English
English version: Regarding the different views on the existence or non-existence of things, it is because of the differences among people that different views arise, hence it is called 'Purusha' (person, referring to the provisional designation based on individual differences). It is not like prescribing different medicines for different illnesses. If there is only one situation, it cannot be called 'Pratipaksha' (counter-measure, addressing different problems with different methods). If it is said that different methods are used to treat different illnesses, because the illnesses are different and the medicines are also different, it is called 'Pratipaksha'. It is not that different views arise within the same matter due to differences among people, so it is not called 'Purusha' here. Apart from these two situations, worldly matters that are spoken of all fall within the scope of Lokasamgraha (worldly teachings, teachings that conform to worldly norms). Question: The Buddha's teachings are always directed towards people and are always meant to counteract the illnesses of sentient beings. Why are the first and last types of teachings not called 'Purusha' and not called 'Pratipaksha'? Answer: Generally speaking, there is the question of the Tathagata (如来). However, this is to directly reveal the provisional names of the mundane world and also to directly reveal the ultimate reality of the supreme meaning. These two situations differ because of the difference in truth, not because of the difference in people, nor because of the difference in illnesses. Therefore, the first and last two types of teachings are specifically established. Question: If it is said that people and so on exist because of Samvriti-satya (conventional truth, relative truth), unlike non-existent things such as a second head on one person, then which Dharma (法) among the Skandhas (五蕴), Dhatus (十八界), and Ayatanas (十二处) does it belong to? Furthermore, if saying that a person exists is the same as having an Atman (我), how is this different from what is established by the Vatsiputriya (犊子部)? Answer: The Sarvastivada (一切有部) school says that there is no person like a second head, because it does not belong to the Dharmas contained within the Skandhas, Dhatus, and Ayatanas. The Vatsiputriya school says that there is indeed a person-Dharma, which is neither identical to nor separate from the Skandhas, Dhatus, and Ayatanas. Although it is not contained within the Skandhas, Dhatus, and Ayatanas, it is in the fifth indescribable store. Now, the Mahayana (大乘) says that it exists because of Hetu-pratyaya (cause and condition, dependent origination), but it has no independent self-nature. The Rupa (色蕴), mind, and other Dharmas are also like this. If a person truly exists, it belongs to the extreme of Atmavada (belief in a self, the extreme of clinging to existence). If there is absolutely no person, it belongs to the extreme of Ucchedavada (annihilationism, the extreme of denying everything). The Mahayana is not like this. Because it exists from causes and conditions, it is far from the extreme of annihilationism. Because it has no independent self-nature, it is far from the extreme of clinging to existence. As for which Dharma among the Skandhas, Dhatus, and Ayatanas it belongs to, it belongs to the Citta-viprayukta-samskara-skandha (mental formations not associated with consciousness). Among the twenty-four non-associated formations, it belongs to the commonality of sentient beings. It should be known that it belongs to the Dharmadhatu (法界) and Dharmayatana (法处). Let's temporarily stop discussing the treatises on the Yana (乘, vehicle) and return to our own school. The sixth cause is to subdue those debaters. The treatise says: In order to make the great debaters such as Dirghanakha (长爪梵志) have faith in the Buddha-Dharma, this Sutra is spoken. If they do not hear the essence of Prajna (般若), severing the Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth, the supreme truth) of the four phrases, they will not even obtain a small amount of faith, let alone attain the fruits of the path. And so on. The causes and conditions of Dirghanakha's debate should be explained in detail here. The other causes and conditions are explained in detail as in the treatise. The causes and conditions for speaking the Sutra are briefly described above. Next, the fifth is the classification of teachings, distinguishing and classifying the various teachings of Buddhism. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
不同。今且略出二说平章是非。有人说言一化教门不出二途。一者顿教二者渐教。渐教之内有其五时。一四谛教二无相教三抑扬教四一乘教五常住教。从浅至深渐次而说。今此经等诸般若教在第二时名无相教。或有说者出世教门不过三品。所谓经说三种法轮如解深密经言。胜义生菩萨白言世尊。初于一时在波罗泥斯仙人堕处施鹿林中。唯为发趣声闻乘者以四谛相转正法轮。虽是甚奇甚为希有。而是法轮有上有容。是未了义是诸诤论安足处所。世尊在昔第二时中唯为发趣修大乘者。依一切法空无自性无生无灭本来寂静自性涅槃。以隐密相转正法轮。而是法轮亦是有上是未了义是诸诤论安足处所。世尊于今第三时中普为发趣一切乘者。依一切法空无自性无生无灭。本来寂静自性涅槃无自性性。以显了相转正法轮。无上无容是其了义。非诸诤论安足处所。今此大品并诸般若皆是第二法轮所摄。问是二师说何者为实。答二种教门三种法轮是就一途亦有道理。然其判此大品经等皆属第二时摄。第二法轮者理必不然。违经论故。如此论释毕定品言。须菩提闻法华经说若于佛所作小功德。乃至戏笑一称南无佛。渐渐必当作佛。又闻阿鞞跋致品中有退不退如法华经中。毕定余经说有退有不退。是故今问为毕定为不毕定。乃至广说。以是 现代汉语译本： 不同。现在姑且简略地提出两种说法来评判是非。有人说，佛陀的教化方式不出两种途径：一是顿教，二是渐教。渐教之中又有五个阶段：一是四谛教（苦、集、灭、道），二是无相教，三是抑扬教，四是一乘教，五是常住教。从浅到深，逐渐地进行阐述。现在这部经等各种《般若经》属于第二个阶段，名为无相教。或者有人说，佛陀出世的教化方式不超过三种品类，也就是经中所说的三种法轮，如《解深密经》所说：胜义生菩萨问道：‘世尊，最初您在波罗奈斯（Varanasi）仙人堕处（Isipatana，即鹿野苑）的鹿林中，仅仅为那些发起声闻乘（Śrāvakayāna，小乘）的人，以四谛之相转正法轮。虽然非常奇特，非常稀有，但是这个法轮是有局限的，是不究竟的，是各种争论的安立之处。世尊在过去第二个阶段中，仅仅为那些发起修习大乘（Mahāyāna）的人，依据一切法空无自性、无生无灭、本来寂静、自性涅槃的道理，以隐秘之相转正法轮。但是这个法轮也是有局限的，是不究竟的，是各种争论的安立之处。世尊现在第三个阶段中，普遍地为那些发起一切乘（一切修行方法）的人，依据一切法空无自性、无生无灭、本来寂静、自性涅槃、无自性性的道理，以显了之相转正法轮。是无上无局限的，是究竟的，不是各种争论的安立之处。’现在这部《大品般若经》以及各种《般若经》都属于第二法轮所摄。问：这两种说法哪一种是真实的？答：两种教门、三种法轮，就某一方面来说也有道理。然而，如果判定这部《大品般若经》等都属于第二时所摄，属于第二法轮，那一定是不对的，因为这与经论相违背。如此，《释毕定品》中说，须菩提（Subhūti）听闻《法华经》说，如果在佛陀那里做一点小小的功德，乃至戏笑时念一声‘南无佛’，渐渐地必定能够成佛。又听闻《阿鞞跋致品》（Avivartaniya-cakra，不退转品）中说有退转和不退转，如《法华经》中所说，必定成佛，而其他经典中说有退转和不退转。因此现在问，是必定成佛还是不必定成佛？乃至广泛地进行论述。因此 以是
English
English version: Different. Now, let's briefly present two viewpoints to judge what is right and wrong. Some say that the Buddha's teachings do not go beyond two paths: one is the sudden teaching (顿教, dùnjiào), and the other is the gradual teaching (渐教, jiànjiào). Within the gradual teaching, there are five stages: first, the Four Noble Truths teaching (四谛教, sìdìjiào) (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path); second, the teaching of no-characteristics (无相教, wúxiàngjiào); third, the teaching of praise and criticism (抑扬教, yìyángjiào); fourth, the One Vehicle teaching (一乘教, yīchéngjiào); and fifth, the teaching of permanence (常住教, chángzhùjiào). From shallow to deep, they are explained gradually. Now, this scripture and various Prajñā scriptures belong to the second stage, called the teaching of no-characteristics. Or some say that the Buddha's teachings in the world do not exceed three categories, which are the three turnings of the Dharma wheel as mentioned in the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* (解深密经): 'Bodhisattva Sheng Yisheng (胜义生菩萨, Shèngyìshēng Púsà) asked, 'World Honored One, initially, at one time, in the Deer Park (鹿林, lùlín) at Isipatana (仙人堕处, xiānrén duòchù) in Varanasi (波罗奈斯, Bōluónàisī), you only turned the Dharma wheel of the Four Noble Truths for those who aspire to the Śrāvakayāna (声闻乘, Shēngwénchéng, Hearer Vehicle). Although it is very wonderful and very rare, this Dharma wheel has limitations and is not ultimate; it is a place where various disputes arise. In the past, in the second period, the World Honored One only turned the Dharma wheel in a hidden way for those who aspire to practice the Mahāyāna (大乘, Dàchéng, Great Vehicle), based on the principle that all dharmas are empty of self-nature, without arising or ceasing, originally tranquil, and of the nature of nirvāṇa. But this Dharma wheel also has limitations and is not ultimate; it is a place where various disputes arise. Now, in the third period, the World Honored One universally turns the Dharma wheel in a clear way for those who aspire to all vehicles (all methods of practice), based on the principle that all dharmas are empty of self-nature, without arising or ceasing, originally tranquil, of the nature of nirvāṇa, and of no-self-nature. It is supreme and without limitations; it is ultimate and not a place where various disputes arise.' Now, this *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (大品般若经) and various Prajñā scriptures all belong to the second turning of the Dharma wheel. Question: Which of these two statements is true? Answer: The two teachings and the three turnings of the Dharma wheel are reasonable in some respects. However, if it is determined that this *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* and others all belong to the second period and the second turning of the Dharma wheel, then it must be incorrect, because it contradicts the scriptures and treatises. Thus, in the *Explanation of the Chapter on Certainty* (释毕定品), it says that Subhūti (须菩提, Xūpútí) heard the *Lotus Sūtra* say that if one performs even a small merit at the Buddha's place, or even utters 'Namo Buddha' (南无佛) in jest, one will gradually become a Buddha. Also, in the *Chapter on Non-retrogression* (阿鞞跋致品, Ābēibázhì pǐn, Avivartaniya-cakra), it says that there is retrogression and non-retrogression, as the *Lotus Sūtra* says, one will certainly become a Buddha, while other scriptures say that there is retrogression and non-retrogression. Therefore, the question now is whether one will certainly become a Buddha or not? And so on, extensively discussing. Therefore, Therefore --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
验知说是经时在法华后。即示第二时者不应道理也。问若判此经在法华后者是说云何通。如仁王经言尔时大众各相谓言。大觉世尊前已为我等大众二十九年说摩诃般若金刚般若天王问般若光赞般若波罗蜜。今日如来放大光明斯作何事。答摩诃般若非一众多。有在前说有在后说如论说言。此经二万二千偈。大般若十万偈。若龙王宫阿修罗宫天宫中者千亿万偈。乃至广说。以是义故不相违也。又此论云复次有二种说法。一者诤处二者无诤处。诤处者如余经。今欲明无诤处故说是摩诃般若波罗蜜经。以此证知。今此经者同于第三显了法轮。非诸诤论安足处故。而判此经等示第二法轮。是即此经为诤论处。不应谓论说是无诤。又此经言欲求三乘菩提当学般若波罗蜜。又言波若波罗蜜中虽无法可得。而有三乘之教乃至广说。如解深密经中。亦言一切声闻独觉菩萨皆是一妙清净道。当知此经同彼第三普为发趣一切乘者。以显了相转正法轮。而彼第二法轮中言唯为发趣修大乘者。何得以此属彼第二。又此经如化品言。若法有生灭者如化。若法无生无灭。所谓无诳相涅槃。是法非变化。须菩提言如佛所说一切诸法性空。非声闻作乃至非诸佛作。云何涅槃一法非如化。佛言如是如是。一切法性常空。若新发意菩萨闻一切法皆是性空乃至涅 现代汉语译本： 如果验证得知此经是在《法华经》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）之后所说，那么将其归为第二时期的说法是不合理的。问：如果判定此经在《法华经》之后，那么经中所说如何解释？例如，《仁王经》（Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra）中说：‘当时大众互相说道，大觉世尊先前已经为我们大众二十九年宣说了《摩诃般若》（Mahāprajñā）、《金刚般若》（Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）、《天王问般若》（Devendraparipṛcchā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）、《光赞般若波罗蜜》（Suvikrāntavikrāmī Samādhi Sūtra）。今天如来放出大光明，这是要做什么呢？’答：‘《摩诃般若》并非只有一种，而是有很多种。有在前说的，也有在后说的。’如论中所说：‘此经有二万二千偈（śloka），《大般若》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）有十万偈。如果在龙王宫、阿修罗宫、天宫中，则有千亿万偈。’乃至广说。因为这个缘故，所以并不矛盾。而且此论中说：‘复次，有两种说法，一种是诤论之处，一种是无诤论之处。诤论之处如同其他经典。现在想要阐明无诤论之处，所以宣说这部《摩诃般若波罗蜜经》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）。’以此可以得知，这部经等同于第三个显了法轮（Dharma-cakra）。不是各种诤论可以安身的地方。而判定此经等同于第二法轮，就是认为此经是诤论之处。不应该说此论说的是无诤。而且此经说：‘想要寻求三乘菩提（bodhi），应当学习般若波罗蜜（Prajñāpāramitā）。’又说‘般若波罗蜜中虽然没有法可以得到，但是有三乘的教义。’乃至广说。如同《解深密经》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）中也说，一切声闻（Śrāvaka）、独觉（Pratyekabuddha）、菩萨（Bodhisattva）都是同一妙清净道。应当知道此经如同彼经，普遍地为了发起一切乘的人，以显了相转正法轮。而彼第二法轮中说，只为发起修大乘的人。怎么能将此经归属于彼第二法轮呢？而且此经如化品中说：‘如果法有生灭，就像幻化。如果法无生无灭，所谓无诳相涅槃（Nirvāṇa），此法不是变化。’须菩提（Subhūti）说：‘如佛所说，一切诸法性空，不是声闻所作，乃至不是诸佛所作。为什么涅槃一法不是如幻化？’佛说：‘是的，是的。一切法性常空。如果新发意菩萨听到一切法皆是性空，乃至涅