English
English version An outsider further asked: 'If the Buddha is neither existent nor nonexistent, how should one focus the mind to contemplate the Buddha's body?' The commentator replied: 'In such a nature of emptiness, even thought is unattainable.' Therefore, one should know that even a slight attempt to grasp with the mind will violate the true meaning of the Buddha. If that is the case, can one use the view of permanence to regard the Buddha? Question: These are probably just the words of negation in the *Mādhyamaka-kārikā* (Treatise on the Middle Way), expedient methods to counter wrong views. I wonder, what is the true form of the Buddha as explained in the *Lotus Sūtra* (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra)? Answer: The *Mādhyamaka-kārikā* says, 'The *Tathāgata's* (Thus Come One) nature is quiescent extinction,' distinguishing the Buddha as either existent or nonexistent is not the true Buddha. The *Lotus Sūtra* says, 'The nature of all *dharmas* (teachings) is quiescent extinction, which cannot be expressed in words.' The commentator still uses the quiescent extinction of the *Lotus Sūtra* to explain the *dharmakāya* (body of the Dharma). Since the *Mādhyamaka-kārikā* has already clarified that the *dharmakāya* transcends the four possibilities (existence, nonexistence, both existence and nonexistence, neither existence nor nonexistence), how could this *sūtra* not transcend the hundred negations? Therefore, the *Chapter on the Duration of Life of the Tathāgata* (Tathāgata-āyuṣ-pramāṇa-parivarta) briefly explains that the *dharmakāya* possesses ten non-characteristics, namely, it is not like beings in the *triloka* (three realms) appearing in the *triloka*, it has no birth, death, regression, or emergence, nor is there existence in the world or *parinirvāṇa* (complete extinction), it is neither real nor unreal, neither the same nor different, yet it can ride the Buddha vehicle, which is neither permanent nor impermanent, and the *dharma* (teaching) it rides is neither three nor one, but is only praised as one to counter the past three vehicles, and is falsely said to be permanent to counter the past view that the Buddha is impermanent. Speaking of one and speaking of permanence is called the '妙' (wondrous) in function; neither permanent nor impermanent, neither three nor one, the quiescence of words and speech is called the '妙' (wondrous) in essence. Question: Since the Buddha vehicle is considered '妙' (wondrous), can all the teachings from beginning to end that explain the Buddha also be considered '妙' (wondrous)? Answer: Regarding a single period of teaching (from beginning to end), it can be discussed from five aspects: 1. Fundamental '妙' (wondrous), 2. Branch-end '妙' (wondrous), 3. Gathering the branch-ends back to the fundamental '妙' (wondrous), 4. Absolute '妙' (wondrous), 5. Non-coarse '妙' (wondrous). The fundamental '妙' (wondrous) refers to the assembly of the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* (Flower Garland Sutra), which clarifies the cause and effect of the one vehicle and the ultimate *dharmakāya*, so the text says, 'To make beings generate joyful goodness, it appears to be born in the royal palace; to make beings generate longing goodness, it appears to enter *parinirvāṇa* in the twin *śāla* trees. The *Tathāgata* actually neither appears in the world nor enters *nirvāṇa*. Why? The *dharmakāya*' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
常住同法界故。”二、枝末妙，“于一佛乘分别说三”，三中之二目之为粗，佛乘为胜故称为妙。故此经云“唯一事实，余二则非实”。三、摄末归本妙，即此经中所辨佛乘究竟圆满，故称为妙。四、绝待妙者，上来三种妙是皆对粗明妙，未是好妙，然第四妙非粗非妙，不知何以目之，强叹为妙，故是绝待妙也。 问： 何处有此绝待妙文？ 答： 《涅槃》云“对苦说乐，乐还成苦，非苦非乐方名大乐”，又云“不因小涅槃名大涅槃故”，《智度论》云“十八空为相待空，独空非相待空”，既有待、不待二空，宁无待、不待两妙？又罗什学士道场惠观著《法花．序》云“秤之为妙而体绝精粗，寄花宣微道玄像表，颂曰‘是法不可示，言辞相寂灭’，二乘所以息虑、补处所以绝崖。”作序竟，示罗什，罗什叹曰：“善男子！自不深入经藏，不能作如是说也。”又《注法花经》云“非三非一尽相为妙，非大非小通物为法”，故知绝待释妙，关河旧宗也。 五、无粗妙者即净土法门，故香积菩萨云“我土无有声闻辟支佛名”，即无粗也，“唯有清净大菩萨众”，谓有妙也。《智度论》云“七珍世界纯诸菩萨”，亦是其事。此五种妙即是次第，又摄十方三世诸佛净秽二土一切教门。 现代汉语译本： ‘常住同法界故。’二、枝末妙，‘于一佛乘分别说三’，三中之二目之为粗，佛乘为胜故称为妙。故此经云‘唯一事实，余二则非实’。三、摄末归本妙，即此经中所辨佛乘究竟圆满，故称为妙。四、绝待妙者，上来三种妙是皆对粗明妙，未是好妙，然第四妙非粗非妙，不知何以目之，强叹为妙，故是绝待妙也。 问： 何处有此绝待妙文？ 答： 《涅槃经》云‘对苦说乐，乐还成苦，非苦非乐方名大乐’，又云‘不因小涅槃（Nirvana，寂灭）名大涅槃（Nirvana，寂灭）故’，《智度论》云‘十八空为相待空，独空非相待空’，既有待、不待二空，宁无待、不待两妙？又鸠摩罗什（Kumarajiva）学士道场惠观著《法华．序》云‘秤之为妙而体绝精粗，寄花宣微道玄像表，颂曰‘是法不可示，言辞相寂灭’，二乘所以息虑、补处所以绝崖。’作序竟，示鸠摩罗什（Kumarajiva），鸠摩罗什（Kumarajiva）叹曰：‘善男子！自不深入经藏，不能作如是说也。’又《注法花经》云‘非三非一尽相为妙，非大非小通物为法’，故知绝待释妙，关河旧宗也。 五、无粗妙者即净土法门，故香积菩萨云‘我土无有声闻辟支佛名’，即无粗也，‘唯有清净大菩萨众’，谓有妙也。《智度论》云‘七珍世界纯诸菩萨’，亦是其事。此五种妙即是次第，又摄十方三世诸佛净秽二土一切教门。
English
English version: 'It constantly abides in the same Dharma Realm.' Second, the subtlety of branches and leaves: 'To separately explain three within the One Buddha Vehicle.' Two out of the three are considered coarse, while the Buddha Vehicle is superior, hence called subtle. Therefore, this sutra says, 'Only the one reality, the other two are not real.' Third, the subtlety of gathering the branches and leaves back to the root, which is the ultimate and complete Buddha Vehicle as explained in this sutra, hence called subtle. Fourth, the subtlety of absolute transcendence: the above three kinds of subtlety are all subtle in contrast to coarseness, not yet truly subtle. However, the fourth subtlety is neither coarse nor subtle, and it is not known how to describe it, so it is reluctantly praised as subtle, hence it is the subtlety of absolute transcendence. Question: Where is this text of absolute transcendence? Answer: The *Nirvana Sutra* says, 'Speaking of happiness in contrast to suffering, happiness turns into suffering; neither suffering nor happiness is called great happiness.' It also says, 'Not because of small Nirvana (Nirvana, extinction) is it called great Nirvana (Nirvana, extinction).' The *Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra* says, 'The eighteen emptinesses are relative emptiness, while solitary emptiness is not relative emptiness.' Since there are relative and non-relative emptinesses, how can there not be relative and non-relative subtleties? Furthermore, the scholar Kumarajiva (Kumarajiva)'s disciple Hui-guan wrote in the preface to the *Lotus Sutra*, 'Weighing it as subtle, its essence transcends refinement and coarseness, conveying the subtle doctrine through flowers, revealing the profound image, the verse says, 'This Dharma cannot be shown, words and speech are silent and extinct,' the two vehicles therefore cease thought, and the Bodhisattva destined to Buddhahood severs the precipice.' After finishing the preface, he showed it to Kumarajiva (Kumarajiva), who exclaimed, 'Good man! Without deeply entering the sutra treasury, one could not make such a statement.' Also, the *Commentary on the Lotus Sutra* says, 'Neither three nor one, exhausting all forms is subtlety; neither large nor small, pervading all things is Dharma.' Therefore, it is known that explaining subtlety as absolute transcendence is an old tradition. Fifth, the subtlety of non-coarseness is the Pure Land Dharma gate. Therefore, Bodhisattva Fragrant Accumulation says, 'In my land, there are no names of Sravakas or Pratyekabuddhas,' which means there is no coarseness, 'only pure great Bodhisattva assemblies,' which means there is subtlety. The *Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra* says, 'The world of seven treasures is purely filled with Bodhisattvas,' which is also the case. These five kinds of subtlety are in sequence, and they encompass all teachings of the pure and impure lands of all Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 问： 已知此经辨正果妙，亦得辨因妙不？ 答：
Chinese
有人言，此经明因未辨佛性，但明万善缘因成佛，望前三乘之因故名为妙，若望后《涅槃》佛性正因，未是妙也。今以十种文义推之，不同此释：一者、大乘若有三则有三性，既道理唯一佛乘，所以唯一佛性也。二者、若言此经但明善人有佛性、恶人无佛性，异《涅槃经》者，常不轻菩萨见增上慢四众恶人云“我不轻汝等，汝等行菩萨道，必当作佛”。《法花论》释云“示一切众生皆有佛性，故悉当作佛”。以此推之，知非善人独有佛性。又〈譬喻品〉劝信文云“汝等若能信受是语，一切皆当得成佛道”，此分明说一切成佛，岂简恶人？三者、若此经但有一乘名故不明佛性者，盖是未识一法多名故生此谬耳。《涅槃》云“佛性有五名，一乘则五中之一”，又言“佛性亦一非一。云何为一？一切众生同一乘故为一。云何非一？非数法故”，则知佛性与一乘皆是异名。四、引例释之，若言此经无佛性语即是未明佛性者，《涅槃》、《花严》无八识之名，亦无变易生死之语，则》涅槃》》花严》应未明八识及二生死也。五者、《宝性论》云“《究竟一乘经》说有如来藏及三宝无差别”，此经既明究竟一乘，则知亦辨如来藏，故〈信解品〉云“而不为我分 现代汉语译本 问： 既然已经知道这部经书辨明了果地的妙处，那么它也能辨明因地的妙处吗？ 答： 有人说，这部经书阐明了因，但没有辨明佛性（Buddha-nature），只是阐明了万善的缘因成就佛果，相对于之前的声闻、缘觉、菩萨三乘之因，所以称之为妙。如果相对于后来的《涅槃经》（Nirvana Sutra）所说的佛性正因，就还不能算是妙。现在用十种文义来推论，与这种解释不同：第一，大乘（Mahayana）如果有三乘的分别，那么就会有三性（three natures）的分别。既然道理上只有唯一佛乘（One Vehicle），所以也只有唯一的佛性。第二，如果说这部经书只是阐明了善人有佛性，恶人没有佛性，这与《涅槃经》不同。常不轻菩萨（Sadāparibhūta Bodhisattva）见到增上慢的四众恶人时说：‘我不轻视你们，你们行菩萨道，将来必定成佛。’《法华论》（Lotus Sutra Treatise）解释说：‘显示一切众生都有佛性，所以都将成佛。’由此推论，可知并非只有善人才有佛性。又〈譬喻品〉（Parable Chapter）劝信文中说：‘你们如果能够信受这些话，一切都将能够成就佛道。’这分明是说一切众生都能成佛，难道会排除恶人吗？第三，如果说这部经书只因为有一乘之名，所以没有阐明佛性，那是因为不认识一法多名的缘故才产生这种错误。《涅槃经》说：‘佛性有五种名称，一乘是五种名称中的一种。’又说：‘佛性也是一，也不是一。为什么说是一？因为一切众生都同一乘的缘故，所以说是一。为什么说不是一？因为不是可以用数字来计算的法。’由此可知，佛性与一乘都是不同的名称。第四，用例子来解释，如果说这部经书没有佛性之语，就是没有阐明佛性，那么《涅槃经》、《华严经》（Avatamsaka Sutra）没有八识（eight consciousnesses）的名称，也没有变易生死（changeable death and rebirth）的说法，那么《涅槃经》、《华严经》也应该没有阐明八识和二种生死。第五，《宝性论》（Ratnagotravibhāga）说：‘《究竟一乘经》（Uttaratantra）说有如来藏（Tathāgatagarbha）以及三宝（Three Jewels）没有差别。’这部经书既然阐明了究竟一乘，那么就知道它也辨明了如来藏，所以〈信解品〉（Faith Discernment Chapter）说：‘而不为我分别’