Chinese
是顿顿。答据法华中诸声闻人从于小来。经历诸味至法华会。方始开顿。故知法华是渐顿也。华严居初不经诸味。故是顿顿。喻曰。今法华圆极顿足。此从于法不从于人。不应声闻从于渐来。即依声闻判经为渐。况复声闻不过五百千二二千。此等但名开权显实。又有菩萨开显何独声闻。如云菩萨闻是法疑网皆已除等。又下文云。无数诸佛子闻世尊分别说。得法利者大喜充遍身。又有显本。如分别功德品中三千微尘数。乃至一四天下。又八世界尘数初发菩提心。况下方踊现并妙音东来。严王诸营从。文殊所教化。如是诸众何曾历四味。应当从此方判经为顿顿。况复法师品现在若灭后。若有闻一句皆与授佛记。华严经众虽不游渐。有二义故不及法华。一带别。二覆本。岂阙二义便称顿顿。具二义者称为渐耶。问亦有菩萨法准闻顿而独从声闻判耶。答据多分说。喻曰。如前所引。应以八界及闻一句为多。而反以声闻为多者。非但玄理不会。亦乃读文未熟。应知声闻钝根菩萨。法华经前机缘未熟。不堪闻顿。更以方等般若调治。方堪来至法华闻顿。是故应判此法华经是开渐显顿。故名渐顿。人不见之。谓非顿顿。问据何得知渐圆之教。四住先落。答如引仁王长别苦轮。既云别苦。知是渐顿。如引法华六根清净。云肉眼等。知是 现代汉语译本 是顿顿（顿悟中的顿悟）。回答是根据《法华经》中所说，诸位声闻（听闻佛陀教诲而证悟的弟子）从小乘而来，经历了各种滋味，直到法华会上，才开始顿悟。因此可知《法华经》是渐顿（先渐修后顿悟）。《华严经》一开始就不经历各种滋味，所以是顿顿。比喻说，现在《法华经》圆满到了极点，顿悟已经足够，这是从法（佛法）的角度来说，而不是从人（听法者）的角度来说。不应该因为声闻是从渐修而来，就依据声闻来判断经是渐法。何况声闻不过五百、千、二千，这些人只是开权显实（开启方便之门，显示真实之法）。又有菩萨开显，为何只说声闻？如经中所说‘菩萨闻是法，疑网皆已除’等等。又下文说：‘无数诸佛子，闻世尊分别说，得法利者，大喜充遍身。’又有显本（显示本来面目），如《分别功德品》中所说三千微尘数，乃至一四天下（一个世界）。又有八世界尘数初发菩提心（最初发起觉悟之心）。况且下方涌现以及妙音菩萨从东方而来，严王（庄严王）的各种随从，文殊菩萨所教化的人，这些大众何曾经历过四味（四种教法）？应当从此来判断此经是顿顿。何况《法师品》中说，现在或者灭度后，如果有人听到一句，都将得到佛的授记。虽然《华严经》的大众没有经历渐修，但因为有两个不足之处，所以不如《法华经》。一是带别（带有分别），二是覆本（覆盖了根本）。难道因为缺少这两个意义就称为顿顿吗？具备这两个意义的反而称为渐法吗？问：也有菩萨听闻顿法，为何唯独从声闻来判断呢？答：根据大多数情况来说。比喻说，如前面所引用的，应该以八世界以及听闻一句为多，反而以声闻为多，这不仅是对玄妙的道理不理解，也是对经文不熟悉。应当知道声闻钝根菩萨，在《法华经》之前机缘未成熟，不能够听闻顿法，需要用方等（方等经）和般若（般若经）来调治，才能够来到法华会听闻顿法。因此应该判断这部《法华经》是开渐显顿，所以名为渐顿。人们没有看到这一点，就认为不是顿顿。问：根据什么得知渐圆（渐修圆满）的教义，四住（四种烦恼）先脱落？答：如引用《仁王经》中‘长别苦轮’，既然说是‘别苦’，就知道是渐顿。如引用《法华经》中六根清净，说肉眼等，就知道是...
English
English version It is 'dunton' (sudden enlightenment within sudden enlightenment). The answer is based on what is said in the *Lotus Sutra*, that the *shravakas* (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) come from the Small Vehicle, experience various flavors, and only at the Lotus Assembly do they begin to have sudden enlightenment. Therefore, it can be known that the *Lotus Sutra* is 'jiandun' (gradual-sudden, first gradual cultivation then sudden enlightenment). The *Avatamsaka Sutra* does not experience various flavors from the beginning, so it is 'dunton'. The analogy is that now the *Lotus Sutra* is perfectly complete, and sudden enlightenment is sufficient. This is from the perspective of the Dharma (Buddha's teachings), not from the perspective of people (listeners). It should not be that because the *shravakas* come from gradual cultivation, the sutra is judged to be gradual based on the *shravakas*. Moreover, the *shravakas* are only five hundred, one thousand, or two thousand. These people are only opening the expedient and revealing the real (opening the door of skillful means and revealing the true Dharma). There are also *bodhisattvas* who open and reveal, why only talk about *shravakas*? As it says in the sutra, 'The *bodhisattvas* who hear this Dharma, their nets of doubt are all removed,' and so on. And further down it says: 'Countless sons of the Buddha, hearing the World Honored One's detailed explanation, those who gain Dharma benefits are filled with great joy.' There is also revealing the original (revealing the original face), as mentioned in the *Chapter on Distinctions in Benefits*, the number of three thousand minor world system dust motes, and even one four-continent world (a world system). There are also the number of dust motes of eight world systems who initially arouse the *bodhicitta* (the mind of awakening). Moreover, the emergence from below and *Bodhisattva Wonderful Sound* coming from the east, the various followers of King Adornment (King Zhuangyan), and those taught by *Bodhisattva Manjushri*, how have these masses experienced the four flavors (four types of teachings)? It should be judged from this that this sutra is 'dunton'. Moreover, the *Chapter on the Teacher of the Dharma* says that now or after extinction, if someone hears even one verse, they will receive the Buddha's prediction. Although the assembly of the *Avatamsaka Sutra* did not experience gradual cultivation, it is not as good as the *Lotus Sutra* because of two deficiencies. One is 'daibie' (having distinctions), and the other is 'fuben' (covering the root). Is it that lacking these two meanings is called 'dunton'? Those who possess these two meanings are called gradual? Question: There are also *bodhisattvas* who hear the sudden Dharma, why only judge from the *shravakas*? Answer: According to most situations. The analogy is, as quoted earlier, it should be that the eight world systems and hearing one verse are more numerous, but instead the *shravakas* are considered more numerous. This is not only a lack of understanding of the profound principles, but also unfamiliarity with the sutra text. It should be known that the *shravakas* and dull-rooted *bodhisattvas* did not have mature conditions before the *Lotus Sutra*, and were not able to hear the sudden Dharma. They needed to be treated with the *Vaipulya Sutras* (Fangdeng jing) and *Prajna Sutras* (Bore jing) before they could come to the Lotus Assembly to hear the sudden Dharma. Therefore, it should be judged that this *Lotus Sutra* is opening the gradual and revealing the sudden, so it is called gradual-sudden. People do not see this point and think it is not 'dunton'. Question: According to what do we know that the teachings of gradual perfection (gradual cultivation to perfection), the four abodes (four types of afflictions) are first shed? Answer: As quoted in the *Benevolent King Sutra*, 'long farewell to the wheel of suffering', since it says 'farewell to suffering', we know it is gradual-sudden. As quoted in the *Lotus Sutra*, the six senses are purified, saying the physical eye, etc., we know it is... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
顿顿。喻曰。此一家义前后皆引仁王以证法华。法华云。无漏意根。仁王云。长别三界。两经皆是四住先落。且于界内得无漏名有漏业除。故云长别。当知二处文义本同。如何分擗以证两顿。问三种止观中圆顿止观是何顿耶。答是渐顿。何以得知。如第一卷以三譬喻三止观。以通者腾空喻于圆顿。至第七卷识通塞中。中即三观破于神通。神通被破故非顿顿。文云。别则略指三门。大意在一顿。又三止观竟。又云。今依经更明圆顿。又第五卷安心文末。初约三止观结数。次又约一心止观结数。又第一结发心文。先三止观结。次云。又以一止观结。此等皆是三止观外别一顿顿之正文也。喻曰。一往引证似有所凭。子细推求都无所据。何以故。以违文故生多妨故。何者。如破神通及依经。更明文在序中。序是章安所置。说止观时未有此序。如何预将正文破之。又三观本传南岳。如何弟子反破师宗。乃成逆路伽耶。论又南岳禀承慧文。龙树既破师法。观心论中何须更云归命祖师。况两处神通其义各别。序中以顿行者譬通者履空。空无浅深履者阶降。空喻顿理履譬行仪。行虽阶差仍名圆渐。理无深浅不当偏圆。第七卷中以步马神通喻横别三观。神通即是别相之中。故以中即三观。破横别之中。如何不见近文。远破未生之序。次依 现代汉语译本 顿顿（Dundun）。喻曰（Yu Yue）说：‘这一家义（一家之言）前后都引用《仁王经》（Ren Wang Jing）来证明《法华经》（Fa Hua Jing）。《法华经》说：‘无漏意根’，《仁王经》说：‘长别三界’。两部经都说四住（四种烦恼）先脱落，并且在界内（欲界、色界、无色界）得到无漏（没有烦恼）之名，有漏业（有烦恼的业）被去除，所以说‘长别’。应当知道两处的文义原本相同，如何分开来证明两种顿（顿悟）呢？’ 问：‘三种止观（三种禅定方法）中，圆顿止观（最圆满快速的禅定方法）是哪种顿呢？’ 答：‘是渐顿（渐修而顿悟）。’ ‘如何得知？’ ‘如第一卷用三个譬喻（比喻）和三种止观，用通者（修神通者）腾空（升空）来比喻圆顿。到第七卷识通塞（辨别通达与阻塞）中，‘中’即三观（空、假、中三种观法）破于神通（破斥神通）。神通被破斥，所以不是顿顿（最快速的顿悟）。’ 文（《摩诃止观》原文）说：‘别则略指三门（别教则简略地指出三门），大意在一顿（大意在于一顿悟）。’又三种止观结束后，又说：‘今依经（现在依据经典）更明圆顿（更明白地阐述圆顿）。’又第五卷安心文末（第五卷安心篇末尾），先用三种止观总结，其次又用一心止观总结。又第一结发心文（第一卷总结发心），先用三种止观总结，其次说：‘又以一止观结（又用一心止观总结）。’这些都是三种止观外，另外一种顿顿的正文啊。 喻曰（Yu Yue）说：‘乍一看引用论证好像有所依据，仔细推敲却都没有根据。’ ‘为什么呢？’ ‘因为违背原文，产生很多妨碍。’ ‘哪些呢？’ ‘如破神通（破斥神通）以及依经更明（依据经典更明白地阐述），文在序中（文字在序言中）。序（序言）是章安（Zhang An）所作，说止观（讲解止观）时还没有这个序言，如何预先用正文来破斥它呢？’ ‘又三观（空、假、中三观）本来是南岳（Nan Yue，慧思大师）所传，如何弟子反而破斥师父的宗义，乃至于成为逆路伽耶（逆徒）？’ ‘论（《观心论》）又说南岳（Nan Yue）禀承慧文（Hui Wen），龙树（Long Shu）既然破斥师父的法，观心论中何须再说归命祖师（归依祖师）？’ ‘况且两处神通（两处所说的神通）其义各别。序中用顿行者（顿悟的修行者）比喻通者（修神通者）履空（在空中行走），空（空性）没有浅深，履者（行走者）有阶降（有阶梯）。空（空性）比喻顿理（顿悟的道理），履（行走）比喻行仪（修行的仪轨）。行（修行）虽然有阶差（有差别），仍然叫做圆渐（圆满的渐修）。理（道理）没有深浅，不应当偏执于圆顿（圆满的顿悟）。第七卷中用步马神通（步行、骑马、神通）比喻横别三观（横向的别教三观）。神通即是别相之中（神通是别教的相），所以用‘中即三观’破斥横别之中（破斥横向的别教）。如何不见近文（如何不见附近的经文），反而要远破未生的序言呢？’ 次依（接下来依据）