English
English version: If this meaning is not clearly explained, it is inferior to the *Prajna Sutra* (Prajna Sutra). Moreover, the *Prajna Sutra* extensively elucidates Reality (Reality), so it is the most profound and vast among all the sutras. The reason for this is that the attainment of the path by the Three Vehicles (Triyana, Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), as well as the severing of delusions and the discernment and repentance of grave offenses, all three of these meanings rely on Reality, and the *Prajna Sutra* precisely and extensively elucidates Reality, so these three meanings are accomplished. Other sutras do not clearly elucidate Reality, so they are inferior to the *Prajna Sutra*. Therefore, the two sutras have mutual strengths and weaknesses, so Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) had different statements about these two texts at different times. Question: Where does this explanation come from? Answer: Master Rui (僧睿, Sengrui, a disciple of Kumarajiva) in the Preface to the *Smaller Prajna Sutra* said that the *Prajna Sutra* and the *Lotus Sutra* (Lotus Sutra) have mutual strengths and weaknesses, saying: 'The *Lotus Sutra* is like the essence of a mirror used to condense and illuminate, the *Prajna Sutra* is like a sharp sword used to cut through what is hanging. The principle of cutting through what is hanging is the Bodhisattva path; condensing and illuminating the essence of the mirror is the final conclusion. If the final conclusion does not disappear, then on the path of return, there are traces of the Three Jewels (Triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) to support; if the possessed wisdom is not easy, then confused thoughts are numerous and there are differences in the interests of delusion. Therefore, the *Lotus Sutra* and the *Prajna Sutra* wait for each other to expect the final completion, expedient means (Upaya) and actualization are united as one to await exhaustion. Discussing their exhaustive investigation of principle, exhaustive nature, and easy explanation of myriad practices, then in reality it is not as good as illumination; taking their great illumination of true transformation and the removal of the originally non-existent three (three poisons), then illumination is not as good as actualization.' Illumination is the *Prajna Sutra*, actualization is the *Lotus Sutra*, so they have mutual strengths and weaknesses, this is the proof. Question: If the two sutras have mutual strengths and weaknesses, why does the *Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa* (Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa) also say 'The *Lotus Sutra* is a different name for the *Prajna Sutra*'? Answer: The *Prajna Sutra* and the *Lotus Sutra* are both Right View (Right View) and Great Wisdom (Great Wisdom), and there is no difference in revealing the truth, so it is said that the *Lotus Sutra* is a different name for the *Prajna Sutra*. Therefore, the *Treatise* says: 'Prajna is one Dharma, the Buddha speaks of various names, according to the power of all beings, different words are established for it.' Now, only from the perspective of doctrine and for the sake of people, there are differences. The doctrine of the *Prajna Sutra* elucidates the Bodhisattva who goes directly to become a Buddha, while the doctrine of the *Lotus Sutra* elucidates the Bodhisattva who turns from the small to the great to become a Buddha. The sutras speak of the differences in people. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
而作佛无异，如长者大宅及以七珍始终无异，但付财之时未得说穷子是长者儿，委家业时始得会其天性以为付子之也。 问： 《波若》未明二乘作佛，得是不了教不？ 答： 《波若》明菩萨作佛，此事显了，于时大机未熟，故不得说二乘成佛。约此一边，亦得称为不了。 问： 若尔，何得《论》释〈毕竟定品〉云“须菩提闻《法花经》明一切成佛，复闻《波若》辨菩萨有退，是故今问佛为毕定为不毕定。此问意审二经之同异。佛答云‘菩萨毕定，毕定者毕定成佛也’”。既明毕定成佛，则唯有一佛乘，不退为声闻则显无二乘。此意明波若同法华教，何得云《波若》未明二乘作佛？ 答： 已如前通，《波若》非一时一座说，初分未明二乘作佛，故与《法花》异；后分明菩萨不退，显有一无二，与《法华》大同，故不相违也。 第三、就法华自论显密。 问： 若《法花》显教菩萨、显化二乘者，则《法花》是显了之教，始终应无覆相之说。若尔，〈化城品〉明三千墨点犹为十六王子沙弥之位，〈寿量品〉明五百万亿阿僧祇世界末为微尘，成佛已来复过是数，则寿量之佛是显了之言，十六王子便是覆相之说，何得一部皆显了耶？ 答 现代汉语译本： 成就佛果并没有什么不同，就像富翁的豪宅以及其中的七宝珍玩始终没有区别一样，只是在给予财产的时候，还不能说穷困的儿子就是富翁的儿子，等到委托家业的时候，才能够明白他本来的天性，认为这是把家业交付给了儿子。 问： 《般若经》（Prajna）没有明确说明二乘（Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha）也能成佛，这是否可以认为是不了义教（Neyartha Sutra）呢？ 答： 《般若经》阐明菩萨（Bodhisattva）能够成佛，这件事已经很明显了，只是当时众生的根机尚未成熟，所以不能说二乘也能成佛。从这个角度来说，也可以称之为不了义教。 问： 如果这样，为什么《论》（Shastra）解释〈毕竟定品〉（Avinivartanīya-dharmacakra）时说：‘须菩提（Subhuti）听闻《法华经》（Lotus Sutra）阐明一切众生皆可成佛，又听闻《般若经》辨析菩萨有退转的可能性，所以现在问佛，菩萨是必定成佛还是不一定成佛。’这个提问意在审视两部经的相同与不同。佛回答说：‘菩萨必定成佛，必定者必定成佛也。’既然阐明必定成佛，那么就只有一佛乘（Ekayana），不退转而成为声闻（Sravaka）就表明没有二乘。这个意思表明《般若经》与《法华经》的教义相同，为什么说《般若经》没有明确说明二乘也能成佛呢？ 答： 我已经像之前那样解释过了，《般若经》不是在同一时间同一地点宣说的，最初的部分没有明确说明二乘也能成佛，所以与《法华经》不同；后面的部分阐明菩萨不会退转，表明只有一乘而没有二乘，与《法华经》非常相同，所以并不矛盾。 第三、就《法华经》自身来讨论显教和密教。 问： 如果《法华经》显教菩萨和显化二乘，那么《法华经》就是显了义教（Nitartha Sutra），始终应该没有覆相之说（hidden meaning）。如果这样，〈化城品〉（Nirmanakaya-parivarta）中阐明的三千尘点劫（asankhyeya-kalpa）仍然是十六王子沙弥的地位，〈寿量品〉（Tathāgata-āyuṣpramāṇa-parivarta）中阐明的五百万亿阿僧祇世界（asankhyeya-loka-dhātu）粉碎为微尘，成佛以来又超过了这个数量，那么〈寿量品〉中关于佛的寿命是显了的说法，而十六王子就是覆相的说法，怎么能说整部经都是显了义呢？ 答：
English
English version: There is no difference in becoming a Buddha, just as there is no difference between a wealthy man's mansion and the seven treasures within it. It's just that when giving the property, one cannot yet say that the poor son is the wealthy man's son. Only when entrusting the family business can one understand his original nature and consider it as handing over the family business to the son. Question: Since the *Prajna* (Wisdom) Sutra does not explicitly state that the Two Vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) can also become Buddhas, can it be considered a provisional teaching (Neyartha Sutra)? Answer: The *Prajna* Sutra clarifies that Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) can become Buddhas. This matter is already clear, but at that time, the capacity of sentient beings was not yet mature, so it could not be said that the Two Vehicles can also become Buddhas. From this perspective, it can also be called a provisional teaching. Question: If so, why does the *Shastra* (Treatise) explain the 'Avinivartanīya-dharmacakra' (Chapter on Non-Regression) by saying: 'Subhuti (Subhuti) heard the *Lotus Sutra* (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) clarify that all beings can become Buddhas, and also heard the *Prajna* Sutra discuss the possibility of Bodhisattvas regressing. Therefore, he now asks the Buddha whether Bodhisattvas are certain to become Buddhas or not.' This question intends to examine the similarities and differences between the two sutras. The Buddha answered: 'Bodhisattvas are certain to become Buddhas; those who are certain are certain to become Buddhas.' Since it clarifies that one is certain to become a Buddha, then there is only One Buddha Vehicle (Ekayana), and not regressing to become a Sravaka (Sravaka) indicates that there are no Two Vehicles. This meaning indicates that the *Prajna* Sutra and the *Lotus Sutra* have the same teachings. Why is it said that the *Prajna* Sutra does not explicitly state that the Two Vehicles can also become Buddhas? Answer: I have already explained it as before. The *Prajna* Sutra was not spoken at one time and one place. The initial part did not explicitly state that the Two Vehicles can also become Buddhas, so it is different from the *Lotus Sutra*. The later part clarifies that Bodhisattvas do not regress, indicating that there is only One Vehicle and no Two Vehicles, which is very similar to the *Lotus Sutra*, so there is no contradiction. Third, let's discuss the explicit and esoteric teachings based on the *Lotus Sutra* itself. Question: If the *Lotus Sutra* explicitly teaches Bodhisattvas and the manifested Two Vehicles, then the *Lotus Sutra* is a definitive teaching (Nitartha Sutra), and there should be no hidden meanings from beginning to end. If so, in the 'Nirmanakaya-parivarta' (Chapter on the Vision of the Jeweled Stupa), the three thousand dust-particle kalpas (asankhyeya-kalpa) are still the position of the sixteen prince novices, and in the 'Tathāgata-āyuṣpramāṇa-parivarta' (Chapter on the Duration of the Life of the Tathagata), the five million billion asankhyeya world-systems (asankhyeya-loka-dhātu) are crushed into dust, and the time since becoming a Buddha exceeds this number. Then the statement about the Buddha's lifespan in the 'Chapter on the Duration of the Life of the Tathagata' is an explicit statement, while the sixteen princes are a hidden statement. How can it be said that the entire sutra is a definitive teaching? Answer: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ：
Chinese
夫立教隐显要炉冶始终，今约一经大分四辙：一、䨱而不开，二、亦开亦覆，三、开而不䨱，四、不开不䨱。䨱而不开，初之一品，嘉瑞交兴、妙轮将转，而未弊二权，犹隐两实，谓覆而不开。亦开亦覆者，始从〈方便品〉终竟〈法师品〉，但明乘权乘实，所谓亦开；犹隐身权身实，秤为亦䨱，故三千墨点始开结缘之始，十六数犹掩成佛之初。开而不䨱者，即后分经也，俱废二权、双显两实，则教无纤隐、理无豪翳，致有十二深益、八种嘉瑞。不开不䨱者，夫借一以破三、三除而一舍，假修以斥短、短息而修忘，故言穷虑绝，何实何权？本性寂灭，孰开孰䨱？理超言外，强秤妙法，道玄像表，假喻莲花。 第四料简显密。 问： 小乘亦是说密一乘不？ 答： 佛说小乘意在悟大乘，故说小乘亦是密说一乘也。 问： 小乘就何文是密说一乘耶？ 答： 如云“三乘人同得人无我、同断烦恼、同入无余”，即是密说三乘同归一道也。 问： 《大品》唯付财是密说一乘，更有余义耶？ 答： 《大品》中明三乘人同是一如、同入法性，即是密说三同入一乘。 问： 显说一乘为何人耶？ 答： 现代汉语译本： 关于建立教义的隐秘与显露，关键在于像冶炼一样贯穿始终。现在根据一部经书，大致分为四个方面：一、覆盖而不开启；二、既开启也覆盖；三、开启而不覆盖；四、不开启也不覆盖。覆盖而不开启，指的是最初的一品，吉祥的征兆交相出现，妙法之轮即将转动，但尚未废除权宜之法，仍然隐藏着真实的教义，这叫做覆盖而不开启。既开启也覆盖，指的是从《方便品》开始到《法师品》结束，只是阐明了权宜之法和真实之法，这可以说是开启；但仍然隐藏着应化之身和真实之身，可以称之为覆盖，所以三千尘点劫的开始是开启结缘的开端，而十六王子时期仍然掩盖着成佛的最初因缘。开启而不覆盖，指的是后半部分的经文，全部废除权宜之法，同时显现真实之法，那么教义就没有丝毫隐藏，道理也没有丝毫遮蔽，从而产生了十二种深刻的利益、八种吉祥的征兆。不开启也不覆盖，指的是借用一法来破除三法，三法去除后一法也舍弃，借用修行来去除缺点，缺点去除后修行也忘记，所以言语穷尽，思虑断绝，哪里还有什么真实和权宜？本性寂静灭亡，谁来开启谁来覆盖？道理超越了言语之外，勉强称之为妙法，道义玄妙超越了形象之外，借用莲花来比喻。 第四个部分是简别显教和密教。 问： 小乘也是在说密教的一乘吗？ 答： 佛陀宣说小乘的用意在于使人领悟大乘，所以说小乘也是秘密地宣说一乘。 问： 小乘经文中的哪一句是秘密地宣说一乘呢？ 答： 比如经中说‘三乘人共同证得人无我（anatta, 无我的意思）、共同断除烦恼（klesha, 烦恼的意思）、共同进入无余涅槃（nirvana, 涅槃的意思）’，这就是秘密地宣说三乘最终归于同一道路。 问： 《大品般若经》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中只有‘付财’是秘密地宣说一乘，还有其他的含义吗？ 答： 《大品般若经》中阐明三乘人同是一如、共同进入法性（dharmata, 法性的意思），这就是秘密地宣说三乘共同进入一乘。 问： 显教所说的一乘是为哪种人说的呢？ 答：