在一般人的眼里，佛教通常被视为一种追求出世的宗教，但是，作为一种社会历史文化现象，佛教从来也没有完全游离于现实的社会人生之外，它自有入世的一面存在。释迦牟尼创立佛教时，所最为关注的就是现实的人生问题。佛教四圣谛的根本教义、八正道的基本内涵，无不以对现实人生的深切关怀为基点。从这个意义上可以说，佛教的内核是一种人生哲学。“佛”不是全智全能、具有无上威权的至上神灵，而是自觉觉他的人生导师。大乘佛教虽然有把佛、菩萨神化的一面，但是这种神化依然是以解救现实的人生苦难为基点的。佛教对所谓出世理想的追求，不是通过对现实社会人生的简单否定、一味逃避或故意轻忽，而是通过对它的热切关注、积极参与和努力改造来实现的。离开了积极的入世精神，超然的出世理想就缺少了根基，失去了意义。

  作为中国佛教历史最悠久、影响最深远、地位最重要的基本宗派之一，天台宗继承并充分阐扬了佛教的这种关注现实人生的入世精神。天台宗的实际创始人天台智者大师智顗（538-598 年），以《法华经·方便品》“世间相常住”的思想为指导，为中国佛教天台宗创建了一整套佛学理论体系和止观修行方法。天台智者大师对世间诸法和现实人生的关注， 不仅体现在其“诸法实相”论和“性具善恶”说上，而且还具体落实在其“以观心为本”的止观修行方法中。

  天台“以观心为本”的思想，在智顗的多部重要著述中都曾反复讲到， 而最能体现“观心”在整个佛教止观修习实践中重要位置的论述，当首推《摩诃止观》的“正修止观”段。

  我们知道，《摩诃止观》作为智顗最重要的代表作之一，乃“天台智者说己心中所行法门”a，是专门论述天台圆顿止观的。这种圆顿止观的核心即是“一心三观”，也就是于一心中同时观悟圆融的空假中三谛，当下“究尽诸法实相”，这实质上是一种“实相观”。根据天台圆教的“诸法实相”论，要把握实相，就不能离开对诸法的观察。若“依妙解以立正行”b，那么，圆顿止观的修习就必须从对“诸法”的观察入手。依照佛教的通义，万法虽多，论其大要则不出“阴”（五阴，即五蕴）、“入”（十二入，即十二处）、“界”（十八界）三科。因此，在《摩诃止观》卷五上讲到“正修止观”的时候，智顗首先就把“观阴、入、界境”的问题提了出来，认为“阴、入、界境”是正修止观时所应观察的“通境”。“十二入”、“十八界”都是在“五阴”的基础上开展出来的，因此，“阴、入、界境”可以进一步归结为“五阴境”。“五阴”从性质上又可以分为“名”与“色”两种：“名”指一切精神现象，包括“受”、“想”、“行”、“识”之“四阴”；“色”指一切物质现象，即“五阴”中的“色阴”。可见，“名”和“色”就代表了一切现象、宇宙万法。智顗说：

  “论云：一切世间中，但有名与色。若欲如实观，但当观名、色。心是惑本，其义如是，若欲观察，须伐其根，如灸病得穴。今当去丈就尺，去尺就寸，置色等四阴，但观识阴。识阴者，心是也。”c

  这样，智顗就把“观诸法”经由“观阴、入、界境”、“观五阴境”、“观名、色”，一步步地归结到“观识阴”亦即“观心”上来，最终把“观心”视为正修止观的根本。

  从上述“观心”问题的提出可以清楚地看到，智顗是把“观心”放在“观阴、入、界境”亦即“观诸法”的范围内提出来加以讨论的，是把“心”作为“诸法”中的一法，“阴、入、界境”中的一境来看待的。按照天台圆教的“诸法实相”论，既然随举一法皆即实相，那么，当然也可以说“心即实相”d、“心即大乘，心即佛性”e，“观心”当然也就可以体达诸法实相。

  不过，在另一方面，按照天台圆教的“诸法实相”论，不仅“心即实相”，而且“一色一香”乃至“一切法”也“皆即实相”。因此，从理论上来讲，非但观心，观任何一法都是可以体达诸法实相的。那么， 在正修止观时，何以要“置色等四阴”，但“以观心为本”呢？这表明，“心” 虽然是万法中的一法，“阴、入、界境”中的一境，但是它又不是一般的一法、一般的一境，而是具有特殊意义的一法、具有特殊意义的一境。有些佛教学者如天台宗山外派，就是沿着这样的思路，极力强调“心法” 的殊胜性，把所观之“心”理解为具有本体意义的“真如心”，认为智顗所说的“观心”就是“观真心”。这种看法遭到了另外一些天台学人的批评，如元代的天台传人怀则就批评真心观“乃指真心成佛，非指妄心”，实际上是“指真即真，非指妄即真”f，他认为“妄心观”才是天台佛学的正义。应当说，怀则的这种观点是更切合智顗的思想实际的。智顗不止一次地明确指出，所谓“观心”，即是“观识阴”，也就是“观根尘相对，一念心起”g 之“心”，是“观察无明之心”h。在《摩诃止观》卷一上，智顗还对“心”的含义作了专门的区分，他说：

  “质多”者，天竺音，此方言“心”，即虑知之心也；天竺又称“污栗驮”，此方称是草木之心也；又称“矣栗驮”， 此方是积聚精要者为心也。今简非者，简积聚、草木等心，专在虑知心也。i

  显而易见，在智顗的“观心”论中，所谓“心”指的就是凡俗众生没有断除情欲迷妄的、有虑知分别作用的、刹那生灭的一念识心，也就是后人所谓的“妄心”。虽然是“妄心”，但是按照天台圆教义理，“即妄而真”，故仍然可以说“心即实相”——说“心即实相”，并不意味着这个“心”就是“真心”。在天台圆教中，“实相”自身也是“含备诸法”、“性具善恶”的。天台山外派以“真心”解“心”，正是受了华严宗“性起”论真心系思想的影响，从而背离了天台圆教的“性具” 立场。

  智顗在“观心”论中所讲的“心”既然并不是具有本体意义的“真如心”，那么，在正修止观时，强调“以观心为本”的理论依据究竟何在呢？ 对于这个问题，智顗主要从以下几个方面作了回答：

  其一，“观心为易”。智顗把所观之境分为自、他两种，以己心为“自”，以众生、佛为“他”。在智顗看来，“心、佛及众生，是三无差别”，因此，从理论上来讲，无论是观己心，还是观佛法、观众生法，都是可以体达诸法实相的；不过，“众生法太广，佛法太高，于初学为难，然‘心、佛及众生，是三无差别’者，但自观己心则为易”j。在这里，智顗是从初学之人修习止观的可行性和易操作性上来谈“观心”的殊胜意义的。

  其二，“心为贵”。智顗说：

  夫天下万物，唯人为贵；七尺形骸，唯头为贵；头有七孔，目为贵；目虽贵，不如灵智为贵。当知四阴（指受、想、行、识四阴），心为贵。贵故，所以观之。k

  可见，智顗的“观心”学说，是从“人”亦即修行主体、认识主体的角度出发建立起来的。人之所以最为天下贵者，就在于他有“对境觉知，异乎木石”l 的灵智之心，也正是因为有了这个灵智之心，人才成为具有能动作用的认识主体和修行主体。

  第三，“心为迷解本”。智顗指出，人心有“对境觉知，异乎木石”的认识能力，这本来是人的长处，但是长处有时也会变为短处，因为人的认识并不总是正确的，甚至可以说是“多颠倒少不颠倒”m，所以说“心为惑本”、“心为迷本”。因此，要治妄除惑，就必须“去丈就尺，去尺就寸”，像“灸病得穴”那样，对作为“惑本”、“迷本”的一念识心进行观察。同时，人要达到正确的认识，要觉解佛教真理，归根结底仍要靠这个“虑知之心”的灵智作用，因此，心又为“解本”。智顗说：

  只观根尘一念心起，心起即假，假名之心为迷、解本。n

  这样，智顗就在佛教认识论和佛教修行观的意义上确立了主体之“心”的根本地位。在他看来，人的认识和行为正确与否，关键就在于主体一念之心的迷悟善恶。他说：

  若众生行不善心时，与不善界俱；行善心时，与善界俱；

  行胜心时，与胜界俱；行鄙心时，与鄙界俱。o

  心能地狱，心能天堂，心能凡夫，心能贤圣。p

  也正是在这个意义上，智顗说：

  此心幻师，于一日夜常造种种众生、种种五阴、种种国土， 所谓地狱假实国土，乃至佛界假实国土。行人当自选择何道可从！ q

  众生与佛在本性上是平等的，但是在现实生活中，众生于十界中究竟处于何界，是升上天堂还是堕入地狱，关键就在于他自己“选择何道可从”。正是由于主体之心的“选择”不同，才呈现出从地狱到佛的十界差别。

  由上所述不难看出，智顗完全是在佛教认识论、修行观和解脱论的意义上强调“心法”的殊胜性的。他所说的“心”，不是什么“真如之心”， 而就是凡俗众生自己现实存在的“一念识心”。《维摩诘所说经》卷中有云：“诸佛解脱当于何求？答曰：当于一切众生心行中求”r，智顗的“观心”论把佛教修行解脱的根本安置在主体当下存在的一念识心之上，可以说正体现了佛教实践的这一基本原则。智顗曾言：“离凡法更求实相， 如避此空，彼处求空；即凡法是实法，不须舍凡向圣。”s 佛教出世的解脱境界，若脱离作为修行主体的世间凡俗众生的现实活动，是无由得求的。所谓“从我做起，从现在做起”，虽然是现代的口号，但是在智顗的“自观己心”的“妄心观”中，不也可以体会到这一精神吗？

  a　《摩诃止观》卷一上，《大正藏》卷46，第1 页中。

  b　《摩诃止观》卷五上，《大正藏》卷46，第48页下。

  c　《摩诃止观》卷五上，《大正藏》卷46，第52页上、中。

  d　《法华玄义》卷一上，《大正藏》卷33，第685页下。

  e　《摩诃止观》卷三下，《大正藏》卷46，第31页下。

  f　《天台传佛心印记》，《大正藏》卷46，第935 页下。

  g　《摩诃止观》卷一下，《大正藏》卷46，第8 页下。

  h　《摩诃止观》卷五上，《大正藏》卷46，第56 页中。

  i　《摩诃止观》卷一上，《大正藏》卷46，第4 页上。

  j　《法华玄义》卷二上，《大正藏》卷33，第696页上。

  k　《金光明经玄义》卷下，《大正藏》卷39，第6页下。

  l　《摩诃止观》卷二上，《大正藏》卷46，第14页下。

  m　《观音玄义》卷下，《大正藏》卷34，第888页下。

  n　《摩诃止观》卷一下，《大正藏》卷46，第8页中。

  o　《法华文句》卷四下，《大正藏》卷34，第60 页下。

  p　《法华玄义》卷一上，《大正藏》卷33，第685 页下。

  q　《法华玄义》卷二上，《大正藏》卷33，第696 页上。

  r　《维摩诘所说经》卷中《文殊师利问疾品第五》，《大正藏》卷14，第544 页下。

  s　《摩诃止观》卷一上，《大正藏》卷46，第6 页上、中。

  In the popular sense of people, Buddhism is considered as a religion of presuming a renunciation of the world. However, as one of the social and historical cultures, Buddhism has never gone beyond the human world. At the time of Sakyamuni Buddha founding Buddhism, the real and meaningful life of our humans had been considered as the most important raft for being’s salvation. The fundamental teachings of Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path are all based on having a real life. In this sense, Buddhism can be interpreted as a philosophy of life. The Buddha is neither God nor Omniscient, but a man, a only man who had enlightened both himself and the world. As we know that in the Mahayana Buddhism either Buddha or Bodhisattva is deified in a certain extent, but all of these theories created are based on the convenience of solving man’s present difficulties and sufferings. The idea of renouncing the world in Buddhism can’t be talked by keeping aloof from the human world and the problem of humans themselves, or by rejecting, neglecting and escaping from all of these worldly things. If Buddhism deviates from the problems of the present world and present life of man, a superexcellent concept of renunciation is nonsense and baseless.

  As one of the historical and influential Chinese Buddhist schools, Tien’tai（Tian’tai） School carried forward and elaborated the Buddha’s teachings by indicating that the problem of man’s real life could be achieved within this present life and the world. The founder of Tien’tai School, master Chih-I（Zhi’yi,智顗，538-598AD） has delivered a systematic Buddhist theory and method for the practicers to practice the Samatha-vipasyana, or rest of body for clearness of vision, under the instruction of the idea that the real substance of the world is everlasting said in Lotus Sutra. Master Chih-I pays close attention to the problem of man’s real life and worldly dharma, that embodies not only his theory of real substance of all dharmas with both wholesome and unwholesome on their natures, but also the method of the mind centered practice of the Samatha-vipasyana.

  The idea of the mind centered practice of Tien’tai has been taught by master Chih-I in his various works. Of those, the most foundation work which embodies the profound idea of the mind centered practice is a correct way of practice of the Samatha-vipasyana delivered in the treatise of Maha- Samatha-Vipasyana（Mohezhiguan,《摩诃止观》） in which it taught only the perfect rest of body for clearness of vision by master Chih-I . ①The kernel of the prefect rest of body for clearness of vision is called “ Three Meditations of One Mind”. That means to observe an object in three spheres: “Void”, “Unreal” and “Mean” with an alert mind and realize the real substance of all dharmas at the meantime. This is an actual substance observation with mind. According to the perfect teaching of Tien’tai, the theory of the actual substance of dharmas, one cannot comprehend and understand substance of dharmas by keeping no close and careful observation to the different spheres of dharmas. One must begin on observing all dharmas at the time of practicing the perfect rest of body for clearness of vision in order to have a subtle comprehension and correct way of practice. ②According to the general teaching of Buddhism, dharmas are generally included in the following three aspects, Pancopadana-skandhah, Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah. Therefore, when master Chih-I taught the correct way of practicing Samatha-vipasyana, he began on observing from those three, Pancopadana-skandhah, Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah which was delivered in the 5th volume of Mahasamatha-vipasyana. In his point of view, these three main spheres of observation are the general ways of practicing the prefect rest of body for clearness of vision. As we saw that both Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah were elaborated from the Pancopadana-skandhah, or the five aggregates, therefore, Pancopadana-skandhah, Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah can be attributed to one, the Pancopadana-skandhah also. The Pancopadana-skandhah can be also divided into two sections, Nama and Rupa, or name and form. The last-named four aggregates are mental, such as vedana, samjna, samskara and vijnana being the “name”. Rupa is described as the minutest particle of matter, that which has resistance. The five aggregates, Pancopadana-skandhah represents all dharmas of the world.

  Master Chih-I said, “All dharmas are formed with Nama and Rupa. One should observe Nama and Rupa if one wants to see all dharmas as they truly are. The mind is the root of ignorance. If one wants to observe dharmas, he should get rid of the root just like to have a right point on the body for acupuncture. Therefore, one must go away form what is fruitless and keep close to what is fruitful. Out of five aggregates, one should pay close attention on observation of vijnana only, for the vijnana is mind.” ③Therefore, Chih-I summed up all those observations: the observation of Pancopadana-skandhah, Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah, the observation of Pancopadana-skandhah, and the observation of Nama and Rupa as one, that is the observation of the vijnana or the observation of mind. In his point of view, the observation of mind is the fundamental way of having a correct practice of Samatha-vipasyana, rest of body for clearness of vision.

  From the above, it is clear that question of the observation on mind was raised and discussed by master Chih-I at the aspect of observing all spheres of Pancopadana-skandhah, Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah, or observing all dharmas. The mind was considered as one of either the dharmas or the spheres of Pancopadana-skandhah, Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah. According to the theory of actual substance of dharmas of Tien’tai, what is real is substance, and what is neutral is its form, ④hence, it can be also said that the mind is substance, ⑤the mid is a great vehicle and the mind has a potentiality of being a Buddha. ⑥Therefore, to observe the mind, the real substance of dharmas can be comprehended.

  But, in the other hand, according to the theory of the actual substance of dharmas, mind is not only substance, but all forms and dharmas are substances too. Theoretically, the actual substance of dharmas can be realized by observing not only the mind, but also dharmas. So, when one practices the correct way of the Samatha-vipasyana, why should one put aside those four aggregates and concentrate on observing the vijnana, mind only ？ That is because mind is not only one of either the dharmas or the spheres of Pancopadana-skandhah, Dvadasayatanani and Astsdasa-dhatvah, it is not only an ordinary dharma and sphere, but a special dharma and sphere in a sense. By following this kind of way of thinking, some Buddhist scholars, especially those who do not belong to the tradition of Tien’tai stressed firmly the specialty and profundity of the mind. They considered the mind which is to be observed as the absolute mind, and thought that Chih-I’s theory of observation of mind indicating an observation of the real and absolute mind. However, this kind of view was criticized by those scholars from Tien’tai, such as Master Huaize, one of the masters of Tien’tai in Yuan Dynasty. Master Huaize criticized the idea that “the observation of the absolute mind is a real mind and that mind has potentiality of being a Buddha” as that “the real is actually real, and not the unreal is real”. ⑦ He said that the observation of the unreal mind was a right teaching of Tien’tai, that which fitted in with the idea of master Chih-I. Master Chih-I emphasized clearly that the so called observation of the mind was actual an observation of the vijnana. That was to observe mind consciousness risen at the time when organ contacts object, ⑧or an observation of the mind of Avidya. ⑨Master Chih-I explained the different interpretations of mind in the first volume of Mahasamatha-vipasyana, “Citta is a Sanskrit term, a transliteration, that which means the heart or the mind. It has also other two terms, Hrd which means the physical heart of non-sentient living beings, and Hrdaya means the mind-essence of sutras. What we talked is neither the physical heart of non-sentient living beings nor the mind-essence of sutras, but the mind which is contemplative and comprehensive.” ⑩It is obvious that the mind discussed in the theory of observation of mind by Chih-I indicates the one which is changing form moment to moment with full of lust and ignorance, or the so called unreal mind by later scholars. According to the perfect teaching of Tien’tai, unreal is real, and mind is substance. In other words, to say that the real mind is substance does not mean this mind is actually real. In the prefect teaching of Tien’tai, the substance itself is also within the dharmas, that which is with both wholesome and unwholesome on its nature. Those who do not belong to the tradition of Tien’tai interpret a real mind as the mind under the influence of the theory of bhutatathata—arising form the primal nature held by Hua-yen School, and deviated from the doctrine that the Buddha-nature includes both good and evil taught in the perfect teaching of Tien’tai School.

  So, if the mind talked in the theory of observation of mind by master Chih-I doesn’t indicate a “real mind”, then how could he emphasize that the mid was a key basis at the time of practiving the Samatha-vipasyana？ To this, master Chih-I explained as follows:

  1.“ The easiest way to practice the Samatha-vipasyana is to observe one’s own mind.” Master Chih-I interpreted the observing object in the two aspects, by observing one’s own mind as the self mind and by observing either beings’ or Buddhas’ as the other. In his view, there is no difference between the mind and beings as well as Buddha. Theoretically, no mater to observe mental dharmas, or to observe the Buddha dharmas, or to observe beings dharmas, by all of these the actual substance of dharmas can be comprehended. Because of the deepness of the Buddha Dharmas and the wideness of the beings dharmas, it is difficult for the beginners to comprehend and understand them. For there is no difference between the mind and beings as well as Buddha, therefore, to observe one’s own mind is the best and the easiest way. ⑪Here master Chih-I emphasized the possibility and practicality of the observation of mind from the beginners’ side.

  2.“Mind is highly valued.” Master Chih-I said, “Out of all sentient and non-sentient beings living in the world, human beings are highly valued; out of the whole human body, head is highly valued; out of the seven holes on the head, eyes are highly valued, even though the eyes are highly valued, spiritual knowledge is far more valued. As we know that the most valuable one among five aggregates is the vijnana, mind. That’s why we observe it.” ⑫ It is clear that the theory of observation of mind is based on man himself, for man has a potentiality of understanding and practicing by himself. Man is so highly valued out of all beings living in the world, for he has one that differs form threes and stones, a clear and sharp mind to understand the world. ⑬Because of owning this mind, man is able to understand and practice by himself.

  3.“Mind is the origin of both perplexity and understanding.” Master Chih-I said, “Man has a good quality that mind is potentially to understand the world. But, sometimes, this kind of good quality could be switched to its opposite side. Because of man’s so called understanding of the world is not always correct, that’s why we say that mind is the origin of perplexity.” ⑭Therefore, in order to get rid of the origin of any perplexity, one must observe a rise of the mind consciousness which is getting in the state of confusion. The mind is the most important for one to achieve the right understanding and realize the essence of the teaching of the Buddha. Therefore, mind is also the origin of right understanding. Master Chih-I said also, “With a meet of an organ and object, mind consciousness arises. With a rise of consciousness, the mind is unreal. The unreal mind is the origin of both Perplexity and understanding.” ⑮Hence, Chih-I established the principal level for the mind in accordance with the Buddhist epistemology. In his view, both conduct and cognition of man, whether right or wrong, are determined by the condition of a rise of the mind consciousness good or evil. He says, “If a living being does bad, the badness follows; if he does good, the goodness follows; if he does with a conquering mind, success follows; if he does with vulgar mind, vulgarity follows.” ⑯ “Mind could lead one to either the hell or the heaven. Mind could make one as either an ordinary being or an intelligent one.” ⑰He also said, “Various living beings, various Pancopadana-skandhah and various lands could be made by mind within day and night. The hell could be a land and the Buddha-loka could be a land too. A practicer should choose by himself which way he is going to follow.” ⑱

  Living Beings and Buddha are equal in nature. However, to what stage in the ten kinds of realms should beings belong？ To be born in either the hell or the heaven is up to him to select the way of which he follows. For the different selections of ways, there are differences among the ten kinds of realms.

  From the above, it is clear that Master Chih-I’s emphasis of the importance of the mind is from three aspects: from the point of the Buddhist epistemology, from the view of practice and from the theory of the extrication. A so called mental dharma, the mind, is actually not an absolute mind, but an ordinary mind which living being originally has. Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtrasays, “Salvation can be achieved within the mind of being.” The theory of mind of Chih-I indicating the achievement of both cultivation and salvation gives expression to the principle of practice of the Buddha teaching. Master Chih-I said, “ One seeks for a substance or reality out of worldly dharmas just like ignoring the emptiness here searching for from far remote; so worldly dharmas are real and absolute, it is not necessary for one to neglect the worldly dharmas but look for the emperor.” ⑲In his point of view, it is impossible for one to achieve salvation if he deviates form the principal of an actual practice conducted at the present life. The Buddhist cultivation does not indulge in empty talk, but aims at and bases on living beings’ problems of the present life. The principal of the theory of Chih-I is to teach a practitioner to begin with the present, and to observe and realize the life carefully and deeply. In short, to work from oneself and to work from now on, it is an essence of what Master Chih-I taught in his theory of mind.

  ① 　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 1-a, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.1-b.

  ②　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 5-a, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.48-c.

  ③　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol.5-a, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.52-a,b.

  ④　Textual Explanation of Golden-light Sutra, Vol. 1 Taisho, Vol. 39, p.49-a.

  ⑤　Exposition of the Profound Meaning of Lotus Sutra, Vol. 1-a, Taisho, Vol. 33, p.685-c.

  ⑥　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 3-c, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.31-c.

  ⑦　Record of Handing Down the Buddha’s Heart of Tien’tai, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.935-c.

  ⑧　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 1-c, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.8-c.

  ⑨　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 5-a, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.56-b.

  ⑩　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 1-a, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.4-a.

  ⑪　Exposition of the Profound Meaning of Lotus Sutra, Vol. 2-a, Taisho, Vol. 33, p.696-a.

  ⑫　Exposition of Golden-light Sutra, Vol. B, Taisho, Vol. 39, p.6-c.

  ⑬　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 2-a, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.14-c.

  ⑭　Exposition of Guanyin, Vol. B, Taisho, Vol.34, p.888-c.

  ⑮　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 1-b, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.8-b.

  ⑯　Textual Explanation of Lotus Sutra, Vol.4-b, Taisho, Vol. 34, p.60-c.

  ⑰　Exposition of the Profound Meaning of Lotus Sutra, Vol. 1-a, Taisho, Vol. 33, p.685-c.

  ⑱　Exposition of the Profound Meaning of Lotus Sutra, Vol. 2-a, Taisho, Vol. 33, p.696-a.

  ⑲　Mahasamatha-vipasyana, Vol. 1-a, Taisho, Vol. 46, p.6-a,b.