English
English version: The Nirvana Sutra, in explaining the ‘Seven Goodnesses,’ states ‘knowing the Dharma and knowing the meaning.’ Knowing the Dharma refers to the twelve divisions of scriptures, and knowing the meaning refers to the principle expressed by the teachings. Therefore, the text that can express the teachings is taken as the substance of the sutra, and the principle expressed is taken as the doctrine of the sutra. To say that the doctrine and substance are one is because the principle expressed is the doctrine of principle, and the text that can explain also explains the doctrine, so the doctrine and substance are not two. Now, the use of ‘one’ and ‘different’ should be determined according to the specific situation, and the key lies in understanding, and the meaning is not fixed. In the past, in Kuaiji, there were thirteen interpretations of the doctrine of the Lotus Sutra. Now, I will briefly explain the three most popular views in the world: The first view is that the cause of ten thousand good deeds is the doctrine of this sutra. The reason for this is that although this sutra has seven volumes, its doctrine returns to Ekayana (One Vehicle), and this ‘vehicle’ is the ‘cause.’ Therefore, ‘vehicle’ is used to express the meaning of carrying and outputting, carrying practitioners from the cause to the effect. When the effect is reached, there is no further room for improvement, so it is not a ‘vehicle.’ As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, ‘This vehicle comes out of the Three Realms and dwells in Sarvajna (All-Knowing Wisdom).’ The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra explains this sentence by saying, ‘When the vehicle reaches Bodhi (Enlightenment), it transforms into Sarvajnatā (All-Knowing Wisdom),’ so we know that the cause is the vehicle. The Srimala Sutra says, ‘On the Buddha's fruit, there is no further talk of the One Vehicle Dharma,’ so we know that the fruit is not the vehicle. Question: The first part of this sutra clearly explains the cause, and the latter part distinguishes the fruit. Why is the cause taken as the doctrine? Answer: The latter part distinguishes the fruit to achieve the previous cause, because cultivating the cause of the One Vehicle can obtain the fruit of longevity. Therefore, the fruit is used to achieve the cause, and the cause is taken as the doctrine. The second view is that some people say that this sutra takes the fruit as the doctrine. The reason for this is that to understand the doctrine of the sutra, one should observe the title of the sutra. The title says ‘Wonderful Dharma,’ which refers to the Tathagata's (Tathāgata, Thus Come One) spiritual wisdom as the substance, which can cultivate dust and impurities, so that all dust and impurities are eliminated, so it is called ‘Wonderful.’ It can establish norms for all things, so it is called ‘Dharma.’ From the position of cause, the coarse Dharma has not been completely eliminated, so it cannot be called ‘Wonderful.’ Since the fruit virtue is the Wonderful Dharma, the fruit virtue is the doctrine of the sutra. Therefore, Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha) began to sing the profoundness of the Buddha's wisdom with mysterious sounds, and Prabhutaratna (Prabhutaratna, the Buddha in the Treasure Tower) praised ‘Excellent’ and praised the equality of great wisdom, which is the proof. The third view is that some people say that this sutra includes both the cause of the One Vehicle and the fruit of the One Vehicle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
宗，故初分明一乘之因，后章明一乘之果，借莲花为喻者，此花不有而已，有即花实俱含，此经不说而已，说即有因果双辨也。 问： 今所明者为与旧同？为将他异？ 答： 今总观经论，宜开四句不同：一、破而不取，二、取而不破，三、亦取亦破，四、不取不破。言破而不取者，今不与旧同亦不与旧异。所以然者，求上来义不成，或不可与其同、或不可与其异。求上诸义既不可得，与谁论同异耶？ 问： 云何求上义不成耶？ 答： 今以三意往推，即知其前义为失：一者总摄三师不出因果，而正观论盛破十家因果，则一切因果不成。今略题数门示不成相：三师既以万善为因、寿量为果，为万行因内有寿量之果、为无果耶？如若其有果，即因无生果之能，果无酬因之用。若万行之因无寿量之果，虽修万行终不生果；若万行因无果而生果者，万恶亦无佛果应生佛果。又《大品经》云“若言因中有果、因中无果、亦有亦无、非有非无，如是之人即谤佛法僧系属于魔，是魔眷属”，岂是一乘因果义耶？又因中有果、因中无果、亦有亦无、非有非无，是僧佉、卫世师、勤沙婆、若提子外道之义，非佛法矣。纵又修万行为因、寿量为果者，万行之因为待果起而灭、为不 现代汉语译本： 宗，因此首先分明阐述一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘）的因，后面的章节阐述一乘的果，借用莲花作为比喻，是因为这种花不是只有花而没有果实，一旦有了花就包含着果实。这部经不说而已，一旦说了，就因果双重辨明。 问： 现在所阐明的内容是与旧说相同，还是与旧说相异？ 答： 现在总观经论，应该开出四句不同：一、破斥而不取，二、取用而不破斥，三、既取用也破斥，四、不取用也不破斥。说到破斥而不取用，就是现在既不与旧说相同，也不与旧说相异。之所以这样说，是因为寻求之前的意义不能成立，或者不能与它相同，或者不能与它相异。寻求之前的各种意义既然不可得，又与谁讨论相同相异呢？ 问： 为什么说寻求之前的意义不能成立呢？ 答： 现在用三种意思来推究，就知道之前的意义是错误的：一是总摄三师的观点，没有超出因果的范畴，而《正观论》盛行破斥十家的因果，那么一切因果都不能成立。现在略微列举几个方面来显示不能成立的相状：三师既然以万善为因，寿量（lifetime）为果，那么万行（all good deeds）的因内有寿量的果，还是没有果呢？如果说有果，那么因就没有产生果的能力，果也没有酬报因的作用。如果万行的因没有寿量的果，即使修行万行最终也不会产生果；如果万行的因没有果而能生果，那么万恶也没有佛果，应该能生出佛果。而且《大品经》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）说：‘如果说因中有果、因中无果、亦有亦无、非有非无，这样的人就是诽谤佛法僧，属于魔，是魔的眷属’，这难道是一乘因果的意义吗？而且因中有果、因中无果、亦有亦无、非有非无，是僧佉（Samkhya）、卫世师（Vaisheshika）、勤沙婆（Ajivika）、若提子（Nigantha Nataputta）外道的意义，不是佛法。纵然又修行万行为因、寿量为果，万行的因是等待果起而灭，还是不
English
English version: Therefore, it initially clarifies the cause of the Ekayana (One Vehicle), and the subsequent chapters clarify the fruit of the Ekayana. The use of the lotus flower as a metaphor is because this flower does not merely have the flower without the fruit; once there is a flower, it contains the fruit. This sutra does not elaborate on it, but once it does, it distinguishes both cause and effect. Question: Is what is being clarified now the same as the old teachings, or is it different? Answer: Now, considering the sutras and treatises in general, it is appropriate to open up four different statements: 1. Rejecting without adopting; 2. Adopting without rejecting; 3. Both adopting and rejecting; 4. Neither adopting nor rejecting. Speaking of rejecting without adopting, it means that now it is neither the same as the old teachings nor different from them. The reason for this is that seeking the previous meaning is not established, or it cannot be the same as it, or it cannot be different from it. Since seeking the previous meanings is unattainable, with whom can one discuss sameness and difference? Question: Why is it said that seeking the previous meaning is not established? Answer: Now, using three meanings to investigate, one will know that the previous meaning is wrong: First, the views of the three teachers, in general, do not go beyond the scope of cause and effect, while the *Zheng Guan Lun* (Madhyamaka-karika) vigorously refutes the cause and effect of ten schools, then all cause and effect cannot be established. Now, briefly list a few aspects to show the appearance of non-establishment: Since the three teachers take myriad good deeds (万善) as the cause and lifespan (寿量) as the fruit, does the cause of myriad practices contain the fruit of lifespan, or does it not have the fruit? If it is said that there is a fruit, then the cause has no ability to produce the fruit, and the fruit has no function to reward the cause. If the cause of myriad practices does not have the fruit of lifespan, even if one cultivates myriad practices, one will not produce the fruit in the end; if the cause of myriad practices can produce the fruit without having the fruit, then myriad evils also do not have the Buddha fruit, and should be able to produce the Buddha fruit. Moreover, the *Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra* says, 'If one says that there is a fruit in the cause, there is no fruit in the cause, there is both existence and non-existence, there is neither existence nor non-existence, such a person is slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, belongs to Mara, and is a member of Mara's retinue.' Is this the meaning of the Ekayana cause and effect? Moreover, the idea that there is a fruit in the cause, there is no fruit in the cause, there is both existence and non-existence, there is neither existence nor non-existence, is the meaning of Samkhya (僧佉), Vaisheshika (卫世师), Ajivika (勤沙婆), and Nigantha Nataputta (若提子), which is not the Buddha-dharma. Even if one cultivates myriad practices as the cause and lifespan as the fruit, does the cause of myriad practices wait for the fruit to arise and then perish, or does it not? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
待果而灭？若待果起而灭则名为常；若不待果起而灭则名为断。既是断常则不成因果，以何为此经宗？又既是断常则障一乘妙法，云何用障法为宗？又若言一念之善相续至佛果者，为灭已而续、为不灭而续？若灭已而续则有能续、无所续；若不灭而续者则有所续、无能续，云何续至佛果耶？以经论推之，并无此因果与谁同异耶。二者、纵有此因果者，彼便谓道理有此因果则成有所得，经云“有所得者无道无果”，以何为宗？又有所得者，经云“不动不出”，都非乘义，云何用为经宗？《涅槃经》云“有所得者名为无明”，宁用无明为平等大慧经宗？“有所得者名二十五有”，云何用二十五有为众德经宗？ 问： 《大品》与《涅槃》自可论有得、无得，《法华经》明低头举手一豪善之并皆成佛道，岂简有得之善非一乘耶？ 答： 得与无得盖是众经之旨归、圣观之渊府，辨得失之根本、示佛教之偏正，岂不该罗《法花》？又即此经文自辨得与无得，今略举三文：一、初开宗即云“我以无数方便引导众生令离诸着”，二者、后〈流通〉富楼那叹佛云“甚奇世尊以智惠方便拔出众生处处贪着”，处处贪著者着小着大、着三着一，故知此经正明无所得也。又此经盛谈寂灭，如云“是法不可示言辞相 现代汉语译本 待果而灭吗？如果等待果报生起才灭，那就成了常；如果不等待果报生起就灭，那就成了断。既然是断或常，那就不能成立因果，用什么作为这部经的宗旨呢？而且既然是断或常，那就障碍了一乘妙法，怎么能用障碍之法作为宗旨呢？又如果说一念之善可以相续到佛果，是灭了之后再相续，还是不灭而相续？如果灭了之后再相续，那就只有能相续的，没有所相续的；如果不灭而相续，那就只有所相续的，没有能相续的，怎么能相续到佛果呢？用经论来推究，并没有这种因果，这和谁的说法相同或不同呢？ 第二，纵然有这种因果，他们便认为道理上有这种因果，那就成了有所得。经上说‘有所得者无道无果’，用什么作为宗旨呢？而且有所得者，经上说‘不动不出’，都不是一乘的意义，怎么能用它作为经的宗旨呢？《涅槃经》说‘有所得者名为无明’，难道要用无明作为平等大慧经的宗旨吗？‘有所得者名二十五有’，怎么能用二十五有作为众德经的宗旨呢？ 问： 《大品般若经》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）与《涅槃经》（Nirvana Sutra）自然可以讨论有得、无得，《法华经》（Lotus Sutra）阐明低头举手这样微小的善行都能成就佛道，难道会舍弃有所得的善行，认为它不是一乘吗？ 答： 得与无得，可以说是众多经典的主旨归宿，是圣人观察的深远府库，辨别得失的根本，昭示佛教的偏颇与正统，难道不包括《法华经》（Lotus Sutra）吗？而且这部经文本身就在辨别得与无得，现在略举三段经文：第一，一开始开宗明义就说‘我以无数方便引导众生令离诸着’，第二，后面〈流通品〉（Chapter on Universal Gateway）中富楼那（Purna）赞叹佛陀说‘甚奇世尊以智慧方便拔出众生处处贪着’，处处贪著者，贪着小乘，贪着大乘，贪着三乘，贪着一乘，所以知道这部经正是阐明无所得的道理。而且这部经大力宣扬寂灭，例如说‘是法不可示言辞相’