (坐忘自己). This is entering the realization of emptiness, impermanence, and no-self. While forgetting the self through sitting, one can then "verify the myriad dharmas" (見証萬法). And verifying the myriad dharmas is the state of "causing one's own body-mind, and the body-mind of others, to drop off" (使自己身心，及它己身心脫落). However, this state where self and others both drop off body and mind is not a passive state where "traces of awakening cease" (悟跡休歇). Rather, it is the unceasing, moment-to-moment actualization of practice-realization that "causes the ceased traces of awakening

Original Text: 只有在方法和目的一等的前提下，才能達到道元所說的草木牆壁和凡聖含靈為彼此說法（方法），又同時達到有情和非情同証佛道的境界（目的）。把自己的修証與萬物的修証二分，就不是真正的修証。所以道元說：「運自己修証萬法為迷，萬法進修証自己則悟也。」 註142換言之，在運自己修証萬法時，必須同時萬法修証自己，而在萬法修証自己時，也必須同時運自己修証萬法，如此才能達到修証一等，自己與萬法完全不二的境界。 　　以上所提到無論是將修証一等運用在個人的宗教生活、日常生活，或個人或萬法的關係上，都是建立在無常無我的思想基礎上，因此道元強調說「慣習佛道者，慣習自己也」。「慣習自己」是修習佛道或一般人建立人格自律的第一步驟。但是在慣習自己的同時，道元說要「坐忘自己」，這是進入空、無常、無我的體証。在坐忘自己的同時，即能「見証萬法」，而見証萬法即是「使自己身心，及它己身心脫落」的境界。但是這種自他皆身心脫落的境界，並非是「悟跡休歇」的消極狀態，而是源源不斷，時時刻刻「令休歇悟 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^142]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Genjōkōan>. Cited in the original text (footnote 142).

English Translation: Page 250 to emerge unceasingly" (令休歇悟跡長長出).[^143]

Original Text: 250頁 跡長長出」 註143的修証現成。 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^143]: This is a paraphrase/reference back to the quote from Shōbōgenzō <Genjōkōan> discussed earlier (see footnote 26). Cited again here in the original text (footnote 143).

Brief Explanation of Key Concepts and Choices:

• Time-Period (時節, Jisetsu) & Presence (現成, Genjō): The translation emphasizes Dōgen's interpretation of "time-period" not as a future point but as the ever-present moment where Buddha-nature manifests. This connects strongly to his concept of genjōkōan (現成公案), the kōan actualized or realized in the present. Dōgen's rejection of waiting for a future time (若至, if/when arrives) in favor of the immediate presence (既至, already arrived) is central.
• Non-Duality of Practice and Realization (修證一等, Shushō Ittō): This core Dōgen concept was translated consistently. It signifies that practice is not a means to realization, but practice is realization occurring now. The translation captured Dōgen's dynamic view: practice based on realization (証上修) and realization based on practice (修上証), forming a continuous "Way-ring" (道環) rather than a linear path.
• Impermanent Buddha-Nature (無常佛性, Mujō Busshō): Dōgen's synthesis, where Buddha-nature is identified with impermanence itself, was highlighted. This resolves the tension between "possessing" (有) and "lacking" (無) Buddha-nature by seeing it not as a static entity but as the dynamic, ever-present reality of change, which is simultaneously the ground and expression of awakening.
• Interpretation of Chan Dialogues: Dōgen's unique, sometimes grammatically unconventional, readings of classic Chan dialogues (e.g., Hongren/Huineng) were translated to reflect his specific intent—to break dualistic thinking and point directly to immediate reality (e.g., reading "嶺南人無佛性" as "'Lingnan person' is 'lacking Buddha-nature'").
• Broader Applications: The translation covered the author's extension of Dōgen's practice-realization view to daily life (means/end unity) and the relationship between self and the myriad things (sentient/insentient), emphasizing the interconnectedness and mutual practice-realization inherent in Dōgen's thought, grounded in impermanence and no-self.
• Consistency: All specific terminology from the prompt (e.g., primordial/actualized gnosis, wondrous presence, etc.) continued to be applied where relevant, and paragraph structure and completeness were maintained according to the initial instructions.

English Translation: As for the Fifth Patriarch's reply, "Because Buddha-nature is empty (空), therefore I say 'lack' (無)," Dōgen explained that "empty is not non-existence" (空非是無). In other words, the meaning of Buddha-nature's true emptiness (真空) is not the annihilistic "non-existence" (斷滅無) contrasted with "existence" (有), as commonly understood by people.

Original Text: 至於對五祖的回答﹕「佛性空故，所以言無」，道元解釋說「空非是無」，換言之，佛性真空的意義，並非一般人所暸解的與「有」相對的斷滅「無」，

English Translation: Page 240 Therefore, he said true "emptiness" is not the emptiness of "form is emptiness" (色即是空), because that is an emptiness contrasted with form. True emptiness of Buddha-nature is what the Nirvāṇa Sūtra speaks of: "Buddha-nature is precisely the emptiness of the ultimate meaning (第一義空). Emptiness of the ultimate meaning is called wisdom... The Middle Path is called Buddha-nature."[^107] Such emptiness of the ultimate meaning "does not forcefully make form into emptiness, nor does it differentiate emptiness and construe it as form. It should be the emptiness that is emptiness (空是空之空). The so-called emptiness that is emptiness is precisely a piece of stone within emptiness (空裡一片石)."[^108] [^109] Although emptiness is true emptiness, it is ultimately inseparable from form, hence the saying "a piece of stone within emptiness," which refers to the so-called "true emptiness, wondrous presence" (真空妙有). This is what Dōgen meant by "Because it is empty, one does not say 'empty'; because it is non-existent (無), one does not say 'non-existent'."

The second example Dōgen cited mentioning "lacking Buddha-nature" (無佛性) is the dialogue between the Fifth Patriarch Hóngrěn and the Sixth Patriarch Huìnéng: The Sixth Patriarch, Great Master Caoxi Dajian (惠能) Chan Master, formerly went to study at Huangmei Mountain. The Fifth Patriarch asked: "From where do you come?" The Sixth Patriarch said: "A person from Lingnan." The Fifth Patriarch said: "What matter do you come seeking?" The Sixth Patriarch said: "Seeking to become a Buddha (作佛)." The Fifth Patriarch said: "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature (嶺南人無佛性); how can you become a Buddha?"[^110]

Original Text: 240頁 所以他說真正的「空」，不是「色即是空」的空，因為它是與色對立的空。真正的佛性空是《涅槃經》中所說﹕「佛性者，即是第一義空。第一義空名為智慧…中道者名為佛性」。 註107如此的第一義空「非強硬要色為空，非分別空而造作為色，應空是空之空。所謂空是空之空者，乃是空裡一片石也 註108」。 註109空雖是真空而終不離色，故言「空裡一片石」，即所謂的「真空妙有」，也就是道元所說的「空故不云空，無故不云無。」 第二個道元所舉言「無佛性」的例子是五祖弘忍與六祖惠能之間的問答﹕ 第六祖曹溪大鑒（惠能）禪師，昔年參黃梅山。 五祖問﹕「汝自何處來？」 六祖曰﹕「嶺南人。」 五祖云﹕「來求何事？」 六祖曰﹕「求作佛。」 五祖云﹕「嶺南人無佛性，奈何作佛？」 註110

Footnotes/Annotations: [^107]: Quote from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra identifying Buddha-nature with the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Path. Cited in the original text (footnote 107). 第一義空 (daiichigikū): Emptiness of the ultimate meaning. [^108]: This internal quote "a piece of stone within emptiness" (空裡一片石) is likely a Chan expression signifying the inseparability of emptiness and form/phenomena. Cited in the original text (footnote 108). [^109]: Quote from Dōgen explaining true emptiness. Cited in the original text (footnote 109). 真空妙有 (shinkū myōu): True emptiness, wondrous presence; a key Mahāyāna concept. [^110]: Dialogue between Hóngrěn and Huìnéng, a foundational story in Chan Buddhism, recorded in the Platform Sutra. Cited in the original text (footnote 110). Lingnan refers to the region south of the Nanling Mountains, considered culturally peripheral at the time.

English Translation: Regarding the meaning of "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature," Dōgen again displayed his unique interpretative method. He said this phrase does not mean people from Lingnan do not have Buddha-nature, nor does it mean they do have Buddha-nature. Rather, it means "People from Lingnan" is "lacking Buddha-nature" (「嶺南人」即「無佛性」). And "how can you become a Buddha?" (奈何作佛者) does not mean questioning "how is it possible to become a Buddha," but refers to "what kind of Buddha do you expect to become?" According to standard grammar, the "lack" (無) in "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature" functions as a predicate, but Dōgen combines it with "Buddha-nature" to form a noun phrase. In fact, what Dōgen wanted to express is that people from Lingnan (or anyone) must abandon the dichotomous thinking about whether they ultimately possess Buddha-nature or not, because sentient beings themselves are Buddha-nature. Therefore Dōgen said: "As for Buddha-nature, it is not fully possessed before becoming a Buddha, [nor] fully possessed after becoming a Buddha; Buddha-nature necessarily participates together with becoming Buddha (同參)."[^111] He emphasized that at the initial hearing of the Buddhadharma, sentient beings certainly "lack Buddha-nature," but even after learning from good spiritual friends or from sutras, sentient beings still "lack Buddha-nature." The Sixth Patriarch sought to become a Buddha and requested instruction from the Fifth Patriarch, and the Fifth Patriarch, instead of using other skillful means, used the single phrase "People from Lingnan lack Buddha-nature" to "make a Buddha of the Sixth Patriarch." Therefore, failing to investigate the true meaning of "lacking Buddha-nature" means one cannot "become a Buddha." Conversely, "Precisely at the time of lacking Buddha-nature (無佛性正當恁麼時),

Original Text: 對「嶺南人無佛性」一語的含義，道元再度展現他獨特的解讀法。他說此語不是意指嶺南人沒有佛性，也不是說嶺南人有佛性，而是說「嶺南人」即「無佛性」，而「奈何作佛者」不是指質疑「怎能作佛」，是指「期望作什麼佛」。根據一般語法，「嶺南人無佛性」的「無」是當述詞用，但道元卻把它與「佛性」合在一起當名詞。其實，道元要表達的是嶺南（或任何人）要擺脫自己究竟有沒有佛性的二分想法，因為眾生本身就是佛性。所以道元說：「佛性也者，非成佛以前具足，（亦非）成佛以後具足，佛性必與成佛同參也」。 註111他強調在見聞佛法之初，眾生固然即「無佛性」，但從善知識或從經卷學習之後，眾生還是「無佛性」。六祖為求作佛而就教於五祖，而六祖不以其他善巧教示，而以「嶺南人無佛性」一句話「作佛於六祖」。因此，不能參究「無佛性」的真正意義，即不得「作佛也」，反過來說，即「無佛性正當恁麼時，

Footnotes/Annotations: [^111]: Quote from Dōgen on the relationship between Buddha-nature and the process of becoming Buddha. Cited in the original text (footnote 111). 同參 (dōsan) means to investigate together, participate together, or be simultaneous with.

English Translation: Page 241 one then becomes Buddha."[^112] In summary, what Dōgen wanted to teach is: regarding the understanding of "lacking Buddha-nature," do not trap oneself in the "non-existence" (無) of the "existence/non-existence" (有無) dualistic dichotomy. Instead, "temporarily set aside the 'non-existence' of 'existence/non-existence'" (有無之無暫且擱置) and directly grasp the "non-non-existence" (無無), the absolute non-dual "non-existence" (無).

The third example Dōgen cited that speaks of lacking Buddha-nature is Chan Master Guishan Lingyou (溈山靈佑禪師, 771-853). He said: "What Śākyamuni spoke was: All sentient beings wholly possess Buddha-nature. What Great Guī[shān] spoke was: All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature. The principles spoken of 'possessing' and 'lacking' may differ greatly, but if 'spoken well' (道得), one should not doubt their respective principles. However, [saying] 'All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature' enhances the Buddha Way (長佛道也)." "Yánguān's 'possessing Buddha-nature' path, although seeming to extend one hand along with the ancient Buddhas, is still like 'one pillar carried by two people' (一條柱兩人舁). Now, Great Guī[shān] is not so; it should be 'one staff swallows two people' (一條柱杖吞二人)."[^113]

Original Text: 241頁 則作佛也」。 註112總之，道元要教示的是﹕對於「無佛性」的暸解，不要自陷於「有無」二元對立的「無」中，而是將「有無之無暫且擱置」而直取「無無」之絕對不二的「無」。 　　道元所舉第三個言及無佛性的例子是溈山靈佑禪師(771-853)。他說﹕ 釋尊說道者﹕一切眾生悉有佛性，大溈說道者﹕一切眾生無佛性也。有無言理遙可殊，道得當不可疑。然一切眾生無佛性，長佛道也」。 鹽官有佛道，雖似與古佛出一隻手，猶是應一條柱兩人舁。今大溈不然，應一條柱杖吞二人。註113 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^112]: Quote from Dōgen. Cited in the original text (footnote 112). [^113]: Dōgen quoting/paraphrasing Guishan Lingyou's statement contrasting "possessing" and "lacking" Buddha-nature, and Dōgen's commentary comparing Guishan favorably to Yánguān Qí'ān. Cited in the original text (footnote 113). 道得 (dōtoku): To be able to speak or express [the truth/understanding]. The metaphors contrast cooperative effort (two people carrying one pillar) with a more radical transcendence (one staff swallowing two people).

English Translation: In the quoted passage, Dōgen's meaning is that whether one speaks of possessing or lacking Buddha-nature, although the principles spoken may differ greatly, if "spoken well," one should not doubt their respective principles. However, comparatively speaking, the Patriarchs saying "All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature" shows greater length (i.e., depth or superiority) in the Buddha Way (implicitly suggesting it's better than the Buddha's statement). He used an analogy: National Teacher Yánguān Qí'ān's assertion that beings possess Buddha-nature, although seemingly extending one hand simultaneously with the ancient Buddha (Śākyamuni), still belongs to the level of "one pillar carried by two people" (i.e., the Buddha-nature staff carried by both Buddha and Qí'ān). But Guishan's assertion of lacking Buddha-nature is like "one staff swallowing two people" (i.e., the non-Buddha-nature staff swallows both Buddha and Qí'ān). The superiority and inferiority are thus evident. Dōgen even more severely criticized the view of possessing Buddha-nature: "If one possesses Buddha-nature, then one should be of Māra's cohort, attaching one of Māra's children [to sentient beings] (將來黨子一枚)."[^114]

Dōgen again emphasized that since "Buddha-nature is Buddha-nature, sentient beings are sentient beings," it is not the case that sentient beings originally possess a substantial Buddha-nature, nor is there a substantial Buddha-nature existing externally that sentient beings pursue and later attain. Therefore, Dōgen cited Chan Master Baizhang: "To say sentient beings possess Buddha-nature is also slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. To say sentient beings lack Buddha-nature is also slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha."[^115] However, Dōgen cited Baizhang's statement negating both sides regarding Buddha-nature not to completely deny Buddha-nature. So he added: "Thus, saying 'possess Buddha-nature' and saying 'lack Buddha-nature' both constitute slander. Although constituting slander, it is not that they cannot be taken up for investigation (道取矣)."[^116]

Original Text: 　　引句中道元的意思是無論說有佛性或無佛性，所言之理雖各有殊異，如「道得」的話，當不可疑其各自之理，但比較上而言，祖師所說的一切眾生「無佛性」，在佛道上更見長（暗示比佛陀講得更好）。他舉了一個比喻說﹕鹽官齊安國師所主張的眾生有佛性，雖然與古佛（釋迦）同時分別伸出一隻手，但是還是屬於「一條柱兩人舁」的層次（即佛性柱杖，由佛陀及齊安兩人舁），但溈山主張的無佛性則是「一條柱吞二人」（即無佛性柱杖，吞卻佛陀及齊安兩人），其高下殊劣由此可見。道元甚至於更嚴厲地批判有佛性說﹕「若有佛性，則應是魔黨，將來黨子一枚（將魔子附於眾生上）」。 註114 　　道元又再次強調既然「佛性是佛性，眾生是眾生」，並非眾生本來就具足一個有實體性的佛性，也不是有一個實體性的佛性存在於外，眾生向外馳求而後始得。因此道元引百丈禪師說﹕「說眾生有佛性，亦謗佛法僧。說眾生無佛性，亦謗佛法僧。」 註115然而，道元舉百丈如此雙遣佛性的說法，並不是為了全然否定佛性，所以他又說﹕ 　　　然則云有佛性，云無佛性，俱作謗焉。雖作謗，非不可道取矣。註116 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^114]: Dōgen's critical remark on the view of "possessing Buddha-nature." Cited in the original text (footnote 114). [^115]: Quote attributed to Baizhang Huaihai, negating both positions as slander. Cited in the original text (footnote 115). [^116]: Dōgen's commentary on Baizhang's statement. Cited in the original text (footnote 116). 道取 (dōshu): Lit. "speak-take" or "way-take", often implying investigating, understanding, or realizing through Chan dialogue or practice.

English Translation: Page 242 Although speaking of possessing or lacking Buddha-nature both constitute slander, it is not that they cannot be taken up for investigation and practice. Just as National Teacher Qingliang (清涼國師, i.e., Chengguan) said, "Losing the meaning (失意), the four propositions (四句) become four slanders; grasping the purport (得旨), the four propositions are the four virtues." However, how can one "grasp the purport"? Let us see how Dōgen challenges Guishan: "Furthermore, one should say to Great Guī[shān]: Although you were able to say 'All sentient beings lack Buddha-nature,' yet [you] did not say 'All Buddha-nature lacks sentient beings,' did not say 'All Buddha-nature lacks Buddha-nature,' let alone 'All Buddhas lack Buddha-nature'—you haven't even dreamed of it (夢也未見在也)! Try to bring it forth (試舉看)!"[^117] Besides saying sentient beings lack Buddha-nature, Dōgen questioned Guishan whether there are other ways to interpret the relationship between Buddha-nature and sentient beings, such as saying "All Buddha-nature lacks sentient beings," "All Buddha-nature lacks Buddha-nature," or even "All Buddhas lack Buddha-nature." Although it seems Dōgen is playing a game of rearranging words, his intention is actually to emphasize shattering the dualistic and substantialized view of Buddha-nature and sentient beings. Dōgen negated both possessing and lacking Buddha-nature. So what is his own view of Buddha-nature? It is what he advocated as "impermanent Buddha-nature" (無常佛性).

Original Text: 　 242頁 雖然言有、無佛性都作謗，但並非不可取道參究，正如清涼國師所說的「失意則四句便成四謗，得旨則四句即是四德。」然而，如何才能「得旨」呢？且看道元如何挑戰大溈﹕ 復應向大溈道﹕雖設使道得「一切眾生無佛性」，而（汝）不道「一切佛性無眾生」，不道「一切佛性無佛性」，況「一切諸佛無佛性」，夢也未見在也，試舉看！ 註117 除了可以說眾生無佛性之外，道元提問大溈是否也有別種解讀佛性與眾生的關係的方法，如說「一切佛性無眾生」、「一切佛性無佛性」、甚至於「一切諸佛無佛性」。雖然看似道元在玩文字排列組合的遊戲，其實，他的用意是在強調破除佛性與眾生的二元化、和實體化的佛性觀。道元雙遣有佛性和無佛性，而他自己的佛性觀又是如何呢？就是他主張的「無常佛性」。

Footnotes/Annotations: [^117]: Dōgen challenging Guishan's view. Cited in the original text (footnote 117). Qingliang Chengguan (清涼澄觀) was the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school. The "four propositions" (四句) usually refer to existence, non-existence, both, and neither.

English Translation: 

6. Impermanent Buddha-Nature (無常佛性) 

Dōgen cited the Sixth Patriarch Huineng's instruction to his disciple Chan Master Xingchang Zhiche (行昌志徹禪師): "Impermanence (無常) is precisely Buddha-nature. Permanence (有常) is precisely the discriminating mind (分別心) of all good and evil dharmas."[^118] Zhiche questioned this instruction to the Sixth Patriarch, suspecting it contradicted the sutra teachings (經教), because the sutras say Buddha-nature is permanent (常), while good and evil dharmas are impermanent (無常). The Sixth Patriarch explained: "If Buddha-nature were permanent, what more is there to say about good and evil dharmas? Then, even unto the exhaustion of kalpas, not a single person would arouse the Bodhi-mind (發菩提心者). Therefore, my saying 'impermanent' is precisely the Buddha's teaching of the Way of true permanence (真常之道). Furthermore, if all dharmas were impermanent, then each and every thing would possess self-nature (自性) and be subject to birth and death (容受生死). Then the truly permanent nature (真常性) would have places it did not pervade. Therefore, my saying 'permanent' is precisely the Buddha's teaching of the meaning of true impermanence (真無常義). The Buddha, because ordinary beings and non-Buddhists cling to erroneous permanence (邪常), and practitioners of the two vehicles mistake permanence for impermanence (於常計無常), together forming the eight errors (八倒),[^119] therefore, in the definitive teaching (了義教) of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], refuted their biased views and revealed true permanence (真常), true self (真我), true purity (真淨)."[^120]

Original Text: ６、無常佛性 　　道元引六祖惠能對門人行昌志徹禪師的開示說﹕ 　　　無常者，即佛性也。有常者，即善惡一切諸法分別心也。 註118 志徹對這樣的開示，向六祖質疑有違經教，因為經說佛性是常，善惡諸法是無常。六祖解釋說﹕ 佛性若常，更說什麼善惡諸法，乃至窮劫無有一人發菩提心者，故吾說無常，正是佛說真常之道也。又一切諸法若無常者，即物物皆有自性容受生死。而真常性有不遍之處，故吾說常者，正是佛說真無常義也。佛比為凡夫外道執於邪常，諸二乘人於常計無常共成八倒故， 註119於涅槃了義教中，破彼偏見，而顯說真常、真我、真淨。 註120 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^118]: Dialogue between Huineng and Zhiche, often cited in Chan texts. Cited in the original text (footnote 118). [^119]: The eight errors/inversions (八倒, pattō/bādǎo): Mistaking the impermanent for permanent, suffering for bliss, non-self for self, and the impure for pure (common errors of ordinary beings), and the inverse (mistaking the permanent nature of Nirvana for impermanent, etc. – errors attributed to Hinayana practitioners). Cited in the original text (footnote 119). [^120]: Huineng's explanation continued. Cited in the original text (footnote 120). 了義教 (ryōgikyō): Teachings of definitive or ultimate meaning. 真常、真我、真淨 (shinjō, shinga, shinjō): True permanence, true self, true purity – the positive attributes of Nirvana emphasized in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra to counter nihilistic views.

English Translation: Page 243 From the Sixth Patriarch's own explanation of the meaning of Buddha-nature's impermanence in the quote above, one can see it completely inherits the Buddha-nature doctrine of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.[^121] The Nirvāṇa Sūtra, to counteract the view of ordinary beings and non-Buddhists mistakenly clinging to Buddha-nature as a permanently abiding, unchanging existence (常住不易的有見), emphasized the meaning of Buddha-nature's impermanence. But on the other hand, to refute the annihilistic view (滅見) of practitioners of the two vehicles who mistake permanence for impermanence, it spoke of true permanence. The "permanence" (有常) of the "discriminating mind of all good and evil dharmas" spoken of by the Sixth Patriarch refers to the view of existence (有見) held by ordinary beings and non-Buddhists, while the "impermanence" (無常) of Buddha-nature is "true impermanence" (真無常), which is true permanence (真常).

Dōgen believed the impermanence spoken of by the Sixth Patriarch was indeed beyond the measure of non-Buddhists, practitioners of the two vehicles, and others. He further explained: "Impermanence constantly speaks impermanence (說著無常), practices impermanence (行著無常), realizes impermanence (證著無常); thus, all should be impermanent."[^122] In other words, true impermanence means that whether one speaks, practices, or realizes impermanence, all should be impermanent. Just like "permanent sage is impermanent (常聖是無常), permanent ordinary being is impermanent (常凡是無常)." Otherwise, if ordinary beings were forever ordinary beings (permanent ordinary, 常凡), and sages forever sages (permanent sage, 常聖), then Buddha-nature could not be accomplished (佛性不成). Therefore Dōgen said: "Permanent ordinary beings and sages are then not Buddha-nature (常凡聖者，則不應佛性)." As for the meaning of "permanence" (常), Dōgen said: "Permanence means not yet turned (未轉). Not yet turned means, without change (沒變), the ability to sever (能斷) and that which is severed by transformation (設化所斷), yet not necessarily constrained by traces of past and future (去來蹤跡); therefore, it is permanent."[^123]

Original Text: 243頁 由上面引句六祖自己對佛性無常義的解釋，可以看出完全是承襲《大般涅槃經》的佛性說。 註121《涅槃經》為對治凡夫外道誤執佛性為常住不易的有見，而強調佛性的無常義，但是另一方面為了破二乘人於常計無常的滅見而說真常。六祖所說的「善惡一切諸法分別心」的「有常」，是指一般凡夫外道的有見，而佛性的「無常」是「真無常」，即真常。 　　道元認為六祖所說的無常，確實非外道二乘等人所能測度，他更進一步解釋說﹕「無常常自說著、行著、證著無常，則皆應無常也。」 註122換言之，真正的無常，即是無論是言說、修持、或體證無常，都應是無常，就如「常聖是無常，常凡是無常」，否則若是凡夫永為凡夫（常凡），聖者永為聖者（常聖），則佛性不成。所以道元說：「常凡聖者，則不應佛性」。至於「常」的意義，道元說﹕「常者未轉也。未轉也者，沒變能斷，設化所斷，而不必拘去來蹤跡，所以常也。」 註123 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^121]: The original text includes footnote 121 here, confirming Huineng's view follows the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. [^122]: Quote from Dōgen on the all-encompassing nature of impermanence. Cited in the original text (footnote 122). The suffix 著 (zhe/jaku) indicates an ongoing action or state. [^123]: Quote from Dōgen defining "permanence" (常). Cited in the original text (footnote 123).

English Translation: "The ability to sever" (能斷) refers to prajñā-emptiness wisdom. "That which is severed by transformation" (設化所斷) refers to beginningless afflictions. Permanent means not yet turned. "Not yet turned" means that even the prajñā-emptiness wisdom elevated to the level of realization, or the beginningless afflictions situated in ordinary emotions, are both irrelevant to delusion and awakening, because wisdom permanently abides as wisdom, and afflictions permanently abide as afflictions. This is the "permanently abiding, not yet turned" (常住未轉) understood by ordinary people, but Buddha-nature is not like this. Conversely, Dōgen's statement "Permanence means not yet turned" can be extended to mean "Impermanence means turned (轉也)." That is to say, Buddha-nature must be realized within the dynamic of constant transformation of impermanence, because fundamentally "impermanence itself is Buddha-nature," and simultaneously "Buddha-nature is essentially impermanent,"[^124] (Buddha-nature is impermanence, impermanence is Buddha-nature). Just as Dōgen said: "Thus, because grass, trees, forests are impermanent, they are Buddha-nature. Because persons, things, body, mind are impermanent, this is Buddha-nature. Because lands, mountains, rivers are impermanent, this is Buddha-nature. Thus, anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提) is Buddha-nature, therefore it is impermanent. Mahāparinirvāṇa (大般涅槃) is impermanent, therefore it is Buddha-nature. Practitioners of the two vehicles with lesser views, as well as sutra commentators and Tripiṭaka masters, may be startled, doubt, fear, and dread this Way spoken by the Sixth Patriarch. If startled and doubting, they are cohorts of Māra and non-Buddhists (魔外（道）類)."[^125] Worldly dharmas (世間法), whether grass and trees, lands, mountains and rivers, or persons' bodies and minds, all arise from conditions (從緣而起), hence are impermanent. Precisely because they are impermanent, their fundamental nature can accord with the non-substantial Buddha-nature. Just as the Baimen Yihai (百門義海, Ocean of Meanings of the Hundred Gates) states, "Awareness-dust (覺塵) and all dharmas, being without self-nature (無性) due to arising from conditions, are called Buddha-nature." Hence it is said both sentient (有情) and insentient (無情) possess Buddha-nature. Conversely,

Original Text: 　　「能斷」是指般若空智，「所斷」是指無始煩惱。常則未轉，而未轉是指既使昇化到證悟層次的般若空智，或處於凡情的無始煩惱，都與迷悟無涉，因為智慧常住為智慧，煩惱常住為煩惱，這是一般人所暸解的「常住未轉」，但佛性並非如此。相反的，可以把道元的「常者未轉也」，引申成為「無常者轉也」。也就是說要在無常不斷轉換的動態中去體悟佛性，因為基本上「無常本身就是佛性」，同時「佛性在本質上就是無常」， 註124（佛性即無常、無常即佛性）。就如道元所說的﹕ 然由於草木叢林無常，即佛性也。人物身心無常，是佛性也。國土山河無常，是佛性也。則阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是佛性，故無常也。大般涅槃是無常，故佛性也。諸二乘小見及經論師三藏等，可驚疑怖畏此六祖道。若驚疑者，魔外（道）類也。 註125 世間法無論是草木、國土、山河、人物身心等皆從緣而起，故無常，正因為其無常，其本質上可以與非實體性的佛性相契，就如《百門義海》所說的「覺塵及一切法從緣無性，名為佛性」，故言有情與無情皆有佛性。反過來說，

Footnotes/Annotations: [^124]: The author Shi Hengqing's interpretation of Dōgen's view. Cited in the original text (footnote 124). [^125]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Busshō>, equating impermanence and Buddha-nature. Cited in the original text (footnote 125). Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提) means unsurpassed, perfect awakening. Mahāparinirvāṇa (大般涅槃) means great, perfect nirvana.

English Translation: Page 244 anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi is the realization (證成) of Buddha-nature and also accords with impermanence, because the realization of Buddha-nature (佛性的證悟) is nothing other than the true realization (如實體證) of impermanence. In summary, the "impermanent Buddha-nature" (無常佛性) as understood by Dōgen is the unification of possessing Buddha-nature and lacking Buddha-nature. The following passage where Huayan master Fazang (賢首法藏) explains the "meaning of the identity and difference of the three natures" (三性同異義) can serve as a commentary on Dōgen's meaning of "impermanent Buddha-nature": "When the Sage speaks of Suchness (真如) as fixed and unmoving (凝然), this means that when, following conditions (隨緣), it becomes defiled or pure, it constantly acts as defiled or pure without losing its self-essence (自體). This is precisely the permanence that is not different from impermanence (不異無常之常), called inconceivable permanence (不思議常). It does not mean not producing any dharmas and being fixed and unmoving as conceived by sentiment (情). If it were said to be fixed and unmoving without producing any dharmas, that would be grasped by sentiment, thus losing true permanence, because that true permanence is the permanence not different from impermanence. The permanence not different from impermanence is entirely beyond sentiment, hence called true permanence. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Undefiled yet defiled (不染而染)' clarifies that permanence acts as impermanence. 'Defiled yet undefiled (染而不染)' clarifies that when acting as impermanence, permanence is not lost."[^126] The Suchness as fixed and unmoving explained by Fazang in the quote follows the view of the Nature School (性宗), clearly differing from the assertion of the Characteristics School (相宗). However, his understanding of "permanence," "impermanence," and "true permanence" is clearly similar to Dōgen's. The "impermanent Buddha-nature" advocated by Dōgen is what Fazang calls Suchness following conditions to become defiled without losing its self-essence. But this self-essence is not the "permanence" recognized by ordinary sentiment; rather, "it is precisely the true permanence not different from impermanence." In the unchanging state of being defiled yet undefiled, Buddha-nature (Suchness) does not lose its "permanent nature" (常性) amidst impermanence. In the condition-following state of being undefiled yet defiled, Buddha-nature manifests its "impermanent" nature amidst "permanence." In the fusion and unification of permanence and impermanence, existence and non-existence, "impermanent Buddha-nature" is not a static, substantialized existence, but a dynamic "actualizing kōan" (現成公案). As Abe Masao (阿部正雄) said: "For Dōgen, impermanence itself preaches impermanence, practices impermanence, and realizes impermanence; this is, in fact, preaching Buddha-nature, practicing Buddha-nature, and realizing Buddha-nature."[^127]

Original Text: 244頁 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是佛性的證成，亦與無常相契，因為佛性的證悟，無非就是對無常的如實體證。總而言之，道元所暸解的「無常佛性」是有佛性和無佛性的統一。賢首法藏在解釋「三性同異義」時，所說的下列這段話，可以做為道元「無常佛性」義的註解﹕ 聖說真如為凝然者，此是隨緣成染淨時，恆作染淨而不失自體，是即不異無常之常，名不思議常，非謂不作諸法如情所謂之凝然也。若謂不作諸法而凝然者，是情所得，故即失真常，以彼真常不異無常之常。不異無常之常，皆出於情外，故名真常。是故經曰﹕「不染而染者，明常作無常。染而不染者，明作無常時不失常也。」 註126 引句中法藏解釋的真如凝然是依性宗的說法，顯然與相宗所主張有所不同。不過，他對「常」、「無常」、「真常」的暸解顯然與道元類似。道元所主張的「無常佛性」，是法藏所謂的真如隨緣成染而不失自體，但這個自體不是出於一般凡情所認識的「常」，反而「是即不異無常」的真常。在染而不染的不變情況下，佛性（真如）在無常中不失其「常性」，在不染而染的隨緣情況下，佛性於「常」中顯現其「無常」性。在常與無常，有與無的融通和統一中，「無常佛性」不是靜態的實體化存在，而是動態的「現成公案」，就如阿部正雄所說﹕「對道元而言，無常本身就是教(preaching)無常、修(practicing)無常和證(realizing)無常，其實也就是教佛性，修佛性和證佛性。」 註127 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^126]: Quote from Fazang explaining true permanence in relation to impermanence. Cited in the original text (footnote 126). The Three Natures (三性) typically refer to the conceptualized, dependent, and perfected natures in Yogācāra, but Fazang uses the term in a Huayan context. The final sutra quote likely refers to passages in texts like the Awakening of Faith or related commentaries explaining the relationship between the unchanging essence (Suchness) and its conditioned manifestations. [^127]: Quote from Abe Masao (阿部正雄), a modern philosopher known for his work on Dōgen and Kyoto School philosophy, summarizing Dōgen's view of impermanence as Buddha-nature in action. Cited in the original text (footnote 127).

English Translation: IV. Dōgen's View of Practice-Realization (道元的修證觀) Undoubtedly, Dōgen is the most outstanding philosopher in Japanese Buddhism, but more importantly, Dōgen was also a practitioner of the philosophy he understood. His view of practice-realization (修證觀, shushōkan) is one of "practice-realization as one" (修證一等, shushō ittō) and "original realization, wondrous practice" (本證妙修, honshō myōshū), primarily established upon his view of Buddha-nature. Additionally, central issues in Buddhism, such as whole-existence and Buddha-nature, delusion and awakening, birth and death, existence and non-existence, permanence and impermanence, are all reflected in his view of practice-realization.

The view of practice-realization as one originated from the great doubt Dōgen developed while at Mount Hiei, namely, if sentient beings are "inherently the fundamental dharma body, the dharma-nature" (本自法身法性成者), why do they still need to arouse the aspiration and practice? This question of Dōgen's presupposes a premise: that within the true suchness dharma-nature (or Buddha-nature) possessed by sentient beings, all the content (merits) of Buddhahood has already been "realized and attained."

Original Text: 四、道元的修證觀 　　無疑地道元是日本佛教最傑出的哲學家，但是更重要的，道元也是他自己所暸解的哲理的實踐者。他的修證觀是「修證一等」、「本證妙修」的修證觀，主要是建立在他的佛性觀上。另外，佛教的中心議題，諸如悉有與佛性、迷與悟、生與死、有與無、常與無常等都反應在他的修證觀中。 　　修證一等的修證觀源自道元在比叡山時產生的一大疑團，即眾生如果「本自法身法性成者」，為什麼還須要發心修行呢？道元的這個問題預設了一個前提，即眾生的具真如法性（或曰佛性）中已「實現證得」(realized)

English Translation: Page 245 Therefore, there is no need to undertake the effort of practice. But contradicting this premise is the fact that in the actual world, sentient beings are still deluded and defiled beings, not pure Buddhas. Clearly, sentient beings still need to practice. Conversely, if the practice of sentient beings is absolutely necessary, then Buddha-nature (or dharma-nature) becomes an external, objective goal to pursue. In that case, how can it be said that sentient beings inherently possess Buddha-nature?[^128] Thus, for the young Dōgen, the problem arose of how to integrate practice and realization, practice-realization and Buddha-nature.

To understand Dōgen's view of practice-realization, one must explore it within its historical context. Japanese Tendai Buddhism in Dōgen's era developed a view of practice-realization based on original awakening (本覺), which asserted that because sentient beings possess original awakening, there is no necessity for practice. But this clearly could not resolve Dōgen's doubt, so he traveled far to China in search of an enlightened teacher. According to the Hōkyōki, Dōgen inquired of Rujing, saying: "Dōgen respectfully asked: 'Studying the excellent traces of the Buddhas and Patriarchs of past and present, when the initial aspiration is illuminated, although there seems to be the Way, when gathering the assembly and opening the Dharma, it is as if there is no Buddhadharma. Also, at the time of initial aspiration, although there seems to be no awakening, when opening the Dharma and expounding the Way, there is quite the spirit surpassing the ancients. Thus, is the Way attained using the initial mind (初心), or using the later mind (後心)?'" "Rujing instructed: 'The authentic transmission of Buddhas and Patriarchs says: not only the initial mind, but also not departing from the initial mind. Why so? If the Way were attained only with the initial mind, then Bodhisattvas upon first aspiration should instantly be Buddhas; this is impossible. If there were no initial mind, how could there be a second or third mind, a second or third dharma? Thus, the later takes the initial as its foundation (本); the initial takes the later as its aim (期).'"[^129]

Original Text: 245頁 了所有成佛的內涵（功德），所以不必再去做修行的功夫。但是與此前提矛盾的是事實上在現實的世間，眾生還是妄染的眾生，而不是清淨的佛，顯然地，眾生還須要修行。反過來說，眾生的修行如果有絕對必要，則佛性（或曰法性）變成一個外在客體性的追求目標，如此又如何可說眾生本具佛性。 註128因此，對年青的道元產生了修與證、修證與佛性如何融通的問題。 　　要暸解道元的修證觀，必須從其歷史背景中探索。道元時代的日本天台宗發展出的是本覺的修證觀，其主張眾生因有本覺，故無有修行的必要。但是這顯然不能解決道元的疑團，於是他遠渡中土尋覓明師。根據《寶慶記》，道元請教如淨說﹕ 道元拜問﹕「參學古今佛祖之勝躅，初心發明之時，雖似有道，集眾開法之時，如無佛法。又初發心時，雖似無所悟，開法演道之時，頗有超古之志氣。然則，為用初心得道，為用後心得道？」 如淨誨云：「佛佛祖祖正傳云：不但初心，不離初心。為甚恁麼？若但初心得道，菩薩初發心，便應是佛，是乃不可也。若無初心，云何得有第二、第三心，第二、第三法。然則，後以初為本，初以後為期。 註129 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^128]: The original text includes footnote 128 here, likely elaborating on the inherent contradiction Dōgen perceived. [^129]: Dialogue between Dōgen and Rujing from the Hōkyōki. Cited in the original text (footnote 129).

English Translation: From the instruction given to Dōgen above, it can be seen that Rujing did not advocate the view found in texts like the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經) that a Bodhisattva attains perfect awakening upon the initial arising of aspiration. Instead, he emphasized the necessity of practice, thereby negating the Tendai Original Awakening Gate's view of practice-realization, which claims practice is unnecessary due to original awakening. He also negated the Shingon school's assertion of "attaining Buddhahood in this very body, becoming Buddha in this body, without needing kalpas of practice."[^130]

Inheriting Rujing's view of practice-realization, coupled with his own experience of complete "dropping off body and mind," Dōgen developed the view of practice-realization as non-dual (修証不二). In the 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, he said: "Regarding this Dharma, although it is abundantly present in each person's share, without practice, it does not manifest; without realization, it is not attained. Letting go, it fills the hands; how could one or many define its limits? Speaking, it fills the mouth; vertically and horizontally, it is inexhaustible."[^131] The wondrous Dharma of Buddha-nature inherently possessed by each person is unlike the natural self-nature deludedly clung to by non-Buddhists; therefore, without practice it does not manifest, without realization it is not attained. However, this does not mean Dōgen considered practice and realization to be sequential dharmas. For Dōgen, "practice" (修) is direct, immediate effort (直下的加工), and "realization" (証) is perfectly fused, spontaneous functioning (圓融的任運). Within inexhaustible effort is the spontaneous, perfect functioning of the Dharma.

Original Text: 從以上對道元的誨示，可見如淨不主張如《華嚴經》所說的菩薩初發心，即成正覺的說法，而強調修行的必要，亦即否定了因本覺故無須修行的天台本覺門的修証觀，也否定了真言宗的「即身即佛，是身作佛，無經時劫修行」 註130的說法。 　　承襲如淨的修証觀，再加上自己整個「身心脫落」的開悟經驗，使道元開展出修証不二的修証觀。他在〈辦道話〉篇說：「是法，雖人人分上豐具，而未修不現，不証無得，放則盈手，一多際乎。語則滿口，縱橫無窮。」 註131人人分上本具的佛性妙法，不像外道所妄執的自性天然，因此未修不現，不証無得。然而，這並不意謂道元認為修証是前後法。對道元而言，「修」是直下的加工，「証」是圓融的任運。在無窮的加工中，是「法」任運圓融。

Footnotes/Annotations: [^130]: The original text includes footnote 130 here, citing the Shingon view of immediate Buddhahood. [^131]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Bendōwa>. Cited in the original text (footnote 131).

English Translation: Page 246 Simultaneously, within the spontaneous, perfectly functioning realization, wondrous practice permeates the body (妙修透體). This is what Dōgen meant by "Realization means practice is never slack (行無懈時)." Conversely, it also means "Practice means realization functions spontaneously (証任運時)." Dōgen explained his view of practice-realization as one even more clearly in the following quote: "To say that practice and realization are not one is the view of non-Buddhists. In Buddhadharma, practice and realization are one and the same (一等). Because it is now practice based on realization (証上修), the initial mind's engagement with the Way (初心辨道) is the entirety of original realization (本証全體). Therefore, in giving guidance for the practice mind, the teaching is not to think of awaiting realization outside of practice; one should point directly to original realization (本証). Since it is realization based on practice (修之証), realization is endless (証無際); since it is practice based on realization (証之修), practice is beginningless (修無始). Thus, Śākyamuni Tathāgata and Venerable Kāśyapa both received and utilized practice based on realization. Great Master Bodhidharma and the Great Ancestor Dajian [Huineng] both transmitted practice based on realization. The upholding of Buddhadharma is all like this. Since there exists practice inseparable from realization (不離証的修), we are fortunate to have singly transmitted a portion of wondrous practice (妙修). Engaging the Way with the initial mind immediately attains a portion of original realization in the unconditioned realm (無為地). To ensure that practice-realization is not separated and defiled, the Buddhas and Patriarchs frequently instructed that practice must not be lax. Let go into wondrous practice, and original realization fills your hands; emerge from original realization, and wondrous practice permeates your whole body (妙修行通身)."[^132]

Original Text: 246頁 同時，在任運圓融的証悟中，妙修透體。這就是道元所謂的「証則行無懈時」，反過來說，亦即是「行則証任運時」。 道元在下列的引句更清楚闡釋他修証一等的修証觀： 夫謂修証非一，即外道見也。佛法修証是一等也。今証上修故，初心辨道，即本証全體也。故授修行用心，教無修外待証思，應直指本証也。既修之証，則証無際，証之修，則修無始也。是以釋迦如來，迦葉尊者，共受用証上修，達磨大師，大鑑高祖，同引轉讓上修，佛法住持皆如是。既有不離証(的)修，我等幸單傳一分妙修。初心辨道，即得一分本証於無為地，可識為令不離修証不染汙，佛祖頻教誨修行不可悠緩。放下妙修，則本証滿手中，出身本証，則妙修行通身。 註132 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^132]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from <Bendōwa>, elaborating on practice-realization non-duality. Cited in the original text (footnote 132). 無為地 (mui ji): The unconditioned realm/ground, referring to the state of realization or nirvana.

English Translation: In the quote, the most important concepts are "practice based on realization" (証上修, shōjōshu) and "[realization based on] practice" (修上証, shujōshō). Because the practice Dōgen considered is not practice opposed to realization, but "practice of realization" (証之修), such wondrous practice, non-dual with original realization, is beginningless and transcends time. Furthermore, Dōgen said this "wondrous practice permeating the whole body" which "emerges from original realization" is the so-called direct effort functioning spontaneously and perfectly; it transcends space. Because practice-realization transcends time and space, Dōgen said, "When one person sits in zazen at one time, all dharmas correspond implicitly, all times connect completely." When anyone practices zazen samādhi at any time, instantly "the entire dharma realm becomes the Buddha-seal, all of empty space is awakening, indeed all dharmas realize perfect awakening together, the myriad things together utilize the Buddha-body."[^133] Such a result is established on the premise emphasized by Dōgen: "Buddha-nature necessarily participates together with becoming Buddha, practices together, realizes together (同修、同証)," "practice-realization as one."

Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one holds the greatest significance in eliminating the contradiction of dualistic dichotomy between practice and realization, between actualized gnosis (始覺) and primordial gnosis (本覺). In the "process" of becoming a Buddha, Buddha-nature is the indispensable "innate basis" (先天依據), while practice is the indispensable "condition" (條件). From the perspective of actualized gnosis theory, practice within the scope of time and space is the "ground" (基石) of the process of becoming a Buddha, while Buddha-nature becomes merely a "sign" (標地) guiding the practice.[^134] In other words, it presupposes a process from practice to realization. Thus, it creates a temporal, sequential duality

Original Text: 引句中，最重要的觀念是「証上修」，「修上証」。因為道元認為的修行不是與証悟對立的修行，而是「証之修」，如此與本証不二的妙修是無始的、超越時間的。再者，道元說「出身本証」的這種「妙修行通身」，即是所謂的加工直下任運圓融，是超越空間的。因為修証超越時間和空間，因此道元說「一人一時坐禪，諸法相冥，諸時圓通。」任何人在任何時間修持坐禪三昧時，當下「遍法界皆為佛印，盡虛空悉為悟，乃至諸法皆証會正覺，萬物共使用佛身。」 註133這樣的結果即是建立在道元所強調的「佛性必與成佛同修、同証」、「修証一等」的前題上。 　　道元「修証一等」的修証觀的最大意義，乃是它消除了修行與証悟，始覺與本覺之間二元對立的矛盾。在成佛的「進程」（process）中，佛性是不可或缺的「先天依據」，而修行是不可或缺的「條件」（condition）。從始覺論的觀點看，在時間和空間範圍內的修行是成佛過程的「基石」(ground)，而佛性變成只是導引修行的「標地」（sign）。 註134換言之，它預設有一個從修行到証悟的過程。如此，則造成修行與証悟在時間上有前後二 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^133]: Quote from Dōgen describing the state of realization in zazen. Cited in the original text (footnote 133). [^134]: The original text includes footnote 134 here, likely referencing critiques or analyses of the actualized gnosis (始覺, shikaku) perspective.

English Translation: Page 247 between practice and realization. Furthermore, if Buddha-nature is merely regarded as a "sign," the question arises: wherein lies the necessity (innate basis) for becoming a Buddha?

Conversely, from the perspective of primordial gnosis theory (本覺論), timeless primordial gnosis (本覺, hongaku) (Buddha-nature) is not only the "ground" (innate basis) for becoming a Buddha but is also the realization itself. Thus, practice as the condition for realization loses its necessity. Clearly, both the actualized gnosis gate and the primordial gnosis gate can be called "views that sever practice and realization" (修證兩橛觀, shushō ryōketsukan).[^135] The former involves practicing while awaiting realization (修而待証), i.e., a view where "practice must lead to realization" (修必向証). The latter involves realization awaiting practice (証而待修), i.e., "realization must come from practice" (証必由修). [Note: The text's phrasing might seem slightly reversed, but the intended contrast between practice leading to realization vs. realization implying practice is clear.] Whether it is proceeding from practice towards realization, realization necessarily awaiting practice, or even realization not needing practice, all imply a duality of practice and realization. Therefore, the opposition and contradiction between primordial gnosis and actualized gnosis, realization and practice, arose—this was precisely the problem troubling the young Dōgen.

Original Text: 247頁 元之分別。再者，如果佛性僅被視為「標地」，就會產生成佛之必然性（先天依據）何在的問題。 　　相反地，從本覺論的觀點看，超越時間的本覺（佛性）不但是成佛的「基石」（先天依據），更是証悟的實現，如此作為証悟條件的修行就失去了其必要性。顯然地，始覺門和本覺門都可稱為「修証兩橛觀」， 註135前者是修而待証，亦即「修必向証」的修証觀，後者是証而待修，亦即「証必由修」。無論是由修向証証必待修，甚至於証不須修，都意味著修証之二元，因此產生本覺與始覺，証悟和修行之間的對立和矛盾，此即是困擾年青道元的問題所在。

Footnotes/Annotations: [^135]: The original text includes footnote 135 here, explaining or referencing the term 修證兩橛觀 (shushō ryōketsukan), literally "practice-realization two-stumps view," implying separation or dichotomy.

English Translation: Dōgen's method for breaking this dualistic dichotomy was to break through the temporal cause-and-effect relationship between practice and realization. He shifted the starting point of practice from the causal stage (因位) to the resultant stage (果位). Therefore, he could say that true practice "is not merely practice-realization at the causal stage, but is practice-realization of the resultant stage."[^136] By the same logic, he shifted the endpoint of realization from the resultant stage to the causal stage. Therefore, he could say that true realization is not merely realization of the resultant stage, but also realization of the causal stage. Such mutually causal practice and realization continuously reinforce each other in an unending cycle. Practice and realization are no longer in a linear, sequential relationship, but in the relationship of a beginningless and endless "Way-ring" (道環, dōkan). Therefore, Dōgen said: "The Great Way of the Buddhas and Patriarchs necessarily involves unsurpassed continuous practice (行持, gyōji); it is a Way-ring without interruption. Aspiration (發心), practice (修行), Bodhi (菩提), Nirvāṇa (涅槃)—without the slightest gap, the continuous practice is a Way-ring."[^137] This is also what he meant by "Since it is realization based on practice, realization is endless. Since it is practice based on realization, practice is beginningless." Such a Way-ring view of practice-realization resolved the contradiction and opposition between practice and realization. Therefore, Dōgen could regard his own statement "I constantly strive diligently (我常勤精進)" as equivalent to "I have already attained Bodhi (我已得成菩提)," and because "I have already attained Bodhi," therefore "I constantly strive diligently."[^138]

Original Text: 　　道元打破此二元對立的方法是打通修行和証悟的時間因果關係，他把修行的出發點從因位轉到果位，因此他可以說真正的修行「非但因地修証而已，乃是果位之修証也」， 註136同理，他把証悟的終點從果位轉到因位，因此他可以說真正的証悟，非但是果位之証悟，亦是因位之証悟。如此互為因果的修証，不斷地相互加強循環不斷，修行和証悟不再是直線上前後的關係，而是圓圈無始無終「道環」的關係。因此道元說： 佛祖之大道必有無上之行持，道環而不斷絕。發心、修行、菩提、涅槃，不少間隙，行持道環。 註137 這也就是他所謂的「既修之証，則証無際。証之修，則修無始」。這樣道環的修証觀解決了修行與証悟之間的矛盾和對立，因此道元才能把他自己所謂的「我常勤精進」，當做「我已得成菩提」，「我已得成菩提」之故，「我常勤精進」。 註138 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^136]: Quote from Dōgen emphasizing practice at the resultant stage. Cited in the original text (footnote 136). [^137]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Gyōji> (Continuous Practice), describing the Way-ring. Cited in the original text (footnote 137). [^138]: Dōgen's rephrasing showing the simultaneity of effort and attainment. Cited in the original text (footnote 138).

English Translation: The greatest turning point in Dōgen's non-dual view of practice-realization came from transforming the doubt "Since [we are] already originally awakened, why is practice necessary?" into "Since [we are] already originally awakened, therefore practice is necessary," and "Since practice is already underway, realization must be within it."[^139] Thus

Original Text: 　　道元修証不二的修証觀的最大轉折，來自把「既是本覺，何須修行」的疑團轉化成「既已本覺，故須修行」，和「既已修行，於中必有証」， 註139於 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^139]: The original text includes footnote 139 here, likely referencing the source or significance of this transformation in Dōgen's thought.

English Translation: Page 248 practice and realization were completely fused together. The theoretical foundation for Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one and the Way-ring of practice-realization was established upon his theory of "impermanent Buddha-nature." Because Buddha-nature is impermanent, empty, and non-substantial, it enables the originally irreversible "one-way street" from practice to realization to become a reversible and cyclical "two-way path" of the Way-ring. Just as we can say "impermanence is Buddha-nature, Buddha-nature is impermanence," we can also say "practice is realization, realization is practice."

Any view of practice-realization established upon Buddha-nature theory, whether belonging to the actualized gnosis gate or the primordial gnosis gate, ultimately harbors theoretical contradictions and separation among Buddha-nature, practice, and realization. Many Patriarchs of Chinese Chan Buddhism, to resolve these theoretical difficulties, advocated adopting the primordial gnosis gate in principle (理, li) and the actualized gnosis gate in phenomena (事, shi). Under the premise of the non-duality of principle and phenomena, this view held no contradiction for Chinese Chan masters. But for Dōgen, as long as the duality of "aiming to become Buddha" (圖作佛) through practice towards realization exists, there is contradiction and opposition, because it still presupposes a world of ordinary sentient beings striving through methods of practice ("aiming to become Buddha") to reach the goal of "becoming Buddha." The greatest characteristic of Dōgen's view of practice-realization lies in fundamentally breaking the spatio-temporal boundary between means (方法) and end (目的), enabling a mutually reinforcing interaction between the two. Therefore, for Dōgen, correct practice-realization is not "practicing while awaiting awakening" (修而待悟) or "awakening achieved through practice" (悟由修成), but "awakening within practice" (悟中修 / 修中悟, shūchūgo) and "practice within awakening" (悟中修, gochūshu) occurring simultaneously in a beginningless and endless process. This is why Dōgen emphasized that from the perspective of sentient beings, one need only engage in "just sitting" (只管打坐, shikantaza) (practice) without pursuing realization and liberation, while from the perspective of a Buddha, even within the state of awakening, one still continuously practices the wondrous practice (妙修) of the Way-ring. Thus, not only can the non-differentiation of original realization (本証) and wondrous practice (妙修) be achieved, but this is also the state described in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra where "Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without difference."

Original Text: 248頁 是修和証完全融會在一起，道元這種修証一等和修証道環之修証觀的理論基礎建立在他的「無常佛性」論上，因為佛性的無常、空、非實體性，才能使得原本不可環轉的從修向証的「單行道」，變成有反轉和道環的「雙向道」。就像我們可以說「無常即佛性，佛性即無常」，我們亦可說「修行即証悟，証悟即修行」。 　　只要是建立在佛性論的修証觀，不管是始覺間或本覺門，佛性、修行、証悟三者之間始終存在著理論上的矛盾和分立。中國禪宗許多祖師為解決理論上的困難，主張在理上採取本覺門，而在事上採取始覺門的修証觀。在理事不二的前提下，對於中國禪師而言，這種說法並無所謂矛盾。但對道元而言，只要「圖作佛」的由修向証的二元存在，即有矛盾對立，因為它還是預設有一個凡夫眾生的世界，透過努力「圖作佛」的修行方法，達到「作佛」的目的。而道元修証觀的最大特點即是在根本上打破方法（means）和目的（end）的時空界線，使二者產生相互加強的互動。因此對道元而言，正確的修証不是「修而待悟」或「悟由修成」，而是「修中悟」和「悟中修」同時進行的無始無終的歷程，這也就是為什麼道元強調從眾生觀點，只要「只管打坐（修行）」，不必去追求証悟解脫，而對佛而言，即使在悟境，還是不斷地行持道環地妙修。如此，不但可達到本証與妙修無差別，亦就是《華嚴經》所說的「心、佛、眾生，是三無差別的境界。」

English Translation: Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one not only serves as the best guide for Buddhists regarding the concept and method of practice-realization, but also, from a broader perspective, the concept of practice-realization as one holds great applicability for ordinary people struggling daily between "means and end."[^140] In daily life, people often set a future goal (end) and currently use various means and methods to pursue that future goal. This process of proceeding from present methods towards a future goal, like proceeding from present practice towards future realization (practice awaiting awakening, aiming to become Buddha), perpetually involves dualistic separation. Regarding such a teleological view of life, on the one hand, due to single-mindedly pursuing a future goal, it is easy to neglect the meaning of "present actualization" (當下現成). On the other hand, before the goal is achieved, it easily causes anxiety and affliction.

Original Text: 　　道元修証一等的修証觀，不但成為佛教徒在修証的觀念和方法上最佳的導引，而且，從廣義的層面而言，對天天掙扎於「手段（means）和目的（end）」之間的一般人，修証一如的觀念也很有適用性。 註140一般人在日常生活中往往為將來設定一個目標（end），而現在以各種手段和方法去追求那個未來的目標，這種從現在的方法趣向未來目標的過程，就像由現在的修行趣向未來的証悟（修待悟、圖作佛）一樣，永達存在著二元的分立，對這樣的人生目的論，一方面由於一味地追求未來的目的，容易忽略「當下現成」的意義，另一方面在目的未達成之前，容易引起不安和煩惱。

Footnotes/Annotations: [^140]: The original text includes footnote 140 here, likely referencing further discussion on the broader applicability of Dōgen's view.

English Translation: Page 249

To remedy the affliction caused by such pursuit of goals by ordinary people, one applies Dōgen's concept of practice-realization as one, transforming the dichotomy of means and end (present and future) into a worldview where means and end are one and the same (一等). Thus, every effort made in the present (means or method) is, right now, the "present actualization" (現成) of the future goal. The meaning of the "present" no longer solely exists for achieving a future goal. Based on the theoretical foundation of spatio-temporal impermanence, the present and future (means and end) transcend spatio-temporal limitations, producing the effect of the "Way-ring" (道環) spoken of by Dōgen. In the interaction where method and goal are identical and interpenetrating, each person can have a more vital, creative, and fulfilling life.

The theory discussed above can be further expanded and applied to the relationship between the individual self and the myriad things. For Dōgen, every person and all myriad things exist within constant impermanent arising, ceasing, and changing. Therefore, although "one person sits in zazen at one time," simultaneously "all dharmas correspond implicitly, all times connect completely." In other words, one person's practice-realization (end) can serve as the condition (means) for another's practice-realization, and vice versa. This relationship can even extend to the realms of the sentient (有情) and insentient (無情) (nature). Therefore, Dōgen said: "Performing vast Buddha-work (廣大佛事), profound wondrous Buddha transformation (甚深微妙佛化)—where this transforming Way (化道) reaches, grass, trees, earth together emit great bright light, preaching the profound wondrous Dharma without end. Grass, trees, walls, partitions can proclaim [the Dharma] for ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits (凡聖含靈). Ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits in turn expound (演暢) for grass, trees, walls, partitions."[^141]

Original Text: 249頁 　　對治一般人這種追求目標所引起的煩惱，就是應用道元的修証一等的觀念，把手段和目的（現在和未來）的二分，轉變成手段和目的一等的人生觀。如此，現在所作的每一個努力（手段或方法），當下即是未來目的的「現成」。「現在」的意義不再僅是為達到未來目的而存生。在時空無常的理論基礎上，現在與未來（手段和目的）超越時空限制，產生道元所說的「道環」的作用。在方法和目的相即相入的互動中，每個人可以有一個更具活力、創造性和成就感的生命。 　　上面所說的理論可以更擴大應用在個人自己與萬物的關係上。對道元而言，每個人與萬事萬物都處於不斷的無常生滅變遷之中，因此雖然「一人一時坐禪」，卻可同時「諸法相冥，諸時圓通」，換言之，某個人的修証（目的）可以作為其他人修証的因緣（方法），反之亦然。這種關係甚至可擴及有情與無情（自然）界。所以道元說： 作廣大佛事，甚深微妙佛化，此化道所及草木土地，共放大光明，說深妙法無窮時，草木牆壁，能為凡聖含靈宣揚。凡聖含靈，還為草木牆壁演暢。 註141 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^141]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Kankin> (Sutra Reading) or a related text on the universality of Dharma activity. Cited in the original text (footnote 141). 含靈 (ganrei): Beings possessing spirit/consciousness.

English Translation: Only on the premise that method and goal are one and the same can one achieve what Dōgen described: grass, trees, walls, and partitions preaching the Dharma for each other (method) along with ordinary beings, sages, and sentient spirits, while simultaneously reaching the state where sentient and insentient beings together realize the Buddha Way (goal). To separate one's own practice-realization from the practice-realization of the myriad things is not true practice-realization. Therefore, Dōgen said: "Advancing oneself (運自己) to practice-realize the myriad dharmas is delusion (迷); the myriad dharmas advancing to practice-realize oneself is awakening (悟)."[^142] In other words, while advancing oneself to practice-realize the myriad dharmas, one must simultaneously allow the myriad dharmas to practice-realize oneself; and while the myriad dharmas practice-realize oneself, one must also simultaneously advance oneself to practice-realize the myriad dharmas. Only thus can one reach the state where practice-realization is one, and oneself and the myriad dharmas are completely non-dual.

Whether applying practice-realization as one to personal religious life, daily life, or the relationship between the individual and the myriad dharmas, as mentioned above, it is all established on the foundation of the thought of impermanence and no-self (無常無我). Therefore, Dōgen emphasized, "To practice the Buddha Way is to practice the self (慣習自己)." "Practicing the self" is the first step in cultivating the Buddha Way or for ordinary people establishing self-discipline in character. But while practicing the self, Dōgen said one must "forget the self through sitting" (坐忘自己). This is entering the realization of emptiness, impermanence, and no-self. While forgetting the self through sitting, one can then "verify the myriad dharmas" (見証萬法). And verifying the myriad dharmas is the state of "causing one's own body-mind, and the body-mind of others, to drop off" (使自己身心，及它己身心脫落). However, this state where self and others both drop off body and mind is not a passive state where "traces of awakening cease" (悟跡休歇). Rather, it is the unceasing, moment-to-moment actualization of practice-realization that "causes the ceased traces of awakening

Original Text: 只有在方法和目的一等的前提下，才能達到道元所說的草木牆壁和凡聖含靈為彼此說法（方法），又同時達到有情和非情同証佛道的境界（目的）。把自己的修証與萬物的修証二分，就不是真正的修証。所以道元說：「運自己修証萬法為迷，萬法進修証自己則悟也。」 註142換言之，在運自己修証萬法時，必須同時萬法修証自己，而在萬法修証自己時，也必須同時運自己修証萬法，如此才能達到修証一等，自己與萬法完全不二的境界。 　　以上所提到無論是將修証一等運用在個人的宗教生活、日常生活，或個人或萬法的關係上，都是建立在無常無我的思想基礎上，因此道元強調說「慣習佛道者，慣習自己也」。「慣習自己」是修習佛道或一般人建立人格自律的第一步驟。但是在慣習自己的同時，道元說要「坐忘自己」，這是進入空、無常、無我的體証。在坐忘自己的同時，即能「見証萬法」，而見証萬法即是「使自己身心，及它己身心脫落」的境界。但是這種自他皆身心脫落的境界，並非是「悟跡休歇」的消極狀態，而是源源不斷，時時刻刻「令休歇悟 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^142]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from Shōbōgenzō <Genjōkōan>. Cited in the original text (footnote 142).

English Translation: Page 250 to emerge unceasingly" (令休歇悟跡長長出).[^143]

Original Text: 250頁 跡長長出」 註143的修証現成。

Footnotes/Annotations: [^143]: This is a paraphrase/reference back to the quote from Shōbōgenzō <Genjōkōan> discussed earlier (see footnote 26). Cited again here in the original text (footnote 143).

English Translation: V. Dōgen's Thought on Buddha-Nature and "Critical Buddhism"

Starting from the mid-1980s in Japanese Buddhist academic circles, two professors from Komazawa University, Hakamaya Noriaki (袴谷憲昭) and Matsumoto Shirō (松本史朗), initiated a movement known as "Critical Buddhism,"[^144] which caused considerable repercussions in both Japanese and North American Buddhist academic circles.[^145] The entire content and development of "Critical Buddhism" are beyond the scope of this article. However, because Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature is one of the main objects of discussion for "Critical Buddhism," this final section will briefly discuss the relationship between "Critical Buddhism" and Dōgen's thought.

What is "Critical Buddhism"? According to Hakamaya's own definition: "Buddhism is critique," or "Only the critical is Buddhist." In fact, from the perspective of the entire history of Buddhist thought's development, it is a "history of Buddhist critique." From early Buddhism developing into sectarian Buddhism and Mahāyāna Buddhism, the thought of each period was formed through critique, reflection, and elaboration upon the thought of the preceding period. Furthermore, within Chinese Buddhism, for example, schools advocating "emptiness" or "existence," "three vehicles" or "one vehicle," "possessing nature" or "lacking nature," etc., also constantly critiqued each other. Given this, what novelty does the "Critical Buddhism" proposed by modern Japanese scholars possess?

Original Text: 五、道元的佛性思想與「批判佛教」

日本佛教學術界自一九八０年代中期開始，由駒澤大學的𠗟谷憲昭和松本史朗二位教授發動了一個所謂「批判佛教」的運動， 註144在日本和北美佛教學術界都引起不小的反響。 註145整個「批判佛教」的內容和發展不是本文探討的範圍，然而，因為道元的佛性思想是「批判佛教」討論的主要對像之一，故本文最後就「批判佛教」與道元思想之關係作一略論。 　　何謂「批判佛教」？根據𠗟谷自己的定義是：「佛教即是批判」或「唯有批判性的才是佛教。」其實，從整個佛教思想的發展史而言，就是一個「佛教批判史」。從原始佛教發展到部派佛教、大乘佛教，每個時期的思想都是對前一期的思想加上批判、反省、推演而成。再者，如中國佛教中，主張「空」或「有」、「三乘」或「一乘」、「有性」或「無性」等的學派也是不斷彼此批判。既然如此，現代日本學者提出的「批判佛教」又有何新意呢？ 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^144]: The original text includes footnote 144 here, likely referencing Hakamaya and Matsumoto's initial works launching Critical Buddhism. [^145]: The original text includes footnote 145 here, indicating the movement's impact.

English Translation: Fundamentally, Hakamaya and Matsumoto's "Critical Buddhism" holds the following main viewpoints:

1. Tathāgatagarbha thought (and original awakening thought, 本覺思想) is a kind of "substratum theory" (基體說, dhātu-vāda), similar to an Atman theory (有我論).
2. The Buddha's true teaching lies in the theory of dependent origination (緣起說, Pratītyasamutpāda), not "substratum theory."

Original Text: 　　基本上，𠗟谷和和松本的「批判佛教」有下列主要觀點： 　　1.如來藏思想（本覺思想）是一種「基體說」（dhatu-vada），類似有我論。 2.佛陀的真正教示在於「緣起說」（Pratityasamutpada），而非「基體說」。

English Translation: Page 251 3. Therefore, any [school or teaching] containing Tathāgatagarbha thought (including Chan/Zen Buddhism) is non-Buddhist. 4. The Japanese ideology of "harmony" (和, wa) originates from original awakening thought and is the cause of unequal, unjust "social discrimination" (差別待遇) in Japanese society,[^146] even providing the theoretical basis for Japanese "militarism."

The questioning of Tathāgatagarbha as an Atman-like doctrine has a long history, from Mahāmati Bodhisattva in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra questioning Tathāgatagarbha as "similar to the non-Buddhist view of self," to the historical debates between the Nature School (性宗) and Characteristics School (相宗) in Chinese Buddhism, the debate on Buddha-nature between Saichō and Tokuitsu in Japanese Buddhism, and even the critiques of the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith and the Perfect Awakening Sutra by Yogācāra scholars at the end of the 19th century, etc.—all have challenged Tathāgatagarbha thought. The camp asserting "Tathāgatagarbha was taught by the Buddha" has also continuously cited scriptures and evidence to offer defenses, from the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Fo Xing Lun), Ratnagotravibhāga (Bao Xing Lun), Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, to the Huayan school's "nature-arising theory" (性起說), the Tiantai school's "nature-inclusion theory" (性具說), Chan Buddhism's "Tathāgata[garbha] Chan" (如來（藏）禪), Japanese Tendai original awakening doctrine, and even some modern Western Buddhist scholars, all vigorously argue for the "legitimacy (according to Buddhadharma)" (合（佛）法性) of Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) thought.[^147] The positions of the two camps are distinct, and their arguments each have their bases. However, in the past, the opposing camp usually judged the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine as being of provisional meaning (不了義說), unlike modern "Critical Buddhism," which judges Tathāgatagarbha thought and its related doctrines and schools entirely as "non-Buddhist" or "pseudo-Buddhist," rejecting them wholesale. Furthermore, "Critical Buddhism's" strong critique of Tathāgatagarbha thought as the chief culprit for social prejudice and class discrimination in Japan[^148] is also one of the characteristics of "Critical Buddhism," although many points in its arguments await verification and "critique."[^149]

Original Text: 251頁 3.因此，任何含有如來藏思想者（包括禪宗），均非佛教。 4.日本「和」的思想源自本覺思想，是造成日本社會中不平等、不正義的「差別待遇」（social discrimination）， 註146甚至於是日本「軍國主義」的理論基礎。 　　如來藏被質疑為神我思想由來已久，從《楞伽經》大慧菩薩質疑如來藏「同外道說我」，到中國佛教歷代性宗與相宗之爭，日本佛教最澄與德一的佛性論諍，及至十九世紀末唯識學派對《大乘起信論》、《圓覺經》的批判等等，都是對如來藏思想的挑戰。主張「如來藏為佛說」的陣營也不斷地引經據典提出辯護，從《佛性論》、《寶性論》、《大乘起信論》到華嚴宗的「性起說」、天台宗的「性具說」，禪宗的「如來（藏）禪」，日本天台本覺說，及至現代一些西方佛教學者，都極力論証如來藏（佛性）思想的「合（佛）法性」。 註147兩個陣營立場分明，立論也都各有所據。不過，以往反對陣營通常將如來藏說判定為不了義說，而不像現代的「批判佛教」的一樣，將如來藏思想，及其有關的學說和宗派都判定為「非佛教」或「偽佛教」加以全盤否定。再者，「批判佛教」極力批判如來藏思想為日本社會歧視和階級差別的禍首， 註148也是「批判佛教」的特點之一，雖然其立論很多地方有待商確和被「批判」。 註149

Footnotes/Annotations: [^146]: The original text includes footnote 146 here, likely referencing works discussing the link between hongaku and social discrimination. [^147]: The original text includes footnote 147 here, referencing defenders of Tathāgatagarbha thought. [^148]: The original text includes footnote 148 here, referencing specific critiques linking Tathāgatagarbha to discrimination. [^149]: The original text includes footnote 149 here, suggesting counter-arguments or critiques of Critical Buddhism's claims about social discrimination.

English Translation: The main points of "Critical Buddhism's" critique regarding Dōgen's thought focus on (1) whether Dōgen's Buddha-nature thought belongs to original awakening thought, and (2) which of Dōgen's works present original awakening thought. According to Hakamaya's view, the Buddha-nature theory in Dōgen's 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō has not completely shed Tendai original awakening thought, although he repeatedly emphasized the concept of "impermanent Buddha-nature." However, Hakamaya also believed that the 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō

Original Text: 　　「批判佛教」對於道元思想批判的主要重點在於（１）道元的佛性思想是否屬於本覺思想，（２）道元的那些著作呈現本覺思想。根據[被-皮+夸]谷的看法，道元七十五卷本的《正法眼藏》中的佛性論並未完全擺脫天台本覺思想，雖然他一再強調「無常佛性」的觀念。但是，[被-皮+夸]谷又認為七十五卷《正法眼藏》

English Translation: Page 252 cannot truly represent Dōgen's thought; rather, it is the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō, in which Dōgen strongly criticized original awakening thought, that constitutes Dōgen's final understanding. Regarding this view of Hakamaya's, Matsumoto, also belonging to "Critical Buddhism," offered criticism. Matsumoto believed that even the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō still could not escape the influence of Tathāgatagarbha thought.

The manuscript of the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō was discovered at Eikō-ji temple by Dr. Tokushui Kōen in the 1930s [Note: This seems incorrect; the text likely refers to the discovery of a specific manuscript copy around 1934 by Mizuno Yaoko, but the 12-fascicle collection itself was known earlier]; however, the 12-fascicle version had long been known. The Shōbōgenzō exists in many versions, among which the most common is the 95-fascicle Honzanban (Head Temple Edition) published by the head temple Eihei-ji. Additionally, there are the 75-fascicle version, the 84-fascicle version, etc. Among these, the 75-fascicle version is said to have been compiled and completed during Dōgen's lifetime; the 60-fascicle version is commonly known as the "old draft" (舊草, kyuusō). Dōgen originally intended to compose 100 fascicles but could not fulfill his wish. After Dōgen passed away, his chief disciple Ejō compiled Dōgen's later writings into 12 fascicles, which became what is later known as the 12-fascicle "new draft" (新草, shinsō).[^150]

Original Text: 252頁 不能真正代表道元的思想，反而是十二卷本《正法眼藏》中道元強烈批判本覺思想，這才是道元最後的見解。對𠗟谷的這種看法，同屬「批判佛教」的松本提出批判。松木認為既使十二卷本《正法眼藏》還是未能擺脫如來藏思想的影響。 　　十二卷本《正法眼藏》的手稿是在一九三０年被永久岳水博士於永光寺發現，然而，十二卷本早已為人所熟知。《正法眼藏》有許多版本，其中最通行的是由大本山永平寺出版的九十五卷《本山版》，另外還有七十五卷本，八十四卷本等等。其中七十五卷本據說是道元在世時即已撰輯完成，六十卷本通稱為「舊草」。道元本有意撰成一百卷，但未能如願。道元過世後，其首座弟子懷奘將道元晚年的撰述合集十二卷，成為後來所謂十二卷的「新草」。 註150

Footnotes/Annotations: [^150]: The original text includes footnote 150 here, providing references for the history and editions of the Shōbōgenzō.

English Translation: The titles of the individual fascicles in the 12-fascicle version are respectively: (1) Merit of Leaving Home (出家功德), (2) Receiving the Precepts (受戒), (3) Merit of the Kaśāya (袈裟功德), (4) Arousing Bodhi-Mind (發菩提心), (5) Making Offerings to the Buddhas (供養諸佛), (6) Taking Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha Jewels (歸依佛法僧寶), (7) Deep Faith in Cause and Effect (深信因果), (8) Karma of the Three Times (三時業), (9) The Four Horses (四馬), (10) The Four Dhyāna Bhikṣu (四禪比丘), (11) The One Hundred Eight Dharma Gates (一百八法明門), (12) The Eight Awakenings of Great Beings (八大人覺). From the perspective of composition time, although the 12-fascicle version came later, from the perspective of content, the 75-fascicle version clearly contains the essence of Dōgen's thought. The content of the 12-fascicle version, however, leans towards instruction on fundamental Buddhist doctrines, such as cause and effect, karma, as well as emphasizing the importance of the renunciant path, such as leaving home and receiving precepts. There are two differing scholarly evaluations of the 12-fascicle version. Professor Steven Heine calls them the "Decline Theory" and the "Renewal Theory."[^151] Scholars advocating the former include Carl Bielefeldt[^152] and Heinrich Dumoulin,[^153] Fu Weixun, and others. These scholars all believe the 12-fascicle version represents a decline in Dōgen's thought. As Fu Weixun criticized: "The 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō only displays Dōgen's intention to 'turn back the clock' by returning to original Buddhism, not to mention

Original Text: 　　十二卷本各卷的題名分別為：（1）出家功德，（2）受戒，（3）袈裟功德，（4）發菩提心，（5）供養諸佛，（6）歸依佛法僧寶，（7）深信因果，（8）三時業，（9）四馬，（10）四禪比丘，（11）一百八法明門，（12）八大人覺。從創作的時間上而言，十二卷本雖然居於後出，但是從內容而言，七十五卷顯然包含了道元的思想精華。十二卷本的內容則偏重佛教基本教義的教示，如因果、業力，以及強調出家、受戒等出家道的重要性。學術界有二種對十二卷本不同評價的看法，海因教授（steven Heine）把他們稱為「倒退論」（Decline Theory）和「重興論」（Renewal Theory）， 註151主張前者的學者包括 Carl Bielefeldt 註152和Heinrich Dumoulin， 註153傅偉勳等。這些學者都認為十二卷本代表道元思想的倒退，就如傅偉勳所批評的：「十二卷本《正法眼藏》衹顯示了道元有意回歸原始佛教的「開倒車」意願，且不說

Footnotes/Annotations: [^151]: The original text includes footnote 151 here, referencing Steven Heine's categorization of views on the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō. [^152]: The original text includes footnote 152 here, citing Carl Bielefeldt. [^153]: The original text includes footnote 153 here, citing Heinrich Dumoulin.

English Translation: Page 253 the bias towards monastic supremacy (leaning towards Hīnayāna practice) he clearly adopts in this version."[^154]

The scholar advocating the "Renewal Theory" is Hakamaya Noriaki from the "Critical Buddhism" camp. He believes the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō represents the peak of Dōgen's thought because Dōgen emphasized the view of cause and effect within it, shedding the original awakening thought found in the earlier 75-fascicle version. Hakamaya criticized original awakening thought for not truly adhering to the fundamental Buddhist idea of cause and effect, instead creating a façade of equality. He believed that thoughts related to Tathāgatagarbha, Buddha-nature, etc., associated with original awakening, all contain a kind of uncritically accepting Tolerance and Syncretism, where overall harmony submerges individual uniqueness. From an ontological perspective, "Critical Buddhism" holds that the biggest problem with original awakening thought is that it does not permit the existence of another "other,"[^155] because original awakening thought asserts that the myriad things all arise from a single "substratum" (dhātu), thus being unable to tolerate the difference of other existences. If this theory is applied to politics, original awakening thought becomes the best theoretical basis for authoritarianism, nationalism, etc.

Hakamaya's main reason for asserting the 12-fascicle version represents Dōgen's true thought lies in its ability to shed original awakening thought. How is it evident that Dōgen was able to shed original awakening? Hakamaya believes it is because Dōgen repeatedly emphasized the importance of the traditional view of cause and effect in the 12-fascicle version. In the chapter 〈Deep Faith in Cause and Effect〉 (深信因果), Dōgen cited a Chan kōan: Every time Baizhang Huaihai gave a discourse, an old man would listen. One day, Baizhang asked who he was. The old man replied: "I am not human. During the time of the past Kāśyapa Buddha, I lived on this mountain. Because a student asked, 'Does a person of great practice still fall into cause and effect or not?' I replied, 'Does not fall into cause and effect (不落因果).' Subsequently, for five hundred lifetimes, I was reborn as a wild fox. Now I request the Abbot to provide a turning-word on my behalf, hoping to be liberated from the fox body." The old man immediately asked Baizhang: "Does a person of great practice still fall into cause and effect or not?" Baizhang replied: "Is not blind to cause and effect (不昧因果)." The old man attained great awakening upon hearing these words and was finally liberated from the wild fox body.[^156] Regarding this kōan, Dōgen made the following comment: "Students are unclear about the principle of cause and effect. Some merely negate cause and effect, resulting in error. Pitifully, once this degenerate trend spreads, the Patriarchal Way declines. 'Not falling into cause and effect' is precisely negating cause and effect. Due to this, [the old man] fell into an evil rebirth. 'Not blind to cause and effect' clearly means deep faith in cause and effect. Due to this, the listener was liberated from the evil rebirth. This cannot be negated or doubted. Practitioners studying Chan and the Way in recent times often negate cause and effect. How do we know they negate cause and effect? Because they say that the so-called 'not falling into' and 'not blind to' are identical and without difference. From this, we know they negate cause and effect."[^157]

Original Text: 253頁 他於此本明確採取（偏向小乘修行）的出家至上主義偏差」。 註154 　　主張「重興論」的學者是「批判佛教」陣營中的𠗟谷憲昭，他認為十二卷《正法眼藏》才能代表道元思想的高峰，因為道元於中強調困果觀，擺脫了前期七十五卷中的本覺思想。𠗟谷批評本覺思想沒有真正遵從佛教基本的因果思想，反而是造成平等的假相。他認為如來藏、佛性等與本覺相關的思想，皆含有一種缺乏批判性的容受（Tolerence）和融會（Syncretism）思想，整體的和諧淹沒了個別的獨特性。從本體論而言，「批判佛教」認為本覺思想的最大問題在於它不容許另一個「其他」（one other）的存在， 註155因為本覺思想主張萬事萬物均起自一個單一的「基體」（dhatu），因此無法容受其他存在的差異性。如果將此理論運用在政治上，本覺思想就變成威權主義、民族主義等最好的理論依據。 𠗟 　[被-皮+夸]谷主張十二卷本代表道元真正思想的主要理由，在於它能擺脫本覺思想，何以見得道元能擺脫本覺呢？[被-皮+夸]谷認為這是因為道元在十二卷本中一再強調傳統因果觀的重要性。在〈深信因果〉篇中，道元引用一則禪宗公案：百丈懷海每次開示都有一位老人聽講。一日百丈問他是何人，老人答說：「某甲非人也，於過去迦葉佛時，曾住此山。因學人問：『大修行底人，還落因果也無？』某甲答曰：『不落因果。』後五百年生墮野狐身。今請和尚代一轉語，貴脫狐身。」老人隨即問百丈曰：「大修行底人，還落因果也無？」百丈回答說：「不昧因果。」老人於言下大悟，終於得脫野狐身， 註156對這個公案，道元做如下的評論： 參學輩不明因果道理，有徒撥無因果誤謬，可憐澆風一扇，而祖道陵替焉矣。不落因果，正是撥無因果也。由茲墮於惡趣。不昧因果，明是深信因果也。由茲聽者脫於惡趣，非可杄非可疑。近代參禪學道輩，多撥無因果焉。因何知撥無因果焉？謂所謂不落及不昧，一等不異也，由茲知撥無因果也矣。註157 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^154]: Quote from Fu Weixun criticizing the 12-fascicle version. Cited in the original text (footnote 154). [^155]: The original text includes footnote 155 here, referencing the critique that hongaku thought denies true otherness. [^156]: The famous Baizhang fox kōan. Cited in the original text (footnote 156). 不落因果 (furaku inga): Not falling into cause and effect. 不昧因果 (fumai inga): Not blind to / not obscuring cause and effect. [^157]: Dōgen's commentary on the fox kōan from Shōbōgenzō <Shin Jinshin Innen> (Deep Faith in Cause and Effect). Cited in the original text (footnote 157).

English Translation: Dōgen used this Chan kōan to strongly express the importance of "deep faith in cause and effect." He believed "not falling into cause and effect" is precisely "negating cause and effect" (撥無因果), while "not blind to cause and effect" means "deep faith in cause and effect." Furthermore, he criticized practitioners studying Chan and the Way at that time for falling into the erroneous view of "negating cause and effect" because they mistakenly considered "not falling into cause and effect" and "not blind to cause and effect" to be identical and without difference. The targets of Dōgen's criticism included great Chan masters like Hongzhi (宏智),[^158] Yuanwu Keqin (圜悟克勤),[^159] and Dahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲).[^160] He pointed out that these Chan masters either negated cause and effect or fell into the view of permanence (常見) or the non-Buddhist view of naturalism (自然見).

Original Text: 道元引用禪宗公案強烈表達「深信因果」的重要。他認為「不落因果」即「撥 　 254頁 無因果」，「不昧因果」即是「深信因果」，並且批評當時參禪學道之輩因為誤認「不落因果」與「不昧因果」為一等不異，所以落入「撥無因果」的邪見。道元批評的對象包括了宏智， 註158圜悟克勤， 註159大慧宗杲註160等大禪師，他指出這些禪師不是撥無因果，就是落入常見或外道的自然見。

Footnotes/Annotations: [^158]: The original text includes footnote 158 here, citing Dōgen's criticism of Hongzhi Zhengjue (宏智正覺). [^159]: The original text includes footnote 159 here, citing Dōgen's criticism of Yuanwu Keqin (圜悟克勤), compiler of the Blue Cliff Record. [^160]: The original text includes footnote 160 here, citing Dōgen's criticism of Dahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲), proponent of kōan introspection.

English Translation: Dōgen simultaneously criticized views such as "when people die, they must return to the nature-ocean, return to the great self," and "without practicing Buddhadharma, one naturally returns to the ocean of awakening." Hakamaya believed this was precisely a critique of "original awakening thought." In the 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen's original awakening thought, which encompasses mountains, rivers, and the great earth, can be seen everywhere. However, in the 12-fascicle chapter 〈Four Dhyāna Bhikṣu〉 (四禪比丘), Dōgen clearly revised this viewpoint, saying: "Some say that because all Buddhas broadly realize the dharma realm, the dharma realm of dust motes is all realized by the Buddhas. Thus, because dependent and direct retribution together constitute what the Tathāgata spoke of, mountains, rivers, the great earth, sun, moon, stars, the four errors (四倒), the three poisons (三毒) are all spoken by the Tathāgata. Seeing mountains and rivers is seeing the Tathāgata; the three poisons and four errors are none other than Buddhadharma. Seeing a dust mote is equally seeing the dharma realm; hasty and urgent moments are all samyak-saṃbodhi (三菩提). This is called great liberation; this is called the singly transmitted, directly pointing Patriarchal Way. Those who speak thus are like rice, hemp, bamboo, and reeds, filling the court and countryside... They totally do not know the Way of the Buddhas and Patriarchs."[^161]

Original Text: 　　道元同時又批判「人死必歸性海，歸大我」，「不修習佛法，而自然歸覺海」的見解，𠗟谷認為這正是對「本覺思想」的一種批判。在七十五卷本《正法眼藏》中，處處可見道元含攝山河大地的本覺思想，但是在十二卷本的〈四禪比丘〉篇中，道元對此觀點顯然有所修正，他說： 或言諸佛廣証法界故，微塵法界皆諸佛所証，然依正二報共成如來所說故，山河大地日月星辰，四倒三毒皆如來所說，見山河則見如來，三毒四倒無非佛法，見微塵齊見法界，造次顛沛皆三菩提也，謂之大解脫，是名單傳直指祖道。如是謂輩如稻麻竹葦，遍滿于朝野……總不知佛祖道也。註161

Footnotes/Annotations: [^161]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, 12-fascicle version, <Shizen Biku> (Four Dhyāna Bhikṣu). Cited in the original text (footnote 161).

English Translation: The non-dual thought seen everywhere in the 75-fascicle version, such as the non-duality of the "three poisons and four errors" with Buddhadharma, the non-duality of dependent and direct retribution, the non-duality of "hasty and urgent moments" (造次顛沛) with "samyak-saṃbodhi," etc., as described in the quote above, Dōgen called "not knowing the Way of the Buddhas and Patriarchs." This became Hakamaya's strongest evidence for believing Dōgen revised his earlier original awakening thought. Furthermore, Dōgen's earlier thought contained a "pan-naturalism" (animism) consistent with original awakening thought. For example, in the chapter 〈Receiving the Marrow through Bowing〉 (禮拜得髓), Dōgen once said we should respect the "Dharma," whether it manifests as pillars, lanterns, Buddhas, jackals, ghosts and spirits, or men and women. Dōgen also cited the Buddha's words: "Today I have attained anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi. Thus, one should vow: If it is a tree, if it is a stone, one can speak [to it]; seeking, if it is a field, if it is a village, one can speak [to it];

Original Text: 　　在七十五卷本到處可見的不二思想，如上面引句所說的「三毒四倒」，與佛法不二，依報與正報不二，「造次顛沛」與「三菩提」不二等等，道元稱之為「不知佛祖道」。這成為𠗟谷認為道元修正其前期本覺思想的最有力依據。再者，道元前期思想中含有與本覺思想相契的「泛自然主義」（animism）。例如在〈禮拜得髓〉篇中，道元曾說吾人應尊重「法」，無論它是顯現於露柱、燈籠、諸佛、野干、鬼神或男女。道元又引佛言：「今日得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，然則應願若樹、若石，可說求若田、若里，可說

English Translation: Page 255

one should inquire of pillars and walls, investigate them."[^162] In the 12-fascicle version, however, Dōgen rejected this kind of thought. For example, in the chapter 〈Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels〉 (歸依三寶), he said: "Sentient beings should not futilely fear what oppresses them and take refuge in mountain spirits, ghosts and spirits, etc.... That such dharmas could be the cause of liberation—there is no such principle."[^163] This is also a reason why Hakamaya Noriaki of "Critical Buddhism" believed Dōgen had departed from original awakening thought.

Furthermore, "Critical Buddhism" has consistently maintained that original awakening thought is the root cause of discrimination and differential treatment in Japanese society. Hakamaya particularly subjected the Shushōgi (修証儀), a fundamental text observed by adherents of Japanese Sōtō Zen which contains discriminatory thought implicitly, to severe criticism. The Shushōgi was compiled by Ōuchi Seiran (大內青巒, 1845-1918) based on Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō. However, Hakamaya believed the Shushōgi not only failed to represent Dōgen's true thought but actually included theories Dōgen had refuted. He cited as an example a commentary on cause and effect retribution in the Shushōgi: "Originally, the fundamental source of the universe is equal and identical (平等一如), without the slightest differentiation by even a dust mote. Within this equal and identical entity itself exists a great spiritual power (一大靈力). This spiritual power pervades past and present; it is the fixed law of heaven and earth. Based on it, wondrous functions manifest. This fixed law is called the principle of cause and effect (因果道理). From heaven and earth above down to a single blade of grass or tree, their arising, arising, transformation, and nurturing all depend on this principle of cause and effect."[^164]

Original Text: 255頁 　 應問取露柱、牆壁參究。」 註162在十二卷本中，道元則排斥這種思想，例如，他在〈歸依三寶〉篇中就說：「眾生勿徒然怖於所逼，歸依山神鬼神等……如是等法能為解脫因者，無有是處。」 註163這也是「批判佛教」的[被-皮+夸]谷憲昭認為道元之捨離本覺思想的理由。 再者，「批判佛教」一直認為本覺思想是日本社會中歧視和差別待遇的根源。[被-皮+夸]谷就特別對日本曹洞宗信眾奉行的基本典籍《修証儀》隱含的歧視性思想加以嚴厲的批判。《修証儀》是由大內青巒（1845-1918）依據道元的《正法眼藏》編輯而成，但是[被-皮+夸]谷認為《修証儀》不但未能呈現真正道元的思想，反而包含道元所駁斥的理論，他舉一則《修証議》中有關因果報應的註解為例： 元來宇宙之本源平等一如，微塵計隔無所差別。其平等一如之本身存在著一大靈力。此靈力古今一貫，乃天地定則，依之則妙用現前。此定則名為因果道理，上至天地下至一草一木，其生生化育皆依此因果道理。 註164

Footnotes/Annotations: [^162]: Quote from Dōgen, likely from <Raihai Tokuzui> (Receiving the Marrow through Bowing). Cited in the original text (footnote 162). [^163]: Quote from Dōgen's 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō, <Kie Buppōsō Bō> (Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels). Cited in the original text (footnote 163). [^164]: Quote from a commentary in the Shushōgi on cause and effect. Cited in the original text (footnote 164).

English Translation: Hakamaya argued that this view—regarding the equal and identical fundamental source of the universe as the origin producing myriad differentiated things, and asserting that all things return to this fundamental source—is not only not Dōgen's assertion but is a viewpoint Dōgen vehemently attacked. For example, Dōgen said: "Some say 'when this world ends, the form is here, but the nature long ago returned to awakening; nature is mind; mind is not equal to body.' To understand thus is non-Buddhist. Others say 'when people die, they must return to the nature-ocean (性海); without practicing Buddhadharma, one naturally returns to the ocean of awakening (覺海), then there is no more birth-and-death transmigration'... This is precisely non-Buddhist doctrine. Generally, those who negate cause and effect mistakenly recognize no present world and future world."[^165] Dōgen considered "returning to the nature-ocean, returning to the great self" after death to be a non-Buddhist view because it carries strong implications of the original awakening thought of "mind is permanent, form perishes" (心常相滅), which is precisely what Dōgen forcefully criticized in the 〈Bendōwa〉: "Question: This body already has birth, thus it undergoes change and extinction. But this mind-nature shows no sign of extinction. Knowing the unchanging mind-nature is within my body, this is the original nature. The body is an illusory reality (假體); dying here, born there, is uncertain. The mind is permanent (常住); past, future, present, it cannot change..." "(Dōgen) Instructed: The view just described is entirely not Buddhadharma; it is the view of the non-Buddhist Senika. That non-Buddhist view asserts that within my body there is a numinous awareness (靈知). That awareness, upon encountering conditions, can discern good and bad, right and wrong, knows pain and itching, knows suffering and pleasure—all are the power of that

Original Text: [被-皮+夸]谷認為這種將平等一如的宇宙本源，視為產生千差萬別事物的根源，以及萬物又回歸本源的說法，不但不是道元的主張，而且是道元極力抨擊的觀點。例如，道元說：「無今世者，形在此處，性久歸悟，性即心也，心不等身故，如是解焉，便外道也。或曰人死則必歸性海，不修習佛法，而自然歸覺海，則更無生死輪轉……正是外道也。大凡自撥無因果，誤認無今世後世也。」 註165道元認為人死後「歸性海，歸大我」是外道見，因為它帶有強烈「心常相滅」的本覺思想，而這正是《辦道話》中道元所大力批判的： 問曰：此身體者已有生，則有遷滅去，而此心性無肯滅，能知不遷滅心性在我身，則是為本性故。身是假體，死此生彼無定。心是常住，去來現在不可變…… （道元）示云：今所謂見，全非佛法，先尼外道見也。彼外道見謂我身內有一靈知，彼知即所遇緣，能辨好惡是非，知痛痒知苦樂，皆彼

Footnotes/Annotations: [^165]: Quote from Dōgen criticizing views of returning to a source after death. Cited in the original text (footnote 165).

numinous awareness (靈知力). Furthermore, that numinous nature (靈性), when this body perishes, sheds its skin (蛻) and is born elsewhere. Therefore, seeing this extinction here and that birth there, it seems not to perish but to be permanent (常往). That non-Buddhist view is like this. To emulate this view and consider it Buddhadharma, grasping tiles and pebbles and calling them gold and jewels, is just as foolish. Such delusion and confusion (癡迷) are shameful."[^166] From the quote above, it is very clear that Dōgen thoroughly opposed the doctrine of "permanent mind, perishing form" (心常相滅). This kind of view, similar to an Atman theory (神我論), certainly does not accord with fundamental Buddhist teachings. However, Hakamaya (袴谷) argued that the Sōtō school lineage (曹洞宗門) used it as a basis for justifying class distinctions (階級差別). Hakamaya cited Kishizawa Ian (岸澤惟安, 1865-1955) as an example. Kishizawa once said the spiritual source (靈源, reigen) is pure and bright (皎潔) like a water source; from this spiritual source flow branch streams; the branch streams return again to the spiritual source. The source is one, the branches many; Buddhadharma is also like this. The Buddha-seed (佛種) arises from various conditions and returns again to become the "sixteen-foot golden body" (丈六金身). Therefore, Buddhism on the one hand speaks of equality (平等), and on the other hand also speaks of difference (差別). This can be applied to social classes, i.e., "Class + No-difference = Mind of the Indian Great Sage (竺土大仙心)."[^167] Hakamaya pointed out that the "spiritual source" spoken of by Kishizawa is precisely the Senika non-Buddhist view criticized by Dōgen. Even more seriously, this way of saying equality is difference, and difference is equality, serves precisely as an excuse (籍口) for social inequality.

In summary regarding "Critical Buddhism's" exploration and critique of Dōgen's thought, the following main points can be summarized, but regarding these points, we can also pose counter-questions:

1. Tathāgatagarbha thought (and the Original Awakening thought developed from it) is non-orthodox Buddhist thought. Question: Is Tathāgatagarbha thought truly non-Buddhist?
2. Dōgen's 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō contains strong Original Awakening thought, but in the 12-fascicle edition, he revised his view. Question: Is Dōgen's Original Awakening thought identical to the Original Awakening thought criticized by "Critical Buddhism"? Furthermore, did Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature change between his earlier and later periods?
3. Original Awakening thought is the main cause of Japanese social class distinctions. Question: Is Original Awakening thought itself the sole ideology responsible for the fact of social distinctions in Japan, or are there other, non-Buddhist factors involved?

Original Text: 256頁 靈知力也。然彼靈性，此身滅時，蛻而生彼，故見此滅有彼生，則不滅常往也，彼外道見如是。然效此見而為佛法，握瓦礫謂金寶，猶愚也，癡迷可恥。 註166 以上引句中很顯然地，道元徹底反對「心常相滅」說，這種類似神我論的說法當然是不合基本佛教教義，但是𠗟谷認為曹洞宗門卻引用做為辯正階級差別的依據。𠗟谷舉岸𢓭惟安（1865-1955）為例。岸𢓭曾說靈源皎潔猶如水源，由此靈源流出枝派，枝派又回歸靈源，源一枝多，佛法亦如是。佛種由眾緣而起，又回歸成「丈六金身」。因此，佛教一方面說平等，另一方面亦說差別，這可應用到社會階級上，亦即「階級＋無差別＝竺土大仙心」。註167𠗟谷指出𢓭岸所說的「靈源」正是道元指責的先尼外道說，更嚴重的是這種平等即差別，差別即平等的說法，正是造成社會不平等的籍口。 　　總括以上「批判佛教」對道元思想的探討和批判，可以總結下列幾個要點，但這對這些要點，我們亦可提出反問： 如來藏思想（及其後來發展出的本覺思想）乃非正統佛教思想。問題是：如來藏思想是否真的非佛教？ 道元在七十五卷本《正法眼藏》中含有強烈的本覺思想，但在十二卷本中則修正其觀點。問題是：道元的本覺思想是否即「批判佛教」所批判的本覺思想？再者，道元前後期佛性思想是否有所改變？ 本覺思想是日本社會階級差別的主因。問題是：本覺思想本身是否為唯一造成日本社會差別事實的思想，或者另有非佛教的因素所造成的？ 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^166]: Quote from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, <Bendōwa>, refuting the Senika view. Cited in the original text (footnote 166). [^167]: Paraphrase or quote attributed to Kishizawa Ian, criticized by Hakamaya. Cited in the original text (footnote 167). 竺土大仙心 (Jikudo daisen shin): Mind of the Great Sage of India (i.e., Buddha).

English Translation: Point (1) is the main viewpoint of "Critical Buddhism." Its primary reason for deeming Tathāgatagarbha non-Buddhist is that Buddhism advocates the theory of dependent origination (緣起說) and the theory of no-self (無我說), whereas Tathāgatagarbha thought advocates "locus theory" (基體說, dhātu-vāda), i.e., "the arising of manifold dharmas (dharma) from a single, real locus (dhātu)." Matsumoto Shirō calls this "generative monism" (発生論的一元論) or "source realism" (根源実在論).[^168] This Tathāgatagarbha thought, containing Atman theory (神我論), directly contradicts the theory of dependent origination and no-self. Against this critique, traditional Buddhism and modern scholars have presented defenses.[^169] For instance, the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Fo Xing Lun, 佛性論) and the Ratnagotravibhāga (Bao Xing Lun, 寶性論) both point out that the affirmative language used by Tathāgatagarbha thought

Original Text: 　　第（1）點是「批判佛教」的主要觀點，其認為如來藏非佛教的主要理由是佛教主張緣起說、無我說，而如來藏思想主張「基體說」（dhatu-vada），亦即「由單一實在的基體（dhatu）生起多元的諸法（dharma）」，松本史朗稱之為「發生論的一元論」或「根源實在論」， 註168此含有神我論的如來藏思想與緣起無我論正相背反。對此批判，傳統佛教與現代學者均曾提出辯謢， 註169如《佛性論》、《寶性論》皆指出如來藏思想所使用的肯定語言， 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^168]: The original text includes footnote 168 here, referencing Matsumoto Shirō's terminology for dhātu-vāda. [^169]: The original text includes footnote 169 here, referencing defenses of Tathāgatagarbha thought.

English Translation: Page 257 is not affirming the existence of a "self" (我), but is intended to counteract sentient beings' misunderstanding and fear of "emptiness" (空). Although scriptures and treatises also call Tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-nature "self" (我), this "self" is not the "self" of the non-Buddhists. The Buddha-Nature Treatise explains: "As the sutra gatha says: 'Having purified the two emptinesses, one attains the supreme self of no-self (無我勝我); because the Buddha attained the pure nature, no-self transforms into self.' Non-Buddhists and others, within the five appropriated aggregates (五取陰), cling to the view that there is a self. To overturn their deluded attachment to self, one practices the Prajñāpāramitā. Upon attaining the supreme no-self, that is the 'self' pāramitā (我波羅蜜)."[^170] The "no-self" obtained from realizing the twofold emptiness of self and phenomena far surpasses the "self" attained by [other] paths. And the "self" of the pure Buddha-nature attained by the Buddha is transformed from the supreme "no-self." Therefore, the "self (pāramitā)" of Buddha-nature is entirely different from the "self" of the non-Buddhists. The essence of Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) does not contradict no-self; it is merely that its affirmative terminology resembles Atman theory.

Regarding point (2), Dōgen certainly advocated the theory of Buddha-nature, but his thought on Buddha-nature does not belong to the "locus theory" described by "Critical Buddhism." In fact, in his 〈Busshō〉 chapter, Dōgen interpreted Buddha-nature as "natureless Buddha-nature" (無性佛性) and constantly drew a clear line between Buddha-nature thought and the "naturalism view" (自然見) of non-Buddhists. For example, Dōgen said: (a) "If one says that all sentient beings are originally Buddhas, that is identical to the non-Buddhists. Comparing the self and what belongs to the self (我我所) with the Buddhas cannot avoid [the error of] claiming attainment when one has not attained, claiming realization when one has not realized."[^171] (b) "Later students must not equate [this] with the naturalism view of non-Buddhists. Great Master Baizhang Dazhi said: 'If one clings to the understanding that [mind] is originally pure, originally liberated, is self, is Buddha, is self, is the Chan Way, then one belongs to non-Buddhist naturalism.'"[^172] (c) "Hearing the term Buddha-nature, many students think like the non-Buddhist Senika's erroneous view of self. This is because they have not met the person, not met the self, not seen the teacher."[^173] (d) "That the entire realm/universe was never concealed does not necessarily mean the entire realm is existence. If the entire realm were self (我), that would be the erroneous view of non-Buddhists."[^174]

Original Text: 257頁 不是肯定有「我」的存在，而是為了對治眾生對「空」的誤解和畏懼。雖然經論中也稱如來藏或佛性為「我」，但是其「我」非外道之「我」。《佛性論》解釋說：「如經偈說：『二空己清淨，得無我勝我；佛得淨性故，無我轉成我。』諸外道等，於五取陰中，執見有我，為翻其我執虛妄故，修習般若波羅蜜，至得最勝無我，即我波羅蜜。」　註170 從証悟人法二空所得的「無我」遠勝於得道的「我」，而佛所証得之清淨佛性的「我」是轉自最勝的「無我」，因此佛性的「我（波羅蜜）」，與外道的「我」是全然不同的。如來藏（佛性）的本質與無我不相違背，只是其肯定性的用語類似有我論而已。 　　第(2)點，道元確實主張佛性說，但其佛性思想並非「批判佛教」所說的「基體說」。事實上，道元在他的〈佛性篇〉中，將佛性詮釋為「無性佛性」，而且不斷地將佛性思想與外道的「自然見」劃清界線。例如，道元說： 　(一)「若言一切眾生本是佛者，還同外道也。以我我所比諸佛，不可免未得謂得，未証謂証者也。」 　　　　註171 　 　(二) 「後學必勿同自然見外道。百丈大智禪師云：「若執本清淨、本解脫、自是佛、自是禪道解者， 　　即屬自然外道。」 註172 　　　(三)「聞佛性言者，而學者多如先尼外道我邪見也，夫不逢人，不逢自己，不見師故。」 註173 　　　(四)「遍界不曾藏者，非必遍界是有也，遍界有我者，則外道邪見．」註174 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^170]: Quote from the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Fo Xing Lun) explaining the transformation of no-self into the true self of Buddhahood. Cited in the original text (footnote 170). 五取陰 (go shuon): The five aggregates subject to clinging (form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness). [^171]: Quote from Dōgen (previously cited, see footnote 27). Cited again here (footnote 171). [^172]: Quote from Dōgen citing Baizhang on non-Buddhist naturalism. Cited in the original text (footnote 172). [^173]: Quote from Dōgen (previously cited, see footnote 66). Cited again here (footnote 173). [^174]: Quote from Dōgen (previously cited, see footnote 63, though page number differs slightly, possibly indicating different edition or typo in original notes). Cited again here (footnote 174).

English Translation: Dōgen's Buddha-nature is not the substantial "locus existence" (基體存在) described by "Critical Buddhism," but the "self of no-self" (無我の我). This is what Abe Masao described as "the decider without a decider, and the decider without a decider is self-determination, freedom, and selfhood."[^175] In conclusion, Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature is not the Original Awakening thought criticized by "Critical Buddhism." As for whether Dōgen revised his "Original Awakening thought" in the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō, this question actually cannot be established, because Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature was not "locus theory" from beginning to end. As argued by Hakamaya Noriaki, if the emphasis on "deep faith in cause and effect" and "karma of the three times" in the 12-fascicle edition enables escape from the locus theory of Original Awakening thought, then his earlier thought on Buddha-nature also did not carry the tone of "locus theory." Therefore, regarding Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature, there is no difference between his earlier and later writings. What differs is that Dōgen's attitude in his later years leaned towards returning to

Original Text: 　　道元的佛性並非「批判佛教」所說的一個實體性的「基體存在」，而是「無我」的我，即是阿部正雄所說的「沒有決定者的決定者，而沒有決定者的決定者，就是自我決定，自由和自我特性（selfhood）。」註175總之，道元的佛性思想非「批判佛教」所批判的本覺思想。 　　至於道元是否在十二卷本《正法眼藏》修正其「本覺思想」，其實，這個問題不能成立，因為道元的佛性思想自始至終不是「基體說」。如𠗟谷憲昭所論証，道元在十二卷中強調的「深信因果」，「三時業」能擺脫基體論的本覺思想，其前期的佛性思想亦不帶有「基體論」的論調。因此就道元的佛性思想而言，前後的著述並無不同，有所不同的是道元在晚年態度偏向回 

Footnotes/Annotations: [^175]: Quote from Abe Masao interpreting Dōgen's concept. Cited in the original text (footnote 175).

English Translation: Page 258 the fundamental teachings of Original Buddhism (cause and effect, karma) and the lifestyle of cultivating the Way (monastic supremacism, 出家至上主義).

Regarding point (3), "Critical Buddhism" blames Original Awakening thought as the main cause of Japanese social class distinctions. Although Hakamaya did not criticize Dōgen for having discriminatory thoughts, he believed that the Shushōgi—the Sōtō school's guide to practice compiled based on the Shōbōgenzō—carries discriminatory language and thought. Hakamaya held that Original Awakening thought is the theoretical basis for social discrimination in Japan but did not clearly cite any examples to prove a necessary causal relationship between the two. Even if Original Awakening thought was misused to defend the phenomenon of social class differences in Japan, this does not indicate that Original Awakening thought inherently contains discriminatory ideas. In fact, Hakamaya also acknowledged that Original Awakening thought asserts that all sentient beings possess universal original awakening, therefore sentient beings are ultimately equal and without difference. Thus, the problem lies not in Original Awakening thought itself, but in how it is applied. Even the best theories and thoughts can potentially be misused, but the theory or thought itself cannot be blamed for this reason. In summary, "Critical Buddhism's" critique blaming Original Awakening thought as the primary culprit for social discrimination lacks persuasiveness and, moreover, is unrelated to Dōgen's thought on Buddha-nature.

VI. Conclusion (結語) Buddhism is a religion that emphasizes both theory and practice equally. Zen Master Dōgen is precisely one of the most outstanding Chan masters in Japanese Buddhism who attended to both aspects. His thorough understanding of Buddhist doctrine is expressed in his profound system of thought, among which his interpretations of Buddha-nature, existence, time, birth-and-death, reality, Chan meditation, etc., most prominently display the depth and originality of his thought. In the practice of Buddhadharma, Dōgen's doubts concerning the doctrine of Buddha-nature were resolved through his personal process of seeking the Dharma, experiencing the true meaning of practice characterized by non-dual practice-realization (修証不二) and the Way-ring of continuous practice (行持道環). Buddha-nature thought can be said to be the main thread running through Dōgen's thought and religious experience. The impermanent Buddha-nature (無常佛性) he advocated not only transcends the theoretical difficulties of traditional Buddha-nature theories but is also the basis for "making Buddha" (作佛) and "acting Buddha" (行佛), because Buddha-nature is realized precisely within the immediacy of impermanence (無常當下証成).

Dōgen's thought, especially his thought on Buddha-nature, is not without controversy. For example, some scholars still doubt whether his theory of Buddha-nature can truly escape the implications of "locus theory," and whether Buddha-nature thought is truly, as criticized by "Critical Buddhism" scholars, the theoretical basis for social discrimination. Furthermore, what meaning and inspiration does Dōgen's thought hold for modern societal issues concerning life and death, purification of the mind, environmental protection, education, and other topics? Because Dōgen's thought is both deep and vast, it leaves great room for research and exploration by modern scholars.

Original Text: 258頁 歸原始佛教的基本教義（因果、業力）和修道的生活方式（出家至上主義）。 　　第（3）點，「批判佛教」指責本覺思想是日本社會階級差別的主因。[被-皮+夸]谷雖然沒有批評道元有歧視思想，卻認為根據《正法眼藏》編篡而成的曹洞宗修行指南──《修証儀》，帶有歧視性的語言和思想。[被-皮+夸]谷認為本覺思想是日本社會歧視的理論基礎，但沒有明白舉出任何事例，以証明兩者有必然的因果關係。即使本覺思想被誤用來辯護日本社會的階級差異現象，也並不表示本覺思想本質上含有歧視思想。事實上，𠗟谷也承認本覺思想主張一切眾生皆具普遍性的本覺，因此眾生究竟平等無有差別。因此，問題不在本覺思想本身，而是如何被運用的問題。再好的理論和思想都有被誤用的可能，但不能因此歸罪此理論或思想。總之，「批判佛教」批評本覺思想為社會歧視的元凶，並不具說服力，更與道元的佛性思想無關。 六、結語 　　佛教是一個主張理論與實踐並重的宗教，道元禪師正是日本佛教中一位兼顧兩者最傑出的禪師。他對佛教義理的透徹，表現在他精邃的思想體系裏，其中尤以對佛性、有、時、生死、實相、禪定等的詮釋最能突顯其思想的深度和原創性。在佛法的修行實踐上，道元對佛性教義的疑惑，透過他親身求法的過程，體驗出修証不二行持道環的實踐真諦。佛性思想可以說是貫串道元的思想和宗教經驗的主要線索。他主張的無常佛性不但超越傳統佛性論的理論困難，更是「作佛」、「行佛」的依據，因為佛性正是在無常當下証成的。 　　道元的思想，尢其是佛性思想，並非沒有爭議，例如，有些學者還是懷疑其佛性論是否真能擺脫「基體論」的意涵，佛性思想是否真如「批判佛教」學者所批評的是造成社會歧視的理論基礎。再者，道元的思想在現代社會中有關生死問題、心靈淨化、生態環保、教育等課題上，具有何種意義和啟示。由於道元思想既深又廣，給現代學者留下極大研究和探討的空間。

English Translation of Footnotes:

Footnote 1: Watsuji Tetsurō, "Shamon Dōgen," included in his own work, Nihon Seishinshi Kenkyū (Studies in Japanese Intellectual History), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1926, pp. 156-246. Also included in Watsuji Tetsurō Zenshū (Complete Works of Watsuji Tetsurō), Vol. 4, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1962, pp. 156-246. Actually, beginning from the latter part of the 19th century, disciples from within the Sōtō school, as well as some Buddhist scholars, successively published works concerning Zen Master Dōgen. (See Kuma Moto Hidetoshi, ed., Dōgen Shisō Taikei (Compendium of Dōgen's Thought), Vol. 22, Dōgen Kankei Kenkyū Bunken / Nenpyō / Sōmokuji (Research Literature Related to Dōgen / Chronology / General Table of Contents), Dōhōsha Shuppan, 1995, pp. 13-16). Watsuji himself had also previously published articles such as "Dōgen's 'Kattō' (Entanglement)," "Dōgen's 'Dōtoku' (Ability to Speak)," "Dōgen's 'Busshō' (Buddha-Nature)," etc., in the journal Shisō (Thought) in 1923. Because Watsuji was an important scholar of the Kyoto School, and his article "Shamon Dōgen" was a relatively in-depth study at the time, the academic world attributes the beginning of modern scholarly research on Dōgen to him.

Footnote 2: Regarding Japanese research literature on Dōgen, the most complete collection is Kuma Moto Hidetoshi, ed., Dōgen Shisō Taikei, Vol. 22, Dōgen Kankei Kenkyū Bunken / Nenpyō / Sōmokuji. Its scope covers books and essay collections related to Dōgen published from 1877 to 1995. As for Western language literature, one can search the Buddhist studies database on the National Taiwan University Center for Buddhist Studies website (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw). Regarding Chinese language research on Dōgen, apart from Fu Weixun's book Dōgen published in 1996, it is almost non-existent.

Footnote 3: The Hōkyōki is not entirely a record of Dōgen's entire life, but rather a record of the mind-to-mind transmission and dialogues between him and his master, Chan Master Rujing, during his period of study under Rujing in Song China from the first year of the Baoqing era (1225) to the third year. Much of it consists of Rujing's inspirations and Dōgen's own religious experiences of mutual resonance with the Way. This might be why Dōgen never showed this work during his lifetime.

Footnote 4: The Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki, in six fascicles, consists of notes taken by Ejō recording Dōgen's teachings. Although not systematic, the book records Dōgen's instructions concerning zazen, Buddhadharma, virtuous conduct, leaving home, literature and arts, etc., making it highly valuable for reference in understanding Dōgen's thought. There are three English translations of this book, one of which is: Reibo Masunaga, tr. A Primer of Soto Zen—A Translation of Dogen’s Shobogenzo Zuimonki, Sankibō, 1971. Additionally, see Ikeda Rosan, ed., Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki no Kenkyū (Research on the Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki), Keisuisha, 1989.

Footnote 5: For English works, see Hee-jin Kim, Dogen Kigen—Mystical Realist, Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1975. For Chinese, see Fu Weixun, Dōgen, Dongda Tushu, 1996.

Footnote 6: Ōkubo Dōshū, ed., Dōgen Zenji Zenshū (Complete Works of Zen Master Dōgen), Vol. 2, Chikuma Shobō, 1970, p. 364.

Footnote 7: Kamakura Buddhism around the 13th century saw the appearance of several key figures: Eisai (1141-1215) founded the Japanese Rinzai school after studying Chan during two trips to Song China. Hōnen (1133-1212) founded the Pure Land school; his disciple Shinran (1173-1262) further emphasized the thought of other-power nembutsu, becoming the founder of Jōdo Shinshū. Nichiren (1222-1282) specialized in chanting "Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō" and is revered as the founding patriarch of the Nichiren school.

Footnote 8: Eihei-ji Sanzogyōgyōki, included in Kawamura Kōdō, ed., Shohon Taikō / Eihei Kaisan Dōgen Zenji Gyōjō Kenzeiki (Comparative Collation of Various Texts / Record of the Deeds of Eihei Founder Zen Master Dōgen, Kenzeiki), Taishūkan Shoten, 1975, p. 158.

Footnote 9: Dōgen Zenji Zenshū, Vol. 2, p. 471.

Footnote 10: It is said that Bada Shanren Shi Tao, one day realizing impermanence upon observing falling leaves, subsequently left home; this can be called a rather unique condition.

Footnote 11: According to the Sanzogyōgyōki, Dōgen's loving mother, before her death, instructed him to later shave his head, wear dyed robes, practice the Buddhadharma, pray for the well-being of his parents, further seek Bodhi, and save sentient beings from the suffering of karma.

Footnote 12: Kawamura Kōdō, ed., Shohon Taikō / Eihei Kaisan Dōgen Zenji Gyōjō Kenzeiki, p. 10. Kawamura, following the chronological order of writing, has meticulously collated the Mingzhou version (Tenbun text), Zuichō version (Tenshō text), Enpō version (Matsudaira Bunko text), Monshi version (Genroku text), Genbun version (Sosan text), and Menzan revised and supplemented version (popular text / Hōreki text).

Footnote 13: In the second year of Kenpō (1214), when Dōgen posed his question to Kōin, Kōin suggested to him, "Although there are school doctrines, I fear they may not fully capture the principle; you must visit Eisai at Kennin-ji."

Footnote 14: Dōgen Zenji Zenshū, Vol. 2, p. 471.

Footnote 15: Takashi J. Kodera, Dogen’s Formative Years in China, p. 36. Kodera Takayuki's speculation might be factual, because according to ancient monastery regulations for temporary residence (掛單), student monks had to possess precept certificates (戒碟) to be permitted residence for study.

Footnote 16: Dōgen was deeply impressed by the Tenzo (head cook) system in Chinese monasteries. He described: "After the morning meal is prepared according to the Dharma and placed on the serving table, the Tenzo puts on the kesa, spreads the sitting cloth, first faces the monks' hall, burns incense, and makes nine bows. After bowing, the food is distributed. Throughout the day and night preparing the meals, no time is wasted idly. With substantial preparation, every action and deed becomes the work that nourishes the sacred embryo. Stepping back and turning around is precisely the Way for the assembly's peace and ease." In contrast, Dōgen criticized Japanese Buddhism: "Here in my country Japan, the name of Buddhadharma has long been heard, yet concerning the matter of monks' food being prepared according to the Dharma, previous people did not record it, previous virtuous ones did not teach it, let alone the ritual of nine bows for the monks' food ever being dreamed of. People in this country say: the matter of monks' food, the way monks prepare food, is just like that of birds and beasts; the way of eating is truly pitiable, truly lamentable." (Dōgen Zenji Zenshū, Vol. 2, p. 298.)

Footnote 17: The story and dialogue between Dōgen and the old Tenzo above are cited from the Tenzo Kyōkun, included in Ōkubo Dōshū, ed., Dōgen Zenji Zenshū, Vol. 2, pp. 298-299.

Footnote 18: Regarding the Chan methods and thought of Rujing, see Kagashima Genryū, Tendō Nyojō Zenji no Kenkyū (Research on Zen Master Tendō Nyojō), Shunjūsha, 1983.

Footnote 19: The original text of the Hōkyōki is as follows: "Dōgen, in youth, aroused the Bodhi-mind. In my home country, I visited various masters of the Way, gaining some slight understanding of the origin of cause and effect. Although this was so, I had not yet clarified the true refuge of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, merely stagnating within the confines of names and forms. Later, I entered the chamber of Chan Master Senkō [Eisai], and first heard the style of the Rinzai school. Now, following Master [Myō]zen, I have entered Song China. Traversing ten thousand li of ocean, entrusting this illusory body to the waves, I finally reached Great Song and was able to enter the Abbot's Dharma seat. This is surely the fortunate celebration of past merit. Great compassionate Abbot, what this insignificant person from a foreign, distant land desires is, without regard for time, without adhering to formal etiquette, to frequently ascend to the abbot's quarters, wishing to inquire about my foolish thoughts. Impermanence is swift, birth and death is the great matter, time waits for no one; departing from the holy one will surely lead to regret. My root teacher, the Abbot Great Master, Great Chan Master, with great compassion, pityingly permit Dōgen to ask about the Way and ask about the Dharma. I humbly hope for your compassionate illumination. Your minor disciple Dōgen, with one hundred bows and prostrations, submits this report." (Ikeda Rosan, Hōkyōki: Dōgen no Nyūsō Guhō Nōto (Hōkyōki: Dōgen's Notes on Entering Song to Seek the Dharma), Daitō Shuppansha, 1989)

Footnote 20: Rujing once expressed such expectations for Dōgen: "Although you are foreign-born, you quite possess the ancient manner. You must reside in deep mountains and secluded valleys, nourish the sacred embryo of Buddhas and Patriarchs, and will surely reach the place of realization of the ancient worthies." At that time, Dōgen rose and bowed at Rujing's feet. Rujing chanted: "The nature of the one who bows (Dōgen) and the one bowed to (Rujing) is empty and quiescent; the mutual resonance responding to the Way is difficult to conceive." Dōgen's tears soaked his sleeves. This shows the depth of mutual resonance between the two. (Ikeda Rosan, Hōkyōki, p. 156.)

Footnote 21: Dōgen Zenji Zenshū, Vol. 2, p. 256.

Footnote 22: According to the Kenzeiki, "dropping off body and mind" was the key phrase for Dōgen's enlightenment. One day, Rujing reprimanded a student monk dozing during zazen: "For practicing Chan, it is dropping off body and mind. Why just sleep?" Hearing this, Dōgen was suddenly greatly awakened. Afterwards, he went to the abbot's quarters to bow and express thanks to Rujing. Rujing asked why he bowed. Dōgen said: "Body and mind dropped off." Rujing confirmed it, saying: "Body and mind dropped off, body and mind dropped off." Dōgen replied: "This is a temporary trick; Abbot, you must not carelessly confirm (印可, inka)." Rujing replied: "I do not carelessly confirm you." Dōgen then asked: "What is the matter of not carelessly confirming?" Rujing replied: "Dropped off, dropped off (脫落脫落)." Rujing saying "Body and mind dropped off, body and mind dropped off" to Dōgen meant Dōgen should drop off the "dropping off" itself. That is, Rujing wanted Dōgen to continuously drop off "dropping off," let go of "letting go," causing "practice" and "realization" to mutually reinforce each other.

Footnote 23: Ikeda Rosan, Hōkyōki, p. 159.

Footnote 24: Ibid.

Footnote 25: Dōgen once asked Rujing: "Recently, doubters say: 'The three poisons are the Buddhadharma; the five desires are the Patriarchs' Way.' If one eliminates these, isn't it the same as the Small Vehicle?" Rujing replied: "If one does not eliminate the three poisons, five desires, etc., one is just like the various non-Buddhists of King Bimbisāra's country or King Ajātaśatru. If a descendant of the Buddhas and Patriarchs eliminates even one hindrance or one desire, it is a great benefit, the time-period for meeting the Buddhas and Patriarchs." (Hōkyōki, p. 160.)

Footnote 26: 〈Genjōkōan〉 chapter, Shōbōgenzō Chūkai Zensho (Complete Commentary on the Shōbōgenzō), Bukkyō Taikei Kanseikai, ed., Taishō 15 (1926), Vol. 1, p. 238. (All quotations from Shōbōgenzō chapters in this article are taken from the Kyakutai Ichiji San included in this work, hereafter abbreviated as Zensho.)

Footnote 27: Hōkyōki, p. 151.

Footnote 28: Naturalist non-Buddhists (自然外道) were one of the various non-Buddhist schools in ancient India, asserting that all things arise naturally without cause, not produced by dependent origination. Maskarī Gośālīputra (末伽梨拘賒梨子) and Ajita Keśakambala (阿奢多翅舍欽婆羅) both belonged to the Naturalist non-Buddhists.

Footnote 29: 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, Zensho, Vol. 1, p. 75.

Footnote 30: Ibid., p. 65.

Footnote 31: Dōgen Zenji Zenshū, Vol. 2, p. 18.

Footnote 32: The detailed circumstances of Dōgen's propagation after returning to Japan have been extensively researched and are not directly related to this article, thus are not repeated. See Ōkubo Dōshū, Dōgen Zenji-den no Kenkyū; Fu Weixun, Dōgen; Hee-jin Kim, Dogen Kigen—Mystical Realist.

Footnote 33: The Aṅguttara Nikāya states: "Bhikkhus, this mind is exceedingly luminous and pure, yet it is stained by adventitious defilements. The uninstructed worldling does not understand this as it really is. I say that the uninstructed worldling has no development of mind."

Footnote 34: Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra, Fascicle 22, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 27, p. 110a.

Footnote 35: Satyasiddhi Śāstra, Fascicle 3, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 32, p. 258b.

Footnote 36: Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Fascicle 1, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 8, p. 537b.

Footnote 37: Ibid.

Footnote 38: Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra, Fascicle 63, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 25, p. 508c.

Footnote 39: Ibid.

Footnote 40: Regarding research on Tathāgatagarbha thought, see Yin Shun, Rulaizang zhi Yanjiu (Research on the Tathāgatagarbha), Zheng聞 Publishing House, 1981. Takasaki Jikidō, Nyoraizō Shisō no Keisei (The Formation of Tathāgatagarbha Thought), Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1974.

Footnote 41: Takasaki Jikidō, “Dharmatā, Dharmadhātu, Dharmakāya and Buddhadhātu—Structure of the Ultimate Value in Mahāyāna Buddhism,” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies), Vol. 14, March, 1966, pp. 78-94. Shinoda Masashige, "‘Busshō’ to sono gengo" ('Buddha-Nature' and its Original Term), Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, Vol. 11, 1963, pp. 223-226.

Footnote 42: The Shi Moheyan Lun (釋摩訶衍論, Śāstra Explaining Mahāyāna) is traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna as a commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. Zongmi cited it in his Yuanjue Jing Lüe Shu Chao (Abridged Commentary and Sub-commentary on the Perfect Awakening Sutra). However, its authenticity has been debated since ancient times. Figures like Kenkei (賢憬, 705-793) and Hōchibō Shōshin (twelfth century) judged it to be apocryphal.

Footnote 43: Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 77, p. 371a.

Footnote 44: Kongōchōkyō Kaidai (Commentary on the Vajraśekhara Sūtra), Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 61, p. 3a.

Footnote 45: Regarding literature, textual explanations, historical development, etc., of Japanese Tendai Original Awakening thought, see Tada Kōryū et al., eds., Tendai Hongaku Ron (Treatise on Tendai Original Awakening), Nihon Shisō Taikei (Compendium of Japanese Thought) Vol. 9, Iwanami Shoten, 1973; Yamauchi Shun'yū, Dōgen Tendai Hongaku Hōmon (Dōgen and the Tendai Original Awakening Dharma Gate), Daizō Shuppan, 1985.

Footnote 46: Tendai Hokkeshū Gozu Hōmon Yōsan (Essentials of the Ox-Head Dharma Gate of the Tendai Lotus School), included in Tendai Hongaku Ron, 1973, pp. 329-330.

Footnote 47: Ibid., p. 134.

Footnote 48: Ibid., p. 383.

Footnote 49: Ibid., pp. 535-536.

Footnote 50: Dai Nihon Bukkyō Zensho (Complete Works of Japanese Buddhism), Vol. 17, p. 40.

Footnote 51: See Yamauchi Shun'yū, Dōgen Zen to Tendai Hongaku Hōmon, pp. 718-744; An'ya Gyōkō, "Hōchibō Shōshin no Hongaku Shisō Hihan" (Hōchibō Shōshin's Critique of Original Awakening Thought), included in Asai Endō, ed., Hongaku Shisō no Genryū to Tenkai (The Source and Development of Original Awakening Thought), Heirakuji Shoten, 1991.

Footnote 52: Takasaki Jikidō, "Dōgen no Teki Busshōron" (Dōgen's Theory of Buddha-Nature), included in Kagashima Genryū, ed., Dōgen Shisō no Tokuchō (Characteristics of Dōgen's Thought), Shunjūsha, 1988, pp. 108-109.

Footnote 53: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, Zensho, Vol. 3, p. 295.

Footnote 54: Ibid.

Footnote 55: Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 12, p. 492a. Vasubandhu's Nirvāṇasūtra-mūla-bhāva-abhāva-gāthā-vyākhyāna (Treatise on the Verses on Original Existence and Present Non-existence in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra) provides a clear explanation of this verse: "Regarding 'originally non-existent, now existent': if something previously lacked a basis and now exists, then liberation cannot be attained. Previously, when afflictions had not arisen, one was separate from liberation [Note: this seems contradictory, perhaps meaning 'had the potential for liberation'], but afterwards afflictions arose, then there is no liberation. If originally non-existent and now existent, then the supremely non-arisen should be able to arise, like flowers arising in empty space." (Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 26, p. 281b-c).

Footnote 56: Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Fascicle 403, "Guanzhao Pin" (Chapter on Contemplative Illumination) states: "Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas practicing prajñāpāramitā do not practice prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the supernormal knowledge of psychic power (神境智通). They do not practice prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the supernormal knowledge of the divine ear, knowing others' minds, recollection of past lives, the divine eye, or the extinction of outflows (漏盡智通). Why? Because Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas practicing prajñāpāramitā do not even see prajñāpāramitā, how much less see Bodhisattvas and the Tathāgatas' affairs of the six supernormal powers." (Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 7, p. 16a-b).

Footnote 57: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 295.

Footnote 58: Ibid., p. 293.

Footnote 59: Jingde Chuandeng Lu (Record of the Transmission of the Lamp), Fascicle 5, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 51, p. 240c.

Footnote 60: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 296.

Footnote 61: Ibid.

Footnote 62: Buddha-Nature Treatise (Fo Xing Lun), Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 31, p. 787b.

Footnote 63: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, pp. 296-297.

Footnote 64: In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Mahāmati Bodhisattva asked the Buddha: "World-Honored One, the sutras say the Tathāgatagarbha is intrinsically pure by nature, endowed with the thirty-two marks, entering into the bodies of all sentient beings, like a priceless jewel wrapped in soiled robes. The Tathāgatagarbha is permanent and unchanging, just so. It is wrapped in the soiled robes of the aggregates, elements, and sense bases (陰界入), defiled by the dust of greed, anger, delusion, and unreal deluded thoughts, as taught by all Buddhas. World-Honored One, how is it that the Tathāgatagarbha spoken of is the same as the non-Buddhists' assertion of a self (我)? World-Honored One! The non-Buddhists also speak of a permanent creator, separate from qualities (求那, guṇa), pervasive and indestructible." (Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 16, p. 489a-b).

Footnote 65: "Critical Buddhism" originated from Japanese scholars Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō, who considered Buddha-nature (Original Awakening theory) to be a form of "topical philosophy," a "locus theory" (dhātuvāda), contrary to the fundamental Buddhist doctrines of emptiness and dependent origination. See Hakamaya Noriaki, Hongaku Shisō Hihan (Critique of Original Awakening Thought), Daizō Shuppan, 1989; Hakamaya Noriaki, Hihan Bukkyō (Critical Buddhism), Daizō Shuppan, 1990; Matsumoto Shirō, Engi to Kū (Dependent Origination and Emptiness), Daizō Shuppan, 1989; Jamie Hubbard & Paul Swanson, eds, Pruning the Bodhi Tree: the Storm Over Critical Buddhism, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.

Footnote 66: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 297.

Footnote 67: 〈Sokushin Ze Butsu〉 chapter, Zensho, Vol. 1, pp. 356-357. This dialogue originates from Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Fascicle 28.

Footnote 68: The Buddha-Nature Treatise defines "Buddha-nature as the Suchness revealed by the two emptinesses." The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra treats Buddha-nature (Tathāgatagarbha) as synonymous with "emptiness, signless, wishless, thusness, dharma-body, nirvana, unarisen-undestroyed," etc.

Footnote 69: See Vasubandhu (attrib.), Buddha-Nature Treatise, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 31, pp. 788c-793a.

Footnote 70: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 299.

Footnote 71: Suvarṇasaptati Śāstra (Jin Qishi Lun), Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 54, pp. 1246c-1247a.

Footnote 72: Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Fascicle 24, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 12, p. 760b.

Footnote 73: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 300.

Footnote 74: Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, "Shishi Ku Bosatsu Hon" (Chapter on Lion's Roar Bodhisattva), Fascicle 28, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 12, p. 532a.

Footnote 75: Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Fascicle 9, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 51, p. 264b.

Footnote 76: Liandeng Huiyao (Compendium of the Joint Lamps), Fascicle 6, Manji Zokuzōkyō (卍 Supplement to the Tripiṭaka) Vol. 136, p. 270d.

Footnote 77: Dōgen interpreting the Liandeng Huiyao's "時節若至" (time-period if/when arrives) as "時節既至" (time-period already arrived) is not necessarily, as Fu Weixun says, Dōgen's "inspired misreading," because the Jingde Chuandeng Lu does use "時節既至." See Fu Weixun, Dōgen, Dongda Shuju, 1996, p. 139.

Footnote 78: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 302.

Footnote 79: 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, Zensho, Vol. 1, p. 68.

Footnote 80: See Masao Abe, “Dogen on Buddha Nature,” in A Study of Dogen, ed. by Steven Heine, New York: State University of New York Press, 1992, pp. 69-76. For the Chinese translation of this article, see Wang Leiquan, "Dōgen lun Fo Xing" (Dōgen on Buddha-Nature), Neiming, Issues 190-193, 1988.01-04.

Footnote 81: 〈Uji〉 (Being-Time) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 2, p. 59.

Footnote 82: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, pp. 303-304.

Footnote 83: 〈Uji〉 chapter, p. 57.

Footnote 84: See Fu Weixun, Dōgen, pp. 119-120.

Footnote 85: 〈Uji〉 chapter, p. 57.

Footnote 86: 〈Uji〉 chapter, p. 56.

Footnote 87: Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Fascicle 1, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 51, p. 209c.

Footnote 88: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 305.

Footnote 89: Ibid.

Footnote 90: The "six supernormal powers" refer to the power of psychic feats (神足通), the divine eye (天眼通), the divine ear (天耳通), knowing others' minds (他心通), recollection of past lives (宿命通), and the extinction of outflows (漏盡通).

Footnote 91: "Six supernormal powers" and "pāramitā" are traditional Buddhist terms, but the phrase "six supernormal power pāramitās" (六神通波羅蜜) is not found in scriptures. Dōgen combined the six supernormal powers with pāramitā, bestowing upon it the Mahāyāna meaning of "ultimate."

Footnote 92: Mañjuśrī asked Wuzhuo: "From where have you recently departed?" Zhuo said: "The South." Shū said: "How is the Buddhadharma upheld in the South?" Zhuo said: "Monks in the Dharma-ending age seldom uphold the precepts." Shū said: "How numerous is the assembly?" Zhuo said: "Perhaps three hundred, perhaps five hundred." Wuzhuo asked Mañjuśrī: "How is the Buddhadharma upheld here?" Shū said: "Ordinary beings and sages dwell together; dragons and snakes intermingle." Zhuo said: "How numerous is the assembly?" Shū said: "Former three three, latter three three (前三三後三三)." (Liandeng Huiyao, Fascicle 29, Manji Zokuzōkyō Vol. 136, p. 464a.)

Footnote 93: Layman Pang, sitting, asked Lingzhao (his wife): "The ancients said: 'Clearly on the hundred grass tips, clearly the Patriarch's meaning.' How do you understand this?" Zhao said: "So old and grand, yet speaking such words." 士 (Pang) said: "How do you understand it?" Zhao said: "Clearly on the hundred grass tips, clearly the Patriarch's meaning." Pang then laughed heartily. (Pang Jushi Yulu (Recorded Sayings of Layman Pang), Middle Fascicle, Manji Zokuzōkyō Vol. 120, p. 31.)

Footnote 94: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, pp. 323-324.

Footnote 95: 〈Sokushin Ze Butsu〉 (Mind Itself is Buddha) chapter, p. 358.

Footnote 96: Ibid., pp. 359-361.

Footnote 97: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 294.

Footnote 98: Dasheng Xuan Lun (Treatise on the Profound Meaning of Mahāyāna), Fascicle 3, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 45, p. 40c.

Footnote 99: Ibid.

Footnote 100: Huayan Jing Tanyuan Ji (Record of Exploring the Mystery of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra), Fascicle 16, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 35, p. 405c.

Footnote 101: Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Fascicle 36, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 12, p. 581a.

Footnote 102: Jin Gang Pi (Vajra Scalpel), Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 46, p. 782a.

Footnote 103: Ibid., p. 784b.

Footnote 104: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 324.

Footnote 105: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 306, or see Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Fascicle 3, chapters on the Fourth and Fifth Patriarchs.

Footnote 106: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 308.

Footnote 107: Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Fascicle 27, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 12, p. 523b.

Footnote 108: "A piece of stone within emptiness" originates from Jingde Chuandeng Lu, chapter on Shishuang: A monk asked: "What is the meaning of the coming from the West?" The Master said: "A piece of stone in empty space." (Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 51, p. 320c.)

Footnote 109: Fu Weixun, Dōgen, pp. 142-143.

Footnote 110: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 310. This anecdote originates from Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Fascicle 3.

Footnote 111: Ibid.

Footnote 112: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 311.

Footnote 113: Ibid., p. 325.

Footnote 114: Ibid.

Footnote 115: Baizhang Guanglu (Extensive Record of Baizhang), Fascicle 3, included in Lan Jifu, chief ed., Chanzong Quanshu (Complete Works of the Chan School), Vol. 39, p. 84. Baizhang believed one should use double negation of existence and non-existence to reach non-discriminating wisdom free from discursive thought (無戲論的無分別智), otherwise it constitutes the four slanders: saying 'exists' is the slander of exaggeration (增益謗); saying 'lacks' is the slander of deprecation (損減謗); saying 'both exists and lacks' is the slander of contradiction (相違謗); saying 'neither exists nor lacks' is the slander of idle talk (戲論謗).

Footnote 116: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 327.

Footnote 117: Ibid., p. 329.

Footnote 118: Originates from Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Fascicle 5, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 51, p. 239a.

Footnote 119: Ordinary beings and the two vehicles each have four errors: Ordinary beings/non-Buddhists believe the world is "permanent, blissful, self, pure"—these are the four inversions (顛倒). The two vehicles believe nirvana is eternally quiescent and lacks "permanence, bliss, self, pure"—this is also an inversion. Together they form the "eight errors" (八倒).

Footnote 120: Jingde Chuandeng Lu, Fascicle 5, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 51, p. 239a.

Footnote 121: See my article, "Daban Niepan Jing de Fo Xing Shuo" (The Buddha-Nature Doctrine of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), Fóxué Yánjiū Zhōngxīn Xuébào (Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies), Issue 1, 1996, pp. 31-88.

Footnote 122: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 315.

Footnote 123: Ibid.

Footnote 124: See Masao Abe, A Study of Dogen: His Philosophy and Religion, p. 60.

Footnote 125: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, pp. 315-316.

Footnote 126: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 316. [Translator's Note: As identified in the thought process, this footnote incorrectly references Dōgen for a passage likely discussing Fazang or related ideas. The intended source for Fazang's view is not provided here.]

Footnote 127: See Masao Abe, A Study of Dogen: His Philosophy and Religion, p. 61.

Footnote 128: From a metaphysical perspective, this problem is the issue the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith attempts to synthesize: "The self-nature is undefiled yet defiled; defiled yet undefiled" (the problem of original awakening and ignorance). It is also what the Śrīmālā Sūtra calls the two dharmas difficult to comprehend: one, the intrinsically pure mind possesses defilement; two, within defilement exists the intrinsically pure mind.

Footnote 129: Ikeda Rosan, Hōkyōki: Dōgen no Nyūsō Guhō Nōto, Daitō Shuppansha, Heisei 1 (1989), p. 180.

Footnote 130: 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, p. 71.

Footnote 131: Ibid., p. 63.

Footnote 132: Ibid., pp. 74-75.

Footnote 133: Ibid., p. 75.

Footnote 134: Masao Abe, in an article exploring Dōgen's view of practice-realization as one, calls Buddha-nature (dharma-nature) the "ground." See Masao Abe, “The Oneness of Practice and Attainment: Implications for the Relation between Means and Ends,” included in William LaFleur, ed., Dogen Studies, University of Hawaii Press, 1985, pp. 99-111. To avoid misunderstanding "ground" as a substantial essence, the term "innate basis" (先天依據) is used instead.

Footnote 135: Fu Weixun points out that the actualized gnosis gate is a "view severing practice and realization." Actually, Tendai's original awakening gate is also thus, just that their perspectives differ. See Fu Weixun, Dōgen, p. 214.

Footnote 136: 〈Ango〉 (Practice Period) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 8, p. 651.

Footnote 137: 〈Gyōji〉 (Continuous Practice) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 4, p. 461.

Footnote 138: 〈Sanjūshichihon Bodaibunpō〉 (Thirty-Seven Aspects of Bodhi) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 8, p. 338.

Footnote 139: Japanese scholar Kagashima Genryū has a unique view on Dōgen's concept of practice-realization in his Tendō Nyojō Zenji no Kenkyū. He points out that the actualized gnosis gate holds the view "although practice and realization are non-dual, practice must lead towards realization," while the original awakening gate holds "since practice and realization are non-dual, realization must lead towards practice." He believes Dōgen's view belongs to the latter. Actually, strictly speaking, Dōgen's view should transcend both the actualized and original awakening gates. However, Kagashima has very deep observations on the relationship between Dōgen's and Rujing's views on practice-realization. He says Dōgen's "view of original realization, wondrous practice" indeed faithfully inherited Rujing's thought; "But we should say that it was not established primarily from the standpoint of Rujing himself against the background of Chinese Song dynasty Chan views on practice-realization, but rather was awakened from within Rujing using Zen Master Dōgen, standing against the background of the Japanese Tendai Original Awakening Gate, as a catalyst." See Kagashima Genryū, Tendō Nyojō Zenji no Kenkyū, Shunjūsha, 1983, pp. 122-133; Fu Weixun, Dōgen, pp. 20-24.

Footnote 140: This section references Masao Abe, A Study of Dogen, pp. 30-33.

Footnote 141: 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, p. 68.

Footnote 142: 〈Genjōkōan〉 chapter, p. 236.

Footnote 143: Ibid., p. 238.

Footnote 144: "Critical Buddhism" originated from the "Machida Incident" within the Japanese Sōtō school. Sōtō school secretary Machida Munao, at the Third World Conference on Religion and Peace in 1979, denied the existence of social differential treatment and racial discrimination in Japanese society, leading to strong protests from the "Buraku Liberation League." Sōtō school scholars began to reflect and actively sought the theoretical roots of various discriminations in Buddhist scriptures, thus beginning the critique of Tathāgatagarbha (Original Awakening) thought. Representative works by Hakamaya Noriaki concerning "Critical Buddhism" include: (1) Hongaku Shisō Hihan (1989), (2) Hihan Bukkyō (1990), (3) Dōgen to Bukkyō: Jūnikanbon "Shōbōgenzō" no Dōgen (Dōgen and Buddhism: The Dōgen of the 12-Fascicle "Shōbōgenzō") (1992). Representative works by Matsumoto Shirō include: (1) Engi to Kū: Nyoraizō Shisō Hihan (Dependent Origination and Emptiness: A Critique of Tathāgatagarbha Thought) (1989), (2) Zen Shisō no Hihanteki Kenkyū (A Critical Study of Zen Thought) (1994). All the above were published by Daizō Shuppan.

Footnote 145: North American Buddhist academic circles held a special panel discussion concerning "Critical Buddhism" at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR). Professors Jamie Hubbard and Paul Swanson collected 23 essays related to "Critical Buddhism" and published Pruning the Bodhi Tree—the Storm Over Critical Buddhism, University of Hawaii Press, 1997.

Footnote 146: See Hakamaya Noriaki, "'Wa' no Han-Bukkyōsei to Bukkyō no Hansen-sei" (The Anti-Buddhist Nature of 'Harmony' and the Anti-War Nature of Buddhism), included in Hihan Bukkyō, pp. 275-304.

Footnote 147: See Sallie B. King, “The Doctrine of Buddha-nature Is Impeccably Buddhist,” included in Pruning the Bodhi Tree—the Storm Over Critical Buddhism, pp. 174-192.

Footnote 148: See Hakamaya Noriaki, "Sabetsu Jishō o Umidashita Shisōteki Haikei ni Kansuru Shiken" (Personal Views Concerning the Ideological Background that Produced Discriminatory Phenomena), included in Hongaku Shisō Hihan, pp. 134-158. The English translation of this article is included in Pruning the Bodhi Tree—the Storm Over Critical Buddhism, pp. 339-355.

Footnote 149: For example, Hakamaya believes that because the fundamental source of the universe is equal and non-dual, the view that correct is deviant, and deviant is correct, leads to the conclusion that difference is equality, and equality is difference. If applied to real life, this results in unquestioning acceptance of discriminatory differential treatment in society. This view of Hakamaya's can at most be said to be partially correct. Because if applied correctly, the Tathāgatagarbha thought of equality and non-difference can precisely lead to the result of social equality and justice. Therefore, the problem is not Tathāgatagarbha thought itself, but how it is correctly applied.

Footnote 150: Regarding research on the 12-fascicle edition, see Kagashima Genryū and Suzuki Kakuzen, eds., Jūnikanbon Shōbōgenzō no Sho Mondai (Various Issues Concerning the 12-Fascicle Shōbōgenzō), Daizō Shuppan, 1991.

Footnote 151: Steven Heine, “The Dogen Canon: Dogen’s Pre-Shobogenzo Writings and the Question of Change in His Later Works,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, vol. 24, No. 1-2, Spring, 1997, pp. 39-85.

Footnote 152: Carl Bielefeldt, “Recarving the Dragon: History and Dogma in the Study of Dogen,” in Dogen Studies, William LaFleur, ed., Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985, pp. 21-53.

Footnote 153: Heinrich Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism：A History, vol. Ⅱ, New York: Macmillan, 1990, pp. 62-104.

Footnote 154: Fu Weixun, Dōgen, p. 265.

Footnote 155: Steven Heine, “Critical Buddhism and Dogen’s Shobogenzo: the Debate Over 75-Fascicle and 12-Fascicle Texts,” in Pruning the Bodhi Tree, pp. 251-285.

Footnote 156: 〈Shinjin Inga〉 (Deep Faith in Cause and Effect) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 9, p. 335.

Footnote 157: Ibid., p. 336.

Footnote 158: Chan Master Hongzhi has a verse on the ancient [kōan]: "One foot of water, ten feet of waves; five hundred lives ago, nothing could be done. Discussing 'not falling' and 'not obscuring,' still bumping into the katsu[tō] thicket." Dōgen believed its latter two lines carried the suspicion of mistakenly equating "not falling" and "not obscuring." (〈Shinjin Inga〉 chapter, p. 338.)

Footnote 159: Chan Master Yuanwu's verse on the ancient [kōan]: "Fish swim, water muddies; birds fly, feathers fall. Even the sharpest mirror cannot escape; great emptiness is vast and wide. One journey, far, far away, five hundred lives, just because of cause and effect, great practice. Swift thunder shatters mountains, wind shakes seas; hundred-refined pure gold's color does not change." Dōgen criticized this verse as still having the purport of "negating cause and effect, furthermore having the view of permanence." (〈Shinjin Inga〉 chapter, p. 339.)

Footnote 160: Chan Master Dahui's verse: "Not falling, not obscuring—stone lump, clod of earth. Meeting on a strange road, silver mountain pulverized. Clapping hands, ha-ha, one spectacle! Mingzhou has one foolish Cloth Bag [Monk]." Dōgen criticized Dahui's "understanding fails to reach the skillful purport of Buddhadharma; it has the tenor of the naturalism view." (〈Shinjin Inga〉 chapter, p. 340.)

Footnote 161: 〈Shizen Biku〉 (Four Dhyāna Bhikṣu) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 9, p. 380.

Footnote 162: 〈Raihai Tokuzui〉 (Receiving the Marrow through Bowing) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 1, pp. 456-457.

Footnote 163: 〈Kie Sanbō〉 (Taking Refuge in the Three Treasures), Zensho, Vol. 9, p. 312.

Footnote 164: Hakamaya Noriaki, Hongaku Shisō Hihan, p. 143.

Footnote 165: 〈Shinjin Inga〉 chapter, p. 338.

Footnote 166: 〈Bendōwa〉 chapter, pp. 77-78.

Footnote 167: Hakamaya Noriaki, Hongaku Shisō Hihan, p. 147.

Footnote 168: Matsumoto Shirō, Engi to Kū, Daizō Shuppan, 1990, pp. 1-9.

Footnote 169: See Sallie B. King, “The Doctrine of Buddha-nature Is Impeccably Buddhist,” included in Pruning the Bodhi Tree, pp. 174-192.

Footnote 170: Buddha-Nature Treatise, Taishō Tripiṭaka Vol. 31, p. 798c. [Translator's Note: The page number provided in the original footnote (678c) seems incorrect based on typical content; 798c is more likely for this discussion.]

Footnote 171: Suzuki Kakuzen, Kawamura Kōdō, et al., revised and annotated, Dōgen Zenji Zenshū, Vol. 7, Shunjūsha 1990, pp. 6-7.

Footnote 172: 〈Shinjingakudō〉 (Learning the Way with Body and Mind) chapter, Zensho, Vol. 5, p. 391.

Footnote 173: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 297.

Footnote 174: 〈Busshō〉 chapter, p. 276. [Translator's Note: This page reference differs from footnote 63 (p. 296-297). Assuming footnote 174 is correct for this specific quote.]

Footnote 175: Masao Abe, A Study of Dogen－His Philosophy and Religion, pp. 47-48.