English
English version: If it is a sudden teaching, (it's like) remotely speaking of the people and lotuses of that land (referring to the Western Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss), similar to how Shakyamuni Buddha remotely speaks of the people and lotuses of the Western Pure Land in the *Amitabha Sutra*. Now, in this land, there are three grades of rebirth, and this sutra is also like that. This is Shakyamuni Buddha remotely speaking of the pure people and lotuses of the Lotus Treasury World. Secondly, the Northern scholars explain that there are three Buddhas there: one Dharma body Buddha, two Reward body Buddha, and three Manifestation body Buddha. The *Avatamsaka Sutra* is spoken by the Reward body Buddha, while the *Nirvana Sutra*, *Prajna Sutra*, etc., are spoken by the Manifestation body Buddha. The Dharma body Buddha does not speak. They judge that Vairocana Buddha (Lushan na fo) is the Reward body Buddha, and Shakyamuni Buddha (Shijia mouni fo) is the Manifestation body Buddha. Vairocana Buddha is the Reward body of Shakyamuni Buddha, and Shakyamuni Buddha is the Manifestation body of Vairocana Buddha. The *Avatamsaka Sutra* is spoken by Vairocana Buddha. This is the explanation of the scholars from both the North and the South. Now, let's refute the explanations of these two scholars, stating in detail the views of the Great Master (referring to Zhiyi, the founder of the Tiantai school). First, refute the Southern scholar's explanation that Shakyamuni Buddha and Vairocana Buddha are not one and the same. Now, we still use the previous four differences to challenge, so they cannot be said to be one. First, the lords of transformation are different. The *Nirvana Sutra* and *Prajna Sutra* are spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha, while the seven locations and eight assemblies are spoken by Vairocana Buddha. Vairocana Buddha is the original Buddha, and Shakyamuni Buddha is the trace Buddha, so the *Bodhisattva Precept Sutra* says: 'I, Vairocana (Lushan na), am now sitting on a lotus platform, manifesting a thousand Shakyamunis on a thousand surrounding lotuses.' Therefore, Vairocana Buddha is the original, and Shakyamuni Buddha is the trace. If this is the case, the original and the trace are different, how can they be said to be one? Second, the places of transformation are different. Shakyamuni Buddha is in the Saha world, and Vairocana Buddha is in the Lotus Treasury World. The Saha world is a world of mixed evils, and the Lotus Treasury World is a pure land. The two places are different, how can they be said to be one? Moreover, when the Saha world moves, there are six kinds of tremors, and when the Lotus Treasury World moves, there are eighteen kinds of tremors. Moreover, the platform and the leaf are also two different places. Vairocana Buddha is on the lotus platform, and Shakyamuni Buddha is on the lotus leaf. The two places are so different, how can they be said to be one? Third, the teachings are different. Shakyamuni Buddha speaks mixedly of the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle, speaks mixedly of the provisional and the complete teachings, and speaks mixedly of the direct and the indirect teachings. Vairocana Buddha speaks purely of the One Vehicle, speaks purely of the complete teaching, and speaks purely of the indirect teaching. Shakyamuni Buddha speaks mixed teachings in response to mixed conditions, speaks the Three-One teaching in response to the conditions of the Three and One, and even speaks the direct and indirect teachings in response to the conditions of the direct and indirect. Vairocana Buddha only speaks the One Vehicle teaching in response to the conditions of the One Vehicle, and even speaks the complete and indirect teaching in response to the conditions of the complete and indirect. If this is the case, they cannot be said to be one. Fourth, the disciples are different. Shakyamuni Buddha has disciples of the three vehicles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
一杂缘但不但缘。如千二百声闻弥勒等菩萨则是杂缘也。舍那唯一大缘满缘。普贤菩萨等则是大缘。教既其异缘亦不同。缘既不同故。二佛不得为一。将此四条异弹南人解二佛不得是一也。次更前难何者彼云。释迦遥说莲华藏国。如释迦在此说无量寿国。然此解不知是谁解。山中师及兴皇师并述此释实不成释。好体不烦须难。何者汝既云舍那即释迦。何得言释迦遥说耶。但别有难。今更述之。何者释迦说无量寿凡有二种经。一者无量寿观经。二者无量寿经。无量寿观经为世王母韦提希夫人说。夫人在狱。令其观佛三昧。若是无量寿经为比丘十六正士说彼国土净人华。令此间五痛五烧三辈往生。若尔说无量寿国既有所为缘。释迦遥说莲华藏国。为何物缘。不见有解故不应言是遥说。好体不须难。大师既有斯言略而述了。此即是借北人异弹南人一竟。 次借南人一弹北人异亦有两难。彼云。如此二佛有此四殊岂得为一。所以北讲华严。胜于南土。今次难之还用前四条。难一者。化主不得异。凡举三处文。难一者此经名号品是第二会。文殊菩萨说文云。或名卢舍那。或名释迦文。或名悉达多。既称或名何得言异。若使或名舍那或名释迦。而言异。或名眼或名目。亦应异。反诘云。第二像法决疑经云。或有见我为舍那。 现代汉语译本 一杂缘但不但缘（杂缘，指不唯一但也不完全没有因缘）。例如，一千二百声闻（Śrāvakā，听闻佛陀教诲而证悟的弟子）、弥勒（Maitreya）等菩萨（Bodhisattva，为救度众生而发菩提心者）就是杂缘。舍那（Vairocana，光明遍照）是唯一的大缘、圆满的因缘。普贤菩萨（Samantabhadra）等则是大缘。教义既然不同，因缘也不同。因缘既然不同，所以二佛（指卢舍那佛和释迦牟尼佛）不能视为同一。用这四条不同之处来反驳南方人关于二佛不能是同一的观点。接下来进一步质问，他们说释迦（Śākyamuni）遥远地宣说莲华藏世界（Lotus Treasury World）。就像释迦在此宣说无量寿国（Amitābha's Pure Land）一样。然而这种解释不知道是谁的解释。山中的法师和兴皇法师都沿用了这种解释，但实际上不成解释。好的论点不需要多余的诘难。既然你们说舍那即是释迦，为何又说释迦遥远地宣说呢？但有其他的诘难。现在进一步阐述，释迦宣说无量寿国有两种经。一是《无量寿观经》（Contemplation Sutra of Immeasurable Life），二是《无量寿经》（Immeasurable Life Sutra）。《无量寿观经》是为世间的王后韦提希夫人（Vaidehi）所说。夫人在监狱中，让他观佛三昧（Buddha Samadhi，通过冥想进入的专注状态）。如果是《无量寿经》，则是为比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侣）和十六正士宣说彼国土的清净和莲花，使此间的五痛五烧（五种痛苦和五种烦恼）的三辈（三种根器的人）能够往生。如果这样，宣说无量寿国是有所为的因缘。释迦遥远地宣说莲华藏世界，是为了什么因缘呢？没有看到有解释，所以不应该说是遥远地宣说。好的论点不需要多余的诘难。大师既然有这样的说法，就简略地叙述完毕。这就是借用北方人的不同之处来反驳南方人的一种方式的结束。 接下来借用南方人的一种观点来反驳北方人的不同之处，也有两点诘难。他们说，如此二佛有这四种不同之处，怎么能视为同一呢？所以北方讲华严（Avataṃsaka Sūtra），胜过南方。现在接下来反驳他们，还是用前面的四条。第一条是，化主（教化的主导者）不能不同。凡是举出三处经文。第一条是，此经《名号品》是第二会。文殊菩萨（Mañjuśrī）说文云：‘或者名为卢舍那，或者名为释迦文，或者名为悉达多（Siddhartha）。’既然称为‘或者名’，怎么能说是不同呢？如果说‘或者名舍那，或者名释迦’，就说是不同，那么‘或者名眼，或者名目’，也应该说是不同了。反问说，《第二像法决疑经》云：‘或者有人见我为舍那。’
English
English version One is a mixed cause, but not only a cause (mixed cause refers to a cause that is not unique but also not completely without conditions). For example, the one thousand two hundred Śrāvakās (disciples who attained enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings), Maitreya (the future Buddha), and other Bodhisattvas (beings who aspire to save all sentient beings) are mixed causes. Vairocana (the Illuminator) is the unique great cause, the complete cause. Samantabhadra and other Bodhisattvas are great causes. Since the teachings are different, the causes are also different. Since the causes are different, the two Buddhas (referring to Vairocana Buddha and Śākyamuni Buddha) cannot be considered the same. Use these four differences to refute the Southerners' view that the two Buddhas cannot be the same. Next, further question, they say that Śākyamuni remotely proclaims the Lotus Treasury World. Just like Śākyamuni proclaims Amitābha's Pure Land here. However, this explanation is not known whose explanation it is. The masters in the mountains and Master Xinghuang have all followed this explanation, but it is actually not an explanation. Good arguments do not need redundant questions. Since you say that Vairocana is Śākyamuni, why do you say that Śākyamuni proclaims remotely? But there are other questions. Now further elaborate, Śākyamuni speaks of Amitābha's Pure Land in two kinds of sutras. One is the Contemplation Sutra of Immeasurable Life, and the other is the Immeasurable Life Sutra. The Contemplation Sutra of Immeasurable Life was spoken for Queen Vaidehi of the world. The lady was in prison, asking her to contemplate the Buddha Samadhi (a state of concentration entered through meditation). If it is the Immeasurable Life Sutra, it is spoken for the Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks) and the sixteen righteous men, proclaiming the purity and lotus flowers of that land, so that the three grades (three types of people) of the five pains and five burns (five kinds of suffering and five kinds of afflictions) here can be reborn there. If so, proclaiming Amitābha's Pure Land has a purpose. Śākyamuni remotely proclaims the Lotus Treasury World, for what cause? No explanation has been seen, so it should not be said to be a remote proclamation. Good arguments do not need redundant questions. Since the master has such a statement, it is briefly described. This is the end of borrowing the differences of the Northerners to refute the Southerners. Next, borrowing a view from the Southerners to refute the differences of the Northerners, there are also two points of questioning. They say, how can these two Buddhas with these four differences be regarded as the same? Therefore, the North's teaching of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is superior to the South. Now, next, refute them, still using the previous four points. The first point is that the teaching master cannot be different. All cite three places in the scriptures. The first point is that this sutra's 'Chapter on Names' is the second assembly. Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva said in the text: 'Or named Vairocana, or named Śākyamuni, or named Siddhartha.' Since it is called 'or named', how can it be said to be different? If it is said that 'or named Vairocana, or named Śākyamuni', it is said to be different, then 'or named eye, or named pupil', it should also be said to be different. Questioning back, the 'Second Sutra on Resolving Doubts about the Semblance Dharma' says: 'Or someone sees me as Vairocana.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
或有见释迦。此是缘见不同佛为何异。如有见佛身三尺。或有见佛身无边。如瞿师罗长者见佛短。大梵天王不见佛顶。只是一佛缘见异耳。若缘见舍那释迦则言二佛异者。缘见长短亦应为异。反诘云。若尔故不应言异也。次第三此经第六会在他化自在宫说十地法门。释迦放眉间白毫相光加金刚藏说。既是释迦劝金刚藏说十地。何得言是舍那说。若是舍那说应舍那放光劝。而今是释迦放劝。故不应言二佛调然迥异也。二者处所不得为异。说此经在摩竭提国寂灭道场。摩竭提还是摩伽陀。此乃是梵音之切缓。何关两所有异。若尔还是娑婆国说此经也。何以得知。涅槃经云。并及摩竭提阿阇世大王不久须臾至。阿阇世王即是摩伽陀国主。以此而言故知二处不异也。三者教门不得异。何者释迦说杂教。释迦说纯净教。释迦说半满教。释迦说纯满教。若为是释迦说纯净教耶。解云。释迦劝金刚藏说十地法门。是此经之中。故知释迦说纯净大教也。四者徒众亦不异。第八会具列大小乘众。列五百声闻身子须菩提等。若尔二佛徒众亦不异。若使言舍那唯为一大缘则应唯列一大乘众。何则具列大小众。为则具大小缘。又列既杂列。缘即是杂缘。教是杂教。又释迦大缘文殊弥勒等。更无别文殊弥勒。何异舍那。小缘身子须菩提等。无别身 现代汉语译本： 或者有人见到释迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）。这是否因为因缘所见不同，佛才会有差异呢？有人见到佛身三尺高，也有人见到佛身无边无际。例如瞿师罗长者（Ghosila）见到佛身矮小，大梵天王（Mahabrahma）看不见佛的头顶。这只是因为因缘所见不同罢了。如果因为因缘所见而认为卢舍那佛（Vairocana Buddha）和释迦牟尼佛是不同的两尊佛，那么因为因缘所见的身形高矮也应该被认为是不同的佛了。反问说，如果这样，就不应该说他们是不同的。其次，此经的第六次集会在他化自在天宫（Paranirmita-vasavartin）宣说十地法门（Ten Bhumis）。释迦牟尼佛从眉间放出白毫相光（urna），加持金刚藏菩萨（Vajragarbha）宣说。既然是释迦牟尼佛劝金刚藏菩萨宣说十地，怎么能说是卢舍那佛说的呢？如果是卢舍那佛说的，应该是卢舍那佛放光劝说。而现在是释迦牟尼佛放光劝说，所以不应该说这两尊佛截然不同。第二，处所不能被认为是不同的。此经是在摩揭陀国（Magadha）的寂灭道场（Bodhimanda）宣说的。摩揭提（Magadhi）还是摩伽陀（Magadha），这只是梵语发音的快慢不同。这与两个不同的地方有什么关系呢？如果这样，还是在娑婆世界（Saha world）宣说的此经。怎么知道的呢？《涅槃经》（Nirvana Sutra）中说，‘并及摩揭提阿阇世大王（Ajatasatru）不久须臾至’。阿阇世王就是摩伽陀国的国王。因此可知两个地方不是不同的。第三，教门不能是不同的。为什么呢？释迦牟尼佛说杂教，释迦牟尼佛说纯净教，释迦牟尼佛说半满教，释迦牟尼佛说纯满教。如何理解释迦牟尼佛说纯净教呢？解释说，释迦牟尼佛劝金刚藏菩萨宣说十地法门，就在这部经中。因此可知释迦牟尼佛说的是纯净大教。第四，徒众也不是不同的。第八次集会详细列出了大乘和小乘的听众，列出了五百声闻（Sravaka），如舍利弗（Sariputra）、须菩提（Subhuti）等。如果这样，两尊佛的徒众也不是不同的。如果说卢舍那佛只为一大因缘，那么应该只列出大乘的听众。为什么既列出了大乘的听众，又列出了小乘的听众呢？因为既有大乘的因缘，也有小乘的因缘。既然列出的是混杂的听众，那么因缘就是混杂的因缘，教法就是混杂的教法。而且释迦牟尼佛的大因缘是文殊菩萨（Manjusri）、弥勒菩萨（Maitreya）等，没有另外的文殊菩萨、弥勒菩萨不同于卢舍那佛。小因缘是舍利弗、须菩提等，没有另外的舍利弗