Chinese
大部在初故名为顿。部仍兼别不得妙名。岂以兼别之经。翻为顿顿法华独显却号渐圆。二者不识渐开之妨。言渐开者。准法华玄。华严顿后别为小机不动不降。施于渐教。渐教之初先说三藏。三藏教后弹斥洮汰。方具用四故云开出。故玄文中自鹿苑来至般若会。皆名为渐。岂此渐中有于圆教。便名渐圆。又玄第十渐顿判教。自华严来至般若会。皆有渐顿。华严圆教与方等般若中圆。圆既不殊。亦应并名为顿顿。何独华严。若方等般若中圆。名渐圆者。则华严圆教亦名渐顿何关余部。三者不识教体之妨。若渐开出四。如开拳为指唯指无拳。合四为渐。如合指为拳唯拳无指。存渐则教唯有四。没渐则教唯有七。俱存必一边无体。立八则体陕名宽。四者抑挫法华之妨。近代判教。多以华严为根本法轮。以法华为枝末法轮。唯天台大师灵鹫亲承大苏妙悟。自着章疏以十义比之。迹门尚殊本门永异。故玄文中凡诸解释。皆先约教判则三粗一妙。次约味判则四粗一妙。如何以粗。称为顿顿。以妙翻作渐圆。五者不识顿名之妨。若从行为名圆只是顿。是故旧题圆顿止观。若从味立称则顿异于圆。故判初味云。高山顿说。若将判味兼带之顿。以斥判教独显之圆。一何误哉。一何误哉。六者违拒本宗之妨。本师赞为独妙学者毁为渐圆。抑 现代汉语译本 大部经在最初被认为是‘顿’（dun，sudden teaching）。如果其他经典既包含‘别’（bie，distinct teaching）又包含其他教义，就不能被称为‘妙’（miao，wonderful teaching）。难道因为这些兼具‘别’的经典，反而将《法华经》（Lotus Sutra）这种独显‘顿’的经典称为‘渐圆’（jian yuan，gradual and perfect teaching）吗？这是不理解‘渐开’（jian kai，gradual unfolding）的妨碍。 所谓‘渐开’，依据《法华玄义》（Fa Hua Xuan Yi），《华严经》（Hua Yan Sutra）在‘顿’之后，为了不成熟的根机，不降低自身而施以‘渐教’（jian jiao，gradual teaching）。‘渐教’之初先说三藏（San Zang，Three Baskets of Teachings）。在三藏教之后，进行弹斥和淘汰，才具备四种教义的功用，所以说是‘开出’（kai chu，unfolding）。因此，《玄义》中从鹿苑（Lu Yuan，Deer Park）到般若会（Bo Re Hui，Prajna Assembly），都称为‘渐’。难道因为这些‘渐’中包含圆教（Yuan Jiao，Perfect Teaching），就称之为‘渐圆’吗？ 又，《玄义》第十中，‘渐顿’判教，从《华严经》到般若会，都有‘渐’和‘顿’。《华严经》的圆教与方等（Fang Deng，Vaipulya Sutra）和般若（Bo Re，Prajna）中的圆教，既然圆的本质没有区别，也应该都称为‘顿顿’（dun dun，sudden and sudden），为何唯独《华严经》如此？如果方等和般若中的圆教，被称为‘渐圆’，那么《华严经》的圆教也应该被称为‘渐顿’，这与其他经典有什么关系？这是不理解教体的妨碍。 如果‘渐开’开出四种教义，就像张开拳头变成手指，只有手指而没有拳头；合四为‘渐’，就像合拢手指成为拳头，只有拳头而没有手指。如果保留‘渐’，那么教义就只有四种；如果去除‘渐’，那么教义就有七种。如果两者都保留，那么必然有一边没有本体。如果建立八种教义，那么本体就显得狭窄，名称却显得宽泛。这是抑挫《法华经》的妨碍。 近代判教，大多以《华严经》为根本法轮（gen ben fa lun，fundamental Dharma wheel），以《法华经》为枝末法轮（zhi mo fa lun，branch and end Dharma wheel）。只有天台大师（Tian Tai Da Shi）在灵鹫山（Ling Jiu Shan，Vulture Peak）亲承大苏（Da Su，Great Awakening）的妙悟，亲自撰写章疏，用十个方面来比较。《法华经》的迹门（Ji Men，Trace Teaching）尚且不同于本门（Ben Men，Origin Teaching），本门更是永远不同。所以，《玄义》中凡是解释，都先从教判上分为三粗一妙（san cu yi miao，three coarse and one wonderful），其次从味判上分为四粗一妙（si cu yi miao，four coarse and one wonderful）。如何能将粗的称为‘顿顿’，而将妙的反而称为‘渐圆’？这是不理解‘顿’名的妨碍。 如果从行为上命名为‘圆’，那么它就是‘顿’。所以旧题为《圆顿止观》（Yuan Dun Zhi Guan，Perfect and Sudden Cessation and Contemplation）。如果从味道上立名，那么‘顿’就不同于‘圆’。所以判初味说：‘高山顿说’（gao shan dun shuo，sudden teaching on a high mountain）。如果将判味兼带的‘顿’，用来贬斥判教独显的‘圆’，这是多么大的错误啊！这是多么大的错误啊！这是违拒本宗的妨碍。 本师（Ben Shi，original teacher）赞叹《法华经》为独妙（du miao，uniquely wonderful），学者却诋毁其为‘渐圆’，这是压制《法华经》。
English
English version The major sutras were initially considered ‘Dun’ (sudden teaching). If other scriptures contain both ‘Bie’ (distinct teaching) and other doctrines, they cannot be called ‘Miao’ (wonderful teaching). Could it be that because these scriptures with ‘Bie’, the ‘Lotus Sutra’, which uniquely reveals ‘Dun’, is instead called ‘Jian Yuan’ (gradual and perfect teaching)? This is a hindrance due to not understanding ‘Jian Kai’ (gradual unfolding). The so-called ‘Jian Kai’, according to ‘Fa Hua Xuan Yi’, after the ‘Hua Yan Sutra’ (Flower Garland Sutra) in ‘Dun’, for immature faculties, without lowering itself, applies ‘Jian Jiao’ (gradual teaching). At the beginning of ‘Jian Jiao’, the Three Baskets of Teachings (San Zang) are first taught. After the Three Baskets of Teachings, criticism and elimination are carried out, and then the function of the four teachings is complete, so it is said to be ‘Kai Chu’ (unfolding). Therefore, in ‘Xuan Yi’, from Deer Park (Lu Yuan) to the Prajna Assembly (Bo Re Hui), all are called ‘Jian’. Could it be that because these ‘Jian’ contain the Perfect Teaching (Yuan Jiao), they are called ‘Jian Yuan’? Also, in the tenth section of ‘Xuan Yi’, the classification of ‘Jian Dun’ (gradual and sudden), from the ‘Hua Yan Sutra’ to the Prajna Assembly, there are both ‘Jian’ and ‘Dun’. Since the Perfect Teaching of the ‘Hua Yan Sutra’ and the Perfect Teaching in the Vaipulya Sutra (Fang Deng) and Prajna (Bo Re) are not different in essence, they should all be called ‘Dun Dun’ (sudden and sudden). Why is only the ‘Hua Yan Sutra’ like this? If the Perfect Teaching in the Vaipulya Sutra and Prajna is called ‘Jian Yuan’, then the Perfect Teaching of the ‘Hua Yan Sutra’ should also be called ‘Jian Dun’. What does this have to do with other scriptures? This is a hindrance due to not understanding the essence of the teachings. If ‘Jian Kai’ unfolds four teachings, it is like opening a fist into fingers, there are only fingers and no fist; combining four into ‘Jian’ is like closing fingers into a fist, there is only a fist and no fingers. If ‘Jian’ is retained, then there are only four teachings; if ‘Jian’ is removed, then there are seven teachings. If both are retained, then one side must lack substance. If eight teachings are established, then the substance appears narrow, but the name appears broad. This is a hindrance to suppressing the ‘Lotus Sutra’. In modern classifications of teachings, most consider the ‘Hua Yan Sutra’ as the fundamental Dharma wheel (gen ben fa lun) and the ‘Lotus Sutra’ as the branch and end Dharma wheel (zhi mo fa lun). Only the Tian Tai Master, who personally received the wonderful enlightenment of Da Su (Great Awakening) on Vulture Peak (Ling Jiu Shan), personally wrote commentaries, comparing them in ten aspects. The Trace Teaching (Ji Men) of the ‘Lotus Sutra’ is still different from the Origin Teaching (Ben Men), and the Origin Teaching is forever different. Therefore, in ‘Xuan Yi’, all explanations are first divided into three coarse and one wonderful (san cu yi miao) from the perspective of teaching classification, and then divided into four coarse and one wonderful (si cu yi miao) from the perspective of flavor classification. How can the coarse be called ‘Dun Dun’, and the wonderful be called ‘Jian Yuan’ instead? This is a hindrance due to not understanding the name ‘Dun’. If it is named ‘Yuan’ from the perspective of practice, then it is ‘Dun’. Therefore, the old title is ‘Yuan Dun Zhi Guan’ (Perfect and Sudden Cessation and Contemplation). If it is named from the perspective of flavor, then ‘Dun’ is different from ‘Yuan’. Therefore, the initial flavor is judged as: ‘sudden teaching on a high mountain’ (gao shan dun shuo). If the ‘Dun’ that is combined with the judgment of flavor is used to belittle the uniquely revealed ‘Yuan’ of the teaching classification, what a great mistake! What a great mistake! This is a hindrance to rejecting the original school. The original teacher (Ben Shi) praises the ‘Lotus Sutra’ as uniquely wonderful (du miao), but scholars slander it as ‘Jian Yuan’, this is suppressing the ‘Lotus Sutra’. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
实扬权有何利益。七者违文背义之妨。经云。已说今说当说。而于其中法华第一华严至般若名已说。无量义经名今说。大般涅槃经名当说。依彼所判则已说第一。何关法华。如此独知闻者掩耳。问从渐开四并前但七何成八教答开出四已仍有一渐。喻四如前。第三妨中足知迷误。彼既不知渐。从鹿苑以至般若。将何别立一渐教耶。若知鹿苑至般若来。约时名渐终不辄判四教中圆。名为渐圆。岂判法华劣于乳教。问法华经部为是何顿知非顿顿。喻曰。此师非但不识顿渐之名。亦乃不晓结文之意。玄文释前四味教竟。次以渐等结释法华云。非顿渐秘密不定。初云。今法华是显露非秘密。是定非不定。结非秘密不定秘密不定通前四时。次云。是渐顿非渐渐。结非前顿后渐教。言渐顿者。约前四时渐中有顿。顿中有渐。今法华经迹门圆说。与渐顿中其义不殊。但异渐中渐耳。言渐渐者。鹿苑一方等三般若二顿中之渐。即是别教与渐中渐其义不殊。故不须简顿中之顿。同渐中之顿。亦同法华。是故顿教不须别简。故玄后文今法华迹门与诸经有同有异。本门与诸经一向异。同者谓诸部中圆。异者谓诸部中兼于三教。不见此意望声释义。便谓法华但是渐顿非顿顿也。文中只云非是渐渐。何曾复云不是顿顿。问复何得知法华是渐顿。华严 现代汉语译本 实扬权有何利益？有七种违背经文和义理的妨碍。经中说：‘已说、今说、当说’。而按照他们的判决，《法华经》是第一，从《华严经》到《般若经》都属于‘已说’，《无量义经》属于‘今说’，《大般涅槃经》属于‘当说’。如果按照他们的判决，那么‘已说’就是第一，这与《法华经》有什么关系呢？如此自以为是，听者都会捂住耳朵。问：从渐教开出四味，加上之前的但教，七教如何变成八教？答：开出四味之后，仍然有一个渐教。比喻四味如前所述。第三种妨碍中足以看出他们的迷惑。他们既然不知道渐教，从鹿野苑（Mrigadava，佛陀初转法轮之地）到《般若经》，又如何另外设立一个渐教呢？如果知道从鹿野苑到《般若经》这段时间，从时间上来说是渐教，最终也不会轻易地将四教中的圆教判为渐圆。难道要判《法华经》不如乳教吗？问：《法华经》这部经属于什么？是顿教还是非顿顿教？比喻说：这位法师不仅不认识顿渐的名称，也不了解总结经文的意义。《玄文》解释了前四味教之后，接着用渐等来总结解释《法华经》，说：‘非顿渐秘密不定’。首先说：‘现在的《法华经》是显露的，不是秘密的，是决定的，不是不定的。’总结说，‘非秘密不定’，秘密不定贯通前四个时期。其次说：‘是渐顿非渐渐’，总结说，不是前顿后渐的教义。说‘渐顿’，是说前四个时期渐教中有顿教，顿教中有渐教。现在的《法华经》迹门宣说圆教，与渐顿中的意义没有差别，只是不同于渐教中的渐教。说‘渐渐’，是说鹿野苑、方等、三般若二顿教中的渐教，就是别教，与渐教中的渐教意义没有差别，所以不需要区分顿教中的顿教，它与渐教中的顿教相同，也与《法华经》相同。因此，顿教不需要特别区分。所以《玄文》后文说，现在的《法华经》迹门与诸经有相同之处，也有不同之处，本门与诸经完全不同。相同之处在于诸部经中都有圆教，不同之处在于诸部经中兼有三教。不明白这个意思，只看字面意思来解释，就认为《法华经》只是渐顿，不是顿顿。《文中》只说‘非是渐渐’，何曾说过‘不是顿顿’？问：又如何得知《法华经》是渐顿？《华严经》（Avatamsaka Sutra）
English
English version What are the disadvantages of upholding provisional teachings? There are seven hindrances that contradict the scriptures and their meanings. The sutras say: 'Already spoken, now speaking, and to be spoken.' According to their judgment, the *Lotus Sutra* (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) is the foremost, and from the *Avatamsaka Sutra* (Avataṃsaka Sūtra) to the *Prajna Sutra* (Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) all belong to 'already spoken,' the *Infinite Meanings Sutra* (Amitārtha Sūtra) belongs to 'now speaking,' and the *Great Nirvana Sutra* (Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra) belongs to 'to be spoken.' If according to their judgment, then 'already spoken' is the foremost, what does this have to do with the *Lotus Sutra*? Such self-righteousness will make listeners cover their ears. Question: From the gradual teaching, four flavors are derived, adding the previous exclusive teaching, how do seven teachings become eight? Answer: After deriving the four flavors, there is still one gradual teaching. The analogy of the four flavors is as mentioned before. The third hindrance is enough to show their confusion. Since they do not know the gradual teaching, from Mrigadava (Deer Park, the place where the Buddha first turned the Wheel of Dharma) to the *Prajna Sutra*, how can they establish another gradual teaching? If they know that from Mrigadava to the *Prajna Sutra*, in terms of time, it is a gradual teaching, they will not easily judge the round teaching in the four teachings as gradual-round. Do they want to judge the *Lotus Sutra* as inferior to the milk teaching? Question: To what does the *Lotus Sutra* belong? Is it a sudden teaching or a non-sudden-sudden teaching? It is said that this teacher not only does not recognize the names of sudden and gradual, but also does not understand the meaning of summarizing the scriptures. The *Profound Meaning* (Xuan Wen) explains the previous four flavors of teaching, and then uses gradual etc. to summarize and explain the *Lotus Sutra*, saying: 'Neither sudden-gradual, secret, nor uncertain.' First, it says: 'The current *Lotus Sutra* is revealed, not secret, and determined, not uncertain.' It concludes that 'non-secret-uncertain,' secret-uncertain pervades the previous four periods. Secondly, it says: 'It is gradual-sudden, not gradual-gradual,' concluding that it is not the teaching of sudden before and gradual after. Saying 'gradual-sudden' means that in the previous four periods, there is sudden teaching in the gradual teaching, and there is gradual teaching in the sudden teaching. The current *Lotus Sutra*'s trace gate (迹門) proclaims the round teaching, which is no different from the meaning in gradual-sudden, only different from the gradual teaching in the gradual teaching. Saying 'gradual-gradual' means that the gradual teaching in Mrigadava, Vaipulya (方等), and the two sudden teachings of the three Prajna (三般若) is the specific teaching (別教), which is no different from the meaning of the gradual teaching in the gradual teaching, so there is no need to distinguish the sudden teaching in the sudden teaching, it is the same as the sudden teaching in the gradual teaching, and it is also the same as the *Lotus Sutra*. Therefore, the sudden teaching does not need to be specially distinguished. So the later text of *Profound Meaning* says that the current trace gate of the *Lotus Sutra* has similarities and differences with the sutras, and the original gate (本門) is completely different from the sutras. The similarity is that there is round teaching in all the sutras, and the difference is that all the sutras also include the three teachings. Not understanding this meaning, only looking at the literal meaning to explain, they think that the *Lotus Sutra* is only gradual-sudden, not sudden-sudden. The text only says 'not gradual-gradual,' when did it ever say 'not sudden-sudden'? Question: How do we know that the *Lotus Sutra* is gradual-sudden? The *Avatamsaka Sutra* --------------------------------------------------------------------------------