English
English version: This is because the four meanings have the same subtlety, so 'Ki' (寄) is used as a metaphor to establish the title. Fifth, clarifying the gate of teaching and embracing. To which teaching does this *Lotus Sutra* belong? Is it definitive (fully revealing) or non-definitive (not fully revealing)? Some say that this sutra is non-definitive. The reason is that, broadly speaking, Buddhism has three Dharma wheels: the first is the Dharma wheel of characteristics (有相法轮), which is specifically for guiding those who aspire to the *Śrāvakayāna* (声闻乘, Hearer Vehicle), turning the Dharma wheel based on the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths, such as the *Agama Sutras* (阿含经) and others. The second is the Dharma wheel of no characteristics (无相法轮), which is specifically for guiding those who aspire to the *Bodhisattvayāna* (菩萨乘, Bodhisattva Vehicle), turning the Dharma wheel based on the emptiness of all dharmas, such as the *Prajna Sutras* (般若经) and others. The third is the Dharma wheel of no characteristics and supreme (无相无上法轮), which is universally for guiding those who aspire to the three vehicles, turning the Dharma wheel based on the emptiness of all dharmas and the absence of self-nature, being supreme and unsurpassable, such as the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* (解深密经) and others. Among these, the first two are non-definitive, and the third Dharma wheel is truly definitive. This meaning is explained in detail in that treatise. This *Lotus Sutra* belongs to the second Dharma wheel, as the verse says: 'All dharmas from the beginning, are always in a state of tranquil extinction; when a Buddha's child practices the path, in the future life, they will become a Buddha.' Therefore, it should be known that it belongs to the second Dharma wheel of no characteristics. Since it belongs to the second, it is non-definitive. This meaning can be proven by two passages of scripture. The first passage is what the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* says: 'Those *pudgalas* (补特伽罗, persons) of the *Śrāvakayāna* lineage who are solely inclined towards tranquility, even if they receive various courageous and skillful means of teaching and guidance from the Buddhas, will ultimately not be able to sit in the *bodhimaṇḍa* (菩提道场, place of enlightenment) and attain *anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi* (无上正等菩提, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment).' Why? Because they originally only have an inferior lineage, their compassion is inherently weak, and they are inherently fearful of all kinds of suffering, and so on (omitted below). The second passage is what the *Abhidharma* (对法论) says: 'The inclination of sentient beings, those who enjoy happiness, for example, in order to make those of uncertain lineage abandon inferior inclinations, it is predicted that great *Śrāvakas* will be able to become Buddhas in the future.' It also says the One Vehicle, there is no second vehicle. According to this, since the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* is an ultimate and truly definitive teaching, saying that *Śrāvakas* will never become Buddhas, then the *Lotus Sutra* saying that *Śrāvakas* will be able to become Buddhas in the future is a skillful means of speech, a non-definitive teaching. Therefore, the *Abhidharma* (阿毗达磨, collection of treatises) says: 'This is said in accordance with the inclinations of sentient beings, not directly stating the true principle.' *Sutra* (修多罗, discourse) is... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
文为胜阿毗达磨以理为胜。由有如是二种明证。当知法花一乘之教定非究竟了义说也。或有说者。法花经是究竟了义。所以然者。如来一代所说教门。略摄不出三种法轮。何者为三。一者根本法轮。二枝末法轮。三者摄末归本法轮。根本法轮者。谓佛初成道花严之会□为菩萨广开一因一果法门谓根本之教也。但薄福钝根之流深不堪闻一因一果故。于一佛乘分别说三。谓枝末之教也。四十余年说三乘之教陶练其心。今至法花之会始得会三归一。即摄末归本教也。如信解品明。长者居师子坐眷属围绕罗列宝物。即指花严根本教也。唤子不得故密遣二人。脱珍御服着弊垢衣。谓隐一说三枝末教也。如富长者知悉下劣□伏其心乃教大智。谓摄末归本教也。是□诸门处处有文。当知此中初后二教同是究竟了义之说。第二教者。于一说三。皆是方便不了义说。为成此义。明证有二。一者修多罗。二者阿毗达磨。修多罗者。略引三文一者如安乐行品云。此法花经能令众生至一切智。一切世间多怨难信。先所未说而今说之。是诸如来第一之说。于诸说中最为甚深。末后赐与如彼强力之王久护明珠今乃与之。二者化城品云。是诸佛方便分别说三乘。唯有一佛乘□处故说二。三者胜鬘经云。阿罗汉辟支佛。四智究竟得苏息处。亦是如来是方 便有余不了义说。如是等文不可具陈。阿毗达磨者略引三处文。法花论云。决定增上慢二种声闻。根未熟故佛不与授记菩萨与授记。菩萨与记者。方便令发心故。二者智度论说。 问。阿罗汉先世因缘之所受身必应当灭。住在何处而具足佛道。 答。得阿罗汉时。三界诸漏因缘尽故。更不复生三界。有净佛立出于三界。乃至无有烦恼之名。于是国立佛所闻法花经具足佛道。三者宝性论云。问。说阐提无涅槃性常不入涅槃者。此义云何。为欲示显谤大乘因故。此明何义。为欲回转诽谤大乘心不求大乘心。依无量时。故作是说。以彼实有清净性故。依是等文。当知诸教说有二乘定不成佛。及说无性有情等言。皆是方便不了义说。若说一乘更无第二一切众生皆当作佛。如是经典是真了义。问若立初师义者。后师所引文云何和会。彼师通曰。诸一乘教所说诸文。皆为护彼不定性者。皆是方便。故不相违。法花论文及宝性论。亦为述后方便教意。智度论文说阿罗汉生净土者。是约不定种性声闻。由是道理亦不相违。问。若立后师义者。前所引证云何得通。彼师通云。深密经说终不能令当坐道场证得无上正等菩提者。是明决定当入无余永不能令不入无余直证无上正等菩提。是故说为一向趣寂。然彼声闻入无余时。住八 现代汉语译本 于是就有了不了义的说法。像这样的经文不能全部陈述。关于《阿毗达磨》，略微引用三处经文。《法华论》中说：‘决定性的增上慢和不定性的增上慢这两种声闻（Śrāvaka，听闻佛法而证悟者），因为根基尚未成熟，所以佛陀不给他们授记，而菩萨（Bodhisattva，立志成佛的修行者）给他们授记。’菩萨给他们授记的原因是，为了方便引导他们发菩提心。第二，《智度论》中说： 问：阿罗汉（Arhat，断尽烦恼的圣者）前世因缘所受的身体必定应当灭亡，他们住在何处才能具足佛道？ 答：得到阿罗汉果位时，三界（欲界、色界、无色界）诸漏的因缘已经断尽，所以不再于三界中受生。有清净的佛国净土超出三界之外，乃至没有烦恼的名称。在那个佛国净土，听闻《法华经》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra），具足佛道。第三，《宝性论》中说：问：‘说一阐提（Icchantika，断善根者）没有涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂灭）的自性，永远不能进入涅槃，这是什么意思？’是为了显示他们诽谤大乘佛法的因缘。这说明什么意义呢？是为了回转他们诽谤大乘的心，使他们不求大乘佛法，依赖无量的时间，所以这样说。因为他们实际上有清净的佛性。依据这些经文，应当知道各种教法中说有二乘（声闻乘和缘觉乘）必定不能成佛，以及说无性有情等等的说法，都是方便不了义的说法。如果说一乘佛法，更没有第二种，一切众生都应当成佛，这样的经典才是真正的了义。问：如果立初师的观点，后师所引用的经文如何调和会通？那位法师解释说：各种一乘教法所说的各种经文，都是为了护卫那些不定性的人，都是方便之说，所以不相违背。《法华论》和《宝性论》，也是为了阐述后来的方便教义。《智度论》中说阿罗汉往生净土，是就那些不定种性的声闻而言。由于这个道理，也不相违背。问：如果立后师的观点，前面所引用的证据如何解释？那位法师解释说：《深密经》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）中说‘最终不能令他当坐道场证得无上正等菩提’，是说明决定应当进入无余涅槃，永远不能令他不进入无余涅槃而直接证得无上正等菩提。所以说他们是‘一向趣寂’。然而那些声闻进入无余涅槃时，住在八
English
English version Then there are statements that are not definitive. Such texts cannot be fully enumerated. Regarding the Abhidharma, I will briefly cite three passages. The *Lotus Sutra Treatise* states: 'Determined and undetermined arrogant Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka, one who attains enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings), because their roots are not yet mature, the Buddha does not give them predictions of Buddhahood, but Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva, one who aspires to become a Buddha) do.' The reason Bodhisattvas give them predictions is to conveniently guide them to generate the aspiration for enlightenment. Secondly, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra* says: Question: Arhats (Arhat, a perfected being who has eliminated all defilements), whose bodies are the result of past karmic conditions, must eventually perish. Where do they reside to fulfill the path to Buddhahood? Answer: When one attains Arhatship, the causes and conditions of all outflows in the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) are exhausted, so they are no longer reborn in the three realms. There is a pure Buddha land that transcends the three realms, where even the name of affliction does not exist. In that Buddha land, they hear the *Lotus Sutra* (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) and fulfill the path to Buddhahood. Thirdly, the *Ratnagotravibhāga* states: Question: 'It is said that Icchantikas (Icchantika, those who have severed their roots of goodness) do not have the nature of Nirvāṇa (Nirvāṇa, cessation) and can never enter Nirvāṇa. What does this mean?' It is to show the cause of their slandering of the Mahāyāna. What meaning does this explain? It is to turn around their minds that slander the Mahāyāna, so that they do not seek the Mahāyāna, relying on limitless time. That is why it is said in this way, because they actually have a pure Buddha-nature. Based on these texts, it should be known that the various teachings that say the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) can never attain Buddhahood, and the statements about beings without Buddha-nature, etc., are all expedient and not definitive. If it is said that there is only one vehicle, and there is no second, and all sentient beings will become Buddhas, then such scriptures are truly definitive. Question: If the view of the first teacher is established, how can the texts cited by the later teacher be reconciled? That teacher explains: All the texts spoken in the various one-vehicle teachings are all for protecting those of undetermined nature, and are all expedient, so they are not contradictory. The *Lotus Sutra Treatise* and the *Ratnagotravibhāga* are also for explaining the meaning of the later expedient teachings. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra*, which speaks of Arhats being reborn in pure lands, refers to Śrāvakas of undetermined nature. For this reason, they are also not contradictory. Question: If the view of the later teacher is established, how can the evidence cited earlier be explained? That teacher explains: The *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* says 'Ultimately, they cannot be made to sit at the Bodhi-tree and attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (unsurpassed perfect enlightenment),' which means that they are determined to enter Nirvāṇa without remainder, and can never be made not to enter Nirvāṇa without remainder and directly attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. Therefore, it is said that they are 'exclusively inclined towards quiescence.' However, when those Śrāvakas enter Nirvāṇa without remainder, they reside in the eight --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
万劫或住六万四万二万。然后起心即入大生于净土具足佛道。若论不定种性人者。唯住有余依地入大。如瑜伽论分明说故。是故彼经亦不相违。对法论文说一乘教为方便者。是述三乘权教之意而非究竟道理之说。如彼执三乘者说云。十五有漏□无记者。是约粗相境界而说。非是究竟真实道理。是故当知彼对法论或有述于方便教文。由是道理不相违也。 问。二师所通一据相违。何者为实何者为胜。 答。皆是经论。有何不实。所以然者。为护一向趣寂者意。则如初师所通为实。为护不定种姓人意。则如后师所说为实。皆当物机各得和通故。若就道理判其胜负者。彼师义狭而且短。彼说佛□不遍一切故。又说二□竟断灭故。第二师义宽而复长。返前短狭其义可知斯则以短狭义会宽长文。文伤□□会。用宽长义容短狭文。文狭则无伤义。则易会。由是道理后说为胜。是故当知此法花经乃是究竟了义之教也。今依是义以通诸文。诸文相违皆得善通。所以然者。以诸了义究竟教内不无方便不了之言。如解深密经中说言。一切声闻缘觉菩萨同皆共一此妙清净道。皆同是一究竟清净如。□是道理为彼经宗。所以彼经是真了义。而彼经说寂趣声闻终不能得坐于道场。如是等文是方便说。为护决定二乘意故。作是方便不了 现代汉语译本： 或者经历万劫，或者居住六万、四万、二万劫。然后发起菩提心，就能进入大乘，在净土中圆满佛道。如果说不定种性的人，只能住在有余依地而入大乘，就像《瑜伽师地论》中分明说的那样。因此，《法华经》的说法并不矛盾。《对法论》的论文说一乘教是方便之说，那是陈述三乘权教的含义，而不是究竟的道理。就像那些执着于三乘的人所说，‘十五有漏□无记者’，那是根据粗相境界而说的，不是究竟真实的道理。所以应当知道，《对法论》或许有陈述方便教义的文句，因此道理上并不矛盾。 问：两位法师所通达的经义互相违背，哪一位的说法是真实的？哪一位的说法更殊胜？ 答：都是佛经论典，有什么不真实的呢？之所以这样说，是为了守护一向趣向寂灭者的心意，那么就像第一位法师所通达的经义是真实的。为了守护不定种性人的心意，那么就像第二位法师所说是真实的。都应当根据众生的根机，各自得到融会贯通。如果就道理来判断胜负，第一位法师的义理狭隘而且短浅，因为他说佛□不能遍及一切，又说二□最终会断灭。第二位法师的义理宽广而且深远，与前一位法师的短浅狭隘相反，其中的含义可以知道。这就是用短浅狭隘的义理去会通宽广深远的文句，会损伤□□的会通。用宽广深远的义理来包容短浅狭隘的文句，文句狭隘则不会损伤义理，就容易会通。因此道理上，后一位法师的说法更为殊胜。所以应当知道，《法华经》是究竟了义的教法。现在依靠这个义理来会通各种经文，各种经文的相互违背都能得到很好的融通。之所以这样说，是因为在各种了义究竟的教法中，不乏方便不了义的言辞，就像《解深密经》中说，‘一切声闻（Śrāvaka，听闻佛陀教诲而证悟者）、缘觉（Pratyekabuddha，无师自通，独自悟道的修行者）、菩萨（Bodhisattva，立志普度众生的修行者）共同趋向于同一个清净道，共同趋向于同一个究竟清净的涅槃’。□是这个道理是《解深密经》的宗旨。所以《解深密经》是真正的了义经典。但是《解深密经》中说，趣向寂灭的声闻最终不能在菩提树下成道，这样的文句是方便之说，为了守护决定二乘的心意，才作这样的方便不了义之说。