X22n0426_阿彌陀經疏鈔問辯
卍新續藏第 22 冊 No. 0426 阿彌陀經疏鈔問辯
No. 426
阿彌陀經疏鈔問辯
疏鈔既出。有不愜者。致辭詰難。其可從者。忻然從之。不可從者。一一辯正。太無緊要。則置弗錄。研幾析理。不得不然。非曰尚爭。是名法喜。
問。唸佛之心。無雜無間。即精進度。何故乃云不退墮耶。
答。將謂精進乃能不退墮。非精進即是不退墮耶。辯此有二。一者。亦可即是不退。何以故。雖常言精不雜。進不退。然此二字。總之成就進義。古云精進度懈怠是也。進與退對。故精進即不退。二者。此重唸佛普攝諸度。不重訓詁精進二字。況既雲精進乃能不退。今唸佛之人。永不退墮。則唸佛即成精進。不必更求精進矣。如所問。乃是精進唸佛。非唸佛即精進。
問。華嚴八地。圓教初住。皆無生忍。天臺云。圓教之機。一生有登十地者。華嚴善財。法華龍女。禪宗諸祖。即其人也。何故雷同。皆難造入。
答。八地始名真得無生。是華嚴宗語。據華嚴。則初地以去。尚未云真得。況初住耶。豈不是聖且難之。只嘆其難得。不說定無人得也。彼一生十地者。誰敢抑之不令造入耶。又禪宗諸祖。大有差等。談何容易。
問。若以五法對三自性者。應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《阿彌陀經疏鈔問辯》
疏鈔刊行之後，有人覺得不滿意，於是提出質疑和詰難。其中合理的，就欣然接受；不合理的，就一一辯駁匡正。如果無關緊要，就不予收錄。研究事理，不得不這樣做，並非爲了爭論，而是爲了法喜。
問：唸佛之心，沒有夾雜，沒有間斷，就是精進的程度。為什麼還說是不退墮呢？
答：你認為精進才能不退墮，難道精進就不是不退墮嗎？對此辯解有二：一是，也可以說精進就是不退。為什麼呢？雖然常說精不雜，進不退，但這兩個字，總的來說成就了進的意義。古人說精進度懈怠就是這個意思。進與退相對，所以精進就是不退。二是，這裡側重唸佛普攝一切度，不側重訓釋精進二字。況且既然說精進才能不退，現在念佛之人，永遠不退墮，那麼唸佛就成了精進，不必再另外尋求精進了。如你所問，乃是精進地念佛，不是念佛就是精進。
問：華嚴宗的八地菩薩，圓教的初住菩薩，都證得了無生忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，對事物不生不滅的真理的證悟）。天臺宗說，圓教的根機，一生之中有能登上十地（dasabhumi，菩薩修行的十個階段）的人。華嚴經中的善財童子（Sudhana），法華經中的龍女（Naga-kanya），禪宗的各位祖師，就是這樣的人。為什麼都說很難達到呢？
答：八地菩薩才開始真正獲得無生忍，這是華嚴宗的說法。按照華嚴宗的觀點，初地菩薩乃至七地菩薩，還不能說是真正獲得。更何況是初住菩薩呢？難道不是聖人也覺得難嗎？只是感嘆其難得，不是說一定沒有人能達到。那些一生登上十地的人，誰又敢阻止他們不讓他們達到呢？而且禪宗的各位祖師，境界差別很大，談何容易。
問：如果用五法（五種認知過程）來對應三自性（三種存在的模式），那麼……
【English Translation】 English version 《Amitabha Sutra Commentary: Questions and Answers》
After the publication of the commentary, some were dissatisfied and raised questions and challenges. Those that were reasonable were gladly accepted; those that were unreasonable were refuted and corrected one by one. If it was not essential, it would not be included. Studying principles, one must do this, not for the sake of argument, but for the joy of Dharma.
Question: If the mind of mindfulness of Buddha (Buddha-anusmrti) is without mixture and without interruption, that is the degree of diligence. Why is it said to be non-regression?
Answer: Do you think that diligence is the only way to achieve non-regression? Is diligence not non-regression? There are two arguments for this: First, it can also be said that diligence is non-regression. Why? Although it is often said that 'diligence is not mixed' and 'progress is not regression,' these two words, in general, accomplish the meaning of progress. The ancients said that 'diligence, progress, and laziness' is what it means. Progress is the opposite of regression, so diligence is non-regression. Second, this emphasizes that mindfulness of Buddha universally encompasses all perfections (paramita), and does not emphasize the interpretation of the words 'diligence' and 'progress.' Moreover, since it is said that diligence is the only way to achieve non-regression, now that those who are mindful of Buddha will never regress, then mindfulness of Buddha becomes diligence, and there is no need to seek diligence elsewhere. As you asked, it is diligent mindfulness of Buddha, not that mindfulness of Buddha is diligence.
Question: The eighth ground (bhumi) of the Avatamsaka School, and the initial dwelling (prathama-avastha) of the Perfect Teaching, have all attained the patience with non-arising (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti, the realization of the truth that things neither arise nor perish). The Tiantai School says that the capacity of the Perfect Teaching allows some to ascend to the ten grounds (dasabhumi, the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) in one lifetime. Sudhana in the Avatamsaka Sutra, Naga-kanya in the Lotus Sutra, and the various patriarchs of the Chan School are such people. Why is it said that they are all difficult to attain?
Answer: The eighth ground is the beginning of truly attaining non-arising, which is the language of the Avatamsaka School. According to the Avatamsaka School, the first ground and beyond cannot yet be said to be truly attained. How much more so the initial dwelling? Is it not difficult even for sages? It only laments its rarity, not saying that no one can attain it. Those who ascend to the ten grounds in one lifetime, who dares to stop them from attaining it? Moreover, the various patriarchs of the Chan School have great differences in their levels, how can it be easy?
Question: If the five dharmas (five cognitive processes) are used to correspond to the three self-natures (trisvabhava, three modes of existence), then...
以名相對依他。妄想對遍計。楞伽。唯識。皆如此說。今何不然。楞伽云。彼名及相。是妄想自性生。請觀生之一字。此即依他起自性。分別緣所生也。非謂名相即是妄想。乃是妄想之所生耳。如言舍利弗。鹙之所生。豈子即鹙耶。
答。謂名相等三性錯配。又謂名相為妄想所生。非名相即是妄想。而引楞伽之文以證。然楞伽乃云。彼名及相。是妄想自性。則名相屬遍計。又分明下個是字。而無生字。魏譯唐譯皆同。其分配與汝所說相反。我依古譯直述。是金口所出。將非之耶。將無別得梵本。而欲更為一譯耶。又言楞伽唯識皆然。卻是不曾見楞伽來。可駭也。且五法入三自性。本出自楞伽。賢首。清涼。據楞伽判頓教。不據唯識也。今論頓教。正當用楞伽文。又不講唯識論。不必雜入。嗟乎。三譯文字。昭如日月。今是譯人錯耶。世尊錯耶。吾不得而知之矣。記取當來問彌勒。
問。引大本觀經證圓義。有多違妨。一者引他成己妨。他經圓意。不關此故。二者前後相違妨。今疏前後多雲此經勝於大本。及十六觀。乃要中之要。妙中之妙故。三者分全混同妨。今疏判此為分圓。妙宗判彼為純圓故。四者觀念混同妨。此經持名。彼觀佛故。五者繁約混同妨。此經至要。彼文煩故。故知不應引彼為此證也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
問：你認為名相是依他起性，妄想是遍計所執性。《楞伽經》、《唯識論》都是這麼說的。為什麼現在你卻不這麼認為呢？《楞伽經》說：『彼名及相，是妄想自性生。』請注意『生』這個字。這說明名相是依他起自性，是分別緣所生的。並不是說名相就是妄想，而是說名相是妄想所生的。就像說舍利弗是鹙鳥所生，難道兒子就是鹙鳥嗎？』 答：你認為名相等三性錯配，又認為名相是妄想所生，而不是名相本身就是妄想，還引用《楞伽經》的經文來證明。然而，《楞伽經》卻說：『彼名及相，是妄想自性。』這說明名相屬於遍計所執性。而且經文中明明寫的是『是』字，而沒有『生』字。魏譯本和唐譯本都是一樣的。你所說的分配方式與我所說的相反。我依據古譯本直接敘述，這是佛的金口所說，難道我會反對嗎？還是說你另外得到了梵文字，想要重新翻譯一遍呢？你又說《楞伽經》和《唯識論》都是這樣說的，看來你是不曾見過《楞伽經》啊，真是令人驚訝。而且五法入三自性，本來就出自《楞伽經》。賢首和清涼都是根據《楞伽經》來判別頓教，而不是根據《唯識論》。現在討論頓教，正應該使用《楞伽經》的經文，而且現在又不講解《唯識論》，所以不必混雜進來。唉，三個譯本的文字，明明白白如同日月。現在是譯者錯了呢？還是世尊錯了呢？我不得而知啊。記住，將來去問彌勒菩薩吧。 問：引用《大本觀經》（《無量壽經》）來證明圓頓教義，有很多不妥之處。一是『引他成己』的妨礙，因為其他經典的圓頓教義與此無關。二是前後矛盾的妨礙，因為你的疏鈔前後多次說這部經勝過《大本》（《無量壽經》）以及十六觀，是『要中之要，妙中之妙』。三是『分圓』與『純圓』混同的妨礙，因為你的疏鈔判這部經為『分圓』，而妙宗大師判《大本》（《無量壽經》）為『純圓』。四是念佛方法混同的妨礙，這部經是持名唸佛，而《大本》（《無量壽經》）是觀佛。五是繁簡混同的妨礙，這部經至簡至要，而《大本》（《無量壽經》）的經文繁瑣。所以，不應該引用《大本》（《無量壽經》）來為此經作證。
【English Translation】 English version:
Question: 'You believe that names and forms (名相) [name and form] are dependent origination (依他起性) [dependent nature], and that false discriminations (妄想) [delusion] are completely conceptualized nature (遍計所執性) [pervaded and grasped nature]. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽經) [Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra] and Vijñānavāda (唯識論) [Consciousness-only] both say this. Why do you not think so now? The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: 『Those names and forms are born from the nature of false discriminations.』 Please pay attention to the word 『born.』 This shows that names and forms are dependent origination, born from discriminative conditions. It is not saying that names and forms are false discriminations, but that names and forms are born from false discriminations. Just like saying that Śāriputra (舍利弗) [Śāriputra] was born from a heron (鹙), does that mean the son is the heron?' Answer: 'You believe that the three natures (三性) [three natures] of names, forms, etc., are mismatched, and that names and forms are born from false discriminations, rather than names and forms themselves being false discriminations. You even cite the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to prove this. However, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: 『Those names and forms are the nature of false discriminations.』 This shows that names and forms belong to completely conceptualized nature. Moreover, the text clearly uses the word 『is』 (是), not 『born』 (生). The Wei translation and the Tang translation are the same. Your allocation is the opposite of what I say. I directly narrate based on the ancient translations, which are the words of the Buddha. Would I oppose them? Or have you obtained another Sanskrit version and want to retranslate it? You also say that the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and Vijñānavāda both say this, but it seems you have never seen the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. This is astonishing. Furthermore, the entry of the five dharmas (五法) [five dharmas] into the three natures originally comes from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Xianshou (賢首) [Xianshou] and Qingliang (清涼) [Qingliang] both determine the sudden teaching (頓教) [sudden teaching] based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, not based on Vijñānavāda. Now that we are discussing the sudden teaching, we should use the text of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Moreover, we are not explaining Vijñānavāda now, so there is no need to mix it in. Alas, the words of the three translations are as clear as the sun and moon. Is it the translator who is wrong? Or is it the Buddha who is wrong? I do not know. Remember to ask Maitreya (彌勒) [Maitreya] in the future.' Question: 'Citing the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra (大本觀經) [Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra] to prove the perfect and sudden teaching (圓義) [perfect meaning] has many drawbacks. First, there is the hindrance of 『using others to establish oneself,』 because the perfect and sudden teachings of other sutras are unrelated to this. Second, there is the hindrance of contradicting oneself, because your commentary repeatedly says that this sutra is superior to the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra and the Sixteen Contemplations (十六觀) [Sixteen Contemplations], being the 『most essential of the essentials, the most wonderful of the wonderful.』 Third, there is the hindrance of confusing the 『partial perfect』 (分圓) [partial perfect] with the 『pure perfect』 (純圓) [pure perfect], because your commentary judges this sutra to be 『partial perfect,』 while Master Miaozong (妙宗) [Miaozong] judges the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra to be 『pure perfect.』 Fourth, there is the hindrance of confusing the methods of mindfulness of Buddha (唸佛) [Buddha-Recitation], this sutra is the mindfulness of Buddha by reciting the name (持名) [name-recitation], while the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra is the contemplation of Buddha (觀佛) [Buddha-contemplation]. Fifth, there is the hindrance of confusing the concise with the verbose, this sutra is extremely concise and essential, while the text of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra is verbose. Therefore, one should not cite the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra to prove this sutra.'
答。初通引他成己妨。于中復二。一通大本。曰。二經一體。不名己他。良以無量壽經。五正譯。一參會。其本有六。皆號大本。而今經乃名小本。是同爲一經。但言有多寡耳。何得判為己他。如所引大本。或以一寶嚴樹。或以雜寶嚴樹。則今經雖無此文。而其云七重行樹。實以四字攝純嚴互嚴之義也。又所引大本。無量寶華。出無量寶光。則今經雖無此文。而其云青黃赤白。實以四種攝無量華光之義也。故疏鈔屢言經中具有此義。但文省耳。正謂此也。是知大本當引。固不待論。二通觀經。曰。觀經稍疏。亦非異體。良以于文或無。亦于義實有。如所引觀經。佛既現六十萬億廣大之身。而又現丈六小身。則今經雖無此文。而壽無量。光無量。即廣大身故。與諸聖眾現在其前。即或現大身或現小身故。例而推之。觀經有鳧雁鴛鴦。豈今經之極樂。只白鶴孔雀等耶。觀經有五百億樓閣。豈今經之極樂。只七重樓閣耶。觀經有觀音勢至。豈今經之極樂。只彌陀一佛。而缺二侍耶。又反而論之。今經有七重欄楯。觀經無此語。豈彼之極樂。只行樹無欄楯耶。今經有菩薩眾無量無邊。觀經無此語。豈彼之極樂。只觀音勢至二菩薩耶。如是參合。故云文互見。而義必周也。則大本原同一體。觀經亦復極親。引以為證。非引
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 答：最初認為引用其他經典是爲了成就自己的觀點，這是一種妨礙。其中又分為兩種情況。一是通達大本（指《無量壽經》的原本）。說：兩部經本為一體，不應分己分他。因為《無量壽經》有五種正式譯本，一種參考會集本，其原本有六種，都稱為大本。而現在的經本被稱為小本，這只是同一部經的不同版本，只是文字有多有少而已，怎麼能判斷為己方或他方呢？比如所引用的大本，有的說用一寶嚴飾的樹，有的說用雜寶嚴飾的樹，那麼現在的經本雖然沒有這段文字，但其中說的『七重行樹』，實際上是用四個字概括了純寶嚴飾和互相嚴飾的含義。又如所引用的大本，無量的寶華，發出無量的寶光，那麼現在的經本雖然沒有這段文字，但其中說的青、黃、赤、白，實際上是用四種顏色概括了無量華光的含義。所以疏鈔屢次說經中具有此義，只是文字簡略而已，正是說的這個意思。由此可知大本本來就應該引用，這本來就不需要討論。二是通達《觀經》（《觀無量壽經》）。說：《觀經》稍有疏略，也不是不同的體系。因為有的文字上沒有，但在意義上實際是有的。比如所引用的《觀經》，佛既現六十萬億廣大之身，而又現丈六小身，那麼現在的經本雖然沒有這段文字，但壽無量、光無量，就是廣大身的意思，與諸聖眾現在其前，就是或者現大身或者現小身的意思。以此類推，《觀經》有鳧、雁、鴛鴦，難道現在的經本所說的極樂世界，只有白鶴、孔雀等嗎？《觀經》有五百億樓閣，難道現在的經本所說的極樂世界，只有七重樓閣嗎？《觀經》有觀音、勢至，難道現在的經本所說的極樂世界，只有彌陀一佛，而缺少兩位侍者嗎？又反過來說，現在的經本有七重欄楯，而《觀經》沒有這句話，難道彼方的極樂世界，只有行樹而沒有欄楯嗎？現在的經本有菩薩眾無量無邊，而《觀經》沒有這句話，難道彼方的極樂世界，只有觀音、勢至二位菩薩嗎？像這樣互相參照，所以說文字上互相顯現，而意義上必定是周全的。那麼大本原本就是同一體，觀經也極其親近，引用它們作為證據，不是引用他經。
【English Translation】 English version: Answer: Initially, thinking that quoting other scriptures is to achieve one's own views is an obstacle. Within this, there are two situations. First, understanding the Great Original (referring to the original version of the Amitayus Sutra). It is said: The two scriptures are one body, and should not be divided into self and other. Because the Amitayus Sutra has five formal translations and one compiled version, its original has six versions, all called the Great Original. And the current scripture is called the Small Original, which is just different versions of the same scripture, only with more or less text. How can it be judged as self or other? For example, the Great Original that is quoted, some say trees adorned with one treasure, and some say trees adorned with various treasures. Then, although the current scripture does not have this text, the 'seven rows of trees' it mentions actually uses four words to summarize the meaning of pure treasure adornment and mutual adornment. Also, as quoted in the Great Original, immeasurable precious flowers emit immeasurable precious light, then although the current scripture does not have this text, the blue, yellow, red, and white it mentions actually uses four colors to summarize the meaning of immeasurable flower light. Therefore, the commentaries repeatedly say that the scripture has this meaning, but the text is simplified, which is exactly what it means. From this, it can be seen that the Great Original should be quoted, which does not need to be discussed. Second, understanding the Contemplation Sutra (Amitayurdhyana Sutra). It is said: The Contemplation Sutra is slightly sparse, but it is not a different system. Because some texts are not present in the words, but are actually present in the meaning. For example, as quoted in the Contemplation Sutra, the Buddha manifests both a vast body of six hundred trillion, and also manifests a small body of sixteen feet, then although the current scripture does not have this text, immeasurable life and immeasurable light are the meaning of the vast body, and being present before all the saints is the meaning of manifesting either a large body or a small body. By analogy, the Contemplation Sutra has mandarin ducks, geese, and ducks, so does the current scripture's Pure Land only have white cranes, peacocks, etc.? The Contemplation Sutra has five hundred billion pavilions, so does the current scripture's Pure Land only have seven rows of pavilions? The Contemplation Sutra has Avalokiteshvara (Guanyin) and Mahasthamaprapta (Shizhi), so does the current scripture's Pure Land only have Amitabha Buddha, and lack the two attendants? Conversely, the current scripture has seven layers of railings, but the Contemplation Sutra does not have this sentence, so does the Pure Land of that side only have rows of trees without railings? The current scripture has countless bodhisattvas, but the Contemplation Sutra does not have this sentence, so does the Pure Land of that side only have Avalokiteshvara and Mahasthamaprapta two bodhisattvas? Like this, referring to each other, so it is said that the texts appear to each other, and the meaning must be complete. Then the Great Original is originally one body, and the Contemplation Sutra is also extremely close, quoting them as evidence is not quoting other scriptures.
圓覺證法華。引華嚴證涅槃之比也。二通前後相違妨。前言其同。后不曾言其異。只說尤為簡約。故稱要妙。以其簡而該也。非對散而名要。對粗而名妙也。三通分全混同妨。此經雖曰分圓。正與觀經之圓不異。何以故。觀經對華嚴。亦分圓故。蓋是同分別教一乘之圓也。此別字。非藏通別圓之別也。四通觀念混同妨。汝蓋以念字專屬持名。然觀經下品文云。其人苦逼。不遑唸佛。豈非觀即是念乎。今經亦說光明無量。行樹樓閣。種種莊嚴。豈非觀境乎。又持名觀想。同出一心。一心觀想。一心持名。皆得名爲念佛也。五通繁約混同妨。上已詳陳言有多寡。義無差殊。不勞更辯矣。噫。若入華藏玄門。則己他前後。乃至繁簡。相即相入。不可思議。故此經名不可思議。
問。西竺之言。稱梵語者。乃本乎光音天人之所傳也。今言梵者。凈也。對華而言。文質之謂。蓋不足以盡之。況彼梵音。豈有質而無文。此土華言。豈有文而無質。儒稱文質彬彬。然後君子。釋稱文隨於義。義隨於文。若彼質此文。則互有闕。輔行雲。古來諍競未生。西方之言。皆稱胡語。后因道士偽造化胡經。方以蔥嶺之西為梵。蔥嶺之東為胡。今若以凈釋梵而為質。豈可以亂而釋胡。致使文質俱喪也。
答。疏中文質。略藉此間語而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 圓覺證法華，好比引用《華嚴經》來證明《涅槃經》一樣。二通前後相違的妨礙：前面說它們相同，後面不曾說它們不同，只是說更加簡約，所以稱為『要妙』，因為它簡要而賅括。不是針對繁雜而稱為『要』，針對粗略而稱為『妙』。三通分全混同的妨礙：這部經雖然說是『分圓』，但與《觀經》的『圓』並沒有不同。為什麼呢？因為《觀經》相對於《華嚴經》來說，也是『分圓』。大概是同屬于分別教一乘的『圓』。這裡的『別』字，不是藏、通、別、圓的『別』。四通觀念混同的妨礙：你大概認為『念』字只專屬持名唸佛。然而《觀經》下品文說：『其人苦逼，不遑唸佛』，難道不是觀想就是念佛嗎？這部經也說光明無量，行樹樓閣，種種莊嚴，難道不是觀境嗎？而且持名觀想，同出一心。一心觀想，一心持名，都可以稱爲念佛。五通繁約混同的妨礙：上面已經詳細陳述，言語有多寡，義理沒有差別，不用再辯論了。唉！如果進入華藏玄門，那麼自己、他人、前後，乃至繁簡，相互即入，不可思議。所以這部經名為『不可思議』。 問：西竺（印度）的言語，稱為梵語，是本于光音天人所傳。現在說『梵』，是『凈』的意思，相對於『華』而言，是文質的意思，大概不足以完全表達它的含義。況且那梵音，難道只有質而沒有文？此土華言，難道只有文而沒有質？儒家說『文質彬彬，然後君子』，佛家說『文隨於義，義隨於文』。如果彼質此文，那麼互相都有缺失。《輔行記》說：『古來諍競未生，西方之言，皆稱胡語。』後來因為道士偽造《化胡經》，才以蔥嶺（帕米爾高原）之西為梵，蔥嶺之東為胡。現在如果用『凈』來解釋『梵』而認為是『質』，豈可以用『亂』來解釋『胡』，導致文質都喪失呢？ 答：疏文中說的文質，略微借用此地的語言而
【English Translation】 English version 'Yuánjué' (Perfect Enlightenment Sutra) proves 'Fǎ Huá' (Lotus Sutra), just like using the 'Huáyán' (Avatamsaka Sutra) to prove 'Nièpán' (Nirvana Sutra). Second, it resolves the contradiction between the beginning and the end: the former says they are the same, the latter never says they are different, only that it is more concise, so it is called 'essential and wonderful', because it is concise and comprehensive. It is not called 'essential' in contrast to complexity, nor 'wonderful' in contrast to crudeness. Third, it resolves the confusion between partial and complete: although this sutra says 'partial completeness', it is no different from the 'completeness' of the 'Guān Jīng' (Contemplation Sutra). Why? Because the 'Guān Jīng' is also 'partial completeness' relative to the 'Huáyán'. It is probably the 'completeness' of the One Vehicle of the teaching of differentiation. This 'differentiation' is not the 'differentiation' of the Tripitaka, Common, Separate, and Perfect teachings. Fourth, it resolves the confusion between contemplation and mindfulness: you probably think that the word 'mindfulness' is only exclusive to holding the name of the Buddha. However, the lower-grade text of the 'Guān Jīng' says: 'That person is oppressed by suffering and has no time to be mindful of the Buddha.' Isn't contemplation mindfulness? This sutra also says that the light is immeasurable, the rows of trees and pavilions are all kinds of adornments. Aren't they objects of contemplation? Moreover, holding the name and contemplation arise from the same mind. Contemplating with one mind and holding the name with one mind can both be called mindfulness of the Buddha. Fifth, it resolves the confusion between complexity and simplicity: it has been explained in detail above that there are more or fewer words, but the meaning is no different, so there is no need to argue further. Alas! If you enter the profound gate of 'Huázàng' (Avatamsaka), then self, others, before, after, and even complexity and simplicity, are mutually inclusive and inconceivable. Therefore, this sutra is called 'Inconceivable'. Question: The language of 'Xīzhú' (India), called 'Brahma language' (Sanskrit), is based on what was transmitted by the people of the 'Guāngyīn' (Abhasvara) heaven. Now, 'Brahma' means 'pure', in contrast to 'Huá' (Chinese), it means literary substance, which is probably not enough to fully express its meaning. Moreover, does that Brahma sound only have substance and no literature? Does this Chinese language only have literature and no substance? The Confucianists say, 'Literary substance and quality are in harmonious proportion, then one is a gentleman.' The Buddhists say, 'Literature follows meaning, and meaning follows literature.' If that is substance and this is literature, then they are mutually deficient. 'Fǔ Xíng Jì' (Commentary on the Lotus Sutra) says: 'In ancient times, before disputes arose, the language of the West was all called 'Hu' (barbarian) language.' Later, because Taoists forged the 'Huà Hú Jīng' (Scripture on the Conversion of the Barbarians), they regarded the west of the 'Cōnglǐng' (Pamir Plateau) as Brahma and the east of the 'Cōnglǐng' as 'Hu'. Now, if we use 'pure' to explain 'Brahma' and consider it as 'substance', how can we use 'disorder' to explain 'Hu', causing both literature and substance to be lost? Answer: The literary substance mentioned in the commentary slightly borrows the language of this place and
為影喻。意以梵者清白之相。華者文彩之相。殊無大故。何必費辭。然古人既取華對梵。必有義也。不可忽也。又引文質彬彬。甚為不當。文質必兼。何以商尚質。周尚文耶。二代何以稱聖世耶。優波離之凈戒。迦旃延之文飾。二尊者不彬彬耶。蓋從其所重。固無妨也。又行之潔白者名梵行。音之古淡者名梵言。奚不可以凈而釋梵也。況以凈釋梵。出自古譯。清涼大師華嚴疏亦云。梵是西域之音。具云勃㘕摩。此翻云凈。離染中極。故名為梵。夫離染而言極者。正清凈之至也。又引文義相隨。以證文質。然義之一字。安可為質。華梵尚不得稱文質。文義顧可稱文質耶。又胡者。夷狄也。五天。贍部之中央。諸佛之生處。概之為胡者。謬人之論。非僧所宜言也。又凈亂何可相對。凈是染凈之凈。非動靜之靜。而云以凈釋梵。以亂釋胡。使文質俱喪。何言之無謂也。
問。妙宗云。教教四門。門門四悉。今何以四悉為門。
答。凡能引人入道者。皆可言門。四悉亦門也。妙宗意謂教教各有四門。四門亦復各有四悉檀門也。無門字者。省文也。不信此言。更參考天臺下尊宿。
問。經通五人所說。餘四佛印。即同佛說。今言佛說如聖王敕。不同臣下之言。有揚此抑彼之失。真諦釋金光明經。偏贊本典。智
【現代漢語翻譯】 這是用影射來比喻。意思是梵語代表清白之相，漢語代表文采之相，其實並沒有什麼大問題，何必多費口舌。然而古人既然用『華』來對應『梵』，必定有其道理，不可忽視。又引用『文質彬彬』，非常不恰當。如果文和質必須兼備，那又為何殷商崇尚質樸，周朝崇尚文采呢？這兩個朝代又為何被稱為聖世呢？優波離（Upali，持戒第一的弟子）的清凈戒律，迦旃延（Katyayana，論議第一的弟子）的文采修飾，這兩位尊者難道不『彬彬』嗎？大概是從他們所重視的方面來說，本來就沒有妨礙。而且行為的潔白叫做『梵行』，聲音的古樸淡雅叫做『梵言』，為什麼不能用『凈』來解釋『梵』呢？況且用『凈』來解釋『梵』，出自古老的翻譯。清涼澄觀大師的《華嚴疏》也說：『梵是西域的語音，具足地說應該是勃㘕摩（Brahma），翻譯成漢語就是『凈』，遠離染污而達到極致，所以叫做『梵』。』 遠離染污而達到極致，正是清凈到了極點。又引用『文義相隨』來證明『文質』，然而『義』這個字，怎麼能算是『質』呢？『華』和『梵』尚且不能稱為『文質』，『文』和『義』難道就可以稱為『文質』嗎？還有，『胡』是夷狄的意思，五天（印度），是贍部洲（Jambudvipa，我們所居住的這個世界）的中央，是諸佛出生的地方，把它們概括為『胡』，是荒謬的言論，不是僧人應該說的。還有，『凈』和『亂』怎麼可以相對？『凈』是染凈的『凈』，不是動靜的『靜』，卻說用『凈』來解釋『梵』，用『亂』來解釋『胡』，使得文采和實質都喪失了，這是多麼無謂的言論啊。
問：妙宗（《法華玄義釋簽》的作者湛然）說，教教有四門，門門有四悉檀（Siddhanta，四種成就），現在為什麼用四悉檀作為門？
答：凡是能夠引導人進入佛道的方法，都可以稱為門。四悉檀也是門。妙宗的意思是說，每個教法都有四門，每個門又各有四悉檀門。沒有『門』字，是省略了文字。如果不相信這個說法，可以參考天臺宗的下輩尊宿的著作。
問：經典可以由五種人宣說，其餘四種人所說的，經過佛的印可，就等同於佛說。現在說佛說的話如同聖王的敕令，不同於臣下的言論，這有抬高一方貶低另一方的嫌疑。真諦（Paramārtha，南朝時期來華的印度僧人）翻譯《金光明經》時，偏袒讚美這部經典，智
【English Translation】 This is a metaphor using shadows. It means that '梵' (梵語, Sanskrit) represents the aspect of purity, and '華' (漢語, Chinese) represents the aspect of literary elegance. Actually, there is no major problem, so why waste words? However, since the ancients used '華' to correspond to '梵', there must be a reason, which should not be ignored. Furthermore, quoting '文質彬彬' (wén zhì bīn bīn, a balanced combination of literary grace and substance) is very inappropriate. If literary grace and substance must be combined, then why did the Shang dynasty value substance and the Zhou dynasty value literary grace? Why were these two dynasties called the age of sages? Are the pure precepts of Upali (持戒第一的弟子, foremost in upholding the precepts) and the literary embellishments of Katyayana (論議第一的弟子, foremost in debate) not '彬彬'? It is probably from the aspect they valued, which is not an obstacle. Moreover, pure conduct is called '梵行' (brahmacarya, pure conduct), and ancient and simple sounds are called '梵言' (brahmavāṇī, pure speech). Why can't we use '凈' (purity) to explain '梵'? Moreover, using '凈' to explain '梵' comes from ancient translations. Master Qingliang Chengguan's commentary on the Avatamsaka Sutra also says: '梵 is the sound of the Western Regions, fully called Brahma, which translates to '凈' in Chinese, being the ultimate in being free from defilement, hence it is called '梵'.' Being free from defilement and reaching the ultimate is precisely the ultimate in purity. Furthermore, quoting '文義相隨' (literary grace and meaning follow each other) to prove '文質' (literary grace and substance), how can the word '義' (meaning) be considered '質' (substance)? '華' and '梵' cannot be called '文質', so can '文' (literary grace) and '義' (meaning) be called '文質'? Also, '胡' (Hu) means barbarians. The Five Indias (五天, the five regions of India) are the center of Jambudvipa (贍部洲, the world we live in), the place where all Buddhas are born. To generalize them as '胡' is a ridiculous statement, not something a monk should say. Also, how can '凈' (purity) and '亂' (chaos) be compared? '凈' is the '凈' of defilement and purity, not the '靜' (stillness) of movement and stillness. To say that '凈' is used to explain '梵' and '亂' is used to explain '胡' causes both literary grace and substance to be lost. What a meaningless statement!
Question: Miaozong (妙宗, Zhanran, the author of 'Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') says that each teaching has four gates, and each gate has four Siddhantas (Siddhanta, 四種成就, four accomplishments). Why are the four Siddhantas now used as gates?
Answer: Anything that can lead people into the Buddhist path can be called a gate. The four Siddhantas are also gates. Miaozong means that each teaching has four gates, and each gate also has four Siddhanta gates. The omission of the word 'gate' is an abbreviation. If you don't believe this statement, you can refer to the works of the later eminent monks of the Tiantai school.
Question: Sutras can be spoken by five kinds of people. What the other four kinds of people say, after being approved by the Buddha, is equivalent to what the Buddha said. Now, saying that the Buddha's words are like the edicts of a sage king, different from the words of ministers, has the suspicion of elevating one side and belittling the other. When Paramārtha (真諦, a monk from India who came to China during the Southern Dynasties) translated the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra (金光明經), he favored and praised this sutra. Zhi
者云。使愚者有忽他經之失。不宜偏贊。今若云菩薩因人等者。華嚴多菩薩說。維摩不二法門。皆菩薩說。涅槃夜叉說偈。法華仙人傳經。豈以人微而忽其道。經云。依法不依人。何得以人而判於法。若以人而判法者。則空生所說般若。應入阿含。如來所說小乘。應歸大教。此疑梗塞。愿垂教之。
答。對臣子而尊君父。天理人情之至也。本非平肩人。何得謂之揚抑。若謂真諦偏贊金光明為失。則智者偏贊法華。亦乃有失耶。若云法華更無勝者。則華嚴其可抑耶。世尊於法華贊諸經之王。于金光明經亦贊諸經之王。隨宜而贊。皆是也。豈世尊亦有失耶。又云。華嚴多菩薩說。至雜引夜叉等。然謂佛印者即同佛說則可。謂即是佛說則不可。今百官所出政令。凡已稟國王者。豈即名之為詔書耶。又菩薩等既與佛無別。何不自立。而待佛印。待佛印。則師資上下。瞭然辯矣。況今只明此是佛說。不同餘人。不曾非詆菩薩等。謂不得說經。何為作此無風起浪之語。助臣子與君父爭高。于天理不順。於人情不安。況佛法耶。又云。空生般若。應入小乘等。亦非也。今論人不論法。非有羅漢說大法而我小之也。此等處本無人生疑。疑自今始矣。因疑此。並疑經。遂不信凈土。其慎辭哉。
問。毗婆尸佛。至釋迦時。九
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
提問者說：『如果因為害怕愚昧的人犯下忽略其他經典的過失，就不應該偏袒讚揚某一部經典。如果像您這樣說菩薩因人而異等等，那麼《華嚴經》大多是菩薩所說，《維摩經》的不二法門也是菩薩所說，《涅槃經》中有夜叉說偈，《法華經》中有仙人傳經，難道可以因為說法的人地位卑微就忽略其中的道理嗎？經典上說，『依法不依人』，怎麼能因為說法的人是誰就判斷佛法的價值呢？如果因為說法的人來判斷佛法，那麼須菩提（空生）所說的般若，就應該被歸入《阿含經》，如來說的小乘佛法，就應該被歸入大乘佛教。』這個疑問讓我感到困惑，希望您能指教。
回答者說：『對臣子來說尊敬君王和父親，是天經地義的事情。我本來就不是和菩薩平起平坐的人，怎麼能說我是在抬高自己貶低他人呢？如果說真諦法師偏袒讚揚《金光明經》是錯誤的，那麼智者大師偏袒讚揚《法華經》，也是錯誤的嗎？如果說《法華經》沒有比它更殊勝的經典，那麼《華嚴經》就可以被貶低嗎？世尊在《法華經》中讚揚它是諸經之王，在《金光明經》中也讚揚它是諸經之王，隨順時機而讚揚，都是可以的。難道世尊也有錯嗎？』又說，『《華嚴經》大多是菩薩所說，甚至引用夜叉等。』然而，說菩薩所說是佛印可的，等同於佛說，是可以的；但說菩薩所說就是佛說，則不可以。現在百官所發佈的政令，凡是已經稟告過國王的，難道就可以直接稱之為詔書嗎？而且菩薩等既然與佛沒有區別，為什麼不自己創立經典，而要等待佛的印可？等待佛的印可，師資之間的上下關係，就清楚明白了。況且現在只是說明這部經是佛說的，不同於其他人說的，並沒有否定或詆譭菩薩等，說他們不得說經。為什麼要說這種無中生有的話，幫助臣子與君父爭高下呢？這在天理上是不順的，在人情上是不安的，更何況是佛法呢？又說，『須菩提所說的般若，應該被歸入小乘』等等，這也是不對的。現在討論的是說法的人，而不是佛法本身，不是因為羅漢說了大法，我就把它看作是小乘。這些地方本來沒有人會產生疑問，疑問是從現在才開始的。因為懷疑這些，連帶著懷疑經典，於是就不相信凈土法門了。說話要謹慎啊！
提問：毗婆尸佛（Vipashyi Buddha）到釋迦牟尼佛（Shakyamuni Buddha）時期，九
【English Translation】 English version:
The questioner said: 'If, for fear that ignorant people will make the mistake of neglecting other scriptures, it is not appropriate to partially praise one scripture. If you say that Bodhisattvas vary according to the person, etc., then the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing) is mostly spoken by Bodhisattvas, the non-dual Dharma gate of the Vimalakirti Sutra (Weimo Jing) is also spoken by Bodhisattvas, in the Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Jing) there are Yakshas reciting verses, and in the Lotus Sutra (Fahua Jing) there are immortals transmitting scriptures. Can we neglect the truth in them just because the speaker is of humble status? The scripture says, 'Rely on the Dharma, not on the person.' How can we judge the value of the Dharma based on who speaks it? If we judge the Dharma based on the person, then the Prajna spoken by Subhuti (Kong Sheng) should be classified into the Agama Sutras (Ahan Jing), and the Small Vehicle Dharma spoken by the Tathagata should be classified into the Great Vehicle teachings.' This doubt confuses me, and I hope you can enlighten me.
The respondent said: 'For a subject to respect the ruler and father is the ultimate of natural law and human sentiment. I am not on equal footing with Bodhisattvas, so how can you say that I am elevating myself and belittling others? If it is wrong for the Dharmasatya to partially praise the Golden Light Sutra (Jin Guangming Jing), then is it also wrong for the Master Zhiyi to partially praise the Lotus Sutra? If you say that there is no scripture more supreme than the Lotus Sutra, then can the Avatamsaka Sutra be belittled? The World Honored One praised it as the king of scriptures in the Lotus Sutra, and also praised it as the king of scriptures in the Golden Light Sutra. Praising according to the occasion is all appropriate. Is the World Honored One also wrong?' It is also said, 'The Avatamsaka Sutra is mostly spoken by Bodhisattvas, and even quotes Yakshas, etc.' However, saying that what the Bodhisattvas say is approved by the Buddha, equivalent to the Buddha's words, is acceptable; but saying that what the Bodhisattvas say is the Buddha's words is not acceptable. Now, the decrees issued by the officials, all those that have been reported to the king, can they be directly called imperial edicts? Moreover, since Bodhisattvas are no different from the Buddha, why don't they establish their own scriptures, but wait for the Buddha's approval? Waiting for the Buddha's approval clarifies the hierarchical relationship between teacher and disciple. Moreover, now I am only clarifying that this scripture is spoken by the Buddha, different from what others say, and I have not denied or slandered the Bodhisattvas, saying that they are not allowed to speak scriptures. Why make such unfounded remarks, helping subjects compete with the ruler and father? This is not in accordance with natural law, it is uneasy in human sentiment, let alone the Buddha Dharma? It is also said, 'The Prajna spoken by Subhuti should be classified into the Small Vehicle,' etc., this is also incorrect. Now we are discussing the person who speaks, not the Dharma itself, not because a Arhat speaks the Great Dharma, I regard it as the Small Vehicle. No one would have doubted these places originally, the doubt only starts now. Because of doubting these, they doubt the scriptures along with it, and then they do not believe in the Pure Land Dharma. Be careful with your words!
Question: From Vipashyi Buddha to Shakyamuni Buddha, nine
十一劫。何故言二。若言是大劫。應增一大字。況以大劫論之。八十小劫為一大劫。但一劫有餘耳。
答。何不看鈔中首尾二劫四字。七佛。三屬莊嚴劫尾。四屬賢劫首。是首尾二大劫否。首尾二大劫。正九十一小劫也。分明是大劫。何必更加大字。唐譯成佛以來十劫。云十大劫。什師止云十劫。即是十大劫也。亦不更加大字。又云止是一劫有餘。一劫有餘。非首尾二劫乎。思之。
問。何得說什師為千佛譯師。引父母為例。千佛父母。乃在佛世。況父母與子。及侍者等。此人不多。無他可並。惟權無實。無別所妨。今譯師則多。若羅什為千佛之譯師。則義凈玄奘等例爾。若一切皆然。何貴乎羅什所譯。偏堪弘贊。若譯師既然。則禪律等例爾。聖人既然。凡亦應爾。則大亂權實。是故不可。惟應守舊。
答。是何小視什師耶。因舉七佛。故曰七佛以來。若舉八佛九佛十佛。安知不曰多佛以來譯經師也。若定執七佛。則文殊亦定止是七佛師耶。釋迦亦定出自伽耶城。今方成佛。而非成佛以來無量無邊劫耶。又言必在佛世。是不知雖無文王猶興也。又引母佛子佛侍佛者無二人。而譯經者有多眾。夫母一。子一。則誠然矣。佛成道三十年。阿難始為侍者。佛弟子無量。三十年都無一人侍佛耶。侍佛者有多
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十一劫。為何說成二劫？如果說是大劫，應該增加一個『大』字。況且以大劫來論，八十小劫才是一個大劫，現在只多出一個劫而已。
答：為何不看鈔本中『首尾二劫』這四個字？過去七佛，有三位屬於莊嚴劫的末尾，四位屬於賢劫的開始。這不是首尾兩個大劫嗎？首尾兩個大劫，正是九十一個劫。分明是大劫，何必再加『大』字？唐朝翻譯成佛以來十劫，說成『十大劫』，鳩摩羅什大師只說是『十劫』，也就是『十大劫』的意思，也沒有增加『大』字。又說只是一個劫多一點，一個劫多一點，不就是首尾二劫嗎？仔細想想。
問：為何說鳩摩羅什大師是千佛的譯師？用父母為例，千佛的父母，乃是在佛世。況且父母與兒子，以及侍者等，人數不多，沒有其他可以並列的。只是權宜之說，沒有實際意義，沒有其他妨礙。現在譯師很多，如果羅什是千佛的譯師，那麼義凈、玄奘等也一樣。如果一切都這樣，那羅什所翻譯的有什麼可貴的，值得弘揚讚歎？如果譯師是這樣，那麼禪宗、律宗等也一樣。聖人是這樣，凡人也應該這樣，那就大大擾亂了權實之別。所以不可以這樣說，應該保持舊有的說法。
答：為何如此輕視鳩摩羅什大師？因為提到了過去七佛，所以才說『七佛以來』。如果提到八佛、九佛、十佛，怎麼知道不會說『多佛以來』的譯經師呢？如果一定執著於七佛，那麼文殊菩薩也一定只是七佛的老師嗎？釋迦牟尼佛也一定只是從伽耶城開始，現在才成佛，而不是成佛以來無量無邊劫嗎？又說一定在佛世，這是不知道即使沒有文王也會興盛。又引用母親、佛子、侍佛者沒有兩個，而譯經者有很多。母親一個，兒子一個，這確實如此。佛成道三十年，阿難才開始做侍者。佛的弟子無量，三十年難道沒有一個人侍奉佛嗎？侍奉佛的人有很多。
【English Translation】 English version Eleven kalpas (劫). Why say two? If you say it is a great kalpa (大劫), you should add the word 'great'. Moreover, according to the calculation of great kalpas, eighty small kalpas (小劫) make one great kalpa. Now there is only one kalpa more.
Answer: Why don't you look at the four words 'beginning and end two kalpas' (首尾二劫) in the commentary? Of the past seven Buddhas (七佛), three belong to the end of the Adornment Kalpa (莊嚴劫), and four belong to the beginning of the Worthy Kalpa (賢劫). Are these not the beginning and end two great kalpas? The beginning and end two great kalpas are exactly ninety-one small kalpas. It is clearly a great kalpa, why add the word 'great'? The Tang translation says ten kalpas since becoming a Buddha, calling them 'ten great kalpas' (十大劫). Master Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什) only says 'ten kalpas' (十劫), which means 'ten great kalpas', without adding the word 'great'. It is also said that it is only a little more than one kalpa. Isn't a little more than one kalpa the beginning and end two kalpas? Think about it.
Question: Why say that Master Kumarajiva is the translator of a thousand Buddhas (千佛)? Taking parents as an example, the parents of a thousand Buddhas are in the Buddha's time. Moreover, parents and sons, as well as attendants, are few in number, and there is nothing else to compare them with. It is just an expedient, without practical meaning, and without other obstacles. Now there are many translators. If Kumarajiva is the translator of a thousand Buddhas, then Yijing (義凈), Xuanzang (玄奘), etc., are the same. If everything is like this, then what is so valuable about Kumarajiva's translations, worthy of being promoted and praised? If translators are like this, then Zen (禪宗), Vinaya (律宗), etc., are the same. If sages are like this, then ordinary people should also be like this, which would greatly disrupt the distinction between expedient and real. Therefore, it cannot be said like this, and the old saying should be maintained.
Answer: Why do you underestimate Master Kumarajiva so much? Because the past seven Buddhas were mentioned, it was said 'since the seven Buddhas'. If eight, nine, or ten Buddhas were mentioned, how do you know that it would not be said 'translators since many Buddhas'? If you are determined to adhere to the seven Buddhas, then is Manjushri Bodhisattva (文殊菩薩) also definitely only the teacher of the seven Buddhas? Is Shakyamuni Buddha (釋迦牟尼佛) also definitely only from Gaya (伽耶城), and only now becoming a Buddha, and not countless kalpas since becoming a Buddha? It is also said that it must be in the Buddha's time, which is not knowing that even without King Wen (文王), there will still be prosperity. It is also cited that there are not two mothers, Buddha sons, and Buddha attendants, while there are many translators. One mother and one son are indeed true. Thirty years after the Buddha attained enlightenment, Ananda (阿難) began to be an attendant. The Buddha has countless disciples, and in thirty years, is there not a single person serving the Buddha? There are many people serving the Buddha.
眾。則阿難亦無世世侍佛之理耶。又引義凈玄奘等亦應爾。諸師凡夫亦應爾。復大不然。譯師更無勝劣耶。聖凡更無分別耶。則今日四夷館通使。其智慧皆與什師等耶。又言七佛譯師。天人所說。然安知天人止見七佛。而未見七佛以前耶。如佛世老人求出家。而羅漢不知彼八萬劫前之善根。汝又安能測什師多劫之因緣耶。且鈔中初未嘗以舊說七佛為非。特以理度之。容有多佛譯經之理耳。昔人云。旻法師。毗婆尸佛時即為法師。又云。毗婆尸佛早留心。蓋遠指者。尋常以七佛為率。而非定限七佛也。孟子曰。聖人百世之師也。豈定限百世。而不能師二百三百世耶。許可人者曰。此五百僧善知識。豈定限五百。而六百七百便不可耶。贊老子云。無世不出。永嘉云。吾早曾經多劫修。何必不使什師寬一佛地耶。此語且置。法華稱富樓那七佛以來說法第一。又云。九十億佛以來。說法人中。亦為第一。是金口語否。試展卷一觀之。
問。顯教者。修多羅是也。密教者。咒是也。何乃以梵語為密。華言為顯。為以東方不測西竺之言為密耶。為以梵語在彼即密耶。若在彼即密者。則西土無顯教。若此土不測彼言為密者。則此土典籍。傳至西土。未翻譯時。亦應云密。若未翻譯。則不可測。若已翻譯。是則可知。若爾。何故
【現代漢語翻譯】 眾：那麼按照你的說法，阿難（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以記憶力超群著稱）就沒有世世代代侍奉佛陀的道理了嗎？按照你的說法，義凈（Yijing，唐代著名譯經師）、玄奘（Xuanzang，唐代著名譯經師）等人也應該如此。所有譯經師和凡夫俗子也應該如此，這太不對了。難道譯經師沒有優劣之分嗎？聖人和凡人沒有區別嗎？那麼今天四夷館的翻譯官，他們的智慧都和鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva，後秦時代著名譯經師）一樣嗎？ 你又說七佛（Seven Buddhas，過去七佛）的譯師是天人所說。但你怎麼知道天人只見過七佛，而沒見過七佛以前的佛呢？就像佛陀在世時，有老人求出家，而羅漢（Arhat，小乘佛教修行證果者）不知道他八萬劫前的善根。你又怎麼能測度鳩摩羅什多劫的因緣呢？況且鈔中最初也未曾說舊說七佛是錯誤的，只是以道理推測，容許有多佛譯經的道理罷了。以前有人說，旻法師在毗婆尸佛（Vipassi Buddha，過去七佛之一）時就是法師了。又說，毗婆尸佛早就留心了。大概是說，通常以七佛為常例，而不是限定只有七佛。孟子說：『聖人是百代的老師。』難道是限定只能做一百代的老師，而不能做二百代、三百代的老師嗎？許可別人說：『這五百僧是善知識。』難道是限定只有五百，而六百、七百就不可以嗎？讚美老子說：『沒有哪一世不出現。』永嘉禪師說：『我早就經歷多劫修行。』為什麼不能讓鳩摩羅什寬裕一個佛的果位呢？ 這些話暫且放在一邊。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）稱讚富樓那（Purna，佛陀十大弟子之一，以善於說法著稱）在七佛以來說法第一。又說：『九十億佛以來，說法的人中，也是第一。』這是佛陀親口說的嗎？你可以展開經卷看看。
問：顯教（Exoteric Buddhism）就是修多羅（Sutra，佛經）嗎？密教（Esoteric Buddhism）就是咒語（Mantra）嗎？為什麼用梵語（Sanskrit）說是密，用漢語說是顯呢？是因為東方人不能理解西竺（India）的語言所以說是密嗎？還是因為梵語在印度就是密呢？如果在印度就是密，那麼印度就沒有顯教了。如果因為我們這裡不能理解他們的語言就說是密，那麼我們這裡的典籍，傳到印度，在沒有翻譯的時候，也應該說是密。如果沒有翻譯，就不可理解；如果已經翻譯，那就是可以理解的。如果是這樣，為什麼還要說是密呢？
【English Translation】 Question: Then, according to you, would Ananda (one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, known for his exceptional memory) have no reason to serve the Buddha lifetime after lifetime? Following your logic, Yijing (a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures in the Tang Dynasty), Xuanzang (a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures in the Tang Dynasty), and others should also be the same. All translators and ordinary people should be the same, which is utterly wrong. Are there no differences in skill among translators? Are there no distinctions between saints and ordinary people? Then, are the interpreters at the Court of State Ceremonial today as wise as Kumarajiva (a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures in the Later Qin Dynasty)? You also say that the translators of the Seven Buddhas (the Seven Buddhas of the Past) were spoken of by devas (deities). But how do you know that the devas only saw the Seven Buddhas and not the Buddhas before the Seven Buddhas? Just as when an old man sought ordination in the Buddha's time, the Arhats (those who have attained enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism) did not know his roots of goodness from eighty thousand kalpas (eons) ago. How can you measure Kumarajiva's karmic connections over many kalpas? Moreover, the commentary has never said that the old saying of the Seven Buddhas is wrong, but only infers from reason that there may be a reason for many Buddhas to translate scriptures. In the past, someone said that Dharma Master Min was already a Dharma Master during the time of Vipassi Buddha (one of the Seven Buddhas of the Past). It was also said that Vipassi Buddha had long been mindful. Generally, the Seven Buddhas are taken as the norm, but it is not limited to only the Seven Buddhas. Mencius said, 'A sage is a teacher for a hundred generations.' Is it limited to only being a teacher for a hundred generations and not for two hundred or three hundred generations? When someone is praised, it is said, 'These five hundred monks are good advisors.' Is it limited to only five hundred, and six hundred or seven hundred are not allowed? Praising Lao Tzu, it is said, 'He appears in every age.' Yongjia said, 'I have long cultivated through many kalpas.' Why can't Kumarajiva be granted the attainment of Buddhahood? Let's put these words aside for now. The Lotus Sutra praises Purna (one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, known for his eloquence) as the foremost in preaching since the Seven Buddhas. It also says, 'Since ninety billion Buddhas ago, he has also been the foremost among preachers.' Are these the Buddha's own words? Try opening the scripture and see.
Question: Is Exoteric Buddhism (the teaching that is open to all) the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures)? Is Esoteric Buddhism (the teaching that is only for initiates) the Mantras (sacred utterances)? Why is it said that Sanskrit is esoteric and Chinese is exoteric? Is it because people in the East cannot understand the language of India, so it is said to be esoteric? Or is it because Sanskrit is esoteric in India? If it is esoteric in India, then there is no Exoteric Buddhism in India. If it is said to be esoteric because we here cannot understand their language, then our scriptures, when transmitted to India, should also be said to be esoteric before they are translated. If they are not translated, they are incomprehensible; if they are translated, then they are comprehensible. If that is the case, why should it be said to be esoteric?
云咒者非下凡可測。
答。凡稱理二字下語句。須另著眼始得。蓋格外之譚。不可拘文滯相。逐逐然以訓詁之法而等例之也。況今非正釋經咒顯密時也。夫新學沙彌。莫不知經之為顯。咒之為密矣。寧知影略借喻。權實無方。反覆轉移。縱橫不礙。類而推之。世出世間。凡昭然易見者。皆可言顯也。凡幽然難知者。皆可言密也。且必以不可測為密。可測為顯乎。經中法華云。是法非思量分別之所能解。維摩云。不知是何言。不知以何答。涅槃會上。世尊拈華云眾。百萬人天。悉皆罔措。是經有時乎不可測也。則經反成密矣。咒中。阿字是毗盧全身。吽字是三解脫門。文殊五字咒。阿者無生義。啰者無染義。是咒有時乎可測也。則咒反成顯矣。故知汝言梵語為密。則西土無顯教。此方之言。西土不知。亦可言密。以此為難者。皆繇執泥訓詁顯密二字之過也。且顯密二字。是從來世間字義。欲發明經咒圓通者。取此二字配之。非許氏說文。及古篇韻家。曾訓詁云。顯者經也。密者咒也。則此二字。何為更不可別處一用。故云。凡昭然易見者皆可言顯。凡幽然難知者皆可言密也。試舉一例。論語云。天下有道則見。無道則隱。則見者出義。隱者處義。既隱見是出處。何得釋中庸莫見乎隱者。以見為明處。隱為暗處。隱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：云咒者的境界，不是凡人能夠輕易測度的。
答：凡是稱作『理』的語句，必須另眼相看才能理解。因為這是格外之談，不能拘泥於字面和表象，像訓詁那樣逐字逐句地等同看待。況且現在不是專門解釋經咒顯密的時候。新學的沙彌，沒有誰不知道經是顯教，咒是密教。難道他們知道影略借喻，權巧和真實沒有定法，可以反覆轉移，縱橫無礙嗎？以此類推，世間和出世間，凡是昭然易見的，都可以說是顯；凡是幽深難知的，都可以說是密。難道一定要以不可測為密，可測為顯嗎？經中《法華經》說：『是法非思量分別之所能解。』（這種佛法不是思量分別所能理解的。）《維摩經》說：『不知是何言，不知以何答。』（不知道說的是什麼，也不知道該如何回答。）涅槃會上，世尊拈花示眾，百萬人天，都茫然不知所措。經有時候也是不可測度的，那麼經反而成了密。咒中，『阿』字是毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana）的全身，『吽』字是三解脫門。文殊五字咒，『阿』是無生義，『啰』是無染義。咒有時候也是可以測度的，那麼咒反而成了顯。所以說，如果認為梵語是密，那麼西土就沒有顯教了。此地的語言，西土的人不知道，也可以說是密。以此來詰難的人，都是因為執著于訓詁顯密二字的過失。而且顯密二字，是從來世間的字義，想要發明經咒圓通的人，取這兩個字來配合，不是許慎的《說文解字》，以及古代篇韻家，曾經訓詁說，顯是經，密是咒。那麼這兩個字，為什麼就不能在別處使用了呢？所以說，凡是昭然易見的，都可以說是顯；凡是幽深難知的，都可以說是密。試舉一個例子，《論語》說：『天下有道則見，無道則隱。』（天下有道的時候就顯現，無道的時候就隱退。）那麼見是出仕，隱是退隱。既然隱見是出仕和退隱，為什麼解釋《中庸》的『莫見乎隱』，要以見為明處，隱為暗處呢？
【English Translation】 English version: The realm of the Cloud Mantra practitioner is not something that ordinary beings can fathom.
Answer: Regarding statements that use the word 'principle' (理, lǐ), one must look at them with a different perspective to understand them. These are extraordinary discussions, and one should not be bound by the literal words and appearances, treating them like word-for-word exegesis. Moreover, this is not the time for specifically explaining the exoteric and esoteric aspects of sutras and mantras. Even newly learning novices know that sutras are exoteric and mantras are esoteric. Do they truly understand that these are metaphorical allusions, that skillful means and reality are not fixed, that they can be reversed and transferred, and that they are unobstructed in all directions? By analogy, in both worldly and transcendental matters, anything that is clearly visible can be called exoteric; anything that is profoundly difficult to know can be called esoteric. Must we necessarily define the immeasurable as esoteric and the measurable as exoteric? In the sutras, the Lotus Sutra says, 'This Dharma is not something that can be understood through thought and discrimination.' The Vimalakirti Sutra says, 'I do not know what is being said, nor do I know how to answer.' At the assembly of the Nirvana Sutra, when the World-Honored One held up a flower, millions of gods and humans were all at a loss. There are times when sutras are immeasurable, and thus sutras become esoteric. In mantras, the syllable 'Ah' (阿) represents the entire body of Vairocana (毗盧遮那佛), and the syllable 'Hum' (吽) represents the three doors of liberation. In the five-syllable mantra of Manjushri, 'Ah' means unborn, and 'Ra' means undefiled. There are times when mantras are measurable, and thus mantras become exoteric. Therefore, if you say that Sanskrit is esoteric, then there would be no exoteric teachings in India. The language of this place is unknown to the people of India, and it could also be called esoteric. Those who use this as a difficulty are all due to clinging to the literal meanings of the words 'exoteric' and 'esoteric.' Furthermore, the words 'exoteric' and 'esoteric' are worldly terms used to elucidate the complete and unobstructed nature of sutras and mantras. They are used in conjunction, not as defined by Xu Shen's Shuowen Jiezi or ancient rhyme dictionaries, which would define 'exoteric' as sutras and 'esoteric' as mantras. Why, then, can these two words not be used elsewhere? Therefore, it is said that anything clearly visible can be called exoteric, and anything profoundly difficult to know can be called esoteric. To give an example, the Analects says, 'When the Way prevails in the world, one appears; when the Way does not prevail, one withdraws.' Thus, 'appearing' means taking office, and 'withdrawing' means retiring. Since appearing and withdrawing refer to taking office and retiring, why interpret 'nothing is more visible than what is hidden' in the Doctrine of the Mean by defining 'visible' as a bright place and 'hidden' as a dark place?
見可以明暗出處通用。顯密獨不可以經咒華梵通用耶。然此且據外書而言。若以內典言之。顯密者。非即半滿新舊之類乎。既以小乘為半。大乘為滿矣。何又云。悉曇章生字之根本名半。余章文字具足為滿耶。是半滿可通用也。既以佛王三界為新。輪王十善為舊矣。何又云。三德相即為新。三德不相即為舊耶。是新舊可通用也。然此猶據比例而言。若的就顯密言之。既以經為顯。咒為密矣。何又云。聲聞見八萬一人得道為顯。菩薩見無量阿僧祇人得道為密耶。是顯密可通用也。何于華梵而疑之。又此且就震旦。若通二土。亦可東土華顯而梵密。西土梵顯而華密也。以上急為辯疑。作是煩碎語。如實而說。夜半正明。天曉不露。爾從何處辯顯密來。不見道蓮華荷葉報君知。出水何如未出時。江北江南問王老。一狐疑了一狐疑。
問。前藏乘分攝中。言惟有二藏。一聲聞藏。二菩薩藏。而緣覺即攝入聲聞藏中。何故今阿難持緣覺藏耶。
答。二藏者。賢首清涼。依攝論及莊嚴論所出也。且合緣覺聲聞為一藏。單菩薩為一藏。分合之常例也。有何不可。譬如兄弟三人。二人同居一宅。一人獨居一宅。亦何不可。而便謂既分二宅。不得名三兄弟耶。仲兄附季弟之宅。非謂無仲也。緣覺攝聲聞之藏。非謂無緣覺也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 見解可以從明處和暗處產生，並且普遍適用。難道顯教和密教就不能通過經文、咒語、梵文和漢文來普遍適用嗎？但這只是就外道書籍而言。如果從內典來說，顯教和密教，不就是相當於半教和滿教、新教和舊教之類嗎？既然以小乘為半教，大乘為滿教了，為什麼又說，悉曇章（Siddham script，古印度文字）中生字（seed syllable）的根本名為半，其餘章節文字具足為滿呢？可見半教和滿教是可以通用的。既然以佛、王、三界為新，輪王（cakravarti，統治世界的理想君主）的十善為舊了，為什麼又說，三德相即為新，三德不相即為舊呢？可見新舊也是可以通用的。但這仍然是就比例而言。如果真正就顯教和密教來說，既然以經為顯，咒為密了，為什麼又說，聲聞（śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教誨的弟子）見八萬一人得道為顯，菩薩（bodhisattva，追求覺悟的眾生）見無量阿僧祇（asaṃkhya，極大的數字）人得道為密呢？可見顯密是可以通用的。為什麼對漢文和梵文產生懷疑呢？而且這只是就震旦（Cinadeśa，中國的古稱）而言。如果通用於兩土（指印度和中國），也可以是東土漢文為顯而梵文為密，西土梵文為顯而漢文為密。以上爲了緊急辯解疑惑，說了這些繁瑣的話。如實而說，如同夜半正明，天曉則不顯露。你從何處分辨顯密而來？不見道蓮花荷葉告訴你，出水時如何不如未出水時。江北江南問王老，一狐疑了一狐疑。 問：前藏的乘分攝中說，只有二藏，一聲聞藏，二菩薩藏，而緣覺（pratyekabuddha，不依賴他人教導而獨自覺悟者）就攝入聲聞藏中。為什麼現在阿難（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）持有緣覺藏呢？ 答：二藏的說法，是賢首（Xianshou，法藏的尊稱）和清涼（Qingliang，澄觀的尊稱）依據《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）和《莊嚴經論》（Mahālamkāra Sūtra）提出的。是將緣覺和聲聞合為一個藏，單獨菩薩為一個藏。這是分合的常例，有什麼不可以呢？譬如兄弟三人，二人同住一宅，一人獨住一宅，又有什麼不可以呢？難道因為分了兩個宅子，就不能稱為三兄弟了嗎？仲兄（排行第二的哥哥）附在季弟（排行最小的弟弟）的宅子里，並不是說沒有仲兄。緣覺攝入聲聞的藏中，並不是說沒有緣覺。
【English Translation】 English version: Views can arise from both the obvious and the obscure, and are universally applicable. Can't the exoteric and esoteric teachings be universally applied through scriptures, mantras, Sanskrit, and Chinese? But this is only in reference to externalist texts. If we speak in terms of the inner canon, aren't the exoteric and esoteric teachings analogous to the partial and complete, the new and the old? Since the Hinayana (lesser vehicle) is considered partial and the Mahayana (greater vehicle) complete, why is it also said that the root of the 'lam' syllable in the Siddham script is called partial, while the complete text of the other chapters is called complete? It is evident that 'partial' and 'complete' can be used interchangeably. Since the Buddha, the King, and the Three Realms are considered new, and the Wheel-Turning King's (cakravarti, the ideal monarch who rules the world) Ten Virtues are considered old, why is it also said that the mutual inclusion of the Three Virtues is new, while the non-mutual inclusion of the Three Virtues is old? It is evident that 'new' and 'old' can also be used interchangeably. But this is still in terms of analogy. If we truly speak of the exoteric and esoteric, since the scriptures are considered exoteric and the mantras esoteric, why is it also said that the Śrāvakas (disciples who hear the Buddha's teachings) seeing 81,000 people attain enlightenment is exoteric, while the Bodhisattvas (beings who seek enlightenment) seeing countless asaṃkhya (immeasurable numbers) of people attain enlightenment is esoteric? It is evident that the exoteric and esoteric can be used interchangeably. Why doubt the Chinese and Sanskrit languages? Moreover, this is only in reference to Cinadeśa (ancient name for China). If we apply it to both lands (India and China), it could be that in the Eastern Land, Chinese is exoteric and Sanskrit is esoteric, while in the Western Land, Sanskrit is exoteric and Chinese is esoteric. The above is to urgently resolve doubts, speaking these tedious words. Speaking truthfully, it is like being brightly illuminated in the middle of the night, but not revealed at dawn. From where do you discern the exoteric and esoteric? Don't you see that the lotus flower and lotus leaf tell you how emerging from the water is not as good as not yet emerging from the water? Ask old Wang north and south of the river, one doubt after another. Question: In the classification of vehicles in Tibet, it is said that there are only two pitakas (baskets of teachings): the Śrāvakapiṭaka and the Bodhisattvapiṭaka, and the Pratyekabuddhas (those who attain enlightenment independently without relying on others' teachings) are included in the Śrāvakapiṭaka. Why does Ānanda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) now hold the Pratyekabuddhapiṭaka? Answer: The statement of two pitakas is based on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Mahālamkāra Sūtra, as cited by Xianshou (honorific title for Fazang) and Qingliang (honorific title for Chengguan). It combines the Pratyekabuddhas and Śrāvakas into one pitaka, and the Bodhisattvas alone into one pitaka. This is a common example of combining and separating, so what is unacceptable about it? For example, if there are three brothers, two live in one house and one lives alone in another house, what is unacceptable about that? Does the fact that there are two houses mean that they cannot be called three brothers? The second brother attaching himself to the youngest brother's house does not mean that there is no second brother. The Pratyekabuddhas being included in the Śrāvakapiṭaka does not mean that there are no Pratyekabuddhas.
時合時分。固並行而不悖也。
問。金剛疏云。舍衛亦名舍婆提。此以人為名。昔有兄弟二人。名舍婆提。故立此名。今何故云多賢人故。
答。彼疏云兄弟二仙。夫世人兄弟聯登者。號多才之門。今兄弟俱證仙品。謂多賢之國。亦奚不可。
問。前以無恃無怙而釋孤獨。所引證者。亦應同上。語云君子周急不繼富。此但無財。何謂無恃。
答。定以無財貧窮名急乎。夫言孤獨。意該貧窮。言貧窮。意該孤獨。鈔中非不普慈。其意甚明。何乃執泥孤獨二字。以辭害意。假使一人無父而大富。須達亦給之耶。假使一人有子而貧甚。須達以其非孤獨而不給之耶。今養濟院。俗曰孤老院。豈其皆無父無子而多財者耶。且鰥寡孤獨。乃有四種。其鰥夫寡婦。須達決所不給耶。至於孔子。又豈止周無財。而孤獨之輩皆在所棄耶。又怙恃是玄序中語。與此無涉。不可援引。
問。亡僧全戒。先見佛者。此但心見。非是見心。以佛色身對彼識故。若引華色見佛色身。善現見佛法身。此正見心。有何不可。
答。佛法即是佛心。此僧寧守戒死。不破戒生。得佛心矣。故梵網以戒為千佛心地也。得佛心者。是名見佛。且所云心見者。為以何心見佛乎。若是妄心。妄屬虛偽。不能見佛。若是真心。真
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：時節因緣聚合有時，分散有時。所以說同時進行而不互相違背。
問：金剛疏中說，舍衛（Śrāvastī，古印度城市名）也叫做舍婆提，這是用人名來命名的。過去有兄弟二人，名叫舍婆提，因此立了這個名字。現在為什麼說是由於有很多賢人的緣故呢？
答：那部疏中說的是兄弟二仙。世人兄弟一起顯達的，被稱為多才之門。現在兄弟都證得了仙品，說是多賢之國，又有什麼不可以呢？
問：前面用無恃無怙來解釋孤獨，所引用的證據，也應該和上面一樣。俗話說，君子救濟急難之人，不接濟富人。這裡只是沒有錢財，怎麼能說是無恃呢？
答：一定要把沒有錢財的貧窮叫做急難嗎？說孤獨，意思就包含了貧窮。說貧窮，意思就包含了孤獨。鈔文中並非沒有普遍的慈悲之心，這個意思很明顯。為什麼一定要拘泥於孤獨這兩個字，用言辭來損害意思呢？假如一個人沒有父親卻很富有，須達（Sudatta，給孤獨長者）也會救濟他嗎？假如一個人有兒子卻非常貧窮，須達會因為他不是孤獨而不救濟他嗎？現在養濟院，俗稱孤老院，難道他們都是沒有父親沒有兒子卻有很多錢財的人嗎？況且鰥寡孤獨，乃有四種。那些鰥夫寡婦，須達一定不會救濟嗎？至於孔子，難道只是救濟沒有錢財的人，而孤獨的人都被他拋棄了嗎？而且怙恃是玄序中的話，和這裡沒有關係，不可以援引。
問：亡僧全戒，先見到佛，這只是心見，不是見心。因為佛的色身是針對他的意識而顯現的。如果引用華色比丘尼（Utpalavarna）見到佛的色身，善現（Subhuti）見到佛的法身，這才是見心，有什麼不可以的呢？
答：佛法就是佛心。這位僧人寧願守戒而死，也不願破戒而生，是得到了佛心啊。所以《梵網經》中說，戒是千佛的心地。得到佛心的人，就叫做見佛。而且你所說的心見，是用什麼心來見佛呢？如果是妄心，妄心屬於虛偽，不能見佛。如果是真心，真心...
【English Translation】 English version: Times converge and times diverge. Therefore, they proceed in parallel without contradicting each other.
Question: The commentary on the Diamond Sutra says that Śrāvastī (Śrāvastī, an ancient Indian city) is also called Shepotī, which is named after a person. In the past, there were two brothers named Shepotī, hence this name was established. Why is it now said to be because there are many virtuous people?
Answer: That commentary speaks of two immortal brothers. In the world, brothers who rise together are called the gate of many talents. Now that both brothers have attained the state of immortals, calling it a country of many virtuous people, what is impossible about that?
Question: Earlier, 'without reliance or support' was used to explain 'loneliness'. The evidence cited should also be the same as above. A common saying goes, 'A gentleman helps those in urgent need, not those who are already rich.' Here, it's just a lack of wealth, so how can it be called 'without reliance'?
Answer: Must we define poverty as an urgent need? When we speak of loneliness, it includes poverty. When we speak of poverty, it includes loneliness. The commentary does not lack universal compassion; its meaning is very clear. Why must we cling to the two words 'loneliness', using words to harm the meaning? If a person has no father but is very rich, would Sudatta (Sudatta, Anathapindika) still provide for him? If a person has a son but is very poor, would Sudatta not provide for him because he is not lonely? Now, the almshouse, commonly called the home for the elderly and lonely, are they all people without fathers or sons but with much wealth? Moreover, widowers, widows, the lonely, and the childless are four different categories. Would Sudatta definitely not provide for widowers and widows? As for Confucius, did he only help those without wealth, while abandoning all the lonely?
Question: The deceased monk Quan Jie saw the Buddha first. This is only seeing with the mind, not seeing the mind itself, because the Buddha's physical form is directed towards his consciousness. If we cite the Bhikkhuni Utpalavarna seeing the Buddha's physical form, and Subhuti seeing the Buddha's Dharma body, this is truly seeing the mind. What is wrong with that?
Answer: The Buddha's Dharma is the Buddha's mind. This monk would rather die upholding the precepts than live breaking them; he has attained the Buddha's mind. Therefore, the Brahma Net Sutra says that the precepts are the mind-ground of a thousand Buddhas. One who attains the Buddha's mind is said to have seen the Buddha. Moreover, what mind do you use to see the Buddha with this so-called 'seeing with the mind'? If it is a deluded mind, delusion belongs to falsehood and cannot see the Buddha. If it is a true mind, the true...
無去來。真無生滅。無去無來。無生無滅。即佛法身。何得不名見心。又云以佛色身對彼識故。尤為不通。將謂彼既亡矣。彼識迅速。疾於人行。先往佛所而見佛之金色身乎。則何殊人死見閻羅也。安足取也。故須菩提之見佛。與此僧之見佛。均之見佛法身也。何得不名見心。
問。迦葉身光。映蔽餘光。使不現故。名曰飲光。何故云色。若吞余色。應云飲色。何況色不可吞。以色對光。逾明顯故。
答。繇色有光。無金色者。光從何來。色不可吞。光獨可吞耶。夫吞之為義。體貼飲字。既知是映蔽之意。映蔽余色。使光不現。即名飲耳。豈真吞啖入彼腹耶。拘執之病。一至於是。
問。拘絺羅下。應當言其入道因緣。然後論其答問第一。若不爾者。則似此人。于外道法中。答問第一。
答。鈔中繇精勤故。正入道因緣也。以精勤二字。略攝多種因緣。又云恐濫外道論議。不知外道具四辯才否。況此專重發揚唸佛。與會之眾。略敘而已。今日不作拘絺羅行實傳也。
問。羅睺下。應云是佛之子。然後消釋。義有所歸。若不云者。下諸文義。都無下落。而亦迷卻此人所從。
答。試觀佛為所障不即出家。及指腹等語。此人是佛子耶。佛侄耶。佛孫耶。尚復迷卻所從耶。
問
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：沒有來和去。真正沒有生和滅。沒有去也沒有來。沒有生也沒有滅。這就是佛的法身。為什麼不能說是見心呢？又說因為用佛的色身來對待那個識，尤其說不通。難道是說那個人既然死了，他的識非常迅速，比人行走還快，先到佛那裡而見到佛的金色的身體嗎？那麼這和人死後見到閻羅王有什麼區別呢？這怎麼能採信呢？所以，須菩提見佛，和這個僧人見佛，都是見到佛的法身。為什麼不能說是見心呢？ 問：迦葉（Kāśyapa，人名，意為飲光）的身光，映蔽了其他的光，使它們不顯現，所以叫做飲光。為什麼說是色呢？如果吞的是其他的色，應該說飲色。何況色是不可吞的。用色來對照光，會更加明顯。 答：因為色有光，如果沒有金色，光從哪裡來呢？色不可吞，光就可以單獨吞嗎？吞的意思，是體貼飲字。既然知道是映蔽的意思，映蔽其他的色，使光不顯現，就叫做飲罷了。難道是真的吞吃進入他的腹中嗎？拘泥執著的毛病，竟然到了這種地步。 問：拘絺羅（Kauṣṭhila，人名）下面，應該說他入道的因緣，然後論述他答問第一。如果不是這樣，就好像這個人，在外道法中，答問第一。 答：鈔中因為精勤的緣故，正是入道的因緣。用精勤二字，概括了多種因緣。又說恐怕混淆外道的論議，不知道外道是否具有四辯才。況且這裡專門重視發揚唸佛，對於與會的大眾，只是簡略敘述而已。今天不是作拘絺羅的行實傳。 問：羅睺（Rāhula，人名，意為覆障）下面，應該說是佛的兒子，然後解釋，意義才有所歸屬。如果不這樣說，下面的文章意義，都沒有著落。而且也迷惑了這個人是從哪裡來的。 答：試看佛因為被（羅睺）所障礙，沒有立即出家，以及指腹等話語。這個人是佛的兒子嗎？是佛的侄子嗎？是佛的孫子嗎？還迷惑他從哪裡來的嗎？ 問
【English Translation】 English version: There is no going or coming. Truly, there is no birth or death. No going, no coming. No birth, no death. This is the Dharmakāya (Dharmakāya, the body of the Dharma) of the Buddha. Why can't it be called seeing the mind? Furthermore, saying that the Buddha's Rūpakāya (Rūpakāya, the body of form) is used to confront that consciousness is especially incomprehensible. Does it mean that since that person is dead, their consciousness is very swift, faster than a person walking, and first goes to the Buddha and sees the golden body of the Buddha? Then how is this different from a person seeing Yama (Yama, the lord of death) after death? How can this be accepted? Therefore, Subhuti's (Subhuti, one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha) seeing the Buddha and this monk's seeing the Buddha are both seeing the Dharmakāya of the Buddha. Why can't it be called seeing the mind? Question: Kāśyapa's (Kāśyapa, a name meaning 'light drinker') body radiance obscures other lights, causing them not to appear, hence the name 'Drinker of Light'. Why is it said to be 'form'? If it swallows other forms, it should be called 'Drinker of Form'. Moreover, form cannot be swallowed. Contrasting form with light makes it even more obvious. Answer: Because form has light. If there were no golden color, where would the light come from? Form cannot be swallowed, but light can be swallowed alone? The meaning of 'swallowing' is to closely consider the word 'drinking'. Since it is known that it means obscuring, obscuring other colors, causing the light not to appear, is called 'drinking'. Is it really swallowing and eating into his belly? The sickness of clinging to literal interpretations has reached this point. Question: Under Kauṣṭhila (Kauṣṭhila, a name), one should first speak of the causes and conditions of his entering the path, and then discuss his being the best at answering questions. If not, it would seem that this person is the best at answering questions in non-Buddhist doctrines. Answer: In the commentary, because of diligence, it is precisely the cause and condition of entering the path. The two words 'diligence' briefly encompass various causes and conditions. Furthermore, it is said that there is fear of confusing non-Buddhist discussions. I don't know if non-Buddhists have the four kinds of eloquence. Moreover, here, special emphasis is placed on propagating mindfulness of the Buddha. For the assembly, it is only a brief account. Today, we are not making a biography of Kauṣṭhila's deeds. Question: Under Rāhula (Rāhula, a name meaning 'fetter'), it should be said that he is the Buddha's son, and then explain it so that the meaning has a place to belong. If it is not said, the meaning of the following texts will have no place to land. And it will also confuse where this person comes from. Answer: Try to observe the words 'the Buddha was obstructed and did not immediately leave home' and 'pointing to the womb'. Is this person the Buddha's son? Is he the Buddha's nephew? Is he the Buddha's grandson? Are you still confused about where he comes from? Question
。正宗初科。廣明依正。此乃生信發願起行之境。今何故唯言生信境耶。
答。入道以信為主。經中說若有信者。又云難信之法。信該行愿故。信為道元功德母故。
問。此中應雲鬚摩提。此云極樂。然後乃以餘名綴之。何故不云本經極樂。但言他名耶。
答。經文若言有世界名須摩提。則應雲鬚摩提此云極樂。今經文乃言有世界名極樂。則應云極樂者。梵語須摩提。此不易之法也。況下文舉安樂安養等餘名已竟。而以極樂總結。前後照應。明亦甚矣。
問。天臺諸處所明四土皆以同居為第一。乃至寂光第四。今何以寂光為第一耶。
答。從劣而勝。同居第一。從勝而劣。寂光第一。喻如登仕者先九品而至一品。序爵者先一品而至九品。皆可也。有時而言兄弟。有時而言弟兄。皆可也。今不講四教儀。不須費辭于無益之地。
問。經云無有眾苦。但受諸樂。苦樂有于多種。應以四土簡之。如妙宗鈔說。今若直言無二死苦。故名極樂。但以寂光。失下三土。以寂光凈土方離二死故。九品往生。惟上上品。方分離變易。上中。上下。方離分段。其餘六品。二死全在。豈二死在。不名極樂耶。故須細釋。方免此妨。
答。多種苦樂。勝劣不同。自有鈔文在後。繇同居以至寂光。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 正宗初科，廣明依正（廣為明示依報和正報）。這是產生信心、發起願行之境界。現在為何只說產生信心之境界呢？
答：入道以信為根本。經中說『若有信者』，又說『難信之法』。信心涵蓋行和愿，所以說信是道的開端，功德的母親。
問：此處應說『須摩提』（Sukhāvatī，極樂世界），此地譯為『極樂』。然後用其他名稱來補充。為何不說本經的『極樂』，而只說其他的名稱呢？
答：經文如果說『有世界名為須摩提』，那麼就應該說『須摩提，此地譯為極樂』。現在經文說『有世界名為極樂』，那麼就應該說『極樂者，梵語為須摩提』。這是不易的規則。況且下文已經列舉了安樂、安養等其他名稱，最後以『極樂』總結。前後呼應，非常明顯。
問：天臺宗各處所說的四土，都以凡聖同居土為第一，乃至常寂光土為第四。現在為何以常寂光土為第一呢？
答：從低劣到殊勝，凡聖同居土為第一。從殊勝到低劣，常寂光土為第一。比如登仕的人先從九品升到一品，序爵的人先從一品降到九品。都可以。有時說『兄弟』，有時說『弟兄』，都可以。現在不講解《四教儀》，不必在無益的地方浪費口舌。
問：經中說『無有眾苦，但受諸樂』。苦樂有多種，應該用四土來區分，如《妙宗鈔》所說。現在如果只說沒有二死之苦，所以名為極樂，只說了常寂光土，遺漏了下三土。因為常寂光凈土才遠離分段生死和變易生死。九品往生中，只有上上品才能遠離變易生死，上中品和上下品才能遠離分段生死，其餘六品，二死完全存在。難道二死存在，也能稱為極樂嗎？所以需要詳細解釋，才能避免這個疑問。
答：多種苦樂，殊勝低劣不同。自有鈔文在後面。從凡聖同居土到常寂光土。
【English Translation】 English version: The Proper Primary Section. Broadly Illuminating the Dependent and the Proper. This is the realm of generating faith, initiating vows, and commencing practice. Why, then, do we only speak of the realm of generating faith?
Answer: Entering the Path relies primarily on faith. The sutras say, 'If there are those who have faith,' and also, 'The Dharma that is difficult to believe.' Faith encompasses practice and vows; therefore, faith is the source of the Path and the mother of merit.
Question: Here, it should say 'Sukhāvatī' (the Land of Ultimate Bliss), which is translated here as 'Ultimate Bliss.' Then, other names should be appended to it. Why not say 'Ultimate Bliss' in this sutra, but only mention other names?
Answer: If the sutra text said, 'There is a world named Sukhāvatī,' then it should say, 'Sukhāvatī, which is translated here as Ultimate Bliss.' Now, the sutra text says, 'There is a world named Ultimate Bliss,' then it should say, 'Ultimate Bliss, in Sanskrit is Sukhāvatī.' This is an unchanging rule. Moreover, the text below has already listed other names such as Peace and Joy, and Nourishment, and concludes with 'Ultimate Bliss.' The correspondence between the beginning and the end is very clear.
Question: In various places, the Tiantai school explains the Four Lands, with the Land of Co-dwelling with Ordinary and Sages as the first, and the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light as the fourth. Why is the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light considered the first now?
Answer: From the inferior to the superior, the Land of Co-dwelling is the first. From the superior to the inferior, the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light is the first. It is like those who ascend in officialdom, first from the ninth rank to the first rank; those who bestow titles, first from the first rank to the ninth rank. Both are acceptable. Sometimes we say 'brothers,' sometimes we say 'brethren.' Both are acceptable. We are not lecturing on the 'Four Teachings Ritual' now; there is no need to waste words on unprofitable ground.
Question: The sutra says, 'There are no sufferings, but only joys are experienced.' There are many kinds of suffering and joy. They should be distinguished by the Four Lands, as explained in the 'Subtle Meaning Commentary.' Now, if we only say that there is no suffering of the two deaths, hence it is named Ultimate Bliss, it only speaks of the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light, omitting the lower three lands. Because only the Pure Land of Eternally Tranquil Light is free from the death of transmigration and the death of transformation. Among the Nine Grades of Rebirth, only the highest of the highest grade can be free from the death of transformation, and the middle of the highest and the lowest of the highest grades can be free from the death of transmigration. For the remaining six grades, the two deaths are fully present. Can it be called Ultimate Bliss when the two deaths are present? Therefore, a detailed explanation is needed to avoid this objection.
Answer: The many kinds of suffering and joy differ in superiority and inferiority. There will be commentary texts later. From the Land of Co-dwelling to the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light.
四種顯然。何謂不細釋也。今文總明無苦。故詳舉諸苦已竟。而以二苦結嘆。言蓮華化生。則便離分段。一生不退。則終離變易也。然謂中下六品。二死全在。全之一字。死之一字。大為不可。變易可說尚存。分段何云全在。略說有三。一者。分段乃有質有礙。故有生死。大本云。生彼國者。皆清虛之身。安得有分段死也。二者。只聞從蓮華中生。未聞于蓮華中死。故此經云。及其人民。壽命無量。大本云。若我成佛。國中有情。壽有齊限者。不取正覺。智者大師云。生彼國者。即得壽命永劫。共佛菩薩齊等。安得有分段死也。三者。死必有生。未聞彼國有死此一華中。別生彼一華中者智者大師云。但生彼國已。即得無生法忍。未有一人退落三界生死業縛者。安得有分段死也。離生死苦。故愿求生。生死問于娑婆。求生何益。慈雲懺主云。彼國無復生死。無為居士云。彼國身非分段。二公縱不足信。智者大師猶不足信乎。若據伏惑斷惑。而曰未斷惑者。有分段死。乃此土修行則然耳。豈不聞凈土是帶惑往生。故殊勝異常也。如極樂與諸世界等。何智者云。釋迦佛時。大有眾生見佛。不得聖果者。彌勒出世亦爾。而獨贊極樂也。況極樂果報不可思議。毋以名相拘之。
問。古人以夏仍飛雪。冬積堅冰。釋清涼山。
【現代漢語翻譯】 四種顯然，為何說是不細緻的解釋呢？現在的經文總的說明沒有痛苦，所以詳細列舉各種痛苦已經完畢，而用二種痛苦來總結感嘆。說到蓮花化生，就立即脫離了分段生死；一生不退轉，就最終脫離了變易生死。然而說中下六品，二種生死完全存在，『全』和『死』這兩個字，大為不妥。變易生死可以說還存在，分段生死怎麼能說完全存在呢？ 略微說有三點：第一，分段生死是有質礙的，所以有生死。《大本》說：『生到那個國家的人，都是清虛之身』，怎麼會有分段生死呢？第二，只聽說從蓮花中出生，沒聽說在蓮花中死亡，所以這部經說：『以及那裡的人民，壽命無量』。《大本》說：『如果我成佛，我的國家中的眾生，壽命有期限的，我就不取正覺』。智者大師說：『生到那個國家的人，立即得到壽命永劫，和佛菩薩相等』，怎麼會有分段生死呢？第三，死亡必定有出生，沒聽說那個國家有在這個蓮花中死亡，又在另一個蓮花中出生的。智者大師說：『只要生到那個國家，就得到無生法忍，沒有一個人退落到三界生死業的束縛中』，怎麼會有分段生死呢？ 遠離生死痛苦，所以愿求往生。如果生死和娑婆世界一樣，求生有什麼好處？慈雲懺主說：『那個國家沒有生死』。無為居士說：『那個國家的身體不是分段身』。兩位大德縱然不足以令人信服，智者大師還不足以令人信服嗎？如果根據降伏煩惱、斷除煩惱，而說沒有斷除煩惱的人，有分段生死，那是這個世界修行的情況。難道沒聽說凈土是帶業往生，所以殊勝異常嗎？ 比如極樂世界和其他世界一樣嗎？為什麼智者大師說：『釋迦佛（釋迦牟尼佛）在世的時候，有很多眾生見到佛，卻得不到聖果，彌勒（彌勒菩薩）出世也是這樣』，而唯獨讚歎極樂世界呢？況且極樂世界的果報不可思議，不要用名相來拘泥它。 問：古人以夏天仍然飛雪，冬天積聚堅冰，來解釋清涼山（五臺山）。
【English Translation】 The four are obvious. Why is it said that the explanation is not detailed? The current text generally clarifies the absence of suffering, so the detailed enumeration of all sufferings is complete, and it concludes with a sigh of two sufferings. Speaking of lotus birth, one immediately escapes from the suffering of sectional transmigration (Fen Duan, 分段, sectional transmigration); once born and not regressing, one ultimately escapes from the suffering of change and transformation (Bian Yi, 變易, change and transformation). However, to say that the six lower grades (of rebirth in the Pure Land) are entirely subject to the two kinds of death, the words 'entirely' and 'death' are greatly inappropriate. Change and transformation can be said to still exist, so how can sectional transmigration be said to be entirely present? Briefly, there are three points: First, sectional transmigration is tangible and obstructive, hence there is birth and death. The Larger Sutra (Da Ben, 大本, Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life) says: 'Those born in that country all have pure and empty bodies,' how can there be sectional death? Second, it is only heard that one is born from a lotus flower, not that one dies in a lotus flower. Therefore, this sutra says: 'And its people, their lifespan is immeasurable.' The Larger Sutra says: 'If I become a Buddha, and the sentient beings in my country have a limited lifespan, I will not attain perfect enlightenment.' Great Master Zhi Zhe (智者大師) says: 'Those born in that country immediately attain eternal life, equal to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas,' how can there be sectional death? Third, death must have birth, but it is not heard that one dies in one lotus flower in that country and is born in another lotus flower. Great Master Zhi Zhe says: 'Once born in that country, one attains the non-birth forbearance, and no one regresses into the bondage of the three realms of birth, death, and karma,' how can there be sectional death? One seeks rebirth to escape the suffering of birth and death. If birth and death are the same as in the Saha world (Suo Po, 娑婆, Saha world), what is the benefit of seeking rebirth? Master Ci Yun (慈雲懺主) says: 'That country has no birth and death.' Layman Wu Wei (無為居士) says: 'The body in that country is not a sectional body.' If these two are not convincing enough, is Great Master Zhi Zhe not convincing enough? If one argues based on subduing and severing afflictions, and says that those who have not severed afflictions have sectional death, that is the case for cultivation in this world. Have you not heard that the Pure Land is rebirth with karma, hence it is exceptionally superior? Are the Land of Ultimate Bliss (Ji Le, 極樂, Land of Ultimate Bliss) and other worlds the same? Why does Great Master Zhi Zhe say: 'When Shakyamuni Buddha (Shi Jia Mo Ni Fo, 釋迦牟尼佛) was in the world, many beings saw the Buddha but did not attain the holy fruit, and it will be the same when Maitreya (Mi Le, 彌勒, Maitreya Bodhisattva) appears,' and yet he only praises the Land of Ultimate Bliss? Moreover, the karmic reward of the Land of Ultimate Bliss is inconceivable, do not be bound by names and forms. Question: The ancients used summer snow and winter ice to explain Qingliang Mountain (Qing Liang Shan, 清涼山, Mount Wutai).
有人難云。若爾。應云清冷。故知涼之與冷。宜應別焉。
答。夏仍飛雪。冬積堅冰。不得云清涼者。此齊東語也。夫五臺夏雪冬冰。至今猶然。而古稱萬菩薩所居。何無一菩薩為正其錯。改作清冷山耶。以其曾無炎暑。故號清涼。正涼冷通用也。又曰。不寒不熱。乃名清涼。寧知不寒不熱。則和之謂耳。春溫夏熱。總之屬陽。秋涼冬冷。總之屬陰。故可通用也。何必瑣瑣焉較涼冷二字于無益之地。亦惑矣。又法數釋唐譯清冷。亦曰清瀅涼冷。
問。清涼潤澤。不可以劫火不可使其熱涸等銷之。何則。萬法從緣。變化不測。真如性非生滅。尚自隨緣。凈土雖曰唯心。寧無轉變。若不轉變。是頑礙物。何足為妙。是故經云。欲冷則冷。欲暖則暖。欲滿欲淺。皆隨人意。故知不必以不熱不涸而釋清冷潤澤。
答。若只平常說個清冷潤澤。凡水皆然。何得西方獨擅功德之名也。如必以不變為頑礙之物。佛言。劫火所燒時。我此土安隱。是亦可謂之頑礙耶。例而推之。油鼎不能爛惠公之手。汝縱以為頑礙手。烈𦦨不能燔摩騰之經。可亦以為頑礙經耶。猶未也。鬼母傾家屬不能啟如來之缽。外道誦千咒。不能飛稠師之衣。文殊盡神力。不能出女子之定。日可令冷。月可令熱。不能易四諦之法。汝以為披頑礙衣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有人反駁說：『如果這樣，應該說清冷才對。』由此可知，『涼』和『冷』應該有所區別。 回答：夏天仍然會下雪，冬天會結成堅冰。不能說（五臺山）是清涼的，這是齊國東邊人的說法。五臺山夏天有雪，冬天有冰，至今仍然如此。而且古時候稱那裡是萬菩薩居住的地方，為什麼沒有一位菩薩來糾正這個錯誤，把清涼山改作清冷山呢？因為那裡從來沒有炎熱的時候，所以叫做清涼。『涼』和『冷』本來就是通用的。又有人說：『不寒不熱，才叫做清涼。』難道不知道不寒不熱，說的就是『和』嗎？春天溫暖夏天炎熱，總的來說屬於陽；秋天涼爽冬天寒冷，總的來說屬於陰。所以『涼』和『冷』是可以通用的。何必瑣瑣碎碎地在沒有意義的地方比較『涼』和『冷』這兩個字呢？真是迷惑啊。而且法數解釋唐朝翻譯的『清冷』，也說是『清瀅涼冷』。 有人問：『清涼潤澤，不可以劫火使其熱涸等消滅它。為什麼呢？萬法從因緣而生，變化莫測。真如的本性不是生滅的，尚且還會隨順因緣。凈土雖然說是唯心所現，難道沒有轉變嗎？如果不轉變，就是頑固障礙之物，怎麼能說是妙呢？所以經上說：想要冷就冷，想要暖就暖，想要滿就滿，想要淺就淺，都隨人的意願。』由此可知，不必用不熱不涸來解釋清冷潤澤。 回答：如果只是平常說說清冷潤澤，所有的水都是這樣，怎麼能讓西方凈土獨享功德的美名呢？如果一定認為不變就是頑固障礙之物，佛說：『劫火燃燒的時候，我的這個國土安穩。』這也可以說是頑固障礙嗎？以此類推，油鍋不能煮爛惠公的手，你縱然認為是頑固障礙的手；猛烈的火焰不能燒燬摩騰（Kāśyapa Mātanga）的經書，也可以認為是頑固障礙的經書嗎？還不能這樣說。鬼子母傾盡家屬的力量也不能移動如來（Tathāgata）的缽，外道唸誦千遍咒語也不能使稠師（Cūḍa Panthaka）的衣服飛起來，文殊（Mañjuśrī）菩薩用盡神力也不能使女子出定，可以讓太陽變冷，讓月亮變熱，也不能改變四諦的法則。你認為（阿羅漢）穿著頑固障礙的衣服嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: Someone objects: 'If that's the case, it should be called 'Qing Leng' (清冷, clear and cold). Therefore, 'Liang' (涼, cool) and 'Leng' (冷, cold) should be distinguished.' Answer: 'In summer, snow still falls, and in winter, solid ice accumulates. To say it cannot be called 'Qing Liang' (清涼, clear and cool) is like the talk of people from the east of Qi. Mount Wutai (五臺, Five Terrace Mountain) still has snow in summer and ice in winter to this day. Moreover, it is said in ancient times that it is the dwelling place of ten thousand Bodhisattvas. Why hasn't a single Bodhisattva corrected this mistake and changed Qing Liang Mountain to Qing Leng Mountain? Because there has never been scorching heat there, it is called Qing Liang. 'Liang' and 'Leng' are originally interchangeable. Furthermore, it is said: 'Neither cold nor hot is called Qing Liang.' How can one not know that neither cold nor hot refers to 'harmony'? Spring is warm and summer is hot, generally belonging to Yang; autumn is cool and winter is cold, generally belonging to Yin. Therefore, 'Liang' and 'Leng' can be used interchangeably. Why must one meticulously compare the two words 'Liang' and 'Leng' in a meaningless place? It is truly confusing. Moreover, the Dharma Number explanation of the Tang Dynasty translation of 'Qing Leng' also says 'Qing Ying Liang Leng' (清瀅涼冷, clear, sparkling, cool, and cold).' Someone asks: 'Qing Liang Run Ze' (清涼潤澤, clear, cool, moist, and lustrous) cannot be extinguished by the fire at the end of the kalpa (劫火, kalpa fire), nor can it be dried up by heat. Why? All dharmas arise from conditions, and their changes are unpredictable. The nature of True Thusness (真如, True Thusness) is neither arising nor ceasing, and it still follows conditions. Although the Pure Land (凈土, Pure Land) is said to be only mind, is there no transformation? If there is no transformation, it is a stubborn and obstructive thing. How can it be considered wonderful? Therefore, the sutra says: 'If you want it cold, it is cold; if you want it warm, it is warm; if you want it full, it is full; if you want it shallow, it is shallow, all according to people's wishes.' Therefore, it is known that Qing Leng Run Ze need not be explained by not being hot or dry.' Answer: 'If you just talk about Qing Leng Run Ze in an ordinary way, all water is like that. How can the Western Pure Land exclusively enjoy the fame of merit and virtue? If you must consider that unchanging is a stubborn and obstructive thing, the Buddha (佛, Buddha) said: 'When the fire at the end of the kalpa burns, my land is peaceful and secure.' Can this also be called stubborn and obstructive? By analogy, the oil cauldron cannot rot Duke Hui's hand; even if you consider it a stubborn and obstructive hand, the fierce flames cannot burn Kāśyapa Mātanga's (摩騰) scriptures; can they also be considered stubborn and obstructive scriptures? It cannot be said so. The demon mother (鬼子母, Kishimojin) exhausted the strength of her family and could not move the Tathāgata's (如來) bowl; the heretics recited thousands of mantras and could not make Cūḍa Panthaka's (稠師) clothes fly; Mañjuśrī (文殊) Bodhisattva exhausted his divine power and could not bring the woman out of her samadhi. The sun can be made cold, and the moon can be made hot, but the laws of the Four Noble Truths cannot be changed. Do you think (an Arhat) is wearing stubborn and obstructive clothes?'
。持頑礙缽。入頑礙定。說頑礙法耶。劫火洞然毫末盡。青山依舊白雲中。是則此土尚不曾移易一絲毫許。而云凈土寧無轉變可乎。無量壽經論云。勝過三界道。究竟如虛空。虛空還可轉變否。水火風難。大三災所不能動之地。故勝過三界也。又引寶池隨意之文以證轉變。尤為不可。寶池是自心受用之樂。劫火是外難侵逼之苦。外難可侵。則繇境不繇心矣。尚得為隨意轉變乎。果如汝言。寶池必可乾涸。金地必可銷镕。行樹必可摧殘。樓閣必可傾毀。然後為妙土耶。又前言二死全在。今言劫火可燒。則極樂乃成穢土耳。豈理也哉。
問。五方之屬五行。乃震旦之世數也。于其西域。尚未盡通。況十萬億土之外極樂乎。若極樂在娑婆之西。而屬庚辛金者。則從是西方已去。不可說不可說佛剎。皆在娑婆之西。皆屬庚辛金。盡雨白華。理豈然乎。若西方屬金。而雨白華。娑婆在極樂之東。應屬甲乙木。而常雨青華。何故佛說法華。而雨大小赤白。何況極樂蓮開四色。而更有間雜等耶。故知不應以此五行。而判彼佛土也。
答。鈔文先敘多種雜色天華。正意已竟。后出言外余意。故安亦可二字。言亦可西方屬金。以表白業。蓋取雜色中之白華。何曾說彼國純白華耶。如此分別。何必引蓮開四色而為證也。又此經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『持頑礙缽（拿著充滿障礙的缽），入頑礙定（進入充滿障礙的禪定），說頑礙法（宣說充滿障礙的佛法）嗎？』即使劫火洞然，燒盡一切毫末，青山依舊，白雲自在。這說明此土（娑婆世界）尚且不曾移動一絲一毫，難道凈土（極樂世界）會有轉變嗎？《無量壽經論》說：『勝過三界道，究竟如虛空。』虛空還可以轉變嗎？水火風災難以動搖，大三災都不能動搖的地方，所以才勝過三界。又引用寶池隨意變化的文字來證明極樂世界會轉變，更是不可取的。寶池是自心受用的快樂，劫火是外來災難侵逼的痛苦。外來災難可以侵入，那就是由外境而非由心決定了。還能說是隨意轉變嗎？如果真如你所說，寶池必定可以乾涸，金地必定可以銷熔，行樹必定可以摧殘，樓閣必定可以傾毀，然後才能算是妙土嗎？前面說二死（分段生死和變易生死）完全存在，現在又說劫火可以燒燬，那麼極樂世界豈不就變成穢土了嗎？這沒有道理啊。 問：五方（東、西、南、北、中）對應五行（木、金、火、水、土），是震旦（中國）的世俗觀念。在西域（古印度），尚未完全通用，更何況是十萬億佛土之外的極樂世界呢？如果極樂世界在娑婆世界的西方，並且屬於庚辛金，那麼從這個西方開始，無數不可說不可說的佛剎，都在娑婆世界的西方，都屬於庚辛金，都下著白色的花，這道理說得通嗎？如果西方屬金，所以下白色的花，那麼娑婆世界在極樂世界的東方，應該屬於甲乙木，並且經常下青色的花。為什麼佛陀在說法華經的時候，下的是大小赤白的花呢？更何況極樂世界的蓮花開放四種顏色，而且還有間雜的顏色等等。所以說不應該用五行來判斷佛土。 答：鈔文（《往生論注》的節錄）先敘述多種雜色的天花，主要的意義已經說完。後面說的是言外的余意，所以用了『亦可』二字。意思是說，也可以說西方屬金，用來表示白業。只是取雜色中的白花，何曾說過極樂世界全是白色的花呢？如果這樣分別，又何必引用蓮花開放四種顏色來作為證據呢？而且這部經（《無量壽經》）
【English Translation】 English version: 'Do you hold a bowl filled with obstructions, enter a samadhi (deep meditative state) of obstructions, and preach a Dharma (teachings) of obstructions?' Even if the fire of the kalpa (cosmic eon) blazes and burns away every tiny hair, the green mountains remain, and the white clouds are at ease. This shows that this land (Saha world) has not shifted even a tiny bit. How could the Pure Land (Sukhavati) undergo transformation? The Treatise on the Sutra of Immeasurable Life says: 'Surpassing the realms of the Three Worlds, ultimately like empty space.' Can empty space be transformed? Water, fire, and wind are difficult to move; the great three calamities cannot shake that place. Therefore, it surpasses the Three Worlds. Furthermore, to cite the passage about the Treasure Pond changing at will to prove that the Pure Land can be transformed is even more inappropriate. The Treasure Pond is the joy of self-enjoyment of the mind; the fire of the kalpa is the suffering of external calamities pressing in. If external calamities can intrude, then it is determined by the external environment rather than by the mind. Can it still be said to change at will? If it were truly as you say, the Treasure Pond would surely be able to dry up, the golden ground would surely be able to melt, the rows of trees would surely be able to be destroyed, and the pavilions would surely be able to collapse. Only then would it be considered a wondrous land? Earlier, it was said that the two deaths (segmented death and variable death) are fully present; now, it is said that the fire of the kalpa can burn. Then, wouldn't the Land of Ultimate Bliss become a defiled land? That is not reasonable. Question: The five directions (east, west, south, north, center) correspond to the five elements (wood, metal, fire, water, earth), which is a secular concept of Zhendan (China). In the Western Regions (ancient India), it is not yet fully accepted, let alone in the Land of Ultimate Bliss beyond hundreds of thousands of millions of Buddha lands? If the Land of Ultimate Bliss is to the west of the Saha world and belongs to Geng Xin metal, then from this west onward, countless unspeakable and unspeakable Buddha lands are all to the west of the Saha world, all belong to Geng Xin metal, and all rain white flowers. Is this reasoning sound? If the west belongs to metal, so it rains white flowers, then the Saha world, being to the east of the Land of Ultimate Bliss, should belong to Jia Yi wood and constantly rain green flowers. Why does the Buddha rain large and small red and white flowers when preaching the Lotus Sutra? Moreover, the lotus flowers in the Land of Ultimate Bliss bloom in four colors, and there are even mixed colors, and so on. Therefore, it is known that one should not use the five elements to judge that Buddha land. Answer: The excerpt from the commentary (a section from the Commentary on the Treatise on Rebirth) first describes various multicolored heavenly flowers, and the main meaning has already been stated. What follows expresses an additional meaning beyond the words, so the words 'also can' are used. It means that it can also be said that the west belongs to metal, to represent white karma. It only takes the white flowers among the multicolored flowers. When has it ever been said that the Land of Ultimate Bliss is entirely white flowers? If you make such distinctions, why bother citing the lotus flowers blooming in four colors as evidence? Moreover, this sutra (the Sutra of Immeasurable Life)
單舉白華以該余色。故微露世尊巧妙勸導之神機耳。可與知者道。未易與拘士譚也。棗柏以八卦判方隅。其世界亦不少。未可議其為非也。如以娑婆西去。世界無量。不得皆名西方。意以東看成西。西看成東。不知華嚴以東方表不動智。文殊從東方無量剎來。其國皆名不動。夫既以東方為不動。則娑婆看之成東。彼世界外看之乃成西耳。何得仍名不動。善財南詢。以南方為正位。意亦如是。噫。若入華嚴玄門。盡世界可名西。盡天華可名白。正西之時。不礙五方齊現。正白之時。不妨五色爛然。他方他色。即入融通。亦復如是。
問。自歸於佛。當愿眾生。此則以他對己而稱為自。自為能歸。佛為所歸。何故以歸依自佛釋之。禪宗元有此語。恐難施於教乘。理論則可。事則不去。
答。這裡是什麼去處。說能說所。又云。禪宗難施於教。低聲低聲。不獨迷禪。兼亦迷教矣。何謂迷禪。無佛處不得住。有佛處急走過。試買草鞋行腳三十年。抱著個能歸。走盡天涯覓所歸去。如何是佛。即汝便是。汝既是佛。則為所歸。能歸者畢竟在甚麼處。何謂迷教。華嚴云。唸唸自心。常有佛成正覺。法華云。自知當作佛。圓覺云。始知眾生。本來成佛。而四弘誓云。自性佛道誓願成。豈不覽也。又既云理論事論。何不看
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 僅僅舉出白華，就能涵蓋其他顏色。這微妙地顯露出世尊巧妙勸導的神機。可以和懂得的人談論，不適合和固執的人說。棗柏用八卦來劃分方位，他所說的世界也不少，不能輕易議論他的說法是錯誤的。比如以娑婆世界向西而去，世界是無量的，不能都叫做西方。意思是東方看成西方，西方看成東方。不知道《華嚴經》用東方來表示不動智，文殊菩薩從東方無量剎土而來，那些國家都叫做不動。既然用東方表示不動，那麼娑婆世界看它成為東方，那個世界之外看它就成為西方了。怎麼還能叫做不動呢？善財童子向南方參訪，把南方作為正位，意思也是這樣。唉！如果進入《華嚴經》的玄妙之門，整個世界都可以叫做西方，所有的天華都可以叫做白色。正當是西方的時候，不妨礙五方同時顯現；正當是白色的時候，不妨礙五色燦爛。其他方其他顏色，就進入了融通，也是這樣。
問：自己歸依佛，當愿眾生，這是用『他』來對待『己』而稱為『自』。『自』是能歸依者，『佛』是所歸依者。為什麼用歸依『自佛』來解釋它？禪宗本來有這種說法，恐怕難以應用在教乘上，理論上可以，實際上不行。
答：這裡是什麼地方，說什麼能說所說？又說禪宗難以應用在教乘上，小聲點，小聲點！不只是迷惑了禪，也迷惑了教義了。什麼是迷惑了禪？『無佛處不得住，有佛處急走過』。試著買雙草鞋行腳三十年，抱著一個能歸依的心，走遍天涯海角去尋找所歸依之處。什麼是佛？就是你啊！你既然是佛，就是所歸依之處，能歸依者到底在哪裡？什麼是迷惑了教義？《華嚴經》說：『唸唸自心，常有佛成正覺』。《法華經》說：『自知當作佛』。《圓覺經》說：『始知眾生，本來成佛』。而四弘誓願說：『自性佛道誓願成』，難道你沒看到嗎？又既然說理論和事論，為什麼不看看
【English Translation】 English version: Singling out the white lotus encompasses all other colors. This subtly reveals the World-Honored One's skillful means of guidance. It can be discussed with those who understand, but not easily with the obstinate. Zao Bai uses the Eight Trigrams to divide the directions, and the worlds he speaks of are numerous. One should not readily judge his words as wrong. For example, if one considers the Saha world moving westward, the worlds are immeasurable, and not all can be called the West. The idea is that looking east becomes west, and looking west becomes east. They do not know that the Avatamsaka Sutra uses the East to represent immovable wisdom, and Manjushri Bodhisattva comes from countless lands in the East, all of which are named Immovable. Since the East represents immovability, then the Saha world sees it as the East, but from beyond that world, it becomes the West. How can it still be called Immovable? Sudhana's pilgrimage to the South, regarding the South as the proper position, also carries this meaning. Alas! If one enters the profound gate of the Avatamsaka Sutra, the entire world can be called the West, and all heavenly flowers can be called white. When it is truly the West, it does not hinder the simultaneous appearance of the five directions; when it is truly white, it does not hinder the brilliant display of five colors. Other directions and other colors enter into interpenetration in the same way.
Question: 'Taking refuge in the Buddha, I vow that all sentient beings...' This uses 'other' to treat 'self' and calls it 'self'. 'Self' is the one who can take refuge, and 'Buddha' is the one in whom refuge is taken. Why is it explained as taking refuge in the 'Self-Buddha'? Zen Buddhism originally had this saying, but it is feared that it is difficult to apply to the teachings of the scriptures. It may be theoretically possible, but not practically.
Answer: What place is this, to speak of the able and the object? And you say that Zen Buddhism is difficult to apply to the teachings of the scriptures, lower your voice, lower your voice! You are not only confused about Zen, but also confused about the teachings. What is being confused about Zen? 'One must not abide where there is no Buddha, and one must quickly pass by where there is a Buddha.' Try buying straw sandals and walking for thirty years, holding onto the one who can take refuge, and searching for the place to take refuge at the ends of the earth. What is the Buddha? It is you! Since you are the Buddha, then you are the place of refuge. Where exactly is the one who can take refuge? What is being confused about the teachings? The Avatamsaka Sutra says, 'In every thought of one's own mind, there is always a Buddha attaining perfect enlightenment.' The Lotus Sutra says, 'Knowing for oneself that one will become a Buddha.' The Perfect Enlightenment Sutra says, 'Only then do they realize that sentient beings are originally Buddhas.' And the Four Great Vows say, 'The Buddha-path of self-nature, I vow to accomplish.' Have you not seen this? Furthermore, since you speak of theory and practice, why not look at
此是稱理下語。而復云于理可。於事不可。判禪教為兩途。隔事理成二物。悲夫。
問。經云。轉輪聖王百千種樂。不如忉利天一音之美。乃至他化天百千種樂。不如極樂樹中一音之美。此中以多為能況。以少為所況。乃是以多況少。何故云以少況多。若云極樂一音。勝如他化百千種樂。此乃以少況多也。
答。疏云。以少況多。釋今經也。今經先言極樂風樹之音。後言百千種樂。正以少況多故。鈔中乃引大本。則先人天。后極樂。方是以多況少耳。何不審也。雖然。以少況多。以多況少。將天比地。將地比天。朝暮四三。爭論且止。
問。起信疏云。不退有三。初則十信初心。未嘗斷惑。位非不退。但生彼國。無有退緣。是故不退。后之二種。方是斷惑不退位人。此如天臺所判九品。其義是同。故知生彼土人。雖然皆名䟦致。初一種多。要至無生。萬中一二。何故概云頓超。而勝四教諸不退者。弘贊大乘。理則應爾。抑揚太過。恐生諍競。
答。起信三種不退。鈔中自開。不須援引。今是總明不退。以贊唸佛。殊勝功德也。且四教都言到某處方不退。則未到時。應有退緣。此經直言不退。是但生彼國。畢竟當證無生。故異諸教。豈貶諸教為不美也。蓋世尊悲心太切。既說諸教。猶恐利鈍不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是符合真理的言論。然而又說在道理上可行，在事相上不可行，把禪和教判為兩條道路，把事和理隔絕成兩種事物，真是可悲啊。
問：經中說，轉輪聖王百千種快樂，不如忉利天（三十三天）一聲的美妙；乃至他化自在天百千種快樂，不如極樂世界樹林中的一聲美妙。這裡是以多來比況能比的，以少來比況所比的，乃是以多比少。為什麼說以少比多呢？如果說極樂世界一聲，勝過他化自在天百千種快樂，這才是以少比多啊。
答：疏中說，『以少況多』，是解釋這部經的。這部經先說極樂世界風和樹的聲音，后說百千種快樂，正是以少比多。鈔中引用《大本經》，則是先說人天，后說極樂，才是以多比少啊。為什麼不仔細審察呢？雖然如此，以少比多，以多比少，將天比地，將地比天，早晚四三，爭論可以停止了。
問：《起信論疏》說，不退有三種，最初是十信位的初心菩薩，未曾斷除惑業，位階並非不退，但生到極樂世界，沒有退轉的因緣，所以說不退。後面的兩種，才是斷除惑業的不退位之人。這如同天臺宗所判的九品往生，意義是相同的。所以知道生到極樂世界的人，雖然都名為阿鞞跋致（不退轉），但最初的一種佔多數，要到證得無生法忍，萬里挑一。為什麼概括地說頓超直入，勝過四教中的各種不退轉者呢？弘揚大乘，道理上應該如此，但褒揚太過，恐怕引起爭論。
答：《起信論》的三種不退，鈔中自有開示，不需要援引。現在是總的說明不退，來讚歎唸佛的殊勝功德啊。而且四教都說要到某個階段才不退，那麼未到那個階段時，應該有退轉的因緣。這部經直接說不退，是隻要生到極樂世界，畢竟會證得無生法忍，所以不同於其他教法。難道是貶低其他教法不夠好嗎？世尊的悲心太過懇切，既然說了各種教法，還恐怕眾生的根器有利有鈍。
【English Translation】 English version: These are words that accord with truth. Yet, it is said that it is acceptable in principle but not in practice, dividing Chan and teachings into two paths, and separating phenomena and principle into two things. How sad!
Question: The sutra says, 'The myriad joys of a Chakravartin King are not as beautiful as a single sound in the Trayastrimsa Heaven (Heaven of Thirty-Three); even the myriad joys of the Paranirmita-vasavartin Heaven are not as beautiful as a single sound from the trees in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.' Here, the many are used to compare the capable, and the few are used to compare the compared, which is using the many to compare the few. Why say it is using the few to compare the many? If it is said that a single sound in the Land of Ultimate Bliss surpasses the myriad joys of the Paranirmita-vasavartin Heaven, that is using the few to compare the many.
Answer: The commentary says, 'Using the few to compare the many' is explaining this sutra. This sutra first speaks of the sound of the wind and trees in the Land of Ultimate Bliss, and then speaks of the myriad joys, which is precisely using the few to compare the many. The commentary quotes the Larger Sutra, which first speaks of humans and devas, and then speaks of the Land of Ultimate Bliss, which is using the many to compare the few. Why not examine it carefully? Nevertheless, using the few to compare the many, using the many to compare the few, comparing heaven to earth, comparing earth to heaven, the arguments of morning and evening should cease.
Question: The commentary on the Awakening of Faith says, 'There are three types of non-retrogression. The first is the initial mind of the Ten Faiths, which has not yet severed delusions. The position is not one of non-retrogression, but upon being born in that land, there are no causes for retrogression, hence it is called non-retrogression. The latter two types are those who have severed delusions and are in positions of non-retrogression.' This is similar to the nine grades of rebirth as determined by the Tiantai school. Therefore, although all those born in that land are called Avaivartika (non-retrogressive), the first type is the majority, and only one or two in ten thousand will reach the stage of non-origination. Why generalize and say that they instantly transcend and surpass all the non-retrogressors in the Four Teachings? Promoting the Great Vehicle should be reasonable, but excessive praise may cause disputes.
Answer: The three types of non-retrogression in the Awakening of Faith are explained in the commentary itself and do not need to be cited. Now, we are generally explaining non-retrogression to praise the supreme merit of reciting the Buddha's name. Moreover, the Four Teachings all say that one only becomes non-retrogressive upon reaching a certain stage, so before reaching that stage, there should be causes for retrogression. This sutra directly says non-retrogression, meaning that as long as one is born in that land, one will ultimately attain non-origination, so it is different from other teachings. Is it disparaging other teachings as not being good enough? The World-Honored One's compassion is too earnest. Since he has spoken of various teachings, he still fears that beings' capacities may be sharp or dull.
一。或墮退緣。今以一法該羅。更無退者。乃相助諸教。速成弘濟。非與諸教諍勝負也。當名和合。云何反說起諍。況前八地文中。說無生極易。今此䟦致文中。又說無生極難。何前倨而後恭。忽揚而忽抑也。豈不是諍競。
問。須陀洹七生者。分段生死也。一生補處者。惟有一分無明。一變易生死也。故圓教初地。至妙覺位。有十一生。皆約變易而論。所以法華有增道損生之說。故知二種生死。不可雷同。豈得以須陀洹與補處並。生西方者。補處甚難。下品生人。至阿羅漢。尚經多劫。何況七生。而須陀洹位在中品。
大師慈心太煞。贊經可。然再宜緩款。使他莫測。
答。鈔中引三果四果聖人。去佛處尚遠。正比況讚歎一生補處之難及耳。殊無須陀洹並於補處之意。來說與鈔文略不相蒙。今此駁難。反成我義矣。奇哉。況釋經貴圖令人易知。何必使他莫測。
續問答
有當問。而前問不及。自設為或問如左。
問。大本此經一體。既聞命矣。然大本三事。此經似無。一。因地六八大愿。二。愿后廣修諸行。三。往劫五十三佛。此經既無。何名一體。
答。只消經中阿彌陀佛成佛以來一句。上之三義。攝無不盡。一者。言成佛。則必有本成之因。大愿為因。在其中矣。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一。如果墮落退轉，現在用一個方法來概括，就不會再有退轉的人了。這是爲了輔助各種教法，使之迅速成就弘揚救濟，不是要和各種教法爭論勝負。應當叫做和合，為什麼反而說要引起爭論呢？況且前面八地文中，說證得無生很容易，現在這篇駁斥的文章中，又說證得無生極其困難。為什麼先前傲慢而後恭敬，忽然抬高又忽然壓低呢？難道不是在爭論嗎？
問：須陀洹（Srotapanna，入流果）要經歷七次生死，這是分段生死。一生補處（Ekajatipratibaddha，一生補處菩薩）的菩薩，只有一分無明，這是變易生死。所以圓教初地到妙覺位，有十一次生死，都是就變易生死而說的。因此《法華經》有增道損生的說法。所以知道兩種生死，不可混為一談。怎麼能把須陀洹和一生補處相提並論呢？往生西方極樂世界，一生補處非常困難，下品往生的人，到證得阿羅漢果，尚且要經歷很多劫，何況七次生死？而須陀洹的果位在中品。
大師的慈悲心太過分了，讚歎經典可以，但是應該再稍微緩慢一些，使別人難以猜測。
答：鈔文中引用三果（Anagamin，不還果）、四果（Arhat，阿羅漢）聖人，距離成佛還很遙遠，正是比喻讚歎一生補處之難罷了，完全沒有把須陀洹和一生補處相提並論的意思。你這樣說和鈔文的意思略微不符，現在你這樣駁難，反而成就了我的意思。真是奇怪。況且解釋經典貴在使人容易理解，何必使別人難以猜測呢？
續問答
有應當問的，但是前面的提問沒有涉及到，（現在）自己假設一個提問，如下：
問：《大本》（《無量壽經》）和這部經（指被駁斥的經文）是一體的，既然已經聽聞這個說法了。但是《大本》有三件事，這部經好像沒有。一、因地的六八大愿，二、發願后廣泛修習各種修行，三、過去劫的五十三佛。這部經既然沒有這些，為什麼叫做一體呢？
答：只需要經中的『阿彌陀佛成佛以來』這句話，上面的三種含義，就全部包含在內了。一者，說到成佛，就必定有根本成就的原因，大愿就是成佛的因，就在其中了。
【English Translation】 English version I. If one falls back, now using one method to encompass all, there will be no more falling back. This is to assist all teachings, to quickly achieve and widely deliver salvation, not to contend for victory with other teachings. It should be called harmony, why say it incites contention? Moreover, in the previous text on the Eighth Ground, it says attaining non-birth is extremely easy, but in this refutation, it says attaining non-birth is extremely difficult. Why be arrogant first and then respectful, suddenly praising and then suppressing? Isn't this contention?
Question: A Srotapanna (stream-enterer) experiences seven births, which is segmented birth and death. A Ekajatipratibaddha (one-birth-remaining Bodhisattva) has only one portion of ignorance, which is transformational birth and death. Therefore, from the initial ground of the Perfect Teaching to the stage of Wonderful Enlightenment, there are eleven births, all discussed in terms of transformational birth and death. Thus, the Lotus Sutra speaks of increasing the path and decreasing birth. Therefore, the two kinds of birth and death cannot be equated. How can one compare a Srotapanna with a one-birth-remaining Bodhisattva? Rebirth in the Western Pure Land is very difficult for a one-birth-remaining Bodhisattva. Even those reborn in the lowest grade take many kalpas to attain Arhatship, let alone seven births. And the Srotapanna's stage is in the middle grade.
The Master's compassion is too much. Praising the sutra is acceptable, but it should be done more slowly and deliberately, so that others cannot fathom it.
Answer: The commentary cites the third-fruit (Anagamin) and fourth-fruit (Arhat) sages, who are still far from Buddhahood, precisely to illustrate the difficulty of the one-birth-remaining Bodhisattva. There is absolutely no intention of equating the Srotapanna with the one-birth-remaining Bodhisattva. Your statement is slightly inconsistent with the commentary. Now, your refutation actually strengthens my argument. How strange! Moreover, explaining the sutra should aim to make it easy to understand, why make it unfathomable?
Continued Questions and Answers
There are questions that should be asked, but the previous questions did not address. (Now) I will create a hypothetical question, as follows:
Question: The Larger Sutra (Larger Sukhavativyuha Sutra) and this sutra (the sutra being refuted) are one body, since we have heard this statement. However, the Larger Sutra has three things that this sutra seems to lack: 1. The forty-eight great vows made during the causal stage; 2. The extensive cultivation of various practices after making the vows; 3. The fifty-three Buddhas of past kalpas. Since this sutra lacks these, why is it called one body?
Answer: The phrase 'Since Amitabha Buddha attained Buddhahood' in the sutra alone encompasses all three meanings mentioned above. Firstly, speaking of attaining Buddhahood necessarily implies a fundamental cause for that attainment. The great vows are the cause for attaining Buddhahood, and they are included within that phrase.
二者。言成佛。則必有助成之緣。眾行為緣。在其中矣。三者。言成佛以來。則必有所繇來。佛佛相承。在其中矣。一句而該三義。故曰尤為要妙也。又持名亦具三義。彌陀萬德之名。無一愿不包羅。無一行不體備。無一佛不貫徹故。
問。此經既重持名。只宜以持名證圓。何兼取依正。
答。重持名者。言其為功之約。欲行人持少得多。非謂一經只說持名。更無別義也。故此經以自性為體。以依正清凈信愿往生為宗。多義證圓。無足疑者。
問。文殊揀勢至唸佛。謂諸行是無常。念性元生滅。因果今殊感。云何獲圓通。今教唸佛。何也。
答。玄敘中明無念之念。六方中明逗機之廣。已見大意。猶有未盡。今更論之。楞嚴謂因果勢必相符。唸佛是以無常生滅為因。而求真常不生滅果。故曰殊感。然隨時而贊。則門門各異。刊落一切。獨顯耳根。如實而說。則法法皆圓。唸佛耳根。有何差別。蓋常不出于無常之外。不生滅性。在生滅中。故菩薩雖知諸行無常。而不廢行門。雖知念屬生滅。而不忘攝念。明於此義。則知上智唸佛。當處有念。當處無念。中下唸佛。繇乎有念。入于無念。何殊感之有。
問。為惡之人。未嘗愿生惡道。而自然墮落。則為善亦爾。唸佛者。信行足矣。何以愿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：第二點，說到成佛，就必然有助成的因緣。各種行為就是因緣，包含在其中了。第三點，說到成佛以來，就必然有所由來。諸佛之間互相傳承，也包含在其中了。一句話就概括了三重含義，所以說尤其重要而精妙。而且，持名也具備三重含義。阿彌陀佛（Amitābha）萬德的名號，沒有哪一個願望不包含在內，沒有哪一種修行不完備地體現，沒有哪一尊佛不貫穿其中。
問：這部經既然重視持名唸佛，只應該以持名來證得圓滿，為什麼還要兼顧依報和正報？
答：重視持名，是說它的功效簡要，希望修行人付出少而獲得多，不是說一部經只說持名，沒有別的含義了。所以這部經以自性為本體，以依報和正報清凈、信愿往生為宗旨，多種含義來證得圓滿，沒有什麼可懷疑的。
問：《楞嚴經》（Śūraṅgama Sūtra）中文殊菩薩（Mañjuśrī）選擇大勢至菩薩（Mahāsthāmaprāpta）的唸佛法門，說各種修行都是無常的，念頭的本性也是生滅的，因果之間現在有不同的感受，怎麼能獲得圓滿通達？現在教人唸佛，又是為什麼呢？
答：玄敘中說明了無念的念，六方中說明了適應根機的廣泛性，已經可以看出大概的意思了。還有未盡之處，現在再來論述。《楞嚴經》說因果勢必相符，唸佛是以無常生滅為因，而求真常不生滅的果，所以說是不同的感受。然而，隨著時機而讚歎，那麼各個法門各有不同；如果捨棄一切，只顯示耳根的功用，如實而說，那麼一切法都是圓融的。唸佛的耳根，有什麼差別呢？大概是常不超出無常之外，不生滅的本性，就在生滅之中。所以菩薩雖然知道各種修行是無常的，但不廢棄修行法門；雖然知道念頭屬於生滅，但不忘記攝持念頭。明白了這個道理，就知道上等智慧的人唸佛，當下有念，當下無念；中下等的人唸佛，從有念開始，進入無念。有什麼不同的感受呢？
問：作惡的人，不曾希望墮入惡道，卻自然墮落；那麼行善也是這樣，唸佛的人，只要有信心和行動就足夠了，為什麼還要發願？
【English Translation】 English version: Secondly, to speak of becoming a Buddha, there must be assisting conditions. Various practices are the conditions, included within it. Thirdly, to speak of since becoming a Buddha, there must be a source. Buddhas inherit from each other, included within it. One sentence encompasses three meanings, therefore it is said to be especially important and profound. Moreover, holding the name also possesses three meanings. Amitābha's (Amitābha) name of myriad virtues, there is no vow that it does not encompass, no practice that it does not completely embody, no Buddha that it does not penetrate.
Question: Since this sutra emphasizes holding the name, it should only use holding the name to attain perfect enlightenment. Why also include the environment and the physical body?
Answer: Emphasizing holding the name means that its merit is concise, desiring practitioners to gain much from little effort. It does not mean that one sutra only speaks of holding the name and has no other meanings. Therefore, this sutra takes self-nature as its substance, and taking pure environment and physical body, faith, vows, and rebirth as its purpose. Multiple meanings attain perfect enlightenment, there is nothing to doubt.
Question: In the Śūraṅgama Sutra (Śūraṅgama Sūtra), Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī) Bodhisattva chose Mahāsthāmaprāpta's (Mahāsthāmaprāpta) method of Buddha-name recitation, saying that all practices are impermanent, the nature of thoughts is also arising and ceasing, and the causes and effects now have different feelings. How can one attain perfect penetration? Why teach people to recite the Buddha's name now?
Answer: The preface explains the thought of no-thought, and the six directions explain the breadth of adapting to the capacity of beings. The general meaning can already be seen. There are still things that have not been exhausted, and now I will discuss it further. The Śūraṅgama Sutra says that causes and effects must be consistent. Reciting the Buddha's name uses impermanent arising and ceasing as the cause, and seeks the true constant non-arising and non-ceasing as the effect. Therefore, it is said to be different feelings. However, praising according to the occasion, then each dharma gate is different; if abandoning everything and only revealing the function of the ear, speaking truthfully, then all dharmas are perfect and harmonious. What is the difference between the ear of Buddha-name recitation? It is probably that constancy does not go beyond impermanence, and the nature of non-arising and non-ceasing is in arising and ceasing. Therefore, although Bodhisattvas know that all practices are impermanent, they do not abandon the practice dharma gate; although they know that thoughts belong to arising and ceasing, they do not forget to gather thoughts. Understanding this meaning, then one knows that people of superior wisdom recite the Buddha's name, there is thought at the moment, and there is no thought at the moment; people of middle and lower wisdom recite the Buddha's name, starting from having thought and entering into no-thought. What different feelings are there?
Question: People who do evil have never wished to fall into evil paths, but they naturally fall; then doing good is also like this. For those who recite the Buddha's name, having faith and action is enough. Why is it necessary to make vows?
為。
答。為善如登。為惡如崩。登高則難。崩下則易。易故不願而獲。難故非愿不成。且本師莊嚴凈邦。實惟四十八愿。普賢導歸極樂。亦以十大愿王。故經中愿生彼國。疊言之不置。豈徒然哉。
問。歷代祖師。皆因參禪得悟。唸佛亦有悟否。
答。試問渠悟者悟個甚麼。豈非破生死惑。得自本心。脫然如大寐之得醒耶。若向是誰唸佛處覷破。一生參學事畢。更說往生。已是不唧留漢。雖然。一生彼國。即得不退菩提。則終當大悟耳。尚何問參禪唸佛為同爲異。
問。往生咒功德。何言不及持名。且平等稱之。亦奚不可。必此揚抑。
答。此有二義。一者。較論功德。則唸佛功德。六方佛贊。其往生咒未有此文。故華嚴唸佛三昧。名無邊海藏。即不可思議功德也。二者。隨逐時宜。則無定法。有時隨宜。持名第一。有時隨宜。持咒第一。今重持名。非揚抑也。蓋易地則皆然耳。
問。天如謂參禪唸佛。門戶雖不爭多。卻不許互相兼帶。今體究唸佛。得非兼帶乎。
答。疏鈔已見大意。今更詳為決疑。言不許兼帶者。良繇唸佛者。自疑與參禪異致。念外求禪。參禪者。自疑與唸佛殊歸。禪外覓佛。心分二路。業不專精。故所不許。今唸佛者。即于念上體究。不曾別有作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：為什麼？ 答：行善如同登山，作惡如同崩塌。登山則困難，崩塌則容易。容易所以不希望也能得到，困難所以不希望就不能成功。而且本師（指阿彌陀佛）莊嚴清凈的佛國，實際上是依靠四十八大愿。普賢菩薩引導眾生迴歸極樂世界，也是憑藉十大愿王。所以在經文中，愿生彼國的話語，重複地說個不停，難道是徒勞無益的嗎？ 問：歷代的祖師，都是因為參禪而開悟的，唸佛也有開悟的嗎？ 答：試問那些開悟的人，悟到了什麼？難道不是破除了生死的迷惑，得到了自己的本心，如同從大夢中醒來一樣嗎？如果能向是誰在念佛處看破，一生的參學就完畢了。再說往生，已經是多餘的話了。雖然如此，一旦往生到極樂世界，就能得到不退轉的菩提，最終一定會大徹大悟的。還問什麼參禪和唸佛是相同還是不同呢？ 問：《往生咒》的功德，為什麼說比不上持名唸佛？而且平等地稱讚它們，也是可以的，為什麼一定要這樣揚此抑彼呢？ 答：這有兩層意思。一是，比較功德，那麼唸佛的功德，有六方諸佛讚歎，而《往生咒》沒有這樣的經文。所以《華嚴經》的唸佛三昧，名為無邊海藏，就是不可思議的功德。二是，隨順時宜，就沒有定法。有時隨順時宜，持名唸佛第一；有時隨順時宜，持咒第一。現在推崇持名唸佛，不是揚此抑彼。換個地方，情況就都一樣了。 問：天如禪師說，參禪和唸佛，門徑雖然不多，卻不允許互相兼帶。現在體究唸佛，難道不是兼帶嗎？ 答：《疏鈔》已經表達了大概的意思，現在更詳細地解釋，以消除疑惑。說不允許兼帶，是因爲念佛的人，自己懷疑念佛和參禪是不同的途徑，在念佛之外尋求禪；參禪的人，自己懷疑參禪和唸佛是不同的歸宿，在參禪之外尋求佛。心分成兩條路，修行不專一，所以不允許。現在念佛的人，就在念佛上體究，不曾另外有所作為。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why? Answer: Doing good is like climbing a mountain; doing evil is like a landslide. Climbing is difficult, while collapsing is easy. Because it is easy, one obtains it even without wishing for it; because it is difficult, one cannot succeed without wishing for it. Moreover, the fundamental teacher (referring to Amitabha Buddha) adorns the pure land, relying on the forty-eight great vows. Samantabhadra Bodhisattva guides beings to return to the Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss, also relying on the Ten Great Vows. Therefore, in the scriptures, the words 'wishing to be born in that land' are repeated incessantly. Is it all in vain? Question: The ancestral masters of past generations all attained enlightenment through Chan (Zen) meditation. Is there enlightenment in reciting the Buddha's name as well? Answer: Ask those who have attained enlightenment, what have they realized? Isn't it breaking through the delusions of birth and death, attaining one's original mind, like awakening from a great dream? If one can see through 'who is reciting the Buddha's name,' one's lifelong study is complete. To speak of rebirth after that is superfluous. However, once reborn in the Land of Ultimate Bliss, one will attain non-retrogression in Bodhi (enlightenment), and will eventually achieve great enlightenment. Why ask whether Chan meditation and Buddha-name recitation are the same or different? Question: The merit of the Wang Sheng Zhou (Rebirth Mantra), why is it said to be inferior to holding the name (reciting the name of the Buddha)? And praising them equally is also possible, why must there be this praising one and suppressing the other? Answer: There are two meanings to this. First, comparing merits, the merit of reciting the Buddha's name is praised by the Buddhas of the six directions, while the Wang Sheng Zhou does not have such scriptural support. Therefore, the Buddha-name recitation Samadhi in the Avatamsaka Sutra is called the Boundless Ocean Treasury, which is inconceivable merit. Second, following the suitability of the time, there is no fixed Dharma. Sometimes, according to the situation, holding the name is the most important; sometimes, according to the situation, holding the mantra is the most important. Now, emphasizing holding the name is not praising one and suppressing the other. If the situation were different, it would be the same. Question: Chan Master Tianru said that although the paths of Chan meditation and Buddha-name recitation are not many, they are not allowed to be combined. Is the current practice of investigating Buddha-name recitation not a combination? Answer: The Commentary and Subcommentary has already expressed the general meaning. Now, I will explain it in more detail to dispel doubts. The reason for not allowing combination is that those who recite the Buddha's name suspect that reciting the Buddha's name and Chan meditation are different paths, and seek Chan outside of reciting the Buddha's name; those who practice Chan meditation suspect that Chan meditation and Buddha-name recitation are different destinations, and seek the Buddha outside of Chan meditation. The mind is divided into two paths, and the practice is not focused, so it is not allowed. Now, those who recite the Buddha's name investigate on the recitation itself, without doing anything else.
為。即拳究手。即波究水。是一非二。何得名兼。縱名為兼。如是之兼。非世之所謂兼也。兼亦何礙。勢至以唸佛心。入無生忍。佛兼禪也。普賢以不可思議解脫。往生安樂。禪兼佛也。故永明謂有禪有凈土。猶如帶角虎。而圓照稟單傳之旨。亦以凈土密修。是皆兼而不二。一而常兼者也。復何疑哉。
問。前解晝夜六時。謂彼無日月。唯以蓮開鳥鳴為晝。蓮合鳥棲為夜也。今云晝夜六時。出和雅音。則無棲時矣。似與前解不類。
答。大本所云鳥棲。棲者。止也。止謂不飛。非不鳴也。吾窗前叢竹。群雀暮棲。按更齊鳴。而不失節。是且棲且鳴也。況彼土之鳥。佛力所化。出音說法。何可思議。
問。疏云。華嚴圓極。此經分圓。圓全攝此。此分攝圓。然圓無全分。全中有分。圓即有段。分中非全。圓即不遍。如月在水。寸水全月。如風在樹。片葉全風。分全雙乖。圓義不成。
答。君知其一。未知其二。知者。無全無分。始得名圓。不知者。可全可分。正所以為圓也。如曰全中有分。圓即有段。然月落千江。月分為千。風入萬竅。風分為萬。全中分也。而實無千無萬。何慮圓之有段。如曰分中非全。圓即不遍。然窗楞之月。一隙而已。橐籥之風。一掬而已。分非全也。而全體是月是風。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這是關於拳和手的關係。拳就是手的探究，就像波浪就是水的探究。它們本質上是一體而非二元對立的。為什麼會用『兼』這個詞呢？即使使用了『兼』這個詞，這種『兼』也並非世俗意義上的兼併。『兼』又有什麼妨礙呢？大勢至菩薩以唸佛之心，證入無生法忍，這體現了佛法與禪定的融合。普賢菩薩以不可思議的解脫境界，往生安樂凈土，這體現了禪定與佛法的融合。所以永明延壽禪師說，『有禪有凈土，猶如帶角虎』。而圓照宗的禪師秉承單傳的宗旨，也以凈土法門作為秘密修持。這些都是兼顧而不二元對立，一體而又常常兼顧的例子。又有什麼可懷疑的呢？
問：之前的解釋中，晝夜六時是指極樂世界沒有日月，只是以蓮花開放、鳥兒鳴叫作為白天，蓮花閉合、鳥兒棲息作為夜晚。現在說晝夜六時都發出和諧的聲音，那麼就沒有鳥兒棲息的時候了。這似乎與之前的解釋不一致。
答：《無量壽經》里所說的鳥棲，『棲』的意思是停止，停止是指不飛翔，並非不鳴叫。我家窗前的竹林里，一群麻雀傍晚棲息，按時一起鳴叫，而不失時節。這就是既棲息又鳴叫。更何況極樂世界的鳥，是佛力所化現的，發出聲音宣說佛法，怎麼可以用常理來思議呢？
問：疏鈔中說，《華嚴經》是圓滿至極的，這部《無量壽經》是部分圓滿。圓滿總體包含部分圓滿，部分圓滿也包含圓滿總體。然而，圓滿沒有全部和部分之分，全部之中有部分，圓滿就有了段落。部分之中不是全部，圓滿就不能周遍。就像月亮在水中，一寸的水裡有完整的月亮；像風在樹上，一片葉子上就有完整的風。部分和全部相互矛盾，圓滿的意義就不能成立。
答：你只知其一，不知其二。知道沒有全部沒有部分，才能夠稱之為圓滿。不知道的人，認為可以有全部可以有部分，這正是圓滿的體現。比如，月亮倒映在千江之中，月亮就分爲了千萬份；風進入萬千孔竅，風就分爲了萬千份。全部之中有部分。但實際上並沒有千萬份，何必擔心圓滿會有段落呢？比如，窗戶格子里的月亮，只是一道縫隙而已；風箱裡的風，只是一捧而已。部分不是全部。但是，整體都是月亮都是風。
【English Translation】 English version:
This is about the relationship between the fist and the hand. The fist is the exploration of the hand, just as the wave is the exploration of the water. They are essentially one, not dualistic. Why use the word 'combining' ('兼')? Even if the word 'combining' is used, this 'combining' is not the worldly sense of merging. What harm is there in 'combining'? Mahāsthāmaprāpta Bodhisattva entered the stage of non-origination forbearance (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti) with the mind of Buddha-remembrance (nianfo), which embodies the fusion of Buddhism and Chan (Zen) meditation. Samantabhadra Bodhisattva was reborn in the Land of Bliss (Sukhavati) with inconceivable liberation, which embodies the fusion of Chan meditation and Buddhism. Therefore, Zen Master Yongming Yanshou said, 'Having Chan and Pure Land is like a tiger with horns.' And the Chan masters of the Yuanzhao school, adhering to the single transmission, also used the Pure Land method as a secret practice. These are all examples of being comprehensive without being dualistic, being one and yet often comprehensive. What is there to doubt?
Question: In the previous explanation, the six periods of day and night referred to the Land of Bliss having no sun or moon, but only using the lotus flowers opening and the birds singing as daytime, and the lotus flowers closing and the birds roosting as nighttime. Now it is said that harmonious sounds are emitted during the six periods of day and night, so there is no time for the birds to roost. This seems inconsistent with the previous explanation.
Answer: In the Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life (Amitabha Sutra), the 'roosting' of birds means stopping. Stopping means not flying, not not singing. In the bamboo forest in front of my window, a flock of sparrows roost in the evening, chirping together on time, without missing the season. This is both roosting and chirping. Moreover, the birds in the Land of Bliss are transformed by the power of the Buddha, emitting sounds to proclaim the Dharma, how can it be conceived with ordinary reasoning?
Question: The commentary says that the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Sutra) is perfectly complete, and this Sutra of Immeasurable Life is partially complete. The complete totality includes the partial completeness, and the partial completeness also includes the complete totality. However, completeness has no distinction between whole and part, and if there are parts within the whole, then completeness has segments. If the part is not the whole, then completeness is not pervasive. It's like the moon in the water, a full moon in an inch of water; like the wind in the tree, a full wind in a single leaf. The part and the whole contradict each other, and the meaning of completeness cannot be established.
Answer: You only know one, but not the other. Knowing that there is no whole and no part is what can be called completeness. Those who do not know think that there can be a whole and there can be a part, which is precisely the embodiment of completeness. For example, the moon is reflected in a thousand rivers, and the moon is divided into thousands of parts; the wind enters ten thousand holes, and the wind is divided into ten thousand parts. There are parts within the whole. But in reality, there are not thousands or tens of thousands, so why worry that completeness will have segments? For example, the moon in the window lattice is only a crack; the wind in the bellows is only a handful. The part is not the whole. However, the whole is the moon and the whole is the wind.
何慮圓之不遍。真如可分分而證。無明可分分而斷。即全而分。即分而全。亦何礙焉。故華嚴號大不思議。維摩號小不思議。即此全攝彼。彼分攝此之義也。既不思議。故無全無分。而又可全可分也。是乃所以為圓極之教也。胡可以常情測之也。
△複次。孟子曰。孔子聖之時者也。時。即儒之圓也。而子夏子游子張。各有聖人之一體。冉牛閔子顏淵。則具體而微。信如全中有分。圓則有段。未聞孔子之圓。因各得其一體者。而遂割截成段也。信如分中非全。圓則不遍。未聞孔子之圓。因一體非全體者。而遂局隘不遍也。若云圓自屬具體者。然具體而微。微對巨得名。巨與微。即全與分之謂也。是故圓全攝此。此分攝圓。圭峰所以楷定圓覺者。萬世不易之至論也。比而例之。孔子全攝諸賢。諸賢分攝孔子。亦猶是矣。又何疑焉。
問。能詮體性。其隨識門四句。末云非本非影。夫非本非影。頓也。頓則八識俱空。而列之隨識門。何也。
答。圭峰本清涼所敘十體。約之為四。予以其簡而明。故全用之。清涼疏云。取楞伽等經頓教中義。八識雖空。而說唯識。又云。本影四句。於一聖教。圓融無礙。方為究竟甚深唯識道理。其義深玄。思之可見。
問。大本三輩往生。上輩者曰。舍家離俗。而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：又何必擔憂圓融不能周遍呢？真如（Tathata，事物的真實如是之相）可以分分證悟，無明（Avidya，對事物真相的迷惑）可以分分斷除。即是全體而又是部分，即是部分而又是全體，又有什麼妨礙呢？所以《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）被稱為大不思議，《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）被稱為小不思議，這正是此全體包含彼部分，彼部分包含此全體的意義啊。既然是不可思議的，所以無所謂全體也無所謂部分，但又可以說是全體也可以說是部分。這才是圓滿至極的教義啊，怎麼可以用常人的情理來揣測呢？ 再次說明，孟子說，孔子是聖人中最合時宜的。這個『時』，就是儒家的圓融。而子夏、子游、子張，各自具有聖人的一部分。冉牛、閔子、顏淵，則是具體而微。確實如同全體中有部分，圓融中有階段。沒聽說過孔子的圓融，因為他們各自得到一體，就將孔子割裂成段。確實如同部分中沒有全體，圓融就不周遍。沒聽說過孔子的圓融，因為一體不是全體，就變得侷限狹隘。如果說圓融本身就屬於具體的人，然而具體而微，『微』是相對於『巨』而言的，『巨』與『微』，就是全體與部分的說法。因此，圓滿的全體包含這部分，這部分也包含圓滿的全體。圭峰宗密（Guifeng Zongmi）大師之所以楷定《圓覺經》（Yuanjue Sutra），是萬世不易的至理名言啊。相比之下，孔子完全包含各位賢人，各位賢人部分地包含孔子，也是這樣的道理啊，又有什麼可懷疑的呢？ 問：能詮顯體性，其中隨識門四句，最後說『非本非影』。這『非本非影』，是頓悟的境界。頓悟則八識（Eight Consciousnesses）皆空，為什麼還把它列在隨識門中呢？ 答：圭峰宗密大師本來是根據清涼澄觀（Qingliang Chengguan）所敘述的十體，概括為四體。我因為他簡明扼要，所以全部採用。清涼澄觀的疏鈔中說，這是取自《楞伽經》（Lankavatara Sutra）等頓教經典中的意義，八識雖然是空的，但仍然說唯識（Yogacara）。又說，本影四句，在一個聖教中，圓融無礙，才是究竟甚深的唯識道理。其中的意義深奧玄妙，仔細思考就可以明白。 問：《無量壽經》（Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life）中關於往生凈土的三輩，上輩往生者說：『舍家離俗』，而...
【English Translation】 English version: Why worry that the perfect and complete (圓之不遍) cannot be all-encompassing? True Thusness (真如, Tathata, the true suchness of things) can be realized part by part, and ignorance (無明, Avidya, delusion about the true nature of things) can be eliminated part by part. It is both whole and part, part and whole, so what is the hindrance? Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經) is called the Great Inconceivable, and the Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩詰經) is called the Small Inconceivable. This is precisely the meaning of the whole encompassing the part, and the part encompassing the whole. Since it is inconceivable, there is neither whole nor part, yet it can be said to be whole and it can be said to be part. This is why it is the teaching of perfect completeness. How can it be measured by ordinary human reasoning? Furthermore, Mencius said, 'Confucius was the sage who was most timely.' This 'timeliness' is the Confucian completeness. Zixia, Ziyou, and Zizhang each possessed one aspect of the sage. Ran Niu, Minzi, and Yan Yuan were concrete but subtle. It is indeed like the whole containing parts, and completeness having stages. It has never been heard that Confucius's completeness was divided into segments because each of them obtained one aspect. It is indeed like the part not containing the whole, and completeness not being all-encompassing. It has never been heard that Confucius's completeness became limited and narrow because one aspect was not the whole. If it is said that completeness itself belongs to the concrete, then being concrete but subtle, 'subtle' is named in relation to 'great.' 'Great' and 'subtle' are what is meant by whole and part. Therefore, the complete whole encompasses this part, and this part encompasses the complete whole. Guifeng Zongmi's (圭峰宗密) definitive explanation of the Yuanjue Sutra (圓覺經) is a supreme and unchanging truth for all ages. By analogy, Confucius completely encompasses all the worthy ones, and the worthy ones partially encompass Confucius. It is just like this, so what is there to doubt? Question: Regarding the ability to express the essence of reality, within the four phrases of the 'following consciousness' (隨識門) section, the last phrase says 'neither the original nor the shadow.' This 'neither the original nor the shadow' is the realm of sudden enlightenment. With sudden enlightenment, all eight consciousnesses (八識) are empty, so why is it listed in the 'following consciousness' section? Answer: Master Guifeng Zongmi originally based his explanation on the ten aspects described by Qingliang Chengguan (清涼澄觀), summarizing them into four. I use them entirely because they are concise and clear. Qingliang Chengguan's commentary says that this is taken from the meaning of the sudden teachings in sutras such as the Lankavatara Sutra (楞伽經). Although the eight consciousnesses are empty, it still speaks of Consciousness-Only (唯識, Yogacara). It also says that the four phrases of 'original and shadow' are perfectly integrated and without obstruction in one sacred teaching, and this is the ultimate and profound principle of Consciousness-Only. Its meaning is deep and mysterious, and it can be understood through careful consideration. Question: In the Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life (無量壽經) regarding the three grades of rebirth in the Pure Land, the highest grade of rebirth says: 'Leaving home and renouncing worldly life,' and...
作沙門。則在家者。將上輩無望歟。
答。佛為眾生說法。隨時隨機。固無定法。一法也。有此處立而彼處破者。有此處輕而彼處重者。觀經為王后說法。但就所修之勝劣而定其品。大本為一切人說。故普該僧俗。而僧與三寶之列。世間法俗宜遜僧故也。若極論其理。但破除煩惱障礙。即是舍家離俗。固不必問其發之有無。人之緇素矣。
問。共命鳥。鈔云。今作人首者非。而山海經鳥之人首者頗眾。何以非之。
答。不謂鳥類無人首也。但此共命。若果人首。法華諸經當有明注。而止言二首。不言二人首。焉可杜撰。況山海經曾無共命鳥名。其中鳥之人首者。如人首而一足。名曰蠹𩇯。人首而二足。名曰鳧溪。人首而四目。名曰颙颙。則一首耳。非二首也。有三首者。名曰瞿如。則鳥首耳。非人首也。瞿如三首。共命二首。蓋彷彿相似也。自應例以瞿如而稱鳥首。豈得以畫工塑匠為憑準乎。
答問
答虞德園
前與彼辯者。姑置勿論。更辯之。前辯是折伏狂愚。今辯是與賢智者平氣商確。乞勿作一例視之。極知居士愛我。必欲此刻為全書耳。我今此辯。亦如居士愛我。惟諒照是幸。
共命鳥
非也。已改作恐非矣。然不可不辯。共命不專極樂。雪山五天竺皆有之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果出家做沙門（Śrāmaṇa，佛教出家修行者），那麼在家修行的人，是不是就永遠沒有希望達到上等的境界了呢？ 答：佛陀為眾生說法，是根據不同的時間和根器，並沒有固定的方法。同一種法，有時在這裡要破除，在別處卻要建立；有時在這裡看得很輕，在別處卻看得很重。《觀經》是為王后說法，只是就她所修行的功德的殊勝和低劣來確定她的品位。《大本經》是為一切人說的，所以普遍包括了僧人和俗人。僧人位列於三寶（Triratna，佛、法、僧）之中，從世間法的角度來說，俗人應該遜讓于僧人。如果從最根本的道理來說，只要破除煩惱和障礙，就是舍離了家庭和世俗，實在不必問他有沒有剃髮，是僧人還是俗人了。 問：關於共命鳥（Jīvaṃjīvaka，一種傳說中的鳥，擁有共同的生命），鈔本上說，現在把它畫成人頭是不對的。但是《山海經》中人頭的鳥有很多，為什麼說它不對呢？ 答：我並不是說鳥類中沒有長著人頭的。只是這種共命鳥，如果真的是人頭，那麼《法華經》等經典中應該有明確的記載。但是經典中只說是兩個頭，沒有說是兩個「人頭」，怎麼可以隨意杜撰呢？況且《山海經》中根本沒有共命鳥的名字。其中鳥身人頭的，比如人頭而一隻腳的，名叫蠹𩇯；人頭而兩隻腳的，名叫鳧溪；人頭而四隻眼睛的，名叫颙颙。這些都只有一個頭，不是兩個頭。有三個頭的，名叫瞿如。但那是鳥頭，不是人頭。瞿如三個頭，共命鳥兩個頭，大概是有些相似。應該按照瞿如的例子，稱共命鳥為鳥頭。怎麼可以以畫工和塑匠的說法為準呢？ 答問 答虞德園 之前與那些辯論的人，姑且放在一邊不談。現在重新辯論。之前的辯論是爲了折服那些狂妄愚蠢的人，現在的辯論是與賢明有智慧的人平等地商討確定。希望您不要用同樣的眼光來看待。非常感謝您對我的愛護，一定要把這次的辯論收入全書。我現在這次的辯論，也像您愛護我一樣，希望您能夠諒解。 共命鳥 不是這樣的。已經改為恐怕不是了。然而不可不辯。共命鳥不只是極樂世界才有，雪山和五天竺（Pañca-vidyāsthānāni，古印度五個地區的總稱）都有。
【English Translation】 English version: Q: If one becomes a Śrāmaṇa (Buddhist monastic), does that mean that lay practitioners have no hope of attaining a superior state? A: The Buddha teaches beings according to the time and their capacity, without fixed methods. The same Dharma may be established in one place and refuted in another; it may be considered light in one place and heavy in another. The Contemplation Sutra was taught for the queen, and her rank was determined solely by the superiority or inferiority of her practice. The Larger Sutra was taught for all people, so it universally includes both monastics and laity. Monastics are listed among the Three Jewels (Triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), and from the perspective of worldly dharma, the laity should defer to the monastics. If we discuss the ultimate principle, as long as one eliminates afflictions and obstacles, that is considered abandoning the home and leaving the secular world. It is not necessary to ask whether one has shaved their head or whether they are a monastic or a layperson. Q: Regarding the Jīvaṃjīvaka (a mythical bird with shared life), the commentary says that it is incorrect to depict it with human heads. However, there are many birds with human heads in the Classic of Mountains and Seas (Shanhai Jing), so why is it incorrect? A: I am not saying that there are no birds with human heads. However, if this Jīvaṃjīvaka truly had human heads, then the Lotus Sutra and other scriptures should have clearly stated it. But the scriptures only say two heads, not two 'human heads.' How can we fabricate this? Moreover, the Classic of Mountains and Seas does not even mention the name Jīvaṃjīvaka. Among the creatures with human heads and bird bodies, there is the Dùhū (蠹𩇯) with one foot, the Fúxī (鳧溪) with two feet, and the Yóngyóng (颙颙) with four eyes. These all have only one head, not two. There is also the Qúrú (瞿如) with three heads, but those are bird heads, not human heads. The three heads of the Qúrú and the two heads of the Jīvaṃjīvaka are somewhat similar. We should follow the example of the Qúrú and call the Jīvaṃjīvaka's heads bird heads. How can we rely on the depictions of painters and sculptors? Questions and Answers Reply to Yu Deyuan Let's set aside the previous debates with those people. Now, let's debate anew. The previous debate was to subdue the arrogant and foolish, while this debate is to discuss and confirm with the wise and intelligent on equal footing. I hope you will not view them in the same way. I am very grateful for your love and care, and that you want to include this debate in the complete book. This debate of mine is also like your love for me, and I hope you can understand. Jīvaṃjīvaka That is not the case. It has been changed to 'probably not.' However, it must be debated. The Jīvaṃjīvaka is not exclusive to the Pure Land. It exists in the Himalayas and all of the Five Indies (Pañca-vidyāsthānāni, a collective name for five regions in ancient India).
。法華諸經屢取為喻。註釋者止言兩頭。及翻譯名義俱然。曾無人身之說。即雞頭摩所傳圖繪。然亦無存。亦未聞何經傳載此五通菩薩言是人身也。豈得以工匠所作為準憑耶。故前辯云。有經論出載則可。且極樂地平如掌。無有諸山。今裝塑西方。竟作山形。安可信也。時人于古聖賢註疏。恒求其錯。工匠人所作。反蹈常襲故。不敢作一語辯正。獨何歟。又云蛇身亦得稱帝。夫蛇身者。尚稱為帝而不稱為蛇。今人身者。反不稱人而稱鳥耶。故前辯云。既是人身。不得稱鳥。愚意蛇身者。膚鱗鱗如蛇皮耳。非真蛇也。若真蛇者。將橫身而稱帝歟。則儼然一蛇。何以御臣民。將正身而稱帝歟。則無手無足。嫋嫋如竹竿。何繇而立。何繇而坐。何繇指揮動作。而行政事。乃至神農牛首。亦狀貌似牛。如沛公龍顏。班超虎頭之類耳。若真雙角指天。兩耳披風。針其毛。長其喙。世所謂牛頭馬面者。閻羅王之部卒也。人將走而避之之不暇矣。故昔人謂外紀不可盡信。而共工頭觸不周。王充辯云。既不周號為天柱。共工力能觸之使折。何以戰而不勝。此論不徇舊說。痛快千古。今之共命。恐亦類是。
白鶴
按政和圖經云。鶴有玄黃蒼白。白為最良。穆天子傳云。天子至巨搜二氏。二氏獻白鶴之血以飲天子。如尋常白
【現代漢語翻譯】 《法華經》等諸多經典屢次以此為比喻。註釋者只說是兩頭，包括翻譯的名義也是如此，從未有人說是人身。即使是雞頭摩（Jitoumó，譯者或畫師的名字）所傳的圖畫，現在也已經不存在了。也未曾聽說哪部經書上記載這位五通菩薩（Wǔtōng Púsà，擁有五種神通的菩薩）說是人身啊。怎麼能以工匠的製作作為依據呢？所以前面辯論說，有經論記載才可以。而且極樂世界（Jílè shìjiè，西方極樂凈土）平坦如手掌，沒有山。現在裝塑西方，竟然做成山形，怎麼能相信呢？現在的人對於古代聖賢的註釋，總是想找出錯誤。對於工匠所作的，反而因循守舊，不敢說一句辯正的話，這是為什麼呢？又說蛇身也可以稱帝。蛇身尚且稱為帝而不稱為蛇，現在人身反而不稱人而稱鳥嗎？所以前面辯論說，既然是人身，就不能稱鳥。我的意思是蛇身的人，面板鱗片像蛇皮罷了，不是真蛇。如果是真蛇，將橫著身子稱帝嗎？那就儼然是一條蛇，怎麼統治臣民？將豎起身子稱帝嗎？那就無手無足，細長如竹竿，怎麼站立？怎麼坐下？怎麼指揮動作，來處理政事？乃至神農（Shénnóng，中國神話中的農業和醫藥之神）牛首，也只是狀貌像牛，如同沛公（Pèigōng，劉邦）龍顏，班超（Bān Chāo，東漢名將）虎頭之類罷了。如果真是雙角指天，兩耳如風，針其毛，長其喙，那就是世俗所說的牛頭馬面（Niútóu Mǎmiàn，地獄中的獄卒），人們躲避都來不及。所以古人說外紀不可全信，而共工（Gònggōng，中國神話人物）頭觸不周山（Bùzhōu Shān，神話中的山名），王充（Wáng Chōng，東漢哲學家）辯論說，既然不周山號稱天柱，共工有能力觸之使折，為什麼作戰卻不勝？這個論點不遷就舊說，痛快淋漓。現在的共命鳥（Gòngmìngniǎo，佛教傳說中的鳥，有兩個頭共用一個身體），恐怕也類似這樣。
白鶴
按照《政和圖經》（Zhènghé Tújīng，宋代地理著作）記載，鶴有玄、黃、蒼、白四種顏色，白色最好。《穆天子傳》（Mù Tiānzǐ Zhuàn，記載周穆王西遊的古書）記載，天子到達巨搜二氏（Jùsōu èrshì，古代部落名），二氏獻上白鶴的血給天子飲用，如同尋常的白...
【English Translation】 The Lotus Sutra and other scriptures frequently use this as a metaphor. Commentators only mention two heads, including the meaning of the translation, and no one has ever said it was a human body. Even the paintings transmitted by Jitoumo (Jitoumó, the name of a translator or painter) no longer exist. Nor have I ever heard of any scripture recording that this Five-Penetration Bodhisattva (Wǔtōng Púsà, a Bodhisattva with five supernatural powers) is said to be a human body. How can the creations of craftsmen be taken as a basis? Therefore, it was argued earlier that it is acceptable only if there are records in scriptures and treatises. Moreover, the Land of Ultimate Bliss (Jílè shìjiè, the Western Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss) is as flat as a palm, without mountains. Now, when sculpting the Western Paradise, they actually make it into a mountain shape. How can this be believed? People today always try to find faults in the annotations of ancient sages. On the contrary, they follow the old ways of the craftsmen and dare not say a word of correction. Why is this? It is also said that a snake body can also be called an emperor. If a snake body is still called an emperor and not a snake, why is a human body not called a human but a bird? Therefore, it was argued earlier that since it is a human body, it should not be called a bird. My opinion is that a person with a snake body has scales on their skin like snake skin, but is not a real snake. If it were a real snake, would it lie horizontally to be called an emperor? Then it would be just a snake. How could it rule the subjects? If it stood upright to be called an emperor, it would have no hands or feet, slender like a bamboo pole. How could it stand? How could it sit? How could it command actions to handle political affairs? Even Shennong (Shénnóng, the Chinese mythological god of agriculture and medicine) with a bull's head only had an appearance like a bull, like Duke Pei (Pèigōng, Liu Bang) with a dragon face, or Ban Chao (Bān Chāo, a famous general of the Eastern Han Dynasty) with a tiger's head. If it really had two horns pointing to the sky, two ears like the wind, needles for hair, and a long beak, then it would be what the world calls Ox-Head and Horse-Face (Niútóu Mǎmiàn, jailers in hell), whom people would run away from as quickly as possible. Therefore, the ancients said that external records cannot be fully believed, and when Gonggong (Gònggōng, a figure in Chinese mythology) struck Buzhou Mountain (Bùzhōu Shān, a mountain in mythology) with his head, Wang Chong (Wáng Chōng, a philosopher of the Eastern Han Dynasty) argued that since Buzhou Mountain was known as the pillar of heaven, and Gonggong had the power to strike it and break it, why did he not win the battle? This argument does not conform to old sayings and is thoroughly satisfying. The Jivaka bird (Gòngmìngniǎo, a bird in Buddhist legend with two heads sharing one body) of today is probably similar to this.
White Crane
According to the 'Zhenghe Illustrated Classic' (Zhènghé Tújīng, a geographical work of the Song Dynasty), cranes come in four colors: black, yellow, blue, and white, with white being the best. The 'Biography of King Mu' (Mù Tiānzǐ Zhuàn, an ancient book recording King Mu of Zhou's travels to the west) records that when the Son of Heaven arrived at the Jousou tribe (Jùsōu èrshì, the name of an ancient tribe), the tribe offered the blood of white cranes for the Son of Heaven to drink, just like ordinary white...
鶴。畜者頗眾。何必以獻至尊。若其獻者。必珍貴異常。世所希有故也。稍有黑毛。非真白鶴。若真白鶴。毛羽純白。不肖兒童時。聞一博古老人所說。高瑞南亦聞之可證。又引鵝鷺亦白。然此等原不以白為貴。不可以例。如鶴白。鸚鵡白。龜白。鹿白。兔白。像白。皆以白為貴。世所希有。鶴之純白。正是此類。請更詳之。
耳所未聞目所未見
經云。尚無惡道之名。即耳不聞此名也。不過極言其決無惡道耳。若云亦必談及惡道。當有聞者。則彼土目中且實見鶴雀。寧止耳聞。據此。應改文云尚有惡道之實。何況有名耶。前以彼怪行文倒說。不知其意若此。
居士奇卓之才。淹博之學。震旦國中等埒無幾。今在禪門。正儒釋二家望以為赤幟。而隨之轉移者也。不宜反為拘名滯相者所惑。宜以大方之論。折其小見。圓通之旨。破其偏枯。使正法大明於世。以報佛恩。乃分內事。柰何塞毗耶不二之門。較東西于曲徑。撤燈王師子之座。爭尺寸于繩床。非所望於後身之金粟也。如不肖者。不希法師之位。不慕善知識之名。不貪求四眾歸仰。即謗滿天下。甚而覆瓿代薪。亦任之而已矣。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於鶴。飼養鶴的人很多，何必一定要進獻給至尊呢？如果一定要進獻，那必定是極其珍貴異常，世間罕有的東西。稍微帶點黑毛，就不是真正的白鶴。真正的白鶴，羽毛應該是純白的。我小時候聽一位博古的老人說過，高瑞南也聽過，可以作證。又有人說鵝和鷺也是白的，然而這些原本不以白色為貴，不可以相提並論。像鶴的白色，鸚鵡的白色，龜的白色，鹿的白色，兔的白色，像的白色，都是以白色為貴，世間罕有的。鶴的純白，正是屬於這一類。請您再詳細考慮一下。
耳所未聞，目所未見
經書上說，『尚且沒有惡道的名稱』，就是耳朵都沒有聽過這個名稱。這不過是極力說明那裡絕對沒有惡道罷了。如果說也一定會談及惡道，應當有聽過的人，那麼那個地方的眼中恐怕還實際見到鶴雀呢，哪裡僅僅是耳朵聽到。根據這個，應該修改文字說『尚且有惡道的事實，何況有名呢？』之前認為他們奇怪的行文是倒著說的，不知道他們的意思原來是這樣。
居士您有奇特的才能，淵博的學識，在震旦國（中國）中能與您相比的人沒有幾個。現在您身在禪門，正是儒家和釋家都希望您成為旗幟。而跟隨您轉變的人也很多。不應該反而被拘泥於名相的人所迷惑。應該用大方的理論，駁斥他們狹隘的見解；用圓融通達的宗旨，破除他們的偏頗固執，使正法在世間大放光明，來報答佛恩，這才是您分內的事情。怎麼能在塞毗耶（Sarvasti，舍衛城）不二之門，比較東西于彎曲的小路；撤去燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）授記師子之座，爭奪繩床上的尺寸之地呢？這不是我所期望于您這位後身的金粟（指宋代名僧，曾轉世為宰相）的。像我這樣不才的人，不希望得到法師的地位，不羨慕善知識的名聲，不貪求四眾弟子的歸仰，即使謗議滿天下，甚至用破瓦罐代替柴薪，也任憑他們罷了。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding cranes. Many people raise them, so why is it necessary to present one to the Supreme One? If one is to be presented, it must be something exceptionally precious and rare in the world. If it has even a little black feather, it is not a true white crane. A true white crane should have pure white feathers. I heard an erudite old man say this when I was a child, and Gao Ruinan also heard it, which can be attested. Some also say that geese and egrets are white, but these are not valued for their whiteness, so they cannot be compared. Like the whiteness of cranes, the whiteness of parrots, the whiteness of turtles, the whiteness of deer, the whiteness of rabbits, and the whiteness of elephants, all are valued for their whiteness and are rare in the world. The pure whiteness of cranes belongs to this category. Please consider it in more detail.
Unheard by the ear, unseen by the eye
The sutra says, 'There is not even the name of an evil path,' meaning that the ear has not even heard of this name. This is merely to emphasize that there is absolutely no evil path there. If it were said that evil paths are also discussed, there should be someone who has heard of them. In that case, people in that place would probably actually see cranes and sparrows, not just hear about them. Based on this, the text should be changed to say, 'There is even the reality of an evil path, let alone the name?' Previously, I thought their strange writing was inverted, but I didn't know that was what they meant.
Layman, you have extraordinary talent and profound learning. There are few in the land of Zhendan (China) who can compare to you. Now that you are in the Chan (Zen) school, both Confucianism and Buddhism hope that you will become a banner. And many people follow your transformation. You should not be misled by those who are attached to names and forms. You should use broad-minded theories to refute their narrow views; use comprehensive and thorough principles to break their biases and stubbornness, so that the true Dharma can shine brightly in the world, to repay the Buddha's kindness. This is your duty. How can you compare east and west on a winding path at the Sarvasti (舍衛城) gate of non-duality; remove the lion's seat of prediction given by Dipamkara Buddha (燃燈佛), and contend for inches on a rope bed? This is not what I expect from you, the reincarnation of Jin Su (金粟, referring to a famous monk of the Song Dynasty who was reincarnated as a prime minister). As for someone untalented like me, I do not desire the position of Dharma master, I do not admire the reputation of a good teacher, and I do not greedily seek the reverence of the fourfold assembly. Even if slander fills the world, and even if I use broken pottery as firewood, I will let them do as they please.