English
English version: Or some may see Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha). Is it because the perceived causes and conditions are different that the Buddhas appear different? Some see the Buddha's body as three feet tall, while others see the Buddha's body as boundless. For example, Elder Ghosila (Ghosila) saw the Buddha's body as short, and Great Brahma King (Mahabrahma) could not see the top of the Buddha's head. This is simply because the perceived causes and conditions are different. If, because of the perceived causes and conditions, it is thought that Vairocana Buddha (Vairocana Buddha) and Sakyamuni Buddha are two different Buddhas, then the height of the body perceived through different causes and conditions should also be considered different Buddhas. It is retorted, 'If so, then it should not be said that they are different.' Secondly, the sixth assembly of this sutra took place in the Paranirmita-vasavartin heaven, expounding the Ten Bhumis (Ten Bhumis). Sakyamuni Buddha emitted a white hair-mark light (urna) from between his eyebrows, blessing Vajragarbha Bodhisattva (Vajragarbha) to expound. Since it was Sakyamuni Buddha who encouraged Vajragarbha Bodhisattva to expound the Ten Bhumis, how can it be said that it was Vairocana Buddha who spoke? If it was Vairocana Buddha who spoke, it should have been Vairocana Buddha who emitted light to encourage. But now it is Sakyamuni Buddha who emits light to encourage, so it should not be said that these two Buddhas are completely different. Secondly, the location cannot be considered different. This sutra was expounded in the Bodhimanda (Bodhimanda) of Magadha (Magadha). Magadhi is still Magadha, which is just a difference in the speed of pronunciation in Sanskrit. What does this have to do with two different places? If so, this sutra was still expounded in the Saha world (Saha world). How do we know this? The Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says, 'And King Ajatasatru (Ajatasatru) of Magadha will arrive shortly.' King Ajatasatru is the ruler of Magadha. Therefore, it is known that the two places are not different. Thirdly, the teachings cannot be different. Why? Sakyamuni Buddha taught mixed teachings, Sakyamuni Buddha taught pure teachings, Sakyamuni Buddha taught half-full teachings, and Sakyamuni Buddha taught purely full teachings. How do we understand that Sakyamuni Buddha taught pure teachings? It is explained that Sakyamuni Buddha encouraged Vajragarbha Bodhisattva to expound the Ten Bhumis, which is in this sutra. Therefore, it is known that Sakyamuni Buddha taught the pure and great teachings. Fourthly, the assembly is also not different. The eighth assembly lists in detail the listeners of the Mahayana and Hinayana, listing five hundred Sravakas (Sravaka), such as Sariputra (Sariputra), Subhuti (Subhuti), etc. If so, the assemblies of the two Buddhas are also not different. If it is said that Vairocana Buddha is only for one great cause, then only the listeners of the Mahayana should be listed. Why are both the listeners of the Mahayana and the listeners of the Hinayana listed? Because there are both Mahayana causes and Hinayana causes. Since the listeners listed are mixed, then the causes are mixed causes, and the teachings are mixed teachings. Moreover, the great causes of Sakyamuni Buddha are Manjusri Bodhisattva (Manjusri), Maitreya Bodhisattva (Maitreya), etc. There are no other Manjusri Bodhisattvas or Maitreya Bodhisattvas different from Vairocana Buddha. The small causes are Sariputra, Subhuti, etc. There is no other Sariputra --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
子须菩提等。若使如此故知。二佛徒众亦复不异。四种既其不异。何得释两佛调然有殊。 第二别难者。彼云。舍那是报佛。释迦是化佛。舍那是释迦之报。释迦为舍那之化。师难云。此则回互二佛。翻覆世界。混乱教门。言回互二佛者。谓舍那自有报应。舍那自有本迹。释迦亦自有报应。自为本迹。何得指彼佛为此报。此佛为彼化。彼佛为此本。此佛为彼迹。若指彼佛为此报。此佛为彼化。即有二佛回互之失。言翻覆世界者。释迦自出华叶上。舍那自在华台上。二世界各自不同。何得指彼佛为此报。此佛为彼化耶。言混乱教门者。释迦赴大小缘说大小教。舍那为大缘说大教不同。何得以舍那为释迦本。释迦为舍那迹耶。前开借异以破一。此开就异以弹异。大而为言。前借北异弹南一。今借南一破北异。此则互借两家。弹彼二解竟。 既斥南北一异两家皆非。彼即反问。汝既弹一异皆非。汝作若为别释耶。建初法师曾以此问兴皇一大学士云。舍那释迦为一为异耶。答云。舍那释迦释迦舍那。建初即云。我已解。若为解。既云舍那释迦释迦舍那。岂是一岂是异。作此一答彼即便解也。然何但非一异四句皆非。何者释迦是舍那。释迦岂得是异。乃至非异亦尔。又释迦舍那岂得是一。释迦舍那岂得是异。释迦舍 那岂得是亦一亦异非一非异耶。虽非一异四句欲言一异四句亦不失因缘四句。何者释迦舍那岂一。不一而不失一。释迦舍那岂是异。不异而不失异。余两句亦尔。故非四句而不失四句。因缘无碍也。非一异四句而一异四句。并有其文义。何者文云。或名释迦。或名舍那。故不得其异。而台叶本迹不同故。不得为一。或为缘见是释迦。或有缘见是舍那。故得是亦一亦异。或有缘见非是释迦非是舍那。故得是非一非异。所以因缘无碍。无往不得也。然要须弹他四句乃得明今因缘四句。何者他语是亦须弹语非故。宜须弹语既是何须弹语耶。解云。语虽是而不得因缘无碍意。既其失意不成语故。若是若非皆悉须弹。以弹彼净。然后始得明今因缘无碍也。用此语者为对他家了非是。今时明因缘义但为对彼定义。南方定云一。北方定异。为破彼定一定异明今因缘一异。此语既答前之一异问也。 次更别明一异四句。或成前意。此四句为异从来四句。言四句者。一则二佛说一教。二则一佛说二教。三则一佛说一教。四则二佛说二教。二佛说一教者。舍那释迦二佛。舍那是本。释迦是迹。本迹台叶不同故。是二佛一教者。涅槃华严一教。涅槃即华严。华严即是涅槃。故是一教也。一佛二教者。一佛即舍那释迦一佛。舍那即释迦。 现代汉语译本： 那怎么能说是既一又异，又非一非异呢？虽然不是一异四句，但如果想说一异四句，也不会失去因缘四句的意义。为什么呢？释迦（Śākyamuni，能仁寂默）和卢舍那（Locana，光明遍照）难道是一吗？不是一，但又不失其一的性质。释迦和卢舍那难道是异吗？不是异，但又不失其异的性质。其余两句也是如此。所以，虽然不是四句，但又不失去四句的意义，因为因缘是无碍的。不是一异四句，但又包含一异四句，这其中有其文义。为什么这么说呢？经文说：‘或者名为释迦，或者名为卢舍那。’所以不能说他们是异。但台（莲台）和叶（应化之身）的本迹不同，所以不能说他们是一。或者因为因缘而见到的是释迦，或者因为因缘而见到的是卢舍那，所以可以说是既一又异。或者因为因缘而见到的既不是释迦也不是卢舍那，所以可以说成是非一非异。因此，因缘是无碍的，没有什么是不能成立的。然而，必须要驳斥他人的四句，才能明白现在的因缘四句。为什么呢？因为他人所说的‘是’，也需要驳斥，他人所说的‘非’，也需要驳斥。既然是‘是’，为什么还要驳斥呢？解释说：虽然说是‘是’，但没有领会因缘无碍的意义。既然失去了意义，就不能算是正确的说法。所以，无论是‘是’还是‘非’，都需要驳斥，通过驳斥他们，使他们清净，然后才能明白现在的因缘无碍的道理。使用这种说法，是为了让对方明白他们所说的‘非’是不正确的。现在阐明因缘的意义，只是为了针对他们所下的定义。南方认为是一，北方认为是异，为了破除他们所下的‘一定’和‘定异’的定义，从而阐明现在的因缘一异。这段话既回答了前面关于一异的提问。 接下来，进一步分别阐明一异四句，或者可以成就前面的意思。这四句与之前的四句不同。所说的四句是：一是二佛说一教，二是 一佛说二教，三是 一佛说一教，四是 二佛说二教。二佛说一教，指的是卢舍那和释迦二佛。卢舍那是本，释迦是迹。本迹台叶不同，所以是二佛。一教指的是《涅槃经》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）和《华严经》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）是一教。《涅槃经》就是《华严经》，《华严经》就是《涅槃经》，所以是一教。一佛二教，指的是一佛即卢舍那和释迦一佛，卢舍那即释迦。
English
English version: How can it be said to be both one and different, and neither one nor different? Although it is not the four phrases of 'one and different,' if one wants to speak of the four phrases of 'one and different,' it does not lose the meaning of the four phrases of dependent origination (因缘, hetu-pratyaya). Why? Are Śākyamuni (释迦, the Sage of the Śākya clan) and Locana (舍那, the Illuminator) one? Not one, but without losing the nature of one. Are Śākyamuni and Locana different? Not different, but without losing the nature of different. The remaining two phrases are also like this. Therefore, although it is not four phrases, it does not lose the meaning of four phrases, because dependent origination is unobstructed. It is not the four phrases of 'one and different,' but it contains the four phrases of 'one and different,' and there is textual meaning in it. Why is it said so? The scripture says: 'Sometimes named Śākyamuni, sometimes named Locana.' Therefore, one cannot say they are different. But the base (台, platform) and the branches (叶, leaves) of the original trace are different, so one cannot say they are one. Or, because of dependent origination, what is seen is Śākyamuni, or because of dependent origination, what is seen is Locana, so it can be said to be both one and different. Or, because of dependent origination, what is seen is neither Śākyamuni nor Locana, so it can be said to be neither one nor different. Therefore, dependent origination is unobstructed, and nothing cannot be established. However, one must refute the four phrases of others in order to understand the current four phrases of dependent origination. Why? Because the 'is' spoken by others also needs to be refuted, and the 'is not' spoken by others also needs to be refuted. Since it is 'is,' why still refute it? The explanation is: although it is said to be 'is,' the meaning of unobstructed dependent origination is not understood. Since the meaning is lost, it cannot be considered a correct statement. Therefore, whether it is 'is' or 'is not,' it needs to be refuted. By refuting them, making them pure, then one can understand the current principle of unobstructed dependent origination. Using this statement is to make the other party understand that their 'is not' is incorrect. Now, clarifying the meaning of dependent origination is only to target the definitions they have made. The South considers it one, and the North considers it different. In order to break their definitions of 'fixed one' and 'fixed difference,' thereby clarifying the current 'one and different' of dependent origination. This passage answers the previous question about 'one and different.' Next, further clarify the four phrases of 'one and different,' or it can accomplish the previous meaning. These four phrases are different from the previous four phrases. The four phrases that are spoken of are: first, two Buddhas preach one teaching; second, one Buddha preaches two teachings; third, one Buddha preaches one teaching; fourth, two Buddhas preach two teachings. Two Buddhas preaching one teaching refers to the two Buddhas Locana and Śākyamuni. Locana is the original, and Śākyamuni is the trace. The original trace, base and branches are different, so they are two Buddhas. One teaching refers to the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* (涅槃经) and the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* (华严经) being one teaching. The *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* is the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra*, and the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* is the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, so it is one teaching. One Buddha preaching two teachings refers to one Buddha, namely Locana and Śākyamuni, one Buddha. Locana is Śākyamuni. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
释迦即舍那。本即是迹。迹即本故。言本迹虽殊不思议一故。是一佛言二教者。涅槃华严二故云二教也。二佛二教者。舍那释迦二佛。涅槃华严二故。一佛一教者。释迦即舍那。涅槃即华严也。此是何物四句。解云。合离四句。二佛一教此则离人合教。离舍那释迦为二。合涅槃华严为一。一佛二教者。即合人离教。合释迦舍那为一佛。离涅槃华严为二教。二佛二教离人离教。一佛一教合人合教。斯四句作如此用也。所以用四句者欲答前问。前问云。二佛为一为异。今望此四句答。自有二佛说一教。自有一佛说二教。二佛说一教。舍那说华严即是说涅槃。释迦说涅槃即是说华严。一佛二教者。释迦说涅槃即是舍那佛说。舍那佛说华严即是释迦佛说。余二句可知。为是故不同他释也。前作舍那释迦释迦舍那语。此为对他家故作此说。然此语复别有义。何者为欲读经。经云。舍那在台上。释迦在叶上。此台是叶台。此叶是台叶。台叶岂是一岂是异。不得是一不得是异。詺作何物耶。詺作台叶。叶台也。台叶既尔。舍那释迦亦尔。问。台叶叶台成华。舍那释迦成一佛不。解云。得。难。得称是何物佛。台叶成一华华名莲华。舍那释迦成一佛佛名何物。解云。台叶成一莲华。舍那释迦为一应佛。台叶成莲华。莲华共一根。舍那释 释迦（Śākyamuni）即是毗卢遮那佛（Vairocana）。根本即是示现的形迹，形迹即是根本。所以说，根本和形迹虽然不同，但其不可思议的本体是一致的。‘一佛而言二教’是指《涅槃经》和《华严经》这二者，所以说是二教。‘二佛二教’是指毗卢遮那佛和释迦牟尼佛这两尊佛，以及《涅槃经》和《华严经》这二教。‘一佛一教’是指释迦牟尼佛即是毗卢遮那佛，《涅槃经》即是《华严经》。 这是何物的四句分别解释为：合、离四句。‘二佛一教’，这是离人合教，将毗卢遮那佛和释迦牟尼佛视为二，而将《涅槃经》和《华严经》合为一。‘一佛二教’，即合人离教，将释迦牟尼佛和毗卢遮那佛合为一佛，而将《涅槃经》和《华严经》视为二教。‘二佛二教’是离人离教，‘一佛一教’是合人合教。这四句可以这样理解和运用。 之所以用四句，是为了回答前面的问题。前面问：‘二佛是一还是异？’现在用这四句来回答。既有二佛说一教的情况，也有一佛说二教的情况。二佛说一教，是说毗卢遮那佛说《华严经》也就是说了《涅槃经》，释迦牟尼佛说《涅槃经》也就是说了《华严经》。一佛说二教，是说释迦牟尼佛说《涅槃经》也就是毗卢遮那佛说的，毗卢遮那佛说《华严经》也就是释迦牟尼佛说的。其余两句可以依此类推。因此，我的解释与他人不同。 前面说‘毗卢遮那佛释迦牟尼佛，释迦牟尼佛毗卢遮那佛’，这是为了驳斥其他人的观点而这样说的。然而，这句话还有别的含义。什么含义呢？为了读经。经中说：‘毗卢遮那佛在台上，释迦牟尼佛在叶上。’这个台是叶台，这个叶是台叶。台叶是一还是异呢？既不能说是一，也不能说是异。应该称作什么呢？称作台叶、叶台。台叶既然如此，毗卢遮那佛和释迦牟尼佛也是如此。 问：台叶、叶台形成华。那么，毗卢遮那佛和释迦牟尼佛能成一佛吗？答：可以。问：可以称作什么佛呢？台叶成一华，华名叫莲华。毗卢遮那佛和释迦牟尼佛成一佛，佛名叫什么呢？答：台叶成一莲华，毗卢遮那佛和释迦牟尼佛成一应化身佛。台叶成莲华，莲华共用一个根，毗卢遮那佛和释迦牟尼佛...