English
English version: There are three views: The first view is that although this Sutra elucidates the cause of the Ekayana (One Vehicle), it still perceives the result of impermanence. Therefore, the text says, 'The number of dust particles passed in the past, the future will exceed this number'; also, the 'Medicinal Herbs Parable' says, 'Ultimate Nirvana (liberation) the aspect of eternal tranquility and extinction ultimately returns to emptiness,' meaning that ultimately the body is reduced to ashes and wisdom is extinguished, entering Nirvana without remainder (Parinirvana), so it is still impermanent; it is only in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra that the principle of permanence is elucidated. Since it is impermanent, then it should be coarse, but compared to the previous sutras that did not elucidate the number of dust particles passed in the past, the future will exceed this number, so it praises this Sutra as being subtle. If compared to the teachings of the Nirvana Sutra, then this Sutra is still coarse. The second explanation is that this Sutra has already elucidated permanence, but it has not yet been fully revealed, but rather elucidates permanence in a concealed manner. The reason for this is that this Sutra has not removed the eight inversions (Eight inversions), nor has it elucidated the four virtues (Four virtues), but only elucidates infinite lifespan, so it elucidates permanence in a concealed manner; it is only in the Nirvana Sutra that permanence is clearly elucidated. The third explanation is that from the perspective of the Hinayana (Smaller Vehicle) teachings, it elucidates the concealed teaching of impermanence, while all Mahayana (Greater Vehicle) sutras are permanent, fully revealed without remainder. Now, to summarize these three views, the first explanation is for people of inferior capacity, the second explanation is for people of medium capacity, and the third explanation is for people of superior capacity. The reason for this is that the first explanation's fault of slandering the Dharma is too deep, so it is of inferior capacity; the second explanation's criticism is slightly lighter, and can be called medium capacity; the third explanation claims to be ultimate, but clings to the teachings and becomes deluded, so it is a person of superior capacity. All of these are self-differentiated into three categories within attachment. Question: Why is the first explanation's fault of slandering the Dharma so deep? Answer: Now, examining it from four aspects, we can know that the slander is very deep. First, using the teachings before the Lotus Sutra to make things difficult; second, using the text of the Lotus Sutra to rebuke it; third, seeking old sayings from Guanhe (place name); fourth, using reasoning to infer and rebuke. The teachings before the Lotus Sutra refer to the Larger and Smaller Prajnaparamita Sutras (Prajnaparamita Sutra) and the Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakirti Sutra), etc. The 'Sadaprarudita' chapter of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 'The Rupakaya (form body) of the Buddhas has coming and going, the Dharmakaya (dharma body) has no coming and going,' and the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra (Diamond Sutra) says, 'The Trikaya (three bodies) are different entities, apart from them is the Tathagata (Thus Come One),' so we know that the Tathagata is not a conditioned dharma, the Rupakaya is --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
是常住。《净名．方便品》云“此身可患厌，当乐法身”，盖是毁生死身无常，即叹法身常住，故逼引之教成、欣厌之观立。若生死无常法身复改起灭者，则同可厌弃，何所欣哉？故逼引之教不成、欣厌之观行不立。〈弟子品〉云“法身无漏诸漏已尽”，此明无有无常因也，“法身无为不堕诸数”，此明佛果无为常住也。寻《波若》、《净名》，是《法花》前教当辨常住，《法花》居二经之后，宁是无常耶？ 次、用法花文破之。〈方便品〉云“我虽说涅槃是亦非真灭，诸法从本来常自寂灭相”，此文明今昔大小二灭之真伪也。昔小灭非真灭，今大灭是真灭；昔小涅槃非真涅槃，今大涅槃是真涅槃。若尔者，即昔小常非真常，今大常是真常。〈譬喻品〉云“但离虚妄名为解脱，其实未得一切解脱”，声闻之人但断四住惑，名离虚妄，未断无明住地，即显今教具断五住地名一切解脱。若尔者，小乘之人二生死之因未倾故是无常，如来五住地并尽所以是常住。乃至〈寿量品〉云“寿命无量阿僧祇劫常住不灭”，文处甚多，不可具列。 问： 若此经已明常住，何故〈寿量品〉云“复倍上数”耶？ 答： 《法花论》云“复倍上数者，示现如来常命不可尽故”，则知此文非无常矣。 现代汉语译本 是常住。《净名．方便品》说：‘这个身体令人厌患，应当欣乐法身’，这说明贬损生死之身是无常的，就是赞叹法身是常住的，所以逼迫引导的教化才能成立，欣求厌离的观行才能确立。如果生死是无常的，法身也随着改变生灭，那就同样令人厌弃，还有什么可欣求的呢？所以逼迫引导的教化不能成立，欣求厌离的观行也不能确立。《弟子品》说：‘法身没有烦恼，各种烦恼已经断尽’，这说明没有无常的原因，‘法身是无为的，不落入各种数量之中’，这说明佛果是无为常住的。考察《般若经》、《维摩诘经》，是《法华经》之前的教义，应当分辨常住的道理，《法华经》在两部经之后，难道是无常的吗？ 其次，用《法华经》的经文来破斥这种观点。《方便品》说：‘我虽然说涅槃，但那也不是真正的灭度，诸法从本来就是常自寂灭的’，这段经文说明过去和现在、小乘和大乘两种灭度的真假。过去小乘的灭度不是真正的灭度，现在大乘的灭度才是真正的灭度；过去小乘的涅槃不是真正的涅槃，现在大乘的涅槃才是真正的涅槃。如果这样，那么过去小乘的常不是真常，现在大乘的常才是真常。《譬喻品》说：‘只是离开虚妄才叫做解脱，其实还没有得到一切解脱’，声闻之人只是断除了四住地的迷惑，叫做离开虚妄，没有断除无明住地，这就显示了现在的教义能够完全断除五住地，叫做一切解脱。如果这样，那么小乘之人二种生死的因没有消除，所以是无常的，如来五住地都断尽了，所以是常住的。乃至《寿量品》说：‘寿命无量阿僧祇劫（无数劫）常住不灭’，这样的经文很多，不能全部列举。 问： 如果这部经已经说明了常住，为什么《寿量品》还说‘复倍上数’呢？ 答： 《法华论》说：‘复倍上数，是显示如来的寿命不可穷尽’，这样就知道这段经文不是说无常的。
English
English version 'It is permanence.' The *Vimalakirti Sutra*, *Upaya Chapter*, states, 'This body is a source of suffering and aversion; one should delight in the Dharmakaya (法身, body of the Dharma).' This explains that denouncing the impermanence of the body of birth and death is praising the permanence of the Dharmakaya. Therefore, the teaching of forceful guidance can be established, and the contemplation of seeking joy and rejecting aversion can be established. If birth and death are impermanent, and the Dharmakaya also changes and arises and ceases, then it is equally worthy of aversion. What is there to rejoice in? Therefore, the teaching of forceful guidance cannot be established, and the contemplation of seeking joy and rejecting aversion cannot be practiced. The *Disciples Chapter* states, 'The Dharmakaya is without outflows, and all outflows are exhausted.' This clarifies that there is no cause for impermanence. 'The Dharmakaya is unconditioned and does not fall into numbers.' This clarifies that the fruit of Buddhahood is unconditioned and permanent. Examining the *Prajna Sutra* (波若, wisdom sutra) and the *Vimalakirti Sutra* (净名, Vimalakirti Sutra), these are teachings before the *Lotus Sutra* (法花, Lotus Sutra), and one should discern permanence. The *Lotus Sutra* comes after these two sutras; how could it be impermanent? Secondly, use the text of the *Lotus Sutra* to refute this. The *Upaya Chapter* states, 'Although I speak of Nirvana (涅槃, extinction), it is not true extinction. All dharmas (法, teachings) are originally in a state of constant and quiescent extinction.' This passage explains the truth and falsehood of the two extinctions, past and present, small and great. The past small extinction is not true extinction; the present great extinction is true extinction. The past small Nirvana is not true Nirvana; the present great Nirvana is true Nirvana. If so, then the past small permanence is not true permanence; the present great permanence is true permanence. The *Parable Chapter* states, 'Only by leaving behind falsehood is it called liberation, but in reality, one has not attained complete liberation.' Those of the *Sravaka* (声闻, Hearer) vehicle only sever the delusions of the four abodes, which is called leaving behind falsehood, but they have not severed the ground of ignorance. This shows that the present teaching completely severs the five abodes, which is called complete liberation. If so, then the cause of the two births and deaths of those of the Small Vehicle has not been eliminated, so it is impermanent. The *Tathagata* (如来, Thus Come One) has exhausted the five abodes, so it is permanent. Even the *Lifespan Chapter* states, 'Lifespan is immeasurable *asamkhya* (阿僧祇劫, countless) *kalpas* (劫, eons), constantly abiding and not perishing.' There are many such passages; they cannot all be listed. Question: If this sutra has already clarified permanence, why does the *Lifespan Chapter* say 'again doubling the above number'? Answer: The *Lotus Sutra Treatise* (法花论, Treatise on the Lotus Sutra) states, 'Doubling the above number shows that the *Tathagata's* lifespan cannot be exhausted.' Thus, we know that this passage does not mean impermanence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
三、用关河旧释者，关中僧睿面受罗什《法花》，其经〈序〉云“分身明其不实，寿量定其非数”。分身明其不实者，释迦与诸佛互指为分身，则知俱非实佛，实佛者谓如来妙法身也。寿量定其非数者，寿者不可数，明如来寿命不堕诸数中，是常住。与《法花论》玄会也，又与《净名经》“佛身无为不堕诸数”其义同也。河西道朗著《法花疏》，释〈见宝塔品〉“明法身常住理无存没，亦〈寿量品〉明如来寿量同虚空，一切世间唯身与命，今随从世法亦明斯两，故前明法身常、后辨寿无灭”，与《涅槃经》前明长寿、后辨金刚身无异也。 第四、明用义难者，凡有十义：一者、此经虽明因果而妙义在果，因未圆极则犹未妙，若佛果犹是无常，无常则苦，既无常苦则无我不净，乃是粗法，何名为妙？二者、经云“为一大事因缘故出现于世”，何容终始以无常不了粗法以化物耶？此则乖父子恩情、伤诸佛本意。三者、前明一乘异昔三乘，后明常住异昔无常。以一乘异昔三乘故，得以一乘为药破于三病；以常异昔无常故，亦得以常住为药破无常病，则是双治之义。若今犹是无常者，但有以一破三，无有以常破无常，则治病未圆、显理不足。四者、若一乘异三，而一乘之果犹是无常者，则还同昔异，终是三乘，则无一乘 现代汉语译本 三、关于引用关河旧注的人，关中僧人僧睿曾亲从鸠摩罗什学习《法华经》，其经文的〈序品〉中说：‘分身表明其并非真实的，寿量确定其并非可数的。’分身表明其并非真实的，是指释迦牟尼佛与诸佛相互指认为分身，那么就知道都不是真实的佛，真实的佛是指如来妙法身。寿量确定其并非可数的，是指寿命不可计数，表明如来的寿命不属于任何数量之中，是常住的。这与《法华论》的玄妙之处相合，又与《维摩诘经》中‘佛身无为，不属于任何数量’的含义相同。河西道朗著有《法华疏》，解释〈见宝塔品〉时说：‘阐明法身常住的道理，没有存亡，〈寿量品〉也阐明如来的寿量如同虚空，一切世间只有身与命，现在随顺世间法也阐明这两点，所以前面阐明法身常住，后面辨明寿命没有灭亡’，这与《涅槃经》前面阐明长寿，后面辨明金刚身没有差异是相同的。 第四、关于阐明义理的困难之处，总共有十个方面：第一，这部经虽然阐明因果，但妙义在于果，因为因还没有圆满到极点，所以还不是妙。如果佛果仍然是无常的，无常就是苦，既然是无常和苦，那就是无我与不净，乃是粗糙的法，怎么能称为妙呢？第二，经中说‘为了一个重大因缘的缘故出现在世间’，怎么能从始至终用无常和不究竟的粗法来教化众生呢？这就有违父子之间的恩情，伤害诸佛的本意。第三，前面阐明一乘不同于过去的三乘，后面阐明常住不同于过去的无常。因为一乘不同于过去的三乘，所以能够用一乘作为药来破除三种病；因为常住不同于过去的无常，所以也能够用常住作为药来破除无常的病，这就是双重治疗的意义。如果现在仍然是无常的，那么就只有用一来破除三，没有用常住来破除无常，那么治疗疾病就不圆满，显现真理就不充分。第四，如果一乘不同于三乘，而一乘的果仍然是无常的，那么就又和过去相同了，最终还是三乘，那就没有一乘了。